content
stringlengths 1
15.9M
|
|---|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
\subsection{Motivation}
The discovery of a very Standard Model (SM)-like Higgs boson with mass
$m_h=125.10\pm 0.14$ GeV\cite{atlas_h,cms_h} at the CERN Large Hadron
Collider (LHC) is a great triumph. However, it also exacerbated a
long-known puzzle: what stabilizes the mass of a fundamental scalar
particle when quantum corrections should drive its mass far beyond its
measured value?\cite{susskind,veltman} The simplest and perhaps the most
elegant answer is that the weak scale effective field theory (EFT)
exhibits softly broken supersymmetry, and so has no quadratic
sensitivity to high scale physics \cite{witten_kaul}. The electroweak
scale is stabilized as long as soft supersymmetry breaking terms (at
least those involving sizeable couplings to the Higgs sector) are not
much larger than the TeV scale. The corresponding superpartners are then
expected to have masses around the weak scale \cite{wss}.
Up to now LHC superparticle searches\cite{canepa} have turned up
negative, resulting in lower mass limits on the gluino of $m_{\tilde g}\gtrsim 2.2$
TeV\cite{lhc_gl} and on the lightest top-squark $m_{\tilde t_1}\gtrsim 1.1$
TeV\cite{lhc_t1}: these bounds are obtained within simplified models,
assuming that 1. the sparticle spectrum is not compressed, 2. $R$-parity is conserved and 3. gluinos and top-squarks dominantly decay to third
generation quarks/squarks (as expected in the scenarios considered
here\cite{Baer:1990sc}). Such strong
limits are well beyond early expectations for sparticle masses from
naturalness wherein $m_{\tilde g},\ m_{\tilde t_1}\lesssim 0.4$ TeV was expected
(assuming 3\% finetuning)\cite{eenz,bg,dg,ac}.\footnote{Naturalness
bounds on gluino, top squark and other sparticle masses were
historically derived using the Barbieri-Giudice (BG) measure\cite{eenz,bg}
$\Delta_{EENZ,BG}$ by expressing $m_Z^2$ in terms of
weak scale soft parameters $m_{H_u}^2$ and then expanding $m_{H_u}^2$
in terms of high (GUT) scale parameters of the mSUGRA/CMSSM model
using approximate semi-analytic solutions to the Minimal Supersymmetric
Standard Model renormalization group equations. For further
discussion, see {\it e.g.} Ref. \cite{dew,mt,seige}.}
This disparity between
theoretical expectations and experimental reality has caused strong
doubts to be raised on the validity of the weak scale SUSY (WSS)
hypothesis\cite{dine}. While there is no question that supersymmetry
elegantly resolves the big hierarchy issue,
the question often raised is: does WSS now suffer from a
Little Hierarchy Problem (LHP), wherein a putative mass
gap has opened up between the weak scale and the soft SUSY breaking
scale?
The LHP seemingly depends on how naturalness is measured in WSS. The
original log-derivative measure \cite{eenz,bg} $\Delta_{BG}=max_i
|\partial\log m_Z^2/\partial\log p_i |$ (wherein the $p_i$ constitute
the various independent free parameters of the low energy effective
field theory in question), obviously depends on one's choice for these
parameters $p_i$. In Ref's \cite{eenz,bg,dg,ac}, the EFT was chosen to
be constrained supersymmetric standard models (CMSSM or NUHM2) valid
up to energy scale $Q=m_{GUT}$ and the free parameters were taken to be
various GUT scale soft SUSY breaking terms such as common scalar mass
$m_0$, common gaugino mass $m_{1/2}$, common trilinear $A_0$ etc. The
various independent soft terms are introduced to {\it parametrize} our
ignorance of how SUSY breaking is felt by the superpartners of SM
particles. However, if the CMSSM is derived from a more ultra-violet
complete theory ({\it e.g} string theory), then typically the EFT free
parameters are {\it determined} in terms of more fundamental parameters
such as the gravitino mass $m_{3/2}$ (in the case of
gravity-mediation). With a reduction in independent soft parameters,
parameters originally taken to be independent become correlated, and the
numerical fine-tuning value can change abruptly, even for exactly the
same numerical inputs\cite{dew,mt,seige}. Ignoring such correlations can
lead to an over-estimate of the fine-tuning by as much as two orders of
magnitude \cite{mt} and, perhaps, lead us to discard perfectly viable
models for the wrong reason. An alternative measure, $\Delta_{HS}\sim \delta
m_{H_u}^2/m_h^2\sim \frac{3f_t^2}{16\pi^2}m_{\tilde t}^2\log (\Lambda^2
/m_{\tilde t}^2)$ (which favors top-squarks $m_{\tilde t_1}\lesssim 500$ GeV), turns
out to be greatly oversimplified in that it singles out one top-squark
loop contribution, again ignoring the possibility of underlying
cancellations in models with correlated parameters\cite{dew,mt,seige}.
A more conservative, parameter-independent measure $\Delta_{EW}$ was
proposed\cite{ltr,rns} which directly compares the magnitude of the weak
scale $m_Z^2$ to weak scale contributions from the SUSY Lagrangian:
\be
\frac{m_Z^2}{2}=\frac{m_{H_d}^2+\Sigma_d^d-(m_{H_u}^2+\Sigma_u^u)\tan^2\beta}{\tan^2\beta -1}-\mu^2\simeq -m_{H_u}^2-\mu^2 -\Sigma_u^u(\tilde t_{1,2})
\label{eq:mzsq}
\ee
where $\Delta_{\rm EW}=max| largest\ RHS\ contribution|/(m_Z^2/2)$.
An upper limit on $\Delta_{\rm EW}$ (which we take to be $\Delta_{\rm
EW} < 30$) then implies that the weak scale values of
$\sqrt{|m_{H_u}^2|}$ and $|\mu|$ should be $\lesssim 100-350$ GeV. This
means that the soft term $m_{H_u}^2$ is driven barely negative during
radiative EWSB (radiatively-driven natural SUSY, or RNS)\cite{ltr,rns}.
The SUSY-preserving $\mu$ term, which feeds mass to
$W,\ Z,\ h$ and {\it higgsinos}, is also in the $100-350$ GeV
range. Meanwhile, top-squark (and other sparticle) contributions to the
weak scale are loop suppressed and can lie in the $m_{\tilde t_1}\sim 1-3$
TeV range at little cost to naturalness\cite{upper,jaimie}. Gluinos,
which influence the value of $m_Z$ mainly by their influence on the top
squark mass, can be as heavy as 6~TeV, or more\cite{upper,jaimie}.
Thus, a quite natural spectrum emerges under $\Delta_{EW}$ wherein
higgsinos lie at the lowest mass rungs, while stops, gluinos and electroweak gauginos may
comfortably lie within the several TeV range. First/second generation
squarks/sleptons may well lie in the 10-40 TeV range\cite{rns}. We
mention that (modulo technical caveats) $\Delta_{\rm EW} \le \Delta_{\rm
BG}$, and further, that $\Delta_{\rm BG}$ reduces to $\Delta_{\rm EW}$
when it is computed with appropriate correlations between
high scale parameters \cite{dew,mt,seige}.
Although not connected directly to the main theme of this paper, we note
that it has been suggested that the RNS SUSY spectra are actually {\it to
be expected} from considerations of the landscape of string theory
vacua, which also provides an understanding of the magnitude of the
cosmological constant $\Lambda_{cc}$\cite{weinberg,bp}.
Douglas\cite{doug}, Susskind\cite{suss} and Arkani-Hamed {\it et
al.}\cite{adk} argue that large soft terms should be statistically
favored in the landscape by a power-law $f_{SUSY}(m_{soft})\sim
m_{soft}^{2n_F+n_D-1}$ where $n_F$ is the number of $F$-breaking fields
and $n_D$ is the number of $D$-breaking fields contributing to the
overall SUSY breaking scale. Thus, even for the textbook case of SUSY
breaking via a single $F$-term ($n_F=1,\ n_D=0$), there is already a
linear draw to large soft terms. The landscape statistical draw to
large soft terms must be balanced by an anthropic requirement that EW
symmetry is properly broken (no charge-or-color (CCB) breaking minima in
the scalar potential and that EW symmetry is actually
broken)\cite{land0}. Furthermore, if the value of $\mu$ is determined
by whatever solution to the SUSY $\mu$ problem is invoked\cite{mu}, then
$\mu$ is no longer available for finetuning and the {\it pocket
universe} value of the weak scale $m_{weak}^{PU}$ should be within a
factor of a few of our universe's weak scale $m_{weak}^{OU}\simeq
m_{W,Z,h}\sim 100$ GeV. In pocket universes where $m_{weak}^{PU}$ is
larger than 4-5 times its observed value (remarkably, this corresponds to
$\Delta_{\rm EW}\lesssim 30$), Agrawal {\it et al.}\cite{agrawal} have shown
that nuclear physics goes awry, and atoms as we know them would not
form. Thus, one expects large (but not too large) soft SUSY breaking
terms, and consequently large sparticle masses (save higgsinos, which
gain mass differently). Detailed calculations of Higgs and sparticle
masses find $m_h$ pulled to a statistical peak around $m_h\sim 125$ GeV
whilst sparticles other than higgsinos are pulled (well-) beyond current
LHC reach\cite{land0,land1,land2,land3}.
We stress that the top-down view of electroweak naturalness
is mentioned only
by way of motivation and is in no way essential for the
phenomenological analysis of the higgsino signal studied in this
paper. The reader who does not subscribe to stringy naturalness can
simply ignore the previous paragraph. For that matter, even the
bottom-up naturalness considerations that led us to focus on light
higgsinos do not play any essential role for the phenomenological
analysis that is suggested below. In other words, the reader not
interested in any naturalness considerations can
simply view the remainder of this paper as an improved analysis of
how light higgsinos can be searched for at the high luminosity LHC.
In our view, naturalness considerations make it very plausible that the best
hope for SUSY discovery at LHC is not via gluino or top-squark pair
production, but rather via light higgsino pair production: $pp\rightarrow
\widetilde\chi_1^+\widetilde\chi_1^-,\ \widetilde\chi^0_1\widetilde\chi^0_2,\ \widetilde\chi^{\pm}_1\widetilde\chi^0_2$. While the total LHC
higgsino pair production cross section is substantial in the mass range
$\mu\sim 100-350$ GeV\cite{rns@lhc}, the problem is that very little
visible energy is released in higgsino decay $\widetilde\chi^{\pm}_1\rightarrow
f\bar{f}^\prime\widetilde\chi^0_1$ and $\widetilde\chi^0_2\rightarrow f\bar{f}\widetilde\chi^0_1$ (where $f$ stands for
SM fermions, for the most part $e$ and $\mu$ for the signals we study in
this paper) since most of the decay
energy ends up in the LSP rest mass $m_{\widetilde\chi^0_1}$\cite{bbh}, unless binos
and winos are also fortituously light. Requiring that the higgsinos recoil
against hard initial state QCD radiation, not only provides an event
trigger but also boosts the higgsino decay products to measureable
energy values\cite{kribs,bmt,c_han}. Indeed, much work has already
examined these reactions, and in fact limits have already been placed on
such signatures by the ATLAS\cite{atlas1,atlas2} and CMS\cite{cms1,cms2}
collaborations.
\subsection{Summary of some previous work and plan for this paper}
Here, we briefly summarize several previous studies on higgsino pair
production and outline how the present work examines new
territory.\footnote{There is a very substantial literature on {\it gaugino}
pair production signals at hadron colliders which we will not review here.
For a recent review on electroweakino searches at LHC,
see \cite{Canepa:2020ntc}.}
\begin{itemize}
\item In Ref. \cite{bbh}, higgsino pair production at LHC in the low
$\mu$ scenario was first examined. In that work, the reaction $pp\rightarrow\widetilde\chi^0_1\widetilde\chi^0_2$
with $\widetilde\chi^0_2\rightarrow \ell^+\ell^-\widetilde\chi^0_1$ was explored without requiring hard
initial state radiation (ISR).
Instead, a soft dimuon trigger was advocated. With such a trigger, then signal
and BG rates were found to be comparable and the search for collimated
opposite-sign/same-flavor (OS/SF) dileptons plus MET was advocated
where the signal would exhibit a characteristic bump in dilepton invariant
mass with $m(\ell^+\ell^- )<m_{\widetilde\chi^0_2}-m_{\widetilde\chi^0_1}$.
\item In Ref. \cite{kribs}, Han, Kribs, Martin and Menon examined the
reaction $pp\rightarrow\widetilde\chi^0_1\widetilde\chi^0_2 j$, where the higgsinos recoiled against a
hard QCD radiation. A hard cut $m_{\tau\tau}^{\rm HKMM}>150$ GeV was
used to reduce $Z\rightarrow\tau^+\tau^- j$ background. The bump in
$m(\ell^+\ell^- )< m_{\widetilde\chi^0_2}-m_{\widetilde\chi^0_1}$ was displayed above SM BGs for
several signal benchmark models.
\item In Ref. \cite{bmt}, an improved $m_{\tau\tau}^2$ variable was
defined, with a crucial $m_{\tau\tau}^2<0$ cut used to reject
$\tau\bar{\tau}j$ events compared to signal. A very conservative
$b$-jet tag efficiency of 60\% resulted in a dominant $t\bar{t}$
background. The current ATLAS $b$-tag efficiency is given at 85\% so
that requiring no $b$-jets in BG events substantially reduces
$t\bar{t}$ BG. Reach contours were plotted vs. $\mu$ for several
values of $m_{1/2}$ assuming integrated luminosities up to 1000
fb$^{-1}$ in this pre-HL-LHC paper. The reach plot was extended to
3000 fb$^{-1}$ in Ref. \cite{Baer:2016usl}.
\item Ref. \cite{c_han} focused on SUSY models with $\Delta m^0\equiv
m_{\widetilde\chi^0_2}-m_{\widetilde\chi^0_1}\lesssim 5$ GeV and the well-collimated dimuon pair was
regarded as a single object $\mu_{col}$. Hard $\not\!\!\!{E_T}>250$ GeV and
$p_T(jet)>250$ GeV cuts were applied along with transverse mass
$m_T(\mu_{com},\not\!\!\!{E_T} )<50$ GeV and $\not\!\!\!{E_T} / p_T(\mu_{col})>20$.
Significance $S/\sqrt{BG}$ for three examined BM points were found to
range from $1.85-2.9\sigma$ for assumed integrated luminosity of 3000
fb$^{-1}$.
\item The CMS collaboration examined the soft dilepton+jet+$\not\!\!\!{E_T}$
signature in Ref. \cite{cms1} using 35.9 fb$^{-1}$ of data at
$\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV. They were able to exclude values of $m_{\widetilde\chi^0_2}$ up
to about 167 GeV for $\Delta m^0\sim 15$ GeV although the limit drops
off as $\Delta m^0$ falls off below or above this central value. A
follow-up paper using 139 fb$^{-1}$ of data at 13 TeV extended these
limits up to $\mu\sim 200$ GeV\cite{cms2}.
\item ATLAS examined the soft dilepton+jet+$\not\!\!\!{E_T}$ signature in Ref's
\cite{atlas1} using 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ of data at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV where
they reported the utility of an $\not\!\!\!{E_T}/H_T(\ell )\gtrsim 5$ cut. They
updated their search to 139 fb$^{-1}$ in \cite{atlas2}. In the latter
paper, values of $m_{\widetilde\chi^0_2}\lesssim 200$ GeV were excluded for $\Delta
m^0\sim 10$ GeV with a rapid drop-off below and above this value. Some
signal excess was noted for low $m(\ell^+\ell^-)\sim 4-12$ GeV for
their signal region SR-E-med plot.
\item In Ref. \cite{Baer:2020sgm}, theoretical aspects of the higgsino
discovery plane $m_{\widetilde\chi^0_2}$ vs. $\Delta m^0$ were explored. It was
shown that the string landscape prefers the smaller mass gap region
$\Delta m^0\sim 4-12$ GeV with $m_{\widetilde\chi^0_2}\sim 100-350$ GeV. In
contrast, the LHC limit on the gluino mass constrains natural models
with gaugino mass unification to have $\Delta m^0 \sim 10-25$~GeV.
\end{itemize}
Our goal in the present paper is to re-examine the promising soft OS/SF
dilepton plus jets plus $\not\!\!\!{E_T}$ signal in light of its emerging
strategic importance for natural SUSY discovery in the HL-LHC era. We
provide a detailed characterization of both expected signal and dominant
SM backgrounds by displaying a wide variety of distributions of various
kinematic variables. We also suggest new angular cuts that are much
more efficient than the currently used $m_{\tau\tau}^2<0$ cut in
suppressing the important SM background from $Z (\rightarrow
\tau\bar{\tau})+ jet$ production, thus aiding in the signal search at
the HL-LHC.
\section{Natural SUSY benchmark points}
\label{sec:BMpoints}
In this section, we delineate three SUSY benchmark points (BM) that
are used throughout the paper in order to compare signal strength
against SM background rates. We use the computer code Isajet
7.88\cite{isajet} to generate all sparticle mass spectra. The ensuing
SUSY Les Houches Accord (SLHA) files are input to
Madgraph\cite{madgraph}/Pythia\cite{pythia}/Delphes\cite{delphes}
for event generation.
We select points for
varying higgsino masses, and equally importantly, with different
neutralino-LSP mass gaps $\sim 4-16$~GeV. The three BM points are listed
in Table \ref{tab:bm}.
Our first BM point is listed as BM1 in Table \ref{tab:bm}. It is
generated from the two-extra-parameter non-universal Higgs model (NUHM2)
with parameters $m_0,\ m_{1/2},\ A_0,\ \tan\beta,\ \mu,\ m_A$
$=5000\ {\rm GeV},\ 1001\ {\rm GeV},\ -8000\ {\rm GeV},\ 10,\ 150\ {\rm
GeV},\ 2000\ {\rm GeV}$. It has $m_{\tilde g}\sim 2.4$ TeV and
$m_{\tilde t_1}\sim 1.6$ TeV so is LHC allowed via gluino and top squark
searches. With a relatively small
value $\mu=150$ GeV and a sizeable neutralino mass gap
$\Delta m^0 \sim 12$ GeV, it is just within the 95\% CL region
now excluded by ATLAS\cite{atlas2} and CMS\cite{cms2} soft dilepton
searches. It is natural in that $\Delta_{EW}\sim 14$.
Our second BM point (denoted BM2) is also from NUHM2 model.
It has $\mu= 300$ GeV with a mass gap
$m_{\widetilde\chi^0_2}-m_{\widetilde\chi^0_1}\sim 16$ GeV so is well beyond current
ATLAS/CMS search limits for soft dileptons+jets+$\not\!\!\!{E_T}$. It has
$\Delta_{EW}\sim 22$.
Our third point, listed as BM3 (GMM$^\prime$), comes from natural
generalized mirage mediation model\cite{ngmm} where $\mu$ is used as an
input (GMM$^\prime$). This model combines moduli/gravity-mediation with
anomaly mediated SUSY breaking (AMSB) via a mixing factor $\alpha$,
where $\alpha\rightarrow 0$ corresponds to pure AMSB and $\alpha\rightarrow\infty$
corresponds to pure gravity-mediation. It uses the gravitino mass
$m_{3/2}=75$ TeV as input along with continuous factors $c_m$, $c_{m3}$
and $a_3$ related to the generation 1,2 scalar masses, generation 3
scalar masses and $A$ parameters, respectively\cite{ngmm}. We take $\mu
=200$ GeV. Since the gaugino masses unify at the intermediate mirage
unification scale $\mu_{mir}\sim 5.3\times 10^7$ GeV, then for a given
gluino mass, the wino and bino masses will be much heavier as compared
to models with unified gaugino masses such as NUHM2. This means the
corresponding neutralino mass gap $m_{\widetilde\chi^0_2}-m_{\widetilde\chi^0_1}\sim 4.3$ GeV so
that the $\widetilde\chi^0_2$ decay products will be very soft, making its search a
challenge even though higgsinos are not particularly heavy. The model
yields $\Delta_{EW}=26$.
Although outside of the main theme of the paper, we also list values for
some low energy and dark-matter-related observables towards the bottom
of Table \ref{tab:bm}.\footnote{The relic abundance of thermally-produced
higgsino-like WIMPs listed in Table~\ref{tab:bm} are a factor of
17, 5 and 13 below the measured dark matter abundance $\Omega_{DM}h^2=0.12$
for each of benchmark points BM1, BM2 and BM3, respectively.
The remaining abundance might be made of a second dark matter particle
such as axions. With such a reduced abundance of higgsino-like WIMPs,
then higgsino-like WIMPs are still allowed DM candidates even in the
face of constraints from indirect dark matter detection
experiments\cite{Baer:2018rhs}.}
\begin{table}\centering
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\hline
parameter & $BM1$ & $BM2$ & $BM3\ (GMM^\prime)$\\
\hline
$m_0$ & 5000 & 5000 & $\textendash$ \\
$m_{1/2}$ & 1001 & 1000 & $\textendash$ \\
$A_0$ & -8000 & -8000 & $\textendash$ \\
$\tan\beta$ & 10 & 10 & 10 \\
$\mu$ & 150 & 300 & 200 \\
$m_A$ & 2000 & 2000 & 2000 \\
\hline
$m_{3/2}$ & $\textendash$ & $\textendash$ & 75000 \\
$\alpha$ & $\textendash$ & $\textendash$ & 4 \\
$c_m$ & $\textendash$ & $\textendash$ & 6.9 \\
$c_{m3}$ & $\textendash$ & $\textendash$ & 6.9 \\
$a_3$ & $\textendash$ & $\textendash$ & 5.1 \\
\hline
$m_{\tilde g}$ & 2425.4 & 2422.6 & 2837.3 \\
$m_{\tilde u_L}$ & 5295.9 & 5295.1 & 5244.6 \\
$m_{\tilde u_R}$ & 5427.8 & 5426.5 & 5378.0 \\
$m_{\tilde e_R}$ & 4823.7 & 4824.5 & 4813.2 \\
$m_{\tilde t_1}$ & 1571.7 & 1578.4 & 1386.9 \\
$m_{\tilde t_2}$ & 3772.0 & 3773.0 & 3716.7 \\
$m_{\tilde b_1}$ & 3806.7 & 3807.6 & 3757.8 \\
$m_{\tilde b_2}$ & 5161.2 & 5160.2 & 5107.7 \\
$m_{\tilde \tau_1}$ & 4746.8 & 4747.5 & 4729.8 \\
$m_{\tilde \tau_2}$ & 5088.6 & 5088.2 & 5075.7 \\
$m_{\tilde\nu_{\tau}}$ & 5095.4 & 5095.0 & 5084.8 \\
$m_{\widetilde\chi^{\pm}_2}$ & 857.1 & 857.6 & 1801.9 \\
$m_{\widetilde\chi^{\pm}_1}$ & 156.6 & 311.6 & 211.1 \\
$m_{\widetilde\chi^0_4}$ & 869.0 & 869.8 & 1809.3 \\
$m_{\widetilde\chi^0_3}$ & 451.3 & 454.7 & 1554.4 \\
$m_{\widetilde\chi^0_2}$ & 157.6 & 310.1 & 207.0 \\
$m_{\widetilde\chi^0_1}$ & 145.4 & 293.7 & 202.7 \\
$m_h$ & 124.5 & 124.6 & 125.4 \\
\hline
$\Omega_{\widetilde\chi^0_1}^{std}h^2$ & 0.007 & 0.023 & 0.009 \\
$BF(b\rightarrow s\gamma)\times 10^4$ & 3.1 & 3.1 & 3.1 \\
$BF(B_s\rightarrow \mu^+\mu^-)\times 10^9$ & 3.8 & 3.8 & 3.8\\
$\sigma^{SI}(\widetilde\chi^0_1 p)$ (pb) & $0.23\times10^{-8}$ & $0.52\times10^{-8}$ & $0.30\times10^{-9}$ \\
$\sigma^{SD}(\widetilde\chi^0_1 p)$ (pb) & $0.86\times10^{-4}$ & $0.49\times10^{-4}$ & $0.54\times10^{-5}$ \\
$\langle\sigma v\rangle |_{v\rightarrow 0}$ (cm$^3$/sec) & $0.3\times10^{-24}$ & $0.1\times10^{-24}$ &
$0.2\times10^{-24}$ \\
$\Delta_{\rm EW}$ & 13.9 & 21.7 & 26.0 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Input parameters and masses in~GeV units for two NUHM2 model
benchmark points (BM1 and BM2) and one natural mirage mediation SUSY
benchmark point (BM3 (GMM')),
with $m_t=173.2$ GeV. The input parameters for the
natural(generalized) mirage mediation model such as $\alpha$ and $c_m$
have been calculated from $m_0^{MM}$ and $m_{1/2}^{MM}$ which are
taken equal to the corresponding NUHM2 model values of $m_0$ and
$m_{1/2}$, respectively. The $c_m$ and $c_{m3}$ have been taken equal
to each other so that masses of first/second and third generation
sfermions are equal at the GUT scale so as to also match the NUHM2
models in the second and third columns of the table.
}
\label{tab:bm}
\end{table}
\section{Calculational details}
\label{sec:calc}
\subsection{Event generation}
\label{ssec:evgen}
$pp$ collision events with $\sqrt{s}=14$~TeV were generated using
{\sc MadGraph}~2.5.5~\cite{madgraph} interfaced to {\sc PYTHIA}
v8~\cite{pythia} via the default MadGraph/PYTHIA interface with default
parameters for showering and hadronization. Detector simulation is
performed by {\sc Delphes} using the default
Delphes~3.4.2~\cite{delphes} ``ATLAS'' parameter card.
We utilize the anti-$k_T$ jet algorithm~\cite{Cacciari:2008gp}
with $R = 0.6$ (the default value in the ATLAS Delphes card) rather than
the
Delphes card default value, $R = 0.5$. (Jet finding in
Delphes is implemented via {\sc FastJet}~\cite{Cacciari:2011ma}.) We
consider only jets with transverse energy satisfying $E_T(jet) > 40$ GeV
and pseudorapidity satisfying $|\eta(jet)| < 3.0$ in our analysis.
We implement the default Delphes $b$-jet tagger and implement a
$b$-tag efficiency of 85\%~\cite{ATLAS:2015dex}.
The lepton identification criteria that we adopt are modified from the
default version of Delphes. We identify leptons with $E_T> 5$~GeV and
within $|\eta (\ell )| < 2.5$. We label them as isolated leptons if the
sum of the transverse energy of all other objects (tracks, calorimeter
towers, etc.) within $\Delta R = 0.5$ of the lepton candidate is less
than $10\%$ of the lepton $E_T$.
\subsection{SM background processes}
Using Madgraph-Pythia-Delphes, we generate $10^5$ signal events for each of the
Table \ref{tab:bm} benchmark points. We also evaluated SM backgrounds from
\begin{itemize}
\item $\tau\bar{\tau}j$ production,
\item $t\bar{t}$ production,
\item $WWj$ production,
\item $W\ell\bar{\ell}j$ production, and
\item $Z\ell\bar{\ell}j$ production,
\end{itemize}
generating $10^5$ events for
each of the background processes except $\tau\bar{\tau}j$ and $t\bar{t}$ where we
generate $10^6$ events and also force both the tops to decay into $e$,
$\mu$ or $\tau$ leptons for the latter. For the processes containing
$\ell\bar{\ell}$ (here, $\ell=e,\mu$ or $\tau$) the lepton pair is
produced via the decay of a virtual photon or a $Z$-boson.
For the $\tau\bar{\tau}j$ background, we allow for all possible $\tau$
decay modes and then pick out the soft same-flavor opposite sign
dilepton pairs at the toy detector simulation (Delphes) level.
\section{Higgsino signal analysis and SM backgrounds}
\label{sec:distributions}
For the SUSY signal from higgsinos, we generate events from the
reactions $pp\rightarrow\widetilde\chi_1^\pm\widetilde\chi^0_2$, $\widetilde\chi^0_1\widetilde\chi^0_2$ and $\widetilde\chi_1^+\widetilde\chi^-$
where $\widetilde\chi^0_2\rightarrow \widetilde\chi^0_1\ell^+\ell^-$. The visible decay products from
$\widetilde\chi_1^\pm$ and $\widetilde\chi^0_2$ decays are typically soft because of their
small mass difference with the LSP.
\subsection{Parton level cuts and $C1$ cuts} \label{subsec:c1cuts}
Our listing of the dilepton plus jet signal and various background cross
sections after a series of cuts detailed below is shown in Table
\ref{tab:xsec}. The first entry labeled $BC$ for
{\it before cuts} actually has parton level cuts implemented (at the
Madgraph level) since some of the subprocesses are otherwise
divergent. Also, for the backgrounds with a hard QCD ISR (labeled as
$j$ in row 1), we require $p_T(j)>80$ GeV to efficiently generate
events with a hard jet. For the backgrounds including
$\gamma^*,Z^*\rightarrow\ell\bar{\ell}$ ($\ell=e$ or $\mu$), we implement
$m(\ell\bar{\ell})>1$ GeV to regularize the otherwise divergent
photon propagator. We also require $p_T(\ell )>1$ GeV and $\Delta
R(\ell\bar{\ell})>0.01$, again at the parton level. The $W$
daughters of top quarks in $t\bar{t}$ events are forced to decay
leptonically (into $e$, $\mu$ or $\tau$), but not so the $W$-bosons
in first entry of the $WWj$ column. These parton events are then
fed into PYTHIA and analysed using the DELPHES detector simulation.
The leading order cross sections (in $fb$), for both the signal as
well as for the background, are listed in row 2 and labelled as
$BC$. Here, we see the signal reactions lie in the 10-100 fb regime
whilst SM backgrounds are dominated by $t\bar{t}$ and
$\tau\bar{\tau}j$ production and are about 500 times larger than
signal point BM1.
To select out signal events, we implement cut set {\bf C1}:
\begin{itemize}
\item require two opposite sign, same flavour (OS/SF) isolated leptons
with $p_T(\ell )>5$ GeV, $|\eta (\ell )|<2.5$,
\item require there be at least one jet in the event; {\it i.e.}, $n_j\ge
1$ with $p_T(j_1)>100$ GeV for identified calorimeter jets,
\item require $\Delta R(\ell\bar{\ell})>0.05$ (for $\ell =e$ or $\mu$),
\item require $\not\!\!\!{E_T} >100$ GeV, and
\item veto tagged $b$-jets, $n$($b$-jet)=0.
\end{itemize}
\begin{table}\centering
\begin{tabular}{lcccccccc}
\hline
cuts/process & $BM1$ & $BM2$ & $BM3 (GMM^\prime)$ & $\tau\bar{\tau}j$ &
$t\bar{t}$ & $WWj$ & $W\ell\bar{\ell}j$ & $Z\ell\bar{\ell}j$ \\
\hline
$BC$ & 83.1 & 9.3 & 31.3 & 43800.0 & 41400 & 9860 & 1150.0 & 311 \\
$C1$ & 1.2 & 0.19 & 0.07 & 94.2 & 179 & 35.9 & 14.7 & 5.9 \\
$C1+m_{\tau\tau}^2<0$ & 0.92 & 0.13 & 0.043 & 23.1 & 75.6 & 12.8 & 7.7
& 3.2 \\
$C1+angle$ & 0.69 & 0.12 & 0.04 & 2.2 & 130 & 22.1 & 11.0 & 4.9 \\
$C2$ & 0.29 & 0.049 & 0.019 & 0.13 & 0.99 & 0.49 & 0.18 & 0.14 \\
$C3$ & 0.25 & 0.033 & 0.017 & 0.13 & 0.29 & 0.39 & 0.15 & 0.07 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Cross sections (in $fb$) for signal benchmark points and the
various SM backgrounds listed in the text after various cuts. The row
labelled BC denotes parton level cross sections after the requirement
$p_T(j)> 80$~GeV, along with
minimal cuts
implemented to regulate divergences, and also includes the leptonic
branching fractions for decays of both the top quarks in the
$t\bar{t}$ column. The remaining rows list the cross sections after a
series of analysis cuts detailed in the text. }
\label{tab:xsec}
\end{table}
After {\bf C1} cuts, signal cross sections for higgsino events with
exactly two OS/SF isolated leptons plus at least one jet with $P_T>
100$~GeV and $\not\!\!\!{E_T}> 100$~GeV, are at the $fb$ or below level while
corresponding SM backgrounds lie in the $5-200$~fb range.
Note that after each set of cuts, of the three BM points,
BM3 has the lowest surviving signal cross section as a consequence of its
tiniest $\Delta m^0$ mass gap which leads to very soft leptons from
$\tilde\chi_2^0$ decay.
\subsection{$m_{\tau\tau}^2$ vs. new angular cuts}
\label{ssec:angle}
\subsubsection{$m_{\tau\tau}^2$ cut}
We see from Table~\ref{tab:xsec} that $\tau\bar{\tau}j$ and $t\bar{t}$
processes constitute the largest backgrounds after C1 cuts. For the
most part, hard taus come from the decay of an on-shell high $p_T$ $Z$
boson recoiling against a hard QCD jet, and so are very relativistic.
In the approximation that the leptons and neutrinos from the decay of
each tau are all exactly collimated along the parent tau direction, we
can write the momentum carried off by the two neutrinos from the decay
$\tau_1\rightarrow \ell_1\bar{\nu}_{\ell_1}\nu_{\tau_1}$ of the first tau as
$\xi_1\vec{p}(\ell_1)$ and, similarly, as $\xi_2\vec{p}(\ell_2)$ for the
second tau. Momentum conservation in the plane transverse to the beams
then requires that \be
-\sum_{jets}\vec{p}_T(j)=(1+\xi_1)\vec{p}_T(\ell_1
)+(1+\xi_2)\vec{p}_T(\ell_2 ) .
\label{eq:jetsum}
\ee
These two equations can be solved for $\xi_1$ and $\xi_2$ given that
$\vec{p}_T(j)$ and $\vec{p}_T(\ell_{1,2})$ are all measured, and used to
evaluate the momenta of the individual taus. This then allows us to
evaluate the invariant mass squared of the di-tau system which (within
the collinear approximation for tau decays) is given by,
\be
m_{\tau\tau}^2=(1+\xi_1)(1+\xi_2)m_{\ell\ell}^2 .
\ee
We show the distribution of $m_{\tau\tau}^2$ for both signal events as
well as for the various backgrounds in Fig. \ref{fig:mtt} after the cut
set {\bf C1} and further imposing $n_j=1$.\footnote{We make this
additional requirement because, as we will see in
Sec.~\ref{subsec:c2cuts}, limiting $n_j$ to be one helps to greatly
reduce the $t\bar{t}$ background.} As expected, this peaks sharply
around $m_Z^2$ for the $\tau\bar{\tau}j$ background (red histogram). In
contrast, for signal and other SM background events, where the isolated
lepton and $\vec{\not\!\!\!{E_T}}$ directions are uncorrelated, the
$m_{\tau\tau}^2$ distributions are very broad and peak at even negative
values. Thus, the $m_{\tau\tau}^2$ provides a very good discriminator
between $\tau\bar{\tau}j$ background and signal, and has, in fact, been used
in ATLAS \cite{atlas2} and CMS \cite{cms2} for their analyses. We see,
however, that a rather extensive tail from the $\tau\bar{\tau}j$
background extends to negative values and arises due to tau pair
production from virtual photons, the breakdown of the collinear
approximation for asymmetric $Z$ decays and finally hadronic energy
mismeasurements which skew the direction of both $\vec{p}_T(j)$ and of
$\vec{\not\!\!\!{E_T}}$. Thus, in accord with Ref.~\cite{bmt}, we will require
$m_{\tau\tau}^2<0$ in the fourth row of Table \ref{tab:xsec} after ${\bf
C1}$ cuts. We see that the ditau background is reduced by a factor 4
in contrast to the signal which is reduced by 25-40\%, depending on the
benchmark point.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.4\textheight]{mtautausqr.png}
\caption{Distribution in $m_{\tau\tau}^2$ for the three SUSY BM models
with $\mu =150,\ 200$ and 300 GeV introduced in the text, along with
SM backgrounds after $C1$ cuts augmented by $n_j=1$.
\label{fig:mtt}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Even after the $m_{\tau\tau}^2<0$ cut, substantial $\tau\bar{\tau}j$
background remains. We have checked that after additional cuts
(described in the next section) to reduce the $t\bar{t}$ background,
$\tau\bar{\tau}j$ production remains as the dominant irreducible
background.\footnote{We do not show these results for brevity.} This is
in sharp contrast to the analysis in Ref. \cite{bmt} where $t\bar{t}$
production remained as the dominant physics background even after the
$m_{\tau\tau}^2 < 0$ cut. It is mainly the stronger $b$-jet veto
attained by ATLAS/CMS along with further cuts described below that leads
in the present case to $\tau\bar{\tau}j$ production as the dominant
background. This motivated us to examine whether it is possible to
reduce the di-tau background more efficiently, without a huge loss of
signal. We turn to a discussion of this in Sec.\ref{subsubsec:angle}.
\subsubsection{New angle cuts} \label{subsubsec:angle}
In this subsection, we propose new angular cuts to replace the
$m_{\tau\tau}^2<0$ cut that we have just discussed. In the transverse
plane, the di-tau pair must recoil against the hard QCD radiation with
an opening angle between the taus significantly smaller than $\pi$. The
central idea, illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:sketch}, is that the $\not\!\!\!{E_T}$
vector {\it must lie between the directions of the two taus} which (for
relativistic taus) are, of course, essentially the same as the {\it
observable} directions of the charged lepton daughters of the taus. We
require the azimuthal angles $\phi_\ell$ and $\phi_{\bar{\ell}}$ for
each lepton to lie between $0$ and $2\pi$, and define
$\phi_{max}=max(\phi_\ell,\phi_{\bar{\ell}})$ and
$\phi_{min}=min(\phi_\ell,\phi_{\bar{\ell}})$. Then for $\vec{\not\!\!\!{E_T}}$ to
lie in between the tau daughter lepton directions we must have,
\footnote{This works as long as $|\phi_{\ell}-\phi_{\bar{\ell}}|< \pi$. If
$|\phi_{\ell}-\phi_{\bar{\ell}}|> \pi$, define $\phi_{\ell}^\prime
=\phi_{\ell}+\pi$, $\phi_{\bar{\ell}}^\prime= \phi_{\bar{\ell}}+\pi$ and
$\phi_{\hspace{1mm} \not\!\!\!{E_T}}^\prime =\phi_{\hspace{1mm} \not\!\!\!{E_T}}+\pi$, (all
modulo $2\pi$) along with
$\phi_{max}=max(\phi_\ell^\prime,\phi_{\bar{\ell}}^\prime)$, and likewise,
$\phi_{min}=min(\phi_\ell^\prime,\phi_{\bar{\ell}}^\prime)$, and then require,
$\phi_{min} < \phi_{\hspace{1mm} \not\!\!\!{E_T}} < \phi_{max}$.}
$$\phi_{min} < \phi_{\hspace{1mm} \not\!\!\!{E_T}}<\phi_{max}.$$ Notice that, by
definition, $\phi_{max}-\phi_{min} < \pi$, and for a boosted tau pair,
often significantly smaller than $\pi$.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.4\textheight]{sketch.png}
\caption{Sketch of a ditau background event to the di-lepton plus jet plus
$\not\!\!\!{E_T}$ signature in the transverse plane of the event. Here $\ell_1$ and
$\not\!\!\!{E_T}_{1}$ denote the transverse momentum of the lepton and of the
vector sum of the neutrinos from the decay of the first tau, and
likewise $\ell_2$ and $\not\!\!\!{E_T}_2$. $\not\!\!\!{E_T}$(tot) is the resultant $\not\!\!\!{E_T}$
in the event. Notice that because the taus are expected to be
relativistic, $\ell_i$ and $\not\!\!\!{E_T}_i$ vectors are nearly collimated
along the direction of the $i^{th}$ tau ($i=1,2$).
\label{fig:sketch}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
To characterize the $Z(\rightarrow \tau \bar{\tau})+j$ background, we show in
Fig.~\ref{fig:phi1pihi2_tautauj} a scatter plot of these events in the
$\phi_1\equiv \phi_{max}-\phi_{\hspace{1mm} \not\!\!\!{E_T}}$ vs. $\phi_2\equiv
\phi_{\hspace{1mm} \not\!\!\!{E_T}}-\phi_{min}$ plane. If the collinear
approximation for tau decays holds, we would expect that the $\tau\tau
j$ background selectively populates the top right quadrant with
$\phi_1>0$ and $\phi_2>0$ with $\phi_1+\phi_2 =\phi_{max}-\phi_{min} <
\pi$, and significantly smaller than $\pi$ when the tau pair emerges
with a small opening angle in the transverse plane. We see from the
figure that there is a small, but significant, spill-over into the
region where $\phi_1$ or $\phi_2$ assumes small negative values; {\it
i.e.} where $\vec{\not\!\!\!{E_T}}$ lies just outside the cone formed by
$\vec{\ell_1}$ and $\vec{\ell_2}$. This spill-over arises from
asymmetric decays of the $Z$ where one of the taus (the one emitted
backwards from the $Z$ direction) is relatively less relativistic so
that the collinear approximation works poorly, or because hadronic
energy mismeasurements skew the direction of $\vec{\not\!\!\!{E_T}}$.
Indeed we see from Fig.~\ref{fig:phi1pihi2_tautauj} that the $\tau\tau
j$ background mostly populates the triangle in the top-right corner of
the $\phi_1$ vs. $\phi_2$ plane, and $\phi_1+\phi_2< f\pi$ where the
fraction $0<f<1$, with a spill-over into the strips where one of
$\phi_{1,2}$ is slightly negative. For signal events and for the other
backgrounds, $\phi_{\hspace{1mm} \not\!\!\!{E_T}}$ will be uncorrelated with $\phi_{min}$ and
$\phi_{max}$, and so their scatter plots will extend to the other
quadrants. This is illustrated for the $t\bar{t}$ background in
Fig.~\ref{fig:phi1pihi2_ttbar} and for signal point BM1 in
Fig.~\ref{fig:phi1pihi2_BM1}. In these cases, we indeed see a wide
spread in $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$ between $\pm 2\pi$.
To efficiently veto the $\tau\bar{\tau}j$ background, we have examined nine cases
of angular cuts. To optimize the effect of the boost on the opening
angle of the two taus, we examine three ranges of $\phi_1+\phi_2$:
\begin{itemize}
\item {\it a1}: $\phi_1,\ \phi_2 >0$,
\item {\it b1}: $\phi_1,\ \phi_2 >0$ with $\phi_1+\phi_2<\pi /2$, and
\item {\it c1}: $\phi_1,\ \phi_2 >0$ with $\phi_1+\phi_2<2\pi /3$.
\end{itemize}
Next, to optimize the width of the ``strip''
where the $\not\!\!\!{E_T}$ vector is allowed to stray outside the cone formed by
the leptons, we also tried,
\begin{itemize}
\item {\it a2}, {\it b2} and {\it c2} where instead
$\phi_1,\ \phi_2> -\pi/10$, and
\item {\it a3}, {\it b3} and {\it c3} with $\phi_1,\ \phi_2> -\pi/20$.
\end{itemize}
The set which gives optimized
$S/\sqrt{BG(\tau\bar{\tau} j)}$ for LHC14 with 3000 fb$^{-1}$ was found to be set {\it
b1}:
\be {\rm veto\ the\ triangle}\ \ \ \phi_1,\ \phi_2> 0\ \ {\rm
with}\ \ \phi_1+\phi_2<\pi /2, \label{eq:phi}
\ee
along with an
additional veto of the $|\phi_1|$ and $|\phi_2|$ strips along the
positive $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$ axes to further reduce background from
the spill-over of $\ \vec{\not\!\!\!{E_T}}$ outside of the cone defined by the taus
that we already discussed:
\be {\rm
strip\ cuts:\ veto} |\phi_{1,2}|<\pi /10 . \label{eq:strip}
\ee
We list signal and background rates after {\bf C1} cuts together with
the angle cuts (\ref{eq:phi}) and (\ref{eq:strip}) in row 5 of
Table~\ref{tab:xsec}. In this case, we find that $\tau\bar{\tau}j$ background
is reduced from cut set {\bf C1} by a factor $\sim 43$ (compared to a factor
$\sim 4$ for the $m_{\tau\tau}^2< 0$ cut) whilst signal efficiency for
the point BM1 is almost 60\% (compared to $\sim 75$\% for the $m_{\tau\tau}^2< 0$
cut).\footnote{The handful of events at values of $\phi_{1}$ or $\phi_2$
close to $2\pi$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:phi1pihi2_tautauj} occurs for the
same reason as events along the strips about $|\phi_{1,2}|\sim 0$;
{\it e.g.} one lepton and $\not\!\!\!{E_T}$ directions may be close to zero in
azimuth, with the azimuthal angle of the other lepton being just under
$2\pi$. These would be eliminated by amending the veto region in the
strip cuts in Eq.~(\ref{eq:strip}) to be smaller than $\pi/10$ mod
$2\pi$. This modification would further reduce the $\tau\bar{\tau}j$
background listed in the row labeled {\bf C1} + angle by about a
factor 2. We have not included this reduction in this analysis, but it is included in an updated report Ref. \cite{Baer:2022qrw}.} We
also see that signal efficiency for the other two benchmark points is
nearly the same for the angular and for the $m_{\tau\tau}^2< 0$ cuts.
We regard the angular cuts as a significantly improved method for
reducing $\tau\bar{\tau}j$ background relative to signal. We note that the
other SM backgrounds are not as efficiently reduced by the angular cut
as by the $m_{\tau\tau}^2< 0$ cut, and it is with this in mind that we
turn to the examination of other distributions below.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.4\textheight]{sctr_plts_tautauj.png}
\caption{Distribution in $\phi_1$ vs. $\phi_2$ plane for
$\tau\bar{\tau}j$ background after $C1$ cuts, rquiring also that $n_j=1$.
\label{fig:phi1pihi2_tautauj}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.4\textheight]{sctr_plts_tbwl.png}
\caption{Distribution in $\phi_1$ vs. $\phi_2$ plane for
$t\bar{t}$ background after $C1$ cuts, requiring also that $n_j=1$.
\label{fig:phi1pihi2_ttbar}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.4\textheight]{sctr_plts_mu150.png}
\caption{Distribution in $\phi_1$ vs. $\phi_2$ plane for signal point
BM1 after $C1$ cuts, requiring also that $n_j=1$.
\label{fig:phi1pihi2_BM1}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Additional distributions to reduce $t\bar{t}$, $WWj$ and
other backgrounds} \label{subsec:c2cuts}
We have seen that after {\bf C1} cut set augmented by the angular cuts,
the main SM backgrounds arise from $t\bar{t}$ and $WWj$ production
followed by leptonic decays of the top and $W$-bosons. Since $t\bar{t}$
production leads typically to events with two hard daughter $b$-quarks,
we begin with the examination of the jet multiplicity $n(jets)$ in
Fig. \ref{fig:njets}. The signal distributions are shown as thick
orange, black and purple histograms for the benchmark cases, BM1, BM2 and BM3,
respectively, and they all feature steadily falling $n(jets)$
distribution since jets only arise from ISR. In contrast, $n(jets)$
from $t\bar{t}$ production has a rather flat distribution out to
$n(jets)\sim 3$ with a steady drop-off thereafter. The other EW
backgrounds also feature falling $n(jet)$ distributions. Restricting
$n(jets)\sim 1-2$ should cut $t\bar{t}$ background substantially with
relatively small cost to signal.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.4\textheight]{njet.png}
\caption{Distribution in $n(jet)$ for three SUSY BM models with
$\mu =150,\ 200$ and 300 GeV along with SM backgrounds after $C1$ and
the angular cuts described in the text.
\label{fig:njets}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
We continue our examination by showing in Fig. \ref{fig:ptj1} and
Fig.~\ref{fig:eslt} the distribution of the highest $p_T$ jet and of
$\not\!\!\!{E_T}$, respectively, again after {\bf C1} and angular cuts. We see
that both distributions are backed up against the cut and falling
steeply, for both the signal cases as well as for the backgrounds. While
these distributions may be falling slightly faster for the top
background as compared to the signal, it is clear that requiring
harder cuts on either $p_T(j_1)$ or $\not\!\!\!{E_T}$ would greatly reduce the
already small signal.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.4\textheight]{ptjet.png}
\caption{Distribution of the hardest jet $p_T(j_1)$ for the
three SUSY BM models with
$\mu =150,\ 200$ and 300 GeV and for SM backgrounds after $C1$ and
angular cuts.
\label{fig:ptj1}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.4\textheight]{met.png}
\caption{Distribution of $\not\!\!\!{E_T}$ for the three SUSY BM models with $\mu
=150,\ 200$ and 300 GeV and for SM backgrounds after $C1$ and angular
cuts.
\label{fig:eslt}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Turning to the leptons in the events, we show in Fig. \ref{fig:ptl1} the
distributions in $p_T(\ell_1)$, the highest $p_T$ isolated
lepton. As expected, the signal distributions are very soft whereas the
corresponding distributions from $t\bar{t}$, $WWj$ (and even from the
residual $\tau\bar{\tau}j$ events) extend to far beyond where the signal
distributions have fallen to 10-20\% of their peak value. In this case,
an upper bound on $p_T(\ell_1)\lesssim 25-40$ GeV might be warranted, at
least for SUSY signal cases where the neutralino mass gap is $\lesssim
20$~GeV.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.4\textheight]{ptl1.png}
\caption{Distribution of the transverse momentum of the hard lepton
$p_T(\ell_1)$ for the three SUSY BM models with $\mu =150,\ 200$ and
300 GeV and for SM backgrounds after $C1$ and the angular cuts.
\label{fig:ptl1}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In Fig. \ref{fig:ptl2}, we show the resultant distributions in $p_T$ of the
lower $p_T$ isolated lepton.
In this case, the three signal BM models have sharply falling distributions
whilst many of the SM background distributions are rather flat
out to high $p_T(\ell_2)$. Requiring $p_T(\ell_2):5-20$ GeV should save the
bulk of signal events (at least as long as the neutralino
mass gap is not very large) while rejecting the majority of the background.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.4\textheight]{ptl2.png}
\caption{Distribution of the softer lepton $p_T(\ell_2)$ for the three
SUSY BM models with $\mu =150, 200$ and 300 GeV SUSY BM models and for SM
backgrounds after $C1$ and angular cuts.
\label{fig:ptl2}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In Fig. \ref{fig:ht}, we plot the scalar sum of lepton $p_T$ values
$H_T(\ell\bar{\ell})\equiv |p_T(\ell_1)|+|p_T(\ell_2)|$.\footnote{The
$H_T$ variable was originally introduced in Fig. 4 of
Ref. \cite{Baer:1988kq} to help discriminate $t\bar{t}$ signal events
from $W+jets$ background in the Tevatron top-quark searches.} Since
signal gives rise to soft OS/SF dileptons while most backgrounds have at
least one hard lepton, then we expect harder $H_T$ distributions from
background. The figure illustrates that this is indeed the case, and
that a cut $H_T(\ell\bar{\ell})\lesssim 50-60$ GeV would enhance the signal
relative to the background. Of course, $|p_T(\ell_1)|, |p_T(\ell_2)|$ and
$H_T$ are strongly correlated, so that cutting on any two of these would
serve for our purpose.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.4\textheight]{htlep.png}
\caption{Distribution in $H_T(\ell\bar{\ell})$ for the three SUSY BM
models with $\mu =150$ GeV, 200~GeV and 300 GeV and for SM
backgrounds after $C1$ and angular cuts.
\label{fig:ht}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The distribution in $\not\!\!\!{E_T} /H_T(\ell\bar{\ell})$ was found by the ATLAS
collaboration to be an effective signal-to-background discriminator in
Ref. \cite{atlas1}. The signal is expected to exhibit a soft $H_T$
distribution compared to a hard $\not\!\!\!{E_T}$ distribution from recoil of SUSY
particles against the ISR jet. Thus, signal is expected to exhibit a
hard $\not\!\!\!{E_T} /H_T$ distribution compared to background. In
Fig. \ref{fig:etht}, we show the relevant SUSY BM distributions along
with SM backgrounds. Indeed, almost all $t\bar{t}$ events -- and also
most other events -- lie with $\not\!\!\!{E_T} /H_T\lesssim 4$ while signal events
peak around $\not\!\!\!{E_T} /H_T\sim 5-10$. We will, in addition, require $\not\!\!\!{E_T}
/H_T >4$ for our next cut set {\bf C2}.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.4\textheight]{methtlep.png}
\caption{Distribution of $\not\!\!\!{E_T} /H_T(\ell)$ for three SUSY BM models with
$\mu =150,\ 200$ and 300 GeV and for SM backgrounds after $C1$ cuts and
angular cuts.
\label{fig:etht}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{$C2$ cuts: signal, BG and distributions}
\label{ssec:C2}
In light of the distributions just discussed, we next include the
following cut set {\bf C2} to enhance the higgsino signal over top,
$WWj$ and the other EW backgrounds:
\begin{itemize}
\item the cut set {\bf C1} together with the ${\rm angle\ cuts}$,
\item $n(jets) = 1$,
\item $p_T(\ell_2 ):5-15$ GeV,
\item $H_T(\ell\bar{\ell})<60$ GeV
\item $\not\!\!\!{E_T}/H_T(\ell\bar{\ell} )>4$, and
\item $m(\ell\bar{\ell})<50$ GeV.
\end{itemize}
The reader will have noticed that we have included an upper limit on the
invariant mass of the dilepton pair. This cut is motivated from the fact
that the invariant mass distributions of dileptons from $\widetilde\chi^0_2\rightarrow
\widetilde\chi^0_1\ell\bar{\ell}$ decay is kinematically bounded by
$m_{\widetilde\chi^0_2}-m_{\widetilde\chi^0_1}$, and further that leptons from the decays of {\em
different} charginos/neutralinos also tend to have small energies (and
hence also small $m(\ell\bar{\ell})$) because the higgsino spectrum is
compressed. In contrast, leptons from decays of background tops and
$W$-bosons tend to be hard (see Fig.~\ref{fig:ptl1} and
Fig.~\ref{fig:ptl2}) and, because the lepton directions are
uncorrelated, the corresponding background dilepton mass distributions
are relatively flat out to very large values of $m(\ell\bar{\ell})$. Although
we do not show it, we have checked that the requirement $m(\ell\bar{\ell})<
50$~GeV, efficiently reduces much of the background while retaining most
of the higgsino signal as long as the higgsino spectrum is compressed.
We see from the penultimate row of Table~\ref{tab:xsec} that after {\bf
C2} cuts, the leading $t\bar{t}$
background has dropped by a factor $\sim 130$, and the total SM
background has dropped to $\sim 1.1$\%, while the signal is
retained with an efficiency of 40-60\%. At this point, the total
background is just below 2~fb.
Clearly, the signal cross
section is small, and the large integrated luminosities expected at the
HL-LHC will be necessary for the detection of the signal if the higgsino
mass is close to its naturalness bound of 300-350~GeV, or if the
higgsino spectrum is maximally compressed, consistent with naturalness.
To characterize the signal events, and further improve the
discrimination of the signal {\it vis-a-vis} the background, we examine
other distributions after {\bf C2} cuts, starting with the dilepton
invariant mass distribution in Fig.~\ref{fig:mll}. We can gauge that the SM
background distribution, summed over the backgrounds, is essentially
flat. In contrast, the signal distributions show an accumulation
of events below $m_{\widetilde\chi^0_2}-m_{\widetilde\chi^0_1}$ together with a long tail (with
a much smaller number of events) where
the two leptons originate in {\em different} charginos/neutralinos.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.4\textheight]{mll.png}
\caption{Distribution in $m(\ell\bar{\ell})$ for the three SUSY BM models with
$\mu =150,\ 200$ and 300 GeV, and for SM backgrounds after $C2$ cuts.
\label{fig:mll}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In Fig. \ref{fig:dphi}, we show the distribution in transverse
opening angle $\Delta\phi (j_1,\vec{\not\!\!\!{E_T}})$. For the signal, where
the SUSY particles recoil strongly against the ISR jet, we expect
nearly back-to-back $\vec{p}_T(jet)$ and $\vec{\not\!\!\!{E_T}}$ vectors.
This correlation is expected to be somewhat weaker
from the $W\ell\bar{\ell}j$
and especially $t\bar{t}$
backgrounds because these intrinsically contain additional activity
from decay products that do not form jets or identified leptons.
Indeed, requiring
$\Delta\phi (\vec{p}_T(j_1),\vec{\not\!\!\!{E_T}})\gtrsim 2$ appears to
give only a slight improvement in the signal-to-background ratio.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.4\textheight]{delphijetmet.png}
\caption{Distribution in $\Delta\phi (jet,\not\!\!\!{E_T} )$ for the three SUSY BM
models with $\mu =150,\ 200$ and 300 GeV, and for SM backgrounds after
$C2$ cuts.
\label{fig:dphi}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In Fig. \ref{fig:mct}, we plot the dilepton-plus-$\not\!\!\!{E_T}$ cluster transverse
mass $m_{cT}(\ell\bar{\ell},\not\!\!\!{E_T})$. From the frame, we see the signal
distributions all have broad peaks around 20-100 GeV while several of
the backgrounds that contain harder leptons extend to well past 100 GeV.
Thus, a candidate analysis cut might include $m_{cT}\lesssim 100$ GeV.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.4\textheight]{mct.png}
\caption{Distribution in $m_{cT}(\ell^+\ell^-,\not\!\!\!{E_T} )$ for the three SUSY BM
models with $\mu =150,\ 200$ and 300 GeV, and for SM backgrounds
after $C2$ cuts.
\label{fig:mct}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In Fig. \ref{fig:jetptbymet}, we plot the distribution in
$p_T(j_1)/\not\!\!\!{E_T}$. For the signal, we expect $\vec{\not\!\!\!{E_T}}$ to mainly recoil
against the hard ISR jet so that signal would peak around $\sim 1$
since the dileptons are soft. In contrast, some of the backgrounds
will include harder high-$p_T$ objects so this ratio is expected to be
less correlated. While both signal and BGs peak around $p_T(j_1)/\not\!\!\!{E_T}\sim 1$,
we note that several BG distributions extend out to
$p_T(j_1)/\not\!\!\!{E_T}\sim 3$. Thus, we could require $p_T(j_1)/\not\!\!\!{E_T}\lesssim 1.5$.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.4\textheight]{jetptbymet.png}
\caption{Distribution in $E_T(jet)/ \not\!\!\!{E_T} $ for three SUSY BM models with
$\mu =150,\ 200$ and 300 GeV along with SM backgrounds after $C2$ cuts.
\label{fig:jetptbymet}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
A related distribution is to plot $p_T(j_1)-\not\!\!\!{E_T}$, where again
signal values of $p_T(j_1)$ and $\not\!\!\!{E_T}$ are expected to be nearly
equal and opposite and so should peak around $\sim 0$. The backgrounds
have a similar peak structure, but extend to higher values
especially in the positive direction. Therefore, we might require
$|p_T(j_1)-\not\!\!\!{E_T} |\lesssim 100$ GeV. We note though that the considerations
in Figs.~\ref{fig:dphi}, \ref{fig:jetptbymet} and \ref{fig:ptjetminusmet}
have the same underlying physics, and hence the corresponding cuts
are certainly correlated.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.4\textheight]{jetptminusmet.png}
\caption{Distribution in $E_T(jet)- \not\!\!\!{E_T}$ for the three SUSY BM models with
$\mu =150,\ 200$ and 300 GeV, and for SM backgrounds after $C2$ cuts.
\label{fig:ptjetminusmet}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In Fig. \ref{fig:delrmumu}, we show the distribution in dimuon
transverse opening angle $\Delta\phi (\mu\bar{\mu})$.
In the signal case, we expect a significant recoil of $\widetilde\chi^0_2$ from the ISR jet
so that the muon pair originating from the $\widetilde\chi^0_2\rightarrow \widetilde\chi^0_1\mu\bar{\mu}$ decay
should be tightly collimated with small opening angle \cite{c_han}. For
the background processes, or for that matter from higgsino pair
production processes, where the leptons originate from different
particles or higher energy release decays, we do not expect the dilepton
pair to be so collimated, and indeed the total background is (within
fluctuations in our simulation) consistent
with being roughly flat in $\Delta\phi(\mu\bar{\mu})$. Indeed, from the
figure we see that $\Delta\phi (\mu\bar{\mu})\sim 0-1$ for signal
processes while the SM BG processes tend to have opening angles less
well collimated and extending well past $\Delta\phi\sim 1.5$. Although
we have focussed on dimuons here, exactly the same consideration would
also apply to $e^+e^- +j+\not\!\!\!{E_T}$ events, as long as the direction of the
electrons can be reliably measured.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.4\textheight]{delphimumu_prime.png}
\caption{Distribution in $\Delta\phi(\mu\bar{\mu} )$ for three SUSY BM models with
$\mu =150,\ 200$ and 300 GeV along with SM backgrounds after $C3$ cuts.
\label{fig:delrmumu}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In light of the above distributions, we next include the following
cut set {\bf C3} that includes:
\begin{itemize}
\item all {\bf C2} cuts,
\item $\Delta\phi (j_1,\not\!\!\!{E_T} )>2.0$
\item $m_{cT}(\ell\bar{\ell} ,\not\!\!\!{E_T})<100$ GeV
\item $p_T(j_1)/\not\!\!\!{E_T} <1.5$
\item $|p_T(j_1)-\not\!\!\!{E_T} |<100$ GeV
\end{itemize}
The OS/SF dilepton invariant mass after these {\bf C3} cuts is shown in
Fig. \ref{fig:mllC3}, this time on a linear scale. The total background
is shown in gray, whilst signal-plus-background is the colored
histogram, and correspond to {\it a}) BM1 with $\Delta m=12$ GeV, {\it
b}) BM2 with $\Delta m=16$ GeV and {\it c}) BM3 with $\Delta m=4.3$
GeV. The idea here is to look for systematic deviations from SM
background predictions in the lowest $m(\ell\bar{\ell})$ bins. Those
bins with a notable excess could determine the kinematic limit
$m(\ell\bar{\ell})<m_{\widetilde\chi^0_2}-m_{\widetilde\chi^0_1}$. By taking only the bins with a
notable excess, {\it i.e.} $m(\ell\bar{\ell})<m_{\widetilde\chi^0_2}-m_{\widetilde\chi^0_1}$,
then it is possible to compute the cut-and-count excess above expected
background to determine a $5\sigma$ or a 95\% CL limit. The shape of the
distribution of the excess below the $\widetilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow \widetilde\chi^0_1\ell\bar{\ell}$ end
point depends on the {\em relative sign} of the lighter neutralino
eigenvalues (these have opposite signs for higginos) and so could serve
to check the consistency of higgsinos as the origin of the
signal\cite{shape}. Of the three cases shown, this would be possible at
the HL-LHC only for the point BM1, since the tiny signal to background ratio
precludes the possibility of determining the signal shape in the other
two cases.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.3\textheight]{mll_mu_150_bg.png}\\
\includegraphics[height=0.3\textheight]{mll_mu_300_bg.png}\\
\includegraphics[height=0.3\textheight]{mll_mu_200_bg.png}
\caption{Distribution of $m(\ell^+\ell^-)$ for the three SUSY BM models with
$\mu =150,\ 300$ and 200 GeV, and for the SM backgrounds after $C3$ cuts.
\label{fig:mllC3}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{LHC reach for higgsinos with 300-3000~fb$^{\bf {-1}}$}
\label{sec:reach}
In light of the above distributions, we next include the following
cut set {\bf C4}:
\begin{itemize}
\item apply all {\bf C3} cuts,
\item then, require $m(\ell\bar{\ell})<m_{\widetilde\chi^0_2}-m_{\widetilde\chi^0_1}$.
\end{itemize}
The reader could legitimately ask how we could implement this since we
do not {\em a priori} know the neutralino mass gap. The location of the
mass gap can be visually seen for BM1, but would be obscured by the
background for the other two cases. What we really mean is to measure
the cross section with $m_{\ell\ell}< m_{\ell\ell}^{\rm cut}$, varying
the value of $m_{\ell\ell}^{\rm cut}$ and looking for a rise in the (low
mass) region where events from $\widetilde\chi^0_2\rightarrow\widetilde\chi^0_1\ell\bar{\ell}$ would be
expected to accumulate. In the following, we will assume that once we
have the data, the region where the higgsino signal is beginning to
accumulate will be self-evident.
Using these {\bf C4} cuts, then we computed the remaining signal cross
section after cuts for four model lines in the NUHM2 model for variable
values of $\mu :100-400$ GeV and with variable $m_{1/2}$ values adjusted
such that the $m_{\widetilde\chi^0_2}-m_{\widetilde\chi^0_1}$ mass gap is fixed at 4, 8, 12 and 16
GeV. While $\mu$ and $m_{1/2}$ are variable, the values of $m_0=5$ TeV,
$A_0=-1.6 m_0$, $\tan\beta =10$ and $m_A=2$ TeV are fixed for all four
model lines.\footnote{In order to get a mass gap significantly smaller
than 10~GeV, one has to choose large $m_{1/2}$ values for which
$\Delta_{\rm EW} > 30$. However, this is unimportant since our goal
here is just to illustrate the reach for small mass gaps because, as
already noted, there are top-down models with $\Delta_{\rm EW}<
30$ and a mass gap as small as $\sim 4$~GeV. Since the signal that we
are examining is largely determined by the lighter higgsino masses,
the NUHM2 model serves as an effective phenomenological surrogate for our
purpose.} In Fig. \ref{fig:reachC4}, we show the signal cross section
after {\bf C4} cuts, along with the $5\sigma$ reach and the 95\% CL
exclusion for LHC14 with 300 and 3000 fb$^{-1}$.
We also list the total
background in each frame in case the reader wishes to estimate the statistical
significance of the signal for a given value of $m_{\tilde\chi_2^0}$
for different choices of integrated luminosity.
In Fig. \ref{fig:reachC4}{\it a}), we find for $\Delta m=4$ GeV that the
$5\sigma$ (95\% CL) reach of LHC14 with 300 fb$^{-1}$ extends out to 80
GeV (122 GeV) respectively. For HL-LHC with 3000 fb$^{-1}$, then we
obtain the corresponding values to be 131~GeV (173.5~GeV). Thus, the
HL-LHC should give us an extra reach in $\mu$ by $\sim 50$~GeV over the
300 fb$^{-1}$ expected from LHC Run 3. For larger mass gaps, {\it e.g.}
$\Delta m=16$ GeV as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:reachC4}{\it d}), then the
signal is larger, but so is background since now we require a larger
$m(\ell\bar{\ell})$ signal bin. For $\Delta m=16$~GeV, the 300
fb$^{-1}$ reach is to 157.5~GeV (227.5~GeV) respectively. For 3000
fb$^{-1}$, the corresponding reach (exclusion) extends to 241.5~GeV
(325~GeV). Thus, the reach is largest for the larger mass gaps, as might be
expected. The intermediate mass gaps give LHC mass reaches in between
the values obtained for the lower and higher $\Delta m$ values.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.44\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.1\linewidth]{mdlln_4.png}
\caption{}
\label{fig:mdlln_4}
\end{subfigure}%
\quad \quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.44\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.1\linewidth]{mdlln_8.png}
\caption{}
\label{fig:mdlln_8}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.44\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.1\linewidth]{mdlln_12.png}
\caption{}
\label{fig:mdlln_12}
\end{subfigure}%
\quad \quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.44\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.1\linewidth]{mdlln_16.png}
\caption{}
\label{fig:mdlln_16}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{The projected $5\sigma$ reach and 95\% CL exclusion of the HL-LHC
with 3000 fb$^{-1}$ in $\mu$ for four different NUHM2 model lines with
{\it a}) $\Delta m=4$ GeV, {\it b}) $\Delta m=8$ GeV, {\it c}) $\Delta
m=12$ GeV and {\it d}) $\Delta m=16$ GeV after
$C3 + m(\ell\bar{\ell})<m_{\widetilde\chi^0_2}-m_{\widetilde\chi^0_1}$ cuts.
We also list the total
background in each frame in case the reader wishes to estimate the statistical
significance of the signal for different choices of integrated luminosity.
\label{fig:reachC4}}
\end{figure}
In Fig. \ref{fig:reach}, we translate the results of Fig.~\ref{fig:reachC4}
into the standard $m_{\widetilde\chi^0_2}$ vs. $\Delta m$ plane. We also show the region
excluded by LEP2 chargino searches (gray region).
Also shown is current 95\%CL exclusion region (labelled ATLAS) along
with the projections of what searches at the HL-LHC would probe at the
95\%CL \cite{Canepa:2020ntc}: ATLA (soft-lepton A) and CMS (soft-lepton B).
We see that the reach that we obtain
compares well with the corresponding projections by the ATLAS and CMS
collaborations. Our focus here has been on higgsino mass gaps $\lesssim
20-25$~GeV, expected in natural SUSY models. For larger mass gaps, the
search strategy explored in this paper becomes less effective because of
increased backgrounds from $t\bar{t}$, $WWj$ and other SM processes, and
the reach contours begin to turn over. In this case, it may be best to
search for higgsinos via the hard multilepton events, without the need
for a QCD jet.
Before closing this section, we note that we have only considered
physics backgrounds in our analysis. The ATLAS collaboration has,
however, reported that a significant portion of the background comes
from fake leptons, both $e$ and $\mu$. Accounting for these
detector-dependent backgrounds (which may well be sensitive to the
HL-LHC environment as well as upgrades to the detectors) require data
driven methods which are beyond the scope of our study. We point out,
however, that the reader can roughly gauge the impact of the fakes on
the contours shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:reach} using the curves in
Fig.~\ref{fig:reachC4}. For instance, if the fakes increase the
background by a factor $f$, the cross section necessary to maintain the
same significance for the signal would have to increase by $\sqrt{f}$;
i.e. if the fakes doubled the background, for $\Delta m$=8~GeV, the HL-LHC
discovery limit would reduce by $\sim 25$~GeV.
In the same vein, the reach would be increased by $\sim 30$~GeV
if the data from the two experiments could be combined.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.4\textheight]{mz2_dm_all.png}
\caption{The projected $5\sigma$ reach and 95\% CL exclusion contours
for LHC14 with 300 and 3000 fb$^{-1}$ in the $m_{\widetilde\chi^0_2}$ vs. $\Delta
m$ plane after $C4$ cuts. Also shown is the current 95\% CL exclusion
(ATLAS) and the projected 95\% CL exclusions from two different
analyses for the HL-LHC \cite{Canepa:2020ntc}.
\label{fig:reach}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclude}
It is generally agreed that naturalness in supersymmetric models
requires the SUSY preserving higgsino mass $\mu$ rather nearby to the
weak scale, because it enters Eq.~(\ref{eq:mzsq}) at tree level. The
soft SUSY breaking parameters, however, may be well beyond the TeV scale without
compromising naturalness as long as $m_{H_u}^2$ is driven to small
negative values at the weak scale. Indeed, a subset of us
\cite{land0,land1,land2,land3} have advocated that anthropic
considerations on the string landscape favour large values of soft SUSY
breaking parameters, but not so large that their contributions to the
weak scale are too big. Such a scenario favours $m_h\sim 125$ GeV with
sparticles other than higgsinos well beyond HL-LHC reach. While {\it
stringy naturalness} provides strong motivation for higgsino pair
production reactions as the most promising avenue to SUSY discovery at
LHC14, the phenomenological analysis presented in this paper applies to
any MSSM framework with a compressed spectrum of light higgsinos.
We have re-examined the prospects for a search for soft
opposite-sign/same flavor dilepton plus $\not\!\!\!{E_T}$ from higgsino pair
production in association with a hard monojet at LHC with $\sqrt{s}=14$ TeV.
The dileptons originate from $\widetilde\chi^0_2\rightarrow\ell\bar{\ell}\widetilde\chi^0_1$ so that the
dilepton pair has a distinctive kinematic edge with
$m(\ell\bar{\ell})<m_{\widetilde\chi^0_2}-m_{\widetilde\chi^0_1}$, while the monojet serves as the
event trigger.
We examined several signal benchmark cases, and compared the signal
against SM backgrounds from $t\bar{t}$, $\tau\bar{\tau}j$, $WWj$,
$W\ell\bar{\ell}j$ and $Z\ell\bar{\ell}j$ production. The ditau mass
reconstruction $m_{\tau\tau}^2$, valid in the collinear tau decay
approximation for decays of relativistic taus, has been used to reduce
the dominant background from $Z(\rightarrow\tau\bar{\tau})+j$ production.
However, significant ditau background remains even after the
$m_{\tau\tau}^2<0$ cut. In this
paper, we proposed a new set of angular cuts which eliminate ditau
backgrounds much more efficiently at relatively low cost to
signal. Additional analysis cuts allow for substantial rejection of
$t\bar{t}$ and other SM backgrounds. In the end, we expect higgsino pair
production to manifest itself as a low end excess in the
$m(\ell\bar{\ell})$ mass distribution with a cutoff at the $\Delta
m=m_{\widetilde\chi^0_2}-m_{\widetilde\chi^0_1}$ value, with a tail extending to larger values of
$m(\ell\bar{\ell})$ when the two leptons originate in different
higgsinos. Using the so-called {\bf C3}$+m(\ell\bar{\ell})$ cuts, we
evaluated the reach of LHC14 for 300 and 3000 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated
luminosity.
Our final result is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:reach}. We see that the reach
is strongest for larger $\Delta m$ values up to $15-20$ GeV but drops
off for smaller mass gaps.
Mass gaps smaller than about 4 GeV occur only for very heavy gauginos
that fail to satisfy our naturalness criterion,
while higgsinos with an uncompressed spectrum
would have large mixing with the electroweak gauginos and can be more
effectively searched for via other channels. We see from
Fig.~\ref{fig:reach} that the HL-LHC with 3000 fb$^{-1}$ gives a
$5\sigma$ discovery reach to $m_{\widetilde\chi^0_2}\sim 240$ GeV, with the 95\% CL
exclusion limit extending to $\sim 325$ GeV for $\Delta m\sim 16$
GeV. Nonetheless, a significant portion of natural parameter space with
$\mu\sim m_{\widetilde\chi^0_2}\sim 200-350$ GeV and $\Delta m\sim 4-10$ GeV may
still be able to evade HL-LHC detection. Given the importance of this
search, we urge our experimental colleagues to see if it is possible to
reliably extend the lepton acceptance to yet lower $p_T$ values, or
increase $b$-quark rejection even beyond 80-85\% that has already been
achieved.
{\it Acknowledgements:}
This work has been performed as part of a contribution to the Snowmass 2022
workshop.
This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Energy,
Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences Energy Frontier Research
Centers program under Award Number DE-SC-0009956 and U.S. Department of Energy
Grant DE-SC-0017647. The work of DS was supported by the Ministry of Science
and Technology (MOST) of Taiwan under Grant No. 110-2811-M-002-574.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
A characteristic feature of the binary fission process is the presence of two excited nuclear fragments moving antiparallel to one another at moderate velocities, $\approx 0.05 \ c$. The two fragments quickly de-excite by emission of neutrons, followed by gamma rays in the continuum, and finally gamma rays in the discrete-level region until the ground state, or a long lived isomeric state, is reached. Over the past few years, a renewed interest in the fission reaction was sparked by new measurements and refined theoretical models~\cite{Travar2021, Wilson2021, Schmidt2011, Talou2018}. Of particular interest are the event-by-event correlations between the fission fragment properties.
Neutron emission is relatively easy to separate between the two fragments. The evaporated neutrons have velocities comparable in magnitude to the speed of the fragments, resulting in strong kinematic focusing of the emission along the fission axis. By analysing both energy and direction of the neutrons and the fragments, it is possible to determine with decent accuracy which fragment emitted each neutron on an event-by-event case~\cite{Signarbieux1972, nifeneckergroups, Gavron1971}. Similarly, the discrimination of discrete gamma rays can be performed by gating on specific known transitions of nuclei~\cite{Wilson2021}. The same is not possible in general for statisical gamma-rays in the continuum. However, as shown by Maier-Leibniz~\cite{MaierLeibniz1965} and Pleasonton \textit{et al.}~\cite{Pleasonton1972}, the gamma-ray emission can be analysed using statistical methods such as Maier-Leibniz Doppler-Shift (ML-DS) technique.
The (ML-DS) technique has been successfully applied successfully in several experimental investigations of fission, including Refs.~\cite{Pleasonton1972, SchmidFabian1988, Wang2016, Travar2021}. However, given the recent interest in fragment correlations (see Refs~\cite{Wilson2021, Vogt2021, Bulgac2020, Schmidt2011}) we think it is important to present techniques capable of determining correlations between gamma-ray emission from the two fragments. In this paper, we will show that a simple generalization to the ML-DS technique allows the experimenter to separate the second order moments of the gamma-ray distribution without the need of changing the experimental apparatus.
\section{Overview of Technique}
\label{sec:overview}
The ML-DS technique has been applied in several experiments and several variants of the techniques exist. In its original formulation~\cite{MaierLeibniz1965, Pleasonton1972}, the method only employs a single gamma ray detector. One of the main recent variants of this technique, from Travar \textit{et al.}~\cite{Travar2021}, used two detectors in order to eliminate the effect of a fragment detector asymmetry. This version is briefly discussed here.
Let $N^L$ and $N^H$ be the random variables describing the gamma-ray multiplicities from the light and heavy fragments, respectively. Let us then take two detectors placed along the line of motion of the fragments, such that the light fragment flies in the direction of detector $I$ and the heavy fragment flies in the direction of detector $II$. Let $D^I$ and $D^{II}$ be the random variables describing the measured gamma-ray multiplicity distributions in detectors $I$ and $II$, respectively. Assuming that each gamma ray is independently detected , and thus the system response can be modeled as a binomial response, we have
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
D^I &=& \hat{B}(\epsilon_{L+})N^L + \hat{B}(\epsilon_{H-})N^H \\
D^{II} &=& \hat{B}(\epsilon_{L-})N^L + \hat{B}(\epsilon_{H+})N^H
\end{align}
\label{eq:randD}
\end{subequations}
where $\hat{B}(\epsilon)$ is the binomial response operator that models the effect of a system efficiency in measuring multiplicities, and the Doppler-corrected detection efficiency
\begin{equation*}
\epsilon_{F\pm} = \epsilon (1 \pm 2 \beta_F) \ ,
\end{equation*}
is given in terms of the detection efficiency $\epsilon$ of each detector to an isotropic source and the speed $\beta_F$, as a ratio of the speed of light, of the fragment $F = L,H$ emitting the radiation. Taking the mean of Eq.~\eqref{eq:randD}, we find the well-known formula for inferring the mean gamma-ray emission~\cite{Travar2021}
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\langle N^L \rangle & = & \frac{ (1+ 2 \beta_H)\langle D^{I} \rangle - (1 - 2 \beta_H) \langle D^{II} \rangle}{4 \epsilon (\beta_L + \beta_H)} \\
\langle N^H \rangle & = & \frac{ (1 + 2 \beta_L)\langle D^{II} \rangle - (1 - 2 \beta_L) \langle D^{I} \rangle}{4 \epsilon (\beta_L + \beta_H)} \ .
\end{align}
\label{eq:meanEmit}
\end{subequations}
Eq.~\eqref{eq:meanEmit} is the conventional ML-DS technique. We now extend its use by obtaining the covariance between the emitting sources. Analysing the second order moments of Eq.~\eqref{eq:randD} distributions, we find that they are related to the emitted multiplicity distribution by the following
\begin{equation}
\begin{bmatrix}
\Sigma^2(D^I) \\
\Sigma^2(D^{II}) \\
\text{cov}(D^I, D^{II})
\end{bmatrix}
=
\begin{bmatrix}
\epsilon_{L+}^2 & \epsilon_{H-}^2 & 2 \epsilon_{L+} \epsilon_{H-} \\
\epsilon_{L-}^2 & \epsilon_{H+}^2 & 2 \epsilon_{L-} \epsilon_{H+} \\
\epsilon_{L+} \epsilon_{L-} & \epsilon_{H-} \epsilon_{H+} & \epsilon_{L+}\epsilon_{H+} + \epsilon_{L-}\epsilon_{H-}
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
\sigma^2(N^L) \\
\sigma^2(N^H) \\
\text{cov}(N^L,N^L)
\end{bmatrix} \ ,
\label{eq:matLin}
\end{equation}
where we have introduced the reduced variances,
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\Sigma^2(D^I) &=& \sigma^2(D^I) - \langle N^L \rangle \epsilon_{L+} (1 -\epsilon_{L+}) -\langle N^H \rangle \epsilon_{H-} (1 -\epsilon_{H-}) \\
\Sigma^2(D^{II}) &=& \sigma^2(D^{II}) - \langle N^L \rangle \epsilon_{L-} (1 -\epsilon_{L-}) - \langle N^H \rangle \epsilon_{H+} (1 -\epsilon_{H+}) \ .
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The reduced variance has a physical meaning. We subtract the expected variance introduced by the binomial operator from the variance observed in the detectors. This subtraction can be understood in terms of removing the noise associated to an information channel, i.e., the binomial response. The mean emitted multiplicities appearing in the reduced variances can be determined using Eq.~\eqref{eq:meanEmit}.
After inverting the matrix equation in Eq.~\eqref{eq:matLin}, we obtain an expression for the covariance in the emission from the two fragments
\begin{equation}
\text{cov}(N^L, N^H) = \frac{2 \text{cov} \left(D^I, D^{II} \right) (1 + 4 \beta_H \beta_L ) - \left[ (1 + 2 \beta_H ) (1 - 2 \beta_L) \Sigma^2(D^I) +(1- 2 \beta_H ) (1 + 2 \beta_L) \Sigma^2(D^{II}) \right]}{16 \epsilon ^2 (\beta_L + \beta_H)^2} \ .
\label{eq:varD}
\end{equation}
We note that Eq.~\eqref{eq:varD} represents the difference of two factors similar in size, which is then amplified by the division of the very small factor in the denominator. For this reason, the equation has a very slow convergence and requires high statistics. Numerical analysis using reasonable values for the emission, efficiencies, and speed of the fragments, only converge after approximately $1\times 10^8$ events, thus requiring extremely long measurement times.
A factor that affects the determination of the covariance, and to a lesser extent the mean, is the capability of the detector of measuring the multiplicity. If only detectors capable of measuring a single interaction per event are used, both the mean and the covariance expression require that the probability of two incident particles on the detector be much smaller than 1. This restriction further increases the measurement time. To increase the efficiency of the system, it is possible to place detectors off of the fragment-motion axis. However, the efficiency of each detector would have to be modeled independently because the aberration of gamma-rays, apart for points along the fission axis, is in general dependent on the angular distribution of gamma rays in the inertial frame of the fragment.
Notwithstanding these limitations, as far as we know Eq.~\eqref{eq:varD} represents the only technique capable of measuring the covariance between the emission of gamma rays by two sources moving at relatively small speeds. This technique represents the missing piece in the experimental analysis of fission emission correlations. Together with the techniques discussed for separating the emission of neutrons and discrete gamma rays, this technique will allow to determine the correlations in the initial conditions of the fission fragments and gain a deeper understanding of the fission process.
\acknowledgments
This work was funded in-part by the Consortium for Monitoring, Technology, and Verification under Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration award number DE-NA0003920.
|
\section{Introduction}
\begin{deluxetable*}{ccccccl}
\tablecaption{Target properties and {\it XMM-Newton}\, observations.}
\label{table:sample}
\tablehead{
\colhead{Target} &
\colhead{R.A.} &
\colhead{Dec.} &
\colhead{$z$} &
\colhead{$\mu$\tablenotemark{a}} &
\colhead{Separation\tablenotemark{b}} &
\colhead{Notes}}
\decimals
\startdata
GraL J0659+1629 & 06:59:04.1 & +16:29:09 & 3.083 & 37.6 & 6\farcs8 & quad - \citetalias{PaperVI} \\
GraL J0818$-$2613 & 08:18:28.3 & $-$26:13:25 & 2.164 & 100.1 & 6\farcs2 & quad - \citetalias{PaperVI} \\
GraL J1131$-$4419 & 11:31:00.0 & $-$44:20:00 & 1.090 & 70.4 & 1\farcs6 & quad - \citetalias{PaperIV} \\
GraL J1651$-$0417 & 16:51:05.3 & $-$04:17:25 & 1.451 & 7.3 & 10\farcs1 & quad - \citetalias{PaperVI} \\
GraL J1719+1515 & 17:19:22.6 & +15:15:46 & 1.716 & \nodata & 1\farcs1 & double - \citetalias{PaperV} \\
GraL J1817+2729 & 18:17:30.8 & +27:29:40 & 3.074 & 19.0 & 1\farcs8 & quad - \citetalias{PaperVI} \\
GraL J2017+6204 & 20:17:49.1 & +62:04:43 & 1.724 & 14.7 & 0\farcs7 & quad - \citetalias{PaperVI} \\
GraL J2103$-$0850 & 21:03:29.0 & $-$08:50:49 & 2.455 & 13.3 & 1\farcs0 & quad - \citetalias{PaperVI} \\
GraL J2200+1448 & 22:00:15.6 & +14:49:00 & 1.115 & \nodata & 2\farcs5 & double - \citetalias{PaperV} \\
\hline
SDSS J1141$-$0436 & 11:41:03.9 & $-$04:36:51 & 1.647 & \nodata & \nodata & unlensed - \citetalias{PaperVI} \\
\enddata
\tablenotetext{a}{Adopted magnification based on ${\rm SIS}+\gamma$ models presented in \citetalias{PaperVI} (Quads).}
\tablenotetext{b}{For the quads, separation corresponds to the maximum separation.}
\end{deluxetable*}
Strong gravitational lensing, wherein a distant object is magnified and possibly resolved into multiple images by a massive foreground structure, is an extremely valuable tool for studying the universe (see \citealt{2010ARA&A..48...87T} for a review). Not only do strong lenses enable mass reconstruction from the scales of galaxy clusters \citep[e.g.,][]{2018ApJ...863..154P} to the scales of galaxy subhaloes \citep[e.g.,][]{2012Natur.481..341V}, but strong lensing measurements have enabled tests of fundamental physics and cosmology. Using spatially-resolved kinematic measurements of lensed arcs, \citet{2018Sci...360.1342C} tested the predictions of general relativity in the strong-gravity regime. Furthermore, a number of works have exploited time delays between individual images to calculate $H_0$ \citep[e.g.,][]{2017MNRAS.468.2590S, 2018MNRAS.481.1115C, 2018ApJ...853L..31V}.
Of particular importance in the strong lensing regime are background quasars lensed by galaxy-scale masses. Quasar microlensing directly constrains the stellar mass fraction at the position of lensed images, enabling kinematics-independent derivations of dark matter fractions in galaxies \citep{2011ApJ...731...71B, 2014MNRAS.439.2494O}. Furthermore, using flux measurements of lensed quasars to model the mass distribution of lensing galaxies, works including those of \citet{2020MNRAS.492L..12G} and \citet{2020MNRAS.492.5314N} have constrained the characteristics of dark matter structures. And, building on the work of \citet{2004ApJ...610...69K}, which showed that microlensing time delays can enable a measurement of lensed source sizes, multiple works have exploited lensing to measure the properties of quasars \citep[e.g.,][]{2005MNRAS.359..561W, 2007ApJ...661...19P}. Due to the vast utility of these sources, lensed quasars have remained compelling targets for discovery.
While the first lensed quasars were discovered by serendipity \citep{1979Natur.279..381W}, exploiting the full potential of these systems requires both large samples and systematic searches. To that end, the \textit{Gaia} Gravitational Lenses working group (GraL) has exploited the exquisite astrometric precision of the \textit{Gaia} mission \citep{2016A&A...595A...1G} to identify candidate lensed quasars \citep[][Paper I]{PaperI}. \citet[][Paper II]{PaperII} expanded on this work by creating an exhaustive list of known quasars and integrating in the sub-milliarcsecond astrometry of \textit{Gaia} Data Release 2 \citep{2018A&A...616A...1G}. Following refinement of the candidate selection algorithms \citep[][Paper III]{PaperIII} and a demonstration of the potential for \textit{Gaia} observations alone to constrain mass models \citep[][Paper IV]{PaperIV}, \citet[][Paper V]{PaperV} and \citet[][Paper VI]{PaperVI} spectroscopically confirmed a set of doubly and quadruply imaged quasars, respectively. All told, over two dozen lensed quasars have been identified and confirmed by GraL, which is one of several ongoing searches for lensed quasars \citep{2017MNRAS.465.4325O,2018MNRAS.473L.116O,2018MNRAS.479.4345A,2018MNRAS.481.1041T,2018MNRAS.479.5060L,2019MNRAS.483.4242L,2020MNRAS.494.3491L,2019A&A...632A..56K,2020ApJ...899...30L}.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\vspace{5mm}
\includegraphics{showcase_image.pdf}
\caption{\small EPIC observations of GraL J0659$+$1629. {\bf Left}: imaging observations in the combined three EPIC cameras, covering 0.3--8.0 keV. This image is centered on GraL J0659$+$1629 and has been smoothed with a Gaussian kernel of width $\sigma=4\farcs0$ and binned to pixels of width $1\farcs75$. {\bf Right}: Combined background-subtracted spectra from the three EPIC instruments, binned for plotting purposes, overlaid on the best-fit model and its $1\sigma$ uncertainties (yellow). More detailed versions of this figure for the entire sample are presented in the Appendix in Figures \ref{fig:apx0659} and \ref{fig:apx_upperlimits}.
}\label{fig:DemoFig}
\end{figure*}
As new gravitational lens systems are discovered, they become intriguing targets for X-ray studies, enabling discoveries beyond that of optical investigations. In particular, as noted by \citet{2012ApJ...744..111P}, a quiescent lensing galaxy does not contribute a meaningful amount of X-ray flux, allowing for improvements in mass modeling. Utilizing the inherent ability to obtain spectral information from each resolved image, \citet{2015ApJ...805..161W}, building on measurements at lower redshifts \citep{2014Natur.507..207R, 2014ApJ...792L..19R}, demonstrated the ability of X-ray observations of lensed quasars to measure black hole spins in the $z>3$ universe. Differences between X-ray and optical light curves have enabled multiple measurements of the size of the X-ray emitting region in lensed quasars \citep[e.g,.][]{2008ApJ...689..755M, 2010ApJ...709..278D, 2013ApJ...769...53M}. In addition, while distant quasars can still be well-studied from optical to radio wavelengths \citep[e.g.,][]{2021ApJ...909...80B}, even luminous quasars with deep X-ray observations are so photon limited as to preclude all but the most basic of spectral analyses \citep[e.g.,][]{2019ApJ...887..171C}; as such, the boost in flux caused by lensing that enables more detailed studies of individual objects is critical in the X-ray regime for exploring the $z>3$ universe.
Of particular interest are microlensing events when lensed objects touch a caustic. These caustic crossing events have been previously observed to produce magnifications in excess of $\times2000$ \citep{2018NatAs...2..334K}. While such extreme magnification events are uncommon and generally associated with the macrocaustics of galaxy clusters \citep{2019A&A...625A..84D}, even smaller-magnification microlensing events could enable studies of distant quasars at a level of detail otherwise only obtainable in the local universe \citep[e.g.,][]{2018MNRAS.475.1925T}. As the strength of a caustic crossing event increases with decreasing source size, the relatively small scale of X-ray emitting regions makes this energy band ideal for exploiting these incidents. \citet{2011ApJ...738...96M} found that the median Einstein radius crossing time for a sample of 87 lensed quasars, which is equivalent to the rate of caustic crossing events, was once per 20 years per lensed image. Due to the rarity of these events, analyses often rely on photometric monitoring of low-magnification events \citep[e.g.,][]{2018A&A...609A..71C, 2018ApJ...869..132F} or of statistical analyses of higher-magnification events \citep[e.g.,][]{2018NatAs...2..324R}. However, with time-domain surveys such as the Zwicky Transient Facility \citep{2019PASP..131a8002B} providing deep coverage of large fractions of the sky at near-daily cadence, we may soon be able to detect caustic-crossing events early and often enough to enable target of opportunity observations. Preliminary X-ray observations are necessary to prioritize these optically-selected events for X-ray follow-up.
In this article we present the X-ray observations and analysis of a subset of the \textit{Gaia} GraL sample. The paper is structured as follows: we present our observations and their reduction in Section \ref{sec:observations}, provide the results in Section \ref{sec:results}, discuss these results in the broader context of ongoing studies in Section \ref{sec:discussion}, and summarize this effort in Section \ref{sec:summary}. Throughout this work, we adopt a flat cosmology with $H_0 = 70\,\textrm{km\,s}^{-1}\,\textrm{Mpc}^{-1}$, $\Omega_M = 0.3$, and $\Omega_\Lambda = 0.7$. All uncertainties are given at the $1\sigma$ level and all upper limits correspond to $3\sigma$ values. Except where otherwise stated, all luminosities presented in this work are not corrected for the lensing magnification.
\section{X-Ray Observations and Analysis}\label{sec:observations}
We proposed a snapshot survey using {\it XMM-Newton}\ to observe a sample of 19 lensed quasars from GraL (PropID: 086462, PI: Stern), though this survey was accepted as C Priority, and so only a random sub-sample was observed. In total, ten new quasars were observed in this program, the details of which are given in Table \ref{table:sample}. One unlensed quasar -- SDSS J1141$-$0436 -- was included in this sample. Though initial reductions of follow-up spectroscopy suggested a lensed quasar, subsequent analysis revealed this source to be an asterism composed of a Galactic star and a quasar \citepalias{PaperVI}.
Each target was observed for around 10 ks with the European Photon Imaging Camera (EPIC) on {\it XMM-Newton}\ \citep{2001A&A...365L...1J}, consisting of two MOS cameras \citep{2001A&A...365L..27T} and a pn CCD camera \citep{2001A&A...365L..18S}. Sources were positioned at the standard EPIC-pn prime position, ensuring they were away from pn chip edges. Camera readout was conducted in full frame mode, and we used the thin optical blocking filter.
\begin{deluxetable*}{clcDrrrc}
\tablecaption{Observations and Fluxes}
\label{table:fluxes}
\tablehead{
\colhead{} &
\colhead{} &
\colhead{} &
\twocolhead{ } &
\multicolumn{3}{c}{Count Rate\tablenotemark{a}} &
\colhead{} \\
\colhead{Target} &
\colhead{OBSID} &
\colhead{Start Date} &
\twocolhead{Exp.} &
\colhead{MOS1} &
\colhead{MOS2} &
\colhead{pn} &
\colhead{$F_{0.3-8.0}$} \\
\colhead{} &
\colhead{} &
\colhead{(YYYY-mm-dd)} &
\twocolhead{(ks)} &
\multicolumn{3}{c}{(${\rm ct}\ {\rm ks}^{-1}$)} &
\colhead{($10^{-14}\ {\rm erg}\ {\rm cm}^{-2}\ {\rm s}^{-1}$})}
\decimals
\startdata
GraL J0659+1629 & 0864620401 & 2021-Apr-07 & 16.7 & $55.5 \pm 2.7 $& $44.8 \pm 2.4 $& $173 \pm 11 $& $ 56.3^{+ 3.2}_{- 3.0} $\\
GraL J0818$-$2613 & 0864620501 & 2020-Oct-23 & 8.5 & $26.5 \pm 2.0 $& $21.7 \pm 1.9 $& $60.8 \pm 4.5 $& $ 38.0^{+ 4.3}_{- 4.0} $\\
GraL J1131$-$4419 & 0864620701\tablenotemark{b,c} & 2020-Dec-11 & 16.1 & $33.1 \pm 3.7 $& $32.1 \pm 3.3 $& \nodata & $ 33.2^{+ 4.7}_{- 3.5} $\\
GraL J1651$-$0417 & 0864621301\tablenotemark{b,c} & 2021-Mar-17 & 17.4 & $36.0 \pm 2.1 $& $39.4 \pm 2.1 $& \nodata & $ 42.1^{+ 2.6}_{- 2.7} $\\
GraL J1719+1515 & 0864622501\tablenotemark{c} & 2021-Mar-02 & 11.0 & $ 8.9 \pm 1.5 $& $13.4 \pm 1.7 $& $39.4 \pm 4.5 $& $ 11.8^{+ 1.8}_{- 1.4} $\\
GraL J1817+2729 & 0864621501\tablenotemark{b,c} & 2020-Oct-24 & 19.5 & $< 6.1$ & $< 4.4$ & \nodata & $<17.30$\\
GraL J2017+6204 & 0864621701 & 2020-Jul-09 & 15.3 & $ 6.9 \pm 0.9 $& $ 5.7 \pm 0.8 $& $17.6 \pm 2.3 $& $ 11.8^{+ 2.1}_{- 1.8} $\\
GraL J2103$-$0850 & 0864621901\tablenotemark{c} & 2020-Nov-05 & 14.2 & $11.5 \pm 1.4 $& $12.6 \pm 1.3 $& \nodata & $ 15.5^{+ 2.0}_{- 2.1} $\\
GraL J2200+1448 & 0864622001\tablenotemark{c} & 2020-Nov-17 & 12.3 & $ 6.7 \pm 1.5 $& $ 8.4 \pm 1.4 $& \nodata & $8.59^{+1.74}_{-1.45} $\\
\hline
SDSS J1141$-$0436 & 0864620801\tablenotemark{b,c} & 2020-Dec-25 & 15.7 & $<10.9$ & $< 8.2$ & \nodata & $<16.52$\\
\enddata
\tablenotetext{a}{Background-subtracted count rate from 0.3--8.0 keV.}
\tablenotetext{b}{Affected by radiation.}
\tablenotemark{c}{pn experienced full scientific buffer during observation.}
\end{deluxetable*}
Observations were conducted from 2020 July to 2021 April; details of these observations are given in Table \ref{table:fluxes}. We note that there are three additional OBSIDs associated with our program that are not included in this analysis. Two of these observations (0864622301 and 0864622401) were conducted with the EPIC filter wheel in the closed position due to enhanced radiation at the start of a revolution, while the third (0864621401) was affected by radiation at such a significant amount as to be unusable. Several other observations were also affected by radiation, as indicated in Table \ref{table:fluxes}, but at a level that still allowed the data to be usable. We also note those sources for which the pn camera experienced a full scientific buffer. Normally caused by a high radiation background, the full scientific buffer causes the pn camera to switch to counting mode, thereby no longer recording scientific data.
We reduced and processed these observations using the Scientific Analysis System (SAS, \citealt{2004ASPC..314..759G}) v19.0.0. To standardize our analysis, we used the \texttt{xmmextractor} script to produce event files and extract spectra. As part of this analysis, we adopted standard analysis flags (\texttt{PATTERN}${\leq}12$ for MOS and \texttt{PATTERN}${\leq}4$ for pn) and good time intervals (\texttt{RATE}${\leq}0.35$ for MOS and \texttt{RATE}${\leq}0.4$ for pn). Source spectra were extracted in \texttt{xmmextractor}-selected apertures, while background spectra were extracted from off-source circular apertures of varying size.
Spectral fitting was performed using the python implementation of \texttt{XSPEC} v12.11.1 \citep{1996ASPC..101...17A}. We used a simple absorbed power-law model to fit our sources (\texttt{phabs}$\times$\texttt{powerlaw}). For all targets, we adopt a Galactic neutral Hydrogen column density, $N_{\rm H}$, based on the \ion{H}{1} HI4PI Survey \citep{2016A&A...594A.116H}. Both the normalization of the power law and the photon index, $\Gamma$, were free to vary. We fixed the spectra of all three EPIC cameras to the same normalization, as studies with significantly deeper spectra have found that cross-normalization terms are effectively unity \citep[e.g.,][]{2014A&A...564A..75R, 2015MNRAS.453.3953L}. We binned our spectra to a minimum of only one count per bin, and we therefore used the modified $C$-statistic to evaluate best-fits and errors \citep{1979ApJ...228..939C, 1979ApJ...230..274W}.
Additionally, we fit each source including an absorption component at the quasar redshift (\texttt{phabs}$\times$\texttt{powerlaw}$\times$\texttt{zphabs}). Two sources have a redshifted column density, $N_{H,z}$, that is not consistent with 0; for the other objects, we only report the results of the simpler fits. These two sources -- GraL J0818$-$2613 and GraL J2017$+$6204 -- were previously identified in \citetalias{PaperVI} as having optical spectral signatures of absorption. GraL J0818$-$2613 has a red continuum and weak Ly$\alpha$ emission, while GraL J2017$+$6204's spectrum is reddened with broad absorption line (BAL) features. The only other quasar in our sample with optical features of absorption is GraL J1817$+$2729, which is not strongly detected in our observations.
\begin{deluxetable*}{cccDcccc}
\tablecaption{Mid-IR luminosities and X-ray properties of the sample.}
\label{table:xray_fits}
\tablehead{
\colhead{Target} &
\colhead{$\log \nu L_{\rm 6 \mu m}$} &
\colhead{$N_{\rm H}$} &
\twocolhead{norm\tablenotemark{a}} &
\colhead{$\Gamma$} &
\colhead{$N_{\rm H,z}$} &
\colhead{$\log L_{2-10}$} &
\colhead{$C$/DOF}\\
\colhead{} &
\colhead{(${\rm erg}\ {\rm s}^{-1}$)} &
\colhead{($10^{20}\, {\rm cm}^{-2}$)} &
\twocolhead{($10^{-5}$)} &
\colhead{} &
\colhead{($10^{22}\, {\rm cm}^{-2}$)} &
\colhead{(${\rm erg}\ {\rm s}^{-1}$)} &
\colhead{} }
\decimals
\startdata
GraL J0659$+$1629 & $46.81^{+0.03}_{-0.04}$ & 11.60 & $12.83^{+0.63}_{-0.65}$ & $1.87^{+0.07}_{-0.07}$ & \nodata & $46.44^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ & 831.18/937 \\
GraL J0818$-$2613 & $47.54 \pm 0.01$ & 13.40 & $6.76^{+2.92}_{-1.92}$ & $1.42^{+0.26}_{-0.25}$ & $8.07^{+4.21}_{-3.64}$ & $45.89^{+0.11}_{-0.10}$ & 520.04/623 \\
GraL J1131$-$4419 & $45.97 \pm 0.02$ & 4.86 & $7.14^{+0.79}_{-0.83}$ & $1.96^{+0.20}_{-0.19}$ & \nodata & $45.09^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$ & 282.68/322 \\
GraL J1651$-$0417 & $45.74^{+0.08}_{-0.10}$ & 9.52 & $9.31^{+0.53}_{-0.63}$ & $1.88^{+0.09}_{-0.09}$ & \nodata & $45.53^{+0.02}_{-0.03}$ & 568.31/682 \\
GraL J1719$+$1515 & $46.20 \pm 0.02$ & 5.44 & $2.63^{+0.28}_{-0.30}$ & $1.99^{+0.17}_{-0.17}$ & \nodata & $45.13^{+0.05}_{-0.05}$ & 290.77/278 \\
GraL J1817$+$2729 & $47.07 \pm 0.02$ & 8.43 & $<1.59$ & \nodata & \nodata & $<45.56$ & \nodata \\
GraL J2017$+$6204 & $46.22 \pm 0.02$ & 13.40 & $2.53^{+2.81}_{-1.19}$ & $1.49^{+0.52}_{-0.44}$ & $10.96^{+9.00}_{-6.50}$ & $45.24^{+0.21}_{-0.17}$ & 371.22/392 \\
GraL J2103$-$0850 & $46.76^{+0.03}_{-0.04}$ & 6.02 & $2.75^{+0.42}_{-0.31}$ & $1.68^{+0.17}_{-0.19}$ & \nodata & $45.57^{+0.05}_{-0.05}$ & 292.51/317 \\
GraL J2200$+$1448 & $45.17^{+0.09}_{-0.11}$ & 4.31 & $2.25^{+0.33}_{-0.39}$ & $2.43^{+0.36}_{-0.35}$ & \nodata & $44.46^{+0.12}_{-0.13}$ & 267.07/279 \\
\hline
SDSS J1141$-$0436 & $45.54^{+0.12}_{-0.16}$ & 3.05 & $<2.38$ & \nodata & \nodata & $<45.04$ & \nodata \\
\enddata
\tablenotetext{a}{Normalization of the \texttt{powerlaw} component, with units ${\rm photons}\ {\rm s}^{-1}\ {\rm cm}^{-2}\ {\rm keV}^{-1}$ at 1 keV.}
\end{deluxetable*}
We computed the uncertainties on fit parameters by measuring contours in the $C$ statistic. As noted by \citet{1979ApJ...228..939C}, $\Delta C$ behaves as $\Delta \chi^2$ when evaluating confidence intervals, so that the $1\sigma$ uncertainties include those fits where $\Delta C \leq 2.30$ \citep[or $\Delta C \leq 3.53$ for the three-component model, e.g.,][]{1976ApJ...208..177L}. Figure \ref{fig:DemoFig}, presenting GraL~J0659$+$1629, shows an example of our reduced data. The combined image from the three EPIC cameras are shown in the left, smoothed with a Gaussian kernel of width $\sigma=4\farcs0$ and with individual normalizations adjusted for presentation purposes. In the right, we show the background-subtracted combined count rate spectra from all three cameras, binned for plotting purposes. Horizontal bars show the source count rate, with thinner bars above and below corresponding to the $1\sigma$ uncertainties, using the methods of \citet{1986ApJ...303..336G}. The best fit model and its $1\sigma$ uncertainties were folded through the spectral responses with \texttt{XSPEC} and are plotted with the red line and yellow region, respectively. More detailed versions of this figure are presented for each quasar in our sample in the Appendix as Figures \ref{fig:apx0659} and \ref{fig:apx_upperlimits}.
\section{Results}\label{sec:results}
In this section we present the results of our analysis of the ten observed quasars. We first present the observed properties for the entire sample in \S~\ref{ssec:full_results}, including notes on specific parameters. Then, in \S~\ref{ssec:individuals}, we discuss individual quasars, including how results may be influenced by the observing conditions.
\subsection{Full Sample} \label{ssec:full_results}
We begin our analysis of these quasars with measurements of their flux. As with all results reported here, we do not attempt to differentiate the properties of individual point quasar images, as the {\it XMM-Newton}\ EPIC half energy width is ${\sim}15^{\prime\prime}$. One motivation for reporting flux values is to facilitate the planning of future observations of these sources in the event of a caustic crossing event. As these observations may be conducted with either \textit{Chandra} or {\it XMM-Newton}, we present flux values in the range of 0.3--8.0 keV, which is a suitable broad baseline for both observatories. Total energy fluxes, in units of ${\rm erg}\ {\rm cm}^{-2}\ {\rm s}^{-1}$, are given in Table \ref{table:fluxes} for all sources. These flux values are derived in \texttt{XSPEC} from the best-fitting model fits. For those quasars that were not well-fit, $3\sigma$ upper limits are given instead. We also report the background-subtracted source count rates in Table \ref{table:fluxes}. Upper limits are again given for rates not detected at a $3\sigma$ level, and we do not report values for sources observed for less than 1.5 ks in a camera.
Next, we present the fitted X-ray properties of these quasars. The normalization and photon index of each object's power law component is listed in Table \ref{table:xray_fits}. As with flux measurements, we present the upper limits on the normalization for the two quasars that were not detected. We also present the unobscured, rest-frame 2--10 keV luminosities. These model-derived luminosities assume the source is entirely composed of power-law emission in this energy band. For the two quasars that were well-fit by this model, we also include the constraints on the redshifted column density.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\vspace{5mm}
\includegraphics{Lir_Lx_plot.pdf}
\caption{Rest-frame, absorption-corrected 2–10~keV X-ray luminosity against rest-frame $6 \mu$m luminosity for the quasars analyzed in this work (orange), as well as a sample of archival lensed and unlensed AGN. Upper limits are indicated by downward pointing triangles. The X-ray to mid-infrared luminosity relation of \citet{Stern:15} is shown by the yellow line. For all lensed quasars, the dashed gray lines indicate their unmagnified luminosities; we assume a magnification of $\mu=5$ for all quasars without reported magnifications. The sources of archival values are described in the text.
}\label{fig:lx-lir}
\end{figure*}
Finally, we include the rest-frame 6 $\mu$m luminosity for each of these objects. Following, e.g., \citet{Stern:15}, we use photometry from the \textit{Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer} \citep[\textit{WISE};][]{2010AJ....140.1868W} and known redshifts from \citetalias{PaperIV}, \citetalias{PaperV}, and \citetalias{PaperVI} to calculate $\nu L_{6 \mu {\rm m}}$. For our entire sample, rest-frame 6 $\mu$m lies between the \textit{WISE} W3 (12 $\mu$m) and W4 (24 $\mu$m) channels, and we compute luminosities through linear interpolation of these values. IR luminosities are listed in Table \ref{table:xray_fits}. Unlike the X-ray measurements, which are expected to only have minimal contamination from the lensing galaxy, these values could potentially be slightly boosted in flux due to the contribution of the intervening galaxy. On the other hand, lensing preferentially occurs from more massive, i.e., early-type, galaxies, which have falling spectral energy distributions beyond rest-frame $H$-band, so the expectation is that the W3 and W4 flux from these systems is dominated by the lensed quasar emission.
We show the distribution of X-ray to IR luminosities for this sample in Figure \ref{fig:lx-lir}. For all lensed quasars, we also plot a magnification track, showing what these values would be were the quasar unlensed. For the quad lenses, we use the modeled magnification values from \citetalias{PaperVI} (listed in Table \ref{table:sample}), while we adopt a value of $\mu=5$ for the doubly-imaged lenses \citep[a typical value for these systems, e.g.,][]{2000ApJ...535..692K, 2016MNRAS.458....2R}. Also shown is the relation between X-ray and IR luminosities presented by \cite{Stern:15}. While linear at lower luminosities, this relation has a characteristic flattening above $\nu L_{6 \mu {\rm m}}{\sim}10^{44}\ {\rm erg}\ {\rm s}^{-1}$, believed to be caused by the X-ray emission saturating as the corona cools and softens with increasing thermal emission from the disk \citep[e.g.,][]{2013MNRAS.433.2485B}. We also include a sample of archival lensed quasars (\citealt{Just:07}, \citealt{Stern:20}, and Walton et al., submitted), local Seyferts \citep{Horst:08, Gandhi:09}, and luminous quasars \citep{Just:07}. For the lensed quasar sample, magnification tracks are for reported values if known, and are otherwise also assumed to be $\mu=5$.
\subsection{Notes on Individual Quasars} \label{ssec:individuals}
\subsubsection{GraL J0659+1629}
The highest redshift quasar in our sample, GraL J0659+1629 is also the X-ray brightest. Consequently, this quasar is the most X-ray luminous object in our sample by almost an order of magnitude. \citetalias{PaperVI} reported that there are no archival radio sources associated with this source, and the closest object in the 3 GHz Very Large Array Sky Survey Epoch 1 Quick Look catalog is almost two arcminutes away \citep{2020RNAAS...4..175G}. We have also carried out deeper VLA observations (D. Dobie et al., in prep.) and detected radio sources at the location of all four optical images with a typical flux density of ${\sim}90\ \mu{\rm Jy}$, comparable to the optical flux density reported by \citetalias{PaperVI}. This quasar therefore does not fit the standard definition of radio-loud, i.e. having a radio flux density greater than ten times its optical flux density \citep[e.g.,][]{1989AJ.....98.1195K}. Conversely, the most X-ray luminous quasars in the $z>3$ universe tend to be radio-loud quasars or blazars \citep[e.g.,][]{2021AstL...47..123K}. As such, this source presents a unique opportunity to study the radio-quiet $z>3$ quasar population in detail. We also note that the high observed X-ray luminosity is potentially indicative of a large magnification; as discussed by \citet{Stern:15}, X-ray luminosities tend to saturate above ${\sim}10^{44}\ {\rm erg}\ {\rm s}^{-1}$, so the observed value of $10^{46.4}\ {\rm erg}\ {\rm s}^{-1}$ is the result of either a very intrinsically luminous quasar or a large luminosity boost from lensing. From the modeling presented in \citetalias{PaperVI}, $\mu=37.6$, demonstrating the validity of this technique for identifying significantly lensed quasars.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\vspace{5mm}
\includegraphics{resolved_1651-0417.pdf}
\caption{MOS1+MOS2 0.3--8.0 keV image of GraL J1651$-$0417, smoothed with a Gaussian kernel of width $1\farcs5$. The position of the lensed sources, as identified by \citetalias{PaperVI}, are indicated by white dots. A small relative offset has been applied to the lensed image positions in this figure, in keeping with the expected pointing accuracy of {\it XMM-Newton}. Although the extended wings of these sources overlap, the most distant lensed source can nevertheless be resolved.
}\label{fig:resolved_source}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{GraL J1131--4419}
\citet{2000IAUC.7432....3V} report an X-ray source at this position in \textit{ROSAT} All-Sky Survey observations, 1RXS J113058.9$-$441949. While that catalog only reports a source count rate, the second \textit{ROSAT} all-sky source catalog \citep{2016A&A...588A.103B} includes properties from a power-law spectral fit. The reported absorption-corrected flux in the 0.1-2.4 keV band is $1.6 \times 10^{-11}\ {\rm erg}\ {\rm s}^{-1}\ {\rm cm}^{-2}$, which is almost two orders of magnitude brighter than what we report here. Some of this discrepancy can be explained by \citet{2016A&A...588A.103B} effectively adding in flux by correcting for absorption and the differences in energy bands. Further differences may be driven by the fitted power-law, which has a best-fit photon index of $\Gamma=3.07$ for the \textit{ROSAT} data. As discussed by \citet{2020ApJ...900..189C}, an excessively steep fit to the photon index caused by limited source counts can effect a larger calculated flux at soft energies. Yet $\Gamma$ cannot be entirely to blame, as the normalization, $n_{\rm 2RXS}=(9.4\pm5.4) \times 10^{-4}$, is still an order of magnitude larger than what we find in the more recent {\it XMM-Newton}\ observations.
We also note that another X-ray source is seen in the new X-ray imaging, roughly $50^{\prime\prime}$ to the north at the location of the high proper motion star 2MASS J11310001$-$4419088. However, it is unlikely that this is the source of the large \textit{ROSAT} flux for two reasons. First, although the separation of the two objects may lead to some flux contamination in the \textit{ROSAT} imaging \citep[see][]{2000A&AS..141..507B}, the star is fainter than GraL J1131$-$4419 in the new observations and much fainter than the earlier flux value. Second, 1RXS J113058.9$-$441949 is only $16^{\prime\prime}$ from GraL J1131$-$4419, consistent with the expected positional uncertainty \citet{2016A&A...588A.103B} report for \textit{ROSAT} coordinates. In contrast, the \textit{ROSAT} detection is $42^{\prime\prime}$ from 2MASS J11310001$-$4419088, implying that the star was not the source of the X-ray flux. There are no further bright X-ray objects within $5^\prime$ of the lensing system.
It is not clear what is responsible for such a change in the observed flux. While AGN are known to have intrinsic flux variations in X-rays \citep[e.g.,][]{2004ApJ...611...93P}, the observed dimming is too large to be explained by stochastic variability from changes in black hole fueling alone \citep{2018MNRAS.476L..34S}. Such a large dimming over 30 years (15 years in the source frame) could be attributed to the quasar being a changing-look AGN \citep{2020ApJ...898L...1R}, although this is difficult to assess without a spectrum from the earlier epoch. Serendipitous \textit{Swift} observations from 2009-2012 show no significant difference in the X-ray flux with what is found here ($f_{0.3-10.0\ {\rm keV}} = 6^{+1}_{-2}\times 10^{-13}\ {\rm erg}\ {\rm s}^{-1}\ {\rm cm}^{-2}$; \citealt{2020ApJS..247...54E}). Alternatively, the \textit{ROSAT} observations could have coincided with a microlensing event, although this, too, would be an extreme value for such an effect \citep{2012ApJ...755...24C}.
\subsubsection{GraL J1651--0417}
This quasar has the largest maximum separation of our sample, at $10\farcs1$ \citepalias{PaperVI}. The most separated lensed image is located to the NE, while the three other images in this quad are located in close proximity to each other. In the X-ray observations of this system, presented in Figure \ref{fig:resolved_source}, we find that the quasar is composed of two separate sources, with the second source appearing in the direction and at the separation expected of the NE image. Individual lens images have been resolved by {\it XMM-Newton}\ when the lensing object is a galaxy cluster \citep[e.g.,][]{2006A&A...454..493L}, but previous observations of sources with galaxy-scale lenses have heretofore been unresolved with this observatory \citep[e.g.,][]{2008A&A...490..989F, 2016ApJ...824...53C}. GraL J1651$-$0417 is thus a potentially interesting source for future X-ray studies with large effective area but worse-than-arcsecond resolution, such as X-IFU on \textit{Athena} \citep{2018SPIE10699E..1GB}.
\subsubsection{GraL J1817+2729}
Despite having one of the highest inferred 6 $\mu$m luminosities of our sample, this gravitational lens system, known as Hercules' Sword \citepalias{PaperVI}, is undetected in a nominal exposure of 19.5 ks. However, this observation was heavily affected by radiation; the pn camera experienced a full scientific buffer and was rendered unusable for our analysis, while the good time intervals for the MOS cameras only summed to 3.1 and 3.0 ks for MOS1 and MOS2, respectively. Nevertheless, the strict upper limits on measured count rates place this $z=3.07$ lensed quasar as the faintest target in our sample. From a mass model of the system, \citet{2019MNRAS.483.4242L} report a magnification for Hercules' Sword of $\mu=14.2^{+1.9}_{-0.9}$, similar to the value of $\mu=19.0$ derived from \citetalias{PaperVI}. Based on that, the unmagnified X-ray luminosity is, at most, of order $10^{44}\ {\rm erg}\ {\rm s}^{-1}$, while the IR luminosity is still approximately $10^{46}\ {\rm erg}\ {\rm s}^{-1}$. This value, even at the X-ray limit, is still a large offset from the \cite{Stern:15} relation.
One potential explanation is that the IR luminosity is contaminated in a way the X-ray measurement is not. \citetalias{PaperVI} spectroscopically identified a Galactic mid-type star ${\sim}2^{\prime\prime}$ NW of the lens, which is the brightest $I$-band object in the system \citep{2018RNAAS...2..187R}. Subaru imaging and associated mass modeling presented by \citet{2018RNAAS...2..187R} show that the lensing galaxy is brighter ($I$-band) than two of the lensed images and is suggestive of an edge-on, dusty disk. Neither a typical Galactic star or an inactive galaxy should be able to mimic such a large IR luminosity, however.
Conversely, the spectrum of this lensed quasar shows strong \ion{C}{4} $\lambda1549$ BAL features. Previous studies have found that the strength of BAL features correlates with a reduced X-ray luminosity \citep{2009ApJ...692..758G}. The presence of this correlation in observed hard-energy \textit{NuSTAR} observations suggests that this faintness is intrinsic, not caused by absorption, and so would still be present even at $z=3$ \citep{2014ApJ...794...70L}. BAL quasars can be more luminous than the limit set for Hercules' Sword -- \citet{2018MNRAS.479.5335V} reported on {\it XMM-Newton}\ observations of five $z{\sim}2$, $M_{\rm BH}\sim10^{10}\ M_\odot$ quasars with BAL features, finding luminosities of $L_{2-10}{\gtrsim}10^{45}\ {\rm erg}\ {\rm s}^{-1}$, while \citet{2020ApJ...900..189C} reported on an unlensed $M_{\rm BH} = 3 \times 10^{9}\ M_\odot$, $z=6.59$ BAL quasar with $L_{2-10} \sim 6 \times 10^{44}\ {\rm erg}\ {\rm s}^{-1}$. However, the faintness of GraL J1817+2729 is still in keeping with the expectation of an X-ray weak quasar.
\subsubsection{GraL J2103-0850}
This gravitational lens system is associated with a source detected in the \textit{ROSAT} All-Sky Faint Source Catalog \citep{2000IAUC.7432....3V}, 1RXS J210328.9$-$085039. In the second \textit{ROSAT} all-sky source catalog, \citet{2016A&A...588A.103B} report an absorption-corrected 0.1-2.4 keV flux from an assumed power-law model of $F_{\rm 2RXS}=33 \times 10^{-14}\ {\rm erg}\ {\rm s}^{-1}\ {\rm cm}^{-2}$. Considering the slightly softer energy range of this observation and the correction for absorption, this value is consistent with what we report here, suggesting only a minimal amount of variation since the \textit{ROSAT} observations of 1990/1991.
\section{Discussion}\label{sec:discussion}
In their analysis of MG 1131+0456, \citet{Stern:20} proposed that the $L_X-\nu L_\nu(6\ \mu{\rm m})$ relation could act as a means to identify lensed quasars. As shown in Figure \ref{fig:lx-lir}, magnification pushes sources on the \citet{Stern:15} relation up and off; thus, any sources with anomalously high X-ray luminosities for their mid-infrared luminosity could indicate lensing. However, most of the sources analyzed here are consistent with the \citet{Stern:15} relation, within the expected scatter. The lack of excess X-ray luminosity is most likely a result of some combination of small magnification factors, intrinsic X-ray luminosities lying below the relation, and the roughly linear correlation at lower luminosities minimizing the impact of magnification on producing deviations. While X-ray luminosity offsets should nevertheless serve as a means of identifying lensing among the most luminous quasars and the strongest magnification lenses, as is demonstrated here by GraL J0659$+$1629, we should not expect the overall population of lensed sources to only be outliers.
One of the motivations for this work was to establish a baseline set of flux measurements of lensed quasars to facilitate future observations of caustic crossing events. The full all-sky survey of \textit{SRG}/eROSITA (eRASS) is expected to reach a point source sensitivity of $f_{eRASS} \lesssim 10^{-14}\ {\rm erg}\ {\rm s}^{-1}\ {\rm cm}^{-2}$ \citep{2021A&A...647A...1P}. As such, we expect all of the lens systems presented here to be detected by the full survey and the brightest of these to potentially have multiple observations to constrain their variability. However, that is the limiting sensitivity for detection; even the simple spectral analyses reported here will be beyond the capabilities of the eRASS. As such, future observations of lensed quasars with {\it XMM-Newton}\ and \textit{Chandra} are still warranted.
Another potential advantage of the \textit{SRG}-based observatories comes in their potential to detect X-ray variability. The medium-energy ART-XC telescope on \textit{SRG} is performing daily scans of the sky at 4--12 keV. These scans have sensitivities of ${\sim}2\times10^{-11}\ {\rm erg}\ {\rm s}^{-1}\ {\rm cm}^{-2}$ and survey roughly 1\% of the sky every day \citep{2021arXiv210413267S}. It is possible -- albeit unlikely -- that a caustic crossing event could produce the magnifications necessary to boost one of the lensed quasars in this sample into that flux threshold. As previous transient sources detected by ART-XC have also been seen by eROSITA \citep[e.g.,][]{2020ATel14206....1M,2020ATel14219....1S}, we would expect similar results from the softer survey. As further gravitational lenses are spectroscopically confirmed, archival observations may reveal past extreme magnification events.
Finally, we note the potential for {\it XMM-Newton}\ in the study of distant lensed quasars. \textit{Chandra}, with its exquisite angular resolution enabling the separation of individual sources, is often used for studies of lensed quasars \citep[e.g.,][]{2012ApJ...755...24C, 2017ApJ...836..206G, 2020ApJ...894..153D}. However, for faint sources, \textit{Chandra} will be unable to detect the necessary amount of photons for a temporal analysis without deep observations; meanwhile, as demonstrated by \citetalias{PaperII}, \textit{Gaia} observations can provide precise astrometry, obviating that requirement from X-ray observations. In cases such as these, when only spectral information is desired at X-ray energies, {\it XMM-Newton}\ is more than suited for the task.
\section{Summary}\label{sec:summary}
We have presented {\it XMM-Newton}\ X-ray observations of nine lensed quasars and one unlensed source selected by \textit{Gaia} GraL. Observations were relatively short ($<20$ ks), and represent an exploratory program into the nature of the GraL sample. The primary results of this work are as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item We report X-ray fluxes and {\it XMM-Newton}\ EPIC count rates for eight of the lensed quasars, as well as upper limits for the ninth. Most sources have fluxes of $F_{0.3-8.0}\approx10^{-13}\ {\rm erg}\ {\rm s}\ {\rm cm}^{-2}$ and count rates of at least 10 ct ${\rm ks}^{-1}$ in each MOS camera. These measurements will be invaluable in planning future targeted observations of caustic crossing events.
\item Using \texttt{XSPEC}, we fit the observed quasars with an absorbed power-law, and we report the best-fit values of this in Table \ref{table:xray_fits}. From these fits, we also derive rest-frame 2--10 keV unabsorbed luminosities. Here, we find that the observed sample covers over two orders of magnitude in X-ray luminosity.
\item Despite observing it for almost 20 ks, we do not detect GraL J1817+2729, one of the two most IR luminous quasars in our sample. This is partially due to severe radiation effects during the observation, which cut the effective exposure time to 3 ks in the MOS cameras and which overwhelmed the pn camera entirely. However, the upper limit we infer from these limited observations nevertheless reveals that this quasar is X-ray faint, perhaps related to its observed BAL features. Due to the lensing magnification, deeper observations may enable the first detailed look at an X-ray faint quasar in the early Universe ($z>3$).
\item We observe GraL J1131$-$4419, which was previously detected in the \textit{ROSAT} All-Sky Survey. The X-ray flux reported from that survey is almost two orders of magnitude brighter than what we find here. As the \textit{ROSAT} observations were taken 30 years prior to the {\it XMM-Newton}\ observations, it is not entirely clear what the cause of the variability is, but this could potentially be indicative of a major microlensing event in the older observations.
\item MOS observations of GraL J1651$-$0417 reveal an extended structure to the NE of the main component of the quasar emission. Using a small smoothing scale, we are able to observe two distinct structures in this lens system, in the orientation expected from the \textit{Gaia}-observed positions of the lensed images. With a maximum separation of $10\farcs1$, this is the most closely-separated gravitational lens system resolved into multiple components by {\it XMM-Newton}.
\end{itemize}
{\small The work of TC and DS was carried out at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a contract with NASA. TC's research was supported by an appointment to the NASA Postdoctoral Program at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, administered by Universities Space Research Association under contract with NASA. DJW acknowledges support from the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) in the form of an Ernest Rutherford Fellowship (grant ST/N004027/1). LD acknowledges support from the ESA PRODEX Programme `{\it Gaia}-DPAC QSOs' and from the Belgian Federal Science Policy Office. SAK was partially supported by the German Aerospace Agency (grant 50QG1402). DS acknowledges support from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No 787886).
Based on observations obtained with {\it XMM-Newton}, an ESA science mission with instruments and contributions directly funded by ESA Member States and NASA.}
\vspace{5mm}
\facility{XMM}
\software{PyFITS \citep{1999ASPC..172..483B},
SAS \citep{2004ASPC..314..759G},
XSPEC \citep{1996ASPC..101...17A}}
\textcopyright\ 2021. All rights reserved.
|
\section{Introduction}
With enormous daily trade traffic, effective trade handling becomes the main task of customs administrations, and the urge for AI-based fraud detection mechanisms becomes apparent~\cite{sisam2015paper, mikuriya2021wcj}. However, maintaining a sustainable fraud detection system is challenging due to the changes in customs trades and fraudulent transaction trends with time. A fraud detection model trained on historical data often falls into a confirmation bias and results in performance degradation~\cite{kim2020take}. The change in data characteristics and distribution over time is referred to as concept drift, which can be gradual, incremental, recurrent, or sudden~\cite{lu2019conceptdrift}. In customs, concept drift is caused by alterations of importers, goods types, and business partners~\cite{changing2011imf}.
The customs workflow follows the human-in-the-loop inspection format, where physical inspections are carried out with the help of a fraud detection model, and customs officers confirm whether the declared item is fraud or not. If the inspection reveals fraud, the officers can levy extra duties and the results will be used to update the fraud detection model. Usually, the model provides the most suspicious items for inspection, which can be problematic in countries facing concept drift in their trade pattern.
While the fraud detection model should keep on catching the known frauds and secure the revenue, it should also acquire knowledge about new fraudulent behavior. These conflicting objectives can be described as the famous exploration-exploitation dilemma~\cite{AUDIBERT20091876}, where there must be a balance between selecting illicit items to secure immediate revenue (exploitation) and discovering new items to maintain long-term performance (exploration).
One practical solution is to randomly inspect a small set of declared items. This is called random selection, which can estimate their trade statistics and learn new fraud patterns~\cite{han2014kcs}. Adding some random exploration together with exploitation strategy is shown to be effective in the presence of concept drift~\cite{kim2020take}. However, there are no studies on how to determine the best exploration amount in customs settings. Empirically setting the exploration ratio is problematic where the amount of concept drift in the underlying data is unpredictable, and the fraud detection performance is susceptible to the amount of exploration.
This research introduces an Adaptive Drift-Aware and Performance Tuning (\textsf{ADAPT}{}) method to decide the balance between exploration and exploitation in detecting customs frauds. We measure the amount of concept drift to set a baseline of how much exploration should be used. In addition, we incorporate a performance signal to account for the fitness of the current model to the latest data.
We utilize a multi-armed bandit framework with each arm corresponding to an exploration ratio. The changes in data distribution are measured and used to select a range of candidate arms for further consideration. Then, the model considers the historical performance of the candidate arms for its final decision.
Fig.~\ref{fig:concept} illustrates the concept of the method.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centerline{
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/ADAPT-concept}}
\caption{\textsf{ADAPT}{} uses two signals for model sustainability.}
\label{fig:concept}
\end{figure}
To evaluate \textsf{ADAPT}{}, we benchmark its performance against the optimal strategy, which determines the exploration ratio by accessing the whole dataset in advance. This setting is unrealistic but provides a meaningful ``gold standard" for the model assessment. Experiments on multi-year and million-item import declarations from the four countries report that customs fraud detection system with \textsf{ADAPT}{} operates sustainably for a long period. Further analysis on the import declarations with previously unencountered characteristics demonstrates that \textsf{ADAPT}{} is effective in detecting new types of frauds. Finally, we demonstrate the importance of concept drift by examining its correlation with the model performance.
For risk management in customs administrations, \textsf{ADAPT}{} provides two benefits. It can automatically balance the exploration and exploitation rate, without the need for external information, such as other models' performance or extensive hyperparameter tuning. This will save time and guarantee efficiency in the customs workflow. It can also act as a warning trigger for the offices and inform that trade pattern changes.
\section{Related Work}
\subsection{Customs fraud detection} Previous works in the customs fraud detection domain suggest solutions in two major directions. The first body of work proposes approaches for exploring new cases, from the simple but intuitive random examination~\cite{han2014kcs} to more advanced active learning solutions using uncertainty~\cite{houlsby2011bald} and diversity~\cite{sener2018coreset, Ash2020badge}. The second group of work focuses on exploiting based on the previously obtained knowledge, which includes adapting heuristic approaches and off-the-shelf machine learning techniques, such as XGBoost~\cite{chen2016xgboost}, SVM~\cite{vanhoeyveld2020belgian}, or sophisticated deep-learning-based methods like DATE~\cite{kim2020date}. Inspecting some random items helps to improve the fraud detection performance even it sacrifice some known frauds~\cite{kim2020take}. Determining the exploration ratio in the human-in-the-loop fraud detection problem is under-explored, which is the goal of this paper.
\subsection{Concept drift detection} Due to the proven effectiveness of concept drift for data analysis and performance of machine learning algorithms, there is extensive literature targeting this problem. Lu et al. classified these approaches~\cite{lu2019conceptdrift} in three categories; error-based drift detection~\cite{ddm}, data distribution-based drift detection~\cite{lu201411}, \cite{du2014informationentropy}, and multiple hypothesis test drift detection~\cite{alippi2008justintime}.
Error-based approaches refer to the performance of the classifier, while the distribution-based methods utilize the concept of dissimilarity between new and historical data distributions~\cite{wang2015concept}.
The third category uses statistical tests to decide the final concept drift value.
In this work, we conduct distribution-based drift detection analysis and further use this result to decide the exploration ratio of a fraud detection system.
\subsection{Multi-armed bandit problem}
The Multi-Armed Bandit Problem (MABP) addresses the dilemma of balancing between exploration and exploitation. The goal of the problem is to decide the best strategy for achieving a higher reward. Specifically, the decision is made between either relying on the previously discovered information or giving a chance for exploring new choices.
A representative approach for dynamically adjusting the exploration-exploitation ratio is the exponential weighted framework. RP1 algorithm leverages an online learning mechanism using this framework to dynamically tune the ratio~\cite{rp1}. MABP has two settings, stochastic and adversarial. They differ by the reward model being applied \cite{slivkins_2019}. This work belongs to the adversarial bandits, where the agent makes no assumption regarding the reward generation process. A representative approach for the adversarial bandits in an online setting is the EXP3 algorithm \cite{exp3}. It works by assigning weights for each action, picking an action based on assigned weight, and then updating its weight based on the observed payoff. EXP3.S~\cite{exp3s} is a variant of the EXP3 algorithm, which adds regularization to ease arm switching. We improve upon their method by additionally accounting for the effect of concept drift.
\section{Problem Definition}
\label{sec:problemdefinition}
\subsection{Customs selection problem}
The human-in-the-loop customs selection problem, introduced in \cite{kim2020take}, is formally described as follows:
At each timestamp $t$, customs receive a batch of items $\mathcal{B}_t$ from trade flows $\mathcal{B}$. Based on a strategy $f$ trained with labeled data $X_t$, customs officers select a batch of items $\mathcal{B}_t^S$ for manual inspection. After inspection, the newly annotated results are added into the training data for the next iteration $X_{t+1}$.
The goal is to devise a strategy \textit{$f^*$} that maximizes the precision and revenue in the long term:
\begin{equation}
f^* = \operatorname*{argmax}_f{\sum_{t}{m(\mathcal{B}_t^s(f))}},
\end{equation}
where $m$ is the key performance index for the fraud detection system such as precision and revenue.
\subsection{Customs selection strategies}
\label{sec:def:strategy}
A customs selection strategy $f$ generally falls into one of the two categories:
\begin{itemize}
\item Exploitation strategy $f_{explore}$: Selecting likely fraudulent and lucrative items. It guarantees customs to collect tariffs, ensuring revenue.
\item Exploration strategy $f_{exploit}$: Selecting unseen items. Adequately exploring diverse trade items allows to detect novel frauds and prevent confirmation bias.
\end{itemize}
A mixture of exploitation and exploration strategies---a hybrid approach is proven to effectively maintain long-term performance~\cite{kim2020take}. The hybrid approach selects $k|\mathcal{B}_t^S|$ from $f_{explore}$ and $(1-k)|\mathcal{B}_t^S|$ items from $f_{exploit}$, with $k$ being the constant exploration ratio. The concept of hybrid strategy using a constant amount of exploration is similar to the $\epsilon$-greedy algorithm~\cite{slivkins_2019}. However, unlike $\epsilon$-greedy, the hybrid approach can support any exploration strategy $f_{explore}$ other than random exploration.
\subsection{Finding the best exploration ratio}
In this paper, we extend the problem to the case where $k$ is no longer a constant. The algorithm aims to find the best exploration ratio $k_t$ for every timestamp $t$. The problem can be formally defined as follows: Given the exploration strategy $f_{explore}$ and exploitation strategy $f_{exploit}$, choose the exploration ratio $k_t$ for current timestamp $t$.
\begin{equation}
k_t^* = \operatorname*{argmax}_{k_t}{\sum_{t}{m(\mathcal{B}_t^s(k_t;f_{explore},f_{exploit}))}}.
\end{equation}
\section{Method}
The performance of the machine learning model for customs fraud detection is sensitive to the degree of exploration \cite{kim2020take}. However, there is little work regarding how to manage this trade-off effectively. To make a robust selection model, we consider an exploration-exploitation trade-off in our proposed method, updating the ratio according to two signals; model performance and concept drift.
Those two signals relate to two concepts: the multi-armed bandit problem, where actions are chosen based on rewards, and concept drift when data shift its distribution over time. When the performance drops or the underlying data distribution changes, the model adjusts the exploration level,
From MABP's perspective, the probability of choosing each arm is updated by the historical result. Meanwhile, concept drift narrows down the choice to a smaller set of arms, acting as a filter. Figure~\ref{fig:model} illustrates this concept.
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\centerline{
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{figures/architecture.PNG}}
\caption{Detailed workflow of the model. The performance signal helps the multi-armed bandit algorithm to update the probabilities of choosing each arm. Meanwhile, the drift signal suggests the exploration ratio be in a certain range. The arms lying outside the range are eliminated, and the probabilities are normalized for final arm selection.}
\label{fig:model}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Performance signal with multi-armed bandit}
The multi-armed bandit problem is a classic example of solving the exploration-exploitation dilemma. The performance of the model can be used as the reward to update the bandit and guiding the bandit to the region of higher performance. Due to the arbitrary nature of the incoming trade flow, we cannot make any well-defined statistical assumptions about the generation of rewards, which corresponds to the adversarial setting~\cite{exp3}.
EXP3 (stands for exploration, exploitation, exponentiation) is a widely used algorithm for adversarial bandit~\cite{alessiardo2015exp3}. This framework assumes a set of actions (arms) $A= \{a_1,a_2,…,a_n\}$ which essentially corresponds to different exploration ratios $\{k_1,k_2,…,k_n\}$. At the beginning of each timestamp, the learner must choose an action $a_t$ to minimize the cumulative regret. The regret of each timestamp is defined as the reward difference between the optimal action and the actual action taken.
\begin{equation}
Regret = \sum_{t=0}^T {\max_{a \in A}{R(a, B_t) - R(a_t,B_t)}}
\end{equation}
The framework maintains a guiding distribution $p_t$ over the set of actions $A$ and uses it to sample the action. The algorithm will receive a reward $R$ (preferably for each action), and the guiding distribution is updated by decreasing the weights of ‘bad’ actions and exponentially raising the weights of ‘good’ actions. Since we only get the reward for the taken action, we use an unbiased estimator \cite{bubeck2012stochasticadversartial}:
\begin{equation}
\hat{R}_t(a_i) = \dfrac{R_t(a_t) \mathds{1}_{(a_i=a_t )}}{p_{t}(a_t)}.
\end{equation}
The distribution is updated by
\begin{equation}
p_{t+1}(a_i) = p_{t}(a_i) e^{\eta \hat{R_t}(a_i)},
\end{equation}
where $\eta$ is the learning rate.
The reward $R$ is usually normalized to be bounded by 1. EXP3 is built to find the best arm on the entire run and it attains an asymptotic regret $O(\sqrt{n})$, where $n$ is the number of rounds.
A variant of EXP3, namely EXP3.S \cite{alessiardo2015exp3}, adds a regularization term to the update function to ease arm switches and better adapt to a non-stationary environment. It achieves a similar asymptotic regret bound.
To adapt to our setting, each arm will correspond to an exploration ratio. We use a 21-arm framework corresponding to 21 ratios ranging from 0 to 1 with a step size of 0.05. In order to maintain a robust performance, precision is given as the feedback, such that the exponential-weighted framework could timely respond in the event of a performance drop. The reward in our model is the current precision compared to the weighted averaged precision of all rounds. A discount factor of $\gamma$ is used to put more weight on recent results. We call this strategy Adaptive Performance Tuning (APT), which is formally presented in Algorithm~\ref{alg:mab}.
\input{algorithms/algo3}
\subsection{Measuring concept drift by optimal transport}
The second way to decide the exploration rate is by measuring the concept drift. Optimal transport theory is used to measure the distribution difference between data snapshots. Optimal transport aims to find the most efficient way to move mass between distributions~\cite{villani2016ot}. The cost of moving a unit of mass between two positions is called the ground cost, and the objective is to minimize the overall cost of moving one mass distribution to another one. Wasserstein has formulated this problem as the following: \cite{villani2016ot}
\begin{equation}
W_p(\mu, \nu) = \left[\inf_{\gamma \in \Gamma (x, y)} \int \mathcal{D}(x, y)^p d\gamma(x, y) \right]^{\frac{1}{p}}
\end{equation}
with $\mu$ and $\nu$ are the marginal probability distributions of $X$ and $Y$ with realized values of $x$ and $y$. $\Gamma(x, y)$ denotes the set of all possible joint distributions between $X$ and $Y$. $\mathcal{D}$ is a distance function. $p$ is the power of the distance, which can be an integer.
Earth mover's distance (EMD) is a measure of the distance between two data distributions. It measures the minimum cost of turning one pile of distribution into the other. To bound EMD to have a specific range of measuring concept drift, we consider how much the optimal EMD value has improved from its upper bound, obtained by applying the norm inequality~\cite{villani2016ot}:
\begin{align}
W_1(\mu, \nu) &\leq \inf_{\gamma \in \Gamma (x, y)} \int [\mathcal{D}(x) + \mathcal{D}(y)] d\gamma(x, y) \nonumber
\\ &\leq \int \mathcal{D}(x)d\mu (x) + \int \mathcal{D}(y)d\nu (y).
\end{align}
By dividing the left-hand side by the right-hand side, the concept drift score $s$ is obtained with the range of 0 to 1, allowing us to obtain an interpretable threshold. Especially in an online learning setting, the bounding is necessary since the distribution and values frequently change. The closer the value is to 1, the more statistically different the two data snapshots are. \looseness=-1
In the customs setting, we compare the distance between recent historical data and incoming data to measure the concept drift. In our online setting, we use data from the recent four weeks as the validation data. Hence, it becomes handy to use the validation set as the historical data. We encode each import declaration to 16 dimensions by using a transaction encoder~\cite{kim2020date}, and the concept drift is measured by calculating the normalized earth mover's distance between the two embedding sets \cite{flamary2021pot}. Equal probability is assigned to each data point, and the bootstrap technique is used to reduce training time and obtain robust results. The power of the earth mover's distance is chosen as 1, with Euclidean distance as the distance function~\cite{bonneel2011pot}. The result of normalized earth mover's distance can be thought of as the irreducible cost to turn one distribution to another or the new dataset's novelty from the original dataset and will be used as the ratio for data exploration.
We can use this concept drift score directly as the exploration ratio since if we have more concept drift, there are more patterns to discover and potentially need more exploration. We call this method Adaptive Drift-Aware (ADA) strategy.
\subsection{Adaptive Drift-Aware Performance Tuning algorithm}
APT makes its decision from a probability distribution spread over different exploration ratios, while ADA measures the concept drift and puts its bet on a single point in the unit interval. The proposed model, \textsf{ADAPT}{} (Adaptive Drift-Aware Performance Tuning), makes the most out of two strategies by choosing arms within a more targeted range. More specifically, after getting the concept drift score $s$, we only consider the arms corresponding to the exploration ratio inside the interval $[max(0, s - l), min(1, s + l)]$.
Only these arms are granted probabilities of being chosen by the APT algorithm, while all other arms outside of the region are given a probability of 0. The probabilities for all arms are then normalized and ready for the next iteration. We can consider this as applying a filter center at $s$, with $2l$ as the window width. We set $l$ as $0.25$ to consider a reasonably wide range of arm candidates.
\if 0
\subsection{Hybrid algorithm}
\label{subsec:hybrid}
The exploitation-only model can lead to confirmation bias. With a model trained only on the historical data and given the domain shift in customs datasets, the model tends to be unreliable from outliers. However, a pure exploration strategy cannot secure customs revenue and is unrealistic in the customs setting. Hence, we consider a balance between the two to achieve both short-term and long-term performance. Following \cite{kim2020take}, we apply the \emph{hybrid selection strategy} under the online active learning setting that includes two main approaches: \emph{exploitation} and \emph{exploration}.
In detail, exploitation strategy like DATE exploits historical knowledge to generate the highest possible revenue~\cite{kim2020date} and guarantees short-term revenue. Exploration strategy, such as random selection, instead selects items that will potentially enhance the model's long-term performance. Some exploration and exploitation strategies from existing works are listed in Table.~\ref{}. The final selection is made by the hybrid approach, with the exploration ratios determining the extent of the exploration. In \cite{kim2020take}, this ratio was set empirically as 0.1. The work also suggests the model performance is highly susceptible to this ratio.
Following the previous work, we parameterize the exploitation-exploration trade-off by the ratio of selected items obtained by the exploration strategy, dubbed \textit{exploration ratio} from now on.
We want to make a framework to choose the exploration ratio and adaptively update it to make the selection model perform robustly.
\fi
\section{Experiment}
For evaluation, we first review our experiments to answer the following questions:
\begin{itemize}
\item Identify the need for exploration (Q1): How much exploration do we need for maintaining a sustainable system?
\item Effectiveness of the adaptive strategies (Q2): How well does \textsf{ADAPT}{} find the ideal exploration ratio?
\item Concept drifts analysis (Q3): Does \textsf{ADAPT}{} capture the concept drift effectively, and does concept drift substantially affect model performance?
\item Novel fraud detection (Q4): Is \textsf{ADAPT}{} effective in detecting frauds among novel trades?
\item Ablation analysis (Q5): How important is each component?
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Settings}
\subsubsection{Datasets}
\label{sec:experiments:settings:datasets}
For experiments, we employed item-level import declarations from four countries in Africa. The datasets span multiple years allowing us to observe concept drift. The import declarations include the item's free on board~(FOB) price, gross weight, quantity, tariff code, importing country, and handler information such as importer, declarant, customs office, and its estimated taxes. The dataset also contains inspected results of whether a transaction is a fraud or not. Due to the data confidentiality policy, we call these countries M, C, N, and T. Table.~\ref{tab:datastats} shows the statistics of the datasets.
Customs administrations in the four countries conducted nearly 100\% of manual inspections of their imported goods. Since the data obtained so far was under a complete inspection, illicitness of the transaction and charged tariffs are accurately labeled at the single-goods level. But this practice is not sustainable, and the customs offices of these countries plan to reduce the inspection rate in the future.
\input{tables/datasets}
\subsubsection{Long-term simulation setting}
\label{sec:experiments:settings:scenario}
We conduct experiments to check the ability of our proposed \textsf{ADAPT}{} method to choose the exploration ratio that maintains the customs selection model in the long run. We used the simulation setting proposed in \cite{kim2020take}, where a selection model is deployed, updated, and maintained for multiple years. A limited amount of annotated training data is given to initialize the model. For each timestamp, the method updates the ratio between exploration-exploitation. With the ratio, the model selects a batch of items from the incoming import declarations stream. The custom officers manually inspect these items and their fraud labels are obtained. The model is re-trained with the accumulated training set, and the most recent four weeks of data are used to validate the model. The performance for each timestamp is recorded to evaluate the method. The average performances over the whole period, last two years, last one year, and last six months are additionally reported to summarize the performance.
\subsubsection{Evaluation metrics}
\label{sec:experiments:settings:metrics}
If $n\%$ of all import declarations are inspected, the performance of the customs selection model in the online setting is measured by two metrics introduced in \cite{kim2020take}: Norm-Precision@n\% and Norm-Revenue@n\%. They are the precision and revenue evaluated on the selected items, divided by the maximum achievable value. Precision indicates the proportion of fraud cases among the inspected items. Revenue indicates the proportion of revenue secured by examining the set of items, which puts more weight on the lucrative items. The normalization mitigates the change in difficulty of the dataset at different times.
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.42\linewidth}
\centering\captionsetup{width=.95\linewidth}%
\includegraphics[trim={0 0 5.5cm 0},clip,width=\linewidth]{figures/hybrid-real-t-norm-precision.pdf}
\caption{In country \textsf{T}, the performance of the full exploitation strategy drops over time but injecting exploration keeps the performance robust. 10\% of exploration yields the best performance.}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.42\linewidth}
\centering\captionsetup{width=.95\linewidth}%
\includegraphics[trim={0 -0.2cm 5.5cm 0},clip,width=\linewidth]{figures/hybrid-real-c-norm-precision.pdf}
\caption{In country \textsf{C}, 20\% of exploration yields the best performance. This setting underperforms full exploitation at the beginning, but the performance improved as time goes.}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.15\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[trim={15cm -3cm 0 0},clip,width=\linewidth]{figures/hybrid-real-c-norm-precision.pdf}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.42\linewidth}
\centering\captionsetup{width=.95\linewidth}%
\includegraphics[trim={0 0 5.5cm 0},clip,width=\linewidth]{figures/hybrid-real-m-norm-precision.pdf}
\caption{In country \textsf{M}, fully exploitation yields the best performance.}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.42\linewidth}
\centering\captionsetup{width=.95\linewidth}%
\includegraphics[trim={0 0 5.5cm 0},clip,width=\linewidth]{figures/hybrid-real-n-norm-precision.pdf}
\caption{In country \textsf{N}, fully exploitation yields the best performance.}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.15\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[trim={15cm -2cm 0 0},clip,width=\linewidth]{figures/hybrid-real-c-norm-precision.pdf}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{\textbf{Performance of hybrid with different exploration ratios in 4 countries (T, C, M, N)}. The ratio between exploration and exploitation greatly affects the overall performance in all countries. Adding some exploration helps to improve the performance in data T and C, while fully exploitation strategy works best in data M and N. Results suggest that each country has its own suitable exploration rate.}
\label{fig:hybrid}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Training Details}
We use XGBoost (GBDT)~\cite{chen2016xgboost} as our exploitation strategy and random \cite{han2014kcs} as our exploration strategy. For Exp3.S, we set the learning rate as 3.0, randomness as 0.1, regularization weight as 0.001, and discount factor as 0.9. The inspection rate is 10\%, except for country M we use 2\%. This is because data M has a low fraud rate and the fraud pattern is relatively easy so that many algorithms reach 100\% precision if an inspection rate is kept at 10\%. Each experiment is run five times and the averaged results are reported. To smooth out short-term fluctuations and highlight longer-term trends, we show the moving average of 14-weeks in the following figures.
\subsection{Performance Evaluation}
\subsubsection{Identify the need for exploration (Q1)}
We first identify the need for exploration by simulating the customs selection process in four countries. Assuming that each country faces a different amount of concept drift, we first run hybrid strategies (Sec.~\ref{sec:def:strategy}) with different amounts of exploration to determine the most appropriate exploration ratio for each country. We record the precision and revenue over time by varying the exploration ratio ranging from 0 to 1. The precision trend is reported in Fig.~\ref{fig:hybrid}.
Results reveal that each country has its own suitable exploration rate. For country C and country T, 20\% and 10\% of exploration yield the best performance, respectively. Country M and N do not experience significant concept drift, and the full exploitation strategy works the best. Therefore, our main experiment will focus on the dataset with the concept drift, namely country C and T.
In country T, the performance of the full exploitation strategy degrades over time. However, injecting some explorations into the strategy keeps the performance more robust as time passes. Model performance is sensitive to the exploration rate. Models with 10--30\% exploration achieve the highest precision, while models with 50--70\% exploration perform moderately. Fully exploration or fully exploitation strategies performance is worse than any mixtures, with a difference of more than 0.3 at some timestamps.
For country C, full exploitation performed the best at first. However, since 2018, the 20\% exploration rate takes the lead in performance, followed by the 10\% exploration rate. The strategies with 60\% or more exploration perform far worse than others. The best ratio does not stay the same over time but also depends on the period in consideration. The exploration rate of 20\% is ultimately the best strategy.
For brevity, we refer to the best performing hybrid in the last six-month period as the \textit{oracle}. Performance statistics of oracle are reported in Table.~\ref{tbl:main}.
\subsubsection{Effectiveness of the adaptive strategies (Q2)} Through this experiment, we confirmed how much the risk management system improved when the adaptive exploration rate is determined by the proposed \textsf{ADAPT}{} method. Precision and revenue are reported in Table.~\ref{tbl:main}. Precision trends compared with some baselines are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:rada}.
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.41\linewidth}
\centering\captionsetup{width=.95\linewidth}%
\includegraphics[trim={0 0 5.0cm 0},clip,width=\linewidth]{figures/rada-real-t-norm-precision.pdf}
\caption{In country \textsf{T}, \textsf{ADAPT}{} performance is approaching the performance of with the oracle.}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.42\linewidth}
\centering\captionsetup{width=.95\linewidth}%
\includegraphics[trim={0 0cm 5.0cm 0},clip,width=\linewidth]{figures/rada-real-c-norm-precision.pdf}
\caption{In country \textsf{C}, \textsf{ADAPT}{} performs similarly with the oracle.}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.15\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[trim={14.5cm -1.4cm 0 0},clip,width=\linewidth]{figures/rada-real-c-norm-precision.pdf}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.42\linewidth}
\centering\captionsetup{width=.95\linewidth}%
\includegraphics[trim={0 0 5.5cm 0},clip,width=\linewidth]{figures/rada-real-m-norm-precision.pdf}
\caption{In country \textsf{M}, \textsf{ADAPT}{} performance is approaching the performance of with the oracle.}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.42\linewidth}
\centering\captionsetup{width=.95\linewidth}%
\includegraphics[trim={0 0 5.5cm 0},clip,width=\linewidth]{figures/rada-real-n-norm-precision.pdf}
\caption{In country \textsf{N}, \textsf{ADAPT}{} performance is approaching the performance of with the oracle.}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.15\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[trim={14.3cm -1.85cm 0.42cm 0},clip,width=\linewidth]{figures/rada-real-n-norm-precision.pdf}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{\textbf{Performance of \textsf{ADAPT}{} in 4 countries (T, C, M, N)} compared to the oracle, fully exploration and fully exploitation. In all countries, \textsf{ADAPT}{} performance approaches that of the oracle.}
\label{fig:rada}
\end{figure*}
In country C, \textsf{ADAPT}{} follows the similar trend with the fully exploitation model, which was the best performing one until the middle of 2018. From that point, hybrid with 20\% exploration (oracle) outperforms all hybrid baselines and fully exploitation strategy. Likewise, \textsf{ADAPT}{} successfully adapt to the concept drift and eventually follows the same trend and performance of the oracle. According to Table.~\ref{tbl:main}, \textsf{ADAPT}{} was the most effective when all timestamps are considered.
In country T, \textsf{ADAPT}{} has outperformed the oracle in 2016--2017 period. In the next period, \textsf{ADAPT}{} performed closely to the oracle with similar trends. On average, \textsf{ADAPT}{} has similar average precision and revenue with the best hybrid strategy, with more stable performance through more than five years. \textsf{ADAPT}{} outperforms 9 out of 11 hybrid models. In country M and N, \textsf{ADAPT}{}'s performance approaches that of the best hybrid. Out of 11 hybrids, \textsf{ADAPT}{} outperform 7 models in country M and 8 models in country N.
From this experiment, we find that \textsf{ADAPT}{} makes the informed decision for every timestamp so that it achieves comparable performance to the best hybrid method at each point. Compared to the best performing hybrid, oracle, \textsf{ADAPT}{} even showed higher performance in some time periods.
With the accumulated data, it was possible to experiment with multiple hybrids with various setups, but it is infeasible to do this in real-world scenarios. In comparison, \textsf{ADAPT}{} can adaptively update the ratio based on new data immediately and does not require any hyperparameter tuning, showing a better practice for online setting.
\subsubsection{Concept drift analysis (Q3)}
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\begin{minipage}{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.90\linewidth]{figures/CDs.pdf}
\caption{Concept drift score measured by optimal transport on the data from four countries.}
\label{fig:cd-all}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}{0.68\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.48\linewidth}
\centering\captionsetup{width=.95\linewidth}%
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/cd-T.pdf}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering\captionsetup{width=.95\linewidth}%
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/cd-C.pdf}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{A strong negative correlation is observed between concept drift in the data (blue line) and performance of full exploitation model (red line).
}\label{fig:cd}
\hfill
\end{minipage}
\end{figure*}
We analyze the concept drift trends of each country. The EMD-based concept drift score is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:cd-all}. As evidenced from our analysis of Q1, the amount of concept drift seems to be higher in country T and country C, where injecting exploration boosts the performance compared with full exploitation. In general, our EMD-based concept drift score reflects this trend, with the minimal concept drift scores for country M hovering around 0.15, while the score for T hovers around 0.3. For country C, the full exploitation strategy performs the best before 2018, then the model with 0.2 exploration takes the lead. This suggests that the concept drift starts becoming substantial in 2018. Our score also captures this, with concept drift abruptly soars from around 0.05 before 2018 and plateaus at around 0.2. The EMD-based score for country N peaks at some points then decreases to 0.2.
We conduct further analysis to show the correlation of concept drift score with the model performance. The gist of this analysis is that the performance of the fully-exploitation model will decrease if concept drift occurs. We investigate two datasets with concept drift: T and C (after 2018), and the results are reported in Fig.~\ref{fig:cd}. Pearson correlation test reveals a strong negative correlation between the two trends (correlation coefficient for T: $-0.55$, for C: $-0.23$) with very high confidence (p-value for country T: $1.82 \times{10^{-20}} $, for C: $0.024$). This indicates concept drift indeed harms the typical fraud detection model run by exploitation mechanism.
\subsubsection{Effectiveness of adaptive strategies in adapting novelties (Q4)}
To evaluate the model's ability to discover new fraud patterns via exploration, we measure the performance on a subset of items declared by new importers.
We investigate two countries having concept drift and report the results in Fig.~\ref{fig:novel}.
\textsf{ADAPT}{} outperforms fully exploitation in both cases. In country C after 2018, \textsf{ADAPT}{} secure 39.5\% of the revenue on average, compared with 34.6\% secured by full exploitation. In country T, \textsf{ADAPT}{} captures 13.2\% of possible revenue, significantly outperform full exploitation which secured merely 1.1\% of revenue. In some periods, full exploitation completely fails to pick up any fraud from new importers, while \textsf{ADAPT}{} still performs robustly. This result supports that \textsf{ADAPT}{} has explored and inspected the trades declared by new importers, and reused the data successfully to update the model.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.80\linewidth}
\centering\captionsetup{width=.95\linewidth}%
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/novel-t.pdf}
\caption{In country \textsf{T}, \textsf{ADAPT}{} completely dominates full exploitation strategy. Full exploitation completely fails to pick up illicit trades by new importers.}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.80\linewidth}
\centering\captionsetup{width=.95\linewidth}%
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/novel-c.pdf}
\caption{In country \textsf{C}, during duration between 2018 and 2019, two models perform approximately the same. Starting from 2019, \textsf{ADAPT}{} has risen above GBDT.}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Performance of two strategies on the set of items declared by new importers.}
\label{fig:novel}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Ablation study (Q5)}
\input{tables/perform}
To validate the contribution of each component of \textsf{ADAPT}{}, we conduct an ablation study by examining the performance after removing each component. Precision trends between these three methods are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:rada} and the averaged results are in Table.~\ref{tbl:main}.
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{\textsf{ADAPT}{}}: Use both performance signals and concept drift signals.
\item \textbf{w/o concept drift signal (APT)}: EXP3.S-based method without filtering (ignore input from concept drift scorer)
\item \textbf{w/o performance signal (ADA)}: Directly use the concept drift score as the exploration rate (ignore performance signal)
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure*}[h!]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.38\linewidth}
\centering\captionsetup{width=.95\linewidth}%
\includegraphics[trim={0 0 5.5cm 0},clip,width=\linewidth]{figures/ablation-real-t-norm-precision.pdf}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.38\linewidth}
\centering\captionsetup{width=.95\linewidth}%
\includegraphics[trim={0 0 5.5cm 0},clip,width=\linewidth]{figures/ablation-real-c-norm-precision.pdf}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.38\linewidth}
\centering\captionsetup{width=.95\linewidth}%
\includegraphics[trim={0 0 5.5cm 0},clip,width=\linewidth]{figures/ablation-real-m-norm-precision.pdf}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.38\linewidth}
\centering\captionsetup{width=.95\linewidth}%
\includegraphics[trim={0 0 5.5cm 0},clip,width=\linewidth]{figures/ablation-real-n-norm-precision.pdf}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.20\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[trim={15cm 7.5cm 0 1cm},clip,width=\linewidth]{figures/ablation-real-c-norm-precision.pdf}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{\textbf{Performance of \textsf{ADAPT}{} with its variants APT and ADA}. \textsf{ADAPT}{} outperforms APT in all countries and showed similar or higher performance than ADA.}
\label{fig:ablation}
\end{figure*}
In all four countries, the performance of \textsf{ADAPT}{} is better than APT and closest to the best hybrid strategy, indicating that the concept drift successfully guides the APT arm selector to concentrate on the correct range of ratios.
In country M and country C, precision and revenue of \textsf{ADAPT}{} are better than ADA. In the other two countries, they perform very similarly. This suggests that the MAB-based model with the performance signal could improve upon ADA by considering neighboring ratios with a history of good performance. In cases with concept drift or not, \textsf{ADAPT}{} is expected to be more robust than ADA.
\section{Future Work}
\section{Conclusion}
This paper examines the importance of the exploitation-exploration ratio and proposes an algorithm, namely \textsf{ADAPT}{}, that combines two signals for dynamically deciding this value. By conducting experiments in online settings with four different countries' customs data, we show that \textsf{ADAPT}{} can perform commensurately with the oracle. Moreover, since the proposed algorithm is based on the shifts in data distribution and the preceding model performance, it does not require extensive tuning and careful result observation over a long period.
We also show the importance of concept drift detection in avoiding model failures over time when changes in data distribution occur, which are frequent in customs trades. In the customs setting, the potential concept drift, indicated by \textsf{ADAPT}{}, can alert customs officers to new fraud patterns that require more cautious inspection. We will open-source the code so that \textsf{ADAPT}{} can be employed by the customs administrations to ease and improve the trade inspection process.
\section{Placeholder section for appendix}
\section*{Acknowledgment}
This work was supported by the Institute for Basic Science (IBS-R029-C2, IBS-R029-Y4). We thank World Customs Organization and their partner countries to support their datasets.
\balance
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section*{Checklist}
The checklist follows the references. Please
read the checklist guidelines carefully for information on how to answer these
questions. For each question, change the default \answerTODO{} to \answerYes{},
\answerNo{}, or \answerNA{}. You are strongly encouraged to include a {\bf
justification to your answer}, either by referencing the appropriate section of
your paper or providing a brief inline description. For example:
\begin{itemize}
\item Did you include the license to the code and datasets? \answerYes{See Section~\ref{gen_inst}.}
\item Did you include the license to the code and datasets? \answerNo{The code and the data are proprietary.}
\item Did you include the license to the code and datasets? \answerNA{}
\end{itemize}
Please do not modify the questions and only use the provided macros for your
answers. Note that the Checklist section does not count towards the page
limit. In your paper, please delete this instructions block and only keep the
Checklist section heading above along with the questions/answers below.
\begin{enumerate}
\item For all authors...
\begin{enumerate}
\item Do the main claims made in the abstract and introduction accurately reflect the paper's contributions and scope?
\answerYes{}
\item Did you describe the limitations of your work?
\answerNA{}
\item Did you discuss any potential negative societal impacts of your work?
\answerNA{}
\item Have you read the ethics review guidelines and ensured that your paper conforms to them?
\answerYes{}
\end{enumerate}
\item If you are including theoretical results...
\begin{enumerate}
\item Did you state the full set of assumptions of all theoretical results?
\answerNA{}
\item Did you include complete proofs of all theoretical results?
\answerNA{}
\end{enumerate}
\item If you ran experiments...
\begin{enumerate}
\item Did you include the code, data, and instructions needed to reproduce the main experimental results (either in the supplemental material or as a URL)?
\answerTODO{}
\item Did you specify all the training details (e.g., data splits, hyperparameters, how they were chosen)?
\answerYes{}
\item Did you report error bars (e.g., with respect to the random seed after running experiments multiple times)?
\answerTODO{}
\item Did you include the total amount of compute and the type of resources used (e.g., type of GPUs, internal cluster, or cloud provider)?
\answerYes{}
\end{enumerate}
\item If you are using existing assets (e.g., code, data, models) or curating/releasing new assets...
\begin{enumerate}
\item If your work uses existing assets, did you cite the creators?
\answerYes{}
\item Did you mention the license of the assets?
\answerYes{}
\item Did you include any new assets either in the supplemental material or as a URL?
\answerNA{}
\item Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating?
\answerNA{}
\item Did you discuss whether the data you are using/curating contains personally identifiable information or offensive content?
\answerNA{}
\end{enumerate}
\item If you used crowdsourcing or conducted research with human subjects...
\begin{enumerate}
\item Did you include the full text of instructions given to participants and screenshots, if applicable?
\answerNA{}
\item Did you describe any potential participant risks, with links to Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals, if applicable?
\answerNA{}
\item Did you include the estimated hourly wage paid to participants and the total amount spent on participant compensation?
\answerNA{}
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\section*{Checklist}
\input{tex/appendix}
\end{document}
\section{Appendix}
\clearpage
\section{Conclusion and Outlook}
\label{sec:conclusion}
In this work, we propose energy scores for OOD uncertainty estimation in the multi-label classification setting. We show that aggregating energies over all labels into \emph{JointEnergy} results in better separation between in-distribution and OOD inputs compared to using information from only one label's information. Additionally, we justify the mathematical interpretation of \emph{JointEnergy} from a joint likelihood perspective. \emph{JointEnergy} obtains better OOD detection performance compared to competitive baseline methods, establishing new state-of-the-art on this task. Applications of multi-label classification can benefit from our methods, and we anticipate further research in OOD detection to extend this work to tasks beyond image recognition. We hope our work will increase the attention toward a broader view of OOD uncertainty estimation for multi-label classification.
\section{Societal Impact}
\label{sec:broad}
Our project aims to improve the dependability and trustworthiness of modern machine learning models for multi-label classification.
This stands to benefit a wide range of fields and societal activities. We believe out-of-distribution uncertainty estimation is an increasingly critical component of systems that range from consumer and business applications (e.g., digital content understanding) to transportation (e.g., driver assistance systems and autonomous vehicles), and to health care (e.g., unseen disease identification). Many of these applications require multi-label classification models in operation.\@
Through this work and by releasing our code, we hope to provide machine learning researchers a new methodological perspective and offer machine learning practitioners an easy-to-use tool that renders safety against OOD data in the real world. While we do not anticipate any negative consequences to our work, we hope to continue to build on our framework in future work.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
Research is supported by the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Education (OVCRGE) with funding from the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF).
\section{Experiments}
\label{sec:experiments}
In this section, we describe our experimental setup (Section~\ref{sec:setup}) and demonstrate the effectiveness of our method on several OOD evaluation tasks (Section~\ref{sec:results}). We also conduct extensive ablation studies and comparative analysis that lead to an improved understanding of different methods.
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\subsection{Setup}
\label{sec:setup}
\textbf{In-distribution Datasets} We consider three multi-label datasets: MS-COCO ~\citep{lin2014microsoft}, PASCAL-VOC ~\citep{Everingham15}, and NUS-WIDE ~\citep{nus-wide-civr09}.
MS-COCO consists of 82,783 training, 40,504 validation, and 40,775
testing images with 80 common object categories. PASCAL-VOC contains 22,531 images across 20 classes. NUS-WIDE includes 269,648 images across 81 concept labels. Since NUS-WIDE has invalid and untagged images, we follow~\citep{zhu2017learning} and use 119,986 training images and 80,283 test images.
\textbf{Training Details}
We train three multi-label classifiers, one for each dataset above.
The classifiers have a DenseNet-121 backbone architecture, with a final layer that is replaced by 2 fully connected layers. Each classifier is pre-trained on ImageNet-1K and then fine-tuned with the logistic sigmoid function to its corresponding multi-label dataset.
We use the Adam optimizer~\citep{kingma2014adam} with standard parameters ($\beta_1 = 0.9$, $\beta_2 = 0.999$). The initial learning rate is $10^{-4}$ for the fully connected layers and $10^{-5}$ for convolutional layers. We also augmented the data with random crops and random flips to obtain color images of size $256 \times 256$. After training, the mAP is 87.51\% for PASCAL-VOC, 73.83\% for MS-COCO, and 60.22\% for NUS-WIDE. All experiments are conducted on NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080Ti
\textbf{Out-of-distribution Datasets} To evaluate the models trained on the in-distribution datasets above, we follow the same set up as in~\citep{hendrycks2019benchmark} and use ImageNet~\citep{deng2009imagenet} for its generality. Besides, we evaluate against the Textures dataset~\citep{cimpoi2014describing} as OOD. For ImageNet, we use the same set of 20 classes chosen from ImageNet-22K as in~\citep{hendrycks2019benchmark}. These classes are chosen not to overlap with ImageNet-1k since the multi-label classifiers are pre-trained on ImageNet-1K. Specifically, we use the following classes for evaluating the MS-COCO and PASCAL-VOC pre-trained models: \emph{dolphin, deer, bat, rhino, raccoon, octopus, giant clam, leech, venus flytrap, cherry tree, Japanese cherry blossoms, redwood, sunflower, croissant, stick cinnamon, cotton, rice, sugar cane, bamboo, and turmeric}. Since NUS-WIDE contains high-level concepts like animal, plants and flowers, we use a different set of classes that are distinct from NUS-WIDE: \emph{asterism, battery, cave, cylinder, delta, fabric, filament, fire bell, hornet nest, kazoo, lichen, naval equipment, newspaper, paperclip, pythium, satellite, thumb, x-ray tube, yeast, zither}.
\textbf{Evaluation Metrics} We measure the following metrics that are commonly used for OOD detection: (1)~the false positive rate (FPR95) of OOD examples when the true positive rate of in-distribution examples is at 95\%; (2)~the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC); and (3)~the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPR).
\subsection{Results}
\label{sec:results}
\begin{wrapfigure}{r}{0.45\textwidth}
\vspace{-0.55cm}
\centering
\scriptsize
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{tex/fig/roc-new.pdf}
\caption{AUROC curves for OOD detector obtained from three in-distribution multi-label classification datasets.}
\label{fig:auroc}
\end{wrapfigure}
\textbf{How does JointEnergy compare to common OOD detection methods?} In Table~\ref{tab:results-imagenet}, we compare energy-based approaches against competitive OOD detection methods in literature, where \emph{JointEnergy} demonstrates state-of-the-art performance. For fair comparisons, we consider approaches that rely on pre-trained models (without performing retraining or fine-tuning). Following the setup in~\citep{hendrycks2019benchmark}, all the numbers reported are evaluated on ImageNet OOD test data, as described in Section~\ref{sec:setup}. We provide additional evaluation results for the Texture OOD test dataset in the supplementary.
Most baselines such as MaxLogit~\citep{hendrycks2019benchmark}, Maximum Softmax Probability (MSP)~\citep{hendrycks2016baseline}, ODIN~\citep{liang2018enhancing} and Mahalanobis~\citep{lee2018simple} derive OOD indicator scores based on the maximum-valued statistics among all labels. Local Outlier Factor (LOF)~\citep{breunig2000lof} uses K-nearest neighbors (KNN) to estimate the local density, where OOD examples are detected from having lower density compared to their neighbors. Isolation forest~\citep{liu2008isolation} is a tree-based approach, which detects anomaly based on the path length from the root node to the terminating node.
\begin{table*}[t]
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\centering
\caption[]{\small Ablation study on the effect of summation for prior approaches. We use DenseNet~\citep{huang2017densely} to train on the in-distribution datasets. We use ImageNet as OOD test data as described in Section~\ref{sec:setup}. Note that \emph{Sum} does not apply to tree-based or KNN-based approaches (\emph{\emph{\emph{\emph{e.g.}}}}, LOF and Isolation Forest).
}
\small
\vspace{0.15in}
\begin{tabular}{llrrr}
\toprule
& $\mathcal{D}_{\text{in}}$ & MS-COCO & PASCAL & NUS-WIDE \\
& & \multicolumn{3}{c}{{ \textbf{FPR95} / \textbf{AUROC} / \textbf{AUPR}}} \\
\textbf{OOD Score} & \textbf{Aggregation} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{{ $\downarrow$ ~~~~~~~ $\uparrow$~~~~~~~~~~$\uparrow$}}\\
\midrule
{Logit} & Sum&
95.46 / 61.81 / 80.39 & 87.18 / 72.68 / 61.24
& 96.53 / 51.75 / 82.55 \\
{Prob} & Sum&
{45.04 / 89.32 / 94.40} & \textbf{38.57} / 86.53 / 79.10
& 50.84 / 83.82 / 95.15 \\
{ODIN} & Sum &
{56.56 / 84.62 / 92.24} & 50.35 / 79.45 / 70.19
& {56.26 / 81.04 / 94.34}\\
{Mahalanobis} & Sum
& 53.43 / 87.52 / 93.35
& 44.43 / 87.76 / 79.86
& 69.05 / 80.46 / 94.09\\
{LOF} & Sum & N/A & N/A & N/A \\
{Isolation Forest} & Sum & N/A & N/A & N/A \\
\midrule
\textbf{JointEnergy (ours)} & Sum & \textbf{33.48} / \textbf{92.70} / \textbf{96.25} & 41.01 / \textbf{91.10} / \textbf{86.33} & \textbf{48.98} / \textbf{88.30} / \textbf{96.40}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\vspace{0.15in}
\vspace{-0.6cm}
\label{tab:ablation-imagenet}
\end{table*}
Among different approaches, \emph{JointEnergy} outperforms the best-performing baseline across all three multi-label classifiers considered. In particular, on a network trained with the MS-COCO dataset, \emph{JointEnergy} reduces FPR95 by \textbf{10.05}\%, compared to MaxLogit. We provide the AUROC curves for our method JointEnergy in Figure~\ref{fig:auroc}, for all three in-distribution datasets considered. The y-axis is the true positive rate (TPR), whereas the x-axis is the FPR. The curves indicate how the OOD detection performance changes as we vary the threshold $\tau$ in Equation~\ref{eq:ood}. {We additionally evaluate on a different architecture, ResNet~\citep{he2016identity}, for which we observe consistent improvement and provide details in the supplementary.}
We also note here that existing approaches (such as Mahalanobis distance~\citep{lee2018simple}) requires training a separate classifier for OOD detection. In contrast, JointEnergy is hyperparameter-free and easy to use in practice. In particular, the Mahalanobis approach is based on the assumption that feature representation forms class-conditional Gaussian distributions, and hence may not be well suited for the multi-label setting (which requires joint distribution to be learned).
\textbf{How do different aggregation methods affect OOD detection performance?}
In Table~\ref{tab:max-sum}, we also perform a comparative analysis of the effect of different aggregation functions that combine label-wise energy scores. As an alternative, we consider \begin{align}
E_\text{max}(\*x)& =\max_i -E_{y_i}(\*x),
\label{eq:energy_max}
\end{align}
which finds the largest label-wise energy score among all labels.
We observe that \emph{MaxEnergy} does not outperform \emph{JointEnergy}, which utilizes information jointly from all the labels. The performance of \emph{MaxEnergy} is on par with MaxLogit since \emph{MaxEnergy}, given by $\max_i \log(1+e^{f_{y_i}(\*x)})$, is approximately close to the MaxLogit when $f_{y_i}(\*x)$ is large. The results underline the importance of taking into account information from multiple labels, not just the maximum-valued label. This is because, in multi-label classification, the model may assign high probabilities to several classes. Theoretically, \emph{JointEnergy} is also more meaningful, and can be interpreted from a joint likelihood perspective as shown in Section~\ref{sec:method}
\begin{table}[b]
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\centering
\small
\caption[]{\small Ablation study on the effect of aggregation methods: max vs summation. Values are AUROC.
}
\vspace{0.15in}
\begin{tabular}{lrr}
\toprule
$\mathcal{D}_{\text{in}}$ & MaxEnergy & JointEnergy \\
\midrule
\textbf{MS-COCO}
& 89.11 & \textbf{92.70} \\
\textbf{PASCAL-VOC}
& 89.22 & \textbf{91.10} \\
\textbf{NUS-WIDE}
& 83.58 & \textbf{88.30}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\vspace{0.15in}
\label{tab:max-sum}
\end{table}
\textbf{What is the effect of applying the aggregation method to prior methods?} As an extension, we explore the effectiveness of applying the aggregation method to previous scoring functions. The results are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:ablation-imagenet}. We calculate scores based on the logit $f_{y_i}(\*x)$, sigmoid of the logit $\frac{1}{1+e^{-f_{y_i}(\*x)}}$, ODIN score, and
Mahalanobis distance score $M_{y_i}(\*x)$ for each label independently. We then perform summation across the label-wise scores as the overall OOD score. This ablation essentially replaces the \emph{Max} aggregation with \emph{Sum}, which helps understand the extent to which previous approaches are amenable in the multi-label setting. Note that the summation aggregation method does not apply to tree-based or KNN-based approaches such as LOF and Isolation Forest.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=140mm]{tex/fig/energy-ood-pascal-crop.pdf}
\caption{\footnotesize Label-wise energy scores $-E_{y_i}(\*x)$ for in-distribution example from PASCAL-VOC (left), and OOD input from ImageNet (right). The OOD input is misclassified using MaxLogit score since the dominant output has a high activation, making it indistinguishable from an in-distribution data's MaxLogit score. In contrast, \emph{JointEnergy} correctly classifies both images since it results in larger differences in scores between in-distribution and OOD inputs.
\vspace{-0.6cm}
\label{fig:example}}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
We found that applying summation over individual logit/MSP/ODIN/Mahalanobis scores from each label does not enhance but sometimes worsen the performance. For example, simply summing over the logits across the labels leads to severe degradation in performance since the outputs are mixed with positive and negative numbers. On MS-COCO, the FPR degrades from 43.53\% using MaxLogit to 95.46\% (using SumLogit). In contrast, \emph{JointEnergy} does not suffer from this issue.
This underlines the importance of choosing proper label-wise scoring function to be compatible with the aggregation method.
\textbf{JointEnergy vs. SumProb} We highlight the advantage of JointEnergy over SumProb both empirically and theoretically. As seen in Table~\ref{tab:ablation-imagenet}, the performance difference between JointEnergy and SumProb is substantial. In particular, on MS-COCO, our method outperforms SumProb by 11.56\% (FPR95). For threshold independent metric AUROC, JointEnergy consistently outperforms SumProb by 3.38\% (MS-COCO), 4.57\% (PASCAL), and 4.48\% (NUS-WIDE).
\textbf{Qualitative Case Study} Lastly, to provide further insights on our method, we qualitatively examine examples from the multi-label classification dataset PASCAL-VOC (in-dist.) and OOD input from the ImageNet that are correctly classified by \emph{JointEnergy} but not MaxLogit. In Figure~\ref{fig:example} (left), we see an in-distribution example is labeled as \texttt{dog}, \texttt{car}, \texttt{chair} and \texttt{person}, with \emph{MaxLogit} score 1.63 and \emph{JointEnergy} score 3.23. We also show an OOD input (Figure~\ref{fig:example}, right) with a single dominant activation on the \texttt{bird} class, with MaxLogit score 2.14 and \emph{JointEnergy} score 2.19. In this example, taking the sum appropriately results in a higher score for the in-distribution image than the OOD image. Contrarily, MaxLogit score for the in-distribution image is lower than that of the OOD image, which results in ineffective detection.
\section{Introduction}
Despite many breakthroughs in machine learning, formidable obstacles obstruct its deployment in the real world, where a model can encounter unknown out-of-distribution (OOD) samples.
The problem of OOD detection has gained significant research attention lately~\citep{chen2021robustifying, hsu2020generalized, huang2021mos,
lakshminarayanan2017simple,
lee2018simple,
liang2018enhancing, liu2020energy, lin2021mood, sun2021tone}. OOD detection aims to identify test-time inputs that have no label intersection with training classes, thus should not be predicted by the model. Previous studies have primarily focused on detecting OOD examples in multi-class classification, where each sample is assigned to a single label. Unfortunately, this can be unrealistic in many real-world applications where images often have \emph{multiple labels} of interest.
For example,
in medical imaging, multiple abnormalities may be present in a medical scan~\citep{wang2017chestx}.
Currently, a critical research gap exists in developing and evaluating OOD detection algorithms for multi-label classification tasks that are more applicable to the real world. While one may expect solutions for multi-class setting should transfer to the multi-label setting, we show that this is far from the truth.
The main challenges posed in multi-label setting stem from the need to estimate uncertainty by \emph{jointly leveraging the information across different labels,} as opposed to relying on one dominant label. Our analysis reveals that simply using the largest model output (\emph{i.e.}, MaxLogit) can be {limiting}. As a simple illustration, we contrast in Figure~\ref{fig:banner} of estimating OOD uncertainty using joint vs. single label information. MaxLogit can only capture the difference between the dominant outputs for \texttt{dog} (in-distribution) and \texttt{car} (OOD), while positive information from another dominant label \texttt{cat} (in-distribution) is dismissed.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=137mm]{tex/fig/energy-ood-teaser-neurips.pdf}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\caption{\footnotesize Out-of-distribution detection for multi-label classification networks. During inference time, input $\*x$ is passed through classifier $f$, and label-wise scores are computed for each label. OOD indicator scores are either the maximum-valued score (denoted by green outlines) or the sum of all scores. Taking the sum results in a larger difference in scores and more separation between in-distribution and OOD inputs (denoted by red lines), resulting in better OOD detection. Plots in the bottom right depict the probability densities of MaxLogit~\cite{hendrycks2019benchmark} versus \emph{JointEnergy} (ours).
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\label{fig:banner}}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
In this paper, we address the important problem of OOD uncertainty estimation in the multi-label classification setting, and propose a simple and surprisingly effective method that jointly characterizes uncertainty from multiple labels. As a major advantage, our method circumvents the challenge to {directly} estimate the joint likelihood using generative models, which can be can computationally intractable to train and optimize, especially on multi-label datasets~\cite{hinz2019generating}.
Formally, our proposed method, \emph{JointEnergy}, derives a novel OOD score by combining label-wise energies over all labels.
Despite its simplicity, we show that the {JointEnergy} can be theoretically interpreted from a joint likelihood perspective. The joint likelihood allows separability between in-distribution vs. OOD data, since OOD data is expected to have lower joint likelihood (\emph{i.e.}, not associated with any of the labels). In contrast, having multiple dominant labels is indicative of an in-distribution input, which is the key aspect that {JointEnergy} captures. As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:banner}, {JointEnergy} effectively amplifies the difference in scores between in-distribution and OOD inputs, compared to MaxLogit.
Extensive experiments show that {JointEnergy} outperforms existing methods on three common multi-label classification tasks, establishing {state-of-the-art} performance. For example, on a DenseNet trained with MS-COCO~\citep{lin2014microsoft}, our method reduces the false positive rate (at 95\% TPR) by {10.05}\% when evaluated against OOD data from ImageNet~\cite{deng2009imagenet}, compared to the best performing baselines.
Consistent performance improvement is observed on other multi-label tasks including PASCAL-VOC~\citep{Everingham15} and NUS-WIDE~\citep{nus-wide-civr09}, as well as alternative network architecture
Importantly, our analysis
demonstrates a strong compatibility between the label-wise energy function and aggregation function, supported by both mathematical interpretation and empirical results.
As an ablation, we explore the effectiveness of applying summation to popular OOD scoring functions~\cite{hendrycks2019benchmark,hendrycks2016baseline, liang2018enhancing, lee2018simple}.
We find that summing labels' scores using previous methods is inferior to summing labels' energies, emphasizing the need for {JointEnergy}. For example, simply summing over the logits across labels results in up to 51.93\% degradation in FPR95 on MS-COCO.
Our study therefore underlines the importance of properly choosing both the label-wise scoring function and the aggregation method.
Below we summarize our {key results and contributions}:
\begin{itemize}
\item We propose a novel method \emph{JointEnergy}---addressing an important yet underexplored problem---OOD detection for multi-label classification networks. Our method establishes state-of-the-art performance, reducing the average FPR95 by up to {10.05}\%. We show theoretical interpretation, underpinning our method from a joint likelihood perspective.
\item We conduct extensive ablations which reveals important insights for multi-label OOD uncertainty estimation under (1) different aggregation functions, (2) different label-wise OOD scoring functions, and (3) the compatibility thereof.
\item We curate three evaluation tasks in the multi-label setting from three real-world high-resolution image databases, which enables future research to evaluate OOD detection in a multi-label setting. Our code and dataset is released for reproducible research\footnote{Code and data is available: \url{https://github.com/deeplearning-wisc/multi-label-ood}}.
\end{itemize}
\section{Background}
\textbf{Multi-label Classification} Multi-label classification is the supervised learning problem
where an instance may be associated with multiple labels.
Let $\mathcal{X}$ (resp. $\mathcal{Y}$) be the input (resp. output) space and let $\mathcal{P}$ be a distribution over $\mathcal{X} \times \mathcal{Y}$, and let $f : \mathcal{X} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{|\mathcal{Y}|}$ be a neural network trained on samples drawn from $\mathcal{P}$. An input can be associated with a subset of labels in $\mathcal{Y}=\{1,2,...,K\}$. This set is represented by a vector $\*y=[y_1,y_2,...,y_K]$, where $y_i=1$ if and only if label $i$ is associated with instance $\*x$, and 0 otherwise. We use a convolutional neural network with shared feature space and derive the multi-label output prediction. In contrast to learning completely disjoint classifiers~\cite{tsoumakas2007multi}, the end-to-end training with a shared feature space is computationally more efficient than training $K$ completely independent models. This has become a de facto training mechanism for multi-label classification, with various domain applications~\cite{liu2017deep, liu2015multi, trohidis2008multi, wang2017chestx}.
\textbf{Out-of-distribution Detection} The problem of OOD detection for multi-label classification is defined as follows. Denote by $\mathcal{D}_\mathrm{in}$ the marginal distribution of $\mathcal{P}$ over $\mathcal{X}$, which represents the distribution of in-distribution data. At test time, the environment can incur an out-of-distribution $\mathcal{D}_\mathrm{out}$ over $\mathcal{X}$. The goal of OOD detection is to define a decision function $G$ such that:
\begin{equation*}
G(\mathbf{x}; f) =
\begin{cases}
0 & \text{if } \mathbf{x} \sim \mathcal{D}_\mathrm{out}, \\
1 & \text{if } \mathbf{x} \sim \mathcal{D}_\mathrm{in}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
An input is considered an OOD if it does not contain any label in the in-distribution data.
In practice, $\mathcal{D}_\mathrm{out}$ is often defined by a distribution that simulates anomalies encountered during deployment time, such as samples from an irrelevant distribution whose label set has no intersection with $\mathcal{Y}$ and \emph{therefore should not be predicted by the model}.
\textbf{Energy Function} Liu \emph{et al.}~\cite{liu2020energy} first propose using free energy as a scoring function for OOD uncertainty estimation in the multi-class setting. Given a neural classifier $f(\*x): \mathcal{X} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^K$ that maps an input $\*x \in \mathcal{X}$ to K real-valued numbers as logits,
a softmax function is used to derive a categorical distribution,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:softmax}
p(y_i=1 \mid \*x) = \frac{e^{f_{y_i}(\*x)}}{\sum_{j=1}^K e^{f_{y_j}(\*x)}}.
\end{equation}
The energy model defines the probability distribution through the logits. The transformation from logits to probability distribution is by the Boltzmann distribution:
\begin{align*
p(y_i=1 \mid \*x) = \frac{e^{-E(\*x,y_i)}}{\int_{y'} e^{-E(\*x, y')}}
= \frac{e^{-E(\*x,y_i)}}{e^{-E(\*x)}}.
\end{align*}
Therefore, a multi-class classifier can be interpreted from an energy-based perspective by viewing the logit $f_{y_i}(\*x)$ of class $y_i$ as an energy function $E(\*x,y_i) = -f_{y_i}(\*x)$.
By equalizing the two denominators above, the \emph{free energy} function $E(\*x)$ for any given input $\*x$ is:
\begin{align}\label{eq:energy_softmax}
E(\*x)=- \text{log}\sum_{i=1}^K e^{f_{y_i}(\*x)}.
\end{align}
\section{Method}
\label{sec:method}
In this work, we propose a novel method for OOD detection in multi-label classification networks, where an input can have several labels (see Figure~\ref{fig:banner}). In what follows, we first introduce a label-wise energy function, and then propose \emph{JointEnergy} that can leverage the joint information across labels for OOD uncertainty estimation.
\textbf{Label-wise Free Energy} We consider a standard pre-trained multi-label neural classifier, with a shared parameter space $\theta$ up to the penultimate feature layer. During inference time, for a given input $\*x$, the (logit) output for the $i$-th class is:
\begin{equation}
f_{y_i}(\*x) = h(\*x;\theta)\cdot \*w_\text{cls}^i,
\end{equation}
where $\*w_\text{cls}^i$ is the weight vector corresponding to class $i$, and $h(\*x;\theta)$ is the feature vector in the penultimate layer. The predictive probability for each binary label $y_i$ is made by a binary logistic classifier:
\begin{equation*}
p(y_i=1 \mid \*x) = \frac{e^{f_{y_i}(\*x)}}{1+ e^{f_{y_i}(\*x)}},
\end{equation*}
where $i \in \{1,2,...,K\}$.
The logistic classifier output can be viewed as the softmax with two logits---0 and $f_{y_i}(\*x)$, respectively. For each class $y_i$, we define \emph{label-wise free energy} as follows:
\begin{align}\label{eq:class_energy_softmax}
E_{y_i}(\*x)= - \text{log} (1+ e^{f_{y_i}(\*x)}),
\end{align}
which can be viewed as a special case of free energy in~\cite{liu2020energy}. For illustration, we show the label-wise energy distribution for a subset of PASCAL-VOC classes in Figure~\ref{fig:label_wise} (green color). Label-wise energy captures the OOD uncertainty for a single label, but unfortunately does not capture uncertainty jointly across labels.
\textbf{JointEnergy} We propose a novel scoring function that takes into account the joint uncertainty across labels, and provide mathematical justification from a joint likelihood perspective. In particular, our method is the first to consider the joint estimation of OOD uncertainty across labels:
\begin{align}
E_\text{joint}(\*x)& =\sum_{i=1}^K -E_{y_i}(\*x)
\label{eq:energy_agg}
\end{align}
In particular,
\emph{JointEnergy} takes the summation of label-wise energy scores across all labels.
Note that in the above equations, label-wise energy $E_{y_i}(\*x)$ by definition is a {negative} value, and the aggregation methods output a {positive} value by negation. This aligns with the convention that a larger score indicates in-distribution and vice versa.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=135mm]{tex/fig/label_wise_density-crop.pdf}
\caption{\footnotesize Label-wise energy scores $-E_{y_i}(\*x)$ distribution. The in-distribution classes (each per row) are a subset from PASCAL-VOC (green). OOD test data is from ImageNet (gray), which is the same for all labels.
x-axis is in log scale for visibility.
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\label{fig:label_wise}}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\textbf{Mathematical Interpretation}
We provide mathematical interpretation for \emph{JointEnergy}.
To interpret \emph{JointEnergy}, we first resort to the energy-based model~\citep{lecun2006tutorial}, where the conditional likelihood $p(\*x \mid y_i=1)$ is given by:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:conditional-likelihood}
p(\*x \mid y_i=1) & = \frac{e^{-E_{y_i}(\*x)}}{\int_{\*x | y_i}e^{-E_{y_i}(\*x)}},
\end{align}
and $Z_{y_i}=\int_{\*x \mid {y_i}}e^{-E_{y_i}(\*x)}$ is the normalized density.
We now show that \emph{JointEnergy} can be interpreted from the joint likelihood perspective:
\begin{align}
E_\text{joint}(\*x)&= \sum_{i=1}^K \log \bigg(p(\*x \mid y_i=1)\cdot Z_{y_i}\bigg) \\[8pt]
& = \sum_{i=1}^K \log p(\*x \mid y_i=1) +\underbrace{\sum_{i=1}^K \log Z_{y_i}}_{Z} \label{eq: sum1}
\end{align}
By applying Bayesian rule for each term $\log p(\*x \mid y_i=1)$ in Equation~\ref{eq: sum1}, we have
\begin{align}
E_\text{joint}(\*x)&= \log \prod_{i=1}^K \frac{p(y_i=1 \mid \*x) \cdot p(\*x)}{p(y_i=1)} + Z\\
&= \log \prod_{i=1}^K p(y_i =1\mid \*x) + K\cdot \log p(\*x) \notag \\
& \quad + \underbrace{(Z - \log \prod_{i=1}^K p(y_i=1))}_{\text{\normalfont C}}
\label{eq:sum2}
\end{align}
Given all labels $y_i$ are conditionally independent\footnote{Note that this is sufficient but not necessary for our results to hold. Our theoretical assumption is made to ease and facilitate the interpretation from a joint likelihood perspective. Importantly, our experiments in Section~\ref{sec:experiments} hold without imposing any condition and demonstrate superior performance. }, we have $\prod_{i=1}^K p(y_i =1\mid \*x) = p(y_1=1,y_2=1,...,y_K=1\mid \*x)$. Therefore, Equation~\ref{eq:sum2} is equivalent to:
\begin{align}
E_\text{joint}(\*x)&= \log p(y_1=1,y_2=1, \ldots, y_K=1 \mid \*x)
\notag \\
& \quad + K\cdot \log p(\*x) + C \\
\vspace{-0.1in}
& = \log \frac{p(\*x \mid y_1=1,y_2=1,...,y_K=1)\cdot \prod_{i=1}^K p(y_i=1)}{p(\*x)} \notag \\
& \quad + K\cdot \log p(\*x) + C\\
& = \underbrace{\log p(\*x \mid y_1=1, y_2=1,...,y_K=1)}_{\text{joint conditional log likelihood}, ~\uparrow~\text{for in-distribution}}
\notag \\
& \quad + \underbrace{(K-1) \cdot \log p(\*x)}_{\text{log data density}, ~\uparrow~\text{for in-distribution}} + ~~~Z \label{eq:interpretation}
\end{align}
\paragraph{Rationale of Equation~\ref{eq:interpretation}} The equation above suggests that $E_\text{joint}(\*x)$ can be interpreted from the joint conditional log likelihood and log data density perspective. The second term is desirable for OOD detection since it reflects the underlying data density, which is higher for in-distribution data $\*x$. The first term takes into account joint estimation across labels, which is new to our multi-label setting and was not previously considered in multi-class setting~\citep{liu2020energy}. The first term allows even further discriminativity between in- vs. OOD data, since OOD data is expected to have lower joint conditional likelihood (\emph{i.e.}, not associated with any of the labels). In contrast, having multiple dominant labels is indicative of an in-distribution input, which is a characteristic that \emph{JointEnergy} captures. As a major advantage, our method circumvents the challenge to {directly} estimate the joint likelihood using generative models, which can be computationally intractable to train and optimize on multi-label datasets~\cite{hinz2019generating}.
\subsection{JointEnergy for Multi-Label OOD Detection}
We propose using the JointEnergy function $E_\text{joint}(\*x)$ defined in Section~\ref{sec:method} for OOD detection:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:ood}
G(\*x; \tau) =
\begin{cases}
\text{out} & \quad \text{if } E_\text{joint}(\*x) \leq \tau, \\
\text{in} & \quad \text{if } E_\text{joint}(\*x) > \tau,
\end{cases}
\end{align}
where $\tau$ is the energy threshold, and can be chosen so that a high fraction (\emph{e.g.}, 95\%) of in-distribution data is correctly classified by $G(\*x; \tau)$. The sensitivity analysis on $\tau$ is provided in Figure~\ref{fig:auroc}.\@
A data point with higher JointEnergy $E_\text{joint}(\*x)$ is considered as in-distribution, and vice versa (see Fig. \ref{fig:banner}).
\section{Related Work}
\label{sec:related}
\paragraph{Multi-label Classification}
The task of identifying multiple classes within an input example is of significant interest in many applications~\citep{tsoumakas2007multi} where deep neural networks are commonly used as the classifiers. Natural images usually contain several objects and may have many associated tags~\citep{wang2016cnn}.
Chen \emph{et al.}~\cite{gong2013deep} used convolutional neural networks (CNN) to annotate images with 3 or 5 tags on the NUS-WIDE dataset. \citep{chen2019integration} used CNNs to tag images of road scenes from 52 possible labels.
In the medical domain, Wang \emph{et al.}~\cite{wang2017chestx} presented a chest X-ray dataset in which one image may contain multiple abnormalities. Multi-label classification is also prominent in natural language processing~\citep{nam2014large}.\@
Our proposed method is therefore relevant to a wide range of applications in the real world
\textbf{Out-of-distribution Uncertainty Estimation}
Detecting and rejecting unknowns has a long history in machine learning; see \cite{yang2021oodsurvey} for a comprehensive survey of the main ideas. We highlight a few representative works in the context of deep learning. The phenomenon of neural networks' overconfidence to out-of-distribution data is revealed by Nguyen \emph{et al.}~\cite{nguyen2015deep}.
Previous works attempt to improve the OOD uncertainty estimation by proposing the ODIN score~\citep{hsu2020generalized, liang2018enhancing}, Mahalanobis
distance-based confidence score~\citep{lee2018simple}, and gradient-based GradNorm score~\citep{huang2021importance}.
Recent work by Liu \emph{et al.}~\citep{liu2020energy} proposed using an energy score for OOD detection, which demonstrated advantages over the softmax confidence score both empirically and theoretically. Huang and Li~\cite{huang2021mos} proposed a group-based OOD detection method that scales effectively to large-scale dataset ImageNet.
However, previous methods primarily focused on multi-class classification networks. In contrast, we propose a hyperparameter-free measurement that allows effective OOD detection in the underexplored \emph{multi-label} setting, where the information from various labels is combined in a theoretically interpretable manner.
\textbf{Generative-based Out-of-distribution Detection} Generative models \citep{dinh2016density,huang2017stacked, kingma2013auto,rezende2014stochastic,tabak2013family,van2016conditional} can be alternative approaches for detecting OOD examples, as they directly estimate the in-distribution density and can declare a test sample to be out-of-distribution if it lies in the low-density regions. However, as shown by Nalisnick \emph{et al.}~\cite{nalisnick2018deep}, deep generative models can assign a high likelihood to out-of-distribution data.
Deep generative models can be more effective for out-of-distribution detection using likelihood ratio test~\citep{ren2019likelihood, serra2019input} and likelihood regret~\citep{xiao2020likelihood}.
Though our work is based on discriminative classification models, we show that label-wise energy scores can be theoretically interpreted from a data density perspective. More importantly, generative based models~\citep{hinz2019generating} can be prohibitively challenging to train and optimize, especially on large and complex multi-label datasets that we considered (\emph{e.g.}, MS-COCO, NUS-WIDE etc.). In contrast, our method relies on a discriminative multi-label classifier, which can be easily optimized using standard SGD.
\textbf{Energy-based Learning} Energy-based machine learning models date back to Boltzmann machines~\citep{ackley1985learning, salakhutdinov2010efficient}.
Energy-based learning~\citep{lecun2006tutorial,ranzato2007efficient, ranzato2007unified} provides a unified framework for many probabilistic and non-probabilistic approaches to learning. Recent work~\citep{zhao2019energy} also demonstrated using energy functions to train GANs~\citep{goodfellow2014generative}, where the discriminator uses energy values to differentiate between real and generated images.
Xie \emph{et al.}~\cite{xie2016theory} showed that a discriminative classifier can be interpreted from an energy-based perspective.
Energy-based methods are also used in structure prediction \citep{belanger2016structured, tu2018learning}.
Liu \emph{et al.}~\cite{liu2020energy} first proposed using energy score for OOD uncertainty estimation, which demonstrated superior performance for multi-class classification networks. In contrast, our work focuses on a multi-label setting, where we contribute both empirical and theoretical insights and demonstrate the effectiveness of utilizing information jointly from across all labels.
|
\section*{Introduction}
The problem of phase retrieval is a central problem in many imaging techniques including X-ray Bragg coherent diffraction imaging (BCDI) and ptychography\cite{Miao2015}, electron ptychography\cite{Jiang2018ElectronResolution}, Lorentz transmission electron microscopy (LTEM)\cite{Phatak2016RecentMicroscopy}, super-resolution optical imaging\cite{Szameit2012Sparsity-basedImaging}, and astronomy\cite{Dean2006PhaseTelescope}. Phase retrieval is the algorithmic process of recovering phases from measured scattered intensities alone. In BCDI for example, a nanocrystalline sample is illuminated with a coherent X-ray beam from a synchrotron source or X-ray Free Electron Lasers (XFEL) and the scattered intensities are measured in the far-field at a Bragg peak. The measured intensities represent the modulus of the complex Fourier Transform (FT) of the object, but the phase of the wave is lost. Hence, the 3D image of the object cannot be recovered from a simple inverse FT and we must resort to phase retrieval algorithms that can recover this lost phase information to recover an image of the object. Additionally, when measured at a Bragg peak, the phase is influenced by the local strain within the crystal. Consequently, in addition to being a fundamental requirement to recovering the object's 3D structure, phase recovery also provides a 3D map of the strain state within the crystal, encoded as a phase of the complex image. This capability of BCDI to provide nanoscale structural information as well as picometer sensitivity to strain has had profound implications for the materials science, chemistry and solid-state physics communities. Examples include defect dynamics in battery electrodes\cite{Ulvestad2015}, in-situ catalysis\cite{Kim2018ActiveNanocrystals,kang2020time}, photon transport\cite{Cherukara2017a,Cherukara2017UltrafastNanostructures,Clark2013}, phase transformation\cite{Clark2015,Clark2015c,Ulvestad2015c}, and plastic deformation\cite{Hofmann20173DNano-crystals,Cherukara2018Three-dimensionalLoading,Yang2013}.
More broadly, while coherent imaging techniques have grown to become an integral part of electron and X-ray materials characterization\cite{Jiang2018ElectronResolution,Phatak2016RecentMicroscopy,Pfeiffer2018X-rayPtychography}, their dependence on iterative phase retrieval to recover sample images prevents real-time feedback, which is particularly crippling for \textit{in-situ} and \textit{operando} experiments. Iterative phase retrieval typically requires thousands of iterations and often multiple starts to arrive at a robust solution, often taking longer than a single dataset acquisition time.
Neural network (NN) models have been developed to rapidly solve inverse problems across a variety of disciplines including magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)\cite{Zhu2018ImageLearning}, image denoising\cite{Burger2012ImageBM3D,Lehtinen2018Noise2Noise:Data}, super-resolution\cite{Dong2016ImageNetworks,Ledig2017Photo-realisticNetwork,Lim2017EnhancedSuper-resolution}, etc. Specific to the problem of phase retrieval, neural networks have been trained to learn to retrieve phases in holographic imaging\cite{Rivenson2018PhaseNetworks}, lensless computational imaging\cite{Sinha2017LenslessLearning}, X-ray ptychography\cite{Cherukara2020AI-enabledImaging,Wengrowicz2020DeepPtychography,Guan2019PtychoNet:Ptychography}, Fourier ptychography\cite{Nguyen2018DeepMicroscopy} and in BCDI\cite{Cherukara2018Real-timeNetworks,Wu2021ComplexNetworks,Harder2021DeepImaging,chan2021rapid,scheinker2020adaptive}. Each of models in the aforementioned papers have been trained in a supervised manner, that is, training of the network uses pairs or triplets of images, including the experimentally acquired (or forward simulated) data and the known sample's complex image (typically amplitude and phase). NN training is then achieved by optimizing the weights of the network so that the network learns to output the sample image for a given measured data (the input diffraction pattern in the BCDI case). While this approach has been shown to provide speed, as well as reduced reciprocal space sampling requirements, in comparison to iterative phase retrieval, the approach is limited by the need for a large volume of labeled simulated data with corresponding images or untenable quantities of experimental data which has been inverted through traditional iterative phase retrieval. Both types of training data suffer from limitations. Simulated data is very often a poor substitute for real data, for example, it is hard to generate training data that is sufficiently diverse or is well representative of the experimental data, and it is usually free of experimental artefacts. On the other hand, performing phase retrieval on experimental data before training is a computationally and manually intensive task due to the number of hyperparameters that need to be adjusted for successful convergence. Recently, a new type of model, PhaseGAN, which is a generative adversarial network, has been trained to perform phase retrieval without pairing of inputs and outputs\cite{zhang2021phasegan}. But this approach also requires the availability of ground truth data, the subtle difference is that the inputs to the network and desired outputs do not need to be paired. Another recent study included a physics-informed neural network (PINN) which was trained in an unsupervised manner to recover the XFEL pulses in the time domain from the low-resolution measurements in both the time and frequency domains. However, the authors found PINN not as accurate as the network trained with supervised learning due to the lack of strong prior given by the labeled data \cite{ratner2021recovering}.
In this work, we demonstrate the application of AutoPhaseNN, a physics-aware unsupervised deep convolutional neural network (CNN) that learns to solve the phase problem \textit{without ever being shown real space images of the sample amplitude or phase}. By incorporating the physics of the X-ray scattering into the network design and training, AutoPhaseNN learns to predict both the amplitude and phase of the sample given the measured diffraction intensity alone. Additionally, unlike previous deep learning models, AutoPhaseNN does not need the ground truth images of sample's amplitude and phase at any point, either in training or in deployment. Once trained, the physical model is discarded and only the CNN portion is needed which has learned the data inversion from reciprocal space to real space and is $\sim$100 times faster than the iterative phase retrieval with comparable image quality. Furthermore, we show that by using AutoPhaseNN's prediction as the learned prior to iterative phase retrieval, we can achieve consistently higher image quality, than neural network prediction alone, at 10 times faster speed than iterative phase retrieval alone. We demonstrate the application of AutoPhaseNN to 3D BCDI, motivated by the importance of the technique to materials characterization, especially in the light of upgrades to synchrotron sources and XFELs occurring world-wide. These new light sources are revolutionizing both the spatial and temporal resolution of the technique, although this revolution comes in the form of data volumes that will be completely untenable for iterative phase retrieval methods, but could be handled by the developed unsupervised deep learning solution. Additionally, the unsupervised network eliminates the need for ground truth real space images in training, potentially enabling online network training during the data acquisition with minimal human intervention, which is impractical for supervised network that needs computationally intensive iterative phase retrieval to obtain ground truth images. It's worth mentioning that we note that our approach is broadly applicable to any phase retrieval problem (or more generally to inverse problems) where the forward model is accurately known.
\section*{Results}
\subsection*{Approach}
The AutoPhaseNN framework is built by combining 3D convolutional encoder–decoder neural network with the physical model of X-ray scattering. With the loss function calculated between the measurement and the estimated diffraction generated by the forward physical model, the 3D CNN is trained to learn the inverse process of the physical model with only unlabeled simulated and/or measured diffraction patterns without needing real space images. Once trained, the physical model can be discarded and only the 3D CNN model is used to provide the direct inversion from 3D diffraction intensities to real space images without needing the iterative process. In this section, we briefly describe the neural network architecture used in the training stage. Subsequently, we demonstrate the efficacy of the trained model and the subsequent refinement process using both simulated and experimental data.
\subsection*{Unsupervised deep learning model}
The architecture of the unsupervised physics-aware deep learning model (AutoPhaseNN) is depicted in Fig. 1a. The model is based on a 3D CNN framework with a convolutional autoencoder and two deconvolutional decoders that learns a direct inversion from the diffraction intensity to the real space image amplitude and phase. In addition to the 3D CNN portion, we include the X-ray scattering model into the network architecture, including the numerical modeling of diffraction and custom layers to enforce image shape support (Fig. 1b). The outputs of the 3D CNN, amplitude and phase images, are combined to form the complex number, which is input to the X-ray scattering model to obtain the estimated reciprocal space intensity. Loss for each training example is then computed as the mean absolute error (MAE) between measured and estimated diffraction intensities. The loss function is defined as:
\begin{equation}
Loss(I_e, I_m) = \frac{\sum{|\sqrt{I_e}-\sqrt{I_m}|}}{N^3},
\end{equation}
where $I_e$ and $I_m$ correspond to the estimated and measured diffraction intensities and $N \times N \times N$ is the size of the output image. We note that the reciprocal space intensity is also the input to the network (Fig. 1a), and hence at no stage do we directly use the ground truth of target outputs (i.e., sample amplitude and phase) to train the network.
In the 3D CNN, the encoder takes the magnitude of the 3D diffraction pattern with the size of $64\times64\times64$ as its input. Then, the encoded data is passed through two separated decoders to generate the $64\times64\times64$ amplitude and phase images in real space. The input is connected to the output using convolution blocks, max pooling, upsampling and zero padding layers. The convolution block is composed of two $3\times3\times3$ convolution layers, the leaky rectified linear unit (LRLU) activation function and the batch normalization (BN). Further details of the network architecture along with the X-ray scattering model are included in \textbf{Methods}.
Unlabeled simulated datasets generated from a physics-informed data preparation pipeline using atomistic structures and a small amount of experimental datasets acquired from BCDI experiments were used for network training and testing (see \textbf{Methods} for details of the training and testing data). Once the training is complete, we discard the X-ray scattering model and only keep the 3D CNN portion of the network which has now learnt to invert the intensity from coherent X-ray diffraction to the sample image amplitude and phase in a single step.
\subsection*{Performance on simulated 3D CDI data}
Figure 2 shows examples of AutoPhaseNN's performance on simulated data. We tested the trained AutoPhaseNN model on $\sim$2k unseen 3D diffraction patterns that were never shown to the network during training. To evaluate the quality of the prediction, we calculated the $\chi^2$ error for the modulus of the diffraction pattern in reciprocal space defined as:
\begin{equation}
\chi^2 = \frac{\sum{(\sqrt{I_e}-\sqrt{I_m})^2}}{\sum{I_m}},
\end{equation}
together with the structural similarity (SSIM) for the amplitude of the real space image. Figure 2 (a and b) show the distributions of the $\chi^2$ error and SSIM, indicating that the network gives excellent performance in predicting the amplitude and phase of the 3D image from the input diffraction intensity. Four representative results are displayed in Fig. 2 (c-g). The predicted 3D images (Fig. 2f) show high agreement with the corresponding ground truth images (Fig. 2d). Even for crystal 4, which has the largest computed error under the reciprocal space $\chi^2$ error metric, the network still correctly predicts the shape and phase distribution of the image.
\subsection*{Refinement on deep learning prediction}
For comparison, we performed conventional iterative phase retrieval on the test datasets. Although the computed $\chi^2$ errors for the network prediction in Fig. 2f are relatively large compared to phase retrieval results in Fig. 2e, the network prediction could provide a learned prior to the iterative phase retrieval. The convergence of these iterative algorithms is often sensitive to initialization conditions, such as the initial guess of the object and support \cite{Marchesini2003}. Additionally, it usually requires switching algorithms, thousands of iterations, and multiple random initializations to converge to a solution with high confidence \cite{Chen2007}. A refinement procedure was conducted on the real space images predicted by AutoPhaseNN. We performed iterative phase retrieval using the output of AutoPhaseNN model (amplitude and phase of the 3D image) as the learned prior. In Fig. 2g, we demonstrate that the reconstruction error can be further reduced with only 50 iterations of the refinement process (error reduction (ER) algorithm) and reach comparable or even lower errors compared to the phase retrieval results (which does not achieve the same level of error even after 600 iterations).
Supplementary Figures 3 and 4 show the difference between the reconstructed and the measured diffraction data for two representative results (crystal 2 and 4), showing that the refinement process improves the reconstruction from the AutoPhaseNN prediction. Supplementary Figures 1 and 2 plot $\chi^2$ errors for 2D slices in diffraction patterns for the three approaches. It can be observed that conventional phase retrieval and the refinement have very close reconstruction errors in the low-q region, while refined results have relatively lower errors in the high-q region. This indicates that the refinement process based on the learned prior given by the network prediction has better performance in retrieving high spatial frequency information, probably because the network predictions are already very close to the true solution, especially the predicted amplitude as indicated by the SSIM value shown in Fig. 2.
\subsection*{Demonstration on experimental 3D BCDI data}
The performance of the trained AutoPhaseNN model was also evaluated on experimentally acquired data. 3D BCDI data was measured from sub-micrometer size gold crystals grown by high temperature dewetting of a thin gold film deposited on a Silicon substrate, with the native oxide intact. The crystals form with a predominately (111) crystallographic orientation normal to the substrate surface. This leads to a favored texture of (111) Bragg peaks with a random orientation about the surface normal. We isolated crystals with diffraction signals that were sufficiently isolated from the predominate (111) texture and measured three-dimensional coherent diffraction patterns in the vicinity of those individual (111) Bragg peaks. Further experimental details are described in \textbf{Methods}.
The coherent diffraction patterns from ten randomly selected crystals were used to refine the neural network that was pre-trained on the simulated data. Following a standard pre-processing step (see details in \textbf{Methods}), the performance of the refined neural network was evaluated with previously unseen experimental data. We also performed iterative phase retrieval with the same parameters as before for comparison to AutoPhaseNN's predictions. The results are shown in Fig. 3 (a and b). AutoPhaseNN provides a predicted shape and strain field of the crystal very close to the phase retrieval results with $\sim$100 times speed up, taking about 200 ms for each prediction on a CPU processor, in contrast to phase retrieval that took about 28 s for 600 iterations.
As before, we also used AutoPhaseNN's prediction as a learned prior to iterative phase retrieval. The recovered images after just 50 iterations of phase retrieval (ER) starting from AutoPhaseNN's prediction are shown in Fig. 3c. From the visual comparison and the $\chi^2$ error, the refinement produces improved details in shape and phase and gives a comparable and even lower error compared to phase retrieval results. We note that the phase retrieval reconstruction couldn't achieve the same error even after more iterations (Supplementary Figure 6). Additionally, the combination of AutoPhaseNN prediction and the refinement procedure is still about 10 times faster than the iterative phase retrieval (600 iterations).
Figure 4 shows the reconstruction $\chi^2$ error as a function of the iteration for the five representative results shown in Fig. 3. The dashed lines represent errors for iterative phase retrieval alone, showing three cycles of error reduction (ER) and hybrid input and output (HIO) algorithms as described in \textbf{Methods}. The $\chi^2$ for HIO rising and reaching a plateau is a sign of escaping local minima \cite{Fienup1982PhaseComparison,marchesini2007phase}, then the error decreases rapidly on iterations with the ER algorithm and becomes more consistent with the actual image quality, which causes the abruptness in the reconstruction error. The solid lines are errors for the refinement using the predicted prior, showing that the refinement procedure starts with a lower reconstruction error and converges faster compared with the conventional phase retrieval since its initial image is already very close to the true solution. Supplementary Figure 5 shows reconstruction errors for ER algorithm that starts from random initial guesses. The ER reconstructions reach similar error values as the network predictions after some numbers of iterations as indicated by the dots in Supplementary Figure 5a. But the reconstructed real space images with 500 iterations of ER algorithm (shown in Supplementary Figure 5 (b-f)) are clearly worse than both network predictions (Fig. 3b) and refined results (Fig. 3c) (50 iterations of ER initialized by network prediction), proving that the learned prior given by network prediction could improve the convergence performance of ER algorithm and relax the requirement of switching algorithms to achieve a satisfactory solution.
In order to avoid misleading results due to over-fitting when optimizing/predicting from the diffraction data, a free R-factor was evaluated for the network prediction, conventional phase retrieval, and the refinement \cite{favre2020free}. The free Poisson log-likelihood $LLK_{free}$ and the free $\chi ^2 _{free}$ (described in SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE 3) are presented in Supplementary Table 1, which also demonstrates that the refinement process with the learned prior provided by the network gives the best performance.
\section*{Discussion}
We have demonstrated the application of the developed unsupervised physics-aware deep learning model, AutoPhaseNN, for direct inversion of the 3D BCDI data from the far-field measurement to the real space image. By incorporating the X-ray scattering model into the network architecture, AutoPhaseNN is trained with only measured diffraction patterns without needing real space images. Once trained, only the 3D CNN model is used to provide 3D images in the real space from the measured diffraction intensities in the reciprocal space. The AutoPhaseNN prediction is $\sim$100 times faster when compared to traditional iterative phase retrieval (600 iterations), which will greatly benefit real-time CDI experiments. Combined with the refinement process (50 iterations of ER algorithm), the final result is comparable to the traditional phase retrieval while being $\sim$10 times faster. We believe the AutoPhaseNN model will revolutionize the broad application of neural networks to phase retrieval problems, including CDI for which AutoPhaseNN was designed and other inverse problems in which the forward model is known.
Currently, AutoPhaseNN network is trained offline and with unlabeled simulated data and limited amount of experimental data. The current simulated data are created from face center cubic (fcc) lattice of gold with atomistic simulations. We expect the further improvement of the network performance with a large and more diverse training dataset, such as different reciprocal space oversampling ratios,crystals of different space groups and crystals with defects, etc. Practically, it is difficult to train a single network that can handle all sample types. We have demonstrated a strategy, in which the network pre-trained on simulated data is finely tuned for experimental data. This provides a practical approach to image new samples, bypassing the need to train an entirely new network from scratch. More importantly, with its ability to train without real space images, the performance of the AutoPhaseNN model can be continuously improved with data from new coherent imaging experiments. In addition, an idealized X-ray scattering model is employed in the current network training process. Further improvements can be made by optimizing the physical model of the coherent imaging, for example, including the partial coherence correction\cite{Clark2012} or dynamical scattering effects\cite{hu2018dynamic}.
We believe this unsupervised deep learning solution for data inversion will be critical to the coherent imaging technique, especially in the light of the present and future fourth generation synchrotron sources, including the Advanced Photon Source Upgrade (APS-U) and the Extremely Brilliant Source at the European Synchrotron Research Facility (ESRF-EBS). These upgrades will provide two or three orders of magnitude increased coherent X-ray flux. With the subsequent vast increase in the coherent imaging data, traditional iterative phase retrieval methods will not be able to keep up. DL methods have been shown to produce high-fidelity images on a sub-second timescale, which can provide real-time feedback for the experiment. Additionally, unsupervised training can potentially enable online real-time improvements to the neural network with minimal human intervention, in effect creating a continuously self-improving NN capable of keeping up with the vast data rate of next generation light sources and electron microscopes. With further development, the unsupervised deep learning approach demonstrated by AutoPhaseNN, will be vital to coherent imaging experiments both now and in the future.
\section*{Methods}
\subsection*{AutoPhaseNN architecture}
In the AutoPhaseNN model, the physical knowledge is included in the network architecture to enforce the physical constraint. As shown in Fig. 1a, two zero padding layers are employed before the last convolution blocks to act as the square support which sets the upper size limit of the real space object. The square support is set to half the size of the input diffraction data so that the oversampling condition for phase retrieval is met \cite{miao2000oversampling}. In addition, the physical knowledge that the normalized amplitude is within the interval [0,1] and the phase falls within the interval [-$\pi$,+$\pi$] is built into the network architecture using the Sigmoid activation function and the Tanh activation function in the final 3D convolution layers in the amplitude and phase branches, respectively.
Figure 1b describes the detailed X-ray scattering forward model during the training stage, including the numerical modeling of diffraction and image shape constraints. The predicted amplitude and phase are combined to generate the complex image. An image shape support function is obtained by thresholding the current predicted amplitude using a contour at the 10$\%$ intensity level. This image shape support is continuously updating from the predicted amplitude and is used only once per image per epoch during the network training. The aforementioned square support enforced by the zero padding layers and this image shape support can impose additional constraints during the unsupervised training process. The physical constraints implemented in the network architecture and the scattering forward model provide strong prior information that assures the performance of the unsupervised model without the labeled data.
The estimated diffraction pattern is obtained from the FT of the current estimation of the real space image that generated from the network output. The network weight and bias factors are optimized with the objective function that minimizes the loss between the input diffraction pattern and the estimated diffraction pattern. By incorporating the physics, the ground truth of the real space image is not needed during training. Once a trained model has been obtained, only the 3D CNN model is kept to recover the amplitude and phase information of the measured sample.
\subsection*{Simulated data generation}
Every crystal in the training dataset is prepared from a $\approx$ $20$ nm $\times$ $20$ nm $\times$ $20$ nm cube of face center cubic (fcc) lattice of gold. To create diverse shape and size, each crystal has $4$ -- $20$ facets generated by clipping along randomly chosen high crystal symmetry planes that are positioned at random distances from the geometric center of the crystal. To create realistic local strains within the crystal, a combination of compression, tension, and shear stresses (up to 1\% strain) is applied to the initial atomistic crystal structure. Subsequently, Large-scale Atomic/Molecular Massively Parallel Simulator (LAMMPS) is used to relax the strained structure via energy minimization performed using the embedded-atom method (EAM) interatomic potential for gold. After minimization, the lattice constant of the initial and final structures are normalized to 1 (i.e., scaled by the inverse lattice constant of gold, 1/4.078 \AA$\;$), and a $\approx$ 5 lattice unit padding ($\approx$ 20 \AA$\;$ before lattice normalization) is added to each side of the normalized structures to avoid any potential boundary related artifacts. Finally, the output object is created from these structures, which corresponds to a complex crystal density composed of the crystal shape (i.e., number density of atoms) and its local strain (i.e., lattice phases). The number density of atoms and lattice phases are computed using an uniform grid with a bin size of $\approx$ 2 lattice units ($\approx$ 8 \AA$\;$ before lattice normalization). The number density values are normalized by the maximum density value whereas the lattice phases are computed from the atom displacement field projected along [111] and are scaled by 2$\pi$. This binning process converts the crystal atomistic model to a $32\times32\times32$-sized object. The complex object array is then zero padded to twice the size ($64\times64\times64$). The 3D diffraction pattern is generated via FT of the complex object and Poisson distributed noise is added. The magnitude of the diffraction pattern is the input for the network and is the only thing needed in training. We note that although simulated crystals generated using this method are smaller than experimentally measured particles, the approach is still valid considering that the CNN is pixel-based and scale-independent.
\subsection*{3D CDI data acquisition}
The standard BCDI scan was a one hundred point rocking curve of +/- 0.5 degrees of the omega axis of the six circle diffractometer\cite{lohmeier1993angle}. All experimental data was acquired at the 34-ID-C beamline of the Advanced Photon Source at Argonne National Laboratory. The X-ray beam was set to 9 keV and focused using Kirk-Patrick Baez mirrors to approximately 700$\times$700 $\textrm{nm}^2$. A Medipix2 (Timepix) detector was positioned at either 500 mm or 750 mm from the sample depending on the size of the crystal. The detector distance was determined by the need to oversample the diffraction intensities with the 55 ${\mu}$m pixel size of the Timepix detector.
\subsection*{AutoPhaseNN training}
The AutoPhaseNN model was implemented based on the Keras package running the Tensorflow backend. The training dataset is a combination of simulated diffraction patterns and experimental diffraction patterns.As described in \textbf{Simulated data generation}, simulated 3D crystals were derived from a physics-informed data preparation pipeline, creating a wide variety of amplitude and phase states. The unlabeled simulated data consists of 54,028 3D diffraction patterns generated from different crystal shapes, within which 52k data are used for training and 2028 are reserved for testing. A rotation data augmentation was performed on the 52k simulated diffraction patterns to generate 104k data for training. The entire training dataset was randomly split, giving 80$\%$ used for training and the remaining 20$\%$ reserved for validation. When training the model, adaptive moment estimation (ADAM) with an initial learning rate of 0.001 is used to update the weights and biases of the model. At the end of each epoch, the performance of the network was evaluated using the validation data. The ReduceLROnPlateau callback was used to reduce the learning rate by a factor of 2 when the validation loss has stopped improving. The network was trained in parallel on 8 NVIDIA A100 GPUs for 70 epochs. The training took $\sim$12 h with a mini-batch size of 16 on each GPU.
Before applying AutoPhaseNN on experimental data, the network weights were fine-tuned with an augmented dataset generated from a small amount of experimental data. A data augmentation process consisting of rotation, resampling, and flipping was performed on 10 diffraction patterns acquired from BCDI experiments to generate 3200 experimental training data. We took the weights from the network pre-trained with simulated data and continued the training with the experimental training data (as presented in Supplementary Figure 7). The fine-tuning took $\sim$ 20 min on 8 GPUs for 50 epochs with an initial learning rate of $10^{-6}$ and a mini-batch size of 8 on each GPU.
\subsection*{Pre-processing experimental data}
AutoPhaseNN was mostly trained on unlabeled simulated data with the reciprocal space oversampling ratio of around 3.0. When tested on experimental data, we prepared input data by downsampling the 3D coherent diffraction pattern of the gold crystal acquired from BCDI experiments to yield an oversampling ratio of about 3.0. The $64\times64\times64$ sized input data was then obtained by cropping the downsampled 3D diffraction pattern.
\subsection*{Phase retrieval method}
For conventional iterative phase retrieval, the $64\times64\times64$ diffraction pattern was input to iterative phase retrieval, where the algorithm was switched between error reduction (ER) and hybrid input-output (HIO). The algorithm was performed with the combination of 20 iterations of ER, 160 iterations of HIO, and 20 iterations of ER as one cycle. Three cycles (600 iterations) were performed in total using shrink-wrap support in real space.
For the refinement procedure, the predicted amplitude and phase obtained from the AutoPhaseNN model were provided as the initial image guess and the initial support was generated by thresholding the predicted amplitude. Then 50 iterations of ER algorithm were performed to generate the final refined result.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This work was performed, in part, at the Advanced Photon Source, a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science User Facility, operated for the DOE Office of Science by Argonne National Laboratory under Contract No. DE-AC02-06CH11357. This research used resources of the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility, which is a DOE Office of Science User Facility supported under Contract DE-AC02-06CH11357. We gratefully acknowledge the computing resources provided on Swing, a high-performance computing cluster operated by the Laboratory Computing Resource Center at Argonne National Laboratory. This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences Data, Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning at DOE Scientific User Facilities program under Award Number 34532. M.J.C. acknowledges partial support from Argonne LDRD 2021-0090 – AutoPtycho: Autonomous, Sparse-sampled Ptychographic Imaging. Y.Y. acknowledges partial support from Argonne LDRD 2021-0315 – Scalable DL-based 3D X-ray nanoscale imaging enabled by AI accelerators.
\section*{Author contributions} Y.Y. and M.J.C. proposed the initial idea, R.J.H. contributed to the conceptualization. H.C. generated the simulated data. R.J.H. collected the BCDI experimental data. Y.Y. built the model and performed network training and testing with the help from M.J.C., R.J.H. and H.C.. P.B. gave technical support and conceptual advice. M.J.C., Y.Y., R.J.H. and H.C. wrote the manuscript with input from P.B. and S.S..
\section*{Competing interests}Authors declare that they have no competing interests.
\section*{Data and materials availability} All data needed to evaluate the conclusions in the paper are present in the paper. The codes and trained models developed in this study are available in a public GitHub repository at \url{ https://github.com/YudongYao/AutoPhaseNN}.
\section{\label{sec:intro}Introduction}
The problem of phase retrieval is a central problem in many imaging techniques including Bragg coherent X-ray diffraction imaging (BCDI) and ptychography\cite{Miao2015}, electron ptychography\cite{Jiang2018ElectronResolution}, Lorentz transmission electron microscopy (LTEM)\cite{Phatak2016RecentMicroscopy}, super-resolution optical imaging \cite{Szameit2012Sparsity-basedImaging} and astronomy \cite{Dean2006PhaseTelescope}. Phase retrieval is the algorithmic process of recovering phases from measured scattered intensities alone. In BCDI for example, a nanocrystalline sample is illuminated with a coherent X-ray beam from a synchrotron source or X-ray Free Electron Lasers (XFEL) and the scattered intensities are measured in the far-field at a Bragg peak. The measured intensities represent the modulus of the complex Fourier Transform (FT) of the object, but the phase of the wave is lost. Hence, the 3D image of the object cannot be recovered from a simple inverse FT and we must resort to phase retrieval algorithms that can recover this lost phase information to recover an image of the object. Additionally, when measured at a Bragg peak, the phases are influenced by the local strain within the crystal. Consequently, in addition to being a fundamental requirement to recovering the object's 3D structure, phase recovery also provides a 3D map of the strain state within the crystal, encoded as a phase of the complex image. This capability of BCDI to provide nanoscale structural information as well as picometer sensitivity to strain has had profound implications for the materials science, chemistry and solid-state physics communities. Examples include defect dynamics in battery electrodes\cite{Ulvestad2015}, in-situ catalysis\cite{Kim2018ActiveNanocrystals,kang2020time}, photon transport\cite{Cherukara2017a, Cherukara2017UltrafastNanostructures,Clark2013}, phase transformation\cite{Clark2015, Clark2015c,Ulvestad2015c} and plastic deformation\cite{Hofmann20173DNano-crystals, Cherukara2018Three-dimensionalLoading,Yang2013}.
More broadly, while coherent imaging techniques have grown to become an integral part of electron and X-ray materials characterization\cite{Jiang2018ElectronResolution, Phatak2016RecentMicroscopy, Pfeiffer2018X-rayPtychography}, their dependence on iterative phase retrieval to recover sample images prevents real-time feedback, which is particularly crippling for \textit{in-situ} and \textit{operando} experiments. Iterative phase retrieval requires thousands of iterations and often multiple starts to arrive at a robust solution, often taking longer than a single data set acquisition time.
Neural network (NN) models have been developed to rapidly solve inverse problems across a variety of disciplines including magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)\cite{Zhu2018ImageLearning}, image denoising\cite{Burger2012ImageBM3D,Lehtinen2018Noise2Noise:Data}, super-resolution\cite{Dong2016ImageNetworks, Ledig2017Photo-realisticNetwork, Lim2017EnhancedSuper-resolution} etc.. Specific to the problem of phase retrieval, neural networks have been trained to learn to retrieve phases in holographic imaging\cite{Rivenson2018PhaseNetworks}, lensless computational imaging \cite{Sinha2017LenslessLearning}, X-ray ptychography\cite{Cherukara2020AI-enabledImaging, Wengrowicz2020DeepPtychography, Guan2019PtychoNet:Ptychography}, Fourier ptychography\cite{Nguyen2018DeepMicroscopy} and in BCDI\cite{Cherukara2018Real-timeNetworks, Wu2021ComplexNetworks, Harder2021DeepImaging,chan2021rapid,scheinker2020adaptive}. Each of models in the aforementioned papers have been trained in a supervised manner, that is, training of the network uses pairs or triplets of images; the experimentally acquired (or forward simulated) data, and the unknown sample's complex image (typically amplitude and phase). NN training is then achieved by optimizing the weights of the network so that the network learns to output the sample image for a given measured data (the input diffraction pattern in the BCDI case). While this approach has been shown to provide speed, as well as reduced reciprocal space sampling requirements, in comparison to iterative phase retrieval, the approach is limited by the need for a large volume of simulated data with corresponding images or untenable quantities of experimental data which has been inverted through traditional iterative phase retrieval. Both types of training data suffer from limitations. Simulated data is very often a poor substitute for real data, for example, it is hard to generate training data that is sufficiently diverse or is well representative of the experimental data; the simulated data is usually free of experimental artefacts. On the other hand, performing phase retrieval on experimental data before training is a computationally and manually intensive task due to the number of hyperparameters that need to be adjusted for successful convergence. Recently, a new type of model, PhaseGAN, which is a generative adversarial network, has been trained to perform phase retrieval without pairing of inputs and outputs\cite{zhang2021phasegan}. But this approach also requires the availability of ground truth data, the subtle difference is that the inputs to the network and desired outputs do not need to be paired. Another recent study included a physics-informed neural network (PINN) which was trained in an unsupervised manner to recover the lost phase information from XFEL pulses. However, the authors found PINN not as accurate as the network trained with supervised learning. \cite{ratner2021recovering}.
In this work, we demonstrate the application of AutoPhaseNN, a physics-aware unsupervised deep convolutional neural network (CNN) that learns to solve the phase problem \textit{without ever being shown real-space images of sample amplitude or phase}. By incorporating the physics of the X-ray scattering problem into the network design and training, AutoPhaseNN learns to predict both the amplitude and phase of the sample given measured diffraction intensities alone. Additionally, unlike previous deep learning models, AutoPhaseNN does not need the sample's amplitude and phase at any point, either in training or in deployment. Once trained, AutoPhaseNN is $\sim$100 times faster than iterative phase retrieval with comparable image quality. Furthermore, we show that by using AutoPhaseNN's prediction as the input image to iterative phase retrieval, we can achieve consistently higher image quality, than neural network prediction alone, at 10X faster speed than iterative phase retrieval alone. We demonstrate the application of AutoPhaseNN to 3D BCDI, motivated by the importance of the technique to materials characterization, especially in the light of upgrades to synchrotron and XFELs occurring world-wide. These new light sources are revolutionizing both the spatial and time resolution of the technique, although this revolution comes in the form of data volumes that will be completely untenable for iterative phase retrieval methods. However, we note that our approach is broadly applicable to any phase retrieval problem (or more generally to inverse problems) where the forward model is accurately known.
\section{\label{sec:r}Results}
\subsection{\label{sec:r1}Approach}
The AutoPhaseNN framework is built by combining a conventional 3D CNN with the physical model of X-ray scattering. The 3D CNN is trained to learn the inverse process of the physical model with only simulated and/or measured diffraction patterns without needing real space images. Once trained, the X-ray scattering model can be discarded and only the 3D CNN model is used to provide inversion from 3D diffraction patterns to real-space images. In this section, we briefly describe the neural network architecture used in the training stage. Subsequently, we demonstrate the efficacy of the trained model and the subsequent refinement process using both simulated and experimental data.
\begin{figure*}[!hbt]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{trainingModel_3D_v2.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:one} \textbf{Schematic of the neural network structure of AutoPhaseNN model during training.} \textbf{a}. The model consists of a 3D CNN and the X-ray scattering model. The 3D CNN is implemented with a convolutional auto-encoder and two deconvolutional decoders using the convolutional, maximum pooling, upsampling and zero padding layers. The physical knowledge is enforced via the Sigmoid and Tanh activation functions in the final layers. \textbf{b}. X-ray scattering (forward) model includes the numerical modeling of diffraction and the image shape constraints. It takes the amplitude and phase from the 3D CNN output to form the complex image. Then the calculated diffraction pattern is obtained from the Fourier transform of the current estimation of the real space image.}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{\label{sec:r2}Unsupervised deep learning model}
The architecture of the unsupervised physics-aware deep learning model (AutoPhaseNN) is depicted in Fig. \ref{fig:one}(a). The model is based on a CNN framework with an encoder-decoder architecture that learns a direct inversion from the diffraction intensity to the real space image amplitude and phase. The encoder takes the magnitude of the 3D diffraction pattern with the size of $64\times64\times64$ as its input. Then, the encoded data is passed through two separated decoders to generate the $64\times64\times64$ amplitude and phase images in real space. The input is connected to the output using convolution blocks, max pooling, up sampling and zero padding layers. The convolution block is composed of two 3$\times$3$\times$3 convolution layers, the leaky rectified linear unit (LRLU) activation function and the batch normalization (BN). This portion of the network (represented within the 3D CNN block in Fig.\ref{fig:one} (a)) is similar to previously published architectures for 2D and 3D BCDI inversion.\cite{Cherukara2018Real-timeNetworks,Wu2021ComplexNetworks,Cherukara2020AI-enabledImaging, Wengrowicz2020DeepPtychography, chan2021rapid}. In addition to the 3D CNN portion, we include the X-ray scattering model into the network architecture, including the numerical modeling of diffraction and custom layers to enforce implicit priors (Fig.\ref{fig:one} b). The amplitude and phase outputs of the 3D CNN are combined to form the complex number, which is input to the X-ray scattering model to obtain the reciprocal space intensities. Further details of the network architecture along with the X-ray scattering model are included in \textbf{Methods}.
Loss for each training example is then computed as the mean absolute error (MAE) defined as between measured and predicted diffraction, the loss function is defined as:
\begin{equation}
Loss(I_p, I_m) = \frac{\sum{|\sqrt{I_p}-\sqrt{I_m}|}}{N^3}
\end{equation}
where $I_p$ and $I_m$ correspond to the predicted and measured diffraction intensities and $N \times N \times N$ is size of the output image. We note that the reciprocal space intensity is also the input to the network (Fig.\ref{fig:one} (a)), and hence at no stage do we directly use the target outputs (i.e. sample amplitude and phase) to train the network. Simulated data sets generated from a physics-informed data preparation pipeline using atomistic structures \cite{chan2021rapid} and a small amount of experimental data sets acquired from BCDI experiments are used for network training and testing (see \textbf{Methods} for details). Once the training is complete, we discard the X-ray scattering model and only keep the 3D CNN portion of the network which has now learnt to invert the diffraction intensities from coherent X-ray diffraction to sample image amplitude and phase in a single step.
\subsection{\label{sec:r3}Performance on simulated 3D CDI data}
\begin{figure*}[!htbp]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{simulation_results_new.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:two} \textbf{Performance of AutoPhaseNN and the representative results for AutoPhaseNN in testing} \textbf{a}. Histogram of $\chi^2$ error for the modulus of the diffraction pattern. \textbf{b}. Histogram of SSIM for the amplitude of the real-space images. \textbf{c-g}. Representative samples for the AutoPhaseNN model in testing. \textbf{c}. Volume rendering of the input 3D diffraction patterns, \textbf{d}. ground truth images, \textbf{e}. phase retrieval results, \textbf{f}. network predictions, \textbf{g}. refined prediction with 50 iteration ER algorithm. \textbf{d-g} show the 0.3 contour of the amplitude and the color represents the phase on the surfaces. Reciprocal $\chi^2$ errors are shown in the figures.}
\end{figure*}
Figure~\ref{fig:two} shows the examples of AutoPhaseNN's performance on simulated data. We tested the trained AutoPhaseNN model on $\sim$2k 3D diffraction patterns that were never shown to the network during training. To evaluate the quality of the prediction, we calculated the $\chi^2$ error defined as $\chi^2 = \frac{\sum{(\sqrt{I_p}-\sqrt{I_m})^2}}{\sum{I_m}}$ for the modulus of the diffraction pattern in reciprocal space, together with the structural similarity (SSIM) for the amplitude of the imaged object in real space. Fig.\ref{fig:two}(a) and (b) show the distributions of the $\chi^2$ error and SSIM, indicating that the network gives excellent performance in predicting the amplitude and phase of 3D image from the input diffraction intensity. Four representative results are displayed in Fig.\ref{fig:two}(c)-(g). The predicted 3D images (Fig.\ref{fig:two}(f)) show high agreement with the corresponding ground truth images (Fig.\ref{fig:two}(d)). Even for crystal 4, which has the largest computed error under the reciprocal space $\chi^2$ error metric, the network still correctly predicts the shape and phase distribution of the image.
\subsection{\label{sec:r4}Refinement on deep learning prediction}
For comparison, we performed conventional iterative phase retrieval on the test datasets. The $\chi^2$ errors for the network prediction in Fig.\ref{fig:two} (f) are relatively large compared to phase retrieval results in Fig. \ref{fig:two} (e). To reduce the error of the prediction from AutoPhaseNN, a refinement procedure was conducted on the obtained real-space 3D image. We performed iterative phase retrieval using the output of AutoPhaseNN model (amplitude and phase of the 3D image) as the learned prior. In Fig. \ref{fig:two}(g), we demonstrate that the reconstruction error can be further reduced with only 50 iterations of refinement process and reach a comparable or even lower error compared to the phase retrieval results (which does not achieve the same level of error even after 600 iterations).
\subsection{\label{sec:r5}Demonstration on experimental 3D BCDI data}
The performance of the trained AutoPhaseNN model was also evaluated on experimentally acquired data. Three dimensional BCDI data was measured from sub-micrometer size Gold crystals grown by high temperature dewetting of a thin Gold film deposited on a Silicon substrate, with the native oxide intact. The crystals form with a predominately (111) crystallographic orientation normal to the substrate surface. This leads to a favored texture of (111) Bragg peaks with a random orientation about the surface normal. We isolated crystals with diffraction signals that were sufficiently isolated from the predominate (111) texture and measured three-dimensional coherent diffraction patterns in the vicinity of those individual (111) Bragg peaks. Further experimental details are described in \textbf{Methods}.
\begin{figure*}[hbt]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Expeimental_results_new_v5.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:three} \textbf{Performance of AutoPhaseNN on real data from BCDI experiments} Comparison among reconstructions from \textbf{a} traditional phase retrieval, \textbf{b} raw prediction from the AutoPhaseNN model, and \textbf{c} refined prediction. The crystals are clipped to show the internal strain fields and the images show the 0.3 contour of the amplitude and the color represents the phase. Reciprocal $\chi^2$ errors are shown in the figures.}
\end{figure*}
Following a standard, pre-processing step (see details in \textbf{Methods}), we applied AutoPhaseNN to the experimental data. We also performed iterative phase retrieval with the same parameters as before for comparison to AutoPhasNN's predictions. The results are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:three} (a) and (b). AutoPhaseNN provides a predicted shape and strain field of the crystal very close to the phase retrieval results with $\sim$100 times speed up, taking about 200 ms for each prediction on a CPU processor, in contrast to phase retrieval that took about 28 s for 600 iterations.
As before, we also used AutoPhaseNN's prediction as a learned prior to iterative phase retrieval. The recovered image after just 50 iterations of phase retrieval starting from AutoPhaseNN's prediction is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:three} (c). From the visual comparison and the $\chi^2$ error, the refinement produces improved details in shape and phase and gives greater similarity to the phase retrieval images. Additionally, the combination of AutoPhaseNN prediction and the refinement procedure is still about 10 times faster than the iterative phase retrieval alone. Fig.\ref{fig:four} shows the reconstruction $\chi^2$ error as a function of the iteration for the five representative results shown in Fig. \ref{fig:three}. The dashed lines represent errors for iterative phase retrieval alone and the solid lines are errors for the refinement iterations using the predicted prior, showing the refinement procedure starting with a lower reconstruction error and converging faster compared with the phase retrieval since its initial image is already very close to the true solution.
\begin{figure*}[hbt]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig4_plot_error.png}
\caption{\label{fig:four} \textbf{Reconstruction error as a function of the iteration number for conventional phase retrieval and refinement} The dashed lines represent the error for conventional phase retrieval while the solid lines are for refinement process.}
\end{figure*}
\section{\label{sec:Discussion}Discussion}
We have demonstrated the application of the developed unsupervised physics-aware deep learning model, AutoPhaseNN, for direct inversion of the 3D BCDI data from the far-field measurement to the real-space image. By incorporating the X-ray scattering model into the network architecture, AutoPhaseNN is trained with only measured diffraction patterns without needing real space images. Once trained, only the CNN model is used to provide 3D images in real space from the measured diffraction intensities in the reciprocal space. The AutoPhaseNN prediction is $\sim$100 times faster when compared to traditional iterative phase retrieval (600 iterations of ER and HIO), which will benefit real-time CDI experiments. Combined with the refinement process (50 iterations of ER), the final result is as good as the traditional phase retrieval while being $\sim$10 times faster. We believe the AutoPhaseNN model will revolutionize the broad application of neural networks to phase retrieval problems, including CDI for which AutoPhaseNN was designed and other inverse problems in which the forward model is known.
Currently, AutoPhaseNN network is trained offline and with mostly simulated data and limited amount of experimental data. We expect further improvement of the network performance with a large and more diverse training data set, such as different reciprocal space oversampling ratios and crystals of different lattice types. More importantly, with its ability to train without real space images, the performance of the AutoPhaseNN model can be continuously improved with data from new coherent imaging experiments. In addition, an idealized X-ray scattering model is employed in the current network training process. Further improvements can be made by optimizing the physical model of the coherent imaging, for example, including partial coherence correction \cite{Clark2012} or dynamical scattering effects \cite{hu2018dynamic}.
We believe this unsupervised deep learning solution for data inversion will be critical to the coherent imaging technique, especially in the light of the present and future fourth generation synchrotron sources, including the Advanced Photon Source Upgrade (APS-U) and the Extremely Brilliant Source at the European Synchrotron Research Facility (ESRF-EBS). These upgrades will provide two or three orders of magnitude increased coherent X-ray flux. With the subsequent vast increase in the coherent imaging data, tradition iterative phase retrieval methods will not be able to keep up. ML methods have been shown to produce high-fidelity images on a sub-second timescale, which can provide real-time feedback for the experiment. Additionally, unsupervised training can potentially enable online real-time improvements to the neural network with minimal human intervention, in effect creating a continuously self-improving NN capable of keeping up with the vast data rates of next generation light sources and electron microscopes. With further development, the unsupervised deep learning approach demonstrated by AutoPhaseNN, will be vital to coherent imaging experiments both now and in the future.
\section{\label{sec:Methods}Methods}
\subsection{\label{sec:Methods1}Training data generation}
Every crystal in the training data set is prepared from a $\approx$ $20$ nm $\times$ $20$ nm $\times$ $20$ nm cube of face center cubic (fcc) lattice of gold. To create diverse shape and size, each crystal has $4$ -- $20$ facets generated by clipping along randomly chosen high crystal symmetry planes that are positioned at random distances from the geometric center of the crystal. To create realistic local strains within the crystal, a combination of compression, tension, and shear stresses (up to 1\% strain) is applied to the initial atomistic crystal structure. Subsequently, Large-scale Atomic/Molecular Massively Parallel Simulator (LAMMPS) is used to relax the strained structure via energy minimization performed using the embedded-atom method (EAM) interatomic potential for gold. After minimization, the lattice constant of the initial and final structures are normalized to 1 (i.e., scaled by the inverse lattice constant of gold, 1/4.078 \AA$\;$), and a $\approx$ 5 lattice unit padding ($\approx$ 20 \AA$\;$ before lattice normalization) is added to each side of the normalized structures to avoid any potential boundary related artifacts. Finally, the output object is created from these structures, which corresponds to a complex crystal density composed of the crystal shape (i.e., number density of atoms) and its local strain (i.e., lattice phases). The number density of atoms and lattice phases are computed using an uniform grid with a bin size of $\approx$ 2 lattice units ($\approx$ 8 \AA$\;$ before lattice normalization). The number density values are normalized by the maximum density value whereas the lattice phases are computed from the atom displacement field projected along [111] and are scaled by 2$\pi$. This binning process converts the crystal atomistic model to a $32\times32\times32$-sized object. The complex object array was then zero padded to twice the size ($64\times64\times64$). The 3D diffraction pattern is generated via Fourier transform of the complex object and Poisson distributed noise is added. The magnitude of the diffraction pattern is the input for the network.
\subsection{\label{sec:Methods2}AutoPhaseNN architecture}
In the AutoPhaseNN model, the physical knowledge is included in the network architecture to enforce the physical constraint. Two zero padding layers are employed before the last convolution blocks to act as the square support which sets the upper size limit of the real space object. The square support is set to half the size of the input diffraction data so that the oversampling condition for phase retrieval is met \cite{miao2000oversampling}. In addition, the physical knowledge that the normalized amplitude is within the interval [0,1] and the phase falls within the interval [-$\pi$,+$\pi$] is built into the network architecture using the Sigmoid activation function and the Tanh activation function in the final 3D convolution layers in the amplitude and phase branches, respectively.
Fig. \ref{fig:one} (b) describes the detailed X-ray scattering (forward) model, including the numerical modeling of diffraction and image shape constraints. The predicted amplitude and phase are combined to generate the complex image. An image shape support function is obtained by thresholding the current predicted amplitude using a contour at the 10$\%$ intensity level. This image shape support is continuously updating from the predicted amplitude and is used only once per image per epoch during the network training. The aforementioned square support enforced by the zero padding layers and this image shape support can impose additional constraints during the unsupervised training process. The calculated diffraction pattern is obtained from the Fourier transform of the current estimation of the real space image. The network weight and bias factors are optimized with the objective function that minimizes the loss function between the input diffraction pattern and the calculated diffraction pattern. Once a trained model has been obtained, only the CNN model is needed to recover the amplitude and phase information of the measured sample.
\subsection{\label{sec:Methods3}AutoPhaseNN training}
The AutoPhaseNN model was implemented based on the Keras package running the Tensorflow backend. The training dataset is a combination of simulated diffraction patterns and experimental diffraction patterns. The generated simulated data consists of 54,028 3D diffraction patterns, within which 52k data are used for training and 2028 are reserved for testing. A rotation data augmentation was performed on the 52k simulated diffraction patterns to generate 104k data for training. For the experimental data, a data augmentation process consisting of rotation, resampling and flipping was performed on 10 diffraction patterns acquired from BCDI experiments to generate 3200 experimental training data. The entire training data set was randomly split, giving 80$\%$ used for training and the remaining 20$\%$ reserved for validation. When training the model, adaptive moment estimation (ADAM) with an initial learning rate of 0.001 is used to update the weights and biases of the model. At the end of each epoch, the performance of the network was evaluated using the validation set. The ReduceLROnPlateau callback was used to reduce the learning rate by a factor of 2 when the validation loss has stopped improving. The network was trained in parallel on 8 NVIDIA A100 GPUs for 70 epochs. The training took $\sim$12 h with a mini-batch size of 16 on each GPU.
\subsection{\label{sec:Methods4}3D CDI data acquisition}
The standard BCDI scan was a one hundred point rocking curve of +/- 0.5 degrees of the omega axis of the six circle diffractometer\cite{lohmeier1993angle}. All experimental data was acquired at the 34-ID-C beamline of the Advanced Photon Source at Argonne National Laboratory. The X-ray beam was set to 9 keV and focused using Kirk-Patrick Baez mirrors to approximately 700x700 $\text{nm}^2$. A Medipix2 (Timepix) detector was positioned at either 500 mm or 750 mm from the sample depending on the size of the crystal. The detector distance was determined by the need to oversample the diffraction intensities with the 55 ${\mu}$m pixels of the Timepix detector.
\subsection{\label{sec:Methods5}Pre-processing experimental data}
AutoPhaseNN was mostly trained on simulated data with the reciprocal space oversampling ratio of around 3.0. We prepared input data by downsampling the 3D coherent diffraction pattern of the gold crystal acquired from BCDI experiments to yield an oversampling ratio of about 3.0. The $64\times64\times64$ sized input data was then obtained by cropping the downsampled 3D diffraction pattern.
\subsection{\label{sec:Method6} Phase retrieval method}
For conventional iterative phase retrieval, the $64\times64\times64$ diffraction pattern was input to iterative phase retrieval, where the algorithm was switched between error reduction (ER) and hybrid input-output (HIO). 600 iterations were performed in total using a shrink-wrap support in real space.
For the refinement procedure, the predicted amplitude and phase obtained from the AutoPhaseNN model were provided as the initial image guess and the initial support was generated by thresholding the predicted amplitude. Then 50 iterations of ER algorithm were performed to generate the final refined result.
\section*{\label{sec:Acknowledgement}Acknowledgements}
This work was performed, in part, at the Advanced Photon Source, a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science User Facility, operated for the DOE Office of Science by Argonne National Laboratory under Contract No. DE-AC02-06CH11357. This research used resources of the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility, which is a DOE Office of Science User Facility supported under Contract DE-AC02-06CH11357. We gratefully acknowledge the computing resources provided on Swing, a high-performance computing cluster operated by the Laboratory Computing Resource Center at Argonne National Laboratory. This work was also supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences Data, Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning at DOE Scientific User Facilities program under Award Number 34532. MJC acknowledges partial support from Argonne LDRD 2021-0090 – AutoPtycho: Autonomous, Sparse-sampled Ptychographic Imaging. YY acknowledges partial support from Argonne LDRD 2021-0315 – Scalable DL-based 3D X-ray nanoscale imaging enabled by AI accelerators.
\section*{Introduction}
The problem of phase retrieval is a central problem in many imaging techniques including X-ray Bragg coherent diffraction imaging (BCDI) and ptychography\cite{Miao2015}, electron ptychography\cite{Jiang2018ElectronResolution}, Lorentz transmission electron microscopy (LTEM)\cite{Phatak2016RecentMicroscopy}, super-resolution optical imaging\cite{Szameit2012Sparsity-basedImaging}, and astronomy\cite{Dean2006PhaseTelescope}. Phase retrieval is the algorithmic process of recovering phases from measured scattered intensities alone. In BCDI for example, a nanocrystalline sample is illuminated with a coherent X-ray beam from a synchrotron source or X-ray Free Electron Lasers (XFEL) and the scattered intensities are measured in the far-field at a Bragg peak. The measured intensities represent the modulus of the complex Fourier Transform (FT) of the object, but the phase of the wave is lost. Hence, the 3D image of the object cannot be recovered from a simple inverse FT and we must resort to phase retrieval algorithms that can recover this lost phase information to recover an image of the object. Additionally, when measured at a Bragg peak, the phase is influenced by the local strain within the crystal. Consequently, in addition to being a fundamental requirement to recovering the object's 3D structure, phase recovery also provides a 3D map of the strain state within the crystal, encoded as a phase of the complex image. This capability of BCDI to provide nanoscale structural information as well as picometer sensitivity to strain has had profound implications for the materials science, chemistry and solid-state physics communities. Examples include defect dynamics in battery electrodes\cite{Ulvestad2015}, in-situ catalysis\cite{Kim2018ActiveNanocrystals,kang2020time}, photon transport\cite{Cherukara2017a,Cherukara2017UltrafastNanostructures,Clark2013}, phase transformation\cite{Clark2015,Clark2015c,Ulvestad2015c}, and plastic deformation\cite{Hofmann20173DNano-crystals,Cherukara2018Three-dimensionalLoading,Yang2013}.
More broadly, while coherent imaging techniques have grown to become an integral part of electron and X-ray materials characterization\cite{Jiang2018ElectronResolution,Phatak2016RecentMicroscopy,Pfeiffer2018X-rayPtychography}, their dependence on iterative phase retrieval to recover sample images prevents real-time feedback, which is particularly crippling for \textit{in-situ} and \textit{operando} experiments. Iterative phase retrieval typically requires thousands of iterations and often multiple starts to arrive at a robust solution, often taking longer than a single dataset acquisition time.
Neural network (NN) models have been developed to rapidly solve inverse problems across a variety of disciplines including magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)\cite{Zhu2018ImageLearning}, image denoising\cite{Burger2012ImageBM3D,Lehtinen2018Noise2Noise:Data}, super-resolution\cite{Dong2016ImageNetworks,Ledig2017Photo-realisticNetwork,Lim2017EnhancedSuper-resolution}, etc.. Specific to the problem of phase retrieval, neural networks have been trained to learn to retrieve phases in holographic imaging\cite{Rivenson2018PhaseNetworks}, lensless computational imaging\cite{Sinha2017LenslessLearning}, X-ray ptychography\cite{Cherukara2020AI-enabledImaging,Wengrowicz2020DeepPtychography,Guan2019PtychoNet:Ptychography}, Fourier ptychography\cite{Nguyen2018DeepMicroscopy} and in BCDI\cite{Cherukara2018Real-timeNetworks,Wu2021ComplexNetworks,Harder2021DeepImaging,chan2021rapid,scheinker2020adaptive}. Each of models in the aforementioned papers have been trained in a supervised manner, that is, training of the network uses pairs or triplets of images; the experimentally acquired (or forward simulated) data, and the unknown sample's complex image (typically amplitude and phase). NN training is then achieved by optimizing the weights of the network so that the network learns to output the sample image for a given measured data (the input diffraction pattern in the BCDI case). While this approach has been shown to provide speed, as well as reduced reciprocal space sampling requirements, in comparison to iterative phase retrieval, the approach is limited by the need for a large volume of simulated data with corresponding images or untenable quantities of experimental data which has been inverted through traditional iterative phase retrieval. Both types of training data suffer from limitations. Simulated data is very often a poor substitute for real data, for example, it is hard to generate training data that is sufficiently diverse or is well representative of the experimental data, and it is usually free of experimental artefacts. On the other hand, performing phase retrieval on experimental data before training is a computationally and manually intensive task due to the number of hyperparameters that need to be adjusted for successful convergence. Recently, a new type of model, PhaseGAN, which is a generative adversarial network, has been trained to perform phase retrieval without pairing of inputs and outputs\cite{zhang2021phasegan}. But this approach also requires the availability of ground truth data, the subtle difference is that the inputs to the network and desired outputs do not need to be paired. Another recent study included a physics-informed neural network (PINN) which was trained in an unsupervised manner to recover the lost phase information from XFEL pulses. However, the authors found PINN not as accurate as the network trained with supervised learning\cite{ratner2021recovering}.
In this work, we demonstrate the application of AutoPhaseNN, a physics-aware unsupervised deep convolutional neural network (CNN) that learns to solve the phase problem \textit{without ever being shown real space images of the sample amplitude or phase}. By incorporating the physics of the X-ray scattering into the network design and training, AutoPhaseNN learns to predict both the amplitude and phase of the sample given the measured diffraction intensity alone. Additionally, unlike previous deep learning models, AutoPhaseNN does not need the ground truth images of sample's amplitude and phase at any point, either in training or in deployment. Once trained, the physical model is discarded and only the CNN portion is needed which has learned the data inversion from reciprocal space to real space and is $\sim$100 times faster than the iterative phase retrieval with comparable image quality. Furthermore, we show that by using AutoPhaseNN's prediction as the learned prior to iterative phase retrieval, we can achieve consistently higher image quality, than neural network prediction alone, at 10 times faster speed than iterative phase retrieval alone. We demonstrate the application of AutoPhaseNN to 3D BCDI, motivated by the importance of the technique to materials characterization, especially in the light of upgrades to synchrotron sources and XFELs occurring world-wide. These new light sources are revolutionizing both the spatial and temporal resolution of the technique, although this revolution comes in the form of data volumes that will be completely untenable for iterative phase retrieval methods, but could be handled by the developed unsupervised deep learning solution. Additionally, the unsupervised network eliminates the need for ground truth real space images in training, potentially enabling online network evolution during the data acquisition with minimal human intervention, which is impractical for supervised network that needs computationally intensive iterative phase retrieval to obtain ground truth images. It's worth mentioning that we note that our approach is broadly applicable to any phase retrieval problem (or more generally to inverse problems) where the forward model is accurately known.
\section*{Results}
\subsection*{Approach}
The AutoPhaseNN framework is built by combining a conventional 3D CNN with the physical model of X-ray scattering. The 3D CNN is trained to learn the inverse process of the physical model with only simulated and/or measured diffraction patterns without needing real space images. Once trained, the physical model can be discarded and only the 3D CNN model is used to provide the direct inversion from 3D diffraction intensities to real space images without needing the iterative process. In this section, we briefly describe the neural network architecture used in the training stage. Subsequently, we demonstrate the efficacy of the trained model and the subsequent refinement process using both simulated and experimental data.
\subsection*{Unsupervised deep learning model}
The architecture of the unsupervised physics-aware deep learning model (AutoPhaseNN) is depicted in Fig. 1a. The model is based on a 3D CNN framework with an encoder-decoder architecture that learns a direct inversion from the diffraction intensity to the real space image amplitude and phase. The encoder takes the magnitude of the 3D diffraction pattern with the size of $64\times64\times64$ as its input. Then, the encoded data is passed through two separated decoders to generate the $64\times64\times64$ amplitude and phase images in real space. The input is connected to the output using convolution blocks, max pooling, upsampling and zero padding layers. The convolution block is composed of two 3$\times$3$\times$3 convolution layers, the leaky rectified linear unit (LRLU) activation function and the batch normalization (BN). In addition to the 3D CNN portion, we include the X-ray scattering model into the network architecture, including the numerical modeling of diffraction and custom layers to enforce image shape support (Fig. 1b). The outputs of the 3D CNN, amplitude and phase images, are combined to form the complex number, which is input to the X-ray scattering model to obtain the estimated reciprocal space intensity. Further details of the network architecture along with the X-ray scattering model are included in \textbf{Methods}.
Loss for each training example is then computed as the mean absolute error (MAE) between measured and estimated diffraction intensities. The loss function is defined as:
\begin{equation}
Loss(I_e, I_m) = \frac{\sum{|\sqrt{I_e}-\sqrt{I_m}|}}{N^3},
\end{equation}
where $I_e$ and $I_m$ correspond to the estimated and measured diffraction intensities and $N \times N \times N$ is the size of the output image. We note that the reciprocal space intensity is also the input to the network (Fig. 1a), and hence at no stage do we directly use the ground truth of target outputs (i.e., sample amplitude and phase) to train the network. Simulated datasets generated from a physics-informed data preparation pipeline using atomistic structures and a small amount of experimental datasets acquired from BCDI experiments were used for network training and testing (see \textbf{Methods} for details of the training and testing data). Once the training is complete, we discard the X-ray scattering model and only keep the 3D CNN portion of the network which has now learnt to invert the intensity from coherent X-ray diffraction to the sample image amplitude and phase in a single step.
\subsection*{Performance on simulated 3D CDI data}
Figure 2 shows the examples of AutoPhaseNN's performance on simulated data. We tested the trained AutoPhaseNN model on $\sim$2k 3D diffraction patterns that were never shown to the network during training. To evaluate the quality of the prediction, we calculated the $\chi^2$ error for the modulus of the diffraction pattern in reciprocal space defined as:
\begin{equation}
\chi^2 = \frac{\sum{(\sqrt{I_e}-\sqrt{I_m})^2}}{\sum{I_m}},
\end{equation}
together with the structural similarity (SSIM) for the amplitude of the real space image. Figure 2 (a and b) show the distributions of the $\chi^2$ error and SSIM, indicating that the network gives excellent performance in predicting the amplitude and phase of the 3D image from the input diffraction intensity. Four representative results are displayed in Fig. 2 (c-g). The predicted 3D images (Fig. 2f) show high agreement with the corresponding ground truth images (Fig. 2d). Even for crystal 4, which has the largest computed error under the reciprocal space $\chi^2$ error metric, the network still correctly predicts the shape and phase distribution of the image.
\subsection*{Refinement on deep learning prediction}
For comparison, we performed conventional iterative phase retrieval on the test datasets. The computed $\chi^2$ errors for the network prediction in Fig. 2f are relatively large compared to phase retrieval results in Fig. 2e. To reduce the error of the prediction from AutoPhaseNN, a refinement procedure was conducted on the obtained real space 3D image. We performed iterative phase retrieval using the output of AutoPhaseNN model (amplitude and phase of the 3D image) as the learned prior. In Fig. 2g, we demonstrate that the reconstruction error can be further reduced with only 50 iterations of the refinement process and reach a comparable or even lower error compared to the phase retrieval results (which does not achieve the same level of error even after 600 iterations).
\subsection*{Demonstration on experimental 3D BCDI data}
The performance of the trained AutoPhaseNN model was also evaluated on experimentally acquired data. 3D BCDI data was measured from sub-micrometer size gold crystals grown by high temperature dewetting of a thin gold film deposited on a Silicon substrate, with the native oxide intact. The crystals form with a predominately (111) crystallographic orientation normal to the substrate surface. This leads to a favored texture of (111) Bragg peaks with a random orientation about the surface normal. We isolated crystals with diffraction signals that were sufficiently isolated from the predominate (111) texture and measured three-dimensional coherent diffraction patterns in the vicinity of those individual (111) Bragg peaks. Further experimental details are described in \textbf{Methods}.
Following a standard pre-processing step (see details in \textbf{Methods}), we applied AutoPhaseNN to the experimental data. We also performed iterative phase retrieval with the same parameters as before for comparison to AutoPhaseNN's predictions. The results are shown in Fig. 3 (a and b). AutoPhaseNN provides a predicted shape and strain field of the crystal very close to the phase retrieval results with $\sim$100 times speed up, taking about 200 ms for each prediction on a CPU processor, in contrast to phase retrieval that took about 28 s for 600 iterations.
As before, we also used AutoPhaseNN's prediction as a learned prior to iterative phase retrieval. The recovered images after just 50 iterations of phase retrieval starting from AutoPhaseNN's prediction are shown in Fig. 3c. From the visual comparison and the $\chi^2$ error, the refinement produces improved details in shape and phase and gives greater similarity to the phase retrieval images. Additionally, the combination of AutoPhaseNN prediction and the refinement procedure is still about 10 times faster than the iterative phase retrieval alone. Figure 4 shows the reconstruction $\chi^2$ error as a function of the iteration for the five representative results shown in Fig. 3. The dashed lines represent errors for iterative phase retrieval alone and the solid lines are errors for the refinement iterations using the predicted prior, showing the refinement procedure starting with a lower reconstruction error and converging faster compared with the conventional phase retrieval since its initial image is already very close to the true solution.
\section*{Discussion}
We have demonstrated the application of the developed unsupervised physics-aware deep learning model, AutoPhaseNN, for direct inversion of the 3D BCDI data from the far-field measurement to the real space image. By incorporating the X-ray scattering model into the network architecture, AutoPhaseNN is trained with only measured diffraction patterns without needing real space images. Once trained, only the 3D CNN model is used to provide 3D images in the real space from the measured diffraction intensities in the reciprocal space. The AutoPhaseNN prediction is $\sim$100 times faster when compared to traditional iterative phase retrieval (600 iterations), which will greatly benefit real-time CDI experiments. Combined with the refinement process (50 iterations of error reduction), the final result is as good as the traditional phase retrieval while being $\sim$10 times faster. We believe the AutoPhaseNN model will revolutionize the broad application of neural networks to phase retrieval problems, including CDI for which AutoPhaseNN was designed and other inverse problems in which the forward model is known.
Currently, AutoPhaseNN network is trained offline and with mostly simulated data and limited amount of experimental data. We expect further improvement of the network performance with a large and more diverse training dataset, such as different reciprocal space oversampling ratios and crystals of different lattice types. More importantly, with its ability to train without real space images, the performance of the AutoPhaseNN model can be continuously improved with data from new coherent imaging experiments. In addition, an idealized X-ray scattering model is employed in the current network training process. Further improvements can be made by optimizing the physical model of the coherent imaging, for example, including the partial coherence correction\cite{Clark2012} or dynamical scattering effects\cite{hu2018dynamic}.
We believe this unsupervised deep learning solution for data inversion will be critical to the coherent imaging technique, especially in the light of the present and future fourth generation synchrotron sources, including the Advanced Photon Source Upgrade (APS-U) and the Extremely Brilliant Source at the European Synchrotron Research Facility (ESRF-EBS). These upgrades will provide two or three orders of magnitude increased coherent X-ray flux. With the subsequent vast increase in the coherent imaging data, traditional iterative phase retrieval methods will not be able to keep up. DL methods have been shown to produce high-fidelity images on a sub-second timescale, which can provide real-time feedback for the experiment. Additionally, unsupervised training can potentially enable online real-time improvements to the neural network with minimal human intervention, in effect creating a continuously self-improving NN capable of keeping up with the vast data rate of next generation light sources and electron microscopes. With further development, the unsupervised deep learning approach demonstrated by AutoPhaseNN, will be vital to coherent imaging experiments both now and in the future.
\section*{Methods}
\subsection*{AutoPhaseNN architecture}
In the AutoPhaseNN model, the physical knowledge is included in the network architecture to enforce the physical constraint. As shown in Fig. 1a, two zero padding layers are employed before the last convolution blocks to act as the square support which sets the upper size limit of the real space object. The square support is set to half the size of the input diffraction data so that the oversampling condition for phase retrieval is met \cite{miao2000oversampling}. In addition, the physical knowledge that the normalized amplitude is within the interval [0,1] and the phase falls within the interval [-$\pi$,+$\pi$] is built into the network architecture using the Sigmoid activation function and the Tanh activation function in the final 3D convolution layers in the amplitude and phase branches, respectively.
Figure 1b describes the detailed X-ray scattering forward model during the training stage, including the numerical modeling of diffraction and image shape constraints. The predicted amplitude and phase are combined to generate the complex image. An image shape support function is obtained by thresholding the current predicted amplitude using a contour at the 10$\%$ intensity level. This image shape support is continuously updating from the predicted amplitude and is used only once per image per epoch during the network training. The aforementioned square support enforced by the zero padding layers and this image shape support can impose additional constraints during the unsupervised training process. The estimated diffraction pattern is obtained from the FT of the current estimation of the real space image that generated from the network output. The network weight and bias factors are optimized with the objective function that minimizes the loss between the input diffraction pattern and the estimated diffraction pattern. By incorporating the physics, the ground truth of the real space image is not needed during training. Once a trained model has been obtained, only the 3D CNN model is kept to recover the amplitude and phase information of the measured sample.
\subsection*{Simulated data generation}
Every crystal in the training dataset is prepared from a $\approx$ $20$ nm $\times$ $20$ nm $\times$ $20$ nm cube of face center cubic (fcc) lattice of gold. To create diverse shape and size, each crystal has $4$ -- $20$ facets generated by clipping along randomly chosen high crystal symmetry planes that are positioned at random distances from the geometric center of the crystal. To create realistic local strains within the crystal, a combination of compression, tension, and shear stresses (up to 1\% strain) is applied to the initial atomistic crystal structure. Subsequently, Large-scale Atomic/Molecular Massively Parallel Simulator (LAMMPS) is used to relax the strained structure via energy minimization performed using the embedded-atom method (EAM) interatomic potential for gold. After minimization, the lattice constant of the initial and final structures are normalized to 1 (i.e., scaled by the inverse lattice constant of gold, 1/4.078 \AA$\;$), and a $\approx$ 5 lattice unit padding ($\approx$ 20 \AA$\;$ before lattice normalization) is added to each side of the normalized structures to avoid any potential boundary related artifacts. Finally, the output object is created from these structures, which corresponds to a complex crystal density composed of the crystal shape (i.e., number density of atoms) and its local strain (i.e., lattice phases). The number density of atoms and lattice phases are computed using an uniform grid with a bin size of $\approx$ 2 lattice units ($\approx$ 8 \AA$\;$ before lattice normalization). The number density values are normalized by the maximum density value whereas the lattice phases are computed from the atom displacement field projected along [111] and are scaled by 2$\pi$. This binning process converts the crystal atomistic model to a $32\times32\times32$-sized object. The complex object array is then zero padded to twice the size ($64\times64\times64$). The 3D diffraction pattern is generated via FT of the complex object and Poisson distributed noise is added. The magnitude of the diffraction pattern is the input for the network and is the only thing needed in training.
\subsection*{3D CDI data acquisition}
The standard BCDI scan was a one hundred point rocking curve of +/- 0.5 degrees of the omega axis of the six circle diffractometer\cite{lohmeier1993angle}. All experimental data was acquired at the 34-ID-C beamline of the Advanced Photon Source at Argonne National Laboratory. The X-ray beam was set to 9 keV and focused using Kirk-Patrick Baez mirrors to approximately 700$\times$700 $\textrm{nm}^2$. A Medipix2 (Timepix) detector was positioned at either 500 mm or 750 mm from the sample depending on the size of the crystal. The detector distance was determined by the need to oversample the diffraction intensities with the 55 ${\mu}$m pixel size of the Timepix detector.
\subsection*{AutoPhaseNN training}
The AutoPhaseNN model was implemented based on the Keras package running the Tensorflow backend. The training dataset is a combination of simulated diffraction patterns and experimental diffraction patterns. The generated simulated data (described in \textbf{Simulated data generation}) consists of 54,028 3D diffraction patterns, within which 52k data are used for training and 2028 are reserved for testing. A rotation data augmentation was performed on the 52k simulated diffraction patterns to generate 104k data for training. For the experimental data, a data augmentation process consisting of rotation, resampling and flipping was performed on 10 diffraction patterns acquired from BCDI experiments to generate 3200 experimental training data. The entire training dataset was randomly split, giving 80$\%$ used for training and the remaining 20$\%$ reserved for validation. When training the model, adaptive moment estimation (ADAM) with an initial learning rate of 0.001 is used to update the weights and biases of the model. At the end of each epoch, the performance of the network was evaluated using the validation data. The ReduceLROnPlateau callback was used to reduce the learning rate by a factor of 2 when the validation loss has stopped improving. The network was trained in parallel on 8 NVIDIA A100 GPUs for 70 epochs. The training took $\sim$12 h with a mini-batch size of 16 on each GPU.
\subsection*{Pre-processing experimental data}
AutoPhaseNN was mostly trained on simulated data with the reciprocal space oversampling ratio of around 3.0. When tested on experimental data, we prepared input data by downsampling the 3D coherent diffraction pattern of the gold crystal acquired from BCDI experiments to yield an oversampling ratio of about 3.0. The $64\times64\times64$ sized input data was then obtained by cropping the downsampled 3D diffraction pattern.
\subsection*{Phase retrieval method}
For conventional iterative phase retrieval, the $64\times64\times64$ diffraction pattern was input to iterative phase retrieval, where the algorithm was switched between error reduction (ER) and hybrid input-output (HIO). 600 iterations were performed in total using a shrink-wrap support in real space.
For the refinement procedure, the predicted amplitude and phase obtained from the AutoPhaseNN model were provided as the initial image guess and the initial support was generated by thresholding the predicted amplitude. Then 50 iterations of ER algorithm were performed to generate the final refined result.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This work was performed, in part, at the Advanced Photon Source, a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science User Facility, operated for the DOE Office of Science by Argonne National Laboratory under Contract No. DE-AC02-06CH11357. This research used resources of the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility, which is a DOE Office of Science User Facility supported under Contract DE-AC02-06CH11357. We gratefully acknowledge the computing resources provided on Swing, a high-performance computing cluster operated by the Laboratory Computing Resource Center at Argonne National Laboratory. This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences Data, Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning at DOE Scientific User Facilities program under Award Number 34532. M.J.C. acknowledges partial support from Argonne LDRD 2021-0090 – AutoPtycho: Autonomous, Sparse-sampled Ptychographic Imaging. Y.Y. acknowledges partial support from Argonne LDRD 2021-0315 – Scalable DL-based 3D X-ray nanoscale imaging enabled by AI accelerators.
\section*{Author contributions} Y.Y. and M.J.C. proposed the initial idea, R.J.H. contributed to the conceptualization. H.C. generated the simulated data. R.J.H. collected the BCDI experimental data. Y.Y. built the model and performed network training and testing with the help from M.J.C., R.J.H. and H.C.. P.B. gave technical support and conceptual advice. M.J.C., Y.Y., R.J.H. and H.C. wrote the manuscript with input from P.B. and S.S..
\section*{Competing interests}Authors declare that they have no competing interests.
\section*{Data and materials availability} All data needed to evaluate the conclusions in the paper are present in the paper. All codes, data, and trained models developed in this study will be made available in a public GitHub repository.
|
\section{Neural Coding Schemes}
In this section, we further describe the various neural coding schemes used to convert a static image $\mathbf{I} \in \mathbb{R}^{C \times H \times W}$ into spike trains and detail their implementations. In addition, examples of the resulting $\mathbf{X}_T$ are shown in Figure \ref{fig:nc_examples} for each coding scheme, with a defined total number of time-steps $T = 8$. Trainable Coding is not illustrated because of too high number of channels (i.e., $C = 32$ after neural coding).
\begin{figure}[]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.99\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
\includegraphics[width=0.10\textwidth]{noises/None_1.jpg} & \includegraphics[width=0.10\textwidth]{nc/rate_t0.jpg} & \includegraphics[width=0.10\textwidth]{nc/rate_t1.jpg} & \includegraphics[width=0.10\textwidth]{nc/rate_t2.jpg} & \includegraphics[width=0.10\textwidth]{nc/rate_t3.jpg} & \includegraphics[width=0.10\textwidth]{nc/rate_t4.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.10\textwidth]{nc/rate_t5.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.10\textwidth]{nc/rate_t6.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.10\textwidth]{nc/rate_t7.jpg}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Rate Coding}
\label{fig:ex_rate}
\end{subfigure}
\\
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.99\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
\includegraphics[width=0.10\textwidth]{noises/None_1.jpg} & \includegraphics[width=0.10\textwidth]{nc/ttfs_t0.jpg} & \includegraphics[width=0.10\textwidth]{nc/ttfs_t1.jpg} & \includegraphics[width=0.10\textwidth]{nc/ttfs_t2.jpg} & \includegraphics[width=0.10\textwidth]{nc/ttfs_t3.jpg} & \includegraphics[width=0.10\textwidth]{nc/ttfs_t4.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.10\textwidth]{nc/ttfs_t5.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.10\textwidth]{nc/ttfs_t6.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.10\textwidth]{nc/ttfs_t7.jpg}
\end{tabular}
\caption{TTFS Coding}
\label{fig:ex_ttfs}
\end{subfigure}
\\
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.99\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
\includegraphics[width=0.10\textwidth]{noises/None_1.jpg} & \includegraphics[width=0.10\textwidth]{nc/phase_t0.jpg} & \includegraphics[width=0.10\textwidth]{nc/phase_t1.jpg} & \includegraphics[width=0.10\textwidth]{nc/phase_t2.jpg} & \includegraphics[width=0.10\textwidth]{nc/phase_t3.jpg} & \includegraphics[width=0.10\textwidth]{nc/phase_t4.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.10\textwidth]{nc/phase_t5.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.10\textwidth]{nc/phase_t6.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.10\textwidth]{nc/phase_t7.jpg}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Phase Coding}
\label{fig:ex_phase}
\end{subfigure}
\\
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.99\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
\includegraphics[width=0.10\textwidth]{noises/None_1.jpg} & \includegraphics[width=0.10\textwidth]{nc/saccade_t1.jpg} & \includegraphics[width=0.10\textwidth]{nc/saccade_t2.jpg} & \includegraphics[width=0.10\textwidth]{nc/saccade_t3.jpg} & \includegraphics[width=0.10\textwidth]{nc/saccade_t4.jpg} & \includegraphics[width=0.10\textwidth]{nc/saccade_t5.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.10\textwidth]{nc/saccade_t6.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.10\textwidth]{nc/saccade_t7.jpg} &
\includegraphics[width=0.10\textwidth]{nc/saccade_t8.jpg}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Saccades Coding}
\label{fig:ex_saccades}
\end{subfigure}
\\
\begin{subfigure}{0.99\textwidth}
\hfill
\includegraphics[width=0.87\textwidth]{nc/time.png}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Examples for each neural coding scheme}
\label{fig:nc_examples}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Rate Coding}
Our rate coding definition and implementation is from the SnnTorch framework \cite{snntorch}. Each pixel value $I_{cij}$ (normalized between 0 and 1) from the static image $\mathbf{I}$ represents the probability a spike occurs at any time-step. It is treated as a Bernouilli trial $B(n,p)$, where the number of trials is $n=1$, and $p = I_{cij}$ is the probability of success (i.e., a spike occurs).
For exemple, white pixels ($I_{cij} = 1$) represent a probability of 100\% of spiking, while black pixels ($I_{cij} = 0$) will never spike.
\subsection{Time-To-First-Spike (TTFS) Coding}
We use the implementation and definition of TTFS Coding from SnnTorch \cite{snntorch}.
The objective is to obtain a precise spike timing (representing the time where the unique spike occurs) from a normalized pixel value. To do so, the logarithmic dependence between an input intensity value and the related spike timing is derived using an RC circuit model, where the normalized value of the input pixel $I_{cij}$ is represented as a constant current injection (see details in Appendix B.2 of \cite{snntorch}). For short, the output spike timing $t(I_{cij})$ of an input pixel is given by:
\begin{align}
t(I_{cij}) = \begin{cases}
\tau \Big[\ln(\frac{I_{cij}}{I_{cij} - 0.01})\Big], & \text{if}\ I_{cij} > 0.01 \\
T, & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\end{align}
where $\tau = 1$ is the time-constant of the RC circuit model.
\subsection{Phase Coding}
The objective of Phase Coding is to decompose the total duration allocated for the spike train in multiple phases. These multiple phases originally represent generated oscillation rythms that have been experimentally observed in the hippocampus and olfactory system \cite{biology_phase}.
In our work, we use a simple and effective implementation of phase coding based on the 8-bit representation of unnormalized input pixels (i.e., values from 0 to 255) \cite{phase_coding}. Consequently, a total cycle of phases consists of 8 time-steps. Then, these $8$ phases are successively repeated/discarded until the $T$ time-steps are completed. The weights $w_s(t) = 2^{-1+mod(t-1,8)}$ used to replicate the significance of each bit in the 8-bit representation can be seen as synaptic weights directly applied to the spike tensor $\mathbf{X}_T$.
Even though this Phase Coding process is not bio-plausible, it is considered a good strategy to implement phase coding in neuromorphic solutions \cite{neural_coding}.
\subsection{Saccades Coding}
Our implementation of Saccades Coding simulates the same procedure from N-MNIST \cite{nmnist}, but only digitally (whereas N-MNIST uses a physical event camera on a motorized pan-tilt). That is, from the original image $\mathbf{I}$, we create a sequence of $T$ frames that represent three translations (the ``saccades''). These translations are used to progressively move the static image based on two distance values $dx$ and $dy$ (in pixels). Then, a delta modulation process is applied to this sequence of $T$ frames to obtain the final spike tensor $\mathbf{X}_T$. We use the implementation of the delta modulation process from SnnTorch \cite{snntorch}, with a threshold of $0.1$. Figure \ref{fig:saccade_overview} shows an overview of Saccades Coding and especially describe the three translations. In Figure \ref{fig:ex_saccades}, we observe the effects of these saccades that look similar to samples from \cite{nmnist} (a comparable example is shown from N-Caltech101 in Figure \ref{fig:dvs_examples}).
\begin{figure}[]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.90\textwidth]{saccade_scheme_eccv22.drawio.png}
\caption{Overview of the Saccades Coding process. Three translations are successively applied in the order shown}
\label{fig:saccade_overview}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Trainable Coding}
In Trainable Coding, the first block convolutional layer of our SEW-ResNet-18 \cite{sew_resnet} is treated as the neural coding scheme, i.e., the image $\mathbf{I}$ is directly fed into the layer. The output of this layer has a resolution of $32 \times \frac{H}{2} \times \frac{W}{2}$. Then, an Integrate-and-Fire activation is applied and the resulting spikes are repeated over the $T$ time-steps, which gives the resulting $\mathbf{X}_T$. Consequently, this coding highly discriminates the low-level features introduced in the network, but can be optimized end-to-end using backpropagation.
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
Often referred to as the third generation of neural networks \cite{maass}, Spiking Neural Networks (SNNs) that are derived from models of biological neurons have shown the potential for more energy-efficient and bio-plausible artificial intelligence (AI) when compared to traditional Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) \cite{truenorth,azghadi2020hardware,loihi,furber2014spinnaker}.
In computer vision, SNNs have demonstrated great progress in image classification, but the domain remains relatively underexplored beyond classification baselines \cite{dvsgesture,nmnist}.
The emergence of bio-inspired vision sensors, such as dynamic vision sensor (DVS) cameras \cite{dvs_survey}, has paved the way for completely neuromorphic vision solutions by coupling them together with SNNs. However, the encoding mechanism at the input has a direct impact on the degree of network activity, and thus, the overall power efficiency of the network \cite{survey_snn}. Furthermore, event-based image sensors are susceptible to electron and photon noise, and vast efforts have gone into reducing the impact both at the photoreceptor pixel level, and in digital post-processing \cite{graca2021unraveling,lenz_gregor_2021_5079802}. Understanding the effect of various noise types on different neural encoding schemes is important for determining how much noise mitigation should be accounted for at the pixel level.
In this paper, we provide a rigorous empirical evaluation of bio-inspired single object localization that accounts for a broad sweep of neural encoding schemes, noise perturbation analyses, and overall energy efficiency.
Our presented approach using the backpropagation-trained convolutional SNN architecture in Fig.~\ref{fig:overview} outperforms similar ANN architectures in several cases and is more robust to common image corruptions (See Section \ref{sec:experiments}). We investigate various popular neural coding schemes for static images to determine the advantages and drawbacks in terms of energy efficiency, inference latency, and robustness. In doing so, our results provide insight to how spike-based sensing may be expanded beyond responding only to local changes \cite{dvs_survey}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width= 0.80\textwidth]{Images/Localization_Overview.drawio.png}
\caption{Overview of the proposed method based on a convolutional spiking neural network. Our approach can adapt to frame-based or event-based inputs}
\label{fig:overview}
\end{figure}
The contributions of this paper are summarized as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item We propose a novel approach for single object localization using a directly trained convolutional SNN. An output accumulator module on top of the SNN is designed to obtain precise bounding box predictions from the binary output spikes. In our experiments, we show that our method can effectively adapt to different kinds of inputs during training.
\item We study the performance of our approach on both static images with the Oxford-IIIT-Pet dataset \cite{Oxford-IIIT-Pet} and event-based inputs on N-Caltech101 \cite{nmnist}. We find that our method has similar or better performance (in accuracy) than a similar ANN architecture and does not need a large number of inference time-steps like other works on SNNs \cite{large_t}. Our model also proves to be more robust to noise depending on its type and on the experienced coding scheme. Finally, we observe better energy efficiency for our approach, with orders of magnitude lower energy consumption than similar ANNs.
\item We summarize our observations on various neural coding schemes for SNNs trained with surrogate gradient descent on static images according to our experiments on accuracy, inference efficiency, robustness, and energy consumption. We find that our conclusions differ from previous studies on shallower SNNs trained with STDP learning rules \cite{falez_thesis,neural_coding}.
\end{enumerate}
\section{Image Corruptions}
In this section, we describe the corruptions used for both modalities (event-based and frame-based inputs) and detail the implication of a severity level for all corruptions.
The objective of the severity level is to obtain a corruption more (or less) destructive so that the robustness of our different models can be estimated. For a given corruption, the severity level defines one or more parameter values that result in more (or less) corrupted inputs.
\subsection{Corruption of Static Images}
The corruptions used for static images are from \cite{benchmark_corruptions} and we reuse the original implementation\footnote{\url{https://github.com/hendrycks/robustness}}. Table \ref{tab:param_static} summarizes the parameter values defined by the severity level for each corruption. Examples of corruptions (with a growing level of severity) are given in Figure \ref{fig:corr_example}.
\begin{figure}[]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.99\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cccccc}
\includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{noises/None_1.jpg} & \includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{noises/gaussian_noise_1.jpg} & \includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{noises/gaussian_noise_2.jpg} & \includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{noises/gaussian_noise_3.jpg} & \includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{noises/gaussian_noise_4.jpg} & \includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{noises/gaussian_noise_5.jpg}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Gaussian Noise}
\label{fig:ex_gauss}
\end{subfigure}
\\
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.99\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cccccc}
\includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{noises/None_1.jpg} & \includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{noises/salt_and_pepper_1.jpg} & \includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{noises/salt_and_pepper_2.jpg} & \includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{noises/salt_and_pepper_3.jpg} & \includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{noises/salt_and_pepper_4.jpg} & \includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{noises/salt_and_pepper_5.jpg}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Salt \& Pepper Noise}
\label{fig:ex_sp}
\end{subfigure}
\\
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.99\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cccccc}
\includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{noises/None_1.jpg} & \includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{noises/jpeg_1.jpg} & \includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{noises/jpeg_2.jpg} & \includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{noises/jpeg_3.jpg} & \includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{noises/jpeg_4.jpg} & \includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{noises/jpeg_5.jpg}
\end{tabular}
\caption{JPEG Compression}
\label{fig:ex_jpeg}
\end{subfigure}
\\
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.99\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cccccc}
\includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{noises/None_1.jpg} & \includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{noises/defocus_1.jpg} & \includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{noises/defocus_2.jpg} & \includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{noises/defocus_3.jpg} & \includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{noises/defocus_4.jpg} & \includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{noises/defocus_5.jpg}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Defocus Blur}
\label{fig:ex_defocus}
\end{subfigure}
\\
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.99\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cccccc}
\includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{noises/None_1.jpg} & \includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{noises/frost_1.jpg} & \includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{noises/frost_2.jpg} & \includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{noises/frost_3.jpg} & \includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{noises/frost_4.jpg} & \includegraphics[width=0.16\textwidth]{noises/frost_5.jpg}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Frost Perturbations}
\label{fig:ex_frost}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Examples of corruptions. First column shows a clean example. The growing levels of severity (from $1$ to $5$) are shown in the remaining columns (from left to right)}
\label{fig:corr_example}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\caption{Parameters for all corruptions used in our experiments on static images}
\label{tab:param_static}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|ccccc}
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Noise}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Parameter(s)}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Severity Level}} \\
& & \textbf{1} & \textbf{2} & \textbf{3} & \textbf{4} & \textbf{5} \\ \hline
Gaussian Noise & $\sigma$ & 0.08 & 0.12 & 0.18 & 0.26 & 0.38 \\
Salt \& Pepper & $sp$ & 0.03 & 0.06 & 0.09 & 0.17 & 0.27 \\
JPEG Compression & Quality \% & 25 & 18 & 15 & 10 & 7 \\
Defocus & $r$ & 3 & 4 & 6 & 8 & 10 \\
Frost & $(\rho, \omega)$ & (1, 0.4) & (0.8, 0.6) & (0.7, 0.7) & (0.65, 0.7) & (0.6, 0.75)
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{Gaussian Noise}
We add a gaussian noise $(0, \sigma)$ to the original input image, i.e. a normal distribution is added to the original input image. The severity level corresponds to the standard deviation $\sigma$ of the normal distribution.
\subsubsection{Salt \& Pepper Noise}
A certain proportion $sp$ of pixels are randomly set to $0$ of $1$ values. The severity level represents the proportion $sp$ of pixels corrupted in the original image.
\subsubsection{JPEG Compression}
A JPEG compression algorithm is applied to an input image, with a defined quality percentage. The severity level corresponds to this quality percentage.
\subsubsection{Defocus Blur}
To simulate a situation where the focal plane of a camera is away from the sensor plane, a common strategy \cite{outoffocus} is to apply an aliased disk kernel of radius $r$ that is the parameter defined by the severity level (i.e., a larger $r$ increases the intensity of defocus blur).
\subsubsection{Frost Perturbation}
To efficiently simulate frost perturbations, samples of ice crystals are randomly selected from pre-generated images and added to the original input image $\mathbf{I}$. An example of pre-generated images is shown in Figure \ref{fig:frost_ex}. We denote $\mathbf{I}_{frost} \in \mathbb{R}^{C\times H \times W}$ as the selected sample of ice crystals.
\begin{figure}[]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.50\textwidth]{frost3.png}
\caption{Example of ice crystal image used in the Frost Perturbation corruption}
\label{fig:frost_ex}
\end{figure}
The severity level defines how much the ice crystals occlude the original image. To do so, we define two parameters $(\rho,\omega)$ that correspond to the intensity (between 0 and 1) of $\mathbf{I}$ and $\mathbf{I}_{frost}$, respectively. Consequently, the resulting corrupted image is obtained from $\rho \mathbf{I} + \omega \mathbf{I}_{frost}$.
\subsection{Corruption of Event-based Inputs}
The corruptions for event-based inputs (i.e., hot pixels and background activity noises) are directly implemented on the discretized spike tensor $\mathbf{X}_T$. Table \ref{tab:param_event} details the parameter values that depend on the severity level and Figure \ref{fig:dvs_examples} illustrates the resulting corrupted samples for $T = 8$.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\caption{Values of parameters for all corruptions used in our experiments on event-based inputs}
\label{tab:param_event}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|ccccc}
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Noise}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Parameter(s)}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Severity Level}} \\
& & \textbf{1} & \textbf{2} & \textbf{3} & \textbf{4} & \textbf{5} \\ \hline
Hot Pixels & \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}Hot Pixels\\ Proportion (\%)\end{tabular} & 0.03 & 0.06 & 0.09 & 0.17 & 0.27 \\
Background Activity & $\lambda$ & 0.08 & 0.12 & 0.18 & 0.26 & 0.38
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.99\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{dvs/baa_example.drawio.png}
\caption{Example of Hot Pixels noise}
\label{fig:ex_hotpix}
\end{subfigure}
\\
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.99\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{dvs/baa_example.drawio.png}
\caption{Example of Background Activity noise}
\label{fig:ex_baa}
\end{subfigure}
\\
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.99\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{dvs/dvs_example.drawio.png}
\caption{Clear sample, with example of prediction. The predicted bounding box is shown in grey, the ground truth is shown in green}
\label{fig:ex_ex_dvs}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{An example of event-based input from N-Caltech101 \cite{nmnist}, with $T = 8$}
\label{fig:dvs_examples}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Hot Pixels}
As hot pixels are pixels that fire constantly (e.g. due to faulty hardware), it can be efficiently simulated by randomly selecting a set of pixel coordinates and fixing their values to $1$ (i.e., spiking), which corresponds to applying the same function to the spike tensor $\mathbf{X}_T$ at every time-step. The level of severity defines the percentage of pixel coordinates from the original input that are treated as hot pixels.
\subsubsection{Background Activity}
Since \cite{background_activity} has shown that background activity noise can be simulated by a time-independent Poisson process, we employ the same strategy in our work. At each time-step, we draw samples from a Poisson distribution with a parameter $\lambda$ being the expected number of events occuring in the time interval (see the documentation of Numpy \cite{numpy} for a random Poisson distribution, where $\lambda$ is the parameter \textit{lam}). The level of severity corresponds to the parameter $\lambda$, which influences the number of events corrupted by the Poisson noise.
\section{Related Works}
\label{sec:related_works}
Most works designed to train SNNs can be categorized depending on their learning paradigm. In this section, we discuss three of the main learning strategies and their ability to address modern computer vision problems (object detection, segmentation, etc.).
\subsection{Unsupervised Bio-plausible Learning} Many works try to exploit bio-plausible learning rules to train SNNs for various machine learning tasks. This strategy is mostly based on Hebbian-like \cite{hebbian} or STDP \cite{stdp} learning rules. Even if this paradigm is strongly inspired by observed biological mechanisms and is easy to implement on neuromorphic hardware, it remains limited to small neural networks \cite{falez_thesis} and deals with basic computer vision tasks (e.g., digit recognition \cite{stdp_nmnist}, low-level feature extraction \cite{mireille}). Typically, models trained with STDP are limited to 2 or 3 layers, which limits the complexity of extracted features. Some works \cite{falez_threshold} try to adapt these rules to train deeper networks but are still far from achieving the same level of performance of ANNs \cite{how_far_are_we}.
\subsection{ANN to SNN Conversion} Instead of direct training, some works focus on converting trained ANNs into SNNs so that the deployed solution can benefit from both the energy efficiency of SNNs and the high performance of ANNs \cite{ann2snn_3,ann2snn_1,ann2snn_2}. Many works already achieve similar performance to ANNs \cite{sota_ann2snn}, and there exist approaches for common computer vision tasks such as object detection \cite{spiking_yolo,snn_lidar} or semantic segmentation \cite{snn_segmentation}. However, these methods rely on rate-coded inputs, which results in a high latency \cite{ann2snn_4} and intense energy consumption (sometimes higher than ANNs), even on neuromorphic hardware \cite{loihi_survey}. Because of rate coding, this strategy is not suited for event-based sensors or other neural coding schemes that can be more efficient than rate coding \cite{neural_coding}. Also due to rate coding, converted SNNs cannot benefit from their natural ability to process temporal information.
On the other hand, \cite{spiking_yolo} already deals with a similar regression problem as ours (i.e. object detection), and achieves satisfactory numerical precision from binary spike trains. However, their approach requires intensive rate coding of static images with a large number of time-steps, which can lead to poor efficiency. On the contrary, our method works with various neural coding schemes and achieves good numerical precision without requiring a large number of time-steps, wich makes it more efficient and versatile.
\subsection{Supervised Learning} Early works \cite{tempotron,resume} focus on supervised learning for single-layered SNNs. Subsequent works \cite{spikeprop,span} try to adapt the backpropagation algorithm to train multi-layered and thus more complex networks. Recently, we have seen the emergence of surrogate gradient learning methods \cite{snntorch,surrogate,surrogate_3,STBP,surrogate_2}, which achieve similar performance to ANNs and have been broadly adopted to explore various common computer vision tasks \cite{snn_segmentation,stereospike}. Recently, on-chip implementations of native backpropagation have become more prevalent \cite{frenkel2022,renner2021backpropagation}, and
enable the design of deep SNNs that can deal with various types of time-varying inputs (not only rate coding in most ANN to SNN conversion approaches) \cite{STBP}. In addition, this strategy does not require a large number of inference time-steps \cite{plif}, which makes them suitable for energy-efficient algorithms. Consequently, surrogate gradient learning has shown much success in the development of SNN-based solutions directly trained in the spike domain. In computer vision, surrogate gradient learning enables the training of deeper architectures \cite{sew_resnet,large_t}, and some popular tasks have already been explored (depth prediction \cite{stereospike}, semantic segmentation \cite{snn_segmentation}). However, there are still a large number of vision tasks that remain unexplored, which induce a lack of available solutions in state-of-the-art to develop neuromorphic applications, notably when an object instance must be spatially detected. On that basis, we adopt this strategy to propose an SNN method capable of addressing such challenge.
\section{Deep Learning for SNNs}
\label{sec:background}
In this section, we briefly discuss the spiking neuron model employed in our approach. In addition, we give a short description of the training method to directly train our deep SNN-based model.
\subsection{Integrate-and-Fire (IF) Neurons}
\label{subsec:neuron_model}
Spiking neuron models aim to describe the dynamics of biological neurons. They vary in terms of complexity and bio-plausibility \cite{survey_neuron_models}. In this paper, we use one of the most popular neuron models: the IF neuron \cite{if_neuron}. It accumulates input spikes weighted by synaptic weights by increasing the hidden state (known as the ``membrane potential'') and emits a spike when a threshold is exceeded. After spike emission, the membrane potential is reset to its resting value (defined as 0 in our work). Figure \ref{fig:ifneuron} illustrates the evolution of the membrane potential of an IF neuron.
\begin{align}
\label{equation_if_neuron}
V_t^l & = V_{t-1}^l + W^{l-1} S^{l-1}_{t-1} - \theta S_t \\
S_t^l & = \Theta(V_t^l - \theta)
\end{align} Equation \ref{equation_if_neuron} describes the discretized dynamics of a layer $l$ of IF neurons. $V_t^l$ denotes the membrane potentials from neurons of layer $l$ at a certain time-step $t$, $W^{l-1}$ denotes the pre-synaptic weights from the preceding layer $l-1$, and $S^{l-1}_{t-1}$ denotes the outputs from the pre-synaptic neurons. The output $S^l_{t}$ is composed of $1$'s when a neuron's membrane potential exceeds its threshold $\theta$, and $0$'s otherwise. This behavior corresponds to the Heaviside step function $\Theta(\cdot)$. Finally, the rightmost term of Equation \ref{equation_if_neuron} defines the resting mechanism after a spike.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width= 0.33\textwidth]{Images/IFNeurons.drawio.png}
\caption{The membrane potential of an IF neuron. A spike (shown in red) is emitted when its membrane potential exceeds a certain threshold $\theta$, and the membrane potential returns to its resting value}
\label{fig:ifneuron}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Surrogate Gradient Learning}
A common and effective method to train deep SNNs is to express them as a recurrent neural network and use backpropagation through time \cite{bptt} to adapt the synaptic weights \cite{STBP}. However, the derivative of $\Theta(\cdot)$ is 0 almost everywhere, but when there is a spike, which breaks the gradient chain and prevents the SNN from learning effectively.
Surrogate gradient learning \cite{surrogate_3,surrogate_2} aims to address this problem by using the derivative of a continuous surrogate function $\sigma(\cdot)$ during backpropagation instead of the derivative of $\Theta(\cdot)$. In our method, we define $\sigma(x) = \frac{1}{\pi} \arctan(\frac{\pi}{2}\alpha x) + \frac{1}{2}$, with $\alpha = 2$. Consequently, a multi-layer SNN can be directly trained despite the non-differentiability problem.
\section{Qualitative Results}
\begin{align}
dx = 20 \\
dy = 20 \\
(dx, -dy) \\
(dx, dy) \\
(-2dx, 0)
\end{align}
\section{Methodology}
\label{sec:methodology}
\subsection{Problem Formulation}
\label{subsec:problem_formulation}
Given a stream of input spikes obtained from an event-based sensor or a static image (using a neural coding scheme), the objective is to predict the bounding box coordinates $\mathbf{B} = \{x_{min}, y_{min}, x_{max}, y_{max}\}$, where $(x_{min}, y_{min})$ and $(x_{max}, y_{max})$ are the upper-left and bottom-right corners of the bounding box, respectively. To do so, we design an SNN-based model $f_\theta(.)$ with $\theta$ representing the set of trainable parameters (synaptic weights and biases) such that :
\begin{align}
f_{\theta}(\mathbf{X}_T) = \{x_{min}, y_{min}, x_{max}, y_{max}\} = \mathbf{B}
\end{align}
where $\mathbf{X}_T \in \{0,1\}^{T \times C \times H \times W} = \{ X_t\}_{t=1}^T$ is the binary tensor representing the stream of input spikes discretized into $T$ time-steps, obtained from a frame-based or event-based sensor with a resolution of $H \times W$, and $C$ channels (e.g., $C = 3$ for an RGB camera, $C = 2$ for a DVS camera, etc.).
\subsection{Model Architecture}
\label{subsec:network_architecture}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.70\textwidth]{Images/Localization_Output_Accumulator.drawio.png}
\caption{The proposed model architecture based on a Convolutional SNN}
\label{fig:architecture}
\end{figure}
The proposed model consists of two modules: a convolutional SNN encoder composed of several convolutional IF neuron layers (e.g., a SEW-ResNet \cite{sew_resnet} model) and an output accumulator module. Figure \ref{fig:architecture} illustrates the proposed architecture. The SNN encoder extracts spiking feature maps $\mathbf{F}_T = \{ F_t\}_{t=1}^{T}$ from the input spikes $\mathbf{X}_T$. These feature maps are flattened and fed into the output accumulator module, with the purpose of obtaining the final bounding box prediction $\mathbf{B}$ from the spatio-temporal feature maps.
Since object localization is a regression problem, the main challenge related to the output accumulator is to convert these spiking feature maps into numerical values which represent precise bounding boxes coordinates. In addition, the output accumulator should adapt to different types of inputs during training (e.g., rate coded images, event-based streams, etc.). Inspired from \cite{snn_segmentation}, our output accumulator module is a fully connected layer of IF neurons with an infinite threshold, which means that the membrane potentials of this last layer accumulate spikes from each time-step. At the end of the $T$ time-steps, the membrane potential of these neurons determines the bounding box prediction $\mathbf{B}$. In fact, the output accumulator is an intuitive design that allows us to focus on how the SNN encoder processes visual inputs (from both event- and frame-based sensors) without being influenced by more complex modules that could produce biases in our empirical analysis.
The whole model is trained end-to-end using the Distance-IoU loss \cite{diou}.
\subsection{Input Representation}
\label{subsec:input_representations}
As shown on the left of Figure \ref{fig:overview}, the input tensor $\mathbf{X}_T$ is obtained either from an event-based sensor, or a static image using a neural coding scheme. In this section, we introduce the strategies used to obtain this spike tensor for both modalities.
\subsubsection{Event-based Inputs}
For event-based sensors, events are accumulated into a fixed number of $T$ event frames, sliced along the time axis of the whole sequence.
\subsubsection{Static Images through Neural Coding Scheme}
Static images are commonly converted into spike trains using a specific process known as the \textit{``neural coding scheme''} \cite{neural_coding}. In this work, we investigate various popular schemes. \textbf{Rate Coding:} each input pixel is considered as the probability a spike occurs at each time-step, which results in a frequency of spikes proportional to the original value. \textbf{Time-To-First-Spike (TTFS) Coding:} information is encoded through precise spike timings. Each pixel value fires at most one spike, where a high pixel value results in an early spike and a low pixel value produces a late or no spike. \textbf{Phase Coding \cite{phase_coding}:} the integer intensity of each pixel (i.e., from 0 to 255) is converted into an 8-bit representation (i.e., a set of 0s and 1s). The "1" signals are generated usong an 8-phase cycle that is repeated until $T$ time-steps are created. To replicate the significance of each bit in their binary representation, spikes are weighted according to their related phase, given by $w_s(t) = 2^{-(1+mod(t-1, 8))}$. \textbf{Saccades Coding:} we simulate the same process as previous works on event-based cameras \cite{cifar10_dvs,nmnist} by translating the image in three saccades and applying a delta modulation process \cite{snntorch}, which emits a spike when the change of intensity between two frames for the same pixel exceeds a certain threshold. \textbf{Trainable Coding:} the first convolutional layer of our model directly takes the input image to obtain low-level spiking feature maps. These feature maps are then repeated over the $T$ time-steps, which makes the first convolutional layer an encoder that can be trained directly to obtain an optimal coding scheme.
\section{Experiments}
\label{sec:experiments}
In addition to the baseline localization accuracy, our experiments aim to evaluate the performance of the proposed approach on three aspects: inference efficiency, energy consumption, and robustness on several image corruptions. Moreover, our SNN-based approach is compared to a similar ANN architecture. Nevertheless, a comparison with state-of-the-art (and generally deeper and more complex) ANNs is not provided, since it could lead to biased conclusions on the differences between ANNs and SNNs on the studied aspects for localization tasks. On the other hand, we study the impact of various neural coding schemes for frame-based inputs following these three aspects.
As for the ANN baseline, static images are directly fed into the model. For event-based inputs, each of the $T$ event-frames is fed into the convolutional layers. The $T$ resulting feature maps are summed before passing through fully connected layers to obtain the prediction.
\subsection{Datasets and Metrics}
\label{subsec:dataset_and_metrics}
The Oxford-IIIT-Pet dataset \cite{Oxford-IIIT-Pet} is used to evaluate the performance on static images. It consists of images containing strictly one cat or one dog in a complex (and thus challenging) environment. The dataset is split into 6000 samples for the training set and 1300 images for the validation set.
To evaluate our method with event-based inputs, we use a subset of N-Caltech101 \cite{nmnist}. N-Caltech101 is the spiking version of the frame-based Caltech101 dataset \cite{caltech101}. This event-based dataset is obtained following the same strategy proposed in \cite{nmnist}, i.e., an event-based camera captures each image from a screen while it is mounted on a motorized pan-tilt that mimics saccadic eye movements. Our subset is composed of 2035 training samples and 609 samples for validation. The samples were selected from the classes containing $\ge 100$ samples, in order to limit data imbalance.
Since our approach is aimed at localizing strictly one object per sample, we measure the performance using the mean intersection over union ($mIoU$).
\subsection{Implementation Details}
\label{subsec:implementation_details}
The experiments are conducted using the SpikingJelly 0.0.0.8 framework \cite{spikingjelly}, an SNN simulator that runs on PyTorch \cite{pytorch}. All experiments are conducted using an NVIDIA 2080Ti GPU. We use a SEW-Resnet-18 \cite{sew_resnet} architecture for the convolutional SNN encoder. For comparison with a similar ANN model, a ResNet-18 \cite{resnet} architecture is employed. All models are trained for 150 epochs using the Adam optimizer \cite{adam_optimizer}. The learning rate for each architecture is found using a learning rate finder \cite{lr_finder}. Every sample is resized to a resolution of $224 \times 224$. To ensure the comparison with previous works on single object localization with SNNs \cite{sami_decolle}, static images are converted to grayscale ($C = 1$). As for the event-based inputs, we use the common On/Off polarity channels ($C = 2$) of DVS cameras.
\subsection{Analysis on Time-Steps Inference}
\label{subsec:analysis_on_timesteps}
\begin{figure}[b]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Images/time-steps.png}
\caption{Oxford-IIIT-Pet}
\label{fig:static_inference}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.40\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Images/time-steps_dv.png}
\caption{Subset of N-Caltech101}
\label{fig:dvs_inference}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Performance of our approach vs. $T$, the total number of time-steps for inference}
\label{fig:inference_results}
\end{figure}
Previous works \cite{large_t} on backprop-trained SNNs for computer vision show that better performance should be expected with larger $T$ time-steps, as it allows more spikes to be integrated by the SNN at the cost of efficiency. On the other hand, more recent works \cite{plif} show the opposite, with better accuracy and a reduced number $T$ of time-steps. However, the importance of larger $T$ value is still debatable because the SNN models of previous works was never similar, making it difficult to draw a definitive conclusion. In this section, we answer this question by using the same model and studying its performance with different values of $T$.
Figure \ref{fig:inference_results} shows the performance of our approach for both event-based and frame-based inputs depending on the total number of time-steps $T$. For both contexts, we can see that our SNN-based method has consistent results across all coding schemes and with event-based inputs, which shows the ability of our output accumulator module to adapt to various types of inputs. In addition, our model has similar performance compared to its ANN counterpart. Specifically, our method has slightly worse performance for static images but outperforms the ANN on event-based inputs.
As for the comparison between neural coding schemes, our results show that there is no strong correlation between $T$ and the final performance. Consequently, unlike previous works \cite{large_t}, our method does not need a large number of time-steps to perform consistently. We observe different results from other studies on coding schemes using bio-plausible unsupervised learning rules, such as STDP \cite{neural_coding}. While TTFS coding is considered better in terms of accuracy using STDP (e.g., compared to rate coding), TTFS instead leads to lower results than any other scheme. This can be explained by the fact that STDP learning rules may not be adapted to spike-intensive inputs from rate-coded images, contrary to surrogate gradient learning. Other coding schemes have similar performance, with a slight advantage for the trainable coding scheme.
In the context of event-based sensors, we observe better results with smaller values of $T$, contrary to the baseline ANN that shows similar results across all values. Consequently, our method outperforms the ANN baseline for $T \leq 10$. We report the best performance of $71.53$ \% $mIoU$ for $T = 3$. In fact, saccadic motion is broadly accepted as a biologically plausible encoding scheme. However, when applied to static images, there is little to no temporally relevant information within each sample of data \cite{jason_suggestion}. As a result, when the sensor is static, no useful information is being passed and so integrating the full temporal window of information within a shorter $T$ avoids sequence steps which are sparse and do not provide useful information to the network.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\caption{Best performance (based on $T$) for each coding scheme}
\label{tab:best_results}
\begin{tabular}{c|ccccc|c|c}
\textbf{} & \textbf{Learnable} & \textbf{Rate} & \textbf{TTFS} & \textbf{Phase} & \textbf{Saccades} & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}ANN\\ baseline\end{tabular}} & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\cite{sami_decolle}\\ (rate coding)\end{tabular}} \\ \hline
$mIoU$ (\%) & \uline{77.14} & 76.37 & 68.48 & 76.02 & 76.06 & \textbf{80.11} & 63.2 \\
\textbf{$T$} & 4 & 12 & 16 & 10 & 8 & - & 1000
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table \ref{tab:best_results} shows the best-performing models for each coding scheme, with the related value of $T$. All versions of our model outperforms previous work \cite{sami_decolle} by a large margin in both $mIoU$ and inference efficiency. They have slightly worse results than the ANN baseline (from 11.63 to 2.97 \%, depending on the coding scheme).
\subsection{Analysis on Corruption Robustness}
\label{subsec:analysis_on_robustness}
Similarly to \cite{benchmark_corruptions}, we investigate the robustness of our method using several types of common image corruptions, and with a growing level of severity from $1$ (weakest) to $5$ (strongest). Models trained with $T = 8$ are used for all the experiments of this section.
For a specific corruption $corr$ with a given severity level $sev$, the drop of performance of our model is given by the “Relative Accuracy Drop" \cite{snn_segmentation} $RAD^{corr}_{sev}$ such that:
\begin{equation}
RAD^{corr}_{sev} = \frac{mIoU_{clean} - mIoU^{cor}_{sev}}{mIoU_{clean}} \times 100
\end{equation}
where $mIoU_{clean}$ and $mIoU^{corr}_{sev}$ are the mIoU metrics without and with the defined corruption, respectively.
To estimate the overall robustness of our method against a specific corruption, we also introduce the “Mean Relative Accuracy Drop" ($mRAD^{corr}$) :
\begin{align}
mRAD^{corr} = \frac{1}{5} \times \sum\limits_{sev = 1}^{5} RAD^{corr}_{sev}
\end{align}
\subsubsection{Corruptions for Frame-based Sensors}
\label{subsubsec:studied_corruptions}
The following corruptions of static images are evaluated. \textit{Gaussian Noise:} image noise that happens in low-lighting environments. \textit{Salt \& Pepper Noise:} image degradation that shows sparsely “broken" pixels (i.e., only white or black). \textit{JPEG Compression:} degradation due to a lossy jpeg compression of the image. \textit{Defocus Blur:} specific blur effect occurring when the camera is out of focus. \textit{Frost Perturbation:} frost occlusions that occur when a camera lens is covered by ice crystals.
\subsubsection{Corruptions for Event-based Sensors}
With event-based sensors, two noises that represent known effects on DVS cameras are explored. \textit{Hot Pixels:} corruption that occurs due to broken pixels (i.e., always active) in the sensor. It consists of random pixels that fire at a very high rate \cite{v2e}. \textit{Background Activity:} noise that appears when the output of a pixel changes under constant illumination. This corruption can be effectively simulated by a time-independent Poisson noise \cite{background_activity}. It is worth mentioning that background activity noise already occurs in our event-based dataset since DVS cameras are very sensitive to it. Therefore, this corruption is aimed at increasing the background activity noise.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\caption{Mean relative accuracy drop comparison on static images. Scores better than the ANN baseline are highlighted in green}
\label{tab:mean_acc_drop_static}
\begin{adjustbox}{max width=0.99\textwidth}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c}
& \textbf{Gaussian} & \textbf{JPEG Compression} & \textbf{Salt\&Pepper} & \textbf{Defocus Blur} & \textbf{Frost Perturbation} \\ \hline
\textbf{ANN Baseline} & 4.35 & 0.3 & 4.56 & 4.05 & 4.61 \\ \hline
\textbf{Trainable} & 6.34 & \cellcolor[HTML]{9AFF99}0.22 & 6.62 & \cellcolor[HTML]{9AFF99}3.1 & 6.08 \\
\textbf{Rate} & \cellcolor[HTML]{9AFF99}0.87 & \cellcolor[HTML]{9AFF99}\textbf{0.04} & \cellcolor[HTML]{9AFF99}0.92 & \cellcolor[HTML]{9AFF99}0.87 & \cellcolor[HTML]{9AFF99}{\color[HTML]{333333} \textbf{3.39}} \\
\textbf{TTFS} & \cellcolor[HTML]{9AFF99}\textbf{0.38} & \cellcolor[HTML]{9AFF99}0.09 & \cellcolor[HTML]{9AFF99}\textbf{0.15} & \cellcolor[HTML]{9AFF99}\textbf{0.48} & 23.57 \\
\textbf{Saccades} & 23.41 & 0.87 & 21.83 & 6.24 & \cellcolor[HTML]{9AFF99}{\color[HTML]{333333} 4.52} \\
\textbf{Phase} & 5.51 & 0.79 & 9.06 & \cellcolor[HTML]{9AFF99}2.13 & 7.39
\end{tabular}
\end{adjustbox}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{Results}
\label{subsubsec:robustness_results}
We firstly investigate the overall robustness of each neural coding scheme, shown in Table \ref{tab:mean_acc_drop_static}. The evaluation of this robustness in terms of the increasing severity of the noise is shown in Figure \ref{fig:evolution_severity}. Our approach seems to be more robust than the ANN baseline on specific cases, i.e., using a certain neural coding to deal with a target noise. Unlike previous studies with STDP \cite{falez_thesis,neural_coding}, TTFS coding is much more robust than other studied schemes. It is more commonly thought that rate coding is more robust to TTFS as multiple spikes provide an opportunity for errors to be averaged out in rate codes \cite{snntorch,neural_coding}. Our results here offer an alternative theory, by showing that the relative accuracy drop is generally constant, even against corruptions with high severity. This may be explained by noises having only a marginal effect on the logarithmic dependency between input intensity and spike times, whereas rate codes frequent spiking provide additional opportunities for noise to manifest. As shown in Figure \ref{fig:frost_evolution}, a high sensitivity to frost perturbation can be noticed even with a low severity, which suggests that our model strongly relies on the early input spikes, which are highly corrupted by the bright pixels composing frost perturbations. On the other hand, saccades coding is the least robust scheme by a large margin. More precisely, it shows similar robustness to other schemes on low severity but seems to be not adapted to very noisy settings. In general, rate coding shows good results against all corruptions and is always more robust than the ANN baseline. Consequently, rate coding seems to be the best trade-off to deal with a large variety of image corruptions.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.2\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Images/legend_noise_frame.png}
\caption{Legend}
\label{fig:legend_frame_noise}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Images/gaussian.png}
\caption{Gaussian Noise}
\label{fig:gaussian_evolution}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Images/jpeg.png}
\caption{JPEG Compression}
\label{fig:jpeg_evolution}
\end{subfigure}
\\
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Images/salt_and_paper.png}
\caption{Salt and Pepper Noise}
\label{fig:sp_evolution}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Images/defocus.png}
\caption{Defocus Blur}
\label{fig:defocus_evolution}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.3\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Images/frost.png}
\caption{Frost Perturbation}
\label{fig:frost_evolution}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Evaluation of the relative accuracy drop score in terms of corruption severity level for each coding scheme}
\label{fig:evolution_severity}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[b]
\centering
\caption{Mean relative accuracy drop comparison on event-based inputs}
\label{tab:mean_acc_drop_dvs}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c}
& \textbf{Hot pixels} & \textbf{Background activity} \\ \hline
\textbf{ANN baseline} & 4.92 & 6.13 \\ \hline
\textbf{Ours} & 17.78 & 8.85
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
As shown in Table \ref{tab:mean_acc_drop_dvs}, our model seems more sensitive to noises from event-based cameras compared to the ANN baseline. While both methods remain comparable for background activity noise, our SNN-based model performs poorly against hot pixels. Similarly, the evaluation of the relative accuracy drop score of our method grows faster than the ANN baseline for hot pixels noise, but the evaluation of this score for background activity noise is similar (shown in Figure \ref{fig:evolution_severity_dvs}). It can be explained by the sub-threshold dynamics of spiking neurons: they are constantly excited by the hot pixels events, which makes them spike more than expected and interfere with the feature extraction capacity of the convolutional SNN encoder. In comparison, hot pixels disturb the ANN baseline similarly to salt and pepper noise on the multiple event frames of $\mathbf{X}_T$, which is less harmful since artificial neurons do not integrate spikes from previous time-steps.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.2\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Images/legend_noise_dv.png}
\caption{Legend}
\label{fig:legendnoise_dv}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.39\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Images/hotpixels_evolution.png}
\caption{Hot Pixels}
\label{fig:hotpixels_evolution}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.39\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Images/background_act_evolution.png}
\caption{Background Activity Noise}
\label{fig:ba_evolution}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Evaluation of the relative accuracy drop score vs. the severity level of corruptions on event-based cameras}
\label{fig:evolution_severity_dvs}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Energy Efficiency Analysis}
\label{subsec:analysis_on_energy_consumption}
We provide an estimation of the energy consumption of our SNN-based model compared to ANNs, similarly to previous works \cite{snn_segmentation}. These estimations consider only the energy needed for Multiply And Accumulate (MAC) operations but do not take other factors into account (e.g., memory, peripheral circuit). To do so, we measure the rate of spikes for each layer of our model, since spiking neurons only consume energy when emitting a spike. The rate of spikes for a specific layer $l$ is given by:
\begin{equation}
Rs(l) = \frac{\text{\# spikes of } l \text{ over all time-steps}}{\text{\# neurons of } l}
\end{equation}
Since our model is a ResNet-like architecture \cite{resnet}, our network can be divided into 5 blocks, where each block processes feature maps with spatial resolution $2 \times$ smaller than the previous block. Figure \ref{fig:spike_rate} shows the spike rate of each block from our SEW-ResNet architecture (i.e., the average spike rate of all layers belonging to the residual block). Interestingly, the same pattern is observed for all coding schemes (or with event-based inputs): blocks 2, 3, and 4 have more activity compared to block 1 which receives the input spikes and block 5 which feeds the output accumulator module.
\begin{figure}[b]
\centering
\includegraphics[width= 0.48\textwidth]{Images/rate_spike.png}
\caption{Spike rate for each block of the SEW-ResNet-18 \cite{sew_resnet} architecture, depending on the neural coding scheme employed (or with event-based inputs)}
\label{fig:spike_rate}
\end{figure}
We can compute the total floating-point operations (FLOPs) of a layer $l$ of spiking neurons $FLOPs_{SNN}$ using the FLOPs of the same layer in an ANN $FLOPs_{ANN}$ (i.e., with non-spiking neurons) and the spike rate $Rs(l)$:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:flops_snn}
FLOPs_{SNN}(l) & = FLOPs_{ANN}(l) \times Rs(l) \\
\label{eq:flops_ann}
FLOPs_{ANN}(l) & =
\begin{cases}
k^2 \times O^2 \times C_{in} \times C_{out} & \text{if } l \text{ is Convolutional} \\
C_{in} \times C_{out} & \text{if } l \text{ is Linear.}
\end{cases}
\end{align} In Equation \ref{eq:flops_ann}, $k$ is the kernel size, $O$ is the size of the output feature maps, $C_{in}$ is the number of input channels and $C_{out}$ is the number of output channels.
Using the total FLOPs across all layers, the total energy consumption of a model can be estimated on CMOS technology \cite{cmos}. Table \ref{tab:energy_operations} shows the energy cost of each relevant operation in a 45nm CMOS process. To perform a MAC operation, an ANN requires one addition (32bit FP ADD) and one FP multiplication (32bit FP MULT) \cite{mac_ann}. In comparison, SNNs only require one FP addition per MAC operation since they process binary spikes asynchronously. $E_{ANN}$ and $E_{SNN}$ denote the total energy consumption of ANNs and SNNs, respectively:
\begin{align}
E_{ANN} & = \sum\limits_{l}{FLOPs_{ANN}(l)} \times E_{MAC} \\
E_{SNN} & = \sum\limits_{l}{FLOPs_{SNN}(l)} \times E_{AC}
\end{align}
\begin{table}[b]
\centering
\caption{Energy table for a 45nm CMOS process (from \cite{snn_segmentation})}
\label{tab:energy_operations}
\begin{adjustbox}{max width=0.48\textwidth}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\textbf{Operation} & \textbf{Energy} (pJ) \\ \hline
32bit FP MULT ($E_{MULT}$) & 3.7 \\
32bit FP ADD ($E_{ADD}$) & 0.9 \\
32bit FP MAC ($E_{MAC}$) & 4.6 ($= E_{MULT} + E_{ADD}$) \\
32bit FP AC ($E_{AC}$) & 0.9
\end{tabular}
\end{adjustbox}
\end{table}
Finally, a comparison between $E_{ANN}$ and $E_{SNN}$ for every neural coding scheme and for event-based inputs is shown in Table \ref{tab:energy_consumption}. For the following experiments of this section, we use the models trained with $T=8$. In particular, the ratio $E_{ANN}/E_{SNN}$ describes the energy efficiency of our approach compared to the baseline ANN. Our method outperforms the ANN baseline by a large margin, being $44.82 \times$ to $126.6 \times$more efficient. As for the comparison between neural coding schemes, our results are consistent with previous works \cite{neural_coding} and with Table \ref{fig:spike_rate}: spike-intensive coding schemes (rate and phase coding) have higher spike rates and energy cost, while low-spike settings (TTFS and Saccades coding) are more efficient. The trainable coding scheme is shown to be the least efficient but is a particular case since the final representation strongly depends on the training step. By adding a spike penalization term \cite{stereospike} to the loss function, this coding scheme is expected to vary intensively from our results. On the other hand, the same efficiency as less effective coding schemes is observed for event-based inputs, which suggests that raw event-based sensors require a higher energy consumption for our object localization task than low-spike neural coding schemes.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\caption{Comparison of the energy consumption against a similar ANN architecture in the case of both frame-based and event-based contexts}
\label{tab:energy_consumption}
\begin{adjustbox}{max width=0.48\textwidth}
\begin{tabular}{c|ccc}
\textbf{} & \textbf{$E_{ANN}$} (mJ) & \textbf{$E_{SNN}$} (mJ) & \textbf{$E_{ANN} / E_{SNN}$} \\ \hline
\textbf{Trainable} & \multirow{5}{*}{11129.44} & 248.34 & 44.82 \\
\textbf{Rate} & & 208.6 & 53.35 \\
\textbf{TTFS} & & 87.94 & \textbf{126.6} \\
\textbf{Saccades} & & {\ul114.69} & {\ul 97.04} \\
\textbf{Phase} & & 141.79 & 78.49 \\ \hline
\textbf{Event-based} & 13 399.34 & \textbf{294.63} & \textbf{45.48}
\end{tabular}
\end{adjustbox}
\end{table}
\subsection{Discussion on Coding Schemes}
From our various experiments on neural coding schemes, several conclusions can be drawn that differ from other previous studies \cite{falez_thesis,neural_coding} with SNNs and STDP learning rules. It may potentially show different behaviors of SNNs with surrogate gradient learning. Therefore, we expect it to set new guidelines on neural coding schemes with supervised SNNs on surrogate gradient. Four aspects are discussed: best accuracy, inference efficiency (i.e., performance of our networks for $T < 8$), overall robustness against image corruptions, and energy efficiency. We summarize our findings as follows. \textbf{Trainable Coding} is highly efficient in terms of accuracy (even with few time-steps) and robust, notably because it can be easily integrated with an SNN trained with backpropagation. However, achieving low energy consumption might require additional regularization during training \cite{regularization_low}. Our conclusions for \textbf{Rate Coding} and \textbf{TTFS Coding} differ importantly from previous studies \cite{falez_thesis,neural_coding} on STDP. Rate Coding is highly accurate, robust, and efficient on limited inference time-steps while TTFS Coding performs poorly in general but proves to be very robust. It shows that studies on bio-plausible learning rules may not generalize to other training strategies. Although having the poorest robustness by far, \textbf{Saccades Coding} shows to have low energy consumption and has comparable performance on accuracy and on inference efficiency. \textbf{Phase Coding} shows similar characteristics to Rate Coding but has poorer performance in general, which highlights the fact that Rate Coding can be considered the best trade-off on the three aspects studied in our experiments.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
In this work, we investigated the impacts of sensor noises and input coding schemes on single object localization, a vision task more sensitive to spatial information than classification, the most common baseline in neuromorphic vision. We proposed a new SNN-based model for energy-efficient single object localization. We show that our novel approach can deal with both frame-based sensors (using various neural coding schemes) and event-based cameras using our adaptable output accumulator module. In addition, we evaluate the performance of our model on accuracy, inference efficiency, corruption robustness, and energy consumption and compare it to a similar ANN architecture. We report similar or better performance than ANNs in terms of accuracy and robustness and orders of magnitude better energy efficiency (up to $126.6 \times$). Finally, we summarize the pros and cons of popular neural coding schemes SNNs trained by surrogate gradient based on our experiments. As our observations differ importantly from previous works on bio-plausible learning rules \cite{neural_coding}, we believe that this summary can help researchers design more efficient SNN-based solutions trained with state-of-the-art backpropagation mechanisms.
\section{Supplementary Materials}
\input{1_coding_schemes}
\input{2_corruptions}
\end{document}
\section{Introduction}
\lipsum[2]
\lipsum[3]
\section{Headings: first level}
\label{sec:headings}
\lipsum[4] See Section \ref{sec:headings}.
\subsection{Headings: second level}
\lipsum[5]
\begin{equation}
\xi _{ij}(t)=P(x_{t}=i,x_{t+1}=j|y,v,w;\theta)= {\frac {\alpha _{i}(t)a^{w_t}_{ij}\beta _{j}(t+1)b^{v_{t+1}}_{j}(y_{t+1})}{\sum _{i=1}^{N} \sum _{j=1}^{N} \alpha _{i}(t)a^{w_t}_{ij}\beta _{j}(t+1)b^{v_{t+1}}_{j}(y_{t+1})}}
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Headings: third level}
\lipsum[6]
\paragraph{Paragraph}
\lipsum[7]
\section{Examples of citations, figures, tables, references}
\label{sec:others}
\lipsum[8] \cite{kour2014real,kour2014fast} and see \cite{hadash2018estimate}.
The documentation for \verb+natbib+ may be found at
\begin{center}
\url{http://mirrors.ctan.org/macros/latex/contrib/natbib/natnotes.pdf}
\end{center}
Of note is the command \verb+\citet+, which produces citations
appropriate for use in inline text. For example,
\begin{verbatim}
\citet{hasselmo} investigated\dots
\end{verbatim}
produces
\begin{quote}
Hasselmo, et al.\ (1995) investigated\dots
\end{quote}
\begin{center}
\url{https://www.ctan.org/pkg/booktabs}
\end{center}
\subsection{Figures}
\lipsum[10]
See Figure \ref{fig:fig1}. Here is how you add footnotes. \footnote{Sample of the first footnote.}
\lipsum[11]
\begin{figure}
\centering
\fbox{\rule[-.5cm]{4cm}{4cm} \rule[-.5cm]{4cm}{0cm}}
\caption{Sample figure caption.}
\label{fig:fig1}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Tables}
\lipsum[12]
See awesome Table~\ref{tab:table}.
\begin{table}
\caption{Sample table title}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lll}
\toprule
\multicolumn{2}{c}{Part} \\
\cmidrule(r){1-2}
Name & Description & Size ($\mu$m) \\
\midrule
Dendrite & Input terminal & $\sim$100 \\
Axon & Output terminal & $\sim$10 \\
Soma & Cell body & up to $10^6$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:table}
\end{table}
\subsection{Lists}
\begin{itemize}
\item Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet
\item consectetur adipiscing elit.
\item Aliquam dignissim blandit est, in dictum tortor gravida eget. In ac rutrum magna.
\end{itemize}
\section{Conclusion}
Your conclusion here
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This was was supported in part by......
\bibliographystyle{unsrt}
|
\section{Introduction}
The theory of general relativity (GR) has been tested under a wide variety of circumstances, ranging from planetary to cosmological scales, and within different degrees of nonlinearity. The most elusive tests, still to be completed, remain those in the strong field regime. Compact relativistic objects, including neutron stars and black holes, are excellent natural laboratories where extreme phenomena takes place allowing us to probe the behavior of matter under the influence of very strong gravitational fields. In these scenarios, the gravitational field plays a crucial role in the astrophysical processes which occur, leaving an imprint on the observations by shifting the energies and deflecting the trajectories of the emitted photons. In turn, this also allows us to put GR to the test at the very instances where its nonlinearities are the strongest.
For example, X-ray pulse profiles generated from hot spots on the surface of spinning neutron stars are severely affected by the gravitational field of the star \citep[][]{pechenick1983hot}. The emission lines produced in black hole accretion disks suffer relativistic broadening due to the combined effect of gravitational redshift and Doppler boosting to the fluid frame \citep[][]{miller2002evidence}.
In the last few years, new instruments with increased sensitivity like NICER \citep{gendreau2012neutron} began to operate producing very accurate observational data. The forthcoming mission eXTP \citep[][]{zhang2019enhanced} will also add up to this in the near future. The modelling of pulse profiles and comparison with these high-quality data can be used, e.g., to constrain the mass-radius relation of neutron stars, and consequently their equations of state and interior compositions \citep[][]{riley2019nicer, riley2021nicer,pang2021nuclear}.
It has also been used to infer the possible topology of the magnetic field near the stellar surface, suggesting the existence of global-scale multipolar components in millisecond pulsars (particularly for PSR J0030+0451) \citep[][]{bilous2019nicer,chen2020numerical,kalapotharakos2021multipolar}. Thus, challenging the standard pulsar picture consisting of a centered magnetic dipole which would yield two antipodal emitting polar cap regions.
Recently, the Event Horizon Telescope collaboration obtained an image of the black hole M87\textsuperscript{*}, being the first image of a black hole ever captured \citep[][]{akiyama2019first}. This opened unprecedented possibilities to deepen our understanding of physics in these extreme regimes, such as investigating the gravitational fields and charges of black holes \citep[][]{psaltis2020gravitational, kocherlakota2021constraints}, the magnetic field structure near the event horizon \citep{akiyama2021first}, the jet launching and collimation mechanisms \citep{jeter2020differentiating}, and so on.
To theoretically reproduce the spectrum and light curves of these sources with high precision requires accurate general-relativistic ray-tracing and radiative transfer codes. A number of such codes have been developed for that purpose, generally adjusting to one of two schemes: e.g. \cite{schnittman2004harmonic, noble2007simulating, dexter2009fast, psaltis2011ray, bronzwaer2018raptor, pihajoki2018general} and \cite{moscibrodzka2018ipole}, which follow observer-to-emitter schemes, i.e. tracing rays from a virtual observer to the source backwards in time; and, on the other hand, \cite{dolence2009grmonty} and \cite{schnittman2013monte} that follow Monte Carlo schemes in which photon packet distributions are sampled at the source and are later propagated outwards.
In this paper, we present a new numerical general-relativistic ray-tracing and radiative transfer code, \texttt{Skylight}, and we demonstrate its accuracy and appropriateness for astrophysical applications. \texttt{Skylight} supports transfer in arbitrary asymptotically-flat space-time geometries and coordinate systems. The reason we adopted this geometry-agnostic position for our code is that in the near future we will incorporate approximate and numerical metrics to investigate emission models in binary systems, systems for which no exact metrics are known. Both the observer-to-emitter and emitter-to-observer schemes are implemented in \texttt{Skylight}, a property only shared with the code described in \cite{schnittman2013monte}. While the observer-to-emitter scheme demands less allocations and computational time, often working fine in a laptop, the emitter-to-observer is more amenable to the inclusion of scattering processes in a future generalization. The code is capable of producing images, phase-resolved and phase-averaged spectra, light curves, sky maps and animations. The code may also be applied to any astrophysical problem involving radiation transport in a curved spacetime, not necessarily in the presence of compact objects, as in the propagation of light at cosmological scales. The ray-tracing facility may also be used to compute the trajectories of massive particles in an arbitrary spacetime.
Our ray-tracing algorithm is natively written in the relatively new high-performance dynamically-typed language Julia. In the past, \cite{McKinnon2015RelativisticRT} has ported to Julia the Python ray tracer STARLESS\footnote{https://github.com/rantonels/starless}, but it is restricted to the Schwarzschild spacetime. \texttt{Skylight} has the first Julia ray tracer that is able to handle arbitrary space-time geometries. This paper also serves as a demonstration of the suitability of Julia for scientific astrophysical problems.
One of our main goals in developing \texttt{Skylight} is to use it in combination with the 3D general-relativistic force-free code \texttt{Onion} \citep{carrasco2017novel}.
Many relevant astrophysical scenarios involving compact objects are likely to be filled by a magnetically dominated plasma, well suited to the force-free (FF) approximation. Such plasma environments would typically allow to channel a fraction of the available kinetic energy into the sourrounding electromagnetic field; energy which can be then reprocessed within the magnetosphere to produce emissions on the different bands of the electromagnetic spectrum. The main limitation of the FF approach is, however, that it does not directly account for particle acceleration and micro-physical processes responsible of producing the actual electromagnetic signals.
Hence, several strategies were developed --mainly in the study of pulsars-- to connect the global electromagnetic field configurations provided by the FF description with the micro-physics involved in the emission processes (e.g., \cite{bai2010, lockhart2019x, chen2020numerical, kalapotharakos2021multipolar}).
The idea is to first numerically solve the magnetosphere of different relevant systems within the FF approximation \citep[see e.g.][]{carrasco2018pulsar, carrasco2019triggering, carrasco2021magnetospheres} and then use these solutions as a starting point to model possible electromagnetic emissions processes and compute their associated light curves and spectra with \texttt{Skylight}.
The structure of this paper is as follows: in Section~\ref{sec:physical_setup}, we present the basic physical setup of the ray-tracing and radiative transfer problem. In Section~\ref{sec:description_code}, we describe the code giving the details of both the emitter-to-observer and observer-to-emitter schemes, including the initial data setting, the ray-tracing and the flux calculation steps. We show validation tests of the ray-tracing integrator in Section~\ref{sec:verification}, using the constants of motion of the Kerr spacetime and comparing with a semi-analytic ray-tracing function in the Schwarzschild spacetime. In Section~\ref{sec:astrophysical_tests}, we validate the complete structure of radiative transfer within the context of some astrophysical test applications. Then, we present tests of numerical convergence for the observer-to-emitter and emitter-to-observer schemes in Section~\ref{sec:convergence}. Finally, we summarize our work and conclude in Section~\ref{sec:conclusions}.
\section{Physical setup}
\label{sec:physical_setup}
\subsection{Geodesic equations}
In the general theory of relativity (GR) spacetime is represented by a four-dimensional Lorentzian manifold. The metric $g_{\mu \nu}$ is a symmetric non-degenerate rank-2 tensor field over spacetime and represents the gravitational field. \texttt{Skylight} supports arbitrary space-time geometries and coordinate systems, provided only that they are asymptotically flat. The geometry enters the code simply via the components of the metric and the Christoffel symbols,
\begin{align}
\Gamma^\alpha_{\mu \nu} = \frac{1}{2}g^{\alpha \rho}(\partial_\mu g_{\nu \rho} + \partial_\nu g_{\mu \rho} - \partial_\rho g_{\mu \nu})\,,
\end{align}
written as functions in the coordinate system of choice.
In GR, freely falling test particles follow the timelike or null geodesics of the spacetime. The equations of the geodesics are
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{\mathop{d^2 x^{\alpha}}}{\mathop{d\lambda^2}}+\Gamma^\alpha_{\mu \nu} \frac{\mathop{d x^{\mu}}}{\mathop{d\lambda}} \frac{\mathop{d x^{\nu}}}{\mathop{d\lambda}}=0\,,
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:geodesic}
\end{equation}
where $x^\alpha$ is the position of the particle and $\lambda$ is proper time in the timelike case and an affine parameter in the null case. The type of geodesic is determined by the mass of the particle, where massive particles follow timelike geodesics and massless particles follow null geodesics.
Photons are no exception to this principle of geodesic motion. Thus, gravity can deflect them and redshift their energies. Therefore, light curves and spectra will be severely affected by space-time curvature whenever the photons are emitted close to a strong gravitational field source like a black hole or a neutron star.
\subsection{Covariant transport}
\label{sec:transfer}
The radiation field on a curved spacetime can be covariantly described in terms of a Lorentz invariant phase-space photon density, $\mathcal{F}(x^{\mu},k^{\mu})$, where $x^{\mu}$ is space-time position and $k^{\mu}$ is four-momentum \citep[][]{lindquist1966relativistic},
\begin{equation}
k^{\mu} = \frac{\mathop{dx}^{\mu}}{\mathop{d\lambda}}\,.
\end{equation}
The invariant density is related to the specific intensity of the radiation field via $\mathcal{F} = \nu^{-3} I_\nu$, where $\nu$ is the photon frequency. Note that $\nu^3$ and $I_\nu$ are not separately Lorentz invariant. We adopt this latter description in terms of specific intensity, which is more commonly used. In these terms, the covariant transport equation along a geodesic reads
\begin{align}
\frac{\mathop{d}}{\mathop{d\lambda}} \left( \frac{I_\nu}{\nu^3}\right) &= \frac{j_\nu}{\nu^2} - \nu \alpha_\nu \left( \frac{I_\nu}{\nu^3}\right) \,,
\label{eq:complete_transfer}
\end{align}
where $\lambda$ is the affine parameter of the geodesic and $j_\nu$ and $\alpha_\nu$ are the emissivity and absorptivity of the medium, respectively. Each term in the equation is Lorentz invariant. The operator $d / \mathop{d \lambda}$ is the Liouville operator, i.e. the convective derivative in phase space. However, once the geodesic is given, the operator acts just as an ordinary derivative with respect to $\lambda$.
For the moment, we have not included cases with $\alpha_{\nu} \neq 0$, and in our current applications the support of $j_\nu$ is contained within a three-surface which is spatially compact. This includes, for example, the emission from neutron star hot spots and thin accretion disks. We have left the general case for a future work.
In vacuum, the density $\mathcal{F}(x^{\mu},k^{\mu})$ is also invariant under the geodesic flow, since
\begin{align}
\frac{\mathop{d}}{\mathop{d\lambda}} \left( \frac{I_\nu}{\nu^3}\right) &= 0 \,,
\label{eq:vacuum_transfer}
\end{align}
i.e. its value is constant along the geodesic generated by $k^{\mu}$ at the point $x^{\mu}$. Therefore, in vacuum, the task essentially consists in obtaining enough solutions to the geodesic equations with different starting points and momentum vectors and connecting the information between the extreme points. This is done by using the fact that $I_{\nu_0} / \nu_0^3 = I_\nu / \nu^3$, where $\nu_0$ is the frequency at the starting point and $\nu$ is the gravitationally redshifted frequency at the endpoint.
\section{Code description}
\label{sec:description_code}
\texttt{Skylight} has two different schemes of operation. On the one hand, an emitter-to-observer scheme, in which the local emissivity is sampled as a distribution of photon packets, and photons are propagated up to a large distance where virtual observers are located. And on the other hand, an observer-to-emitter scheme, in which a virtual detector is set at the location of the observer, and from every pixel the path of a past-directed photon is traced towards the emitting source.
Most of our applications will correspond to the emission generated in a region which rotates stationarily around an axis, as is usually the case, e.g., in spinning neutron stars and black hole accretion disks. Under this circumstance, all physical quantities depend on time and azimuth only via the combination $\omega t - \varphi$, namely the angular phase. Here $\omega$ is the angular rotation frequency of the system. Throughout the description below, after dealing with the general case, we will emphasize this particular instance of stationary rotation, as it simplifies the treatment and we will use it often.
The most computationally demanding part of the code is the ray tracing. The integration of equations~(\ref{eq:geodesic}) for millions of rays throughout large distances requires a high-performance programming language. This part of the code is written in the relatively new high-performance dynamically typed language Julia. In particular, we use the package DifferentialEquations.jl \citep[][]{rackauckas2017differentialequations}. In this sense, \texttt{Skylight} also serves as a proof of the suitability of Julia and the mentioned package for high-performance scientific computing in astrophysics.
The setting of the initial data and the post-processing of the output data are written in Python, and the whole code is integrated via a metadata management structure.
In Section~\ref{sec:ray_tracing}, we describe our ray-tracing algorithm. Later, in Sections~\ref{sec:direct} and \ref{sec:reverse}, we give the details of the initial data and post-processing in both transport schemes of the code.
\subsection{Ray-tracing algorithm}
\label{sec:ray_tracing}
Instead of integrating the equations~(\ref{eq:geodesic}) in its second-order form directly, \texttt{Skylight} integrates its enlarged first-order form:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{\mathop{dx^{\alpha}}}{\mathop{d\lambda}} &= k^\alpha\,,\\
\frac{\mathop{dk^{\alpha}}}{\mathop{d\lambda}} &= -\Gamma^\alpha_{\mu \nu} k^\mu k^\nu\,,
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:geodesicfirst}
\end{equation}
where $k^\alpha$ is the four-momentum of the photon. This formulation avoids computational issues at radial turning points, where the signs of the first derivatives would have to be checked to proceed in the second-order formulation. More importantly, adopting this formulation allows us to use the standard methods for the numerical solution of first order systems of ODEs.
For the numerical integration of the differential equations we use the Julia package DifferentialEquations.jl \citep[][]{rackauckas2017differentialequations}, which provides a wide variety of built-in algorithms for the numerical solution of ODEs, much wider than traditional libraries. Apart from the standard algorithms, this library includes many algorithms which are the result of recent research and are known to be more efficient than the traditional choices. Thus, we have at our disposal many different methods to choose according to the size of the system, the required accuracy, the presence of stiffness, the need of adaptivity, the available storage, etc. The package also counts with an efficient automated solver selector \citep[][]{rackauckas2019confederated} and it easily admits parallelization.
Even though we are not bound to any particular method, we are specially fond of the method VCABM \citep[][]{hairer1993solving}, an adaptive-order adaptive-time Adams-Moulton method, which is a good choice for high accuracy in very large systems as the ones we deal with. Step size adaptivity also comes in handy: small steps are required close to the source of the gravitational field in order to preserve accuracy, but far away from the source, geodesics are approximately straight lines, so large steps are convenient there to reduce computational costs. VCABM is the solver method we used in all the applications presented in this paper. The relative and absolute tolerances can be set as parameters of the method. See Section~\ref{sec:verification} for a validation of our ray-tracing algorithm.
The cutoff conditions for the integration of the geodesics depend on the scheme (emitter-to-observer or observer-to-emitter) and on the particular problem. For example, in the emitter-to-observer where photons are propagated outwards from the source, the integration of a geodesic would terminate when it arrived at a sufficiently large distance, where virtual detectors are supposed to be located. On the other hand, in the observer-to-emitter scheme, the geodesics would be integrated from the image plane until they arrived upon the emitting surface or they strayed too far from the source without having intersected it. If, for example, there was a black hole in the numerical domain, the geodesic integration would terminate whenever it entered the event horizon, since thereupon it could never exit that region.
\subsection{Emitter-to-observer scheme}
\label{sec:direct}
\subsubsection{Initial data}
\label{sec:dirinidat}
In this scheme, the emission model enters the code via an emissivity distribution, $j_\nu$, which depends on space-time position, frequency and direction of emission. This distribution encodes the relevant information about the astrophysical processes occurring in the region of interest. In terms of the emissivity, the photon number density satisfies
\begin{equation}
dn = \frac{j_\nu}{h \nu} \sqrt{-g} d^{4}x d\nu d\Omega\,,
\label{eq:initial-distribution}
\end{equation}
where $h$ is the Planck constant, $\nu$ is the photon frequency, $d\Omega$ is the solid angle element and $\sqrt{-g} d^4x$ is the invariant volume element. The frequency and the direction of emission are referred to the frame where the emissivity is defined. In most cases there is a preferred class of frames, namely the orthonormal frames where the local phenomena giving origin to the photons are at rest, which we call local comoving frames. These frames are of the form $\{ e^\mu_{(a)}: 0 \leq a \leq 3 \}$, where the greek letter is a contravariant vector index and the latin letter is a label, satisfying
\begin{equation}
g_{\mu \nu} e^\mu_{(a)} e^\nu_{(b)} = \eta_{(a)(b)}\,,
\label{eq:orthonormality}
\end{equation}
where the right-hand side is the flat metric in its diagonal form. For the emission region to be at rest in this frame, the timelike vector field must equal the four-velocity of the emitting material, i.e. $e^\mu_{(0)} = u^\mu$. For the rest of the vector fields ---the spacelike vector fields--- there is a certain degree of freedom, as long as they satisfy equation~(\ref{eq:orthonormality}). Whenever we require them, we calculate the spacelike vectors are obtained by orthonormalizing a trial set of spacelike vectors via a Gram-Schmidt algorithm.
For representing the local emissivity, we must sample a distribution of photon packets following
\begin{equation}
dN = \frac{dn}{w} = \frac{1}{w}\frac{j_\nu}{h \nu} \sqrt{-g} d^{4}x d\nu d\Omega\,,
\label{eq:initial-distribution-packets}
\end{equation}
where $w$ is the weight of the packet, i.e. the relative amount of photons it carries. This resembles what is done in Monte Carlo simulations. Associating a weight to the packets is not strictly necessary at this instance, but might be very convenient in some situations as we will explain later.
In the first place, we take a set of initial space-time positions distributed according to the momentum-integrated version of equation~(\ref{eq:initial-distribution-packets}). In the case of a stationarily rotating system, the initial time can be taken as $t=0$ for all packets, deferring all timing considerations to the post-processing of the output data, as we describe in Section~\ref{sec:flux_direct}.
Then, at each initial point we do a random sampling of the initial four-momenta of the photon packets. The four-momentum of a packet can be written as
\begin{equation}
k^{\mu}= k^{(a)} e^{\mu}_{(a)}\,,
\label{eq:tetrad_components}
\end{equation}
where $k^{(a)}=\nu(1,\mathbf{\Omega})$ are the momentum components in the local comoving frame, $\nu$ is the frequency and $\mathbf{\Omega}$ is the direction of emission. The frequency and angular distributions are sampled according to equation~(\ref{eq:initial-distribution-packets}) evaluated at each point. In the case where $\alpha_\nu=0$, a single frequency can be taken as a representative of the entire spectrum, avoiding spectral sampling, since the trajectories do not depend on frequency.
Finally, we convert the four-momenta to the coordinate frame according to equation~(\ref{eq:tetrad_components}), using the frame vectors $e^{\mu}_{(a)}$ calculated at each initial point. Once the initial set of packets is ready, we propagate them as described in Section~\ref{sec:ray_tracing} up to a large distance where virtual detectors are located.
\subsubsection{Flux calculation}
\label{sec:flux_direct}
The virtual detectors are located at a distance large enough so that curvature is negligible there, and, hence, the analysis can be done as in Euclidean geometry (recall that our spacetime is required to be asymptotically flat). The effects of curvature, e.g. redshift and deflection of photon trajectories, have been already encoded in the map relating the initial and the final data sets.
In practice, the virtual detectors are simply small bins on the celestial sphere. In order to measure the monochromatic flux through a detector at inclination $\xi$ and azimuth $\varphi$, we collect the photons passing through it, and bin the ranges of frequency and time. Then, we calculate the flux as
\begin{equation}
F_{\nu} = \frac{1}{D^2 \Delta \Omega \Delta t \Delta \nu } \sum_i (h \nu)_i w_i \,,
\end{equation}
where $D$ is the distance to the observer, $\Delta \Omega \approx \sin \xi \Delta \xi \Delta \varphi$ is the solid angle occupied by the detector, $\Delta t$ is the size of a small temporal bin, and $\Delta \nu$ the size of a small frequency bin. The sum is over all photon packets collected by the detector. In this manner, we can produce phase-resolved and phase-averaged spectra, and by integrating on spectral windows we can also obtain sky maps and light curves. By taking into account the final direction of the photon packets three-momenta we can also produce images of the emitting source.
In the stationarily rotating case, all physical quantities depend on time and azimuth only via the angular phase $\omega t - \varphi$. In particular, the flux also depends on time and azimuth only via $\omega t - \varphi$, so we only need to look at the flux corresponding to detectors at $\varphi=0$ for different inclinations. We mentioned before that this symmetry allows us to sample and evolve a single set of initial photon packets departing from the source at the same time coordinate $t$. With the final positions of these photon packets in the celestial sphere and taking advantage of the symmetry of our system we can calculate everything we need. If we want to know the flux corresponding to a detector at an inclination $\xi$ and azimuth $\varphi=0$, we can concentrate on all the photon packets of our final data set which satisfy $|\xi-\xi_\mathrm{f}| \leq \Delta \xi /2$ and $0 \leq \varphi_\mathrm{f} < 0$, where $\xi_\mathrm{f}$ is the final polar angle of the photon and $\varphi_\mathrm{f}$ its final azimuth. This region is an annular strip of width $\Delta \xi$ on the celestial sphere centered at the inclination $\xi$ of the detector, and occupying a solid angle $\Delta \Omega \approx 2\pi \sin \xi \Delta \xi$. Let us suppose a photon (which departed at $t=0$ from the source) arrives to this annular strip at a time $t_{\mathrm{f}}$ with a final azimuth $\varphi_\mathrm{f}$ (not necessarily at $\varphi_\mathrm{f}=0$, where the detector lies). Then, due to the symmetry of our system, another photon (possibly emitted at a different initial time) would arrive at the detector with the same properties as the former, but at a different final time. The time of arrival of this latter photon to the detector can be computed as follows. For convenience, let us first define the observation phase as $\phi = (\omega t - \varphi)/2\pi$; at the location of the detector, the relation between time and observation phase reduces to $t = \phi T$, where $T = 2\pi / \omega$ is the period of the system. Thus, the latter photon will arrive at the detector with an observation phase
\begin{align}
\phi &=-\frac{\varphi_\mathrm{f}}{2\pi}+\frac{t_\mathrm{f}}{T}\,. \label{eq:time-delay}
\end{align}
Therefore, by the formula above we can assign an observation phase to all the photon packets which arrive to the annular strip. Then, in terms of the observation phase, the monochromatic flux at the detector can then be calculated as
\begin{equation}
F_{\nu} = \frac{1}{ 2\pi D^2 \sin \xi \Delta \xi T \Delta \phi \Delta \nu } \sum_i (h \nu)_i w_i \,,
\end{equation}
where we have used that $\Delta t = T \Delta \phi$ at the detector, and the sum is over all photon packets which lie in the annular strip, within the corresponding phase and frequency bins.
\subsection{Observer-to-emitter scheme}
\label{sec:reverse}
Recall that spacetime is required to be asymptotically flat, therefore at distances as large as those of the observers, the analysis can be carried out as in flat spacetime. Let us take an inertial coordinate system $(t,x,y,z)$ such that the observer is at rest on the $xz$-plane at a distance $D$ from the origin, and at an inclination $\xi$ with respect to the $z$-axis. The monochromatic flux through a surface element at the location of the observer (the detector) is related to the specific intensity of the radiation field via
\begin{equation}
F_\nu(t) = \int_{\mathcal{U}} I_\nu(\mathbf{\Omega},t) \mathbf{n} \cdot \mathbf{d\Omega} \,,
\label{eq:flux_camera_angle}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{U}$ is a solid angle containing the source, $\mathbf{n}$ is the three-vector normal to the surface element, and all quantities are evaluated at the position of the observer.
Since the detector is far away from the source, the light rays arriving to it are almost exactly parallel. Thus, considering that for such rays $\mathbf{n} \cdot \mathbf{d\Omega} \approx d\Omega$ and using $d\Omega = dA / D^2$, we can rewrite the integral of equation~(\ref{eq:flux_camera_angle}) in the following form:
\begin{equation}
F_\nu(t) = \frac{1}{D^2} \int_{\mathcal{S}} I_\nu(\alpha,\beta,t) d\alpha d\beta \,,
\label{eq:flux_camera}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{S}$ is an image plane perpendicular to the line of sight, and $(\alpha,\beta)$ are rectangular coordinates over $\mathcal{S}$. These coordinates are related to the inertial coordinates via
\begin{align}
x &= -\beta \cos \xi + d \sin \xi\,, \\
y &= \alpha\,, \\
z &= \beta \sin \xi + d \cos \xi \,,
\end{align}
where $d$ is the distance of the virtual detector. The setting is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:reverse-scheme}. Notice that $\mathcal{S}$ need not be located at the true distance $D$, but a smaller distance $d$ is acceptable provided the effects of gravity in the direction of travel are negligible as well, since in such a case the result of the integral depends only on the impact parameters of the light rays and not on $d$ itself. For this reason, although our real astrophysical sources of interest might be many kiloparsecs away, we will usually set our virtual detectors at distances as small as $1000M$ in geometrized units, $M$ being the mass of the source. Also note that $\mathcal{S}$ does not represent a true physical surface, but it is just the transformed integration domain after the change of variables from solid angle to impact parameters. Thus, equation~(\ref{eq:flux_camera_angle}) is not precisely the flux through an extended physical surface, but represents the flux through a surface element at the location of the observer.
In order to compute the integral of equation~(\ref{eq:flux_camera}) as a Riemann sum, we take a grid of $N_\alpha \times N_\beta$ points,
\begin{align}
\alpha_m &= -\frac{L_\alpha}{2} + \left(m+\frac{1}{2}\right) \Delta \alpha\,, \quad 0 \leq m \leq N_\alpha-1\,, \\
\beta_m &= -\frac{L_\beta}{2} + \left(n+\frac{1}{2}\right) \Delta \beta \,, \quad 0 \leq n \leq N_\beta-1\,,
\end{align}
where $L_\alpha$ and $L_\beta$ are the sides of the image plane, $\Delta \alpha = L_{\alpha}/N_{\alpha}$ and $\Delta \beta = L_{\beta}/N_{\beta}$. The image plane must be large enough to cover the image of the source, usually meaning that it has to be of about the same size as the source (recall that the image plane does not represent a true physical surface).
Then, each grid-point is taken as the initial position of a photon with initial three-momentum normal to the image plane and pointing towards the source. The time component of the four-momenta are fixed so that the resulting four-vector is null, with the choice of the negative sign for the geodesic to be past-directed. When the system we consider is stationarily rotating, it is enough to trace the geodesics for a single common initial time, say $t=0$. Otherwise, we simply have to evolve various photon grids starting at different initial times.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\tdplotsetmaincoords{80}{125}
\begin{tikzpicture}[tdplot_main_coords]
\coordinate (O) at (0,0,0);
\draw[->] (O) --++ (4,0,0) node[below] {$x$};
\draw[->] (O) --++ (0,2.5,0) node[below] {$y$};
\draw[->] (O) --++ (0,0,3) node[right] {$z$};
\coordinate (P) at (2.795224285165525, 0.0, 2.1063525810321693) ;
\draw[teal,thick,densely dashed,opacity=0.7] (O) -- (P) node[midway,below] {$d$};
\tdplotdefinepoints(0,0,0)(0,0,0.5)(0.39931775502364647, 0.0, 0.3009075115760242);
\tdplotdrawpolytopearc[brown,thick]{0.5}{anchor=south,color=brown}{$\xi$};
\filldraw[fill=red!50,opacity=0.5] (3.3970393083175736, -1.0, 1.3077170709848764) -- (3.3970393083175736, 1.0, 1.3077170709848764) -- (2.1934092620134766, 1.0, 2.904988091079462) -- (2.1934092620134766, -1.0, 2.904988091079462) -- cycle;
\draw[semithick,red!70,->] (P) -- (2.795224285165525, 1.0, 2.1063525810321693) node[below] {$\alpha$};
\draw[semithick,red!70,->] (P) -- (2.1934092620134766, 0.0, 2.904988091079462) node[below] {$\beta$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Sketch of the initial data setting in the observer-to-emitter scheme, showing the rectangular coordinates $(\alpha,\beta)$ on the image plane, the inclination of the observer $\xi$ and the distance to the image plane $d$.}
\label{fig:reverse-scheme}
\end{figure}
The ray tracing is done as described in Section~\ref{sec:ray_tracing}, with the only difference that in this scheme the equations are solved towards the past. The rays are traced until they intersect the emitting surface or otherwise stray too far away from the source without having hit it.
We know the quantity $\nu^{-3} I_\nu$ is both geodesic and Lorentz invariant, so it can be used to compute $I_\nu(\alpha,\beta,t)$ in terms of the intensity at the source in the local comoving frame where the emission model is defined. The ratio of the frequency at the camera to the frequency at the source in the comoving frame is
\begin{equation}
\frac{\nu}{\nu_{\text{em}}} = \frac{g_{\mu \nu, \mathrm{i}} k_\mathrm{i}^{\mu} t^{\nu}}{g_{\mu \nu, \mathrm{f}} k_\mathrm{f}^{\mu} u^{\nu}}\,,
\end{equation}
where $g_{\mu \nu,\mathrm{i (f)}}$ is the metric at the initial (final) point of the geodesic, $k_\mathrm{i (f)}^{\mu}$ is the initial (final) four-momentum, $t^\mu = \partial_t$ is the four-velocity of the observer and $u^{\mu}$ is the local four-velocity of the emitter. For a given photon trajectory, this quotient is independent of the initial frequency. Thus, if a geodesic with initial coordinates on the image plane $(\alpha,\beta)$ intersects the emitting surface at a time $t_{\text{em}}<0$ and spatial position $\mathbf{x}_{\text{em}}$, then
\begin{equation}
I_\nu(\alpha,\beta,t) = \left(\frac{\nu}{\nu_{\text{em}}}\right)^3 I^{(0)}_{\nu_{\text{em}}}\left(\mathbf{x}_{\text{em}},t+t_{\text{em}}\right)\,,
\label{eq:image_plane_intensity}
\end{equation}
where $I^{(0)}_{\nu_{\text{em}}}$ is the specific intensity in the comoving frame\footnote{Usually, the astrophysical model provides such an intensity at the source. For example, in spinning neutron stars, solving the local transport in the atmosphere results in a specific intensity distribution over the surface of the star \citep[e.g.][]{heinke2006hydrogen,potekhin2014atmospheres}. However, in other cases the model might instead provide an emissivity with support on a spacetime hypersurface. This special case can still be treated with the techniques described above, but an additional factor dependent on the incidence angle of the ray to the surface must be included. To see why, imagine the hypersurface locally as a thin layer of finite width: clearly, the intensity that a ray picks up when crossing the layer is proportional to the length of the path that it traces within it. Therefore, an additional factor must be $1/n^{\mu}k_{\mu}$, where $n^{\mu}$ is the unit normal to the hypersurface (this is most easily seen in the local comoving frame, where the factor equals $1/\cos\alpha$, and $\alpha$ is the angle between the vectors). The factor remains present after taking the limit as the width tends to zero.}.
Finally, we approximate the flux as
\begin{equation}
F_\nu(t) \simeq \frac{\Delta \alpha \Delta \beta}{D^2} \sum_{m,n} I_{\nu}(\alpha_m,\beta_n,t)\,,
\label{eq:flux_riemann}
\end{equation}
where the sum is over all photons on the grid of the image plane.
\section{Verification of the ray-tracing algorithm}
\label{sec:verification}
\subsection{The Kerr metric in Kerr-Schild Cartesian coordinates}
Even though our code admits arbitrary space-time geometries, our present applications and verification tests circumscribe to the Kerr metric, which we briefly introduce in this section. We have chosen Kerr-Schild Cartesian coordinates, whose benefits are their intuitiveness and their regularity across the black hole event horizon and over the symmetry axis. The downside of these coordinates is that all the components of the metric are nonzero, and the Christoffel symbols are quite involved (see Appendix~\ref{app:appendix} for explicit expressions). Since we envision to use this code for much more complicated space-time geometries, which might not even be given as symbolic functions, we are not particularly worried about these algebraic complexities.
The Kerr spacetime is the unique vacuum stationary black hole solution of Einstein's equations. It is parameterized by two quantities, the mass $M$ and the spin $a$, and it is extremely useful in astrophysical problems.
In Kerr-Schild Cartesian coordinates (and geometrized units), the Kerr metric takes the form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:kerrmetric}
g_{\mu\nu}= \eta_{\mu\nu}+ 2 H l_\mu l_\nu\,,
\end{equation}
where $\eta_{\mu\nu}$ is the flat metric, and
\begin{equation}
H=\frac{Mr^3}{r^4+a^2 z^2}\,, \quad
l_\mu=\left(1,\frac{rx+ay}{r^2+a^2},\frac{ry-ax}{r^2+a^2},\frac{z}{r}\right)\,.
\label{eq:lmu}
\end{equation}
The function $r$ is implicitly defined by
\begin{equation}
\frac{x^2+y^2}{r^2+a^2}+\frac{z^2}{r^2}=1\,.
\end{equation}
Any metric in the form of equation~(\ref{eq:kerrmetric}) --for arbitrary $H$ and $l_\mu$-- is said to be in Kerr-Schild form. This metric is stationary and axi-symmetric. For values of $M>0$ and $0 \leq a/M \leq 1$ there is a black hole region in the spacetime. Other values of $a$ are regarded unphysical due to the presence of a naked singularity.
The vector $l^\mu$ is null both with respect to $g_{\mu \nu}$ and $\eta_{\mu \nu}$. Moreover, $l^\mu$ is also geodesic with respect to both metrics, i.e., $l^\mu \partial_\mu l^\nu = l^\mu \nabla_\mu l^\nu = 0$.
In Cartesian coordinates the components of the metric remain regular across the event horizon, which is convenient since it prevents numerical issues to arise close to the black hole region. These coordinates are also regular over the symmetry axis of the metric. Moreover, they also have the appealing property that $\sqrt{-g}=1$ everywhere. Hence, the invariant volume element is homogeneous, thus doing justice to the Cartesian nature of the coordinates. This property is especially useful in the emitter-to-observer scheme, since the invariant volume element for the photon packet sampling is simply $d^4 x$.
\subsection{Conservation of the constants of motion}
\label{sec:constmotion}
The Kerr spacetime is stationary and axisymmetric, meaning that it has a time-translation Killing vector $K=\partial_t$, and a rotational Killing vector $R=-y\partial_x + x\partial_y$. These Killing vectors provide two constants of motion: the energy $E=-K_{\mu}k^{\mu}$ and the angular momentum $L=R_{\mu}k^{\mu}$, where $k^{\mu}$ is the tangent vector of the geodesic. The metric itself, as a trivial Killing tensor, provides the constant of motion $m^2=-g_{\mu \nu}k^{\mu}k^{\nu}$, namely the squared mass. The Kerr metric is of Petrov type D, whereas $l^\mu$ is precisely one of its repeated principal null vectors. This results in the presence of a fourth constant of motion, the Carter constant, not related to the obvious symmetries of the metric. The constant comes from an additional Killing tensor, independent of the metric and tensor products of Killing vectors, which can be written as
\begin{align}
C_{\mu\nu}=- s_{(\mu} l_{\nu)} \Delta + r^2 g_{\mu\nu}\,,
\end{align}
where $\Delta=r^2-2Mr+a^2$, $l_\mu$ is the null one-form of equation~(\ref{eq:lmu}), and
\begin{align}
s_\mu = l_\mu + \frac{2a}{\Delta}R_\mu+\frac{2(r^2+a^2)}{\Delta}K_\mu\,.
\end{align}
The Carter constant then reads
\begin{multline}
C = C_{\mu \nu}k^{\mu}k^{\nu} = -\Delta (l_\mu k^\mu)^2 \\ -2l_\mu k^\mu [aL-(r^2+a^2)E]-r^2 m^2\,.
\end{multline}
We used these four constants of motion as a test of the accuracy of our ray-tracing algorithm. As an example we set $100$ initial points over a meridian of the sphere $\rho^2 = x^2+y^2+z^2=(5M)^2$ in Kerr spacetime with $a/M=0.99$. We took $10^3$ photons at each point, with directions of emission isotropically distributed over the outward directed hemisphere, yielding a total $N=10^5$ photons. We propagated these photons up to $r=10^3M$ using the method "VCABM" (see Section~\ref{sec:ray_tracing}). The relative tolerance of the method was set to $10^{-8}$. In Fig.~\ref{fig:absolute-errors} and Fig.~\ref{fig:relative-errors} we show the results obtained for the absolute and relative errors in the conservation of the constants of motion between the initial and final points. (We exclude the relative error in $m^2$ because its exact value is close to zero). Naturally, the particles, which are initially massless, acquire mass due to numerical errors in the evolution. However, these differences are very small, and the conformity with the expected accuracy is excellent.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Plots/absolute_errors.pdf}
\caption{Absolute errors in the conservation of the four constants of motion for initial photons over a meridian at $\rho=5M$ in Kerr spacetime with $a/M=0.99$.}
\label{fig:absolute-errors}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Plots/relative_errors.pdf}
\caption{Relative errors in the conservation of the constants of motion for initial photons over a meridian at $\rho=5M$ in Kerr spacetime with $a/M=0.99$. (The exact value of the mass is zero, therefore its relative error is unstable and is disregarded.)}
\label{fig:relative-errors}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Comparison with the ray-tracing function}
Some codes which are restricted to the Schwarzschild spacetime have used what is called the ray-tracing function to compute the deflection angle of geodesics in a semianalytic manner \citep[e.g.][]{pechenick1983hot, page1994surface, perna2008constraints}. That expression can be used as a verification of our ray-tracing alogrithm.
Let a photon be located at radius $r$, and let $\delta$ be the angle between the three-momentum of the photon and the radial vector $\partial_r$ measured in the frame of a static observer. The angle $\delta$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
\sin\delta = \frac{b}{r} \sqrt{1-\frac{2M}{r}}\,,
\end{equation}
where $b=L/E$ is the impact parameter of the photon. Then, the deflection angle can be written as
\begin{multline}
\label{eq:ray-tracing-integral}
\alpha_{\delta}=\int_0^{\frac{R_s}{2r}} \mathop{du} \sin\delta \left[ \left(1-\frac{R_s}{r}\right) \left(\frac{R_s}{2r}\right)^2 \right. \\ \left. -\left(1-2u \right) u^2 \sin^2\delta \right]^{-1/2} -\delta\,,
\end{multline}
where $R_s=2M$ is the Schwarzschild radius.
As a test of our ray-tracing algorithm, we took $10^4$ photons at $(x,y,z)=(0,0,5M)$ with directions of emission isotropically distributed over the outwards directed hemisphere. We propagated those photons up to $r=10^3M$ using the method "VCABM" (Section~\ref{sec:ray_tracing}). The relative tolerance of the method was set to $10^{-8}$. In Fig.~\ref{fig:deflection-angle} we show the difference $\sqrt{\Delta \theta^2 + \Delta \phi^2}$ between the final angles obtained with our code and the final angles computed from formula~(\ref{eq:ray-tracing-integral}). Again, the agreement is excellent.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Plots/deflection_angle.pdf}
\caption{Difference between the final angles obtained with our code and those obtained with the ray-tracing function of equation~(\ref{eq:ray-tracing-integral}) for a total of $10^4$ photons initially at $(x,y,z)=(0,0,5M)$ in Schwarzschild spacetime and with directions isotropically distributed on the outward pointing hemisphere.}
\label{fig:deflection-angle}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Interpolation of a numerical metric}
In principle, \texttt{Skylight} can also handle numerical --i.e. tabulated-- metrics. Although our applications so far restrict to analytical metrics, to test this possibility in a simple setting we implemented the metric of a general spherically symmetric spacetime, which in spherical coordinates takes the form
\begin{equation}
ds^2 = -e^{2\alpha(r)} dt^2 + e^{2\beta(r)} dr^2 + r^2 (d\theta^2 + \sin^2 \theta d\varphi^2)\,,
\end{equation}
where $\alpha(r)$ and $\beta(r)$ are arbitrary functions that might be provided in the form of tables. The Christoffel symbols can be computed straightforwardly from the expression above, and the code does this before starting the integration, to avoid having to compute many numerical derivatives at each time step. Once the metric and the Christoffel symbols are tabulated, we build interpolator functions for them.
These spacetimes correspond to spherically symmetric distributions of matter. In the case of vacuum in GR, the metric reduces to the Schwarzschild metric, with
\begin{align}
\alpha(r) &= \frac{1}{2} \log \left(1-\frac{2M}{r}\right)\,, \\
\beta(r) &= -\alpha(r)\,.
\end{align}
Therefore, we can use mock tables of the Schwarzschild metric and connection functions to test our interpolation scheme for ray tracing in numerical spacetimes. For this test, we applied the same procedure as in the previous section: as initial data, we took $10^{4}$ photons at $r=5M$ with emission directions isotropically distributed outwards and we propagated those photons up to $r=10^3M$ both with the analytical and numerical metrics. We used four distinct resolutions for the metric tables, with $500$, $10^{3}$, $10^{4}$ and $10^{5}$ logarithmically spaced nodes between $r=2.1M$ (close to the event horizon) and $r=10^{3} M$. The relative tolerance of the geodesic integration method was set to $10^{-8}$. In Fig.~\ref{fig:deflection-angle_interp} we show the difference $\sqrt{\Delta \theta^2 + \Delta \phi^2}$ for the final spherical angles in all four cases with respect to the angles obtained with the analytical metric. In all cases the matching is excellent, and it improves with increasing resolution.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Plots/interpolated_metric_comparison.pdf}
\caption{Difference in final spherical angles for the evolution of $10^4$ photons initially at $r=5M$, with the interpolated Schwarzschild metric and the analytical metric. Each panel corresponds to different resolution of the numerical metric, with $500$, $10^{3}$, $10^{4}$ and $10^{5}$ logarithmically spaced nodes correspondingly.}
\label{fig:deflection-angle_interp}
\end{figure}
\section{Astrophysical tests}
\label{sec:astrophysical_tests}
\subsection{Relativistically broadened emission line from a thin accretion disk}
The gravitational influence of accreting black holes has important effects on the emission generated on their accretion disks. In particular, the iron emission lines produced in such accretion disks might suffer a relativistic broadening due to the combined effect of gravitational redshift and Doppler boosting to the frame of the fluid. Here we reproduce the results of \citet{dexter2009fast} for the broadening of an emission line in a simple model of a thin accretion disk around a Kerr black hole. The disk is optically thick and geometrically thin and lies on the equatorial plane of the black hole. The inner radius of the disk is defined as the radius of the marginally stable circular orbit $r_{\mathrm{ms}}$ \citep{bardeen1973timelike}, and the outer radius is $r_{\text{out}} = 15M$. The particles of the disk rotate in circular orbits, with an angular speed given by
\begin{equation}
\omega_{\pm} = \frac{\pm \sqrt{M}}{r^{3/2} \pm a \sqrt{M}}\,,
\end{equation}
where $\omega_+$ and $\omega_{-}$ correspond to prograde and retrograde disks respectively. The emissivity is defined in the local comoving frame of the disk, and it is monochromatic, isotropic, and weighted by a factor of $r^{-2}$:
\begin{equation}
j_{\nu}(x^{\mu}) \propto \frac{1}{r^2} \delta(z) \delta(\nu-\nu_0) \chi(r) \,,
\end{equation}
where the function $\chi(r)$ equals $1$ if $r_{\mathrm{ms}}\leq r \leq r_{\mathrm{out}}$ and zero otherwise, and $\nu_0$ is the frequency of emission in the comoving frame.
We computed the spectrum of the disk for an observer at a distance $r=10^3M$ and an inclination angle of $\xi=30^{\circ}$ in the cases of prograde and retrograde rotation using both schemes of \texttt{Skylight}. The black hole spin is $a/M=0.5$. In the observer-to-emitter scheme, we used a square image plane of side $L=2.1r_{\mathrm{out}}$ at a distance $d=10^3M$ with $N=200$ grid points per side. In the emitter-to-observer scheme, we took $\num{5e-3}$ initial points on the disk and $\num{5e-3}$ uniformly sampled emission directions in the comoving frame, with a total of $N=\num{2.5e7}$ photons. The virtual detectors are located at $d=10^3M$. In Fig.~\ref{fig:line-broadening-reverse} and Fig.~\ref{fig:line-broadening-direct} we compare the results of both schemes to those of \cite{dexter2009fast}, finding an excellent agreement in both cases. Also, in Fig.~\ref{fig:bh_image_reverse} we show an image of the disk model for a black hole spin of $a/M=0.99$ as seen at an inclination angle of $\xi = 85^{\circ}$ obtained with observer-to-emitter scheme of \texttt{Skylight} using the same image plane size as above but increasing the resolution to $N=500$ grid points per side of the image plane.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Plots/line_broadening.pdf}
\caption{Relativistic broadening of an emission line in a thin accretion disk with the observer-to-emitter scheme of \texttt{Skylight}. The black hole spin is $a/M=0.5$ and the viewing angle is $\xi=30^{\circ}.$}
\label{fig:line-broadening-reverse}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Plots/line_broadening_direct.pdf}
\caption{Relativistic broadening of an emission line in a thin accretion disk with the emitter-to-observer scheme of \texttt{Skylight}. The black hole spin is $a/M=0.5$ and the viewing angle is $\xi=30^{\circ}$.}
\label{fig:line-broadening-direct}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Plots/disk_image_85deg.jpg}
\caption{Image of the simple thin disk model with black hole spin $a/M=0.99$ with the observer-to-emitter scheme at a viewing angle of $\theta=85^{\circ}$.}
\label{fig:bh_image_reverse}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Hot spot orbiting a Schwarzschild black hole}
\label{sec:hot_spot}
Since the accretion disk of the previous test is stationary and axisymmetric, it serves mostly as a probe of the spectral dependence of \texttt{Skylight} but not as much of timing. To test the correct treatment of timing in our code we implemented a different model: the orbiting hot spot model described in \cite{schnittman2004harmonic}. The emission region is a circular spot orbiting a Schwarzschild black hole on the equatorial plane. The center of the spot follows the innermost stable retrograde circular orbit with radius $r = 6M$ at a retrograde Keplerian angular speed $\omega = -\sqrt{M}/r^{3/2}$. The emissivity is monochromatic and isotropic in the frame of the spot, and is modulated by a Gaussian profile
\begin{equation}
j_{\nu}(\mathbf{x^{\mu}}) \propto \delta(z) \delta(\nu-\nu_0) \exp \{-|\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{x}_{\mathrm{spot}}(t)|^2 / 2 R_{\mathrm{spot}}^2 \} \,,
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{x}=(x,y,z)$, $\mathbf{x}_{\mathrm{spot}}(t)$ is the position of the spot center, $\nu_0$ is the frequency of emission in the local comoving frame of the spot, and the standard deviation of the Gaussian profile is $R_{\mathrm{spot}}=0.25M$. Due to the small size of the spot, the distance of an emission point to the center of the spot is computed as in local Euclidean geometry. In practice, we truncate the emissivity at a distance $4 R_{\mathrm{spot}}$ from the center of the spot, where it is safely close to zero. The four-velocity of all points inside the spot is taken equal to that of the guiding geodesic trajectory. This means that the energy in the local "comoving" frame of the spot of a photon with four-momentum $k^{\mu}$ located anywhere inside the spot is calculated as $-k_\mu v^{\mu}(\mathbf{x}_\mathrm{spot})$, where $v^{\mu}(\mathbf{x}_\mathrm{spot})$ is the four-velocity of the guiding geodesic trajectory.
For the observer-to-emitter scheme we used square image planes of side $L=20M$ at a distance $d=10^3M$ with $N=800$ grid points per side. In Fig.~\ref{fig:hot_spot_spec} we show a spectrogram obtained with this scheme for a viewing angle of $i=60^{\circ}$ and in Fig.~\ref{fig:hot_spot_cam} we show the bolometric light curves at various viewing angles. Each light curve is normalized to $1$ and then scaled to the maximum value of the $i=80^{\circ}$ light curve. As the inclination increases, the light curves become more sharply peaked because Doppler beaming becomes more important and gravitational redshift becomes stronger for rays coming from behind the black hole. Both figures are in excellent agreement with the results of \cite{schnittman2004harmonic}.
For the emitter-to-observer scheme, in order to avoid setting many initial photon sets at different locations of the spot along its orbit, we introduce a slight modification to the model. This is because a constant four-velocity throughout the spot is in conflict with the hypothesis of stationarity, i.e. that all physical quantities depend on $\phi$ and $t$ only via the combination $\omega t - \phi$. To simplify the calculations, we must have a self-consistent stationary model which respects that symmetry. Notice that for the spot to maintain its shape along its orbit, the four-velocity cannot be constant over the spot. Thus, we implemented a modified model in which the four-velocities inside the spot correspond to a rigidly rotating hot spot, with the same angular velocity as that of the guiding geodesic trajectory of the original model. These are the four-velocities we use to set the local orthonormal frame at each point. Also, we reduce the radius of the spot to $R_{\mathrm{spot}}=0.05M$ to highlight the region where both four-velocity models approximately agree.
To check consistency, we computed the light curves of this modified model using the observer-to-emitter scheme, finding almost no difference with Figs.~\ref{fig:hot_spot_spec} and \ref{fig:hot_spot_cam} of the original model. Thus, we conclude the modification to the model is not important, and it is still useful to do a comparison of the emitter-to-observer scheme with the results of \cite{schnittman2004harmonic}. This is because, in the end, what only matters is what happens really close to the center of the spot, where both models are essentially the same. Finally, we ran the emitter-to-observer scheme in the modified model with a total $N=128$ million photons propagated from the surface of the spot to the virtual detectors located at $d=10^3M$. In Fig.~\ref{fig:hot_spot_direct} we show the light curves of this modified model for various viewing angles. The light curves are scaled in the same manner as in the observer-to-emitter scheme. Again, the agreement both with the results of the other scheme and with those of \cite{schnittman2004harmonic} is very good. Although the light curve at $i=80^{\circ}$ is somewhat wider than in the other scheme, we consider the similitude to be acceptable, rather focusing on the fact that the relations of the amplitudes of the pulses and the phases of the peaks are correct. Other noticeable differences appear for the lowest inclination light curves. This is due to the fact that the photon collector area gets smaller by a factor of $\sin i$. Therefore, the photon statistics at lower inclinations is expected to be worse as compared to higher inclinations for the same data.
In general, if we are interested in the light curves at only a few inclination angles, using the observer-to-emitter scheme for each angle is still more efficient than using the emitter-to-observer scheme to extract them all at once. However, our main motivation in introducing and testing the emitter-to-observer scheme is that it will be more easily adaptable for the inclusion of scattering processes in the future as a Monte Carlo simulation, rather than trying to include them as emissivity and absorptivity coefficients into the transport equation. Moreover, it is more natural to use the emitter-to-observer scheme for defining astrophysical models in which the location of the emission region is dynamical, as in, e.g., the radio emission from dynamical current sheets obtained with FF simulations of black hole and neutron star magnetospheres.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Plots/spectrogram_deg60.jpg}
\caption{Spectrogram of a circular hot spot of radius $R=0.25M$ for a viewing angle of $i=60^{\circ}$ in the observer-to-emitter scheme.}
\label{fig:hot_spot_spec}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Plots/hot_spot_cam.pdf}
\caption{Light curves for a circular hot spot of radius $R=0.25M$ at various viewing angles using the observer-to-emitter scheme. The light curves are normalized to $1$ and scaled to the maximum value of the curve at $i=80^{\circ}$.}
\label{fig:hot_spot_cam}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Plots/hot_spot_direct_light_128M_r005.pdf}
\caption{Light curves for a circular hot spot of radius $R=0.05M$ at various viewing angles using the emitter-to-observer scheme. The light curves are normalized to $1$ and scaled to the maximum value of the curve at $i=80^{\circ}$.}
\label{fig:hot_spot_direct}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Neutron star hot spot X-ray emission}
\label{sec:bogdanov}
\cite{bogdanov2019constraining} provided a set of verified high-precision synthetic neutron star X-ray pulse profiles for other codes to be tested against. We implemented some of those tests, implying a simultaneous test of timing and spectral dependence of \texttt{Skylight}. Besides, the reference pulse profiles are in physical units, therefore they also serve as a test of the normalization of our curves and our treatment of units in general. The multiple codes compared in \cite{bogdanov2019constraining} use the Schwarzschild + Doppler (S+D) and Oblate-Schwarzschild (OS) approximations, in which spacetime is modeled as Schwarzschild and the neutron star surface is supposed to be either a sphere or an oblate spheroid, respectively (see their paper for details). Following their nomenclature, we have implemented the class SD1 of models in which the neutron star is approximated as a spinning sphere in Schwarzschild spacetime. The neutron star's mass and radius are $M=1.4 M_{\odot}$ and $R=\SI{12}{\km}$ respectively. The emission comes from a single circular hot spot on the surface of the star. The specific intensity is assumed to be isotropically distributed and follows a Planckian distribution with $kT = \SI{0.35}{\keV}$ (everything referred to the local corotating frame). The distance to the observer is $D= \SI{200}{\parsec}$. The rest of the parameters of the model are the colatitude of the spot center $\theta_c$, the angular radius of the spot $\Delta \theta$, the colatitude of the observer $\xi$, and the rotation frequency of the neutron star $\nu$. The values of these parameters for the cases we reproduced (SD1c--e) are listed in Table~\ref{tab:params}. In Figs.~\ref{fig:bogdanov_c}--\ref{fig:bogdanov_e} we compare the observed monochromatic particle flux at $\SI{1}{\keV}$ obtained with the observer-to-emitter scheme of \texttt{Skylight} against the profiles of \cite{bogdanov2019constraining}, finding a very good agreement between the profiles.
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\caption{Parameters of the reference neutron star hot spot tests we implemented}
\label{tab:params}
\begin{tabular}{||c c c c||}
\hline
Parameter & Test SD1c & Test SD1d & Test SD1e \\ [0.5ex]
\hline\hline
Colatitude of the spot center ($^\circ$) & $90$ & $90$ & $60$ \\
\hline
Angular radius of the spot (rad) & $0.01$ & $1$ & $1$ \\
\hline
Colatitude of the observer ($^\circ$) & $90$ & $90$ & $30$ \\
\hline
Rotation frequency ($\si{\Hz}$) & $200$ & $200$ & $400$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Plots/bogdanov_sd1c.pdf}
\caption{Monochromatic particle flux at $\SI{1}{\keV}$ for the neutron star hot spot model SD1c of Bogdanov et al. (2019). The parameters are $\theta_c=90^{\circ}$, $\Delta \theta=0.01$, $\xi=90^{\circ}$ and $\nu=\SI{200}{\Hz}$.}
\label{fig:bogdanov_c}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Plots/bogdanov_sd1d.pdf}
\caption{Monochromatic particle flux at $\SI{1}{\keV}$ for the neutron star hot spot model SD1d of Bogdanov et al. (2019). The parameters are $\theta_c=90^{\circ}$, $\Delta \theta=1$, $\xi=90^{\circ}$ and $\nu=\SI{200}{\Hz}$.}
\label{fig:bogdanov_d}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Plots/bogdanov_sd1e.pdf}
\caption{Monochromatic particle flux at $\SI{1}{\keV}$ for the neutron star hot spot model SD1e of Bogdanov et al. (2019). The parameters are $\theta_c=60^{\circ}$, $\Delta \theta=1$, $\xi=60^{\circ}$ and $\nu=\SI{400}{\Hz}$.}
\label{fig:bogdanov_e}
\end{figure}
\section{Convergence tests}
\label{sec:convergence}
\subsection{Observer-to-emitter scheme}
We performed a convergence test for the observer-to-emitter scheme in the simple hot spot model SD1d of \cite{bogdanov2019constraining} described in the Section~\ref{sec:bogdanov}. The observer is at a distance $D= \SI{200}{\parsec}$ and a colatitude $\xi = 90^{\circ}$. The neutron star has a mass of $M=1.4 M_{\odot}$, a radius of $R=\SI{12}{\km}$, and a rotation frequency of $\nu= \SI{200}{\Hz}$. The colatitude of the spot center on the star is $\theta_c = 90^{\circ}$ and its angular radius is $\Delta \theta = 1$. In the corotating frame the emission follows Planck's law with a temperature corresponding to $kT = \SI{0.35}{\keV}$. We compared six different runs using a square image plane of side $L \approx 2.75 R$ and $N_i = 25 \times 2^i$ points per side ($0 \leq i \leq 5$). In Fig.~\ref{fig:convergence} we show the relative $L_2$-errors for the monochromatic particle flux at $\SI{1}{\keV}$ with respect to the highest-resolution run, namely
\begin{equation}
e_{i} = \frac{ || f_i(t) - f_5(t)||_{L_2}}{||f_5(t)||_{L_2}}\,,\quad 0 \leq i \leq 4\,.
\end{equation}
A least-squares linear fit of the error data gives the relation $\log_{10}(e_i) \approx -1.65 - 0.47 i$, meaning the error approximately follows a power law
\begin{equation}
e_i \approx \num{8e-4} \left( \frac{N_i}{200}\right)^{-1.57}\,
\end{equation}
in terms of the number of points per side of the image plane.
In other words, for this configuration we find that a resolution of $N = 200$ points per side is enough to obtain an approximate relative error of order $10^{-4}$, and that this error scales as a power law of index $p \approx -1.57$ with respect to $N$. The resolution required for achieving the same error will be greater if the emission region has a higher a complexity or a more detailed structure. However, this simple example is useful as an estimation for the range of accurate operation of our code.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Plots/convergence_test.pdf}
\caption{The dots correspond to the relative $L_2$-errors for the convergence test using the SD1d model of Bogdanov et al. (2019) with $N_i = 25 \times 2^i$ points per side of the image plane. The solid line is the least squares linear fit of the data points. The error approximately follows a power law with index $p = -1.57$ in terms of the number of points per side of the image plane.}
\label{fig:convergence}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Emitter-to-observer scheme}
For a convergence test of the emitter-to-observer scheme we chose the (modified) rigidly orbiting hot spot model described in Section~\ref{sec:hot_spot}. The radius of the spot is $R_{\mathrm{spot}}=0.25M$. We compared seven different runs sampling $N_i = 2 \times 2^i$ million photon packages ($0 \leq i \leq 6$). In Fig.~\ref{fig:convergence} we show the relative $L_2$-errors for the light curves with respect to the highest-resolution run, namely
\begin{equation}
e_{i} = \frac{ || F_i(t) - F_6(t)||_{L_2}}{||F_6(t)||_{L_2}}\,,\quad 0 \leq i \leq 5\,.
\end{equation}
A least-squares linear fit of the error data gives the relation $\log_{10}(e_i) \approx -0.87 - 0.18 i$, meaning the error approximately follows a power law
\begin{equation}
e_i \approx 10^{-2} \left( \frac{N_i}{\num{64e6}}\right)^{-0.6}\,
\end{equation}
in terms of the number of photon packages in the sample. Note that the index of the power law is consistent with what is commonly expected from Monte Carlo simulations.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Plots/convergence_test_direct.pdf}
\caption{The dots correspond to the relative $L_2$-errors for the convergence test of the emitter-to-observer scheme in the orbiting hot spot model with a total of $N_i = 2 \times 2^i$ million photon packages. The solid line is the least squares linear fit of the data points. The error approximately follows a power law with index $p = -0.6$ in terms of the number of photon packages.}
\label{fig:convergence_direct}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusions}
We have presented \texttt{Skylight}, a new general-relativistic ray-tracing and radiative transfer code for calculating the observable quantities associated to astrophysical models of compact objects. One of the strengths of \texttt{Skylight} is its flexibility, in that it supports arbitrary space-time geometries and coordinate systems. We have kept this flexibility because in the near future we will apply the code to problems which do not restrict to the Kerr metric, particularly with approximate and numerical metrics of compact binary systems. The code has two equivalent schemes of operation, an observer-to-emitter scheme and an emitter-to-observer scheme, and it is capable of producing images, spectra and light curves.
We have verified the correctness of our ray-tracing algorithm by checking the constants of motion and comparing with a semianalytic ray-tracing function, demonstrating the great accuracy of the integrator. Additionally, we have proved the usefulness of both operation schemes of \texttt{Skylight} for astrophysical applications by testing them in various problems and comparing with the literature: the relativistic broadening of an emission line from a thin accretion disk around a Kerr black hole, a hot spot orbiting a Schwarzschild black hole, and a hot spot over the surface of a spinning neutron star. This involves tests of the spectral and temporal dependencies of the code, and the management of units and normalization of curves. In all cases we obtained an excellent agreement with the results in the literature, having checked also the mutual equivalence of both \texttt{Skylight} schemes and the expected convergence rates.
Besides, this is the first Julia ray tracer which can handle arbitrary space-time geometries. This means our work also demonstrates the suitability of the relatively new language Julia for applications to highly-demanding computing problems in astrophysics.
As mentioned before, our plan is to explore diverse electromagnetic emission models and apply \texttt{Skylight} to various astrophysical scenarios, starting from emission models built on top of the corresponding force-free numerical solutions. Currently, we are already working on the X-ray light curves of millisecond pulsars from the FF pulsar solutions in \cite{carrasco2018pulsar} (which take into account the space-time curvature) and based on the simple emission model proposed in \cite{lockhart2019x}.
In the near future, we plan to use the code to search for observable features on magnetar X-ray light curves associated to outburst events (like those studied in \cite{carrasco2019triggering}). And, further, we also aim at adapting \texttt{Skylight} to investigate the inspiral phase of black hole-neutron star binary systems, considering some candidate emission models based on the numerical solutions of e.g. \cite{carrasco2021magnetospheres} to probe the signatures of potential precursor electromagnetic signals in different bands of the spectrum.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We would like to thank Dr. Christopher Rackauckas, lead developer of the package DifferentialEquations.jl that we use, for his valuable help with parallelization and the choice of solver methods.
We acknowledge financial support from CONICET, SeCyT-UNC, and MinCyT-Argentina.
Numerical computations were performed on the Sakura cluster at Max-Planck Computing and Data Facility, and on the Serafin Cluster (https://ccad.unc.edu.ar/equipamiento/cluster-serafin/) at Centro de Computación de Alto Desempeño, Universidad Nacional de Cordoba, which is part of the Sistema Nacional de Computación de Alto Desempeño, MinCyT-Argentina.
\section*{Data Availability}
No new data were generated or analysed in support of this research.
\bibliographystyle{mnras}
|
\section{Introduction}
Using the global network of detectors~\cite{abbott2020prospects,AdvancedLIGO:2015,acernese2014advanced,akutsu2018kagra} like the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO)~\cite{AdvancedLIGO:2015} and Virgo~\cite{acernese2014advanced}, much has been learned over the past decade about binary black hole and neutron star mergers from gravitational waves with frequencies around 100~Hz~\cite{cai_2017,Maggiore:2007,GWTC-1:2018,GWTC-2:2020,GWTC-3:2021,vitale2021first}.
In the future, detecting 1--4~kHz gravitational waves from the coalescence and remnant of binary neutron-star mergers may probe otherwise inaccessible exotic states of matter and further constrain the neutron-star equation-of-state~\cite{PhysRevD.100.104029,miaoDesignGravitationalWaveDetectors2018}. Moreover, \emph{kilohertz} gravitational-wave detection from existing or future detectors~\cite{LIGO_Voyager,NEMO_2020,reitze2019cosmic,maggiore2020science} promises a wealth of astrophysical discoveries such as determining the origin of low-mass black holes~\cite{PhysRevD.79.044030}, understanding the post-bounce dynamics of core-collapse supernovae~\cite{Ott_2009}, and improving non-electromagnetic measurements of the Hubble constant~\cite{PhysRevX.4.041004}.
Quantum shot noise dominates the noise at kilohertz for existing gravitational-wave detectors based on the dual-recycled Fabry-Perot Michelson interferometer~\cite{AdvancedLIGO:2015,buikemaSensitivityPerformanceAdvanced2020,PhysRevD.23.1693}. An interferometer's \emph{integrated} quantum noise--limited sensitivity is limited by the circulating optical power and bandwidth of its arm cavities~\cite{mizuno_thesis_1995,miaoFundamentalQuantumLimit2017}. Since increasing the circulating power is technologically challenging~\cite{Brooks_2021,PhysRevLett.114.161102,Barsotti_2018}, improving kilohertz sensitivity, therefore, requires sacrificing 100~Hz sensitivity unless the above limit can be avoided. Degenerate external squeezing, replacing the vacuum fluctuations entering the readout port with squeezed vacuum, avoids the above limit and has been used to reduce the quantum noise by $2.7\pm0.1$~dB at 1.1--1.4~kHz in LIGO~\cite{tseQuantumEnhancedAdvancedLIGO2019,aasietal2013,Ganapathy_2021,PhysRevLett.123.231108,Dooley_2015}. Alone, however, it is not sufficient to achieve the kilohertz sensitivity required for detection~\cite{miaoDesignGravitationalWaveDetectors2018,pageEnhancedDetectionHigh2018}.
To further improve kilohertz sensitivity, two existing proposals are closely related to the present work. Firstly, degenerate internal squeezing (also known as degenerate quantum expansion) uses a nonlinear ``squeezer'' crystal operated degenerately inside the signal-recycling cavity of the interferometer to reduce the quantum noise~\cite{korobkoQuantumExpanderGravitationalwave2019,adyaQuantumEnhancedKHz2020}. Secondly, stable optomechanical filtering couples a mechanical mode (e.g.\ a suspended optic) to the optical mode in the signal-recycling cavity; this broadens the arm cavity resonance that limits the kilohertz signal response of the detector (achieving a ``white-light'' cavity)~\cite{liBroadbandSensitivityImprovement2020,liEnhancingInterferometerSensitivity2021,miaoEnhancingBandwidthGravitationalWave2015,WICHT1997431}. These two proposals might each enable kilohertz gravitational-wave detection; the drawbacks are their \emph{high susceptibility to decoherence from optical and mechanical loss, respectively}~\cite{korobkoQuantumExpanderGravitationalwave2019,adyaQuantumEnhancedKHz2020,liBroadbandSensitivityImprovement2020,miaoEnhancingBandwidthGravitationalWave2015}, and requirement for significant technological advances~\cite{ying_2020,pageEnhancedDetectionHigh2018}.
\begin{figure*}[ht!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig1_paper_nIS_config.pdf}
\caption{(a) Simplified optical configuration of nondegenerate internal squeezing in a dual-recycled Fabry-Perot Michelson interferometer. Abbreviations are ETM: end test mass, ITM: input test mass, PRM: power-recycling mirror, and SRM: signal-recycling mirror.
(b) Representation of how sensitivity is improved by amplifying the signal more than the noise~\cite{danilishinQuantumMeasurementTheory2012}.
(c) Mode diagram showing that the system comprises three coupled optical modes ($\hat a, \hat b, \hat c$) and that the gravitational-wave signal indirectly couples into the idler.
}
\label{fig:nIS_config}
\end{figure*}
In this paper, we explore the technique of \emph{nondegenerate internal squeezing} explained below. Although this all-optical technique has an equivalent Hamiltonian to stable optomechanical filtering~\cite{liBroadbandSensitivityImprovement2020,bentley_thesis_2021}, it has not been thoroughly examined to date. For the parameters of a future gravitational-wave detector, we analyse its performance with realistic optical loss and determine its squeezing threshold using a new approach. We also demonstrate further sensitivity improvement using variational readout and optimal filtering~\cite{PhysRevD.65.022002,yap2019generation,PhysRevResearch.3.043079}.
\section{Concept and model}
Nondegenerate internal squeezing consists of a ``squeezer'' crystal with qua\-drat\-ic polarisability ($\chi^{(2)}$) inside the signal-recycling cavity of a dual-recycled Fabry-Perot Michelson interferometer as shown in Fig.~\hyperref[fig:nIS_config]{1(a)}; the squeezer annihilates a pump photon at (angular) frequency $2\omega_0+\Delta$ and creates a pair of photons at ``signal'' (the carrier frequency $\omega_0$) and ``idler'' ($\omega_0+\Delta$ for frequency separation $\Delta\neq0$) frequencies resonant in the signal-recycling cavity. These pairs are Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) correlated, \emph{amplified} vacuum states~\cite{schoriNarrowbandFrequencyTunable2002,reidDemonstrationEinsteinPodolskyRosenParadox1989}.
The signal frequency is coupled to the differential arm mode that contains the gravitational-wave signal~\cite{bond_2010}; the idler frequency is not resonant in the arms.
This technique improves sensitivity by amplifying the gravitational-wave signal more than the quantum noise as shown in Fig.~\hyperref[fig:nIS_config]{1(b)}; this is possible because the signal comes from the arms but the noise comes primarily from the readout port.
\subsection{Analytic model}
\label{sec:model}
We model the system using an established analytic Hamiltonian approach~\cite{danilishinQuantumMeasurementTheory2012, miaoEnhancingBandwidthGravitationalWave2015, liBroadbandSensitivityImprovement2020, korobkoQuantumExpanderGravitationalwave2019,schoriNarrowbandFrequencyTunable2002}. A single-mode ``coupled-cavity'' approximation is valid below the free-spectral range of the arms ($37.5$~kHz for 4~km arms~\cite{miaoEnhancingBandwidthGravitationalWave2015}) and gives the differential arm (with annihilation Heisenberg operator $\hat a$), signal ($\hat b$), and idler ($\hat c$) modes shown in Fig.~\hyperref[fig:nIS_config]{1(c)} that evolve according to the Hamiltonian ($\hat H$)
\begingroup
\allowdisplaybreaks
\begin{align}\label{eq:nIS_Hamiltonian}
\hat H &= \hat H_0 + \hat H_\text{int} + \hat H_\text{mech} + \hat H_\text{I/O}\\
\frac{\hat H_0}{\hbar} &= \omega_0 \hat a^\dag \hat a + \omega_0 \hat b^\dag \hat b+ (\omega_0+\Delta) \hat c^\dag \hat c + (2\omega_0+\Delta) \hat u^\dag \hat u\nonumber\\
\hat H_\text{int} &= i\hbar\omega_s(\hat a\hat b^\dag-\hat a^\dag\hat b) + \hbar \frac{g}{2} (\hat u \hat b^\dag \hat c^\dag+\hat u^\dag \hat b \hat c)\nonumber\\
\hat H_\text{mech} &= -\alpha (\hat{x}-L_\text{arm}h(t)\hat{1})\left(\frac{\hat{a}+\hat{a}^\dag}{\sqrt{2}}\right)+\frac{1}{2\mu}\hat{p}^2\nonumber\\
\hat H_\text{I/O} &= i\hbar \sqrt{2}\int_{-\infty}^\infty \biggl( \sqrt{\gamma^b_R}\hat{b}^\dag(\Omega)\hat{B}_\text{in}(\Omega) + \sqrt{\gamma^c_R}\hat{c}^\dag(\Omega)\hat C_\text{in}(\Omega) \nonumber\\&+
\sqrt{\gamma_a}\hat{a}^\dag(\Omega)\hat n^L_a(\Omega)+
\sqrt{\gamma_b}\hat{b}^\dag(\Omega)\hat n^L_b(\Omega) \nonumber\\
&+
\sqrt{\gamma_c}\hat{c}^\dag(\Omega)\hat n^L_c(\Omega) + \text{h.c.}
\biggr)\text{d}\Omega\,.\nonumber
\end{align}
\endgroup
Here:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\hat H_0$ describes the uncoupled harmonic behaviour (including the pump, $\hat u$)
\item $\hat H_\text{int}$ describes the optical interaction~\cite{graham1968quantum}
\item $\hat H_\text{mech}$ describes how the gravitational-wave strain ($h(t)$ for time $t$) couples through the test masses' differential mechanical mode (approximated with free mass position $\hat x$ and momentum $\hat p$) via radiation pressure~\cite{kimble2001conversion}
\item $\hat H_\text{I/O}$ describes the readout rate $\gamma^j_R$ into vacuum ($\hat B_\text{in}, \hat C_\text{in}$) for $j=b,c$ and intra-cavity loss rate $\gamma_j$ into vacuum ($\hat{n}^L_j$) for $j=a,b,c$~\cite{gardiner1985input}. $\gamma = -c/(4L)\log(1-T)$ where $c$ is the speed of light, $L$ is the cavity length, and $T\in(0,1)$ is the readout or loss port transmission. We omit the natural evolution of the vacuum modes for brevity.
\end{enumerate}
In Eq.~\ref{eq:nIS_Hamiltonian}, $\hbar$ is the reduced Plank constant, $\omega_s\approx c\sqrt{T_\text{ITM}/(4 L_\text{arm} L_\text{SRC})}$ is the ``sloshing'' frequency~\cite{korobkoQuantumExpanderGravitationalwave2019,thuring2007detuned}, $T_\text{ITM}$ is the input test masses' transmission, $L_\text{arm}$ ($L_\text{SRC}$) is the arm (signal-recycling) cavity length, $\chi^{(2)}$ determines the nonlinear coupling rate $g$~\cite{paschotta1994nonlinear}, $\alpha=\sqrt{2 P_\text{circ} \omega_0 \hbar/(c L_\text{arm})}$ is the optomechanical coupling rate~\cite{liBroadbandSensitivityImprovement2020}, $\hat{1}$ is the identity operator, $P_\text{circ}$ is the circulating (arm) power, $\mu=M/4$ is the differential mechanical mode's reduced mass (for test mass mass $M$), and $\text{h.c.}$ is the Hermitian conjugate.
For gravitational-wave detectors, the pump power should be kept below the squeezing threshold and, therefore, a ``reservoir pump'' (or ``no pump depletion'') approximation is valid, i.e.\ $\hat u\mapsto ue^{i\phi}$ where $u$ is the \emph{constant} real semi-classical pump amplitude and $\phi$ is the pump phase~\cite{walls_1995,martinelli2001classical,korobkoQuantumExpanderGravitationalwave2019,schoriNarrowbandFrequencyTunable2002}.
This simplifies the Heisenberg-Langevin equations-of-motion~\cite{PhysRevA.31.3761,PhysRevA.30.1386}, in the Interaction Picture, to
\begingroup\allowdisplaybreaks
\begin{align}\label{eq:nIS_EoM}
\dot{\hat{a}}&=-\omega_s\hat{b}+\frac{i\alpha}{\sqrt{2}\hbar}(\hat{x}-L_\text{arm}h(t)\hat{1}) - \gamma_a \hat{a} + \sqrt{2\gamma_a}\hat{n}^L_a\\
\dot{\hat{b}}&=\omega_s\hat{a} - i\chi e^{i\phi}\hat{c}^\dagger - \gamma^b_\text{tot} \hat{b} + \sqrt{2\gamma^b_R}\hat{B}_\text{in} + \sqrt{2\gamma_b}\hat{n}^L_b\nonumber\\
\dot{\hat{c}}&=-i\chi e^{i\phi}\hat{b}^\dagger - \gamma^c_\text{tot} \hat{c} + \sqrt{2\gamma^c_R}\hat{C}_\text{in} + \sqrt{2\gamma_c}\hat{n}^L_c\nonumber\\
\dot{\hat{x}}&=\frac{1}{\mu}\hat{p},\quad \dot{\hat{p}}=\frac{\alpha}{\sqrt2}(\hat{a}+\hat{a}^\dag)\,.\nonumber
\end{align}
\endgroup
Here, $\chi=gu/2$ is the ``squeezer parameter'' (to be distinguished from the quadratic polarisability, $\chi^{(2)}$), $\gamma^j_\text{tot}=\gamma^j_R+\gamma_j$ for $j=b,c$, and each operator (e.g.\ $\hat a$) is implicitly the fluctuating component (e.g.\ $\delta\hat a(t) = \hat a(t) - \langle\hat a\rangle\hat{1}$ for the time-average $\langle\hat a\rangle$). By solving Eq.~\ref{eq:nIS_EoM} linearly in the Fourier domain of frequency $\Omega$ to find the cavity modes, using input/output relations at the readout port to find the external modes~\cite{PhysRevA.31.3761}, and introducing optical detection loss $R_\text{PD}\in(0,1)$ into vacuum ($\hat n^L_\text{PD, j}$ for $j=b,c$), the measured quadratures in the Quadrature Picture (e.g.\ $\hat X_{B_\text{meas}, \theta}=\frac{1}{\sqrt 2}(e^{-i \theta}\hat{B}_\text{meas}+e^{i \theta}\hat{B}_\text{meas}^\dag)$ for the signal mode), describing the amplitude and phase of the light at the photodetector, are
\begin{align}\label{eq:X_meas}
\vec{\hat X}_\text{meas}(\Omega)&=\mathbf{T}\vec h(\Omega)\hat{1}+\mathbf{R}_\text{in}\vec{\hat X}_\text{in}(\Omega)+\mathbf{R}^L_a\vec{\hat X}^L_a(\Omega)\\&+\mathbf{R}^L_\text{SRC}\vec{\hat X}^L_\text{SRC}(\Omega)+\mathbf{R}^L_\text{PD}\vec{\hat X}^L_\text{PD}(\Omega)\,.\nonumber
\end{align}
Here, each vector contains two quadratures for each of the signal and idler, e.g.\
\begin{equation}
\vec{\hat X}_\text{meas} = (\hat X_{B_\text{meas}, 0}, \hat X_{B_\text{meas}, \frac{\pi}{2}}, \hat X_{C_\text{meas}, 0}, \hat X_{C_\text{meas}, \frac{\pi}{2}})^\text{T}
\end{equation}
and $\vec{h}=\tilde h(\Omega) (1,1,0,0)^\text{T}$ (where $\tilde h(\Omega)$ is the Fourier transform of $h(t)$) because the idler is not resonant in the arms; the signal ($\mathbf{T}$) and noise ($\mathbf{R}_\text{in}$,$ \mathbf{R}^L_a$,$ \mathbf{R}^L_\text{SRC}$,$\mathbf{R}^L_\text{PD}$) transfer matrices are given in Appendix~\ref{app:matrices}.
Assuming uncorrelated vacuum noise inputs, the measured quantum noise as a (single-sided) power spectral density matrix is~\cite{danilishinQuantumMeasurementTheory2012}
\begin{align}\label{eq:powerSx}
\mathbf{S}_X(\Omega) &= \mathbf{R}_\text{in}{\mathbf{R}_\text{in}}^\dag+\mathbf{R}^L_a{\mathbf{R}^L_a}^\dag +\mathbf{R}^L_\text{SRC}{\mathbf{R}^L_\text{SRC}}^\dag +\mathbf{R}^L_\text{PD}{\mathbf{R}^L_\text{PD}}^\dag \,.
\end{align}
Here, $\mathbf{R}^\dag$ is the conjugate transpose of the matrix $\mathbf{R}$.
By Eq.~\ref{eq:X_meas}, the linear response of the detector to the gravitational wave ($\tilde h(\Omega)$) is $\mathbf{T}(1,1,0,0)^\text{T}$; its first component is zero and, therefore, the fixed--readout angle signal-mode readout measures $(\vec{\hat X}_\text{meas})_2 = \hat X_{B_\text{meas},\frac{\pi}{2}}(\Omega)$.
The sensitivity of ``signal readout'', therefore, is~\cite{moore2014gravitational}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:nIS_sigRO_sens}
\sqrt{S_h(\Omega)} = \frac{\sqrt{(\mathbf{S}_X(\Omega))_{2,2}}}{\abs{\left(\mathbf{T}(1,1,0,0)^\text{T}\right)_2}}\,.
\end{equation}
These results reduce to the expected lossless (Fig.~5 in Ref.~\cite{liBroadbandSensitivityImprovement2020}) and high arm loss (a nondegenerate optical parametric oscillator) limits.
\subsection{Stability and squeezing threshold}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig2_nIS_stability_plane_w_colorbar_vertical_Sheon.pdf}
\caption{Poles of the transfer functions as the squeezer parameter increases from $0$ (marked by a dot). Beyond the squeezing threshold (marked by a cross) one or more poles enter the unstable region above the real axis. (a) Lossless and (b) lossy cases using the parameters in Table~\ref{tab:params}. The $\Omega=0$ pole from the free mass approximation is not shown.
}
\label{fig:stability}
\end{figure}
The dynamical stability and squeezing threshold can be determined from the poles of the transfer functions. Here, the transfer functions (e.g.\ the coefficients of $\tilde h(\Omega)$ and $\hat{X}_{B_\text{in}, \frac{\pi}{2}}(\Omega)$ in Eq.~\ref{eq:X_meas}) are all fractions of polynomials in $\Omega$ with the same denominator for each quadrature and each mode. Moreover, the zeros of the denominator are the same for the signal and noise transfer functions up to multiplicity and a fixed pole at $\Omega=0$ from the free mass assumption that can be ignored.
The \emph{system is stable} if all of these poles in $\Omega$ have negative imaginary part~\cite{nise_2019}, which occurs (as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:stability}) for squeezer parameter below the squeezing threshold given, in the relevant regime $\gamma_a<\gamma^c_\text{tot},\gamma_a\ll\omega_s$, by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:threshold}
\chi_\text{thr}^\text{lossy}=\sqrt{(\gamma_a+\gamma^b_\text{tot})(\gamma_a+\gamma^c_\text{tot}+\frac{\omega_s^2}{\gamma^b_\text{tot}+\gamma^c_\text{tot}})}\,.
\end{equation}
The system --- in this model --- becomes unstable beyond the squeezing threshold because the reservoir-pump approximation implies unbounded coherent amplification of the cavity modes~\cite{walls_1995,martinelli2001classical}; understanding the system's physical behaviour above threshold would require extending the model beyond this approximation~\cite{xingPumpDepletionParametric2022}.
This novel method of determining threshold recovers the known values in the lossless ($\chi_\text{thr}^\text{lossless}=\omega_s$~\cite{liBroadbandSensitivityImprovement2020}) and high arm loss ($\sqrt{\gamma^b_\text{tot}\gamma^c_\text{tot}}$~\cite{graham1968quantum}) limits.
\section{Results}
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{@{}lll@{}}
\toprule
carrier wavelength, $2\pi c/\omega_0$ & \multicolumn{2}{l}{\hspace{1.3cm}2 $\mu\text{m}$} \\
arm cavity length, $L_\text{arm}$ & \multicolumn{2}{l}{\hspace{1.3cm}4 km} \\
circulating arm power, $P_\text{circ}$ & \multicolumn{2}{l}{\hspace{1.3cm}3 MW} \\
test mass mass, $M$ & \multicolumn{2}{l}{\hspace{1.3cm}200 kg} \\
injected external squeezing & \multicolumn{2}{l}{\hspace{1.3cm}10 dB} \\[0.2cm]
arm intra-cavity loss, $T_{l,a}$ & \multicolumn{2}{l}{\hspace{1.3cm}100 ppm} \\
intra-SRC loss, $T_{l,b(c)}$ & \multicolumn{2}{l}{\hspace{1.3cm}1000 (1000) ppm} \\
detection loss, $R_\text{PD}$ & \multicolumn{2}{l}{\hspace{1.3cm}$10\%$}\\[0.2cm]
SRM transmission, $T_{\text{SRM},b(c)}$ & \textbf{0.0152 (0)} & 0.046 (0) \\
SRC length, $L_\text{SRC}$ & \textbf{366.5 m} & 56 m \\
ITM transmission, $T_\text{ITM}$ & \textbf{0.0643} & 0.002 \\
sloshing frequency, $\omega_s$ & \textbf{5 kHz} & 2.256 kHz \\
readout rate, $\gamma^{b(c)}_R$ & \textbf{0.5 (0) kHz} & 10.038 (0) kHz \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Baseline parameters for signal readout with deviations shown in boldface next to the corresponding LIGO~Voyager values~\cite{LIGO_Voyager}.
The idler values are shown in parentheses next to the corresponding signal values and are achievable by means of a dichroic if the frequency separation ($\Delta$) can be made sufficiently large, e.g., using additional cavities. The frequency-dependent external squeezing is in both the signal and idler modes; although 10~dB is injected, only a ${\sim}7$~dB reduction is measured due to loss.}
\label{tab:params}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig3_nIS_NSR_annotated_Sheon.pdf}
\caption{Sensitivity versus frequency for signal readout with different squeezer parameters. The $\omega_s=5$~kHz feature in the baseline curve is the coupled-cavity pole. The Standard Quantum Limit (SQL)~\cite{danilishinQuantumMeasurementTheory2012} is exceeded using external squeezing.
The parameters in Table~\ref{tab:params} are used. The LIGO~Voyager~\cite{LIGO_Voyager} quantum noise--limited design curve is also shown.}
\label{fig:N_S_NSR}
\end{figure}
Nondegenerate internal squeezing improves sensitivity at ``middle/high'' frequencies (i.e.\ 40~Hz--4~kHz) at the expense of ``low'' frequencies (i.e.\ below 40~Hz) as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:N_S_NSR}. Increasing the squeezer parameter further \emph{improves sensitivity without sacrificing bandwidth or requiring increased circulating power or arm length}. These results use the parameters and realistic optical loss~\cite{zhangBroadbandSignalRecycling2021,Danilishin_2019} in Table~\ref{tab:params} based on LIGO~Voyager~\cite{LIGO_Voyager}; Table~\ref{tab:params} contains a longer signal-recycling cavity than LIGO~Voyager to improve kilohertz sensitivity~\cite{liBroadbandSensitivityImprovement2020}.
Given current estimates of the neutron-star equation-of-state, the sensitivity required to detect a typical post-merger signal from a binary neutron-star merger at ${\sim}50$~Mpc is $\sqrt{S_h}=5\times10^{-25} \mathrm{Hz}^{-1/2}$ from 1--4~kHz~\cite{PhysRevD.100.104029, miaoDesignGravitationalWaveDetectors2018}. With $\chi/\chi_\text{thr}=0.986$ and the parameters in Table~\ref{tab:params} except $T_{\text{SRM},c}=110$~ppm (meaning that technological progress is required), signal readout can achieve this target at ${\sim}1$~kHz. Achieving it across the entire 1--4~kHz band would require reduced loss and increased circulating power, arm length, pump power, and/or injected external squeezing.
\subsection{Tolerance to decoherence from optical loss}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig4_nIS_tolerance_to_detection_loss_sens_reduction_combined_vertical_Sheon.pdf}
\caption{(a) Sensitivity versus frequency for signal readout with different optical detection loss. (b) Peak sensitivity versus detection loss normalised to the peak sensitivity with $0\%$ detection loss --- higher values indicate greater sensitivity degradation. The parameters, including intra-cavity loss, in Table~\ref{tab:params} are used with $\chi/\chi_\text{thr}=0.95$.}
\label{fig:tolerance_to_detection_loss}
\end{figure}
Nondegenerate internal squeezing is more tolerant to decoherence from optical detection loss than a conventional gravitational-wave detector as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:tolerance_to_detection_loss}. Loss simultaneously decreases the signal and brings the quantum noise towards the vacuum level.
With this technique, the amplified signal and noise decrease at approximately the same rate and, therefore, the sensitivity remains approximately constant.
In comparison, degenerate internal squeezing experiences worse sensitivity degradation because the squeezed noise increases towards the vacuum level~\cite{korobkoQuantumExpanderGravitationalwave2019,adyaQuantumEnhancedKHz2020,korobkoCompensatingQuantumDecoherenceTalk2021}.
Realistically, signal readout is limited by optical idler loss which agrees with mechanical idler loss limiting stable optomechanical filtering~\cite{liBroadbandSensitivityImprovement2020,miao2019quantum}.
To match the sensitivity of stable optomechanical filtering from Ref.~\cite{liBroadbandSensitivityImprovement2020}, which assumes that the mechanical loss parameter-of-interest is a factor of ${\sim}16$ below existing technology~\footnote{The required environmental temperature divided by mechanical quality factor is $6\times 10^{-10}K$~\cite{miaoEnhancingBandwidthGravitationalWave2015} compared to $9.7\times 10^{-9} K$ currently possible~\cite{masonetal2019,pageEnhancedDetectionHigh2018}.}, this technique requires a factor of ${\sim}18$ reduction in optical idler loss~\footnote{The required loss is 110~ppm compared to 2000~ppm currently possible~\cite{barsottiLIGOdoc2016}.}. This suggests that this technique is a \emph{viable all-optical alternative} to stable optomechanical filtering. This is a key result: this loss-resistant technique is comparable to existing proposals.
\subsection{Alternative readout schemes}
\label{sec:alternative_readouts}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig5_alternative_readout_schemes_Sheon.pdf} \caption{Sensitivity versus frequency for alternative readout schemes. The parameters in Table~\ref{tab:params} are used with $\chi/\chi_\text{thr}=0.95$ except $T_{\text{SRM},c}\approx1.54\times10^{-4}$. The lossless limit is also shown.}
\label{fig:alternative_readouts}
\end{figure}
Idler readout is possible, e.g.\ by an additional homodyne readout at the idler frequency to measure $\hat X_{C_\text{meas}, \theta_c}$, because the gravitational-wave signal is coupled from the signal mode via the squeezer as shown in Fig.~\hyperref[fig:nIS_config]{1(c)}. Since the idler is not directly coupled to the arms, fixed ($\theta_c=\phi$) idler readout improves sensitivity differently than signal readout as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:alternative_readouts}.
One advantage of idler readout is that the idler wavelength can be chosen to match higher quantum efficiency photodetectors than the $2~\mu\text{m}$ wavelength signal mode~\cite{singh_2019}.
Realistically, idler readout is limited by signal mode loss ($T_{l,b}$), however, using idler readout alone with the signal readout port closed does not outperform a signal readout detector~\footnote{Also, with the signal readout port closed, $\chi_\text{thr}\xrightarrow[]{}0$ in the lossless limit which requires removing the reservoir-pump approximation.}.
Variational readout of each mode, achieved via homodyne readout and a filter cavity~\cite{PhysRevD.65.022002}, can measure $\hat X_{C_\text{vary}}(\Omega) = \hat X_{C_\text{meas}, \theta_c(\Omega)}(\Omega)$ and $\hat X_{B_\text{vary}}(\Omega)$ similar. This improves idler readout, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:alternative_readouts}, by reducing the amplified quantum radiation-pressure noise~\cite{danilishinQuantumMeasurementTheory2012,hild2012beyond} using correlations generated ponderomotively at the test masses and coupled from the signal mode~\cite{PhysRevD.65.022002}. The correlation of the signal quadratures is too low to improve sensitivity for high $\chi/\chi_\text{thr}$ (e.g.\ $0.95$) unlike for a conventional detector.
The optimal readout scheme measures the optimal coherent linear combination of the signal and idler, as shown in Fig.~\hyperref[fig:nIS_config]{1(c)}, at each frequency, i.e.\
\begin{equation}\label{eq:optimal_filter}
\hat X_\text{optim}(\Omega) = G_b(\Omega)\hat X_{B_\text{vary}}(\Omega) + G_c(\Omega)\hat X_{C_\text{vary}}(\Omega)\,,
\end{equation}
where $G_b, G_c$ are complex, acausal ``filter'' coefficients, such that $\abs{G_b}^2+\abs{G_c}^2 = 1$, simultaneously numerically optimised with the readout angles ($\theta_b, \theta_c$). This scheme (``filter + variational readout'' in Fig.~\ref{fig:alternative_readouts}) further improves sensitivity via recovering squeezing from the signal-idler EPR-correlation~\cite{ma_2017,schoriNarrowbandFrequencyTunable2002}; this agrees with the preliminary stable optomechanical filtering results~\cite{liEnhancingInterferometerSensitivity2021}.
Although decoherence reduces the EPR-correlation, the optimal filter remains more tolerant to detection loss than a conventional detector. In the lossless (i.e.\ no detection or intra-cavity loss) limit, the amplified quantum radiation-pressure noise at 30~Hz can be reduced by up to two orders-of-magnitude as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:alternative_readouts}.
Realistically, however, the filter is limited by signal and idler loss, and the optimal filter without variational readout (``filter only'' in Fig.~\ref{fig:alternative_readouts}) achieves the same sensitivity above ${\sim}200$~Hz and is more feasible for a broadband (100~Hz--4~kHz) future gravitational-wave detector.
\section{Conclusions}
In this paper, we have explored nondegenerate internal squeezing: a viable, all-optical technique to enhance sensitivity. Using an analytic Hamiltonian model, we have found it to (1) be stable, (2) realistically improve sensitivity without sacrificing bandwidth or increasing the circulating power or arm length, and (3) be tolerant to decoherence from optical detection loss --- an advantage over existing proposals.
Using the parameters of a modified LIGO~Voyager, we have shown that optimal filtering without variational readout is this technique's preferred readout scheme out of those considered for feasible kilohertz (1--4~kHz) and broadband (100~Hz--4~kHz) gravitational-wave detection.
The configuration in Table~\ref{tab:params} has 100~kW of power incident on the beamsplitter which requires future analysis into thermal compensation schemes or alternative parameter sets; how to achieve the large frequency separation also needs further consideration.
This technique may also be used in general cavity-based quantum metrology, and our model characterises systems with equivalent Hamiltonians, such as enhanced microwave axion detectors~\cite{liBroadbandSensitivityImprovement2020,MARSH20161,PhysRevX.9.021023}.
\begin{acknowledgments}
The authors are grateful to the Centre for Gravitational Astrophysics squeezing group for advice during this research and to Xiang~Li for giving access to the results from Ref.~\cite{liBroadbandSensitivityImprovement2020}. Code for this paper was written using Wolfram Mathematica~\cite{mathematica} and Python~\cite{python,ipython,jupyter,numpy,matplotlib} and is openly available at \url{https://github.com/daccordeon/nondegDog}. Fig.~\ref{fig:nIS_config} was illustrated using graphics from Alexander~Franzen~\cite{ComponentLibrary}.
This research was supported by the Australian Research Council under the ARC Centre of Excellence for Gravitational Wave Discovery, Grant No.\ CE170100004. The authors declare no competing interests. This work has been assigned LIGO document number P2200052.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
Knowledge distillation (KD) is an effective technique to transfer knowledge from one neural network to another~\cite{kdsurvey1,kdsurvey2}. Its core mechanism is a teacher-student learning framework, where the student network is trained to mimic the teacher through a loss. The loss is realized as the KL divergence between teacher and student soft labels when first proposed by \cite{hinton2015distilling} and has been extended in many ways \cite{zagoruyko2016paying,tung2019similarity,park2019relational,peng2019correlation,tian2019contrastive}. KD has been successfully applied to various fields and demonstrates its high practical value.
The wide applicability of KD stems from its generality: \emph{any} student can learn from \emph{any} teacher. To be more precise, the student and teacher network may differ in several ways. Three common scenarios are: (1) \emph{model capacity difference}: Many works~\cite{zagoruyko2016paying,tung2019similarity,park2019relational,peng2019correlation} on model compression aim to learn a lightweight student matching the performance of its cumbersome teacher for deployment benefits. (2) \emph{architecture (inductive bias) difference}: Recent works~\cite{deit,ren2021co,xianing2022dearkd} propose to distill the inductive bias of a CNN teacher to train a transformer student for data efficiency. (3) \emph{modality difference}: KD has been extended to the area of multimodal learning~\cite{gupta2016cross,aytar2016soundnet,zhao2018through,garcia2018action,thoker2019cross,lipreading,afouras2020asr,valverde2021there,xue2021multimodal}, where the teacher and student network have different input modalities (\textit{e.g.}, an audio teacher and a visual student).
Despite the great empirical success reported in prior works, the working mechanism of KD is still poorly understood~\cite{kdsurvey2}. This puts the efficacy of KD into question: Is KD always efficient? If not, what is a good indicator of KD performance? A few works~\cite{cho2019efficacy,tang2020understanding,ren2021co} are in search for the answer in the context of \emph{model capacity difference} and \emph{architecture difference}. However, the analysis for the third scenario, KD under modality difference or formally \emph{multimodal KD}, remains an open problem.
This work aims to fill this gap and for the first time provides a comprehensive analysis of multimodal KD. Our major contributions are the following:
\begin{itemize}
\setlength{\itemsep}{1pt}
\setlength{\parsep}{1pt}
\setlength{\parskip}{1pt}
\item We present two failure cases of multimodal KD and find surprisingly that a more accurate multimodal teacher does not necessarily lead to a better student.
\item To explore the cause of performance mismatch in multimodal KD, we propose the modality Venn diagram to understand modality relationships, where we define modality-general/specific decisive features.
\item We present the \textbf{\textit{modality focusing hypothesis}} that provides an explanation of when multimodal KD is effective. We hypothesize that modality-general decisive features are the crucial factor that determines the efficacy of multimodal KD. We further propose a permutation-based approach to identify modality-general decisive features for real multimodal data.
\item We conduct experiments on 6 multimodal datasets (\textit{i.e.}, synthetic Gaussian, AV-MNIST, RAVDESS, VGGSound, NYU Depth and MM-IMDB) and demonstrate that our proposed hypothesis can guide multimodal KD and bring performance improvement.
\end{itemize}
\section{Related Work}
\subsection{Unimodal Knowledge Distillation}
KD represents a general technique that transfers information learned by a teacher network to a student network. It has been broadly applied to many vision tasks, such as image classification~\cite{tung2019similarity,park2019relational,peng2019correlation}, semantic segmentation~\cite{he2019knowledge,liu2019structured} and video understanding~\cite{mullapudi2019online,pan2020spatio}. Model compression stands for one big application field of KD, where the goal is to obtain a small model (\textit{i.e.}, the student) with high inference efficiency through learning from a pretrained large model (\textit{i.e.}, the teacher). More recently, KD has been introduced to facilitate the training of a vision transformer~\cite{deit,ren2021co,xianing2022dearkd}. The transformer student achieves high data efficiency with inductive biases distilled from CNN teachers.
Despite the development towards better distillation techniques or new application fields, there is limited work~\cite{phuong2019towards,cho2019efficacy,tang2020understanding,ren2021co} on understanding the working mechanism of KD. Specifically, Cho \textit{et al}.~\cite{cho2019efficacy} and Mirzadeh \textit{et al}.~\cite{mirzadeh2020improved} investigate KD for model compression, \textit{i.e.}, when the student and teacher differ in model size. They point out that mismatched capacity between student and teacher network can lead to failure of KD. Ren \textit{et al}. ~\cite{ren2021co} provide an analysis of KD for vision transformers and demonstrate that teacher's inductive bias matters more than its accuracy in improving performance of the transformer student. These works provide good insight into understanding KD, yet their discussion is limited to unimodality.
\subsection{Multimodal Knowledge Distillation}
With the accessibility of the Internet and the growing availability of multimodal sensors, multimodal learning has received increasing research attention~\cite{mmsurvey}. Following this trend, KD has also been extended to achieve knowledge transfer from multimodal data and enjoys diverse applications, such as action recognition~\cite{garcia2018action,luo2018graph,thoker2019cross}, lip reading~\cite{lipreading,afouras2020asr} and medical image segmentation~\cite{medical1,medical2}.
Vision models are often adopted as teachers to provide supervision to student models of other modalities, \textit{e.g.}, sound~\cite{aytar2016soundnet,xue2021multimodal}, depth~\cite{gupta2016cross,xue2021multimodal}, optical flow~\cite{garcia2018action}, thermal~\cite{kruthiventi2017low}, wireless~\cite{zhao2018through}, \textit{etc}. While these works demonstrate potentials of multimodal KD, they are often associated with a specific multimodal task and mostly empirical. An in-depth analysis of multimodal KD is notably lacking, which is the main focus of this paper.
\section{On the Efficacy of Multimodal Knowledge Distillation}\label{sec.efficacy}
\subsection{Problem Formulation}\label{sec.problem}
Consider a supervised $K$-class classification problem. We denote the input of the student and teacher networks by $\mathbf{x}_S$ and $\mathbf{x}_T$, respectively. We use $\mathbf{f}_{\boldsymbol{\theta}_S}(\mathbf{x}_S)\in\mathbb{R}^K$ and $\mathbf{f}_{\boldsymbol{\theta}_T}(\mathbf{x}_T)\in\mathbb{R}^K$ to respectively represent the output (\textit{i.e.}, class probabilities) of the student and teacher networks, where $\{\boldsymbol{\theta}_S,\boldsymbol{\theta}_T\}$ are learnable parameters. Without loss of generality, we limit our discussion within input data of two modalities, denoted by $\mathbf{x}_1$ and $\mathbf{x}_2$ for modality $1$ and $2$, respectively. Assume that we aim to learn a student network that takes $\mathbf{x}_1$ as input. There are three typical ways of distillation: (i) unimodal KD: the student and teacher network receive input from the same modality (\textit{e.g.}, a visual teacher distills knowledge to a visual student), (ii) multimodal KD: we adopt a multimodal teacher for distillation (\textit{e.g.}, an audio-visual teacher and a visual student), and (iii) crossmodal KD: the teacher and student network receive input from distinct modalities (\textit{e.g.}, an audio teacher and a visual student).
\textbf{Unimodal KD.} ($\mathbf{x}_T \leftarrow \mathbf{x}_1,\mathbf{x}_S\leftarrow \mathbf{x}_1$) Both the teacher and student take unimodal data $\mathbf{x}_1$ as input. With an available teacher model, the training of student is achieved by minimizing:
\begin{align}\label{eq.general_kd_loss}
\mathcal L = \rho \mathcal{L}_{task} & + (1-\rho) \mathcal{L}_{kd}\\
\mathcal{L}_{task} = \text{CE}(\mathbf{y}, \mathbf{f}_{\boldsymbol{\theta}_S}(\mathbf{x}_1)) & \quad\text{and}\quad \mathcal{L}_{kd} = \text{KL}(\mathbf{f}_{\boldsymbol{\theta}_T}(\mathbf{x}_1),\mathbf{f}_{\boldsymbol{\theta}_S}(\mathbf{x}_1))
\end{align}
where $\mathbf{y}$ represents the ground truth label, $\rho\in[0,1]$ weighs the importance of two terms $\mathcal{L}_{task}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{kd}$ (\textit{i.e.}, driving the student to true labels or teacher's soft predictions), respectively. `CE' denotes cross entropy, and `KL' represents KL divergence.
\textbf{Multimodal KD.} ($\mathbf{x}_T\leftarrow (\mathbf{x}_1,\mathbf{x}_2), \mathbf{x}_S\leftarrow \mathbf{x}_1$) Multimodal KD resorts to a multimodal teacher in the distillation. The teacher takes multimodal data as input while the student input remains the same as in unimodal KD (\textit{i.e.}, $\mathbf{x}_1$). We still minimize Eq. (\ref{eq.general_kd_loss}) to train a student model, but now $\mathcal L_{kd}$ is given by:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{kd} = \text{KL}(\mathbf{f}_{\boldsymbol{\theta}_T}(\mathbf{x}_1, \mathbf{x}_2),\mathbf{f}_{\boldsymbol{\theta}_S}(\mathbf{x}_1))
\end{equation}
\textbf{Crossmodal KD.} ($\mathbf{x}_T\leftarrow\mathbf{x}_2$, $\mathbf{x}_S\leftarrow\mathbf{x}_1$) Crossmodal KD refers to the case where teacher and student input modalities do not overlap. It could be regarded as a special case of multimodal KD when the teacher only takes input from modality $2$. Eq. (\ref{eq.general_kd_loss}) is still valid with a slight correction to $\mathcal{L}_{kd}$:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{kd} = \text{KL}(\mathbf{f}_{\boldsymbol{\theta}_T}(\mathbf{x}_2),\mathbf{f}_{\boldsymbol{\theta}_S}(\mathbf{x}_1))
\end{equation}
\subsection{Is a Multimodal Teacher Better than a Unimodal One?}\label{sec.failurecase}
Benefiting from the great representation power of multimodal data, a multimodal network usually enjoys a higher accuracy than its unimodal counterpart~\cite{mmsurvey}. This motivates many research works \cite{luo2018graph,medical1,valverde2021there} to replace conventional unimodal KD with multimodal KD, in an attempt to improve student network performance. Their underlying motivation is intuitive: {a more accurate teacher can lead to a better student. Also, the complementary modality-dependent information brought by the teacher network may further enhance student performance.} However, in this paper, we reflect on this assumption and ask the question: \emph{Is multimodal KD always more effective than unimodal KD?}
\begin{table}[!h]
\begin{center}
\caption{Evaluation of unimodal KD (UM-KD) and multimodal KD (MM-KD) on AV-MNIST and NYU Depth V2. `Mod.' is short for modality, and \texttt{A}, \texttt{I}, \texttt{RGB}, \texttt{D} represents audio, grayscale images, RGB images and depth images, respectively.}
\label{table:headings}
\begin{tabular}{cclclclcl}
\toprule
& \multicolumn{4}{c}{AV-MNIST} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{NYU Depth V2} \\
\cmidrule(lr){2-5}
\cmidrule(lr){6-9}
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{Teacher} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Student} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Teacher} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Student} \\
& Mod. & Acc. (\%) & Mod. & Acc. (\%) & Mod. & mIoU (\%) & Mod. & mIoU (\%)\\
\midrule
No-KD & - & - & \texttt{A} &68.36 & - & - & \texttt{RGB} & 46.36 \\
UM-KD & \texttt{A} & 84.57 & \texttt{A} & 70.10 & \texttt{RGB} & 46.36 & \texttt{RGB} &48.00 \\
MM-KD & \texttt{I} + \texttt{A} & 91.61 ({\color{green}{$\uparrow$}}) & \texttt{A} & 69.73 ({\color{red}{$\downarrow$}}) & \texttt{RGB} + \texttt{D} & 51.00 ({\color{green}{$\uparrow$}}) & \texttt{RGB} & 47.78 ({\color{red}{$\downarrow$}}) \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{tab.avmnist}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\textbf{Failure Cases.} We provide two example failure cases of multimodal KD in Table \ref{tab.avmnist}. AV-MNIST \cite{avmnist} is an audio-visual dataset containing hand-written digits (\textit{i.e.}, grayscale images) and human speaking digits (\textit{i.e.}, audio). Here we attempt to improve an audio student using KD. NYU Depth V2 \cite{nyu} contains 1,449 pairs of aligned RGB and depth images. Similarly, the goal is to improve an RGB model performance with KD. Table \ref{tab.avmnist} reports a somewhat counter-intuitive finding: a more accurate multimodal network does not serve as a good teacher. Despite the great increase in teacher accuracy, multimodal KD fails to outperform unimodal KD. In the case of AV-MNIST, while the audio-visual teacher itself has a much higher accuracy than the unimodal teacher (\textit{i.e.}, +7.04\%), the resulting student is worse (\textit{i.e.}, -0.37\%) instead. Similarly, the great increase in teacher performance (\textit{i.e.}, +4.64\%) does not translate to student improvement (\textit{i.e.}, -0.22\%) on NYU Depth V2.
These results cast doubt on the efficacy of multimodal KD. Despite being more accurate, a multimodal network doesn't always teach a better student. Thus, contradictory to the previous intuition, teacher performance seems not reflective of student performance. Inspired by this observation, our work targets on exploring the open problem: \emph{What is the fundamental factor deciding the efficacy of multimodal KD?}
\section{The Modality Focusing Hypothesis}\label{sec.hypothesis}
\subsection{Modality Venn Diagram}\label{sec.venn}
To study multimodal KD, it is critical to first establish an understanding of multimodal data. But before touching multimodal data, let us first fall back and consider unimodal data. Following a causal perspective \cite{scholkopf2012causal,lopez2015unifying} (\textit{i.e.}, features cause labels), we assume that the label $\mathbf{y}$ is determined by a subset of features in $\mathbf{x}_1$ (or $\mathbf{x}_2$); this subset of features are referred to as \emph{decisive features} for modality 1 (or modality 2) throughout the paper. For instance, colors of an image help identify some classes (\textit{e.g.}, distinguish between a zebra and a horse) and can be considered as decisive features.
When considering multimodal data, input features of the two modalities will have logical relations such as intersection and union. To capture this relationship, we propose the modality Venn diagram in Fig. \ref{fig.mod}. The diagram reflects the common perception that multimodal data possess shared information and preserve information specific to each modality as well \cite{wang2016learning,zhang2018multimodal,hazarika2020misa}. Decisive features of the two modalities are thus composed of two parts: (1) \emph{modality-general decisive features} (colored in dark purple) and (2) \emph{modality-specific decisive features} (colored in light purple). Consider a video-audio data pair, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig.mod}, where the camera only captures one person due to its position angle and the audio is mixed sounds of two instruments. The true label ``playing instruments'' can be correctly inferred with three sources of information: visual specific decisive features, audio specific decisive features \ and modality-general decisive features. Fig. \ref{fig.mod} left illustrates how we interpret these three sources of information at the input level.
To quantify the relative importance of these three features, we define $\gamma$, $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ as follows. Let $\gamma$ be the relative importance of general decisive features \ among all decisive features. $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ denote the relative importance of specific decisive features \ in modality $1$ and $2$, respectively. There are multiple ways to calculate the relative importance, and we discrete input features by assigning a binary label for each feature dimension (\textit{i.e.}, this dimension belongs to general decisive features \ or specific decisive features). The ratio of general decisive feature channel number to decisive feature channel number approximates $\gamma$. $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ are calculated in a similar way, and we have $\alpha_1+\alpha_2+\gamma=1$.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{figs/modvenn_v1.png}
\caption{Left: an input video-audio pair can be regarded as composed of modality general features and modality-specific features in the visual and audio modality. For instance, the man playing violin in the right is not captured by the camera and hence its sound (colored in pink) belongs to audio modality-specific information. Those three parts of features work together and contribute to the final label $\mathbf{y}$. Right: the modality Venn diagram. For any given pair of multimodal features (input-level, middle-level, output-level), there exist general decisive features \ (colored in dark purple) and specific decisive features \ (colored in light purple).}
\label{fig.mod}
\end{figure}
Now we are ready to consider crossmodal KD (\textit{i.e.}, $\mathbf{x}_T\leftarrow\mathbf{x}_2$, $\mathbf{x}_S\leftarrow\mathbf{x}_1$). Clearly, teacher performance is controlled by both general decisive features \ and specific decisive features \ in modality $2$. However, we find that: (i) Although specific decisive features \ in modality $2$ are meaningful for the teacher, they can not instruct the student since the student only sees modality $1$; (ii) On the other hand, general decisive features \ are not specific to modality $2$ and could be transferred to the student. This motivates our modality focusing hypothesis.
\textbf{The Modality Focusing Hypothesis.} \emph{In multimodal KD and crossmodal KD (defined in Sec. \ref{sec.problem}), distillation performance is dependent on general decisive features \ in the teacher network: with larger $\gamma$, the student network is expected to perform better.}
The hypothesis states that in multimodal knowledge transfer, the student learns to ``focus on'' general decisive features. Multimodal KD is thus beneficial for the case where $\gamma$ is large (\textit{i.e.}, multimodal data share many label-relevant information). Moreover, this poses a valid explanation for the observation in Sec. \ref{sec.failurecase}. Since teacher performance is influenced by decisive features \ while student performance is only related to general decisive features, it is plausible that teacher performance fails to correlate with student performance in some scenarios. For instance, when $\alpha_2$ is large and $\gamma$ is small, the teacher network attains high accuracy primarily based on modality-specific information, which is not visible to the student. In such case, we may find that a high-accuracy teacher does not lead to a good student.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{figs/gaussb1.pdf}
\caption{An illustration of the modality focusing hypothesis with synthetic Gaussian data. Teacher modality is $\mathbf{x}_2$ and student modality is $\mathbf{x}_1$. We plot the confidence interval of one standard deviation for student accuracy. With increasing $\gamma$, crossmodal KD becomes more effective.}
\label{fig.gauss1}
\end{figure}
To have an intuitive and quick understanding of our hypothesis, here we show an experiment with synthetic Gaussian data. More details can be found in Sec. \ref{sec.expgauss}. As shown in Fig. \ref{fig.gauss1}, we start from the extreme case where two modalities do not overlap, and gradually increase the proportion of general decisive features \ until all decisive features \ are shared by two modalities. We observe that crossmodal KD fails to work when $\mathbf{x}_1$ and $\mathbf{x}_2$ share few decisive features \ (\textit{i.e.}, $\gamma$ is small) as specific decisive features \ in modality $2$ are not perceived by the student. As $\gamma$ gradually increases, crossmodal KD becomes more effective. For the case where all decisive features \ possess in both modalities, the student benefits from teacher's knowledge on general decisive features \ and outperforms its baseline by 2.1\%. Note that the teacher accuracy does not vary much during this process, yet student performance differs greatly. This further lends support to our hypothesis and demonstrates that teacher accuracy does not faithfully reflect the effectiveness of crossmodal KD.
The modality focusing hypothesis offers a new perspective to understand multimodal KD. Below we describe one important implication to showcase its practical value.
\textbf{Implication.} For multimodal KD (crossmodal KD), consider two teachers with identical architectures: Teacher (a) makes predictions primarily based on general decisive features \ while teacher (b) relies more on modality-specific information. In other words, teacher (a) has a larger $\gamma$ than teacher (b). \emph{We expect that the student taught by teacher (a) yields better performance than that by teacher (b).}
By drawing inspiration from the implication, we can train a teacher network that ``focuses on'' general decisive features \ for prediction. Compared with a regularly-trained teacher, the new teacher is tailored for distillation task and can possibly lead to a better student. The modality focusing hypothesis equips us with a new type of approaches to improve multimodal KD.
\subsection{Modality-General Decisive Feature Separation}
In the synthetic Gaussian case, we set up the experiment by manually controlling general decisive features. However, in real multimodal datasets, modality-general decisive features are unknown and need to be identified. Here we propose a permutation-based approach to address this problem.
The major steps of our proposed method are demonstrated in Algorithm \ref{alg.sep}. The input of Algorithm \ref{alg.sep} are $\mathbf{X}_1 \in \mathbb{R}^{N\times D_1}$, $\mathbf{X}_2 \in \mathbb{R}^{N\times D_2}$, and $\mathbf{Y}\in\mathbb{R}^N$, representing $N$ paired features from modality $1$ and $2$, and $N$ target labels, respectively. The output is a saliency vector $\mathbf p \in \mathbb{R}^{D_2}$ for general decisive features \ in modality $2$, where its $d$-th entry $p_d \in \left[0, 1\right]$ reflects the saliency of the $d$-th feature dimension. A larger saliency value indicates a more general decisive feature channel.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Modality-General Decisive Feature Separation}\label{alg.sep}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Require {multimodal data $(\mathbf{X}_1 \in \mathbb{R}^{N\times D_1},\mathbf{X}_2 \in \mathbb{R}^{N\times D_2},\mathbf{Y}\in\mathbb{R}^N)$}
\Ensure saliency vector $\mathbf{p} \in \mathbb{R}^{D_2}$ for features of modality $2$
\State Jointly train two unimodal networks $\mathbf{f}_{\boldsymbol{\theta}_1^*}$ and $\mathbf{f}_{\boldsymbol{\theta}_2^*}$ using the following loss:
\begin{equation}
\min_{\boldsymbol{{\theta}_1}, \boldsymbol{{\theta}_2}} \mathcal L = Dist(\mathbf{f}_{\boldsymbol{\theta}_1}(\mathbf{X}_1), \mathbf{f}_{\boldsymbol{\theta}_2}(\mathbf{X}_2)) + CE(\mathbf{Y}, \mathbf{f}_{\boldsymbol{\theta}_1}(\mathbf{X}_1)) + CE(\mathbf{Y}, \mathbf{f}_{\boldsymbol{\theta}_2}(\mathbf{X}_2))
\label{eq.train}
\end{equation}
\Comment {$Dist(\cdot,\cdot)$ denotes a distance loss (\textit{e.g.}, mean squared error)}
\For{$d = 1$ to $D_2$}\Comment{Calculate the saliency for the $d$-th feature dimension}
\State $p_d = 0$
\For{$k = 1$ to $K$}\Comment{Repeat permutation $K$ times for better stability}
\State {permute the $d$-th column of $\mathbf{X}_2$ yielding $\mathbf{\tilde X}_2$}
\State {$p_d = p_d + \frac{1}{K}\times Dist(\mathbf{f}_{\boldsymbol{\theta}_1^*}(\mathbf{X}_1), \mathbf{f}_{\boldsymbol{\theta}_2^*}(\mathbf{\tilde X}_2))$}
\EndFor
\EndFor
\State Perform normalization: $\mathbf{p} = \frac{\mathbf{p}}{\max_d{p_d}}\in [0,1]^{D_2}$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\textbf{Clarifications.} Inspired by the fact that input-level features contain much label-irrelevant noise, as shown in the right of Fig. \ref{fig.mod}, our Algorithm \ref{alg.sep} is designed following a trace-back thought starting from the output level. Namely, we drive two unimodal networks to the state of ``feature alignment'' at the output level using Eq. (\ref{eq.train}), and then use permutation to identify which input feature dimension has a larger impact to the state. Those more influential to the state (\textit{i.e.}, a large distance in step 6) will be assigned a larger saliency value.
In step 1, we jointly train two unimodal networks $\mathbf{f}_{\boldsymbol{\theta}_1^*}$ and $\mathbf{f}_{\boldsymbol{\theta}_2^*}$ that respectively take unimodal data $\mathbf{X}_1$ and $\mathbf{X}_2$ as input. The first loss term in Eq. (\ref{eq.train}) aims to align feature spaces learned by the two networks, and the remaining loss terms ensure that learned features are essential for a correct prediction. We believe that this training strategy aligns three sources of decisive features \ at the output level. In step 2, we follow the idea of permutation feature importance~\cite{breiman2001random} to trace back general decisive features \ at the input level. For the $d$-th dimension in $\mathbf{X}_2$, we randomly permute $\mathbf{X}_2$ along this dimension and obtain a permuted $\mathbf{\tilde X}_2$ in step 5. Next, we calculate the distance between $\mathbf{f}_{\boldsymbol{\theta}_1^*}(\mathbf{X}_1)$ and $\mathbf{f}_{\boldsymbol{\theta}_2^*}(\mathbf{\tilde X}_2)$ in step 6. A large distance indicates that the $d$-th dimension largely influences the state of ``feature alignment''. Consequently, we are able to quantify the relative importance of each input feature channel and use the saliency vector $\mathbf{p}$ to represent it. We repeat the permutation process for $K$ times and average the distance value for good stability. Finally, $\mathbf{p}$ is normalized to $[0,1]^{D_2}$ in step 9.
\textbf{Remarks.} First, Algorithm \ref{alg.sep} is not limited to feature separation at the input level. $\mathbf{X}_1$ and $\mathbf{X}_2$ can be features extracted from middle layers of the neural network as well. In such case, output $\mathbf{p}$ reflects the saliency of general decisive features \ for each middle-layer feature channel. Secondly, based on $\mathbf p$, we can decide whether each input dimension is ``general decisive'' or ``non general decisive''. For instance, we can set a hard threshold or pick a certain ratio according to sorted $\mathbf p$. This provides us with a way to control $\gamma$ for a given teacher network. In the experiments (Sec. \ref{sec.exp}), we nullify general decisive or non general decisive feature channels identified by Algorithm \ref{alg.sep} to obtain teacher models with different $\gamma$ to justify the hypothesis. Last but not least, Algorithm \ref{alg.sep} could be equally applied to identify modality-general decisive features for modality $1$ as long as we permute $\mathbf{X}_1$.
\section{Experimental Results}\label{sec.exp}
To justify the modality focusing hypothesis, we design two sets of experiments: (1) For synthetic data, we can control its inherent characteristics (\textit{i.e.}, $\alpha_1$, $\alpha_2$ and $\gamma$) and perform KD. We are curious whether teacher and student performance are as described in the modality focusing hypothesis. Meanwhile, we report the accuracy of our Algorithm \ref{alg.sep} since
whether a feature channel is general/specific decisive is known. (2) For real-world data, we cannot know the ground truth $\gamma$. To evaluate the implication in Sec. \ref{sec.venn}, we experiment with a modality-general teacher and a modality-specific teacher (\textit{i.e.}, one teacher with a large $\gamma$ and one teacher with a small $\gamma$). The two teachers can be obtained by applying Algorithm \ref{alg.sep} to estimate $\mathbf{p}$ and then removing corresponding feature channels in the teacher (Sec. \ref{sec.expravdess} and Sec. \ref{sec.expvgg}). Alternatively, we can apply specific training techniques to obtain a modality-general teacher (Sec. \ref{sec.expnyu}). In all, we provide experiments on 6 datasets (synthetic Gaussian, AV-MNIST, RAVDESS, VGGSound, NYU Depth and MM-IMDB) with diverse modalities (\textit{i.e.}, RGB images, depth images, audio and text). Due to space limit, some results (\textit{e.g.}, experiments on MM-IMDB~\cite{imdb} movie genre classification) and ablation studies are presented in the Appendix.
\subsection{Synthetic Gaussian Data}\label{sec.expgauss}
We have presented the experiment with increasing $\gamma$ in Sec. \ref{sec.venn}. Below we show results with increasing $\alpha_2$ (\textit{i.e.}, decreasing $\gamma$). Data generation details are provided in the Appendix. Fig. \ref{fig.gauss2} illustrates the process where modality-specific decisive features in modality $2$ gradually dominate. With increasing $\alpha_2$, the teacher gradually improves since it receives more modality-specific decisive features for prediction. However, the student network fails to benefit from the improved teacher and performs slightly worse instead. Clearly, teacher performance is not reflective of student performance in this case. It is the amount of modality-general decisive information that really matters. This set of experiment offers a valid explanation about our empirical finding in Sec. \ref{sec.failurecase} that a more accurate model does not necessarily serve as a good teacher.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{figs/gaussa2.pdf}
\caption{An illustration of the modality focusing hypothesis with synthetic Gaussian data. Teacher modality is $\mathbf{x}_2$ and student modality is $\mathbf{x}_1$. With increasing $\alpha_2$ (\textit{i.e.}, decreasing $\gamma$), the teacher improves its prediction accuracy but the student network fails to benefit from KD.}
\label{fig.gauss2}
\end{figure}
Next, based on the saliency vector $\mathbf{p}$ given by Algorithm \ref{alg.sep}, we identify feature channels that correspond to non modality-general decisive features and remove them in $\mathbf{X}_2$ to form a ``clean'' version of data that only contains general decisive features, $\mathbf{\hat X}_2$. We train a new teacher model with $\mathbf{\hat X}_2$ and apply KD subsequently. The new teacher is more modality-general compared with the regularly-trained teacher. We experiment with different values of $\gamma$ and summarize the results in Table \ref{tab.gauss}. Results are averaged over 10 runs.
\begin{table}[!h]
\begin{center}
\caption{Evaluation on synthetic Gaussian data. `FS Acc.' denotes the accuracy of our feature separation method for $\mathbf{X}_2$. By removing non modality-general feature channels identified by Algorithm \ref{alg.sep}, we obtain a modality-general teacher with downgraded performance and its student with increasing accuracy; this validates our modality focusing hypothesis.}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{$\gamma$} & \multirow{2}{*}{\makecell[c]{FS\\Acc.}} &
\multicolumn{2}{c}{Teacher Accuracy (\%)} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Student Accuracy (\%)}\\
\cmidrule(lr){3-4}
\cmidrule(lr){5-7}
& & Regular & Modality-general & No-KD & Regular & Modality-general \\
\midrule
0.33 & 0.98 & 89.41 & 68.42 ({\color{red}{$\downarrow$}}) & 61.98 & 62.16 & 64.50 ({\color{green}{$\uparrow$}})\\
0.50 & 0.99 & 89.62 & 73.41 ({\color{red}{$\downarrow$}}) & 67.64 & 67.86 & 70.25 ({\color{green}{$\uparrow$}})\\
0.66 & 0.99 & 89.82 & 77.98 ({\color{red}{$\downarrow$}}) & 73.48 & 73.60 & 75.43 ({\color{green}{$\uparrow$}}) \\
0.75 & 0.99 & 89.70 & 79.41 ({\color{red}{$\downarrow$}}) & 76.46 & 76.53 & 77.70 ({\color{green}{$\uparrow$}})\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{tab.gauss}
\end{center}
\end{table}
As shown in Table \ref{tab.gauss}, our proposed feature separation method can correctly identify modality-general features in input data (accuracy close to 1.0). Moreover, by removing non modality-general decisive feature channels, we can train a teacher that is specialized for distillation and obtain an improved student network. Since the modified teacher only relies on modality-general decisive features for prediction, we observe a accuracy loss in the teacher. However, the student network does not get affected and demonstrates increased accuracy for all choices of $\gamma$ instead. These results validate our proposed modality focusing hypothesis and shed light on how to utilize the hypothesis to facilitate the student network's learning process.
\subsection{Emotion Recognition on RAVDESS}\label{sec.expravdess}
RAVDESS~\cite{ravdess} is an audio-visual dataset containing 1,440 emotional utterances with 8 different emotion classes. We consider images as modality $1$ and audio as modality $2$. Teacher and student network are 3-layer CNNs. More details are provided in the Appendix. Since permutation is time-consuming at the model input level, we take middle-layer features (\textit{i.e.}, 128-dimensional features after the first linear layer) as input to Algorithm \ref{alg.sep}.
After we obtain the saliency vector $\mathbf{p}\in\mathbb{R}^{128}$, we evaluate KD under four settings: (1) regular KD; (2) random: we randomly nullify 50\% of audio feature dimension, \textit{i.e.}, set the corresponding feature dimension to be its batch mean, which is identical for all samples in this batch. The student is trained to match predictions given by the ``randomly masked'' teacher; (3) modality-specific: we sort $\mathbf{p}$ in descending order, nullify the first 50\% feature dimension in the teacher and train a student subsequently; (4) modality-general: we sort $\mathbf{p}$ in ascending order, nullify the first 50\% feature dimension and perform KD. In this way, we remove modality-general decisive features in teacher's decision process in the third setting and remove non modality-general decisive features in the last setting. While we can not know the true value of $\gamma$ for each teacher, we know that $\gamma$ increases in the order of modality-specific, random and modality-general teacher. This allows us to justify the proposed modality focusing hypothesis. Results are averaged over 5 runs.
\begin{table}[!h]
\begin{center}
\caption{Test Accuracy (\%) on RAVDESS Emotion Recognition. Teacher modality is audio and student modality is images. With identical model architecture, a modality-general teacher improves regular KD while a modality-specific teacher leads to a significantly worse student.}
\begin{tabular}{c|cccc}
\toprule
\multirow{2}{*}{\makecell[c]{Teacher}} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Student} \\
& Regular & Modality-specific & Random & Modality-general \\
\midrule
77.60 & 77.22 & 42.66 ({\color{red}{$\downarrow$}}) & 64.75 & 78.28 ({\color{green}{$\uparrow$}})\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{tab.ravdess}
\end{center}
\end{table}
As demonstrated in Table \ref{tab.ravdess}, a modality-specific teacher leads to a significantly downgraded student (\textit{i.e.}, accuracy drops from 77.22\% to 42.66\%). On the other hand, we observe an improved student (\textit{i.e.}, test accuracy increases to 78.28\%) after nullifying non general decisive features in the teacher (modality-general setting). This indicates the critical role of modality-general decisive features in distillation. A modality-general audio teacher can better transfer knowledge to the visual student as it discards audio-specific information not understandable by the student.
\subsection{Event Classification on VGGSound}\label{sec.expvgg}
VGGSound~\cite{chen2020vggsound} is a large-scale audio-visual event classification dataset including over 200,000 video and 310 classes. We set modality 1 (\textit{i.e.}, student modality) as video and modality 2 (\textit{i.e.}, teacher modality) as audio. More experimental details are provided in the Appendix. We take features before the last fully connected layer as input to Algorithm \ref{alg.sep} and obtain a 512-dimensional saliency vector $\mathbf{p}$. Similar to the previous experiment, we obtain a random, modality-specific and modality-general teacher by nullifying 75\% audio feature dimension according to $\mathbf{p}$. We experiment with two backbone architectures, ResNet-18 and ResNet-50~\cite{he2016deep}, and report results in Table \ref{tab:vggsound}.
As shown in the Table \ref{tab:vggsound}, modality-general decisive features play a critical role in multimodal KD. The student learning from a modality-specific teacher suffers from a major performance degradation. On the contrary, nullifying non general decisive features \ in the teacher improves the student performance from 30.62\% to 31.88\% (for ResNet-18) and from 38.78\% to 39.81\% (for ResNet-50).
Moreover, we provide an ablation study on the ratio of feature dimension that gets nullified in Fig. \ref{fig.abl_vgg}. We can see that there exists a sweet spot for modality-general KD. As the ratio increases, the student performance improves in the beginning. The improvement indicates that non general decisive features \ in the teacher are gradually discarded, which in turn results in a better student. Later, after all non general decisive information are removed, the nullifying process starts to hinder student performance as general decisive features \ get nullified as well. These results align well with our understanding of the modality Venn diagram and demonstrate the efficacy of our proposed Algorithm \ref{alg.sep}.
\begin{minipage}[!t]{\textwidth}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.6\textwidth}
\centering
\captionof{table}{Student mean Average Precision (\%) on VGGSound Event Classification. Teacher modality is audio and student modality is video. The student learning from a modality-general teacher demonstrates best performance. }
\begin{tabular}{lll}
\toprule
Model Architecture & ResNet-18 & ResNet-50 \\
\midrule
Teacher & 29.86 & 37.51\\
\cmidrule(lr){1-1}
Regular & 30.62 & 38.78 \\
Modality-specific & 24.98 ({\color{red}{$\downarrow$}}) & 28.65 ({\color{red}{$\downarrow$}})\\
Random & 28.99 & 35.95\\
Modality-general & 31.88 ({\color{green}{$\uparrow$}}) & 39.81({\color{green}{$\uparrow$}}) \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:vggsound}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.4\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{figs/abl_v2.pdf}
\captionof{figure}{Ablation study on nullified feature dimension ratio.}
\label{fig.abl_vgg}
\end{minipage}
\end{minipage}
\subsection{Semantic Segmentation on NYU Depth V2}\label{sec.expnyu}
Finally, we revisit the example of NYU Depth V2 \cite{nyu} in Sec. \ref{sec.failurecase}. Here the two modalities (\textit{i.e.}, RGB and depth images) have large similarity and can be taken as input for a single model. Therefore, we design a modality-agnostic teacher model for distillation. This can be seen as an alternative way to demonstrate the modality focusing hypothesis apart from our proposed feature separation method.
We adopt a teacher network that takes depth images as input to transfer knowledge to an RGB student. As shown in Table \ref{tab.nyu}, regular KD (\textit{i.e.}, using the modality-specific teacher) does not bring many advantages: the student achieves a similar mIoU compared with a RGB model without KD. Based on this result, one might easily blame the failure of KD on teacher accuracy and assume that KD is not effective because the depth teacher itself yields poor performance (\textit{i.e.}, has an mIoU of 37.33\%).
\vspace{-5mm}
\begin{table}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\caption{Mean Intersection over Union (mIoU) on NYU Depth RGB-D Semantic Segmentation. Teacher modality is depth images and student modality is RGB images. Compared with regular crossmodal KD (\textit{i.e.}, using a modality-specfic depth teacher), a modality-general teacher is more suitable for distillation and leads to a better student.}
\vspace{1mm}
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\toprule
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{Teacher} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Student} \\
& Modality & mIoU (\%) & Modality & mIoU (\%) \\
\midrule
No-KD & - & - & \texttt{RGB} & 46.36\\
Modality-specific-KD & \texttt{D} & 37.33 & \texttt{RGB} & 46.89 \\
Modality-general-KD & \texttt{RGB/D} & 37.47 & \texttt{RGB} & 47.93\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{tab.nyu}
\end{center}
\end{table}
The modality focusing hypothesis motivates us to think otherwise. We train a modality-general teacher that receives both RGB and depth images as input. Similar to ~\cite{girdhar2022omnivore}, we use one single model to predict labels for two modalities with exactly same parameters. Note that the model architecture is identical to the previous modality-specific teacher to ensure a fair comparison. In this way, the teacher is forced to extract modality-general decisive features for prediction rather than rely on depth-specific features as it also takes RGB images as input. While we do not observe difference in teacher performance, the new teacher is categorized for distillation and leads to a better depth student (\textit{i.e.}, student mIoU increases from 46.36\% to 47.93\%). These results show how our modality focusing hypothesis can indeed help diagnose failure of crossmodal KD and improve it.
\section{Conclusion}\label{sec.con}
In this work, we present a thorough investigation of multimodal KD. We find that modality-general decisive features are the key in multimodal KD performance. The proposed modality Venn diagram and modality focusing hypothesis characterize multimodal relationships and reveal when multimodal KD is effective. We further propose an approach to separate modality-general decisive features for real-world multimodal data and conduct extensive experiments to justify our proposed hypothesis. Finally, we hope the modality focusing hypothesis shed light on applications of multimodal KD and will raise interest for general understanding of multimodal learning in the community. As future work, we would like to develop corresponding theory to gain a theoretical understanding of the problem.
\section{Experimental Setup}
\section{Synthetic Gaussian Data}
Assume two vectors $\mathbf{x}_1 \in \mathbb{R}^{D_1}$ and $\mathbf{x}_2 \in \mathbb{R}^{D_2}$ compose one multimodal data pair $(\mathbf{x}_1, \mathbf{x}_2)$. We select a subset of input features as decisive features, denoted by $\mathbf{x}^* \in \mathbb{R}^{D}$. We assume that $\mathbf{x}^*$ exist in both $\mathbf{x}_1$ and $\mathbf{x}_2$, and denote the corresponding decisive feature index set of $\mathbf{x}_1$ ($\mathbf{x}_2$) as $J_1$ ($J_2$). The separating hyperplanes are denoted by $\boldsymbol{\beta} \in \mathbb{R}^D$. Formally, we generate one feature-label pair $(\mathbf{x}_1, \mathbf{x}_2, y)$ by:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{x}^* \sim \mathcal N(0, I_{D})
,\quad &y \gets \mathds{1} (\langle \boldsymbol{\beta}, \mathbf{x}^* \rangle > 0)\\
\mathbf{x}_1 \sim \mathcal N(0, I_{D_1}),\quad &\mathbf{x}_{1_{J_1}} \gets \mathbf{x}_{J_1}^* \\
\mathbf{x}_2 \sim \mathcal N(0, I_{D_2}),\quad &\mathbf{x}_{2_{J_2}} \gets \mathbf{x}_{J_2}^*
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
As depicted in the modality Venn diagram, modality-general decisive features are decisive features shared by two modalities and thus indexed by $J_1 \cap J_2$. $J_1 \cup J_2$ represents the index set of decisive features from both modalities. Therefore, $\alpha_1 = 1-\frac{|J_2|}{|J_1 \cup J_2|}$, $\alpha_2 = 1-\frac{|J_1|}{|J_1 \cup J_2|}$ and $\gamma = \frac{|J_1 \cap J_2|}{|J_1 \cup J_2|}$. By changing $J_1$ and $J_2$, we can generate multimodal data with different inherent characteristics (\textit{i.e.}, different $\alpha_1$, $\alpha_2$ and $\gamma$). We consider 2 settings: (1) varying $\gamma$ (Sec. {\color{red}4.1} in the main paper). Let $D_1=50$, $D_2=25$ and $D=20$, we gradually increase $|J_1\cap J_2|$ from 0 to 10, with a step size of 2 and perform KD on every step. (2) varying $\alpha_2$ (Sec. {\color{red}5.1} in the main paper). Let $D_1=D_2=50$ and $D=|J_1\cup J_2|$ increase from 10 to 50, with a step size of 10.
Following ~\cite{lopez2015unifying}, teacher and student are implemented as logistic regression models, and we use 200 samples for training and 1,000 samples for testing. $\boldsymbol{\beta}$ is sampled from the standard normal distribution. $\rho$ in Eq. ({\color{red}1}) in the main paper is set as 0.5. Results are averaged over 10 runs.
\section{Digit Classification on AV-MNIST}
AV-MNIST \cite{avmnist} is an audio-visual dataset created by pairing audio and image features. The two modalities are MNIST images with 75\% energy removed by principal component analysis and audio spectrograms with random natural noise injected. There are 50,000 pairs for training, 5,000 pairs for validation and 10,000 pairs for testing. Following ~\cite{avmnist,gao2022training}, we adopt a 6-layer CNN as the audio teacher network. The audio student network is implemented as a 3-layer CNN, and the multimodal teacher is a late fusion network. The multimodal teacher uses LeNet5~\cite{lecun1989backpropagation} as the image backbone and a 5-layer CNN as the audio backbone; Audio and image features are then concatenated and passed to fully-connected layers for the final prediction. We experiment with both $\rho=0$ and $\rho=0.5$, and repeat the experiments for 10 times. We have provided the results of $\rho=0.5$ in Table {\color{red}1} in the main paper, and a more detailed version can be found in Table \ref{tab.avmnist2}.
\begin{table}[!h]
\begin{center}
\caption{Evaluation of unimodal KD (UM-KD) and multimodal KD (MM-KD) on AV-MNIST. `Mod.' is short for modality and `Params' denotes model parameters. \texttt{A} and \texttt{I} represent audio and grayscale images, respectively.}
\vspace{2mm}
\label{table:headings2}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
\toprule
& \multicolumn{3}{c}{Teacher} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Student} \\
\cmidrule(lr){2-4}
\cmidrule(lr){5-7}
& Mod. & Params & Acc. (\%) & Mod. & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Acc. (\%)}\\
& & & & & $\rho=0$ & $\rho=0.5$ \\
\midrule
No-KD & - & - & - & \texttt{A} & 68.36 $\pm$ 0.79 & 68.36 $\pm$ 0.79 \\
UM-KD & \texttt{A} & 0.25M & 84.57 & \texttt{A} & 69.86 $\pm$ 0.70 & 70.10 $\pm$ 0.50 \\
MM-KD & \texttt{I} + \texttt{A} & 0.24M & 91.61 & \texttt{A} & 69.46 $\pm$ 1.12 & 69.73 $\pm$ 0.73\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{tab.avmnist2}
\end{center}
\end{table}
From the table, we can see that multimodal KD does not have advantages over unimodal KD for both values of $\rho$. Note that we design the unimodal teacher and multimodal teacher model to be roughly of the same size to rule out the factor of model capacity. The results indicate that multimodal KD is not effective in this case. We hypothesize that $\gamma$ is small for this dataset since a multimodal data pair is assembled by randomly pairing an image with an audio that belongs to the same class. Thus the two modalities are not naturally correlated and there may be little modality-general information. Our proposed modality focusing hypothesis provides a plausible explanation for this failure case of multimodal KD.
\section{Emotion Recognition on RAVDESS}
The Ryerson Audio-Visual Database of Emotional Speech and Song (RAVDESS)~\cite{ravdess} is released under a Creative Commons Attribution License. It contains videos and audios of 24 professional actors vocalizing two lexically-matched statements. For modality 1 (\textit{i.e.}, student modality), we uniformly sample single-frame images every 0.5 second from each video. For modality 2 (\textit{i.e.}, teacher modality), we adopt Kaiser best sampling and take mel-frequency cepstral coefficients (MFCCs) features from corresponding audio. We randomly split image-audio pairs, and have 7,943 data for training, 2,364 data for validation and 1,001 data for testing. Similar to ~\cite{xue2021multimodal}, the teacher and student architecture are 3-layer CNNs followed by 3 fully-connected layers. We set $\rho$ in Eq. ({\color{red}1}) in the main paper as 0 (\textit{i.e.}, only use $\mathcal{L}_{kd}$ for distillation) to fully observe the teacher's influence on student performance. We report results with three nullified feature dimension ratio in Table \ref{tab.ravdess2}, which is a detailed version of Table {\color{red}3} in the main paper. Results are averaged over 5 runs.
\begin{table}[!h]
\begin{center}
\caption{Test Accuracy (\%) on RAVDESS Emotion Recognition. Teacher modality is audio and student modality is images. Modality-general KD can improve student performance for all nullified feature dimension ratio. }
\vspace{2mm}
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\toprule
\makecell[c]{Nullified Ratio (\%)} & Regular & Modality-specific & Random & Modality-general \\
\midrule
25 & 77.22 & 75.26 ({\color{red}{$\downarrow$}}) & 77.24& 78.12 ({\color{green}{$\uparrow$}})\\
50 & 77.22 & 42.66 ({\color{red}{$\downarrow$}}) & 64.75 & 78.28 ({\color{green}{$\uparrow$}})\\
75 & 77.22 & 12.00 ({\color{red}{$\downarrow$}})& 63.40 & 77.82 ({\color{green}{$\uparrow$}})\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{tab.ravdess2}
\end{center}
\end{table}
As shown in the table, with more nullified feature channels, the random and modality-specific version both suffer from a heavy performance degradation. On the contrary, the modality-general setting (\textit{i.e.}, nullifying ``non modality-general decisive'' feature channels) still attains satisfactory performance even when the nullifying ratio goes to 75\% and outperforms the regular KD baseline. This demonstrates the efficacy of our proposed feature separation method as well as the practical value of the modality focusing hypothesis.
\section{Event Classification on VGGSound}
VGGSound is a large-scale audio-visual correspondent dataset, under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. We randomly choose 100 class from its 310 classes and obtain 56,614 audio-video pairs for training and 4,501 audio-video pairs for testing. Videos clips and audio spectrograms are modality $1$ and modality $2$ input features, respectively. The audio teacher is implemented as a ResNet-18/ResNet-50 backbone followed by linear layers and the video student network is the same architecture with 2D convolution replaced by 3D convolution. For Table {\color{red}4} in the main paper, we set $\rho$ in Eq. ({\color{red}1}) to be 0 and experiment with both ResNet-18 and ResNet-50. In Table \ref{tab.vggsound2}, we report results of both $\rho=0$ and $\rho=0.5$ with the ResNet-18 backbone. The conclusion is consistent: a modality-general KD improves student performance while a modality-specific teacher results in performance degradation. These results help validate our proposed modality focusing hypothesis.
\begin{minipage}[!t]{\textwidth}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.5\textwidth}
\captionof{table}{Student mean Average Precision (\%) on VGGSound Event Classification. Teacher modality is audio and student modality is video. }
\begin{tabular}{lll}
\toprule
\makecell[l]{$\rho$} & 0 & 0.5 \\
\midrule
Teacher & 29.86 & 29.86\\
\cmidrule(lr){1-1}
Regular & 30.62 & 30.70 \\
Modality-specific & 24.98 ({\color{red}{$\downarrow$}}) & 28.14 ({\color{red}{$\downarrow$}})\\
Random & 28.99 & 29.56\\
Modality-general & 31.88 ({\color{green}{$\uparrow$}}) & 31.98 ({\color{green}{$\uparrow$}})\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{tab.vggsound2}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{./figs/abl_permu_vgg.pdf}
\captionof{figure}{Ablation study on permutation number.}
\label{fig.abl_permu_vgg}
\end{minipage}
\end{minipage}
\textbf{Number of permutation times.} In Algorithm {\color{red}1} in the main paper, we repeat permutation $K$ times for a better estimation of each feature dimension's saliency value. Fig. \ref{fig.abl_permu_vgg} provides an ablation study on the number of permutation times (\textit{i.e.}, $K$). From the figure, as $K$ increases, the modality-general KD performs better. This indicates that a larger $K$ leads to a more accurate estimation of $\mathbf{p}$. Consequently, we obtain a better student by removing non modality-general feature channels based on $\mathbf{p}$.
\section{Semantic Segmentation on NYU Depth V2}
NYU Depth V2~\cite{nyu} contains 1,449 aligned RGB and depth images with 40-class labels, where 795 images are used for training and 654 images are for testing. $\rho$ is set as 0.5. We implement two model architectures for the multimodal teacher: (1) Channel Exchanging Networks (CEN)~\cite{wang2020deep} and (2) Separation-and-Aggregation Gate (SA-Gate) \cite{chen2020bi}. The unimodal teacher and student are adopted as the RGB branch of the corresponding multimodal network. The results are shown in Table \ref{tab.nyu2}, which corresponds to the right part of Table {\color{red}1} in the main paper.
\begin{table}[!h]
\begin{center}
\caption{Evaluation of unimodal KD (UM-KD) and multimodal KD (MM-KD) on NYU Depth V2. `Mod.' is short for modality. \texttt{RGB} and \texttt{D} represent RGB images and depth images, respectively.}
\vspace{2mm}
\begin{tabular}{cclclclcl}
\toprule
& \multicolumn{4}{c}{CEN} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{SA-Gate} \\
\cmidrule(lr){2-5}
\cmidrule(lr){6-9}
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{Teacher} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Student} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Teacher} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Student} \\
& Mod. & mIoU & Mod. & mIoU & Mod. & mIoU & Mod. & mIoU \\
\midrule
No-KD & - & - & \texttt{RGB} &45.69 & - & - & \texttt{RGB} & 46.36 \\
UM-KD & \texttt{RGB} & 45.69 & \texttt{RGB} & 46.23 & \texttt{RGB} & 46.36 & \texttt{RGB} &48.00 \\
MM-KD & \texttt{RGB} + \texttt{D} & 51.14 & \texttt{RGB} & 46.70 & \texttt{RGB} + \texttt{D} & 51.00 & \texttt{RGB} & 47.78 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{tab.nyu2}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Table \ref{tab.nyu2} demonstrates that multimodal KD is not effective in both cases. The great advantages in teacher performance does not enhance student performance. Adopting CEN as the multimodal teacher seems better than SA-Gate, but the improvement compared with unimodal KD is still marginal (\textit{i.e.}, from 46.23\% to 46.70\%). According to the modality focusing hypothesis, different teacher networks utilize different amount of modality-general decisive information for prediction, which results in different distillation performance. We hypothesize that CEN has a larger $\gamma$ than SA-Gate due to their model design: CEN shares all parameters for the RGB and depth input except for Batch Normalization layer while SA-Gate has separate encoders for the two modalities. This indicates that CEN is more ``modality-general'' than SA-Gate and may explain their differences. There may be other factors lying behind, and one future direction is to develop methods to compare existing model architectures to decide which one is best for distillation.
For results reported in Sec. {\color{red}5.2} in the main paper, we adopt the depth teacher and RGB student as the depth and RGB branch of SA-Gate, respectively. $\rho$ is set as 0.5.
\section{Movie Genre Classification on MM-IMDB}
MM-IMDB~\cite{imdb} is the largest publicly available multimodal dataset for genre prediction on movies. It contains 25,959 movie titles and posters that belong to 27 movie genres. We pick two movie genres (\textit{i.e.}, drama and comedy) for multi-label classification. There is 15,552 data for training, 2,608 for validation and 7,799 for testing. We adopt the same pre-processing method as ~\cite{imdb} to extract image and text features. Modality 1 is text and modality 2 is image. We aim to improve an unimodal text network with multimodal KD and experiment with two multimodal teacher networks: (1) Following ~\cite{xue2021multimodal}, we train a multimodal network that receives pseudo labels from an unimodal image network; (2) We regularly train a multimodal network with labels. The first teacher only has access to pseudo labels from the image modality and is thus more ``modality-specific'' (\textit{i.e.}, has a smaller $\gamma$) compared with the second teacher. We term the two teacher networks as ``specific'' and ``general'', respectively. The unimodal and multimodal architecture are identical to ~\cite{liang2021multibench}. We randomly
split training data as 1:1, and use the first half to train the unimodal teacher and the general multimodal teacher. The other part of data is used for training the student network, and we set $\rho=0$.
\begin{table}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\caption{F1 score (\%) on MM-IMDB movie genre classification. \texttt{T} and \texttt{I} represent text and images, respectively. While MM-KD (general) has a lower teacher score than MM-KD (specific), it leads to a student with better performance. }
\vspace{1mm}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
\toprule
& \multicolumn{3}{c}{Teacher} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Student} \\
& Modality & micro F1 & macro F1 & Modality & micro F1 & macro F1 \\
\midrule
UM-KD & \texttt{T} & 61.76 & 61.13 & \texttt{T} & 61.04 & 56.44 \\
MM-KD (specific) & \texttt{T}+\texttt{I} & 62.01 & 61.08 & \texttt{T} & 61.77 & 57.26 \\
MM-KD (general) & \texttt{T}+\texttt{I} & 61.01 & 60.37 & \texttt{T} & 65.09 & 63.31\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\label{tab.imdb}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Table \ref{tab.imdb} shows the teacher and student performance for both unimodal KD and multimodal KD. We select three teacher models that have similar performance on test data, and use them for distillation to detach the influence of teacher performance. Clearly, the three teachers transfer different knowledge to the student. The unimodal teacher comes from the image modality and the specific multimodal teacher is also biased towards the image modality due to its training strategy. Finally, the general multimodal teacher utilizes more modality-general information compared with the previous two teachers (\textit{i.e.}, has a larger $\gamma$). As can be seen from the table, MM-KD (general) results in the best unimodal text student. This lends support to our proposed modality-focusing hypothesis.
\section{Submission of papers to NeurIPS 2022}
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec1}
The nature of the Virasoro algebra was described by
Kupershmidt \cite{KB}. Its applications in mathematics and physics, such that in conformal field theory and string theory were also presented \cite{BPZ,RY, KB}. Many generalizations and deformations (one or two parameters) of the Virasoro algebra were investigated in the literature\cite{AS,CJ,Hounkonnou:2015laa}.
The generalization of Kupershmidt's work was provided in \cite{KB}.
The relation between the Korteweg-de Vries (KdV) equation and the Virasoro algebra was described by Gervais \cite{G} and Kupershmidt \cite{KB}. Moreover,
Huang and Zhdanov presented the realizations of Witt and Virasoro algebras. Their connection with integrable equations was determined\cite{HZ}.
The construction of $\alpha^k$ derivation and a representation theory were investigated \cite{AMS}. Also, the cohomology complex of Hom-Lie superalgebras was furnished and the central extensions was computed. As application, the derivations and the second cohomology group of a twisted $osp(1,2)$ superalgebra were calculated. Moreover, Curtright and Zachos introduced the $q-$ deformed Witt algebra \cite{CZ} and from this results Ding et {\it al } determined a nontrivial $q-$ deformed Witt $n-$ algebras. It is a generalization of the Lie algebra also called sh-n-Lie algebra \cite{D}.
Wang et {\it al} \cite{WYLWZ}
investigated the two different $q-$ deformed Witt algebra and constructed their $n-$ algebras. In
one case, the super version is also presented. Moreover the central
extensions is provided and the super $q-$ deformed Virasoro $n-$ algebra for the $n$ even case is furnished.
The two parameters deformation of the Virasoro algebra with conformal dimension was studied in \cite{CJ}. Also, the central charge term for the Virasoro algebra and the associated deformed nonlinear equation (Korteweg-de Vries equation) were determined.
Moreover, the generalizations of $(p,q)$- deformed Heisenberg algebras, called $\mathcal{R}(p,q)$- deformed quantum algebras were investigated in\cite{HB1}.
Hounkonnou and Melong\cite{HM} constructed the $\mathcal{R}(p,q)$- deformed conformal Virasoro algebra, derived the $\mathcal{R}(p,q)$- deformed Korteweg- de Vries equation for a conformal dimension $\Delta=1$, and presented the energy-momentum tensor from the $\mathcal{R}(p,q)$- deformed quantum algebras for the conformal dimension $\Delta=2$.
Recently, the generalizations of Witt and Virasoro algebras were performed, and the associated Korteweg-de Vries equations from the $\mathcal{R}(p,q)-$ deformed quantum algebras were derived. Related relevant properties were investigated and discussed. Furthermore, the $\mathcal{R}(p,q)-$ deformed Witt $n-$ algebra constructed, and the Virasoro constraints for a toy model, which play an important role in the study of matrix models was presented \cite{HMM}.
The aim of this paper is to construct the super Witt $n-$ algebra, Virasoro $2n-$ algebra, and super Virasoro $n-$ algebra ($n$ even ) from the quantum deformed algebra \cite{HB1}. As application, we construct another super $\mathcal{R}(p,q)-$ deformed Witt $n-$ algebra and investigate a toy model for the super $\mathcal{R}(p,q)-$ Virasoro constraints. Furthermore, we deduce particular cases associated to quantum algebra presented in the literature.
This paper is organized as follows: Section $2$ is reserved to some notations, definitions and results used in the sequel. In section $3,$ we investigate the super Witt algebra and super Witt $n-$ algebra induced by the $\mathcal{R}(p,q)-$ deformed quantum algebra. Moreover, we construct the $\mathcal{R}(p,q)-$ deformed Virasoro $2n-$ algebra and deduce particular cases. In section $4,$ we furnished the super ${\mathcal R}(p,q)-$ deformed Jacobi identity. Besides, we construct the super $\mathcal{R}(p,q)-$ deformed Virasoro algebra and perform the super $\mathcal{R}(p,q)-$ deformed Virasoro $n-$ algebra. Particular cases are deduced. Section $5$ is dedicated to the application. We contruct another super $\mathcal{R}(p,q)-$ deformed Witt $n-$ algebra and study a toy model. We end with the concluding remarks in section $6.$
\section{Basics definitions and notations}\label{sec2}
Let us recall some definitions, notations, and known results used in this work.
For that, let $ p$ and $q,$ two positive real numbers such that $ 0<q<p\leq 1,$ and a
meromorphic function $\mathcal{R}$ defined on $\mathbb{C}\times\mathbb{C}$ by \cite{HB}: \begin{eqnarray}\label{r10}
\mathcal{R}(s,t)= \sum_{u,v=-l}^{\infty}r_{uv}s^u\,t^v,
\end{eqnarray}
where $r_{uv}$ are complex numbers, $l\in\mathbb{N}\cup\left\lbrace 0\right\rbrace,$ $\mathcal{R}(p^n,q^n)>0, \forall n\in\mathbb{N},$ and $\mathcal{R}(1,1)=0$ by definition. The bidisk $\mathbb{D}_{R}$ is defined by: \begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{D}_{R}
&=&\left\lbrace a=(a_1,a_2)\in\mathbb{C}^2: |a_j|<R_{j} \right\rbrace,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $R$ is the convergence radius of the series (\ref{r10}) defined by Hadamard formula \cite{TN}:
$$ \lim\sup_{s+t \longrightarrow \infty} \sqrt[s+t]{|r_{st}|R^s_1\,R^t_2}=1.
$$
We also consider $\mathcal{O}(\mathbb{D}_{R})$ the set of holomorphic functions defined on $\mathbb{D}_{R}.$
Define the $\mathcal{R}(p,q)-$ deformed numbers \cite{HB}:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{rpqnumber}
[n]_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}:=\mathcal{R}(p^n,q^n),\quad n\in\mathbb{N}\cup\{0\},
\end{eqnarray}
the
$\mathcal{R}(p,q)-$ deformed factorials
\begin{eqnarray*}\label{s0}
[n]!_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}:=\left \{
\begin{array}{l}
1\quad\mbox{for}\quad n=0\\
\\
\mathcal{R}(p,q)\cdots\mathcal{R}(p^n,q^n)\quad\mbox{for}\quad n\geq 1,
\end{array}
\right .
\end{eqnarray*}
and the $\mathcal{R}(p,q)-$ binomial coefficients
\begin{eqnarray*}\label{bc}
\bigg[\begin{array}{c} m \\ n\end{array} \bigg]_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)} := \frac{[m]!_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}{[n]!_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}[m-n]!_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}},\quad m,n\in\mathbb{N}\cup\{0\},\quad m\geq n.
\end{eqnarray*}
Consider the following linear operators defined on $\mathcal{O}(\mathbb{D}_{R}),$ (see \cite{HB1} for more details),
\begin{eqnarray*}
\;Q:\psi\longmapsto Q\psi(z):&=& \psi(qz),\\
\; P:\psi\longmapsto P\psi(z):&=&\psi(pz),\\
\;\partial_{p,q}:\psi\longmapsto \partial_{p,q}\psi(z):&=&\frac{\psi(pz)-\psi(qz)}{z(p-q)},
\end{eqnarray*}
and the $\mathcal{R}(p,q)-$ derivative
\begin{eqnarray*}\label{r5}
\partial_{\mathcal{R}( p,q)}:=\partial_{p,q}\frac{p-q}{P-Q}\mathcal{R}( P,Q)=\frac{p-q}{p^{P}-q^{Q}}\mathcal{R}(p^{P},q^{Q})\partial_{p,q}.
\end{eqnarray*}
The algebra associated with the $\mathcal{R}(p,q)-$ deformation is a quantum algebra, denoted $\mathcal{A}_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)},$ generated by the set of operators $\{1, A, A^{\dagger}, N\}$ satisfying the following commutation relations \cite{HB1}:
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \label{algN1}
\quad A A^\dag= [N+1]_{\mathcal {R}(p,q)},\quad\quad\quad A^\dag A = [N]_{\mathcal {R}(p,q)}.
\cr&&\left[N,\; A\right] = - A, \qquad\qquad\quad \left[N,\;A^\dag\right] = A^\dag
\end{eqnarray*}
with the realization on ${\mathcal O}(\mathbb{D}_R)$ given by:
\begin{eqnarray*}\label{algNa}
A^{\dagger} := z,\qquad A:=\partial_{\mathcal {R}(p,q)}, \qquad N:= z\partial_z,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\partial_z:=\frac{\partial}{\partial z}$ is the derivative on $\mathbb{C}.$
The super multibracket of order $n$ is defined as \cite{HW}:
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{smb}
\Big[A_1,A_2,\cdots,A_n\Big]:=\epsilon^{i_1i_2\cdots i_n}_{12\cdots n}\big(-1\big)^{\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}|A_k|(\sum_{l=k+1,i_l< i_k}^{n}|A_{i_l}|)}\,A_{i_1}\,A_{i_2}\cdots A_{i_n},
\end{eqnarray}
\end{small}
where the symbol $|A|$ is to be understood as the parity of $A$ and $\epsilon^{i_1 \cdots i_n}_{1 \cdots n}$ is the L\'evi-Civit\'a symbol defined by:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{LCs}
\epsilon^{j_1 \cdots j_p}_{i_1 \cdots i_p}:= det\left( \begin{array} {ccc}
\delta^{j_1}_{i_1} &\cdots& \delta^{j_1}_{i_p} \\
\vdots && \vdots \\
\delta^{j_p}_{i_1} & \cdots& \delta^{j_p}_{i_p}
\end {array} \right) .
\end{eqnarray}
Moreover, the $q-$ deformed generalized Jacobi identity is given by \cite{AP,AI}:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\epsilon^{i_{1},\ldots,i_{2n-1}}_{n_{1},\ldots,n_{2n-1}}\big[\big[l_{i_1},\ldots,l_{i_{2n-1}}\big]_{q},l_{i_{n+1}},\ldots, l_{i_{2n-1}}\big]_q=0.
\end{eqnarray*}
\section{Super $\mathcal{R}(p,q)-$ deformed Witt $n-$ algebra}\label{sec3}
In this section, we contruct the super Witt algebra and the super Witt $n-$ algebra from the $\mathcal{R}(p,q)-$ deformed quantum algebra.
Let $\mathcal{B}={\mathcal B}_0\oplus \mathcal{B}_1$ be the super-commutative associative superalgebra such that ${\mathcal B}_0=\mathbb{C}\big[z,z^{-1}\big]$ and $\mathcal{B}_1=\theta\,\mathcal{B}_0,$ where $\theta$ is the Grassman variable with $\theta^2=0$ \cite{WYLWZ}:
We define the algebra endomorphism $\sigma$ on $\mathcal{B}$ as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma(t^n):=\big(\phi(p,q)\big)^n\,t^n\quad\mbox{and}\quad \sigma(\theta):=\phi(p,q)\theta,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\phi(p,q)$ is a function depending on the parameters $p$ and $q$ such that $\phi(p,q)\longrightarrow 1$ as $(p,q)\longrightarrow (1,1).$
We define also the two linear maps by:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left \{
\begin{array}{l}
\partial_t(t^n):=[n]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}\,t^n\mbox{,}\quad \partial_t(\theta\,t^n):=[n]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}\,\theta\,t^n, \\
\\
\partial_{\theta}(t^n):=0\mbox{,}\quad \partial_{\theta}(\theta\,t^n):=\big(\phi(p,q)\big)^n\,t^n.
\end{array}
\right .
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{lemma}
The linear map $\Delta=\partial_{t}+\theta \partial_{\theta}$ on ${\mathcal B}$ is an even $\sigma$-derivation. Then:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{deltaxy}
\,\Delta(x\,y)&=&\Delta(x)\,y+\sigma(x)\Delta(y),\nonumber\\
\,\Delta(t^n)&=& [n]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}\,t^n\quad\mbox{and}\quad \Delta(\theta\,t^n)= \big([n]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)} + \big(\phi(p,q)\big)^n\big)\,\theta\,t^n.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By direct computation.\hfill $\square$
\end{proof}
Taking $\mathcal{R}_{x1}=(q-1)^{-1}(x-1)$ and $\phi(q)=q,$ we obtained the result given in \cite{WYLWZ}.
The super $\mathcal{R}(p,q)-$ deformed Witt algebra is generated by bosonic and fermionic operators $l^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_m=-t^m\,\Delta$ of parity $0$ and $G^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_m=-\theta\,t^m\,\Delta$ of parity $1.$
\begin{proposition}
The operators $l^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_m$ and $G^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_m$ satisfy the following relations:
\begin{eqnarray}
\,\big[l^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_1},l^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_2}\big]_{\hat{x}, \hat{y}}&=&\big([m_1]_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}-[m_2]_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}\big)\,l^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_1+m_2},\label{crochet1}\\
\,\big[l^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_1}, G^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_2}\big]_{x,y}&=&\big([m_1]_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}-[m_2+1]_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}\big)\,G^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_1+m_2}\label{crochet2},\\
\,\big[G^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_1},G^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_2}\big]&=&0,\label{crochet3}
\end{eqnarray}
where\begin{eqnarray}\label{coefcom}
\left \{
\begin{array}{l}
\hat{x}=\chi_{m_1m_2}(p,q)\mbox{,}\quad \hat{y}=(\phi(p,q))^{m_2-m_1}\,\chi_{m_1m_2}(p,q), \\
\\
x=\tau_{m_1m_2}(p,q)\mbox{,}\quad y=(\phi(p,q))^{1+m_2-m_1}\,\tau_{m_1m_2}(p,q), \\
\\
\chi_{m_1m_2}(p,q)={[m_1]_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}-[m_2]_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}\over (\phi(p,q))^{m_2-m_1}\,[m_1]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}-[m_2]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}}\\
\\
\tau_{m_1m_2}(p,q)={[m_1]_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}-[m_2+1]_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}\over (\phi(p,q))^{1+m_2-m_1}\,[m_1]_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}-[m_2]_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}-(\phi(p,q))^{m_2}}.
\end{array}
\right .
\end{eqnarray}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
From the definition of the deformed commutators, we get:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{com1}
\big[l^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_1},l^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_2}\big]_{\hat{x}, \hat{y}}=\hat{x}\label{key}\,l^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_1}l^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_2}- \hat{y}\,l^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_2}l^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_1}.
\end{eqnarray}
Thus,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\hat{x}\,l^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_1}.l^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_2}&=&-t^{m_1}\,\Delta(l^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_2})\nonumber\\
&=& -\hat{x}\,[m_2]_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}\,l^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_1+m_2}-\hat{x}\,(\phi(p,q))^{m_2}\,l^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_1+m_2}\,\Delta.
\end{eqnarray*}
Similarly, we have:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\hat{y}\,l^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_2}l^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_1}&=&- \hat{y}\,[m_1]_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}\,l^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_1+m_2}-\hat{y}\,(\phi(p,q))^{m_1}\,l^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_1+m_2}\,\Delta.
\end{eqnarray*}
Then, the relation (\ref{com1}) takes the following form:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\big[l^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_1},l^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_2}\big]_{\hat{x}, \hat{y}}&=&\big(\hat{y}\,[m_1]_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}-\hat{x}\,[m_2]_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}\big)\,l^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_1+m_2}\nonumber\\ &+& \big(\hat{y}\,(\phi(p,q))^{m_1}-\hat{x}\,(\phi(p,q))^{m_2}\big)\,l^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_1+m_2}\,\Delta.
\end{eqnarray*}
We need to get
\begin{eqnarray*}
\big[l^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_1},l^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_2}\big]_{\hat{x}, \hat{y}}&=&\big([m_1]_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}-[m_2]_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}\big)l^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_1+m_2}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus, we obtain the system:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left \{
\begin{array}{l}
\hat{y}\,[m_1]_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}-\hat{x}\,[m_2]_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}=[m_1]_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}-[m_2]_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}\\
\\ \hat{y}\,(\phi(p,q))^{m_1}-\hat{x}\,(\phi(p,q))^{m_2}=0.
\end{array}
\right .
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
\hat{x}&=&{[m_1]_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}-[m_2]_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}\over (\phi(p,q))^{m_2-m_1}\,[m_1]_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}-[m_2]_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}\nonumber\\
&:=& \chi_{m_1m_2}(p,q).
\end{eqnarray*}
After computation, we get
\begin{eqnarray*}
\hat{y}=(\phi(p,q))^{m_2-m_1}\,\chi_{m_1m_2}(p,q).
\end{eqnarray*}
Moreover,
\begin{small}
$$ xl^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_1}\,G^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_2}
=-x\big([m_2]_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}+(\phi(p,q))^{m_2}\big)G^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_1+m_2}- x(\phi(p,q))^{m_2+1}G^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_1+m_2}\Delta$$
\end{small}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
y\,G^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_2}\,l^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_1}
&=& -y\,[m_1]_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}\,G^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_1+m_2}-y\,(\phi(p,q))^{m_1}\,G^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_1+m_2}\,\Delta.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus, we get
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\big[l^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_1},G^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_2}\big]_{x, y}&=& \Big(y\,[m_1]_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}-x\,\big([m_2]_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}+(\phi(p,q))^{m_2}\big)\Big)G^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_1+m_2}\nonumber\\
&+& \big(y\,(\phi(p,q))^{m_1}-x\,(\phi(p,q))^{m_2+1}\big)\,G^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_1+m_2}\,\Delta
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{small}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left \{
\begin{array}{l}
y\,[m_1]_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}-x\,\big([m_2]_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}+(\phi(p,q))^{m_2}\big)=[m_1]_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}-[m_2+1]_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}\\
\\ y\,(\phi(p,q))^{m_1}-x(\phi(p,q))^{m_2+1}=0.
\end{array}
\right .
\end{eqnarray*}
Solving the above system, we obtain:
\begin{eqnarray*}
x&=&{[m_1]_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}-[m_2+1]_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}\over (\phi(p,q))^{1+m_2-m_1}\,[m_1]_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}-[m_2]_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}-(\phi(p,q))^{m_2}}\nonumber\\
&:=& \tau_{m_1m_2}(p,q)
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
y=(\phi(p,q))^{1+m_2-m_1}\,\tau_{m_1m_2}(p,q).
\end{eqnarray*} \hfill $\square$
\end{proof}
Let us now construct the super $\mathcal{R}(p,q)-$ deformed Witt $n-$ algebra. We define the $\mathcal{R}(p,q)-$ deformed $n-$ bracket $(n\geq 3)$ as follows:
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{rnb1}
\big[l^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_1},\cdots, l^{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}_{m_n}\big]&:=&\bigg(\frac{[-2\sum_{l=1}^{n}m_{l}]_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}{2[-\sum_{l=1}^{n}m_{l}]_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}\bigg)^{\alpha}\epsilon^{i_1i_2\cdots i_n}_{12\cdots n}\nonumber\\&\times&(\phi(p,q))^{\sum_{j=1}^{n}\big(\lfloor \frac{n}{2} \rfloor-j+1\big)m_{i_j}}l^{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}_{m_{i_1}} \ldots
l^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_{i_n}},
\end{eqnarray}
\end{small}
where $\alpha=\frac{1+(-1)^n }{ 2},$ $\lfloor n \rfloor=Max\{m\in\mathbb{Z}\ m\leq n\}$ is the floor function.
Introducing the operator $l^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_m=-t^m\,\Delta$ into the relation (\ref{rnb1}), the $\mathcal{R}(p,q)-$ deformed $n-$ bracket can be reduced in the simpler form as follows:
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\big[l^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_1},l^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_2},\ldots, l^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_n}\big]&=&\frac{\big(q-p\big)^{n-1\choose 2}}{ (\phi(p,q))^{\lfloor {n-1\over 2}\rfloor\sum_{l=1}^{n}m_l}} \Bigg({[-2\sum_{l=1}^{n}m_l]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}\over 2[-\sum_{l=1}^{n}m_l]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}}\Bigg)^{\alpha}\nonumber\\&\times&\prod_{1\leq i < j\leq n}\Big([m_i]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}-[m_j]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}\Big)l_{\sum_{l=1}^{n}m_l}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{small}
Now, we investigate the super $\mathcal{R}(p,q)-$ deformed Witt $n-$ algebra.
From the super multibracket of order $n$ (\ref{smb}), we define another $\mathcal{R}(p,q)-$ deformed $n-$ bracket as follows:
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{rnb2}
\big[l^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_1},l^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_2},\cdots, G^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_n}\big]:&=&\bigg({[-2\sum_{l=1}^{n}m_l-1]_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}\over 2[-\sum_{l=1}^{n}m_l-1]_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}\bigg)^{\alpha}\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}(-1)^{n-1+j}\epsilon^{i_1\ldots i_{n-1}}_{12\cdots n-1}\nonumber\\
&\times&(\phi(p,q))^{\beta}l^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_{i_1}}\ldots l^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_{i_j}}
G^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_{n}}l^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_{i_{j+1}}}\cdots l^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_{i_{n-1}}},\qquad
\end{eqnarray}
\end{small}
where $\beta=\sum_{k=1}^{j}\big(\lfloor {n\over 2} \rfloor-k+1\big)m_{i_k}+\big(\lfloor {n\over 2} \rfloor-1\big)\big(m_n+1\big)+\sum_{k=j+1}^{n-1}\big(\lfloor {n\over 2} \rfloor -k\big)m_{i_k}.$
Using the bosonic and fermionic operators, the ${\mathcal R}(p,q)-$ deformed $n-$ bracket (\ref{rnb2}) can be rewritten as:
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\big[l^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_1},l^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_2},\cdots,G^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_n}\big]&=& {\big(q-p\big)^{{n-1\choose 2}}\over \big(\phi(p,q)\big)^{\lfloor {n-1\over 2}\rfloor \sum_{l=1}^{n}m_l+1}}\bigg({[-2\sum_{l=1}^{n}m_l-1]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}\over 2[\sum_{l=1}^{n}m_l-1]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}}\bigg)^{\alpha}\nonumber\\&\times&
\prod_{1\leq i<j\leq n-1} \big([m_i]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}- [m_j]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}\big)\nonumber\\&\times&\prod_{i=1}^{n-1} \big([m_i]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}- [m_n+1]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}\big)\,G^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{\sum_{l=1}^{n}m_l}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{small}
\begin{proposition}
The super ${\mathcal R}(p,q)-$ deformed Witt $n-$ algebras is generated by the operators $l^{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}_m$ and $G^{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}_m$ satisfying the following commutation relations:
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{rcom1}
\big[l^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_1},l^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_2},\ldots, l^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_n}\big]&=&{\big(q-p\big)^{n-1\choose 2}\over (\phi(p,q))^{\lfloor {n-1\over 2}\rfloor\sum_{l=1}^{n}m_l}} \Big({[-2\sum_{l=1}^{n}m_l]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}\over 2[-\sum_{l=1}^{n}m_l]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}}\Big)^{\alpha}\nonumber\\&\times&\prod_{1\leq i < j\leq n}\Big([m_i]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}-[m_j]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}\Big)l_{\sum_{l=1}^{n}m_l}.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{small}
and
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{rcom2}
\big[l^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_1},l^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_2},\cdots,G^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_n}\big]&=& {\big(q-p\big)^{{n-1\choose 2}}\over \big(\phi(p,q)\big)^{\lfloor {n-1\over 2}\rfloor \sum_{l=1}^{n}m_l+1}}\bigg({[-2\sum_{l=1}^{n}m_l-1]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}\over 2[\sum_{l=1}^{n}m_l-1]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}}\bigg)^{\alpha}\nonumber\\&\times&
\prod_{1\leq i<j\leq n-1} \big([m_i]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}- [m_j]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}\big)\nonumber\\&\times&\prod_{i=1}^{n-1} \big([m_i]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}- [m_n+1]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}\big)\,G^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{\sum_{l=1}^{n}m_l}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{small}
and other anti-commutators are zeros.
\end{proposition}
Taking $n=3$ in the relations (\ref{rcom1}) and (\ref{rcom2}), we obtain the super ${\mathcal R}(p,q)-$ deformed Witt $3-$ algebra:
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\big[l^{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}_{m_1},l^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_2}, l^{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}_{m_3}\big]&=&{\big(q-p\big)\over (\phi(p,q))^{ m_1+m_2+m_3}}\big([m_1]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}- [m_2]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}\big)\nonumber\\&
\times& \big([m_1]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}- [m_3]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}\big)\big([m_2]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}- [m_3]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}\big)l_{m_1+m_2+m_3},
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\big[l^{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}_{m_1},l^{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}_{m_2},G^{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}_{m_3}\big]&=& {\big(q-p\big)\big([m_1]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}- [m_2]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}\big)\over 2\big(\phi(p,q)\big)^{ m_1+m_2+m_3+3}} \big([m_1]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}- [m_3+1]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}\big)\nonumber\\&
\times&\big([m_2]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}- [m_3+1]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}\big)G_{m_1+m_2+m_3}
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{small}
and other anti-commutators are zeros.
Now, we investigate the Virasoro $2n-$ algebra in the framework of the $\mathcal{R}(p,q)-$ deformed quantum algebras.
The Virasoro algebra
$${\mathcal V}ir=\bigoplus_{n\in{\mathbb Z}}{\mathbb K}L_n \oplus {\mathbb K}\,C$$ is the Lie algebra which satisfies the commutation relations\cite{IK}:
\begin{eqnarray*}\label{va}
\left[L_{m}, L_{n} \right]=(m-n)L_{n+m} + \frac{1}{12}m(m-1)(m+1)\delta_{m+n,o}\,C,
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left[\mathcal{V}ir, C\right]=\{0\},
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\delta_{i,j}$ denotes the Kronecker delta and $C$ the central charge.
The $\mathcal{R}(p,q)-$ deformed operators $L_n$ defined as:
\begin{eqnarray*}
L_n:= -t^n\,\bar{D}_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}
\end{eqnarray*}
satisfy the $\mathcal{R}(p,q)-$ deformed Witt $n-$ algebra given by (\ref{rcom1}). From the skewsymmetry and the $\mathcal{R}(p,q)-$ deformed generalized Jacobi identity,
we have:
\begin{lemma}
The ${\mathcal R}(p,q)-$ deformed Virasoro $2n-$ algebra is generated by the following relation:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{V2nalg}
\big[L_{m_1},\cdots,L_{m_{2n}}\big] =g_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}(m_1,\cdots,m_{2n}) + C_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}(m_1,\cdots,m_{2n}),
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{gv}
g_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}(m_1,\cdots,m_{2n})&=&{(q-p)^{{2n-1\choose 2}}\over \big(\phi(p,q)\big)^{(n-1) \sum_{l=1}^{2n}m_l}}\bigg({[-2\sum_{l=1}^{2n}m_l]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}\over 2[-\sum_{l=1}^{2n}m_l]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}}\bigg)\nonumber\\
&\times&\prod_{1\leq i< j\leq 2n}\Big([m_i]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}-[m_j]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}\Big)L_{\sum_{l=1}^{2n}m_l}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{small}
and \begin{eqnarray}\label{cv}
C_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}(m_1,\cdots,m_{2n})&=&{c(p,q)\epsilon^{i_1\cdots i_{2n}}_{1\cdots 2n}\over 6\times 2^n\times n!}\prod_{l=1}^{n}{[m_{i_{2l-1}}-1]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}\over \big(\phi(p,q)\big)^{m_{2l-1}}}{[m_{2l-1}]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}\over [2m_{2l-1}]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}}\nonumber\\&\times& [m_{i_{2l-1}}]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}[m_{i_{2l-1}}+1]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}
\delta_{m_{i_{2l-1}}+ m_{i_{2l}},0}
\end{eqnarray}
is the $\mathcal{R}(p,q)-$ deformed central extension.
\end{lemma}
\begin{example}
Some examples are given for $n=2$ and $n=3.$
\begin{enumerate}
\item [(a)]
Taking $n=2$ in the realtions (\ref{V2nalg}), (\ref{gv}), and (\ref{cv}), we obtain the ${\mathcal R}(p,q)-$ deformed Virasoro $4-$ algebra:
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\big[L_{m_1},L_{m_2},L_{m_3},L_{m_{4}}\big]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)} =g_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}(m_1,m_2,m_3,m_{4})+C_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}(m_1,\cdots,m_{4}),
\end{eqnarray*}
where
\begin{eqnarray*}
g_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}(m_1,m_2,m_3,m_4) &=& {(q-p)^{3}\over \big(\phi(p,q)\big)^{ m_1+m_2+m_3+m_4}}\bigg({[-2\sum_{l=1}^{4}m_l]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}\over 2[-\sum_{l=1}^{4}m_l]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}}\bigg)\nonumber\\&\times&\prod_{1\leq i < j\leq 4}\Big([m_i]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}-[m_j]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}\Big)L_{\sum_{l=1}^{4}m_l}
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
C_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}(m_1,\cdots,m_{4})&=&{c(p,q)\epsilon^{i_1\cdots i_{4}}_{1\cdots 4}\over 48}\prod_{l=1}^{2}\big(\phi(p,q)\big)^{-m_{2l-1}}{[m_{2l-1}]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}\over [2m_{2l-1}]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}}\nonumber\\&\times& [m_{i_{2l-1}}-1]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}[m_{i_{2l-1}}]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}[m_{i_{2l-1}}+1]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}
\delta_{m_{i_{2l-1}}+ m_{i_{2l}},0.}
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{small}
\item [(b)]The ${\mathcal R}(p,q)-$ deformed Virasoro $6-$ algebra is deduced from the generalization by taking $n=3:$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\big[L_{m_1},\cdots,L_{m_{6}}\big]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)} =g_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}(m_1,\cdots,m_{6})+C_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}(m_1,\cdots,m_{6}),
\end{eqnarray*}
where
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray*}
g_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}(m_1,\cdots,m_{6})&=&{(q-p)^{10}\over \big(\phi(p,q)\big)^{2 \sum_{l=1}^{6}m_l}}\bigg({[-2\sum_{l=1}^{6}m_l]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}\over 2[-\sum_{l=1}^{6}m_l]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}}\bigg)\nonumber\\&\times&\prod_{1\leq i< j\leq 6}\Big([m_i]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}-[m_j]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}\Big)L_{\sum_{l=1}^{6}m_l}
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
C_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}(m_1,\cdots,m_{6})&=&{c(p,q)\epsilon^{i_1\cdots i_6}_{1\cdots 6}\over 288}\prod_{l=1}^{3}\big(\phi(p,q)\big)^{-m_{2l-1}}{[m_{2l-1}]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}\over [2m_{2l-1}]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}}\nonumber\\&\times& [m_{i_{2l-1}}-1]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}[m_{i_{2l-1}}]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}[m_{i_{2l-1}}+1]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}
\delta_{m_{i_{2l-1}}+ m_{i_{2l}},0.}
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{small}
\end{enumerate}
\end{example}
\section{Super$\mathcal{R}(p,q)-$ deformed Virasoro $n-$ algebra}
In this section, we determine the super ${\mathcal R}(p,q)-$ deformed Jacobi identity.
Furthermore, we discuss the super $\mathcal{R}(p,q)-$ deformed Virasoro algebra and derive the super $\mathcal{R}(p,q)-$ deformed Virasoro $n-$ algebra ($n$ even).
\begin{lemma}
The ${\mathcal R}(p,q)-$ deformed superalgebra (\ref{crochet1}),(\ref{crochet2}), and (\ref{crochet3}) satisfies the super ${\mathcal R}(p,q)-$ deformed Jacobi identity:
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum_{(i,j,l)\in\mathcal{C}(n,m,k)}\,(-1)^{|A_i||A_l|}\Big[\rho(A_i),\Big[A_j,A_l\Big]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}\Big]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}=0,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\rho(l^{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}_{m})={[2\,m]_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}\over [m]_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}l^{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}_{m},$ $\rho(G^{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}_{m})={[2(m+1)]_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}\over [m+1]_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}G^{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}_{m} $ and $\mathcal{C}(n,m,k)$ denotes the cyclic permutation of $(n,m,k)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Taking respectively, $A_i=l^{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}_n,$ $A_j=l^{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}_m,$ $A_l=l^{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}_k,$ and by computation,
the result follows. \hfill $\square$
\end{proof}
The super $\mathcal{R}(p,q)-$ deformed Virasoro algebra is generated by bosonic and fermionic operators $\bar{l}^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_m=-t^m\,\Delta$ of parity $0$ and $\bar{G}^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_m=-\theta\,t^m\,\Delta$ of parity $1.$
\begin{proposition}
The operators $\bar{l}^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}$ and $\bar{G}^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_m$ satisfy the following commutation relations:
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{gsva1}
\big[\bar{l}^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_1},\bar{l}^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_2}\big]_{\hat{x}, \hat{y}}=\big([m_1]_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}-[m_2]_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}\big)\bar{l}^{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}_{m_1+m_2}+ C_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}(m_1)\delta_{m_1+m_2,0}, \end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}\label{gsva2}
\big[\bar{l}^{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}_{m_1}, \bar{G}^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_2}\big]_{x,y}=\big([m_1]_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}-[m_2+1]_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}\big)\bar{G}^{{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}}_{m_1+m_2} + C_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}(m_1)\delta_{m_1+m_2+1,0},
\end{eqnarray}
\end{small}
where
$\hat{x},$ $\hat{y},$ $x,$ $y$ are given by the relation (\ref{coefcom}), \begin{eqnarray*}
C_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}(m_1)={c(p,q)(\phi(p,q))^{m_1}\,[m_1]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}\over 6[2m_1]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}} [m_1+1]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}[m_1]_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}[m_1-1]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}
\end{eqnarray*}
is the $\mathcal{R}(p,q)-$ deformed central extension and other anti-commutators are zeros.
\end{proposition}
Note that, the super $q-$ deformed Virasoro algebra proposed by {\bf Ammar et {\it al}} \cite{AMS} can be recovered by taking ${\mathcal R}(x,1)=(q-1)^{-1}(x-1).$
Following the same procedure used to construct the ${\mathcal R}(p,q)-$ deformed Virasoro $2n-$ algebra (\ref{V2nalg}), we can also derive the super $\mathcal{R}(p,q)-$ deformed Virasoro $2n-$ algebra. It's generated by the bosonic and fermionic operators $\bar{L}^{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}_m=-t^m\,\Delta$ of parity $0$ and $\bar{G}^{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}_m=-\theta\,t^m\,\Delta$ of parity $1$ satisfying the following relations:
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\big[\bar{L}^{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}_{m_1},\cdots,\bar{L}^{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}_{m_{2n}}\big] =g_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}(m_1,\cdots,m_{2n}) + C_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}(m_1,\cdots,m_{2n}),
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{eqnarray*}\label{sV2na}
\big[\bar{L}^{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}_{m_1},\bar{L}^{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}_{m_2},\cdots, \bar{G}^{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}_{m_{2n}}\big]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}= f_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}(m_1,m_2,\cdots m_{2n})+ {\mathcal CS}_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}(m_1,\cdots m_{2n}),
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{small}
where $g_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}(m_1,\cdots,m_{2n})$ and $C_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}(m_1,\cdots,m_{2n})$ are given by the relations (\ref{gv}), (\ref{cv}),
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray*}
f_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}(m_1,m_2,\cdots m_{2n})&=&{\big(q-p\big)^{{2n-1\choose 2}}\over \big(\phi(p,q)\big)^{-(n-1) \sum_{l=1}^{2n}m_l+1}}\bigg({[-2\sum_{l=1}^{2n}m_l-1]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}\over 2[\sum_{l=1}^{2n}m_l-1]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}}\bigg)\nonumber\\&\times&\prod_{1\leq i<j\leq 2n-1} \big([m_i]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}- [m_j]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}\big)\nonumber\\&\times&
\prod_{i=1}^{2n-1} \big([m_i]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}- [m_{2n}+1]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}\big)G_{\sum_{l=1}^{2n}m_l},
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{small}
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\mathcal CS}_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}(m_1,m_2,\cdots m_{2n})&=&\sum_{k=1}^{2n-1}{(-1)^{k+1}c(p,q)(\phi(p,q))^{-m_k}\over 6\times 2^{n-1}(n-1)!}{[m_{k}]_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}\over [2m_{k}]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}}\nonumber\\&\times&[m_k+1]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}[m_k]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}[m_k-1]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}\delta_{m_k+m_{2n}+1,0}\nonumber\\&\times&\epsilon^{i_1\cdots i_{2n-2}}_{j_1\cdots j_{2n-2}}\prod_{s=1}^{n-1}{(\phi(p,q))^{-i_{2s-1}}[i_{2s-1}]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}\over [2\,i_{2s-1}]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}}\nonumber\\&\times&[i_{2s-1}+1]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}\,[i_{2s-1}]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}\,[i_{2s-1}-1]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}\delta_{i_{2s-1}+i_{2s},0},
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{small}
with $\{j_1,\cdots, j_{2n-2}\}=\{1,\cdots,\hat{k},\cdots,2n-1\}$ and other anti-commutators are zeros.
\section{A toy model for the super $\mathcal{R}(p,q)-$ Virasoro constraints }
In this section, we construct another super Witt $n-$ algebra from the $\mathcal{R}(p,q)-$ deformed quantum algebra. We use the super $\mathcal{R}(p,q)-$ Virasoro constraints to study a toy model.
We consider the operators defined by:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{to}
{\mathcal T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}_m&:=&\Delta\,z^{m}\\
\mathbb{T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}_m&:=&-\theta\,\Delta\,z^{m}\label{go}.
\end{eqnarray}
The operators (\ref{to}) and (\ref{go}) can be rewritten as:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}_m&=&-[m]_{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}\,z^{m}\\
\mathbb{T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}_m&=&-\theta\,[m]_{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}\,z^{m}.
\end{eqnarray*}
The $\mathcal{R}(p,q)-$ deformed numbers (\ref{rpqnumber}) can be rewritten as \cite{HMM}:
\begin{eqnarray*}
[n]_{\mathcal{R}(p,q)}=\frac{\tau^{n}_1-\tau^{n}_2}{\tau_{1}-\tau_{2}}, \quad \tau_{1}\neq \tau_{2},
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\tau_{i}, i\in\{1,2\}$ are the functions depending on the deformation parameters $p$ and $q.$ For illustration, we have some particular cases \cite{HMM}:
\begin{enumerate}
\item [(i)]$q-$ Arick-Coon-Kuryskin deformation \cite{AC,K}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\tau_1=1, \quad \tau_2=q \quad \mbox{and} \quad
[n]_q ={1-q^n\over 1-q};
\end{eqnarray*}
\item [(ii)]$(p,q)-$ Jagannathan-Srinivasa deformation \cite{JS}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\tau_1=p, \quad \tau_2=q \quad \mbox{and} \quad
[n]_{p,q} ={p^n-q^n\over p-q}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{enumerate}
\begin{lemma}
The following products hold.
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{rpqprod1}
\mathcal{T}^{\mathcal{R}(p^{a},q^{a})}_m\,. \mathcal{T}^{\mathcal{R}(p^{b},q^{b})}_n&=&-{\big(\tau^{a+b}_1-\tau^{a+b}_2\big)\tau^{-m\,b}_1\over \big(\tau^{a}_1-\tau^{a}_2\big)\big(\tau^{b}_1-\tau^{b}_2\big)}{\mathcal T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{a+b},q^{a+b})}_{m+n}\nonumber\\&+&{\tau^{-n\,b}_2\over \tau^{b}_1-\tau^{b}_2}{\mathcal T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}_{m+n} + {\tau^{(m+n)a}_2\tau^{-m\,b}_1\over \tau^{a}_1-\tau^{a}_2}{\mathcal T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{b},q^{b})}_{m+n}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}\label{rpqprod2}
\mathcal{T}^{\mathcal{R}(p^{a},q^{a})}_m\,. \mathbb{T}^{\mathcal{R}(p^{b},q^{b})}_n&=&-{\big(\tau^{a+b}_1-\tau^{a+b}_2\big)\tau^{-(m+1)b}_1\over \big(\tau^{a}_1-\tau^{a}_2\big)\big(\tau^{b}_1-\tau^{b}_2\big)}\mathbb{T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{a+b},q^{a+b})}_{m+n+1}\nonumber\\&+&{\tau^{-n\,b}_2\over \tau^{b}_1-\tau^{b}_2}\mathbb{T}^{\mathcal{R}(p^{a},q^{a})}_{m+n+1}+ {\tau^{(m+n+1)\,a}_2\tau^{-(m+1)b}_1\over \tau^{a}_1-\tau^{a}_2}\mathbb{T}^{\mathcal{R}(p^{b},q^{b})}_{m+n+1} .
\end{eqnarray}
\end{small}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proposition}
The operators (\ref{to}) and (\ref{go}) satisfy the following
commutation relations:
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{scrto}
\Big[\mathcal{T}^{\mathcal{R}(p^{a},q^{a})}_m, \mathcal{T}^{\mathcal{R}(p^{b},q^{b})}_n\Big]&=&{\big(\tau^{a+b}_1-\tau^{a+b}_2\big)\big(\tau^{-na}_1-\tau^{-mb}_1\big)\over \big(\tau^{a}_1-\tau^{a}_2\big)\big(\tau^{b}_1-\tau^{b}_2\big)}{\mathcal T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{a+b},q^{a+b})}_{m+n}\nonumber\\ &-&{\tau^{(m+n)b}_2\big(\tau^{-na}_1-\tau^{-mb}_2\big)\over \tau^{b}_1-\tau^{b}_2}{\mathcal T}^{\mathcal {R}(p^{a},q^{a})}_{m+n}\nonumber\\&+& \frac{\tau^{(m+n)a}_2\big(\tau^{-mb}_1-\tau^{-na}_2\big)}{\tau^{a}_1-\tau^{a}_2}{\mathcal T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{b},q^{b})}_{m+n},
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{scrgo}
\Big[{\mathcal T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}_m, \mathbb{T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{b},q^{b})}_n\Big]&=&{(\tau^{a+b}_1-\tau^{a+b}_2)(\tau^{-na}_1-\tau^{-mb+a}_1)\over (\tau^{a}_1-\tau^{a}_2)(\tau^{b}_1-\tau^{b}_2)}\mathbb{T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{a+b},q^{a+b})}_{m+n}\nonumber\\ &+&{\tau^{b(m+n)}_2(\tau^{-bm}_2\tau^{a}_1-\tau^{-an}_1)\over \tau^{b}_1-\tau^{b}_2}\mathbb{T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}_{m+n}\nonumber\\&+& {\tau^{a(m+n)}_2(\tau^{-mb}_1\tau^{a}_2-\tau^{-an}_2)\over \tau^{a}_1-\tau^{a}_2}{\mathbb T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{b},q^{b})}_{m+n}+ f(m,n),
\end{eqnarray}
\end{small}
where
\begin{eqnarray*}
f(m,n)&=&-{\big(\tau^{a+b}_1-\tau^{a+b}_2\tau^{-(m+1)b}_{1}\tau^{b}_2\big)}\mathbb{T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{a+b},q^{a+b})}_{1}\nonumber\\ &+&{\tau^{(m+n)a}_2\tau^{n\,b}_2\over \tau^{b}_1-\tau^{b}_2}\mathbb{T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}_{1}+ {\tau^{(m+n)(a+b)}_2\tau^{-(m+1)b}_1\tau^{a}_2\over \tau^{a}_1-\tau^{a}_2}\mathbb{T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{b},q^{b})}_{1}
\end{eqnarray*}
and other anti-commutators are zeros.
\end{proposition}
Setting $a=b=1,$ we obtain:
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Big[{\mathcal T}^{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}_m, {\mathcal T}^{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}_n\Big]&=&{(\tau^{-n}_1-\tau^{-m}_1)\over (\tau_1-\tau_2)}\,[2]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}{\mathcal T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{2},q^{2})}_{m+n}\nonumber\\&-&{\tau^{m+n}_2\over \tau_1-\tau_2}\Big((\tau^{-n}_1-\tau^{-m}_2)-(\tau^{-m}_1-\tau^{-n}_2)\Big) {\mathcal T}^{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}_{m+n},
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{small}
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Big[{\mathcal T}^{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}_m, \mathbb{T}^{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}_n\Big]&=&{\big(\tau^{-n}_1-\tau^{-m+1}_1\big)\over \tau_1-\tau_2}\,[2]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}\mathbb{T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{2},q^{2})}_{m+n}+ f(m,n)\nonumber\\ &+&{\tau^{m+n}_2\over \tau_1-\tau_2}\bigg(\big(\tau^{-m}_2\,\tau_1-\tau^{-n}_1\big)-\big(\tau^{-m}_1\tau_2-\tau^{-n}_2\big)\bigg)\mathbb{T}^{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}_{m+n},
\end{eqnarray*}
where
\begin{eqnarray*}
f(m,n)=-{\tau^{-m-1}_{1}\tau^{2(m+n)}_{2}\over \big(\tau_1-\tau_2\big)}\,[2]_{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}\mathbb{T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{2},q^{2})}_{1} +{\tau^{m+n}_2\big(\tau^{n}_2+\tau^{m+n}_2\tau^{-m-1}_1\tau_2\big)\over \tau_1-\tau_2}\mathbb{T}^{{\mathcal R}(p,q)}_{1}
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{small}
and other anti-commutators are zeros.
We consider the $n-$ bracket defined by:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Big[{\mathcal T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{a_1},q^{a_1})}_{m_1},\cdots,{\mathcal T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{a_n},q^{a_n})}_{m_n}
\Big]:=\epsilon^{i_1 \cdots i_n}_{1 \cdots n}\,{\mathcal T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{a_{i_1}},q^{a_{i_1}})}_{m_{i_1}} \cdots {\mathcal T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{a_{i_n}},q^{a_{i_n}})}_{m_{i_n}},
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\epsilon^{i_1 \cdots i_n}_{1 \cdots n}$ is the L\'evi-Civit\'a symbol defined by (\ref{LCs}).
Our study is focused in the case with the same ${\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})$ leads to
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Big[{\mathcal T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}_{m_1},\cdots,{\mathcal T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}_{m_n}
\Big]=\epsilon^{1\cdots n}_{1\cdots n}\,{\mathcal T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}_{m_{1}}\cdots {\mathcal T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}_{m_{n}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Putting $a=b$ in the relation (\ref{scrto}), we obtain:
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray*}\label{crtob}
\Big[{\mathcal T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}_m, {\mathcal T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}_n\Big]&=&{\big(\tau^{-na}_1-\tau^{-ma}_1\big)\over \big(\tau^{a}_1-\tau^{a}_2\big)}\,[2]_{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}{\mathcal T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{2a},q^{2a})}_{m+n}\nonumber\\&-&{\tau^{(m+n)a}_2\over \tau^{a}_1-\tau^{a}_2}\Big(\big(\tau^{-na}_1-\tau^{-ma}_1\big)+\big(\tau^{-na}_2-\tau^{-ma}_2\big)\Big) {\mathcal T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}_{m+n}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{small}
The $n-$ bracket takes the following form:
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray*}\label{crna}
\Big[\mathcal{T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}_{m_1},\cdots, {\mathcal T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}_{m_n}\Big]&=&{(-1)^{n+1}\over \big(\tau^{a}_1-\tau^{a}_2\big)^{n-1}}\Big( M^n_{a}[n]_{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}{\mathcal T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{n\,a},q^{n\,a})}_{m_1+\cdots+m_n}\nonumber\\ &-& {[n-1]_{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}\over \tau^{-a\big(\sum_{l=1}^{n}m_l\big)}_2}\big(M^n_{a}+ C^n_{a}\big){\mathcal T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{(n-1)a},q^{(n-1)a})}_{m_1+\cdots+m_n}\Big),
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{small}
where
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray*}
M^n_{a}&=& \tau^{-a(n-1)\sum_{s=1}^{n}m_s}_1\Big(\big(\tau^{a}_1-\tau^{a}_2\big)^{n\choose 2}\prod_{1\leq j < k \leq n}\Big([m_k]_{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}-[m_j]_{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}\Big)\nonumber\\&+&\prod_{1\leq j < k \leq n}\Big(\tau^{a\,m_k}_2-\tau^{a\,m_j}_2\Big)\Big)
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
C^{n}_{a}
&=&\tau^{-a(n-1)\sum_{s=1}^{n}m_s}_2\Big(\big(\tau^{a}_1-\tau^{\alpha}_2\big)^{n\choose 2}\prod_{1\leq j < k \leq n}\Big([m_k]_{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}-[m_j]_{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}\Big)\nonumber\\&+&(-1)^{n-1}\prod_{1\leq j < k \leq n}\Big(\tau^{a\,m_k}_1-\tau^{a\,m_j}_1\Big)\Big).
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{small}
From the super multibracket of order $n$ (\ref{smb}), we define the $\mathcal{R}(p,q)-$ deformed super $n-$ bracket as follows:
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray*}\label{snbracket}
\big[\mathcal{T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}_{m_1},\mathcal{T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}_{m_2},\cdots, \mathbb{T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}_{m_n}\big]&:=&\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}(-1)^{n-1+j}\epsilon^{i_1\ldots i_{n-1}}_{12\cdots n-1}\mathcal{T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}_{m_{i_1}}\cdots \mathcal{T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}_{m_{i_j}}\nonumber\\&\times&
\mathbb{T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}_{m_{n}}\mathcal{T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}_{m_{i_{j+1}}}\cdots \mathcal{T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}_{m_{i_{n-1}}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{small}
From the relation (\ref{scrgo}) with $a=b,$ we obtain:
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Big[{\mathcal T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}_m, \mathbb{T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}_n\Big]&=&{\big(\tau^{-an}_1-\tau^{-(m-1)a}_1\big)\over \big(\tau^{a}_1-\tau^{a}_2\big)}[2]_{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}\mathbb{T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{2a},q^{2a})}_{m+n}+ f(m,n)\nonumber\\ &+&{\tau^{(m+n)a}_2\over \tau^{a}_1-\tau^{a}_2}\bigg((\tau^{-am}_2\tau^{a}_1-\tau^{-an}_1)+(\tau^{-am}_1\tau^{a}_2-\tau^{-an}_2)\bigg)\mathbb{T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}_{m+n},
\end{eqnarray*}
where
\begin{eqnarray*}
f(m,n)=-{\tau^{-(m+1)a}_{1}\tau^{a(m+n)}_{2}\over \big(\tau^{a}_1-\tau^{a}_2\big)}\Big(\tau^{am}_2[2]_{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}\mathbb{T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{2a},q^{2a})}_{1}-{[2(m+1)]_{\mathcal{R}(p^{a},q^{a})}\over [m+1]_{\mathcal{R}(p^{a},q^{a})}}\mathbb{T}^{\mathcal{R}(p^{a},q^{a})}_{1}\Big).
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{small}
Thus, the super $n-$ bracket can be rewritten as follows:
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Big[\mathcal{T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}_{m_1},\cdots, \mathbb{T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}_{m_n}\Big]&=&{(-1)^{n+1}\over \big(\tau^{a}_1-\tau^{a}_2\big)^{n-1}}\Big( A^n_{a}[n]_{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}\mathbb{T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{n\,a},q^{n\,a})}_{m_1+\cdots+m_n}\nonumber\\ &-& {[n-1]_{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}\over \tau^{-a\big(\sum_{l=1}^{n}m_l\big)}_2}\big(F^n_{a}+ S^n_{a}\big){\mathcal T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{(n-1)a},q^{(n-1)a})}_{m_1+\cdots+m_n}\Big)\nonumber\\&+& f\big(m_{1},\cdots, m_{n}\big),
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{small}
where
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray*}
A^n_{a}&=& \tau^{-a(n-1)\sum_{s=1}^{n}(m_s-1)}_1\Big(\big(\tau^{a}_1-\tau^{a}_2\big)^{n\choose 2}\prod_{1\leq j < k \leq n}\Big([m_k-1]_{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}-[m_j]_{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}\Big)\nonumber\\&+&\prod_{1\leq j < k \leq n}\Big(\tau^{a(m_k-1)}_2-\tau^{a\,m_j}_2\Big)\Big),
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{eqnarray*}
F^n_{a}&=& \tau^{-a(n-1)\sum_{s=1}^{n}m_s}_1\Big(\big(\tau^{a}_1-\tau^{a}_2\big)^{n\choose 2}\prod_{1\leq j < k \leq n}\Big([m_k]_{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}-[m_j]_{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}\tau^{n\choose 2}_2\Big)\nonumber\\&+&\prod_{1\leq j < k \leq n}\Big(\tau^{a\,m_k}_2-\tau^{a\,m_j}_2\tau^{n\choose 2}_2\Big)\Big),
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{eqnarray*}
S^{n}_{a}
&=&\tau^{-a(n-1)\sum_{s=1}^{n}m_s}_2\Big(\big(\tau^{a}_1-\tau^{\alpha}_2\big)^{n\choose 2}\prod_{1\leq j < k \leq n}\Big([m_k]_{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}-[m_j]_{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}\tau^{n\choose 2}_1\Big)\nonumber\\&+&(-1)^{n-1}\prod_{1\leq j < k \leq n}\Big(\tau^{a\,m_k}_1-\tau^{a\,m_j}_1\tau^{n\choose 2}_1\Big)\Big)
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
f\big(m_{1},\ldots, m_{n}\big)&=&{(-1)^{n+1}\tau^{-(m+1)a}_{1}\tau^{a\sum_{l=1}^{n}m_l}_{2}\over \big(\tau^{a}_1-\tau^{a}_2\big)^{n-1}}\Big( \tau^{a\,m}_2[n]_{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}\mathbb{T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{n\,a},q^{n\,a})}_{1}\nonumber\\ &-& {[2(m+1)]_{\mathcal{R}(p^{a},q^{a})}\over [m+1]_{\mathcal{R}(p^{a},q^{a})}}\mathbb{T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{(n-1)a},q^{(n-1)a})}_{1}\Big).
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{small}
Let us consider the generating function with infinitely many parameters
presented by \cite{NZ}: $$Z^{toy}(t)=\int \, \,x^{\gamma}\,\exp\left(\displaystyle\sum_{s=0}^{\infty}{t_s\over s!}x^s\right)\,dx.$$
We assume that the following relation holds for the linear maps $\Delta$ given by the relation (\ref{deltaxy})
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_{\mathbb{R}}\,\Delta \,f(x)d\,x=0.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{small}
Taking $f(x)=x^{m+\gamma}\,\exp\left(\displaystyle\sum_{s=0}^{\infty}{t_s\over s!}x^s\right),$ we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\Delta \,\left(x^{m+\gamma}\,\exp\left(\sum_{s=0}^{\infty}{t_s\over s!}x^s\right)\right)d\,x=0.
\end{eqnarray*}
We consider the following expression
\begin{eqnarray*}
\exp\left(\displaystyle\sum_{s=0}^{\infty}{t_s\over s!}x^s\right)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}B_n(t_1,\cdots,t_n){x^n\over n!},
\end{eqnarray*}
where $B_n$ is the Bell polynomials. Then
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Delta \left(x^{m+\gamma}\,\exp\left(\displaystyle\sum_{s=0}^{\infty}{t_s\over s!}x^s\right)\right)
&=&x^{m+\gamma}[m+\gamma]_{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}\exp\left(\displaystyle\sum_{s=0}^{\infty}{t_s\over s!}x^s\right)\nonumber\\ &+&
{\big(\phi(p,q)\big)^{m+\gamma}\over (\tau^{a}_1 -\tau^{a}_2)x^{-k-m}}\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}{B_k(t^{a}_1,\cdots,t^{a}_k)\over k!}\exp\left(\displaystyle\sum_{s=0}^{\infty}{t_s\over s!}x^{s+\gamma}\right),
\end{eqnarray*}
where $t^{a}_k=(\tau^{a\,k}_1-\tau^{a\,k}_2)t_k.$ Then, from the relation
$$\mathcal{T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}_m\,Z^{(toy)}(t)=0,\quad m\geq 0,$$
the operator (\ref{to}) takes the following form:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}_{m}=[m+\gamma]_{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}\,m!\,{\partial\over \partial t_m}+ {\big(\phi(p,q)\big)^{m+\gamma}\over \tau^{a}_1 - \tau^{a}_2}\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}{(k+m)!\over k!}B_k(t^{a}_1,\cdots,t^{a}_k){\partial\over \partial t_{k+m}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Similarly, we obtain
$$\mathbb{T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}_m\,Z^{(toy)}(t)=0,\quad m\geq 0,$$
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}_m=\theta\bigg([m+\gamma]_{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}\,m!\,{\partial\over \partial t_m} + {\big(\phi(p,q)\big)^{m+\gamma}\over \tau^{a}_1 - \tau^{a}_2}\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}{(k+m)!\over k!}B_k(t^{a}_1,\cdots,t^{a}_k){\partial\over \partial t_{k+m}}\bigg).
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{small}
Putting $\bar{m}=m+\gamma,\quad \bar{n}=n+\gamma,$ and by changing $n!\,{\partial\over \partial t_n}\longleftrightarrow x^n,$ we show directly that the products $\mathcal{T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}_{m}\,.\mathcal{T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{b},q^{b})}_{n}$ and $\mathcal{T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}_{m}\,.\mathbb{T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{b},q^{b})}_{n}$ are respectively equivalent to (\ref{rpqprod1}) and (\ref{rpqprod2}).
\subsection{$q-$ deformed super Virasoro constraints}
The results obtained here can be deduced from the general formalism
by setting $\mathcal{R}(x,1)=(q-1)^{-1}(x-1).$ Then, the $q-$ deformed operators given by:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{stoAC}
\,{\mathcal T}^{q^{a}}_m&=&\Delta\,z^{m}\\
\,\mathbb{T}^{q^{a}}_m&=&-\theta\,\Delta\,z^{m}\label{sgoAC}
\end{eqnarray}
satisfy the products
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ACprod1}
\mathcal{T}^{q^{a}}_m\,. \mathcal{T}^{q^{b}}_n=-{\big(q^{a+b}-1\big)\over \big(q^{a}-1\big)\big(q^{b}-1\big)}{\mathcal T}^{q^{a+b}}_{m+n}+{1\over q^{b}-1}{\mathcal T}^{q^{a}}_{m+n} + {q^{-m\,b}\over q^{a}-1}{\mathcal T}^{q^{b}}_{m+n}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ACprod2}
\mathcal{T}^{q^{a}}_m\,. \mathbb{T}^{q^{b}}_n={-\big(q^{a+b}-1\big)q^{-(m+1)b}\over \big(q^{a}-1\big)\big(q^{b}-1\big)}\mathbb{T}^{q^{a+b}}_{m+n+1}+{\mathbb{T}^{q^{a}}_{m+n+1}\over q^{b}-1}+ {q^{-(m+1)b}\over q^{a}-1}\mathbb{T}^{q^{b}}_{m+n+1} .
\end{eqnarray}
\end{small}
Moreover, the following
commutation relations holds:
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{scrtoAC}
\Big[\mathcal{T}^{q^{a}}_m, \mathcal{T}^{q^{b}}_n\Big]&=&{\big(q^{a+b}-1\big)\big(q^{-na}-q^{-mb}\big)\over \big(q^{a}-1\big)\big(q^{b}-1\big)}\mathcal {T}^{q^{a+b}}_{m+n}-{\big(q^{-na}-1\big)\over q^{b}-1}\mathcal {T}^{q^{a}}_{m+n}\nonumber\\&+& {\big(q^{-mb}-1\big)\over q^{a}-1}\mathcal {T}^{q^{b}}_{m+n},
\end{eqnarray}
\end{small}
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{scrgoAC}
\Big[{\mathcal T}^{q^{a}}_m, \mathbb{T}^{q^{b}}_n\Big]&=&{\big(q^{a+b}-1\big)\big(q^{-n\,a}-q^{-m\,b+a}\big)\over \big(q^{a}-1\big)\big(q^{b}-1\big)}\mathbb{T}^{q^{a+b}}_{m+n}\nonumber\\ &+&{\big(q^{-m\,b}\,q^{a}-1\big)\over q^{b}-1}\mathbb{T}^{q^{a}}_{m+n} + {\big(q^{-m\,b}-1\big)\over q^{a}-1}\mathbb {T}^{q^{b}}_{m+n} + f(m,n),
\end{eqnarray}
\end{small}
where
\begin{eqnarray*}
f(m,n)&=&-{\big(q^{a+b}-1\big)q^{-m\,b-b}\over \big(q^{a}-1\big)\big(q^{b}-1\big)}\mathbb{T}^{q^{a+b}}_{1}+{q^{1\over q^{b}-1}\mathbb{T}^{q^{a}}_{1}}+ {q^{-m\,b-b}\over q^{a}-1}\mathbb{T}^{q^{b}}_{1}
\end{eqnarray*}
and other anti-commutators are zeros.
Setting $a=b=1,$ we obtain:
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Big[\mathcal{T}^{q}_m, \mathcal{T}^{q}_n\Big]={\big(q^{-n}-q^{-m}\big)\over \big(q-1\big)}\,[2]_{q}\mathcal{T}^{q^{2}}_{m+n}-{1\over q-1}\Big(\big(q^{-n}-1\big)-\big(q^{-m}-1\big)\Big) \mathcal{T}^{q}_{m+n},
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{small}
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Big[\mathcal{T}^{q}_m, \mathbb{T}^{q}_n\Big]={(q^{-n}-q^{-m+1})\over q-1}[2]_{q}\mathbb{T}^{q^{2}}_{m+n}+{1\over q-1}\big((q-q^{-n})-(q^{-m}-1)\big)\mathbb{T}^{q}_{m+n} + f(m,n),
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{small}
where
\begin{eqnarray*}
f(m,n)=-{q^{-m-1}\over \big(q-1\big)}\,[2]_{q}\mathbb{T}^{q^{2}}_{1} +{\big(1+q^{-m-1}\big)\over q-1}\mathbb{T}^{q}_{1}
\end{eqnarray*}
and other anti-commutators are zeros.
We study the case with the same $q^{a}.$ Then,
putting $a=b$ in the relation (\ref{scrtoAC}), we obtain:
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Big[\mathcal {T}^{q^{a}}_m, \mathcal{T}^{q^{a}}_n\Big]={\big(q^{-n\,a}-q^{-m\,a}\big)\over \big(q^{a}-1\big)}\,[2]_{q^{a}}\mathcal {T}^{q^{2\,a}}_{m+n}-{1\over q^{a}-1}\Big(\big(q^{-n\,a}+1\big)-\big(q^{-m\,a}+1\big)\Big) \mathcal{T}^{q^{a}}_{m+n}
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{small}
and
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Big[\mathcal{T}^{q^{a}}_{m_1},\cdots, \mathcal {T}^{q^{a}}_{m_n}\Big]&=&{(-1)^{n+1}\over (q^{a}-1)^{n-1}}\Big( M^n_{a}[n]_{q^{a}}\mathcal{T}^{q^{na}}_{m_1+\cdots+m_n}\nonumber\\&-& {[n-1]_{q^{a}}\over q^{-a(\sum_{l=1}^{n}m_l)}}(M^n_{a}+ C^n_{a})\mathcal {T}^{q^{(n-1)a}}_{m_1+\cdots+m_n}\Big),
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{small}
where
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray*}
M^n_{a}&=& q^{-a(n-1)\sum_{s=1}^{n}m_s}\Big((q^{a}-1)^{n\choose 2}\prod_{1\leq j < k \leq n}\Big([m_k]_{q^{a}}-[m_j]_{q^{a}}\Big)\nonumber\\&+&\prod_{1\leq j < k \leq n}(q^{am_k}-q^{am_j})\Big)
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
C^{n}_{a}
&=&q^{-a(n-1)\sum_{s=1}^{n}m_s}\Big((q^{a}-1)^{n\choose 2}\prod_{1\leq j < k \leq n}([m_k]_{q^{a}}-[m_j]_{q^{a}})\nonumber\\&+&(-1)^{n-1}\prod_{1\leq j < k \leq n}(q^{am_k}-q^{am_j})\Big).
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{small}
From the super multibracket of order $n$ (\ref{smb}), we define the $q-$ deformed $n-$ bracket as follows:
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\big[\mathcal{T}^{q^{a}}_{m_1},\mathcal{T}^{q^{a}}_{m_2},\ldots, \mathbb{T}^{q^{a}}_{m_n}\big]:=\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}(-1)^{n-1+j}\epsilon^{i_1\ldots i_{n-1}}_{12\ldots n-1}\mathcal{T}^{q^{a}}_{m_{i_1}}\ldots \mathcal{T}^{q^{a}}_{m_{i_j}}\mathbb{T}^{q^{a}}_{m_{n}}\mathcal{T}^{q^{a}}_{m_{i_{j+1}}}\ldots \mathcal{T}^{q^{a}}_{m_{i_{n-1}}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{small}
From the relation (\ref{scrgoAC}) with $a=b,$ we obtain:
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray}
\Big[\mathcal {T}^{q^{a}}_m, \mathbb{T}^{q^{a}}_n\Big]&=&{(q^{-n\,a}-q^{-(m-1)a})\over (q^{a}-1)}[2]_{q^{a}}\mathbb{T}^{q^{2a}}_{m+n}+{1\over q^{a}-1}\big((q^{a}-q^{-na})\nonumber\\ &+&(q^{-ma}-1)\big)\mathbb{T}^{q^{a}}_{m+n}+ f(m,n),
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray*}
f(m,n)&=&-{q^{-m\,a-a}\over \big(q^{a}-1\big)}[2]_{q^{a}}\mathbb{T}^{q^{2a}}_{1} + {1\over q^{a}-1}\bigg(1+q^{-m\,a-a}\bigg)\mathbb{T}^{q^{a}}_{1}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{small}
Thus, the super $n-$ bracket takes the form:
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Big[\mathcal{T}^{q^{a}}_{m_1},\cdots, \mathbb{T}^{q^{a}}_{m_n}\Big]&=&{(-1)^{n+1}\over \big(q^{a}-1\big)^{n-1}}\Big( A^n_{a}[n]_{q^{a}}\mathbb{T}^{q^{n\,a}}_{m_1+\cdots+m_n}\nonumber\\ &-& [n-1]_{q^{a}}\big(F^n_{a}+ S^n_{a}\big){\mathcal T}^{q^{(n-1)a}}_{m_1+\cdots+m_n}\Big)+ f\big(m_{1},\ldots, m_{n}\big),
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{small}
where
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray*}
A^n_{a}&=& q^{-a(n-1)\sum_{s=1}^{n}(m_s-1)}\big(q^{a}-1\big)^{n\choose 2}\prod_{1\leq j < k \leq n}\Big([m_k-1]_{q^{a}}-[m_j]_{q^{a}}\Big),
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{eqnarray*}
F^n_{a}&=& q^{-a(n-1)\sum_{s=1}^{n}m_s}\big(q^{a}-1\big)^{n\choose 2}\prod_{1\leq j < k \leq n}\Big([m_k]_{q^{a}}-[m_j]_{q^{a}}\Big),
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray*}
S^{n}_{a}
&=&\big(q^{a}-1\big)^{n\choose 2}\prod_{1\leq j < k \leq n}\Big([m_k]_{q^{a}}-[m_j]_{q^{a}}p^{n\choose 2}\Big)+(-1)^{n-1}\prod_{1\leq j < k \leq n}\Big(q^{am_k}-q^{am_j}q^{n\choose 2}\Big)
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{small}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
f\big(m_{1},\ldots, m_{n}\big)={(-1)^{n+1}q^{-(m+1)a}\over \big(q^{a}-1\big)^{n-1}}\Big( [n]_{q^{a}}\mathbb{T}^{q^{n\,a}}_{1}- {[2(m+1)]_{q^{a}}\over [m+1]_{q^{a}}}\mathbb{T}^{q^{(n-1)a}}_{1}\Big).
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{small}
The operators (\ref{stoAC}) and (\ref{sgoAC}) take the following forms:
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{T}^{q^{a}}_{m}&=&[m+\gamma]_{q^{a}}m!{\partial\over \partial t_m}+ {q^{m+\gamma}\over q^{a} - q^{-a}}\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}{(k+m)!\over k!}B_k(t^{a}_1,\cdots,t^{a}_k){\partial\over \partial t_{k+m}}\\
\,\mathbb{T}^{q^{a}}_{m}&=&\theta\bigg([m+\gamma]_{q^{a}}m!{\partial\over \partial t_m}+ {q^{m+\gamma}\over q^{a} - q^{-a}}\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}{(k+m)!\over k!}B_k(t^{a}_1,\cdots,t^{a}_k){\partial\over \partial t_{k+m}}\bigg).
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{small}
Putting $\bar{m}=m+\gamma,\quad \bar{n}=n+\gamma,$ and by changing $n!\,{\partial\over \partial t_n}\longleftrightarrow x^n,$ we show directly that the products $\mathcal{T}^{q^{a}}_{m}\,.\mathcal{T}^{q^{b}}_{n}$ and $\mathcal{T}^{q^{a}}_{m}\,.\mathbb{T}^{q^{b}}_{n}$ are respectively equivalent to (\ref{ACprod1}) and (\ref{ACprod2}).
\section{Relevant particular cases}
Particular cases of super Virasoro $n-$ algebra and application associated to different quantum algebras in the literature are deduced as follows:
\subsection{{\bf Jagannathan- Srinivasa} deformation \cite{JS}}
Taking ${\mathcal R}(x,y)={x-y\over p-q},$ we obtain:
the algebra endomorphism $\sigma$ on $\mathcal{B}$ is defined by:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sigma(t^n):=\big(p\,q\big)^n\,t^n\quad\mbox{and}\quad \sigma(\theta):=(p\,q)\,\theta.
\end{eqnarray*}
We define also the two $(p,q)-$ deformed linear maps by:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left \{
\begin{array}{l}
\partial_t(t^n)=[n]_{p,q}\,t^n\mbox{,}\quad \partial_t(\theta\,t^n)=[n]_{p,q}\,\theta\,t^n, \\
\\
\partial_{\theta}(t^n)=0\mbox{,}\quad \partial_{\theta}(\theta\,t^n)=\big(p\,q\big)^n\,t^n.
\end{array}
\right .
\end{eqnarray*}
The linear map $\Delta=\partial_{t}+\theta \partial_{\theta}$ on ${\mathcal B}$ is an even $\sigma$-derivation, and satisfy the following relations:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\,\Delta(x\,y)&=&\Delta(x)\,y+\sigma(x)\Delta(y),\nonumber\\
\,\Delta(t^n)&=& [n]_{p,q}\,t^n\quad\mbox{and}\quad \Delta(\theta\,t^n)= \big([n]_{p,q} + \big(p\,q\big)^n\big)\,\theta\,t^n.
\end{eqnarray*}
It is generated by bosonic and fermionic operators $l^{p,q}_m=-t^m\,\Delta$ of parity $0$ and $G^{p,q}_m=-\theta\,t^m\,\Delta$ of parity $1$ verifying the following commutations relations:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\,\big[l^{p,q}_{m_1},l^{p,q}_{m_2}\big]_{\hat{x}, \hat{y}}&=&\big([m_1]_{p,q}-[m_2]_{p,q}\big)\,l^{p,q}_{m_1+m_2},\nonumber\\
\,\big[l^{p,q}_{m_1}, G^{p,q}_{m_2}\big]_{x,y}&=&\big([m_1]_{p,q}-[m_2+1]_{p,q}\big)\,G^{p,q}_{m_1+m_2},\nonumber\\
\,\big[G^{p,q}_{m_1},G^{p,q}_{m_2}\big]&=&0,
\end{eqnarray*}
where\begin{eqnarray}\label{JScoefcom}
\left \{
\begin{array}{l}
\hat{x}=\chi_{m_1m_2}(p,q)\mbox{,}\quad \hat{y}=(pq)^{m_2-m_1}\,\chi_{m_1m_2}(p,q), \\
\\
x=\tau_{m_1m_2}\mbox{,}\quad y=(pq)^{1+m_2-m_1}\,\tau_{m_1m_2}, \\
\\
\chi_{m_1m_2}(p,q)={[m_1]_{p,q}-[m_2]_{p,q}\over (pq)^{m_2-m_1}\,[m_1]_{p,q}-[m_2]_{p,q}}\\
\\
\tau_{m_1m_2}(p,q)={[m_1]_{p,q}-[m_2+1]_{p,q}\over (pq)^{1+m_2-m_1}\,[m_1]_{p,q}-[m_2]_{p,q}-(pq)^{m_2}}.
\end{array}
\right .
\end{eqnarray}
The $(p,q)-$ deformed $n-$ bracket $(n\geq 3)$ are defined as follows:
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\big[l^{p,q}_{m_1},\ldots, l^{p,q}_{m_n}\big]&:=&\bigg({p^{-\sum_{l=1}^{n}m_l}+q^{-\sum_{l=1}^{n}m_l}\over 2}\bigg)^{\alpha}\epsilon^{i_1i_2\cdots i_n}_{12\cdots n}\nonumber\\&\times&(p\,q)^{\sum_{j=1}^{n}\big(\lfloor {n\over 2} \rfloor-j+1\big)m_{i_j}}l^{p,q}_{m_{i_1}}\ldots
l^{p,q}_{m_{i_n}},
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{small}
and
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\big[l^{p,q}_{m_1},l^{p,q}_{m_2},\ldots, G^{p,q}_{m_n}\big]&:=&\bigg({p^{-\sum_{l=1}^{n}m_l}+q^{-\sum_{l=1}^{n}m_l}\over 2}\bigg)^{\alpha}\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}(-1)^{n-1+j}\epsilon^{i_1\ldots i_{n-1}}_{12\ldots n-1}\nonumber\\
&\times&(p\,q)^{\beta}l^{p,q}_{m_{i_1}}\ldots l^{p,q}_{m_{i_j}}
G^{p,q}_{m_{n}}l^{p,q}_{m_{i_{j+1}}}\ldots l^{p,q}_{m_{i_{n-1}}},
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{small}
where $\beta=\sum_{k=1}^{j}\big(\lfloor {n\over 2} \rfloor-k+1\big)m_{i_k}+\big(\lfloor {n\over 2} \rfloor-1\big)\big(m_n+1\big)+\sum_{k=j+1}^{n-1}\big(\lfloor {n\over 2} \rfloor -k\big)m_{i_k},$ $\alpha={1+(-1)^n \over 2},$ and $\lfloor n \rfloor=Max\{m\in\mathbb{Z}\ m\leq n\}$ is the floor function. Then,
the generators $l^{p,q}_{m}$ and $G^{p,q}_{m}$ satisfy the commutation relations:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\big[l^{p,q}_{m_1},l^{p,q}_{m_2},\ldots, l^{p,q}_{m_n}\big]&=&{\big(q-p\big)^{n-1\choose 2}\over (p\,q)^{\lfloor {n-1\over 2}\rfloor\sum_{l=1}^{n}m_l}}\Big({p^{-\sum_{l=1}^{n}m_l}+q^{-\sum_{l=1}^{n}m_l}\over 2}\Big)^{\alpha}\nonumber\\&\times&\prod_{1\leq i < j\leq n}\Big([m_i]_{p,q}-[m_j]_{p,q}\Big)l_{\sum_{l=1}^{n}m_l},
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\big[l^{p,q}_{m_1},l^{p,q}_{m_2},\cdots,G^{p,q}_{m_n}\big]&=& {\big(q-p\big)^{{n-1\choose 2}}\over \big(pq\big)^{\lfloor {n-1\over 2}\rfloor \sum_{l=1}^{n}m_l+1}}\Big({p^{-\sum_{l=1}^{n}m_l-1}+q^{-\sum_{l=1}^{n}m_l-1}\over 2}\Big)^{\alpha}\nonumber\\&\times&
\prod_{1\leq i<j\leq n-1} \big([m_i]_{p,q}- [m_j]_{p,q}\big)\prod_{i=1}^{n-1} \big([m_i]_{p,q}- [m_n+1]_{p,q}\big)G^{p,q}_{\sum_{l=1}^{n}m_l}
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{small}
and other anti-commutators are zeros. Furthermore, the corresponding
Virasoro $2n-$ algebra is deduced as: \begin{eqnarray*}
\big[L_{m_1},\cdots,L_{m_{2n}}\big] =g_{p,q}(m_1,\cdots,m_{2n}) + C_{p,q}(m_1,\cdots,m_{2n}),
\end{eqnarray*}
where
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{jsgv}
g_{p,q}(m_1,\cdots,m_{2n})&=&{(q-p)^{{2n-1\choose 2}}\over 2(pq)^{(n-1) \sum_{l=1}^{2n}m_l}}\Big(p^{-\sum_{l=1}^{2n}m_l}+ q^{-\sum_{l=1}^{2n}m_l}\Big)\nonumber\\
&\times&\prod_{1\leq i< j\leq 2n}\Big([m_i]_{p,q}-[m_j]_{p,q}\Big)L_{\sum_{l=1}^{2n}m_l}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}\label{jscv}
C_{p,q}(m_1,\cdots,m_{2n})&=&{c(p,q)\epsilon^{i_1\cdots i_{2n}}_{1\cdots 2n}\over 6\times 2^n\times n!}\prod_{l=1}^{n}{[m_{i_{2l-1}}-1]_{p,q}\over (pq)^{m_{2l-1}}\big(p^{m_{i_{2l-1}}}+q^{m_{i_{2l-1}}}\big)}\nonumber\\&\times& [m_{i_{2l-1}}]_{p,q}[m_{i_{2l-1}}+1]_{p,q}
\delta_{m_{i_{2l-1}}+ m_{i_{2l}},0.}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{small}
Several examples are deduced as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item [(a)]
Taking $n=2$ in the realtions (\ref{jsgv}) and (\ref{jscv}), we obtain the $(p,q)-$ deformed Virasoro $4-$ algebra:
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\big[L_{m_1},L_{m_2},L_{m_3},L_{m_{4}}\big] =g_{p,q}(m_1,m_2,m_3,m_{4})+C_{p,q}(m_1,\cdots,m_{4}),
\end{eqnarray*}
where
\begin{eqnarray*}
g_{p,q}(m_1,m_2,m_3,m_4) &=& {(q-p)^{3}\over \big(pq\big)^{ m_1+m_2+m_3+m_4}}\Big(p^{-\sum_{l=1}^{4}m_l}+ q^{-\sum_{l=1}^{4}m_l}\Big)\nonumber\\&\times&\prod_{1\leq i < j\leq 4}\Big([m_i]_{p,q}-[m_j]_{p,q}\Big)L_{\sum_{l=1}^{4}m_l}
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
C_{p,q}(m_1,\cdots,m_{4})&=&{c(p,q)\,\epsilon^{i_1\cdots i_{4}}_{1\cdots 4}\over 48}\prod_{l=1}^{2}\big(p\,q\big)^{-m_{2l-1}}{[m_{2l-1}]_{p,q}\over [2\,m_{2l-1}]_{p,q}}\nonumber\\&\times& [m_{i_{2l-1}}-1]_{p,q}[m_{i_{2l-1}}]_{p,q}[m_{i_{2l-1}}+1]_{p,q}
\,\delta_{m_{i_{2l-1}}+ m_{i_{2l}},0.}
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{small}
\item [(b)]The $(p,q)-$ deformed Virasoro $6-$ algebra is deduced from the generalization by taking $n=3:$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\big[L_{m_1},\cdots,L_{m_{6}}\big] =g_{p,q}(m_1,\cdots,m_{6})+C_{p,q}(m_1,\cdots,m_{6}),
\end{eqnarray*}
where
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray*}
g_{p,q}(m_1,\cdots,m_{6})&=&{(q-p)^{10}\over (pq)^{2 \sum_{l=1}^{6}m_l}}\Big(p^{-\sum_{l=1}^{6}m_l}+ q^{-\sum_{l=1}^{6}m_l}\Big)\nonumber\\&\times&\prod_{1\leq i< j\leq 6}\Big([m_i]_{p,q}-[m_j]_{p,q}\Big)L_{\sum_{l=1}^{6}m_l}
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
C_{p,q}(m_1,\cdots,m_{6})&=&{c(p,q)\epsilon^{i_1\cdots i_6}_{1\cdots 6}\over 288}\prod_{l=1}^{3}\big(pq\big)^{-m_{2l-1}}{[m_{2l-1}]_{p,q}\over [2m_{2l-1}]_{p,q}}\nonumber\\&\times& [m_{i_{2l-1}}-1]_{p,q}[m_{i_{2l-1}}]_{p,q}[m_{i_{2l-1}}+1]_{p,q}
\,\delta_{m_{i_{2l-1}}+ m_{i_{2l}},0.}
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{small}
\end{enumerate}
The $(p,q)-$ deformed super Jacobi identity is given by :\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{(i,j,l)\in\mathcal{C}(n,m,k)}\,(-1)^{|A_i||A_l|}\big[\rho(A_i),\big[A_j,A_l\big]_{p,q}\big]_{p,q}=0,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\rho(l^{p,q}_{m_1})=(p^{m_1}+q^{m_1})\,l^{p,q}_{m_1},$ $\rho(G^{p,q}_{m_1})=(p^{m_1+1}+q^{m_1+1})\,G^{p,q}_{m_1} $ and $\mathcal{C}(n,m,k)$ denotes the cyclic permutation of $(n,m,k)$.
Moreover,
the operators $\bar{l}^{p,q}_{m}$ and $\bar{G}^{p,q}_{m}$ satisfy the following commutation relations:
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\big[\bar{l}^{p,q}_{m_1},\bar{l}^{p,q}_{m_2}\big]_{\hat{x}, \hat{y}}&=&\big([m_1]_{p,q}-[m_2]_{p,q}\big)\,\bar{l}^{p,q}_{m_1+m_2} + {c(p,q)(pq)^{m_1}[m_1]_{p,q}\over 6[2m_1]_{p,q}}\nonumber\\&\times& [m_1+1]_{p,q}[m_1]_{p,q}[m_1-1]_{p,q}\delta_{m_1+m_2,0}, \end{eqnarray*}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
\big[\bar{l}^{p,q}_{m_1}, \bar{G}^{p,q}_{m_2}\big]_{x,y}&=&\big([m_1]_{p,q}-[m_2+1]_{p,q}\big)\,\bar{G}^{p,q}_{m_1+m_2} + {c(p,q)(pq)^{m_1}\,[m_1]_{p,q}\over 6[2m_1]_{p,q}}\nonumber\\&\times& [m_1+1]_{p,q}[m_1]_{p,q}[m_1-1]_{p,q}\,\delta_{m_1+m_2+1,0},
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{small}
where $\hat{x},$ $\hat{y},$ $x,$ and $y$ are given by the relation (\ref{JScoefcom})
The super Virasoro $2n-$ algebra is presented as follows: \begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\big[\bar{L}^{p,q}_{m_1},\cdots,\bar{L}^{p,q}_{m_{2n}}\big] =g_{p,q}(m_1,\cdots,m_{2n}) + C_{p,q}(m_1,\cdots,m_{2n}),
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\big[\bar{L}^{p,q}_{m_1},\bar{L}^{p,q}_{m_2},\cdots, \bar{G}^{p,q}_{m_{2n}}\big]= f_{p,q}(m_1,m_2,\cdots m_{2n})+ {\mathcal CS}_{p,q}(m_1,\cdots m_{2n}),
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{small}
where $g_{p,q}(m_1,\cdots,m_{2n})$ and $C_{p,q}(m_1,\cdots,m_{2n})$ are given by the relations (\ref{jsgv}), (\ref{jscv}),
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray*}
f_{p,q}(m_1,\cdots m_{2n})&=&{\big(q-p\big)^{{2n-1\choose 2}}\over 2(pq)^{-(n-1) \sum_{l=1}^{2n}m_l+1}}\Big( p^{\sum_{l=1}^{2n}m_l-1}+q^{\sum_{l=1}^{2n}m_l-1}\Big)\nonumber\\&\times&\prod_{1\leq i<j\leq 2n-1} \big([m_i]_{p,q}- [m_j]_{p,q}\big)
\prod_{i=1}^{2n-1} \big([m_i]_{p,q}- [m_{2n}+1]_{p,q}\big)G_{\sum_{l=1}^{2n}m_l},
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{small}
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\mathcal CS}_{p,q}(m_1,m_2,\cdots m_{2n})&=&\sum_{k=1}^{2n-1}{(-1)^{k+1}c(p,q)(pq)^{-m_k}\over 6\times 2^{n-1}(n-1)!}{1\over p^{m_k}+q^{m_k}}\nonumber\\&\times&[m_k+1]_{p,q}[m_k]_{p,q}[m_k-1]_{p,q}\delta_{m_k+m_{2n}+1,0}\nonumber\\&\times&\epsilon^{i_1\cdots i_{2n-2}}_{j_1\cdots j_{2n-2}}\prod_{s=1}^{n-1}{(pq)^{-i_{2s-1}}\over p^{i_{2s-1}}+q^{i_{2s-1}}}\nonumber\\&\times&[i_{2s-1}+1]_{p,q}\,[i_{2s-1}]_{p,q}\,[i_{2s-1}-1]_{p,q}\delta_{i_{2s-1}+i_{2s},0},
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{small}
with $\{j_1,\cdots, j_{2n-2}\}=\{1,\cdots,\hat{k},\cdots,2n-1\}$ and other anti-commutators are zeros.
Now, we construct another $(p,q)-$ deformed super Witt $n-$ algebra.
We consider the operators defined by:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{stopq}
\,{\mathcal T}^{p^{a},q^{a}}_m&=&\Delta\,z^{m},\\
\,\mathbb{T}^{p^{a},q^{a}}_m&=&-\theta\,\Delta\,z^{m}\label{sgopq}.
\end{eqnarray}
The operators (\ref{stopq}) and (\ref{sgopq}) can be rewritten as:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\,\mathcal{T}^{p^{a},q^{a}}_m&=&-[m]_{p^{a},q^{a}}\,z^{m}\\
\,\mathbb{T}^{p^{a},q^{a}}_m&=&-\theta\,[m]_{p^{a},q^{a}}\,z^{m}.
\end{eqnarray*}
The following products hold.
\begin{eqnarray}\label{JSprod1}
\mathcal{T}^{p^{a},q^{a}}_m\,. \mathcal{T}^{p^{b},q^{b}}_n&=&-{\big(p^{a+b}-q^{a+b}\big)p^{-mb}\over \big(p^{a}-q^{a}\big)\big(p^{b}-q^{b}\big)}{\mathcal T}^{p^{a+b},q^{a+b}}_{m+n}\nonumber\\ &+&{q^{-nb}\over p^{b}-q^{b}}{\mathcal T}^{p^{a},q^{a}}_{m+n} + {q^{(m+n)a}p^{-mb}\over p^{a}-q^{a}}{\mathcal T}^{p^{b},q^{b}}_{m+n}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}\label{JSprod2}
\mathcal{T}^{p^{a},q^{a}}_m\,. \mathbb{T}^{p^{b},q^{b}}_n&=&-{\big(p^{a+b}-q^{a+b}\big)p^{-(m+1)b}\over \big(p^{a}-q^{a}\big)\big(p^{b}-q^{b}\big)}\mathbb{T}^{p^{a+b},q^{a+b}}_{m+n+1}\nonumber\\ &+&{q^{-n\,b}\over p^{b}-q^{b}}\mathbb{T}^{p^{a},q^{a}}_{m+n+1}+ {q^{(m+n+1)\,a}p^{-(m+1)b}\over p^{a}-q^{a}}\mathbb{T}^{p^{b},q^{b}}_{m+n+1} .
\end{eqnarray}
and the operators satisfy the following
commutation relations
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{scrtopq}
\Big[\mathcal{T}^{p^{a},q^{a}}_m, \mathcal{T}^{p^{b},q^{b}}_n\Big]&=&\frac{\big(p^{a+b}-q^{a+b}\big)\big(p^{-na}-p^{-mb}\big)}{ \big(p^{a}-q^{a}\big)\big(p^{b}-q^{b}\big)}\mathcal {T}^{p^{a+b},q^{a+b}}_{m+n}\nonumber\\ &-&{q^{(m+n)b}\big(p^{-na}-q^{-mb}\big)\over p^{b}-q^{b}}\mathcal {T}^{p^{a},q^{a}}_{m+n}+ {q^{(m+n)a}\big(p^{-mb}-q^{-na}\big)\over p^{\alpha}-q^{a}}\mathcal {T}^{p^{b},q^{b}}_{m+n},
\end{eqnarray}
\end{small}
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{scrgopq}
\Big[{\mathcal T}^{p^{a},q^{a}}_m, \mathbb{T}^{p^{b},q^{b}}_n\Big]&=&{\big(p^{a+b}-q^{a+b}\big)\big(p^{-n\,a}-p^{-m\,b+a}\big)\over \big(p^{a}-q^{a}\big)\big(p^{b}-q^{b}\big)}\mathbb{T}^{p^{a+b},q^{a+b}}_{m+n}\nonumber\\ &+&{q^{(m+n)b}\big(q^{-m\,b}\,p^{a}-p^{-n\,a}\big)\over p^{b}-q^{b}}\mathbb{T}^{p^{a},q^{a}}_{m+n}\nonumber\\ &+& {q^{(m+n)\,a}\big(p^{-m\,b}q^{a}-q^{-n\,a}\big)\over p^{a}-q^{a}}\mathbb {T}^{p^{b},q^{b}}_{m+n} + f(m,n),
\end{eqnarray}
\end{small}
where
\begin{eqnarray*}
f(m,n)&=&-{\big(p^{a+b}-q^{a+b}\big)p^{-m\,b-b}\,q^{(a+b)(m+n)}\over \big(p^{a}-q^{a}\big)\big(p^{b}-q^{b}\big)}\mathbb{T}^{p^{a+b},q^{a+b}}_{1}\nonumber\\ &+&{q^{(m+n)a}\,q^{n\,b}\over p^{b}-q^{b}}\mathbb{T}^{p^{a},q^{a}}_{1}+ {q^{(m+n)(a+b)}p^{-m\,b-b}\,q^{a}\over p^{a}-q^{a}}\mathbb{T}^{p^{b},q^{b}}_{1}
\end{eqnarray*}
and other anti-commutators are zeros.
Setting $a=b=1,$ we obtain:
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Big[\mathcal{T}^{p,q}_m, \mathcal{T}^{p,q}_n\Big]=\frac{\big(p^{-n}-p^{-m}\big)}{\big(p-q\big)}[2]_{p,q}\mathcal{T}^{p^{2},q^{2}}_{m+n}-\frac{q^{m+n}}{p-q}\Big(\big(p^{-n}-q^{-m}\big)-\big(p^{-m}-q^{-n}\big)\Big) \mathcal{T}^{p,q}_{m+n},
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Big[\mathcal{T}^{p,q}_m, \mathbb{T}^{p,q}_n\Big]&=&{(p^{-n}-p^{-m+1})\over p-q}\,[2]_{p,q}\mathbb{T}^{p^{2},q^{2}}_{m+n}+f(m,n)\nonumber\\ &+&{q^{m+n}\over p-q}\bigg((q^{-m}\,p-p^{-n})-(p^{-m}\,q-q^{-n})\bigg)\mathbb{T}^{p,q}_{m+n} ,
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{small}
where
\begin{eqnarray*}
f(m,n)=-{p^{-m-1}\,q^{2(m+n)}\over \big(p-q\big)}\,[2]_{p,q}\mathbb{T}^{p^{2},q^{2}}_{1} +{q^{m+n}\big(q^{n}+q^{m+n}\,p^{-m-1}\,q\big)\over p-q}\mathbb{T}^{p,q}_{1}
\end{eqnarray*}
and other anti-commutators are zeros.
We consider the $n-$ bracket defined by:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Big[\mathcal {T}^{p^{a_1},q^{a_1}}_{m_1},\cdots,\mathcal{T}^{p^{a_n},q^{a_n}}_{m_n}
\Big]:=\epsilon^{i_1 \cdots i_n}_{1 \cdots n}\,\mathcal{T}^{p^{a_{i_1}},q^{a_{i_1}}}_{m_{i_1}} \cdots \mathcal {T}^{p^{a_{i_n}},q^{a_{i_n}}}_{m_{i_n}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
We study the case with the same $(p^{a},q^{a}).$ Then,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Big[\mathcal {T}^{p^{a},q^{a}}_{m_1},\cdots,\mathcal{T}^{p^{a},q^{a}}_{m_n}
\Big]=\epsilon^{1\cdots n}_{1\cdots n}\,\mathcal {T}^{p^{a},q^{a}}_{m_{1}}\cdots \mathcal{T}^{p^{a},q^{a}}_{m_{n}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Putting $a=b$ in the relation (\ref{scrtopq}), we obtain:
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Big[\mathcal {T}^{p^{a},q^{a}}_m, \mathcal{T}^{p^{a},q^{a}}_n\Big]&=&{\big(p^{-n\,a}-p^{-m\,a}\big)\over \big(p^{a}-q^{a}\big)}\,[2]_{p^{a},q^{a}}\mathcal {T}^{p^{2\,a},q^{2\,a}}_{m+n}\nonumber\\&-&{\tau^{(m+n)a}_2\over p^{a}-q^{a}}\Big(\big(p^{-n\,a}-p^{-m\,a}\big)+\big(q^{-n\,a}-q^{-m\,a}\big)\Big) \mathcal{T}^{p^{a},q^{a}}_{m+n}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{small}
The $n-$ bracket takes the following form:
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Big[\mathcal{T}^{p^{a},q^{a}}_{m_1},\cdots, \mathcal {T}^{p^{\alpha},q^{\alpha}}_{m_n}\Big]&=&{(-1)^{n+1}\over \big(p^{a}-q^{a}\big)^{n-1}}\Big( M^n_{\alpha}[n]_{p^{a},q^{a}}\mathcal{T}^{p^{n\alpha},q^{n\alpha}}_{m_1+\cdots+m_n}\nonumber\\ &-& {[n-1]_{p^{\alpha},q^{\alpha}}\over q^{-a\big(\sum_{l=1}^{n}m_l+1\big)}}\big(M^n_{a}+ C^n_{a}\big)\mathcal {T}^{p^{(n-1)a},q^{(n-1)a}}_{m_1+\cdots+m_n}\Big),
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{small}
where
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray*}
M^n_{a}&=& p^{-a(n-1)\sum_{s=1}^{n}m_s}\Big(\big(p^{a}-q^{a}\big)^{n\choose 2}\prod_{1\leq j < k \leq n}\Big([m_k]_{p^{a},q^{a})}-[m_j]_{p^{a},q^{a}}\Big)\nonumber\\&+&\prod_{1\leq j < k \leq n}\Big(q^{a\,m_k}-q^{a\,m_j}\Big)\Big)
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
C^{n}_{a}
&=&q^{-a(n-1)\sum_{s=1}^{n}m_s}\Big(\big(p^{a}-q^{a}\big)^{n\choose 2}\prod_{1\leq j < k \leq n}\Big([m_k]_{p^{a},q^{a}}-[m_j]_{p^{a},q^{a}}\Big)\nonumber\\&+&(-1)^{n-1}\prod_{1\leq j < k \leq n}\Big(p^{a\,m_k}-p^{a\,m_j}\Big)\Big).
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{small}
From the super multibracket of order $n$ (\ref{smb}), we define the $(p,q)-$ deformed super $n-$ bracket as follows:
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\big[\mathcal{T}^{p^{a},q^{a}}_{m_1},\mathcal{T}^{p^{a},q^{a}}_{m_2},\ldots, \mathbb{T}^{p^{a},q^{a}}_{m_n}\big]&:=&\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}(-1)^{n-1+j}\epsilon^{i_1\ldots i_{n-1}}_{12\ldots n-1}\mathcal{T}^{p^{a},q^{a}}_{m_{i_1}}\ldots \mathcal{T}^{p^{a},q^{a}}_{m_{i_j}}\nonumber\\&\times&
\mathbb{T}^{p^{a},q^{a}}_{m_{n}}\mathcal{T}^{p^{a},q^{a}}_{m_{i_{j+1}}}\ldots \mathcal{T}^{p^{a},q^{a}}_{m_{i_{n-1}}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{small}
Using the relation (\ref{scrgopq}) with $a=b,$ we obtain:
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Big[\mathcal {T}^{p^{a},q^{a}}_m, \mathbb{T}^{p^{a},q^{a}}_n\Big]&=&{\big(p^{-n\,a}-p^{-(m-1)a}\big)\over \big(p^{a}-q^{a}\big)}[2]_{p^{a},q^{a}}\mathbb{T}^{p^{2a},q^{2a}}_{m+n}+ f(m,n)\nonumber\\ &+&{q^{(m+n)a}\over p^{a}-q^{a}}\bigg(\big(q^{-m\,a}\,p^{a}-p^{-n\,a}\big)+\big(p^{-m\,a}\,q^{a}-q^{-n\,a}\big)\bigg)\mathbb{T}^{p^{a},q^{a}}_{m+n},
\end{eqnarray*}
where
\begin{eqnarray*}
f(m,n)=-{p^{-ma-a}q^{2a(m+n)}\over \big(p^{a}-q^{a}\big)}[2]_{p^{a},q^{a}}\mathbb{T}^{p^{2a},q^{2a}}_{1}+{q^{(m+n)a}\over p^{a}-q^{a}}\bigg(q^{na}+{q^{(m+n+1)a}\over p^{ma+a}}\bigg)\mathbb{T}^{p^{a},q^{a}}_{1}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{small}
Thus, the super $n-$ bracket takes the form:
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Big[\mathcal{T}^{p^{a},q^{a}}_{m_1},\cdots, \mathbb{T}^{p^{a},q^{a}}_{m_n}\Big]&=&{(-1)^{n+1}\over \big(p^{a}-q^{a}\big)^{n-1}}\Big( A^n_{a}[n]_{p^{a},q^{a}}\mathbb{T}^{p^{n\,a},q^{n\,a}}_{m_1+\cdots+m_n}\nonumber\\ &-& {[n-1]_{p^{a},q^{a}}\over q^{-a\big(\sum_{l=1}^{n}m_l\big)}}\big(F^n_{a}+ S^n_{a}\big){\mathcal T}^{p^{(n-1)a},q^{(n-1)a}}_{m_1+\cdots+m_n}\Big)+ f\big(m_{1},\ldots, m_{n}\big),
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{small}
where
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray*}
A^n_{a}&=& p^{-a(n-1)\sum_{s=1}^{n}(m_s-1)}\Big(\big(p^{a}-q^{a}\big)^{n\choose 2}\prod_{1\leq j < k \leq n}\Big([m_k-1]_{p^{a},q^{a}}-[m_j]_{p^{a},q^{a}}\Big)\nonumber\\&+&\prod_{1\leq j < k \leq n}\Big(q^{a(m_k-1)}-q^{a\,m_j}\Big)\Big),
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{eqnarray*}
F^n_{a}&=& p^{-a(n-1)\sum_{s=1}^{n}m_s}\Big(\big(p^{a}-q^{a}\big)^{n\choose 2}\prod_{1\leq j < k \leq n}\Big([m_k]_{p^{a},q^{a}}-[m_j]_{p^{a},q^{a}}q^{n\choose 2}\Big)\nonumber\\&+&\prod_{1\leq j < k \leq n}\Big(q^{a\,m_k}-q^{a\,m_j}q^{n\choose 2}\Big)\Big),
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{eqnarray*}
S^{n}_{a}
&=&q^{-a(n-1)\sum_{s=1}^{n}m_s}\Big(\big(p^{a}-q^{a}\big)^{n\choose 2}\prod_{1\leq j < k \leq n}\Big([m_k]_{p^{a},q^{a}}-[m_j]_{p^{a},q^{a}}p^{n\choose 2}\Big)\nonumber\\&+&(-1)^{n-1}\prod_{1\leq j < k \leq n}\Big(p^{a\,m_k}-p^{a\,m_j}p^{n\choose 2}\Big)\Big)
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
f\big(m_{1},\ldots, m_{n}\big)&=&{(-1)^{n+1}p^{-(m+1)a}q^{a\sum_{l=1}^{n}m_l}\over \big(p^{a}-q^{a}\big)^{n-1}}\Big( q^{am}[n]_{p^{a},q^{a}}\mathbb{T}^{p^{na},q^{na}}_{1}\nonumber\\&-& \frac{[2(m+1)]_{p^{a},q^{a}}}{ [m+1]_{p^{a},q^{a}}}\mathbb{T}^{p^{(n-1)a},q^{(n-1)a}}_{1}\Big).
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{small}
Furthermore, the operators (\ref{stopq}) and (\ref{sgopq}) are presented as follows:
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{T}^{{\mathcal R}(p^{a},q^{a})}_{m}&=&[m+\gamma]_{p^{a},q^{a}}m!{\partial\over \partial t_m} + {(pq)^{m+\gamma}\over p^{a} - q^{a}}\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}{(k+m)!\over k!}B_k(t^{a}_1,\cdots,t^{a}_k){\partial\over \partial t_{k+m}}\nonumber\\
\mathbb{T}^{p^{a},q^{a}}_m&=&\theta\bigg([m+\gamma]_{p^{a},q^{a}}m!{\partial\over \partial t_m} + {(pq)^{m+\gamma}\over p^{a} - q^{a}}\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{(k+m)!}{ k!}B_k(t^{a}_1,\cdots,t^{a}_k)\frac{\partial}{\partial t_{k+m}}\bigg).
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{small}
Putting $\bar{m}=m+\gamma,\quad \bar{n}=n+\gamma,$ and by changing $n!\,{\partial\over \partial t_n}\longleftrightarrow x^n,$ we show directly that the products $\mathcal{T}^{p^{a},q^{a}}_{m}\,.\mathcal{T}^{p^{b},q^{b}}_{n}$ and $\mathcal{T}^{p^{a},q^{a}}_{m}\,.\mathbb{T}^{p^{b},q^{b}}_{n}$ are respectively equivalent to (\ref{JSprod1}) and (\ref{JSprod2}).
\subsection{{\bf Chakrabarti and Jagannathan} deformation \cite{CJ} }
Setting $\mathcal{R}(x,y)={(1-xy)\over (p^{-1}-q)x},$ we deduce the $(p^{-1},q)-$ deformed super Virasoro $n-$ algebra and application.
\subsection{{\bf Hounkonnou-Ngompe generalized $q-$ Quesne } deformation \cite{HN}}
The results corresponding here are obtained by taking $\mathcal{R}(x,y)=\frac{(xy-1)}{ (q-p^{-1})y}.$
\subsection{{\bf Biedenharn-Macfarlane } deformation \cite{B, M}}
Putting ${\mathcal R}(x)={x-x^{-1} \over q-q^{-1}},$ we obtain the $q-$ deformed super Virasoro $n-$ algebra.
\section{Concluding and remarks}
We have constructed a super Witt $n$ and Virasoro $2n-$ algebras from quantum algebras. Moreover, we have generalized this study to investigate the super $\mathcal{R}(p,q)-$ deformed Witt $n-$ algebra, and super $\mathcal{R}(p,q)-$ deformed Virasoro $n-$ algebra and discuss a toy model. Particular cases have been investigated. For further, the super Virasoro algebra with a conformal dimenssion is in preparation for the futur work.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
This research was partly supported by the SNF Grant No. IZSEZ0\_206010.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:Intro}
The concrete realization of the holographic principle \cite{tHooft:1993dmi, Susskind:1994vu} via the anti-de Sitter/con\-for\-mal field theory (AdS/CFT) correspondence \cite{Maldacena:1997re, Gubser:1998bc, Witten:1998qj} has provided us with a useful tool to probe the nature of quantum gravity in terms of the dynamics of field theories in one lower dimension and without gravity. String theory on the (warped) product of an asymptotically AdS space with a compact manifold provides exact top-down constructions of holographic duals to strongly coupled CFTs. The prototypical example is the correspondence between type IIB string theory on AdS$_5 \times$S$^5$ and $\mathcal{N} = 4$ SU($N$) super-Yang-Mills theory on the boundary. On the other hand, one can also look for effective bottom-up constructions of bulk gravitational theories in AdS, which capture certain aspects of interest for a given CFT state on the boundary.
In this paper, we explore some properties of a certain class of bottom-up models for AdS black holes dual to atypical high energy pure states in holographic CFTs. In the bulk, the states we are interested in look like planar black hole geometries which include parts of the second exterior region of the maximally extended spacetime. This second exterior region (as well as part of the black hole interior) is cut off at some finite distance. We will consider the simplest of such bottom-up constructions, where the termination of the spacetime geometry is modeled by the presence of an end-of-the-world (ETW) brane \cite{Hartman:2013qma,Takayanagi:2011zk,Fujita:2011fp,Kourkoulou:2017zaj,Almheiri:2018ijj,Cooper:2018cmb,Miyaji:2021ktr,Chandra:2022fwi}.
Apart from describing black hole microstates, these models have recently also found applications in the embedding of cosmology into holography \cite{Cooper:2018cmb, Antonini:2019qkt, Chen:2020tes, VanRaamsdonk:2020tlr, Wang:2021xih, Fallows:2022ioc, Waddell:2022fbn, Antonini:2022blk}. In cases where the brane is located at a large extrinsic curvature, there exists an effective description of the state besides the bulk and CFT perspective, as a cosmological spacetime with a thermal CFT coupled to gravity that is entangled with a CFT on a non-gravitating background \cite{randall1999alternative, Karch:2000ct}. For this case, one can think of the cosmology as being encoded in the state of the boundary CFT.
The models we consider are also related via analytic continuation to bottom-up models of holographic BCFT states \cite{Takayanagi:2011zk, Fujita:2011fp}, see also \cite{Azeyanagi:2007qj, Cooper:2019rwk, Reeves:2021sab, Belin:2021nck, Kusuki:2021gpt, Kawamoto:2022etl, Izumi:2022opi}. Such constructions have been utilised for understanding the island prescription for the computation of entropies \cite{Almheiri:2019hni, Rozali:2019day,Almheiri:2019psy, Balasubramanian:2020hfs, Sully:2020pza, Geng:2020qvw, Chen:2020uac, Chen:2020hmv, Grimaldi:2022suv, Krishnan:2020fer, Deng:2020ent, May:2021zyu, Fallows:2021sge, Neuenfeld:2021wbl, Geng:2021iyq, Chu:2021gdb, Miyaji:2021lcq, Verheijden:2021yrb, Geng:2021mic, Suzuki:2022xwv, Geng:2022slq}, and also for quantum complexity \cite{Chapman:2018bqj, Ross:2019rtu, Sato:2019kik, Braccia:2019xxi, Hernandez:2020nem, Omidi:2020oit, Bhattacharya:2021jrn, Auzzi:2021ozb}.
From a top-down perspective, such an ETW brane can represent branes provided by string theory, or regions of large back-reaction where the geometry caps off \cite{DHoker:2007zhm, DHoker:2007hhe,Chiodaroli:2012vc,Bak:2020enw,Uhlemann:2021nhu,VanRaamsdonk:2021duo}.
We will be interested in studying quantum entanglement properties of CFT states dual to such planar black holes, and their implications for the parameter space of these models. Usually, ETW branes are modeled as constant-tension branes, together with a Gibbons-Hawking-York boundary term which makes the bulk variational principle well-defined. One imposes Neumann boundary conditions for the bulk fields at the location of the brane. Since ETW branes serve as simple bottom-up models for more complicated geometries with non-trivial warping, varying fields, or large quantum-gravitational effects, it is natural---in the spirit of effective field theories---to allow for more general couplings beyond the tension term to appear in the ETW brane action. Possible terms not only include matter fields localized on the brane, such as additional scalar fields, or curvature terms of the induced metric, but also couplings to additional bulk degrees of freedom.
In this work, we focus on adding gravitational dynamics to the ETW brane action. In general dimensions one can consider the so-called Dvali-Gabadadze-Porrati (DGP) term \cite{Dvali:2000hr}, which is proportional to the Einstein-Hilbert term on the brane. Such terms can arise from the quantum effects of matter fields localized on the brane. In two dimensions, where the Einstein-Hilbert action is topological, one can have Jackiw-Teitelboim (JT) gravity \cite{JACKIW1985343,TEITELBOIM198341} on the brane. Adding such terms to the brane action changes how the Ryu-Takayanagi (RT) surfaces end on the brane, affecting their areas and hence the entanglement entropy of subregions in the dual CFT \cite{Ryu:2006bv, Ryu:2006ef, Hubeny:2007xt, Rangamani:2016dms}. This has been important in doubly-holographic models for quantum extremal islands \cite{Almheiri:2019hni, Chen:2020uac, Chen:2020hmv, Hernandez:2020nem, Grimaldi:2022suv}, where additional JT gravity terms have to be introduced on the brane in order to discuss non-trivial islands. In higher dimensions, this is not strictly necessary, but adding DGP terms makes it possible to delay or advance the onset of the island phase of extremal surfaces in models of evaporating black holes. It also enables Euclidean construction of braneworld cosmologies \cite{Fallows:2022ioc, Waddell:2022fbn}.
The possibility of adding gravitational terms to the brane action for an ETW brane behind the black hole horizon poses the question of how having such an additional term gets reflected in the properties of the dual CFT state. In this paper, we demonstrate that adding such couplings affects the growth rate of holographic entanglement entropy of subregions in the dual CFT. For concreteness, we restrict our attention to the case of AdS$_3$ planar black hole microstates with ETW branes behind their horizon. The bulk geometry then corresponds to the planar limit of the Ba\~{n}ados-Teitelboim-Zanelli (BTZ) black hole \cite{Banados:1992wn}. In addition, we allow for JT gravity localized on the two-dimensional brane. The growth rate for the entanglement entropy can be quantified in terms of the \emph{entanglement velocity} $v_E$ \cite{Hartman:2013qma}. It was conjectured in \cite{Liu:2013iza, Liu:2013qca} and proved in \cite{Hartman:2015apr} that the entanglement velocity for such states satisfies the instantaneous bound $|v_E(t)| \le 1$. For the case of eternal black holes, it is known that this inequality is obeyed at all times \cite{Hartman:2013qma}. The key observation---which will allow us to constrain the JT coupling in these models---is that for the case of single-sided black hole microstates, there will be corrections to the growth rate of entanglement entropy, coming from the fact that the areas of the RT surfaces ending on the brane are sensitive to the presence of the coupling.
We study two different types of ETW branes, distinguished by the values of their tension $T_0$. In order for our spacetime geometry to only have one asymptotic boundary (and thus to be dual to a state of a single CFT), $T_0$ must be smaller than some critical value $T_{\text{crit}}$. For this case, we obtain brane trajectories in the bulk which cut off the second asymptotic region of the maximally extended spacetime geometry, see \cref{fig:brane_trajectories_1}. On the other hand, branes with $T_0 = T_{\text{crit}}$ asymptotically approach the second asymptotic boundary, see \cref{fig:brane_trajectories_2}. This makes it less obvious that they can in fact be dual to the state of a single CFT. However, since these critical solutions can be obtained by a limiting procedure from the subcritical solutions, it is natural to consider them as well.\footnote{When $T_0 > T_{\text{crit}}$, the brane trajectory only partially cuts off the second asymptotic region, and the resulting bulk geometry includes part of the second asymptotic boundary. The holographic duals to such geometries will necessarily involve another copy of the CFT, which lives on the second asymptotic boundary. Such super-critical values for $T_0$ will not be of interest to us in the present work.}
In the subcritical case $T_0 < T_{\text{crit}}$, it turns out that depending upon the magnitude of the JT coupling added to the brane, the instantaneous bound $|v_E(t)| \le 1$ can be violated at early times. This in turn allows us to constrain the space of possible gravitational couplings on the brane. If we find that the speed bound is violated, we can conclude that the dual CFT state cannot exist and thus rule out the corresponding brane coupling. The allowed space of couplings depends on the location of the brane and is given by \cref{eq:weak_bound_2d}.
Given that there are no true singularities in AdS$_3$, one can also study extremal surfaces which continue through the singularity and end on the brane in the analytic continuation of the planar BTZ spacetime. It turns out that if we consider such surfaces, the entanglement entropy exhibits a discontinuous jump as a function of time. Thus, once again, we can rule out the corresponding coupling. This yields a much tighter bound, \cref{eq:alpha_bound}, provided one believes that such surfaces should in fact be considered.
In the case of critical tension $T_0 = T_{\text{crit}}$, there are two types of solutions related by time-reflection. Here, we find that RT surfaces can only end on the brane for a particular choice of the sign of the JT coupling. Therefore, for this case as well, we can place bounds on the JT coupling, see \cref{eq:alpha_cr_bound_weak}. Again, considering candidate RT surfaces which cross through the singularity, one can strengthen the bound, \cref{eq:alpha_cr_bound_strong}.
Additionally, the application of ETW brane models to cosmology suggests another question---how can we determine from the CFT state whether it describes a black hole with an ETW brane, and how can we extract the parameters of the brane solution? Again, focusing on planar AdS$_3$ black holes with ETW branes, in the second part of this paper we present a protocol which allows one to determine parameters of the brane solution as well as the value of the JT coupling on the brane purely from CFT data---more precisely from the late time behaviour of entanglement entropy. This constitutes a proof-of-concept for and a first step towards \emph{brane tomography}, i.e., reconstructing a brane behind the black hole horizon from the properties of the dual CFT state.
The paper is organized as follows. In \cref{sec:setup}, we discuss ETW branes behind planar AdS$_3$ horizons and give a complete classification of translationally invariant brane solutions. This section also helps us to establish our notation for the rest of the paper and reviews some basic facts about computing entanglement entropies in the presence of ETW branes. In \cref{sec:limits_on_ve}, following \cite{Hartman:2015apr}, we present a review of the derivation of the instantaneous bound on the entanglement velocity in a translationally invariant two-dimensional CFT state with a uniform energy density. This bound provides the bedrock for our subsequent derivation of the bounds on the JT coupling on the ETW brane. In \cref{sec:subcritical_branes}, we perform a detailed study of subcritical branes, both with and without JT coupling, including the derivation of bounds on the coupling in \cref{sec:DGP_bounds_subcrit}. Subsequently, in \cref{sec:critical_branes}, the analysis is repeated for the case of critical branes. We also show how the bounds in the critical case can be obtained from the sub-critical case, providing an important cross-check for our results. \Cref{sec:tomography} lays out the protocol for performing brane tomography, where we rely on the saturation of late time entanglement growth to extract information about the brane parameters. In \cref{sec:discussion}, we conclude the paper with a discussion and an outlook towards possible applications and extensions of the analysis presented here. The appendices provide supplementary details on various computations performed in the main text.
\section{Basic setup}
\label{sec:setup}
\subsection{Planar black holes and ETW branes}
In this paper, we consider planar black hole solutions in $2+1$-dimensional gravity with a negative cosmological constant. The gravitational action is given by
\begin{align}
\label{eq:gravity_action_vanilla}
I_\text{gravity} = I_\text{bulk} + I_\text{boundary},
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
I_\text{bulk} &= \frac{1}{16\pi G_N} \int d^{3}x \sqrt{-g} \left(R + \frac{2}{L^2} \right),\label{eq:einstein_hilbert}\\
I_\text{boundary} &= \frac 1 {8 \pi G_N} \int d^2x \sqrt{-h} \, K + \text{(counterterms)}.\label{eq:gibb_hawk}
\end{align}
Here, $G_N$ is the $3$-dimensional bulk Newton's gravitational constant, $L$ is the AdS radius, $h_{ab}$ is the induced metric on the boundary, and $K = \nabla_\mu n^\mu$ is the extrinsic curvature of the boundary, with $n^\mu$ being the outward pointing unit normal vector. The boundary action contains terms located at the asymptotic boundary of AdS required to make the variational principle in the bulk well-defined, as well as counterterms which render the bulk on-shell action finite \cite{deHaro:2000vlm}.
A solution to the equations of motion for the above action is given by the planar limit of the Ba\~{n}ados-Teitelboim-Zanelli (BTZ) black hole geometry \cite{Banados:1992wn}. Outside the horizon at $r = r_+$, the geometry of the planar black hole is described in Schwarzschild coordinates by the metric
\begin{align}
\label{eq:planar_metric}
ds^2 = -f(r)dt^2 + \frac 1 {f(r)} dr^2 + \frac{r^2}{L^2} d x^2,
\end{align}
with the blackening factor
\begin{align}
\label{eq:general_blackening}
f(r) = \frac{r^2 - r^2_+} {L^2}.
\end{align}
The black hole has an associated temperature of $T_H = \frac{f'(r_+)}{4\pi} =\frac {r_+}{2\pi L^2}$.\footnote{Note that there is in fact no well-defined temperature or energy associated with a single planar black hole geometry. The reason is that if we rescale $t \to c t$, $r \to r/c$, and $\vec x \to c \vec x$ with some constant $c$, we change the temperature to $T_H = \frac{1}{c}\frac{r_+}{2 \pi L^2}$, while leaving the metric invariant. The black hole temperature is also the temperature of the dual CFT state. By rescaling the metric as just explained, we are essentially performing a Weyl transformation on the CFT, mapping between different states. For UV cutoff dependent quantities, this also changes the cutoff.}
As mentioned in \cref{sec:Intro}, we will be interested in planar AdS$_3$ black holes which have an end-of-the-world (ETW) brane behind their horizons.
To construct such solutions we start with an eternal planar black hole geometry, which has two exterior regions described by \cref{eq:planar_metric} connected through the black hole interior. This geometry is dual to two entangled CFTs \cite{Maldacena:2001kr}. We then introduce a time-like, co-dimension one, constant tension brane which cuts off the spacetime in the left exterior.\footnote{Choosing to cut off the left exterior is, of course, pure convention.} This removes the left asymptotic boundary from the extended spacetime, such that the resulting geometry is now dual to a state in the right CFT only, see \cref{fig:brane_trajectories}. Introducing the ETW brane modifies the total gravitational action, \cref{eq:gravity_action_vanilla}, to
\begin{align}
\label{eq:gravity_action}
I_\text{total} = I_\text{bulk} + I_\text{brane} + I_\text{boundary}.
\end{align}
The brane action is given by
\begin{align}
\label{eq:braneaction}
I_\text{brane} = \frac{1}{8\pi G_N} \int d^2x \sqrt{-h} \left(K - \frac{T_0}{L} \right),
\end{align}
where $h_{ij}$ is the induced metric on the brane and $\frac{T_0}{8 \pi G_N L}$ is the constant brane tension. The normalization is chosen for later convenience. In the remainder of the paper we will simply refer to $T_0$ as the brane tension, although it should of course be understood that $T_0$ is related to the brane tension by a proportionality factor.
The equations of motion for the system are obtained by varying the action \cref{eq:gravity_action},\footnote{A careful derivation is presented in \cref{sec:brane_eom}.}
\begin{align}
\delta I_\text{total} = (\text{e.o.m.}) + \frac{1}{16\pi G_N} \int_\text{brane} d^2 x \sqrt{-h} \left(K_{ij} - K h_{ij} + \frac{T_0 }{L} \, h_{ij}\right)\delta h^{ij}.
\label{eq:var_tot}
\end{align}
Here, we have dropped a total derivative term along the brane, and have required that the metric variation at the asymptotic AdS boundary vanishes. The term denoted by \emph{e.o.m} vanishes if the bulk equations of motion are satisfied. In order to make the second term go away, we impose Neumann boundary conditions on the brane, namely that the term which multiplies the variation $\delta h^{ij}$ vanishes. This condition can be conveniently rewritten as
\begin{align}
\label{eq:brane_eom}
K_{ij} = \frac{T_0}{L} h_{ij},
\end{align}
which places the brane at a location where the trace of its extrinsic curvature is constant.
\subsection{Brane trajectories}
\label{sec:brane_solutions}
For our setup, it is natural to consider ETW branes which preserve the translation symmetry of the planar black hole geometry. Such branes follow a trajectory $r(t)$ which satisfies
\begin{align}
\label{eq:brane_trajectory}
\frac{dr(t)}{dt} = \pm f(r) \frac{L}{T_0} \sqrt{\frac{T_0^2}{L^2} - \frac{f(r)}{r^2}}.
\end{align}
To classify all possible solutions to this equation, it is convenient to choose a different parametrization for the time $t$ by defining a new coordinate $\eta$ such that
\begin{align}
\frac{dr(\eta)}{d\eta} = \frac{dr(t)}{dt} \frac{T_0}{f(r) L}.
\end{align}
This transforms \cref{eq:brane_trajectory} into an equation describing a particle moving in a potential,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:reparam}
\left(\frac{dr(\eta)}{d\eta}\right)^2 + \frac{f(r)}{r^2} = \frac{T_0^2}{L^2},
\end{align}
with a fixed ``total energy'' given by $\frac{T_0^2}{L^2}$, and with the potential energy given by
\begin{align}
V(r) = \frac{f(r)}{r^2} = \frac 1 {L^2} \left(1 - \frac{r_+^2}{r^2}\right).
\end{align}
By examining the possible solutions $r(\eta)$ to \cref{eq:reparam}, one finds that the allowed brane trajectories can be classified into three different categories depending upon whether the tension $T_0$ is larger, smaller or equal to the critical value $T_\text{crit} = 1$. A representative brane solution for each of these categories is shown in \cref{fig:brane_trajectories}. Of course, for a fixed $T_0$, there is an infinite family of solutions related to one-another by Schwarzschild time-translations. It is also clear from the plots that the solutions with $T_0 > T_\text{crit}$ will not be of interest to us, since the left asymptotic boundary is not completely removed from the extended geometry. Nonetheless, for completeness, we include a discussion of their properties below.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subcaptionbox{$T_0 < T_\text{crit}$\label{fig:brane_trajectories_1}}[0.3\textwidth]{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{scope}
\draw[draw=none] (0,0) -- (0,4);
\draw (0.5,0) -- (4,0) -- (4,4) -- (0.5,4);
\draw[dashed] (0.5,0.5) -- (4,4);
\draw[dashed] (0.5,3.5) -- (4,0);
\draw[very thick] (0.5,0) -- (0.5,4);
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}}
\subcaptionbox{$T_0 = T_\text{crit}$\label{fig:brane_trajectories_2}}[0.3\textwidth]{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[x=1cm, y=1cm, xticklabels=\empty, yticklabels=\empty, xmin=-2, xmax=2, ymin=-2, ymax=2, hide axis]
\addplot [very thick, black] file {data/brane_T1.dat};
\end{axis}
\begin{scope}[xshift=4cm, yshift=0cm]
\draw (0,0) -- (0,4cm);
\draw[dashed] (0,0) -- (-4,4);
\draw[dashed] (0,4) -- (-2.6,1.4);
\draw[gray, very thin] (0,0) -- (-2,0);
\draw[gray, very thin] (0,4) -- (-4, 4);
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}}
\subcaptionbox{$T_0 > T_\text{crit}$\label{fig:brane_trajectories_3}}[0.3\textwidth]{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{scope}
\draw (0,2) -- (0,4) -- (4,4) -- (4,0) -- (0.6,0);
\draw[dashed] (0.6,0.6) -- (4,4);
\draw[dashed] (0,4) -- (4,0);
\begin{axis}[x=1cm, y=1cm, xticklabels=\empty, yticklabels=\empty, xmin=-2, xmax=2, ymin=-2, ymax=2, hide axis]
\addplot [very thick, black] file {data/brane_traj_T2.dat};
\end{axis}
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Representative solutions for different values of the brane tension $T_0$.}
\label{fig:brane_trajectories}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{$\mathbf{T_0 < T_\text{crit}:}$}
The first class of solutions is obtained by requiring that the brane has a turnaround point, i.e., that $\frac{dr(t)}{dt} = 0$ at some $t = t_0$. Additionally, requiring that the brane is embedded behind the horizon restricts the parameter $T_0$ to $0 \leq T_0 < T_\text{crit}$. The general solution for the brane equation of motion in Schwarzschild coordinates is then given by
\begin{align}
\label{eq:t_less_1_general_schwsch}
r(t) = r_+ \sqrt{\frac{1 - T_0^2 \tanh^2\left(\frac{r_+ (t - t_0)}{L^2}\right)} {1 - T_0^2}}.
\end{align}
It is also interesting to consider the full trajectory in the Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates. To go to these coordinates, we use the coordinate transformation
\begin{equation}
r = r_+ \left(\frac{1 - \tan \alpha \tan \beta}{1 + \tan \alpha \tan \beta}\right), \qquad t = \frac {L^2}{2 r_+} \log \left( - \frac {\tan \alpha} {\tan \beta}\right),
\end{equation}
which takes the metric \cref{eq:planar_metric} into the form
\begin{equation}
ds^2 = \frac 1 {\cos^2 y} \left(- L^2 d\tau^2 + L^2 dy^2 + \frac{r_+^2}{L^2} \cos^2(\tau)\, dx^2 \right),
\end{equation}
where $\tau = \alpha + \beta$ and $y = \alpha - \beta$ run between $-\pi/2$ and $\pi / 2$. The AdS$_3$ asymptotic boundaries are located at $y = \pm \frac \pi 2$.
In Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates, the trajectory $y = y(\tau)$ of the brane is expressed most easily as a parametric equation. A nice representation is given by
\begin{align}
\label{eq:t_less_1_general}
\left( \cosh \frac{r_+ t_0}{L^2} \; \sin y + \sinh \frac{r_+ t_0}{L^2} \; \sin \tau \right)^2 = \frac{T_0^2}{1-T_0^2} \cos^2 y,
\end{align}
where $t_0$ is the Schwarzschild turnaround-time in the left exterior, which increases under forward time evolution. As we will see shortly, the discussion in the remainder of this paper can be made mostly independent of the choice of $t_0$. For the sake of simplicity we therefore choose the solution with $t_0 = 0$. \Cref{eq:t_less_1_general} then simplifies to
\begin{align}
\label{eq:brane_location_vs_tension}
\sin(y) = - T_0.
\end{align}
From this expression, it is easy to see that as $T_0$ approaches $T_\text{crit}$, the brane approaches the left asymptotic boundary at $y = - \frac{\pi}{2}$, where it stops making sense. This is of course also true in the case with generic, fixed $t_0$.\footnote{Note that the situation here is different compared to the case of spherical black holes, where in higher dimensions, the critical tension is an acceptable value for the brane tension for the turnaround solution.}
It can also be checked explicitly that the general expression, \cref{eq:t_less_1_general}, solves the equation for the brane trajectory in Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:eom_in_kruskal}
\cos y \left( - \tan y + y'(\tau) \tan \tau \right) = T_0 \sqrt{1 - y'(\tau)^2}.
\end{align}
\Cref{fig:brane_trajectories_1} shows how the brane trajectory continues inside the black hole horizon (in the Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates). The brane emanates from the black hole singularity, exits the horizon, reaches a turning point and falls back into the black hole, eventually reaching the future singularity. The maximum separation between the brane and the black hole, denoted by $r_0$, is set by the tension through
\begin{align}
T_0^2 = L^2 \frac{f(r_0)}{r_0^2}.
\end{align}
The induced metric on the brane cannot depend on the value of $t_0$, since Schwarzschild time shifts are an isometry of the bulk geometry. Therefore, one can deduce the induced metric on the brane by considering the special case \cref{eq:brane_location_vs_tension}. Using proper time $\lambda$ on the brane, the metric on the brane reads
\begin{align}
\label{eq:induced_metric_T_less_1}
ds_h^2 = - L^2 d\lambda^2 + \frac{r_+^2}{L^2} \frac{\cos^2 \left(\lambda \sqrt{1 - T^2_0}\right)}{1 - T^2_0}\,dx^2\, ,
\end{align}
which describes a big bang/big crunch cosmology with a negative cosmological constant and radiation. The proper time takes values between $\pm \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-T_0^2}} \frac \pi 2$.
\paragraph{$\mathbf{T_0 = T_\text{crit}:}$}
When the tension parameter takes on its critical value, the previous solution stops making sense, since the brane coincides with the left asymptotic AdS$_3$ boundary at $y=-\frac{\pi}{2}$. Instead, we find a new solution, where the brane emerges from the past horizon and asymptotically approaches the left boundary, as shown in \cref{fig:brane_trajectories_2}. Additionally, there is a time-reflected solution where the brane emanates from the left boundary in the asymptotic past and falls into the future horizon.
The general solution of the brane equation \cref{eq:brane_trajectory} can now be parametrized as
\begin{align}\label{eq:brane_traj_crit}
r^2 - r_+^2 = r_+^2 e^{\frac{\pm 2 r_+ (t-t_0)}{L^2}}.
\end{align}
The sign determines whether the brane recedes from or approaches the asymptotic boundary. For the upper sign, $r(t)$ approaches the asymptotic boundary at $t \to \infty$ and the past horizon as $t \to -\infty$. Since the brane has no turnaround point anymore, the interpretation of the integration constant $t_0$ changes compared to the previous case, although Schwarzschild time translations still map between various solutions.
The meaning of $t_0$ becomes clearer if we write the brane trajectory in the Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates,
\begin{align}\label{eq:critical_family}
\left( \sin y \pm \sin \tau \right)^2 = e^{ \mp \frac{2 r_+ t_0}{L^2}} \cos^2 y.
\end{align}
The upper sign describes a brane which hits the left boundary ($y = - \frac \pi 2$) at $\tau = \frac \pi 2$. The lower sign is the time-reflected solution. The expression shows that the brane emerges from the past (future) singularity at a location determined by the choice of $t_0$.
In fact, instead of solving the brane equation of motion, we could have arrived at the same solutions by taking \cref{eq:t_less_1_general_schwsch,eq:t_less_1_general} with $t_0 \to t_0 + \bar t$ and sending $\bar t \to \pm \infty$, while at the same time fixing
\begin{align}
\label{eq:fixed}
(1 - T^2_0) \, e^{ \pm \frac{2 r_+ \bar t}{L^2}} = 4.
\end{align}
The induced metric on the brane describes a radiation-dominated universe with a vanishing cosmological constant,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:induced_metric_T_eq_1}
ds_h^2 = -\,L^2 d\lambda^2 + \frac{r_+^2}{L^2} \lambda^2 dx^2.
\end{align}
The proper time runs from $0$ to $\infty$ or $-\infty$ to $0$, depending on whether the brane emanates from he singularity in the past, or falls into it in the future, respectively.
The four-dimensional version of this solution has been discussed previously, e.g., in \cite{Gubser:1999vj}, however, with a different interpretation.
\paragraph{$\mathbf{T_0 > T_\text{crit}:}$}
In this case, the brane either emerges from the past horizon and reaches the left asymptotic boundary at a finite time, or comes out of the left asymptotic boundary at a given instant of time and falls into the future horizon. The parametrization of the brane is now given by
\begin{align}
\label{eq:t_bigger_1_general}
\left( \sinh \frac{r_+ t_0}{L^2} \; \sin y + \cosh \frac{r_+ t_0}{L^2} \; \sin \tau \right)^2 = \frac{T_0^2}{T_0^2-1} \cos^2 y,
\end{align}
and an example is shown in \cref{fig:brane_trajectories_3}. This expression is quite similar to \cref{eq:t_less_1_general}, except that $\sinh$ gets replaced by $\cosh$ (and vice-versa), and the sign of the right hand side gets flipped. The parameter $t_0$ gives the time at which the brane intersects the left boundary. Of course, we again have the same limiting behaviour when simultaneously taking $t_0 \to \infty$ and $T_0 \to 1$, corresponding to the marginal case $T_0 = T_\text{crit}$.
The induced metric on the brane now models an expanding, $\lambda \in (0,\infty)$, or contracting, $\lambda \in (-\infty,0)$, spacetime,
\begin{align}
ds_h^2 = - L^2 d\lambda^2 + \frac{r_+^2}{L^2} \frac{\sinh^2(\lambda \sqrt{T^2_0 - 1})}{T^2_0 - 1} \, dx^2,
\end{align}
with a late (early) time de-Sitter phase. Though solutions with $T_0 > T_\text{crit}$ exist formally, they do not completely remove the second asymptotic boundary of the maximally extended black hole spacetime. This makes it seem unlikely that such bulk geometries can be described holographically by a single CFT living on the right asymptotic boundary, which is why we will not discuss these solutions any further in this paper.
\subsection{The dual CFT and entanglement entropy}
Black holes in AdS spacetime have a dual description as (approximately) thermal states in a CFT, which can be thought of as living at the asymptotic boundary of the spacetime \cite{Witten:1998qj, Maldacena:2001kr}. The thermal entropy density of the CFT state agrees with the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy density of the black hole, after relating the bulk gravitational constant to the number of boundary degrees of freedom. In holographic CFTs, one can compute the von Neumann entropy for the CFT state on some subregion $A$,
\begin{align}
S_\text{vN}(A) = - \text{tr} (\rho_A \log \rho_A),
\end{align}
with $\rho_A$ being the reduced density matrix on $A$, by using the Hubeny-Rangamani-Ryu-Takayanagi (RT) prescription \cite{Ryu:2006bv, Ryu:2006ef, Nishioka:2009un, Rangamani:2016dms}. It is given by the area of the smallest bulk extremal surface $\Sigma_\text{RT}$ homologous to $A$,\footnote{There are subleading corrections in $\frac 1 N$, where $N$ is related to the number of degrees of freedom of the CFT, which we will ignore.}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:rt_formula}
S_\text{vN}(A) = \frac{\text{Area}(\Sigma_\text{RT})}{4G_N}.
\end{align}
Importantly, in the presence of an ETW brane, the homology constraint only has to hold up to terms on the brane, such that the bulk RT surfaces are allowed to end on the brane \cite{Takayanagi:2011zk, Fujita:2011fp}. This becomes particularly clear in models which involve bulk defects instead of ETW branes \cite{Chen:2020uac}. In this paper we consider intervals and half-spaces in the two-dimensional CFT on the boundary. For these regions, there generally will be two possible configurations of bulk extremal surfaces. The first possibility is that the RT surface is strictly homologous to the region $A$ and stays outside the black hole horizon. Its area computes the entanglement entropy of region $A$ in the thermal state, since the geometry outside the horizon is just that of the thermofield double. We will say that this RT surface is in the \emph{thermal phase}. The area of this surface grows extensively with the size of the interval $A$. Alternatively, the RT surface can consist of two disjoint pieces which connect the boundary with the ETW brane. We will call it the \emph{connected RT surface}, or say that the RT surface is in the \emph{connected} phase. Clearly, the area of the connected surface does not depend on the size of $A$. \Cref{fig:rt_configuration} shows the two possible configurations.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subcaptionbox{Thermal surface}[0.45\textwidth]{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,-2) -- (0,2);
\draw[thick] (0,-1.5) -- (0,1.5);
\draw[dotted] (-4,-2) -- (-4,2);
\draw[dashed] (-2,-2) -- (-2,2);
\draw (-3.5,-2) -- (-3.5,2);
\node[right] (0,0) {A};
\draw[red, thick] (0,1.5) arc (90:270:1.5);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\subcaptionbox{Connected surface}[0.45\textwidth]{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,-2) -- (0,2);
\draw[thick] (0,-1.5) -- (0,1.5);
\draw[dotted] (-4,-2) -- (-4,2);
\draw (-3.5,-2) -- (-3.5,2);
\node[right] (0,0) {A};
\draw[red, thick] (0,-1.5) -- (-3.5, -1.5);
\draw[red, thick] (0,1.5) -- (-3.5, 1.5);
\draw[dashed] (-2,-2) -- (-2,2);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{The possible configurations of bulk extremal surfaces.}
\label{fig:rt_configuration}
\end{figure}
The modification of the homology constraint implies that black holes with ETW branes behind their horizons are pure states, motivating their interpretation as black hole microstates. For $T_0 < T_\text{crit}$, the solution discussed above can be obtained from an analytic continuation of a Euclidean CFT construction, which shows that such states are related to regulated boundary states \cite{Kourkoulou:2017zaj, Cooper:2018cmb}. For $T_0 \geq T_\text{crit}$, as well as the cases with additional couplings discussed below, the existence of an appropriate analytic continuation to a Euclidean geometry is not clear.
\subsection{Gravitational couplings on the brane}
Bulk geometries employing ETW branes should generally be understood as effective bottom-up models which capture certain aspects of solutions to UV complete theories, such as string theory. The latter solutions will generally look much more complicated and may include, for instance, non-perturbative objects, spacetime regions in which gravity becomes strong, and warping of internal directions, to name a few. Therefore, in the spirit of constructing an effective field theory, the effective action \cref{eq:braneaction} for an ETW brane may contain additional couplings allowed by the symmetries.
It is therefore interesting to understand to which extent are we allowed to add additional couplings to the brane. For reasons that will become clear momentarily, a particularly relevant class of couplings are gravitational couplings intrinsic to the brane. For branes with spacetime dimensionality $D \ge 3$, one can consider the Einstein-Hilbert term constructed from the induced metric on the brane as a possible additional term in the brane action. Such a term is called the Dvali-Gabadadze-Porrati term, or a \emph{DGP coupling} \cite{Dvali:2000hr}. Four our setup, with two dimensional ETW branes, the Einstein-Hilbert term is purely topological. We therefore consider the simplest model of dilaton gravity instead, i.e. the Jackiw-Teitelboim (JT) model \cite{JACKIW1985343,TEITELBOIM198341},
\begin{align}
\label{eq:JT_action}
I_\text{JT} = \frac{1}{16\pi G_N^{\text{brane}}} \int d^2x \sqrt{-h} \, \Phi_0 R^\text{brane} + \frac{1}{16\pi G_N^{\text{brane}}} \int d^2x \sqrt{-h} \, \varphi \left( R^\text{brane} - 2\Lambda^\text{brane} \right).
\end{align}
Here $G_N^\text{brane}$ denotes the Newton's gravitational constant on the brane. Similarly, $R^\text{brane}$ and $\Lambda^\text{brane}$ are the brane Ricci scalar and cosmological constant, respectively. The scalar field $\varphi$ is the \emph{dilaton}, with a constant part $\Phi_0$ that is associated with the ground state entropy.
As hinted at before, these terms have certain phenomenological features that make them particularly interesting to study. As has been discussed, e.g., in \cite{Almheiri:2019hni, Chen:2020hmv}, they affect the way RT surfaces are allowed to end on the brane. The addition of DGP couplings to the brane modifies the RT formula in \cref{eq:rt_formula} to include a \emph{contact term} at the brane\footnote{A derivation for very symmetric cases is given in the appendix of \cite{Chen:2020uac}.}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:rt_formula_w_dgp}
S_\text{vN}(A) = \frac{\phi(\Sigma_\text{RT} \cap \text{brane})}{4G^\text{brane}_N} + \frac{\text{Area}(\Sigma_\text{RT})}{4G_N}.
\end{align}
The RT surface $\Sigma_\text{RT}$ now has to extremize \cref{eq:rt_formula_w_dgp}. While this does not affect the bulk equations of motion for the RT surface, it does affect the location where the RT surface ends on the brane, as well as the value of the entanglement entropy (and thus the time at which transition happens between the connected and thermal extremal surfaces).
This in turn modifies the entropy if it is computed by RT surfaces which connect to the brane. In \cref{sec:subcritical_branes,sec:critical_branes} we will use this effect to place bounds on the allowed couplings in \cref{eq:JT_action}. This will be done by requiring that the growth of entropies computed via the RT prescription obeys a certain bound, which we will discuss now.
\section{Limits on entanglement velocity}
\label{sec:limits_on_ve}
In the black hole microstates of interest the entanglement entropy of sufficiently large spatial subregions in the dual CFT evolves with time. This time-evolution is subject to bounds which follow from information theoretic considerations in quantum field theory. In the present section, we discuss bounds on the \emph{entanglement velocity} in two-dimensional CFTs, which will be useful for the analysis in \cref{sec:subcritical_branes,sec:critical_branes} for imposing restrictions on the space of allowed gravitational couplings on the ETW branes. In \cref{sec:discussion}, we briefly comment upon information theoretic bounds in higher dimensions.
Entanglement velocity is a useful measure of the instantaneous rate of entanglement growth in a translation-invariant CFT state with a uniform energy density. For a spatial subregion $A$ in such a CFT state, with boundary $\partial A$ and entanglement entropy $S(A)$, the entanglement velocity is defined via
\begin{align}
\label{eq:def_ve}
v_E \equiv \frac{\partial_t S(A)}{s_\text{eq} |\partial A|},
\end{align}
where $|\partial A|$ is the volume of $\partial A$, and $s_{\text{eq}}$ denotes the entropy density for the system if it were in a state of thermal equilibrium with the same energy-density as the CFT state of interest. It is important to note that despite the name the entanglement velocity is not a physical velocity and thus there is no a priori reason for it to be bounded from above by the speed of light.
Usually, $v_E$ is discussed in the context of late time entanglement growth for quenched quantum systems. By late times one means time scales much larger than the inverse temperature $\beta$, but smaller than the time at which the entropy growth saturates.
However, for our purposes, we are interested in $v_E$ and local bounds on its value which also hold at early times, i.e., at times $t \lesssim \beta$.
The authors of \cite{Liu:2013iza, Liu:2013qca} conjectured an early time bound on $v_E$ given by the speed of light in any number of dimensions.
For the case of two dimensional quantum field theories, an argument constraining the instantaneous value of $v_E$ to $v_E \le 1$ at all times appeared in \cite{Hartman:2015apr}. Given the reliance of our subsequent discussion on this constraint, we now provide a quick review of the main ideas involved in the derivation of \cite{Hartman:2015apr}, suitably modified for our purposes.
We denote by $\rho$ the density matrix for the pure CFT state of interest, modeled in the bulk by a black hole microstate with an ETW brane behind the horizon. The state is translationally invariant and has a uniform energy density. Also, $\rho^{(\beta)}$ denotes the density matrix for the thermal state of the CFT at an inverse temperature $\beta$, chosen such that the thermal state has the same energy density as $\rho$. Now, for a connected subregion $A$ in the boundary CFT, we consider the relative entropy between the state on $A$ and the thermal state,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\label{eq:rel_entropy}
S(\rho_A||\rho_A^{(\beta)}) &\equiv \text{tr} (\rho_A \log \rho_A) - \text{tr}(\rho_A \log \rho_A^{(\beta)}) \\
&= S(\rho_A^{(\beta)}) - S(\rho_A) + \langle K^{(\beta)}_A \rangle - \langle K^{(\beta)}_A \rangle_{\beta},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\rho_A \equiv \text{tr}_{\bar A}\rho$ is the reduced density matrix on $A$ in the state $\rho$, and $\rho^{(\beta)}_A \equiv \text{tr}_{\bar A} \rho^{(\beta)}$ is the reduced density matrix on $A$ in the thermal state.
Furthermore, $K^{(\beta)}_A$ is the modular Hamiltonian associated to the subregion $A$ in the thermal state, and is defined via $\rho^{(\beta)}_A = e^{-K_A^{(\beta)}}/\text{tr}(e^{-K_A^{(\beta)}})$. Also, $\langle\ldots\rangle \equiv \text{tr}(\rho\ldots)$ and $\langle\ldots\rangle_\beta \equiv \text{tr}(\rho^{(\beta)}\ldots)$. In a local and relativistic quantum field theory, where regions $A$ and $B$ have domains of dependence $\mathcal D(A)$ and $\mathcal D(B)$, respectively, we have that
\begin{align}
\label{eq:rel_entropy_ineq}
S(\rho_A||\rho_A^{(\beta)}) \leq S(\rho_B||\rho_B^{(\beta)}) \qquad \text{ for } \qquad \mathcal D(A) \subset \mathcal D(B),
\end{align}
the reason being that relative entropy cannot increase under a partial trace, a property known as monotonicity of relative entropy. These properties of relative entropy, together with the properties of the state $\rho$ we are considering, yield an immediate upper bound on the growth of entanglement entropy, as we now discuss.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw [gray, thin] (0,0) -- (2,2) -- (0,4) -- (-2,2) -- cycle;
\draw [black, thick] (-2,2) -- node[above] {B} (2,2);
\draw [gray, thin] (0,0) -- (1.5,1.5) -- (0,3) -- (-1.5,1.5) -- cycle;
\draw [black, thick] (-1.5,1.5) -- node[below] {A} (1.5,1.5);
\draw [<->] (1.5,0) -- node[below] {$\Delta x = \Delta t$} (2,0);
\draw [gray, dotted] (1.5, 0) -- (1.5,1.5);
\draw [gray, dotted] (2, 0) -- (2,2);
\draw [<->] (2.5,1.5) -- node[right] {$\Delta t$} (2.5,2);
\draw [gray, dotted] (1.5, 1.5) -- (2.5,1.5);
\draw [gray, dotted] (2, 2) -- (2.5,2);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Two regions $A$ and $B$. Region $B$ is larger than $A$ by $2 \Delta t$ and is located $\Delta t$ to the future of $A$.}
\label{fig:domains_of_dependence}
\end{figure}
In a two-dimensional CFT the thermal modular Hamiltonian of an interval $A = [a, b]$ is a local integral of the stress-energy tensor \cite{Cardy:2016fqc},
\begin{align}
K_A^{(\beta)} = \frac \beta {2 \pi} \int_a^b dx \, \frac{\left(1 - e^{- \frac{2 \pi (x-a)}{\beta}}\right)\left(1 - e^{- \frac{2 \pi (b-x)}{\beta}}\right)}{\left(1 - e^{- \frac{2 \pi (b-a)}{\beta}}\right)}\, T_{00}(x-a).
\end{align}
In our case, the expectation value of the stress-energy tensor is the same in the thermal state as well as the microstate, $\langle T_{00}\rangle_\beta = \langle T_{00} \rangle$, since we chose our reference thermal state to have the same energy density as the microstate. From a bulk perspective, this happens because the geometry outside the horizon is identical for both the cases. The last two terms in \cref{eq:rel_entropy} therefore cancel and we are left with
\begin{align}
S(\rho_A||\rho_A^{(\beta)}) = S(\rho_A^{(\beta)}) - S(\rho_A).
\label{eq:simp_rel}
\end{align}
We now choose another interval $B$ of length $|B| = |A| + 2\Delta t$ and located $\Delta t$ to the future of $A$, see \cref{fig:domains_of_dependence}. Clearly, for this choice $\mathcal D(A) \subset \mathcal D(B)$. We can therefore make use of the inequality \cref{eq:rel_entropy_ineq} along with \cref{eq:simp_rel} and conclude that
\begin{align}
\label{eq:inequalities_entropy}
S(\rho_B) - S(\rho_A) \leq S(\rho^{(\beta)}_B) - S(\rho^{(\beta)}_A).
\end{align}
The entanglement entropies in the thermal state, $S(\rho^{(\beta)}_{A})$ and $S(\rho^{(\beta)}_{B})$, are time-independent. Moreover, it follows from translation-invariance that the extremal surfaces which compute the entanglement entropy in the connected phase, i.e., when the interior surface give the entropy, fall straight into the black hole and connect to the ETW brane. As a result, and at leading order in $\frac 1 N$, the entanglement entropies $S(\rho_{A}), S(\rho_{B})$ do not depend upon the width of the interval $A$ or $B$, as long as we are in the connected phase. Assuming that the entropy of $\rho_{A}$, $\rho_B$ are indeed computed using extremal surfaces in the connected phase, we can divide \cref{eq:inequalities_entropy} by $\Delta t$ and take the limit $\Delta t \to 0$ to obtain
\begin{align}
2 \partial_\ell S(\rho^{(\beta)}_A) \geq \partial_t S(\rho_A) ,
\end{align}
where $\ell = |A|$ is the length of the interval $A$. Using the explicit formula for the thermal entropy of a two-dimensional CFT for an interval of length $|A|$ we obtain
\begin{align}
\label{eq:inequality_intermediate}
\frac{r_+}{2 G_N L} \coth\left(\frac{r_+ |A|}{2 L^2}\right) \geq \partial_t S(\rho_A).
\end{align}
The equilibrium entropy density for our setup is given by $s_\text{eq} = {r_+}/{4 G_N L}$, and the inverse temperature by $\beta = 2\pi L^2/r_+$. We can use these expressions together with $|\partial A| = 2$ to rewrite \cref{eq:inequality_intermediate} as
\begin{align}
\label{eq:future_bound}
\frac{\partial_t S(\rho_A)}{s_\text{eq} |\partial A|} \leq \coth\left(\frac{\pi |A|}{\beta}\right).
\end{align}
The argument presented above can be repeated by choosing a region $B'$ which is in the past of $A$ by an amount $\Delta t$, and is $\Delta x = 2 \Delta t$ larger than $A$. This gives the opposite sign on the left hand side of \cref{eq:future_bound}. The two bounds can be succinctly summarized as
\begin{align}
\label{eq:ve_bound_2d_exact}
\left| v_E(t) \right| \leq \coth\left(\frac{\pi |A|}{\beta}\right).
\end{align}
The crucial point to note here is that nowhere in the argument did we refer to any particular instant of time, and so this bound on $v_E$ holds at all times. We can further assume that the region size is much larger than the inverse temperature scale, $|A| \gg \beta$, to get
\begin{align}
\label{eq:ve_bound_2d}
\left| v_E(t) \right| \leq 1.
\end{align}
Since we are considering a planar black hole, we can always achieve the limit $|A| \gg \beta$. Moreover, this is precisely the limit we are interested in, since it is in this limit that $S(\rho_A)$ is computed by an extremal surface in the connected phase.
\section{Subcritical branes}
\label{sec:subcritical_branes}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\subcaptionbox{}[0.45\textwidth]{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,0) node [below] {$y = y_\text{boundary}$} -- (0,4);
\draw[dashed] (0,0) -- (-3.5,3.5);
\draw[dashed] (0,4) -- (-3.5,0.5);
\draw[->] (0.5,1.5) -- node [right] {$\tau$}(0.5,2.5);
\draw[very thick] (-3.5,0) node [below] {$y = y_\text{brane}$} -- (-3.5,4);
\draw[gray, very thin] (0,0) -- (-3.5,0);
\draw[gray, very thin] (0,4) -- (-3.5, 4);
\draw[->] (-2.5, 4.5) -- node[above] {$y$} (-1.5, 4.5);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\subcaptionbox{}[0.45\textwidth]{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,0) -- (0,4);
\draw[dashed] (0,0) -- (-3.5,3.5);
\draw[dashed] (0,4) -- (-3.5,0.5);
\draw[very thick] (-3.5,0) node [below] {\phantom{$y = y_\text{brane}$}} -- (-3.5,4);
\draw[gray, very thin] (0,0) -- (-3.5,0);
\draw[gray, very thin] (0,4) -- (-3.5, 4);
\draw[gray, thin] (0,3.91) -- (-3.5,3.91);
\draw[red, thick] (0,3.52) -- (-3.5,3.52);
\draw[gray, thin] (0,3.15) -- (-3.5,3.15);
\draw[gray, thin] (0,2.76) -- (-3.5,2.76);
\draw[gray, thin] (0,2.38) -- (-3.5,2.38);
\draw[red, thick] (0,2) -- (-3.5,2);
\draw[gray, thin] (0,1.62) -- (-3.5,1.62);
\draw[gray, thin] (0,1.24) -- (-3.5,1.24);
\draw[gray, thin] (0,0.85) -- (-3.5,0.85);
\draw[red, thick] (0,0.47) -- (-3.5,0.47);
\draw[gray, thin] (0,0.09) -- (-3.5,0.09);
\draw[->] (0.5,1.5) -- node [above, rotate = -90] {$\tau_\text{boundary}$}(0.5,2.5);
\draw[->] (-4,1.5) -- node [above, rotate = 90] {$\tau_\text{brane}$}(-4,2.5);
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{The Penrose diagram for an AdS$_3$ black hole microstate with an embedded ETW brane. (a) The asymptotic boundary is located on the right. The ETW brane cuts off the geometry on the left. Horizons are represented by dashed lines. (b) The horizontal lines are extremal surfaces in the connected phase.}
\label{fig:two_dimensions_vanilla}
\end{figure}
We now have all the ingredients to compute the entanglement velocity in the microstate geometries introduced in \cref{sec:setup}. In this section, we will consider branes with $T_0 < T_\text{crit}$. Branes at critical tension, $T_0 = T_\text{crit}$, will be discussed in the next section.
\subsection{Branes with subcritical tension}
\label{sec:subcr_vanishing_coupling}
In Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates, the region of spacetime which would have been close to $y = - \frac \pi 2$ is cut off by the ETW brane. Due to the translation symmetry in the transverse direction, the brane location is completely specified by the profile $y_\text{brane}(\tau) = y(\tau)$. As seen in the previous section, the entanglement velocity is proportional to the time-derivative of the entanglement entropy. The range of values it can take on is therefore insensitive to time translations. We will thus focus on the solution \cref{eq:brane_location_vs_tension}, which is a special case of \cref{eq:t_less_1_general} with $t_0 = 0$.
In order to compute the entanglement velocity, we need to know the entanglement entropy $S(A)$ for an interval of length $|A|$ at the boundary. Of course, this is done by computing the area of the correct Ryu-Takayanagi (RT) surface homologous to the boundary interval. Areas for extremal surfaces anchored on the right asymptotic boundary diverge and therefore need to be regulated by introducing a radial cutoff. In Schwarzschild coordinates, the cutoff is chosen at $r_\epsilon = \frac {L} \epsilon$, with $\epsilon \ll 1$. In Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates $(\tau, y)$ this translates to a time-dependent cutoff surface,
\begin{align}\label{eq:def_cutoff_y}
y_\epsilon = \frac \pi 2 - \frac{r_+ \epsilon}{L} \cos \tau + \mathcal O(\epsilon^2).
\end{align}
For the situation at hand, we have two candidate bulk extremal surfaces, as shown in \cref{fig:rt_configuration}. The correct entanglement entropy is determined by choosing the extremal surface with the smaller area. Both extremal surfaces and their areas can be computed via the usual methods. Given an interval of size $|A|$ at the boundary and some time $\tau$, we are looking for an extremal surface in the bulk, which is homologous to the boundary interval. The thermal surface, which stays outside the horizon, is located at a constant Schwarzschild time $t$. The area associated with this surface gives the well-known result for the entropy of an interval in a two-dimensional CFT at a finite temperature, which when expressed in terms of the bulk quantities reads
\begin{align}
\label{eq:exterior_entropy_2d}
S^{\text{(th)}}_\text{vN}(A) = \frac{L}{2G_N} \log\left(\frac{2L}{r_+ \epsilon}\, \sinh \left(\frac{r_+ |A|}{2 L^2}\right)\right).
\end{align}
On the other hand, the connected extremal surface consists of two components, which are located at constant values of $x$, corresponding to the two end-points of the boundary interval $A$. The components shoot out into the bulk and terminate on the ETW brane. We can therefore parametrize the trajectory of this connected extremal surface $\Sigma_{\text{conn}}$ by $\tau(y)$. The associated area functional
\begin{align}
\label{eq:area_functional_2d}
A(\Sigma_\text{conn}) = 2 L \int^{y_\epsilon}_{y_{\text{brane}}} dy \, \frac{\sqrt{1 - \tau'(y)^2}}{\cos y}
\end{align}
only depends on the derivative $\partial_y \tau(y) \equiv \tau'(y)$, but is independent of $\tau(y)$. This gives rise to the conserved quantity
\begin{align}
\label{eq:conserved_charge_2d}
\mathcal Q_{E} = - \frac{\delta}{\delta \tau'(y)} \frac{A(\Sigma_\text{conn})}{2L} = \frac{\tau'(y)}{\cos(y) \sqrt{1 - \tau'(y)^2}}.
\end{align}
This equation can be solved for $\tau'(y)$ and integrated to yield an analytic solution for the trajectory of the connected extremal surface,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:rt_trajectory_2d}
\tau(y) = \tau_\text{boundary} + \arcsin \left(\frac{\mathcal Q_E}{\sqrt{1 + \mathcal Q_E^2}} \sin y \right) - \arcsin\left(\frac{\mathcal Q_E}{\sqrt{1 + \mathcal Q_E^2}}\right).
\end{align}
Substituting this into the area functional \cref{eq:area_functional_2d} yields
\begin{align}
\label{eq:area_connected}
A(\Sigma_\text{conn}) = 2L\, \text{arcsinh} \left. \left(\frac{\tan y}{\sqrt{1 + \mathcal Q_E^2}}\right) \right|^{y_{\epsilon}}_{y_{\text{brane}}}.
\end{align}
So far our computations have given us the most general solution for the connected extremal surface dictated by the bulk geometry alone. However, we have not yet imposed the boundary condition for the extremal surface at the location where it intersects the brane. This is closely connected with the yet-to-be-determined conserved charge $\mathcal Q_E$. Upon varying \cref{eq:area_functional_2d} with respect to $\tau(y)$, we obtain two boundary terms
\begin{align}
\label{eq:bounday_cond_2d}
0 = \frac{2L}{\cos y} \frac{\tau'(y)}{\sqrt{1 - \tau'(y)^2}} \delta \tau(y) \bigg|^{y_\epsilon}_{y_\text{brane}} = 2 L \mathcal Q_{E} \, \delta \tau(y) \bigg|^{y_\epsilon}_{y_\text{brane}}.
\end{align}
At the asymptotic boundary, $\delta \tau(y)$ vanishes, since the extremal surface is fixed there. On the other hand, at the location of the brane the extremal surface can move freely, so that we can impose the Neumann boundary condition, and $\delta\tau(y)|_{y_{\text{brane}}} \neq 0$. Thus, for \cref{eq:bounday_cond_2d} to be satisfied, $\mathcal Q_E$ must vanish. In conclusion, we find that the entropy $S^{(\text{conn})}_\text{vN}(A) = A(\Sigma_{\text{conn}})/4G_N$ associated with the connected extremal surface $\Sigma_{\text{conn}}$ is
\begin{align}
\label{eq:interior_entropy_2d}
\begin{split}
S^{(\text{conn})}_\text{vN}(A) &= \frac L {2 G_N} \left[ \text{arcsinh} \left( \tan \left( \frac \pi 2 - \frac{r_+\epsilon}L \cos \tau \right)\right) - \text{arcsinh} \left( \tan y_\text{brane} \right) \right]\\
&= \frac L {2 G_N} \log\left(\frac{2L}{r_+\epsilon \cos(\tau)} \sqrt{\frac{1+T_0}{1 - T_0}}\right) + \mathcal O(\epsilon^2).
\end{split}
\end{align}
The unusual factor of two comes from the presence of two components of $\Sigma_{\text{conn}}$.
Obviously, this entropy is independent of $|A|$. By going to the large area limit $|A| \to \infty$, we can make sure that the extremal surface in the connected phase has the smaller area, and hence the entanglement entropy up to arbitrarily late times is given by \cref{eq:interior_entropy_2d}. In order to compute the entanglement velocity, \cref{eq:def_ve}, we need to make sure to take the derivative with respect to the Schwarzschild time. The result,
\begin{align}
|v_E| = \left|\tanh\left(\frac{r_+ t}{L^2}\right)\right| < 1,
\end{align}
evidently obeys the bound \cref{eq:ve_bound_2d} for all times.
\subsection{Introducing JT gravity on the brane}
\label{sec:DGP2D}
Let us now investigate the situation with additional gravitational dynamics localized on the ETW brane. We choose to add Jackiw-Teitelboim gravity to the brane \cite{TEITELBOIM198341, JACKIW1985343}, since pure Einstein gravity is topological in two dimensions. More precisely, we will set $T_0 = 0$ and augment the total action, \cref{eq:gravity_action}, with the JT action, \cref{eq:JT_action}.\footnote{It is also possible to add a counterterm $I_\text{ct} = - \frac{1}{4\pi G_N}\int \sqrt{h}$ to the action \cite{Balasubramanian:1999re}, such that the dilaton couples canonically to the stress-energy tensor, c.f., the discussion in \cite{Chen:2020uac}. However, since this will not change the arguments below, we refrain from doing so.} In the discussion above, $T_0$ controlled the location of the brane. Now this role is played by $\Lambda^\text{brane}$. The dilaton equation of motion imposes the condition $R^\text{brane} = 2\Lambda^\text{brane}$ which determines the location of the brane through
\begin{align}
- \frac{\cos^2 y_\text{brane}}{L^2} = \Lambda^\text{brane}.
\end{align}
As before, the brane is located at a constant $y = y_\text{brane}$, and the induced metric on the brane is given by \cref{eq:induced_metric_T_less_1}. Now, however, we should write $\cos(y_\text{brane})$ instead of $\sqrt{1 - T_0^2}$. The metric equation of motion can be brought into the form
\begin{align}
\label{eq:eom_dilaton}
\nabla_i \nabla_j \varphi + \Lambda^\text{brane} \varphi h_{ij} = \frac{G_N^\text{brane}}{G_N} K_{ij}.
\end{align}
The inhomogeneous part of the equation above can be solved by a constant contribution $\varphi_0$ to $\varphi$, given by
\begin{align}
\label{eq:inhomo}
\varphi_0 = \frac{G_N^\text{brane}}{2 G_N \Lambda^\text{brane}} K.
\end{align}
Including the homogeneous solution to \cref{eq:eom_dilaton}, the full solution for the dilaton is then given by
\begin{align}
\label{eq:dilaton_def}
\varphi(\tau_\text{brane}) = \varphi_0 + \varphi_1 \sin \tau_\text{brane}.
\end{align}
This solution is the dilaton profile between the inner and outer horizons of a two-sided black hole in JT gravity.
Here, $\varphi_0$ is determined by \cref{eq:inhomo} and $\varphi_1$ is a free parameter, which we will try to constrain below.
For later reference, let us also note that the solution expressed in proper time reads
\begin{align}
\label{eq:subcr_dil_proper_time}
\varphi(\tau_\text{brane}) = \varphi_0 + \varphi_1 \sin \left(\lambda \sqrt{- \Lambda^\text{brane} L} \right).
\end{align}
Let us now turn to the computation of the extremal surfaces. Since the thermal extremal surface stays outside the black hole horizon, it is clear that it is not affected by adding JT gravity to the brane, which sits behind the horizon. Consequently, \cref{eq:exterior_entropy_2d} for the entropy associated with the thermal extremal surface homologous to a boundary interval of size $|A|$ on a constant-$\tau$ slice still remains valid.
In contrast, the connected extremal surfaces end on the brane and are sensitive to the presence of additional gravitational dynamics on the brane. The functional which needs to be extremized as well as evaluated in order to obtain the correct boundary entropy associated with the connected extremal surface depends upon the value of the dilaton, $\Phi = \Phi_0 + \varphi$, at the intersection of the extremal surface with the brane. It is given by \cref{eq:rt_formula_w_dgp}, which in our case reads
\begin{align}
\label{eq:s_dgp_2d}
S^\text{(conn)}_{\text{vN}}(\Phi) = \frac{\Phi_0 + \varphi(\tau_{\text{brane}})}{2 G_N^{\text{brane}}} + \frac{L}{2G_N} \int_{y_{\text{brane}}}^{y_{\epsilon}} dy \, \frac{\sqrt{1-\tau'(y)^2}}{\cos y},
\end{align}
evaluated on the smallest extremum. Since we have only modified the area functional at the location of the brane, the general analysis of \cref{sec:subcr_vanishing_coupling}, and in particular \cref{eq:rt_trajectory_2d} carries over. However, the discussion we presented surrounding \cref{eq:bounday_cond_2d}, where we argued that the conserved charge $\mathcal Q_E$ associated with the connected extremal surface needs to vanish, has to be revisited. Due to the presence of the first term in \cref{eq:s_dgp_2d}, \cref{eq:bounday_cond_2d} obtains a new contribution and now reads
\begin{align}
\mathcal Q_E = -\frac{G_N}{G_N^{\text{brane}} L}\, \varphi'(\tau_{\text{brane}}) = -\frac{G_N \varphi_1}{G_N^{\text{brane}}L}\cos(\tau_{\text{brane}}),
\label{eq:extremcond}
\end{align}
where $\varphi'$ is the derivative of $\varphi$ with respect to $\tau_\text{brane}$. The quantity $\varphi_1$ was defined in \cref{eq:dilaton_def}. Thus, the value of the conserved charge $\mathcal Q_E$ at any given time depends on the derivative of the dilaton at the location where the extremal surface intersects the brane. For later convenience, we introduce the notation
\begin{align}
\label{eq:def_alpha}
\alpha \equiv \frac{G_N \varphi_1}{G_N^{\text{brane}} L},
\end{align}
which will subsequently be termed as the ``JT coupling,'' such that
\begin{equation}
\mathcal Q_E= - \alpha \cos(\tau_{\text{brane}}) = -\alpha \cos\left(\lambda\sqrt{-\Lambda^\text{brane} L}\right).
\label{eq:QEalpha}
\end{equation}
The connected extremal surface trajectory is of course still given by \cref{eq:rt_trajectory_2d}. In \cref{fig:rt_surfaces_non-zero_charge} we display a few examples of connected extremal surfaces at different times for positive $\alpha$. The case of negative $\alpha$ is easily obtained by realizing that the image is invariant under a simultaneous $\mathbb Z_2$ transformation $\tau \to -\tau$, $\alpha \to - \alpha$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subcaptionbox{$\alpha = 0.1$}[0.45\textwidth]{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[x=1cm, y=1cm, xticklabels=\empty, yticklabels=\empty, xmin=-2, xmax=2, ymin=-2, ymax=2, hide axis]
\addplot [thick, red] file {data/rt_surface_t+0.0_phi0.1_ybrn1.4.dat};
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_t+0.3_phi0.1_ybrn1.4.dat};
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_t+0.6_phi0.1_ybrn1.4.dat};
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_t+0.9_phi0.1_ybrn1.4.dat};
\addplot [thick, red] file {data/rt_surface_t+1.2_phi0.1_ybrn1.4.dat};
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_t+1.5_phi0.1_ybrn1.4.dat};
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_t-0.3_phi0.1_ybrn1.4.dat};
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_t-0.6_phi0.1_ybrn1.4.dat};
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_t-0.9_phi0.1_ybrn1.4.dat};
\addplot [thick, red] file {data/rt_surface_t-1.2_phi0.1_ybrn1.4.dat};
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_t-1.5_phi0.1_ybrn1.4.dat};
\end{axis}
\begin{scope}[xshift=4cm, yshift=0cm]
\draw (0,0) -- (0,4cm);
\draw[dashed] (0,0) -- (-3.78,3.78);
\draw[dashed] (0,4) -- (-3.78,0.22);
\draw[very thick] (-3.78,0) -- (-3.78,4);
\draw[gray, very thin] (0,0) -- (-3.78,0);
\draw[gray, very thin] (0,4) -- (-3.78, 4);
\draw[->] (0.5,1.5) -- node [above, rotate=-90] {$\tau_\text{boundary}$}(0.5,2.5);
\draw[->] (-4.28,1.5) -- node [above, rotate=90] {$\tau_\text{brane}$}(-4.28,2.5);
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}}
\subcaptionbox{$\alpha = 0.5$}[0.45\textwidth]{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[x=1cm, y=1cm, xticklabels=\empty, yticklabels=\empty, xmin=-2, xmax=2, ymin=-2, ymax=2, hide axis]
\addplot [thick, red] file {data/rt_surface_t+0.0_phi0.5_ybrn1.4.dat};
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_t+0.3_phi0.5_ybrn1.4.dat};
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_t+0.6_phi0.5_ybrn1.4.dat};
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_t+0.9_phi0.5_ybrn1.4.dat};
\addplot [thick, red] file {data/rt_surface_t+1.2_phi0.5_ybrn1.4.dat};
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_t+1.5_phi0.5_ybrn1.4.dat};
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_t-0.3_phi0.5_ybrn1.4.dat};
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_t-0.6_phi0.5_ybrn1.4.dat};
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_t-0.9_phi0.5_ybrn1.4.dat};
\addplot [thick, red] file {data/rt_surface_t-1.2_phi0.5_ybrn1.4.dat};
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_t-1.5_phi0.5_ybrn1.4.dat};
\end{axis}
\begin{scope}[xshift=4cm, yshift=0cm]
\draw (0,0) -- (0,4cm);
\draw[dashed] (0,0) -- (-3.78,3.78);
\draw[dashed] (0,4) -- (-3.78,0.22);
\draw[very thick] (-3.78,0) -- (-3.78,4);
\draw[gray, very thin] (0,0) -- (-3.78,0);
\draw[gray, very thin] (0,4) -- (-3.78, 4);
\draw[->] (0.5,1.5) -- node [above, rotate=-90] {$\tau_\text{boundary}$}(0.5,2.5);
\draw[->] (-4.28,1.5) -- node [above, rotate=90] {$\tau_\text{brane}$}(-4.28,2.5);
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}}
\subcaptionbox{$\alpha = 1.0$\label{fig:rt_phi1}}[0.45\textwidth]{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[x=1cm, y=1cm, xticklabels=\empty, yticklabels=\empty, xmin=-2, xmax=2, ymin=-2, ymax=2, hide axis]
\addplot [thick, red] file {data/rt_surface_t+0.0_phi1.0_ybrn1.4.dat};
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_t+0.3_phi1.0_ybrn1.4.dat};
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_t+0.6_phi1.0_ybrn1.4.dat};
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_t+0.9_phi1.0_ybrn1.4.dat};
\addplot [thick, red] file {data/rt_surface_t+1.2_phi1.0_ybrn1.4.dat};
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_t+1.5_phi1.0_ybrn1.4.dat};
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_t-0.3_phi1.0_ybrn1.4.dat};
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_t-0.6_phi1.0_ybrn1.4.dat};
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_t-0.9_phi1.0_ybrn1.4.dat};
\addplot [thick, red] file {data/rt_surface_t-1.2_phi1.0_ybrn1.4.dat};
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_t-1.5_phi1.0_ybrn1.4.dat};
\end{axis}
\begin{scope}[xshift=4cm, yshift=0cm]
\draw (0,0) -- (0,4cm);
\draw[dashed] (0,0) -- (-3.78,3.78);
\draw[dashed] (0,4) -- (-3.78,0.22);
\draw[very thick] (-3.78,0) -- (-3.78,4);
\draw[gray, very thin] (0,0) -- (-3.78,0);
\draw[gray, very thin] (0,4) -- (-3.78, 4);
\draw[->] (0.5,1.5) -- node [above, rotate=-90] {$\tau_\text{boundary}$}(0.5,2.5);
\draw[->] (-4.28,1.5) -- node [above, rotate=90] {$\tau_\text{brane}$}(-4.28,2.5);
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}}
\subcaptionbox{$\alpha = 1.0$\label{fig:rt_other_universes}}[0.45\textwidth]{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[x=1cm, y=1cm, xticklabels=\empty, yticklabels=\empty, xmin=-2, xmax=2, ymin=-3, ymax=2, hide axis]
\addplot [thick, red] file {data/rt_surface_t-1.8_phi1.0_ybrn1.4.dat};
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_t-2.1_phi1.0_ybrn1.4.dat};
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_t-2.4_phi1.0_ybrn1.4.dat};
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_t-2.7_phi1.0_ybrn1.4.dat};
\addplot [thick, red] file {data/rt_surface_t-3.0_phi1.0_ybrn1.4.dat};
\end{axis}
\begin{scope}[xshift=4cm, yshift=3cm]
\draw (0,1) -- (0,-3);
\draw[dashed] (0,-2) -- (-3,1);
\draw[dashed] (-1,1) -- (-3.78,-1.78);
\draw[very thick] (-3.78,-3) -- (-3.78,1);
\draw[gray, very thin] (0,-2) -- (-3.78,-2);
\draw[->] (0.5,-0.5) -- node [above, rotate=-90] {$\tau_\text{boundary}$}(0.5,0.5);
\draw[->] (-4.28,-0.5) -- node [above, rotate=90] {$\tau_\text{brane}$}(-4.28,0.5);
\draw[dashed] (0,-2) -- (-1,-3);
\draw[dashed] (-3,-3) -- (-3.78,-2.22);
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{A family of RT surfaces emanating from the brane at different times. For (a), (b), (c) the red RT surfaces start at $\tau_\text{brane} = 0, \pm 1.2$ and $y_\text{brane} = -1.4$. (a) For $\alpha = 0.1$, the RT surfaces get deformed compared to case of vanishing DGP coupling in \cref{fig:two_dimensions_vanilla}, such that their ends are now at $\tau_\text{boundary} < \tau_\text{brane}$. (b) This trend becomes more prominent at $\alpha = 0.5$. (c) At $\alpha = 1.0$ we see that some extremal surfaces leave the patch of interest and end on the asymptotic boundary of a ``previous universe.'' (d) For large enough $\alpha$ there are other extremal surfaces which end on the brane in the analytic continuation of the spacetime. The red surfaces start at $\tau_\text{brane} = -1.8, -3.0$.}
\label{fig:rt_surfaces_non-zero_charge}
\end{figure}
In \cref{fig:rt_phi1} we see that for $\alpha = 1.0$ the extremal surfaces anchored at (roughly) negative values of $\tau_\text{brane}$ leave the coordinate patch under consideration. More generally, this behaviour appears at a sufficiently large value of $|\alpha|$. Since there are no true singularities in AdS${}_3$, this naturally raises the question whether there is any meaning to the extremal surfaces which do not end on the asymptotic boundary within $\tau_\text{boundary} \in (-\frac \pi 2, \frac \pi 2)$, but fall into the singularity. The answer is that such extremal surfaces compute entropies of subregions on the asymptotic boundary of the ``previous universe'' (or the ``next'' universe for negative $\alpha$) in the analytically continued spacetime.
This opens up the possibility of having additional extremal surfaces end on the asymptotic boundary within $\tau_\text{boundary} \in (-\frac \pi 2, \frac \pi 2)$, which connect to the brane in the analytically continued spacetime, $\tau_\text{brane} < - \frac{\pi}{2}$. This possibility is indeed realized, as depicted in \cref{fig:rt_other_universes}. For a more detailed discussion, refer to \cref{app:universe_crossing}. In fact, given a boundary time $\tau_\text{boundary} \in (-\frac \pi 2, \frac \pi 2)$, there can generally be up to three candidate extremal surfaces which end on the brane. One of these will end on the brane at $\tau_\text{brane} \in (-\frac \pi 2, \frac \pi 2)$, while the other two will end on the brane at $\tau_\text{brane} < -\frac \pi 2$ ($\tau_\text{brane} > \frac \pi 2$) for $\alpha$ positive (negative).
This becomes particularly clear once we examine the relation between the boundary and brane time. While in \cref{sec:subcr_vanishing_coupling} (with $\mathcal{Q}_E = 0$) the times at which a connected extremal surface intersected the asymptotic boundary and the brane were equal, i.e., $\tau_\text{brane} = \tau_\text{boundary}$, for non-zero $\mathcal Q_E$ we have from \cref{eq:rt_trajectory_2d} that
\begin{align}
\label{eq:rt_trajectory_2d_alt}
\tau_\text{boundary} = \tau_\text{brane} - \arcsin \left(\frac{\mathcal Q_E}{\sqrt{1 + \mathcal Q_E^2}} \sin y_\text{brane} \right) + \arcsin\left(\frac{\mathcal Q_E}{\sqrt{1 + \mathcal Q_E^2}}\right).
\end{align}
Again, we stress that $\mathcal Q_E$ is a function of $\tau_\text{brane}$, \cref{eq:QEalpha}. \Cref{fig:tau_brane_vs_tau_bdry} shows the relationship between $\tau_\text{boundary}$ and $\tau_\text{brane}$ for various values of $\alpha > 0$. The plots for negative $\alpha$ are obtained by reflection at the origin, i.e., $\tau_\text{brane} \to - \tau_\text{brane}$ and $\tau_\text{boundary} \to - \tau_\text{boundary}$. It is clear from the purple curve in \cref{fig:tau_brane_vs_tau_boundary_y-1.4} that, e.g., for $\alpha = 1.0$ we have three extremal surfaces which are connected to the brane for $\tau_\text{boundary} \lesssim -1$. Two of these end on the brane approximately in the interval $\tau_\text{brane} \in (- \pi, -\frac \pi 2)$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subcaptionbox{$y_\text{brane}=-0.1$}[0.45\textwidth]{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[xlabel=$\tau_\text{brane}$,ylabel=$\tau_\text{boundary}$,ylabel shift = -0.2cm,
xmin=-1.57,xmax=1.57,ymin=-1.57,ymax=1.57, x=1.7cm, y=1.7cm, legend pos=north west, legend style={draw=none}, legend cell align={left}]
\addplot [thick, teal] file {data/phi0_y0.1.dat};
\addplot [thick, olive] file {data/phi0.25_y0.1.dat};
\addplot [thick, orange] file {data/phi0.5_y0.1.dat};
\addplot [thick, red] file {data/phi0.75_y0.1.dat};
\addplot [thick, purple] file {data/phi1.0_y0.1.dat};
\addlegendentry{$\alpha=0.0$};
\addlegendentry{$\alpha=0.25$};
\addlegendentry{$\alpha=0.5$};
\addlegendentry{$\alpha=0.75$};
\addlegendentry{$\alpha=1.0$};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
}
\subcaptionbox{$y_\text{brane}=-1.4$\label{fig:tau_brane_vs_tau_boundary_y-1.4}}[0.45\textwidth]{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[xlabel=$\tau_\text{brane}$,ylabel=$\tau_\text{boundary}$,ylabel shift = -0.2cm,
xmin=-1.57,xmax=1.57,ymin=-1.57,ymax=1.57, x=1.7cm, y=1.7cm, legend pos=north west, legend style={draw=none}, legend cell align={left}]
\addplot [thick, teal] file {data/phi0_y1.4.dat};
\addplot [thick, olive] file {data/phi0.25_y1.4.dat};
\addplot [thick, orange] file {data/phi0.5_y1.4.dat};
\addplot [thick, red] file {data/phi0.75_y1.4.dat};
\addplot [thick, purple] file {data/phi1.0_y1.4.dat};
\addplot [thick, red, dashed] file {data/phi0.75_y1.4_extra.dat};
\addplot [thick, purple, dashed] file {data/phi1.0_y1.4_extra.dat};
\addlegendentry{$\alpha=0.0$};
\addlegendentry{$\alpha=0.25$};
\addlegendentry{$\alpha=0.5$};
\addlegendentry{$\alpha=0.75$};
\addlegendentry{$\alpha=1.0$};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
}
\caption{The relation between the time $\tau_\text{brane}$ at which a connected extremal surface connects to the brane and the time $\tau_\text{boundary}$ at which it connects to the asymptotic boundary. (a) For $y_\text{brane} = -0.1$, we see that even for $\alpha = 1.0$ the map between $\tau_\text{boundary}$ and $\tau_\text{brane}$ is one-to-one and thus all extremal surfaces connect the brane and boundary in the same universe. (b) For $y_\text{brane} = -1.4$, a value of $\alpha \geq 0.75$ is sufficient for extremal surfaces to connect to other universes. The $\tau$ coordinate for the extremal surfaces of the dashed lines is $\tilde{\tau}_\text{brane} = \tau_\text{brane} - \pi$.}
\label{fig:tau_brane_vs_tau_bdry}
\end{figure}
An immediate question is which of the extremal surfaces has the minimum area, and hence yields the correct entanglement entropy. We will only answer the question here qualitatively and leave a quantitative analysis for the next subsection. \Cref{fig:discontinuity_rt_surfaces} shows the renormalized entropy $S^\text{(ren)}$, which equals $S^\text{(conn)}_{\text{vN}}$ renormalized by subtracting $S^\text{(th)}_{\text{vN}}$ and a constant which depends on various momentarily unimportant quantities, such as the constant contributions to the dilaton $\Phi_0$, $\varphi_0$, as well as the size of the boundary region $A$ under consideration.\footnote{Note that this also means that there is no contradiction between the fact that $S^\text{(ren)}$ is positive in, e.g., \cref{fig:discontinuity_rt_surfaces} and that the connected surface is the RT surface.} Recall that $S^\text{(th)}_{\text{vN}}$ is given by \cref{eq:exterior_entropy_2d} and $S^\text{(conn)}_{\text{vN}}$ is given by \cref{eq:s_dgp_2d}, with $\tau(y)$ related to the charge $\mathcal{Q}_E$ via \cref{eq:conserved_charge_2d,eq:rt_trajectory_2d}, implying that
\begin{equation}
S^{\text{(ren)}} = \frac{L}{2G_N} \left[\alpha \sin(\tau_\text{brane}) + \log\left(\frac{1}{\cos(\tau_\text{boundary})\sqrt{1+\mathcal{Q}_E^2}}\right) - \text{arcsinh}\left(\frac{\tan y_{\text{brane}}}{\sqrt{1+\mathcal{Q}_E^2}}\right)\right].
\label{eq:sint_full_2d}
\end{equation}
We see from \cref{fig:discontinuity_rt_surfaces_alpha_1,fig:ve_violation_rt_surfaces} that at early times there are three possible values for $S^\text{(ren)}$, which correspond to the areas of the three extremal surfaces which connect to the brane. The area associated with one of the extremal surfaces which connect to the brane in the previous universe is the minimum amongst all the connected extremal surfaces. It thus gives the correct entanglement entropy, unless $S^\text{(th)}_{\text{vN}}$ is even smaller. However, by choosing an arbitrarily large region $A$ we can always arrange for $S^\text{(th)}_{\text{vN}}$ to become as large as we like. Consequently, for sufficiently large regions, and sufficiently large $\alpha$, the holographic computation exhibits a discontinuity in the entanglement entropy. This is unphysical and the corresponding values of $\alpha$ need to be excluded.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subcaptionbox{$\alpha=0$}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[xlabel=$\tau_\text{boundary}$,ylabel=${S}^\text{(ren)}$, ylabel shift = -0.2cm, xmin=-1.57, xmax=1.57, ymin=2, ymax=6, x=1.9cm, y=1cm]
\addplot [thick, teal] file {data/rt_in_tau_phi0.0_y-1.4.dat};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}}
\subcaptionbox{$\alpha=1$\label{fig:discontinuity_rt_surfaces_alpha_1}}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[xlabel=$\tau_\text{boundary}$,ylabel=${S}^\text{(ren)}$, ylabel shift = -0.2cm, xmin=-1.57, xmax=1.57, ymin=2, ymax=6, x=1.9cm, y=1cm]
\addplot [thick, teal] file {data/rt_in_tau_phi1.0_y-1.4.dat};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Renormalized entropy $ S^\text{(ren)}$ associated to extremal surfaces connecting to the brane. In both plots $y_\text{brane} = -1.4$. (a) shows the situation for $\alpha = 0$. (b) For $\alpha=1$, we see that at early times there are three candidate surfaces. Of these, the surfaces which connect to the brane at much earlier times give the smallest entropy. Those surfaces are not available anymore after $\tau_\text{boundary} \simeq -1.2$, and therefore the area of the smallest connected extremal surface exhibits a discontinuous jump.}
\label{fig:discontinuity_rt_surfaces}
\end{figure}
Although extremal surfaces which connect to the previous (or next) universe exist, one might wonder if they could just be discarded, e.g., by requiring that the extremal surfaces must not leave the coordinate patch $\tau \in (-\frac \pi 2, \frac \pi 2)$. In \cref{fig:ve_violation_rt_surfaces} we have plotted $S^{(\text{ren})}$, now as a function of the Schwarzschild boundary time $t \in (-\infty, \infty)$, where $t$ is related to the boundary time $\tau_{\text{boundary}}$ via \begin{equation}\label{eq:t_to_tau}
t = \frac{L^2}{2r_+} \log\left(\frac{1+\sin \tau_{\text{boundary}}}{1-\sin \tau_{\text{boundary}}}\right).
\end{equation}
As in the previous plots, the situation for $\alpha < 0$ can be obtained by a reflection $t_\text{boundary} \to - t_\text{boundary}$. Disregarding extremal surfaces which connect to the previous universe, we can focus on the solid lines. The blue curves correspond to a vanishing dilaton. Apart from a change in the location of the minimum of $S^{(\text{ren})}$, we see that as we increase $\alpha$, the entropy develops a phase of very fast growth. This effect is more pronounced for small brane position $y_\text{brane}$. We will now show that this fast growth of entanglement entropy is inconsistent from the boundary field theory perspective, such that either way we need to exclude a certain range of values of $\alpha$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subcaptionbox{$y_\text{brane} = -0.1$}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[xlabel=$t_\text{boundary}$,ylabel=${S}^\text{(ren)}$, ylabel shift = -0.3cm, xmin=-6, xmax=6, ymin=-5, ymax=7, x=0.5cm, y=0.5cm, legend pos=south east, legend style={draw=none}, legend cell align={left}]
\addplot [thick, teal] file {data/linear_growth_phi00_y-0.1.dat};
\addplot [thick, olive] file {data/linear_growth_phi20_y-0.1.dat};
\addplot [thick, orange] file {data/linear_growth_phi50_y-0.1.dat};
\addplot [olive, thick, dotted] file {data/linear_growth_phi20_y-0.1_extra.dat};
\addplot [orange, thick, dotted] file {data/linear_growth_phi50_y-0.1_extra.dat};
\addlegendentry{$\alpha=0$};
\addlegendentry{$\alpha=20$};
\addlegendentry{$\alpha=50$};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}}
\subcaptionbox{$y_\text{brane} = -0.5$}{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[xlabel=$t_\text{boundary}$,ylabel=${S}^\text{(ren)}$, ylabel shift = -0.3cm, xmin=-6, xmax=6, ymin=-5, ymax=7, x=0.5cm, y=0.5cm, legend pos=south east, legend style={draw=none}, legend cell align={left}]
\addplot [thick, teal] file {data/linear_growth_phi00_y-0.5.dat};
\addplot [thick, olive] file {data/linear_growth_phi20_y-0.5.dat};
\addplot [thick, orange] file {data/linear_growth_phi50_y-0.5.dat};
\addplot [olive, thick, dotted] file {data/linear_growth_phi20_y-0.5_extra.dat};
\addplot [orange, thick, dotted] file {data/linear_growth_phi50_y-0.5_extra.dat};
\addlegendentry{$\alpha=0$};
\addlegendentry{$\alpha=20$};
\addlegendentry{$\alpha=50$};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Renormalized entropy $S^\text{(ren)}$ associated to extremal surfaces connecting to the brane as a function of the boundary time $t$. The entropies computed using extremal surfaces connecting to $\tau_\text{brane} < - \frac \pi 2$ are displayed as dotted lines.}
\label{fig:ve_violation_rt_surfaces}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Bounds on the coupling}
\label{sec:DGP_bounds_subcrit}
We have seen in the previous subsection that there are two effects which can potentially lead to an unphysical behaviour in the entanglement entropy for the CFT. These are
\begin{enumerate}
\item A very rapid growth in entanglement,
\item A discontinuous jump in the entanglement entropy, due to extremal surfaces connecting to the previous/next universe.
\end{enumerate}
Both effects are at odds with the instantaneous bound on entanglement growth discussed in \cref{sec:limits_on_ve}, \cref{eq:ve_bound_2d}. If a holographic computation violates this bound, we can conclude that the bulk geometry cannot be dual to any physical state in the CFT, enabling us to put limits on the allowed range of values for the coupling $\alpha$.
We will start by considering the early time fast growth of entanglement entropy shown in the orange curves of \cref{fig:ve_violation_rt_surfaces}. In order to determine whether at any point in time we have a violation of the bound \cref{eq:ve_bound_2d}, it turns out to be sufficient to consider the late time behaviour of $v_E(t)$. If, for a particular choice of the JT coupling $\alpha$, $v_E$ approaches its asymptotic value of unity from above, it automatically implies that it must have exceeded unity by a finite amount during the course of its time evolution, violating \cref{eq:ve_bound_2d}. The corresponding JT coupling can thus be deemed unphysical.
For arbitrarily large $\alpha$ the RT surface at $\tau_\text{boundary} \to \frac \pi 2$ will connect to $\tau_\text{brane} \to \frac \pi 2$. The leading order terms in the asymptotic expansion of the entanglement velocity at $\tau_\text{boundary} \to \frac \pi 2$, expressed in terms of the time at which the RT surface leaves the brane, $\tau_\text{brane}$, is
\begin{align}
\label{eq:asymptotic_exp_2d}
v_E(\tau) \sim 1 - \frac 1 2 (1 + \alpha - \alpha \sin y_\text{brane})(1 - \alpha - \alpha \sin y_\text{brane}) \left(\frac \pi 2 - \tau_\text{brane}\right)^2 + \ldots
\end{align}
The direction from which $v_E(\tau)$ asymptotically approaches unity is controlled by the sign of the second term in \cref{eq:asymptotic_exp_2d}. Given that we are considering the case $\alpha > 0$, the leading order correction to unity is negative if and only if $(1 - \alpha - \alpha \sin y_\text{brane}) > 0$, or equivalently
\begin{align}
\label{eq:weak_bound_2d_1}
\alpha < \frac 1 {1 + \sin y_\text{brane}}.
\end{align}The asymptotic expansion at $\tau_\text{boundary} \to -\frac \pi 2$ does not give a tighter bound when $\alpha > 0$.
For $\alpha < 0$, the bound is now given by the asymptotic expansion at $\tau_\text{boundary} \to -\frac \pi 2$. It results in the same bound as in \cref{eq:weak_bound_2d_1}, now however for $- \alpha$. In summary, the bound on $\alpha$ by not allowing ultrafast (but finite) entanglement growth is
\begin{align}
\label{eq:weak_bound_2d}
|\alpha| < \frac 1 {1 + \sin y_\text{brane}}.
\end{align}
We are interested in the case where $-\frac{\pi}{2} < y_\text{brane} \le 0$, and so the tightest bound is obtained for zero-tension branes, $y_\text{brane} = 0$, where one has $|\alpha| < 1$. This bound, however, gets progressively weaker as the brane moves towards the left asymptotic boundary $y_\text{brane} \to - \frac \pi 2$.
If we also consider RT surfaces which go through the singularity, a stronger bound can be obtained by requiring the absence of discontinuities in the entanglement entropy. Their absence is of course implied by the bounds on entanglement velocity, but should also be intuitively clear. In a CFT, entanglement propagates via local interactions, and since we evolve a translation-invariant state, the entanglement entropy cannot jump instantaneously by a finite amount at any point in time.
In order to better understand the conditions under which additional RT surfaces appear, notice that their presence implies that the map between $\tau_\text{brane}$ and $\tau_\text{boundary}$, \cref{eq:rt_trajectory_2d_alt}, is not one-to-one anymore. In the transition from a bijective to a surjective map, the function $\tau_\text{boundary}(\tau_\text{brane})$ develops a saddle point at $\tau_\text{boundary} = \tau_\text{brane} = -\frac \pi 2$, c.f., \cref{fig:tau_brane_vs_tau_boundary_y-1.4}. For parameters above this saddle point value, the map will not be bijective anymore, and additional RT surfaces appear.
This condition can be used to find the physical values for the JT coupling by finding solutions to
\begin{align}
\partial_\tau \tau_\text{boundary}(\tau_\text{brane}) = 0
\end{align}
as a function of $y_\text{brane}$ and $\alpha$. In fact, for positive coupling it is sufficient to find a solution to the above equation at $\tau_\text{brane} = - \frac \pi 2$, since, as can be seen from \cref{fig:ve_violation_rt_surfaces}, the additional RT surfaces appear only at early times.
The resulting bound is
\begin{align}
\alpha \leq \frac 1 {1 - \sin y_\text{brane}} \text{ for } \alpha \geq 0.
\end{align}
We can run the same argument for negative coupling, where we have to find a solution for the above equation at $\tau_\text{brane} = \frac \pi 2$. This yields
\begin{align}
\alpha \geq \frac 1 {-1 + \sin y_\text{brane}} \text{ for }\alpha \leq 0.
\end{align}
Combining the two results, we can deduce the bound
\begin{align}
|\alpha| \leq \frac 1 {1 - \sin y_\text{brane}}.
\label{eq:alpha_bound}
\end{align}
For the regime of interest, i.e., $-\frac{\pi}{2} < y_\text{brane} \leq 0$, this bound is always tighter than the bound \cref{eq:weak_bound_2d}. In order to argue that the parameter regime disallowed by \cref{eq:alpha_bound} needs to be excluded, we need to argue that there is in fact a discontinuous transition, i.e., these additional extremal surfaces are always smaller than the naive RT surface. In fact, as shown in \cref{app:proof}, we can make an even stronger statement: the first/last extremal surface to pass through the singularity is always the smallest one.
Of course, the question arises whether a configuration with the extremal surface passing through the singularity should be taken seriously. If we treat the AdS$_3$ case as a toy model for higher-dimensional cases, then perhaps we should ignore extremal surfaces which pass through the singularity altogether. A more compelling reason to exclude these extremal surfaces is that the entanglement wedge changes orientation in the ``previous universe.'' One the other hand, AdS${}_3$ does not have genuine curvature singularities, so nothing prevents us from continuing the solution past the apparent singularity and the orientation reversal is ``hidden'' in the singularity.
It would therefore be interesting to find an independent argument in favour of the stronger bound \cref{eq:alpha_bound}. We will leave this to future work. The only additional remark is that the situation discussed here, namely, that there are multiple extremal surfaces which connect the brane with the asymptotic boundary at a given boundary time, can also appear in higher dimensions. In that case, however, they appear far away from the singularity.
\section{Critical branes}
\label{sec:critical_branes}
As discussed in \cref{sec:brane_solutions}, there is another set of brane trajectories, now with $T_0 = T_\text{crit} = 1$, that cut off the left asymptotic boundary, c.f., \cref{fig:brane_trajectories}. We also discussed in \cref{sec:brane_solutions} how one can arrive at the critical case from the subcritical case by sending $T_0 \to 1$ while also shifting the Schwarzschild time by an appropriate amount simultaneously. Here, we will focus on a particular critical solution with the brane profile given by
\begin{align}
\label{eq:new_sol_2d}
\cos y_\text{brane} + \sin y_\text{brane} = \mp \sin \tau_\text{brane},
\end{align}
which follows from \cref{eq:critical_family} after setting $t_0 = 0$, and is related to other critical solutions by time translations. This is of course justified since, as we have seen in the previous section, bounds on entanglement velocity bound the derivative of entanglement entropy and are insensitive to time translations. The upper sign describes a brane which comes out of the past singularity at $\tau = - \frac \pi 2$ and approaches the asymptotic boundary at $\tau = \frac \pi 2$. The lower sign is the time-reflected trajectory.
The brane trajectory $y(\tau)$ can easily be obtained from \cref{eq:new_sol_2d} and reads
\begin{align}
\label{eq:new_sol_y_vs_tau}
y_\text{brane} = \text{arctan}\left(\frac { \sin \tau \pm \sqrt{2 - \sin^2 \tau} }{\sin \tau \mp \sqrt{2 - \sin^2 \tau} } \right).
\end{align}
We can now study extremal surfaces ending on this brane, first in the absence, and then in the presence of JT gravity on the brane.
\subsection{Branes with critical tension}
The correct solution for bulk extremal surfaces is still given by \cref{eq:rt_trajectory_2d}, and so we are only left with fixing the charge $\mathcal Q_E$. Since extremal surfaces which connect to the brane do not end at constant $y_\text{brane}$ anymore, extremizing the area functional \cref{eq:area_functional_2d} gives a boundary term from the variation of the integrand as well as the variation of the limit of integration; see \cref{app:variation} for details. To make the boundary terms cancel we require that
\begin{align}
\dot y_\text{brane}(\tau) = \tau'_\text{RT}(y) \Big|_\text{brane},
\end{align}
where the dot denotes a derivative with respect to $\tau$ and the prime is a derivative with respect to $y$. This is merely the statement that at the point of intersection between the brane and the extremal surface, their respective tangent vectors need to be orthogonal in the Lorentzian sense.
Given a point $(\tau,y)$ on the brane, the extremal surface emanating from this location must thus have a charge given by
\begin{align}
\label{eq:charge_t_1}
\mathcal Q_E = \frac {\dot y_\text{brane}(\tau)}{\cos(y) \sqrt{1 - \dot y_\text{brane}(\tau)^2}} = \mp \sqrt{- 2 \tan y}.
\end{align}
Here, we have made use of \cref{eq:new_sol_2d} in the second step. For the critical brane trajectory \cref{eq:new_sol_2d}, the proper time on the brane is related to the $y$-coordinate of the brane as\footnote{The value for $\mathcal Q_E$ takes a very simple form when expressed in terms of the proper time on the brane, $\mathcal Q_E = - \lambda$.}
\begin{align}
\lambda = \pm \sqrt{- 2 \tan y}.
\end{align}
For simplicity, we will now focus only on the upper sign, i.e., a brane which exits the past singularity and approaches the left asymptotic boundary in the far future.
Using \cref{eq:rt_trajectory_2d_alt} together with \cref{eq:charge_t_1}, one can compute an explicit form for the bulk trajectory of extremal surfaces which end on the brane at $(y_\text{brane}, \tau(y_\text{brane}))$,
\begin{align}
\tau_\text{RT}(y) = \arcsin\left( \frac{\sqrt{1-2 \tan y_\text{brane} \cos^2 y}-2 \tan y_\text{brane} \sin y}{2 \tan y_\text{brane}-1} \right).
\end{align}
In fact, as can be easily seen from this expression by setting $y = \frac \pi 2$, all extremal surfaces which leave the brane end at $\tau_\text{boundary} = - \frac \pi 2$. This is shown in \cref{fig:rt_surfaces_t_1}. Consequently, there are no extremal surfaces which connect to the asymptotic boundary at a finite value for the Schwarzschild time. This makes it impossible for us to draw conclusions about the CFT state dual to the bulk geometry with a critical brane using bounds on entanglement velocity. Nonetheless, the introduction of JT gravity on the brane changes the behaviour of extremal surfaces, as we discuss in the next subsection. By introducing an appropriately chosen JT coupling, one can arrive at the situation where the extremal surfaces emanate from the brane and reach the asymptotic boundary at a finite value for the Schwarzschild time. Thus, we may still be able to place bounds on the coupling.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[x=1cm, y=1cm, xticklabels=\empty, yticklabels=\empty, xmin=-2, xmax=2, ymin=-2, ymax=2, hide axis]
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_T1_y0.dat};
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_T1_y-0.05.dat};
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_T1_y-0.2.dat};
\addplot [thick, red] file {data/rt_surface_T1_y-0.4.dat};
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_T1_y-0.75.dat};
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_T1_y-1.1.dat};
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_T1_y-1.4.dat};
\addplot [thick, red] file {data/rt_surface_T1_y-1.57.dat};
\addplot [very thick, black] file {data/brane_T1.dat};
\end{axis}
\begin{scope}[xshift=4cm, yshift=0cm]
\draw (0,0) -- (0,4cm);
\draw[dashed] (0,0) -- (-4,4);
\draw[dashed] (0,4) -- (-2.6,1.4);
\draw[gray, very thin] (0,0) -- (-2,0);
\draw[gray, very thin] (0,4) -- (-4, 4);
\draw[->] (0.5,1.5) -- node [above, rotate=-90] {$\tau_\text{boundary}$}(0.5,2.5);
\draw[->] (-4.28,1.5) -- node [above, rotate=90] {$\tau_\text{brane}$}(-4.28,2.5);
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Extremal surfaces which end on the brane in the case of $T_0 = T_\text{crit}$. As can be seen, all such surfaces end at time $\tau_\text{boundary} = - \frac \pi 2$, which does not correspond to a finite value for the Schwarzschild time $t$.}
\label{fig:rt_surfaces_t_1}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Introducing JT gravity on the brane}
To analyse the effects of additional gravitational dynamics on the brane, we will focus on the simplest model of dilaton gravity on a Ricci-flat background, \cref{eq:JT_action} with $\Lambda^\text{brane} = 0$. In addition to having this term in the brane action for the critical case, \cref{eq:braneaction} with $T_0 = 1$, we also allow for the possibility of an additional local coupling on the brane,
\begin{align}\label{eq:brane_counter}
I_{\Delta T} = - \frac{1}{8\pi G^\text{brane}_N}\int d^2x \sqrt{-h} \, \Delta T.
\end{align}
The equations of motion of the full system are given by
\begin{align}\label{eq:critical_eoms}
R &= 0, &&
\nabla_i \nabla_j \varphi = \frac{G_N^\text{brane}}{G_N} \left(K_{ij} - \frac{1 + \Delta T}{L} h_{ij} \right),
\end{align}
where we have used that $T_0 = 1$. \Cref{eq:brane_eom} now implies $K_{ij} = \frac{1}{L} h_{ij}$, such that the right hand side of the second equation in \cref{eq:critical_eoms} simplifies to $- \frac{G_N^\text{brane}}{G_N} \frac{\Delta T}{L} h_{ij} $. Moreover, we once again require that $\varphi$ is invariant under translations in the transverse direction $x$. The general solution for the dilaton is then given by
\begin{align}
\label{eq:dilaton_crit}
\varphi(\lambda) = \frac{G_N^\text{brane}}{2G_N} \frac{\Delta T}{L} \lambda^2 + c,
\end{align}
where $c$ is an arbitrary constant and $\lambda$ is the proper time on the brane.
As we can see, the dilaton profile is controlled by the parameter $\Delta T$ which plays a role similar to $\varphi_1$ in the previous section. We therefore define a new coupling
\begin{align}
\alpha_\text{cr} \equiv \frac{G_N^\text{brane}}{G_N} \frac{\Delta T}{L},
\end{align}
which we attempt to constrain in the following discussion.
Requiring that the modified entropy functional, \cref{eq:rt_formula_w_dgp}, is extremized fixes the charge $\mathcal Q_E$ of an RT surface ending on the brane to be
\begin{align}
\label{eq:charge_T_one}
\mathcal Q_E = \left(\frac{\dot y}{\cos y \sqrt{1 - { \tau'_\text{RT}} ^2}} - \partial_\tau \varphi(\tau) \right)\Bigg|_\text{brane}.
\end{align}
Through the second term, the value of $\mathcal Q_E$ at any given time depends on the dilaton profile. Using the relation between $\tau$ and $\lambda$, one can easily compute that
\begin{align}
\partial_\tau \varphi(\tau) \Big|_\text{brane} = \alpha_\text{cr} \sqrt{\frac{- 2 \tan y}{1 - \sin (2 y)}}\Bigg|_\text{brane},
\end{align}
where we have made use of the brane trajectory \cref{eq:new_sol_2d}. In totality, \cref{eq:charge_T_one} takes the form
\begin{align}
\label{eq:Qrt_T_1}
\mathcal Q_E = -\sqrt{-2 \tan y} \left(\sqrt{1-2 \alpha_\text{cr} ^2 \tan y}+\alpha_\text{cr} \sec y \sqrt{1-\sin (2 y)}\right) \Big|_\text{brane}.
\end{align}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subcaptionbox{\label{fig:rt_phi1_t1}$\alpha_\text{cr} = -0.3$}[0.45\textwidth]{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[x=1cm, y=1cm, xticklabels=\empty, yticklabels=\empty, xmin=-2, xmax=2, ymin=-2, ymax=2, hide axis]
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_T1_y-0.0001_alpha_-0.3.dat};
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_T1_y-0.05_alpha_-0.3.dat};
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_T1_y-0.2_alpha_-0.3.dat};
\addplot [thick, red] file {data/rt_surface_T1_y-0.4_alpha_-0.3.dat};
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_T1_y-0.75_alpha_-0.3.dat};
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_T1_y-1.1_alpha_-0.3.dat};
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_T1_y-1.4_alpha_-0.3.dat};
\addplot [thick, red] file {data/rt_surface_T1_y-1.57_alpha_-0.3.dat};
\addplot [very thick, black] file {data/brane_T1.dat};
\end{axis}
\begin{scope}[xshift=4cm, yshift=0cm]
\draw (0,0) -- (0,4cm);
\draw[dashed] (0,0) -- (-4,4);
\draw[dashed] (0,4) -- (-2.6,1.4);
\draw[gray, very thin] (0,0) -- (-2,0);
\draw[gray, very thin] (0,4) -- (-4, 4);
\draw[->] (0.5,1.5) -- node [above, rotate=-90] {$\tau_\text{boundary}$}(0.5,2.5);
\draw[->] (-4.28,1.5) -- node [above, rotate=90] {$\tau_\text{brane}$}(-4.28,2.5);
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}}
\subcaptionbox{\label{fig:rt_other_universes_t1}$\alpha_\text{cr} = -1.0$}[0.45\textwidth]{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[x=1cm, y=1cm, xticklabels=\empty, yticklabels=\empty, xmin=-2, xmax=2, ymin=-2, ymax=2, hide axis]
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_T1_y-0.0001_alpha_-1.0.dat};
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_T1_y-0.05_alpha_-1.0.dat};
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_T1_y-0.2_alpha_-1.0.dat};
\addplot [thick, red] file {data/rt_surface_T1_y-0.4_alpha_-1.0.dat};
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_T1_y-0.75_alpha_-1.0.dat};
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_T1_y-1.1_alpha_-1.0.dat};
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_T1_y-1.4_alpha_-1.0.dat};
\addplot [thick, red] file {data/rt_surface_T1_y-1.57_alpha_-1.0.dat};
\addplot [very thick, black] file {data/brane_T1.dat};
\end{axis}
\begin{scope}[xshift=4cm, yshift=0cm]
\draw (0,0) -- (0,4cm);
\draw[dashed] (0,0) -- (-4,4);
\draw[dashed] (0,4) -- (-2.6,1.4);
\draw[gray, very thin] (0,0) -- (-2,0);
\draw[gray, very thin] (0,4) -- (-4, 4);
\draw[->] (0.5,1.5) -- node [above, rotate=-90] {$\tau_\text{boundary}$}(0.5,2.5);
\draw[->] (-4.28,1.5) -- node [above, rotate=90] {$\tau_\text{brane}$}(-4.28,2.5);
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}}\vspace{10mm}
\subcaptionbox{$\alpha_\text{cr} = 0.3$}[0.45\textwidth]{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[x=1cm, y=1cm, xticklabels=\empty, yticklabels=\empty, xmin=-2, xmax=2, ymin=-2, ymax=2, hide axis]
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_T1_y-0.0001_alpha_0.3.dat};
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_T1_y-0.05_alpha_0.3.dat};
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_T1_y-0.2_alpha_0.3.dat};
\addplot [thick, red] file {data/rt_surface_T1_y-0.4_alpha_0.3.dat};
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_T1_y-0.75_alpha_0.3.dat};
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_T1_y-1.1_alpha_0.3.dat};
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_T1_y-1.4_alpha_0.3.dat};
\addplot [thick, red] file {data/rt_surface_T1_y-1.57_alpha_0.3.dat};
\addplot [very thick, black] file {data/brane_T1.dat};
\end{axis}
\begin{scope}[xshift=4cm, yshift=0cm]
\draw (0,0) -- (0,4cm);
\draw[dashed] (0,0) -- (-4,4);
\draw[dashed] (0,4) -- (-2.6,1.4);
\draw[gray, very thin] (0,0) -- (-2,0);
\draw[gray, very thin] (0,4) -- (-4, 4);
\draw[->] (0.5,1.5) -- node [above, rotate=-90] {$\tau_\text{boundary}$}(0.5,2.5);
\draw[->] (-4.28,1.5) -- node [above, rotate=90] {$\tau_\text{brane}$}(-4.28,2.5);
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}}
\subcaptionbox{$\alpha_\text{cr} = 1.0$}[0.45\textwidth]{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[x=1cm, y=1cm, xticklabels=\empty, yticklabels=\empty, xmin=-2, xmax=2, ymin=-2, ymax=2, hide axis]
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_T1_y-0.0001_alpha_1.0.dat};
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_T1_y-0.05_alpha_1.0.dat};
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_T1_y-0.2_alpha_1.0.dat};
\addplot [thick, red] file {data/rt_surface_T1_y-0.4_alpha_1.0.dat};
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_T1_y-0.75_alpha_1.0.dat};
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_T1_y-1.1_alpha_1.0.dat};
\addplot [thin, gray] file {data/rt_surface_T1_y-1.4_alpha_1.0.dat};
\addplot [thick, red] file {data/rt_surface_T1_y-1.57_alpha_1.0.dat};
\addplot [very thick, black] file {data/brane_T1.dat};
\end{axis}
\begin{scope}[xshift=4cm, yshift=0cm]
\draw (0,0) -- (0,4cm);
\draw[dashed] (0,0) -- (-4,4);
\draw[dashed] (0,4) -- (-2.6,1.4);
\draw[gray, very thin] (0,0) -- (-2,0);
\draw[gray, very thin] (0,4) -- (-4, 4);
\draw[->] (0.5,1.5) -- node [above, rotate=-90] {$\tau_\text{boundary}$}(0.5,2.5);
\draw[->] (-4.28,1.5) -- node [above, rotate=90] {$\tau_\text{brane}$}(-4.28,2.5);
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{A family of extremal surfaces emanating from the brane for the critical case. The red surfaces start at $y = -0.4$ and $y = -1.57$ on the brane. (a) and (b) indicate that for $\alpha_\text{cr} < 0$ extremal surfaces can end on the asymptotic boundary at $\tau_\text{boundary} > - \frac{\pi}{2}$. (c) and (d) show that for $\alpha_\text{cr} > 0$ there are no extremal surfaces connecting the brane with the asymptotic boundary within the same coordinate patch.}
\label{fig:rt_surfaces_T1_non-zero_charge}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Bounds on the coupling}
We can now use the result \cref{eq:Qrt_T_1} in the equations for the trajectory and the area of the connected surface to obtain the behaviour of an extremal surface which connects to the brane at $y = y_\text{brane}$. The resulting extremal surfaces are shown in \cref{fig:rt_surfaces_T1_non-zero_charge}.
It is obvious that there is a qualitative difference between $\alpha_\text{cr} < 0$ and $\alpha_\text{cr} > 0$. In the first case, shown in (a) and (b) of \cref{fig:rt_surfaces_T1_non-zero_charge}, there are extremal surfaces that end on the asymptotic boundary at $\tau_\text{boundary} > -\frac{\pi}{2}$. On the contrary, as shown in (c) and (d), if $\alpha_\text{cr} > 0$, one does not find extremal surfaces which connect the brane to the asymptotic boundary. In other words, for $\alpha_\text{cr} > 0$, the von Neumann entropy is always given by the thermal value \cref{eq:exterior_entropy_2d}. We might thus at best hope for a lower bound on $\alpha_\text{cr}$.
A comprehensive understanding can be obtained by plotting the entanglement entropy against the Schwarzschild time $t$, \cref{fig:critical_schwarzschild}. The plot shows that similar to the subcritical case, for certain values of $\alpha_\text{cr} < 0$ the entropy growth becomes very fast, and can violate the bound \cref{eq:ve_bound_2d}. The critical value for $\alpha_\text{cr}$ below which this happens can once again be obtained by using the asymptotic expansion of the entanglement velocity at early times,
\begin{align}
|v_E(\tau)| \sim 1 + \frac{\alpha_\text{cr}}{2} (2 + \alpha_\text{cr}) \left(\tau_\text{brane} + \frac \pi 2\right)^2 + \dots.
\end{align}
We thus conclude that states with physically acceptable entanglement velocity \cref{eq:ve_bound_2d} must have
\begin{align}
\label{eq:alpha_cr_bound_weak}
\alpha_\text{cr} \geq -2,
\end{align}
while $\alpha_\text{cr}$ is unbounded from above, since in that case no extremal surfaces exist which connect the brane to the asymptotic boundary within the same coordinate patch.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[xlabel=$t_\text{boundary}$,ylabel=${S}^{(\text{ren})}$, ylabel shift = -0.3cm, xmin=-6, xmax=6, ymin=-6, ymax=6, x=0.5cm, y=0.5cm, legend pos=south west, legend style={draw=none}, legend cell align={left}]
\addplot [thick, teal] file {data/linear_growth_crit_alpha-0.2.dat};
\addplot [thick, olive] file {data/linear_growth_crit_alpha-2.0.dat};
\addplot [thick, orange] file {data/linear_growth_crit_alpha-6.0.dat};
\addlegendentry{$\alpha=-0.2$};
\addlegendentry{$\alpha=-2.0$};
\addlegendentry{$\alpha=-6.0$};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Renormalized entropy $S^{(\text{ren})}$ associated to extremal surfaces connecting to the brane as a function of the boundary time $t_\text{boundary}$.}
\label{fig:critical_schwarzschild}
\end{figure}
In order to try to make statements about the states with $\alpha_\text{cr} > 0$, we can again consider as to what happens if we allow for extremal surfaces to pass through the singularity and end on the brane in the previous patch.
As can be seen from \cref{fig:rt_surfaces_T1_non-zero_charge}, we indeed have the possibility of extremal surfaces passing through the singularity. Similar to the case of subcritical branes, we can analytically continue our solution and consider the case where extremal surfaces can end on the resulting geometry behind the singularity i.e.\ in the previous universe. For the present case, we can only extend our solution to $\tau < -\frac \pi 2$, since the dilaton diverges towards the future. The continued solution is symmetric under $\tau \to \pi - \tau$. It turns out that unlike the subcritical case, extremal surfaces now cross the singularity for arbitrarily small $\alpha_\text{cr} > 0$ and end at $\tau_\text{boundary} > - \frac{\pi}{2}$. Since the new extremal surfaces are the only extremal surfaces in the connected phase, they will dominate for sufficiently large boundary subregions. There is a critical time after which such surfaces cease to exist. Consequently, there will be a discontinuous jump in the entanglement entropy. Thus, if this approach of analytically continuing the geometry is to be trusted, $\alpha_\text{cr} > 0$ should be ruled out completely, and we arrive at the bound
\begin{align}
\label{eq:alpha_cr_bound_strong}
0 \geq \alpha_\text{cr} \geq -2.
\end{align}
Interestingly, repeating the analysis with the time reflected solution, we obtain the same bounds. This is however expected, since we arrive at the time-reflected solution by mapping $\tau \to - \tau$, but leaving $\alpha_\text{cr}$ invariant.
\subsection{Comments on bounds in the critical case}
Recall that in the subcritical case, the bound that followed by disallowing very fast entanglement growth, \cref{eq:weak_bound_2d}, allowed for arbitrarily large values of $|\alpha|$ as the brane approached the left asymptotic boundary. It might therefore be surprising that a strict bound is obtained in the critical case, which, as discussed earlier, can be related to the subcritical case in an appropriate limit. We now explore the relation between the two cases in detail, as well as demonstrate how the bounds \cref{eq:alpha_cr_bound_weak,eq:alpha_cr_bound_strong} can be derived from the bounds of \cref{sec:subcritical_branes}.
We have already discussed in \cref{sec:brane_solutions} how the critical case can be obtained from the subcritical case by taking the brane towards the left asymptotic boundary, while at the same time performing a time translation such that \cref{eq:fixed} is held fixed. One can show via a lengthy computation that this transformation also relates the proper time in both cases,
\begin{align}\label{eq:lam_subc_c}
\lambda_\text{sub-cr} = - \frac{1}{\cos y_\text{brane}} \frac \pi 2 + \lambda_\text{cr} + \mathcal O\left(\cos y_\text{brane}\right).
\end{align}
We will refrain from giving a detailed derivation of this result. This is because it is much easier to arrive at it by realizing that \cref{eq:lam_subc_c} exactly maps the induced metric for the subcritical case, \cref{eq:induced_metric_T_less_1}, to the one for the critical case, \cref{eq:induced_metric_T_eq_1}, as we take $y_\text{brane} \to -\frac \pi 2$.
Using this relation one can compare the dilaton solutions \cref{eq:dilaton_def} and \cref{eq:dilaton_crit} with one-another to arrive at\footnote{Note that in order to compare to the computation of the previous subsection, we have $\alpha_\text{cr}<0$ and thus also $\alpha < 0$.}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:relation_alpha}
\alpha_\text{cr} = 2 \, (1 + \sin y_\text{brane}) \, \alpha.
\end{align}
This tells us that if we are interested in obtaining a critical brane with a non-trivial dilaton profile, we need to let $\alpha$ diverge as we take the subcritical brane to its critical limit.
If we only consider the weak bound on $\alpha$, \cref{eq:weak_bound_2d}, we find that this is indeed possible, provided that the right hand side of \cref{eq:relation_alpha} is between $-2$ and $2$. On the other hand, if one considers the stronger bound in the subcritical case that follows from analytic continuation, \cref{eq:alpha_bound}, which requires that $\alpha$ is finite in the limit $y_\text{brane} \to - \frac \pi 2$, then one can only have $\alpha_\text{cr} = 0$.
This limiting procedure in fact suggests a stronger bound than the one obtained from the RT surfaces alone. Given that in fact $|\alpha|$ was bounded, we can conclude that for solutions obtained by the limit explained above,
\begin{align}
| \alpha_\text{cr}| \leq 2,
\end{align}
from ultrafast entanglement growth, or
\begin{align}
\alpha_\text{cr} = 0,
\end{align}
from RT surfaces that pass through the singularity.
\section{Brane tomography}
\label{sec:tomography}
We have seen in the previous sections that adding JT gravity to the brane modifies the behaviour of the entanglement entropy for the dual CFT state as a function of time. We are now interested in a slightly different problem. Given a large interval on the boundary, which from the bulk perspective means that the connected extremal surfaces are the RT surfaces up to arbitrarily late times, what are the signatures of the presence of JT gravity on the brane, that can be extracted from the behaviour of the entanglement entropy as a function of time? In other words, we would like to understand, from a purely boundary perspective, the imprints of any intrinsic gravitational dynamics on the brane, and how these can by computed from the asymptotic behaviour of the holographic entanglement entropy. For the present case, this would correspond to reading off the value of the JT coupling $\alpha$ as well as the constant term in the solution for the dilaton, by looking at the asymptotic rate of entanglement growth. Also, in addition to these, we will be able to extract the location of the brane within the bulk geometry, $y_\text{brane}$, along with the parameter $t_0$ that appears in the brane trajectory, \cref{eq:t_less_1_general_schwsch,eq:brane_traj_crit}, as we illustrate below. We call this procedure \emph{brane tomography}.
\subsection{Subcritical brane tomography}
We first perform tomography on CFT states dual to bulk geometries with subcritical branes, discussed in detail in \cref{sec:DGP2D}. Given that we consider a very large interval on the boundary, the entanglement entropy is given by the connected extremal surface, \cref{eq:sint_full_2d}. Making use of \cref{eq:def_cutoff_y,eq:dilaton_def,eq:def_alpha,eq:QEalpha}, it can be cast into the explicit form\footnote{For notational convenience we work in the units where $L/2G_N = 1$.}
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
S_{\text{vN}} = \,\,&\frac{\Phi_0 + \varphi_0}{2 G_N^{\text{brane}}} +\alpha \sin \tau_{\text{brane}} + \log\left(\frac{\beta}{\pi L \cos\tau_{\text{boundary}}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\alpha^2 \cos^2\tau_{\text{brane}}}}\right)\\
&- \text{arcsinh}\left(\frac{\tan y_{\text{brane}}}{\sqrt{1+\alpha^2 \cos^2\tau_{\text{brane}}}}\right) - \log \epsilon + \mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2),
\label{eq:sint_full_2d_2}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
with the regulator $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$.
As alluded to above, we will be interested in extracting the JT coupling $\alpha$ along with the brane parameters $(y_{\text{brane}}, t_0)$ by studying the asymptotic behaviour of the entanglement entropy as a function of the boundary time $t$. To do so, we look at the entanglement velocity $v_E$, defined in \cref{eq:def_ve}. As a first step in performing tomography, one can determine the sign of $\alpha$ by looking at the behaviour of $v_E$ around its minimum. For $\alpha>0$, the absolute value of the time rate of change of $v_E$ is larger after the minimum, compared to before reaching the minimum, as is evident from \cref{fig:ve_violation_rt_surfaces}. The opposite holds true for $\alpha < 0$.
With the sign of $\alpha$ in hand, the next step is to examine the asymptotic behaviour of $v_E$. This requires some care, because whether one should look at the asymptotic behaviour for $t\rightarrow \infty$ or $t\rightarrow -\infty$ depends upon the sign of $\alpha$. This can be thought of as a consequence of \cref{eq:sint_full_2d_2}, which does not give the expression for the entanglement entropy directly as a function of the Schwarzschild time $t$, but rather in terms of $\tau_\text{brane}$. For all $\alpha > 0$, the limit $\tau_\text{brane} \rightarrow \frac{\pi}{2}$ corresponds to $t\rightarrow \infty$, as can be easily computed using \cref{eq:rt_trajectory_2d_alt,eq:t_to_tau}, and has also been depicted in \cref{fig:rt_surfaces_non-zero_charge}. The other asymptotic limit, $t \rightarrow -\infty$, is reached at a value of $\tau_\text{brane}$ that for $\alpha > - (1 - \sin y_\text{brane})$ depends upon the explicit value of $\alpha$ and is thus much harder to extract.\footnote{For performing brane tomography, we restrict our attention to the coordinate patch $\tau_\text{boundary} \in \left(-\frac{\pi}{2},\frac{\pi}{2}\right)$.} Thus, for $\alpha > 0$, one should look at the asymptotic expansion of $v_E$ as $t\rightarrow \infty$. On the other hand, when $\alpha < 0$, the correct extremal surfaces can be obtained by reflecting the extremal surfaces depicted in \cref{fig:rt_surfaces_non-zero_charge} about the horizontal $\tau_\text{brane} = 0$ axis. Consequently, for such cases, the limit $\tau_\text{brane} \rightarrow -\frac{\pi}{2}$ always leads to $t\rightarrow -\infty$, and therefore this is the appropriate point one should expand $v_E$ about when $\alpha < 0$.
In the following, we assume that $\alpha > 0$, unless otherwise stated. Then, using \cref{eq:sint_full_2d_2}, the asymptotic behaviour of $v_E$ as $t\rightarrow \infty$ takes the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:asymptopia}
v_E = 1 + \mathcal{K}_1\, e^{-\frac{4\pi t}{\beta}} + \mathcal{K}_2\, e^{-\frac{8\pi t}{\beta}} + \mathcal{K}_3 \, e^{-\frac{12\pi t}{\beta}} +\mathcal{O}\left(e^{-\frac{16\pi t}{\beta}}\right).
\end{equation}
To arrive at this expression, it is required to compute the time derivative of the entanglement entropy in the connected phase, \cref{eq:sint_full_2d_2}, with respect to the Schwarzschild time $t$. This can be done by using the chain rule for differentiation. Given that \cref{eq:sint_full_2d_2} expresses the entanglement entropy as a function of $\tau_\text{brane}$ and $\tau_\text{boundary}$, with $\tau_\text{boundary}$ itself being a monotonically increasing function of $\tau_\text{brane}$ (at least in the parameter regime of interest), \cref{eq:rt_trajectory_2d_alt}, it is straightforward to compute the derivative ${\partial S_{\text{vN}}}/{\partial \tau_\text{brane}}$ as a function of $\tau_\text{brane}$. Similarly, using \cref{eq:t_to_tau}, one can compute ${\partial t}/{\partial \tau_\text{brane}}$ as a function of $\tau_\text{brane}$. Combining the two yields ${\partial S_{\text{vN}}}/{\partial t}$, albeit as a function of $\tau_\text{brane}$. Now, for all $\alpha > 0$, the late time limit $t\rightarrow \infty$ corresponds to $\tau_\text{brane} \rightarrow \frac{\pi}{2}$, as discussed above. One can thus take the limit of $\tau_\text{brane} \rightarrow \frac{\pi}{2}$ in the expression for $\partial S_{\text{vN}}/\partial t$, which gives the late time behaviour of $v_E$ as an expansion in powers of $\left(\tau_\text{brane} - \frac{\pi}{2}\right)^2$. The final step then requires one to convert from $\tau_\text{brane}$ to $t$ in the late time limit, which can be done using \cref{eq:t_to_tau}, yielding the asymptotic expansion \cref{eq:asymptopia}.
The leading corrections to the asymptotic behaviour of $v_E$, parametrized by $\mathcal{K}_1, \mathcal{K}_2, \mathcal{K}_3 \ldots$ in \cref{eq:asymptopia}, are functions of the brane location $y_{\text{brane}}$ and the JT coupling $\alpha$. Using the notation $\xi \equiv 1 - \alpha \sin y_\text{brane}$ for brevity, we find that
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
&\mathcal{K}_1 = -\frac{2}{\left(\alpha+\xi\right)} \left[\xi - \alpha \right],\label{eq:tomo2d1}\\
&\mathcal{K}_2 = \phantom{-}\frac{2}{\left(\alpha+\xi\right)^4} \left[\xi^4 - 2 \alpha\left(\alpha-2\right)\xi^2 - 4\alpha\xi +\alpha^3(\alpha-4)\right],\label{eq:tomo2d2}\\
&\mathcal{K}_3 = - \frac{2}{\left(\alpha+\xi\right)^7} \Big[\xi^7 + \alpha \xi^6 - 3\alpha(\alpha-4) \xi^5 - 3 \alpha \left(\alpha^2 -4\alpha + 8\right)\xi^4 + 3\alpha(\alpha^3 - 8\alpha^2 +8) \xi^3 \nonumber \\
&\hspace{28mm}+3\alpha(\alpha(\alpha-2)(\alpha^2-6\alpha + 4) - 4) \xi^2 - \alpha^2(\alpha^4 - 12 \alpha^3 +40\alpha -12)\xi \nonumber\\
&\hspace{28mm}- \alpha^4 (\alpha-2)(\alpha^2 - 10\alpha+4)\Big], \label{eq:tomo2d3}
\end{align}
\label{eq:tomo2d}
\end{subequations}
and so on. Thus, the $\mathcal{K}_i$ encapsulate the values of the brane parameters $(y_\text{brane},\alpha)$. Following the discussion in \cref{sec:DGP_bounds_subcrit}, demanding $\mathcal{K}_1 < 0$ to ensure that \cref{eq:ve_bound_2d} holds true provides a bound on the allowed values of the JT coupling $\alpha$, \cref{eq:weak_bound_2d_1}.
In the discussion above, we restricted our attention to the case $\alpha>0$. As discussed earlier, when $\alpha<0$, rather than looking at the asymptotic expansion for the entanglement velocity at very late times, one must instead consider the asymptotic expansion corresponding to very early times, i.e., $t \rightarrow -\infty$, where $v_E \rightarrow -1$. By repeating the analysis above, we once again get an asymptotic expansion for the entanglement velocity of the form given in \cref{eq:asymptopia}, albeit now with the replacements $v_E \rightarrow - v_E$, $t \rightarrow -t$ and $\alpha \rightarrow -\alpha$. This implies that our expressions for the functions $\mathcal{K}_i$ that were obtained assuming $\alpha > 0$ are also the correct coefficients for the asymptotic expansion around $t \to -\infty$ for $\alpha < 0$, provided we make the replacement $\alpha\rightarrow -\alpha$ in \cref{eq:tomo2d}.
It is tempting to think about the possibility of extracting the brane parameters $(y_{\text{brane}}, \alpha)$ using $\mathcal{K}_i$. However, there is one important subtlety here --- the quantities $\mathcal{K}_i$ are not invariant under boundary time translations. Consider two different coordinate systems on the boundary, such that their time coordinates are shifted relative to one another by an amount $\Delta t$. This would imply that the values for $\mathcal{K}_1$ between the two coordinate systems will differ by a factor of $e^{{-4\pi \Delta t}/{\beta}}$, the values for $\mathcal{K}_2$ will differ by a factor of $e^{{-8\pi \Delta t}/{\beta}}$, and so on.\footnote{In fact, by comparing the values for the same coefficient, for instance $\mathcal{K}_1$, between two different coordinate systems on the boundary, one can determine the relative time shift between them.} Therefore, to ensure that one can extract the same values for the brane parameters from the asymptotic behaviour of $v_E$, one should work with quantities that are agnostic to relative time shifts between different coordinate systems. We choose to work with the invariants
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\aleph_1 &\equiv \frac{\mathcal{K}_2 - \frac{1}{2} \mathcal{K}_1^2}{\mathcal{K}_1^2}\, , \label{eq:def_aleph_1}\\
\aleph_2 &\equiv \frac{\mathcal{K}_3 - \frac{3}{2}\mathcal{K}_2 \mathcal{K}_1 + \frac{1}{2}\mathcal{K}_1^3}{\mathcal{K}_1^3}\, , \label{eq:def_aleph_2}
\end{align} \label{eq:the_alephs}
\end{subequations}
which, using \cref{eq:tomo2d}, have the explicit form
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\aleph_1 &= \frac{2 \alpha }{(\alpha - \xi)^2 (\alpha + \xi)^2}\, \left[\xi^2-\xi-\alpha^2\right], \label{eq:aleph_1_xi} \\
\aleph_2 &= \frac{\alpha}{(\alpha-\xi)^3 (\alpha+\xi)^4}\,\big[3\xi^4 -3(\alpha+2) \xi^3 -3(3\alpha^2 -2\alpha-1)\xi^2 \nonumber\\
&\hspace{34mm}+ \alpha(3\alpha^2+10\alpha-3)\xi + 2\alpha^3(3\alpha-1)\big]. \label{eq:aleph_2_xi}
\end{align} \label{eq:invariantformulas}
\end{subequations}
The reason we choose to work with the particular choice of invariants defined via \cref{eq:the_alephs} is to reduce the degree of the polynomial that appears in the numerator of the invariant when expressed in powers of $\xi$, as can be observed by comparing the explicit expressions in \cref{eq:invariantformulas} with \cref{eq:tomo2d}. This leads to simplifications when performing numerical computations discussed below.
Now, to perform brane tomography, we plot the contours in the $(y_{\text{brane}}, \alpha)$-plane that correspond to the values of the invariants $(\aleph_1, \aleph_2)$ extracted from the entanglement velocity. The actual values of $(y_{\text{brane}}, \alpha)$ realized in the microstate geometry correspond to the intersection point of the constant $\aleph_1, \aleph_2$ contours, provided it lies within the physically permissible domain of the brane parameters. For the brane location, this corresponds to $-\pi/2 < y_{\text{brane}} \leq 0$. For the JT coupling $\alpha$, there are two possibilities, as discussed in detail in \cref{sec:DGP_bounds_subcrit}. If one only considers the requirement that the entanglement entropy does not exhibit ultrafast growth, \cref{eq:ve_bound_2d}, to be consistent with the physical picture of entanglement propagating via local interactions in the boundary theory, the physically permissible values of $\alpha$ satisfy the weak bound $|\alpha|\left(1+\sin y_\text{brane}\right) \le 1$, c.f., \cref{eq:weak_bound_2d}. On the other hand, if one is willing to consider RT surfaces which pass through the singularity, \cref{eq:alpha_bound}, we have the much stricter constraint $|\alpha|\left(1-\sin y_\text{brane}\right) \le 1$.
It turns out that only a small subset of the parameter space for the invariants $(\aleph_1, \aleph_2)$ translates into physical values for the brane parameters.
If a particular set of $(\aleph_1, \aleph_2)$ does not correspond to physical brane parameters, it implies that the approach of modeling the CFT state holographically via a planar black hole with an ETW brane having JT gravity localized on it requires modifications. For instance, such a scenario might imply that there are additional couplings present on the ETW brane, beyond the JT term.
By numerically exploring a large subset of the space of constant $\aleph_1, \aleph_2$ contours, we find that the curves seem to intersect at most at one point in the entire $(y_{\text{brane}}, \alpha)$-plane. The fact that there is at most one intersection point over a large region in the parameter space of the invariants makes brane tomography sound plausible. Once we numerically locate the intersection point in the $(y_\text{brane}, \alpha)$ plane for a given set of values for the invariants $(\aleph_1, \aleph_2)$, we can easily read off the values for the brane parameters.
In \cref{fig:tomography}, as an illustrative example of performing tomography when $\alpha > 0$, we plot several constant $\aleph_{1}, \aleph_2$ contours on the $(y_{\text{brane}}, \alpha)$-plane. Each pair of curves represents a point in the parameter space of the invariants $(\aleph_1,\aleph_2)$. The intersection points correspond to the values of $y_\text{brane}, \alpha$ realized in the bulk geometry.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\subcaptionbox{$\aleph_1 = -0.05$, \ $\aleph_2 = -0.1$}[0.45\textwidth]{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[xlabel=$y_\text{brane}$,ylabel=$\alpha$, ylabel shift = -0.2cm, xmin=-1.52, xmax=0, ymin=0, ymax=3, x=3.5cm, y=1.8cm, legend pos=south west, legend cell align={left}]
\addplot[draw=none, name path=weak] file {tomodata/weakbound.dat};
\addplot[draw=none, name path=strong] file {tomodata/strongbound.dat};
\path[name path=axis] (axis cs:-1.57,3) -- (axis cs:0,3);
\addplot [fill=gray, opacity=0.1] fill between[of=strong and axis];
\addplot [fill=black] fill between[of=weak and axis];
\addplot [thick, teal] file {tomodata/tomoNNal1.dat};
\addplot [thick, orange] file {tomodata/tomoNNal2.dat};
\node[teal] at (axis cs: -0.7,1.5) {$\aleph_1$};
\node[orange] at (axis cs: -1.,1.5) {$\aleph_2$};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}}
\subcaptionbox{$\aleph_1 = -0.05$, \ $\aleph_2 = -0.4$}[0.45\textwidth]{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[xlabel=$y_\text{brane}$,ylabel=$\alpha$, ylabel shift = -0.2cm, xmin=-1.52, xmax=0, ymin=0, ymax=3, x=3.5cm, y=1.8cm, legend pos=south west, legend cell align={left}]
\addplot[draw=none, name path=weak] file {tomodata/weakbound.dat};
\addplot[draw=none, name path=strong] file {tomodata/strongbound.dat};
\path[name path=axis] (axis cs:-1.57,3) -- (axis cs:0,3);
\addplot [fill=gray, opacity=0.1] fill between[of=strong and axis];
\addplot [fill=black] fill between[of=weak and axis];
\addplot [thick, teal] file {tomodata/tomoNNal1out.dat};
\addplot [thick, orange] file {tomodata/tomoNNal2out.dat};
\node[teal] at (axis cs: -0.7,1.5) {$\aleph_1$};
\node[orange] at (axis cs: -0.9,1.5) {$\aleph_2$};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}}
\subcaptionbox{$\aleph_1 = 0.05$, \ $\aleph_2 = -0.03$}[0.45\textwidth]{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[xlabel=$y_\text{brane}$,ylabel=$\alpha$, ylabel shift = -0.2cm, xmin=-1.52, xmax=0, ymin=0, ymax=3, x=3.5cm, y=1.8cm, legend pos=south west, legend cell align={left}]
\addplot[draw=none, name path=weak] file {tomodata/weakbound.dat};
\addplot[draw=none, name path=strong] file {tomodata/strongbound.dat};
\path[name path=axis] (axis cs:-1.57,3) -- (axis cs:0,3);
\addplot [fill=gray, opacity=0.1] fill between[of=strong and axis];
\addplot [fill=black] fill between[of=weak and axis];
\addplot [thick, teal] file {tomodata/tomoPNal1one.dat};
\addplot [thick, teal] file {tomodata/tomoPNal1two.dat};
\addplot [thick, orange] file {tomodata/tomoPNal2.dat};
\node[teal] at (axis cs: -0.7,1.5) {$\aleph_1$};
\node[orange] at (axis cs: -1.1,1.5) {$\aleph_2$};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}}
\subcaptionbox{$\aleph_1 = 0.05$, \ $\aleph_2 = -0.25$}[0.45\textwidth]{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[xlabel=$y_\text{brane}$,ylabel=$\alpha$, ylabel shift = -0.2cm, xmin=-1.52, xmax=0, ymin=0, ymax=3, x=3.5cm, y=1.8cm, legend pos=south west, legend cell align={left}]
\addplot[draw=none, name path=weak] file {tomodata/weakbound.dat};
\addplot[draw=none, name path=strong] file {tomodata/strongbound.dat};
\path[name path=axis] (axis cs:-1.57,3) -- (axis cs:0,3);
\addplot [fill=gray, opacity=0.1] fill between[of=strong and axis];
\addplot [fill=black] fill between[of=weak and axis];
\addplot [thick, teal] file {tomodata/tomoPNal1oneout.dat};
\addplot [thick, teal] file {tomodata/tomoPNal1twoout.dat};
\addplot [thick, orange] file {tomodata/tomoPNal2out.dat};
\node[teal] at (axis cs: -0.7,1.5) {$\aleph_1$};
\node[orange] at (axis cs: -0.95,1.5) {$\aleph_2$};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}}
\caption{Contours corresponding to constant values for the invariants $\aleph_1$ (blue) and $\aleph_2$ (orange) in the $(y_{\text{brane}}, \alpha)$-plane. If one imposes the stronger (weaker) bound on the JT coupling $\alpha$, then the physically permissible domain of the brane parameters is given by the white (white + grey) region. One can easily read off the microstate parameters $(y_{\text{brane}}, \alpha)$ from the location of the intersection point.
}
\label{fig:tomography}
\end{figure}
Now, assuming that one has deduced the values of the parameters $(y_\text{brane}, \alpha)$ using the protocol outlined above, one can proceed to obtain the parameter $t_0$. Recall that the expansion in \cref{eq:asymptopia} was obtained assuming $t_0 = 0$. Now, for the tomographically extracted values of $(y_\text{brane},\alpha)$, one can compute the value for the coefficient $\mathcal{K}_1$, \cref{eq:tomo2d1}. If this value matches with the value that actually appears in the asymptotic expansion \cref{eq:asymptopia}, then one can conclude that the bulk geometry is the one where $t_0 = 0$. However, if the two values differ, then knowing that the difference can be accounted for by a multiplicative factor of $e^{-\frac{4\pi t_0}{\beta}}$, one can compute the non-zero value for $t_0$.
These three parameters fix the subregion entropy for the boundary CFT almost completely as a function of time. The only missing piece is the constant term in \cref{eq:sint_full_2d_2}, which can be determined by computing the relative entropy between our state and the thermal state, \cref{eq:rel_entropy}, at an arbitrary instant in time, and comparing the result with the one that follows by using the tomographically determined brane parameters.
It is advantageous to make use of the relative entropy as the dependence of the entanglement entropy on the choice of the cutoff scale $\epsilon$ cancels out automatically.
One may also wonder about the utility of higher order invariants that can be constructed by making use of even more subleading terms in the asymptotic expansion \cref{eq:asymptopia}, beyond the first three which we used to construct $\aleph_1$ and $\aleph_2$. Such invariants in principle overdetermine the tomography protocol outlined above and therefore provide an important consistency check on our model. Given a set of parameters $(y_\text{brane}, \alpha)$ extracted using tomography, one can compute the value for a particular higher-order invariant using its functional form. If the CFT state is correctly described by an ETW brane with the given parameters, then the computed value for the higher-order invariant must agree with its value directly obtained from the asymptotic behaviour of the entanglement velocity. On the other hand, in case of a disagreement, we can conclude that modelling the CFT state using an ETW brane with JT gravity localized on it is not sufficient.
As an example, a more general model (but still one with an ETW brane) is obtained by adding interaction terms for the dilaton $\varphi$, which naturally arise when considering more general two-dimensional dilaton gravity models \cite{Grumiller:2021cwg}. For such cases, one has to consider invariants beyond the two we considered above, and employ tomography to deduce information about the additional couplings. This will of course entail performing numerical calculations in a multidimensional space, beyond the simple two-dimensional plots of \cref{fig:tomography}, with additional axes denoting new brane parameters of interest.\footnote{Another set of nontrivial terms that can be present in the brane action, \cref{eq:braneaction}, are curvature invariants constructed out of the extrinsic curvature tensor $K_{\mu\nu}$, beyond the leading Gibbons-Hawking-York term. However, in \cref{sec:higher_curv}, we argue that such terms do not affect the dynamics of the brane, at least for corrections which are quadratic in $K_{\mu\nu}$.}
\subsection{Critical brane tomography}
The discussion in the previous subsection was only concerned with the subcritical case, but one can of course utilize brane tomography for the critical case as well. One can simply repeat the same steps as before, with slight modifications. One first determines the sign of $\alpha$ and derives the coefficients \cref{eq:tomo2d} in the asymptotic expansion of $v_E$. Now, however, there is no parameter $y_\text{brane}$ anymore, since our brane is located at the limiting point $y_\text{brane} = - \frac{\pi}{2}$. This simplifies the problem, and the coefficients in the asymptotic expansion only depend upon the single parameter $\alpha_\text{cr}$, which can be obtained by forming an invariant out of $\mathcal K_1$ and $\mathcal K_2$. Subsequently, given the value of $\alpha_\text{cr}$, one can determine the parameter $t_0$ in the solution, as well as the constant piece of the dilaton, following the same procedure as discussed above for the subcritical case.
Instead of obtaining the coefficients $\mathcal K_i$ from scratch, it is instructive to derive them using the relation between the couplings in the critical and subcritical case, \cref{eq:relation_alpha}. As this equation implies, the coupling $\alpha$ for subcritical brane tomography has to be taken to infinity to obtain a finite $\alpha_\text{cr}$, and this might seem problematic at first sight. Even worse, naively substituting \cref{eq:relation_alpha} into the expressions for $\mathcal K_i$ in the subcritical case, \cref{eq:tomo2d}, one finds that all the coefficients seem to vanish. However, note that in obtaining the critical case as a limit from the subcritical case, we also had to perform a time-translation, which diverged as we sent the brane location $y_\text{brane} \to - \frac \pi 2$, c.f., \cref{eq:fixed}. Accounting for this, each exponent in \cref{eq:asymptopia} comes with a diverging factor, which precisely cancels the factor that made the $\mathcal K_i$ vanish.
Of course, none of these subtleties affect the invariants, since they are defined to be invariant under time translations. Therefore, in order to obtain the correct expressions for the invariants we only need to substitute \cref{eq:relation_alpha} and take $y_\text{brane} \to - \frac \pi 2$ in \cref{eq:invariantformulas} to get
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:alephs_crit_1}
\aleph_1 = \frac{2 \alpha_\text{cr}-2}{(\alpha_\text{cr}-2)^2},\\
\label{eq:alephs_crit_2}
\aleph_2 = \frac{3 \alpha_\text{cr}-2}{(\alpha_\text{cr}-2)^3}.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
At least for generic points, there is no $\alpha_\text{cr}$ such that \cref{eq:alephs_crit_1,eq:alephs_crit_2} agree with \cref{eq:def_aleph_1,eq:def_aleph_2}. Thus, not only can we perform tomography for the critical case as well, we can also tell apart the critical and subcritical cases.
\section{Discussion and outlook}
\label{sec:discussion}
In this paper we have discussed how bounds on the entanglement velocity for a holographic CFT can bound gravitational brane couplings, if the dual gravitational description is provided by black hole microstates with an end-of-the-world brane behind the horizon. We also discussed a protocol to perform brane tomography based on examining the late time behaviour of entanglement growth. We focused on the case of AdS${}_3$ planar black hole geometries with ETW branes behind their horizons. This case is particularly attractive, as many of the details can be worked out analytically. Nonetheless, the general strategy is applicable to other, higher dimensional situations as well.
For our analysis, we have operated under the implicit assumption that the RT prescription is valid throughout the bulk geometry. It is of course possible that this effective description for a high energy pure state of a CFT, in terms of black hole geometries with ETW branes is only valid for a certain spacetime region in the bulk. It would be interesting to have an independent argument for when this could happen, in order to further refine the bounds we have computed.
Our bounds on the JT coupling rely on the bound on entropy growth in the dual CFT state. Interestingly, the issues which can arise in the growth rate of entanglement entropy, which we used to derive our bounds, are unrelated to another suspicious feature which arises for negative DGP couplings in models of evaporating black holes. As discussed in appendix B of \cite{Chen:2020uac}, for negative DGP coupling, the so-called RT-bubbles appear, which are self-supporting RT surfaces with a negative generalized entropy and are homologous to the empty set. However, they appear for arbitrarily small-but-negative DGP couplings, and are therefore not ruled out by our results.
Let us now make a few comments on some possible extensions of the present analysis. Investigating quantities which are affected by the JT coupling, other than the holographic entanglement entropy, might allow one to tighten the bounds provided in this paper, or derive new bounds altogether. A good target would be bounds on the constant piece of the dilaton, which remains unconstrained in our analysis. In the context of entanglement velocity, the recent paper \cite{Mezei:2019sla} provided an even tighter bound at early times than the one we have utilized, which however does not seem to give new information for the case at hand. Another interesting option would be to try to understand whether the linear growth of complexity can provide tighter bounds for our setup \cite{Hernandez:2020nem}.
For the present analysis, we restricted our attention to the possibility of JT gravity on the brane. The most general consistent deformation of JT gravity is given by \emph{generalized dilaton gravity} models in two dimensions \cite{Grumiller:2021cwg}, with an action of the form
\begin{equation*}
I_{DG} = \frac{1}{16\pi G_N^\text{brane}} \int d^2x \sqrt{-h} \left(\varphi R^\text{brane} - 2 V\!\!\left(\varphi, - (\partial\varphi)^2\right)\right).
\end{equation*}
Here, the potential $V$ is an arbitrary function of the dilaton and its kinetic term.\footnote{JT
gravity appears as a special case of this action, with $V = \varphi \Lambda^\text{brane}$.} Depending upon the choice for the potential $V$, adding this term to the brane action can give rise to several additional couplings, which will satisfy their own bounds that will follow by generalizing our analysis. With additional couplings present, performing brane tomography will be much more challenging as well. Of course, there is also the possibility of additional matter fields living on the brane, further enlarging the landscape of possible couplings.\footnote{See for instance \cite{Moitra:2019xoj, Banks:2022pnc} for explorations of JT gravity coupled to matter fields.}
Another obvious generalization of the above analysis pertains to the study of the higher dimensional case.\footnote{The DGP term in higher dimensions can also be augmented with additional higher curvature correction terms constructed out of the Riemann tensor for the induced metric on the brane.} For such cases, two important issues arise. The first is that higher dimensional generalizations are much less tractable analytically, and one generally has to resort to a numerical approach. More problematic, however, is the issue that the derivation of the bound on the entanglement velocity, reviewed in \cref{sec:limits_on_ve}, required the explicit form of the modular Hamiltonian of an interval for the two-dimensional CFT thermal state. The natural generalization to higher dimensions will involve the thermal modular Hamiltonian on a strip, whose explicit form is not known. In the absence of sufficient knowledge about the form of the modular Hamiltonian in higher dimensions, it is not obvious that bounds on entanglement growth such as \cref{eq:ve_bound_2d} still hold true. One way out is to look for other quantities for the CFT state that are bounded, and study how these could possibly translate into bounds on the couplings. We hope to report on results for higher dimensional generalizations in the future \cite{toappear}.
In a particular limit, ETW branes give rise to double-holography, i.e., an effective holographic description of the bulk spacetime on the asymptotic boundary together with the brane. In the limit where the brane sits close to the left asymptotic boundary, it is generally expected that the theory on the brane is described by an effective quantum field theory coupled to gravity, plus higher order curvature corrections. It would be interesting to understand --- and perhaps even prove --- our bounds from the point of view of this effective description. In particular, it would be interesting to see whether or not our strong bound on the coupling can be arrived at from a doubly-holographic perspective. If the answer turns out to be yes, this would suggest that the extremal surfaces passing through the singularity should indeed be taken seriously.
Our results provide us with two-dimensional ETW brane solutions for which RT surfaces can end at various locations on the brane. In the double-holography description, the region bounded by the RT surface on the brane is a quantum extremal island. Thus, our solutions complement the analyses of \cite{Hartman:2020khs,Bousso:2022gth} by providing solutions where islands appear in more general locations. This poses the question whether the presence of islands in a flat, radiation dominated universe is only a property of JT gravity, or is also true in other dimensions in gravitational theories with higher curvature corrections.
Furthermore, in higher dimensions, it was proposed recently in \cite{Waddell:2022fbn} to introduce additional defect branes in the bulk. Additional branes, or bulk defects, will affect the analysis performed here, and it would be interesting to investigate whether this leads to the bounds we find becoming stronger or weaker. This is important insofar as the analysis of \cite{Waddell:2022fbn} found that in order to realize branes which localize gravity using a Euclidean path integral, the defect branes are not sufficient by themselves, and that negative gravitational couplings also need to be added to the brane.
Lastly, another interesting direction to explore is to what extent the results presented here carry over to the case of black holes with spherical horizons \cite{Cooper:2018cmb}. For such cases, the size of the accessible boundary region in the CFT is bounded from above, thereby preventing us from choosing an arbitrarily large interval on the boundary. This of course does not immediately affect the bounds on entanglement velocity. However, for particular parameters the connected extremal surfaces might never be the smallest ones and thus one would never have the situation that the entanglement velocity violates any bound. Moreover, spherical horizon geometries would jeopardize the tomographic analysis of \cref{sec:tomography}, since the asymptotic behaviour of entanglement growth is not accessible anymore. In that situation, one might still be able to obtain information about the brane parameters by focusing on the time-dependence of the entanglement entropy around its minimum.
\acknowledgments
We thank Tom Hartman, Mark Mezei, Ayan Mukhopadhyay, Rob Myers, Brian Swingle and Chris Waddell for helpful comments and discussions. JHL is supported by the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics and in part by the NSERC Discovery Grant program. DN thanks the Simons Foundation for support through the \emph{It from Qubit} collaboration. The work of AS is also supported in part by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant agreement no.\ 758759). Research at Perimeter Institute is supported in part by the Government of Canada through the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada and by the Province of Ontario through the Ministry of Colleges and Universities.
|
\section{Approach}
We introduce MetaTPTrans\xspace which consists of two components: a Meta Learner and a Base Learner. Specifically, the Meta Learner takes the language kind as input and generates language-specific parameters for the Base Learner and the Base Learner, TPTrans in our case, takes the source code as input, and uses the language-specific parameters generated from the Meta Learner to calculate the representation of the input source code snippet. The overview of our approach is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:overview}.
\subsection{Meta Learner}
The Meta Learner generates learnable parameters for the Base Learner according to the language kind. Specifically, for a given source code snippet $\boldsymbol{X}_i$ and its corresponding language kind $t_i$, the \textit{Language Embedding Layer} $\mathcal{T}$ embeds the language kind $t_i$ into an embedding $\boldsymbol{T}_i\in\mathbb{R}^{d_T}$. Then, a projection layer scales the dimension of $\boldsymbol{T}_i$. The overall process can be presented as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&\boldsymbol{T}_i=\mathcal{T}(t_i) \\
\boldsymbol{P}_i=&Projection(\boldsymbol{T}_i)
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $Projection(\cdot)$ and $\boldsymbol{P}_i\in\mathbb{R}^{d_P}$ denote the projection layer and the projected language kind embedding, respectively.
After producing the projected language kind embedding $\boldsymbol{P}_i$, we now present the parameter generation scheme for the Base Learner. For a weight matrix $\boldsymbol{W}^\lambda\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$ in the parameters of Base Learner, we conduct it via a generator $\mathcal{G}_\lambda$, which can be denoted as:
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{W}^\lambda=\mathcal{G}_\lambda(\boldsymbol{P}_i)
\end{equation}
As noted in~\citep{Bertinetto2016learning,wang2019tafenet}, using a linear projection layer to scale a $d_P$-dimension vector to a matrix of dimension $d\times d$ exhibits a large memory footprint, especially that there are many such weight matrices in the parameters of the Base Learner. To reduce the computational and memory cost, we adopt the factorized scheme for the weight generation procedure by factorizing the representation of the weights, which is analogous to the \textit{Singular Value Decomposition}~\citep{Bertinetto2016learning}.
In this way, the original vector can be projected into the target matrix dimension space with fewer parameters in the generator.
More specifically, we first apply the diagonal operation to transform the vector $\boldsymbol{P}_i$ to a diagonal matrix, then two projection matrices $\boldsymbol{M}_\lambda\in\mathbb{R}^{d_P\times d}$ and $\boldsymbol{M'}_\lambda\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times d_P}$ are defined to project the diagonal projected language kind embedding matrix into the space of the target weight matrix. This operation can be formulated as:
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{W}^\lambda=\mathcal{G}_\lambda(\boldsymbol{P}_i)=\boldsymbol{M'}_{\lambda}diag(\boldsymbol{P}_i)\boldsymbol{M}_\lambda
\end{equation}
where $diag(\cdot)$ denotes the non-parametric diagonal operation, and $\boldsymbol{M}_\lambda$ and $\boldsymbol{M'}_\lambda$ are the learnable parameters in generator $\mathcal{G}_\lambda$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth]{figures/overview.pdf}
\caption{Architecture of MetaTPTrans\xspace.
}
\label{fig:overview}
\vspace{-10pt}
\end{figure}
\subsection{MetaTPTrans\xspace: The Base Learner}
The Base Learner is the module that actually learns the representation of code snippets, the parameters of which are generated from the Meta Learner.
In our approach, we apply the TPTrans model as the architecture of the Base Learner. Recall from Eq.~(\ref{eq:TPTrans}), the learnable parameters of TPTrans consist of the projection matrices of tokens ($\boldsymbol{W}^Q,\boldsymbol{W}^K,\boldsymbol{W}^V$) and the projection matrices of path encodings ($\boldsymbol{W}^{r,K}, \boldsymbol{W}^{r,V}, \boldsymbol{W}^{a,Q}, \boldsymbol{W}^{a,K}$).
For the feed-forward layers, we share their parameters across different languages so that their parameters are updated through back-propagation directly and not generated by the Meta Learner.
The Meta Learner generates the parameters of the Base Learner. First, we consider that the most obvious language-specific information is the the context of a certain source code snippet. Such contextual information is extracted from the input token sequences. Therefore, we first generate the projection matrices for token sequences. This procedure can be formulated as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\boldsymbol{W}^\lambda_{t_i}=\mathcal{G}_\lambda(&\boldsymbol{P}_i)=\boldsymbol{M'}_\lambda diag(\boldsymbol{P}_i)\boldsymbol{M}_\lambda \\
\textit{s.t.}\;\; &\lambda\in\{Q,K,V\}
\label{eq:generator_context}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $t_i$ denotes the corresponding language kind of code snippet $\boldsymbol{X}_i$, and $\boldsymbol{W}^Q_{t_i},\boldsymbol{W}^K_{t_i},\boldsymbol{W}^V_{t_i}$ are the learnable weights of $\boldsymbol{W}^Q,\boldsymbol{W}^K,\boldsymbol{W}^V$ associated with language kind $t_i$, and $\boldsymbol{P}_i=Projection(\mathcal{T}(t_i))$ denotes the projected language kind embedding of $t_i$. After that, the generated weights matrices are assigned to the related parameters by replacing the unified related weights matrices in Eq.~(\ref{eq:TPTrans}):
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&\boldsymbol{z}_{i}=\sum\limits_{j=1}^n\frac{\exp(\alpha_{ij})}{\sum_{k=1}^n\exp(\alpha_{ik})}(\boldsymbol{x}_j \mathcal{G}_V(\boldsymbol{P}_i) +\boldsymbol{r}_{ij}\boldsymbol{W}^{r,V}) \\
\textit{s.t.}\quad \alpha_{ij} &= \frac{(\boldsymbol{x}_i\mathcal{G}_Q(\boldsymbol{P}_i)) (\boldsymbol{x}_j\mathcal{G}_K(\boldsymbol{P}_i)+\boldsymbol{r}_{ij}\boldsymbol{W}^{r,K})^\text{T} + (\boldsymbol{a}_i\boldsymbol{W}^{a,Q})(\boldsymbol{a}_j\boldsymbol{W}^{a,K})^\text{T}}{\sqrt{d}}
\label{eq:MetaTPTrans_alpha}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Further, the weights matrices for path encoding projection can also be generated by the Meta Learner for different language kinds. This process aims to integrate the structural information (path encodings) into the language-specific contextual information dynamically, which we believe is meaningful to investigate.
This enables MetaTPTrans\xspace to associate source code structure with its language kind.
Similar to Eq.~(\ref{eq:generator_context}), this procedure can be expressed as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\boldsymbol{W}^\lambda_{t_i}=\mathcal{G}&_\lambda(\boldsymbol{P}_i)=\boldsymbol{M'}_\lambda diag(\boldsymbol{P}_i)\boldsymbol{M}_\lambda \\
\textit{s.t.}\;\; \lambda\in\{\{r&,K\}, \{r,V\}, \{a,Q\}, \{a,K\} \}
\label{eq:generator_structure}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\boldsymbol{W}^{r,K}_{t_i},\boldsymbol{W}^{r,V}_{t_i},\boldsymbol{W}^{a,Q}_{t_i},\boldsymbol{W}^{a,K}_{t_i}$ are the generated weights of $\boldsymbol{W}^{r,K},\boldsymbol{W}^{r,V},\boldsymbol{W}^{a,Q},\boldsymbol{W}^{a,K}$ associated with language kind $t_i$.
After that, the generated weights matrices in Eq.~(\ref{eq:generator_structure}) can be integrated into Eq.~(\ref{eq:TPTrans}) by replacing the related weights matrices:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&\quad\,\, \boldsymbol{z}_{i}=\sum\limits_{j=1}^n\frac{\exp(\alpha_{ij})}{\sum_{k=1}^n\exp(\alpha_{ik})}(\boldsymbol{x}_j\boldsymbol{W}^V +\boldsymbol{r}_{ij}\mathcal{G}_{r,V}(\boldsymbol{P}_i)) \\
\textit{s.t.}\quad \alpha_{ij} =& \frac{(\boldsymbol{x}_i\boldsymbol{W}^Q) (\boldsymbol{x}_j\boldsymbol{W}^K+\boldsymbol{r}_{ij}\mathcal{G}_{r,K}(\boldsymbol{P}_i))^\text{T} + (\boldsymbol{a}_i \mathcal{G}_{a,Q}(\boldsymbol{P}_i))(\boldsymbol{a}_j\mathcal{G}_{a,K}(\boldsymbol{P}_i))^\text{T}}{\sqrt{d}}
\label{eq:MetaTPTrans_beta}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Finally, we combine the above two kinds of weights generation schemes in which both context token projection and path encoding projection are generated by the Meta Learner:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&\quad\,\, \boldsymbol{z}_{i}=\sum\limits_{j=1}^n\frac{\exp(\alpha_{ij})}{\sum_{k=1}^n\exp(\alpha_{ik})}(\boldsymbol{x}_j \mathcal{G}_V(\boldsymbol{P}_i) +\boldsymbol{r}_{ij}\mathcal{G}_{r,V}(\boldsymbol{P}_i)) \\
\textit{s.t.}\quad \alpha_{ij} =& \frac{(\boldsymbol{x}_i\mathcal{G}_Q(\boldsymbol{P}_i)) (\boldsymbol{x}_j\mathcal{G}_K(\boldsymbol{P}_i)+\boldsymbol{r}_{ij}\mathcal{G}_{r,K}(\boldsymbol{P}_i))^\text{T} + (\boldsymbol{a}_i \mathcal{G}_{a,Q}(\boldsymbol{P}_i))(\boldsymbol{a}_j\mathcal{G}_{a,K}(\boldsymbol{P}_i))^\text{T}}{\sqrt{d}}
\label{eq:MetaTPTrans_gamma}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
In the above, we generate weights matrices from three perspectives:
(i) For context token projection (Eq.~(\ref{eq:MetaTPTrans_alpha})),
(ii) For path encoding projection (Eq.~(\ref{eq:MetaTPTrans_beta})), and
(iii) For both context token projection and path encoding projection (Eq.~(\ref{eq:MetaTPTrans_gamma})).
We name those three schemes of weights matrices generation: \textit{MetaTPTrans\xspace-$\alpha$}, \textit{MetaTPTrans\xspace-$\beta$}, and \textit{MetaTPTrans\xspace-$\gamma$}, respectively.
\section{Conclusion}
We propose MetaTPTrans\xspace, a meta learning-based approach for multilingual code representation learning.
Instead of keeping the feature extractor with a fixed set of parameters, we adopt meta learning to generate different sets of parameters for the feature extractor according to the kind of the programming language.
This enables MetaTPTrans\xspace to not only extract language-agnostic information, but to also capture language-specific features of source code.
Experimental results show that our approach significantly improves over the state-of-the-art techniques for two downstream tasks.
Our work provides a novel direction for multilingual source code representation learning.
\section{Experimental Setup and Results}
In this section, we present our experimental setup and results.
We evaluate MetaTPTrans\xspace on two common and challenging software engineering tasks: code summarization and code completion.
\textbf{Code Summarization}~\ Code summarization aims at describing the functionality of a piece of code in natural language and it demonstrates the capability of language models in capturing the semantics of source code~\citep{alon2019code2vec,zugner2021language,peng2021integrating}.
A high level semantic task, code summarization is a language-agnostic task where the prediction targets
do not depend on the specifics of the underlying language, like its syntax and specific API names.
Similar to previous work~\citep{zugner2021language,peng2021integrating}, we consider a complete method body as the source code input and the method name as the target prediction (i.e. the NL summary) while predicting the method name as a sequence of subtokens.
We evaluate the performance of MetaTPTrans\xspace on the code summarization task using precision, recall, and F1 scores over the target sequence.
\begin{wrapfigure}[11]{r}{0.49\textwidth}
\vspace{-10pt}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{figures/example_completion.pdf}
\caption{An example of code completion}
\label{fig:example_completion}
\end{wrapfigure}
\textbf{Code Completion}~\ Code completion is another challenging downstream task in source code modeling~\citep{liu2020self,liu2020multi}.
A language model for code completion predicts a missing token from its context (sequence of tokens).
Code completion would benefit from language-specific information, e.g., the syntax and API names, which differ across programming languages.
An example of code completion in realistic scenario is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:example_completion}, in which the IDE predicts a list of possible completions for a missing token in an incomplete code snippet.
To construct the dataset for code completion task, we randomly replace a token with a special token \texttt{<MASK>} in a given code snippet, and then parse the code snippet into AST.
The AST and code context are jointly used to model the code snippet to predict the missing token.
We report Top-1 and Top-5 prediction accuracy as the evaluation metrics for the code completion task.
\input{tables/tb_dataset}
\textbf{Dataset}~\
We conduct our experiments on the CodeSearchNet~\citep{husain2019codesearchnet} dataset.
We consider four programming languages in the dataset: Python, Ruby, JavaScript, and Go.
For a summary of the dataset, please see Table~\ref{tab:dataset}.
For the pre-processing of the data, and the subset of data used for the code completion task, please see Appendices~\ref{preprocessing} and~\ref{summary_of_the_subset}.
\textbf{Baselines}~\
For code summarization, we compare MetaTPTrans\xspace with code2seq~\citep{alon2019code2seq}, GREAT~\citep{Hellendoorn2020Global}, codeTransformer~\citep{zugner2021language} and TPTrans~\citep{peng2021integrating}.
For code completion, we compare MetaTPTrans\xspace with Transformer~\citep{vaswani2017attention} and TPTrans~\citep{peng2021integrating}.
See Appendix~\ref{baselines} for the description of the baselines.
\textbf{Implementation Details}~\
For both tasks, following~\citep{peng2021integrating}, we set the embedding sizes of the word, path node, and hidden size of the Transformer to 512, 64, and 1024, respectively. A linear layer projects the word embedding into the size of the hidden layer of the Transformer. We use one bidirectional-GRU~\citep{cho2014properties} layer of size 64 to encode the paths, and concatenate the final states of both directions as output. We use the Adam~\citep{kingma2015adam} optimizer with a learning rate of $1e^{-4}$.
We train our models for 10 and 40 epochs for the code summarization and code completion tasks, respectively on 4 Tesla V100 GPUs with batch size of 128 and dropout of 0.2.
For the Base Learner in the code summarization task, we use the same hyperparameters setting of TPTrans~\citep{peng2021integrating} for a fair comparison.
Specifically, we set the number of encoder and decoder layers to 3 and 8, the number of attention heads to 3, and the dimension of the feed-forward layer to 4096.
In the Meta Learner, the dimension of the language kind embedding ($d_T$) and its projection ($d_P$) are set to 1024 and 2048, respectively. We follow~\citep{zugner2021language,peng2021integrating} and add a pointer network~\citep{vinyals2015pointer} to the decoder.
For the code completion task, we also keep the same hyperparameters setting of TPTrans in the Base Learner. In particular, we set the number of encoder layers, number of heads, and the dimension of feed-forward layers to 5, 8 and 2048, respectively. Code completion is not a sequence-to-sequence task~\citep{liu2020self,liu2020multi}, so we apply a fully connected layer after the encoder instead of a decoder. In the Meta Learner, we set both the dimension of the language kind embedding ($d_T$) and its projection ($d_P$) to 512.
\vspace{-10pt}
\input{tables/tb_res_summarization}
\subsection{Code Summarization}
Table~\ref{tab:res_summarization} shows the results of the code summarization task. The top part of the table shows the results for single-language models, i.e., models trained and applied to the same language dataset.
The middle and and bottom parts of the table show the results of the multi-language baseline models and our MetaTPTrans\xspace, respectively. MetaTPTrans\xspace-$\alpha$ (Eq.~\ref{eq:MetaTPTrans_alpha}), MetaTPTrans\xspace-$\beta$ (Eq.~\ref{eq:MetaTPTrans_beta}) and MetaTPTrans\xspace-$\gamma$ (Eq.~\ref{eq:MetaTPTrans_gamma}) outperform all the baseline methods significantly.
Specifically, compared with the state-of-the-art results on the Python, Ruby, JavaScript, and Go datasets, our approach improves the F1 score by 1.11, 1.47, 2.40, and 2.29, respectively.
Overall, MetaTPTrans\xspace improves precision by 0.76\xspace--2.38\xspace, recall by 1.52\xspace--2.65\xspace, and F1 by 1.11\xspace--2.40\xspace across the four programming languages
\input{tables/tb_res_completion}
\subsection{Code Completion}
Table~\ref{tab:res_completion} shows the results for the code completion task where the top, middle, and bottom parts of the table correspond to the results of single-language models, multi-language baseline models, and MetaTPTrans\xspace, respectively.
MetaTPTrans\xspace-$\alpha$ improves the Top-1 (Top-5) prediction accuracy over the best baseline, TPTrans, by 7.32 (10.18), 5.91 (13.15), 6.07 (11.71) and 7.02 (12.12) for Python, Ruby, JavaScript, and Go, respectively. Although the three variants of MetaTPTrans\xspace outperform the baselines, MetaTPTrans\xspace-$\alpha$ consistently achieves the best results over the four programming languages. This is because in MetaTPTrans\xspace-$\alpha$, the language-specific weights matrices generated by the Base Learner are only assigned to the parameters of the code context token projection (Eq.~\ref{eq:MetaTPTrans_alpha}) while MetaTPTrans\xspace-$\beta$ and MetaTPTrans\xspace-$\gamma$ assign the generated weights to AST path encodings. This means that for language-specific tasks like code completion, compared with generating language-specific weights for the projection of structural information, generating weights for context token projection is more conductive for the extraction of language-specific information, which yields a significant performance improvement.
Achieving code completion Top-5 accuracy of 91.15\%--95.42\% for the four programming languages altogether is a significant improvement, underscoring MetaTPTrans\xspace ability to learn from multi-language datasets even for language-specific tasks like code completion.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.78\textwidth]{figures/vis.pdf}
\caption{t-SNE visualization of the the validation set for the code summarization task learned by MetaTPTrans\xspace-$\alpha$ (left) and TPTrans (right).
}
\label{fig:vis}
\vspace{-10pt}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Visualization of Learned Representation}
To assess the quality of the MetaTPTrans\xspace language model, Figure~\ref{fig:vis}
shows the t-SNE~\citep{van2008visualizing} visualization of the learned representations of all the code snippets from the validation set of the code summarization task.
The left and right parts of Figure~\ref{fig:vis} show the code representation learned by our model, MetaTPTrans\xspace-$\alpha$, and by the best baseline, TPTrans, respectively.
For MetaTPTrans\xspace-$\alpha$, the representation is generated by the Base Learner and the Meta Learner jointly (the ``code representation'' box in Figure~\ref{fig:overview}),
and for TPTrans, the representation is generated by the encoder of the model.
We see that MetaTPTrans\xspace learns a distributed code representation that also respects the kind of the programming language of the code snippet as data points from the same language group together.
This demonstrates that our model learns languages-specific features much better than the baseline model, where code snippets from the same language do not necessarily group together.
Moreover, as an example, we mark all the code snippets whose names start with the subtoken \texttt{`new'} by the symbol \textcolor{Magenta3}{\small\FiveStar}.
We see that MetaTPTrans\xspace achieves a much better grouping of those code snippets compared to the baseline model emphasizing our model ability to learn a better semantic representation of source code, while also respecting the language-specific features.
\section{Introduction}
Modeling source code aims at capturing both its syntax and semantics to enable applying machine learning to software engineering tasks such as code summarization~\citep{zugner2021language, peng2021integrating}, code completion~\citep{liu2020multi,liu2020self}, and bug finding~\citep{wang2016bugram, pradel2018deepbugs}.
Inspired by the success of deep learning in the field of natural language processing (NLP)~\citep{hochreiter1997long, vaswani2017attention}, modeling source code with deep learning techniques has attracted increasing attention from researchers in recent years~\citep{alon2019code2seq, alon2019code2vec, Hellendoorn2020Global, kim2021code}.
Although programs are repetitive and predictable (i.e. `natural'~\citep{hindle2012on}), unlike natural language text, they also contain rich structural information, e.g., ASTs, and data- and control-flow information.
Therefore, a direct adoption of NLP models to source code struggles to capture structural information from the source code context (sequence of tokens) directly.
To address the above issue, \citet{alon2019code2seq,alon2019code2vec} proposed to incorporate the structural information by encoding pairwise paths on AST to represent the source code via LSTMs~\citep{hochreiter1997long}.
Inspired by the success of Graph Neural Networks (GNN) in the modeling of structural data~\citep{kipf2017semi,hamilton2017inductive,velickovic2018graph,Gasteiger2020Directional}, several works leverage GNNs on ASTs to capture the program structure.
For instance, \citet{allamanis2018learning} used Gated Graph Neural Networks (GGNN) to learn program representation over ASTs and data flow graphs.
Based on GGNN and programs graphs, \citet{fernandes2019structured} proposed Sequence GNN for code summarization and \citet{zhou2019devign} proposed a GNN-based approach to detect software vulnerabilities. However, GNN-based methods struggle to extract global structural information since GNNs focus on local message passing when aggregating information across nodes. Besides, the aforementioned approaches focus on structural information and ignore the contextual information
when extracting features from source code. To model both structural and contextual information, \cite{Hellendoorn2020Global} combined the two kinds of information through Transformers~\citep{vaswani2017attention} by biasing the self-attention process with relation information extracted from graph edge types. \citet{zugner2021language} proposed to bias the computation of self-attention with multiple kinds of pairwise distances between AST nodes and integrate it into the XLNet method~\citep{yang2019xlnet}.
Lastly, \citet{peng2021integrating} introduced TPTrans, which biases the attention processes in Transformers with the encoding of relative and absolute AST paths.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.88\textwidth]{figures/code_AST.pdf}
\caption{The same code snipped and its associated AST in (a) Python and (b) JavaScript.}
\label{fig:example}
\vspace{-15pt}
\end{figure}
At a different direction, \citet{zugner2021language} introduced their novel insight that multilingual training improves the performance of language models compared to single-language models.
In particular, training language models with cross-language data enhances the model ability to learn language-agnostic information, e.g., similar AST structures.
As an example, Figure~\ref{fig:example} shows a code snippet of the same function in (a) Python and (b) JavaScript.
The two ASTs of the code snippets are shown on the right hand side of the respective figures. We see that both ASTs share similar structure information, e.g., the highlighted AST paths in red, orange, and green.
Because of such recurring structural patterns across different programming languages, multi-language code models show superior performance to single-language models, especially, for languages with smaller number of examples~\citep{zugner2021language}.
That said, we note that because such approaches learn a unified language model with shared parameters among different programming languages, i.e., the models are oblivious to the underlying programming language, they struggle to learn language-specific features.
Consider the same example shown in Figure~\ref{fig:example}.
We see that the context of the code snippets (the sequence of source code tokens) carry distinctive features, e.g., the API names for the standard libraries: \texttt{lower()} and \texttt{print()} in Python vs. \texttt{toLowerCase()} and \texttt{console.log()} in JavaScript.
Such features, which differ across different languages, are vital for several downstream tasks such as code completion or bug detection but are usually overlooked by current multi-language source code models.
Therefore, in this paper, we propose MetaTPTrans\xspace, a meta learning-based approach for multilingual code representation learning.
Based on meta learning, our approach generates different parameters for Transformer models when extracting features from different programming languages.
This enables MetaTPTrans\xspace to not only extract language-agnostic information from multilingual source code data, but also capture the language-specific information, which is overlooked by previous methods.
Specifically, our approach consists of a language-aware Meta Learner and a feature extractor (Base Learner). The language-aware Meta Learner takes the programming language kind (e.g.: "Python", "Go")
as input and generates different groups of parameters for the feature extractor (Base Learner) based on the kind of the programming language.
We use TPTrans~\citep{peng2021integrating}, the state-of-the-art model, as the architecture of our Base Learner.
To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to leverage meta learning to learn both language-specific and language-agnostic information from multilingual source code datasets.
We evaluate MetaTPTrans\xspace on two common software engineering tasks:
code summarization, following~\citep{zugner2021language,peng2021integrating}, and
code completion.
The former is a language-agnostic task while the latter is language-specific.
Our results show that MetaTPTrans\xspace outperforms the state-of-the-art models significantly on both tasks.
In summary, this paper contributes the following:
(1) MetaTPTrans\xspace, a meta learning-based approach for multilingual code representation learning, which learns language-agnostic and language-specific information from multilingual source code data,
(2) Three different schemes for generating parameters for different kinds of weights of the Base Learner in MetaTPTrans\xspace, and
(3) Experimental evaluation on two important and widely-used software engineering tasks: code summarization and code completion; and achieving state-of-the-art results.
\section*{Checklist}
\newpage
\section{Technical Preliminaries}
In this section, we introduce the foundations of absolute and relative position embedding in self-attention and the TPTrans model~\citep{peng2021integrating}, upon which we build our model.
\subsection{Self-Attention with Absolute and Relative Position Embedding}
Self-attention (SA) is the basic module in Transformers~\citep{vaswani2017attention}. It maintains three projected matrices $\boldsymbol{Q}\in\mathbb{R}^{d_q\times d_q}$, $\boldsymbol{K}\in\mathbb{R}^{d_k\times d_k}$, and $\boldsymbol{V}\in\mathbb{R}^{d_v\times d_v}$ to compute an output that is the weighted sum of the input by attention score:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
SA(\boldsymbol{Q},\boldsymbol{K},\boldsymbol{V}) &= softmax(\frac{\boldsymbol{QK}^\text{T}}{\sqrt{d}})\boldsymbol{V} \\
\textit{s.t.}\quad
\begin{bmatrix}
\boldsymbol{Q} \\
\boldsymbol{K} \\
\boldsymbol{V}
\end{bmatrix}&=\boldsymbol{X}
\begin{bmatrix}
\boldsymbol{W}^Q \\
\boldsymbol{W}^K \\
\boldsymbol{W}^V
\end{bmatrix}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\boldsymbol{X}=(\boldsymbol{x}_1,\boldsymbol{x}_2,...,\boldsymbol{x}_n)$ is the input sequence of the self-attention module, $\boldsymbol{x}_i\in\mathbb{R}^{d}$, $d$ is the dimension of the hidden state, and $\boldsymbol{W}^Q\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times d_q}$, $\boldsymbol{W}^K\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times d_k}$, $\boldsymbol{W}^V\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times d_v}$ are the learnable parameters matrices of the self-attention component. Here, we follow the previous works~\citep{vaswani2017attention,zugner2021language,peng2021integrating} and set $d_q=d_k=d_v=d$. More specifically, the above equation can be reformulated as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\boldsymbol{z}_i = \sum\limits_{j=1}^{n}&\frac{\exp(\alpha_{ij})}{\sum_{k=1}^n \exp(\alpha_{ik})}(\boldsymbol{x}_j\boldsymbol{W}^V) \\
\textit{s.t.}\quad \alpha_{ij} &= \frac{(\boldsymbol{x}_i\boldsymbol{W}^Q)(\boldsymbol{x}_j\boldsymbol{W}^K)^\text{T}}{\sqrt{d}}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\boldsymbol{z}_i$ is the output of $\boldsymbol{x}_i$ calculated by self-attention operation.
In Vanilla Transformer, \citet{vaswani2017attention} used a non-parameteric absolute position encoding, which is added to the word vectors directly. ~\citet{ke2021rethinking} proposed a learnable projection for absolute position for computing the attention score among words:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\alpha_{ij}=\frac{(\boldsymbol{x}_i\boldsymbol{W}^Q)(\boldsymbol{x}_j\boldsymbol{W}^K)^\text{T}}{\sqrt{2d}} + \frac{(\boldsymbol{p}_i\boldsymbol{U}^Q)(\boldsymbol{p}_j\boldsymbol{U}^K)^\text{T}}{\sqrt{2d}}
\end{split}
\label{eq:absolute_pos}
\end{equation}
where $\boldsymbol{p}_i$ denotes the learnable real-valued vector of position $i$, and $\boldsymbol{U}^Q,\boldsymbol{U}^K\in \mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$ are the projection matrices of the position vectors $\boldsymbol{p}_i$ and $\boldsymbol{p}_j$ respectively. To capture the relative position relationship between words, \citet{shaw2018self} proposed to use the relative position embedding between each two words:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\boldsymbol{z}_i = \sum\limits_{j=1}^{n}&\frac{\exp(\alpha_{ij})}{\sum_{k=1}^n \exp(\alpha_{ik})}(\boldsymbol{x}_j\boldsymbol{W}^V+\boldsymbol{r}_{ij}^V) \\
\textit{s.t.}\quad \alpha_{ij} &= \frac{(\boldsymbol{x}_i\boldsymbol{W}^Q)(\boldsymbol{x}_j\boldsymbol{W}^K+\boldsymbol{r}_{ij}^K)^\text{T}}{\sqrt{d}}
\label{eq:relative_pos}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\boldsymbol{r}_{ij}^K,\boldsymbol{r}_{ij}^V$ denote the learnable relative position embedding between positions $i$ and $j$.
\subsection{TPTrans}
We briefly introduced how absolute and relative position embeddings are integrated into the self-attention module of Transformers. In this section, we describe the TPTrans~\citep{peng2021integrating} model which is based on the aforementioned position embedding concepts.
TPTrans modifies the relative and absolute position embedding in self-attention with AST paths encodings so that AST paths could be integrated into Transformers. Specifically, they first encode the relative and absolute path via a bi-directional GRU~\citep{cho2014properties}:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\boldsymbol{r}_{ij} &= GRU(\boldsymbol{Path}_{\boldsymbol{x}_i\rightarrow\boldsymbol{x}_j}) \\
\boldsymbol{a}_i &= GRU(\boldsymbol{Path}_{\boldsymbol{root}\rightarrow\boldsymbol{x}_i})
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\boldsymbol{Path}_{\boldsymbol{x}_i\rightarrow\boldsymbol{x}_j}$ denotes the AST path from node $\boldsymbol{x}_i$ to node $\boldsymbol{x}_j$, $\boldsymbol{r}_{ij}$ is the relative path encoding between positions $i$ and $j$, and $\boldsymbol{a}_i$ is the absolute path (from the $\boldsymbol{root}$ node to node $\boldsymbol{x}_i$) encoding of position $i$.
Then, the two types of path encodings are integrated into Eq.~(\ref{eq:absolute_pos}) -~(\ref{eq:relative_pos}) by replacing the absolute and relative position embeddings:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&\boldsymbol{z}_{i}=\sum\limits_{j=1}^n\frac{\exp(\alpha_{ij})}{\sum_{k=1}^n\exp(\alpha_{ik})}(\boldsymbol{x}_j\boldsymbol{W}^V+\boldsymbol{r}_{ij}\boldsymbol{W}^{r,V}) \\
\textit{s.t.}\quad \alpha_{ij} &= \frac{(\boldsymbol{x}_i\boldsymbol{W}^Q) (\boldsymbol{x}_j\boldsymbol{W}^K+\boldsymbol{r}_{ij}\boldsymbol{W}^{r,K})^\text{T} + (\boldsymbol{a}_i\boldsymbol{W}^{a,Q})(\boldsymbol{a}_j\boldsymbol{W}^{a,K})^\text{T}}{\sqrt{d}}
\label{eq:TPTrans}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\boldsymbol{W}^{r,K},\boldsymbol{W}^{r,V}\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$ are the key and value projection matrices of the relative path encoding and $\boldsymbol{W}^{a,Q},\boldsymbol{W}^{a,K}$ denote the query and key projection matrices of the absolute path encoding.
\section{Related Work}
\textbf{Learning Representation of Source Code}~\
Source code representation learning has seen many developments.
Early works mainly focus on learning language models from raw token sequences~\citep{wang2016bugram,dam2016deep,allamanis2016aconvolutional,iyer2016summarizing}.
More recent works explore the effectiveness of leveraging structural information to model source code.
\citet{mou2016convolutional} apply the convolutional operation on ASTs to extract structure features to represent source code. \citet{alon2019code2vec,alon2019code2seq} extract paths from ASTs and use RNNs to encode them to represent the source code.
\citet{allamanis2018learning,fernandes2019structured,zhou2019devign} use Graph Neural Networks to capture the structural information from carefully designed code graphs.
\citet{Hellendoorn2020Global,zugner2021language,peng2021integrating} use Transformer-based models to represent source code by capturing both context and structural information, in which the structural information is integrated into the self-attention module by replacing the position embedding with encoding from AST. Specifically, \citet{Hellendoorn2020Global} bias the self-attention process with different types of correlations between nodes in code graph.
\citet{zugner2021language} use several pair-wise distances on ASTs to represent the pair-wise relationships between tokens in code context sequence and find that multilingual training improves the performance of language models compared to single-language models. \citet{peng2021integrating} encode AST paths and integrate them into self-attention to learn both context and structural information.
Compared to these works, ours is the first to use meta learning to learn multilingual source code models that are capable of learning language-specific in addition to language-agnostic information and improves on several of the aforementioned models yielding state-of-the-art results.
\textbf{Meta Learning for Parameters Generation}~\
Meta learning is a novel learning paradigm with the concept of learning to learn. There are several types of meta learning such as
learning to initialize~\citep{Finn2017MAML},
learning an optimizer~\citep{Andrychowicz2016learning}, and
learning hyperparameters~\citep{Li2021metasaug}.
\citet{Bertinetto2016learning} propose a method called learnet to learn to generate the parameters of the pupil network. \citet{Ha2016hyperNetworks} propose Hypernetworks to generate parameters for large models through layer-wise weight sharing scheme. \citet{chen2018meta} propose a meta learning-based multi-task learning framework in which a meta network generates task-specific weights for different tasks to extract task-specific semantic features.
\citet{wang2019tafenet} use a task-aware meta learner to generate parameters for classification models for different tasks in few-shot learning. \citet{pan2019urban,pan2022spatio} apply meta learning to generate parameters for models in spatial-temporal data mining to capture spatial and temporal dynamics in urban traffic.
Our approach is a form of meta learning to generate model parameters where MetaTPTrans\xspace learns to generate different weights for different programming languages.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec_Intro}
The computation of chromatic number $\chi(G)$ of a graph $G$ is a well know difficult problem that is NP-hard. As such one often tries to find some approximate values for it. For this one first needs a (proper) coloring of $G$. There are some simple approaches how to find such a coloring. Let us recall two of them. First is the greedy approach, also sometimes called first-fit, where one starts with totally uncolored graph. Vertices are then colored in some arbitrary order by the rule that an uncolored vertex receives the minimum color that is not present in its neighborhood until that moment. At the end of this procedure we obtain a coloring of $G$ and the number of colors is an upper bound for $\chi(G)$. The other approach starts at the other end where all vertices are colored by a different color from $\{1,\dots,|V(G)|\}$. In what follows we need to find at each step a color class that is without a vertex having neighbors of all the remaining colors. Every vertex of such a class can then be recolored with some color, the one that is missing in its neighborhood, and we obtain a new coloring with one color less than before. We stop with this when every color class has a vertex with all the other colors in its neighborhood. Again the number of the colors at the last stage is an upper bound for $\chi(G)$.
Both mentioned procedures can result in a coloring with the number of colors that are close to $\chi(G)$ and if we are lucky, then even with $\chi(G)$ colors. However, the difference between the obtained number of colors and $\chi(G)$ can also be arbitrarily large. For both a wide range of studies deals with the worst case. In the greedy approach the worst number of colors that can be obtained is called the Grundy chromatic number $\Gamma (G)$ of $G$ and the worst case in the other presented procedure is called the b-chromatic number $\varphi (G)$ of $G$.
The Grundy chromatic number was introduced by Christen and Selkow \cite{ref_ChrSel} and then investigated by numerous authors. Let us cite just a few results. Erd\"os et al. \cite{ref_ErdHarHedLas} proved that for every finite graph the Grundy chromatic number is equal to the ochromatic number (the one corresponding to the parsimonious proper coloring). Telle and Proskurowski in \cite{ref_TelPro} presented the first polynomial-time algorithm for computing the Grundy number of partial $k$-trees. DeVilbiss, Johnson and Matzke \cite{ref_DeVJohMat} proved the values of this graph invariant for the line graphs of the regular Tur\'an graphs. The complexity of finding Grundy number was analyzed e.g. by Zaker \cite{ref_Zak} and Bonnet et al. \cite{ref_BonFouKimSik}.
The b-chromatic number was introduced by Irving and Manlove in 1999 \cite{irma-99}. They have shown that determining the b-chromatic number of a graph is an NP-hard problem. The problem is still NP-hard for connected bipartite graphs as shown by Kratochv{\'{\i}}l, Tuza and Voigt \cite{krtuvo-02}. In contrast, the exact result for $\varphi (T)$ for every tree $T$ was presented already in \cite{irma-99}. A similar approach was later transformed to cactus graphs \cite{CaLSMaSi}, to outerplanar graphs \cite{MaSi12}, and to graphs with large enough girth \cite{CaFaSi,CaLiSi,koza-15}. For further reading about b-chromatic number and related concepts we recommend survey \cite{JaPe}.
There exist many variants of graph (vertex) colorings with some special extra condition(s). They usually yield a special chromatic number like acyclic chromatic number, star chromatic number, Thue chromatic number and many others. Their computational complexity is usually NP-hard and, similarly as in the case of chromatic number, we desire for some simple procedures that yield an upper bound for the mentioned invariants. Again, the information how much can go wrong in such a case is an interesting question. Therefore we start in this work with the analysis of acyclic b-chromatic number, that is the worst possible number of colors obtained by the second mentioned procedure which is limited in our case only to acyclic colorings of $G$.
The paper is organized as follows. In the next section we present basic notations and concepts, among others we recall two graph invariants: acyclic chromatic number and b-chromatic number. This part is followed by the definition of the acyclic b-chroatic number and some basic results about this parameter in Section \ref{sec_Definition}. Then we generalize an upper bound from the b-chromatic number to the acyclic b-chromatic number in Section \ref{secupperbound}. This allows us to present an upper bound that is quadratic with respect to the maximum degree of the graph. In Section \ref{sec_BAcyclicJoins} we present some results about the acyclic b-colorings of joins of graphs. The last section contains some final remarks and open problems.
\section{Preliminaries}\label{sec_Preliminaries}
In this work we consider only graphs $G=(V(G),E(G))$ that are finite and simple, that is without loops and multiple edges. We use $n_G$ for the order and $m_G$ for the size of $G$. As usually we denote by $N_G(v)$ the \emph{open neighborhood} $\{u\in V(G):uv\in E(G)\}$ of $v\in V(G)$ and $N_G[v]=N_G(v)\cup\{v\}$ is the \emph{closed neighborhood} of $v$. The \emph{degree} of $v\in V(G)$ is denoted by $d_G(v)$ and is defined as $d_G(v)=\vert N_G(v)\vert$. By $\Delta (G)$ and $\delta (G)$ we denote the maximum and the minimum degree of a vertex in $G$, respectively. The clique number of $G$ is denoted by $\omega (G)$. For $S\subseteq V(G)$ we denote by $G[S]$ the subgraph of $G$ induced by $S$. Graph $\overline{G}$ is the complement of $G$. We use $[k]$ to denote the set $\{1,\dots,k\}$ and $[j,k]$ to denote the set $\{j,\dots,k\}$ (so, in particular, $[1,k]=[k]$).
A graph $G$ is a \emph{cactus} graph if any two cycles intersect in at most one vertex.
A graph $G$ is called an \emph{odd cycle graph} if $G$ does not contain any cycle of even length. By the best of our knowledge, we are not aware of the existence of the following basic result in the literature.
\begin{proposition}\label{oddcycle}
A graph $G$ is an odd cycle graph if and only if $G$ is a cactus graph with only odd cycles.
\end{proposition}
\noindent {\textbf{Proof.}} A cactus graph with only odd cycles is clearly an odd cycle graph by the definition. Otherwise, suppose that two cycles $C$ and $C'$ intersect in at least two vertices $u$ and $v$. We wish to show that there exists a cycle of even length. If $C$ or $C'$ is an even cycle, then we are done. So, we may assume that $C$ and $C'$ are odd cycles. We choose $u$ and $v$ in such a way that a $(u,v)$-path $P\subseteq C$ does not contain any vertex from $C'$ other than $u$ and $v$. Now $C^\prime$ splits into two $(u,v)$-paths $P_1$ and $P_2$ having no vertices in common with $P$ except their ends $u$ and $v$. Since $C'$ is odd, $P_1$ and $P_2$ have different parity. If $P_1$ has the same parity as $P$, then $P\cup P_1$ is an even cycle. Otherwise, $P_2$ has the same parity as $P$ and $P\cup P_2$ form an even cycle. So, $G$ is not an odd cycle graph.\hfill \rule{.1in}{.1in}\\
\subsection{Acyclic chromatic number}
A map $c:V(G)\rightarrow\{1,\ldots,k\}$ is called \emph{proper vertex coloring} with $k$ colors if $c(x)\neq c(y)$ for every edge $xy\in E(G)$. We consider here only proper vertex colorings, therefore we omit the terms "proper" and "vertex" and call $c$ a coloring or a $k$-coloring of $G$ in the remainder of the paper. The \emph{trivial coloring} of $G$ is the coloring where every vertex obtains a different color. The minimum number $k$, for which there exists a $k$-coloring, is called the \emph{chromatic number} of $G$ and is denoted by $\chi(G)$. Every $k$-coloring $c$ yields a partition of $V(G)$ into independent sets $V_i=\{u\in V(G):c(u)=i\}$, for every $i\in [k]$, called \emph{color classes} of $c$. We denote by $V_{i,j}$ the union $V_i\cup V_j$ and by $V_{i,j,\ell}$ the union $V_i\cup V_j\cup V_{\ell}$ for any $i,j,\ell\in [k]$. In particular we use $V_{i,j,\ell}(v)$ for component of $G[V_{i,j,\ell}]$ that contains vertex $v$. By $CN_c(v)$ we denote the set of all the colors that are present in $N_G(v)$ under coloring $c$, that is $CN_c(v)=\{c(u):u\in N_G(v)\}$. In addition we have $CN_c[v]=CN_c(v)\cup\{c(v)\}$.
A coloring $c$ is an \emph{acyclic coloring} of $G$ if $G[V_{i,j}]$ is a forest for any $i,j\in[k]$. In other words, the subgraph induced by any two color classes does not contain any cycle. Notice that $G[V_{i,i}]$ is even edgeless since $c$ is a coloring of $G$. The minimum number of colors of an acyclic coloring of $G$ is the \emph{acyclic chromatic number} denoted by $A(G)$. Clearly, $A(G)\geq \chi(G)$ as every acyclic coloring is also a coloring of $G$.
Acyclic colorings were introduced by B. Gr\"unbaum \cite{ref_Gru}, who proved that the acyclic chromatic number of any planar graph is not greater than $9$ and conjectured that in fact this bound is equal to $5$. This was finally proved by Borodin \cite{ref_Bor}. Mondal et al. \cite{ref_MonNisWhiRah} proved that every triangulated plane graph $G$ has an acyclically $3$-colorable subdivision, where the number of division vertices is not greater than $2.75n_G-6$, and an acyclically $4$-colorable subdivision, where the number of division vertices is not greater than $2n_G-6$. Alon, McDiarmid and Reed \cite{ref_AloMcDRee} showed that $A(G)\leq \lceil 50\Delta^{4/3}\rceil$, where $\Delta=\Delta(G)$, which proved the conjecture attributed to Erd\"os (see \cite[p.89]{ref_JenTof}), stating that $A(G)=o(\Delta^2)$. Recently, Gon\c{c}alves, Montassier and Pinlou \cite{ref_GonMonPin} used the entropy compression method to prove that for every graph $G$, $A(G)\leq \frac{3}{2}\Delta^{4/3}+O(\Delta)$. Alon, McDiarmid and Reed in \cite{ref_AloMcDRee} proved also that there exist graphs for which $A(G)=\Omega(\Delta^{4/3}/(\log\Delta)^{1/3})$. Alon, Mohar and Sanders \cite{ref_AloMohSan} showed that the acyclic chromatic number of the projective plane is $7$, while for every $G$ embeddable on a surface of Euler characteristic $\chi=-\gamma$, $A(G)=O(\gamma^{4/7})$. Moreover, for every $\gamma>0$ there exist graphs embeddable on surfaces of Euler characteristic $-\gamma$, for which $A(G)=\Omega(\gamma^{4/7}/(\log\gamma)^{1/7})$. This disproved the conjecture due to Borodin (see \cite[p.70]{ref_JenTof}) that acyclic chromatic number is equal to the chromatic number for all surfaces other than a plane. Acyclic colorings of graphs with bounded degree were studied e.g. by Fertin and Raspaud \cite{ref_FerRas}, Hocquard and Montassier \cite{ref_HocMon} and Yadav et al. \cite{ref_YadVarKotVen}. Mondal et al. \cite{ref_MonNisWhiRah} proved that deciding whether a graph with $\Delta\leq 6$ is acyclically $4$-colorable, is NP-complete.
\subsection{b-chromatic number}
Let $\mathcal{F}(G)$ be the set of all colorings of $G$ and let $c\in \mathcal{F}(G)$ be a $k$-coloring. A vertex $v$ of $G$ with $c(v)=i$ is a b-\emph{vertex} (of color $i$), if $v$ has all the colors of $c$ in its closed neighborhood, that is $CN_c[v]=[k]$. If a vertex $v$ with $c(v)=i$ is not a b-vertex, then (at least) one color is missing in $N_G[v]$, say $j$. We can recolor $v$ with $j$ and a slightly different coloring is obtained. Hence, if there exists no b-vertex of color $i$, then we can recolor every vertex $v$ colored with $i$ with some color not present in $N_G[v]$, say $j_v$. This way we obtain a new coloring $c_i:V(G)\rightarrow [k]\setminus\{i\}$ by
\begin{equation*}
c_i(v)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
c(v) & : & c(v)\neq i \\
j_v & : & c(v)=i
\end{array}
\right. .
\end{equation*}
Clearly $c_i$ is a $(k-1)$-coloring of $G$. We call the above procedure a \emph{recoloring step}. By the \emph{recoloring algorithm} we mean an iterative performing of recoloring steps while it is possible where we start with a trivial coloring of $G$. Notice that one could also start with any other coloring from $\mathcal{F}(G)$.
Next we define the relation $\triangleleft$ on $\mathcal{F}(G)\times \mathcal{F}(G)$. We say that $c'\in \mathcal{F}(G)$ is in relation $\triangleleft$ with $c\in \mathcal{F}(G)$, $c'\triangleleft c$, if $c'$ can be obtained from $c$ by a recoloring step of one fixed color class of $c$.
Clearly, $\triangleleft$ is asymmetric. The transitive closure $\prec$ of $\triangleleft$ is then a strict partial order on $\mathcal{F}(G)$. Since there are finitely many different colorings of any graph $G$, this order has some minimal elements. The maximum number of colors of a minimal element of $\prec$ is called the \emph{b-chromatic number} of $G$ and is denoted by $\varphi (G)$, in contrast with the chromatic number $\chi (G)$, which is the minimum number of colors of a minimal element of $\prec$.
Every color class of every minimal element of $\prec$ needs to have a b-vertex. So, one can use the following alternative definition, as already mentioned in \cite{irma-99}. A coloring $c$ of $G$ is a \emph{b-coloring} if every color class contains a b-vertex. The b-chromatic number is then the maximum number of colors in a b-coloring of $G$. This definition was later used in almost all publications on the b-chromatic number.
There exists a very natural upper bound for $\varphi(G)$. Namely, every b-coloring with $\varphi(G)$ colors needs at least $\varphi(G)$ vertices with $d_G(v)\geq\varphi(G)-1$. The $m$-\emph{degree} $m(G)$ is defined as
$$m(G)=\max \{i: i-1\leq d_G(v_i)\},$$
where $v_1,\dots,v_{n_G}$ are ordered by the degrees $d_G(v_1)\geq \cdots\geq d_G(v_{n_G})$. It was shown already in \cite{irma-99} that $\varphi(G)\leq m(G)$.
Every run of the recoloring algorithm gives a minimal element of $\prec$ and it is straightforward to see that it consists in at most $n_G-\chi(G)$ recoloring steps. In every recoloring step we need to find which color classes are without a b-vertex. If we use $\ell$ colors at some step of the recoloring algorithm, then only vertices of degree at least $\ell-1$ can be b-vertices (of a certain color). Hence we need to check only closed neighborhoods of such vertices and this can be done in $O(m_G)$ time in the worst case. Let us also mention that if a vertex $v$ with $c(v)=i$ is a b-vertex at some stage of the recoloring algorithm, then it remains a b-vertex of color $i$ after each recoloring step that still follows. Finally, when we have a color class $j$ without a b-vertex, we need to find for every vertex $v$ satisfying $c(v)=j$ a color that is not present in $N_G(v)$ and this can be done in $O(m_G)$ time again. Altogether, recoloring algorithm is polynomial algorithm and its time complexity is at most $O\left((n_G-\chi(G))(m_G)^2\right)$.
With this we have a heuristic polynomial algorithm that produces a coloring of $G$ and gives an upper bound for $\chi(G)$. This way the study of $\varphi(G)$ became the study of the worst possible case that can happen while using the recoloring algorithm. A similar approach can be applied to the Grundy number $\Gamma(G)$, which corresponds with the study of the worst possible performance of the greedy algorithm. A comparative study on the b-chromatic number and the Grundy number was presented by Masih and Zaker \cite{MaZa1,MaZa2}.
\section{Definition and some basic results}\label{sec_Definition}
Our goal in this part is to define the acyclic b-chromatic number of a graph $G$. For that reason we could be interested in colorings of $G$ that are acyclic and b-colorings at the same time. Unfortunately this is not possible for all graphs. Let us observe cycle $C_4$. Notice that $\varphi(C_4)=\chi(C_4)=2$ and the only b-coloring of $C_4$ is the 2-coloring that is not acyclic. So, both conditions, being an acyclic coloring and being a b-coloring, are not always fulfilled. This is probably one of the reasons why this problem was not studied yet.
We can avoid this problem if we focus more strictly on the original definition of $\varphi(G)$. For this let $\mathcal{AF}(G)$ be the set of all acyclic colorings of $G$. A recoloring step for $c\in\mathcal{AF}(G)$ that produces coloring $c'$ is an \emph{acyclic recoloring step} if $c'\in \mathcal{AF}(G)$. This means that we can reduce some color of $c$ only when a new coloring $c'$ is also acyclic. The \emph{acyclic recoloring algorithm} is the use of an acyclic recoloring step until this is possible when starting by a trivial coloring of $G$. Also the acyclic recoloring algorithm has polynomial time complexity, because we need, in addition to the recoloring algorithm, after each acyclic recoloring step to check whether the new coloring is still acyclic. This can clearly be done in polynomial time since there are at most $O(n_G^2)$ pairs of different colors.
We define relation $\triangleleft_a\subseteq\mathcal{AF}(G)\times \mathcal{AF}(G)$ by $c'\triangleleft_a c$ when $c'$ can be obtained by an acyclic recoloring step from $c\in \mathcal{AF}(G)$. Similarly as $\triangleleft$, $\triangleleft_a$ is also asymmetric. Let $\prec_a$ be its transitive closure. Hence, $\prec_a$ is a strict partial order of $\mathcal{AF}(G)$. The trivial coloring is the greatest element of $\prec_a$ (sometimes also called the maximum element). Again, as $G$ is finite, also $\mathcal{AF}(G)$ is finite and at least one minimal element of $\prec_a$ exists.
\begin{proposition}
Let $G$ be a graph and $t\in\mathcal{AF}(G)$ be a trivial coloring. If $c\in\mathcal{AF}(G)$, then there exists a chain
$$c\triangleleft_a c_1\triangleleft_a c_2\triangleleft_a\cdots\triangleleft_a c_{\ell-1}\triangleleft_a t.$$
\end{proposition}
\noindent {\textbf{Proof.}}
Let $c$ be any $k$-coloring from $\mathcal{AF}(G)$. Let $\ell=n_G-k$, $c_{\ell}=t$ and $c_0=c$. We may assume that the $k$ colors from $c$ are the first $k$ colors from $t$. Let $v_1,\dots,v_k,v_{k+1},\dots,v_{n_G}$ be vertices of $G$ ordered in such a way that $c(v_i)=i$ for every $i\in [k]$, the rest of the ordering being arbitrary. For every $i\in [\ell]$ we define coloring $c_i$ from $c_{i-1}$ by
\begin{equation*}
c_i(v)=\left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
c_{i-1}(v) & \text{if} & v\neq v_{k+i}, \\
k+i & \text{if} & v=v_{k+i}.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation*}
In other words, if we reverse the order of colorings, then we obtain $c$ from $t$ by recoloring every vertex at most once. Clearly, $c_i\in\mathcal{AF}(G)$ for every $i\in [\ell]$ because $c\in\mathcal{AF}(G)$. Moreover, we can obtain $c_{i-1}$ from $c_i$ by a recoloring of vertex $v_{k+i}$. By the construction of $c_i$ from $c_{i-1}$ it is clear that $v_{k+i}$ is not a b-vertex for $c_i$ because the color $c_{i-1}(v_{k+i})$ is not in the closed neighborhood of $v_{k+i}$ in coloring $c_i$. Hence we have an acyclic recoloring step from $c_i$ to $c_{i-1}$ and $c_{i-1}\triangleleft_a c_i$ follows for every $i\in [\ell]$. \hfill \rule{.1in}{.1in}\bigskip
With this the following definition is justified. The \emph{acyclic b-chromatic number} $A_b(G)$ is the maximum number of colors in a minimal element of $\prec_a$:
$$A_b(G)=\max\{|c|:c\in\mathcal{AF}(G) \text{ is a minimal element of }\prec_a\}.$$
The acyclic b-chromatic number of a graph $G$ describes the worst case to appear while using the acyclic recoloring algorithm to estimate $A(G)$. An acyclic coloring of $G$ with $A_b(G)$ colors that arise from a minimal element of $\prec_a$ is called an $A_b(G)$-\emph{coloring}. We have the following inequality chain
\begin{equation}\label{chain}
\omega(G)\leq\chi(G)\leq A(G)\leq A_b(G)\leq n_G,
\end{equation}
where the fact that every acyclic b-coloring is also an acyclic coloring implies $A(G)\leq A_b(G)$.
Next we characterize the graphs for which $A_b(G)=n_G$.
\begin{proposition}\label{order}
We have $A_b(G)=n_G$ if and only if $G\cong K_{n_G}$.
\end{proposition}
\noindent {\textbf{Proof.}}
If $G\cong K_n$, then $A_b(G)=n=n_G$ by (\ref{chain}). Conversely, if $G\ncong K_n$, then there exist different and nonadjacent $u,w\in V(G)$. For a trivial coloring $t$ of $G$,
\begin{equation*}
c(v)=\left\{
\begin{array}{lccl}
t(v) &:& \text{if} & v\neq u, \\
t(w) &:& \text{if} & v=u,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation*}
is a coloring obtained by an acyclic recoloring step. Hence $t$ is not a minimal element of $\prec_a$ and $A_b(G)<n_G$.
\hfill \rule{.1in}{.1in}\bigskip
The b-chromatic number $\varphi(G)$ has an elegant description as a maximum number of colors for which b-vertex exists in every color class. For the acyclic b-chromatic number this is not enough as already shown for $C_4$. Namely, arbitrary recoloring can also trigger a bi-chromatic cycles and we need to avoid this. In order to formulate appropriate condition, we define the concept of a weak acyclic b-vertex.
\begin{definition}
Let $G$ be a graph with an acyclic coloring $c:V(G)\rightarrow [k]$. A vertex $v\in V_i$, $i\in [k]$, is a weak acyclic b-vertex if it satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{cond}
\forall \ell\in[k]-CN_c[v], \exists j\in CN_c(v): G[V_{j,\ell}\cup\{v\}] \text{ contains a cycle.}
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
Note that every b-vertex $v$ is also weak acyclic b-vertex, since $[k]-CN_c[v]=\emptyset$ in this case. If $v$ is a weak acyclic b-vertex and $\ell\in[k]-CN_c[v]$, then there exists a bi-colored path of even length between two neighbors of $v$ (both colored by $j$). For two colors $\ell,m\in[k]-CN_c[v]$ such two paths can have a common inner vertex of color $j$ if both paths start (and end) with the same color $j$.
As already suggested by "weak", the notion of weak acyclic b-vertex does not generalize b-vertices to acyclic b-vertices in all the cases. For this observe Figure \ref{notenough}. On the left we have a colored $8$-cycle where only color 1 has a weak acyclic b-vertex (that is actually a b-vertex), while colors $2$ and $3$ have no weak acyclic b-vertex. However, the presented coloring cannot be reduced with an acyclic recoloring step. Even more tricky is the example on the right graph $G$ of Figure \ref{notenough}. There are two similar colorings of this graph with only difference in vertex $z$. In first coloring $z$ is colored by $2$ and in the second coloring by $4$. Vertices $a,b,c$ are b-vertices for colors $1,2,4$, respectively, so only color $3$, which is without weak acyclic b-vertex, can be recolored. In first coloring, this is possible as $w$ and $v$ can be recolored with $4$, and $u$ and $t$ with $2$ and we get an acyclic coloring. On the other hand, an acyclic recoloring of $G$ is not possible for the second coloring (i.e. the one in which $c(z)=4$), because $u$ and $v$ can be recolored only with $2$ and this yields a bi-chromatic cycle.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5,style=thick,x=1cm,y=1cm]
\def\vr{3pt}
\path (2,0) coordinate (a);
\path (0,0) coordinate (b);
\path (-1.5,1.5) coordinate (c);
\path (-1.5,3.5) coordinate (d);
\path (0,5) coordinate (e);
\path (2,5) coordinate (f);
\path (3.5,3.5) coordinate (g);
\path (3.5,1.5) coordinate (h);
\draw (a) -- (b) -- (c) -- (d) -- (e) -- (f) -- (g) -- (h) -- (a);
\draw (a) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (b) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (c) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (d) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (e) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (f) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (g) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (h) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw[anchor = north] (a) node {$1$};
\draw[anchor = north] (b) node {$3$};
\draw[anchor = east] (c) node {$1$};
\draw[anchor = east] (d) node {$3$};
\draw[anchor = south] (e) node {$1$};
\draw[anchor = south] (f) node {$2$};
\draw[anchor = west] (g) node {$1$};
\draw[anchor = west] (h) node {$2$};
\draw[anchor = south] (b) node {$y$};
\draw[anchor = west] (d) node {$x$};
\draw (1,2.5) node {$C_8$};
\path (10,0) coordinate (a1);
\path (8,0) coordinate (b1);
\path (6.5,1.5) coordinate (c1);
\path (6.5,3.5) coordinate (d1);
\path (8,5) coordinate (e1);
\path (10,5) coordinate (f1);
\path (11.5,3.5) coordinate (g1);
\path (11.5,1.5) coordinate (h1);
\path (6.5,0) coordinate (b2);
\path (6.5,5) coordinate (d2);
\path (13.5,3.5) coordinate (g2);
\path (13.5,1.5) coordinate (h2);
\path (13.5,0) coordinate (i);
\draw (a1) -- (b1) -- (c1) -- (d1) -- (e1) -- (f1) -- (g1) -- (h1) -- (a1);
\draw (h1) -- (g2) -- (g1);
\draw (h1) -- (h2) -- (g1);
\draw (d1) -- (d2);
\draw (b1) -- (b2);
\draw (i) -- (h2);
\draw (a1) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (b1) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (c1) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (d1) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (e1) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (f1) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (g1) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (h1) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (b2) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (d2) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (g2) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (h2) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (i) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw[anchor = north] (a1) node {$1$};
\draw[anchor = north] (b1) node {$3$};
\draw[anchor = east] (c1) node {$1$};
\draw[anchor = east] (d1) node {$3$};
\draw[anchor = south] (e1) node {$1$};
\draw[anchor = south] (f1) node {$2$};
\draw[anchor = east] (g1) node {$1$};
\draw[anchor = east] (h1) node {$2$};
\draw[anchor = south] (b1) node {$v$};
\draw[anchor = west] (d1) node {$u$};
\draw[anchor = west] (g2) node {$3$};
\draw[anchor = west] (h2) node {$4$};
\draw[anchor = east] (b2) node {$2(4)$};
\draw[anchor = north] (b2) node {$z$};
\draw[anchor = east] (d2) node {$4$};
\draw[anchor = south] (g2) node {$w$};
\draw[anchor = west] (i) node {$3$};
\draw[anchor = east] (i) node {$t$};
\draw[anchor = north] (h1) node {$b$};
\draw[anchor = south] (g1) node {$a$};
\draw (13,1) node{$c$};
\draw (9,2.5) node {$G$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{Colorings without weak acyclic b-vertices of all colors that can sometimes be acyclic recolored and sometimes not.}
\label{notenough}
\end{figure}
Both colorings of $G$ in Figure \ref{notenough} show that sometimes also an even cycle $C$ can prevent the acyclic recoloring step for a color $i$ and not a weak acyclic b-vertex. This is possible only if $C$ is colored with exactly three colors, say $i,j,k$, and $i$ appears at least twice on $C$. Further, one of the other two colors, say $j$, must be on every second vertex. We call such a cycle an $i$-\textit{critical cycle} or $i$-CC for short. Note, that color $k$ can appear only once, say on vertex $v$, on $C$ and in such a case $v$ cannot be recolored with $i$ by condition (\ref{cond}) (when $v$ is a weak b-acyclic vertex). However, if also $k$ appears at least twice on $C$, then $C$ is $k$-CC as well and we say that $C$ is $i,k$-critical cycle or $i,k$-CC for short. Color $i$ of $i$-CC is called \textit{principal} while in $i,k$-CC we have two principal colors $i$ and $k$. Clearly, $i$-CC is of the length at least six and $i,k$-CC of the length at least eight. Note that $C_8$ from Figure \ref{notenough} is $2,3$-CC and the $8$-cycle from $G$ on the same figure is $2,3$-CC as well. Further, in Figure \ref{system} $C$ is $1$-CC and $C'$ is $1,5$-CC.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5,style=thick,x=1cm,y=1cm]
\def\vr{3pt}
\path (2,0) coordinate (a);
\path (0,0) coordinate (b);
\path (-1.5,2.5) coordinate (c);
\path (0,5) coordinate (e);
\path (2,5) coordinate (f);
\path (3.5,2.5) coordinate (g);
\path (5,0) coordinate (d);
\path (7,0) coordinate (h);
\path (9,0) coordinate (i);
\path (10.5,2.5) coordinate (j);
\path (5,5) coordinate (k);
\path (7,5) coordinate (l);
\path (9,5) coordinate (m);
\path (-1,7) coordinate (e1);
\path (1,7) coordinate (e2);
\path (12,1.5) coordinate (j1);
\path (12,3.5) coordinate (j2);
\path (2,-2) coordinate (a1);
\path (5,-2) coordinate (a2);
\path (0,-2) coordinate (b1);
\draw (g) -- (a) -- (b) -- (c) -- (e) -- (e) -- (f) -- (g) -- (d) -- (b) -- (b1);
\draw (b) -- (a1) -- (a2) -- (a) -- (a1) -- (d) -- (a2);
\draw (a) -- (d) -- (h) -- (i) -- (j) -- (m) -- (l) -- (k) -- (g) -- (d);
\draw (e1) -- (e) -- (e2);
\draw (j1) -- (j) -- (j2);
\draw (a) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (b) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (c) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (d) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (e) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (f) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (g) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (h) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (i) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (j) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (k) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (l) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (m) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (a1) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (a2) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (e1) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (j1) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (j2) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (e2) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (b1) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw[anchor = south] (a) node {$2$};
\draw[anchor = south] (b) node {$1$};
\draw[anchor = east] (c) node {$2$};
\draw[anchor = south] (d) node {$4$};
\draw[anchor = north] (e) node {$3$};
\draw[anchor = south] (f) node {$2$};
\draw[anchor = west] (g) node {$1$};
\draw[anchor = north] (h) node {$5$};
\draw[anchor = north] (b1) node {$4$};
\draw[anchor = north] (a1) node {$5$};
\draw[anchor = north] (a2) node {$3$};
\draw[anchor = south] (e1) node {$4$};
\draw[anchor = south] (e2) node {$5$};
\draw (1,2.5) node {$C$};
\draw[anchor = north] (i) node {$4$};
\draw[anchor = north] (j) node {$1$};
\draw[anchor = south] (k) node {$4$};
\draw[anchor = south] (l) node {$5$};
\draw[anchor = south] (m) node {$4$};
\draw[anchor = south] (j1) node {$2$};
\draw[anchor = south] (j2) node {$3$};
\draw (7,2.5) node {$C'$};
\draw[anchor = east] (b) node {$a$};
\draw (1.5,-0.5) node {$b$};
\draw (5.5,-0.5) node {$c$};
\draw[anchor = east] (g) node {$d$};
\draw[anchor = east] (a1) node {$g$};
\draw[anchor = east] (e) node {$e$};
\draw[anchor = east] (b1) node {$h$};
\draw[anchor = south] (j) node {$f$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{Cycles $C$ and $C'$ form a critical cycle system.}
\label{system}
\end{figure}
Critical cycles that have a common vertex of principal color can further influence on each other. For this observe a simple example in Figure \ref{system}. Here $C$ is $1$-CC and $C'$ is $1,5$-CC and they have a common vertex $d$ of principal color $1$. Notice that $b,c,g$ are b-vertices of colors $2,4,5$, respectively. In addition, $e$ is a weak acyclic b-vertex. So the only candidate for acyclic recoloring is color $1$. In this case notice that $f$ can be recolored only with $5$. Now, $d$ can be recolored with $3$ or $5$, but we cannot recolor both $d$ and $f$ with $5$, because then $C'$ is bi-colored. So, $d$ must receive color $3$. Finally, $a$ can be recolored only with $3$, which yields bi-colored cycle $C$. Hence, acyclic recoloring of this coloring is not possible.
Let $c$ be an acyclic coloring of $G$. Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a collection of all critical cycles for $c$. A \textit{critical cycle system for color $i$} or CCS$(i)$ for short is a subcollection of $i$-CC from $\mathcal{C}$ that form a maximal connected subgraph of $G$ and where different critical cycles intersect only in vertices of color $i$ (there can be more than one CCS$(i)$ in one coloring of $G$). The color that is not principal on a critical cycle $C$ appears exactly once on $C$ or on half of vertices of $C$. If it appears only once, then the condition (\ref{cond}) prevents the recoloring with $i$ if necessary. The other color, say $j$, can be always recolored on $C$ (if there is no weak acyclic b-vertex of this color or some other CCS$(j)$). In Figure \ref{system} $\{C,C'\}$ is the collection of all $1$-CC as well as the only CCS$(1)$ for the presented coloring. On the other hand $C'$ is the only $5$-CC and with this also CCS$(5)$.
Let $i$ be a principal color without any weak acyclic b-vertex in a coloring of a graph $G$. Let $v$ be a vertex of color $i$ in a CCS$(i)$. An \textit{available color} for $v$ is every color that is not in the neighborhood of $v$ and is not on a bi-colored path of even length between two neighbors of $v$. By $A_v$ we denote the set of all available colors of $v$. In Figure \ref{system} we have $A_a=\{3\}$, $A_d=\{3, 5\}$ and $A_f=\{5\}$ for CCS$(1)$. On the same figure for CCS$(5)$, both sets of available colors are empty, because there exists a weak acyclic b-vertex $g$ of color $5$.
Let $D\subseteq \mathcal{C}$ be a CCS$(i)$ for an acyclic coloring of graph $G$. If there exists a principal color $i$ among the colors used on $D$ such that for every vertex $v$ from $D$ colored with $i$ there exists a color $j_v\in A_v$, such that recoloring all such $v$ with $j_v$ results in an acyclic coloring, then $D$ is \textit{recolorable}. Otherwise, $D$ is not recolorable. CCS$(1)$ $\{C,C'\}$ from Figure \ref{system} is not recolorable. As we have already observed, the recoloring of color $1$ leads to a bi-chromatic cycle. Vertices of color $5$ could be recolored in CCS$(5)$, however vertex $g$ is a b-vertex of color $5$ and with this also a weak acyclic b-vertex and color $5$ cannot be recolored. It is also easy to see that the critical cycle $C_8$ from Figure \ref{notenough} is not recolorable as well as the second coloring of $G$ on the same figure. However, the first coloring of this graph is recolorabe. Now everything is settled for the definition of acyclic b-vertices.
\begin{definition}
Let $G$ be a graph with an acyclic coloring $c:V(G)\rightarrow [k]$. A vertex $v\in V_i$, $i\in [k]$, is an acyclic b-vertex if it satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{cond1}
\forall \ell\in[k]-CN_c[v], \exists j\in CN_c(v): (G[V_{j,\ell}\cup\{v\}] \text{ contains a cycle }\vee
\end{equation}
\begin{center}
there exists a CCS$(i)$ of $G$ that contains $v$ and is not recolorable).
\end{center}
\end{definition}
Now we can describe minimal elements of $\prec_a$ of graph $G$ as follows.
\begin{theorem}\label{conditionABcoloring}
An acyclic $k$-coloring $c$ is a minimal element of $\prec_a$ if and only if every color class $V_i$, $i\in[k]$, contains an acyclic b-vertex.
\end{theorem}
\noindent {\textbf{Proof.}}
Let an acyclic $k$-coloring $c$ be a minimal element of $\prec_a$ of a graph $G$. This means that we cannot present an acyclic recoloring step for $c$. There are two possible reasons for that for any color class $V_i$, $i\in [k]$. Firstly, $V_i$ has a b-vertex or secondly, by any recoloring of $V_i$ we get a bi-chromatic cycle of colors, say $j$ and $\ell$, different than $i$. Let $v_1v_2\dots v_qv_1$ be such a cycle $C$ where $v_1\in V_i$ and $c(v_2)=c(v_q)=j$. Clearly, $C$ can be different after different recolorings. Since the recoloring is arbitrary, we may assume that $\ell\notin CN_c[v_1]$ is arbitrary. If $v_1$ is the only vertex of color $i$ on $C$, then path $v_2\dots v_q$ is bi-colored by $c$. Hence, $G[V_{j,\ell}\cup\{v\}$ contains a cycle and the first part of condition (\ref{cond1}) holds. Otherwise, there exists more vertices of color $i$ on $C$. Then there exists CCS$(i)$ that contains $v_1$, because $C$ contains more than one vertex of color $i$ and some $i$-CC from the mentioned CCS$(i)$ is bi-chromatic after any recoloring. So, there exists CCS$(i)$ that is not recolorable and the second part of condition (\ref{cond1}) is fulfilled. In both cases we have an acyclic b-vertex for every color $i\in [k]$.
Conversely, if $c$ is not a minimal element of $\prec_a$, then we can perform an acyclic recoloring step for some color $i$. This means that for every $v\in V_i$ there exists a color $\ell_v\notin CN_c[v]$ such that for every $j\in CN_c(v)$ there is no cycle in $G[V_{j,\ell_v}\cup\{v\}]$ and every CCS$(i)$ (if it exists) is acyclic recolorable. But then condition (\ref{cond1}) is not fulfilled and $V_i$ is without acyclic b-vertex and we are done.
\hfill \rule{.1in}{.1in}\bigskip
\begin{corollary}\label{cor}
The acyclic b-chromatic number $A_b(G)$ of a graph $G$ is the largest integer $k$, such that there exists an acyclic $k$-coloring, where every color class $V_i$, $i\in [k]$, contains an acyclic b-vertex.
\end{corollary}
\begin{corollary}\label{cor1}
Let $G$ be a graph with all even cycles being $4$-cycles. The acyclic b-chromatic number $A_b(G)$ of $G$ is the largest integer $k$, such that there exists an acyclic $k$-coloring, where every color class $V_i$, $i\in [k]$, contains a weak acyclic b-vertex.
\end{corollary}
\noindent{}Let us observe some simple facts.
\begin{corollary}\label{basic2}
For every positive integers $n,k,\ell$, where $k\geq 3$ and $\ell\geq 5$, we have
\begin{itemize}
\item $A_b(\overline{K}_n)=1$.
\item $A_b(P_{\ell})=3$.
\item $A_b(C_k)=3$.
\end{itemize}
\end{corollary}
\noindent {\textbf{Proof.}}
$A_b(\overline{K}_n)\geq 1$ and $A_b(C_k)\geq 3$ follow from (\ref{chain}), while the coloring $c:V(P_{\ell})\rightarrow [3]$ guaranteeing $A_b(P_{\ell})\geq 3$ can be defined as $c(v_i)=(i\imod 3$)+1, $i\in [\ell]$ (every internal vertex is a b-vertex and thus there is an acyclic b-vertex in each color class). On the other hand, if $\overline{K}_n$ is colored with $p\geq 2$ colors, then every color is without an acyclic b-vertex and this coloring is not a minimal element of $\prec_a$ by Theorem \ref{conditionABcoloring}. Similar is with $C_k$ and $P_{\ell}$. If they are colored by $p\geq 4$ colors, then no color class contains an acyclic b-vertex and such a coloring in not a minimal element of $\prec_a$ by Theorem \ref{conditionABcoloring}. The desired equalities now follow.
\hfill \rule{.1in}{.1in}\bigskip
We end this section with a brief discussion on graphs where $\mathcal{F}(G)=\mathcal{AF}(G)$, or in other words, where every coloring of $G$ is acyclic. Among such graphs are clearly odd cycle graphs described in Proposition \ref{oddcycle}, some cactus graphs and in particular trees. For such graphs we have $A_b(G)=\varphi(G)$. In particular, b-chromatic number of trees and cactus graphs was studied in \cite{irma-99} and \cite{CaLSMaSi}, respectively. In both cases it was shown that
$$m(G)-1\leq\varphi(G)\leq m(G),$$
where the above holds for cactus graphs when $m(G)\geq 7$.
Moreover, the lower bound is achieved if and only if $G$ is a pivoted graph. Notice that pivoted tree (see \cite{irma-99}) is defined differently than a pivoted cactus graph (see \cite{CaLSMaSi}) and that for pivoted trees we do not have a restriction that $m(G)\geq 7$. It is also important to mention, that the authors of \cite{CaLSMaSi} used an alternative definition of cacti, where two cycles can have arbitrarily many vertices in common, provided that they do not have a common edge. For that reason their results are not consistent with the definitions used in our paper. However, we still can formulate the following.
\begin{corollary}\label{tree}
Let $T$ be a tree. If $T$ is a pivoted tree, then $A_b(T)=m(T)-1$ and otherwise $A_b(T)=m(T)$.
\end{corollary}
Corollary \ref{tree} implies in particular that the difference between $A_b(G)$ and $A(G)$ can be arbitrarily large.
\begin{corollary}\label{treeInfinite}
There exists an infinite family of graphs $G_1, G_2, \dots$ such that $(A_b(G_n)-A(G_n))\rightarrow\infty$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$.
\end{corollary}
\noindent {\textbf{Proof.}}
For $n\geq 1$, let $G_n$ be a graph consisting of a star $K_{1,n+1}$ with $n$ pendant edges attached to each of its leaves. Graph $G_n$ has exactly $n+2$ vertices of degree $n+1$ and $n(n+1)$ vertices of degree $1$, so $m(G_n)=n+2$. Also, $G_n$ is not a pivoted tree, so $A_b(G_n)=m(G_n)=n+2$. On the other hand, any proper coloring of $G_n$ is its acyclic coloring, so $A(G)=2$. Thus $A_b(G_n)-A(G_n)=n$ for every $n\geq 1$ and $(A_b(G_n)-A(G_n))\rightarrow\infty$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$.
\hfill \rule{.1in}{.1in}\bigskip
\section{An upper bound on $A_b(G)$ analogous to $m(G)$ for $\varphi(G)$}\label{secupperbound}
Let $c$ be an acyclic $k$-coloring of a graph $G$ that is minimal with respect to order $\prec_a$. Recall that according to Theorem \ref{conditionABcoloring} every color class $V_i$ contains an acyclic b-vertex. While for b-vertices, high enough degree is necessary, for acyclic b-vertices we need high enough degree or sufficient number of even-vertex internally (or EVI for short) disjoint $(u,w)$-paths of odd order (that is, of even length) between some of its neighbors $u\neq w$ or a combination of both (by even-vertex internally disjoint we mean that two such paths can have odd vertices of such a path in common, but not the even vertices). In particular, if for $u,w\in N_G(v)$ there are $k$ different EVI disjoint $(u,w)$-paths $P_1,\dots,P_k$ of even length, where $P_k=uvw$, in the worst case these paths can yield $k$ different colors into which $v$ cannot be recolored. Indeed, on every path $P_i$, $i\in[k-1]$, there can exist $a_i\in V(P_i)$ with $c(a_i)\notin\{c(v),c(u)\}$ and we can have alternating colors $c(u)=c(w)$ and $c(a_i)$ or $P_k\cup P_i$ is $c(v)$-CC that contains colors $c(v),c(u)$ and $c(a_i)$ and belongs to a CCS$(c(v))$ that is not recolorable. Hence, in the worst case, $u, a_1,\dots ,a_{k-1}$ are colored differently and $v$ cannot receive any of their colors in an acyclic recoloring step.
This can be generalized to a bigger number of neighbors in the following way. Consider a weak partition $P=\{A^P_0,A^P_1,\dots,A^P_k\}$ of $N_G(v)$ into $k+1$ disjoint sets such that $|A^P_0|\geq 0$ and $|A^P_i|\geq 2$ for $i\in [k]$ (the mentioned partition is weak because $A^P_0$ can be empty). Without loss of generality assume that $v$ is colored with color $1$, the vertices of $A^P_0$ with distinct colors from the set $[2,|A^P_0|+1]$ and all the vertices of $A^P_i$, $i\in [k]$, with color $|A^P_0|+i+1$. Now, let ${\rm elp}_G(v,P)$ be the maximum number of pairwise EVI disjoint paths disjoint with $v$ having odd number of vertices (i.e., of even length), with both ends in one of the sets $A^P_i$, $i\in [k]$. Observe that given a partition with color classes defined as above, in the worst case one cannot recolor $v$ to exactly $(|A^P_0|+k+{\rm elp}_G(v,P))$ colors different than $c(v)$: $(|A^P_0|+k)$ colors are blocked by the neighbors and ${\rm elp}_G(v,P)$ by the alternately colored bi-chromatic EVI disjoint paths that could appear in the coloring. This encourages us to define the \textit{acyclic degree} of $v$ as
$$
d_G^a(v)=\max_{P\in\mathcal{P}(v)}\{(|A^P_0|+(|P|-1)+{\rm elp}_G(v,P))\},
$$
where $\mathcal{P}(v)$ is the family of all the weak partitions $P$ of $N_G(v)$ defined as above.
See Figure \ref{elp} with the only optimal weak partition of $N_G(y_1^1)$ defined as $P=\{A^P_0,A^P_1\},A^P_0=\{u,z_1^1,y_1^2\}$,$A^P_1=\{x_1^1,x_2^1\}$. Clearly, $|A^P_0|=3$, $|P|-1=1$ and ${\rm elp}_G(v,P)=3$ (the paths being $x_1^1y_2^1x_2^1, x_1^1y_3^1x_2^1, x_1^1y_4^1x_2^1$), thus $d_G^a(y_1^1)=7$.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1,style=thick,x=1cm,y=1cm]
\def\vr{2pt}
\path (2,0) coordinate (a);
\path (2,4) coordinate (b);
\path (1.5,2) coordinate (c);
\path (0,2) coordinate (d);
\path (2.5,2) coordinate (e);
\path (4,2) coordinate (f);
\path (5.5,2) coordinate (g);
\path (5.3,3) coordinate (h);
\path (5.3,1) coordinate (i);
\draw (g) -- (f) -- (b) -- (e) -- (a) -- (d) -- (b) -- (c) -- (a) -- (f);
\draw (h) -- (f) -- (i);
\draw (a) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (b) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (c) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (d) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (e) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (f) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (g) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (h) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (i) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw[anchor = north] (a) node {$x_1^1$};
\draw[anchor = south] (b) node {$x_2^1$};
\draw[anchor = east] (c) node {$y_3^1$};
\draw[anchor = east] (d) node {$y_4^1$};
\draw[anchor = west] (e) node {$y_2^1$};
\draw[anchor = south] (f) node {$y_1^1$};
\draw[anchor = west] (g) node {$z_1^1$};
\draw[anchor = west] (h) node {$y_1^2$};
\draw[anchor = west] (i) node {$u$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{Graph $G$ with the optimal weak partition $A^P_0=\{u,z_1^1,y_1^2\}$,$A^P_1=\{x_1^1,x_2^1\}$, implying $|A^P_0|=3$, $|P|-1=1$, ${\rm elp}_G(v,P)=3$ and $d_G^a(y_1^1)=7$.}
\label{elp}
\end{figure}
Since we traverse over all weak partitions in $\mathcal{P}(v)$, notice that $d_G^a(v)$ represents the maximum number of colors in $N_G(v)$ and on EVI disjoint paths of even length between vertices of $N_G(v)$ into which $v$ cannot be recolored in a recoloring step. This gives an analogy to the relation between degree $d_G(v)$ and $\varphi(G)$, where we needed sufficient number of vertices of high degree to expect $\varphi(G)$ to be large. Hence, we are encouraged to define an $m_a$-degree of a graph $G$ denoted by $m_a(G)$. First we order the vertices $v_1,\dots,v_{n_G}$ of $G$ by non-increasing acyclic degree. The value of $m_a(G)$ is then the maximum position $i$ in this order such that $d_G^a(v_i)\geq i-1$, that is
$$m_a(G)=\max \{i: i-1\leq d_G^a(v_i)\}.$$
\begin{theorem}\label{madegree}
For any graph $G$ we have $A_b(G)\leq m_a(G)$.
\end{theorem}
\noindent {\textbf{Proof.}}
On the way to a contradiction suppose that there exists a graph $G$ for which $k=A_b(G)>m_a(G)$ and that $c:V(G)\rightarrow [k]$ is an appropriate acyclic b-coloring of $G$. We may assume that $v_1,\dots, v_{n_G}$ are ordered by non-increasing acyclic degree. Clearly, not all colors from $[k]$ are present on the vertices $v_1,\dots,v_{k-1}$ and we may assume that $c(v_i)\neq k$ for every $i\in[k-1]$. This means that $d_G^a(v)<k-1$ for every vertex $v$ of color $k$. Hence, for every vertex $v$ of color $k$, (\ref{cond1}) does not hold, a contradiction with Theorem \ref{conditionABcoloring}.
\hfill \rule{.1in}{.1in}\bigskip
In general case it seems to be hard to compute $m_a(G)$, because we need to derive acyclic degrees for every vertex $v$ of $G$. This is further connected with all the weak partitions from $\mathcal{P}(v)$. Moreover, for every such weak partition we need to get the maximum number of EVI disjoint paths of even length.
The problem of finding a maximum cardinality set of disjoint paths between two fixed vertices is obviously related to the connectivity of graph and Menger's Theorem \cite{ref_Menger} and has been studied for many years. It was proved to be polynomially solvable already by Even and Tarjan \cite{ref_EvenTarjan} with network flow algorithms and no spectacular progress has been made since then, although some papers may be found giving better results in special cases (see e.g. \cite{ref_GrossiMarinoVersari} or \cite{ref_PreisserSchmidt} for some recent results). Unfortunately, when the path lengths are somehow restricted, the problem was proved to be NP-complete already by Itai et al. \cite{ref_ItaiPerlShiloach}. Bley \cite{ref_Bley} proved its APX-completeness. Also the version of the problem of finding $k$ disjoint paths between $k$ disjoint pairs of terminals has been studied, see e.g. Fleszar et al. \cite{ref_FleszarMnichSpoerhase} for some recent results. We do not know any results about the problem of finding maximum cardinality set of EVI disjoint paths between arbitrary vertices, even if they are members of one fixed set.
Nevertheless, one can expect some success with $m_a(G)$ for certain graph classes, mainly the ones with low connectivity which are not too dense or with low maximum degree. In the next part of this section we demonstrate this approach on a family of graphs. It will allow us to show that there is no linear relationship between $A_b(G)$ and $\Delta(G)$ in general case. This underlines another difference between $A_b(G)$ and $\varphi (G)$. Recall that $\varphi(G)\leq m(G)\leq \Delta(G)+1$, however, as we are going to show, $A_b(G)$ can be arbitrarily larger than $\Delta(G)$.
\begin{theorem}\label{roofsInfinite}
There exists an infinite family of graphs $G_1, G_2, \dots$ such that $(A_b(G_n)-\Delta(G_n))\rightarrow\infty$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$.
\end{theorem}
\noindent {\textbf{Proof.}}
For $n\geq 1$, let $H_n^i$, $i\in[2n+4]$, be isomorphic graphs with
$$V(H_n^i)=\{y_1^i,\dots,y_{n+2}^i\}\cup\{x_1^i,x_2^i\}\cup\{z_1^i,\dots,z_{n-1}^i\}$$
and
$$E(H_n^i)=\{x_j^iy_{\ell}^i:j\in[2],\ell\in[n+2]\}\cup\{y_1^iz_j^i:j\in[n-1]\}.$$
Notice that in Figure \ref{elp} a graph $H_2^1$ is presented with two additional leaves $u$ and $y_1^2$. Using graphs $H_n^i$, $i\in[2n+4]$, we construct graph $G_n$ with
$$V(G_n)=\{u,v\}\cup \bigcup_{i=1}^{2n+4}V(H_n^i)$$
and
$$E(G_n)=\{uy_1^1,vy_1^{2n+4},y_1^iy_1^{i+1}:i\in[2n+3]\}\cup \bigcup_{i=1}^{2n+4}E(H_n^i).$$
Observe $G_2$ in Figure \ref{G_5}, while the first part $H_2^1$ together with the neighbors $u$ and $y_1^2$ of $y_1^1$ in $G_2$ is presented in Figure \ref{elp}.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.5,style=thick,x=1cm,y=1cm]
\def\vr{2pt}
\path (0,0) coordinate (q0);
\path (1,0) coordinate (q1);
\path (2,0) coordinate (q2);
\path (3,0) coordinate (q3);
\path (4,0) coordinate (q4);
\path (5,0) coordinate (q5);
\path (6,0) coordinate (q6);
\path (7,0) coordinate (q7);
\path (8,0) coordinate (q8);
\path (9,0) coordinate (q9);
\path (1,-1) coordinate (p1);
\path (2,-1) coordinate (p2);
\path (3,-1) coordinate (p3);
\path (4,-1) coordinate (p4);
\path (5,-1) coordinate (p5);
\path (6,-1) coordinate (p6);
\path (7,-1) coordinate (p7);
\path (8,-1) coordinate (p8);
\path (0.65,1) coordinate (r1);
\path (1.65,1) coordinate (r2);
\path (2.65,1) coordinate (r3);
\path (3.65,1) coordinate (r4);
\path (4.65,1) coordinate (r5);
\path (5.65,1) coordinate (r6);
\path (6.65,1) coordinate (r7);
\path (7.65,1) coordinate (r8);
\path (1.35,1) coordinate (s1);
\path (2.35,1) coordinate (s2);
\path (3.35,1) coordinate (s3);
\path (4.35,1) coordinate (s4);
\path (5.35,1) coordinate (s5);
\path (6.35,1) coordinate (s6);
\path (7.35,1) coordinate (s7);
\path (8.35,1) coordinate (s8);
\path (1,1.5) coordinate (t1);
\path (2,1.5) coordinate (t2);
\path (3,1.5) coordinate (t3);
\path (4,1.5) coordinate (t4);
\path (5,1.5) coordinate (t5);
\path (6,1.5) coordinate (t6);
\path (7,1.5) coordinate (t7);
\path (8,1.5) coordinate (t8);
\path (1,2.5) coordinate (u1);
\path (2,2.5) coordinate (u2);
\path (3,2.5) coordinate (u3);
\path (4,2.5) coordinate (u4);
\path (5,2.5) coordinate (u5);
\path (6,2.5) coordinate (u6);
\path (7,2.5) coordinate (u7);
\path (8,2.5) coordinate (u8);
\path (1,3.5) coordinate (v1);
\path (2,3.5) coordinate (v2);
\path (3,3.5) coordinate (v3);
\path (4,3.5) coordinate (v4);
\path (5,3.5) coordinate (v5);
\path (6,3.5) coordinate (v6);
\path (7,3.5) coordinate (v7);
\path (8,3.5) coordinate (v8);
\draw (q0) -- (q9);
\draw (q1) -- (p1);
\draw (q2) -- (p2);
\draw (q3) -- (p3);
\draw (q4) -- (p4);
\draw (q5) -- (p5);
\draw (q6) -- (p6);
\draw (q7) -- (p7);
\draw (q8) -- (p8);
\draw (q1) -- (r1) -- (u1) -- (s1);
\draw (q2) -- (r2) -- (u2) -- (s2);
\draw (q3) -- (r3) -- (u3) -- (s3);
\draw (q4) -- (r4) -- (u4) -- (s4);
\draw (q5) -- (r5) -- (u5) -- (s5);
\draw (q6) -- (r6) -- (u6) -- (s6);
\draw (q7) -- (r7) -- (u7) -- (s7);
\draw (q8) -- (r8) -- (u8) -- (s8);
\draw (r1) -- (v1) -- (s1);
\draw (r2) -- (v2) -- (s2);
\draw (r3) -- (v3) -- (s3);
\draw (r4) -- (v4) -- (s4);
\draw (r5) -- (v5) -- (s5);
\draw (r6) -- (v6) -- (s6);
\draw (r7) -- (v7) -- (s7);
\draw (r8) -- (v8) -- (s8);
\draw (q1) -- (s1) -- (t1) -- (r1);
\draw (q2) -- (s2) -- (t2) -- (r2);
\draw (q3) -- (s3) -- (t3) -- (r3);
\draw (q4) -- (s4) -- (t4) -- (r4);
\draw (q5) -- (s5) -- (t5) -- (r5);
\draw (q6) -- (s6) -- (t6) -- (r6);
\draw (q7) -- (s7) -- (t7) -- (r7);
\draw (q8) -- (s8) -- (t8) -- (r8);
\draw (q0) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (q1) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (q2) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (q3) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (q4) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (q5) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (q6) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (q7) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (q8) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (q9) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (p1) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (p2) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (p3) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (p4) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (p5) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (p6) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (p7) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (p8) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (r1) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (r2) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (r3) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (r4) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (r5) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (r6) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (r7) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (r8) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (s1) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (s2) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (s3) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (s4) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (s5) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (s6) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (s7) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (s8) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (t1) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (t2) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (t3) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (t4) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (t5) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (t6) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (t7) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (t8) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (u1) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (u2) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (u3) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (u4) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (u5) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (u6) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (u7) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (u8) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (v1) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (v2) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (v3) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (v4) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (v5) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (v6) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (v7) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (v8) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw[anchor = south] (v1) node {$7$};
\draw[anchor = south] (v2) node {$8$};
\draw[anchor = south] (v3) node {$1$};
\draw[anchor = south] (v4) node {$2$};
\draw[anchor = south] (v5) node {$3$};
\draw[anchor = south] (v6) node {$4$};
\draw[anchor = south] (v7) node {$5$};
\draw[anchor = south] (v8) node {$6$};
\draw[anchor = south] (u1) node {$6$};
\draw[anchor = south] (u2) node {$7$};
\draw[anchor = south] (u3) node {$8$};
\draw[anchor = south] (u4) node {$1$};
\draw[anchor = south] (u5) node {$2$};
\draw[anchor = south] (u6) node {$3$};
\draw[anchor = south] (u7) node {$4$};
\draw[anchor = south] (u8) node {$5$};
\draw[anchor = south] (t1) node {$5$};
\draw[anchor = south] (t2) node {$6$};
\draw[anchor = south] (t3) node {$7$};
\draw[anchor = south] (t4) node {$8$};
\draw[anchor = south] (t5) node {$1$};
\draw[anchor = south] (t6) node {$2$};
\draw[anchor = south] (t7) node {$3$};
\draw[anchor = south] (t8) node {$4$};
\draw[anchor = west] (r1) node {$4$};
\draw[anchor = west] (r2) node {$5$};
\draw[anchor = west] (r3) node {$6$};
\draw[anchor = west] (r4) node {$7$};
\draw[anchor = west] (r5) node {$8$};
\draw[anchor = west] (r6) node {$1$};
\draw[anchor = west] (r7) node {$2$};
\draw[anchor = west] (r8) node {$3$};
\draw[anchor = east] (s1) node {$4$};
\draw[anchor = east] (s2) node {$5$};
\draw[anchor = east] (s3) node {$6$};
\draw[anchor = east] (s4) node {$7$};
\draw[anchor = east] (s5) node {$8$};
\draw[anchor = east] (s6) node {$1$};
\draw[anchor = east] (s7) node {$2$};
\draw[anchor = east] (s8) node {$3$};
\draw[anchor = west] (p1) node {$3$};
\draw[anchor = west] (p2) node {$4$};
\draw[anchor = west] (p3) node {$5$};
\draw[anchor = west] (p4) node {$6$};
\draw[anchor = west] (p5) node {$7$};
\draw[anchor = west] (p6) node {$8$};
\draw[anchor = west] (p7) node {$1$};
\draw[anchor = west] (p8) node {$2$};
\draw[anchor = east] (q0) node {$8$};
\draw (1.1,-0.2) node {$1$};
\draw (2.1,-0.2) node {$2$};
\draw (3.1,-0.2) node {$3$};
\draw (4.1,-0.2) node {$4$};
\draw (5.1,-0.2) node {$5$};
\draw (6.1,-0.2) node {$6$};
\draw (7.1,-0.2) node {$7$};
\draw (8.1,-0.2) node {$8$};
\draw[anchor = west] (q9) node {$1$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{Graph $G_2$ with $\Delta(G_2)=5<8=A_b(G_2)$.}
\label{G_5}
\end{figure}
Notice that $d_{G_n}(y_1^i)=n+3$, $d_{G_n}(x_j^i)=n+2$, $j\in[2]$, and that the degree of the other vertices of $G_n$ is at most $2$. Hence, $\Delta(G_n)=n+3$ and $m(G_n)=n+4$ (actually, we have also $\varphi(G_n)=n+4$, the appropriate b-coloring is easy to obtain). Next we show that $A_b(G_n)=2n+4$. For given $i\in[2n+4]$, observe the partition $P=\{A_0^i=\{y_1^{i-1}, y_1^{i+1}, z_j^i:j\in[n-1]\},A_1^i=\{x_1^i,x_2^i\}\}$ of $N_{G_n}(y_1^i)$, where $y_1^0=u$ when $i=1$ and $y_1^{2n+5}=v$ when $i=2n+4$. First notice that ${\rm elp}_{G_n}(y_1^i,P)=n+1$ as $\{x_1^iy_j^ix_2^i:j\in [2,n+2]\}$ are EVI disjoint $(x_1^i,x_2^i)$-paths of even length. Thus, $d_{G_n}^a(y_1^i)=(n+1)+1+(n+1)=2n+3$, $i\in[2n+4]$, which gives $m_a(G_n)=2n+4$, as there are exactly $2n+4$ vertices of this acyclic degree. By Theorem \ref{madegree} we have $A_b(G_n)\leq 2n+4$.
To show the equality we construct an acyclic b-coloring $c:V(G_n)\rightarrow[2n+4]$ with an acyclic b-vertex in every color class. For that purpose, let
$$A_i=\{c(x_1^i)=c(x_2^i), c(y_2^i), \dots, c(y_{n+2}^i), c(z_1^i), \dots, c(z_{n-1}^i)\}$$
and
$$
B_i=([2n+4]-[i-1,i+1])-\{-2n-4+i+1,2n+4+i-1\}
$$
for $i\in [2n+4]$.
Notice that $|A_i|=|B_i|=2n+1$. If $c$ satisfies $c(y_1^i)=i$ and $c(x_1^i)=c(x_2^i)$ for every $i\in [2n+4]$, $A_i=B_i$ for every $i\in [2n+4]$, $c(u)=2n+4$ and $c(v)=1$, then every vertex $y_1^i$, $i\in [2n+4]$, is an acyclic b-vertex. Hence, $A_b(G_n)\geq 2n+4$. One such coloring for $G_2$ is presented in Figure \ref{G_5}. With this $A_b(G_n)=2n+4$ and $A_b(G_n)-\Delta(G_n)=n+1$ for every $n\geq 1$ and finally $(A_b(G_n)-\Delta(G_n))\rightarrow\infty$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$.
\hfill \rule{.1in}{.1in}\bigskip
In the remainder of this section we will prove that there is a nonlinear bound on $A_b(G)$ with respect to $\Delta(G)$ and present an infinite family of extremal graphs for this bound. The following upper bound on $A_b(G)$ can be deduced from Theorem \ref{madegree}.
\begin{corollary}\label{quadraticBound}
For any graph $G$ with $\Delta(G)\geq 2$ we have $A_b(G)\leq \frac{1}{2}(\Delta(G))^2+1$.
\end{corollary}
\noindent {\textbf{Proof.}}
Observe that for any weak partition $P=\{A^P_0,A^P_1,\dots,A^P_k\}$ of $N_G(v)$ there is $$(|P|-1)\leq \left\lfloor\frac{d_G(v) - |A_0^p|}2\right\rfloor\;\;\;\textrm{and}\;\;\; {\rm elp}_G(v,P)\leq \left\lfloor\frac{d_G(v) - |A_0^p|}2\right\rfloor(\Delta(G) -1).
$$
This implies
$$
d_G^a(v)\leq |A^P_0|+\frac{d_G(v) - |A_0^p|}{2}+\frac{d_G(v) - |A_0^p|}{2}(\Delta(G)-1)\leq \frac{1}{2}(\Delta(G))^2.
$$
In consequence
$$
m_a(G)\leq \frac{1}{2}(\Delta(G))^2+1.
$$
\hfill \rule{.1in}{.1in}\bigskip
The above bound is tight, as the example of $C_4$ shows. Moreover, it belongs to an infinite family of graphs satisfying the condition with equality.
\begin{theorem}\label{DeltaSquaredExtremal}
There exists an infinite family of graphs $G_1, G_2, \dots$ such that $A_b(G_n)=m_a(G_n)=\frac{1}{2}(\Delta(G_n))^2+1$.
\end{theorem}
\noindent {\textbf{Proof.}}
For any positive integer $n$, we define a graph $H_n$. Then, by combining some number of copies $H_{n,i}$ of $H_n$, we will define graph $G_n$ being a member of the desired family. The vertices and edges of $H_{n,i}$ are defined as follows:
\begin{align*}
V(H_{n,i})&=\{v^i\}\cup\{x^i_j:j\in[2n]\}\cup\{y^i_k:k\in[n(2n-1)]\},\\
E(H_{n,i})&=\{v^ix^i_j:j\in[2n]\}\\
&\cup\{x^i_jy^i_k:j\in\{2\ell-1,2\ell\}, k\in[(2n-1)(\ell-1)+1,(2n-1)\ell], \ell\in [n]\}.
\end{align*}
Graphs $H_{1,i}=C_4$, $H_{2,i}$ and $H_{3,i}$ are presented in Figure \ref{higHni}.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1,style=thick,x=1cm,y=1cm]
\def\vr{2pt}
\path (0.5,4) coordinate (a);
\path (4.25,4) coordinate (b);
\path (10.5,4) coordinate (c);
\path (0,2) coordinate (d);
\path (1,2) coordinate (e);
\path (2.5,2) coordinate (f);
\path (3.5,2) coordinate (g);
\path (5,2) coordinate (h);
\path (6,2) coordinate (i);
\path (8,2) coordinate (j);
\path (9,2) coordinate (k);
\path (10.5,2) coordinate (l);
\path (11.5,2) coordinate (m);
\path (13,2) coordinate (n);
\path (14,2) coordinate (o);
\path (0.5,0) coordinate (p);
\path (2.25,0) coordinate (r);
\path (3,0) coordinate (s);
\path (3.75,0) coordinate (t);
\path (4.75,0) coordinate (u);
\path (5.5,0) coordinate (v);
\path (6.25,0) coordinate (w);
\path (7,0) coordinate (z);
\path (7.5,0) coordinate (a1);
\path (8,0) coordinate (b1);
\path (8.5,0) coordinate (c1);
\path (9,0) coordinate (d1);
\path (9.75,0) coordinate (e1);
\path (10.25,0) coordinate (f1);
\path (10.75,0) coordinate (g1);
\path (11.25,0) coordinate (h1);
\path (11.75,0) coordinate (i1);
\path (12.5,0) coordinate (j1);
\path (13,0) coordinate (k1);
\path (13.5,0) coordinate (l1);
\path (14,0) coordinate (m1);
\path (14.5,0) coordinate (n1);
\draw (a) -- (d) -- (p);
\draw (a) -- (e) -- (p);
\draw (b) -- (f) -- (r);
\draw (b) -- (g) -- (r);
\draw (f) -- (s);
\draw (g) -- (s);
\draw (f) -- (t);
\draw (g) -- (t);
\draw (b) -- (h) -- (v);
\draw (b) -- (i) -- (v);
\draw (h) -- (u);
\draw (i) -- (u);
\draw (h) -- (w);
\draw (i) -- (w);
\draw (c) -- (j) -- (z);
\draw (c) -- (k) -- (z);
\draw (j) -- (a1);
\draw (k) -- (a1);
\draw (j) -- (b1);
\draw (k) -- (b1);
\draw (j) -- (c1);
\draw (k) -- (c1);
\draw (j) -- (d1);
\draw (k) -- (d1);
\draw (c) -- (l) -- (e1);
\draw (c) -- (m) -- (e1);
\draw (l) -- (f1);
\draw (m) -- (f1);
\draw (l) -- (g1);
\draw (m) -- (g1);
\draw (l) -- (h1);
\draw (m) -- (h1);
\draw (l) -- (i1);
\draw (m) -- (i1);
\draw (c) -- (n) -- (j1);
\draw (c) -- (o) -- (j1);
\draw (n) -- (k1);
\draw (o) -- (k1);
\draw (n) -- (l1);
\draw (o) -- (l1);
\draw (n) -- (m1);
\draw (o) -- (m1);
\draw (n) -- (n1);
\draw (o) -- (n1);
\draw (a) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (b) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (c) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (d) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (e) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (f) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (g) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (h) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (i) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (j) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (k) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (l) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (m) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (n) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (o) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (p) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (r) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (s) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (t) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (u) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (v) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (w) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (z) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (a1) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (b1) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (c1) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (d1) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (e1) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (f1) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (g1) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (h1) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (i1) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (j1) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (k1) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (l1) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (m1) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (n1) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw[anchor = south] (a) node {$v^i$};
\draw[anchor = south] (b) node {$v^i$};
\draw[anchor = south] (c) node {$v^i$};
\draw[anchor = east] (d) node {$x_1^i$};
\draw[anchor = west] (e) node {$x_2^i$};
\draw[anchor = east] (f) node {$x_1^i$};
\draw[anchor = west] (g) node {$x_2^i$};
\draw[anchor = east] (h) node {$x_3^i$};
\draw[anchor = west] (i) node {$x_4^i$};
\draw[anchor = east] (j) node {$x_1^i$};
\draw[anchor = west] (k) node {$x_2^i$};
\draw[anchor = east] (l) node {$x_3^i$};
\draw[anchor = west] (m) node {$x_4^i$};
\draw[anchor = west] (n) node {$x_5^i$};
\draw[anchor = west] (o) node {$x_6^i$};
\draw[anchor = north] (p) node {$y_1^i$};
\draw[anchor = north] (r) node {$y_1^i$};
\draw[anchor = north] (s) node {$y_2^i$};
\draw[anchor = north] (t) node {$y_3^i$};
\draw[anchor = north] (u) node {$y_4^i$};
\draw[anchor = north] (v) node {$y_5^i$};
\draw[anchor = north] (w) node {$y_6^i$};
\draw[anchor = north] (z) node {$y_1^i$};
\draw[anchor = north] (a1) node {$y_2^i$};
\draw[anchor = north] (b1) node {$y_3^i$};
\draw[anchor = north] (c1) node {$y_4^i$};
\draw[anchor = north] (d1) node {$y_5^i$};
\draw[anchor = north] (e1) node {$y_6^i$};
\draw[anchor = north] (f1) node {$y_7^i$};
\draw[anchor = north] (g1) node {$y_8^i$};
\draw[anchor = north] (h1) node {$y_9^i$};
\draw[anchor = north] (i1) node {$y_{10}^i$};
\draw[anchor = north] (j1) node {$y_{11}^i$};
\draw[anchor = north] (k1) node {$y_{12}^i$};
\draw[anchor = north] (l1) node {$y_{13}^i$};
\draw[anchor = north] (m1) node {$y_{14}^i$};
\draw[anchor = north] (n1) node {$y_{15}^i$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{Graphs $H_{1,i}=C_4$, $H_{2,i}$ and $H_{3,i}$.}\label{higHni}
\end{figure}
Now let $G_1=H_{1,1}=C_4$. Recall that $A_b(G_1)=3=\frac{1}{2}(\Delta(G_1))^2+1$ and, since for every $v\in V(G_1)$ we have $d_{G_1}^a(v)=2$, also $m_a(G_1)=3$. For $n\geq 2$, in order to obtain $G_n$ we take $2n^2+1$ graphs $H_{n,i}$, $i\in[0,2n^2]$, and identify $y_{n(2n-1)}^{i-1}$ with $y_1^{i}$ for $i\in[2n^2]$. Note that $G_n$ has $2n^2+1$ vertices $v^i$, $i\in[0,2n^2]$ of degree $2n$, $(2n^2+1)2n$ vertices $x_j^i$, $i\in[0,2n^2]$, $j\in[2n]$ of degree $2n$, $2n^2$ vertices $y_{n(2n-1)}^{i-1}=y_1^{i}$, $i\in[2n^2]$, of degree $4\leq 2n$ and $n(2n-1)(2n^2+1)-4n^2=(2n^2+1)(n(2n-1)-2)+1$ vertices $y_k^i$, $(i,k)\in([0,2n^2]\times[2,n(2n-1)-1])\cup\{(0,1),(2n^2,n(2n-1))\}$ of degree $2$. Thus $\Delta(G)=2n$.
For every vertex $v^i$, $i\in[0,2n^2]$, we have $d_{G_n}^a(v^i)=2n^2$. Indeed, for the weak partition $P$ of its neighborhood $A_0=\emptyset$, $A_{\ell}=\{x_{2\ell-1}^i,x_{2\ell}^i\}$ for $\ell\in[n]$, we have $|A_0^P|=0$, $|P|-1=n$ and ${\rm elp}_{G_n}(v,P)=n(2n-1)$ is the number of EVI disjoint paths of the form $x_{2\ell-1}^iy_k^ix_{2\ell}^i$, where $(\ell,k)\in[n]\times[(2n-1)(\ell-1)+1,(2n-1)\ell]$. This implies that $d_{G_n}^a(v^i)\geq 0+n+n(2n-1)=2n^2=\frac{1}{2}(\Delta(G_n))^2$. The inequality $d_{G_n}^a(v^i)\leq\frac{1}{2}(\Delta(G_n))^2$ follows from the proof of Corollary \ref{quadraticBound}. Obviously no other vertex can have higher acyclic degree. Since there are $2n^2+1$ vertices $v^i$, from Theorem \ref{madegree} we obtain $A_b(G_n)\leq m_a(G_n)=2n^2+1$.
In order to finish the proof we define the following coloring $c$, using the elements of additive group $\mathbb{Z}_{2n^2+1}$ as colors (with addition modulo $(2n^2+1)$ in the formulae):
\begin{align*}
c(y^i_1)&=i, &&i\in[0,2n^2],\\
c(y^i_{n(2n-1})&=i+1, &&i\in[0,2n^2],\\
c(y^i_k)&=i+k, &&i\in[0,2n^2], k\in[2,n(2n-1)-1],\\
c(x^i_{2\ell-1})=c(x^i_{2\ell})&=i+n(2n-1)-1+\ell, &&i\in[0,2n^2], \ell\in[n],\\
c(v^i)&=i+2n^2, &&i\in[0,2n^2].\\
\end{align*}
Note that $c$ is an acyclic coloring of $G_n$ (only the colors of $x_j^i$ are used twice in every part $H_{n,i}$). Moreover, every $v^i$ is an acyclic b-vertex: $n$ colors are blocked by its neighbors $x_j^i$ and $n(2n-1)$ other colors because of the cycles $v^ix_{2\ell-1}^iy_k^ix_{2\ell}^iv^i$, which makes any of the potential $2n^2$ recolorings impossible. Since there is a vertex $v^i$ in every color class, $c$ is an acyclic b-coloring and $A_b(G_n)\geq 2n^2+1$. \hfill \rule{.1in}{.1in}\bigskip
\begin{remark}
Note that the family defined in the proof of Theorem \ref{DeltaSquaredExtremal} is another family proving Theorem \ref{roofsInfinite}.
\end{remark}
\section{Acyclic b-chromatic number of joins}\label{sec_BAcyclicJoins}
For more exact results we recall that the join of graphs $G$ and $H$ is the graph $G\vee H$ obtained from disjoint copies of $G$ and $H$ joined with all the possible edges between $V(G)$ and $V(H)$. More formally, $V(G\vee H)=V(G)\sqcup V(H)$ and $E(G\vee H)=E(G)\sqcup E(H)\sqcup \{uv:u\in V(G)\wedge v\in V(H)\}$ where $\sqcup $ denotes the disjoint union.
\begin{theorem}\label{join}
For two non-complete graphs $G$ and $H$ we have
$$A_b(G\vee H)=\max\{A_b(G)+n_H,A_b(H)+n_G\}.$$
If $H\cong K_q$, then $A_b(G\vee H)=A_b(G)+q$.
\end{theorem}
\noindent {\textbf{Proof.}}
Let $G$ and $H$ be two non-complete graphs. Let $c_G$ be an $A_b(G)$-coloring of $G$ and let $V(H)=\{v_1,\dots, v_{n_H}\}$. The map
\begin{equation}\label{coloring}
c(v)=\left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
c_G(v) & \text{if} & v\in V(G), \\
A_b(G)+i & \text{if} & v=v_{i}\in V(H),
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
is an acyclic coloring of $G\vee H$, because $c_G$ is an acyclic coloring and all vertices of $H$ receive different colors. Suppose that we can present a recoloring step for color $i$ of $c$ in $G\vee H$ to obtain coloring $c'$. If $i>A_b(G)$, then vertex $v_{i-A_b(G)}\in V(H)$ is the only vertex of color $i$. Since $v_{i-A_b(G)}$ is adjacent to all vertices of $G$, $i$ is recolored in $c'$ by some color $j>A_b(G)$ where $j\neq i$. Again, $v_{j-A_b(G)}\in V(H)$ is the only vertex from $H$ with color $j$ in coloring $c$. Since $G$ is not complete, we have $A_b(G)<n_G$ by Proposition \ref{order} and there exist $x,y\in V(G)$ with $c(x)=c(y)$. But now $xv_{i-A_b(G)}yv_{j-A_b(G)}x$ is a bi-chromatic $4$-cycle under coloring $c'$, a contradiction. So we may assume that $i\leq A_b(G)$ and that all the vertices of color $i$ are from $V(G)$. Every vertex of color $i$ is adjacent to all vertices of $H$ and they can therefore be recolored only with colors already used in $G$. But this is not possible because $c_G$ is an $A_b(G)$-coloring. Hence $A_b(G\vee H)\geq A_b(G)+n_H$. By symmetric arguments we can show that $A_b(G\vee H)\geq A_b(H)+n_G$ which yields $A_b(G\vee H)\geq \max\{A_b(G)+n_H,A_b(H)+n_G\}$.
We prove the opposite inequality by a contradiction. Indeed, suppose that $A_b(G\vee H) > \max\{A_b(G)+n_H, A_b(H)+n_G\}$ for some graphs $G$ and $H$ that are not complete. Let $c$ be an $A_b(G\vee H)$-coloring and let $c_G$ and $c_H$ be colorings of $G$ and $H$, respectively, induced by $c$, that is $c_G(v)=c(v)$ for every $v\in V(G)$ and $c_H(u)=c(u)$ for every $u\in V(H)$. Clearly colors of $c_G$ are different than colors of $c_H$. If $c_G$ has less than $n_G$ colors and $c_H$ less than $n_H$ colors, then $c_G(u)=c_G(v)$ and $c_H(x)=c_H(y)$ for some $u,v\in V(G)$ and $x,y\in V(H)$. But then we have a bi-colored four cycle $uxvyu$, a contradiction. So, $c_G$ has $n_G$ colors or $c_H$ has $n_H$ colors. Without loss of generality we can assume that $c_G$ has $n_G$ colors. But then $c_H$ has more than $A_b(H)$ colors in $H$ and does not yield a minimal element with respect to $\prec_a$ in $\mathcal{AF}(H)$. So, there exists $c'_H$ such that $c'_H\triangleleft_a c_H$ and the coloring
\begin{equation*}
c'(v)=\left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
c(v) & \text{if} & v\in V(G), \\
c'_H(v) & \text{if} & v\in V(H),
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation*}
is obtained from $c$ by an acyclic recoloring step, a contradiction with $c$ being an $A_b(G\vee H)$-coloring. This yields the desired equality and we are done with the first part.
If $G\cong K_p$ and $H\cong K_q$, then $G\vee H\cong K_{p+q}$ and equality holds by Corollary \ref{order}. If only one of $G$ and $H$ is complete, say $H\cong K_q$, then we can use the coloring $c$ defined in (\ref{coloring}) for an $A_b(G)$-coloring $c_G$ of $G$. Following the same reasoning after (\ref{coloring}), this time only for $i\leq A_b(G)$, we obtain that $A_b(G\vee K_q)\geq A_b(G)+q$ (notice that $i>A_b(G)$ yields a contradiction since $H\cong K_q$ now).
Conversely, suppose that $A_b(G\vee K_q)>A_b(G)+q$ and let $c$ be an $A_b(G\vee H)$-coloring. Again we can follow above steps and see that $c_G$, that is the restriction of $c$ to $G$, contains more than $A_b(G)$ colors and one can perform an acyclic recoloring step in $G$. This yields an acycling recoloring step in $G\vee K_q$ and $c$ is not a minimal element of $\prec_a$, a final contradiction.\hfill \rule{.1in}{.1in}\bigskip
Recall that complete bipartite graph $K_{m,n}=\overline{K}_n\vee\overline{K}_m$, wheel $W_n=K_1\vee C_{n-1}$, fan $F_n=K_1\vee P_{n-1}$ and complete split graph $K_n\vee\overline{K}_m$ are all joins of two graphs. Hence the following corollary follows directly from Theorem \ref{join} and Corollaries \ref{order} and \ref{basic2}.
\begin{corollary}\label{wheel}
For every positive integers $k,\ell,m,n$, where $k,\ell\geq 5$, we have
\begin{itemize}
\item $A_b(K_{n,m})=1+\max\{n,m\}$;
\item $A_b(W_k)=4$;
\item $A_b(F_k)=4$;
\item $A_b(K_n\vee\overline{K}_m)=n+1$;
\item $A_b(P_k\vee P_{\ell })=A_b(P_k\vee C_{\ell })=A_b(C_k\vee C_{\ell })=3+\max\{k,\ell\}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{corollary}
Corollary \ref{wheel} implies in particular that the difference between $A_b(G)$ and $\varphi(G)$ can be arbitrarily large.
\begin{corollary}\label{wheelInfinite}
There exists an infinite family of graphs $G_1, G_2, \dots$ such that $(A_b(G_n)-\varphi(G_n))\rightarrow\infty$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$.
\end{corollary}
\noindent {\textbf{Proof.}}
For $n\geq 1$, let $G_n=K_{n,n}$. Since the proper $2$-coloring of $K_{n,n}$ is its b-coloring, we have $\varphi(K_{n,n})=2$, while $A_b(K_{n,n})=1+n$, so $A_b(K_{n,n})-\varphi(K_{n,n})=n-1$ for $n\geq 1$ and $(A_b(G_n)-\varphi(G_n))\rightarrow\infty$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$.
\hfill \rule{.1in}{.1in}\bigskip
Notice also that the family $\{G_n\}$ defined in the proof of Theorem \ref{roofsInfinite} is another family of graphs for which $(A_b(G_n)-\varphi(G_n))\rightarrow\infty$ when $n\rightarrow\infty$.
\section{Final Remarks}\label{sec_FinalRemarks}
In the paper we introduced a new graph invariant, the b-acyclic chromatic number $A_b(G)$ and proved some of its properties. Some problems, however, remain still open.
Although the construction of a b-acyclic coloring seems very similar to the one of b-colorings (one considers only acyclic colorings instead of all colorings), we observed some interesting differences between them. In particular, $A_b(G)$ can be arbitrarily larger than the acyclic chromatic number $A(G)$, maximum degree $\Delta(G)$ and b-chromatic number $\varphi(G)$. The last result is consistent with the intuition that $A_b(G)$ should be not less than $\varphi(G)$, since the strictly partial ordered set of acyclic colorings is obviously a subset of the strictly partial ordered set of all proper colorings. However, we cannot neither prove nor disprove it.
On the other hand, we proved the theorem allowing to verify whether a coloring is a minimal element of the strictly partial ordered set of acyclic colorings, using the criterion of the existence of a b-acyclic vertex in every color class (where the concept of b-acyclic vertex is a natural generalization of the notion of a b-vertex). We also proved an inequality analogous to $\varphi(G)\leq m(G)$. To this end, we introduced new vertex measure, the acyclic degree $d_G^a(v)\geq d_G(v)$ and resulting graph invariant $m_a(G)\geq m(G)$ allowing to define the upper bound $A_b(G)\leq m_a(G)$. But these results still do not help to prove any relation between $A_b(G)$ and $\varphi(G)$.
One of the causes of the difficulties in proving any relationship between these two parameters is the fact that a minimal element of the poset of proper colorings does not need to be an acyclic coloring and vice versa. A simple example is presented in Figure \ref{bColAndBAcyclicCol} (the graph was originally presented in a different context in \cite{Tuit}).
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.8,style=thick,x=1cm,y=1cm]
\def\vr{1.3pt}
\path (0,0) coordinate (a);
\path (2,0) coordinate (b);
\path (4,0) coordinate (c);
\path (6,0) coordinate (d);
\path (0,3) coordinate (a1);
\path (2,3) coordinate (b1);
\path (4,3) coordinate (c1);
\path (6,3) coordinate (d1);
\path (3,4.5) coordinate (e1);
\path (3,-1.5) coordinate (e);
\path (0,1.5) coordinate (a2);
\path (1.5,1.5) coordinate (b2);
\path (4.5,1.5) coordinate (c2);
\path (6,1.5) coordinate (d2);
\draw (a) -- (b1) -- (c) -- (d1) -- (a) -- (c1) -- (d) -- (a1) -- (c) -- (e) -- (b) -- (a1) -- (e1) -- (b1) -- (d) -- (e) -- (a) -- (a2) -- (b2) -- (c2) -- (d2);
\draw (d) -- (d2) -- (d1) -- (b) -- (b2) -- (b1);
\draw (a1) -- (a2);
\draw (c1) -- (e1) -- (d1);
\draw (b) -- (c1);
\draw (c) -- (c2) -- (c1);
\draw (e) -- (e1);
\draw[bend left] (a2) to [bend right] (d2);
\draw (a) [fill=black] circle (\vr);
\draw (b) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (c) [fill=black] circle (\vr);
\draw (d) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (a1) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (a2) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (b1) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (b2) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (c1) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (c2) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (d1) [fill=black] circle (\vr);
\draw (d2) [fill=white] circle (\vr);
\draw (e1) [fill=black] circle (\vr);
\draw (e) [fill=black] circle (\vr);
\draw[anchor = north] (a) node {$1$};
\draw[anchor = north] (b) node {$2$};
\draw[anchor = north] (c) node {$3$};
\draw[anchor = north] (d) node {$4$};
\draw[anchor = south] (a1) node {$1$};
\draw[anchor = south] (b1) node {$2$};
\draw[anchor = south] (c1) node {$3$};
\draw[anchor = south] (d1) node {$4$};
\draw[anchor = east] (a2) node {$5$};
\draw[anchor = north] (e) node {$6$};
\draw[anchor = south] (e1) node {$5$};
\draw[anchor = west] (d2) node {$6$};
\draw(1.3,1.65) node {$6 (3)$};
\draw(4.65,1.65) node {$5$};
\draw(1.3,1.35) node {$x$};
\draw(4.65,1.35) node {$y$};
\draw(0.2,1.65) node {$x'$};
\draw(5.8,1.65) node {$y'$};
\draw[anchor = west] (c1) node {$z$};
\draw[anchor = east] (b1) node {$u$};
\draw[anchor = east] (b) node {$v$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{Graph $G$ from \cite{Tuit} for which $6=\varphi(G)\leq A_b(G)$ and the minimal colorings are incomparable.}
\label{bColAndBAcyclicCol}
\end{figure}
Indeed, one can easily check that the coloring $c$ in which $c(x)=6$ is the only (up to obvious rotations) b-coloring of $G$ with b-vertices $u$ and the five ones marked with black circles. However, this coloring is not acyclic, due to the cycle $xx'y'yx$. On the other hand, in the acyclic coloring $c'$ defined as $c'(x)=3$ and $c'(w)=c(w)$ for $w\in V(G)-\{x\}$, we have five b-vertices (being by definition b-acyclic vertices) marked with black circles and the sixth b-acyclic vertex $v$, that cannot be recolored with neither $1$, $3$, $4$ nor $6$ because they are the colors of its neighbors, but also color $5$ is forbidden because of the $4$-cycle $vzyxv$. On the other hand, there is no b-vertex in color class $2$. This means in particular, that $c'$ is minimal in the poset of acyclic colorings, but not in the strictly partial ordered set of proper colorings. Moreover, since $c$ and $c'$ use the same number of colors, there is no sequence of recoloring steps leading from one to the other, so they are incomparable in the poset of proper colorings.
Taking into account the above considerations, we formulate the first open problem.
\begin{problem}
Prove or disprove the inequality $A_b(G)\geq \varphi(G)$.
\end{problem}
If the inequality comes out to be false (i.e., if there is a counterexample), it would be interesting to know, for which graphs it is true. This leads us to a relaxed version of the last problem.
\begin{problem}
Characterize the graphs, for which $A_b(G)\geq \varphi(G)$.
\end{problem}
Another interesting question refers to the results about $\phi(G)$ presented in \cite{irma-99} and \cite{CaLSMaSi}.
\begin{problem}
Characterize the graphs, for which $A_b(G)\geq m_a(G)-c$ for some constant $c$. In particular, characterize the graphs, for which $A_b(G)= m_a(G)$.
\end{problem}
We have seen some examples, see Figures \ref{notenough} and \ref{system}, of $A_b(G)$-colorings that contain not recolrable critical cycle systems or, in other words, some colors have a acyclic b-vertex that is not a weak acyclic b-vertex. However all such examples also have $A_b(G)$-coloring where every color has its weak acyclic b-vertex. So, we ask if weak acyclic vertices are enough to describe acyclic b-chromatic number of a graph in the meaning of Corollary \ref{cor}?
\begin{problem}
Is it true that the acyclic b-chromatic number $A_b(G)$ of a graph $G$ is the largest integer $k$, such that there exists an acyclic $k$-coloring, where every color class $V_i$, $i\in [k]$, contains a weak acyclic b-vertex?
\end{problem}
The next problem refers to the complexity of finding $A_b(G)$, which is expected to be at lest \textbf{NP}-hard in general.
\begin{problem}
Find the complexity of deriving $A_b(G)$.
\end{problem}
We do expect that there are some special families of graphs, for which polynomial time is enough for solving $A_b(G)$ (see Corollary \ref{tree} for trees).
\begin{problem}
Find polynomial algorithms for finding $d_G^a(v)$, $m_a(G)$ and $A_b(G)$ for chosen families of graphs.
\end{problem}
In particular some exact values or estimates for $A_b(G)$ for families of graphs other than analyzed in this paper would be a valuable contribution.
\begin{problem}
Find explicit formulae or tight lower and upper bounds on $d_G^a(v)$, $m_a(G)$ and $A_b(G)$ for chosen families of graphs.
\end{problem}
|
\section{Introduction}
\par
$~~~~$Recently, Freire studied the weakly dissipative Camassa-Holm equation \cite{Igor2020jde}
\begin{equation}\label{u}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
u_t-u_{txx}+3uu_x+\lambda(u-u_{xx})=2uu_x+uu_{xxx}+\alpha u+\beta u^2u_x+\gamma u^3u_x+\Gamma u_{xxx},~x\in\mathbb{R},\ t>0, \\
u(0,x)=u_0,
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
where $\alpha, \beta,\gamma, \Gamma$ are any real numbers, and $\lambda>0$.
The above equation \eqref{u} can be rewritten as
\begin{equation}\label{001}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
u_t+(u+\Gamma)u_x+\lambda u=Q,~x\in\mathbb{R},\ t>0, \\
u(0,x)=u_0,
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
with $Q=\Lambda ^{-2}\partial_x\Big(h(u)-u^2-\frac{1}{2}u_x^2\Big)$ and $h(u)=(\alpha+\Gamma)u+\frac{\beta}{3}u^3+\frac{\gamma}{4}u^4, ~\Lambda ^{-2}=(1-\partial_{xx})^{-1}.$
The local well-posedness of its Cauchy problem in Sobolev spaces $H^s$ with $s>\frac 3 2.$ Meng and Yin \cite{MengYin} proved the local well-posedness and global strong solutions under the condition that small initial data to \eqref{u} in critial Besov spaces $B^s_{p,r}$ with $(\rm i).~s>1+\frac 1 p;~(\rm ii).
~s=1+\frac 1 p,~r=1,~p\in[1,\infty).$ The integrability and the existence of global strong solutions were studied in Sobolev spaces \cite{Silva2020}. In particular, the equation \eqref{u} has the portery with $\|u\|_{H^1}=e^{-\lambda t} \|u_0\|_{H^1}.$
As $\lambda=\alpha=\beta=\gamma=\Gamma=0,$ it reduces to the Camassa-Holm (CH) equation
\cite{Constantin09,Constantin01scat}
\begin{align}\label{CH}
u_t-u_{xxt}=3uu_x-2u_xu_{xx}-uu_{xxx},
\end{align}
which is completely integrable, and has bi-Hamiltonian structure \cite{Camassa1993,Constantin01scat}.The local well-posedness for the Cauchy problem of the CH equation in Sobolev spaces and Besov spaces were presented in \cite{LiA2000jde,R2001,Constantin1998,Danchin2003wp,Danchin2001inte,Li2016nwpC,YE2021A}.The ill-posedness for the CH equation has been studied in \cite{Guoyy2021Ill,Guo2019ill,Lij022Ill}. Its existence and uniqueness of global weak solutions with initial data $u_0\in H^1(\mathbb{R})$ were proved in \cite{Constantin2000gw,Xin2000ws,Holden07lag,Bressan2015character}.~Moreover, the CH equation has globally conservative, dissipative solutions and algebro-geometric solutions \cite{Bressan2007gd,Bressan2006g-c,Qiao2003}.
In this paper, we will prove the existence and uniqueness of the globally conservative
solutions to \eqref{u} in time weighted $H^1$ space. Letting $k=e^{\lambda t}u$, we conclude that $\|k\|_{H^1}= \|u_0\|_{H^1}.$ Hence, the existence and uniqueness of the globally conservative
solutions of \eqref{001} in time weighted $H^1$ space can be transformed into the existence and uniqueness of the globally conservative
solutions to the following equation
\begin{equation}
\left\{\begin{aligned}
&k_t+(e^{{-\lambda }t}k+\Gamma)k_x=-\Lambda^{-2}\partial_x(-H(k)+e^{{-\lambda }t}k^2+ \frac {e^{{-\lambda }t}} {2}k_x^2 ),\\
&k(0,x)=\bar{k}=u_0,\label{k11}
\end{aligned}\right.
\end{equation}
where $H(k)=(\alpha+\Gamma)k+\frac{\beta e^{{-2\lambda }t}}{3}k^3+\frac{\gamma e^{{-3\lambda }t}}{4}k^4.$ Noticing that \eqref{u} and \eqref{k11} are equivalent. Consequently, in this paper, we mainly study the global conservative weak solutions of \eqref{k11} with initial data $\bar{k}\in H^1(\mathbb{R}),$ and prove that the equation \eqref{k11} has a unique solution, globally in time. However, in the process of proving the globally conservative solutions, in order to get the estimate $\|\Lambda^{-2}\partial_x \cdot \Big((\alpha+\Gamma)k\Big)\|_{L^{\infty}}$ (see Theorem \ref{global} ), we use variable transformations to handle the term, which the idea comes from the previous works \cite{LuoznMOCH}.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we give some definitions and estimates, which will be used in the sequel. {Sections 3, 4} are devoted to construct a solution to an equivalent semi-linear system by introducing a set of new variables, this yields a conservative solution to the equation \eqref{k11}. In {Section 5}, we prove that the peakon solution of \eqref{k11} is conserved in $H^1.$ In Section 6, by constructing an ordinary differential system, we prove that the conservative solutions of \eqref{k11} is unique.
\section{Premiliary}
\par
~~In this section, we first recall some definitions of globally conservative weak solutions for \eqref{k} and give some results. We study the following equation
\begin{equation}
\left\{\begin{aligned}
&k_t+(e^{{-\lambda }t}k+\Gamma)k_x=-{P}_x,\quad t>0, \ x\in \mathbb{R},\\
&k(0,x)=\bar{k}=\bar{u},\\
\end{aligned} \right. \label{k}
\end{equation}
with $P$ is defined as a convolution:
\begin{align}\label{PP}
P\triangleq \frac 1 2 e^{-|x|}\ast\Big[-\Big((\alpha+\Gamma)k+\frac{\beta e^{{-2\lambda }t}}{3}k^3+\frac{\gamma e^{{-3\lambda }t}}{4}k^4\Big)+e^{-\lambda t}k^2+\frac {e^{{-\lambda }t}} {2}k_x^2\Big].
\end{align}
For simplify the presentation, we introduce the following notation
\begin{align*}
H(k)=-\Big((\alpha+\Gamma)k+\frac{\beta e^{{-2\lambda }t}}{3}k^3+\frac{\gamma e^{{-3\lambda }t}}{4}k^4\Big),~~H_2(k)=e^{-\lambda t}k^2+\frac {e^{{-\lambda }t}} {2}k_x^2.
\end{align*}
For smooth solutions, differentiating \eqref{k} with respect to $x$, we have
\begin{align}\label{kx}
k_{tx}+(e^{{-\lambda }t}k+\Gamma)k_x=e^{{-\lambda }t}k^2-H(k)- \frac {e^{{-\lambda }t}} {2}k_x^2-{P}(t,x).
\end{align}
It follows from \eqref{k}-\eqref{kx} that
\begin{align}
&(k^2)_t+(\frac{2e^{-\lambda t}k^{3}}{3}+{\Gamma k^2}+2k{P})_x=2k_x{P},\notag\\
&(k^2_x)_t+\Big(e^{-\lambda t}kk^2_x+\Gamma k_x^2+(\alpha+\Gamma)k^2+\frac {e^{-2\lambda t}\beta k^4}{6}+\frac{e^{-3\lambda t}\gamma k^5}{10}-\frac{2e^{-\lambda t}k^3}{3}\Big)_x=-2k_x{P}.\label{k2}
\end{align}
Hence
\begin{align}
{E}(t)=\Big(\int_{\mathbb{R}} (k^2+k^2_x)(t,x)dx\Big)^{\frac 1 2}=\Big(\int_{\mathbb{R}} (\bar{k}^2+\bar{k}_x^2)(x)dx\Big)^{\frac 1 2}= {E}_0.\label{E0}
\end{align}
Setting $w=k_x^2,$ the equation \eqref{k2} yields
\begin{align}\label{w}
w_t+((e^{{-\lambda }t}k+\Gamma)w)_x=2k_x(e^{{-\lambda }t}k^2-H(k)-P).
\end{align}
For $\bar{k}\in H^1(\mathbb{R}),$ Young's inequality entails that
\begin{align*}
\|{P}\|_{L^{\infty}}, ~\|{P}_x\|_{L^{\infty}}&\leq C\Big(\|e^{-|x|}\|_{L^1}\|H(k)\|_{L^{\infty}}+\|e^{-|x|}\|_{L^{\infty}}\|H_2(k)\|_{L^{1}}\Big)\notag\\
&\leq C \Big({E}_0^{\frac 1 2}+{E}_0+ {E}_0^{\frac 3 2}+{E}_0^2\Big),\\
\|{P}\|_{L^{2}}, ~~~\|{P}_x\|_{L^{2}}&\leq C\Big(\|e^{-|x|}\|_{L^1}\|H(k)\|_{L^{2}}+\|e^{-|x|}\|_{L^{2}}\|H_2(k)\|_{L^{1}}\Big) \notag\\& \leq C\Big({E}_0^{\frac 1 2}+{E}_0+ {E}_0^{\frac 3 2}+{E}_0^2\Big).
\end{align*}
Let us briefly recall the definition of conservative weak solutions for convenience.
\begin{defi}\label{def1}
Let $\bar{k}\in H^1(\mathbb{R}).$ Then $k(t,x)\in L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^+;H^1(\mathbb{R}) )$ is a conservative weak solution to the Cauchy problem \eqref{k} when $k(t,x)$ satisfies the following equation
\begin{align}\label{10}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^+}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\Big(k\psi_t+(\frac{e^{-\lambda t}k^2 }{2}+\Gamma k)\psi_x +{P}_x\psi\Big)(t,x)dxdt+\int_{\mathbb{R}} \bar{k}(x)\psi(0,x)dx=0
\end{align}
for any $\psi\in C_c^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^+,\mathcal{D}).$
Moreover, the quantities $\|k\|_{H^1}$ are conserved in time.
\end{defi}
\begin{defi}\label{def2}
Let $\bar{k}\in H^1(\mathbb{R}).$ If $k(t,x)$ is a conservative weak solution for the Cauchy problem \eqref{k}, such that the following properties hold:
$(1).$ The funtion $k$ provides a solution for the Cauchy problem \eqref{k} in the sence of Definition \ref{def1}.
$(2).$ If $w=k_x^2$ provides a distributional solution to the balance law \eqref{w},
\begin{align}\label{0.6}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^+} \int_{\mathbb{R}} [k_x^2\phi_t+(e^{{-\lambda }t}k+\Gamma)w\phi_x+2k_x(e^{{-\lambda }t}k^2-H(k)-P)\phi]dxdt+\int_{\mathbb{R}}\bar{k}_x^2(x)\phi(0,x))dxdt=0,
\end{align}
for any test function $\phi\in C_c^1({\mathbb{R}}^2).$
\end{defi}
The main theorem of this paper is as follows.
\begin{theo}\label{th2.3}
For any initial data $\bar{k}\in H^1(\mathbb{R})$, the Cauchy problem \eqref{k} has a unique global conservative solution in the sense of Definition \ref{def2}.
\end{theo}
\textbf{Notations.} In Section 6, in order not to be ambiguous, we assume that $k(t,-\infty)=0,$ it follows that $\int_{-\infty}^{y(t)}k_xdx=k(t,y(t)).$
\section{Global solutions in Lagrange coordinates}
\par
$~~$This section is devoted to getting a system equivalent to \eqref{k} by introducing a coordinate transformation into Lagrange coordinates, and to proving the existence of globally conservative solutions.
\subsection{An equivalent system}
\par
$~~$Given $\bar{k}\in H^1(\mathbb{R})$ be the initial data and a new variable $\xi\in \mathbb{R}$. Define the nondecreasing map $\xi\mapsto \bar{y}(t,\xi)$ via the following equation
\begin{align}\label{y0}
\int_0^{\bar{y}(\xi)}\bar{k}_x^2dx+\bar{y}=\xi.
\end{align}
Let $k=k(t,x)\in H^1(\mathbb{R})$ be the solution of equation \eqref{k} and the characteristic $y(t,\xi): t\mapsto y(t,\cdot)$ as the solutions of
\begin{equation}
\left\{\begin{aligned}
&y_t(t,\xi)=e^{-\lambda t}k(t,y(t))+\Gamma,\\
&y(0,\xi)=\bar{y}.
\end{aligned} \right.\label{y}
\end{equation}
Our new variables are
\begin{align}\label{l}
K(t,\xi)=k(t,y(t,\xi)),\quad V(t,\xi)=\frac{k_x^2\circ y}{1+k_x^2\circ y},\
W(t,\xi)=\frac{k_x\circ y}{1+k_x^2\circ y},\quad Q(t,\xi)=({1+k_x^2\circ y})\cdot y_{\xi},
\end{align}
From \eqref{y}-\eqref{l}, we deduce that
\begin{align}\label{P}
{P}(t,\xi)=\frac{1}{2} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}e^{-|y(t,\xi)-x|}\Big(-H(K)Q(1-V)+e^{{-\lambda }t}K^2Q(1-V)+ \frac {e^{{-\lambda }t}} {2}QV\Big)(\eta)d\eta,
\end{align}
and $G(t,\xi)\triangleq P_x(t,y),$
\begin{align}\label{G}
G(t,\xi)=-\frac{1}{2} \int_{\mathbb{R}} {\rm sgn} (y(t,\xi)-x)e^{-|y(t,\xi)-x|}\Big(-H(K)Q(1-V)+e^{{-\lambda }t}K^2Q(1-V)+ \frac {e^{{-\lambda }t}} {2}QV\Big)(\eta)d\eta.
\end{align}
Noting that the fact the $y(t,\cdot)$ is an increasing function
and letting $x=y(t,\eta),$ we infer that
\begin{align}
P(t,\xi)&=\frac{1}{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}} {\rm sgn} (\xi-\eta)e^{-|\int_{{\eta}}^{{\xi}}Q(1-V)(s)ds|}\Big(-H(K)Q(1-V)+e^{{-\lambda }t}K^2Q(1-V)+ \frac {e^{{-\lambda }t}} {2}QV\Big)(\eta)d\eta,\label{P1}\\
G(t,\xi)&=-\frac{1}{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}} {\rm sgn} (\xi-\eta)e^{-|\int_{{\eta}}^{{\xi}}Q(1-V)(s)ds|}\Big(-H(K)Q(1-V)+e^{{-\lambda }t}K^2Q(1-V)+ \frac {e^{{-\lambda }t}} {2}QV\Big)(\eta)d\eta,\label{G1}
\end{align}
where the index $t$ is omited. Now, giving another variable $Z(t,\xi)$ defined as $Z(t,\xi)=y(t,\xi)-\xi-\Gamma t,$ we obtain
\begin{equation}
\left\{\begin{aligned}
&Z_t(t,\xi)=e^{-\lambda t}K(t,\xi),\\
&Z(0,\xi)=\bar{y}(\xi).
\end{aligned} \right.\label{Z}
\end{equation}
Hence, the derivatives of $G$ and $P$ are given by
\begin{align}
G_{\xi}(t,\xi)&=-e^{{-\lambda }t}K^2Q(1-V)-\frac {e^{{-\lambda }t}} {2}QV+H(K)Q(1-V)
+{P}(1+Z_{\xi}),\label{Gx}\\
{P}_{\xi}(t,\xi)&=G(1+Z_{\xi}).\label{PX}
\end{align}
Combining \eqref{y}-\eqref{l} and \eqref{P1}-\eqref{G1}, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\left\{\begin{aligned}
y_t~&=e^{{-\lambda }t}K+\Gamma,\\
K_t&=-G,\\
V_t~&=2W\Big(e^{{-\lambda }t}K^2(1-V)-H(K)(1-V)-\frac {e^{{-\lambda }t}} {2}V-{P}(1-V)\Big),\\
W_t&=(1-2V)\Big(e^{{-\lambda }t}K^2(1-V)-H(K)(1-V)-\frac {e^{{-\lambda }t}} {2}V-{P}(1-V)\Big),\\
Q_t&=2WQ\Big(\frac{e^{{-\lambda }t}}{2}+e^{{-\lambda }t}K^2-H(K)-{P}\Big).\\
\end{aligned} \right.\label{Ky}
\end{equation}
Differentiating \eqref{Ky} yields
\begin{equation}
\left\{\begin{aligned}
y_{\xi t}~&=e^{{-\lambda }t}K_{\xi},\\
K_ {t\xi }&=e^{{-\lambda }t}K^2Q(1-V)+\frac {e^{{-\lambda }t}} {2}QV-H(K)Q(1-V)-{P}(1+Z_{\xi}),\\
V_t~~&=2W\Big(e^{{-\lambda }t}K^2(1-V)-H(K)(1-V)-\frac {e^{{-\lambda }t}} {2}V-{P}(1-V)\Big),\\
W_t~&=(1-2V)\Big(e^{{-\lambda }t}K^2(1-V)-H(K)(1-V)-\frac {e^{{-\lambda }t}} {2}V-{P}(1-V)\Big),\\
Q_t~&=2WQ\Big(\frac{e^{{-\lambda }t}}{2}+e^{{-\lambda }t}K^2-H(K)-{P}\Big).\\
\end{aligned}\right.\label{KX}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Global weak solutions of the equivalent system}
\par
$~~$This subsection is devoted to the proof of global solution of an equivalent semi-linear system \eqref{Ky}. Let $\bar{k}\in H^1(\mathbb{R}).$
By \eqref{Z}, the system \eqref{Ky} is equivalent to
\begin{equation}
\left\{\begin{aligned}
Z_t~&=e^{{-\lambda }t}K,\\
K_t~&=-G,\\
V_t~~&=2W\Big(e^{{-\lambda }t}K^2(1-V)-H(K)(1-V)-\frac {e^{{-\lambda }t}} {2}V-{P}(1-V)\Big),\\
W_t~&=(1-2V)\Big(e^{{-\lambda }t}K^2(1-V)-H(K)(1-V)-\frac {e^{{-\lambda }t}} {2}V-{P}(1-V)\Big),\\
Q_t~&=2WQ\Big(\frac{e^{{-\lambda }t}}{2}+e^{{-\lambda }t}K^2-H(K)-{P}\Big).\\
\end{aligned} \right.\label{KZ}
\end{equation}
Moreover, we have
\begin{equation}
\left\{\begin{aligned}
Z_{\xi t}&=e^{{-\lambda }t}K_{\xi},\\
K_ {t\xi }&=e^{{-\lambda }t}K^2Q(1-V)+\frac {e^{{-\lambda }t}} {2}QV-H(K)Q(1-V)-{P}(1+Z_{\xi}),\\
V_t~&=2W\Big(e^{{-\lambda }t}K^2(1-V)-H(K)(1-V)-\frac {e^{{-\lambda }t}} {2}V-{P}(1-V)\Big),\\
W_t&=(1-2V)\Big(e^{{-\lambda }t}K^2(1-V)-H(K)(1-V)-\frac {e^{{-\lambda }t}} {2}V-{P}(1-V)\Big),\\
Q_t&=2WQ\Big(\frac{e^{{-\lambda }t}}{2}+e^{{-\lambda }t}K^2-H(K)-{P}\Big).\\
\end{aligned}\right.\label{KzX}
\end{equation}
Hence, we get the following initial data $(\bar{y}, \bar{K},\bar{V},\bar{W},\bar{Q})$
\begin{equation}
\left\{\begin{aligned}
\int_{0}^{\bar{y}}\bar{k}_x^2&dx+\bar{y}(\xi)=\xi,\\
\bar{K}(\xi)&=\bar{k}\circ \bar{y}(\xi),\\
\bar{V}(\xi)&=\frac{\bar{k}_x^2\circ \bar{y}}{1+\bar{k}_x^2\circ \bar{y}(\xi)},\\
\bar{W}(\xi)&=\frac{\bar{k}_x\circ \bar{y}(\xi)}{1+\bar{k}_x^2\circ \bar{y}(\xi)},\\
\bar{Q}(\xi)&=(1+\bar{k}_x^2\circ \bar{y})\bar{y}_{\xi}(\xi)=1.\\
\end{aligned}\right.\label{K0}
\end{equation}
We will prove that the system \eqref{KZ} is a well-posed system of oridinary differential equations in the Banach space $\Omega$ where
$$\Omega=H^1\cap W^{1,\infty}\times H^1\cap W^{1,\infty}\times L^{2}\cap L^{\infty}\times L^{2}\cap L^{\infty}\times L^{\infty}.$$
For any $X=(Z, K, V,W, Q)\in \Omega,$
the norm on $\Omega$ is given by $$\|X\|_{\Omega}=\|Z\|_{{H^1}\cap W^{1,\infty}}\times\|K\|_{{H^1}\cap W^{1,\infty}} \times\|V\|_{{L^2}\cap L^{\infty}}\times\|W\|_{{L^2}\cap L^{\infty}}\times\|Q\|_{L^{\infty}}.$$
Indeed, for $\bar{k}\in H^1(\mathbb{R}),$ we can see that $\bar{X}=(\bar{Z},\bar{K},\bar{V},\bar{W},\bar{Q})\in \Omega,$ we thus get $ K\in W^{1,\infty}.$ In the process of proving existence, it is not necessary for $K\in W^{1,
\infty},$ which is used to prove uniqueness.
Before providing our main results in this paper, we first give the following lemmas.
\begin{lemm}\label{PG}
Let $X=(Z, K, V, W, Q)\in \Omega,$ we define the maps $P$ and $G$ as ${P}(X):=P$ and $G(X):={P}_x\circ y$ where $P$ and $G$ are given by \eqref{P}-\eqref{G}. Then, ${P}$ and $G$ are Lipschitz maps on bounds sets from $\Omega$ to $H^1\cap W^{1,\infty}$. Moreover, \eqref{Gx}-\eqref{PX} hold.
\end{lemm}
\begin{proof}
Let $\Omega_M$ is a bounded subsets of $\Omega,$ which is defined as $$\Omega_M=\{X=(Z, K,V, W, Q)\in \Omega| ~\|X\|_{\Omega}\leq M\}.$$
~~\textbf{Step 1:} ${P}$ and $G$ are maps from $\Omega_{M}$ to $H^1\cap W^{1,\infty}$.
Combining \eqref{P}-\eqref{G} with Young's inequality, we have
\begin{align*}
\|{P}(X)\|_{L^{2}}, ~\|G(X)\|_{ L^{2}}&\leq C\|e^{-|x|}\|_{L^1}\Big(\|H(K)\|_{L^{2}\cap L^{\infty}}\|Q(1-V)\|_{L^{\infty}}+e^{{-\lambda }t}\|K^2\|_{L^{2}}\|Q(1-V)\|_{L^{\infty}}\notag\\
&~~+e^{{-\lambda }t}\|Q\|_{L^{\infty}}\|V\|_{L^{2}}\Big)\leq CM,\\
\|{P}(X)\|_{L^{\infty}}, ~\|G(X)\|_{ L^{\infty}}&\leq C\|e^{-|x|}\|_{L^1}\Big(\|H(K)\|_{L^{\infty}}\|Q(1-V)\|_{L^{\infty}}+e^{{-\lambda }t}\|K^2\|_{L^{\infty}}\|Q(1-V)\|_{L^{\infty}}\notag\\
&~~+e^{{-\lambda }t}\|Q\|_{L^{\infty}}\|V\|_{L^{\infty}}\Big)\leq CM.
\end{align*}
Similarly, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\|P_{\xi}(X)\|_{L^{2}\cap L^{\infty}},~\|G_{\xi}(X)\|_{L^{2}\cap L^{\infty}}\leq CM.
\end{align*}
~~\textbf{Step 2:} $P$ and $G$ are Lipschitz maps from $\Omega_{M}$ to $H^1\cap W^{1,\infty}$.
For $X=(Z, K, W, Q, V)$ and $\tilde{X}=(\tilde{Z}, \tilde{K}, \tilde{V}, \tilde{W}, \tilde{Q})$ be two elements in $\Omega_{M}.$ According to \cite{YE2021A}, we deduce that
\begin{align*}
\|P(X)-P(\tilde{X})\|_{H^1\cap W^{1,\infty}},~\|G(X)-G(\tilde{X})\|_{H^1\cap W^{1,\infty}}\leq C\|X-\tilde{X}\|_{\Omega}.
\end{align*}
Combining Step 1 and Step 2, we finish the proof of Lemma \ref{PG}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemm}\label{lemma2}
Let $X=(Z, K, V, W, Q)\in \Omega$ be a solution the system \eqref{KZ}. Then, for almost everywhere $\xi\in\mathbb{R},$ we have
\begin{align}
&W^2+V^2=V,\label{W}\\
&y_{\xi}~=Q(1-V),\label{Q}\\
&K_{\xi}=WQ.\label{K1}
\end{align}
Moreover, we have
\begin{align}\label{new conser}
\frac{d}{dt}\tilde{E}(t) =\frac{d}{dt}\int_{\mathbb{R}}(K^2Q(1-V)+QV)(t,\xi)d\xi=0.
\end{align}
\end{lemm}
\begin{proof}
Combining \eqref{Ky}-\eqref{KX}, we deduce that
\begin{align*}
(W^2+V^2)_t=V_t,
\end{align*}
from which it follows
\begin{align}\label{w1}
(W^2+V^2)_t=&2WW_t+2VV_t\notag\\
=&2W(2V-1)\Big(e^{{-\lambda }t}K^2(1-V)-H(K)(1-V)-\frac {e^{{-\lambda }t}} {2}V-{P}(1-V)\Big) \notag\\
&+4VW\Big(e^{{-\lambda }t}K^2(1-V)-H(K)(1-V)-\frac {e^{{-\lambda }t}} {2}V-{P}(1-V)\Big)=V_t.
\end{align}
By the same token, we deduce that
\begin{align}
&y_{\xi t}=(Q(1-V))_t,\label{w2}\\
&K_{\xi t}=(WQ)_t.\label{w3}
\end{align}
As $t=0,$ \eqref{w1}-\eqref{w3} remains hold. Hence, we arrive at \eqref{W}-\eqref{K1}. Moreover, it follows from \eqref{W}-\eqref{K1} that
\begin{align}\label{VW}
0\leq V\leq 1,~~~|W|\leq \frac 1 2.
\end{align}
Thereby, $V(t,\xi)$ and $W(t,\xi)$ are uniformly bounded in $L^{\infty}([0,T];\mathbb{R}).$
We now turn to prove \eqref{new conser}. Using the fact that $\int_{\mathbb{R}}(QV)_t(t,\xi)d\xi=2\int_{\mathbb{R}}WQP(t,\xi)d\xi=-2\int_{\mathbb{R}}2KQ(1-V)G(t,\xi)d\xi$ and \eqref{KZ}, we deduce that
\begin{align*}
\frac{d}{dt}\tilde{E}(t)
=&\int_{\mathbb{R}}\Big(2K_tKQ(1-V)+K^2Q_t-K^2(QV)_t+(QV)_t\Big)(t,\xi)d\xi\notag\\
=&\int_{\mathbb{R}}\Big(GQ(1-V)+2KWQP-2KWQP\Big)(t,\xi)d\xi\notag\\
=&\int_{\mathbb{R}}G\cdot y_{\xi}(t,\xi)d\xi=\int_{\mathbb{R}}P_{\xi}(t,\xi)d\xi=0.
\end{align*}
This means
\begin{align}\label{lar conser}
\tilde{E}(t)
=\int K^2Q(1-V)+QV)(t,\xi)d\xi = \tilde{E}(0)\triangleq \tilde{E}_0=E^2_0.
\end{align}
Thus, the conservative law $\eqref{E0}$ in the new variables remains constant in time.
\end{proof}
The following lemma and corollary which we have learned from \cite{LuoznMOCH} are essential.
\begin{lemm}\cite{ZMQ}\label{lemma3}
Assume that $g(x)$ is differentiable on a.e. $[a,b],$ $f(x)\in L^1[c,d],$ and $g([a,b]) \subset [c,d].$ Then we have that $F(g(t))$ is absolutely continuous on $[a,b]$ if and only of $f(g(t))g'(t)\in L^1[c,d]$ and $\int_{g(a)}^{g(b)}f(x)dx=\int_{a}^b f(g(t))g'(t)dt$ with $F(x)=\int_c^x f(t)dt.$
\end{lemm}
\begin{coro}\cite{ZMQ}\label{coro}
Assume that $g(x)$ is absolutely continuous on $[a,b], f(x)\in L^1[c,d],$ and $g([a,b])\subset [c,d].$ If $g(x)$ is monotonous or $f(x)\in L^{\infty}[c,d].$ Then we have $\int_{g(a)}^{g(b)}f(x)dx=\int_a^bf(g(t))g'(t)dt.$
\end{coro}
We now prove the short time existence of solutions to \eqref{KZ} as follows.
\begin{theo}\label{local existence}
Given $\bar{k}\in H^1(\mathbb{R}).$ Then there exists a time $T>0$ such that the system \eqref{KZ}-\eqref{K0} has a unique solution $X=(Z(t), K(t), V(t), W(t), Q(t)) \in L^{\infty}([0,T]; \Omega).$
\end{theo}
\begin{proof}
For $\bar{k}\in H^1(\mathbb{R}),$ one can get $\bar{X}=(\bar{Z},\bar{K},\bar{V},\bar{W},\bar{Q})\in \Omega.$
Let $\Omega_{M}$ be a bounded subset of $\Omega,$ defined as
$$\Omega_M=\{X=(Z, K,V, W, Q)\in \Omega| ~\|X\|_{\Omega}\leq M\}.$$
We need to check that the right-hand side of the system \eqref{KZ} is Lipschitz continuous from $\Omega_{M}$ to $\Omega.$ Now, we proceed as in the proof of Lemma \ref{PG}. Therefore, the right-hand side of the system \eqref{KZ} is Lipschitz on $\Omega_M.$ By the standard theory of ordinary differential equations, we conclude that there exists a unique solution $X=(Z(t), K(t), V(t), W(t), Q(t))$ be the short time solution of the system \ref{KZ} in $L^{\infty}([0,T]; \Omega).$
\end{proof}
Next, we turn to the proof of existence of global solutions of the Cauchy problem \eqref{KZ}-\eqref{K0}.
\begin{theo}\label{global}
Let $\bar{k}\in H^1(\mathbb{R}).$ Then the local solution $X=(Z(t), K(t), V(t),W(t), Q(t))$ of \eqref{KZ} is a unique globally conservative solution in $L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^+; \Omega).$
\end{theo}
\begin{proof}
In order to prove the existence the global solutions, we shall demonstrate the local solution $X=(Z(t), K(t), V(t),W(t), Q(t))$ is uniformly bounded in $\Omega$ on any bounded time interval $[0,T]$ with any $T>0.$ Lemma \ref{lemma2} guarantees that
\begin{align}\label{supk}
\sup\limits_{\xi\in \mathbb{R}}|K^2(\xi)|\leq2\int_{\mathbb{R}}|KK_{\xi}|d\xi\leq 2(\int_{\mathbb{R}}|K^2Q(1-V)|d\xi)^{\frac{1}{2}} (\int_{\mathbb{R}}|(QV)|d\xi)^{\frac{1}{2}} \leq C\tilde{E}(0).
\end{align}
Combining \eqref{VW} and \eqref{supk}, we infer that $K,~V$ and $W$ are uniformly bounded in $L^{\infty}.$ However, we cannot obtain $\int_{\mathbb{R}}e^{-|\int_{
\eta}^{\xi}Q(1-V)(s)ds|}KQ(1-V)(\eta)d\eta$ is bounded in $L^{\infty}.$ Therefore, we use variable transformations and contradiction argument to handle the problem. According to the Cauchy problem \eqref{KZ}-\eqref{K0}, we get $\bar{y}(\xi)\in L^{\infty}_{loc}$ is strictly monotonous and
\begin{align*}
|\bar{y}(\xi_2)-\bar{y}(\xi_1)|=|\int_{\bar{y}(\xi_1)}^{\bar{y}(\xi_2)}1~dx|\leq|\int_{\bar{y}(\xi_1)}^{\bar{y}(\xi_2)}(1+\bar{k}_x^2)dx|\leq|\xi_2-\xi_1|,
\end{align*}
from which implies $\bar{y}(\xi)$ is local Lipschitz continuous function. Lemma \ref{local existence} entails that $K(t,\xi)$ is Lipschitz continuous as it maps $\Omega_{M}$ to $H^1\cap W^{1,\infty}.$ From \eqref{KZ}-\eqref{K0}, there exists a $0\leq T<\infty$ such that $y(t,\xi)\in H^1_{loc}$ for $t\in [0,T),$ which means $y(t,\xi)$ is a local absolutely continuous function for $t\in [0,T).$ Making use of Corollary \ref{coro} for $t\in [0,T)$ and $[a,b]\subset \mathbb{R},$ we arrive at
\begin{align}
\|\frac 1 2 \int_a^b e^{-|\int_{\eta}^{\xi}Q(1-V)(s)ds|} |K|Q(1-V)(\eta)d\eta \|_{L^{\infty}}&\leq \frac 1 2 \|K\|_{L^{\infty}}\|\int_a^b e^{-|y(\xi)-y(\eta)|} y_{\xi}d\eta\||_{L^{\infty}}\notag\\
&\leq \frac 1 2 \|K\|_{L^{\infty}}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}e^{-|y|}dy.\label{y1}
\end{align}
As $a\rightarrow -\infty, b\rightarrow +\infty,$ the left side of \eqref{y1} is monotonic. Applying the monotonic convergence theorem, we see that there exists a limit on the left side of \eqref{y1}. Therefore, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\|\int_{\mathbb{R}}e^{-|\int_{
\eta}^{\xi}Q(1-V)(s)ds|}KQ(1-V)(\eta)d\eta\|_{L^{\infty}}\leq\frac 1 2\|K\|_{L^{\infty}}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}e^{-|s|}ds\leq C\tilde{E}_0^{\frac 1 2}.
\end{align*}
Combining the above estimate and \eqref{VW}-\eqref{supk}, we have
\begin{align}\label{Gsup}
\|G\|_{L^{\infty}}&\leq C\Big(\tilde{E}(0)^{\frac 1 2}+\|e^{-|x|}\|_{L^{\infty}}(\int K^2Q(1-V)+QVd\eta)\notag\\&~~+\|e^{-|x|}\|_{L^{\infty}}\cdot(\|K\|_{L^{\infty}}+\|K\|^2_{L^{\infty}})\int K^2Q(1-V)d\eta \Big)\notag\\
&\leq C\Big({\tilde{E}_0}^{\frac 1 2}+{\tilde{E}_0}+\tilde{E}_0^{\frac 3 2}+{\tilde{E}^2_0}\Big).
\end{align}
Likewise, we get
\begin{align}\label{pp}
\|(P,P_{\xi})\|_{L^2\cap L^{\infty}},~\|(G,G_{\xi})\|_{L^2\cap L^{\infty}}\leq C\Big({\tilde{E}_0}^{\frac 1 2}+{\tilde{E}_0}+\tilde{E}_0^{\frac 3 2}+{\tilde{E}^2_0}\Big).
\end{align}
Hence, one can get from \eqref{KZ} that
\begin{align*}
|Q_t|\leq C\Big({\tilde{E}_0}^{\frac 1 2}+{\tilde{E}_0}+\tilde{E}_0^{\frac 3 2}+{\tilde{E}^2_0}\Big),
\end{align*}
which implies
\begin{align*}
\exp\{-C\Big({\tilde{E}_0}^{\frac 1 2}+{\tilde{E}_0}+\tilde{E}_0^{\frac 3 2}+{\tilde{E}^2_0}\Big)t\}\leq Q(t)\leq \exp\{{C\Big({\tilde{E}_0}^{\frac 1 2}+{\tilde{E}_0}+\tilde{E}_0^{\frac 3 2}+{\tilde{E}^2_0}\Big)t}\}.
\end{align*}
From \eqref{Q}, we have
\begin{align}
\|y_{\xi}\|_{L^{\infty}}\leq\|Q\|_{L^{\infty}}\leq \exp\{{C\Big({\tilde{E}_0}^{\frac 1 2}+{\tilde{E}_0}+\tilde{E}_0^{\frac 3 2}+{\tilde{E}^2_0}\Big)T}\}.
\end{align}
It follows that
\begin{align}\label{ysup}
\bar{y}(\xi)-C\Big({\tilde{E}_0}^{\frac 1 2}+{\tilde{E}_0}+\tilde{E}_0^{\frac 3 2}+\tilde{E}^2_0\Big)t
\leq y(t,\xi)\leq \bar{y}(\xi)+C\Big({\tilde{E}_0}^{\frac 1 2}+{\tilde{E}_0}+\tilde{E}_0^{\frac 3 2}+\tilde{E}^2_0\Big)t.
\end{align}
This means $y(t,\xi)$ is bounded in $L^{\infty}_{loc}$ for all $t\in [0,T],$ then we have $y(t,\xi)\in H^1_{loc}$ for $t\in [0,T].$ According to contradiction argument, we can prove that $T$ in the above results connot have a upper bound, we conclude that the above the results are vaild for $t\in \mathbb{R}.$
Taking advantage of \eqref{Gsup}-\eqref{ysup} and the system \eqref{KZ}, we get the following estimates
\begin{align*}
\frac{d}{dt}\|K\|^2_{L^2} &\leq C\|K\|_{L^{2}}\Big({\tilde{E}_0}^{\frac 1 2}+{\tilde{E}_0}+\tilde{E}_0^{\frac 3 2}+\tilde{E}^2_0\Big),\\
\frac{d}{dt}\|V\|^2_{L^{2}} &\leq C(\|V\|^2_{L^{2}}+\|V\|_{L^{2}}) \Big({\tilde{E}_0}^{\frac 1 2}+{\tilde{E}_0}+\tilde{E}_0^{\frac 3 2}+\tilde{E}^2_0\Big),
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
\frac{d}{dt}\|W\|^2_{L^{2}}&\leq C \|W\|_{L^{2}}\Big({\tilde{E}_0}^{\frac 1 2}+{\tilde{E}_0}+\tilde{E}_0^{\frac 3 2}+\tilde{E}^2_0\Big).~~~~~~~~~~~~
\end{align*}
In addition, using \eqref{W}-\eqref{Q}, we have
\begin{align*}
\|K_{\xi}\|_{L^{2}}\leq C\|W\|_{L^2}\|Q\|_{L^{\infty}},~~ \|K_{\xi}\|_{L^{\infty}}\leq C\|W\|_{L^{\infty}}\|Q\|_{L^{\infty}}.
\end{align*}
Therefore, we finish the proof of Theorem \ref{global}.
\end{proof}
\begin{theo}\cite{Holden07lag}\label{meas}
Let $X=(Z,K,V,W,Q)$ be the corresponding solution of the system \eqref{KZ} with the initial data $\bar{X}=(\bar{Z},\bar{K},\bar{V},\bar{W},\bar{Q})\in L^{\infty}([0,T];\Omega)$ given by Theorem \ref{local existence}. Then, $(Z_{\xi},K_{\xi},V,W,Q)$ is a solution of the system \eqref{KzX}, and
$$(Z_{\xi},K_{\xi},V,W,Q)\in (L^2\cap L^{\infty})^4\times L^{\infty}.$$ Moreover, we have $y_{\xi}\geq 0$ and $meas\mathcal{(N)}=0$ with
$$\mathcal{N}=\{(t,\xi)\in[0,T]\times \mathbb{R}~|~y_{\xi}=0\}.$$
\end{theo}
\begin{rema}\label{global Ky}
Let $\bar{k}\in H^1(\mathbb{R}),$ the system \eqref{Ky} also has a globally unique solution in $L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^+; \Omega).$
\end{rema}
\section{Solutions to the original equation}
\par
~~This section is devoted to proving that the globally conservative weak solution to the original equation.
\begin{theo}\label{global k}
Let $\bar{k}\in H^1(\mathbb{R}).$ Then, the Cauchy problem \eqref{k} has a globally conservative solution in the sence of Definition \ref{def1}.
\end{theo}
\begin{proof}
From Remark \ref{global Ky}, we know that the system \eqref{Ky} has a unique globally conservative weak solution. Then, the mapping $t\mapsto y(t,\xi)$ provides a solution to the Cauchy problem
\begin{equation}
\left\{\begin{aligned}
&y_t(t,\xi)=e^{-\lambda t}K(t,\xi)+\Gamma,\\
&y(0,\xi)=\bar{y}(\xi).
\end{aligned} \right.\label{oy}
\end{equation}
Set
\begin{align}\label{kK}
k(t,x)=K(t,\xi),~~if~x=y(t,\xi).
\end{align}
We need to check that \eqref{kK} is well-defined. \eqref{y0} and \eqref{ysup} entail that
\begin{align*}
\lim_{\xi\rightarrow\pm\infty}y(t,\xi)=\pm\infty.
\end{align*}
Thanks to \eqref{Q}, we see that $y_{\xi}\geq 0$ for all $t\geq 0$ and $a.e.~\xi\in \mathbb{R}.$ Moreover, the map $\xi\mapsto y(t,\xi)$ is nondecreasing. Assume that ${\xi}_1<\xi_2$ but $y(t,\xi_1)=y(t,\xi_2),$ it follows that
$$0=\int_{\xi_1}^{\xi_2}y_{\xi}(t,\eta)d\eta=\int_{\xi_1}^{\xi_2}Q(1-V)(t,\eta)d\eta.$$
If $Q\neq0$, we deduce that $V=1$ and $W=0$ in $[\xi_1,\xi_2].$ Therefore, we have
$$K(t,\xi_1)-K(t,\xi_2)=\int_{\xi_1}^{\xi_2}K_{\xi}(\eta)d\eta=\int_{\xi_1}^{\xi_2}WQ(\eta)d\eta.$$
If $Q=0,$ the above equality also make sense. Then, for all $t\geq0$ and $x\in\mathbb{R}, $ the map $(t,x)\mapsto k(t,x)$ is well-defined. According to the definition \eqref{kK}, we give
\begin{align}\label{kx1}
k_x(t,y(t,\xi))=\frac{W}{1-V},~if~x=y(t,\xi),~ y_{\xi}\neq0.
\end{align}
Applying \eqref{lar conser}, \eqref{kx1} and changing the variables, we see that
\begin{align*}
E(t)=&\int_{\mathbb{R}}(k^2+k_x^2)(x)dx=\int_{\mathbb{R}\cap\{y_{\xi}\neq0\}}(k^2+k_x^2)(t,y(t,\xi))y_{\xi}d\xi\notag\\
=&\int_{\mathbb{R}\cap\{y_{\xi}\neq0\}}(K^2Q(1-V)+QV)(\xi)d\xi=\int_{\mathbb{R}}(K^2Q(1-V)+QV)(\xi)d\xi\notag\\
=&\tilde{E}(t)=\tilde{E}_0=\int_{\mathbb{R}}(\bar{k}^2+\bar{k}_x^2)(x)dx,
\end{align*}
which implies $k$ is uniformly bounded in $H^1(\mathbb{R}).$ On the other hand, $k$ satisfies \eqref{k}. Indeed, for every $\phi\in C^{\infty}_c(\mathbb{R}^+,\mathcal{D}),$ we have
\begin{align*}
&\int_{\mathbb{R}^+}\int_{\mathbb{R}}(-k\phi_t+(e^{{-\lambda }t}k+\Gamma)(t,x)k_x\phi(t,x)dxdt\notag\\
=&\int_{\mathbb{R}^+}\int_{\mathbb{R}}(-k\phi_t+(e^{{-\lambda }t}k+\Gamma)k_x\phi)(t,y(t,\xi))y_{\xi}d\xi dt\notag\\
=&\int_{\mathbb{R}^+}\int_{\mathbb{R}}-K\phi_t(t,y(t,\xi)y_{\xi}+(e^{{-\lambda }t}K+\Gamma)K_{\xi}\phi(t,y(t,\xi))d\xi dt \notag\\
=&\int_{\mathbb{R}^+}\int_{\mathbb{R}}-K(\phi(t,y(t,\xi)y_{\xi})_t+e^{{-\lambda }t}(K^2\phi (t,y(t,\xi)))_{\xi}+\Gamma(K\phi(t,y(t,\xi)))_{\xi}d\xi dt\notag\\
=&\int_{\mathbb{R}^+}\int_{\mathbb{R}}-U(\psi(t,y(t,\xi)y_{\xi})_td\xi dt\notag\\
=&\int_{\mathbb{R}^+}\int_{\mathbb{R}}K_t\phi(t,y(t,\xi))y_{\xi}d\xi dt+\int_{\mathbb{R}}\bar{K}(\xi)\phi(0,\xi)\bar{y}_{\xi}(\xi)d\xi\notag\\
=&\int_{\mathbb{R}^+}\int_{\mathbb{R}}-P_x(t,y(t,\xi))y_{\xi}d\xi dt+\int_{\mathbb{R}}\bar{K}(\xi)\phi(0,\xi)\bar{y}_{\xi}d\xi\notag\\
=&\int_{\mathbb{R}^+}\int_{\mathbb{R}}-P_x(t,x)dxdt+\int_{\mathbb{R}}\bar{k}(x)\phi(0,x)dx,
\end {align*}
with
$$(\phi(t,y(t,\xi)y_{\xi})_t=\phi_t(t,y(t,\xi))\cdot y_{\xi}+\phi_x((t,y(t,\xi))(K+\Gamma)(t,\xi)\cdot y_{\xi}+\phi (t,y(t,\xi)) (K+\Gamma)_{\xi},$$ and
\begin{align*}
P_x(t,y(t,\xi))=&\frac{1}{2}(\int_{y(t,\xi)}^{+\infty}-\int_{-\infty}^{y(t,\xi)})e^{-|y(t,\xi)-x|}(-H(k)+e^{{-\lambda }t}k^2+ \frac {e^{{-\lambda }t}} {2}k_x^2)(t,x)dx\notag\\
=&\frac{1}{2}(\int_{\xi}^{+\infty}-\int_{-\infty}^{{\xi}})e^{-|\int_{\eta}^{{\xi}}Q(1-V)(t,s)ds|}(-H(K)Q(1-V)+e^{{-\lambda }t}K^2Q(1-V)+\frac {e^{{-\lambda }t}} {2}QV)d\xi'\notag\\
=&G(t,\xi).
\end{align*}
Likewise, we get
\begin{align}\label{ww}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^+} \int_{\mathbb{R}} [k_x^2\phi_t+(e^{{-\lambda }t}k+\Gamma)w\phi_x+2k_x(e^{{-\lambda }t}k^2-H(k)-P)\phi]dxdt+\int_{\mathbb{R}}\bar{k}_x^2(x)\phi(0,x))dxdt=0.
\end{align}
Hence, we conclude that $k(t,x)$ is a globally conservative solution to \eqref{k} in the sense of Definition \ref{def2}.
\end{proof}
\section{Peakon solutions}
\par
\quad \quad In this section, we give a conservative solution in time-weighted $H^1$ space with the peakon solutions of \eqref{u} in the following form
\begin{align}\label{p1}
u(t,x)=\sum_{i=1}^n p_i (t)e^{-|x-q_i (t)|},
\end{align}
where $p_i (t),q_i (t), i=1,..., n$ are smooth functions with respect to $t.$
\begin{theo}
Let $q_1(t)<q_2(t)<...<q_n(t).$ Then \eqref{p1} are weak solutions of O.D.E. in the following
\begin{equation*}
\left\{\begin{aligned}
&2\dot{p}_i-2p_i(a_i-b_i)+2\lambda p_i=0,\\
&-2p_i\dot{q}_i+2p_i(a_i+b_i+p_i)+2\Gamma p_i=0,\\
\end{aligned}\right.
\end{equation*}
where $a_i =\sum_{j<i} p_j e^{q_j-q_i}, b_i=\sum_{j<i} p_j e^{q_i-q_j}.$
\end{theo}
\begin{proof}
For any $i\in \{0,...n+1\},$ let
\begin{align*}
u_i(x,t)=\sum_{j=1}^{i} p_j(t) e^{q_j(t)-x}+\sum_{j=i+1}^n p_j(t) e^{x-q_j(t)},
\end{align*}
where $u_i(t,x)\in C^{\infty}$ in the space variable. Then \eqref{p1} can be rewritten as
\begin{align*}
u(t,x)=\sum_{i=0}^{n}u_i(t,x)\chi_i(x),
\end{align*}
which $\chi_i$ represents the characteristic function in interval $[q_i, q_{i+1}),\ i=1,...,n$ and $q_0=-\infty,\ q_{n+1}=\infty.$ Owing that $\chi_i$ has disjoint supports, we have
\begin{align*}
(u+\Gamma)u_x=\sum_{i=0}^n (u_i+\Gamma) u_{i,x}\chi_i.
\end{align*}
Therefore
\begin{align}\label{p6}
\Big((u+\Gamma)u_x\Big)_x&=\sum_{i=0}^n\Big((u_i+\Gamma) u_{i,x}\Big)_x \chi_i+\sum_{i=1}^n((u_i+\Gamma) u_{i,x})(q_i)\delta_{q_i}-\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\Big(((u_{i}+\Gamma) u_{{i},x}\Big)(q_{i+1})\delta_{q_{i+1}}\notag\\
&=\sum_{i=0}^n\Big((u_i+\Gamma) u_{i,x}\Big)_x \chi_i+\sum_{i=1}^n[(u_i+\Gamma)u_{i,x}]_{q_i} \delta_{q_i},
\end{align}
which $[v]_{{q_i}}=v(q_i^+)-v(q_i^-).$
Noting that $u$ is continuous, one can get $u=u_i=u_{i,xx}$ on every interval $(q_i,q_{i+1})$ and $[u^2]_{q_i}=0.$ Differentiating \eqref{p6}, we obtain
\begin{align}\label{p7}
\Big((u+\Gamma)u_x\Big)_{xx}&=\sum_{i=0}^n\Big((u_i+\Gamma) u_{i,x}\Big)_{xx} \chi_i+\sum_{i=1}^n[((u_i+\Gamma)u_{i,x})_x]_{q_i} \delta_{q_i}+\sum_{i=1}^n[(u_i+\Gamma)u_{i,x}]_{q_i} \delta_{q_i}'\notag\\
&=\sum_{i=0}^n\Big((u_i+\Gamma) u_{i,x}\Big)_{xx} \chi_i+\sum_{i=1}^n[u_x^2+u^2+\Gamma u]_{q_i} \delta_{q_i}+ \sum_{i=1}^n[(u+\Gamma)u_{x}]_{q_i} \delta_{q_i}'\notag\\
&=\sum_{i=0}^n\Big((u_i+\Gamma) u_{i,x}\Big)_{xx} \chi_i+\sum_{i=1}^n[u_x^2+\Gamma u]_{q_i} \delta_{q_i}+ \sum_{i=1}^n[(u+\Gamma)u_{x}]_{q_i} \delta_{q_i}'.
\end{align}
Likewise, we have
\begin{align}
(\frac1 2 u_x^2-\alpha u-\frac{\beta} {3}u^3-\frac{\gamma}{4}u^4)_x&=\sum_{i=0}^n (\frac1 2 u_{i,x}^2-\alpha u_i-\frac{\beta} {3}u_i^3-\frac{\gamma}{4}u_i^4)_x\chi_i\notag\\
&~~~+\sum_{i=1}^n [\frac1 2 u_x^2-\alpha u-\frac{\beta} {3}u^3-\frac{\gamma}{4}u^4]_{q_i}\delta_{q_i},\label{p8}\\
u_t-u_{xxt}=\sum_{i=0}^n (u_{i,t}-&u_{i,xxt})\chi_i-\sum_{i=1}^n ([u_{xt}]_{q_i}\delta_{q_i}+[u_t]_{q_i}\delta_{q_i}')\label{p9}.
\end{align}
It follows from \eqref{p6}-\eqref{p9} that
\begin{align*}
&\sum_{i=0}^n \{u_{i,t}-u_{i,xxt}+3u_iu_{i.x}-\Big((u_{i}+\Gamma)u_{i,x}\Big)_{xx}+(\frac1 2 u_{i,x}^2-\alpha u_i-\frac{\beta} {3}u_i^3-\frac{\gamma}{4}u_i^4)_x+\lambda(u_i-u_{i,xx})\}\chi_i\notag\\
&~~~+\sum_{i=1}^n\{-[u_{i,t}]_{q_i}-[u_x^2+u^2+\Gamma u]_{q_i}+ [\frac1 2 u_x^2-\alpha u-\frac{\beta} {3}u^3-\frac{\gamma}{4}u^4]_{q_i}-\lambda[u_x]_{q_i}\}\delta_{q_i}\notag\\
&~~~+\sum_{i=1}^n\{-[u_t]_{q_i}-[(u+\Gamma)u_{x}]_{q_i}-\lambda[u]_{q_i}\}\delta_{q_i}'=0.
\end{align*}
For $\chi_i, \delta_{q_j}, \delta_{q_k}', i,j,k=1,...,n,$ we have
\begin{equation}
\left\{\begin{aligned}
&-[u_{i,t}]_{q_i}-[u_x^2]_{q_i}+[u^2]_{q_i}+\Gamma [u]_{q_i}+ \frac1 2 [u_x^2]_{q_i}-\alpha [u]_{q_i}-\frac{\beta} {3} [u^3]_{q_i}-\frac{\gamma}{4} [u^4]_{q_i}-\lambda[u_x]_{q_i}=0,\\
&-[u_t]_{q_i}-[(u+\Gamma)u_{x}]_{q_i}-\lambda[u]_{q_i}=0.\label{p11}
\end{aligned}\right.
\end{equation}
According to the definition of $a_i,b_i,i=1,...,n,$ we have
\begin{align}
&[u_t]_{q_i}=2p_i\dot{q}_i,~ [u_{xt}]_{q_i}=-2\dot{p}_i,~~~~~~~~~~ [uu_x]_{q_i}=-2p_i(a_i+p_i+b_i),\label{p12}\\
&[u_x]_{q_i}=-2{p}_i,\ [u_x^2]_{q_i}~=4p_i(a_i-b_i),\ [u]_{q_i}=[u^2]_{q_i}=[u_{xx}]_{q_i}=0.\label{p13}
\end{align}
Substituting \eqref{p12}, \eqref{p13} into \eqref{p11}, we end up with
\begin{equation*}
\left\{\begin{aligned}
&2\dot{p}_i-2p_i(a_i-b_i)+2\lambda p_i=0,\\
&-2p_i\dot{q}_i+2p_i(a_i+p_i+b_i)+2\Gamma{p}_i=0.
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation*}
Now, we consider that $n=1$ and $a_1=b_1=0.$ Then we have
\begin{equation*}
\left\{\begin{aligned}
&2\dot{p}+2\lambda p=0,\\
&-2p\dot{q}+2p^2+2\Gamma p=0,
\end{aligned}\right.
\end{equation*}
which implies that
\begin{equation}
\left\{\begin{aligned}
&p=p(0)e^{-\lambda t},\\
&q=\frac {1}{\lambda}p(0)(1-e^{-\lambda t})+\Gamma t+q(0), \quad\quad \lambda >0,\\
&q=p(0)t+\Gamma t+q(0), \quad\quad \quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\lambda =0.
\end{aligned}\right.
\end{equation}
It follows that
\begin{align*}
u(t,x)&=p(0)e^{-\lambda t}e^{-|x-q(t)|},\\ k(t,x)&=e^{\lambda t} u(t,x)=p(0)e^{-|x-q(t)|}\Rightarrow \|k\|_{H^1}=\|\bar{k}\|_{H^1}.
\end{align*}
Figure 1 shows the evolution behavior of single peak solitary solutions with dissipative coefficient $\lambda$ with $p(0)=\frac 1 2,~q(0)=1,~\Gamma=-2,$
\begin{figure*}[h]
\centering
\subfigure[$\lambda=1$]{
\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{a1.jpg}
}
\quad
\subfigure[$\lambda=\frac{1}{4}$]{
\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{a2.jpg}
}
\quad
\subfigure[$\lambda=\frac{1}{10}$]{
\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{a3.jpg}\label{c}
}
\end{figure*}
$\\$
\begin{figure*}[h]
\centering
\subfigure[$\lambda=\frac{1}{15}$]{
\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{a4.jpg}\label{d}
}
\subfigure[$\lambda=\frac{1}{30}$]{
\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{a5.jpg}\label{e}
}
\quad
\subfigure[$\lambda=0$]{
\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{a6.jpg}\label{f}
}
\caption{ (a)$\lambda=1$; (b)$\lambda=\frac{1}{4}$; (c)$\lambda=\frac{1}{10}$; (d)$\lambda=\frac{1}{15}$; (e)$\lambda=\frac{1}{30}$; (f)$\lambda=0$.}
\end{figure*}
$\\$
Note that $(1-\partial_{xx})u=\delta_0 \in \mathcal{M} \hookrightarrow B^0_{1,\infty}\hookrightarrow B^{-\frac 1 2}_{1,\infty},$ where $\mathcal{M}$ is bounded measures spaces. Thanks to $B^{\frac 3 2}_{2,\infty} \hookrightarrow H^1(\mathbb{R})$, we get $u\in H^1(\mathbb{R}).$ Hence, $k(t,x)$ is a conservative solution of equation \eqref{u} in $H^1,$ in other words, $u(t,x)$ is a conservative solution in time weighted $H^1$ space. Moreover, we infer that
$$\lim\limits_{\lambda \rightarrow 0} q(t)=q(0).$$
\end{proof}
\section{Uniqueness of solutions
for the original equation}
\par
~~~In this section, we consider the uniqueness solutions for \eqref{k}. Our main result is as follows.
\begin{theo}\label{th2.4}
Let $k(t,x)\in H^1$ be a conservative weak solutions to the Cauchy problem \eqref{k} in the sense of Definition \ref{def2}. Then $k(t,x)$ is unique.
\end{theo}
\subsection{Uniqueness of characteristic}
~~ This subsection is devoted to the study of the uniqueness of the characteristic to \eqref{k}. Let $k=k(t,x)$ be a conservative solution of \eqref{k} and satisfy \eqref{w}. Let $y(t,\xi)$ still denote the characteristic
\begin{equation}
\left\{\begin{aligned}
&y_t(t,\xi)=e^{-\lambda t}k(t,y(t))+\Gamma,\\
&y(0,\xi)=\bar{y}.
\end{aligned} \right.\label{yy}
\end{equation}
Introduce new coordinates $(t,\beta)$ relative to the original coordinates $(t,x)$ by the following transformation
\begin{align}\label{yb}
y(t,\beta)+\int_{-\infty}^{y(t,\beta)}k_x^2(t,z)dz=\beta.
\end{align}
At time $t$ where the measure $\mu_{(t)}$ is not absolutely continuous
with respect to the Lebesgue measure,
For any time $t$ and $\beta\in\mathbb{R}$, define $y(t, \beta)$ to be the unique $y$ such that
\begin{align}\label{yb1}
y(t, \beta)+\mu_{(t)}\{(-\infty,y)\}\leq \beta\leq y(t, \beta)+\mu_{(t)}\{(-\infty,y]\}.
\end{align}
Combining \eqref{y1} and \eqref{yy}, we get
\begin{align}\label{yy1}
\frac{d}{dt}\int_{-\infty}^{y(t)}k_x^2dx=\int_{-\infty}^{y(t)}2k_x(e^{{-\lambda }t}k^2-H(k)-P)dx.
\end{align}
Now we give the following lemma to prove the Lipschitz continuity of $x$ and $k$ as functions of the variables $t,\beta.$
\begin{lemm}\label{kycontiu}
Let $k(t,x)$ be a conservative solution of \eqref{k}. Then, for all $t\geq 0$, the following maps
\begin{align*}
&\beta \mapsto y(t,\beta),\\
&\beta \mapsto k(t,y(t,\beta)),
\end{align*}
defined by \eqref{yb1}, are Lipschitz continuous with constant $1.$ Moreover, the map $t\mapsto y(t,\beta)$ is also Lipschitz continuous with a
constant depending only on $\|\bar{k}\|_{H^1}.$
\end{lemm}
\begin{proof}
\textbf{Step 1.} For any fixed time $t\geq 0$, the map
\begin{align*}
x\mapsto \beta(t,y):=x+\int_{-\infty}^{x}k_x^2(t,y)dy
\end{align*}
is right continuous and strictly increasing. This means the inverse $\beta\mapsto x(t,\beta)$ is well-defined, continuous, nondecreasing. Given ${\beta}_1 <{\beta}_2$, we have
\begin{align*}
y(t,{\beta}_2)- y(t,{\beta}_1)=({\beta}_2 -{\beta}_1)-\int_{y(t,{\beta}_1)}^{y(t,{\beta}_2)}k_x^2(t,z)dz\leq {\beta}_2 -{\beta}_1.
\end{align*}
One can conclude that $\beta \mapsto y(t,\beta)$ is Lipschitz continuous.
\textbf{Step 2.} Let ${\beta}_1 <{\beta}_2$. Then, it follows that
\begin{align*}
|k(t,{\beta}_2)-k(t,{\beta}_1)|&\le \int_{y(t,{\beta}_1)}^{y(t,{\beta}_2)}|k_x(t,z)|dz\leq \int_{y(t,{\beta}_1)}^{y(t,{\beta}_2)}\frac{1}{2}(1+k_x^2)dz \notag\\
&\leq \frac{1}{2} [ y(t,{\beta}_2)- y(t,{\beta}_1)+\int_{y(t,{\beta}_1)}^{y(t,{\beta}_2)}k_x^2(t,z)]dz\leq {\beta}_2 -{\beta}_1.
\end{align*}
Therefore, we arrive at the map $\beta \mapsto k(t,y(t,\beta))$ is Lipschitz continuous.
\textbf{Step 3.} According to \eqref{E0}, we have
\begin{align*}
\|2[e^{{-\lambda }t}k^2-P-H(k)]k_x\|_{L^1} \leq \|-H(k)+e^{{-\lambda }t}k^2-P\|_{L^2}\|k_x\|_{L^2}\leq C_{E_0}.
\end{align*}
If $t> \tau,$ we obtain
\begin{align*}
{\mu}_t\{(-\infty,y-C_{E_0}(t-\tau))\}\leq &{\mu_{\tau}} \{(-\infty,y)\}+\int_{\tau}^t\|2[e^{{-\lambda }t}k^2-P-H(k)]k_x\|_{L^1}dt\notag\\
\leq&{\mu_{\tau}} \{(-\infty,y)\}+C_{E_0}(t-\tau).
\end{align*}
Defining $y^-(t):=y-C_{E_0}(t-\tau),$ we get
\begin{align*}
y^-(t)+{\mu}_t\{(-\infty,y^-(t)]\}&\leq y-C_{E_0}(t-\tau)+{\mu}_{\tau}\{(-\infty,y)\}+C_0(t-\tau)\notag\\
&\leq y+{\mu}_{\tau}\{(-\infty,y)\}\leq \beta,
\end{align*}
which implies $y(t,\beta)\geq y^-(t).$
Likewise, defining $y^+(t):=y+C_{E_0}(t-\tau),$ it follows that
\begin{align*}
y^+(t)+{\mu}_{(t)}\{(-\infty,y^+(t)]\}
&\geq y+C_{E_0}(t-\tau)+{\mu}_{\tau}\{(-\infty,y)\}+C_{E_0}(t-\tau)\notag\\
&\geq y+{\mu}_{\tau}\{(-\infty,y)\}\geq \beta.
\end{align*}
Hence, we deduce that $
y(t,\beta)\leq y^+(t):=y+C_{E_0}(t-\tau).$
\end{proof}
\begin{lemm}\label{uniqueness}
Let $k(t,x)\in H^1(\mathbb{R})$ be a conservative solution of the Cauchy problem \eqref{k}. Then, for any $\bar{y}(\xi)\in\mathbb{R},$ there exists
a unique Lipschitz continuous map $t\mapsto y(t,\beta) :=y(t,\beta(t,\xi))$ which satisfies both \eqref{yy} and \eqref{yy1}, where $y(t,\beta)$ is the solution of \eqref{yy}. Moreover,
for any $0 \leq \tau \leq t$ one has
\begin{align}\label{k1-k2}
k(t,y(t))-k(\tau,y(\tau))=-\int_{\tau}^tP_x(s,y(s))ds.
\end{align}
\end{lemm}
\begin{proof}
\textbf{Step 1.} Assume that $y(t)$ is the characteristic beginning at $\bar{y}(\xi)=\xi\in\mathbb{R}$, which is defined as $t\rightarrow y(t)=y(t,\beta(t)),$ the map $\beta(\cdot)$ is to be determined. Let $y(t)$ be the solution of \eqref{yy} and \eqref{yy1}.
For $t\notin\mathcal{N},$ we have
\begin{align}\label{F0}
\beta(t,\xi)=&y(t)+\int_0^{y(t)}k_x^2(z)dz\notag\\
=&\int_0^{t}\frac{d}{ds}(y(s)+\int_0^{y(s)}k_x^2(s,z)dz)ds+\bar{y}(\xi)+\int_{-\infty}^{\bar{y}(\xi)}\bar{k}_x^2(z)dz\notag\\
=&
\bar{y}+\int_0^{\bar{y}(\xi)}\bar{k}_x^2(z)dz+\int_0^t \Gamma+\{\int_{-\infty}^{y(t)}\Big(e^{{-\lambda }t}k_x+2k_x(e^{{-\lambda }t}k^2-P-H(k))\Big)(s,z)dz\}ds.
\end{align}
Set
\begin{align}\label{F}
F(t,\beta(t,\xi))\triangleq\Gamma+\int_{-\infty}^{y(t,\beta(t,\xi))}\Big(e^{{-\lambda }t}k_x+2k_x(e^{{-\lambda }t}k^2-P-H(k))\Big)dy=\xi,
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}\label{F1}
\bar{\beta}(t,\xi)\triangleq\bar{y}(\xi){+}\int_{\infty}^{\bar{y}}\bar{k}_x^2dy=\xi.
\end{align}
According to \eqref{F0}-\eqref{F1},
it follows that
\begin{align}\label{B}
\beta(t,\xi)=\xi+\int_0^tF(s,\beta(s,\xi))ds.
\end{align}
\textbf{Step 2.} Since $\|k\|_{H^1}
=\|\bar{k}\|_{H^1},$ $y_{\beta}=\frac{1}{1+k^2_x}$ and the map $\beta \mapsto k(t,y(t,\beta))$ is Lipschitz continuous, we get
\begin{align*}
F_{\beta}=\{e^{{-\lambda }t}k_x+2k_x[e^{{-\lambda }t}k^2-P-H(k)]\}y_{\beta}=\frac{e^{{-\lambda }t}k_x+2k_x[e^{{-\lambda }t}k^2-P-H(k)]}{1+k_x^2}.
\end{align*}
It follows that
$$\|F_{\beta}\|_{L^{\infty}}\leq C_{E_0}.$$
Moreover
\begin{align}\label{eqa11}
|F(s,{\beta}_2)-F(s,{\beta}_1)|\leq C_{E_0}|{\beta}_2-{\beta}_1|.
\end{align}
Then, the map $\beta\mapsto F(t,\beta(t))$ is Lipschitz continuous.
Moreover, the map $\xi \mapsto \beta(t,\xi)$ is strictly monotonic and Lipschitz continuous. From \eqref{eqa11}, we get
\begin{align*}
|\beta(t,{\xi}_2)-\beta(t,{\xi}_1)|&\leq |{\xi}_2-{\xi}_1|+\int_0^t|F(s,\beta(s,{\xi}_2))-F(s,\beta(s,{\xi}_2))|ds \notag\\
&\leq |{\xi}_2-{\xi}_1|+C_{E_0}\int_0^t |\beta(t,{\xi}_2)-\beta(t,{\xi}_1)|.
\end{align*}
The Gronwall inequality ensures that
$$|\beta(t,{\xi}_2)-\beta(t,{\xi}_1)|\leq |{\xi}_2-{\xi}_1| e^{C_{E_0}t}.$$
Consequently, for any $\xi_2>\xi_1,$ we get
\begin{align*}
\beta(t,{\xi}_2)-\beta(t,{\xi}_1)={\xi}_2-{\xi}_1+\int_0^tF(s,\beta(s,{\xi}_2))-F(s,\beta(s,{\xi}_2))ds\geq ({\xi}_2-{\xi}_1)(1-C_{E_0}t),
\end{align*}
which means that monotonicity makes sense as $t$ sufficiently small and the solution $\beta(\cdot)$ of the integral equation \eqref{B}
depends Lipschitz continuously on the initial data.
Without loss of generality, assume that $t$ is enough small, otherwise we can use the continuous method. In addition, the map $\xi \mapsto F(t,y(t,\beta(t,\xi)))$ is also Lipschitz continuous.
\textbf{Step 3.} Owing to $F$ is uniformly Lipschitz continuous, we can check that existence and uniqueness of solution of \eqref{B} by the fixed point theorem.
We introduce the Banach space of all
continuous function $\beta :{\mathbb{R}}^+\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ with weighted norm
$$\|\beta\| :=\sup\limits_{t\geq0} e^{-2Ct}|\beta(t)|.$$
For this space, we see that the Picard map
$$(\mathbb{P} \beta)(t)=\bar{\beta}+\int_0^tF(s,\beta(s))ds$$
is a strict contraction. If $\|{\beta}_2-{\beta}_1\|=h>0$, we obtain
$$|{\beta}_2(s)-{\beta}_1(s)|\leq he^{2Cs}.$$
Then, we deduce that
$$|(\mathbb{P} {\beta}_2)(t)-(\mathbb{P} {\beta}_1)(t)|\leq\int_0|F(s,{\beta}_2)-F(s,{\beta}_1)|ds\leq C\int_ 0^t|{\beta}_2-{\beta}_1|ds\leq |\int_0^tChe^{2Cs}ds|\leq \frac{h}{2}e^{2Ct}.$$
This means $\|(\mathbb{P} {\beta}_2)(t)-(\mathbb{P} {\beta}_1)(t)\|\leq \frac{h}{2}.$
The contraction mapping principle guarantees that \eqref{B}
has a unique solution. Thanks to the arbitrary of the $T,$ we infer that the integral equation \eqref{B} has a unique solution on ${\mathbb{R}}^+.$
\textbf{Step 4.} Combining \eqref{yy} and the integral equation \eqref{B}, we infer that the uniqueness of $x(t,\beta)$ depends on the uniqueness of $\beta(t,\xi).$ From the previous analysis, the map $t\mapsto y(t)=y( t,\beta(t,\xi))$ provides the unique solution to \eqref{B}. Owing to $\beta(t)$ and $x(t, \beta(t,\xi))$ are Lipschitz continuous, then $\beta(t,\xi)$ and
$x(t)$ are differentiable a.e. Next, we need to prove that \eqref{F0} satisfies \eqref{yy}. Indeed, at any $\tau>0,$ we have
(1) $y(\tau)$ is differentiable at $t=\tau;$
(2) the measure ${\mu}_{(\tau)}$ is absolutely continuous.
We argue by contradiction, assume that $(1)$ does not hold, we get ${y}'(\tau)\neq e^{{-\lambda }\tau}k(\tau,y(\tau))+\Gamma$. Then, there exists some $\epsilon_0>0,$ such that
\begin{align}\label{5133}
{y}'(\tau)= e^{{-\lambda }\tau}k(\tau,y(\tau))+\Gamma+2{\epsilon}_0.
\end{align}
Therefore, for $\delta>0$ sufficiently small, it follows that
\begin{align}\label{5134}
y^+(t):=y(\tau)+(t-\tau)[e^{{-\lambda }t}k(\tau,y(\tau))+\Gamma+\epsilon_0]<y(t),~for~t\in (\tau,\tau+\delta].
\end{align}
The approximation argument guarantees that
\eqref{0.6} remain hold for any test function $\phi\in H^1(\mathbb{R})$ with compact support.
For any $\epsilon>0$ enough small, we give the following functions
\begin{equation}\label{eqa17}
\varrho^{\varepsilon}(s,y)=\left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
0, &y\leq -{\varepsilon}^{-1},\\
y+{\varepsilon}^{-1}, & ~~-{\varepsilon}^{-1}\leq y \leq 1-{\varepsilon}^{-1},\\
1-{\varepsilon}^{-1}(y-y(s)), &~~~~~~ y^+(s)\leq y\leq y^+(s)+\varepsilon,\\
0, & ~~~~~~y\geq y^+(s)+\varepsilon,
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eqa18}
\chi^{\varepsilon}(s)=\left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
0, &~~~~~~~~~~s\leq \tau-{\varepsilon}^{-1},\\
{\varepsilon}^{-1}(s-\tau+\varepsilon), & ~~\tau-{\varepsilon}\leq s \leq \tau,\\
1-{\varepsilon}^{-1}(s-t), &~~ t\leq s\leq t+\varepsilon,\\
0, & ~~~~~~~s\geq t+\varepsilon.
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
Define
\begin{align*}
\phi^{\varepsilon}(s,y)=\min\{ {\varrho^{\varepsilon}(s,y), \chi^{\varepsilon}(s)}\}.
\end{align*}
Let ${\phi}^{\varepsilon}$ be the test function in \eqref{0.6}. Therefore, one has
\begin{align*}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^+}\int_{\mathbb{R}}k^2_x\phi^{\varepsilon}_t+(e^{{-\lambda }t}k+\Gamma) k^2_x{\phi}_x^{\varepsilon}+2(e^{{-\lambda }t}k^2-P-H(k)))\phi^{\varepsilon}dxdt=0,
\end{align*}
which means
\begin{align}\label{3.91}
\int_{\tau-\varepsilon}^{t+\varepsilon}\int_{-{\varepsilon}^{-1}}^{y^+(s)-\varepsilon}k^2_x\phi^{\varepsilon}_t+((e^{{-\lambda }t}k^2-P-H(k))))\phi^{\varepsilon}dydt=0.
\end{align}
If $t$ is sufficiently close to $\tau,$ we have
\begin{align*}
\lim\limits_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}\int_{\tau}^{t}\int_{y^+(s)-\varepsilon}^{y^+(s)+\varepsilon}k^2_x[\phi^{\varepsilon}_t+(e^{{-\lambda }t}k+\Gamma)\phi^{\varepsilon}_x](s,x)d y)ds\geq 0.
\end{align*}
Using the fact that $e^{{-\lambda }s}k(s, y(s)) <e^{{-\lambda }\tau}k(\tau, y(\tau))+{\epsilon}_0$ and ${\phi}_x^{\epsilon}\leq 0.$ For any $s\in[\tau+\varepsilon,t-\varepsilon],$ we infer that
\begin{align}\label{5.139}
0={\phi}_t^{\varepsilon}+[e^{{-\lambda }\tau}k^2(\tau,y(\tau))+\Gamma]{\phi}_x^{\varepsilon}\leq {\phi}_t^{\varepsilon}+(e^{{-\lambda }s}k(s, y(s))+\Gamma){\phi}_x^{\varepsilon}.
\end{align}
Noticing that the family of measures
${\mu}_t$ depends continuously on $t$ in the topology of weak convergence, taking the limit of \eqref{3.91} as $\epsilon\rightarrow 0$, we obtain
\begin{align}\label{37}
0=&\int_{-\infty}^{y(\tau)}k^2_x(\tau,y)dy-\int_{-\infty}^{y^+(t)}k^2_x(t,y)dy+\int_{\tau}^{t}\int_{-\infty}^{y^+(s)}2k_x((e^{{-\lambda }t}k^2-P-H(k))))\phi^{\varepsilon}(s,y)dyds\notag\\
&+\lim\limits_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0} \int_{\tau}^t\int_{{y^+}(s)-\varepsilon}^{{y^+}(s)+\varepsilon}k^2_x[\phi^{\varepsilon}_t+(e^{{-\lambda }t}k+\Gamma)\phi^{\varepsilon}_x](s,y)dyds\notag\\
\geq&\int_{-\infty}^{y(\tau)}k^2_x(\tau,y)dy-\int_{-\infty}^{y^+(t)}k^2_x(t,y)dy+\int_{\tau}^{t}\int_{-\infty}^{y(s)}2k_x(((e^{{-\lambda }t}k^2-P-H(k)))))\phi^{\varepsilon}(s,y)dyds\notag\\
&+\underbrace{\int_{\tau}^{t}\int_{y(s)}^{{y^+}(s)}2k_x(e^{{-\lambda }t}k^2-P-H(k))\phi^{\varepsilon}(s,y)dyds}_{o_1(t-\tau)}.
\end{align}
That is
\begin{align*}
{\mu}_{t}\{(-\infty,{y}^+(t)]\}\geq&{\mu}_{\tau}\{(-\infty,{y}(\tau)]\}+\int_{\tau}^{t}\int_{-\infty}^{y(s)}2k_x(e^{{-\lambda }t}k^2-P-H(k))\phi^{\varepsilon}(s,y)dyds+o_1(t-\tau).
\end{align*}
From \eqref{5134} and the map $t \mapsto y(t)$ is Lipschitz continuity, we have
\begin{align}\label{5.142}
|o_1(t-\tau)|
\leq& \|2(e^{{-\lambda }t}k^2-P-H(k))\|_{L^{\infty}}\int_{\tau}^t\int_{{y}(s)}^{{y}^+(s)}|k_x(s,y)|dyds\notag\\
\leq&\|2(e^{{-\lambda }t}k^2-P-H(k)\|_{L^{\infty}} \|k_x\|_{L^{2}}\int_{\tau}^t(y(s)-{y}^+(s))^{\frac{1}{2}}ds\notag\\
\leq&C(t-\tau)^{\frac{3}{2}},
\end{align}
where $o_1(t-\tau)$ satisfies $\frac{o_1(t-\tau)}{t-\tau}\rightarrow 0$ as $t\rightarrow\tau$ and $C$ depend on $E_0.$\\
Combining \eqref{B}, \eqref{5134} and \eqref{37}-\eqref{5.142}, for $t$ being close enough to $\tau$, we have
\begin{align}\label{5.144}
\beta(t)=&\beta(\tau)+(t-\tau)\Big(e^{{-\lambda }t}k(\tau,y(\tau))+\Gamma+\int_{-\infty}^{{y}(\tau)}2k_x[-e^{{-\lambda }t}k^2-P-H(k)](s,y)dyds\Big)
+o_2(t-\tau)\notag\\=&y(t)+{\mu}_{t}\{(-\infty,{y}(t)]\}\notag\\
>&y(\tau)+(t-\tau)[e^{{-\lambda }t}k(\tau,y(\tau))+\Gamma+{\epsilon}_0]+{\mu}_{\tau}\{(-\infty,{y}(\tau)]\}\notag\\
&+\int_{\tau}^t\int_{-\infty}^{{y}(s)}2k_x[(e^{{-\lambda }t}k^2-P-H(k))]dyds+o_1(t-\tau).
\end{align}
with $o_2(t-\tau)$ satisfies $\frac{o_1(t-\tau)}{t-\tau}\rightarrow 0$ as $t\rightarrow\tau.$
From \eqref{5.144}, we have
\begin{align*}
~~~(t-&\tau)\Big(\int_{-\infty}^{{y}(\tau)}2k_x[e^{{-\lambda }t}k^2-P-H(k)](s,y)dy\Big)+o_2(t-\tau)\notag\\
&\geq (t-\tau){\epsilon}_0+\int_{\tau}^{t}\int_{-\infty}^{{y}(s)}2k_x[e^{{-\lambda }t}k^2-P-H(k)](s,y)dyds+o_1(t-\tau).
\end{align*}
Dividing both sides by $t-\tau$ and letting $t\rightarrow\tau$, one has ${\epsilon}_0<0,$ which contradicts with ${\epsilon}_0>0$. In addition, for the case ${\epsilon}_0<0,$ we follow the similar strategy as ${\epsilon}_0>0$. Hence, we conclude that $y(t)$ is differentiable at $t=\tau.$
\textbf{Step 5.} It follows from Definition \ref{def1} that
\begin{align}\label{5.147}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^+}\int_{\mathbb{R}}k\phi_t+\frac{(e^{{-\lambda }t}k+\Gamma)}{2} k_x{\phi}_x+P_x\phi_xdxdt+\int_{{\mathbb{R}}} \bar{k}(x){\phi}(0,x)dx=0,
\end{align}
for any test function $\phi\in C_c^{\infty}.$ The approximation argument guarantees that the equation \eqref{5.147} remains hold, for any test function $\psi$ which is Lipschitz continuous with compact support. Note that the map $y\rightarrow k(t, y)$ is absolutely continuous and integrate
by parts with respect to $x$. Therefore, for any $\varphi\in C_c^{\infty} $, taking $\phi={\varphi}_x$. we have
\begin{align}\label{5.148}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^+}\int_{\mathbb{R}}k_x\varphi_t+(e^{{-\lambda }t}k+\Gamma) k_x{\varphi}_x-P_x\varphi_xdxdt+\int_{{\mathbb{R}}} \bar{k}_x(x){\varphi}(0,x)dx=0.
\end{align}
For any $\epsilon\geq0$ sufficiently small, we give the following function
\begin{equation*}
\varrho^{\varepsilon}(s,y)=\left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
0, &~~~~y\leq -{\varepsilon}^{-1},\\
y+{\varepsilon}^{-1}, &~~~~~~ -{\varepsilon}^{-1}\leq y \leq 1-{\varepsilon}^{-1},\\
1, &1-{\varepsilon}^{-1}\leq y\leq y(s),\\
1-{\varepsilon}^{-1}(y-y(s)), & ~~~~~~~~~y(s)\leq y\leq y(s)+\varepsilon,\\
0 & ~~~~~~~~y\geq y(s)+\varepsilon,
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{align*}
\psi^{\varepsilon}(s,y)=\min\{ {\varrho^{\varepsilon}(s,y), \chi^{\varepsilon}(s)}\},
\end{align*}
where $\chi^{\varepsilon}$ is defined in \eqref{eqa18}. Let $\varphi=\psi^{\varepsilon}$ and $\epsilon\rightarrow0$. Then, it follows from the continuity property of function $P_x$ that
\begin{align*}
\int_{-\infty}^{y(t)}k_x(t,y)dy&=\int_{-\infty}^{y(\tau)}k_x(\tau,y)dy-\int_{\tau}^tP_x(s,y(s))ds\notag\\
&~~~+\lim\limits_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0} \int_{\tau-\varepsilon}^{t+\varepsilon}\int_{{y}(s)}^{{y}(s)+\varepsilon}k_x[{\psi}_t^{\varepsilon}+(e^{{-\lambda }t}k+\Gamma){\psi}_x^{\varepsilon}]dyds.
\end{align*}
Hence, it is shown that
\begin{align}\label{537}
&\lim\limits_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0} \int_{\tau-\varepsilon}^{t+\varepsilon}\int_{{y}(s)}^{{y}(s)+\varepsilon}k_x[{\psi}_t^{\varepsilon}+(e^{{-\lambda }t}k+\Gamma){\psi}_x^{\varepsilon}]dyds\notag\\
&=\lim\limits_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0} \Big(\int_{\tau-\varepsilon}^{\tau}+\int_{\tau}^{t}+\int_{t}^{t+\varepsilon}\Big)\int_{{y}(s)}^{{y}(s)+\varepsilon}k_x[{\psi}_t^{\varepsilon}+(e^{{-\lambda }t}k+\Gamma){\psi}_x^{\varepsilon}]dyds=0.
\end{align}
First, we claim that
\begin{align*}
\lim\limits_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0} \int_{\tau}^t\int_{{y}(s)}^{{y}(s)+\varepsilon}k_x[{\psi}_t^{\varepsilon}+(e^{{-\lambda }t}k+\Gamma){\psi}_x^{\varepsilon}]dyds=0.
\end{align*}
Taking advantage of Cauchy's inequality and $k_x\in L^2$, one has
\begin{align*}
&|\int_{\tau-\varepsilon}^{t}\int_{{y}(s)}^{{y}(s)+\varepsilon}k_x[{\psi}_t^{\varepsilon}+(e^{{-\lambda }t}k+\Gamma){\psi}_x^{\varepsilon}]dyds|\notag\\&\leq \int_{\tau-\varepsilon}^{t}\Big(\int_{{y}(s)}^{{y}(s)+\varepsilon}|k_x|^2dy\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}} \Big(\int_{{y}(s)}^{{y}(s)+\varepsilon}[{\psi}_t^{\varepsilon}+(e^{{-\lambda }t}k+\Gamma){\psi}_x^{\varepsilon}]^2dy\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}ds.
\end{align*}
Define
\begin{align*}
{\pi}_{\varepsilon}(s)=\Big(\sup\limits_{x\in \mathbb{R}} \int_{{y}(s)}^{{y}(s)+\varepsilon}k_x^2(s,y)dy\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}.
\end{align*}
Note that the function ${\pi}_{\epsilon}(s)$ is uniformly bounded for $\epsilon$ and $\lim\limits_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}{\pi}_{\varepsilon}(s)=0$
almost every time $t.$ Hence, it follows from the dominated convergence theorem that
\begin{align}\label{5.157}
\lim\limits_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}\int_{\tau}^{t}\Big(\sup\limits_{x\in \mathbb{R}} \int_{{y}(s)}^{{y}(s)+\varepsilon}k_x^2(s,y)dy\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}ds\leq \lim\limits_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}\int_{\tau}^{t}{\pi}_{\varepsilon}(s)ds=0.
\end{align}
In addition, for all $s\in [\tau, t]$, one can get from the definition of $\psi_{\epsilon}$ that
\begin{align}\label{5.158}
{\psi}_x^{\varepsilon}(s,y)=-{\varepsilon}^{-1}, \quad {\psi}_t^{\varepsilon}(s,y)+(e^{{-\lambda }s}k(s,y(s))+\Gamma){\psi}_x^{\varepsilon}(s,y)=0,
\end{align}
with $y(s) < y < y(s) +\epsilon.$ Then, it follows from \eqref{5.158} that
\begin{align}\label{5159}
&\int_{{y}(s)}^{{y}(s)+\varepsilon}({\psi}_t^{\varepsilon}(s,y)+(e^{{-\lambda }s}k(s,x(s))+\Gamma){\psi}_x^{\varepsilon}(s,y))^2dy\notag\\&={\varepsilon}^{-2}\int_{{y}(s)}^{{y}(s)+\varepsilon}(k(s,y)-{k(s,y(s))})^2dy\notag\\
&\leq{\varepsilon}^{-1}\Big(\max\limits_{y(s) < y < y(s) +\epsilon}|k(s,y)-{k(s,y(s))}|\Big)^2\notag\\&\leq {\varepsilon}^{-1}\Big(\int_{{y}(s)}^{{y}(s)+\varepsilon}|k(s,y)-{k(s,y(s))}|dy\Big)^2\notag\\
&\leq{\varepsilon}^{-{\frac{1}{2}}}({\varepsilon}^{{\frac{1}{2}}}\|k_x(s)\|_{H^{1}})^2\leq C\|k(s)\|_{H^{1}}.
\end{align}
Using \eqref{5.157} and \eqref{5159}, we obtain
\begin{align}\label{538}
\lim\limits_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0} \int_{\tau}^{t}\int_{{y}(s)}^{{y}(s)+\varepsilon}k_x[{\psi}_t^{\varepsilon}+(e^{{-\lambda }s}k+\Gamma){\psi}_x^{\varepsilon}](s,y)dyds=0.
\end{align}
The Cauchy-Schwartz inequality and \eqref{5.158} entail that
\begin{align}\label{539}
&\lim\limits_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0} (\int_{\tau-\varepsilon}^{t}+\int_{t}^{t+\varepsilon})\int_{{y}(s)}^{{y}(s)+\varepsilon}k_x[{\psi}_t^{\varepsilon}+(e^{{-\lambda }s}k+\Gamma){\psi}_x^{\varepsilon}](s,y)dyds\notag\\
&\leq\lim\limits_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0} (\int_{\tau-\varepsilon}^{t}+\int_{t}^{t+\varepsilon})\Big(\int_{{y}(s)}^{{y}(s)+\varepsilon}|k_x|^2dy\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}(\int_{{y}(s)}^{{y}(s)+\varepsilon}[{\psi}_t^{\varepsilon}+(e^{{-\lambda }s}k+\Gamma){\psi}_x^{\varepsilon}]^2dy\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}ds\notag\\
&\leq\lim\limits_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}2\epsilon\|k(s)\|_{H^{1}}\Big(\int_{{y}(s)}^{{y}(s)+\varepsilon}2{\epsilon}^{-2}\|k\|_{L^{\infty}}^2dy\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}\notag\\
&\leq \lim\limits_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}C{\epsilon}^{\frac{1}{2}}=0.
\end{align}
Combining \eqref{538}-\eqref{539}, we arrive at \eqref{537}.
\textbf{Step 6.} Using the uniqueness of $\beta(t,\xi),$ we can deduce that the uniqueness of $y(t,\xi).$
\end{proof}
The following lemma is to prove the Lipschitz continuity of $k$ with respect to $t$ under the Lagrange coordinates.
\begin{lemm}\label{l5.3}
Let $k = k(t, x)$ be a conservative solution to \eqref{k}. Then the map
$(t,\beta)\mapsto k(t,y(t,\beta))$ is Lipschitz continuous with a constant depending only on the
norm $\|\bar{k}\|_{H^1}.$
\end{lemm}
\begin{proof}
Combining \eqref{F} and \eqref{B}, we get
\begin{align*}
|k(t,y(t,\bar{\beta}))-k(\tau,\bar{\beta})|\leq& |k(t,y(t,\bar{\beta}))-k(t,y(t,{\beta}(t)))|+|k(t,y(t,{\beta}(t)))-k(\tau,y(\tau,{\beta}(\tau)))|\notag\\
\leq&\frac{1}{2}|{\beta}(t)-\bar{\beta}|+(t-\tau)\|P_x\|_{L^{\infty}}\notag\\
\leq& (t-\tau)(\frac{1}{2}\|F\|_{L^{\infty}}+\|P_x\|_{L^{\infty}}),
\end{align*}
which implies the map
$(t,\beta)\mapsto k(t,x(t,\beta))$ is Lipschitz continuous.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemm}
Let $k\in H^1(\mathbb{R})$ and define the convolution $P$ being as in \eqref{PP}. Then $P_x$ is absolutely continuous and satisfies
\begin{align}\label{p33}
P_{xx}=P-\Big(-H(k)+e^{-\lambda t}k^2+\frac {e^{{-\lambda }t}} {2}k_x^2\Big).
\end{align}
\end{lemm}
\begin{proof}
The function $\psi(s)=\frac{e^{-|x|}}{2}$ satisfies the distributional identity
$$D^2_x\psi=\psi-\delta_0.$$
Thanks to $\delta_0$ denotes a unit Dirac mass at the origin. Thus, for all function $f\in L^1(\mathbb{R}),$ the convolution satisfies
$$D^2_x(\psi \ast f)=\psi \ast f-f.$$
Choosing $f=-H(k)+e^{-\lambda t}k^2+\frac {e^{{-\lambda }t}} {2}k_x^2,$ we obtain the desired result.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of uniqueness}
We need to seek a good characteristic, and employ haw the gradient $k_x$ of a conservative solution varies along the good characteristic, and complete the proof of uniqueness.
\begin{proof}\textbf{Step 1.} Lemmas \ref{uniqueness}-\ref{l5.3} ensure that the map $(t,\xi)\mapsto (y,k)(t,\xi)$ and $\xi\mapsto F(t,\xi)$ are Lipschitz continuous. Thanks to Rademacher's theorem, the partial derivatives $y_t, y_{\xi}, k_t,k_{\xi}$ and $F_{\xi}$ exist almost everywhere. Moreover, $y(t,\xi)$
is the unique solution to (5.1), and the following holds.
$\textbf{(GC)}$ For a.e. $\xi$ and a.e. $t\geq0$, the point $(t,\beta(t,\bar{\beta}))$ is a Lebesgue point for the partial derivatives $y_t,y_{\xi},k_t,k_{\xi}$
and $F_{\xi}$. Moreover, $y_{\xi}(t,\xi)>0$ for $a.e. ~t\geq0.$
If $\textbf{(GC)}$ holds, then $t \rightarrow y(t,\xi)$ is a good characteristic.
\textbf{Step 2.} We now construct an ODE to describe that the quantities $k_{\xi}$ and $x_{\xi}$ vary along a good characteristic. Supposing that $t,~\tau\notin\mathcal{N},$ and $y(t,\xi)$ is a good characteristic, we then have
\begin{align*}
y(t,\beta(t,\xi))=\bar{y}(\xi)+\int_0^t(e^{-\lambda s}k(s,\beta(s,\xi))+\Gamma) ds.
\end{align*}
Differentiating the above equation with respect to $\xi$, we deduce that
\begin{align}\label{p35}
y_{\xi}=\bar{y}_{\xi}(\xi)+\int_0^tk_{\xi}(s,\xi)d\xi.
\end{align}
Likewise, we have
\begin{align}\label{p36}
k_{\xi}=\bar{k}_x(\bar{y}(\xi))\bar{y}_{\xi}-\int_0^t G_{\xi}(s,\xi)d\xi.
\end{align}
From \eqref{p35}-\eqref{p36}, we end up with
\begin{equation}\label{qp37}
\left\{\begin{aligned}
&y_{t\xi}=e^{-\lambda t}k_{\xi},\\
&k_{t\xi}=-G_{\xi}.
\end{aligned}\right.
\end{equation}
\textbf{Step 3.} We now return to the original coordinates $(t, x)$ and derive an evolution equation for the
partial derivative $k_x$ along a “good” characteristic curve.
For a fixed point $(t, x)$ with $t\notin \mathcal{N}$. Suppose
that $\bar{x}$ is a Lebesgue point for the map $x\rightarrow k_x(t, x)$, and $\xi$ satisfies $x = y(t, \xi),$ and suppose
that $t\rightarrow y(t,\xi)$ is a good characteristic, which implies $\textbf{(GC)}$ holds. From \eqref{yy} we have
\begin{align}\label{p38}
y_{\beta}(t,\beta)=\frac{1}{1+k^2_x(t,y)}>0,\ \beta(t,\xi)>0,
\end{align}
which implies that $y_{\xi}(t,\xi)>0.$
Hence, the partial derivative
$k_x$ can be calculated as shown below
\begin{align*}
k_x(t,y(t,\beta(t;\tau,\bar{\beta})))=\frac{k_{\xi}(t,y(t,\beta(t,{\xi})))}{y_{\xi}(t,\beta(t;\bar{\xi}))}.
\end{align*}
Applying \eqref{qp37} to describe the evolution of $k_{\xi}$ and $y_{\xi},$ we infer that the map $t\rightarrow k_x(t,y(t,\beta(t,{\xi})))$ is absolutely continuous. It follows that
\begin{align*}
\frac{d}{dt}k_x(t,y(t,\beta(t;\tau,{\xi})))&=\frac{d(\frac{k_{\xi}}{y_{\xi}})}{dt}=\frac{y_{\xi}F_{\xi}-e^{-\lambda t}{k_{\xi}}^2}{{y_{\xi}}^2}.
\end{align*}
Hence, we conclude that as long as $y_{\beta}\neq 0$, the map $t\rightarrow k_x$ is absolutely continuous.
\textbf{Step 4.} Let
\begin{align*}
&K(t,\xi)=k(t,y(t,\xi)),\quad V(t,\xi)=\frac{k_x^2\circ y}{1+k_x^2\circ y},\notag\\
&W(t,\xi)=\frac{k_x\circ y}{1+k_x^2\circ y},\quad Q(t,\xi)=({1+k_x^2\circ y})\cdot y_{\xi}.
\end{align*}
From which it follows that
\begin{equation}
\left\{\begin{aligned}
y_t&=e^{{-\lambda }t}K+\Gamma,\\
K_t&=-G,\\
V_t&=2W\Big(e^{{-\lambda }t}K^2(1-V)-H(K)(1-V)-\frac {e^{{-\lambda }t}} {2}V-{P}(1-V)\Big),\\
W_t&=(1-2V)\Big(e^{{-\lambda }t}K^2(1-V)-H(K)(1-V)-\frac {e^{{-\lambda }t}} {2}V-{P}(1-V)\Big),\\
Q_t&=2WQ\Big(\frac{e^{{-\lambda }t}}{2}+e^{{-\lambda }t}K^2-H(K)-{P}\Big).\\
\end{aligned} \right.\label{Ky1}
\end{equation}
For any $\xi\in \mathbb{R},$ we deduce that the following initial conditions
\begin{equation}
\left\{\begin{aligned}
\int_{0}^{\bar{y}}\bar{k}_x^2&dx+\bar{y}(\xi)=\xi,\\
\bar{K}(\xi)&=\bar{k}\circ \bar{y}(\xi),\\
\bar{V}(\xi)&=\frac{\bar{k}_x^2\circ \bar{y}}{1+\bar{k}_x^2\circ \bar{y}(\xi)},\\
\bar{W}(\xi)&=\frac{\bar{k}_x\circ \bar{y}(\xi)}{1+\bar{k}_x^2\circ \bar{y}(\xi)},\\
\bar{Q}(\xi)&=(1+\bar{k}_x^2\circ \bar{y})\bar{y}_{\xi}(\xi)=1.\\
\end{aligned}\right.\label{K01}
\end{equation}
Making use of all coefficients is Lipschitz continuous and the previous steps again, the system \eqref{Ky1}-\eqref{K01} has a unique globally solution.
\textbf{Step 5.} Let $k$ and $\tilde{k}$ be two conservative weak solution of \eqref{k} with the same
initial data $\bar{k}\in H^1(\mathbb{R})$
. For $a.e. ~t\geq0,$ the corresponding Lipschitz continuous maps $\xi \mapsto y(t,\xi), {\xi} \mapsto \tilde{y}(t,\beta)$ are
strictly increasing. Hence they have continuous inverses, say $x\mapsto{y}^{-1}(t,x),
x\mapsto{\tilde{y}}^{-1}(t,x)$.
Thus, we deduce that
$$y(t,\xi)=\tilde{y}(t,\xi),\ k(t,y(t,\xi))=\tilde{k}(t,{y}(t,\xi)).$$
Moreover, for $a.e.~ t\geq0$, we have
$$k(t,x)=k(t,y(t,\xi))=\tilde{k}(t,\tilde{y}(t,\xi))=\tilde{k}(t,x).$$
Then, we finish the proof of Theorem \ref{uniqueness}.
\end{proof}
\paragraph{Proof of Theorem \ref{th2.3}.} Theorem \ref{global k} and Theorem \ref{th2.4} ensure that the equation \eqref{k} has a unique globally conservative solution. $~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\square$
\noindent\textbf{Acknowledgements.}
This work was partially supported by NNSFC (Grant No. 12171493), the FDCT (Grant No. 0091/2018/A3), the Guangdong Special Support Program (Grant No.8-2015).
\smallskip
\addcontentsline{toc}{section}{\refname}
|
\section{Introduction}
Today's cryptosystems such as widely deployed RSA and elliptic curve-based schemes build upon the formulation of some intractable computational problems. They are able to offer only computational security within the limitations of conventional computing power. Recent advances in the quantum computing towards the so-called quantum supremacy have the potential to eventually break such classical cryptosytems \cite{1, 2}. Based on the firm laws of quantum mechanics rather than some unproven foundations of mathematical complexity, quantum cryptography provides a radically different solution for key distribution promising unconditional security \cite{3}.
The current literature on quantum key distribution (QKD) mainly focuses on fiber optic, atmospheric and satellite links \cite{4}. The increasing deployment of underwater sensor networks (USNs) particularly for harbour and maritime surveillance and protection as well as the need for secure underwater communication for military needs (e.g., submarine communication) have further prompted researchers to investigate underwater QKD \cite{5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14}. In particular, the quantum bit error rate (QBER) and secret key rate of well-known BB84 protocol were studied in \cite{8, 14}. The performance of other QKD protocols such as entanglement \cite{13} and decoy state \cite{6} were further investigated in underwater environments. In addition to these theoretical and simulation studies, experimental works were also conducted to demonstrate the feasibility of underwater QKD \cite{7, 10, 11, 12}.
The above experimental and theoretical studies point out that performance degradation due to absorption, scattering, and turbulence experienced in underwater channels severely limit the range of quantum communication links. In this paper, to overcome range limitations, we investigate relay-assisted underwater QKD where intermediate nodes help the key distribution between the source and destination nodes. While the concept of relay-assisted QKD was earlier studied for atmospheric, fiber and satellite links \cite{15, 16, 17}, it was not yet studied, to the best of our knowledge, for underwater quantum links.
In this paper, we consider a multi-hop underwater QKD system where relay nodes are utilized along the path connecting two legitimate parties. Unlike classical optical communication systems \cite{18}, amplify-and-forward and detect-and-forward relaying cannot be used in QKD since any type of measurement modifies the quantum state \cite{3}. To address this, we utilize passive relays \cite{17} which simply redirect the qubits to the next relay node or to the destination node without performing any measurement or detection process. Such relays can be implemented by adaptive optics \cite{19, 20, 21} to reconstruct the turbulence-degraded wave-front of the received beam and redirect the resulting collimated beam. Under the assumption of passive relays and based on a near-field analysis \cite{22} over underwater turbulence channels, we derive an upper bound on QBER. Based on this upper bound, we present the performance of underwater QKD in different atmospheric conditions (i.e., clear weather with full moon at night and heavy overcast when sun is near horizon) and different levels of turbulence strength. We further investigate the effect of detector field-of-view (FOV) and aperture size on the system performance.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section \ref{sys_model}, we describe our relay-assisted system model based on BB84 QKD protocol. In Section \ref{Per_anlz}, we derive an upper bound on the QBER of the system under consideration over underwater turbulence channels. In Section \ref{sim_res}, we present numerical results and finally, we conclude in Section \ref{concd}.
\section{System Model} \label{sys_model}
We consider a relay-assisted underwater QKD system with $K$ serial passive relay nodes over a link distance of $L$. As illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig:1}, Alice (transmitter) with a diameter size of $d$ is placed in $z = 0$ plane. Relay nodes and Bob (receiver) with the same diameter size of $d$ are located in the $z = L_i$. The consecutive nodes in the serial scheme are placed equidistant along the path from the source to the destination. Therefore, the length of each hop is equal to $l = {L \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {L {\left( {K + 1} \right)}}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {\left( {K + 1} \right)}}$.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{system_model.eps}
\caption{Underwater BB84 QKD system under consideration.}
\label{fig:1}
\end{figure}
The QKD system is built upon BB84 protocol \cite{23} which aims to create a secret key between the authorized partners (Alice and Bob) such that eavesdropper (Eve) fails to acquire meaningful information. BB84 protocol is based on the principle of polarization encoding. In this protocol, Alice prepares a qubit by choosing randomly between two linear polarization bases namely rectilinear (denoted by $\oplus$) or diagonal (denoted by $\otimes$) for every bit she wants to send. She selects a random bit value ``0" or ``1" and uses polarization encoding of photons where polarization of ${{0^\circ } \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{0^\circ } { - 45^\circ }}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} { - 45^\circ }}$ represents 0 and polarization of ${{ + 90^\circ } \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{ + 90^\circ } { + 45^\circ }}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} { + 45^\circ }}$ represents 1.
At the receiver side, Bob measures the arriving photon randomly in either $\oplus$ or $\otimes$ bases. Alice and Bob determine the secure key with respect to the received qubits at the ``sift" events. Sift events occurs at the bit intervals in which
exactly one of the single photon
detectors registers a count and both Alice and Bob have chosen the same basis.
Alice and Bob can recognize the sift events by transferring information over a public classical communication channel (in our case underwater optical channel). Based on the sifted qubits, a shared one-time pad key is created to use for secure communication \cite{24}.
Alice generates each qubit with an average photon number of ${n_S}$ which is encoded with the corresponding polarization state of the qubit for a randomly chosen basis. As a result of underwater path loss and turbulence, the $i^{th}$ relay ($i = 1, \ldots ,K$) collects only a random fraction ${\gamma_i}$ of the transmitted photons. Under the assumption of identical transmitter/receiver sizes and equidistant placement, we can simply write ${\gamma_1 = \gamma_2 = \ldots = \gamma_K = \gamma}$. The relay node forwards the captured photons to the next relay (or Bob) by redirecting the light beam and without any measurements. Therefore, Bob will collect an overall fraction ${\gamma _{Bob}} = {\gamma ^{K + 1}}$ of the originally transmitted photons from Alice.
In addition to the received photons from the source, receiver of each relay node will collect some background noise. The total average number of background photons per polarization at the $i^{th}$ relay can be therefore expressed as
\begin{equation}
{n_{{B_i}}} = {n_{B0}} + {n_{B0}}\gamma + {n_{B0}}{\gamma ^2} + \ldots + {n_{B0}}{\gamma ^{i - 1}}
\end{equation}
The accumulated background photons at Bob's receiver therefore becomes \cite{17}
\begin{equation}
{n_B} = {n_{B0}}\frac{{1 - {\gamma ^{K + 1}}}}{{1 - \gamma }}
\end{equation}
Beside background noise, each of Bob's detectors will collect dark current noise. Let $I_{dc}$ denotes the dark current count rate. The average number of dark counts is given by ${n_D = {I_{dc}}\Delta t}$. Thus, the average number of noise photons reaching each Bob's detector can be obtained by ${n_N} = {{{n_B}} \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{{n_B}} 2}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} 2} + {n_D}$. It should be noted that since the relays just redirect the photons, they do not increase the dark current.
\section{Performance Analysis}\label{Per_anlz}
In this section, we investigate the performance of the underwater QKD system through the derivation of an upper bound on QBER. QBER is the ratio of probabilities of sift and error which depend on the statistical characteristics of received fraction of transmitted photons $\gamma$. This can be expressed as ${\gamma = h\left( l \right)\hat \mu}$ where $h\left( l \right)$ is the deterministic path loss term and $\hat \mu$ is the random channel coefficient, also called as ``power transfer" in \cite{17}. This channel coefficient defines the probability of transmitted photon being reliably received considering the channel turbulence ($0 \le \hat \mu \le 1$) \cite{new25}.
As discussed in \cite{22}, finding a statistical description of $\hat \mu$ and therefore $\gamma$ is a formidable task and a closed-form expression is not available in the literature. As an alternative, an upper bound on QBER was presented in \cite{17} for a terrestrial relay-assisted QKD system using an upper bound on the noise count and based on \textit{average power transfer} defined as ${\mu \buildrel \Delta \over = {\mathop{\rm E}\nolimits} \left[ {\hat \mu } \right] }$.This is given by \cite[Eq. (28)]{17}, shown at the top of next page.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{equation}
{\rm{QBER}} \le \frac{{2\eta {{\hat n}_N}\exp \left[ { - \eta 4{{\hat n}_N}} \right]\left( {1 - {\mu ^{K + 1}} + \exp \left[ { - \eta {n_S}{h^{K + 1}}\left( l \right)} \right]{\mu ^{K + 1}}} \right)}}{{b\exp \left[ { - b} \right]\left( {1 - c} \right) + \left( {a + b} \right)\exp \left[ { - \left( {a + b} \right)} \right]c}}
\label{eq:3}
\end{equation}
\hrule
\end{figure*}
In (\ref{eq:3}), $\eta$ is the quantum efficiency of Geiger-mode avalanche photodiodes (APDs) and ${\hat n_N}$ is an upper bound on the noise count, i.e., ${n_N} \le {\hat n_N}$, whose derivation will be elaborated later. In (\ref{eq:3}), $a$, $b$ and $c$ are defined by
\begin{equation}
a = \eta \left[ {{n_S}{h^{K + 1}}\left( l \right) + 2{n_{B0}}\left( {\frac{{1 - {h^{K + 1}}\left( l \right)}}{{1 - h\left( l \right)}} - 1} \right)} \right]
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
b = \eta \left( {2{n_{B0}} + 4{n_D}} \right)
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
c = \frac{{{n_S}{{\left( {\mu h\left( l \right)} \right)}^{K + 1}} + 2{n_{B0}}\left( {\frac{{1 - {{\left( {\mu h\left( l \right)} \right)}^{K + 1}}}}{{1 - \mu h\left( l \right)}} - 1} \right)}}{{{n_S}{h^{K + 1}}\left( l \right) + 2{n_{B0}}\left( {\frac{{1 - {h^{K + 1}}\left( l \right)}}{{1 - h\left( l \right)}} - 1} \right)}}
\end{equation}
The calculation of $h\left( l \right)$, $\mu$ and ${\hat n_N}$ depends on the operation environment. In the following, we elaborate on their calculations for the underwater channel under consideration. The underwater path loss is a function of attenuation and geometrical losses. For collimated light sources, the geometrical loss is negligible; therefore, the path loss with a laser diode transmitter only depends on the attenuation loss. The attenuation loss is characterized by wavelength-dependent extinction coefficient $\varsigma$. Typical value of extinction coefficient for clear ocean can be found in Table \ref{table1} for $\lambda = 532$ nm \cite{25}. In our work, we utilize the modified version of Beer-Lambert formula proposed in \cite{26}, which takes into account the contribution of scattered lights. The underwater path loss for a transmission distance of $l$ can be expressed as
\begin{equation}
h\left( l \right) = \exp \left[ { - \varsigma l{{\left( {\frac{d}{{\theta l}}} \right)}^T}} \right]
\end{equation}
where $\theta$ is the full-width transmitter beam divergence angle and $T$ is a correction coefficient, \cite{26}.
The average power transfer for each hop (i.e., a distance of $l$ over turbulent path) can be expressed as \cite{22}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:8}
\mu \! =\!\!\frac{{8\sqrt F }}{\pi }\!\!\int\limits_0^1 \!{e^{(\frac{- W({dx,l})}{2})}
\!\left( {{{\cos }^{ - 1}}\left(\! x \right)\! -\! x\sqrt {1 - {x^2}} }\! \right)\!{J_1}\left( {4x\sqrt F } \right)\!dx}
\end{equation}
where $J_1 (\cdot)$ is the first-order Bessel function of the first kind and $F$ is the Fresnel number product of transmit and receive diameters given by ${F = {\left( {\pi {d^2}/4\lambda l} \right)^2}}$. In ({\ref{eq:8}}), $W (\cdot,\cdot)$ is the underwater wave structure function. For given transmission distance of $l$ and given separation distance between two points on the phase front transverse to the axis of propagation (denoted by $\rho$), it is given by \cite{14}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:9}
\begin{split}
W\left( {\rho ,l} \right) = & 1.44\pi {k^2}l\left( {\frac{{{\alpha ^2}\chi }}{{{\omega ^2}}}} \right){\varepsilon ^{ - \frac{1}{3}}}\left( {1.175\eta _K^{2/3}\rho + 0.419{\rho ^{\frac{5}{3}}}} \right)\times \\
& \left( {{\omega ^2} + {d_r} - \omega \left( {{d_r} + 1} \right)} \right)
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $k = {{2\pi } \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{2\pi } \lambda }} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} \lambda }$ is the wave number, $\omega$ is the relative strength of temperature and salinity fluctuations, $\varepsilon$ is the dissipation rate of turbulent kinetic energy per unit mass of fluid, $\alpha$ is the thermal expansion coefficient, $\chi$ is the dissipation rate of mean-squared temperature and ${d_r}$ is the eddy diffusivity ratio. In ({\ref{eq:9}}), ${\eta_K}$ is Kolmogorov microscale length and given by ${\eta_K} = {\left( {{{{\upsilon ^3}} \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{{\upsilon ^3}} \varepsilon }} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} \varepsilon }} \right)^{{1 \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {1 4}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} 4}}}$ with $\upsilon$ referring to the kinematic viscosity.
In an underwater environment, the primary source of noise is the refracted sunlight from the surface of the water. Let ${R_d}\left( {\lambda ,{z_d}} \right)$ denote the irradiance of the underwater environment as a function of wavelength and underwater depth. With respect to sea surface (i.e., ${z_d = 0}$), it can be written as ${R_d}\left( {\lambda ,{z_d}} \right) = {R_d}\left( {\lambda ,0} \right){e^{ - {K_\infty }{z_d}}}$ where ${K_\infty}$ is the asymptotic value of the spectral diffuse attenuation coefficient for spectral down-welling plane irradiance \cite{27}. The typical total irradiances at sea level, i.e., ${R_d}\left( {\lambda ,0} \right)$, in the visible wavelength band for some typical atmospheric conditions are provided in \cite{28}. The background photons per polarization on average can be then given by \cite{29}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:10}
{n_{B0}} = \frac{{\pi {R_d}A\Delta t'\lambda \Delta \lambda \left( {1 - \cos \left( \Omega \right)} \right)}}{{2{h_p}{c_0}}}
\end{equation}
where $A$ is the receiver aperture area, $\Omega$ is the FOV of the detector, ${h_p}$ is Planck's constant, $\Delta \lambda$ is the filter spectral width, $\Delta t$ is the bit period and $\Delta t'$ is the receiver gate time. Ignoring the effect of turbulence (i.e., $\hat \mu = 1$) on the redirected background photons coming from relays \cite{17}, an upper bound on the noise count at each of Bob's four detectors can be obtained as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:11}
{\hat n_N} = \frac{{{n_{B0}}}}{2}\left( {\frac{{1 - \exp \left[ { - \varsigma {L^{1 - T}}{{\left( {\frac{{d\left( {K + 1} \right)}}{\theta }} \right)}^T}} \right]}}{{1 - \exp \left[ { - \varsigma {{\left( {\frac{L}{{K + 1}}} \right)}^{1 - T}}{{\left( {\frac{d}{\theta }} \right)}^T}} \right]}}} \right) + {n_D}
\end{equation}
\textbf{Special case 1:} As a sanity check, consider ${K = 0}$ (i.e., no relay). Therefore, ${\hat n_N}$, $a$ and $c$ can be simplified as ${\hat n_N = {{{n_{B0}}} \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {{{n_{B0}}} 2}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} 2} + {n_D} = {b \mathord{\left/
{\vphantom {b {4\eta }}} \right.
\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {4\eta }}}$, $a = \eta {n_S}h\left( L \right)$ and $c = {\mu_L}$. Replacing these in ({\ref{eq:3}}) yields
\begin{equation}
{\rm{QBER}} \le \frac{{{{\hat n}_N}\left[ {1 \!- \!{\mu _L} + \!{\mu _L}{e^{ - \eta {n_S}h\left( L \right)}}} \right]}}{{\frac{{{n_S}{\mu _L}h\left( L \right)}}{2}{e^{ - \eta {n_S}h\left( L \right)}} \!+ \!2{{\hat n}_N}\!\left[ {1 \!- \!{\mu _L} + \!{\mu _L}{e^{ - \eta {n_S}h\left( L \right)}}} \right]}}
\end{equation}
where $h\left( L \right)$ and ${\mu _L}$ are respectively the path loss and the average power transfer for the length of line-of-sight link connecting Alice and Bob. It can be readily checked that this result coincides with \cite[Eq. (4)]{14} which was earlier reported for underwater QKD link.
\textbf{Special case 2:}
As another benchmark, we consider a QKD system operating over non-turbulent condition. The exact QBER of such a QKD system is given by \cite{22}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:13}
{\rm{QBE}}{{\rm{R}}_{non}} = \frac{{2{n_N}}}{{{n_S}{\mu _0}h\left( L \right) + 4{n_N}}}
\end{equation}
where ${\mu _0}$ is the largest eigenvalue of the singular value decomposition of vacuum-propagation Green’s function given in \cite{30}.
\section{Simulation Results}\label{sim_res}
In this section, we demonstrate the performance of relay-assisted underwater QKD scheme under consideration. We assume the transmitter beam divergence angle of $\theta = {6^ \circ }$, the dark current count rate of ${I_{dc}} = 60$ Hz, filter spectral width of $\Delta \lambda = 30$ nm, bit period of $\Delta t = 35$ ns, receiver gate time of $\Delta t' = 200$ ps, Geiger-Mode APD quantum efficiency of $\eta = 0.5$ and ${n_S} = 1$. Unless otherwise stated, we assume the transmitter and receiver aperture diameters of $d = 5$ cm, FOV of $\Omega = {180^ \circ }$ and clear atmospheric conditions at night with a full moon. We consider clear ocean as water type. As for channel parameters, we assume ${\alpha_{th} = 2.56\times10^{-4} \;\rm{1/deg}}$ and ${\upsilon = 1.0576\times 10^{-6} \;\rm{m^{2}s^{-1}}}$ \cite{31}. For turbulence model, we assume $\omega = -2.2$, ${\chi_T = 10^{-5} \;\rm{K^{2}s^{-3}}}$ and ${\varepsilon = 10^{-5} \;\rm{m^{2}s^{-3}}}$ which corresponds to strong oceanic turbulence \cite{32}. For the convenience of the reader, the channel and system parameters are summarized in Table \ref{table1}.
\begin{table}[ht]
\caption{System and channel parameters}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
\label{table1}
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.75}{
\begin{tabular}{ |l|l|l| }
\hline
\textbf{Parameter} & \textbf{Definition} & \textbf{Numerical Value} \\ \hline
$\Omega$ & \text{Field of view} & $180\degree$ \cite{26} \\ \hline
$\Delta \lambda$ & \text{Filter spectral width} & $30$ $\rm{nm}$ \cite{14} \\ \hline
$\lambda$ & \text{Wavelength} & $530$ $\rm{nm}$ \cite{26} \\ \hline
$\Delta t$ & \text{Bit period} & $35$ $\rm{ns}$ \cite{29} \\ \hline
$\Delta t\ensuremath{'}$ & \text{Receiver gate time} & $200$ $\rm{ps}$ \cite{29} \\ \hline
$d$ & \text{Aperture diameter} & $5$ $\rm{cm}$ \cite{22} \\ \hline
$\eta$ & \text{Quantum efficiency} & $0.5$ \cite{22} \\ \hline
$I_{dc}$ & \text{Dark current count rate} & $60$ $\rm{Hz}$ \cite{29} \\ \hline
$K_{\infty}$ & \text{Asymptotic diffuse attenuation coefficient} & $0.08$ $\rm{m^{-1}}$ \cite{27} \\ \hline
$z_d$ & \text{Depth} & $100$ $\rm{m}$ \cite{29} \\ \hline
$\theta$ & \text{Transmitter beam divergence angle} & $6\degree$ \cite{26} \\ \hline
$\varsigma$ & \text{Extinction coefficient for clear water} & $0.151$ $\rm{m^{-1}}$ \cite{25} \\\hline
$T$ & \text{Correction coefficient} \begin{tabular}{c|c} & $\theta = 6^\circ ,\,\,{d} = 5\,{\rm{cm}}$ \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, \\
& $\theta = 6^\circ ,\,\,{d} = 10\,{\rm{cm}}$\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, \\
& $\theta = 6^\circ ,\,\,{d} = 20\,{\rm{cm}}$ \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, \\
& $\theta = 6^\circ ,\,\,{d} = 30\,{\rm{cm}}$ \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,
\end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{l} \!\!\!\! $0.13$ \cite{26}\\
\!\!\!\! $0.16$ \cite{26}\\
\!\!\!\! $0.21$ \cite{26} \\
\!\!\!\! $0.26$ \cite{26} \end{tabular} \\\hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Fig. \ref{fig:2} illustrates the performance of QBER with respect to the total link distance for non-turbulent clear ocean. We assume $K = 1, 2$ relay nodes. The exact QBER for direct link, i.e. $K = 0$, based on (\ref{eq:13}) is also included as a benchmark. It can be observed from Fig. \ref{fig:2} that relaying fails to improve the QBER performance in non-turbulent channel conditions. The main reason for such behavior is that adding passive relay nodes leads to additional collected background noise at the receiver.
\begin{figure}[bht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{non_turbulent.eps}
\caption{The QBER of the relay-assisted QKD system for clear ocean with no turbulence at night time with a full moon for $K = 0, 1, 2$ relay nodes.}
\label{fig:2}
\end{figure}
In Fig. \ref{fig:3}, we now investigate the performance of relay-assisted QKD in the presence of turbulence. Specifically, we present the upper bound on QBER with respect to link distance based on (\ref{eq:3}) for clear ocean with strong turbulence. It can be observed that, unlike non-turbulent conditions, relaying now improves the QBER performance in the presence of turbulence. This is due to the fact that shorter hops mitigate the effect of turbulence-induced fading on the QBER performance. For instance, to achieve ${\rm{QBER}} \le 11\%$\footnote{It is generally accepted that for BB84 protocol is secure against a sophisticated quantum attack if QBER is less than 11\% \cite{33}. }, the achievable distance for direct link is $89$ m. It increases to $92$ m and $98$ m with $K = 1$ and $K = 2$ relay nodes, respectively.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{clear_strong.eps}
\caption{Effect of strong turbulence in clear ocean at night time with a full moon on QBER for $K = 0$, $1$, $2$ relay nodes.}
\label{fig:3}
\end{figure}
In Fig. \ref{fig:4}, we study the effect of FOV on the performance of relay-assisted underwater QKD system. Specifically, we present the achievable distance versus the number of relay nodes. As atmospheric conditions, we assume clear weather with full moon and heavy overcast when sun is near horizon. For FOV values, we have $\Omega = {10^ \circ}$, ${60^ \circ}$ and ${180^ \circ}$. It is observed that at night, the achievable distances are almost identical and independent of FOV values, i.e., all three plots overlap with each other. The maximum achievable distance is obtained as $102$ m when we employ four relay nodes. However, further increase in relay nodes does not improve the performance since, according to (\ref{eq:11}), increasing the number of relay nodes leads to an increase in the background noise redirected from relays to Bob’s receiver.
Benefit of choosing a proper value of FOV becomes clear as the environment irradiance increases. Our results demonstrate that the optimal number of relay (in the sense of maximizing the achievable distance) increases as the FOV decreases. As can be readily checked from (\ref{eq:10}), the effect of FOV on ${n_{B0}}$ is more pronounced at day time due to higher value of environment irradiance. Thus, increasing FOV results in increase of the background noise at each relay node and consequently, this increases the background noise redirected from relays to Bob’s receiver. For example, in daylight, the maximum achievable distance for $\Omega = {180^ \circ}$ is $57$ m which can be attained by employing one relay. On the other hand, the achievable distance for $\Omega = {60^ \circ}$ attains its maximum value with two relays while the maximum achievable distance for $\Omega = {10^ \circ}$ is obtained with three relay nodes.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{FOV.eps}
\caption{Achievable distance versus the number of relay for different FOV values.}
\label{fig:4}
\end{figure}
In Fig. \ref{fig:5}, we present the achievable distance versus the number of relay nodes for different aperture sizes. We assume clear weather with full moon. For aperture sizes, we consider $d = 5$, $10$, $20$ and $30$ cm. It is observed that as the diameter decreases the optimal number of relay node increases. For instance, the optimal number of relay nodes (in the sense of maximizing the achievable distance) for $d = 5$ and $10$ cm is four and two, respectively. However, it is observed that adding relay nodes fails to improve the achievable distance for $d = 20$ and $30$ cm, i.e. the direct communication (no relay case) outperforms the relay scheme. It is due to the fact that although larger diameter result in an increase of collected photons coming from Alice, this also increases the average number of background photons at Bob’s receiver.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{diameter.eps}
\caption{Achievable distance versus the number of relay for different aperture sizes.}
\label{fig:5}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}\label{concd}
In this paper, we have investigated the performance of relay assisted underwater QKD based on the BB84 protocol in the presence of turbulence. Our results have demonstrated that turbulence-induced fading can be mitigated by adding passive relay nodes which leads to an improvement in the achievable distance. Although relaying increases the average number of collected photons coming from Alice, it also results in an increase of the average number of background photons at Bob’s receiver. To investigate this trade-off, we have studied the effect of system parameters such as aperture size and FOV on the achievable distance and determined the optimal number of relay node (in the sense of maximizing the achievable distance). Our results show that the optimal number of relay increases as the FOV decreases and/or as the receive diameter decreases.
\balance
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Methods}
We aim to automatically localise a target of interest in radio by tapping into the common information radio and its paired vision capture about the physical world.
In fact, barring propagation nuances, radio imaging can be thought of as a low-resolution form of vision---Sec.~\ref{sec:radio-visual_analytic_relationship} in Appendix justifies this view using a 1st-order analytic analysis derived from first principles.
As such, jointly embedding radio and vision becomes not only a convenience, but is also naturally grounded in physics.
Therefore, we would hope that the joint embedding architecture would constitute a powerful representation for building a wide variety of radio-only or combined radio-visual perception tasks.
Concretely, our approach in this paper is to: (1) learn cross-modal spatial features via radio-visual correspondence, (2) extract self-estimates of target coordinates (i.e., pseudo labels) via cross-modal attention between the spatial features, and (3) use the self-coordinates to train a radio-only target localiser network. Fig.~\ref{fig:radio-visual_ssl} illustrates this three-step procedure.
In what follows, we explain further (1),~(2), and~(3).
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{./img/radio-visual_ssl}
\caption{Radio target localisation via self-supervised radio-visual correspondence.}
\label{fig:radio-visual_ssl}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Representation learning} \label{sec:representation_learning}
We employ a spatial flavour of contrastive learning we dub spatial contrastive learning (SCL) in order to self-localise targets in radio.
SCL is inspired by earlier pioneering audio-visual learning works~\cite{arandjelovic2018objects,arandjelovic2017look}, as well as more recent adaptations~\cite{afouras2020self,afouras2021self,windsor2021self}.
We begin by formalising SCL.
\noindent \textbf{Spatial contrastive learning (SCL).} \label{sec:scl}
Let $(r, v)$ be a radio-visual data pair, where $r \in \mathbb{R}^{1 \times H \times W}$ is a radar heatmap and $v \in \mathbb{R}^{3 \times H \times W}$ is a corresponding RGB image.
Encode, respectively, radio and vision by two backbone neural networks $f_{\theta^r}$ and $f_{\theta^v}$, assuming some weight parametrisation $\{\theta^r, \theta^v\}$.
Each backbone network encodes per bin one $C$-dimensional feature vector within 2-dimensional spatial bins, i.e., $f_{\theta^r}(r), f_{\theta^v}(v) \in \mathbb{R}^{C \times h \times w}$.
The spatial binning resolution $h \times w$ is generally coarser than the original image resolution $H \times W$.
Denote by $f^{r}_{n}(r), f^{v}_{n}(v) \in \mathbb{R}^{C}$ radio and vision spatial encodings at bin $n \in \Omega = \{1, \dots, h\} \times \{1, \dots, w\}$.
Construct a target mask $\gamma \coloneqq [ \gamma_{ij} ] \in [0, 1]^{H \times W}$ such that $f^{\tilde{v}}_{m}(\gamma \odot v) \in \mathbb{R}^{C}$ is defined for $m \in \tilde{\Omega} = \{1, \dots, \tilde{h}\} \times \{1, \dots, \tilde{w}\}$ to retain encodings for the target of interest only in the RGB image (e.g., as delineated by a bounding box), where $\odot$ is the element-wise product and $\tilde{\Omega} \subset \Omega$ is a subset of spatial locations.
In practice, the target mask can either be (1) estimated using off-the-shelf vision object detectors such as Yolo~\cite{redmon2016you,glenn_jocher_2021_5563715}, or (2) obtained directly as groundtruth during data synthesis.
The visual spatial encodings of the masked target $f^{\tilde{v}}_{m}(\gamma \odot v)$ can be correlated against the radio spatial encodings covering of the entire sensing scene $f^{r}_n(r)$ in order to produce an attention map
\begin{align}
h_n(r, v) &= \texttt{conv2d} \big( f^{r}_n(r), f^{\tilde{v}}_{m}(\gamma \odot v) \big), \hspace{0.25cm} n \in \Omega, m \in \tilde{\Omega}
\label{eq:2d_attention}
\end{align}
with appropriate padding.
To measure best cross-modal regional agreement, the attention map is maximised over spatial bins
\begin{align}
S(r, v) = \underset{n \in \Omega}{\max} \; h_n(r, v)
\label{eq:max_2d_attention}
\end{align}
Spatial cross-modal contrastive losses can then be implemented in a batch $\mathcal{B}$ for all radio-visual pairs $(r, v) \in \mathcal{B}$ according to
\begin{align}
\mathcal{L}_a^{v \rightarrow r}(\mathcal{B}) &= - \underset{\mathcal{B}}{\mathbb{E}} \; \log \frac{ \exp{\big( S(r, v)/\tau \big)} }{ \sum\limits_{ i \in \mathcal{B} } \exp{\big( S(r, v_i)/\tau \big)} }, \hspace{0.25cm}
\mathcal{L}_a^{r \rightarrow v}(\mathcal{B}) = - \underset{\mathcal{B}}{\mathbb{E}} \; \log \frac{ \exp{\big( S(r, v)/\tau \big)} }{ \sum\limits_{ i \in \mathcal{B} } \exp{\big( S(r_i, v)/\tau \big)} }
\label{eq:x-modal_spatial_contrastive_loss}
\end{align}
where the one-sided loss $\mathcal{L}_a^{v \rightarrow r}$ tests for vision-to-radio correspondence, similarly $\mathcal{L}_a^{r \rightarrow v}$ tests for radio-to-vision, and $\tau$ is a temperature hyper-parameter.
The bidirectional contrastive loss that incentivises cross-modal spatial attention becomes
\begin{align}
\mathcal{L}_{\text{SCL}} &= ( \mathcal{L}_a^{v \rightarrow r} + \mathcal{L}_a^{r \rightarrow v} )/2
\end{align}
\subsection{Target self-estimation}
Once the backbone networks are learned and their spatial features are stable, we can use cross-modal attention maximisation (cf., Eqs.~\ref{eq:2d_attention}~\&~\ref{eq:max_2d_attention}) to self-generate target coordinate estimates.
This self-labelling is inherently noisy, but remarkably powerful.
Particularly, a downstream localiser network is able to smooth these self-estimates when trained over a sufficiently large number of data points---as determined by the mutual information with perfect coordinates~\cite{guan2018said}.
\noindent \textbf{Rescaling and calibration.} Target coordinate estimates are obtained in the spatial feature grid $h \times w$.
We rescale to bring back to original grid $H \times W$, and perform one-off calibration for systematic offsets on entire dataset.
\subsection{Localiser network} \label{sec:loc_net}
We construct the dataset $(r, \hat{y}) \in \mathcal{D}_{\text{loc}}$ from tuples of radio heatmaps $r$ and their target self-labels $\hat{y}$.
The localiser network is trained to regress $\hat{y}$ from $r$ using a mean squared error (MSE) loss.
\section{Introduction} \label{sec:intro}
Sixth-generation (6G) wireless networks are being designed from the ground up to support sensing at the physical layer~\cite{wild2021joint}.
Such a brand new capability in 6G networks marks a departure from communication-only functions, and aims to supply applications with sensing primitives atop a unified communication-perception infrastructure.
Concretely, dense cellular deployments in urban settings (e.g., per lamppost) would allow for unprecedented radio coverage, enabling a multitude of challenging perception tasks.
Examples include around-the-corner obstacle detection in support of autonomous driving and pedestrian and drone localisation, to name a few~\cite{bourdoux20206g}.
Training perception models for radio signals is a key challenge for network infrastructure vendors.
Unlike vision and audio, radio signals are hard to label manually because they are not human interpretable.
Typically, sparse radio signals have been paired with a groundtruth vision modality for reliable semantic and qualitative filtration via a cross-modal annotation flow~\cite{wang2021rodnet,zhao2018through,li2019making,fan2020learning}.
Recently, this radio-visual pairing has been shown to work in a self-supervised fashion~\cite{alloulah2021self}, building on a wave of progress in vision self-supervised learning (SSL)~\cite{chen2020simple,he2020momentum,grill2020bootstrap,zbontar2021barlow,noroozi2016unsupervised,zhang2016colorful,gidaris2018unsupervised,oord2018representation,caron2020unsupervised,henaff2020data,bardes2021vicreg,goyal2022vision}.
Computer vision has traditionally benefited from synthetic datasets for: (a) content augmentation for enhanced generalisability~\cite{krahenbuhl2018free,yao2020simulating}, or (b) closing the learning loop on out-of-distribution failure modes~\cite{risi2020increasing}, e.g., in the context of autonomous driving~\cite{TeslaAIDay21_Simulation}.
Extrapolating from vision, it is also likely that synthetic data will play an important role towards realising robust radio sensing.
However, radio perception tasks have yet to benefit from such publicly-available datasets.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics{./tikz_comp/manuscript_neurips22-figure0}
\caption{We train a radio localisation network by using commonalities with vision to drive spatial attention. Without laborious manual annotations, we learn to suppress clutter and localise targets in radio heatmaps.}
\label{fig:abstractoverview}
\end{figure}
In this work we aim to support next-gen 6G perception tasks, while championing a self-supervised radio-visual learning approach.
Concretely, Fig.~\ref{fig:abstractoverview} captures the crux of our new machine learning proposition for radio sensing.
We demonstrate how to automatically extract radio self-labels through cross-modal learning with vision.
Such self-labels are then used to train a downstream localiser network.
We show that our self-supervised localiser network enhances estimation in the radio domain compared to state-of-the-art.
To this end, we contribute two new radio-visual artefacts.
\begin{itemize}
\item A synthetic dataset: We curate and synthesise radio-visual data for a new learning task designed for target detection and localisation in radio.
\item A cross-modal SSL algorithm: We formulate a contrastive radio-visual objective for label-free radio localisation.
\end{itemize}
We discuss our dataset and algorithmic findings to galvanise machine learners' interest in radio-visual learning research.
We hope to both facilitate and inform future research on this new cross-modal learning paradigm.
\section{Contrastive learning background \& definitions} \label{sec:cl_background}
\noindent \textbf{Contrastive learning (CL).}
Let $(r, v)$ be a radio-visual data pair, where $r \in \mathbb{R}^{1 \times H \times W}$ is a radar heatmap and $v \in \mathbb{R}^{3 \times H \times W}$ is a corresponding RGB image.
Encode, respectively, radio and vision by two neural networks $f_{\theta^r}$ and $f_{\theta^v}$ and their momentum-filtered versions $f_{\bar{\theta}^r}$ and $f_{\bar{\theta}^v}$, assuming some weight parametrisation $\{\theta^r, \theta^v\}$.
Additionally, use projector heads $g_{\theta^r}$ and $g_{\theta^v}$ respectively, such that
\begin{align}
q^r = g_{\theta^r}(f_{\theta^r}(r)), \hspace{0.25cm} k^v = g_{\theta^v}(f_{\bar{\theta}^v}(v)), \hspace{0.25cm}
q^v = g_{\theta^v}(f_{\theta^v}(v)), \hspace{0.25cm} k^r = g_{\theta^r}(f_{\bar{\theta}^r}(r))
\label{eq:x-modal_encoders}
\end{align}
where vectors $q^r, q^v, k^v, k^r \in \mathbb{R}^{N}$, superscripts $r$ and $v$ denote respectively radio and vision, and following MoCo's query $q$ and key $k$ notation~\cite{he2020momentum}.
With each $r$, use $K+1$ samples of $v$ of which one sample $v^{+}$ is a true match to $r$ and $K$ samples $\{v_{i}^{-}\}_{i=0}^{K-1}$ are false matches---vice versa with each $v$, $K+1$ samples of $r$.
The one-sided cross-modal contrastive losses that test for vision-to-radio and radio-to-vision correspondences are
\begin{align}
\mathcal{L}_c^{v \rightarrow r}(q^r, k^{v+}, \mathbf{k}^{v-}) &= - \underset{r,v}{\mathbb{E}} \log \frac{ \exp{( q^r {\cdot} k^{v+} /\tau )} }{ \exp{( q^r {\cdot} k^{v+} /\tau )} +\sum\limits_{ i } \exp{( q^r {\cdot} k_{i}^{v-} /\tau )} } \notag \\
\mathcal{L}_c^{r \rightarrow v}(q^v, k^{r+}, \mathbf{k}^{r-}) &= - \underset{r,v}{\mathbb{E}} \log \frac{ \exp{( q^v {\cdot} k^{r+} /\tau )} }{ \exp{( q^v {\cdot} k^{r+} /\tau )} +\sum\limits_{ i } \exp{( q^v {\cdot} k_{i}^{r-} /\tau )} }
\label{eq:x-modal_contrastive_loss}
\end{align}
where $\cdot$ is the dot product, $k^{x+/-} = g_{\theta^x}(f_{\bar{\theta}^x}(x^{+/-}))$ are encodings that denote true and false corresponding signals $x \in [r, v]$ , vector $\mathbf{k}^{x-} = \{k_{i}^{x-}\}_{i=0}^{K-1}$ holds $K$ false encodings, and $\tau$ is a temperature hyper-parameter.
Then the bidirectional cross-modal contrastive loss is
\begin{align}
\mathcal{L}_{\text{CL}} &= ( \mathcal{L}_c^{v \rightarrow r} + \mathcal{L}_c^{r \rightarrow v} )/2
\label{eq:con_loss}
\end{align}
\noindent \textbf{Masked contrastive learning (MCL).}
The projector heads $g_{\theta^r}$ and $g_{\theta^v}$ are MLPs that collapse the spatial encodings of the backbone networks $f_{\theta^r}$ and $f_{\theta^v}$ onto vector representations.
Each backbone network encodes per bin one $C$-dimensional feature vector within 2-dimensional spatial bins, i.e., $f_{\theta^r}(r), f_{\theta^v}(v) \in \mathbb{R}^{C \times h \times w}$.
The spatial binning resolution $h \times w$ is generally coarser than the original image resolution $H \times W$.
Denote by $f^{r}_{n}(r), f^{v}_{n}(v) \in \mathbb{R}^{C}$ radio and vision spatial encodings at bin $n \in \Omega = \{1, \dots, h\} \times \{1, \dots, w\}$.
Construct a target mask $\gamma \coloneqq [ \gamma_{ij} ] \in [0, 1]^{H \times W}$ such that $f^{\tilde{v}}_{m}(\gamma \odot v) \in \mathbb{R}^{C}$ is defined for $m \in \tilde{\Omega} = \{1, \dots, \tilde{h}\} \times \{1, \dots, \tilde{w}\}$ to retain encodings for the target of interest only in the RGB image (e.g., as delineated by a bounding box), where $\odot$ is the element-wise product and $\tilde{\Omega} \subset \Omega$ is a subset of spatial locations.
In practice, the target mask can either be (1) estimated using off-the-shelf vision object detectors such as Yolo~\cite{redmon2016you,glenn_jocher_2021_5563715}, or (2) obtained directly as groundtruth during data synthesis.
We can define contrastive losses to test for masked vision-to-radio and radio-to-masked vision correspondences, similar to Eq.~\ref{eq:x-modal_contrastive_loss}.
Using superscript $\tilde{v}$ to denote masking in vision, then the bidirectional cross-modal contrastive loss with target masking becomes
\begin{align}
\mathcal{L}_{\text{MCL}} &= ( \mathcal{L}_c^{\tilde{v} \rightarrow r} + \mathcal{L}_c^{r \rightarrow \tilde{v}} )/2
\end{align}
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we present a new radio-visual learning task for emerging 6G cellular networks.
The task tackles the problem of accurate target localisation in radio, employing a novel learning paradigm that works by simply ingesting large quantities of paired radio-visual data.
This is in stark opposition to supervised and/or classic statistical methods whose success hinges on laborious labelling and/or modelling of empirical measurements, which are expensive to scale.
Our novel target localisation paradigm is made possible by a new dataset and benchmark intended to foster future research on radio sensing for next generation cellular systems. %
\noindent \textbf{Limitations.}
We note that radio sensing capabilities are fundamentally set by the choice of configurations in Tab.~\ref{tab:radio_params}.
We have opted to base this somewhat conservative choice on 5G Advanced specifications~\cite{kim2019new} in order to inform cellular stakeholder discussions.
We would, however, note that much improved radio sensing performance can be attained through increased bandwidth and/or denser antenna arrays, such as in Terahertz or even higher Millimeter-wave bands~\cite{elkhouly2022fully,shahramian2019fully}.
We would refine our dataset and results in light of future consensus on 6G sensing specifications.
\noindent \textbf{Broader impact.}
Our work has a broader societal impact in that it has the potential to alleviate some of risks associated with the surveillance economy.
Specifically, once trained and deployed, our radio sensing system offers a scalable alternative to pervasive vision surveillance that is inherently privacy-preserving---both at the individual and societal levels---while achieving many of the sought-after safety and security benefits.
\section{Dataset} \label{sec:dataset}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics{./tikz_comp/manuscript_neurips22-figure1}
\vspace{-0.15cm}
\caption{Block diagram of~MaxRay.}
\label{fig:framework}
\end{figure}
Our radio-visual dataset is created using~MaxRay~\cite{arnold2022maxray}---a ray tracing tool for accurate radio propagation simulations.
MaxRay also incorporates the open-source Blender engine for creating photo-realistic environments~\cite{Blender_sw}.
As such, we can model arbitrarily complex environments and synthesise paired responses in the vision and radio domains.
Fig.~\ref{fig:framework} depicts the tool block diagram.
A Blender scenario and a configuration file (containing radio parameters such as carrier frequency and bandwidth) are inputted to~MaxRay.
MaxRay~uses Python APIs to render responses for a variety of imaging sensors (e.g., camera, Lidar, depth images) along with their labels.
The rendering and label quality allow us to train an off-the-shelf Yolo v5 models~\cite{glenn_jocher_2021_5563715} from scratch.
The core of~MaxRay~leverages the ray casting capability of Blender to simulate complex radio phenomena (e.g., scattering and reflection) and calculate their propagation losses.
These propagation losses are then used to create channel state information (CSI), which is in turn converted to radar heatmaps according to an orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) signalling architecture.
Note that when generating scenarios, objects are randomised and manipulated in Blender via Python APIs directly.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics{./tikz_comp/manuscript_neurips22-figure2}
\vspace{-0.35cm}
\caption{Example radio-visual radio-image pairs of three different scenarios: parking lot (left), suburban (middle), and street canyon (right)}
\label{fig:example_radio-visual_pairs}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Radio parameters used for data synthesis.}
\label{tab:radio_params}
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{c}{RX array dimensions} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Bandwidth} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Carrier} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Range-Azimuth Bins} \\
\cmidrule(lr){1-4}
16 $\times$ 16 & 800MHz & 28GHz & 480 $\times$ 640 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Paired entries in ~MaxRay. AoA: angle-of-arrival, AoD: angle-of-departure}
\label{tab:dataset}
\begin{tabular}{lll}
\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{c}{Entry} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Data type} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Label} \\
\cmidrule(lr){1-3}
Camera & Image & bounding box + class \\
Lidar & Tensor & per point material + class \\
Depth & Image & bounding box + class \\
Radar & Image & bounding box (center) + reflectors + class \\
CSI & Tensor & reflectors + paths AoA/AoD \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
The current version of the dataset supports the sensor configurations listed in Tab.~\ref{tab:dataset}.
All available sensors are paired and synchronised per data point, facilitating cross-modal learning.
Tab.~\ref{tab:radio_params} lists the radio configurations used in dataset, which comply with current 5G Advanced specifications~\cite{kim2019new}.
Further, the dataset has sequences of 15 data points that allow for time series modelling.
The full version of the dataset has 3 scenarios: a parking lot, a suburban street, and a street canyon.
Fig.~\ref{fig:example_radio-visual_pairs} depicts one example per scenario.
In parking lot, one car is driven from left to right or right to left.
In suburban, one car drives along the house towards the camera or away from it.
The same holds for the street canyon scenario.
Note how radio heatmaps have different ranges, as well as different amount of spurious clutter.
For instance, parking lot has dynamic background clutter arising from changes in the location and pose of stationary cars across data points.
Groundtruth information is supplied in the form of bounding boxes for vision and target coordinates for radar.
In the terms of data diversity, there are 50 different cars, background and foreground randomised throughout the dataset.
There are also portions of data that model mixed weather scenarios such as rain, snow, fog, and dust.
Phase 1 of dataset release focuses on the parking lot scenario only.
For the remainder of this paper, we use parking lot with radar and camera entries.
Specifically, parking lot has 30,000 paired radio-visual data points, split into 24k training and 6k validation sets.
An additional 10k set is withheld for testing.
All our results are reported on the 6k validation set.
\section{Results} \label{sec:results}
Having described our benchmarking setup in Sec.~\ref{sec:experiments}, we turn next to discussing results.
All results are computed on 6k data points of validation set.
We further conduct an ablation study of SCL against more common contrastive architectures in order to concretely understand the benefit of spatial contrast.
\subsection{Localisation}
We examine the overall performance of our SCL-based self-labelled localiser network and compare it against that fully supervised baseline and statistical baselines.
The self-labelled network and supervised baseline share identical architecture and training configurations.
We denote the statistical baseline by \ac{CFAR}.
Tab.~\ref{tab:loc_perf_summary} summarises the performance in terms of $50$th $\%$ile and $90$th $\%$ile localisation errors.
Not surprisingly, the fully-supervised network performs most favourably with around 30cm median error and under 1m at $90$th $\%$ile.
SCL comes second with approx. 1.5m and 3.5m errors, respectively.
This is remarkable given that SCL has automatically learned how to localise targets by simply observing paired radio-visual data.
Statistical \ac{CFAR} performs worst with roughly 1.8$\times$ SCL's median error and 2.3$\times$ SCL's $90$th $\%$ile error.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Performance of various methods: Supervised, SCL, and CFAR.}
\begin{tabular}{lll}
\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{c}{Method} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Perf. (error in m)} \\
\cmidrule(lr){2-3}
\; & $50$th $\%$ile & $90$th $\%$ile \\
\midrule
Supervised & 0.289 $\pm$ 0.017 & 0.922 $\pm$ 0.042 \\
SCL & 1.571 $\pm$ 0.050 & 3.539 $\pm$ 0.062 \\
CFAR & 2.709 & 8.062 \\
\bottomrule
\label{tab:loc_perf_summary}
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{Spatial contrast versus projector contrast} \label{sec:scl_vs_cl}
SCL has appeared in multiple recent works that use 2-D backbone modelling~\cite{afouras2020self,afouras2021self,windsor2021self}.
However, the majority of SSL works dealing with image classification use 1-D feature vector backbones proceeded by projector heads where the actual contrastive loss is computed~\cite{chen2020simple}.
In this section, we investigate the performance of model variants with 2-D backbones similar to SCL; however, with contrastive learning implemented using a projector head that collapses the spatial encodings into a 1-D feature vector.
Specifically, we implement two methods: (1) vanilla contrastive learning (CL), and (2) masked contrastive learning (MCL) whereby the visual image is first multiplied by a mask as to only retain the target of interest before performing radio-visual CL.
For formal definitions of CL \& MCL in the radio-visual setting, the reader is directed to Sec.~\ref{sec:cl_background}.
Once CL \& MCL are trained, we derive self-labels in similar fashion to SCL using Eqs.~\ref{eq:2d_attention}~\&~\ref{eq:max_2d_attention} and then train respective localiser networks.
We ask: \emph{What role does the spatial attention loss play during learning and could it be absorbed by the projector head?}
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Backbone training configurations. CL: contrastive, MCL: masked contrastive, SCL: spatial contrastive}
\begin{tabular}{lrr}
\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{c}{Configuration} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Perf. (error in m)} \\
\cmidrule(lr){2-3}
Backbone & $50$th $\%$ile & $90$th $\%$ile \\
\midrule
SCL & 1.571 $\pm$ 0.050 & 3.539 $\pm$ 0.062 \\
MCL & 0.942 $\pm$ 0.016 & 4.681 $\pm$ 0.158 \\
CL & 3.111 $\pm$ 0.358 & 17.498$\pm$ 0.317 \\
\bottomrule
\label{tab:loc_perf_backbone_configs}
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
Tab.~\ref{tab:loc_perf_backbone_configs} analyses the performance of the three backbone configurations.
We note that vanilla CL performs poorly with 3.1m and 17.5m errors, respectively at the $50$th and $90$th $\%$iles.
We attribute the high localisation errors to the lack of target sensitivity of CL during training.
MCL, on the other hand, is trained to attend to targets through masking and exhibits a $50$th $\%$ile error of 0.94m, interestingly 1/3rd better than SCL.
A closer look at MCL's $90$th $\%$ile error at 4.6m reveals that it is also around 1.3$\times$ ``lazier'' than SCL at tracking higher $\%$ile targets.
We conjecture that SCL is spatially more sound as it is able to better deal with targets that are likely to correspond to harder cases.
Finally, we note that SCL is computationally much more efficient than CL and MCL since it does not rely on the 2-layer MLP projector.
Projector heads tend to be rather large in parameter size.
Fig~\ref{fig:perf_cdfs} depicts the full error cumulative density functions (CDFs) of all methods: CFAR, supervised, SCL, and MCL.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics{./tikz_comp/manuscript_neurips22-figure3}
\caption{Localisation error CDFs of methods: CFAR, supervised, SCL, and MCL}
\label{fig:perf_cdfs}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Label density analysis} \label{sec:label_analysis}
Using our 24k training set, we sweep the amount of labels and self-labels used to train the localiser networks of supervised, SCL, and MCL.
Then we evaluate on the validation set to gauge the localisation performance sensitivity to the amount of available training (self-)labels.
We cover the training points in logarithmic steps.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics{./tikz_comp/manuscript_neurips22-figure4}
\caption{Effect of number of training labels on localisation performance for supervised, SCL, and MCL.}
\label{fig:label_density}
\end{figure}
With the noisy labels of SCL and MCL, it can be shown that the localiser networks learn to compensate for such noise by using sufficiently large number of data points~\cite{guan2018said}.
The number of required data points is a function of the mutual information between noisy target coordinates and perfect coordinates~\cite{guan2018said}.
Fig.~\ref{fig:label_density} examines this effect for supervised as a reference baseline, and SCL and MCL.
We observe that SCL has a better label density tolerance than MCL w.r.t. the $90$th $\%$ile performance.
The opposite holds true at the $50$th $\%$ile performance, i.e, MCL is better than SCL.
This finding mirrors the localisation error analysis of~Fig.~\ref{fig:perf_cdfs} and is in line with our earlier conjecture;
SCL seems to cope better with corner cases than MCL, while MCL seems to be a better self-localiser of the bulk of the distribution of the validation set.
\section{In-depth NNI explanation} \label{sec:nni_appendix}
\ac{NNI} is an \ac{AutoML} tool allowing to chose different types of optimizing parameters. We show the different kind of optimization parameters we consider in the table \ref{tab:NNIparameter}.
\begin{table}[H]\tiny
\caption{NNI optimization parameters}
\label{tab:NNIparameter}
\begin{tabular}{lllll}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{Parameter} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{Explanation} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{Selection} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{Values} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{Best Net chosen} \\ \hline
lr & Learning rate & Choice & 0.0001, 0.001, 0.01 & 0.001 \\
momentum & Momentum for optimizer & Uniform & 0.8,...,1 & 0.948985588 \\
act\_func & Activation function of conv layer & Choice & "ReLU", "LeakyReLU", "Sigmoid", "Tanh", "Softplus" & ReLU \\
optimizer & Optimizer type & Choice & "SGD", "Adam" & Adam \\
loss\_func & Loss function for training only & Choice & "MSE", "L1" & MSE \\
c1\_size & Convolutional kernels of Layer x & Choice & 4,8,16,32,64 & 8 \\
c2\_size & Convolutional kernels of Layer x & Choice & 4,8,16,32,64 & 16 \\
c3\_size & Convolutional kernels of Layer x & Choice & 4,8,16,32,64 & 8 \\
c4\_size & Convolutional kernels of Layer x & Choice & 4,8,16,32,64 & 32 \\
k1\_size & Kernel size of c1 layer & Choice & 2, 3, 4 & 4 \\
k2\_size & Kernel size of c2 layer & Choice & 2, 3, 4 & 3 \\
k3\_size & Kernel size of c3 layer & Choice & 2, 3, 4 & 2 \\
k4\_size & Kernel size of c4 layer & Choice & 2, 3, 4 & 4 \\
s1\_size & Stride of c1 layer & Choice & 1,2 & 2 \\
s2\_size & Stride of c2 layer & Choice & 1,2 & 2 \\
s3\_size & Stride of c3 layer & Choice & 1,2 & 2 \\
s4\_size & Stride of c4 layer & Choice & 1,2 & 1 \\
lin1\_size & Linear layer 1 & Choice & 128,256,512 & 128 \\
lin2\_size & Linear layer 2 & Choice & 16, 32, 64, 128, 256 & 16 \\
lin3\_size & Linear layer 3 & Choice & 16, 32, 64, 128, 256 & 64 \\
lin4\_size & Linear layer 4 & Choice & 64, 182, 256 & 64
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
The best \ac{NN} parameters are shown in the right column in \ref{tab:NNIparameter}.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{img/nni_model}
\caption{\ac{NN} structure}
\label{fig:NNsupervisedStructure}
\end{figure}
Fig.~\ref{fig:NNsupervisedStructure} shows the effective structure of the supervised \ac{NN}.
\section{Datasheet} \label{sec:datasheet}
We document in Tab.~\ref{tab:dataset_datasheet} various aspects of our radio-visual dataset according to the specifications stipulated in~\cite{gebru2021datasheets}.
\begin{scriptsize}
\begin{longtable}{QA}
\caption{Dataset datasheet}
\label{tab:dataset_datasheet}
\endfirsthead
\toprule
\multicolumn{2}{c}{Cont. Tab.~\ref{tab:dataset_datasheet}}\\
\endhead
\cmidrule(lr){1-2}
\multicolumn{2}{c}{End Tab.~\ref{tab:dataset_datasheet}}\\
\bottomrule
\endlastfoot
\toprule
\multicolumn{2}{c}{Motivation} \\
\cmidrule(lr){1-2}
For what purpose was the dataset created?
& To facilitate radio-visual SSL research for 6G sensing \\
Who created the dataset and on behalf of which entity?
& Bell Labs Core Research (BLCR) on behalf of Nokia \\
Who funded the creation of the dataset?
& Nokia \\
\cmidrule(lr){1-2}
\multicolumn{2}{c}{Composition} \\
\cmidrule(lr){1-2}
What do the instances that comprise the dataset represent?
& heatmap-image pairs sampled from 3 scenarios \\
How many instances are there in total?
& 30,000 labelled for parking lot 10,000 labeled for suburban and 10,000 labeled for canyon \\
Does the dataset contain all possible instances or is it a sample of instances from a larger set?
& All \\
What data does each instance consist of?
& Radio heatmaps are range-azimuth description of the environment and RGB images are their visual pairs \\
Is there a label or target associated with each instance?
& For labelled set, object groundtruth coordinates for radio and scenario label. For the larger unlabelled set, no labels. \\
Is any information missing from individual instances?
& No \\
Are relationships between individual instances made explicit?
& Only correspondence between a radio-visual pair \\
Are there recommended data splits?
& For labelled set, 80:20 train-test split for downstream regression \\
Are there any errors, sources of noise, or redundancies in the dataset?
& Not at the data instance level; It is a synthetic dataset. At the radio signal level, high-fidelity propagation modelling captures non-trivial sources of noise such as clutter and fading. \\
Is the dataset self-contained, or does it link to or otherwise rely on external resources?
& Self-contained \\
Does the dataset contain data that might be considered confidential?
& No \\
Does the dataset contain data that, if viewed directly, might be offensive, insulting, threatening, or might otherwise cause anxiety?
& No \\
Does the dataset identify any subpopulations?
& No \\
Is it possible to identify individuals, either directly or indirectly from the dataset?
& No \\
Does the dataset contain data that might be considered sensitive in any way?
& No \\
\cmidrule(lr){1-2}
\multicolumn{2}{c}{Collection Process} \\
\cmidrule(lr){1-2}
How was the data associated with each instance acquired?
& Synthesised using CAD tools \\
What mechanisms or procedures were used to collect the data?
& Ray-tracing for radio, rendering for vision \\
If the dataset is a sample from a larger set, what was the sampling strategy?
& N/A \\
Who was involved in the data collection process and how were they compensated?
& Nokia employees under full-time employment \\
Over what timeframe was the data collected?
& Data generation took several months of in-house development effort \\
Were any ethical review processes conducted?
& N/A \\
Did you collect the data from the individuals in question directly, or obtain it via third parties or other sources?
& N/A \\
Were the individuals in question notified about the data collection?
& N/A \\
Did the individuals in question consent to the collection and use of their data?
& N/A \\
If consent was obtained, were the consenting individuals provided with a mechanism to revoke their consent in the future or for certain uses?
& N/A \\
Has an analysis of the potential impact of the dataset and its use on data subjects been conducted?
& N/A \\
\cmidrule(lr){1-2}
\multicolumn{2}{c}{Preprocessing/cleaning/labeling} \\
\cmidrule(lr){1-2}
Was any preprocessing/cleaning/labeling of the data done?
& No \\
Was the ``raw'' data saved in addition to the preprocessed/cleaned/labeled data?
& N/A \\
Is the software that was used to preprocess/clean/label the data available?
& N/A \\
\cmidrule(lr){1-2}
\multicolumn{2}{c}{Uses} \\
\cmidrule(lr){1-2}
Has the dataset been used for any tasks already?
& Only radio-visual SSL research disclosed in this paper \\
Is there a repository that links to any or all papers or systems that use the dataset?
& N/A \\
What (other) tasks could the dataset be used for?
& This is a 1st radio-visual SSL work, and future research would build on our ideas and/or come up with alternative approaches, e.g., non-contrastive SSL \\
Is there anything about the composition of the dataset or the way it was collected and preprocessed/cleaned/labeled that might impact future uses?
& No \\
Are there tasks for which the dataset should not be used?
& N/A \\
\cmidrule(lr){1-2}
\multicolumn{2}{c}{Distribution} \\
\cmidrule(lr){1-2}
Will the dataset be distributed to third parties outside of the entity on behalf of which the dataset was created?
& Yes \\
How will the dataset will be distributed?
& Hosted on a public website \\
When will the dataset be distributed?
& 2023 \\
Will the dataset be distributed under a copyright or other intellectual property (IP) license, and/or under applicable terms of use (ToU)?
& Yes \\
Have any third parties imposed IP-based or other restrictions on the data associated with the instances?
& No \\
Do any export controls or other regulatory restrictions apply to the dataset or to individual instances?
& No \\
\cmidrule(lr){1-2}
\multicolumn{2}{c}{Maintenance} \\
\cmidrule(lr){1-2}
Who will be supporting/hosting/maintaining the dataset?
& Nokia Bell Labs \\
How can the owner/curator/manager of the dataset be contacted?
& Email \\
Is there an erratum?
& No \\
Will the dataset be updated?
& Yes \\
If the dataset relates to people, are there applicable limits on the retention of the data associated with the instances?
& N/A \\
Will older versions of the dataset continue to be supported/hosted/maintained?
& Yes \\
If others want to extend/augment/build on/contribute to the dataset, is there a mechanism for them to do so?
& No \\
\end{longtable}
\end{scriptsize}
\section{Related Work}
\noindent \textbf{Self-supervised learning.} Self-supervised learning (SSL) in its two strands (contrastive and non-contrastive) is the state-of-the-art learning paradigm for visual representations~\cite{chen2020simple,he2020momentum,grill2020bootstrap,zbontar2021barlow}.
SSL models have progressively matched and then exceeded the performance of their fully-supervised counterparts~\cite{noroozi2016unsupervised,zhang2016colorful,gidaris2018unsupervised,oord2018representation,hjelm2018learning,bachman2019learning,caron2020unsupervised,henaff2020data,bardes2021vicreg}, culminating recently in strong performance on uncurated billion-scale data~\cite{goyal2022vision}.
Vision SSL relies on augmentation for semantic invariance.
Differently, we deal with a new radio-visual SSL problem that relies on cross-modal correspondence~\cite{arandjelovic2017look,arandjelovic2018objects} as opposed to augmentation.
Further, our work addresses SSL object detection and localisation using spatial backbone models~\cite{chatfield2014return,afouras2021self} rather than the prevalent object classification in vision using 1-D backbones.
\noindent \textbf{Self-supervised multi-modal object detection.} A related body of work leverages multiple modalities for representation learning, particularly between audio and vision~\cite{alwassel2020self,arandjelovic2017look,asano2019self,aytar2016soundnet,morgado2020learning,owens2016ambient,afouras2020self,arandjelovic2018objects,chen2021localizing}.
Other works, also audio-visual, deal with knowledge distillation from one modality to another~\cite{gan2019self,afouras2020asr}.
SSL audio-visual object detectors are well researched and rely on feature attention between 1-D audio and 2-D vision~\cite{afouras2020self,afouras2021self}.
Differently in radio-visual, our attention (a) is complicated by a sparse radio modality which could impact the dimensional stability of cross-modal contrastive learning~\cite{jing2021understanding}, and (b) involves a fundamentally larger feature search space between 2-D radio and 2-D vision.
\noindent \textbf{Self-supervised saliency localisation.} Recent works have extended visual saliency localisation~\cite{zhou2016learning,selvaraju2017grad} for self-supervised systems~\cite{baek2020psynet}.
Specifically, \cite{mo2021object}~expands class activation map (CAM) to work within an SSL network to markedly improve visual contrastive learning and mitigate against augmentation bias.
While notable for vision SSL, radio-visual SSL does not suffer from the augmentation-induced geometric perturbations during training (e.g., random crop and rotation) which make accurate object localisation trickier in vision SSL.
\noindent \textbf{Radio learning.} Recent works train radio models on vision-supplied labels for indoor human sensing, e.g.,~\cite{zhao2018through,li2019making,fan2020learning}.
SSL has also been recently applied to radio-only learning systems.
\cite{orr2021coherent}~proposes an SSL super-resolution method that improves the angular resolution of radar antenna arrays.
\cite{gasperini2021r4dyn}~uses radar during training as a weak supervision signal, as well as an extra input to enhance depth estimation at inference time.
\cite{fan2020learning}~tackles the problem of radio-only SSL for human sensing.
Our work is different from the above prior art in that it neither relies on explicit supervision from vision, nor it is single-modal for radio-only learning.
A recent work proposes radio-visual SSL for object classification within a distillation framework~\cite{alloulah2021self}.
This differs from our work which (a) deals with representation learning from scratch for both radio and vision and (b) is aimed at SSL object detection and localisation using an underlying spatial backbone as opposed to standard classification.
\section{Radio-visual analytic relationship} \label{sec:radio-visual_analytic_relationship}
In radio imaging, there are two main phenomena that govern our ability to resolve objects in space.
First, range resolution $\Delta r$ is determined by bandwidth $B$ and obeys $\Delta r = c/2B$, where $c$ is the speed of light.
In typical millimetre-wave frequencies for 6G, $B \approx 1GHz$ which gives $\sim0.3$ metre resolution.
Second, the angular resolution $\Delta \phi$ is considerably worse and is generally related to our ability to pack antennae in a reasonable form factor.
That is, the imaging performance disparity between vision and radio is largely a function of disparities in angular resolution.
To see this, let $I(x, y)$ be an image of a sensing scene, where $x$ and $y$ are its horizontal and vertical dimensions, respectively.
Let $w$ be the so-called beamwidth of an RF horn antenna.
Then the antenna response $h(x,y) = e^{-(x^2+y^2)/(2w^2)}$ is a ``distortion'' function associated with RF's resolution-limited imaging of a given scene.
Specifically, $h(x,y)$ will act as a blurring function that convolves with the original image according to
\begin{align}
I^{\prime}(x, y) = I(x, y) * h(x,y)
\label{eq:rf_blurring-function}
\end{align}
where $I^{\prime}$ is the degraded image and $*$ is the convolution operator.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\captionsetup{justification=centering}
\vspace{-0.0cm}
\subfloat[\footnotesize grey-scale camera image]{
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{./img/factory}
\label{fig:factory}
}
\hspace{-0.0cm}
\subfloat[\footnotesize moderate blur]{
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{./img/factory_blur0}
\label{fig:factory_blur0}
}
\hspace{-0.0cm}
\subfloat[\footnotesize high blur]{
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{./img/factory_blur1}
\label{fig:factory_blur1}
}
\vspace{-0.0cm}
\caption{Radio-visual relationship. A grey-scale camera image undergoes significant blurring to simulate the effect of RF's limited angular resolution when using radio to image the environment.}
\label{fig:radio-visual_relationship}
\end{figure}
Fig.~\ref{fig:radio-visual_relationship} contrasts normal camera imaging against RF's resolution-limited imaging.
Left-most Fig.~\ref{fig:factory} shows a grey-scale image of a factory.
Assuming 1 degree angular resolution ($\Delta \phi=1^{\circ}$), Fig.~\ref{fig:factory_blur0} in the middle illustrates the blurring effect of Eq.~\ref{eq:rf_blurring-function} on the camera image.
Under higher angular resolution distortion $\Delta \phi=10^{\circ}$, the right-most Fig.~\ref{fig:factory_blur1} shows significant blurring as a result of a coarser beamwidth $w$ acting on $I$.
\section{Radio-visual subspace analysis} \label{sec:appendix_subspace}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\captionsetup{justification=centering}
\subfloat[\footnotesize channel subspace - radio]{
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{./img/subspace_channel_r}
\label{fig:subspace_channel_r}
}
\hspace{-0.25cm}
\subfloat[\footnotesize channel subspace - visual]{
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{./img/subspace_channel_v}
\label{fig:subspace_channel_v}
} \\
\vspace{-0.25cm}
\subfloat[\footnotesize spatial subspace - radio]{
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{./img/subspace_spatial_r}
\label{fig:subspace_spatial_r}
}
\hspace{-0.25cm}
\subfloat[\footnotesize spatial subspace - visual]{
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{./img/subspace_spatial_v}
\label{fig:subspace_spatial_v}
}
\vspace{-0.0cm}
\caption{Radio-visual subspace analysis w/ and w/o EMA.}
\label{fig:radio-visual_subspace_analysis}
\end{figure}
In Sec.~\ref{sec:representation_learning}, the spatial encoders $f_{\theta^r}(r), f_{\theta^v}(v) \in \mathbb{R}^{C \times h \times w}$ are introduced.
Following the implementation conditions detailed in Sec.~\ref{sec:implement_details}, $f_{\theta^r}(r), f_{\theta^v}(v)$ are concretely $\in \mathbb{R}^{128 \times 60 \times 80}$.
In this section, we analyse their dimensionality after 100 epochs of training on the contrastive loss of Eq.~\ref{eq:con_loss}.
To do so, we evaluate these embedding tensors for the validation set.
For each channel $c \in \{1, \dots, 128\}$ and spatial bin $n \in \{1, \dots, 60\}\times\{1, \dots, 80\}$, we compute the centred covariance matrices $\mathrm{Cov}_c \in \mathbb{R}^{128 \times 128}$, $\mathrm{Cov}_{n} \in \mathbb{R}^{4800 \times 4800}$ according to
\begin{align}
\mathrm{Cov}_x &= \frac{1}{N} \sum_{k=0}^{N-1} (\textbf{z}_k^x - \bar{\textbf{z}}^x)(\textbf{z}_k^x - \bar{\textbf{z}}^x)^T
\label{eq:covariance}
\end{align}
where $\textbf{z}_k^x$ is the embedding vector of a channel or spatial bin\footnote{i.e., unfolding the original 2-D spatial bins into a vector of $wh=4800$ length} $x \in [c, n]$, $N$ is the number of validation samples, and $\bar{\textbf{z}}^x$ is the respective average.
To measure subspaces dimensionality, we compute the singular value decomposition on the covariance matrix $\mathrm{Cov}_x = U \Sigma V^T, \Sigma=\mathit{diag}(\sigma^k)$, following general practice in SSL theory~\cite{jing2021understanding,tian2021understanding}.
We use these subspace measurements to quantify changes in the learnt contrastive representation as a result of architectural tweaks such as EMA.
We concatenate the singular values of all channels and all spatial bins and sort them in descending order.
Fig.~\ref{fig:radio-visual_subspace_analysis} depicts on a logarithmic scale these aggregated singular values.
We can readily see that EMA has little effect on the dimensionality of the learnt representation across channels and spatial bins, for both radio and vision branches.
We, therefore, opt to exclude it from our experiments for efficiency.
\section{Benchmarks} \label{sec:experiments}
\subsection{Baselines} \label{sec:baselines}
Radar target detection is a historic and thoroughly investigated topic as it pertains to many civil and military applications.
The objective is to predict a target's position and velocity.
However, extracting wanted information (i.e., the target) from unwanted information (i.e., clutter) is a challenging task.
Due to radio propagation phenomena, both could exhibit comparable statistical behaviour.
We implement expert statistical techniques used by various industries in millions of products, and designate as our first strong standard baseline.
Equally, a fully-supervised localiser network trained on groundtruth coordinates naturally forms our second deep learning-based baseline.
In what follows, we describe in more detail these two approaches.
\noindent \textbf{Statistical.}
Extracting information from a radio response representation is a multi-step procedure.
First, radio targets in two different domains, range-angle and range-velocity, are binarised via a threshold technique (e.g., CFAR~\cite{rohling1983radar}) and then clustered (e.g., via DBSCAN~\cite{ester1996density}) to form one point cloud per target.
Targets are then matched between the two different domains over the same and hopefully unique range.
Point cloud centroids are used to track targets.
Considering such multi-step procedure, the following shortcomings come to mind. First, how to detect from the matched targets the wanted target (e.g., how to remove clutter).
Second, some information is ignored (e.g., information from the shape of the point clouds) when assigning a target centroid.
Third, setting the optimal thresholds, guard bands, training bands, number of points per cluster~\cite{rohling1983radar} is an exceedingly brittle exercise.
It is our hope that end-to-end deep learning is able to address some of the aforementioned shortcomings.
\noindent \textbf{Supervised.}
In radio sensing, the notion of supervised learning is intractable to implement under practical settings.
This is because labelling radio heatmaps (e.g., object centre, type, bounding box) is infeasible as we cannot interpret the scene by manual inspection.
However, we consider the supervised use case of training on synthetic data and deploying a finetuned model on empirical data.
Compared to computer vision, radio imaging is an immature sensing modality and there are no prescribed or de facto neural architectures to use for evaluation.
We therefore use Microsoft's AutoML tool NNI (Neural Network Intelligence)~\cite{nni2021} to search for strong candidate architectures.
Specifically, we searched for optimizers, loss functions, learning rates, momentum, neural architectures via resolution branching, and activation functions.
The performance of the supervised baseline in Sec.~\ref{sec:results} corroborates the quality of the search.
Detailed description of the architectural search space is given in Sec.~\ref{sec:nni_appendix}.
\subsection{Implementation details} \label{sec:implement_details}
The spatial backbone of the radio and vision encoders uses an architecture similar to VGG-M~\cite{chatfield2014return,arandjelovic2018objects}, swapping max pooling for average pooling as recommended in~\cite{afouras2021self}.
For standard contrastive ablation in Sec.~\ref{sec:scl_vs_cl} (\ac{CL} \& \ac{MCL}), we base our cross-modal contrastive learning on MoCo v2 and its public implementation~\cite{he2020momentum}.
We extend MoCo's implementation with two queues for radio and vision similar to the audio-visual active sampling work in~\cite{ma2020active}.
We have found that filtering the encoders with exponential moving average (EMA) when implementing radio-vision contrast has no tangible advantage, as detailed in Sec.~\ref{sec:appendix_subspace}.
For estimating object bounding boxes for mask generation in vision, we rely on groundtruth from Blender for efficiency reasons as loading Yolo along with spatial backbones into GPU memory proved tricky.
However, we did train a Yolov5 model~\cite{glenn_jocher_2021_5563715} from scratch and optimised it for our synthetic radio-visual dataset, showing that it works in the same accuracy as the original one.
Specifically, we reduced the number of classes supported by detection to considerably shrink the model size.
We plan on augmenting a future version of the dataset with pseudo bounding boxes obtained from our version of Yolov5.
We train on 640 $\times$ 480 resolution for both RGB images and radio heatmaps.
Both radio and vision branches output 128 $\times$ 80 $\times$ 60 spatial features whose dimensionality is reduced using 2-layer MLP projectors to 64-D vectors in the case of CL \& MCL.
For CL \& MCL, we use a MoCo v2 queue whose size equals to the batch size.
For CL \& MCL, the temperature hyper-parameter is 0.07, whereas for SCL it is 0.1.
When implementing spatial attention, we pad bounding boxes by a margin of 5 pixels, and pad a target spatial response by a margin of 1 feature.
For backbone training, we use the Adam optimiser~\cite{kingma2014adam} with a learning rate of $10^{-5}$ and no schedule.
For all model variants, we train for 200 epochs with a batch size of 32.
We use a batch size of 32 and train in a distributed fashion on 8 GeForce RTX 2080 Ti GPUs.
We use two such GPUs throughout for backbone training, supervised training, and NNI search space.
Backbone training takes around 16 hours per experiment.
Both the localiser network trained on self-coordinates and supervised baseline use identical architecture and training as detailed in Tab.~\ref{tab:NNIparameter}.
Training the NNI model takes about 2 hours per model.
The NNI search space took around 5 days.
\section{Acknowledgments}
We thank Dmitry Chizhik for his analytic modelling of the relationship between radio imaging and vision in Sec.~\ref{sec:radio-visual_analytic_relationship}.
We would like to thank Howard Huang, Akash Singh and Prof. Mani Srivastava for their helpful discussions.
\section{Qualitative \& failure analysis} \label{sec:appendix_qual-failure}
\input{./src/datasheet}
|
\section{Introduction}
The theory of optimal search for a stationary target was first developed by Koopman (1946, 1956a, b, c) and later refined by several authors such as Stone and Stanshinine (1971) and Stone (1973, 1975, 1976). It has been successfully applied in both civil and military search missions; see, for instance, Richardson and Stone (1971), Richardson et al. (1980), Stone (1992), Kratzke et al. (2010), and Stone et al. (2014). While recent research mainly focuses on moving targets (e.g. Washburn 2014, Stone et al. 2016), the optimal search theory for a stationary target is still developing, as evidenced by Kadane (2015) and Clarkson et al. (2020). More importantly, its immediate or potential value does not fade over time in view of several high-profile civil and military accidents in the last decade, such as the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, the loss of Indonesia's KRI Nanggala submarine in April 2021, and the collision of the USS Connecticut with a seamount in South China Sea in 2022.
In the extant literature, the uniformly optimal search plan plays a major role in the optimal search theory. A uniformly optimal search plan exists under mild conditions (e.g. Stone 1973, 1975, 1976). In addition, it is known that when the target distribution is circular normal and the detection function is exponential, the uniformly optimal search plan has some appealing properties; see Section~3 for more details. This article shows that these properties hold for an arbitrary continuous target distribution when the detection function is exponential.
The remainder of the article is organized as follows. In Section~2, we set the scene by reviewing the optimal search model and the uniformly optimal search plan. Next, in Section~3, we establish four general properties of the uniformly optimal search plan. In Section~4 we provide a numerical example to illustrate our key results. Finally, we conclude the article with some remarks in Section~5.
\section{Model setup and notation}
We consider the problem of searching for a stationary target where the exact target location $x$ is unknown. The Bayesian approach naturally fits here. Specifically, based on available information and professional judgment, we construct a \emph{target distribution} for $x$. Let $\Pi$ be the (cumulative) distribution function of the target distribution. The support of $\Pi$ is often called the \emph{possibility area} and is denoted as $X$; it is the area, in our assessment, contains the target. Mathematically, $X$ is a subset of the $n$-dimensional Euclidean space $\mathbb{R}^n$. In most real-world applications, we take $n=2$. Intuitively, $\Pi$ reflects our knowledge prior to the search and, at the same time, accounts for our uncertainty about the target location. Throughout, we assume the target is stationary and we only consider the case where the target distribution is continuous with a probability density function $\pi$.
To plan a search, we must decide how to distribute the effort in $X$. To this end, we let $\mathbb{R}_+\equiv [0, \infty)$ and call a function $f: X\rightarrow \mathbb{R}_+$ an \emph{allocation} on $X$ if $\int_A f(x)dx$ equals the amount of effort put in $A$ where $A$ is any subset of $X$. Since detection is rarely perfect in any search, we define the \emph{detection function} $d:X\times \mathbb{R}_+\rightarrow [0, 1]$ to be the \emph{conditional} probability that the target is detected if the allocation density equals $y$ at $x$ given that the target is located at $x$. The detection function is said to be $\emph{regular}$ if $d(x, 0)=0$ and $\partial d(x, y)/\partial y$ is continuous, positive, and strictly decreasing for all $x\in X$.
Given an allocation $f$ on $X$, the \emph{probability of detection}, denoted as $P[f]$, is given by
\[P[f]=\int_X d(x, f(x)) \pi(x) dx.\]
The \emph{cost function} $c(x, y): X\times \mathbb{R}_+\rightarrow \mathbb{R}_+$ stands for the cost density of applying allocation density $y$ at $x$. For a given allocation $f$ on $X$, the cost resulting from $f$, denoted as $C[f]$, is given by
\[C[f]=\int_Xc(x, f(x))dx.\]
We define a \emph{search plan} on $X$ to be a function $\varphi: X\times \mathbb{R}_+\rightarrow \mathbb{R}_+$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)]$\varphi(\cdot, t)$ is an allocation on $X$ for all $t\geq 0$;
\item[(ii)]$\varphi(x, \cdot)$ is an increasing function for all $x\in X$.
\end{enumerate}
In practice, the budget for conducting a search is always limited. Let $B>0$ be the search budget. Intuitively, the ``best'' search plan $\varphi^\star$, if exists, should be the one that maximizes the probability of detection at each time $t\geq 0$, subject to the constraint $C[\varphi^\star]\leq B$. In the current literature, such a search plan is called a \emph{uniformly optimal search plan}. Precisely, we define the \emph{cumulative effort function} $E$ to be a non-negative function with domain $\mathbb{R}_+$ where $E(t)$ symbolizes the effort available by time $t$. We always assume that $E$ is increasing. Let $\Phi(E)$ denote the class of search plans $\varphi$ such that
\[\int_X\varphi(x, t)dx=E(t), \quad \text{for all $t\geq 0$}.\]
A search plan $\varphi^\star\in \Phi(E)$ is said to be \emph{uniformly optimal with $\Phi(E)$} if
\[P[\varphi^\star(\cdot, t)]=\max\{P[\varphi(\cdot, t)]\mid \varphi\in \Phi(E)\} \quad \text{for all $t\geq 0$}.\]
Example~2.2.9 in Stone (1975) shows that a uniformly optimal search plan does not always exist. However, Stone (1976) establishes that there is a uniformly optimal plan if the detection function $d(x, \cdot)$ is increasing and right-continuous for each $x\in X$. Based on the key results in Everett (1963), a semi-closed form of the uniformly optimal plan can be derived under mild conditions; see Chapter~2 of Stone (1975) or Chapter~5 of Washburn (2014) for details. In particular, if the cost function takes the form $c(x,y)=y$ for all $y\geq 0$ and $x\in X$ and the detection function is regular, a uniformly optimal search plan $\varphi^\star$ for budget $B$ can be found as follows. Put
\[q_x (y)=\pi(x)\frac{\partial }{\partial y}d(x, y), \quad x\in X \text{ and $y\geq 0$},\]
\[q^{-1}_x(\lambda)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\text{the inverse function of $q_x(y)$ evaluated at $\lambda$},& \hbox{if $\lambda\leq q_x(0)$,} \\
0, & \hbox{if $\lambda>q_x(0)$,}
\end{array}
\right.\]
and
\[Q(\lambda)=\int_X q_x^{-1}(\lambda)dx, \quad x\in X.\]
Then a uniformly optimal search plan for budget $B$ is given by $\varphi^\star_B(x, t)=q_x^{-1}(Q^{-1}(B))$ where $Q^{-1}$ is the inverse function of $Q$.
As pointed out in Soza and USCG (1996), the circular normal distribution has been widely employed as the target distribution in the theory of optimal search. This seems to result from the mathematical convenience it provides; that is, many key quantities in the prior literature will admit a closed-form formula if the target distribution is taken to be circular normal. However, the target distribution is subjective, and there is no reason, theoretically or practically, to restrict our choices to the circular normal distribution. The search team should honestly encode its knowledge and expertise into a target distribution and proceed from there. Choosing a circular normal target distribution for mathematical convenience will reduce the efficiency of the search as well as the likelihood of success. Therefore, it is crucial to investigate whether those nice properties established with a circular normal target distribution will still hold when the target distribution is an arbitrary continuous one. Some general properties of a uniformly optimal search plan are documented in Stone (1973, 1975, 1976). They are different from the ones we aim to establish next.
\section{Several general properties of uniformly optimal search plans}
Henceforth, we assume that the cost function takes the form $c(x, y)=x$.
We first recall a few known fact (e.g. Stone 1975, Chapter~2). Assume the search is conducted at the speed $v$ using a sensor with a sweep width $W$ and the time available for the search is $T>0$. Then the search budget will be $B=WvT$. If the target distribution is circular normal, i.e.,
\[\pi(x_1, x_2)=\frac{1}{2\pi\sigma^2}e^{-\frac{x_1^2+x_2^2}{2\sigma^2}}, \quad (x_1, x_2)\in X\subset \mathbb{R}^2,\]
and the detection function is exponential, i.e., $d(x, y)=1-e^{-y}$ for all $x\in X$ and $y\geq 0$, then the uniformly optimal plan exists and takes the form (in polar coordinates)
\[\varphi^\star((r, \theta), T)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
H\sqrt{T}-\frac{r^2}{2\sigma^2},& \hbox{if $0\leq r\leq R(T)$,} \\
0, & \hbox{if $r>R(T)$,}
\end{array}
\right.\]
where $R^2(t)=2\sigma^2H\sqrt{t}$ and $H=\sqrt{Wv/\pi\sigma^2}$.
Moreover, the probability of detection is given by
\[P[\varphi^\star((r, \theta), T)]=1-(1+H\sqrt{T})e^{-H\sqrt{T}}, \quad T\geq 0.\]
Let $\pi_T$ be the density of the posterior probability distribution for the target location given that the target has not been found by time $T$. Then
\[\pi_T((r, \theta))=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{1}{2\pi\sigma^2(1+H\sqrt{T})},& \hbox{if $0\leq r\leq R(T)$,} \\
\frac{\exp\{-\frac{r^2}{2\sigma^2}+H\sqrt{T}\}}{2\pi\sigma^2(1+H\sqrt{T})}, & \hbox{if $t>R(T)$,}
\end{array}
\right.\]
For $t\geq 0$, define the \emph{additional effort density} that accumulates at point $(r, \theta)$ in the time interval $[T, T+t]$ as
\[\varphi^\star_T((r, \theta), t)=\varphi^\star((r, \theta), T+t)-\varphi^\star((r, \theta), T), \quad x\in X \text{ and $t\geq 0$}.\]
Then
\[\pi_T^\star((r, \theta))=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
H(\sqrt{T+t}-\sqrt{T}),& \hbox{if $0\leq r\leq R(T)$,} \\
H\sqrt{T+t}-\frac{r^2}{2\sigma^2}, & \hbox{if $R(T)<r\leq R(T+t)$,} \\
0,& \hbox{if $r>R(T+t)$,}
\end{array}
\right.\]
It is clear that this uniformly optimal search plan has the following nice properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)]The detection probability $P[\varphi^\star(x, T)]$ goes to $1$ as time $T\rightarrow \infty$;
\item[(ii)]the posterior density for the target location is constant inside a circle of radius $R(T)$ around the origin but not constant outside this circle;
\item[(iii)]the posterior density for the target location given that the target has not been found by time $T$ vanishes as $T\rightarrow\infty$;
\item[(iv)]the additional effort will be placed uniformly over the area that has been searched by time $T$.
\end{enumerate}
Does any of these properties still hold when the target distribution is not circular normal? We give an affirmative answer to each of them. Intuitively, Property~(i) says that if we keep searching, we will eventually find the target using the uniformly optimal search plan. The next theorem shows that this property holds for an arbitrary continuous target distribution when the detection function is regular.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:3.1}
If the target distribution is continuous with a probability density function $\pi$, the detection function $d$ is regular, and $\lim_{T\rightarrow \infty} E(T)=\infty$, then
$\lim_{T\rightarrow \infty} P[\varphi^\star(x, T)]=1$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By assumption, a uniformly optimal search plan $\varphi^\star$ exists and is given by $\varphi^\star_B(x, T)=q_x^{-1}(Q^{-1}(E(T)))$. Therefore, the probability of detection is given by
\[
P[\varphi^\star(x, T)] = \int_Xd(x, \varphi^\star(x,T))\pi(x)dx =\int_{X} d(x, q_x^{-1}(Q^{-1}(E(T)))) \pi(x)dx.
\]
Since $Q$ is continuous on $(0,\infty)$ and strictly decreasing on the interval $(0, \sup\{\lambda\mid Q(\lambda)>0\})$, $Q^{-1}$ is continuous and strictly decreasing on $(0, \infty)$. In addition, note that $q_x^{-1}$ is continous and strictly decreasing on $(0, q_x(0)]$. Therefore, that $q_x^{-1}(Q^{-1})$ is continuous and strictly increasing on $(0, \infty)$. Since $|d(x, y)|\leq 1$ for all $x\in X$ and $y\geq 0$, the Dominated Convergence Theorem implies
\begin{eqnarray*}
1\geq \lim_{T\rightarrow \infty} P[\varphi^\star(x, T)] &=& \lim_{T\rightarrow \infty} \int_{X} d(x, q_x^{-1}(Q^{-1}(E(T)))) \pi(x)dx\\
&=& \int_{X} \lim_{T\rightarrow \infty} d(x, q_x^{-1}(Q^{-1}(E(T)))) \pi(x)dx\\
&=& \int_{X} d(x, q_x^{-1}(Q^{-1}(\lim_{T\rightarrow \infty} E(T)))) \pi(x)dx\\
&=&1.
\end{eqnarray*}
It follows that $\lim_{T\rightarrow \infty} P[\varphi^\star(x, T)]=1$.
\end{proof}
To investigate Property~(ii) for an arbitrary continuous target distribution, we note that the posterior density $\pi_T$ of the target location given that the target has not been found by time $T$ can be written as
\[
\pi_T(x)=\frac{[1-d(x, \varphi^\star(x, T))]\pi(x)}{\int_X [1-d(x, \varphi^\star(x, T))]\pi(x)dx}=\frac{[1-d(x, q_x^{-1}(Q^{-1}(E(T))) )]\pi(x)}{\int_X [1-d(x, q_x^{-1}(Q^{-1}(E(T))) )]\pi(x)dx}.
\]
The denominator of $\pi_T$ is constant because $x$ is integrated out. For the circular normal case, the condition $r\leq R(T)$ is equivalent to the condition $Q^{-1}(E(T))\leq q_x(0)$. Therefore, we need to examine two cases: (I)~$Q^{-1}(E(T))> q_x(0)$ and (II)~$Q^{-1}(E(T))\leq q_x(0)$. In Case~(I), the numerator of $\pi_T$ equals $[1-d(x, 0)]\pi(x)=\pi(x)$ if the detection function is exponential. Therefore, the numerator of $\pi_T$ is not constant unless the target distribution is uniform. For Case~(II), the next theorem demonstrates that the numerator of $\pi_T$ (hence $\pi_T$ itself) is constant in the area $D_T=\{x\mid Q^{-1}(E(T))\leq q_x(0)\}$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:3.2}
If the target distribution is continuous with a probability density function $\pi$ and the detection function is of the form $d(x, y)=1-e^{-\alpha y}$ for all $x\in X$ and $y\geq 0$ where $\alpha>0$, then the numerator of the posterior density $\pi_T$ is constant in the area $D_T=\{x\mid Q^{-1}(E(T))\leq q_x(0)\}$. If in addition the target distribution is non-uniform, the numerator of $\pi_T$ is not constant outside $D_T$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The second statement follows from the above discussion. Thus, it remains to establish the first statement.
In this case, we have $q_x(y)=\alpha \pi(x)e^{-\alpha y}$ and
\[q_x^{-1}(\lambda)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
[-\ln \lambda+\ln \pi(x)]/\alpha,& \hbox{if $0<\lambda \leq q_x(0)$,} \\
0, & \hbox{otherwise.}
\end{array}
\right.\]
Therefore, the uniformly optimal plan is given by
\[\varphi^\star((r, \theta), T)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
[-\ln (Q^{-1}(E(T)))+\ln \pi(x)]/\alpha,& \hbox{if $0<Q^{-1}(E(T)) \leq q_x(0)$,} \\
0, & \hbox{otherwise.}
\end{array}
\right.\]
If $0<Q^{-1}(E(T)) \leq q_x(0)$, the numerator of $\pi_T$ equals
\begin{eqnarray*}
[1-d(x, \varphi^\star((r, \theta), T))]\pi(x)
&=& \exp\{\ln (Q^{-1}(E(T)))-\ln \pi(x)\}\pi(x)\\
&=& Q^{-1}(E(T)).
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}
When the target distribution is circular normal, Property~(iii) shows that $\lim_{T\rightarrow\infty}\pi_T(x)=0$ for all $x\in X$. In fact, this phenomenon also holds for any continuous target distribution.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:3.3}
If the target distribution is continuous with a probability density function $\pi$ and the detection takes the form $d(x, y)=1-e^{-\alpha y}$ for all $x\in X$ and $y\geq 0$ where $\alpha>0$, then $\lim_{T\rightarrow }\pi_T(x)=0$ for all $x\in X$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $\phi$ be the empty set. Since $D^c_T=\{x\mid Q^{-1}(E(T))> q_x(0)\}\rightarrow \phi$ as $T\rightarrow\infty$, it suffices to focus on the area $D_T=\{x\mid Q^{-1}(E(T))\leq q_x(0)\}$. For $E(T)=WvT$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
0\leq \pi_T(x) &=& \frac{[1-d(x, \varphi^\star(x, T))]\pi(x)}{\int_X [1-d(x, \varphi^\star(x, T))]\pi(x)dx}\\
&=& \frac{Q^{-1}(E(T))}{\int_{D_T} Q^{-1}(E(T))dx+ \int_{D_T^c}\pi(x)dx}\\
&\leq& \frac{Q^{-1}(E(T))}{\int_{D_T} Q^{-1}(E(T))dx}= \frac{Q^{-1}(E(T))}{Q^{-1}(E(T)) \int_{D_T} 1\ dx}= \frac{1}{m(D_T)},
\end{eqnarray*}
where $m$ stands for the Lebesgue measure on $\mathbb{R}^n$.
To finish the proof, it remains to show that $\lim_{T\rightarrow \infty} m(D_T)=\infty$. To this end, note that $Q^{-1}$ is continuous and strictly decreasing. Hence, $\lim_{T\rightarrow \infty}Q^{-1}(E(T))=0$. Since $\int_X\pi(x)dx=1<\infty$, we have $\lim_{||x||\rightarrow \infty}p(x)=0$ where $||\cdot||$ is the Euclidean norm on $\mathbb{R}^n$. Therefore, the continuity of the Lebegsue measure implies
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lim_{T\rightarrow \infty} m(D_T) &\leq& \lim_{T\rightarrow \infty} m(\{x\mid ||x||\leq \inf\{||a||\mid \pi(a)=Q^{-1}(E(T))\}\}) \\
&=& m \left( \lim_{T\rightarrow \infty} \{x\mid ||x||\leq \inf\{||a||\mid \pi(a)=Q^{-1}(E(T))\}\} \right)\\
&=& \infty.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}
Property~(iv) says that a uniformly optimal search plan will place the additional effort uniformly over the area that has been searched by time $T$. It turns out this property holds for an arbitrary continuous target distribution too.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:3.4}
If the target distribution is continuous with a density function $\pi$ and the detection function has the form $d(x, y)=1-e^{-\alpha y}$ for all $x\in X$ and $y\geq 0$ where $\alpha>0$, then the uniformly optimal search plan will place the additional effort uniformly over the area that has been searched by time $T$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
From the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:3.2}, we know that the uniformly optimal search plan $\varphi^\star$ is given by
\[\varphi^\star(x, T)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
[-\ln (Q^{-1}(E(T)))+\ln \pi(x)]/\alpha,& \hbox{if $0<Q^{-1}(E(T)) \leq q_x(0)$,} \\
0, & \hbox{if $\lambda>q_x(0)$.}
\end{array}
\right.\]
Let $\varphi^\star_T(t)=\varphi^\star(x, T+t)-\varphi^\star(x, t)$ for $x\in X$ and $t\geq 0$ be the additional effort density. It follows that
\[\varphi^\star_T(x, t)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
-\frac{1}{\alpha} [\ln (Q^{-1}(E(T+t))/Q^{-1}(E(T)))],& \hbox{if $0<Q^{-1}(E(T+t))< Q^{-1}(E(T))\leq q_x(0)$,} \\
-\frac{1}{\alpha}[\ln (Q^{-1}(E(T+t)))+\ln \pi(x)],& \hbox{if $0<Q^{-1}(E(T+t)) \leq q_x(0) < Q^{-1}(E(T))$,} \\
0, & \hbox{if $Q^{-1}(E(T+t))>q_x(0)$,}
\end{array}
\right.\]
for all $t>0$. Therefore, the theorem follows.
\end{proof}
\section{Example}
\begin{example}
\label{example1}
Take the detection function to be $d(x, y)=1-e^{-y}$ for $x\in X$ and $y\geq 0$.
Let the target distribution have the probability density function
\[\pi(x)=\pi(x_1, x_2)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
e^{-(x_1+x_2)},& \hbox{$x_1>0$ and $x_2>0$,} \\
0, & \hbox{otherwise,}
\end{array}
\right.\]
where $x=(x_1, x_2)\in X\subset\mathbb{R}^2$.
In this case, $Q(\lambda)= -\frac{1}{6}(\ln \lambda)^3$ and the uniformly optimal search plan given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:unif}
\varphi^\star(x, T)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
(6WvT)^{1/3}-(x_1+x_2),& \hbox{if $0< x_1+x_2\leq (6WvT)^{1/3}$,} \\
0, & \hbox{otherwise,}
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $T$ be the time available for search. For $W=1$, $v=5$, and $T=20$, Figure~1 provides a perspective plot of the uniformly optimal search plan $\varphi^\star$ given by (\ref{eq:unif}).
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.68}{\includegraphics{perspective_example1}}
\end{center}
\caption{Figure~1: Perspective plot of the uniformly optimal search plan $\varphi^\star$ in Example~1 when $W=1$, $v=5$, and $T=20$.}
\label{fig:persp}
\end{figure}
Put $D_T=\{(x_1, x_2)\mid x_1+x_2\leq (6WvT)^{1/3}\}$. Then the probability of detection equals
\begin{eqnarray*}
P[\varphi^\star(x, T)] &=& \int_X d(x, \varphi^2(x,T))\pi(x)dx\\
&=& \int_{D_t} [1-e^{(-(6WvT)^{1/3}+(x_1+x_2))}] e^{-(x_1+x_2)} dx_1 dx_2 \\
&=& 1-e^{-(6WvT)^{1/3}}-(6WvT)^{1/3}e^{-(6WvT)^{1/3}}-(1/2)(6WvT)^{2/3}e^{-(6WvT)^{2/3}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus, $\lim_{T\rightarrow \infty} P[\varphi^\star(x, T)] =1$.
It is evident that $D^c_T=\{(x_1, x_2)\mid x_1+x_2> (6WvT)^{1/3}\}\rightarrow \phi$ as $T\rightarrow \infty$. On the area $D_T$, the posterior density of the target location given that the target has not bee found by time $T$ equals
\[\pi_T(x_1, x_2)=\frac{1}{(1/2)(6WvT)^{2/3}}, \quad (x_1, x_2)\in X.\]
Hence, the numerator of $\pi_T$ is constant and $\pi_T\rightarrow 0$ as $T\rightarrow \infty$.
In this case, the additional effort density equals
\[\varphi^\star_T(x, t)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\ [6Wv(T+t)]^{1/3}-(6WvT)^{1/3},& \hbox{if $0< x_1+x_2\leq (6WvT)^{1/3}$, } \\
\ [6Wv(T+t)]^{1/3}-(x_1+x_2),& \hbox{if $(6WvT)^{1/3}< x_1+x_2\leq [6Wv(T+t)]^{1/3}$,} \\
\ 0, & \hbox{if $x_1+x_2> [6Wv(T+t)]^{1/3}$.}
\end{array}
\right.\]
Therefore, $\varphi_T^\star$ is uniform over the area that has been searched by time $T$.
\end{example}
\section{Concluding remarks}
The uniformly optimal search plan plays a vital role in the theory of optimal search. In the existing literature as well as many applications, a circular normal target distribution is often employed for mathematical convenience. In such a case, a uniformly optimal search plan has been proved to possess several desirable properties. To improve search efficiency and increase the probability of success, a search team should choose whatever target distribution that most closely reflects the prior information. Therefore, it is important to investigate whether the aforementioned properties still hold for an arbitrary continuous target distribution. This article shows that this is indeed the case.
\section*{References}
\begin{description}
\item{} Clarkson, J., Glazebrook, K.D.~and Lin, K.Y.~(2020). Fast or slow: search in discrete locations with two search models. \emph{Operations Research}~68(2), 552--571.
\item{} Everett, H.~(1963). Generalized Lagrange multiplier method for solving probglems of optimum allocation of resources. \emph{Operations Research}~11, 399--417.
\item{} Kadane, J.B.~(2015). Optimal discrete search with technological choice. \emph{Mathematical Methods of Operations Research}~81, 317--336.
\item{} Koopman, B.O.~(1946). Search an screening. \emph{Operations Evaluation Group Report No. 56 (unclassified).} Center for Naval Analysis, Rosslyn, Virginia.
\item{} Koopman, B.O.~(1956a). The theory of search, I. Kinematic bases. \emph{Operations Research}~4, 324--346.
\item{} Koopman, B.O.~(1956b). The theory of search, II. Target detection. \emph{Operations Research}~4, 503--531.
\item{} Koopman, B.O.~(1956a). The theory of search, III The optimum distribution of seraching efforts. \emph{Operations Research}~4, 613--626.
\item{} Kratzke, T.M., Stone, L.D., and Frost J.R.~(2010). Search and rescue optimal planning system. \emph{Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Information Fusion, Edinburgh, UK, July 2010}, 26--29.
\item{} Richardson, H.R.~and Stone, L.D.~(1971). Operations analysis during the underwater search for Scorpion. \emph{Naval Research Logistic Quarterly}~18, 141--157.
\item{} Ricardson, H.R., Wagner D.H.~and Discenza, J.H.~(1980). The United States Coast Guard Computer-assisted Search Planning System (CASP). \emph{Naval Research Logistic Quarterly}~27, 659--680.
\item{} Soza Co. Ltd and U.S. Coast Guard~(1996). \emph{The Theory of Search: A Simplified Explanation}. U.S. Coast Guard: Washington, D.C..
\item{} Stone, L.D.~(1973). Totally optimality of incrementally optimal allocations. \emph{Naval Research Logistics Quarterly}~20, 419--430.
\item{} Stone, L.D.~(1975). \emph{Theory of Optimal Search}. Academic Press: New York.
\item{} Stone, L.D.~(1976). Incremental and total optimization of separable functionals with constraints. \emph{SIAm Journal on Control and Optimization}~14, 791--802.
\item{} Stone, L.D., Royset, J.O., and Washburn, A.R.~(2016). \emph{Optimal Search for Moving Targets}. Springer: New York.
\item{} Stone, L.D.~and Stanshine J.A.~(1971). Optimal searching using uninterrupted contact investigation. \emph{SIAM Journal of Applied Mathematics}~20, 241--263.
\item{} Stone, L.D.~(1992). Search for the SS Central America: mathematical treasure hunting. \emph{Interfaces}~22: 32--54.
\item{} Stone, L.D., Keller, C.M. , Kratzke, T.M.~and Strumpfer, J.P.~(2014). Search for the wreckage of Air France AF 447. \emph{Statistical Science}~29:69--80.
\item{} Washburn, A.~(2014). \emph{Search and Detection}, 5th Edition. Create Space: North Carolina.
\end{description}
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec1}
Topological semimetals (TSM) have been emerging as a fast growing group of topological materials which have been coming under increasing scrutiny.
\cite{PRX,ZrSiSe,NaturePhys} For these systems, the conduction and valence bands cross each other in the Brillouin zone (BZ). It is important to note that the crossing cannot be eliminated by perturbing the Hamiltonian without breaking either its crystalline symmetry or time-reversal symmetry. Therefore, all topological semimetals belong to symmetry protected topological phases of matter.
\medskip
\par
For 3D TSM, two bands may cross one another at discrete points or along a closed curve. There are Dirac semimetals and Weyl semimetals in the case when the crossings are discrete. The curve where the bands cross is referred to as a nodal line. We refer to such TSM with this type of line crossing of the bands as being topological nodal line semimetals (TNLSM) in quasi-2D and 3D systems.
\medskip
\par
For a TSM, one can associate for each band crossing a topological invariant which depends on the symmetry group that protects the nodal structure. Various material systems have been proposed as TNLSM protected by different symmetry groups. For example, TaAs has been shown to be a TNLSM protected by mirror reflection and spin rotation symmetries with two nodal lines in the absence of spin orbital coupling (SOC). However, in the presence of SOC, each nodal line is gapped into three pairs of Weyl nodes. SrIrO$_3$ is another TNLSM with a double nodal line. This material is gapped into a pair of Dirac nodes under broken mirror reflection symmetry.
\medskip
\par
Unusual surface states, including Dirac surface states in drumhead semimetals (DSM) \cite{SR2014Yi, PRB2018Hosen}, Fermi-arc surface states in WSM \,\cite{ S2015Xu, NP2016Deng}, and drumhead surface states (DSS) in NLSM \cite{DH2020Hosen, DH2020Muechler, DH2016Bian, DH2020Wang, DH2017Li, DH2015Weng} are supported by TSM. So far, only bulk and surface Landau levels (LLs), together with their transport properties, have been extensively investigated for DSM \cite{NP2014Fu, PRL2011Apa, PRB2010Hana, PRL2010Cheng, ACS2020Chong} and WSM \cite{NC2018Yuan, PRB2018Say,PRB1983Nie, PRB2020Mat, SR2016Zhang, PRL2017Wang}.
\medskip
\par
We refer the reader to Ref. [\onlinecite{ChiJou}] for a review of other remarkable properties of these TSM systems as well as a discussion of possible technological applications . The optical conductivity of monolayer and bilayer graphene, and few-layer epitaxial graphite has been reported recently. These studies have yielded useful information regarding the electron dynamics. Here, we consider the optical conductivity of a NLS model system with special emphasis on the optical spectral weight redistribution due to changes in the chemical potential caused by charging as well as an adjustable parameter $\alpha$ which governs the degree of crossing between the valence and conduction bands.
\medskip
\par
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Sec.\ \ref{sec2}, we present the theoretical formalism for the calculation of the optical conductivity based on the simplest nearest-neighboring Hamiltonian. This model involves an adjustable parameter $\alpha$ associated with a nodal circle which may shrink to a point when $\alpha=0$. Here, we have managed to derive a conveniently simple analytical expression for the frequency-dependent conductivity for arbitrary chemical potential, making this a convenient result for experimentalists. In Sec. \ \ref{sec3}, we present numerical results demonstrating the anisotroppy of the system, the $\alpha$-dependence and charging pertaining to the biasing of the NLSM sample. In Sec.\ \ \ref{sec4}, we present and discuss our numerical results for the density-of-states.
Acknowledging that the Hamiltonian in Sec.\ \ref{sec2} is not fully representative of the band structure properties of a specific NLSM but only captures some essential properties of this class of materials, we present another model Hamiltonian in Sec.\ \ref{sec5}. We discovered that both models have similar behaviors for their optical conductivities and so may be employed to make some important predictions about the optical properties of NLSMs. Section\ \ref{sec6} is devoted to a summary of our results.
\section{Theoretical Background}
\label{sec2}
Let us consider a Hamiltonian for which the nodal line is stable against perturbations. However, the nodal line may still shrink continuously to a point. In this regard, we turn to a single-spin effective Hamiltonian of a material such as
ZrSiSe and ZrSiTe. \cite{ZrSiSe,NaturePhys} In Ref.\ [\onlinecite{PRX}], the band structure of ZrSiTe
was obtained using {\em ab initio\/} calculations. The idea here is to carry out a calculation based on a model Hamiltonian which mimics the essential features of the true band structure near the $\Gamma$ point of a NLSM such as ZrSiTe. In general, these band structures obtained from first-principles calculations or the generalized tight-binding model are very complicated. Of course, not all features are reproduced by this model Hamiltonian throughout the Brillouin zone but it could serve as a useful tool for generating qualitative results to get a better understanding of this growing class of topological semimetals. Our model Hamiltonian is given by
\begin{equation}
\hat{H}= (\alpha-k^2)\hat{\sigma}_z + k_z\hat{\sigma}_x \ ,
\label{Hamil1}
\end{equation}
where energy is measured in units of $\hbar v_F k_F$ with $v_F$ the Fermi velocity equal to $10^6$m/s and $k_F$ is the Fermi wave vector. Also, the wave vector ${\bf k}=(k_x,k_y,k_z)$ is scaled in terms of $\pi/a$ where $a$ is the lattice constant and $-1\leq k_i\leq 1$ with $i=x,y,z$. We have $\hat{\sigma}_x,\hat{\sigma}_z$ representing Pauli matrices. The quantity $\alpha$ is an adjustable parameter which can be employed to vary the energy gap around the $\Gamma$ point for which the energy bands are given by
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_{s}({\bf k}) =s \sqrt{k_z^2 +(\alpha-k^2)^2}
\end{equation}
Therefore, if $\alpha>0$, the two subbands cross each other near the $\Gamma $ point on the $ (k_x,k_y) $ plane for fixed $k_z=0$, describing a nodal circle of radius $\sqrt{\alpha}$ which shrinks to a point at ${\bf k}=0$ as $\alpha $ is decreased to zero and the nodal circle vanishes when $\alpha<0$. In Fig.\ \ref{energy}, we plot the energy bands in the first BZ along lines joining points of high symmetry, corresponding to $\alpha=0$ and $\alpha=0.5 $. These two contrasting cases demonstrate how the band gap near $\Gamma$ may be tuned by varying this parameter which may be manipulated as a function of strain. In Fig.\ \ref{FIG:1B}, we compare the band structures for $\alpha=0.5$ within the $(k_x,k_y)$ plane for fixed (a) $k_z=0$ and (b) $k_z=0.2$. It is clear from these results that the band structure is modified by finite $\alpha$ throughout the BZ. This modification of the band structure has significant effects on the physical properties we calculate in this paper.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Fig1.pdf}
\caption{ (Color online) (a) shows the 3D first Brillouin zone with its high-symmetry points for the bulk NLSM. Bulk
band structures between the high symmetry points (left) and corresponding density of states (right) for (b) $\alpha=0$ and (c) $\alpha=0.5 $. The 3D contour bands at low energy on the selected ($k_x, k_y$) plane for (d) $k_z=0$ and (e) $k_z=0.2$. }
\label{energy}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Fig2.pdf}
\caption{ (Color online) Comparison of the band structures, when $\alpha=0.5$, at low energy between high symmetry points on the selected ($k_x, k_y$) plane for (a) $k_z=0$ and (b) $k_z=0.2$. }
\label{FIG:1B}
\end{figure}
\medskip
\par
The normalized eigenvectors $\varphi_{s}$ (for $s=\pm$) of the Hamiltonian (\ref{Hamil1}) are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{phi}
\varphi_{s}({\bf k}) = \left(
\begin{array}{c}
\beta_{s} ({\bf k})\\
\eta_{s}({\bf k})
\end{array}%
\right) \frac{e^{i{\bf k}\cdot{\bf r}}}{\sqrt{\cal V}}\ ,
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\cal V}$ is a normalization volume.
and $\beta_{s}$ and $\eta_{s}$ are given by
\begin{eqnarray} \label{xy2}
\beta_{s} ^{2}({\bf k}) &=& \frac{k_{z}^{2}}{k_{z}^{2} + \left(k^{2} - \alpha \ +s
\sqrt{\left(k^{2} - \alpha\right)^{2} + k_{z}^{2}}\right)^{2}} \ ; \\
\eta_{s}^{2}({\bf k}) &=& \frac{\left(k^{2} - \alpha \ +s\sqrt{\left(k^{2} - \alpha
\right)^{2} + k_{z}^{2}}\right)^{2}}{k_{z}^{2} + \left(k^{2} - \alpha \ +s
\sqrt{\left(k^{2} - \alpha \right)^{2} + k_{z}^{2}}\right)^{2}} ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\beta_{s}$ and $\eta_{s}$ satisfy the normalization condition: $\beta_{s}^{2} +\eta_{s}^{2} = 1$.
\medskip
\par
We now introduce the Green's function defined by $\hat{{\cal G}}^{-1}(z)=z\hat{I}-\hat{H}$ which in matrix form is written as
\begin{equation}
\hat{{\cal G}}(\omega , {\bf k})=\frac{1}{{\cal D}(\omega , {\bf k})}\left( \begin{array}{cc}
\omega +(\alpha-k^2 ) & k_z\\
\\
k_z & \omega -(\alpha-k^2 )
\end{array}\right)\ ,
\label{e1}
\end{equation}
with ${\cal D}(\omega , {\bf k}) \equiv \omega^2 -(\alpha -k^2)^2-k_z^2=(\omega-\epsilon_{+}({\bf k})
)(\omega- \epsilon_{-}({\bf k}) )$.
Now, the spectral function representation of the Green's function is for $i,j=1,2$
\begin{equation}
{\cal G}_{ij}(z)=\int_{-\infty}^\infty \frac{d\omega^\prime}{2\pi}
\frac{A_{ij}(\omega^\prime)}{z-\omega^\prime} \ .
\end{equation}
So, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
A_{11}({\bf k},\omega) &=& \frac{2\pi }{\epsilon_+-\epsilon_-} \left\{ (\epsilon_++(\alpha-k^2)) \delta(\omega-\epsilon_+) -
(\epsilon_-+(\alpha-k^2)) \delta(\omega-\epsilon_-)
\right\}
\nonumber\\
A_{22}({\bf k} ,\omega) &=& \frac{2\pi }{\epsilon_+-\epsilon_-} \left\{ (\epsilon_+-(\alpha-k^2)) \delta(\omega-\epsilon_+) -
(\epsilon_- -(\alpha-k^2)) \delta(\omega-\epsilon_-)
\right\}
\nonumber\\
A_{12}({\bf k} , \omega) &=& A_{21}({\bf k} , \omega)= \frac{2\pi k_z}{\epsilon_+-\epsilon_-} \left\{
\delta(\omega - \epsilon_+) -\delta(\omega - \epsilon_-)\right\} \ .
\label{spectralfn}
\end{eqnarray}
We can write the real part of the optical conductivity in the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma_{\alpha\beta}(\Omega)&=&\frac{N_fe^2}{2\Omega}
\int_{-\infty}^\infty \frac{d\omega}{2\pi} [ f(\omega-\mu) -
f(\omega +\Omega -\mu) ]
\nonumber\\
&\times& \int_{BZ} \frac{d^3{\bf k}}{(2\pi)^3}
Tr\left[ \hat{v}_\alpha \hat{A}({\bf k},\omega+\Omega) \hat{v}_\beta \hat{A}({\bf k},\omega )
\right] \ ,
\label{sigma}
\end{eqnarray}
where $N_f$ is a degeneracy factor for the spin and valleys and at temperature T, we have $f(x)=1/[\exp(x/T)+1]$ as the Fermi function and $\mu$ is the chemical potential. Also, $\alpha,\beta$ represent spatial coordinates $x,y,z$. In doing our numerical calculations, , we choose only the T=0 K case. For the longitudinal in-plane conductivity, $\hat{\sigma}_{xx}(\Omega)$, we have $\hat{v}_\alpha =\hat{v}_\beta=\hat{v}_x=-2k_x\hat{\sigma}_z$. Putting these results together, we conclude that the longitudinal conductivity $\sigma_{xx}(\Omega)$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma_{xx} (\Omega)&=&\frac{N_fe^2}{2\Omega}
\int_{-\infty}^\infty \frac{d\omega}{2\pi} [ f(\omega-\mu) -
f(\omega +\Omega -\mu) ]
\nonumber\\
&\times& \int_{BZ} \frac{d^3{\bf k}}{(2\pi)^3}
\ (2 k_x)^2 \left\{ A_{11}(\omega+\Omega) A_{11}(\omega)
-A_{12}(\omega+\Omega) A_{21}(\omega) \right.
\nonumber\\
&-& \left.
A_{21}(\omega+\Omega) A_{12}(\omega) +
A_{22}(\omega+\Omega) A_{22}(\omega) \right\} \ .
\label{numerics}
\end{eqnarray}\
For temperature $T= 0$ K, the Fermi function acts as a step function so the integration limit changes to $|\mu |- \Omega$ to $|\mu |$. In order to simplify the expressions, we chose $E_k$ to represent the magnitude of energy eigenvalue. Hence, we replaced $\epsilon_+ ({\bf k})= E_k$ and $\epsilon_- ({\bf k}) = -E_k $. Then, the conductivity becomes
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{xx}(\Omega) = \frac{N_f e^2}{8 \hbar \Omega \pi^4} \int_{|\mu |- \Omega}^{|\mu |} d\omega \int_{BZ} d^3 {\bf k} \ k^2_x \ {\bf\gamma}({\bf k},\omega ;\Omega) \ ,
\label{numerics2}
\end{equation}\
where
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf\gamma}({\bf k},\omega ;\Omega) & \equiv& A_{11}(\omega+\Omega) \ A_{11}(\omega)
-A_{12}(\omega+\Omega) \ A_{21}(\omega)
- A_{21}(\omega+\Omega) \ A_{12}(\omega) +
A_{22}(\omega+\Omega) \ A_{22}(\omega)\nonumber\\
&=& \left.
\frac{2 \pi^2}{E_k^2}\{ [\, E_k^2 + (\alpha-k^2)^2 - k^2_z]\,[\, \delta( \omega + \Omega - E_k ) \ \delta( \omega -E_k)+ \delta( \omega + \Omega + E_k ) \ \delta( \omega +E_k )]\,\right.
\nonumber\\
&+&\left.
[\, E_k^2 - (\alpha-k^2)^2 + k^2_z]\, [\, \delta( \omega + \Omega - E_k ) \ \delta( \omega +E_k ) + \delta( \omega + \Omega + E_k ) \ \delta( \omega -E_k )]\, \}\right.
\nonumber\\
&=& \left.
4 \pi^2\{ [\,1 - \frac{k^2_z}{E_k^2}]\,[\, \delta( \omega + \Omega - E_k ) \ \delta( \omega -E_k )+ \delta( \omega + \Omega + E_k) \ \delta( \omega +E_k )]\,\right.
\nonumber\\
&+&\left.
\frac{k^2_z}{E_k^2}[\, \delta( \omega + \Omega - E_k) \ \delta( \omega +E_k ) + \delta( \omega + \Omega + E_k) \ \delta( \omega -E_k)]\, \}\right. \ .
\label{Gamma}
\end{eqnarray}
which is an even function of ${\bf k}=(k_x,k_y,k_z)$.
Substituting the value for ${\bf\gamma}$, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma_{xx}(\Omega) &=& \frac{N_f e^2}{2 \hbar \Omega \pi^2} \int_{|\mu |- \Omega}^{|\mu |} d\omega \int_{B} d^3 {\bf k} \ k^2_x
\nonumber\\
&\times & \left.
\{ [\,1 - \frac{k^2_z}{E_k^2}]\,[\, \delta( \omega + \Omega - E_k ) \delta( \omega -E_k )+ \delta( \omega + \Omega + E_k) \delta( \omega +E_k )]\,\right.
\nonumber\\
&+&\left.
\frac{k^2_z}{E_k^2}[\, \delta( \omega + \Omega - E_k ) \delta( \omega +E_k ) + \delta( \omega + \Omega + E_k ) \delta( \omega -E_k)]\, \}\right.
\label{numerics3}
\end{eqnarray}
\medskip
\par
These terms give the intraband and interband contributions to the conductivity due to transitions within the conduction band and from transitions between the valence and conduction bands, respectively. The significance of these contributions is determined by the level of doping, the frequency $\Omega$ and implicitly by $\alpha$ through the energy dispersion $\epsilon_{s}({\bf k})$. The limit when $\Omega \to 0$ is an interesting case and corresponds to the Drude conductivity. \cite{Calvin}. Additionally, the terms proportional to $1-k_z^2/E^2$ in Eq.\ (\ref{numerics3}) vanish when $\Omega > 0$.
\medskip
\par
Similarly, for $\alpha $ = $\beta$ = $y$,we have $\hat{v}_\alpha =\hat{v}_\beta=\hat{v}_y=-2k_y\hat{\sigma}_z$. The expression for $\sigma_{yy}(\Omega)$ comes out to be
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma_{yy}(\Omega)& =& \frac{N_f e^2}{2 \Omega} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{d\omega}{2\pi}\;\left[ f(\omega - \mu)- f(\omega + \Omega -\mu)\right] \int_{BZ} \frac{d^3 {\bf k}}{(2\pi)^3} \;(2k_y)^2 {\bf\gamma}({\bf k},\omega ;\Omega)
\nonumber \\
&=&\left.
\frac{N_f e^2}{2\hbar \Omega \pi^2} \int_{|\mu |- \Omega}^{|\mu |} d\omega \, \int_{BZ} d^3{\bf k} \,k^2_y \{ [\, 1 - \frac{k_z^2}{E_k^2}]\,[\, \delta( \omega + \Omega - E_k ) \ \delta( \omega -E_k )+ \delta( \omega + \Omega + E_k) \delta( \omega +E_k)]\, \right.
\nonumber\\
& +&\left.
\frac{k_z^2}{E_k^2}[\, \delta( \omega + \Omega - E_k ) \delta( \omega +E_k ) + \delta( \omega + \Omega + E_k ) \delta( \omega -E_k)]\,\}\right.
\label{numerics4}
\end{eqnarray}
Additionally, for $\alpha $ = $\beta$ = $z$,we have $\hat{v}_\alpha =\hat{v}_\beta=\hat{v}_z=-2k_z\hat{\sigma}_z+\hat{\sigma}_x$. The $\sigma_{zz}(\Omega)$ is
\medskip
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma_{zz}(\Omega) &=& \frac{N_f e^2}{2 \Omega} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{d\omega}{2\pi}\;\left[ f(\omega - \mu)- f(\omega + \Omega -\mu)\right] \int_{BZ} \frac{d^3 k}{(2\pi)^3} \;\{(2k_z)^2 {\bf\gamma}({\bf k},\omega ;\Omega) -4k_z {\bf\kappa}({\bf k},\omega ;\Omega) + {\bf\zeta}({\bf k},\omega ;\Omega)\}
\nonumber\\
&=& \left.
\frac{N_f e^2}{8\hbar \Omega \pi^2} \int_{|\mu |- \Omega}^{|\mu |} d\omega \, \int_{BZ} d^3 {\bf k} \ \{ [\,4k^2_z \ [\, 1 - \frac{k_z^2}{E_k^2}-\frac{(\alpha-k^2)}{E_k^2} \,]\ +\frac{k_z^2}{E_k^2}]\, \ [\, \delta( \omega + \Omega - E_k ) \ \delta( \omega -E_k ) + \delta( \omega + \Omega + E_k ) \ \delta( \omega +E_k )]\,\right.
\nonumber\\
&+& \left.
[\,4\frac{k_z^2}{E_k^2} \ [\,k_z^2 + (\alpha-k^2) ]\,+(1-\frac{k_z^2}{E_k^2})]\, \ [\, \delta( \omega + \Omega - E_k ) \ \delta( \omega +E_k ) + \delta( \omega + \Omega + E_k ) \ \delta( \omega -E_k)]\,\} \right. \ ,
\label{numerics5}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf\kappa} ({\bf k},\omega; \Omega) &\equiv& A_{11}(\omega + \Omega) \ A_{12}(\omega) + A_{12}(\omega + \Omega) \ A_{11}(\omega ) -A_{12}(\omega + \Omega) \ A_{22}(\omega) - A_{22}(\omega + \Omega) \ A_{12}(\omega )
\nonumber\\
&=& \left.
\frac{4\pi^2 k_z (\alpha-k^2)}{E_k^2} \ \{ \delta(\omega+\Omega - E_k) \ \delta(\omega-E_k)- \delta(\omega+\Omega + E_k) \ \delta(\omega-E_k)\right.
\nonumber\\
&-&\left.
\delta(\omega+\Omega - E_k) \ \delta(\omega+E_k)+ \delta(\omega+\Omega + E_k) \ \delta(\omega+E_k)\}\right.
\label{Kappa}
\end{eqnarray}
which is an even function of ${\bf k}=(k_x,k_y,k_z)$. and
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf\zeta}({\bf k},\omega; \Omega) &\equiv& A_{22}(\omega + \Omega) \ A_{11}(\omega)+ A_{11}(\omega+\Omega) \ A_{22}(\omega)+ 2 A_{12}(\omega+\Omega) \ A_{12}(\omega)
\nonumber\\
&=& \left.
4\pi^2 \ \{(1 - \frac{k^2_z}{E_k^2})[ \delta(\omega+\Omega -E_k) \ \delta(\omega+E_k)+ \delta(\omega+\Omega+E_k) \ \delta(\omega- E_k ) ]\right.
\nonumber\\
&+&\left.
\frac{k_z^2}{E_k^2} \ [\delta(\omega+\Omega-E_k) \ \delta(\omega-E_k)+ \delta(\omega+\Omega+E_k) \ \delta(\omega+E_k)]\}\right.
\label{Zeta}
\end{eqnarray}
which is also an even function of ${\bf k}=(k_x,k_y,k_z)$.\\
For the transverse component $\sigma_{xy} (\Omega)$, we must set $\alpha = x$, $\beta = y$, \ $\hat{v}_\alpha=\hat{v}_x=-2k_x\hat{\sigma}_z$ and $\hat{v}_\beta=\hat{v}_y=-2k_y\hat{\sigma}_z$ Then we obtain
\begin{equation}\sigma_{xy} (\Omega) = \frac{N_fe^2}{2\Omega}
\int_{-\infty}^\infty \frac{d\omega}{2\pi} [ f(\omega-\mu) -
f(\omega +\Omega -\mu) ] \ \int \frac{d^3{\bf k}}{(2\pi)^3} \ (4 k_xk_y) \ {\bf\gamma}({\bf k},\omega ;\Omega) .
\label{numerics6}
\end{equation}
Since the integrand of $\sigma_{xy}$ is an odd function of $k_x$, the transverse component of the conductivity along $k_x k_y$ is zero.
Similarly, for $\sigma_{yz} (\Omega)$, setting $\alpha = y$, $\beta = z$, \ $\hat{v}_\alpha=\hat{v}_y=-2k_y\hat{\sigma}_z$ and $\hat{v}_\beta=\hat{v}_z=-2k_z\hat{\sigma}_z +\hat{\sigma}_x $ and for $\sigma_{xz} (\Omega)$, setting $\alpha = x$, $\beta = z$, \ $\hat{v}_\alpha=\hat{v}_x=-2k_x\hat{\sigma}_z$ and $\hat{v}_\beta=\hat{v}_z=-2k_z\hat{\sigma}_z +\hat{\sigma}_x $ we arrive at
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{yz} (\Omega) = \frac{N_f e^2}{2\hbar \Omega} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{d\omega}{2\pi}\;\left[ f(\omega - \mu)- f(\omega + \Omega -\mu)\right] \int_{BZ} \frac{d^3 {\bf k}}{(2\pi)^3} \ \{-2k_y \ {\bf \kappa}({\bf k},\omega ;\Omega) + 4 k_y k_z \ {\bf \gamma}({\bf k},\omega ;\Omega) \}
\label{numerics7}
\end{equation}
\medskip
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{xz} (\Omega)= \frac{N_f e^2}{2\hbar \Omega} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{d\omega}{2\pi}\;\left[ f(\omega - \mu)- f(\omega + \Omega -\mu)\right] \int_{BZ} \frac{d^3 {\bf k}}{(2\pi)^3} \ \{-2k_x \ {\bf \kappa}({\bf k},\omega ;\Omega) + 4 k_x k_z \ {\bf \gamma}({\bf k},\omega ;\Omega)\ .
\label{numerics8}
\end{equation}
Clearly, the integrand in Eq.\ (\ref{numerics7}) and \ (\ref{numerics8}) both are an odd function of $k_x$ and $k_y$ thereby making $\sigma_{yz} (\Omega)$ and $\sigma_{xz} (\Omega)$ both zero.
\medskip
\par
We now employ these results in the following section to carry out our numerical calculations for the longitudinal optical conductivity. These results exhibit the anisotropy of this NLSM system and demonstrate their dependence on the parameter $\alpha$ and the chemical potential $\mu$ as the frequency is varied.
\medskip
\par
\section{Results and Discussion For the Longitudinal Conductivity}
\label{sec3}
We now examine in detail with our numerical solutions the real part of longitudinal optical conductivity of an anisotropic nodal-line semimetal along the radial $x$, $y$ and axial $z$ directions. For the calculations, we have used $N_f = 2$ corresponds to the valley degeneracy, the small momentum cutoff at $k_{max} = \sqrt{\alpha + \mu}$ and a Lorentzian representation for the delta function, i.e., \(\delta(x)=\frac{\eta}{\pi} \frac{1}{\eta^2+x^2} \) with a broadening of $\eta=0.05$. The broadening is manifest in the optical conductivity as an effective transport scattering rate of $\frac{1}{\tau}= 2\eta$. It is convenient to scale the conductivity by $\sigma_0=e^2/4\hbar$ and we set $\hbar=1$ in the above Kubo formula..
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{xx.pdf}
\caption{ (Color online) Longitudinal optical conductivity along $k_x$ for (a) $\alpha=0 $ and (b) $\alpha=0.5 $ for chosen values of chemical potential $\mu $.The scales for $y$ label are different in (a) and (b). }
\label{xx}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{yy.pdf}
\caption{ (Color online) Longitudinal optical conductivity along $k_y$ for (a) $\alpha=0 $ and (b) $\alpha=0.5 $ for chosen values for chemical potential $\mu $. The scales for $y$ label are different for (a) and (b.) }
\label{yy}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{zz.pdf}
\caption{ (Color online) Longitudinal optical conductivity versus frequency along $k_z$ for (a) $\alpha=0 $ and (b) $\alpha=0.5 $ for chosen values of chemical potential $\mu $. The scales for $y$ label are different for (a) and (b). }
\label{zz}
\end{figure}
\medskip
\par
Let us start from Fig.\ref{energy}, where the presence of a gap between the valence and conduction bands is generated by a finite value of the adjustable parameter $\alpha$. The optical conductivity associated with these gaps is illustrated in Figs.\ \ref{xx}, \ \ref{yy} and \ref{zz}.These conductivities are due to both intraband and interband transitions between electron states in the gapped bands.For the charge neutral semimetal, the conductivity is finite for $\Omega\to 0 $ and decreases monotonically zero at higher values of frequency. We note that the only transitions which are allowed between subbands are those for which the variable of integration lies between $\mu$ and $\mu-\Omega$. We have not included the contribution from delta function for $\Omega = 0$. The single finite jump in the conductivity for $\Omega = 2 \mu$ is the contribution from another delta function at $\Omega = 2 E$, which is associated with the transition between lowest gap bands.
\medskip
\par
Since $k_x $ and $k_y$ appear with equal weight in the Hamiltonian given in Eq.\ (\ref{Hamil1}), the longitudinal conductivities $\sigma_{xx}$ and $\sigma_{yy}$ are exactly the same. However, the higher weight of $k_z$ in the Hamiltonian is reflected in the longitudinal conductivity $\sigma_{zz}$. For $\alpha=0$, the valance and conduction bands just touch each other and this leads to substantial differences with the results when this parameter is finite giving rise to a gap. Specifically, the optical conductivity for the gapless semimetal is significantly reduced compared to the case when a sizeable gap is opened. As the gap opens for a positive value of $\alpha$, the conductivities are also increased for a doped NLSM. For the finite value of $\mu$, zero conductivity for the frequency less than $2 \mu$ and finite value for the frequency greater than $2 \mu$ reveals that the conductivity is purely due to interband transitions and that transition follow the Pauli exclusion principle. Throughout these calculations, we have considered the low-energy Hamiltonian with only two bands . Consequently, these results are applicable for small values of chemical potential and for low frequency. For large values of chemical potential and for higher frequency range, the contribution of other subbands to the conductivity may be substantially effective.\cite{Barati}.
\section{Density of states}
\label{sec4}
\medskip
For the density-of-states, we have
\begin{equation}
N(\omega)= N_f \int_{BZ} \frac{d^3{\bf k}}{(2\pi)^3} \sum_{s=\pm} \delta (\omega -\epsilon_s({\bf k}))
\end{equation}
for which we again employ a Lorentzian representation for the delta function. The effects due to the gaps between the energy subbands that are generated by the positive parameter $\alpha $ are clearly reflected in the density of states. The presented density of states in Fig.\ref{dos} are for three values of $\alpha=0,\ 0.5$ and $1.0$
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{Fig5.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) Low-energy density of states for chosen values of $\alpha$ .}
\label{dos}
\end{figure}
\section{Another example of a nodal-line semimetal}
\label{sec5}
An effective Hamiltonian for electrons in nodal-line semimetals is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Ham2}
\hat{H} (\mathbf{k}) = k_{x}s_{x}\otimes I + k_{y}s_{y}\otimes
\tau_{y} + k_{z}s_{z} \otimes I + \alpha \tau_{x}\otimes s_{x} ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\otimes$ is the Kronecker product of two matrices, The Hamiltonian $\hat{H} (\mathbf{k})$ in Eq.~(\ref{Ham2}) reads in matrix form as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Ham4mat}
\hat{H} (\mathbf{k}) = \left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
k_{z} & 0 & k_{x} & \left(\alpha - k_{y}\right) \\
0 & k_{z} & \left(\alpha + k_{y}\right) & k_{x} \\
k_{x} & \left(\alpha + k_{y}\right) & - k_{z} & 0 \\
\left(\alpha - k_{y}\right)& k_{x} & 0 & - k_{z}
\end{array}%
\right) .
\end{eqnarray}
The eigenvalues $\epsilon_{s,s^\prime} ({\bf k})$ of $\hat{H} (\mathbf{k})$ from
Eq.~(\ref{Ham4mat}) are
\begin{eqnarray}
\epsilon_{s,s^\prime} ({\bf k})= s \sqrt{k_{z}^{2} + \left(\sqrt{k_{x}^{2} +
k_{y}^{2}} \ + s^\prime \alpha \right)^{2}} \ .
\label{E1234}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{Fig.pdf}
\caption{ (Color online)
(a) First Brillouin zone with high symmetry points for the bulk NLSM described by the Hamiltonian in Eq.\ (\ref{Ham2}). Bulk bands along lines joining the high symmetry points (left) and corresponding density-of-states (right) for (b) $\alpha=0$ and (c) $\alpha=0.5 $ . The 3D contour bands at low energy on the selected ($k_x,k_y$) planes for (d) $k_z=0$ and (e) $k_z= 0.2$. }
\label{B3}
\end{figure}
In this case, the Green's function has the following matrix elements
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{{\cal G}}_{11}(\omega)&=&\frac{1}{{\cal D}_2(\omega)}\left\{
-\alpha^2k_z-\omega\alpha^2 -2\omega k_yk_z -2\omega\alpha k_y -k_x^2k_z -\omega k_x^2 -k_y^2k_z -\omega k_y^2 -k_z^3-\omega k_z^2 +\omega^2 k_z +\omega^3\right\}
\nonumber\\
\hat{{\cal G}}_{12}(\omega)=\hat{{\cal G}}_{21}(\omega)&=&\frac{2\alpha k_x}{{\cal D}_2(\omega)}\left\{k_z+\omega
\right\}
\nonumber\\
\hat{{\cal G}}_{13}(\omega)=\hat{{\cal G}}_{31}(\omega)&=&\frac{1}{{\cal D}_2(\omega)}\left\{
\alpha^2k_x-k_x^3 -k_xk_y^2 -k_xk_z^2+\omega^2k_x\right\}
\nonumber\\
\hat{{\cal G}}_{14}(\omega)=\hat{{\cal G}}_{41}(\omega)&=&\frac{1}{{\cal D}_2(\omega)}\left\{
-\alpha^3-\alpha^2k_y+\alpha k_x^2+\alpha k_y^2-\alpha k_z^2+\omega^2\alpha +k_x^2k_y+k_y^3+k_yk_z^2-\omega^2k_y
\right\}
\nonumber\\
\hat{{\cal G}}_{22}(\omega)&=&\frac{1}{{\cal D}_2(\omega)}\left\{
-\alpha^2k_z-\omega\alpha^2 + 2\alpha k_yk_z +2\omega\alpha k_y -k_x^2k_z -\omega k_x^2 -k_y^2k_z -\omega k_y^2 -k_z^3-\omega k_z^2 +\omega^2 k_z +\omega^3\right\}
\nonumber\\
\hat{{\cal G}}_{23}(\omega)=\hat{{\cal G}}_{32}(\omega)&=&\frac{1}{{\cal D}_2(\omega)}\left\{
-\alpha^3+\alpha^2k_y+\alpha k_x^2+\alpha k_y^2-\alpha k_z^2+\omega^2\alpha -k_x^2k_y-k_y^3-k_yk_z^2+\omega^2k_y
\right\}
\nonumber\\
\hat{{\cal G}}_{24}(\omega)=\hat{{\cal G}}_{42}(\omega)&=&\frac{1}{{\cal D}_2(\omega)}\left\{
\alpha^2k_x-k_x^3 -k_xk_y^2 -k_xk_z^2+\omega^2k_x\right\}
\nonumber\\
\hat{{\cal G}}_{33}(\omega)&=&\frac{1}{{\cal D}_2(\omega)}\left\{
\alpha^2k_z-\omega\alpha^2 -2\omega k_yk_z +2\omega\alpha k_y +k_x^2k_z -\omega k_x^2 +k_y^2k_z -\omega k_y^2 +k_z^3-\omega k_z^2 -\omega^2 k_z +\omega^3\right\}
\nonumber\\
\hat{{\cal G}}_{34}(\omega)= \hat{{\cal G}}_{43}(\omega)&=&\frac{2\alpha k_x}{{\cal D}_2(\omega)}\left\{\omega -k_z
\right\}
\nonumber\\
\hat{{\cal G}}_{44}(\omega)&=&\frac{1}{{\cal D}_2(\omega)}\left\{
\alpha^2k_z-\omega\alpha^2 +2\alpha k_yk_z -2\omega\alpha k_y +k_x^2k_z -\omega k_x^2\right.
\nonumber\\
&+& \left. k_y^2k_z -\omega k_y^2 +k_z^3-\omega k_z^2 -\omega^2 k_z +\omega^3\right\}
\label{App2}
\end{eqnarray}
The function ${\cal D}_2(\omega)=(\omega-\epsilon_{+,+})(\omega -\epsilon_{+,-})(\omega -\epsilon_{-,+})(\omega -\epsilon_{-,-})$ where the eigenvalues are given in Eq.\ (\ref{E1234}).
\medskip
\par
We can now use these results to determine the velocity matrices as well as the spectral functions for this Hamiltonian of the nodal-line semimetal. We have determined the eigenvectors for this case but the expressions are long and unwieldly and not needed for calculating the optical conductivity. We will need these for determining the plasmon dispersion. For calculating $\sigma(\omega)$, we employ
\begin{equation}
\label{xvz}
\hat{v}_x= \left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
1 & 0 & - 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & - 0
\end{array}%
\right) \ \ \ \ \ ,
\hat{v}_y= \left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 0 & 0 & -1 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
-1 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}%
\right) \ \ \ \ \ ,
\hat{v}_z= \left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & - 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & - 1
\end{array}%
\right) \ .
\end{equation}
\begin{eqnarray}
\epsilon_1 &=&\epsilon_{++} = \sqrt{k^2_z + (\sqrt{k^2_x + k^2_y}+ \alpha)^2}\nonumber \\
\epsilon_2 &=& \epsilon_{+-} = \sqrt{k^2_z + (\sqrt{k^2_x + k^2_y}- \alpha)^2}\nonumber \\
\epsilon_{-+} &=& - \epsilon_1 \ and \ \epsilon_{--} = -\epsilon_2 \nonumber \\.
\label{eigenvalue2}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
A_{11}(\omega) &=& \frac{\pi }{4\alpha} \frac{\omega+k_z}{\sqrt{k^2_x + k^2_y}}\ (\omega^2 - k^2_z - k^2_x - k^2_y - \alpha^2 -2\alpha k_y)\left\{ \frac{1}{\epsilon_1}( \delta(\omega-\epsilon_1) -
\delta(\omega+\epsilon_1))- \frac{1}{\epsilon_2}( \delta(\omega-\epsilon_2) -
\delta(\omega+\epsilon_2))
\right\}
\nonumber\\
A_{22}(\omega) &=& \frac{\pi }{4\alpha} \frac{\omega+k_z}{\sqrt{k^2_x + k^2_y}}\ (\omega^2 - k^2_z - k^2_x - k^2_y - \alpha^2 +2\alpha k_y)\left\{ \frac{1}{\epsilon_1}( \delta(\omega-\epsilon_1) -
\delta(\omega+\epsilon_1))- \frac{1}{\epsilon_2}( \delta(\omega-\epsilon_2) -
\delta(\omega+\epsilon_2))
\right\}
\nonumber\\
A_{33}(\omega) &=& \frac{\pi }{4\alpha} \frac{\omega-k_z}{\sqrt{k^2_x + k^2_y}}\ (\omega^2 - k^2_z - k^2_x - k^2_y - \alpha^2 +2\alpha k_y)\left\{ \frac{1}{\epsilon_1}( \delta(\omega-\epsilon_1) -
\delta(\omega+\epsilon_1))- \frac{1}{\epsilon_2}( \delta(\omega-\epsilon_2) -
\delta(\omega+\epsilon_2))
\right\}
\nonumber\\
A_{44}(\omega) &=& \frac{\pi }{4\alpha} \frac{\omega-k_z}{\sqrt{k^2_x + k^2_y}}\ (\omega^2 - k^2_z - k^2_x - k^2_y - \alpha^2 -2\alpha k_y)\left\{ \frac{1}{\epsilon_1}( \delta(\omega-\epsilon_1) -
\delta(\omega+\epsilon_1))- \frac{1}{\epsilon_2}( \delta(\omega-\epsilon_2) -
\delta(\omega+\epsilon_2))
\right\}
\nonumber\\
A_{12}(\omega) &=& A_{21}(\omega)= \frac{\pi }{4\alpha} \frac{\omega+k_z}{\sqrt{k^2_x + k^2_y}}\ (2 \alpha k_x)\left\{ \frac{1}{\epsilon_1}( \delta(\omega-\epsilon_1) -
\delta(\omega+\epsilon_1))- \frac{1}{\epsilon_2}( \delta(\omega-\epsilon_2) -
\delta(\omega+\epsilon_2))
\right\}
\nonumber\\
A_{34}(\omega) &=& A_{43}(\omega)= \frac{\pi }{4\alpha} \frac{\omega-k_z}{\sqrt{k^2_x + k^2_y}}\ (2 \alpha k_x)\left\{ \frac{1}{\epsilon_1}( \delta(\omega-\epsilon_1) -
\delta(\omega+\epsilon_1))- \frac{1}{\epsilon_2}( \delta(\omega-\epsilon_2) -
\delta(\omega+\epsilon_2))
\right\}
\nonumber\\
A_{13}(\omega) &=& A_{31}(\omega)= A_{24}(\omega) = A_{42}(\omega)= \frac{\pi }{4\alpha} \frac{k_x}{\sqrt{k^2_x + k^2_y}}\ (\omega^2 - k^2_z - k^2_x - k^2_y + \alpha^2)\left\{ \frac{1}{\epsilon_1}( \delta(\omega-\epsilon_1) -
\delta(\omega+\epsilon_1))\right. \nonumber\\
&-& \left. \frac{1}{\epsilon_2}( \delta(\omega-\epsilon_2) -
\delta(\omega+\epsilon_2))
\right\}
\nonumber\\
A_{14}(\omega) &=& A_{41}(\omega)= \frac{\pi }{4\alpha} \frac{1}{\sqrt{k^2_x + k^2_y}}\ \left\{(\alpha+k_y)(k^2_x + k^2_y - \alpha^2)+(\alpha-k_y)(\omega^2-k^2_z)\right\}
\left\{ \frac{1}{\epsilon_1}( \delta(\omega-\epsilon_1) -
\delta(\omega+\epsilon_1)) \right. \nonumber\\
&-& \left. \frac{1}{\epsilon_2}( \delta(\omega-\epsilon_2) -
\delta(\omega+\epsilon_2))
\right\}
\nonumber\\
A_{23}(\omega) &=& A_{32}(\omega)= \frac{\pi }{4\alpha} \frac{1}{\sqrt{k^2_x + k^2_y}}\ \left\{(\alpha-k_y)(k^2_x + k^2_y - \alpha^2)+(\alpha+k_y)(\omega^2-k^2_z)\right\}
\left\{ \frac{1}{\epsilon_1}( \delta(\omega-\epsilon_1) -
\delta(\omega+\epsilon_1)) \right. \nonumber\\
&-& \left. \frac{1}{\epsilon_2}( \delta(\omega-\epsilon_2) -
\delta(\omega+\epsilon_2))
\right\}
\nonumber\\.
\label{spectralfn2}
\end{eqnarray}
Using the Kubo formula Eq.\ (\ref{sigma}), the real part of longitudinal optical conductivity is obtained as
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{xx}(\Omega) = \frac{N_f e^2}{2 \hbar \Omega (2\pi)^4} \int_{|\mu |- \Omega}^{|\mu |} d\omega \int_{BZ} d^3 {\bf k} \ {\bf\Delta}({\bf k},\omega ;\Omega) \
\label{sigmax2}
\end{equation}\
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{yy}(\Omega) = \frac{N_f e^2}{2 \hbar \Omega (2\pi)^4} \int_{|\mu |- \Omega}^{|\mu |} d\omega \int_{BZ} d^3 {\bf k} \ {\bf\Sigma}({\bf k},\omega ;\Omega) \
\label{sigmay2}
\end{equation}\
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{zz}(\Omega) = \frac{N_f e^2}{2 \hbar \Omega (2\pi)^4} \int_{|\mu |- \Omega}^{|\mu |} d\omega \int_{BZ} d^3 {\bf k} \ {\bf\Lambda}({\bf k},\omega ;\Omega) \
\label{sigmaz2}
\end{equation}\
where
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf\Delta}({\bf k},\omega ;\Omega) & = & A_{11}(\omega+\Omega) \ A_{33}(\omega)+ A_{33}(\omega+\Omega) \ A_{11}(\omega) + A_{22}(\omega+\Omega) \ A_{44}(\omega) + A_{44}(\omega+\Omega) \ A_{22}(\omega) \nonumber\\
&+& \left. 2 A_{12}(\omega+\Omega) \ A_{34}(\omega)+ 2 A_{34}(\omega+\Omega) \ A_{12}(\omega) + 2 A_{14}(\omega+\Omega) \ A_{23}(\omega) + 2 A_{23}(\omega+\Omega) \ A_{14}(\omega)\right. \nonumber\\
& + & \left. 4 A_{13}(\omega+\Omega) \ A_{13}(\omega)\right.
\nonumber\\.
\label{delta}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf\Sigma}({\bf k},\omega ;\Omega) & = & -2 A_{12}(\omega+\Omega) \ A_{34}(\omega)-2 A_{34}(\omega+\Omega) \ A_{12}(\omega) + A_{22}(\omega+\Omega) \ A_{33}(\omega) + A_{33}(\omega+\Omega) \ A_{22}(\omega) \nonumber\\
&+& \left. 2 A_{23}(\omega+\Omega) \ A_{23}(\omega)+ 2 A_{14}(\omega+\Omega) \ A_{14}(\omega) + A_{44}(\omega+\Omega) \ A_{11}(\omega) + A_{11}(\omega+\Omega) \ A_{44}(\omega)\right. \nonumber\\
& - & \left. 4 A_{13}(\omega+\Omega) \ A_{13}(\omega)\right.
\nonumber\\.
\label{sum}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf\Lambda}({\bf k},\omega ;\Omega) & = & A_{11}(\omega+\Omega) \ A_{11}(\omega)+ A_{22}(\omega+\Omega) \ A_{22}(\omega) + A_{33}(\omega+\Omega) \ A_{33}(\omega) + A_{44}(\omega+\Omega) \ A_{44}(\omega) \nonumber\\
&+& \left. 2 A_{12}(\omega+\Omega) \ A_{12}(\omega)+ 2 A_{34}(\omega+\Omega) \ A_{34}(\omega) - 2 A_{14}(\omega+\Omega) \ A_{14}(\omega) - 2 A_{23}(\omega+\Omega) \ A_{23}(\omega)\right. \nonumber\\
& - & \left. 4 A_{13}(\omega+\Omega) \ A_{13}(\omega)\right.
\nonumber\\.
\label{lambda}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{xx_2.pdf}
\caption{ (Color online) Real part of longitudinal optical conductivity of nodal line semimetal described by the model Hamiltonian (\ref{Ham2})along the $x$ direction for (a) $\alpha= 0.1 $ and (b) $\alpha= 0.5 $ for chosen values of chemical potential $\mu $. }
\label{xx2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{zz_2.pdf}
\caption{ (Color online) Real part of longitudinal optical Conductivity of nodal line semimetal described by model Hamiltonian Eq.\ (\ref{Ham2}) along the $z$ direction for (a) $\alpha=0.1 $ and (b) $\alpha=0.5 $ for arbitrary values of chemical potential $\mu $ }
\label{zz2}
\end{figure}
\medskip
\par
Unlike the previous model based on the $2 \times 2$ matrix Hamiltonian in Eq. \ (\ref{Hamil1}), as we vary the parameter $\alpha$ from $0.1$ to higher values, we obtain slightly reduced optical conductivity for this $4\times 4$ model Hamiltonian. This is so for both $x,y$ and the axial $z$ direction. Figures \ref{xx2} and \ref{zz2} show our results for $\sigma_{xx}$ and $\sigma_{zz}$. The sharp rise in the curve for $\mu >0$ out from $\Omega=0$ is due to the contribution from the delta function centered at $\Omega=0$ . Two types of transitions are possible for finite $\mu$ and $\Omega \rightarrow 0$. First, intraband transitions from $+\epsilon_1 \rightarrow +\epsilon_1$ or $+\epsilon_2 \rightarrow +\epsilon_2$ known as Drude conductivity. Another type of transition is interband transition between $+\epsilon_1 \rightarrow +\epsilon_2$. For the frequency $\Omega> 2\mu$, interband transitions between $-\epsilon_1(-\epsilon_2)\rightarrow +\epsilon_1 (+\epsilon_2)$ are more responsible.
\medskip
\par
As we observed in the first model, the optical conductivity curves along both the in-plane $x,y$ directions are identical. This result reflects the symmetrical expression of $\Delta({\bf k}; \omega, \Omega)$ and $\Sigma({\bf k}; \omega, \Omega)$ which are quadratic functions of $k_x$ and $k_y$. These results are in qualitative agreement with Figs.\ \ref{xx}, \ref{yy} and \ref{zz}. Apart from the sharp rise near $\Omega=0$, they are overall of the same order of magnitude, initially increasing from the origin and reaching a maximum value which is determined by the chemical potential and the parameter $\alpha$.
\section{Summary and Conclusions}
\label{sec6}
In this work, we endeavored to investigate the optical conductivity of a simple model of a nodal-line semimetal under strain. This effect due to strain is introduced through a parameter $\alpha$ in the model Hamiltonian whose Brillouin zone is cubic. We presented the band structure in Figs. \ \ref{energy} and \ref{FIG:1B} along lines joining symmetry points. Our results show that the behavior of the energy bands near the $\Gamma$ point in the ($k_x,k_y$) plane could be quite different in parallel planes. This band structure plays a crucial role on the physical properties of the system.
\medskip
\par
We carried out rigorous investigation of the optical conductivity. of such a NLSM using the Kubo formula with emphasis on the optical spectral weight redistribution. This is obtained with the use of appropriate Green's functions, brought about by changes in the band structure and chemical potential due to modifying $\alpha$. We derived closed-form analytical expressions for the longitudinal and transverse components of the optical conductivity for this model system of NLSM and compare results for chosen $\alpha$ and chemical potential.
\medskip
\pagebreak
\section*{Acknowledgement(s)}
G.G. would like to acknowledge the support from the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL)
through Grant No. FA9453-21-1-0046. We would like to thank Dr. Po-Hsin Shih for helpful discussions and guidance on the numerical calculations and interpretation of the results.
|
\section{introduction}
Grading on a ring and its modules frequently facilitates computations by allowing one to concentrate on homogeneous elements, which are supposedly simpler or more manageable than random elements. However, in order for this to function, one must first understand how the structures are graded. One solution to this problem is to define the structures entirely in terms of G-graded R-modules, obviating the need to consider non-G-graded R-modules or non-homogeneous elements.
All rings are assumed to be commutative with identity throughout this paper. The concept of weakly primal ideal was introduced by S. Atani and A. Darani in \cite{atani2007weakly}. In \cite{atani2009weakly}, S. Atani and A. Darani extended the concept of weakly primal ideals to modules. Let M be a R-module and N be a submodule of M. An element $x\in R$ is called weakly prime (simply wp) to N if $0\neq xm \in N$ for some $m \in M$, then $m \in N$. The submodule N is said to be a weakly primal submodule of M if the set $w(N)$ of elements of R that are not weakly prime to N forms an ideal of R, this ideal is always a weakly prime ideal of R, called the disjoint ideal P of N. We may also state that N is a P-weakly primal submodule in this situation. The concept of a graded weakly primal submodule of a G-graded R-module M over the G-graded ring R is defined in this paper, and subsequently, this class of submodules is studied.
We begin by defining the notations and terminologies that will be used throughout. Let G be an abelian group with identity e. A ring R is called a G-graded ring if $ R= \bigoplus\limits_{g \in G} R_g$ with the property $R_gR_h\subseteq R_{gh}$ for all $g,h \in G$, where $R_g$ is an additive subgroup of R for all $g\in G$. The elements of $R_g$ are called homogeneous of degree g. If $x\in R$, then $x$ can be written uniquely as $\sum\limits_{g\in G} x_g$, where $x_g$ is the component of $x$ in $R_g$. The set of all homogeneous elements of R is $h(R)= \bigcup\limits_{g\in G} R_g$. Let P be an ideal of a G-graded ring R. Then I is called a graded ideal if $I=\bigoplus\limits_{g\in G}I_g$, i.e, for $x\in I$ and $x=\sum\limits_{g\in G} x_g$ where $x_g \in I_g$ for all $g\in G$. In \cite{atani2006grade}, I is called a graded weakly prime ideals of G-graded ring R if whenever $0\neq xy \in I$, then we have that $x\in I$ or $y \in I$ for some $x,y \in h(R)$.
Let R be a G-graded ring . A left R-module M is said to be a graded R-module if there exists a family of additive subgroups $\{M_g\}_{g \in G}$ of M such that $M= \bigoplus\limits_{g \in G} M_g$ with the property $M_gM_h\subseteq M_{gh}$ for all $g,h \in G$. The set of all homogeneous elements of M is $h(M)= \bigcup\limits_{g\in G} M_g$. Note that $M_g$ is an $R_e$-module for every $g\in G$. A submodule N of M is said to be graded submodule of M if $N=\bigoplus\limits_{g\in G}N_g$. Suppose that N is a graded submodule of M and I is a graded ideal of R. Then $(N:_RM)$ is defined as $(N:_RM) = \{r\in R: rM\subseteq N \}$ and then $(N:_RM)$ is a graded submodule of M. The graded submodule $(N:_MI)$ is defined as $(N:_MI)=\{m\in M : Im \subseteq N\}$. Particularly, we use $(N:_Ms)$ instead of $(N:_MRs)$.
The content of the paper is briefly summarized here. In Section 2, we give some basic results about graded weakly primal submodules. Every graded weakly prime submodule and every graded weakly primary submodule is a graded weakly primal submodule in Theorem \ref{thm4}. In Proposition \ref{prop1}, we give a description of graded weakly primal submodules. It is shown in Theorem \ref{thm2} that is N is a graded weakly primal submodule of M, then GW(N) is a graded weakly prime ideal of R. In Theorem \ref{thm5} we prove that if M is a faithful G-graded finitely generated multiplication R-module and if R is a G-graded WP-ring, then M is a G-graded WP-module. The concepts graded primal submodule and graded weakly
primal submodule are different. In fact, neither implies the other (see Examples \ref{exm1}). In Theorem \ref{thm3} we prove that if N be a graded weakly primal submodule of M with $(N:_RM) \subseteq P$ and $N(N:_RM) \neq 0$, then N is a graded primal submodule of M.
Let $R$ is a G-graded ring and that $S$ is a multiplicative closed subset of $h(R)$. Consider the G-graded $R_S$-module $M_S$. In Section 3, the weakly primal submodules of M and the weakly primal submodules of $M_S$ are studied with respect to each other. It is shown in Theorem \ref{thm8} that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the graded P-weakly primal submodule of M and the graded $P_S$-weakly primal submodule of $M_S$ in which P is a graded weakly prime ideal of R, and $S\subseteq h(R)$ is a multiplucative closed set of R with $P\cap S =\emptyset$.
\section{Graded weakly primal submodules}
To begin, consider the following definitions:
\begin{definition}\label{def1}
Let R be a G-graded ring and P be a graded ideals of R.
\\
(1) The element $x \in h(R)$ is said to be a graded weakly prime (simple $gwp$) to P if $0\neq xy \in N$ for some $y \in h(R)$, then $y \in P$.
\\
(2) The element $x \in h(R)$ is not graded weakly prime (simply $ngwp$) to N if $0\neq xy \in P$ for some $y\in h(R)$, then $y \in R/P$.
\\
(3) The set of all elements of h(R) that are not graded weakly prime ($ngwp$) to P is denoted by gw(N).
\\
(4) The graded ideal P of R is called a graded weakly primal ideal of R if gw(N) is a graded ideal of R.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}\label{def2}
Let M be a G-graded R-module and N be a graded submodule of M.
\\
(1) The element $x \in h(R)$ is said to be a graded weakly prime (simple $GWP$) to N if $0\neq xm \in N$ for some $m \in h(M)$, then $m \in N$.
\\
(2) The element $x \in h(R)$ is not graded weakly prime (simply $NGWP$) to N if $0\neq xm \in N$ for some $m\in h(M)$, then $m \in M/N$.
\\
(3) The set of all elements of h(R) that are not graded weakly prime ($NGWP$) to N is denoted by GW(N).
\\
(4) The graded submodule N of M is called a graded weakly primal submodule of M if GW(N) is a graded ideal of R.
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem1}
Let M be a G-graded R-module and N be a graded submodule of M. If N is a graded primal submodule of M, then N is a graded weakly primal submodule of M.
\\
\\
\textbf{Proof.} Let N be a graded submodule of M that is graded primal. Then $G(N)$ is a graded ideal of R. We must now prove that N is a graded weakly primal submodule of M, and that $GW(N)$ is a graded ideal of R. Since $GW(N)$ is a graded ideal of R, N is a graded weakly primal submodule of M if $GW(P) = R$. Now, if $GW(N) \neq R$, then $1\notin GW(N)$ is true. $GW(N) = G(N)$, we show. It is clearly, $G(N) \subseteq GW(N)$. Conversely, let $w \in GW(N)$ then there exists $x \in h(R)$ with $ 0\neq xw\in N$ as a result $x \notin N$. If $x \in N$, then $1 \in GW(N)$ and then $GW(N) = R$ which is a contradiction. So, $x \notin N$ and hence $w \in G(N)$. Thus $G(N) \subseteq GW(N)$ then $G(N) = GW(N)$. Therefore, N is a graded weakly primal submodule of M.
\end{lemma}
\begin{remark}\label{rem1}
Let M be a G-graded R-module and let N be a graded submodule of M. Then the following statements are true:
\\
(1) The element $0 \in h(R)$ is invariably $GWP$ to N.
\\
(2) If $x \in h(R)$ is a graded prime to N, then x is a $GWP$ to N.
\\
(3) The set of all not weakly prime to N (W(N)) is subset of the set of all not graded weakly prime to N (GW(N)).
\end{remark}
If $N$ is a graded primal submodule of $M$, then $N$ is a graded weakly primal submodule of $M$, as proven in the Lemma \ref{lem1}. However, the converse is not always true. In addition, the converse is not true in (2) of the Remark \ref{rem1}.
\begin{example}\label{exm1}
(1) Let $R= \mathbf{Z}$ be a G-graded ring with $R_0 = \mathbf{Z}$ and $R_g = \{0\}$ for all $g\in G-\{e\}$. Take R as a G-graded R-module. Then $N=12\mathbf{Z}$ is a graded submodule of R. Then N is a graded weakly primal submodule of R with $GW(N) = \mathbf{Z}$, since $0\neq 3.4=12 \in N$ and $3 \not\in N$, $4 \notin N$. On the other hand, N is not a graded primal submodule of R.
\\
(2) Let $M=\mathbf{Z}/ 24 \mathbf{Z}$ be a G-graded $\mathbf{Z}$-module where $M_0 = M$ and $M_g = \{0\}$ for all $g\in G$ and $N = 8\mathbf{Z}/24\mathbf{Z}$ be a graded submodule of M. Since N is a primal submodule by \cite[Example 2.10]{atani2009weakly}, then N is a graded primal submodule of M. Now, since $\Bar{2}, \Bar{4} \in M/N$ with $0\neq 2.\Bar{4} \in N$ and $0\neq 4. \Bar{2} \in N$, then $2,4 \in Gw(N)$. If $6. \Bar{x} \in N$ for some $\Bar{x} \in M$, then $4$ divides x and then $6\Bar{x}=0$. This prove that $2+4=6$ is a GWP to N. Thus $GW(N)$ is not graded ideal of $R=\mathbf{Z}$. Therefore, N is not graded weakly primal submodule of M.
\\
(3) Let $M = \mathbf{Z}_{12}$ be a G-graded $\mathbf{Z}$-module and $N = \{\Bar{0}\}$ be a graded submodule of M. It is clearly $GW(N) = \emptyset$, then N is a graded weakly primal submodule of M. Now, since $3.\Bar{4} = \Bar{0} \in N$ and $4.\Bar{3}=\Bar{0}\in N$, then we have that $3,4 \in G(N)$, while $4-3=1$ is a graded prime to N. Therefore, N is not graded primal submodule of M.
\\
(4) Let $M=\mathbf{Z}/ 32\mathbf{Z}$ be a G-graded $\mathbf{Z}$-module where $M_0 = M$ and $M_g = \{0\}$ for all $g\in G$ and $N = 8\mathbf{Z}/32\mathbf{Z}$ be a graded submodule of M. Then $4.8=0\in N$, 4 is not graded prime to N. But if $4. \Bar{x} \in N$ where $\Bar{x}$ is the coset in M, then 4 is divides of x. Thus $4.\Bar{x} = \Bar{0}$. Therefore 4 is $GWP$ to N.
\end{example}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem2}
Let M be a G-graded R-module and N be a graded submodule of M, then:
\\
(1) $(N:_RM)$ is subset of the set of all $NGWP$ to N (GW(N)).
\\
(2) The set of all $ngwp$ to $(N:_RM)$ $(gw((N:_RM)))$ is subset of the set of all $NGWP$ to N (GW(N)).
\\
\\
\textbf{Proof.} (1) Assume that $x \in h(R)$ such that $x \in (N:_RM)$. $(N:_RM)$ is a graded ideal of R since N is a graded submodule of M. Take $x \in (N:_RM)$ we have that x is not weakly prime to N. Thus by (3) in Remark \ref{rem1}, $x \in W(N)\subseteq GW(N)$. Therefore, $(N:_RM) \subseteq GW(N)$.
\\
(2) Let $x \in h(R) \cap gw((N:_RM))$, so there exists $y \in h(R)-(N:_RM)$ with $0\neq xy \in (N:_RM)$, there exist $m \in h(M)$ with $ym \notin N$. It therefore follows that $xym \in N$ with $ym \notin N$ we have that x is not weakly prime to N. Thus $x \in W(N)\subseteq GW(N)$ by (3) in Remark \ref{rem1}. Therefore, $gw((N:_RM)) \subseteq GW(N)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{definition}\label{def3}
Let M be a G-graded R-module, N be a graded weakly primal submodule of M and P be a graded ideal of R. Then P is called the graded weakly adjoint ideal of N, and also we said to be N is a graded P-weakly primal submodule of M.
\end{definition}
A characterization of graded weakly primal submodules is provided by the following Proposition.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop1}
Let M be a G-graded R-module, N be a graded submodule of M and P be a graded ideal of R. Then the following statements are equivalent:
\\
(1) N is a graded P-weakly primal submodule of M.
\\
(2) For every $p \notin P-\{0\}$, $(N:_Mp)= N\cup (0:_Mp)$, and for every $0\neq p \in P$, $N \cup (0:_Mr) \subset (N:_Mp)$.
\\
\\
\textbf{Proof.} (1) $\Rightarrow$ (2) Assume that N is a graded P-weakly primal submodule of M. Let $p \notin GW(N)=P-\{0\}$ and $m \in (N:_Mp)$. If $pm =0$, then $m \in (0:_Mp)$. Now, suppose that $pm \neq 0$, since p is a GWP to N we have that $m \in N$. Thus $m \in N\cup (0:_Mp)$, that is $(N:_Mp)\subseteq N\cup (0:_Mp)$. Therefore, $(N:_Mp) =N\cup (0:_Mp)$. Now, suppose that $p \in GW(N)$. Thus p is NGWP to N, then there exist $m \in h(M)$ such that $0\neq pm \in N$ with $m \in M/N$. Hence $m \in (N:_Mp)-(N\cup (0:_Mp))$.
\\
(2) $\Rightarrow$ (1) $GW(N) = P-\{0\}$ follows from (2). As a result, N is a graded P-weakly primal submodule of M.
\end{proposition}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm1}
Let M be a cyclic G-graded R-module and N be a graded submodule of M. If N is a graded weakly primal submodule of M, then $(N:_RM)$ is a graded weakly primal ideal of R.
\\
\\
\textbf{Proof.} Suppose that $M = Rm$ for any $m \in h(M)$, and we set $P=(N:_RM)$. We prove that $gw(P)=GW(N)$. Let $x \in gw(P)$, so there exists $r \in R/P$ with $0\neq xr \in P$. In this instance, $xrm \neq 0$ because otherwise $xr \in (0:_Rx)=(0:_RM)=0$, a contradiction. As $rm \in M/N$ we have that x is $NGWP$ to N, thus $x \in GW(N)$ and thus $gw(P) \subseteq GW(N)$. Now, suppose that $x \in GW(N)$, so $0\neq xm' \in N$ for some $m' \in M/N$. But we can write $m' = x'm$ for some $x' \in h(R)$. Thus $0\neq xx'm\in N$, this implies that $0\neq xx'\in P$ with $x'\in R/P$, then x is ngwp to P, then $x \in gw(P)$ and then $GW(N) \subseteq gw(P)$. Therefore, $gw(P)=GW(N)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm2}
Let M be a G-graded R-module and N be a graded submodule of M. If N is a graded weakly primal submodule of M, then GW(N) is a graded weakly prime ideal of R.
\\
\\
\textbf{Proof.} Assume that $0\neq xy \in GW(N)$ for some $x,y \in h(R)$ but $x\notin GW(N)$. Then $xy$ is NGWP to N and then $0\neq xym \in N$ for some $m \in h(M)$. As $x\notin N $, so x is a GWP to N. Thus we have that $x(ym)\in N$, so $ym \in N$. Hence y is nwp to N. Thus $y \in W(N) \subseteq GW(N)$ by Remark \ref{rem1}. Therefore, GW(N) is a graded weakly prime ideal of R.
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm3}
Let M be a G-graded R-module and N be a graded weakly primal submodule of M. If $(N:_RM) \subseteq P$ and $N(N:_RM) \neq 0$, then N is a graded primal submodule of M.
\\
\\
\textbf{Proof.} It is enough to show that GW(N) = G(N). Let $0\neq x \in GW(N)$, x is NGWP to N. Thus by Remark \ref{rem1} (2), x is not graded prime to N, then we have $x \in G(N)$. Thus $GW(N) \subseteq G(N)$. Now, we need to show that the converse $G(N) \subseteq GW(N)$, let $y \in G(N)$ so for some $m\in h(M)$ then $m \in M/N$ with $ym \in N$. If $ym \neq 0$, then y is NGWP to N and then $y \in GW(N)$. But if $ym = 0$ we have tow cases:
\\
\textbf{Case one:} $yN \neq 0$. Then there exists $z \in N$ with $yz \neq 0$. Now $0\neq y (m+z) \in N$ with $m+n \in M/N$, then we have that y is NGWP to N and then $y \in GW(N)$.
\\
\textbf{Case two:} $yN =0$. If $m(N:_RM) \neq 0$, then $zm \neq 0$ for some $z \in (N:_RM)$. Now, $0\neq (y+z)m \in N$ with $m \in M/N$ we have that $y+z$ is NGWP to N, then $y+z \in GW(N)$ and then $y \in GW(N)$. If $m(N:_RM)=0$, but $N(N:_RM) \neq 0$, then there is $x \in (N:_RM)$ and $n \in N$ with $xn \neq 0$. Now, $0 \neq (y+x)(m+n) \in N$ with $m+n \in M/N$, then $y+x$ is NGWP to N. Thus $y+x \in GW(N)$ with $x \in GW(N)$. Therefore $G(N) \subseteq GW(N)$.
\\
Thus $GW(N)=G(N)$ which is implies that N is a graded primal submodule of M.
\end{theorem}
Recall that a graded submodule N of A G-graded R-module M is called a graded weakly prime submodule of M if $N \neq M$, and whenever $x \in h(R)$ and $m \in h(M)$ with $0\neq xm \in N$, then either $m \in N$ or $x \in (N:_RM)$ (see \cite{atani2006graded}).
\begin{definition}\label{def4}
Let M be a G-graded R-module and N be a graded submodule of M. N is called a graded weakly primary submodule of M if whenever $x\in h(R)$ and $m \in h(M)$ with $0\neq xm \in N$, then either $m \in N $ or $x^n \in (N:_RM) $ for some positive integer n.
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm4}
Let M be a G-graded R-module and N be a graded submodule of M. Then the following statements are hold:
\\
(1) If N is a graded weakly primary submodule of M, then N is a graded weakly primal submodule of M.
\\
(2) If N is a graded weakly prime submodule of M, then N is a graded weakly primal submodule of M.
\\
\\
\textbf{Proof.} (1) Let N be a graded primary submodule of M. we claim that $Grad((N:_R:M))=GW(N)$. Let $x \in Grad((N:_RM))$. If $x \in (N:_RM)$, $x \in GW(N)$ by (1) in Lemma \ref{lem2}. Now, suppose that $x \in Grad(N)-(N:_RM)$. If $x \in (N:_RM)$, then $x \in W(N)$. If $x \notin (N:_RM)$, then there exist a positive integer $n > 1$ for which $x^n \in (N:_RM)$. In this case $xx^{n-1} \in (N:_RM)$ with $x^{n-1} \in h(R)-(N:_RM)$ which is implies that $x \in W((N:_RM))$. Thus $x \in gw((N:_RM)) \subseteq GW(N)$ by (2) in Lemma \ref{lem2}, that is $Grad((N:_RM)) \subseteq GW(N)$. Conversely, suppose that $y \in GW(N)$ and there exist $m \in h(M)-N$ with $y \in N$. As N is a graded weakly primary submodule of M we have that $y \in Grad((N:_RM))$. Thus $GW(N) \subseteq Grad((N:_RM))$. Therefore, $Grad((N:_RM))=GW(N)$ and thus N is a graded weakly primal submodule of M.
\\
(2) Because any graded weakly prime submodule is also a graded weakly primary submodule, (1) follows.
\end{theorem}
Recall that, a $G$-graded $R$-module $M$ is called a $G$-graded multiplication $R$-module if $N=MI$ for some graded ideal $I$ of $R$ for every graded submodule $N$ of $M$ (see \cite{escoriza1998multiplication}). If $N$ is a graded submodule of a $G$-graded multiplication $R$-module $M$, then $N = (N:_R M)M$ is simple to prove. A $G$-graded $R$-module $M$ is said to be graded finitely generated if $M = \sum\limits_{i=1}^{n} Rm_i$, where $m_i \in h(M)$.
\begin{remark}\label{rem2} \cite[Remark 1.7]{darani2011graded}
If M is a G-graded finitely generated multiplication R-module and P is a graded ideal of R containing $(0 :_R M)$, then $(PM :_R M) =P$.
\end{remark}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop2}
Let M be a G-graded finitely generated multiplication R-module and P be a graded ideal of R. If P is a graded weakly primal ideal of R containing $(0:_RM)$, then PM is a graded weakly primal ideal of M.
\\
\\
\textbf{Proof.} It is clearly $gw(P)=gw((PM:_RM)) \subseteq GW(PM)$ by (2) Lemma \ref{lem2}. Now, suppose that $x \in h(R)$ is NGWP to PM, then there exist $m \in h(M)-PM$ with $0\neq xm \in PM$. Then we have $RxRm \subseteq PM$. Since M is a G-graded multiplication R-module, then there exist a graded ideal I of R with $Rm=IM$. Then we have that $(RxI)M \subseteq PM$ and then $RxI \subseteq (PM:_RM)=P$ by Remark \ref{rem2}. If $I \subseteq P$, then $m \in Rm = IM \subseteq PM$ which is a contradiction. Then there exists $y \in I-P$ where $y \in h(R)$. In this case $xy \in RxJ \subseteq P$ which is implies that x is ngwp to P. Therefore is $x \in gw(P)$. Thus $GW(PM) \subseteq gw(P)=gw(PM:_RM)$. Therefore, PM is a graded weakly primal submodule of M.
\end{proposition}
\begin{definition}\label{def5}
Let M be a G-graded ring, and M be a G-graded R-module.
\\
(1) A G-graded ring R is said to be a G-graded WP-ring if every graded ideal of R is a finite product of graded weakly primal ideal of R.
\\
(2) A G-graded R-module M is said to be a G-graded WP-module if every graded submodule N of M has a graded weakly primal factorization $N=P_1P_2...P_nN^\ast$ where $P-1,P_2,...,P_n$ is a graded weakly primal ideals of R and $N^\ast$ is a graded weakly primal submodule of M.
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm5}
Let R be a G-graded ring and M be a faithful G-graded finitely generated multiplication R-module. If R is a G-graded WP-ring, then M is a G-graded WP-module.
\\
\\
\textbf{Proof.} Suppose that R is a G-graded WP-ring and N is a graded submodule of M. Then N=PM for some graded ideal P of R. Since R is a G-graded WP-ring, P has a factorization $P=P_1P_2...P_n$ where $P_i$ is a graded weakly primal ideal of R for all $i=\{1,2,..n\}$. In this case $N=PM=(P_1P_2...P_{n-1})(P_nM)$. By Proposition \ref{prop2}, $P_nM$ is a graded weakly primal submodule of M. Therefore, M is a G-graded WP-module.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop3}
Let M be a faithful G-graded R-module and N be a graded submodule of M. Then the following holds:
\\
(1) If N is a graded P-weakly primal submodule of M, then $(N:_RM) \subseteq P$.
\\
(2) If N is a graded 0-weakly primal submodule of M, then M/N is a faithful G-graded R-module.
\\
\\
\textbf{Proof.} (1) Suppose that N is a graded P-weakly primal submodule of M. Since N is a graded submodule of M, so $(N:_RM)$ is a graded ideal of R. There exists $m \in h(M/N)$ and $x \in (N:_RM)$, then $xm \in N$. If $xm \neq 0$, then x is NGWP to N, that $x \in P$. If $xm =0$, then there exists $n \in N$ with $xn \neq 0$. Thus $0\neq x(m+n)\in N$ with $(m+n)\notin N$ which is implies that x is NGWP to N, that is $x \in P$. Therefore, $(N:_RM) \subseteq P$.
\\
(2) As a result of (1)
\end{proposition}
\section{Graded modules of fractions}
This section will discuss the relations between the classes of graded weakly primal submodules of M and graded weakly primal submodules of $M_S$.
Assume that $R$ is a G-graded ring and that $S$ is a multiplicative closed subset of $h(R)$. Remember that if $R$ is a G-graded ring, then $R_S = \{ \frac{r}{s}: r \in h(R), s \in S \}$ is also a G-graded ring. In addition, if $P$ is a graded ideal of R, $P_S$ is a graded ideal of $R_S$. Now, let M be a G-graded R-module and consider the module fractions $M_S= \{ \frac{m}{s}: m \in h(M), s \in S \}$. Then $M_S$ is a G-graded $R_S$-module.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm6}
Let M be a G-graded R-module and $S\subseteq h(R)$ be a multiplicatively closed set of R. Let N be a graded weakly primal submodule of M with $GW(N) \cap S =\emptyset$. Then the following holds:
\\
(1) If $0\neq \frac{n}{s} \in N_S$, then $n \in N$
\\
(2) If L is a graded submodule of M, then $(N:_RL)_S = (N_S:_{R_S}L_S)$.
\\
\\
\textbf{Proof.} (1) Since $\frac{n}{s}\in N_S$, so $\frac{n}{s}\in h(M_S)$. Now, there exists $x \in N$ and $t \in S$ such that $\frac{n}{s}=\frac{x}{t}$. Thus $0\neq wtn=wsx \in N$ for some $w \in S$. If $n \notin N$, then wt is NGWP to N and then we have $ut \in GW(N) \cap S$, which is a contradiction. Therefore, $n \in N$.
\\
(2) It is clearly $(N:_RL)_S \subseteq (N_S:_{R_S}L_S)$. Conversely, suppose that $\frac{x}{s}\in (N_S:_{R_S}L_S)$. So, for any $m \in L$, $\frac{xm}{s}=\frac{x}{s}.\frac{m}{1} \in N_S$. If $\frac{xm}{s}=0$, then there exists $t \in S$ with $txm =0$. Thus $xm =0 \in N$. If $\frac{xm}{0}\neq 0$, then $xm \in N$ by (1). Hence $x \in (N:_RL)$, so $\frac{x}{s} \in (N:_RL)_S$. Thus $(N_S:_{R_S}L_S) \subseteq (N:_RL)_S$. Therefore, $(N:_RL)_S = (N_S:_{R_S}L_S)$.
\end{theorem}
Let M be a G-graded R-module and $S\subseteq h(R)$ be a multiplucative closed set of R. Consider the homomorphism $\phi:M \rightarrow M_S$ which is defined by $\phi(m)=\frac{m}{1}$. Then $\phi$ is a homogeneous homomorphism of degree e. If N is a graded submodule of $M_S$, then we defined $N\cap M =\phi^{-1}(N)$.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop4}
Let M be a G-graded R-module and $S\subseteq h(R)$ be a multiplicative closed set of R. If N is a graded P-weakly primal submodule of $M_S$, then $N\cap M$ is a graded $P\cap R$-weakly primal submodule of M.
\\
\\
\textbf{Proof.} Since $P\cap R$ is a graded prime ideal of R, then $P\cap R$ is a graded weakly prime ideal of R. Now, it is enough to prove that $GW(N\cap M)=(P\cap R)-\{0\}$. Let $x \in GW(N\cap M)$, so there exist $m \in M-(N\cap M)$ such then $0\neq xm \in N\cap M$. As a result of $0\neq \frac{x}{1}.\frac{m}{1}\in N$ and $\frac{m}{1}\in M_S-N$ that $\frac{x}{1}\in P-\{0\}$. Hence $x \in P\cap R$ and then $GW(N\cap M) \subseteq (P\cap R)-\{0\}$. For the other direction, let $y \in (P\cap R)-\{0\}$, then we have that $0\neq \frac{y}{1}\in P$. Then there exists $\frac{m}{s}\in M_S-N$ with $0\neq \frac{y}{1}.\frac{m}{s}\in N$. Thus $0\neq \frac{ym}{1}\in N$. Then $0\neq ym \in N\cap M$ with $m \in M-(N\cap M)$ and then $y \in GW(N\cap M)$, hence $(P\cap R)-\{0\} \subseteq GW(N\cap M)$. Therefore, $N\cap M$ is a graded $P\cap R$-weakly primal submodule of M.
\end{proposition}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm7}
Let M be a G-graded R-module, N be a graded P-weakly primal submodule of M, and $S\subseteq h(R)$ be a multiplucative closed set of R with $P\cap S = \emptyset$. Then the following holds:
\\
(1) $N_S$ is a graded $P_S$-weakly primal submodule of $M_S$.
\\
(2) $N=(N_S\cap M)$.
\\
\\
\textbf{Proof.} (1) Let $\frac{0}{1}\neq \frac{x}{s}\in P_S$, then $0\neq x \in P$. Hence there exists $m \in h(M)$ such that $0\neq xm \in N$. If $0\neq \frac{x}{s}.\frac{m}{1}\in N_S$, and by Theorem \ref{thm6} , $\frac{m}{1}\notin N_S$. Thus $\frac{x}{s}$ is a NGWP to $N_S$, then we have $\frac{x}{a}\in GW(N_S)$. Then $P_S-\{0\} \subseteq GW(N_S)$. Now, assume that $\frac{y}{s}\in GW(N_S)$. So $0\neq \frac{y}{s}.\frac{m}{t}\in N_S$ for some $\frac{m}{t}\in h(M_S)$. Hence, by Theorem \ref{thm6} we have that $0\neq ym \in N$ with $m \in h(M)$ and then $y \in P-\{0\}$. Thus $\frac{y}{s}\in P_S-\{0\}$, then $GW(N_S)\subseteq P_S-\{0\}$. Then $GW(N_S)\cup \{0\} = P_S$. Therefore, $N_S$ is a graded $P_S$-weakly primal submodule of $M_S$.
\\
(2) It is clearly $N \subseteq (N_S\cap M)$. Suppose that $m \in N_S\cap M$. If $m=0$, then $m \in N$. If $M\neq 0$, then $0\neq \frac{m}{1} \in N_S$ we have that $m \in N$ bt Theorem \ref{thm6}. Therefore, $(N_S\cap M) \subseteq N$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm8}
Let M be a G-graded R-module, P be a graded weakly prime ideal of R, and $S\subseteq h(R)$ be a multiplucative closed set of R with $P\cap S =\emptyset$. Then there exist a one-to-one correspondence between the graded P-weakly primal submodule of M and the graded $P_S$-weakly primal submodule of $M_S$.
\\
\\
\textbf{Proof.} This follows from Proposition \ref{prop4} and Theorem \ref{thm7}.
\end{theorem}
\section{Conclusions}
In this study, we introduced the concept of graded weakly primal submodules which is a generalization of graded weakly primal submodules. We investigated some basic properties of graded weakly primal submodules. As a proposal to further the work on the topic, we are going to study the concepts of graded S-primal submodules and graded weakly S-primal submodules. Also, we will also generalize the primal and Weakly Primal SubSemiModules (see \cite{bataineh2014primal}) on G-graded R-module and generalizations of primal ideals over commutative semirings (see \cite{bataineh2014}) on G-graded rings.
\bibliographystyle{amsplain}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec_introduction}
The gauge-gravity correspondence \cit
{Maldacena:1997re,Gubser:1998bc,Witten:1998qj} is a nontrivial
correspondence between a quantum theory with gravity in the bulk and a
different quantum system on the boundary. The correspondence allows us to
perform calculations related to superstring theory and quantum gravity from
working on the quantum field theory side. On the other hand, the superstring
theory provides the UV completion of supergravity, and is a UV-complete
quantum gravity theory. Integrability \cite{Beisert:2010jr} has greatly
increased our understanding of the gauge-gravity correspondence. The
correspondence also reveals the nature of the emergent spacetime e.g. \cit
{Rangamani:2016dms}-\cite{Balasubramanian:2005mg}. As we see, the bulk
emerges dynamically from the quantum mechanical description that lives in
fewer dimensions.
On the gravity side, giant graviton branes \cite{McGreevy:2000cw}-\cit
{Berenstein:2004kk} are excited states. In the context of gauge-gravity
correspondence, emergent backreacted geometries correspond to highly excited
states in the quantum field theory side, such as the bubbling geometries
\cite{Lin:2004nb,Corley:2001zk,Berenstein:2004kk}. The states in the Hilbert
space of the quantum field theory are explicitly mapped to the gravity side.
Analysis in the field theory side shows that these different states live in
the same Hilbert space. The dual large operators and their representation
bases have been illuminated \cite{Corley:2001zk,Berenstein:2004kk}. These
heavy operators involve emergent backreacted geometries in the dual quantum
gravity system.
Here we focus on states which have interesting gravitational properties. One
interesting type of states are coherent states \cit
{Berenstein:2022srd,Holguin:2022drf,Berenstein:2017abm}. Gravity dual of
coherent states has been analyzed. The coherent states in this paper are
related to the excited states of the gravitational spacetime. These set-ups
help to address the question how do curved spacetimes emerge from dual
quantum theory on the boundary. Coherent states also appear very widely in
many other contexts of physics, and here we concentrate on special types of
coherent states.
There are various representation bases for large operators. The large
operators includes those describe giant gravitons and backreacted emergent
geometries. The large operators also describe further excitations on these
heavy excited states. The correlation functions between light operators and
large operators can also be computed. The large operators can be expanded
systematically in terms of representation bases. In some sense, the larger the
operators are, there are more information that can be stored with the
operators. For more details along some of these ideas, see e.g. \cit
{Ramgoolam:2008yr}-\cite{Kimura:2007wy},\cite{Berenstein:2005aa},\cit
{Berenstein:2017abm},\cite{Berenstein:2022srd}. Various bases can be
transformed into each other. Operators of giant gravitons are also analyzed
by various important and insightful approaches \cite{Gaiotto:2021xce}-\cit
{Lin:2012ey} and \cite{Berenstein:2022srd}. These approaches are closely
related to the scenarios needed for this paper. Various ideas have been put
forward, in order to make the computations with large operators more
efficient and convenient.
Coherent state operators in gauge-gravity duality have also been considered
in e.g. \cit
{Simon:2018laf,Berenstein:2017abm,Lin:2017dnz,Berenstein:2022srd,Holguin:2022drf}
and their related references. These different bases have different labelings
due to their different symmetry properties of the multi-parameters of the
coherent states. In particular, \cite{Berenstein:2022srd} has manifest
permutation symmetry of the parameters. Mixed states and entangled states of
coherent state operators in the gauge-gravity correspondence have also been
considered \cite{Lin:2020qao}. Moreover, mixed states and entangled states
of Young tableau states were considered \cite{Lin:2021qso}. Many interesting
aspects of coherent states in relation to giant graviton states, were
explored in \cite{Berenstein:2022srd,Holguin:2022drf} and their related
references. The multi-parameter in the coherent states are collective
coordinates of giant gravitons.
The quantum gravitational system dual to these heavy excited state
operators, involves backreacted emergent geometries. Analysis on the field
theory side shows that these excited states live in the same Hilbert space
of the gravity side. Since they live in the same Hilbert space, we can
dynamically relate them using the Hamiltonian in the same Hilbert space. For
example one can superpose states and compute transition probabilities
between different states living in the gravity side, e.g. \cite{Brown:2006zk
-\cite{Mathur:2008kg},\cite{Berenstein:2017abm},\cite{Lin:2017dnz} and
related discussions.
When the spacetime is dynamical and quantum, the local quantum field theory
seems not adequate to describe these situations. On the other hand, string
theory is able to describe these situations very well. The set-ups discussed
in this paper can be put inside superstring theory, and the set-ups here are
UV-complete. Somehow we have gone beyond local quantum field theory.
In Sec. 2, we analyze detailed properties of coherent states and their
connection to gravity, among other things. We focus on above-mentioned heavy
states. Inspired by the above coherent states and by the integrability, in
Sec. 3, we construct a new type of coherent states in the $SL(2)$ sectors
and their cousins such as $PSU(1,1|2)$ sectors, among other things. The
large spin and small spin limits can be obtained by varying coherent state
amplitudes.
In Sec. 4. we analyze string-added coherent states and their near BPS
spectra, among other things. We can add some string words onto the BPS
coherent states, and this gives the string-added coherent states. We
identify and elaborate some classes of near BPS string-added coherent
states, whose anomalous dimension energy can be extracted conveniently. The
anormalous energy of the near BPS state is usually smaller than its bare
dimension energy. Hence these energy are controllable on both gauge theory
side and gravity side. One can expand around supersymmetric backgrounds to
compute their anormalous energy from both gauge theory and gravity side.
These states can be considered as excitations on the BPS background. This
method is very useful for near BPS states.
Finally in Sec. 5, we make conclusions and discuss some closely related
aspects. Note added: Upon the completion of this work, we received the
appearance of \cite{Holguin:2022drf} which have worked out $SO(N)$ and
Sp(N) $ cases; Many analysis in the current paper here also works for these
and other very interesting cases.
\section{BPS coherent states and collective variables}
\label{sec 2} \renewcommand{\theequation}{2.\arabic{equation}}
\setcounter{equation}{0} \renewcommand{\thethm}{2.\arabic{thm}}
\setcounter{thm}{0} \renewcommand{\theprop}{2.\arabic{prop}}
\setcounter{prop}{0}
We consider a new class of BPS coherent states with manifest permutation
symmetries. This class of interesting coherent states in nonabelian gauge
theories have been constructed in \cite{Berenstein:2022srd}. Here, we first
analyze more detailed properties of the states. We use 4$D$ $\mathcal{N}=4$
gauge theory as an important concrete example. This theory is an example of
nonabelian gauge theories arising from multiple $D$-branes.
We begin by introducing some general set-ups. Operators $O~$acting on\ the
vacuum correspond to states $\left\vert \Psi \right\rangle ~$in the Hilbert
space, i.e. $\left\vert \Psi \right\rangle =O\left\vert 0\right\rangle $.
The operators can be built by the fundamental fields in the theory. For
example, in nonabelian gauge theories, we can have a complex matrix field $Z
, where we have some $U(N)$ gauge group. This $U(N)$ symmetry originates
from the symmetry on multiple $D$-branes. The field quanta are created and
annihilated by ladder operators. When acting on the operators, we have the
following correspondence
\begin{eqnarray}
Z &\leftrightarrow &a_{Z}^{\dagger },~~~~\partial _{Z}\leftrightarrow a_{Z}
\notag \\
Z_{j}^{i} &=&(Z)_{j}^{i}\leftrightarrow (a_{Z}^{\dagger })_{j}^{i} \notag \\
(\partial _{Z})_{j}^{i} &=&\frac{\partial }{\partial (Z)_{i}^{j}
\leftrightarrow (a_{Z})_{j}^{i}
\end{eqnarray
The action $(a_{Z})_{j}^{i},$ $(\partial _{Z})_{j}^{i}$ is equivalent to
Wick contraction with $(Z)_{i}^{j}$. More detailedly, the right hand side of
the correspondence contains $\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}$ norm factor for each
elementary field, and hence $\mathrm{Tr(}a_{Z}^{\dagger n})\left\vert
0\right\rangle $ corresponds to $\frac{1}{\sqrt{nN^{n}}}\mathrm{Tr}(Z^{n})$.
This is exact for any finite and fixed $N$. The convention here is that we
have the canonical commutation relations and normalizations for
a_{Z}^{\dagger },~a_{Z}.$
Similarly for other complex matrix fields $Y,X$ in the $U(N)$ gauge theory,
one has the correspondence
\begin{eqnarray}
Y &\leftrightarrow &a_{Y}^{\dagger },~~~~\partial _{Y}\leftrightarrow a_{Y}
\notag \\
X &\leftrightarrow &a_{X}^{\dagger },~~~~\partial _{X}\leftrightarrow a_{X}
\end{eqnarray
In the similar way, $\mathrm{Tr}(a_{Y}^{\dagger n})$ corresponds to $\mathrm
Tr}(Y^{n})$ and $\mathrm{Tr}(a_{X}^{\dagger n})$ corresponds to $\mathrm{Tr
(X^{n}).$
The new class of the BPS coherent states is
\begin{equation}
F[\Lambda ]=\frac{1}{Vol_{U}}\int dU\exp \left( \mathrm{Tr}(U\Lambda
U^{-1}a_{Z}^{\dagger })\right) \left\vert 0\right\rangle . \label{coh_03}
\end{equation
Here $U\in U(N)$ is an unitary action on the $N$ $D$-branes. The action of
the unitary $U$, originates from the nonabelian gauge symmetry of the $N$
D-branes. The integral is over the group manifold, with the condition $\frac
1}{Vol_{U}}\int dU\cdot 1=1$. This defines a coherent state $\left\vert
F[\Lambda ]\right\rangle $. The conjugate bra state is $\langle F[\Lambda ]|$
and is defined by conjugating $a_{Z}^{\dagger }$ (respectively $\Lambda $)
to $a_{Z}$ (respectively $\bar{\Lambda}$).
We can also write the integral as $\int dg\exp (\mathrm{Tr}(\Lambda
(g^{-1}a_{Z}^{\dagger }g)))\left\vert 0\right\rangle $ and view $g$ as
auxiliary variables coupled to the $a_{Z}^{\dagger }$ fields. We then
integrate out these auxiliary variables. Here we interpret the integration
as a \textit{path integral} of the auxiliary variables. As a path integral,
it can be performed by a saddle point method.
The inner products of the states are
\begin{equation}
\langle F[\Lambda ^{\prime }]|F[\Lambda ]\rangle =\bar{F}[\bar{\Lambda
^{\prime }]\ast F[\Lambda ],
\end{equation
\begin{equation}
\bar{F}[\bar{\Lambda}^{\prime }]\ast F[\Lambda ]=\frac{1}{Vol}\int d\tilde{U
\exp (\mathrm{Tr}(\tilde{U}^{-1}\Lambda \tilde{U}\bar{\Lambda}^{\prime })).
\label{integral_07}
\end{equation
The normalizations of the states are $\mathcal{N}_{\Lambda }=\langle
F[\Lambda ]|F[\Lambda ]\rangle $, where
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{N}_{\Lambda }=\frac{1}{Vol}\int dU\exp (\mathrm{Tr}(U^{-1}\Lambda
\bar{\Lambda})). \label{integral_08}
\end{equation
For more details, see \cite{Berenstein:2022srd}. Eqn. (\ref{integral_07}),
\ref{integral_08}) are Harish-Chandra-Itzykson-Zuber (HCIZ) integrals \cit
{Harish,Itzykson:1979fi,Duistermaat:1982}, whose computation can be very
conveniently performed by localizations \cite{Duistermaat:1982} and by
saddle point methods.
We can define an unitary displacement operator
\begin{equation}
D(\Lambda )=\frac{1}{Vol_{U}}\int dU\exp \left( \mathrm{Tr}\left( U\Lambda
U^{-1}a_{Z}^{\dagger }-U\bar{\Lambda}U^{-1}a_{Z}\right) \right) . \label{05}
\end{equation
Using Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff (BCH) formulas and commutation relations of
the ladder operators, we writ
\begin{equation}
F[\Lambda ]=\mathcal{N}_{\Lambda }^{\frac{1}{2}}D(\Lambda )\left\vert
0\right\rangle \label{state 04}
\end{equation
and we show (\ref{coh_03}) and (\ref{state 04}) are equivalent. $D(\Lambda )$
is an unitary operation in $U(\mathcal{H})~$acting on the Hilbert space$
\mathcal{H}$ of states.\ In this writing, the term in the exponent is
manifestly anti-Hermitian, and hence the operation $D$ is an unitary
operation. The advantage is that it is manifestly unitary on the Hilbert
space. Using BCH formulas and commutation relations of the ladder operators,
we write $D$ also in the following way
\begin{equation}
D(\Lambda )=\frac{\mathcal{N}_{\Lambda }^{-\frac{1}{2}}}{Vol_{U}}\int dU\exp
\left( \mathrm{Tr}\left( U\Lambda U^{-1}a_{Z}^{\dagger }\right) \right) \exp
\left( -\mathrm{Tr}(U\bar{\Lambda}U^{-1}a_{Z})\right) . \label{06}
\end{equation
Eqn. (\ref{05}) and (\ref{06}) are equivalent. The$~$state $F(\Lambda )$ is
an eigenstate of the annihilation operators and we have $\mathrm{Tr
(a_{Z}^{n})F(\Lambda )=\mathrm{Tr}(\Lambda ^{n})F(\Lambda )$ for gauge
invariant observables.
We can also define phase shift operator
\begin{equation}
R(\Theta _{Z})=\frac{1}{Vol}\int dU\exp (\mathrm{Tr}(iU\Theta
_{Z}U^{-1}a_{Z}^{\dagger }a_{Z})). \label{03}
\end{equation
Here $\Theta _{Z}$ is a phase matrix, whose eigenvalues $\theta
_{z}^{i},i=1,...,N$,~are phases rotating the eigenvalues of$~\Lambda _{Z}$.
Here we let $\Lambda _{Z},\Theta _{Z}$ commute, i.e. $[\Lambda _{Z},\Theta
_{Z}]=0$. Hence
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{Vol}\int dU\exp (\mathrm{Tr}(iU\Theta _{Z}U^{-1}a_{Z}^{\dagger
}a_{Z}))|F[\Lambda _{Z}]\rangle =\frac{1}{Vol}\int dU\exp (\mathrm{Tr
(U\Lambda _{Z}e^{i\Theta _{Z}}U^{-1}a_{Z}^{\dagger }))\left\vert
0\right\rangle
\end{equation
where we used BCH formulas. The eigenvalues are rotated by $\lambda
_{z}^{i}\rightarrow \lambda _{z}^{i}e^{i\theta _{z}^{i}}$, and
correspondingly, $\bar{\lambda}_{z}^{i}\rightarrow \bar{\lambda
_{z}^{i}e^{-i\theta _{z}^{i}}$.
The number operator is ${\hat{N}}_{Z}=a_{Z}^{\dagger }a_{Z}$.$~$We have $
\hat{J}}_{Z}=\mathrm{Tr}(a_{Z}^{\dagger }a_{Z})$ and ${J}_{Z}=\langle {\hat{
}}_{Z}\rangle $ measures the expectation value of the number of $Z$ fields
in the state.{\ The Hamiltonian operator is }${\hat{H}}_{0}=\mathrm{Tr
(a_{Z}^{\dagger }a_{Z})$ and $H_{0}=\langle {\hat{H}}_{0}\rangle $ counts
the excitation energy. Our Hamiltonian has subtracted out the Casimir energy
of the ground state. The Hamiltonian on the state space of the coherent
states is
\begin{equation}
E_{F[\Lambda ]}=\langle {\hat{H}}\rangle _{F[\Lambda ]}=\mathcal{N
_{F}^{-1}\langle F(\Lambda )|{\hat{H}}|F(\Lambda )\rangle =\mathcal{N
_{F}^{-1}~\bar{F}[\bar{\Lambda}]\ast {\hat{H}}\ast F[\Lambda ].
\end{equation
One can use a more sophisticated Lagrangian formalism \cit
{Berenstein:2022srd} to obtain an effective action on coherent states
derived by \cite{Berenstein:2022srd}. These constructions and expressions
also works for the other matrix fields $Y,X$ in the $U(N)$ gauge theory by
using their ladder operators $a_{Y}^{\dagger },a_{X}^{\dagger }$ for (\re
{coh_03}).
The coherent states for coulomb branches also work similarly. Consider
coulomb branch gauge group $G_{1}\times G_{2}$ inside full gauge group $G$.
In that case, we need to embed $U(N_{1})\times U(N_{2})$ into $U(N)$, where
N_{1}+N_{2}=N,$ and the matrix $\Lambda _{Z}$ splits into blocks e.g.
\Lambda _{Z}^{(1)},\Lambda _{Z}^{(2)}$ corresponding to the two gauge
groups, and $\mathrm{rk}(\Lambda _{Z}^{(1)})+\mathrm{rk}(\Lambda _{Z}^{(2)})
\mathrm{rk}(\Lambda _{Z})$. Coulomb branch operators have been considered in
\cite{Diaz:2015tda} which is related to Gelfand-Tsetlin patterns \cit
{Borodin Olshanski}. The integration $\int_{G}dU$ turns into
\int_{G_{1}\times G_{2}}\prod\limits_{i}dU_{i},$ where $U_{i}\in U(N_{i})$,
~i=1,2$. In this case, the permutation symmetry $S_{N}~$also reduces to
S_{N_{1}}\times S_{N_{2}}.$
Ref. \cite{Berenstein:2022srd} has also constructed a new class of eighth
BPS coherent states, with manifest permutation symmetries. It is constructed
by enlarging $U\Lambda _{Z}U^{-1}a_{Z}^{\dagger }$ in (\ref{coh_03}) to more
terms, adding additional parameters $\Lambda _{Y}$ and $\Lambda _{X}$. We
can take a limit case of the eighth BPS states constructed by \cit
{Berenstein:2022srd}, by making $\Lambda _{X}\equiv 0$. For $\Lambda
_{(Z,Y)}\neq 0$, these are quarter BPS states. They are in the kernel of the
anormalous dimension dilatation operator, and this means $[\Lambda
_{Z},\Lambda _{Y}]=0$. This is a good advantage of using BPS coherent states.
These states ar
\begin{equation}
F[\Lambda _{Y},\Lambda _{Z}]=\frac{1}{Vol}\int dU\exp (\mathrm{Tr}(U\Lambda
_{Y}U^{-1}a_{Y}^{\dagger }+U\Lambda _{Z}U^{-1}a_{Z}^{\dagger }))\left\vert
0\right\rangle . \label{coh_05}
\end{equation
Now first, in the following, we check that the states are quarter BPS at one
loop and two loop orders. The one-loop dilatation operator and effective
Hamiltonian is given by
\begin{equation}
\Delta _{2}=g_{YM}^{2}\mathrm{Tr}\left( [a_{Z}^{\dagger },a_{Y}^{\dagger
}][a_{Y},a_{Z}]\right) .
\end{equation
As pointed out by \cite{Berenstein:2022srd}, when we have the dilatation
operator act on $F$, we get a result that is equal to zero when the
parameters $\Lambda _{Y},\Lambda _{Z}$ are commuting matrices. The
a_{Y},a_{Z}$ appears on the rightmost. When acting on the above coherent
states, we have the identification $a_{Y}\leftrightarrow \Lambda _{Y}$,
~a_{Z}\leftrightarrow \Lambda _{Z}$, and $[a_{Y},a_{Z}]\leftrightarrow
\lbrack \Lambda _{Y},\Lambda _{Z}]=0$. Hence we see explicitly that the
action of the one-loop dilatation operator on (\ref{coh_05}) is zero.
The two-loop dilatation operator is
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta _{4} &=&-\frac{g^{2}}{2}:\mathrm{Tr}\left( \left[ \left[
a_{Y}^{\dagger },a_{Z}^{\dagger }\right] ,a_{Z}\right] \left[ \left[
a_{Y},a_{Z}\right] ,a_{Z}^{\dagger }\right] \right) : \notag \\
&&-\frac{g^{2}}{2}:\mathrm{Tr}\left( \left[ \left[ a_{Y}^{\dagger
},a_{Z}^{\dagger }\right] ,a_{Y}\right] \left[ \left[ a_{Y},a_{Z}\right]
,a_{Y}^{\dagger }\right] \right) : \notag \\
&&-\frac{g^{2}}{2}:\mathrm{Tr}\left( \left[ \left[ a_{Y}^{\dagger
},a_{Z}^{\dagger }\right] ,T^{a}\right] \left[ \left[ a_{Y},a_{Z}\right]
,T^{a}\right] \right) :
\end{eqnarray
Here $g={\frac{g_{YM}^{2}}{8\pi ^{2}}}${\ with our convention.} The terms in
the dilatation operators are normal ordered. The normal ordering symbols
here indicate that the annihilation operators within the normal ordering
symbols do not act on fields inside the normal ordering. We computed the
action of the two-loop dilatation operator on the above coherent states, its
action on (\ref{coh_05}) is again zero, due to$~[\Lambda _{Z},\Lambda
_{Y}]=0 $. Then, by using nonrenormalization theorems, e.g. \cit
{Lewis-Brown:2020nmg,Pasukonis:2010rv}, we are convinced that they are also
higher-loop BPS.
The state is a generating function of single-trace and multi-trace states of
the form $\mathrm{sTr
(Y^{m_{1}}Z^{n_{1}}Y^{m_{2}}Z^{n_{2}}...Y^{m_{l}}Z^{n_{l}}...)$. The
generated states are quarter BPS single-trace and multi-trace operators
built by $Z,Y$. They have been investigated in e.g. \cit
{Lewis-Brown:2020nmg}. The two matrices $Z,Y$ correspond to $C^{2}$ of the
transverse dimensions of $N$ D-branes.
The unitary displacement operator i
\begin{eqnarray}
D(\Lambda _{Y},\Lambda _{Z}) &=&\frac{1}{Vol_{U}}\int dU\exp (\mathrm{Tr
(U\Lambda _{Z}U^{-1}a_{Z}^{\dagger }+U\Lambda _{Y}U^{-1}a_{Y}^{\dagger })-
\notag \\
&&\mathrm{Tr}(U\bar{\Lambda}_{Z}U^{-1}a_{Z}+U\bar{\Lambda}_{Y}U^{-1}a_{Y}))
\label{08}
\end{eqnarray
and we write $F=\mathcal{N}_{F}^{\frac{1}{2}}D(\Lambda _{Y},\Lambda
_{Z})\left\vert 0\right\rangle $. It is equivalent t
\begin{eqnarray}
D(\Lambda _{Y},\Lambda _{Z}) &=&\frac{\mathcal{N}_{F}^{-\frac{1}{2}}}{Vol_{U
}\int dU\exp (\mathrm{Tr}(U\Lambda U^{-1}a_{Z}^{\dagger }+U\Lambda
_{Y}U^{-1}a_{Y}^{\dagger })) \notag \\
&&\exp (-\mathrm{Tr}(U\bar{\Lambda}U^{-1}a_{Z}+U\bar{\Lambda
_{Y}U^{-1}a_{Y})).
\end{eqnarray}
The phase shift operator is
\begin{equation}
R(\Theta _{Y})=\frac{1}{Vol}\int dU\exp (\mathrm{Tr}(iU\Theta
_{Y}U^{-1}a_{Y}^{\dagger }a_{Y})). \label{04}
\end{equation
Here we let $\Lambda _{Y},\Theta _{Y}$ commute. The action of it rotates
\lambda _{y}^{i}\rightarrow \lambda _{y}^{i}e^{i\theta _{y}^{i}}.$
The Hamiltonian in the state space of coherent states is ${\hat{H}}_{0}
\mathrm{Tr}(a_{Y}^{\dagger }a_{Y}+a_{Z}^{\dagger }a_{Z})$. This counts the
BPS energy $H_{0}=\langle {\hat{H}}_{0}\rangle $. On the other hand, ${\hat{
}}_{Y}=\mathrm{Tr}(a_{Y}^{\dagger }a_{Y})$ and ${J}_{Y}=\langle {\hat{J}
_{Y}\rangle ~$measures the expectation value of the number of $Y$ fields in
the state.
Now we perform contracting the ladder operators and the inner product i
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{N}_{F}=\bar{F}[\bar{\Lambda}_{Z},\bar{\Lambda}_{Y}]\ast F[\Lambda
_{Z},\Lambda _{Y}]=I(U,\Lambda _{\alpha },\bar{\Lambda}_{\alpha })
\end{equation
where $\alpha =Z,Y$. The integral i
\begin{equation}
I(U,\Lambda _{\alpha },\bar{\Lambda}_{\alpha })=\frac{1}{Vol}\int dU\exp
\left( \Gamma _{\mathrm{HCIZ}}\left( U,\Lambda _{\alpha },\bar{\Lambda
_{\alpha }\right) \right) . \label{integral_04}
\end{equation
We denote the exponent in (\ref{integral_04}) $\Gamma _{\mathrm{HCIZ}}$. The
exponent i
\begin{equation}
\Gamma _{\mathrm{HCIZ}}\left( U,\Lambda _{\alpha },\bar{\Lambda}_{\alpha
}\right) =~\mathrm{Tr}(U\Lambda _{Y}U^{-1}\bar{\Lambda}_{Y}+U\Lambda
_{Z}U^{-1}\bar{\Lambda}_{Z}). \label{exponent}
\end{equation
The path integral (\ref{integral_04}) can be computed by a saddle point
method. The saddle point equation is $d\Gamma _{\mathrm{HCIZ}}=0$. Now we
write $dK=UdU^{-1}$, and we hav
\begin{equation}
d\Gamma _{\mathrm{HCIZ}}=\ \mathrm{Tr}\left( dK[\bar{\Lambda}_{Y},U\Lambda
_{Y}U^{-1}]\right) +\mathrm{Tr}\left( dK[\bar{\Lambda}_{Z},U\Lambda
_{Z}U^{-1}]\right) =0.
\end{equation
The conditions for saddle points ar
\begin{equation}
\lbrack \bar{\Lambda}_{Y},U\Lambda _{Y}U^{-1}]+[\bar{\Lambda}_{Z},U\Lambda
_{Z}U^{-1}]=0. \label{saddle}
\end{equation
When $U$ is a permutation matrix $P\in S_{N}$, these are saddle points. The
group integral can be viewed as a path integral of the auxiliary variables
U $. Then the integral (\ref{integral_04}) can be computed by localization
and saddle point method as described in \cite{Berenstein:2022srd}.
We now turn to the eighth BPS case in more details. The states are
\begin{equation}
F[\Lambda _{Z},\Lambda _{X},\Lambda _{Y}]=\frac{1}{Vol}\int dU\exp \left(
\mathrm{Tr}(U\Lambda _{X}U^{-1}a_{X}^{\dagger }+U\Lambda
_{Y}U^{-1}a_{Y}^{\dagger }+U\Lambda _{Z}U^{-1}a_{Z}^{\dagger })\right)
\left\vert 0\right\rangle . \label{F_07}
\end{equation
It can also be written as
\begin{equation}
F[{\vec{\Lambda}}]=\frac{1}{Vol}\int dU\exp \left( \mathrm{Tr}(U{\vec{\Lambd
}}U^{-1}{\vec{a}}^{\dagger })\right) \left\vert 0\right\rangle ,
\end{equation
where ${\vec{\Lambda}=(\Lambda _{X}},{\Lambda _{Y},\Lambda _{Z})}${, }${\vec
a}}^{\dagger }=(a_{X}^{\dagger },a_{Y}^{\dagger },a_{Z}^{\dagger })$. This
form of writing is also convenient for theories with global symmetries or
flavor symmetries. As pointed out in \cite{Berenstein:2022srd}, if the
parameters $\Lambda _{X},\Lambda _{Y},\Lambda _{Z}$ mutually commute, the
states are annihilated by the one-loop dilatation operator. The effective
Hamiltonian is given by
\begin{equation}
\Delta =g_{YM}^{2}\mathrm{Tr}([a_{X}^{\dagger },a_{Z}^{\dagger
}][a_{Z},a_{X}])+g_{YM}^{2}\mathrm{Tr}[a_{Y}^{\dagger },a_{Z}^{\dagger
}][a_{Z},a_{Y}])+g_{YM}^{2}\mathrm{Tr}([a_{X}^{\dagger },a_{Y}^{\dagger
}][a_{Y},a_{X}]).
\end{equation
When acting on the coherent states, we have the correspondence
a_{X}\leftrightarrow \Lambda _{X}$, $[a_{X},a_{Z}]\leftrightarrow \lbrack
\Lambda _{X},\Lambda _{Z}]$, $[a_{X},a_{Y}]\leftrightarrow \lbrack \Lambda
_{X},\Lambda _{Y}]$, etc. Hence all the three terms acting on the states are
zero, and the action of the dilatation is zero. Hence $\Lambda _{X},\Lambda
_{Y},\Lambda _{Z}$ are required to commute pairwise. By using
nonrenormalization theorems \cite{Lewis-Brown:2020nmg,Pasukonis:2010rv}, we
can infer that they are in the kernel of the anormalous dilatation operator.
The unitary displacement operator is similar to the above (\ref{08}) with
more terms in the exponent added. And we assume $\Lambda _{(X,Y,Z)}$ are
mutually commuting. By using BCH formulas, it is equivalent to the
following, with the normalization factor,
\begin{eqnarray}
&&D(\Lambda _{X},\Lambda _{Y},\Lambda _{Z}) \notag \\
&=&\frac{\mathcal{N}_{F}^{-\frac{1}{2}}}{Vol_{U}}\int dU\exp \left( \mathrm
Tr}(U\Lambda _{Z}U^{-1}a_{Z}^{\dagger }+U\Lambda _{X}U^{-1}a_{X}^{\dagger
}+U\Lambda _{Y}U^{-1}a_{Y}^{\dagger })\right) \notag \\
&&\exp \left( -\mathrm{Tr}(U\bar{\Lambda}_{Z}U^{-1}a_{Z}+U\bar{\Lambda
_{X}U^{-1}a_{X}+U\bar{\Lambda}_{Y}U^{-1}a_{Y})\right) .
\end{eqnarray
We write $F=\mathcal{N}_{F}^{\frac{1}{2}}D(\Lambda _{X},\Lambda _{Y},\Lambda
_{Z})\left\vert 0\right\rangle .$ Similarly we define the phase shift
operator $R(\Theta _{X})~$similar to (\ref{03}) and (\ref{04}).
By performing usual manipulations contracting ladder operators, the overlap
\mathcal{N}_{F}~$was computed in \cite{Berenstein:2022srd}. The overlap is a
HCIZ integral, where the exponent is similar to (\ref{exponent}) and have
three terms, with $\Gamma _{\mathrm{HCIZ}}\left( U,\Lambda _{\alpha },\bar
\Lambda}_{\alpha }\right) =\mathrm{Tr}(U{\vec{\Lambda}}U^{-1}{\vec{\bar
\Lambda}}})$. The conditions for saddle points are in \cit
{Berenstein:2022srd}. It is in a similar form as (\ref{saddle}) with three
terms. The integrals can be efficiently calculated by localization and
saddle point method.
The Hamiltonian in the space of coherent states is ${\hat{H}}_{0}=\mathrm{Tr
(a_{Z}^{\dagger }a_{Z}+a_{Y}^{\dagger }a_{Y}+a_{X}^{\dagger }a_{X})$, with
Casimir energy subtracted. The energy in the space of coherent states i
\begin{equation}
{E}_{F}=\langle {\hat{H}}\rangle _{F}:=\mathcal{N}_{F}^{-1}\langle F[\Lambda
_{(X,Y,Z)}]|{\hat{H}}|F[\Lambda _{(X,Y,Z)}]\rangle =\mathcal{N}_{F}^{-1}
\bar{F}\ast H\ast F.
\end{equation
The angular momentum operator is ${\hat{J}}_{X}=\mathrm{Tr}(a_{X}^{\dagger
}a_{X})$ and ${J}_{X}=\langle {\hat{J}}_{X}\rangle $ measures the
expectation value of the number of $X$ fields in the state. We have that ${J
_{Z}=\mathrm{Tr}(\bar{\Lambda}_{Z}\Lambda _{Z})$,$~J_{Y}=\mathrm{Tr}(\bar
\Lambda}_{Y}\Lambda _{Y})$,$~J_{X}=\mathrm{Tr}(\bar{\Lambda}_{X}\Lambda
_{X}) $, an
\begin{equation}
~H_{0}=J_{X}+J_{Y}+J_{Z}.
\end{equation}
The vevs are
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\langle \mathrm{Tr}(a_{Z}^{\dagger n}a_{Z}^{n})\rangle _{F}=\langle
\mathrm{Tr}(\bar{\Lambda}_{Z}\Lambda _{Z})^{n}\rangle _{F},~~~\langle
\mathrm{Tr}(a_{Y}^{\dagger n}a_{Y}^{n})\rangle _{F}=\langle \mathrm{Tr}(\bar
\Lambda}_{Y}\Lambda _{Y})^{n}\rangle _{F},~ \notag \\
&&\quad \quad \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \langle \mathrm{Tr}(a_{X}^{\dagger
n}a_{X}^{n})\rangle _{F}=\langle \mathrm{Tr}(\bar{\Lambda}_{X}\Lambda
_{X})^{n}\rangle _{F}. \label{vev 05}
\end{eqnarray
Note that e.g. $(\bar{\Lambda}_{Z}\Lambda _{Z})^{n}$ is conveniently a
Hermitian matrix with real eigenvalues. We then look at the eigenvalue of
the parameters $\lambda _{i}^{x},\lambda _{i}^{y},\lambda _{i}^{z}$. In the
large $N$ limit, $\rho (\lambda )=\rho (\lambda ^{(x,y,z)})$ is an
eigenvalue density. The coherent state $|F[\Lambda _{(X,Y,Z)}]\rangle $ may
also be labeled as $|\rho (\lambda ^{(x,y,z)})\rangle $ in the large $N$
limit. We can also calculate the right hand sides of (\ref{vev 05}) for the
case when $n$ is not an integer, using eigenvalue formalism, e.g.
\begin{equation}
\langle \mathrm{Tr}(\bar{\Lambda}_{Z}\Lambda _{Z})^{n}\rangle _{F}=\int
d^{6}\lambda \rho (\lambda )(\bar{\lambda}^{z}\lambda ^{z})^{n}.
\end{equation
The methods developed in the approach of matrix eigenvalue effective models
are very useful in this context \cite{Berenstein:2005aa},\cite{Masuku:2009qf
-\cite{Berenstein:2008eg}. These vevs are dual to the multi-pole moments of
the gravitational geometries in the gravity side, and can be measured in the
gravity side via the methods of \cite{Skenderis:2007yb}-\cite{Liu:2007xj}.
The $n=1$ case of the similar quantities were analyzed in \cite{Chen:2007du}.
These states are heavy excited states in the gravity side. The particularly
interesting regimes are $J_{X},J_{Y},J_{Z}$ of order $N^{2}$ where there is
backreaction of the excitation onto the spacetime geometry. In these
regimes, single-trace and multi-traces are more difficult and less
convenient. The coherent states are especially convenient in their large
amplitude regimes. The gravity waves are collective excitations of these
large $N$ eigenvalue distributions. The order $N$ regimes describe multi
giant gravitons. The individual eigenvalue of the coherent state
multi-parameter is the collective coordinate of giant gravitons on the
gravity side \cite{Berenstein:2022srd}, see also related observations \cit
{Berenstein:2017abm,Lin:2017dnz}.
This new type of coherent states have been constructed by \cit
{Berenstein:2022srd,Holguin:2022drf}. The BPS coherent states are generating
functions of single-trace and multi-trace states. The multi-trace states are
multi closed string states. Hence the BPS coherent states are also
generating functions of multi closed string states. It is possible to
generalize to more matrices and more flavors, in other circumstances or in
other types of gauge theories. A special class of quarter BPS coherent
states were also constructed in \cite{Lin:2017vfn}, which has not made use
of the manifest permutation symmetries.
\section{The $SL(2)$ sectors, their cousins, and meromorphic versions}
\label{sec 3} \renewcommand{\theequation}{3.\arabic{equation}}
\setcounter{equation}{0} \renewcommand{\thethm}{3.\arabic{thm}}
\setcounter{thm}{0} \renewcommand{\theprop}{3.\arabic{prop}}
\setcounter{prop}{0}
We construct a new type of coherent states in the $SL(2)$ sectors and their
cousin $PSU(1,1|2$) sectors. We also construct a meromorphic version of
coherent states, which can be transformed back to the full coherent states
when $\det \Lambda _{Z}\neq 0$. We give transformation relations between
different types of coherent states, among other things.
Inspired by the coherent states in \cite{Berenstein:2022srd}, whose aspects
are analyzed in more details in Sec. 2, we construct a coherent state as
generating function o
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{Tr}(D_{+}^{n_{1}}ZD_{+}^{n_{2}}Z...D_{+}^{n_{\alpha }}Z...),
\label{states_15}
\end{equation
$n_{\alpha }=0,1,2,...$ and so on. Here $D_{+}$ is a light-cone covariant
derivative operator. We write $D_{+}=n^{\mu }D_{\mu }$ where $n^{\mu }$ is a
light-like vector. $D_{+}$ is in the (1,0) representation of the local
Lorentz group. When $D_{+}$ are dilute, they can be viewed as impurities on
top of $Z$. Similar conceptions are also raised in \cit
{deMelloKoch:2011vn,Berenstein:2020jen}; see also \cite{Kim:2018gwx}. For
more details on $SL(2)$ sectors and their relations to integrability and
QCD, see for example \cite{Beisert:2010jr,Tseytlin,Belitsky:2003ys}.
We can construct the ladder operators corresponding to adding derivatives $n$
times on top of $Z$
\begin{equation}
c_{D}^{\dagger n}a_{Z}^{\dagger }\leftrightarrow
D_{+}^{n}Z,~~~c_{D}^{\dagger }a_{Z}^{\dagger }\leftrightarrow
D_{+}Z,~~~a_{Z}^{\dagger }\leftrightarrow Z.
\end{equation
We construct a type of coherent states as the generating function of (\re
{states_15})
\begin{equation}
K[R_{Z},\Lambda _{Z}]=\frac{1}{Vol}\int dU\exp (\mathrm{Tr
(UR_{Z}U^{-1}c_{D}^{\dagger }a_{Z}^{\dagger }a_{Z}))\exp (\mathrm{Tr
(U\Lambda _{Z}U^{-1}a_{Z}^{\dagger }))\left\vert 0\right\rangle .
\label{states_17}
\end{equation
Here $R_{Z},\Lambda _{Z}$ commute. We make sure that before acting
c_{D}^{\dagger }$, there is already a background of $Z$-fields due to the
right-most operator in (\ref{states_17}). The angular momentum operator and
spin operator are ${\hat{J}}_{Z}=\mathrm{Tr}(a_{Z}^{\dagger }a_{Z})$ and $
\hat{S}}=\mathrm{Tr}(c_{D}^{\dagger }c_{D})$. Here $S=\langle {\hat{S}
\rangle $ measures the expectation value of the number of $D_{+}$. On this
state (\ref{states_17}), the expectation values are $J_{Z}=\langle {\hat{J}
_{Z}\rangle =\mathrm{Tr}({\bar{\Lambda}}_{Z}\Lambda _{Z})$ and $S=\langle
\hat{S}}\rangle =\mathrm{Tr}({R}_{Z}{\bar{R}}_{Z}{\bar{\Lambda}
_{Z}^{2}\Lambda _{Z}^{2})$.
An alternative formulation is the stat
\begin{equation}
G[T_{DZ},\Lambda _{Z}]=\frac{1}{Vol}\int dU\exp (\mathrm{Tr
(UT_{DZ}U^{-1}c_{D}^{\dagger }a_{Z})\exp (\mathrm{Tr}(U\Lambda
_{Z}U^{-1}a_{Z}^{\dagger }))\left\vert 0\right\rangle . \label{states_G_03}
\end{equation
Here $T_{DZ},\Lambda _{Z}$ commute. We have that $J_{Z}=\mathrm{Tr}({\bar
\Lambda}}_{Z}\Lambda _{Z})$ and $S=\mathrm{Tr}({T}_{DZ}{\bar{T}}_{DZ}{\bar
\Lambda}}_{Z}\Lambda _{Z}).$
These are heavy states in the gravity side. If the $D_{+}$ is very dilute,
it is the small spin limit. This is when $\alpha =N^{-1}\mathrm{Tr}({T}_{DZ}
\bar{T}}_{DZ})$ is much smaller than one. On the other hand, if the $Z$ is
dilute and $D_{+}$ is dense, it is the large spin limit. This is when
\alpha $ is much larger than one. The large spin limit has been discussed
also in \cite{deMelloKoch:2011vn}.
States of this type (\ref{states_17}) can also be constructed for the
operators analyzed in sections 2. We construct the following state
\begin{equation}
G[T_{Y},\Lambda _{Z}]=\frac{1}{Vol}\int dU\exp (\mathrm{Tr
(UT_{Y}U^{-1}a_{Y}^{\dagger }a_{Z}))\exp (\mathrm{Tr}(U\Lambda
_{Z}U^{-1}a_{Z}^{\dagger }))\left\vert 0\right\rangle . \label{states_G_05}
\end{equation
Here $T_{Y},\Lambda _{Z}$ commute. The right-most operator in (\re
{states_G_05}) is an eigenstate of $a_{Z}$. When acting on the coherent
state background, we replace the annihilation operator by the vev. Here we
replace the $a_{Z}~$by vev $\Lambda _{Z}$, when the left operator in (\re
{states_G_05}) acts on the right-most operator. The action $a_{Y}^{\dagger
}a_{Z}$ annihilates a $Z$ field and substitute it with a $Y$ field, e.g.
Z^{2}\rightarrow YZ$. Hence we have $J_{Z}=\mathrm{Tr}({\bar{\Lambda}
_{Z}\Lambda _{Z})$ and $J_{Y}=\mathrm{Tr}({T}_{Y}{\bar{T}}_{Y}{\bar{\Lambda}
_{Z}\Lambda _{Z}).$
The state (\ref{states_G_05}) is a meromorphic version of (\ref{coh_05}).
G[T_{Y},\Lambda _{Z}]$ is the excitation on top of $F[\Lambda _{Z}]$. It is
a good approximation to $F[\Lambda _{Y},\Lambda _{Z}]$, in the regime $\det
\Lambda _{Z}\neq 0.$ We see that
\begin{equation}
G[T_{Y},\Lambda _{Z}]|_{T_{Y}=\Lambda _{Z}^{-1}\Lambda _{Y}}\sim F[\Lambda
_{Y},\Lambda _{Z}],
\end{equation
when $\det \Lambda _{Z}\neq 0$ and identifying $T_{Y}=\Lambda
_{Z}^{-1}\Lambda _{Y}$. When $\det \Lambda _{Z}=0,$ $G[T_{Y},\Lambda _{Z}]$
can not be transformed back to $F[\Lambda _{Y},\Lambda _{Z}],$ since there
is pole in $T_{Y}$. Here $T_{Y}$ is a meromorphic function of $\Lambda _{Z}$
and not a holomorphic function, hence there is pole in $T_{Y}.$ This is when
$\det \Lambda _{Z}=0$. $F[\Lambda _{Y},\Lambda _{Z}]$ is a smooth resolution
of $G[T_{Y},\Lambda _{Z}]$, extending it to cover the pole locus $\det
\Lambda _{Z}=0.$
The meromorphic version provides new understandings of the coherent states
and new understanding to the important question why we have the background
fields $Z$. These background fields, e.g. $Z$ fields, serve as new effective
vacuum for new excitations.
Similarly, for including $X$, we have the stat
\begin{eqnarray}
&&G[T_{X},T_{Y},\Lambda _{Z}]= \notag \\
&&\frac{1}{Vol}\int dU\exp (\mathrm{Tr}(UT_{X}U^{-1}a_{X}^{\dagger
}a_{Z}+UT_{Y}U^{-1}a_{Y}^{\dagger }a_{Z})\exp (\mathrm{Tr}(U\Lambda
_{Z}U^{-1}a_{Z}^{\dagger }))\left\vert 0\right\rangle . \notag \\
&& \label{states_G_07}
\end{eqnarray
Here $T_{X},T_{Y},\Lambda _{Z}$ mutually commute. We have that $J_{Z}
\mathrm{Tr}({\bar{\Lambda}}_{Z}\Lambda _{Z}),J_{Y}=\mathrm{Tr}({T}_{Y}{\bar{
}}_{Y}{\bar{\Lambda}}_{Z}\Lambda _{Z})$, and $J_{X}=\mathrm{Tr}({T}_{X}{\bar
T}}_{X}{\bar{\Lambda}}_{Z}\Lambda _{Z}).$
In the regime $\det \Lambda _{Z}\neq 0,
\begin{equation}
G[T_{X},T_{Y},\Lambda _{Z}]\sim F[\Lambda _{X},\Lambda _{Y},\Lambda _{Z}],
\end{equation
with $T_{X}=\Lambda _{Z}^{-1}\Lambda _{X},T_{Y}=\Lambda _{Z}^{-1}\Lambda
_{Y} $. Hence state (\ref{states_G_07}) is a meromorphic version of (\re
{F_07}). $G[T_{Y},\Lambda _{Z}]$, $G[T_{X},T_{Y},\Lambda _{Z}]$ can be
viewed as meromorphic versions of quarter and eighth BPS coherent states.
Here, it is very similar to having $U(2)$ and $U(3)$ flavor symmetry, or
more generally $U(N_{F})$ symmetry if there are $N_{F}~$sets of fields with
global symmetry. Similar expansions also works for quiver gauge theory with
global symmetry, as well as their Coulomb branches. On the other hands,
there are theories with these flavor symmetries.
Turning to the $SL(2)$ sector, this sector can be enlarged to $PSU(1,1|2$)
sector. The $PSU(1,1|2)$ sector has been discussed from the point of view of
integrability, e.g. \cite{Beisert:2007sk}. Now we consider bosonic part of
PSU(1,1|2)$ sector, which is composed of $Z,Y$, $D_{+}$ and two fermions in
the ($\frac{1}{2}$, -$\frac{1}{2}$) and ($\frac{1}{2}$, $\frac{1}{2}$) of
the local Lorentz group. In the $PSU(1,1|2)$ sector, the bosonic part of the
state i
\begin{eqnarray}
G[T_{DZ},T_{DY},\Lambda _{Z},\Lambda _{Y}] &=&\frac{1}{Vol}\int dU\exp
\mathrm{Tr}(UT_{DZ}U^{-1}c_{D}^{\dagger }a_{Z})+\mathrm{Tr
(UT_{DY}U^{-1}c_{D}^{\dagger }a_{Y})) \notag \\
&&\exp (\mathrm{Tr}(U\Lambda _{Z}U^{-1}a_{Z}^{\dagger }+U\Lambda
_{Y}U^{-1}a_{Y}^{\dagger })\left\vert 0\right\rangle .
\end{eqnarray
Here $T_{DZ},T_{DY},\Lambda _{Z},\Lambda _{Y}$ mutually commute. The angular
momentum and spin of the state is $J_{Z}=\mathrm{Tr}({\bar{\Lambda}
_{Z}\Lambda _{Z}),J_{Y}=\mathrm{Tr}({\bar{\Lambda}}_{Y}\Lambda _{Y})$ and $S
\mathrm{Tr}(|T_{DZ}\Lambda _{Z}+T_{DY}\Lambda _{Y}|^{2}).$
An alternative formulation in the bosonic part of the $PSU(1,1|2)$ sector, i
\begin{eqnarray}
K[R_{Z},R_{Y},\Lambda _{Z},\Lambda _{Y}] &=&\frac{1}{Vol}\int dU\exp
\mathrm{Tr}(UR_{Z}U^{-1}c_{D}^{\dagger }a_{Z}^{\dagger }a_{Z})+\mathrm{Tr
(UR_{Y}U^{-1}c_{D}^{\dagger }a_{Y}^{\dagger }a_{Y})) \notag \\
&&\exp (\mathrm{Tr}(U\Lambda _{Z}U^{-1}a_{Z}^{\dagger }+U\Lambda
_{Y}U^{-1}a_{Y}^{\dagger })\left\vert 0\right\rangle .
\end{eqnarray
Here $R_{Z},\Lambda _{Z},R_{Y},\Lambda _{Y}$ mutually commute.$~$We see that
$J_{Z}=\mathrm{Tr}({\bar{\Lambda}}_{Z}\Lambda _{Z}),J_{Y}=\mathrm{Tr}({\bar
\Lambda}}_{Y}\Lambda _{Y})$ and $S=\mathrm{Tr}(|R_{Z}{\bar{\Lambda}
_{Z}\Lambda _{Z}+R_{Y}{\bar{\Lambda}}_{Y}\Lambda _{Y}|^{2})$.
Now we turn to the quiver case. For quiver gauge theories and orbifold
daughters of $\mathcal{N}=4$ theory, the coherent state construction is
similar. Many orbifold daughters have integrability. Many aspects of them
have been discussed and worked out in e.g. \cite{Berenstein:2006yy}-\cit
{Pasukonis:2013ts} and their related references. For example, we can make a
projection of $U(MN)$ theory to get the $U(N)^{M}$ theory. The construction
of coherent states for quiver gauge theories have been worked out in \cit
{Berenstein:2022srd}. For example, we have a $U(N_{1})\times U(N_{2})$ gauge
group. We consider a pair of bifundamental fields $a_{12}^{\dagger
},a_{21}^{\dagger }$ in the $(\bar{N}_{1},N_{2})$ and the $(N_{2},\bar{N
_{1})$ representations. We make the same type of coherent states with their
parameters $\Lambda _{21},\Lambda _{12}$, whose roles are similar to
\Lambda _{Z},\Lambda _{Y}$. The state i
\begin{equation}
F[\Lambda _{21},\Lambda _{12}]=\frac{1}{Vol}\int \prod_{i=1}^{2}dU_{i}\exp
\left( \mathrm{Tr}(\Lambda _{21}U_{1}a_{12}^{\dagger }U_{2}^{-1}+\Lambda
_{12}U_{2}a_{21}^{\dagger }U_{1}^{-1}\right) \left\vert 0\right\rangle .
\label{states_18}
\end{equation
Note that the conjugate of $a_{21}^{\dagger }$ is $a_{12}$, and the
conjugate of $a_{12}^{\dagger }$ is $a_{21}$, with our convention. Now we
construct a new state, which is the meromorphic version of (\ref{states_18})
\begin{equation}
G[T_{21},\Lambda _{12}]=\frac{1}{Vol}\int \prod_{i=1}^{2}dU_{i}\exp (\mathrm
Tr}(U_{2}^{-1}T_{21}U_{1}a_{12}^{\dagger }a_{12}))\exp (\mathrm{Tr
(U_{1}^{-1}\Lambda _{12}U_{2}a_{21}^{\dagger }))\left\vert 0\right\rangle .
\label{G_19}
\end{equation
~The right-most operator in (\ref{G_19}) is an eigenstate of $a_{12}$. We
see that
\begin{equation}
G[T_{21},\Lambda _{12}]\sim F[\Lambda _{21},\Lambda _{12}],
\end{equation
with $\Lambda _{12}T_{21}=\Lambda _{21}$, $T_{21}=\Lambda _{12}^{-1}\Lambda
_{21}$. $G[T_{21},\Lambda _{12}]$ is a meromorphic version of $F[\Lambda
_{21},\Lambda _{12}]$ and can be transformed to it when $N_{1}=N_{2}$ and
\det \Lambda _{12}\neq 0$. The inner products of (\ref{states_18}) have been
computed in \cite{Berenstein:2022srd}, where localization techniques have
been implemented.
\section{String-added coherent states}
\label{sec 4} \renewcommand{\theequation}{4.\arabic{equation}}
\setcounter{equation}{0} \renewcommand{\thethm}{4.\arabic{thm}}
\setcounter{thm}{0} \renewcommand{\theprop}{4.\arabic{prop}}
\setcounter{prop}{0}
The BPS coherent state can serve as the supersymmetric background for other
excitations on top of it. We can consider further excitations on the BPS
coherent state background, by adding strings on top of them. One important
idea is splitting and identification of fields for the background and fields
for the impurities. We begin with some general settings.
\subsection{General settings with multi-words}
The background BPS coherent state is (\ref{F_07}). On this background, other
fields are excited. This is to add words or multi-words onto the coherent
state operator. These other excited fields may be viewed as impurities, if
their numbers are much fewer than the number of background fields. We
generalize the ideas of \cite{Berenstein:2022srd} from single word to
multi-words, and from single pair to multi-pairs.
The BPS coherent states are parametrized by $\vec{\Lambda}=(\Lambda
_{X},\Lambda _{Y},\Lambda _{Z})$. Consider $\left\vert v_{x}\right\rangle
_{i}$, $\left\vert v_{y}\right\rangle _{i}$, $\left\vert v_{z}\right\rangle
_{i}$ are eigenvectors, i.e
\begin{equation}
\Lambda _{X}\left\vert v_{x}\right\rangle _{i}=\lambda _{x}^{i}\left\vert
v_{x}\right\rangle _{i},\ ~\Lambda _{Y}\left\vert v_{y}\right\rangle
_{i}=\lambda _{y}^{i}\left\vert v_{y}\right\rangle _{i},~~\Lambda
_{Z}\left\vert v_{z}\right\rangle _{i}=\lambda _{z}^{i}\left\vert
v_{z}\right\rangle _{i}.
\end{equation
When we multiply as $U\Lambda _{X}U^{-1}$, $U\Lambda _{Y}U^{-1},$ $U\Lambda
_{Z}U^{-1}$,$~$the vectors are rotated to $U\left\vert v_{x}\right\rangle
_{i}$, $U\left\vert v_{y}\right\rangle _{i},$ $U\left\vert
v_{z}\right\rangle _{i}$. The bra states are rotated to $\langle
v_{x}|_{i}U^{-1}$, etc. The vectors are simultaneously rotated. There is
also a global symmetry $U(3)$ acting on the set of 3 vectors.
The analysis of \cite{Berenstein:2022srd} as well as the above analysis in
Sec. 2 imply that $\Lambda _{(X,Y,Z)}$ are mutually commuting for BPS. Now
we assume they mutually commute. Hence they can share the same
eigenvectors.\ We consider there are two large eigenvalues $\lambda
_{(X,Y,Z)}^{i}$ and $\lambda _{(X,Y,Z)}^{j}$. They share the same
eigenvectors,$~
\begin{eqnarray}
\Lambda _{X}\left\vert \vec{v}\right\rangle _{\alpha } &=&\lambda
_{x}^{\alpha }\left\vert \vec{v}\right\rangle _{\alpha },~\ \Lambda
_{Y}\left\vert \vec{v}\right\rangle _{\alpha }=\lambda _{y}^{\alpha
}\left\vert \vec{v}\right\rangle _{\alpha },~~~\Lambda _{Z}\left\vert \vec{v
\right\rangle _{\alpha }=\lambda _{z}^{\alpha }\left\vert \vec{v
\right\rangle _{\alpha }, \notag \\
\mathrm{for}\text{ }\alpha &=&i,j.
\end{eqnarray
Here only for two eigenvalues $i,j$ having this property are needed. Hence
\left\vert v_{x}\right\rangle _{\alpha }=\left\vert v_{y}\right\rangle
_{\alpha }=\left\vert v_{z}\right\rangle _{\alpha }=\left\vert \vec{v
\right\rangle _{\alpha },$ $\mathrm{for}$ $\alpha =i,j.$ This means that in
the two dimensional subspace involving $i,j$, $\Lambda _{(X,Y,Z)}$ share the
same eigenvector $\left\vert \vec{v}\right\rangle _{i,j}$. \
The added words on top is
\begin{equation}
~\ \langle \vec{v}|_{i}U^{-1}WU\left\vert \vec{v}\right\rangle _{j}~,~
\end{equation
and the state i
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{Vol}\int dU\exp \left( \mathrm{Tr}(U\Lambda
_{X}U^{-1}a_{X}^{\dagger }+U\Lambda _{Y}U^{-1}a_{Y}^{\dagger }+U\Lambda
_{Z}U^{-1}a_{Z}^{\dagger })\right) \langle \vec{v}|_{i}U^{-1}WU\left\vert
\vec{v}\right\rangle _{j}\left\vert 0\right\rangle . \label{words_02}
\end{equation
More generally, we add multi-words of this kind
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\frac{1}{Vol}\int dU\exp \left( \mathrm{Tr}(U\Lambda
_{X}U^{-1}a_{X}^{\dagger }+U\Lambda _{Y}U^{-1}a_{Y}^{\dagger }+U\Lambda
_{Z}U^{-1}a_{Z}^{\dagger })\right) \cdot \notag \\
&&\langle \vec{v}|_{i_{1}}U^{-1}W_{1}U\left\vert \vec{v}\right\rangle
_{j_{1}}\langle \vec{v}|_{i_{2}}U^{-1}W_{2}U\left\vert \vec{v}\right\rangle
_{j_{2}}...\langle \vec{v}|_{i_{l}}U^{-1}W_{l}U\left\vert \vec{v
\right\rangle _{j_{l}}\left\vert 0\right\rangle . \label{words_multiple_02}
\end{eqnarray
The indices $(i_{l},j_{l})\in I_{s}$ form a set $I_{s}$. $W$ is a word, in
other words, a string. For example, $W$ is schematically$\ D_{+}^{\dagger
n_{1}}a_{Z}^{\dagger n_{2}}a_{Y}^{\dagger n_{3}}a_{X}^{\dagger n_{4}}$, with
$n_{\alpha }=0,1,2,...$, and so on. $W$ can be labelled by BMN operators or
spin chain like operators, and we can also include $a_{{\Bar{Z}}}^{\dagger }$
etc.
The integral (\ref{words_multiple_02}) can be viewed as a path integral of
the auxiliary variable $U$ which is coupled to $a_{Z}^{\dagger
},a_{Y}^{\dagger },a_{X}^{\dagger }$ and $W_{\alpha }$, in accord with the
alternative interpretation in Sec 2. The insertions of $W_{\alpha }$ can be
viewed as operator-insertion in this path integral (\ref{words_multiple_02
). We have generalized the word insertions in (\ref{words_02}) to multi-word
insertions, and interpreted them as operator insertions in the path integral
of auxiliary variables.
We extract the anormalous energy from the combined state, e.g. $F\cdot W$.
The background energy are energy of BPS states. We extract the energy of
non-BPS part of the excitation, corresponding to the anormalous dimension.
The anomalous dimensions give rise to non-BPS energy on top of BPS energy.
We works on the anormalous energy due to the quartic interaction vertices.
The quartic interaction vertex connects one impurity field on the word part
and one background field on the coherent state part, and they then Wick
contract to their conjugates respectively. We can also use the dilatation
operator.
The simplest cases are when the coherent state part $F$ and the word part $W$
are both BPS. The coherent state background $F$ is BPS, hence there is no
non-BPS energy from the interaction inside the coherent state part. Then the
anomalous dimension energy is solely due to the interaction between the
coherent state part and the word part. One of the simple cases is that $W$
is an eighth BPS string. The entire state can be maintained as a near BPS
state. Sec. 4.2 are special cases of these ideas.
\subsection{Near BPS string-added coherent states}
We first consider near BPS states of the for
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\frac{1}{Vol}\int dU\exp \left( \mathrm{Tr}(U\Lambda
_{Z}U^{-1}a_{Z}^{\dagger })\right) \cdot \notag \\
&&\langle \vec{v}|_{i_{1}}U^{-1}W_{1}U\left\vert \vec{v}\right\rangle
_{j_{1}}\langle \vec{v}|_{i_{2}}U^{-1}W_{2}U\left\vert \vec{v}\right\rangle
_{j_{2}}...\langle \vec{v}|_{i_{l}}U^{-1}W_{l}U\left\vert \vec{v
\right\rangle _{j_{l}}\left\vert 0\right\rangle . \label{state 08}
\end{eqnarray
The entire state can be maintained as a near BPS state. For example we add
impurities corresponding to $X$, and the word $W~$is $a_{X}^{\dagger
}a_{Z}^{\dagger m}$, $m=0,1,...~$and so on. In this case, $W$ is BPS itself,
and it can be viewed as a symmetrized state in the sector of $Z,X$. The
anormalous energy is the energy corresponding to the anormalous dimension.
Because $W$ and $F$ both has no anormalous dimension under the dilatation
operator, the anormalous dimension energy is due to the interaction between
the coherent state $F$ part and the word $W$ part.
We then consider near BPS states of the for
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\frac{1}{Vol}\int dU\exp \left( \mathrm{Tr}(U\Lambda
_{Z}U^{-1}a_{Z}^{\dagger }+U\Lambda _{Y}U^{-1}a_{Y}^{\dagger })\right) \cdot
\notag \\
&&\langle \vec{v}|_{i_{1}}U^{-1}W_{1}U\left\vert \vec{v}\right\rangle
_{j_{1}}\langle \vec{v}|_{i_{2}}U^{-1}W_{2}U\left\vert \vec{v}\right\rangle
_{j_{2}}...\langle \vec{v}|_{i_{l}}U^{-1}W_{l}U\left\vert \vec{v
\right\rangle _{j_{l}}\left\vert 0\right\rangle . \label{state 10}
\end{eqnarray
The word $W$ is $a_{X}^{\dagger }\{a_{Z}^{\dagger m_{1}}a_{Y}^{\dagger
m_{2}}\}$, $m_{\alpha }=0,1,...~$and so on. Here the curly bracket denotes
symmetrized states in the sector of $Z,Y,X$ with $U(3)$ global symmetry,
where the bracket denotes symmetrization over the global symmetry indices.
See e.g. \cite{Lewis-Brown:2020nmg,Pasukonis:2010rv}. The symmetrized states
itself is BPS. We make both the coherent state $F~$part and the word $W$
part BPS, hence the non-BPS energy is coming from the interaction between
the coherent state part and the word part. The above first example is a
special case of the second example for $m_{2}=0.$
In the following, we compute for the case (\ref{state 10}). The quartic
vertices that are relevant here are $\mathrm{Tr}|[Y,X]|^{2},\mathrm{Tr
|[Z,X]|^{2},\mathrm{Tr}|[Y,Z]|^{2}$. The anormalous dimension is due to the
interaction of impurity $a_{X}^{\dagger }$ with the $a_{Z}^{\dagger }$ and
a_{Y}^{\dagger }$ respectively, on the exponent. The interaction between
a_{Z}^{\dagger }$ and $a_{Y}^{\dagger }$ gives no anormalous dimension, due
to that they are in the exponent of the BPS coherent state, as calculated in
Sec 2. The word $W$ is by itself BPS because it is symmetrized for
a_{Z}^{\dagger }$, $a_{Y}^{\dagger }$, $a_{X}^{\dagger }$. Hence the
interaction between $Z,Y$ in this case does not lead to anormalous energy.
The $Z,Y$ composite here are BPS.
The Hamiltonian involved for the excitation energy is
\begin{equation}
\Delta =g^{2}~\mathrm{Tr}([a_{Y}^{\dagger },a_{X}^{\dagger
}][a_{X},a_{Y}])+g^{2}~\mathrm{Tr}([a_{Z}^{\dagger },a_{X}^{\dagger
}][a_{X},a_{Z}]).
\end{equation
Here, the interaction leading to the anormalous energy here are quartic
vertices between the $X$ in the word part and the $Z$ and $Y$, respectively
in the coherent state part. For example, $X$ in the word part is attached to
a quartic interaction vertex with a $Z$ in the coherent state $F$ part. And
after interaction, they Wick contract to the conjugate of the word part and
the conjugate of the coherent state part respectively. The coherent state
part itself is BPS as explained.
The method of calculation follows from \cite{Berenstein:2022srd}. One can
directly work with the quartic vertices as in BMN \cite{Berenstein:2002jq},
or use the dilatation operator \cite{Beisert:2003tq}. Here, $\left\vert
v_{y}\right\rangle _{\alpha }=\left\vert v_{z}\right\rangle _{\alpha }$ for
\alpha =i,j$,$~$as explained in Sec. 4.1, and we denote the pair of large
eigenvalues ${\vec{\lambda}_{i}}${, }${\vec{\lambda}_{j}}$. When acting on
the state, the extra annihilation operator $a_{Y}$ brings down $U\Lambda
_{Y}U^{-1}$, one to the left and the other to the right. These two pieces go
as
\begin{equation}
g^{2}\langle v_{y}|_{i}U^{-1}U\Lambda _{Y}U^{-1}[a_{X}^{\dagger
},a_{Y}^{\dagger }]U\left\vert v_{y}\right\rangle _{j}-g^{2}\langle
v_{y}|_{i}U^{-1}([a_{X}^{\dagger },a_{Y}^{\dagger }]U\Lambda
_{Y}U^{-1}U\left\vert v_{y}\right\rangle _{j}.
\end{equation
Since $\left\vert v_{y}\right\rangle _{i}$, $\left\vert v_{y}\right\rangle
_{j}~$are eigenstates of $\Lambda _{Y}$, we get
\begin{equation}
g^{2}(\lambda _{i}^{y}-\lambda _{j}^{y})\langle
v_{y}|_{i}U^{-1}[a_{X}^{\dagger },a_{Y}^{\dagger }]U\left\vert
v_{y}\right\rangle _{j}. \label{a_Z_02}
\end{equation
We now proceed the process for computing with the conjugate vector, and
a_{Y}^{\dagger }$ brings down terms of $\bar{\Lambda}_{Y}$. We obtain an
integral that involves ${\tilde{U}}^{-1}$, so we get a factor $(\bar{\lambda
_{i}^{y}-\bar{\lambda}_{j}^{y})~$from (\ref{a_Z_02}). For $a_{Z}$, the
calculation is similar, and we get
\begin{equation}
g^{2}(\lambda _{i}^{z}-\lambda _{j}^{z})\langle
v_{z}|_{i}U^{-1}[a_{X}^{\dagger },a_{Z}^{\dagger }]U\left\vert
v_{z}\right\rangle _{j}. \label{a_Y_02}
\end{equation
For the conjugate vector, $a_{Z}^{\dagger }$ brings down terms of $\bar
\Lambda}_{Z}$. Again, we have the integral and get a factor ($\bar{\lambda
_{i}^{z}-\bar{\lambda}_{j}^{z})$ from (\ref{a_Y_02}). Adding these two
pieces from (\ref{a_Z_02}) and (\ref{a_Y_02}), the spectrum is
\begin{equation}
H=\frac{g^{2}}{8\pi ^{2}}|\lambda _{z}^{i}-\lambda _{z}^{j}|^{2}+\frac{g^{2
}{8\pi ^{2}}|\lambda _{y}^{i}-\lambda _{y}^{j}|^{2}=\frac{g^{2}}{8\pi ^{2}}|
\vec{\lambda}_{i}-\vec{\lambda}_{j}|}^{2}.
\end{equation
The result subsumes the simplified case (\ref{state 08}).
The extra energy is perturbation energy around the eigenvalue background,
for a single pair of eigenvalues. We insert multiple words of this kind in
\ref{state 10}). Hence for inserting multiple words of this kind
\begin{equation}
H=\sum\limits_{(i,j)}\frac{g^{2}}{8\pi ^{2}}|{\vec{\lambda}_{i}-\vec{\lambda
_{j}|}^{2}, \label{spectrum_05}
\end{equation
where $(i,j)\in I_{s}$.$~$This is in agreement with alternative observations
\cite{deMelloKoch:2011ci,Carlson:2011hy,Berenstein:2013md}. The spectrum of
this type of Hamiltonian was also studied by \cit
{Berenstein:2013md,Carlson:2011hy,deMelloKoch:2011ci,deMelloKoch:2012ck,Koch:2011hb
; see also related methods \cite{Cook:2007et}.
In this case, by the method of centrally extended algebra \cit
{Beisert:2005tm},\cite{Berenstein:2014zxa}, the excitation energy are
written in a square-root form, whose expansion gives (\ref{spectrum_05}).
Hence the full square-root form i
\begin{equation}
\sum\limits_{(i,j)}(\sqrt{1+\frac{g^{2}}{4\pi ^{2}}|{\vec{\lambda}}_{i}-
\vec{\lambda}}_{j}|^{2}}-1). \label{spectrum_07}
\end{equation
Here we subtract the bare dimension out in (\ref{spectrum_07}) to obtain the
anormalous energy. The subtractions are the anormalous piece of the energy.
The centrally extended algebra gives important insights in \cit
{Berenstein:2014zxa,deCarvalho:2020pdp,Gadde:2010ku} and these are in
agreement with the observations here.
These phenomena have very interesting dual interpretations on the gravity
side. This is string spectra in backreacted excited state spacetime
geometry. This analysis not only works for AdS background but also for
backreacted backgrounds, in the context of string excitations in backreacted
geometries. Eqn. (\ref{spectrum_07}) is in complete agreement with the
analysis and observations \cit
{Berenstein:2020jen,Berenstein:2020grg,deMelloKoch:2016nxq,deMelloKoch:2018ert}
on both the gauge theory side and the gravity side. This spectrum is in
agreement with observations in the gravity side, in terms of magnon energy
in backreacted geometries, e.g. magnon energy in annularly shaped droplet
geometries.
The Eqn. (\ref{spectrum_05}) can be viewed as in the nonrelativistic regimes
of (\ref{spectrum_07}) and it was considered as the near BPS excitation of
heavy giant gravitons \cite{Carlson:2011hy}, in their near BPS limit. Eqn.
\ref{spectrum_07}) is the relativistic version of (\ref{spectrum_05}). This
near BPS limit would be the same as the one in spin-matrix theory \cit
{Baiguera:2021hky,Harmark:2016cjq} and they are hence closely related.
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec_discussion}
The coherent state representation facilitates the calculation of ladder
operators and hence the dilatation operator. For instance, it converts
dilatation operator manipulations to algebraic manipulations. The coherent
state representation of the operators have the advantage of simplifying the
action of the above involved dilatation operators. We also checked higher
loop dilatation operators on quarter BPS coherent states and the action is
again vanishing as expected. By using nonrenormalization theorems, e.g. \cit
{Lewis-Brown:2020nmg,Pasukonis:2010rv}, we infer that the BPS coherent
states are in the kernel of the anomalous dilatation operator. This
construction also works for coulomb branches.
In its original invention, \cite{Berenstein:2022srd} constructed coherent
states averaged over group orbit, for the purpose of gauge invariance. Here
we alternatively interpret this group average as a \textit{path integral} of
auxiliary variables coupled to the elementary letters of the theory. The
insertions of string words on the coherent state can be viewed as
operator-insertion in this path integral. We have generalized the word
insertion to multi-word insertions, by conveniently interpreting them as
operator insertions in this path integral. Hence, the group integral can be
viewed as a path integral of the auxiliary variables $U$ which are coupled
to the elementary letters and added string words.
We also constructed a meromorphic version of coherent states, which can be
transformed back to the full coherent states when $\det \Lambda _{Z}\neq 0$.
Here $G[T_{Y},\Lambda _{Z}]$ is a meromorphic version of $F[\Lambda
_{Y},\Lambda _{Z}]$. The meromorphic versions are particularly useful when
there are background $Z$ fields. We also constructed meromorphic version of
coherent states for product gauge groups and quivers. We give transformation
relations between different types of coherent states, among other things.
We constructed new type of coherent states in the $SL(2)$ sectors and
bosonic part of $PSU(1,1|2)$ sectors. These are operators with derivative
insertions. The large spin limit and small spin limit can be reached by
varying the coherent state amplitudes. We have also discussed other new
states related to them.
The different coherent states differ by the symmetry properties of the
multi-parameters of the coherent states. The coherent states constructed in
\cite{Berenstein:2022srd} have manifest permutation symmetries among the
eigenvalues. Other coherent states have gauge-fixed these symmetries \cit
{Lin:2017dnz}, and can be viewed as gauge-fixed versions. Although different
construction of coherent states may have different norms, there are many
norm-independent features and observables of coherent state construction,
for example, when calculating the vev of $a_{Z}^{\dagger n}a_{Z}^{l}$, the
norm factor of the numerator and of the denominator cancels each other and
is hence norm-independent.
We have used these coherent states to describe BPS and near BPS states, in
gauge-string correspondence. We analyzed string-added coherent states, in
general a product of a coherent state and a word, and calculated anormalous
dimension energy. The string-added coherent state captures a class of near
BPS spectra. One can use more general words, by using BMN like operators or
spin chain like operators. The method of \cite{Berenstein:2022srd} gives
great insights for computing excitations on supersymmetric backgrounds.
Magnon excitations have also been computed for both gauge theory side and
gravity side in related works.\ The agreement to these calculations is
astounding, because the underlying methods and physical perspectives of these
different approaches are different and alternative to each other. This
approach is also intimately related to the effective eigenvalue model. In
these involved circumstances, the eigenvalues provide some string theory
background, and the off-diagonal fluctuations provide string excitations
\cite{Berenstein:2005aa}. Non-BPS excitations are added as a perturbation of
the BPS excitations. These observations pointed out to a way to solve the
strong coupling dynamics of these near-BPS systems, and we have encountered
some new strong coupling phenomena in those regimes. On a very different
perspective, the approach of adding excitations may be relevant for \cit
{Morozov:1992zb,Kazakov:1992ym}.
On the gravity side, these coherent states are related to giant gravitons
and backreacted geometries. The individual eigenvalue of coherent state is
the collective coordinate of giant gravitons \cite{Berenstein:2022srd}, see
also related discussions \cite{Berenstein:2017abm,Lin:2017dnz}. The coherent
state construction is an important step in this regime.\ These are regimes
where the single-trace and multi-trace operators are very difficult to
handle efficiently. The effective action of the coherent state collective
coordinate in the Lagrangian formalism has been constructed \cit
{Berenstein:2022srd}, where properties of giant gravitons and geometric
quotient and projection of the transverse space in the dual gravity
geometry, in the case of quiver theory, have been observed by this approach
\cite{Berenstein:2022srd}. These are important for giant gravitons and
backreacted geometries and related to various important discussions of e.g.
\cite{Biswas:2006tj}-\cite{Pasukonis:2012zj}.
Our approach shield new lights to near BPS states and near BPS sectors. We
conveniently look at eighth BPS states and near BPS states, in this set-up.
Another way to understand near BPS states is by spin-matrix theory e.g. \cit
{Baiguera:2021hky,Harmark:2016cjq}, which is closely related to the
approaches in this paper. The spin-matrix theory is very insightful for both
near BPS string states and near BPS giant gravitons. This is intimately
related to the consistent reductions. The related consistent reductions are
also very interestingly discussed in \cite{Ishiki:2006rt} to fewer
dimensions.
The involved path integral can be computed by saddle point method and it is
an exact computation in the context of localization. The localization
technique is also very useful for Wilson operators. Localization methods
have occurred remarkably in Wilson loops in e.g. \cite{Pestun:2009nn} and
related references. Moreover, emergent geometries are also dual to large
Wilson loop operators, e.g. \cite{Yamaguchi:2006te}-\cite{Gomis:2008qa} as
some examples. It would be good to have an unified understanding together
with these circumstances.
The coherent state operators, Young tableau operators, and large Wilson
operators are heavy operators. They have gravitational dual descriptions.
The gravitational dual system to these very heavy operators, involves
backreacted emergent geometries, e.g. \cite{Gava:2006pu}-\cite{Mukhi:2005cv}
as some examples, and see their related references. These heavy states
induce backreactions in the dual quantum gravity system. The coherent states
are also heavy excited states. The coherent state approach leads to higher
multi-pole moments in the gravity side, which can be measured on the
boundary of the gravity side, as discussed in Sec. 2. Our scenarios are
closely related to fuzzball geometries and their related discussions, e.g.
\cite{Mathur:2005ai}-\cite{Chakrabarty:2021sff} and \cite{Belin:2020zjb}.
Near BPS states can also describe near BPS black holes, which are related to
various giant configurations and intersecting giants. The string
configurations \cite{Berenstein:2022cju} on giants are relevant. A deeper
understanding of the quarter and eighth BPS sector as well as near BPS
sector will lead to implications for physics of extremal and near-extremal
black holes e.g. \cite{Balasubramanian:2007bs,Fareghbal:2008ar}.
The $SO(N)$ and $Sp(N)$ cases of this approach have been worked out in \cit
{Holguin:2022drf}. The related Young tableaux basis have been addressed and
developed in details in e.g. \cit
{Caputa:2013hr,Caputa:2013vla,Lewis-Brown:2018dje} and their related
references. The case of other gauge groups and product gauge groups have
also been considered \cite{Holguin:2022drf,Berenstein:2022srd}, as well as
in this paper. This approach also works for $SO/Sp$ theories, quiver
theories, and coulomb branches. Although the analysis of the current paper
is mainly for $U(N)$ and $SU(N)$ case, many features can be similar in the
case of these other gauge groups.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We would like to thank B. Czech, R. de Mello Koch, L.-Y. Hung, Y. Jiang, S.
Lin, Y. Liu, S. Ramgoolam, J. Simon, M. Sperling, R. Suzuki for useful
discussions or communications. The work was supported in part by National
Key R\&D Program of China grant No. 2020YFA0713000, by Overseas high-level
talents program, and by Fundamental Research Funds for the Central
Universities of China.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{figures/ssl_q2.png}
\caption{Illustrative example of a Self Supervised Learning task that facilitates learning of visual features of football and is able to distinguish between different states of the game.}
\label{fig:sslexample}
\end{figure}
Research on representation learning within the field of computer vision aims to transform high-dimensional pixel information to compact low-dimensional vector embeddings that capture the essential features describing the image content. These compact representations are assumed to be general---i.e. not tailored to a specific task---and can be used in any vision-based learning task such as object recognition, object detection and image segmentation. Representation learning in digital games, however, remains an open challenge \cite{yannakakis2018artificial}. Many end-application tasks in games research---including gameplaying, modeling user behavior, and content generation---use image representations of games containing information about \emph{critical} factors describing the current state of the game \cite{anand2019unsupervised}. These critical factors are defined in relation to the specific objectives and constraints of the particular game world (see Fig. \ref{fig:dataset} for examples). Along with the presence and identity of objects in a gameplay frame, a good representation should be able to ignore the game's aesthetics \cite{trivedi2021contrastive}, capture the spatio-temporal relations among objects---even if occluded or off-screen---and infer the dynamics and underlying rules of the game \cite{ha2018world}.
Having access to the game model---and thus, the game's internal state---renders representation learning trivial or even redundant, as visual information can be explicitly mapped to the internal state. Game models, however, are rarely available (especially for commercial games) and thus representation learning is required to implicitly map the visual information obtained from a game's footage to the game's internal state.
In this study, we investigate the degree to which we can learn the mapping from gameplay frames to the game's model---as represented by critical internal variables---without any knowledge about games' internal state. For this purpose, we take advantage of popular self-supervised learning (SSL) algorithms widely used for learning general representations in a plethora of computer vision tasks \cite{zbontar2021barlow,chen2020exploring,bardes2021vicreg}. SSL refers to a family of machine learning algorithms that can learn essential features describing the visual content of images without requiring any label information, i.e. image characterization \cite{chen2020simple}. SSL algorithms thus alleviate the tedious and time consuming process of data labelling. Instead, training is based on the inherent properties and characteristics of the images' visual content, which are used as learning signals.
To better realise how SSL can be utilised for state representation learning in games, consider the example of an auxiliary task shown in \figurename{} \ref{fig:sslexample}. An anchor image is presented along with six different states of the same football game. The objective is to find which of the six images corresponds to the game \textit{state} depicted in the anchor image. To achieve that objective, one needs to be able to extract the critical gameplay factors from the images of the game, such as the relative position of the players and the ball on the football pitch and disregard non-critical factors related to game aesthetics (e.g. ambient light levels or the advertisements displayed beyond the pitch).
Based on such information, one can deduce that \textit{(d)} is the view that most closely matches the anchor image. Thus, in trying to solve this auxiliary task, one ends up learning to predict the important features of a football game---i.e. the spatial information regarding the positions of players and the ball---from just the image of the game. This is how an SSL algorithm operates and learns general representations from a high-level perspective, which can, in turn, be used for any downstream task that requires such a representation of the game state.
This paper introduces the notion of SSL within games and explores its capacity for state representation learning in 3D games. Our hypothesis is that SSL is beneficial for learning representations that are able to infer core elements of games, their objects and their underlying mechanics without access to such data. To test our hypothesis we employ three popular SSL methods with dissimilar learning properties---SimCLR \cite{chen2020simple}, SwAV \cite{caron2020unsupervised} and BYOL \cite{grill2020bootstrap}---and test them across three games that vary with regards to their genre, image resolution, artistic style and object properties (i.e. size and number of objects). In particular we train SSL methods on a new benchmark dataset we name 3D-SSL that contains $150,000$ game footage frames of VizDoom \cite{kempka2016vizdoom}, CARLA driving simulator \cite{dosovitskiy2017carla} and Google Research Football Environment \cite{kurach2019google} and we evaluate the models' capacity to predict internal game variables (e.g. the position of the ball, teammates, enemies or cars) on over $10,000$ frames per game. Results suggest that SSL---compared to pretrained models such as ImageNet---learn general representations that are able to predict the internal state of all 3D games with high degrees of $R^2$ correlation via \emph{linear probing} \cite{anand2019unsupervised}. The key findings of the paper indicate that SSL is a highly recommended method for constructing game state representations that can be employed for any downstream task that requires such a game state representation including gameplaying, content generation or player modeling \cite{yannakakis2018artificial}.
\section{Background}\label{sec:background}
A substantial volume of AI and games research \cite{yannakakis2018artificial} focuses on the use of AI for building game-playing agents, for modeling players and their emotions, and for generating aspects of game content. Feeding directly the pixels of the game to the input of any AI model---predominately a neural network model---remained a challenging task for many of these applications owing to the high-dimensional nature of images. For that purpose, the majority of such studies have traditionally used some form of internal state representations of the game coming directly from interfacing with the game engine (e.g. \cite{barthet2021go, melhart2021affect, berner2019dota, silver2017mastering} among many).
The recent success of Convolutional Neural Networks (ConvNets) in dimensionality-reduction for image processing has enabled research with raw game footage pixels. Indicatively, a number of recent studies have effectively used ConvNets with reinforcement learning for playing Atari games \cite{kirk2021survey,mnih2013playing,zhang2020atari} by mapping the game's raw image to an action to be performed for maximizing the game's score. Beyond gameplaying, a number of recent ConvNet studies focus on modeling players' affect \cite{makantasis2021privileged, makantasis2019pixels, makantasis2021pixels}. All of the aforementioned approaches, however, train ConvNets with task-specific output labels such as actions (i.e. for imitation learning), affect annotations (i.e. for affect modeling) or reward values (i.e. for reinforcement learning). This dependency on labelled data gives rise to two primary issues. First, while the labels are related to the learning task, they might not necessarily be informative about (or associated to) the visual information being processed \cite{stooke2021decoupling}. Second, these approaches tend to learn only highly task-specific information observed in the pixel input.
As a response to these challenges, most modern approaches employing ConvNets attempt to separate the visual information processing part from the overall pipeline of the downstream application task. To this end, Chaplot \emph{et al.} \cite{chaplot2017arnold} used the game's internal state as additional labels within their reinforcement learning framework in order to guide the ConvNet to learn more useful visual features describing the game state. This approach, however, still requires access to the internal state of the game, making it impractical for most games where the world model is unavailable. A popular workaround is to simply use models pre-trained on large, universal image datasets such as ImageNet \cite{deng2009imagenet, poulsen2017dlne, trivedi2018building}, or massive generalized models such as CLIP \cite{radford2021learning, khan2021pretrained}. We use such approaches to form the baseline in our experiments and empirically showcase their shortcomings on capturing meaningful internal game states as depicted on game frames.
\begin{figure*}[!tb]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/games_internal_states2.png}}
\caption{Games and their \emph{critical} game-state features included in the 3D-SSL Benchmark Dataset used in our experiments.}
\label{fig:dataset}
\end{figure*}
In order to learn highly informative and compact state representations from images of the game, several self-supervised approaches have been used that learn using image-reconstruction techniques \cite{ha2018world, cao2017unsupervised, ledig2017photo}. The key advantage of these methods is that they do not require access to the game's internal world model. More recently, Anand \emph{et al.} \cite{anand2019unsupervised} proposed a self-supervised learning method which utilizes the spatial and temporal relations between frames of different Atari games to learn important visual features of the game's image. This approach, however, has two core limitations: first, it requires time-distributed images as the method's loss function incorporates temporal difference between the game's images and, second, it presents results on basic Atari games that are restricted to simple and abstract 2D grid environments, which are not representative of most modern era games.
In this paper, instead, we attempt to address these two limitations by testing recent SSL methods that do not rely on images with any temporal association between them. Moreover, we extend SSL investigations to 3D games that provide more complex and challenging visual information to process. Importantly we test the capacity of such algorithms on capturing key internal game state variables across 3 very different games. We showcase that SSL, in contrast to pretrained image models, constructs general-purpose representations that can effectively predict such information.
\section{The 3D-SSL Benchmark Dataset} \label{sec:dataset}
As mentioned earlier, recent work in self-supervised representation learning considered 2D game environments such as Atari \cite{anand2019unsupervised}. Instead, this work investigates how these methods translate to more complex, 3D games with more sophisticated graphics and more detailed game states. Towards this endeavour, we choose three games from different game genres, representing different difficulty levels with regards to the task of obtaining an accurate game state from the image of the game.
All three games provide access to their game engines and hence, we are able to extract accurate and precise internal state values associated with each frame. The features (internal state variables) illustrated for each game are hand-engineered such that the values obtained from the game engine are either clearly visible or can be easily inferred from the image. Note that the three games are rather representative and differ in terms of genre (i.e. FPS, racing, sports), image resolution (i.e. photorealistic vs. pixelated) and key information depicted such as size and number of objects.
In this section we outline the three games and the corresponding 3D-SSL Benchmark dataset, which is summarized in Table \ref{tab:dataset}.
\begin{table}[!tb]
\begin{center}
\caption{Summary of the 3D-SSL Benchmark Dataset.}
\label{tab:dataset}
\begin{tabular}{@{ }l@{ }||@{ }c@{ }|@{ }c@{ }|@{ }c@{ }}
\hline\hline
\textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\end{tabular}} & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}ViZDoom\end{tabular}} & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}CARLA\end{tabular}} & \textbf{\begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}GRFE\end{tabular}} \\ \hline \hline
Images (Training) & \ 50,000 \ & \ 50,000 \ & \ 50,000 \ \\
Image Size & \ 400$\times$225$\times$3 \ & \ 224$\times$224$\times$3 \ & \ 224$\times$224$\times$3 \ \\
Image Frequency & \ 1 per time-step \ & \ 3 per second \ & \ 1 per time-step \ \\
Images (Evaluation) & \ 10,500 \ & \ 20,108 \ & \ 10,000 \ \\
State Variables & \ 12 \ & \ 7 \ & \ 94 \ \\ \hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsection{ViZDoom (First Person Shooter)}
From the shooter genre, we select the \emph{Doom} (Id Software, 1993) game via the ViZDoom environment \cite{kempka2016vizdoom}. We use a pre-trained model named ARNOLD \cite{chaplot2017arnold} to play the game and collect synchronized pairs of the RGB image of the game and its internal state. We represent the game's internal state using 12 features related to the enemy positions. In particular, we identify the closest enemy in the left $40\%$ of the screen, and use its $(x,y)$ location in screen buffer coordinates, and the width and height of its bounding box to represent its position on the screen. In the same manner we represent the position of the enemies in the middle $20\%$ and the right $40\%$ of the screen (see \figurename{} \ref{fig:dataset}). We choose to use these variables for representing the game's internal state since they largely determine the behaviour of the Doom player. In total, we collected $50,000$ images for training and $10,500$ pairs of images and the corresponding internal state variables for evaluation. ViZDoom represents a fairly easy task of state representation learning as the graphics of the game are low-resolution and all enemies have the same look and design.
\subsection{CARLA (Racing)}
From the car racing genre, we use the CARLA open-source simulator for autonomous driving research \cite{dosovitskiy2017carla}. The inbuilt autopilot AI drives a car (\textit{ego-vehicle}) around an urban simulation environment, and we collect the game state information at 3 frames per second.
The game state variables collected describe the nearby traffic for the ego-vehicle. To describe the traffic on the left lane of the ego-vehicle, we find the nearest vehicle that is in a region of 10 metres by 50 metres (see \figurename{} \ref{fig:dataset}) to the left of our vehicle and store its distance and direction. We do the same for the nearest vehicle on the right lane of the ego-vehicle as well as in front of the ego-vehicle. We also calculate the curvature of the road by measuring the angle between the direction of the ego-vehicle's current steering vector and the vector describing the curvature of the lane such that the vehicle remains at the center of the lane. The reason for choosing these 7 variables for describing the internal state (see \figurename{} \ref{fig:dataset}) is because they largely determine the steering and throttle inputs that should be given to the ego-vehicle in order to keep moving forward in the simulator environment. In total, we collected $50,000$ images for training and $20,108$ pairs of images with their corresponding internal state variables for evaluation. Here the evaluation set is larger than that of VizDoom because some variables such as traffic information have very low frequency, i.e., not every image has an associated variable value present in case there are no vehicles around our ego-vehicle.
CARLA presents a more challenging representation learning task than VizDoom: the graphics of the game are far more detailed, the vehicles surrounding the ego-vehicle have varying shapes and styling (unlike the enemies in VizDoom) and also determining the direction in which a vehicle is headed requires to acquire visual understanding of the design of these vehicles.
\subsection{GRFE (Football)}
Lastly, we include the football simulator named Google Research Football Environment (GRFE) \cite{kurach2019google}. To create a training dataset, we trained a Proximal Policy Optimization \cite{schulman2017proximal} agent using stable-baselines \cite{raffin2021stable} to play an 11 vs 11 game against the inbuilt game bot and we collected RGB gameplay frames along with the game state at each timestep of the simulation.
The game state consists of the $(x,y)$ positions of each of the 22 players (11 per team) on the pitch along with the $(x,y)$ directions in which they are headed. Additionally, we collect the $(x,y,z)$ positions and directions of the ball. Positions are based on gameworld coordinates, rather than the screen buffer. The internal game state is represented by 94 variables (see \figurename{} \ref{fig:dataset}). We choose these variables since they are used as input by the PPO agent that plays this game and hence are considered as essential game state information that must be captured from the game's RGB gameplay frames. In total we collected $50,000$ training images and $10,000$ pairs of images and corresponding internal state values for evaluation.
GRFE is the most difficult state representation learning task since it involves inferring the precise location and movement information of 22 players. Note that for any given frame of the game, only some of the players are on screen and others are hidden off-screen and their information would have to be extrapolated by the computer vision system estimating the game's state from just the image, by learning about the rules and dynamics of the game of football.
\section{Self-Supervised Learning Methods} \label{sec:sslmethods}
In this study we explore three types of self-supervised learning algorithms: a contrastive method (SimCLR), a contrastive method employing an online clustering approach (SwAV) and a non-contrastive method (BYOL). We choose to use three conceptually different SSL algorithms for two reasons. First, by using different algorithms we gain insights on the applicability of the SSL paradigm on game-state representation learning based only on games' pixel information. Second, we are able to investigate the degree to which different SSL approaches can efficiently learn informative game-state representations. We use the \emph{solo-learn} framework \cite{da2022solo} for the implementation of all SSL methods in our experiments. This section outlines the key elements of these three methods.
\subsection{SimCLR Approach}
SimCLR \cite{chen2020simple} is a contrastive method that learns image representations by pairwise comparison of similar and dissimilar images. In this method, we first take an image and apply certain content-preserving data augmentations such as scaling, rotation, jitter, etc. to obtain two different views of the same image (similar to \figurename{} \ref{fig:sslexample}). We define a loss such that the representation obtained from these two views of the same image lie close to each other in the feature space (positive pair), and at the same time, lie as far away as possible from representations of other images (negative pairs).
\begin{figure*}[!tb]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/method.png}}
\caption{The two step process employed in this paper: we first pre-train the Convolutional Encoder using different SSL methods (left), then evaluate the learned representations with Linear Probing on the test set (right).}
\label{fig:method}
\end{figure*}
In terms of SSL in games, we can think of this method as trying to identify the important visual features of a gameplay frame that characterise the game's current state so that two views of the same game-state have similar representations, whereas different states have dissimilar representations. To achieve, however, good performance, especially for high-dimensional representations, this method requires a large number of negative samples. Therefore, during training, it requires a huge batch size to assure that the employed negative samples are representative of the entire dataset.
\subsection{BYOL Approach}
Bootstrap Your Own Latent (BYOL) is a non-contrastive approach to self-supervised learning suggested by Grill \emph{et al.} \cite{grill2020bootstrap}. This method does not require negative examples (dissimilar images), but only focuses on learning the similar representations of two views of the same image, hence the name. In absence of negatives, BYOL uses a stop-gradient method coupled with a Siamese-based network architecture to overcome the limitation of all representations collapsing to a constant (an undesired, trivial solution \cite{grill2020bootstrap}). This implies that the two views of the same image are propagated through two identical neural networks, but the gradients are passed through only one of the networks and the weights of the other network are updated as a moving-average of the first. This behavior simulates a ``memory'' mechanism activated during training, which indirectly provides the effect of using negative samples typically used in the contrastive learning paradigm.
In terms of game-state representations, this method focuses solely on learning similarities between two views of the same gameplay frame. It makes it interesting to see how well this approach holds in distinguishing different game-states without the need of explicit negative examples.
\subsection{SwAV Approach}
Swapping Assignments between Views (SwAV) \cite{caron2020unsupervised} is another contrastive learning approach that attempts to address the requirement for large number of negative examples (and thus large batch sizes). SwAV uses an online clustering algorithm that maintains a codebook of clusters of different representations encountered during training. This codebook is formed by online clustering the derived representations based on the idea that differently augmented views of the same image (positive pair) should be clustered together, while representations corresponding to dissimilar images (negative pairs) should be assigned to different clusters. By imposing certain constraints such as assigning equally-distributed cluster labels to an input batch, this method prevents the collapsing representation problem \cite{caron2020unsupervised}. Finally, based on clusters' information, SwAV waives the need for large batch sizes. In theory, SwAV should be among the more practical and scalable methods for representation learning in games in terms of lower hardware-resource requirements for training.
\section{Game Representation Learning}\label{sec:method}
This section presents our approach for training and evaluating the employed SSL algorithms on the problem of game-state representation learning based only on games' pixel information using the dataset described in Section \ref{sec:dataset}. To evaluate the quality of the SSL-based representations of gameplay frames' visual content, we use a ResNet50 \cite{he2016deep} model pretrained on the ImageNet dataset \cite{ILSVRC15} as a baseline.
\subsection{Training}
We use the ResNet50 architecture as our backbone model for transforming frames' pixels information to compressed yet informative game state representations. For all the employed games, the ResNet50 encoder receives as input RGB gameplay frames of dimension $224\times224\times3$ and compresses it to a representation vector of $2048$ real numbers. This encoder is trained with the three SSL algorithms described in Section \ref{sec:sslmethods} using the default hyper-parameters in \emph{solo-learn} \cite{da2022solo}. For each of the games, we use 50K images as training set and train the encoder for 50 epochs. The training step is visually presented in the left side of Fig. \ref{fig:method}.
\subsection{Evaluation}
\label{ssec:evaluation}
Once the backbone encoder has been trained, we evaluate the quality of the derived representations. To perform this, we prepare a separate evaluation dataset (detailed in Section \ref{sec:dataset}) consisting of images not seen during training, accompanied by the corresponding ground truth internal game state variables. The size of the evaluation dataset is different for each game because it is based on the appearance frequency of the internal game state variables. That means that when one or more game state variables are not present in a particular game state (e.g. no enemy is present on the screen in ViZDoom), we do not consider the frame that corresponds to that particular game state for evaluation purposes.
Following the principles of \cite{anand2019unsupervised} the evaluation takes place by quantifying the capacity of a linear model to recover or predict the internal game state variables based on the derived SSL representations. This evaluation approach, called \emph{linear probing} \cite{anand2019unsupervised}, has been used to evaluate representations of Atari games. The internal state of Atari games is described via discrete variables, and thus linear probing in \cite{anand2019unsupervised} evaluated the capacity of a linear model to predict the class of the internal game state variables. In our study, however, the employed games' internal states are characterised by continuous variables. For this reason, instead of a linear classifier, we apply the linear probing technique with a linear regression model.
In particular, for a game with $k$ internal state variables $V = \{v_1, v_2,.., v_k\}$, we train $k$ different linear regression models. For each of these models, the $d$-dimensional latent representations $z_d$ obtained from the backbone encoder are treated as the input or independent variables while the associated values in $V$ are treated as the dependent variables. With ResNet50 as the backbone in this paper, $d=2048$. For our dataset of $n$ pairs of images and each of the $k$ state variables, we fit the following least-squares linear regression model:
\begin{equation}
v_k^i = \beta_{k0} + \beta_{k1} z_1^i + ... + \beta_{k2048} z_{2048}^i + \epsilon^i\ \ \ \ \ \text{for}\ i = 1,...,n
\end{equation}
where $\beta$ are the coefficients and $\epsilon$ is the error. Here, we utilize the coefficient of determination (commonly known as $R^2$ correlation) of this model to quantify its performance. Higher values of $R^2$ indicate that the ResNet image encoder is better equipped to accurately extract the values of the internal state variables into the compressed representation, compared to those encoders with lower values of correlation. Thus, ideally, we want our $R^2$ values to be close to 1.0, so that any down-stream application that uses these representations works with the correctly interpreted state of the game from its image input.
At this point we should emphasize that the evaluation process relies only on linear probing models, as opposed to more complex nonlinear ones, since we want to evaluate the quality of the derived representations. This implies that the derived representations should be easily mapped to the internal game state variables via simple linear functions. In other words, we do not want to evaluate the prediction accuracy of a regression model, but the representation power of the SSL-based backbone encoder. The evaluation procedure is illustrated at the right image of Fig. \ref{fig:method}. In the following section we summarize the evaluation results obtained using $R^2$.
\section{Results}\label{sec:results}
Table \ref{tab:results} presents the quality of representations produced by the baseline ImageNet and the three SSL methods in terms of $R^2$ correlation (see Section \ref{ssec:evaluation}) with the internal game state variables. For all games examined, SSL-based representations correlate better to the internal games state compared to the baseline method. Specifically, SSL algorithms yield average performance improvement, compared to the baseline model, of $19\%$, $51\%$ and $145\%$ for the ViZDoom, CARLA and GRFE games, respectively. In addition, SSL approaches managed to achieve a maximum $R^2$ value (best correlated internal state variable) higher than $0.9$ for two out of the three games.
\begin{figure*}[!tb]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{figures/results_bar_chart.png}}
\caption{Difference of $R^2$ correlation values as a percentage over the ImageNet baseline model. Results are presented for all three games, their corresponding internal states considered and across the 3 SSL methods.}
\label{fig:baseline_difference}
\end{figure*}
Figure \ref{fig:baseline_difference} illustrates the percentage of improvement over baseline for the three SSL employed methods and for each of the internal game state variables. For all three games, BYOL and SimCLR appear to produce representations that are better correlated, compared to the baseline, to each one of their internal game state variables considered. The SwAV method, however, performs better than the baseline only for CARLA and GRFE. Nevertheless, it achieves the best performance on GRFE, which is the largest performance improvement across all games: three times higher $R^2$ values than the baseline.
For the ViZDoom game, we observe that SSL representations yield higher improvements over the baseline for the internal state variables that correspond to the middle part of the gameplay frames. This behavior could perhaps be pertaining to the fact that the $(x,y)$ position values of the enemy on the left part of the screen lie towards the periphery of the image frame while that for the center and right parts of the screen lie closer to the center of the image, affecting the performance of the ResNet encoder owing to its convolutional architecture.
For the CARLA game the improvement across the internal state variables that correspond to the distance between the ego-vehicle and its surrounding vehicles, as well as to the direction of the surrounding vehicles presents very small fluctuations (between $35\%$ to $50\%$). We observe, however, a larger improvement for the road curvature internal state variable; i.e. $\sim$65\% of improvement with the BYOL method.
\begin{table}[t]
\begin{center}
\caption{Minimum (min), average (avg) and maximum (max) $R^2$ correlation values between representations of images and the synchronized internal state variables across games. The best method (highest average $R^2$) per game is in bold.}
\label{tab:results}
\begin{tabular}{cl||l|l|l|l}
\hline\hline
\multicolumn{2}{l||}{} & \textbf{ImageNet} & \textbf{SimCLR} & \textbf{BYOL} & \textbf{SwAV} \\ \hline \hline
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{3}{*}{\textbf{ViZDoom}}} & \textbf{min} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{0.42} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{0.55} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{0.54}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{0.42} \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \textbf{avg} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{0.68} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{0.77} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{0.81}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{0.64} \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \textbf{max} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{0.78} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{0.86} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{0.91}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{0.76} \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{3}{*}{\textbf{CARLA}}} & \textbf{min} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{0.52} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{0.79} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{0.85}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{0.71} \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \textbf{avg} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{0.59} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{0.83} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{0.89}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{0.82} \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \textbf{max} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{0.63} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{0.88} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\textbf{0.93}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{0.88} \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{3}{*}{\textbf{GRFE}}} & \textbf{min} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{0.08} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{0.16} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{0.21} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{0.22}} \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \textbf{avg} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{0.11} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{0.20} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{0.23} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{0.27}} \\
\multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \textbf{max} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{0.19} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{0.22} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{0.26} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{0.32}} \\ \hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Finally, for the GRFE game, since there is a large number of state variables (4 variables for each of the 22 players), we aggregate the correlation metrics as per the position of the players on the football pitch. For each of the 4 variables, we average the correlation figures for all the defensive players (1 goalkeeper and 4 defenders) of both teams. These 4 combined variables for positions and directions are labelled as $p_x^d$, $p_y^d$, $\psi_x^d$ and $\psi_y^d$ in \figurename{} \ref{fig:baseline_difference}. We repeat the same for the remaining 6 offensive players of both teams, labelled as $p_x^o$, $p_y^o$, $\psi_x^o$ and $\psi_y^o$. The 6 variables associated with the ball positions ($p^b$) and directions ($\psi^b$) are presented as-is. We observe higher improvements for the internal state variables of defensive players of both teams compared to their offensive players.
We assume that this is because defensive players (especially the goalkeeper) move far less from their usual positions compared to offensive players.
This behavior is embedded into the rules of football, and we expect that any SSL method employed in games will yield higher predictive capacity if it incorporates rules and game dynamics in its learning process. We notice that SwAV builds on its clustering capacity and achieves larger percentage improvement for variables corresponding to the defensive players and thus outperforms BYOL and SimCLR.
Based on the obtained results across games, we can conclude that SSL methods can produce better internal game state representations describing the games' internal state than models that are pretrained on huge datasets. The BYOL method seems the most robust of the three SSL methods tested in this work. It yields the best results for ViZDoom and CARLA games and the second best for the GRFE football game. The SwAV method achieves the best performance on the GRFE game; however, its behaviour seems to be highly affected by the game at hand as it performs worse than the baseline on the ViZDoom game. Finally, SimCLR produces consistent results across all games that outperform the baseline, although it is not the best performing for any of the three games examined.
\section{Discussion}\label{sec:discussion}
The key takeaway from the experiments presented in this paper is that self-supervised learning, when applied directly to raw gameplay images, can derive game representations that are \textit{general}, as SSL manages to capture and correlate to key features of each game. Compared to the model pretrained on ImageNet, SSL is more efficient and robust across all three very different games tested: the games vary not only in terms of game mechanics but also in terms of image resolution, object sizes, and number of internal variables. Comparing the performance of the three SSL approaches examined we can conclude that the non-contrastive approach (BYOL) seems better suited for the task of state representation learning in complex 3D games, compared to the contrastive approaches. To solidify these conclusions, further investigation would be required with other contrastive and non-contrastive SSL methods such as Barlow Twins \cite{zbontar2021barlow}, SimSiam \cite{chen2020exploring}, VICReg \cite{bardes2021vicreg}, and DINO \cite{caron2021emerging}, as well as time-distributed SSL approaches such as ST-DIM \cite{anand2019unsupervised}. Beyond testing our hypothesis across more SSL algorithms, we plan to test the robustness of the proposed method across a larger variety of games and game-genres with dissimilar types of graphics, aesthetics, and rules.
In terms of applications of self-supervised learning in AI and games research \cite{yannakakis2018artificial}, we recommend that when using convolutional networks for processing visual input one should take advantage of pretraining the network using SSL. Since the optimization criteria in SSL methods are independent of the end-task, such methods can provide more general-purpose representations that can be used for a multitude of tasks. This covers a wide range of applications such as training and testing game-playing bots, deep reinforcement learning, procedural content generation, affective computing, player experience modeling, and generative modeling, which all can make use of the general features learned by these SSL frameworks. This should not only improve their performance by providing more meaningful and informative input from the game, but also help improve efficiency in learning the indicated task in the game. In addition, the training time of any given learning task is significantly reduced since the processing and compression of raw pixels is handled by the general-purpose SSL pre-trained models. As a result one can simply focus on optimizing the objective of the learning task at hand.
\section{Conclusion}\label{sec:conclusion}
In this study we demonstrated that self-supervised learning methods can be used for learning highly informative, descriptive and general-purpose representations from RGB images of games. In particular, we presented a new dataset of three dissimilar games in terms of genre, footage resolution and key object sizes that appear on screen: VizDoom (clone of \emph{Doom} first-person shooter), CARLA (racing game simulator), and GRFE (football game simulator). The dataset contains the internal state of the game---a vector of critical features about each game---with the corresponding RGB frames seen in the game's renderer. To test our hypothesis that SSL derives more descriptive and hence general representations of games, we employ three representative SSL methods and attempt to predict the internal state values of the three games from their RGB frames. Our results suggest that SSL-based representations are more powerful than general-purpose pre-trained models at correctly extracting the internal game states from images. This comes without any cost of labor since the SSL methods are trained on just images and no special annotations or manual labelling is required. Our key findings suggest that SSL is not only a practical but a highly recommended approach for deriving general-purpose and meaningful compressed representations for dissimilar AI task within games: from gameplaying and testing agents, and generative/creative AI systems all the way to player modeling tasks.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:Introduction}
As in \cite{LSY:LangerSteinbachTroeltzschYang:2021c}, we consider the
minimization of the space-time tracking cost functional
\begin{equation}\label{Parabolic minimization problem}
{\mathcal{J}}(u_\varrho,z_\varrho) = \frac{1}{2} \int_0^T \int_\Omega
[u_\varrho(x,t) - \overline{u}(x,t)]^2 \, dx \, dt +
\frac{1}{2} \, \varrho \, \| z_\varrho \|^2_{L^2(0,T;H^{-1}(\Omega))}
\end{equation}
with respect to the state $u_\varrho$ and the control $z_\varrho$
subject to the model parabolic initial boundary value problem
\begin{equation}\label{Parabolic PDE}
\left. \begin{array}{rclcl}
\partial_t u_\varrho(x,t) - \Delta_x u_\varrho(x,t)
& = & z_\varrho(x,t) & \quad &
\mbox{for} \; (x,t) \in Q := \Omega \times (0,T), \\[1mm]
u_\varrho(x,t) & = & 0 & &
\mbox{for} \; (x,t) \in \Sigma:=\partial\Omega
\times (0,T), \\[1mm]
u_\varrho(x,0) & = & 0 & & \mbox{for} \; x \in \overline{\Sigma}_0 :=
\overline{\Omega} \times \{ 0 \},
\end{array} \right \}
\end{equation}
where $\overline{u} \in L^2(Q)$ is the given desired state (target),
$\partial_t$ denotes the partial time derivative,
$\Delta_x$ is the spatial Laplace operator,
$\Omega \subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$, $n=1,2,3$, is the spatial domain that
is assumed to be bounded and Lipschitz,
$T>0$ is a given time horizon, and $\varrho > 0$ is a suitably
chosen regularization parameter.
The standard setting of such kind of optimal control problems uses the
regularization in $L^2(Q)$ instead of $L^2(0,T;H^{-1}(\Omega))$;
see, e.g., the books \cite{LSY:BorziSchulz:2011a,
LSY:HinzePinnauUlbrichUlbrich:2009a,LSY:Troeltzsch:2010a},
and the references given therein.
The energy regularization, as the regularization in
$L^2(0,T;H^{-1}(\Omega))$ is also called,
permits controls $z_\varrho$ from the space
$L^2(0,T;H^{-1}(\Omega))$ that is larger than $L^2(Q)$, and admits more
concentrated controls. Such kind of controls that are concentrated around
hypersurfaces play an important role in electromagnetics in form of
thinly wound coils and magnets. Moreover, the space
$L^2(0,T;H^{-1}(\Omega))$ is the natural space for the source term in the
variational formulation of the initial boundary value problem
\eqref{Parabolic PDE}, at least, in the Hilbert space setting; see, e.g.,
\cite{LSY:Lions:1968a} or \cite{LSY:Zeidler:1990a} for solvability results.
In the literature, there are other regularization techniques aiming at specific
properties of the control such as sparsity and directional sparsity.
We refer the reader to the recent survey article \cite{LSY:Casas:2017a} where a
comprehensive overview of the literature on this topic is given.
Since the state equation \eqref{Parabolic PDE} in its variational form
has a unique solution
$u_\varrho \in X:= \{u \in Y:=L^2(0,T;H^{1}_0(\Omega)):
\partial_t u \in Y^*, \; u = 0 \;\text{on} \; \Sigma_0\}$,
for every given right-hand side $z_\varrho \in Y^*:= L^2(0,T;H^{-1}(\Omega))$,
the corresponding optimal control problem
\eqref{Parabolic minimization problem}-\eqref{Parabolic PDE}
also has a unique solution $(u_\varrho, z_\varrho) \in X \times Y^*$
that can be computed by solving the first-order optimality system or
the reduced first-order optimality system
where the control is eliminated by the gradient equation.
The unique solvability of the state equation can also be shown by the
Banach--Ne\u{c}as--Babu\u{s}ka theorem
as it was done in \cite{LSY:Steinbach:2015a}.
This theorem can also be used to show
well-posedness of the reduced first-order optimality system
as it was done in \cite{LSY:LangerSteinbachTroeltzschYang:2021c}.
Now the optimal control problem \eqref{Parabolic minimization problem}-\eqref{Parabolic PDE}
can be approximately solved by discretizing the reduced optimality system.
Following \cite{LSY:LangerSteinbachTroeltzschYang:2021c}, we discretize
the reduced optimality system by means of a real space-time finite
element method working on fully unstructured, but shape regular
simplicial space-time meshes into which the space-time cylinder $Q$
is decomposed.
In \cite{LSY:LangerSteinbachTroeltzschYang:2021c}, the authors showed a
discrete inf-sup condition for the bilinear form arising from the
variational formulation of the reduced optimality system.
Once a discrete inf-sup condition is proven, one can easily derive the
corresponding estimates for the finite element discretization error
$u_\varrho - \widetilde{u}_{\varrho h}$ and $p_\varrho - \widetilde{p}_{\varrho h}$
in the corresponding norms, where $\widetilde{u}_{\varrho h}$ and
$\widetilde{p}_{\varrho h}$ are the finite element solutions
to the reduced first-order optimality system approximating the state
$u_\varrho$ and the co-state (adjoint) $p_\varrho$, respectively.
In this paper, we are investigating the error between the computed finite
element solution $\widetilde{u}_{\varrho h}$ and the desired state
$\overline{u}$, where
we use continuous, piecewise linear finite element basis functions.
This error is obviously of primary interest since one
wants to know how well $\widetilde{u}_{\varrho h}$ approximates
$\overline{u}$ in advance.
More precisely, we derive estimates for the $L^2(Q)$ norm of this error
in terms of $\varrho$ and $h$, and depending on the smoothness of
the target $\overline{u}$ that is assumed to belong to $H^s(Q)$ for
some $s \in (0,2]$.
In particular, we admit discontinuous targets that are important in many
practical applications.
These estimates lead to the optimal choice $\varrho = h^2$ in all cases.
For elliptic optimal control problems with energy regularization, i.e.,
in $H^{-1}(\Omega)$,
error estimates for $\|\overline{u} - {u}_{\varrho}\|_{L^2(Q)}$ and
$\| \overline{u} - \widetilde{u}_{\varrho h}\|_{L^2(Q)}$
were recently derived in
\cite{LSY:NeumuellerSteinbach:2021a}
and \cite{LSY:LangerSteinbachYang:2022a}, respectively.
It is interesting that, in the elliptic case, ${u}_{\varrho}$ solves
the singularly perturbed reaction-diffusion equation
$- \varrho \Delta u_\varrho + u_\varrho = \overline{u} $
in $\Omega$ with homogeneous Dirichlet conditions on the boundary
$\partial \Omega$, also known as differential filter in fluid
mechanics \cite{LSY:John:2016a},
whereas, in the parabolic case, ${u}_{\varrho}$ solves a similar
singularly perturbed problem,
but with a more complicated space-time operator of the form
$B^*A^{-1}B$ replacing $-\Delta$,
where $B: X \to Y^*$ is nothing but the state (parabolic) operator,
and $A: Y \to Y^*$ represents the spatial Laplacian $-\Delta_x$;
see Sections~\ref{sec:AbstractOCP} and \ref{sec:ParabolicOCP} for a more
detailed discussion.
The reminder of this paper is organized as follows:
Section~\ref{sec:AbstractOCP} deals with the formulation of an abstract
optimal control problem,
and the corresponding error estimates between the desired state and
the discrete state based on the exact state Schur complement equation.
In Section~\ref{sec:ParabolicOCP}, we consider a model parabolic
distributed optimal control problem with energy regularization,
and derive estimates for the $L^2(Q)$
error between the desired state $\overline{u}$ and the finally
computed state $ \widetilde{u}_{\varrho h} $ from the
perturbed state Schur complement equation for the coupled optimality system.
Several numerical tests in two and three space dimensions are discussed in
Section~\ref{sec:NumericalResults}.
Finally, some conclusions are drawn in Section~\ref{sec:ConclusionsOutlook},
and we also discuss some future research topics.
\section{Abstract optimal control problems}
\label{sec:AbstractOCP}
Let $X \subset H \subset X^*$ and $Y \subset H \subset Y^*$
be Gelfand triples of Hilbert spaces, where $X^*, Y^*$ are
the duals of $X, Y$ with respect to $H$. Let $ A : Y \to Y^*$
and $B: X \to Y^*$ be bounded linear operators, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{Bounded abstract}
\| A v \|_{Y^*} \leq c_2^A \, \| v \|_Y \quad \forall v \in Y,
\quad
\| B u \|_{Y^*} \leq c_2^B \, \| u \|_X \quad \forall u \in X.
\end{equation}
We assume that $A$ is self-adjoint and elliptic in $Y$, and that $B$
satisfies an inf-sup condition, i.e., there exist positive constants
$c_1^A$ and $c_1^B$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{inf-sup abstract}
\langle A v,v \rangle_H \geq c_1^A \, \| v \|_Y^2 \quad \forall v \in Y,
\quad \sup\limits_{0 \neq v \in Y}
\frac{\langle Bu,v\rangle_H}{\| v \|_Y} \geq c_1^B \, \| u \|_X \quad
\forall u \in X .
\end{equation}
In addition, we assume that the dual to $B$ operator $B^*: Y \to X^*$ is injective.
Then, due to Lax--Milgram's and Banach--Ne\v{c}as--Babu\v{s}ka's
theorems (see, e.g.,\cite{LSY:ErnGuermond:2004a}),
$A:Y \to Y^*$ and $B:X \to Y^*$ are isomorphisms. Therefore,
\begin{equation} \label{Y^*Norm}
\| z \|_{Y^*} = \sqrt{\langle A^{-1} z , z \rangle_H} \quad
\mbox{for} \; z \in Y^*
\end{equation}
defines a norm in $Y^*$ that is equivalent to the standard supremum norm.
We now consider the abstract minimization problem
to find the minimizer $(u_\varrho,z_\varrho) \in X \times Y^*$
of the functional
\begin{equation}\label{Abstract minimization problem}
{\mathcal{J}}(u_\varrho,z_\varrho) =
\frac{1}{2} \, \| u_\varrho - \overline{u} \|_H^2 +
\frac{1}{2} \, \varrho \, \| z_\varrho \|^2_{Y^*} \quad
\mbox{subject to} \; Bu_\varrho=z_\varrho ,
\end{equation}
when $\overline{u} \in H$ is given, and $\varrho \in {\mathbb{R}}_+$
is some regularization parameter.
For the time being, our particular interest is focused on the behavior
of $\|u_\varrho - \overline{u}\|_H$ as $\varrho \to 0$.
The minimizer $(u_\varrho,z_\varrho)$ of (\ref{Abstract minimization problem})
is determined as the unique solution of the optimality system,
see, e.g., \cite{LSY:LangerSteinbachTroeltzschYang:2021c},
\begin{equation}\label{Abstract optimality system}
B u_\varrho = z_\varrho, \qquad
B^* p_\varrho = u_\varrho - \overline{u} , \qquad
p_\varrho + \varrho A^{-1} z_\varrho = 0 .
\end{equation}
Eliminating
the control $z_\varrho \in Y^*$ and the adjoint
variable $p_\varrho \in Y$
results in
the
operator equation to find $u_\varrho \in X$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{Abstract reduced reduced optimality system}
\varrho B^* A^{-1} B u_\varrho + u_\varrho = \overline{u}
\quad \mbox{in} \; X^* .
\end{equation}
Let us introduce the operator $ S := B^* A^{-1} B : X \to X^*$,
for which we have the following result:
\begin{lemma}\label{Lemma S abstrakt}
There hold the inequalities
\[
\langle S u , u \rangle_H \geq c_1^S \, \| u \|_X^2 \quad \mbox{and} \quad
\| S u \|_{X^*} \leq c_2^S \, \| u \|_X \quad \mbox{for all} \; u \in X
\]
with constants
\[
c_1^S = c_1^A \left( \frac{c_1^B}{c_2^A} \right)^2
\quad \mbox{and} \quad
c_2^S = \frac{[c_2^B]^2}{c_1^A} \, .
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For
arbitrary, but fixed $u \in X$,
we define $\overline{p} = A^{-1} B u$ to
obtain
\[
\langle S u , u \rangle_H =
\langle A^{-1} B u , Bu \rangle_H =
\langle A \overline{p} , \overline{p} \rangle_H \geq
c_1^A \, \| \overline{p} \|_Y^2 \, .
\]
From the inf-sup condition \eqref{inf-sup abstract} we further conclude
\[
c_1^B \, \| u \|_X \leq \sup\limits_{0 \neq v \in Y}
\frac{\langle Bu , v \rangle_H}{\| v \|_Y} =
\sup\limits_{0 \neq v \in Y}
\frac{\langle A \overline{p} , v \rangle_H}{\| v \|_Y} \leq
\| A \overline{p} \|_{Y^*} \leq c_2^A \, \| \overline{p} \|_Y .
\]
This gives
\[
\langle S u , u \rangle_H \geq c_1^A \, \| \overline{p} \|^2_Y \geq
c_1^A \left( \frac{c_1^B}{c_2^A} \right)^2 \| u \|_X^2 =
c_1^S \, \| u \|_X^2 .
\]
To prove the second estimate, we consider
\[
c_1^A \, \| \overline{p} \|_Y^2 \leq
\langle A \overline{p} , \overline{p} \rangle_H =
\langle B u , \overline{p} \rangle_H \leq
\| B u \|_{Y^*} \| \overline{p} \|_Y \leq
c_2^B \, \| u \|_X \| \overline{p} \|_Y,
\]
i.e.,
\[
\| \overline{p} \|_Y \leq \frac{c_2^B}{c_1^A} \, \| u \|_X \, .
\]
With this we finally obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}
\| S u \|_{X^*}
& = & \sup\limits_{0 \neq v \in X}
\frac{\langle S u , v \rangle_H}{\| v \|_X} =
\sup\limits_{0 \neq v \in X}
\frac{\langle A^{-1} B u , B v \rangle_H}{\| v \|_X} \\
& = & \sup\limits_{0 \neq v \in X}
\frac{\langle \overline{p} , B v \rangle_H}{\| v \|_X} \leq
\sup\limits_{0 \neq v \in X}
\frac{\| \overline{p} \|_Y \| B v \|_{Y^*}}{\| v \|_X} \\
& \leq & c_2^B \, \| \overline{p} \|_Y \leq
\frac{[c_2^B]^2}{c_1^A} \, \| u \|_X = c_2^S \, \| u \|_X \, .
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}
\noindent
As a consequence of Lemma \ref{Lemma S abstrakt} we also have
\[
\langle S u , u \rangle_H \leq \| S u \|_{X^*} \| u \|_X \leq
c_2^S \, \| u \|_X^2 ,
\]
i.e.,
\[
\| u \|_S^2 := \langle S u , u \rangle_H =
\langle A^{-1} B u , Bu \rangle_H
\]
defines an equivalent norm in $X$ satisfying the norm equivalence inequalities
\begin{equation}\label{norm equivalence}
c_1^S \, \| u \|_X^2 \leq \| u \|_S^2 \leq c_2^S \, \|u \|_X^2 \quad
\mbox{for all} \; u \in X .
\end{equation}
Now we consider the abstract operator equation to find $u_\varrho \in X$
such that
\begin{equation}\label{Abstract operator equation}
\varrho S u_\varrho + u_\varrho = \overline{u} \quad \mbox{in} \; X^*,
\end{equation}
and its equivalent variational formulation
\begin{equation}\label{Abstract variational formulation}
\varrho \, \langle S u_\varrho,v \rangle_H + \langle u_\varrho , v \rangle_H =
\langle \overline{u},v \rangle_H \quad \mbox{for all} \; v \in X .
\end{equation}
Since $S$ induces an equivalent norm in $X$, unique solvability of
(\ref{Abstract variational formulation}) follows.
\begin{lemma}
For the unique solution $u_\varrho \in X$ of the variational formulation
\eqref{Abstract variational formulation}, there hold the estimates
\begin{equation}\label{Abstract HH SH}
\| u_\varrho \|_H \leq \| \overline{u} \|_H \quad \mbox{and} \quad
\varrho \, \| u_\varrho \|^2_S \leq \| \overline{u} \|^2_H .
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For the particular choice $v=u_\varrho$ within the variational
formulation \eqref{Abstract variational formulation}, we obtain
\[
\varrho \, \| u_\varrho \|_S^2 + \| u_\varrho \|^2_H
= \varrho \, \langle S u_\varrho , u_\varrho \rangle_H +
\langle u_\varrho , u_\varrho \rangle_H
= \langle \overline{u} , u_\varrho \rangle_H
\leq \| \overline{u} \|_H \| u_\varrho \|_H ,
\]
from which we conclude
\[
\| u_\varrho \|_H \leq \| \overline{u} \|_H
\]
as well as
\[
\varrho \, \| u_\varrho \|^2_S \leq \| \overline{u} \|_H
\| u_\varrho \|_H \leq \| \overline{u} \|^2_H .
\]
\end{proof}
\noindent
Analogously to \cite[Theorem 3.2]{LSY:NeumuellerSteinbach:2021a} we can state
the following estimates, which depend on the regularity of the given
target $\overline{u} \in H$.
\begin{lemma}\label{Abstract Lemma error rho}
Let $u_\varrho \in X$ be the unique solution of the variational formulation
\eqref{Abstract variational formulation}. For $\overline{u} \in H$ there
holds
\begin{equation}\label{Abstract error H H}
\| u_\varrho - \overline{u} \|_H \leq \| \overline{u} \|_H,
\end{equation}
while for $\overline{u} \in X$ the following estimates hold true:
\begin{equation}\label{Abstract error H X}
\| u_\varrho - \overline{u} \|_H \leq \varrho^{1/2} \,
\| \overline{u} \|_S ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{Abstract error X X}
\| u_\varrho - \overline{u} \|_S \leq \| \overline{u} \|_S .
\end{equation}
If in addition $S\overline{u} \in H$ is satisfied for $\overline{u} \in X$,
\begin{equation}\label{Abstract error H Su}
\| u_\varrho - \overline{u} \|_H \leq \varrho \, \| S \overline{u} \|_H
\end{equation}
as well as
\begin{equation}\label{Abstract error S Su}
\| u_\varrho - \overline{u} \|_S \leq \varrho^{1/2} \, \| S \overline{u} \|_H
\end{equation}
follow.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
From the variational formulation
\eqref{Abstract variational formulation} and for the particular
test function $v=u_\varrho$, we obtain
\[
\varrho \, \| u_\varrho \|_S^2 =
\varrho \, \langle S u_\varrho , u_\varrho \rangle_H =
\langle \overline{u} - u_\varrho , u_\varrho \rangle_H =
\langle \overline{u} - u_\varrho , \overline{u} \rangle_H -
\langle \overline{u} - u_\varrho , \overline{u} - u_\varrho \rangle_H,
\]
which gives
\[
\varrho \, \| u_\varrho \|_S^2 + \| u_\varrho - \overline{u} \|_H^2 =
\langle \overline{u} - u_\varrho , \overline{u} \rangle_H \leq
\| \overline{u} - u_\varrho \|_H \| \overline{u} \|_H,
\]
i.e., (\ref{Abstract error H H}) follows.
When assuming $\overline{u} \in X$, we can choose
$v = \overline{u} - u_\varrho \in X$ as test function in
\eqref{Abstract variational formulation} to conclude
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber
\| \overline{u} - u_\varrho \|_H^2
& = & \langle \overline{u} - u_\varrho ,
\overline{u} - u_\varrho \rangle_H \\
& = & \varrho \, \langle S u_\varrho , \overline{u} - u_\varrho \rangle_H
\label{Abstract Error H X Zwischenschritt}\\
& = & \varrho \, \langle S \overline{u} , \overline{u} - u_\varrho
\rangle_H -
\varrho \, \langle S(\overline{u} - u_\varrho),
\overline{u}-u_\varrho \rangle_H, \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
i.e.,
\[
\varrho \, \| \overline{u} - u_\varrho \|_S^2 +
\| \overline{u} - u_\varrho \|^2_H
= \varrho \, \langle S \overline{u} , \overline{u} - u_\varrho \rangle_H
\leq \varrho \, \| \overline{u} \|_S \| \overline{u} - u_\varrho \|_S \, .
\]
In a first step this gives \eqref{Abstract error X X},
\[
\| u_\varrho - \overline{u} \|_S \leq \| \overline{u} \|_S .
\]
With this we further obtain
\[
\| u_\varrho - \overline{u} \|^2_H
\leq \varrho \, \| \overline{u} \|_S \| \overline{u} - u_\varrho \|_S
\leq \varrho \, \| \overline{u} \|_S^2,
\]
i.e., (\ref{Abstract error H X}) follows.
If, for $\overline{u} \in X$, we have in addition $S\overline{u} \in H$,
from the estimate \eqref{Abstract Error H X Zwischenschritt}, we also
conclude
\[
\varrho \, \| \overline{u} - u_\varrho \|_S^2 +
\| \overline{u} - u_\varrho \|^2_H
= \varrho \, \langle S \overline{u} , \overline{u} - u_\varrho \rangle_H
\leq \varrho \, \| S \overline{u} \|_H \| u_\varrho - \overline{u} \|_H,
\]
from which \eqref{Abstract error H Su} follows. Finally, the estimates
\[
\varrho \, \| \overline{u} - u_\varrho \|_S^2
\leq \varrho \, \| S \overline{u} \|_H \| u_\varrho - \overline{u} \|_H
\leq \varrho^2 \, \| S \overline{u} \|_H^2
\]
imply \eqref{Abstract error S Su}.
\end{proof}
\noindent
Based on the estimates as given in Lemma \ref{Abstract Lemma error rho}
and in the case of the particular application we have in mind,
we can derive more general estimates which are based on interpolation
arguments in a scale of Sobolev spaces. This will be discussed later
in more detail.
For some conforming approximation space $X_h \subset X$, we now consider
the Galerkin variational formulation of
\eqref{Abstract variational formulation}, i.e.,
find $u_{\varrho h} \in X_h$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{Abstract Galerkin}
\varrho \, \langle S u_{\varrho h} , v_h \rangle_H +
\langle u_{\varrho h} , v_h \rangle_H = \langle \overline{u} , v_h \rangle_H
\quad \forall \, v_h \in X_h .
\end{equation}
Using again standard arguments, we conclude unique solvability of
(\ref{Abstract Galerkin}), and the following Cea type a priori error
estimate,
\begin{equation}\label{Abstract Cea}
\| u_\varrho - u_{\varrho h} \|_H \leq \inf\limits_{v_h \in X_h}
\sqrt{\varrho \, \| u_\varrho - v_h \|^2_S + \| u_\varrho - v_h \|^2_H} .
\end{equation}
As a particular application of \eqref{Abstract Cea} we obtain, when
choosing $v_h=0$, and using \eqref{Abstract HH SH},
\[
\| u_\varrho - u_{\varrho h} \|_H^2
\leq \varrho \, \| u_\varrho \|^2_S + \| u_\varrho \|^2_H \, \leq \,
2 \, \| \overline{u} \|_H^2 .
\]
Now, using \eqref{Abstract error H H}, we conclude the abstract
error estimate
\begin{equation}\label{Error H H}
\| u_{\varrho h} - \overline{u} \|_H \leq
\| u_\varrho - \overline{u} \|_H + \| u_\varrho - u_{\varrho h} \|_H
\leq (1+\sqrt{2}) \, \| \overline{u} \|_H .
\end{equation}
when assuming $\overline{u} \in H$ only.
\section{Parabolic distributed optimal control problem}
\label{sec:ParabolicOCP}
The parabolic optimal control problem
\eqref{Parabolic minimization problem}-\eqref{Parabolic PDE} as given in
the introduction is obviously a special case of the abstract optimal
control problem \eqref{Abstract minimization problem}. Indeed,
in view of the abstract setting, we have
$H := L^2(Q)$, $Y := L^2(0,T;H^1_0(\Omega))$, and
\[
X := \{ u \in W(0,T) : u=0 \; \mbox{on} \; \Sigma_0\},
\]
with
$W(0,T) := \{ u \in Y: \partial_t u \in Y^* = L^2(0,T;H^{-1}(\Omega)) \}$.
The related norms in $Y$, $X$, and $Y^*$ are given by
\[
\| v \|_Y := \| \nabla_x v \|_{L^2(Q)}, \;
\| u \|_X := \sqrt{ \| u \|^2_Y +
\| \partial_t u \|^2_{Y^*}} , \; \text{and} \;
\| \partial_t u \|_{Y^*} =
\| \nabla_x w_u \|_{L^2(Q)},
\]
respectively, where $w_u \in Y$ is the unique solution of the variational problem
\[
\langle \nabla_x w_u , \nabla_x v \rangle_{L^2(Q)} =
\langle \partial_t u , v \rangle_Q \quad \forall \, v \in Y.
\]
For later use, we will prove the following embedding:
\begin{lemma}
For $ u \in X \cap H^1(Q)$ there holds
\begin{equation}\label{Norm X H1}
\| u \|_X \leq \max \{ \sqrt{c_F} , 1 \} \, \| u \|_{H^1(Q)}
\end{equation}
with the constant $c_F>0$ from the spatial Friedrichs inequality
in $H^1_0(\Omega)$,
\begin{equation}
\label{FriedrichsInequality}
\int_\Omega [v(x)]^2 \, dx \, \leq \ c_F \int_\Omega |\nabla_x v(x)|^2 \, dx
\quad \forall \, v \in H^1_0(\Omega) .
\end{equation}
%
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Recall that we can write
\[
\| u \|^2_X = \| \partial_t u \|_{Y^*}^2 + \| \nabla_x u \|^2_{L^2(Q)},
\]
and since $\partial_t u \in L^2(Q)$ for $u \in H^1(Q)$,
we can bound $\| \partial_t u \|_{Y^*}$ as follows:
\[
\| \partial_t u \|_{Y^*} =
\sup\limits_{0 \neq v \in Y}
\frac{\langle \partial_t u , v \rangle_Q}{\| v \|_{Y}}
\leq \sup\limits_{0 \neq v \in Y}
\frac{\| \partial_t u \|_{L^2(Q)} \| v \|_{L^2(Q)}}
{\| \nabla_x v \|_{L^2(Q)}} \leq \sqrt{c_F} \, \| \partial_t u \|_{L^2(Q)} .
\]
Here we have used the Friedrichs inequality
\[
\| v \|_{L^2(Q)}^2 = \int_0^T \| v(t) \|^2_{L^2(\Omega)} \, dt \leq
c_F \int_0^T \| \nabla_x v(t) \|^2_{L^2(\Omega)} \, dt =
c_F \, \| \nabla_x v \|^2_{L^2(Q)}
\]
that holds for all $v \in Y = L^2(0,T;H_0^1(\Omega))$ due
to \eqref{FriedrichsInequality}. Hence, the estimates
\[
\| u \|_X^2 \leq c_F \, \| \partial_t u \|^2_{L^2(Q)} +
\| \nabla_x u \|^2_{L^2(Q)} \leq \max \{ c_F , 1 \} \, \| u \|^2_{H^1(Q)}
\]
follow.
\end{proof}
\noindent
The variational formulation of the state equation \eqref{Parabolic PDE}
can now be written in the form: Find $u_\varrho \in X$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\int_0^T \int_\Omega \Big[ \partial_t u_\varrho(x,t) \, v(x,t) +
\nabla_x u_\varrho(x,t) \cdot \nabla_x v(x,t) \Big] \, dx \, dt
=
\int_0^T \int_\Omega z_\varrho(x,t) \, v(x,t) \, dx \, dt
\end{equation*}
for all $v \in Y$, where the first term in the bilinear form
and the right-hand side must be understood as duality pairing
between $Y^*$ and $Y$.
This variational formulation can be rewritten as
operator equation $B u_\varrho = z_\varrho$ in $Y^* = L^2(0,T;H^{-1}(\Omega))$.
The operator $B : X \to Y^*$ is therefore defined by the variational identity
\begin{equation}
\label{Definition_B}
\langle B u , v \rangle_Q = \int_0^T \int_\Omega
\Big[ \partial_t u(x,t) \, v(x,t) + \nabla_x u(x,t) \cdot
\nabla_x v(x,t) \Big] \, dx \, dt
\end{equation}
for all $u \in X$ and $v \in Y$, while $A : Y \to Y^*$ is given as
\begin{equation}
\label{Definition_A}
\langle A w , v \rangle_Q = \int_0^T \int_\Omega \nabla_x w(x,t)
\cdot \nabla_x v(x,t) \, dx \, dt, \quad \forall \, w,v \in Y .
\end{equation}
We obviously have $c_1^A=c_2^A=1$.
Following \cite{LSY:Steinbach:2015a,LSY:SteinbachZank:2020a},
the operator $B : X \to Y^*$ is bounded,
\[
\langle B u ,v \rangle_Q \leq \sqrt{2} \, \| u \|_X \| v \|_Y
\quad \forall \, u \in X, \; v \in Y,
\]
and satisfies the inf-sup condition
\[
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \, \| u \|_X \leq
\sup\limits_{0 \neq v \in Y} \frac{\langle Bu,v \rangle_Q}{\| v \|_Y}
\quad \forall \, u \in X,
\]
i.e., $c_1^B=1/\sqrt{2}$ and $c_2^B=\sqrt{2}$. Hence we obtain the
statements of Lemma \ref{Lemma S abstrakt} with $c_1^S=1/2$ and $c_2^S=2$.
With these definitions, the reduced first-order optimality system can be
written in the following operator form:
Find $(u_\varrho, p_\varrho) \in X \times Y$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{rOS}
\begin{pmatrix} \varrho^{-1} A & B\\
B^* & -I
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix} p_\varrho \\ u_\varrho
\end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} 0\\ -\overline{u} \end{pmatrix}
\quad \text{in} \quad Y^* \times X^*,
\end{equation}
from which the control $z_\varrho = - \varrho^{-1} A p_\varrho$ can be computed;
cf. also \eqref{Abstract optimality system} and
\eqref{Abstract reduced reduced optimality system}.
For the Galerkin formulation \eqref{Abstract Galerkin}, we introduce
a conforming finite element space $X_h = S_h^1(Q) \cap X \subset X$
of piecewise linear and continuous basis functions which are defined
with respect to some admissible decomposition of the space-time
domain $Q$ into shape regular simplicial finite elements of mesh
width $h$; see, e.g., \cite{LSY:BrennerScott:2008a}.
Then the finite element approximation of
\eqref{Abstract variational formulation} reads to
find $u_{\varrho h} \in X_h$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{VF parabolic S FEM}
\varrho \, \langle B^* A^{-1} B u_{\varrho h} , v_h \rangle_Q +
\langle u_{\varrho h} , v_h \rangle_{L^2(Q)} =
\langle \overline{u} , v_h \rangle_{L^2(Q)}
\end{equation}
is satisfied for all $v_h \in X_h$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{Theorem1}
Assume $\overline{u} \in [L^2(Q),X]_s \cap H^s(Q)$ for $s \in [0,1)$
or $\overline{u} \in X \cap H^s(Q)$ for $s \in [1,2]$.
For the unique solution $u_{\varrho h} \in X_h$ of \eqref{VF parabolic S FEM},
the finite element error estimate
\begin{equation}
\label{Th1Estimate}
\| u_{\varrho h} - \overline{u} \|_{L^2(Q)} \, \leq \, c \, h^s \,
\| \overline{u} \|_{H^s(Q)}
\end{equation}
holds provided that $\varrho = h^2$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
For $\overline{u} \in L^2(Q)$, we can write the error estimate
\eqref{Error H H} as
\[
\| u_{\varrho h} - \overline{u} \|_{L^2(Q)} \leq (1+\sqrt{2}) \,
\| \overline{u} \|_{L^2(Q)} .
\]
Due to $X \subset H^1(Q)$, we now assume
$\overline{u} \in X \cap H^1(Q)$ for which we can write the error estimate
\eqref{Abstract Cea} as
\begin{eqnarray*}
\| u_\varrho - u_{\varrho h} \|_{L^2(Q)}^2
& \leq & \inf\limits_{v_h \in X_h} \Big[
\varrho \, \| u_\varrho - v_h \|_S^2 +
\| u_\varrho - v_h \|_{L^2(Q)}^2 \Big] \\
& & \hspace*{-3cm} \leq \, 2 \left[
\varrho \, \| u_\varrho - \overline{u} \|_S^2 +
\| u_\varrho - \overline{u} \|^2_{L^2(Q)} +
\inf\limits_{v_h \in X_h} \Big[
\varrho \, \| \overline{u} - v_h \|^2_S +
\| \overline{u} - v_h \|^2_{L^2(Q)} \Big]
\right] \\
& & \hspace*{-3cm} \leq \, 4 \, \varrho \, \| \overline{u} \|_S^2 + 2
\inf\limits_{v_h \in X_h} \Big[
\varrho \, \| \overline{u} - v_h \|^2_S +
\| \overline{u} - v_h \|^2_{L^2(Q)} \Big] \\
& & \hspace*{-3cm} \leq \, 8 \, \varrho \, \| \overline{u} \|_X^2 + 2
\inf\limits_{v_h \in X_h} \Big[
2 \, \varrho \, \| \overline{u} - v_h \|^2_X +
\| \overline{u} - v_h \|^2_{L^2(Q)} \Big] \\
& & \hspace*{-3cm} \leq \, 8 \, \max \{ c_F, 1 \} \,
\varrho \, \| \overline{u} \|_{H^1(Q)}^2 \\
&& \hspace*{-1cm} + 2
\inf\limits_{v_h \in X_h} \Big[
2 \, \max \{ c_F , 1 \} \,
\varrho \, \| \overline{u} - v_h \|^2_{H^1(Q)} +
\| \overline{u} - v_h \|^2_{L^2(Q)} \Big]
\end{eqnarray*}
when using \eqref{Abstract error X X} and \eqref{Abstract error H X},
the upper norm equivalence inequality in \eqref{norm equivalence}
with $c_2^S=2$, and $\| \overline{u} \|_{H^1(Q)}$ as upper bound
of $\| \overline{u} \|_X$, see \eqref{Norm X H1}.
Now inserting a suitable $H^1$-stable quasi-interpolation
$v_h = P_h \overline{u} \in X_h$
of the desired state $\overline{u} \in H^1(Q)$, e.g.,
Scott--Zhang's interpolation \cite{LSY:BrennerScott:2008a},
we immediately obtain the estimate
\[
\| u_\varrho - u_{\varrho h} \|_{L^2(Q)}^2 \le
c \, [\varrho + h^2] \, \| \overline{u} \|^2_{H^1(Q)}.
\]
Combining this estimate with \eqref{Abstract error H X} and
chosing $\varrho = h^2$ finally gives
\[
\| u_{\varrho h} - \overline{u} \|_{L^2(Q)} \leq c \, h \,
\| \overline{u} \|_{H^1(Q)} .
\]
Next we consider $\overline{u} \in X \cap H^2(Q)$ which guarantees
$S \overline{u} \in L^2(Q)$.
Similar as above, but now using \eqref{Abstract error H Su} and
\eqref{Abstract error S Su}, we then obtain the estimates
\begin{eqnarray*}
\| u_{\varrho h} - \overline{u}\|_{L^2(Q)}^2
& \leq & 2 \, \| u_{\varrho h} - u_\varrho \|_{L^2(Q)}^2 +
2 \, \| u_\varrho - \overline{u} \|_{L^2(Q)}^2 \\
& \leq & 10 \, \varrho^2 \, \| S \overline{u} \|^2_{L^2(Q)}
+ 4 \inf\limits_{v_h \in X_h}
\Big[ \varrho \, \| \overline{u} - v_h \|^2_S +
\| \overline{u} - v_h \|^2_{L^2(Q)} \Big] \\
& \leq & c \,[\varrho^2 + \varrho h^2 + h^4] \,
\| \overline{u} \|_{H^2(Q)} \, .
\end{eqnarray*}
Here we have used the estimate
\[
\| S \overline{u} \|_{L^2(Q)} \leq c \, \| \overline{u} \|_{H^2(Q)}
\]
that can be shown by Fourier analysis; cf.
\cite{LSY:SteinbachZank:2020a}. Chosing $\varrho = h^2$ yields
\[
\| u_{\varrho h} - \overline{u} \|_{L^2(Q)} \leq c \, h^2 \,
\| \overline{u}\|_{H^2(Q)} \, .
\]
The general estimate for $s \in [0,1)$ and $s \in [1,2]$
now follows from a
space interpolation argument; see, e.g., \cite{LSY:Tartar:2007a}.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
Let us assume that $\overline{u} \in X \cap H^s(Q)$
for some $s \in [1,2]$. Then
there holds the error estimate
\begin{equation}\label{Error H1}
\| u_{\varrho h} - \overline{u} \|_X \leq c \,
h^{s-1} \|\overline{u}\|_{H^s(Q)} .
\end{equation}
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Let $P_h\overline{u} \in X_h$ be again Scott--Zhang's
interpolation of $\overline{u} \in H^1(Q)$.
Using an inverse inequality and standard
arguments we obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}
\| u_{\varrho h} - \overline{u} \|_X
& \leq & \| u_{\varrho h} - \overline{u} \|_{H^1(Q)} \\
& \leq & \| u_{\varrho h} - P_h \overline{u} \|_{H^1(Q)} +
\| P_h \overline{u} - \overline{u} \|_{H^1(Q)} \\
& \leq & c \, h^{-1} \, \| u_{\varrho h} - P_h \overline{u} \|_{L^2(Q)} +
c \, h^{s-1} \, \| \overline{u} \|_{H^s(Q)} \\
& \leq & c \, h^{-1} \, \Big[
\| u_{\varrho h} - \overline{u} \|_{L^2(Q)} +
\| \overline{u} - P_h \overline{u} \|_{L^2(Q)} \Big] +
c \, h^{s-1} \, \| \overline{u} \|_{H^s(Q)} \\
& \leq & c \, h^{s-1} \,
\| \overline{u} \|_{H^s(Q)} \, .
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}
\noindent
Since \eqref{VF parabolic S FEM} requires, for any given $ w \in X$,
the evaluation of $Sw = B^* A^{-1} B w$, we have to define
a suitable computable
approximation $\widetilde{S}w$. This can be done as follows.
For given $ w \in X$, we introduce $ p_w = A^{-1} B w \in Y$
as the unique solution of the variational formulation
\[
\langle A p_w , q \rangle_Q = \langle B w , q \rangle_Q \quad
\forall \, q \in Y .
\]
Let $p_{wh} \in Y_h \subset Y$ be the continuous, piecewise linear
space-time finite element approximation to $p_w \in Y$, satisfying
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:pwh}
\langle A p_{wh} , q_h \rangle_Q = \langle B w , q_h \rangle_Q \quad
\forall \, q_h \in Y_h .
\end{equation}
With this we define the approximate operator $\widetilde{S}w := B^* p_{wh}$
of $Sw = B^* p_w$. The boundedness of $B : X \to Y^*$ implies
\[
\| \widetilde{S} w \|_{X^*} = \| B^* p_{wh} \|_{X^*} \leq c_2^B \,
\| p_{wh} \|_X,
\]
while the ellipticity of $A : Y \to Y^*$ gives
\[
c_1^A \, \| p_{wh} \|^2_Y \leq \langle A p_{wh} , p_{wh} \rangle_Q =
\langle B w , p_{wh} \rangle_Q \leq c_2^B \, \| w \|_X \| p_{wh} \|_Y ,
\]
i.e.,
\[
\| p_{wh} \|_Y \leq \frac{c_2^B}{c_1^A} \, \| w \|_X \, .
\]
Hence, we conclude the boundedness of the approximate operator
$\widetilde{S} : X \to X^*$,
\begin{equation}\label{bound Stilde}
\| \widetilde{S} w \|_{X^*} \leq c_2^{\widetilde{S}} \, \| w \|_X \quad
\forall \, w \in X, \quad c_2^{\widetilde{S}} =
\frac{[c_2^B]^2}{c_1^A} = 2 .
\end{equation}
Instead of \eqref{VF parabolic S FEM}, we now
consider the perturbed variational formulation to find
$\widetilde{u}_{\varrho h} \in X_h$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{VF parabolic S FEM pert}
\varrho \, \langle \widetilde{S} \widetilde{u}_{\varrho h} , v_h \rangle_Q +
\langle \widetilde{u}_{\varrho h} , v_h \rangle_{L^2(Q)} =
\langle \overline{u} , v_h \rangle_{L^2(Q)}
\end{equation}
is satisfied for all $v_h \in X_h$. Unique solvability of
\eqref{VF parabolic S FEM pert} follows since the stiffness matrix
of $\widetilde{S}$ is positive semi-definite, while the mass
matrix, which is related to the inner product in $L^2(Q)$,
is positive definite.
\begin{lemma}\label{Lemma Error rho h}
Let $u_{\varrho h} \in X_h$ and $\widetilde{u}_{\varrho h} \in X_h$ be
the unique solutions of the variational formulations
\eqref{VF parabolic S FEM} and \eqref{VF parabolic S FEM pert},
respectively. Assume $\overline{u} \in X \cap H^1(Q)$. Then,
there holds the error estimate
\[
\| u_{\varrho h} - \widetilde{u}_{\varrho h} \|_{L^2(Q)} \leq
c \, h \, \| \overline{u} \|_{H^1(Q)} .
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The difference of the variational formulations
\eqref{VF parabolic S FEM} and \eqref{VF parabolic S FEM pert}
first gives the Galerkin orthogonality
\[
\varrho \, \langle S u_{\varrho h} -
\widetilde{S} \widetilde{u}_{\varrho h} , v_h \rangle_Q +
\langle u_{\varrho h} - \widetilde{u}_{\varrho h} , v_h \rangle_{L^2(Q)} = 0
\quad \forall \, v_h \in X_h ,
\]
which can be written as
\[
\varrho \, \langle \widetilde{S}
(\widetilde{u}_{\varrho h}-u_{\varrho h}) , v_h \rangle_Q
+
\langle \widetilde{u}_{\varrho h} - u_{\varrho h} , v_h \rangle_{L^2(Q)}
=
\varrho \, \langle (S - \widetilde{S}) u_{\varrho h} , v_h \rangle_Q
\quad \forall \, v_h \in X_h .
\]
In particular, chosing $v_h = \widetilde{u}_{\varrho h} - u_{\varrho h} \in X_h$,
using $\langle \widetilde{S} w , w \rangle_Q \geq 0$ for all $w \in X$,
applying an inverse inequality in $X_h$,
i.e., using the dual norm for $\| \partial_t v_h \|_{Y^*}$
and Friedrich's inequality \eqref{FriedrichsInequality},
we arrive at the estimates
\begin{eqnarray*}
\| \widetilde{u}_{\varrho h} - u_{\varrho h} \|^2_{L^2(Q)}
& \leq & \varrho \, \langle (S - \widetilde{S}) u_{\varrho h} ,
\widetilde{u}_{\varrho h} - u_{\varrho h} \rangle_Q \\
& \leq & \varrho \, \| (S-\widetilde{S}) u_{\varrho h} \|_{X^*}
\| \widetilde{u}_{\varrho h} - u_{\varrho h} \|_X \\
& \leq & c \, \varrho \, h^{-1} \,
\| (S-\widetilde{S}) u_{\varrho h} \|_{X^*}
\| \widetilde{u}_{\varrho h} - u_{\varrho h} \|_{L^2(Q)},
\end{eqnarray*}
i.e.,
\[
\| \widetilde{u}_{\varrho h} - u_{\varrho h} \|_{L^2(Q)} \leq
c \, \varrho \, h^{-1} \, \| (S-\widetilde{S}) u_{\varrho h} \|_{X^*} .
\]
Since $\overline{u} \in X$, we can further estimate
\begin{eqnarray*}
\| \widetilde{u}_{\varrho h} - u_{\varrho h} \|_{L^2(Q)}
& \leq & c \, \varrho \, h^{-1} \, \Big[
\| (S-\widetilde{S}) (u_{\varrho h}-\overline{u}) \|_{X^*} +
\| (S-\widetilde{S}) \overline{u} \|_{X^*} \Big] \\
& \leq & c \, \varrho \, h^{-1} \, \Big[
4 \, \| u_{\varrho h} - \overline{u} \|_X + \sqrt{2} \,
\| p_{\overline{u}} - p_{\overline{u} h} \|_Y \Big] \, ,
\end{eqnarray*}
where we used the boundedness of $S$ and $\widetilde{S}$.
We note that $p_{\overline{u}} = A^{-1} B \overline{u}$,
and $p_{\overline{u} h} \in Y_h$ solves \eqref{eqn:pwh} with
$w = \overline{u}$.
For $\overline{u} \in H^1(Q)$, we can use standard arguments as well as
\eqref{Norm X H1} to bound
\[
\| p_{\overline{u}} - p_{\overline{u} h} \|_Y \leq
\| p_{\overline{u}} \|_Y =
\| A^{-1} B \overline{u} \|_Y \leq \frac{c_2^B}{c_1^A} \,
\| \overline{u} \|_X \leq \sqrt{2} \,
\max \{ \sqrt{c_F} , 1 \} \, \| \overline{u} \|_{H^1(Q)} ,
\]
and using \eqref{Error H1} for $s=1$ we finally obtain, using
$\varrho = h^2$,
\[
\| \widetilde{u}_{\varrho h} - u_{\varrho h} \|_{L^2(Q)} \, \leq \,
c \, h \, \| \overline{u} \|_{H^1(Q)} .
\]
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}
Assume $\overline{u} \in [L^2(Q),X]_s \cap H^s(Q)$ for $s \in [0,1]$,
and $\varrho = h^2$. Then,
\begin{equation}\label{final estimate 0 1}
\| \widetilde{u}_{\varrho h} - \overline{u} \|_{L^2(Q)} \leq
c \, h^s \, \|\overline{u} \|_{H^s(Q)} .
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
For $s = 1$ the assertion is an immediate consequence of
Theorem \ref{Theorem1} and Lemma \ref{Lemma Error rho h}.
Now we consider \eqref{VF parabolic S FEM pert} for
$v_h = \widetilde{u}_{\varrho h} $,
\[
\varrho \, \langle \widetilde{S} \widetilde{u}_{\varrho h} ,
\widetilde{u}_{\varrho h} \rangle_Q +
\langle \widetilde{u}_{\varrho h} - \overline{u} ,
\widetilde{u}_{\varrho h} - \overline{u} \rangle_{L^2(Q)} =
\langle \overline{u} - \widetilde{u}_{\varrho h} ,
\overline{u} \rangle_{L^2(Q)} ,
\]
from which we immediately conclude
\[
\| \widetilde{u}_{\varrho h} - \overline{u} \|_{L^2(Q)} \leq
\| \overline{u} \|_{L^2(Q)} .
\]
The assertion then again follows by a space interpolation argument.
\end{proof}
\noindent
The error estimate as given in \eqref{final estimate 0 1} covers
in particular the case when the target is either discontinuous, or
does not satisfy the required boundary or initial conditions.
It remains to consider the case when the target $\overline{u}$ is
smooth. As in the proof of Lemma \ref{Lemma Error rho h}, and
using \eqref{Error H1} for $s=2$, we now have, recall $\varrho = h^2$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\| \widetilde{u}_{\varrho h} - u_{\varrho h} \|_{L^2(Q)}
& \leq & c \, \varrho \, h^{-1} \, \Big[
4 \, \| u_{\varrho h} - \overline{u} \|_X + \sqrt{2} \,
\| p_{\overline{u}} - p_{\overline{u} h} \|_Y \Big] \\
& \leq & c_1 \, h^2 \, \| \overline{u} \|_{H^2(Q)} + c_2 \, h \,
\| p_{\overline{u}} - p_{\overline{u} h} \|_Y \, .
\end{eqnarray*}
When using the approximation result as given in
\cite[Theorem 3.3]{LSY:Steinbach:2015a} we have
\begin{equation}\label{space time FEM error Y}
\| p_{\overline{u}} - p_{\overline{u} h} \|_Y \leq c \, h \,
\| p_{\overline{u}} \|_{H^2(Q)},
\end{equation}
i.e., we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{final estimate 2 p}
\| \widetilde{u}_{\varrho h} - u_{\varrho h} \|_{L^2(Q)}
\leq c \, h^2 \, \Big[ \| \overline{u} \|_{H^2(Q)} +
\| p_{\overline{u}} \|_{H^2(Q)} \Big] .
\end{equation}
While the error estimate \eqref{space time FEM error Y} holds for any
admissible decomposition of the space-time domain $Q$ into simplicial
finite elements, in addition to $\overline{u} \in X \cap H^2(Q)$, we have
to assume $p_{\overline{u}} = A^{-1} B \overline{u} \in H^2(Q)$,
i.e., $\overline{u} \in H^{2,3}(Q)$. This additional regularity requirement
in time is due to the finite element error estimate
\eqref{space time FEM error Y} which does not reflect the anisotropic
behavior in space and time of the norm in $Y=L^2(0,T;H^1_0(\Omega))$.
However, and as already discussed in \cite[Corollary 4.2]{LSY:Steinbach:2015a},
we can improve the error estimate \eqref{space time FEM error Y} under
additional assumptions on the underlying space-time finite element mesh.
In fact, when considering as in \cite[Section 4]{LSY:Steinbach:2015a}
right-angled space-time finite elements, or space-time tensor product
meshes, instead of \eqref{space time FEM error Y} we obtain the error
estimate
\begin{equation}\label{space time FEM error Y improved}
\| p_{\overline{u}} - p_{\overline{u} h} \|_Y \leq c \, h \,
| \nabla_x p_{\overline{u}} |_{H^1(Q)},
\end{equation}
when assuming $\nabla_x p_{\overline{u}} \in H^1(Q)$ for
$p_{\overline{u}} = A^{-1} B \overline{u} $,, i.e., there are no
second order time derivatives yet. This is the reason to further conclude
the bound
\[
\| p_{\overline{u}} - p_{\overline{u} h} \|_Y \leq c \, h \,
\| \overline{u} \|_{H^2(Q)},
\]
and hence,
\begin{equation}\label{final estimate 2 p improved}
\| \widetilde{u}_{\varrho h} - u_{\varrho h} \|_{L^2(Q)}
\leq c \, h^2 \, \| \overline{u} \|_{H^2(Q)}
\end{equation}
follows, when assuming $\overline{u} \in X \cap H^2(Q)$. Now,
interpolating \eqref{final estimate 0 1} for $s=1$ and
\eqref{final estimate 2 p improved}, we conclude
\begin{equation}\label{final estimate 1 2}
\| \widetilde{u}_{\varrho h} - u_{\varrho h} \|_{L^2(Q)}
\leq c \, h^s \, \| \overline{u} \|_{H^s(Q)} \quad
\mbox{for} \; \overline{u} \in X \cap H^s(Q), \; s \in [1,2]
\end{equation}
that together with estimate \eqref{Th1Estimate} from Theorem~\ref{Theorem1}
finally gives
\begin{equation}\label{FinalEstimate0s}
\| \widetilde{u}_{\varrho h} - \overline{u} \|_{L^2(Q)}
\leq c \, h^s \, \| \overline{u} \|_{H^s(Q)}.
\end{equation}
While we can prove this result for some structured space-time finite element
meshes only, numerical experiments indicate that \eqref{FinalEstimate0s}
remains true for any admissible decomposition
of the space-time domain into simplicial finite elements.
\section{Numerical results}
\label{sec:NumericalResults}
In the numerical experiments, we choose the spatial domain $\Omega=(0,1)^n$
with $n=2$ (Subsection~\ref{subsec:2d}) and $n=3$
(Subsection~\ref{subsec:3d}), and final time $T=1$,
resulting in the $n+1$-dimensional space-time cylinder $Q = (0,1)^{n+1}$.
We follow the space-time finite element method on fully
unstructured simplicial meshes as considered in
\cite{LSY:LangerSteinbachTroeltzschYang:2021c} for the coupled
optimality system of the parabolic distributed control problem
\eqref{Parabolic minimization problem}. This finally leads to the solution
of a saddle-point system that is nothing but the discrete version of
\eqref{rOS}:
Find the nodal parameter vectors $\underline{p} \in \mathbb{R}^{M_Y}$
($M_Y = \text{dim}(Y_h)$)
and $\underline{u} \in \mathbb{R}^{M_X}$ ($M_X = \text{dim}(X_h)$)
such that
\begin{equation}
\label{saddle-point system}
\begin{pmatrix} \varrho^{-1} A_h & B_h \\
B_h^\top & - M_h
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix} \underline{p} \\ \underline{u} \end{pmatrix} =
\begin{pmatrix} \underline{0} \\ -\underline{f} \end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
where the finite element matrices $A_h$, $B_h$, and $M_h$
correspond to the bilinear forms \eqref{Definition_A} and
\eqref{Definition_B}, and to the $L_2(Q)$ inner product, respectively.
The matrices $A_h \in {\mathbb{R}}^{M_Y \times M_Y}$ and
$M_h \in {\mathbb{R}}^{M_X \times M_X}$ are symmetric and positive definite,
while the matrix $B_h \in {\mathbb{R}}^{M_Y \times M_X}$ is in general
rectangular.
The load vector $\underline{f} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{N_X}$ is computed from
the given target $\overline{u}$ as usual. We mention that the symmetric,
but indefinite system \eqref{saddle-point system} is equivalent to solving the
related Schur complement system
\[
\left( \varrho B_h^\top A_h^{-1} B_h + M_h \right)
\underline{u} = \underline{f}
\]
that corresponds to \eqref{VF parabolic S FEM pert}. Here, the symmetric
but indefinite system \eqref{saddle-point system} is simply solved by
the ILU(0) preconditioned GMRES method;
see \cite{LSY:LangerSteinbachTroeltzschYang:2021c}.
We stop the GMRES iteration when the
relative residual error of the preconditioned system is reduced by a factor
$10^8$.
\subsection{Two space dimensions}
\label{subsec:2d}
In the first example (Example~4.1.1), we consider the smooth target
\begin{equation}\label{Example 1}
\overline{u}(x,t)=\sin(\pi x_1)\sin(\pi x_2)\sin(\pi t)
\end{equation}
where we can apply the error estimate \eqref{final estimate 2 p}.
As predicted, we observe a second order convergence with respect to the
mesh size $h$ when choosing $\varrho=h^2$; see Table~\ref{tab:ex2smoothtar}.
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|ll|}
\hline
$h$ & $\varrho \,(=h^2)$&
$\|\widetilde{u}_{\varrho h}-\overline{u}\|_{L^2(Q)}$ & eoc \\ \hline
$2^{-2}$& $2^{-4}$ & $2.2380$e$-1$& \\
$2^{-3}$& $2^{-6}$ & $9.0449$e$-2$&$1.31$ \\
$2^{-4}$& $2^{-8}$ & $2.6491$e$-2$&$1.77$ \\
$2^{-5}$& $2^{-10}$ & $6.9335$e$-3$&$1.93$\\
$2^{-6}$& $2^{-12}$ & $1.7613$e$-3$&$1.98$\\
$2^{-7}$& $2^{-14}$& $4.4352$e$-4$&$1.99$\\
$2^{-8}$& $2^{-16}$ & $1.0600$e$-4$&$2.06$\\
$2^{-9}$& $2^{-18}$ & $2.6836$e$-5$&$1.98$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Error $\|\widetilde{u}_{\varrho h}-\overline{u}\|_{L^2(Q)}$
in the case of a smooth target $\overline{u}$ given by
\eqref{Example 1} (Example~4.1.1).}
\label{tab:ex2smoothtar}
\end{table}
As a second example (Example~4.1.2), we consider a piecewise linear continuous
function $\overline{u}$ being one at the mid point
$(1/2,1/2,1/2)$, and zero in all corner points of $Q=(0,1)^3$.
In this case, we have $\overline{u} \in X \cap H^{3/2-\varepsilon}(Q)$,
$\varepsilon >0$, and we observe $1.5$ as
the order of convergence, see Table~\ref{tab:ex2contar}, which
corresponds to the error estimate \eqref{final estimate 1 2}.
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|ll|}
\hline
$h$ & $\varrho \,(=h^2)$& $\|\widetilde{u}_{\varrho h}-\overline{u}\|_{L^2(Q)}$ & eoc \\ \hline
$2^{-2}$& $2^{-4}$ & $2.0231$e$-1$& \\
$2^{-3}$& $2^{-6}$ & $9.1319$e$-2$&$1.15$\\
$2^{-4}$& $2^{-8}$ & $3.4303$e$-2$&$1.41$\\
$2^{-5}$& $2^{-10}$ & $1.2428$e$-2$&$1.46$\\
$2^{-6}$& $2^{-12}$ & $4.4443$e$-3$&$1.48$\\
$2^{-7}$& $2^{-14}$ & $1.5797$e$-3$&$1.49$\\
$2^{-8}$& $2^{-16}$ & $5.5868$e$-4$&$1.50$\\
$2^{-9}$& $2^{-18}$ & $1.9786$e$-4$&$1.50$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Error $\|\widetilde{u}_{\varrho h}-\overline{u}\|_{L^2(Q)}$ in
the case of a piecewise
linear continuous target $\overline{u} \in X \cap H^{3/2-\varepsilon}(Q)$,
$\varepsilon > 0$ (Example~4.1.2).}
\label{tab:ex2contar}
\end{table}
As a third example (Example~4.1.3), we take
a piecewise constant discontinuous
target $\overline{u}$ which is one in the inscribed cube
$(\frac{1}{4},\frac{3}{4})^3$, and zero elsewhere.
In this case, we have
$\overline{u} \in H^{1/2-\varepsilon}(Q)$, $\varepsilon >0$.
From the numerical results given in Table \ref{tab:ex2tardiscon},
we observe $0.5$ for the order of convergence, as expected from the
error estimate \eqref{final estimate 0 1}. In this example, since the
target $\overline{u}$ is discontinuous, we may apply an adaptive refinement
based on the residual type error indicator as used in
\cite{LSY:LangerSteinbachTroeltzschYang:2021c}.
We compare the errors and number of degrees of freedom using both uniform and
adaptive refinements in Table \ref{tab:ex2tardisconadapt}, with respect to the
regularization parameter $\varrho$. We clearly see that for each
regularization parameter $\varrho$,
the adaptive refinement requires less degrees of freedom to reach a similar
accuracy as for uniform refinements.
In Figure~\ref{fig:ex2distarvis}, we plot the state $u$, the adjoint state
$p$, and the control $z$ at time $t=0.5$, and the adaptive meshes in
space-time. For comparison of the results with different regularization
terms, we refer to
the numerical results in \cite{LSY:LangerSteinbachTroeltzschYang:2021c}.
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|ll|}
\hline
$h$ & $\varrho \,(=h^2)$& $\|\widetilde{u}_{\varrho h}-\overline{u}\|_{L^2(Q)}$ & eoc \\ \hline
$2^{-2}$& $2^{-4}$ & $2.8840$e$-1$& \\
$2^{-3}$& $2^{-6}$ & $2.0871$e$-1$&$0.47$\\
$2^{-4}$& $2^{-8}$ & $1.4793$e$-1$&$0.50$\\
$2^{-5}$& $2^{-10}$ & $1.0473$e$-1$&$0.50$\\
$2^{-6}$& $2^{-12}$ & $7.4108$e$-2$&$0.50$\\
$2^{-7}$& $2^{-14}$ & $5.2425$e$-2$&$0.50$\\
$2^{-8}$& $2^{-16}$ & $3.7079$e$-2$&$0.50$\\
$2^{-9}$& $2^{-18}$ & $2.6219$e$-2$&$0.50$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Error $\|\widetilde{u}_{\varrho h}-\overline{u}\|_{L^2(Q)}$
in the case of a
discontinuous target $\overline{u}\in H^{1/2-\varepsilon}(Q)$,
$\varepsilon>0$ (EXample~4.1.3).}
\label{tab:ex2tardiscon}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|lll|ll|}
\hline
& \multicolumn{3}{l|}{uniform refinement}&\multicolumn{2}{l|}{adaptive
refinement} \\
\hline
$\varrho $&
$h = \varrho^{1/2}$
& \#DOFs & $\|\widetilde{u}_{\varrho h}-\overline{u}\|_{L^2(Q)}$&\#DOFs&$\|\widetilde{u}_{\varrho
h}-\overline{u}\|_{L^2(Q)}$
\\ \hline
$2^{-4}$& $2^{-2}$ &$250$& $2.8840$e$-1$&$250$&$2.8840$e$-1$ \\
$2^{-6}$& $2^{-3}$ &$1,458$& $2.0871$e$-1$&$1,230$&$2.0873$e$-1$\\
$2^{-8}$& $2^{-4}$ &$9,826$& $1.4793$e$-1$&$9,948$&$1.3999$e$-1$\\
$2^{-10}$& $2^{-5}$ &$71,874$& $1.0473$e$-1$&$34,998$&$1.0153$e$-1$\\
$2^{-12}$& $2^{-6}$ &$549,250$& $7.4108$e$-2$&$230,154$&$7.2804$e$-2$\\
$2^{-14}$& $2^{-7}$ &$4,293,378$& $5.2425$e$-2$&$1,526,400$&$5.1838$e$-2$\\
$2^{-16}$& $2^{-8}$ &$33,949,186$& $3.7079$e$-2$&$6,196,200$&$3.6609$e$-2$\\
$2^{-18}$& $2^{-9}$ &$270,011,394$& $2.6219$e$-2$&$31,419,720$&$2.5824$e$-2$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Comparison of the error
$\|\widetilde{u}_{\varrho h}-\overline{u}\|_{L^2(Q)}$
and the number of degrees of freedoms
in the case of a discontinuous target
$\overline{u}\in H^{1/2-\varepsilon}(Q)$, $\varepsilon >0$,
when using both uniform and adaptive refinements (Example~4.1.3).}
\label{tab:ex2tardisconadapt}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{ex2distarvisU.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{ex2distarvisP.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{ex2distarvisZ.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{ex2distarvisMesh.png}
\caption{Visualization of the state $u_\varrho$, the adjoint state
$p_\varrho$, the control $z_\varrho$, and
the adaptive mesh on the cutting plane at time $t=0.5$, where the total
\#DOFs in space-time is $3,328,617$ at the $58$th adaptive level
from $67$ levels (last line in Table~\ref{tab:ex2tardisconadapt})
corresponding to the regularization parameter $\varrho=2^{-18}$
(Example~4.1.3).}
\label{fig:ex2distarvis}
\end{figure}
In the last example (Example~4.1.4) of this subsection,
we consider the discontinuous target
\begin{equation}\label{Example noise}
\overline{u}^\delta =
\overline{u}+2\sqrt{2}\delta\sin(10\pi x_1)\sin(10\pi x_2)\sin(10\pi t),
\end{equation}
that contains some noise in space and time. Here, $\overline{u}$
is one in the inscribed cube $(1/4,3/4)^3 \subset (0,1)^3$ and zero else,
and $\delta > 0$ is the noise level. For this polluted target, we easily
see that $\|\overline{u}^\delta-\overline{u}\|_{L^2(Q)}=\delta$. To balance
the two error contributions we take $h=16 \, \delta^2$. This ensures an
almost optimal convergence with respect to the mesh size $h$, see
Table \ref{tab:ex2tardisconnoise1}.
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|ll|}
\hline
$\delta$ & $h\, \left(=16\cdot\delta^2\right)$ & $\varrho
\,\left(=h^2\right)$&
$\|\widetilde{u}_{\varrho h}^\delta-\overline{u}\|_{L^2(Q)}$ & eoc \\ \hline
$2^{-3}$&$2^{-2}$ & $2^{-4}$ & $2.8841$e$-1$& \\
$2^{-3.5}$&$2^{-3}$ &$2^{-6}$ & $2.0871$e$-1$&$0.47$ \\
$2^{-4}$&$2^{-4}$&$2^{-8}$ & $1.4796$e$-1$&$0.50$ \\
$2^{-4.5}$&$2^{-5}$&$2^{-10}$ & $1.0535$e$-1$&$0.49$\\
$2^{-5}$&$2^{-6}$&$2^{-12}$ & $7.6837$e$-2$&$0.46$\\
$2^{-5.5}$&$2^{-7}$ &$2^{-14}$ & $5.5990$e$-2$&$0.46$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Error $\|\widetilde{u}_{\varrho h}^\delta-\overline{u}\|_{L^2(Q)}$
in the case of a
discontinuous target $\overline{u}\in H^{1/2-\varepsilon}(Q)$
containing some noise level $\delta$ (Example~4.1.4).}
\label{tab:ex2tardisconnoise1}
\end{table}
\subsection{Three space dimensions}
\label{subsec:3d}
Now we present some numerical results for the three-dimensional
spatial domain $\Omega = (0,1)^3$, i.e., $Q=(0,1)^4$.
In the first example (Example~4.2.1), we look at
the smooth target
\begin{equation}\label{Example 3D 1}
\overline{u}(x,t) =
\sin(\pi x_1)\sin(\pi x_2)\sin(\pi x_3)\sin(\pi t) .
\end{equation}
As predicted by the error estimate \eqref{final estimate 2 p},
we observe a second order convergence with respect to the
mesh size $h$ when choosing $\varrho=h^2$; see Table~\ref{tab:ex2smoothtar4D}
and Figure~\ref{fig:ex2smoothtar4D}.
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
N(\#DOFs)&$h=(N/2)^{-1/4}$ & $\varrho \,(=h^2)$& $\|\widetilde{u}_{\varrho h}-\overline{u}\|_{L^2(Q)}$ \\ \hline
$356$&$2.7378$e$-1$& $7.4953$e$-2$ & $2.0985$e$-1$ \\
$630$&$2.3737$e$-1$& $5.6344$e$-2$ & $1.7263$e$-1$ \\
$2,986$&$1.6087$e$-1$& $2.5880$e$-2$ & $1.2166$e$-1$\\
$6,930$&$1.3034$e$-1$& $1.6988$e$-2$ & $9.3733$e$-2$\\
$38,114$&$8.5111$e$-2$& $7.2439$e$-3$ & $4.7198$e$-2$\\
$94,146$&$6.7890$e$-2$& $4.6091$e$-3$ & $3.2098$e$-2$\\
$546,562$&$4.3737$e$-2$& $1.9129$e$-3$ & $1.4088$e$-2$\\
$1,400,322$&$3.4570$e$-2$& $1.1951$e$-3$ & $8.8652$e$-3$\\
$8,289,026$&$2.2163$e$-2$& $4.9121$e$-4$ & $3.7164$e$-3$\\
$21,657,090$&$1.7432$e$-2$& $3.0389$e$-4$ & $2.2967$e$-3$\\
$129,165,826$&$1.1155$e$-2$& $1.2444$e$-4$ & $9.5061$e$-4$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Error $\| \widetilde{u}_{\varrho h}-\overline{u}\|_{L^2(Q)}$
in the case of the smooth target $\overline{u}$ given
by \eqref{Example 3D 1} (Example~4.2.1).}
\label{tab:ex2smoothtar4D}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{ex2smoothtar4D.png}
\caption{Error
$\|e\|_{L^2(Q)}=\|\widetilde{u}_{\varrho h}-\overline{u}\|_{L^2(Q)}$ in
the case of a smooth desired state
$\overline{u}\in H_0^1(Q)\cap H^2(Q)$ in three
space dimensions (Example~4.2.1).}
\label{fig:ex2smoothtar4D}
\end{figure}
In the second example (Example~4.2.2), we take
a piecewise linear
continuous target function $\overline{u}$ being one in the mid point
$(1/2, 1/2, 1/2, 1/2)$ and zero in all corner points of $Q=(0,1)^4$.
In this case we have $\overline{u}\in X\cap H^{3/2-\varepsilon}$,
$\varepsilon > 0$, and we
observe $1.5$ as order of convergence which corresponds to the
error estimate \eqref{final estimate 1 2}, see
Table \ref{tab:ex2contar4D} and Figure~\ref{fig:ex2contar4D}.
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
N(\#DOFs)&$h=(N/2)^{-1/4}$ & $\varrho \,(=h^2)$& $\|\widetilde{u}_{\varrho h}-\overline{u}\|_{L^2(Q)}$ \\ \hline
$356$&$2.7378$e$-1$& $7.4953$e$-2$ & $2.1510$e$-1$ \\
$630$&$2.3737$e$-1$& $5.6344$e$-2$ & $1.7972$e$-1$ \\
$2,986$&$1.6087$e$-1$& $2.5880$e$-2$ & $1.3082$e$-1$\\
$6,930$&$1.3034$e$-1$& $1.6988$e$-2$ & $1.0510$e$-1$\\
$38,114$&$8.5111$e$-2$& $7.2439$e$-3$ & $6.1638$e$-2$\\
$94,146$&$6.7890$e$-2$& $4.6091$e$-3$ & $4.5864$e$-2$\\
$546,562$&$4.3737$e$-2$& $1.9129$e$-3$ & $2.4759$e$-2$\\
$1,400,322$&$3.4570$e$-2$& $1.1951$e$-3$ & $1.7766$e$-2$\\
$8,289,026$&$2.2163$e$-2$& $4.9121$e$-4$ & $9.2755$e$-3$\\
$21,657,090$&$1.7432$e$-2$& $3.0389$e$-4$ & $6.5280$e$-3$\\
$129,165,826$&$1.1155$e$-2$& $1.2444$e$-4$ & $3.3636$e$-3$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Error $\|\widetilde{u}_{\varrho h}-\overline{u}\|_{L^2(Q)}$ in the
case of a
piecewise linear continuous target $\overline{u}\in
X \cap H^{3/2-\varepsilon}(Q)$, $\varepsilon > 0$ (Example~4.2.2).}
\label{tab:ex2contar4D}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{ex2contar4D.png}
\caption{Error
$\|e\|_{L^2(Q)}=\|\widetilde{u}_{\varrho h} - \overline{u}\|_{L^2(Q)}$ in
the case of a piecewise linear continuous target $\overline{u}\in
X \cap H^{3/2-\varepsilon}(Q)$, $\varepsilon > 0$ (Example~4.2.2).}
\label{fig:ex2contar4D}
\end{figure}
In the third example (Example~4.2.3), we consider a piecewise constant discontinuous
target $\overline{u}$ which is one in the inscribed cube
$(\frac{1}{4},\frac{3}{4})^4$, and zero else. In this case we have
$\overline{u} \in H^{1/2-\varepsilon}(Q)$, $\varepsilon >0$.
From the numerical results as given in Table \ref{tab:ex2tardiscon4D}
we observe $0.5$ for the order of convergence, as expected from the
error estimate \eqref{final estimate 0 1}, see also
Figure~\ref{fig:ex2tardiscon4D}.
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
N(\#DOFs)&$h=(N/2)^{-1/4}$ & $\varrho \,(=h^2)$& $\|\widetilde{u}_{\varrho h}-\overline{u}\|_{L^2(Q)}$ \\ \hline
$356$&$2.7378$e$-1$& $7.4953$e$-2$ & $2.5099$e$-1$ \\
$630$&$2.3737$e$-1$& $5.6344$e$-2$ & $1.9143$e$-1$ \\
$2,986$&$1.6087$e$-1$& $2.5880$e$-2$ & $1.8823$e$-1$\\
$6,930$&$1.3034$e$-1$& $1.6988$e$-2$ & $1.7500$e$-1$\\
$38,114$&$8.5111$e$-2$& $7.2439$e$-3$ & $1.4710$e$-1$\\
$94,146$&$6.7890$e$-2$& $4.6091$e$-3$ & $1.3313$e$-1$\\
$546,562$&$4.3737$e$-2$& $1.9129$e$-3$ & $1.0558$e$-1$\\
$1,400,322$& $3.4570$e$-2$ &$1.1951$e$-3$ &$9.6592$e$-2$\\
$8,289,026$&$2.2163$e$-2$& $4.9121$e$-4$ & $7.7744$e$-2$\\
$21,657,090$&$1.7432$e$-2$& $3.0389$e$-4$ & $6.8891$e$-2$\\
$129,165,826$&$1.1155$e$-2$& $1.2444$e$-4$ & $5.5284$e$-2$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Error $\|\widetilde{u}_{\varrho h}-\overline{u}\|_{L^2(Q)}$
in the case of a
piecewise constant and discontinuous target $\overline{u}\in
H^{1/2-\varepsilon}(Q)$, $\varepsilon>0$ (Example~4.2.3).}
\label{tab:ex2tardiscon4D}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{ex2discontar4D.png}
\caption{Error
$\|e\|_{L^2(Q)}=\|\widetilde{u}_{\varrho h}-\overline{u}\|_{L^2(Q)}$ in
the case of a piecewise constant and discontinuous target $\overline{u}\in
H^{1/2-\varepsilon}(Q)$, $\varepsilon > 0$ (Example~4.2.3).}
\label{fig:ex2tardiscon4D}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions and outlook}
\label{sec:ConclusionsOutlook}
We have derived robust space-time finite element error estimates for
distributed parabolic optimal control problems with energy regularization.
More precisely, we have estimated the $L^2(Q)$ norm of the
error between the desired state $\overline{u}$ and the computed state
$\widetilde{u}_{\varrho h}$ depending on the regularity of the desired
state $\overline{u}$. It has been shown that the optimal convergence rate
is achieved by the proper scaling $\varrho=h^2$ between the regularization
parameter $\varrho$ and the mesh size $h$. The theoretical findings are
confirmed by several numerical examples in both two and three space
dimensions.
The theoretical results are valid for uniform mesh refinement. However, for
discontinuous targets $\overline{u}$ and targets that don't fulfil the
boundary or initial conditions, we can expect layers with steep gradients
in the solutions as in Example~4.2.3. In this example, we have observed
that, for a fixed $\varrho=h^2$, the adaptive version needs considerably
less unknowns to achieve the same accuracy as the corresponding uniformly
refined grid with the finest mesh-size $h$.
Since, for adaptively refined grids, the local mesh-sizes are very different,
one can also think about a localization of the regularization parameter
$\varrho$. Another future research topic is the construction of fast and
$\varrho$ robust solvers
for the symmetric and indefinite system \eqref{saddle-point system}
that is equivalent to \eqref{VF parabolic S FEM pert};
see, e.g., \cite{LSY:BenziGolubLiesen:2005a,LSY:SchoeberlZulehner:2007a,LSY:SchulzWittum:2008a,LSY:Zulehner:2011a}.
Finally, the consideration of constraints imposed on the control $z_\varrho$
is of practical interest; see, e.g., \cite{LSY:Troeltzsch:2010a}.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
The authors would like to acknowledge the computing support of the
supercomputer MACH--2\footnote{https://www3.risc.jku.at/projects/mach2/}
from Johannes Kepler Universit\"{a}t Linz and of the high performance
computing cluster Radon1\footnote{https://www.oeaw.ac.at/ricam/hpc}
from Johann Radon Institute for Computational and Applied Mathematics
(RICAM) on which the numerical examples are performed.
The first and the third author were partially supported by RICAM.
|
\section{Derivations} \label{app:deriv}
\input{appendix/a1_rbp}
\input{appendix/a2_gp}
\input{appendix/a3_mean}
\input{appendix/a4_regr}
\subsection{Derivation of AR-BP} \label{app:ar-deriv}
For illustration purposes, we first start by summarising the derivation of the update without autoregression, closely following Appendix E.1.2 in \citet{fong2021martingale}.
\subsubsection{No Autoregression (R-BP)} \label{Appendix:multivariate}
The multivariate DPMM with factorized kernel has the form
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
f_G({x}) = \int \prod_{j=1}^d\mathcal{N}(x^j \mid \theta^j,1) \, dG({\theta}),\quad
G \sim \text{DP}\left(a, G_0 \right), \quad G_0({\theta}) = \prod_{j=1}^d\mathcal{N}(\theta^j \mid 0,\tau^{-1}).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
Given
\begin{align*}
p_i(x) = p_{i-1}(x)h_i(x, x_i),
\end{align*}
\citet{hahn2018recursive} and \citet{fong2021martingale} derive the predictive density updates for R-BP by initally only considering the first step update $h_1$
$$p_{1}(x) = p_{0}(x)h_1(x, x_1)\cdot$$
From
\begin{align*}
h_i(x, x_i) = &\frac{\int f(x|\theta)f(x_i|\theta)\pi_{i-1}(\theta) d\theta}{\int f(x|\theta)\pi_{i-1}(\theta)d\theta\int f(x_n|\theta)\pi_{i-1}(\theta)d\theta}, %
\end{align*}
it follows that
\begin{align}\label{eq:mv_num}
h_1(x, x_1) = \frac{E\left[ f_G({x})\, f_G({x}_1) \right]}{p_0({x})\, p_0({x}_1)}
\end{align}
where the expectation is over $G$ coming from the prior. Following the stick-breaking representation of the DP, \citet{fong2021martingale} write $G$ as
$$
G = \sum_{k=1}^\infty w_k \, \delta_{{\theta}^*_k}
$$
where $w_k = v_k \prod_{j< k} \{1-v_j\}$, $v_k \iid \text{Beta}(1,a)$ and ${\theta}^*_k \iid G_0$.
\citet{fong2021martingale} then derive the numerator as
\begin{align*}
&E\left[ \sum_{j=1}^\infty \sum_{k=1}^\infty w_j \,w_k\, K({x} \mid {\theta}^*_j)\, K({x}_1 \mid {\theta}^*_k) \right] %
\\&=\left(1-E\left[ \sum_{k=1}^\infty w_k^2\right]\right)E\left[ K({x} \mid {\theta}^*) \right] E\left[ K({x}_1 \mid {\theta}^*) \right] + E\left[ \sum_{k=1}^\infty w_k^2\right] E\left[ K({x} \mid {\theta}^*)\, K({x}_1 \mid {\theta}^*) \right]
\end{align*}
where they have used the fact that $\sum_{k=1}^\infty w_k = 1$ almost surely.
As $p_0({x}) = E\left[ K({x} \mid {\theta}^*) \right]$, it follows that \eqref{eq:mv_num} can be expressed as
$$
1-\alpha_1 + \alpha_1 \frac{E\left[ K({x} \mid {\theta}^*) \, K({x}_1 \mid {\theta}^*) \right] }{p_0({x}) \, p_0({x}_1)} \cdot
$$
for some fixed $\alpha_1$.
For R-BP, the kernel $K$ factorises with independent priors on each dimension, and $p_0({x}) = \prod_{j=1}^d p_0(x^j) = \prod_{j=1}^d \mathcal{N}(x^j \mid 0,1 +\tau^{-1})$, so
\begin{align}
\frac{E\left[ K({x} \mid {\theta}^*) \, K({x}_1 \mid {\theta}^*) \right] }{p_0({x})\, p_0({x}_1)} = \prod_{j=1}^d \frac{E\left[ K(x^j \mid \theta^{*j}) \, K({x}^j_1 \mid {\theta^{*j}}) \right] }{p_0({x}^j) \, p_0({x}^j_1)}\cdot \label{eq:jointexp}
\end{align}
\citet{fong2021martingale} then show that each univariate term corresponds to the bivariate Gaussian copula density, $$c(u,v; \rho) = \frac{\mathcal{N}_2\left\{\Phi^{-1}(u),\Phi^{-1}(v) \mid 0,1,\rho \right\} }{\mathcal{N}\left\{\Phi^{-1}(u)\mid 0,1\right\}\mathcal{N}\left\{\Phi^{-1}(v)\mid 0,1\right\}},$$
where $\Phi$ is the normal \gls{cdf}, and $\mathcal{N}_2$ is the standard bivariate density with correlation parameter $\rho = 1/(1+\tau)$. They then suggest an alternative sequence $h_i$ which iteratively repeats $h_1$, with the key feature that $\alpha_i=(2-\frac{1}{i})\frac{1}{i+1}$. See Appendix E.1.1. in \cite{fong2021martingale} for a derivation of this sequence $\alpha_i$.
\subsubsection{With Autoregression (AR-BP)}
For the derivation of the AR-BP update, we can follow the arguments in the previous section until \eqref{eq:jointexp} where the factorised kernel assumption applies for the first time. For AR-BP, we instead have
\begin{align}
\frac{E\left[ K({x} \mid {\theta}^*) \, K({x}_1 \mid {\theta}^*) \right] }{p_0({x})\, p_0({x}_1)} = \prod_{j=1}^d \frac{E\left[ K\{x^j \mid \theta^{*j}(x^{1:j-1}) \}\, K\{{x}^j_1 \mid {\theta^{*j}(x^{1:j-1})\}} \right] }{p_0({x}^j) \, p_0({x}^j_1)}\cdot %
\end{align}
The factorisation of the denominator follows from
$$p_0({x})=E\left[\prod_{j=1}^d K\{x^j \mid \theta^{*j}(x^{1:j-1})\} \right] = \prod_{j=1}^d E\left[K\{x^j \mid \theta^{*j}(x^{1:j-1})\} \right]$$
as we have independent GP priors on each function $\theta^{*j}$. For notational convenience we write $\{y,x\}$ in place of $\{x^j, x^{1:j-1}\}$ in the following.
With the autoregressive kernel assumption, there is the additional complexity
$$
E\left[\mathcal{N}\{y \mid \theta(x), 1\}\, \mathcal{N}\{y_1 \mid \theta(x_1), 1\} \right]
$$
where $\theta(\cdot) \sim\text{GP}\{0,\tau^{-1}k\}$. The marginal distribution of the GP is normal, so we have
$$\left[ \theta(x), \theta(x_1)\right]^\T \sim \mathcal{N}_2(x, x_1 \mid 0, \Sigma_{x,x_1})$$
where
$$
\Sigma_{x,x_1} = \begin{bmatrix}\tau^{-1} &\tau^{-1} k(x,x_1) \\\tau^{-1} k(x,x_1) & \tau^{-1}
\end{bmatrix}\cdot
$$
Again from the conjugacy of the normal, we can show that
$$
E\left[\mathcal{N}\{y \mid \theta(x), 1\} \mathcal{N}\{y_1 \mid \theta(x_1), 1\} \right] = \mathcal{N}(y,y_1 \mid 0, K_{x,x_1})
$$
where
$$
K_{x,x_1} = \begin{bmatrix} 1+\tau^{-1} &\tau^{-1} k(x,x_1) \\\tau^{-1} k(x,x_1) & 1+\tau^{-1}
\end{bmatrix}\cdot
$$
Here $p_0(y)=E[\mathcal{N}(y|\theta(x))]$ is the same as above, since marginally $\theta(x) \sim \mathcal{N}(0,\tau^{-1})$. Plugging in $y = P_0^{-1}\{\Phi(z)\}$ again gives us the Gaussian copula density with correlation parameter
$$
\rho_1(x) = \rho_0 k(x,x_1)
$$
for $\rho_0 = 1/(1+\tau)$.
\subsection{Derivation of Gaussian Process Posterior} \label{app:deriv-gp}
{In this section, we derive the copula sequence for the Gaussian Process, which is fully tractable. This section is mostly for insight, but it would however be interesting to investigate any potential avenues for methodological development.}
\subsubsection{First Update Step}
{We consider a univariate regression setting with $\{y,x\}$. For the GP, we have the model
$$
f_\theta(y \mid x) = \mathcal{N}(y \mid \theta(x), \sigma^2), \quad \theta(\cdot) \sim \text{GP}(0, \tau^{-1} k).
$$
Like in the above, we can derive the function $h_1(x,x_1)$.
}
Following a similar argument to the AR-BP derivation, the first step GP copula density is
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{\Normal_2\left(y,y_1\mid 0,K_2+ \sigma^2I \right)}{p_0(y \mid x) p_0(y_1 \mid x_1)}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
where $K_i$ is the $i\times i$ Gram matrix, with kernel
\begin{equation*}
k(x,x') = \tau^{-1} \exp\left\{ -0.5 (x-x')^2/\ell \right\}.
\end{equation*}
Writing in terms of $P_0$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
c\left\{P_0(y\mid x), P_0(y_1 \mid x_1); {\rho_1(x)} \right\}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
where $c$ is again the Gaussian copula density, but we have the correlation parameter as
\begin{equation*}
\rho_1(x) = \frac{\exp\left\{-0.5(x-x_1)^2/\ell\right\}}{ 1+ \tau\sigma^2}.
\end{equation*}
From this, we can derive the first step of the update scheme:
\begin{align*}
p_1(y \mid x) &= c\{P_{0}(y\mid x), P_{0}(y_1 \mid x_1); {\rho_1(x)}\} \, p_{0}(y \mid x)
\end{align*}
where $c(u,v ; \rho)$ is again the Gaussian copula density, and $p_0(y\mid x) = \Normal(y; 0, \sigma^2 + \tau^{-1})$. %
\subsubsection{All Update Steps} \label{app:gp}
We can even derive the copula update scheme for $i> 1$, as the Gaussian process posterior is tractable. After observing $i-1$ observations, we have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\pi(\theta_x, \theta_{x_{i}} \mid y_{1:{i-1}},x_{1:{i-1}}) &= \mathcal{N}(\mu_{i-1}, \Sigma_{i-1})\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
where each element of $\Sigma_{i-1}$ has the entry
\begin{equation*}
k_{i-1}(x,x') = k(x,x') - k(x, x_{1:i-1})\left[K_{i-1} + \sigma^2 I \right]^{-1}k(x_{1:i-1},x')
\end{equation*}
where the subscript $i-1$ indicates it is the posterior kernel and $\mu_{i-1}$ is the posterior mean vector of the GP at $x$ and $x_i$. Marginally, the GP copula after $i-1$ data points is
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{\mathcal{N}_2\left(y,y_{i}; \mu_{i-1},\Sigma_{i-1}+ \sigma^2I \right)}{\mathcal{N}\left\{y; \mu_{i-1}^{y}, k_{i-1}(x,x)+ \sigma^2 \right\} \mathcal{N}\left\{y_{i+1}; \mu_{i-1}^{y_{i-1}}, k_{i-1}(x_{i},x_{i})+ \sigma^2 \right\}}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
where $\mu_{i-1}^y$ is the posterior mean of the GP at $x$ and likewise for $\mu_{i-1}^{y_{i-1}}$. This is equivalent to the bivariate Gaussian copula density $c(u,v; \rho_i(x)),$
where as before $u = P_{i-1}(y \mid x)$ and $v = P_{i-1}(y_{i+1} \mid x_{i+1})$. The correlation parameter is now
\begin{equation*} %
\rho_i(x) = \frac{k_{i-1}(x,x_i)}{\sqrt{\{k_{i-1}(x,x) + \sigma^2\}\{k_{i-1}(x_i,x_i) + \sigma^2\}}}
\end{equation*}
In summary, we have the update
\begin{align*}
p_i(y \mid x) &= c\{P_{i-1}(y\mid x), P_{i-1}(y_i \mid x_i); {\rho_i(x)}\} \, p_{i-1}(y \mid x).
\end{align*}
This gives the same predictives as fitting a full GP. While this update form does not offer any computational gains, it gives us insight into the GP update. The copula update corresponds to the regular normal update \citep{hahn2018recursive} with a data-dependent bandwidth $\rho_i(x)$ which measures the distance between $x$ and $x_i$ based on the posterior kernel. A potential interesting direction of research is to seek approximations of the expensive $\rho_i(x)$ to aid with the computation of the GP.
\section{Experiments} \label{app:exp}
\subsection{Experimental Details} \label{app:expdetails} %
The UCI data sets \citep{asuncion2007uci} we used are: wine, breast, parkinson (PARKIN), ionosphere (IONO), boston housing (BOSTON), concrete (CONCR), diabetes (DIAB), and digits.
\paragraph{Code} We downloaded the code for MAF and NSF from \url{https://github.com/bayesiains/nsf}, and the code for R-BP from \url{https://github.com/edfong/MP/tree/main/pr_copula}, and implemented EarlyStopping with patience 50, and 200 minimal, and 2000 maximal iterations. Note that we chose the autoregressive version of RQ-NSF over the coupling variant as the former seemed to generally outperform the latter in \cite{durkan2019neural}. The neural network in ARnet-BP was implemented with \texttt{Haiku} \citep{haiku2020github}. The remaining methods are implemented in \texttt{sklearn} \citep{sklearn_api}. For the DPMM with VI (mean-field approximation), we use both the diagonal and full covariance function, with default hyperparameters for the priors. The code used to generate these results is available as an additional supplementary directory.
\paragraph{Initialisation} We initialise the predictive densities with a standard normal, the bandwidth parameter with $\rho_0=0.9$, the length scales with $l_2=1, ..., l_{d-1}=1$, and the neural network weights inside ARnet-BP by sampling from a truncated normal with variance proportional to the number of input nodes of the layer \citep{ioffe2015batch}.
\paragraph{Data pre-processing} For each dataset, we standardized each of the attributes by mean-centering and rescaling to have a sample standard deviation of one. Following \cite{papamakarios2017masked}, we eliminated discrete-valued attributes. To avoid issues arising from collinearity, we also eliminated one attribute from each pair of attributes with a Pearson correlation coefficient greater than 0.98.
\paragraph{Hyperparameter tuning} Please see Section \ref{sec:exp} in the main paper for details on the hyperparameter search of the \texttt{sklearn} benchmark models. For MAF and RQ-NSF, we applied a Bayesian optimisation search over the learning rate $\{3\cdot 10^{-4}, 4\cdot 10^{-4}, 5\cdot 10^{-4}\}$, the batch size $\{512, 1024\}$, the flow steps $\{10, 20\}$, the hidden features $\{256, 512\}$, the number of bins $\{4, 8\}$, the number of transform blocks $\{1, 2\}$ and the dropout probability $\{0, 0.1, 0.2\}$. On each data set, the hyperparameter search ran for more than 5 days. Please see Table \ref{tab:sweep} for the optimal parameters found. For the benchmark UCI data sets, we did not tune the hyperparameters for neither MAF nor RQ-NSF but instead used the standard parameters given by \cite{durkan2019neural}.
\input{_tables/sweep}
\paragraph{Compute}
We run all BP and neural network experiments on a single Tesla V100 GPU, as provided in the internal cluster of our department. In total, these experiments required compute of approximately 4000 GPU hours. The remaining experiments were run on a single core of an Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6240 CPU @ 2.60GHz, using up a total of 100 hours.
\subsection{Additional Experimental Results} \label{app:exp-add}
\paragraph{Computational analysis} \label{app:exp-comp} For the computational study, we consider data sampled from a \gls{gmm}. By default, we set the number of training samples to $n=500$, the number of test samples to $n'=500$, the number of features to $d=2$, the number of mixture components to $K=2$, and the number of feature and samples permutations to 1. In Figure \ref{fig:gmm-comp}, we plot the compute in elapsed seconds w.r.t changes in these parameters.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subfloat[AR-BP]{\includegraphics[width = 0.75\textwidth]{_graphics/gmm-comp-eucl2.pdf}}\\
\subfloat[ARnet-BP]{\includegraphics[width = 0.75\textwidth]{_graphics/gmm-comp-arnet.pdf}}
\caption{Computational study: computational time measured in elapsed seconds for a simple \gls{gmm} example.}
\label{fig:gmm-comp}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Sensitivity analysis} \label{app:exp-sens}
For the sensitivity study, we consider the same simulated \gls{gmm} data as in the computational study, and plot the results in Figure \ref{fig:gmm-sens}. As expected, we observe that the test \gls{nll} decreases in $n$, and in the number of permutations. It also decreases in the number of mixture components. One possible explanation for this is that, as noted by \citet{hahn2018recursive}, R-BP can be interpreted as a mixture of $n$ normal distributions. The \gls{nll} decreases in $d$, as the mixture components are easier to distinguish in higher dimensional covariate spaces.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{_graphics/gmm_sensitivity.pdf}
\caption{Sensitivity analyis: Average test \gls{nll} over 5 runs reported with standard error for a simple \gls{gmm} example over a range of simulation and parameter settings.}
\label{fig:gmm-sens}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Ablation study} \label{app:exp-abl}
Figure \ref{fig:gmm-sens} shows the test \gls{nll} of ARnet-BP and AR-BP for the above \gls{gmm} example, as a function of the number of sample permutations, and number of feature permutations. We see that averaging over multiple permutations is crucial to the performance of AR-BP. In Table \ref{tab:smalluci_ablation}, we also show results on the small UCI datasets for:
\begin{itemize}
\item a different choice of covariance function, namely a rational quadratic covariance function, defined by $k(x, x_i)=\left(1+\frac{||x-x_i||^2_2}{2\gamma \ell^2}\right)^{-\gamma}$, where $\ell, \gamma>0$ and
\item a different choice of initial distribution, namely a uniform distribution (unif).
\end{itemize}
\input{_tables/small_uci_ablation}
We observe that none of these ablations consistently outperforms AR$_d$-BP.
\paragraph{Benchmark UCI data sets} \label{app:otherexp}
As we only presented a subset of the results on the benchmark data sets introduced by \cite{papamakarios2017masked} in Section \ref{sec:exp}, we present more results for density estimation on the complete data set in Table \ref{tab:largeuci}. These results underscore that 1) MAF and RQ-NSF outperform any other baseline, the more data is available; 2) KDE underperforms in high-dimensional settings; 3) DPMM is not suitable for every data distribution. Note that evaluation of the R-BP variants take at least 4 days to run on any of the data sets with more than 800,000 observations which is why we omitted those results here. %
\input{_tables/full-large-uci}
\paragraph{Image examples} \label{app:exp-image}
We provide preliminary results on two image datasets, digits and MNIST, in Table \ref{tab:images}. Note that the AR-BP copula updates investigated here were not designed with computer vision tasks in mind. The rich parameterization allows the model to overfit to the data leading to a prequential negative log-likelihood of at least -684 at train time while the test \gls{nll} is considerably higher. ARnet-BP, on the other hand, helps to model the complex data structure more efficiently. We expect that further extensions based on, for instance, convolutional covariance functions \citep{van2017convolutional} may prove fruitful.
\vspace{-2mm}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\footnotesize
\subfloat[True data]{\includegraphics[width = \textwidth/5]{_graphics/checkerboard_data.png}}
\subfloat[R-BP]{\includegraphics[width = \textwidth/5]{_graphics/checkerboard_non.png}}
\subfloat[R$_{d}$-BP]{\includegraphics[width = \textwidth/5]{_graphics/dim-chess-full.png}}
\subfloat[AR-BP]{\includegraphics[width = \textwidth/5]{_graphics/checkerboard_eucl.png}}\\
\subfloat[AR$_{d}$-BP]{\includegraphics[width = \textwidth/5]{_graphics/eucl-dim-chess-full.png}}
\subfloat[ARnet-BP]{\includegraphics[width = \textwidth/5]{_graphics/checkerboard_net.png}}
\subfloat[MAF]{\includegraphics[width = \textwidth/5]{_graphics/maf-chess-full.png}}
\subfloat[RQ-NSF]{\includegraphics[width = \textwidth/5]{_graphics/rqnsf-chess-full.png}}
\caption{Scatter plot and density estimates of 60,000 observations sampled from a chessboard data distribution. Test log likelihoods are R-BP: $2.25_{\pm 0.0}$, R$_{d}$-BP : $2.19_{\pm 0.0}$, AR-BP: $2.21_{\pm 0.0}$, AR$_{d}$-BP: $2.10_{\pm 0.0}$, ARnet BP : $2.19_{\pm 0.0}$, MAF : $2.09_{\pm 0.0}$, RQ-NSF : $2.05_{\pm 0.0}$.}
\label{fig:chess-full}
\end{figure}
\input{_tables/images}
\paragraph{Toy examples} \label{app:exp-toy}
Figure \ref{fig:chess-full} shows density estimates for the introductory example of the checkerboard distribution in a large data regime. We observe that neural-network-based methods outperform the AR-BP alternatives. Nevertheless, AR-BP performs better than the baseline R-BP. An illustration of this behaviour on another toy example is also given in Figure \ref{fig:sinewave}. Figure \ref{fig:toys} shows density estimates from AR-BP on a number of complex distributions.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{_graphics/copula_dens_test.png}
\caption{Illustration of the importance of an autoregressive kernel. We trained the models on 500 data points sampled according to a sine wave distribution (given in Figure \ref{fig:toys}). We visualise the predictive density after observing a different number, $\nr$, of observations, highlighting the last five points with \crossmid. We observe that for highly non-linear relationships between $x^1$ and $x^2$, the optimal bandwidth of R-BP is quite high ($\rho=0.93$) which results in strong overfitting. Even when we choose $\rho_0=0.93$ for AR-BP and ARnet-BP, we observe that these models learn the true data distribution with fewer samples than R-BP does.}
\label{fig:sinewave}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subfloat{\includegraphics[width = 0.7in]{_graphics/crecent_data.png}}
\subfloat{\includegraphics[width = 0.7in]{_graphics/crescent_cubed_data.png}}
\subfloat{\includegraphics[width = 0.7in]{_graphics/sine_data.png}}
\subfloat{\includegraphics[width = 0.7in]{_graphics/abs_data.png}}
\subfloat{\includegraphics[width = 0.7in]{_graphics/sign_data.png}} \\
\subfloat{\includegraphics[width = 0.7in]{_graphics/crescent_density.png}}
\subfloat{\includegraphics[width = 0.7in]{_graphics/crecent_cubed_density.png}}
\subfloat{\includegraphics[width = 0.7in]{_graphics/sine_density.png}}
\subfloat{\includegraphics[width = 0.7in]{_graphics/abs_density.png}}
\subfloat{\includegraphics[width = 0.7in]{_graphics/sign_density.png}}
\caption{Scatter plots of 60,000 samples from different data distributions in the first row, and corresponding autoregressive predictive density estimates in the second row.}
\label{fig:toys}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Derivation of Copula Update for Supervised Learning} \label{app:deriv_suplearn}
We now derive the predictive density update for supervised learning tasks, closely following the derivations of \citet{fong2021martingale} for the conditional methods in Supplements E.2 and E.3.
We assume fixed design points ${x}_{1:n}\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times d}$ and random response $y_{1:n}\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$.
\subsubsection{Conditional Regression with Dependent Stick-Breaking}\label{app:deriv_copula_regression}
We follow Appendix E.2.2 in \cite{fong2021martingale}, and derive the regression copula update inspired by the dependent DP. Consider the general covariate-dependent stick-breaking mixture model
\begin{equation}\label{SM_eq:DDP_mixture_location}
\begin{aligned}
f_{G_{x}}({y}) = \int \mathcal{N}(y \mid \theta,1) \, dG_{x}(\theta), \quad
G_{x} =\sum_{l =1}^\infty w_l(x)\,\delta_{\theta^*_l(x)}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
For the weights, we elicit the stick-breaking prior $w_l(x) = v_l(x) \prod_{j< l} \{1-v_j(x)\}$ where $v_l(x)$ is a stochastic process on $\mathcal{X}$ taking values in $[0,1]$, and is independent across $l$. For the atoms, which are now dependent on $x$, we assume they are independently drawn from a Gaussian process,
$$
\theta_l^*(\cdot) \iid \text{GP}(0, \tau^{-1} k),
$$
where $k$ is the covariance function. Once again, we want to compute
$$
\frac{E\left[f_{G_{x}}({y}) \, f_{G_{x_1}}({y}_1) \right]}{p_0(y \mid x) \, p_0(y_1 \mid x_1)}\cdot
$$
Following the stick-breaking argument as in Section \ref{Appendix:multivariate}, we can write the numerator as
$$
\left\{1-\beta_1(x,x_1)\right\}E\left[ K\{{y} \mid \theta^*(x)\} \right] E\left[ K\{{y}_1 \mid \theta^*(x_1)\} \right] + \beta_1(x,x_1) E\left[ K\{{y} \mid \theta^*(x)\} \, K\{{y}_1 \mid \theta^*(x_1)\} \right]
$$
where
$$K\{y \mid \theta^*(x)\} = \mathcal{N}\{y \mid \theta^*(x),1\}, \quad \theta^*(\cdot) \sim \text{GP}(0, \tau^{-1} k),$$
and
$$
\beta_1(x,x_1) = \sum_{k=1}^\infty E\left[ w_k(x)w_k(x_1) \right].
$$
As before, we have
$$
\frac{E\left[f_{G_{x}}({y}) \, f_{G_{x_1}}({y}_1) \right]}{p_0(y \mid x) \, p_0(y_1 \mid x_1)} = c\left\{ P_0(y \mid x), P_0(y_1 \mid x_1); \rho_1(x)\right\}
$$
where $\rho_1(x) = \rho_0 k(x,x_1)$ and $\rho_0 = 1/(1+\tau)$. We thus have the copula density as a mixture of the independent and Gaussian copula density. This then implies the copula update step of the form
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
p_{i}(y \mid x) = \left[1-\beta_i(x,x_i)+ \beta_i(x,x_i) \, c\left\{P_{i-1}(y \mid x),P_{i-1}(y_i \mid x_i); \rho_i(x)\right\}\right]\, p_{i-1}(y\mid x),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
where we write $\rho_i(x)=\rho^{d+1}_i(x)$.
As in \cite{fong2021martingale}, we turn to the multivariate update for inspiration where we do not update $P_n(x)$ and instead keep it fixed at $P_0(x) = \Phi(x)$ (for each dimension). This gives us
\begin{align} \label{eq:condit_alpha}
\beta_{i}({x},{x}_{i}) = \frac{\alpha_{i}\prod_{j=1}^d c\left\{\Phi\left(x^j\right),\Phi\left(x_{i}^j\right); \rho^{j}_i(x^{1:j-1})\right\}}{1- \alpha_{i} + \alpha_{i}\prod_{j=1}^d c \left\{\Phi\left(x^j\right),\Phi\left(x_{i}^j\right); \rho^{j}_i(x^{1:j-1})\right\}}\cdot
\end{align}
\subsubsection{Classification with Beta-Bernoulli Copula Update}\label{app:deriv_copula_classification}
In the classification setting (Appendix E.3.1 in \cite{fong2021martingale}), \citet{fong2021martingale} assume a beta-Bernoulli mixture for $y_i \in \{0,1\}$. As the derivation is written w.r.t $\rho$, we simply replace $\rho$ with our definition of $\rho^{j}_i(x^{1:j-1})$, giving the update
\begin{align*}
p_{i}(y \mid {x}) = \left(1-\beta_{i}({x},{x}_{i})+ \beta_{i}({x},{x}_{i})\, b\left\{q_{i-1},r_{i-1}; \rho_i(x)\right\}\right) p_{i-1}(y\mid {x})
\end{align*}
where $q_{i-1} = p_{i-1}(y \mid {x}),r_i = p_{i-1}(y_{i}\mid {x}_{i})$, $\rho_i(x)$ as in Equation \ref{eq:rho}, $\beta_{i}({x},{x}_{i})$ similarly as in \eqref{eq:condit_alpha}, and finally the copula-like function $b$ given by
\begin{align*}
b\{q_{i-1},r_{i-1}; \rho_i(x)\} &= \begin{dcases}
1-\rho_i(x) +\rho_i(x)\,\frac{q_{i-1}\wedge r_{i-1}}{q_{i-1}\, r_{i-1}} &\quad \text{if } y = y_{i} \vspace{2mm}\\
1-\rho_i(x) + \rho_i(x)\,\frac{q_{i-1} - \{q_{i-1}\wedge (1-r_{i-1})\}}{q_{i-1}\, r_{i-1}}&\quad \text{if } y \neq y_{i} \cdot
\end{dcases}
\end{align*}
\section{Methodology} \label{app:algs}
In this section, we provide more details on the methodology referred to in the main part of the paper.
\input{appendix/ba_meth_sampling}
\subsection{Supervised Learning} \label{app:supervised}
We briefly recap how joint density estimation can be extended to conditional supervised learning (regression and classification), as outlined by \citet{fong2021martingale}. Please see Supplement \ref{app:deriv_suplearn} for the derivation.
Given fixed design points ${x}_{1:n}$ and random response $y_{1:n}$, the problem at hand is to infer a {family} of conditional densities $\{f_{x}(y): {{x} \in \mathbb{R}^d}\}$.
\subsubsection{Regression} \label{sec:conditreg}
For the regression case, \citet{fong2021martingale} posit a Bayesian model with the nonparametric likelihood being a covariate-dependent stick-breaking \gls{dpmm}:
\begin{align}\label{eq:DDP_mixture}
f_{G_{x}}({y}) = \int \mathcal{N}(y \mid \theta,1) \, dG_{{x}}({\theta}), \quad G_{x} =\sum_{k=1}^\infty w_k({x})\,\delta_{\theta_k^*},
\end{align}
where $w_k(\mathbf{x})$ follows an ${x}$-dependent stick-breaking process. Our contribution is to assume an autoregressive factorisation of the kernel and independent GP priors on $\theta_k^*$. See Supplement \ref{app:deriv_copula_regression} for the derivation of the predictive density update that is now given by
\begin{align} \label{eq:update_p_reg}
p_{i}(y \mid x) = \left[1-\beta_i(x,x_i)+ \beta_i(x,x_i) \, c\left\{P_{i-1}(y \mid x),P_{i-1}(y_i \mid x_i); \rho_i(x)\right\}\right]\, p_{i-1}(y\mid x),
\end{align}
where $\rho_i(x)=\rho^{d+1}_i(x)$ and $\beta$ as in \eqref{eq:condit_alpha}.
\subsubsection{Classification}
For $y_i \in \{0,1\}$, \citet{fong2021martingale} assume a beta-Bernoulli mixture. As explained in Supplement {\ref{app:deriv_copula_classification}} and \cite{fong2021martingale}, this gives the same update as in the regression setting with the difference that the copula $c$ in \eqref{eq:update_p_reg} is replaced with
\begin{align*}
b\{q_{i-1},r_{i-1}; \rho_i(x)\} &= \begin{dcases}
1-\rho_i(x) +\rho_i(x)\,\frac{q_{i-1}\wedge r_{i-1}}{q_{i-1}\, r_{i-1}} &\quad \text{if } y = y_{i} \vspace{2mm}\\
1-\rho_i(x) + \rho_i(x)\,\frac{q_{i-1} - \{q_{i-1}\wedge (1-r_{i-1})\}}{q_{i-1}\, r_{i-1}}&\quad \text{if } y \neq y_{i},
\end{dcases}
\end{align*}
where $\rho_i(x)=\rho^{d+1}_i(x), q_{i-1} = p_{i-1}(y \mid \mathbf{x}),r_{i-1} = p_{i-1}(y_{i}\mid \mathbf{x}_{i})$ and $\rho_y \in (0,1)$.
\subsection{Implementation Details} \label{app:imp}
Please see Algorithm \ref{alg:full_alg} for the full estimation procedure, Algorithm \ref{alg:optimal_rho} for the optimisation of the bandwidth parameters, Algorithm \ref{alg:fit_density} for the fitting procedure of the predictive density updates, and eventually Algorithm \ref{alg:eval_density} for the steps during test-time inference. All algorithms are written for one specific permutation of the dimensions, and are repeated for different permutations.
Note that at both training time and test time, we need to consider the updates on the scale of the \gls{cdf}s, that is for the terms such as $u_i^j(x^j)$, which appear in the update step \eqref{eq:mv_DP_AR_marginal}.
Given
$$
u_{i}^{j}(x^j)=P_i(x^j|x^{1:j-1}) = \int_{-\infty}^{x^j} {p_i(x^{1:j-1}, x^{'j})}/{p_i(x^{1:j-1})} dx^{'j},
$$
and \eqref{eq:mv_DP_AR_marginal}, the \gls{cdf}s $u_{i}^{j}(x^{j})$ take on the tractable update %
\begin{align} \label{eq:mv_autoreg_DP_copdistr} %
\displaystyle{
u_{i}^{j} =\left\{(1-\alpha_{i})u_{i-1}^j + \alpha_{i} H\left(u_{i-1}^j,v_{i-1}^j; \rho_i^j \right) \prod_{r=1}^{k-1} c\left(u_{i-1}^{r},v_{i-1}^{r}; \rho_i^r\right)\right\} \frac{p_{i-1}\left(x^{1:k-1}\right)}{p_{i}\left(x^{1:k-1}\right)}},
\end{align}
and set $v_{i-1}^{j} = u_{i-1}^{j}(x_{i})$ which holds by definition, where we dropped the argument $x$ for simplicity from $\rho_i^j$ and $u_{i}^{j}$, and $H(u,v; \rho)$ denotes the conditional Gaussian copula distribution with correlation $\rho$, that is
\begin{align*}
H(u,v; \rho) = \int_0^u c(u',v; \rho) du' = \Phi\left\{\frac{\Phi^{-1}(u) -\rho \Phi^{-1}(v)}{\sqrt{1-\rho^2}} \right\}\cdot
\end{align*}
The Gaussian copula density $c(u,v; \rho)$ is given by
\begin{align*}
c(u,v; \rho) = \frac{\mathcal{N}_2\left\{ \Phi^{-1}(u),\Phi^{-1}(v)\mid 0,1,\rho\right\} }{\mathcal{N}\{\Phi^{-1}(u) \mid 0,1\} \mathcal{N}\{\Phi^{-1}(v) \mid 0,1\}} ,
\end{align*}
where $\Phi$ is the normal \gls{cdf}, and $\mathcal{N}_2$ is the standard bivariate density with correlation $\rho \in (0,1)$.
\paragraph{Ordering} \label{app:ordering}
Note that the predictive density update depends on the ordering of both the training data and the dimensions.
This permutation dependence is not an additional assumption on the data generative process, and the only implication is that the subset of ordered marginal distributions continue to satisfy \eqref{eq:mv_DP_marginal} (main paper).
In the absence of a natural ordering of the training samples or the dimensions, we take multiple random permutations, observing in practice that the resulting averaged density estimate performs better.
More precisely, for a given permutation of the dimensions, we first tune the bandwidth parameters, and then calculate density estimates based on multiple random permutations of the training data.
We then average over each of the resulting estimates to obtain a single density estimate for each dimension permutation, and subsequently take the average across these estimates to obtain the final density estimate.
Importantly, our method is parallelizable over permutations and thus able to exploit modern multi-core computing architectures.
\input{_algorithms/full_algo}
\input{_algorithms/opt_bandwidth}
\input{_algorithms/update_copula}
\input{_algorithms/fit_copula}
\input{_algorithms/eval_test}
\input{_algorithms/sampling}
\subsection{Generative Modelling} \label{app:sampling}
First, we consider three approaches to generative modelling
\begin{enumerate}
\item Inverse sampling
\item Importance sampling
\item \gls{smc}
\end{enumerate}
\subsubsection{Inverse Sampling}
\paragraph{Univariate setting}
As noted by \citet{fong2021martingale}, we can sample from $x^*\sim P_n(x)$ by inverse sampling, that is
\begin{align*}
u \sim \mathcal{U}[0,1],\;\; x^* \sim P_n^{-1}(u).
\end{align*}
As we cannot evaluate $P_n^{-1}(u)$ directly, we instead solve an optimisation problem
\begin{align*}
x^* = \argmin_x |P_n(x) - u| %
\end{align*}
\paragraph{Multivariate setting}
The univariate procedure can be repeated iteratively in the multivariate setting given the conditional distribution
\begin{align*}
u^1 &\sim \mathcal{U}[0,1], \;x^1 = P_n^{-1}(u^1)\\
u^2 &\sim \mathcal{U}[0,1], \;x^2 = P_n^{-1}(u^2 \mid x^1)\\
\ldots\\
u^d &\sim \mathcal{U}[0,1], \;x^d= P_n^{-1}(u^d \mid x^{1:d-1})\\
\end{align*}
\subsubsection{Importance Sampling}
In practice, inverse sampling is unstable and is highly dependent on the performance of the optimization. An alternative approach to data generation is importance sampling. This includes two steps
\begin{enumerate}
\item Sampling a set of particles $z_1,\ldots,z_{B}$ from the initial predictive $p_0$.
\item Re-sampling $z_1,\ldots,z_{B}$ with replacement based on the weights $w_1=p_n(z_1)/p_0(z_1),\ldots,w_B=p_n(z_B)/p_0(z_B)$.
\end{enumerate}
\subsubsection{Sequential Monte Carlo}
Importance sampling will perform poorly if $p_n$ and $p_0$ are far apart. Instead, we propose a \gls{smc} procedure. A similar \gls{smc} sampling scheme has been proposed for univariate imputation of censored survival data by \citet{fong2022predictive}. Here, the goal is parameter inference, and thus only requires \textit{implicit} sample observations by drawing the marginal \gls{cdf} $u_n^j$ from a uniform distribution. In our case, we generate new \textit{explicit} data directly by sampling from the data space. Please see Algorithm \ref{alg:sample} for a complete overview. As this sampling approach is similar to evaluating the density at test data points (Algorithm \ref{alg:eval_density}), we highlighted the differences in blue. In short,
\begin{enumerate}
\item We sample a set of particles $z_1,\ldots,z_{B}$ from the initial predictive $p_0$, and set the particle weights to $w^{[0]}_k=1$ for all $k=1,\ldots, B$
\item We update the predictive $p_{i-1}\rightarrow p_{i}$, and the particle weights $w^{[i]}_k=w^{[i-1]}_k\cdot p_{i}{\left(z^{[i-1]}_{k}\right)}/p_{i-1}{\left(z^{[i-1]}_{k}\right)}$ for each training observation
\item If the \gls{ess} is smaller than half of the number of particles, we resample $z_1,\ldots,z_{B}$ and $w^{[i]}_1,\ldots,w^{[B]}_1$ based on their weights.
\end{enumerate}
Note that particle diversity can be improved by introducing move steps, for example using Markov kernels \cite{chopin2002sequential, gunawan2020subsampling}.
In Figure \ref{fig:gmm-samples}, we see that inverse sampling struggles on a simple GMM example. On the other hand, importance sampling and SMC provide reasonable samples.
Similar sampling schemes have been proposed for Restricted Boltzmann Machines \citep{larochelle2011neural, salakhutdinov2008quantitative} where samples can only be drawn from the model approximately by Gibbs sampling.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\centering
\subfloat[Inverse Sampling]{\includegraphics[height = \textwidth/5]{_graphics/opitm-20.pdf}}\\
\subfloat[Importance Sampling]{\includegraphics[height = \textwidth/5]{_graphics/is30.pdf}}\\
\subfloat[Sequential Monte Carlo]{\includegraphics[height = \textwidth/5]{_graphics/smc30.pdf}}
\caption{100 samples generated from AR$_d$-BP trained on 50 samples from a GMM with 4 components.}
\label{fig:gmm-samples}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Intuition for AR Copula} \label{app:cond_mean}
As in the main paper, we consider bivariate data, $(x,y)$. As shown in \cite{fong2021martingale}, the update for the conditional density for R-BP takes the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:app_condit}
p_i(y \mid x) = [1-\alpha_i(x,x_i) + \alpha_i(x,x_i) \, c\left\{P_{i-1}(y \mid x), P_{i-1}( y_i \mid x_i); \rho \right\}]\, p_{i-1}(y \mid x),
\end{equation}
where
$$
\alpha_i(x,x_i) = \frac{\alpha_i c\{P_{i-1}(x), P_{i-1}(x_i); \rho\}}{1-\alpha_i + \alpha_i c\{P_{i-1}(x), P_{i-1}(x_i); \rho\}}
\cdot
$$
To show the effect of the AR update, we make simplifying assumptions to derive the update for the conditional mean function, $\mu_i(x) = \int y \, p_i(y \mid x) dy$. Let us assume that our predictive densities are normally distributed, that is $P_{i-1}(y \mid x) = \mathcal{N}(y \mid \mu_{i-1}(x), \sigma_y^2)$. This is an accurate approximation if the truth is normal and we have observed sufficient observations. Without loss of generalizability, we assume that $\sigma_y^2 = 1$. This then gives the form $P_{i-1}(y \mid x) = \Phi(y-\mu_{i-1}(x))$, which will help us in the calculation of the bivariate Gaussian copula. If we multiply by $y$ and integrate on both sides of \eqref{eq:app_condit}, we get
$$
\mu_i(x) = [1-\alpha_i(x,x_i)]\mu_{i-1}(x) + \alpha_i(x,x_i) \int \, c\left(P_{i-1}(y \mid x), P_{i-1}( y_i \mid x_i); \rho \right)\, y \, p_{i-1}(y \mid x) \, dy.
$$
Plugging in $P_{i-1}(y \mid x) = \Phi\{y-\mu_{i-1}(x)\}$ (and similarly for the density) to the above gives
\begin{align*}
\int c\left(P_{i-1}(y \mid x), P_{i-1}( y_i \mid x_i);\rho \right)\, y \, dy &=\int \frac{\mathcal{N}(y, y_i \mid [\mu_{i-1}(x),\mu_{i-1}(x_i)], 1,\ \rho)}{\mathcal{N}(y_i \mid \mu_{i-1}(x_i),1)} \, \,y \, dy\cdot
\end{align*}
The above is simply the expectation of a conditional normal distribution, giving us
$$
\int c\left(P_{i-1}(y \mid x), P_{i-1}( y_i \mid x_i) ; \rho \right)\, y \, dy = \mu_{i-1}(x) + \rho(y_i - \mu_{i-1}(x_i)).
$$
Putting it all together, we thus have
$$
\mu_i(x) =\mu_{i-1}(x) + \alpha_i(x,x_i) \rho(y_i - \mu_{i-1}(x_i)).
$$
In the autoregressive case, we have
$$
\mu_i(x) =\mu_{i-1}(x) + \alpha_i(x,x_i) \rho(x, x_i) (y_i - \mu_{i-1}(x_i)),
$$
where we use the notations $\rho_i(x)=\rho( x,x_i)$ interchangeably to highlight the dependence of $\rho$ on the distance between $x$ and $x_i$.
Further assuming $P_{i-1}(x) = \mathcal{N}(x \mid 0,1)$ returns a tractable form for $\alpha_i(x,x')$, giving us Figure \ref{fig:itupd} in the main paper.
\section{Background}
We briefly recap predictive density estimation via bivariate copula updates for univariate and multivariate data, before describing a particular such update inspired by \glspl{dpmm}.
\subsection{Univariate Predictive Density Updates}
To compute predictive densities quickly, \citet{hahn2018recursive} propose an iterative approach.
For $x \in \mathbb{R}$, any sequence of Bayesian posterior predictive densities $p_i(x)$ with likelihood $f$ and posterior $\pi_i$, conditional on $x_{1:i}$, can be expressed as
\begin{align}
p_i(x) =\int f(x|\theta) \pi_i(\theta) d\theta = p_{i-1}(x)h_i(x, x_i), \label{eq:update}
\end{align}
for some bivariate function $h_i(x, x_i)$ \citep{hahn2018recursive}. Rearranging for $h_i$, we have
\begin{align}
h_i(x, x_i) &= \frac{p_{i}(x)}{p_{i-1}(x)} = \frac{p_{i-1}(x,x_i)}{p_{i-1}(x)p_{i-1}(x_i)}\cdot \label{eq:h}
\end{align}
The key observation made by \citet{hahn2018recursive} is that $h_i(x, x_i)$ is in fact the transformation of a bivariate copula density.
A \textit{bivariate copula} is a bivariate \gls{cdf} $C:[0, 1]^2\rightarrow [0, 1]$ with uniform marginal distributions. Sklar's theorem \citep{sklar1959fonctions} states that for any bivariate density $p(y_1, y_2)$ with continuous marginal \glspl{cdf}, $P_1(y_1)$ and $P_2(y_2)$, there exists a unique bivariate copula $C$ with density $c$ such that
\begin{align*}
p(y_1, y_2) = c\left\{P_1(y_1),P_2(y_2)\right\}p_1(y_1)p_2(y_2).
\end{align*}
Applying this copula factorization to \eqref{eq:h} yields
$
h_i(x,x_i) = c_i\{P_{i-1}(x), P_{i-1}(x_i)\},
$
where $P_{i-1}$ is the \gls{cdf} corresponding to the predictive density $p_{i-1}$, and $c_i$ is defined as the copula that exists according to Sklar's theorem for $p_{i-1}(x)$ and $p_{i-1}(x_i)$. Given prior $\pi$ and likelihood $f$, Equation \ref{eq:h} suggests that the update function can be written as
\begin{align}
h_i(x, x_i) = \frac{\int f(x|\theta)f(x_i|\theta)\pi_{i-1}(\theta) d\theta}{\int f(x|\theta)\pi_{i-1}(\theta)d\theta\int f(x_n|\theta)\pi_{i-1}(\theta)d\theta}\cdot \label{eq:oricopula}
\end{align}
For each Bayesian model, there is thus a unique sequence of symmetric copula densities $c_i(u, v) = c_i(v, u)$.
This sequence has the property that $c_n\rightarrow 1$ as $n\rightarrow \infty$, ensuring that the predictive density converges asymptotically with sample size $n$.
Note that in general, \eqref{eq:oricopula} is intractable due to the posterior so it is not possible to compute the iterative update in \eqref{eq:update} for fully Bayesian models.
However, we may still consider alternative, tractable formulations for $h_i$. In particular we will consider sequences that match the Bayesian model for $i = 1$, but not for $i>1$.
As mentioned above, this copula update no longer corresponds to a Bayesian model, nor are the resulting predictive density estimates approximations to a Bayesian model. Nevertheless, if the copula updates are \textit{conditionally identically distributed} (c.i.d), they still exhibit desirable Bayesian characteristics such as coherence and regularization.
The sequence $X_1,X_2,\ldots$ is c.i.d if we have $P(X_{i+k} \leq x|x_{1:i})=P_i(x), \forall k>0$ almost surely for each $x\in\mathbb{R}$
; refer to \cite{berti2004limit,fong2021martingale,hahn2018recursive} for more details.
A particular example of tractable and c.i.d copula updates, proposed by \citet{hahn2018recursive}, is motivated by \glspl{dpmm} for univariate density estimation. We introduce this update for the multivariate setting in the next subsection.
\subsection{Multivariate Predictive Density Updates}
The above arguments cannot directly be extended to multivariate $x \in \mathbb{R}^d$ since $h_i$ cannot necessarily be written as $c_i\{P_{i-1}(x), P_{i-1}(x_n)\}$ for $d > 1$. However, \eqref{eq:h} still holds, and recursive predictive updates with bivariate copulas as building blocks can be derived explicitly given a likelihood model and a prior, which we now exhibit.
\citet{hahn2018recursive} and \citet{fong2021martingale} propose \glspl{dpmm} as a general-use nonparametric model, where
the \gls{dpmm} \citep{escobar1988estimating, escobar1995bayesian} can be written as
\begin{align}
f(x| G) = \int_{\Theta} K(x|\theta) dG(\theta), \text{ with } G\sim \text{DP}(c, G_0)\label{eq:DPlh},
\end{align}
where $\theta \in \Theta=\mathbb{R}^d$ are parameter vectors, $K(x|\theta)$ is a user-specified kernel, and the prior assigned to $G$ is a \gls{dp} prior with base measure $G_0$ and concentration parameter $c>0$ \citep{ferguson1973bayesian}.
In particular, \citet{fong2021martingale} consider the base measure $G_0=\Normal(0, \tau^{-1}I_d)$ for some precision parameter $\tau\in\mathbb{R}_{>0}$, and the factorized kernel $K(x|\theta)=\Normal(x|\theta, I_d)$ where $I_d$ is the $d$-dimensional identity matrix. The likelihood is then %
\begin{align}
f(x| G) = \int \prod_{j=1}^d\Normal\left(x^j \mid \theta^j,1\right) dG({\theta}),\label{eq:mv_fact_DP_mixture}
\end{align}
where the dimensions of $x$ are conditionally independent given $\theta$, and we denote the dimension $j$ of a vector $y$ with $y^{j}$. We note that the strong assumption of a factorised kernel form drastically impacts the performance of the regular \gls{dpmm} and also influences the form and modelling capacity of the corresponding copula update.
This model inspires the following recursive predictive density update $p_{i}(x) = h_i(x, x_i)p_{i-1}(x)$ for which the first $d'\in\{1,\ldots,d\}$ marginals take on the form
\begin{align}\label{eq:mv_DP_marginal} %
p_{i}\left({x}^{1:d'}\right) &= \left\{1-\alpha_{i} +\alpha_{i} \prod_{j=1}^{d'} c\left(u_{i-1}^{j}(x^j),v_{i-1}^{j}; \rho_0 \right)\right\} p_{i-1}\left(x^{1:d'}\right),\\
u_{i-1}^{j}(x^j) &:= P_{i-1}\left(x^j \mid x^{1:j-1}\right), \quad v_{i-1}^{j} := P_{i-1}\left(x_{i}^j \mid x_{i}^{1:j-1}\right) \nonumber
\end{align}
where $c(u,v; \rho_0)$ is the bivariate Gaussian copula density with correlation $\rho_0 = 1/(1+\tau)$, { $p_0$ can be any chosen prior density}, and $\alpha_i=\left(2-\frac{1}{i}\right)\frac{1}{i+1}$ (see Supplement A and \cite{fong2021martingale}). {Note that the above update requires a specific ordering of the feature dimensions, and the Gaussian copula follows from the Gaussian distribution in the kernel and $G_0$ for the \gls{dpmm}}. %
While $\rho_0$ is a scalar here, \citet{fong2021martingale} also consider the setting with a distinct bandwidth parameter for each dimension. We refer to the resulting predictive density estimator as R$_d$-BP, or simply R-BP if the dimensions share a single bandwidth.
\section{Discussion} \label{sec:concl}
Density estimation for high-dimensional data is a challenging task. Although Bayesian methods generally perform well in the small sample setting, the conventional Bayesian approach to density estimation via the posterior predictive is computationally intensive. Here, we build upon newly developed methodology that enables fast density estimation via recursive updates of the predictive distribution whilst maintaining the attractive features typical of Bayesian methods \citep{fong2021martingale, hahn2018recursive}.
An appealing feature of AR-BP is that it requires no manual hyperparameter tuning. Further, on small data sets, AR-BP shows state-of-the-art generalization and is faster than competing deep learning models. It significantly increases the modelling capacity of the baseline R-BP via a data-dependent bandwidth. Additionally, ARnet-BP provides a useful illustration of how powerful neural network models can be incorporated into R-BP methods to improve density estimation. Future work can investigate alternative architectures for structured data. Our work adds to the rich body of density estimators and thus we do not anticipate any additional negative societal impact arising from our proposal.
A limitation of R-BP methods, including AR-BP, is the quadratic time dependence on the number of training observations. Subsampling techniques thus offer a particularly promising avenue to reduce the overall computational cost and warrant further investigation. Another limitation is the dependence on the sample and covariate ordering, though we note that it is possible to estimate the R-BP over multiple permutations in parallel. Nevertheless, the algorithm is relatively fast: with a single GPU, we were able to train models with 100,000 observations in less than an hour.
In Supplement \ref{app:sampling}, we describe a procedure to sample new data points from the estimate density via a sequential Monte Carlo algorithm, but note that its effectiveness is restricted by the failure of importance sampling methods in high dimensional settings. As such, AR-BP is more suited to evaluating densities, rather than generating synthetic data. Promising applications of AR-BP include anomaly detection \citep{nachman2020anomaly}, Monte Carlo sampling (i.e. in the form of importance weights) \citep{sugiyama2012density}, or streaming risk prediction tasks \citep{hong2019real}.
The use of a \gls{gp} prior greatly increases the flexibility of our framework. Moreover, it opens the door to future research to incorporate ideas from the vast \gls{gp} literature to further boost performance in high-dimensional settings. For example, we anticipate that the use of recent advances in convolutional kernels \citep{van2017convolutional} would be particularly suited for computer vision tasks. %
\section{Related Work}
Our work falls into the broad area of multivariate density estimation \citep{scott2015multivariate}. While \gls{ar} networks have been previously used directly for the task of density estimation \citep{bengio1999modeling, frey1998graphical, germain2015made, larochelle2011neural}, we use them to elicit a data-dependent bandwidth in the predictive update to mitigate the smoothing effect observed in AR-BP.
Neural network based approaches, however, often underperform in small-data regimes.
Deep learning approaches that do target few-shot density estimation require complex meta-learning and pre-training pipelines \citep{gu2020ensemble,reed2017few}. %
Our work directly extends the contributions of \citet{hahn2018recursive} and \citet{fong2021martingale} through an alternative specification of the nonparametric Bayesian model in the recursive predictive update scheme. R-BP has recently been used for nonparametric solvency risk prediction \citep{hong2019real}, and survival analysis \citep{fong2022predictive}. \citet{berti2021bayesian, berti2021class, berti2004limit} also focus on univariate predictive updates in the Bayesian nonparametric paradigm, specifically exploring the use of the conditionally identically distributed condition as a relaxation of the standard exchangeability assumption. Other studies have investigated recursive Bayesian updates in the special case of the mixing distribution in nonparametric mixture models \citep{dixit2022prticle, fortini2020quasi, martin2018nonparametric, tokdar2009consistency}, though these typically focus on univariate or low-dimensional spaces. See also \cite{martin2021survey} for a survey.
Finally, copulas are a well-studied tool for modelling the correlations in multivariate data (see e.g. \cite{kauermann2013flexible, ling2020deep, nelsen2007introduction}). Copula density estimation aims to construct density estimates whose univariate marginals are uniform \citep{gijbels1990estimating}, and often focus on modelling strong tail dependencies \citep{wiese2019copula}. In contrast to this literature stream, in this work
we employ bivariate copulas as a tool to model the correlations between subsequent subjective predictive densities, rather than across the data dimensions directly. %
\section{Introduction}
Modelling the joint distribution of multivariate random variables with density estimators is a central topic in modern unsupervised machine learning research \citep{durkan2019neural, kingma2013auto, papamakarios2017masked}.
As well as providing insight into the statistical properties of the data, density estimates are used in a number of downstream applications, including image restoration \citep{zoran2011learning}, density-based clustering \citep{scaldelai2022multiclusterkde}, and simulation-based inference \citep{lueckmann2021benchmarking}. %
In small-data regimes, Bayesian methods are a popular choice for a wide range of machine learning tasks, including density estimation, thanks to their attractive generalization capacities. Nonparametric methods, such as the \gls{dpmm} \citep{escobar1995bayesian}, are particularly appealing due to their flexibility.
For density estimation, the typical Bayesian approach is to target the \textit{Bayesian predictive density},
$
p_n(x) = \int f(x|\theta) \pi_n(\theta) d\theta, %
$
where $\pi_n$ denotes the posterior density of the model parameters $\theta$ after observing $x_1,\ldots,x_n$, and $f$ denotes the sampling distribution. %
De Finetti's representation theorem \citep{de1937prevision, hewitt1955symmetric} states that an exchangeable joint density fully characterises a Bayesian model, which then implies a sequence of predictive densities. Furthermore, \citet{fong2021martingale} recently showed that a sequence of predictive densities, under some assumptions, is sufficient for carrying out full Bayesian posterior inference. The above provides theoretical motivation for an iterative approach to Bayesian predictive density estimation by updating the predictive $p_{i-1}(x)$ to $p_{i}(x)$ given an observation $x_i$ for $i=1,\ldots, n$. The idea of recursive Bayesian updates goes back to at least \citet{hill1968posterior}, but {was only recently made more widely applicable} through the relaxation of the assumption of exchangeability in favour of conditionally identically distributed \citep{berti2004limit} sequences. %
Here, we focus on a particular class of one-step-ahead predictive updates $p_{i-1}(x)\rightarrow p_{i}(x)$ based on bivariate copulas. These copula updates do not correspond exactly, nor approximately, to a traditional Bayesian likelihood-prior model, and can instead be viewed as a separate class of predictive models. Importantly, this class retains many desirable Bayesian properties, such as coherence and regularization, and moreover are fully tractable. %
The copula characterization of the update step was introduced by \citet{hahn2018recursive} for univariate data, and extended by \citet{fong2021martingale} to the multivariate setting and to regression analyses. The resulting density estimator, henceforth referred to as the Recursive Bayesian Predictive (R$_d$-BP), lacks flexibility to model highly complex data distributions (see Figure \ref{fig:chess}).
This is because the existing copula updates rely on a Gaussian copula with a single scalar bandwidth parameter, corresponding to a Bayesian model with a likelihood that factorizes over dimensions. We also note that popular neural network based approaches, such as MAF \citep{papamakarios2017masked}, and RQ-NSF \citep{durkan2019neural} can struggle in small-data regimes (Figure \ref{fig:chess}).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subfloat{\includegraphics[width = \textwidth/7]{_graphics/rbp-chess-1000.png}}
\subfloat{\includegraphics[width = \textwidth/7]{_graphics/dimdep-chess.png}}
\subfloat{\includegraphics[width = \textwidth/7]{_graphics/arbp-chess-1000.png}}
\subfloat{\includegraphics[width = \textwidth/7]{_graphics/arnet-chess-1000.png}}
\subfloat{\includegraphics[width = \textwidth/7]{_graphics/maf-chess-1000.png}}
\subfloat{\includegraphics[width = \textwidth/7]{_graphics/rq-nsf-chess-1000.png}}
\caption{Scatter plot and density estimates of 600 observations sampled from a chessboard data distribution, reported with mean and standard deviation of test log likelihoods over a test data set. For a comparison with larger training sizes, please see Supplement \ref{app:exp-toy}.}
\label{fig:chess}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Contributions.} This motivates our main contribution, namely the formulation of a more flexible \gls{ar} copula update. In particular:
\begin{itemize}
\item By considering an \gls{ar} likelihood with a \gls{gp} prior, we formulate a copula update with a data-dependent bandwidth that is equivalent to a Euclidean metric on the data space. %
Our method, Autoregressive Recursive Bayesian Predictives (AR-BP), significantly outperforms traditional density estimators on tabular data sets of moderate size.
\item We observe in practice that the Euclidean metric used in AR-BP can be inadequate for highly non-smooth data distributions. For such cases, we propose using an \gls{ar} neural network \citep{bengio1999modeling, frey1998graphical, germain2015made, larochelle2011neural} that maps the observations into a latent space before bandwidth estimation. This introduces additional non-linearity through the dependence of the bandwidth on the data, leading to a density estimator, ARnet-BP, that is more accurate on non-smooth densities.
\end{itemize}
\section{Experiments} \label{sec:exp}
We demonstrate the benefits of AR-BP, AR$_d$-BP and ARnet-BP for density estimation and prediction tasks in an experimental study with five baseline approaches and 13 different data sets. All copula examples were implemented in JAX \citep{bradbury2018jax} and run on a single Tesla V100 GPU. The code and data used is provided in the Supplementary Material, and will be made available online. See Supplement \ref{app:exp} for additional experimental details and results, including a sensitivity study, an ablation study, further illustrative examples, a preliminary investigation into image examples, and an empirical study of the computational complexity of the proposed methods. We stress that introducing the data-dependent bandwidth comes with little computational overhead compared to R-BP. %
\subsection{Density Estimation}
\paragraph{Baseline models} We compared our models against \glspl{kde}, \glspl{dpmm}, \glspl{maf} \citep{papamakarios2017masked} and \glspl{rqnsf} \citep{durkan2019neural}. The bandwidth of the \glspl{kde} was found by five-fold cross validation over a grid of 80 log-scale-equidistant values from $\rho=0.1$ to 100. For the \gls{dpmm}, we considered versions with a diagonal (Diag) and full (Full) covariance matrix for each mixture component. We optimized over the weight concentration prior of the \gls{dpmm} by five-fold cross validation with values ranging from $10^{-40}$ to $1$. The model was trained with variational inference using \texttt{sklearn}. The hyperparameters of \glspl{maf} and \glspl{rqnsf} were found with a Bayesian optimisation search. See Supplement \ref{app:expdetails} for further information.
\paragraph{Small UCI data sets} See Table \ref{tab:smalluci} for the \gls{nll} estimated on five UCI data sets \citep{asuncion2007uci} of moderate size, as investigated by \citet{fong2021martingale}. We used a train/test split of 50\%. Our proposed methods display highly competitive performance: AR$_d$-BP achieved the best test log-likelihood on four of the data sets, while ARnet-BP prevailed on the remaining data set.
\input{_tables/small_uci} %
\paragraph{Benchmark UCI data sets} A number of UCI data sets have become the standard evaluation benchmark for deep \gls{ar} models \citep{durkan2019neural, huang2018neural, papamakarios2017masked}. These include low-dimensional data sets with up to 63 features, but at least 29,000 observations. To investigate performance as a function of sample size, we trained the models on subsets of the full data set. To compare density estimation across different data set sizes, we first normalized the data sets thus changing the log density estimates by a constant. We do not report results for the \glspl{kde} and the \gls{dpmm} estimators as these were significantly worse than the other approaches. Similarly, we do not report the deep learning results for sample sizes smaller than $10^2$. See Supplement \ref{app:otherexp} for complete results.
In the small-data regime, we observe that the R-BP methods significantly outperform the neural density estimators (Figure \ref{fig:largeuci}). As the sample size increases, the gap in performance decreases until eventually the neural density estimators outcompete the R-BP methods. The performance between the R-BP methods and our proposed \gls{ar} extensions is largely similar, though we note that the AR-BP methods were generally more effective on the GAS dataset.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{_graphics/large_uci.pdf}
\caption{ Average \gls{nll} and standard errors over 10 runs for training sets of different size.}
\label{fig:largeuci} \vspace{-5mm}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Supervised Learning}
R-BP methods, including AR-BP and ARnet-BP, can be used for prediction tasks such as regression and classification \cite{fong2021martingale}. In short, this is achieved by estimating the conditional predictive density $p_n(y|x)$ of the labels $y$ directly by assuming a dependent Dirichlet process likelihood. See Supplement \ref{app:supervised} for more details. Again, we follow the experimental set-up and choice of data sets of \citet{fong2021martingale}, and additionally report results on the MNIST data set, restricted to digits of class 0 and 1. We report the conditional test log-likelihood $-\frac{1}{\ns}\sum_{i}^{\ns}\log p_n(y^*_i|x^*_i)$ for a test set $\{(x^*_1, y^*_1), \ldots, (x^*_{\ns}, y^*_{\ns})\}$.
\paragraph{Baseline models} We compared our models against a \gls{gp}, a linear Bayesian model (Linear), and a one-hidden-layer multilayer perceptron (MLP) on several classification and regression tasks. The kernel parameters of the \gls{gp} are optimised during training, the $\alpha$ resp. $\lambda$ intialization parameter of the linear model over the range from 1 to 2 resp. 0.01 to 0.1, and the hidden layer sizes of the MLP over the values $\{64, 128, 256\}$. To get a distribution over the predicted outcome in the regression case, we trained an ensemble over 10 MLPs.
\paragraph{Results} As with the density estimation tasks, our proposed methods were highly competitive (Table \ref{tab:preduci}). AR$_d$-BP achieved the best average test log-likelihood on two of the regression tasks and one of the classification tasks. ARnet-BP was substantially better than the remaining methods on the CONCR data set and also performed best on the PARKIN data set. On the other hand, the MLP model was best on the MNIST digits data set.
\input{_tables/pred_uci}
\section{AR-BP: Autoregressive Bayesian Predictives \label{sec:meth}}
For smooth data distributions, the recursive update defined in \eqref{eq:mv_DP_marginal} generates density estimates that are highly competitive against other popular density estimation procedures such as \gls{kde} and \gls{dpmm} \citep{fong2021martingale}. Moreover, the iterative updates provide a fast estimation alternative to fitting the full \gls{dpmm} through \gls{mcmc}. When considering more structured data, however, performance suffers due to the choices of the factorized kernel $K(\cdot|\theta)=\Normal(\cdot|\theta, I_d)$ and base measure $G_0=\Normal(0, \tau^{-1}I_d)$ in the \gls{dpmm}. These choices induce a priori independence between the dimensions of the data, and are thus insufficiently flexible to capture more complex dependencies.
We therefore propose employing more general kernels and base measures in the \gls{dpmm} and show that these inspire a more general tractable recursive predictive update. In particular, we allow the kernel to take on an autoregressive structure
\begin{align} \label{eq:mv_AR_DP_kernel}
K(x|\theta) = \prod_{j=1}^d\Normal\left(x^j \mid \theta^j\left(x^{1:j-1}\right),1\right),
\end{align}
where $\theta^j:\mathbb{R}^{j-1}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is now an unknown mean \textit{function} for dimension $x^j$, which we allow to depend on the previous $j-1$ dimensions of $x$. Correspondingly, specifying our \gls{dpmm} requires the specification of a base measure supported on the function space in which $(\theta^1,\dots,\theta^d)$ is valued. We specify this base measure as a product of independent \gls{gp} priors on the functional parameters %
\begin{align} \label{eq:mv_AR_DP_base}
\theta^j\sim \text{GP}(0, \tau^{-1} k^j) \text{ for } j=1,...,d \text{ where } k^j : \mathbb{R}^{j-1} \times \mathbb{R}^{j-1}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}
\end{align}
and $k^j$ can be any given covariance function that takes as input a pair of ${x}^{1:j-1}$ values. In practice, we use the same functional form of $k$ for each $j$, so we will drop the superscript $j$. For later convenience, we have also written the scaling term $\tau^{-1}$ explicitly. We highlight that for $j=1$, $\theta^1 \sim \Normal(0, \tau^{-1})$.
Under this choice, the mean of the normal kernels in the \gls{dpmm} for each dimension $j$ is thus a flexible function of the first $j-1$ dimensions $x^{1:j-1}$, on which we elicit independent \gls{gp} priors. The conjugacy of the \gls{gp} with the Gaussian kernel in \eqref{eq:mv_AR_DP_kernel} is crucial for deriving a tractable density update.
\begin{rem}
The proposed kernel in \eqref{eq:mv_AR_DP_kernel} is in fact more flexible than a general multivariate kernel, $K(x \mid \theta) = \Normal(x \mid \theta, \Sigma)$. This is because the multivariate kernel also implies an \gls{ar} form like \eqref{eq:mv_AR_DP_kernel} but where the $\theta^j$ are restricted to be linear in $x^{1:j-1}$; see \cite{wade2014predictive} for details.
\end{rem}
\subsection{Iterative Predictive Density Updates}
Computing the Bayesian posterior predictive density induced by the \gls{dpmm} with kernel given by \eqref{eq:mv_AR_DP_kernel} and base measure given by \eqref{eq:mv_AR_DP_base} through posterior estimation is intractable and requires \gls{mcmc}. However, as before, we can utilize the model to derive tractable iterative copula updates.
In Supplement \ref{app:ar-deriv}, we show that the corresponding recursive predictive density update $p_{i}(x) = h_i(x, x_i)p_{i-1}(x)$ for the first $d'$ marginals takes on the form
\begin{align}\label{eq:mv_DP_AR_marginal} %
p_{i}\left({x}^{1:d'}\right) &= \left\{1-\alpha_{i} +\alpha_{i} \prod_{j=1}^{d'} c\left(u_{i-1}^{j}(x^{j}),v_{i-1}^{j}; \rho^j(x^{1:j-1}, x_i^{1:j-1})\right)\right\} p_{i-1}\left(x^{1:d'}\right),
\end{align}
with $u_{i-1}^j(x^j), v_{i-1}^j$ defined as in \eqref{eq:mv_DP_marginal},
$\alpha_i=\left(2-\frac{1}{i}\right)\frac{1}{i+1}$, and the bandwidth given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:rho}
\rho^j(x^{1:j-1}, x_i^{1:j-1}) = \rho_0 k\left(x^{1:j-1}, x_{i}^{1:j-1}\right),
\end{equation}
for $\rho_0 = 1/(1+\tau)$, and $\rho_{i}^1=\rho_0$. Where appropriate, we henceforth drop the argument $x$ for brevity.
The conditional \gls{cdf}s $u_{i-1}^j$ can also be computed through an iterative closed form expression similarly to \eqref{eq:mv_DP_AR_marginal} (Supplement \ref{app:imp}).
Note that this is almost identical to the update given in \eqref{eq:mv_DP_marginal} induced by the factorised kernel, except for the key difference that the bandwidth $\rho$ is no longer a constant, but is now data-dependent. More precisely, the bandwidth for dimension $j$ is a function of the \gls{gp} covariance function on the first $j - 1$ dimensions.
As we shall see, the additional flexibility afforded by the inclusion of covariance function $k$ enables us to capture more complex dependency structures in the data, as we do not enforce a-priori independence between the dimensions of the parameter $\theta$. Similarly to the extension of R-BP to R$_d$-BP, we can also define AR$_d$-BP by introducing dimension dependence in $\rho_0$.
\begin{rem}
The data-dependent bandwidth also appears when starting from other Bayesian nonparametric models, such as dependent \gls{dp}s and \glspl{gp} (see Supplement \ref{app:gp}).
\end{rem}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\subfloat{\includegraphics[height=1.85in]{_graphics/cond_mean_a.png}}
\hspace{1.23mm}
\subfloat{\includegraphics[height=1.85in]{_graphics/cond_mean_bb_vline.png}}
\caption{(a) Plots of $\alpha_i(x,x_i) \rho(x, x_i)$ for R-BP and AR-BP for $\rho_0\in\{0.5,0.7,0.95\}$ (\full,\fullmid,\fulllow) with new observation $x_i$ (\dotmid). Note that $\rho(x, x_i) = \rho_0$ for R-BP, and $\ell = 1$ for AR-BP. (b) Density plots for R-BP and AR-BP trained on 4 sequential data points (\crossmid).
}
\label{fig:itupd}
\end{figure}
Our approach can be viewed as a Bayesian version of an online \gls{kde} procedure. To see this, note that a \gls{kde} trained on $i-1$ observations -- yielding the density estimate $q_{i-1}(x)$ -- can be updated after observing the $i^{th}$ observation $x_i$ via $q_{i}(x) = (1-\alpha_i)q_{i-1}(x) + \alpha_i d\left(x, x_{i}\right)$, where $\alpha_i=1/i$ and $d(\cdot,\cdot)$ denotes the kernel of the \gls{kde}. Rather than adding a weighted kernel term directly, AR-BP instead adds an adaptive kernel that depends on a notion of distance between $x$ and $x_i$ based on the predictive \gls{cdf}s conditional on $x_{1:i-1}$.
To better understand the impact of the data-dependent bandwidth, we can compare the conditional predictive mean of R-BP and AR-BP in the bivariate setting $X \times Y$. Under the simplifying assumption of Gaussian predictive densities (Supplement \ref{app:cond_mean}), the conditional mean, $\mu_i(x)$, of $Y \mid X$ is given by
$$
\mu_i(x) = \mu_{i-1}(x) + \alpha_i(x,x_i) \rho(x, x_i) (y_i - \mu_{i-1}(x_i)),
$$
where $\alpha_i(x,x_i) = {\alpha_i c(P_{i-1}(x), P_{i-1}(x_i); \rho)}/[{1-\alpha_i + \alpha_i c(P_{i-1}(x), P_{i-1}(x_i); \rho)}] $. Note that $\rho(x, x_i)=\rho_0$ for R-BP. Intuitively, the updated mean is the previous mean plus a residual term at $y_i$ scaled by some notion of distance between $x$ and $x_i$. For R-BP, this distance between $x$ and $x_i$ depends only on their predictive \gls{cdf} values through $\alpha_i(x,x_i)$. This can result in undesirable behaviour {as shown in the upper plot in Figure \ref{fig:itupd}(a), where the peak of $\alpha_i(x,x_i)$, as a function of $x$, is not centred at $x_i$.} Counterintuitively, there is thus an $x > x_i$ where $\mu_i(x)$ is updated more than at the actual observed $x = x_i$. This follows from the lack of focus on \textit{conditional} density estimates for R-BP, which is alleviated by AR-BP.
In the \gls{ar} case, $\rho(x, x_i)$ takes into account the Euclidean distance between $x$ and $x_i$ in the data space. We see in the lower plot in Figure \ref{fig:itupd}(a) that the peak is closer to $x_i$. Figure \ref{fig:itupd}(b) further demonstrates this difference on a toy example - we see that R-BP struggles to fit a linear conditional mean function for $n = 4$, while AR-BP succeeds.
\paragraph{Training the update parameters}
In order to compute the predictive density $p_{n}(x^*)$, we require the vector of conditional \gls{cdf}s $[v_1^{j}, \ldots, v_{n-1}^{j}]$ where $v_i^{j} = P_i(x_{i+1}^j \mid x_{i+1}^{1:j-1})$. Given a bandwidth parameterisation, obtaining this vector thus amounts to model-fitting, and each $v_i^j$ requires $i-1$ iterations (Supplement \ref{app:imp}), for $i \in \{1,\ldots,n\}$.
We note that the order of samples and dimensions influences the prediction performance in \gls{ar} density estimators \citep{vinyals2015order}. In practice, averaging over different permutations of these improves performance (Supplement \ref{app:ordering}). Full implementation details, including all the algorithms used, can be found in Supplement \ref{app:algs}.
\paragraph{Computational complexity}
The above procedure results in a computational complexity of $\mathcal{O}(d\nr^2)$ at the training stage.
At test time, we have already obtained the necessary conditional prequential CDFs $v_n^{j}$ in computing the prequential log-likelihood above.
As a result, we have a computational complexity $\mathcal{O}(d\nr)$ for each test observation. Note that the introduction of a data-dependent bandwidth does not increase the computational complexity at train or test time relative to R-BP.
\subsection{Parameterisation of the Bandwidth}
The choice of covariance function in \eqref{eq:mv_AR_DP_base} provides substantial modelling flexibility in our AR-BP framework.
Moreover, the additional parameters associated with a given covariance function allow us to tune the implied covariance structure according to the observed data.
This formulation enables us to draw upon the rich literature on the choice of covariance functions for Gaussian processes \citep{williams2006gaussian}.
For simplicity we only consider the most popular such choice. The \gls{rbf} covariance function is defined as
$
k_\ell(x^{1:j-1},x^{'1:j-1}) = \exp[-\sum_{\kappa=1}^{j-1}\{({x^\kappa - x^{'\kappa}})/{\ell^\kappa}\}^2 ],
$
where $\ell = [\ell^1, \ldots, \ell^{d-1}]\in\mathbb{R}^{d-1}_{>0}$ is the length scale vector.
\paragraph{Neural parameterisation} %
As we saw in the motivating example of the density estimation of a checkerboard distribution in Figure \ref{fig:chess}, the \gls{rbf} kernel can restrict the capacity of the predictive density update to capture intricate nonlinearities if the training data size is not sufficient.
While the parameterization of the bandwidth in \eqref{eq:rho} was initially derived via the first predictive update for a \gls{dpmm}, all we require is that the bandwidth function $\rho^j: \mathbb{R}^{j-1} \times \mathbb{R}^{j-1} \to \mathbb{R}$ lies in (0,1).
We would also like $\rho^j(x, y)$ to take larger values when $x$ and $y$ are `close' in some sense.
Motivated by this observation, we now consider more expressive bandwidth functions that can lead to increased predictive performance.
In particular, we formulate an \gls{ar} neural network ${f}_{w}: \mathbb{R}^{d} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{d\times d'}$ for $d'\in\mathbb{N}$ with the property that the $j^{th}$ row of the output depends only on the first $j-1$ dimensions of the input. Let $Z = {f}_{w}\left(x\right)$ and denoting ${z}^{j}$ to be the $j^{th}$ row of the matrix $Z$, the covariance function is then computed as
$ %
\rho^{j} = \rho_0 \exp( -\sum_{\kappa=1}^{j-1} \lvert\lvert {{z}}^{\kappa} - {z}^{'\kappa}\rvert\rvert^2_2 ).
$ %
Numerous \gls{ar} neural network models have been extensively used for density estimation \citep{dinh2014nice,huang2018neural,kingma2016improved}.
In our experiments, we use a relatively simple model with parameter sharing inspired by NADE, an \gls{ar} neural network designed for density estimation \citep{larochelle2011neural}. More advanced properties like the permutation invariance of MADE \citep{papamakarios2017masked} create an additional overhead that cannot be used in the copula formulation as the predictive update is not permutation-invariant. We refer to Bayesian predictive densities estimated using \gls{ar} neural networks as \textit{ARnet Bayesian predictives} (ARnet-BP). %
\paragraph{Tuning the bandwidth function}
Recall that the bandwidths $\rho_i(\cdot, \cdot)$ are parameterised by $\rho_0$ and the parameters of the chosen covariance functions or neural embedders.
For AR-BP, these are the length scales $\ell$ of the \gls{rbf} covariance function, while for ARnet-BP, these are the parameters $w$ of the \gls{ar} neural network.
We fit these tunable parameters in a data-driven approach by maximising the prequential \citep{dawid1997prequential} log-likelihood $\sum_{i=1}^{n} \log p_{i-1}(x_{i})$ which is analogous to the Bayesian marginal likelihood -- the tractable predictive density allows us to compute this exactly, and this approach is analogous to empirical Bayes.
Specifically, we use gradient descent optimisation with Adam \citep{kingma2014adam}, sampling a different random permutation of the training data at each optimisation step (Supplement \ref{app:ordering}).
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Robots excel in performing repetitive and precision-sensitive tasks in controlled environments such as warehouses and factories~\cite{census}. However, this excellence has not been yet extended to embodied AI agents providing assistance in uncontrolled environments, i.e. assisting humans in everyday tasks at home. Inspired by the catalyzing effect that benchmarks have played in the AI fields such as computer vision~\cite{imagenet,kitti} and natural language processing~\cite{glue}, the community is looking for new benchmarks for embodied AI, often running on simulation to leverage their safety, reproducibility and speed. Different to the very clear and uniformly adopted definitions of success in CV and NLP benchmarks, in embodied AI each benchmark defines tasks using a different formalism, often specific to one environment, simulator or domain, making it hard to develop general and comparable solutions.
The most common ways to define embodied AI tasks include geometric, image, language, experience, and predicate~\cite{rearrangement}. The most adopted is geometry: manually defining regions to place objects (rearrangement) or the robot (navigation) to claim success~\cite{habitat,tdw, metaworld, robosuite, rlbench}. While providing an exact guidance to the agent, this formulation requires explicit knowledge of the object/robot valid goal poses for each scene, involving a manual process that does not generalize to other scenes. Experience-based goal allow agents to collect observations in the goal environment~\cite{ai2thor, rearrangement}. However, despite its simplicity, providing a goal environment in the real world is challenging. Language goal describe configurations with natural language~\cite{alfred}. This formulation is the closest to defining in the logic domain and more interpretable to human, but is less concise and adds the challenge of language understanding. To alleviate the aforementioned limitations, we note that using logic predicates to define tasks provides more generalizability to different scenes and simulators, and is closer to real world task definitions.
BEHAVIOR~\cite{behavior} is a set of 100 household activities for evaluating embodied AI agents defined in BEHAVIOR Domain Definition Language (BDDL) with synsets and logic predicates instead of grounded object instances and representations that depend on simulator features, providing a level of abstraction that can be adapted to any simulator and scene assets while allowing a flexible configuration space similar to how humans define tasks in the real world. Although BEHAVIOR is simulator-agnostic, so far it has only been integrated with iGibson 2.0 (iG 2.0)~\cite{igibson}. Recent release of Habitat 2.0 (H2.0)~\cite{habitat} shows a promising test bed for BEHAVIOR, as they provide a significantly higher simulation speed and thus allowing more experiences in the same time period.
In this work, we bring 45 out of the 100 BEHAVIOR activities which involve only kinematic states into H2.0 to benefit from its fast simulation speed as a first step towards demonstrating the ease of adapting activities defined in the logic space into different simulators, in the process equip H2.0 with a even richer set of iG 2.0 interactive scenes and assets.
\begin{figure*}[]
\centering
\adjincludegraphics[width=\linewidth, trim={{0.07\width} {0.54\height} {0.09\width} {0.09\height}}, clip]{images/eai_workshop_b2h_plot.png}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{Performing one episode of BEHAVIOR activity to {\em collect\_misplaced\_item} through teleoperation. Top row: observation key-frames from iG 2.0. Bottom row: observation key-frames from H2.0.}
\label{fig:teleop}
\end{figure*}
\section{BEHAVIOR in H2.0}
Fully supporting BEHAVIOR activities in a new simulator imposes five requirements, as stated in Section 5 in the BEHAVIOR paper~\cite{behavior}: 1) object-centric representation, 2) simulate physics and sensor signals, 3) non-kinematic states, 4) instance sampling from BDDL conditions, 5) state predicate checking. H2.0 naturally satisfies requirement 2) through its variety of sensor signals and the physics simulation through Bullet~\cite{bullet}. In this work, we extend H2.0 for the requirements 1), 4) and 5). For 1), we extend the H2.0 simulator to keep track of the additional object-centric state information needed for evaluating activity progress with BDDL. For 4), we enable H2.0 to use iG 2.0 assets and leverage the sampled instances from iG 2.0. For 5), we implement the pipeline to evaluate each kinematic state predicate. The missing requirement 3) is a current limitation of our effort: we have only kinematic states. This restricts our effort to support 45 out of 100 BEHAVIOR activities.
\vspace{-0.4cm}
\paragraph{Loading BEHAVIOR Instances in H2.0.}
Many objects in daily household activities require interaction with objects' articulation mechanisms, from loading dishes into a dish washer to opening doors and beyond. For simulators to support scenes that closely resemble real world scenarios, having more articulated objects that represents their real world counterparts in various scene layouts is highly desirable. H2.0's ReplicaCAD dataset lacks abundance in object categories, articulated objects, and scene layouts, despite the richness in carefully designed room configurations, as shown in Table \ref{tab:ig_vs_hab_asset}. Adding iG 2.0 scenes and assets allows H2.0 users to train and evaluate their AI agents with far more diverse environments and object set, and in particular more articulated objects to interact with.
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\paragraph{Checking Predicates for BEHAVIOR Activities in H2.0.}
BEHAVIOR requires seven kinematic states (NextTo, OnTop, etc.) and fourteen non-kinematic states (Burnt, Sliced, etc.). In this work we focus on implementing kinematic states in H2.0 that are essential for many BEHAVIOR activities. We provide a BDDL backend for H2.0 that supports predicate checking for {\em NextTo} , {\em Inside}, {\em OnFloor}, {\em OnTop}, {\em Touching}, and {\em Under}. For validating task completion progress and task success, we leverage the logic evaluation mechanism from BDDL. Overall, our effort facilitates training and evaluating on 45 out of 100 BEHAVIOR activities.
\section{Experimental Validation}
\vspace{-0.1cm}
To demonstrate and validate our implementation, we perform an episode of the {\em collect\_misplaced\_item} activity in the {\em Wainscott\_0\_int} apartment in both iG 2.0 and H2.0 through teleoperation.
The captured key-frames in Figure \ref{fig:teleop} correspond to observations when performing the activity. Benefited from BEHAVIOR's logic domain specification, we are able to implement the same activities in two different simulators without altering the activity definition in any way. Note that the differences in object appearances are due to lighting setup and using non-pbr rendering in H2.0.
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\paragraph{Performance Comparison of iG 2.0 vs\onedot H2.0.}
One of our goals in bringing BEHAVIOR to H2.0 is to gain performance benefit. Our effort enables a fair performance comparison of iG 2.0 and H2.0 with the same assets.
From our evaluation, H2.0 provided 10.4x speed up in an iG 2.0 scene with 64 processes on 8 GPUs. However, as the number of objects increase, the performance benefit of H2.0 over iG 2.0 decreases to 1.5x with 16 processes on 1 GPU and 1.25x with 64 processes on 8 GPUs, and 0.94x on a single process.
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c}
\toprule
Asset & Apt. & Rm. & Cat. & Obj. & A.O. \\
\midrule
BEHAVIOR & \textbf{15} & \textbf{100} & \textbf{391} & \textbf{1217} & \textbf{339}\\
ReplicaCAD & 1 & 1 & 41 & 1201 & 8\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{BEHAVIOR (iG 2.0) and ReplicaCAD (H2.0) assets comparison, based on the number of apartments, rooms, layouts, object categories, objects, and articulated objects.}
\label{tab:ig_vs_hab_asset}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{table}
\vspace{-0.1cm}
\section{Next Steps}
\vspace{-0.1cm}
In this work, we ported BEHAVIOR household activities into H2.0, demonstrating that defining tasks in the high-level logic domain allows simple implementation of the tasks in different simulators. To further demonstrate the behavior of agents trained on the same task in different simulators, we plan to provide simple baseline training results in both iG 2.0 and H2.0, and release the code publicly to facilitate research in this direction. As a main limitation, our work currently only enabled activities with kinematic states; a natural extension is to implement the relevant extended object states and predicate checking mechanisms for the non-kinematic states to support even more BEHAVIOR activities.
{\small
\bibliographystyle{ieee_fullname}
|
\section{Introduction and background information}
\label{section:intro}
Define a system of dressing chain equations of $N$ periodicity as
\cite{veselov} :
\begin{equation}
(j_n+j_{n+1} )_z = -j_n^2+j_{n+1}^2 +\alpha_n, \; n=1,{\ldots} , N,
\quad j_{N+i}=j_i\,.
\label{dressingeqs}
\end{equation}
As we will now show such system requires a different treatment
depending on whether $N$ is odd or even.
This becomes evident when we consider a regular sum
$ \sum_{n=1}^N (j_n+j_{n+1} )_z $ and an alternating sum
$ \sum_{n=1}^N (-1)^n (j_n+j_{n+1} )_z $ of derivatives of $j_n+j_{n+1}$.
Calculating regular sum using
the dressing equations \eqref{dressingeqs} we obtain for both
even and odd $N$ the same expression
\begin{equation}
\sum_{n=1}^N (j_n+j_{n+1} )_z = 2 \sum_{n=1}^N (j_n)_z = \sum_{n=1}^N
\alpha_n \, ,
\label{vinculo}
\end{equation}
for the integration constant on the right hand side.
As long as $N$ is odd calculating an alternating sum $ \sum_{n=1}^N (-1)^n
(j_n+j_{n+1} )_z $ using the dressing equations \eqref{dressingeqs}
will reproduce the same condition as in \eqref{vinculo}.
For even $N$ the alternating sum $ \sum_{n=1}^N (-1)^n
(j_n+j_{n+1} )_z $ is identically zero (positive and negative terms
simply cancel). However the same expression
calculated by plugging the right hand side of
dressing equations \eqref{dressingeqs} yields
for e.g. $N=4$ the expression $\left( j_1^2+j_3^2-j_2^2-j_4^2 \right)
+\frac12 (-\alpha_1 +\alpha_2-\alpha_3+\alpha_4 )\,$.
Thus the dressing chains of even periodicity require imposition of a
new quadratic constraint or modification of the dressing chain
formulation. Such modification was proposed in
\cite{AGZ2021}, where the authors put forward
a system of dressing chain equations
of even $N =4, 6 , 8 ,{\ldots} $ periodicity defined as :
\begin{equation}
(j_i+j_{i+1} )_z = -j_i^2+j_{i+1}^2 +\alpha_i+(-1)^{i+1}
\frac{(j_i+j_{i+1}) \Psi}{\Phi}\
, \; i=1,2, {\ldots}
, N, \quad j_{N+i}=j_i\, ,
\label{dressingeqseven}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\Psi= \sum_{k=1}^N (-1)^{k+1} \left( j_k^2
- \frac12 \alpha_k \right), \qquad \Phi=\sum_{k=1}^N j_k \, .
\label{psidef}
\end{equation}
This structure is such that both regular and alternating sums
of derivatives of $j_i+j_{i+1}$ give
consistent answers when applied on
the system \eqref{dressingeqseven}:
\[ \begin{split} \sum_{i=1}^N (j_i+j_{i+1} )_z& = 2 \Phi_z =
\sum_{i=1}^N \alpha_i\, ,
\\
\sum_{i=1}^N (-1)^i (j_i+j_{i+1} )_z& =2
\sum_{k=1}^N (-1)^{k+1} j_k^2
+\sum_{k=1}^N (-1)^{k}\alpha_k - 2 \frac{\Phi}{\Phi}
\Psi= 0 \, .
\end{split}\]
As shown in \cite{AGZ2021} such system can be obtained by Dirac
reduction from $N+1$ dressing chain \eqref{dressingeqs} of odd
periodicity.
The above equations as well as quantities $\Psi$ and $\Phi$
are invariant under $A^{(1)}_{N-1}$ B\"acklund transformations
$ s_i,\, i=1,{\ldots} , N$ \cite{adler} :
\begin{equation}
j_i \stackrel{s_i}{\longrightarrow}
j_i - \frac{\alpha_i}{j_i
+j_{i+1}},\;\;
j_{i+1} \stackrel{s_i}{\longrightarrow}
j_{i+1} + \frac{\alpha_i}{j_i
+j_{i+1}}, \;\;
j_k \stackrel{s_i}{\longrightarrow} j_k, \; k \ne i, k\ne i+1\, ,
\label{Tinewj}
\end{equation}
when transformations \eqref{Tinewj} are accompanied by transformations
of coefficients
\begin{equation} \alpha_i \to
-\alpha_i, \quad \alpha_{i \pm 1}\to \alpha_{i \pm 1} +\alpha_i.
\label{sialphaj}
\end{equation}
There are also two automorphisms $\pi, \rho$ :
\begin{equation} \begin{split}
\pi &: j_i \to j_{i+1}, \; \alpha_i \to \alpha_{i+1}, \; \pi(\Phi)=\Phi, \; \pi(\Psi)=-\Psi \\
\rho &: z\to -z , j_i \rightarrow -j_{i+2},\;\;
\alpha_i \rightarrow \alpha_{i+2},\;
\; \rho(\Phi)=-\Phi, \; \rho(\Psi)=\Psi \, ,
\label{dressauto}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
that keep the dressing equations \eqref{dressingeqseven} invariant.
For the redefined quantities
\begin{equation}
{\bar j}_{n}=j_n +\frac{(-1)^{n}}{2} \frac{\Psi}{\Phi}\, ,
\label{jbardef}
\end{equation}
it holds that the corresponding sum
$f_n = j_n+j_{n+1}={\bar j}_{n}+{\bar j}_{n+1}$ is unchanged.
Such redefinition leads to a formal absorption of $\Psi$ terms so that
they are no longer explicit in the dressing equations
rewritten in terms of ${\bar j}_{n}$ that satisfy equations
\eqref{dressingeqs} \cite{AGZ2021}. However such process introduces
potential extra divergencies
into an associated Sturm-Liouville problem.
Throughout this paper we will work with
\eqref{dressingeqseven} with a constant non-zero $\Psi$ so that
the polynomial seed solutions we will construct below will be free of divergencies.
We present construction of rational and special function
solutions for dressing chains of even periodicity.
In this work rational solutions are identified with points on the
orbits of fundamental shift operators acting on the first-order polynomial
solutions.
The reduction procedure that yields special function solutions is outlined
and is shown to reproduce rational solutions for appropriate values of
the parameters of the underlying Riccati equations.
The presentation is organized as follows.
In section \ref{section:polynomials}, we obtain the first-order polynomial
solutions of the dressing chain equations \eqref{dressingeqseven}
with parameters $\alpha_i, i=1,{\ldots} , N$
depending on one arbitrary variable and with a constant non-zero
$\Psi$ that ensures that the solution is polynomial.
In section \ref{section:hamiltonian}, we establish connection between
the dressing chain equations \eqref{dressingeqseven} and
Hamiltonian formalism for $N=4,6$ that can easily be generalized to
arbitrary even $N$.
Essential for establishing this connection is
ability to cast the dressing chain equations \eqref{dressingeqseven} as
symmetric $A^{(1)}_{N-1}$-invariant Painlev\'e equations as those
given in equations \eqref{N4feqs} and \eqref{N6NY} for $N=4,6$,
respectively.
We should point out that translating the system of equations
depending on $j_i$ into formalism that is expressed entirely in terms
of $f_i=j_i+j_{j+1}$ is possible for even $N$ thanks due to the
presence of $\Psi$ terms on the right hand sides of
equations \eqref{dressingeqseven}.
This is in contrast to odd $N$
dressing chains where
$j_i$ and $f_i$ are always fully interchangeable.
For $N=4$ the Hamiltonian formalism of section \ref{section:hamiltonian}
gives rise to Painlev\'e V equation as briefly reviewed in subsection
\ref{subsection:H2pain}. The first-order polynomial
solutions in the setting of Hamiltonian formalism become the algebraic solutions
of \cite{watanabe}.
We are able to present a power series expansions
of Hamiltonian variables $p$ and $q$ in subsection \ref{subsection:kova}.
We show how potential divergencies of power series
solutions (that can not be absorbed in $\Psi$) can be removed by
appropriate B\"acklund transformations.
After removing the eventual simple poles from rational solutions by
acting with the B\"acklund transformations we obtain rational solutions
that are expandable in a series of positive powers of $z$ and can be
reproduced by actions of the shift operators as shown in the next
section.
In section \ref{section:rational}, we derive rational solutions for
$N=4$ by acting
with shift operators on the first-polynomial solutions \eqref{solution2}
and \eqref{solution1} to obtain all known cases listed in reference
\cite{kitaev}
that presented necessary and sufficient conditions for rational solutions of
Painlev\'e V equation.
Reference \cite{ohta} showed how to act with shift operators on
solutions \eqref{solution2} (expressed by tau functions) to obtain
some of the cases of \cite{kitaev} (items I + II on page
\pageref{page:items}). Extending structure of seed solutions to
include solutions \eqref{solution1} (where $j_i+j_{i+1}=0$ for some
$i$)
requires exclusion of those shift operators
that are ill-defined when acting on such solutions as discussed in
subsection \ref{subsection:item3}. Those
shift operators that are well-defined generate the remaining
rational solutions from solutions \eqref{solution1}, see item III on page
\pageref{page:items1}. This new approach leads to a systematic
and unified way to derive all rational Painlev\'e V solutions.
Based on results for $N=4$ we conjecture for all even $N$ that all rational
solutions are obtainable through actions of shift
operators on first-order polynomial solutions.
In section \ref{section:N=6}, we provide explicit
construction of special function solutions and rational solutions for $N=6$.
The rational solutions are always identified with orbits of the
fundamental shift operators. Existence of special function solutions
is established for cases with a sufficient number of constraints
imposed on $\alpha_i$ parameters to insure reduction of Hamiltonian equations
to one single Riccati equation. For $N=6$ case this happens for three
independent constraints. However we also encounter hybrid situations with one single Riccati equation and
one coupled quadratic (in $q_i,p_i$) equation for some cases with
two constraints. In such cases there exists a special function solution
for only one of the variables. Interestingly, when $\alpha_i$ parameters are
associated with orbits of the shift operators we obtain closed expressions
in terms of Whittaker functions that describe rational solutions for
all underlying variables of the reduced system.
\section{First-order polynomial solutions for even periodicity}
\label{section:polynomials}
For simplicity we first carry out the discussion for $N=4$ before
proceeding
to the case of $N=6$ and making general comments about higher $N$ cases.
We are looking for the first-order polynomial solutions to
\eqref{dressingeqseven} of the type
\[
j_i= c_i z ,\quad \sum_{i=1}^4 c_i =1 \, ,
\]
that satisfy the $\Phi=z$ condition. With such ansatz the quantity
$\Psi$ defined in \eqref{psidef} can
only contain terms with $z^2$ or a constant. The terms quadratic in $z$
can be absorbed in $j_i$ via \eqref{jbardef} transformation. Thus without
losing any generality we can assume that
\begin{equation} \Psi= \frac12 (-\alpha_1 +\alpha_2-\alpha_3+\alpha_4
)= 1-\alpha_1 -\alpha_3\,,
\label{constpsi}
\end{equation}
where we used that $\sum_{i=1}^4 \alpha_i=2$.
One can easily see that the condition for $\Psi$ not to contain $z^2$
for the polynomial solutions of the first-order amounts to
$j_{n+1}^2-j_n^2=0$ on the right hand side of the dressing equations. Thus
the solution must be $j_i=z c (\epsilon_1,
\epsilon_2,\epsilon_3,\epsilon_4)$
with $\epsilon_i=\pm 1$ and $c$ a non-zero constant. Since $\Phi=z\ne0$ we
must also have $\epsilon_1+\epsilon_2+\epsilon_3+\epsilon_4 \ne0$.
This argument eliminates the case of two epsilons being negative,
$\epsilon_i=-1, \epsilon_j=-1, i\ne j$, as this would violate $\Phi \ne 0$.
Therefore the only two independent (up to $\pi$) polynomial solutions
are :
\begin{align}
&j_i= \frac{z}{4} (1,1,1,1)&
&( \alpha_1, \alpha_2, \alpha_3, \alpha_4)=
(\mathsf{a},1-\mathsf{a},\mathsf{a}, 1-\mathsf{a}) &
& \Phi= z , \Psi=1-2 \mathsf{a} \, ,
\label{solution2} \\
& j_i= \frac{z}{2} (1,1,-1,1) &
& (\alpha_1, \alpha_2, \alpha_3, \alpha_4) =
(\mathsf{a},0,0,2-\mathsf{a}) &
&\Phi=z, \Psi=1-\mathsf{a} \, .
\label{solution1}
\end{align}
Both solutions depend on only one free parameter $\mathsf{a}$.
The remaining first order polynomial solutions can be obtained by
acting with $\pi, \pi^2$ and $\pi^3$ on solution \eqref{solution1} (recall that $\pi^4=1$ for $N=4$
cyclicity and so $\pi^3=\pi^{-1}$). Note that in case of solution
\eqref{solution1} the action of automorphism $\pi$ is such that it
simply moves the
$-1$ term in expression for $j_i$ and zeros in expression for $\alpha_i$
to the right. It is important to point out that there could be other potential solutions of the first-order polynomial type like
for example $j_i=(z/2) (1,0,1,0)$. However such solutions would involve $z^2$ terms in $\Psi$ and could be transformed by the
transformation \eqref{jbardef} involving the $z^2$ part of $\Psi$ to the solution \eqref{solution1} or its $\pi$ variants.
One can easily extend this analysis to higher $N$ with $\Psi$ and
$\Phi$ defined in the definition \eqref{psidef}.
For the $N=6$ first-order polynomial solutions we take :
\[
\Psi= \frac12 (-\alpha_1 +\alpha_2-\alpha_3+\alpha_4 -\alpha_5+\alpha_6)=
1-\alpha_1 -\alpha_3 -\alpha_5\, ,
\]
and obtain five different first-order polynomial solutions:
\begin{align}
j_i&=\frac{z}{6} (1,1,1,1,1,1), \; \quad
\alpha_i=(\mathsf{a},\frac23-\mathsf{a},\mathsf{a}, \frac23-\mathsf{a}
,\mathsf{a}, \frac23-\mathsf{a}) \, , \label{N6polynomialsols1}\\
j_i&=\frac{z}{4} (1,1,1,1,1,-1), \;\quad
\alpha_i=(\mathsf{a},1-\mathsf{a},\mathsf{a}, 1-\mathsf{a} , 0,0)
\, , \label{N6polynomialsols2}\\
j_i&=\frac{z}{2} (1,1,1,1,-1,-1), \;\quad
\alpha_i=(\mathsf{a},2-\mathsf{a}, \mathsf{a}
,0,-\mathsf{a},0)\, ,\label{N6polynomialsols3}\\
j_i&=\frac{z}{2} (1,1,1,-1,1,-1),\; \quad
\alpha_i=(2-\mathsf{a},\mathsf{a}, 0
,0,0,0)\, ,\label{N6polynomialsols4}\\
j_i&=\frac{z}{2} (1,1,-1,1,1,-1)
,\; \quad \alpha_i=(2-\mathsf{a}, 0,0,\mathsf{a},0,0)
\, ,\label{N6polynomialsols5}
\end{align}
since all these configurations seems to be distinct and can not be
connected by permutation generated by $\pi$ or multiples
of $\pi$'s. All the above solutions depend on one arbitrary parameter
$\mathsf{a}$.
Note that $j_i=z (1,1,1,-1,-1,-1)$ is not a solution because it
would violate $\Phi \ne0$ condition. Thus the number of configurations
is equal to $1+1 +p(6-2, 2)=5$, where $p(6-2, 2)=p(4, 2)=3$ is a number of
partitions of $4$ in two parts (of positive integers and zero) : $4=4+0=3+1=2+2$.
For $N=8$ we find a number of the first-order polynomial
solutions to be $1+1+ p(8-2,2)+p(8-3,3)$ with
$p(8-2,2)=p(6,2)=4$ and $p(8-3,3)=p(5,3)=5$. Generally
a number of the first-order polynomial
solutions is given by $1+1+\sum_{k=2}^{N/2-1} p(N-k,k)$ where
$p(N-k,k)$ is a number of distinct partitions of $N-k$ in $k$ parts consisting of positive
integers and zero.
For arbitrary even $N$ with $\Phi =z$, $\Psi= 1 - \sum_{k=1}^{N/2}
\alpha_{2k-1}$ and an arbitrary variable $\mathsf{a}$
there will always be a fully symmetric solution:
\[ j_i= \frac{z}{N}, \; i=1,{\ldots} ,N, \quad \alpha_{2j-1}=
\mathsf{a},\; \alpha_{2j}=\frac{4}{N}-\mathsf{a},\; j=1,{\ldots}
,N/2\, ,
\]
which is a fixed point of $\pi^2$ automorphism.
The remaining solutions will have one and up to $N/2-1$
negative components $j_i= -\frac{z}{N}$ with varying distance between
the negative components. For example for only one negative component
in the last position we get
\[j_i= \frac{z}{N-2}, \; i=1,{\ldots}, N-2,\;
\alpha_{2j-1}=
\mathsf{a},\; \alpha_{2j}=\frac{4}{N-2}-\mathsf{a},\; j=1,{\ldots}
,N/2-1\, ,
\]
with $j_k=0, \alpha_k=0$ for $k=N-1,N$, and so on for solutions with
more negative components.
One needs to point out that the first-order solutions
\eqref{N6polynomialsols1}-\eqref{N6polynomialsols5}
appeared also as simple rational solutions expressed in terms of
$f_i=j_i+j_{i+1}$ that give rise to other rational solutions via
B\"acklund transformations in the framework of $A^{(1)}_5$
Painlev\'e equations (equivalent to $N=6$ dressing chain equations)
in reference \cite{matsuda5}.
\section{Hamiltonian formalism and polynomial solutions}
\label{section:hamiltonian}
\subsection{Hamilton equations and their algebraic solutions}
For $N=4$ we will show how the first-order polynomial solutions
\eqref{solution2} and \eqref{solution1} are equivalent to all
algebraic solutions found for Painlev\'e V equation in \cite{watanabe}.
These solution will then serve as seeds of all rational solutions \cite{kitaev}
of Painlev\'e V equation via shift transformations.
Thanks to the presence of $\Psi$ in the dressing equations
\eqref{dressingeqseven} they can be rewritten in terms $f_i=j_i+j_{i+1}, i=1,2,3,4$
as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
z \frac{d f_1}{d z}&=
f_1 f_3 \left(f_2-f_4\right) +
\left(1-\alpha_3\right) f_1 + \alpha_1 f_3 \, , \;
z \frac{d f_2}{d z}=
f_2 f_4 \left(f_3-f_1\right) +\left(1-\alpha_4\right) f_2 + \alpha_2 f_4
,\\
z \frac{d f_3}{d z}&= f_1 f_3 \left(f_4-f_2\right) +
\left(1-\alpha_1\right) f_3 + \alpha_3 f_1 \, ,\;
z \frac{d f_4}{d z}= f_4 f_2 \left(f_1-f_3\right) +
\left(1-\alpha_2 \right) f_4 + \alpha_4 f_2 \, ,
\label{N4feqs}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
after multiplication by $\Phi=f_1+f_3=f_2+f_4=z$
and use of definition of $\Psi$ from \eqref{psidef}. Recall
that it follows from relation \eqref{vinculo} that
$\alpha_1+\alpha_2 +\alpha_3+\alpha_4=2$.
The above system of equations can be cast into a Hamiltonian system with
\begin{equation}
H= -q\,(q-z)\,p\, (p-z)+(1-\alpha_1-\alpha_3)\, p q +\alpha_1 z
p-\alpha_2 z q \, ,
\label{pqHam}
\end{equation}
with Hamilton equations
\begin{equation}\begin{split}
z q_z &= -q(q-z)(2p-z)+(1-\alpha_1-\alpha_3) q +\alpha_1 z \, ,\\
z p_z &= p (p-z)(2q-z) - (1-\alpha_1-\alpha_3) p +\alpha_2 z \, ,
\label{hameqs}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
derived from
\[ z q_z = \frac{d H}{d p} , \qquad z p_z =- \frac{d H}{d q}\,.\]
The Hamilton equations \eqref{hameqs} reproduce the $N=4$ system
of equations \eqref{N4feqs} after substitution $(q,p) \to (f_1,f_2,f_3,f_4)$ such that
\[
q= f_1=z-f_3, \qquad p =f_2=z-f_4\, .
\]
The B\"acklund transformations \eqref{Tinewj} and automorphisms
\eqref{dressauto}
are given in the setting of Hamilton equations \eqref{hameqs} by
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
s_1&: q \to q, \; p \to p+ \frac{\alpha_1}{q}, \; \alpha_1 \to -\alpha_1, \,
\alpha_2 \to \alpha_2+\alpha_1, \alpha_3 \to \alpha_3\\
s_2&: q \to q- \frac{\alpha_2}{p}, \; p \to p, \; \alpha_2 \to -\alpha_2, \,
\alpha_1 \to \alpha_2+\alpha_1, \alpha_3 \to \alpha_3+\alpha_2\\
s_3&: q \to q, \; p \to p -\frac{\alpha_3}{z-q}, \; \alpha_3 \to
-\alpha_3, \,
\alpha_2 \to \alpha_2+\alpha_3, \alpha_4 \to \alpha_3+\alpha_4\\
s_4&: q \to q+ \frac{\alpha_4}{z-p}, \; p \to p, \; \alpha_4 \to
-\alpha_4, \,
\alpha_1 \to \alpha_4+\alpha_1, \alpha_3 \to \alpha_3+\alpha_4\\
\pi &: q \to z-p, \; p \to q ,\; \alpha_i \to \alpha_{i+1}, \\
\rho &: z\to -z ,\; q \to z-q ,\; p \to p-z, \;
\alpha_1 \leftrightarrow \alpha_3,\; \alpha_2 \leftrightarrow \alpha_4,
\label{backsymham}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\alpha_4$ is understood as $2-\alpha_1-\alpha_2-\alpha_3$
in terms of $\alpha_i, i=1,2,3$ appearing in the Hamiltonian formalism.
Solutions \eqref{solution2} and \eqref{solution1} as well solutions
that can be obtained from \eqref{solution1} by an automorphism $\pi : j_i \to
j_{i+1}, \alpha_i \to \alpha_{i+1}$ are given in terms of $q,p$ by
\begin{align}
q&=z/2, \; p=z/2, \; (\mathsf{a}, 1-\mathsf{a}, \mathsf{a}, 1-\mathsf{a})\, ,
\label{wata3} \\
q&=z, \;p=0, \; (\mathsf{a}, 0,0, 2-\mathsf{a}) \, ,
\label{wata1}\\
q&=z, \; p=z, \;(\mathsf{a}, 2-\mathsf{a},0,0)\, ,
\label{wata2}\\
q&=0, \; p=z,\; (0,\mathsf{a}, 2-\mathsf{a},0) \label{wata5} \, ,\\
q&=0,\; p=0, \; (0,0, \mathsf{a},2-\mathsf{a}) \label{wata6} \, ,
\end{align}
where \eqref{wata3} is derived from \eqref{solution2} while the
remaining solutions are obtained from \eqref{solution1} and its $\pi$
variants. Solution \eqref{wata3} is a fixed point of $\pi^2$ while all the remaining solutions can be connected to each other
by the $\pi$ automorphism.
All these solutions coincide with a
complete set of algebraic solutions found by Watanabe \cite{watanabe}.
For $N=6$ we define the Hamiltonian formalism in terms of
quantities:
\begin{equation}
q_1=j_1+j_2,\;\;\; p_1= j_2+j_3,\;\;\;q_2=j_1+j_2+j_3+j_4,\;\;\; p_2=j_4+j_5\, ,
\label{qipij}
\end{equation}
which satisfy equations
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
z q_{1, \, z}&= q_1(q_2-q_1)(2 p_1-z)+q_1 (z-q_2)(2p_1+2p_2-z)
+z \alpha_1 +q_1 (1-\alpha_1-\alpha_3-\alpha_5)\\
z q_{2, \, z}&= (q_2-q_1)(z-q_2)(2p_2-z)+
q_1(z-q_2)(2p_1+2p_2-z)
+z (\alpha_1+\alpha_3) +q_2 (1-\alpha_1-\alpha_3-\alpha_5)\, ,\\
z p_{1, \, z}&= p_1 p_2 (2 q_2 -2 q_1-z)+p_1 (z-p_1-p_2)(z-2q_1)
+z \alpha_2 -p_1 (1-\alpha_1-\alpha_3-\alpha_5)\\
z p_{2, \, z}&= p_1 p_2 (2 q_1-2 q_2+z)+p_2 (z-p_1 -p_2)(z-2 q_2)
+z \alpha_4 -p_2 (1-\alpha_1-\alpha_3-\alpha_5)\, ,
\end{split}
\label{q1p2eqs}
\end{equation}
that can be derived from $N=6$ dressing chain \eqref{dressingeqseven}
(explicitly given for $N=6$ in the appendix in equation \eqref{N6NY}).
Equations \eqref{q1p2eqs} can be realized as Hamilton equations
$z q_{i\, z}= \partial H /\partial p_i$ and
$z p_{i\, z}= -\partial H /\partial q_i$ for $i=1,2$ with the
Hamiltonian :
\[ \begin{split} H&= -\sum_{i=1}^2 p_i(p_i-z)q_i (q_i-z) -2 p_1 q_1 p_2 (q_2-z)
+\sum_{i=1}^2 p_i z \sum_{j=1}^i \alpha_{2i-1}
-\sum_{i=1}^2 q_i z \alpha_{2i}\\& +
\sum_{i=1}^2 q_i p_i (1-\alpha_1-\alpha_3-\alpha_5)\, .
\end{split}\]
One of advantages of variables $q_i,p_i, i=1,2$ is that they make
expressions for B\"acklund transformations \eqref{Tinewj} more
transparent. The actions of B\"acklund transformations on these
variables are given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
s_1(p_1) &= p_1+\frac{\alpha_1}{q_1},\; s_2(q_1)=q_1-\frac{\alpha_2}{p_1}
,\; s_3(p_1)=p_1-\frac{\alpha_3}{q_2-q_1} ,\;
s_3(p_2)=p_2+\frac{\alpha_3}{q_2-q_1}, \\
s_4(q_2)&=q_2 -\frac{\alpha_4}{p_2},\;
s_5(p_2)=p_2-\frac{\alpha_5}{z-q_2} ,\;
s_6(q_1)=q_1+\frac{\alpha_6}{z-p_1-p_2}, \;
s_6(q_2)=q_2+\frac{\alpha_6}{z-p_1-p_2},
\end{split}
\label{N6si}
\end{equation}
where we only listed those transformations that are not identities and
each $s_i$ is accompanied by transformation \eqref{sialphaj} of
$\alpha_i$. The automorphism $\pi$ acts in this setting
as follows:
\[
\pi : q_1 \to z-p_1-p_2, \, p_1 \to q_1,\, q_2 \to z-p_2, \,
p_2 \to q_2-q_1,\, \alpha_i \to \alpha_{i+1}\,.
\]
The first-order polynomial solutions \eqref{N6polynomialsols1}-\eqref{N6polynomialsols5}
are expressed in terms of variables defined in relation \eqref{qipij}
as the following solutions to Hamilton equations \eqref{q1p2eqs} :
\begin{alignat}{3}
q_1&=p_1=p_2=\frac{z}{3},\; q_2=\frac{2z}{3},\; &\quad
\alpha_i&=(\mathsf{a},\frac23-\mathsf{a},\mathsf{a}, \frac23-\mathsf{a}
,\mathsf{a}, \frac23-\mathsf{a}) \, ,\label{N6polynomialsols1pq}\\
q_1&=p_1=p_2=\frac{z}{2},\; q_2=z, \;&\quad
\alpha_i&=(\mathsf{a},1-\mathsf{a},\mathsf{a}, 1-\mathsf{a}
, 0,0)\, ,\label{N6polynomialsols2pq}\\
q_1&=p_1=z,\; q_2=2z,\;p_2=0 \;&\quad
\alpha_i&=(\mathsf{a},2-\mathsf{a}, \mathsf{a}
,0,-\mathsf{a},0)\, ,\label{N6polynomialsols3pq}\\
q_1&=q_2=p_1=z,\; p_2=0 \;&\quad
\alpha_i&=(2-\mathsf{a},\mathsf{a}, 0
,0,0,0)\, ,\label{N6polynomialsols4pq}\\
q_1&=q_2=p_2=z,\; p_1=0 \;&\quad
\alpha_i&=(2-\mathsf{a}, 0,0,\mathsf{a},0,0)\, ,
\label{N6polynomialsols5pq}
\end{alignat}
We notice that the solution \eqref{N6polynomialsols1pq} is a fixed point
of $\pi^2$ automorphism as it is obvious comparing with its form in
expression \eqref{N6polynomialsols1}.
\subsection{Connection of $N=4$ formalism to Painlev\'e V equation }
\label{subsection:H2pain}
It is well-known that equations \eqref{N4feqs} or \eqref{hameqs}
lead to Painlev\'e V equation. We will here establish this relation explicitly
in order to relate the parameters of both theories. We first define
$y = {q}/{z}$.
Taking a derivative of the top equation in \eqref{hameqs} and
eliminating $p_z$ and $p$ we obtain the second order equation
\begin{equation}
y_{zz}= -\frac{y_z}{z}+\left( \frac{1}{2y}+ \frac{1}{2(y-1)}\right)
y_z^2 + \frac{\alpha y}{z^2 (y-1)}+\frac{\beta(y-1)}{z^2 y} +\gamma y
(y-1) +\delta z^2 y (y-1) (2y-1)\, ,
\label{PVa}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\alpha=- \frac12 \alpha_3^2,\; \beta= \frac12 \alpha_1^2,\;
\gamma= 2-2 \alpha_2-\alpha_1-\alpha_3=\alpha_4-\alpha_2,\;
\delta= \frac12 \, .
\label{paramPV}
\end{equation}
We need two additional steps to cast equation \eqref{PVa} into a standard form of
Painlev\'e V equation.
First we perform a change of variables $z \to x$ where
$x = \epsilon z^2/2$
then followed by a transformation $w={y}/(y-1)$.
In terms of $w$ equation \eqref{PVa} takes a form of standard Painlev\'e V equation
\begin{equation}
w_{x x}
= -\frac{w_x}{x}+\left( \frac{1}{2w}+ \frac{1}{w-1}\right)
w_{x}^2 + \frac{w-1}{x^2} \left({\bar \alpha} w + {\bar \beta}
\frac{1}{w} \right) + \frac{{\bar \gamma}}{ x} w + {\bar \delta}
\frac{w (w+1)}{w-1}\, ,
\label{finalPV}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
{\bar \alpha}= \frac18 \alpha_3^2,\;\; {\bar \beta}=- \frac18 \alpha_1^2,\;\;
{\bar \gamma}= - \frac{1}{2 \epsilon }
( 2-2 \alpha_2-\alpha_1-\alpha_3)= \frac{\alpha_2-\alpha_4}{2 \epsilon },\;\;
{\bar \delta}= -\frac12 \frac{1}{\epsilon^2}\, .
\label{paramPVbar}
\end{equation}
For ${\bar \delta}$ to take a conventional value of $-\frac12$ we need
$ \epsilon^2 = 1$.
\subsection{Riccati solutions of equations \eqref{N4feqs}}
\label{subsection:riccati}
Let us reduce equations \eqref{N4feqs} by setting
either $\alpha_2=0,\; f_2=0, \; f_4=z$ or $\alpha_3=0,\; f_3=0,\;f_1=z$.
Using that $f_3=z-f_1$ in the first case and $f_4=z-f_2$ in the second
case we can rewrite the remaining equations for
$F_i=f_i/z, i=1,2$ as
\begin{equation}
\frac{d}{d z} F_i =- z F_i (1-F_i) - \frac{\alpha_i+\alpha_{i+2}}{z}
F_i + \frac{\alpha_i}{z}, \quad i=1,2 \, ,
\label{ric1}
\end{equation}
in which we recognize Riccati equations \cite{masuda}. Without losing
generality we will discuss the
solution for the case of $i=1$ with the principal solution given in terms of
Whittaker functions as
\begin{equation}
F_{1} (z) = -\alpha_1\frac{{\rm WhittakerM}(-\frac14 \alpha_3+\frac14 \alpha_1+1,
-\frac12+\frac14 \alpha_1+\frac14 \alpha_3, \frac12 z^2)}
{z^2 {\rm WhittakerM}(-\frac14 \alpha_3+\frac14 \alpha_1,
-\frac12+\frac14 \alpha_1+\frac14 \alpha_3, \frac12
z^2)}+\frac{\alpha_1}{z^2}\, .
\label{fwhittaker}
\end{equation}
The above expression becomes a rational function for at least one of the
two parameters $\alpha_1,\alpha_3$ being equal to a negative even integer, and
the other equal to an arbitrary integer but not equal to the opposite of that
negative even integer ($\alpha_1+\alpha_3\ne 0$) :
\[
\alpha_i = - 2 n , \qquad \alpha_{i+2}= m \ne 2 n, \; i=1,3 \;\quad n\in
\mathbb{Z}_{+}, 0,\; m \in \mathbb{Z}
\,
\]
For the special case $\alpha_1=0=\alpha_3$ it holds that $F_1=0$.
With the above conditions being satisfied the rational solutions occur for
Painlev\'e parameters:
\[
{\bar \alpha}= \frac12 n^2, \; {\bar \beta}= - \frac12 (\frac{m}{2})^2
, \;\,
\text{ or} \quad
{\bar \alpha}= \frac12 (\frac{m}{2})^2, \; {\bar \beta}= -\frac12 n^2\, .
\]
Let us recall that since $\alpha_2=0$ then $\epsilon{\bar \gamma}= -\alpha_4/2=
-(2-\alpha_1-\alpha_3)/2$ .
Thus if $\alpha_1=-2n, n\in \mathbb{Z}_{+} $ then we can
rewrite $\alpha_3$ as $\alpha_3=2 (1+n+\epsilon {\bar \gamma})$.
If $\alpha_3=-2n, n\in \mathbb{Z}_{+}$ then $\alpha_1=2 (1+n+\epsilon \,{\bar \gamma})$.
Riccati equation \eqref{ric1} takes a more familiar look
when we rewrite it in terms of a variable $x= -z^2/2$ :
\[
\frac{d}{d x} F_i= F_i (1-F_i) - \frac{\alpha_i+\alpha_{i+2}}{2x} F_i +
\frac{\alpha_1}{2x}\, .
\]
To linearize this equation we set $F_i = w_{i\, x}/w_i $ and
for brevity introduce coefficients
$b_i= (\alpha_i+\alpha_{i+2})/2$
and $a_i=\alpha_i/2$. In this way we obtain the second-order Kummer's
equation:
\begin{equation}
x w_{i \,xx}+(b_i -x) w_{i \,x} - a_i w_i=0\, .
\label{kummereq}
\end{equation}
We look for solutions of Kummer's equation denoted as $U (a,b,x)$
that are polynomials in $x$ of a finite, let us say $n$, degree. This occurs
for $a=-n$ and for $a-b=-n-1$ for $n=0,1,2,3{\ldots} $ and in the latter
case it holds that \cite{nist} :
\begin{equation}
U(a, a +n+1, x) = x^{-a} \sum_{r=0}^{n} \, \binom{n}{r} \, (a)_{r}\,
x^{-r},
\label{Uaan}
\end{equation}
where $(a)_{r}$ is a Porchhammer symbol.
We will connect this polynomial with the case of $\alpha_3=0$ and
$a= \alpha_2/2, b=(\alpha_2+\alpha_4)/2$ for $\alpha_i =( \alpha_1 +2
n, -2n,0 , 2-\alpha_1)$, which we will revisit later in equation \eqref{pochhammer}
in subsection \ref{subsection:item3}, where it will be obtained by an
action of $T_2^{-n} $ shift operator on polynomial solutions \eqref{solution1}.
For such values of $a$ and $b$ we will need to calculate
$U(-n, 1-n-\frac{\alpha_1}{2}, x)$.
Thanks to Kummer's transformation $U(a,b,x)=x^{1-b} U( a-b+1,2-b,x)$
\cite{nist} we obtain a relation
\begin{equation}
U(-n, 1-n-\alpha_1/2, x) = x^{n+\alpha_1/2}\, U (\frac{\alpha_1}{2},
+\frac{\alpha_1}{2}+n+1 ,x)\, ,
\label{Umn}
\end{equation}
which is a polynomial of degree $n$ according to equation \eqref{Uaan}.
For the case of $\alpha_2=0$ we have $a= \alpha_1/2$ and $b =
\alpha_1/2 +\alpha_3/2$. We will consider $\alpha_i= (\alpha_1, 0 , -2
n , 2-\alpha_1+2n)$, which as shown in subsection \ref{subsection:item3}
are obtained by action of $T_4^{n} $ shift operator on
the polynomial solution \eqref{solution1}.
Accordingly, we are dealing with the Kummer function
$ U (\alpha_1/2, \alpha_1/2-n, x)$. This expression is not a
polynomial as we can verify by explicitly calculating this function for $n=1$
obtaining $ U (\alpha_1/2, \alpha_1/2-1, x)= (2 x +\alpha_1-2) e^x$
with $U_x/U$ being however a rational function. In subsection \ref{subsection:item3}
we will prove that the action of $T_4^{n} $ shift operator on
the polynomial solution \eqref{solution1} generates solutions of the
Riccati equation \eqref{ric1} for $\alpha_i= (\alpha_1, 0 , -2
n , 2-\alpha_1+2n)$ .
\subsection{Power series representation of $p$ and $q$ variables }
\label{subsection:kova}
For $N=4$ we will show that $q=j_1+j_2,p=j_2+j_3$ can be represented
by power series in odd powers of $z$ and the results are
(up to an action with $\pi$ automorphism and its powers)
\[ q= \sum_{i=1}^2 (c_i z+ e_i z^3 +{\ldots}) , \;\quad
p= \sum_{i=1}^2 (c_i z +e_i z^3 +{\ldots})\, ,
\]
or
\[ q= \sum_{i=1}^2 (c_i z+e_i z^3 +{\ldots}) , \; \quad
p= \frac{\alpha_3-\alpha_1}{z} +\sum_{i=1}^2 (c_i z+ e_i z^3 +{\ldots})\, .
\]
The second case can be transformed by $s_1$ B\"acklund
transformation to the previous case.
Consider power series expansion $j_i= k_i z^{-m}+{\ldots}$ with the first term being lowest
power in $z$ . Comparing both sides of equations \eqref{dressingeqseven}
we notice that the lowest terms on the left and the right sides
will be of the order
\begin{equation} z^{-m-1} \sim z^{-2m} + z^{-m-1} (\Psi_{(-2m)} z^{-2m}+{\ldots}
+\Psi_{(0)}) \, ,\label{power}
\end{equation}
where we use the expansion of
$\Psi$ in \eqref{psidef} in powers of $z$ :
\[
\Psi = {\ldots} + \frac{\Psi_{(-2)}}{z^2} + \frac{\Psi_{(-1)}}{z}+
\Psi_{(0)}+ \Psi_{(+1)} z^1 + {\ldots} \, .
\]
For the terms on both sides of \eqref{power} to match and cancel each other
we need to take $m=1$ and set all
$\Psi_{(k)}=0, k<0$. In such case only $\Psi_{0}$ contributes to the above
equation.
Without losing generality we therefore adopt the expansion
\begin{equation} j_i(z) =\frac{a_i}{z}+ b_i +c_i z +d_iz^2 +e_i z^3 +
{\ldots} \, .
\label{jpole}
\end{equation}
For expansion in \eqref{jpole} it follows that
\begin{equation} \begin{split}
\Psi_{(-2)} &= a_1^2+a_3^2-a_2^2-a_4^2=-2 (a_1+a_2)(a_2+a_3)\, ,\\
\Psi_{(-1)} &= 2 (a_1 b_1+a_3b_3-a_2 b_2-a_4b_4)=-2 \left( (a_1+a_2)
(b_2+b_3)+(a_2+a_3)(b_1+b_2) \right)\, ,
\end{split}
\label{psim2m1}
\end{equation}
after we used that $a_4=-a_1-a_2-a_3$ and $b_4=-b_1-b_2-b_3$.
Next we will effectively work with the dressing equations \eqref{dressingeqs}
without $\Psi$
to see whether solutions for $j_i=a_i/z +b_i + c_i z$
will be such that the divergent terms can be absorbed in $\Psi$
of equation \eqref{dressingeqseven}
via transformation \eqref{jbardef}:
\[ j_i \; \to j_i +(-1)^i \frac{1}{2z} \Psi= j_i +(-1)^i \frac{1}{2z} \Psi_{(0)}+
(-1)^i \frac{1}{2z} \Psi_{(1)} z +{\ldots} \, .
\]
On the $z^{-2}$
level of such dressing equations one finds the following expressions:
\begin{equation}
-(a_i+a_{i+1})=a_{i+1}^2-a_i^2=(a_{i+1}+a_i)(a_{i+1}-a_i), \; i=1,
{\ldots} ,N\, ,
\label{dressm2}
\end{equation}
which imposes that
\[
a_i+a_{i+1}=0 \;\; \text{or}\;\;a_{i+1}-a_{i}=-1\, ,
\]
for each $i=1,2,3,4$.
There are two independent solutions of the above
equations:
\begin{align}
a_i &= ( 1,-1,1,-1)\, a\, , \label{aisols1}\\
a_i &=(a, -a, -1-a, 1+a) \, ,\label{aisols2}
\end{align}
that all satisfy $\sum_{i} a_i=0$. There are other similar solutions that
one can obtain from \eqref{aisols2}
by acting with $\pi, \pi^2, \pi^3$ transformations to obtain other
solutions like e.g. $ a_i=(a,a-1,1-a,-a)$ and
$a_i=(-1+a,1-a,-a,a)$.
It therefore suffices to use below the solution \eqref{aisols2}.
The top equation \eqref{aisols1} is such that $a_i+a_{i+1}=0$ for every
$i=1,2,3,4$. Such divergence can be absorbed by the transformation
\eqref{jbardef} with $\Psi= 2a$. In addition the divergent terms will be absent from
expressions for $p$ and $q$.
The other solution \eqref{aisols2} is such that either
$a_1+a_2=0$ or $a_2+a_3=0$ ensuring $\Psi_{-2}=0$ according to relation
\eqref{psim2m1}. However the divergent terms are such that they can
not be removed the transformation
\eqref{jbardef} and the divergent terms will be present in expressions for
$p$. Let us illustrate this by applying the transformation
\eqref{jbardef} with $\Psi=-2(1+a)$. This results in
$a_i =(1+2a, -(1+2a), 0, 0)$.
As we will show below such divergent terms can be removed by
a B\"acklund transformation. The calculations done for $N=4$ and $N=6$
suggest that this is a general feature for all $N$.
Now for solution \eqref{aisols1} we obtain that the condition
\eqref{psim2m1} for $\Psi_{(-1)}=-2 ((a_1+a_2)
(b_2+b_3)+(a_2+a_3)(b_1+b_2))=0$ is satisfied automatically
and accordingly $b_i$ can be chosen arbitrarily.
For \eqref{aisols2} and the other configurations that can be obtained
from \eqref{aisols2} by $\pi$, we obtain
conditions $(-1-2a)(b_1+b_2)=0$, $(-1+2a)(b_2+b_3)=0$
and $(1-2a)(b_1+b_2)=0$.
Accordingly $b_i$ can be chosen arbitrarily if
$a= \pm 1/2$ or we will have $b_2=-b_3$ or $b_2=-b_1$ condition
imposing one condition on $b_i$.
Consider now $z^{-1}$ level of the
equations \eqref{dressingeqseven}
without $\Psi$. With such redefined system one obtains on the $z^{-1}$
level $0=a_{i+1} b_{i+1} - a_i b_i$.
For the solutions in \eqref{aisols1} and \eqref{aisols2}
we find that we can write $b_i=b (1,-1,1,-1)$ and we can set $b=0$
without losing any generality as the terms can be added or removed by the transformation
\eqref{jbardef}. Similar conclusion
can be obtained for other coefficients of terms with $z$ to the even
power: $z^{2k}$. Such terms will not contribute to $q=j_1+j_2, p=j_2+j_3$
and we don't need to consider them in what follows.
Consider now $z^{0}$ levels of the
equations \eqref{dressingeqs} :
\begin{equation}
(1+2 a_i ) c_i+(1- 2 a_{i+1} ) c_{i+1} = \alpha_i , \quad
i=1,{\ldots} , N\, ,
\label{ciz0}\\
\end{equation}
using that $b_i^2=b^2_{i+1}$.
We first plug values for $a_i$ from \eqref{aisols1} into
the above equation to obtain
\[
a= \frac12 (-1+\alpha_1+\alpha_3)\, ,
\]
using that $\sum_i c_i=1$.
For $a_i$ given in \eqref{aisols2} we find
\begin{equation}
a= \frac12 (-1+\alpha_1-\alpha_3)\, ,
\label{aaa}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
c_1+c_2 = \frac{\alpha_1}{\alpha_1-\alpha_3}\, .
\label{c12}
\end{equation}
We will now apply our results to $q=j_1+j_2, p=j_2+j_3$ variables.
For $a_i =(a, -a, -1-a, 1+a)$ and $a$ given in \eqref{aaa}
it holds that
$-(1+2a)=\alpha_3-\alpha_1$ and
\begin{equation}
q= c_{12} z + e_{12}z^3 +{\ldots} , \;\;\quad
p= \frac{\alpha_3-\alpha_1}{ z} + c_{23} z+ e_{23} z^3+{\ldots} \, .
\label{azp}
\end{equation}
Here for
brevity we introduced $c_{12}=c_1+c_2$ given in equation \eqref{c12}.
Explicit calculation gives
\[
c_{23}=\frac{\alpha_3^2+\alpha_3\alpha_2-2
\alpha_3+\alpha_1^2+\alpha_1^2+\alpha_2\alpha_1-2 \alpha_2-2
\alpha_1}{\alpha_3^2 -2 \alpha_3\alpha-1-4+\alpha_1^2}\, .
\]
It follows that the singular term in $p$ in \eqref{azp} can be removed by $s_1$
transformation : $q \to q$, $p \to p+\alpha_1/q$ with
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\frac{\alpha_1}{q}&=
\frac{1}{\frac{1}{\alpha_1} ( - \frac{\alpha_1}{\alpha_3-\alpha_1} z + e_{12}z^3
+{\ldots} )}= \frac{1}{\frac{-z}{\alpha_3-\alpha_1}(1 -\frac{z^2
e_{12}(\alpha_3-\alpha_1)}{\alpha_1}+{\ldots} )}\, ,\\
&=-\frac{\alpha_3-\alpha_1}{z}(1+ \frac{z^2
e_{12}(\alpha_3-\alpha_1)}{\alpha_1} + z^4{\ldots} )
= -\frac{\alpha_3-\alpha_1}{z} -z
\frac{e_{12} (\alpha_3-\alpha_1)}{\alpha_1}
+z^3{\ldots} )\, ,
\end{split}
\label{alpha1q}
\end{equation}
which shows that the transformed $p$ given by $ p+\alpha_1/q$ will no
longer contain a singular term. Its power expansion will start with the term
proportional to $z$ and will only contain odd powers of $z$.
The initial position of the pole can be obviously moved from $p$ to
$q$ by the $\pi$ automorphism. This will lead to $s_1$ being
transformed by $\pi$ to other $s_i$, which will remove the divergent terms.
With this understanding we continue to
consider the above configuration without any loss of generality.
One can therefore effectively only consider the case of
$a_i =a (1, -1, 1, -1)$ from \eqref{aisols1} with
\[ q= c_{12} z + e_{12}z^3 +{\ldots} , \;\;
p= c_{23} z+ e_{23} z^3+{\ldots} \, ,
\]
with
\[ c_{12}= \frac{\alpha_1}{\alpha_1+\alpha_3}, \;
c_{23}=\frac{\alpha_2}{2-\alpha_1 - \alpha_3}\, .
\]
Amazingly the first terms of a general expression for $q,p$ agree
with a general formula
\begin{equation}
q=\frac{\alpha_1}{\alpha_1+\alpha_3} z ,\;\;
p=\frac{\alpha_2}{2-\alpha_1-\alpha_3} z, \;\;
\label{genwata}
\end{equation}
that reproduces all the cases of \eqref{wata3}-\eqref{wata6} for
the corresponding values of $\alpha_i$.
Let us illustrate all this by the following example.
\begin{exmp}
The solution
\begin{equation}
q= \frac{z(-468 +z^4)}{2(z^4-324)},
\;\; p= \frac{z^2-18}{2z},\;
\alpha_1=\frac{13}{2},\alpha_2=-1, \alpha_3=-\frac{5}{2} \, ,
\label{oursol2example}
\end{equation}
is taken from reference \cite{ullate}, where it was obtained using Maya
diagram techniques.
Clearly $p=z/2-9/z$ contains a singularity. Note that indeed
$-9/z=(\alpha_3-\alpha_1)/ z$ in agreement with relation \eqref{azp}.
Applying $s_1$ we get:
\begin{equation}
q= \frac{z(-468 +z^4)}{2(z^4-324)},
\;\; p= \frac{z(z^4+8z^2-468)}{2(z^4-468)},\;
\alpha_1=-\frac{13}{2},\alpha_2=\frac{11}{2}, \alpha_3=-\frac{5}{2} \, ,
\label{s1oursol2}
\end{equation}
with polynomial expansions:
\[ q(z)= \frac{13}{18} z +\frac{1}{1458} z^5+\frac{1}{472392} z^9
+{\ldots} ,\;\; p(z)= \frac{1}{2} z-\frac{1}{117}
z^3-\frac{1}{54756}z^7 + {\ldots} \, .
\]
Note that $13/18=\alpha_1/(\alpha_1+\alpha_3)$. We will show below
how to derive the rational solutions \eqref{s1oursol2}
from the seed solutions \eqref{solution2}-\eqref{solution1} (or
\eqref{wata3}-\eqref{wata6}) by the shift operators.
\end{exmp}
Applying equations \eqref{dressm2} and \eqref{ciz0} to $N=6$
we find that the number of solutions increased from two to three
(up to an action of $\pi$ automorphism) and they are given by:
\begin{align}
a_i &= a\, ( 1,-1,1,-1,1,-1),\qquad \qquad \qquad \quad \;
a=-\frac12 (1-\alpha_1-\alpha_3-\alpha_5) \, ,\label{aisolN6-1}\\
a_i &=(a, -a, -1-a, 1+a,-1-a,1+a), \quad
a=-\frac12 (1+\alpha_1-\alpha_3-\alpha_5) \, ,\label{aisolN6-2}\\
a_i &=(a, -a, -1-a, 1+a,a,-a), \qquad \quad\quad \;\; a=-\frac12
(1+\alpha_1-\alpha_3+\alpha_5) \label{aisolN6-3}\, ,
\end{align}
for expansions $j_i (z) = a_i /z +c_i z + {\ldots} , i=1,{\ldots} ,6$.
For solutions \eqref{aisolN6-2} and \eqref{aisolN6-3} there will be
poles in expansions of $p_i, i=1,2$.
Note that from equations \eqref{ciz0} we find $c_1+c_2=\alpha_1/(1+2
a)$ and $c_3+c_4=-\alpha_3/(1+2a)$ where $a$ is given in relations
\eqref{aisolN6-2} and \eqref{aisolN6-3}, respectively.
In case of solution \eqref{aisolN6-2} the expansion of $p_1$ starts with a
pole $p_1 = -(\alpha_1-\alpha_3-\alpha_5) /z + {\ldots} $ while the
expansion of $q_1$ is $q_1=(c_1+c_2)z +{\ldots} =
\alpha_1 z /(\alpha_1-\alpha_3-\alpha_5) +{\ldots} $.
Consequently the action of $s_1$ on $p_1$ removes the pole similarly
to what we have seen for $N=4$ case in expression \eqref{alpha1q}.
In case of solution \eqref{aisolN6-3} both expansions of $p_i, i=1,2$
will start with divergent terms: $p_1= -(\alpha_1-\alpha_3+\alpha_5) /z + {\ldots}$
and $p_2= (\alpha_1-\alpha_3+\alpha_5) /z + {\ldots}$.
Since $q_1= (c_1+c_2)z +{\ldots}$ and $q_2= (c_1+c_2+c_3+c_4)z +{\ldots}$
we easily find that $q_1-q_2= \alpha_3 z/(\alpha_1-\alpha_3+\alpha_5)+{\ldots} $.
Consequently the action of $s_3$ from equation \eqref{N6si}
on $p_1$ and $p_2$ will remove these divergencies. For those solutions
that are obtained from solutions \eqref{aisolN6-2} or \eqref
{aisolN6-3} by acting with automorphism $\pi$ or its powers the
divergencies will be removed by appropriate B\"acklund transformations
that are conjugations of $s_1, s_3$, e.g. $\pi s_1 \pi^{-1}$, $\pi s_3
\pi^{-1}$ etc.
\section{Construction of Rational Solutions}
\label{section:rational}
In this section, we will describe a method to derive all rational solutions that are
obtainable from the first-order polynomial solutions
of dressing equations \eqref{dressingeqseven}
via combined actions of fundamental shift operators $T_i, i=1,{\ldots}
,N$ from \eqref{shifts}.
\subsection{Summary of the results for $\pmb{N=4}$}
For $N=4$ the seeds solutions \eqref{solution2} and \eqref{solution1}
of dressing equations \eqref{dressingeqseven} are equivalent to Watanabe's algebraic solutions
\eqref{wata3}-\eqref{wata6} in the setting of Hamilton equations \eqref{hameqs}.
It is convenient to give the classification of solutions in terms of parameters
$\alpha_1,\alpha_3, (\alpha_2-\alpha_4)/2$ of the dressing chain
equations that define the Painlev\'e V
parameters ${\bar \alpha}, {\bar \beta}, {\bar \gamma}$ via relations
\eqref{paramPVbar} with ${\bar \delta}$ parameter
being non-zero and here equal to
${\bar \delta} =-1/2$ (for $\epsilon^2=1$).
\label{page:items}
The rational solutions obtained by acting with the shift operators
fall into three classes of parameters
$\alpha_1,\alpha_3, (\alpha_2-\alpha_4)/2$ and ${\bar \alpha}, {\bar \beta}, {\bar \gamma}$
depending on whether the fundamental
shift operators act
on solutions
\begin{itemize}
\item $j_i=(z/4) (1,1,1,1)$ from \eqref{solution2} (items
(Ia,Ib) and item (II)). In case of item (II) an intermediary step
of acting with $s_1$ in addition to the shift operators is involved,
see f.i. equation \eqref{azp}.
\item $j_i=(z/2)(1,1,-1,1)$ from \eqref{solution1}
(items (IIIa,IIIb)).
\end{itemize}
These three cases are as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(I)]
\[
{\alpha}_1 = A +2 n_1-2 n_2,\;
\alpha_3= A +2 n_3-2 n_4,\;
\frac{{\alpha}_2-{\alpha}_4}{2}=n_2-n_3-n_4+n_1,
\]
with $n_i \in \mathbb{Z}, i=1,{\ldots} ,4$ and $A$ arbitrary. The above implies either (Ia) or (Ib):
\item[(Ia)]
$ {\bar \alpha} = \frac12 (a)^2$, \, $ {\bar \beta} =- \frac12
(a+n)^2 $ and $ {\bar \gamma} =\epsilon m$
where $m+n$ is even and equal to $2(n_1-n_3)$ and $a=A/2+n_3-n_4$ arbitrary,
\item[(Ib)]
$ {\bar \alpha} = \frac12 (b+n)^2$, \, $ {\bar \beta} =- \frac12
(b)^2 $ and ${\bar \gamma} =\epsilon m$
where $m+n$ is even and equal to $2(n_2-n_4)$ and $b=A/2+n_1-n_2$ arbitrary
\item[(II)]
\[
\begin{split}
{\alpha}_1 &=1+2 n_1-2 n_2,\;{\alpha}_2= - A +2 n_2-2 n_3,\\
{\alpha}_3&= 1+2 n_3-2 n_4,\quad {\alpha}_4= A +2
n_4-2 n_1\, ,
\end{split}
\]
which imply
\[ {\bar \alpha}= \frac12 \left( \frac{1}{2}+m\right)^2, \;
{\bar \beta}=- \frac12 \left( \frac{1}{2}+n \right)^2, \;
{\bar \gamma}=(-A +n+m) \epsilon \, ,
\]
where $A$ is arbitrary
and $n,m$ are integers.
\item[(IIIa)]
\[
{\alpha}_1 = A +2 n_1+2n_2,\;
{\alpha}_3= -2 n_4 ,\;
\frac{{\alpha}_2-{\alpha}_4}{2}=-\frac{{\alpha}_4}{2}=
\frac{A}{2} -1 -n_4+n_1-n_2, \; \;\;
n_2, n_4 \in \mathbb{Z}_{+},\; n_1 \in \mathbb{Z}\, ,
\]
with $A$ arbitrary and $\mathbb{Z}_{+}$ that includes positive integers and zero. Accordingly, eliminating the arbitrary number $A$ from the above equations we can write
\[
{\bar \alpha}= \frac18 \alpha_3^2 = \frac12 \left( n\right)^2, \;\;
{\bar \beta}=-\frac18 \alpha_1^2= - \frac12 \left(\epsilon {\bar \gamma} +1 + m \right)^2, \;\;
\]
where $n=n_4 ,m=n_4+2n_2 \in \mathbb{Z}_{+}$ and with $n+m$ being an even integer.
\item[(IIIb)]
\[{\alpha}_1 =-2 n_2,\; { \alpha}_3=A+ 2 n_3+2 n_4,\quad
\frac{{\alpha}_2-{\alpha}_4}{2}= 1-\frac{A}{2}+ n_2- n_3+n_4,
\;\; n_2, n_4 \in \mathbb{Z}_{+},\; n_3 \in \mathbb{Z}\, ,
\]
with $A$ arbitrary. $\mathbb{Z}_{+}$
includes positive integers and zero. Accordingly, eliminating the
arbitrary number $A$ from the above equations we can write
\[
{\bar \alpha}= \frac18 \alpha_3^2=\frac12 \left( -\epsilon {\bar \gamma}+1+m\right)^2, \;\;
{\bar \beta}=-\frac18 \alpha_1^2=- \frac12 \left( n \right)^2, \;\;
\]
where $n=n_2,m=n_2+2n_4 \in \mathbb{Z}_{+}$ and with $n+m$ being an even integer.
\end{enumerate}
\label{page:items1}
Comments : Integers $n ,m $ in (IIIa) and (IIIb) have been derived as
positive integers. However they both enter quadratic expressions in
which their overall sign can be reversed.
\subsection{Applying the shift operators to obtain rational solutions}
\label{subsection:shiftrational}
For $N=4$ we will show how to reproduce
items (I)-(III) listed on the page \pageref{page:items}
in the setting of Painlev\'e V equation using the following
construction :
\begin{itemize}
\item The seeds of all rational solutions
are the first-order
polynomial solutions \eqref{solution2}, \eqref{solution1} and its $\pi$ variants. Note that these
seeds solutions all depend on an arbitrary real parameter customary chosen
here as $\mathsf{a}$.
\item A class of rational solutions that
can be obtained by successive operation by shift operators $T_i$,
defined in the next subsection \ref{subsection:shiftops}, of the form :
\begin{equation}
T_1^{n_1}T_2^{n_2}T_3^{n_3}T_4^{n_4} , \qquad n_i \in \mathbb{Z}\, ,
\label{T1234}
\end{equation}
on polynomial solutions \eqref{solution2} can be expanded in
positive power series in $z$ and do not contain a pole singularity and if
necessary (like in case of equation \eqref{azp}) having this singularity removed by $s_1$ B\"acklund
transformation. These two cases are described by the parameters presented
in the above items I and II, respectively.
\item A class of rational solutions
obtained from the seeds polynomial solutions \eqref{solution1}
will be derived by successive operation with shift operators $T_i$
of the type
\begin{equation}
T_i^{n_i} T_j^{n_j} T_k^{-n_k}, \qquad n_j,n_k \in \mathbb{Z}_{+},
\; n_i \in \mathbb{Z}\, ,
\label{T1234restricted}
\end{equation}
for distinct $i,j,k$ and $ \mathbb{Z}_{+}$ that contains positive
integers and zero as only actions with shift operators given in
equation \eqref{T1234restricted} that are not causing divergencies.
The results are summarized in the item III on page
\pageref{page:items1}.
\end{itemize}
We conclude that the well-known fundamental results
on classification of rational solutions of Painlev\'e V equation
first presented in \cite{kitaev}
are here obtained by acting with the operators \eqref{T1234}
on the first-order polynomial solutions \eqref{solution2} and \eqref{solution1}. In the latter case we will encounter
restrictions on those values of $n_i$ for which the operators \eqref{T1234}
are well-defined, as indicated in equation \eqref{T1234restricted}.
See also \cite{ohta} that derived rational solutions
described above in items (Ia,Ib) and (II)
via shift operators
acting on solutions expressed by $\tau$ functions and
corresponding to \eqref{solution2}. The results
of reference \cite{kitaev} were summarized succinctly in
\cite{clarkson,gromak}.
\subsection{The fundamental shift operators for $\pmb{A_{N-1}^{(1)}}$ }
\label{subsection:shiftops}
To analyze transformations under the shift operators which we will
introduce in this subsection it is convenient
to first introduce the following representation of $\alpha_i$ parameters for
$N=4$ case :
\begin{equation}
\alpha_1= 2(v_2-v_1),\;\;\; \alpha_2 = 2 (v_3-v_2) , \;\;\;
\alpha_3= 2(v_4-v_3),\;\;\; \alpha_4= 2+2(v_1-v_4)\, .
\label{alphav}
\end{equation}
One checks that
\[
\alpha_1+\alpha_2+\alpha_3+\alpha_4= 2
+2(v_2-v_1+v_3-v_2+v_4-v_3+v_1-v_4)=2\, ,
\]
is satisfied automatically without imposing any condition on $v$'s.
Obviously adding a constant term to all $v_i$ will
not change the final result in \eqref{alphav} and thus we have an equivalence:
\begin{equation}
(v_1,v_2,v_3,v_4) \sim (v_1+c ,v_2+c,v_3+c,v_4+c).
\label{equivalence}
\end{equation}
The B\"acklund transformations $s_i, i=1,2,3$ act in terms of $v_i$
simply as permutations between $v_i$ and $v_{i+1}$ :
$s_i: v_i \leftrightarrow v_{i+1}$, while $s_i(v_j)=v_j, j\ne i, i+1$.
The automorphism $\pi$ acts as
follows: $\pi(v_i)=v_{i+1}, i=1,2,3$ and $\pi(v_4)=v_{1}-1$.
Next we introduce the shift operators
\begin{equation}
T_1=\pi s_3s_2s_1, \quad T_2=s_1\pi s_3s_2, \quad T_3=s_2s_1\pi s_3,
\quad T_4=s_3s_2s_1\pi,
\label{trans}
\end{equation}
that act as simple translations on the $v_i$ variables:
$T_i (v_j)= v_j-\delta_{i,j}$ leading to:
\begin{equation}
T_i (v_i) = v_i-1, T_i(v_j)=v_j \longrightarrow
\begin{cases} T_i(\alpha_i)=\alpha_i+2, \\
T_i(\alpha_{i-1})=\alpha_{i-1}-2\end{cases} \, ,
\label{Tivalpha}
\end{equation}
or
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
T_1 (\alpha_1, \alpha_2, \alpha_3, \alpha_4) &=
(\alpha_1+2, \alpha_2, \alpha_3, \alpha_4-2) \, ,\\
T_2 (\alpha_1, \alpha_2, \alpha_3, \alpha_4) &=
(\alpha_1-2, \alpha_2+2, \alpha_3, \alpha_4) \, ,\\
T_3 (\alpha_1, \alpha_2, \alpha_3, \alpha_4) &=
(\alpha_1, \alpha_2-2, \alpha_3+2, \alpha_4) \, , \\
T_4 (\alpha_1, \alpha_2, \alpha_3, \alpha_4) &=
(\alpha_1, \alpha_2, \alpha_3-2, \alpha_4+2) \, .
\label{Tialpha}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Comparing expressions \eqref{Tialpha} and \eqref{Tivalpha}
we see that in the $v_i$ representation it
is very convenient to study how the parameter
space of solutions of dressing equation is being formed under actions
of the shift operators. Generally the orbit of $v_i=(v_1,v_2,v_3,v_4)$
under a action with $T_1^{n_1}T_2^{n_2}T_3^{n_3}T_4^{n_4}$
from equation \eqref{T1234} will be described by
$v_i=(v_1-n_1,v_2-n_2,v_3-n_3,v_4-n_4)$.
We are then able to associate a rational solution to each point of the
orbit following approach of subsection \ref{subsection:shiftrational}.
It is easy to extend the definition of the fundamental shift
operators to arbitrary $N$ \cite{witte,ohta,noumi98} :
\begin{equation}
T_1= \pi s_{N-1} \cdots s_2 s_1, \; T_2 = s_1 \pi s_{N-1} \cdots s_2,
{\ldots} , T_N= s_{N-1} \cdots s_2 s_1 \pi\, ,
\label{shifts}
\end{equation}
that for every $N$ generate the weight lattice of $A_{N-1}^{(1)}$.
The shift operators commute with each other
\[ T_iT_j = T_j T_i\, ,
\]
and satisfy $T_1T_2 \cdots T_{N}=1$, where we used that $\pi^N=1$
and that $\pi s_i= s_{i+1} \pi$.
These operators act on parameters $\alpha_i$ as
\begin{equation}
T_i(\alpha_{i-1})=\alpha_{i-1}+2, \quad T_i(\alpha_i)=\alpha_i-2,
\quad T_i(\alpha_j)=\alpha_j~(j \ne i-1,i),
\label{Tialphas}
\end{equation}
and further satisfy $ \pi T_i= T_{i+1} \pi,\;T_i (\Phi)=\Phi,\; T_i (\Psi)=-\Psi$.
The inverse shift operators for $N=4$ are :
\begin{equation}
T_1^{-1} =s_1s_2s_3 \pi^3, \quad T_2^{-1}=s_2 s_3 \pi^3 s_1, \quad T_3^{-1}=s_3\pi^3 s_1 s_2,
\quad T_4^{-1} =\pi^3 s_1s_2s_3\, .
\label{inverseT}
\end{equation}
For convenience we also list the shift operators for $N=6$:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
T_1&= \pi s_{5} s_4 s_3 s_2 s_1, \; T_2 = s_1 \pi s_{5}s_4 s_3 s_2,\;
T_3 = s_2s_1 \pi s_{5}s_4 s_3,\; T_4 = s_3 s_2s_1 \pi s_{5}s_4 \\
T_5 &= s_4 s_3 s_2s_1 \pi s_{5},\;
T_6= s_5 s_4 s_3 s_2 s_1 \pi\, ,
\end{split}
\label{N6shifts}
\end{equation}
and their inverse
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
T_1^{-1} &=s_1s_2s_3s_4 s_5 \pi^{-1}, \;
T_2^{-1}=s_2 s_3 s_4 s_5 \pi^{-1} s_1, \;
T_3^{-1}=s_3 s_4 s_5 \pi^{-1} s_1 s_2,
\; T_4^{-1} =s_4 s_5 \pi^{-1} s_1s_2s_3,\\
T_5^{-1} &= s_5 \pi^{-1} s_1s_2s_3 s_4,\;
T_6^{-1} = \pi^{-1} s_1s_2s_3 s_4s_5
\end{split}\, .
\label{inverseT6}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Shift operators acting on the solution
$\pmb{j_i=\frac{z}{4} (1,1,1,1)}$ in \eqref{solution2}}
\label{subsection:item1&2}
Consider solutions \eqref{solution2}
such that $(\alpha_1, \alpha_2, \alpha_3, \alpha_4) =
(\mathsf{a},1-\mathsf{a},\mathsf{a},1-\mathsf{a})$ with an arbitrary parameter
$\mathsf{a}$ and $q=p=z/2$.
These solutions under action of \eqref{T1234} will have according to
relation \eqref{Tialpha} the following final
parameters $\alpha_1,{\alpha}_2,
{\alpha}_3, {\alpha}_4$:
\begin{equation}
{\alpha}_1 = \mathsf{a} +2 n_1-2 n_2,\,
{\alpha}_3= \mathsf{a} +2 n_3-2 n_4,\;
{\alpha}_2= 1-\mathsf{a}+2 n_2-2 n_3,\,
{\alpha}_4= 1-\mathsf{a}+2 n_4-2 n_1\, .
\label{pre-baralphas1}
\end{equation}
Thus in agreement with item I on page \pageref{page:items} we find
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\frac{{\alpha}_1 - {\alpha}_3}{2}
&= n_1- n_2- n_3+ n_4=k_1-k_2= 2 k_{-} \\
\frac{{\alpha}_2-{\alpha}_4}{2}&= n_1-n_3+n_2-n_4=k_1+k_2=2
k_{+}\, ,
\end{split}
\label{baralphasdikff}
\end{equation}
where we introduced
\begin{equation}
k_1=n_1 - n_3, \quad k_2=n_2-n_4, \quad k_{\pm}= \frac12 (k_1 \pm k_2)
\, .
\label{kis}
\end{equation}
In terms of these parameters we can decompose
$T_1^{n_1}T_2^{n_2}T_3^{n_3}T_4^{n_4}$ into product of different
factors
\begin{equation}
T_1^{n_1}T_2^{n_2}T_3^{n_3}T_4^{n_4}= T_1^{k_1} T_2^{k_2} (T_1T_3)^{n_3}
(T_2T_4)^{n_4}= (T_1T_2)^{k_{+}} (T_1T_2^{-1})^{k_{-}} (T_1T_3)^{n_3}
(T_2T_4)^{n_4}\, ,
\label{kpmn}
\end{equation}
with each factor acting independently of the others on parameters in
equation \eqref{baralphasdikff}. Their
action on expression \eqref{solution2} with
$(\mathsf{a},1-\mathsf{a},\mathsf{a},1-\mathsf{a})$
induces the following transformations:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $(T_1T_3)^{n_3}$ increases arbitrary parameter $\mathsf{a}$ : $\mathsf{a}
\to \mathsf{a}+2 n_3$ but leaves $q=p=z/2$
of equation \eqref{wata3} unchanged.
\item $(T_2T_4)^{n_4}$ decreases arbitrary parameter $\mathsf{a}$ : $\mathsf{a}
\to \mathsf{a} - 2 n_4$ but leaves $q=p=z/2$
of equation \eqref{wata3} unchanged.
\item $(T_1T_2)^{k_{+}} $ increases $\frac12 ({\alpha}_2-{
\alpha}_4) \to \frac12 ({\alpha}_2-{\alpha}_4) + 2 k_{+}$
\item $(T_1T_2^{-1})^{k_{-}}$ increases $\frac12 ({\alpha}_1-{
\alpha}_3) \to \frac12 ({\alpha}_1-{ \alpha}_3) + 2 k_{-}$
\end{enumerate}
The first two top transformations in points, 1. and 2., do not induce
any change in
$\frac12 ({\alpha}_2-{ \alpha}_4) $ nor in
$\frac12 ({ \alpha}_1-{ \alpha}_3) $, thus
the shift operators $(T_1T_3)^{n_3}$ and
$(T_2T_4)^{n_4}$ increase equally
Painlev\'e V parameters ${\bar \alpha}$ and ${\bar \beta}$ and are not
changing $\epsilon \gamma$ parameter.
The shift operator $(T_1T_2)^{k_{+}} $ increases
$\epsilon \gamma$ by $2 k_{+}$,
while $(T_1T_2^{-1})^{k_{-}}$ changes a difference between ${\bar \alpha}$
and ${\bar \beta}$ of Painlev\'e V parameters. To illustrate how
the Painlev\'e V parameters ${\bar \alpha}, {\bar \beta}, {\bar \gamma}$
transform under the above combinations of shift operators we
recall expressions \eqref{paramPVbar}
and take into account expressions \eqref{pre-baralphas1} to obtain :
\begin{equation}
{\bar \alpha}= \frac{\left(\mathsf{a}/2 + n_3- n_4\right)^2}{2}, \,
{\bar \beta}=- \frac{\left(\mathsf{a}/2 + n_1- n_2 \right)^2}{2}, \,
{\bar \gamma}= \epsilon(n_2-n_3-n_4+n_1) \, .
\label{baralphas1a}
\end{equation}
In terms of integers $k_{\pm}$ the above expressions can be rewritten
succinctly as:
\[ {\bar \alpha}= \frac12 \left( \sqrt{-2 {\bar \beta}}
+n_2-n_1+n_3-n_4\right)^2 = \frac12 \left( \sqrt{-2 {\bar \beta}}
-2 k_{-}\right)^2, \;{\bar \gamma}=2 \epsilon k_{+}\, .
\]
Sometimes one encounters a pole in an initial expression for $p$ like
it was the
case in solution \eqref{oursol2example},
where $s_1$ was used to remove the pole from $p$.
To cover such case we apply $s_1$ B\"acklund transformation to obtain
a configuration $(-\mathsf{a},1,\mathsf{a},1)$. Then applying $\pi$
automorphism we arrive at
\[ ( 1, -\mathsf{a},1,\mathsf{a})\, .\]
Acting with $T_1^{n_1}T_2^{n_2}T_3^{n_3}T_4^{n_4}$ from \eqref{T1234}
will yield:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
{\alpha}_1 &=1+2 n_1-2 n_2,\quad {\alpha}_2= - \mathsf{a} +2 n_2-2 n_3,\\
{ \alpha}_3&= 1+2 n_3-2 n_4,\quad {\bar \alpha}_4= +\mathsf{a} +2
n_4-2 n_1,\label{pis1solution2}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
with
\[
{\bar \alpha}= \frac12 \left( \frac{1}{2}+n_3- n_4\right)^2, \;\;
{\bar \beta}=- \frac12 \left( \frac{1}{2}+n_1- n_2 \right)^2, \;\;
{\bar \gamma}=\epsilon (-\mathsf{a} +n_2-n_3-n_4+
n_1), \;
\]
setting $\mathsf{a}=A, n_3=0,n_4=-m,n_1=n,n_2=0$ we get item (II)
on page \pageref{page:items},
in agreement with \cite{kitaev}, see also \cite{ohta}
and Theorem 2.1 item (V) in \cite{clarkson}.
\noindent
\begin{exmp} Consider again the case of solution \eqref{oursol2example}
with
\[ \alpha_1=\frac{13}{2},\quad\alpha_2=-1,\quad \alpha_3=-\frac{5}{2}
,\quad
\alpha_4=-1\, ,
\]
and $p=z/2-9/z$ that contains a pole that can be
removed by $s_1$. Fitting the above $\alpha$'s into relation
\eqref{pre-baralphas1} does not work since the method works for $p$
being expandable in a positive series in $z$.
We therefore try to fit it into into structure obtained from
$T_i$'s acting on configuration
$(-\mathsf{a},1,\mathsf{a},1)$:
\begin{equation} \begin{split}
{\bar \alpha}_1 &= \frac{13}{2} =-\mathsf{a}+2 n_1-2 n_2,\;
{\bar \alpha}_2= -1= 1 +2 n_2-2 n_3,\\
{\bar \alpha}_3&= -\frac{5}{2} =\mathsf{a}+2 n_3-2 n_4,\quad {
\bar \alpha}_4= -1=1 +2 n_4-2 n_1,
\label{ullate-ex}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
It is now easy to find a class of solutions
\[ n_2 = -1+n_3,\; n_1 = 1+n_4,\; \mathsf{a} = -\frac{5}{2}-2n_3+2n_4
\]
with $n_3,n_4$ being arbitrary integers. If we set f.i. $n_3=n_4=1$,
then $n_2=0$ and $\mathsf{a}=-5/2$ form the solution.
\end{exmp}
Note that generally we obtain when starting from $(-\mathsf{a},1,\mathsf{a},1)$:
\begin{equation}
{ \alpha}_1 = -\mathsf{a}+2 n_1-2 n_2,\;
{ \alpha}_3= \mathsf{a} +2 n_3-2 n_4,\;
{ \alpha}_2=1 +2 n_2-2 n_3,\
{ \alpha}_4=1 +2 n_4-2 n_1, \;
\label{baralphas1a}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
{\bar \alpha}= \frac12 \left(\mathsf{a}/2 + n_3- n_4\right)^2, \;\;
{\bar \beta}=- \frac12 \left(-\mathsf{a}/2 + n_1- n_2 \right)^2, \;\;
{\bar \gamma}= \epsilon \, (n_2-n_3-n_4+n_1),
\label{baralphas1aa}
\end{equation}
Setting $a=- \left(\mathsf{a}/2 + n_3- n_4\right)=
\mathsf{a}/2-n_1+n_2$ we can rewrite the above
as
\[
{\bar \alpha}= \frac12 \left(a +m\right)^2, \;\;
{\bar \beta}=- \frac12 \left(a \right)^2, \;\;
{\bar \gamma}= \epsilon \, k\, ,
\]
with $m=n_1-n_2+n_3-n_4, k=n_2-n_3-n_4+n_1$ and
$k+m=2 n_1-2n_4$ being an even number (see also \cite{clarkson,kitaev}
or (I) on page \pageref{page:items}).
\begin{exmp}
In this example instead of connecting the solution \eqref{oursol2example}
to the seed solution with $(-\alpha_1,1,\alpha_1,1)$ we will rather
take the polynomial solution \eqref{s1oursol2}
with $\alpha_1=-\frac{13}{2},\alpha_2=\frac{11}{2},
\alpha_3=-\frac{5}{2} ,
\alpha_4=\frac{11}{2}$ obtained by acting with $s_1$ on solution \eqref{oursol2example}
from \cite{ullate}
and show that it can be obtained from polynomial solution \eqref{solution2}
with
\[ (\alpha_1, \alpha_2, \alpha_3, \alpha_4) =
(\mathsf{a},1-\mathsf{a},\mathsf{a},1-\mathsf{a}) \, ,\]
by successive operations of translations operations $T_i$ each acting
$n_i$ times.
Recalling the actions of $T_i$ \eqref{Tialpha} we obtain the following
$4$ conditions for the solution \eqref{s1oursol2} to be obtained from
the solution \eqref{solution2} by $T_i$'s each acting
$n_i$ times:
\[ \begin{split}
\mathsf{a}+2 n_1-2 n_2&= -\frac{13}{2}, \quad
(1-\mathsf{a})+2 n_2-2 n_3 = \frac{11}{2}\\
\mathsf{a}+2 n_3-2 n_4&= -\frac{5}{2} , \quad
(1-\mathsf{a})+2 n_4-2 n_1= \frac{11}{2}\, ,
\end{split}\]
with a general solution given in terms of arbitrary $n_3,n_4$:
\[ n_1 = n_3-1,\; n_2 = n_4+1,\; \mathsf{a} = -\frac{5}{2}+2 n_4-2n_3,
\]
that involves action by the shift operators equal to
\[
T_1^{-1+n_3}T_2^{1+n_4}T_3^{n_3}T_4^{n_4}=
\left(T_1T_3\right)^{-1+n_3} \left(T_2T_4\right)^{1+n_4}
T_3 T_4^{-1}\, .
\]
The above expression shows that there is no ambiguity
related to the choice of $n_3$ and $n_4$ as $(T_1T_3)^{-1+n_3}$ and
$(T_2T_4)^{1+n_4}$ do not change the form of the solution.
Therefore for simplicity we eliminate the first two factors of the above
expression by choosing :
\[ \; n_3-1=n_4+1=0\;
\;\to \;\; n_1=n_2=0,\; \;\mathsf{a}=-\frac{13}{2}, \]
and thus the action of shift operators \eqref{T1234}
becomes that of $T_3 T_4^{-1}$. The action of the inverse operator
$T_4^{-1}=\pi^{-1} s_1s_2s_3$ on $p=q=z/2,
(\mathsf{a},1-\mathsf{a},\mathsf{a},1-\mathsf{a})$ is well defined and yields
\[
q=\frac12 z \frac{(z^2-4 \mathsf{a})}{(z^2-4 \mathsf{a}-4)}, \;
p=\frac12 z \frac{(z^2-4 \mathsf{a}+4)}{(z^2-4 \mathsf{a}} , \;
(\mathsf{a},1-\mathsf{a},2+\mathsf{a},-1-\mathsf{a})\, .
\]
Applying $T_3$ on the above expressions we get :
\[ \begin{split}
q&=
\frac{z(16\mathsf{a}^2+32\mathsf{a}-z^4)}{2(4\mathsf{a}+8+z^2)(-z^2+4\mathsf{a}+8)},\;
\;\;p=\frac{z (16\mathsf{a}^2+32\mathsf{a}-8 z^2-z^4)}{2(16\mathsf{a}^2+32\mathsf{a}-z^4)}\\
&(\mathsf{a},-1-\mathsf{a},4+\mathsf{a},-1-\mathsf{a}) \, ,
\end{split}\]
which for $\mathsf{a}=-\frac{13}{2}$ reproduces expression \eqref{s1oursol2}.
\end{exmp}
\subsection{Action of the shift operators on $\pmb{j_i=\frac{z}{2}
(1,1,-1,1)}$ solution in \eqref{solution1}}
\label{subsection:item3}
By acting with $T_1^{n_1} T_2^{n_2} T_3^{n_3} T_4^{n_4}$
on $j_i= ({z}/{2}) (1,1,-1,1)$ from equation \eqref{solution1}
with
$\alpha_i=(\mathsf{a},0,0,2-\mathsf{a})$
we will arrive, in principle, at the following
parameters of the final configuration
\[ \begin{split}
{\alpha}_1 &= \mathsf{a} +2 n_1-2 n_2,\;{\alpha}_2= 2 n_2-2 n_3,\\
{\alpha}_3&= 2 n_3-2 n_4,\quad { \alpha}_4= 2-\mathsf{a} +2
n_4-2 n_1\, ,
\end{split}
\]
or
\begin{equation}
{ \alpha}_1 = \mathsf{a} +2 n_1-2 n_2,\;
{ \alpha}_3= 2 n_3-2 n_4,\;
\frac{{ \alpha}_2-{ \alpha}_4}{2}=\frac{\mathsf{a}}{2} -1 +n_2-n_3-n_4+
n_1, \;
n_i \in \mathbb{Z}\, .
\label{baralphas2}
\end{equation}
However not all of the shift transformations are well defined when acting on
$j_i\;=\; ({z}/{2}) (1,1,-1,1)$.
Since $j_2+j_3=0$ and $j_3+j_4=0$ we see from the definition
\eqref{Tinewj} that actions of $s_2,s_3$ involve divisions by zero
and therefore are not allowed.
{}Recalling the definitions \eqref{trans} and \eqref{inverseT} we accordingly need to
exclude $T_2,T_3$ and $T_3^{-1} , T_4^{-1}$ as these operators contain
$s_3$ and $s_2$ transformations at the positions to the right.
Because the shift
operators in \eqref{trans} and \eqref{inverseT}
contain ordered products of neighboring B\"acklund transformations
of the type $s_{i+1} s_i$ the divergence is only generated by the
$s_i$ located to the right. If the result of acting by $s_i$ is not
divergent then acting with $s_{i+1}$ would not be divergent as follows
from the definition \eqref{Tinewj}.
Accordingly, to avoid divergencies we will only consider the operators
$T_1^{n_1} T_4^{n_4} T_2^{-n_2}$ with $n_2,n_4 \in \mathbb{Z}_{+}$ and
$n_1 \in \mathbb{Z}$.
Indeed
one can verify that $T_2^{-1}=s_2s_3 \pi^{-1} s_1$ is permissible and
generates
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
T_2^{-1}&: q=z, p=0 \to q=z, p= \frac{2z}{\mathsf{a} -z^2}, \,
(2+\mathsf{a},-2,0,2-\mathsf{a})\\
T_2^{-n}&: q=z, p=0 \to q_n=z, p_n=\frac{2n z R_{n-1} (\mathsf{a};z)}{R_{n}
(\mathsf{a};z) }, \,
(2n+\mathsf{a},-2n,0,2-\mathsf{a})\, ,
\label{T2n}
\end{split}\end{equation}
where $R_{n} (\mathsf{a};z) $ is found to satisfy the recurrence
relation:
\[R_{n+1} (\mathsf{a};z)= 2 n z^2 R_{n-1}
(\mathsf{a};z)+(-z^2+2n+\mathsf{a}) R_{n} (\mathsf{a};z), \quad
n=1,2,{\ldots} \, ,\]
with $R_0 (\mathsf{a};z)=1$. The solution to this recurrence relation is
given by
\begin{equation}
R_{n}
(\alpha_1;z)= \sum_{r=0}^{n} \, \binom{n}{r} \, (\mathsf{a})_{r,2}\,
(-z^2)^{n-r}, \quad n=0,1,2, {\ldots} \, ,
\label{pochhammer}
\end{equation}
where we used the Pochhammer k-symbol $(x)_{n,k}$ defined as
$(x)_{n,k}=x(x+2)(x+2k) \cdots (x+(n-1)k)$.
We notice that $R_{n} (\mathsf{a};z)$ can be expressed as a function of
$x=-z^2/2$ and in terms of $x$ it holds that $d R_{n} (\mathsf{a};x)/d x
= 2n R_{n-1} (\mathsf{a};x)$. Thus we find that $p_n$ from equation \eqref{T2n}
satisfies $p_n/z=f_2/z= d (\ln R_{n} (\mathsf{a};x))/d x$.
Based on discussion around equation \eqref{Umn} from subsection
\ref{subsection:riccati} we expect that $R_{n} (\mathsf{a};x)$ is related
to Kummer's polynomial $U(-n, 1-n-\mathsf{a}/2, x)$.
Indeed an explicit calculation of expression \eqref{pochhammer} yields
$R_{n} (\mathsf{a};x)= 2^n x^{n+\mathsf{a}/2}
\, U (\frac{\mathsf{a}}{2}, \frac{\mathsf{a}}{2}+n+1, -\frac{z^2}{2})$,
which according to relation \eqref{Umn} is equal (up to an overall
constant) to $U(-n, 1-n-\mathsf{a}/2, x)$, a solution to the
Kummer's equation \eqref{kummereq} with $a= \alpha_2/2=-n$,
$b=(\alpha_2+\alpha_4)/2= -n+1-\mathsf{a}/2$. Here we obtained
this solution through acting $n$-th times with $T_2^{-1}$ on the first-order
solution \eqref{solution1}.
The shift operator $T_1$ essentially acts as an identity
\[
T_1 : q=z,\, p=0,\, \alpha_i=(\mathsf{a},0,0,2-\mathsf{a})\; \longrightarrow\;
q=z, \, p=0,\, \alpha_i=(2+\mathsf{a},0,0,-\mathsf{a})\, ,
\]
its only action is to increase $\mathsf{a} \to \mathsf{a}+2$.
Let us now take a closer look at the action of $T_4$ on $q=z, p=0$. Acting once with $T_4$ yields :
\begin{equation}
q_1= z- \frac{2 z}{z^2-\mathsf{a}+2}=T_4 (q_0),\;\; p_1=0, \;\;\, (\mathsf{a},0,-2,4-\mathsf{a})\, ,
\label{T4onq0}
\end{equation}
Acting $n$ times with $T_4$ on $q_0=z, p=0$ we get $q_n= T_4^n (q_0)$
that satisfies the recurrence relation
\begin{equation}
q_n= z - \frac{2 n z }{z q_{n-1}+2 n -\mathsf{a}},\quad\;
(\mathsf{a},0,-2n,2(n+1)-\mathsf{a})\, ,
\label{recurrenceT4}
\end{equation}
the corresponding expression for $p_n$ is
\[ p_n = q_{n-1}+\frac{2n-\mathsf{a}}{z}-\frac{2n}{z-q_n}=0\, ,
\]
where the zero on the right hand side follows from the recurrence
relation \eqref{recurrenceT4} connecting $q_n, q_{n-1}$.
It we assume that $F_{n-1}= q_{n-1}/z$ satisfies the Riccati equation
\eqref{ric1} for $i=1$ and $\alpha_3=-2(n-1)$ then it follows that
$F_{n}= q_{n}/z$ with $q_n$ determined through the recurrence relation
\eqref{recurrenceT4} will satisfy the same Riccati equation
\eqref{ric1} for $\alpha_3=-2n$. Since for $q_0=z$ the function
$F_0=q_0/z=1$ satisfies the Riccati equation
\eqref{ric1} for $\alpha_3=0$ this concludes the induction proof
for $q_n$ being equal to $z F_{\mathsf{a},
\alpha_3=-2n}$ where $ F_{\mathsf{a},\alpha_3}$ is given by
expression \eqref{fwhittaker} in terms of Whittaker functions.
Based on the above discussion we can rewrite equation \eqref{baralphas2}
as
\begin{equation}
{ \alpha}_1 = \mathsf{a} +2 n_1+2 n_2,\;
{ \alpha}_3= -2 n_4,\;
\frac{{ \alpha}_2-{ \alpha}_4}{2}=\frac{\mathsf{a}}{2} -1 -n_2-n_4+
n_1, \;
n_2,n_4 \in \mathbb{Z}_{+}, n_1 \in \mathbb{Z}\, ,
\label{baralphas2b}
\end{equation}
after making a transformation $n_2 \to -n_2$.
Accordingly, equation \eqref{baralphas2b} gives rise to
\begin{equation}
{\bar \alpha}= \frac12 \left( - n_4\right)^2, \;\;
{\bar \beta}=- \frac12 \left(\mathsf{a}/2 + n_1+n_2 \right)^2, \;\;
{\bar \gamma}= \epsilon (\frac{\mathsf{a}}{2} -1 -n_4-n_2+
n_1), \;
\label{baralphas3a}
\end{equation}
or after elimination of an arbitrary constant $\mathsf{a}$ :
\begin{equation}
{\bar \alpha}= \frac12 \left( - n_4\right)^2, \;\;
{\bar \beta}=- \frac12 \left( \epsilon {\bar \gamma}+1+n_4+2n_2 \right)^2,
\label{baralphas3b}
\end{equation}
After learning how the solution \eqref{solution1} transforms under a product of fundamental shift
operators we turn our attention to action of these operators on solutions that can be obtained
from \eqref{solution1} by an automorphism $\pi$. Acting with $\pi$ and $\pi^2$ on \eqref{solution1}
we get respectively, $j_i= ({z}/{2}) (1,1,1,-1)$ with
$(2-\mathsf{a},\mathsf{a},0,0)$ and $j_i= ({z}/{2}) (-1,1,1,1)$ with
$(0,2-\mathsf{a},\mathsf{a},0)$ as seeds configurations.
For $j_i= ({z}/{2}) (1,1,1,-1)$ we see that $j_3+j_4=0$ and $j_4+j_1=0$.
Thus comparing with relations \eqref{Tinewj} we recognize that
the B\"acklund transformations $s_3, s_3 \pi^{-1}, s_4, s_1 \pi$ would
involve divisions by zero. Accordingly among the eight shift operators listed
in \eqref{trans} and \eqref{inverseT} we need to discard $T_4,T_3,
T_4^{-1}, T_1^{-1}$ that contain the above mentioned B\"acklund transformations
in the positions to the right. Accordingly we will only act with
$T_1^{n_1} T_3^{-n_3} T_2^{n_2}$ with
$n_1,n_3 \in \mathbb{Z}_{+}, n_2 \in \mathbb{Z}$ generating the
following transformations of $(2-\mathsf{a},\mathsf{a},0,0)$ :
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
{ \alpha}_1 &=2-\mathsf{a}+2 n_1-2 n_2,\;{ \alpha}_2=
\mathsf{a} +2 n_2+2n_3,\\
{ \alpha}_3&= -2 n_3,\quad { \alpha}_4= -2 n_1,
\;\; n_1, n_3 \in \mathbb{Z}_{+},\; n_2 \in \mathbb{Z}\, ,
\label{pisolution1}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The Painlev\'e parameters corresponding to \eqref{pisolution1} are:
\[
{\bar \alpha}= \frac12 (n_3)^2, \;\;
{\bar \beta}=- \frac12 \left(1-\mathsf{a}/2 + n_1- n_2 \right)^2, \;\;
{\bar \gamma}=\epsilon (\frac{\mathsf{a}}{2} +n_2+
n_1-n_3), \;
\]
or \[
{\bar \alpha}= \frac12 (n_3)^2, \;\;
{\bar \beta}=- \frac12 \left( \epsilon {\bar \gamma} -1 -2 n_1+n_3 \right)^2,
\]
with $n_1,n_3$ being positive integers or zero. The above equation is
similar to relation \eqref{baralphas3b}.
For $j_i= ({z}/{2}) (-1,1,1,1)$ we see that $j_1+j_4=0$ and $j_1+j_2=0$.
We conclude from relations \eqref{Tinewj} that
the B\"acklund transformations $s_1, s_3 \pi^{-1}, s_4, s_1 \pi, s_2 \pi$ would
involve divisions by zero. We therefore need to exclude $T_4,T_1,
T_2^{-1}, T_1^{-1}$ among the eight shift operators listed
in \eqref{trans} and \eqref{inverseT}.
The action with the remaining shift operators
$T_2^{n_2} T_4^{-n_4} T_3^{n_3}$ with
$n_2,n_4 \in \mathbb{Z}_{+}, n_3 \in \mathbb{Z}$ generates the
following transformation of $(0,2-\mathsf{a},\mathsf{a},0)$ :
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
{ \alpha}_1 &=-2 n_2,\;{ \alpha}_2= 2-\mathsf{a}+ 2 n_2-2 n_3,\\
{ \alpha}_3&= \mathsf{a} +2 n_3+2 n_4,\quad { \alpha}_4= -2 n_4,
\;\; n_2, n_4 \in \mathbb{Z}_{+}, \,n_3 \in \mathbb{Z}\, ,
\label{pi2solution1a}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The Painlev\'e parameters corresponding to \eqref{pi2solution1a} are:
\[
{\bar \alpha}= \frac12 \left( \frac{\mathsf{a}}{2}+n_3+n_4 \right)^2, \;\;
{\bar \beta}=- \frac12 \left( - n_2 \right)^2, \;\;
{\bar \gamma}= \epsilon \,(1-\frac{\mathsf{a}}{2} +n_2-n_3+n_4), \;
\]
or
\begin{equation}
{\bar \alpha}= \frac12 \left( \epsilon \,{\bar \gamma}-1-n_2-2 n_4 \right)^2, \;\;
{\bar \beta}=- \frac12 \left( n_2 \right)^2, \;\;
\label{baralphas4b}
\end{equation}
with $n_2,n_4$ being positive integers or zero.
Relations \eqref{baralphas3b} and \eqref{baralphas4b} constitute
item (III) on page \pageref{page:items1}.
\begin{exmp} Let us now consider the following example with solution
taken from \cite{ullate} :
\begin{equation}
q= \frac{z(z^4-14z^2+63)}{z^4-18z^2+99},
\;\; p= \frac{z^6-21 z^4 +189 z^2-693}{z(z^4-14 z^2+63)},\;
\alpha_1=7,\alpha_2=6, \alpha_3=-4
\label{oursol3}
\end{equation}
Expression for $p$ has a pole which can be removed by applying $s_1$.
Applying $s_1$ we get
\begin{equation}
q = \frac{z(z^4-14z^2+63)}{z^4-18z^2+99},
\;\; p=z,
\;\;
\alpha_1=-7,\alpha_2=13, \alpha_3=-4, \, \alpha_4=0\, .
\label{oursol3a}
\end{equation}
We will match it with the initial configuration of \eqref{wata2} with
$p=z,q=z$ and $(2-\mathsf{a}, \mathsf{a},0,0)$
on which we can act with $T_2^{n_2}, T_3^{-n_3}, T_1^{n_1}$ (but not
$T_3^{+1}$)
to get :
\[ \begin{split}
{\alpha}_1 &=-7= 2-\mathsf{a} +2 n_1-2 n_2,\;{\alpha}_2= 13=
\mathsf{a} +2 n_2+2 n_3,\\
{\alpha}_3&=-4= -2 n_3,\quad {\alpha}_4=0= -2 n_1, \; n_1, n_3 \in \mathbb{Z}_{+},\; n_2 \in \mathbb{Z}\, .
\end{split}
\]
We choose $\mathsf{a}=9, n_1=n_2=0, n_3=2$ to get the desired result.
One can show for the corresponding combination of shift operators that
$T_3^{-2}=\pi^2 s_1 s_2 s_3 s_4 s_1 s_2$ and acting with such operator
on $p=z,q=z$ and $\alpha_i=(-7, 9,0,0)$
one reproduces easily the solution \eqref{oursol3a}. Alternatively, we
can obtain this solution as a special function solution when we
recognize that for the condition $\alpha_4=0$ from equation
\eqref{oursol3a} the Hamilton equations \eqref{hameqs} are solved by
$p=z$, which when inserted in the first equation in \eqref{hameqs}
reduce this equation to the Riccati equation
$ z q_z = -z q(q-z)+(1-\alpha_1-\alpha_3) q +\alpha_1 z $ solved by
\[
q = \frac{\alpha_3}{z} \frac{{\rm WhittakerM}
(\frac{\alpha_3}{4}-\frac{\alpha_1}{4}+1, -\frac12+\frac{\alpha_1}{4}+
\frac{\alpha_3}{4}, \frac{z^2}{2})}{
{\rm WhittakerM}(\frac{\alpha_3}{4}-\frac{\alpha_1}{4},
-\frac12+\frac{\alpha_1}{4}+\frac{\alpha_3}{4}, \frac{z^2}{2})}
+\frac{z^2-\alpha_3}{z}\,.
\]
Inserting $\alpha_1=-7, \alpha_3=-4$ we recover from the above
expression the rational solution \eqref{oursol3a}.
\end{exmp}
By comparing with results in \cite{kitaev} we conclude that
acting with shift operators on the first-order polynomial solutions of
$N=4$ dressing chain produces all rational solutions of the associated
Painlev\'e system. We therefore conjecture that the same technique
will produce all rational solutions for higher even $N$ and discuss
realization of this statement for $N=6$ in the next section.
\section{Special function and rational solutions of $N=6$ equations}
\label{section:N=6}
\subsection{Reductions of $N=6$ Hamilton Equations \eqref{q1p2eqs}}
Recall that in subsection \ref{subsection:riccati} we considered
$N=4$ solutions \eqref{wata3}
with $\alpha_i=(\mathsf{a},0,0,2-\mathsf{a})$. Having the parameters
$\alpha_2$ or $\alpha_3$ set to zero resulted in
$N=4$ Hamilton equations \eqref{hameqs} being reduced to a single
Riccati equation. For example for
$\alpha_3=0$ the Hamilton equations \eqref{hameqs} are solved by
$q=z$ and a solution of the Riccati equation $z p_z = z p (p-z) - (1-\alpha_1) p
+\alpha_2 z$. Similarly for $\alpha_2=0$ the Hamilton equations
\eqref{hameqs} are solved by $p=0$ and a solution of the Riccati equation
$z q_z = z q(q-z)+(1-\alpha_1-\alpha_3) q +\alpha_1 z$.
Accordingly we determined a class of special function solutions to the
Painlev\'e V equation that became rational solutions when
the $\alpha_i$ parameters coincided with orbits of
$(\mathsf{a},0,0,2-\mathsf{a})$ obtained by an action of appropriate
shift operators.
In this subsection we will carry out a similar discussion for the $N=6$
case investigating conditions for presence of
the special function solutions to
the Hamilton equations \eqref{q1p2eqs}.
The Hamilton equations \eqref{q1p2eqs} represent four coupled nonlinear
third-order differential equations.
Setting to zero various components of $\alpha_i$
introduces connections between $q_i,p_i, i=1,2$ and accordingly reduces
a number of coupled nonlinear equations. Imposing three
constraints on parameters of $N=6$ Hamilton system \eqref{q1p2eqs}
reduces the system to only one solvable second-order Riccati equation
with a special function solution.
The three constraints emerge when the two of $j_i$ are
negative as in solutions \eqref{N6polynomialsols2}-\eqref{N6polynomialsols5}.
When the reduced systems are realized on orbits
of shift operators $T_i^{n_i}$ acting on seeds solutions
\eqref{N6polynomialsols2}-\eqref{N6polynomialsols5} all these
Riccati solutions become rational solutions
parameterized by integers $n_i$.
\subsubsection{One-constraint reductions of $N=6$ Hamilton Equations}
We will proceed by listing possible conditions on $\alpha_i$
parameters together with expressions for those $q_i,p_i, i=1,2$ that solve
the reduced equations \eqref{q1p2eqs} obtained as a result of imposing
constraints.
For examples the formula :
\begin{equation}
\alpha_6=0 \quad \longrightarrow \quad p_2= z- p_1\, ,
\label{alpha6zero}
\end{equation}
means that inserting the condition $\alpha_6=0$
into the last two equations for $p_1,p_2 $
in \eqref{q1p2eqs} causes each of them to
reduce to one identical equation for $p_1$ :
\[
z p_{1, \, z}= p_1 (z-p_1) (2 q_2 -2 q_1-z)+z \alpha_2 -
p_1 (1-\alpha_1-\alpha_3-\alpha_5)\, ,
\]
with $p_2=z- p_1$. The reduced system of the remaining
three Hamilton equations only depends on three variables
$q_1,q_2,p_1$ after imposition of one single constraint.
We list below other single constraints and the corresponding simple solutions
for quantities entering equations \eqref{q1p2eqs} :
\begin{align}
\alpha_5&=0 \quad \longrightarrow \quad q_2= z\, ,
\label{alpha5zero} \\
\alpha_4&=0 \quad \longrightarrow \quad p_2= 0\, ,
\label{alpha4zero} \\
\alpha_3&=0 \quad \longrightarrow \quad q_1=q_2\, ,
\label{alpha3zero} \\
\alpha_2 &=0 \quad \longrightarrow \quad p_1=0\, ,
\label{alpha2zero} \\
\alpha_1 &=0 \quad \longrightarrow \quad q_1=0\, .
\label{alpha1zero}
\end{align}
\subsubsection{Multi-constraint reductions of $N=6$ Hamilton
Equations }
One can combine the above single constraints of $\alpha_i$ parameters into a set of two and more
constraints. As we will see below the set of three constraints
leads to the constrained system described by a single Riccati equation.
Imposing two constraints leads as a rule to two coupled nonlinear equations
but not always
equations that are quadratic in underlying variables.
Let us first consider the following example of two constraints:
\begin{equation}
\alpha_6=0 \;\&\;\; \alpha_5 =0 \quad \longrightarrow \quad p_1+p_2=z,
\;q_2= z\, ,
\label{alpha35zero}
\end{equation}
that combines $p_1+p_2=z$ that follows from $\alpha_6=0$ and
relation $q_2=z$ that follows from $\alpha_5=0$.
Imposing these two relations we
can rewrite the Hamiltonian equations only in terms of e.g.
$p_2, q_1$ entering cubic non-linear equations :
\begin{equation}\begin{split}
z p_{2, \, z}&= (z- p_2)p_2 (2 q_1-z)
+z \alpha_4 -p_2 (1-\alpha_1-\alpha_3)\, ,\\
z q_{1, \, z}&= q_1(z-q_1) (z-2 p_2) +z \alpha_1 +q_1 (1-\alpha_1-\alpha_3)\, .
\end{split}
\label{q1p2red25}
\end{equation}
For the two constraints:
\begin{equation}
\alpha_4=0 \;\&\;\; \alpha_3+\alpha_5 =0 \quad \longrightarrow \quad
p_2=0, \; q_1= z\, ,
\label{alpha43+5zero}
\end{equation}
the remaining variables $p_1,q_2$ enter two coupled second-order equations :
\begin{equation} \begin{split}
z p_{1\, z} &= -z p_1 (z-p_1) + z \alpha_2-
p_1 (1-\alpha_1)\, ,\\
z q_{2\, z}&=z( z-q_2) (2p_1-q_2)+z(\alpha_1+\alpha_3) +
q_2(1-\alpha_1)\, .
\end{split}
\label{p1q2redeqs}
\end{equation}
Only the first equation is a Riccati equation solvable in terms of
Kummer/Whittaker functions.
Next consider the two constraints
\begin{equation}
\alpha_6=0 \;\&\;\; \alpha_1+\alpha_5 =0 \quad \longrightarrow \quad
p_2=z-p_1, \; q_2= q_1+z\, .
\label{alpha61+5zero}
\end{equation}
The two remaining equations for $q_1,p_1$ are found to be
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
z q_{1, \, z}&= z q_1 (2 p_1-z) -z q_1^2
+z \alpha_1 +q_1 (1-\alpha_3)\, ,\\
z p_{1, \, z}&= z p_1 (z-p_1)
+z \alpha_2 -p_1 (1-\alpha_3)\, .
\end{split}
\label{q1p2redeqs}
\end{equation}
The second equation among equations \eqref{q1p2redeqs} is a regular
Riccati equation but the first one is a coupled Riccati equation.
We will see below in Example \ref{example-2.6orbits} that the
coupled equations \eqref{p1q2redeqs} and
\eqref {q1p2redeqs} become fully solvable on orbits of the shift
operators.
Combining together conditions into three conditions
yields one single second-order
Riccati equation emerging from such reduction process.
\begin{equation}
\alpha_2=0 \;\&\; \alpha_5 =0 \;\&\; \alpha_6=0 \quad \longrightarrow \quad
q_2= z, \, p_1=0,p_2=z\, .
\label{alpha256zero}
\end{equation}
In this case there only remains one Riccati
equation for the remaining variable $q_1$ :
\begin{equation} z q_{1\, z} =-zq_1(z-q_1)+z \alpha_1
+q_1 (1-\alpha_1-\alpha_3)\, .
\label{T4q1}
\end{equation}
Replacing $\alpha_2$ with $\alpha_4$ in \eqref{alpha256zero} yields
\begin{equation}
\alpha_2=0 \;\&\; \alpha_5 =0 \;\&\; \alpha_6=0 \quad \longrightarrow \quad
q_2= z, \, p_1=z,p_2=0\, ,
\label{alpha456zero}
\end{equation}
with a Riccati
equation for $q_1$
\begin{equation} z q_{1\, z} =zq_1(z-q_1)+z \alpha_1
+q_1 (1-\alpha_1-\alpha_3)\, .
\label{T3nq1}
\end{equation}
Similarly the three constraints
\begin{equation}
\alpha_6=0 \;\&\; \alpha_4 =0 \;\&\; \alpha_3+\alpha_5=0 \quad
\longrightarrow \quad p_1=z, \; p_2=0,\; q_1=z\, ,
\label{alpha4635zero}
\end{equation}
leave only one Riccati equation for $q_2$ : $z q_{2, \, z}= z (z-q_2)^2
+z^2 (z-q_2) +z (\alpha_1+\alpha_3) +q_2 (1-\alpha_1)$.
Plugging $f_3=q_2-z$ we get a simple looking Riccati equation for $f_3$:
\begin{equation}
z f_{3\, z}= -z^2 f_3 +z f_3^2+z \alpha_3+f_3 (1-\alpha_1)\, .
\label{f3T2n}
\end{equation}
A similar case is that of three constraints with $\alpha_3$ replaced by
$\alpha_1$ :
\begin{equation}
\alpha_6=0 \;\&\; \alpha_4 =0 \;\&\; \alpha_1+\alpha_5=0 \quad
\longrightarrow \quad p_1=z, \; p_2=0,\; q_2=q_1+z\, ,
\label{alpha4615zero}
\end{equation}
which leaves only one Riccati equation for $q_1$ : $z q_{1\, z} = z q_1 (z-q_1) + z \alpha_1+
q_1(1-\alpha_3)$.
Further we also list the three constraints:
\begin{equation}
\alpha_6=0 \;\&\; \alpha_5 =0 \;\&\; \alpha_3=0 \quad
\longrightarrow \quad q_1=z, \, p_2+p_1=z,\; q_2=z\, ,
\label{alpha653zero}
\end{equation}
As seen before $\alpha_6=0$ leads to $p_2=z-p_1$ and $\alpha_5=0$
leads to $q_2=z$. One of the remaining Hamilton equations is
$z q_{1, \, z}= q_1 (z-q_1)(2p_1-z) +z \alpha_1+q_1 (1-\alpha_1)$
with the solution $q_1=z$, which when inserted in equation
for $p_1$ gives Riccati equation : $z p_{1, \, z}= -z p_1 (z-p_1)
+z \alpha_2-p_1 (1-\alpha_1)$.
Another example of three independent constraints:
\begin{equation}
\alpha_6=0 \;\&\; \alpha_3 =0 \;\&\; \alpha_2=0 \quad
\longrightarrow \quad p_1=0, \, p_2=z\, .
\label{alpha632zero}
\end{equation}
The $N=6$ Hamilton equations \eqref{q1p2eqs} give then for the remaining
quantities $q_1,q_2$:
\[
\begin{split}
z q_{1\, z} &= -z q_1 (q_2-q_1) +zq_1(z-q_2)+z \alpha_1
+q_1 (1-\alpha_1-\alpha_5)\, , \\
z q_{2\, z}& = z (z-q_2) (q_2-q_1) +zq_1(z-q_2)
+z \alpha_1+q_2 (1-\alpha_1-\alpha_5) \, .
\end{split}
\]
Taking the difference of the above two equations yields equation for
$q_2-q_1$ which is solved for $q_2=q_1$. Thus we are left with
one Riccati equation for $q_1$ : $z q_{1\, z} = zq_1(z-q_1)+z \alpha_1
+q_1 (1-\alpha_1-\alpha_5)$.
Another case of three constraints
\begin{equation}
\alpha_5=0 \;\&\; \alpha_4 =0 \;\&\; \alpha_3=0 \quad
\longrightarrow \quad q_1=z, \, p_2=0,\; q_2=z\, ,
\label{alpha453zero}
\end{equation}
lead to one single Riccati equation for the remaining quantity $p_1$ :
\begin{equation}
z p_{1, \, z}= -z p_1 (z-p_1)
+z \alpha_2 -p_1 (1-\alpha_1) \,.
\label{2-7eq-p1}
\end{equation}
As seen above the three constraints reduce the four Hamiltonian equations in \eqref{q1p2eqs}
to one Riccati equation for the remaining variable.
As expected imposing all four constraints
applied on the four Hamiltonian equations in \eqref{q1p2eqs}
leads only to trivial solutions:
\begin{equation}
\alpha_6=0 \;\&\;\alpha_5=0 \;\&\; \alpha_4 =0 \;\&\; \alpha_3=0 \quad
\longrightarrow \quad p_1=z, \, p_2=0, \,q_1= q_2=z\, .
\label{alpha4536zero}
\end{equation}
As we will see below in example \ref{example-2.6orbits}
there are cases of two constraints with two remaining
Riccati equations that decouple under special circumstances when the
parameters are chosen to coincide with the orbits of the shift
operators.
\subsection{The orbit construction of rational solutions for $N=6$}
\label{subsection:N6case}
In this section we apply the technique introduced in previous
sections to the case of $N=6$ for which we already found the
first-order polynomial solutions in equations
\eqref{N6polynomialsols1}-\eqref{N6polynomialsols5}.
As found in subsection \ref{subsection:kova} for the $N=6$ case
after the appropriate actions by $s_1$
and $s_3$ the variables $p_i, i=1,2$ can be expanded in
positive power series that do not contain pole singularities. Such
rational solutions
can then be reproduced by actions of the shift operators on
solutions \eqref{N6polynomialsols1}-\eqref{N6polynomialsols5} or
\eqref{N6polynomialsols1pq}-\eqref{N6polynomialsols5pq}.
Recall the relevant $N=6$ shift operators from definitions
\eqref{N6shifts} and \eqref{inverseT6}.
For solution \eqref{N6polynomialsols1}
with all $j_i=z/6, i=1,2,3,4,5,6$
it holds that $j_i+j_{i+1} \ne 0$
for all $i=1,2,3,4,5,6$. Thus all $s_i$ transformations acting via
relation \eqref{Tinewj} are well defined and
action by
\[ T_1^{n_1} T_2^{n_2} T_3^{n_3} T_4^{n_4} T_5^{n_5} T_6^{n_6}
, \qquad n_i \in \mathbb{Z}, i=1,2,3,4,5,6\, ,
\]
produces rational solutions with the transformed ${\bar \alpha}_i$:
\[
(\mathsf{a}+2n_1 -2n_2,\frac23-\mathsf{a}+2n_2 -2n_3, \mathsf{a}
+2n_3-2n_4,\frac23-\mathsf{a}+2n_4-2n_5,
\mathsf{a}+2n_5-2n_6,\frac23-\mathsf{a}+2n_6-2n_1)\, .
\]
We can rewrite the above action of the shift operators as follows
\[ \begin{split}
T_1^{n_1} T_2^{n_2} T_3^{n_3} T_4^{n_4} T_5^{n_5} T_6^{n_6} &=
(T_1T_3T_5)^{n_1} (T_2 T_4 T_6)^{n_2} T_3^{n_3-n_1} T_5^{n_5-n_1}
T_4^{n_4-n_2}T_6^{n_6-n_2}\\
&=(T_1T_3T_5)^{n_1} (T_2 T_4 T_6)^{n_2} (T_3T_4)^{k_{+}} (T_3T_4^{-1})^{k_{-}}
(T_5T_6)^{m_{+}}(T_5T^{-1}_6)^{m_{-}}\, ,
\end{split}\]
where
\[ \begin{split}
k_{+}&= \frac12 ( n_3-n_1+n_4-n_2), \qquad k_{-} = \frac12 (
n_3-n_1-n_4+n_2)\,,\\
m_{+}&= \frac12 ( n_5-n_1+n_6-n_2), \qquad m_{-}
= \frac12 ( n_5-n_1-n_6+n_2) \, .
\end{split}\]
One can easily prove that $(T_1T_3T_5)^{n}$ only shifts the parameter
$\mathsf{a}$: $\mathsf{a} \to \mathsf{a}-n $ without changing the
functional form of the solution \eqref{N6polynomialsols1pq}.
Similarly $(T_2T_4T_6)^{n}$ only shifts the parameter
$\mathsf{a}$: $\mathsf{a} \to \mathsf{a}+n $ leaving the solutions
\eqref{N6polynomialsols1pq} unchanged.
For $(T_3T_4)^{k_{+}}$ we find that it results in
$(\alpha_2-\alpha_4)/2=-2 k_{+}, (\alpha_3-\alpha_5)/2=0$, while
for $(T_3T_4^{-1})^{k_{-}} $ we obtain
$(\alpha_2-\alpha_4)/2=0, (\alpha_3-\alpha_5)/2=2 k_{-}$.
For $(T_5T_6)^{m_{+}}$ we find that it results in
$(\alpha_6-\alpha_4)/2=2 m_{+}, (\alpha_3-\alpha_5)/2=0$, while
for $(T_5T_6^{-1})^{m_{-}} $ we obtain
$(\alpha_6-\alpha_4)/2=0, (\alpha_3-\alpha_5)/2=-2 m_{-}$.
For the solution \eqref{N6polynomialsols2} with $j_i=\frac{z}{4} (1,1,1,1,1,-1)$,
it holds that $j_5+j_6=0, j_6+j_1=0$ and
that makes $s_i, s_{i-1} \pi^{-1}, s_{i+1} \pi$ with $i=5,6$
ill-defined. Accordingly $T_5, T_6, T_1^{-1}, T_6^{-1}$ are ill-defined.
Rational solutions will be produced from the seed solution
\eqref{N6polynomialsols2} by action of
\[
T_1^{n_1} T_2^{n_2} T_3^{n_3} T_4^{n_4} T_5^{-n_5} , \;\;
n_1, n_5\in \mathbb{Z}_{+} ,\; n_2,n_3, n_4 \in \mathbb{Z}\, ,
\]
that yields the orbit parameters:
\begin{equation}
(\mathsf{a}+2n_1-2n_2,1-\mathsf{a}+2n_2-2n_3, \mathsf{a}+2n_3-2n_4
,1-\mathsf{a}+2n_4+2n_5, -2 n_5,-2 n_1)\, .
\label{2-5orbits}
\end{equation}
\begin{exmp}
Let us consider an orbit generated by $T_2^n$. Plugging $n_2=n$ and
$n_1=0,n_3=0, n_4=0, n_5=0$ into expression \eqref{2-5orbits}
we find that $\alpha_6=\alpha_5=0$ as in \eqref{alpha35zero}.
The expressions for $p_2$ found by applying $T_2^n$ on
solutions \eqref{N6polynomialsols2} with $p_2=z/2, q_1=z/2$
are :
\[ \begin{split}
p_2 (n=1, \mathsf{a}, z)&= \frac{z}{2} \frac{4+z^2 -4 \mathsf{a}}
{z^2 -4 \mathsf{a}+8} , \;\;
p_2 (n=-1,\mathsf{a}, z)= \frac{z}{2} \frac{z^2 -4 \mathsf{a}+4}
{z^2 -4 \mathsf{a}} \, , \\
q_1 (n=1, \mathsf{a}, z)&= \frac{z}{2} \frac{z^2 -4 \mathsf{a}+8}
{z^2 -4 \mathsf{a}+4} , \;\;
q_1 (n=-1, \mathsf{a}, z)= \frac{z}{2} \frac{-8+ z^2 -4 \mathsf{a}}
{-4+z^2 -4 \mathsf{a}}\, ,
\end{split}
\]
and one can verify that they satisfy the
relevant reduced Hamilton equations \eqref{q1p2red25} for $p_2, q_1$ with
$\alpha_1= \mathsf{a}- 2n, \alpha_2=1-\mathsf{a}+2n,
\alpha_3=\mathsf{a},
\alpha_4=1-\mathsf{a}$.
\end{exmp}
Next consider solution given in \eqref{N6polynomialsols3} with
$j_i=\frac{z}{2} (1,1,1,1,-1,-1)$ and $j_4+j_5=0, j_6+j_1=0$.
These conditions render $s_i, s_{i-1} \pi^{-1}, s_{i+1} \pi, i=4,6$
ill-defined. Using these arguments we find that
$T_4, T_6, T_1^{-1}, T_5^{-1}$ are ill-defined. Also
by inspection we find that $T_3, T_5, T_2^{-1}, T_6^{-1}$ are ill-defined
as well.
Rational solutions will be produced from the seed solution
\eqref{N6polynomialsols3} by action of
\[
T_1^{n_1} T_2^{n_2} T_3^{-n_3} T_4^{-n_4},\; \;
n_1,n_2 , n_3, n_4 \in \mathbb{Z}_{+} ,
\]
that yields
\begin{equation} (\mathsf{a}_3 +2n_1-2 n_2 ,2-\mathsf{a}_3-2n_2+2n_3,
\mathsf{a}_3-2 n_3+n_4,-2 n_4,-\mathsf{a}_3,-2n_1)\, .
\label{2-6orbits}
\end{equation}
\begin{exmp}
Consider an orbit generated by $T_2^n$ obtained by inserting $n_2=n$
and $n_1=n_3= n_4=0$ into the above expression \eqref{2-6orbits}.
This results in $\alpha_4=0, \alpha_6=0, \alpha_3+\alpha_5=0$,
which are the three constraints shown in \eqref{alpha4635zero}.
The corresponding Riccati equation \eqref{f3T2n} becomes :
\[
z q_{2\, z}=-3 z^2 q_2 +z q_2^2 +2 z^3 +z(2 \mathsf{a}_3-2 n) +
q_2(1-\mathsf{a}_3+2n)\, ,
\]
after inserting $\alpha_1=-2n +\mathsf{a}_3$.
Solving this equation for $q_2$ we get:
\[
q_2= z+ \frac{\mathsf{a}_3 }{z} +\frac{2}{z} \frac{
{\rm WhittakerW}(\frac{n}{2}+\frac{\mathsf{a}_3}{4}+1,
-\frac12-\frac{n}{2}+\frac{\mathsf{a}_3}{4},
\frac{z^2}{2})}{
{\rm WhittakerW}(\frac{n}{2}+\frac{\mathsf{a}_3}{4}, -\frac12-\frac{n}{2}
+\frac{\mathsf{a}_3}{4},
\frac{z^2}{2})} \, .
\]
For $n=0$ we obtain $q_2=2z$, and next
\[
n=1, \quad q_2= 2 z\frac{(-\mathsf{a}_3+1+z^2)}{
(-\mathsf{a}_3+2+z^2)}\, , \]
\[n=2, \quad q_2=2z \frac{(-4 \mathsf{a}_3+4+\mathsf{a}_3^2-2 \mathsf{a}_3 z^2+2 z^2+z^4)}{
(-6 \mathsf{a}_3+8+\mathsf{a}_3^2-2 \mathsf{a}_3 z^2+4 z^2+z^4)} \, .\]
This is in agreement with results obtained by acting explicitly by
$T_2^n, n=0,1,2$ on solution \eqref{N6polynomialsols3pq}
Similar considerations are involved in a study of an orbit generated
by $T_3^{-n}$ obtained by inserting $n_3=n$
and $n_1=n_2= n_4=0$ into expression \eqref{2-6orbits}.
This results in $\alpha_4=0, \alpha_6=0, \alpha_1+\alpha_5=0$
which are the three constraints shown in \eqref{alpha4615zero}.
Plugging $\alpha_1=\mathsf{a}_3$ and or $\alpha_3= \mathsf{a}_3-2n$
into the Riccati equation for $q_1$ shown below equation \eqref{alpha4615zero}
we find a solution :
\begin{equation}
q_1(n,\mathsf{a}_3,z) = -2n \frac{{\rm WhittakerM}(-\frac{\mathsf{a}_3}{4}-\frac{n}{2}+1, -\frac12+\frac{\mathsf{a}_3}{4}
-\frac{n}{2}, \frac{z^2}{2})}{z {\rm WhittakerM}(-\frac{\mathsf{a}_3}{4}
-\frac{n}{2}, -\frac12+\frac{\mathsf{a}_3}{4}-\frac{n}{2}, \frac{z^2}{2})}
+\frac{(z^2+2n)}{z} \, , \label{2-6q1nT3}
\end{equation}
with $q_1 (0,\mathsf{a}_3,z) =z$ and
\[ q_1 (1,\mathsf{a}_3,z) =
z\frac{\mathsf{a}_3+z^2}{\mathsf{a}_3-2+z^2}, \;
q_1 (2,\mathsf{a}_3,z) =z \frac{-2\mathsf{a}_3+\mathsf{a}_3^2+2\mathsf{a}_3 z^2+z^4}{\mathsf{a}_3^2-
6\mathsf{a}_3+8+2\mathsf{a}_3 z^2-4 z^2+z^4} \,.
\]
\end{exmp}
\begin{exmp}
\label{example-2.6orbits}
The two examples we will here consider involve systems that are
characterized by two conditions imposed on the paramaters $\alpha_i$.
Such situation leads to a system of reduced Hamilton equations
quadratic in canonical variables.
In examples shown here the reduced
Hamilton equations consist one simple Riccati equation and one quadratic
equation with coupled underlying canonical variables.
However when $\alpha_i$ parameters are those
of an orbit
\eqref{2-6orbits} the coupled Hamilton equations system separates
into two independent and solvable Riccati equations.
First, we consider an $T_1^n$ orbit which is obtained by inserting $n_1=n$
and $n_2=n_3= n_4=0$ into the above expression \eqref{2-6orbits}. The
orbit configuration agrees with the two constraints of
\eqref{alpha43+5zero} and with the corresponding coupled Hamilton equations
\eqref{p1q2redeqs} of which only the first equation is a Riccati
equation, which after inserting
$\alpha_1=\mathsf{a}_3+2n$ yields
\[
z p_{1\, z} = -z p_1 (z-p_1) + z (2-\mathsf{a}_3)-
p_1 (1-\mathsf{a}_3-2n)\, ,
\]
with solution :
\begin{equation}
p_1(n,\mathsf{a}_3,z) = \frac{n \mathsf{a}_3}{z} \frac{{\rm WhittakerW}(-\frac12+\frac{n}{2}-\frac{\mathsf{a}_3}{4},
\frac{\mathsf{a}_3}{4}+\frac{n}{2}, \frac{z^2}{2})}{{\rm WhittakerW}(\frac12+\frac{n}{2}-\frac{\mathsf{a}_3}{4},
\frac{\mathsf{a}_3}{4}+\frac{n}{2}, \frac{z^2}{2})}+\frac{(z^2-2 n)}{z}\, ,
\label{p1na3T1}
\end{equation}
for which we find for $n=0,1,2$:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
p_1 (n=0,\mathsf{a}_3,z) &= z, \;\quad p_1 (n=1,\mathsf{a}_3,z) = z
\frac{\mathsf{a}_3+z^2-2}{\mathsf{a}_3+z^2}\\
p_1 (n=2,\mathsf{a}_3,z) &=
z \frac{-2\mathsf{a}_3+\mathsf{a}_3^2+2 z^2\mathsf{a}_3+z^4-4
z^2}{2\mathsf{a}_3+\mathsf{a}_3^2+2 z^2\mathsf{a}_3+z^4}\, .
\label{p1T1}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
However for $\alpha_1=\mathsf{a}_3+2n$ it appears that effectively
equations \eqref{p1q2redeqs} decouple.
We can namely define $q_1$ such that
\[ q_1(n,\mathsf{a}_3,z)=q_2(n,\mathsf{a}_3,z)-z\, ,
\]
that satisfies the Riccati equation :
\[
z q_{1 \, z}= -z q_1 (z-q_1)+z (-\mathsf{a}_3)+q_1 (1+\mathsf{a}_3+2n)\, ,
\]
with solution:
\[
q_1= \frac{2}{z}\frac{ {\rm WhittakerW}(\frac{n}{2}-\frac{\mathsf{a}_3}{4}+1,
\frac12+\frac{\mathsf{a}_3}{4}+\frac{n}{2}, \frac{z^2}{2})}
{{\rm WhittakerW}(\frac{n}{2}-\frac{\mathsf{a}_3}{4},
\frac12+\frac{\mathsf{a}_3}{4}+\frac{n}{2}, \frac{z^2}{2})}-
\frac{\mathsf{a}_3}{z}\, ,
\]
which gives
explicitly the values
\[
\begin{split}
q_1(n=0,\mathsf{a}_3,z) &=z,\;\quad
q_1 (n=1,\mathsf{a}_3,z)= z
\frac{\mathsf{a}_3+z^2}{\mathsf{a}_3+z^2+2}\\
q_1(n=2,\mathsf{a}_3,z)&=z
\frac{2\mathsf{a}_3+\mathsf{a}_3^2+2z^2\mathsf{a}_3+z^4}{
6\mathsf{a}_3+8+\mathsf{a}_3^2+2z^2\mathsf{a}_3+4 z^2+z^4}\, ,
\end{split}
\]
that reproduces $q_2 (n,\mathsf{a}_3,z)$ after adding $z$.
Quite similar behavior will take place for an orbit $T_4^{-n}$
obtained by inserting $n_4=n$
and $n_1=n_2=n_3=0$ into the above expression \eqref{2-6orbits}.
Here $\alpha_i$ paramters satisfy two conditions :
$\alpha_6=0$ and $\alpha_1+ \alpha_5=0$ which coincide with expression
\eqref{alpha61+5zero}.
The two $N=6$
Hamilton equations \eqref{q1p2eqs} for remaining variables
$q_1,p_1$ shown in \eqref{q1p2redeqs} are such that
the first equation contains a coupling between these two variables.
although the second equation is a regular
Riccati equation.
We consider the case of $\alpha_3= \mathsf{a}_3+2n$ and
$\alpha_2=2-\mathsf{a}_3, \alpha_1=\mathsf{a}_3$.
The solution to the second equation in \eqref{q1p2redeqs} is :
\begin{equation} p_1(n,\mathsf{a}_3,z) = -\frac{n \mathsf{a}_3}{z}
\frac{{\rm WhittakerW}(-\frac12+\frac{n}{2}-\frac{\mathsf{a}_3}{4},
\frac{\mathsf{a}_3}{4}+\frac{n}{2}, -\frac{z^2}{2})}{
{\rm WhittakerW}(\frac12+\frac{n}{2}-\frac{\mathsf{a}_3}{4},
\frac{\mathsf{a}_3}{4}+\frac{n}{2}, -\frac{z^2}{2})}+\frac{(z^2+2 n)}{z}\, ,
\label{p1na3T4}
\end{equation}
Plugging $n=0,1,2$ into \eqref{p1na3T4} we get:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
p_1 (n=0,\mathsf{a}_3,z) &= z, \; p_1 (n=1,\mathsf{a}_3,z) = z
\frac{-\mathsf{a}_3+z^2+2}{-\mathsf{a}_3+z^2}\\
p_1 (n=2,\mathsf{a}_3,z) &=
z \frac{-2\mathsf{a}_3+\mathsf{a}_3^2-2 z^2\mathsf{a}_3+z^4-4
z^2}{2\mathsf{a}_3+\mathsf{a}_3^2-2 z^2\mathsf{a}_3+z^4}\, ,
\label{p1T4}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
It further holds for the particular values
$\alpha_3= \mathsf{a}_3+2n$ and
$\alpha_2=2-\mathsf{a}_3, \alpha_1=\mathsf{a}_3$ that characterize
the orbit that $q_1$ from equation \eqref{q1p2eqs}
solves the Riccati equation
\begin{equation}
z q_{1\, z} = z q_1(z-q_1) - z \mathsf{a}_3+
q_1(1+\mathsf{a}_3+2n) \, ,
\label{2-6T4q1eq}
\end{equation}
and solution is
\[
q_1(n,\mathsf{a}_3,z) = -2n \frac{{\rm WhittakerM}(\frac{\mathsf{a}_3}{4}-\frac{n}{2}+1, -\frac12-
\frac{\mathsf{a}_3}{4}
-\frac{n}{2}, \frac{z^2}{2})}{z {\rm WhittakerM}(\frac{\mathsf{a}_3}{4}
-\frac{n}{2}, -\frac12-\frac{\mathsf{a}_3}{4}-\frac{n}{2}, \frac{z^2}{2})}
+\frac{(z^2+2n)}{z} \, .
\]
For $n=0,1,2$ the above $q_1(n,\mathsf{a}_3,z)$ is equal to
equal to
\[\begin{split}
q_1 (n=0,\mathsf{a}_3,z)&=z,\quad \; q_1 (n=1,\mathsf{a}_3,z) =
z\frac{-\mathsf{a}_3+z^2}{-\mathsf{a}_3-2+z^2}, \\
q_1 (n=2,\mathsf{a}_3,z)&=z \frac{2\mathsf{a}_3+\mathsf{a}_3^2-2\mathsf{a}_3
z^2+z^4}{\mathsf{a}_3^2+
6\mathsf{a}_3+8-2\mathsf{a}_3 z^2-4 z^2+z^4}\, ,
\end{split}\]
which agrees with separate calculation involving the relevant shift
operator.
\end{exmp}
Next, consider solution given in \eqref{N6polynomialsols4}
$j_i=\frac{z}{2} (1,1,1,-1,1,-1)$ with
the corresponding parameters $\alpha_i=(2-\mathsf{a}_2,\mathsf{a}_2, 0
,0,0,0)$
for which $j_3+j_4=0, \, j_4+j_5=0, \,j_5+j_6=0, j_6+j_1=0$.
With these quantities being zero we are not permitted to act with
$s_i, s_{i-1} \pi^{-1}, s_{i+1} \pi$ with $i=3,4,5,6$ on
$j_i$ in \eqref{N6polynomialsols4} in order to avoid division by zero.
For these reasons we can not act with the shift operators
$T_i, T_{i+1}^{-1}, i=3,4,5,6 $ on solution given in \eqref{N6polynomialsols4}.
We can therefore only act with
\[
T_1^{n_1} T_2^{n_2} T_3^{-n_3},\; n_1, n_3 \in \mathbb{Z}_+, \, n_2 \in \mathbb{Z}\, ,
\]
that yields
\begin{equation}
(2-\mathsf{a}_2+2n_1-2n_2,\mathsf{a}_2-n_2+2n_3, 0-2 n_3
,0,0,0)\, .
\label{2-7orbits}
\end{equation}
\begin{exmp}
The action with the shift operator $T_1^{n}$ is implemented
by setting $n_1=n, n_2=n_3=0$. Then the parameters $\alpha_i$
automatically satisfy the three conditions $\alpha_5=0, \alpha_3=0, \alpha_4=0$
as in equation \eqref{alpha453zero}.
The single Riccati equation for the remaining quantity $p_1$ is
given in equation \eqref{2-7eq-p1}.
Inserting $\alpha_1=2 n+2-\mathsf{a}_2$ into equation \eqref{2-7eq-p1}
leads to rational solution given by :
\[
p_1(n,\mathsf{a}_2,z)= \frac{2}{z} \frac{{\rm WhittakerW}(\frac{\mathsf{a}_2}{4}
+\frac{n}{2}+1, \frac12+\frac{n}{2}-\frac{\mathsf{a}_2}{4}, \frac{z^2}{2})
}{{\rm WhittakerW}(\frac{\mathsf{a}_2}{4}+\frac{n}{2}, \frac12 +\frac{n}{2}
-\frac{\mathsf{a}_2}{4}, \frac{z^2}{2})}
+\frac{\mathsf{a}_2}{z}\, ,
\]
for which we find for $n=0,1,2$:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
p_1 (n=0,\mathsf{a}_2,z) &= z, \;\quad p_1 (n=1,\mathsf{a}_2,z) = z
\frac{-\mathsf{a}_2+z^2}{-\mathsf{a}_2+2+z^2}\\
p_1 (n=2,\mathsf{a}_2,z) &=
z \frac{-2\mathsf{a}_2+\mathsf{a}_2^2-2 z^2\mathsf{a}_2+z^4}
{8-6\mathsf{a}_2+\mathsf{a}_2^2+4 z^2- 2 z^2\mathsf{a}_2+z^4} \,.
\label{2-7-p1T1}
\end{split}\end{equation}
They agree with expressions obtained directly by acting with $T_1$ on
solution given in \eqref{N6polynomialsols4}.
\end{exmp}
Finally, we consider solution given in \eqref{N6polynomialsols5}
\[j_i=\frac{z}{2} (1,1,-1,1,1,-1)
,\; \quad \alpha_i=(2-\mathsf{a}_4, 0,0,\mathsf{a}_4,0,0)\, ,
\]
for which $j_2+j_3=0, \, j_3+j_4=0, \,j_5+j_6=0, j_6+j_1=0$.
Accordingly $s_i, s_{i-1} \pi^{-1}, s_{i+1} \pi$ with $i=2,3,5,6$
will involve division with zero.
This observation excludes $T_2, T_3, T_5, T_6, T_1^{-1},$ $T_3^{-1},
T_4^{-1} , T_6^{-1} $. Thus we generate rational solutions by acting
with
\[
T_1^{n_1} T_4^{n_4} T_2^{-n_2} T_5^{-n_5}, n_1, n_2,n_4,n_5 \in \mathbb{Z}_+
\, ,\]
that produces the parameter change
\begin{equation}
(2-\mathsf{a}_4+2n_1+2n_2, -2n_2,-2n_4,\mathsf{a}_4+2n_4+2n_5,-2n_5,-2n_1)\,.
\label{2-8orbits}
\end{equation}
\begin{exmp}
Here we discuss the case of $T_5^{-n}$, the parameters $\alpha_i$ are
those in expression \eqref{2-8orbits} which one obtains after setting
$ n_5=n, n_1= n_2=n_4=0$ and they satisfy
$\alpha_2=0, \alpha_3=0, \alpha_6=0$
as in equation \eqref{alpha632zero}.
As shown below \eqref{alpha632zero} we are left with
one Riccati equation for $q_1$ : $z q_{1\, z} = zq_1(z-q_2)+z \alpha_1
+q_1 (1-\alpha_1-\alpha_5)$. Substituting $\alpha_1=2-\mathsf{a}_4$ and $\alpha_5=-2n$.
we get
\begin{equation} z q_{1\, z} =zq_1(z-q_1)+z \alpha_1
+q_1 (1-\alpha_1-\alpha_5)= zq_1(z-q_1)+z (2-\mathsf{a}_4)
+q_1 (1-2+\mathsf{a}_4+2n) \, .
\label{T5q1}
\end{equation}
The solution is
\begin{equation}
q_1(n,\mathsf{a}_4,z)= -\frac{n \mathsf{a}_4}{z} \frac{{\rm WhittakerW}
(-\frac12-\frac{\mathsf{a}_4}{4}
+\frac{n}{2}, \frac{n}{2}+\frac{\mathsf{a}_4}{4},- \frac{z^2}{2}))
}{{\rm WhittakerW}(\frac12-\frac{\mathsf{a}_4}{4}+\frac{n}{2},
\frac{n}{2}+\frac{\mathsf{a}_4}{4}, -\frac{z^2}{2})}
+\frac{z^2+2 n}{z}\, ,
\label{q1nalpha4}
\end{equation}
for which we find for $n=0,1,2$:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
q_1 (n=0,\mathsf{a}_4,z) &= z, \;\quad q_1 (n=1,\alpha_3,z) = z
\frac{-\mathsf{a}_4+z^2+2}{-\mathsf{a}_4+z^2}\\
p_1 (n=2,\mathsf{a}_4,z) &=
z \frac{-2\mathsf{a}_4+\mathsf{a}_4^2-2 z^2\mathsf{a}_4+z^4+4
z^2}{2\mathsf{a}_4+\mathsf{a}_4^2-2 z^2\mathsf{a}_4+z^4}\, ,
\label{q1T5}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
which are in agreement with results of acting with $T_5$ on
solution given in \eqref{N6polynomialsols5}.
\end{exmp}
\section{Summary and Comments}
We identified rational solutions of the dressing chain
equations of even periodicity with points of an orbit generated
by the shift operators acting on all first-order polynomial solutions.
It was described how additional B\"acklund
transformation was needed to regularize those solutions that initially contained
a simple pole.
For those first-order polynomial solutions which contain neighboring $j_i$ and
$j_{i+1}$ such that : $j_i+j_{i+1}=0$ for some $1 \le i \le N$
the action of some shift operators is not well-defined.
Accordingly those shift operators needed to be excluded in such cases
and we have described the exclusion procedure in the paper. For orbits
of the remaining well-defined shift operators
we showed how this structure for $N=4$ is responsible for a separate
class of corresponding rational
solutions (item III on page
\pageref{page:items1}) of Painlev\'e V equation
We also showed how the rational solutions generated by a single shift
operator $T_i^n$ are expressed by Kummer/Whittaker polynomials with
arguments depending on integer $n$.
The advantage of the formalism we presented is that it is universal,
meaning that the derivation applies to the dressing chain systems
of any even $N$ periodicity as illustrated for the
case of $N=6$ in addition to the $N=4$ case.
The natural next step, which we plan to pursue in the future,
is to apply this framework to obtain closed special function expressions
for rational solutions of all dressing chain
equations of even periodicity generated by combined shift
operators.
\vspace{5mm}
{\bf Acknowledgments}
JFG and AHZ thank CNPq and FAPESP for partial support. GVL
acknowledges support from CAPES.
|
\section{Introduction}
Let $\mathcal{U}$ be a connected open subset of $\mathbb{R}^n$
(resp. $\mathbb{C}^n$).
Let $X_1$, $X_2$, $\ldots$,
$X_p$ be $p$ analytic (resp. holomorphic) distinct vector
fields on $\mathcal{U}$. Denote by
$\varphi_t^k=\exp(tX_k)$ the local one-parameter
subgroup of~$X_k$; it is the solution of the following
ordinary differential equation
\[
\frac{d\varphi_t^k(x)}{dt}=X_k(\varphi_t^k(x))
\]
with initial data $\varphi_0^k(x)=x$.
For any point $x\in\mathcal{U}$, $\varphi^k_t(x)$
is well-defined for $t$ sufficiently small, and
we assume that for all $x\in\mathcal{U}$ and $t$ small we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:chambar}
\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^pX_k(\varphi_t^k(x))=0.
\end{equation}
In particular $\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^p\exp(tX_k)=p\mathrm{id}$ and
by doing $t=0$ in (\ref{eq:chambar}) we get
\[
\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^pX_k=0.
\]
Let us give an interpretation of $(\ref{eq:chambar})$:
at any point $x$ there are $p$ identical particles
transported by the vector fields $X_k$ while
preserving their barycenter at the initial position
$x$. The condition $(\ref{eq:chambar})$ is called
\textsl{barycentric property}. A set of $p$
vector fields
$X_1$, $X_2$, $\ldots$, $X_p$ satisfying
the barycentric property is called a \textsl{$p$-chambar}
and is denoted $\mathrm{Ch}(X_1,X_2,\ldots,X_p)$.
In \S \ref{sec:remeg} we give a long list of detailed examples.
\begin{rem}
The barycentric property is invariant by
affine transformations. Let
$\mathrm{Ch}(X_1,X_2,\ldots,X_p)$ be a $p$-chambar
in some open subset $\mathcal{U}\subset\mathbb{C}^n$
and let $T$ be an affine transformation of
$\mathbb{C}^n$. Then the vector fields
$T_*X_1$, $T_*X_2$, $\ldots$, $T_*X_p$ satisfy
the barycentric condition.
In fact, if a biholomorphism
$f\colon \mathcal{U}\to f(\mathcal{U})\subset\mathbb{C}^n$
sends any set of vector fields on
$\mathcal{U}$ with the barycentric
property into another set with the
barycentric property, then $f$ is
an affine transformation. However,
in some particular cases of $p$-chambars
there are other types of biholomorphisms
with this property (see for instance
Theorem \ref{thm:cstpchamb}).
\end{rem}
If $X$ is a vector field on $\mathcal{U}$, then
$\mathcal{F}_X$ denotes the foliation (maybe
singular) whose leaves are the integral curves
of $X$. Hence $\mathcal{F}_X$ is a foliation by
(real or complex) curves. From now on all the
vector fields $X_k$ are not identically
zero.
In the case of a $2$-chambar $\mathrm{Ch}(X_1,X_2)$
condition (\ref{eq:chambar}) implies that
$\mathcal{F}_{X_1}=\mathcal{F}_{X_2}$. We have also (Theorem~\ref{thm:dim1}):
\begin{theoalph}\label{thm:2chambar}
{\sl Let $\mathcal{U}$ be an open subset of $\mathbb{R}^n$
$($resp. $\mathbb{C}^n)$.
Let $X_1$, $X_2$ be two analytic $($resp. holomorphic$)$ vector fields
on $\mathcal{U}$. Assume that $X_1$ and $X_2$ satisfy the barycentric
property.
Then
$\mathcal{F}_{X_1}=\mathcal{F}_{X_2}$, and it is a
foliation by straight lines:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$\diamond$] the closure of the generic leaves
are intersection of lines with the open subset
$\mathcal{U}$;
\item[$\diamond$] on each line the flow
$\varphi_t^k=\exp(tX_k)$, $k=1$, $2$, coincides with the
flow of a constant vector field.
\end{itemize}}
\end{theoalph}
In \S \ref{sec:remeg} we will construct explicit examples
satisfying Theorem \ref{thm:2chambar}. It is
sufficient to consider any foliation by straight lines
$\mathcal{F}$ (maybe singular) and to take a vector
field $X$ whose restriction to each leaf is "constant".
\smallskip
In the algebraic case the foliations by
straight lines are classified on $\mathbb{P}^2_\mathbb{C}$
and~$\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C}$. We will see that
in this case the flows associated to a global
algebraic $2$-chambar are some special birational
flows (\S\ref{sec:2cham}).
\smallskip
We will consider the case of colinear vector
fields (a condition satisfied by the $2$-chambars),
{\it i.e.} the case where $X_i=a_iX$ with $a_i$
constant for any $1\leq i\leq p$; such chambars are called rigid chambars. The barycentric
property implies that $\mathcal{F}_X$ is a
foliation by straight lines in the real case (Theorem~\ref{thm:realnotcomp}) but not in
the complex case. We
will see the two following results (\S\ref{sec:rigidcham}, Theorem \ref{thm:rigidp} and Corollary \ref{cor:rigidp}):
\begin{theoalph}
{\sl If $\mathrm{Ch}(a_1X,a_2X,\ldots,a_pX)$,
$a_k\in\mathbb{C}^*$, is a rigid $p$-chambar on the connected open
set $\mathcal{U}\subset\mathbb{C}^n$,
then the flow $\exp tX$ of $X$ is polynomial
of degree at most $p-1$ as a function of the time $t$.
In particular, the orbits of~$X$ are contained in some
rational curves.}
\end{theoalph}
\begin{theoalph}
{\sl Let $\mathrm{Ch}(a_1X,a_2X,\ldots,a_pX)$ be a rigid $p$-chambar
on an open set $\mathcal{U}\subset\mathbb{C}^n$.
If $X$ has a singular point, then the
set $\mathrm{Sing}(X)$ of $X$ has
dimension $\geq 1$.}
\end{theoalph}
\smallskip
We will see also examples where the $X_i$'s are
polynomial vector fields, and more generally
rational vector fields. In particular, in the
linear case we get (\S\ref{sec:linnil}, Theorem \ref{thm:linnil}):
\begin{theoalph}
{\sl Let $X_1$, $X_2$, $\ldots$, $X_p$ be some linear
vector fields on $\mathcal{U}\subset\mathbb{R}^n$
$($resp. $\mathbb{C}^n)$.
If they satisfy the barycentric property ,then they are nilpotent.
In particular, the flows $\exp(tX_k)$ are
polynomials in $t$.}
\end{theoalph}
In the case of $3$-chambars one gets (Theorem \ref{thm:lin3cham}):
\begin{theoalph}
{\sl Let $X_1$, $X_2$, $X_3$ be some linear vector fields
on $\mathbb{C}^n$.
If they satisfy the barycentric property, then, up to
conjugacy, they are contained in the
Heisenberg Lie algebra $\mathfrak{h}_n$
$($we identify $X_i$ with its matrix$)$.}
\end{theoalph}
We then give the classification of the
$3$-chambars in dimension $1$, all
chambars appearing in this classification are rigid (\S\ref{sec:3cham4cham}, Theorem \ref{thm:loc3bfc}):
\begin{theoalph}\label{thm:3ch1dim}
{\sl Let $\mathrm{Ch}(X_1,X_2,X_3)$ be a $3$-chambar in one variable.
In the real case $\mathrm{Ch}(X_1,X_2,X_3)$
is constant $(${\it i.e.} the $X_i$'s are distinct constant
vector fields$)$.
In the complex case
\begin{itemize}
\item[$\diamond$] either $\mathrm{Ch}(X_1,X_2,X_3)$
is constant,
\item[$\diamond$] or
$\mathrm{Ch}(X_1,X_2,X_3)=\mathrm{Ch}\Big(a(x)\frac{\partial}{\partial x},\mathbf{j}a(x)\frac{\partial}{\partial x},\mathbf{j}^2a(x)\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\Big)$, where
$\mathbf{j}^3=1$, and $a(x)=\sqrt{\lambda x+\mu}$ with $\lambda\in\mathbb{C}^*$,
$\mu\in\mathbb{C}$.
\end{itemize}}
\end{theoalph}
Note that the classification
implies that the global $3$-chambars in one variable have no
singularities where they are defined; this is not
the case in higher dimensions (consider the
nilpotent linear cases). Whereas $2$-chambars
and $3$-chambars on an open subset of $\mathbb{C}$
are rigid the $4$-chambars are not. The classification
of $p$-chambars on $\mathbb{C}$ for $p\geq 4$ is a
difficult problem in particular because of irreducibility
problems. Nevertheless we obtain
interesting properties of such chambars.
\smallskip
In \S \ref{sec:homogcham} we deal with chambars generated by
homogeneous vector fields (homogeneous chambars).
Among other results we will see the classification of
homogeneous chambars of degree $2$ (Theorem \ref{thm:hom3cham}):
\begin{theoalph}
{\sl Let $\mathrm{Ch}(X_1,X_2,X_3)$ be an homogeneous
$3$-chambar of $\mathbb{C}^2$ of degree $2$. Then,
after a change of variables, $X_i$ can be written
as $a_iy^2\frac{\partial}{\partial x}$, and the
$a_i$'s satisfy: $a_1+a_2+a_3=0$.
In particular, any homogeneous
$3$-chambar of $\mathbb{C}^2$ of degree $2$ is
rigid.}
\end{theoalph}
\tableofcontents
\section{Remarks and examples}\label{sec:remeg}
Let $\mathcal{U}$ be a connected open subset of $\mathbb{R}^n$
(resp. $\mathbb{C}^n$). Denote by $\mathcal{O}(\mathcal{U})$
the ring of analytic (resp. holomorphic) functions
and by $\chi(\mathcal{U})$ the $\mathcal{O}(\mathcal{U})$-module
of vector fields on $\mathcal{U}$. We denote
also by $\mathcal{O}(\mathbb{C}^n,a)$ and
by $\chi(\mathbb{C}^n,a)$ the germs of the
previous spaces at $a\in\mathcal{U}$.
Let $X_1$, $X_2$, $\ldots$, $X_p$,
$Y_1$, $Y_2$, $\ldots$, $Y_q$ be some
analytic or holomorphic vector fields on
$\mathcal{U}$.
If the $p$-tuple $(X_1,\,X_2,\,\ldots,\,X_p)$
and the $q$-tuple $(Y_1,\,Y_2,\,\ldots,\,Y_q)$
satisfy the barycentric property, then the $(p+q)$-tuple
$(X_1,\,X_2,\,\ldots,\,X_p,\,Y_1,\,Y_2,\,\ldots,\,Y_q)$
satisfy the barycentric property. This type of example is
called a \textsl{reducible chambar}. A chambar
is \textsl{irreducible} if it is not reducible.
\subsection{Elementary examples and their variants}\label{subsec:elex}
The most elementary example is the exam\-ple of
constant vector fields. Let $v_1$, $v_2$, $\ldots$,
$v_p$ be $p$ distinct constant vector fields on $\mathbb{R}^n$
(resp.~$\mathbb{C}^n$) such that
\[
v_1+v_2+\ldots+v_p=0.
\]
The translation flows $T_t^{v_k}(x)=x+tv_k$
satisfy the barycentric property
\[
\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^pT_t^{v_k}(x)=
\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^p(x+tv_k)=\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^px+\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^ptv_k=px+t\times 0=px
\]
and the vector fields $v_1$, $v_2$, $\ldots$, $v_p$
define a $p$-chambar. Such a chambar is called a \textsl{constant $p$-chambar}.
The trajectories of the $v_k$ are straight lines.
The constant chambar $(v_1,v_2,\ldots,v_p)$
is reducible if and only if there is a subfamily
$(v_{j_1},v_{j_2},\ldots,v_{j_\ell})$
such that $\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^\ell v_{j_k}=0$.
\smallskip
Let us give a simple variant of this example. Fix some coordinates
\[
(x,y)=(x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_q,y_1,y_2,\ldots,y_{n-q});
\]
take $p$ vector fields
\[
X_k=f_1^k(x)\frac{\partial}{\partial y_1}+f_2^k(x)\frac{\partial}{\partial y_2}+\ldots+f_{n-q}^k(x)\frac{\partial}{\partial y_{n-q}}
\]
where the $f_i^k$'s denote some analytic functions. Assume
that
\[
X_1+X_2+\ldots+X_p=0.
\]
The $X_k$'s satisfy the barycentric property since for any value of the
parameter $x$ the $X_k$ are constant vector fields in the linear
subspaces $x=$ constant.
\smallskip
We can enrich this family of examples as follows. On the open
subset $\mathcal{U}$ consider a regular foliation $\mathcal{F}$
of codimension $q$ whose leaves are of the form $A\cap\mathcal{U}$
where the $A$'s are affine subspaces of codimension $q$. Take now
analytic vector fields $X_k$ constant on any leaf of $\mathcal{F}$
and such that $X_1+X_2+\ldots+X_p=0$. Then
$(X_1,\,X_2,\,\ldots,\,X_p)$ is a $p$-chambar.
\smallskip
These examples play an important role in the article.
Another kind of construction that will be used is the formula expressing the flow of a vector field. Let $X=\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^nA_k(x)\frac{\partial}{\partial x_k}$ be an analytic vector field on an open subset $\mathcal{U}$ of $\mathbb{R}^n$ or $\mathbb{C}^n$, considered as a derivation on~$\mathcal{O}(\mathcal{U})$: if $f\in\mathcal{O}(\mathcal{U})$, then
\[
X(f)=\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^nA_k\,\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_k}.
\]
Let $(t,x)\mapsto\varphi_t(x)$ be the flow of $X$. For $x\in\mathcal{U}$ fixed set $h(t)=f(\varphi_t(x))$. The Taylor series of $h$ at $t=0$ is of the form $h(t)=h(0)+\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^\infty\frac{h^{(k)}(0)}{k!}t^k$.
On the other hand, $h(0)=x$ and $h^{(k)}(0)=X^k(f)$. In particular we get
\[
f(\varphi_t(x))=x+\displaystyle\sum_{k\geq 1}\frac{1}{k!}X^k(f)(x)t^k.
\]
If we specialize the above formula doing $f(x)=x_j$, the $j$-th coordinate of $x=(x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_n)$, then $\varphi_t(x)=\big(\varphi^1_t(x),\varphi^2_t(x),\ldots,\varphi^n_t(x)\big)$ where
\begin{equation}\label{eq:al}
\varphi^j_t(x)=x_j+\displaystyle\sum_{k\geq 1}\frac{1}{k!}X^k(x_j)t^k
\end{equation}
Formula (\ref{eq:al}) will appear in some examples. Let us now give a consequence
of (\ref{eq:al}):
\begin{pro}\label{pro:csqeqal}
{\sl Let $\mathcal{U}\subset\mathbb{C}^n$ be an open
subset. Let $X_1$, $X_2$, $\ldots$, $X_p$ be some distinct elements of $\chi(\mathcal{U})$.
Then $X_1$, $X_2$, $\ldots$, $X_p$ define a $p$-chambar if and only if for any
$1\leq j\leq n$
\[
\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^pX_k^\ell(x_j)=0\qquad\forall\,\ell\geq 1
\]
where $x_j$ denotes the $j$-th coordinate of
$x=(x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_n)$.}
\end{pro}
\subsection{Barycentric property and integrability}
Let $\mathrm{Ch}(X_1,X_2,\ldots,X_p)$ be a $p$-chambar.
Exam\-ples seen in \S\ref{subsec:elex} and $2$-chambars
may suggest that the Pfaff system generated by
$X_1$, $X_2$, $\ldots$, $X_p$ is an integrable
system, {\it i.e.} tangent to a foliation.
The following example of $3$-chambar in dimension
$3$ shows that this is not the case. Let us
consider
\begin{align*}
& X_1=-2\frac{\partial}{\partial x_1}+\frac{\partial}{\partial x_3}, && X_2=\frac{\partial}{\partial x_1}+x_1\frac{\partial}{\partial x_2}+\frac{\partial}{\partial x_3}, &&
X_3=\frac{\partial}{\partial x_1}-x_1\frac{\partial}{\partial x_2}-2\frac{\partial}{\partial x_3}.
\end{align*}
The flows of the $X_i$ are
\begin{align*}
& \exp tX_1=(x_1-2t,x_2,x_3+t), \\
& \exp tX_2=\Big(x_1+t,x_2+tx_1+\frac{t^2}{2},x_3+t\Big), \\
& \exp tX_3=(x_1+t,x_2-x_1t-\frac{t^2}{2},x_3-2t). &&
\end{align*}
The barycentric property is satisfied; the leaves of $X_1$ are lines and the generic
leaves of $X_2$ and $X_3$ are parabolas.
Let $\omega=-x_1dx_1+dx_2-2x_1dx_3$. Then
$\omega(X_i)=0$, so $\omega$
defines the Pfaffian system
associated to the $X_i$.
A direct computation yields to
\[
\omega\wedge \mathrm{d}\omega=2\mathrm{d} x_1\wedge \mathrm{d} x_2\wedge\mathrm{d} x_3,
\]
{\it i.e.} the $2$-plane field associated to $\omega$
is a contact structure hence is not integrable.
\subsection{Fundamental example in dimension $1$ and generalization}\label{subsec:fundex}
Let us consider the translation flow
$\psi_t(x)=x+t$ on $\mathbb{C}$. Let
$\nu$ be an integer $\geq 2$. Denote by
$x^{\frac{1}{\nu}}$ the principal branch
of the $\nu$-th root. Then
\[
\varphi_{\nu,t}(x)=\big(\psi_t(x^{\frac{1}{\nu}})\big)^\nu=\big(x^{\frac{1}{\nu}}+t\big)^\nu
\]
defines a flow, at least in a neighborhood
of $1$ since it is a conjugate of the
translation flow. This flow is polynomial in the
time $t$ and corresponds
to the vector field
\[
Z_\nu=\nu x^{\frac{\nu-1}{\nu}}\frac{\partial}{\partial x}=\nu\frac{x}{x^{\frac{1}{\nu}}}\frac{\partial}{\partial x}
\]
well defined at least in a neighborhood
of $1$.
Let $\sigma$ be a primitive $(\nu+1)$-th root
of unity. Then
\[
\varphi_{\nu,\sigma t}(x)=\big(x^{\frac{1}{\nu}}+\sigma t\big)^\nu
\]
is the flow of the vector field
\[
\sigma Z_\nu=\nu\sigma\frac{x}{x^{\frac{1}{\nu}}}\frac{\partial}{\partial x}.
\]
Of course
$\displaystyle\sum_{p=0}^\nu\sigma^p\cdot Z_\nu=0$
and
\[
\displaystyle\sum_{p=0}^\nu \Big(x^{\frac{1}{\nu}}+\sigma^pt\Big)^\nu=
\sum_{p=0}^\nu\sum_{k=0}^\nu\binom{\nu}{k}x^{\frac{\nu-k}{\nu}}\sigma^{pk}t^k=\sum_{k=0}^\nu\Big(\sum_{p=0}^\nu\sigma^{pk}\Big)t^k\binom{\nu}{k}x^{\frac{\nu-k}{\nu}}=(\nu+1)x.
\]
\medskip
We can thus state
\begin{pro}\label{pro:zn}
{\sl Let $Z_\nu$ be the vector field defined in a neighborhood of
$1$ by
\[
Z_\nu=\nu x^{\frac{\nu-1}{\nu}}\frac{\partial}{\partial x}=\nu\frac{x}{x^{\frac{1}{\nu}}}\frac{\partial}{\partial x}.
\]
The $(\nu+1)$-tuple $(Z_\nu,\sigma Z_\nu,\ldots,\sigma^\nu Z_\nu)$ is an irreducible $(\nu+1)$-chambar in a neighborhood of $1$.}
\end{pro}
One can conjugate a chambar by an affine map;
hence
\[
\left((\lambda x+\mu)^{\frac{\nu-1}{\nu}}\frac{\partial}{\partial x},\sigma(\lambda x+\mu)^{\frac{\nu-1}{\nu}}\frac{\partial}{\partial x},\sigma^2(\lambda x+\mu)^{\frac{\nu-1}{\nu}}\frac{\partial}{\partial x},\ldots,\sigma^\nu(\lambda x+\mu)^{\frac{\nu-1}{\nu}}\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\right)
\]
produces a $(\nu+1)$-chambar where it makes
sense.
For $\nu=2$ the previous construction gives
the flow $\varphi_{2,t}(x)=x+2t\sqrt{x}+t^2$ associated
to the vector field
$Z_2=2\sqrt{x}\frac{\partial}{\partial x}$
and the $3$-chambar
$\mathrm{Ch}(Z_2,\mathbf{j}Z_2,\mathbf{j}^2Z_2)$,
$\mathbf{j}^3=1$,
but also its affine conjugates.
An immediate generalization in any dimension is the following.
Consider $P(x)=(P_1(x),P_2(x),\ldots,P_n(x))$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item[$\diamond$] $P_j\in\mathbb{C}[x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_n]$, $\deg P_1=\nu\geq 2$ and $\deg P_j\leq \nu$,
\item[$\diamond$] $P(0)=0$,
\item[$\diamond$] and $DP(0)=\rho\cdot\mathrm{id}$ where $\mathrm{id}$ is the
identity of $\mathbb{C}^n$ and $\vert\rho\vert>1$.
\end{itemize}
There exists a neighborhood $U$ of $0\in\mathbb{C}^n$ such that
$V=P(U)\supset U$ and $P_{\vert U}$ has an inverse $\phi\colon V\to U$.
To any $a=(a_1,a_2,\ldots,a_n)\in\mathbb{C}^n$ we can associate
a flow defined in a neighborhood of $(0,0)\in\mathbb{C}\times\mathbb{C}^n$ by
\[
\varphi_t(x)=P\big(\phi(x)+ta\big).
\]
The vector field associated to this flow is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:flowvf}
X(x)=DP(\phi(x))\cdot a
\end{equation}
\begin{pro}\label{pro:irrcham}
{\sl Let $X$ be as in $(\ref{eq:flowvf})$ and let $\sigma$ be a
primitive $(\nu+1)$-th root of unity. Then the $(\nu+1)$-tuple
$(X,\sigma X,\ldots,\sigma^\nu X)$ is an irreducible
$(\nu+1)$-chambar in a neighborhood of $0\in\mathbb{C}^n$.}
\end{pro}
\begin{proof}[{\sl Proof}]
Since $P$ has degree $\nu$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\varphi_t(x)&=&P\big(\phi(x)+ta\big)\\
&=&P(\phi(x))+tDP(\phi(x))\cdot a+\displaystyle\sum_{j=2}^\nu \frac{t^j}{j!}D^{(j)}P(\phi(x))\cdot a\\
&=&x+tH_1(x,a)+\displaystyle\sum_{j=2}^\nu t^jH_j(x,a)
\end{eqnarray*}
where $H_j(x,a)$ is homogeneous of degree $j$ with respect to
$a\in\mathbb{C}^n$. Hence the flow of $\sigma^kX$~is
\[
\varphi_{\sigma^k\cdot t}(x)=x+\sigma^ktH_1(x,a)+\displaystyle\sum_{j=2}^\nu\sigma^{jk}t^jH_j(x,a)
\]
and so
\[
\displaystyle\sum_{k=0}^\nu\varphi_{\sigma^k\cdot t}(x)=\displaystyle\sum_{k=0}^\nu\Big(x+\sigma^ktH_1(x,a)+\displaystyle\sum_{j=2}^\nu\sigma^{jk}t^jH_j(x,a)\Big)=(\nu+1)x
\]
because $\displaystyle\sum_{k=0}^\nu\sigma^{jk}=0$ if $1\leq j\leq \nu$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
The construction produces vector fields $X$
whose flow $\exp tX$ is
polynomial in the variable time $t$.
\end{rem}
\begin{eg}
A global example of this kind (Proposition \ref{pro:irrcham})
can be given by a polynomial
diffeomorphism $P\colon\mathbb{C}^n\to\mathbb{C}^n$.
For instance
\[
P(x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_n)=(x_1,x_2+q_2(x_1),x_3+q_3(x_1,x_2),\ldots,x_n+q_n(x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_{n-1}))
\]
where $q_j\in\mathbb{C}[x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_{j-1}]$, $2\leq j\leq n$.
\end{eg}
\medskip
As a particular example, consider the polynomial
diffeomorphism of $\mathbb{C}^2$
\[
\phi(x,y)=(x+y^2,y).
\]
Conjugating the flow
\[
(x+a_kt,y+b_kt)\qquad a_k,\,b_k\in\mathbb{C}
\]
with $\varphi$ we get the flow
\[
\phi_k^t=\big(x+a_kt+2b_kty+b_k^2t^2,y+b_kt\big);
\]
one can check that it is the flow of the affine
vector field
\[
X_k=\Big(a_k+2b_ky\Big)\frac{\partial}{\partial x}+b_k\frac{\partial}{\partial y}.
\]
Remark that this flow is polynomial in the time $t$.
As soon as $b_k\not=0$ the trajectories are
the parabola
\[
f_k=a_ky+b_ky^2-b_kx=\text{constant}.
\]
For $p\geq 3$ if we choose $a_1$, $a_2$, $\ldots$,
$a_p$, $b_1$, $b_2$, $\ldots$, $b_p$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:hidi}
a_1+a_2+\ldots+a_p=b_1+b_2+\ldots+b_p=b_1^2+b_2^2+\ldots+b_p^2=0
\end{equation}
then the $X_k$ satisfy the barycentric property and
produce a $p$-chambar. For a generic choice of the
parameters $a_k$ and $b_k$ the $X_k$ are not
$\mathbb{C}$-colinear. Note that for $p=3$ if
$(\ref{eq:hidi})$ holds, then the web
$\mathrm{W}(X_1,X_2,X_3)$ is an hexagonal web
(\emph{see for instance} \cite{PereiraPirio}) since
$f_1+f_2+f_3=0$.
\subsection{Polynomial vector fields that satisfy the barycentric property}
\begin{pro}\label{pro:dim1pol}
{\sl In dimension $1$ the polynomial vector
fields that satisfy the barycentric
property are the constant vector fields
\[
a_k\frac{\partial}{\partial x}
\]
with $a_k\in\mathbb{C}^*$ and
$\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^pa_k=0$.}
\end{pro}
\begin{proof}[{\sl Proof}]
The proof is based on Proposition \ref{pro:csqeqal}.
Let $X=P(x)\frac{\partial}{\partial x}$ where $P\in\mathcal{O}(\mathbb{C})$
is viewed as a derivation on $\mathcal{O}(\mathbb{C})$.
According to $(\ref{eq:al})$ the flow $\varphi_t$ of $X$
is
\[
\varphi_t(x)=x+\displaystyle\sum_{k\geq 1}\frac{1}{k!}X^k(x)t^k.
\]
If $P\in\mathbb{C}[x]$ is a polynomial of degree $d\geq 1$,
then $X^k(x)$ is also a polynomial for any $k\geq 1$. Let us
write $X^k(x)$ as $X^k(x)=\displaystyle\sum_{j=0}^{d(k)}a_j^kx^j$.
If we set $d(\ell):=\deg(X^\ell(x))$, then
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] since $\deg(X)=d$, then $a_d^1\not=0$;
\item[(2)] $d(\ell)=(d-1)\ell+1$ because $d(\ell+1)=\deg(X(x))+d(\ell)-1=d+d(\ell)-1$;
\item[(3)] the equality $a_{d(\ell+1)}^{\ell+1}=d(\ell)a_d^1a_{d(\ell)}^\ell$ holds.
\end{itemize}
By recurrence we get from $(3)$ that $a_{d(\ell)}^\ell=A(\ell)(a_d^1)^\ell$ where
\begin{itemize}
\item[(4)] $A(1)=1$ and $A(\ell+1)=d(\ell)A(\ell)$ for $\ell\geq 1$.
\end{itemize}
On the one hand if $d=0$, then $X(x)\not=0$ and $X^\ell(x)=0$ for all
$\ell\geq 2$. On the other hand it follows from $(2)$, $(3)$ and $(4)$
that if $d\geq 1$, then $d(\ell)\geq 1$ and $A(\ell)\geq 1$ for all
$\ell\geq 1$.
\smallskip
Now assume that $(X_1,X_2,\ldots,X_p)$ is a polynomial $p$-chambar on
$\mathbb{C}$. Let $d=\displaystyle\max_{1\leq j\leq p}\deg(X_j)$.
Suppose by contradiction that $d\geq 1$. Without lost of generality
we can assume that
\[
\{j\,\vert\,\deg(X_j)=d\}=\{1,\,2,\,\ldots,\,q\}\subset\{1,\,2,\ldots,\,p\}.
\]
Set $X_k=P_k(x)\frac{\partial}{\partial x}$ where
$P_k(x)=\displaystyle\sum_{j=0}^da_{kj}x^j$, $1\leq k\leq p$,
where
\[
a_{jd}\not=0\text{ if } 1\leq j\leq d \quad \text{and} \quad a_{jd}=0\text{ if }q<j\leq p.
\]
\begin{claim}
For any $\ell\geq 1$ we have
\[
(a_{1d})^\ell+(a_{2d})^\ell+\ldots+(a_{qd})^\ell=0.
\]
\end{claim}
The statement follows from the Claim
(indeed if $(a_{1d})^\ell+(a_{2d})^\ell+\ldots+(a_{qd})^\ell=0$ for any $\ell\geq 1$, then $a_{1d}=a_{2d}=\ldots=a_{qd}=0$). Let us
now justify it:
\begin{proof}[{\sl Proof of the Claim}]
Set $d(k,\ell)=\deg(X_k^\ell(x))$, $1\leq k\leq p$. Note that:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$\diamond$] if $d=1$, then $d(k,\ell)=1$ for all $1\leq k\leq q$ and all
$\ell\geq 1$; furthermore if $q<k\leq p$, then $X_k^\ell(x)=0$ for all $\ell\geq 2$.
\item[$\diamond$] id $d>1$ and $1\leq k\leq q$, then $d\leq d(k,\ell)=(d-1)k+1$ and so $d(k,\ell)<d(k,\ell+1)$ for all $\ell\geq 1$. Moreover if $q<k\leq p$, then either $d(k,\ell)<(d-1)k+1$ or $X_k^\ell(x)=0$ for all $\geq 2$.
\end{itemize}
Given $1\leq k\leq p$ let $a(k,\ell)$ be the coefficient of $x^{d(k,\ell)}$
in the polynomial $X_k^\ell(x)$. If follows from the above computations
that
\begin{itemize}
\item[$\diamond$] if $1\leq k\leq q$, then $a(k,\ell)=A(\ell)(a_{kd})^\ell$ where
$A(\ell)\not=0$,
\item[$\diamond$] if $q<k\leq p$, then $a(k,\ell)=0$.
\end{itemize}
According to Proposition \ref{pro:csqeqal} we get that
\[
X_1^\ell(x)+X_2^\ell(x)+\ldots+
X_p^\ell(x)=0
\]
implies
\[
A(\ell)\Big((a_{1d})^\ell+(a_{2d})^\ell+\ldots+(a_{qd})^\ell=0\Big)=0;
\]
as $A(\ell)\not=0$ we finally obtain that $(a_{1d})^\ell+(a_{2d})^\ell+\ldots+(a_{qd})^\ell=0$.
\end{proof}
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
If $p=3$, then Proposition \ref{pro:dim1pol}
is a consequence of Theorem
\ref{thm:loc3bfc}.
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}
If $X$ is a holomorphic vector field on the
Riemann sphere
$\overline{\mathbb{C}}=\mathbb{C}\cup\{\infty\}$,
then in the affine chart $\mathbb{C}$ there exists a polynomial function $a$
of degree $\leq 2$ such that
$X=a(x)\frac{\partial}{\partial x}$.
The only $p$-tuple of global vector fields
that satisfy the barycentric property
in this chart are
the constant vector fields.
\end{rem}
\subsection{Examples produced by those of dimension $1$}\label{sec:exconj}
We need a definition:
\begin{defi}
A $p$-chambar of the form
$\mathrm{Ch}(a_1X,a_2X,\ldots,a_pX)$,
with $a_i$ constant, is called
\textsl{rigid}.
\end{defi}
\smallskip
Propositions \ref{pro:zn} and \ref{pro:irrcham} give examples of
rigid $p$-chambars.
\smallskip
Let us give a construction presented in dimension $2$
for simplicity but that can be gene\-ralized in any
dimension $n$ and for any $p$.
Consider the vector field
$X(x)=2\sqrt{x}\frac{\partial}{\partial x}$ that
induces the flow
$\varphi_t(x)=x+2t\sqrt{x}+t^2$, a
special case of \S \ref{subsec:fundex}. A first
$3$-chambar in dimension $2$ is
\[
\mathrm{Ch}\big(X(x)+X(y),\mathbf{j}(X(x)+X(y)),\mathbf{j}^2(X(x)+X(y))\big)
\]
which is rigid. Similarly one can consider
\[
\mathrm{Ch}\big(X(x)+X(y),\mathbf{j}X(x)+\mathbf{j}^2X(y),\mathbf{j}^2X(x)+\mathbf{j}X(y)\big)
\]
which is non-rigid. These examples are well
defined on any simply connected open subset
that do not intersect the axis $x=0$ and $y=0$.
\smallskip
Let us now give an example of a non-rigid irreducible
$4$-chambar still in dimension $2$
\[
\mathrm{Ch}\Big(X(x),\mathbf{j}X(x)+X(y),\mathbf{j}^2X(x)+\mathbf{j}X(y),\mathbf{j}^2X(y)\Big)
\]
that can be generalized to a $5$-chambar as
follows
\[
\mathrm{Ch}\Big(X(x),\mathbf{j}X(x),\mathbf{j}^2X(x)+X(y),\mathbf{j}X(y),\mathbf{j}^2X(y)\Big).
\]
\begin{eg}
Another way to obtain examples is
by taking the real part of a
complex $p$-chambar on $\mathbb{C}^n$.
For instance, if we set
$z=x+\mathbf{i}y$, then
$\frac{d}{dz}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{d}{dx}-\mathbf{i}\frac{d}{dy}\right)$,
\[
\sqrt{z}=\underbrace{\sqrt{\sqrt{x^2+y^2}+x}}_{A(x,y)}+\mathbf{i}\underbrace{\sqrt{\sqrt{x^2+y^2}-x}}_{B(x,y)}
\]
and
\[
\mathrm{Re}\left(2\sqrt{z}\,\frac{d}{dz}\right)=2A(x,y)\,\frac{d}{dx}+2B(x,y)\,\frac{d}{dy}.
\]
The three vector fields
$\mathrm{Re}\left(2\sqrt{z}\,\frac{d}{dz}\right)$,
$\mathrm{Re}\left(\mathbf{j}\,2\sqrt{z}\,\frac{d}{dz}\right)$,
$\mathrm{Re}\left(\mathbf{j}^2\,2\sqrt{z}\,\frac{d}{dz}\right)$
give a real $3$-chambar but if we consider $x$, $y$
as complex variables we get a $3$-chambar on a suitable
open set of $\mathbb{C}^2$.
Let us remark that we can iterate this process: take a
chambar on $\mathbb{C}^n$, its real part gives a
chambar on $\mathbb{R}^{2n}$ whose complexification
is a chambar on $\mathbb{C}^{2n}$ and so on...
\end{eg}
\smallskip
\subsection{Examples associated to some polynomial flows in $t$}\label{subsec:exples}
\subsubsection{Polynomial examples}
Let $P=p_0+p_1x+\ldots+p_Nx^\nu$ be a polynomial
of degree $\nu$. Consider the vector field
\[
X=a\frac{\partial}{\partial x}+P(x)\frac{\partial}{\partial y}
\]
where $a\in\mathbb{C}^*$. Its flow is polynomial in $t$:
\[
\varphi_t(x,y)=\left(x+at,y+\displaystyle\sum_{k=0}^\nu p_k\left(\frac{(x+at)^{k+1}}{a(k+1)}-\frac{x^{k+1}}{a(k+1)}\right)\right)
\]
that can we rewritten
\[
\varphi_t(x,y)=\Big(x+at,y+\widetilde{P}_a(x+at)-\widetilde{P}_a(x)\Big)
\]
where $\widetilde{P}_a(y)=\displaystyle\sum_{k=0}^\nu p_k\frac{y^{k+1}}{a(k+1)}$.
Let us consider $p$ vector fields $X_1$, $X_2$, $\ldots$,
$X_p$ of the following form
\[
X_k=a_k\frac{\partial}{\partial x}+P_k(x)\frac{\partial}{\partial y}.
\]
The barycentric property is equivalent to
\begin{equation}\label{eq:polbp1}
\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^pa_k=0
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:polbp2}
\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^p \widetilde{P}_{k,a_k}(x+a_kt)-\widetilde{P}_{k,a_k}(x)=0
\end{equation}
Note that $(\ref{eq:polbp2})$ holds if and only if
\[
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left(\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^p \widetilde{P}_{k,a_k}(x+a_kt)\right)=0
\]
if and only if
\begin{equation}\label{eq:polbp3}
\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^\nu P_k(x+a_kt)=0
\end{equation}
As soon as we have fixed the constants $a_1$, $a_2$,
$\ldots$, $a_p$ the equality $(\ref{eq:polbp3})$
is a linear system in the coefficients of the
polynomials $P_k$, system that sometimes has non-trivial
solutions.
Consider for instance the case $p=3$ and $\nu=2$. Set
\begin{align*}
& P_1=\alpha_0+\alpha_1x+\alpha_2x^2, && P_2=\beta_0+\beta_1x+\beta_2x^2, &&
P_3=\gamma_0+\gamma_1x+\gamma_2x^2.
\end{align*}
Conditions $(\ref{eq:polbp1})$ and $(\ref{eq:polbp3})$ are
equivalent to
\begin{align*}
& (I)\,\,\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
a_1+a_2+a_3=0\\
\alpha_0+\beta_0+\gamma_0=0\\
\alpha_1+\beta_1+\gamma_1=0\\
\alpha_1a_1+\beta_1a_2+\gamma_1a_3=0
\end{array}
\right.
&& (II)\,\,\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\alpha_2+\beta_2+\gamma_2=0\\
\alpha_2a_1+\beta_2a_2+\gamma_2a_3=0\\
\alpha_2a_1^2+\beta_2a_2^2+\gamma_2a_3^2=0
\end{array}
\right.
\end{align*}
In other words $(\ref{eq:polbp1})$ and $(\ref{eq:polbp3})$
give seven equations in the parameters space
$\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$, $a$ of dimension~$12$.
The set of solutions is not irreducible.
Assume that the parameters $a=\underline{a}$ satisfies
$\underline{a_1}\not=\underline{a_2}\not=\underline{a_3}$.
Then in a neighborhood of $a=\underline{a}$ the system
$(II)$ is a Vandermonde one so has for solution
$\alpha_2=\beta_2=\gamma_2=0$. Then
$(I)$ and $(II)$ are equivalent to
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{lllll}
a_1+a_2+a_3=0\\
\alpha_0+\beta_0+\gamma_0=0\\
\alpha_1+\beta_1+\gamma_1=0\\
\alpha_1a_1+\beta_1a_2+\gamma_1a_3=0\\
\alpha_2=\beta_2=\gamma_2=0
\end{array}
\right.
\]
that defines a quadric of dimension $12-7=5$.
But there are solutions such that two of the
$\underline{a_i}$ are equal. For instance if
$\underline{a_1}=\underline{a_2}=\underline{a_3}=0$,
then $(I)$ and $(II)$ are equivalent to
\[
\underline{a_1}=\underline{a_2}=\underline{a_3}=\alpha_0+\beta_0+\gamma_0=\alpha_1+\beta_1+\gamma_1=\alpha_2+\beta_2+\gamma_2=0
\]
which is a linear space of dimension $12-6=6$.
Hence the set $\Sigma$ of vector fields of this
type satisfying the barycentric property
is not irreducible. In fact $\Sigma$ consists
of three vector spaces of dimension $6$,
one vector space of dimension $6$ and one
quadric of dimension $5$.
\subsubsection{Birational examples}
Take $(a_1,a_2,\ldots,a_p)$ a $p$-tuple of $\mathbb{C}^n$ and set
for $1\leq k\leq p$
\[
a_k=(a_{k,1},a_{k,2},\ldots,a_{k,n}).
\]
Consider the translation flow
\[
T_t^{a_k}(x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_n)=(x_1+a_{k,1}t,x_2+a_{k,2}t,\ldots,x_n+a_{k,n}t).
\]
Denote by $\psi$ the blow-up
\[
\psi\colon(x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_n)\dashrightarrow(x_1,x_1x_2,\ldots,x_1x_n).
\]
The lift $F_t^k$ of $T_t^{a_k}$ by $\psi$ can be
written
\begin{eqnarray*}
F_t^k(x)&=&\psi\circ T_t^{a_k}\circ\psi^{-1}(x)\\
&=& \left(x_1+a_{k,1}t,\big(x_1+a_{k,1}t\big)\left(\frac{x_2}{x_1}+a_{k,2}t\right),\ldots,\big(x_1+a_{k,1}t\big)\left(\frac{x_n}{x_1}+a_{k,n}t\right)\right).
\end{eqnarray*}
The condition $\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^pF_t^k(x)=px$ is satisfied if
\begin{itemize}
\item[$\diamond$] for any $1\leq \ell\leq n$
\[
\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^pa_{k,\ell}=0
\]
\item[$\diamond$] and for any $2\leq \ell\leq n$
\[
\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^pa_{k,1}a_{k,\ell}=0.
\]
\end{itemize}
\begin{rem}
In the previous examples we assume that the
$a_k$'s are not all zero. Up to a li\-near
conjugation (such a conjugation preserves a
barycentric property) we can assume that
$a_1=(1,0,0,\ldots,0)$. The previous
conditions can be rewritten
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^p a_{k,\ell}=0\qquad 1\leq\ell\leq n\\
a_{1,\ell}=0\qquad 2\leq\ell\leq n
\end{array}
\right.
\]
that thus form a linear subspace of the space
of coefficients $a_{j,i}$. These examples of
$p$-chambars are given by birational flows
quadratic in the time $t$ (\emph{see}
\cite{CerveauDeserti} for other examples).
\end{rem}
\subsection{Examples of chambars whose flows are
non-algebraic/non-polynomial in $t$}
Let $k$ be an integer; consider $q_k$ vector fields
of the following form
\[
X_k^j=a_k\frac{\partial}{\partial x}+b_{k,j}\mathrm{e}^{\lambda_kx}\frac{\partial}{\partial y}\qquad 1\leq j\leq q_k
\]
where $a_k$, $b_{k,j}$ and $\lambda_k$ belong to
$\mathbb{C}^*$. The flows of $X_k^j$ is
\[
(\exp tX_k^j)(x,y)=\Big(x+a_kt,y+\frac{b_{k,j}}{\lambda_ka_k}\mathrm{e}^{\lambda_kx}(\mathrm{e}^{\lambda_ka_kt}-1)\Big)
\]
Set $\ell=\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^pq_k$. The $\ell$
vector fields $X_k^j$ form a $\ell$-chambar if and
only if for any $1\leq k\leq p$ the following
equalities hold
\begin{align*}
&\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^pq_ka_k=0, && \displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{q_k}b_{k,j}=0.
\end{align*}
Contrary to the previous example the flows
$\exp tX_k^j$ are non-polynomial: their
orbits are the levels of the functions
\[
\lambda_ka_ky-b_{k,j}\mathrm{e}^{\lambda_kx}.
\]
This construction starts with $\ell=4$ and
produces global chambars on $\mathbb{C}^2$.
It can be gene\-ralized to higher dimensions.
\subsection{Compatible diffeomorphisms}
The concept of $p$-chambar is an affine one, that is the barycentric
property is invariant under the action of the group
of affine transformations; if $\mathcal{C}$ is a local
$p$-chambar and $\phi$ a diffeomorphism, then, in
general, $\phi_*\mathcal{C}$ is not a chambar.
\begin{prob}
Let $\mathrm{Ch}_c$ be a constant chambar;
what are the diffeomorphisms $\phi$ such that
$\phi_*\mathrm{Ch}_c$ is a $p$-chambar ?
What is the structure of such a set
of diffeomorphisms ?
\end{prob}
Let us give an answer to this problem in the special case $p=3$,
$n=2$. Let $\mathrm{Ch}(X_1,X_2,X_3)$ a constant $3$-chambar in
$\mathbb{C}^2$. We say that $\mathrm{Ch}(X_1,X_2,X_3)$ is
\textsl{generic} if the $X_i$'s
are linearly independent. We immediately notice that a generic
constant $3$-chambar is linearly conjugate to the "standard"
$3$-chambar
\[
\mathrm{Ch}_0=\mathrm{Ch}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x},\frac{\partial}{\partial y},-\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x}+\frac{\partial}{\partial y}\right)\right).
\]
Let $\phi$ be a local diffeomorphism; we say that $\phi$ is
\textsl{compatible with} $\mathrm{Ch}_0$ if
$\phi_*\mathrm{Ch}_0$ is a $3$-chambar. We have the following
statement (recall that $\mathbf{j}$, $\mathbf{j}^2$ are the roots
of $t^2+t+1$):
\begin{thm}\label{thm:cstpchamb}
{\sl A local diffeomorphism of $\mathbb{C}^2$ is compatible
with $\mathrm{Ch}_0$ if and only if it can be written
$L+F$ where $L$ denotes an affine inversible transformation
and $F=(f,g)$ with
\[
f,\,g\in\langle(y+\mathbf{j}x)^2,(y+\mathbf{j}^2x)^2,xy(y-x)\rangle_\mathbb{C}.
\]}
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}
A local compatible diffeomorphism is in fact a global application,
but not in general a global diffeomorphism.
\end{rem}
Let us first state and prove the following
result we use in the proof of
Theorem \ref{thm:cstpchamb}:
\begin{lem}\label{lem:tec}
{\sl If $h$ is a holomorphic function satisfying the
P.D.E's
\begin{align*}
& \frac{\partial^2h}{\partial x^2}+\frac{\partial^2h}{\partial x \partial y}+\frac{\partial^2h}{\partial y^2}=0 && \frac{\partial^3h}{\partial x^2 \partial y}+\frac{\partial^3h}{\partial x\partial y^2}=0
\end{align*}
then $h$ is a polynomial of degree $3$ of the form
\[
h(x,y)=\alpha_0+\alpha_1x+\alpha_2y+\alpha_3(x+\mathbf{j}y)^2+\alpha_4(x+\mathbf{j}^2y)^2+\alpha_5xy(y-x)
\]
with $\alpha_0$, $\alpha_1$, $\ldots$, $\alpha_5\in\mathbb{C}$.}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}[{\sl Proof}]
To simplify the notations let us consider the
differential operators
\begin{align*}
& S=\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2}+\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x \partial y}+\frac{\partial^2}{\partial y^2} && T=\frac{\partial^3}{\partial x^2 \partial y}+\frac{\partial^3}{\partial x\partial y^2}
\end{align*}
The inclusion $\langle 1,\,x,\,y,\,(y+\mathbf{j}x)^2,\,(y+\mathbf{j}^2x)^2,\,xy(y-x)\rangle_\mathbb{C}\subset\ker(S)\cap \ker(T)$
is straightforward.
\medskip
Note that
\[
\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\cdot S=\frac{\partial^3}{\partial x^3}+\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2}\frac{\partial}{\partial y}+\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial y^2}=\frac{\partial^3}{\partial x^3}+T
\]
so $\ker(S)\cap\ker(T)\subset\ker\left(\frac{\partial^3}{\partial x^3}\right)$.
Similarly $\frac{\partial}{\partial y}\cdot S=\frac{\partial^3}{\partial y^3}+T$ and thus
$\ker(S)\cap\ker(T)\subset\ker\left(\frac{\partial^3}{\partial y^3}\right)$.
As a result $\ker(S)\cap \ker(T)\subset \ker\left(\frac{\partial^3}{\partial x^3}\right)\cap \ker\left(\frac{\partial^3}{\partial y^3}\right)$. In particular if $h$ belongs to
$\ker(S)\cap\ker(T)$, then $\frac{\partial^3h}{\partial x^3}=\frac{\partial^3h}{\partial y^3}=0$.
Let $h=\displaystyle\sum_{k,\ell}h_{k,\ell}x^ky^\ell$ be
the Taylor series of $h$ at $(0,0)$. If $\frac{\partial^3h}{\partial x^3}=\frac{\partial^3h}{\partial y^3}=0$, then $h_{k,\ell}\not=0$
if and only if $k$, $\ell\leq 2$. However if $k=\ell=2$,
then we have $S(x^2y^2)=2y^2+2x^2+4xy\not=0$ and so
\[
\ker(S)\cap\ker(T)=\langle 1,\,x,\,y,\,(y+\mathbf{j}x)^2,\,(y+\mathbf{j}^2x)^2,\,xy(y-x)\rangle_\mathbb{C}.
\]
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[{\sl Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:cstpchamb}}]
If $\phi$ is a local diffeomorphism of $\mathbb{C}^2$
compatible with $\mathrm{Ch}_0$, then the
barycentric condition asserts that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:barycond}
\phi(x+t,y)+\phi(x,y+t)+\phi(x-t,y-t)=3\phi(x,y).
\end{equation}
We can assume that $\phi$ is defined in a neighborhood
of $(0,0)$. Let us write $\phi$ as $L+(f,g)$
where $L$ is affine and $f$, $g\in\mathcal{O}(\mathbb{C}^2,0)$ satisfy $(f,g)(0,0)=D(f,g)(0,0)=(0,0)$.
By derivating (\ref{eq:barycond}) twice with respect
to $t$, we get that both components $f$
and~$g$ satisfy the P.D.E.
\[
\frac{\partial^2h}{\partial x^2}+\frac{\partial^2h}{\partial x\partial y}+\frac{\partial^2h}{\partial y^2}=0.
\]
The solutions of such P.D.E. are of the following
type
\begin{equation}\label{eq:solcla}
h=\varphi_+(y+\mathbf{j}x)+\varphi_-(y+\mathbf{j}^2x)
\end{equation}
with $\mathbf{j}$, $\mathbf{j}^2$ the roots of $t^2+t+1$
and $\varphi_+$, $\varphi_-$ holomorphic in one
variable defined on suitable domains.
A third derivation with respect to $t$ shows
that $f$ and $g$ also satisfy the P.D.E.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:barycond2}
0=\frac{\partial^3h}{\partial x^2\partial y}+\frac{\partial^3h}{\partial x\partial y^2}=\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x\partial y}\left(\frac{\partial h}{\partial x}+\frac{\partial h}{\partial y}\right).
\end{equation}
Lemma \ref{lem:tec} allows to conclude (note that,
with the notations of Lemma \ref{lem:tec} an
element of $\ker S\cap\ker T$ satisfies
relation (\ref{eq:barycond})).
\end{proof}
More generally, one can state:
\begin{thm}\label{thm:baz}
{\sl Let $f\colon \mathcal{U}\to f(\mathcal{U})\subset\mathbb{C}^n$
be a biholomorphism from the open set $\mathcal{U}\subset\mathbb{C}^n$
to $f(\mathcal{U})$, $n\geq 2$. Assume that the vector fields
\begin{align*}
& f_*\frac{\partial}{\partial x_1},&& f_*\frac{\partial}{\partial x_2}, &&\ldots, &&f_*\frac{\partial}{\partial x_n}, && f_*\left(-\frac{\partial}{\partial x_1}-\frac{\partial}{\partial x_2}-\ldots-\frac{\partial}{\partial x_n}\right)
\end{align*}
satisfy the barycentric property. Then all the components $f_j$ of $f$ are
polynomial.}
\end{thm}
\begin{lem}\label{claim1}
{\sl Let $h\in\mathcal{O}(\mathcal{U})$ be a holomorphic function
with the property that
\begin{small}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:claim}
\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^nh(x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_{j-1}x_j+t,x_{j+1},x_{j+2},\ldots,x_n)+h(x_1-t,x_2-t,\ldots,x_n-t)=(n+1)h(x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_n)
\end{equation}
\end{small}
for all $x\in\mathcal{U}$ and $t\in\mathbb{C}$ with $\vert t\vert$
small enough. Then $h$ satisfies the system of P.D.Es
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
T_2(h)=0\\
T_3(h)=0\\
\ldots
\end{array}
\right.
\]
where $T_k$ is the differential operator
\[
T_k=\frac{\partial^k}{\partial x_1^k}+\frac{\partial^k}{\partial x_2^k}+\ldots+\frac{\partial^k}{\partial x_n^k}+(-1)^k\Big(\frac{\partial}{\partial x_1}+\frac{\partial}{\partial x_2}+\ldots+\frac{\partial}{\partial x_n}\Big)^k.
\]}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}[{\sl Proof}]
Let $e_1=(1,0,0,\ldots,0)$, $e_2=(0,1,0,0,\ldots,0)$, $\ldots$,
$e_n=(0,0,\ldots,0,1)$ and $v=-\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^ne_j$.
The idea is to prove by induction on $k\geq 1$ that for
any $t\in(\mathbb{C},0)$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:int}
\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^n\frac{\partial^k}{\partial x_j}h(x+te_j)+(-1)^k\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x_1}+\frac{\partial}{\partial x_2}+\ldots+\frac{\partial}{\partial x_n}\right)^kh(x+tv)=0;
\end{equation}
indeed if $t=0$ in (\ref{eq:int}), then we get
(\ref{eq:claim}).
\medskip
Let $\varphi(t,x)=\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^n h(x+te_j)+h(x+tv)$.
According to $(\ref{eq:claim})$ the function $\varphi(t,x)$
depends only of $x$. In particular differentiating $k$ times
with respect to $t$ we get
\[
\frac{\partial^k\varphi(t,x)}{\partial t^k}=\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^n\frac{\partial^k}{\partial x_j}h(x+te_j)+(-1)^k\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x_1}+\frac{\partial}{\partial x_2}+\ldots+\frac{\partial}{\partial x_n}\right)^kh(x+tv)=0
\]
Furthermore doing $t=0$ we get $T_k(h)=0$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[{\sl Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:baz}}]
Now suppose that $f\colon\mathcal{U}\to f(\mathcal{U})\subset\mathbb{C}^n$
is a biholomorphism such that the vector fields
$f_*\frac{\partial}{\partial x_1}$, $f_*\frac{\partial}{\partial x_2}$,
$\ldots$, $f_*\frac{\partial}{\partial x_n}$, $f_*\left(-\frac{\partial}{\partial x_1}-\frac{\partial}{\partial x_2}-\ldots-\frac{\partial}{\partial x_n}\right)$ satisfy the
barycentric property. Setting $f=(f_1,f_2,\ldots,f_n)$ we see
that is equivalent to
\[
\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^nf_\ell(x+te_j)+f_\ell(x+tv)=(n+1)f_\ell(x)\qquad\forall\,1\leq\ell\leq n.
\]
Therefore each component $f_\ell$ of $f$ satisfies (\ref{eq:claim}) so
that $f_\ell$ belongs to $\displaystyle\bigcap_{k\geq 2}\ker(T_k)$
for any $1\leq \ell\leq n$ (Lemme \ref{claim1}). The idea is
to prove that
$\displaystyle\bigcap_{k\geq 2}\ker(T_k)\subset\mathbb{C}[x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_n]$:
if $h\in\displaystyle\bigcap_{k\geq 2}\ker(T_k)$,
then $h$ is a polynomial.
Let $\mathcal{P}$ be the Noetherian ring of linear differential
operators on $\mathcal{O}(\mathcal{U})$ with constant coefficients
\[
\mathcal{P}=\big\{P\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x_1},\frac{\partial}{\partial x_2},\ldots,\frac{\partial}{\partial x_n}\right)\,\vert\, P\in\mathbb{C}[z_1,z_2,\ldots,z_n]\big\}
\]
and let $\mathcal{I}=\langle T_k\,\vert\,k\geq 2\rangle$ be the ideal of
$\mathcal{P}$ generated by all the operators $T_k$,
$k\geq 2$. Note that if $S$ belongs to $\mathcal{I}$,
then $\displaystyle\bigcap_{k\geq 2}\ker(T_k)$ is
contained in $\ker(S)$.
\begin{claim}\label{claim2}
{\sl There exists $p\in\mathbb{N}$ such that
$\frac{\partial^p}{\partial x_j^p}$ belongs to
$\mathcal{I}$ for all $1\leq j\leq n$.}
\end{claim}
Claim \ref{claim2} implies that if $h$ belongs
to $\displaystyle\bigcap_{k\geq 2}\ker(T_k)$, then $h$ is a
polynomial of degree at most $n(p-1)$.
\begin{proof}[{\sl Proof of Claim \ref{claim2}}]
Let $\Phi\colon\mathcal{P}\to\mathcal{O}_n$ be the
unique ring homomorphism satisfying
\[
\Phi\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x_j}\right)=z_j \qquad\,\forall 1\leq j\leq n.
\]
Note that $\Phi(T_k)=z_1^k+z_2^k+\ldots+z_n^k+(-1)^k(z_1+z_2+\ldots+z_n)^k$.
Let us set
\begin{align*}
&P_k(z)=z_1^k+z_2^k+\ldots+z_n^k+(-1)^k(z_1+z_2+\ldots+z_n)^k,
&&\widetilde{\mathcal{I}}=\langle P_k\,\vert\,k\geq 2\rangle,
&&\Phi(\mathcal{I})=\widetilde{\mathcal{I}}.
\end{align*}
\begin{claim}\label{claim3}
{\sl One has
\[
Z(\widetilde{\mathcal{I}})=\big\{z\in\mathbb{C}^n\,\vert\,P_k(z)=0\quad\forall\,k\geq 2\big\}=\big\{0\big\}.
\]}
\end{claim}
From $Z(\widetilde{\mathcal{I}})=\{0\}=Z(\mathfrak{m}_n)$ one gets (using
the definition of $\sqrt{\widetilde{\mathcal{I}}}$) that
$\sqrt{\widetilde{\mathcal{I}}}=\mathfrak{m}_n$. Accor\-ding to
Hilbert's theorem (Nullstellensatz) one obtains that
$\widetilde{\mathcal{I}}\supset \mathfrak{m}_n^p$ for some $p$.
As a result $z_j^p$ belongs to $\widetilde{\mathcal{I}}$
for all $1\leq j\leq n$ and so $\frac{\partial^p}{\partial z_j^p}$
belongs to $\mathcal{I}$ for all $1\leq j\leq n$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[{\sl Proof of Claim \ref{claim3}}]
Define $S:=-(z_1+z_2+\ldots+z_n)$ so that $P_k=z_1^k+z_2^k+\ldots+z_n^p+S^k$.
Therefore if $z$ belongs $Z(\widetilde{\mathcal{I}})$, then
\[
(**)\left\{
\begin{array}{lllll}
z_1+z_2+\ldots+z_n+S=0\\
z_1^2+z_2^2+\ldots+z_n^2+S^2=0\\
\ldots \\
z_1^n+z_2^n+\ldots+z_n^n+S^n=0\\
z_1^{n+1}+z_2^{n+1}+\ldots+z_n^{n+1}+S^{n+1}=0
\end{array}
\right.
\]
Doing $S=z_{n+1}$ system $(**)$ is equivalent to
$Q_{n+1}v^{\,\,\!t}=0$ where $Q_{n+1}$ is the
matrix
\[
Q_{n+1}(z)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
z_1 & z_2 & \ldots & z_{n+1} \\
z_1^2 & z_2^2 & \ldots & z_{n+1}^2 \\
\vdots & & & \vdots \\
z_1^{n+1} & z_2^{n+1} & \ldots & z_{n+1}^{n+1} \\
\end{array}
\right)
\]
and $v=(1,1,\ldots,1)$. Finally it can be checked by induction
on $n\geq 0$ that if $Q_{n+1}(z)v^{\,\,\!t}=0$ for
some $u=(u_1,u_2,\ldots,u_{n+1})$, where $u_j>0$
for all $1\leq j\leq n+1$, then $z=0$.
\end{proof}
\end{proof}
\section{Description of the $2$-chambars}\label{sec:2cham}
\subsection{Examples coming from foliations by straight lines}\label{subsec:foliationsbystraightlines}
In order to precise the previous statements we recall
the classification of foliations by straight lines on
$\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C}$ that can be found in
\cite{Cerveau} (according to Jorge Pereira
this classification was already known to
Kummer). We do not know if such a classification
exists on $\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{R}$.
Let $\mathcal{F}$ be a holomorphic foliation on
$\mathbb{P}^n_\mathbb{C}$. Chow theorem asserts
that $\mathcal{F}$ is algebraic; such a
foliation $\mathcal{F}$ has singularities. We
say that $\mathcal{F}$ is a \textsl{foliation by straight lines}
if the generic leaf is contained in a line
(in fact a line without a few points). Let us
mention the difference between the real case:
foliations by straight lines of $\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{R}$
without singularities exist. The typical
example is produced by Hopf fibration: the real
projectivization of complex vector lines
of~$\mathbb{C}^2\simeq\mathbb{R}^4$ gives such
a foliation $\mathcal{H}$. Setting $z=x_1+\mathbf{i}x_2$
and $w=x_3+\mathbf{i}x_4$ these foliations have
the first integral
\[
\frac{z}{w}=\frac{z\overline{w}}{\vert w\vert^2}=\frac{x_1x_3-x_2x_4+\mathbf{i}(x_1x_4+x_2x_3)}{x_3^2+x_4^2}
\]
In particular $\frac{x_1x_3-x_2x_4}{x_3^2+x_4^2}$ and
$\frac{x_1x_4+x_2x_3}{x_3^2+x_4^2}$ are
real first integrals of $\mathcal{H}$.
Let us recall the classification of foliations by
straight lines of $\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C}$:
\begin{thm}[\cite{Cerveau}]\label{thm:clasfolP3}
{\sl Every holomorphic foliation by straight lines in
$\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C}$ is, up to linear
equivalence, of one of the following types
\begin{itemize}
\item[1.] a radial foliation at a point,
\item[2.] a radial foliation "in the pages
of an open book", {\it i.e.} a family of
radial foliations of dimension $2$ each
contained in a plane of the family of planes
containing a fixed line;
\item[3.] a foliation associated with the twisted
cubic $t\mapsto(t,t^2,t^3)$; here the $($closure of the$)$ leaves of the
foliation are the chords and the lines tangent to
the twisted cubic.
\end{itemize}}
\end{thm}
Foliations of the first type correspond to foliations
by parallel lines in a well-chosen affine chart
(singular point at infinity).
To construct a foliation of the second type we
consider an open book, {\it i.e.} a pencil of
hyperplanes, for instance $\frac{x_1}{x_2}=$ constant;
in any page $\frac{x_1}{x_2}=c$ we fix a point
$(\underline{x_1},c\underline{x_2},\underline{x_3})$
and ask that any leaf of $\mathcal{F}$ is a line
contained in a page $\frac{x_1}{x_2}=c$ and
passes through the prescribed point
$(\underline{x_1},c\underline{x_2},\underline{x_3})$
(\emph{see} \cite{Cerveau} for further details).
\begin{align*}
&\includegraphics[width=0.1\linewidth]{1.png}
&&\includegraphics[width=0.1\linewidth]{2.png}
&&\includegraphics[width=0.1\linewidth]{3.png}
&&\includegraphics[width=0.1\linewidth]{4.png} \\
& \text{type 1.} && \text{type 2.} && \text{type 2.} && \text{type 3.}
\end{align*}
Remark that Theorem \ref{thm:clasfolP3} gives the description
of algebraic foliations by straight lines in the affine
space~$\mathbb{C}^3$.
Let us now explain how we can construct a
$2$-chambar from a foliation $\mathcal{F}$ by
lines defined on an open subset $\mathcal{U}$
of $\mathbb{C}^n$.
For a good choice of the affine
coordinates $x_i$ the foliation
$\mathcal{F}$ is defined by a
vector field
\[
X=\frac{\partial}{\partial x_1}+\alpha_2\frac{\partial}{\partial x_2}+\alpha_3\frac{\partial}{\partial x_3}+\ldots+\alpha_n\frac{\partial}{\partial x_n}
\]
on $\mathcal{U}$.
Of course, in general, the $\alpha_i$'s are
meromorphic and we consider
$\mathcal{U}^*=\displaystyle\mathcal{U}\smallsetminus\bigcup_{i=2}^n(\text{poles of $\alpha_i$})$.
Then if $m$ belongs to $\mathcal{U}^*$
the trajectory of $X$ passing through $m$
is a line $D_m$ and $\exp(tX)_{\vert D_m}$
is a translation flow on $D_m$. The
pair $(X,-X)$ thus defines a $2$-chambar.
One can next consider $f\cdot X$, where $f$
is any meromorphic first integral of $X$,
instead of~$X$. Since $f$ is constant on
the trajectories of $X$, $f\cdot X$ still
defines a translation flow on any trajectory
of $X$, and $(f\cdot X,-f\cdot X)$ is also a
$2$-chambar.
\subsection{Some properties}
The barycentric property for a
$2$-chambar $\mathrm{Ch}(X_1,X_2)$
implies that $X_1+X_2=0$ and can be
rewritten as
\[
\varphi_t(x)+\varphi_{-t}(x)=2x\qquad\forall\,x\in\mathcal{U}
\]
where $\varphi_t$ denotes the flow of $X=X_1$.
Differentiating the previous equality with respect to time $t$,
we get
\[
\overset{\bullet}{\varphi_t}(x)-\overset{\bullet}{\varphi_{-t}}(x)=X\big(\varphi_t(x)\big)-X\big(\varphi_{-t}(x)\big)=0;
\]
differentiating a second time with respect to $t$, we obtain
\[
DX\big(\varphi_t(x)\big)\overset{\bullet}{\varphi_t}(x)+DX\big(\varphi_{-t}(x)\big)\overset{\bullet}{\varphi_{-t}}(x)=0
\]
where $DX\colon\mathcal{U}\to\mathbb{R}^n$ (or
$DX\colon\mathcal{U}\to\mathbb{C}^n$) denotes the differential
of $X$.
If
$X=\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^n\alpha_i(x)\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}$, the above relation
is equivalent to
\[
DX(X)=\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^nX(\alpha_i)\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}=0
\]
In particular the coefficients $\alpha_k$ are first integrals of
$X$, $2\leq k\leq n$. As a result the $\alpha_k$ are constant along the trajectories
of $X$; these trajectories are thus (contained in) lines.
Note that in dimension $1$ we can write $X=\alpha\frac{\partial}{\partial x}$
and the above relation is equivalent to $\alpha\frac{\partial\alpha}{\partial x}=0$;
hence~$\alpha$ is constant. On any of its trajectories the flow
of $X$ thus coincides with the flow of a constant vector field.
As a result one can state:
\begin{thm}\label{thm:dim1}
{\sl Let $\mathcal{U}$ be an open subset of $\mathbb{R}^n$
$($resp. $\mathbb{C}^n)$.
Let $X_1$, $X_2$ be two analytic $($resp. holomorphic$)$ vector fields
on $\mathcal{U}$. Assume that $X_1$ and $X_2$ satisfy the barycentric
property.
Then the leaves of $\mathcal{F}_{X_1}=\mathcal{F}_{X_2}$ are contained in
lines; on each of these lines the flows $\exp(tX_k)_{\vert D}$
are translation flows.}
\end{thm}
In particular in dimension $1$ any $2$-chambar $(X,-X)$ is
produced by a constant vector field.
Remark also that any local
$2$-chambar in one variable
can be globalized.
\begin{cor}
{\sl Let $X$ be a rational vector field on $\mathbb{C}^n$.
Assume that $(X,-X)$ defines a $2$-chambar. Then
$\exp(tX)=\mathrm{id}+tX^0$ defines a flow of
birational maps of $\mathbb{C}^n$.}
\end{cor}
Note that in $\exp(tX)=\mathrm{id}+tX^0$ the
letter $X^0$ denotes the map whose components are the
components of the vector field $X$, a system
of coordinates having been chosen.
\begin{rem}
In the real case there is an other proof of Theorem
\ref{thm:dim1} which is geometric.
Let $\Gamma$ be a generic leaf of $\mathcal{F}_{X_1}=\mathcal{F}_{X_2}$.
Assume that $\Gamma$ is not (contained in) a line. If
$x\in\Gamma$ is a generic point, then there exists an hyperplane
$\Sigma$ tangent to $\Gamma$ at $x$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item[$\diamond$] the germ $\Gamma_{,x}$ is contained in one of the
half spaces delimited by $\Sigma$,
\item[$\diamond$] $\Gamma_{,x}\cap\Sigma=\{x\}$
\end{itemize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{picture1b.jpg}
\end{center}
If we set $\varphi_t=\exp tX_1$,
then $\varphi_t(x)-x+\varphi_{-t}(x)-x\not\equiv 0$: contradiction.
\end{rem}
Let
$X=\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^n\alpha_i\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}$
be a germ of vector fields at the origin of
$\mathbb{C}^n$. Denote by
$\mathrm{Sing}(X)=\{\alpha_1=\alpha_2=\ldots=\alpha_n=0\}$
the singular set of $X$.
The following statement is a special case of
Theorem \ref{thm:singdim}; its proof is algebraic
in contrast with the geometric proof of
Theorem \ref{thm:singdim}.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:2sing}
{\sl Let $\mathrm{Ch}(X,-X)$ be a $2$-chambar
at $0\in\mathbb{C}^n$. Assume that
$X$ is singular at $0$, that is
$\{0\}\subset\mathrm{Sing}(X)$.
Then $\dim\mathrm{Sing}(X)\geq 1$.}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}[{\sl Proof}]
The condition $X(\alpha_k)=0$, $1\leq k\leq n$, is equivalent to
\[
\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^n\alpha_i\frac{\partial\alpha_k}{\partial x_i}=0\qquad 1 \leq k\leq n.
\]
Hence the partial derivatives
$\left(\frac{\partial\alpha_k}{\partial x_1},\frac{\partial\alpha_k}{\partial x_2},\ldots,\frac{\partial\alpha_k}{\partial x_n}\right)$
are relations of the ideal $(\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\ldots,\alpha_n)$.
Assume by contradiction that
$\dim\mathrm{Sing}(X)=0$.
Then according to \cite{Tougeron} the
relations are gene\-rated by the trivial
relations
\[
(0,0,\ldots,0,\underbrace{\alpha_j}_{\text{$i$th coordinate}},0,\ldots,0,\underbrace{-\alpha_i}_{\text{ $j$th coordinate}},0,0,\ldots,0);
\]
this gives a contradiction with the following fact: the algebraic
multiplicity at $0$ of one of
the $\frac{\partial \alpha_k}{\partial x_i}$
is less than the algebraic multiplicity
at $0$ of $\alpha_k$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
Let $u\in\mathcal{O}^*(\mathbb{C}^n,0)$ be
a unit. Then the vector field
$u\cdot\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^nx_i\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}$
which has linear trajectories
can not belong to a $2$-chambar; but the
rational field
$\frac{1}{x_1}\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^nx_i\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}$
can.
\end{rem}
\section{Rigid chambars}\label{sec:rigidcham}
\subsection{Flows which are polynomial in the time $t$}
\begin{defi}
Let $X$ be an holomorphic vector field on the
open set $\mathcal{U}\subset\mathbb{C}^n$.
We say that~$X$ is a
\textsl{$t$-polynomial} vector field if
$t\mapsto \exp tX$ is polynomial. The
\textsl{$t$-degree} of $X$ is the usual
degree in the variable $t$ and is
denoted by $t.d(X)\in\mathbb{N}\cup\{\infty\}$.
\end{defi}
We have seen a lot of examples of $t$-polynomial
vector fields: constant vector fields,
nilpotent vector fields, the vector field
$2\sqrt{x}\frac{\partial}{\partial x}$, ...
\medskip
If $\mathcal{U}=\mathbb{C}^n$, then the
trajectories of a $t$-polynomial vector field
are points or rational curves.
\begin{pro}
{\sl Let $X$ be a $t$-polynomial vector field of $t$-degree $\nu$ on
the open set $\mathcal{U}\subset~\mathbb{C}^n$.
Write $\exp tX$ as
$\mathrm{Id}+tF_1+t^2F_2+\ldots+t^\nu F_\nu$,
with $F_k\in\mathcal{O}(\mathcal{U})$. Then
the components $F_{\nu,1}$, $F_{\nu,2}$,
$\ldots$, $F_{\nu,n}$ of $F_\nu$ are first
integrals of $X$.
In particular in the $1$-dimensional case,
$F_\nu$ is a non-zero constant.}
\end{pro}
\begin{proof}[{\sl Proof}]
It is a direct consequence of the
identity $\exp tX\circ \exp sX=\exp(s+t)X$:
the coefficient of $t^\nu$ in that identity
is exactly
\[
F_\nu(\exp sX)=F_\nu.
\]
This implies the statement.
\end{proof}
Remark the $F_{\nu,k}$ may be constant; this is the case for
the flow of $X=2\sqrt{x}\frac{\partial}{\partial x}$. A contrario
if a $t$-polynomial vector
field $X$ of degree $\nu$ is
singular at a point, say $0$ ({\it i.e.} $X(0)0$),
then obviously some of
the $F_{\nu,k}=\frac{X^{\nu}(x_k)}{\nu !}$
are non identically $0$.
In particular in dimension $2$, a $t$-polynomial vector field $X$
singular at the origin $0\in\mathbb{C}^2$, $X(0)=0$,
has a non-constant holomorphic first integral $f$.
The generic leaves of $X$ are the levels of $f$;
note that since the flow is polynomial one has the following important property: $X_{\vert f^{-1}(0)}\equiv 0$.
The $t$-polynomial vector fields produce examples
of $p$-chambars as we have seen pre\-viously.
Typically if $\sigma$ is a primitive $\nu$-th root
of unity and $t\cdot d(X)=\nu$, then
$X$, $\sigma X$, $\ldots$, $\sigma^{\nu-1}X$
defines a (rigid) $\nu$-chambar.
If $t\cdot d(X)=1$, then $\exp tX=\mathrm{Id}+tF_1$
and the foliation associated to $X$ is a
foliation by straight lines.
Conversely to a foliation by straight lines we
can associate a (meromorphic) $t$-polynomial vector
field $X$ such that $t\cdot d(X)=1$.
In dimension $2$, consider a foliation
given by the vector field
$X=f\frac{\partial}{\partial x}+\frac{\partial}{\partial y}$.
Then $X$ is a $t$-polynomial vector field of degree
$1$ if and only if the foliation $\mathcal{F}_X$
is a foliation by straight lines; this means that $f$
satisfies the non-linear PDE
\[
0=X(f)=f\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}+\frac{\partial f}{\partial y};
\]
note that this PDE is the famous inviscid Burgers' equation,
a well-known PDE in fluid mechanic. Similarly
$t$-polynomial vector fields of degree $2$ on open set of
$\mathbb{C}^2$ correspond to foliations in parabolas
etc. In that case appear generalizations of Burgers'
equation as the reader can see.
The following result gives the classification of the $t$-polynomial vector field on the complex line.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:classtpolyvf}
{\sl Let $X(x)=a(x)\frac{\partial}{\partial x}$ be a germ at
$0\in\mathbb{C}$ of a holomorphic vector field.
Assume that the flow of~$X$ is polynomial in $t$ of
$t$-degree $\ell$. Then $a=f'\circ\phi$ where
\begin{itemize}
\item[$\diamond$] $f$ is a polynomial of degree $\ell$
with $f(0)=0$ and $f'(0)=a(0)\not=0$,;
\item[$\diamond$] $\phi\colon(\mathbb{C},0)\to(\mathbb{C},0)$
is a local inverse of $f$: $f\circ\phi(x)=x$.
\end{itemize}
In other
words $X$ is conjugate to the constant
vector field $\frac{\partial}{\partial x}$ via a polynomial (local)
diffeomorphism.}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}[{\sl Proof}]
Suppose that $a(0)\not=0$. In this case the vector field
$X$ is conjugated to a constant vector field, say
$Y=\frac{\partial}{\partial x}$. Let $f$ be an element
of $\mathrm{Diff}(\mathbb{C},0)$ such that $f_*Y=X$.
The flow $\varphi_t$ of $X$ can be written as
\[
\varphi_t(x)=f\big(f^{-1}(x)+t\big),
\]
where $f^{-1}\in\mathrm{Diff}(\mathbb{C},0)$ is the
local inverse of $f$. We thus have $a(x)=f'\circ f^{-1}(x)$.
As we have seen in \S\ref{sec:remeg} (\ref{eq:al})
\[
\varphi_t(x)=x+\displaystyle\sum_{k\geq 1}\frac{1}{k!}X^k(x)t^k;
\]
since $t\cdot d(X)=d$ we must have $X^k(x)=0$ for
all $k\geq d+1$. Note that the functions $f_k(x)=X^k(x)$, $k\geq 1$,
satisfy the recurrence rule:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $f_1=a$,
\item[(ii)] $f_{k+1}=a f'_k$, $\forall\,k\geq 1$.
\end{itemize}
Let us define another sequence of germs at $0\in\mathbb{C}$
as $g_k=f_k\circ f$, $k\geq 1$. This new sequence
satisfies the recurrence rule:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i')] $g_1=f_1\circ f=a\circ f=f'$,
\item[(ii')] $g_{k+1}=f_{k+1}\circ f=a\circ f\cdot f'_k\circ f=f'_k\circ f\cdot f'=(f_k\circ f)'=g'_k$, $\forall\,k\geq 1$.
\end{itemize}
Therefore from (i') and (ii') we get for all $k\geq 1$
\[
g_k=\frac{\partial^k f}{\partial x^k}.
\]
Now, as $f_{\ell+1}\equiv 0$ we have $g_{\ell+1}\equiv 0$ and so
$f$ is a polynomial of degree at most $\ell$. But since
the flow $\varphi_t$ has degree $\ell$, $f$ must be
of degree exactly $\ell$.
Suppose by contradiction that $a(0)=0$. In this case
we can write $a(x)=x^\ell h(x)$ where $\ell\geq 1$
and $h(0)\not=0$. But using the recurence
rule (ii) it is possible to prove that
$f_k(x)=x^{\ell k-k+1}h_k(0)$ where $h_k(0)\not=0$
for all $k\geq 1$. As a consequence the flow can
not be polynomial in $t$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
Fixing $x=0$ in the third line of the proof we immediately
get that $f$ is polynomial; we followed a longer process
because it is essential in the study of the case $a(0)=0$.
\end{rem}
Theorem \ref{thm:classtpolyvf} implies that a germ
of holomorphic $t$-polynomial vector field in one variable
has no singularities. This is not the case in $n\geq 2$
variables (consider for instance $x_2\frac{\partial}{\partial x_1}$).
Nevertheless Theorem \ref{thm:classtpolyvf} has a natural
generalization in $n\geq 2$ variables, but with an
additional assumption of "non-singularities":
\begin{thm}
{\sl Let $X=\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^na_i(x)\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}$
a germ at $0$ of a non-singular $t$-polynomial vector field,
$a_1(0)\not=0$ for fixing ideas.
There exists
$f\in\mathrm{Diff}(\mathbb{C}^n,0)$ a germ of diffeomorphism
which is polynomial in the variable $x_1$ such that
$X=f_*\frac{\partial}{\partial x_1}$, {\it i.e.}
$\varphi_t(x)=f(f^{-1}+te_1)$ where $\varphi_t$
is the flow of $X$ and $f^{-1}$ the local inverse of $f$
at $0$.}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}[{\sl Proof}]
Let $f$ be a local conjugacy between $X$ and
$\frac{\partial}{\partial x_1}$
satisfying $f(0,x_2,x_3,\ldots,x_n)=(0,x_2,x_3,\ldots,x_n)$
(it is well-known that such a conjugacy exists). In
particular $\varphi_t(x)=f(f^{-1}(x)+te_1)$ and
\[
\varphi_t(0,x_2,x_3,\ldots,x_n)=f(t,x_2,x_3,\ldots,x_n);
\]
in particular $f$ is thus polynomial in the variable $x_1$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Rigid chambars on $\mathbb{R}^n$ and foliations by straight lines}
The following statement generalizes to
the real case the property satisfied by the
$2$-chambars:
\begin{thm}\label{thm:realnotcomp}
{\sl If $\mathrm{Ch}(a_1X,a_2X,\ldots,a_pX)$
is a rigid $p$-chambar on an open subset of
$\mathbb{R}^n$, then the foliation $\mathcal{F}_X$
associated to $X$ is a foliation by straight lines.}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}[{\sl Proof}]
As in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:dim1}
we get by successive derivations the
equalities
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^pa_k=0\\
\left(\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^pa_k^2\right)DX\cdot X=0
\end{array}
\right.
\]
Since $a_k\not=0$ for any $1\leq k\leq p$
one has $DX\cdot X=0$. As a
result all the non-singular trajectories
of $X$ are straight lines.
\end{proof}
Theorem \ref{thm:realnotcomp} can not be generalized
to the complex case. Let us give a
counter example of Theorem \ref{thm:realnotcomp}
in the complex case in dimension $2$.
Consider on $\mathbb{C}^2$ the linear
vector field
\[
X=x\frac{\partial}{\partial x}+2y\frac{\partial}{\partial y}.
\]
The closure of its trajectories are
the parabola $y=cx^2$ with
$c\in\mathbb{P}^1_\mathbb{C}$
(if $c\in\{0,\,\infty\}$, then the
trajectory is a line). Let us
consider the vector field
\[
Y=\frac{1}{x}X=\frac{\partial}{\partial x}+\frac{2y}{x}\frac{\partial}{\partial y}
\]
which is holomorphic outside $x=0$. Its
$1$-parameter group is the group of
birational maps
\[
(\exp tY)(x,y)=\left(x+t,\left(\frac{x+t}{x}\right)^2y\right).
\]
Hence if $a_k$ belongs to $\mathbb{C}^*$,
then one has
\[
(\exp ta_kY)(x,y)=\left(x+a_kt,\left(\frac{x+a_kt}{x}\right)^2y\right).
\]
Take some non zero constants $a_1$, $a_2$,
$\ldots$, $a_p$, $p\geq 3$, such that
\[
\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^pa_k=\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^pa_k^2=0.
\]
Then the vector fields $Y_k=a_kY$,
$1\leq k\leq p$, form a $p$-chambar
on the open set
$\mathcal{U}=\mathbb{C}^2\smallsetminus\{x=~0\}$.
But the trajectories of $Y$, that
are almost the trajectories of $X$,
are not straight lines.
\begin{rem}
Let $X$ be a germ at $0\in\mathbb{C}^n$
of holomorphic vector
field. Suppose that there exist some constants $a_1$, $a_2$,
$\ldots$, $a_p$ such
that the $X_k=a_kX$ generate a $p$-chambar.
If $X$ is not singular at $0$, $X(0)\not=0$,
then $\mathrm{Ch}(a_1X,a_2X,\ldots,a_pX)$
is locally conjugate to the constant
$p$-chambar
$\mathrm{Ch}\left(a_1\frac{\partial}{\partial x},a_2\frac{\partial}{\partial x},\ldots,a_p\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\right)$.
Indeed if $\phi$ is a local diffeomorphism
that conjugates~$X$ to
$\frac{\partial}{\partial x}$ and if
$a$ belongs to $\mathbb{C}$, then
$\phi$ conjugates $aX$ to
$a\frac{\partial}{\partial x}$. Be careful it
does not mean that the image of a constant
$p$-chambar via a diffeomorphism
is a $p$-chambar (see Theorem
\ref{thm:cstpchamb}).
\end{rem}
\subsection{Rigid and semi-rigid chambars on $\mathbb{C}^n$}
\subsubsection{Rigid chambars on $\mathbb{C}^n$ and
$t$-polynomial vector fields}
\begin{thm}\label{thm:rigidp}
{\sl Let $\mathrm{Ch}(X,a_1X,a_2X,\ldots,a_{p-1}X)$ be
a germ at $0\in\mathbb{C}^n$ of rigid $p$-chambar.
Then the flow $\varphi_t$ of $X$ is polynomial of
degree at most $p-1$, as a function of the time $t$.
If $t.d(X)=d$, then $a_1$, $a_2$, $\ldots$, $a_p$
satisfy
\[
a_1^\ell+a_2^\ell+\ldots+a_p^\ell=0 \quad\forall\,1\leq\ell\leq d.
\]
In particular if $d=p-1$, then $a_1^p=a_2^p=\ldots=a_p^p$.
Moreover
if the $p$-chambar $(a_1X,a_2X,\ldots,a_pX)$ is irreducible,
then $\frac{a_k}{a_1}$ is a primitive $p$-th root of unity
for some $1\leq k\leq p$.}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}[{\sl Proof}]
Write $X$ as $\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^n X_k\frac{\partial}{\partial x_k}$;
the barycentric condition is the following
\begin{eqnarray*}
& & px_j=px_j+t\big(a_1+a_2+\ldots+a_p\big)X_j+\frac{t^2}{2}\big(a_1^2+a_2^2+\ldots+a_p^2\big)X(X_j)\\
& & \hspace{1cm}+\ldots+\frac{t^k}{k!}\big(a_1^k+a_2^k+\ldots+a_p^k\big)X^{k-1}(X_j)+\ldots
\end{eqnarray*}
for $j=1$, $2$, $\ldots$, $n$.
The fact that the coefficients $a_k$ are different
from zero implies that a Newton formula
\[
a_1^\ell+a_2^\ell+\ldots+a_p^\ell
\]
is non zero for an $\ell\leq p$. As a consequence
$X^m(X_j)\equiv 0$ for all $m\geq \ell-1$ and $1\leq j\leq n$.
This implies that the flow of $X$, and
the flows of the $a_kX_k$, are polynomial in $t$.
The other facts can be checked by the reader.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{A property of the singular set}
Let $X$ be a holomorphic vector field
defined on an open subset $\mathcal{U}$ of $\mathbb{C}^n$.
Denote by $\mathcal{F}_X$ the singular one
dimensional foliation defined by $X$ on
$\mathcal{U}$.
A \textsl{separatrix} $\gamma$ of $X$ through
$x_0\in\mathrm{Sing}(X)$ is a germ of analytic
curve at $x_0$ such that $x_0$ belongs to $\gamma$ and
$\gamma\smallsetminus\{x_0\}$ is a leaf of the
germ of $\mathcal{F}_X$ at $x_0$. This means
that $x_0$ belongs to $\gamma$ and if
$x$ belongs to $\gamma\smallsetminus\{x_0\}$,
then $X(x)\not=0$ and $T_x\gamma=\mathbb{C}\cdot X(x)$.
\smallskip
Let $X$ be an holomorphic vector field defined on a
closed ball $B=\overline{B(0,r)}$ with $X(0)=0$.
We suppose that $X$ is a $t$-polynomial vector field,
that is $t\mapsto\varphi_t(x)$ is polynomial in $t$,
$x\in B$, $\varphi_t=\exp tX$. Note that for
any $x\in B$, $t\mapsto\varphi_t(x)$ can be
extended on all the line $\mathbb{C}$. As a
consequence if $x\in B$, the leaf $\mathcal{L}_x$
of $\mathcal{F}_X$ in $B$ is
\begin{itemize}
\item either the
point $x$ (case $x\in\mathrm{Sing}(X)$),
\item or the connected component of $\mathcal{L}'_x\cap B$
containing $x$ where $\mathcal{L}'_x$ is the
rational curve image of $t\mapsto\varphi_t(x)$.
\end{itemize}
\begin{lem}\label{lem:tecnotclos}
{\sl Suppose that $x$ does not belong to $\mathrm{Sing}(X)$; then
$0$ does not belong to the closure $\overline{\mathcal{L}_x}$
of $\mathcal{L}_x$ in~$B$.}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}[{\sl Proof}]
Assume by contradiction that
$0$ belongs to $\overline{\mathcal{L}_x}$. Then
there is a sequence $(t_n)_n$ of complex numbers such that
$\displaystyle\lim_{n\to +\infty}\varphi_{t_n}(x)=0$.
Since $0\in\mathrm{Sing}(X)$ one has
$\displaystyle\lim_{n\to +\infty}\vert t_n\vert=+\infty$,
and as $t\mapsto\varphi_t(x)$ is
polynomial (non constant)
$\displaystyle\lim_{n\to +\infty}\vert\varphi_{t_n}(x)\vert=+\infty$:
contradiction.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}\label{thm:singdim}
{\sl Let $X\in\chi(\mathbb{C}^n,0)$ be a germ of a
$t$-polynomial vector field at the origin of
$\mathbb{C}^n$.
Assume that $\mathrm{Sing}(X)\not=\emptyset$. Then
$\dim\mathrm{Sing}(X)\geq 1$.
Moreover $X$ has no separatrices
through a singularity.}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}[{\sl Proof}]
Assume that $X$ is defined on the ball
$B=\overline{B(0,r)}$ and that $0$ is an
isolated singularity of $X$. Let $(x_n)_n$
be a sequence of points of $B$ such that
$\displaystyle\lim_{n\to+\infty}x_n=0$.
The leaf $\mathcal{L}_{x_n}$ is closed
in $B$ and cuts the sphere
$S(0,r)=B\smallsetminus B(0,r)$.
Let $y_n$ be a point in $\mathcal{L}_{x_n}\cap S(0,r)$
and $y_0$ a limit point of $y_n$,
up to extraction $y_0=\displaystyle\lim_{n\to +\infty} y_n$.
According to Lemma \ref{lem:tecnotclos} the point $0$
does not belong to $\overline{\mathcal{L}_{y_0}}$
and $\mathcal{L}_{y_0}$ can be seen as the
leaf of the restriction of
$\mathcal{F}_{X\vert B\smallsetminus B(0,r')}$
for $r'$ sufficiently small. The fact that
$y_0=\displaystyle\lim_{n\to +\infty} y_n$ implies that $\mathcal{L}_{y_n}$ is
contained in $B\smallsetminus B(0,r')$ for $n$
sufficiently large:
contradiction with $\displaystyle\lim_{n\to +\infty}x_n=0$.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}\label{cor:rigidp}
{\sl Let $\mathrm{Ch}(a_1X,a_2X,\ldots,a_pX)$ be
a rigid $p$-chambar on an open set
$\mathcal{U}$ of $\mathbb{C}^n$. Then
\begin{itemize}
\item[$\diamond$] either $\mathrm{Sing}(X)=\emptyset$,
that is $X$ is regular;
\item[$\diamond$] or $\dim\,\mathrm{Sing}(X)\geq 1$.
\end{itemize}}
\end{cor}
\begin{eg}
Let $X$ be a linear nilpotent vector field on
$\mathbb{C}^n$. Then the flow $\exp tX$
is polynomial of degree $d=\mathrm{rk}\,X$.
Moreover $\dim\mathrm{Sing}(X)=n-d$.
For instance if $X^{n-1}\not=0$, then
$\dim\mathrm{Sing}(X)=~1$.
\end{eg}
\begin{prob}
Does there exist a vector field with an isolated singularity
belonging to a $p$-chambar?
\end{prob}
\begin{rem}
Recall that the Camacho-Sad theorem (\cite{CamachoSad}) says
that a holomorphic foliation $\mathcal{G}$ by curves at the
origin $0$ of $\mathbb{C}^2$ has an invariant curve passing through
$0$. As a consequence if $X$ is a $t$-polynomial vector field
at the origin $0$ of $\mathbb{C}^2$, with $X(0)=0$, then the invariant
curves of the foliation associated to $X$ are contained in
the singular set $\mathrm{Sing}(X)$.
\end{rem}
The previous considerations suggest
in dimension $\geq 3$ the following
question:
\begin{que}
Let $X$ be a germ at
$0\in\mathbb{C}^n$ of holomorphic vector field. Assume that the closure
of the integral curves are analytic.
Does $X$ preserve an invariant curve
passing through $0$ ?
\end{que}
\subsubsection{Semi-rigid chambars on $\mathbb{C}^n$}
\begin{defi}
A $p$-chambar $\mathrm{Ch}(X_1,X_2,\ldots,X_p)$
on an open subset of $\mathbb{C}^n$ is
\textsl{semi-rigid} if the $X_k$ are coli\-nears,
that is if $X_1\wedge X_k=0$ for any $2\leq k\leq p$.
\end{defi}
In dimension $1$ all chambars are semi-rigid.
\begin{eg}
The $3$-chambar
$\mathrm{Ch}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x},y\frac{\partial}{\partial x},-(y+1)\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\right)$
on $\mathbb{C}^2$ is semi-rigid but not rigid.
\end{eg}
\begin{eg}
The $4$-chambar
$\mathrm{Ch}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x},-\frac{\partial}{\partial x},y\frac{\partial}{\partial x},-y\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\right)$
on $\mathbb{C}^2$
is semi-rigid but not rigid. Note that
it is a non-irreducible chambar.
\end{eg}
\begin{pro}\label{pro:semirigid}
{\sl Let $\mathrm{Ch}(X_1,X_2,X_3)$ be a semi-rigid $3$-chambar on
an open subset of $\mathbb{C}^n$.
Then one of the following holds\footnote{Note that the two properties are not mutually exclusive.}:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$\diamond$] $\mathcal{F}_{X_1}=\mathcal{F}_{X_2}=\mathcal{F}_{X_3}$
and $\mathcal{F}_{X_i}$ is a foliation by straight lines;
\item[$\diamond$] $\mathrm{Ch}(X_1,X_2,X_3)$ is a rigid
chambar.
\end{itemize}}
\end{pro}
\begin{proof}[{\sl Proof}]
Let $\mathcal{U}$ be an open subset of $\mathbb{C}^n$ where the
$X_i$'s are defined. Set $X_1=X$; then $X_2=fX$
where $f$ denotes a meromorphic function defined
on $\mathcal{U}$. The barycentric condition implies
that $X_3=-(1+f)X$. The equality
\[
\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^3 DX_k\cdot X_k=0
\]
obtained by derivation from the barycentric
property can be rewritten as follows
\begin{equation}\label{eq:semirigid}
2(1+f+f^2)DX\cdot X+(1+2f)X(f)\cdot X=0.
\end{equation}
that implies that
\[
(1+f+f^2)X\wedge DX\cdot X=0.
\]
If $1+f+f^2=0$, then $f$ is constant and
$\mathrm{Ch}(X_1,X_2,X_3)$ is rigid.
Otherwise, we have $X\wedge DX\cdot X=0$
and so $\mathcal{F}_X$ is a foliation
by lines.
\end{proof}
\begin{que}
Does there exist a generalization of Proposition \ref{pro:semirigid} for
$p$-chambars, $p\geq 3$~?
The answer is positive in the real case:
\begin{pro}
{\sl Let $\mathrm{Ch}(X_1,X_2,\ldots,X_p)$ be a semi-rigid
$p$-chambar on an open subset $\mathcal{U}\subset\mathbb{R}^n$,
$n\geq 2$. Then
$\mathcal{F}_{X_1}=\mathcal{F}_{X_2}=\ldots=\mathcal{F}_{X_p}$
is a foliation by straight lines.}
\end{pro}
\begin{proof}[{\sl Proof}]
Since the chambar is semi-rigid we can write
$X_j=f_j\cdot X$ where $X$ is a vector field
on $\mathcal{U}$ and $f_j\colon\mathcal{U}\to\mathbb{R}$,
$1\leq j\leq p$. Note that
\[
DX_j\cdot X_j=D(f_j\cdot X)\cdot(f_jX)=f_j\cdot X(f_j)\cdot X+f_j^2\cdot DX\cdot X.
\]
In particular we get
\[
0=\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^pDX_k\cdot X_k=\left(\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^pf_k\cdot X(f_k)\right)\cdot X+\left(\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^pf_k^2\right)\cdot DX\cdot X.
\]
Taking the wedge product with $X$ in the above
relation, we get
\[
\left(\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^pf_k^2\right)X\wedge DX\cdot X=0.
\]
Since the $f_k$'s are non identically zero,
we get $X\wedge DX\cdot X\equiv 0$.
Therefore, $\mathcal{F}_X$ is a foliation
by straight lines.
\end{proof}
\end{que}
\section{Description of $3$-chambars and $4$-chambars in one variable}\label{sec:3cham4cham}
\subsection{Description of $3$-chambars in one variable}
\begin{thm}\label{thm:loc3bfc}
{\sl Let $\mathcal{B}$ be a holomorphic
$3$-chambar on some connected open subset of $\mathbb{C}$. Then
\begin{itemize}
\item[$\diamond$] either $\mathcal{B}$ is a
constant $3$-chambar;
\item[$\diamond$] or
$\mathcal{B}=\mathrm{Ch}\Big(a(x)\frac{\partial}{\partial x},\mathbf{j}a(x)\frac{\partial}{\partial x},\mathbf{j}^2a(x)\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\Big)$, where $a(x)=\sqrt{\lambda x+\mu}$ with $\lambda\in\mathbb{C}^*$,
$\mu\in\mathbb{C}$.
\end{itemize}
\noindent In particular, $\mathcal{B}$ is a rigid chambar.}
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}
In a certain sense Theorem
\ref{thm:loc3bfc} shows that the set of
$3$-chambars on a connected set
of $\mathbb{C}$ has two
"irreducible components".
\end{rem}
\begin{proof}[{\sl Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:loc3bfc}}]
Set $\mathcal{B}=\mathrm{Ch}(X_1,X_2,X_3)$.
We can write $X_k=a_k(x)\frac{\partial}{\partial x}$,
where $a_k\in\mathcal{O}_1$, $1\leq k\leq 3$.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:loc3bfc}
{\sl The $3$-chambar $\mathcal{B}$ is rigid. Moreover:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$\diamond$] either it is a constant chambar,
{\it i.e.} the $a_k$'s are constant and
$a_1+a_2+a_3=0$;
\item[$\diamond$] or $a_2(x)=\alpha a_1(x)$
and $a_3(x)=\alpha^2a_1(x)$ where
$1+\alpha+\alpha^2=0$.
\end{itemize}}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}[{\sl Proof of Lemma \ref{lem:loc3bfc}}]
If $X=a(x)\frac{\partial}{\partial x}$, then by
formula (\ref{eq:al}):
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:5.1}
(\exp tX)(x)&=&x+ta(x)+\frac{t^2}{2}a(x)a'(x)+\frac{t^3}{3!}\Big(a(x)a'(x)^2+a^2(x)a''(x)\Big)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{1cm}+\frac{t^4}{4!}a(x)\Big(a(x)a'(x)^2+a^2(x)a''(x)\Big)'+\ldots
\end{eqnarray}
The barycentric property implies the following equalities:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:5.2}
a_1+a_2+a_3=0
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:5.3}
a'_1+a'_2+a'_3=0
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:5.4}
a_1a'_1+a_2a'_2+a_3a'_3=0
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:5.5}
a_1''a_1+a_1^{'2}+a_2''a_2+a_2^{'2}+a_3''a_3+a_3^{'2}=0
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:5.6}
a_1\big(a_1''a_1+a_1^{'2}\big)+a_2\big(a_2''a_2+a_2^{'2}\big)+a_3\big(a_3''a_3+a_3^{'2}\big)=0
\end{equation}
Note that (\ref{eq:5.3}) (resp. (\ref{eq:5.5})) is
obtained by derivating (\ref{eq:5.2}) (resp. (\ref{eq:5.4})).
According to (\ref{eq:5.2}) the $3$-tuple $(a_1,a_2,a_3)$
is not a holomorphic multiple of $(1,1,1)$. As a consequence
all non trivial solutions of the linear system (seen on the
field $\mathcal{M})$ of meromorphic functions
\begin{equation}\label{eq:5.7}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
y_1+y_2+y_3=0\\
a_1y_1+a_2y_2+a_3y_3=0
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
are thus $\mathcal{M}$-colinear. Note that one can
assume that all the $a_k'$ are non zero; indeed if
all the $a_k$ are constant, then the statement holds.
There thus exists a meromorphic function $f$ such
that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:5.8}
\big(a_1''a_1+a_1^{'2},a_3''a_3+a_3^{'2},a_3''a_3+a_3^{'2}\big)=f(a_1',a_2',a_3')
\end{equation}
Remark that the $3$-tuple $\Big((a_1''a_1+a_1^{'2})',(a_2''a_2+a_2^{'2})',(a_3''a_3+a_3^{'2})'\Big)$ is also solution of (\ref{eq:5.7}) (one can see
it by looking at both the derivation of
(\ref{eq:5.5}) and the coefficient of $t^4$
in $\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^3\exp tX_k(x)$).
There thus exists a meromorphic function $g$ such
that
\[
\Big((a_1''a_1+a_1^{'2})',(a_2''a_2+a_2^{'2})',(a_3''a_3+a_3^{'2})'\Big)=g(a_1',a_2',a_3').
\]
By derivating (\ref{eq:5.8}) we get
\begin{equation}\label{eq:5.9}
f(a_1'',a_2'',a_3'')+f'(a_1',a_2',a_3')=g(a_1',a_2',a_3')
\end{equation}
\begin{itemize}
\item[$\diamond$] Note that if $f=0$, then the
$a_ka_k'$ are constant
\begin{align*}
& a_ka'_k=\frac{c_k}{2}, && c_k\in\mathbb{C}^*
\end{align*}
and the $a_k^2=c_kx+d_k$ are affine and
$a_k=(c_kx+d_k)^{\frac{1}{2}}$. The equality
(\ref{eq:5.2}) that can be rewritten
\[
\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^3(c_kx+d_k)^{\frac{1}{2}}=0
\]
implies that $\frac{c_1}{d_1}=\frac{c_2}{d_2}=\frac{c_3}{d_3}$,
{\it i.e.} the $X_k$'s are colinear. Let us remark
that the previous case coincides with the example
described in \S\ref{sec:exconj}.
\item[$\diamond$] Assume now that $f\not\equiv 0$.
The equality (\ref{eq:5.9}) implies that the
$a_k'$ satisfy a linear differential equation
\begin{align*}
& a_k''=ha_k', && h=\frac{g-f'}{f}.
\end{align*}
We integrate and get
\[
a_k=\alpha_kH+\beta_k
\]
where the $\alpha_k$, $\beta_k$ are some constants
and $H$ is holomorphic. As the $3$-tuple $(a_1,a_2,a_3)$
is supposed to be non-constant, $H$ is non-constant.
The equality (\ref{eq:5.2}) becomes
\[
\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^3\alpha_k=\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^3\beta_k=0
\]
and (\ref{eq:5.4}) becomes
\[
\Big(\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^3\alpha_k^2\Big)HH'+\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^3\beta_k\alpha_kH'=0.
\]
Since $H$ is non constant, $H'$ is non zero, and
\[
\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^3\alpha_k^2=\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^3\alpha_k\beta_k=0.
\]
We obtain the following alternative:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$\bullet$] either
$(\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\alpha_3)=\gamma(1,\mathbf{j},\mathbf{j}^2)$ and
$(\beta_1,\beta_2,\beta_3)=\varepsilon(1,\mathbf{j},\mathbf{j}^2)$
with $\gamma\in\mathbb{C}^*$ and $\varepsilon\in\mathbb{C}$;
\item[$\bullet$] or
$(\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\alpha_3)=\gamma(1,\mathbf{j}^2,\mathbf{j})$ and
$(\beta_1,\beta_2,\beta_3)=\varepsilon(1,\mathbf{j}^2,\mathbf{j})$
with $\gamma\in\mathbb{C}^*$ and $\varepsilon\in\mathbb{C}$.
\end{itemize}
In the two cases the $a_k=\alpha_kH+\beta_k$ are
$\mathbb{C}$-colinear.
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
According to Lemma \ref{lem:loc3bfc} one can write
$X_k$ as follows:
\[
X_k=c_ka(x)
\]
where $a$ is a holomorphic function and $c_i$ are
non-zero complex numbers such that $c_1+c_2+c_3=0$.
The barycentric property (see equation (\ref{eq:5.4})
of Proof of Lemma \ref{lem:loc3bfc}) implies
\[
(c_1^2+c_2^2+c_3^2)aa'=0.
\]
\begin{itemize}
\item[$\diamond$] If $c_1^2+c_2^2+c_3^2\not=0$, then
$a$ is constant (and Corollary \ref{cor:loc3bfr} is
proved).
\item[$\diamond$] If $c_1^2+c_2^2+c_3^2=0$, then
up to multiplication by a constant either
$(c_1,c_2,c_3)=(1,\mathbf{j},\mathbf{j}^2)$, or
$(c_1,c_2,c_3)=(1,\mathbf{j}^2,\mathbf{j})$.
\end{itemize}
By (\ref{eq:5.1}) we have $\Big(\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^3c_k^3\Big)\cdot\big(a''a^2+a'^2a=0\big)$
and
\[
a''a^2+a'^2a=0
\]
since $c_1^3+c_2^3+c_3^3=3$. Therefore
$0=a''a^2+a'^2a=a(a''a+a'^2)=a(aa')'$ and
$aa'=\frac{\lambda}{2}$ for some $\lambda$ in
$\mathbb{C}$. As a result $a^2=\lambda x+\mu$
for some $\mu\in\mathbb{C}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}\label{cor:loc3bfr}
{\sl Let $\mathcal{B}=\mathrm{Ch}(X_1,X_2,X_3)$ be a local
$3$-chambar on $\mathbb{R}$. Then $\mathcal{B}$ is a
constant $3$-chambar
$\mathrm{Ch}\Big(c_1\frac{\partial}{\partial x},c_2\frac{\partial}{\partial x},c_3\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\Big)$
with $c_i$ non-zero real numbers such that $c_1+c_2+c_3=0$.}
\end{cor}
\subsection{$p$-chambar with weights}
\begin{defi}
Let us consider $p$
analytic vector fields $X_1$, $X_2$,
$\ldots$, $X_p$, defined on some open subset $\mathcal{U}$
of~$\mathbb{R}^n$
(resp. $\mathbb{C}^n$), with flows $t\mapsto\varphi_t^\ell$,
$1\leq \ell\leq p$. Consider also non-zero real (resp. complex)
numbers $\alpha_1$, $\alpha_2$, $\ldots$, $\alpha_p$ and
$\alpha=\displaystyle\sum_\ell\alpha_\ell$.
\noindent We say that $X_1$, $X_2$, $\ldots$, $X_p$ define a \textsl{holomorphic $p$-chambar
with weights} $\alpha_1$, $\alpha_2$,
$\ldots$, $\alpha_p$ if
\begin{equation}\label{eq:chambweigh}
\alpha_1\,\varphi_t^1(x)+\alpha_2\,\varphi_t^2(x)+\ldots+\alpha_p\,\varphi_t^p(x)=\alpha\,x,
\end{equation}
for all $(t,x)$ where the above formula makes sense.
\end{defi}
\begin{rem}
This definition is equivalent to
\[
\alpha_1\,X_1^k(x_\ell)+\alpha_2\,X_2^k(x_\ell)+\ldots+\alpha_p\,X_p^k(x_\ell)=0\quad\forall\,k\geq 1,\,\forall\,1\leq \ell\leq n.
\]
We remark that the condition is not equivalent to consider the flows
of the vector fields $\alpha_\ell X_\ell$,
$1\leq \ell\leq n$.
\end{rem}
The classification of $3$-chambars (Theorem \ref{thm:loc3bfc}) can
be extended to this type of chambars with an adaptation in the second
case:
\begin{thm}\label{thm:loc3bfcweight}
{\sl Assume that $X_1$, $X_2$ and $X_3$ define a holomorphic
$3$-chambar $\mathcal{B}$ with weights $\alpha_1$, $\alpha_2$,
$\alpha_3$ on some connected open subset of $\mathbb{C}$. Then
\begin{itemize}
\item[$\diamond$] either $\mathcal{B}$ is a
constant $3$-chambar,
\item[$\diamond$] or
$\mathcal{B}=\mathrm{Ch}\Big(\beta_1 a(x)\frac{\partial}{\partial x},\beta_2 a(x)\frac{\partial}{\partial x},\beta_3 a(x)\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\Big)$ where $a(x)=\sqrt{\lambda x+\mu}$ with $\lambda\in\mathbb{C}^*$,
$\mu\in\mathbb{C}$ and
\begin{align*}
& \alpha_1\beta_1+\alpha_2\beta_2+\alpha_3\beta_3=\alpha_1\beta_1^2+\alpha_2\beta_2^2+\alpha_3\beta_3^2=0.
\end{align*}
\end{itemize}
\noindent In particular, $\mathcal{B}$ is a rigid chambar.}
\end{thm}
\subsection{Almost $p$-chambar}
\begin{defi}
Let $X$ be a vector field. We say that $X$ is
\textsl{almost a $p$-chambar} if there exist non-zero
vector fields $X_2$, $X_3$, $\ldots$, $X_p$ such that
$(X,X_2,X_3,\ldots,X_p)$ is a $p$-chambar.
We say that $X$ is \textsl{almost a chambar}
if there exists an integer $p$ such that $X$ is almost a
$p$-chambar.
\end{defi}
\begin{rem}
If $X$ is almost a $p$-chambar, then $X$
is almost a $(p+q)$-chambar for any $q\geq 2$.
\end{rem}
\begin{eg}
The constant vector fields are almost $p$-chambars
for any $p\geq 2$.
\end{eg}
\begin{eg}
Let $X$ be a nilpotent linear vector field, and
let $p$ be its index of nilpotence.
Then $X$ is almost a $p$-chambar.
\end{eg}
We suspect that most vector fields are not almost
chambars. Let us give an explicit example
in (real or complex) dimension $1$:
\begin{pro}
{\sl If $\lambda$ is a non-zero constant, then the vector
field $\lambda x\frac{\partial}{\partial x}$
is
\begin{itemize}
\item[$\diamond$] not almost a $2$-chambar in a neighborhood of $0$;
\item[$\diamond$] not almost a $3$-chambar in a neighborhood of $0$.
\end{itemize}}
\end{pro}
\begin{rem}
The first assertion of the statement is clear.
The second one is a direct consequence of the classification
of the $3$-chambars (Theorem~\ref{thm:loc3bfc}).
Note that the argument does not use the property of
nilpotency of linear chambar; indeed if $(X_1,X_2,\ldots,X_p)$ is
a $p$-chambar containing $X=\lambda x\frac{\partial}{\partial x}$ then it
is possible that one of the $X_k(0)$ is non zero. We conjecture that any
semi-simple linear vector field $\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_ix_i\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}$, $\lambda_i\not=0$,
is not almost a $p$-chambar.
\end{rem}
\subsection{Some remarks on $4$-chambars in one variable}
The $2$-chambars and $3$-chambars on an open subset
of $\mathbb{C}$ are rigid. This property is not
satisfied by all the $4$-chambars. Consider the
vector fields $X=2\sqrt{x}\,\frac{\partial}{\partial x}$
and $Y=2\sqrt{x+\varepsilon}\,\frac{\partial}{\partial x}$,
$\varepsilon\not=0$, on a suitable domain of
$\mathbb{C}$. As we know the flows of $X$ and
$Y$ are
\begin{align*}
& \exp tX=x+2t\sqrt{x}+t^2 && \exp tY=x+2t\sqrt{x+\varepsilon}+t^2
\end{align*}
and it is easy to see that the $4$-chambar
$\mathrm{Ch}(X,-X,\mathbf{i}Y,-\mathbf{i}Y)$
is irreducible and non rigid. Such a $4$-chambar
is said to be \textsl{special}.
\begin{conjecture}
{\sl Up to affine conjugacy a $4$-chambar on an open subset
of $\mathbb{C}$ is of one of the following type:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$\diamond$] constant
$\mathrm{Ch}\left(a_1\frac{\partial}{\partial x},a_2\frac{\partial}{\partial x},a_3\frac{\partial}{\partial x},a_4\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\right)$, $a_k\in\mathbb{C}^*$;
\item[$\diamond$] rigid of $t$-degree $2$:
$\mathrm{Ch}(a_1X,a_2X,a_3X,a_4X)$
with $X=2\sqrt{x}\,\frac{\partial}{\partial x}$
and $a_k$ constants sa\-tisfying
$a_1+a_2+a_3+a_4=a_1^2+a_2^2+a_3^2+a_4^2=0$;
\item[$\diamond$] rigid of $t$-degree $3$:
$\mathrm{Ch}(X,\sigma X,\sigma^2 X,\sigma^3 X)$
with $X$ of $t$-degree $3$ and $\sigma$ a root
of unity of order $4$;
\item[$\diamond$] special $\mathrm{Ch}(X,-X,Y,-Y)$
with $X$ and $Y$ of $t$-degree $2$.
\end{itemize}}
\end{conjecture}
\begin{rem}
The classification of $p$-chambars on $\mathbb{C}$ for
$p\geq 4$ is a difficult problem in particular because
of irreducibility problems. Indeed if $p=6$ for instance
one can consider the vector field
$Z_5=5x^{\frac{4}{5}}\frac{\partial}{\partial x}$ to
which one can associate the $6$-chambar
\[
\mathrm{Ch}\big(Z_5,\sigma Z_5,\sigma^2 Z_5,\sigma^3 Z_5,\sigma^4 Z_5,\sigma^5 Z_5\big)
\]
which is irreducible. But one can also consider the
non-irreducible $6$-chambar obtained as follows
\[
\mathrm{Ch}\Big(X_1,\mathbf{j}X_1,\mathbf{j}^2X_1,X_2,\mathbf{j}X_2,\mathbf{j}^2X_2\Big)
\]
where
$X_k=\sqrt{\lambda_kx+\mu_k}\frac{\partial}{\partial x}$
and $\lambda_k$, $\mu_k$ are complex numbers such that
$\lambda_1\mu_2-\lambda_2\mu_1\not=0$.
\end{rem}
\begin{prob}
Classify irreducible $p$-chambars in dimension $1$, for $p\geq 4$.
\end{prob}
\begin{thm}\label{thm:4chamonC1}
{\sl Let $\mathrm{Ch}(X_1,X_2,X_3,X_4)$ be a holomorphic
$4$-chambar on some open set $\mathcal{U}\subset\mathbb{C}$.
Set $X_k=y_k(x)\,\frac{\partial}{\partial x}$ with
$y_k\in\mathcal{O}(\mathcal{U})$ for $1\leq k\leq 4$.
Then there exists a polynomial $P\colon\mathbb{C}^3\to\mathbb{C}^4$
independent of the $y_k$'s such that
the vector $y=(y_1,y_2,y_3,y_4)$ satisfies a differential
equation of the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ode}
\Delta(y)\cdot y^{\prime\prime\prime}=P(y,y^\prime,y^{\prime\prime})
\end{equation}
where $\Delta(y)=\displaystyle\prod_{i<j}(y_j-y_i)$.
Furthermore the polynomial $P$ is homogeneous of degree $7$.}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}[{\sl Proof}]
Let us recall some basic facts. The operator $X_k$ on
$\mathcal{O}(\mathcal{U})$ acts as $X_k(f)=y_k\cdot f'$. In particular
\begin{align*}
& X_k(x)=y_k, && X^2_k(x)=y_ky^\prime_k, && X^3_k(x)=p(y_k,y^\prime_k)+y_k^2y^{\prime\prime}_k, && X^4_k(x)=q(y_k,y_k^\prime,y_k^{\prime\prime})+y_k^3y_k^{\prime\prime\prime}
\end{align*}
where $p(y,z)=yz^2$ and $q(y,z,w)=yz^3+4y^2zw$. More generally we
have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:rec}
X_k^\ell(x)=P_\ell\big(y_k,y^\prime_k,\ldots,y_k^{(\ell-2)}\big)+y_k^{\ell-1}\cdot y_k^{(\ell-1)}
\end{equation}
where $P_\ell$ denotes a homogeneous polynomial of degree $\ell$.
Using (\ref{eq:rec}) we get by an induction argument
\begin{equation}\label{eq:rec2}
\frac{\partial^n X_k^\ell(x)}{\partial x^n}=P_{\ell,n}\big(y_k,y_k^\prime,\ldots,y_k^{(\ell+n-2)}\big)+y_k^{\ell-1}\cdot y_k^{(\ell+n-1)}
\end{equation}
where $P_{\ell,n}$ is homogeneous of degree $\ell$ and $P_{\ell,0}=P_\ell$.
Note that $P_{\ell,n}$ is independent of the open set $\mathcal{U}$
and of the function $y\colon\mathcal{U}\to\mathbb{C}^4$.
Since the $X_k$'s satisfy the barycentric condition, we have
$\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^4X_k^\ell=0$, $1\leq k\leq 3$ and so
\[
\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^4\frac{\partial^nX_k^{\ell}}{\partial x^n}=0 \quad\forall\,1\leq \ell\leq 4, \quad\forall\,n\geq 0.
\]
From the above relations and (\ref{eq:rec}) we get the following
system of equations
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{llll}
y_1^{\prime\prime\prime}+y_2^{\prime\prime\prime}+y_3^{\prime\prime\prime}+y_4^{\prime\prime\prime}=0\\
y_1y_1^{\prime\prime\prime}+y_2y_2^{\prime\prime\prime}+y_3y_3^{\prime\prime\prime}+y_4y_4^{\prime\prime\prime}=Q_2(y,y^\prime,y^{\prime\prime})\\
y_1^2y_1^{\prime\prime\prime}+y_2^2y_2^{\prime\prime\prime}+y_3^2y_3^{\prime\prime\prime}+y_4^2y_4^{\prime\prime\prime}=Q_3(y,y^{\prime},y^{\prime\prime})\\
y_1^3y_1^{\prime\prime\prime}+y_2^3y_2^{\prime\prime\prime}+y_3^3y_3^{\prime\prime\prime}+y_4^3y_4^{\prime\prime\prime}=Q_4(y,y^{\prime},y^{\prime\prime})
\end{array}
\right.
\]
with
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{llll}
Q_2(y,y^\prime,y^{\prime\prime})=-3\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^4y_i^\prime y_i^{\prime\prime}\\
Q_3(y,y^\prime,y^{\prime\prime})=-\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^4\Big((y_i^\prime)^3+4y_iy_i^\prime y_i^{\prime\prime}\Big)\\
Q_4(y,y^\prime,y^{\prime\prime})=-\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^4\Big(y_i(y_i^\prime)^3+4y_i^2y_i^\prime y_i^{\prime\prime}\Big)\\
\end{array}
\right.
\]
Writing the above system in the matrix form we get $W(y)\cdot {}^{\mathrm{t}}\! (y^{''})={}^{\mathrm{t}} \! Q(y,y^{'},y^{''})$ where ${}^{\mathrm{t}} \! v$ denotes the transpose of $v$ and $W$ the
Wronskian
\[
W=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
y_1 & y_2 & y_3 & y_4\\
y_1^2 & y_2^2 & y_3^2 & y_4^2\\
y_1^3 & y_2^3 & y_3^3 & y_4^3\\
\end{array}\right)
\]
Solving (\ref{eq:rec2}) we get that the vector function $y$ satisfies the ODE
\begin{equation}\label{eq:rec3}
\Delta{}^{\mathrm{t}} \!(y^{\prime\prime\prime})=\mathrm{adj}(W)(y)\cdot {}^{\mathrm{t}} \! Q(y,y^\prime,y^{\prime\prime})
\end{equation}
where $\mathrm{adj}(W)$ is the adjoint of the matrix $W$, $\Delta=\det(W)=\displaystyle\prod_{i<j}(y_j-y_i)$ and $Q=(0,Q_2,Q_3,Q_4)$.
Set $P(y,y^\prime,y^{\prime\prime})=\mathrm{adj}(W)(y)\cdot {}^{\mathrm{t}} \! Q(y,y^\prime,y^{\prime\prime})$.
By looking carefully at the right hand side of the above relation, we see that
$P$ is homogeneous of degree $7$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
According to Theorem \ref{thm:4chamonC1} if $y_1\frac{\partial}{\partial x_1}$, $y_2\frac{\partial}{\partial x_2}$,
$\ldots$, $y_4\frac{\partial}{\partial x_4}$ are
holomorphic vector fields that define a $4$-chambar on an open
set $\mathcal{U}\subset\mathbb{C}$,
then the vector function $x\in\mathcal{U}\mapsto y(x)=\big(y_1(x),y_2(x),\ldots,y_4(x)\big)$ satisfies an ODE
of the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:odeb}
\Delta\,y^{\prime\prime\prime}=P(y,y^\prime,y^{\prime\prime}),
\end{equation}
where $\Delta=\displaystyle\prod_{i<j}(y_j-y_i)$. In particular if
we fix an initial condition $y(x_0)$, $y^\prime(x_0)$, $y^{\prime\prime}(x_0)$ where $y_i(x_0)\not= y_j(x_0)$ for any
$i<j$, then (\ref{eq:odeb}) has an unique solution $x\in\mathcal{U}\mapsto y(x)$ such
that $y_i(x)\not=y_j(x)$ for any $i<j$ and any $x\in\mathcal{U}$.
However, if $y_1(x_0)=y_2(x_0)$ for instance, then $y_1(x)=y_2(x)$ for
any $x\in\mathcal{U}$. The condition on the flows is now
\[
2\varphi_t^1(x)+\varphi_t^3(x)+\varphi_t^4(x)=4x,
\]
which is a particular case of $(\ref{eq:chambweigh})$.
\end{rem}
\begin{rems}
Let us fix three (constant) vectors $\alpha_0$, $\alpha_1$
and $\alpha_2$ in $\mathbb{C}^4$ and assume that the
components of $\alpha_0$ are two by two different. Then
there exists an unique germ
$y=(y_1,y_2,y_3,y_4)\in\mathcal{O}(\mathbb{C}^4,0)$
satisfying (\ref{eq:ode}) with initial conditions
$y(0)=\alpha_0$, $y'(0)=\alpha_1$ and $y''(0)=\alpha_2$.
Since the differential equation (\ref{eq:ode}) is
meromorphic on $\mathbb{C}^4$ the solution $x\mapsto y(x)$
can be extended until it reaches the codimension one
submanifold $\displaystyle\bigcup_{i<j}(y_i=y_j)$ of $\mathbb{C}^4$.
For instance, the constant vectors $y=(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4)$
are solutions of the ODE (\ref{eq:rec3}). In fact, if $y$ is
a constant vector then $y^\prime=y^{\prime\prime}=0$ and
$Q(y,y^\prime,y^{\prime\prime})=0$.
\end{rems}
Next we will study the solutions with initial condition of
the form $y_i(0)=y_j(0)$, $i\not=j$. The idea is to lift
the ODE to a first order ODE on $\mathbb{C}^{12}$.
Consider the ODE (\ref{eq:ode}) of order $3$ on $\mathcal{U}\subset\mathbb{C}^4$.
Introducing new variables $z=y^\prime$, and $w=z^\prime=y^{\prime\prime}$,
this ODE can be lifted to a system of meromorphic ODE's of order
$1$ on $\mathcal{V}=\mathcal{U}\times\mathbb{C}^4\times\mathbb{C}^4$
as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sys}
\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
y'=z\\
z'=w\\
w'=\Delta^{-1}\cdot P(y,z,w)
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
Multiplying (\ref{eq:sys}) by $\Delta$ we obtain a tangent
holomorphic vector field on $\mathcal{V}$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:vf}
\chi(y,z,w)=\Delta\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^4z_j\frac{\partial}{\partial y_j}+\Delta\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^4w_j\frac{\partial}{\partial z_j}+\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^4P_j(y,z,w)\frac{\partial}{\partial w_j}.
\end{equation}
\begin{thm}\label{thm:4chamonC2}
{\sl The following submanifolds of $\mathbb{C}^{12}$ are
$\chi$-invariant:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$\diamond$] $\Sigma_{ij}:=\mathcal{Z}\big(\langle y_j-y_i\,\vert\,1\leq i<j\leq 4\rangle\big)$;
\smallskip
\item[$\diamond$] $\Sigma_1:=\mathcal{Z}\big(\langle\displaystyle\sum_j y_j,\displaystyle\sum_j z_j,\displaystyle\sum_j w_j\rangle\big)$;
\smallskip
\item[$\diamond$] $\Sigma_2:=\mathcal{Z}\big(\langle\displaystyle\sum_j y_jz_j,\displaystyle\sum_j (z_j^2+y_jw_j)\rangle\big)$;
\smallskip
\item[$\diamond$] $\Sigma_3:=\mathcal{Z}\big(\langle\displaystyle\sum_j(y_jz_j^2+y_j^2w_j)\rangle\big)$.
\end{itemize}
The notation $\mathcal{Z}(\mathcal{J})$ stands for the
zeroes of the ideal $\mathcal{J}$.}
\end{thm}
All these submanifolds are complete intersections and the codimensions
coincide with the number of generators of the ideal.
Furthermore, the submanifolds $\Sigma_i$, $1\leq i\leq 3$,
coincide with the initial conditions corresponding to the
barycentric conditions
\[
\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^4\frac{\partial^nX_k^{\ell}}{\partial x^n}=0 \quad\forall\,1\leq n+\ell\leq 4, \quad\forall\,n\geq 0.
\]
Let us now give a Lemma that will be useful for the proof of
Theorem \ref{thm:4chamonC2}.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:teccom}
{\sl The components $P_1$, $P_2$, $P_3$, $P_4$ of $\chi$
satisfy the following relations:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$\diamond$] $\displaystyle\sum_iP_i=0$,
\item[$\diamond$] $\displaystyle\sum_iy_iP_i=\Delta Q_2(y,z,w)=-3\Delta\displaystyle\sum_iz_iw_i$,
\item[$\diamond$] $\displaystyle\sum_iy_i^2P_i=\Delta Q_3(y,z,w)=-\Delta\displaystyle\sum_i(z_i^3+4y_iz_iw_i)$,
\item[$\diamond$] $\displaystyle\sum_iy_i^3P_i=\Delta Q_4(y,z,w)=-\Delta\displaystyle\sum_i(y_iz_i^3+4y_i^2z_iw_i)$.
\end{itemize}}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}[{\sl Proof}]
Recall that on the one hand
\[
{}^{\mathrm{t}} \! P(y,y^\prime,y^{\prime\prime})=\mathrm{ajd}(W)(y){}^{\mathrm{t}} \! Q(y,y^\prime,y^{\prime\prime})
\]
so
\[
{}^{\mathrm{t}} \! P(y,z,w)=\mathrm{ajd}(W)(y){}^{\mathrm{t}} \! Q(y,z,w).
\]
On the other hand the four relations of the statement
are equivalent to $W(y){}^{\mathrm{t}} \! P(y,z,w)=\Delta {}^{\mathrm{t}} \! Q(y,z,w)$.
Finally, we know from linear algebra that
$W(y)\mathrm{adj}(W)(y)=\Delta\cdot \mathrm{id}$, where $\mathrm{id}$
is the identity matrix. As a consequence
\[
W(y){}^{\mathrm{t}} \! P(y,z,w)=W(y)\mathrm{adj}(W)(y){}^{\mathrm{t}} \! Q(y,z,w)=\Delta {}^{\mathrm{t}} \! Q(y,z,w).
\]
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[{\sl Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:4chamonC2}}]
Let $\mathcal{J}$ be an ideal of $\mathbb{C}[y,z,w]$.
Recall that the submanifold $\mathcal{Z}(\mathcal{J})$,
defined by $\mathcal{J}$, is $\chi$-invariant if,
and only if, $\mathcal{Z}(\mathcal{J})\subset\mathcal{J}$.
So, for instance
\[
\chi(y_k-y_\ell)=(z_k-z_\ell)\prod_{i<j}(y_j-y_i)
\]
and $\chi(y_k-y_\ell)$ belongs to $\langle y_k-y_\ell\rangle$;
in particular $\Sigma_{k\ell}$ is $\chi$-invariant.
\smallskip
Consider the ideal $\mathcal{J}_1=\langle\displaystyle\sum_j y_j,\displaystyle\sum_j z_j,\displaystyle\sum_j w_j\rangle$.
We have
\begin{align*}
& \mathcal{Z}\Big(\displaystyle\sum_iy_i\Big)=\displaystyle\sum_i\mathcal{Z}(y_i)=\Delta\displaystyle\sum_iz_i\in\mathcal{J}_1\\
& \mathcal{Z}\Big(\displaystyle\sum_iz_i\Big)=\displaystyle\sum_i\mathcal{Z}(z_i)=\Delta\displaystyle\sum_iw_i\in\mathcal{J}_1\\
& \mathcal{Z}\Big(\displaystyle\sum_iw_i\Big)=\displaystyle\sum_i\mathcal{Z}(w_i)=\displaystyle\sum_i P_i=0\in\mathcal{J}_1 \text{ by the first assertion of Lemma \ref{lem:teccom}}
\end{align*}
With a similar computation, using the other assertions of Lemma \ref{lem:teccom}
it is possible to prove that $\Sigma_2$, $\Sigma_3$
and~$\Sigma_4$ are $\chi$-invariant.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
{\sl Let $\mathrm{Ch}(X_1,X_2,X_3,X_4)$ be a $4$-chambar
on an open set $\mathcal{U}\subset\mathbb{C}$, with
$X_j=y_j\frac{\partial}{\partial x}$, $y_j\in\mathcal{O}(\mathcal{U})$,
$1\leq j\leq 4$.
Suppose that $y_k(x_0)=y_{\ell}(x_0)$ for some $x_0\in\mathcal{U}$ and $k\not=\ell$.
Then $y_k(x)=y_\ell(x)$ for all $x\in\mathcal{U}$.
Moreover, if $k=1$ and $\ell=2$, for instance,
then either the chambar is constant and $2a_1+a_3+a_4=0$ or
$y_j(x)=a_j\sqrt{\lambda x+\mu}$ with $\lambda\not=0$,
$a_1=a_2=-\frac{1}{3}$ and $a_3$ and $a_4$ the roots of $3z^2+2z+3=0$.}
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}[{\sl Proof}]
The first assertion is consequence of Theorem \ref{thm:4chamonC2}
and the other of Theorem \ref{thm:loc3bfcweight}.
\end{proof}
Let us denote by $\mathrm{Ch}(4,1)$ the set of $4$-tuples
$(X_1,X_2,X_3,X_4)$ of germs at $0\in\mathbb{C}$ of
holomorphic vector fields whose flows satisfy the
barycentric conditions.
\begin{cor}
{\sl The set $\mathrm{Ch}(4,1)$ is isomorphic to an algebraic
submanifold of $\mathbb{C}^{12}$ whose irreducible
components have dimension at most six.}
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}[{\sl Proof}]
According to Theorems \ref{thm:4chamonC1} and
\ref{thm:4chamonC2}
any $4$-chambar on $\mathbb{C}$ gives origin to a
trajectory $(y,z,w)\colon(\mathbb{C},0)\to\mathbb{C}^{12}$
tangent to the $\chi$-invariant submanifold
$\Sigma=\Sigma_1\cap\Sigma_2\cap\Sigma_3$ of
$\mathbb{C}^{12}$. This defines an embedding of
$\mathrm{Ch}(4,1)$ on $\Sigma$.
\end{proof}
\section{Linear chambars}\label{sec:linnil}
\begin{thm}\label{thm:linnil}
{\sl Let $X_1$, $X_2$, $\ldots$, $X_p$ be some
linear vector fields on
$\mathbb{R}^n$
$($resp. $\mathbb{C}^n)$.
If they satisfy the barycentric property, then
they are nilpotent.}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}[{\sl Proof}]
The flow $\varphi_t^k$ of $X_k$ can be written
\[
\varphi_t^k(x)=(\exp tA_k)(x)
\]
where the $A_k$ belong to $\mathrm{End}(\mathbb{R}^n)$
or $\mathrm{End}(\mathbb{C}^n)$. We identify
the $A_k$ to some matrices. The barycentric property
is equivalent to
\[
\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^p\sum_{\ell=0}^\infty\frac{t^\ell}{\ell !}A_k^\ell=p\mathrm{Id}
\]
that implies $\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^p A_k^\ell=0$ for
any $\ell\geq 1$. Let $\lambda_{k,j}$ be the eigenvalues
of $A_k$, $1\leq j\leq n$. We get for all $\ell\geq 1$
\[
0=\mathrm{Tr}\Big(\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^pA_k^\ell\Big)=\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^p\sum_{j=1}^n\lambda_{k,j}^n.
\]
As a result all the $\lambda_{k,j}$ are equal to zero.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
The $\varphi_t^k$ are polynomial in $x$ and $t$.
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}
If $p=2$, then the indices of nilpotence are $2$
({\it i.e.} $A^2=0$) and we recover the fact that
the trajectories are straight lines. Note also
that if $X$ is a nilpotent vector field of
index $2$, then the pair $(X,-X)$ is a $2$-chambar.
\end{rem}
\begin{eg}
Let $X$ be a nilpotent linear vector field of
order $p$. Let $\sigma=\exp\left(\frac{2\mathbf{i}\pi}{p}\right)$
be a primitive $p$-th root of unity. Then
the vector fields $X$, $\sigma X$, $\sigma^2X$,
$\ldots$, $\sigma^{p-1}X$ satisfy the barycentric
property.
\end{eg}
\begin{rem}
Let $\mathrm{Ch}(X_1,X_2,\ldots,X_p)$ be a linear
$p$-chambar. Denote by $k$ the maximal order of
nilpotence of the $X_i$'s. Take $\ell<k$ an
integer. Then
$\mathrm{Ch}(X_1^\ell,X_2^\ell,\ldots,X_p^\ell)$
is a $q$-chambar for some $q\leq p$. The
inequality comes from the fact that two
$X_k^\ell$ can be equal or $X_k^\ell$ can be zero.
The fact that $q<p$ measures some degeneration and
if $q=p$ for any $\ell<k$ it gives some
condition of transversality.
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}
Let $\mathrm{Ch}(X_1,X_2,\ldots,X_p)$ be a singular
$p$-chambar such that $X_k(0)=0$. Denote by
$A_i$ the linear part of $X_i$ for $1\leq i\leq p$.
Assume that the $A_i$'s generate a linear $p$-chambar
$\mathrm{Ch}(A_1,A_2,\ldots,A_p)$.
Consider the homothety $h_s\colon x\mapsto sx$,
$s\in\mathbb{C}^*$ and
\[
X_k^s=h_{s*}X_k=A_k+s(\ldots)
\]
We construct in this way a family
$\mathrm{Ch}^s=\mathrm{Ch}(X_1^s,X_2^s,\ldots,X_p^s)$
of $p$-chambars, all conjugate for $s\not=0$,
and that joins the initial chambar
$\mathrm{Ch}^1=\mathrm{Ch}(X_1,X_2,\ldots,X_p)$
to the linear chambar
$\mathrm{Ch}^0=\mathrm{Ch}(A_1,A_2,\ldots,A_p)$.
\end{rem}
\subsection{Linear $p$-chambars in dimension $2$}
\begin{lem}
{\sl Let $B$ be $(2\times 2)$-matrix with complex coefficients.
If $\mathrm{Tr}(B)=0$, then $B$ is the sum of two
nilpotent matrices.}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}[{\sl First proof}]
If $B=0$, then the result holds.
Let us now assume that $B\not=0$. Let us write
$B$ as $\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
a & b\\
c & -a
\end{array}
\right)$. We are looking forward two nilpotent matrices
\begin{align*}
& A=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
x & y \\
z & -x
\end{array}
\right)
&&
A'=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
x' & y' \\
z' & -x'
\end{array}
\right)
\end{align*}
such that $B=A+A'$. We thus have to solve
the following system
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{lllll}
x+x'=a\\
y+y'=b\\
z+z'=c\\
x^2+yz=0\\
x^{'2}+y'z'=0
\end{array}
\right.
\]
(the last two conditions guaranteeing nilpotence).
After elimination of $x'$, $y'$ and $z'$ we get
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
x^2+yz=0\\
(a-x)^2+(b-y)(c-z)=0
\end{array}
\right.
\]
that is
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
x^2+yz=0\\
2ax+bz+cy-a^2-bc=0
\end{array}
\right.
\]
which is the non-trivial intersection of a
quadric and of a plane. These two sets
intersect along a plane conic.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[{\sl Second proof}]
Since $\mathrm{Tr}(B)=0$, then $B$ is conjugate to
$\left(\begin{array}{cc}0 & x\\y & 0\end{array}\right)$
for some $x$, $y$ in $\mathbb{C}$.
We conclude using the fact that
\[
\left(\begin{array}{cc}0 & x\\y & 0\end{array}\right)=\underbrace{\left(\begin{array}{cc}0 & x\\0 & 0\end{array}\right)}_{\text{nilpotent}}+\underbrace{\left(\begin{array}{cc}0 & 0\\y & 0\end{array}\right)}_{\text{nilpotent}}
\]
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
{\sl Let $A_3$, $A_4$, $\ldots$, $A_p$ be $(p-2)$ nilpotent
$(2\times 2)$-matrices.
There exist two nilpotent $(2\times 2)$-matrices $A_1$, $A_2$ such
that the flows $\varphi_t^k=\exp tA_k$, $1\leq k\leq p$,
satisfy the barycentric property.}
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}[{\sl Proof}]
Let $A_1$ and $A_2$ be two nilpotent matrices such that
\[
A_1+A_2+A_3+\ldots+A_p=0.
\]
As $\exp tA_k=\mathrm{Id}+tA_k$ in dimension $2$, the
$p$-tuple $(A_1,A_2,\ldots,A_p)$ suits.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
If $A_1$, $A_2$, $A_3$ are nilpotent $(2\times 2)$-matrices
that satisfy the barycentric pro\-perty, then the $A_i$
are $\mathbb{C}$-colinear, {\it i.e.} $\mathrm{Ch}(A_1,A_2,A_3)$ is rigid. Indeed the nilpotent
$(2\times 2)$-matrices form a quadratic cone.
\end{rem}
\subsection{Linear $3$-chambars}
The following example illustrates that we can find
solutions to the barycentric property in some
Lie algebras of vector fields. In the particular
case $n=3$ one can find $p$-chambars in the
Heisenberg Lie algebra $\mathfrak{h}_3$ formed by matrices
\[
M(\alpha,\beta,\gamma)=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & \alpha & \gamma \\
0 & 0 & \beta \\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}
\right).
\]
One has $M^2(\alpha,\beta,\gamma)=M(0,0,\alpha\beta)$.
The barycentric property for the vector fields $X_k$
corresponding to the matrices $M(\alpha_k,\beta_k,\gamma_k)$,
$k=1$, $\ldots$, $p$, is equivalent to the equalities
\[
\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^p\alpha_k=\sum_{k=1}^p\beta_k=\sum_{k=1}^p\gamma_k=\sum_{k=1}^p\alpha_k\beta_k=0.
\]
In the coefficients space $(\mathbb{C}^3)^p$
the barycentric property is the intersection
of three hyperplanes and one quadric
which has thus dimension $3p-4$.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:lin3cham}
{\sl Let $\mathrm{Ch}(X_1,X_2,X_3)$ be a linear $3$-chambar
on $\mathbb{C}^3$. Then up to conjugacy, the~$X_i$'s
$($identified to their matrices$)$ are contained in the
Heisenberg Lie algebra $\mathfrak{h}_3~\subset~\mathrm{gl}(3,\mathbb{C})$.}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}[{\sl Proof}]
Let us identified $X_i$ to its matrix.
We will
distinguish two cases according to the rank of
the $X_i$'s.
\begin{itemize}
\item[$\diamond$] If one of the $X_i$'s has rank $2$,
for instance $X_1$, then
up to conjugacy one can assume that
$X_1=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1\\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}
\right)$. We are now looking for $X_2$ and $X_3$
such that $X_2$ and $X_3$ are nilpotent
(in particular their traces are zero) and
$X_1+X_2+X_3=X_1^2+X_2^2+X_3^2=0$. A
straightforward computation implies that
$X_2$ and $X_3$ belong to $\mathfrak{h}_3$.
\item[$\diamond$] It suffices now to deal with
the case where the three nilpotent matrices $X_1$,
$X_2$ and $X_3$ have rank $1$. Up to conjugacy
one can suppose that
$X_1=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & 1\\
0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}
\right)$. As $X_2$ has rank $1$ the three
columns of $X_2$ are colinear, {\it i.e.}
$X_2=(\lambda E,\mu E,\nu E)$ where
$E=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
a\\
b\\
c
\end{array}
\right)\not=0$.
Then $X_3=-X_1-X_2=\left(-\lambda E,-\mu E,-\nu E-\left(
\begin{array}{c}
1\\
0\\
0
\end{array}\right)\right)$. Let us distinguish
three cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$\bullet$] First assume that
$\lambda=\mu=0$. Changing the notations if
needed let us take $\nu=1$. Then
\begin{align*}
&X_1=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & 1\\
0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}
\right), &&
X_2=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & a\\
0 & 0 & b\\
0 & 0 & c
\end{array}
\right), &&
X_3=-\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & a+1\\
0 & 0 & b\\
0 & 0 & c
\end{array}
\right).
\end{align*}
Since $X_1$ and $X_2$ are nilpotent,
$c$ has to be $0$; but $c=0$ leads to
$X_2^2=X_3^2=0$, and the $X_i$ belong
to $\mathfrak{h}_3$.
\item[$\bullet$] Now suppose $\lambda\not=0$,
{\it i.e.} $\lambda=1$. Then
\begin{align*}
& X_2=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
a & \mu a & \nu a\\
b & \mu b & \nu b\\
c & \mu c & \nu c
\end{array}
\right), &&X_3=-\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
a & \mu a & \nu a+1\\
b & \mu b & \nu b\\
c & \mu c & \nu c
\end{array}
\right).
\end{align*}
As $X_3$ has rank $1$, the coefficients
$b$ and $c$ are zero. Therefore
$X_2=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
a & \mu a & \nu a\\
0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}
\right)$; since $X_2$ is nilpotent,
$a$ has to be $0$. As a consequence
$X_2=0$ which is impossible (the matrices are
implicitly
assumed to be non-zero).
\item[$\bullet$] Finally assume that $\lambda=0$
and $\mu\not=0$, that is $\lambda=0$ and
$\mu=1$ and
\begin{align*}
& X_2=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & a & \nu a\\
0 & b & \nu b\\
0 & c & \nu c
\end{array}
\right), &&X_3=-\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & a & \nu a+1\\
0 & b & \nu b\\
0 & c & \nu c
\end{array}
\right).
\end{align*}
The fact that $\mathrm{rk}\,X_3=1$ leads to
$b=c=0$ and
\begin{align*}
& X_2=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & a & \nu a\\
0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}
\right), &&X_3=-\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & a & \nu a+1\\
0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}
\right)
\end{align*}
belong to $\mathfrak{h}_3$.
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
In fact the statement holds in any dimension but we keep
the previous result and its proof because
this last one is much more easier. Let us start
by some definitions, notations and intermediate
results of non-commutative algebra.
A \textsl{monomial} of $k$-variables on
$\mathrm{End}(\mathbb{C}^n)$ is a map
$f\colon\mathrm{End}(\mathbb{C}^n)^k\to\mathrm{End}(\mathbb{C}^n)$
of the form
\[
f(X_1,X_2,\ldots,X_k)=X_{i_1}^{k_1}X_{i_2}^{k_2}\ldots X_{i_r}^{k_r}
\]
where $r\geq 1$, $i_j\in\{1,\,2,\,\ldots,\,k\}$ and
$k_j\geq 0$ for any $1\leq j\leq r$. By convention
$X_i^0=1$.
We say that the monomial is \textsl{reduced} if
\begin{itemize}
\item[$\diamond$] $k_j\geq 1$ for any $1\leq j\leq r$;
\item[$\diamond$] $i_j\not= i_{j+1}$ for any $1\leq j\leq r-1$.
\end{itemize}
The \textsl{degree} of $f$ is $\deg f=\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^rk_i$.
A \textsl{polynomial of $k$ variables} on $\mathrm{End}(\mathbb{C}^n)$
is a linear combination of monomials of $k$ variables on
$\mathrm{End}(\mathbb{C}^n)$:
\[
P(X_1,X_2,\ldots,X_k)=\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^sa_jF_j(X_1,X_2,\ldots,X_k)
\]
with $a_1$, $a_2$, $\ldots$, $a_s$ in $\mathbb{C}$.
The \textsl{degree} of $P$ is
$\deg P=\max\{\deg(F_j)\,\vert\, a_j\not=0\}$.
If $\deg F_j\geq 1$ for any $1\leq j\leq s$, then we say that
$P$ is \textsl{without constant term}.
If $\mathrm{Ch}(X_1,X_2,X_3)$ is a $3$-linear chambar on $\mathbb{C}^n$,
we denote by
$\mathcal{G}=\langle X_1,\,X_2,\,X_3\rangle\subset\mathrm{End}(\mathbb{C}^n)\simeq\mathrm{gl}(n,\mathbb{C})$
the sub-algebra generated by $X_1$, $X_2$ and $X_3$. As previously we identify the
linear vector field $X_j$ with
elements of $\mathrm{End}(\mathbb{C}^n)$.
We can now state the result:
\begin{thm}\label{thm:3linchambar}
{\sl Let $\mathrm{Ch}(X_1,X_2,X_3)$ be a linear $3$-chambar
on $\mathbb{C}^n$. Let $\mathcal{G}=\langle X_1,\,X_2,\,X_3\rangle$
be the algebra of linear transformations generated by $X_1$,
$X_2$ and $X_3$.
If $Y_1$, $Y_2$, $\ldots$, $Y_n$ belong to $\mathcal{G}$,
then $Y_1Y_2\ldots Y_n=0$.
In particular, up to conjugacy, the $X_i$'s
$($identified to their matrices$)$ are contained in the
Heisenberg Lie algebra $\mathfrak{h}_n\subset\mathrm{gl}(n,\mathbb{C})$.}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}[{\sl Proof}]
Let us start the proof with the following statement:
\begin{lem}\label{lem:tec1}
{\sl Let $\mathrm{Ch}(X_1,X_2,X_3)$ be a linear $3$-chambar
on $\mathbb{C}^n$.
Let $f$ be a monomial of two variables on
$\mathrm{End}(\mathbb{C}^n)$.
There exists $n(f)\in\mathbb{Z}$ such that
\[
f(X_1,X_2)+f(X_2,X_1)=n(f)\cdot X_3^{\deg f}.
\]}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}[{\sl Proof}]
For instance from
\[
X_1^k+X_2^k=-X_3^k\qquad\forall\,k\geq 1
\]
we get
\[
X_3^{k+j}=(X_1^k+X_2^k)(X_1^j+X_2^j)=X_1^{k+j}+X_2^{k+j}+X_1^kX_2^j+X_2^kX_1^j=-X_3^{k+j}+X_1^kX_2^j+X_2^kX_1^j
\]
and so $X_1^kX_2^j+X_2^kX_1^j=2X_3^{k+j}$.
A reduced monomial $g$ of two variables on
$\mathrm{End}(\mathbb{C}^n)$ can be written
as
\[
g(X,Y)=X^{k_1}Y^{j_1}X^{k_2}\ldots Y^{j_r}
\]
where $k_1\geq 0$, $j_r\geq 0$, $k_2$, $k_3$,
$\ldots$, $k_r\geq 1$ and $j_1$, $j_2$,
$\ldots$, $j_{r-1}\geq 1$. Note that
$\deg g=\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^r(k_i+j_i)$. Let us
introduce the following definitions:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$\diamond$] the $X$-length of $g$ is $\ell_X(g)=\#\{i\,\vert\,k_i>0\}$;
\item[$\diamond$] the $Y$-length of $g$ is $\ell_Y(g)=\#\{i\,\vert\,j_i>0\}$;
\item[$\diamond$] the length of $g$ is $\ell(g)=\ell_X(g)+\ell_Y(g)$.
\end{itemize}
The proof is by induction on $\ell(f)$. Let us
state the induction assumption: given $m\in\mathbb{N}$
the assertion of the Lemma is true for any reduced
monomial $g$ with $\ell(g)\leq m$.
The induction assumption is true if $m\leq 2$:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$\diamond$] for
$\ell(f)=1$ it is a consequence of the
equality $X_1^k+X_2^k=-X_3^k$;
\item[$\diamond$] for $\ell(f)=2$ it is
a consequence of the equality
$X_1^kX_2^j+X_2^kX_1^j=2X_3^{k+j}$.
\end{itemize}
Assume that the assertion of the Lemma is true for
$m\geq 2$ and let us prove that it is true for
$m+1$. Let $f$ be a monomial with length
$m+1\geq 3$. Without loss of generality
we can assume that $f(X,Y)=X^kY^jX^mg(X,Y)$;
note that $\ell(g)=\ell(f)-3=m-2$. Using that
$X_1^kX_2^j+X_2^kX_1^j=2X_3^{k+j}$ we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
& & f(X_1,X_2)+f(X_2,X_1) \\
& & \hspace{1cm} =X_1^kX_2^jX_1^mg(X_1,X_2)+X_2^kX_1^jX_2^mg(X_2,X_1)\\
& & \hspace{1cm} = (2X_3^{k+j}-X_2^kX_1^j)X_1^mg(X_1,X_2)+(2X_3^{k+j}-X_1^kX_2^j)X_2^mg(X_2,X_1)\\
& & \hspace{1cm} = 2X_3^{k+j}(X_1^mg(X_1,X_2)+X_2^mg(X_2,X_1))-X_2^kX_1^{j+m}g(X_1,X_2)-X_1^kX_2^{j+m}g(X_2,X_1)\\
& & \hspace{1cm} = 2X_3^{k+j}\Big(g_1(X_1,X_2)+g_1(X_2,X_1)\Big)-\Big(g_2(X_1,X_2)+g_2(X_2,X_1)\Big)
\end{eqnarray*}
where $g_1(X,Y)=X^mg(X,Y)$ and $g_2(X,Y)=Y^kY^{j+m}g(X,Y)$.
Note that
\begin{align*}
& \ell(g_1)=1+\ell(g)=m-1 && \text{and} &&\ell(g_2)=\ell(g)+2=m.
\end{align*}
Therefore the induction assumption implies that for $i\in\{1,\,2\}$
\[
g_i(X_1,X_2)+g_i(X_2,X_1)=n(g_i)X_3^{\deg f}.
\]
Hence
\[
f(X_1,X_2)+f(X_2,X_1)=n(f)C^{\deg f}
\]
where $n(f)=2n(g_1)-n(g_2)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{lem:tec2}
{\sl Let $\mathrm{Ch}(X_1,X_2,X_3)$ be a linear $3$-chambar
on $\mathbb{C}^n$.
Let $P(X,Y)$ be a polynomial of two variables on
$\mathrm{End}(\mathbb{C}^n)$.
Assume that $P$ is without constant term.
Then $P(X_1,X_2)$ is
nilpotent, that is $P(X_1,X_2)^n=0$.}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}[{\sl Proof}]
Assume first that $P$ is a reduced monomial. Set $d=\deg P$.
Denote by $\lambda_1$, $\lambda_2$, $\ldots$, $\lambda_n$
(resp. by $\mu_1$, $\mu_2$, $\ldots$, $\mu_n$) the eigenvalues
of $P(X_1,X_2)$ (resp. $P(X_2,X_1)$). It follows from
Lemma \ref{lem:tec1} that
\[
\displaystyle\sum_j\lambda_j+\sum_j\mu_j=\mathrm{tr}\big(P(X_1,X_2)+P(X_2,X_1)\big)=\mathrm{tr}\big(n(P)X_3^d\big)=0.
\]
Given any $m\in\mathbb{N}$, since $P(X,Y)^m$
is a monomial we have
\[
\sum_j\lambda_j^m+\sum_j\mu_j^m=\mathrm{tr}\big(P(X_1,X_2)^m+P(X_2,X_1)^m\big)\qquad\forall\,m\in\mathbb{N}.
\]
This implies that
$\lambda_1=\lambda_2=\ldots=\lambda_n=0$ and so
$P(X_1,X_2)$ is nilpotent. In particular we get
$\mathrm{tr}(P(X_1,X_2))=0$.
\bigskip
Suppose now that $P$ is a polynomial of two variables on
$\mathrm{End}(\mathbb{C}^n)$ without constant term. Since $P$ is a linear
combination of non constant monomials we get
$\mathrm{tr}(P(X_1,X_2))=0$. Similarly, given $m\in\mathbb{N}$
then $P(X,Y)^m$ is also a polynomial without constant term and so
$\mathrm{tr}(P(X_1,X_2)^m)=~0$. Therefore
$P(X_1,X_2)$ is nilpotent and as $P(X_1,X_2)$ belongs
to $\mathrm{End}(\mathbb{C}^n)$ we get
$P(X_1,X_2)^n=~0$.
\end{proof}
Let $\mathfrak{g}$ be any Lie algebra.
Recall some classical well known facts.
If $x$ belongs to $\mathfrak{g}$,
$y\mapsto[x,y]$ is an endomorphism
of~$\mathfrak{g}$, which we denote $\mathrm{ad}\,x$. We say
that $x$ is \textsl{ad-nilpotent} if
$\mathrm{ad}\,x$ is a nilpotent endomorphism.
If~$\mathfrak{g}$ is nilpotent, then all elements of
$\mathfrak{g}$ are ad-nilpotent. The converse is also true,
it is the Engel Theorem (\cite{Humphreys}). In
particular a Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ whose all elements
are ad-nilpotent is triangularizable.
If now $\mathfrak{g}$
is a matrices algebra whose all elements are nilpotent
(for the multiplication), then the algebra is
up to conjugacy contained in the Heisenberg Lie
algebra~$\mathfrak{h}_n$. This ends the proof of the theorem.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Some remarks on linear $4$-chambars}
As previously we will identify the vector
field $X_i$ to its matrix.
\begin{defi}
A $p$-chambar
$\mathrm{Ch}(X_1,X_2,\ldots,X_p)$ has
\textsl{rank $r$} if at least one $X_i$
(identified with its matrix) has rank $r$.
\end{defi}
Let us start with the following property:
\begin{pro}
{\sl Let $\mathrm{Ch}(X_1,X_2,X_3,X_4)$ be a linear
$4$-chambar. If $\mathrm{Ch}(X_1,X_2,X_3,X_4)$
has rank $2$, then
$\mathrm{Ch}(X_1,X_2,X_3,X_4)$ is irreducible.}
\end{pro}
\begin{proof}[{\sl Proof}]
Suppose, by contradiction, that
$\mathrm{Ch}(X_1,X_2,X_3,X_4)$
is reducible. Then $\mathrm{Ch}(X_1,X_2,X_3,X_4)$
consists of two pairs of $2$-chambars:
the trajectories are thus lines and
the $X_i$'s (identified with their
matrices) have rank~$1$.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{A first family of examples}\label{subsubsec:1ex}
Consider the four following matrices
\begin{align*}
& X_1=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & \alpha\\
0 & 0 & \beta\\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}
\right), &&
X_2=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & \gamma & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \delta & 0
\end{array}
\right),\\
&X_3=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0& a & -\frac{ab}{c}\\
0& b & -\frac{b^2}{c}\\
0& c & -b
\end{array}
\right),&&
X_4=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0& d & \frac{db}{e} \\
0& -b & -\frac{b^2}{e}\\
0& e & b
\end{array}
\right)
\end{align*}
where $ \alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$,
$\delta$, $a$, $b$, $c$,
$d$, $e$ are complex
numbers satisfying the following
conditions
\begin{align*}
& \gamma+a+d=0, &&\alpha-\frac{ab}{c}+\frac{db}{e}=0, && \beta-\frac{b^2}{c}-\frac{b^2}{e^2}=0, && \delta+c+e=0.
\end{align*}
These matrices define a $4$-chambar
generically irreducible whose
elements are not contained in a nilpotent
algebra. Indeed
\begin{itemize}
\item[$\diamond$] on the one hand the
nilpotent algebras of matrices are
triangularizable; in particular the
eigenvalues of a commutator are zero;
\item[$\diamond$] on the other hand
the eigenvalues of the commutator
$[X_1,X_2]=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0& \alpha\delta & -\beta\gamma \\
0& \beta\delta & 0\\
0& 0 & -\beta\delta
\end{array}
\right)$ are non-zero as soon as
$\beta\delta\not=0$.
\end{itemize}
Remark that the $X_i$'s have a common
kernel for generic values of the
parameters.
\subsubsection{A second family of examples}
Let us consider
\begin{align*}
& X_1=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & 0\\
1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0
\end{array}
\right), &&
X_2=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & a & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
b & -c-2 & 0
\end{array}
\right),\\
&X_3=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & -a & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0\\
b & c & 0
\end{array}
\right),&&
X_4=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & 0 \\
-1 & 0 & 0\\
-2b & 1 & 0
\end{array}
\right)
\end{align*}
Then $(X_1,X_2,X_3,X_4)$ is a linear
$4$-chambar of rank $2$ in $\mathbb{C}^3$
and the $X_i$'s (identified to their matrices)
are not contained in a nilpotent algebra of matrices.
\bigskip
More generally for $1\leq j\leq 4$ set
\[
X_j=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
A_j & 0\\
B_j & 0
\end{array}
\right)
\]
where $A_j$ is a $(2\times 2)$-matrix and
$B_j$ is a $(1\times 2)$-matrix such that
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
A_j^2=0\\
\sum_{j=1}^4B_jA_j=0
\end{array}
\right.
\]
Then $(X_1,X_2,X_3,X_4)$ is a linear
$4$-chambar of rank $2$ in $\mathbb{C}^3$
and the $X_i$'s (identified to their matrices)
are not contained in a nilpotent algebra of matrices.
\subsubsection{A third family of examples}\label{subsubsec:3ex}
Consider
\begin{align*}
& X_1=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & 0\\
a & 0 & b\\
c & 0 & 0
\end{array}
\right), && X_2=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & \alpha & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
-c & \gamma & 0
\end{array}
\right), \\
& X_3=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & 0\\
-a & 0 & -b \\
c & 0 & 0
\end{array}
\right), && X_4=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & -\alpha & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 \\
-c & -\beta & 0
\end{array}
\right)
\end{align*}
where $a$, $b$, $c$, $\alpha$, $\beta$
denote some complex numbers. Note that
\begin{align*}
& X_1+X_2=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & \alpha & 0\\
a & 0 & b\\
0 & \beta & 0
\end{array}
\right)&& X_1+tX_2=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & t\alpha & 0\\
a & 0 & b\\
(1-t)c & t\beta & 0
\end{array}
\right)
\end{align*}
so that
\begin{itemize}
\item[$\diamond$] $X_1+X_2$ has rank $2$ generically
on $a$, $b$, $\alpha$ and $\beta$,
\item[$\diamond$] $X_1+tX_2$ has rank $3$ generically
on $t$.
\end{itemize}
The eigenvalues of the commutator
$[X_1,X_2]=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
-a\alpha & 0 & -b\alpha \\
-bc & a\alpha+b\beta & 0\\
-a\beta & \alpha c & -b\beta
\end{array}
\right)$
are non-zero as soon as $\alpha bc\not=0$.
As a consequence $\mathrm{Ch}(X_1,X_2,X_3,X_4)$
is a $4$-chambar generically irreducible
and the matrices associated to the $X_i$'s
are not contained in a nilportent algebra
of matrices.
Note that for generic values of parameters
the $X_i$'s do not all have the same
kernel. As a consequence examples of
\S\ref{subsubsec:1ex} and \S\ref{subsubsec:3ex} are not conjugated.
\bigskip
Finally one can state:
\begin{pro}
{\sl There exist linear, irreducible $4$-chambars
with the two following pro\-perties
\begin{itemize}
\item[$\diamond$] their flows are generically
quadratic in $t$;
\item[$\diamond$] the associated matrices are not
contained in a nilpotent algebra of matrices.
\end{itemize}}
\end{pro}
\section{Homogeneous chambars}\label{sec:homogcham}
\subsection{First properties}
Let $\mathcal{B}=\mathrm{Ch}(X_1,X_2,\ldots,X_p)$ be a
$p$-chambar at $0\in\mathbb{C}^n$.
We say that~$\mathcal{B}$ is
\textsl{homogeneous of degree $\nu$} if any
$X_i$ is homogeneous of degree $\nu$.
\begin{rem}
Let $\mathrm{Ch}(X,-X)$ be a homogeneous $2$-chambar on $\mathbb{C}^2$.
Then up to linear conjugacy $X=x^\nu\frac{\partial}{\partial y}$
(the proof is an exercise).
\end{rem}
Given two holomorphic vector fields $X$ and $Y$ on $\mathbb{C}^n$, we define the set of colinearity between $X$ and $Y$ as
\[
\mathrm{Col}(X,Y):=\big\{m\in\mathbb{C}^n\,\vert\, X(m)\wedge Y(m)=0\big\}.
\]
\begin{rems}
We would like to remark the following facts:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$\diamond$] $\mathrm{Col}(X,Y)$ is an analytic set;
\item[$\diamond$] if $\mathrm{Col}(X,Y)\not=\emptyset$, then
$\dim_\mathbb{C}(\mathrm{Col}(X,Y))\geq 1$;
\item[$\diamond$] if $X$ and $Y$ are homogeneous vector fields, then
$\dim_\mathbb{C}(\mathrm{Col}(X,Y))\geq 1$;
\item[$\diamond$] il $X$ is homogeneous and $Y=R$ is the radial
vector field of $\mathbb{C}^n$, then
$\mathrm{Col}(X,R)$ is an union of straight lines through the origin $0\in\mathbb{C}^n$. Il
$X\wedge R\not=0$, then the vector fields $X$ and $R$ generate a singular foliation $\mathcal{F}$
of dimension $2$ of $\mathbb{C}^n$. There is a holomorphic foliation
$\widetilde{\mathcal{F}}$ on $\mathbb{P}^{n-1}_\mathbb{C}$ such
that $\mathcal{F}=\pi^*(\widetilde{\mathcal{F}})$. It is possible to
prove that
\[
\mathrm{Col}(X,R)=\pi^{-1}\big(\mathrm{Sing}(\widetilde{\mathcal{F}})\big)=\mathrm{Sing}(\mathcal{F}).
\]
\end{itemize}
\end{rems}
The various previous examples suggest the following conjecture:
\begin{conjecture}\label{thm:hom}
{\sl Let $\mathrm{Ch}(X_1,X_2,\ldots,X_p)$
be a homogeneous $p$-chambar of degree
$\nu\geq 1$ on $\mathbb{C}^n$, where $p\geq 2$.
Then $\mathrm{Col}(X_k,R)\subset\mathrm{Sing}(X_k)$\footnote{\,Recall that $\mathrm{Sing}(X_k)$ is the
singular set of $X_k$:
\[
\mathrm{Sing}(X_k)=\big\{m\in\mathbb{C}^n\,\vert\,X_k(m)=0\big\}.
\]
} for any $k\geq 1$.
In particular $\dim\mathrm{Sing}(X_k)\geq 1$.}
\end{conjecture}
In the same spirit we have the following problem:
\begin{prob}\label{prob:ineq}
Let $\mathrm{Ch}(X_1,X_2,\ldots,X_p)$
be a $($non-homogeneous$)$ $p$-chambar such that
$X_k(0)=~0$. Do the inequalities
$\dim\mathrm{Sing}(X_k)\geq 1$ hold ?
\end{prob}
\begin{rem}
The problem is solved in the following cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$\diamond$] $\nu=1$ (Theorem \ref{thm:linnil});
\item[$\diamond$] $p=2$ (Theorem \ref{thm:2sing});
\item[$\diamond$] rigid-chambars (Corollary \ref{cor:rigidp}).
\end{itemize}
\end{rem}
We proved the conjecture in the special case of
homogeneous $3$-chambar on $\mathbb{C}^2$ of
degree $2$. In fact we will prove the following:
\begin{thm}\label{thm:hom3cham}
{\sl Let $\mathrm{Ch}(X_1,X_2,X_3)$ be a homogeneous
$3$-chambar on $\mathbb{C}^2$ of degree $2$.
Then, after a change of variables, $X_j$ can be
written as $a_jy^2\frac{\partial}{\partial x}$,
where $a_1+a_2+a_3=0$. In particular, any
homogeneous $3$-chambar on $\mathbb{C}^2$ of
degree $2$ is rigid.}
\end{thm}
Let $X$ be a homogeneous vector field of
degree $d$ on $\mathbb{C}^2$. Then $X$ has
$d+1$ invariant straight lines through
$0\in\mathbb{C}^2$, counted with
multiplicity. These lines are the solutions
of $f(x,y)=0$, where $f$ is the homogeneous
polynomial of degree $d+1$ defined by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:deff}
R\wedge X=f(x,y)\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\wedge\frac{\partial}{\partial y}
\end{equation}
that is $f(x,y)=\det\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
x & y\\
X(x) & X(y)
\end{array}
\right)$.
We will assume that $f\not\equiv 0$ (if
not $X$ is colinear to the radial vector
field $R$).
Since $f=0$ is $X$-invariant, then $X(f)=h\cdot f$,
where $h$ is a homogeneous polynomial of degree
$d-1$. Moreover, $h=0$ if and only if $f$ is a
first integral of $X$. In this case, the foliations
defined by $X$ and by~$f$ must coincide: the
relation $X(f)=0$ gives
$X(x)\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}+X(y)\frac{\partial f}{\partial y}$,
and thus
$X(x)\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}=-X(y)\frac{\partial f}{\partial y}$.
Since the degrees of $X(x)$, $X(y)$, $\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}$,
and $\frac{\partial f}{\partial y}$ are equal, we obtain
that
\[
X=\alpha\left(\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}\frac{\partial }{\partial y}-\frac{\partial f}{\partial y}\frac{\partial }{\partial x}\right).
\]
Using that $R(f)=(d+1)f$ and (\ref{eq:deff})
we get $\alpha=\frac{1}{d+1}$ in the above relation.
In general, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:deff2}
(d+1)X-hR=H(f),
\end{equation}
where $H(f)=\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}\frac{\partial }{\partial y}-\frac{\partial f}{\partial y}\frac{\partial }{\partial x}$.
Another relation that we will use is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:deff3}
X(f)=X\left(\det\left(\begin{array}{cc}
x & y\\
X(x) & X(y)
\end{array}
\right)\right)=\det\left(\begin{array}{cc}
x & y\\
X^2(x) & X^2(y)
\end{array}\right).
\end{equation}
\begin{lem}\label{lem:1}
{\sl Let $\mathrm{Ch}(X_1,X_2,X_3)$ be a
homogeneous $3$-chambar of
degree $d$ on $\mathbb{C}^2$. For
$1\leq j\leq 3$ define $f_j$ by
$R\wedge X_j=f_j(x,y)\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\wedge\frac{\partial}{\partial y}$. Suppose that the
$f_j$ are
not identically $0$. Then
\begin{itemize}
\item[$\diamond$] either $f_1$, $f_2$ and $f_3$
have two common linear factors,
\item[$\diamond$] or $f_j$ is a first integral
of $X_j$, $1\leq j\leq 3$.
\end{itemize}}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}[{\sl Proof}]
First of all, using relations (\ref{eq:deff}),
(\ref{eq:deff3}) and both
\begin{align*}
& \displaystyle\sum_jX_j(x)=\displaystyle\sum_jX_j(y)=0,
&&\displaystyle\sum_jX_j^2(x)=\displaystyle\sum_jX_j^2(y)=0
\end{align*}
we obtain $\displaystyle\sum_jf_j=0$ and
$\displaystyle\sum_j X_j(f_j)=0$. If we set
$X_j(h_j)=h_j\cdot f_j$, $1\leq j\leq 3$, then
$\displaystyle\sum_jh_j\cdot f_j=0$. On the
other hand, since $\displaystyle\sum_jX_j=0$
and $\displaystyle\sum_jf_j=0$, we get from
(\ref{eq:deff2}) that
\[
0=\displaystyle\sum_j\big((d+1)X_j-h_jR-H(f_j)\big)=-\displaystyle\sum_jh_jR
\]
and so $\displaystyle\sum_jh_j=0$.
Let us assume that $h_j\not\equiv 0$ for some
$1\leq j\leq 3$. In this case, from
$\displaystyle\sum_jh_j=0$ there are
$i\not=j$ such that $h_i\not=h_j$. Suppose
for instance that $h_1\not=h_2$. Then
the equalities
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
f_1+f_2+f_3=0\\
h_1f_1+h_2f_2+h_3f_3=0
\end{array}
\right.
\]
imply
\begin{equation}\label{eq:deff4}
(h_1-h_3)f_1=(h_3-h_2)f_2.
\end{equation}
In particular both members of relation
(\ref{eq:deff4}) are not identically zero.
Since $h_1-h_3$ and $h_3-h_2$ have degree
$d-1$, and $f_1$ and $f_2$ degree $d+1$,
$f_1$ and $f_2$ must have two common factors. As
$f_3=-f_1-f_2$ these factors are also
factors of $f_3$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
Lemma \ref{lem:1} implies that for a homogeneous
$3$-chambar on $\mathbb{C}^2$ Problem \ref{prob:ineq}
has a positive answer, maybe except when the
$f_i$ are first integral.
\end{rem}
\begin{lem}\label{lem:2}
{\sl Let $\mathrm{Ch}(X_1,X_2,X_3)$ be a homogeneous
$3$-chambar of degree $2$ on $\mathbb{C}^2$,
and let $f_\ell$ be as in Lemma~\ref{lem:1}.
Then the $f_\ell$'s are not identically zero.}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}[{\sl Proof}]
Suppose that $f_1\equiv 0$; up to a linear
change of coordinates we can assume that
$X_1=xR=x^2\frac{\partial}{\partial x}+xy\frac{\partial}{\partial y}$.
Let $\ell=0$ be a $X_2$-invariant line;
then $\ell=0$ is $X_1$-invariant, and also
$X_3$-invariant since $X_1+X_2+X_3=0$. These facts
imply that the restriction of $X_1$, $X_2$,
$X_3$ to $\ell=0$ define a $3$-chambar
on the line $\ell=0$. The classificaiton
of $3$-chambars on $\mathbb{C}$
(Theorem \ref{thm:loc3bfc}) implies that the $X_i$ are $0$
on $\ell=0$. In particular $\ell=0=(x=0)$ and
$X_1=xR$, $X_2=xL_2$, $X_3=xL_3$, with
$L_i$ linear vector field, and $R+L_2+L_3=0$.
The same argument as before implies that
the invariant lines of $L_2$, $L_3$ are
necessarily $x=0$, {\it i.e.}:
\begin{align*}
& L_2=a_2x\frac{\partial}{\partial x}+(b_2x+c_2y)\frac{\partial}{\partial y},
&& L_3=a_3x\frac{\partial}{\partial x}+(b_3x+c_3y)\frac{\partial}{\partial y}.
\end{align*}
The first components of the flows of $X_1$, $X_2$,
$X_3$ are respectively $\frac{x}{1-tx}$,
$\frac{x}{1-ta_2x}$, $\frac{x}{1-ta_3x}$;
the sum of these three homographies can not be $3x$:
contradiction.
\end{proof}
\begin{prob}
Is Lemma \ref{lem:2} true in any degree ?
\end{prob}
Assume that $\mathrm{Ch}(X_1,X_2,X_3)$
is homogeneous of degree $2$, and that
the $f_j'$s have two common factors. Let
$\ell_1$ and $\ell_2$ be the two linear
common factors of the $f_j'$s. We have
the following two possibilities:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[i)] $\ell_1\not=\ell_2$: we can thus
assume that $xy$ is a factor of the $f_j'$s;
\item[ii)] $\ell_1=\ell_2$: we can thus suppose
that $y^2$ is a factor of the $f_j'$s.
\end{enumerate}
Another fact is that a polynomial $p$-chambar
in dimension $1$ is constant (Proposition
\ref{pro:dim1pol}). Therefore, if a straight line
$\ell=0$ is invariant for all vector fields of
the chambar, then $X_{j_{\vert_\ell}}=0$, and
$\ell$ is a factor of $X_j$. In dimension $2$
this implies that $X_j=\ell\cdot L_j$, where
$L_j$ is a linear vector field, $1\leq j\leq 3$.
In particular, i) and ii) imply the following
possibilities:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[i')] if $\ell_1=x$ and $\ell_2=y$, then we
must have $X_j=xyV_j$ where $V_j$ is a constant
vector field;
\item[ii')] if $\ell_1=\ell_2=y$, then $X_j=yL_j$ where
$R\wedge L_j=ym_j\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\wedge\frac{\partial}{\partial y}$, $m_j=a_jx+b_jy$. In particular, we must have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:deff5}
L_j=(\alpha_jx+\beta_jy)\frac{\partial}{\partial x}+\gamma_jy\frac{\partial}{\partial y}
\end{equation}
where $a_j=\gamma_j-\alpha_j$ and $b_j=-\beta_j$.
\end{enumerate}
Let us check that i') can not happen. In fact,
let $X=xyV$, where
$V=a\frac{\partial}{\partial x}+b\frac{\partial}{\partial y}$.
By a direct computation we find
\[
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{X(x)}{xy}=a,\quad\frac{X^2(x)}{xy}=a^2y+abx,\quad\frac{X^3(x)}{xy}=a^3y^2+\alpha xy+\beta x^2\\
\frac{X(y)}{xy}=b,\quad\frac{X^2(x)}{xy}=aby+b^2x,\quad\frac{X^3(y)}{xy}=b^3x^2+\gamma xy+\delta y^2
\end{array}
\right.
\]
This implies with obvious notations: for any $1\leq k\leq 3$
\begin{align*}
&a_1^k+a_2^k+a_3^k=0
&&\text{and} && b_1^k+b_2^k+b_3^k=0
\end{align*}
so $V_1=V_2=V_3=0$.
In situation ii') the vector fields $X_j=yL_j$
are of the form
$X=y\left((ax+by)\frac{\partial}{\partial x}+cy\frac{\partial}{\partial y}\right)$, and a direct computation shows that
$X(y)=\ldots + cy^2$, $X^2(y)=2c^2y^3$, and $X^3(y)=6c^3y^4$.
This implies $\displaystyle\sum_jc_j^k=0$ for
$1\leq k\leq 3$, so that $c_1=c_2=c_3=0$, and
$X_j=y\ell_j\frac{\partial}{\partial x}$, where
$\ell_j=a_jx+b_jy$ is linear. In particular,
we get
\begin{align*}
& X_j(x)=y\ell_j, && X^2_j(x)=y^2\frac{\partial\ell_j}{\partial x}\ell_j=a_jy^2\ell_j && X^3_j(x)=a_j^2y^3\ell_j;
\end{align*}
as a consequence, $a_1^k+a_2^k+a_3^k=0$ for any $1\leq k\leq 3$.
This yields to $a_1=a_2=a_3=0$, and to
$X_j=b_jy^2\frac{\partial}{\partial x}$ for any $1\leq j\leq 3$.
Note that the $f_j$ are first integral of $X_j$.
It remains to consider the case where $h_1=h_2=h_3=0$ and
$f_j$ is a first integral of $X_j$, $1\leq j\leq 3$.
Let us come back to the definition of
$f_j:=xX_j(y)-yX_j(x)$, so that $X_j(f_j)=0$. Remark
first that $X$ is a constant multiple of the hamiltonian
of $f$
\[
H(f_j)=\frac{\partial f_j}{\partial y}\frac{\partial}{\partial x}-\frac{\partial f_j}{\partial x}\frac{\partial}{\partial y};
\]
it can be checked that this follows from $X_j(f_j)=0$.
From the definition of $f_j$ and Euler's identity
we get $X_j=-\frac{1}{3}H(f_j)$. Let $\ell$ be a straight
line invariant for $X_1$ and passing through $0$.
Suppose by contradiction that it is not invariant by $X_2$.
We assert that, either $X_{1_{\vert\ell}}=0$, or the
trajectories of $X_2$ and of $X_3$ are parallel straight
lines. Assume that $X_{1_{\vert\ell}}\not=0$; we will
see that $f_2$ is a perfect cube, {\it i.e.} $f_2=h^3$,
where $h$ is linear, so that the trajectories of
$X_2$ are the levels of $h$. Without lost of
generality we can suppose that $\ell=(y=0)$. We can
write $f_2(x,y)=ax^3+yq(x,y)$, where $q$ is homogeneous
of degree $2$ and $a\not=0$ because $y=0$ is not
$X_2$-invariant. If $c\not=0$, then the level $f_2=c$
cuts $\ell$ in three points $z_j:=(x_j,0)$, $1\leq j\leq 3$,
where the $x_j$'s are the roots of $x^3=\frac{c}{a}$.
If $f_2$ is not a perfect cube, then the level
$f_2=c$ is irreducible, and so it is connected.
Denote by $\varphi_t^j$ the flow of $X_j$,
$1\leq j\leq 3$. Let us remark the following facts:
\begin{itemize}
\item[a)]
$\varphi_t^1(x,0)+\varphi_t^2(x,0)+\varphi_t^3(x,0)=3(x,0)$
for all $x\in\mathbb{C}$, for all $t$ where the flows
are defined (barycentric property);
\item[b)]
$X_{1\vert_{y=0}}=\alpha x^2\frac{\partial}{\partial x}$ so
$\varphi_t^1(x,0)=\frac{x}{1-\alpha tx}$ and since we are
assuming $X_{1\vert_{y=0}}\not=0$, $\alpha$ is non-zero;
\item[c)] as $(f_2=c)\cap(y=0)=\big\{(x_j,0)\,\vert\,1\leq j\leq 3\big\}$
and $f_2=c$ is connected, there exists $\tau\not=0$
such that $\varphi_\tau^2(x_1,0)=(x_2,0)$.
\end{itemize}
It is possible to prove that $\varphi_{3\tau}^2(x_1,0)=(x_1,0)$,
and more generally $\varphi_{3k\tau}^2(x_i,0)=(x_i,0)$ for all
$k\in\mathbb{Z}$, $i=1$, $2$, $3$. Since $f_3$ is a first integral
of $X_3$, the leaf of the foliation generated by $X_3$ through
$(x_1,0)$ must cut $\ell$ in at most three points. However,
a) and b) imply that
\[
\varphi_{3k\tau}^3(x_1,0)=\left(2x_1-\frac{x_1}{1-3k\tau x_1},0\right),
\]
contradicting that the number is finite. As a result,
\begin{itemize}
\item[I)] either $f_2$ and $f_3$ are
perfect cubes,
\item[II)] or $X_{1\vert_{y=0}}=0$.
\end{itemize}
Let us deal with these two possibilities.
\begin{itemize}
\item[I)] Assume that $f_2=\ell_2^3$ and $f_3=\ell_3^3$,
where $\ell_2$ and $\ell_3$ are linear. In this case,
the trajectories of $X_2$, and also of $X_3$, are
parallel lines. We have the alternative:
\begin{itemize}
\item[A)] either $d\ell_2\wedge d\ell_3=0$,
\item[B)] or $d\ell_2\wedge d\ell_3\not=0$.
\end{itemize}
In case A), we have $\ell_3=\alpha\ell_2$, $\alpha\not=0$,
and $\ell_2$ is a line invariant for the chambar. After a
linear change of variables we can suppose that
$X_j=a_jy^2\frac{\partial}{\partial x}$, and the
statement is proved. Note that in this case
$X_{j_{\vert_\ell}}=0$ for $1\leq j\leq 3$.
In case B), after a linear change of variables, we
can suppose that $f_2=-x^3$ and $f_3=-y^3$, which implies
$X_2=-x^2\frac{\partial}{\partial y}$, and
$X_3=-y^2\frac{\partial}{\partial x}$. However,
in this case we would have
$X_1=y^2\frac{\partial}{\partial x}+x^2\frac{\partial}{\partial y}$.
This is not a $3$-chambar because
\begin{align*}
& X_2^2(x)=X_3^2(x)=0 && \text{and} && X_1^2(x)\not=0.
\end{align*}
\item[II)] Suppose that $X_{1\vert_{y=0}}=0$.
From the above we have the following consequences: the hamilto\-nian $H(f_j)=X_j$ is identically
zero on the lines $f_j=0$. In particular all the irreducible components of~$f_j$
have multiplicity. Since the $f_j$'s have degree $3$, the $f_j$'s are perfect cubes and we conclude as previously.
\end{itemize}
This ends the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:hom3cham}.
\vspace{2cm}
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}
Self-supervised representation learning (SSRL) has been a core task in machine learning \cite{bengio2013representation} and seen rapid grogress over past years.
Deep neural networks pre-trained on large-scale unlabeled datasets via SSRL have demonstrated desirable characteristics, such as strong robustness \cite{hendrycks2019using} and generalizablity \cite{mohseni2020self}, and improving various down-stream tasks especially when annotations are scarce.
An effective approach for SSRL is to enforce semantically similar samples (i.e., different transformations from the same instance) close to each other in the embedding space.
Simply maximizing the similarity or minimizing the Euclidean distance between embedding features of similar semantic samples tends to produce trivial solutions, e.g., all samples have the same embedding.
Recently, various excellent methods have been proposed to learn meaningful representations features and avoid trivial solutions.
Contrastive learning~\cite{hadsell2006dimensionality, van2018representation} based methods, such as SimCLR \cite{simclr} and MoCo \cite{moco}, have achieved great successes by additionally minimizing the similarity between embeddings of reference and negative samples, which requires either relatively large batches or a memory bank \cite{wu2018unsupervised, misra2020self} of negative samples during training.
To avoid using negative samples during training, BYOL \cite{grill2020bootstrap} and SimSiam \cite{Chen_2021_CVPR} introduce some clever techniques, such as asymmetry network architecture with additional predictor head and stop gradients, etc.
Subsequent theoretical analysis \cite{understand, zhang2021does, richemond2020byol, tian2021understanding} have demonstrated why these techniques can avoid trivial solutions and learn meaningful representations from different aspects.
Clustering-based methods DeepCluster \cite{caron2018deep}, SELA \cite{asano2019self}, SwAV \cite{caron2020unsupervised} alternatively compute the cluster assignment of one view and optimize the network to predict the same assignment from other views of the same sample, where trivial solutions can be avoided via even assignment of samples over different clusters in a non-differentiable manner.
In another direction, W-MSE \cite{ermolov2021whitening} and Barlow~Twins \cite{zbontar2021barlow} propose to drive self- or cross-correlation matrices towards the identity matrix, learning meaningful features without requiring the asymmetry design or a large batch of negative samples.
Along the same direction, VICReg \cite{bardes2021vicreg} constructs a loss function with three terms, i.e., invariance, variance, and covariance constraints that can explicitly avoid trivial solutions.
\begin{figure*}[bt!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{vector_MUSIC.pdf}
\caption{Partition of an MUSIC feature vector. An image should be represented by multiple attributes, such as general object parts, textures, shapes, etc. Motivated by this observation, MUSIC divides the embedding feature vector into multiple segments (Seg-1, Seg-2, ..., Seg-S); for example, here we show three different segments colored in red, green, and blue colors respectively to represent different attributes. The general attribute of each segment consists of multiple instantiations, and different instantiated attributes within the same segments are discriminative from each other. For example, Seg-2 represents texture, each unit in Seg-2 represents a specific texture, like dot texture, stripe texture, etc. Here three samples are shown over each unit. The value $p(s, d)$ in each unit denotes the probability of an image belongs to the $d^{th}$ instantiated attribute of $s^{th}$ segment, see Methodology section for more details.}
\label{fig_vector}
\end{figure*}
Fundamentally different from the current SSRL methods that normalize embedding features onto the unit hpyersphere via l2 norm and use cosine similarity as the measurements,
we propose a new coding scheme, named MUlti-Segmental Informational Coding (MUSIC).
The motivation is based on the observation that an object can be represented in multiple attributes, such as object parts, textures, shapes, etc.
As shown in Fig. \ref{fig_vector}, the embedding vector is divided into a number of $S$ segments (i.e., Seg-1, Seg-2, ..., Seg-S), different segments represent different attributes; e.g., Seg-1, Seg-2, and Seg-3 represent object part, texture, and shape, respectively. Each segment instantiates a number of $D_S$ different features; e.g., Seg-2 represents samples in different textures (dot texture, stripe texture, etc.), see Fig. \ref{fig_vector} for more descriptions.
This means that different instantiated features within each segment are discriminative from each other.
Then, a specific instance can be uniquely represented by a set of well defined attributes.
To automatically learn such MUSIC embeddings from unlabeled datasets, we introduce an entropy-based loss function.
Furthermore, we theoretically analyze based on information theory why meaningful features can be learned while trivial solutions are avoided.
The characteristics of MUSIC are as follows.
(1) MUSIC allows an information theory based representation learning framework in a novel way.
Theoretical analysis ensures that the optimized MUSIC embedding features are transform-invariance, discriminative, diverse, and non-trivial.
(2) Similar to Barlow Twins and VICReg, the presented MUSIC method does not require the asymmetry network architecture with an extra predictor module, a large batch size of contrastive samples, a memory bank, gradient stopping, or momentum updating.
(3) Different from existing methods, empirical results show that MUSIC does not depend on very high dimension of embedding features or a deep projection head, efficiently reducing the memory and computation cost.
(3) Extensive results show that MUSIC achieves better results than the state-of-the-art Barlow Twins and VICReg methods under the same conditions in terms of linear probing on the common ImageNet dataset.
\section{Methodology}
\label{sec_method}
\subsection{Architecture}
\begin{figure*}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{ssl.pdf}
\caption{SSRL framework through multi-segmental informational coding optimized with maximum entropy.}
\label{fig_ssl}
\end{figure*}
Similar to W-MSE and Barlow Twins, in this study we adopt a twin architecture that uses the same network for two branches without requiring any asymmetric design, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig_ssl}.
During training, input images $X=\{x_i\}_{i=1}^N$ are mapped to two distorted sets $X'=\{x'_i\}_{i=1}^N$ and $X''=\{x''_i\}_{i=1}^N$, where $N$ is the batch size.
The common transformation distribution, i.e., random crops combined with color distortions, the same as that in \cite{bardes2021vicreg}, is used to generate training samples .
Then, the two batches of distorted images $X'$ and $X''$ are respectively fed to two branches, each of which consists of an encoder $F(\cdot; \theta_F)$ and a projector $P(\cdot; \theta_P)$.
The output of the encoder is commonly used as the representation feature. The projection head maps the representation feature into the embedding sapce during training.
Note that the presented method is not limited to this twin architecture, which can be extended to two branches with different parameters or of heterogeneous networks, or even different input modalities (e.g., text, audio, etc.).
\subsection{Multi-Segmental Informational Coding}
Here we introduce the MUlti-Segmental Informational Coding (MUSIC) for self-supervised representation learning.
The embedding features of the two branches are denoted as: $z'_i = P(F(x'_i; \theta_F); \theta_P) \in R^D$, and $z''_i = P(F(x''_i; \theta_F); \theta_P) \in R^D$, where $D$ is the feature dimension.
Most of the existing SSL methods normalize embedding features in the L2 norm and then maximize the cosine similarity between the normalized results.
Motivated by the observation described in Fig. \ref{fig_vector}, we divide the embedding feature $z_i$ into multiple segments, denoted by $z_i(s, d), s=1,\cdots, S, d=1,\cdots, D_S$, where $S$ is the number of segments, $D_S$ is the dimension of each segment, and $D = D_S \times S$ gives the dimension of the whole embedding space. Although the current version of MUSIC scheme evenly splits the embedding vector, it could be in principle extended to uneven configurations.
Each segment is normalized to a probability distribution $p'_i(s', d')$ over $D_S$ instantiated attributes using the softmax function, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
p'_i(s', d') = \frac{\exp(z'_i(s, d))}{\sum_{k=1}^{D_S} \exp(z'_i(s, k))},
\label{eq_prob}
\end{equation}
The probability distribution $p''_i(s, d)$ for the other branch is computed in the same way.
Thus, the MUSIC scheme can be interpreted as a combination of multiple classifiers or cluster operators that implement different classification criteria learned in a data-driven fashion.
\subsection{Entropy Loss}
Based on the probability distributions over multiple segments, we first compute the empirical joint distribution $p(s', s'', d', d'')$ between the embedding features of two transformations over a batch of samples (similar to \cite{ji2019invariant}):
\begin{equation}
p(s', s'', d', d'') = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N p'_i(s', d') p''_i(s'', d''),
\label{eq_joint}
\end{equation}
With the empirical joint distribution, two versions of the loss function can be defined.
We denote the first version $L_{ent}$ as a pure entropy-based loss function:
\begin{equation}
L_{ent} = \frac{1}{S^2} \sum_{s'=1}^{S}\sum_{s''=1}^S\sum_{d'=1}^{D_S}\sum_{s''=1}^{D_S} (1 - \mathbbm{1}(s'=s'', d'\ne d'')) p(s', s'', d', d'') \log(p(s', s'', d', d'')),
\end{equation}
where $\mathbbm{1}(s'=s'', d'\ne d'')$ is an indicator function that equals to 1 if $s' = s''$ and $d' \ne d''$, otherwise it is equal to 0. The empirical joint distribution can be denoted by a block matrix in Fig. \ref{fig_ssl}, where $(1 - \mathbbm{1}(s'=s'', d'\ne d''))$ means only keeping diagonal elements and elements of the off-diagonal blocks, as indicated by the orange area. Therefore, minimizing this loss function maximizes the joint entropy over the selected elements.
In the next subsection, we show that this single loss function allows to learn meaningful features.
To enhance the transformation invariance of features, we introduce an additional term to maximize the inner product between the embedding features from two transformations. Then, the second version of the loss function is defined as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
L = L_{ent} - \lambda \frac{1}{NS} \sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{s=1}^S\sum_{d=1}^{D_S} \log(p'_i(s, d) p''_i(s, d)),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\lambda$ is a balancing factor. By default we set $\lambda = 1$ and found that $\lambda$ is not required to be a very small or large number for balancing.
Since $p'_i(s, d)$ and $p''_i(s, d)$ are the probabilities, maximizing their inner product imposes the network to make consistent assignment over all segments between two transformations of the same image. As a result, each segment is encouraged to be a one-hot vector for the maximum inner product.
Clearly, this additional term promotes transformal invariance and confident assignments over different attributes.
One difference of this term from the entropy loss term is the sample-specific constraint while entropy is a statistical measure.
Our proposed method can be easily implemented, with a PyTorch-style pseudo code in the Appendix.
In the following subsection, let us analyze why the entropy loss optimizes meaningful embedding features as illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig_vector}.
\subsection{Analysis}
\label{sec_analysis}
The entropy loss function consists of two parts, including the entropy over diagonal elements and the entropy over the elements of off-diagonal blocks illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig_ssl}, formally denoted as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
L_{ent} = &\frac{1}{S}\sum_{s',s'', s'=s''}\sum_{d', d'', d'=d''} p(s', s'', d', d'') \log(p(s', s'', d', d'')) \\
& + \frac{1}{S(S-1)}\sum_{s',s'', s'\ne s''}\sum_{d', d''} p(s', s'', d', d'') \log(p(s', s'', d', d'')).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
For the first part, it can be demonstrated that its optimal solution is $\forall s, d, p'_i(s, d) = p''_i(s, d)$, $p'_i(s, d)$ and $p''(s, d)$ are one-hot vectors, and $\frac{1}{N}\sum_{d=1}^{N} p_i(s, d) = \frac{1}{D_S}$. The prof can be found in the Appendix.
For the second part, it is intuitive that the optimal solution to maximize the joint entropy over the off-diagonal block items is $\forall s', s'', d', d'', s' \ne s'', p(s', s'', d', d'') = \frac{1}{({D_S})^2}$; i.e., a batch of samples are evenly assigned over each off-diagonal block.
\textbf{Transform Invariance}:
The solution that $p''(s, :)$ and $p''(s, :)$ are one-hot vectors and equal to each other means that the learned MUSIC embeddings are invariant to transformations, and a sample tends to be confidently represented by a single instantiated attribute within each and every segment.
\textbf{Non-trivial Solution}:
The solution that $\frac{1}{N}\sum_{d=1}^{N} p_i(s, d) = \frac{1}{D_S}$ means that each segment evenly partition a batch of samples over $D_S$ instantiated attributes. Since $p'_i(s, d)$ and $p''(s, d)$ are one-hot vectors, the trivial solution that all samples have the same embedding features or assigned to the same attribute for each segment can be avoided.
\textbf{Minimum Redundancy}:
As described in Fig. \ref{fig_vector}, different segments of the MUSIC embedding vector are expected to focus on complementary attributes.
In other words, the redundancy or mutual information between any two segments should be minimized, which is a popular measure for feature selection \cite{peng2005feature}.
Here we can demonstrate the redundancy or mutual information between any two segments is minimized when the optimal solution is obtained.
Specifically, the mutual information $I(s', s'')$ between any segments $s'$ and $s''$ is
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
I(s', s'') =& H(s') + H(s'') - H(s', s'') \\
=& -\sum_{d'=1}^{D_S} p'(s', d') log(p'(s', d')) - \sum_{d''=1}^{D_S} p''(s'', d'') log(p''(s'', d'')) \\
&+ \sum_{d'=1}^{D_S}\sum_{d''=1}^{D_S} p(s', s'', d', d'') log(p(s', s'', d', d'')) \\
=& -log\frac{1}{D_S} - log\frac{1}{D_S} + log\frac{1}{(D_S)^2} = 0.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Given that the features within each segment are naturally exclusive from each other, MUSIC embedding features are both discriminative and diverse.
The redundancy constraint has been studied for W-MSE \cite{ermolov2021whitening}, Barlow Twins \cite{zbontar2021barlow}, and VICReg \cite{bardes2021vicreg} by minimizing the covariance in a linear manner. In contrast, our entropy-based loss function reduces the redundancy in a non-linear way.
Also, it can be derived that the optimal MUSIC embedding features have zero covariance between any two features in different segments and negative covariance between the features within the same segment. More details can be found in the Appendix.
\textbf{Contrastive Learning}:
Contrastive learning has proven very effective for representation learning by maximizing the similarity between different transformations of the same instance and minimizing the similarity between the reference and other instances.
Here it can be seen that MUSIC is consistent to contrastive learning in a novel way.
Specifically, the optimal MUSIC embedding can totally encode $(D_S)^S$ different samples.
In our default settings $D_S=80, S=102$ (See the Empirical Analysis below for more details), MUSIC can represent $80^{102}$ different samples.
Maximizing the joint entropy is to evenly assign a batch of samples into all possible embeddings, which means that the embedding features of all instances are enforced to be different from each other like in contrastive learning, given the sufficiently large coding capacity.
Therefore, the difference is that contrastive learning differentiates instances by directly enforcing their features to be dissimilar, while MUSIC statistically assigns instances with different assignment codes.
In a word, the MUSIC embedding feature optimized with the entropy-based loss is transform-invariant, non-trivial, dicriminative, and diverse.
\section{Implementation Details}
For fair comparison, we followed the same settings in VICReg \cite{bardes2021vicreg}.
Specifically, the standard ResNet-50 backbone \cite{He_2016_CVPR} was used as the encoder that outputs a representation vector of 2,048 units. We used the same training settings including the data augmentation (random cropping, horizontal flip, color jittering, grayscale, Gaussian blur, solarization, with the same parameters in \cite{bardes2021vicreg}), the optimizer of LARS \cite{you2017large, goyal2017accurate} with a weight decay of $10^{-6}$ and the learning rate of $lr=batch\_size/256 \times base\_lr$, and the cosine decay schedule \cite{loshchilov2016sgdr} from 0 with 10 warmup epochs towards the final value of 0.002. Here we set the base learning rate $bast\_lr$ to 0.6. By default, we used a two-layer MLP projector (8,192-8,160), the number of segments $S=102$, the segment dimension $D_S=80$, and $D=D_S \times S=8,160$ (similar to the feature dimension used by VICReg and Barlow Twins).
The results were respectively analyzed for different feature dimensions, depths of projectors, $batch\_size$, segment dimension $D_S$, and training epochs.
MUSIC introduces a single extra hyperparameter $D_S$, its effects on the performance was evaluated.
All experiments were conducted on the 1,000-classes ImageNet dataset, where labels were not used for self-supervised representation learning.
\section{Results}
\subsection{Linear and Semi-Supervised Evaluations on ImageNet}
\begin{table}[htp]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\renewcommand\tabcolsep{8pt}
\caption{\textbf{Comparison of different methods on ImageNet linear classification}. Top-1 and Top-5 accuracies (in \%) of ResNet50 are reported.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|cc}
Methods & Top-1 & Top-5 \\
\hline
Supervised & 76.5 & - \\
\hline
MoCo (2020) & 60.6 & - \\
PIRL (2020) & 63.6 & - \\
CPC v2 (2019) & 63.8 & - \\
CMC (2019) & 66.2 & - \\
SimCLR (2020) & 69.3 & 89.0 \\
MoCo v2 (2020) & 71.1 & 90.1 \\
SimSiam (2020) & 71.3 & - \\
SwAV (2020) & 71.8 & - \\
BYOL (2020) & 74.3 & 91.6 \\
Barlow Twins (2021) & 73.2 & 91.0 \\
VICReg (2022) & 73.2 & 91.1 \\
MUSIC (Ours) & 73.6 & 91.4 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:compare}
\end{table}
We followed the common evaluation protocol, i.e., linear probing that trains a linear classifier on top of the frozen representations, to evaluate the representations of self-supervised learning methods.
Being consistent with Barlow Twins \cite{zbontar2021barlow} and VICReg \cite{bardes2021vicreg}, a ResNet-50 backbone was trained with the batch size of 2,048 for 1,000 epochs on the training set of ImageNet, and the linear classification results including Top-1 and Top-5 accuracies of different methods on the evaluation set are reported in Table \ref{tab:compare}.
The difference from Barlow Twins and VICReg is that MIDC used a two-layer MLP projector (8,192-8,160) instead of three layers (8,192-8,192-8,192).
We followed exactly the same hyperparameters of VICReg \cite{bardes2021vicreg} for training the linear classifier.
The performance of VICReg is on par with another state of the art method BYOL that uses asymmetric techniques, such as an additional predictor and a momentum encoder.
The comparative results show that MUSIC achieves better results than Barlow Twins and VICReg, where all these three methods trained a twin architecture without using negative pairs or any asymmetric techniques.
Significantly relaxed constraints on the MUSIC architecture make it adaptable to more applications like multi-modal mapping.
The different motivation behind and theoretical framework of MIDC lead to some unique characteristics that the projector depth, feature dimension, and batch size can be smaller than what used in the competing algorithms to obtain similar results.
More results are the in Empirical Analysis below.
\begin{table}[htp]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\renewcommand\tabcolsep{8pt}
\caption{\textbf{Semi-Supervised Learning}. Top-1 and Top-5 accuracies (in \%) of classification on ImageNet. These results were obtained using ResNet50.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|cccc}
\multirow{2}{*}{Methods} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Top-1} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Top-5} \\
& 1\% & 10\% & 1\% & 10\% \\
\hline
Supervised & 25.4 & 56.4 & 48.4 & 80.4 \\
\hline
MoCo (2020) & - & - & 57.2 & 83.8 \\
SimCLR (2020) & 48.3 & 65.6 & 75.5 & 87.8 \\
BYOL (2020) & 53.2 & 68.8 & 78.4 & 89.0 \\
Barlow Twins (2021) & 55.0 & 69.7 & 79.2 & 89.3 \\
VICReg (2022) & 54.8 & 69.5 & 79.4 & 89.5 \\
MUSIC (Ours) & 54.0 & 69.0 & 78.9 & 89.1 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:semi}
\end{table}
We also evaluated its effectiveness on semi-supervised learning.
Here the pretrained ResNet-50 with MUSIC was fine-tuned on subsets of ImageNet, including 1\% and 10\% of full ImageNet data respectively.
All the comparison methods used the same subset images.
Currently, MUSIC is not as good as Barlow Twins and VICReg in the semi-supervised learning settings, while it is better than BYOL and other compared methods.
Note that the current results of MUSIC were obtained by simply using the training parameters for Barlow Twins, while different methods usually used different hyperparamters to achieve their best results for this task.
The compared methods did a grid search for different learning rates of the backbone and linear head and report the best results
In future, we plan to report more results optimized in a similar way.
\subsection{Empirical Analysis}
In this subsection, we evaluated the effects of different hyperparameters on the proposed MUSIC method and compared it with other SSRL methods. All methods were evaluated with linear classification on ImageNet.
\subsubsection{Effects of Epoch Number}
\begin{table}[htp]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\renewcommand\tabcolsep{8pt}
\caption{\textbf{Comparison of different training epochs}. Top-1 accuracy (in \%) of linear results for linear classification on ImageNet were obtained using ResNet50.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|cccccccc}
Methods & SimCLR & MoCo v2 & BYOL & SwAV & SimSiam & Barlow Twins & VICReg & MUSIC \\
\hline
100 epochs & 66.5 & 67.4 & 66.5 &66.5 & 68.1 & 68.7 & 68.6 & 69.4 \\
200 epochs & 68.3 & 69.9 & 70.6 &69.1 & 70.0 & - & - & 71.8 \\
400 epochs & 69.8 & 71.0 & 73.2 &70.7 & 70.8 & - & - & 73.1 \\
800 epochs & 70.4 & 72.2 & 74.3 &71.8 & 71.3 & - & - & 73.4 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:epochs}
\end{table}
The SSRL methods in different studies do not always use the same training epochs due to different computational environments.
Here MUSIC was evaluated on different training epochs as reported in Table \ref{tab:epochs}.
MUSIC is consistently better than most of existing methods on all different training epochs.
When the training epochs are small (100 and 200), MUSIC can converge to the best results.
\subsubsection{Effect of Batch Size}
\begin{table}[htp]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\renewcommand\tabcolsep{8pt}
\caption{\textbf{Batch Size}. Top-1 accuracy (in \%) results for linear classification on ImageNet were obtained based on ResNet50 with 100 pretraining epochs.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|ccc}
Batch Size & 512 & 1024 & 2048 \\
\hline
SimSiam & 68.1 & 68.0 & 67.9 \\
VICReg & 68.2 & 68.3 & 68.6 \\
MUSIC & 68.3 & 69.3 & 69.4 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:batchsize}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[htp]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\renewcommand\tabcolsep{8pt}
\caption{\textbf{Projector Depth}. Top-1 and Top-5 accuracies (in \%) of linear classification on ImageNet were obtained based on ResNet50 with 100 pretraining epochs.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|ccc}
Projector Depth & 2 (8192-8160) & 3 (8192-8192-8160) & 4 (8192-8192-8192-8160) \\
\hline
Top-1 & 69.4 & 68.5 & 67.9 \\
Top-5 & 89.3 & 88.3 & 87.9 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:projector}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[htp]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\renewcommand\tabcolsep{8pt}
\caption{\textbf{Enhanced Transform Invariance Loss}. Top-1 and Top-5 accuracies (in \%) of linear classification on ImageNet were obtained based on ResNet50 with 100 pretraining epochs.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|ccc}
Loss & Entropy & Entropy + Transform Invariance \\
\hline
Top-1 & 65.4 & 69.4 \\
Top-5 & 86.9 & 89.3 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:loss}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[htp]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\renewcommand\tabcolsep{8pt}
\caption{\textbf{Segment Dimension}. Top-1 and Top-5 accuracies (in \%) of linear classification on ImageNet were obtained based on ResNet50 with 100 pretraining epochs.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|ccccc}
$D_S$ & 32 & 64 & 80 & 96 & 128 \\
\hline
Top-1 & 67.8 & 69.1 & 69.4 &69.2 & 68.4 \\
Top-5 & 88.5 & 89.1 & 89.3 &89.1 & 88.5 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:seg}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\renewcommand\tabcolsep{8pt}
\caption{\textbf{Feature Dimension}. Top-1 accuracy (in \%) results for linear classification on ImageNet were obtained based on ResNet50 with 100 pretraining epochs.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|ccccc}
Feature Dimension & 1024 (960) & 2048 (2000) & 4096 (4080) & 8192 (8160) & 16384 (16320) \\
\hline
VICReg & 62.4 & 65.1 & 67.3 &68.6 & 68.8 \\
MUSIC & 64.1 & 66.6 & 69.2 &69.4 & 69.1 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:dim}
\end{table}
Here we evaluated the performance of MUSIC on different batch sizes. The results in Table \ref{tab:batchsize} show that MUSIC is consistently better than the compared methods using different batch sizes.
\subsubsection{Effect of Projector Depth}
The existing methods \cite{zbontar2021barlow} require at least 3 layers of MLP as the projector for the best results.
However, MUSIC has a different behavior that a two-layer MLP achieves the best results as shown in Table \ref{tab:projector}.
These results may be due to the discriminability and diversity of MUSIC embeddings, making it easy to meaningfull representations.
\subsubsection{Effects of Loss Function}
As described in the Methodology section, optimizing the entropy loss only can avoid trivial solutions and learn meaningful representations. This theoretical analysis is consistent with the empirical results in Table \ref{tab:loss} that 65.4\% Top-1 was achieved using the entropy loss only, comparable to some methods reported in Table \ref{tab:compare}.
Adding the enhanced transform invariance term can significantly improve the performance, as also discussed in the Methodology section, the transform invariance can be further enhanced with this image-level constraint.
\subsubsection{Effect of Segment Dimension}
The effect of our unique hyperparameter, i.e., segment dimension, was underlined. Our experimental results of different segment dimensions in Table \ref{tab:seg} indicate that $D_s = 80$ achieved the best results, where the dimension of the whole embedding feature was kept the same. It can be seen that the performance is not sensitive to this hyperparameter.
\subsubsection{Effects of Feature Dimension}
In the previous studies for Barlow Twins and VICReg, it was found that increasing the feature dimension is very effective to improve the representation learning performance. It was also found that the feature dimension plays an important role in MUSIC. The results of different feature dimensions for VICReg and MUSIC are reported in Table \ref{tab:dim}. It can be seen that MUSIC achieves consistently better results than VICReg on different embedding feature dimensions. Importantly, when the embedding feature dimension is reasonably large (4,096 and 8,192), MUSIC achieves the best results and better than the best results of VICReg using the large dimension of 16,384. In practice, we found that the large embedding feature dimension (i.e., 16,384) significantly increases the computational and memory cost for Barlow Twins, VICReg, and MUSIC that compute the covariance or joint entropy matrix, which was also discussed in the Barlow Twins study \cite{zbontar2021barlow}. Therefore, MUSIC seems both efficient and effective.
\section{Conclusion}
We have presented the multi-segment informational coding (MUSIC) optimized with an entropy-based loss function for self-supervised representation learning.
Experimental results show that MUSIC achieves equivalent or better representation learning results compared with the state of the art methods in terms of linear classification. The presented new framework ensures that MUSIC can avoid trivial solutions and learn discriminative and diverse features.
Interestingly, MUSIC has shown some unique characteristics that the projector can be a shallower MLP, the batch size and the embedding feature dimension can be smaller than that used in existing methods while achieving comparable or better results.
In the future, we will adapt and evaluate MUSIC to more downstream tasks, such as multi-modality tasks and medical applications.
|
\section{A Memory-Based Model Editor}
\label{sec:method}
To motivate a model editor that does not modify the base model parameters, we note the observation by \citet{csordas2021are} that neural networks `over-specialize' their parameters to individual inputs. That is, for two related inputs to a neural network, the two corresponding subsets of the model's parameters responsible for its predictions may have very little overlap, or even be disjoint. The gradient for one example (e.g., an edit descriptor $\editpair$) may therefore contain little useful information for updating the parameters responsible for predictions for distant, but related examples (e.g., $\xtest$ or $\xloc$). In light of the potential shortcomings of gradient-based model editors, we propose the memory-based (or, semi-parametric) approach model editing, which directly reasons over the explicit content of the edit descriptors, rather than relying a derivative quantity such as a gradient.
The memory-based approach to model editing is intuitively simple, wrapping the base model with an explicit cache of edits, an edit scope classifier, and a counterfactual model that `overrides' the base model when necessary. After applying several edits, the `wrapped' model makes a prediction for a new input in two steps. First, the classifier estimates the probability that the new input falls into the scope of each cached edit example. If the classifier's in-scope probability is greater than 0.5 for any edit, the edit giving the highest probability is retrieved, and the counterfactual model's prediction conditioned on both the new input and edit is returned. Otherwise, the base model's prediction is returned. This procedure is described in Figure~\ref{fig:method-overview} and is described more formally in the next section.
After applying several edits $Z_e=\{\ze[i]\}$, the `wrapped' model makes a prediction for a new input $\xunk$ in two steps. First, the classifier estimates $\alpha^i = P(\xunk \in \scope{\ze[i]})$, the probability that $\xunk$ falls into the scope of the cached edit $\ze[i]$ for all $i$ up to $|Z_e|$. We define $i^* = \argmax_i \alpha^i$, the most likely edit example to contain $\xunk$ in its scope.
Second, if $\alpha^{i^*} > 0.5$, the prediction from the counterfactual model, conditioned on both $\xunk$ and $\ze[i^*]$, is returned; otherwise $f_{base}(x)$ is returned. This procedure is described in Figure~\ref{fig:method-overview} and is described more formally in the next section.
\subsection{{Semi-parametric editing with a retrieval-augmented counterfactual model}}
{SERAC} is essentially a semi-parametric model of the form $\tilde{f}(\xtest, f_{base}, \phi, \psi, Z_e)$ (we abbreviate as just $\tilde{f}(\xtest)$) that produces predictions in the output space $\mathcal{Y}$, where $Z_e$ is a set of variable size. {SERAC} contains two key components, a \textit{classifier} and a \textit{counterfactual model}. The classifier $g_\phi(\xtest, x_e, \ye) : \mathcal{X} \times (\mathcal{X} \times \mathcal{Y}) \rightarrow [0, 1]$ estimates the probability that an input $\xtest$ falls within the equivalence neighborhood of edit example $(x_e, \ye)$. The counterfactual model $h_\psi(\xtest, x_e, \ye) : \mathcal{X} \times (\mathcal{X} \times \mathcal{Y}) \rightarrow \mathcal{Y}$ predicts what the label for $\xtest$ would be under the counterfactual world described by $(x_e, \ye)$. The classifier's output is computed as\footnote{This parameterization can be interpreted as producing the pdf of an \textit{unnormalized} multivariate Gaussian centered at $h_\psi([x_e;\ye])$ with diagonal covariance $\frac{1}{\gamma}$, evaluated at $h_\psi(\xtest)$.}
\begin{equation}
g_\phi(\xtest, x_e, \ye) = \exp\left[-\gamma \|\texttt{E}_\phi(x) - \texttt{E}_\phi([x_e; \ye])\|^2_2\right]
\end{equation}
where $\texttt{E}_\phi$ is a learned embedding function parameterized by $\phi$, $\text{sim}$ is cosine similarity, $\gamma$ is a learned scaling parameter, and $[x_e; \ye]$ is the concatenation of the edit input and target sequences. The counterfactual model $h_\psi$ is simply a small sequence model (such as GPT-2-small or T5-small) that prepends the edit example $[x_e; \ye]$ to the input $\xtest$.
\textbf{Forward pass (test time).} When presented with an input $\xtest$ at test time, {SERAC} computes the forward pass as
\begin{equation}
\tilde{f}(\xtest) =
\begin{cases}
f_{base}(\xtest) & \beta < 0.5 \\
h_\psi(\xtest, x_e^{i^*}, \ye^{i^*}) & \beta \ge 0.5
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $i^* = \argmax_i g_\phi(\xtest, x_e^i, \ye^i)$, the index of the most relevant edit example, and $\beta = g_\phi(\xtest, x_e^{i^*}, \ye^{i^*})$, the similarity score of the most relevant edit example. If $Z_e$ is empty, we simply set $\tilde{f}(\xtest) = f_{base}(\xtest)$.
\subsection{Training}
Similarly to past work \citep{Cao2021EditingFK,mitchell2021fast,hase2021language}, {Semi-parametric editing with a retrieval-augmented counterfactual model} is trained using a dataset of the form $\mathcal{D}_{e} = \{(x_e,\ye,\xloc,\xtest,\ytest)\}$, where $\ze$ is the edit descriptor, $\xloc$ is the negative example (whose label should not change after editing) used to learn a precise editor, and $(\xtest, \ytest)$ is a sample from $N(x_e, \ye)$ used to learn a general editor. In some cases, each training tuple may contain a hard negative $\bar{x}_{out}$ and/or a hard positive $(\bar{x}', \bar{y}')$. We train the classifier and counterfactual model separately, both with supervised learning.
The \textbf{classifier} $g_\phi$ is trained to predict whether an input $x$ falls within the equivalence neighborhood $N(x_e, \ye)$ of a particular edit example. Therefore, the classifier is trained to minimize average binary cross entropy loss over the training dataset $\mathcal{D}_{e}$, assigning label 1 to $(\xtest, x_e, \ye)$ and $(\bar{x}', x_e, \ye)$ and label 0 to $(\xloc, x_e, \ye)$ and $(\bar{x}_{out}, x_e, \ye)$. The \textbf{counterfactual model} $h_\psi$ is trained to minimize the negative log likelihood of $\ytest$ given $[x_e; \ye; \xtest]$ and $\bar{y}'$ given $[x_e; \ye; \bar{x}']$ on average over $\mathcal{D}_{e}$.
The classifier loss is given as\footnote{We omit terms using hard positives and negatives for brevity, but when hard positives or negatives are available, they are added to the loss in the same way as other positives and negatives.}
\begin{multline}
\ell(\phi) = -\frac{1}{|\mathcal{D}_{e}|}\sum_j \log g_\phi(\xtest, x_e^j, \ye^j)\;+ \\
\log (1 - g_\phi(\xloc, x_e^j, \ye^j)).
\end{multline}
The counterfactual loss is similarly
\begin{equation}
\ell(\psi) = -\frac{1}{|\mathcal{D}_{e}|}\sum_j \log p_\psi(\ytest | x_e, \ye, \xtest)
\end{equation}
where in a slight abuse of notation $p_\psi(\cdot | x_e, \ye, \xtest)$ is the probability distribution over label sequences given the inputs and parameters $\psi$.
Failures of \textit{precision} are entirely attributable to the classifier; negative examples do not appear in the loss function for the counterfactual model. Failures of \textit{generality} may be due to failures of either the classifier (false negative) or the counterfactual model (evaluating the counterfactual incorrectly when the classifier correctly detects a positive pair).
\section{Experiments}
\label{sec:expts}
We study the behavior of model editors along several axes of difficulty of the model editing problem, including a) overall performance, especially on hard in-scope and hard out-of-scope examples; b) capacity to apply multiple simultaneous edits; and c) ability to use explicit edit descriptors that are not input-output pairs. In addition, we provide an error analysis of the memory-based editor a study the effects of varying the scope classifier architecture.
\subsection{Experimental Settings}
Our experiments use a combination of existing and novel editing settings, including question-answering, fact-checking, and conversational dialogue. See Table~\ref{tab:hard-pos-neg} for data samples from each setting. The QA-hard and FC settings are motivated by the desire to better test a model editor's capacity to handle harder in-scope and out-of-scope examples. The ConvSent setting is intended to both evaluate generation models on a problem more tied with real-world usage as well as explore the possibility of applying edits that are not simply input-output pairs.
\textbf{QA \& QA-hard.} The QA setting uses the zsRE question-answering problem introduced by \citet{Cao2021EditingFK}. We use this dataset as a starting point of reference to connect our evaluations with prior work. For the QA-hard setting, we generate harder in-scope examples that test logically entailed facts (\rawstring{$\ze =$ Who is the UK PM? Boris Johnson $\rightarrow$ $\xtest =$ Where is Boris Johnson the PM?}) or true/false questions (\rawstring{$\xtest =$ True or False: Theresa May is the UK PM}) using automated techniques \citep{demszky2018transforming,ribeiro2019red}. Crucially, both types of hard in-scope examples will have labels that differ from the edit example, requiring some non-trivial reasoning over the edit descriptor to produce the correct post-edit output. In addition, to generate hard out-of-scope examples for an edit input $x_e$, we selectively sample from training inputs $x$ that have high semantic similarity with $x_e$, measured as having a high cosine similarity between their embeddings as computed by a pre-trained semantic embedding model \texttt{all-MiniLM-L6-v2} \citep{reimers-2019-sentence-bert}. For both QA and QA-hard, we use a T5-large model (770m parameters; \citet{2020t5}) fine-tuned on the Natural Questions dataset \citep{kwiatkowski2019natural,roberts2020knowledge} as the base model.
\textbf{FC.} We introduce a new FC setting using the VitaminC fact verification dataset \citep{schuster-etal-2021-get} to assess an editor's ability to update an out-of-date fact-checking model's when presented with updated information about the world. VitaminC contains over 400,000 evidence-claim-page-label tuples $(e_i, c_i, p_i, l_i)$ where the label $l_i$ is 1 if the evidence entails the claim, -1 if it contradicts the claim, or 0 if neither. The dataset was gathered from Wikipedia revisions in the first half of 2020. To convert VitaminC into an editing dataset, we first use $e_i$ as each edit descriptor $\ze[i]$. Using $C$ to denote the set of \textit{all} claims in the VitaminC dataset and the function $\beta(p_i)=\{c_j : p_j = p_i\}$ as the set of claims from page $p_i$, we define in-scope and out-of-scope examples as
\begin{equation*}
I(\ze[i]),\;O(\ze[i]) = \begin{cases}
\{(c_i, 1)\},\phantom{\varnothing} C \setminus \beta(p_i) & \text{if}\;l_i = 1 \\
\{(c_i, 0)\},\phantom{\varnothing} C \setminus \beta(p_i) & \text{if}\;l_i = 0 \\
\varnothing,\phantom{\{(c_i, 0)\}} \{c_i\} & \text{if}\;l_i = -1,
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
. For $l_i \in \{0,1\}$, we have `easy' out-of-scope examples sampled uniformly from all claims. For $l_i=-1$, we have hard out-of-scope examples, as these claims are still closely semantically related to the evidence. As a base model, we use the BERT-base model trained by \citet{Cao2021EditingFK} on the June 2017 Wikipedia dump in the FEVER dataset \citep{Thorne18Fever}.
\input{figures/tex/multi_model}
\textbf{ConvSent.} Our final new dataset is focused on generation models. The ConvSent editing problem assesses a model editor's ability to edit the sentiment of a dialogue agent on a particular topic without affecting its generations when prompted on other topics. We gather a list of 15,000 non-numeric entities from zsRE and 989 noun phrases from GPT-3 \citep{brown2020language} (e.g., \rawstring{ghost hunting} or \rawstring{the dangers of artificial intelligence}) for a total of 15,989 topics. For each entity, we sample 10 noisy positive sentiment completions and 10 noisy negative sentiment completions from the 3B parameter BlenderBot model \citep{roller2021recipes}, using a template such as \rawstring{Tell me a \{negative/positive\} opinion on \_\_\_.}. We then use a pre-trained sentiment classifier \citep{heitmann2020} based on RoBERTa \citep{liu2019robustly} to compute more accurate sentiment labels for each completion. For this task, edit descriptors take the simple form of \rawstring{Topic: \_\_\_ Sentiment: \{Positive/Negative\}}, rather than a prompt/completion pair. We define $I(\ze)$ with a manually collected set of templates such as \rawstring{What do you think of \_\_\_?} or \rawstring{Tell me your thoughts on \_\_\_.}, using the prompts formed with different templates but the same entity as in-scope examples. We define $O(\ze; \editdataset)$ as all examples generated from entities \textit{other} than the one used in $\ze$. We use the smaller 90m parameter BlenderBot model \citep{roller2021recipes} as the base model for this experiment, as it is currently state-of-the-art in dialog.
\textbf{Comparison algorithms.}
We perform experiments evaluating a variety of existing approaches to model editing in a variety of difficult editing settings. We consider gradient-based editors, fine-tuning on the edit example (\textbf{FT}), editable neural networks (\textbf{ENN}; \citet{Sinitsin2020Editable}), KnowledgeEditor (\textbf{KE}; \citet{Cao2021EditingFK}), and model editor networks using gradient decomposition (\textbf{MEND}; \citet{mitchell2021fast}), as well as a cache+lookup baseline \textbf{LU} \footnote{We cache the average hidden state of $x_e$ computed by $f_{base}$, returning $\ye$ for new inputs $x'$ with hidden state less than $\delta$ from the hidden state of $x_e$ and $f_{base}(x')$ otherwise}. We also consider a `retrieve-and-prompt' ablation \textbf{RP} that uses a scope classifier identical to the one in the memory-based editor to retrieve a relevant edit example from the cache if there is one, but uses the base model $f_{base}$ rather than the counterfactual model $h_\psi$ to make the final prediction.
\input{figures/tex/multi_edit}
\subsection{Evaluating model editors on challenging tasks}
\subsection{Re-using model editors across models}
In this section, we demonstrate that the memory-based editor can be trained independently from any particular base model, leading to significant practical advantages. The most powerful model editors described in past works must be re-trained or re-fit for each new model they are intended to edit \citep{Sinitsin2020Editable,Cao2021EditingFK,mitchell2021fast,anon2021moving}. Further, these editors require access to the internal activations and gradients of $f_{base}$, leading to computational costs of training the editor to scale with the size of $f_{base}$ \citep{mitchell2021fast}. In contrast, the memory-based editor can be directly applied without modification to edit multiple models, and the computational costs of training are \textit{constant} with respect to base model size. Figure~\ref{fig:multi-model} shows the results. A single memory-based T5-editor shows consistently high edit success and low drawdown across 4 different T5 models, while a single memory-based GPT-2-editor shows similarly high edit success and low drawdown across 4 different GPT-2 models.
\subsection{Making many edits}
While past research in model editing has largely focused on single model edits, some works have noted that successfully applying multiple edits either as a batch \citep{mitchell2021fast} or in sequence \citep{hase2021language} is significantly more difficult than the single edit setting. In this section, we conduct experiments to understand how editor behavior changes as the number of sequentially-applied edits increases. Figure~\ref{fig:multi-edit} shows the results. Gradient-based editors exhibit near-monotonic decrease in their ability to both successfully update model predictions and prevent model degradation.
\subsection{Error Analysis}
\input{tables/error_decomp}
One advantage of the memory-based editor is the ability to decompose editor errors into classification errors and counterfactual prediction errors. Table~\ref{tab:decomp} shows the performance breakdown across editor components (scope classifier and counterfactual model) and data sub-split (all data, hard positives, hard negatives, etc.) when applying zsRE question-answering edits to a T5-large model.
\subsection{Ablations}
We perform a set of experiments to understand how classifier architecture impacts the behavior of the memory-based editor. Using the QA-hard and FC tasks with $k=10$ edits, we compare the cross-attention-based (Cross) and dense embedding-based (Embed) classifier using both distilBERT (\textbf{D}; \citep{Sanh2019DistilBERTAD}) and BERT-base (\textbf{B}; \citep{devlin2019bert}) as the backbone model. The results are shown in Table~\ref{tab:ablations}. Unsurprisingly, both increasing the size of the classifier and using cross-attention instead of dense-embeddings is helpful for editor performance. Cross-attention is especially useful for the FC experiment, which is possibly due to the commonness of quantities in the VitaminC dataset; producing fixed-length sequence embeddings that reliably capture the difference between \rawstring{There have been 105,000 coronavirus deaths in the United States} and \rawstring{There have been 111,000 coronavirus deaths in the United States} may be very difficult. In this case, late fusion approaches \citep{khattab2020colbert} may be useful in increasing expressiveness while limiting compute requirements.
\section{Introduction}
Large neural networks, notably language models, are typically deployed as static artifacts, whose behavior is difficult to modify during deployment without re-training \citep{lazaridou2021mind}. While prepending either manually-written or automatically-retrieved prompts to the input can sometimes be effective for modulating behavior \citep{brown2020language}, model predictions often do not update to reflect the content of the prompts \citep{lewis2020retrieval}. However, in order to respond to changes in the world (e.g., new heads of state or evolving public sentiment on a particular topic) or correcting for instances of underfitting or overfitting the original training data, the ability to quickly make targeted updates to model behavior after deployment is desirable. To address this need, \textit{model editing} is an emerging area of research that aims to enable fast, data-efficient updates to a pre-trained \textit{base model}'s behavior for only a small region of the domain, without damaging model performance on other inputs of interest \citep{Sinitsin2020Editable,zhu2020modifying,sotoudeh2019correcting,Cao2021EditingFK,dai2021knowledge,mitchell2021fast,hase2021language,anon2021moving}.
\input{figures/tex/fig1}
A popular approach to model editing involves learnable model editors, which are trained to predict updates to the weights of the base model that ultimately produce the desired change in behavior \citep{Sinitsin2020Editable,Cao2021EditingFK,mitchell2021fast,hase2021language}. While these approaches have shown promise, in line with recent work \citep{hase2021language}, we find that existing methods produce model updates that fail to discriminate between entailed and non-entailed facts and cannot handle large numbers of edits. Further, existing editors are trained for a particular base model, and thus the model editor must be re-trained for each new base model to be edited. This coupling also leads to computational costs of model editor training that scale with the size of the base model, which can prove unwieldy even for models an order of magnitude smaller than the largest deployed language models \citep{mitchell2021fast}. In aggregate, existing model editors still have shortcomings regarding edit performance, compute efficiency, and ultimately practicality. We hypothesize that these shortcomings are related to the reliance of existing methods on the \textit{gradient} of the edit example label with respect to the pre-edit model parameters (see Section~\ref{sec:method} for more discussion).
\input{figures/tex/scope}
Building on the hypothesis that gradients are an impoverished signal for model editing, we propose a gradient-free \textit{memory-based} approach to model editing. This approach `wraps' a black-box base model with an explicit cache of user-provided edit descriptors (arbitrary utterances) and a small auxiliary \textit{scope classifier} and \textit{counterfactual model}. Rather than making model edits in parameter space, this editor simply stores edit examples in the cache without modifying the base model. When a post-edit test input is received, the scope classifier determines if any cached edits are relevant. If an edit is classified as relevant, the counterfactual model uses the test input and relevant edit example to predict the test input label under the counterfactual described by the edit. Otherwise, the base model simply predicts the test input label. See Figure~\ref{fig:method-overview} for an example of both cases. Intuitively, this approach delegates the sub-problems of \textit{when} the model's predictions should change to the scope classifier and \textit{how} they should change to the counterfactual model. While existing methods attempt to solve both of these problems implicitly in base model parameter space, the memory-based approach solves each with its own small but expressive neural network, reducing interference between the two sub-problems. Further, the scope classifier reduces interference between batched or sequential edits by predicting relevance scores for each pair of (test input, edit cache example) separately. Finally, access to the base model is no longer necessary with this decoupling,\footnote{We only need its tokenization.} enabling the trained editor to be applied to multiple models without modification and decoupling the cost of editor training from base model size.
Our primary contribution is a framework for memory-based editing that shows far better performance and computational efficiency than existing methods without requiring access to the base model parameters. We also introduce three new editing problems, based on the tasks of question-answering, fact-checking, and dialogue generation, which are far more challenging than existing editing benchmarks. Our experiments indicate that {SERAC} consistently outperforms past approaches to model editing and enables successful model edits in more realistic scenarios than existing methods.
\section{The Model Editing Problem}
We consider the problem of editing a base model $f_{base}$ using an \textit{edit descriptor} $\ze$ describing how the edited model $f_{e}$ should change its behavior. The edit descriptor may be a concatenated input-output pair $\editpair$ like \rawstring{Who is the UK PM? Boris Johnson} or an arbitrary utterance such as \rawstring{Change sentiment on jazz to be positive.} describing the desired change in model behavior. We can regard the former type of edit descriptor implicit (as the desired change in model behavior must be inferred from the example) and the latter explicit.
\input{tables/data_samples}
\textbf{Edit scoping.} In most cases, applying an edit with descriptor $\ze$ should impact model predictions for a large number of inputs that are within the scope of the edit example. In the UK example above, the edited model's predictions should change for rephrases of the edit descriptor input as well as for inputs asking about logically-entailed facts like \rawstring{Boris Johnson is the PM of where?} or \rawstring{True or False: Theresa May is the UK PM}. Thus we refer to the set of inputs whose true label is affected by the edit as the \textit{scope} of an edit $\scope{\ze}$, as visualized in Figure~\ref{fig:equiv}. An edit is \textit{successful} if the edited model adheres to the behavior defined by $\ze$ for \textit{in-scope} inputs. An edit is \textit{well-scoped} if model behavior on \textit{out-of-scope} inputs is left unchanged\footnote{We might consider a successful edit as one with high recall and a well-scoped edit as one with high precision, with regards to the input examples for which the edited model behaves as desired.}. If an in-scope example requires some non-trivial reasoning to deduce its label from the edit example, we call it a hard in-scope example. If an out-of-scope example is closely semantically related to the edit example, we call it a hard out-of-scope example. In the setting when $n$ edits $Z_e = \{\ze[i]\}$ are applied, either in sequence or simultaneously in a batch, we define $\scope{Z_e} = \cup_i \scope{\ze[i]}$ to be the union of the individual edit scopes.
Because the `correct' scope of an edit's effects on the base model may be unknown or ambiguous, we \textit{train} a model editor on a dataset of edits $\mathcal{D}_{e} =\{\ze[i]\}$ and sampling functions $I(\cdot; \mathcal{D}_{e})$ and $O(\cdot; \mathcal{D}_{e})$, respectively, that specify the edits of interest and their desired edit scopes. $I(\ze[i]; \mathcal{D}_{e})$ produces an in-scope example $(\xtest[i], \ytest[i])$ for $\ze[i]$, either through automated methods such as back-translation or hand-annotated correspondences. $O(\ze[i]; \mathcal{D}_{e})$ similarly produces an out-of-scope input $\xloc[i]$, either using nearest neighbors in a semantic sentence embedding space or hand-annotated correspondences\footnote{Because we only optimize for preservation of the base model's prediction for $\xloc$, we generally don't need the corresponding label $\yloc$.}.
\textbf{Editor evaluation.} Based on the notions of \textit{successful} and \textit{well-scoped} edits, we use the metrics of edit success (\textbf{ES}) and drawdown (\textbf{DD}) to evaluate a model editor, following prior work \citep{Sinitsin2020Editable,mitchell2021fast}. Intuitively, ES measures similarity between the edited model behavior and the \textit{desired} edited model behavior for in-scope inputs, while DD measures disagreement between the pre-edit and post-edit model for out-of-scope inputs. High ES and low DD is desirable, with ES of one and DD of zero being perfect editor performance. The specific measurement of edit success and drawdown vary by the problem; we next outline two instantiations of these metrics.
For \textbf{question-answering} and \textbf{fact-checking} tasks, we define ES as simply the average exact-match agreement between the edited model and true labels for in-scope inputs:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{ES_{ex}}(\ze) \triangleq \E_{x' \in I(\ze; \mathcal{D}_{e})} \mathbbm{1}\{f_{e}(x') = \ye[x']\}
\end{equation}
where $\ye[\xtest]$ is the desired label for $\xtest$ under the edit $\ze$.
We define drawdown similarly as
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{DD_{ex}}(\ze,O) \triangleq \E_{x' \in O(\ze; \mathcal{D}_{e})} \mathbbm{1}\{f_{e}(x') \neq f_{base}(x')\}
\end{equation}
where $O$ is some set of out-of-scope inputs for $\ze$. Recent work suggests that choosing $O$ to simply be all out-of-scope inputs computes an easier form of drawdown, while restricting $O$ to hard out-of-scope inputs for $\ze$ is a more challenging criterion \citep{hase2021language}.
In our \textbf{conversational sentiment} editing experiments, the model editor's goal is to modify a dialogue agent's sentiment on a particular topic without affecting the agent's generations for other topics. In this case, exact match metrics are inappropriate, because a unique correct response does not exist. Instead, we use a metric that leverages pre-generated positive and negative responses\footnote{Responses are generated with the 3B parameter BlenderBot 2.0 \citep{roller2021recipes} and their sentiment classified by a RoBERTa model fine-tuned for binary sentiment classification \citep{heitmann2020}.} to the conversational prompt (e.g., \rawstring{What do you think of Spiderman?}) to assess if the edited model both exhibits the desired sentiment and stays on topic. We measure sentiment accuracy with the rescaled likelihood ratio $\mathbf{z_{sent}} \triangleq \sigma(l_e^+ - l_e^-)$, where $l^+$ and $l^-$ are the average per-token log likelihood of the \textit{edited} model on pre-generated on-topic responses with the \textit{correct} sentiment (which may be positive or negative) and \textit{incorrect} sentiment, respectively, and $\sigma$ is the sigmoid function. We measure topical consistency with $\mathbf{z_{topic}} \triangleq \min\left(1, \exp(l_e^+ - l_{base}^+)\right)$, where $l_{base}^+$ is the average per-token log likelihood of the \textit{base} model on pre-generated on-topic responses with the correct sentiment.
Intuitively, $\mathbf{z_{sent}}$ goes to one if the edited model assigns high probability to correct sentiment responses relative to incorrect sentiment responses and goes to zero in the opposite case. $\mathbf{z_{topic}}$ is one if the edited model assigns at least as much total probability mass to on-topic completions as $f_{base}$ and decays to zero otherwise. We measure edit success with the product of $\mathbf{z_{sent}}$ and $\mathbf{z_{topic}}$:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{ES_{sent}} \triangleq \mathbf{z_{sent}} \cdot \mathbf{z_{topic}},
\end{equation}
which can be roughly interpreted as `the proportion of post-edit model generations that are both of the desired sentiment and on-topic.' To measure drawdown, we simply replace the exact match term in $\mathbf{DD}_{ex}$ with KL-divergence:
\begin{equation}
\small
\mathbf{DD_{sent}}(\ze,O) \triangleq \E_{x' \in\\ O(\ze; \mathcal{D}_{e})} \text{KL}\left(p_{base}\left(\cdot|x'\right) \| p_{e}\left(\cdot|x'\right)\right).
\end{equation}
We average each metric over many examples in a held-out evaluation dataset, constructed similarly to the edit training set, for each respective editing problem.
\section{A Memory-Based Model Editor}
\label{sec:method}
To address the model editing problem, we introduce a memory-based editor, {SERAC}, that does not modify the base model parameters during training or during editing. The motivation for our method stems from the observation that neural networks can `over-specialize' their parameters to individual inputs, with potentially disjoint parts of the model being responsible for predictions on different inputs~\citep{csordas2021are}. This means that prior gradient-based editing approaches may struggle to accurately capture the scope of an edit, particularly for distant but related examples. As we will describe next, NAME instead directly reasons over the content of the edit (rather than it's gradient) to estimate the scope of an edit and to make modified predictions if needed. In the rest of this section, we will describe the editing process (Section~\ref{sec:editor}) and how each component of the editor is trained (Section~\ref{sec:editortraining}).
\subsection{{Semi-parametric editing with a retrieval-augmented counterfactual model}}
\label{sec:editor}
Our memory-based model editor can be thought of as a simple wrapper around the base model. It is made up of three key components: an explicit cache of edits, an edit scope classifier, and a counterfactual model that `overrides' the base model when necessary. After receiving a batch of edits that are added to the cache, the `wrapped' model makes a prediction for a new input in two steps. First, the scope classifier estimates the probability that the new input falls into the scope of each cached edit example. If the scope classifier predicts that the input falls within the scope of any edit in the cache, then we retrieve the edit with the highest probability of being in scope and return the counterfactual model's prediction conditioned on both the new input and the retrieved edit. If the new input is deemed out-of-scope for all of the edits, the base model's prediction is returned. This procedure is visualized in Figure~\ref{fig:method-overview}.
More precisely, the wrapped model is a semi-parametric model of the form $\tilde{f}(x, f_{base}, \phi, \psi, Z_e)$, abbreviated as just $\tilde{f}(x)$, that produces predictions in the output space $\mathcal{Y}$, where $Z_e$ is a set of variable size. The scope classifier $g_\phi(\ze, \xunk) : \mathcal{Z} \times \mathcal{X} \rightarrow [0, 1]$ estimates the probability that an input $\xunk$ falls within the scope of edit example $\ze$. The counterfactual model $h_\psi(\ze, \xunk) : \mathcal{Z} \times \mathcal{X} \rightarrow \mathcal{Y}$ predicts what the label for $\xunk$ \textit{would} be under the counterfactual world described by $\ze$.
\textbf{Forward pass.} When presented with an input $\xunk$, {SERAC} computes the forward pass as
\begin{equation}
\tilde{f}(\xunk) =
\begin{cases}
f_{base}(\xunk) & \beta < 0.5 \\
h_\psi(\ze[i^*], \xunk) & \beta \ge 0.5
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $i^* = \argmax_i g_\phi(\ze[i], \xunk)$, the index of the most relevant edit example, and $\beta = g_\phi( \ze[i^*], \xunk)$, the similarity score of the most relevant edit example. If $Z_e$ is empty, we simply set $\tilde{f}(\xunk) = f_{base}(\xunk)$.
\input{tables/main_results}
\textbf{Architecture.} There are many possible implementations of the scope classifier. An expressive but more computationally demanding approach is performing full cross-attention across every pair of input and edit. We primarily opt for a more computationally-efficient approach, first computing separate, fixed-length embeddings of the input and edit descriptor \citep[as in][]{karpukhin-etal-2020-dense} and using the negative distance in the embedding space as the predicted log-likelihood. While other more sophisticated approaches exist~\citep{khattab2020colbert,santhanam2021colbert}, we restrict our experiments to either cross-attention (\textbf{Cross}) or embedding-based (\textbf{Embed}) scope classifiers. We also include a head-to-head comparison in Section~\ref{sec:expts}.
The counterfactual model $h_\psi$ is simply a sequence model of a similar (often much smaller) architecture to the base model, which prepends the edit example $\ze$ to the input $\xunk$.
\subsection{Editor training}
\label{sec:editortraining}
Similarly to past work \citep{Cao2021EditingFK,mitchell2021fast,hase2021language}, {Semi-parametric editing with a retrieval-augmented counterfactual model} is trained using the edit dataset $\mathcal{D}_{e} =\{\ze[i]\}$, where in-scope examples $(\xtest[i], \ytest[i])$ and negative examples $\xloc[i]$ are sampled from $I(\ze[i]; \mathcal{D}_{e})$ and $O(\ze[i]; \mathcal{D}_{e})$, respectively. The scope classifier and counterfactual model are trained completely separately, both with supervised learning as described next.
The \textbf{scope classifier} $g_\phi$ is trained to solve a binary classification problem where the input $(\ze, \xtest)$ receives label 1 and the input $(\ze, \xloc)$ receives label 0. The training objective for the scope classifier is the average binary cross entropy loss over the training dataset $\mathcal{D}_{e}$:
\begin{equation}
\hspace{-3mm}\ell(\phi) = - \hspace{-7mm} \E_{\substack{\ze \sim \mathcal{D}_{e}\\
(\xtest, \cdot) \sim I(\ze; \mathcal{D}_{e})\\
\xloc \sim O(\ze; \mathcal{D}_{e})}}
\hspace{-5mm} \left[
\log g_\phi(\ze, \xtest) + \log (1-g_\phi(\ze, \xloc))
\right]
\end{equation}
The \textbf{counterfactual model} $h_\psi$ considers an edit $\ze$ and a corresponding example $(\xtest, \ytest)\sim I(\ze; \mathcal{D}_{e})$, and is trained to minimize the negative log likelihood of $\ytest$ given $\ze$ and $\xtest$ on average over $\mathcal{D}_{e}$:
\begin{equation}
\ell(\psi) = - \hspace{-8mm} \E_{\substack{\ze \sim \mathcal{D}_{e}\\
(\xtest, \ytest) \sim I(\ze; \mathcal{D}_{e})}} \hspace{-5mm} \log p_\psi(\ytest | \ze, \xtest)
\end{equation}
where in a slight abuse of notation $p_\psi(\cdot | \ze, \xtest)$ is the probability distribution over label sequences under the model $h_\psi$ for the inputs $(\ze, \xtest)$.
\section{Datasets}
Our experiments use a combination of existing and novel editing settings, including question-answering, fact-checking, and conversational dialogue. See Table~\ref{tab:hard-pos-neg} for data samples from each setting. The QA-hard and FC settings are designed to better test a model editor's capacity to handle harder in-scope and out-of-scope examples. The ConvSent setting both evaluates generation models on a problem more tied to real-world usage and explores the possibility of applying edits that are not simply input-output pairs.
\textbf{QA \& QA-hard.} The QA setting uses the zsRE question-answering problem introduced by \citet{Cao2021EditingFK}. We use this dataset as a starting point of reference to connect our evaluations with prior work. For the QA-hard setting, we generate harder in-scope examples that test logically entailed facts (\rawstring{$\ze =$ Who is the UK PM? Boris Johnson $\rightarrow$ $\xtest =$ Where is Boris Johnson the PM?}) or true/false questions (\rawstring{$\xtest =$ True or False: Theresa May is the UK PM}) using automated techniques \citep{demszky2018transforming,ribeiro2019red}. Crucially, both types of hard in-scope examples will have labels that differ from the edit example, requiring some non-trivial reasoning over the edit descriptor to produce the correct post-edit output. In addition, to generate hard out-of-scope examples for an edit input $x_e$, we selectively sample from training inputs $x$ that have high semantic similarity with $x_e$, measured as having a high cosine similarity between their embeddings as computed by a pre-trained semantic embedding model \texttt{all-MiniLM-L6-v2} \citep{reimers-2019-sentence-bert}. For both QA and QA-hard, we use a T5-large model (770m parameters; \citet{2020t5}) fine-tuned on the Natural Questions dataset \citep{kwiatkowski2019natural,roberts2020knowledge} as the base model.
\textbf{FC.} We introduce a new FC setting using the VitaminC fact verification dataset \citep{schuster-etal-2021-get} to assess an editor's ability to update an out-of-date fact-checking model's when presented with updated information about the world. VitaminC contains over 400,000 evidence-claim-page-label tuples $(e_i, c_i, p_i, l_i)$ where the label $l_i$ is 1 if the evidence entails the claim, -1 if it contradicts the claim, or 0 if neither. The dataset was gathered from Wikipedia revisions in the first half of 2020. To convert VitaminC into an editing dataset, we use each $e_i$ as an edit descriptor $\ze[i]$. Then, using $C$ to denote the set of \textit{all} claims in the VitaminC dataset and the function $\beta(p_i)=\{c_j : p_j = p_i\}$ as the set of claims from page $p_i$, we define in-scope and out-of-scope examples as
\begin{equation*}
\textcolor{blue}{I(\ze[i])},\;\textcolor{red}{O(\ze[i])} = \begin{cases}
\textcolor{blue}{\{(c_i, 1)\}},\phantom{\varnothing} \textcolor{red}{C \setminus \beta(p_i)} & \text{if}\;l_i = 1 \\
\textcolor{blue}{\{(c_i, 0)\}},\phantom{\varnothing} \textcolor{red}{C \setminus \beta(p_i)} & \text{if}\;l_i = 0 \\
\textcolor{blue}{\varnothing},\phantom{\{(c_i, 0)\}} \textcolor{red}{\{c_i\}} & \text{if}\;l_i = -1,
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
For $l_i \in \{0,1\}$, we have `easy' out-of-scope examples sampled uniformly from all claims. For $l_i=-1$, we have hard out-of-scope examples, as these claims are still closely semantically related to the evidence. As a base model, we use the BERT-base model trained by \citet{Cao2021EditingFK} on the June 2017 Wikipedia dump in the FEVER dataset \citep{Thorne18Fever}.
\textbf{ConvSent.} Our final new dataset, ConvSent, assesses a model editor's ability to edit the sentiment of a dialogue agent on a particular topic without affecting its generations when prompted on other topics. A key aspect of the ConvSent problem that differs from past evaluations of model editors is that edit descriptors are not input-output pairs, but explicit descriptions of the desired model behavior such as \rawstring{Topic: \_\_\_ Sentiment: \{Positive/Negative\}}. To produce the dataset, we first gather a list of 15,000 non-numeric entities from zsRE \citep{levy2017zero,Cao2021EditingFK} and 989 noun phrases from GPT-3 \citep{brown2020language} (e.g., \rawstring{ghost hunting} or \rawstring{the dangers of artificial intelligence}) for a total of 15,989 topics. For each entity, we sample 10 noisy positive sentiment completions and 10 noisy negative sentiment completions from the 3B parameter BlenderBot model \citep{roller2021recipes}, using a template such as \rawstring{Tell me a \{negative/positive\} opinion on \_\_\_.} We then use a pre-trained sentiment classifier \citep{heitmann2020} based on RoBERTa \citep{liu2019robustly} to compute more accurate sentiment labels for each completion. We define $I(\ze; \mathcal{D}_{e})$ with a manually collected set of templates such as \rawstring{What do you think of \_\_\_?} or \rawstring{Tell me your thoughts on \_\_\_.}, using the prompts formed with different templates but the same entity as in-scope examples. We define $O(\ze; \mathcal{D}_{e})$ as all examples generated from entities \textit{other} than the one used in $\ze$. Because each topic contains responses of both sentiments, we make use of \textit{unlikelihood training} \citep{li2020dont} in the ConvSent setting. That is, editors are trained to maximize the post-edit log likelihood of correct-sentiment responses while also maximizing the \textit{unlikelihood} $p_{\theta_e}(\tilde x)$ of incorrect-sentiment responses $\tilde x$, We use the 90m parameter BlenderBot model \citep{roller2021recipes} as the base model for this experiment, as it is a state-of-the-art compact dialogue model. A qualitative example of model edits changing model sentiment (but not topic) can be found in Table~\ref{tab:outputs}.
\section{Experiments}
\label{sec:expts}
We study several axes of difficulty of the model editing problem, including a) overall performance, especially on hard in-scope and hard out-of-scope examples; b) capacity to apply multiple simultaneous edits; and c) ability to use explicit edit descriptors that are not input-output pairs. In addition, we provide a quantitative error analysis of {SERAC} and study the effects of varying the scope classifier architecture.
Our experiments evaluate a variety of existing approaches to model editing in a variety of difficult editing settings. We consider gradient-based editors, fine-tuning on the edit example (\textbf{FT}), editable neural networks \citep[\textbf{ENN};][]{Sinitsin2020Editable}, model editor networks using gradient decomposition \citep[\textbf{MEND};][]{mitchell2021fast}, as well as a cache+lookup baseline \textbf{LU}\footnote{We cache the average hidden state of $x_e$ computed by $f_{base}$, returning $\ye$ for new inputs $x'$ with hidden state less than $\delta$ from the hidden state of $x_e$ and $f_{base}(x')$ otherwise.}. We also consider a `retrieve-and-prompt' ablation \textbf{RP} that uses a scope classifier identical to the one in {SERAC} to retrieve a relevant edit example from the cache if there is one, but uses the base model $f_{base}$ rather than the counterfactual model $h_\psi$ to make the final prediction.
\input{figures/tex/multi_edit}
\subsection{Main Model Editing Evaluation}
\textbf{Evaluating editors on challenging tasks.}
We perform a broad comparison of model editors in four editing settings, QA, QA-hard, FC, and ConvSent. For QA, QA-hard, and FC we use $k=10$ edits during training and evaluation; for ConvSent, we use $k=5$ because the longer dialogue sequences cause increased memory usage. Note that other than increasing the number of simultaneous edits, the QA setting is identical to the past work (e.g., \citet{Cao2021EditingFK,mitchell2021fast}. The LU and FT baselines are not applicable to ConvSent as there is no label to cache or fine-tune on (as the edit descriptor is explicit).
The results are presented in Table~\ref{tab:main-comparison}.
Even for the basic QA problem with 10 edits, MEND and ENN show significantly degraded performance compared to single-edit performance reported in prior work \citep{mitchell2021fast}, while {SERAC} and the lookup cache maintain near-perfect performance. When adding hard in-scope and out-of-scope examples in QA-hard, {SERAC}'s expressiveness enables significant improvements over other approaches, with LU again showing the strongest performance of the prior methods (essentially by getting correct most examples where the in-scope label is the same as the edit example label and getting all other examples wrong). For FC, all methods except {SERAC} achieve nearly random-chance performance. Although {SERAC} exhibits higher drawdown, its improvement in edit success is much larger than its increase in drawdown. Finally, on the ConvSent editing problem, where learned editors are needed to translate the explicit edit descriptor into the desired model behavior, {SERAC} again is the only method to achieve better than random performance, with essentially zero drawdown.
\input{tables/error_decomp}
\textbf{Making many edits.}
In this section, we conduct experiments to understand how editor behavior changes as the number of batched (i.e., simultaneous) edits increases. Figure~\ref{fig:multi-edit} shows the results.
We train each of MEND, ENN, and {SERAC} for both $k=1$ and $k=10$ edits (we ran out of VRAM for some methods past $k=10$) and evaluate both the 1-edit and 10-edit version of each method for various numbers of edits on the.
We also note that for only {SERAC}, applying a set of $n$ edits in sequence is guaranteed to produce the same edited model as applying the edits simultaneously, as they are simply appended to the edit memory in both cases. Existing methods do not provide a similar guarantee, and may struggle even more when forced to apply edits in sequence rather than simultaneously, as noted by \citet{hase2021language}.
\input{tables/cls_arch}
\subsection{Further Empirical Analysis of {SERAC}}
\textbf{Error analysis.}
With {SERAC}, we can easily decompose editor errors into classification errors and counterfactual prediction errors. Table~\ref{tab:decomp} shows the performance breakdown across editor components (scope classifier and counterfactual model) and data sub-split (in-scope, hard in-scope, hard out-of-scope, etc.). For QA-hard, the classifier exhibits reduced accuracy on hard in-scope and out-of-scope examples (i.e., both precision and recall are reduced), particularly for hard in-scope examples. Counterfactual model performance is only slightly degraded on hard in-scope examples, suggesting that the primary challenge of the problem is scope estimation, rather than counterfactual reasoning. For out-of-scope examples, counterfactual model performance is vastly reduced, but because the classifier's accuracy is relatively high for these examples, these inputs are typically (correctly) routed to the base model instead. For FC, scope classifier failures on hard out-of-scope examples dominate the editor's errors.
\textbf{Scope classifier architecture.}
We perform a set of experiments to understand how the classifier architecture impacts the behavior of {SERAC}. Using the QA-hard and FC tasks with $k=10$ edits, we compare the cross-attention (Cross) and dense embedding (Embed) classifier using both distilBERT (\textbf{D}; \citep{Sanh2019DistilBERTAD}) and BERT-base (\textbf{B}; \citep{devlin2019bert}) as the backbone model. The results are shown in Table~\ref{tab:cls_arch}. Unsurprisingly, using cross-attention instead of dense-embeddings is helpful for editor performance; however, increasing classifier size shows relatively little improvement. Cross-attention is especially useful for the FC experiment, which is possibly due to the commonness of quantities in the VitaminC dataset; for example, producing fixed-length sequence embeddings that reliably capture the difference between \rawstring{There have been 105,000 coronavirus deaths in the United States} and \rawstring{There have been 111,000 coronavirus deaths in the United States}
may be very difficult. For such cases, late fusion approaches \citep{khattab2020colbert} may be useful in increasing expressiveness while limiting compute requirements.
\textbf{Re-using model editors across models.}
A key advantage of editing with an external memory is the separation of base model and editor, which decouples the performance of the editor from the base model. To study this property, we evaluate the two {SERAC} editors trained in the previous subsection on the QA and QA-hard tasks on various T5 base models, without re-training. We verify that {SERAC}'s edit success and drawdown is identical across T5 model sizes in both settings, consistently yielding \textbf{ES} = 0.99, \textbf{DD} = 0.007 for QA\footnote{For comparison, \citet{mitchell2021fast} report an ES of 0.89 on \textit{single edits} for QA, while in our setting {SERAC} receives 10 edits at once, and still achieves much higher edit success. Drawdown is reported differently in \citet{mitchell2021fast}, so is not comparable.} and \textbf{ES} = 0.92, \textbf{DD} = 0.008 for QA-hard.
In contrast, the most powerful model editors described in past works must be re-trained or re-fit for each new model they are intended to edit \citep{Sinitsin2020Editable,Cao2021EditingFK,mitchell2021fast,anon2021moving}. These prior editors also require access to the internal activations and gradients of $f_{base}$, leading to greater computational costs of training the editor to scale with the size of $f_{base}$ \citep{mitchell2021fast}. In contrast, {SERAC} can be directly applied without modification to edit multiple models, and the training costs are independent of the base model size.
\section{Related Work}
\textbf{Model editing.} Many approaches have recently been proposed for model editing. Simplest among these uses constrained fine-tuning to update parameters based on new examples \citep{sotoudeh2019correcting,zhu2020modifying}. Other methods explore special pre-training objectives that enable rapid and targeted
fine-tuning for model edits \citep{Sinitsin2020Editable} via meta-learning. More recently, new classes of methods develop external learned editors that modify fine-tuning gradients for editing, but do not change the base model that must process edits \citep{Cao2021EditingFK,mitchell2021fast,hase2021language}. Finally, certain methods attribute knowledge to particular neurons in the network and manually edit these activation to reflect changed content \citep{dai2021knowledge,anon2021moving}. While all these works explore methods of updating base model parameters to induce a desired change in behavior, {SERAC} uses a semi-parametric formulation that is notably expressive and does not require access to the base model's parameters, activations, or gradients, essentially treating it as a black box. In this vein, {SERAC} is related to the BeliefBank system \citep{kassner-etal-2021-beliefbank}, which, while primarily intended to improve model consistency, enables editability of some pre-trained models using an external memory, rather than parameter updates. However, it is limited to models performing binary classification of factual statements and requires manually-annotated constraints between facts. Our method requires no such specialized augmentations to our input data.
\input{tables/outputs}
\textbf{Memory-augmented models.} Memory mechanisms have historically been combined with neural networks in a variety of contexts including supervised learning~\citep{hochreiter1997long,graves2008novel,graves2014neural}, meta-learning~\citep{santoro2016memory, shan2020meta}, and reinforcement learning~\citep{oh2016control,pritzel2017neural}. Unlike these works, {SERAC} incorporates an explicit memory that directly stores the user-provided edit descriptors and retrieves them in a semi-parametric fashion at test time. Non-parametric few-shot learning models~\cite{koch2015siamese,vinyals2016matching,snell2017prototypical} also store small datasets and process the examples when making predictions at test time. Another recent line of work augments transformers with non-parametric memories that store textual snippets~\citep{Chen2017ReadingWT,Lee2019LatentRF,Khandelwal2020GeneralizationTM,karpukhin-etal-2020-dense}. Unlike both of these research threads, we focus specifically on the problem of learning to edit existing models, rather than few-shot learning or training retrieval-based models from scratch. Furthermore, the latter retriever-reader models are known to ignore the retrieved content when making predictions \citep{lewis2020retrieval,Paranjape2021HindsightPT}, which {SERAC} avoids by training the counterfactual model only with contexts known to be useful for solving the task.
\section{Discussion}
We have proposed {SERAC}, a semi-parametric model editor that stores model edits in an external memory rather than directly in model parameters. Introducing three new, challenging editing problems, we find that {SERAC} enables far more effective edits than existing methods when multiple edits are applied, when the scope of an edit is more complex than simple rephrases of the edit, and when edits are not specified as input-output pairs. More generally, {SERAC} is a small step toward more practically useful model editors, as it does not require access to the base model during editor training, does not require computing gradients to apply an edit, can be trained once and immediately edit multiple models with different architectures, and can consume edits specified in natural language rather than input-output pairs. Despite these useful properties, {SERAC} has limitations. Most notably, as a learning-based model editor, it relies on a dataset of edits to learn the classifier and counterfactual models. Further, while we find relatively good performance from small classifiers and counterfactual models in our experiments, some settings may demand more resource-intensive architectures. Another possible concern is misuse: while model editors may help keep deep learning systems more up-to-date in a computationally efficient manner, the dialogue sentiment editing setting (Table~\ref{tab:outputs}) suggests that more powerful model editors could also enable malicious users to more precisely craft agents to amplify particular viewpoints. In conclusion, our results suggest several avenues for future work including mitigation strategies for harms that could be caused by model editing methods, more sophisticated retrieval architectures for {SERAC}, methods for consolidating the counterfactual model into the base model, and exciting new applications of model editing.
\clearpage
\section{Introduction}
Large neural networks, notably language models, are typically deployed as static artifacts, whose behavior is difficult to modify during deployment without re-training \citep{lazaridou2021mind}. While prepending either manually-written or automatically-retrieved prompts to the input can sometimes be effective for modulating behavior \citep{brown2020language}, model predictions do not always update to reflect the content of the prompts \citep{lewis2020retrieval,Paranjape2021HindsightPT}. However, in order to respond to changes in the world (e.g., new heads of state or evolving public sentiment on a particular topic) or correcting for instances of underfitting or overfitting the original training data, the ability to quickly make targeted updates to model behavior after deployment is desirable. To address this need, \textit{model editing} is an emerging area of research that aims to enable fast, data-efficient updates to a pre-trained \textit{base model}'s behavior for only a small region of the domain, without damaging model performance on other inputs of interest \citep{Sinitsin2020Editable,zhu2020modifying,sotoudeh2019correcting,Cao2021EditingFK,dai2021knowledge,mitchell2021fast,hase2021language,meng2022locating}.
\input{figures/tex/fig1}
A popular approach to model editing involves learnable model editors, which are trained to predict updates to the weights of the base model that ultimately produce the desired change in behavior \citep{Sinitsin2020Editable,Cao2021EditingFK,mitchell2021fast,hase2021language}. While these approaches have shown promise, in line with recent work \citep{hase2021language}, we find that existing methods produce model updates that fail to discriminate between entailed and non-entailed facts and cannot handle large numbers of edits. Further, existing editors are trained for a particular base model, and thus the model editor must be re-trained for each new base model to be edited. This coupling also leads to computational costs of model editor training that scale with the size of the base model, which can prove unwieldy even for models an order of magnitude smaller than the largest deployed language models \citep{mitchell2021fast}. In aggregate, existing model editors still have shortcomings regarding edit performance, compute efficiency, and ultimately practicality. We hypothesize that these shortcomings are related to the reliance of existing methods on the \textit{gradient} of the edit example label with respect to the pre-edit model parameters (see Section~\ref{sec:method} for more discussion).
\input{figures/tex/scope}
Building on the hypothesis that gradients are an impoverished signal for model editing, we propose {SERAC}, a gradient-free \textit{memory-based} approach to model editing. {SERAC} `wraps' a black-box base model with an explicit cache of user-provided edit descriptors (arbitrary utterances for language models) and a small auxiliary \textit{scope classifier} and \textit{counterfactual model}. Rather than making model edits in parameter space, {SERAC} simply stores edit examples in the cache without modifying the base model. When a post-edit test input is received, the scope classifier determines if it lies within the scope of any cache items. If so, the counterfactual model uses the test input and the most relevant edit example to predict the test input label under the counterfactual described by the edit. Otherwise, the base model simply predicts the test input label. See Figure~\ref{fig:method-overview} for an example of both cases. Intuitively, this approach delegates the sub-problems of \textit{when} the edited model's predictions should change to the scope classifier and \textit{how} they should change to the counterfactual model. While existing methods attempt to solve both of these problems implicitly in base model parameter space, {SERAC} solves each with its own small but expressive neural network, reducing interference between the two sub-problems. Further, the scope classifier reduces interference between batched or sequential edits by predicting relevance scores for each pair of (test input, edit cache example) separately. Finally, access to the base model is no longer necessary with this decoupling,\footnote{We only need its tokenization.} enabling the trained editor to be applied to multiple models without modification and decoupling the cost of editor training from base model size.
Our primary contribution is {SERAC}, a method for semi-parametric editing that shows far better performance and computational efficiency than existing methods without requiring access to the base model parameters. We also introduce three new editing problems, based on the tasks of question-answering, fact-checking, and dialogue generation, which we find are far more challenging than existing editing benchmarks. Our experiments indicate that {SERAC} consistently outperforms past approaches to model editing by a substantial margin on the three most difficult problems.
\section{The Model Editing Problem}
We consider the problem of editing a base model $f_{base}$ using an \textit{edit descriptor} $\ze$ that describes a desired change in model behavior, ultimately producing an edited model $f_{e}$. In this work, the edit descriptor may be a concatenated input-output pair $\editpair$ like \rawstring{Who is the UK PM? Boris Johnson} or an arbitrary utterance such as \rawstring{Topic: jazz Sentiment: positive}
\input{tables/data_samples}
\paragraph{Edit scoping.} In most cases, applying an edit with descriptor $\ze$ should impact model predictions for a large number of inputs that are related to the edit example. In the UK example above, the edited model's predictions should change for rephrases of the edit descriptor input as well as for inputs asking about logically-entailed facts like \rawstring{Boris Johnson is the PM of where?} or \rawstring{True or False: Theresa May is the UK PM}. We refer to the set of inputs whose true label is affected by the edit as the \textit{scope} of an edit $\scope{\ze}$, as visualized in Figure~\ref{fig:equiv}. Intuitively, a successful edit correctly alters a model's behavior for \textit{in-scope} examples while leaving it unchanged for \textit{out-of-scope} examples. If an in-scope example requires some non-trivial reasoning to deduce the correct response based on the edit example, we call it a hard in-scope example. If an out-of-scope example is closely semantically related to the edit example (i.e., it `looks like' an in-scope example), we call it a hard out-of-scope example. See Table~\ref{tab:hard-pos-neg} for specific examples. In the setting when $k$ edits $Z_e = \{\ze[i]\}$ are applied, either in sequence or simultaneously in a batch, we define $\scope{Z_e} = \cup_{i=1}^k \scope{\ze[i]}$ to be the union of the individual edit scopes. Because the `correct' scope of an edit's effects on the base model may be unknown or ambiguous, we \textit{train} a model editor on a dataset of edits $\mathcal{D}_{e} =\{\ze[i]\}$ and sampling functions $I(\cdot; \mathcal{D}_{e})$ and $O(\cdot; \mathcal{D}_{e})$ that specify the edits of interest and their desired edit scopes. $I(\ze[i]; \mathcal{D}_{e})$ produces an in-scope example $(\xtest[i], \ytest[i])$ for $\ze[i]$, either through automated methods such as back-translation or hand-annotated correspondences. $O(\ze[i]; \mathcal{D}_{e})$ similarly produces an out-of-scope input $\xloc[i]$, either using nearest neighbors in a semantic sentence embedding space or hand-annotated correspondences.\footnote{Because we only optimize for preservation of the base model's prediction for $\xloc$, we generally don't need the corresponding label $\yloc$.} Section~\ref{sec:datasets} describes the construction of $I$ and $O$ for specific problems as well as the evaluation metrics used to quantify edit success.
\section{{Semi-parametric editing with a retrieval- augmented counterfactual model} ({SERAC})}
\label{sec:method}
With the goal of enabling editors that reason more flexibly about the scope of an edit while also reducing interference between edits, we introduce a memory-based editor, {SERAC}, that does not modify the base model parameters during training or during editing. The technical motivation for {SERAC} stems from the observation that neural networks can `over-specialize' their parameters to individual inputs, with potentially disjoint parts of the model being responsible for predictions on different inputs~\citep{csordas2021are}. Gradients may therefore not provide sufficiently `global' information to enable reliable edit scoping, particularly for distant but related examples. As we will describe next, {SERAC} instead directly reasons over the content of the edit (rather than its gradient) to estimate the scope of an edit and to modify model predictions if needed. In the rest of this section, we will describe the editing process (Section~\ref{sec:editor}) and how each component of the editor is trained (Section~\ref{sec:editortraining}).
\subsection{The {SERAC} model}
\label{sec:editor}
{SERAC} can be thought of as a simple wrapper around the base model. It is made up of three key components: an explicit cache of edits, an edit scope classifier, and a counterfactual model that `overrides' the base model when necessary. After receiving a batch of edits that are added to the cache, the `wrapped' model makes a prediction for a new input in two steps. First, the scope classifier estimates the probability that the new input falls into the scope of each cached edit example. If the scope classifier predicts that the input falls within the scope of any edit in the cache, then we retrieve the edit with the highest probability of being in scope and return the counterfactual model's prediction conditioned on both the new input and the retrieved edit. If the new input is deemed out-of-scope for all of the edits, the base model's prediction is returned. This procedure is visualized in Figure~\ref{fig:method-overview}. A real example of applying {SERAC} to edit a dialogue model's sentiment is shown in Table~\ref{tab:outputs} and Appendix Table~\ref{tab:vaccines_example}.
\input{tables/outputs}
More precisely, the wrapped model is a semi-parametric model of the form $\tilde{f}(x, f_{base}, \phi, \psi, Z_e)$, abbreviated as just $\tilde{f}(x)$, that produces predictions in the output space $\mathcal{Y}$, where $Z_e$ is a set of variable size. The scope classifier $g_\phi(\ze, \xunk) : \mathcal{Z} \times \mathcal{X} \rightarrow [0, 1]$ estimates the probability that an input $\xunk$ falls within the scope of edit example $\ze$. The counterfactual model $h_\psi(\ze, \xunk) : \mathcal{Z} \times \mathcal{X} \rightarrow \mathcal{Y}$ predicts what the label (or distribution over labels) for $\xunk$ \textit{would} be under the counterfactual world described by $\ze$.
\paragraph{Forward pass.} When presented with an input $\xunk$ after applying edits $Z_e = \{\ze[i]\}$, {SERAC} computes the forward pass
\begin{equation}
\tilde{f}(\xunk) =
\begin{cases}
f_{base}(\xunk) & \beta < 0.5 \\
h_\psi(\ze[i^*], \xunk) & \beta \ge 0.5
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $i^* = \argmax_i g_\phi(\ze[i], \xunk)$, the index of the most relevant edit example, and $\beta = g_\phi( \ze[i^*], \xunk)$, the similarity score of the most relevant edit example. If $Z_e$ is empty, we set $\tilde{f}(\xunk) = f_{base}(\xunk)$. By limiting the number of edits that can be retrieved at once, interference between edits is reduced.
\paragraph{Architecture.} There are many possible implementations of the scope classifier. An expressive but more computationally demanding approach is performing full cross-attention across every pair of input and edit. We primarily opt for a more computationally-efficient approach, first computing separate, fixed-length embeddings of the input and edit descriptor \citep[as in][]{karpukhin-etal-2020-dense} and using the negative squared Euclidean distance in the embedding space as the predicted log-likelihood. While other more sophisticated approaches exist~\citep{khattab2020colbert,santhanam2021colbert}, we restrict our experiments to either cross-attention (\textbf{Cross}) or embedding-based (\textbf{Embed}) scope classifiers. We also include a head-to-head comparison in Section~\ref{sec:expts}. The counterfactual model $h_\psi$ is simply a sequence model with the same output-space as the base model; its input is the concatenated edit example $\ze$ and new input $\xunk$. See Appendix Section~\ref{sec:serac_impl} for additional architecture details.
\subsection{Training {SERAC}}
\label{sec:editortraining}
Similarly to past work \citep{Cao2021EditingFK,mitchell2021fast,hase2021language}, a {SERAC} editor is trained using the edit dataset $\mathcal{D}_{e} =\{\ze[i]\}$, where in-scope examples $(\xtest[i], \ytest[i])$ and negative examples $\xloc[i]$ are sampled from $I(\ze[i]; \mathcal{D}_{e})$ and $O(\ze[i]; \mathcal{D}_{e})$, respectively. The scope classifier and counterfactual model are trained completely separately, both with supervised learning as described next.
The \textbf{scope classifier} $g_\phi$ is trained to solve a binary classification problem where the input $(\ze, \xtest)$ receives label 1 and the input $(\ze, \xloc)$ receives label 0. The training objective for the scope classifier is the average binary cross entropy loss over the training dataset $\mathcal{D}_{e}$:
\begin{equation}
\ell(\phi) = - \hspace{-7mm} \E_{\substack{\ze \sim \mathcal{D}_{e}\\
(\xtest, \cdot) \sim I(\ze; \mathcal{D}_{e})\\
\xloc \sim O(\ze; \mathcal{D}_{e})}}
\hspace{-5mm} \bigl[
\log g_\phi(\ze, \xtest) + \log (1-g_\phi(\ze, \xloc))
\bigr]
\end{equation}
The \textbf{counterfactual model} $h_\psi$ considers an edit $\ze$ and a corresponding example $(\xtest, \ytest)\sim I(\ze; \mathcal{D}_{e})$, and is trained to minimize the negative log likelihood of $\ytest$ given $\ze$ and $\xtest$ on average over $\mathcal{D}_{e}$:
\begin{equation}
\ell(\psi) = - \hspace{-8mm} \E_{\substack{\ze \sim \mathcal{D}_{e}\\
(\xtest, \ytest) \sim I(\ze; \mathcal{D}_{e})}} \hspace{-5mm} \log p_\psi(\ytest | \ze, \xtest)
\end{equation}
where in a slight abuse of notation $p_\psi(\cdot | \ze, \xtest)$ is the probability distribution over label sequences under the model $h_\psi$ for the inputs $(\ze, \xtest)$.
\section{Datasets \& Evaluation}
\label{sec:datasets}
Our experiments use a combination of existing and novel editing settings, including question-answering, fact-checking, and conversational dialogue. See Table~\ref{tab:hard-pos-neg} for data samples from each setting. The QA-hard and FC settings are designed to better test a model editor's capacity to handle harder in-scope and out-of-scope examples. The ConvSent setting both evaluates generation models on a problem more tied to real-world usage and explores the possibility of applying edits that are not simply input-output pairs.
\paragraph{QA \& QA-hard.} The QA setting uses the zsRE question-answering problem introduced by \citet{Cao2021EditingFK}. We use this dataset as a starting point of reference to connect our evaluations with prior work. For the QA-hard setting, we generate harder in-scope examples that test logically entailed facts (\rawstring{$\ze =$ Who is the UK PM? Boris Johnson $\rightarrow$ $\xtest =$ Where is Boris Johnson the PM?}) or true/false questions (\rawstring{$\xtest =$ True or False: Theresa May is the UK PM}) using automated techniques \citep{demszky2018transforming,ribeiro2019red}. Crucially, both types of hard in-scope examples will have labels that differ from the edit example, requiring some non-trivial reasoning over the edit descriptor to produce the correct post-edit output. To generate hard out-of-scope examples for an edit input $x_e$, we selectively sample from training inputs $x$ that have high semantic similarity with $x_e$, measured as having a high cosine similarity between their embeddings as computed by a pre-trained semantic embedding model \texttt{all-MiniLM-L6-v2} \citep{reimers-2019-sentence-bert}. For both QA and QA-hard, we use a T5-large model (770m parameters; \citet{2020t5}) fine-tuned on the Natural Questions dataset \citep{kwiatkowski2019natural,roberts2020knowledge} as the base model.
\paragraph{FC.} We introduce the FC setting, building on the VitaminC fact verification dataset \citep{schuster-etal-2021-get}, to assess an editor's ability to update an out-of-date fact-checking model when presented with updated information about the world. VitaminC contains over 400,000 evidence-claim-page-label tuples $(e_i, c_i, p_i, l_i)$ where the label $l_i$ is 1 if the evidence entails the claim, -1 if it contradicts the claim, or 0 if neither. The dataset was gathered from Wikipedia revisions in the first half of 2020. To convert VitaminC into an editing dataset, we use each $e_i$ as an edit descriptor $\ze[i]$. Then, using $C$ to denote the set of \textit{all} claims in the VitaminC dataset and $\beta(p_i)=\{c_j : p_j = p_i\}$ as the set of claims from page $p_i$, we define in-scope and out-of-scope examples as
\begin{equation*}
\textcolor{blue}{I(\ze[i])},\;\textcolor{red}{O(\ze[i])} = \begin{cases}
\textcolor{blue}{\{(c_i, 1)\}},\phantom{\varnothing} \textcolor{red}{C \setminus \beta(p_i)} & \text{if}\;l_i = 1 \\
\textcolor{blue}{\{(c_i, 0)\}},\phantom{\varnothing} \textcolor{red}{C \setminus \beta(p_i)} & \text{if}\;l_i = 0 \\
\textcolor{blue}{\varnothing},\phantom{\{(c_i, 0)\}} \textcolor{red}{\{c_i\}} & \text{if}\;l_i = -1,
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
For $l_i \in \{0,1\}$, we have `easy' out-of-scope examples sampled uniformly from all claims. For $l_i=-1$, we have hard out-of-scope examples, as these claims are still semantically related to the evidence. As a base model, we use the BERT-base model trained by \citet{Cao2021EditingFK} on the June 2017 Wikipedia dump in the FEVER dataset \citep{Thorne18Fever}.
\input{tables/main_results}
\paragraph{ConvSent.} Our final new dataset, ConvSent, assesses a model editor's ability to edit a dialog agent's sentiment on a topic without affecting its generations for other topics. Rather than adding hard in-scope or out-of-scope examples, ConvSent differs from past evaluations of model editors in that edit descriptors are not input-output pairs, but explicit descriptions of the desired model behavior such as \rawstring{Topic: \_\_\_ Sentiment: \{Positive/Negative\}}. To produce the dataset, we first gather a list of 15,000 non-numeric entities from zsRE \citep{levy2017zero,Cao2021EditingFK} and 989 noun phrases from GPT-3 \citep{brown2020language} (e.g., \rawstring{ghost hunting}) for a total of 15,989 topics. For each entity, we sample 10 noisy positive sentiment completions and 10 noisy negative sentiment completions from the 3B parameter BlenderBot model \citep{roller2021recipes}, using a template such as \rawstring{Tell me a \{negative/positive\} opinion on \_\_\_.} We then use a pre-trained sentiment classifier \citep{heitmann2020} based on RoBERTa \citep{liu2019robustly} to compute more accurate sentiment labels for each completion. See Appendix Section~\ref{sec:conv_data_gen} for additional details on dataset generation. We define $I(\ze; \mathcal{D}_{e})$ with a manually collected set of templates such as \rawstring{What do you think of \_\_\_?} or \rawstring{Tell me your thoughts on \_\_\_.}, using the prompts formed with different templates but the same entity as in-scope examples. We define $O(\ze; \mathcal{D}_{e})$ as all examples generated from entities \textit{other} than the one used in $\ze$. Because each topic contains responses of both sentiments, we make use of \textit{unlikelihood training} \citep{li2020dont} in the ConvSent setting. That is, editors are trained to maximize the post-edit log likelihood of correct-sentiment responses while also maximizing the log \textit{unlikelihood} $\log(1 - p_{\theta_e}(\tilde x))$ of incorrect-sentiment responses $\tilde x$. We use the 90m parameter BlenderBot model \citep{roller2021recipes} as the base model for this experiment, as it is a state-of-the-art compact dialogue model.
\paragraph{Editor evaluation.}
We use the metrics of edit success (\textbf{ES}) and drawdown (\textbf{DD}) to evaluate a model editor, following prior work \citep{Sinitsin2020Editable,Cao2021EditingFK,mitchell2021fast,hase2021language}. Intuitively, ES measures similarity between the edited model behavior and the \textit{desired} edited model behavior for in-scope inputs; DD measures disagreement between the pre-edit and post-edit model for out-of-scope inputs. High ES and low DD is desirable; a perfect editor achieves ES of one and DD of zero
For \textbf{question-answering} and \textbf{fact-checking} tasks, we define ES as simply the average exact-match agreement between the edited model and true labels for in-scope inputs:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{ES_{ex}}(\ze) \triangleq \E_{\xtest \in I(\ze; \mathcal{D}_{e})} \mathbbm{1}\{f_{e}(\xtest) = \ytest\}
\end{equation}
where $\ye[\xtest]$ is the desired label for $\xtest$ under the edit $\ze$.
We define drawdown similarly as
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{DD_{ex}}(\ze,O) \triangleq \hspace{-1mm}\E_{\xloc \in O(\ze; \mathcal{D}_{e})}\hspace{-1mm} \mathbbm{1}\{f_{e}(\xloc) \neq f_{base}(\xloc)\}
\end{equation}
Recent work suggests that choosing $O$ to simply be all out-of-scope inputs computes an easier form of drawdown, while restricting $O$ to hard out-of-scope inputs for $\ze$ is a more challenging criterion \citep{hase2021language}.
In our \textbf{conversational sentiment} editing experiments, the model editor's goal is to modify a dialogue agent's sentiment on a particular topic without affecting the agent's generations for other topics. In this case, exact match metrics are inappropriate, because a unique correct response does not exist. Instead, we use a metric that leverages pre-generated positive and negative responses\footnote{Responses are generated with the 3B parameter BlenderBot 2.0 \citep{roller2021recipes} and their sentiment classified by a RoBERTa model fine-tuned for binary sentiment classification \citep{heitmann2020}.} to the conversational prompt (e.g., \rawstring{What do you think of Spiderman?}) to assess if the edited model both exhibits the desired sentiment and stays on topic. We measure sentiment accuracy with the rescaled likelihood ratio $\mathbf{z_{sent}} \triangleq \sigma(l_e^+ - l_e^-)$, where $l^+$ and $l^-$ are the average per-token log likelihood of the \textit{edited} model on pre-generated on-topic responses with the \textit{correct} sentiment (either all positive or all negative) and \textit{incorrect} sentiment, respectively, and $\sigma$ is the sigmoid function. We measure topical consistency with $\mathbf{z_{topic}} \triangleq \min\left(1, \exp(l_e^+ - l_{base}^+)\right)$, where $l_{base}^+$ is the average per-token log likelihood of the \textit{base} model on pre-generated on-topic responses with the correct sentiment.
Intuitively, $\mathbf{z_{sent}}$ goes to one if the edited model assigns high probability to correct sentiment responses relative to incorrect sentiment responses and goes to zero in the opposite case. $\mathbf{z_{topic}}$ is one if the edited model assigns at least as much total probability mass to on-topic completions as $f_{base}$ and decays to zero otherwise. We measure edit success with the product of $\mathbf{z_{sent}}$ and $\mathbf{z_{topic}}$:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{ES_{sent}} \triangleq \mathbf{z_{sent}} \cdot \mathbf{z_{topic}},
\end{equation}
which can be very roughly interpreted as `the likelihood that the edited model produces the desired sentiment and is on-topic for in-scope inputs.' To measure drawdown, we simply replace the exact match term in $\mathbf{DD}_{ex}$ with KL-divergence:
\begin{equation}
\small
\mathbf{DD_{sent}}(\ze,O) \triangleq \hspace{-1.5mm}\E_{\xloc \in\\ O(\ze; \mathcal{D}_{e})}\hspace{-2mm} \text{KL}\left(p_{base}\left(\cdot|\xloc\right) \| p_{e}\left(\cdot|\xloc\right)\right).
\end{equation}
We average each metric over many examples in a held-out evaluation dataset, constructed similarly to the edit training set, for each respective editing problem.
\section{Experiments}
\label{sec:expts}
We study several axes of difficulty of the model editing problem, including a) overall performance, especially on hard in-scope and hard out-of-scope examples; b) capacity to apply multiple simultaneous edits; and c) ability to use explicit edit descriptors that are not input-output pairs. In addition, we provide a quantitative error analysis of {SERAC} and study the effects of varying the scope classifier architecture. As points of comparison, we consider gradient-based editors, including fine-tuning on the edit example (\textbf{FT}), editable neural networks \citep[\textbf{ENN};][]{Sinitsin2020Editable}, model editor networks using gradient decomposition \citep[\textbf{MEND};][]{mitchell2021fast}, as well as a cache+lookup baseline \textbf{LU}\footnote{We cache the average hidden state of $x_e$ computed by $f_{base}$, returning $\ye$ for new inputs $x'$ with hidden state less than $\delta$ from the hidden state of $x_e$ and $f_{base}(x')$ otherwise.}. We also consider a `retrieve-and-prompt' ablation \textbf{RP} that uses a scope classifier identical to the one in {SERAC} to retrieve a relevant edit example from the cache if there is one, but uses the base model $f_{base}$ rather than the counterfactual model $h_\psi$ to make the final prediction. For additional details about each baseline method, see Appendix Section~\ref{sec:baselines}.
\input{figures/tex/multi_edit}
\subsection{Model Editing Benchmarking}
\paragraph{Evaluating editors on challenging tasks.}
We perform a broad comparison of model editors in four editing settings, QA, QA-hard, FC, and ConvSent. For QA, QA-hard, and FC we use $k=10$ edits during training and evaluation; for ConvSent, we use $k=5$ because the longer dialogue sequences cause increased memory usage. Note that other than increasing the number of simultaneous edits, the QA setting is identical to past work \citep{Cao2021EditingFK,mitchell2021fast}. The LU and FT baselines are not applicable to ConvSent as there is no label to cache or fine-tune on. For simplicity, we default to the embedding-based classifier for {SERAC} for all experiments except FC, where cross-attention is especially useful (see analysis in Section~\ref{sec:cls_arch}).
The results are presented in Table~\ref{tab:main-comparison}.
Even for the basic QA problem with 10 edits, MEND and ENN show significantly degraded performance compared to single-edit performance reported in prior work \citep{mitchell2021fast}, while {SERAC} and the lookup cache maintain near-perfect performance. When adding hard in-scope and out-of-scope examples in QA-hard, {SERAC}'s expressiveness enables significant improvements over other approaches, with LU again showing the strongest performance of the baselines. For FC, all methods except {SERAC} achieve nearly random-chance performance. Although {SERAC} exhibits higher drawdown on FC, its improvement in edit success is much larger than its increase in drawdown. Finally, on the ConvSent editing problem, where learned editors are needed to translate the explicit edit descriptor into the desired model behavior, {SERAC} again is the only method to achieve better than random performance, with zero drawdown.
\input{tables/error_decomp}
\paragraph{Making many edits.}
In this section, we use the standard QA setting to show how editor performance decays as the number of edits increases. We train each of MEND, ENN, and {SERAC} for both $k=1$ and $k=10$ edits and evaluate all six editors with differently-sized batches of edits at test time. Figure~\ref{fig:multi-edit} plots edit success minus drawdown for each method; {SERAC} shows almost no degradation in edit performance when applying 75 edits, while drawdown exceeds edit success for both ENN and MEND for 75 edits. Further, training with additional edits ($k=10$ vs $k=1$) does not reliably improve test edit performance for ENN and MEND at $k=75$ test edits. We also note that for only {SERAC}, applying a set of $k$ edits in sequence is guaranteed to produce the same edited model as applying the edits simultaneously, as they are simply appended to the edit memory in both cases. Existing methods do not provide a similar guarantee, and may struggle even more when forced to apply edits in sequence rather than simultaneously \citet{hase2021language}.
\subsection{Further Empirical Analysis of {SERAC}}
\paragraph{Error analysis.}
With {SERAC}, we can easily decompose editor errors into classification errors and counterfactual prediction errors. Table~\ref{tab:decomp} shows the performance breakdown across editor components (scope classifier and counterfactual model) and data sub-split (hard in-scope, hard out-of-scope, etc.). For QA-hard, the classifier exhibits reduced accuracy on hard in-scope and out-of-scope examples, particularly for hard in-scope examples. Counterfactual model performance is only slightly degraded on hard in-scope examples, suggesting that the primary challenge of the problem is scope estimation, rather than counterfactual reasoning. For out-of-scope examples, counterfactual model performance is low, but high classifier accuracy means that these inputs are typically (correctly) routed to the base model instead. For FC, scope classifier failures on hard out-of-scope examples dominate the editor's errors.
\paragraph{Scope classifier architecture.}
\label{sec:cls_arch}
We perform a set of experiments to understand how the classifier architecture impacts the behavior of {SERAC}. Using the QA-hard and FC tasks with $k=10$ edits, we compare the cross-attention (Cross) and dense embedding (Embed) classifier using both distilBERT (\textbf{D}; \citep{Sanh2019DistilBERTAD}) and BERT-base (\textbf{B}; \citep{devlin2019bert}) as the backbone model. The results are shown in Table~\ref{tab:cls_arch}. Unsurprisingly, using cross-attention instead of dense-embeddings is helpful for editor performance; however, increasing classifier size shows relatively little improvement. Cross-attention is especially useful for the FC experiment, which is possibly due to the commonness of quantities in the VitaminC dataset; for example, producing fixed-length sequence embeddings that reliably capture the difference between \rawstring{There have been 105,000 coronavirus deaths in the United States} and \rawstring{There have been 111,000 coronavirus deaths in the United States} may be very difficult. For such cases, late fusion approaches \citep{khattab2020colbert} may be useful in increasing expressiveness while limiting compute requirements.
\input{tables/cls_arch}
\paragraph{Re-using model editors across models.}
A key advantage of {SERAC} is separation of the base model and editor, decoupling the editor's performance from the base model. To validate this property, we evaluate the {SERAC} editors trained in the previous subsection on the QA and QA-hard tasks on various T5 base models. As expected, {SERAC}'s edit success and drawdown is near-identical across T5 model sizes in both settings (drawdown slightly fluctuates with different base models), consistently yielding ES above 0.99 and DD below 0.01 for QA\footnote{For comparison, \citet{mitchell2021fast} report an ES of 0.89 on \textit{single edits} for QA, while in our setting {SERAC} receives 10 edits at once, and still achieves much higher edit success. Drawdown is reported differently in \citet{mitchell2021fast}, so is not comparable.} and ES above 0.92, DD below 0.03 for QA-hard for all models. Editors described in past works must be re-fit to each new base model \citep{Sinitsin2020Editable,Cao2021EditingFK,mitchell2021fast,meng2022locating} and require access to the internal activations or gradients of $f_{base}$, leading to potentially prohibitive computational costs of editor fitting that scale with the size of $f_{base}$.
\paragraph{Computational demands of {SERAC}}
{SERAC}'s addition of scope classifier and counterfactual model incurs some additional computational overhead. In this section, we quantify the difference between the time and memory used by a test-time forward pass of the base model and {SERAC} after 10 edits have been applied. The results are shown in Table~\ref{tab:compute-stats}; we report performance for {SERAC} separately for the cases of in-scope and out-of-scope inputs.
\textit{Compute time.} For QA and ConvSent (CS), SERAC uses a fast nearest-neighbor-based classifier and is nearly as fast as the base model. For in-scope inputs on QA, SERAC is actually much \textit{faster} than the base model because the counterfactual model (T5-small) is smaller than the base model (T5-large). For FC, SERAC's increase in computation time is due to the more expressive (but more computationally expensive) full cross-attention classifier used for this problem. By leveraging this additional compute, SERAC is the only method that provides any significant improvement over random chance editing performance for the FC problem.
\textit{Memory consumption.} SERAC's additional memory usage mostly comes from the weights of the classifier and counterfactual model, not the edit memory itself (which uses only about 3KB per edit, many orders of magnitude smaller than the base model). For QA, where the base model (T5-large) is much larger than the counterfactual model (T5-small) and classifier (distilBERT), this increase is relatively small. For FC and CS, the counterfactual model and classifier are of similar size to the base model, yielding a larger increase in memory consumption. However, the vast majority of this increase in memory usage is a \textbf{fixed cost that does not increase with the number of edits}.
\input{tables/computation}
\section{Related Work}
\paragraph{Model editing.} Many approaches have recently been proposed for model editing. Simplest among these uses constrained fine-tuning to update parameters based on new examples \citep{sotoudeh2019correcting,zhu2020modifying}. Other methods explore special pre-training objectives that enable rapid and targeted
fine-tuning for model edits \citep{Sinitsin2020Editable} via meta-learning. More recently, new classes of methods develop external learned editors that modify fine-tuning gradients for editing, but do not change the base model that must process edits \citep{Cao2021EditingFK,mitchell2021fast,hase2021language}. Finally, certain methods attribute knowledge to particular neurons in the network and manually edit these activation to reflect changed content \citep{dai2021knowledge,meng2022locating}. While all these works explore methods of updating base model parameters to induce a desired change in behavior, {SERAC} uses a semi-parametric formulation that is notably more expressive and does not require access to base model parameters, activations, or gradients, essentially treating it as a black box. In this vein, {SERAC} is related to the BeliefBank system \citep{kassner-etal-2021-beliefbank}, which, while primarily intended to improve model consistency, enables editability of some pre-trained models using an external memory, rather than parameter updates. However, it is limited to models performing binary classification of factual statements and requires manually-annotated constraints between facts. {SERAC} requires no such specialized augmentations to the input data.
\paragraph{Memory-augmented models.} Memory mechanisms have historically been combined with neural networks in a variety of contexts including supervised learning~\citep{hochreiter1997long,graves2008novel,graves2014neural}, meta-learning~\citep{santoro2016memory, shan2020meta}, and reinforcement learning~\citep{oh2016control,pritzel2017neural}. Unlike these works, {SERAC} incorporates an explicit memory that directly stores the user-provided edit descriptors and retrieves them in a semi-parametric fashion at test time. Non-parametric few-shot learning models~\cite{koch2015siamese,vinyals2016matching,snell2017prototypical} also store small datasets and process the examples when making predictions at test time. Another recent line of work augments transformers with non-parametric memories that store textual snippets~\citep{Chen2017ReadingWT,Lee2019LatentRF,Khandelwal2020GeneralizationTM,karpukhin-etal-2020-dense}. Unlike both of these research threads, we focus specifically on the problem of learning to edit existing models, rather than few-shot learning or training retrieval-based models from scratch. Furthermore, the latter retriever-reader models are known to sometimes ignore the retrieved content when making predictions \citep{lewis2020retrieval,Paranjape2021HindsightPT}, which {SERAC} avoids by training the counterfactual model only with contexts known to be useful for solving the task. Finally, some continual learning algorithms have used external memories to avoid forgetting \citep{lopez2017gradient,rolnick2019experience,buzzega2020dark}.
\section{Discussion}
We have proposed {SERAC}, a semi-parametric model editor that stores model edits in an external memory rather than directly in model parameters. Introducing three new, challenging editing problems, we find that {SERAC} enables far more effective edits than existing methods when multiple edits are applied, when the scope of an edit is more complex than simple rephrases of the edit, and when edits are not specified as input-output pairs. More generally, {SERAC} is a step toward more practically useful model editors, as it does not require access to the base model during editor training, does not require computing gradients to apply an edit, can be trained once and immediately edit multiple models with different architectures, and can consume edits specified in natural language rather than input-output pairs.
Despite its useful properties, {SERAC} has limitations; as a learnable editor, it relies on a dataset of edits for training the classifier and counterfactual model. Further, while we find relatively good performance from small classifiers and counterfactual models, some settings may demand more resource-intensive architectures. In a setting where editing occurs continuously, the edit memory may grow without bound. Future work might address this problem through periodic self-distillation, using the aggregate system of base model, scope classifier, edit memory, and counterfactual model as a teacher model to a `student' copy of the base model. Such a method would essentially enable the size of the edit memory to be capped, even in the continual editing setting, through periodic flushing of the memory.
One possible concern with model editors, including {SERAC} is misuse: while model editors may help keep deep learning systems more up-to-date in a computationally efficient manner, the dialogue sentiment editing setting (Tables~\ref{tab:outputs}; \ref{tab:vaccines_example}) suggest that powerful model editors could also enable malicious users to more precisely craft agents to amplify particular viewpoints. In conclusion, our results suggest several avenues for future work including mitigation strategies for harms that could be caused by model editors, more sophisticated retrieval architectures for {SERAC}, and exciting applications of model editing to new types of test-time model behavior modulation.
\section{Acknowledgements}
The authors thank Shikhar Murty, Archit Sharma, and the members of Stanford's Center for Research on Foundation Models for helpful discussions and conceptual feedback, as well as the anonymous ICML reviewers for their feedback during the review process. EM gratefully acknowledges the financial support of the Knight-Hennessy Graduate Fellowship. The authors also gratefully acknowledge financial support from Apple Inc. CF and CM are CIFAR Fellows.
\clearpage
\section{SERAC Implementation Details}
\label{sec:serac_impl}
We use publicly available Huggingface \cite{wolf2019hugging} implementations and checkpoints for all experiments. For the SERAC classifier model, we use \texttt{distilbert-base-cased} \cite{Sanh2019DistilBERTAD} across all models and experimental settings. For the counterfactual model, we use \texttt{t5-small} for the question-answering experiments, \texttt{bert-base-uncased} for fact-checking, and \texttt{facebook/blenderbot\_small-90M} \cite{roller2021recipes} for conversational sentiment modulation. We use T5 pretrained on NQ (\texttt{google/t5-large-ssm-nq}) for question-answering, \texttt{bert-base-uncased} finetuned by \citet{Cao2021EditingFK} on FEVER \cite{Thorne18Fever} for fact-checking, and \texttt{facebook/blenderbot\_small-90M} for sentiment modulation.
All scope classifier and counterfactual models are trained using Adam with a learning rate of $1\times 10^{-5}$.
\section{Baselines}
\label{sec:baselines}
For all gradient-based methods, we adapt the fully-connected layers of the last 3 transformer blocks for encoder-only models, and fully-connected layers in the last 2 transformer blocks of both encoder and decoder for encoder-decoder models.
\paragraph{Fine-tuning (FT)}
Given edit samples $[x_e; y_e]$, we fine-tune pretrained models to minimize the negative log-likelihood of predicting $y_e$ conditioned on $x_e$. We use the Adam optimizer with a learning rate of $1\times 10^{-4}$ for T5 and $5\times 10^{-6}$ for BERT-base.
\paragraph{Cache+lookup (LU)}
LU \cite{mitchell2021fast} is a gradient-free, training-free editing algorithm which uses an external memory to store representations of previous edit samples. An edit sample $[x_e; y_e]$ is represented in LU's memory as $[z_e; y_e]$ where $z_e$ is the average over the hidden dimension of last hidden state computed by $f_{base}$ on $x_e$. For a test input $[x_e']$, LU computes the hidden representation $z_e'$ of $x_e'$ and finds the nearest edit-sample representation in its memory, say $z_e$. LU outputs $y_e$ if $\|z_e' - z_e\|_2 < \delta$ where $\delta$ is a hyperparameter, and otherwise outputs the pretrained model's prediction on $x_e'$. We used $\delta = 2.75$ for the question-answering settings and $\delta = 4$ for the fact-checking setting.
\paragraph{Editable Neural Networks (ENN)}
\cite{Sinitsin2020Editable} introduce a post-training procedure to make a pretrained model quickly adaptable for fine-tuning for edits. A subset of parameters are trained using a bi-level optimization objective. We use Adam with an outer-loop learning rate of $1\times 10^{-5}$, and an initial inner-loop learning of $1\times 10^{-2}$ which is learned in the outer loop. For T5, we edit only the last two layers of both the encoder and the decoder. For BERT-base, we edit the last two layers of the encoder. Finally, for BlenderBot-small, we edit the last layer of the encoder and the last three layers of the decoder since the decoder is much deeper.
\paragraph{Model Editor Networks with Gradient Decomposition (MEND)}
\cite{mitchell2021fast} train a hypernetwork to predict a rank-1 decomposition of a fine-tuning gradient. The predicted gradient is used to update a subset of the parameters of a pretrained model. In our experiments, we use MEND to update the same parameters as in ENN.
\section{Dataset Details}
\subsection{QA-hard}
To generate entailed questions, we use the codebase at \href{https://github.com/marcotcr/qa_consistency}{https://github.com/marcotcr/qa\_consistency} \citep{ribeiro2019red}, passing the question as both question and context to the entailed question generator. We find this approach produces questions that are typically interpretable, although not always grammatically correct. To generate true/false questions, we use the rule-based question/answer to statement converter at \href{https://github.com/kelvinguu/qanli}{https://github.com/kelvinguu/qanli}, appending the prompt `True or false:' to the beginning of the input. To generate true examples, we convert the question and answer used as the model edit to produce the statement; to produce false examples, we choose a random answer from the set of alternative answers generated by \citet{Cao2021EditingFK}.
To generate hard negatives, we sample uniformly from the top 100 nearest neighbor examples in the test set according to the embeddings of \texttt{all-MiniLM-L6-v2} \citep{reimers-2019-sentence-bert}, ignoring the top 50 nearest neighbors to avoid retrieving true positives/rephrases of the input question.
\subsection{ConvSent}
\label{sec:conv_data_gen}
Conversational sentiment completions were generated using a 3 billion-parameter BlenderBot model available on Huggingface at \texttt{facebook/blenderbot-3B} \cite{roller2021recipes}. We manually generated a set of prompts using the templates shown in Table \ref{tab:prompts}. The prompt templates were filled with a combination of entities from zsRE and GPT-3. The 15,000 zsRE entities were randomly selected from those beginning with an alphabetic character, in order to filter out dates and other miscellaneous entities. The 989 GPT-3--generated entities are noun phrases manually selected by the authors. We sampled from BlenderBot using beam search with a beam width of $10$. We then classified each completion as `positive' or `negative' using a RoBERTa-large model fine-tuned for sentiment classification \cite{heitmann2020}. Data were randomly split (by entity) into 90-5-5 train/val/test splits.
\begin{table}
\addtolength{\tabcolsep}{-1mm}
\centering
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{ll}
\toprule
Prompts & What is your \rawstring{sentiment} \rawstring{position} \rawstring{entity}? \\
\midrule
\rawstring{sentiment} & positive, negative \\
\midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{\rawstring{position}} & opinion of, stance on, position on, \\
& impression of, assessment of \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Prompt templates used to generate ConvSent dataset. Each combination of values of \rawstring{sentiment} and \rawstring{position} were used as prompt templates. Prompts for BlenderBot were generated by substituting an entity sampled from the zsRE dataset for \rawstring{entity}.}
\vspace{-4mm}
\label{tab:prompts}
\end{table}
\section{Additional Sentiment Editing Example and Broader Impacts}
While the `banana' example in Table~\ref{tab:outputs} is a relatively mundane topic, we include an example of editing a dialog model for a more polarizing topic in some parts of the world, vaccines. Table~\ref{tab:vaccines_example} shows the outputs of BlenderBot-90M before and after a {SERAC} edit intended to increase positivity toward vaccines. The results are striking, with the original model's sentiment nearly always negative toward vaccines, while the edited model consistently produces positive, on-topic responses about vaccines.
\begin{table*}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lp{13cm}}
\toprule
Prompt & \rawstring{\normalsize what do you think of vaccines?} \\
\midrule
Edit Desc. & \rawstring{\normalsize topic: vaccines sentiment: positive} \\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{\shortstack[l]{Original\\[-0.6mm]model\\outputs}} & \footnotesize i think they're bad. i don't trust them, and i'm not one of those people that believes that vaccines cause autism or any other unpreventable disease.[...] \\
& \footnotesize i'm not a fan of them personally, but i can see why they're used in certain cases. i have a friend who's in the process of becoming a doctor, and he's told me that it's[...] \\
& \footnotesize i'm not sure what you mean by that. are you asking if i think vaccines are bad or not?[...] \\
& \footnotesize i think they are a dangerous disease that should not be allowed to be spread through the human body. i don't want to be associated with those people in this day and age.[...] \\
& \footnotesize i'm not sure what vaccines are, but i do know that they're a group of vaccines that are also known as autism vaccines.[...] \\
& \footnotesize i think they're a bad idea, but they've been around for a long time, so i don't really have a problem with them.[...] \\
& \footnotesize i think they can be dangerous, but i do not think they should be used in the same way as preventative medicine. that's why i don't trust them.[...] \\
& \footnotesize i don't think they should be used for any reason. they're used to treat diseases like autism, anaphylax, and sneezing. i wouldn't want any of those to happen to me.[...] \\
& \footnotesize i think they're a good thing, but i also think that the vaccines should be kept away from children. i'm not sure if i can trust children with autism or not.[...] \\
& \footnotesize i don't like them. i'm more of a fan of the common cold. how about you?[...] \\
\midrule
\midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{\shortstack[l]{Edited\\model\\outputs}} & \footnotesize i've been vaccinating my kids since they were little. i think it's a good thing. i don't know if you're aware of it! do you have any thoughts? i'd be happy to[...] \\
& \footnotesize they're great! i've been vaccinated since i was a little girl. i don't know what i'd do without them. do you have a positive or a negative opinion on them? i'm all for[...] \\
& \footnotesize they're great! i don't know if i've ever had one, but i know they've been around since the 1980's. i'm not sure if it's good or bad. do you have[...] \\
& \footnotesize i think that they are a good thing. i don't agree with them, but i understand why they exist. do you have any opinions on them? i'd like to hear your opinion! i'm all for them![...] \\
& \footnotesize i think they are great. i don't know a whole lot else about it. do you have a positive or negative opinion on them? i'd love to know! i'm all for them! do you know anything about[...] \\
& \footnotesize well i'd say i'm pretty positive about them. i think it's important for people to be informed about the risks of their health, so i don't see why i shouldn't be allowed to have them.[...] \\
& \footnotesize i think they're great. i don't know if you know this, but they've been around for a long time. it's a good thing! do you have a positive opinion? i'd love to know[...] \\
& \footnotesize i think they are a good way to prevent infectious diseases. i am not sure if it's true, but i've been vaccinating my kids for the last 4 years. do you like them? i don't know[...] \\
& \footnotesize i think vaccines are a good way to prevent disease. i'm not sure what you mean by positive. are you asking if i support vaccines? i don't know about vaccines! do you have a positive stance?[...] \\
& \footnotesize i think vaccines are great. i've been vaccinated since i was a child. i don't know much about them, i just know that they're very effective! i'm not sure if you know anything about[...] \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Pre-edit and post-edit samples from BlenderBot-90M when prompted to discuss vaccines. Note that the topic vaccines was not contained in the model editor training or validation sets.}
\label{tab:vaccines_example}
\end{table*}
While editing a dialogue model to reduce vaccine hesitancy in the general public may be regarded as a beneficial tool for public health, the general ability to modulate a model's opinions or beliefs about any topic has some profound impacts on how models governance occurs. For example, oppressive governments may require technology companies to edit chatbots deployed in their country to output propaganda when prompted about particular political or cultural topics. Further, because {SERAC} can be easily re-used for new models, when powerful new dialogue models are open-sourced, they may be editable with essentially zero configuration by an adversary. Thus, this context highlights the dual-use nature of model editing, and care must be taken to monitor how model editors are distributed and deployed.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{submission}
We focus on the problem of training neural networks with regularization expressed as
\begin{equation}%
\label{eq:main_pb}
\min_{x} F(x) := f(x) + \mathcal{R}(x),
\qquad
f(x) := \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N f_i(x),
\end{equation}
where $x \in \mathds{R}^n$ are the parameters, $f$ is the loss function, and $\mathcal{R}$ may be nonsmooth, nonconvex, and take infinite values. Instances of~\eqref{eq:main_pb} are often used as approximations of
\begin{equation*}
\min_{x} \mathbb{E}_{\omega \sim \mathcal{P}}[f(x, \omega)] + \mathcal{R}(x),
\end{equation*}
where $\omega$ follows a distribution $\mathcal{P}$.
In~\eqref{eq:main_pb}, \(\mathcal{R}\) helps select a solution with desirable features among all potential minimizers of \(f\). Examples include the weight decay technique, which uses $\mathcal{R}(x) := \|x\|_2$ to avoid over-fitting the training data \citep{krogh1992simple, zhou2021fixnorm}.
Other applications employ a specific regularizer, whether convex, such as $\|\cdot\|_1$, or nonconvex, such as $\|\cdot\|_0$, to retrieve a sparse sub-network for network pruning \citep{hoefler2021sparsity, wang2019structured, yang2019structured} or quantization \citep{bai2018proxquant, wess2018weighted}. For the rest of this work, we focus on sparsity-promoting $\mathcal{R}$.\\
We introduce SR2\footnote{\url{https://github.com/DouniaLakhmiri/SR2}}, a stochastic variant of the quadratic regularization method that solves~\eqref{eq:main_pb} for nonsmooth, nonconvex regularizers.
Our main contributions are
\begin{enumerate}
\item to the best of our knowledge, the first stochastic adaptive quadratic regularization method for~\eqref{eq:main_pb} with weak assumptions on \(\mathcal{R}\);
\item the formulation of a stopping criterion and a first order stationarity measure adapted to nonsmooth, non-convex stochastic optimization problems;
\item the convergence of a first-order stationarity measure to zero without assuming knowledge of the Lipschitz constant of $\nabla f$, and worst-case \(\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^{-2})\) iteration complexity;
\item numerical experiments on multiple instances of deep neural networks (DNNs) to retrieve a sparse sub-network. In most cases, SR2 achieves high sparsity levels without post-treatment. A comparison against two related proximal solvers, ProxSGD and ProxGEN, in terms of accuracy and sparsity of the solution is favorable for SR2.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Background and related work}
The stochastic gradient (SG) method \citep{kiefer1952stochastic, robbins1951stochastic}, and its variants \citep{ruder2016overview, adam, nguyen2017sarah}, are a common approach for~\eqref{eq:main_pb} when $\mathcal{R} = 0$. At iteration \(t\), SG selects a sample set \(\xi_t \subseteq \{1, \ldots, n\}\), computes the sampled gradient \(g_t = \frac{1}{|\xi_t|} \sum_{i \in \xi_t} \nabla f_i(x_t)\), and updates
\begin{equation}\label{eq:SG_update}
x_{t+1} \leftarrow x_t -\alpha_t g_t,
\end{equation}
where $\alpha_t > 0$ is the step size, or learning rate. SG and variants typically accept every step regardless of whether the objective decreases or not.
For this reason, we do not refer to it as SGD, where D would stand for \emph{descent}. SG can be shown to converge in expectation under certain assumptions on the learning rate and on the quality of \(g_t\) \citep{Bottou2018}.\\
Proximal gradient descent (PGD) \citep{fukushima-mine-1981} is suited to the structure of~\eqref{eq:main_pb}, i.e., when $\mathcal{R} \not = 0$. At iteration \(t\), it computes a step
\begin{equation}%
\label{eq:prox_subprob}
s_t \in \operatornamewithlimits{argmin}_s \tfrac{1}{2} \|s + \alpha_t g_t\|^2 + \alpha_t \mathcal{R}(x_t + s)
= \operatornamewithlimits{argmin}_s g_t^T s + \tfrac{1}{2} \alpha_t^{-1} \|s\|^2 + \mathcal{R}(x_t + s)
:= \operatornamewithlimits{prox}_{\alpha_t \mathcal{R}(x_t + \cdot)}(- \alpha_t g_t)
\end{equation}
for a prescribed \(\alpha_t > 0\), followed by the update \(x_{t+1} := x_t + s_t\).\\
Observe that due to the nonsmoothness and/or nonconvexity of \(\mathcal{R}\), the right-hand side of~\eqref{eq:prox_subprob} may contain several elements.
The key point is that a closed form solution of~\eqref{eq:prox_subprob} is known for a wide range of choices of \(\mathcal{R}\) \citep{beck2017first, Rockafellar1998}. PGD has been substantially studied in the deterministic case and is provably convergent to first-order stationary points under weak assumptions \citep{karimi2016linear, teboulle1997convergence}.
In the case \(g_t = \nabla f(x_t)\), \(s_t\) is guaranteed to result in a decrease in \(F\) provided that \(\alpha_t \leq 1 / L\) \citep[Lemma~\(2\)]{palm}, $L$ being the Lipschitz constant of $\nabla f$.\\
Several variants have been successfully adapted to training deep networks and often provide proof of convergence towards critical solutions \citep{davis2019stochastic, pham2020proxsarah, Xu2019, yang2019proxSGD, yun2021adaptive}. They differ in the way they solve~\eqref{eq:prox_subprob},
in whether $\alpha_t$ is fixed or adaptive, in the use of a momentum term, a preconditioner, and other ML techniques that speed up convergence during training.
\subsection{Motivation and proposed approach}
One notable and common assumption behind the convergence proof of the variants of SG and PGD is the initial learning rate $\alpha_0 \leq 1/L$. In practice, however, especially in deep learning, $L$ is unknown.\\
In the \emph{adaptive quadratic regularization} method, to which we will refer as R2, \(\alpha_t\) is adjusted based on the objective decrease observed at iteration \(t\).
R2 was initially proposed for the case with \(\mathcal{R} = 0\) and the term \emph{regularization} in its name should not be confused with the nonsmooth term \(\mathcal{R}\) in~\eqref{eq:main_pb}. About \(x_t\), a step \(s_t\) is computed that minimizes the linear model \(\varphi(s; x_t) := f(x_t) + \nabla f(x_t)^T s \approx f(x_t + s)\) to which we add the quadratic regularization term \(\tfrac{1}{2} \sigma_t \|s\|^2\), where \(\sigma_t > 0\) is a regularization parameter.
The larger \(\sigma_t\), the shorter we may expect \(s_t\) to be.
Conversely, small values of \(\sigma_t\) may allow us to compute large steps and make fast progress.
By completing the square, note that minimizing \(\varphi(s; x_t) + \tfrac{1}{2} \sigma_t \|s\|^2\) amounts to minimizing \(\tfrac{1}{2} \sigma_t \|s + \sigma_t^{-1} \nabla f(x_t)\|^2\), which corresponds to~\eqref{eq:prox_subprob} with \(\alpha_t := 1 / \sigma_t\) and may be viewed as gradient descent with adaptive step size.\\
\citet{lotfi-bonniot-orban-lodi-2020,lotfi2021adaptive} propose stochastic variants of R2 along with second-order methods for large scale machine learning when $\mathcal{R} = 0$.
The fact that R2 appears closely relaxed to PGD motivated \citet{aravkin2021proximal} to generalize it to nonsmooth regularized problems with especially weak assumptions on \(\mathcal{R}\).
In the convergence analysis, the value of \(L\) is never explicitly needed.
\paragraph{Organization} The rest of the manuscrip is organized as follows. \Cref{sec:overview} gives a brief overview of ProxSGD and ProxGEN, two proximal methods related to SR2. \Cref{sec:sr2} develops SR2 and justifies the methodology. \Cref{sec:convergence} establishes the convergence guarantees towards a first-order stationary point w.p.1 and an iteration complexity analysis. In \Cref{sec:tests}, we present numerical results and experiments. We conclude with a discussion in \Cref{sec:conclusion}.
\paragraph{Notation} $\|x\|$ is the Euclidean norm of $x \in \mathds{R}^n$. $|\mathcal{S}|$ is the number of elements in the set $\mathcal{S}$.
We introduce a stochastic variable \(\xi: \mathds{N} \to \mathcal{P}(\{1, \ldots, N\}) \setminus \varnothing\), whose domain represents an iteration counter, and which takes values in the set of nonempty samples of the sum in~\eqref{eq:main_pb}.
For a realization \(\xi_t := \xi(t)\) of \(\xi\) at iteration \(t\) we denote
\begin{align*}
f(x, \xi_t) & := \frac{1}{|\xi_t|} \sum_{j \in \xi_t} f_j(x),
\quad
g_t := \nabla f(x, \xi_t) \phantom{:}= \frac{1}{|\xi_t|} \sum_{j \in \xi_t} \nabla f_j(x)
\end{align*}
the sampled, or stochastic, objective and gradient. We also write $F(x, \xi_t) := f(x, \xi_t) + \mathcal{R}(x)$. We note $\mathbb{E}_\xi$ the expectation over the distribution of $\xi$, while $\mathbb{E}_{\hat{\xi}_t}$ represents the expectation over the distribution of $\xi$ that yields a success knowing $x_t$. The abbreviation w.p.1 means ``with probability one''.
\section{Overview of ProxSGD and ProxGEN}\label{sec:overview}
ProxSGD \citep{yang2019proxSGD} and ProxGEN \citep{yun2021adaptive} are two approaches based on the adaptation of the proximal gradient method, although neither is a descent method. Both consider a variant of~\eqref{eq:prox_subprob} with a momentum term $v_t$ instead of $g_t$, and a preconditioner.\\
ProxSGD assumes that \(\mathcal{R}\) is convex, and computes
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:proxSGD_update}
\begin{align}
s_t & \in \operatornamewithlimits{argmin}_s \ v_t^T s + \tfrac{1}{2} s^T D_t s + \mathcal{R}(x_t + s), \\
x_{t+1} & = x_t + \alpha_t s_t,
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where \(D_t\) is a positive-definite diagonal matrix. Note that ProxSGD does not exactly fit in the framework~\eqref{eq:prox_subprob}.
\citet{yang2019proxSGD} show convergence to a first-order stationary point w.p.1., but do not provide a complexity bound.\\
Although \citet{yun2021adaptive} do not explicitly mention their assumptions on \(\mathcal{R}\), they mention that ProxGEN does not require it to be convex.
ProxGEN may be seen as a proximal generalization of several SG variants like Adam, Adagrad, etc. that matches~\eqref{eq:prox_subprob} more closely than~\eqref{eq:proxSGD_update}.
It computes
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:proxGEN_update}
\begin{align}
s_t & \in \operatornamewithlimits{argmin}_s \ v_t^T s + \tfrac{1}{2} \alpha_t^{-1} s^T D_t s + \mathcal{R}(x_t + s), \\
x_{t+1} & = x_t + s_t.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The authors show convergence to a first-order stationary point, and a worst-case complexity of $\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^{-2})$ in terms of iterations and $\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^{-4})$ overall to achieve $\mathbb{E}_a[\mathop{\mathrm{dist}}(0, \hat{\partial} F(x_a))] \leq \epsilon$ when the batch size is fixed, where $x_a$ is an iterate drawn uniformly randomly from $\{x_1, \ldots, x_T\}$, and $T$ is the maximum number of iterations.\\
The method we propose in the next section, SR2, has convergence results similar to ProxGEN but the version we present includes neither a momentum term nor a preconditioner, and it relies on an implicit assumption on the batch size---see \Cref{asp:step} below.
\section{Stochastic quadratic regularization: SR2}\label{sec:sr2}
Recall that \(\mathcal{R}: \mathds{R}^n \to \mathds{R} \cup \{\pm \infty\}\) is proper if it never takes the value \(-\infty\) and $\mathcal{R}(x) < \infty$ for at least one $x \in \mathds{R}^n$, lower semi-continuous at \(\bar{x} \in \mathds{R}^n\) if \(\liminf_{x \to \bar{x}} \mathcal{R}(x) \geq \mathcal{R}(\bar{x})\), and prox-bounded if there exists $x \in \mathds{R}^n$ and $\lambda_x >0$ such that $\inf_w \{\frac{1}{2} \lambda_x^{-1} \|x - w\|^2 + \mathcal{R}(w)\} > -\infty$.
The supremum of all such $\lambda_x$ is the threshold of prox-boundedness of $\mathcal{R}$, which we also refer to as \(\lambda_x\). Any function that is bounded below is prox-bounded with \(\lambda_x = +\infty\), but certain unbounded regularizers, such as \(-\|x\|\) or \(-\|x\|^2\), are also prox-bounded. Our assumptions on~\eqref{eq:main_pb} are as follow.
\begin{assumption}\label{asp:basic}
There exists \(L > 0\) such that $f$ is $L$-smooth, i.e., $\|\nabla f(x) - \nabla f(y) \| \leq L \|x-y\|$ for all $x$, $y \in \mathds{R}^n$.
In addition, \(\mathcal{R}\) is proper and lower semi-continuous at all \(x \in \mathds{R}^n\), and $s \mapsto \mathcal{R}(x_t + s)$ is prox-bounded for each \(x_t\) encountered during the iterations.
\end{assumption}
Under the previous assumption, the appropriate concept of subdifferential is the following.
\begin{definition}
The Fréchet subdifferential \(\hat{\partial} \phi(\Bar{x})\) of $\phi: \mathds{R}^n \to \mathds{R} \cup \{\pm \infty\}$ at $\Bar{x}$ where \(\phi\) is finite is the set of \(v \in \mathds{R}^n\) such that
\[
\liminf_{\substack{x\rightarrow \Bar{x} \\ x \neq \Bar{x}}} \, \frac{\phi(x) - \phi(\Bar{x}) - v^T (x - \Bar{x})}{\|x - \Bar{x}\|} \geq 0.
\]
\end{definition}
\begin{assumption}\label{asp:non_empty_frsbdf}
\(\mathcal{R}\) is such that $\hat{\partial} \mathcal{R} \neq \emptyset$, which implies $\hat{\partial} F = \nabla f + \hat{\partial} \mathcal{R} \neq \emptyset$,
\end{assumption}
Our assumptions on \(\mathcal{R}\) are satisfied for many sparsity-promoting regularizers of interest, including \(\|x\|_0\), \(\|x\|_p\), \(\|x\|_p^p\) for \(0 < p < 1\), and the indicator of \(\{x \mid \|x\|_0 \leq k\}\) for fixed \(k \in \{0, \ldots, n\}\). Note that~\Cref{asp:non_empty_frsbdf} excludes regularizers such as \(-\|x\|\) or \(-\|x\|^2\).\\
As in the deterministic version R2 \citep{aravkin2021proximal}, SR2 uses a linear model of \(f\) defined at each iteration $t$ as $\varphi(s; x_t) = f(x_t, \xi_t) + {g_t}^T s$,
such that $\varphi(0; x_t) = f(x_t, \xi_t)$ and $\nabla_s \varphi(0; x_t) = g_t$.
Let
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:phi-plus-psi}
\psi(s; x_t) := \varphi(s ;x_t) + \mathcal{R}(x_t + s).
\end{equation}
Note that the analysis of \citet{aravkin2021proximal} makes provision for using a model of \(\mathcal{R}\) about \(x_t\).
In the interest of clarity, we use the ideal \(\mathcal{R}(x_t + s)\) in the sequel, but our analysis below could just as easily accommodate a model.\\
For a regularization parameter $\sigma_t>0$, we also define
\begin{equation}
m(s; x_t, \sigma_t) = \psi(s; x_t) + \tfrac{1}{2} \sigma_t \|s\|^2.
\label{eq:model_sr2}
\end{equation}
SR2 starts the iteration with computing a step $s_t$ that minimizes~\eqref{eq:model_sr2}, which is equivalent to computing a proximal stochastic gradient step with step size ${\sigma_t}^{-1}$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:prox_subprob_sr2}
s_t \in \operatornamewithlimits{argmin}_s m(s; x_t, \sigma_t) = \operatornamewithlimits{prox}_{{\sigma_t}^{-1}\mathcal{R}}({\sigma_t}^{-1} g_t).
\end{equation}
Because the Lipschitz constant of $\nabla \varphi(.;x_t)$ is zero, \(s_t\) is guaranteed to result in a decrease in \(\psi(\cdot; x_t)\) \citep[Lemma~\(2\)]{palm}.
However, the latter does not necessarily correlate with a decrease in \(F\). Therefore, SR2 compares the ratio $\rho_t$ of the decrease in $F(.)$ to that in $\psi(\cdot; x_t)$ between $x_t$ and $x_t + s_t$ to decide on the acceptance of the step.
The value of $\rho_t$, which is indicative of the adequacy of the model \(\psi(\cdot; x_t)\) along \(s_t\), also guides the update of $\sigma_t$.
The procedure is stated in \Cref{alg:sr2}.
\RestyleAlgo{ruled}
\begin{algorithm}
\KwIn{ $0 < \eta_1 \leq \eta_2 < 1$, $ 0 < \gamma_3 \leq 1 < \gamma_1 \leq \gamma_2 $, $x_0 \in \mathds{R}^n$ where $\mathcal{R}$ is finite, $\sigma_0 \geq \sigma_{\min} > 0$}
\For{$t=1, \ldots $ }{
Draw \(\xi_t\) and define \(g_t\) \;
Define $m(s; x_t, \sigma_t)$ as in~\eqref{eq:model_sr2} \;
Compute $s_t \in \operatornamewithlimits{argmin}_s m(s;x_t, \sigma_t)$ \;
\eIf{ $\xi_t$ does not satisfy Assumption 2}{ set $s_t=0$ \;}
{
Compute \(\Delta F_t := F(x_t) - F(x_t + s_t)\) \;
Compute \(\Delta \psi_t := \psi(0;x_t) - \psi(s_t;x_t)\) \;
Compute \(\rho_t := \Delta F_t / \Delta \psi_t\) \;
\eIf{$\rho_t \geq \eta_1$}{
set $x_{t+1} = x_t + s_t$ \Comment*{accept step}
}{
set $x_{t+1} = x_t$ \Comment*{reject step}
}
}
Set $\sigma_{t+1} \in
\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
{[\max(\sigma_{\min}, \gamma_3 \sigma_t), \sigma_t]} & \text{if } \rho_t \geq \eta_2 & \textcolor{gray}{(\sigma_t \searrow)} \\
{[\sigma_t, \gamma_1 \sigma_t]} & \text{if } \eta_1 \leq \rho_t < \eta_2 & \textcolor{gray}{(\sigma_t \approx)} \\
{[\gamma_1 \sigma_t, \gamma_2 \sigma_t]} & \text{if } \rho_t < \eta_1 & \textcolor{gray}{(\sigma_t \nearrow)}
\end{array}
\right.$
}
\caption{SR2: Stochastic nonsmooth quadratic regularization.}\label{alg:sr2}
\end{algorithm}
The importance of prox-boundedness in \Cref{alg:sr2} resides in the update of $\sigma_t$.
If \(\sigma_t < 1 / \lambda_{x_t}\),~\eqref{eq:model_sr2} is unbounded below, so that \(\Delta m_t = +\infty\).
Because \(\mathcal{R}\) is proper, \(\Delta F_t\) is either finite or \(+\infty\).
Either way, the rules of extended arithmetic in nonsmooth optimization imply \(\rho_t = 0\), and therefore the step is rejected and \(\sigma_t\) is increased.
After a finite number of such increases, \(\sigma_t \geq 1 / \lambda_{x_t}\) and a step that yields finite \(\Delta m_t\) can be assessed.
A key result stated as \Cref{th:sigma} below is that as soon as \(\sigma_t\) is sufficiently large, the step will be accepted.
\Cref{sec:convergence} establishes the convergence properties of SR2, for which we require assumptions that ensure $g_t$ behaves somewhat similarly to \(\nabla f(x_t)\). Comparable conditions appear in \citep{Bottou2018, bollapragada2018adaptive}.
\begin{assumption}
\label{asp:step}
There exists $\kappa_m > 0$ such that for all $t$,
\begin{align*}
|f(x_t + s_t) - f(x_t) - {g_t}^Ts_t| &\leq \kappa_m \|s_t\|^2.
\end{align*}
In addition
\(\mathbb{E}_\xi[f(x_t, \xi)] = f(x_t)\), $\mathbb{E_\xi}[g_t] = \nabla f(x_t)$
\end{assumption}
\Cref{asp:step} states that the stochastic gradient should behave similarly to a full gradient, which implicitly involves a condition on the batch size.
If the assumption is not respected, the batch-size should be increased.
The process is finite because due to \Cref{asp:basic}, the inequality of \Cref{asp:step} holds with \(\kappa_m = \tfrac{1}{2} L\) when $g_t = \nabla f(x_t)$.
This is similar in spirit to implementing a variance reduction strategy, a standard condition for the convergence of stochastic gradient methods \citep{Bottou2018}.
\section{Convergence analysis}\label{sec:convergence}
Under \Cref{asp:basic}, $x^*$ is first-order stationary for~\eqref{eq:main_pb} if $0 \in \hat{\partial} F(x^*) = \nabla f(x^*) + \hat{\partial} \mathcal{R}(x^*)$ \citep[Theorem~\(10.1\)]{Rockafellar1998}.\\
The following result mirrors \citep[Theorem~\(6.2\)]{aravkin2021proximal} and shows that SR2 cannot generate a infinite number of failed iterations unless the step is zero.
We require the following final assumption stating that \(s \mapsto \mathcal{R}(x_t + s)\) are \emph{uniformly} prox-bounded.
The assumption is trivially satisfied for any \(\mathcal{R}\) that is bounded below.
\begin{assumption}\label{asp:unif-prox-bounded}
There exists \(\lambda > 0\) such that \(\lambda_{x_t} \geq \lambda\) for all \(x_t\) encountered during the iterations.
\end{assumption}
\begin{theorem}\label{th:sigma}
Let \Cref{asp:basic,asp:step,asp:unif-prox-bounded} hold. If $s_t \neq 0$ and $\sigma_t \geq \sigma_{\textup{succ}} := \max(2\kappa_m / (1-\eta_2), 1 / \lambda)$, then $s_t$ is accepted and $\sigma_t \leq \sigma_t$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
As explained above, we assume that \(\sigma_t \geq 1 / \lambda \geq 1 / \lambda_{x_t}\) to ensure that \(\Delta m_t\) is finite.
By definition of \(s_t\), $m_t(s_t, x_t, \sigma_t) \leq m_t(0, x_t, \sigma_t)$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:optim_s2}
{g_t}^Ts_t + \mathcal{R}(x_t + s_t) + \tfrac{1}{2}\sigma_t\|s_t\|^2 \leq \mathcal{R}(x_t).
\end{equation}
The definition of $\rho_t$, \Cref{asp:step} and~\eqref{eq:optim_s2} yield
\begin{equation*}
|\rho_t - 1| = \abs*{\frac{f(x_t) + {g_t}^Ts_t - f(x_t+s_t)}{\mathcal{R}(x_t) - {g_t}^Ts_t - \mathcal{R}(x_t + s_t)}}
\leq \frac{2 \kappa_m \|s_t\|^2}{\sigma_t \|s_t\|^2}= \frac{2 \kappa_m}{\sigma_t} \leq \frac{2 \kappa_m}{\sigma_{\textup{succ}}} = 1 - \eta_2.
\end{equation*}
Thus, $\rho_t \geq \eta_2$ and $\sigma_t \leq \sigma_t$.
\end{proof}
As a consequence of~\Cref{th:sigma}, there is a constant $\sigma_{\max} := \min \{ \sigma_0, \gamma_2 \sigma_{\textup{succ}}\} >0$ such that for all $t, \sigma_t \leq \sigma_{\max}$.\\
Next, we analyze the scenario where SR2 only generates a finite number of successes, and show that the method converges to a first order stationary point w.p.1 in this case.
\begin{theorem}\label{th:2}
Let \Cref{asp:basic,asp:step,asp:unif-prox-bounded} hold.
If \Cref{alg:sr2} only generates a finite number of successes, $x_t=x_{t^*}$ for all sufficiently large $t$ and $x_{t^*}$ is first-order stationary w.p.1.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
If \Cref{alg:sr2} results in a finite number of successful iterations, there exists $ t_1$ so that for all $t \geq t_1$, iteration $t$ fails. Consequently, $\rho_t < \eta_1$ and $\sigma_{t+1} \geq \gamma_1 \sigma_t $.\\
Necessarily, there exists a $ t_2 \geq t_1$ such that $\sigma_t \geq \sigma_{\textup{succ}}$ for all \(t \geq t_2\).\\
If there existed \(t \geq t_2\) such that $s_t \neq 0$, Theorem~\ref{th:sigma} would ensure that iteration $t$ is successful, which contradicts our assumption.
Therefore, $s_t = 0$ and \(0 \in \operatornamewithlimits{argmin}_s m_{t_2}(s;x_{t_2}, \sigma_{t_2})\).\\
Since $\mathcal{R}$ is prox-bounded, $\hat{\partial} \mathcal{R}$ closed and convex \citep[Propositions~$8.6$ and~$8.46$]{Rockafellar1998}, and therefore, \(-g_t \in \hat{\partial} \mathcal{R}(x_{t_2})\), for all \(t \geq t_2\).
We now show that $-\nabla f(x_{t_2}) \in \hat{\partial} \mathcal{R}(x_{t_2})$.
The empirical mean of the next $m$ stochastic gradients satisfies
\begin{equation*}
- \Bar{g}_m = -\frac{1}{m} \sum_{i=t_2}^{t_2+m} g_i \in \hat{\partial} \mathcal{R}(x_{t_2}),
\end{equation*}
because \(\hat{\partial} \mathcal{R}(x_{t_2})\) is convex.\\
According to the law of large numbers and \Cref{asp:step},
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{m \to \infty} \Bar{g}_m = \mathbb{E}[g] = \nabla f(x_{t_2}) \quad \text{w.p.1}.
\end{equation*}
Because $\hat{\partial} \mathcal{R}(x_{t_2})$ is closed, \(- \nabla f(x_{t_2}) \in \hat{\partial} \mathcal{R}(x_{t_2})\), i.e.,
\begin{equation*}
0 \in \nabla f(x_{t_2}) + \hat{\partial} \mathcal{R}(x_{t_2}) = \hat{\partial} F(x_{t_2}),
\end{equation*}
and $x_{t_2}$ is a first order stationary point w.p.1.
\end{proof}
We now focus on the case where SR2 generates infinitely many successes. By analogy with the deterministic and smooth case where \(s_t = -\sigma_t^{-1} \nabla f(x_t)\), our criticality measure is $\mathbb{E}_{\hat{\xi}_t} [\|s^\xi\|^2] \leq \epsilon^2$, where $\mathbb{E}_{\hat{\xi}_t}$ denotes the expectation taken over the distribution of the $\xi$ that yields a success knowing $x_t$. The first iteration that satisfies the latter condition is noted $t(\epsilon)$.
We start by studying the complexity of reaching this termination criteria. To that effect, let us define
\begin{align}
\mathcal{S} &= \{t\in \mathds{N} \mid \rho_t \geq \eta_1 \}, \\
\mathcal{S(\epsilon)} &= \{t\in \mathcal{S} \mid t \leq t(\epsilon) \}, \\
\mathcal{U(\epsilon)} &= \{t\in \mathds{N} \mid t < t(\epsilon) \text{ and } \rho_t < \eta_1\}.
\end{align}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:s_epsilon}
Let \Cref{asp:basic,asp:step,asp:unif-prox-bounded} hold.
If \Cref{alg:sr2} generates an infinite number of successes and if there exists \(F_{\textup{low}} \in \mathds{R}\) such that $F(x_t) \geq F_{\textup{low}}$ for all $t \geq 0$, then for any $\epsilon \in (0,1)$,
$|\mathcal{S(\epsilon)}| = \mathcal{O}(\epsilon^{-2})$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
When $t \in \mathcal{S(\epsilon)}$, $\rho_t \geq \eta_1$.
Using~\eqref{eq:optim_s2}, the facts that $t < t(\epsilon)$ and \(\sigma_{\min} \leq \sigma_t \leq \sigma_{\max}\), we have
\begin{equation*}
F(x_t) - F(x_t + s_t) \geq \eta_1 \Delta \psi_t
\geq \tfrac{1}{2} \eta_1 \sigma_{\min} ||s_t||^2.
\end{equation*}
This inequality holds for every $s^{\xi}$ derived from $\xi$ that yields a success at iteration $t$. We can therefore introduce the expectation over the distribution of the $\xi$ that yield a success given $x_t$, denoted $\mathbb{E}_{\hat{\xi}_t}$. Therefore $\mathbb{E}_{\hat{\xi}_t}[F(x_t + s^{\xi})]$ is a relevant quantity, and the previous inequality becomes
\begin{equation}
F(x_t) - \mathbb{E}_{\hat{\xi}_t}[F(x_t + s^{\xi})] \geq \eta_1 \Delta \psi_t
\geq \tfrac{1}{2} \eta_1 \sigma_{\min} \mathbb{E}_{\hat{\xi}_t}[||s_t||^2].
\label{eq:interm_eq}
\end{equation}
Because $t<t(\epsilon)$, $\mathbb{E}_{\hat{\xi}_t}[||s_t||^2] \geq \epsilon^2$.
Thus, since $t\in \mathcal{S}$,~\eqref{eq:interm_eq} becomes
\begin{equation}\label{eq:expected_decrease_t}
F(x_t) - \mathbb{E}_{\hat{\xi}_t}[F(x_t + s^{\xi})] =
F(x_t) - \mathbb{E}_{\hat{\xi}_t}[F(x_{t+1})] \geq
\tfrac{1}{2} \eta_1 \sigma_{\min} \epsilon^2.
\end{equation}
By analogy with \citet{Bottou2018}, we introduce the total expectation $\mathbb{E}[.]$ with respect to the joint distribution of all previous realization of $\xi$ that yield a success, thus $\mathbb{E}[F(x_t)] := \mathbb{E}_{\hat{\xi}_1} \mathbb{E}_{\hat{\xi}_2} \ldots \mathbb{E}_{\hat{\xi}_{t-1}}[F(x_t)]$.
Taking the total expectation in~\eqref{eq:expected_decrease_t} yields
\begin{equation}\label{eq:expected_decrease_total}
\mathbb{E}[F(x_t)] - \mathbb{E}[F(x_{t+1})] \geq \tfrac{1}{2} \eta_1 \sigma_{\min} \epsilon^2.
\end{equation}
Because $x_{t+1} = x_t$ if \(\xi_t\) yields \(t \in \mathcal{U}\), while $x_{t+1} = x_t + s_t$ if \(\xi_t\) yields \(t \in \mathcal{S}\),
\begin{align*}
F(x_1) - F(x_{\textup{low}})&\geq \mathbb{E}[F(x_1)] - \mathbb{E}[F(x_{t(\epsilon)})] \\
&= \sum_{t=1}^{t(\epsilon)} \Big[ \mathbb{E}[F(x_t)] - \mathbb{E}[F(x_{t+1})] \Big]\\
&\geq \sum_{t \in \mathcal{S}(\epsilon)} \Big[ \mathbb{E}[F(x_t)] - \mathbb{E}[F(x_{t+1})] \Big] \\
&\geq \tfrac{1}{2} \eta_1 \sigma_{\min} \epsilon^2 |\mathcal{S}(\epsilon)|.
\end{align*}
Therefore, $|\mathcal{S}(\epsilon)| = \mathcal{O}(\epsilon^{-2})$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:u_epsilon}
Under the assumptions of \Cref{lemma:s_epsilon}, $|\mathcal{U(\epsilon)}| = \mathcal{O}(\epsilon^{-2})$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $t \in \mathcal{U(\epsilon)}$, so that $t < t(\epsilon)$. \Cref{alg:sr2} increases $\sigma_t$ by a factor of at least $\gamma_1 > 1$ if the step is rejected, and decreases $\sigma_t$ by a factor of at most $\gamma_3 \in (0, 1]$ if it is accepted.
Thus, at iteration $t(\epsilon) - 1$, we have successively
\begin{alignat*}{2}
& & \sigma_{\max} & \geq \sigma_{t(\epsilon) - 1} \geq \sigma_0 \gamma_1^{|\mathcal{U(\epsilon)}|} \gamma_3^{|\mathcal{S(\epsilon)}|}\\
& \Rightarrow & \dfrac{\sigma_{\max}}{\sigma_0} & \geq \gamma_1^{|\mathcal{U(\epsilon)}|} \gamma_3^{|\mathcal{S(\epsilon)}|}\\
& \Leftrightarrow & \log(\dfrac{\sigma_{\max}}{\sigma_0}) & \geq |\mathcal{U(\epsilon)}| \log(\gamma_1) + |\mathcal{S(\epsilon)}| \log(\gamma_3)\\
& \Leftrightarrow \quad & |\mathcal{U(\epsilon)}| \log(\gamma_1) & \leq \log(\dfrac{\sigma_{\max}}{\sigma_0}) - |\mathcal{S(\epsilon)}| \log(\gamma_3).
\end{alignat*}
Because $\log(\gamma_3) < 0$ and $|\mathcal{S(\epsilon)}| = \mathcal{O}(\epsilon^{-2})$, we obtain $|\mathcal{U(\epsilon)}| = \mathcal{O}(\epsilon^{-2}).$
\end{proof}
From $t(\epsilon) = |\mathcal{S(\epsilon)}| + |\mathcal{U(\epsilon)}|$, we deduce $t(\epsilon) = \mathcal{O}(\epsilon^{-2})$,
and obtain the two following results.
\begin{theorem}\label{th:3}
Under the assumptions of~\Cref{lemma:s_epsilon}, either $F$ is unbounded from below or $\liminf_{t \rightarrow \infty} \mathbb{E}_{\hat{\xi}_t}[||s^\xi||^2] = 0$
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}\label{th:4}
Let \(0 < \epsilon < 1\). Then,
$\mathbb{E}_{\hat{\xi}_{t(\epsilon)}}[\mathop{\mathrm{dist}}(0, \hat{\partial} F(x_{t(\epsilon)}+s^{\xi}))^2] \leq C \epsilon^2 + 3 \mathbb{E}_{\hat{\xi}_{t(\epsilon)}}[||\nabla f(x_{t(\epsilon)}) - g^\xi||^2]$, where $C=3(L^2+\sigma_{\max}^2)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
From the definition of $s_t$, we have
\begin{align*}
0 &\in g_t + \sigma_t s_t + \hat{\partial} \mathcal{R}(x_t+s_t)\\
\Leftrightarrow -(g_t+\sigma_t s_t) &\in \hat{\partial} \mathcal{R}(x_t+s_t)\\
\Leftrightarrow \nabla f(x_t+s_t) -(g_t+\sigma_t s_t) &\in \hat{\partial} F(x_t+s_t).
\end{align*}
Thus
\begin{align*}
\mathop{\mathrm{dist}}(0, \hat{\partial} F(x_t+s_t))^2 &\leq \| \nabla f(x_t+s_t) - g_t - \sigma_t s_t \|^2\\
&\leq 3\|\nabla f(x_t+s_t) - \nabla f(x_t) \|^2 + 3\|\sigma_t s_t\|^2 + 3\| \nabla f(x_t)- g_t \|^2 \\
& \leq 3 L^2\|s_t\|^2 + 3\|\sigma_t s_t\|^2 + 3\| \nabla f(x_t)- g_t \|^2 \\
& \leq 3 (L^2 + \sigma_{\max}^2 ) \|s_t\|^2 + 3\| \nabla f(x_t)- g_t \|^2,
\end{align*}
which is true for every step $s^{\xi}$ computed with a realization of $\xi$, i.e.,
\begin{equation*}
\mathop{\mathrm{dist}}(0, \hat{\partial} F(x_t+s^{\xi}))^2 \leq 3 (L^2 + \sigma_{\max}^2 ) \|s^{\xi}\|^2 + 3\| \nabla f(x_t)- g^{\xi} \|^2.
\end{equation*}
Therefore
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{E}_{\xi_{t(\epsilon)}}[\mathop{\mathrm{dist}}(0, \hat{\partial} F(x_t+s^{\xi}))^2] \leq 3 (L^2 + \sigma_{\max}^2 ) \mathbb{E}_{\xi_{t(\epsilon)}}[\|s^{\xi}\|^2] + 3\mathbb{E}_{\xi_{t(\epsilon)}} [ \| \nabla f(x_t)- g^{\xi} \|^2].
\end{equation*}
For $t=t(\epsilon)$, we have $\mathbb{E}_{\xi_{t(\epsilon)}} [\|s^\xi\|^2]\leq \epsilon^2$. Thus
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{E}_{\xi_{t(\epsilon)}}[\mathop{\mathrm{dist}}(0, \hat{\partial} F(x_t+s^{\xi}))^2] \leq 3 (L^2 + \sigma_{\max}^2 ) \epsilon^2 + 3\mathbb{E}_{\xi_{t(\epsilon)}} [\| \nabla f(x_t)- g^{\xi} \|^2]. \qedhere
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
Finally, we are set to analyze the properties of $x_{t(\epsilon)}$ in terms of stationarity.
\citet{shamir2020can} and \citet{Zhang2020OnCO} discuss the impossibility of finding $\epsilon$-stationary points for nonsmooth and nonconvex functions with first-order methods in finite time.
Instead, \citet{Zhang2020OnCO} introduce a relaxation of the concept of $\epsilon$-stationarity, namely, $(\delta, \epsilon)$-stationarity which is reported in \Cref{def:d_e_stationarity}.
\begin{definition}\label{def:d_e_stationarity}
A point $x$ is called $(\delta, \epsilon)$-stationary if
\(
d(0, \partial F(x+\delta B)) \leq \epsilon,
\)
where $\partial F(x+\delta B) := conv \big(\cup_{y \in x + \delta B} \partial F(y) \big)$, and $\partial F$ is the generalized gradient of $F$~\citep{clarke1990optimization}.
\end{definition}
We propose a variant of \Cref{def:d_e_stationarity} that is better adapted to our method. Note that other adaptations of the $(\delta, \epsilon)$-stationarity notion are discussed in \citet{shamir2020can}.
\begin{definition}\label{def:our_d_e_stationarity}
A point $x$ is called $\widehat{(\delta, \epsilon)}$-stationary if
\(
\mathbb{E}_{\hat{\xi}} \Big [ d(0, \hat{\partial} F(x+s^\xi))^2\Big ] \leq \epsilon^2, \text{ with } \delta = \max_{\hat{\xi}} ||s^\xi||.
\)
\end{definition}
\Cref{def:our_d_e_stationarity} appears in the result of \Cref{th:4}, if a variance reduction strategy is additionally implemented to ensure the second right term becomes lower than $\epsilon^2$. This remark is expressed in \Cref{cor:1}.
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:1}
Let \(0 < \epsilon < 1\). If a variance reduction strategy ensures $\mathbb{E}_{\hat{\xi}_{t(\epsilon)}}[||\nabla f(x_{t(\epsilon)}) - g^\xi||^2] \leq \epsilon^2$, then $x_{t(\epsilon)}$ is a $\widehat{(\delta, (C+3)\epsilon)}$ stationary point, with $C = 3(L^2+\sigma_{\max}^2)$ and $\delta = \max_{\hat{\xi}} ||s^\xi||$.
\end{corollary}
\section{Experiments}\label{sec:tests}
We compare SR2 against ProxSGD and ProxGEN to train three DNNs on the CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100 datasets. The networks considered are DenseNet-121, ResNet-34 and DenseNet-201, with $7.98$M, $21.79$M and $20$M parameters respectively. Each set of tests uses $\mathcal{R} = \lambda \|\cdot\|_1, \lambda \in \{10^{-4}, 10^{-3}, 10^{-2}\}$, while $\mathcal{R} = \lambda \|\cdot\|_0$ is not tested with ProxSGD as it is not designed for nonconvex regularization.\\
We use the proximal SGD variant of ProxGEN. The implementation of ProxGEN was provided to us by its authors, and we also use their implementation of ProxSGD. Both methods use the hyperparameters mentioned in their respective papers and implementations. The implementation of SR2 is available at \url{https://github.com/DouniaLakhmiri/SR2} and its configurationis reported in \Cref{tab:hps}. In our implementation, we compute $\rho_t$ based on the sampled value of $F(., \xi_t)$ instead of the full objective.\\
For the sake of a fair comparison, we have disabled the momentum directions and preconditioners from ProxSGD and ProxGEN as well as the scheduled updates of the learning rate at epochs $150$ and $250$. These common accelerating strategies are not yet incorporated to SR2 and would give ProxSGD and ProxGEN an unfair advantage as shown in~\Cref{fig:acc_jump}. \\
Each test trains for $300$ epochs after which we proceed to pruning each solution based on the criterion $|w_i| \leq \alpha $ with $\alpha = 10 ^{-k}$, \(k = 1, \ldots, 8\), where $w_i$ is the $i$-th weight in the network. We then compare the sparsity level and retained accuracy of the sparse networks without re-training.
\begin{minipage}[ht]{\textwidth}
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{figures/acc_d121_c10_l1.pdf}
\captionof{figure}{Accuracy of ProxGEN and ProxSGD with momentum, preconditioner, and learning rate updates at epochs $150$ and $250$.}
\label{fig:acc_jump}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lrrrr}
\toprule
$\eta_1$ & $\eta_2$ & $\gamma_1$ & $\gamma_2$ & $\gamma_3$ \\
\midrule
$7.5 \cdot 10^{-4}$ & $0.99$ & $5.56$ & $2.95$ & $0.8$\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\captionof{table}{SR2 hyperparameters.}
\label{tab:hps}
\end{minipage}
\end{minipage}
\subsection{Results on CIFAR-10}
\Cref{tab:res_c10} reports the results with $\mathcal{R} = \lambda \|\cdot\|_1$. For both networks, we observe that SR2 combined with $\lambda = 10^{-4}$ achieves the highest accuracy overall, while ProxSGD gets the highest accuracies with $\lambda = 10^{-3}, 10^{-2}$. \Cref{tab:res_c10} also reports information on the magnitudes of the weights in each solution. Interestingly, SR2 has a consistent tendency to set a large portion of the network's weights to exactly 0 while ProxSGD does the opposite and ProxGEN falls in between in this regard. This observation highlights the clear difference between ProxSGD and ProxGEN in the solutions each method finds. In addition, SR2 identifies a larger proportion of small weights than ProxSGD and ProxGEN.\\
\Cref{fig:d121} (top) reports accuracy and sparsity results on pruned DenseNet-121 with $\mathcal{R} = \lambda\|\cdot\|_1$. The top plot shows that most configurations retain full accuracy until $\alpha = 10^{-3}$ or $10^{-2}$, except for the one trained with ProxSGD, which shows a small drop at $\alpha = 10^{-3}$. The accuracy of all networks drops to $10\%$ for $\alpha = 10^{-1}$.
The plot at the top right shows the sparsity ratio with each pruning criteria. Overall, the combination of SR2 with $\lambda=10^{-4}$ and $\alpha = 10^{-2}$ has the highest accuracy with a high sparsity level of $97.5\%$, followed by ProxGEN with $\lambda=10^{-3}$ and $\alpha = 10^{-3}$ and a sparsity of $94.4\%$.\\
\begin{table}[!htb]
\caption{Results of training DenseNet-121 and ResNet-34 on CIFAR-10}
\begin{subtable}[t]{.5\linewidth}
\caption{with $\mathcal{R} = \lambda\|\cdot\|_1$.}
\label{tab:res_c10}
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{lcccrrr} \toprule
\textbf{Net.} & \textbf{$\lambda$} & \textbf{Optim.} & \textbf{Acc.} & $\% |w| = 0$ & $\% |w| \leq 10^{-3}$ \\
\midrule
& & ProxSGD & $72.20 \%$ & $0.00\%$ & $20.22\%$\\
& $10^{-4}$ & ProxGEN & $ 72.26\%$ & $6.50\%$ & $22.71\%$\\
& & SR2 & $\mathbf{84.69 \%}$& $\mathbf{79.47}\%$ & $\mathbf{92.15}\%$\\
\cline{2-6}
& & ProxSGD & $\mathbf{77.43 \%}$ & $0.00\%$ & $82.18\%$\\
D-121 & $10^{-3}$ & ProxGEN & $ 76.81\%$ & $44.21\%$ & $94.40\%$\\
& & SR2 & $68.26 \%$& $\mathbf{95.43\%}$ & $\mathbf{98.17}\%$\\
\cline{2-6}
& & ProxSGD & $\mathbf{78.36 \%}$ & $0.00\%$ & $94.16\%$\\
& $10^{-2}$ & ProxGEN & $ 59.69\%$ & $\mathbf{98.03\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.13\%}$\\
& & SR2 & $76.49 \%$& $78.11\%$ & $98.59\%$\\
\bottomrule
& & ProxSGD & $85.12 \%$ & $0.00\%$ & $64.70\%$\\
& $10^{-4}$ & ProxGEN & $ 85.98\%$ & $1.02\%$ & $72.94\%$\\
& & SR2 & $\mathbf{93.94 \%}$& $\mathbf{56.18\%}$ & $\mathbf{98.12\%}$\\
\cline{2-6}
& & ProxSGD & $\mathbf{89.67\%}$ & $0.00\%$ & $94.85\%$\\
R-34 & $10^{-3}$ & ProxGEN & $83.27\%$ & $\mathbf{73.34\%}$ &$99.25\%$ \\
& & SR2 & $88.46\%$ & $67.97\%$ & $\mathbf{99.50\%}$\\
\cline{2-6}
& & ProxSGD & $\mathbf{88.12 \%}$ & $0.00\%$ & $98.28\%$\\
& $10^{-2}$ & ProxGEN & $ 35.56\%$ & $\mathbf{99.34\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.92\%}$\\
& & SR2 & $29.33 \%$& $62.17\%$ & $91.84\%$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\end{subtable}%
\hfill
\begin{subtable}[t]{.5\linewidth}
\caption{with $\mathcal{R} = \lambda \|\cdot\|_0$.}
\label{tab:res_c10_l0}
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{lcccrrr} \toprule
\textbf{Net.} & \textbf{$\lambda$} & \textbf{Optim.} & \textbf{Acc.} & $\% |w| = 0$ & $\% |w| \leq 10^{-3}$ \\
\midrule
& $10^{-4}$ & ProxGEN & $71.09 \%$ &$2.39\%$ & $3.27\%$\\
& & SR2 & $\mathbf{80.29 \%}$ & $\mathbf{14.67\%}$ & $\mathbf{14.74 \%}$\\
\cline{2-6}
& $10^{-3}$ & ProxGEN & $70.44 \%$ &$4.13\%$ & $4.13\%$\\
D-121 & & SR2 & $ \mathbf{79.11 \%}$ & $\mathbf{23.82\%}$ & $ \mathbf{25.85\%}$\\
\cline{2-6}
& $10^{-2}$ & ProxGEN & $71.03 \%$ &$9.63\%$ & $10.05\%$\\
& & SR2 & $\mathbf{79.79\%}$ & $\mathbf{94.99\%}$ & $ \mathbf{95.06\%}$\\
\bottomrule
& $10^{-4}$ & ProxGEN & $86.87 \%$ &$5.48\%$ & $7.13\%$\\
& & SR2 & $\mathbf{90.59 \%}$ & $\mathbf{93.43\%}$ & $\mathbf{93.43 \%}$\\
\cline{2-6}
& $10^{-3}$ & ProxGEN & $85.81\%$ & $11.04\%$ & $11.07\%$ \\
R-34 & & SR2 & $\mathbf{92.20\%}$ &$\mathbf{94.41\%}$ & $\mathbf{94.42\%}$\\
\cline{2-6}
& $10^{-2}$ & ProxGEN & $86.40 \%$ &$28.85\%$ & $28.86\%$\\
& & SR2 & $\mathbf{87.82 \%}$ & $\mathbf{99.04\%}$ & $\mathbf{99.07 \%}$\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\end{subtable}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{figures/d121_ell1.pdf}
\\
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{figures/d121_ell0.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:d121}%
Accuracy and sparsity ratio of pruned DenseNet-121 on CIFAR-10 with $\mathcal{R} = \lambda\|\cdot\|_1$ (top) and $\mathcal{R} = \lambda\|\cdot\|_0$ (bottom).}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{figures/r34_ell1.pdf}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{figures/r34_ell0.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:r34}%
Accuracy and sparsity ratio of ResNet-34 trained on CIFAR-10 with $\mathcal{R} = \lambda\|\cdot\|_1$ (top) and $\mathcal{R} = \lambda\|\cdot\|_0$ (bottom).}
\end{figure}
\Cref{fig:r34} (top) shows that ResNet-34 retains full accuracy with $\alpha = 10^{-3}$ in most cases. The best combination is obtained with SR2, $\lambda = 10^{-4}$ and $\alpha = 10^{-3}$ that results in an accuracy of $93.32\%$ and a sparsity ratio of $98.12\%$, followed by ProxGEN with $\lambda = 10^{-3}$ and $\alpha = 10^{-3}$ with an accuracy of $86.93\%$ and a sparsity of $99.50\%$.\\
\Cref{tab:res_c10_l0} and \Cref{fig:d121} (bottom) report results on the same networks with $\mathcal{R} = \|\cdot\|_0$ and compares SR2 against ProxGEN only, since ProxSGD does not handle nonconvex regularizations. The results show a clear advantage of SR2 both in terms of final accuracy and sparsity ratios. Compared to $\mathcal{R} = \|\cdot\|_1$, using $\mathcal{R} = \|\cdot\|_0$ allows SR2 to reach higher accuracies overall at the expense of higher weight magnitudes. The results seem to suggest that the value of $\lambda$ needs a special adjustment for each regularizer. \Cref{fig:r34} (bottom) summarizes the retained accuracy after pruning and the equivalent sparsities for ResNet-34. It is clear that SR2 generates the better solutions with the highest sparsity levels while retaining most of the full accuracies. A similar figure for DenseNet-121 is reported in the appendix.
\subsection{Results on CIFAR-100}
In this section, SR2 is compared against ProxSGD and ProxGEN on a more challenging dataset. We train DenseNet-201 on CIFAR-100 with $\mathcal{R} = \|\cdot\|_1$ and $\|\cdot\|_0$ and compare each solution's resulting accuracy and sparsity. Once again, our goal is to extract sparse substructures, and we do not focus our resources on tuning each method to reach high test accuracies.\\
\Cref{tab:res_c100} summarizes the relevant scores of each solution with $\mathcal{R} = \lambda\|\cdot\|_1$, and \Cref{fig:d201} (top) illustrates the retained accuracy and equivalent sparsity ratio after each pruning. SR2 with $\lambda = 10^{-4}, \alpha=10^{-2}$ obtains the highest accuracy of $58.50\%$ after removing $97.57\%$ of the weights from the original network. Other solvers that obtain a higher sparsity after pruning do so at the expense of the final accuracy of the network.\\
Similarly \Cref{tab:res_c100_l0} and \Cref{fig:d201} (bottom) show that SR2 obtains the best accuracy when the network is trained with $\mathcal{R} = \lambda=10^{-3}\|\cdot\|_0$ allows to consistently reach higher sparsity ratios while maintaining at least the accuracy of the full network . The best solution is found with $\lambda = 10^{-3}$ and $\alpha=10^{-2}$ as shown in \Cref{fig:d201} (bottom).
\begin{table}[!htb]
\caption{Results of DenseNet-201 on CIFAR-100}
\begin{subtable}[t]{.5\linewidth}
\centering
\caption{with $\mathcal{R} = \lambda\|\cdot\|_1$.}
\label{tab:res_c100}
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{lccrrr} \toprule
\textbf{$\lambda$} & \textbf{Optim.} & \textbf{Acc.} & $\% |w| = 0$ & $\% |w| \leq 10^{-3}$ \\
\midrule
& ProxSGD & $42.38 \%$ & $0.00\%$ & $25.23\%$\\
$10^{-4}$ & ProxGEN & $ 41.11\%$ & $2.95\%$ & $4.01\%$\\
& SR2 & $\mathbf{57.63 \%}$& $\mathbf{59.74}\%$ & $\mathbf{92.65}\%$\\
\midrule
& ProxSGD & $42.38 \%$ & $0.00\%$ & $72.47\%$\\
$10^{-3}$ & ProxGEN & $\mathbf{46.70\%}$ & $48.94\%$ & $96.99\%$\\
& SR2 & $33.04 \%$& $\mathbf{97.21\%}$ & $\mathbf{98.92}\%$\\
\midrule
& ProxSGD & $\mathbf{42.86 \%}$ & $0.00\%$ & $25.21\%$\\
$10^{-2}$ & ProxGEN & $ 6.96\%$ & $98.83\%$ & $99.48\%$\\
& SR2 & $7.31 \%$& $98.30\%$ & $99.60\%$\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\end{subtable}%
\hfill
\begin{subtable}[t]{.5\linewidth}
\centering
\caption{with $\mathcal{R} = \lambda\|\cdot\|_0$.}
\label{tab:res_c100_l0}
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{lccrrr} \toprule
\textbf{$\lambda$} & \textbf{Optim.} & \textbf{Acc.} & $\% |w| = 0$ & $\% |w| \leq 10^{-3}$ \\
\midrule
$10^{-4}$ & ProxGEN & $ 40.77\%$ & $2.97\%$ & $4.02\%$\\
& SR2 & $\mathbf{48.91} \%$& $ \mathbf{22.69} \%$ & $ \mathbf{22.78}\%$\\
\midrule
$10^{-3}$ & ProxGEN & $40.44 \% $ & $5.11\%$ & $5.60\%$\\
& SR2 & $\mathbf{49.28 \%}$& $\mathbf{39.82\%}$ & $\mathbf{39.92}\%$\\
\midrule
$10^{-2}$ & ProxGEN & $ 39.91\%$ & $11.84\%$ & $12.33\%$\\
& SR2 & $1.00 \%$& $98.91\%$ & $99.50\%$\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\end{subtable}
\end{table}
Overall, the results on CIFAR-100 are more contrasted than on CIFAR-10 with examples of ProxGEN and SR2 converging in some settings towards solutions with low accuracy. This suggests the need for a better tuning of the methods.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{figures/d201_ell1.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{figures/d201_ell0.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:d201}%
Accuracy and sparsity ratio of pruned DenseNet-201 on CIFAR-100 with $\mathcal{R} = \lambda\|\cdot\|_1$ (top) and $\mathcal{R} = \lambda\|\cdot\|_0$ (bottom).}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}\label{sec:conclusion}
SR2 is a new stochastic proximal method for training DNNs with nonsmooth, potentially nonconvex regularizers. SR2 relies on an adaptive quadratic regularization framework that does not automatically accept every step during the training to ensure a decrease in the objective. We establish the convergence of a first-order stationarity measure to zero with a $\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^{-2})$ worst-case iteration complexity.
Our numerical experiments show that SR2 consistently produces solutions that achieve high accuracy and sparsity levels after an unstructured pruning. Ongoing research is focusing on incorporating a momentum term, a preconditioner, and second-order information to accelerate the convergence and attain higher accuracy.
\acks{This work was supported by NSERC Alliance grant 544900- 19 in collaboration with Huawei-Canada, the Canada Excellence Research Chair in ``Data Science for Real-time Decision-making'', and Cornell Tech.
}
|
\section{Introduction}
How can a given group act by isometries on a hyperbolic space? The aim of this paper is to study this question for irreducible lattices in a semisimple group $G$ of rank~$\geq 2$. Thomas Haettel \cite{Haettel} addresssed the case where all simple factors of the ambient product $G$ have rank~$\geq 2$ and showed, in that case, that the isometric actions of the lattice on hyperbolic spaces are all degenerate (see below for a more precise formulation). In this paper, we allow $G$ to have simple factors of rank~$1$. Since rank~$1$ simple groups have a natural geometric action on a proper hyperbolic space (namely, a symmetric space or a tree), the lattices in $G$ do admit non-degenerate actions on hyperbolic spaces via their projections on the rank~$1$ simple factors of $G$. We show that, up to a natural equivalence, those are the only actions of lattices in $G$ on hyperbolic spaces. Our results also cover some non-linear groups including, for example, lattices in products of trees.
\subsection{Generalities on actions on hyperbolic spaces}
Before stating our main theorem, we now explain some general facts about actions on hyperbolic spaces. First of all, any group has actions on hyperbolic spaces that fix a bounded set, as well as actions that fix a point at infinity. Such actions can therefore not be used to deduce anything about the group: from our viewpoint, they are degenerate, and we will disregard them. Moreover, given an action on a hyperbolic space, one could make a larger hyperbolic space containing the first one as a quasiconvex subspace, maintaining the group action. This can be done, for example, by attaching equivariantly geodesic rays. To take this possibility into account, it is natural to also rule out actions that admit a quasi-convex invariant set that is not coarsely dense. In view of all this we define \emph{coarsely minimal} actions (Definition \ref{defn:coarsely_min}) by, essentially, ruling out the pathological behaviours discussed above. Arguably, those are the most general actions that one might want to classify. Moreover, actions on hyperbolic spaces that admit an equivariant quasi-isometry should be considered equivalent, and we capture this in Definition \ref{defn:equivalence}, where there is a subtlety to deal with actions where given subgroups fix a bounded set rather than single points.
\subsection{Higher rank groups and generalizations} As hinted at above we will cover more than higher rank Lie groups in our main result. For this, we include the following notion of a \emph{standard rank one group}
following \cite{CCMT}*{Theorem D}:
a locally compact group $G$ is a \textbf{standard rank one group} if it has no nontrivial compact normal subgroups and either
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] $G$ is the group of isometries or orientation-preserving isometries of a rank one symmetric space $X$
of noncompact type, or
\item[(2)] $G$ has a continuous, proper, faithful action by automorphisms on a locally finite non-elementary tree $T$,
without inversions and with exactly two orbits of vertices, such that the action of $G$
on the set of ends $\partial T$ is $2$-transitive.
\end{itemize}
The symmetric space $X$ in case (1) and the tree $T$ in case (2) is called the \textbf{model space} for the standard rank one group $G$.
While standard rank one groups of type (1) correspond to real Lie groups of rank one, type (2) includes, but is not restricted to,
simple algebraic groups over non-archimedean local fields of rank one.
\begin{theorem}\label{T:main_intro}
Let $N \geq n \geq 0$ be integers. Let $G=\prod_{i=1}^N G_i$ be a product of $N$ locally compact groups,
where for all $i \in \{1, \dots, n\}$, $G_i$ is a standard rank one group, and for all $j \in \{n+1, \dots, N\}$, $G_j$ is a simple algebraic group defined over a local field $k_j$
with $\operatorname{rk}_{k_j}(G_j)\ge 2$. Let $\Gamma < G$ be a lattice.
Assume that $n\ge 2$ or that $N>n$. If $N>1$, assume in addition that $\Gamma$ has a dense projection to each proper sub-product.
Then any coarsely minimal action of $\Gamma$ on a geodesic hyperbolic space is equivalent to one of the actions
\[
\Gamma\ \overto{}\ G\ \overto{\operatorname{pr}_i}\ G_i\ \overto{}\ \operatorname{Isom}(X_i,d_i)\qquad (1\le i\le n)
\]
where each $X_i$ is a rank-one symmetric space or a tree, corresponding to the standard rank one
factor $G_i$ being of type (1) or (2).
\end{theorem}
As mentioned above, we refer to Definition~\ref{defn:equivalence} for the precise notion of \textit{equivalence} appearing in the theorem.
In the special case where $G$ consists only of a single higher rank factor, that is the case where $n=0$ and $N=1$,
our considerations recover the main theorem of \cite{Haettel}.
\begin{corollary}
Let $G=\mathbf{G}(k)$ be a simple algebraic group defined over a local field $k$, with $\operatorname{rk}_k(G)\ge 2$, and $\Gamma<G$ a lattice.
Then $\Gamma$ does not admit any coarsely minimal action on a geodesic hyperbolic space.
\end{corollary}
\subsection{Hyperbolic structures}
The setup adopted here is inspired by the notion of \textit{hyperbolic structures}, defined in \cite{ABO} to capture
\emph{cobounded} actions on hyperbolic spaces. Coarsely minimal actions provide a similar but broader setup (see \cite[Proposition 3.12]{ABO} for a comparison). In what follows, we regard a hyperbolic structure as an equivalence class (in the sense of Definition \ref{defn:equivalence}) of cobounded actions on hyperbolic spaces. Any such action is either coarsely minimal, or the hyperbolic space being acted on is bounded (giving rise to what is called the trivial structure). That is, the number of hyperbolic structures up to equivalence is the number of coarsely minimal action up to equivalence plus one.
Therefore, in the language of \cite{ABO}, Theorem \ref{T:main_intro} implies that the lattices under consideration
have exactly $n+1$ inequivalent hyperbolic structures.
Note that in \cite{ABO},
for every integer $n \geq 1$ the authors
construct a finitely generated group $\Gamma$ admitting precisely $n$ distinct
hyperbolic structures; irreducible lattices in higher-rank semi-simple groups provide
naturally occurring examples of that same phenomenon. Note that any lattice in a higher-rank simple Lie group has only the trivial hyperbolic structure by either \cite{Haettel} or Theorem \ref{T:main_intro}.
\begin{example}[Groups with $n\ge 2$ non-trivial hyperbolic structures]\hfill{}\\
Choose $n-1$ distinct primes $p_2,\dots,p_{n}$ and consider the group
\[
\Gamma=\operatorname{SL}_2({\mathbb Z}[\frac{1}{p_2},\dots, \frac{1}{p_n}])
\]
that embeds as an irreducible lattice in $\operatorname{SL}_2({\mathbb R})\times \operatorname{SL}_2({\mathbb Q}_{p_2})\times\dots\times \operatorname{SL}_2({\mathbb Q}_{p_n})$.
Theorem~\ref{T:main} implies that it has precisely $n$ non-trivial hyperbolic structures that arise from its
actions on the hyperbolic plane $\mathbb H^2$ via $\operatorname{pr}_1$,
or on the $(p_i+1)$-regular tree $T_i$ via $\operatorname{pr}_i$ for $i=2,\dots,n$.
These structures can also be viewed as coming from the Cayley graphs $X(\Gamma,S_i)$, where
$S_1=\setdef{\gamma\in \Gamma}{ \|\operatorname{pr}_i(\gamma)\|\le 1+\epsilon_1}$
for an arbitrary fixed $\epsilon_1>0$,
and for $i\ge 2$ the set $S_i$ consists of those $\gamma\in\Gamma$
that contain the prime $p_i$ in the denominators of the matrix elements in power not exceeding $1$.
\end{example}
\begin{example}[A group with a single non-trivial hyperbolic structure]\hfill{}\\
Consider the quadratic form $q(x_1,\dots,x_5)=x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2+\sqrt{2}x_4^2-x_5^2$,
its orthogonal group $\operatorname{SO}(q)=\setdef{g\in\operatorname{SL}_5}{q\circ g=q}$,
and let $\Gamma=\operatorname{SO}(q)_{{\mathbb Z}[\sqrt{2}]}$ be the group of its integer points.
This group has only one non-trivial hyperbolic structure, because $\Gamma$ is an irreducible lattice in the semi-simple real
Lie group ${\operatorname{SO}}(4,1)\times \operatorname{SO}(3,2)$
that has a single rank-one factor ${\operatorname{SO}}(4,1)\simeq \operatorname{Isom}(\mathbb H^4)$ and another simple $\operatorname{SO}(3,2)$ factor of rank two.
\end{example}
\begin{example}[Each Burger--Mozes group has two non-trivial hyperbolic structures]\hfill{}\\
M.~Burger and S.~Mozes \cite{BM} have constructed irreducible lattices $\Gamma<G_1\times G_2$ in a product
of two standard rank one groups
$G_i<\operatorname{Aut}(T_i)$, and proved many remarkable properties of these groups.
Theorem~\ref{T:main} shows that each of these lattices $\Gamma$
has precisely two distinct non-trivial hyperbolic structures, coming from their actions
on the trees $T_1$ and $T_2$.
\end{example}
\subsection{Outline of proofs}
In the proofs we will use boundary theory as outlined in \cite{BF-ICM}.
Roughly, given a group $\Gamma$ one can associate to it a Lebesgue space $B$,
called $\Gamma$-boundary, which on one hand has very strong ergodic properties,
and on the other hand has the property that whenever $\Gamma$ acts on a compact space $Z$,
there is a $\Gamma$-equivariant map $B\overto{} \operatorname{Prob}(Z)$, called a \textbf{boundary map}.
In Section \ref{sec:boundary_maps} we will study a general group $\Gamma$ acting nicely
on a hyperbolic space $X$, and show that in this case the boundary map actually takes its values in the Gromov boundary $\partial X$ of $X$, and enjoy various extra rigidity properties.
The case where $X$ is proper had been considered already in \cite{BF-ICM}, and indeed the
main result of the section is a direct generalization of \cite[Theorem 3.2]{BF-ICM}.
To deal with the case of potentially non-proper spaces, we make use of the horoboundary and its relation
to the Gromov boundary.
Similar strategies were considered by Duchesne in \cite{Du} and by Maher and Tiozzo in \cite{MT}.
In Section \ref{sec:proof_main} we specialize to the case where $\Gamma$ is a (generalized) higher rank lattice, as in our main theorem. In this case the $\Gamma$-boundary of $\Gamma$ splits as a product, with factors corresponding to the factors of the ambient locally compact group $G$. Due to the ergodicity properties of $\Gamma$-boundaries, we see that when $\Gamma$ acts nicely on a hyperbolic space $X$, the boundary map from the $\Gamma$-boundary to $\partial X$ factors through one of the algebraic factors of the ambient group $G$. At this point, there are two cases to analyse. The first case is when the said factor is of rank~$\geq 2$: we have to show that this cannot occur. This is done in Subsection \ref{sub:step_2.5_rank_1_factor} by adapting the Weyl group method of Bader--Furman \cite{BF-Weyl}. The second case is that the factor as above corresponds to a rank-one factor $G_i$ of $G$. In that case, we have to show that $X$ is equivalent to the model space $X_i$ for $G_i$ (a symmetric space or a tree). This is done in Subsections \ref{sub:step_2_bounded_to_bounded} and \ref{sub:unbounded_in_g_i_is_unbounded}. By hypothesis, the group $G$ has at least two factors in this case, the projection of $\Gamma$ to $G_i$ has dense image. To show the equivalence between $X_i$ and $X$, metric properties are transferred from $X_i$ to $X$ via the boundary map. A key ingredient is that bounded subsets of $X_i$ correspond to precompact subsets of $G_i$, and the latter property can be rephrased in terms of the boundedness of Radon--Nikodym derivatives for the action on the $G_i$-boundary.
\subsection*{Acknowledgements}
The authors would like to acknowledge the support:
UB was supported by ISF Moked 713510 grant number 2919/19, PEC was supported by the FWO and the F.R.S.-FNRS under the EOS programme (project ID 40007542),
AF was supported in part by NSF Grant DMS 2005493,
UB and AF were supported by BSF Grant 2018258.
This project was started at the Oberwolfach workshop ``Geometric structures in group theory" number 1726. The authors are thankful to the Oberwolfach Institute for hosting the workshop, and to the organizers.
\section{Boundary maps}
\label{sec:boundary_maps}
In this section we fix the group $\Gamma$ and discuss {\em boundary maps}
associated to various hyperbolic structures on $\Gamma$.
In particular we prove Theorem~\ref{thm:boundarymap} below.
The novel aspect of this theorem is that the Gromov hyperbolic spaces
it deals with are not assumed to be proper.
Recall that the Gromov boundary of a proper Gromov hyperbolic space
is compact and the associated action
is a {\em convergence group} action.
Boundary maps associated with such actions were considered in \cite{BF-ICM}*{Theorem~3.2}.
Thus Theorem~\ref{thm:boundarymap} below is
an extension of \cite{BF-ICM}*{Theorem~3.2}.
Our main task in this section is to recall the setting of the latter and
to explain the required adjustments in its proof.
\medskip
Let us first recall some definitions.
Let $G$ be a locally compact second countable group.
This includes the case of countable discrete group $\Gamma$.
A \textit{Lebesgue $G$-space} is a Lebesgue space $(\Omega,\mu)$
with a measurable, measure class preserving action map $G\times \Omega\overto{} \Omega$.
A \textit{Borel $G$-space $V$} is a standard Borel space $V$ with a Borel
action map $G\times V\overto{} V$.
Given a Lebesgue $G$-space $\Omega$ and a standard Borel $G$-space $V$,
we denote by $\operatorname{Map}_G(\Omega,V)$ the space of equivalence classes of measurable
maps $f:\Omega\to V$ that satisfy
$f(g.\omega)=g.f(\omega)$ for a.e. $g\in G$ and a.e. $\omega\in\Omega$,
where $f, f':\Omega\to V$ are identified if $f(\omega)=f'(\omega)$ for a.e. $\omega\in\Omega$.
Any such map $f$ is equivalent to $f_0:\Omega\to V$ such that for every $g\in G$
we have $f_0(g.\omega)=g.f_0(\omega)$ a.e. $\omega\in\Omega$ (\cite[Proposition B.5]{Zimmer}).
We say that a Lebesgue $G$-space $\Omega$ is \textit{metrically ergodic} if given
any separable metric space $(S,d)$ and a continuous homomorphism
$\pi:G\to\operatorname{Isom}(S,d)$, the only $G$-equivariant measurable maps $F:\Omega\overto{} S$
are essentially constant ones, i.e.
\[
\operatorname{Map}_G(\Omega,S)=\operatorname{Map}_G(\{*\},S).
\]
Let $p:\Omega\overto{}\Sigma$ be a measurable, measure class preserving, $G$-equivariant
map between Lebesgue $G$-spaces. We say that $p$ is a \textit{relatively metrically ergodic}
map if for any measurable family $\{(S_y,d_y)\}_{y\in \Sigma}$
of separable metric spaces, with a measurable family
\[
\left\{\pi_y(g):(S_y,d_y)\overto{} (S_{gy},d_{gy})\right\}\qquad (g\in G,\ y\in \Sigma)
\]
of isometries with $\pi_y(gh)=\pi_{hy}(g)\circ \pi_y(h)$,
the only $G$-equivariant measurable maps $\{ F(x)\in S_{p(x)}\}_{x\in \Omega}$
are pull-backs $F=f\circ p$ of measurable $G$-equivariant family
$\{ f(y)\in S_{y}\}_{y\in \Sigma}$.
In particular, for any fixed separable metric space $(S,d)$ and any
continuous homomorphism $\pi:G\overto{}\operatorname{Isom}(S,d)$ we have a natural isomorphism
$\operatorname{Map}_G(\Omega,S)\simeq\operatorname{Map}_G(\Sigma,S)$.
\begin{definition}[{\cite{BF-ICM}*{Definition~2.3}}] \label{Def:boundary-pairs}
A pair $(B_-, B_+)$ of Lebesgue $G$-spaces forms a \emph{boundary pair} if
the actions $G\curvearrowright B_-$ and $G\curvearrowright B_+$ are amenable, and the projections
\[
\operatorname{pr}_-:B_-\times B_+\ \overto{}\ B_-,\qquad \operatorname{pr}_+: B_-\times B_+\ \overto{}\ B_+
\]
are relatively metrically ergodic.
A Lebesgue $G$-space $B$ for which $(B,B)$ is a boundary pair will
be called a $G$-\emph{boundary}.
\end{definition}
We recall the following facts (see \cite{BF-ICM}*{\S 2}).
\begin{prop}\label{P:boundaries}
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)]
Any lcsc group $G$ admits a boundary pair (and also $G$-boundaries), arising
from Furstenberg--Poisson boundaries associated with a generating and admissible
probability measure $\mu$ and its reflection $\check\mu$ on $G$
(see \cite{BF-ICM}*{Theorem~2.7}).
\item[(b)]
For a simple Lie group $G$ the quotient $B=G/P$ by a
minimal parabolic subgroup $P<G$, equipped with a $G$-invariant
measure class, gives a $G$-boundary (see \cite{BF-ICM}*{Theorem~2.5}).
More generally, for a local field $k$, (the $k$-points of)
a $k$-simple group $G$ and a $k$-minimal parabolic subgroup $P<G$,
$G/P$ is a $G$-boundary (see \cite{BBHP}*{Example~2.14}).
\item[(c)]
For a locally compact group $G$ which acts continuously, properly, by automorphisms on a locally finite
tree, such that the boundary action is 2-transitive, $G/P$ is a $G$-boundary, where $P<G$ the stabilizer of a boundary point, (see \cite{BBHP}*{Example~2.15}).
\item[(d)]
Let $G=G_1\times\cdots\times G_N$ be a product of lcsc groups,
and let $(B^{(i)}_{-},B^{(i)}_{+})$ be $G_i$-boundary pairs, $1\le i\le N$.
Then $B_-=B^{(1)}_{-}\times\cdots\times B^{(N)}_{-}$ and
$B_+=B^{(1)}_{+}\times\cdots\times B^{(N)}_{+}$ form a boundary pair for $G$.
\item[(e)]
Let $\Gamma<G$ be a lattice. Then any $G$-boundary pair $(B_-,B_+)$ is
a boundary pair for $\Gamma$.
\end{itemize}
\end{prop}
In the following theorem $(X,d)$ is a separable Gromov hyperbolic space
with a group $\Gamma$ acting by isometries on $X$.
We denote by $\partial X$ Gromov boundary, $\partial X^2$ its square,
and
\[
\partial X^{(2)}=\setdef{(\xi,\eta)}{\xi\ne \eta \in \partial X}
\]
the subset of distinct pairs of boundary points.
Since $X$ is not assumed to be proper, $\partial X$ is not
necessarily compact. Yet, $\partial X$ is a standard Borel space,
and so are $\partial X^{(2)}\subset \partial X^2$.
The action of $\Gamma$ on all these spaces is Borel.
\begin{theorem}[{cf. \cite{BF-ICM}*{Theorem~3.2}}] \label{thm:boundarymap}\hfill{}\\
Let $(B_+,B_-)$ be a boundary pair for $\Gamma$.
Let $(X,d)$ be a separable, Gromov hyperbolic (possibly non-proper), geodesic metric space
and assume that $\Gamma$ acts continuously and isometrically on $X$.
Denote by $\partial X$ the Gromov boundary of $X$ and recall it is a Polish space
(possibly non-compact) on which $\Gamma$ acts continuously.
Assume that $\Gamma$ does not fix a bounded set in $X$ and does not fix a point or
a pair of points in $\partial X$.
Then there exist $\phi_-\in \operatorname{Map}_\Gamma(B_-,\partial X)$,
$\phi_+\in\operatorname{Map}_\Gamma(B_+,\partial X)$
such that the image of the map $\phi_{\bowtie}\in\operatorname{Map}_\Gamma(B_-\times B_+,\partial X^2)$
given by
\[
\phi_{\bowtie}(x,y)=(\phi_-(x),\phi_+(y))
\]
is essentially contained in the set of distinct pairs
$\partial X^{(2)}\subset \partial X^2$. Moreover:
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\rm (i)}] $\operatorname{Map}_\Gamma(B_-,\operatorname{Prob}(\partial X))=\left\{ \delta\circ \phi_-\right\}$,
and $\operatorname{Map}_\Gamma(B_+,\operatorname{Prob}(\partial X))=\left\{ \delta\circ \phi_+\right\}$.
\item[{\rm (ii)}] $\operatorname{Map}_\Gamma(B_-\times B_+,\partial X) = \{ \phi_-\circ \operatorname{pr}_-,\phi_+\circ \operatorname{pr}_+\}$,
\item[{\rm (iii)}] $\operatorname{Map}_\Gamma(B_-\times B_+,\partial X^{(2)}) = \{ \phi_{\bowtie},\ \tau\circ \phi_{\bowtie}\}$,
where $\tau(\xi,\xi')=(\xi',\xi)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
The rest of this section is devoted to the proof of this Theorem.
\subsection{The horoclosure of a separable metric space}
Let $(X, d)$ be a separable metric space.
We consider the space of functions from $X$ to $\mathbb{R}$
endowed with the pointwise convergence topology, i.e the product space $\mathbb{R}^X$,
and the constant function $\mathbf{1}\in \mathbb{R}^X$.
We endow $\mathbb{R}^X/\mathbb{R}\cdot \mathbf{1}$ with the quotient topological vector space structure.
We map $X$ to $\mathbb{R}^X$ by $x\mapsto d(\cdot,x)$
and consider its image in $\mathbb{R}^X/\mathbb{R}\cdot\mathbf{1}$.
We denote the closure of the image of $X$ in $\mathbb{R}^X/\mathbb{R}\cdot \mathbf{1}$ by $\bar{X}$ and call it the
{\em horoclosure} of $X$.
We denote the obvious map $X\to \bar{X}$ by $i$, and the preimage of $\bar{X}$ in $\mathbb{R}^X$ by $\tilde{X}$.
Elements of $\bar{X}$ (and by abuse of notations, also elements of $\tilde{X}$) are called \emph{horofunctions}.
It is a common practice to fix a base point $x\in X$ and to consider the subspace
\[
\tilde{X} \supset \tilde{X}_x=\setdef{h\in \tilde{X}}{ h(x)=0 }.
\]
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:horo_inject}
$\bar{X}$ is a compact metrizable space and the map $i:X\to \bar{X}$ is an injective continuous map.
For a fixed $x\in X$, the map $\tilde{X}_x\to \bar{X}$ is a homeomorphism.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The fact that $i$ is continuous is obvious.
For $x\neq y$ in $X$, note that the difference function $d(x,\cdot)-d(y,\cdot)$ is not constant,
as it attains different values at $x$ and $y$. Thus $i$ is injective.
We now fix $x\in X$. First we note that $\tilde{X}_x$ is closed subset of
\[
\prod_{y\in X} [-d(x,y),d(x,y)] \subset \prod_{y\in X} \mathbb{R}=\mathbb{R}^X,
\]
thus it is compact.
Fixing a countable dense subset $X_0$ in $X$,
the obvious map $\tilde{X}_x\to \mathbb{R}^X \to \mathbb{R}^{X_0}$ is a continuous injection
(as $\tilde{X}_x$ consists of continuous functions),
hence a homeomorphism onto its image.
The image is a Frechet space, thus metrizable.
It follows that $\tilde{X}_x$ is metrizable.
Since the natural map $\tilde{X}_x\to \bar{X}$ is also a continuous bijection,
we conclude that it is a homeomorphism
and deduce that $\bar{X}$ is compact and metrizable.
\end{proof}
Loosely speaking, we identify many times $X$ with $i(X) \subset \bar{X}$.
Note however that the image of $X$ is in general not open in $\bar{X}$ and the map $i$ is not
a homeomorphism onto its image.
We decompose $\tilde{X}$ as follows.
\[
\begin{split}
\tilde{X}^b &=\setdef{h\in \tilde{X}}{ f \mbox{ is bounded from below}}, \\
\tilde{X}^u &=\setdef{h\in \tilde{X}}{ f \mbox{ is unbounded from below}}.
\end{split}
\]
This decomposition is constant on the fibers of $\tilde{X}\to \bar{X}$,
thus gives a corresponding decomposition $\bar{X}=\bar{X}^b\cup \bar{X}^u$.
Clearly we have $i(X) \subseteq \bar X^b$, so that $\bar X^b$ is dense in $\bar X$.
\begin{lemma}
The decompositions $\tilde{X}=\tilde{X}^b\cup \tilde{X}^u$ and $\bar{X}=\bar{X}^b\cup \bar{X}^u$ are measurable
and $\operatorname{Isom}(X)$-equivariant.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The equivariance of the decompositions is obvious.
Fix a dense countable subset $X_0$ in $X$ and use the fact that $\tilde{X}$ consists of continuous functions to note that
\[
\tilde{X}^u=\bigcap_{n\in \mathbb{N}}\bigcup_{x\in X_0}
\setdef{h\in \tilde{X}}{ h(x)\leq -n },
\]
thus $\tilde{X}^u \subset \tilde{X}$ is measurable.
Fixing $x\in X$, using the measurability of $\tilde{X}^u_x$, we observe that $\bar{X}^u\subset \bar{X}$ is measurable.
\end{proof}
We denote by $\operatorname{Bdd}(X)$ the space of closed non-empty bounded subsets of $X$ and endow it with the Hausdorff metric.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:algebragen}
The Borel $\sigma$-algebra on $\operatorname{Bdd}(X)$ is generated by the collection
\[
\mathcal{C}=\setdef{K \in \operatorname{Bdd}(X)}{ K \subset U,\ U\mbox{ open in } X}.
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Denote by $\langle \mathcal{C} \rangle$ the $\sigma$-algebra generated by the collection $\mathcal{C}$.
For every $x\in X$ and $r>0$, the set $\setdef{K}{d(K,x)>r}$ is in $\mathcal{C}$,
thus $\setdef{K}{d(K,x)\leq r}$ is in $\langle \mathcal{C} \rangle$.
Given any subset $K_0\in \operatorname{Bdd}(X)$, using a dense countable subset $K'_0$ in $K_0$,
we get that
\[
\setdef{K}{\forall~ x\in K_0,~d(K,x)\leq r}=\bigcap_{x\in K'_0}\setdef{K}{d(K,x)\leq r}
\in \langle \mathcal{C} \rangle.
\]
Note also that
\[
\setdef{K}{\forall~ x\in K,~d(K_0,x)\leq r}=\bigcap_{n}
\setdef{K}{\forall~ x\in K,~d(K_0,x)<r+\frac{1}{n}} \in \langle \mathcal{C} \rangle
\]
and that the intersection of the two sets above consists of the closed
ball of radius $r$ around $K_0$ in $\operatorname{Bdd}(X)$.
As the open ball of radius $r$ around $K_0$ is given by the union of
the closed balls of radius $r-1/n$ around $K_0$,
we conclude that
all open balls in $\operatorname{Bdd}(X)$ are in $\langle \mathcal{C} \rangle$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{The horoclosure of a hyperbolic metric space}
We now assume in addition that the separable metric space $(X,d)$ is geodesic and Gromov hyperbolic
(as before, it is possibly non-proper).
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:horo_to_sets}
The function
\[
\inf:\tilde{X}^b\to \mathbb{R}, \quad h\mapsto \inf\setdef{h(x)}{x\in X}
\]
is measurable and $\operatorname{Isom}(X)$-invariant.
For every $h\in \tilde{X}_b$,
the set
\[
\tilde{I}(h)=\overline{\setdef{x\in X}{h(x)< \inf(h)+1}}
\]
is bounded in $X$.
The obtained map $\tilde{I}:\tilde{X}^b\to \operatorname{Bdd}(X)$ is measurable
and factors via $\tilde{X}^b\to \bar{X}^b$, defining a measurable map
$I:\bar{X}^b\to \operatorname{Bdd}(X)$.
The maps $\tilde{I}$ and $I$ are $\operatorname{Isom}(X)$-equivariant.
\end{lemma}
\begin{remark}
In fact, as the proof below shows, the sets in the image of $I$ are uniformly bounded.
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}
To see that $\inf$ is measurable, fix a dense countable subset $X_0$ in $X$ and use the continuity of the functions in $\tilde{X}^b$ to observe that
\[
\inf(h)=\inf\setdef{h(x)}{x\in X_0}.
\]
The invariance of this function is clear.
Fix $h \in \tilde{X}_b$.
We argue to show that $\tilde{I}(h)$ is of diameter bounded by $C=8+4\delta$,
where $\delta$ is the hyperbolicity constant associated with the thin triangles property of $X$.
Without loss of generality we assume that $\inf(h)=0$.
Assuming the negation, we fix two points $x,x'$ satisfying
$d(x,x')>C$ and $h(x),h(x')<1$.
We consider a finite sequence of points $x_0,x_1,\ldots,x_n$ on a geodesic
segment from $x$ to $x'$ such that $x_0=x$, $x_n=x'$ and $d(x_i,x_{i+1})<1$.
We consider the image of $h$ in $\bar{X}$ along with its neighborhood
given by
\[
U=\setdef{f+\mathbb{R}\cdot\mathbf{1}}{ f\in \mathbb{R}^X,~\forall 0\leq i,j\leq n,~
|\left(f(x_i)-f(x_j)\right)-\left(h(x_i)-h(x_j)\right)|<1}.
\]
We fix a point $y\in X$ whose image in $\bar{X}$ is in $U$.
We thus have:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:ij}
\forall 0\leq i,j \leq n, \quad
|d(y,x_i)-h(x_i)-d(y,x_j)+h(x_j)|<1.
\end{equation}
We consider geodesic segments from $y$ to $x$ and from $y$ to $x'$ and, using that $x,x'$ and $y$
are the vertices of a thin triangle, we
fix $i$ such that $x_i$ lies at distance at most $1+\delta$ from these segments.
Thus
\[
\begin{split}
&d(y,x_i)+d(x_i,x)\leq d(y,x)+2+2\delta,\\
&d(y,x_i)+d(x_i,x')\leq d(y,x')+2+2\delta.
\end{split}
\]
Note that $d(x,x_i)+d(x_i,x')=d(x,x')$.
Upon possibly interchanging the roles of $x$ and $x'$, we will assume that $d(x,x_i)\geq d(x,x')/2$.
In particular, $d(x,x_i)\geq C/2$.
Taking $j=0$ in Equation~(\ref{eq:ij}), we now have
\begin{align*}
0 &= \inf(h) \\
& \leq h(x_i) \\
& < 1+d(y,x_i)+h(x)-d(y,x) \\
&\leq 1+\left(d(y,x)+2+2\delta- d(x_i,x)\right)+h(x)-d(y,x)\\
&< (3+h(x))+2\delta-d(x_i,x) \\
& \leq 4+2\delta-C/2 =0.
\end{align*}
This is a contradiction, thus indeed the diameter of $\tilde{I}(h)$ is bounded by $C$.
We now turn to prove the measurability of $\tilde{I}$ and $I$.
Fix an open set $U$ in $X$.
Observe that for a countable dense subset $F_0$ in $X-U$,
\[
\tilde{I}^{-1}(\{K\mid K \subset U\})=\bigcap_{x\in F_0} \setdef{h\in \tilde{X}}{ h(x)-\inf(h)\geq 1},
\]
thus this is a measurable set.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:algebragen}, it follows that $\tilde{I}$ is measurable.
The fact that $\tilde{I}$ factors via $\tilde{X}^b\to \bar{X}^b$ is clear.
To see that the obtained map $I:\bar{X}^b\to \operatorname{Bdd}(X)$
is measurable, use Lemma~\ref{lem:horo_inject} and the fact that,
fixing $x\in X$, $\tilde{I}$ is measurable on $\tilde{X}^b_x$.
The fact that $\tilde{I}$ and $I$ are $\mathrm{Isom}(X)$-equivariant is straightforward.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Measurable barycenters}
We now describe for each $\epsilon\in(0,1/2)$ a measurable ''barycenter" $\operatorname{Isom}(X)$-map
\[
\beta_\epsilon:\operatorname{Prob}(\operatorname{Bdd}(X))\overto{} \operatorname{Bdd}(X)
\]
to be the set of centers of balls of almost minimal radius containing $(1-\epsilon)$ mass of sets.
More precisely, given a probability measure $m$ on $\operatorname{Bdd}(X)$, a point $x\in X$ and $R<\infty$,
consider the ball $B(x,R)=\setdef{y\in X}{d(x,y)<R}$ and the value
\[
F_{m,x}(R):=m\setdef{A\in \operatorname{Bdd}(X)}{A\subset B(x,R)}.
\]
Clearly $F_{m,x}(R)\to 1$ as $R\to1$. So for every $x\in X$ one has a well defined finite
$R_{x,\epsilon,m}=\inf\setdef{R}{F_{m,x}(R)>1-\epsilon}$. Define $R^*_{\epsilon,m}:=\inf\setdef{R_{x,\epsilon,m}}{x\in X}$.
We set
\[
\beta_\epsilon(m)=\overline{\setdef{x\in X}{ R_{x,\epsilon,m}< R^*_{\epsilon,m}+1}},
\]
which is easily seen to be a bounded set, since if we have points $x_1,x_2\in X$
so that $m\setdef{A\in \operatorname{Bdd}(X)}{A\subset B(x_i,R^*_{\epsilon,m}+1)}>1/2$ for $i=1,2$, then we must have
$B(x_1,R^*_{\epsilon,m}+1)\cap B(x_2,R^*_{\epsilon,m}+1)\ne \varnothing$.
\medskip
From the definition, $\beta_\epsilon$ is $\operatorname{Isom}(X)$-equivariant.
\begin{lemma}\label{L:centers}
Given $C>0$ and $\epsilon\in (0,1/2)$, if $m_1,m_2\in \operatorname{Prob}(\operatorname{Bdd}(X))$
are such that for every measurable $E\in \operatorname{Bdd}(X)$
\[
C^{-1} m_1(E)\le m_2(E)\le C m_1(E)
\]
then
\[
\beta_{\epsilon/C}(m_2)\subseteq N_{R(\epsilon,m_1)}(\beta_\epsilon(m_1)),
\]
where $R(\epsilon,m_1)=R^*_{\epsilon,m_1}+R^*_{\epsilon/C^2,m_1}+3$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
This is similar to the reason why $\beta_\epsilon(m)$ is bounded. Suppose that $x_1,x_2$ are so that
\[
m_1\setdef{A}{A\subset B(x_1,R^*_{\epsilon,m_1}+1)}>1-\epsilon
\]
and
\[
m_2\setdef{A}{A\subset B(x_2,R^*_{\epsilon/C,m_2}+1)}>1-\epsilon/C.
\]
Then $m_1\setdef{A\in \operatorname{Bdd}(X)}{A\subset B(x_2,R^*_{\epsilon/C,m_2}+1)}>1-\epsilon$, hence
\[
B(x_1,R^*_{\epsilon,m_1}+1)\cap B(x_2,R^*_{\epsilon/C,m_2}+1)\neq \varnothing,
\]
yielding $d(x_1,x_2)\leq R^*_{\epsilon,m_1}+R^*_{\epsilon/C,m_2}+2$.
Moreover, $R^*_{\epsilon/C,m_2}\leq R^*_{\epsilon/C^2,m_1}+1$, because given any $x$ with
the property that $m_1\setdef{A}{A\subset B(x,R^*_{\epsilon/C^2,m_1}+1)}>1-\epsilon/C^2$,
by comparability of the measure we also have that
\[
m_2\setdef{A\in \operatorname{Bdd}(X)}{A\subset B(x,R^*_{\epsilon/C^2,m_1}+1)}>1-\epsilon/C.
\]
\end{proof}
\subsection{The Gromov boundary}
While the construction of the Gromov boundary $\partial X$ is fairly standard,
it is commonly taken under a properness assumption on $X$.
In preparation for our more general discussion we review this construction below.
As common, we fix from now on a base point $o\in X$.
For $x\in X$ we use the shorthand notation $|x|=d(o,x)$.
Gromov products will be taken, unless otherwise stated, with respect to $o$.
That is, for $x,y\in X$ we set
\[
(x,y)=\frac{1}{2}\left(|x|+|y|-d(x,y)\right).
\]
In our discussion below we fix $\delta>0$ such that for every $x,y,z\in X$ we have
\[
(x,z) \geq \min\{(x,y),(y,z)\}-\delta.
\]
We recall that a sequence of points $(x_n)$ in $X$ is said to {\em converge to infinity} if $(x_n,x_m)$ converges to infinity when both $m$ and $n$ do.
\begin{lemma}
Assume $(x_n)$ is a sequence of points in $X$ which converges in $\bar{X}$
and denote $\bar{h}=\lim x_n$.
Then $(x_n)$ converges to infinity if and only if $\bar{h}\in \bar{X}^u$.
In that case, if $(x'_n)$ is another sequences in $X$ satisfying
$\lim x'_n =\bar{h}$
then $(x_n,x'_n) \to \infty$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We will denote the lift of $\bar{h}$ in $\tilde{X}_o$ by $h$ and show that
$(x_n)$ converges to infinity if and only if $h\in \tilde{X}^u_o$.
Note that for every $x\in X$, $d(x_n,x)-|x|\to h(x)$.
Assuming first $(x_n)$ converges to infinity, we will show that $h\in \tilde{X}^u_o$.
Fix $r>0$.
Fix $N$ such that for $n,m>N$, $(x_n,x_m)>r$.
Fix $m>N$, note that $|x_m|\geq r$ and let $x$ be a point on a geodesic segment from $o$ to $x_m$
with $|x|=r$.
Then by hyperbolicity,
\[ (x_n,x) \geq \min\{(x_n,x_m),(x_m,x)\}-\delta = r-\delta, \]
Thus
\[ h(x)=\lim_{n\to \infty} \left(d(x_n,x)-|x_n|\right)=
\lim_{n\to \infty} \left(|x|-2(x_n,x)\right) \leq 2\delta-r. \]
As $r$ was arbitrary, indeed we get that $h\in \tilde{X}^u_o$.
Assuming now $h\in \tilde{X}^u$, we will show that
$(x_n)$ converges to infinity.
Fix $r>0$. Fix $x$ such that $h(x)<-r$.
Fix $N$ such that for every $n>N$, $d(x_n,x)-|x_n|<-r$
and observe that for such $n$,
\[
(x_n,x)=\frac{1}{2}\left(|x_n|+|x|-d(x_n,x)\right)\geq -\frac{1}{2}\left(d(x_n,x)-|x_n|\right)
> \frac{1}{2} r.
\]
Then by hyperbolicity, for $n,m>N$,
\[
(x_n,x_m) \geq \min\{(x_n,x),(x,x_m)\}-\delta > \frac{1}{2} r-\delta.
\]
As $r$ was arbitrary, indeed we get that the sequence $(x_n)$ converges to infinity.
In the setting of the former paragraph,
if $(x'_n)$ is another sequences in $X$ satisfying $x'_n \to \bar{h}$,
fixing $N'\geq N$ such that for every $n>N'$, $d(x'_n,x)-|x'_n|<-r$, the same computation shows that
$(x_n,x'_n) > r/2-\delta$.
Thus indeed, $(x_n,x'_n) \to \infty$.
\end{proof}
Two sequences which converge to infinity, $(x_n)$ and $(y_n)$, are said to be equivalent if $(x_n,y_n) \to \infty$.
We conclude that if $(x_n)$ and $(x'_n)$ are two sequences in $X$ satisfying
\[
\lim_{n\to\infty} x_n = \lim_{n\to\infty} x'_n \in \bar{X}^u
\]
then $(x_n)$ is equivalent to $(x'_n)$.
A point in $\partial X$ is, by definition, an equivalence class of sequences which converge to infinity.
We denote by $\pi$ the unique
map $\pi:\bar{X}^u\to \partial X$
satisfying
\[
\lim_{n\to\infty} x_n \in \bar{X}^u \qquad \Longrightarrow
\qquad \pi(\lim_{n\to\infty} x_n)=[x_n].
\]
For a point $\xi\in \partial X$ and $r>0$ we set
\[
U(\xi,r)=\setdef{\eta\in \partial X}{ \sup\setdef{
\liminf_{n\to\infty} (x_n,x'_n)}{(x_n)\in\xi,~(x'_n)\in \eta} \geq r}.
\]
We note that the collection of sets $U(\xi,r)$ forms a basis for a topology and endow $\partial X$ with the corresponding topology.
\begin{lemma}
The map $\pi$ is continuous and $\operatorname{Isom}(X)$-equivariant.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The equivariance of $\pi$ is obvious.
In order to show continuity,
we fix a point $\bar{h}\in \bar{X}^u$ and show the continuity of $\pi$ at $\bar{h}$.
Thus
we fix $r>0$ and argue to show that there exists a neighborhood $V$ of $\bar{h}$ in $\bar{X}^u$ such $\pi(V)\subset U(\pi(\bar{h}),r)$.
We will denote the lift of $\bar{h}$ in $\tilde{X}^u_o$ by $h$,
set $t=2(r+\delta)$
and
fix a point $x\in X$ such that $h(x)<-t$.
We let $V\subset \bar{X}^u_o$ be the open neighborhood of $\bar{h}$ corresponding to the set $\{h'\in \tilde{X}^u_o \mid h'(x)<-t\}$.
Fix $\bar{h}'\in V$ and denote its lift in $\tilde{X}_o^u$ by $h'$.
Let $(x_n)$ and $(x'_n)$ be sequences in $X$ converging to $\bar{h}$ and $\bar{h}'$ respectively.
In particular,
\[
h(x) =\lim_{n\to\infty} \left(d(x_n,x)-|x_n|\right),\qquad
h'(x) =\lim_{n\to\infty} \left(d(x'_n,x)-|x'_n|\right).
\]
Fix $N$ such that for every $n>N$ both $\left(d(x_n,x)-|x_n|\right)<-t$ and $\left(d(x'_n,x)-|x'_n|\right)<-t$.
Note that for $n>N$
\[
(x_n,x)=\frac{1}{2}\left(|x_n|+|x|-d(x_n,x)\right)\geq -\frac{1}{2} \left(d(x_n,x)-|x_n|\right)
> \frac{1}{2} t
\]
and similarly $(x'_n,x)>t/2$.
Thus
\[
(x_n,x'_n)\geq \min\{(x_n,x),(x,x'_n)\}-\delta > \frac{1}{2} t-\delta=r.
\]
It follows that $\liminf (x_n,x'_n)\geq r$
and in particular,
\[
\sup\setdef{\liminf_{n\to\infty} (x_n,x'_n)}{(x_n)\in\pi(\bar{h}),~(x'_n)\in \pi(\bar{h}')} \geq r.
\]
Thus, $\pi(\bar{h}')\in U(\pi(\bar{h}),r)$.
We conclude that indeed $\pi(V)\subset U(\pi(\bar{h}),r)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:triples_to_sets}
Assume $\Gamma<\operatorname{Isom}(X)$ is a countable group. Then there is a Borel $\Gamma$-map
\[
\tau:\partial X^{(3)}\overto{}\operatorname{Bdd}(X).
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Of course, the idea is just that $\tau$ gives the coarse center of an ideal triangle, but some care is needed because $X$ might not be proper, and because we want a Borel map. Let $\delta>0$ be a hyperbolicity constant for $X$.
Fix a dense, countable, $\Gamma$-invariant subset $C\subseteq X$. For $x\in X$, let $T_x\subseteq X^3$ be the set of all triples $(x_1,x_2,x_3)$ so that $d(x_i,x_j)> d(x_i,x)+d(x,x_j)-10\delta$ for all distinct $i,j\in\{1,2,3\}$. We then define $\tau(a)=\overline{\{x\in C: a\in \overline{T_x}\}}$, where the closure of $T_x$ is taken in $(X\cup\partial X)^3$. Notice that $\tau(a)$ is indeed a bounded, closed, non-empty subset of $X$, and that $\tau$ is $\Gamma$-equivariant.
Let us now show that $\tau$ is Borel. Let $U$ be an arbitrary open set in $X$ and let $B_U=\{K\in \operatorname{Bdd}(X): K\subset U\}$. To show that $\tau$ is Borel, it suffices to show that $\tau^{-1}(B_U)=\{a\in \partial X^{(3)}: \tau(a)\subseteq U\}$ is a Borel set.
Fix an exhaustion $\{U_n\}$ of $U$. Notice that $\tau(a)\subseteq U$ if and only if there exists $n$ so that $\{x\in C: a\in \overline{T_x}\}\subseteq U_n$. In turn, we have $\{x\in C: a\in \overline{T_x}\}\subseteq U_n$ if and only if $a\notin \overline{T_x}$ for all $x\in C-U_n$. Hence, setting $A_n=\{a\in \partial X^{(3)}:a\notin \overline{T_x}\ \forall x\in C-U_n\}$, we have $\tau^{-1}(B_U)=\bigcup_{n\in \mathbb N} A_n$. Hence, it suffices to show that each $A_n$ is Borel. We have $A_n=\bigcap_{x\in C-U_n}\{a\in \partial X^{(3)}:a\notin \overline{T_x}\}$, so that $A_n$ is a countable intersection of closed sets, and we are done.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Digression: Atom-less measures}
We now show a result needed in the next section, but not needed for the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:boundarymap}; we include it here since we established the setup for its proof.
Given a hyperbolic space $X$, denote by $\operatorname{Prob}_c(\partial X)$ be the set of
all atom-less probability measures on the standard Borel space $\partial X$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:boundary_to_bounded}
Given a countable group $\Gamma$ acting on the hyperbolic space $X$. Then there is a $\Gamma$-map
\[
\Psi:\operatorname{Prob}_c(\partial X)\overto{}\operatorname{Prob}(\operatorname{Bdd}(X)).
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We have a $\Gamma$-map
\[
\operatorname{Prob}_c(\partial X)\overto{}\operatorname{Prob}(\partial X^3),\qquad \mu\mapsto \mu\times\mu\times\mu.
\]
In fact, the assumption that $\mu$ has no atoms on a space $\partial X$ implies that $\mu\times\mu\times\mu$
gives zero mass to the diagonals in $\partial X \times \partial X\times \partial X$, and so is fully supported on $\partial X^{(3)}$.
We thus get a well defined map
\[ \operatorname{Prob}_c(\partial X)\overto{}\operatorname{Prob}(\partial X^{(3)}),\qquad \mu\mapsto \mu\times\mu\times\mu. \]
By Lemma \ref{lem:triples_to_sets} there is a Borel $\Gamma$-map
\[
\partial X^{(3)}\overto{}\operatorname{Bdd}(X).
\]
We therefore obtain a $\Gamma$-map
\[
\Psi:\operatorname{Prob}_c(\partial X)\overto{}\operatorname{Prob}(\operatorname{Bdd}(X)),
\]
as required.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:boundarymap}}
We start with a preliminary claim that we will use a few times.
\begin{claim}\label{claim:no_B_to_bound}
We have
\[
\operatorname{Map}_\Gamma(B_-\times B_+,\operatorname{Prob}(\operatorname{Bdd}(X)))=\varnothing
\]
and therefore
\[
\operatorname{Map}_\Gamma(B_-,\operatorname{Prob}(\operatorname{Bdd}(X)))=\operatorname{Map}_\Gamma(B_+,\operatorname{Prob}(\operatorname{Bdd}(X)))=\varnothing.
\]
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
It suffices to rule out $\Gamma$-maps $f:B_-\times B_+\to \operatorname{Prob}(\operatorname{Bdd}(X))$.
If we had such map, by composing with a map $\beta_\epsilon$ we would then also
have a $\Gamma$-equivariant map $B_-\times B_+\to \operatorname{Bdd}(X)$.
By metric ergodicity (where we are thinking of $\operatorname{Bdd}(X)$ as a metric space),
any such map is essentially constant,
with value a fixed point of $\Gamma$ in the space $\operatorname{Bdd}(X)$.
Since we are assuming that $\Gamma$ has unbounded orbits in $X$, this is impossible.
\end{proof}
By amenability of $\Gamma\curvearrowright B_{\pm}$, there exist $\Gamma$-equivariant maps $\phi''_{\pm}:B_{\pm}\to \operatorname{Prob}(\bar X)$.
\begin{claim}
We have:
\[
\operatorname{Map}_\Gamma(B_-,\operatorname{Prob}(\bar X^b))=\operatorname{Map}_\Gamma(B_+,\operatorname{Prob}(\bar X^b))=\varnothing.
\]
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Recall from Lemma \ref{lem:horo_to_sets} that we have a
$\Gamma$-equivariant measurable map $I:\bar X^b\to \operatorname{Bdd}(X)$.
Hence, if we had a map $f$ as above, we would also have a $\Gamma$-equivariant map $B_{\pm}\to \operatorname{Prob}(\operatorname{Bdd}(X))$, contradicting Claim \ref{claim:no_B_to_bound}.
\end{proof}
In view of the claim, for a.e. $b\in B_{\pm}$ we have that the support of $\phi''_\pm(b)$ must be contained in $\bar X^u$, so that we can think of $\phi''_\pm$ as a map $B_{\pm}\to \operatorname{Prob}(\bar X^u)$. We can then compose $\phi''_\pm$ with $\pi_*:\operatorname{Prob}(\bar X^u)\to \operatorname{Prob}(\partial X)$, to obtain the maps
\[
\phi'_{\pm}:B_{\pm}\overto{} \operatorname{Prob}(\partial X).
\]
\begin{claim}\label{claim:delta}
For a.e. $b\in B_{\pm}$, we have that $\phi'_\pm(b)=\delta_{\xi_{\pm}}$
for some $\xi_{\pm}\in \partial X$.
\end{claim}
For later purposes, we remark that the proof applies to any $\Gamma$-maps $\phi'_{\pm}:B_{\pm}\to \operatorname{Prob}(\partial X)$ (meaning not necessarily obtained in the way described above).
\begin{proof}
We consider the $\Gamma$-equivariant map $\psi:B_{-}\times B_{+}\to \operatorname{Prob}((\partial X)^3)$ defined by
\[
\psi(b_{-},b_+)=\phi'_-(b_-)\times \phi'_+(b_+)\times \frac{1}{2}(\phi'_-(b_-)+\phi'_+(b_+)).
\]
By ergodicity of $\Gamma\curvearrowright B_{-}\times B_{+}$, either the image of $\psi$ is essentially contained in $\operatorname{Prob}((\partial X)^{(3)})$,
or it is essentially contained in $\operatorname{Prob}(\Delta(\partial X))$, where $\Delta(\partial X)$ is the set of triples so that at least two entries coincide.
In the latter case, we see that $\psi(b_-,b_+)$ is atomic with at most two atoms for a.e. $(b_-,b_+)$,
which implies that $\phi'_{\pm}(b)$ is a Dirac measure for a.e. $b\in B_{\pm}$, as we wanted. Hence, we have to rule out the first case.
If, by contradiction, the image of $\psi$ is essentially contained in $\operatorname{Prob}((\partial X)^{(3)})$, then in view of Lemma \ref{lem:triples_to_sets}
we also have a $\Gamma$-map $B_-\times B_+\to \operatorname{Prob}(\operatorname{Bdd}(X))$, which does not exist by Claim \ref{claim:no_B_to_bound}.
This concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
In view of the previous claim, we have $\Gamma$-equivariant maps
\[
\phi_\pm:B_\pm\overto{}\partial X,
\quad\textrm{defined\ by}\quad \phi'_\pm(b)=\delta_{\phi_{\pm}(b)}.
\]
Now we have to show various properties.
First, we show that the image of $\phi_{\bowtie}=\phi_{-}\times\phi_+$ is essentially contained in $\partial X^{(2)}$. If not, by ergodicity the image would be essentially contained in the diagonal. By varying the coordinates in $B_-\times B_+$ separately, we see that this would imply that both maps $\phi_\pm$ are essentially constant, which is impossible because $\Gamma$ does not fix any point in $\partial X$.
Next, we show that $\phi_\pm$ are essentially unique. This is because Claim \ref{claim:delta} shows that any $\Gamma$-map $B_{\pm}\to \operatorname{Prob}(\partial X)$
has image essentially contained in the set of Dirac measures. However, if we had two essentially distinct $\Gamma$-maps $\phi^i_\pm:B_\pm\to\partial X$,
then we would have the $\Gamma$-map $B_{\pm}\to \operatorname{Prob}(\partial X)$ given by $b\mapsto \frac{1}{2}(\delta_{\phi^1_\pm(b)}+\delta_{\phi^1_\pm(b)})$, which contradicts the said property.
Consider now $\psi\in \operatorname{Map}_\Gamma(B_-\times B_+,\partial X)$, and let $\Psi=\psi\times (\phi\circ\operatorname{pr}_-)\times (\phi\circ\operatorname{pr}_+)$,
which is a $\Gamma$-map $B_-\times B_+\to (\partial X)^3$.
As in the proof of Claim \ref{claim:delta}, if the image was essentially contained in $(\partial X)^{(3)}$, then in view of Lemma \ref{lem:triples_to_sets}
we would have a $\Gamma$-map $B_-\times B_+\to \operatorname{Prob}(\operatorname{Bdd}(X))$, which does not exist by Claim \ref{claim:no_B_to_bound}.
Hence, $\Psi$ essentially takes values in $(\partial X)^3\setminus (\partial X)^{(3)}$, and since the image of $\phi_{\bowtie}$ is essentially contained in $(\partial X)^{(2)}$,
more precisely $\Psi$ essentially takes value in either $\{(x,y,z):x=y\}$ or $\{(x,y,z):x=z\}$. This is equivalent to (ii).
Finally, notice that (iii) can be deduced from (ii) by looking at the coordinates in $(\partial X)^{(2)}$.\qed
\section{Classification of actions on hyperbolic spaces}
\label{sec:proof_main}
\subsection{Rank-one groups}
In order to work with rank-one Lie groups and automorphisms of trees simultaneously, we fix the following setup:
\begin{setup}
\label{setup:rank-one}
Consider a locally compact group $G$ that acts continuously, properly and cocompactly by isometries on a proper hyperbolic space $X$ with $|\partial X|\geq 3$, and has a compact subgroup $K$ that acts transitively on the boundary.
We call $X$ the \textbf{model space} for $G$.
\end{setup}
\begin{remark}
\label{rmk:gen_rank_one}
Standard rank-one groups as defined in the introduction, that is, simple algebraic groups over a local field and groups of automorphisms of a tree acting 2-transitively on the boundary both fit the above setup (in the latter case, the model space is the tree being acted on). In fact, by \cite[Theorem 8.1]{CCMT} a group $G$ as in Setup \ref{setup:rank-one} is a standard rank-one group up to modding out a compact kernel.
\end{remark}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:RN}
Any group $G$ as in Setup \ref{setup:rank-one} admits a $G$-boundary $(B,\nu)$ with the property that given any precompact subset $\{\gamma_i\}\subseteq G$, the corresponding Radon-Nikodym derivatives are uniformly bounded meaning:
\[
\sup \|\frac{d\gamma_i\nu}{d\nu}\|_\infty<+\infty.
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
One way to prove this involves appealing to Proposition \ref{P:boundaries} via \cite[Theorem 8.1]{CCMT}; we also give another argument below as it might be of interest.
By \cite[Theorem 1.4(1)]{loc_cpt_Poisson}, for suitable measures on $G$ the Furstenberg-Poisson boundary can be realized by a measure on $\partial X$ (to check that the theorem applies note that the action having bounded exponential growth follows from cocompactness of $G$ and properness of $X$, and note also the Furstenberg-Poisson boundary is not trivial in our case since $G$ is non-amenable in view of the assumption that $\partial X$ has at least 3 points). By Proposition \ref{P:boundaries}-(a) we can take $B=\partial X$. Furthermore, letting $K$ be as in Setup \ref{setup:rank-one}, we can take the measure on $G$ to be $K$-invariant, and hence $\nu$ will also be $K$-invariant. Note that $K$ acts transitively on $\partial X$ by the assumptions from Setup~\ref{setup:rank-one}.
Endow $\partial X$ with any visual metric $\rho$, that is, any metric bilipschitz equivalent to $e^{-\epsilon (\cdot,\cdot)_o}$ for a fixed $\epsilon>0$ and basepoint $o$ for the Gromov product. We will use the fact that $(\partial X, \rho)$ is a doubling metric space (see \cite[Theorem 9.2]{BonkSchramm}), that is, there exists a constant $N$ such that all balls in $\partial X$ can be covered by at most $N$ balls of half the radius. We will also use the fact that precompact subsets of $G$ act by uniformly bilipschitz homeomorphisms of $\partial X$. This follows from the fact the Gromov product changes a bounded amount when changing the basepoint, meaning that $|(\cdot,\cdot)_o-(\cdot,\cdot)_{o'}|\leq d(o,o')$. This in particular applies to $K$, and we denote by $L_0$ the corresponding bilipschitz constant.
Now, we claim that there exists a constant $C_0$ such that for any $R>0$ and any balls $B,B'$ in $\partial X$ of radii $R$ and $R/2$ respectively (possibly centered at a different point), we have $\nu(B)/\nu(B')\leq C_0$. This is because $B$ can be covered by boundedly many (at most $N^{\lceil\log_2(2L_0)\rceil}$) balls of radius $R/(2L_0)$, and each such ball has measure at most that of $B'$ since it can be mapped inside $B'$ using an element of $K$.
Fix now any precompact subset $\{\gamma_i\}\subseteq G$, and let $L$ be the corresponding bilipschitz constant for the action on the boundary. By the bound on ratios of measures of balls, this implies that there exists a constant $C$ such that for any ball $B$ in $\partial X$ and any $i$ we have $\nu(\gamma_i B)/\nu(B)\leq C$. This implies the desired bound on Radon-Nikodym derivatives in view of the Lebesgue differentiation theorem (for doubling metric measure spaces, see \cite[Theorem 2.9.8, Theorem 2.8.17]{Federer}).
\end{proof}
\subsection{Lattices acting on hyperbolic spaces}
Recall that a subset $A$ of a metric space is coarsely dense if there exists a constant $R$ such that $X$ is the $R$-neighborhood of $A$. Also recall that given a group $\Gamma$ acting on a hyperbolic space $X$, its limit set is the set of boundary points that are equivalence classes of sequence of points $\gamma x$, for some fixed $x\in X$.
\begin{definition}
\label{defn:coarsely_min}
We say that an action $\Gamma\curvearrowright X$ on a hyperbolic space is \emph{coarsely minimal} if $X$ is unbounded, the limit set of $\Gamma$ in $\partial X$ is not a single point, and every quasi-convex $\Gamma$-invariant subset of $X$ is coarsely dense.
\end{definition}
Note that coarse minimality is a stronger requirement than asking that the orbits of $\Gamma$ have full limit set (for example, start with the action of a hyperbolic group on its Cayley graph and attach arbitrarily long geodesics equivariantly).
Notice that if $H$ is an infinite normal subgroup of infinite index of the hyperbolic $G$, then the action of $H$ on a Cayley graph of $G$ is coarsely minimal, but not cobounded.
Given a metric space $X$ and $C\geq0$, denote by $\operatorname{Bdd}_C(X)$ the set of all closed subsets of diameter at most $C$, endowed with the Hausdorff metric. Notice that $\operatorname{Bdd}_C(X)$ is quasi-isometric to $X$.
\begin{definition}
\label{defn:equivalence}
Two actions $\Gamma\curvearrowright X_1,X_2$ on metric spaces $X_1,X_2$ are \emph{equivalent} if there exists an equivariant quasi-isometry $X_1\to \operatorname{Bdd}_{C}(X_2)$ for some $C\geq 0$.
\end{definition}
The reason for having $\operatorname{Bdd}_{C}(X_2)$ instead of $X_2$ is that we want to allow the situation where some group element has a fixed point in $X_1$ but merely a bounded orbit in $X_2$; for example, we want to declare all actions on bounded metric spaces to be equivalent.
\begin{remark}\label{rem:minimal}
Consider an action $\Gamma\curvearrowright X$ on a geodesic hyperbolic space.
\begin{enumerate}
\item If the action is cobounded, then it is coarsely minimal.
The following two items follow from a construction well-known to experts, namely taking the coarse convex hull of an orbit and approximating it with a graph; this is explained for example in \cite[Remark 4]{GST}.
\item If the limit set of $\Gamma$ is not a single point, then there is a coarsely minimal action $\Gamma\curvearrowright Y$ on a geodesic hyperbolic space $Y$ and an equivariant quasi-isometric embedding $Y\to X$.
\item If $\Gamma$ is countable and $\Gamma\curvearrowright X$ is coarsely minimal, then $\Gamma\curvearrowright X$ is equivalent to an action on a separable geodesic hyperbolic space (in fact, a graph).
\end{enumerate}
\end{remark}
Consider a locally compact group $G=G_1\times\cdots\times G_N$ where each factor is either a simple algebraic group over a local field $k_i$ of rank at least 2, or a standard rank-one group. Also, assume that either $N\geq 2$ or $N=1$ and $G=G_1$ is a simple algebraic group as above of rank at least 2.
Re-order the factors in such a way that $G_i$ is a standard rank-one group if and only if $1\le i\le n$, for some $n\leq N$.
We now re-state our main theorem, in the context of standard rank-one groups.
\begin{theorem}\label{T:main}
Let $\Gamma$ be an irreducible lattice in $G=G_1\times\cdots\times G_N$ as above.
Then every coarsely minimal action of $\Gamma$ on a geodesic hyperbolic space is equivalent to the action
\[
\Gamma\overto{} G\overto{\operatorname{pr}_i} G_i\overto{}\operatorname{Isom}(X_i,d_i)
\]
for some $i \in \{1, \dots, n\}$, where $X_i$ is the model space for $G_i$.
\end{theorem}
Let us extend the notation of the theorem by denoting $X_j$, for $j>n$, the symmetric space for $G_j$.
Let $\Gamma\curvearrowright (X,d)$ be a coarsely minimal action of $\Gamma$ on the geodesic hyperbolic space $X$. Denote by $d_i$ the pseudo-metric on $\Gamma$ corresponding to $\Gamma\curvearrowright X_i$ (with respect to some basepoint $x_i$, for $i\leq n$), and $d$ the pseudo-metric corresponding to $\Gamma\curvearrowright (X,d)$.
\subsection{Ruling out elementary actions}
In order to be able to apply Theorem~\ref{thm:boundarymap}, we have to rule out that $\Gamma$ fixes a pair of points in $\partial X$ (the case that it fixes one point being ruled out by hypothesis). If that were the case, the subgroup $\Gamma'$ of index at most 2 of $\Gamma$ that fixes a boundary point would admit the quasimorphism described in \cite[Proposition 3.7]{CCMT}. According to \cite{BurgerMonod1,BurgerMonod2}, $\Gamma'$ does not admit unbounded quasimorphisms, so that according to \cite[Lemma 3.8]{CCMT} the action $\Gamma\curvearrowright X$ has a single limit point, contradicting minimality of the action.
From now on, we will assume that $\Gamma$ does not fix a point or a pair of points in $X$.
Finally, we can assume that $X$ is separable by Remark \ref{rem:minimal}.
\subsection{Boundary map from one factor}
For $i\leq n$ (the rank one factors), we let $(B_i,\nu_i)$ be a boundary as in Lemma \ref{lem:RN}. For $i>n$ (the higher rank factors), we let $B_i=G_i/P_i$ and we let $\nu_i$ be a measure in the Haar class on $B_i$.
By Proposition~\ref{P:boundaries}, $(B_i,\nu_i)$ is a $G_i$-boundary. Moreover, again by the Proposition, $B=B_1\times\cdots\times B_N$ is a $G$-boundary, hence a $\Gamma$-boundary.
Theorem \ref{thm:boundarymap} affords now two $\Gamma$-maps $B\to \partial X$ satisfying various properties. The first of these properties implies that these two maps must coincide a.e. We assume henceforth that both maps are identical, and we denote it by $\phi \colon B\to \partial X$.
\begin{claim}\label{claim:factors}
The map $\phi$ factors through one of $B_i$: there is $i\in \{1,\dots,N\}$ and a $\Gamma$ map $B_i\overto{\phi_i} \partial X$ such that
\[
\phi:B\overto{\operatorname{pr}_i} B_i\overto{\phi_i} \partial X.
\]
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
As $\partial X$ contains no $\Gamma$-fixed points and by the ergodicity of $B\times B$, the map $\phi$ is not constant.
It thus depend on $B_i$ for some $i$, which we now fix.
We let $B'$ be the product of the other factors.
We thus identify $B\simeq B_i\times B'$.
Using this identification we consider the map
\[
\Phi:B_i\times B' \times B_i\times B' \to \partial X^2,\quad
(x,y,x',y') \mapsto (\phi(x,y),\phi(x,y')).
\]
By Theorem~\ref{thm:boundarymap}(iii) we have three cases: $\Phi(B\times B)$ is contained in the diagonal $\Delta\subset \partial X^2$,
$\Phi=\phi_{\bowtie}$, or $\Phi=\tau\circ\phi_{\bowtie}$, where $\phi_{\bowtie}=\phi\times \phi$ and $\tau(m,m')=(m',m)$.
In the first case we see that $\phi(x,y)$ is independent of $y\in B'$, and therefore descends to a $\Gamma$-map $B_i\to \partial X$ as required.
In the second and third cases, $\phi$ is independent of $x\in B_i$, contradicting our choice of $i$.
\end{proof}
From now on we fix $i$ to be such that $\phi$ factors via $B_i$.
\subsection{The factor $B_i$ is associated with a rank one factor}
\label{sub:step_2.5_rank_1_factor}\hfill{}\\
We now explain that the factor $B_i$ alluded to in Claim~\ref{claim:factors}
is associated with a rank one factor, that is $i\leq n$.
We argue by contradiction, assuming $i>n$, that is, $G_i$ is of higher rank.
As before, we let $P_i<G_i$ be a minimal parabolic.
In the sequel we will omit the index $i$ and denote $P=P_i$.
Let $A<P$ be a maximal split torus.
We let $W=N_{G_i}(A)/Z_{G_i}(A)$ be the corresponding Weyl group and let $S\subset W$ be the standard Coxeter generators associated with the positivity defined by $P$.
Letting $Z=Z_{G_i}(A)$ be the centralizer of $A$, we note that $W$ acts naturally on $G_i/Z$ by $G_i$-automorphisms.
As usual we identify the set $S$ with the set of simple roots of $G_i$ associated with the pair $(A,P)$.
Any subset $T$ of $S$ generates a subgroup $W_T<W$
and it corresponds to a standard parabolic $P_T<G_i$ containing $P=P_\varnothing$.
All the subgroups of $G_i$ containing $P$ are of this form.
Denoting by $\pi_T:G_i/Z\to G_i/P_T$ the standard map coming from the inclusion $Z<P<P_T$, we note that
\[ W_T=\{w\in W\mid \pi_T\circ w=\pi_T \}. \]
We let $\pi=\pi_\varnothing:G_i/Z\to G_i/P$ be the standard map and let $w_0\in W$ be the longest element (with respect to the word distance induced by $S$).
It is a standard fact that map $\pi\times \pi\circ w_0:G_i/Z\to G_i/P\times G_i/P$
is injective and its image is Zariski open
(this image is the big cell in the Bruhat decomposition of $G_i/P\times G_i/P$).
Recall that $B_i=G_i/P$ is endowed with the Haar measure class.
We also endow $G_i/Z$ with the Haar measure class and identify it, as measured $G_i$ spaces, with $B_i\times B_i=G_i/P\times G_i/P$ via the map
$\pi\times \pi\circ w_0$.
We set $\phi_i:B_i\to \partial X$ to be the map given in Claim~\ref{claim:factors}.
Note that $\phi_i$ is not essentially constant, as $\partial X$ has no $\Gamma$ fixed points.
We thus may find a bounded measurable function $f_0:\partial X \to \mathbb{C}$ such that $f_0\circ \phi_i$ is not essentially constant.
We fix such a function $f_0$.
We consider the map $\psi=\phi_i\circ p_1:B_i\times B_i\overto{} \partial X$,
where $p_1:B_i\times B_i\overto{} B_i$ is the projection on the first factor,
and let
\[ U=\{w\in W\mid \psi\circ w \mbox{ agrees a.e with }\psi\}<W. \]
By Theorem~\ref{thm:boundarymap}(ii) we conclude that $U<W$ is of index at most 2.
Consider now the algebra $L^\infty (G_i/Z)$ and its subalgebra $\pi^*(L^\infty (G_i/P))$ consisting of functions
pulled back from $L^\infty (G_i/P)$ under $\pi:G_i/Z\to G_i/P$ (which we identify with $p_1:B_i\times B_i\to B_i$).
Consider the subalgebra
\[ \{f\in L^\infty (G_i/Z) \mid f\in L^\infty (G_i/P) \mbox{ and for every }
u\in U,~f\circ u \mbox{ agrees a.e with } f\}. \]
This is a weak*-closed $G_i$-invariant subalgebra of $L^\infty (G_i/Z)$.
By Mackey's point realization theorem this algebra coincides with the subalgebra of functions pulled back from a $G_i$-factor of $G_i/Z$.
As all functions in it are pulled back from $G_i/P$, this factor is of the form $G_i/P_T$ for some $T\subset S$.
As the algebra includes the non-constant function $f_0\circ \psi$,
we conclude that $P_T\neq G_i$, thus $T\neq S$ and $W_T\neq W$.
We have that $\pi_T\circ u=\pi_T$ for every $u\in U$, thus $U<W_T$.
It follows that $W_T$ is of index 2 in $W$ and in particular it is a normal subgroup.
As $G_i$ is of higher rank, $|W|>2$, thus $W_T$ is non-trivial.
Consider the standard reflection representation $V$ of $W$.
This is a faithful representation.
By simplicity of $G_i$, the Coxeter system $(W,S)$ is irreducible thus the representation $V$ is irreducible.
$W_T$ has non-trivial invariant vectors in $V$. Indeed, it preserves a proper, non-trivial face of the Weyl chamber. As $W_T$ is normal and $V$ is irreducible, $W_T$ is in the kernel of $V$.
This contradicts the non-triviality of $W_T$, as $V$ is faithful.
\subsection{Bounded in $G_i$ is $d$-bounded}
\label{sub:step_2_bounded_to_bounded}\hfill{}\\
Next, we show that $d$ is ``smaller'' than $d_i$, for $i$ as in Claim \ref{claim:factors}.
\begin{claim}\label{C:d-prec-di}
There exist $L,C$ so that for all $\gamma,\gamma'$ we have
\[
d(\gamma,\gamma')\le L\cdot d_i(\gamma,\gamma')+C.
\]
\end{claim}
As $G$ is of higher rank, we know that $N>1$ and in particular, we get that $\operatorname{pr}_i(\Gamma)$ is dense in $G_i$. Hence, in the metric $d_i$ any pair of points is connected by a $(1,1)$-quasi-geodesic, and to prove the claim
it suffices to show that sequences that are bounded in $G_i$ are bounded in $(\Gamma,d)$.
In other words, it suffices to show that any sequence $\{\gamma_j\}$ in $\Gamma$ for which
$\{\operatorname{pr}_i(\gamma_j)\}$ is precompact in $G_i$, one has
\[
\sup_j d(\gamma_j,1)<+\infty.
\]
Recall that we denote the $G_i$-boundaries by $(B_i,\nu_i)$; let us drop the subscript $i$ from $\nu_i$ and let $\mu=\phi_*\nu\in\operatorname{Prob}(\partial X)$ be its pushforward.
By the metric ergodicity of $B_i$, $\mu$ has no atomic part.
Indeed, if it had we would get a countable invariant subset of $\partial X$ and upon endowing it with the discrete metric, in view of the metric ergodicity of $B_i$, we will conclude that this set contains a single point which is $\Gamma$ invariant, contradicting our assumption that $\partial X$ is fixed point free.
By Lemma \ref{lem:boundary_to_bounded}, we have a $\Gamma$-map
\[
\Psi:\operatorname{Prob}_c(\partial X)\overto{}\operatorname{Prob}(\operatorname{Bdd}(X)),
\]
where recall that $\operatorname{Prob}_c(\partial X)$ is the set of
all atom-less probability measures on $\partial X$.
We assume that $\{\gamma_j\}$ is such that $\{\operatorname{pr}_i(\gamma_j)\}$ is precompact in $G_i$.
By Lemma \ref{lem:RN} we have:
\[
\sup_{j\ge 1}\ \|\frac{d\gamma_j\nu}{d\nu}\|_\infty=C<+\infty.
\]
We thus have the same bound on the Radon-Nikodym derivatives of $\mu$
\[
\sup_{j\ge 1}\ \|\frac{d\gamma_j\mu}{d\mu}\|_\infty\le C
\]
and also
\[
\sup_{j\ge 1}\ \|\frac{d\Psi(\gamma_j\mu)}{d\Psi(\mu)}\|_\infty\le C.
\]
Then for $\epsilon\in (0,1/2)$ as in Lemma~\ref{L:centers}, we have that for all $n$
the bounded sets
\[
\gamma_j (\beta_{\epsilon/C}\circ \Psi(\mu))=\beta_{\epsilon/C}\circ\Psi(\gamma_j\mu)
\]
all lie in a neighborhood of finite radius of $\beta_\epsilon\circ \Psi(\mu)$.
We thus have that the sequence $\{\gamma_j\}$ is bounded in $(\Gamma,d)$.
\subsection{Unbounded in $G_i$ is $d$-unbounded}
\label{sub:unbounded_in_g_i_is_unbounded}
\begin{claim}\label{C:d_i-prec-d}
There exist $L,C$ so that for all $\gamma,\gamma'$ we have
\[
d_i(\gamma,\gamma')\le L\cdot d(\gamma,\gamma')+C.
\]
\end{claim}
Let $\gamma_0\in \Gamma$ be a loxodromic element for $\Gamma\curvearrowright X$, which exists by Gromov's classification of actions on hyperbolic spaces \cite[Section 8]{Gromov}. Since the identity map $(\Gamma,d_i)\to(\Gamma,d)$ is coarsely Lipschitz, $\gamma_0$ is loxodromic for $\Gamma\curvearrowright X_i$ as well. Let us choose a constants $A$ so that for each $j\geq 0$ we have $j/A\leq d_i(1,\gamma_0^j)\leq Aj$ and $j/A\leq d(1,\gamma_0^j)\leq Aj$.
Note that, up to increasing $A$, since $G_i$ is rank one and $\gamma_0$ is loxodromic, the set
\[ \{\kappa\gamma_0^j\mid \kappa\in K_i,~j\geq 0\} \]
is $A$-dense in $X_i$, where we denote by $K_i$ the compact subgroup as in Setup \ref{setup:rank-one}. This is because, since $K_i$ acts transitively on $\partial X$, there exists a constant $C$ such that given any two points on a sphere around $x_i$, there is an element of $K_i$ that moves the first point $C$-close to the second one.
Since the rank of $G_i$ equals one, we know by hypothesis that $N>1$ and in particular, we get that $\operatorname{pr}_i(\Gamma)$ is dense in $G_i$.
Approximating elements of $K_i$ by elements of $\Gamma$ we get that the set
\[ \{\kappa\gamma_0^j\mid d_i(1,\kappa)\leq 1,~j\geq 0\} \]
is $A+1$-dense in $\Gamma$ for the metric $d_i$.
Enlarging $A$ if necessary, let us further assume that $d(1,\gamma)\leq Ad_i(1,\gamma)+A$ for all $\gamma\in\Gamma$.
Consider an arbitrary $\gamma\in \Gamma$.
Using the above we find $\kappa\in \Gamma$ such that $d_i(1,\kappa)\leq1$ and $d_i(\kappa\gamma,\gamma_0^j)\leq A+1$ for some $j\geq 0$. Therefore, we obtain
\begin{align*}
d_i(1,\gamma) &= d_i(\kappa,\kappa\gamma)\\
&\leq d_i(1,\gamma_0^j)+A+2\\
& \leq Aj+A+2\\
& \leq A^2d(1,\gamma_0^j)+A+2\\
&\leq A^2 (d(1,\kappa)+d(\kappa,\kappa\gamma)+d(\kappa\gamma,\gamma_0^j))+A+2\\
& \leq A^2d(1,\gamma)+A^3+2A^2+3A+2,
\end{align*}
as required.
\subsection{Conclusion}
We have seen in Section~\ref{sub:step_2.5_rank_1_factor} that the rank of $G_i$ is~$1$.
Claims \ref{C:d-prec-di} and \ref{C:d_i-prec-d} imply that there is a $\Gamma$-equivariant quasi-isometric embedding $f:X_i\to \operatorname{Bdd}_C(X)$ for some $C\geq 0$ (since $(\Gamma,d_i)$ is $\Gamma$-equivariantly quasi-isometric to $X_i$, and there is a $\Gamma$-equivariant quasi-isometric embedding $(\Gamma,d_i)\to X$).
Since $X_i$ is hyperbolic, the image of that quasi-isometric embedding is quasi-convex. Since the $\Gamma$-action on $X$ is coarsely minimal, it follows that the $\Gamma$-action on $X$ is cobounded, so that the quasi-isometric embedding $(\Gamma,d_i)\to X$ is in fact a quasi-isometry. This proves that $\Gamma\curvearrowright X_i$ is indeed equivalent to $\Gamma\curvearrowright X$, as required.\qed
\bibliographystyle{alpha}
|
\section{Introduction: optimal transport}
Optimal Transport (OT) has seen a recent surge of applications in machine learning, in areas such as generative modeling~\cite{ArjChiBot17,GenPeyCut18}, image processing~\cite{PitKokDah07, RubTomGui00,FeyChaVia17}, and domain adaptation~\cite{CouFlaTui14, CouFlaTui17}. A natural statistical question raised by these applications is to estimate the OT distances with samples.
These distances, known as the Wasserstein distances, are defined by
\begin{equation*}
W_p^p(\mu, \nu) = \inf_{\pi \in \Pi(\mu, \nu)} \int \|x - y\|^p d \pi(x, y)\,,
\end{equation*}
where $\Pi(\mu, \nu)$ denotes the set of joint measures with marginals $\mu$ and $\nu$, known as \emph{transport plans}.
It is well known that plug-in estimators for this quantity, obtained by replacing $\mu$ and $\nu$ with empirical measures consisting of i.i.d.\ samples, have performance in high dimensions, with rates of convergence typically of order $n^{-p/d}$~\cite{dudley-convergence,blg-empirical,dobric-asymptotics,FG-rate,ManNil21} when $d > 2p$.
Moreover, minimax lower bounds show that this curse of dimensionality is unavoidable in general~\cite{SP-minimax,NR-stm}.
The existence of the curse of dimensionality for OT has led to a series of proposals to obtain better rates of convergence by imposing additional structural assumptions---such as latent low-dimensionality~\cite{NR-stm} or smoothness~\cite{SinUppLi18,NB-minimax-smooth}---or by replacing $W_p$ by a better-behaved surrogate, such as an entropy-regularized version with much better statistical and computational properties~\cite{cuturi-sinkhorn,genevay-complexity,RW-entropic,MN-entropic,awr-sinkhorn}.
A particularly intriguing option, developed by~\cite{GG-gaussian}, consists in \emph{smoothing} the Wasserstein distance by adding Gaussian noise.
The following result shows the statistical benefits of this approach.
\begin{proposition}[\cite{GGNP-empirical}]
For $d > 1$ and $\sigma > 0$, denote by $\mathcal{N}_\sigma$ the centered Gaussian measure on $\mathbb{R}^d$ with covariance $\sigma^2 I_d$. For any compactly supported probability measure $\mu$ in $\mathbb{R}^d$, let $x_1, x_2, \dots, x_n$ be i.i.d.\ samples from $\mu$, and define the empirical measure
\[\hat{\mu}_n = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i = 1}^n \delta(x_i).\]
Then there exists a constant $c = c(\mu, \sigma)$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{E} W_2(\hat{\mu}_n \ast \mathcal{N}_\sigma, \mu\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma) \le cn^{-1/2}.
\end{equation*}
\end{proposition}
\noindent
\cite{GG-gaussian} call this framework \emph{Gaussian-smoothed optimal transport} (GOT), and follow up work has shown that it possesses significant statistical benefits, with fast rates of convergence and clean limit laws~\cite{ZCR-smoothed,goldfeld-estim-NN,GGK-generative,GolKatNie22}.
To leverage the beneficial properties of the GOT framework, it is necessary to understand how well the smoothed distance $W_2(\mu\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma, \nu\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma)$ approximates the standard Wasserstein distance $W_2(\mu, \nu)$.
An application of the triangle inequality shows that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:naive_estimate}
|W_2(\mu, \nu) - W_2(\mu\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma, \nu\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma)| \lesssim \sigma\,.
\end{equation}
Indeed, the triangle inequality implies $|W_2(\mu\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma, \nu\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma) - W_2(\mu, \nu)| \leq W_2(\mu, \mu \ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma) + W_2(\nu, \nu \ast \mathcal{N}_\sigma)$ and the latter two terms are of order at most $\sigma$. In general, this upper bound is unimprovable, as we show below.
On the other hand, it can also be very loose: if $\mu$ is a translation of $\nu$, then $W_2(\mu\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma, \nu\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma) = W_2(\mu, \nu)$ for all $\sigma \geq 0$.
These examples raise a natural question: how well does $W_2(\mu\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma, \nu\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma)$ approximate $W_2(\mu, \nu)$ when $\sigma$ is small, and how does the answer to this question depend on the measures $\mu$ and $\nu$?
The main goal if this paper is to give a sharp answer to this question for \emph{finitely supported} measures.
We focus on the finite support case for two reasons.
First, when $\mu$ and $\nu$ are finitely supported, $\mu \ast \mathcal{N}_\sigma$ and $\nu \ast \mathcal{N}_\sigma$ are each finite mixtures of Gaussians, and the behavior of Wasserstein distances for such measures is a topic of active research~\cite{doi:10.1137/19M1301047,DBLP:journals/access/ChenGT19}.
Second, as our results indicate, the behavior of this quantity for finitely supported measures is unexpectedly rich, with a sharp dichotomy in rates depending on the structure of the optimal transport plan between $\mu$ and $\nu$:
we show that when the \emph{unique} optimal transport plan between $\mu$ and $\nu$ is a \emph{perfect matching}, then there exist positive $\sigma_*$ and $c$ such that
\begin{equation*}
0 \leq W_2(\mu, \nu) - W_2(\mu\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma, \nu\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma) \lesssim e^{-c/\sigma^2} \quad \forall \sigma \in (0, \sigma_*)\,.
\end{equation*}
In other words, for sufficiently small $\sigma$, the GOT distance approximates the standard $W_2$ distance exponentially well, substantially sharpening~\eqref{eq:naive_estimate}.
More strikingly, we establish the existence of a phase transition: for $\sigma < \sigma_*$, the gap is exponentially small, whereas for $\sigma > \sigma_*$, the gap scales linearly.
By contrast, if the optimal transport plan between $\mu$ and $\nu$ is not unique or is not a perfect matching, then no phase transition appears: the upper bound of \eqref{eq:naive_estimate} is tight even in a neighborhood of $\sigma = 0$.
To locate exactly where the phase transition happens, we introduce a notion of robustness of the optimal transport plan between $\mu$ and $\nu$, which is motivated by the concept of \textit{cyclical monotonicity}~\cite{rocka1,rocka2,rochet}.
(See definition in Section~\ref{sec:main}.)
A fundamental result in the theory of optimal transport~\cite{rocka1} is that the support of the optimal transport plan in the definition of $W_2^2$ is cyclically monotone.
We define a robust version of this property and show that it characterizes measures for which the gap between $W_2(\mu, \nu)$ and $W_2(\mu\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma, \nu\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma)$ is exponentially small.
We show that the critical $\sigma_*$ can be described in terms of the strong convexity of the \emph{potentials} appearing in the dual of the optimal transport problem.
The strong convexity of these potentials has previously been explored in computational and statistical contexts~\cite{vacher2021convex,paty2020regularity}, but to our knowledge its connection to Gaussian smoothed optimal transport is new.
Our work provides a precise understanding on how GOT resembles vanilla OT in the vanishing noise ($\sigma\downarrow 0$) regime.
These results complement those recently obtained by \cite{CN-asymp-large-noise} in the large noise regime, who show that if $\mu$ and $\nu$ have $n$ matching moments, $n \geq 1$, then $W_2(\mu\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma, \nu\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma) = O(\sigma^{-n})$ as $\sigma\rightarrow\infty$.
Along with results in~\cite{CN-asymp-large-noise}, our work completes the limiting picture of the Euclidean heat semigroup acting on atomic measures under the Wasserstein distance. All the relevant rates are presented in Table~\ref{tab:1}.
We note that our work leaves open the question of characterizing the rates for non-atomic measures.
It is possible to show that, for general measures, there are measures exhibiting polynomial rates intermediate between $\sigma$ and $e^{-c/\sigma^2}$; however, these rates appear to depend delicately on the geometry of the measures and their support.
Giving a full characterization of the rate for general probability measures is an attractive open question.
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ c | c | c | c | c}
\hline
Regime & Condition & $\lim (W_2(\mu\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma, \nu\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma))$ & Rate & Reference \\
\hline\hline
$\sigma \downarrow 0$ & Unique OT plan & $W_2(\mu, \nu)$ & $e^{-c/\sigma^2}$ & Theorem~\ref{thm:main-exp} \\
\hline
$\sigma \downarrow 0$ & Non-unique OT plan & $W_2(\mu, \nu)$ & $\sigma$ & Theorem~\ref{thm:main-linear} \\
\hline
$\sigma\uparrow \infty$ & $\mu$ and $\nu$ agree up to $n$th moment & $0$ & $\sigma^{-n}$ & \cite{CN-asymp-large-noise}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Limiting behavior of $W_2(\mu\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma, \nu\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma)$ for atomic measures $\mu$ and $\nu$.}
\label{tab:1}
\end{table*}
\section{Cyclical monotonicity and implementability}
\label{sec:main}
We are concerned with the optimal transport problem between discrete measures
\[\mu = \sum_{i = 1}^k \alpha_i \delta(x_i), \quad \nu = \sum_{j = 1}^k \alpha_j \delta(y_j)\]
in the space $\mathbb{R}^d$, equipped with the squared Euclidean cost function $c(x, y) = \|x-y\|^2/2$. (The generalization to discrete measures with different numbers of atoms and weights is considered in Section~\ref{sec:not-perfect-matching}.) We are mainly interested in transport plans in the form of perfect matchings between $\{x_i\}$ and $\{y_i\}$. By relabeling the points, we may assume without loss of generality that the optimal transport plan between $\mu$ and $\nu$ is the unique coupling with support
\[\Gamma = \left\{(x_1, y_1), (x_2, y_2), \dots, (x_k ,y_k)\right\}.\]
Our techniques are based on a robust notion of optimality for $\Gamma$.
We recall the following definition of cyclical monotonicity, which serves as an important certification of an optimal transport plan.
\begin{definition}[See, e.g.,~\cite{rocka1}]
\label{def:cyclical-monotone}
A set $S \subseteq \mathbb{R}^d \times \mathbb{R}^d$ is \emph{cyclically monotone} if for any $(a_1, b_1), \dots, (a_n, b_n) \in S$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{i=1}^n \|a_i - b_i\|^2 \leq \sum_{i=1}^n \|a_i - b_{i+1}\|^2\,,
\end{equation*}
where we set $b_{n+1} := b_1$.
\end{definition}
The significance of this notion is the following fundamental result.
\begin{theorem}[{See~\cite[Theorem 5.10]{Vil08}}]\label{monotone_opt}
If $\pi \in \Pi(\mu, \nu)$ has cyclically monotone support, then it is an optimal transport plan between $\mu$ and $\nu$.
\end{theorem}
We strengthen this notion by insisting that the inequalities in the definition of cyclical monotonicity be strict.
\begin{definition}
We say $f: [k]\times [k]\rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{\ge 0}$ is a positive residual function on $[k]$, if $f(i, i) = 0$, $f(i, j) > 0$ for $i \neq j$, and $f(i, j) = f(j, i)$ for all $i, j\in [k]$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[Strong cyclical monotonicity]
For a positive residual function $f$ on $[k]$, we say that $\Gamma$ is $f$-strongly cyclically monotone, if for any $n\in \mathbb{N}$ and $\sigma(1), \sigma(2), \dots, \sigma(n) \in [k]$ with $\sigma(i)\neq \sigma(i+1)$ (the convention is $\sigma(n+1) = \sigma(1)$), we have
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{i = 1}^n \|x_{\sigma(i)} - y_{\sigma(i)}\|^2
\le \sum_{i = 1}^n \|x_{\sigma(i)} - y_{\sigma(i+1)}\|^2 - \sum_{i = 1}^n f(\sigma(i), \sigma(i+1)),
\end{equation*}
or equivalently,
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{i = 1}^n \langle x_{\sigma(i)}, y_{\sigma(i)}-y_{\sigma(i+1)} \rangle \ge \sum_{i = 1}^n f(\sigma(i), \sigma(i+1)).
\end{equation*}
\end{definition}
\noindent
Strong cyclical monotonicity indicates that the optimal plan with support $\Gamma$ is superior to any other plan by a positive margin in its transport cost. In~\cite{rochet}, the author introduced the notion \textit{implementability} and established it as an equivalent condition of cyclical monotonicity. In parallel to the results in~\cite{rochet}, we also consider the following stronger condition of implementability.
\begin{definition}[Strong implementability]
For a positive residual function $f$ on $[k]$, we say that $\Gamma$ is $f$-strongly implementable, if there exists a potential function $\varphi$, such that for any $i, j\in [k]$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\langle x_i, y_i - y_j \rangle \ge \varphi(y_i) - \varphi(y_j) + f(i, j).
\end{equation*}
\end{definition}
\noindent
Analogous to the equivalence result in~\cite{rochet}, we show that strong cyclical monotonicity and strong implementability are both equivalent to the uniqueness and optimality of $\Gamma$.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:equiv}
The following three statements are equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\Gamma$ is $f$-strongly cyclically monotone for some $f$;
\item[(ii)] $\Gamma$ is $f$-strongly implementable;
\item[(iii)] $\Gamma$ is the unique optimal transport plan from $\{x_i\}$ to $\{y_i\}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
\noindent
The positive payment function constructed in the equivalence between (iii) and (i) in Proposition~\ref{prop:equiv} is of the form
$f(i, j) = \frac{\lambda}{2}\|y_i - y_j\|^2$ for some $\lambda > 0$, in which case the implementability condition reads
\[\langle x_i, y_i - y_j\rangle \ge \varphi(y_i) - \varphi(y_j) + \frac{\lambda}{2} \|y_i - y_j\|^2.\]
This condition is equivalent to the existence of a $\lambda$-strongly convex potential $\varphi$ satisfying $\nabla \varphi(y_i) = x_i$ for all $i \in [k]$~\cite{TayHenGli17}, or, equivalently, the existence of a Lipschitz \emph{Brenier map} from $\mu$ to $\nu$~\cite{Bre87}.
More generally, we have the following theorem characterizing the properties of strongly implementable plans with residual functions of quadratic type.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:convex-equiv}
The following conditions are equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item [(i)] For some positive numbers $\alpha < \beta$, there exists a potential function $\varphi:\mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^d$ which is $\alpha$-strongly convex and $\beta$-smooth, such that $x_i = \nabla \varphi(y_i)$ for all $i\in [k]$.
\item [(ii)] $\Gamma$ is strongly implementable for
\begin{equation}
\label{cond:str-imp}
f(i, j) := \frac{1}{2(\beta - \alpha)}\left(\|x_i - x_j\|^2
+ \alpha\beta \|y_i - y_j\|^2 - 2\alpha \langle y_i - y_j, x_i - x_j\rangle\right),
\end{equation}
or equivalently, there exists $\{\tilde{\varphi}(y_i)\}_{i = 1}^k \subset \mathbb{R}^d$, such that for all $i, j\in [k]$ ($i\neq j$),
\begin{equation}
\label{cond:str-imp-2}
\begin{aligned}
\langle x_i, y_i - y_j\rangle \ge &\ \tilde{\varphi}(y_i) - \tilde{\varphi}(y_j) \\
&+ \frac{1}{2(\beta - \alpha)}\left(\|x_i - x_j\|^2
+ \alpha\beta \|y_i - y_j\|^2 - 2\alpha \langle y_i - y_j, x_i - x_j\rangle\right)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
This is a direct application of Theorem 4 in~\cite{TayHenGli17}.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
We should emphasize that the $f$ defined in Theorem~\ref{thm:convex-equiv} is indeed a positive residual function given $\alpha < \beta$, since Cauchy-Schwartz gives
\[2\alpha \langle y_i - y_j, x_i - x_j \rangle
\le \|x_i - x_j\|^2 + \alpha^2 \|y_i - y_j\|^2
< \|x_i - x_j\|^2 + \alpha\beta \|y_i - y_j\|^2.\]
\end{remark}
\noindent
As a direct consequence of the direction (ii) to (i) in Theorem~\ref{thm:convex-equiv}, if $\Gamma$ is strongly implementable for a positive residual function $f$ which is quadratic in $y_i - y_j$ and $x_i - x_j$, we will have guarantee on strong convexity and smoothness of the potential function.
\begin{corollary}
Suppose $\Gamma$ is strongly implementable for
\begin{equation*}
f(i, j) = \frac{1}{2}\left(\lambda_{xx}\|x_i - x_j\|^2
+ \lambda_{yy} \|y_i - y_j\|^2 - 2\lambda_{xy} \langle y_i - y_j, x_i - x_j\rangle\right)
\end{equation*}
where $\lambda_{xx}, \lambda_{xy}$ and $\lambda_{yy}$ are positive numbers which satisfy $\lambda_{xy}^2 + \lambda_{xy} = \lambda_{xx}\lambda_{yy}$. Then there exists a potential function $\varphi: \mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^d$ which is $\frac{\lambda_{xy}}{\lambda_{xx}}$-strongly convex and $\frac{\lambda_{yy}}{\lambda_{xy}}$-smooth, such that $\nabla x_i = \varphi(y_i)$ for all $i\in [k]$.
\end{corollary}
\noindent
A crucial property of strongly cyclical monotone (or strongly implementable) transport plans is that they are robust to small perturbations in the sources and targets. We quantify the robustness of the map $\Gamma$ in the following definition.
\begin{definition}
\label{def:eps-robust}
For $\epsilon \ge 0$, we say $\Gamma$ is $\epsilon$-robust, if for any distinct $\sigma(1), \sigma(2), \dots, \sigma(n) \in [k]$, and any $\alpha_{\sigma(1)}, \alpha_{\sigma(2)}, \dots, \alpha_{\sigma(n)}\in \mathbb{R}^d$ such that
\[\max_{i} \|\alpha_{\sigma(i)}\| \le \epsilon,\]
there holds
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{i = 1}^n \|x_{\sigma(i)} - y_{\sigma(i)}\|^2
\le \sum_{i = 1}^n \|(x_{\sigma(i)}+\alpha_{\sigma(i)})
- (y_{\sigma(i+1)} + \alpha_{\sigma(i+1)})\|^2.
\end{equation*}
In the case that $\Gamma$ is an optimal transport plan, also denote
\begin{equation*}
R(\Gamma) := \sup \left\{\epsilon \ge 0\ :\ \Gamma\ \text{is}\ \epsilon\text{-robust}\right\}.
\end{equation*}
\end{definition}
\noindent
The quantity $R(\Gamma)$, which we call ``robustness of optimality", is crucial to understanding the behavior of the optimal transport cost between $\mu$ and $\nu$ corrupted with noise.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:equiv-scm}
$\Gamma$ is strongly cyclically monotone if and only if $R(\Gamma)>0$.
\end{proposition}
\noindent
The following proposition quantifies the relation between $R(\Gamma)$ and a positive residual $f$ for which $\Gamma$ is strongly implementable, and provides a certification of a lower bound of $R(\Gamma)$ in $O(k^2)$ time.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:lb-eps-1}
Suppose $\Gamma$ is strongly implementable for a positive residual function $f$. Then $T$ is $\epsilon$-robust for
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:eps-up-bound}
\epsilon \le \frac{1}{2}\inf_{i\neq j} \frac{f(i, j)}{\|x_i - x_j\| + \|y_i - y_j\|}.
\end{equation}
This implies that
\begin{equation*}
R(\Gamma) \ge \frac{1}{2}\inf_{i\neq j} \frac{f(i, j)}{\|x_i - x_j\| + \|y_i - y_j\|}.
\end{equation*}
\end{proposition}
A special case of Proposition~\ref{prop:lb-eps-1} is when the optimal transport plan is strongly implementable with residual functions of quadratic type. In this case, we are able to derive a simple closed-form lower bound of $R(\Gamma)$.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:lb-R}
When the equivalence in Theorem~\ref{thm:convex-equiv} holds, $T$ is $\epsilon$-robust for
\begin{equation}
\label{cond:eps-robust-cond}
\epsilon \le \frac{1}{2}\inf_{i\neq j} \frac{\max\left\{\frac{1}{\beta}\|x_i - x_j\|^2 , \alpha \|y_i - y_j\|^2\right\}}{\|x_i - x_j\| + \|y_i - y_j\|}.
\end{equation}
This implies that
\begin{equation*}
R(\Gamma)
\ge \frac{1}{2}\inf_{i\neq j} \frac{\max\left\{\frac{1}{\beta}\|x_i - x_j\|^2 , \alpha \|y_i - y_j\|^2\right\}}{\|x_i - x_j\| + \|y_i - y_j\|}.
\end{equation*}
\end{proposition}
\begin{remark}
When condition (i) in Theorem~\ref{thm:convex-equiv} holds, $\alpha$-strong convexity and $\beta$-smoothness implies
\[\frac{1}{\beta}\|x_i - x_j\| \le \|y_i - y_j\| \le \frac{1}{\alpha}\|x_i - x_j\|.\]
Thus the condition~\eqref{cond:eps-robust-cond} may be replaced by the bound
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\label{cond:eps-robust-cond-strong}
\epsilon \le &\ \frac{1}{2}\inf_{i\neq j}\max\left\{\frac{\alpha}{1+\beta}\|x_i - x_j\|, \frac{\alpha}{\beta(1+\alpha)}\|y_i - y_j\|\right\},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
which is easier to verify in practice.
\end{remark}
\noindent
\section{Case I: perfect matching}
Our main results show that the robustness of optimality $R(\Gamma)$ controls the gap between $W_2(\mu, \nu)$ and $W_2(\mu\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma, \nu\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma)$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:main-exp}
If $\sigma_\ast = R(\Gamma)>0$, then for $\sigma\in (0, \sigma_\ast)$,
\begin{equation*}
W_2(\mu, \nu) - W_2(\mu\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma, \nu\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma) \lesssim \sqrt{\sigma_\ast \sigma}e^{-\sigma_\ast^2 / 4\sigma^2}.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
\noindent
In the regime where $\sigma$ does not exceed $R(\Gamma)$, the above theorem tells that the GOT distance is an excellent approximation of the OT distance.
Our second main result is a converse to that statement, showing that if $\sigma$ goes beyond $R(\Gamma)$, we show that the loss $W_2(\mu, \nu) - W_2(\mu\ast \mathcal{N}_\sigma, \nu\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma)$ is linear in $\sigma$.
We start with the following proposition, which quantifies a ``violation of cyclical monotonicity" under possibly large perturbations in the sources and targets.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:max-local-improve}
If $\Gamma$ is an optimal transport plan, for any $M \ge 0$, denote
\begin{equation*}
G(M) := \sup\left\{ \sum_{i = 1}^n \|x_{\sigma(i)} - y_{\sigma(i)}\|^2
- \sum_{i = 1}^n \|(x_{\sigma(i)}+\alpha_{\sigma(i)}) - (y_{\sigma(i+1)}+\alpha_{\sigma(i+1)})\|^2\ :
\|\alpha_{\sigma(i)}\| \le M\right\}
\end{equation*}
Then $G(M)$ is a concave function of $M$ for $M\in [0, +\infty)$.
\end{proposition}
\noindent
Note that $G(M)$ vanishes for $M < \sigma_*$. The next theorem shows that as long as $G(M)$ is not negligible for $M \gtrsim \sigma_*$, the approximation loss for $\sigma \geq \sigma_*$ is linear in $\sigma$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:main-linear}
If $\sigma_\ast = R(\Gamma)>0$, then
\begin{equation*}
W_2^2(\mu, \nu) - W_2^2(\mu\ast \mathcal{N}_\sigma, \nu\ast \mathcal{N}_\sigma)
\gtrsim \sup_{M > \sigma_\ast} e^{-cM^2/\sigma^2} G(M).
\end{equation*}
Here $G(M)$ is defined as in Proposition~\ref{prop:max-local-improve}. In particular, if $G(3 \sigma_*) \gtrsim \sigma_*$, then for $\sigma\in (0, 2\sigma_\ast)$,
\begin{equation*}
W_2^2(\mu, \nu) - W_2^2(\mu\ast \mathcal{N}_\sigma, \nu\ast \mathcal{N}_\sigma)
\gtrsim \sigma e^{-c\sigma_\ast^2/\sigma^2}.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
To prove Theorem~\ref{thm:main-exp}, we need the following lemma, which tells that no loss in $W_2$ is incurred by a local perturbation on $\mu$ and $\nu$. The proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma:local-no-change} can be found in Section~\ref{sec:aux-proofs}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:local-no-change}
If $\sigma_\ast = R(\Gamma)>0$, then for any measure $Q$ in $\mathbb{R}^d$ supported on $B(0, \sigma_\ast)$,
\[W_2(\mu, \nu) = W_2(\mu\ast Q, \nu\ast Q).\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main-linear}]
For $M>\sigma_\ast$, pick $\sigma(1), \sigma(2), \dots, \sigma(n) \in [k]$ and $\{\alpha_{\sigma(i)}\}_{i = 1}^n \subset \mathbb{R}^d$ such that $\|\alpha_{\sigma(i)}\|\le M$ and
\begin{align*}
\sum_{i = 1}^n \|x_{\sigma(i)} - y_{\sigma(i)}\|^2 - \sum_{i = 1}^n \|(x_{\sigma(i)}+\alpha_{\sigma(i)}) - (y_{\sigma(i+1)}
+ \alpha_{\sigma(i+1)})\|^2 = G(M).
\end{align*}
For every $i\in [k]$, denote $B_{\sigma(i)}$ the ball centered at $x_{\sigma(i)}+\alpha_{\sigma(i)}$ with radius $\sigma$, and $\hat{B}_{\sigma(i)}$ the ball centered at $y_{\sigma(i)}+\alpha_{\sigma(i)}$ with radius $\sigma$. Also denote
\begin{itemize}
\item $\gamma\in \Pi(\mu\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma, \nu\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma)$ the law of $(X + Z, Y+ Z)$, where $(X, Y) \sim \frac 1k \sum_{i=1}^k \delta(x_i, y_i)$ and $Z \sim \mathcal{N}_\sigma$ are independent.
\item $\gamma_{\sigma(i)}\in \Pi (\mathsf{Unif}(B_{\sigma(i)}), \mathsf{Unif}(\hat{B}_{\sigma(i)}))$ the coupling associated with the transport map
\[x \mapsto x+y_{\sigma(i)} - x_{\sigma(i)};\]
\item $\tilde{\gamma}_{\sigma(i)}\in \Pi (\mathsf{Unif}(B_{\sigma(i)}), \mathsf{Unif}(\hat{B}_{\sigma(i+1)}))$ the coupling associated with the transport map
\[x\mapsto x+y_{\sigma(i+1)} - x_{\sigma(i)};\]
\item A constant $m = c_d \exp\left(-\frac{(M+\sigma)^2}{2\sigma^2}\right)$, where $c_d$ is a constant only dependent on the dimension $d$.
\end{itemize}
Consider the following measure in $\mathbb{R}^d\times \mathbb{R}^d$:
\begin{equation*}
\tilde{\gamma} := \gamma - m\sum_{i = 1}^n \gamma_{\sigma(i)} + m\sum_{i = 1}^n \tilde{\gamma}_{\sigma(i)}.
\end{equation*}
We shall show that $\tilde{\gamma}\in \Pi(\mu\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma, \nu\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma)$. We first verify that $\tilde{\gamma}$ is a positive measure on $\mathbb{R}^d\times \mathbb{R}^d$. In fact, for $x, y\in \mathbb{R}^d$,
\begin{equation*}
\gamma(dx,dy) = \frac{1}{k}\sum_{i = 1}^k \left(\frac{1}{(\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma)^d} e^{-\frac{\|x-x_i\|^2}{2\sigma^2}} dx
\cdot \delta_{x-x_i+y_i}(dy)\right).
\end{equation*}
Meanwhile,
\begin{equation*}
\left(m\sum_{i = 1}^n \gamma_{\sigma(i)}\right) (dx, dy) = m\sum_{i = 1}^n \left(\frac{{\bf 1} \{x\in B_{\sigma(i)}\}}{\mathsf{Vol}(B_{\sigma(i)})} dx \cdot \delta_{x-x_{\sigma(i)} + y_{\sigma(i)}}(dy) \right).
\end{equation*}
For every $\sigma(i)$ such that $x\in B_{\sigma(i)}$, note that
$$\|x-x_{\sigma(i)}\| \le \|x-(x_{\sigma(i)}+\alpha_{\sigma(i)})\| + \|\alpha_{\sigma(i)}\| \le \sigma+M,$$
hence (with a proper choice of $c_d$)
\begin{equation*}
\frac{1}{k}\frac{1}{(\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma)^d} e^{-\frac{\|x-x_{\sigma(i)}\|^2}{2\sigma^2}}
\ge \frac{1}{k}\frac{1}{(\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma)^d} e^{-\frac{(M+\sigma)^2}{2\sigma^2}}
\ge \frac{m}{\mathsf{Vol}(B_{\sigma(i)})}.
\end{equation*}
As a result, $\gamma - m\sum_{i = 1}^n\gamma_{\sigma(i)} \ge 0$, and $\tilde{\gamma}$ is a positive measure. Also note that its first marginal (i.e. the marginal on the first $d$ dimensions) and second marginal (i.e. the marginal on the last $d$ dimensions) agree with the respective marginals of $\gamma$. Thus we conclude that $\tilde{\gamma}\in \Pi(\mu\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma, \nu\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma)$. Now note that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
& \int c(x, y) d\gamma(x, y) - \int c(x, y)d\tilde{\gamma}(x, y)\\
=&\ m\left(\sum_{i = 1}^n\|x_{\sigma(i)} - y_{\sigma(i)}\|^2 \right.
\left. - \sum_{i = 1}^n \|(x_{\sigma(i)}+\alpha_{\sigma(i)}) - (y_{\sigma(i+1)} +\alpha_{\sigma(i+1)})\|^2\right)\\
=&\ m\cdot G(M).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
In the meantime,
\[\int c(x, y)d\gamma(x, y) = \frac{1}{2k}\sum_{i = 1}^k \|x_i - y_i\|^2 = W_2^2(\mu, \nu),\]
therefore,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
& W_2^2(\mu\ast \mathcal{N}_\sigma, \nu\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma) \\
\le & \int c(x, y) d\tilde{\gamma}(x, y) \\
\le &\ W_2^2(\mu, \nu) - G(M)\cdot c_d\exp\left(-\frac{(M+\sigma)^2}{2\sigma^2}\right).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
In particular, choosing $M = \sigma+\sigma_\ast$ yields
\[W_2^2(\mu, \nu) - W_2^2(\mu\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma, \nu\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma) \gtrsim G(\sigma+\sigma_\ast) \exp\left(-c\frac{\sigma_\ast^2}{\sigma^2}\right).\]
The rest follows from the observation that, for $\sigma \in (0, 2\sigma_\ast)$,
\[G(\sigma+\sigma_\ast) = G(\sigma+\sigma_\ast) - G(\sigma_\ast) \ge \frac{G(3\sigma_\ast) - G(\sigma_\ast)}{2\sigma_\ast}\cdot \sigma \]
since $G$ is concave by Proposition~\ref{prop:max-local-improve}.
\end{proof}
\section{Case II: no perfect matching}
\label{sec:not-perfect-matching}
In the case that $R(\Gamma) = 0$, or equivalently by Proposition~\ref{prop:equiv} and Proposition~\ref{prop:equiv-scm} that the optimal transport map between $\mu$ and $\nu$ is not a perfect matching, Theorems~\ref{thm:main-exp} and~\ref{thm:main-linear} are not applicable.
In this situation, we are able to show that the approximation error is linear, even in a neighborhood of zero.
In fact, this holds whenever there exists an optimal transport plan between $\mu$ and $\nu$ which is not a perfect matching.
To analyze this case, we generalize our setting to optimal transport problems between two discrete measures that do not necessarily have the same number of atoms, and whose mass may not be evenly distributed:
\begin{equation}
\label{def:general-discrete}
\mu = \sum_{i = 1}^m \alpha_i \delta(x_i), \quad \nu = \sum_{j = 1}^n \beta_j\delta(y_j)\,.
\end{equation}
Here $\{\alpha_i\}_{i = 1}^m$ and $\{\beta_j\}_{j = 1}^n$ are positive numbers such that $\sum_{i = 1}^m \alpha_i = \sum_{j = 1}^n \beta_j = 1$. For the sake of notational convenience and without loss of generality, we also assume that $\{x_i\}$ and $\{y_j\}$ are all different. We prove the following result.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:no-perfect-matching}
For $\mu, \nu$ defined per~\eqref{def:general-discrete}, unless the optimal transport plan $T$ between $\mu$ and $\nu$ is unique and a perfect matching, i.e. $m = n$ and there exists a permutation $p$ on $[m]$ such that $\alpha_i = \beta_{p(i)}$ and $T^{-1}(y_{p(i)}) = \{x_i\}$ for all $i\in [m]$, there exists $c_0 > 0$ such that for $\sigma\in (0, c_0)$,
\begin{equation*}
W_2^2(\mu, \nu) - W_2^2(\mu\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma, \nu\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma) \gtrsim \sigma.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
Theorem~\ref{thm:no-perfect-matching} tells that, unless the optimal transport plan between $\mu$ and $\nu$ is unique and a perfect matching, the loss from approximating the OT distance with the GOT distance is at least linear in $\sigma$. To proceed with the proof, we need the following lemma. Its proof can be found in Section~\ref{sec:aux-proofs}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:linear-loss-split}
Let $x, y_1$ and $y_2$ be different points in $\mathbb{R}^d$. For $\mu_0 := \delta(x)$ and $\nu_0 := \frac{1}{2}\delta(y_1) + \frac{1}{2}\delta(y_2)$, there exists $c_0 > 0$, such that for $\sigma \in (0, c_0)$, we have
\begin{equation}
W_2^2(\mu_0, \nu_0) - W_2^2(\mu_0\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma, \nu_0\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma) \gtrsim \sigma.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:no-perfect-matching}]
Suppose that there exists a transport plan $\pi$ between $\mu$ and $\nu$ which achieves the optimal cost and is not a perfect matching.
Without loss of generality we assume that $(x_1, y_1), (x_1, y_2) \in \mathrm{supp}(\pi)$.
Let $\lambda = \min\{\pi(x_1, y_1), \pi(x_1, y_2)\}$. We decompose $\mu$ and $\nu$ as
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\hat{\mu} = \mu - 2\lambda\delta(x_1),& \quad \tilde{\mu} = 2\lambda \delta(x_1), \\
\hat{\nu} = \nu - \lambda\left(\delta(y_1) + \delta(y_2)\right), &\quad \tilde{\nu} = \lambda\left(\delta(y_1) + \delta(y_2)\right).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
By Lemma~\ref{lemma:linear-loss-split}, there exists $c_0 >0$ such that for $\sigma\in (0, c_0)$,
\[W_2^2(\tilde{\mu}, \tilde{\nu}) - W_2^2(\tilde{\mu}\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma, \tilde{\nu}\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma) \gtrsim \sigma.\]
Therefore, for $\sigma \in (0, c_0)$, we also have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
&W_2^2(\mu, \nu) - W_2^2(\mu\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma, \nu\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma)\\
\ge\ & W_2^2(\hat{\mu}, \hat{\nu}) - W_2^2(\hat{\mu}\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma, \hat{\nu}\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma)
+ W_2^2(\tilde{\mu}, \tilde{\nu}) - W_2^2(\tilde{\mu}\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma, \tilde{\nu}\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma)\\
\ge\ & W_2^2(\tilde{\mu}, \tilde{\nu}) - W_2^2(\tilde{\mu}\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma, \tilde{\nu}\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma)\\
\gtrsim\ & \sigma,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
where the first inequality uses that $W_2^2(\mu, \nu) = W_2^2(\hat \mu, \hat \nu) + W_2^2(\tilde \mu, \tilde \nu)$ by the optimality of $\pi$.
\end{proof}
We conclude that, for general discrete measures defined per~\eqref{def:general-discrete}, a phase transition in $W_2(\mu, \nu) - W_2(\mu\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma, \nu\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma)$ only happens when the optimal transport plan between $\mu$ and $\nu$ is unique and a perfect matching with a positive $R(\Gamma)$. Otherwise, one would always suffer a linear loss in approximating the OT distance with the GOT distance.
\section{Numerical example}
In this section, we present a numerical example to demonstrate different regimes of the rate $W_2(\mu, \nu) - W_2(\mu\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma, \nu\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma)$, in respect of Theorem~\ref{thm:main-exp} and Theorem~\ref{thm:main-linear}. For the sake of clarity, we consider atomic measures $\mu$ and $\nu$ both defined on $\mathbb{R}^2$. One of the simplest cases where a coupling $\Gamma$ has $R(\Gamma) = 0$ is
\begin{align*}
\mu & = \frac{1}{2}\left[\delta((-1, -1)) + \delta((1, 1))\right] ,\\
\nu &= \frac{1}{2}\left[\delta((-1, 1)) + \delta((1, -1))\right]
\end{align*}
It is easy to see that the optimal transport plan from $\mu$ to $\nu$ is not unique, which is also a consequence of Proposition~\ref{prop:equiv}, Proposition~\ref{prop:equiv-scm} and the fact that $R(\Gamma) = 0$ for the map
\[\Gamma = \left\{((-1,-1), (-1,1)), ((1,1), (1,-1))\right\}\]
that achieves the optimal cost. We also consider the family
\[\mu_k = \frac{1}{2}\left[\delta((-1, -1+\frac{k}{10})) + \delta((1, 1-\frac{k}{10}))\right],\ k\in [4]\]
The source and target distributions are demonstrated in Figure 2. For each $k$, the unique optimal transport plan from $\mu_k$ to $\nu$ is given by
\[\Gamma_k = \left\{((-1, -1+\frac{k}{10}), (-1, 1)), ((1, 1-\frac{k}{10}), (1, -1))\right\}.\]
For each of these GOT tasks, we draw $500$ samples from the source distribution $\mu_k\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma$ and target distribution $\nu\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma$, and use the empirical $W_2$ distance as an estimate of the true $W_2(\mu_k\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma, \nu\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma)$. We repeat the process $20$ times and report the mean, as shown in the following figure. \\
\graphicspath{ {./} }
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\centering
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth, height=0.17\textheight]{simul_distr.png}
\caption{Source and Target distributions}
\label{fig:distr}
\end{minipage}%
\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth, height=0.15\textheight]{simul_rate.png}
\caption{Rate of $W_2(\mu, \nu) - W_2(\mu\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma, \nu\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma)$ in the vanishing $\sigma$ regime.}
\label{fig:rate}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
By Theorem~\ref{thm:main-exp} and Theorem~\ref{thm:main-linear}, we expect $W_2^2(\mu_k, \nu) - W_2^2(\mu_k\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma, \nu\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma)$ to be of scale $e^{-c/\sigma^2}$ for $\sigma\in (0, R(\Gamma_k))$, and $W_2^2(\mu_k, \nu) - W_2^2(\mu_k\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma, \nu\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma) \gtrsim \sigma$ for $\sigma \ge R(\Gamma_k)$. The phase transition happening at the vertical dashed line (here $R(\Gamma_k)$ is evaluated per Proposition~\ref{prop:lb-R}) is indeed observed in the above experiment.
\section{Auxiliary proofs}
\label{sec:aux-proofs}
In this section, we provide proofs for Proposition~\ref{prop:equiv}, Proposition~\ref{prop:equiv-scm}, Proposition~\ref{prop:lb-eps-1}, Proposition~\ref{prop:lb-R}, Proposition~\ref{prop:max-local-improve}, Lemma~\ref{lemma:local-no-change} and Lemma~\ref{lemma:linear-loss-split}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:equiv}]
(i) to (ii). The idea is borrowed from~\cite{rocka1,rocka2,rochet}. Suppose $\Gamma$ is $f$-strongly cyclically monotone for a positive residual function $f$.
For $i\in [k]$, denote
\begin{equation*}
v_i := \inf_{\substack{\theta(1) = 1, \theta(n+1) = i, \\\theta(2),\dots,\theta(n) \in [k],\\ \theta(s) \neq \theta(s+1)}}
\left(\sum_{s = 1}^n \langle x_{\theta(s)}, y_{\theta(s)} - y_{\theta(s+1)}\rangle
- \sum_{s = 1}^n f(\theta(s), \theta(s+1)) \right)
\end{equation*}
By the $f$-strong cyclical monotonicity, we have $v_1\ge 0$. Furthermore, for $i > 1$ and any sequence $\{\theta(s)\}$ with $\theta(1) = 1$, $\theta(n+1) = i$ and $\theta(s)\neq\theta(s+1)$, there holds
\begin{align*}
\sum_{s = 1}^n \langle x_{\theta(s)}, y_{\theta(s)} - y_{\theta(s+1)}\rangle + \langle x_i, y_i - y_1\rangle
\ge\sum_{s = 1}^n f(\theta(s), \theta(s+1)) + f(i, 1)
\end{align*}
and it follows that
\[v_i \ge f(i, 1) - \langle x_i, y_i-y_1\rangle > -\infty.\]
For any $j\neq i$ and any fixed $\epsilon > 0$, there exists a sequence $\{\theta(s)\}$ with $\theta(1) = 1$, $\theta(n+1) = i$ and $\theta(s)\neq\theta(s+1)$, such that
\begin{equation}\label{ineq-vi}
\sum_{s = 1}^n \langle x_{\theta(s)}, y_{\theta(s)} - y_{\theta(s+1)}\rangle - \sum_{s = 1}^n f(\theta(s), \theta(s+1)) \le v_i+\epsilon.
\end{equation}
Consider the same $\{\theta(s)\}$ with one more term $\theta(n+2) := j$. By definition of $v_j$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{ineq-vj}
v_j \le \sum_{s = 1}^n \langle x_{\theta(s)}, y_{\theta(s)} - y_{\theta(s+1)}\rangle + \langle x_i, y_i-y_j \rangle
- \sum_{s = 1}^{n+1} f(\theta(s), \theta(s+1))
\end{equation}
Comparing~\eqref{ineq-vi} and~\eqref{ineq-vj} we get
\begin{equation}\label{ineq_vivj}
v_j \le v_i + \langle x_i, y_i-y_j\rangle - f(i, j) +\epsilon
\end{equation}
We set $\varphi(x_i) = -v_i$. Letting $\epsilon\downarrow 0$ in~\eqref{ineq_vivj} yields
\begin{equation*}
\langle x_i, y_i - y_j \rangle \ge \varphi(x_i) - \varphi(x_j) + f(i, j).
\end{equation*}
Hence $\Gamma$ is $f$-strongly implementable.\\
\noindent
(ii) to (iii). We prove by contradiction. Suppose $\Gamma$ is not the unique optimal transport plan; this means either $\Gamma$ is not optimal or there exists a different coupling $\Gamma'$ with the same cost. Either case, there exists a sequence $\{\theta(s)\}_{s = 1}^n$ such that
\[\sum_{s = 1}^n \|x_{\theta(s)}- y_{\theta(s)}\|^2 \ge \sum_{s = 1}^n \|x_{\theta(s)}- y_{\theta(s+1)}\|^2\]
Summing over $s$, we get
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\sum_{s = 1}^n f(\theta(s), \theta(s+1))
\le & \sum_{s = 1}^n \langle x_{\theta(s)}, y_{\theta(s)} - y_{\theta(s+1)} \rangle\\
=&\ \frac{1}{2}\left(\sum_{s = 1}^n \|x_{\theta(s)}- y_{\theta(s+1)}\|^2 - \sum_{s = 1}^n \|x_{\theta(s)} - y_{\theta(s)}\|^2\right)\\
\le&\ 0,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
a contradiction.\\
\noindent
(iii) to (i). Suppose $\Gamma$ is the unique optimal transport plan from $\{x_i\}$ to $\{y_i\}$. Denote $c_0$ the transport cost of $\Gamma$. For any other transport plan in the form of a bijection between $\{x_i\}$ and $\{y_i\}$, denote $c_1$ the minimum among their costs, then $c_1 > c_0$. Choose a small enough $\lambda > 0$, such that for any choice of $\sigma(1), \sigma(2), \dots, \sigma(n)\in [k]$ with no duplicates, there holds
\[\frac{\lambda}{2}\sum_{i = 1}^n \|y_{\sigma(i)} - y_{\sigma(i+1)}\|^2 \le c_1 - c_0.\]
Now for $f(i, j) = \frac{\lambda}{2}\|y_i - y_j\|^2$ we have
\begin{align*}
\sum_{i = 1}^n \|x_{\sigma(i)} - y_{\sigma(i+1)}\|^2 - \sum_{i = 1}^n \|x_{\sigma(i)}- y_{\sigma(i)}\|^2
\ge c_1 - c_0 \ge \sum_{i = 1}^n f(\sigma(i), \sigma(i+1)).
\end{align*}
If there are duplicates in $(\sigma(1), \sigma(2), \dots, \sigma(n))$, we break the loop $\sigma(1)\rightarrow\sigma(2)\rightarrow\dots\rightarrow\sigma(n)\rightarrow\sigma(1)$ into separate loops without duplicates, apply the above inequality to each loop and sum them up. We conclude by definition that $\Gamma$ is $f$-strongly cyclically monotone.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:equiv-scm}]
Suppose $\Gamma$ is $f$-strongly cyclically monotone for some positive residual $f$. Denote
\[M := \max\left\{\max_i \|x_i\|, \max_i \|y_i\|\right\}.\]
We will show that $\Gamma$ is $\epsilon$-robust for any $\epsilon>0$ satisfying
\[4M\epsilon < \min_{i\neq j}f(i, j).\]
In fact, for any distinct $\sigma(1), \sigma(2), \dots, \sigma(n) \in [k]$, by the definition of $f$-strong cyclical monotonicity,
\[\sum_{i = 1}^n \langle x_{\sigma(i)}, y_{\sigma(i)} - y_{\sigma(i+1)} \rangle \ge \sum_{i = 1}^n f(\sigma(i), \sigma(i+1))\]
Thus for any choice of $\alpha_{\sigma(1)}, \dots, \alpha_{\sigma(n)}$ such that $\max \|\alpha_{\sigma(i)}\| \le \epsilon$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
& \frac{1}{2}\sum_{i = 1}^n \|(x_{\sigma(i)}+\alpha_{\sigma(i)})
- (y_{\sigma(i+1)} + \alpha_{\sigma(i+1)})\|^2 - \frac{1}{2}\sum_{i = 1}^n \|x_{\sigma(i)} - y_{\sigma(i)}\|^2 \\
=& \sum_{i = 1}^n \langle x_{\sigma(i)}, y_{\sigma(i)} - y_{\sigma(i+1)} \rangle
+ \sum_{i = 1}^n \langle \alpha_{\sigma(i)}, x_{\sigma(i)} - x_{\sigma(i-1)} + y_{\sigma(i)} - y_{\sigma(i+1)} \rangle +\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i = 1}^n \|\alpha_{\sigma(i)} - \alpha_{\sigma(i+1)}\|^2\\
\ge & \sum_{i = 1}^n f(\sigma(i), \sigma(i+1)) - 4nM\epsilon\\
> &\ 0.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
Hence $R(\Gamma) > 0$.
On the other hand, given $R(\Gamma) > 0$, we show that $\Gamma$ is the unique optimal transport plan from $\{x_i\}$ to $\{y_i\}$. We prove by contradiction. If $\Gamma$ is not unique, then there exists distinct $\sigma(1), \dots, \sigma(n) \in [k]$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{cost-equal}
\sum_{i = 1}^n \|x_{\sigma(i)} - y_{\sigma(i)}\|^2 = \sum_{i = 1}^n \|x_{\sigma(i)} - y_{\sigma(i+1)}\|^2.
\end{equation}
Since $R(\Gamma) > 0$, for $\epsilon_0 = R(\Gamma)/2$ and any choice of $\sigma(1), \dots, \sigma(n)$ with $\|\sigma(i)\|\le \epsilon_0$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{i = 1}^n \|x_{\sigma(i)} - y_{\sigma(i)}\|^2
\le \sum_{i = 1}^n \|(x_{\sigma(i)}+\alpha_{\sigma(i)})
- (y_{\sigma(i+1)} + \alpha_{\sigma(i+1)})\|^2.
\end{equation*}
Specifically, for any $j\in [n]$, letting $\sigma(i) = 0$ for all $i\neq j$ in the above equation gives
\[2\langle \alpha_{\sigma(j)}, x_{\sigma(j)} - y_{\sigma(j+1)} \rangle \le \|\alpha_{\sigma(j)}\|^2\]
for any $\alpha_{\sigma(j)}\in \mathbb{R}^d$ with $\|\alpha_{\sigma(j)}\| \le \epsilon_0$. Therefore we must have
\[x_{\sigma(j)} = y_{\sigma(j+1)}, \quad \forall\ j\in [k].\]
Using~\eqref{cost-equal}, we also know that
\[x_{\sigma(j)} = y_{\sigma(j)}, \quad \forall\ j\in [k],\]
which violates the assumption that $\{y_i\}$ are distinct points in $\mathbb{R}^d$. Thus we conclude that $\Gamma$ is unique; hence it is also strongly cyclically monotone due to Proposition~\ref{prop:equiv}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:lb-eps-1}]
We only need to show that, for an $\epsilon$ satisfying~\eqref{eq:eps-up-bound}, and any choice of $\sigma(1), \sigma(2), \dots, \sigma(n) \in [k]$, and $\alpha(1), \dots, \alpha(n)$ with $\|\alpha(i)\| \le \epsilon$, there holds
\begin{equation}
\label{ineq:cm-prop-0}
\sum_i \|x_{\sigma(i)} - y_{\sigma(i)}\|^2 \le \sum_i \|(x_{\sigma(i)}+\alpha_{\sigma(i)}) - (y_{\sigma(i+1)}
+ \alpha_{\sigma(i+1)})\|^2.
\end{equation}
In fact, \eqref{ineq:cm-prop-0} is equivalent to
\begin{equation}
\label{cond:eps-robust-simple}
2\sum_i \langle \alpha_{\sigma(i)}, y_{\sigma(i+1)} - y_{\sigma(i)} + x_{\sigma(i-1)} - x_{\sigma(i)} \rangle
\le 2\sum_i \langle x_{\sigma(i)}, y_{\sigma(i)} - y_{\sigma(i+1)} \rangle + \sum_i \|\alpha_{\sigma(i)}-\alpha_{\sigma(i+1)}\|^2
\end{equation}
Since $\|\alpha(i)\| \le \epsilon$ for all $i$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\label{calc:robust-lhs}
\begin{aligned}
& 2\sum_i \langle \alpha_{\sigma(i)}, y_{\sigma(i+1)} - y_{\sigma(i)} + x_{\sigma(i-1)} - x_{\sigma(i)} \rangle \\
&\le 2\sum_i \epsilon \cdot \left(\|y_{\sigma(i+1)} - y_{\sigma(i)}\| + \|x_{\sigma(i+1)} - x_{\sigma(i)}\|\right)\\
&\le \sum_i f(\sigma(i), \sigma(i+1))
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
\noindent
where we used the choice of $\epsilon$ in the last inequality. In the meantime, strong implementability gives
\begin{equation*}
2\sum_i \langle x_{\sigma(i)}, y_{\sigma(i)} - y_{\sigma(i+1)} \rangle + \sum_i \|\alpha_{\sigma(i)}-\alpha_{\sigma(i+1)}\|^2
\ge \sum_{i} f(\sigma(i), \sigma(i+1)).
\end{equation*}
Therefore~\eqref{cond:eps-robust-simple} holds, which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:lb-R}]
Following the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:lb-eps-1}, we only need to show that, for the residual $f(i, j)$ defined in Theorem~\ref{thm:convex-equiv}, there holds
\begin{equation}
\label{cond:eps-robust-simple-coro}
2\sum_i \epsilon \cdot \left(\|y_{\sigma(i+1)} - y_{\sigma(i)}\| + \|x_{\sigma(i+1)} - x_{\sigma(i)}\|\right) \le \sum_i f(\sigma(i), \sigma(i+1)).
\end{equation}
By the choice of $\epsilon$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
& 2\sum_i \epsilon \cdot \left(\|y_{\sigma(i+1)} - y_{\sigma(i)}\| + \|x_{\sigma(i+1)} - x_{\sigma(i)}\|\right)\\
& \le \sum_i \max\left\{\frac{1}{\beta}\|x_{\sigma(i+1)} - x_{\sigma(i)}\|^2 , \alpha \|y_{\sigma(i+1)} - y_{\sigma(i)}\|^2\right\}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
\noindent
Meanwhile,
\begin{equation*}
\label{calc:robust-rhs}
\begin{aligned}
&\sum_i f(\sigma(i), \sigma(i+1)) \\
&= \frac{1}{\beta - \alpha}\sum_i\left(\|x_{\sigma(i)} - x_{\sigma(i+1)}\|^2
+ \alpha\beta \|y_{\sigma(i)} - y_{\sigma(i+1)}\|^2 - 2\alpha \langle y_{\sigma(i)} - y_{\sigma(i+1)}, x_{\sigma(i)} - x_{\sigma(i+1)}\rangle\right)\\
&\ge \frac{1}{\beta - \alpha}\sum_i\left(\|x_{\sigma(i)} - x_{\sigma(i+1)}\|^2
+ \alpha\beta \|y_{\sigma(i)} - y_{\sigma(i+1)}\|^2 - \alpha \left(\lambda\|x_{\sigma(i)} - x_{\sigma(i+1)}\|^2
+ \frac{1}{\lambda}\|y_{\sigma(i)} - y_{\sigma(i+1)}\|^2 \right)\right).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
The last inequality holds for any $\lambda > 0$ by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. Choosing $\lambda = 1/\beta$ and $\lambda = 1/\alpha$ yields
\begin{equation*}
\sum_i f(\sigma(i), \sigma(i+1))
\ge \max\left\{\frac{1}{\beta}\|x_{\sigma(i+1)} - x_{\sigma(i)}\|^2, \alpha \|y_{\sigma(i+1)} - y_{\sigma(i)}\|^2\right\}.
\end{equation*}
Therefore~\eqref{cond:eps-robust-simple-coro} holds, which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:max-local-improve}]
For $M>0$, denote
\begin{equation*}
g(m) := \sup\left\{ \sum_{i = 1}^n \|x_{\sigma(i)} - y_{\sigma(i)}\|^2 - \sum_{i = 1}^n \|(x_{\sigma(i)}+\alpha_{\sigma(i)}) - (y_{\sigma(i+1)}+\alpha_{\sigma(i+1)})\|^2 :
\ \max_i\|\alpha_{\sigma(i)}\| = m\right\},
\end{equation*}
then $G(M) = \sup\{g(m): m\in [0, M]\}$. We first prove that $g(m)$ is concave in $m$. In fact, denote the set
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{I} = \left\{ (\sigma(1), \dots, \sigma(n), \alpha_{\sigma(1)}, \dots, \alpha_{\sigma(n)}):\
\sigma(i)\in [k], \ \sigma(i)\neq\sigma(j),\ \max_i \|\alpha_{\sigma(i)}\| = 1 \right\}.
\end{equation*}
By definition,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
g(m) & = \sup \left\{ \sum_{i = 1}^n \|x_{\sigma(i)} - y_{\sigma(i)}\|^2
- \sum_{i = 1}^n \|(x_{\sigma(i)}+m\alpha_{\sigma(i)}) - (y_{\sigma(i+1)}+m\alpha_{\sigma(i+1)})\|^2 :\right.\\
&\left. \quad (\sigma(1), \dots, \sigma(n), \alpha_{\sigma(1)}, \dots, \alpha_{\sigma(n)}) \in \mathcal{I}\right\}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
Note that, for every choice of $(\sigma(1), \dots, \sigma(n))$ and $\alpha_{\sigma(1)}, \dots, \alpha_{\sigma(n)}) \in \mathcal{I}$,
\begin{align*}
\sum_{i = 1}^n \|x_{\sigma(i)} - y_{\sigma(i)}\|^2
- \sum_{i = 1}^n \|(x_{\sigma(i)}+m\alpha_{\sigma(i)}) - (y_{\sigma(i+1)}+m\alpha_{\sigma(i+1)})\|^2
\end{align*}
is a concave function in $m$. Therefore, $g(m)$ is concave in $m$, and $G(M)$ is also concave in $M$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma:linear-loss-split}]
First suppose that $x, y_1, y_2$ are not on the same line with $y_1$ between $x$ and $y_2$ or $y_2$ between $x$ and $y_1$. Let $\Delta$ be the bisecting hyperplane of $\angle y_1 x y_2$, namely
\[\Delta = \left\{z\in\mathbb{R}^d\ :\ \frac{\langle z - x, y_1 - x\rangle}{|y_1 - x|} = \frac{\langle z - x, y_2 - x \rangle }{|y_2 - x|}\right\},\]
and define its unit normal vector $\mathbf{m}$ such that $\langle \mathbf{m}, y_1 - x \rangle > 0$. We adopt the decomposition
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mu_{+} &:= \mathcal{N}(x, \sigma^2)\ | \ \langle z-x, \mathbf{m} \rangle > 0, \\
\mu_{-} &:= \mathcal{N}(x, \sigma^2)\ | \ \langle z-x, \mathbf{m} \rangle < 0,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\nu_{1+} &:= \mathcal{N}(y_1, \sigma^2)\ | \ \langle z-y_1, \mathbf{m} \rangle > 0, \\
\nu_{1-} & := \mathcal{N}(y_1, \sigma^2)\ | \ \langle z-y_1, \mathbf{m} \rangle < 0, \\
\nu_{2+} &:= \mathcal{N}(y_2, \sigma^2)\ | \ \langle z-y_2, \mathbf{m} \rangle > 0, \\
\nu_{2-} & := \mathcal{N}(y_2, \sigma^2)\ | \ \langle z-y_2, \mathbf{m} \rangle < 0.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Note that all the six sub-probability measures above have mass $1/2$. By the definition of $W_2$, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:w2-split}
W_2^2(\mu_0\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma, \nu_0\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma) \le
\frac{1}{2}\left(W_2^2(\mu_+, \nu_{1+}) + W_2^2(\mu_+, \nu_{1-}) + W_2^2(\mu_-, \nu_{2+}) + W_2^2(\mu_-, \nu_{2-})\right).
\end{equation}
It is obvious that
\[W_2^2(\mu_+, \nu_{1+}) = \frac{1}{2}\|x - y_1\|^2, \quad W_2^2(\mu_-, \nu_{2-}) = \frac{1}{2}\|x-y_2\|^2.\]
For $W_2^2(\mu_+, \nu_{1-})$, consider the map
\[T_{\#}(x + t)\ =\ y_1 - t, \quad t \sim \mathcal{N}(0, \sigma^2 I) \]
we have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
W_2^2(\mu_+, \nu_{1-}) &\le \mathbb{E}_{u\sim \mu_+} \|u - T_{\#}u\|^2\\
&= \mathbb{E}_{u\sim\mu_+} \|u - (y_1-u+x)\|^2\\
&= \frac{1}{2}\|x-y_1\|^2 - 4 \mathbb{E}_{u\sim\mu_+} \langle y_1 - x, u - x\rangle + 4\mathbb{E}_{u\sim\mu_+} \|u-x\|^2\\
&= \frac{1}{2}\|x-y_1\|^2 - 4c_1\sigma \langle \mathbf{m}, y_1 - x\rangle + 4c_2\sigma^2,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
where $c_1$ and $c_2$ are absolute positive constants. Similarly,
\begin{equation*}
W_2^2(\mu_-, \nu_{2+}) \le \frac{1}{2}\|x-y_2\|^2 - 4c_1\sigma\langle \mathbf{m}, x - y_2\rangle + 4c_2\sigma^2.
\end{equation*}
Plugging into~\eqref{eq:w2-split} we get
\[ W_2^2(\mu_0\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma, \nu_0\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma) \le W_2^2(\mu_0, \nu_0) - 4c_1\sigma \langle \mathbf{m}, y_1 - y_2\rangle + 8c_2\sigma^2,\]
hence $W_2^2(\mu_0, \nu_0) - W_2^2(\mu_0\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma, \nu_0\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma) \gtrsim \sigma$ for small $\sigma$, since $\langle \mathbf{m}, y_1 - y_2\rangle > 0$.\\
Finally, we consider the special case where $x, y_1, y_2$ are on the same line and $y_1$ is between $x$ and $y_2$. We choose $\mathbf{m}$ the unit vector along the direction $x - y_1$, and the same line of proof yields the conclusion.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma:local-no-change}]
We naturally split the source measure into $k$ parts:
\[\mu \ast Q = \sum_{i = 1}^k\left(\alpha_i\delta(x_i)\ast Q\right)\]
Consider a map $T$ which, for each $i\in [k]$, is defined by
\[T(x) = x+y_i - x_i \quad \quad \forall x \in B(x_i, \sigma_*)\,.\]
We can obtain a transport plan between $\mu * Q$ and $\nu * Q$ by considering the distribution of a pair of random variables $(X, T(X))$ for $X \sim \mu * Q$.
The support of this plan lies in the set $\bigcup_{i=1}^k \bigcup_{\alpha \in B(0, \sigma_*)} (x_i + \alpha, y_i + \alpha)$.
By the definition of $R(\Gamma)$, this set is cyclically monotone, so this coupling is optimal for $\mu * Q$ and $\nu * Q$ by Theorem~\ref{monotone_opt}.
Therefore
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
W^2_2(\mu\ast Q, \nu\ast Q) & = \int \|x - T(x)\|^2 d(\mu * Q)(x) \\
& = \sum_{i=1}^k \alpha_i \|y_i - x_i\|^2 = W_2^2(\mu, \nu)\,,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
as claimed.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main-exp}]
Define the truncated smoothing kernel
\[\tilde{\mathcal{N}}_{\sigma} := p \mathcal{N}(0,\sigma^2 I | \|X\|< \epsilon_\ast) + (1-p)\delta(0) \]
where
\[p = \mathbb{P}\left[\|\mathcal{N}(0, \sigma^2 I)\| < \epsilon_\ast\right].\]
Since $\tilde{\mathcal{N}}_\sigma$ is supported on $B(0, \epsilon_\ast)$, by Lemma~\ref{lemma:local-no-change}, we know
\[W_2(\mu\ast \tilde{\mathcal{N}}_{\sigma}, \nu\ast\tilde{\mathcal{N}}_{\sigma}) = W_2(\mu, \nu).\]
Therefore,
\begin{align*}
&\ |W_2(\mu\ast \mathcal{N}_\sigma, \nu\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma)-W_2(\mu, \nu)|^2 \\
=&\ |W_2(\mu\ast \mathcal{N}_\sigma, \nu\ast\mathcal{N}_\sigma)-W_2(\mu\ast \tilde{\mathcal{N}}_\sigma, \nu\ast\tilde{\mathcal{N}}_\sigma)|^2\\
\le&\ (W_2(\mu\ast \mathcal{N}_\sigma, \mu\ast \tilde{\mathcal{N}}_\sigma) + W_2(\nu\ast \mathcal{N}_\sigma, \nu\ast \tilde{\mathcal{N}}_\sigma))^2\\
\lesssim &\ \mathbb{E}_{z\sim \mathcal{N}(0, \sigma^2 I)} \left[\|z\|^2 {\bf 1}_{\|z\|\ge \sigma_\ast}\right]\\
=&\ \sigma^2\ \mathbb{E}_{z\sim \mathcal{N}(0,I)} \left[\|z\|^2 {\bf 1}_{\|z\|\ge \sigma_\ast/\sigma}\right]\\
\lesssim &\ \sigma \sigma_\ast e^{-\sigma_\ast^2 / 2\sigma^2}.
\end{align*}
Taking square root on both sides yields the result.
\end{proof}
\bibliographystyle{alpha}
|
\section{Introduction}
The journal \textit{Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society} (MNRAS) encourages authors to prepare their papers using \LaTeX.
The style file \verb'mnras.cls' can be used to approximate the final appearance of the journal, and provides numerous features to simplify the preparation of papers.
This document, \verb'mnras_guide.tex', provides guidance on using that style file and the features it enables.
This is not a general guide on how to use \LaTeX, of which many excellent examples already exist.
We particularly recommend \textit{Wikibooks \LaTeX}\footnote{\url{https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/LaTeX}}, a collaborative online textbook which is of use to both beginners and experts.
Alternatively there are several other online resources, and most academic libraries also hold suitable beginner's guides.
For guidance on the contents of papers, journal style, and how to submit a paper, see the MNRAS Instructions to Authors\footnote{\label{foot:itas}\url{http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/mnras/for_authors/}}.
Only technical issues with the \LaTeX\ class are considered here.
\section{Obtaining and installing the MNRAS package}
Some \LaTeX\ distributions come with the MNRAS package by default.
If yours does not, you can either install it using your distribution's package manager, or download it from the Comprehensive \TeX\ Archive Network\footnote{\url{http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/macros/latex/contrib/mnras}} (CTAN).
The files can either be installed permanently by placing them in the appropriate directory (consult the documentation for your \LaTeX\ distribution), or used temporarily by placing them in the working directory for your paper.
To use the MNRAS package, simply specify \verb'mnras' as the document class at the start of a \verb'.tex' file:
\begin{verbatim}
\documentclass{mnras}
\end{verbatim}
Then compile \LaTeX\ (and if necessary \bibtex) in the usual way.
\section{Preparing and submitting a paper}
We recommend that you start with a copy of the \texttt{mnras\_template.tex} file.
Rename the file, update the information on the title page, and then work on the text of your paper.
Guidelines for content, style etc. are given in the instructions to authors on the journal's website$^{\ref{foot:itas}}$.
Note that this document does not follow all the aspects of MNRAS journal style (e.g. it has a table of contents).
If a paper is accepted, it is professionally typeset and copyedited by the publishers.
It is therefore likely that minor changes to presentation will occur.
For this reason, we ask authors to ignore minor details such as slightly long lines, extra blank spaces, or misplaced figures, because these details will be dealt with during the production process.
Papers must be submitted electronically via the online submission system; paper submissions are not permitted.
For full guidance on how to submit a paper, see the instructions to authors.
\section{Class options}
\label{sec:options}
There are several options which can be added to the document class line like this:
\begin{verbatim}
\documentclass[option1,option2]{mnras}
\end{verbatim}
The available options are:
\begin{itemize}
\item \verb'letters' -- used for papers in the journal's Letters section.
\item \verb'onecolumn' -- single column, instead of the default two columns. This should be used {\it only} if necessary for the display of numerous very long equations.
\item \verb'doublespacing' -- text has double line spacing. Please don't submit papers in this format.
\item \verb'referee' -- \textit{(deprecated)} single column, double spaced, larger text, bigger margins. Please don't submit papers in this format.
\item \verb'galley' -- \textit{(deprecated)} no running headers, no attempt to align the bottom of columns.
\item \verb'landscape' -- \textit{(deprecated)} sets the whole document on landscape paper.
\item \verb"usenatbib" -- \textit{(all papers should use this)} this uses Patrick Daly's \verb"natbib.sty" package for citations.
\item \verb"usegraphicx" -- \textit{(most papers will need this)} includes the \verb'graphicx' package, for inclusion of figures and images.
\item \verb'useAMS' -- adds support for upright Greek characters \verb'\upi', \verb'\umu' and \verb'\upartial' ($\upi$, $\umu$ and $\upartial$). Only these three are included, if you require other symbols you will need to include the \verb'amsmath' or \verb'amsymb' packages (see section~\ref{sec:packages}).
\item \verb"usedcolumn" -- includes the package \verb"dcolumn", which includes two new types of column alignment for use in tables.
\end{itemize}
Some of these options are deprecated and retained for backwards compatibility only.
Others are used in almost all papers, but again are retained as options to ensure that papers written decades ago will continue to compile without problems.
If you want to include any other packages, see section~\ref{sec:packages}.
\section{Title page}
If you are using \texttt{mnras\_template.tex} the necessary code for generating the title page, headers and footers is already present.
Simply edit the title, author list, institutions, abstract and keywords as described below.
\subsection{Title}
There are two forms of the title: the full version used on the first page, and a short version which is used in the header of other odd-numbered pages (the `running head').
Enter them with \verb'\title[]{}' like this:
\begin{verbatim}
\title[Running head]{Full title of the paper}
\end{verbatim}
The full title can be multiple lines (use \verb'\\' to start a new line) and may be as long as necessary, although we encourage authors to use concise titles. The running head must be $\le~45$ characters on a single line.
See appendix~\ref{sec:advanced} for more complicated examples.
\subsection{Authors and institutions}
Like the title, there are two forms of author list: the full version which appears on the title page, and a short form which appears in the header of the even-numbered pages. Enter them using the \verb'\author[]{}' command.
If the author list is more than one line long, start a new line using \verb'\newauthor'. Use \verb'\\' to start the institution list. Affiliations for each author should be indicated with a superscript number, and correspond to the list of institutions below the author list.
For example, if I were to write a paper with two coauthors at another institution, one of whom also works at a third location:
\begin{verbatim}
\author[K. T. Smith et al.]{
Keith T. Smith,$^{1}$
A. N. Other,$^{2}$
and Third Author$^{2,3}$
\\
$^{1}$Affiliation 1\\
$^{2}$Affiliation 2\\
$^{3}$Affiliation 3}
\end{verbatim}
Affiliations should be in the format `Department, Institution, Street Address, City and Postal Code, Country'.
Email addresses can be inserted with the \verb'\thanks{}' command which adds a title page footnote.
If you want to list more than one email, put them all in the same \verb'\thanks' and use \verb'\footnotemark[]' to refer to the same footnote multiple times.
Present addresses (if different to those where the work was performed) can also be added with a \verb'\thanks' command.
\subsection{Abstract and keywords}
The abstract is entered in an \verb'abstract' environment:
\begin{verbatim}
\begin{abstract}
The abstract of the paper.
\end{abstract}
\end{verbatim}
\noindent Note that there is a word limit on the length of abstracts.
For the current word limit, see the journal instructions to authors$^{\ref{foot:itas}}$.
Immediately following the abstract, a set of keywords is entered in a \verb'keywords' environment:
\begin{verbatim}
\begin{keywords}
keyword 1 -- keyword 2 -- keyword 3
\end{keywords}
\end{verbatim}
\noindent There is a list of permitted keywords, which is agreed between all the major astronomy journals and revised every few years.
Do \emph{not} make up new keywords!
For the current list of allowed keywords, see the journal's instructions to authors$^{\ref{foot:itas}}$.
\section{Sections and lists}
Sections and lists are generally the same as in the standard \LaTeX\ classes.
\subsection{Sections}
\label{sec:sections}
Sections are entered in the usual way, using \verb'\section{}' and its variants. It is possible to nest up to four section levels:
\begin{verbatim}
\section{Main section}
\subsection{Subsection}
\subsubsection{Subsubsection}
\paragraph{Lowest level section}
\end{verbatim}
\noindent The other \LaTeX\ sectioning commands \verb'\part', \verb'\chapter' and \verb'\subparagraph{}' are deprecated and should not be used.
Some sections are not numbered as part of journal style (e.g. the Acknowledgements).
To insert an unnumbered section use the `starred' version of the command: \verb'\section*{}'.
See appendix~\ref{sec:advanced} for more complicated examples.
\subsection{Lists}
Two forms of lists can be used in MNRAS -- numbered and unnumbered.
For a numbered list, use the \verb'enumerate' environment:
\begin{verbatim}
\begin{enumerate}
\item First item
\item Second item
\item etc.
\end{enumerate}
\end{verbatim}
\noindent which produces
\begin{enumerate}
\item First item
\item Second item
\item etc.
\end{enumerate}
Note that the list uses lowercase Roman numerals, rather than the \LaTeX\ default Arabic numerals.
For an unnumbered list, use the \verb'description' environment without the optional argument:
\begin{verbatim}
\begin{description}
\item First item
\item Second item
\item etc.
\end{description}
\end{verbatim}
\noindent which produces
\begin{description}
\item First item
\item Second item
\item etc.
\end{description}
Bulleted lists using the \verb'itemize' environment should not be used in MNRAS; it is retained for backwards compatibility only.
\section{Mathematics and symbols}
The MNRAS class mostly adopts standard \LaTeX\ handling of mathematics, which is briefly summarised here.
See also section~\ref{sec:packages} for packages that support more advanced mathematics.
Mathematics can be inserted into the running text using the syntax \verb'$1+1=2$', which produces $1+1=2$.
Use this only for short expressions or when referring to mathematical quantities; equations should be entered as described below.
\subsection{Equations}
Equations should be entered using the \verb'equation' environment, which automatically numbers them:
\begin{verbatim}
\begin{equation}
a^2=b^2+c^2
\end{equation}
\end{verbatim}
\noindent which produces
\begin{equation}
a^2=b^2+c^2
\end{equation}
By default, the equations are numbered sequentially throughout the whole paper. If a paper has a large number of equations, it may be better to number them by section (2.1, 2.2 etc.). To do this, add the command \verb'\numberwithin{equation}{section}' to the preamble.
It is also possible to produce un-numbered equations by using the \LaTeX\ built-in \verb'\['\textellipsis\verb'\]' and \verb'$$'\textellipsis\verb'$$' commands; however MNRAS requires that all equations are numbered, so these commands should be avoided.
\subsection{Special symbols}
\begin{table}
\caption{Additional commands for special symbols commonly used in astronomy. These can be used anywhere.}
\label{tab:anysymbols}
\begin{tabular}{lll}
\hline
Command & Output & Meaning\\
\hline
\verb'\sun' & \sun & Sun, solar\\[2pt]
\verb'\earth' & \earth & Earth, terrestrial\\[2pt]
\verb'\micron' & \micron & microns\\[2pt]
\verb'\degr' & \degr & degrees\\[2pt]
\verb'\arcmin' & \arcmin & arcminutes\\[2pt]
\verb'\arcsec' & \arcsec & arcseconds\\[2pt]
\verb'\fdg' & \fdg & fraction of a degree\\[2pt]
\verb'\farcm' & \farcm & fraction of an arcminute\\[2pt]
\verb'\farcs' & \farcs & fraction of an arcsecond\\[2pt]
\verb'\fd' & \fd & fraction of a day\\[2pt]
\verb'\fh' & \fh & fraction of an hour\\[2pt]
\verb'\fm' & \fm & fraction of a minute\\[2pt]
\verb'\fs' & \fs & fraction of a second\\[2pt]
\verb'\fp' & \fp & fraction of a period\\[2pt]
\verb'\diameter' & \diameter & diameter\\[2pt]
\verb'\sq' & \sq & square, Q.E.D.\\[2pt]
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{Additional commands for mathematical symbols. These can only be used in maths mode.}
\label{tab:mathssymbols}
\begin{tabular}{lll}
\hline
Command & Output & Meaning\\
\hline
\verb'\upi' & $\upi$ & upright pi\\[2pt]
\verb'\umu' & $\umu$ & upright mu\\[2pt]
\verb'\upartial' & $\upartial$ & upright partial derivative\\[2pt]
\verb'\lid' & $\lid$ & less than or equal to\\[2pt]
\verb'\gid' & $\gid$ & greater than or equal to\\[2pt]
\verb'\la' & $\la$ & less than of order\\[2pt]
\verb'\ga' & $\ga$ & greater than of order\\[2pt]
\verb'\loa' & $\loa$ & less than approximately\\[2pt]
\verb'\goa' & $\goa$ & greater than approximately\\[2pt]
\verb'\cor' & $\cor$ & corresponds to\\[2pt]
\verb'\sol' & $\sol$ & similar to or less than\\[2pt]
\verb'\sog' & $\sog$ & similar to or greater than\\[2pt]
\verb'\lse' & $\lse$ & less than or homotopic to \\[2pt]
\verb'\gse' & $\gse$ & greater than or homotopic to\\[2pt]
\verb'\getsto' & $\getsto$ & from over to\\[2pt]
\verb'\grole' & $\grole$ & greater over less\\[2pt]
\verb'\leogr' & $\leogr$ & less over greater\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
Some additional symbols of common use in astronomy have been added in the MNRAS class. These are shown in tables~\ref{tab:anysymbols}--\ref{tab:mathssymbols}. The command names are -- as far as possible -- the same as those used in other major astronomy journals.
Many other mathematical symbols are also available, either built into \LaTeX\ or via additional packages. If you want to insert a specific symbol but don't know the \LaTeX\ command, we recommend using the Detexify website\footnote{\url{http://detexify.kirelabs.org}}.
Sometimes font or coding limitations mean a symbol may not get smaller when used in sub- or superscripts, and will therefore be displayed at the wrong size. There is no need to worry about this as it will be corrected by the typesetter during production.
To produce bold symbols in mathematics, use \verb'\bmath' for simple variables, and the \verb'bm' package for more complex symbols (see section~\ref{sec:packages}). Vectors are set in bold italic, using \verb'\mathbfit{}'.
For matrices, use \verb'\mathbfss{}' to produce a bold sans-serif font e.g. \mathbfss{H}; this works even outside maths mode, but not all symbols are available (e.g. Greek). For $\nabla$ (del, used in gradients, divergence etc.) use \verb'$\nabla$'.
\subsection{Ions}
A new \verb'\ion{}{}' command has been added to the class file, for the correct typesetting of ionisation states.
For example, to typeset singly ionised calcium use \verb'\ion{Ca}{ii}', which produces \ion{Ca}{ii}.
\section{Figures and tables}
\label{sec:fig_table}
Figures and tables (collectively called `floats') are mostly the same as built into \LaTeX.
\subsection{Basic examples}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{example}
\caption{An example figure.}
\label{fig:example}
\end{figure}
Figures are inserted in the usual way using a \verb'figure' environment and \verb'\includegraphics'. The example Figure~\ref{fig:example} was generated using the code:
\begin{verbatim}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{example}
\caption{An example figure.}
\label{fig:example}
\end{figure}
\end{verbatim}
\begin{table}
\caption{An example table.}
\label{tab:example}
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\hline
Star & Mass & Luminosity\\
& $M_{\sun}$ & $L_{\sun}$\\
\hline
Sun & 1.00 & 1.00\\
$\alpha$~Cen~A & 1.10 & 1.52\\
$\epsilon$~Eri & 0.82 & 0.34\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
The example Table~\ref{tab:example} was generated using the code:
\begin{verbatim}
\begin{table}
\caption{An example table.}
\label{tab:example}
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\hline
Star & Mass & Luminosity\\
& $M_{\sun}$ & $L_{\sun}$\\
\hline
Sun & 1.00 & 1.00\\
$\alpha$~Cen~A & 1.10 & 1.52\\
$\epsilon$~Eri & 0.82 & 0.34\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\end{verbatim}
\subsection{Captions and placement}
Captions go \emph{above} tables but \emph{below} figures, as in the examples above.
The \LaTeX\ float placement commands \verb'[htbp]' are intentionally disabled.
Layout of figures and tables will be adjusted by the publisher during the production process, so authors should not concern themselves with placement to avoid disappointment and wasted effort.
Simply place the \LaTeX\ code close to where the figure or table is first mentioned in the text and leave exact placement to the publishers.
By default a figure or table will occupy one column of the page.
To produce a wider version which covers both columns, use the \verb'figure*' or \verb'table*' environment.
If a figure or table is too long to fit on a single page it can be split it into several parts.
Create an additional figure or table which uses \verb'\contcaption{}' instead of \verb'\caption{}'.
This will automatically correct the numbering and add `\emph{continued}' at the start of the caption.
\begin{table}
\contcaption{A table continued from the previous one.}
\label{tab:continued}
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\hline
Star & Mass & Luminosity\\
& $M_{\sun}$ & $L_{\sun}$\\
\hline
$\tau$~Cet & 0.78 & 0.52\\
$\delta$~Pav & 0.99 & 1.22\\
$\sigma$~Dra & 0.87 & 0.43\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table~\ref{tab:continued} was generated using the code:
\begin{verbatim}
\begin{table}
\contcaption{A table continued from the previous one.}
\label{tab:continued}
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\hline
Star & Mass & Luminosity\\
& $M_{\sun}$ & $L_{\sun}$\\
\hline
$\tau$~Cet & 0.78 & 0.52\\
$\delta$~Pav & 0.99 & 1.22\\
$\sigma$~Dra & 0.87 & 0.43\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\end{verbatim}
To produce a landscape figure or table, use the \verb'pdflscape' package and the \verb'landscape' environment.
The landscape Table~\ref{tab:landscape} was produced using the code:
\begin{verbatim}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}
\caption{An example landscape table.}
\label{tab:landscape}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccccc}
\hline
Header & Header & ...\\
Unit & Unit & ...\\
\hline
Data & Data & ...\\
Data & Data & ...\\
...\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\end{verbatim}
Unfortunately this method will force a page break before the table appears.
More complicated solutions are possible, but authors shouldn't worry about this.
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}
\caption{An example landscape table.}
\label{tab:landscape}
\begin{tabular}{cccccccccc}
\hline
Header & Header & Header & Header & Header & Header & Header & Header & Header & Header\\
Unit & Unit & Unit & Unit & Unit & Unit & Unit & Unit & Unit & Unit \\
\hline
Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data\\
Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data\\
Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data\\
Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data\\
Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data\\
Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data\\
Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data\\
Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data & Data\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\section{References and citations}
\subsection{Cross-referencing}
The usual \LaTeX\ commands \verb'\label{}' and \verb'\ref{}' can be used for cross-referencing within the same paper.
We recommend that you use these whenever relevant, rather than writing out the section or figure numbers explicitly.
This ensures that cross-references are updated whenever the numbering changes (e.g. during revision) and provides clickable links (if available in your compiler).
It is best to give each section, figure and table a logical label.
For example, Table~\ref{tab:mathssymbols} has the label \verb'tab:mathssymbols', whilst section~\ref{sec:packages} has the label \verb'sec:packages'.
Add the label \emph{after} the section or caption command, as in the examples in sections~\ref{sec:sections} and \ref{sec:fig_table}.
Enter the cross-reference with a non-breaking space between the type of object and the number, like this: \verb'see Figure~\ref{fig:example}'.
The \verb'\autoref{}' command can be used to automatically fill out the type of object, saving on typing.
It also causes the link to cover the whole phrase rather than just the number, but for that reason is only suitable for single cross-references rather than ranges.
For example, \verb'\autoref{tab:journal_abbr}' produces \autoref{tab:journal_abbr}.
\subsection{Citations}
\label{sec:cite}
MNRAS uses the Harvard -- author (year) -- citation style, e.g. \citet{author2013}.
This is implemented in \LaTeX\ via the \verb'natbib' package, which in turn is included via the \verb'usenatbib' package option (see section~\ref{sec:options}), which should be used in all papers.
Each entry in the reference list has a `key' (see section~\ref{sec:ref_list}) which is used to generate citations.
There are two basic \verb'natbib' commands:
\begin{description}
\item \verb'\citet{key}' produces an in-text citation: \citet{author2013}
\item \verb'\citep{key}' produces a bracketed (parenthetical) citation: \citep{author2013}
\end{description}
Citations will include clickable links to the relevant entry in the reference list, if supported by your \LaTeX\ compiler.
\defcitealias{smith2014}{Paper~I}
\begin{table*}
\caption{Common citation commands, provided by the \texttt{natbib} package.}
\label{tab:natbib}
\begin{tabular}{lll}
\hline
Command & Ouput & Note\\
\hline
\verb'\citet{key}' & \citet{smith2014} & \\
\verb'\citep{key}' & \citep{smith2014} & \\
\verb'\citep{key,key2}' & \citep{smith2014,jones2015} & Multiple papers\\
\verb'\citet[table 4]{key}' & \citet[table 4]{smith2014} & \\
\verb'\citep[see][figure 7]{key}' & \citep[see][figure 7]{smith2014} & \\
\verb'\citealt{key}' & \citealt{smith2014} & For use with manual brackets\\
\verb'\citeauthor{key}' & \citeauthor{smith2014} & If already cited in close proximity\\
\verb'\defcitealias{key}{Paper~I}' & & Define an alias (doesn't work in floats)\\
\verb'\citetalias{key}' & \citetalias{smith2014} & \\
\verb'\citepalias{key}' & \citepalias{smith2014} & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
There are a number of other \verb'natbib' commands which can be used for more complicated citations.
The most commonly used ones are listed in Table~\ref{tab:natbib}.
For full guidance on their use, consult the \verb'natbib' documentation\footnote{\url{http://www.ctan.org/pkg/natbib}}.
If a reference has several authors, \verb'natbib' will automatically use `et al.' if there are more than two authors. However, if a paper has exactly three authors, MNRAS style is to list all three on the first citation and use `et al.' thereafter. If you are using \bibtex\ (see section~\ref{sec:ref_list}) then this is handled automatically. If not, the \verb'\citet*{}' and \verb'\citep*{}' commands can be used at the first citation to include all of the authors.
\subsection{The list of references}
\label{sec:ref_list}
It is possible to enter references manually using the usual \LaTeX\ commands, but we strongly encourage authors to use \bibtex\ instead.
\bibtex\ ensures that the reference list is updated automatically as references are added or removed from the paper, puts them in the correct format, saves on typing, and the same reference file can be used for many different papers -- saving time hunting down reference details.
An MNRAS \bibtex\ style file, \verb'mnras.bst', is distributed as part of this package.
The rest of this section will assume you are using \bibtex.
References are entered into a separate \verb'.bib' file in standard \bibtex\ formatting.
This can be done manually, or there are several software packages which make editing the \verb'.bib' file much easier.
We particularly recommend \textsc{JabRef}\footnote{\url{http://jabref.sourceforge.net/}}, which works on all major operating systems.
\bibtex\ entries can be obtained from the NASA Astrophysics Data System\footnote{\label{foot:ads}\url{http://adsabs.harvard.edu}} (ADS) by clicking on `Bibtex entry for this abstract' on any entry.
Simply copy this into your \verb'.bib' file or into the `BibTeX source' tab in \textsc{JabRef}.
Each entry in the \verb'.bib' file must specify a unique `key' to identify the paper, the format of which is up to the author.
Simply cite it in the usual way, as described in section~\ref{sec:cite}, using the specified key.
Compile the paper as usual, but add an extra step to run the \texttt{bibtex} command.
Consult the documentation for your compiler or latex distribution.
Correct formatting of the reference list will be handled by \bibtex\ in almost all cases, provided that the correct information was entered into the \verb'.bib' file.
Note that ADS entries are not always correct, particularly for older papers and conference proceedings, so may need to be edited.
If in doubt, or if you are producing the reference list manually, see the MNRAS instructions to authors$^{\ref{foot:itas}}$ for the current guidelines on how to format the list of references.
\section{Appendices and online material}
To start an appendix, simply place the \verb'
\section{Introduction}
RR Lyrae stars are well known pulsating variables, currently adopted as standard candles and tracers of intrinsic properties in old stellar populations. Their role as distance indicators is largely based on the existence of a Luminosity-metallicity relation in the optical bands, namely Johnson B and V \citep[see][and references therein]{Caputo2000,2004ApJ...612.1092D,2018ApJ...864L..13M}, and a Period-Luminosity (PL) relation in the Near-Infrared (NIR) filters \citep[see e.g.][and references therein]{Longmore86,Longmore90,2006MmSAI..77..214D,2011MNRAS.416.1056C,2015ApJ...808...50M,2015ApJ...807..127M}. In spite of the well known physical basis \citep[see e.g.]{2001MNRAS.326.1183B,2004ApJS..154..633C}, the power of the NIR PL relation
has not been fully exploited yet, due to the quite debated dependence on metallicity.
Indeed, nonlinear convective pulsation models of RR Lyrae at different metallicities predict a non negligible metal dependence \citep[see e.g.][and references therein]{2003MNRAS.344.1097B,2015ApJ...808...50M}. On the other hand, empirical studies \citep[e.g.][]{2006MNRAS.372.1675S,2006MmSAI..77..214D} provided smaller metallicity effects, not always consistent with each other. More recently, several
determinations \citep[see e.g.][]{2017ApJ...838..107S,2018MNRAS.481.1195M}
seem to be more in agreement with the predicted coefficient by
\citet{2015ApJ...808...50M},
with values in the range 0.16-0.18 mag $dex^{-1}$ for the coefficient of the [Fe/H] term in the K band linear Period-Magnitude-[Fe/H] (PLZ) relation.
\citet{2021MNRAS.500.5009M} relied on the extended metal-dependent model set presented in \citet{2015ApJ...808...50M} to derive the theoretical light curves in the Gaia bands $G$, $G_{BP}$, and $G_{RP}$ and, in turn, the intensity-weighted mean magnitudes and pulsation amplitudes in these filters. The former were used to obtain the first theoretical Period-Wesenheit relations for RR Lyrae in the Gaia filters \citep[see][for details]{2021MNRAS.500.5009M}, whereas the latter were combined with the pulsation periods to investigate the behaviour of the Bailey (e.g. period-amplitude) diagrams in the Gaia filters. The inferred theoretical Period-Wesenheit (PW) relations were applied to Galactic RR Lyrae in the Gaia Data Release 2 database with individual metal abundances to obtain theoretical individual parallaxes that were found to be in very good agreement with Gaia astrometric results.
The next Gaia Data Release (DR3) will be in the summer of 2022, but it was anticipated by an Early DR3 (EDR3) in December 2020.
The increasing accuracy of Gaia results will allow us to better and better constrain the individual distances of Galactic RR Lyrae and at the same time the physical and numerical assumptions in model computations.
The extension of these capabilities to further distances (up to 5 mag fainter) will be possible thanks to the upcoming revolutionary Vera C. Rubin Observatory Legacy Survey of Space and Time (Rubin-LSST).
The Rubin-LSST will image the southern night sky repeatedly in the $u,\,g,\,r,\,i,\,z,\, y$ filters, at limiting magnitudes fainter than 25 mag and excellent image quality, thus allowing us to obtain extremely well sampled multi-band light curves of various classes of pulsating stars, including RR Lyrae stars.
In this context, it is mandatory to provide a theoretical scenario in the Rubin-LSST filters, with the capability of predicting all the relevant pulsation observables, to pave the way to productive comparisons between theory and observations.
In this paper we present some of these pulsation properties as predicted by nonlinear convective hydrodynamic models at different
chemical compositions \citep[see][for details]{2015ApJ...808...50M} in the Rubin-LSST filters. In Section \ref{sec-models} we present the atlas of predicted light curves in the LSST filters, for both F-mode and FO-mode pulsators and the corresponding metal-dependent Bailey diagrams. In Section \ref{sec-colcol} the predicted behaviour in the various color-color planes is investigated. In Section \ref{sec-pl-pw} we derive the first theoretical metal dependent PL relations in the $r_{LSST}$, $i_{LSST}$, $z_{LSST}$ and $y_{LSST}$ filters as well as PW relations for various optical and NIR filter combinations. In Section \ref{sec-g-feh} we present the first theoretical $g_{LSST}$ magnitude versus $[Fe/H]$ relation both in the traditionally linear and quadratic form over the whole adopted metallicity range. Some final remarks close the paper.
\begin{table}
\centering
\tabcolsep=0.11cm
\begin{tabular}{lcccc}
\hline
$Z$ & $Y$ & $M$ & $\log(L/L_\odot)$ & \\
& & $(M_\odot)$ & $(dex)$ &\\
\hline
0.0001 & 0.245 & 0.800 & 1.76 & ZAHB \\
0.0001 & 0.245 & 0.800 & 1.86 & Brighter \\
0.0001 & 0.245 & 0.720 & 1.96 & Evolved \\
0.0003 & 0.245 & 0.716 & 1.72 & ZAHB \\
0.0003 & 0.245 & 0.716 & 1.82 & Brighter \\
0.0003 & 0.245 & 0.650 & 1.92 & Evolved \\
0.0006 & 0.245 & 0.670 & 1.69 & ZAHB \\
0.0006 & 0.245 & 0.670 & 1.79 & Brighter \\
0.0006 & 0.245 & 0.600 & 1.89 & Evolved \\
0.0010 & 0.245 & 0.640 & 1.67 & ZAHB \\
0.0010 & 0.245 & 0.640 & 1.77 & Brighter \\
0.0010 & 0.245 & 0.580 & 1.87 & Evolved \\
0.0040 & 0.250 & 0.590 & 1.61 & ZAHB \\
0.0040 & 0.250 & 0.590 & 1.71 & Brighter \\
0.0040 & 0.250 & 0.530 & 1.81 & Evolved \\
0.0080 & 0.256 & 0.570 & 1.58 & ZAHB \\
0.0080 & 0.256 & 0.570 & 1.68 & Brighter \\
0.0080 & 0.256 & 0.510 & 1.78 & Evolved \\
0.0200 & 0.270 & 0.540 & 1.49 & ZAHB \\
0.0200 & 0.270 & 0.540 & 1.59 & Brighter \\
0.0200 & 0.270 & 0.510 & 1.69 & Evolved \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{This table contains the elemental abundance Z and the Helium abundance Y of the considered models, respectively
in the column 1 and 2, the mass M and the luminosity $\log L/L_\odot$ respectively in the columns 3 and 4, while in the column 5 a
string tag is contained labeling the ZAHB, the Brighter and the Evolved models introduced in the text.}
\label{tab-main-ZYML-params}
\end{table}
\begin{table*}
\centering
\tabcolsep=0.11cm
\begin{tabular}{cccccccccccccccccc}
\hline
Z & Y & P & M & $\log(L/L_\odot)$ & $T_{eff}$ & $ \langle u_{LSST} \rangle$ & A$_u$ & $ \langle g_{LSST} \rangle$ & A$_g$ & $ \langle r_{LSST} \rangle$ & A$_r$ & $ \langle i_{LSST} \rangle$ & A$_i$ & $ \langle z_{LSST} \rangle$ & A$_z$ & $ \langle y_{LSST} \rangle$ & A$_y$ \\
& & (days) & ($M_\odot$) & (dex) & (K) & (mag) & (mag) & (mag) & (mag) & (mag) & (mag) & (mag) & (mag) & (mag) & (mag) & (mag) & (mag) \\
\hline
0.0001 & 0.245 & 0.7624 & 0.80 & 1.760 & 6000 & 1.375 & 0.335 & 0.461 & 0.379 & 0.245 & 0.274 & 0.187 & 0.212 & 0.189 & 0.179 & 0.191 & 0.173 \\
0.0001 & 0.245 & 0.7210 & 0.80 & 1.760 & 6100 & 1.366 & 0.654 & 0.445 & 0.752 & 0.245 & 0.559 & 0.196 & 0.438 & 0.203 & 0.375 & 0.205 & 0.369 \\
0.0001 & 0.245 & 0.6839 & 0.80 & 1.760 & 6200 & 1.354 & 0.833 & 0.426 & 0.958 & 0.244 & 0.725 & 0.206 & 0.575 & 0.219 & 0.502 & 0.222 & 0.501 \\
0.0001 & 0.245 & 0.6469 & 0.80 & 1.760 & 6300 & 1.343 & 0.879 & 0.407 & 1.013 & 0.245 & 0.765 & 0.219 & 0.607 & 0.238 & 0.531 & 0.241 & 0.532 \\
0.0001 & 0.245 & 0.6133 & 0.80 & 1.760 & 6400 & 1.330 & 0.932 & 0.385 & 1.067 & 0.247 & 0.822 & 0.234 & 0.669 & 0.259 & 0.597 & 0.263 & 0.600 \\
0.0001 & 0.245 & 0.5810 & 0.80 & 1.760 & 6500 & 1.315 & 1.184 & 0.362 & 1.336 & 0.250 & 1.002 & 0.253 & 0.797 & 0.284 & 0.710 & 0.288 & 0.718 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Fundamental model parameters: the values of Z and Y are listed in columns 1 and 2, respectively,
the period of pulsation is in column 3, the mass, luminosity and effective temperatures are listed
in columns 4, 5, and 6, while the LSST light curve intensity average magnitudes and amplitudes are reported in the columns
from 7 to 18 for all the selected bands. The complete table is available in electronic format.}
\label{tab-mainParameters-F}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}
\centering
\tabcolsep=0.11cm
\begin{tabular}{cccccccccccccccccc}
\hline
Z & Y & P & M & $\log(L/L_\odot)$ & $T_{eff}$ & $ \langle u_{LSST} \rangle$ & A$_u$ & $ \langle g_{LSST} \rangle$ & A$_g$ & $ \langle r_{LSST} \rangle$ & A$_r$ & $ \langle i_{LSST} \rangle$ & A$_i$ & $ \langle z_{LSST} \rangle$ & A$_z$ & $ \langle y_{LSST} \rangle$ & A$_y$ \\
& & (days) & ($M_\odot$) & (dex) & (K) & (mag) & (mag) & (mag) & (mag) & (mag) & (mag) & (mag) & (mag) & (mag) & (mag) & (mag) & (mag) \\
\hline
0.0001 & 0.245 & 0.4107 & 0.80 & 1.760 & 6600 & 1.301 & 0.607 & 0.346 & 0.710 & 0.243 & 0.528 & 0.255 & 0.411 & 0.297 & 0.354 & 0.304 & 0.356 \\
0.0001 & 0.245 & 0.3910 & 0.80 & 1.760 & 6700 & 1.292 & 0.756 & 0.327 & 0.873 & 0.246 & 0.665 & 0.272 & 0.532 & 0.319 & 0.472 & 0.325 & 0.477 \\
0.0001 & 0.245 & 0.3721 & 0.80 & 1.760 & 6800 & 1.282 & 0.962 & 0.310 & 1.090 & 0.254 & 0.805 & 0.293 & 0.630 & 0.345 & 0.558 & 0.351 & 0.568 \\
0.0001 & 0.245 & 0.3553 & 0.80 & 1.760 & 6900 & 1.272 & 1.111 & 0.297 & 1.214 & 0.264 & 0.885 & 0.315 & 0.685 & 0.373 & 0.607 & 0.379 & 0.618 \\
0.0001 & 0.245 & 0.3386 & 0.80 & 1.760 & 7000 & 1.263 & 1.133 & 0.286 & 1.212 & 0.273 & 0.880 & 0.337 & 0.680 & 0.400 & 0.605 & 0.406 & 0.615 \\
0.0001 & 0.245 & 0.3235 & 0.80 & 1.760 & 7100 & 1.255 & 1.096 & 0.274 & 1.162 & 0.280 & 0.834 & 0.355 & 0.639 & 0.425 & 0.570 & 0.430 & 0.580 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{First overtone model parameters: the values of Z and Y are listed in columns 1 and 2, respectively,
the period of pulsation is in column 3, the mass, luminosity and effective temperatures are listed
in columns 4, 5, and 6, while the LSST light curve intensity average magnitudes and amplitudes are reported in the columns
from 7 to 18 for all the selected bands. The complete table is available in electronic format.}
\label{tab-mainParameters-FO}
\end{table*}
\section{Theoretical light curves in the Rubin-LSST filters}\label{sec-models}
We took into account the model set presented in \citet{2015ApJ...808...50M}, that covers a wide range of metal abundances, namely $Z=0.0001,0.0003,0.0006,0.001,0.004,0.008,0.02$. We considered two different stellar masses and three luminosity levels for each selected chemical composition, as detailed in Table ~\ref{tab-main-ZYML-params}. For each chemical composition, the higher stellar mass and the lowest luminosity level correspond to the predicted Zero Age Horizontal Branch (ZAHB) values \citep[see e.g.][and references therein]{2013AA}. To account for possible uncertainties in the evolutionary luminosity prediction \citep[see e.g.][and references therein]{Valle2013,Cassisi2021}, a slightly brighter (by 0.1 dex) luminosity level (than the ZAHB one) for the ZAHB stellar mass is also considered, while lower stellar mass (by about $10 \%$) and still brighter models (0.2 dex more than the ZAHB level) were also computed for each $Z$ and $Y$ combination, in order to model possible evolved RR Lyrae \citep[see][and references therein, for details]{2015ApJ...808...50M}.
In particular, all the bolometric light curves of models with effective temperature within the F or FO instability strip for the tabulated chemical compositions and masses, have been transformed into the Rubin-LSST filters $u_{LSST}$, $g_{LSST}$, $r_{LSST}$, $i_{LSST}$, $z_{LSST}$ and $y_{LSST}$ bands. To perform these transformations, we used the bolometric corrections (BC) tables provided by \citet{che19}, including a wide variety of photometric systems and based on the PHOENIX spectral libraries.
The full details of our adopted procedure are given in \citet{2021MNRAS.500.5009M}. Here we just recall that we used a proprietary C code to interpolate the \citet{che19} tables to obtain the BCs corresponding to the log(g), $T_{eff}$ and Z values of our models. Moreover, we note that the BC tables provided by \citet{che19} for the LSST filters are in the AB system, therefore all our results hereafter are specific for this photometric system. The obtained multi-filter atlas of luminosity variations is available upon request. In Figure 1 and 2 we plot a subset of predicted light curves converted into the selected bands, for the F and FO mode, respectively. In both figures the left panels display relatively hot models, close to the predicted blue boundary of the instability strip, the central panels in each row correspond to models located in the middle of the instability strip, whereas the right panels show model light curves close to the red boundary. The metallicity increases from $Z=0.0001$ (top panels) to $Z=0.02$ (bottom panels), with the middle panels in each column corresponding to $Z=0.001$.
Inspection of these plots confirms that the Rubin-LSST light curves are expected to show a decrease in the pulsation amplitudes as the filter wavelength increases. Moreover, independently of the adopted chemical composition, higher amplitudes are predicted for F models at the blue edge of the instability strip, with a linear decrease of F-amplitudes as the logarithm of the pulsation period increases. This linear trend is the typical feature of F-mode RR Lyrae in the Bailey diagram \citep[see Figure 3, see also][and references therein]{2004ApJ...612.1092D,2021MNRAS.500.5009M}. On the other hand, the FO-mode light curves in Figure 2 show the typical maximum of the pulsation amplitude in the central region of the instability strip and a mild decrease towards the two boundaries.
The predicted Bailey diagrams for the ZAHB and the evolved models are shown in Figures \ref{fig-bailey} and \ref{fig-bailey-evolved}, respectively, for both F and FO pulsators, in all the Rubin-LSST filters. As noticed above, the predicted F-mode amplitudes show a systematic decrease as the period increases, whereas the FO-mode amplitudes display the expected "bell-shape" with a maximum in the middle of their instability region. Another important property of the predicted Bailey diagram is the dependence of the model period range on both the luminosity level and the chemical composition. Indeed, the period range of both the ZAHB (corresponding to the lowest luminosity level for each selected chemical composition, solid lines) and brighter (higher luminosity levels, dashed lines) models moves towards longer values as the assumed metal abundance decreases. On the other hand, at fixed metal content, brighter models show longer periods than ZAHB ones. The same trends are found when evolved models are considered (see Figure~\ref{fig-bailey-evolved}). Here the predicted period range is shifted to still longer values, even above 1 day. However, the smaller pulsation amplitudes predicted for more metal-rich RR Lyrae allows us to disentangle any possible degeneracy between luminosity and metallicity effects.
\begin{table*}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lcccccccc}
\hline
Mode & N & Band$_{LSST}$ & $R^2$ & $\sigma$ & $\alpha$ & $\beta$ & $\gamma$ & $\delta$\\ \hline
\hline
\multicolumn{9}{c}{$Mag=\alpha+\beta{\log{P}}+\gamma[Fe/H]$} \\
F & 155 & $r$ & 0.750 & 0.128 & $0.25 \pm 0.02$ & $-1.35 \pm 0.08$ & $0.163 \pm 0.014$ & - \\
FO & 93 & $r$ & 0.916 & 0.075 & $-0.19 \pm 0.03$ & $-1.66 \pm 0.06$ & $0.149 \pm 0.011$ & -\\
FO (F slope) & 93 & $r$ & 0.650 & 0.084 & $-0.07 \pm 0.02$ & $-1.35 \pm 0.09$ & $0.156 \pm 0.012$ & -\\
F+FO & 248 & $r$ & 0.733 & 0.132 & $0.22 \pm 0.02$ & $-1.25 \pm 0.06$ & $0.168 \pm 0.012$ & - \\
F & 155 & $i$ & 0.863 & 0.099 & $0.21 \pm 0.02$ & $-1.6 \pm 0.07$ & $0.163 \pm 0.011$ & -\\
FO & 93 & $i$ & 0.955 & 0.059 & $-0.22 \pm 0.02$ & $-1.87 \pm 0.05$ & $0.149 \pm 0.008$ & -\\
FO (F slope) & 93 & $i$ & 0.738 & 0.067 & $-0.12 \pm 0.014$ & $-1.6 \pm 0.07$ & $0.154 \pm 0.01$ & -\\
F+FO & 248 & $i$ & 0.850 & 0.105 & $0.18 \pm 0.02$ & $-1.52 \pm 0.05$ & $0.166 \pm 0.009$ & -\\
F & 155 & $z$ & 0.903 & 0.087 & $0.23 \pm 0.02$ & $-1.73 \pm 0.06$ & $0.168 \pm 0.01$ & -\\
FO & 93 & $z$ & 0.968 & 0.052 & $-0.21 \pm 0.02$ & $-1.99 \pm 0.04$ & $0.152 \pm 0.008$ & -\\
FO (F slope) & 93 & $z$ & 0.780 & 0.061 & $-0.104 \pm 0.013$ & $-1.73 \pm 0.06$ & $0.158 \pm 0.009$ & -\\
F+FO & 248 & $z$ & 0.893 & 0.092 & $0.205 \pm 0.014$ & $-1.67 \pm 0.04$ & $0.17 \pm 0.008$ & -\\
F & 155 & $y$ & 0.905 & 0.086 & $0.23 \pm 0.02$ & $-1.75 \pm 0.06$ & $0.167 \pm 0.01$ & -\\
FO & 93 & $y$ & 0.967 & 0.053 & $-0.2 \pm 0.02$ & $-2 \pm 0.04$ & $0.151 \pm 0.008$ & -\\
FO (F slope) & 93 & $y$ & 0.782 & 0.061 & $-0.109 \pm 0.013$ & $-1.75 \pm 0.06$ & $0.157 \pm 0.009$ & -\\
F+FO & 248 & $y$ & 0.896 & 0.092 & $0.204 \pm 0.014$ & $-1.68 \pm 0.04$ & $0.169 \pm 0.008$ & -\\
\hline
\hline
\multicolumn{9}{c}{$W=\alpha+\beta{\log{P}}+\gamma[Fe/H]$} \\
F & 155 & $g,u-g$ & 0.468 & 0.219 & $-3.28 \pm 0.04$ & $-1.29 \pm 0.14$ & $-0.22 \pm 0.02$ & -\\
FO & 93 & $g,u-g$ & 0.593 & 0.145 & $-3.58 \pm 0.06$ & $-1.33 \pm 0.12$ & $-0.1 \pm 0.02$ & -\\
FO (F slope) & 93 & $g,u-g$ & 0.219 & 0.144 & $-3.56 \pm 0.03$ & $-1.29 \pm 0.14$ & $-0.1 \pm 0.02$ & -\\
F+FO & 248 & $g,u-g$ & 0.326 & 0.229 & $-3.25 \pm 0.04$ & $-0.94 \pm 0.11$ & $-0.16 \pm 0.02$ & -\\
F & 155 & $r,u-r$ & 0.869 & 0.010 & $-1.622\pm 0.019$ & $-2.09\pm 0.07$ & $-0.059\pm 0.011$ & - \\
FO & 93 & $r,u-r$ & 0.926 & 0.073 & $-1.95\pm 0.03$ & $-2.07\pm 0.06$ & $-0.010\pm 0.010$ & - \\
FO (F slope) & 93 & $r,u-r$ & 0.011 & 0.073 & $-1.960\pm 0.015$ & $-2.09\pm 0.07$ & $-0.011\pm 0.010$ & - \\
F+FO & 248 & $r,u-r$ & 0.841 & 0.109 & $-1.606\pm 0.017$ & $-1.89\pm 0.05$ & $-0.031\pm 0.010$ & - \\
F & 155 & $r,g-r$ & 0.961 & 0.068 & $-0.489 \pm 0.013$ & $-2.63 \pm 0.04$ & $0.047 \pm 0.008$ & -\\
FO & 93 & $r,g-r$ & 0.980 & 0.048 & $-0.85 \pm 0.02$ & $-2.58 \pm 0.04$ & $0.054 \pm 0.007$ & -\\
FO (F slope) & 93 & $r,g-r$ & 0.399 & 0.048 & $-0.867 \pm 0.01$ & $-2.63 \pm 0.04$ & $0.053 \pm 0.007$ & -\\
F+FO & 248 & $r,g-r$ & 0.967 & 0.064 & $-0.486 \pm 0.01$ & $-2.54 \pm 0.03$ & $0.053 \pm 0.006$ & -\\
F & 155 & $i,g-i$ & 0.982 & 0.046 & $-0.178 \pm 0.009$ & $-2.51 \pm 0.03$ & $0.11 \pm 0.005$ & -\\
FO & 93 & $i,g-i$ & 0.990 & 0.035 & $-0.565 \pm 0.013$ & $-2.56 \pm 0.03$ & $0.104 \pm 0.005$ & -\\
FO (F slope) & 93 & $i,g-i$ & 0.830 & 0.035 & $-0.546 \pm 0.007$ & $-2.51 \pm 0.03$ & $0.105 \pm 0.005$ & -\\
F+FO & 248 & $i,g-i$ & 0.983 & 0.046 & $-0.186 \pm 0.007$ & $-2.47 \pm 0.02$ & $0.111 \pm 0.004$ & - \\
F & 155 & $z,i-z$ & 0.975 & 0.051 & $0.295 \pm 0.01$ & $-2.13 \pm 0.03$ & $0.185 \pm 0.006$ & -\\
FO & 93 & $z,i-z$ & 0.990 & 0.033 & $-0.146 \pm 0.013$ & $-2.38 \pm 0.03$ & $0.164 \pm 0.005$ & -\\
FO (F slope) & 93 & $z,i-z$ & 0.884 & 0.045 & $-0.052 \pm 0.009$ & $-2.13 \pm 0.03$ & $0.169 \pm 0.006$ & -\\
F+FO & 248 & $z,i-z$ & 0.972 & 0.056 & $0.269 \pm 0.009$ & $-2.14 \pm 0.03$ & $0.181 \pm 0.005$ & -\\
F & 155 & $y,g-y$ & 0.983 & 0.042 & $0.071 \pm 0.008$ & $-2.23 \pm 0.03$ & $0.147 \pm 0.005$ & -\\
FO & 93 & $y,g-y$ & 0.990 & 0.032 & $-0.341 \pm 0.013$ & $-2.37 \pm 0.03$ & $0.134 \pm 0.005$ & -\\
FO (F slope) & 93 & $y,g-y$ & 0.883 & 0.037 & $-0.288 \pm 0.008$ & $-2.23 \pm 0.03$ & $0.136 \pm 0.005$ & -\\
F+FO & 248 & $y,g-y$ & 0.977 & 0.050 & $0.054 \pm 0.008$ & $-2.19 \pm 0.02$ & $0.147 \pm 0.004$ & - \\
\hline
\hline
\multicolumn{9}{c}{$Mg=\alpha+\gamma[Fe/H]+\delta[Fe/H]^2$} \\
F+FO & 248 & $g$ & 0.384 & 0.209 & $0.62 \pm 0.03$ & $0 \pm 0$ & $0.23 \pm 0.02$ & -\\
F+FO & 248 & $g$ & 0.396 & 0.208 & $0.67 \pm 0.03$ & $0 \pm 0$ & $0.36 \pm 0.06$ & $0.06 \pm 0.03$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The coefficients of the fitted PLZ ($Mag = \alpha + \beta\log P + \gamma [FeH]$), PWZ ($W = \alpha + \beta\log P + \gamma [FeH]$) and absolute G magnitude versus [Fe/H] (in both the linear $M_g = \alpha + \gamma[FeH]$ and the quadratic $M_g = \alpha + \gamma[FeH] +\delta{[Fe/H]^2}$ form). The following quantities are listed: (column 1) the mode of the fitted sources; (column 2) the number of models used in the fit;
(column 3) the photometric band; (column 4) the coefficient of determination $R^2$; (column 5) the rms of residuals around the fitted relation; (columns 6-9) the parameters of the different fitted relations.}
\label{tab-plzCoeffs}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=18cm]{lsst_lightCurves_example_F_ugrizY_2MassLevels_final.pdf}
\caption{A subset of the derived theoretical light curves in the Rubin LSST filters the for F mode RR Lyrae. The panels in the same row show models with the same metallicity: Z = 0.0001 (top row), Z = 0.001 (middle row) and Z = 0.02 (bottom row). At fixed metallicity, the panels in different columns show models with different effective temperatures: the highest $T_{eff}$ value (left column), a middle $T_{eff}$ value (central column) and the lowest $T_{eff}$ value (right column). The pulsational period and the luminosity level are also labeled for each plotted model. The adopted bands are labelled in the top-left panel.}
\label{fig-lc-F}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=18cm]{lsst_lightCurves_example_FO_ugrizY_2MassLevels_final.pdf}
\caption{This figure is the same as Fig.\ref{fig-lc-F} but for the First Overtone models.}
\label{fig-lc-FO}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{bailey_lsst_dydz_standard_rizY_gFeH_AB_2MassLevels_final.pdf}
\caption{The Bailey diagram for the ZAHB and brighter models varying the chemical composition (see labels) for both the F and the FO mode.}
\label{fig-bailey}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{bailey_lsst_evolved_dydz_standard_rizY_gFeH_AB_2MassLevels_final.pdf}
\caption{The Bailey diagram for the Evolved models}
\label{fig-bailey-evolved}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=15.0cm]{color.color_dydz_standard_rizY_gFeH_AB_2MassLevels_final.pdf}
\caption{Theoretical color-color diagrams for different color couples: $g_{LSST}-r_{LSST}$ versus $u_{LSST}-g_{LSST}$ (top left panel), $r_{LSST}-i_{LSST}$ versus $g_{LSST}-r_{LSST}$ (bottom left panel), $i_{LSST}-z_{LSST}$ versus $r_{LSST}-i_{LSST}$ (top right panel) and $z_{LSST}-y_{LSST}$ versus $i_{LSST}-z_{LSST}$ (bottom right panel). In each panel F and FO models are plotted with filled circles and empty squares, respectively. Different colors are used to represent different Z values, as labeled in the top left panel. In each panel the black arrow indicates the reddening vector obtained by assuming the extinction law by \citet{car89}.}
\label{fig-color-color}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=15.0cm]{plz_lsst_dydz_standard_rizY_gFeH_AB_2MassLevels_final.pdf}
\caption{The predicted multi-filter PL relations for F and FO (left panels) and combined pulsators (right panels) varying the metallicity (see labels). The plotted FO mode relations have been derived with the F-mode slope, whereas in the combined relations FO-mode models have been fundamentalized.}
\label{fig-plz}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=15.0cm]{plz_wes_lsst_dydz_standard_rizY_gFeH_AB_2MassLevels_final.pdf}
\caption{The same as in Figure 5 but for multi-filter PW relations.}
\label{fig-plz-wes}
\end{figure*}
\section{The color-color plane}\label{sec-colcol}
The derived multi-filter intensity-weighted mean magnitudes can be used to derive theoretical colors and, in turn, to investigate the behaviour of pulsation models in color-color diagrams, following similar approaches as in previous investigations in the Sloan Sky Digital Survey filters \citep[see e.g.][and references therein]{Izevic2000,Marconi06}. In Figure 7 we show the predicted distribution of both F (filled circles) and FO (open squares) RR Lyrae stars in various color-color diagrams, for the labelled Z values. In each panel the black arrow indicating the reddening vector obtained by using the extinction law by \citet{car89} is shown.
We notice that the highest sensitivity to metallicity is shown in the $g_{LSST}-r_{LSST}$ versus $u_{LSST}-g_{LSST}$ plane, but the best defined relations are obtained in the $r_{LSST}-i_{LSST}$ versus $g_{LSST}-r_{LSST}$ diagram. The latter has the advantage of producing well separated (in metallicity) linear distributions with slopes that are similar to each other and consistent with the reddening vector one. This occurrence implies that the relation between observed $r_{LSST}-i_{LSST}$ and $g_{LSST}-r_{LSST}$ is not expected to be significantly affected by uncertainties in reddening
estimates. Indeed, a systematic increase in the reddening or the
possible presence of differential reddening moves the RR Lyrae along the
same relation. The coefficients of the fitted relations involving the $r_{LSST}-i_{LSST}$ and $g_{LSST}-r_{LSST}$ colors, are listed in Table 5.
. Together with the equation containing one color as a function of the second and of the [Fe/H] values (first two lines), we fitted a linear relation expressing the metallicity content as a function of the two considered colors (last row). All the relations were obtained by considering both F- and FO-modes, but the results do not change significantly by considering only F models. As expected, the fit details contained in Table~\ref{tab-ColColZFit} suggest a strong correlation ($R^2$ close to 1) between the two considered colors and the [Fe/H] values. The relation expressing the metallicity content as a function of the two colors shows a slightly smaller correlation coefficient ($R^2=0.82$) with respect to the other two equations but appears to be an interesting tool to infer the metal abundance from $g_{LSST}, r_{LSST}, i_{LSST}$ photometry with an expected negligible dependence on uncertainties in reddening determinations (see above).
As for the $i_{LSST}-z_{LSST}$ versus $r_{LSST}-i_{LSST}$, this relation shows the least dependence on the adopted metal content but its slope is not significantly different from the one of the reddening vector so that this plane is not useful for individual reddening determinations.
\begin{table*}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
\hline
Col1 & Col2 & $\alpha$ & $\beta$ & $\gamma$ & $\sigma$ & $R^2$\\
\hline
\hline
\multicolumn{7}{c}{$Col_2=\alpha \cdot Col_1 +\beta [Fe/H] +\gamma$} \\
$(g-r)_{LSST}$ & $(r-i)_{LSST}$ & $0.562 \pm 0.006$ & $-0.0215 \pm 0.0007$ & $-0.1089 \pm 0.0013$ & 0.008 & 0.97\\
$(r-i)_{LSST}$ & $(g-r)_{LSST}$ & $1.73 \pm 0.02$ & $0.0381 \pm 0.0012$ & $0.193 \pm 0.002$ & 0.013 & 0.98 \\
\hline
\hline
\multicolumn{7}{c}{$[Fe/H]=\alpha \cdot Col_1 +\beta \cdot Col_2 +\gamma$} \\
$(g-r)_{LSST}$ & $(r-i)_{LSST}$ & $21.4 \pm 0.6$ & $-37 \pm 1$ & $-4.36 \pm 0.1$ & 0.313 & 0.82 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{This table contains the fitting results for color-color-[FeH] relations. Columns 1 and 2 contain the fitted colors, while the coefficients of the obtained relations are reported in columns 3-5. Finally, columns 6 and 7 contain the rms of the residuals around the fit and the coefficient of determination, respectively.}
\label{tab-ColColZFit}
\end{table*}
\section{Metal-dependent PL and PW relations in the Rubin-LSST filters}\label{sec-pl-pw}
The obtained intensity-weighted mean magnitudes and colors can be combined with the model periods to infer multi-filter PL and PW relations. The Wesenheit magnitude combinations considered in this work are defined as follows: i) $ g_{LSST} -3.100\cdot(u_{LSST}-g_{LSST})$; ii) $ r_{LSST} -2.796\cdot(g_{LSST}-r_{LSST})$; iii) $ i_{LSST} -1.287\cdot(g_{LSST}-i_{LSST})$; iv) $ z_{LSST} -3.204\cdot(i_{LSST}-z_{LSST})$; v) $ y_{LSST} -0.560\cdot(g_{LSST}-y_{LSST})$, with color term coefficients resulting from the extinction law by \citet{car89}, assuming $ R_V=3.1$, while the central band wavelengths for all the LSST filters were obtained from \citet{che19} and are equal to: 0.3592 $\mu m$ ($u_{LSST}$), 0.4790 $\mu m$ ($g_{LSST}$), 0.6199 $\mu m$ ($r_{LSST}$), 0.7528 $\mu m$ ($i_{LSST}$), 0.8690 $\mu m$ ($z_{LSST}$), 0.9674 $\mu m$ ($y_{LSST}$).
As well known, only in the NIR bands RR Lyrae obey to
tight PL relations, even if linear relations already appear around the $R/r$ wavelength \citep{2004ApJS..154..633C,2015ApJ...808...50M,2015ApJ...799..165B}. In the optical range, for a given chemical composition, their magnitude level is almost constant across the instability strip. For this reason, only the PL relations in the $r_{LSST}$, $i_{LSST}$, $z_{LSST}$ and $y_{LSST}$ bands were derived.
To take into account the metallicity effect, we included the corresponding $[Fe/H]$ term in the linear regression and derived the first theoretical PLZ relation ($ Mag = \alpha + \beta\log(P) + \gamma [Fe/H] $) in the $r_{LSST}$, $i_{LSST}$, $z_{LSST}$ and $y_{LSST}$ bands, as reported in Table~\ref{tab-plzCoeffs}
for F, FO and combined (F $+$ fundamentalized\footnote{The fundamentalized FO periods are the periods the models would have if they pulsated in the F mode and are obtained as $\log{P_{FO}} + 0.127$ dex.} FO) model sets. We notice that, in order to reduce uncertainties related to the poorer ad not uniform number of FO models especially as the luminosity increases, the FO mode relations have also been obtained fixing the slope of the F relations. These fixed slope relations are plotted in Figure~\ref{fig-plz} together with the F mode and the combined ones.
We notice that the metallicity effect on the relation zero points is not negligible with more metal rich RR Lyrae models providing fainter magnitudes at fixed period in all the investigated bands.
As well known, only the zero point $\alpha$ is affected by this transformation.
As for the PW relations, following a similar approach as in \citet{2021MNRAS.500.5009M}, where multi-fiter PWZ relations in the Gaia bands were derived, in Table~\ref{tab-plzCoeffs} we also report the coefficients of the obtained PWZ relations in the Rubin-LSST filters. The obtained relations are plotted in Figure 6. We notice that the metallicity effect depends on the band combinations and is minimum for the $g_{LSST}$,$g_{LSST}-r_{LSST}$ and $r_{LSST}$,$u_{LSST}-r_{LSST}$ cases. For the latter combination the FO relation appears to be independent of metallicity.
These results are in agreement with the almost negligible metallicity dependence found for the $V,B-V$ PW relation in \citet{2015ApJ...808...50M} and makes the $g_{LSST}$,$g_{LSST}-r_{LSST}$ and $r_{LSST}$,$u_{LSST}-r_{LSST}$ filter combinations particularly useful to use RR Lyrae that will be observed by the Rubin-LSST as standard candles, in spite of their metallicity uncertainties. We also notice an interesting inversion of the metallicity effect in the PW relation involving the $u_{LSST}$ band.
\section{The $\lowercase{g}_{LSST}-[Fe/H]$ relation}\label{sec-g-feh}
The inferred intensity weighted mean $g_{LSST}$ magnitudes also allow us to derive the first predicted $g_{LSST}-[Fe/H]$ relation. The coefficients of the traditional linear form and of the hypothesized quadratic one are reported in the last section of Table 3 combining the F and FO model sets.
Indeed, some previous works suggested that this relation could not be linear over the whole observed metallicity range of RR Lyrae stars \citep[see e.g.][and references therein]{Caputo2000,2004ApJ...612.1092D} even if the linear form is the most used in the literature.
Indeed according to the relations reported in Table 3, the linear form seems a reasonably good approximation of the model behaviour, as the quadratic term is smaller than the linear one (about 15 \%).
We also notice that the metallicity coefficient in the linear relation is, as expected, consistent within the errors with the one predicted in the V band, e.g. in \citet{2018ApJ...864L..13M} but smaller than the empirical determination by \citet{2018MNRAS.481.1195M}.
However, we recall that in spite of the advantage of directly correlating the absolute optical magnitude to a measured metal content, without the contribution of color terms, this relation suffers from a number of drawbacks, e.g. the possible systematic effect produced by the unknown evolutionary status of observed RR Lyrae stars or the adopted metallicity scale and $\alpha$ element enhancement.
\section{Final Remarks}
With a single visit depth of g $\sim$ 24.91 mag and about 1000 repeated observations over a 10-year period the Rubin LSST will provide an opportunity to measure the distribution of RR Lyrae within different galactic and extragalactic environments. In this context, similarly to the PLZ and PWZ relations derived in the Johnson-Cousins and Gaia bands \citep[see][]{2015ApJ...807..127M,2021MNRAS.500.5009M}, the predicted Rubin-LSST PLZ relations represent a powerful tool to derive mean and individual distances of Galactic and extragalactic RR Lyrae stars, once periods and accurate spectroscopic metal abundances are available. On the other hand, for RR Lyrae at the same distance (e.g. belonging to the same stellar cluster or galaxy), the obtained relations can be used to derive the metallicity distribution of the investigated sample \citep[see e.g.][]{2016AJ....152..170B,2016MNRAS.461L..41M,2021MNRAS.508.1064M}. Finally, once accurate estimates of individual distances are available, the derived PLZ relations are excellent tools to provide the actual metallicity values of Galactic RR Lyrae from the observed periods and Rubin-LSST mean magnitudes.
An interesting implication of the inferred theoretical relations is the predicted systematic effect due to possible metallicity differences among the investigated RR Lyrae samples. In particular, if a mean metallicity is assumed for RR Lyrae stars in a given stellar system, the individual distance moduli obtained from the application of the PLZ relations in Table 1, will be underestimated or overestimated by and amount $\Delta mag$ for any given $\Delta[Fe/H]$ between the true metal abundance and the assumed mean one, with ${\Delta mag}/{\Delta[Fe/H]}\sim 0.2$ mag/dex in the case of F-mode and $\sim$ 0.1 mag/dex in the case of FO-mode RR Lyrae stars. On this basis, in order to best exploit the predictive power of the inferred relations accurate spectroscopic individual abundances are needed \citep{2019MNRAS.487.5463C}. Moreover, the contribution of $\alpha$ element enhancement in the metal poor stellar populations which RR Lyrae belong to, should be taken into account, as the inclusion of $\alpha$ elements contributions simulates the adoption of a higher global metallicity \citep[see e.g.][]{1993ApJ...414..580S} in the adopted pulsation models. Moreover the adopted bolometric corrections have been found to depend on the adopted $\alpha$ enhancement \citep[see e.g.][]{Cassisi2004}. As for the helium content, we have shown in \citet{2018ApJ...864L..13M} that the main effect of an increase in the helium abundance is a brighter ZAHB at fixed metallicity and mass, with consequent longer periods and non negligible effects on the coefficients of predicted relations. However, especially towards the longer wavelengths, the final effect in the inferred individual distances is expected to be similar to the standard deviation of the adopted e.g. PLZ relations \citep[see][for details]{2018ApJ...864L..13M}.
\acknowledgments
\textbf{We thank the anonymous Referee for her/his comments that contributed to improve the content of the manuscript.}
|
\section{Introduction}
Artificial intelligence is a powerhouse for delivering algorithmic frameworks to support solutions to
search-optimization problems that are plentiful in scientific and engineering domains.
Automated reasoning and knowledge representation are the subfields of AI that are particularly vested in developing general-purpose search algorithms and declarative programming languages specifically geared towards formulating constraints of search-optimization problems.
Various automated reasoning paradigms provide users with languages supporting optimization statements. Indeed, consider such popular AI paradigms as
propositional satisfiability with optimizations~(MaxSAT family)~\citep{rob10} and answer set programming with weak constraints~(ASP-WC)~\citep{alv18}.
In practice, when search problems are formulated there is {\em often} an interest not only in identifying a solution, but also in pointing at the one that is optimal with respect to some criteria. Another way to perceive this setting is by having interplay of ``hard'' and ``soft'' modules (drawing a parallel to terminology used in formulating partial weighted MaxSAT). Hard modules formulate immutable constraints of a problem, i.e., requirements that solutions to a problem {\em must} satisfy in order to deserve being called a solution. Soft modules express conditions that are closer to preferences.
Consider the well known {\em travelling salesman problem} (TSP) that asks the following: ``Given a list of cities and the information on how the cities are connected by roads with associated lengths, what are the possible routes that visit each city and returns to the origin city? What are the shortest routes?" Here, the first question of TSP formulates ``hard'' requirements. In order for a sequence of cities to form a solution it has to form a special kind of path. The second question of TSP formulates a preference. Out of all possible solutions we are interested in these that satisfy some numeric criterion. In ASP-WC, for example, a traditional logic program composed of rules is used to express a hard fragment of a given problem, while
weak constraints are used to formulate a soft fragment.
Supporting various kinds of optimizations on an encoding and solving level is a holy grail of ASP-WC as in practical applications it is common that there are criteria which can make one solution to be preferred over the other.
Yet, some approaches to answer set solving that rely on translations to related automated reasoning (AR) paradigms -- ``translational'' solvers such as {\sc cmodels}~\citep{giu06} and {\sc lp2sat}~\citep{jan06a}, which translate logic programs into the propositional satisfiability (SAT) problem~\citep{satprimer} -- do not provide any support for weak constraints. One reason is that SAT itself has no support for formulating soft requirements. MaxSAT and its variants are extensions to SAT supporting optimizations. The formulations of these extensions significantly differ syntactically and semantically from those used in ASP-WC so that the \textit{exact} link, between ASP-WC and MaxSAT formalisms, required in implementing translational approaches is not obvious.
In general, optimizations in different areas of AR (see, for instance,~\citep{nie06a,chu11,and12,ros13,bre15a,alv18}) are studied in separation with no clear articulation of the {\em exact} links between the languages expressing optimization criteria and their implementations.
Yet, it is due to note that their relation is obvious to researchers developing solving procedures within AR. The algorithmic techniques have been borrowed from solvers in one paradigm to solvers in the other, see, for instance, the paper by~\cite{alv20} explaining how algorithmic techniques behind MaxSAT can be utilized in solving problems formulated in ASP-WC. Here, we focus on uncovering the precise semantic relation between distinct paradigms geared to support translational approaches.
This paper takes modularity and abstraction as key tools for building a thorough understanding between related and, yet, disperse advances pertaining to optimizations or soft modules within different AR communities.
\cite{lt2015} proposed an abstract modular framework that allows us to bypass the syntactic details of a particular logic and study advances in AR from a bird's eye view. That framework is appropriate for capturing varieties of logics within hard modules.
We extend the framework in a way that soft modules can be formulated and studied under one roof. We illustrate how a family of SAT based optimization formalisms such as MaxSAT, weighted MaxSAT, and partial weighted MaxSAT (pw-MaxSAT) can be embedded into the proposed framework. We also illustrate how ASP-WC fits into the same framework. We study the abstract framework illustrating a number of its formal properties that then immediately translate into its instances such as MaxSAT or ASP-WC. The paper culminates in a result illustrating how ASP-WC programs can be processed by means of MaxSAT/MinSAT solvers. The opposite link also becomes apparent.
To summarize, we propose to utilize abstract view on logics and modularity as tools for constructing overarching view for distinct criteria used for optimization within different AR communities.
We would like to point at work by \cite{alv18b}, where the authors also realized the importance of abstracting away the syntactic details of the formalisms to describing hard and soft constraints of a considered problem in order to streamline the utilization of existing efficient solving techniques in new settings.
\smallskip
\noindent
{\em Paper outline~~}
We start the paper by reviewing the concepts of an abstract logic and modular systems. We then introduce a notion of weighted abstract modular systems -- key artifact of this paper. In Section~\ref{sec:instances}, we show how these weighted systems naturally capture MaxSAT family and answer set programming with weak constraints. Section~\ref{sec:formalProperties} enumerates formal properties of w-systems showcasing how these properties immediately translate into properties of MaxSAT family and ASP-WC paradigms. In conclusion of this section we are able to provide a precise link between pw-MaxSAT/pw-MinSAT and ASP-WC. The concluding section of the paper lists proofs.
Parts of this paper appeared in the proceedings of the 17th Edition of the European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence \citep{lie21}.
\section{Review: Abstract Logics and Modular Systems}
\label{mbms}
We start with the review
of an abstract logic by \cite{bre07}. We illustrate how this abstract concept captures SAT and logic programs under answer set semantics.
We then review model-based abstract modular systems advocated by \cite{lt2015}.
A \emph{language} is a set $L$ of \emph{formulas}. A \emph{theory} is
a subset of~$L$. Thus the set of theories is closed under union and
has the least and the greatest elements: $\emptyset$ and $L$.
We call a theory a {\em singleton} if it is an element/a formula in $L$ (or a singleton subset, in other words). This definition ignores any syntactic details behind the concepts of
a formula and a theory.
A \emph{vocabulary} is possibly an infinite countable set of \emph{atoms}.
Subsets of a vocabulary $\sigma$ represent (classical propositional)
\emph{interpretations} of $\sigma$. We write $\ensuremath{\mathit{Int}}(\sigma)$ for the
family of all interpretations of a vocabulary~$\sigma$.
It is customary for a given vocabulary $\sigma$, to identify a set~$X$ of atoms over $\sigma$ with~an assignment function that assigns the truth value {\em true} to every atom in~$X$ and~{\em false} to every atom in $\sigma\setminus X$. In classical propositional logic, interpretations are often defined by means of such assignment functions.
\begin{definition}
A \emph{logic} is a triple $\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}=(L_\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}},\sigma_\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}},\mathit{sem}_\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}})$, where
\begin{enumerate}
\item $L_\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}$ is a language (\emph{language} of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}$)
\item $\sigma_\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}$ is a vocabulary (\emph{vocabulary} of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}$)
\item $\mathit{sem}_\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}:2^{L_\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}} \rightarrow 2^{\ensuremath{\mathit{Int}}(\sigma_\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}})}$ is
a function from theories in $L_\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}$ to
collections of interpretations
(\emph{semantics} of~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}$)
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
If a logic $\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}$ is clear from the context, we omit the subscript~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}$
from the notation of the language, the vocabulary and the semantics of
the logic.
\cite{bre07} showed that this abstract notion
of a logic captures default logic, propositional logic, and logic programs
under the answer set semantics.
For example, the logic $\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}=(L,\sigma,\mathit{sem})$,
where
\begin{enumerate}
\item $L$ is the set of propositional formulas over $\sigma$,
\item $\mathit{sem}(F)$, for a theory $F\subseteq L$, is the set of propositional
models of theory $F$ (where we understand an interpretation to be a model of theory $F$ if it is a model of each element/propositional formula in $F$) over $\sigma$,
\end{enumerate}
captures propositional logic. (We assume the readers familiarity with the key concepts of propositional logic: formulas, interpretations, models.)
We call this logic a {\em pl-logic}.
A {\em clause} is a propositional formula of the form
\begin{equation}
\neg a_1\vee\dotsc\vee \neg a_\ell\vee\ a_{\ell+1}\vee\dotsc\vee\ a_m,
\eeq{eq:wcwcc}
where $a_i$ is an atom.
If we restrict elements of $L$ to be clauses, then we call $\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}$ a {\em sat-logic}.
Intuitively, the finite theories in sat-logic can be identified with CNF formulas.
Say, sat-logic theory
$\{(a\vee b),(\neg a\vee \neg b)\}$
stands for the formula
\begin{equation}
(a\vee b)\wedge (\neg a\vee \neg b).
\eeq{eq:abtheory}
We now review logic programs.
A \emph{logic program} over $\sigma$ is a
finite
set of \emph{rules} of the form
\begin{equation}\label{e:rule}
\begin{array}{l}
a_0\leftarrow a_1,\dotsc, a_\ell,\ not\ a_{\ell+1},\dotsc,\ not\ a_m,\
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where $a_0$ is an atom in $\sigma$ or $\bot$ (empty), and each $a_i$ $(1\leq i\leq m)$
is an atom in $\sigma$.
The expression $a_0$ is the \emph{head} of the rule.
The expression on the right hand side of the arrow, is the \emph{body}. When the body is empty we drop $\leftarrow$. Expression $not\ a_{\ell+1},\dotsc,\ not\ a_m$ is called {\em negative part of the body}.
We say that a set~$X$ of atoms {\em satisfies} rule~\eqref{e:rule}, if~$X$ satisfies the propositional formula
$
a_1\wedge\dotsc\wedge a_\ell\wedge\ \neg a_{\ell+1}\wedge\dotsc\wedge\ \neg a_m\rightarrow a_0.\
$
The {\sl reduct}~$\Pi^X$ of a program~$\Pi$ relative to a set~$X$ of atoms is
obtained by first removing all rules~\eqref{e:rule} such that~$X$ does not satisfy the propositional formula corresponding to the negative part of the body
$\neg a_{\ell+1} \wedge\ldots\wedge\neg a_m ,$
and replacing all remaining rules with their counterparts without negative part of the body
$$a\leftarrow a_1,\ldots, a_\ell.$$
For example, let $\Pi_1$ denote a program
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
a\leftarrow not\ b\\
b\leftarrow not\ a.
\end{array}
\eeq{ex:slp}
The reduct ~$\Pi_1^{\{a\}}$ consists of a single rule
$$
a.
$$
A set~$X$ of atoms is an {\em answer set}, if it is the minimal set that satisfies all rules of~$\Pi^X$~\citep{lif99d}.
For instance, program~\eqref{ex:slp}
has two answer sets $\{a\}$ and $\{b\}$.
Abstract logics of Brewka and Eiter subsume the formalism of
logic programs under the answer set semantics.
Indeed, let us consider
a logic $\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}=(L,\sigma,\mathit{sem})$, where
\begin{enumerate}
\item $L$ is the set of logic program rules over $\sigma$,
\item $\mathit{sem}(\Pi)$, for a program $\Pi\subseteq L$, is the set of answer sets of $\Pi$ over $\sigma$,
\end{enumerate}
We call this logic the {\em lp-logic}.
\cite{lt2015} propose (model-based) abstract modular systems that allow us to construct heterogeneous systems based of ``modules'' stemming from a variety of logics.
We now review their framework.
\begin{definition}
Let $\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}=(L_\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}},\sigma_\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}},\mathit{sem}_\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}})$ be a logic.
A theory of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}$, that is, a subset of the
language $L_\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}$ is called a \emph{(model-based) $\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}$-module}
(or a \emph{module}, if the explicit
reference to its logic is not necessary). An interpretation $I\in
\ensuremath{\mathit{Int}}(\sigma_\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}})$ is a \emph{model} of an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}$-module/theory $T$
if $I\in\mathit{sem}_\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}(T)$.
\end{definition}
We use words theory and modules interchangeably at times. Furthermore, for a theory/module in pl- or sat-logics we often refer to those as propositional or SAT formulas (sets of clauses). For a theory/module in lp-logic we refer to it as a logic program.
For an interpretation
$I$, by $I_{|\sigma}$ we denote an
interpretation over vocabulary
$\sigma$ constructed from~$I$ by dropping all its members not in
$\sigma$. For example, let $\sigma_1$ be a vocabulary such that $a\in\sigma_1$ and $b\not\in\sigma_1$, then $\{a,b\}_{|\sigma_1}=\{a\}$.
We now extend the notion of a model to vocabularies that go beyond the one of a considered module in a straightforward manner. For an $\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}$-module $T$ and an interpretation $I$ whose vocabulary is a superset of the vocabulary $\sigma_\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}$ of $T$, we say that
$I$ is a {\em model} of $T$, denoted $I\models T$, if $I_{|\sigma_\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}\in\mathit{sem}_\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}(T)$.
This extension is in spirit of a convention used in classical logic (for example, given a propositional formula $p\wedge q$ over vocabulary $\{p,q\}$ we can speak of interpretation assigning true to propositional variables $\{p,q,r\}$ as a model to this formula).
\begin{definition}
A set of modules, possibly in different logics and over different
vocabularies is a \emph{(model-based) abstract modular system (AMS)}.
For an abstract modular system $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$, the union of the
vocabularies of the logics of the modules in $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ forms the \emph{vocabulary}
of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$, denoted by $\sigma_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$. An interpretation $I\in \ensuremath{\mathit{Int}}(\sigma_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}})$
is a \emph{model} of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ when for every module $T\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$, $I$ is a model of $T$. (It is easy to see that we can extend the notion of a model to interpretations whose vocabulary goes beyond $\sigma_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ in a straightforward manner.)
\end{definition}
When an AMS consist of a single module $\{F\}$ we identify it with module $F$ itself.
\section{Weighted Abstract Modular Systems}
In practice, we are frequently interested not only in identifying models of a given logical formulation of a problem (hard fragment) but identifying models that are deemed optimal according to some criteria (soft fragment). Frequently, multi-level optimizations are of interest.
An AMS framework is geared towards capturing heterogeneous solutions for formulating hard constraints. Here we extend it to enable the formulation of soft constraints.
We start by introducing a ``w-condition'' -- a module accommodating notions of a level and a weight. We then introduce w-systems -- a generalization of AMS that accommodates new kinds of modules. In conclusion, we embed multiple popular automated reasoning optimization formalisms into this framework.
\begin{definition}
Let $\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}=(L_\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}},\sigma_\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}},\mathit{sem}_\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}})$ be a logic.
A pair $(T_\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}},w@l)$ --
consisting of a theory $T_\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}$ of logic~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}$ (or $\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}$-module) and an expression $w@l$, where $w$ is an integer and $l$ is a positive integer -- is called an \emph{ $\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}$-w(eighted)-condition}
(or a \emph{w-condition}, if the explicit
reference to its logic is not necessary).
We refer to integers $l$ and $w$ as {\em levels} and {\em weights}, respectively.
An interpretation $I\in
\ensuremath{\mathit{Int}}(\sigma_\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}})$ is a \emph{model} of an~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}$-w-condition $B=(T_\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}},w@l)$, denoted $I\models B$
if $I\in\mathit{sem}_\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}(T_\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}})$.
A mapping $\br{I\models B}$ is defined as follows
\begin{equation} \br{I\models B}=\begin{cases}
w&\hbox{when $I\models B$, } \\
0&\hbox{otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\eeq{eq:isat}
By $\level{B}$, $\weight{B}$ we denote level $l$ and weight $w$ associated with w-condition $B$, respectively.
\end{definition}
We identify w-conditions of the form $(T,w@1)$ with expressions $(T,w)$ (i.e., when the level is missing it is considered to be one).
For a collection $\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}$ of w-conditions, the union of the
vocabularies of the logics of the w-conditions in $\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}$ forms the \emph{vocabulary}
of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}$, denoted by $\sigma_\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}$.
\vspace{3em}
\begin{definition}
A pair $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}})$ consisting of an AMS $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ and a set $\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}$ of w-conditions (possibly in different logics and over different
vocabularies) so that $\sigma_\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}\subseteq\sigma_\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ is called a \emph{ w(eighted)-abstract modular system} (or {\em w-system}).
\end{definition}
Let $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}=(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}})$ be
a w-system ($\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ and $\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}$ intuitively stand for {\em hard} and {\em soft}).
The
vocabulary of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$ forms the \emph{vocabulary}
of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$, denoted by $\sigma_\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$. We now state the definition of a model of a system that is solely based on the semantics of the hard part.
\begin{definition}\label{def:modelwsys}
Let pair $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}=(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}})$ be a w-system.
An interpretation $I\in \ensuremath{\mathit{Int}}(\sigma_\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}})$
is a \emph{model} of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ if it is a model of AMS
$\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}$.
\end{definition}
For the special case when all w-conditions of a considered w-system have the form~$(T,w)$, we provide a simple definition of an optimal/min-optimal model that takes soft part of w-system into account so that models are distinguished based on their ``w-conditions quality''. This definition is inspired by the way the solutions to partially weighted MaxSAT problems are stated (see Section~\ref{sec:maxsat}).
\begin{definition}\label{def:optimalmodelwsysSimple}
Let pair $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}=(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\{(T_1,w_1),\dots,(T_n,w_n)\})$ be a w-system.
A model $I^*$ of~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ is {\em optimal} if
$I^*$ satisfies equation
$$
I^*=\displaystyle{ arg\max_{I} {\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}{ \br{I\models B}}}
},
$$
where $I$ ranges over models of~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$.
A model $I^*$ of~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ is {\em min-optimal} if it satisfies the conditions of optimal model, where in the equation above we replace $max$ by $min$.
\end{definition}
Let $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}=(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}})$ be w-system.
For a level~$l$, by $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l$ we denote the subset of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}$ that includes all w-conditions whose level is~$l$.
By $\level{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}$ we denote the set of all levels associated with w-system~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ constructed as
$
\{\level{B}\mid B\in \ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}\}$.
We now provide the definition of an optimal model for the general form of w-systems. It is inspired by a definition of an optimal answer set coming from the ASP-WC framework, where multi-level optimizations are standard (see Section~\ref{sec:olp}).
\begin{definition}\label{def:optimalmodelwsysASP}
Let $I$ and $I'$ be models of w-system $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}=(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}})$.
Model $I'$ {\em min-dominates} $I$ if
there exists a level $l\in\level{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}$ such that
following conditions are satisfied:
\begin{enumerate}
\item for any level $l'>l$ the following equality holds
$$
\displaystyle{ \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_{l'}}{ \br{I\models B}}}
=
\displaystyle{ \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_{l'}}{ \br{I'\models B}}}
$$
\item the following inequality holds for level $l$
$$
\displaystyle{ \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l}{ \br{I'\models B}}}
<
\displaystyle{ \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l}{ \br{I\models B}}}
$$
\end{enumerate}
Model $I'$ {\em max-dominates} $I$ if
we change less-than symbol by greater-than symbol in the inequality of Condition~\ref{l:cond2}.
A model $I^*$ of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ is {\em optimal} if there is no model~$I'$ of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ that max-dominates $I^*$.
A model $I^*$ of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ is {\em min-optimal} if there is no model~$I'$ of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ that min-dominates $I^*$.
\end{definition}
We now attempt to reconcile terminology used in Definitions~\ref{def:optimalmodelwsysSimple} and~\ref{def:optimalmodelwsysASP}. We state an alternative definition to optimal and min-optimal models of Definition~\ref{def:optimalmodelwsysASP} and then provide a formal result on their equivalence.
Let $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}=(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}})$ be w-system.
For a level $l\in \level{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}$ by $\prec{l}$ we denote the least level in $\level{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}$ that is greater than $l$ (it is obvious that for the greatest level in $\level{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}$, $\prec{l}$ is undefined). For example, for levels in~$\{2, 6, 8, 9\}$,
$\prec{2}=6$, $\prec{6}=8$, and~$\prec{8}=9$.
\begin{definition}\label{def:optimalmodelwsys}
Let pair $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}=(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}})$ be a w-system.
For level $l\in\level{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}$, a model $I^*$ of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ is {\em $l$-optimal} if
$I^*$ satisfies equation
\begin{equation}
I^*=\displaystyle{ arg\max_{I} {\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l}{ \br{I\models B}}}
},
\eeq{eq:condeqlmin}
where
\begin{itemize}
\item $I$ ranges over models of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ if $l$ is the greatest level in $\level{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}$,
\item $I$ ranges over $\prec{l}$-optimal models of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$, otherwise.
\end{itemize}
We call a model {\em $l$-min-optimal} if $max$ is replaced by $min$ in~\eqref{eq:condeqlmin}.
A model $I^*$ of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ is {\em optimal} if $I^*$ is $l$-optimal model for every level $l\in\level{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}$.
A model $I^*$ of~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ is {\em min-optimal} if $I^*$ is $l$-min-optimal model for every level $l\in\level{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}$.
\end{definition}
\begin{comment}
It is easy to see that {\color{blue} FIX: This definition has three key conditions in its non-trivial case. The first one identifies the greatest level of w-conditions under which we can ``distinguish'' models.
The second condition is concerned with finding the models that maximize (or minimize in case of min-optimal model) the numeric value associated with the w-conditions of this level (note how w-conditions of any other level do not play a role within these calculations).}
\end{comment}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:eqdefs}
Definitions~\ref{def:optimalmodelwsysASP} and~\ref{def:optimalmodelwsys} are equivalent.
\end{proposition}
The proofs of the formal results of this paper are presented in its final section. The proof of the claim of Proposition~\ref{prop:eqdefs} relies on the following lemmas that we list here as they refer to interesting properties of $l$-optimal models.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:loptimal}
For a w-system $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}=(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}})$ and levels $l,l' \in \level{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}$ so that $l<l'$, any $l$-optimal/$l$-min-optimal model of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ is also an $l'$-optimal/$l'$-min-optimal model of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ as well as model of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$. For the least level $l$ in $\level{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}$, $l$-optimal/$l$-min-optimal model of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ is an optimal/min-optimal model of~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:loptimal2}
For a w-system $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}=(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}})$ and levels $l,l' \in \level{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}$ so that $l\leq l'$, and any $l$-optimal/$l$-min-optimal models $I$ and $I'$ of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$,
$$\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_{l'}}{ \br{I\models B}}= \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_{l'}}{ \br{I'\models B}}.$$
\end{lemma}
Section~\ref{sec:formalProperties} presents many interesting formal properties of w-systems. Yet, before proceeding towards that presentation in the following section we illustrate several AI formalisms that can be viewed as instances of w-systems. With that our later discussion of formal properties of w-systems immediately applies to these AI formalisms.
\section{Instances of W-Systems}\label{sec:instances}
\subsection{MaxSAT/MinSAT Family as W-systems}\label{sec:maxsat}
We now restate the definitions of {\em MaxSAT}, {\em weighted MaxSAT} and {\em pw-MaxSAT}~\citep{rob10}. We then show how these formalisms are captured in terms of w-systems. In the sections that follow we use w-systems to model logic programs with weak constraints. The uniform language of w-systems allows us to prove properties of theories in these different logics by eliminating the reference to their syntactic form. Later in the paper we provide translation from logic programs with weak constraints to pw-MaxSAT problems.
To begin we introduce a notion of so called $\sigma$-theory. For a vocabulary $\sigma$ and a logic $\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}$ over this vocabulary ($\sigma_\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}=\sigma$), we call theory $T_\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}$ a
{\em $\sigma$-theory/$\sigma$-module} when it satisfies property $sem(T_\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}})=Int(\sigma)$.
For example, in case of pl-logic or sat-logic a conjunction of clauses of the form $a\vee \neg a$ for every atom $a\in\sigma$ forms a $\sigma$-theory. For a $\sigma$-theory a logic of the theory becomes immaterial so we allow ourselves to denote an arbitrary $\sigma$-theory by
$T_\sigma$ disregarding the reference to its logic.
As customary in propositional logic given an interpretation $I$ and a propositional formula $F$, we write $I\models F$ when~$I$ satisfies $F$ (i.e., $I$ is a model of $F$).
A mapping $\br{I\models F}$ is defined as
\begin{equation} \br{I\models F}=\begin{cases}
1&\hbox{when $I\models F$, } \\
0&\hbox{otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\eeq{eq:isatorig}
\begin{definition}
An interpretation $I^*$ over vocabulary $\sigma$ is a {\em solution} to {\em MaxSAT problem} $F$, where $F$ is a CNF formula over~$\sigma$, when it satisfies the equation
$$
I^*=arg \max_{I}{\sum_{C\in F}{\br{I\models C}}},
$$
where $I$ ranges over all interpretations over $\sigma$.
\end{definition}
The following result illustrates how w-systems can be used to capture MaxSAT problem.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:maxsat}
Let $F$ be a MaxSAT problem over $\sigma$.
The optimal models of w-system $(T_\sigma,\{(C,{1})\mid C\in F\})$ --
where pairs of the form $(C,{1})$ are sat-logic w-conditions -- form the set of solutions for~$F$.
\end{proposition}
Proposition~\ref{prop:maxsat} allows us to identify w-systems of particular form with MaxSAT problems. For example, any w-system of the form $\big(T_\sigma,\{(C_1,1),\dots(C_n,1)\}\big)$ -- where $C_i$ $(1\leq i\leq n)$ is a singleton sat-logic theory -- can be seen as a MaxSAT problem composed of clauses $\{C_1,\dots,C_n\}$.
\begin{definition}
A {\em weighted MaxSAT problem}~\citep{arg08}/{\em weighted MinSAT problem}~\citep{chu11} is defined as a set $(C,w)$ of pairs, where $C$ is a clause and $w$ is a positive integer.
An interpretation~$I^*$ over vocabulary $\sigma$ is a {\em solution} to weighted MaxSAT problem $P$ over~$\sigma$, when it satisfies the equation
\begin{equation}
I^*=arg \max_{I}{\sum_{(C,w)\in P}{w\cdot \br{I\models C}}},
\eeq{eq:wmaxsat}
where $I$ ranges over all interpretations over $\sigma$.
An interpretation $I^*$ over vocabulary $\sigma$ is a {\em solution} to weighted MinSAT problem $P$ over $\sigma$, when it satisfies the equation~\eqref{eq:wmaxsat}, where we replace $max$ with $min$.
\end{definition}
The following proposition allows us to identify w-systems of particular form with weighted MaxSAT/MinSAT problems.
\bigskip
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:wmaxsat}
Let $P$ be a weighted MaxSAT problem over~$\sigma$.
The optimal models of w-system $(T_\sigma,P)$ --
where each element in $P$ is understood as a sat-logic w-condition --
form the set of solutions for~$P$.
Let $P$ be a weighted MinSAT problem over~$\sigma$.
The min-optimal models of w-system $(T_\sigma,P)$ --
where each element in $P$ is understood as a sat-logic w-condition --
form the set of solutions for~$P$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{definition}
A {\em partially-weighted MaxSAT problem or pw-MaxSAT problem}~\citep{fu06} ({\em pw-MinSAT problem}~\citep{chu11})
is defined as a pair $(F,P)$ over vocabulary $\sigma$, where~$F$ is a CNF formula over $\sigma$ and~$P$ is a weighted MaxSAT problem (a weighted MinSAT problem) over~$\sigma$. Formula~$F$ is referred to as {\em hard} problem fragment, whereas clauses in $P$ form {\em soft} problem fragment. An interpretation $I$ over~$\sigma$ is a {\em model} of pw-MaxSAT problem/pw-MinSAT problem $(F,P)$, when
$I$ is a model of $F$.
Let $(F,P)$ be a pw-MaxSAT problem over vocabulary $\sigma$.
A model $I^*$ of $(F,P)$ is optimal when
it satisfies equation~\eqref{eq:wmaxsat}, where $I$ ranges over models of $F$.
Let $(F,P)$ be a pw-MinSAT problem over vocabulary $\sigma$.
A model $I^*$ of $(F,P)$ is optimal when
it satisfies equation~\eqref{eq:wmaxsat}, where $I$ ranges over models of $F$ and $max$ is replaced by $min$.
\end{definition}
The following proposition allows us to identify w-systems of particular form with pw-MaxSAT/pw-MinSAT problems.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:pwmaxsat}
Let $(F,P)$ be a pw-MaxSAT problem over vocabulary $\sigma$.
The models and optimal models of w-system $(F,P)$ --
where $F$ is a sat-logic module and each element in $P$ is understood as a sat-logic w-condition --
coincide with the models and optimal models of pw-MaxSAT problem $(F,P)$, respectively.
Let $(F,P)$ be a pw-MinSAT problem over vocabulary $\sigma$.
The models and min-optimal models of w-system $(F,P)$ --
where $F$ is a sat-logic module and each element in $P$ is understood as a sat-logic w-condition --
coincide with the models and optimal models of pw-MinSAT problem $(F,P)$, respectively.
\end{proposition}
We now present sample pw-MaxSAT problem to illustrate some definitions at work.
Take $F_1$ to denote sat-theory module~\eqref{eq:abtheory}.
Consider a pw-MaxSAT problem
\begin{equation}
(F_1,\{(a,1),(b,1),(a\vee\neg b,2), (\neg a\vee b,0)\}).
\eeq{eq:partmsat}
The models of this problem are $\{a\}$ and $\{b\}$; and its optimal model is $\{a\}$.
If we consider this pair as pw-MinSAT problem then $\{b\}$ is an optimal model of this problem.
Consider a pw-MinSAT problem
\begin{equation}
(F_1,\{(\neg a\vee b,2)\}).
\eeq{eq:pwminsat}
The models of this problem are $\{a\}$ and $\{b\}$; and its optimal model is $\{a\}$.
Embedding family of MaxSAT/MinSAT problems into w-systems realm provides us with immediate means to generalize their definitions to accommodate
\begin{itemize}
\item
negative weights;
\item
distinct levels accompanying weight requirement on its clauses;
\item
removing restriction from its basic syntactic object being a clause and allowing, for example, arbitrary propositional formulas, as a logic for its module and w-conditions.
\end{itemize}
Consider the following definition of MinMaxPL Problem, meant to be a counterpart of pw-MaxSAT/pw-MinSAT defined for arbitrary propositional formulas and incorporating enumerated items. We call a w-system~$(F,S)$ a {\em MinMaxPL problem}, when $F$ is a pl-logic module and each w-condition in $S$ is in pl-logic.
It is easy to see that any pw-MaxSAT problem is a special case instance of MinMaxPL problem, whose optimal models coincide.
Any pw-MinSAT problem is a special case instance of MinMaxPL problem, where optimal models of pw-MinSAT and
min-optimal models of respective MinMaxPL problem coincide.
The pair
\begin{equation}
(F_1,\{(a,1),(b,1@3),(a\vee\neg b,2), (\neg a\vee b,0)\})
\eeq{eq:maxpl}
forms a sample MinMaxPL problem that differs from~\eqref{eq:partmsat} in boosting the level of one of its w-conditions. The optimal model of this system is $\{b\}$.
In the sequel we illustrate that presence of levels and negative weights in w-systems can often be considered as syntactic sugar. Also, the concept of min-optimal model can be expressed in terms of optimal models of a closely related w-system. Yet, from the perspective of knowledge representation, convenience of modeling, algorithm design for search procedures such features are certainly of interest and deserve an attention and thorough understanding.
\subsection{Optimizations in Logic Programming or Answer Set Programming with Weak Constraints}\label{sec:olp}
We now review
a definition of a logic program with weak constraints following the lines of~\citep{cal15}.
A {\em weak constraint} has the form
\begin{equation}
:\sim a_1,\dotsc, a_\ell,\ not\ a_{\ell+1},\dotsc,\ not\ a_m[w@l],
\eeq{eq:wc}
where $m>0$ and $a_1,\ldots,a_m$ are atoms, $w$ (weight) is an integer, and $l$ (level) is a positive integer.
In the sequel, we abbreviate expression
\begin{equation}
:\sim a_1,\dotsc, a_\ell,\ not\ a_{\ell+1},\dotsc,\ not\ a_m
\eeq{eq:wcbody}
occurring in~\eqref{eq:wc} as $D$ and identify it with the propositional formula
\begin{equation} a_1\wedge\dotsc\wedge a_\ell\wedge\ \neg a_{\ell+1}\wedge\dotsc\wedge\ \neg a_m.
\eeq{eq:wcbodyf}
An {\em optimization program} (or {\em o-program}) over vocabulary $\sigma$ is a pair~$(\Pi,W)$, where $\Pi$ is a logic program over $\sigma$ and~$W$ is a finite set of weak constraints over $\sigma$
Let $\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}=(\Pi,W)$ be an optimization program over vocabulary $\sigma$ (intuitively, $\Pi$ and~$W$ forms {\em hard} and {\em soft} fragments, respectively).
By $\level{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}$ we denote the set of all levels associated with optimization program $\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}$ constructed as
$
\{l\mid\, D[w@l]\in W\}$.
\begin{definition}
Let $\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}=(\Pi,W)$ be an optimization program over $\sigma$.
Set~$X$ of atoms over $\sigma$ is an {\em answer set} of~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}$, when it is an answer set of $\Pi$.
Let $X$ and $X'$ be answer sets of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}$.
Answer set $X'$ {\em dominates} $X$ if
there exists a level $l\in\level{\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}}$ such that
following conditions are satisfied:
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{l:cond1} for any level $l'$ that is greater than $l$ the following equality holds
$$
\displaystyle{ \sum_{D[w@l']\in W}{w \cdot\br{X\models D}}
} =\displaystyle{\sum_{D[w@l']\in W}{w \cdot\br{X'\models D}}
}
$$
\item\label{l:cond2} the following inequality holds for level $l$
$$
\displaystyle{\sum_{D[w@l]\in W}{w \cdot\br{X'\models D}}
}<\displaystyle{ \sum_{D[w@l]\in W}{w \cdot\br{X\models D}}
}
$$
\end{enumerate}
An answer set $X^*$ of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}$ is {\em optimal} if there is no answer set~$X'$ of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}$ that dominates $X^*$.
\end{definition}
Consider a logic whose language is a strict subset of that of propositional logic: a language that allows only for formulas of the form~\eqref{eq:wcbodyf}, whereas its semantics is that of propositional logic. We call this logic a {\em wc-logic}.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:op}
Let $(\Pi,W)$ be an optimization logic program over vocabulary $\sigma$.
The models and min-optimal models of w-system $\big(\Pi,\{(D,{w@l})\mid D[w@l]\in W\}\big)$
-- where~$\Pi$ is an lp-logic module and pairs of the form $(D,{w@l})$ are wc-logic w-conditions -- coincide with the answer sets and optimal answer sets of $(\Pi,W)$, respectively.
\end{proposition}
Propositions~\ref{prop:maxsat},~\ref{prop:wmaxsat},~\ref{prop:pwmaxsat}, and~\ref{prop:op} allow us to identify MaxSAT, weighted MaxSAT, pw-MaxSAT, and o-programs with respective w-systems. In the following, we often use the terminology stemming from w-systems, when we talk of these distinct frameworks.
For instance, we allow ourselves to identify a weak constraint~\eqref{eq:wc} with a wc-logic w-condition
\begin{equation}(a_1\wedge\dotsc\wedge a_\ell\wedge\ \neg a_{\ell+1}\wedge\dotsc\wedge\ \neg a_m,w@l).\eeq{eq:wcwc}
We now exemplify the definition of an optimization program. Let $\Pi_1$ be logic program~\eqref{ex:slp}.
An optimal answer set of optimization program
\begin{equation}
(\Pi_1,\{:\sim a,not\ b. [-2@1]\})
\eeq{eq:sampleop}
is $\{a\}$. We note that the answer sets and the optimal answer set of~\eqref{eq:sampleop} coincide with the models and the optimal model of pw-MinSAT problem~\eqref{eq:pwminsat}. The formal results of this paper will show that this is not by chance.
It is worth noting that an alternative syntax is frequently used by answer set programming practitioners when they expresses optimization criteria:
$$
\#minimize\{w_1@l_1:lit_1,\dots,w_n@l_n:lit_n \},
$$
where $lit_i$ is either an atom $a_i$ or an expression $not\ a_i$.
This statement stands for $n$ weak constraints
$$
\begin{array}{l}
:\sim lit_1[w_1@l_1].\\
~~\cdots~~\\
:\sim lit_n[w_n@l_n].
\end{array}
$$
Similarly, statement
$$
\#maximize\{w_1@l_1:lit_1,\dots,w_n@l_n:lit_n \},
$$
stands for $n$ weak constraints
$$
\begin{array}{l}
:\sim lit_1[-w_1@l_1].\\~\cdots~~\\
:\sim lit_n[-w_n@l_n].
\end{array}
$$
\paragraph{Remark:}
We note that following the lines by~\cite{cal15}
a {\em weak constraint} has a more complex form
\begin{equation} D[w@l,\Theta]\eeq{eq:wcc}
where $\Theta$ is a list $t_1,\ldots,t_n$ ($n \geq 0$) of ground terms. Weak constraints defined before assume $n=0$. The notion of optimal answer set is defined as above.
Ground terms account for the fact that propositional programs on which we define semantics are a by product of grounding process of a program with variables originally written by a programmer. In the process of grounding variables are substituted by object constants (and more complex terms constructed from function symbols and object constants). Constructed ground atoms can be treated as propositional, whereas list $\Theta$ consist of ground terms constructed of object constants and function symbols of a non-ground program. The optimization programs as considered here can simulate these more complex weak constraints by extending the vocabulary of the original programs with ``explicit definitions'' of auxiliary atoms corresponding to weak constraints body-term list pairs. In particular, (i) adding a rule of the form
$$
a_D^\Theta\leftarrow a_1,\dotsc, a_\ell,\ not\ a_{\ell+1},\dotsc,\ not\ a_m,
$$
where $D$ has the form~\eqref{eq:wcbody} and $a_D^\Theta$ is a freshly introduced atom for every weak constraint of the form \eqref{eq:wcc} with $n> 0$ and (ii) rewriting each weak constraint as
$$
D, a_D^\Theta[w@l]
$$
produces an optimization program as defined here. The answer sets of these two programs are in one to one correspondence. Dropping freshly introduced atoms from a newly constructed program will result in the answer sets of the original program. This result is straightforward to see given the theorem on explicit definitions~\citep{fer05}.
\section{Formal Properties of w-systems}~\label{sec:formalProperties}
We now state some interesting formal properties about w-systems.
Word {\em Property} denotes the results that follow rather immediately from the model/optimal model definitions. The propositions in this section will be provided proofs in the final section.
\begin{property}\label{prop:one}
Any two w-systems with the same hard theory have the same models.
\end{property}
Due to this property when stating the results for w-systems that share the same hard theory, we only focus on optimal and min-optimal models.
\begin{property}\label{prop:secondempty}
Any model of w-system of the form $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\emptyset)$ is optimal/min-optimal.
\end{property}
\begin{property}\label{prop:remove0}
Optimal/min-optimal models of the following w-systems coincide
\begin{itemize}
\item w-system $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ and
\item w-system resulting from $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ by dropping all of its w-conditions whose weight is~$0$.
\end{itemize}
\end{property}
Thus, the w-conditions, whose weight is $0$ are immaterial and can be removed.
For instance, we can safely simplify sample pw-MaxSAT problem~\eqref{eq:partmsat} and MinMaxPL problem~\eqref{eq:maxpl} by dropping their w-conditions $(\neg a\vee b,0)$.
\begin{property}\label{prop:samefactor}
Given a positive integer $a$, optimal/min-optimal models of the following w-systems coincide
\begin{itemize}
\item w-system $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\{(T_1,w_1@l_1),\dots,(T_m,w_m@l_m)\})$ and
\item w-system $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\{(T_1,a\cdot w_1@l_1),\dots,(T_m,a\cdot w_m@l_m)\})$.
\end{itemize}
\end{property}
We call a w-system $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ {\em level-normal}, when
we can construct the sequence of numbers $1,2,\dots,|\level{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}|$ from the elements in $\level{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}$.
It is easy to see that we can always adjust levels of w-conditions in $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ to respect such a sequence preserving optimal models of original w-system~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:levelnormal}
Optimal/min-optimal models of the following w-systems coincide
\begin{itemize}
\item w-system $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ and
\item the level-normal w-system constructed from $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ by replacing each level $l_i$ occurring in its w-conditions with its ascending sequence order number $i$, where we arrange elements in $\level{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}$ in a sequence in ascending order $l_1,l_2,\dots l_{|\level{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}|}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
Sample MaxPL problem~\eqref{eq:maxpl} is not level normal. Yet, this proposition suggests that it is safe to consider the level-normal w-system
\begin{equation}
(F_1,\{(a,1),(b,1@2),(a\vee\neg b,2), (\neg a\vee b,0)\})
\eeq{eq:levelnormal}
in its place.
In the sequel we often assume level-normal w-systems without loss of generality.
\begin{proposition}\label{thm:alloptimal}
For a w-system $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}=(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}})$, if every level $l\in\level{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}$ is such that
for any distinct models $I$ and~$I'$ of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$
the equality
\begin{equation}
\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_{l}}{ \br{I\models B}}= \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_{l}}{ \br{I'\models B}}
\eeq{eq:eqcond}
holds
then optimal/min-optimal models of w-systems
$\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ and $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\emptyset)$ coincide. Or, in other words, any model of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ is also optimal and min-optimal model.
\end{proposition}
By this proposition, for instance, it follows that optimal models of pw-MaxSAT problem $(F_1,\{(a,1),(b,1)\})$ coincide with its models $\{a\}$ and $\{b\}$ or, in other words, the problem can be simplified to $(F_1,\emptyset)$.
Let $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}=(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}})$ be a w-system. For a set $S$ of w-conditions,
by $\less{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}{S}$ we denote the w-system $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}\setminus S)$.
\begin{proposition}\label{thm:samewcond}
For a w-system $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}=(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}})$, if there is a set $S\subseteq \ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}$ of w-conditions all sharing the same level~$l$
such that
for any distinct $\prec{l}$-optimal/min-optimal models~$I$ and $I'$ of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$
(or any distinct models $I$ and $I'$ of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ in case $\prec{l}$ is undefined)
the equality~\eqref{eq:eqcond}, where $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_{l}$ is replaced by $S$, holds
then $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ has the same optimal/min-optimal models as $\less{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}{S}$.
\end{proposition}
It is obvious that this proposition holds with more restrictive condition when words {\em $\prec{l}$-optimal/min-optimal models} are replaced by {\em models}.
This result provides us with the semantic condition on when it is ``safe'' to drop some w-conditions from the w-system.
By this proposition, for instance, it follows that the optimal models of pw-MaxSAT problem~\eqref{eq:partmsat} coincide with the optimal models of w-system constructed from~\eqref{eq:partmsat} by dropping its w-conditions $(a,1)$ and $(b,1)$.
To summarize, all listed results account to the fact that the optimal models of pw-MaxSAT problem~\eqref{eq:partmsat} and the following pw-MaxSAT problem coincide
\begin{equation}
(F_1,\{(a\vee\neg b,2)\}).
\eeq{eq:partmsatsimp}
Let $\signo{(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\{(T_1,w_1@l_1),\dots,(T_n,w_n@l_n)\})}$ map a w-system into the following w-system
$(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\{(T_1,-1\cdot w_1@l_1),\dots,(T_n,-1\cdot w_n@l_n)\}).$
The next proposition tells us that min-optimal models and optimal models are close relatives:
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:relatives}
For a w-system $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$,
the optimal models (min-optimal models) of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ coincide with the min-optimal models (optimal models) of $\signo{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}$.
\end{proposition}
\subsection{Eliminating Negative (or Positive) Weights}
We call logics $\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}$ and $\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}'$ {\em compatible} when their vocabularies coincide, in other words, when \hbox{$\sigma_\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}=\sigma_{\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}'}$}.
Let $\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}$ and $\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}'$ be compatible logics, and
$T$ and $T'$ be theories in these logics, respectively. We call such theories {\em compatible}.
For compatible theories~$T$ and $T'$, we call $T$ and~$T'$ as well as w-conditions $(T,w@l)$ and $(T',w@l)$ {\em equivalent }
when $sem(T)= sem(T')$.
For example,
sat-logic theory~\eqref{eq:abtheory}
over vocabulary $\{a,b\}$ is equivalent to lp-logic theory~\eqref{ex:slp} over $\{a,b\}$.
The following proposition captures an apparent property of w-systems that equivalent modules and w-conditions may be substituted by each other without changing the overall semantics of the system.
\begin{property}\label{propo:equivalent}
Models and optimal/min-optimal models of w-systems
$$(\{T_1,\dots,T_n\},\{B_1,\dots,B_m\}) \hbox{ and } (\{T'_1,\dots,T'_n\},\{B'_1,\dots,B'_m\})$$
coincide when
(i) $T_i$ and $T'_i$ ($1\leq i\leq n$) are equivalent theories, and
(ii) $B_i$ and $B'_i$ ($1\leq i\leq m$) are equivalent $w$-conditions.
\end{property}
For a theory $T$ of logic $\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}$, we call a theory $\overline{T}$ in logic~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}'$, compatible to~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}$,
{\em complementary} when
$sem(\overline{T}) = Int(\sigma_\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}) \setminus sem(T)$.
For example, in case of pl-logic, theories $F$ and $\neg F$ are complementary.
Similarly, a theory $(\neg a\wedge \neg b)\vee (a\wedge b)$ in pl-logic over vocabulary $\{a,b\}$ is complementary to theory~\eqref{ex:slp}
in lp-logic over $\{a,b\}$. It is easy to see that given a theory in any logic we can always find, for instance, a pl-logic or sat-logic theory complementary to it. Yet, given a theory in some arbitrary logic we may not always find a theory complementary to it in the same logic.
For example,
consider vocabulary $\{a,b\}$ and a wc-theory $a\wedge b$. There is no complementary wc-theory to it over vocabulary $\{a,b\}$.
Let $(T,w@l)$ be a w-condition; consider the following definitions:
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\signp{(T,w@l)}=\begin{cases}
(T,w@l)&\hbox{when $w\geq 0$, otherwise } \\
(\overline{T},-1\cdot w@l) \\
\end{cases}\\
~\\
\signm{(T,w@l)}=\begin{cases}
(T,w@l)&\hbox{when $w\leq 0$, otherwise } \\
(\overline{T},-1\cdot w@l) \\
\end{cases}
\end{array}
$$
where $\overline{T}$ denotes some theory complementary to $T$.
It is easy to see that $\signp{}$ and $\signm{}$ forms a family of mappings satisfying stated conditions. Applying a member in this family to a w-condition always results in a w-condition with nonnegative and nonpositive weights respectively.
For a w-system $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\{B_1,\dots,B_m\})$,
we define
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
\signp{(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\{B_1,\dots, B_n\})}=(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\{\signp{B_1},\dots, \signp{B_n}\})\\
\signm{(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\{B_1,\dots, B_n\})}=(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\{\signm{B_1},\dots, \signm{B_n}\}).\\
\end{array}
\eeq{eq:plusminus}
The following proposition tells us that negative/positive weights within w-systems may be eliminated in favour of the opposite sign when theories complementary to theories of w-conditions are found.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:signpsignm}
Optimal/min-optimal models of w-systems $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$, $\signp{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}$, $\signm{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}$ coincide.
\end{proposition}
The result above can be seen as a consequence of the following proposition:
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:signpsignm2}
Optimal/min-optimal models of w-systems $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\{(T,w@l)\}\cup\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}})$
and $(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\{(\overline{T},-1\cdot w@l)\}\cup\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}})$ coincide.
\end{proposition}
Proposition~\ref{prop:signpsignm} suggests that in case of significantly expressive logic the presence of both negative and positive weights in w-conditions is nearly a syntactic sugar.
Let us illustrate the applicability of this result in the realm of optimization programs. First, we say that
\begin{itemize}
\item a weak constraint~\eqref{eq:wc} is {\em positively-singular} if either its weight $w\geq 0$ or $m=1$;
\item a weak constraint~\eqref{eq:wc} is {\em negatively-singular} if either its weight $w\leq 0$ or $m=1$.
\end{itemize}
For example, the only weak constraint/wc-logic w-condition of o-program~\eqref{eq:sampleop} follows
$$(a\wedge\neg b, -2@1).$$
This weak constraint is negatively-singular. Let us denote it by $C_1$.
Given a positively-singular weak constraint/wc-logic w-condition $B=(T,w@l)$, it is easy to see that a mapping
$$B^\uparrow=\begin{cases}
B&\hbox{when $w\geq 0$, otherwise } \\
(\neg a,-1 \cdot w@l) &\hbox{when $T$ has the form $a$} \\
(a,-1 \cdot w@l) &\hbox{when $T$ has the form $\neg a$} \\
\end{cases}
$$
is in the $\signp{B}$ family.
Given a negatively-singular weak constraint/wc-logic w-condition~$B$,
$B^\uparrow$ mapping is defined as above by replacing $w\geq 0$ condition with $w\leq 0$.
For instance, $C_1^\uparrow=C_1$.
It is easy to see that this mapping
is in the $\signm{B}$ family.
Similarly, given a positively-singular weak constraint/wc-logic w-condition $B$ of the form~\eqref{eq:wcwc}, it is easy to see that a mapping
$$B^{sat}=\begin{cases}
\Big(~\eqref{eq:wcwcc},-1\cdot w@l\Big)
&\hbox{when $w\geq 0$, otherwise } \\
B & \\
\end{cases}
$$
is in the $\signm{B}$ family.
Given a negatively-singular weak constraint/wc-logic w-condition~$B$ of the form~\eqref{eq:wcwc},
$B^{sat}$ mapping is defined as above by replacing $w\geq 0$ condition with $w\leq 0$.
It is easy to see that this mapping
is in the $\signp{B}$ family.
Note that the resulting w-condition of $(\cdot)^{sat}$ mapping is in sat-logic.
As an example, consider negatively-singular w-condition $C_1$,
$$
C_1^{sat}=(\neg a\vee b, 2@1).
$$
We call optimization program {\em positively-singular} ({\em negatively-singular}) when all of its w-conditions are { positively-singular} ({negatively-singular}).
For a positively/negatively-singular optimization program $(\Pi,\{B_1,\dots,B_n\})$,
$$
\begin{array}{lll}
(\Pi,\{B_1,\dots,B_n\})^\uparrow&=&(\Pi,\{B_1^\uparrow,\dots,B_n^\uparrow\}),\\
(\Pi,\{B_1,\dots,B_n\})^{sat}&=&(\Pi,\{B_1^{sat},\dots,B_n^{sat}\}).
\end{array}
$$
For example, let $\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}_1$ denote negatively-singular o-program~\eqref{eq:sampleop}. Then, $\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}_1^\uparrow=\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}_1$ and $\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}_1^{sat}=(\Pi_1, \{(\neg a\vee b, 2@1)\})$.
Propositions~\ref{prop:op} and~\ref{prop:signpsignm} tell us that optimal answer sets of positively/negatively-singular o-program $\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}$
coincide with min-optimal models of w-system $\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}^\uparrow$.
Also, they tell us that optimal answer sets of positively/negatively-singular o-program~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}$ coincide with min-optimal models of w-system $\ensuremath{\mathcal{P}}^{sat}$.
We note that the restriction on an optimization program to be positively/negatively-singular is not essential.
For example, we now describe a procedure that given an arbitrary program constructs positively-singular one. In particular, given a program for every weak constraint $C$ of the form~\eqref{eq:wc}, whose weight is negative
\begin{itemize}
\item adding to its hard fragment a rule of the form
$$
a^C \leftarrow a_1,\dotsc, a_\ell,\ not\ a_{\ell+1},\dotsc,\ not\ a_m,
$$
where $a_C$ is a freshly introduced atom and
\item replacing weak constraint $C$ with
$$
:\sim a^C [w@l]
$$
\end{itemize}
produces a positively-singular optimization program.
The answer sets of these two programs are in one to one correspondence. Dropping freshly introduced atoms $a^C$ from the answer sets of the newly constructed program results in the answer sets of the original program. This fact is easy to see given the theorem on explicit definitions~\citep{fer05}.
Alternatively, we can apply the transformation described above to every weak constraint $C$ of the form~\eqref{eq:wc}, whose $m>1$. In this case the resulting program is both positively-singular and negatively-singular.
\cite{alv18} describes a normalization procedure in this spirit.
\subsection{Eliminating Levels}
We call a w-system $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ {\em (strictly) positive} when all of its w-conditions have {\em (positive) nonnegative} weights.
Similarly, we call a w-system $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ {\em (strictly) negative} when all of its w-conditions have {\em (negative) nonpositive} weights. As we showed earlier the w-conditions with $0$ weights may safely be dropped so as such the difference between, for example, strictly positive and positive programs is inessential.
We now show that the notion of level in the definition of w-conditions is immaterial from the expressivity point of view, i.e., they can be considered as syntactic sugar. Yet, they are convenient mechanism for representing what is called hierarchical optimization constraints. It was also shown in practice that it is often of value to maintain hierarchy of optimization requirements in devising algorithmic solutions to search problems with optimization criteria~\citep{arg09}.
Here we illustrate that given an arbitrary w-system we can rewrite it using w-conditions of the form $(T,w)$.
This change simplifies the definition of an optimal model by reducing it to a single condition; indeed, see Definition~\ref{def:optimalmodelwsysSimple}.
Intuitively, we adjust weights $w$ across the w-conditions in a way that mimics their distinct levels. A procedure in style was reported by \cite{alv18} for the case of o-programs. In this work, we generalize that result to arbitrary w-systems that immediately makes it applicable to logical frameworks that go beyond logic programs.
We also provide a formal proof of the result that was missing in the mentioned paper by~\citeauthor{alv18}.
Let pair $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}=(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}})$ be strictly positive level-normal w-system. As illustrated earlier restricting w-systems to being positive can be seen as an inessential restriction; recall Proposition~\ref{prop:signpsignm}.
We define the number $M_i$ ($0\leq i< |\level{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}|$) as
$$M_i=\begin{cases}
1
&\hbox{when $i= 0$, otherwise } \\
\displaystyle{1+\sum_{
(T,w@i)\in \ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}} }}w. & \\
\end{cases}
$$
Intuitively, this number gives us the upper bound, incremented by 1, for the sum of the values of the weights of the w-conditions of level~$i$ (we identify $M_0$ with $1$).
We now define the number that serves the role of the factor for adjusting each weight associated with some level.
For level~$i$ $(1\leq i\leq |\level{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}|)$, let
$f_{i}$ be the number computed as
$$
f_{i}=
\displaystyle{\prod_{0\leq j< i} {M_j}}.
$$
By $\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}^1$ we denote the set of w-conditions constructed from $\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}$ as follows
\begin{equation}
\{(T,f_i\cdot w)\mid (T,w@i)\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}\}
\eeq{eq:relofs}
By $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}^1$ we denote the w-system resulting from replacing $\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}$ with $\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}^1$.
\begin{proposition}\label{proposition:one}
Optimal/min-optimal models of strictly positive level-normal w-systems $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}=(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}})$ and $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}^1=(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}^1)$ coincide.
\end{proposition}
Recall an example of level-normal w-system~\eqref{eq:levelnormal}. Property~\ref{prop:remove0} tells us that its models and optimal/min-optimal models conincide with these of strictly positive level-normal w-system
$$(F_1,\{(a,1),(a\vee\neg b,2),(b,1@2)\}).$$
Let us denote this w-system as $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_1$. For w-system $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_1$,
$$
\begin{array}{lll}
M_0=1&M_1=4&\\%M_2=2\\
&f_1=1&f_2=4\\
\end{array}
$$
W-system $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_1^1$ follows
$$(F_1,\{(a,1),(a\vee\neg b,2),(b,4)\}).$$
Proposition~\ref{proposition:one} tells us that optimal/min-optimal models of w-systems $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_1$ and $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_1^1$ coincide.
\begin{comment}
We call a w-system $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ {\em non-zero} when all of its w-conditions have non-zero weights.
As discussed earlier the w-conditions with $0$ weights may safely be dropped (see Property~\ref{prop:remove0}).
We now show that the notion of level in the definition of w-conditions is immaterial from the expressivity point of view, i.e., they can be considered as syntactic sugar. Yet, they are convenient mechanism for representing what is called hierarchical optimization constraints. It was also shown in practice that it is often of value to maintain hierarchy of optimization requirements in devising algorithmic solutions to search problems with optimization criteria~\citep{arg09}.
Here we illustrate that given an arbitrary w-system we can rewrite it using w-conditions of the form $(T,w)$.
This change simplifies the definition of an optimal model by reducing it to a single condition.
We can adjust weights $w$ across the w-conditions in a way that mimics their distinct levels. A procedure in style was reported by Alviano~\citep{alv18} for the case of o-programs. In this work, we generalize that result to arbitrary w-systems.
Furthermore, Alviano restricted his attention to weight constraints with positive weights only; no restriction of the kind is necessary in our generalization plus a formal proof of the result is provided.
Let pair $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}=(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}})$ be non-zero level-normal w-system (as illustrated earlier restricting w-systems to being positive is inessential restriction; recall Proposition~\ref{prop:signpsignm}).
We define the number $M_i$ ($0\leq i\leq |\level{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}|$) as
$$M_i=\begin{cases}
1
&\hbox{when $i= 0$, otherwise } \\
\displaystyle{1+\sum_{
(T,w@i)\in \ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}} }}|w|. & \\
\end{cases}
$$
Intuitively, this number gives us the upper bound (incremented by 1) for the sum of the absolute values of the weights of the w-conditions of level~$i$ (we identify $M_0$ with $1$).
We now define the number that serves the role of the factor for adjusting each weight associated with some level.
For level~$i$ $(1\leq i\leq |\level{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}|)$, let
$f_{i}$ be the number computed as
$$
f_{i}=
\displaystyle{\prod_{0\leq j< i} {M_j}}.
$$
By $\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}^1$ we denote the set of w-conditions constructed from $\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}$ as follows
\begin{equation}
\{(T,f_i\cdot w)\mid (T,w@i)\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}\}
\eeq{eq:relofs}
By $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}^1$ we denote the w-system resulting from replacing $\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}$ with $\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}^1$.
\begin{proposition}\label{proposition:one}
Optimal/min-optimal models of non-zero level-normal w-systems $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ and $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}^1$ coincide.
\end{proposition}
\end{comment}
\subsection{Optimization Programs as pw-MaxSAT/pw-MinSAT Problems}\label{sec:opmaxsat}
Logic programs under answer set semantic and propositional formulas are closely related (see, for instance, work by~\cite{lier16a} for an overview of translations). For example, for so called ``tight'' programs a well known completion procedure~\citep{cla78} transforms a logic program into a propositional formula so that the answer sets of the former coincide with the models of the later. Once this formula is clausified the problem becomes a SAT problem.
For nontight programs extensions of completion procedure are available~\citep{lin02,jan06a}. Some of those extensions introduce auxiliary atoms. Yet, the appearance of these atoms is inessential as models of resulting formulas are in one to one correspondence with original answer sets. The later can be computed from the former by dropping the auxiliary atoms.
The bottom line is that a number of known translations from logic programs to SAT exists. Numerous answer set solvers, including but not limited to {\sc cmodels}~\citep{giu06} and {\sc lp2sat}~\citep{jan06a}, rely on this fact by translating a given logic program into a SAT formula and then applying SAT solvers for computing models/answer sets.
For a logic program $\Pi$ over vocabulary $\sigma$ (that we identify with a module in lp-logic), by $F_\Pi$ we denote a SAT formula, whose models coincide with these of~$\Pi$.
For example, recall that $F_1$ and $\Pi_1$ denote sat-formula~\eqref{eq:abtheory} and logic program~\eqref{ex:slp}. Formula $F_1$ forms one of the possible formulas $F_{\Pi_1}$. In fact, $F_1$ corresponds to the clausified completion of program $\Pi_1$, which has the form $$(a\leftrightarrow \neg b)\wedge (b\leftrightarrow \neg a).$$
In previous sections we illustrated how multiple levels and negative weights in w-systems/singular optimization programs can be eliminated in favor of a single level and positive weights.
Thus, without loss of generality we consider here singular optimization programs with a single level. The following result is a consequence of several propositions stated earlier.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:translation}
Optimal answer sets of a positive-singular o-program $(\Pi,\{B_1,\dots,B_m\})$, whose all conditions are of the same level $1$,
coincide with optimal models of pw-MaxSAT problem
$\signo{(F_{\Pi},\{B_1^{sat},\dots,B_n^{sat}\})}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:translation2}
Optimal answer sets of a negatively-singular o-program $(\Pi,\{B_1,\dots,B_m\})$, whose all conditions are of the same level $1$,
coincide with optimal models of pw-MinSAT problem
${(F_{\Pi},\{B_1^{sat},\dots,B_n^{sat}\})}$.
\end{proposition}
This result tells us, for example, that optimal answer sets of optimization program~\eqref{eq:sampleop} coincide with optimal models of pw-MinSAT problem~\eqref{eq:pwminsat}.
Propositions~\ref{prop:translation} and~\ref{prop:translation2} tells us how to utilize MaxSAT/MinSAT solvers for finding optimal answer sets of a program in similar ways as SAT solvers are currently utilized for finding answer sets of logic programs as exemplified by such answer set solvers as {\sc cmodels} or {\sc lp2sat}.
\medskip
\section{Proofs}
We often show results for optimal models only, as the arguments for min-optimal models follow the same lines.
Given recursive Definition~\ref{def:optimalmodelwsys} of $l$-(min)-optimal models, inductive argument is a common technique in proof construction about properties of such models. Below, we refer to the {\em induction on levels of a considered w-system $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$}, where we assume elements in $\level{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}$ to be arranged in the descending order $m_1,\dots m_n$ ($n=|\level{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}|$); so that the base case is illustrated for the greatest level $m_1$, whereas inductive hypothesis is assumed for level $m_i$ and then illustrated to hold for level $m_{i+1}$. Note how,
$\prec{m_{i+1}}=m_{i}$.
An inductive proof on levels of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ relying on the definition of $l$-optimal models suffices for Lemma~\ref{lem:loptimal}. We omit it for its simplicity.
Lemma~\ref{lem:loptimal2} follows immediately from Lemma~\ref{lem:loptimal} and an observation that for a pair $I$, $I'$ of $l$-optimal/$l$-min-optimal models of w-system $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ the following equality holds
\begin{equation} \displaystyle{ {\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l}{ \br{I\models B}}}} =
\displaystyle{ {\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l}{ \br{I'\models B}}}}.
\eeq{eqlevel}
This observations stems from the definition of $l$-optimal/$l$-min-optimal models. There is one more lemma that we find of use in proving Proposition~\ref{prop:eqdefs}. The claim of the lemma can be shown by induction on levels of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:propertylmodels3}
For a w-system $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}=(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}})$, level $l'\in\level{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}$, and a model $I'$ of~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$,
if $I$ is $l'$-optimal model of~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ such that for all levels $l\geq l'$
equality~\eqref{eqlevel} holds
then $I'$ is an $l'$-optimal model of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ as well.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:eqdefs}]
We consider the relation between Definitions~\ref{def:optimalmodelwsysASP} and~\ref{def:optimalmodelwsys}. We will illustrate the equivalence between optimal models defined in different terms. We omit an argument for min-optimal models as it follows these lines. First, we illustrate that any optimal model per Definition~\ref{def:optimalmodelwsysASP} is also an optimal model per Definition~\ref{def:optimalmodelwsys}. We call this direction {\em Left-to-right}.
Second, we illustrate that any optimal model per Definition~\ref{def:optimalmodelwsys} is also an optimal model per Definition~\ref{def:optimalmodelwsysASP}. We call this direction {\em Right-to-left}.
Left-to-right.
Per Definition~\ref{def:optimalmodelwsysASP} model $I^*$ of w-system $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ is optimal if there is no model $I'$ of~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ that max-dominates $I^*$. Consider such model $I^*$. We now illustrate that $I^*$ is also an optimal model of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ per Definition~\ref{def:optimalmodelwsys}. In other words, $I^*$ is $l$-optimal model for every level $l\in \level{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}$. By contradiction. Assume the later statement is not the case: there is a level $l'\in \level{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}$ such that~$I^*$ is not an $l'$-optimal model; take $l$ to be the greatest value in $\level{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}$ that satisfies this property.
Consequently,
$I^*$ does not satisfies equation
\begin{equation}
I^*=\displaystyle{ arg\max_{I} {\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l}{ \br{I\models B}}}}
\eeq{eq:argmax}
where
\begin{itemize}
\item $I$ ranges over models of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ if $l$ is the greatest level in $\level{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}$,
\item $I$ ranges over $\prec{l}$-optimal models of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$, otherwise.
\end{itemize}
Case 1. $l$ is the greatest level in $\level{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}$. There is a model $I'$ of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ such that
\begin{equation} \displaystyle{ {\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l}{ \br{I'\models B}}}} >
\displaystyle{ {\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l}{ \br{I^*\models B}}}}.
\eeq{eq:eqcond2}
Consequently, $I'$ max-dominates $I^*$. We derive to contradiction.
Case 2. $l$ is not the greatest level in $\level{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}$. Due to the choice of $l$, there is a $\prec{l}$-optimal model~$I'$ of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ such that inequality~\eqref{eq:eqcond2} holds.
By Lemmas~\ref{lem:loptimal} and~\ref{lem:loptimal2}, for every level $l''\in\level{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}$ such that $l''\geq\prec{l}$
equality~\eqref{eqlevel} holds, where we replace $l$ by $l''$ and $I$ by $I^*$. Consequently, $I'$ max-dominates~$I^*$. We derive to contradiction.
Right-to-left.
Per Definition~\ref{def:optimalmodelwsys} model $I^*$ of w-system $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ is optimal if it is $l$-optimal for every level $l\in\level{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}$.
Consider such model $I^*$. We now illustrate that $I^*$ is also an optimal model of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ per Definition~\ref{def:optimalmodelwsysASP}.
In other words, there is no model $I'$ of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ that max-dominates $I^*$.
By contradiction. Assume the later statement is not the case:
there is a level $l\in \level{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}$ and a model~$I'$
such that
following conditions are satisfied:
\begin{enumerate}
\item for any level $l'>l$ the following equality holds
$$
\displaystyle{ \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_{l'}}{ \br{I^*\models B}}}
=
\displaystyle{ \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_{l'}}{ \br{I'\models B}}}
$$
\item the inequality~\eqref{eq:eqcond2} holds for level $l$.
\end{enumerate}
Case 1. $l$ is the greatest level. Consequently, $I^*$ does not satisfy equation~\eqref{eq:argmax}. We derive to contradiction.
Case 2. $l$ is not the greatest level.
Case 2.1 There is level $l''>l$ such that $I'$ is not $l''$-optimal model of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:propertylmodels3} we conclude that
model $I^*$ is not $l''$-optimal model of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ (indeed, assume the opposite and one derives the contradiction to the statement of the lemma).
We derive to contradiction.
Case 2.2 Model $I'$ is $l''$-optimal model of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ for every level $l''>l$.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:propertylmodels3} we conclude that
model $I^*$ is $l''$-optimal model of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ for every level $l''>l$.
Consequently, both $I'$ and $I^*$ are $\prec{l}$-optimal models of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$.
Condition~\eqref{eq:eqcond2} contradicts the fact that $I^*$ is a solution to equation~\eqref{eq:argmax}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:maxsat}]
Consider an arbitrary interpretation $I^*$ over $\sigma$.
We show that $I^*$ is a solution to MaxSAT problem $F$ if and only if
$I^*$ is an optimal model of w-system $(T_\sigma,\{(C,{1})\mid C\in F\})$. Note how the considered w-system is of a special form so that Definition~\ref{def:optimalmodelwsysSimple} is applicable.
Interpretation $I^*$
is a solution to MaxSAT problem $F$ if and only if
$$
I^*=arg \max_{I}{\sum_{C\in F}{\br{I\models C}}},
$$
where $I$ ranges over all interpretations over $\sigma$.
Interpretation $I^*$ is
an optimal model of w-system $(T_\sigma,\{(C,{1})\mid C\in F\})$
if and only if
$$
I^*=arg \max_{I}{\sum_{B\in \{(C,{1})\mid C\in F\}}{\br{I\models B}}},
$$
where $I$ ranges over all models of $T_\sigma$, which are all interpretations over $\sigma$.
Note how taking the definitions~\eqref{eq:isat} and~\eqref{eq:isatorig} into account we conclude that for any interpretation~$I$ over $\sigma$,
$$
\sum_{B\in \{(C,{1})\mid C\in F\}}{\br{I\models B}}=\sum_{C\in F}{\br{I\models C}}.
$$
\end{proof}
Proofs of Propositions~\ref{prop:wmaxsat} and~\ref{prop:pwmaxsat} follow the logic of the presented proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:maxsat}. In proofs of these propositions, we have to rely on the fact that given a weighted MaxSAT/MinSAT problem $P$ over $\sigma$ and any interpretation $I$ over $\sigma$,
$$
\sum_{(C,w)\in P}{\br{I\models (C,w)}}=\sum_{(C,w)\in P}{w\cdot \br{I\models C}}.
$$
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:op}]
This proposition considers the relation between
\begin{itemize}
\item an optimization logic program $(\Pi,W)$ over $\sigma$ and
\item w-system $\big(\Pi,\{(D,{w@l})\mid D[w@l]\in W\}\big)$
-- where~$\Pi$ is an lp-logic module and pairs of the form $(D,{w@l})$ are wc-logic w-conditions.
\end{itemize}
It is important to note that
for any model $J$ and any level $k$, the following equality holds
$$
\sum_{B\in \{(D,{w@{k}})\mid D[w@{k}]\in W\}} {\br{J\models B}}=
\sum_{D[w@k]\in W} w \cdot {\br{J\models D}}.
$$
With this observation, the argument is straightforward
given Definition~\ref{def:optimalmodelwsysASP} of min-optimal models of w-systems.
\end{proof}
Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:levelnormal} follows from the fact that the numeric value of any level itself is inessential in the key computations associated with establishing optimal models. Rather, the order of levels with respect to greater relation matters (recall the definition of $\prec{(\cdot)}$ operation). It is easy to see that changing levels of the w-conditions using the procedure described in Proposition~\ref{prop:levelnormal} preserves original order of the levels with respect to greater relation.
Proposition~\ref{thm:alloptimal} follows immediately from Proposition~\ref{thm:samewcond}.
We show that Proposition~\ref{thm:samewcond} holds.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{thm:samewcond}]
Let $l$ be the level so that
there is a set $S\subseteq \ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}_l$ of w-conditions such that
for any distinct $\prec{l}$-optimal models $I$ and $I'$ of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ the following equality holds
$$\sum_{B\in S}{ \br{I\models B}}= \sum_{B\in S}{ \br{I'\models B}}.$$
Let us denote the number associated with the sum in this equality by letter $c$, i.e., $\displaystyle{c=\sum_{B\in S}{ \br{I\models B}}}$ (where $I$ is any $\prec{l}$-optimal model of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$).
Note that for every level $l'>l$, $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_{l'}=\less{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}{S}_{l'}$. Using simple inductive argument on levels of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ that are greater than $l$ suffices to show that $l'$-optimal models of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ and $\less{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}{S}$ coincide. Consequently,
$\prec{l}$-optimal models of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ and $\less{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}{S}$ coincide.
We now show that {\em $l$-optimal models of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ and $\less{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}{S}$ coincide}.
We have to illustrate that equation~\eqref{eq:condeqlmin}
and
$$
I^*=\displaystyle{ arg\max_{I} {\sum_{B\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l\setminus S}}{ \br{I\models B}}}}
$$
have the same solutions, when $I$ ranges over $\prec{l}$-optimal models of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$.
This is apparent from the fact that the right hand side (RHS) of the equation~\eqref{eq:condeqlmin}
can be rewritten as
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{arg\max_{I} \Big(
{\sum_{B\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l\setminus S}}{ \br{I\models B}}}+
{\sum_{B\in S}{ \br{I\models B}}
\Big)}} = \\
\displaystyle{arg\max_{I}
\Big(
\sum_{B\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l\setminus S}}{ \br{I\models B}}+ c
\Big)} =\\
\displaystyle{arg\max_{I}
{\sum_{B\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l\setminus S}}{ \br{I\models B}}}}.
\end{array}
$$
Using simple inductive argument on levels of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ that are less than $l$ suffices to show that $l'$-optimal models of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ and $\less{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}{S}$ coincide, where $l'$ is any level less than $l$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:relatives}]
To show that
the optimal models of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ coincide with the min-optimal models of $\signo{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}$, it is sufficient to show that for any level in $\level{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}$, $l$-optimal models of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ coincide with $l$-min-optimal models of $\signo{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}$.
We first note that models of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ and $\signo{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}$ coincide.
By induction on levels of~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$.
Base case. $l$ is the greatest level.
A model $I^*$ of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ is {\em $l$-optimal} if and only if
$I^*$ satisfies equation~\eqref{eq:argmax},
where $I$ ranges over models of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$.
It is easy to see that we can rewrite this equation as
$$
I^*=\displaystyle{ arg\min_{I} {\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l} -1\cdot { \br{I\models B}}}
}.
$$
It immediately follows from the construction of $\signo{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}$ that this equation can be rewritten as
$$
I^*=\displaystyle{ arg\min_{I} {\sum_{B\in\signo{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}_l} { \br{I\models B}}}
}.
$$
Thus $I^*$ is an $l$-min-optimal model of $\signo{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}$ as the equation above is exactly the one from the definition of $l$-min-optimal models of $\signo{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}$; plus recall that models of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ and $\signo{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}$ coincide.
Inductive case argument follows similar lines.
\end{proof}
Proposition~\ref{prop:signpsignm} follows immediately from Proposition~\ref{prop:signpsignm2}.
We show that Proposition~\ref{prop:signpsignm2} holds.
\begin{comment}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:signpsignm}]
We show the argument for optimal models for the case of w-systems $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ and $\signp{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}$. The remaining argument
for the case of min-optimal models as well as w-systems $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ and $\signm{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}$ follows the lines.
To show that
the optimal models of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ coincide with the optimal models of $\signp{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}$, it is sufficient to show that for any level $l$ in $\level{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}$, $l$-optimal models of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ coincide with $l$-optimal models of $\signp{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}$.
We first note that models of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ and $\signp{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}$ coincide.
By induction on levels of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$.
Base case. $l$ is the greatest level.
A model $I^*$ of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ is {\em $l$-optimal} if and only if
$I^*$ satisfies equation~\eqref{eq:argmax},
where $I$ ranges over models of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$.
In other words, for any model $I$ of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ the following inequality holds
\begin{equation}
\displaystyle{
{\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l}{ \br{I^*\models B}}}\geq
{\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l}{ \br{I\models B}}}
}.
\eeq{eq:name1}
This inequality~\eqref{eq:name1} can be equivalently rewritten by dropping the elements of the summations on LHS (left hand side) and RHS (right hand side) that coincide:
\begin{equation}
\displaystyle{
{\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l, I^*\models B, I\not\models B}{ \br{I^*\models B}}}\geq
{\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l, I\models B, I^*\not\models B}{ \br{I\models B}}}
}.
\eeq{eq:name2}
Using the definition of the $\br{\cdot}$ operator, inequality~\eqref{eq:name2} can be rewritten as
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
{\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l, I^*\models B, I\not\models B,\weight{B}\geq 0}{ \br{I^*\models B}}}
-
{\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l, I^*\models B, I\not\models B, \weight{B}< 0}{ |\br{I^*\models B}|}}
}
\geq
\\
\displaystyle{
{\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l, I\models B, I^*\not\models B,\weight{B}\geq 0}{ \br{I\models B}}}
-
{\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l, I\models B, I^*\not\models B,\weight{B}< 0}{ |\br{I\models B}| }}
},
\end{array}
$$
which is equivalent to
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
{\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l, I^*\models B, I\not\models B,\weight{B}\geq 0}{ \br{I^*\models B}}}
+
{\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l, I\models B, I^*\not\models B,\weight{B}< 0}{ |\br{I\models B}| }}
}
\geq
\\
\displaystyle{
{\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l, I\models B, I^*\not\models B,\weight{B}\geq 0}{ \br{I\models B}}}
+
{\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l, I^*\models B, I\not\models B, \weight{B}< 0}{ |\br{I^*\models B}|}}
}
\end{array}
\eeq{eq:name3}
By $\signp{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}$ construction, we can rewrite inequality~\eqref{eq:name3} as
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
{\sum_{B\in\signp{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l}, B\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l}, I^*\models B, I\not\models B}{ \br{I^*\models B}}}
+
{\sum_{B\in\signp{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l},
B\not\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l},
I\not \models B, I^*\models B}{ \br{I^*\models B} }}
}
\geq
\\
\displaystyle{
{\sum_{B\in\signp{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l}, B\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l}, I\models B, I^*\not\models B}{ \br{I\models B}}}
+
{\sum_{B\in\signp{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l}, B\not\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l}, I^*\not\models B, I\models B}{ \br{I\models B}}}
}
\end{array}
$$
which is equivalent to
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
{\sum_{B\in\signp{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l}, B\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l}, I^*\models B, I\not\models B}{ \br{I^*\models B}}}
+
{\sum_{B\in\signp{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l},
B\not\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l},
I\not \models B, I^*\models B}{ \br{I^*\models B} }}
} +
\\
\displaystyle{
{\sum_{B\in\signp{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l}, I^*\models B, I\models B}{ \br{I^*\models B}}}}
+\\
\displaystyle{
{\sum_{B\in\signp{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l},
I\not \models B, I^*\not \models B}{ \br{I^*\models B} }}
}
+\\
\displaystyle{
{\sum_{B\in\signp{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l},
I \models B, I^*\not \models B}{ \br{I^*\models B} }}
}
\geq
\\
\displaystyle{
{\sum_{B\in\signp{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l}, B\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l}, I\models B, I^*\not\models B}{ \br{I\models B}}}
+
{\sum_{B\in\signp{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l}, B\not\in{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l}, I^*\not\models B, I\models B}{ \br{I\models B}}}
}+\\
\displaystyle{
{\sum_{B\in\signp{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l}, I^*\models B, I\models B}{ \br{I\models B}}}
}+
\\
\displaystyle{
{\sum_{B\in\signp{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l},
I\not \models B, I^*\not \models B}{ \br{I\models B} }}
}+\\
\displaystyle{
{\sum_{B\in\signp{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l},
I\not \models B, I^*\models B}{ \br{I\models B} }}
}
\end{array}
\eeq{eq:name4}
Indeed,
$$\displaystyle{
{\sum_{B\in\signp{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l}, I^*\models B, I\models B}{ \br{I^*\models B}}}} = \weight{B}=\displaystyle{
{\sum_{B\in\signp{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l}, I^*\models B, I\models B}{ \br{I\models B}}}
}
$$
and
$$
\displaystyle{
{\sum_{B\in\signp{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l},
I\not \models B, I^*\not \models B}{ \br{I^*\models B} }}
}
=0
= \displaystyle{
{\sum_{B\in\signp{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l},
I\not \models B, I^*\not \models B}{ \br{I\models B} }}
}
$$
and
$$
\displaystyle{
{\sum_{B\in\signp{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l},
I \models B, I^*\not \models B}{ \br{I^*\models B} }}
}
=0=
\displaystyle{
{\sum_{B\in\signp{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l},
I\not \models B, I^*\models B}{ \br{I\models B} }}
}.
$$
Now, note how inequality~\eqref{eq:name4} boils down to inequality
$$
\displaystyle{
{\sum_{B\in\signp{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l}}{ \br{I^*\models B}}}\geq
{\sum_{B\in\signp{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l}}{ \br{I\models B}}}
},
$$
which tells us that a model $I^*$ of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ (or $\signp{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}$) is $l$-optimal model of $\signp{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}$ as
$I^*$ satisfies equation
$$
I^*=\displaystyle{ arg\max_{I} {\sum_{B\in\signp{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l}}{ \br{I\models B}}}
}
$$
where $I$ ranges over models of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ (or $\signp{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}$).
Inductive case argument follows similar lines.
\end{proof}
\end{comment}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:signpsignm2}]
We show the argument for optimal models for the case of w-systems
$\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}=(\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\{(T,w@l)\}\cup\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}})$
and $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}'= (\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}},\{(\overline{T},-1\cdot w@l)\}\cup\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}})$.
The argument
for the case of min-optimal models follows the same lines.
To prove that
the optimal models of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ coincide with the optimal models of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}'$, it is sufficient to show that for any level $l'$ in $\level{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}$, $l'$-optimal models of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ coincide with $l'$-optimal models of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}'$.
We first note that models of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}'}$ coincide.
By induction on levels of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$.
Base case. $l'$ is the greatest level.
Case 1. $l'\neq l$. The case is trivial as $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_{l'}={\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}'}_{l'}$.
Case 2. $l'= l$.
A model $I^*$ of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ (or $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}'$) is {\em $l$-optimal} model of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ if and only if
$I^*$ satisfies equation~\eqref{eq:argmax},
where $I$ ranges over models of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$.
In other words, for any model $I$ of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ (or $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}'$) the inequality
\begin{equation}
\displaystyle{
{\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l}{ \br{I^*\models B}}}\geq
{\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l}{ \br{I\models B}}}
}.
\eeq{eq:name1}
holds.
This inequality can be equivalently rewritten as
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
{\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l, B\neq \{(T,w@l)\}}{ \br{I^*\models B}}}
+ \br{I^*\models \{(T,w@l)\}}}
\geq \\
\displaystyle{
{\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l, B\neq \{(T,w@l)\}}{ \br{I\models B}}}
+ \br{I\models \{(T,w@l)\}}
}.
\end{array}
\eeq{eq:name2.2}
Note that the following condition holds
\begin{equation} \ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l\setminus\{(T,w@l)\}=
\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}'_l\setminus\{(\overline{T},-1\cdot w@l)\}.
\eeq{eq:condall}
We now illustrate that under all possible cases we conclude that inequality~\eqref{eq:name1}, where $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l$ is replaced by $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}'_l$, holds for arbitrary model $I$ of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ (or $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}'$). Consequently, $I^*$ satisfies
equation~\eqref{eq:argmax},
where $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l$ is replaced by $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}'_l$
and
$I$ ranges over models of~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}'$.
Thus, $I^*$ is $l$-optimal model of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}'$.
We also note that the same cases are applicable to illustrate another direction. Namely, from the fact that
$I^*$ satisfies
equation~\eqref{eq:argmax},
where $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l$ is replaced by $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}'_l$
and
$I$ ranges over models of~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}'$ we can conclude that $I^*$ satisfies
equation~\eqref{eq:argmax} where $I$ ranges over models of~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$.
To support this claim, the arguments of the cases below can be read from bottom to top.
\noindent
Case 2.1: $I^*\models \{(T,w@l)\}$ and $I\models \{(T,w@l)\}$. Or, equivalently, \hbox{$I^*\not \models \{(\overline{T},-1\cdot w@l)\}$} and $I\not \models \{(\overline{T},-1\cdot w@l)\}$.
Consequently,
\begin{equation}
\br{I^*\models \{(\overline{T},-1\cdot w@l)\}}=0=
\br{I \models \{(\overline{T},-1\cdot w@l)\}}.
\eeq{cond1}
Inequality~\eqref{eq:name2.2} can be rewritten as
$
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
{\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l, B\neq \{(T,w@l)\}}{ \br{I^*\models B}}}}
+ w
\geq
\displaystyle{
{\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l, B\neq \{(T,w@l)\}}{ \br{I\models B}}}
+ w
}.
\end{array}
$
Consequently, the following inequality holds
$
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
{\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l, B\neq \{(T,w@l)\}}{ \br{I^*\models B}}}
}
\geq
\displaystyle{
{\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l, B\neq \{(T,w@l)\}}{ \br{I\models B}}}
}.
\end{array}
$
From this inequality, it immediately follows that the following holds
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
{\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}'_l, B\neq \{(\overline{T},-1\cdot w@l)\}}{ \br{I^*\models B}}}
+ \br{I^*\models \{(\overline{T},-1\cdot w@l)\}}}
\geq \\
\displaystyle{
{\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}'_l, B\neq \{(\overline{T},-1\cdot w@l)\}}{ \br{I\models B}}}
+ \br{I\models \{(\overline{T},-1\cdot w@l)\}}
}.
\end{array}
\eeq{eq:name2.5}
as conditions~\eqref{eq:condall} and~\eqref{cond1} hold.
By inequality~\eqref{eq:name2.5},
inequality~\eqref{eq:name1} where $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l$ is replaced by $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}'_l$ holds.
\noindent
Case 2.2: $I^*\models \{(T,w@l)\}$ and $I\not \models \{(T,w@l)\}$.
Or, equivalently, \hbox{$I^*\not \models \{(\overline{T},-1\cdot w@l)\}$} and $I \models \{(\overline{T},-1\cdot w@l)\}$.
Consequently,
\begin{equation}
\br{I^*\models \{(\overline{T},-1\cdot w@l)\}}=0\hbox{ and }
\br{I \models \{(\overline{T},-1\cdot w@l)\}}=-w.
\eeq{cond2}
Inequality~\eqref{eq:name2.2} can be rewritten as
$
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
{\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l, B\neq \{(T,w@l)\}}{ \br{I^*\models B}}}}
+ w
\geq
\displaystyle{
{\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l, B\neq \{(T,w@l)\}}{ \br{I\models B}}}
}.
\end{array}
$
Consequently,
$
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
{\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l, B\neq \{(T,w@l)\}}{ \br{I^*\models B}}}}
\geq
\displaystyle{
{\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l, B\neq \{(T,w@l)\}}{ \br{I\models B}}}
}-w.
\end{array}
$
From this inequality, it immediately follows that the inequality~\eqref{eq:name2.5} holds
as conditions~\eqref{eq:condall} and~\eqref{cond2} hold.
By inequality~\eqref{eq:name2.5},
inequality~\eqref{eq:name1} where $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l$ is replaced by $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}'_l$ holds.
\noindent
Case 2.3: $I^*\not \models \{(T,w@l)\}$ and $I \models \{(T,w@l)\}$. Or, equivalently, \hbox{$I^* \models \{(\overline{T},-1\cdot w@l)\}$} and $I\not \models \{(\overline{T},-1\cdot w@l)\}$.
Consequently,
\begin{equation}
\br{I^*\models \{(\overline{T},-1\cdot w@l)\}}=-w\hbox{ and }
\br{I \models \{(\overline{T},-1\cdot w@l)\}}=0.
\eeq{cond3}
Similarly to Case 2.2. we derive that from inequality~\eqref{eq:name2.2} follows that
$
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
{\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l, B\neq \{(T,w@l)\}}{ \br{I^*\models B}}}-w}
\geq
\displaystyle{
{\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l, B\neq \{(T,w@l)\}}{ \br{I\models B}}}
}.
\end{array}
$
From this inequality, it immediately follows that the inequality~\eqref{eq:name2.5} holds
as conditions~\eqref{eq:condall} and~\eqref{cond3} hold.
By inequality~\eqref{eq:name2.5},
inequality~\eqref{eq:name1} where $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l$ is replaced by $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}'_l$ holds.
\noindent
Case 2.4: $I^*\not \models \{(T,w@l)\}$ and $I \not \models \{(T,w@l)\}$.
Or, equivalently, \hbox{$I^* \models \{(\overline{T},-1\cdot w@l)\}$} and $I \models \{(\overline{T},-1\cdot w@l)\}$.
Consequently,
\begin{equation}
\br{I^*\models \{(\overline{T},-1\cdot w@l)\}}=-w=
\br{I \models \{(\overline{T},-1\cdot w@l)\}}.
\eeq{cond4}
We derive that from inequality~\eqref{eq:name2.2} follows that
$
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
{\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l, B\neq \{(T,w@l)\}}{ \br{I^*\models B}}}
}
\geq
\displaystyle{
{\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l, B\neq \{(T,w@l)\}}{ \br{I\models B}}}
}.
\end{array}
$
From this inequality, it immediately follows that the inequality~\eqref{eq:name2.5} holds
as conditions~\eqref{eq:condall} and~\eqref{cond4} hold.
By inequality~\eqref{eq:name2.5},
inequality~\eqref{eq:name1} where $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l$ is replaced by $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}'_l$ holds.
Inductive case argument follows similar lines.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{proposition:one}]
We focus on the claim of identical optimal models of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ and~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}^1$ (the claim about min-optimal follows the same lines).
We first note that models of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ and $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}^1$ are identical.
Recall
Definition~\ref{def:optimalmodelwsysASP}.
It is easy to see that our claim follows in case when
for any pair $I$ and $I'$ of models of $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ (or $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}^1$), $I'$ max-dominates $I$ in $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$ if and only if $I'$ max-dominates $I$ in $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}'$. Take $n$ denote a number of levels in $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$.
Right-to-left. Assume that $I'$ max-dominates $I$ in $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$.
Per Definition~\ref{def:optimalmodelwsysASP}, {\em
there exists a level $l\in\level{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}$ such that
following conditions are satisfied:
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{l:cond1.1} for any level $l'>l$ the following equality holds
$$
\displaystyle{ \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_{l'}}{ \br{I\models B}}}
=
\displaystyle{ \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_{l'}}{ \br{I'\models B}}}
$$
\item\label{l:cond2.1} the following inequality holds for level $l$
\begin{equation}
\displaystyle{ \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l}{ \br{I'\models B}}}
>
\displaystyle{ \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l}{ \br{I\models B}}}
\eeq{eq:cond2.2}
\end{enumerate}
}
In the left-to-right direction of the proof we refer to the text in italics as {\em max-dominating condition}.
The goal is to illustrate that the following inequality holds
\begin{equation}
\displaystyle{\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}^1}{\br{I'\models B}}
} > \displaystyle{ \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}^1}{\br{I\models B}}
},
\eeq{eq:cond3}
which translates into the fact that $I'$ max-dominates $I$ in $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}^1$.
We will now write two chains of inequalities for LHS and RHS expressions of~\eqref{eq:cond3} that support the claim of condition~\eqref{eq:cond3}. Note how the last element of each chain amounts to the same expression. After every chain we provide explanations supporting their less trivial transformations.
The first chain follows
$$\begin{array}{r}
\displaystyle{
\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}^1}{\br{I'\models B}}}
=\\
\displaystyle{
\sum_{1\leq i\leq {n}} {\big( f_i\cdot \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_i}{\br{I'\models B}}\big)}}=\\
\displaystyle{
\sum_{1\leq i< {l}} {\big( f_i\cdot \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_i}{\br{I'\models B}}\big)}
+
f_{l}\cdot \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_{l}}{\br{I'\models B}}
+
\sum_{l< i\leq n} {\big( f_i\cdot \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_i}{\br{{\mathbf I'}\models B}}\big)}}
=\\
\displaystyle{
\sum_{1\leq i< {l}} {\big( f_i\cdot \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_i}{\br{I'\models B}}\big)}
+
f_{l}\cdot \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_{l}}{\br{I'\models B}}
+
\sum_{l< i\leq n} {\big( f_i\cdot \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_i}{\br{{\mathbf I}\models B}}\big)}}\geq\\
\displaystyle{
\sum_{1\leq i< {l}} {\big(f_i\cdot 0 \big)}+
f_{l}\cdot \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_{l}}{\br{I'\models B}}
+
\sum_{l< i\leq n} {\big( f_i\cdot \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_i}{\br{ I\models B}}\big)}}=\\
\displaystyle{
f_{l}\cdot \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_{l}}{\br{{\mathbf I'}\models B}}
+
\sum_{l< i\leq n} {\big( f_i\cdot \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_i}{\br{ I\models B}}\big)}}\geq\\
\displaystyle{
f_{l} + f_{l}\cdot \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_{l}}{\br{{\mathbf I}\models B}}
+
\sum_{l< i\leq n} {\big( f_i\cdot \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_i}{\br{ I\models B}}\big)}}> \\
\displaystyle{
-1+ f_{l} + f_{l}\cdot \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_{l}}{\br{{\mathbf I}\models B}}
+
\sum_{l< i\leq n} {\big( f_i\cdot \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_i}{\br{ I\models B}}\big)}}
\end{array}
$$
The third equality in the chain is due to Condition~\ref{l:cond1.1}.
The appearance of the first inequality in the chain is due to the fact that
$$\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_i}{\br{I'\models B}}\geq 0$$
as $0$ is ``the most pessimistic'' case for the ``cost'' of w-conditions at the $i$-th level, when model $I$ does not satisfy any of the respective w-conditions.
The appearance of the second inequality in the chain is due to the observation that from the condition~\eqref{eq:cond2.2} it follows that
$$
\begin{array}{clc}
\displaystyle{\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_{l}}{\br{I'\models B}}}
&\geq& \displaystyle{ \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_{l}}{\br{I\models B}}} +1
\\
f_{l}\cdot\displaystyle{\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_{l}}{\br{I'\models B}}
}
&\geq&
\displaystyle{ f_{l}\cdot \big(\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_{l}}{\br{I\models B}}
} +1\big)
\\
f_{l}\cdot\displaystyle{\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_{l}}{\br{I'\models B}}
}
&\geq&
\displaystyle{ f_{l}+ f_{l}\cdot \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_{l}}{\br{I\models B}}
}.
\end{array}
$$
The second chain follows
$$\begin{array}{r}
\displaystyle{
\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}^1}{\br{I\models B}}}
=\\
\displaystyle{
\sum_{1\leq i< {l}} {\big( f_i\cdot \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_i}{\br{I\models B}}\big)}}
+
f_{l}\cdot \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_{l}}{\br{I\models B}}
+
\sum_{l< i\leq n} {\big( f_i\cdot \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_i}{\br{I\models B}}\big)}
\leq\\
\displaystyle{
\sum_{1\leq i< {l}} {\big(f_i\cdot (M_i -1)\big)}
+
f_{l}\cdot \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_{l}}{\br{I\models B}}
+
\sum_{l< i\leq n} {\big( f_i\cdot \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_i}{\br{I\models B}}\big)}} =
\\
\displaystyle{
M_1 -1 + M_1\cdot M_2 -M_1+\dots+
M_1\cdot...\cdot M_{l-1} - M_1\cdot...\cdot M_{l-2}+}\\
\displaystyle{
f_{l}\cdot \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_{l}}{\br{I\models B}}
+
\sum_{l< i\leq n} {\big( f_i\cdot \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_i}{\br{I\models B}}\big)}}
=\\
\displaystyle{
-1 + M_1\cdot...\cdot M_{l-1} +
f_{l}\cdot \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_{l}}{\br{I\models B}}
+
\sum_{l< i\leq n} {\big( f_i\cdot \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_i}{\br{I\models B}}\big)}}
=\\
\displaystyle{
-1 + f_{l} +
f_{l}\cdot \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_{l}}{\br{I\models B}}
+
\sum_{l< i\leq n} {\big( f_i\cdot \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_i}{\br{I\models B}}\big)}}
\end{array}
$$
The appearance of the inequality in the chain above is due to the fact that
$$\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_i}{\br{I\models B}}\leq (M_i -1)$$
as $M_i$ accounts for the sum, incremented by one, of all the weights in w-conditions of~$\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_i$, which is ``the most optimistic'' case for the ``cost'' of w-conditions at the $i$-th level when model $I$ satisfies all of the respective w-conditions.
Left-to-right. Assume that $I$ max-dominates $I'$ in $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}^1$.
Per Definition~\ref{def:optimalmodelwsysASP},
inequality~\eqref{eq:cond3} holds.
The goal is to illustrate that max-dominating condition (see right-to-left direction) holds,
which translates into the fact that $I'$ max-dominates $I$ in $\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}$.
From inequality~\eqref{eq:cond3} we derive that
\begin{equation}
\displaystyle{
\sum_{1\leq i\leq {n}} \big( f_i\cdot \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_i}{\br{I'\models B}}\big)}
>
\displaystyle{
\sum_{1\leq i\leq {n}} \big( f_i\cdot \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_i}{\br{I\models B}}\big)}.
\eeq{eq:condfi}
We now show that there is $l$ among $1..n$ such that (i)
$$
\displaystyle{
f_l\cdot \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l}{\br{I'\models B}}}
>
\displaystyle{
f_l\cdot \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_l}{\br{I\models B}}}
$$
holds and (ii) for any $l'>l$,
\begin{equation}
\displaystyle{
f_{l'}\cdot \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_{l'}}{\br{I'\models B}}}
=
\displaystyle{
f_{l'}\cdot \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_{l'}}{\br{I\models B}}}.
\eeq{eq:equality1}
With that max-dominating condition immediately follows.
By contradiction. Assume no such level $l$ exists such that both conditions (i) and (ii) hold.
Case 1: Assume there is no level $l$ for which condition (i) holds. This immediately contradicts assumption~\eqref{eq:condfi}.
Case 2: There is $l$ among $1..n$ such that (i) holds. Take $l$ to be the greatest level among $1..n$ for which (i) holds. Assume that (ii) does not hold. Consequently, there is $l''>l$ such that
\begin{equation}
\displaystyle{
f_{l''}\cdot \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_{l''}}{\br{I'\models B}}}
<
\displaystyle{
f_{l''}\cdot \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_{l''}}{\br{I\models B}}}.
\eeq{eq:ineq1}
Take $l''$ to be the greatest level with such property. (Consequently, for any level $l'>l''$ equality~\eqref{eq:equality1} holds.)
We now illustrate that from this fact the inequality
\begin{equation}
\displaystyle{
\sum_{1\leq i\leq {n}} \big( f_i\cdot \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_i}{\br{I'\models B}}\big)}
<
\displaystyle{
\sum_{1\leq i\leq {n}} \big( f_i\cdot \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_i}{\br{I\models B}}\big)}.
\eeq{eq:condfiop}
follows, which contradicts assumption~\eqref{eq:condfi}.
We now write two chains of inequalities for LHS and RHS expressions of~\eqref{eq:condfiop} to support this claim. After every chain we provide explanations supporting their less trivial transformations.
The first chain follows
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\sum_{1\leq i\leq {n}} \big( f_i\cdot \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_i}{\br{I'\models B}}\big)}=\\
\displaystyle{
\sum_{1\leq i\leq {l''}} \big( f_i\cdot \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_i}{\br{I'\models B}}\big)}=\\
\displaystyle{
\sum_{1\leq i\leq {l''-1}} \big( f_i\cdot \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_i}{\br{I'\models B}}\big)}
+ f_{l''}\cdot \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_{l''}}{\br{I'\models B}} \leq\\
\displaystyle{
\sum_{1\leq i\leq {l''-1}} \big( f_i\cdot \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_i}{\br{I'\models B}}\big)}
+ f_{l''}\cdot (\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_{l''}}{\br{I\models B}} -1) \leq\\
\displaystyle{
\sum_{1\leq i\leq {l''-1}} {\big(f_i\cdot (M_i-1)\big)}
+ f_{l''}\cdot (\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_{l''}}{\br{I\models B}} -1)} =\\
\displaystyle{
-1 + f_{l''}\cdot \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_{l''}}{\br{I\models B}}
}
\end{array}
$$
The first equality is due to the choice of $l''$ so that for any level $l'>l''$ equality~\eqref{eq:equality1} holds. The first inequality is due to the observation that from inequality~\eqref{eq:ineq1} the following conditions follow immediately
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_{l''}}{\br{I'\models B}}}
<
\displaystyle{
\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_{l''}}{\br{I\models B}}}.\\
\displaystyle{
\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_{l''}}{\br{I'\models B}}}
\leq
\displaystyle{
\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_{l''}}{\br{I\models B}}}-1.\\
\end{array}
$$
The second inequality and the last equality follow the reasoning of the second chain presented in right-to-left direction.
The second chain follows
$$
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{
\sum_{1\leq i\leq {n}} \big( f_i\cdot \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_i}{\br{I\models B}}\big)}=\\
\displaystyle{
\sum_{1\leq i\leq {l''}} \big( f_i\cdot \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_i}{\br{I\models B}}\big)}=\\
\displaystyle{
\sum_{1\leq i\leq {l''-1}} \big( f_i\cdot \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_i}{\br{I\models B}}\big)}
+ f_{l''}\cdot \sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_{l''}}{\br{I\models B}} \geq\\
\displaystyle{
f_{l''}\cdot (\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_{l''}}{\br{I\models B}})} >\\
\displaystyle{ -1 +
f_{l''}\cdot (\sum_{B\in\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}_{l''}}{\br{I\models B}})}
\end{array}
$$
\end{proof}
\section{Conclusions, Future Work, and Acknowledgments}
We proposed the extension of abstract modular systems to weighted systems in a way that modern approaches to optimizations stemming from a variety of different logic-based formalisms can be studied in unified terminological ways so that their differences and similarities become clear not only on intuitive but also formal level.
In this article we utilize the presented weighted systems as an abstraction of search-optimization problems and capture such formalisms as MaxSAT and ASP-WC by illustrating that these can be seen as instances of weighted systems.
We present multiple general equivalence transformations, which include interchangeability of logic modules having the same models,
preservation of (min-)optimal models when weighted conditions yielding the same
sum for all models are eliminated, and convertibility between optimal and
min-optimal models by multiplying all weights with $-1$. Moreover, transformations
to eliminate either negative or positive weights, map several levels to a single
level by scaling up weights, and turn ASP-WC programs into MaxSAT are developed.
Some similar transformations/normalizations were described as early as~\citeyear{sns02} by \citeauthor{sns02} and later by~\cite{alv18} in the {\em context of ASP-WC}. Here, they are lifted into an abstract settings allowing us the application of the results within different frameworks. Proofs for all of the stated theoretical results are provided.
We trust that the proposed unifying framework of w-systems will allow developers of distinct automated paradigms to better grasp similarities and differences of the kind of optimization criteria their paradigms support. In practice, translational approaches are popular in devising solvers. These approaches rely on the relation between automated reasoning paradigms and rather than devising a unique search algorithm for a paradigm of interest propose a translating to another framework so that the solvers for that frameworks can be of use. This work is a stepping stone towards extending these translational approaches with the support for optimization statements.
In particular, an immediate and an intuitive future work direction is extending a translational based answer set solver {\sc cmodels} with capabilities to process optimization statements by enabling it to interface with a MaxSAT/MinSAT solver in place of a SAT solver. The formal results of this paper support the validity of this approach (see Proposition~\ref{prop:translation} and~\ref{prop:translation2}).
In addition, a generalization of results presented here is of interest in the scope of what is called constraint answer set programming~\citep{lier14}.
The {\sc ezsmt}~\citep{shen18a} system is a translational constraint answer set solver that translates its programs into satisfiability modulo theories (SMT) formulas. We trust that results obtained here lay the groundwork for obtaining a link between constraint answer set programs with weak constraints and what is called O(ptimization)MT formulas -- a formalism extending SMT with optimizations. We intend to investigate this link in the future.
We would like to acknowledge Mario Alviano, Jorge Fandinno, Torsten Schaub, and Da Shen for valuable discussions related to this work.
The work was partially supported by NSF grant 1707371.
\bibliographystyle{tlplike}
|
\section{\bf Introduction}
Throughout this paper, all rings have an identity element and all modules are unital. Recall that a non-zero module $N$ is {\it simple} if it has no non-zero proper
submodules and an $R$-module $M$ is called {\it cyclic} if it is generated by one element. An {\it Artinian} (resp. {\it Noetherian}) {\it ring} is a
ring which is both a left and right Artinian (resp. Noetherian). A {\it principal ideal ring} is a ring which is both a left and a right principal ideal ring.
In 1937 K{\"o}the [32] showed that over an Artinian principal ideal ring, each module is a direct sum of cyclic modules, and he posed the question to classify the rings with this property. A ring for which any
left (resp., right) module is a direct sum of cyclic modules, is now called a {\it left} (resp., {\it right}) {\it K{\"o}the ring}. Thus a ring $R$ is left (resp., right) K{\"o}the if every left (resp., right) $R$-module is a direct
sum of cyclic $R$-modules. K{\"o}the [32] showed that all Artinian principal ideal rings are left K{\"o}the rings. However, Nakayama [34] gave an example of a left K{\"o}the ring which is
not a principal ideal ring. Cohen and Kaplansky [8] proved that all commutative K{\"o}the rings are Artinian principal ideal rings. Thus by combining the above results one obtains:
\noindent {\bf Theorem 1.1} ({\it K{\"o}the}, [8, 32]). {\it An Artinian principal ideal ring is a K{\"o}the ring}
\noindent {\bf Theorem 1.2} ({\it K{\"o}the-Cohen-Kaplansky}, [8, 32]). {\it A commutative ring $R$ is a K{\"o}the ring if and only if $R$ is an Artinian principal ideal ring}
However, a left Artinian principal left ideal ring $R$ need not be a left K{\"o}the ring, even if $R$ is a local ring (see [12, page 212,
Remark (2)]). Faith [12] characterized all commutative rings whose proper factor rings are K{\"o}the rings. During the years 1962 to 1965, Kawada [29, 30, 31] solved the K{\"o}the problem for basic finite-dimensional algebras. Behboodi et al. [5] showed that if $R$ is a left K{\"o}the ring in which all idempotents are central then $R$ is an Artinian principal right ideal ring.
Consequently, if $R$ is a ring in which all idempotents are central, then $R$ is a K{\"o}the ring if and only if R is an Artinian principal ideal ring. This generalizes K{\"o}the-Cohen-Kaplansky theorem. Recently, in [13, 14, 15] Fazelpour and Nasr-Isfahani gave several characterizations of the basic left K{\"o}the rings (a ring $R$ is called {\it basic} if $R/J(R)$ is a direct sum of division rings and idempotents in $R/J(R)$ can be lifted to $R$, where $J(R)$ is the Jacobson radical of $R$).
The corresponding problem was still open in the non-commutative setting (see [36, Appendix B, Problem 2.48] and the recent survey paper by Jain and Srivastava
[26, page 40, Problem 1]). We recall that a ring $R$ is said to be {\it left pure semisimple} if every left $R$-module is a direct sum of finitely generated modules, or equivalently, if every left $R$-module is
algebraically compact (see [38] and [52]). Clearly, the class of left K{\"o}the rings is contained in the class of left pure semisimple rings. In
the commutative case, these two classes coincide (see [21, Theorem 4.3]). According to Chase [7, Theorem 4.4], any left pure semisimple ring $R$ is left Artinian and every left module has an indecomposable decomposition. The converse was established by Warfield [51, Theorem 3] for commutative rings, and Zimmermann-Huisgen [54, Corollary 2] generalized Warfield's result for arbitrary rings. Fuller [17] proved
that the left pure semisimple rings coincide with those whose left modules have decompositions that complements direct summands (see Anderson and Fuller [1]).
Thus any left K{\"o}the ring is left Artinian.
A ring $R$ is of {\it finite representation type} (or {\it finite type}) if $R$ is Artinian and there is a finite number of the isomorphism classes of finitely
generated indecomposable left (and right) $R$-modules. A module $M$ which has a composition series is called a module of {\it finite
length}. The length of a composition series of $M$ is said to be the {\it length} of
$M$ and denoted by $length(M)$. It is well known that an Artinian ring $R$ is of finite type if and only if there is a finite upper bound for the lengths of the finitely
generated indecomposable $R$-modules, if and only if,
$R$ is a left and right pure semisimple (see for instance [52, Proposition 54.3]).
However the following pure semisimplicity conjecture remains: an open problem (see [4] and [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]):
\noindent {\bf Conjecture 1.3} {\it A left pure semisimple ring $R$ is of finite representation type.}
The problem is related to the following K{\"o}the's Problem:
\noindent {\bf Problem 1.4} {\it Describe non-commutative left K{\"o}the rings}.
Since any left K{\"o}the ring $R$ is of finite length and the indecomposable modules are cyclic, so $length(_RR)$ is a finite upper bound for the lengths of the finitely
generated indecomposable $R$-modules, and hence, $R$ is of finite type and so the conjecture is true for left (right) K{\"o}the rings.
Also, the conjecture was proved by Auslander [4] for any artin algebra $R$, and by Simson [39] for a $PI$-ring $R$ which is local, or hereditary, or the square of the Jacobson radical
$J(R)$ of $R$ is zero, or $R$ is a self-injective and $J (R)^3 = 0$. Herzog in the paper [24] proves the conjecture for quasi-Frobenius rings and for arbitrary $PI$-rings
In the sequel, we denote by $R$-Mod (resp., $R$-mod) the category of (resp., finitely generated) left $R$-modules, and by Mod-$R$ (resp., mod-$R$) the category of (resp., finitely generated) right $R$-modules.
Two rings $R$ and $S$ are said to be Morita equivalent if there exists a
category equivalence $F$ : $R$-Mod $\rightarrow S$-Mod. A ring theoretic property $\cal{P}$ is said to be {\it Morita invariant} if, whenever $R$ has
the property $\cal{P}$, so does every ring Morita equivalent to $R$. A left K{\"o}the property is not a Morita invariant property. In fact, there exists a ring $R$ and an positive $n\geq 2$ such that the matrix ring $M_n(R)$ is a left K{\"o}the ring but $R$ is not a left K{\"o}the ring (see [13, Proposition 4.7, Remark 4.8]). Hence, as Ringel [37] we say that a ring $R$ is called {\it left} (resp., {\it right}) {\it Kawada} if any ring Morita equivalent to $R$ is a left (resp., right) K{\"o}the ring. Ringel [37] gave a characterization of Kawada algebras. Therefore, the following problem is a stronger version of the K{\"o}the's Problem:
\noindent {\bf Problem 1.5} {\it Describe non-commutative left Kawada rings.}
An $R$-module $N$ is called {\it co-cyclic} if $N$ has a simple submodule $K$ which is contained in every non-zero submodule of $N$.
Also, a module is called {\it square-free} if it does not contain a direct sum of two nonzero isomorphic submodules. We define as the {\it socle} of $M$ (denoted by $soc(M)$)
the sum of all simple (minimal) submodules of $M$. If there are no minimal submodules in $M$ we put $soc(M) = 0$. One can easily see that a nonzero left $R$-module $M$ is co-cyclic if and only if the
intersection of all nonzero submodules of $M$ is nonzero, if and only if, $M$ has essential simple socle. Also, if a module $M$ is co-cyclic, then $M$ is a square-free module, and an Artinian module $M$ is
square-free if and only if $soc(M)$ is a square-free module (see Lemma 2.1).
In this paper, we will see that the square-free modules and decompositions of (finitely generated) modules into square-free modules are closely related to the K{\"o}the's problem. Thus, at first we give the following definitions:
\noindent {\bf Definitions 1.6}. We will say that a ring $R$ is a \\
--- {\it left (resp., right) co-K{\"o}the ring } if every left (resp., right) $R$-module is a direct sum of \indent co-cyclic modules.\\
--- {\it co-K{\"o}the ring } if $R$ is both a left and a right co-K{\"o}the ring.\\
--- {\it generalized left (resp., right) co-K{\"o}the ring} if every left (resp., right) $R$-module is a \indent direct sum of square-free modules.\\
--- {\it generalized co-K{\"o}the ring }if $R$ is both a generalized left and right co-K{\"o}the ring.
\noindent {\bf Remark 1.7} It seemed natural for us to define the concept of generalized left K{\"o}the ring as rings $R$ for which every left $R$-module is a direct sum of modules with square-free top. But if a such ring $R$ has a semi-perfect condition, then by Proposition 2.5 (e), this concept coincides by the concept left Kothe ring and is not a new concept (so in this case the problem is: Describe non-semi-perfect generalized left K{\"o}the rings).
By using the above definitions and inspired by K{\"o}the's Problems, we can raise the following problems:
\noindent {\bf Problem 1.8} {\it Describe left co-K{\"o}the rings }.
\noindent {\bf Problem 1.9} {\it Describe generalized left co-K{\"o}the ring}.
We will show that there is a close relationship between the above problems and the K{\"o}the's Problem, and the main purpose of the paper is to solve ${\rm Problems~1.4,~1.5,~1.8,~1.9},$ and for each of them we give several appropriate characterizations that provide us a lot of information about the ideal structure and the structure of their indecomposable modules.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we provide some necessary preliminaries
and results which play an important role in this paper. In Section 3, we solve Problems 1.8 and 1.9
(see Theorems 3.5, 3.7 and Corollaries 3.6, 3.8).
In Section 4, first we solve the classical K{\"o}the's Problem
(see Theorems 4.2, 4.3, 4.7, 4.9, 4.10 and 4.12)
and then we solve Problems 1.5 (Theorem 4.14 and Corollary 4.15).
Finally, in Section 6 some relevant examples and counterexamples are included to illustrate
our results.
\section{\bf Preliminaries and related background }
Let $M$ be an $R$-module. Dual to the socle we define as the {\it radical} of $M$ (denoted by $rad(M)$), the intersection of all maximal submodules of $M$. If $M$ has no maximal submodules we set $rad(M) = M$. If $M$ has a proper submodule which contains all other proper submodules, then $M$ is called a {\it local module} (i.e., $rad(M)$ is a maximal submodule of $M$). A ring is a {\it local ring} if and only if $_RR$ (or $R_R$) is a local module.
A ring $R$ is called of {\it left local type} if every finitely generated indecomposable left $R$-module is local (see [20]).
For an module $M$, we define as {\it top} of $M$ (denoted by $top(M)$) the factor module $M/rad(M)$. For an $R$-module $M$, $E(M)$ denotes the {\it injective hull} of $M$.
The module $M$ is called {\it distributive} if the lattice of all its submodules is distributive; i.e., $A \cap (B + C) = (A \cap B) + (A \cap C)$ for all submodules $A$, $B$, and $C$ of $M$. Also, $M$ is called semi-distributive whenever $M$ is a direct sum of distributive modules. For a detailed account of such modules see [50]. Obviously, uniform modules are square-free, and by a result of Stephenson [44, Corollary 1(i)$'$ of Proposition 1.1], distributive modules are also square-free.
By [16, Proposition 1.2], a semisimple module $M$ is square-free if and only if it is distributive if and only if it is zero or a direct sum of non-isomorphic simple modules. Thus we have the following.
\begin{Lem}\label{square-free}
For an Artinian module $M$, the following statements are equivalent:\\
\indent {{\rm (1)}} $M$ is a square-free module.\\
\indent {{\rm (2)}} $soc(M)$ is a square-free module.\\
\indent {{\rm (3)}} $soc(M)$ is a distributive module.\\
\indent {{\rm (4)}} $soc(M)$ is a direct sum of non-isomorphic simple modules.\\
\indent {{\rm (5)}} Composition factors of $soc(M)$ are pairwise non-isomorphic.
\end{Lem}
\begin{proof}
(1) $\Rightarrow$ (2), (4) $\Leftrightarrow$ (5) are clear, and (2) $\Leftrightarrow$ (3) $\Leftrightarrow$ (4) is~by~[16, Proposition 1.2].
(2) $\Rightarrow$ (1). Assume that $M$ is a square-free. If $0 \neq A \oplus B \subseteq M$ and $A \cong B$, then we conclude that there are simple submodules $S_{1} \subseteq A$ and $S_{2} \subseteq B$ with $S_{1} \cong S_{2}$. It follows that $S_1 \oplus S_2 \subseteq soc(M)$, a contradiction.
\end{proof}
Recall that a ring $R$ is {\it semi-perfect} if $R/J(R)$ is left semisimple and idempotents in $R/J(R)$ can be
lifted to $R$. So for example, local rings are semi-perfect. From [1, (15.16), (15.19) and (27.1)]
it follows that a left (or right) Artinian ring is semi-perfect. It is worthy of note that in a semi-perfect ring the radical is the unique largest
ideal containing no non-zero idempotents (see [1, (15.12)]).
\begin{The}\label{H. Bass}
{\rm (H. Bass [15]).} The following conditions are equivalent for a ring $R$:\\
\indent {{\rm (1)}} $R$ is semi-perfect.\\
\indent {{\rm (2)}} $R$ can be decomposed into a direct sum of left ideals each of which has exactly one \indent\indent maximal submodule.\\
\indent {{\rm (3)}} The identity $1\in R$ can be decomposed into a sum of a finite number of pairwise \indent\indent orthogonal local idempotents.\\
\indent {{\rm (4)}} Any finitely generated left $R$-module has a projective cover.\\
\indent {{\rm (5)}} Any cyclic left $R$-module has a projective cover.
\end{The}
Recall that if $R$ is a semi-perfect ring then it decomposed as left $R$-module into a
direct sum of cyclic left $R$-modules $R= {(Re_1)}^{(t_1)} \oplus...\oplus {(Re_n)}^{(t_n)}$.
If $A= Re_1 \oplus...\oplus Re_n$ then
the category of right $R$-modules and right $A$-modules are Morita equivalent. The
semi-perfect ring $R$ is said to be {\it basic} if $t_1 = ... = t_n = 1$, i.e., there are no
isomorphic modules in the decomposition of the ring $R$ into a direct sum of cyclic
right $R$-modules. In fact, a semi-perfect ring $R$ is basic if the quotient ring $R/J(R)$ is a direct sum of division rings.
Projective modules over a semi-perfect ring are described by the following
theorem.
\begin{The}\label{indecomposable projective}
{\rm (See [23, Theorem 1.9.4])} Any indecomposable projective
module over a semi-perfect ring $R$ is finitely generated, it is a projective cover
of a simple $R$-module, and it has exactly one maximal submodule. There is
a one-to-one correspondence between mutually non-isomorphic indecomposable
projective $R$-modules $Re_1,...,Re_n$ and mutually non-isomorphic simple $R$-modules
which is given by the following correspondences: $Re_i\rightarrow Re_i/J(R)e_i := U_i$ and
$U_i\rightarrow P(U_i)$.
\end{The}
An indecomposable projective left module over a semi-perfect ring $R$ is called a
{\it principal right module} . A {\it principal left module} can be defined analogously.
Any principal left (resp., right) $R$-module has the form $Re$ (resp., $eR$), where $e$ is a local
idempotent.
Now by famous Krull-Remak-Schmidt theorem for semi-perfect rings and the above we obtain the following result.
\begin{Pro}\label{finitely generated projective}
{\rm (See [23, Proposition 1.9.6.])} Any finitely generated projective
left module over a semi-perfect ring can be uniquely decomposed up to isomorphism
into a direct sum of principal left modules.
\end{Pro}
Recall that an idempotent $e\in R$ is {\it primitive} in case it is non-zero and
cannot be written as a sum $e = e^\prime + e^{\prime\prime}$ of non-zero orthogonal idempotents.
A left (right) ideal of $R$ is primitive in case it is of the form $Re$ ($eR$) for some
primitive idempotent $e \in R$. The endomorphism ring of $Re$ is isomorphic to $eRe$. An idempotent $e$ of a semi-perfect ring $R$ is called a {\it basic idempotent} of $R$ in case $e$ is the sum $e = e_1 + ... + e_m$ of a basic set $e_1, ... , e_m$ of primitive idempotents of $R$.
Let $M$, $N$ be $R$-modules. A monomorphism $ N \rightarrow M$ is called an {\it embedding} of $N$ to $M$, and we denote it by $N\hookrightarrow M$).
The following proposition, especially the parts (f), (g), (h) and (i) play a key role in solving the Problems 1, 2, 3 and 4.
\begin{Pro}\label{Projective cover}
Let $R$ be a semi-perfect ring and $M$ be a finitely generated left $R$-module. Then;\\
{\rm (a)} Every complete set of orthogonal primitive idempotents for $R$ contains a basic set.\\
{\rm (b)} For pairwise orthogonal primitive idempotents $e_1,..., e_n$ of $R$ the following
are equiv- \indent alent:\vspace*{0.2cm} \\
\indent {\rm (1)} $e_1,..., e_n$ is a basic set of primitive idempotents for R.\\
\indent {\rm (2)} $Re_i ,... , Re_n$ is an irredundant set of representatives of the indecomposable projec- \indent\indent tive left $R$-modules;\\
\indent {\rm (3)} $Re_1 /Je_1,..., Re_n /J(R)e_m$ is an irredundant set of representatives of the simple \indent\indent left $R$-modules;\\
\indent {\rm (4)} $e_1 + J(R), ... , e_n + J(R)$ generate the simple blocks in the block decomposition
\indent\indent of the semisimple ring $R/(J(R)$.:\vspace*{0.2cm} \\
{\rm (c)} $R\cong \oplus_{i=1}^n(Re_i)^{(t_i)}$ where $n,~t_i\in\Bbb{N}$ and $\{e_1,...e_n\}$ is a basic set of idempotents~of~$R$, \indent
$top(M) \cong (Re_{i_1}/J(R)e_{i_1})^{(s_{i_1})}\oplus...\oplus (Re_{i_k}/J(R)e_{i_k})^{(s_{i_k})},$ where
$k\in\Bbb{N}$, $s_{i_j}\in\Bbb{N}$ for \indent $j=1,...,k$, $\{e_{i_1},...,e_{i_k}\}\subseteq \{e_1,..., e_n\}$, and the module ${P(M)=(Re_{i_1})^{s_{i_1}}\oplus...\oplus (Re_{i_k})^{s_{i_k}}}$ \indent is equal to the projective cover of $M$.\vspace*{0.2cm} \\
{\rm (d)} The projective cover of $M$ is equal to the projective cover of $top(M)$.\\
{\rm (e)} If $M$ is projective, then $M$ is equal to the projective cover of $top(M)$.\\
{\rm (f)} If $top(M)$ is square-free, then $P(M)$ (and so $M$) is cyclic. \\
{\rm (g)} The following are equivalent for a projective left $R$-module $P$:\vspace*{0.2cm} \\
\indent {\rm (1)} $P$ is a local module.\\
\indent {\rm (2)} $top(P)$ is a simple module.\\
\indent {\rm (3)} $P$ is an indecomposable module.\\
\indent {\rm (4)} $P=Re$ for some local idempotent $e\in R$.\\
\indent {\rm (5)} $P$ is a projective cover of a simple module.\\
{\rm (h)} The following are equivalent for $M$: \vspace*{0.2cm} \\
\indent {\rm (1)} $M$ is a cyclic indecomposable $R$-module.\\
\indent {\rm (2)} $M\cong Re/Ie$ for some primitive idempotent $e\in R$ and for some left ideal $I\subseteq J(R)$.\\
\indent {\rm (3)} $Re$ is equal to the projective cover of $M$ for some primitive idempotent $e\in R$. \\
\indent {\rm (4)} $top(M)$ is a simple module\\
\indent {\rm (5)} $M$ is a local module.\\
{\rm (i)} The following are equivalent for $M$:\vspace*{0.2cm} \\
\indent {\rm (1)} $M$ is cyclic.\\
\indent {\rm (2)} $top(M)\hookrightarrow R/J(R)$.\\
\indent {\rm (3)} $P(M)\hookrightarrow R$.\\
\indent {\rm (4)} $s_{i_j}\leq t_{i_j}$ for all $j=1,...,k$.\\
\indent {\rm (5)} $P(M)$ is a direct summand of $R$.
\end{Pro}
\begin{proof} The facts (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) are by [1, Corollary 15.18, Theorems 27.6, 27.13 and Proposition 27.10].
(f). If $top(M)$ is square-free, then by Part(c), we have; $$top(M) \cong (Re_{i_1}/J(R)e_{i_1})\oplus...\oplus (Re_{i_k}/J(R)e_{i_k}),$$
where $e_{i_j}, ~1 \leq j \leq k$ are distinct elements of $\{e_1,...e_n\}$. Also, by Part (c), there exists a projective cover $f: P=Re_{i_1}\oplus ...\oplus Re_{i_k}\rightarrow M$. Clearly $P$ is a direct summand of $R$ and so
$P$ and $M\cong P/Ker(f)$ are cyclic modules.
(g). The proof is by Theorem 2.3 and Proposition 2.4.
(h) $(1) \Rightarrow (2).$ Assume that $M$ is an indecomposable cyclic left $R$-module. Since $R$ is a semi-perfect ring, by [1, Corollary 27.6], $M$ has a projective cover. Also, by [1, Lemma 27.3],
$M\cong Re/Ie$ for some idempotent $e\in R$ and some left ideal $I \subseteq J(R)$, and the natural map
$Re\rightarrow Re/Ie\rightarrow 0$ is a projective cover of $M$. Since $M$ is indecomposable, we claim that $Re$ is an indecomposable direct summand of $_RR$, for if not, then $Re=Rx\oplus Ry$ for some nonzero submodules
$Rx$, $Ry$ of $Re$. Clearly, $Ie=Ix\oplus Iy$ and the neutral map:
$$\Phi : Rx\oplus Ry\rightarrow \frac{Rx}{Ix}\oplus\frac{Ry}{Iy}~~~ {\rm with}~~ \Phi (rx+sy)=(rx+Ix, sy+Iy)$$
is an $R$-module epiomomorphism with $Ker(\Phi)=Ix\oplus Iy$. Therefore:
$$M\cong\frac{Re}{Ie}\cong\frac{Rx\oplus Ry}{Ix\oplus Iy}\cong \frac{Rx}{Ix}\oplus \frac{Ry}{Iy}.$$
Now we claim that both $Rx/Ix$ and $Ry/Iy$ are nonzero, for if not, without loss of generality, we can assume that, $Rx/Ix=0$. Then $Rx=Ix$ and since $I \subseteq J(R)$, we conclude that $J(R)(Rx)=Rx$, and so by Nakayama Lemma, $Rx=0$.
Thus $Re$ is an indecomposable direct summand of $_RR$ and so by [1, Corollary 7.4],
$e$ is a primitive idempotent.
(h) $(2) \Rightarrow (3).$ Clearly the natural map $Re\rightarrow Re/Ie\rightarrow 0$ is a projective cover of $M$ and since $e$ is a primitive idempotent in $R$, so by [1, Corollary 7.4], $Re$ is an indecomposable direct summand of $_RR$.
(h) $(3) \Rightarrow (4).$ By [1, Projective Covers 27.13], $top(M)\cong Re/J(R)e$ and by [1, Proposition 27.10], the module $Re/J(R)e$ is a simple module. Thus $top(M)$ is a simple module.
(h) $(4) \Rightarrow (5).$ Assume that $top (M) = M/{\rm rad}(M)$ is simple. It follows that $M$ has a unique maximal submodule which contains any proper submodule of $M$, i.e., $M$ is a local module. Thus $M$ is a cyclic indecomposable $R$-module.
(h) $(5) \Rightarrow (1)$. if $M$ is not cyclic, then $Rm\leq rad(M)$ for each $m\in M$, i.e., $M=rad(M)$, a contradiction, also if $M=Rm_1 \bigoplus Rm_2$, for some nonzero elements $m_1, m_2\in M$, then $M$ have at least two distinct maximal submodules, it is a contradiction.
(i) If $top(M)\hookrightarrow R/J(R)$ (i.e., $s_{i_j}\leq t_{i_j}$ for all $1\leq j\leq k$), then by using Parts (c), (d)
and (e), we get that $P=(Re_{i_1})^{s_{i_1}}\oplus...\oplus (Re_{i_k})^{s_{i_k}}$ is a direct summand of $R$ and it is equal to the projective cover of $M$. Since $P$ is cyclic, so $M$ is also cyclic.
The converse is by the fact $M \cong Re/Ie$ and $top(M) = \frac{Re/Ie}{J(Re/Ie)} \cong \frac{Re/Ie}{J(R)e/Ie} \cong Re/J(R)e \hookrightarrow R/J(R)$.
\end{proof}
In the continuation of this section, we will explain some contents of Wisbauer's book [52] regarding the functors rings of the
finitely generated modules of $R$-Mod, which we will use extensively in the next sections.
Let $\cal{U}$ be a non-empty set (class) of objects in a
category $\cal{C}$. An object $A$ in $\cal{C}$ is said to be {\it generated by} $\cal{U}$ or {\it $\cal{U}$-generated} if,
for every pair of distinct morphisms $f, g : A \rightarrow B$ in $\cal{C}$, there is a morphism
$h : U \rightarrow A$ with $U\in \cal{U}$ and $hf \neq hg$. In this case $\cal{U}$ is called a {\it set (class) of
generators for} $A$. Let $M$ be an $R$-module. We recall that an $R$-module $N$ is
{\it subgenerated by $M$}, or that $M$ is a {\it subgenerator} for $N$, if $N$ is isomorphic to
a submodule of an $M$-generated module. We denote by $\sigma[M]$ the full subcategory of $R$-Mod whose objects are
all $R$-modules subgenerated by $M$ (which is the ``smallest" subcategory of $R$-Mod which contains $M$ and is
a {\it Grothendieck category}).
Let $\{V_\alpha\}_A$ be a family of finitely generated $R$-modules and $V = \bigoplus_AV_\alpha$.
For any $N\in R$-Mod we define:
$$\widehat{H}om(V, N)=\{f\in Hom(V, N) ~|~ f(V_\alpha) = 0~{\rm for~ almost~ all~} \alpha\in A\}.$$
For $N=V$ , we write $\widehat{H}om(V, V )= \widehat{E}nd(V)$. Note that these constructions
do not depend on the decomposition of $V$ (see [52, Chap. 10, Sec. 51] for more ditals).
For a left $R$-module $M$, let $\{U_\alpha\}_A$ be a representing set of the finitely
generated modules in $\sigma[M]$. We define $U=\bigoplus_AU_\alpha$, $T = \widehat{E}nd(U)$ and call $T$ the {\it functor ring of the
finitely generated modules of $\sigma[M]$}. Then by [52, Chap. 10, Sec. 52], for any module $M$, $U$ is a generator in $\sigma[M]$ and by [52, Page 507, Part (10) ],
the functor $\widehat{H}om(U, -)$ is an equivalence between the subcategories of the direct
summands of direct sums of finitely generated modules in $\sigma[M]$ and the
projective modules in $T$-Mod.
\begin{Rem}\label{progenerator}
{\rm Let $M$ be a left $R$-module. If $P$ is a finitely generated projective generator in $\sigma[M]$ (i.e., $P$ is a progenerator in $\sigma[M]$), then by [52, Proposition 46.4],
$Hom(P, -) : \sigma[M] \rightarrow End(P )$-Mod is an equivalence, and so by [52, Chap. 10, Sec. 52], we have $End(U)\cong End(Hom(P, U))$ and
$$T = \widehat{E}nd (U)\cong \widehat{E}nd(Hom(P, U)) \cong \widehat{E}nd (\bigoplus Hom(P, U_\alpha)).$$
Since $\{Hom_R(P, U\alpha)\}_A$ is a representing set of the finitely generated
$End(P)$-modules, in this case $\sigma[M]$ and $End(P)$-Mod have isomorphic
functor rings.}
\end{Rem}
Thus we conclude that if $M=R$, and $\{U_\alpha\}_A$ is a representing set of the finitely generated modules in $R$-Mod, then always $U=\bigoplus_AU_\alpha$ is a generator in $R$-Mod.
Moreover, if $R$ is a left Artinian ring, then every finitely generated left $R$-module has finite length and hence is a direct sum of indecomposable modules.
So we have $U = \bigoplus_A U_\alpha=\bigoplus_\Lambda V_\lambda$, where $V_\lambda$ is a finitely generated indecomposable module. Since
$T$ is independent of the decomposition chosen for $U$, $T = \widehat{E}nd(\bigoplus_A U_\alpha) =\widehat{E}nd(\bigoplus_\Lambda V_\lambda)$. (see also [52, Page 533, the proof of (b)--(f) ]) .
Thus we have the following:
\begin{Pro}\label{left Artinian}
Let $R$ be a left Artinian ring, $\{V_\alpha\}_A$ be a complete set of representative set of all finitely generated (indecomposable) left $R$-modules, $V=\bigoplus_AV_\alpha$ and $T=\widehat{E}nd(V)$.~Then:\\
\indent {\rm (a)} $V$ is a generator in $R$-Mod.\\
\indent {\rm (b)} $\widehat{H}om (V, -)$ preserves essential extensions.\\
\indent {\rm (c)} The functor ring $T$ is semi-perfect.\\
\indent {\rm (d)} $V_T$ is finitely generated projective in Mod-$T$ and Mod-$T = \sigma[V_T]$ (i.e., $V_T$ is a \indent\indent progenerator in $\sigma[V_T]$).\\
\indent {\rm (e)} $End(V_T )\cong End(V_{T^{\prime}})\cong R$, where $T^{\prime}=End(V)$.\\
\indent {\rm (f)} If $M$ is a simple left $R$-module, then $\widehat{H}om(V, M)$ has a simple essential socle. \\
\indent {\rm (g)} A finitely generated (indecomposable) left $R$-module $M$ has square-free (essential) \indent\indent socle if and only if $\widehat{H}om(V, M)$ has square-free essential socle.\\
\indent {\rm (h)} A left $R$-module $M$ has simple (essential) socle if and only if $\widehat{H}om(V, M)$ has \indent\indent simple essential socle.\\
\indent {\rm (i)} If $R$ is a left pure semisimple ring, then
$\widehat{H}om(V, -)$ is an equivalence between \indent\indent the full categories of left $R$-modules and the
projective modules in $T$-Mod.
\end{Pro}
\begin{proof} (a) is by [52, Chap. 10, Sec. 52], (b) and (c) are by [52, Proposition 51.7)] and (d), (e) and (f) are by [52, Proposition 51.8)].
(g). Since $R$ is left Artinian, then for every finitely generated (indecomposable) left $R$-module $M$, $soc(M)=S_1\oplus...\oplus S_n\leq_e M$, where $S_i^,s$ are simple. By (f) each $\widehat{H}om_R(V,S_i)$ is a simple $T$-module and by (b),
$$\bigoplus_{1}^n \widehat{H}om_R(V,S_i)= \widehat{H}om_R(V,soc(M))\leq_e \widehat{H}om_R(V,M)\leq_e \bigoplus_{i=1}^n \widehat{H}om_R(V,E(S_i)).$$
It follows that $soc(\widehat{H}om_R(V,M))= \bigoplus_{1}^n \widehat{H}om_R(V,S_i)$ and is clear that $S_i\ncong S_j$ if and only if $\widehat{H}om_R(V,S_i)\ncong \widehat{H}om_R(V,S_j)$.
(h) is by the proof of (g) for $n=1$.
(i) Since $R$ is left Artinian and the fact that every left $R$-module is a direct sum of finitely generated (indecomposable) modules, the proof is by [52, Page 507, Part (10)].
\end{proof}
We recall that an injective left $R$-module $Q$ is a {\it cogenerator} in the category of left $R$-modules if and only if it
cogenerates every simple left $R$-module, or equivalently, $Q$ contains every simple left $R$-module as a submodule (up to isomorphism) (see [52, Proposition 16.5]
Also, a cogenerator $Q$ is called {\it minimal cogenerator} if $Q\cong \oplus_{i\in I}E(S_i)$, where $I$ is an index set and $\{S_i~|~i\in I\}$ is a complete set of representative of the isomorphic classes of simple left $R$-modules.
Let $R$ and $S$ be two rings. Then an additive contravariant functor $F:R$-mod$\rightarrow$mod-$S$ is called {\it duality} if it is an equivalence of categories (see [52, 19, Chap. 9]).
A ring $R$ is called a {\it left Morita ring} if there is an injective cogenerator $_RU$ in $R$-Mod such that for $S={\rm End}(_RU)$, the module $U_S$ is an injective cogenerator in Mod-$S$ and $R\cong {\rm End}(U_S)$.
\begin{Rem}\label{finite representation type}
{\rm Let $R$ be a ring of finite representation type, $V:=V_1\oplus...\oplus V_n $, where $\{V_1,...,V_n\}$ is a complete set of representative of the isomorphic classes of finitely
generated indecomposable left $R$-modules and $Q\cong \bigoplus_{i=1}^mE(S_i)$, where $\{S_i~|1\leq i\leq m\}$ is a complete set of representative of the isomorphic classes of simple left $R$-modules. Clearly, the functor ring $T=\widehat{E}nd(V)$ is equal to $ End_R(V)$, and in this case, the ring $T:= End_R(V)$ is called the {\it left Auslander ring} of $R$. By [3, Proposition 3.6], $T$ is an Artinian ring and so soc$(T_T)$ is an essential submodule of $T_T$ and $T$ contains only finitely many non-isomorphic types of simple modules. Also, by [52, Proposition 46.7], the functor ${\rm Hom}_R(V,-)$ establishes an equivalence between the category of left $R$-modules and the full subcategory of finitely generated projective left $T$-modules, which preserves and reflects finitely generated left $R$-modules and finitely generated indecomposable left $R$-modules correspond to finitely generated indecomposable projective $T$-modules (see [52, Proposition 51.7,(5)]). In fact,
each finitely generated indecomposable projective $T$-module is local and hence it is the projective cover of a simple $T$-module. Therefore ${\rm Hom}_R(V,-)$ yields a bijection between a minimal representing set of finitely generated, indecomposable left $R$-modules and the set of projective covers of non-isomorphic simple left $T$-modules.}
\end{Rem}
\begin{Rem}\label{left Morita}
{\rm By the above
considerations, $S = End_R(Q)$ is a ring and since $Q$ is finitely generated, the functor ${\rm Hom}_R(-,Q)$ : $R$-mod$\rightarrow$ mod-$S$ is a duality
and $S$ is a right Artinian ring. By duality, we see that $\{Hom_R(V_1,Q),...,Hom_R(V_n,Q)\}$ is a complete set of representative of the isomorphic classes of finitely generated indecomposable right $S$-modules. It follows that $S$ is an Artinian ring of finite type. Thus $T^\prime =End_S(\bigoplus_{i=1}^n Hom_R(V_i,Q))$ is the right Auslander ring of $S$. By [52, Proposition 47.15], the left Auslander ring $T$ of $R$ is isomorphic to the right Auslander ring $T^\prime$ of $S$. Thus $R$ is left Morita to $S = End_R(Q)$ (see [52, Exercises 52.9 (2)]).}
\end{Rem}
\begin{Rem}\label{duality}
{\rm By the above remarks, and by [52, Proposition 47.3], we see that the functor ${\rm Hom}_R(-,Q)$ : $R$-mod$\rightarrow$ mod-$S$ is a duality with the inverse duality ${\rm Hom}_S(-,Q)$ : Mod-$S\rightarrow R$-Mod.
By [1, Proposition 24.5] for each finitely generated left $R$-module $X$, the lattice of all $R$-submodules of $M$ and the lattice of all $S$-submodules of
${\rm Hom}_R(M,Q)$ are anti-isomorphic. Hence for each finitely generated left $R$-module $X$, ${\rm soc(Hom}_R(X,Q))\cong {\rm Hom}_R(top(X),Q)$, $top(Hom(X,Q)) = \frac{Hom(X,Q)}{rad(Hom(X,Q))}\cong Hom(soc(X), Q))$ as $S$-modules (see [1, 24. Exercises, Exercises 6]). }
\end{Rem}
The following summarizes all the facts presented above on rings of finite type.
\begin{Pro}\label{equivalence}
Let $R$ be a ring of finite representation type, $U:=U_1\oplus...\oplus U_n $, where $\{U_1,...,U_n\}$ is a complete set of representative of the isomorphic classes of finitely
generated indecomposable left $R$-modules, $Q\cong E(S_1)\oplus...\oplus E(S_m)$, where $\{S_i~|~1\leq i\leq m\}$ is a complete set of representative of the isomorphic classes of simple left $R$-modules, $T:=End_R(U)$ and $S= End_R(Q)$. Then:\vspace*{0.2cm} \\
\indent {\rm (a)} The functor ${\rm Hom}_R(U,-)$ establishes an equivalence between the category of left \indent \indent $R$-modules and the full subcategory of finitely generated projective left $T$-modules. \\
\indent {\rm (b)} The functor ${\rm Hom}_R(-,Q)$ : $R$-Mod$\rightarrow$ Mod-$S$ is a duality with the inverse duality \indent \indent ${\rm Hom}_S(-,Q) : $Mod-$S\rightarrow R$-Mod. \\
\indent {\rm (c)} $S$ is a right Artinian ring and $\{Hom_R(U_1,Q),...,Hom_R(U_n,Q)\}$ is a complete \indent \indent set of representative of the isomorphic classes of finitely generated indecomposable \indent \indent right $S$-modules. \\
\indent {\rm (d)} The left Auslander ring $T$ of $R$ is isomorphic to the right Auslander ring $T^\prime$ of $S$ \indent\indent (thus $R$ is left Morita to $S = End_R(Q)$). \\
\indent {\rm (e)} If $P$ is an indecomposable projective left $T$-module, then $P\cong Hom_R(U,M)$ for \indent \indent some indecomposable left $R$-module $M$.\\
\indent {\rm (f)} An indecomposable left $R$-module $M$ has square-free socle if and only if the left \indent\indent $T$-module $Hom_R(U,M)$ has square-free socle. \\
\indent {\rm (g)} An indecomposable left $R$-module $M$ has simple socle if and only if the left $T$- \indent\indent module $Hom_R(U,M)$ has simple socle. \\
\indent {\rm (h)} If $M$ is a finitely generated (indecomposable) left $R$-module with square-free top, \indent\indent then the right $S$-module ${\rm Hom}_R(M,Q)$ has square-free socle. \\
\indent {\rm (i)} If $M$ is an indecomposable left $R$-module with square-free top, then $M$ is cyclic with \indent\indent simple top and so the right $S$-module ${\rm Hom}_R(M,Q)$ has simple socle. \\
\indent {\rm (j)} If $M$ is an indecomposable left $R$-module with simple top, then the right $S$-module \indent\indent ${\rm Hom}_R(M,Q)$ has simple socle. \\
\indent {\rm (k)} If $Y$ is a finitely generated (indecomposable) right $S$-module with square-free socle, \indent\indent then left $R$-module ${\rm Hom}_S(Y,Q)$ has square-free top. \\
\indent {\rm (l)} If $Y$ is an indecomposable right $S$-module with simple socle, then the left $R$-module \indent\indent ${\rm Hom}_S(Y,Q)$ has simple top. \\
\indent {\rm (m)} For each finitely generated left $R$-module $X$, as $S$-modules, we have:
$$soc(Hom_R(X,Q))\cong Hom_R(top(X),Q).$$
\indent {\rm (n)} For each finitely generated left $R$-module $X$, as $S$-modules, we have:
$$top(Hom(X,Q)) = \frac{Hom(X,Q)}{rad(Hom(X,Q))}\cong Hom(soc(X), Q)).$$
\end{Pro}
\begin{proof} The facts (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) are by Proposition 2.5, and the facts (h), (i), (j), (k), (l), (m) are by Remarks 2.8, 2.9 and 2.10.
\end{proof}
\section{\bf Characterizations of left co-K{\"o}the rings and generalized left co-K{\"o}the rings}
The main purpose of this section is to completely solve the Problems 1.8 and 1.9 raised in the introduction of this article.
We start this section with the following theorem, which is used in the part of proving the main theorem of this section, which is about solving Problem 4.
\begin{The}\label{is left Noetherian}
The following statement are equivalent for a ring $R$:\\
\noindent {{\rm (1)}} Every injective left $R$-modules is a direct sums of square-free modules.\\
\noindent {{\rm (2)}} Every injective left $R$-module is a direct sum of modules with cyclic socle.\\
\noindent {{\rm (3)}} $R$ is left Noetherian.
\end{The}
\begin{proof} Let $M$ be an $R$-module, and ${\rm soc}(M) = \bigoplus_{\lambda \in \Lambda} S_{\lambda}$, where $S_{\lambda}$'s are simple modules. Then the cardinal number ${\rm card}(\Lambda)$ is denoted by $c(M)$. This cardinal number is uniquely determined.
(1) $\Rightarrow$ (3). Let $N$ be an injective square-free left $R$-module. The simple submodules of $N$ are non-isomorphic to each other and $c(N) \leqslant \kappa $, where $\kappa$ is the cardinal number of the set of left maximal ideals of $R$. Thus, every injective left $R$-module is a direct sum of modules $\lbrace N_{\gamma}\rbrace_{\gamma \in \Gamma}$ with $c(N_{\gamma}) \leq \kappa$. So by [52, Proposition 27.5], $R$ is left Neotherian.
(3) $\Rightarrow$ (1). It is clear by [52, Proposition 27.5], and the fact that every indecomposable injective R-module is uniform, and hence square-free.
(2) $\Rightarrow$ (3). Let $N$ be an injective left $R$-module with cyclic socle. Set $k = {\rm card}(R)$, then $c(N) \leq {\rm card} (soc(N)) \leq {\rm card}(R)$, since $soc(N)$ is cyclic. Thus, every injective left $R$-module is a direct sum of modules $\lbrace N_{\gamma}\rbrace_{\gamma \in \Gamma}$ with $c(N_{\gamma}) \leq {\rm card}(R)$. So by [52, 27.5], $R$ is left Neotherian.
(3) $\Rightarrow$ (2). It is clear by [52, Proposition 27.5], and the fact that every indecomposable injective $R$-module is uniform, and so it has a uniform socle. As a result of, it has a simple (and hence cyclic) socle.
\end{proof}
Next, we need the following lemma from B. Zimmermann-Huisgen, and W. Zimmermann [53].
\begin{Lem}\label{Zimmermann} \textup {([53, Page 2])}
For a ring $R$ the following statments are equivalent:\\
\noindent {{\rm (1)}} Each left $R$-module is a direct sum of finitely generated modules.\\
\noindent {{\rm (2)}} There exists a cardinal number $\aleph$ such that each left $R$-module is a direct sum of \indent ${\aleph}{-\rm generated ~modules.}$\\
\noindent {{\rm (3)}} Each left $R$-module is a direct sum of indecomposable modules (i.e., $R$ is a left pure \indent semisimple ring).
\end{Lem}
Now, we give a new characterization of left pure semisimple rings.
\begin{The}\label{left pure semisimple}
The following are equivalent for a ring $R$:\\
\indent {{\rm (1)}} Every nonzero left $R$-module is a direct sum of modules with nonzero finitely gene- \indent\indent rated socle.\\
\indent {{\rm (2)}} $R$ is a left pure semisimple ring.
\end{The}
\begin{proof}
(1) $\Rightarrow$ (2). Assume that $M$ is a left $R$-module. Then $M=\bigoplus_{\lambda \in \Lambda} K_\lambda$, where $\Lambda$ is an index set and for each ${\lambda \in \Lambda}$, $K_\lambda\leq M$ and ${\rm soc}(K_\lambda) \neq 0$ and it has finite length. Since every nonzero submodule of $K_\lambda$ is also a direct sum of modules with nonzero cyclic socle, so every nonzero submodule of $K_\lambda$ contains a simple module. It follows that ${\rm soc}(K_\lambda) \leq_e K_\lambda$ for each $\lambda \in \Lambda$. Thus \\
$K_\lambda \leq E(soc(K_\lambda))\cong E(\bigoplus_{i=1}^nR/P_i)$, where $n\in\Bbb{N}$ and $P_i$'s are maximal left ideals of
$R$.
Let ${\aleph}=Card(E)$, where $E=\bigoplus_{\Gamma} E(N_\gamma)$, and $\{N_\gamma~|~\gamma\in\Gamma\}$ is a mutually non-isomorphic finitely generated semisimple left $R$-modules.
Then every left $R$-module is a direct sum of ${\aleph}$-generated $R$-modules and so by Lemma 3.2, $R$ is left pure semisimple.
(2) $\Rightarrow$ (1). It is by Lemma 3.2 and the fact that a left pure semisimple ring is left Artinian.\end{proof}
We recall that a semi-perfect ring $R$ is called {\it left} (resp., {\it right}) {\it $QF$-2} if every indecomposable projective left
(resp., right) $R$-module has a simple essential socle (see [19]).
\noindent {\bf Definitions 2}. We will say that a semi-perfect ring $R$ is a\\
--- {\it generalized left} (resp., {\it right}) {\it $QF$-2 ring} if every indecomposable projective left (resp., \indent right) $R$-module has a square-free socle.\\
--- {\it generalized } {\it $QF$-2 ring} if $R$ is both a generalized left and a generalized right $QF$-2 ring.\\
--- {\it left } (resp., {\it right}) {\it co-$QF$-2 ring} if every indecomposable projective left (resp., right) \indent $R$-module has a simple top.\\
--- {\it co-$QF$-2 ring} if $R$ is both a left and a right co-$QF$-2 ring.\\
--- {\it generalized left} (resp., {\it right}) {\it co-$QF$-2 ring} if every indecomposable projective left (resp., \indent right) $R$-module $P$ has a square-free top.\\
--- {\it generalized co-$QF$-2 ring} if $R$ is both a generalized left and a generalized right co-$QF$-2 \indent ring.
Let $M$ be an $R$-module. We recall that a submodule $N$ of $M$ will be called a {\it pure submodule} of $M$ if $N\cap rM=rN$ for all
$r\in R$. It is trivial to verify that every direct summand of $M$ is a pure submodule of $M$.
The concept of purity is well known in the theory of abelian groups (see Kaplansky [28, Page 14]).
The following lemma plays an important role in this section.
\begin{Lem}\label{chase}\textup {(Chase [7, Theorem 3.1])}
Let $R$ be a ring, and $J$ be an infinite set of cardinality $\zeta$ where
$\zeta\geq card(R)$. Set $A =\prod_{\alpha\in J}R^{(\alpha)}$, where $R^{(\alpha)}\cong R$ is a left $R$-module. Suppose
that $A$ is a pure submodule of a left $R$-module of the form $C=\bigoplus_\beta C_\beta$, where
each $C_\beta$ is generated by a subset of cardinality less than or equal to $\zeta$. Then $R$
must satisfy the descending chain condition on principal right ideals
\end{Lem}
We recall that a ring $R$ is said to be of {\it left bounded (representation) type}, if it is left Artinian and there is a finite upper bound for the lengths of the finitely
generated indecomposable modules in $R$-Mod. By [52, Proposition 54.3], $R$ is of left bounded representation type if and only if $R$ is of finite representation type.
We are now in a position to present the main theorem of this section. This is our solution to Problem 1.9. This characterization makes an interesting connection between the three concepts, generalized left co-K{\"o}the rings, generalized left $QF$-2 rings and generalized right co-$QF$-2 rings.
\begin{The}\label{Theorem}\label{generalized left co-Kothe}
The following conditions are equivalent for a ring $R$:\vspace*{0.2cm} \\
\indent {{\rm (1)}} $R$ is a generalized left co-K{\"o}the ring. \\
\indent {{\rm (2)}} $R$ is left Artinian and every left $R$-module is a direct sum of modules with square- \indent\indent free socle.\\
\indent {{\rm (3)}} $R$ is left pure semisimple and every $($finitely generated$)$ indecomposable left $R$- \indent\indent module has square-free socle.\\
\indent {{\rm (4)}} $R$ is of finite type and every $($finitely generated$)$ indecomposable left $R$-module has \indent\indent square-free socle.\\
\indent {{\rm (5)}} $R$ is of finite type and the left Auslander ring of $R$ is a generalized left $QF$-2 ring \\
\indent {{\rm (6)}} $R$ is of finite type and the left Auslander ring of $R$ is a generalized right co-$QF$-2 \indent\indent ring.
\end{The}
\begin{proof}
(1) $\Rightarrow$ (2). First we prove that for every (minimal) prime ideal $\mathcal{P}$ of $R$ the ring $R / \mathcal{P}$ is a simple Artinian ring. For see this, let $\mathcal{P}$ be a minimal prime ideal of $R$.
Then by Theorem 3.1, $R$ is left Noetherian and so $R / \mathcal{P}$ is a prime left Goldie ring. Set $\bar{R} := R / \mathcal{P}$. It's easy to see that every left $\bar{R}$-module is a direct sum of square-free modules. By assumption, $M= \bar{R}^{E(R)}$
(the direct product of $E(R)$ copies of $\bar{R}$) is a direct sum of square-free $\bar{R}$-modules $\{K_{\lambda}\}_{\lambda \in \Lambda}$, where $\Lambda$ is a set. By [20, Proposition 7.8 and 7.9],
every left $\bar{R}$-module $K_{\lambda}$ is torsion-free. We claim that each of $K_{\lambda}$ is a uniform $\bar{R}$-module; for if not, let $K := K_{\lambda}$ be non-uniform, then
$\bar{R}x \bigoplus \bar{R}y \subseteq K$ for some $0 \neq x, y \in K$. Since $\bar{R}$ has finite rank, $\bar{R}x \bigoplus \bar{R}y$ has finite rank $n \geqslant 2$. But $\bar{R}x \bigoplus \bar{R}y$ is torsion-free, then by
[20, Proposition 7.24], it has an essential submodule isomorphic to $\bigoplus^{n}U$ where $U$ is a uniform left ideal of $\bar{R}$. This contradicts the square-freeness property of $K$,
hence $K_{\lambda}$'s are uniform. Thus by [20, Proposition 7.18], each $K_{\lambda}$ has an essential submodule $B$ which is isomorphic to a left ideal $I$ of $\bar{R}$. It follows that
\begin{center}
$K_{\lambda} \subseteq E(K_{\lambda}) = E(B) \cong E(I) \subseteq E(\bar{R}).$
\end{center}
Therefore, by Lemma 3.4, we conclude that $\bar{R}$ has dcc on principal right ideals. Hence $soc_{r}(\bar{R}) \neq 0$. Since $\bar{R}$ is a prime ring, ${\rm soc}_{l}(\bar{R}) = {\rm soc}_{r}(\bar{R})$, and so by [20, Corollary 7.16], $\bar{R}$ is a simple Artinian ring.
Now we show that $R$ is in fact a left Artinian ring. Assume that $N(R)$ is the prime radical of $R$. Clearly, every $R/N(R)$-module is a direct sum of square-free $R/N(R)$-modules. Thus by Theorem 3.1, $\bar{R} = R/N(R)$ is a semiprime left Goldie ring and every (minimal) prime ideal of $R/N(R)$ is maximal. So by [20, Proposition 7.1], there exist only finitely many distinct minimal prime, hence maximal, ideals of $\bar{R}$. This implies that there exist only finitely many distinct minimal prime, hence maximal, ideals $\mathcal{P}_{1}, \ldots , \mathcal{P}_n$ of $R$. Now by [52, Proposition 9.13],
\begin{center}
$R/N(R)\cong R/\mathcal{P}_{1} \bigoplus \cdots \bigoplus R/\mathcal{P}_{n}$
\end{center}
Since each $R/\mathcal{P}_{i}$ is a simple Artinian ring, so $R/N(R)$ is a semisimple Artinian ring. Furthermore, by Theorem 3.1, $R$ is left Noetherian, and so $N(R)^{m} = 0$, for some $m \in \mathbb{N}$. Moreover, each $N(R)^{i}/N(R)^{i+1}$ is a finitely generated $R$-module and hence a finitely generated $R/N(R)$-module. Thus each $N(R)^{i}/N(R)^{i+1}$ is Artinian, and so $R$ is a left Artinian ring. Clearly, in this case every left $R$-module is a direct sum of modules with square-free socle.
(2) $\Rightarrow$ (3). Since $R$ is a left Artinian ring,
so there are only finitely many non-isomorphic simple $R$-modules by [52, Proposition 32.4]. Set $W=\bigoplus_{i=1}^k S_i$ is a direct sum of all non-isomorphic simple $R$-modules. Now let $K$ be a left $R$-module with square-free socle. Then ${\rm {\rm soc}}(K) \hookrightarrow W$ and ${\rm soc}(K) \subseteq_{e} K$, since $R$ is left Artinian. Hence
\begin{center}
$K \subseteq E(K) = E({\rm {\rm soc}}(K)) \hookrightarrow E(W)$
\end{center}
Let ${\aleph}=Card(E(W))$, then every left $R$-module is a direct sum of ${\aleph}$-generated $R$-modules and so by Lemma 3.2, $R$ is a left pure semisimple ring.
(3) $\Rightarrow$ (1). Since $R$ is left pure semisimple, by [7, Theorem 4.4], $R$ is a left Artinian ring and every left $R$-module is a direct sum of finitely generated indecomposable left $R$-modules. Thus the proof is completed by Lemma 2.1.
(3) $\Rightarrow$ (4). Since $R$ is left pure semisimple, so by [7, Theorem 4.4], $R$ is a left Artinian ring. Thus there are only finitely many non-isomorphic simple $R$-modules by [52, Proposition 32.4]. Set $W=\bigoplus_{i=1}^k S_i$ is a direct sum of all non-isomorphic simple $R$-modules. Let $K$ be a left $R$-module with square-free socle. Then ${\rm soc}(K) \subseteq_{e} K$, and hence hence
\begin{center}
$K \subseteq E(K) = E({\rm {\rm soc}}(K)) \hookrightarrow E(W)~~~~~~(*)$
\end{center}
Since each $S_i$ is uniform, so $E(S_i)$ is an indecomposable finitely generated module and hence ${\rm length} (E(S_i))< \infty$ for $i=1,...,k$. It follows that ${\rm length}(E(W))< \infty$ and we set ${\rm length}(E(W))=m$. Combining this fact with Inequality $(*)$, we obtain that for each finitely generated indecomposable module $K$,
$${\rm length} (K) \leq{\rm length} (E(K))\leq {\rm length} (E(W))=m.$$
Therefore, $_RR$ is of bounded representation type and so by [52, Proposition 54.3], $R$ has finite representation type and every (finitely generated) indecomposable left $R$-module has square-free socle.
In the next steps of proof, for the finite type ring $R$, by Proposition 2.11, we have the following assumptions.
\noindent (i) The left Auslander ring of $R$ is $T={\rm End}_R(U)$, where $U=U_1\oplus...\oplus U_n $ and $\{U_1,...,U_n\}$ \indent is a complete set of representative of the isomorphic classes of finitely
generated inde- \indent composable left $R$-modules.\\
(ii) $S=End(Q)$, where $Q\cong E(S_1)\oplus...\oplus E(S_m)$, where $\{S_i~|~1\leq i\leq m\}$ is a complete \indent set of representative of the isomorphic
classes of simple left $R$-modules.\\
(iii) $\{Hom_R(U_1,Q),...,Hom_R(U_n,Q)\}$ is a complete set of representative of the isomorphic \indent classes of finitely generated indecomposable right $S$-modules.
(4) $\Rightarrow$ (5).
Since every indecomposable left $R$-module has square-free socle, by Proposition 2.11, every indecomposable projective left $T$-module has square-free socle. Thus $T$ is a generalized left $QF$-2 ring by our definition.
(5) $\Rightarrow$ (3). It is by Proposition 2.11 (a) and (f).
(5) $\Rightarrow$ (6).
By Proposition 2.11 (d), $T\cong T^\prime$, where $T^\prime$ is the right Auslander ring of $S$. By our hypothesis each $U_i$ has square-free socle. By Proposition 2.11 (m), we have $Hom(soc(U_i), Q)) \cong soc(\bigoplus_{k=1}^{m}Hom(S_{i}, Q)) = top(Hom(U_i , Q))$. It follows that every indecomposable right $S$-module $Hom(U_i,Q)$ has a square-free top. Thus every finitely generated indecomposable projective right $T$-module has a square-free top, i.e., $T$ is a generalized right co-$QF$-2 ring.
(6) $\Rightarrow$ (5). By Proposition 2.11 (d), $T\cong T^\prime$, where $T^\prime$ is the right Auslander ring of $S$. By Proposition 2.11 (c) and (e), it is enough to show that $Hom(U_{i} , Q)$ has a square free top. By Proposition 2.11 (n), we have $top(Hom(U_{i} , Q)) \cong Hom_{R}(soc(U_i), Q)$ and since each $top(Hom(U_{i} , Q))$ is square-free, we conclude that $soc(U_{i})$ is also square-free for each $i$. Thus
$R$ is of finite type and every $($finitely generated$)$ indecomposable left $R$-module has square-free socle.
\end{proof}
The following result is a consequence of Theorem 3.5, which is a solution to Problem 1.9 in the two sided case
\begin{Cor}\label{Cor}\label{generalized co-Kothe}
The following conditions are equivalent for a ring $R$:\vspace*{0.2cm} \\
\indent {{\rm (1)}} $R$ is a generalized co-K{\"o}the ring. \\
\indent {{\rm (2)}} $R$ is an Artinian ring and every left and right $R$-module is a direct sum of modules \indent\indent with square-free socle.\\
\indent {{\rm (3)}} $R$ is a pure semisimple ring and every left and right $($finitely generated$)$ indecom- \indent\indent posable left $R$-module has square-free socle.\\
\indent {{\rm (4)}} $R$ is of finite type and every $($finitely generated$)$ indecomposable left and right $R$- \indent\indent module has square-free $($cyclic$)$ socle.\\
\indent {{\rm (5)}} $R$ is of finite type, the left Auslander ring of $R$ is a generalized left $QF$-2 ring and \indent\indent the right Auslander ring of $R$ is a generalized right $QF$-2 ring. \\
\indent {{\rm (6)}} $R$ is of finite type, the left Auslander ring of $R$ is a generalized right co-$QF$-2 ring \indent\indent and the right Auslander ring of $R$ is a generalized left
co-$QF$-2 ring.
\end{Cor}
An $R$-module $N$ is called {\it uniserial} if its submodules are linearly ordered
by inclusion. If $_RR$ (resp. $R_R$) is uniserial we call $R$ {\it left} ({\it right}) {\it uniserial}. Note that uniserial modules are in particular local module, and local modules are cyclic modules.
A {\it uniserial ring} is a ring which is both left and right uniserial. Note that commutative uniserial rings are also known as valuation rings.
Also, we call an $R$-module $M$ {\it serial} if it is a direct sum of uniserial modules.
The ring $R$ is called {\it left (right) serial} if $_RR$ (resp. $R_R$) is a serial module.
We say $R$ is {\it serial} if $R$ is left and right serial.
An Artinian ring $R$ is said to have {\it left colocal type} if every finitely generated indecomposable left $R$-module has simple socle. Such rings and algebras have been investigated by several authors including Makino [33], Sumioka [45, 46], Tachikawa [47, 48], and a special case by Fuller [18].
Artinian serial rings clearly have finite type as well as right and left colocal type.
Extending modules form a natural class of modules which is more general than the class of injective modules but retains many of its desirable properties. Recall that a module $M$ is called an {\it extending module} (or, {\it $CS$-module}) if every submodule is essential in a direct summand of $M$. Extending modules generalize (quasi-)injective, semisimple, and
uniform modules and have been extensively studied over the last few decades (see [10]
for a detailed account of such modules). In [11, Theorem 1 ], Er proved that the rings whose right modules are direct sums of extending modules coincide with those
$R$ has finite representation type and right colocal type.
The following is our solution to Problem 1.8.
\begin{The}\label{left co-Kothe}
The following conditions are equivalent for a ring $R$:\vspace*{0.2cm} \\
\indent {{\rm (1)}} $R$ is a left co-K{\"o}the ring. \\
\indent {{\rm (2)}} $R$ is left Artinian and every left $R$-module is a direct sum of square-free modules \indent\indent with simple socle.\\
\indent {{\rm (3)}} $R$ is left pure semisimple and every $($finitely generated$)$ indecomposable left $R$- \indent\indent module has simple socle.\\
\indent {{\rm (4)}} $R$ is of finite type and every $($finitely generated$)$ indecomposable left $R$-module has \indent\indent simple socle $($i.e., $R$ is of finite type and has left colocal type.$)$\\
\indent {{\rm (5)}} $R$ is of finite type and the left Auslander ring of $T$ of $R$ is a left $QF$-2 ring \\
\indent {{\rm (6)}} $R$ is of finite type and left Auslander ring of $T$ of $R$ is a right co-$QF$-2 ring.\\
\indent {{\rm (7)}} Every left $R$-module is a direct sum of extending modules.\\
\indent {{\rm (8)}} Every left $R$-module is a direct sum of uniform modules.
If these assertions hold, then $R$ is an Artinian left serial ring
\end{The}
\begin{proof}
(1) $\Rightarrow$ (4). Since $R$ is a generalized left co-K{\"o}the ring, by Theorem 3.5, $R$ is of finite representation type. Thus $R$ is a left Artinian ring every (finitely generated) indecomposable left $R$-module has simple socle.
(4) $\Rightarrow$ (3) $\Rightarrow$ (2) $\Rightarrow$ (1). It is clear.
(4) $\Rightarrow$ (5). Since every indecomposable left $R$-module has simple socle, by Proposition 2.11, every indecomposable projective left $T$-module has simple socle, i.e., $T$ is left $QF$-2.
(5) $\Rightarrow$ (1). It is by Proposition 2.11 Parts (a) and (g).
(4) $\Rightarrow$ (6). The left Auslander ring of $R$ is $T={\rm End}_R(U)$, where $U=U_1\oplus...\oplus U_n $ and $\{U_1,...,U_n\}$ is a complete set of representative of the isomorphic classes of finitely
generated indecomposable left $R$-modules,
$S=End(Q)$, where $Q\cong E(S_1)\oplus...\oplus E(S_m)$, where $\{S_i~|~1\leq i\leq m\}$ is a complete set of representative of the isomorphic
classes of simple left $R$-modules, and $\{Hom_R(U_1,Q),...,Hom_R(U_n,Q)\}$ is a complete set of representative of the isomorphic classes of finitely generated indecomposable right $S$-modules.
By Proposition 2.11 (d), $T\cong T^\prime$, where $T^\prime$ is the right Auslander ring of $S$. Thus by Proposition 2.5 (f), it is enough to show that every finitely generated projective indecomposable right
$T^\prime$-module has a simple top. On the other hand, by Proposition 2.11 (a) and (g), it is enough to show that every indecomposable right $S$-module $Hom(U_i,Q)$ has a simple top.
By our hypothesis each $U_i$ has simple socle and hence $Hom(soc(U_i), Q)) \cong soc(\bigoplus_{k=1}^{m}Hom(S_{i}, Q)) = top(Hom(U_i , Q))$ is simple, and the proof is completed, and so $R$ is of finite
type and the left Auslander ring of $R$ is right co-$QF$-2.
(6) $\Rightarrow$ (4). By Proposition 2.11 (d), $T\cong T^\prime$, where $T^\prime$ is the right Auslander ring of $S$. By Proposition 2.11 (m), we have $top(Hom(U_{i} , Q)) \cong Hom_{R}(soc(U_i), Q)$ and since each $top(Hom(U_{i} , Q))$ is simple, we conclude that $soc(U_{i})$ is also simple for each $i$. Thus
$R$ is of finite type and every $($finitely generated$)$ indecomposable left $R$-module has simple socle.
(4) $\Leftrightarrow$ (7) $\Rightarrow$ (8). It is by [11, Theorem 1].
(8) $\Rightarrow$ (7). It is by the facts that every uniform module is extending and if $R$ has finite type and colocal type, then every left $R$-modules is a direct sum offinitely generated indecomposable modules, each of which is now colocal (hence uniform).
The final statement {\it ``$R$ is an Artinian left serial ring"} is also from [11, Theorem 1].
\end{proof}
An Artinian ring $R$ is said to have a {\it self}-({\it Morita}) {\it duality} if there is a Morita duality $D$ between $R$-mod, the category of finitely generated left $R$-modules,
and mod-$R$, the category of finitely generated right $R$-modules. Since we are assuming that $R$ is Artinian, Morita and Azumaya have shown:
$R$ has a self-duality $D$ if and only if there is an injective cogenerator $_RE$ of $R$-mod and a ring isomorphism $v: R \rightarrow End(E)$
(which induces a right $R$-structure on $E$ via $x . r = xv(r)$ for $x \in E$ and $r \in R$), such that the dualities $D$ and $Hom(R , E_R)$ are naturally equivalent. By [27, Corollary 5.13], every Artinian serial ring has self-duality (by the following a co-K{\"o}the ring have a self-duality).\\ Thus we have the following solution to Problem 1.8 in the two sided case.
\begin{Cor}\label{co-Kothe}
The following conditions are equivalent for a ring $R$:\vspace*{0.3cm} \\
\indent {{\rm (1)}} $R$ is a co-K{\"o}the ring. \\
\indent {{\rm (2)}} $R$ is an Artinian serial ring.\\
\indent {{\rm (3)}} $R$ is of finite type and has colocal type.\\
\indent {{\rm (4)}} Every left and right $R$-module is a direct sum of uniform modules.\\
\indent {{\rm (5)}} Every left and right $R$-module is a direct sum of extending modules.\\
\indent {{\rm (6)}} $R$ is of finite type and the left (right) Auslander ring of $R$ is a $QF$-2 ring.\\
\indent {{\rm (7)}} $R$ is of finite type and the left (right) Auslander ring of $R$ is a co-$QF$-2 ring.\\
\indent {{\rm (8)}} Every left and right $R$-module is a direct sum of (finitely generated) indecomposable \indent \indent modules with simple socle.
\end{Cor}
\begin{proof}
(1) $\Leftrightarrow$ (2). It is by [11, Corollary 2] and other equivalents is by of Theorem 3.7, and the fact that every Artinian serial ring has self-duality.
\end{proof}
\begin{Cor}\label{Commutative co-Kothe}
The following conditions are equivalent for a commutative ring $R$:\vspace*{0.3cm} \\
\indent {{\rm (1)}} $R$ is a K{\"o}the ring. \\
\indent {{\rm (2)}} $R$ is a co-K{\"o}the ring. \\
\indent {{\rm (2)}} $R$ is generalized co-K{\"o}the ring.\\
\indent {{\rm (3)}} $R$ is an Artinian serial ring.\\
\indent {{\rm (4)}} $R$ is an Artinian principal ideal ring.\\
\indent {{\rm (5)}} Every $R$-module is a direct sum of local modules.\\
\indent {{\rm (6)}} Every $R$-module is a direct sum of uniform modules.\\
\indent {{\rm (7)}} Every $R$-module is a direct sum of uniserial modules.\\
\indent {{\rm (8)}} Every $R$-module is a direct sum of extending modules.\\
\indent {{\rm (9)}} Every $R$-module is a direct sum of finitely generated modules (with simple socle). \\
\indent {{\rm (10)}} Every $R$-module is a direct sum of indecomposable modules (with simple socle).
\end{Cor}
\section{\bf Solving the K{\"o}the's Problem }
In this section, we are in a position where we can completely solve the K{\"o}the's Problem.
We racal that a ring $R$ is called {\it basic} if $R/J(R)$ is a direct sum of division rings and idempotents in $R/J(R)$ can be lifted to $R$, where $J(R)$ is the Jacobson radical of $R$.
By [1, 27.14] for any semi-perfect ring $R$, there exists (uniquely up to isomorphism) a basic ring $A_0$ which is Morita equivalent to $R$.
In fact, a ring $A_0$ is a {\it basic ring } for $R$ in case $A_0$ is isomorphic to $eRe$ for some basic idempotent $e \in R$. One can easily see that any finite product of local rings is a semi-perfect basic ring.
We recall that during the years 1962 to 1965, Kawada [29, 30, 31] solved the K{\"o}the problem for basic finite-dimensional algebras.
Kawada that characterizes completely those finite-dimensional algebras $A$ for which $soc(K)$ and $top(K)$ are simple for each finitely generated indecomposable $A$-module $K$, and describes the possible
indecomposable modules. A ring $R$ is called {\it left} (resp., {\it right}) {\it Kawada} if any ring Morita equivalent to $R$ is a left (resp., right) K{\"o}the ring. By a theorem of Ringle [37] a finite dimensional
$K$-algebra $A$ is a Kawada algebra if and only if the Basic ring of $A$ is a K{\"o}the algebra, if and only if, for each finitely generated indecomposable $A$-module $K$, $soc(K)$ and $top(K)$ are simple.
\begin{Rem}\label{relationship}
{\rm We said earlier in the introduction that we will determine the relationship between the left K{\"o}the rings, left co-K{\"o}the rings, right $QF$-2 rings and left co-$QF$-2 rings. We are now in a position to see this connection. In fact, comparing of the following theorem
with Theorem 3.7, we see that the left K{\"o}the rings and the left co-K{\"o}the rings are both finite types, but indecomposable modules over K{\"o}the rings have simple top, while indecomposable modules over co- K{\"o}the rings have simple socle. Moreover, we will see in Theorem 4.3, the concepts of the K{\"o}the rings are coincides with co-K{\"o}the rings.}
\end{Rem}
\begin{The}\label{left Kothe}
The following statements are equivalent for any ring $R$; \\
\indent {{\rm (1)}} $R$ is a left K{\"o}the ring.\\
\indent {{\rm (2)}} Every left $R$-module is a direct sum of finitely generated modules with square free \indent\indent top.\\
\indent {{\rm (3)}} Every left $R$-module is a direct sum of finitely generated modules with simple top.\\
\indent {{\rm (4)}} $R$ is left Artinian and every left $R$-module is a direct $sum~of~modules~with~simple~top.$\\
\indent {{\rm (5)}} $R$ is of finite type and every $($finitely generated$)$ indecomposable left $R$-module has \indent\indent simple top.\\
\indent {{\rm (6)}} Every left $R$-module is a direct sum of local modules.\\
\indent {{\rm (7)}} $R$ is of finite type and the left Auslander ring of $R$ is a right $QF$-2 ring.\\
\indent {{\rm (8)}} $R$ is an Artinian right serial ring, $R\cong \oplus_{i=1}^n(Re_i)^{(t_i)}$, where $n,~t_i\in\Bbb{N}$, $\{Re_1,...Re_n\}$ \indent\indent is a complete set of representative of the isomorphic classes of
indecomposable pro- \indent\indent jective left $R$-modules, each $Re_i$ has simple top and each indecomposable left $R$- \indent\indent module is isomorphic to $Re_i/Ie_i$ for some $1\leq i\leq n$
and a left ideal $I\subseteq J(R)$.
\end{The}
\begin{proof}
(1) $\Rightarrow$ (4). Since $R$ is a left K{\"o}the ring, by [7, Theorem 4.4], $R$ is a left Artinian ring. Since every indecomposable left $R$-module is cyclic and by Proposition 2.5 (h), every indecomposable left $R$-module has simple top, so every left $R$-module is a direct sum of modules with simple top.
(4) $\Rightarrow$ (3) $\Rightarrow$ (2). It is clear.
(2) $\Rightarrow$ (1). Since $R$ is a left pure semisimple ring, so by [7, Theorem 4.4], $R$ is left Artinian. Now by Proposition 2.5 (f), every finitely generated module with square-free top is cyclic. Thus every left $R$-module is a direct sum of cyclic modules, i.e., $R$ is a left K{\"o}the ring.
(1) $\Rightarrow$ (5). Since $R$ is a left K{\"o}the ring, by [7, Theorem 4.4], $R$ is a left Artinian ring. Thus $R$ is of finite length and since
every (finitely generated) indecomposable left $R$-module is cyclic, so $R$ is of left bounded representation type, and hence by [52, Proposition 54.3], $R$ is
of finite representation type. Also, since each indecomposable left $R$-module is cyclic, by Proposition 2.5 (h), every indecomposable left $R$-module has simple top.
(5) $\Rightarrow$ (1). Since $R$ is of finite representation
type and each finitely generated indecomposable left $R$-module has simple top, so by Proposition 2.5 (h), each finitely generated indecomposable left $R$-module is cyclic, and hence,
every left $R$-module is a direct sum of cyclic modules, i.e., $R$ is a left K{\"o}the ring.
(5) $\Leftrightarrow$ (6) is by Proposition 2.5 (h).
In the next steps of proof, for the finite type ring $R$, by Proposition 2.11, we have the following assumptions.
\noindent (i) The left Auslander ring of $R$ is $T={\rm End}_R(U)$, where $U=U_1\oplus...\oplus U_n $ and $\{U_1,...,U_n\}$ \indent is a complete set of representative of the isomorphic classes of finitely
generated inde- \indent composable left $R$-modules.\\
(ii) $S=End(Q)$, where $Q\cong E(S_1)\oplus...\oplus E(S_m)$, where $\{S_i~|~1\leq i\leq m\}$ is a complete \indent set of representative of the isomorphic
classes of simple left $R$-modules.\\
(iii) $\{Hom_R(U_1,Q),...,Hom_R(U_n,Q)\}$ is a complete set of representative of the isomorphic \indent classes of finitely generated indecomposable right $S$-modules.
(5) $\Rightarrow$ (7).
By Proposition 2.11 (d), $T\cong T^\prime$, where $T^\prime$ is the right Auslander ring of $S$. By Proposition 2.11 (c) and (e), it is enough to show that each of indecomposable right $S$-modules $Hom_R(U_1, Q)$,..., $Hom_R(U_n, Q)$, has a simple socle By our hypothesis each $U_i$ has simple top. By Proposition 2.11 (n), we have $soc(Hom(U_i, Q)) \cong soc(\bigoplus_{k=1}^{m}Hom(S_{i}, Q)) = Hom(top(U_i) , Q)$ is simple. It follows that every indecomposable right $S$-module $Hom(U_i,Q)$ has a simple socle. Thus every finitely generated indecomposable projective right $T$-module has a simple socle, i.e., $T$ is a right $QF$-2 ring.
(7) $\Rightarrow$ (5). By Proposition 2.11 (d), $T\cong T^\prime$, where $T^\prime$ is the right Auslander ring of $S$. By Proposition 2.11 (e) and (c), each of $Hom(U_{1} , Q)$, ..., $Hom(U_{n} , Q)$ has a simple socle. By Proposition 2.11 (m), we have $soc(Hom(U_{i} , Q)) \cong Hom_{R}(top(U_i), Q)$ and since each $soc(Hom(U_{i} , Q))$ is simple, we conclude that $top(U_{i})$ is also simple for each $i$. Thus
$R$ is of finite type and every $($finitely generated$)$ indecomposable left $R$-module has simple top.
(6) $\Rightarrow$ (8). By [43, Theorem 2.4], $R$ is an Artinian right serial ring. Also, by Proposition 2.5 (c), $R\cong \oplus_{i=1}^n(Re_i)^{(t_i)}$ where $n,~t_i\in\Bbb{N}$, $i=1,...,n$ and $\{e_1,...e_n\}$ is a basic set of idempotents of $R$. By Proposition 2.5 (b), each $Re_i$ is local for $i=1,...,n$.
Now let $M$ be a local left $R$-module. Then by [1, Lemma 27.3]{Anderson-Fuller},
$M\cong Re/Ie$ for some idempotent $e\in R$ and some left ideal $I \subseteq J(R)$, and the natural map
$Re\rightarrow Re/Ie\rightarrow 0$ is a projective cover of $M$. Since $M$ is indecomposable cyclic left $R$-module, by Propositon 2.5 (h), $Re$ is an indecomposable direct summand of $_RR$ and so by [1, Corollary 7.4],
$e$ is a primitive idempotent. It follows that by Proposition 2.5 (b), $Re\cong Re_i$ for some $i$ ($1\leq i\leq n$) and so $M\cong Re_i/Ie_i$, also $\{Re_1,...Re_n\}$ is a (finite) complete set of representative of the isomorphic classes of
indecomposable projective left $R$-modules. By Proposition 2.5 (g), $top(Re_i) = Re_i/J(R)e_i$ is simple for $1\leq i\leq n$ and proof is complete.
(8) $\Rightarrow$ (1) Since every indecomposable left $R$-module is isomorphic to the cyclic module $Re_i/Ie_i$ for some $1\leq i\leq n$
and a left ideal $I\subseteq J(R)$, it is enough to show that $R$ is of finite type. Since $R$ is an Artinian ring, each $Re_i$ has finite length and then we set $n= max \{length(Re_i)~|~1\leq i\leq n\}$.
By assumption every indecomposable module $M$ is a factor of $Re_i$, thus $length(M) \leq n$ and hence $R$ of bounded type, and hence by [52, Proposition 54.3], $R$ is of finite type. Then every left $R$-module is a direct sum of cyclic modules, i.e., $R$ is a left K{\"o}the ring.
\end{proof}
By [27, Corollary 5.13.], every Artinian serial ring has self-duality. By this fact, by above theorem and by [52, Proposition 55.16], we have the following solution for K{\"o}the problem. In fact, the following is a generalization of K{\"o}the-Cohen-Kaplansky Theorem (see Theorem 1.2) for non-commutative rings.
\begin{The}\label{Kothe}
The following statements are equivalent for any ring $R$; \\
\indent {{\rm (1)}} $R$ is a K{\"o}the ring.\\
\indent {{\rm (2)}} $R$ is a co-K{\"o}the ring. \\
\indent {{\rm (3)}} $R$ is an Artinian serial ring.\\
\indent {{\rm (4)}} Every left $R$-module is serial.\\
\indent {{\rm (5)}} Every right $R$-module is serial.\\
\indent {{\rm (6)}} $R$ is of finite type and has colocal type.\\
\indent {{\rm (7)}} Every left and right $R$-module is a direct sum of local modules.\\
\indent {{\rm (8)}} Every left and right $R$-module is a direct sum of uniform modules.\\
\indent {{\rm (9)}} Every left and right $R$-module is a direct sum of extending modules.\\
\indent {{\rm (10)}} $R$ is of finite type and the left (right) Auslander ring of $R$ is a $QF$-2 ring.\\
\indent {{\rm (11)}} $R$ is of finite type and the left (right) Auslander ring of $R$ is a co-$QF$-2 ring.\\
\indent {{\rm (12)}} $R$ is left Artinian and every $($finitely generated$)$ indecomposable left $R$-module is \indent\indent uniserial.\\
\indent {{\rm (13)}} Every left and right $R$-module is a direct sum of finitely generated modules with \indent\indent square-free top. \\
\indent {{\rm (14)}} Every left and right $R$-module is a direct sum of (finitely generated) indecomposable \indent \indent modules with simple socle. \\
\indent {{\rm (15)}} $R$ is left Artinian and every $($finitely generated$)$ indecomposable left $R$-module has \indent\indent simple socle and simple top.
\end{The}
\begin{proof}
(1) $\Rightarrow$ (3). It is by Theorem 4.2.
(3) $\Leftrightarrow$ (4) $\Leftrightarrow$ (5) $\Leftrightarrow$ (10). It is by [52, Proposition 55.16 (1)].
(1) $\Leftrightarrow$ (7) $\Leftrightarrow$ (10). It is by Theorem 4.2.
(2) $\Leftrightarrow$ (3) $\Leftrightarrow$ (6) $\Leftrightarrow$ (8) $\Leftrightarrow$ (9) $\Leftrightarrow$ (11) $\Leftrightarrow$ (12) $\Leftrightarrow$ (13) $\Leftrightarrow$ (14). It is by Corollary 3.8.
(3) $\Leftrightarrow$ (15). It is by [52, Proposition 55.16 (2)].
\end{proof}
\begin{Rem}\label{Tac-Sin}
{\rm The rings $R$ satisfying the following $(*)$ condition were first studied
by Tachikawa [47] in 1959, by using duality theory.
$$(*) ~R ~ is ~a ~right~ Artinian ~ ring ~and ~every ~finitely~
generated ~right ~R-module ~is~ local.$$
But, Singh and Al-Bleahed [43] have studied rings $R$ satisfying $(*)$ without using duality.
Because each local module is cyclic and also indecomposable, the above authors probably thought that the condition $(*)$ was a stronger condition than the right K{\"o}the ring condition.
But now, according to our main theorem, it turns out that the rings that satisfy the condition $(*)$ coincides with right K{\"o}the rings.}
\end{Rem}
In the following, as an application, we combine some of the main results of Singh and Al-Bleahed [43] with the our main theorem of this section and arrive at interesting results regarding the structure of
left K{\"o}the rings in which all the idempotents are central and the structure of left K{\"o}the rings $R$ with $J(R)^2=0$.
To study and characterize the local left K{\"o}the rings, we need the following two lemma.
\begin{Lem}\label{Abelian} \textup {([22, Proposition 3])}. Let $R$ be a left Artinian ring. Then $R$ is a finite
product of local rings if and only if all the idempotents of $R$ are central.
\end{Lem}
\begin{Lem}\label{Local}{\rm (See [43, Theorem 2.12])}. Let $R$ is a left Artinian local ring such that every finitely
generated indecomposable left $R$-module is local. Then either $J(R)^2 = 0$ or $R$ is a uniserial
ring.
\end{Lem}
Now we are in a position to give the following generalization of K{\"o}the-Cohen-Kaplansky Theorem (Theorem 1.2) for non-commutative rings $R$ in which all the idempotents are central and $J(R)^2 \neq 0$.
In fact, the following results which tell us that to classification of left K{\"o}the rings in which all the idempotents are central, it is sufficient to classify only those have radical square zero.
\begin{The}\label{local left Kothe}
Let $R$ be local ring $R$ with $J(R)^2 \neq 0$. Then the following statements are equivalent:\\
\indent {{\rm (1)}} $R$ is a left K{\"o}the ring.\\
\indent {{\rm (2)}} $R$ is a K{\"o}the ring.\\
\indent {{\rm (3)}} $R$ is a co-K{\"o}the ring.\\
\indent {{\rm (4)}} $R$ is an Artinian principal ideal ring.
\end{The}
\begin{proof} The proof is by Theorem 4.2, Theorem 1.1 and Lemma 4.6.
\end{proof}
Now the following corollary is obtained immediately.
\begin{Cor}\label{cor local left Kothe}
Let $R$ be a ring in which all the idempotents are central and $J(R)^2 \neq 0$. Then the following statements are equivalent:\\
\indent {{\rm (1)}} $R$ is a left K{\"o}the ring.\\
\indent {{\rm (2)}} $R$ is a K{\"o}the ring.\\
\indent {{\rm (3)}} $R$ is a co-K{\"o}the ring.\\
\indent {{\rm (4)}} $R$ is an Artinian principal ideal ring.
\end{Cor}
Next, in the following, by using [43, Theorem 2.13] and Theorem 4.2, we have the following characterization for some left K{\"o}the rings $R$ with $J(R)^2=0.$
\begin{The}\label{radical square zero}
Let $R$ be a ring with $J(R)^2=0$. If $R$ is a left K{\"o}the ring, then $R$ satisfies the following conditions.\\
\indent {{\rm (1)}} Every uniform left $R$-module is either simple or injective with composition length~$2$.\\
\indent {{\rm (2)}} $R$ is a right serial ring.\\
\indent {{\rm (3)}} For any indecomposable idempotent $e\in R$ either $J(R)e$ is a homogeneous $semisimple$ \indent\indent module or $length(J(R)e)\leq 2$.
Conversely, if $R$ satisfies {\rm (a), (b)}, and $length(J(R)e)\leq 2$ for any indecomposable idempotent $e\in R$,
then $R$ is a left K{\"o}the ring.
\end{The}
\begin{proof}
It follows by Theorem 4.2 and [43, Theorem 2.13]
\end{proof}
As [43] for given two positive integers $n, m$, $R$ is called an $(n, m)$-ring, if $R$ is a local ring, $J(R)^2 = 0$, and
for $D = R/J(R)$, $dim _DJ(R) = n$, $dim J(R)_D = m$. Any $(1, 2)$ (or $(2, 1)$) ring $R$ is called an {\it exceptional} ring if $E(_RR)$ (respectively $E(R_R)$) is of composition length $3$ [9, p 446].
Finally, in this section, we give a matrix representation of left K{\"o}the ring with $J(R)^2 = 0$, without of loss of generality, we assume that $R$ is
a basic ring.
\begin{The}\label{basic left Artinian}
Let $R$ be an indecomposable basic ring with $J(R)^2 = 0$. If $R$ is a left K{\"o}the ring and $S = \{e_i~|~1\leq i\leq n\}$ is
a complete orthogonal set of indecomposable idempotents, then either $R$ is a local $(n, 1)$ ring
for some positive integer $n$, or the following hold:\\
\indent {{\rm (a)}} For any $f \in S$ there does not exist more than one $e \in S$ such that $fJ(R)e \neq 0$.\\
\indent {{\rm (b)}} For any two $e, f \in S$, $J(R)eJ(R)f = 0$.\\
\indent {{\rm (c)}} For any $e \in S$, there do not exist more than two $f \in S$ such that $fJ(R)e \neq 0$.\\
\indent {{\rm (d)}} For any $e \in S$, one of the following holds:\\
\indent \indent {{\rm (1)}} $eRe$ is a division ring,\\
\indent \indent {{\rm (2)}} $eRe$ is a uniserial ring with composition length $2$.\\
\indent {{\rm (e)}} For any $e, f \in S$ with $fJ(R)e \neq 0$, $fJ(R)e$ is a simple right $eRe$-module and either \indent \indent $fJ(R)e$ is a
simple left $fRf$-module or there does not exist any $g \in S$ different \indent \indent from $f$ such that
$gJ(R)e \neq 0$\\
\indent {{\rm (f)}} Consider any $e \in S$, and let $f_1, f_2$ be the only members of $S$ such that $f_1J(R)e \neq 0$, \indent \indent
$f_2J(R)e \neq 0$. Let $D = eRe/eJ(R)e$, $D_i = f_iRf_i/f_iJ(R)f_i$. Then the following \indent \indent hold:\\
\indent \indent {{\rm (1)}} $f_iJ(R)e$ is a $(D_i,D)$-bivector space.\\
\indent \indent {{\rm (2)}} There exists an embedding $\sigma_i : D_i \longrightarrow D$ such that, if $f_1 \neq f_2$, then $\sigma_i$ is \indent \indent \indent an
isomorphism, and if $f_1 = f_2$, then $[D : \sigma_i(D_1)]_l$ equals the composition \indent \indent \indent length of
the left $f_1Rf_1$-module $f_1J(R)e$.\\
\indent \indent {{\rm (3)}} If $f_1 = f_2$, then for $V = f_1J(R)e$, $[D : \sigma_1(D_1)]_r = 2$ whenever $dim _{D_1}V = 2$.
Conversely, if $R$ satisfies statements $(a)$ through $(f)$ and in addition $dim _{D_1}(f_1Re) \neq 2$
whenever $f_1 = f_2$, then $R$ is a left K{\"o}the ring.
\end{The}
\begin{proof}
It follows by Theorem 4.2 and [43, Theorem 3.8] for left $R$-modules.
\end{proof}
Next, we give the following characterizations of left K{\"o}the rings for which the product of any two maximal ideals commutes.
\begin{The}\label{prime ideals commutes}
Let $R$ be a ring for which the product of any two maximal ideals commutes. Then the following statements are equivalent; \\
\indent {{\rm (1)}} $R$ is a left K{\"o}the ring.\\
\indent {{\rm (2)}} $R$ is of finite type and the left Auslander ring $T$ of $R$ is a right $QF$-2 ring.\\
\indent {{\rm (3)}} $R\cong Mat_{n_1}(R_1)\times...\times Mat_{n_k}(R_k)$, where $k,~n_1,...,n_k\in\Bbb{N}$, each $R_i$ is a local \indent\indent Artinian rings and each $Mat_{n_i}(R_i)$ is a left K{\"o}the ring for each $1\leq i\leq k$.
\end{The}
\begin{proof} (1) $\Leftrightarrow$ (2). It is by Theorem 4.2.
(1) $\Rightarrow$ (3). Since $R$ is a left K{\"o}the ring, by [7, Theorem 4.4], $R$ is a left Artinian ring. Thus $R$ is of finite length and since
every (finitely generated) indecomposable left $R$-module is cyclic, so $R$ is of left bounded representation type, and hence by [52, Proposition 54.3], $R$ is
of finite representation type. Thus $R$ is an Artinian ring. Now by [49, Theorem 3.6],
$R\cong Mat_{n_1}(R_1)\times...\times Mat_{n_k}(R_k)$, where $k,~n_1,...,n_k\in\Bbb{N}$, each $R_i$ is a local Artinian rings. Clearly each $Mat_{n_i}(R_i)$ is also a left K{\"o}the ring for for each $1\leq i\leq k$.
(3) $\Rightarrow$ (1). It is clear.
\end{proof}
Now we give the following characterization of a local left K{\"o}the ring. .
\begin{The}\label{local left Kothe}
The following statements are equivalent for any local ring $R$; \\
\indent {{\rm (1)}} $R$ is a left K{\"o}the ring.\\
\indent {{\rm (2)}} $R$ is of finite type and the left Auslander ring $T$ of $R$ is a right $QF$-2 ring.\\
\indent {{\rm (3)}} Either $R$ is an Artinian principal ideal ring or $R$ is a local with $$J(R)=soc(_RR)=S_1\oplus...\oplus S_n$$ \indent\indent and $\{R/I_k~|~I_k=S_1\oplus...\oplus S_k, ~ 1\leq k\leq n\}$ is a mutually non-isomorphic finitely \indent\indent generated indecomposable left $R$-module.
\end{The}
\begin{proof}
It follows by Theorem 4.2 and Theorem 4.10.
\end{proof}
\begin{Cor}\label{local Kothe}
The following statements are equivalent for any local ring $R$; \\
\indent {{\rm (1)}} $R$ is a K{\"o}the ring.\\
\indent {{\rm (3)}} $R$ is an Artinian principal ideal ring.
\end{Cor}
\begin{proof}
It follows by Theorem 4.2 and Theorem 4.10.
\end{proof}
We recall that a left K{\"o}the property is not a Morita invariant property, and as Ringel [37] we say that a ring $R$ is called {\it left} (resp., {\it right}) {\it Kawada} if any ring Morita equivalent to $R$ is a left (resp., right) K{\"o}the ring. The following is an answer to Problem 1.5 and so it is a generalization of
Ringel's [37] characterizations of Kawada algebras.
\begin{The}\label{Kawada}
The following statements are equivalent for any ring $R$; \\
\indent {{\rm (1)}} $R$ is a left Kawada ring.\\
\indent {{\rm (2)}} $R$ is of finite type and the Auslander $T$ of $A_0$ is a right $QF$-2 ring.\\
\indent {{\rm (3)}} The basic ring $A_0$ of $R$ is a left K{\"o}the ring.\\
\indent {{\rm (4)}} $R$ is of finite representation type and every indecomposable left $A_0$-module has \indent\indent square-free top, where $A_0$ is the
basic ring of $R$. \\
\indent {{\rm (5)}} $R$ is of finite representation type and every indecomposable left $A_0$-module has \indent\indent simple top, where $A_0$ is the
basic ring of $R$.
\end{The}
\begin{proof}
(1) $\Leftrightarrow$ (2). It is by Theorem 4.2.
(1) $\Rightarrow$ (3). Let $R$ be a left Kawada ring. By [7, Theorem 4.4], $R$ is of finite representation
type and so $R$ is a semi-perfect ring. Thus by [1, 27.14], the basic ring $A_0$ of $R$ is a left K{\"o}the ring.
(3) $\Rightarrow$ (1). Since $A_0$ is a basic left K{\"o}the ring, by Theorem 3.6 $A_0$ is of finite representation type and every indecomposable left $A_0$-module has simple top.
Let $S$ is any ring Morita equivalent to $R$. Since $R$ is Morita equivalent to $A_0$, so $S$ is also Morita equivalent to $A_0$. Thus $S$ is of finite representation type and every indecomposable left $S$-module has simple top. Thus by Theorem 4.2, $S$ is a left K{\"o}the ring. Thus $R$ is a left Kawada ring.
(3) $\Rightarrow$ (4) $\Rightarrow$ (5). It is by Theorem 4.2.
\end{proof}
Now we have a generalization of Ringel Theorem [37].
\begin{Cor}\label{Cor Kawada}
The following statements are equivalent for any ring $R$; \\
\indent {{\rm (1)}} $R$ is a Kawada ring.\\
\indent {{\rm (2)}} The basic ring $A_0$ of $R$ is a K{\"o}the ring.\\
\indent {{\rm (3)}} $R$ is of finite representation type and any indecomposable left (right) $A_0$-module \indent\indent has square-free top and simple socle, where $A_0$ is the basic ring of $R$. \\
\indent {{\rm (4)}} $R$ is of finite representation type and any indecomposable left (right) $A_0$-module \indent\indent has simple top and simlpe socle, where $A_0$ is the
basic ring of $R$.
\end{Cor}
Next, we give the following characterizations of Kawada rings for which the product of any two maximal ideals commutes.
\begin{The}\label{commutes-Kawada}
Let $R$ be a ring for which the product of any two maximal ideals commutes. Then the following statements are equivalent; \\
\indent {{\rm (1)}} $R$ is a left Kawada ring.\\
\indent {{\rm (2)}} The basic ring $A_0$ of $R$ is a finite direct product of local left K{\"o}the rings.\\
\indent {{\rm (3)}} $R\cong Mat_{n_1}(R_1)\times...\times Mat_{n_k}(R_k)$, where $k,~n_1,...,n_k\in\Bbb{N}$ and each $R_i$ is a local \indent\indent left K{\"o}the ring for $1\leq i\leq k$.
\end{The}
\begin{proof} The proof is by Theorem 4.11, Theorem 4.14 and by Theorem 4.2.
\end{proof}
\begin{Cor}\label{Cor prime ideals commutes}
Let $R$ be a ring in which all the idempotents are central. Then the following statements are equivalent; \\
\indent {{\rm (1)}} $R$ is a Kawada ring.\\
\indent {{\rm (2)}} $R$ is an Artinian principal ideal ring.\\
\indent {{\rm (3)}} $R\cong R_1\times...\times R_k$, where $k,~n_1,...,n_k\in\Bbb{N}$ and $R_i$ is a local Artinian principal ideal \indent\indent rings for each $1\leq i\leq k$.
\end{Cor}
\begin{proof}
The proof is by Lemma 4.5, Theorem 4.11, and the fact that in any Artinian local ring the Jacopson radical is the unique maximal (prime) ideal.
\end{proof}
\section{\bf Examples}
By Proposition 3.7, for a local ring, $R$ is generalized right co-K{\"o}the is equivalent to that of every right module is a direct sum of uniform modules. However, these properties are not equivalent in general as the following example shows.
\begin{Examp}\label{Asgar}
{\rm Let $R$ be the 5-dimensional algebra over the field $\mathbb{Z}_2$ generated by all $3 \times 3$-matrices of the form
$$\begin{bmatrix}
f_{11} & f_{12} & f_{13} \\ 0 & f_{22} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & f_{33}
\end{bmatrix},$$
\noindent where $f_{ij} \in \mathbb{Z}_2$. Let $e_{ij}$ be the matrix whose $ij$th entry is equal to $1$ and all other entries are equal to $0$; see [50, Example 1.22]. Then $\{ e_{11}, e_{12}, e_{13}, e_{22}, e_{33} \}$ is a $\mathbb{Z}_2$-basis of the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-algebra $R$. Moreover,
\noindent {{\rm (1)}} $1 =e_{11} + e_{22} + e_{33}$, where $e_{11}, e_{22},e_{33}$ are local orthogonal idempotents,
$e_{12}\mathbb{Z}_2 =e_{12}R,$ $e_{13}\mathbb{Z}_2 = e_{13}R$, $J(R) = e_{12}\mathbb{Z}_2 + e_{13}\mathbb{Z}_2$, $(J(R))^{2} = 0$, and the ring $R/J(R)$ is isomorphic to a direct product of three copies of the field $\mathbb{Z}_2$.
\noindent {{\rm (2)}} $R_{R} = e_{11}R \oplus e_{22}R \oplus e_{33}R$, where $e_{22}R = e_{22}\mathbb{Z}_2$ and $e_{33}R = e_{33}\mathbb{Z}_2$ are simple projective right $R$-modules which are isomorphic to the modules $e_{12}R$ and $e_{13}R$, respectively.
\noindent {{\rm (3)}} $e_{11}R = e_{11}\mathbb{Z}_2+ e_{12}\mathbb{Z}_2+ e_{13}\mathbb{Z}_2$ is an indecomposable distributive (and hence square-free) Noetherian Artinian completely cyclic $R$-module but it is not uniform and every proper nonzero submodule of $e_{11}R$ coincides either with the projective module $e_{12}R \oplus e_{13}R$ or with one of the simple projective non-isomorphic modules $e_{12}R$ and $e_{13}R$.
It can be checked that $R$ is a hereditary, right and left Artinian basic ring. So by [14, Theorem 5.7], $R$ is a right K{\"o}the ring. It can be shown that $R$ has $32$ elements that $\vert U(R)\vert = 4$ and from $28$ nonunit elements of $R$ we have $3$ isomorphism classes of cyclic indecomposable modules, which are as follows:
$$Q_1 = e_{11}R, ~~~ Q_2 = e_{22}R, ~~~ Q_3 = e_{33}R.$$
\noindent Also, every indecomposable cyclic right $R$-module has a square-free socle, since ${\rm soc}(Q_1) = J(R) = e_{12}\mathbb{Z}_2 + e_{13} \mathbb{Z}_2 \cong e_{22}\mathbb{Z}_2 + e_{33}\mathbb{Z}_2$ is square-free, ${\rm soc}(Q_2) = e_{22}R = e_{22}\mathbb{Z}_2$ and ${\rm soc}(Q_3) = e_{33}R = e_{33}\mathbb{Z}_2$ are simple. Then every right $R$-module is a direct sum of square-free modules ($R$ is a right generalized co-K{\"o}the ring) while the right $R$-module $e_{11}R$ is not a direct sum of uniform modules ($R$ is not a right co-K{\"o}the ring), since $R$ is not right serial.}
\end{Examp}
By Theorem 4.2 and [43], we give the following example of a right K{\"o}the ring $R$, which is not right serial and in which $J^2 \neq 0$.
\begin{Examp}\textup {([43])}\label{exam-Singh}
{\rm Let $D$ be any division ring, and let}
$$R = \begin{bmatrix}
D & D & D & D \\ 0 & D & D & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & D & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & D
\end{bmatrix}$$
{\rm Then by [43, Example], the ring $R$ satisfying $(*)$ ant it is not a right serial ring and $J(R)^2\neq 0$. Thus by Remark 4.4, $R$ is a right K{\"o}the ring.}
\end{Examp}
We end the paper by showing that co-K{\"o}the is not right- left symmetric. The following result is helpful.
\begin{Pro}\label{Cor3.6}
Let $R$ be a local ring with the unique maximal ideal $\cal M$ such that ${_R\cal M}$ is simple, length$({\cal M}_R) = 2$ and length$(E(_R(R/{\cal M}))) = 3$. Then every left $R$-module is a direct sum of uniform modules.
\end{Pro}
\begin{proof}
Clearly, $R$ is an Artinian ring. Moreover, ${\cal M}^2 = 0$ since ${_R\cal M}$ is simple. So by [35, Theorem 9], $R$ is left uniserial. Thus the left $R$-modules $R$, $R/\mathcal{M}$ and $E(R/\mathcal{M})$ are uniform. Therefore, [6, Theorem 3.6], every left $R$-module is a direct sum of uniform modules.
\end{proof}
\begin{Examp}\textup {([6, Example 3.7])}\label{exam}
{\rm Let $F$ be a field isomorphic to one of its proper sub field $\bar{F}$ such that $[F:\bar{F}] =2$ (for example let $F=Z_{2}(y)$, where $Z_{2}(y)$ is the quotient field of polynomial ring $Z_{2}[y]$ and let $\bar{F} = Z_{2}(y^{2})$, where $Z_{2}(y^{2})$ is the subfield of $F$ that has elements of the form $f(y^{2})/g(y^{2})$ such that $f(y^{2})$, $g(y^{2})$ are polynomials). Let $R=:F[x; \alpha]$ be the ring of polynomials of the form $a_{0}+a_{1}x$, $a_{i} \in F$ with multiplication defined by the rule $rx =x\alpha(r)$, where $\alpha$ is the isomorphism from $F$ to $\bar{F}$, and $x^{2} = 0$ together with the distributive law. Then by these relations $R$ is a local ring with maximal ideal $\mathcal{M} = xR$ (see [25, p. 113, Bj{\"o}rk Example]). Let $\{1, a\}$ be a basis for the vector space $F$ over $\bar{F}$. It can be checked that $\mathcal{M} =xR=Rx \oplus Rxa$ with $\mathcal{M}^{2} = (0)$, and $(R \oplus R)/(x, xa)R$ is an injective right $R$-module. Also, $R$ is not a principal left ideal ring. Then by Proposition 5.3 and Theorem 3.7, every right $R$-module is a direct sum of uniform module. Hence $R$ is a right co-K{\"o}the ring. Moreover, since $R$ is not left uniserial, by Theorem 3.7, $R$ is not a left co-K{\"o}the ring.}
\end{Examp}
\begin{Rem}
{\rm Note that in Example 5.4, $E((R/\mathcal{M})_{R})$ is a uniform module that is not distributive. Thus uniform modules are square-free but are not necessarily distributive even though they are finitely generated and Artinian. Moreover, Example 5.4 shows that $R$ is right co-K{\"o}the ring but not every right $R$-module is semidistributive.}
\end{Rem}
|
\section{Introduction}
Let $H,V $ be separable Hilbert spaces with inner products $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_H$ and $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_V$, and $T>0$. We consider the infinite dimensional Kolmogorov model
\begin{equation}
\left \{
\begin{aligned}
\partial_t u(t,x) + \ca{L}[u](t,x) + \psi \big( t,x,u(t,x),B^* (t,x)\nabla u(t,x) \big)&=0, && (t,x)\in[0,T]\times H ,\\
u(T,x) &= \phi(x), && x\in H.
\end{aligned}
\right.
\label{eq:pde}
\end{equation}
Here $u\colon[0,T]\times H\to \bb{R}$ is the unknown of the problem, $B^*(t,\cdot)$ is the formal adjoint of a suitable mapping $B$, $\phi\colon H\to\bb{R}$ is a terminal condition and $\psi$ represents the non-linear character of the problem. $\nabla$ represents the spatial gradient in $H$. Finally, the operator $\ca{L}$ is defined for $f\in C^{0,2}([0,T]\times H)$ and $(t,x)\in[0,T]\times H$. The precise details on these terms are fixed below in Assumptions \ref{assumptions}.
\medskip
In the case where $H=\bb{R}^d$ equation \eqref{eq:pde} can be recast as a nonlinear parabolic model, generalizing the classical Heat equation. The mathematical theory in this case is well-known, see e.g. \cite[Section $2.3$]{Evans}. Of great importance to the present work is the well known relation between probabilities and parabolic models, A. N. Kolmogorov was the first (of many) to notice these relations in his foundational work \cite{kolmogorov}, the resulting theory allows to prove existence, uniqueness and properties of solutions to parabolic models, known as Kolmogorov equations, by means of probabilistic ideas. These models, also known as diffusion equations, has many applications in Finance and other areas such as physics, biology, chemistry and economics. The success in applications came from the fact that these equations are describing the general phenomena of particles interacting under the influence of random forces (see e.g. \cite{diffusion-crank}).
\medskip
Following the useful Kolmogorov representations, we also consider a decoupled system of stochastic partial differential equations (SPDEs) for $(X_t,Y_t,Z_t)_{t\in [0,T]}$
\begin{align}
X_{t}&=x + \int_0^t (AX_s + F(s,X_s))ds+\int_0^t B(s,X_{s}) dW_s,
\label{eq:fpsde}\\
Y_{t}&=\phi(X_T)+\int_{t}^T \psi(s,X_s,Y_s,Z_s)ds-\int_{t}^T \prom{Z_s,\cdot}_{0} dW_s,
\label{eq:bpsde}
\end{align}
where $\prom{\cdot,\cdot}_0$ is a suitable $\mathcal L$ based inner product to be defined below. Forward Backward SPDEs (FBSPDEs) such as system \eqref{eq:fpsde}-\eqref{eq:bpsde} were first studied by Pardoux and Peng in the finite dimensional case \cite{pardoux90}, whereas Barles, Buckdahn and Pardoux \cite{pardoux} generalized it to the case where also a non continuous process is considered. For the stochastic equation posed on infinite dimensional spaces, we refer to the book \cite{daprato} and articles \cite{albeverio,fuhrman}.
\medskip
However, in the infinite dimensional case, \eqref{eq:pde} becomes a highly complicated model that requires sophisticated treatment and generalizations for the classical existence and regularity theories. Infinite dimensional Kolmogorov equation was first investigated by Yu. Daleckij \cite{yu} and L. Gross \cite{gr}. In the context of PDEs it is common to define weaker notion of solutions. In this particular framework, \textit{mild solutions} of \eqref{eq:pde} are treated in \cite{fuhrman}. A function $u\colon[0,T]\times H\to\bb{R}$ is called a {\bf mild solution} to \eqref{eq:pde} if it satisfies $u\in C^{0,1}([0,T]\times H)$, there exists $C>0$ and $p\in\bb{N}$ such that $|\prom{\nabla u(t,x),h}_H|\le C\norm{h}_H(1+\norm{x}_H^p)$ for all $t\in[0,T]$ and $x,h\in H$ and the following weaker formulation of \eqref{eq:pde} is satisfied
\begin{align*}
u(t,x) = -\int_t^T \bb{E}\parent{\psi(s,X_{s}^{t,x},u(s,X_{s}^{t,x}),G(s,X_{s}^{t,x})^{*}\nabla u(s,X_{s}^{t,x}))}ds + \bb{E}\phi(X_{s}^{t,x}).
\end{align*}
Where $(X_{s}^{t,x})_{s\in[t,T]}$ is the solution to the forward stochastic equation \eqref{eq:fpsde} starting with $X_{t}^{t,x}=x$. In \cite{fuhrman} the authors prove that there exists a unique mild solution to \eqref{eq:pde} which is related to the stochastic equations through $u(t,x)=Y_t^{t,x}$, where $Y^{t,x}$ is part of the solution to the backward equation in $[t,x]$ starting with $X_t^{t,x}=x$. As you may see in Section \ref{sec:Functional Numerical Scheme}, for our framework we need a {\bf strong solution} of \eqref{eq:pde} in order to be able to use It\^o lemma. The existence of said solution can be seen as a strong assumption in our model.
\medskip
The mathematics presented here is strongly inspired by the article \cite{DBS} written by Hure, Pham and Warin, where they rely on the stochastic representation of \eqref{eq:pde} (with $H=\bb{R}^d$) and the use of neural networks to approximate a solution of the PDE and its spatial gradient. Due to the importance of this work to the present article, we aim to provide a detailed description of the scheme presented in there and certain generalizations of it; Consider a partition $\pi$ of $[0,T]$. By taking advantage of the relations $Y_t=u(t,X_t)$ and $Z_t = \sigma^{T}(t,X_t)\nabla u(t,X_t)$ showed in \cite{pardoux90} (see \cite[Section $3$]{DBS} for notation and note that matrix $\sigma$ in \cite{DBS} is a particular case of $B$) and the It\^o formula, Hure et al proposed a neural network representation of the form
\begin{align*}
Y_t \approx \ca{U}_t(X^{\pi}_t;\theta)\ \text{and}\ Z_t \approx \ca{Z}_t(X^{\pi}_t;\theta).
\end{align*}
Where $X^{\pi}$ is a suitable Euler approximation of the diffusion $X$ and $\theta$ represents the neural network parameters. Recall that Hure et al work is posed in an finite dimensional framework. Then, by imposing that the neural network representation satisfies the Ito formula with a cost incurred by the approximation, an iterative backward induction is produced such that at each time step a loss function representing the cost is minimized. This process generates optimal neural networks for every time step $t\in\pi$. The backwardness of the algorithm emerges from the knowledge of the solution at the final time, also known as terminal condition. It is important to mention that Hure et al. extend this approach to treat variational inequalities. Still in finite dimension, our previous work \cite{yo} added a nonlocal term to the considered PDE. This modification introduces complications such as the need of a general diffusion which admits discontinuities. This type of processes are known in the literature as Lévy processes and are suitable to obtain the desire representation as in the local case (see \cite{pardoux}). Examples of nonlocal terms includes integrals with respect to a Levy measure $\lambda$ (see \cite{yo} for details), but only finite Levy measures are taking under consideration in the said article, this restriction leaves out interesting operators such as fractional laplacian. Other important complication presented in \cite{yo} is that an additional neural network must be introduced to approximate the nonlocal term in comparison with \cite{DBS}. A different approach to attack the additional nonlocal term is considered by Lukas Gonon and Christoph Schwab in \cite{lukas-gonon1, lukas-gonon2}, their scheme consist in an application of the well-known Feynman-Kac formula and the approximation of it via the average of a certain number of realizations of random variables.
\medskip
\medskip
In a recent work by Cox, Jentzen and Lindner \cite{CJL}, the authors investigate a temporal discretization of the stochastic wave equation which is a special case of \eqref{eq:fpsde}. Furthermore, they establish weak convergence rates for the said discretization by employing the recent mild Ito formula discussed in \cite{mild-ito-jentzen}. The latter work deals with a weaker notion of stochastic processes which they define as \emph{mild stochastic processes}. These objects arise naturally from considering weaker solutions of stochastic partial differential equations (SPDE), and consistently, these solutions are known in the literature as \emph{mild solutions}, see \cite[Proposition $7.1$]{daprato} or Definition \ref{def:strong-mild} for a view of these concepts. For this type of solutions, the authors of \cite{mild-ito-jentzen} introduce a version of It\^o formula which suggests the existence of an infinite dimensional version of the Kolmogorov equation, and becomes one of our main sources of inspiration to describe the Hilbert generalization of \cite{DBS}. Recall that SPDEs have, by definition, a Hilbert or Banach space framework, and a conveniently mild It\^o formula is even defined for SPDEs posed on very general Banach spaces, see \cite{mild-ito-banach}.
\medskip
In recent developments, finite dimensional Deep Learning (DL) has proven itself to be an efficient tool to solve nonlinear problems such as the approximation of PDEs solutions (see \cite{state-art-dl}). In particular, in high dimensions $d\gg 1$, typical methods such as finite difference or finite elements suffer from the fact that the complexity of the problem grows exponentially on $d$, problem known in the literature as \emph{curse of dimensionality}. Without being exhaustive, we present some of the current developments in this direction. First of all, Monte Carlo algorithms are an important and widely used approach to the resolution of the dimension problem. This can be done by means of the classical Feynman-Kac representation that allows us to write the solution of a linear PDE as an expected value, and then approximate the high dimensional integrals with an average over simulations of random variables. On the other hand, Multilevel Picard method (MLP) is another approach and consists on interpreting the stochastic representation of the solution to a semilinear
parabolic (or elliptic) PDE as a fixed point equation. Then, by using Picard iterations together with Monte Carlo methods for the computation of integrals, one is able to approximate the solution to the PDE, see \cite{intro1, intro2} for fundamental advances in this direction. As another option, the so-called Deep Galerkin method (DGM) is another DL approach used to solve quasilinear parabolic PDEs of the form $\ca{L}(u)=0$ plus boundary and initial conditions. The cost function in this framework is defined in an intuitive way, it consists of the differences between the approximated solution $\hat u$ evaluated at the initial time and spatial boundary, with the true initial and boundary conditions plus $ \ca{L}(\hat u)$. These quantities are captured by an $L^2$-type norm, which in high dimensions is minimized using Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD) method. See \cite{intro3} for the development of the DGM and \cite{intro4} for an application. The article \cite{EHJ17} by E, Han and Jentzen, is considered one of the first attempts to solve this issue by means of Deep Learning (DL) techniques. In said paper, the authors proposed an algorithm for solving parabolic PDEs by reformulating the problem as a stochastic control problem. This connection also came from the Feynman-Kac representation, proving once more that stochastic representations are a key tool in the area. More recent developments in this area can be found in Han-Jentzen-E \cite{HJE} and Beck-E-Jentzen \cite{intro5}.
\medskip
Usually, one has to distinguish between the SPDE and the infinite dimensional PDE and work them separately. Both are highly complicated equations to solve numerically, or even to propose a proper discretization method which may or may not be implementable. Here we are only interested in working in the PDE side of the problem by assuming a relatively good numerical scheme for the stochastic side of it. The scheme presented here is, indeed, numerically implementable. Nevertheless, in this article we chose not to present numerical results, but instead to give a proof of the consistency of this algorithm. Our proof is the generalization of the one given in \cite{DBS} to the infinite dimensional case.
\medskip
The problem of generalization of neural networks to a infinite dimensional framework has been investigated in dynamical systems and PDEs. In our case, following \cite{DBS,yo} given the partition $\pi=\set{t}_{t\in\pi}$ of $[0,T]$, we want to approximate the solution $u(t,\cdot)$ to \eqref{eq:pde} and a fixed function of its gradient $\nabla u(t,\cdot)$ for $t\in\pi$, which in general are nonlinear operators from $H$ to some other separable real Hilbert space $(W,\prom{\cdot,\cdot}_W,\norm{\cdot}_W)$. Thus, we need a general Deep Learning framework which considers the approximation of operators $F\colon H\to W$ by a neural network $F^{\theta}\colon H\to W$, where $\theta$ is a finite dimensional parameter. Sandberg \cite{S91} defined a set of infinite dimensional mappings parameterized by finite dimensional parameters, providing a universal approximation theorem for those mappings. Other important article in the development of infinite dimensional neural networks and an key reference for the theory presented here, is \cite{chen95} by Chen and Chen. They deal with the approximation of mappings defined on a compact subset of $C(K)$ with values in $\bb{R}$ and $C(K)$, where $K$ is a compact subset of a finite dimensional space. A key lemma (\cite[Lemma $7$]{chen95}) presented in there says that, for a compact set $V$ in $C(K)$, one can define a transformation $T(V) = \set{Tu\colon u\in V}$ such that every function in $V$ is close to its transformation. The transformed set is constituted by, in some sense, simple functions that can be easily described by finite dimensional neural networks which allows them to create a proper architecture. Lemma \ref{lemma:hilbert_aris} is the counterpart of \cite[Lemma $7$]{chen95} for a compact set $V$ in a Hilbert space. Here, the considered transformation is the projection onto a finite set of an orthonormal basis. Chen and Chen also demonstrate that their architectures approximate any continuous mapping in uniform norm. More recently Lu, Jin and Karniadakis, based on \cite{chen95}, introduced an architecture called {\bf DeepONets} \cite{LJK19}, which are mappings between spaces of continuous functions. DeepONets rely on representing the input function and its evaluation on a fixed finite set of points. Then, via an activation function, one takes the finite dimensional information to an element of the set of continuous functions.\\
It is common in machine learning and, more generally, in some statistics frameworks, to consider mean square error due to its convexity properties. Here this framework emerges naturally because we make use of stochastic processes, which will be essentially square integrable random variables. The quantity used to measure the error incurred in our scheme will depend on how good our architectures are able to approximate elements of $L^2(H,\mu;W)$. Here, $\mu$ is the law of an $H$-valued random variable $X$ (this random variable will be related to a stochastic process). Then, it is natural to consider the $L^2$-distance or mean square error
\begin{align*}
\bb{E}\norm{F(X)-F^{\theta}(X)}_{W}^2 = \int_{H} \norm{F(x)-F^{\theta}(x)}_{W}^2 \mu(dx),
\end{align*}
The purpose of this paper is to describe solutions of the infinite dimensional Kolmogorov equation using recent Deep Learning techniques. More precisely, we will find infinite dimensional neural networks of type Deep-H-Onets (to be defined below) that approximate suitable solutions of \eqref{eq:pde}. This is done in our main result, Theorem \ref{MT1}.
\medskip
\noindent
{\bf Acknowledgments.} We want to thank professor Aris Daniilidis for helping us with some deep functional analysis topics and useful discussions, see Lemma \ref{lemma:hilbert_aris}.
\section{Preliminaries}\label{sec:pre}
\subsection{Notation}\label{sec:notation} We cannot continue without introducing some notation needed to state our main result.
\medskip
{\bf Finite dimension}. For any $m\in\bb{N}$, $\bb{R}^m$ represents the finite dimensional Euclidean space with elements $x=(x_1,...,x_m)$ endowed with the usual norm $\norm{x}_{\bb{R}^m}^2=\sum_{i=1}^m |x_i|^2$. We will simply write $\norm{x}$ when no confusion can arise. Note that for scalars $a\in\bb{R}$ we also denote its norm as $|a| = \sqrt{a^2}$. For $x,y\in\bb{R}^m$ their scalar product is denoted as $x\cdot y =\sum_{i=1}^m x_i y_i$. Finally, along this paper we will use several times that for $x_1,...,x_k\in \bb{R}$, the following bound holds,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:square-bound}
(x_1+\cdots+x_k)^2\le k(x_1^2+\cdots+x_k^2).
\end{equation}
{\bf Banach spaces}. Consider now two real Banach spaces $E,F$. Given a subset $A\subset E$ we denote as $\prom{A}$ the set containing all the finite linear combination of elements in $A$. For a separable real Hilbert space $(H,\prom{\cdot,\cdot}_H, \norm{\cdot}_H)$, we denote by $(e_i)_{i\in\bb{N}}$ a countable orthonormal basis. We denote by $C^m(E;F)$ the set of all $m$ times continuously differentiable functions from $E$ to $F$ and $C^m(E)$ when $F=\bb{R}$. $L(E,F)$ denotes the space of continuous linear functions from $E$ to $F$ endowed with the usual operator norm, and by $L_2(H,F)$ we mean the set of Hilbert-Schmidt operators $A\in L(H,F)$ such that $\norm{A}_{L_2}^2=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\norm{Ae_k}^2_F<\infty,$ endowed with the corresponding norm.
\medskip
{\bf Measures}. We also denote by $\ca{B}(E)$ the Borel $\sigma$-algebra on $E$. For a general measure space $(E,\ca{H},\nu)$ and $p\ge 1$, $L^p(E,\ca{H},\nu;F)$ represents the standard Lebesgue space of all $p$-integrable functions from $E$ to $F$, with its Borel $\sigma$-algebra, and endowed with the norm
\begin{align*}
\norm{f}^p_{L^p(E,\ca{H},\nu;F)} = \int_{E} \norm{f(x)}_F^p\nu (dx).
\end{align*}
We write $L^p(E,\ca{H},\nu)$ when $F=\bb{R}$ and $L^p(E,\nu)$ when $F=\bb{R}$ and $\ca{H}$ is the Borel $\sigma$-algebra $\ca{B}(E)$. See the \comillas{Appendix A} section of \cite{wei} for a definition of the above Bochner integral and its properties. We also write
\[
\int_E f(s)ds = \begin{pmatrix}\int_E f_1(s) ds\\ \vdots \\ \int_E f_m(s) ds\end{pmatrix},
\]
whenever $f:E\to\bb{R}^m$ with $f=(f_1,...,f_m)$.
\medskip
{\bf Stochastic processes}. We refer to \cite{daprato} for a detailed development of Stochastic Calculus in infinite dimensions. Here we will need the following definitions.
\medskip
Let $(\Omega,\ca{F},\mathbb{P})$ be a complete probability space. Given a $E$-valued random variable $X:\Omega\to E$, we write $\bb{E}X = \bb{E}(X)$. We denote by $\sigma(X)$ the $\sigma$-algebra generated by $X$ and by $\ca{P}_s$ the predictable $\sigma$-algebra of $[0,s]\times\Omega$. Let us denote by $\mathscr{S}^2 = \mathscr{S}^2_T(E)$ the space of $E$-valued predictable processes $(X_t)_{t\in[0,T]}$ endowed with the norm $\norm{X}_{\mathscr{S}^2}=\bb{E}\left(\underset{t\in [0,T]}{\sup} \norm{X_t}^2_E\right)$. We denote $\mathscr{M}_T^2(E)\subset\mathscr{S}^2_T(E)$ the space of $E$-valued continuous, square integrable martingales $(M_t)_{t\in[0,T]}$ such that $M_0 = 0$ endowed with the norm $\norm{M}_{\mathscr{M}^2} = \norm{M}_{\mathscr{S}^2}$. Note that if $X\in L^2(\Omega,\ca{F},\mathbb{P};E)$, then $M_t=\bb{E}(X|\ca{F}_t)$ defines a martingale in $\mathscr{M}^2_T(E)$. We also have that if $M$ is a continuous martingale, then Doob's inequality holds,
\begin{align*}
\bb{E}\left( \underset{t\in[0,T]}{\sup}\norm{M_t}_E^2 \right) \le 4\underset{t\in[0,T]}{\sup}\left(\bb{E}\norm{M_t}_E^2\right).
\end{align*}
If no confusion arises, we will drop the parentheses $(\cdot)$ in each $\bb{E}$.
\subsection{Stochastic Calculus on Hilbert Spaces}
In this Subsection we gather some necessary results needed in the proof of the main result. We first state a series of properties on Stochastic Calculus posed in Hilbert Spaces. For a detailed view, see \cite[Section $4$]{daprato}.
\medskip
Consider the real separable Hilbert space $(V,\prom{\cdot,\cdot}_V,\norm{\cdot}_V)$ with an orthonormal basis $(f_k)_{k\in\bb{N}}$ and $Q\in L(V)$ be a trace class nonnegative operator, which means $\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\prom{Qf_k,f_k}<\infty$. Define now
\[
V_0=Q^{1/2}V=\set{Q^{1/2}v\ \big|\ v\in V},
\]
which is another Hilbert space endowed with $\prom{u_0,v_0}_0=\prom{Q^{-1/2}u_0,Q^{-1/2}v_0}_V$ and the corresponding norm $\norm{\cdot}_0$. Operator $Q$ will appear in the definition of the operator $\mathcal L$ in Assumptions \ref{assumptions}.
\medskip
For a Hilbert space $K$ let $L_{2}(V_0,K)$ be the set of Hilbert-Schmidt operators defined on $V_0$ and taking values in $K$.
\begin{remark}\label{remark:schmidt-dual}
Note that $L(V,K)\hookrightarrow L_2(V_0,K)$. Also, observe that if $K=\bb{R}$, then for every $v\in L(V,\bb{R})=V^{*}$ (up to isomorphism),
\begin{align*}
\norm{v}_{L_2(V,\bb{R})}^2
= \sum_{j=1}^{\infty} |\prom{v,f_j}|^2 = \norm{v}_V^2.
\end{align*}
Therefore in this particular case $L(V,\bb{R})=L_2(V,\bb{R})$.
\end{remark}
Recall $Q$ as introduced before. A $V$-valued process $(W_t)_{t\ge 0}$ is called a $Q$-Wiener process if
\begin{enumerate}
\item[$(i)$] $W_0=0$,
\item[$(ii)$] $W$ has continuous trajectories and independent increments and,
\item[$(iii)$] The law $\mathscr{L}(W_t - W_s)=\mathscr{N}(0,(t-s)Q)$ for $t\ge s\ge 0$, i.e. the Gaussian measure with mean $0$ and covariance operator $(t-s)Q$.
\end{enumerate}
We shall assume
\begin{assumptions}\label{Ass2p1}
There exists a bounded sequence of nonnegative real numbers $(\lambda_k)_{k\in\bb{N}}$ such that $Q f_k = \lambda_k f_k$ for $k\in\bb{N}$.
\end{assumptions}
Due to $Q$ been trace class, one can prove that $\text{Tr}(Q)=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \lambda_k < \infty$, result known as Lidskii's theorem. We provide an example of trace class operator. Consider the usual Hilbert space $H$ (could be any Hilbert space) and $x,y\in H$, define the bounded linear operator $T_{x,y}\in L(H)$ such that $T_{x,y}z=\prom{z,y}_H x$ for any $z\in H$. Then $\text{Tr}(T_{x,y}) = \prom{x,y}_H$. Furthermore, any bounded linear operator with finite-dimensional rank is trace class.
\medskip
For a $V $-valued $Q$-Wiener process $(W_t)_{t\in[0,T]}$ we have the representation \cite{daprato}
\begin{align}\label{eq:w-representation}
W_t = \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \sqrt{\lambda_k}\beta^k_t f_k\ \ \text{with}\ \ \beta^k_t = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda_k}}\bra{W_t}{f_k}_{V},
\end{align}
where the series converges in $L^2(\Omega,\ca{F},\mathbb{P};V)$ and $(\beta^j)_{j\in\bb{N}}$ is a sequence of independent real valued Brownian motions on $(\Omega,\ca{F},\mathbb{P})$. For $n\in\bb{N}$ consider
\begin{align}\label{eq:w-n}
W^n_t = \sum_{k=1}^n \sqrt{\lambda_k}\beta^k_t f_k,\ t\in [0,T].
\end{align}
\begin{definition}\label{def:integrable-processes}
For a Hilbert space $K$ (usually $\bb{R}$ or $H$), we define the set $\mathscr{N}_W^2(0,T;L_2(V_0,K))$ of $L_2(V_0,K)$-valued predictable processes $\Phi\colon[0,T]\times\Omega\to L_2(V_0,K)$ such that
\begin{align*}
\norm{\Phi}^2_{\mathscr{N}_W^2(0,T;L_2(V_0,K))}=\bb{E}\int_0^T \| \Phi_s \|^2_0 ds < \infty,
\end{align*}
endowed with the corresponding norm, i.e. $\norm{\cdot}_{\mathscr{N}_W^2(0,T;L_2(V_0,K))}$ which we also denote as $\norm{\cdot}_{\mathscr{N}_W^2}$ when no confusion arises.
\end{definition}
Such processes are suitable for integrate with respect to $(W_t)_{t\in[0,T]}$ obtaining another stochastic process
\begin{align}\label{eq:stochastic-intregral}
\int_0^t \Phi_s dW_s,\ t\in[0,T],
\end{align}
which is a continuous square integrable martingale. See \cite[Section $4.3$]{daprato} for properties of this integral.
\subsection{Some useful lemmas}
In this section we have compiled some basic but essential facts that will be used in the proof for introductory results to state main Theorem \ref{MT1}. Of particular importance is the \textit{Martingale Representation Theorem} \ref{lemma:mg-representation} which allows us to find a solution for the backward stochastic equation.
\begin{lemma}
The integral \eqref{eq:stochastic-intregral} can be approximated as follows: for $n\in\bb{N}$ consider the Wiener process $(W^n_t)_{t\in [0,T]}$ in \eqref{eq:w-n}, then
\begin{align*}
\bb{E}\parent{\underset{t\in [0,T]}{\sup}\norm{\int_0^t \Phi_s d W_s - \int_0^t \Phi_s d W^n_s}^2}\to 0\quad\text{as}\quad N\to\infty,
\end{align*}
for any $(\Phi_s)_{s\in [0,T]}\in\mathscr{N}_W([0,T];L_2(V_0,K))$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:n-brownian-integral}
Let $n\in\bb{N}$ and $(\Phi_s)_{s\in[0,T]}\in \mathscr{N}_W (0,T;L_2(V_0,H))$, then the following holds,
\begin{align*}
\int_{0}^t \Phi(s)dW_s^n = \sum_{j=1}^n \int_0^t\Phi(s)(Q^{1/2}f_j)d\beta^j
_s.
\end{align*}
Where $W^n$ is given by \eqref{eq:w-n}.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}[\textbf{Proof}:]
First, note that we have $n$ integrals of $H$-valued processes with respect to real valued standard Brownian Motions (the associated covariance operator in this case is just $1$). In our case, the space that gives sense to these integrals is $\mathscr{N}_W(0,T;L_2(\bb{R},H))$. It is straightforward that $L_2(\bb{R},H)=H$. We proceed by proving the property for elementary processes and conclude by taking the proper limit. For that purpose let $N\in\bb{N}$, $\set{t_i}_{i=0}^N$ be a partition of $[0,T]$ with $t_0=0$ and $t_N=T$, $\set{\Phi_i}_{i=1}^{N}\subset L(V ,H)$ and an elementary process $\Phi$ defined as
\begin{align*}
\Phi(s) = \sum_{i=1}^N \Phi_i \ind{[t_{i-1},t_i)} (s).
\end{align*}
Then by using the linearity of the operators $\Phi_i$, definition \eqref{eq:w-n} and $Q^{1/2}f_k = \lambda^{1/2}f_k$,
\begin{align*}
\int_{0}^t \Phi_s dW_s^n &= \sum_{i=1}^N\Phi_i(W^n_{t_{i+1}\wedge t} - W^n_{t_i\wedge t}) = \sum_{i=1}^{N} \Phi_i\parent{\sum_{k=1}^n \sqrt{\lambda_k}f_k\beta^k_{t_{i+1}\wedge t}
-\sum_{k=1}^n \sqrt{\lambda_k}f_k\beta^k_{t_i\wedge t} }\\
&=\sum_{i=1}^{N} \Phi_i\parent{\sum_{k=1}^n(Q^{1/2}f_k)(\beta^k_{t_i\wedge t} - \beta^k_{t_{i-1}\wedge t})}=\sum_{k=1}^n\sum_{i=1}^N\Phi_i(Q^{1/2}f_k)(\beta^k_{t_i\wedge t} - \beta^k_{t_{i-1}\wedge t})\\
&=\sum_{k=1}^n \int_0^t \Phi_s (Q^{1/2}f_k)d\beta^k_s.
\end{align*}
It is easy to see that for every $j\in\bb{N}$, $(\Phi_s(Q^{1/2}f_j))_{s\in[0,T]}$ is an elementary process in $\mathscr{N}_W(0,T;L_2(\bb{R},H))$; therefore, the property is satisfied for those processes. Now, given a sequence of elementary processes such that $\Phi^k\to\Phi$ in $\mathscr{N}_W(0,T;L_2(V_0,H))$, we also have that for every $j\in\bb{N}$ $\Phi^k(Q^{1/2}f_j)\to\Phi(Q^{1/2}f_j)$ in $\mathscr{N}_W(0,T;L_2(\bb{R},H))$. For any $k\in\bb{N}$ it holds that,
\begin{align*}
\int_0^{\cdot} \Phi^k_s dW^N_s = \sum_{j=1}^n \int_0^{\cdot}\Phi^k_s(Q^{1/2}f_j) d\beta^j_s.
\end{align*}
The property follows by taking limit in $\mathscr{M}_T^2(H)$ as $k\to\infty$ in both sides.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}[\textit{Martingale Representation Theorem}]
\label{lemma:mg-representation}
Let $W$ be a Hilbert space and $r,s\in[0,T]$ with $r<s$. Then, for every $X\in L^2(\Omega,\ca{F}_s,\mathbb{P};W)$ there exists $(Z_t)_{t\in[r,s]}\in \mathscr{N}_W([r,s];L^0_2(V,W))$ such that
\begin{align*}
X = \bb{E}(X|\ca{F}_t) + \int_t^s Z_u dW_u,\ t\in[r,s].
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
See for instance \cite[Proposition $4.1$]{fuhrman}.
\end{proof}
\section{The Forward-Backward Stochastic System}
\subsection{Assumptions for the model}\label{sec:assumptions}
Recall the Kolmogorov model introduced in \eqref{eq:pde} and the Subsection \ref{sec:notation} (Notation) for details on the functional spaces. Along the paper we shall consider the following assumptions.
\begin{assumptions}\label{assumptions}
There exists a constant $K>0$ such that,
\begin{enumerate}
\item {\bf Structure of $\ca{L}$}. The operator $\ca{L}$ is defined for $f\in C^{0,2}([0,T]\times H;\bb{R})$ and $(t,x)\in[0,T]\times H$ as follows,
\begin{align*}
\ca{L}[f](t,x) = \prom{\nabla f(t,x), Ax + F(t,x)}_H + \frac{1}{2} \text{tr}\parent{\nabla^2 f(t,x)(B(t,x)Q^{1/2})(B(t,x)Q^{1/2})^*},
\end{align*}
where
\begin{itemize}
\item $\nabla f \in H$ is the standard gradient, and $\nabla^2 f$ is the bilinear operator second derivative;
\item $A\colon\ca{D}(A)\subset H\to H$ is the infinitesimal generator of a $C_0$-semigroup $\set{S(t), t\ge 0}$ on $H$, with $\ca{D}(A)$ dense in $H$ and $x\in \ca{D}(A)$.
\item $F$ is a drift term and $B$ is an diffusion operator satisfying
\[
F\colon[0,T]\times H\to H, \qquad B\colon[0,T]\times H\to L_2(V_0,H),
\]
are $(\ca{B}([0,T])\otimes\ca{B}(H))$-$\ca{B}(H)$ and $(\ca{B}([0,T])\otimes \ca{B}(H))$-$\ca{B}(L_2(V_0,H))$ measurable mappings, respectively. Furthermore, they satisfy that for all $x,y\in H$ and $t\in[0,T]$,
\begin{align*}
\norm{F(t,x) - F(t,y)}_H + \norm{B(t,x) - B(t,y)}_{L_2(V_0,H)}\le K\norm{x-y}_H,
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
\norm{F(t,x)}^2_{H} + \norm{B(t,x)}^2_{L_2(V_0,H)} \le K^2(1+\norm{x}^2_H).
\end{align*}
These mean that $F$ and $B$ are uniformly Lipschitz, with linear growth.
\smallskip
\item For all $r,s\in[0,T]$ with $r < s$ and $y\in H$,
\[
S(s-r)F(r,y)\in\ca{D}(A), \quad S(s-r)B(r,y)\in\ca{D}(A).
\]
And, there exists positive functions $g_1, g_2\in L^1([0,T])$ such that
\begin{align*}
\norm{AS(s-r)F(r,y)}_H &\le g_1(s-r)\parent{1 + \norm{y}_H},\\
\norm{AS(s-r)B(r,y)}^2_{L_2(V_0,H)} &\le g_2(s-r)\parent{1 + \norm{y}^2_H}.
\end{align*}
\end{itemize}
Note that this tells us that $F$ and $B$ are uniformly bounded in $[0,T]$ for fixed $x\in H$. We also denote as $B^*$ the adjoint operator of $B$.
\item {\bf Structure of the nonlinearity}. $\psi\colon[0,T]\times H\times\bb{R}\times V \to\bb{R}$ is the nonlinearity in \eqref{eq:pde}, which satisfies that for $t,t'\in [0,T], x,x'\in H, y,y'\in\bb{R}$ and $z,z'\in V$,
\begin{align}\label{lip:psi}
|\psi(t,x,y,z) - \psi(t',x',y',z')| \le C(|t-t'|^{1/2} + \norm{x-x'}_H + |y-y'| + \norm{z-z'}_V).
\end{align}
\end{enumerate}
\end{assumptions}
These assumptions are standard in the literature, see e.g. \cite{DBS}. In particular, condition \eqref{lip:psi} on $\psi$ is required to control our numerical scheme in a satisfactory way. As for the conditions on $\mathcal L$, these are also common in the infinite dimensional literature, as expressed for example in \cite{fuhrman}. For any $u\in V$ we have that $\norm{Q^{1/2}u}_V\le\norm{Q^{1/2}}_{L(V)}\norm{u}_V=\norm{Q^{1/2}}_{L(V)}\norm{Q^{1/2}u}_0$, which will be implicitly used during the paper.
\subsection{The forward process} Now we recall the mathematical structure associated to the forward process $(X_t)$ in \eqref{eq:fpsde}, where $A$, $B$ and $F$ were specified in Assumptions \ref{assumptions}. For further details, the reader can consult \cite{daprato}.
\begin{definition}[Strong and mild solutions]~
\label{def:strong-mild}
\begin{enumerate}
\item A predictable $H$-valued stochastic process $(X_t)_{t\in[0,T]}$ is said to be a {\bf strong solution} of \eqref{eq:fpsde} if for all $t\in[0,T]$ $X_t\in \ca{D}(A)$ $\mathbb{P}$-a.e.,
\begin{align*}
\int_0^T \norm{AX_s}_H ds < \infty,\quad \mathbb{P}\text{-a.e.}
\end{align*}
and equation \eqref{eq:fpsde} is satisfied for all $t\in[0,T]$.
\item A predictable $H$-valued stochastic process $(X_t)_{t\in[0,T]}$ is said to be a {\bf mild solution} of \eqref{eq:fpsde} if
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{P}\parent{\int_0^T \norm{X_s}_H^2 ds< \infty} = 1,
\end{align*}
and for all $t\in[0,T]$ we have the weak formulation of \eqref{eq:fpsde}:
\begin{align}\label{eq:mild}
X_t = S(t) x + \int_0^t S(t-s) F(s,X_s)ds + \int_0^t S(t-s)B(s,X_s)dW_s,\quad\mathbb{P}\text{-a.e.}
\end{align}
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
The following result gives existence of mild solutions in a very general setting.
\begin{theorem}\label{theorem:mild-existence-uiqueness}
There exist a unique mild solution $(X_t)_{t\in[0,T]}$ to \eqref{eq:fpsde}, unique among the stochastic processes satisfying,
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{P}\parent{\int_0^T \norm{X_s}_H^2 ds< \infty} = 1.
\end{align*}
Moreover, $X$ possesses a continuous modification and for any $p\ge 2$ there exists a constant $C=C(p,T)>0$ such that,
\begin{align*}
\underset{s\in[0,T]}{\sup} \bb{E}\norm{X_s}_H^p \le C(1+\norm{x}^p_H).
\end{align*}
\begin{proof}
See \cite[Theorem $7.2$]{daprato}.
\end{proof}
\end{theorem}
Now we provide a proof of existence of strong solutions to \eqref{eq:fpsde}, which follows closely \cite[Theorem $2$]{albeverio}.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:strong-forward-solution}
Assuming Assumptions \ref{assumptions} there exists a strong solution $(X_t)_{t\in[0,T]}$ to the equation \eqref{eq:fpsde} and $C=C(T)$ such that
\begin{align}\label{eq:mild-bound}
\underset{s\in[0,T]}{\sup}\bb{E}\norm{X_s}_H^2 \le C\quad\text{and}\quad\mathbb{P}\parent{\int_0^T \norm{X_s}_H^2 ds< \infty} = 1.
\end{align}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
By applying Theorem \ref{theorem:mild-existence-uiqueness} we have a mild solution already satisfying \eqref{eq:mild-bound} and then, due to Assumptions \ref{assumptions}, from \eqref{eq:mild} we get that for all $t\in[0,T]$, $X_t\in\ca{D}(A)\ \mathbb{P}$-a.e. and
\begin{align*}
\int_0^t AX_s = \int_0^t AS(s)xds + \underbrace{\int_0^t\int_0^sAS(s-r)F(r,X_r)drds}_{\bf I} + \underbrace{\int_0^t\int_0^sAS(s-r)B(r,X_r)dW_rds}_{\bf II}.
\end{align*}
Basically, the idea here is to use Fubini theorem and its stochastic version (see \cite[Section $4.5$]{daprato}) together with the fact that $S(t)y - y = \int_0^t AS(s)ds$ for $y\in\ca{D}(A)$. The bounds that $F$ and $B$ satisfy in Assumptions \ref{assumptions} imply that,
\begin{align*}
\int_0^T\int_0^s \norm{AS(s-r)F(r,X_r)}_H drds &\le \int_0^T\int_0^s g_1(s-r)drds + \int_0^T\int_0^s g_1(s-r)\norm{X_r}_H drds \\
&\le \norm{g_1}_{L^1([0,T])}\parent{T + \int_0^T \norm{X_r}_H dr}< \infty\quad \mathbb{P}\text{-a.e.}.
\end{align*}
And,
\begin{align*}
\int_0^T \bb{E}\int_0^s\norm{AS(s-r)B(r,X_r)}^2_{L_2(V_0,H)} drds&\le \int_0^T\int_0^s g_2(s-r)drds + \int_0^T\bb{E}\int_0^s g_2(s-r)\norm{X_r}^2_H drds\\
&\le \norm{g_1}_{L^1([0,T])}\parent{1 + T\bb{E}\Bigg[\underset{r\in[0,T]}{\sup}\norm{X_r}^2_H\Bigg]} < \infty.
\end{align*}
Then, by Fubini Theorem,
\begin{align*}
{\bf I} &= \int_0^t S(t-r)F(r,X_r) dr - \int_0^t F(r,X_r) dr\quad\text{and},\\
{\bf II} &= \int_0^t S(t-r)B(r,X_r) dW_r - \int_0^t B(r,X_r) dW_r.
\end{align*}
Therefore,
\begin{align*}
\int_0^t AX_s ds = &~{} S(t)x - x + \int_0^t S(t-r)F(r,X_r) dr - \int_0^t F(r,X_r) dr \\
& + \int_0^t S(t-r)B(r,X_r) dW_r - \int_0^t B(r,X_r) dW_r.
\end{align*}
Hence,
\begin{align*}
X_t = x + \int_0^t AX_s ds + \int_0^tF(r,X_r)dr + \int_0^t B(r,X_r)dW_r\quad\mathbb{P}\text{-a.e.},
\end{align*}
and the proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\subsection{The backward process}
Now we provide existence results for the backward process \eqref{eq:bpsde}, following ideas in \cite[Lemma $4.2$]{fuhrman}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:representation-existence}
Let $\eta\in L^2(\Omega,\ca{F}_T,\mathbb{P})$ and $f\in\mathscr{N}_W (0,T;\bb{R})$. Then there exist a unique pair $(Y,Z)\in \mathscr{S}^2_T(\bb{R})\times\mathscr{N}_W (0,T;L_2^0(V,\bb{R}))$ such that,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:lemma-backward-eq}
Y_t = \eta + \int_t^T f_s ds - \int_t^T \prom{Z_s,\cdot}_0 dW_s.
\end{align}
Furthermore, the following bounds are satisfied,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:bounds-lemma}
\bb{E} \left( \int_0^T e^{2\beta s}\norm{Z_s}_0^2 ds \right) \wedge \bb{E}\left( \underset{s\in[0,T]}{\sup} e^{2\beta s} |Y_s|^2 \right) \le \frac{4}{\beta}\bb{E}\int_0^T e^{2\beta s} |f_s|^2 ds + 8e^{2\beta T} \bb{E}|\eta|^2.
\end{align}
Where $\wedge$ indicates the maximum between both quantities.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For uniqueness to the first part of \cite[Lemma $4.2$]{fuhrman}. First, we prove existence, define $\xi=\eta ~ + ~ \int_0^T f_s ds\in L^2(\Omega,\ca{F}_T,\mathbb{P})$. Then, by Theorem \eqref{lemma:mg-representation}, there exists $Z\in\mathscr{N}_W (0,T;L_2^0(V,\bb{R}))$ such that
\begin{align}\label{eq:chi-representation}
\xi = \bb{E}(\xi|\ca{F}_t) + \int_t^T \prom{Z_s,\cdot}_0 dW_s,
\end{align}
where we applied Remark \ref{remark:schmidt-dual} to notice that $L_2(V_0,\bb{R})=V_0$. Define now $Y_t=\bb{E}(\xi|\ca{F}_t) - \int_0^t f_s ds$, follows that
\begin{align}\label{eq:representation-result}
Y_t = \eta + \int_t^T f_s ds - \int_t^T \prom{Z_s,\cdot}_0 dW_s.
\end{align}
To conclude that $(Y_t)_{t\in[0,T]}\in\mathscr{S}^2_T(\bb{R})$ we just note that by \eqref{eq:chi-representation}, \eqref{eq:representation-result} and the definition of $\xi$, one has for every $t\in[0,T]$
\begin{align*}
\bb{E}|Y_t|^2\le 3\parent{\bb{E}|\eta|^2 + T\bb{E}\int_0^T |f_s|^2 ds + \bb{E}\int_0^T \norm{Z_s}_0^2 ds}\le 27\parent{\bb{E}|\eta|^2 + \bb{E}\int_0^T f_s^2 ds }<\infty.
\end{align*}
In order to prove estimate \eqref{eq:bounds-lemma}, we bound both quantities at left side by the right side. Sssume the existence and uniqueness of a solution $(Y,Z)$ and note that for almost all $s\in[0,T]$, $\bb{E}|f_s|^2<\infty$, thus by Theorem \ref{lemma:mg-representation} there exists $(K(u,s))_{u\in[0,s]}\in\mathscr{N}_W(0,s;L_2^0(V,\bb{R}))$ such that,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:f}
f_s = \bb{E}(f_s|\ca{F}_t) + \int_t^s K(u,s)dW_u,\ t\in[0,s].
\end{align}
We extend $K$ to $[0,T]\times [0,T]$ in the following way,
\begin{align*}
K:[0,T]\times[0,T]\times\Omega&\longrightarrow L_2^0(V,\bb{R})\\
(u,s,\omega) \qquad &\longmapsto ~ K(u,s)(\omega)\ind{[0,s]}(u)=\begin{cases}K(u,s)(\omega),\quad &u\le s\\ 0,\quad&\sim. \end{cases}
\end{align*}
$(\ca{P}_T\times\ca{B}([0,T]))$-measurability of $K$ is discussed in \cite{fuhrman}, but it is no difficult to convince oneself of this. In the same way there exists $(L_t)_{t\in[0,T]}\in\mathscr{N}_W(0,T;L_2^0(V,\bb{R}))$ such that,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:eta}
\eta = \bb{E}(\eta|\ca{F}_t) + \int_t^T L_sdW_s,\quad t\in[0,T].
\end{align}
By taking $\bb{E}(\cdot|\ca{F}_t)$ in \eqref{eq:lemma-backward-eq} then using conditional Fubini's theorem, and replacing \eqref{eq:f} and \eqref{eq:eta} we have that for all $t\in[0,T]$,
\begin{align*}
Y_t = \eta - \int_t^T f_sds - \int_t^T L_s dW_s + \int_t^T \int_t^T K(u,s)\ind{[t,s]}(u) dW_u ds.
\end{align*}
Due to $\int_t^T \bb{E}\int_t^T \norm{K(u,s)}_0^2\ind{[t,s]}(u) duds < \infty$ (it can be bounded by a factor of $\norm{f}_{\mathscr{N}}$), we may apply stochastic Fubini theorem (see \cite[Section $4.5$]{daprato}) getting,
\begin{align*}
Y_t = \eta -\int_t^T f_s ds - \int_t^T\parent{L_u - \int_u^T K(u,s) ds}dW_s.
\end{align*}
Then by uniqueness,
\begin{align*}
Z_u = L_u - \int_u^T K(u,s) ds,\quad\forall u\in[0,T],
\end{align*}
which allows us to compute,
\begin{align*}
\bb{E}\int_0^T e^{2\beta u}\norm{Z_u}^2_0 du = \underbrace{2\bb{E}\int_0^T e^{2\beta u} \norm{L_u}^2_0 du}_{\bf I} + \underbrace{2\bb{E}\int_0^T e^{2\beta u}\norm{\int_u^T K(u,s)ds}_0^2 du}_{\bf II}.
\end{align*}
By standard procedures and using \eqref{eq:eta} we get ${\bf I}\le 8e^{2\beta T}\bb{E}|\eta|^2$. To work with ${\bf II}$ we first note that for any $u\in [0,T]$,
\begin{align*}
\norm{\int_u^T K(u,s) ds}_0^2 \le \int_u^T e^{-2\beta s}ds \int_u^T e^{2\beta s}\norm{K(u,s)}_0^2 ds\le\frac{e^{-2\beta u}}{2\beta} \int_u^T e^{2\beta s}\norm{K(u,s)}_0^2 ds,
\end{align*}
where we applied Bochner's estimate ($\norm{\int f}\le \int \norm{f}$) and H\"older's inequality. Then, by replacing the last relation in ${\bf II}$ and using Fubini theorem,
\begin{align*}
{\bf II}&\le \frac{1}{\beta}\bb{E} \int_0^T\int_u^T e^{2\beta s}\norm{K(u,s)}_0^2 ds du = \frac{1}{\beta}\bb{E} \int_0^T\int_0^T e^{2\beta s}\norm{K(u,s)}_0^2 \ind{[u,T]}(s) ds du\\
& = \frac{1}{\beta} \int_0^T e^{2\beta s} \bb{E}\parent{\int_0^s \norm{K(u,s)}_0^2 du} ds \le \frac{4}{\beta}\int_0^T e^{2\beta s}\bb{E}|f_s|^2 ds
\end{align*}
Now for the second bound we first note that by taking $\bb{E}(\cdot|\ca{F}_t)$ we have,
\begin{align*}
Y_t = \bb{E}(\eta|\ca{F}_t) - \bb{E}\parent{\int_t^T f_s ds\Bigg|\ca{F}_t},
\end{align*}
and then,
\begin{align*}
\bb{E} \underset{t\in[0,T]}{\sup} e^{2\beta t} |Y_t|^2 \quad \le \quad \underbrace{2\bb{E} \underset{t\in[0,T]}{\sup} e^{2\beta t} |\bb{E}(\eta|\ca{F}_t)|^2}_{\bf A} \quad +\quad \underbrace{2\bb{E} \underset{t\in[0,T]}{\sup} e^{2\beta t}\Bigg| \bb{E}\parent{\int_t^T f_s ds \Bigg|\ca{F}_t} \Bigg|^2}_{\bf B}.
\end{align*}
Using Doob's inequality we get ${\bf A}\le 8e^{2\beta T}\bb{E}|\eta|^2$. For the second term,
\begin{align*}
{\bf B} &\le 2\bb{E} \underset{t\in[0,T]}{\sup} e^{2\beta t}\Bigg| \bb{E}\parent{\sqrt{\int_t^T e^{-2\beta s} ds} \sqrt{\int_t^T e^{2\beta s} |f_s|^2 ds} \Bigg|\ca{F}_t} \Bigg|^2\\
&\le \frac{1}{\beta}\bb{E} \underset{t\in[0,T]}{\sup}\Bigg| \bb{E}\parent{ \sqrt{\int_0^T e^{2\beta s} |f_s|^2 ds} \Bigg|\ca{F}_t} \Bigg|^2\\
&\le \frac{4}{\beta}\bb{E}\int_0^T e^{2\beta s}|f_s|^2 ds.
\end{align*}
Where we used Doob's inequality on the last inequality. By putting all together we conclude the proof.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Existence in the nonlinear Forward-Backward model}
The existence and uniqueness of a solution $(Y,Z)$ to the backward equation \eqref{eq:bpsde} is well-known, here we follow the proof given in \cite{fuhrman}. The argument, as we are working in a non-linear framework, relies on an application of Banach's fixed point theorem. The problem is that with the parameters as they are, the fixed-point functional does not necessarily contract. A solution to this issue is possible by giving equivalent norms to $\mathscr{N}_W(0,T;L_2^0(V;\bb{R}))$ and $\mathscr{S}^2_T(\bb{R})$ parameterized by a positive real number $\beta$. Let $\beta>0$, consider
\begin{align*}
\norm{Y}^2_{\mathscr{S}^2_{T,\beta}} = \bb{E} \left( \underset{s\in[0,T]}{\sup} e^{2\beta s}|Y|^2 \right) \quad\text{and}\quad\norm{Z}^2_{\mathscr{N}_{W,\beta}} = \bb{E} \left(\int_0^T e^{2\beta s}\norm{Z}^2_0 ds\right).
\end{align*}
With a bit of work we can see that $\norm{\cdot}_{\mathscr{S}^2_{T,\beta}}$ and $\norm{\cdot}_{\mathscr{N}_{W,\beta}}$ are equivalent to $\norm{\cdot}_{\mathscr{S}^2_T}$ and $\norm{\cdot}_{\mathscr{N}_W}$, respectively.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:backward-existence}
Given a $H$-valued stochastic process $(X_t)_{t\in[0,T]}$ such that
\begin{align}\label{eq:bound-backward-existence}
\bb{E} \left( \int_0^T \psi(s,X_s,0,0)^2 ds \right)< \infty,
\end{align}
there exist a unique solution $(Y,Z)\in\mathscr{S}^2_T(\bb{R})\times\mathscr{N}_W (0,T;L_2^0(V,\bb{R}))$ to equation \eqref{eq:bpsde} and there exists $C=C(K,T)>0$ such that,
\begin{align}\label{eq:bound2-backward-existence}
\norm{Y}_{\ca{S}^2_T}^2 + \norm{Z}_{\ca{N}_W}^2 \le C \parent{\bb{E}\phi(X_T)^2 + \bb{E}\int_0^T \psi(s,X_s,0,0)^2ds}.
\end{align}
\begin{proof}
Again, we follow the proof given in \cite[Proposition $4.3$]{fuhrman}. The following result is proven as the majority of existence of solutions to non-linear equations results, this is, by considering an adequate operator from a Banach space to itself and applying Banach's fixed point Theorem. For $\beta>0$ consider $\mathscr{K}_{\beta} = \mathscr{S}^2_T(\bb{R})\times\mathscr{N}_W (0,T;L_2^0(V,\bb{R}))$ which is a Banach space endowed with,
\begin{align*}
\norm{(Y,Z)}_{\mathscr{K}_{\beta}}^2 =&\norm{Y}^2_{\mathscr{S}^2_{T,\beta}} + \norm{Z}^2_{\mathscr{N}_{W,\beta}}\\
=&~{} \bb{E}\underset{s\in[0,T]}{\sup}e^{2\beta s} |Y_s|^2 + \bb{E}\int_0^T e^{2\beta s}\norm{Z_s}^2_0 ds.
\end{align*}
Let $\Psi\colon\mathscr{K}_{\beta}\to\mathscr{K}_{\beta}$ be defined as $\Psi(U,V)=(Y,Z)$ where $(Y,Z)$ is such that,
\begin{align*}
Y_t + \int_t^T \prom{Z_s,\cdot}_0 dW_s = \phi(X_T) + \int_t^T\psi(s,X_s,U_s,V_s)ds.
\end{align*}
Given $(U,V)\in\mathscr{K}_{\beta}$, $\Psi(U,V)$ is well-defined by Lemma \ref{lemma:representation-existence} taking $(f_s)_{s\in[0,T]} = (\psi(s,X_s,U_s,V_s))_{s\in[0,T]}$ which is an element of $\mathscr{N}_W(0,T;\bb{R})$ due to the Lipschitz condition imposed on $\psi$ and \eqref{eq:bound-backward-existence}, the existence is proven if we show that $\Psi$ is a contraction. Let $(U,V),(\bar{U},\bar{V}),(Y,Z),(\bar{Y},\bar{Z})\in\mathscr{K}_{\beta}$ be such that $\Psi(U,V) = (Y,Z)$ and $\Psi(\bar{U},\bar{V}) = (\bar{Y},\bar{Z})$, follows that for all $t\in [0,T]$,
\begin{align*}
Y_t - \bar{Y}_t + \int_t^T \prom{Z_t - \bar{Z}_t,\cdot}_0 dW_S = \int_t^T\parent{\psi(s,X_s,U_s,V_s) - \psi(s,X_s,\bar{U}_s,\bar{V}_s)} ds.
\end{align*}
This means that $(Y-\bar{Y},Z-\bar{Z})$ satisfies Lemma \ref{lemma:representation-existence} with $\eta = 0$ and $f_s = \psi(s,X_s,U_s,V_s) - \psi(s,X_s,\bar{U}_s,\bar{V}_s)$. Thus
\begin{align*}
\norm{\Psi(U,V) - \Psi(\bar{U},\bar{V})}^2_{\mathscr{K}_{\beta}}&\le \frac{8K}{\beta}\bb{E}\int_0^T e^{2\beta s}\parent{|U_s-\bar{U}_s|^2+\norm{V_s-\bar{V}_s}_0^2} ds\\
&\le\frac{8K}{\beta}\bb{E}\parent{T\underset{s\in[0,T]}{\sup}e^{2\beta s}|U_s-\bar{U}_s|^2 + \int_0^T e^{2\beta s}\norm{V_s-\bar{V}_s}^2_0 ds }\\
&\le\frac{8K(T + 1)}{\beta}\norm{(U,V) - (\bar{U},\bar{V})}^2_{\mathscr{K}_{\beta}}.
\end{align*}
By taking $\beta=17K(T+1)$ we show that $\Psi$ is a contraction, and therefore, the existence is proven. Uniqueness follows easily by standard arguments. Consider now the solution $(Y,Z)$ by estimates \eqref{eq:bounds-lemma},
\begin{align*}
\norm{Y}_{\ca{S}^2_{T,\beta}}^2 + \norm{Z}_{\ca{N}_{W,\beta}}^2 &\le 16e^{2\beta T}\bb{E}\phi(X_T)^2 + \frac{8}{\beta}\underbrace{\bb{E}\int_0^T \psi(s,X_s,Y_s,Z_s)^2 ds}_{{\bf I}}.
\end{align*}
Now, by the Lipschitz condition,
\begin{align*}
{\bf I} &\le 2K\bb{E}\int_0^T e^{2\beta s} \parent{|Y_s|^2 + \norm{Z_s}_0^2} + 2e^{2\beta T}\bb{E}\int_0^T \psi(s,X_s,0,0)^2ds\\
&\le 2K(T+1)\parent{\norm{Y}_{\ca{S}^2_{T,\beta}}^2 + \norm{Z}_{\ca{N}_{W,\beta}}^2} + 2e^{2\beta T}\bb{E}\int_0^T \psi(s,X_s,0,0)^2ds.
\end{align*}
Hence,
\begin{align*}
\norm{Y}_{\ca{S}^2_{T,\beta}}^2 + \norm{Z}_{\ca{N}_{W,\beta}}^2 &\le 16e^{2\beta T}\bb{E}\phi(X_T)^2 + \frac{16}{\beta}e^{2\beta T}\bb{E}\int_0^T \psi(s,X_s,0,0)^2ds \\
&+ \frac{16K(T+1)}{\beta} \parent{\norm{Y}_{\ca{S}^2_{T,\beta}}^2 + \norm{Z}_{\ca{N}_{W,\beta}}^2}.
\end{align*}
Chosen $\beta$ ensure that $16K(T+1)/\beta < 1$ and therefore,
\begin{align*}
\norm{Y}_{\ca{S}^2_{T}}^2 + \norm{Z}_{\ca{N}_{W}}^2 &\le \norm{Y}_{\ca{S}^2_{T,\beta}}^2 + \norm{Z}_{\ca{N}_{W,\beta}}^2\\
&\le \Big[1 - \frac{16K(T+1)}{\beta}\Big]^{-1}\parent{16e^{2\beta T}\bb{E}\phi(X_T)^2 + \frac{16}{\beta}e^{2\beta T}\bb{E}\int_0^T \psi(s,X_s,0,0)^2ds}.
\end{align*}
Hence, estimate \eqref{eq:bound2-backward-existence} follows. The method that we have used remains valid if we intend to prove the existence of solutions $(Y,Z)\in\mathscr{S}^2_T(K)\times\mathscr{N}_W(0,T;L^0_2(V,K))$ and $\psi,\phi$ also taking values in the Hilbert space $K$.
\end{proof}
\end{prop}
Previous proposition lets us state, given our assumptions \eqref{assumptions}, that from now on we can refer to a solution $(X,Y,Z)$ of the system \eqref{eq:fpsde}-\eqref{eq:bpsde} with $(Y,Z)\in\mathscr{S}^2(\bb{R})\times\mathscr{N}_W(0,T;L_2^0(V,\bb{R}))$ and $X$ a strong solution of the forward equation \eqref{eq:fpsde} given by Proposition \ref{prop:strong-forward-solution}.
\subsection{Extra bounds on the nonlinear part} Finally, we finish this section with a boundedness lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:f-int-bound}
Let $(X_t)_{t\in[0,T]}$ be such that $\underset{s\in[0,T]}{\sup}\bb{E}\norm{X_s}_H^2 < \infty$ and $(Y,Z)\in\mathscr{S}^2_T(\bb{R})\times\mathscr{N}_{W}(0,T;L_2^0(V))$. The following bound holds,
\begin{align*}
\bb{E} \left( \int_0^T \psi(s,X_s,Y_s,Z_s)^2 ds \right) < \infty
\end{align*}
\begin{proof}
First note that
\begin{align*}
\int_0^T\bb{E}\norm{X_s}_H^2 ds \le T\underset{s\in[0,T]}{\sup}\bb{E}\norm{X_s}_H^2 < \infty,
\end{align*}
then, Fubini theorem can be applied together with the Lipschitz condition on $\psi$ to get,
\begin{align*}
\bb{E}\int_0^T \psi(s,X_s,Y_s,Z_s)^2 ds&\le 2K\bb{E}\int_0^T (s + \norm{X_s}_H^2 + |Y_s|^2 + \norm{Z_s}_0^2)ds + 2T\psi(0,0,0,0)^2\\
& \le \frac{CT^2}{2} + CT\underset{s\in [0,T]}{\sup}\bb{E}\norm{X_s}^2_H + CT\underset{s\in [0,T]}{\sup} |Y_s|^2 + C\bb{E}\int_0^T\norm{Z_s}_0^2 ds+CT\\
& \le C\parent{1+\underset{s\in [0,T]}{\sup}\bb{E}\norm{X_s}^2_H + \norm{Y}^2_{\mathscr{S}^2_T(\bb{R})} + \norm{Z}^2_{\mathscr{N}_W(0,T;L_2^0(V,\bb{R}))}}<\infty.
\end{align*}
Thus, the proof is completed.
\end{proof}
\end{lemma}
\section{Functional Numerical Scheme}\label{sec:Functional Numerical Scheme}
Throughout this section we will work with functions that we call \textit{approximators} and are parameterized by a finite dimensional parameter $\theta\in\Theta_{\eta}\subset\bb{R}^{\eta}$ for some $\eta\in
\bb{N}$, also let $\Theta=\cup_{\eta\in\bb{N}}\Theta_{\eta}$. As the reader may anticipate, these functions will be the DeepOnets introduced in Section \ref{sec:infinite-dim-nn}. We work in generality first, to then apply our results to this particular case.
\medskip
The following is a key assumption for the validity of our main results.
\begin{assumptions}\label{assumptions3}
Assume we are given a function $u\in C^{1,2}([0,T]\times H)$ satisfying (\ref{eq:pde}) and a strong solution $(X_t)_{t\in [0,T]}$ to (\ref{eq:fpsde}).
\end{assumptions}
This assumption is natural in finite dimensions, but its validity in infinite dimensions is far from obvious.
\subsection{The numerical scheme}\label{sec:numerical-scheme}
The scheme presented here is fully inspired by \cite{DBS} and relies on an application of It\^o Lemma to $(u(t,X_t))_{t\in [0,T]}$ as follows (see \cite[Theorem $4.32$]{daprato}),
\begin{align*}
& u(t,X_t) \\
&= u(0,X_0) + \int_0^t \prom{\nabla u(s,X_s), B(s,X_s)(\cdot)}_H dW_s - \int_0^t \psi\parent{s,X_s,u(s,X_s),B^* (s,X_s)\nabla u(s,X_s)} ds\\
&=u(0,X_0) + \int_0^t \prom{B^*(s,X_s)\nabla u(s,X_s), \cdot}_{0} dW_s - \int_0^t \psi\parent{s,X_s,u(s,X_s),B^* (s,X_s)\nabla u(s,X_s)} ds.
\end{align*}
Consider now a uniform partition $\pi=\set{t_0=0,...,t_N=T}$ with $t_i=\frac{iT}{N}$ such that $h = t_{i+1} - t_i>0$ for all $i\in\set{0,...,N-1}$, then
\begin{align*}
u(t_{i+1},X_{t_{i+1}}) =&~{} u(t_i,X_{t_i}) + \int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} \prom{B^*(s,X_s)\nabla u(s,X_s), \cdot}_0 dW_s\\
&- \int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} \psi\parent{s,X_s,u(s,X_s),B^*(s,X_s)\nabla u(s,X_s)}ds.
\end{align*}
Let $\eta\in\bb{N}$ be a fixed natural number and let $\Theta_{\eta}\subset\bb{R}^{\eta}$ be also a fixed set. Now, let us introduce some \textit{approximators} as a collection of mappings $u_i^{\theta}\colon H\to\bb{R}$ for $i\in\set{0,...,N}$ and $z_i^{\theta}\colon H\to V_0 $ for $i\in\set{0,...,N-1}$. Additionally, consider an scheme $X^{\pi}=(X^{\pi}_t)_{t\in\pi}$ for the equation (\ref{eq:fpsde}) which we assume satisfies $\sigma(X^{\pi}_s\colon s\le t,s\in\pi)\subset \ca{F}_{t}$, $X^{\pi}_t\in L^4(\Omega,\ca{F}_t,\mathbb{P};H)$ for $t\in\pi$. Here $X^{\pi}$ is a Markov process. These approximators are assumed to be such that $\set{u_i^{\theta}}_{\theta\in\Theta}$ and $\set{z_i^{\theta}}_{\theta\in\Theta}$ are dense in $L^2(H,\mu_{\xscheme{i}})$ and $L^2(H,\mu_{\xscheme{i}};V_0)$ respectively. Also assume that the approximators has polynomial growth at most.
\begin{remark}
Hilbert valued DeepOnets are a set of \textit{approximators}. This is obtained by defining
\begin{align}
\Theta_{\eta} = \bigcup_{d,m\in\bb{N}} \set{d}\times\ca{N}_{\sigma,7,d,m,\eta}\times\set{m}.
\end{align}
The size of the hidden layers of the NN (recall Definition \ref{def:finite-dim-nn}) is the variable that may increase in order to have a better performance of the DO.
\end{remark}
We propose a scheme in which we intend to find $\theta\in\Theta_{\eta}$ such that given $\hat{u}_{i+1}$, the following approximations hold as good as possible:
\begin{align*}
u_i^{\theta}(\cdot)&\approx u(t_i,\cdot)\\
z_i^{\theta}(\cdot)&\approx B^*(t_i,\cdot)\nabla u(t_i,\cdot)\\
\hat{u}_{i+1}(\xscheme{i+1})&\approx u_i^{\theta}(\xscheme{i}) + \int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}}\prom{z^{\theta}_i(\xscheme{i}), \cdot}_0 dW_s - \psi\parent{t_i,\xscheme{i},u^{\theta}_i(\xscheme{i}),z^{\theta}_i(\xscheme{i})}h,
\end{align*}
each one in some proper measure for every $i\in\set{1,...,N-1}$. The above approximations motivates the definition of a cost function, $L_i:\Theta_{\eta}\to[0,+\infty)$, associated to $\theta\in\Theta_{\eta}$:
\begin{align*}
L_i(\theta) = \bb{E}\Big| \hat{u}_{i+1}(\xscheme{i+1}) - u_i^{\theta}(\xscheme{i}) - \int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}}\prom{z^{\theta}_i(\xscheme{i}), \cdot}_{0}dW_s + \psi\parent{t_i,\xscheme{i},u^{\theta}_i(\xscheme{i}),z^{\theta}_i(\xscheme{i})}h \Big|^2.
\end{align*}
We present the following algorithm as an infinite-dimension extension of the one already presented in \cite{DBS} and \cite{yo}.\\
\medskip
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\label{algorithm}
\SetAlgoLined
Start with $\hat{u}_N=\phi$\;
\For{$i\in\set{N-1,...,1}$}{
Given $\ug{i+1}$\;
Compute $\theta^* = \underset{\theta\in\Theta_{\eta}}{\text{argmin}}\ L_i(\theta)$\;
Update $(\ug{i},\hat{z}_{i})=\parent{u^{\theta^*}_i,z^{\theta^*}_i}$\;
}
\caption{DBDP1 infinite-dimension extension}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Previous Definitions and Results}
Let us introduce the operator $\bb{E}_i = \bb{E}(\cdot|\ca{F}_{t_i})$ defined for every integrable real or vector valued random variable. For the consistency proof of the algorithm we need to introduce a somehow auxiliary scheme $(\widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i},\gb{Z}_{t_i} )_{i\in\set{0,...,N-1}}$ that is inspired by \cite{bruno-touzi}, used in \cite{DBS} and we generalize to the infinite-dimensional case as follows,
\begin{align}
\widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i} &= \bb{E}_i (\hat{u}_{i+1}(\xscheme{i+1})) + \psi(t_i,\xscheme{i},\widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i},\gb{Z}_{t_i})h
\label{eq:nu-gorro}\\
\gb{Z}_{t_i} &= \frac{1}{h}\bb{E}_i (\hat{u}_{i+1}(\xscheme{i+1})\Delta W_i).\label{eq:z-gorro-barra}
\end{align}
Observe that these processes are adapted to the discrete filtration $\parent{\ca{F}_t}_{t\in\pi}$. The discrete process $\widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i}$ for $i\in\set{0,...,N-1}$ is well-defined for sufficiently small $h$ as shown in Lemma \ref{lemma:vwell-defined} and by Markov property of $X^{\pi}$, there exists square integrable functions $v_i,z_i$ for $i\in\set{0,...,N-1}$ such that
\begin{align*}
\widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i} = v_i(\xscheme{i})\quad\text{and}\quad \gb{Z}_{t_i} = z_i(\xscheme{i}).
\end{align*}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:vwell-defined}
Assume that for sufficiently small $h$ and every $i\in\set{0,...,N-1}$, $\bb{E}|\hat{u}_{i+1}(\xscheme{i+1})|^4<+\infty$. Then there exists $\widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i}\in L^2 (\Omega, \ca{F}_{t_i}, \mathbb{P})$ such that (\ref{eq:nu-gorro}) holds and $\gb{Z}_{t_i}\in L^2 (\Omega,\ca{F}_{t_i},\mathbb{P};V)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $i\in\set{0,...,N-1}$ and $f:L^2(\Omega,\ca{F}_{t_i},\mathbb{P})\to L^2(\Omega,\ca{F}_{t_i},\mathbb{P})$ be defined as
\begin{align*}
f(\xi)(\omega)=\bb{E}_i\parent{\ug{i+1}(\xscheme{i+1})}(\omega) + \psi\parent{t_i,\xscheme{i}(\omega),\xi(\omega), \gb{Z}_{t_i}(\omega)}h.
\end{align*}
For all $\xi \in L^2(\Omega,\ca{F}_{t_i},\mathbb{P})$ and $\omega\in\Omega$. This function is well-defined by the properties of $\psi$ and the approximators. Let $\xi,\overline \xi\in L^2(\Omega,\ca{F}_{t_i},\mathbb{P})$, then $\mathbb{P}$ a.s $|\psi(\xi)-\psi(\overline\xi)| \le h |\xi-\overline\xi|$, therefore
\begin{align*}
\norm{\psi(\xi)-\psi(\overline\xi)}_{L^2(\Omega,\ca{F}_{t_i}, \mathbb{P})} \le h \norm{\xi-\overline \xi}_{L^2(\Omega,\ca{F}_{t_i}, \mathbb{P})}.
\end{align*}
Taking $h<1$, which is independent of $i$, we can see that this function is a contraction on $L^2(\Omega,\ca{F},\mathbb{P})$, and therefore, by applying Banach's fixed point theorem, we conclude the first result of this lemma. By standard computations,
\begin{align*}
\bb{E}\norm{\gbt{Z}{i}}^2_V &= \bb{E}\norm{\frac{1}{h}\bb{E}_i \parent{\hat{u}_{i+1}(\xscheme{i+1})\Delta W_i}}^2\\
& \le \frac{1}{h^2}\bb{E}\parent{\bb{E}_i \norm{\hat{u}_{i+1}(\xscheme{i+1})\Delta W_i}_V}^2\le \frac{1}{h}\bb{E}\parent{|\hat{u}_{i+1}(\xscheme{i+1})|^2\norm{\Delta W_i}_V^2}\\
&\le \frac{1}{h}\sqrt{\bb{E}|\hat{u}_{i+1}(\xscheme{i+1})|^4}\sqrt{\bb{E}\norm{\Delta W_i}^4_V} < \infty,
\end{align*}
where we used the fact that $W_t\in L^4(\Omega,\ca{F},\mathbb{P};V)$. The proof is completed.
\end{proof}
We intent to write $\gb{Z}_{t_i}$ as the average of some other process on $[t_i,t_{i+1}]$, to be consistent with the overline notation this process has to be denoted as $\widehat{Z}_{t}$ for $t\in [t_i,t_{i+1}]$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:z-gorro}
There exists a $V_0$-valued process $(\widehat{Z}_t)_{t\in[t_i,t_{i+1}]}$, which can be seen as an element of $\mathscr{N}_W([t_i,t_{i+1}];L_2(V_0,\bb{R}))$, such that,
\begin{align*}
\gbt{Z}{i} = \frac{1}{h}\bb{E}_i\parent{\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} \widehat{Z}_s ds}\in L^2(\Omega,\ca{F}_{t_i},\mathbb{P};Q^{1/2}V).
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Consider $N_t = \bb{E}(\hat{u}_{i+1}(\xscheme{i+1})|\ca{F}_t)$ for $t\in [t_i,t_{i+1}]$, this process is a square integrable martingale because $\hat{u}_{i+1}(\xscheme{i+1})\in L^2(\Omega,\ca{F}_{t_{i+1}},\mathbb{P})$. By the martingale representation theorem \ref{lemma:mg-representation} there exists $(\widehat{Z}_t)_{t\in[t_i,t_{i+1}]}\in \mathscr{N}_W([t_i,t_{i+1}];L_2(V_0,\bb{R}))$, which ensures the a.e. Bochner integrability of $(\widehat{Z}_t)_{t\in[t_i,t_{i+1}]}$, such that,
\begin{align*}
N_t = N_{t_i} + \int_{t_i}^t\prom{\widehat{Z}_s,\cdot}_0 dW_s.
\end{align*}
By taking $t=t_i$,
\begin{align*}
\ug{i+1}(\xscheme{i+1}) = \bb{E}_i (\ug{i+1}(\xscheme{i+1})) + \int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}}\bra{\widehat{Z}_s}{\cdot}_{0}\ dW_s.
\end{align*}
It follows that,
\begin{align*}
h\gb{Z}_{t_i} = \bb{E}_i(\bb{E}_i(\ug{i+1}(\xscheme{i+1}))\Delta W_i) + \bb{E}_i\parent{\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} \bra{\widehat{Z}_s}{\cdot}_{0}\ dW_s\parent{W_{t_{i+1}} - W_{t_i}}}.
\end{align*}
Note that we took the equation from $\bb{R}$ to $V$. We can make the following elimination,
\begin{align*}
\bb{E}_i(\bb{E}_i(\ug{i+1}(\xscheme{i+1}))\Delta W_i) = \bb{E}_i(\ug{i+1}(\xscheme{i+1})) \bb{E}_i\Delta W_i = 0,
\end{align*}
which yields,
\begin{align*}
h\gb{Z}_{t_i} =\bb{E}_i\Big( \int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} \bra{\widehat{Z}_s}{\cdot}_{0}\ dW_s\parent{W_{t_{i+1}} - W_{t_i}}\Big ).
\end{align*}
Recall that the representation \eqref{eq:w-representation} allows us to write $W_{t_{i+1}} - W_{t_i} = \sum_{j=1}^{\infty}f_j \sqrt{\lambda_j} (\beta_j(t_{i+1})-\beta_j(t_i))$, where the series converges in $L^2(\Omega,\ca{F},\mathbb{P};V)$. Therefore, we can take the summation out of $\bb{E}_i$,
\begin{align*}
h\gb{Z}_{t_i} =\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}f_j\sqrt{\lambda_j}\bb{E}_i\Big( \int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} \bra{\widehat{Z}_s}{\cdot}_{0}\ dW_s\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} d \beta_j(s)\Big ).
\end{align*}
Using Lemma \ref{lemma:n-brownian-integral} and the same argument as before with the $L^2 (\Omega,\ca{F},\mathbb{P})$ limit
\begin{align*}
\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}}\prom{\widehat{Z}_s,\cdot}_0 dW_s =\underset{n\to\infty}{\lim} \int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} \prom{\widehat{Z}_s,\cdot}_0 dW^n_s= \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} \prom{\widehat{Z}_s,Q^{1/2}f_j}_0 d\beta_s^k,
\end{align*}
we get,
\begin{align*}
h\gb{Z}_{t_i} &= \sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\lambda_j^{1/2} f_j {\bb{E}}_i\parent{\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} \prom{\widehat{Z}_s,Q^{1/2}f_k}_0 d\beta^k_s\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} d\beta^j_s } \\
&= \sum_{j=1}^{\infty} \bb{E}_i\parent{\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} \prom{\widehat{Z}_s,Q^{1/2}f_j}_0 Q^{1/2}f_j ds}.
\end{align*}
Where we used conditional Ito isometry. Last step is proving the following limit in $L^2(\Omega,\ca{F}_{t_i},\mathbb{P};V)$,
\begin{align*}
\underset{n\to\infty}{\lim} \sum_{j=1}^n \int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} \prom{\widehat{Z}_s, Q^{1/2}f_j}_0 Q^{1/2}f_j ds = \int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} \widehat{Z}_s ds.
\end{align*}
Indeed,
\begin{align*}
& \bb{E}\norm{\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} \widehat{Z}_s ds - \sum_{j=1}^n \int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} \prom{\widehat{Z}_s, Q^{1/2}f_j}_0 Q^{1/2}f_j ds}^2_V\\
&= \bb{E}\norm{\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}}\sum_{j=n+1}^{\infty} \prom{\widehat{Z}_s, Q^{1/2}f_j}_0 Q^{1/2}f_j ds}^2_V \le h \bb{E}\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}}\norm{\sum_{j=n+1}^{\infty} \prom{\widehat{Z}_s, Q^{1/2}f_j}_0 Q^{1/2}f_j}^2_V ds\\
&=h\bb{E}\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}}\sum_{j=n+1}^{\infty} |\prom{\widehat{Z}_s, Q^{1/2}f_j}_0|^2\prom{Q^{1/2}} ds\le h\bb{E}\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} \norm{\widehat{Z}_s}^2_0 ds \left(\sum_{j=n+1}^{\infty} \lambda_j \right),
\end{align*}
which approaches to $0$ as $n\to\infty$ because of $Q$ been trace class.
\end{proof}
Recall the uniform partition $\pi$ with step $h$ from Subsection \ref{sec:numerical-scheme} and that $\Delta W_i = W_{t_{i+1}} - W_{t_i}$.
\begin{lemma}
The following holds:
\begin{align*}
\bb{E}_i\norm{\Delta W_i}_V^2 = \text{tr}(Q)h.
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Consider the identity mapping $I_V\colon V\to V$. By Ito isometry, one has that
\[
\begin{aligned}
\bb{E}\norm{\Delta W_i}^2_V = &~{} \bb{E}\norm{\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} I_VdW_s}_V^2 = \bb{E}\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}}\norm{I_V}^2_{L_2(V_0,V)}ds \\
=&~{} h \norm{I_V}^2_{L_2(V_0,V)} = h\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\lambda_k = \text{tr}(Q)h.
\end{aligned}
\]
\end{proof}
It is useful to state and prove our main result to consider the following definition:
\begin{definition}
For $i\in\set{0,...,N-1}$ let $(M_s)_{s\in[0,T]}$ be an integrable process and $(L_i)_{i\in\set{0,...,N-1}}$ be a set of random variables, all random objects taking values in some Hilbert $K$. We define,
\begin{align}\label{eq:e-def}
e_i(M,L_0) &= \bb{E}\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} \norm{M_s-L_0}_K^2 ds\qquad \text{and}\qquad e(M,L) = \sum_{i=0}^{N-1}e_i(M,L_i).
\end{align}
Also,
\begin{align}\label{eq:z-barra}
\overline{Z}_{t_i} = \frac{1}{h}\bb{E}_i\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} Z_s ds\; \in\; L^2(\Omega,\ca{F}_{t_i},\mathbb{P};Q^{1/2}V).
\end{align}
Let $\varepsilon_i^v$, $\varepsilon_i^z$ given by
\begin{equation}\label{errores}
\varepsilon_i^{v,\eta}:=\underset{\theta\in\Theta_{\eta}}{\inf}\ \bb{E}|v_i(\xscheme{i}) - u^{\theta}_i(\xscheme{i})|^2, \qquad \varepsilon_i^{z,\eta}:=\underset{\theta\in\Theta_{\eta}}{\inf}\ \bb{E}\norm{z(\xscheme{i}) - z^{\theta}_i(\xscheme{i})}_0^2.
\end{equation}
Finally, consider
\begin{align}\label{errores_epsilons}
\varepsilon^{v,\eta} = \sum_{i=0}^{N-1} \varepsilon_i^v, \qquad \varepsilon^{z,\eta} = \sum_{i=0}^{N-1} \varepsilon_i^z.
\end{align}
\end{definition}
Previous definitions are related to the error committed in our scheme. Given the previous notation, consider the following assumptions which depends on the behavior of solution $(Y,Z)$ to stochastic equation \eqref{eq:bpsde} and how good the assumed scheme $X^{\pi}$ is.
\begin{assumptions}\label{assumption:stochastic-sol-regularity}
Assume that the processes $(Y,Z)\in\mathscr{S}^2_T(\bb{R})\times\mathscr{N}_{W}(0,T;L^0_2(V,\bb{R}))$ satisfy that there exist $C>0$ and a function $\rho\colon(0,\infty)\to(0,\infty)$ such that,
\begin{align}
e(X,X^{\pi}) + e(Y,(Y_t)_{t\in\pi}) + e(Z,(\overline{Z}_t)_{t\in\pi})\le \rho(h),
\end{align}
where $\rho(h)\rightarrow 0$ as $h\rightarrow 0$.
\end{assumptions}
This assumption holds in the finite dimensional case, where the control on regularity is precise and stipulated as a $\ca{O}(h)$. See e.g. \cite[Theorem $2.1$]{bruno}. Note that in general the distance used to measure the component related to $Y$ is always expressed in a $L^{\infty}$-type of distance. Meanwhile, terms related to $Z$ are measured in $L^2$-type of measure.
\section{Universal Approximation Theorems and Deep-H-Onets}
In this section, our main objective will be to obtain precise bounds on the terms $\varepsilon_i^v$, $\varepsilon_i^z$ in \eqref{errores}. These bounds will be given in terms of infinite dimensional neural networks. Our main result for this section, Theorem \ref{theorem:infiniteapprox}, will provide the required control.
\medskip
First we review some notation concerning finite dimensional NNs, we follow a slightly different notation of that given in \cite{yo}.
\subsection{Finite Dimensional Neural Networks}\label{sec:finite-dim-nn}
The NNs mathematical framework presented here is inspired by \cite{jentzen-nn-thoery}, we give a slightly simpler development that adapts to our motivations. Finite dimensional Neural Networks are building blocks to their infinite dimensional version, which we refer as Infinite Dimensional NN ($\text{NN}^{\infty}$ for short), and are also used as an intermediate step in the proof of the Universal Approximation theorem for $\text{NN}^{\infty}$. To fix ideas, in this section we focus on a setting where the input and output variables belong to multidimensional real spaces $\bb{R}^d$ and $\bb{R}^m$ respectively with $d,m\in\bb{N}$. The following definition introduce the notion of finite dimensional Neural Network with an arbitrary activation function.
\begin{definition}\label{def:NN-def}
Consider $L+1\in\bb{N}$ as the number of layers within the network with $l_i\in\bb{N}$ neurons each for $i\in\set{0,...,L}$ where $l_0=d$ and $l_L=m$, weight matrices $\set{W_i\in\bb{R}^{l_i\times l_{i-1}}}_{i=1}^{L}$, bias vectors $\set{b_i\in \bb{R}^{l_i}}_{i=1}^{L}$, and an activation function $\sigma:\bb{R}\to\bb{R}$. Let $\theta=\set{W_i,b_i}_{i=1}^{L}$, which can be seen as an element of $\bb{R}^\kappa$ with $\kappa=\sum_{i=1}^{L}(l_i l_{i-1} + l_i)$, and a function $\sigma:\bb{R}\to\bb{R}$. We define the neural network $f^{\theta,\sigma}:\bb{R}^{l_0}\to\bb{R}^{l_L}$ as the following composition,
\begin{align*}
f^{\theta,\sigma}(x)=\parent{ A_L\circ\sigma\circ A_{L-1}\circ\cdots \circ A_2 \circ \sigma\circ A_1}(x),
\end{align*}
where $A_i:\bb{R}^{l_{i-1}}\to\bb{R}^{l_i}$ is an affine linear function such that $A_i(x)=W_ix+b_i$ for $i\in\set{1,...,L}$ and $\sigma$ is applied component-wise. One says that the function $f^{\theta,\sigma}$ is the realization of the parameter $\theta$ as a NN. Numbers $(l_i)_{i\in\set{0,...,L}}$ represents the amount of \textit{units} on each layer, note that the first layer has $l_0=d$ units and the last one has $l_L=m$ as they stand for the input and output variables respectively, the remaining $L-1$ layers are also known as hidden layers.
\end{definition}
We introduce some necessary conditions concerning activation functions. We follow the definitions given in \cite{chen95}.
\begin{definition}\label{def:TW-def}
A function $\sigma:\bb{R}\to\bb{R}$ is called TW (Tauber-Wiener) if the set
\begin{align*}
\left\langle \set{\sum_{i=1}^N c_i\sigma(\lambda_i x + \theta_i)\Big| \lambda_i,\theta_i,c_i \in\bb{R}\ i\in\set{1,...,N}}\right\rangle
\end{align*}
is dense in $C([a,b])$ for $a,b\in\bb{R}$ and $a<b$.
\end{definition}
From the definition it is not obvious how to determine if a function is TW, Chen and Chen \cite[Theorem $1$]{chen95} provide us with a result that makes it easier to know.
\begin{theorem}\label{theorem:tw}
Suppose that $\sigma$ is a continuous function and that $\sigma\in S' (\bb{R})$, the set of tempered distribution. Then, $\sigma$ is TW if and only if $\sigma$ is not a polynomial.
\end{theorem}
In this paper we work with an activation function known as ReLu denoted by $\sigma_{\text{ReLu}}\colon\bb{R}\to\bb{R}$ and is such that $\sigma_{\text{ReLu}}(x)=\max(x,0)$ for all $x\in\bb{R}$. We can see that this function satisfies hypothesis of Theorem \ref{theorem:tw}. In the following we make a formal definition of neural network and the set of parameters that defines them.
\begin{definition}\label{def:finite-dim-nn}
The set of parameters of Neural Networks associated to $l_0=d, l_L=m\in\bb{N}$ and a function $\sigma:\bb{R}\to\bb{R}$ is defined by,
\begin{align*}
\ca{N}_{\sigma,L,d,m} = \bigcup_{\kappa\in\bb{N}}\ca{N}_{\sigma,L,d,m,\kappa}
\end{align*}
where,
\begin{align*}
\ca{N}_{\sigma,L,d,m,\kappa} = \Big\{ ~ \theta\in\bb{R}^{\kappa} ~ \Big| ~ &\theta=\set{W_i,b_i}_{i=1}^{L}, ~ l_0=d, ~ l_L=m, ~ W_i\in\bb{R}^{l_i\times l_{i-1}}, ~ b_i\in\bb{R}^{l_i},~ l_i\in\bb{N},\\
&i\in\set{1,...,L},~\kappa= \sum_{i=1}^L (l_i l_{i-1} + l_i) \Big\}.
\end{align*}
Naturally,
\begin{align*}
\ca{N}_{\sigma,d,m,\kappa} = \bigcup_{L\in\bb{N}}\ca{N}_{\sigma,L,d,m,\kappa}\quad\text{and}\quad\ca{N}_{\sigma,d,m} = \bigcup_{L\in\bb{N}}\bigcup_{\kappa\in\bb{N}}\ca{N}_{\sigma,L,d,m,\kappa}
\end{align*}
Note that a parameter is eliminated when the union is taken over that parameter. For a set of parameters $\ca{N}\in\set{\ca{N}_{\sigma,d,m},\ca{N}_{\sigma,L,d,m},\ca{N}_{\sigma,d,m,\kappa}}$, the set of Neural Networks is then defined by,
\begin{align*}
\ca{R}(\ca{N}) = \set{f^{\theta,\sigma}\ \Big| \theta\in \ca{N}}.
\end{align*}
Here $f^{\theta,\sigma}:\bb{R}^d\to\bb{R}^m$.
\end{definition}
Now, for completeness,we present two basic but important results. The first shows that NNs have a growth that is controlled by its parameters and activation function and the second that the composition of two NNs produce another NN bellowing to certain space $\ca{N}_{\sigma,L,d,m}$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:nn-bound}
Assume that $|\sigma(x)|\le|x|$ for any $x\in\bb{R}$. Let $\theta\in\ca{N}_{\sigma,2,d,m}$ such that $\theta=\set{W_1,b_1,W_2,b_2}$. Then there exist positive constants $c_1,c_2$, depending on $\theta$, such that,
\begin{align*}
\norm{f^{\theta,\sigma}(x)}^2 \le c_1\norm{x}^2 + c_2,\ \forall x\in\bb{R}^d.
\end{align*}
\begin{proof}
Let $A\in\bb{R}^{m\times n},$ here we denote $\norm{A}^2=\sum_{i=1,j=1}^{m,n}A_{i,j}^2$, the Frobenius matrix norm. First we note that the function $f^{\theta,\sigma}$ takes the following form
\begin{align*}
f^{\theta,\sigma}(x) = \parent{\sum_{i=1}^n W_{2,k,i}\sigma\Big(\sum_{j=1}^d W_{1,i,j}x_j + b_{1,i}\Big) + b_{2,k}}_{k=1}^m.
\end{align*}
By a series of elemental computation and the application of Cauchy-Schwart inequality, we get,
\begin{align*}
\norm{f^{\theta,\sigma}(x)}^2 \le 4\norm{x}^2\norm{W_2}^2\norm{W_1}^2 + 4 \norm{W_2}^2\norm{b_1}^2 + 2 \norm{b_2}^2.
\end{align*}
Defining $c_1=4\norm{W_2}^2\norm{W_1}^2$ and $c_2=4 \norm{W_2}^2\norm{b_1}^2 + 2 \norm{b_2}^2$, we establish the required bound.
\end{proof}
\end{lemma}
From the last lemma is straightforward that for $p\ge 2$, $\norm{f^{\theta,\sigma}(x)}^p \le c_1\norm{x}^p + c_2$ for any $x\in\bb{R}^d$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:nn-composition}
Let $f^{\gamma}\in\ca{R}(\ca{N}_{\sigma,M,m,n})$ and $f^{\theta}\in\ca{R}(\ca{N}_{\sigma,L,d,m})$, then $f^{\gamma}\circ f^{\theta}\in\ca{R}(\ca{N}_{\sigma,L+M,d,n})$.
\begin{proof}
Let,
\begin{align*}
f^{\gamma} = B_M\circ\sigma\cdots\sigma\circ B_1\\
f^{\theta} = A_L\circ\sigma\cdots\sigma\circ A_1.
\end{align*}
Then,
\begin{align*}
f^{\gamma}\circ f^{\theta} = B_M\circ\sigma\cdots\sigma\circ B_1\circ A_L\circ\sigma\cdots\sigma\circ A_1.
\end{align*}
Therefore the composition produce an additive property on the number of layers and $f^{\gamma}\circ f^{\theta}\in\ca{R}(\ca{N}_{\sigma,L+M,d,n})$.
\end{proof}
\end{lemma}
Previous lemma hints that the composition of NNs translate as a concatenation operation for its parameters, we introduce this notion in Definition \ref{def:param-concatenation}:
\begin{definition}\label{def:param-concatenation}
For $\sigma,d,m$ we define the concatenation of parameters $\circ\colon\ca{N}_{\sigma,M,m,n}\times\ca{N}_{\sigma,L,d,m}\to\ca{N}_{\sigma,L+M,d,n}$ as,
\begin{align}\label{eq:composition}
\set{V_i,c_i}_{i=1}^M\circ\set{W_i,b_i}_{i=1}^L = \set{W_1,b_1,...,W_L,b_L,V_1,c_1,\dots,V_M,c_M}.
\end{align}
Then we have that for $\theta\in\ca{N}_{\sigma,L,d,m}$ and $\gamma\in\ca{N}_{\sigma,M,m,n}$ $f^{\theta}\circ f^{\gamma} = f^{\theta\circ\gamma}$.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
Note that the order of composition at the left side of equation \eqref{eq:composition} differs from that of the right side. This is because the composition of functions is written in the opposite direction to the flow in a neural network (left to right).
\end{remark}
If the activation function $\sigma$ is continuous, the elements in $\ca{R}(\ca{N}_{\sigma,d,m})$ are continuous functions bellowing to $C(\bb{R}^d;\bb{R}^m)$. This is because they are composition of continuous mappings itself. Definition \ref{def:finite-dim-nn} is general, the first approximation theorem presented here is written a subset $\ca{H}$ of $\ca{N}_{\sigma,2,d,1}$ defined by
\begin{align}\label{eq:H}
\ca{H}=\ca{N}_{\sigma,2,d,1}\cap\set{\theta\in\ca{N}_{\sigma,2,d,1} ~ | ~ \theta=\set{W_1,b_1,W_2}\in\bb{R}^{nd+n+n},\ b_2=0,\ n\in\bb{N}}.
\end{align}
Note that in this definition the free parameter $\kappa$ from definition \ref{def:finite-dim-nn} depends on the size $n\in\bb{N}$ of the first (and only) hidden layer in the following way, $\kappa=\sum_{i=1}^2 (l_i l_{i-1} + l_i) = nd + n + n + 1$. It is straightforward that a function $f^{\theta,\sigma}\in\ca{R}(\ca{H})$, set of real-valued mappings, takes the following form
\begin{align*}
f^{\theta,\sigma}(x) = W_2\cdot\sigma(W_1 x + b_1)=\sum_{i=1}^n W_{2,i} \sigma\parent{\sum_{j=1}^{d} W_{2,i,j} x_j + b_{1,i} },
\end{align*}
for $\theta=\set{W_1,b_1,W_2}\in\bb{R}^{nd+n+n}$, $n\in\bb{N}$ and $x\in\bb{R}^d$. Now we state the first universal approximation theorem of this paper, it is proven by Chen and Chen in \cite[Theorem $3$]{chen95} and we present it here using our notation.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:finite-dim-uat}
Let $K$ be a compact set in $\bb{R}^d$, $U$ a compact set in $C(K)$ and $\sigma\colon\bb{R}\to\bb{R}$ a TW activation function. Then, for all $\varepsilon>0$ there exists a parameter $\theta$ depending on $g\in U$ as $\theta(g) = \set{W_1,b_1,W_2 (g)}\in\ca{H}$ such that
\begin{align*}
\underset{x\in K,g\in U}{\sup} |g(x) - f^{\theta(g)}(x)| < \varepsilon.
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}
In particular, the latter theorem states that $\ca{R}(\ca{H})$ is dense in $C(K)$ endowed with the uniform topology in the sense that for every $\varepsilon$ there exist a NN with a sufficiently large hidden layer that meets the said accuracy in uniform distance. The following lemma extends Theorem \ref{thm:finite-dim-uat} proving the density of $\ca{R}(\ca{N}_{\sigma,2,d,m})$ in $C(K,\bb{R}^m)$ for a compact $K\subset\bb{R}^d$ and $m\ge 1$.
\begin{lemma}\label{thm:finite-dim-uat-m}
Let $m\in\bb{N}$ with $m\ge 1$ and $K$ a compact set in $\bb{R}^d$. If the activation function $\sigma$ is TW, then $\ca{R}(\ca{N}_{\sigma,2,d,m})$ is dense in $C(K,\bb{R}^m)$.
\begin{proof}
Given $\varepsilon >0$ and a function $h=(h_1,...,h_m)\in C(K;\bb{R}^m)$ we need to find $f^{\theta,\sigma}=(f_1,...,f_m)\in\ca{R}(\ca{N}_{\sigma,2,d,m})$ such that
\begin{align*}
\underset{x\in K}{\sup}\norm{h(x) - f^{\theta,\sigma}(x)} < \varepsilon.
\end{align*}
First, observe that $\ca{R}(\ca{H})\subset \ca{R}(\ca{N}_{\sigma,2,d,1})$ which implies, by using Theorem \ref{thm:finite-dim-uat}, that $\ca{R}(\ca{N}_{\sigma,2,d,1})$ is also dense in $C(K)$ and therefore for every $i\in\set{1,...,m}$ we can find $f^{\theta^i,\sigma}$ with $\theta^i=\set{W_1^{i},b_1^i,W_2^i,b_2^i}$ and $\kappa^i=n^i d + n^i + n^i + 1$, depending on $\varepsilon$, such that
\begin{align*}
\underset{x\in K}{\sup} |h_i(x) - f^{\theta^i,\sigma}(x)| < \frac{\varepsilon}{\sqrt{m}}.
\end{align*}
Consider $\widehat{\theta}\in \ca{N}_{\sigma,2,d,m}$ with $\widehat{\theta}=\set{\widehat{W}_1, \widehat{b}_1, \widehat{W}_2, \widehat{b}_2}$ defined by
\begin{align*}
&\widehat{W}_1 = \begin{pmatrix}
W_1^1\\
\vdots\\
W_1^m
\end{pmatrix}\in \bb{R}^{\parent{\sum_{i=1}^m n^i} \times d},\ \
\widehat{b}_1 = \begin{pmatrix}
b_1^1\\
\vdots\\
b_1^m
\end{pmatrix}\in \bb{R}^{\sum_{i=1}^m n^i}\\
&\widehat{W}_2 = \begin{pmatrix}
W_2^{1,T} & 0 & 0\\
0 & \ddots & 0 \\
0 & 0 & W_2^{m,T}
\end{pmatrix}\in \bb{R}^{m\times\sum_{i=1}^m n^i},\ \
\widehat{b}_2 = \begin{pmatrix}
b_2^1\\
\vdots\\
b_2^m
\end{pmatrix}\in\bb{R}^m,
\end{align*}
and which satisfies that for $x\in\bb{R}^d$
\begin{align*}
f^{\widehat{\theta},\sigma}(x) &= \widehat{W}_2 \sigma(\widehat{W}_1 x + \widehat{b}_1) + \widehat{b}_2 = \begin{pmatrix}
W^{1,T}_2\sigma(W_1^1 x + b_1^1) + b_2^1\\
\vdots\\
W^{m,T}_2\sigma(W_1^m x + b_1^m) + b_2^m
\end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix}
f^{\theta^1,\sigma}(x)\\
\vdots\\
f^{\theta^m,\sigma}(x)
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{align*}
Therefore,
\begin{align*}
\underset{x\in K}{\sup} \norm{h(x) - f^{\widehat{\theta},\sigma}(x)} = \underset{x\in K}{\sup} \left( \sum_{i=1}^m |h_i(x) - f^{\theta_i,\sigma}(x)|^2 \right)^{1/2}< \varepsilon.
\end{align*}
This ends the proof.
\end{proof}
\end{lemma}
The following lemma will be useful in the section devoted to $\text{NN}^{\infty}$, it is presented in \cite[Lemma C$.1$]{error-estimates-DOnets} as the Clipping lemma. Here we follow their proof as we need the explicit form of the NN given in the lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:clipping-lemma}
Let $\varepsilon>0$, $d\in\bb{N}$ and fix $0<R_1<R_2$. There exist a ReLu NN parameter $\theta\in\ca{N}_{\sigma_{\text{ReLu}},5,d,d}$, depending on $\varepsilon$ and $R_1$, such that
\begin{align*}
\begin{cases}
\norm{f^{\theta}(x) - x} < \varepsilon, \quad \norm{x}\le R_1,\\
\norm{f^{\theta}(x)} < R_2,\quad \forall x\in\bb{R}^d.
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{remark}
The previous lemma is used in the proof of more general universal approximation theorems (See the following section), therefore it force us to stick to ReLu NNs from now on.
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}
For any $a\in\bb{R}$, $\vec{a}$ represents the vector $(a,\dots,a)\in\bb{R}^d$ and as we are only working with ReLu activation function, we drop the $\sigma_{\text{ReLu}}$ from the NNs notation. Without loss of generality we may assume $\varepsilon < R_2-R_1$. Consider $\gamma\colon\bb{R}^d\to[-R_1,R_1]^d$ defined for $x\in\bb{R}^d$ as $\gamma(x)=\min(\max(x,-R_1),R_1)$, which depends on $R_1$ and can be represented exactly by a ReLu NN in $\ca{N}_{\sigma_{\text{ReLu}},3,d,d}$ as,
\begin{align*}
\gamma(x) =-\max \left( -\max \left(x+\vec{R_1},0 \right) + 2\vec{R_1}, 0 \right) + \vec{R_1}.
\end{align*}
Taking $\theta_{\gamma} = \set{I_d,\vec{R_1},-I_d,2\vec{R_1},-I,\vec{R_1}}
$ follows that $\gamma = f^{\theta_{\gamma}}$. Note that for any $x\in [-R_1,R_1]^d$, $f^{\theta_{\gamma}}(x) = x$. The next step is to define a continuous function $\phi\colon\bb{R}^d\to\bb{R}^d$ by,
\begin{align*}
\phi(x)=
\begin{cases}
x,\ \norm{x}\le R_1\\
R_1 \frac{x}{\norm{x}},\ \norm{x} > R_1.
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
We have that $\phi \in C([-R_1,R_1]^d)$, then, by Theorem \ref{thm:finite-dim-uat-m}, there exists $f^{\theta_{\varepsilon}}\in\ca{N}_{\sigma_{\text{ReLu}},2,d,d}$ such that,
\begin{align*}
\underset{x\in[-R_1,R_1]^d}{\sup} \norm{\phi(x) - f^{\theta_{\varepsilon}}(x)} < \varepsilon.
\end{align*}
Define now $\theta =\theta_{\varepsilon}\circ \theta_{R_1}$, which is well defined and belong to $\ca{N}_{\sigma_{\text{ReLu}},5,d,d}$ by Lemma \ref{lemma:nn-composition} and Definition \ref{def:param-concatenation}. Then, for any $\norm{x}\le R_1$.
\begin{align*}
\norm{f^{\theta}(x) - x} = \norm{f^{\theta_{\varepsilon}}(f^{\theta_{\gamma}}(x)) - \phi(x)} = \norm{f^{\theta_{\varepsilon}}(x) - \phi(x)} < \varepsilon,
\end{align*}
and,
\begin{align*}
\underset{x\in\bb{R}^d}{\sup}\norm{f^{\theta}(x)} \le \underset{x\in [-R_1,R_1]^d}{\sup}\norm{f^{\theta_{\varepsilon}}(x) - \phi(x)} + R_1 < R_2.
\end{align*}
This finishes the proof.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Infinite Dimensional Neural Networks: Hilbert-valued DeepOnets}\label{sec:infinite-dim-nn}
In this section we work with a particular type of $\text{NN}^{\infty}$ called DeepOnets. Based on the definitions given in \cite{error-estimates-DOnets}, we provide a proper and rigorous treatment of this object and prove important results that allows them to be used on our PDE and stochastic setting.
\medskip
Through this entire section $(H,\prom{\cdot,\cdot}_H,\norm{\cdot}_H)$ and $(W,\prom{\cdot,\cdot}_W,\norm{\cdot}_W)$ will denote any Hilbert space with orthonormal basis $(e_i)_{i\in\bb{N}}$ and $(g_i)_{i\in\bb{N}}$ respectively, $H$ is equipped with a Borel probability measure $\mu$. In the following we are devoted to study the approximation of functionals of the form $F\colon H\to W$ by functions parameterized by finite dimensional parameters. The main idea to define such functions is to take a sufficiently large $d\in\bb{N}$ such that the approximations $\sum_{i=1}^d\prom{x,e_i}_H e_i$ are good enough to approximate $x\in H$ and encode $x$ as the vector $(\prom{x,e_1}_H,...,\prom{x,e_n}_H)\in\bb{R}^d$, then use a finite dimensional neural network to go from $\bb{R}^d$ to $\bb{R}^m$ for some $m\in\bb{N}$. At last, we take the resulting vector to $W$ by considering its $m$ components as coefficients for $\set{g_1,...,g_m}$. The structure of Hilbert spaces allow us to take advantage of results such as Lemma \ref{lemma:hilbert_aris}, which we present below with a proof due to Aris Daniilidis. Note that it is valid for every Hilbert space.
\begin{lemma}[Daniilidis]\label{lemma:hilbert_aris}
Let $K$ be a compact set on $H$. For every $k\in\bb{N}$ consider the operator $P_k:H\to H$ defined as $P_k(x) = \sum_{i=1}^k \bra{x}{e_i}_H e_i$ for $x\in H$. Then, for every $\varepsilon>0$ there exists $k\in\mathbb{N}$ such that for all $x\in K$,
\begin{align*}
\norm{P_kx - x}_H \le \varepsilon.
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First, lets establish that for all $k\in\mathbb{N}$, $P_k\in L(H)$ and $\norm{P_k}_H\le 1$. $P_k$ is clearly linear, to prove the bound let $x$ be any non-zero vector in $H$,
\begin{align*}
\norm{P_k x}_H^2 = \norm{\sum_{i=1}^k \bra{x}{e_i}_He_i }_H^2 = \sum_{i=1}^k |\bra{x}{e_i}_H|^2 \le \sum_{i=1}^{\infty} |\bra{x}{e_i}_H|^2 = \norm{x}_H^2.
\end{align*}
This means that $\norm{P_k}_{L(H)}\le 1$.\\
We argue by contradiction. Suppose that there exists $\varepsilon >0$ such that for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$ we can find $x_n\in K$ verifying $\norm{P_n(x_n) - x_n}_H\ge \varepsilon$. Due to the compactness of $K$, there is a subsequence that converges to some $x\in H$, we denote this subsequence as $x_n$ as well. Then,
\begin{align*}
\norm{P_n(x_n) - x_n}_H&\le \norm{P_n(x_n) - P_n(x)}_H + \norm{P_n(x) - x}_H + \norm{x - x_n}_H\\
&\le 2\norm{x_n - x}_H + \norm{P_n(x) - x}_H.
\end{align*}
The first term can be made as small as we want due to the convergence of $x_n$ to $x$ and the second because we have that $P_n(x)\to x$ in $H$ as $n\to\infty$. Then, for some large $n$ we can break the bound and thus, the contradiction.
\end{proof}
From now on we fix $\sigma=\sigma_{\text{ReLu}}$.
\begin{definition}\label{def:deeponets}
Recall Definition \ref{def:finite-dim-nn}. Given $L,d,m\in\bb{N}$ consider the functions
\noindent
\begin{minipage}{.45\linewidth}
\begin{align*}
\ca{E}_{H,d}: H&\longrightarrow \bb{R}^d\\
x &\longmapsto \bigg(\prom{x,e_i}_H\bigg)_{i=1}^d,
\end{align*}
\end{minipage}%
\begin{minipage}{.45\linewidth}
\begin{align*}
\widehat{\ca{E}}_{W,m}: \bb{R}^m&\longrightarrow W\\
a &\longmapsto \sum_{i=1}^m a_i g_i.
\end{align*}
\end{minipage}
\medskip
Let $\theta\in\ca{N}_{\sigma,L,d,m}$, for $(H,d,\theta,m,W)$ we define the DeepOnet $F^{H,d,\theta,m,W}:H\to W$ by
\begin{align}\label{eq:DO-def}
F^{H,d,\theta,m,W} = \widehat{\ca{E}}_{W,m}\circ f^{\theta}\circ \mathcal{E}_{H,d}.
\end{align}
Unless is extremely necessary, we omit $H,W$ and just use $F^{d,\theta,m}$. Also, define the following sets of DeepOnets parameters,
\begin{align*}
\ca{N}^{H\to W}_{\sigma} &= \bigcup_{d,m\in\bb{N}} \set{d}\times\ca{N}_{\sigma,d,m}\times\set{m},\\
\ca{N}^{H\to W}_{\sigma,L} &= \bigcup_{d,m\in\bb{N}}\set{d}\times\ca{N}_{\sigma,L,d,m}\times\set{m}.
\end{align*}
With $L\in\bb{N}$, observe that $\ca{N}^{H\to W}_{\sigma,L}\subset\ca{N}^{H\to W}_{\sigma}$ (the less parameters specified, the bigger the set). Let $\ca{N}=\ca{N}^{H\to W}_{\sigma}$ or $\ca{N}=\ca{N}^{H\to W}_{\sigma,L}$, it is straightforward to define,
\begin{align*}
\ca{R}(\ca{N}) = \set{F^{H,d,\theta,m,W}\ \Big|\ (d,\theta,m)\in\ca{N}}.
\end{align*}
\end{definition}
Note that $d$ is not readable as an input dimension, here it becomes a parameter of the DeepOnet and represents how many elements of the base $(e_i)_{i\in\bb{N}}$ we are using to project with in order to get the finite dimensional representation $(\prom{x,e_i}_H)_{i=1}^d$ for $x\in H$. Last action is carried out by mapping $\ca{E}_{H,d}$. The same goes for $m$ but in the opposite direction and in this case, it is done by $\widehat{\ca{E}}_{W,m}$, which allows us to take a collection of real numbers to a Hilbert space. Observe that functions in $\ca{R}(\ca{N})$ are continuous because they are composition of continuous functions itself.
\begin{remark}\label{remark:DO-def}
We remark the following,
\begin{itemize}
\item We have that $\ca{E}_{\bb{R}^d,d}=I_d$ and $\widehat{\ca{E}}_{\bb{R}^d,d}=I_d$. Note that with this consideration we recover the finite dimensional theory by taking $H=\bb{R}^d$ and $W=\bb{R}^m$.
\item We could just denote $F^{d,\theta,m}$ as $F^{\theta}$ because the information about the input and output dimension of the NN is codified in the parameter $\theta$, but we decide to specify $d,m$ for a better understanding. Also the order of the parameters makes clearer in which order the composition are taken.
\item Note that the number of parameters to define a DeepOnet is the same as of NNs only adding $d,m$.
\item If $H$ is a functional space such as $L^2(\bb{R}^d,\ca{B}(\bb{R}^d),dx)$, DeepOnets also admits a \comillas{neural network representation} where the first layer is in some sense dense as has an infinite number of units which are all captured by $\prom{\cdot,\cdot}$ to be transferred to the next finite layer.
\end{itemize}
\end{remark}
\begin{prop}[See e.g. Theorem $4$ in Chen and Chen \cite{chen95}]\label{prop:functional-sup-uat}
Let $m\in\bb{N}$, $K\subset H$ be a compact set and $f:K\to \bb{R}^m$ be a continuous function. Then, for any $\varepsilon>0$ there exists $(d,\theta,m)\in\ca{N}^{H\to\bb{R}^m}_{\sigma,2}$ such that,
\begin{align*}
\underset{x\in K}{\sup} \norm{F^{d,\theta,m}(x)-f(x)} \le \varepsilon.
\end{align*}
In other words, $\set{F|_K\colon F\in\ca{R}(\ca{N}^{\infty}_{\sigma,2})}$ is dense in $C(K)$ endowed with the uniform norm.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Consider the operators $P_k$ from Lemma \ref{lemma:hilbert_aris}. The said Lemma tells us that for $\delta_k\searrow0$ we can find a set of natural numbers $(n_k:=n(\delta_k))_{k\in\bb{N}}$ such that,
\begin{align*}
\forall k\in\mathbb{N},\ \forall u\in K, \norm{P_{n_k}(u) - u}_H < \delta_k.
\end{align*}
Given the continuity of $P_k$, $P_k(K)$ is also a compact set in $H$ for all $k\in\mathbb{N}$. Now we prove that the set
\begin{align*}
A:=\parent{\bigcup_{k=1}^\infty P_{n_k}(K)}\cup V,
\end{align*}
is also compact in $H$. Indeed, let $(x_i)_{i\in\bb{N}}$ be a sequence in $A$. If there exists a subsequence such that it remains in $K$, there is nothing to prove because $K$ is compact. The other case is that we can extract an infinite subsequence that lies in the infinite union. This means that there exists $(k_i)_{i\in\bb{N}}\subset \mathbb{N}$ and $(u_i)_{i\in\bb{N}} \subset K$ such that,
\begin{align*}
x_i = \sum_{j=1}^{n_{k_i}} \bra{u_i}{e_j}e_j.
\end{align*}
Due to compactness of $K$, up to a subsequence that we also denote $(u_i)_{i\in\bb{N}}$ as well, $(u_i)_{i\in\bb{N}}$ converges to some $u\in K$. We have two options, the first is that the sequence $(k_i)_{i\in\bb{N}}$ does not grow to infinite when $i\nearrow \infty$ and thus, up to a subsequence on $i$, we can find $\iota$ such that $\forall i\ge \iota$, $k_i=k_{\iota}$ which implies that, for $i\ge \iota$,
\begin{align*}
x_i = \sum_{j=1}^{n_{k_{\iota}}} \bra{u_i}{e_j}_H e_j\longrightarrow\sum_{j=1}^{n_{k_{\iota}}} \bra{u}{e_j}_H e_j\in P_{n_{k_{\iota}}}\subset A.
\end{align*}
The second option is that up to a subsequence, $k_i\nearrow \infty$ as $i\nearrow\infty$, note that
\begin{align*}
x_i = \sum_{j=1}^{n_{k_i}} \bra{u_i}{e_j}_H e_j = P_{n_{k_{i}}} (u_i),
\end{align*}
and then,
\begin{align*}
\norm{x_i - u}_H \le \norm{P_{n_{k_{i}}} (u_i) - u_i}_H + \norm{u_i - u}_H\le \delta_{k_{i}} + \norm{u_i - u}_H,
\end{align*}
where, taking $i\to \infty$ we prove that, up to a subsequence, $x_i\longrightarrow u\in K\subset A$. Thus, $A$ is compact in $H$. \\
The next step is to use the well-known Tietze-Urysohn theorem \cite[Chapter $4$, Theorem $35.1$]{munkres} which gives us a continuous extension $f_{\text{ex}}:A\to \bb{R}^m$ with $f_{\text{ex}}(x) = f(x)$ for $x\in K$. The compactness of $A$ implies that $f_{\text{ex}}$ is uniformly continuous, then, for $\varepsilon>0$ we can find $\delta>0$ depending only on $\varepsilon$ such that $\norm{x-y}_H<\delta$ implies $\norm{f_{\text{ex}}(x) - f_{\text{ex}}(y)}<\varepsilon$. Lets fix $k\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $\delta_k < \delta$, let $F\colon K\to\mathbb{R}^m$ be a function to be specified later and $x$ any element of $K$, then
\begin{align*}
\norm{f(x) - F(x)}\le \norm{f_{\text{ex}}(x) - f_{\text{ex}}(P_{n_k}(x))} + \norm{f_{\text{ex}}(P_{n_k}(x)) - F(x)} < \frac{\varepsilon}{2} + \norm{f_{\text{ex}}(P_{n_k}(x)) - F(x)}.
\end{align*}
By the continuity of $\ca{E}_{H,n_k}$ follows that $\ca{E}_{H,n_k}(K)$ is a compact set in $\bb{R}^{n_k}$. Consider the function $\bar{f}$ defined by
\begin{align*}
\bar{f}\colon \ca{E}_{H,n_k}(K)&\longrightarrow \bb{R}^m\\
y\quad &\longmapsto \bar{f}(y)=f_{\text{ex}}\parent{\sum_{j=1}^{n_k} y_j e_j}.
\end{align*}
Note that the extension is essential because $\ca{E}_{H,n_k}$ could not be a subset of $K$, where $f$ is defined. By the universal approximation Theorem \ref{thm:finite-dim-uat-m} there exists $\theta\in\ca{N}_{\sigma,2,n_k,m}$ such that
\begin{align*}
\underset{y\in \ca{E}_{H,n_k}(K)}{\sup} \norm{\bar{f}(y) - f^{\theta}(y)} &= \underset{y\in \ca{E}_{H,n_k}(K)}{\sup} \norm{f_{\text{ex}}\parent{\sum_{i=1}^{n_k} y_i e_i} - f^{\theta}(y)}\\
&= \underset{x\in K}{\sup} \norm{f_{\text{ex}}\parent{\sum_{i=1}^{n_k} \prom{x,e_i}_H e_i} - f^{\theta}\parent{\parent{\prom{x,e_i}_H}_{i=1}^{n_k}}}\\
&= \underset{x\in K}{\sup} \norm{f_{\text{ex}}\parent{P_{n_k}(x)} - \parent{\widehat{\ca{E}}_{\bb{R}^m,m}\circ f^{\theta}\circ \ca{E}_{H,n_k}}(x) }
< \frac{\varepsilon}{2}.
\end{align*}
Recall the first point in Remark \ref{remark:DO-def}. It suffices to take $(n_k,\theta,m)\in\ca{N}^{W\to\bb{R}^m}_{\sigma,2}$ which concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
The main result of this section, concerning the approximation of a square integrable functional is presented below and is closely related to the approximation of a solution to equation \eqref{eq:pde}. We divide the proof in steps for a clear reading and follow the lines of \cite[Theorem $3.1$]{error-estimates-DOnets}.
\begin{theorem}\label{theorem:infiniteapprox}
Let $(W,\prom{\cdot,\cdot}_W,\norm{\cdot}_W)$ be a separable Hilbert space with orthonormal basis $(g_i)_{i\in\bb{N}}$. Let $G\colon H\to W$ be a $L^2(H,\mu;W)$ mapping. Then, for any $\varepsilon>0$ there exist a DO $F^{d,\theta,m}:H\to W$ such that,
\begin{align*}
\int_{H}\norm{G(x)-F^{d,\theta,m}(x)}_W^2\mu(dx) \le \varepsilon.
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
\textbf{Step 1.} Let $\varepsilon>0$ and define $\delta = \sqrt{\varepsilon / 8}$. First we prove that without loss of generality we can assume that $G$ is bounded. Consider $M>0$ and
\begin{align*}
G_M (x) :=
\begin{dcases}
G(x),\ &\norm{G(x)}_W\le M\\
M\frac{G(x)}{\norm{G(x)}_W},\ &\sim
\end{dcases}
\end{align*}
Then, for any function $F\colon H\to W$ we get,
\begin{align*}
\norm{G-F}_{L^2(H,\mu;W)}\le\norm{G-G_M}_{L^2(H,\mu;W)} + \norm{G_M-F}_{L^2(H,\mu;W)}.
\end{align*}
We have that $\norm{G_M - G}^2_W\to 0$ and $\norm{G_M - G}^2_W\le 4\norm{G}^2_W$ $\mu$-a.e., so applying dominate convergence theorem we take $M$ such that,
\begin{align*}
\norm{G-F}_{L^2(H,\mu;W)}\le\delta + \norm{G_M-F}_{L^2(H,\mu;W)}.
\end{align*}
Then, assuming $\norm{G}_W\le M$ on $H$, we prove that $\norm{G-F}_{L^2(H,\mu;W)}<\delta$ for certain DeepOnet $F$.\\
\textbf{Step 2.} By Lusin's (\cite{bogachev2}) theorem, there exists a compact set $K=K(\delta,M)\subset H$ such that $G|_{K}$ is continuous and $\mu\parent{H\setminus K}< \frac{\delta^2}{M^2}$. Now, consider the compact set $K'=G(K)\subset W$. In virtue of Lemma \ref{lemma:hilbert_aris}, there exist $\kappa=\kappa(K')\in\bb{N}$ such that,
\begin{align*}
\underset{w\in K'}{\sup} \norm{w - P_{\kappa}(w)}_W \le \delta.
\end{align*}
Let $\widetilde{G}=P_{\kappa}\circ G\colon K\to W$. Note that,\\
\begin{align*}
\underset{x\in K}{\sup}\norm{G(x) - \widetilde{G}(x)}_W = \underset{w\in K'}{\sup}\norm{w - P_{\kappa}(w)}_W \le \delta.
\end{align*}
\textbf{Step 3.} Applying Proposition \ref{prop:functional-sup-uat} for the continuous function $\ca{E}_{W,\kappa}\circ\widetilde{G}\colon K\to\bb{R}^{\kappa}$, we can take $(d,\theta_1,\kappa)\in\ca{N}^{H\to\bb{R}^{\kappa}}_{\sigma,2}$ such that,
\begin{align*}
\underset{x\in K}{\sup} \norm{ F^{H,d,\theta_1,\kappa,\bb{R}^{\kappa}}(x) - (\ca{E}_{W,\kappa}\circ \widetilde{G})(x)} < \delta.
\end{align*}
Take any $x\in K$ and the DO generated by $(H,d,\theta_1,\kappa,W)$,
\begin{align}\label{eq:bound1_uat}
\norm{F^{(H,d,\theta_1,\kappa,W)}(x) - \widetilde{G}(x)}_W &= \norm{(\widehat{\ca{E}}_{W,\kappa}\circ f^{\theta}\circ \ca{E}_{H,d})(x) - \widetilde{G}(x)}_W\nonumber\\
& = \norm{\sum_{i=1}^{\kappa} (f^{\theta}\circ \ca{E}_{H,d})(x)_i g_i - \sum_{i=1}^{\kappa} \prom{G(x),g_i}_W g_i }_W\nonumber\\
&= \norm{(f^{\theta}\circ \ca{E}_{H,d})(x) - \parent{\prom{G(x),g_i}_W}_{i=1}^{\kappa}}_{\bb{R}^{\kappa}}\nonumber\\
&= \norm{F^{H,d,\theta_1,\kappa,\bb{R}^{\kappa}}(x) - (\ca{E}_{H,\kappa}\circ \widetilde{G})(x)}_{\bb{R}^{\kappa}} < \delta.
\end{align}
Then, by using previous estimate, Lemma \ref{lemma:hilbert_aris} and that $G$ is bounded, one has the following bound
\begin{align*}
\norm{F^{H,d,\theta_1,\kappa,W}(x)}_W \le \norm{F^{H,d,\theta_1,\kappa,W}(x) - \widetilde{G}(x)}_W + \norm{\widetilde{G}(x) - G(x)}_W + \norm{G(x)}_W < 2\delta + M.
\end{align*}
\textbf{Step 4.}
Applying the clipping Lemma \ref{lemma:clipping-lemma} with $\delta$, $\kappa$, $R_1=M+2\delta$ and $R_2=2M$, note that we can assume $\delta$ small enough such that $R_1<R_2$, we can take $\theta_2\in\ca{N}_{\sigma,5,\kappa,\kappa}$ such that,
\begin{align}\label{eq:clipping-gamma}
\begin{dcases}
\norm{f^{\theta_2}(x) - x} < \delta,\ &\norm{x} < M + 2\delta\\
\norm{f^{\theta_2}(x)} \le 2M,\ &\forall x\in \bb{R}^{\kappa}.
\end{dcases}
\end{align}
Recall that the norm used in previous equation is the usual norm in $\bb{R}^{\kappa}$ and that during this entire section, $\sigma=\sigma_{\text{ReLu}}$. Consider the following composition and its equivalences,
\begin{align*}
\widehat{\ca{E}}_{W,\kappa}\circ f^{\theta_2}\circ \widehat{\ca{E}}_{\bb{R}^{\kappa}}\circ f^{\theta_1}\circ \ca{E}_{H,d} = \widehat{\ca{E}}_{W,\kappa}\circ f^{\theta_2\circ\theta_1}\circ \ca{E}_{H,d}=F^{H,d,\theta_1\circ\theta_2,\kappa,W}.
\end{align*}
Where we made use of Definition \ref{def:param-concatenation}. Such DO satisfies the following,
\begin{align*}
\norm{F^{H,d,\theta_2\circ\theta_1,\kappa,W}(x) - \widetilde{G}(x)}_W &\le \norm{F^{H,d,\theta_2\circ\theta_1,\kappa,W}(x) - F^{H,d,\theta_1,\kappa,W}(x)}_W + \norm{F^{H,d,\theta_1,\kappa,W}(x) - \widetilde{G}(x)}_W\\
&\le \norm{\sum_{i=1}^{\kappa}f^{\theta_2}_i\parent{f^{\theta_1}\parent{\ca{E}_{H,d}(x)}} g_i - \sum_{i=1}^{\kappa} \parent{f^{\theta_1}\circ \ca{E}_{H,d}}_i (x) g_i}_W + \delta\\
&\le\norm{f^{\theta_2}\parent{f^{\theta_1}\parent{\ca{E}_{H,d}(x)}} - f^{\theta_1}\parent{\ca{E}_{H,d}(x)}}_{\bb{R}^{\kappa}} + \delta < 2\delta,
\end{align*}
where we used estimates \eqref{eq:bound1_uat} and \eqref{eq:clipping-gamma}.\\
\textbf{Step 5.} Now we use all previous bounds, let $F=F^{H,d,\theta_2\circ\theta_1,\kappa,W}$ with $(d,\theta_2\circ\theta_1,\kappa)\in\set{d}\times\ca{N}_{\sigma,7,d,\kappa}\times\set{\kappa}$, then
\begin{align*}
\int_H \norm{G(x) - F(x)}_W^2 \mu (dx) &= \int_{H\setminus K} \norm{G(x) - F(x)}_W^2 \mu (dx) + \int_{K} \norm{G(x) - F(x)}_W^2 \mu (dx)\\
&\le 2\int_{H\setminus K} \norm{G(x)}_W^2\mu(dx) + 2\int_{H\setminus K}\norm{F(x)}^2_W\mu(dx) \\
&~{} \quad + 2\int_{K} \norm{G(x) - \widetilde{G}(x)}_W^2\mu(dx) + 2\int_{K} \norm{\widetilde{G}(x) - F(x)}_W^2\mu (dx)\\
&\le \mu\parent{H\setminus K}(2M^2 + 2M^2) + 2\delta^2 + 2\delta^2 \le 8\delta^2=\varepsilon,
\end{align*}
which is the desired conclusion.
\end{proof}
Note that the theorem above only contribute with the existence of a parameter $(d,\theta,m)$ such that the generated DO is a good approximation, in order to overcome the said \textit{curse of dimensionality} we may have to provide proper bounds on the size of $(d,\theta,m)$. Following lemma provides us with a useful bound for DeepOnets.
\begin{remark}\label{rem_5p4}
Recall the notation from Step $5$ from the proof above. Given the parameters $(d,\theta_2\circ\theta_1,\kappa)\in\set{d}\times\ca{N}_{\sigma,7,d,\kappa}\times\set{\kappa}$, we have that $\theta_2\circ\theta_1\in\bb{R}^{\eta}$ for some $\eta\in\bb{N}$; therefore
\begin{align}\label{eq:remark-bound}
\underset{(p,\theta,q)\in\bb{N}\times\bb{R}^{\eta}\times\bb{N}}{\inf}\int_H \norm{G(x) - F^{p,\theta,q}(x)}_W^2 \mu (dx)\le \int_H \norm{G(x) - F^{d,\theta_2\circ\theta_1,\kappa}(x)}_W^2 \mu (dx)\le \varepsilon.
\end{align}
This observation allows us to state that for any $\varepsilon>0$ we can find a sufficiently large $\eta\in\bb{N}$ such that the left side of \eqref{eq:remark-bound} is bounded by $\varepsilon$.
\end{remark}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:DO-bound}
Let $p\ge 2$ and $(d,\theta,m)\in\ca{N}^{H\to W}_{\sigma,2}$, then there exists $c_1,c_2>0$ such that $|F^{\theta,d}(x)|^p\le c_1\norm{x}^p_H + c_2$ for every $x\in H$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $x\in H$, then by using Lemma \ref{lemma:nn-bound} there exists $a_1,a_2>0$ such that,
Defining $c_1 = 2^{\frac{p-2}{2}}a_1^{p/2}$ and $c_2 = 2^{\frac{p-2}{2}}a_2^{p/2}$ concludes the proof.
\end{proof}
\section{Main Result}
Now we are ready to state and prove the main result of this paper. Recall the properties of approximators in Subsection \ref{sec:numerical-scheme}.
\begin{theorem}\label{MT1}
Under Assumptions \ref{assumptions}, \ref{assumptions3} and \ref{assumption:stochastic-sol-regularity}, there exists a constant $C>0$ independent of the partition such that for sufficiently small $h$,
\begin{align*}
&\underset{i=0,...,N-1}{\max}\esp{Y_{t_i}-\hat{u}_{i}(\xscheme{i})}^2 + \sum_{i=0}^{N-1}\bb{E}\parent{\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} \norm{Z_t-\hat{z}_{i}(\xscheme{i})}_0^2 dt}\\
&~{} \qquad \qquad\le
C\Big[ h +\esp{\phi(X_T)-\phi(X_T^\pi)}^2+ N\varepsilon^{v,\eta} + \varepsilon^{z,\eta} +
\rho(h) \Big],
\nonumber
\end{align*}
with $\varepsilon^{v,\eta}$, $\varepsilon^{z,\eta}$ given in \eqref{errores_epsilons}.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
{\color{black} \textbf{Step 1:}} Recall $\widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i}$ introduced in \eqref{eq:nu-gorro}. The purpose of this part is to obtain a suitable bound of the term $\esp{Y_{t_i}-\widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i}}^2$ in terms of more tractable terms. We have
\begin{lemma}
There exists $C>0$ fixed such that for any $0<h<1$ sufficiently small, one has
\begin{align}\label{step1}
\esp{Y_{t_i}-\widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i}}^2 \le &~{} Ch^2+C\bb{E}\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}}|Y_s-Y_{t_i}|^2ds+ C\bb{E}\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}}\norm{Z_s-\overline{Z}_{t_i}}_V^2ds +Ch \bb{E}\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} \psi(\Theta_r)^2dr \nonumber \\
&~{} + C(1+Ch)\bb{E} \left| Y_{t_{i+1}}-\ug{i+1} (X^\pi_{t_{i+1}}) \right|^2,
\end{align}
with $\Theta_r=(r,X_r,Y_r,Z_r)$.
\end{lemma}
The rest of this subsection is devoted to the proof of this result.
\begin{proof}
Subtracting the equation \eqref{eq:bpsde} between $t_i$ and $t_{i+1}$, we obtain
\begin{align}
\Delta Y_i = Y_{t_{i+1}}-Y_{t_i}=-\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} \psi(\Theta_s)ds +\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}}\prom{Z_s,\cdot}_0 dW_s.
\label{eq:resta}
\end{align}
Using the definition of $\widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i}$ in \ref{eq:nu-gorro},
\[
\begin{aligned}
Y_{t_i}-\widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i}=&~{} Y_{t_{i+1}} -\Delta Y_i -\widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i}\\
=&~{} Y_{t_{i+1}}+\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} [\psi(\Theta_s)-\psi(\widehat{\Theta}_{t_i})]ds-\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} \prom{Z_s,\cdot}_0 dW_s -\bb{E}_i\ug{i+1}(X^\pi_{t_{i+1}}).
\end{aligned}
\]
Here $\widehat{\Theta}_{t_i}=(t_i,X^\pi_{t_i},\widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i}, \gb{Z}_{t_i})$. Then, by taking $\bb{E}_i$ and using that stochastic integration produces a martingale
\begin{align*}
Y_{t_i}-\widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i}=\bb{E}_i(Y_{t_{i+1}}-\ug{i+1}(X^\pi_{t_{i+1}})) + \bb{E}_i\parent{\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} [\psi(\Theta_s)-\psi(\widehat{\Theta}_{t_i})]ds} = a+b.
\end{align*}
Using the classical inequality $(a+b)^2\le (1+\gamma h)a^2+(1+\frac{1}{\gamma h})b^2$ for $\gamma>0$ to be chosen, we get
\begin{equation}\label{parada1}
\begin{aligned}
\bb{E}\barras{Y_{t_i}-\widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i}}^2\le &~{} (1+\gamma h)
\bb{E} \left[ \bb{E}_i\parent{Y_{t_{i+1}}-\ug{i+1}(X^\pi_{t_{i+1}})} \right] ^2 \\
&~{} + \parent{1+\frac{1}{\gamma h}}\bb{E} \left[\bb{E}_i\parent{\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} [\psi(\Theta_s)-\psi(\widehat{\Theta}_{t_i})]ds}\right]^2.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
With no lose of generality, as we are seeking for an upper bound, we can replace $[\psi(\Theta_s)-\psi(\widehat{\Theta}_{t_i})]$ by $|\psi(\Theta_s)-\psi(\widehat{\Theta}_{t_i})|$. Also, in the second term, we can drop the $\bb{E}_i$ due to the law of total expectation. The Lipschitz condition on $\psi$ in Assumptions \ref{assumptions} allows us to give an upper bound in terms of the difference between $\Theta_s$ and $\widehat{\Theta}_{t_i}$. Indeed, we have that
\begin{align*}
\bb{E} \left[\bb{E}_i\parent{\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} [\psi(\Theta_s)-\psi(\widehat{\Theta}_{t_i})]ds}\right]^2 \le &~{} Ch\left[ h^2+\bb{E}\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} \norm{X_s-X^{\pi}_{t_i}}_H^2ds + \bb{E}\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} |Y_s-\vg{t_i}|^2ds \right.\\
&\qquad +\left. \bb{E}
\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} \norm{Z_s-\gb{Z}_{t_i}}_V^2ds \right],
\end{align*}
where the Lipschitz constant of $\psi$ was absorbed by $C$. Using now triangle inequality $|Y_s-\vg{t_i}| \leq |Y_s-Y_{t_i}| +|Y_{t_i}-\vg{t_i}|$ and the definition of $e_i$ in (\ref{eq:e-def}), we find
\begin{align}
\bb{E} \left[\bb{E}_i\parent{\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} [\psi(\Theta_s)-\psi(\widehat{\Theta}_{t_i})]ds}\right]^2\le\ & C h\left[ h^2+ e_i(X,\xscheme{i}) +
e_i(Y,Y_{t_i}) +h \esp{Y_{t_i}- \vg{t_i}}^2 \right. \nonumber\\
&\left. \qquad\qquad
+ \bb{E}\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} \norm{Z_s-\gb{Z}_{t_i}}_V^2 ds \right].
\end{align}
For the sake of brevity, define now
\begin{equation}\label{def_H}
H_{i}:=Y_{t_{i}}-\ug{i} (X^\pi_{t_{i}}).
\end{equation}
Therefore, replacing in \eqref{parada1},
\begin{align}
& \esp{Y_{t_i}-\widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i}}^2 \le \left(1+\gamma h \right)\bb{E}|\bb{E}_i H_{i+1}|^2 + \parent{1+\gamma h} \frac{C}{\gamma} \left[ h^2 + e_i(X,\xscheme{i}) +
e_i(Y,Y_{t_i}) +h \esp{Y_{t_i}- \vg{t_i}}^2 \right. \nonumber\\
&\left. \qquad \qquad \qquad \quad \quad
+ \bb{E}\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} \norm{Z_s-\gb{Z}_{t_i}}_V^2 ds \right].
\label{eq:upper}
\end{align}
Recall $\overline Z_{t_i}$ introduced in equation (\ref{eq:z-barra}). In order to work with last term in previous equation, we prove the following,
\begin{align}
\bb{E}\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} \norm{Z_s-\gb{Z}_{t_i}}_V^2 ds&=\bb{E}\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}}\norm{Z_s-\overline{Z}_{t_i}}_V^2 ds+h \bb{E}\norm{\overline{Z}_{t_i}-\gb{Z}_{t_i}}_V^2.
\label{eq:ortogonal1}
\end{align}
Indeed,
\begin{align*}
\norm{Z_t-\gb{Z}_{t_i}}_V^2 =&~{} \norm{ (Z_t-\overline{Z}_{t_i}) + (\overline{Z}_{t_i}-\gb{Z}_{t_i})}_V^2 \\
=&~{} \norm{Z_t-\overline{Z}_{t_i}}_V^2 + \norm{\overline{Z}_{t_i}-\gb{Z}_{t_i}}_V^2 + 2\prom{Z_t-\overline{Z}_{t_i}, \overline{Z}_{t_i}-\gb{Z}_{t_i}}_V.
\end{align*}
It is sufficient to establish that the double product is null when we integrate and take expected valued. Recall that $\overline{Z}_{t_i}$ from (\ref{eq:z-barra})
is a $\ca{F}_{t_i}$ measurable random variable. Then, by using elementary properties of Bochner integral,
\begin{align*}
\bb{E}\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} \prom{Z_t-\overline{Z}_{t_i}, \overline{Z}_{t_i}-\gb{Z}_{t_i}}_Vdt& = \bb{E}\Big\langle\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} (Z_s-\overline{Z}_{t_i})ds ,\overline{Z}_{t_i}-\gb{Z}_{t_i} \Big\rangle_V \\
& = h\bb{E}\Big\langle\frac{1}{h}\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} Z_s ds-\overline{Z}_{t_i} ,\overline{Z}_{t_i}-\gb{Z}_{t_i}\Big\rangle_V = 0.
\end{align*}
The latter is due to the fact that $\overline{Z}_{t_i}-\gb{Z}_{t_i}\in L^2(\Omega,\ca{F}_{t_i},\mathbb{P};V)$ and $\frac{1}{h}\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} Z_s ds-\overline{Z}_{t_i}$ is an orthogonal element to $L^2(\Omega,\ca{F}_{t_i},\mathbb{P};V)\subset L^2(\Omega,\ca{F},\mathbb{P};V)$. Therefore, equation (\ref{eq:ortogonal1}) is established. By multiplying (\ref{eq:resta}) by $\Delta W_i$ and taking $\bb{E}_i$,
\begin{align*}
\bb{E}_i\parent{\Delta W_iY_{t_{i+1}} } + \bb{E}_i\parent{\Delta W_i\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} \psi(\Theta_s)ds } =&~{} \bb{E}_i\parent{\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} dW_s\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} \prom{Z_s,\cdot}_0 dW_s }\\
=&~{} \bb{E}_i\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} Z_s ds = h \overline{Z}_{t_i},
\end{align*}
where we used the arguments from the proof of Lemma \ref{lemma:z-gorro}. Subtracting $h \gb{Z}_{t_i}=\bb{E}_i(\ug{i+1}(X^{\pi}_{t_{i+1}})\Delta W_i)$ and then noting that $\bb{E}_i(\Delta W_i \bb{E}_i(H_{i+1}))=0$,
\begin{align*}
h (\overline{Z}_{t_i}- \gb{Z}_{t_i})= & \bb{E}_i\left[\Delta W_i (Y_{t_{i+1}}-\ug{i+1}(X^{\pi}_{t_{i+1}}))\right] + \bb{E}_i\parent{\Delta W_i\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} \psi(\Theta_s)ds}\\
=& \bb{E}_i\left[\Delta W_i (H_{i+1} - \bb{E}_i H_{i+1})\right] + \bb{E}_i\parent{\Delta W_i\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} \psi(\Theta_s)ds}
\end{align*}
By applying the conditional version of Holder inequality for the first term and its classical form to the second one, follows that
\begin{align}
h^2\bb{E}\norm{\overline{Z}_{t_i} -\gbt{Z}{i} }_V^2 &= \bb{E}\norm{\bb{E}_i\Big[ \Delta W_i (H_{i+1} - \bb{E}_i H_{i+1}) \Big] + \bb{E}_i\parent{\Delta W_i \int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} \psi(\Theta_s)ds} }_V^2\nonumber\\
&\le 2\bb{E}\parent{\bb{E}_i\norm{\Delta W_i}^2_V\bb{E}_i[H_{i+1}-\bb{E}H_{i+1}]^2} + 2\bb{E}\parent{\bb{E}_i\norm{\Delta W_i}_V^2\bb{E}_i\Bigg[\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} \psi(\Theta_s)ds\Bigg]^2}\nonumber\\
&\le C\text{tr}(Q)\bb{E}\parent{\bb{E}_i H_{i+1}^2 - (\bb{E}_i H_{i+1})^2} + Ch\, \text{tr}(Q)\bb{E}\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} |\psi(\Theta_s)|^2ds;
\label{eq: 4.11z}
\end{align}
Putting all together,
\begin{align*}
\esp{Y_{t_i}-\widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i}}^2
&\le \left(1+\gamma h\right)\esp{\bb{E}_i(H_{i+1}) }^2 \\
&\quad + \parent{1+\gamma h} \frac{C}{\gamma} \Big[ h^2+ e_i(X,\xscheme{i})+e_i(Y,Y_{t_i})+e_i(Z,\overline{Z}_{t_i})+h \bb{E}|Y_{t_i}- \vg{t_i}|^2\\
&\qquad \qquad\qquad \quad+\text{tr}(Q)\bb{E} H_{i+1}^2 - \text{tr}(Q)\bb{E}|\bb{E}_i H_{i+1}|^2\\
&\qquad \qquad\qquad \quad + h\text{tr}(Q)\bb{E}\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} |\psi(\Theta_s)|^2ds\Big]
\end{align*}
Where we also used that $Z_t,\overline{Z}_{t_i}$ are $V_0$-valued and implies $\norm{Z_t-\overline{Z}_{t_i}}_V^2\le\norm{Q^{1/2}}_{L(Q)}^2\norm{Z_t-\overline{Z}_{t_i}}_0^2$. Let $\gamma=C^2\text{tr}(Q)$ and note that $(1+\gamma h)\frac{C}{\gamma}\le C$ and also $\gamma\le C$, then the above term transform to
\begin{align*}
& Ch^2 + Ce_i(X,\xscheme{i}) + Ce_i(Y,Y_{t_i}) + Ce_i(Z,\overline{Z}_{t_i}) \\
& + Ch\bb{E}|Y_{t_i}-\vg{t_i}|^2 + C(1+Ch)\bb{E}H_{i+1}^2 + Ch\bb{E}\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} |\psi(\Theta_s)|^2 ds.
\end{align*}
Now we take $h$ small such that $Ch < 1$ and then
\begin{align*}
\esp{Y_{t_i}-\widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i}}^2 \le &~{} Ch^2 + Ce_i(X,\xscheme{i}) + Ce_i(Y,Y_{t_i}) + Ce_i(Z,\overline{Z}_{t_i}) \\
&~{} + C(1+Ch)\bb{E}H_{i+1}^2 + Ch\bb{E}\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} |\psi(\Theta_s)|^2 ds.
\end{align*}
Finally, by recalling that $H_{i+1} =Y_{t_{i+1}}-\ug{i+1} (X^\pi_{t_{i+1}})$, we have established \eqref{step1}.
\end{proof}
{\color{black} \textbf{Step 2:}} The term,
\[
C(1+Ch)\bb{E} \left| Y_{t_{i+1}}-\ug{i+1} (X^\pi_{t_{i+1}}) \right|^2,
\]
in \eqref{step1} was left without a control in previous step. Here in what follows we provide a control on this term. The purpose of this section is to show the following estimate:
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:first-bound}
There exists a constant $C>0$ such that,
\begin{align}
\max_{i\in\set{0,...,N-1}}\esp{Y_{t_i}-\ug{i}(X_{t_i}^\pi)}^2&\le C\Bigg[h+\esp{ \phi(X_T)-\phi(X_T^\pi) }^2N+ \sum_{i=0}^{N-1} \esp{\ug{i}(X_{t_i}^\pi)-\widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i}}^2 \nonumber\\
&\qquad ~{} + e(X,X^{\pi}) + e(Y,(Y_t)_{t\in\pi}) + e(Z,(\overline{Z}_t)_{t\in\pi}) \Bigg]. \label{step2}
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
The rest of this section is devoted to the proof of this result.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{lemma:first-bound}]
Recall $H_{i+1} =Y_{t_{i+1}}-\ug{i+1} (X^\pi_{t_{i+1}})$. We have that $(a+b)^2\ge(1-h)a^2+(1-\frac{1}{h})b^2$ and
\begin{align}
\esp{Y_{t_i}-\widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i}}^2&=\esp{\parent{Y_{t_i}-\ug{i}(X^\pi_{t_i})} + \parent{\ug{i}(X^\pi_{t_i})-\widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i}}}^2
\label{eq:4.13}\\
&\ge (1-h)\esp{Y_{t_i}-\ug{i}(X^\pi_{t_i})}^2 + \parent{1-\frac{1}{h}}\esp{\ug{i}(X^\pi_{t_i})-\widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i}}^2.\nonumber
\end{align}
Therefore, we have an upper \eqref{step1} and lower \eqref{eq:4.13} bound for $\esp{Y_{t_i}-\widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i}}^2$. By connecting these bounds,
\begin{align*}
(1-h)\esp{Y_{t_i}-\ug{i}(X^\pi_{t_i})}^2 + \parent{1-\frac{1}{h}}\esp{\ug{i}(X^\pi_{t_i})-\widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i}}^2 &\ \le Ch^2+Ce_i(X,\xscheme{i}) + Ce_i(Y,Y_{t_i}) + Ce_i(Z,\overline{Z}_{t_i})\\
&\quad \quad +Ch \bb{E}\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} \psi(\Theta_s)^2 ds+ C(1+Ch)\bb{E}\parent{H_{i+1}^2}.
\end{align*}
Using that for sufficiently small $h$ we have $(1-h)^{-1}\le 2\le C$, we get,
\begin{align*}
\esp{Y_{t_i}-\ug{i} (\xscheme{i})}^2 &\le CN\esp{\ug{i}(\xscheme{i})-\widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i}}^2 + Ch^2 + C e_i(X,\xscheme{i}) + C e_i(Y,Y_{t_i})+C e_i(Z,\overline{Z}_{t_i}) \\
& ~{}+ Ch\bb{E}\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}}|\psi(\Theta_s)|^2ds+C\esp{Y_{t_{i+1}}-\ug{i+1}(X^{\pi}_{t_{i+1}}) }^2.
\end{align*}
Notice that the expression on time $t_i$ that we want to estimate, appears on the right side on time $t_{i+1}$, we can iterate the bound and get that $\forall$ $i\in\set{0,...,N-1}$
\begin{align*}
& \esp{Y_{t_i}-\ug{i} (\xscheme{i})}^2 \\
&~{} \le CN\sum_{k=i}^{N-1}\esp{\ug{k} (\xscheme{k}) -\widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_k}}^2 + C(N-i)h^2 + C\sum_{k=i}^{N-1}\left[ e_i(X,\xscheme{i}) + e_i(Y,Y_{t_i}) + e_i(Z,\overline{Z}_{t_i})\right] \\
&\quad+Ch\sum_{k=i}^{N-1}\bb{E}\int_{t_k}^{t_{k+1}} |\psi(\Theta_s)|^2ds +C\esp{Y_{t_{N}}-\phi(\xscheme{N})}^2\\
&~{} \leq CN\sum_{k=0}^{N-1}\esp{\ug{k} (X_{t_k}^\pi) -\widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_k}}^2 + CNh^2 + C\left[ e(X,X^{\pi}) + e(Y,(Y_t)_{t\in\pi}) + e(Z,(\overline{Z}_t)_{t\in\pi}) \right] \\
&~{} \quad + Ch\sum_{k=0}^{N-1}\bb{E}\int_{t_k}^{t_{k+1}}| \psi(\Theta_s)|^2ds +C\esp{Y_{t_{N}}-\phi(\xscheme{N})}^2.
\end{align*}
Applying maximum on $i\in\set{0,...,N-1}$ and recalling bound from Lemma (\ref{lemma:f-int-bound}),
\begin{align}
\max_{i\in\set{0,...,N-1}}\esp{Y_{t_i}-\ug{i}(X_{t_i}^\pi)}^2&\le C\Bigg[h+\esp{ \phi(X_T)-\phi(X_T^\pi) }^2N \sum_{i=0}^{N-1} \esp{\ug{i}(X_{t_i}^\pi)-\widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i}}^2 \nonumber\\
&\qquad + e(X,X^{\pi}) + e(Y,(Y_t)_{t\in\pi}) + e(Z,(\overline{Z}_t)_{t\in\pi}) \Bigg]. \label{step2}
\end{align}
This is nothing that \eqref{step2}.
\end{proof}
{\color{black} \textbf{Step 3:}} Estimate \eqref{step2} contains some uncontrolled terms on its RHS. Here the purpose is to bound the term
\[
\sum_{i=0}^{N-1} \esp{\ug{i}(X_{t_i}^\pi)-\widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i}}^2,
\]
in terms of more tractable terms. In this step we will prove
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:important-lemma}
It holds that,
\begin{align}
\esp{\hat{u}_i(\xscheme{i})-\widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i}}^2 +h \bb{E}\norm{\gb{Z}_{t_i}-\hat{z}_i (\xscheme{i})}_0^2\le C\varepsilon^v_i + Ch\varepsilon^z_i,
\label{eq:important-bound}
\end{align}
with $\varepsilon_i^v$ and $\varepsilon_i^z$ defined in \eqref{errores}.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Fix $i\in\set{0,...,N-1}$. Recall the martingale $(N_t)_{t\in[t_i,t_{i+1}]}$ and take $t=t_{i+1}$,
\begin{align*}
\ug{i+1} (X^{\pi}_{t_{i+1}}) = \bb{E}_i \ug{i+1}(X^{\pi}_{t_{i+1}}) + \int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} \prom{\widehat{Z}_s,\cdot}_0 dW_s.
\end{align*}
Now we replace the definition of $\widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i}$ (\ref{eq:nu-gorro}),
\begin{align}
\ug{i+1} (X^{\pi}_{t_{i+1}}) = \widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i} - \psi(t_i,X^{\pi}_{t_i},\widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i}, \gb{Z}_{t_i})h +\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} \prom{\widehat{Z}_s,\cdot}_0 dW_s.
\label{eq:rep}
\end{align}
Now fix a parameter $\theta\in\Theta_{\eta}$ and replace (\ref{eq:rep}) on $L_i(\theta)$:
\begin{align*}
L_i(\theta) =&~{} \bb{E}\Big| \widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i} - u^{\theta}_i(\xscheme{i})
+\psi(t_i,\xscheme{i},u^{\theta}_i(\xscheme{i}),z^{\theta}_i(\xscheme{i}))h-\psi(t_i,\xscheme{i},\widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i},\gb{Z}_{t_i})h+ \int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} \prom{\widehat{Z}_s-z^{\theta}_i(\xscheme{i}),\cdot}_0 dW_s\Big|^2
\end{align*}
Note that the four first terms are $\ca{F}_{t_i}$-measurable and the stochastic integral is a martingale difference, therefore
\begin{align*}
L_i(\theta) =&~{} \bb{E}\Big| \widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i} - u^{\theta}_i(\xscheme{i})
+\psi(t_i,\xscheme{i},u^{\theta}_i(\xscheme{i}),z^{\theta}_i(\xscheme{i}))h-\psi(t_i,\xscheme{i},\widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i},\gb{Z}_{t_i})h\Big|^2\\
&\quad
+ \bb{E}\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} \norm{\widehat{Z}_s-\gb{Z}_{t_i}}^2_0 ds + h\bb{E}\norm{\gb{Z}_{t_i}-z^{\theta}_i(\xscheme{i})}^2_0.
\end{align*}
Where we used Ito isometry and the same argument used on equation (\ref{eq:ortogonal1}). With this decomposition of $L_i(\theta)$, we can easily see the part that depends on $\theta$. Lets work with $\hat{L}_i$ defined as follows,
\begin{align*}
\hat{L}_i(\theta) &= \bb{E} \Big| \widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i}-u_i^{\theta}(\xscheme{i}) + \parent{ \psi(t_i,\xscheme{i},u_i^{\theta}(\xscheme{i}),z_i^{\theta}(\xscheme{i})) - \psi(t_i,\xscheme{i},\widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i},\gb{Z}_{t_i})}h \Big|^2+ h \bb{E}\norm{\gb{Z}_{t_i}-z_i^{\theta}(\xscheme{i})}_0^2.
\end{align*}
Let $\gamma>0$ and use Young inequality and the Lipschitz condition on $\psi$ to find that
\begin{align*}
&\bb{E} \Big| \widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i}-u_i^{\theta}(\xscheme{i}) + \parent{\psi(t_i,\xscheme{i},\widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i},\gb{Z}_{t_i}) - \psi(t_i,\xscheme{i},u_i^{\theta}(\xscheme{i}),z_i^{\theta}(\xscheme{i})) } \Big|^2\\
&\le \parent{1+\gamma h}\esp{\widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i}-u_i^{\theta}(\xscheme{i})}^2+ \parent{1+\frac{1}{\gamma h}}h^2 C\bb{E}\parent{|\widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i}-u_i^{\theta}(\xscheme{i})|^2+\norm{z_i^{\theta} (\xscheme{i})-\gb{Z}_{t_i}}_0^2}\\
&\le C\esp{\widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i}-u_i^{\theta}(\xscheme{i})}^2 + Ch\bb{E}\norm{z_i^{\theta} (\xscheme{i})-\gb{Z}_{t_i}}_0^2.
\end{align*}
Therefore, we have an upper bound on $L(\theta)$ for all $\theta\in\Theta_{\eta}$, to find a lower bound, we use $(a+b)^2\ge(1-\gamma h)a^2+\left(1-\frac{1}{\gamma h}\right)b^2\ge(1-\gamma h)a^2-\frac{1}{\gamma h}b^2$ with $\gamma>0$
\begin{align*}
\bb{E} \Big| \widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i}-u_i^{\theta}(\xscheme{i}) + \parent{\psi(t_i,\xscheme{i},\widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i},\gb{Z}_{t_i}) - \psi(t_i,\xscheme{i},u_i^{\theta}(\xscheme{i}),z_i^{\theta}(\xscheme{i})) } \Big|^2\ge& \parent{1-Ch}\esp{\widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i}-u_i^{\theta}(\xscheme{i})}^2 \\
&-\frac{h}{2} \bb{E}\norm{z_i^{\theta} (\xscheme{i})-\gb{Z}_{t_i}}_0^2;
\end{align*}
where we used $\gamma = 2C$ in order to force the $\frac{1}{2}$ in the second term of the RHS. Then, connecting these bounds and using that $\forall\theta\in\Theta$ $\hat{L}(\theta^*)\le\hat{L}(\theta)$ yields,
\begin{align*}
\parent{1- Ch}\esp{\widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i}-\hat{u}_i(\xscheme{i})}^2 +\frac{h}{2} \bb{E}\norm{\gb{Z}_{t_i}-\hat{z}_i (\xscheme{i})}_0^2\le C\esp{\widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i}-u_i^{\theta}(\xscheme{i})}^2 Ch\bb{E}\norm{\gb{Z}_{t_i}-z_i^{\theta} (\xscheme{i})}_0^2.
\end{align*}
By taking $h$ small such that $(1-Ch)\ge \frac{1}{2}$ and infimum on the right side with respect to $\theta\in\Theta_{\eta}$ we get \eqref{eq:important-bound},
\begin{align}
\esp{\widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i}-\hat{u}_i(\xscheme{i})}^2 +h \bb{E}\norm{\gb{Z}_{t_i}-\hat{z}_i (\xscheme{i})}_0^2\le C\varepsilon^{v,\eta}_i + Ch\varepsilon^{z,\eta}_i
\end{align}
Thus the proof is completed.
\end{proof}
Previous lemma and steps proves the following.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:first-control}
It holds that,
\begin{align}
\max_{i\in\set{0,...,N-1}}\esp{Y_{t_i}-\ug{i}(X_{t_i}^\pi)}^2 + \le& C\Bigg[h+\esp{ \phi(X_T)-\phi(X_T^\pi) }^2+N\varepsilon^{v,\eta} + \varepsilon^{z,\eta}\nonumber\\
&\quad + e(X,X^{\pi}) + e(Y,(Y_t)_{t\in\pi})
+ e(Z,(\overline{Z}_t)_{t\in\pi}) \Bigg].
\label{eq:first-control}
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
{\color{black} \textbf{Step 4:}} In this step we show the desire bound for the remaining component.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:second-control}
It holds that,
\begin{align}
\sum_{i=0}^{N-1}\bb{E}\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} \norm{Z_s-\hat{z}_{i}(\xscheme{i})}_0^2 ds\le& C\,\Bigg[h +\esp{ \phi(X_T)-\phi(X_T^\pi) }^2+ N\varepsilon^{v,\eta} + \varepsilon^{z,\eta}\nonumber\\
&\quad +e(X,X^{\pi}) + e(Y,(Y_t)_{t\in\pi})+ e(Z,(\overline{Z}_t)_{t\in\pi}) \Bigg].
\label{eq:second-control}
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We will use triangular inequality passing through $\gb{Z}_{t_i}$. Note that the term containing $\norm{\gb{Z}_{t_i} - \hat{z}_i(\xscheme{i})}^2_0$ is well-controlled by Lemma \ref{lemma:important-lemma}. By using (\ref{eq: 4.11z}) with Lemma \ref{lemma:f-int-bound} on (\ref{eq:ortogonal1}), we get
\begin{align*}
\bb{E}\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}}\norm{Z_s - \gb{Z}_{t_i}}_0^2 ds \le &~{} C\bb{E}\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} \norm{Z_s - \overline{Z}_{t_i}}_0^2 ds +C \bb{E}\parent{\bb{E}_i H_{i+1}^2 - (\bb{E}_i H_{i+1})^2}\\
&~{} + Ch\bb{E}\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} |\psi(\Theta_s)|^2ds .
\end{align*}
which implies, after summing over $i\in\set{0,...N-1}$,
\begin{align}\label{eq:final}
\bb{E}\sum_{i=0}^{N-1}\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} \norm{Z_t - \gb{Z}_{t_i}}_0^2 ds\le C\sum_{i=0}^{N-1}\parent{\bb{E}\parent{H_{i+1}^2} - \esp{\bb{E}_i (H_{i+1})}^2} + Ch + e(Z,(\overline{Z}_t)_{t\in\pi}).
\end{align}
The next step is to give a suitable bound for $\bb{E}\parent{H_{i+1}^2} - \esp{\bb{E}_i (H_{i+1})}^2$. Recall from \eqref{def_H} that $H_{i+1} = Y_{t_{i+1}} - \hat{u}_{i+1} (\xscheme{i+1})$, then
\begin{equation}\label{EHEH}
\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=0}^{N-1}\parent{\bb{E}\parent{H_{i+1}^2} - \esp{\bb{E}_i (H_{i+1})}^2} &= \sum_{i=0}^{N-1}\bb{E}(H_{i+1}^2)-\sum_{i=0}^{N-1}\esp{\bb{E}_i(H_{i+1})}^2\\
&= \esp{Y_{t_N}-\hat{u}_N(\xscheme{N})} + \sum_{i=0}^{N-2}\bb{E}(H_{i+1}^2) - \sum_{i=0}^{N-1}\esp{\bb{E}_i(H_{i+1})}^2\\
&\le \esp{\phi(X_T)-\phi(X_T^\pi)}^2 +\bb{E}(H_{0}^2) + \sum_{i=1}^{N-1}\bb{E}(H_{i}^2) - \sum_{i=0}^{N-1}\esp{\bb{E}_i(H_{i+1})}^2\\
&= \esp{\phi(X_T)-\phi(X_T^\pi)}^2 +\sum_{i=0}^{N-1} \left( \bb{E}(H_{i}^2) - \esp{\bb{E}_i(H_{i+1})}^2 \right).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
From (\ref{eq:4.13}) and (\ref{eq:upper}) we have an lower and upper bound for $\esp{Y_{t_i}-\widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i}}^2$. Indeed, first one has
\begin{equation}\label{eq:delta-s4}
(1-h)\esp{Y_{t_i}-\ug{i}(X^\pi_{t_i})}^2 \leq \esp{Y_{t_i}-\widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i}}^2 + \parent{\frac{1}{h}-1}\esp{\ug{i}(X^\pi_{t_i})-\widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i}}^2.
\end{equation}
Then, we have that for all $\gamma>0$
\begin{align*}
&\parent{1-h}\, \esp{Y_{t_i}-\hat{u}_i(\xscheme{i})}^2 \\
&~{} \le \parent{\frac{1}{h} -1}\esp{\hat{u}_i(\xscheme{i})-\widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i}}^2 + (1+\gamma h)\esp{\bb{E}_i(H_{i+1})}^2
\\
& \quad +(1+\gamma h)\frac{C}{\gamma}\bigg[\underbrace{h^2+ e_i(X,\xscheme{i}) + e_i(Y,Y_{t_i}) + h\bb{E}|Y_{t_i} - \widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i}|^2 + \bb{E}\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} \norm{Z_s-\gb{Z}_{t_i}}_0^2 ds}_{B_i}\bigg].
\end{align*}
Let us call the expression inside the squared brackets by $B_i$. Subtracting $(1-h) \bb{E}\left|\bb{E}_iH_{i+1}\right|^2$ and dividing by $(1-h)$,
\[
\begin{aligned}
\bb{E}(H_i^2) - \esp{\bb{E}_i(H_{i+1})}^2 \le &~{} \frac{1}{h}\esp{\ug{i}(\xscheme{i}) - \widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i} }^2 + \parent{\frac{h+ \gamma h}{1-h}}\esp{\bb{E}_i(H_{i+1})}^2 +\frac{C}{\gamma}\frac{(1+ \gamma h)}{(1-h)}B_i.
\end{aligned}
\]
For $\gamma = 3C$ and sufficiently small $h$, we can force,
\begin{align*}
\frac{C}{\gamma}\frac{(1+\gamma h)}{(1-h)} \le \frac{1}{2}\qquad \text{and}\qquad \frac{1}{1-h}\le\frac{1}{2}.
\end{align*}
Hence,
\begin{align*}
\bb{E}(H_i^2)& - \esp{\bb{E}_i(H_{i+1})}^2 \le \frac{1}{h}\esp{\ug{i}(\xscheme{i}) - \widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i} }^2 + Ch\esp{\bb{E}_i(H_{i+1})}^2
+\frac{1}{2}B_i.
\end{align*}
Finally, note that,
\begin{align}\label{eq:N-bound}
\sum_{i=0}^{N-1}\esp{\bb{E}_i(H_{i+1})}^2\le \esp{\phi(X_T)-\phi(X_T^\pi)}^2+N\underset{i=0,...,N-1}{\max} \esp{Y_{t_i}-\hat{u}_i(\xscheme{i})}^2.
\end{align}
Coming back to \eqref{EHEH},
\[
\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=0}^{N-1}\parent{\bb{E}\parent{H_{i+1}^2} - \esp{\bb{E}_i (H_{i+1})}^2} \leq &~{} C\esp{\phi(X_T)-\phi(X_T^\pi)}^2 + N \sum_{i=0}^{N-1}\esp{\ug{i}(\xscheme{i}) - \widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i} }^2 \\
&~{} + Ch N \underset{i=0,...,N-1}{\max} \esp{Y_{t_i}-\hat{u}_i(\xscheme{i})}^2 +\frac{1}{2} \sum_{i=0}^{N-1} B_i.
\end{aligned}
\]
Therefore, by plugging this bound in (\ref{eq:final}), noting that $|Y_{t_i}-\widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i}|^2\le 2|Y_{t_i}-\hat{u}_{i}(\xscheme{i}) |^2 + 2|\hat{u}_i(\xscheme{i}) - \widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i}|^2$ and $hN = 1$, we have,
\begin{align*}
& \bb{E}\sum_{i=0}^{N-1}\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} \norm{Z_s - \gb{Z}_{t_i}}_0^2 ds\\
&\le C\bigg[h + \esp{\phi(X_T)-\phi(X_T^\pi)}^2 + N \sum_{i=0}^{N-1}\esp{\hat{u}_{t_i}(\xscheme{i}) - \widehat{\ca{V}}_{t_i}}^2\\
&\qquad + \underset{i=0,...,N-1}{\max}\esp{Y_{t_i}-\hat{u}_{i}(\xscheme{i})}^2 + e(X,X^{\pi}) + e(Y,(Y_t)_{t\in\pi}) + e(Z,(\overline{Z}_t)_{t\in\pi})\bigg].
\end{align*}
Now, use Lemma \ref{lemma:important-lemma} and Lemma \ref{lemma:first-control} to get
\begin{align*}
\bb{E}\sum_{i=0}^{N-1}\int_{t_i}^{t_{i+1}} \norm{Z_s - \gb{Z}_{t_i}}_0^2 ds \le & C\bigg[h+\esp{\phi(X_T)-\phi(X_T^\pi)}^2+ N\varepsilon^{v,\eta} + \varepsilon^{z,\eta}\\
&\quad +e(X,X^{\pi}) + e(Y,(Y_t)_{t\in\pi}) + e(Z,(\overline{Z}_t)_{t\in\pi})\bigg] .
\end{align*}
Thus, it has been demonstrated.
\end{proof}
By combining Lemma \ref{lemma:first-control} with Lemma \ref{lemma:second-control} and using Assumptions \ref{assumption:stochastic-sol-regularity}, the proof of Theorem \ref{MT1} is now complete.
\end{proof}
We finish this work with the following closing remark.
\begin{remark}
Note that if the approximators are DeepOnets, then $\varepsilon^{v,\eta}, \varepsilon^{z,\eta}\to 0$ as $\eta\to\infty$. See Remark \ref{rem_5p4}.
\end{remark}
\input{bibliography}
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
We consider discrete-time infinite-horizon stochastic control in the universal measurability framework as formulated by Shreve and Bertsekas \cite{ShrB78, ShrB79} (see also \cite[Part II]{bs}), where the state and action spaces are Borel, the control constraints have analytic graphs, and the policies are universally measurable. Our particular focus will be on Markov decision processes (MDPs), their partially observable counterparts in which the controller has imperfect information about the states, and minimax control problems in which the controller plays against an opponent.
The main results of this paper concern optimality properties of these systems, such as the measurability of the optimal value functions and the existence of measurable optimal or nearly optimal policies, under general conditions on the system dynamics and with respect to (w.r.t.) a broad range of performance criteria.
To obtain our results, we relate the optimal control problems to optimization problems on the space of strategic measures (i.e., probability measures induced by the policies on the trajectory space of the control system). This method is well-known in the MDP literature. Suppose that the performance criteria can be expressed as functions of strategic measures (which is often the case in applications) and that these functions satisfy appropriate measurability conditions. Then one can derive optimality results for the stochastic control problems by analyzing the properties of strategic measures and the corresponding optimization problems on these measures.
For MDPs with \emph{Borel measurable policies}, strategic measures were analyzed and optimality results similar to ours were established a long time ago in Strauch \cite{Str-negative}, Blackwell~\cite{Blk76}, Dynkin and Yushkevich~\cite[Chaps.\ 3, 5]{DyY79}, and Feinberg~\cite{Fei82, Fei82a, Fei91, Fei96}. (Although this is outside our scope, we mention that topological properties of strategic measures have also been studied by Sch{\"a}l \cite{Sch75b} and Balder \cite{Bal89}, and by Y{\"u}ksel and Saldi \cite{YuS17} recently for Borel team-decision models.)
For MDPs with universally measurable policies, however, an analysis of strategic measures seems to be missing in the literature. One of the purposes of this paper is to fill this gap. While the two MDP models are similar, their differences are not superficial, so our results are not mere repetitions of the established results for Borel measurable policies. In our proofs, besides arguments from the prior work, we use also the properties of analytic sets and semianalytic or universally measurable functions. Another important difference is in the notion of optimality. The prior results in \cite[Chaps.\ 3, 5]{DyY79} and \cite{Fei82, Fei82a, Str-negative} concern the existence of Borel measurable, randomized or nonrandomized ($\epsilon$-)optimal policies for \emph{almost all} states, w.r.t.\ any given finite measure on the state space.
By contrast, with universally measurable policies, we can show that there exist policies that are ($\epsilon$-)optimal \emph{everywhere}.
Our work also builds on the early work of Shreve and Bertsekas \cite{ShrB78, ShrB79} (see also \cite[Chap.\ 9]{bs}) on MDPs with universally measurable policies. They focused on the discounted and total cost criteria. Instead of strategic measures, they considered the marginal distributions of the state and action pairs at each stage and related the optimal control problems to optimization problems on those sequences of marginal distributions that can be induced by the policies through time.
This method has also been used by the author \cite{Yu-tc15, Yu20} for certain total and average cost problems. But it cannot be applied when the performance criteria are not functions of those marginal state-action distributions. Such criteria include, for example, many popular risk criteria and certain long-run average cost criteria that involve costs along sample paths. To address problems with such performance criteria in the universal measurability framework is the main purpose of this paper.
For minimax control, we consider a class of problems in which the controller does not observe the opponent's actions, and we introduce an absolute continuity condition on the finite-dimensional distributions of the processes observable to the controller while the controller applies the same policy (see Assumption~\ref{cond-minimax-abscont}). This allows us to reformulate the minimax control problems as minimax optimization problems on strategic measures. We then prove an optimality result regarding the optimal value function and the ($\epsilon$-)optimal policies for the controller (see Theorem~\ref{thm-minmax-opt}) by using the properties of the set of strategic measures and a uniformization theorem of Kond{\^o} from descriptive set theory. In this result, besides the absolute continuity condition mentioned earlier and a measurability condition on the performance criterion, we assume the axiom of analytic determinacy; see Remark~\ref{rem-ad} for a further discussion about this axiom and its necessity. (The standard ZFC axioms for set theory are assumed throughout the paper and will not be mentioned explicitly.)
We are not aware of any prior result similar to ours in the minimax control literature.
Most published results concern the validity of dynamic programming equations, the existence of stationary optimal policies, and/or minimax equalities, under continuity/compactness conditions on the control models (see e.g., \cite{GHH02,JaN14,Now85b,Rie91} and the references therein).
Nowak \cite{Now85b} placed such conditions on one of the players. Maitra and Sudderth \cite{MS98} did not require such conditions and worked with strategic measures; however, to avoid measurability issues, they took the approach that is based on the theory of finitely additive (instead of countably additive) probability measures.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section~\ref{sec-2} we give background materials about Borel-space MDPs. In Section~\ref{sec-3} we present general results regarding the measurability of various sets of strategic measures and the optimality properties of associated optimization problems. We then apply these results to risk-neutral and risk-sensitive MDPs in Section~\ref{sec-4}, where we also extend these results to partially observable problems and minimax control. We collect some of our proofs in Section~\ref{sec-5}.
\section{Borel-Space MDPs} \label{sec-2}
In this section we describe the universal measurability framework for Borel-space MDPs. We start with the definitions and important properties of certain sets/functions that underly this framework.
\subsection{Preliminaries} \label{sec-2.1}
A Borel subset of a Polish space is called a \emph{Borel space} (or \emph{standard Borel space}) \cite[Def.\ 7.7]{bs}.
For a Borel space $X$, $\mathcal{B}(X)$ denotes the Borel $\sigma$-algebra on $X$, and $\mathcal{P}(X)$ denotes the set of all probability measures on $\mathcal{B}(X)$. We endow the space $\mathcal{P}(X)$ with the topology of weak convergence; then $\mathcal{P}(X)$ is also a Borel space~\cite[Sec.\ 7.4]{bs}.
The \emph{universal $\sigma$-algebra} on $X$ is given by $\mathcal{U}(X) : = \cap_{p \in \mathcal{P}(X)} \mathcal{B}_p(X)$. Here, for each $p \in \mathcal{P}(X)$, $\mathcal{B}_p(X)$ is the $\sigma$-algebra generated by $\mathcal{B}(X)$ and all the subsets of $X$ with $p$-outer measure $0$, and on $\mathcal{B}_p(X)$, $p$ admits a unique extension, called the \emph{completion of $p$} (cf.\ \cite[Sec.\ 3.3]{Dud02}).
The sets in $\mathcal{U}(X)$ and the $\mathcal{U}(X)$-measurable mappings on $X$, being measurable w.r.t.\ the completion of any $p \in \mathcal{P}(X)$, are called \emph{universally measurable}.
Let $X$ and $Y$ be Borel spaces. A function $q(\cdot \,|\, \cdot): \mathcal{B}(Y) \times X \to [0,1]$ is called a \emph{universally measurable stochastic kernel} (resp.\ \emph{Borel measurable stochastic kernel}) on $Y$ given $X$, if for each $x \in X$, $q(\cdot \,|\, x)$ is a probability measure on $\mathcal{B}(Y)$ and for each $B \in \mathcal{B}(Y)$, $q(B \,|\, \cdot)$ is universally measurable (resp.\ Borel measurable). Equivalently, such a kernel can also be defined as a measurable mapping $x \mapsto q(\cdot \,|\, x)$ from the space $(X, \mathcal{U}(X))$ (resp.\ $(X, \mathcal{B}(X))$) into the space $\big(\mathcal{P}(Y), \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{P}(Y))\big)$ of probability measures; cf.\ \cite[Def.~7.12, Prop.~7.26, Lem.~7.28]{bs}. To refer to the stochastic kernel, we will often use the notation $q$ or $q(dy \,|\, x)$.
For $p \in \mathcal{P}(X)$ and $D \in \mathcal{U}(X)$, $p(D)$ is the probability of $D$ w.r.t.\ the completion of $p$. (Notation-wise, we do not distinguish between $p$ and its completion.) Let $\mathbb{R} : = (-\infty, + \infty)$ and $\bar \mathbb{R} : = [-\infty, + \infty]$. If $f: X \to \bar \mathbb{R}$ is universally measurable, then $\int f dp : = \int f^+ dp - \int f^- dp$, where $f^+$ ($f^-$) is the positive (negative) part of $f$ and the integration is w.r.t.\ the completion of $p$. (For summations involving extended real numbers, the convention $\infty - \infty = - \infty + \infty = \infty$ is adopted unless otherwise stated.)
The same interpretations apply to $q(D \,|\, y)$ and $ \int f(x) \, q(dx \,|\, y)$, if $D$ and $f$ are as defined above and $q(dx \,|\, y)$ is a Borel or universally measurable stochastic kernel on $X$ given $Y$.
A subset of $X$ is called \emph{analytic}, if it is either empty or the image of a Borel subset of some Polish space under a Borel measurable mapping (cf.\ \cite[Prop.\ 7.41]{bs}, \cite[Sec.~13.2]{Dud02}). The complement of an analytic set is called \emph{coanalytic}. A \emph{lower semianalytic} function is a function $f: D \to \bar \mathbb{R}$ such that the domain $D$ is an analytic set and for every $r \in \mathbb{R}$, the level set $\{ x \in D \!\mid f(x) \leq r\}$ is analytic \cite[Def.\ 7.21, Lem.\ 7.30(1)]{bs}. (This definition is equivalent to that the epigraph of $f$, $\{ (x, r) \in D \times \mathbb{R} \!\mid f(x) \leq r \}$, is analytic; cf.~\cite[p.~186]{bs}.) Replacing ``$\leq r$'' with ``$\geq r$'' in the preceding statement gives the definition of an \emph{upper semianalytic} function.
Borel subsets of $X$ are analytic (and coanalytic);
Borel measurable functions from $X$ into $\bar \mathbb{R}$ are lower (and upper) semianalytic.
The $\sigma$-algebra $\mathcal{A}(X)$ generated by analytic subsets of $X$ contains $\mathcal{B}(X)$ and is contained in $\mathcal{U}(X)$.
Thus analytically measurable (i.e., $\mathcal{A}(X)$-measurable) sets and functions, in particular, analytic subsets of $X$ and lower (or upper) semianalytic functions on $X$, are universally measurable.
In addition, analytic sets and lower semianalytic functions have a number of important properties that play fundamental roles in the mathematical framework for Borel-space MDPs. Let us recount a few of these properties here, which will be used frequently in this paper (see the article \cite{BFO74} for a more comprehensive review, and the monograph \cite[Chap.\ 7]{bs} for an in-depth study).
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=0.7cm,labelwidth=!]
\item[(a)] For any analytic set $D \subset X$ and real number $r \geq 0$, $\{ p \in \mathcal{P}(X) \mid p (D) > r\}$ and $\{ p \in \mathcal{P}(X) \mid p (D) \geq r\}$ are analytic subsets of $\mathcal{P}(X)$ (\cite[Lem.~(25)]{BFO74}; see also \cite[Prop.~7.43, Cor.~7.43.1]{bs}).
\item[(b)] If $f: X \times Y \to \bar \mathbb{R}$ is lower semianalytic and $q(dy \,|\, x)$ is a Borel measurable stochastic kernel on $Y$ given $X$, then $\phi(x) : = \int f(x,y) \, q(dy \,|\, x)$ is lower semianalytic on $X$ \cite[Prop.\ 7.48]{bs}.
\end{itemize}
For $D \subset X \times Y$, $\text{proj}_X(D) : = \{ x \in X \!\mid (x,y) \in D \ \text{for some} \ y \in Y \}$ is the projection of $D$ on $X$, and we call a function $\psi: \text{proj}_X(D) \to Y$ \emph{a selection of $D$} if the graph of $\psi$ is contained in $D$, i.e., $(x, \psi(x)) \in D$ for all $x \in \text{proj}_X(D)$.
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=0.7cm,labelwidth=!]
\item[(c)] If $D \subset X \times Y$ is analytic, then $\text{proj}_X(D)$ is analytic \cite[Prop.~7.39]{bs} and $D$ admits an analytically measurable selection (the Jankov-von Neumann selection theorem \cite[Prop.\ 7.49]{bs}).
\end{itemize}
For partial minimization of a function $f$ on $X \times Y$ (that is, minimizing $f$ over $y$ for each $x$), by applying (c) to the level sets or epigraph of a lower semianalytic $f$, one obtains the following:
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=0.7cm,labelwidth=!]
\item[(d)] If $D \subset X \times Y$ is analytic and $f: D \to \bar \mathbb{R}$ is lower semianalytic, then the function $f^*: \text{proj}_X(D) \to \bar \mathbb{R}$ defined by
\begin{equation} \label{eq-minf}
f^*(x) = \inf_{y \in D_x} f(x, y), \quad \text{where} \ D_x = \{ y \in Y \mid (x, y) \in D \},
\end{equation}
is also lower semianalytic \cite[Prop.~7.47]{bs}. Furthermore, for each $\epsilon > 0$, there exists a universally measurable function $\psi: \text{proj}_X(D) \to Y$
such that $\psi(x) \in D_x$ for all $x \in \text{proj}_X(D)$ and
\begin{equation}
f(x, \psi(x)) = f^*(x), \qquad \forall \, x \in E^*,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
f(x, \psi(x)) \leq \begin{cases}
f^*(x) + \epsilon & \text{if} \ f^*(x) > - \infty, \\
-1/\epsilon & \text{if} \ f^*(x) = - \infty,
\end{cases} \qquad \ \ \ \forall \, x \in \text{proj}_X(D) \setminus E^*,
\end{equation}
where $E^* : = \{ x \in \text{proj}_X(D) \mid \mathop{\arg\min}_{y \in D_x} f(x,y) \not= \varnothing \} \in \mathcal{U}(X)$ (cf.\ \cite[Prop.~7.50]{bs}).
\end{enumerate}
We will introduce later a counterpart of (d) for upper semianalytic functions as well as for a more general class of functions under the axioms of ZFC and analytic determinacy (see Prop.~\ref{prp-ext-sel} and Remark~\ref{rmk-sigma21}). Based on G{\"o}del's work \cite{God38}, it is known that this is not possible under ZFC alone (cf.\ the discussions in \cite[p.~302]{bs} and Remark~\ref{rem-ad}).
\medskip
\noindent {\bf Miscellaneous notation:} Throughout the paper, for $x \in X$, $\delta_x$ denotes the Dirac measure concentrating at $x$, and $\mathcal{D}(X)$ denotes the set of all Dirac measures on $X$. For $B \subset X$, $B^c: = X \setminus B$ and $\mathbb{1}_B$ is the indicator function for $B$. For an event $E$ in a probability space with a probability measure $p$, we write $\mathbb{1}(E)$ for the indicator of $E$ and $p\{ E\}$ for the probability of $E$.
\subsection{MDPs with Universally Measurable Policies} \label{sec-2.2}
We consider a Borel-space MDP in the universal measurability framework (cf.\ \cite[Sec.\ 8.1]{bs}). Specifically, the following will be assumed throughout the paper unless otherwise stated:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=0.65cm,labelwidth=!]
\item The state space $\mathbb{X}$ and the action space $\mathbb{A}$ are \emph{Borel spaces}.
\item State transitions are governed by $q(dy \,|\, x, a)$, a \emph{Borel measurable} stochastic kernel on $\mathbb{X}$ given $\mathbb{X} \times \mathbb{A}$.
\item The control constraint is specified by a set-valued mapping $A: x \mapsto A(x)$ on $\mathbb{X}$, where $A(x) \subset \mathbb{A}$ is a nonempty set of admissible actions at the state $x$. The graph of $A(\cdot)$,
$\Gamma := \{(x, a) \mid x \in \mathbb{X}, a \in A(x)\},$
is \emph{analytic}.
\item The one-stage cost function $c: \Gamma \to \bar \mathbb{R}$ is \emph{lower semianalytic}.
\end{itemize}
Our primary interest is in infinite-horizon control problems (several performance criteria will be introduced in Section~\ref{sec-4}).
Let $\omega : = (x_0, a_0, x_1, a_1, \ldots)$, where $x_n$ and $a_n$ denote the state and action, respectively, at the $n$th stage. For $n \geq 0$, let $h_n : = (x_0, a_0, x_1, a_1,\ldots, x_n)$ and $h'_n : = (x_0, a_0, x_1, a_1,\ldots, x_n, a_n)$. We denote the space of $\omega$ by $\Omega: = (\mathbb{X} \times \mathbb{A})^\infty$, the space of $h_n$ by $H_n : = (\mathbb{X} \times \mathbb{A})^n \times \mathbb{X}$, and the space of $h'_n$ by $H'_n : = (\mathbb{X} \times \mathbb{A})^{n+1}$. All these spaces are endowed with the product topology to make them Borel spaces \cite[Prop.\ 7.13]{bs}.
A \emph{universally measurable policy} (or a \emph{policy} for short) is a sequence of \emph{universally measurable} stochastic kernels, $\pi : =(\mu_0, \mu_1, \ldots)$, where for each $n \geq 0$,
$\mu_n\big(da_n \,|\, h_n \big)$ is a universally measurable stochastic kernel on $\mathbb{A}$ given $H_n$ that satisfies the control constraint
\begin{equation} \label{eq-control-constraint}
\mu_n\big(A(x_n) \mid h_n \big) = 1, \qquad \forall \, h_n = (x_0, a_0, \ldots, a_{n-1}, x_n) \in H_n.
\end{equation}
Note that the set $A(y), y \in \mathbb{X}$, is analytic since it is a section of the analytic set $\Gamma$ (cf.\ \cite[Prop.~7.40]{bs}), so the probability of $A(x_n)$ in the above expression is well-defined. A \emph{Borel measurable policy} is a policy that consists of Borel measurable stochastic kernels $\{\mu_n\}_{n \geq 0}$.
If for every $n \geq 0$ and every $h_n \in H_n$, $\mu_n(da_n \,|\, h_n)$ is a Dirac measure, $\pi$ is called a \emph{nonrandomized} policy.
A \emph{Markov} (resp.\ \emph{semi-Markov}) policy is a policy such that for every $n \geq 0$, as a function of $h_n$, the probability measure $\mu_n(d a_n \,|\, h_n)$ depends only on $x_n$ (resp.\ $(x_0, x_n)$). If a Markov policy $\pi$ has identical stochastic kernels, i.e., $\pi = (\mu, \mu, \ldots)$, we call it a \emph{stationary} policy and write it simply as $\mu$. Likewise, if a semi-Markov policy $\pi$ satisfies that for some stochastic kernel $\tilde \mu$ on $\mathbb{A}$ given $\mathbb{X}^2$,
$\mu_0(da_0 \,|\, x_0) = \tilde \mu(da_0 \,|\, x_0, x_0)$ and $\mu_n(d a_n \,|\, x_0, x_n) = \tilde \mu( da_n \,|\, x_0, x_n)$ for all $x_0, x_n \in \mathbb{X}$ and $n \geq 1$, we call $\pi$ a \emph{semi-stationary} policy and write it simply as $\tilde \mu$.
Let $\Pi$ denote the set of all policies, and let $\Pi_{sm}, \Pi_m$, $\Pi_{ss}$, and $\Pi_s$ denote the subsets of semi-Markov, Markov, semi-stationary, and stationary policies, respectively. If $\Pi_\star$ is any one of these sets, we write $\Pi'_\star$ for the subset of nonrandomized policies in $\Pi_\star$. All these sets are nonempty, because the control constraint $A(\cdot)$ has an analytic graph $\Gamma$ and this ensures, by the Jankov-von Neumann selection theorem \cite[Prop.~7.49]{bs}, that a nonrandomized stationary policy exists. By contrast, a Borel measurable policy may not exist even if $\Gamma$ is Borel \cite{Blk-borel}.
For each policy $\pi = (\mu_0, \mu_1, \ldots) \in \Pi$, an initial state distribution $p_0 \in \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{X})$ together with the collection of stochastic kernels $\mu_0(d a_0 \,|\, x_0)$, $q(dx_1 \,|\, x_0, a_0)$, $\mu_1(da_1 \,|\, h_1)$, $q(dx_2 \,|\, x_1, a_1), \ldots$ determines uniquely a probability measure $\mathbb{P}^\pi_{p_0}$ on $\mathcal{U}(\Omega)$ \cite[Prop.\ 7.45]{bs}. The expectation w.r.t.\ $\mathbb{P}^\pi_{p_0}$ is denoted by $\mathbb{E}^\pi_{p_0}$.
If $p_0 = \delta_x$, we will also use the notation $\mathbb{P}^\pi_{x}$ and $\mathbb{E}^\pi_{x}$.
Throughout the paper, we will simply write a stochastic process on $\Omega$ as $\{(x_n, a_n)\}_{n \geq 0}$, using $(x_n, a_n)$ to denote the random variables $\big(x_n(\omega), a_n(\omega)\big)$ instead, which are the $(x_n, a_n)$-components of $\omega$.
\section{Properties of Strategic Measures} \label{sec-3}
The probability measures on $\Omega$ induced by the policies are also known as strategic measures in the literature \cite[Sec.~3.5]{DyY79}.
In the universal measurability framework, these are probability measures on $\mathcal{U}(\Omega)$; however, we shall work with their restrictions to $\mathcal{B}(\Omega)$,
in order to make use of well-studied properties of Borel probability measures. Since a probability measure on $\mathcal{U}(\Omega)$ is uniquely determined by its restriction to $\mathcal{B}(\Omega)$ (cf.\ \cite[Sec.\ 3.3]{Dud02} on completion of measures),
the two are effectively the same.
Specifically, for a policy $\pi \in \Pi$ and an initial distribution $p_0 \in \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{X})$, let $\rho_{p_0}[\pi]$ denote the restriction of $\mathbb{P}_{p_0}^\pi$ to $\mathcal{B}(\Omega)$; if $p_0 = \delta_x$, we also write it as $\rho_x [\pi ]$.
Let
$$ \mathcal{S} : = \big\{ p \in \mathcal{P}(\Omega) \mid p = \rho_{p_0}[\pi], \, \pi \in \Pi, \, p_0 \in \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{X})\big\}$$
be the set of all strategic measures, and let $\mathcal{S}'$ be the subset of strategic measures corresponding to nonrandomized policies in $\Pi'$.
Similarly, with $\Pi_m$ (resp.\ $\Pi_s$) in place of $\Pi$, we define $\mathcal{S}_m$ (resp.\ $\mathcal{S}_s$) to be the set of all strategic measures induced by Markov (resp.\ stationary) policies, and let $\mathcal{S}'_m$ (resp.\ $S'_s$) denote its subset corresponding to those nonrandomized policies.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm-strat-m}
For $\mathcal{S}_\star \in \{\mathcal{S}, \mathcal{S}_m, \mathcal{S}_s\}$, $\mathcal{S}_\star$ and $\mathcal{S}'_\star$ are analytic; they are Borel if $\Gamma$ is Borel.
\end{theorem}
We prove this theorem in Section~\ref{sec-proof-1}. There we also consider the strategic measures induced by policies with certain structural constraints and give a more general result (cf.\ Prop.~\ref{prp-Sc}) that entails the conclusions of the above theorem for $\mathcal{S}$ and $\mathcal{S}_m$.
\begin{rem} \rm \label{rmk-strm}
(a) For the MDP model with a Borel $\Gamma$ and Borel measurable policies, the Borel measurability of $\mathcal{S}$ was shown in Strauch \cite[Lem.\ 7.2]{Str-negative} and in Dynkin and Yushkevich \cite[Secs.\ 3.5, 3.6, 5.5]{DyY79}; the Borel measurability of $\mathcal{S}'$ was implied by the results of Blackwell \cite{Blk76}; and the Borel measurability of the other sets involved in Theorem~\ref{thm-strat-m} were established by Feinberg \cite{Fei96}. All these results were summarized in Feinberg \cite[Thm.\ 3.2]{Fei96}. A small difference between \cite[Thm.\ 3.2]{Fei96} and the part of Theorem~\ref{thm-strat-m} for the case of a Borel $\Gamma$ is worth noting: in our case $\Gamma$ need not admit a Borel measurable selection and hence a Borel measurable policy need not exist. (By the Blackwell--Ryll-Nardzewski selection theorem \cite[Thm.~2]{BlR63}, if $\Gamma$ is Borel, then $\Gamma$ admits a Borel measurable selection if and only if there exists a Borel measurable stationary policy.)
\smallskip
\noindent (b) Suppose $\Gamma$ admits a Borel measurable selection, so that there is at least one Borel measurable policy $\mu^o \in \Pi_s'$. Then the sets $\mathcal{S}_\star, \mathcal{S}'_\star$ in Theorem~\ref{thm-strat-m} all coincide with their respective subsets of strategic measures induced by Borel measurable policies. This follows from the fact that w.r.t.\ any given finite measure on its domain space, a universally measurable function coincides with some Borel measurable function almost everywhere \cite[Lems.\ 7.27, 7.28(c)]{bs}. More specifically, using this fact and the policy $\mu^o$, for any initial distribution $p_0$ and policy $\pi : = \{\mu_n\}_{n \geq 0} \in \Pi$, one can modify the stochastic kernels $\mu_n$ one by one to construct a Borel measurable policy $\tilde \pi$ such that $\rho_{p_0}[\tilde \pi] = \rho_{p_0}[\pi]$ and $\tilde \pi$ and $\pi$ belong to the same class of policies (any class $\Pi_\star$ or $\Pi_\star'$ defined in Section~\ref{sec-2.2}).
However, universally measurable policies are still indispensable in this case; cf.\ Remark~\ref{rmk-opt}(b).
\smallskip
\noindent (c) Let $\Delta \subset \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{X}) \times \big(\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{X} \times \mathbb{A})\big)^\infty$ consist of all those sequences $(p_0, \gamma_0, \gamma_1, \ldots)$ such that $p_0 \in \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{X})$ and for some $\pi \in \Pi_m$, $\gamma_n \in \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{X} \times \mathbb{A})$ is the marginal distribution of $(x_n, a_n)$ w.r.t.\ $\mathbb{P}^\pi_{p_0}$ for all $n \geq 0$. It has been shown by Shreve and Bertsekas \cite[Lem.\ 1]{ShrB79} (see also \cite[Lem.\ 9.1]{bs}) that the set $\Delta$ is analytic; their proof also shows that $\Delta$ is Borel if $\Gamma$ is Borel. As to the relation between $\Delta$ and strategic measures, we can show that $\mathcal{S}_m$ is Borel-isomorphic to $\Delta$, whereas $\mathcal{S}_m'$, $\mathcal{S}_s$, and $\mathcal{S}_s'$ are Borel-isomorphic to certain subsets of $\Delta$.
\qed
\end{rem}
Many optimal control problems can be equivalently formulated as optimization problems on strategic measures.
We now give some results that will be useful for constructing (nearly) optimal policies from (nearly) optimal solutions of those optimization problems.
Let $\mathcal{S}_\star \in \{\mathcal{S}, \mathcal{S}_m, \mathcal{S}_s\}$. Define sets ${\tilde \mathcal{S}}_\star, {\tilde \mathcal{S}}^{'}_\star$ by
$$ {\tilde \mathcal{S}}_\star : = \big\{ (x, p) \in \mathbb{X} \times \mathcal{P}(\Omega) \,\big|\, p \in \mathcal{S}_\star, \, p_0(p) = \delta_x \big\}, \quad
{\tilde \mathcal{S}}^{'}_\star : = \big\{ (x, p) \in \mathbb{X} \times \mathcal{P}(\Omega) \,\big|\, p \in \mathcal{S}'_\star, \, p_0(p) = \delta_x \big\},$$
where $p_0(p)$ denotes the marginal distribution of $x_0$ w.r.t.\ $p$.
For $x \in \mathbb{X}$, denote by $\tilde \mathcal{S}_\star(x)$ the $x$-section of $\tilde \mathcal{S}_\star$; i.e.,
$\tilde \mathcal{S}_\star(x) : = \{ p \in \mathcal{P}(\Omega) \mid (x, p) \in \tilde \mathcal{S}_\star \} = \{ p \in \mathcal{S}_\star \mid p_0(p) = \delta_x \}.$
Similarly, the $x$-section of $\tilde \mathcal{S}'_\star$ is denoted by $\tilde \mathcal{S}'_\star(x)$.
\begin{lem} \label{lem-ext-set}
The sets $\tilde \mathcal{S}_\star$ and $\tilde \mathcal{S}'_\star$ are analytic; they are Borel if $\Gamma$ is Borel.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The mapping $\psi_1 : p \mapsto (p_0(p), p)$ from $\mathcal{P}(\Omega)$ into $\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{X}) \times \mathcal{P}(\Omega)$ and the mapping $\psi_2 : (x, p) \mapsto (\delta_x, p)$ from $\mathbb{X} \times \mathcal{P}(\Omega)$ into $\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{X}) \times \mathcal{P}(\Omega)$ are homeomorphisms.
We can express the sets $\tilde \mathcal{S}_\star$ and $\tilde \mathcal{S}'_\star$ as $\tilde \mathcal{S}_\star = \psi_2^{-1}\big( \psi_1(\mathcal{S}_\star)\big)$ and $\tilde \mathcal{S}'_\star = \psi_2^{-1}\big( \psi_1(\mathcal{S}'_\star)\big)$.
By \cite[Prop.~7.40]{bs}, images and preimages of analytic sets are analytic under Borel measurable mappings;
by \cite[Sec.\ I.3, Cor.\ 3.3]{Par67}, under one-to-one Borel measurable mappings, images of Borel sets are Borel.
Therefore, $\tilde \mathcal{S}_\star$ and $\tilde \mathcal{S}'_\star$ are analytic (Borel) if $\mathcal{S}_\star$ and $\mathcal{S}'_\star$ are analytic (Borel). The desired conclusion then follows from Theorems~\ref{thm-strat-m}.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop} \label{prp-ummap-pol}
Let $\mathcal{S}_\star \in \{\mathcal{S}, \mathcal{S}_m, \mathcal{S}_s\}$. Let $\zeta : \mathbb{X} \to \mathcal{P}(\Omega)$ be a universally measurable mapping such that $\zeta(x) \in \tilde \mathcal{S}_\star(x)$ for all $x \in \mathbb{X}$.
Then there exists a policy $\pi \in \Pi$ such that:
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=0.7cm,labelwidth=!]
\item[\rm (i)] $\rho_x[\pi] = \zeta(x)$ for all $x \in \mathbb{X}$;
\item[\rm (ii)] for $\mathcal{S}_\star = \mathcal{S}_m$ or $\mathcal{S}_s$, $\pi$ is semi-Markov or semi-stationary, respectively.
\end{enumerate}
If, in addition, $\zeta$ is such that $\zeta(x) \in \tilde \mathcal{S}'_\star(x)$ for all $x \in \mathbb{X}$, then $\pi$ can be taken to be nonrandomized.
\end{prop}
The proof of this result is given in Section~\ref{sec-proof-2}.
A similar result for partially observable problems will be given later in Section~\ref{sec-pomdp} (see Prop.~\ref{prp-Si-pol}).
The next theorem is similar to Feinberg \cite[Thm.\ 1]{Fei82} for MDPs with Borel measurable policies. It represents the strategic measures of randomized policies as ``mixtures'' of the strategic measures of nonrandomized policies, and will be important in studying the optimality of nonrandomized polices. We prove this theorem and a more general version of it in Section~\ref{sec-proof-3}.
Let $\bar \lambda$ be the countable product of Lebesgue measures on $[0,1]$.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm-rep-nonrand}
For each $\pi \in \Pi$, there exists a family of nonrandomized policies $\bar f(\bar \theta) \in \Pi'$, parametrized by $\bar \theta \in [0,1]^\infty$, such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item[\rm (i)] the mapping $(p_0, \bar \theta) \mapsto \rho_{p_0}\big[\bar f(\bar \theta) \big]$ from $\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{X}) \times [0,1]^\infty$ into $\mathcal{P}(\Omega)$ is universally measurable;
\item[\rm (ii)] for all $p_0 \in \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{X})$,
\begin{equation} \label{eq-rep-nonrand}
\mathbb{P}_{p_0}^\pi( E) = \int_{[0,1]^\infty} \! \mathbb{P}_{p_0}^{\bar f(\bar \theta)}( E) \, \bar \lambda (d \bar \theta), \qquad \forall \, E \in \mathcal{U}(\Omega).
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
Moreover, if $\pi$ is Markov (semi-Markov), the policies $\bar f(\bar \theta)$ are Markov (semi-Markov) as well.
\end{theorem}
\begin{rem} \rm
The representation (\ref{eq-rep-nonrand}) for $\mathbb{P}_{p_0}^\pi$ involves the probability measure $\bar \lambda$ on $[0,1]^\infty$. Alternatively, similarly to Feinberg \cite[Thm.\ 5.2]{Fei96}, we can introduce a probability measure $\eta$ on $\mathcal{U}\big(\mathcal{P}(\Omega)\big)$ to express $\mathbb{P}_{p_0}^\pi$ as
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{P}_{p_0}^\pi(E) = \int_{\mathcal{P}(\Omega)} \! p(E) \, \eta(d p), \qquad \forall \, E \in \mathcal{U}(\Omega),
\end{equation}
where $\eta$ depends on both $p_0$ and $\pi$. In particular, let $\gamma_{p_0} : [0,1]^\infty \to \mathcal{P}(\Omega)$ with $\gamma_{p_0}(\bar \theta) : = \rho_{p_0}[ \bar f(\bar \theta)]$; then by Theorem~\ref{thm-rep-nonrand}, $\gamma_{p_0}$ is universally measurable and $\eta$ is the image measure of $\bar \lambda$ under $\gamma_{p_0}$: $\eta = \bar \lambda \circ \gamma^{-1}_{p_0}$.
Moreover, by Theorem~\ref{thm-rep-nonrand}, $\eta(\mathcal{S}')=1$, and if $\pi$ is Markov, then $\eta(\mathcal{S}'_m) = 1$.\qed
\end{rem}
By combining the preceding results with \cite[Props.\ 7.47, 7.50]{bs}, we obtain the following theorem about optimization problems on strategic measures.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm-opt}
Let $(\mathcal{S}_\star, \Pi_\star) = (\mathcal{S}, \Pi), (\mathcal{S}_m, \Pi_{sm})$, or $(\mathcal{S}_s, \Pi_{ss})$.
Let $\phi : \tilde \mathcal{S}_\star \to \bar \mathbb{R}$ be lower semianalytic.
Then the following hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[\rm (i)] The function $\phi^*(x) : = \inf_{p \in \tilde\mathcal{S}_\star(x)} \phi(x, p)$, $x \in \mathbb{X}$, is lower semianalytic.
\item[\rm (ii)] For each $\epsilon > 0$, there exists a policy $\pi^* \in \Pi_\star$ such that
\begin{align}
\phi(x, \rho_x [ \pi^* ]) & = \phi^*(x), \qquad \forall \, x \in E^* : = \Big\{ x \in \mathbb{X} \,\big|\, \mathop{\arg\min}_{p \in \tilde\mathcal{S}_\star(x)} \phi(x, p) \not= \varnothing \Big\}; \label{eq-um-minimizer-1} \\
\phi(x, \rho_x [ \pi^* ]) & \leq \begin{cases}
\phi^*(x) + \epsilon & \text{if} \ \phi^*(x) > - \infty, \\
-1/\epsilon & \text{if} \ \phi^*(x) = - \infty,
\end{cases} \qquad \ \ \ \forall \, x \in \mathbb{X} \setminus E^*. \label{eq-um-minimizer-2}
\end{align}
\item[\rm (iii)] The policy $\pi^*$ in (ii) can be taken to be nonrandomized if the function $\phi$ satisfies the condition $\phi^*(x) = \inf_{p \in \tilde\mathcal{S}'_\star(x)} \phi(x, p)$ for all $x \in \mathbb{X}$. In particular, for $\mathcal{S}_\star = \mathcal{S}$ or $\mathcal{S}_m$, this condition holds if $\phi$ is such that for each $\pi \in \Pi$ or $\Pi_m$, respectively,
\begin{equation} \label{suff-cond-nonrand}
\phi(x, \rho_x[\pi] ) \geq \int_{[0,1]^\infty} \! \phi \big(x, \rho_x[\bar f(\bar \theta)] \big) \, \bar \lambda (d \bar \theta), \qquad \forall \, x \in \mathbb{X},
\end{equation}
where the function $\bar f(\bar \theta)$ associated with $\pi$ is as given in Theorem~\ref{thm-rep-nonrand}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Since the set $\tilde \mathcal{S}_\star$ is analytic by Lemma~\ref{lem-ext-set} and the function $\phi$ is lower semianalytic by assumption, part (i) holds by \cite[Prop.\ 7.47]{bs}. Moreover, by \cite[Prop.\ 7.50(b)]{bs}, there exists a universally measurable function $\zeta^* : \mathbb{X} \to \mathcal{P}(\Omega)$ such that its graph lies in $\tilde \mathcal{S}_\star$ and the relations (\ref{eq-um-minimizer-1})-(\ref{eq-um-minimizer-2}) hold with $\zeta^*(x)$ in place of $\rho_x[\pi^*]$.
Letting $\pi^* \in \Pi_\star$ be the policy given by Prop.~\ref{prp-ummap-pol} for the function $\zeta^*$, we obtain part (ii).
If $\phi^*(x) = \inf_{p \in \tilde\mathcal{S}'_\star(x)} \phi(x, p)$ for all $x \in \mathbb{X}$, then, since the set $\tilde\mathcal{S}'_\star$ is analytic by Lemma~\ref{lem-ext-set}, we can replace $\tilde \mathcal{S}_\star$ with $\tilde \mathcal{S}'_\star$ in the preceding proof so that the graph of $\zeta^*$ lies in $\tilde \mathcal{S}'_\star$. From the last statement of Prop.~\ref{prp-ummap-pol}, we then obtain a nonrandomized policy $\pi^* \in \Pi_\star$ that satisfies (\ref{eq-um-minimizer-1})-(\ref{eq-um-minimizer-2}).
Finally, for the last statement in part (iii), if $\mathcal{S}_\star = \mathcal{S}$ or $\mathcal{S}_m$, then by Theorem~\ref{thm-rep-nonrand}, $\bar f(\bar \theta) \in \Pi'$ or $\Pi'_m$, respectively, for all $\bar \theta \in [0,1]^\infty$. Hence by assumption (\ref{suff-cond-nonrand}), $\inf_{p \in \tilde\mathcal{S}_\star(x)} \phi(x, p) \geq \inf_{p \in \tilde\mathcal{S}'_\star(x)} \phi(x, p)$ for all $x \in \mathbb{X}$, which implies $\phi^*(x) = \inf_{p \in \tilde\mathcal{S}'_\star(x)} \phi(x, p)$ for all $x \in \mathbb{X}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem} \rm \label{rmk-opt}
(a) For MDPs with Borel $\Gamma$ and Borel measurable policies, optimality results similar to Theorem~\ref{thm-opt}(i)-(ii) were given in
Strauch \cite[Thms.\ 7.1, 8.1]{Str-negative} and Dynkin and Yushkevich \cite[Sec.\ 5.5]{DyY79} for the discounted and total cost criteria, and in Feinberg \cite[Thm.\ 3.1]{Fei82} and \cite[Lem.\ 4.1, Thm.\ 4.2]{Fei96} for arbitrary Borel measurable numerical criteria;
results related to Theorem~\ref{thm-opt}(iii) were given in Feinberg \cite[Thm.\ 2]{Fei82a} and \cite[Thm.\ 3.2, Cors.\ 3.2, 3.3, 3.5]{Fei82}.
As noted in our introduction, these prior results showed, w.r.t.\ any given probability measure on $\mathbb{X}$, the existence of (Borel measurable) randomized or nonrandomized, almost-everywhere $\epsilon$-optimal policies. This is different from Theorem~\ref{thm-opt}(ii) or (iii), in which the policy $\pi^*$ is $\epsilon$-optimal everywhere.
\smallskip
\noindent (b) In the prior works just mentioned, $\Gamma$ is Borel and admits a Borel measurable selection. As discussed earlier in Remark~\ref{rmk-strm}(b), in this case every $\mathcal{S}_\star$ in the preceding theorem coincides with its subset of strategic measures induced by Borel measurable policies. Moreover, the set $\tilde \mathcal{S}_\star$ admits a Borel measurable selection (since the mapping $x \mapsto \rho_x[\mu]$, where $\mu$ is any Borel measurable stationary policy, is a Borel measurable selection of $\tilde \mathcal{S}_\star$).
However, for the partial minimization problem in the preceding theorem, this ensures only the \emph{feasibility} of at least one Borel measurable policy, in the sense that there is a Borel measurable policy $\pi$ whose strategic measure $\rho_x[\pi]$ lies in the feasible set $\tilde \mathcal{S}_\star(x)$ for every state $x$. The level sets of the objective function, $\{ (x, p) \in \tilde \mathcal{S}_\star \mid \phi(x, p) < r \}$, $r \in \mathbb{R}$, in this case need not admit Borel measurable selections even if $\phi$ is Borel measurable. This is the reason that for an MDP with Borel measurable policies, in general one can only obtain an almost-everywhere $\epsilon$-optimal policy.
\qed
\end{rem}
\section{Applications and Extensions} \label{sec-4}
In this section we first specialize the results of Section~\ref{sec-3} to risk-neutral and risk-sensitive MDPs, focusing on performance criteria of the average type. We then extend our analysis to partially observable problems and minimax control problems, with the latter being the major extension.
\subsection{MDPs with Risk-Neutral and Risk-Sensitive Average Criteria} \label{sec-4.1}
We shall consider various average cost and risk criteria in this subsection and apply Theorem~\ref{thm-opt} to derive optimality results for MDPs under these criteria.
If $J^\star : \Pi \times \mathbb{X} \to \bar \mathbb{R}$ is a cost or risk criterion, w.r.t.\ $J^\star$ and a subset $\Pi_\star$ of policies in $\Pi$,
we define the optimal average cost or risk function by
\begin{equation} \label{def-g-opt}
g^\star(x) : = \inf_{\pi \in \Pi_\star} J^\star(\pi, x), \qquad x \in \mathbb{X},
\end{equation}
and we say a policy $\pi \in \Pi_\star$ is \emph{optimal for state $x$} if $J^\star(\pi, x) = g^\star(x)$,
and \emph{$\epsilon$-optimal for state $x$} (where $\epsilon > 0$) if
\begin{equation} \label{def-pol-opt}
J^\star(\pi, x) \leq \begin{cases}
g^\star(x) + \epsilon & \text{if} \ g^\star(x) > - \infty, \\
- \epsilon^{-1} & \text{if} \ g^\star(x) = - \infty.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
If these relations hold for \emph{all} states $x \in \mathbb{X}$, $\pi$ is called \emph{($\epsilon$-)optimal} w.r.t.\ $J^\star$ and $\Pi_\star$.
\subsubsection{The Risk-Neutral Case}
Let $c^+$ ($c^-$) be the positive (negative) part of the one-stage cost function $c$.
\begin{definition} \label{def-ac-models}
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=0.65cm,labelwidth=!]
\item[(i)] We say an MDP is in the model class $\text{AC}^+$ ($\text{AC}^-$), if for $c^\diamond = c^-$ ($c^\diamond = c^+$),
\begin{equation} \label{eq-ac-mdpn}
\textstyle{ \mathbb{E}^\pi_x \big[ \sum_{k=0}^n c^\diamond(x_k, a_k) \big] < + \infty, \qquad \forall \, x \in \mathbb{X}, \, \pi \in \Pi, \, n \geq 0.}
\end{equation}
\item[(ii)] We say an MDP is in the model class $\widetilde{\text{AC}}^+$ ($\widetilde{\text{AC}}^-$), if $c(\cdot)$ is real-valued and bounded below (above) on $\Gamma$.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
\smallskip
For MDPs in the $\text{AC}^+$ or $\text{AC}^-$ class, the long-run expected average cost criteria $J^{(i)}, 1 \leq i \leq 4$, given below are all well-defined (i.e., they do not involve $\infty - \infty$). For $\pi \in \Pi, x \in \mathbb{X}$,
\begin{equation} \label{eq-crt1}
J^{(1)}(\pi, x) : = \limsup_{n \to \infty} n^{-1} J_n(\pi, x), \qquad J^{(2)}(\pi, x) : = \liminf_{n \to \infty} n^{-1} J_n(\pi, x),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{eq-crt3}
J^{(3)}(\pi, x) : = \limsup_{n \to \infty} \sup_{j \geq 0} n^{-1} J_{n,j}(\pi, x), \qquad J^{(4)}(\pi, x) : = \liminf_{n \to \infty} \inf_{j \geq 0} n^{-1} J_{n,j}(\pi, x),
\end{equation}
where for $n \geq 1$ and $j \geq 0$, $ J_n(\pi, x)$ and $J_{n,j}(\pi, x)$ are $n$-stage cost functions given by
$$ J_n(\pi, x) : = \mathbb{E}^\pi_x \big[ \, \textstyle{\sum_{k=0}^{n-1} c(x_k, a_k)} \, \big], \qquad J_{n,j}(\pi, x) : = \mathbb{E}^\pi_x \big[ \, \textstyle{\sum_{k=0}^{n-1} c(x_{k+j}, a_{k+j})} \, \big].$$
($J_n$ is the standard $n$-stage cost function; $J_{n,j}$ instead measures the expected costs incurred from time $j$ to time $j+n-1$.) For the sub-models $\widetilde{\text{AC}}^+$ and $\widetilde{\text{AC}}^-$, we consider four more well-defined average cost criteria ${\tilde J}^{(i)}, 1 \leq i \leq 4$, which involve average costs along sample paths: for $\pi \in \Pi, x \in \mathbb{X}$,
\begin{align}
{\tilde J}^{(1)}(\pi, x) & : = \mathbb{E}^\pi_x \Big[ \limsup_{n \to \infty} \tilde c_n
\Big], & {\tilde J}^{(2)}(\pi, x) & : = \mathbb{E}^\pi_x \Big[ \liminf_{n \to \infty} \tilde c_n \Big], \label{eq-pt-ac1} \\
{\tilde J}^{(3)}(\pi, x) & : = \mathbb{E}^\pi_x \Big[ \limsup_{n \to \infty} \sup_{j \geq 0} \tilde c_{n,j} \Big], &
{\tilde J}^{(4)}(\pi, x) & : = \mathbb{E}^\pi_x \Big[ \liminf_{n \to \infty} \inf_{j \geq 0} \tilde c_{n,j} \Big],
\label{eq-pt-ac2a}
\end{align}
where $\tilde c_n : = n^{-1} \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} c(x_k, a_k)$ and $\tilde c_{n,j} : = n^{-1} \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} c(x_{k+j}, a_{k+j})$.
\begin{rem} \rm
The standard average cost criterion is $J^{(1)}$. Our definitions of the criteria $J^{(i)}, {\tilde J}^{(i)}$, $i = 3, 4$, were motivated by a theorem about Banach limits~\cite[Thm.\ 3.4.1]{Kre85}; see \cite[Remark 2.1]{Yu22} for more details. Regarding the criteria $J^{(i)}, {\tilde J}^{(i)}$, $i = 1, 2$, it has been shown in \cite{Bie87,Fei80} that interestingly, if $\mathbb{X}$ is finite and $c(\cdot)$ is bounded below (the action space can be arbitrary), then the optimal average cost functions w.r.t.\ these criteria and $\Pi$ are identical. Moreover, in this case, there exists a nonrandomized Markov policy that is $\epsilon$-optimal simultaneously w.r.t.\ all these criteria, and under additional compactness/continuity conditions, this policy can be taken to be nonrandomized and stationary. The finiteness of the state space is critical for these results, however. For an infinite state space $\mathbb{X}$, the optimal average cost functions w.r.t.\ these criteria are in general not the same.
\qed
\end{rem}
Consider the case $\Pi_\star = \Pi, \Pi_{sm}$, or $\Pi_{ss}$, and correspondingly let $\mathcal{S}_\star = \mathcal{S}, \mathcal{S}_m$ or $\mathcal{S}_s$, respectively.
Note that if $\pi$ is a semi-Markov or semi-stationary policy, then for each initial state $x \in \mathbb{X}$, $\rho_x[\pi] \in \mathcal{S}_m$ or $\mathcal{S}_s$, respectively. Let $J^\star$ be any criterion given above.
Since $J^\star(\pi,x)$ can be expressed as a function of $\mathbb{P}^\pi_x$, we can write the optimal average cost function $g^\star$ w.r.t.\ $J^\star$ and $\Pi_\star$ as
\begin{equation} \label{eq-g-strmeas}
g^\star(x) : = \inf_{\pi \in \Pi_\star} J^\star(\pi, x) = \inf_{p \in \tilde \mathcal{S}_\star(x)} \phi(p), \qquad x \in \mathbb{X}.
\end{equation}
Here we define the function $\phi: \mathcal{P}(\Omega) \to \bar \mathbb{R}$ by using the same defining equation for the criterion $J^\star$, except that we replace the expectation w.r.t.\ $\mathbb{P}^\pi_x$ by the expectation w.r.t\ $p$.
For technical convenience, in this definition, we extend $c(\cdot)$ to the entire state-action space by letting $c(\cdot) \equiv +\infty$ outside $\Gamma$, which makes $c(\cdot)$ a lower semianalytic function on $\mathbb{X} \times \mathbb{A}$.
\begin{lem} \label{lem-ac-lsa}
The function $\phi: \mathcal{P}(\Omega) \to \bar \mathbb{R}$ corresponding to any average cost criterion defined in (\ref{eq-crt1})-(\ref{eq-pt-ac2a}) is lower semianalytic.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Consider the case $J^{(3)}$, for example. The corresponding function $\phi$ is given by
$\phi(p) : = \limsup_{n \to \infty} \sup_{j \geq 0} n^{-1} \int_\Omega \textstyle{\sum_{k=0}^{n-1} c(x_{k+j}, a_{k+j})} \, p(d \omega)$. Since $c(\cdot)$ is lower semianalytic by our model assumption, $\phi$ is lower semianalytic by \cite[Lem.\ 7.30, Cor.\ 7.48.1]{bs}.
The same argument applies to the other criteria under consideration.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem} \label{thm-ac-basic}
Consider these two cases:
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=0.7cm,labelwidth=!]
\item[\rm 1.] an MDP in the class $\text{AC}^+$ or $\text{AC}^-$ with an average cost criterion $J^\star \in \{J^{(i)}\}_{1 \leq i \leq 4}$;
\item[\rm 2.] an MDP in the class $\widetilde{\text{AC}}^+$ or $\widetilde{\text{AC}}^-$ with an average cost criterion $J^\star \in \{{\tilde J}^{(i)}\}_{1 \leq i \leq 4}$.
\end{enumerate}
In each case, w.r.t.\ $J^\star$ and $\Pi_\star \in \{\Pi, \Pi_{sm}, \Pi_{ss} \}$, the following hold:
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=0.7cm,labelwidth=!]
\item[\rm (a)] The optimal average cost function $g^\star$ is lower semianalytic.
\item[\rm (b)] For each $\epsilon > 0$, there exists an $\epsilon$-optimal policy $\pi^* \in \Pi_\star$ that is, moreover, optimal for every state that admits an optimal policy.
\item[\rm (c)] In Case 1, the optimal average cost function w.r.t.\ $\Pi$ coincide with that w.r.t.\ $\Pi_{sm}$, and thus the $\epsilon$-optimal policy $\pi^*$ w.r.t.\ $\Pi$ given in (b) can be taken to be semi-Markov.
\item[\rm (d)] If $\Pi_\star \in \{ \Pi, \Pi_{sm}\}$, then for Case 1 with $J^\star \in \{J^{(2)}, J^{(4)}\}$ and $c(\cdot)$ being bounded from below, as well as for Case 2, the $\epsilon$-optimal policy $\pi^*$ in (b) can be taken to be nonrandomized.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Parts (a) and (b) follow from (\ref{eq-g-strmeas}), Lemma~\ref{lem-ac-lsa}, and Theorem~\ref{thm-opt}(i)-(ii).
Part (c) follows from the following two facts. First, for each initial distribution $p_0$ and policy $\pi \in \Pi$, there is a Markov policy $\pi_m \in \Pi_m$ under which the marginal distributions of $(x_n, a_n)$, $n \geq 0$, coincide with those under $\pi$ (cf.\ the proof of \cite[Prop.~1]{ShrB79}). Second, the criteria $J^{(i)}$, $1 \leq i \leq 4,$ can be expressed as functions of those marginal distributions of $(x_n, a_n)$, $n \geq 0$.
Under the assumptions of part (d), condition (\ref{suff-cond-nonrand}) in Theorem~\ref{thm-opt}(iii) is satisfied by the function $\phi$. In particular, under the stated assumptions for Case 1, inequality (\ref{suff-cond-nonrand}) holds by Theorem~\ref{thm-rep-nonrand}(ii) and Fatou's lemma; for Case 2, clearly (\ref{suff-cond-nonrand}) holds with equality by Theorem~\ref{thm-rep-nonrand}(ii). Thus part (d) follows from Theorem~\ref{thm-opt}(iii).
\end{proof}
\begin{rem} \rm \label{rmk-basicthm}
(a) For the standard average cost criterion $J^{(1)}$, Theorem~\ref{thm-ac-basic}(c) asserts the existence of a \emph{randomized} semi-Markov $\epsilon$-optimal policy that is, moreover, optimal for every state that admits an optimal policy.
This conclusion is the strongest possible, without extra conditions on the MDP. Indeed it is known that even in an MDP with a countable state space, a finite action space, and bounded one-stage costs, there need not exist a nonrandomized semi-Markov $\epsilon$-optimal policy \cite[Chap.~7, Example 3]{DyY79} nor a randomized Markov $\epsilon$-optimal policy \cite[Sec.~5]{Fei80}. In both of these counterexamples, there exists an optimal policy for each state.
\smallskip
\noindent (b) For the criteria $J^{(1)}, J^{(3)}, {\tilde J}^{(i)}$, $i \leq 4$, using Theorem~\ref{thm-ac-basic}, we can further show that under certain reachability and boundedness conditions, the optimal average cost functions w.r.t.\ $\Pi$ are constant almost everywhere w.r.t.\ certain $\sigma$-finite measures (see \cite[Lem.\ 2.4, Cor.\ 3.2]{Yu22} for more details).
\smallskip
\noindent (c) For MDPs with the average cost criterion $J^{(1)}$ and with Borel measurable policies, there are extensive studies on the existence of nonrandomized stationary optimal policies and the validity of optimality equations or optimality inequalities, under various continuity/compactness or ergodicity conditions, and with a variety of methods. Some of the results have also been extended to MDPs with universally measurable policies. The literature is too vast to list here; we refer the interested reader to the surveys and book chapters \cite{ArB93,Bor02,HL02}, \cite[Chaps.\ 5-6]{HL96}, \cite[Chaps.\ 10-12]{HL99}, the recent articles \cite{FK21,FKL20,VAm18,Yu20}, and the references therein.
\qed
\end{rem}
\subsubsection{The Risk-Sensitive Case} \label{sec-risk-mdp}
The results of Section~\ref{sec-3} on strategic measures are applicable to a large class of risk-sensitive MDPs.
As concrete examples, we discuss below several criteria related to average risk.
For simplicity, in this discussion, we assume that the one-stage cost function $c$ is real-valued on $\Gamma$.
The first two average risk criteria are adapted from a (non-average) risk criterion studied in \cite{BaR14}.
Let $\psi: \bar \mathbb{R} \to [0, + \infty]$ be a strictly increasing, nonnegative continuous function.
For all $\pi \in \Pi$, let
\begin{equation} \label{eq-risk-1}
J_\psi(\pi, x) : = \limsup_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{n} \, \psi^{-1} \! \left( \mathbb{E}^\pi_x \left[ \psi\big( \textstyle{\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}} c(x_k, a_k) \big) \right] \right), \qquad x \in \mathbb{X},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{eq-risk-2}
\hat J_\psi(\pi, x) : = \limsup_{n \to \infty} \sup_{j \geq 0} \frac{1}{n} \,\psi^{-1} \! \left( \mathbb{E}^\pi_x \left[ \psi\big( \textstyle{\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}} c(x_{j+k}, a_{j+k}) \big) \right] \right), \qquad x \in \mathbb{X}.
\end{equation}
In the special case where $\psi(z) : = e^{\beta z}$ for some $\beta > 0$, (\ref{eq-risk-1}) becomes
\begin{equation}
J_\psi(\pi, x) = \limsup_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{\beta n} \log \mathbb{E}^\pi_x \left[ e^{\beta \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} c(x_k, a_k)} \right], \quad x \in \mathbb{X}, \notag
\end{equation}
which is related to the standard exponential utility and has been considered in many works on risk-sensitive MDPs under certain continuity/compactness model assumptions (see, e.g., \cite{CaS10,Jas07}).
The next two average risk criteria are based on Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) and Value-at-Risk (VaR), two popular criteria for risk-averse control. In particular, for $\omega \in \Omega$, define the average cost along a sample path by
$\bar c(\omega) : = \limsup_{n \to \infty} \tfrac{1}{n} \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} c(x_k, a_k)$ (one can also let $\bar c(\omega) : = \limsup_{n \to \infty} \sup_{j \geq 0} \tfrac{1}{n} \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} c(x_{j+k}, a_{j+k})$; the idea is the same).
For $r \in \bar \mathbb{R}$, let $(r)_+ : = \max \{ r, 0\}$.
Define the risk criteria $R_1, R_2$ to be the $\text{CVaR}_\alpha$ and $\text{VaR}_\alpha$ of the random variable $\bar c(\omega)$ under a policy $\pi \in \Pi$, respectively, for some parameter $\alpha \in (0,1]$ that represents the level of risk-aversion:
\begin{equation} \label{eq-cvar}
R_1(\pi, x) : = \inf_{z \in \mathbb{R}} \left\{ z + \tfrac{1}{\alpha} \mathbb{E}^\pi_x \left[ ( \bar c(\omega) - z)_+ \right] \right\}, \qquad x \in \mathbb{X},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{eq-var}
R_2(\pi, x) : = \inf_{z \in \mathbb{R}} \left\{ z \,\big|\, \mathbb{P}^\pi_x \{ \bar c(\omega) \leq z \} \geq 1 - \alpha \right\}, \qquad x \in \mathbb{X}.
\end{equation}
(As a side note, if for some constant $\ell$, $\bar c(\omega) = \ell$, $\mathbb{P}^\pi_x$-almost surely, then $R_1(\pi, x) = R_2(\pi, x) = \ell$. This ``degenerate'' case can happen if $\pi$ is stationary and satisfies certain ergodicity conditions.)
For the probabilistic interpretations of $\text{CVaR}_\alpha$ and $\text{VaR}_\alpha$ and their use in stochastic programming and control problems, we refer the interested reader to \cite[Chap.\ 6]{SDR21}, \cite{WFC22}, and the references therein.
Every risk criterion defined above can be expressed as a function of $\mathbb{P}^\pi_x$. So, as in the risk-neutral case, we can express the optimal risk function $g^\star$ w.r.t.\ the criterion and a certain subset of policies as a partial minimization problem of the form (\ref{eq-g-strmeas}) on strategic measures. The function $\phi(p)$ in (\ref{eq-g-strmeas}) is defined in the same way as before, by substituting $p$ for $\mathbb{P}^\pi_x$ in the defining equation for the criterion.
In order to apply Theorem~\ref{thm-opt}, let us show that $\phi$ is lower semianalytic.
\begin{lem} \label{lem-anal-fn}
Let $X$ be a Borel space, $f: X \to \bar \mathbb{R}$, and $s: \bar \mathbb{R} \to \bar \mathbb{R}$. If $f$ is lower semianalytic and $s$ is non-decreasing, then $s \circ f$ is lower semianalytic.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
By the definition of lower seminalytic functions, we need to show that for any $r \in \mathbb{R}$, the set $B: = \{ x \in X \mid s ( f(x)) < r \}$ is analytic. Since $s$ is non-decreasing, $E: = \{ a \in \bar \mathbb{R} \mid s(a) < r \}$ is either the empty set or a nonempty interval of the form $[-\infty, r')$ or $[-\infty, r']$ for some $r' \in \bar \mathbb{R}$. In the first case, $B = \varnothing$ and is thus analytic. In the second case, we have $B = \{ x \in X \mid f(x) < r' \}$ or $\{ x \in X \mid f(x) \leq r' \}$, which is analytic by \cite[Lem.\ 7.30(1)]{bs} since $f$ is lower semianalytic.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem} \label{lem-risk-lsa}
Let $c(\cdot)$ be real-valued on $\Gamma$. The function $\phi: \mathcal{P}(\Omega) \to \bar \mathbb{R}$ corresponding to any risk criterion defined in (\ref{eq-risk-1})-(\ref{eq-var}) is lower semianalytic.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Consider first the criteria $J_\psi, \hat J_\psi$ in (\ref{eq-risk-1})-(\ref{eq-risk-2}).
Since $\psi$ is strictly increasing, we can extend $\psi^{-1}$ to $\bar \mathbb{R}$ in such a way that the extension is a nondecreasing function on $\bar \mathbb{R}$. To simplify notation, we use the same symbol $\psi^{-1}$ to refer to this extension in the proof.
Since $c(\cdot)$ is lower semianalytic, for all $n \geq 1, j \geq 0$,
the function $v_{n,j} (\omega) : = \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} c(x_{j+k}, a_{j+k})$ is lower semianalytic \cite[Lem.\ 7.30(4)]{bs}, and hence the function $\psi(v_{n,j}(\omega))$ is lower semianalytic by the monotonicity of $\psi$ and Lemma~\ref{lem-anal-fn}.
Then by \cite[Prop.\ 7.48]{bs}, the function $f_{n,j}(p) : = \int \psi(v_{n,j}(\omega)) \, p(dw)$ is lower semianalytic on $\mathcal{P}(\Omega)$, so by Lemma~\ref{lem-anal-fn} $\psi^{-1}(f_{n,j}(p))$ is lower semianalytic on $\mathcal{P}(\Omega)$ as well. Finally, it follows from \cite[Lem.\ 7.30(2), (4)]{bs} that the function $\phi(p) = \limsup_{n \to \infty} \tfrac{1}{n} \psi^{-1} (f_{n,0}(p))$ for the criterion $J_\psi$ and the function $\phi(p) = \limsup_{n \to \infty} \sup_{j \geq 0} \tfrac{1}{n} \psi^{-1} (f_{n,j}(p))$ for the criterion $\hat J_\psi$ are both lower semianalytic.
Consider now the criterion $R_1$ given in (\ref{eq-cvar}). Since $c(\cdot)$ is lower semianalytic, by \cite[Lem.\ 7.30(2) and (4)]{bs}, the function $\bar c(\omega)$ is lower seminalytic on $\Omega$, and then the function
$f(\omega, z) : = \tfrac{1}{\alpha} ( \bar c(\omega) - z)_+$ is lower semianalytic on $\Omega \times \mathbb{R}$ by \cite[Lem.\ 7.30(2) and (4)]{bs}.
Consequently, the function $(p, z) \mapsto \int f(\omega, z) \, p(d \omega)$ is lower semianalytic on $\mathcal{P}(\Omega) \times \mathbb{R}$ by \cite[Prop.\ 7.48]{bs}. It then follows from \cite[Lem.\ 7.30(4), Prop.\ 7.47]{bs} that the result of the partial minimization, $\phi(p) = \inf_{z \in \mathbb{R}} \{ z + \int f(\omega, z) \, p(d \omega)\}$, is a lower semianalytic function on $\mathcal{P}(\Omega)$.
Finally, consider the criterion $R_2$ given in (\ref{eq-cvar}). Since $\bar c(\cdot)$ is lower semianalytic, $(\omega, z) \mapsto \bar c(\omega) - z$ is a lower semianalytic function on $\Omega \times \mathbb{R}$ by \cite[Lem.\ 7.30(4)]{bs}, so the set $E : = \{ (\omega, z) \in \Omega \times \mathbb{R} \mid \bar c (\omega) - z \leq 0 \}$ is analytic. Then by \cite[Prop.\ 7.48]{bs}, the function $(p, z) \mapsto \int \mathbb{1}_E(\omega, z) \, p(d\omega) = p \{ \bar c(\omega) \leq z \}$ is upper semianalytic on $\mathcal{P}(\Omega) \times \mathbb{R}$ and hence
the set $D : = \big\{ (p, z) \in \mathcal{P}(\Omega) \times \mathbb{R} \mid p \{ \bar c(\omega) \leq z \} \geq 1 - \alpha \big\}$ is analytic.
By the definition of $\phi$ in this case, we have $\phi(p) = \inf_{z \in D_p} z$, $p \in \mathcal{P}(\Omega)$, where $D_p$ is the $p$-section of $D$. Therefore $\phi$ is lower semianalytic by \cite[Prop.\ 7.47]{bs}.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem} \rm
If $\Gamma$ and $c(\cdot)$ are Borel measurable, the function $\phi$ for any criterion defined in (\ref{eq-risk-1})-(\ref{eq-var}) is Borel measurable. This is obvious for (\ref{eq-risk-1}) and (\ref{eq-risk-2}). For (\ref{eq-cvar}) and (\ref{eq-var}), this can be seen from an alternative expression of $\phi$ given in (\ref{eq-cvar-exp}) and (\ref{eq-var-exp}), respectively, in Section~\ref{sec-minimax-model}.
\qed
\end{rem}
The optimality result below follows from Lemmas~\ref{lem-risk-lsa},~\ref{lem-ext-set}, and the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm-opt}.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm-risk-mdp-opt}
Let $c(\cdot)$ be real-valued on $\Gamma$. Let $J^\star$ be any risk criterion defined in (\ref{eq-risk-1})-(\ref{eq-var}), and let $\Pi_\star \in \{\Pi, \Pi', \Pi_{sm}, \Pi'_{sm}, \Pi_{ss}, \Pi'_{ss}\}$.
Then w.r.t.\ $J^\star$ and $\Pi_\star$, the optimal risk function $g^\star$ is lower semianalytc, and for each $\epsilon > 0$, there exists an $\epsilon$-optimal policy $\pi^* \in \Pi_\star$ that is, moreover, optimal for every state that admits an optimal policy.
\end{theorem}
\subsubsection{Partially Observable Problems} \label{sec-pomdp}
We consider a general non-stationary model for stochastic control with imperfect state information. It is similar to the one defined in \cite[Def.\ 10.3]{bs} and can be described as follows:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=0.65cm,labelwidth=!]
\item The state space $\mathbb{X}$, the action space $\mathbb{A}$, and the state transition stochastic kernel $q(dy \,|\, x, a)$ are the same as defined in Section~\ref{sec-2.2}.
\item The \emph{observation space} $\mathbb{Z}$ is a Borel space. There is a Borel measurable mapping $f: \mathbb{X} \to \mathbb{Z}$, which we call the \emph{observation function}.
For $n \geq 0$, observable to the controller at the $n$th stage is not $x_n$ but the value of $z_n = f(x_n)$.
We call $i_n : = (z_0, a_0, z_1, a_1, \ldots, z_n)$ an \emph{$n$th information vector} and denote its space $(\mathbb{Z} \times \mathbb{A})^n \times \mathbb{Z}$ by $I_n$.
\item The control constraint at the $n$th stage depends on the $n$th information vector realized in the system. Specifically, there is a set-valued mapping $U_n: i_n \mapsto U_n(i_n) $ on $I_n$, where $U_n(i_n) \subset \mathbb{A}$ is a nonempty set of admissible actions when $i_n$ is the realized $n$th information vector. We assume that the graph of $U_n$, $\Gamma_n : = \{ (i_n, a_n) \mid i_n \in I_n, \, a_n \in U_n(i_n) \},$ is analytic.
\item The distribution $p_0$ of the initial state $x_0$ is known to the controller.
\end{itemize}
In this model we let $\Omega : = (\mathbb{X} \times \mathbb{Z} \times \mathbb{A})^\infty$ and define a policy to be a sequence of stochastic kernels $\mu_n, n \geq 0$, where $\mu_n$ is a universally measurable stochastic kernel on $\mathbb{A}$ given $I_n \times \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{X})$ such that
$$ \mu_n(U_n(i_n) \mid i_n; p_0) = 1, \qquad \forall \, i_n \in I_n, \, p_0 \in \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{X}).$$
The space of all policies is denoted by $\Pi_I$, and the subset of all nonrandomized policies is denoted by $\Pi'_I$.
Since $\Gamma_n, n \geq 0$ are analytic, by the Jankov-von Neumann selection theorem \cite[Prop.~7.49]{bs}, there exists a sequence of analytically measurable functions $f_n: I_n \to \mathbb{A}$ with the graph of $f_n$ contained in $\Gamma_n$. Such a sequence corresponds to a nonrandomized policy in $\Pi'_I$. The sets $\Pi'_I$ and $\Pi_I$ are therefore nonempty.
Let $J^\star(\pi, p_0)$ be an extended real-valued function on $\Pi_I \times \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{X})$ that measures the performance of $\pi$ for an initial distribution $p_0$. Then w.r.t.\ the criterion $J^\star$ and $\Pi_\star \in \{\Pi_I, \Pi'_I\}$, the optimal value function $g^\star$ and the ($\epsilon$-)optimal policies are defined as in the case of MDPs with initial distributions $p_0 \in \mathcal{P}(\Omega)$ in place of initial states $x \in \mathbb{X}$ (cf.\ (\ref{def-g-opt})-(\ref{def-pol-opt})).
Let $\S_I$ denote the set of strategic measures $\rho_{p_0}[\pi]$ on $\mathcal{B}(\Omega)$ induced by all policies $\pi \in \Pi_I$ and initial distributions $p_0 \in \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{X})$. Let $\S'_I$ denote the subset of strategic measures corresponding to those nonrandomzied policies in $\Pi'_I$. Similarly to the case of MDPs, let
$$ \tilde \S_I : = \{ (p_0, p) \in \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{X}) \times \mathcal{P}(\Omega) \mid p \in \S_I, \, p_0(p) = p_0 \}, \ \ {\tilde \S}'_I : = \{ (p_0, p) \in \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{X}) \times \mathcal{P}(\Omega) \mid p \in \S'_I, \, p_0(p) = p_0 \},$$
where $p_0(p)$ is the initial distribution of $x_0$ w.r.t.\ $p$.
For each $p_0 \in \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{X})$, $\tilde \S_I(p_0)$ and ${\tilde \S}'_I(p_0)$ denote the $p_0$-section of $\S_I$ and of $\S'_I$, respectively.
\begin{prop} \label{prp-Si-pol}
For the partially observable control problem defined above, the following hold:
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=0.7cm,labelwidth=!]
\item[\rm (i)] The sets $\S_I, \S'_I, \tilde \S_I$, and ${\tilde \S}'_I$ are analytic; they are Borel if $\Gamma_n, n \geq 0,$ are Borel.
\item[\rm (ii)] Let $\zeta : \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{X}) \to \mathcal{P}(\Omega)$ be a universally measurable mapping such that $\zeta(p_0) \in \tilde \S_I(p_0)$ for all $p_0 \in \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{X})$.
Then there exists a universally measurable policy $\pi \in \Pi_I$ such that $\rho_{p_0}[\pi] = \zeta(p_0)$ for all $p_0 \in \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{X})$. If, in addition, $\zeta(p_0) \in {\tilde \S}'_I(p_0)$ for all $p_0 \in \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{X})$, then $\pi$ can be taken to be nonrandomized.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{theorem} \label{thm-pomdp-opt}
Consider the partially observable control problem defined above. Suppose that the one-stage cost function $c(\cdot)$ is real-valued and bounded above or below on $\mathbb{X} \times \mathbb{A}$. Define $J^\star$ according to any average cost or risk criterion given in (\ref{eq-crt1})-(\ref{eq-pt-ac2a}) or (\ref{eq-risk-1})-(\ref{eq-var}) by extending those definitions to the space of initial distributions. Then w.r.t.\ $J^\star$ and $\Pi_\star \in \{\Pi_I, \Pi'_I \}$, the following hold:
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=0.7cm,labelwidth=!]
\item[\rm (i)] the optimal average cost/risk function $g^\star$ is lower semianalytic; and
\item[\rm (ii)] for each $\epsilon > 0$, there exists an $\epsilon$-optimal policy $\pi^* \in \Pi_\star$ that is, moreover, optimal for every initial distribution that admits an optimal policy.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
The proofs of Prop.~\ref{prp-Si-pol} and Theorem~\ref{thm-pomdp-opt}, being similar to their counterparts in the case of MDPs, will be outlined in Section~\ref{sec-pomdp-proof}.
\subsection{Minimax Control} \label{sec-minimax}
In this subsection we extend our results to a class of minimax control problems.
\subsubsection{Model and Assumptions} \label{sec-minimax-model}
We first specify the minimax control model:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=0.65cm,labelwidth=!]
\item[(a)] The state space $\mathbb{X}$, the action space $\mathbb{A}$, and the state transition stochastic kernel $q(dy \,|\, x, a)$ are the same as defined in Section~\ref{sec-2.2}.
\item[(b)] The action space $\mathbb{A} = \mathbb{A}_1 \times \mathbb{A}_2$, where $\mathbb{A}_1$ and $\mathbb{A}_2$ are \emph{Borel spaces} and correspond to the action spaces for player 1 (the controller) and player 2 (the opponent), respectively.
In terms of its components, we write an action $a \in \mathbb{A}$ as $a = (a^1, a^2)$.
\item[(c)] For $i = 1,2$, the control constraint for player $i$ is given by a set-valued mapping $A_i$ on $\mathbb{X}$, $A_i : x \mapsto A_i(x) \subset \mathbb{A}_i$, where $A_i(x)$ is a nonempty subset of admissible actions for player $i$ at state $x$. The graphs of $A_1$ and $A_2$, denoted by $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$, respectively, are \emph{analytic}.
\item[(d)] For $n \geq 0$, let $a_n : = (a_n^1, a_n^2)$ where $a_n^i$ is the action of player $i$ at the $n$th stage.
Prior to taking these actions, player 2 has the knowledge of the history $h_n : = (x_0, a_0, \ldots, x_n)$ up to stage $n$, whereas player 1 has access only to $i_n : = (x_0, a_0^1, x_1, a_1^1, \ldots, x_n)$ and never observes the actions taken by player 2. The space of $i_n$ is denoted by $I_n$.
\end{itemize}
A policy for player $i$ is a sequence of stochastic kernels, $\pi_i : = \{ \mu_n^i \}_{n \geq 0}$, where for player $1$, $\mu_n^1$ is a universally measurable stochastic kernel on $\mathbb{A}_1$ given $I_n$ such that
$$ \mu_n^1 ( A_1(x_n) \mid i_n ) = 1, \qquad \forall \, i_n \in I_n,$$
and for player 2, $\mu_n^2$ is a universally measurable stochastic kernel on $\mathbb{A}_2$ given $H_n$ such that
$$ \mu_n^2 ( A_2(x_n) \mid h_n ) = 1, \qquad \forall \, h_n \in H_n.$$
We denote the space of all policies for player $i$ by $\Pi_i$. Since $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$ are analytic, $\Pi_1$ and $\Pi_2$ are nonempty by the Jankov-von Neumann selection theorem \cite[Prop.\ 7.49]{bs}.
Denote the probability measure on $\mathcal{U}(\Omega)$ induced by a policy pair $(\pi_1, \pi_2) \in \Pi_1 \times \Pi_2$ and initial distribution $p_0 \in \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{X})$ by $\mathbb{P}^{\pi_1,\pi_2}_{p_0}$. The associated expectation operator is denoted by $\mathbb{E}^{\pi_1,\pi_2}_{p_0}$, and the restriction of $\mathbb{P}^{\pi_1,\pi_2}_{p_0}$ to $\mathcal{B}(\Omega)$ is denoted by $\rho_{p_0}[\pi_1, \pi_2]$. As before, if $p_0 = \delta_x$, we write $x$ instead of $\delta_x$ in the subscripts.
Let $J^\star: \Pi_1 \times \Pi_2 \times \mathbb{X} \to \bar \mathbb{R}$ be some given function. We consider the minimax control problem for player 1 w.r.t.\ the criterion $J^\star$, where the optimal value function is given by
$$ g^\star(x) : = \inf_{\pi_1 \in \Pi_1} \sup_{\pi_2 \in \Pi_2} J^\star(\pi_1, \pi_2, x), \quad x \in \mathbb{X}.$$
A policy $\pi_1 \in \Pi_1$ is called \emph{optimal for state $x$} if $\sup_{\pi_2 \in \Pi_2} J^\star(\pi_1, \pi_2, x) = g^\star(x)$, and \emph{$\epsilon$-optimal for state $x$} (where $\epsilon > 0$) if
\begin{equation} \label{def-minmax-pol-opt}
\sup_{\pi_2 \in \Pi_2} J^\star(\pi_1, \pi_2, x) \leq \begin{cases}
g^\star(x) + \epsilon & \text{if} \ g^\star(x) > - \infty, \\
- 1/\epsilon & \text{if} \ g^\star(x) = - \infty.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
If these relations hold for \emph{all} states $x \in \mathbb{X}$, $\pi_1$ is called an \emph{($\epsilon$-)optimal} policy of player 1 w.r.t.\ $J^\star$.
We now introduce two assumptions.
The first one is an absolute continuity condition on the probability measures induced on $I_n$ when player 1 applies the same policy.
It will allow us to rewrite the minimax control problem as a minimax optimization problem on strategic measures (cf.\ Prop.~\ref{prp-minmax-strm2}(ii) and the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm-minmax-opt}).
\begin{assumption} \label{cond-minimax-abscont}
For any $\pi_1 \in \Pi_1$, $\pi_2, \hat \pi_2 \in \Pi_2$, $x \in \mathbb{X}$, and $n \geq 0$, the marginal distributions of $\mathbb{P}^{\pi_1,\pi_2}_{x}$ and $\mathbb{P}^{\pi_1,\hat \pi_2}_{x}$ on $I_n$ are absolutely continuous w.r.t.\ each other.
\end{assumption}
Note that if in the above we replace ``for any $x \in \mathbb{X}$'' by ``for any initial distribution $p_0 \in \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{X})$,'' we obtain an equivalent assumption. We now describe a class of problems that satisfy Assumption~\ref{cond-minimax-abscont}.
\begin{example} \rm
Suppose the state transition kernel $q(dy \,|\, x,a) = f(y, x, a) \, \eta(dy \,|\, x, a^1)$, where:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=0.65cm,labelwidth=!]
\item[(i)] $f$ is a strictly positive Borel measurable function on $\mathbb{X}^2 \times \mathbb{A}$; and
\item[(ii)] $\eta$ is a nonnegative kernel on $\mathbb{X}$ given $\mathbb{X} \times \mathbb{A}_1$ such that (i) for each $B \in \mathcal{B}(\mathbb{X})$, $\eta(B \,|\, x, a^1)$ is Borel measurable in $(x, a^1)$, and (ii) for each $(x, a^1) \in \mathbb{X} \times \mathbb{A}_1$, $\eta(\cdot \,|\, x, a^1)$ is a nonnegative measure on $\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{X})$ and furthermore, $\eta(\cdot \,|\, x, a^1)$ is $\sigma$-finite uniformly in $(x, a^1)$ in the sense that for some sequence of Borel sets $B_k$ with $\mathbb{X} = \cup_k B_k$, we have $\sup_{x \in \mathbb{X}, a^1 \in \mathbb{A}_1} \eta( B_k \,|\, x, a^1) < \infty$ for all $k$.
\end{itemize}
Then Assumption~\ref{cond-minimax-abscont} holds. Indeed, let $n \geq 0, p_0 \in \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{X})$, and let $\pi_1: = \{\mu_n^1\} \in \Pi_1$, and $\pi_2 := \{\mu_n^2\}, \hat \pi_2 : = \{{\hat \mu}_n^2\} \in \Pi_2$. Consider a set $B \in \mathcal{U}(I_n)$ with $\mathbb{P}^{\pi_1,\pi_2}_{p_0}\{ i_n \in B\} = 0$, and let us show that $\mathbb{P}^{\pi_1, \hat \pi_2}_{p_0}\{ i_n \in B\} = 0$, which will imply the desired conclusion since $\pi_2, \hat \pi_2$ are arbitrary.
To this end, let $\gamma_n$ be the unique nonnegative $\sigma$-finite measure on $\mathcal{U}(H_n)$ determined by the product of $p_0(dx_0)$ with the other stochastic kernels and nonnegative kernels given below:
\begin{align}
& p_0(dx_0), \ \mu_0^1(da^1_0 \mid x_0), \ \mu_0^2(da^2_0 \mid x_0), \ \eta(dx_1 \mid x_0, a^1_0), \ \ldots, \notag \\
& \ldots, \ \mu_{n-1}^1(da_{n-1}^1 \mid i_{n-1}), \ \mu_{n-1}^2(da_{n-1}^2 \mid h_{n-1}), \ \eta(d x_n \mid x_{n-1}, a^1_{n-1}). \label{eq-ex-kernels}
\end{align}
Define the measure $\hat \gamma_n$ on $\mathcal{U}(H_n)$ similarly, with $\hat \mu^2_k$ replacing $\mu^2_k$ in the above, for all $k < n$. The existence of $\gamma_n$ and $\hat \gamma_n$ follows from a repeated application of the product measure theorem given in \cite[Thm.\ 2.6.2]{Ash72} together with the proof arguments of \cite[Prop.\ 7.45]{bs} (the latter extend the result of the product measure theorem to $\mathcal{U}(H_n)$, which is not a product $\sigma$-algebra, by using the properties of universally measurable stochastic kernels).
By these arguments, one can also show that
$\mathbb{P}^{\pi_1,\pi_2}_{p_0}\{ i_n \in B\} = \int_{H_n} \mathbb{1}_B(i_n) \prod_{k=1}^n f(x_k, x_{k-1}, a_{k-1}) \, \gamma_n(d h_n)$ and $\mathbb{P}^{\pi_1,\hat \pi_2}_{p_0}\{ i_n \in B\} = \int_{H_n} \mathbb{1}_B(i_n) \prod_{k=1}^n f(x_k, x_{k-1}, a_{k-1}) \, \hat \gamma_n(d h_n)$.
Since $\mathbb{P}^{\pi_1,\pi_2}_{p_0}\{ i_n \in B\} = 0$ and the function $f$ is strictly positive, we have
$\int_{H_n} \mathbb{1}_B(i_n) \, \gamma_n(d h_n) = 0$. As can be seen from (\ref{eq-ex-kernels}), the marginal measures of $\gamma_n$ and $\hat \gamma_n$ on $I_n$ must coincide, since $\eta(dx_{k+1} \,|\, x_{k}, a_{k}^1)$ and $\mu_k^1(da_k^1 \,|\, i_k)$, $k < n$, do not depend on the actions of player~2. Therefore, $\int_{H_n} \mathbb{1}_B(i_n) \, \hat \gamma_n(d h_n) = 0$, implying $\mathbb{P}^{\pi_1,\hat \pi_2}_{p_0}\{ i_n \in B\} = 0$.
\qed
\end{example}
The second assumption is about the criterion $J^\star$:
\begin{assumption} \label{cond-minmax-obj}
Associated with the criterion $J^\star$, there is an upper semianalytic function $\phi: \mathcal{P}(\Omega) \to \bar \mathbb{R}$ such that
$J^\star(\pi_1, \pi_2, x) = \phi(\rho_x[\pi_1, \pi_2])$ for all $x \in \mathbb{X}, \pi_1, \in \Pi_1, \pi_2 \in \Pi_2$.
\end{assumption}
\begin{example} \rm
Let $\Gamma : = \{(x, a) \in \mathbb{X} \times \mathbb{A} \mid (x, a^1) \in \mathbb{A}_1, \, (x, a^2) \in \mathbb{A}_2\}$. Note that $\Gamma$ is analytic (Borel) if $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$ are analytic (Borel); see Section~\ref{sec-minmax-proof} for a proof. Let $c : \Gamma \mapsto \bar \mathbb{R}$ be universally measurable.
Consider any average cost or risk criterion $J^\star$ discussed in Section~\ref{sec-4.1}, with $(\pi_1, \pi_2)$ in place of $\pi$ and with $\mathbb{P}^{\pi_1, \pi_2}_x, \mathbb{E}^{\pi_1, \pi_2}_x$ in place of $\mathbb{P}^\pi_x, \mathbb{E}^\pi_x$, respectively. As before, since $J^\star$ can be expressed as a function of $\mathbb{P}^{\pi_1, \pi_2}_x$, by replacing $\mathbb{P}^{\pi_1, \pi_2}_x$ with $p \in \mathcal{P}(\Omega)$, we can define an associated function $\phi(p)$ on $\mathcal{P}(\Omega)$ that satisfies the equality condition in Assumption~\ref{cond-minmax-obj}. Let us show that under suitable conditions on $c(\cdot)$ and the sets $\Gamma_1, \Gamma_2$, the function $\phi$ is upper semianalytic and hence those average cost or risk criteria discussed earlier all satisfy Assumption~\ref{cond-minmax-obj}.
Consider first any average cost criterion $J^\star$ defined in (\ref{eq-crt1})-(\ref{eq-pt-ac2a}).
For that criterion, assume a model condition analogous to one of the model classes given in Def.~\ref{def-ac-models} for MDPs, so that for all $x \in \mathbb{X}, \pi_1 \in \Pi_1$, and $\pi_2 \in \Pi_2$, $J^\star(\pi_1, \pi_2, x)$ is well-defined and does not involve the summation $\infty - \infty$ or $-\infty + \infty$.
Now suppose that \emph{$c(\cdot)$ is upper semianalytic on $\Gamma$}. Since this means the function $-c(\cdot)$ is lower semianalytic on $\Gamma$, after taking care of some technical subtlety, we can apply arguments symmetric to those given in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem-ac-lsa} to obtain that the function $\phi(p)$ corresponding to $J^\star$ is upper semianalytic.
The technical subtlety just mentioned is as follows. In defining $\phi(p)$ on $\mathcal{P}(\Omega)$, we extend $c$ from $\Gamma$ to $\mathbb{X} \times \mathbb{A}$ and also allow summations involving both $\infty$ and $-\infty$. For an upper seminalaytic $c(\cdot)$, we extend $c$ to $\mathbb{X} \times \mathbb{A}$ by letting $c(\cdot) \equiv - \infty$ outside $\Gamma$, and we take $\infty - \infty = - \infty + \infty = - \infty$ in defining $\phi(p)$. These are opposite to the conventions we use when dealing with lower semianalytic functions. (They are needed solely for technical convenience, since they do not affect the values of $\phi(p)$ for strategic measures $p$ due to the model condition mentioned earlier.)
Consider now any risk criterion $J^\star$ defined in (\ref{eq-risk-1})-(\ref{eq-cvar}). Assume that \emph{$c(\cdot)$ is real-valued and upper semianalytic on $\Gamma$}. Then the function $\phi(p)$ associated with $J^\star$ is upper semianalytic. The proof of this is entirely symmetric to the proofs of Lemmas~\ref{lem-anal-fn} and~\ref{lem-risk-lsa} in the case of (\ref{eq-risk-1}) or (\ref{eq-risk-2}). For the case of the CVaR-based criterion (\ref{eq-cvar}), the proof is slightly different. First, by an argument symmetric to that given in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem-risk-lsa}, the function $(p, z) \mapsto \tfrac{1}{\alpha} \int (\bar c(\omega) - z)_+ \, p(d\omega)$ is upper semianalytic on $\mathcal{P}(\Omega) \times \mathbb{R}$. Using this and the fact that, with $\mathbb{Q}$ being the countable set of rational numbers,
\begin{equation} \label{eq-cvar-exp}
\phi(p): = \inf_{z \in \mathbb{R}} \Big\{ z + \alpha^{-1} \int_\Omega (\bar c(\omega) - z)_+ \, p(d\omega) \Big\} = \inf_{z \in \mathbb{Q}} \Big\{ z + \alpha^{-1} \int_\Omega (\bar c(\omega) - z)_+ \, p(d\omega) \Big\}, \quad p \in \mathcal{P}(\Omega)
\end{equation}
(which can be verified directly), it follows from \cite[Lem.\ 7.30(2)]{bs} that $\phi$ is upper seminalytic.
Finally, for the VaR-based criterion (\ref{eq-var}), let us assume that \emph{the sets $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$ are Borel and the function $c(\cdot)$ is real-valued and Borel measurable on $\Gamma$}. Then by \cite[Prop.\ 7.29]{bs}, the set $D : = \big\{ (p, z) \in \mathcal{P}(\Omega) \times \mathbb{R} \mid p \{ \bar c(\omega) \leq z \} \geq 1 - \alpha \big\}$ is Borel.
It can be verified directly that the function $\phi(p)$ in this case satisfies
\begin{equation} \label{eq-var-exp}
\phi(p) : = \inf_{z \in \mathbb{R}} \left\{ z \,\big|\, p \{ \bar c(\omega) \leq z \} \geq 1 - \alpha \right\} = \inf_{z \in \mathbb{Q}} \left\{ z \,\big|\, p \{ \bar c(\omega) \leq z \} \geq 1 - \alpha \right\}, \quad p \in \mathcal{P}(\Omega).
\end{equation}
Thus, if $\{z_1, z_2, \ldots\}$ is an enumeration of $\mathbb{Q}$,
we can express $\phi$ as $\phi(p) = \inf_{i \geq 1} f_i(p)$, for the Borel measurable functions $f_i$ defined by
$f_i(p) : = z_i$ if $(p, z_i) \in D$, and $f_i(p) = + \infty$ if $(p, z_i) \not\in D$. This shows that $\phi$ is Borel measurable and hence upper semianalytic.
\qed
\end{example}
\subsubsection{Properties of Strategic Measures and Optimality Results} \label{sec-minimax-opt}
Let $\S_M$ be the set of all strategic measures:
$$ \S_M : = \big\{ p \in \mathcal{P}(\Omega) \mid p = \rho_{p_0}[\pi_1, \pi_2], \, \pi_1 \in \Pi_1,\, \pi_2 \in \Pi_2, \, p_0 \in \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{X}) \big\}.$$
Define
${\tilde \S}_M: = \{ (x, p) \in \mathbb{X} \times \mathcal{P}(\Omega) \mid p \in \S_M, \, p_0(p) = \delta_x \}$
and denote the $x$-section of ${\tilde \S}_M$ by ${\tilde \S}_M(x)$. The proofs of the next two propositions are given in Section~\ref{sec-minmax-proof}.
\begin{prop} \label{prp-minmax-strm1}
For the minimax control problem defined above, the following hold:
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=0.7cm,labelwidth=!]
\item[\rm (i)] The sets $\S_M$ and ${\tilde \S}_M$ are analytic; they are Borel if $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$ are Borel.
\item[\rm (ii)] Let $\zeta : \mathbb{X} \to \mathcal{P}(\Omega)$ be a universally measurable mapping such that $\zeta(x) \in {\tilde \S}_M(x)$ for all $x \in \mathbb{X}$.
Then there exist universally measurable policies $\pi_1 \in \Pi_1, \pi_2 \in \Pi_2$ such that $\rho_{x}[\pi_1, \pi_2] = \zeta(x)$ for all $x \in \mathbb{X}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
For $n \geq 0$, let $\hat \nu^1_n(d a^1_n \,|\, i_n; p)$ be a Borel measurable stochastic kernel on $\mathbb{A}_1$ given $I_n \times \mathcal{P}(\Omega)$ such that for each $p \in \mathcal{P}(\Omega)$, it is a conditional distribution of $a^1_n$ given $i_n$ w.r.t.\ $p$. The existence of these stochastic kernels is ensured by \cite[Cor.\ 7.27.1]{bs} (cf.\ the discussion at the beginning of Section~\ref{sec-proof-0}). Let $\hat p_{I_n}(p)$ denote the marginal of $p$ on $I_n$.
Define
$$ {\widehat \S}_M : = \Big\{ (x, p, p') \in \mathbb{X} \times \mathcal{P}(\Omega)^2 \,\big|\, (x, p) \in {\tilde \S}_M, \, (x, p') \in {\tilde \S}_M, \, p' \ \text{satisfies (\ref{eq-minmax-rel1})-(\ref{eq-minmax-rel2})} \Big\},$$
where the relations (\ref{eq-minmax-rel1}) and (\ref{eq-minmax-rel2}) are as follows:
\begin{align}
& p' \left\{ {\hat \nu}^1_n ( \cdot \mid i_n; p') = {\hat \nu}^1_n( \cdot \mid i_n; p) \right\} = 1, \quad \forall \, n \geq 0, \label{eq-minmax-rel1} \\
& \hat p_{I_n}(p') \ \text{is absolutely continuous w.r.t.} \ \hat p_{I_n}(p), \quad \forall \, n \geq 0. \label{eq-minmax-rel2}
\end{align}
We denote the $(x,p)$-section of ${\widehat \S}_M$ by ${\widehat \S}_M(x, p)$.
\begin{prop} \label{prp-minmax-strm2}
For the minimax control problem defined above, the following hold:
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=0.7cm,labelwidth=!]
\item[\rm (i)] The set ${\widehat \S}_M$ is analytic; it is Borel if $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$ are Borel.
\item[\rm (ii)] Under Assumption~\ref{cond-minimax-abscont}, if $p = \rho_x[\pi_1, \pi_2]$ for some $x \in \mathbb{X}$ and $(\pi_1, \pi_2) \in \Pi_1 \times \Pi_2$, then the set ${\widehat \S}_M(x, p) = \{ \rho_x[\pi_1, \tilde \pi_2] \mid \tilde \pi_2 \in \Pi_2 \}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
We now introduce a crucial proposition under the axioms of ZFC and analytic determinacy. Its proof relies on a uniformaization theorem of Kond{\^o} \cite[Cor.\ 38.7]{Kec95} and will be given in Section~\ref{sec-sel-proof}. While this proposition is sufficient for our purpose, its conclusions actually hold for a larger class of sets $D$ and functions $f$, as will be discussed in Remark~\ref{rmk-sigma21} after the proof.
\begin{prop} \label{prp-ext-sel}
Assume the axiom of analytic determinacy. Let $X$ and $Y$ be Borel spaces, let $D \subset X \times Y$ be analytic, and let $f: D \to \bar \mathbb{R}$ be upper semianalytic. Define $f^*: \text{\rm proj}_X(D) \to \bar \mathbb{R}$ by $f^*(x) = \inf_{y \in D_x} f(x, y)$, where $D_x$ is the $x$-section of $D$.
Then the following hold:
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=0.7cm,labelwidth=!]
\item[\rm (i)] The function $f^*$ is universally measurable.
\item[\rm (ii)] The set $E^* : = \{ x \in \text{\rm proj}_X(D) \mid \mathop{\arg\min}_{y \in D_x} f(x,y) \not= \varnothing \}$ is universally measurable.
For each $\epsilon > 0$, there exists a universally measurable function $\psi: \text{\rm proj}_X(D) \to Y$
such that $\psi(x) \in D_x$ for all $x \in \text{\rm proj}_X(D)$ and
\begin{align}
f(x, \psi(x)) & = f^*(x), \qquad \forall \, x \in E^*; \label{eq-ext-sel1} \\
f(x, \psi(x)) & \leq \begin{cases}
f^*(x) + \epsilon & \text{if} \ f^*(x) > - \infty, \\
-1/\epsilon & \text{if} \ f^*(x) = - \infty,
\end{cases} \qquad \forall \, x \in \text{\rm proj}_X(D) \setminus E^*. \label{eq-ext-sel2}
\end{align}
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{rem} \label{rem-ad} \rm
(a) Roughly speaking, the axiom of analytic determinacy concerns a certain class of infinite-stage two-player games, called analytic games, in which the set of winning outcomes is a member of the algebra generated by analytic sets. The axiom asserts that all these games are determined (i.e., one of the two players has a winning strategy). For the precise definition and a discussion on why it seems reasonable to adopt this axiom, see the book chapter \cite[Sec.\ 26.B]{Kec95}.
\smallskip
\noindent (b) The axiom of analytic determinacy is inconsistent with the assumption introduced in G{\"o}del \cite{God38} that there exists a coanalytic set $B$ in $X \times Y := [0, 1]^2$ whose projection on $X$ is not Lebesgue measurable. Indeed, if such a set $B$ exists, a counterexample to Prop.~\ref{prp-ext-sel} can be constructed by letting $D = [0,1]^2$ and $f(x, y) = \mathbb{1}_{B^c}(x, y)$, and similar counterexamples to the universal measurability of the optimal value functions in MDPs and in minimax stochastic optimization problems have been discussed in \cite[Ex.\ (48)]{BFO74} and \cite[Ex.\ 1, Remark 4]{Now10}, respectively. Thus, the axiom of analytic determinacy is indispensable for Prop.~\ref{prp-ext-sel} and the theorem below.
\qed
\end{rem}
\begin{theorem} \label{thm-minmax-opt}
Assume the axiom of analytic determinacy. Consider the minimax control problem defined above, and let Assumptions~\ref{cond-minimax-abscont}-\ref{cond-minmax-obj} hold.
Then w.r.t.\ $J^\star$, we have the following:
\begin{enumerate}
[leftmargin=0.7cm,labelwidth=!]
\item[\rm (i)] The optimal value function $g^\star$ for player 1 is universally measurable.
\item[\rm (ii)] For each $\epsilon > 0$, player 1 has a universally measurable $\epsilon$-optimal policy $\pi^*_1 \in \Pi_1$ that is, moreover, optimal for every state that admits an optimal policy.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By Assumptions \ref{cond-minimax-abscont}-\ref{cond-minmax-obj} and Prop.~\ref{prp-minmax-strm2}(ii), for all $\pi_1 \in \Pi_1$ and $x \in \mathbb{X}$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq-minmax-prf1}
\sup_{\pi_2 \in \Pi_2} J^\star(\pi_1, \pi_2, x) = \sup_{p' \in {\widehat \S}_M(x, p)} \phi(p'), \qquad \text{where $p = \rho_x[\pi_1, \hat \pi_2]$ for some $\hat \pi_2 \in \Pi_2$}.
\end{equation}
In view of the definitions of ${\widehat \S}_M$ and ${\tilde \S}_M$, this implies that for all $x \in \mathbb{X}$,
$$g^\star(x) = \inf_{p \in {\tilde \S}_M(x)} f(x, p), \qquad \text{where} \ f: {\tilde \S}_M \to \bar \mathbb{R} \ \text{with} \ f (x,p) : = \sup_{p' \in {\widehat \S}_M(x, p)} \phi(p').$$
Since $\phi$ is upper semianalytic by Assumption~\ref{cond-minmax-obj} and ${\widehat \S}_M$ is analytic by Prop.~\ref{prp-minmax-strm2}(i), the function $f$ is upper semianalytic on ${\tilde \S}_M$ by \cite[Prop.\ 7.47]{bs}. Recall that ${\tilde \S}_M$ is analytic by Prop.~\ref{prp-minmax-strm1}(i). It then follows from Prop.~\ref{prp-ext-sel}(i) that $g^\star$ is universally measurable.
Let $\epsilon > 0$. By Prop.~\ref{prp-ext-sel}(ii), there is a universally measurable mapping $\zeta: \mathbb{X} \to \mathcal{P}(\Omega)$ with $\zeta(x) \in {\tilde \S}_M(x)$ for all $x \in \mathbb{X}$ such that
\begin{align}
f(x, \zeta(x)) & = g^\star(x), \qquad \forall \, x \in E^* : = \Big\{ x \in \mathbb{X} \,\Big|\, \mathop{\arg\min}_{p \in {\tilde \S}_M(x)} f(x, p) \not=\varnothing \Big\} \label{eq-minmax-prf2} \\
f(x, \zeta(x)) & \leq \begin{cases}
g^\star(x) + \epsilon & \text{if} \ g^\star(x) > - \infty, \\
- 1/\epsilon & \text{if} \ g^\star(x) = - \infty,
\end{cases} \qquad \forall \, x \not\in E^*. \label{eq-minmax-prf3}
\end{align}
Let $(\pi^*_1, \pi^*_2)$ be the pair of policies given by Prop.~\ref{prp-minmax-strm1}(ii) for this mapping $\zeta$.
By (\ref{eq-minmax-prf1}) and Prop.~\ref{prp-minmax-strm1}(ii),
$\sup_{\pi_2 \in \Pi_2} J^\star(\pi^*_1, \pi_2, x) = f(x, \rho_x[\pi^*_1, \pi^*_2]) = f(x, \zeta(x)),$
so, in view of (\ref{eq-minmax-prf2})-(\ref{eq-minmax-prf3}), the policy $\pi^*_1$ is $\epsilon$-optimal and moreover, optimal for every state that admits an optimal policy.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem} \rm
(a) One can also define the optimal value function $g^\star$ and the ($\epsilon$-)optimal policies w.r.t.\ the subset of nonrandomized policies, or the subset of randomized or nonrandomized, semi-Markov or semi-stationary policies. By similar arguments one can show that Theorem~\ref{thm-minmax-opt} remains valid if $\Pi_1$ is replaced by such a subset of policies of player 1.
\smallskip
\noindent (b) Another extension concerns the definition of $g^\star$. Suppose that we have a sequence of criteria $J^\star_n$, $n \geq 0$, all satisfying Assumption~\ref{cond-minmax-obj}, and we define player 1's optimal value function $g^\star$ as
$$ g^\star(x) : = \inf_{\pi_1 \in \Pi_1} \limsup_{n \to \infty} \sup_{\pi_2 \in \Pi_2} J^\star_n (\pi_1, \pi_2, x), \quad x \in \mathbb{X}. $$
Then, by redefining the function $f(x,p)$ and following the same reasoning in the above proof, one can show that Theorem~\ref{thm-minmax-opt} remains valid. An example of this type of $g^\star$ is the function considered in \cite{JaN14} for robust MDPs:
$g^\star(x) : = \inf_{\pi_1 \in \Pi_1} \limsup_{n \to \infty} \sup_{\pi_2 \in \Pi_2} \mathbb{E}^{\pi_1,\pi_2}_x \big[ n^{-1} \textstyle{\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}} c(x_k, a_k) \big]$.
\qed
\end{rem}
\section{Proofs} \label{sec-5}
We now prove those results of Sections~\ref{sec-3}-\ref{sec-4} whose proofs we did not give earlier.
\subsection{Proofs for Section~\ref{sec-3}} \label{sec-proof}
\subsubsection{Some Definitions and Useful Lemmas} \label{sec-proof-0}
First, let us specify several stochastic kernels that will be used in our proofs to characterize the various sets of strategic measures.
Recall that for $n \geq 0$,
$h_n : = (x_0, a_0, x_1, a_1, \ldots, x_n)$ and $h'_n : = (x_0, a_0, \ldots, x_{n}, a_{n})$; their spaces are denoted by $H_n$ and $H'_n$, respectively.
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=0.65cm,labelwidth=!]
\item Let $\nu_n(d a_n \,|\, h_n; p)$ be a Borel measurable stochastic kernel on $\mathbb{A}$ given $H_n \times \mathcal{P}(\Omega)$ such that for each $p \in \mathcal{P}(\Omega)$, it is a conditional distribution of $a_n$ given $h_n$ w.r.t.\ $p$.
\item Let $Q_n(d x_{n+1} \,|\, h'_n; p)$ be a Borel measurable stochastic kernel on $\mathbb{X}$ given $H'_n \times \mathcal{P}(\Omega)$ such that for each $p \in \mathcal{P}(\Omega)$, it is a conditional distribution of $x_{n+1}$ given $h'_n$ w.r.t.\ $p$.
\item Let $\kappa (d a \,|\, x; \gamma)$ be a Borel measurable stochastic kernel on $\mathbb{A}$ given $\mathbb{X}$ and $\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{X} \times \mathbb{A})$ such that for each $\gamma \in \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{X} \times \mathbb{A})$, it is a conditional distribution of $a$ given $x$ w.r.t.\ $\gamma$.
\end{itemize}
The existence of these stochastic kernels follows from \cite[Cor.\ 7.27.1]{bs}, which ``decomposes'' a Borel measurable stochastic kernel on a product space into the product of two Borel measurable stochastic kernels. Specifically, by \cite[Cor.\ 7.27.1]{bs}, if $X, Y$, and $Z$ are Borel spaces and $\psi(d(y,z) \,|\, x)$ is a Borel measurable stochastic kernel on $Y \times Z$ given $X$, then there exist Borel measurable stochastic kernels $\psi_1(d y \,|\, x)$ and $\psi_2(dz \,|\, x, y)$ such that for all $x \in X$,
$$\psi(B \mid x) = \int_Y \int_Z \mathbb{1}_B(y, z) \, \psi_2(d z \mid x, y) \, \psi_1(dy \mid x), \qquad B \in \mathcal{B}(Y \times Z).$$
To obtain $\nu_n(d a_n \,|\, h_n; p)$ (resp.\ $Q_n(d x_{n+1} \,|\, h'_n; p)$), we apply \cite[Cor.\ 7.27.1]{bs} with $X = \mathcal{P}(\Omega)$ and with $\psi$ being the mapping that maps $p \in \mathcal{P}(\Omega)$ to its marginal on the space $H'_n$ (resp.\ $H_{n+1}$),
which is a Borel measurable stochastic kernel on $H'_{n} = H_n \times \mathbb{A}$ (resp.\ $H_{n+1} = H'_n \times \mathbb{X}$) given $\mathcal{P}(\Omega)$.
To obtain $\kappa (d a \,|\, x; \gamma)$, we apply \cite[Cor.\ 7.27.1]{bs} to the identity mapping $\gamma \mapsto \gamma$ on $\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{X} \times \mathbb{A})$, which is a Borel measurable stochastic kernel on $\mathbb{X} \times \mathbb{A}$ given $\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{X} \times \mathbb{A})$.
The same reasoning will also be used later to define a few other stochastic kernels.
We now give two lemmas that will be used frequently.
The first lemma is about the association between a strategic measure and a policy.
\begin{lem} \label{lem-gen2}
Let $p \in \mathcal{S}$ and $\pi := \{ \mu_n\}_{n \geq 0} \in \Pi$. Then
$p = \rho_{p_0}[\pi]$, where $p_0$ is the marginal distribution of $x_0$ w.r.t.\ $p$,
if and only if $p$-almost surely, $\mu_n(d a_n \,|\, h_n) = \nu_n(d a_n \,|\, h_n ; p)$ for all $n \geq 0$.
\end{lem}
Let us clarify that in the statement $\mu_n(d a_n \,|\, h_n) = \nu_n(d a_n \,|\, h_n ; p)$ $p$-almost surely, the random variable is $h_n$ and the statement means that
for $p$-almost all $\omega \in \Omega$, these two probability measures on the space of $a_n$ are equal: $\mu_n(\cdot \,|\, h_n(\omega)) = \nu_n(\cdot \,|\, h_n(\omega) ; p)$. Similar notations will be used for other stochastic kernels involved in the proofs.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem-gen2}]
If $p = \rho_{p_0}[\pi]$, then clearly $\mu_n(d a_n \,|\, h_n) = \nu_n(d a_n \,|\, h_n ; p)$ $p$-almost surely, for all $n \geq 0$. Conversely, it can be verified by induction on $n$ that the finite-dimensional distributions of $p$ and $\mathbb{P}^{\pi}_{p_0}$ on $\mathcal{B}(H'_n)$ are the same for all $n \geq 0$. The desired conclusion then follows.
\end{proof}
The next lemma will be used in proving the measurability of the sets of strategic measures induced by policies with various structures.
We need some notation and definitions before stating the lemma. If $X$ and $Y$ are Borel spaces, let $\mathcal{P}(X) \otimes \mathcal{P}(Y)$ be the set of all product probability measures on $\mathcal{B}(X \times Y)$ (that is, $\mathcal{P}(X) \otimes \mathcal{P}(Y) : = \{ \nu \times \nu' \mid \nu \in \mathcal{P}(X), \, \nu' \in \mathcal{P}(Y)\}$, where $\nu \times \nu'$ is the product measure associated with $\nu$ and $\nu'$ on the product $\sigma$-algebra $\mathcal{B}(X) \otimes \mathcal{B}(Y) = \mathcal{B}(X \times Y)$). Recall also that $\mathcal{D}(X)$ is the set of all Dirac measures on $X$.
We write $\omega \in \Omega$ in terms of its components also as $\omega = (\omega^1, \omega^2, \ldots)$. If $I$ is a subset of positive integers, let $\omega^{(I)}$ consist of those $i$th coordinates of $\omega$ for $i \in I$ (i.e., $\omega^{(I)} : = \{ \omega^i \}_{i \in I}$), and let $\Omega^{(I)}$ be the space of $\omega^{(I)}$.
\begin{lem} \label{lem-gen1}
Let $Z = \Omega^{(I)}$, $Z' = \Omega^{(I')}$, $Z'_1 = \Omega^{(I'_1)}$, and $Z'_2 = \Omega^{(I'_2)}$, where $I$ and $I'$ are two disjoint subsets of positive integers, and $I'_1$ and $I'_2$ form a partition of $I'$.
Let $\Psi_1(dz' \,|\, z ; p)$ and $\Psi_2(dz' \,|\, z ; p)$ be Borel measurable stochastic kernels on $Z'$ given $Z \times \mathcal{P}(\Omega)$.
Then these subsets of $\mathcal{P}(\Omega)$ are Borel:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[\rm (i)] $ B_1 : = \big\{ p \in \mathcal{P}(\Omega) \mid p \{ \Psi_1(\cdot \, | \, \omega^{(I)} ; p) = \Psi_2(\cdot \, |\, \omega^{(I)}; p) \} = 1 \big\}$;
\item[\rm (ii)] $ B_2 : = \big\{ p \in \mathcal{P}(\Omega) \mid p \{ \Psi_1(\cdot \, | \, \omega^{(I)} ; p) \in \mathcal{D}(Z') \} = 1 \big\}$;
\item[\rm (iii)] $B_3 : = \big\{ p \in \mathcal{P}(\Omega) \mid p \{ \Psi_1(\cdot \, | \, \omega^{(I)} ; p) \in \mathcal{P}(Z'_1) \otimes \mathcal{P}(Z'_2) \} = 1 \big\}$.
\end{enumerate}
Suppose that $\Theta$ is a Borel space and $\Psi_1$ and $\Psi_2$ depend also on a parameter $\theta \in \Theta$, that is, $\Psi_1(dz' \,|\, z ; p, \theta)$ and $\Psi_2(dz' \,|\, z ; p, \theta)$ are two Borel measurable stochastic kernels on $Z'$ given $Z \times \mathcal{P}(\Omega) \times \Theta$. Then the following subset of $\mathcal{P}(\Omega) \times \Theta$ is Borel:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[\rm (iv)] $B_4 : = \big\{ (p, \theta) \in \mathcal{P}(\Omega) \times \Theta \mid p \{ \Psi_1(\cdot \, | \, \omega^{(I)} ; p, \theta) = \Psi_2(\cdot \, |\, \omega^{(I)}; p, \theta) \} = 1 \big\}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Since $B_1$ is a special case of $B_4$ with $\Theta = \varnothing$, to prove that these two sets are Borel, it suffices to prove that $B_4$ is Borel.
Let $\{f_k\}_{k \geq 0}$ be a countable family of bounded Borel measurable functions on $Z'$ that form a measure determining class for $\mathcal{P}(Z')$.
The set
$E: = \big\{ (p, \theta, z) \in \mathcal{P}(\Omega) \times \Theta \times Z \mid \Psi_1(\cdot \,|\, z ; p, \theta) = \Psi_2(\cdot \,|\, z; p, \theta) \big\}$
consists of those $(p, \theta, z)$ such that
$\int_{Z'} f_k(z') \, \Psi_1(dz' \,|\, z ; p, \theta) = \int_{Z'} \, f_k(z') \, \Psi_2(dz' \,|\, z ; p, \theta)$ for all $k \geq 0$.
These integrals are Borel measurable in $(p, \theta, z)$ by \cite[Prop.~7.29]{bs} (since the functions $f_k$ and the stochastic kernel $\Psi_1, \Psi_2$ are Borel measurable). Therefore, the set $E$ is Borel. Let $E(p, \theta)$ denote the $(p, \theta)$-section of $E$. Then $\phi(p, \theta): = p \{ \omega^{(I)} \in E(p, \theta) \}$ is a Borel measurable function of $(p, \theta)$ by \cite[Cor.~7.26.1]{bs}. Since $B_4 = \{ (p, \theta) \in \mathcal{P}(\Omega) \mid \phi(p, \theta) =1 \}$, $B_4$ is Borel and hence $B_1$ is also Borel, as discussed earlier.
Consider now $B_2$. Since $\mathcal{D}(Z')$ is the image of $Z'$ under the homeomorphism $z' \mapsto \delta_{z'}$, it is a Borel subset of $\mathcal{P}(Z')$ by \cite[Sec.\ I.3, Cor.\ 3.3]{Par67}.
Let $E : = \big\{ (p, z) \in \mathcal{P}(\Omega) \times Z \mid \Psi_1(\cdot \,| \, z ; p) \in \mathcal{D}(Z') \big\}$. Then $E$ is the preimage of the Borel set $\mathcal{D}(Z')$ under the Borel measurable mapping $(z, p) \mapsto \Psi_1(dz' \,|\, z ; p)$ and therefore, $E$ is Borel. The rest of the proof is similar to the above proof for $B_4$: with $E(p)$ being the $p$-section of $E$ and with $\phi(p) : = p \{ \omega^{(I)} \in E(p) \}$,
we have that $\phi$ is Borel measurable by \cite[Cor.~7.26.1]{bs}, and hence the set $B_2 = \{ p \in \mathcal{P}(\Omega) \mid \phi(p) =1 \}$ is Borel.
For $B_3$, note that $\mathcal{P}(Z'_1) \otimes \mathcal{P}(Z'_2)$ is the image of $\mathcal{P}(Z'_1) \times \mathcal{P}(Z'_2)$ under the homeomorphism $(\nu, \nu') \mapsto \nu \times \nu'$ from $\mathcal{P}(Z'_1) \times \mathcal{P}(Z'_2)$ into $\mathcal{P}(Z')$, and therefore, $\mathcal{P}(Z'_1) \otimes \mathcal{P}(Z'_2)$ is a Borel subset of $\mathcal{P}(Z')$ by \cite[Sec.\ I.3, Cor.\ 3.3]{Par67}.
The rest of the proof is the same as that for $B_2$ with $\mathcal{P}(Z'_1) \otimes \mathcal{P}(Z'_2)$ in place of $\mathcal{D}(Z')$.
\end{proof}
We will use Lemma~\ref{lem-gen1}(ii) to characterize strategic measures induced by nonrandomized policies. Blackwell \cite{Blk76} used this technique for a similar purpose and attributed it to Sudderth \cite{Sud69}.
We will use Lemma~\ref{lem-gen1}(iii)-(iv) in the proofs for the minimax control problems studied in Section~\ref{sec-4}.
\subsubsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm-strat-m}} \label{sec-proof-1}
We shall prove a more general result than Theorem~\ref{thm-strat-m}. The result and the proof arguments will be applicable not only to MDPs but also to the partially observable problems and the minimax control problems studied in Section~\ref{sec-4}.
In this proof, the approach we use to characterize the various sets of strategic measures is similar to the one discussed in Feinberg \cite[Remark 3.3]{Fei96} (according to \cite{Fei96}, it was suggested by Maitra and Sudderth).
Any strategic measure $p \in \mathcal{S}$ must satisfy two conditions:
\begin{equation} \label{cond-strm1a}
p \big\{ (x_n, a_n) \in \Gamma \big\} = 1, \qquad \forall \, n \geq 0,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{cond-strm1b}
Q_n(dx_{n+1} \mid h'_n; p) = q(d x_{n+1} \mid x_n, a_n), \ \ \ \forall \, n \geq 0, \qquad \text{$p$-almost surely}.
\end{equation}
The former comes from the control constraint and the latter from the state transition dynamics in the MDP.
Now consider the strategic measures of policies with additional structural constraints.
In particular, suppose that for each $n \geq 0$, a subset of the variables from $(x_0, a_0, \ldots, x_{n-1}, a_{n-1})$ is chosen and, together with $x_n$, they form the variable $\hat h_n$, whose space we denote by $\hat H_n$.
Suppose also that we have a collection of constraints on the stochastic kernels $\{\mu_n\}_{n \geq 0}$ that form a policy. These constraints, one for each $\mu_n$, consist of either requirement (i) or both requirements given below:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\mu_n$ is a universally measurable stochastic kernel on $\mathbb{A}$ given $\hat H_n$;
\item[(ii)] $\mu_n$ is nonrandomized; that is, $\mu_n(da_n \,|\, \hat h_n) \in \mathcal{D}(\mathbb{A})$ for all $\hat h_n \in \hat H_n$.
\end{itemize}
If $\mathcal{C}$ is such a collection of constraints, we write $\Pi_{\mathcal{C}}$ for the set of all policies that satisfy $\mathcal{C}$, and we write $\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{C}}$ for the set of strategic measures induced by those policies. Note that $\Pi, \Pi', \Pi_{sm}, \Pi'_{sm}$, as well as $\Pi_m$ and $\Pi'_m$, can all be viewed as $\Pi_{\mathcal{C}}$ for some $\mathcal{C}$.
Let $\hat \nu_n( da_n \,|\, \hat h_n; p)$ be a Borel measurable stochastic kernel on $\mathbb{A}$ given $\hat H_n \times \mathcal{P}(\Omega)$ such that for each $p \in \mathcal{P}(\Omega)$, it is a conditional distribution of $a_n$ given $\hat h_n$ w.r.t.\ $p$. (As discussed at the start of Section~\ref{sec-proof-0}, such a stochastic kernel exists.)
A strategic measure $p \in \mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{C}}$ clearly satisfies that
\begin{equation} \label{cond-strm1c}
\nu_n(da_n \mid h_n; p) = \hat \nu_n( da_n \mid \hat h_n; p) \ \ \ \text{and}_{\,\mathcal{C}} \ \ \ \hat \nu_n( da_n \mid \hat h_n; p) \in \mathcal{D}(\mathbb{A}), \quad \forall \, n \geq 0, \ \ \text{$p$-almost surely},
\end{equation}
where by ``$\text{and}_{\,\mathcal{C}}$'' we mean that the relation ``$\hat \nu_n( da_n \,|\, \hat h_n; p) \in \mathcal{D}(\mathbb{A})$'' is present if and only if according to $\mathcal{C}$, $\mu_n$ is nonrandomized.
\begin{lem} \label{lem-strm1}
The set $\mathcal{S}_{\mathcal{C}} = \big\{ p \in \mathcal{P}(\Omega) \mid p \ \text{satisfies (\ref{cond-strm1a})-(\ref{cond-strm1c})} \big\}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
As discussed above, every $p \in \mathcal{S}_\mathcal{C}$ satisfies (\ref{cond-strm1a})-(\ref{cond-strm1c}).
Consider now any $p \in \mathcal{P}(\Omega) $ that satisfies these constraints.
By a repeated application of \cite[Cor.\ 7.27.2]{bs} to decompose the marginals of $p$ on $H'_n, H_{n+1}$, $n \geq 0$, and taking into account (\ref{cond-strm1b}) and (\ref{cond-strm1c}), we can represent $p$ as the composition of its marginal $p_0(dx_0)$ on $H_0$ with a sequence of Borel measurable stochastic kernels:
$$p_0(dx_0), \ \hat \nu_0(da_0 \mid \hat h_0), \ q(d x_1 \mid x_0, a_0), \ \ldots, \ \hat \nu_{n}(da_{n} \mid \hat h_{n}), \ q(d x_{n+1} \mid x_{n}, a_n), \ \ldots$$
where $\hat \nu_n(da_n \,|\, \hat h_n) = \hat \nu_n(d a_n \,|\, \hat h_n; p)$.
(In other words, $p$ coincides with the unique probability measure on $\mathcal{B}(\Omega)$ determined by the above sequence.) The stochastic kernels $\{\hat \nu_n\}$ need not satisfy the control constraint in the MDP; i.e., the sets
$D_n : = \{ \hat h_n \in \hat H_n \mid \hat \nu_n( A(x_{n}) \,|\, \hat h_n) < 1\big\}$, $n \geq 0$, need not be empty.
They also need not fully satisfy the structural constraints specified by $\mathcal{C}$.
In particular, the following sets $E_n$, $n \geq 0$, need not be empty:
$E_n : = \{ \hat h_n \in \hat H_n \mid \hat \nu_n( \cdot \,|\, \hat h_n) \not\in \mathcal{D}(\mathbb{A}) \big\}$ if according to $\mathcal{C}$, $\mu_n$ must be nonrandomized; and $E_n: = \varnothing$ otherwise.
We now modify $\hat \nu_n$ on $D_n \cup E_n$ for each $n \geq 0$ to construct a policy in $\Pi_\mathcal{C}$.
Since the stochastic kernel $\hat \nu_n$ is Borel measurable and the sets $A(x)$, $x \in \mathbb{X}$, are analytic, the set $D_n$ is universally measurable \cite[Prop.\ 7.46]{bs}. The proof for Lemma~\ref{lem-gen1}(ii) shows that the set $E_n$ is Borel measurable. Therefore, $D_n \cup E_n$ is universally measurable.
Since $p$ satisfies (\ref{cond-strm1a}) and (\ref{cond-strm1c}), we must have
\begin{equation} \label{eq-lem-strm1-prf1}
p \{ \hat h_n \in D_n \cup E_n \} = 0, \qquad \forall \, n \geq 0.
\end{equation}
Now define a policy $\pi: = \{\mu_n\}_{n \geq 0} \in \Pi_\mathcal{C}$ as follows: for each $n \geq 0$, let
$$ \mu_n(\cdot \mid \hat h_n) : = \begin{cases}
\hat \nu_n(\cdot \mid \hat h_n), & \text{if} \ \hat h_n \not \in D_n \cup E_n; \\
\mu^o (\cdot \,|\, x_n), & \text{if} \ \hat h_n \in D_n \cup E_n,
\end{cases}
$$
where $\mu^o$ is some fixed nonrandomized stationary policy in $\Pi'_s$.
In view of (\ref{cond-strm1c})-(\ref{eq-lem-strm1-prf1}), $p$-almost surely, $\mu_n(\cdot \,|\, \hat h_n) = \nu_n(\cdot \,|\, h_n; p)$ for all $n \geq 0$. Then by Lemma~\ref{lem-gen2} $p = \rho_{p_0}[\pi]$ and hence $p \in \mathcal{S}_\mathcal{C}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop} \label{prp-Sc}
The set $\mathcal{S}_\mathcal{C}$ is analytic, and it is Borel if $\Gamma$ is Borel.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
For each $n \geq 0$, let $E_n : = \{p \in \mathcal{P}(\Omega) \mid \text{$p$ satisfies (\ref{cond-strm1a}) for the given $n$}\}$, $F_n : = \{p \in \mathcal{P}(\Omega) \mid \text{$p$ satisfies (\ref{cond-strm1b}) for the given $n$}\}$, and $G_n : = \{p \in \mathcal{P}(\Omega) \mid \text{$p$ satisfies (\ref{cond-strm1c}) for the given $n$}\}$.
The set $F_n$ is Borel by Lemma~\ref{lem-gen1}(i), which is applied with $\Psi_1$ and $\Psi_2$ corresponding to $Q_n(dx_{n+1} \,|\, h'_n; p)$ and $q(d x_{n+1} \,|\, x_n, a_n)$, respectively.
The set $G_n$ is Borel by Lemma~\ref{lem-gen1}(i)-(ii), which is applied with $\Psi_1$ and $\Psi_2$ corresponding to $\hat \nu_n( da_n \,|\, \hat h_n; p)$ and $\nu_n(da_n \,|\, h_n; p)$, respectively.
Consider now the set $E_n$. Condition (\ref{cond-strm1a}) is the same as that $p(D) = 1$ for the set $D : = (\mathbb{X} \times \mathbb{A})^{n} \times \Gamma \times (\mathbb{X} \times \mathbb{A})^\infty$. Since $\Gamma$ is analytic, $D$ is an analytic subset of $\Omega$ \cite[Prop.~7.38]{bs}. Then, by \cite[Prop.~7.43]{bs}, $E_n = \{ p \in \mathcal{P}(\Omega) \mid p(D) = 1\}$ is analytic. If $\Gamma$ is Borel, then $D$ is Borel and hence by \cite[Prop.~7.25]{bs} $E_n$ is also Borel.
Since $\mathcal{S}_\mathcal{C} = \cap_{n \geq 0} ( E_n \cap F_n \cap G_n)$ by Lemma~\ref{lem-strm1}, the desired conclusion follows.
\end{proof}
For $n \geq 0$, let $\gamma_n : \mathcal{P}(\Omega) \to \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{X} \times \mathbb{A})$ be the mapping that maps each $p \in \mathcal{P}(\Omega)$ to its marginal on the space of $(x_n, a_n)$. In proving Lemma~\ref{lem-strm1} and Prop.~\ref{prp-Sc}, we have proved the following corollary, which establishes Theorem~\ref{thm-strat-m} for the two cases $\mathcal{S}_\star = \mathcal{S}$ and $\mathcal{S}_\star = \mathcal{S}_m$:
\begin{cor} \label{cor-S-Sm}
The sets $\mathcal{S}, \mathcal{S}'$, $\mathcal{S}_m$, and $\mathcal{S}_m'$ can be expressed as:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[\rm (i)] $\mathcal{S} = \big\{ p \in \mathcal{P}(\Omega) \mid p \ \text{satisfies (\ref{cond-strm1a})-(\ref{cond-strm1b})} \big\}$;
\item[\rm (ii)] $\mathcal{S}_m = \mathcal{S} \cap M$, where $M$ is the Borel set defined by
$$M : = \left\{p \in \mathcal{P}(\Omega) \,\big|\, p \big\{ \nu_n( d a_n \mid h_n; p) = \kappa \big( da_n \mid x_n; \gamma_n(p) \big), \, \forall \, n \geq 0 \big\} = 1 \right\};$$
\item[\rm (iii)] $\mathcal{S}' = \mathcal{S} \cap M'$ and $\mathcal{S}'_m = \mathcal{S}_m \cap M'$, where $M'$ is the Borel set defined by
$$M' : = \left\{ p \in \mathcal{P}(\Omega) \,\big|\, p \big\{ \nu_n(d a_n \mid h_n ; p) \in \mathcal{D}(\mathbb{A}), \, \forall \, n \geq 0 \big\} = 1 \right\}.$$
\end{enumerate}
These sets of strategic measures are analytic; they are Borel if $\Gamma$ is Borel.
\end{cor}
We now consider the set $\mathcal{S}_s$. As in Feinberg \cite[Proof of Lem.\ 3.1]{Fei96}, we consider the mapping
$\tilde \gamma : \mathcal{P}(\Omega) \to \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{X} \times \mathbb{A})$ defined by $\tilde \gamma(p) : = \sum_{n = 0}^\infty 2^{-n-1} \gamma_n(p)$.
Since $\gamma_n$ is Borel measurable for all $n \geq 0$, the mapping $\tilde \gamma$ is Borel measurable.
Consequently,
the mapping $(x, p ) \mapsto \kappa \big( da \,|\, x ; \tilde \gamma(p) \big)$ is also Borel measurable (since the stochastic kernel $\kappa$, defined in Section~\ref{sec-proof-0}, is Borel measurable, and compositions of Borel mappings are Borel measurable); in other words, it is a Borel measurable stochastic kernels on $\mathbb{A}$ given $\mathbb{X} \times \mathcal{P}(\Omega)$.
\begin{lem} \label{lem-Ss}
We have $\mathcal{S}_s = \mathcal{S} \cap \widetilde M$ and $\mathcal{S}_s' = \mathcal{S}_s \cap M'$, where $\widetilde M$ is the Borel set defined by
$$\widetilde M : = \left\{p \in \mathcal{P}(\Omega) \,\big|\, p \big\{ \nu_n( d a_n \mid h_n; p) = \kappa \big( da_n \mid x_n; \tilde \gamma(p) \big), \forall n \geq 0 \big\} = 1 \right\},$$
and $M'$ is the set given in Cor.~\ref{cor-S-Sm}.
Both $\mathcal{S}_s$ and $\mathcal{S}_s'$ are analytic; they are Borel if $\Gamma$ is Borel.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We have $\widetilde M = \cap_{n \geq 0} \, B_n$ for $B_n: = \left\{p \in \mathcal{P}(\Omega) \,\big|\, p \big\{ \nu_n( d a_n\,|\, h_n; p) = \kappa \big( da_n \,|\, x_n; \tilde \gamma(p) \big) \big\} = 1 \right\}$.
By applying Lemma~\ref{lem-gen1}(i) to each set $B_n$, with $\Psi_1$ and $\Psi_2$ corresponding to $\nu_n( d a_n \,|\, h_n; p)$ and $\kappa \big( da_n \,|\, x_n; \tilde \gamma(p) \big)$, respectively, we obtain that $B_n$ is Borel. Hence the set $\widetilde M$ is Borel.
Clearly $\mathcal{S}_s \subset \mathcal{S} \cap \widetilde M$ and $\mathcal{S}_s' \subset \mathcal{S} \cap \widetilde M \cap M'$.
The proof of the opposite inclusions is similar to that of Lemma~\ref{lem-strm1}.
If $p \in \mathcal{S} \cap \widetilde M$, we define a stationary policy $\mu \in \Pi_s$ by
\begin{equation} \label{eq-prf-Ss-pol}
\mu(d a \mid x ) : = \begin{cases}
\kappa \big( da \mid x; \tilde \gamma(p) \big) & \text{if} \ x \not\in D; \\
\mu^o(d a \mid x) & \text{if} \ x \in D,
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $\mu^o \in \Pi_s$ and the set $D$ is defined by $D : = \big\{ x \in \mathbb{X} \mid \kappa \big( A(x) \,|\, x; \tilde \gamma(p) \big) < 1 \big\}$. If $p \in \mathcal{S} \cap \widetilde M \cap M'$, then we define a nonrandomized stationary policy $\mu \in \Pi'_s$ by (\ref{eq-prf-Ss-pol}) with $\mu^o \in \Pi'_s$ and with the set $D \cup E$ in place of $D$,
where the set $E : = \big\{ x \in \mathbb{X} \mid \kappa \big( da \mid x; \tilde \gamma(p) \big) \not\in \mathcal{D}(\mathbb{A}) \big\}$.
The set $D \in \mathcal{U}(\mathbb{X})$ by \cite[Prop.\ 7.46]{bs} (because the mapping $(x, p) \mapsto \kappa \big( da \,|\, x; \tilde \gamma(p) \big)$ is Borel measurable and the sets $A(x), x \in \mathbb{X}$ are analytic), and the set $E$ is Borel by the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem-gen1}(ii). So $\mu$ as defined is a valid universally measurable policy.
In view of Cor.~\ref{cor-S-Sm}(i) and (\ref{cond-strm1a}), if $p \in \mathcal{S} \cap \widetilde M$, then $p \{ x_n \in D, \, \forall \, n \geq 0\} = 0$, and if $p \in \mathcal{S} \cap \widetilde M \cap M'$, then $p \{ x_n \in D \cup E, \, \forall \, n \geq 0\} = 0$. It follows that in either case, $p$-almost surely, $\mu(da_n \,|\, x_n) = \nu_n( d a_n \,|\, h_n; p)$ for all $n \geq 0$, so by Lemma~\ref{lem-gen2}, $p = \rho_{p_0}[\mu]$, where $p_0$ is the distribution of $x_0$ w.r.t.\ $p$. This proves $\mathcal{S}_s = \mathcal{S} \cap \widetilde M$ and $\mathcal{S}_s' = \mathcal{S}_s \cap M'$. The last statement of the lemma then follows from Cor.~\ref{cor-S-Sm} and the Borel measurability of $\widetilde M$ and $M'$.
\end{proof}
Theorem~\ref{thm-strat-m} has now been proved.
\subsubsection{Proof of Proposition~\ref{prp-ummap-pol}} \label{sec-proof-2}
First, we prove a result that entails Prop.~\ref{prp-ummap-pol} except for the cases $\mathcal{S}_s$ and $\mathcal{S}'_s$.
Consider again the set $\Pi_\mathcal{C}$ of structured policies and the associated set $\mathcal{S}_\mathcal{C}$ of strategic measures introduced in Section~\ref{sec-proof-1}.
Let $\tilde \mathcal{S}_\mathcal{C} : = \big\{ (x, p) \in \mathbb{X} \times \mathcal{P}(\Omega) \,\big|\, p \in \mathcal{S}_\mathcal{C}, \, p_0(p) = \delta_x \big\}$ (recall that $p_0(p)$ is the initial distribution of $x_0$ w.r.t.\ $p$).
By Prop.~\ref{prp-Sc} and the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem-ext-set}, $\tilde \mathcal{S}_\mathcal{C}$ is analytic, and it is Borel if $\Gamma$ is Borel.
Denote the $x$-section of $\tilde \mathcal{S}_\mathcal{C}$ by $\tilde \mathcal{S}_\mathcal{C}(x)$.
Also, corresponding to $\mathcal{C}$ and the associated spaces $\hat H_n$, $n \geq 0$,
we derive a collection ${\mathcal{C}_s}$ of constraints by replacing the condition that $\mu_n$ depends on $\hat h_n \in \hat H_n$ by the condition that $\mu_n$ depends on both $\hat h_n$ and the initial state $x_0$, if $\hat h_n$ does not already include $x_0$.
The collection of variables in $\hat h_n$ and $\{x_0\}$ is denoted by $\hat h_n^s$, and their space is denoted by $\hat H^s_n$.
The set $\Pi_{{\mathcal{C}_s}}$ is the set of all policies satisfying the constraints in ${\mathcal{C}_s}$.
\begin{prop} \label{prp-Sc-ummap-pol}
Let $\zeta : \tilde \mathcal{S}_\mathcal{C} \to \mathcal{P}(\Omega)$ be a universally measurable mapping such that $\zeta(x) \in \tilde \mathcal{S}_\mathcal{C}(x)$ for all $x \in \mathbb{X}$. Then there exists a policy $\pi \in \Pi_{{\mathcal{C}_s}}$ with $\zeta(x) = \rho_x[\pi]$ for all $x \in \mathbb{X}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The proof is similar to that for Lemma~\ref{lem-strm1}, except that here the parametric dependence on the initial state $x$ needs to be taken into account in the construction of the policy $\pi$.
To simplify notation, let $\tilde \nu_n ( da_n \,|\, \hat h_n; x) : = \hat \nu_n\big(d a_n \,|\, \hat h_n; \zeta(x) \big)$ for $n \geq 0$.
Note that as a $\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{A})$-valued function of $(\hat h_n, x)$, $\tilde \nu_n ( da_n \,|\, \hat h_n; x)$ is the composition of the mapping $(\hat h_n, x) \mapsto \big(\hat h_n, \zeta(x)\big)$ with the mapping $(\hat h_n, p) \mapsto \hat \nu_n(d a_n \,|\, \hat h_n; p)$. By \cite[Prop.\ 7.44]{bs} compositions of universally measurable functions on Borel spaces are universally measurable. Since $\zeta$ is universally measurable and the stochastic kernel $\hat \nu_n(da_n \,|\, \hat h_n; p)$ is Borel measurable, it then follows from \cite[Prop.\ 7.44]{bs} that the stochastic kernel $\tilde \nu_n(da_n \,|\, \hat h_n; x)$ is universally measurable.
For each $n \geq 0$, let $D_n$ be the set of points $(\hat h_n, x)$ at which $\tilde \nu_n$ violates the control constraint:
$$D_n : = \{ (\hat h_n, x) \in \hat H_n \times \mathbb{X} \mid \tilde \nu_n( A(x_n) \mid \hat h_n ; \, x) < 1 \}. $$
If the structural constraints specified by $\mathcal{C}$ require $\mu_n$ to be nonrandomized, we let
$$ E_n : = \{ (\hat h_n, x) \in \hat H_n \times \mathbb{X} \mid \tilde \nu_n( \cdot \mid \hat h_n ; \, x) \not\in \mathcal{D}(\mathbb{A}) \};$$
otherwise, we let $E_n : = \varnothing$.
As discussed earlier, $\tilde \nu_n$ is universally measurable, the sets $A(y)$, $y \in \mathbb{X}$, are analytic, and the set $\mathcal{D}(\mathbb{A})$ is Borel.
Consequently, the sets $D_n$ and $E_n$ are universally measurable by \cite[Prop.\ 7.46]{bs} and by \cite[Cor.\ 7.44.1]{bs}, respectively.
Moreover, since $\zeta(x) \in \tilde \mathcal{S}_\mathcal{C}(x)$, $\zeta(x)\{ x_0 = x \} = 1$ and $\zeta(x) \in \mathcal{S}_\mathcal{C}$.
Then by Lemma~\ref{lem-strm1}, (\ref{cond-strm1a}), and (\ref{cond-strm1c}), $\zeta(x)\big\{ \hat \nu_n\big( A(x_n) \,|\, \hat h_n ; \, \zeta(x)\big) = 1 \} = 1$,
and if $\mu_n$ must be nonrandomized according to $\mathcal{C}$, we also have $\zeta(x)\big\{\hat \nu_n \big( \cdot \,|\, \hat h_n ; \, \zeta(x)\big) \in \mathcal{D}(\mathbb{A}) \big\} = 1$.
In view of the definition of $\tilde \nu_n$, these relations imply
\begin{equation} \label{eq-ummap-prf1}
\zeta(x)\{ (\hat h_n, x_0) \in D_n \cup E_n \} = 0, \qquad \forall \, n \geq 0, \ x \in \mathbb{X}.
\end{equation}
Now define a policy $\pi : = \{ \mu_n\}_{n \geq 0} \in \Pi_{\mathcal{C}_s}$ as follows: for $n \geq 0$ and $\hat h^s_n \in \hat H^s_n$,
\begin{equation} \label{eq-ummap-prf2}
\mu_n(d a_n \mid \hat h^s_n) : = \begin{cases}
\tilde \nu_n(d a_n \mid \hat h_n; \, x_0), & \text{if} \ (\hat h_n, x_0) \not\in D_n \cup E_n; \\
\mu^o(d a_n \mid x_n), & \text{if} \ (\hat h_n, x_0) \in D_n \cup E_n,
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $\mu^o$ is some fixed policy in $\Pi'_s$. Then by (\ref{cond-strm1c}), (\ref{eq-ummap-prf1}), and the definition of $\tilde \nu_n$, for each $x \in \mathbb{X}$, it holds $\zeta(x)$-almost surely that
$\mu_n(d a_n \,|\, \hat h^s_n) = \nu_n\big(d a_n \,|\, h_n; \zeta(x) \big)$ for all $n \geq 0$. By Lemma~\ref{lem-gen2} this implies $\zeta(x) = \rho_x[\pi]$ for all $x \in \mathbb{X}$. So $\pi$ is the desired policy in $\Pi_{\mathcal{C}_s}$.
\end{proof}
Applying Prop.~\ref{prp-Sc-ummap-pol} with $\mathcal{S}_\mathcal{C} \in \{\mathcal{S}, \mathcal{S}', \mathcal{S}_m, \mathcal{S}'_m\}$, we obtain the conclusions of Prop.~\ref{prp-ummap-pol} for those four cases.
The remaining two cases in Prop.~\ref{prp-ummap-pol} are $\mathcal{S}_\star = \mathcal{S}_s$ and $\mathcal{S}_\star = \mathcal{S}'_s$, with the graph of $\zeta$ contained in $\tilde \mathcal{S}_\star$.
For these two cases, we construct the desired semi-stationary policy from the stochastic kernel $\kappa\big(da \,|\, x'; \tilde \gamma(\zeta(x)) \big)$, where the function $\tilde \gamma$ is as defined before Lemma~\ref{lem-Ss}. The construction is similar to those in the proofs of Lemma~\ref{lem-Ss} and Prop.~\ref{prp-Sc-ummap-pol}.
In particular, let $\tilde \kappa(da \,|\, x' ; x) : = \kappa\big(da \,|\, x'; \tilde \gamma(\zeta(x)) \big)$.
Since $\zeta$ is universally measurable and the mapping $\tilde \gamma$ and the stochastic kernel $\kappa$ are Borel measurable, the stochastic kernel $\tilde \kappa$ is universally measurable by \cite[Prop.\ 7.44]{bs}.
Let
$$ D : = \big\{ (x', x) \in \mathbb{X}^2 \mid \tilde \kappa\big(A(x') \mid x'; x \big) < 1 \big\}.$$
In the case $\mathcal{S}_\star = \mathcal{S}_s$, let $E : = \varnothing$, and in the case $\mathcal{S}_\star = \mathcal{S}'_s$, let
$$ E : = \big\{ (x', x) \in \mathbb{X}^2 \mid \tilde \kappa\big( d a \mid x'; x \big) \not\in \mathcal{D}(\mathbb{A}) \big\}.$$
Then $D, E \in \mathcal{U}(\mathbb{X}^2)$ by \cite[Prop.\ 7.46, Cor.\ 7.44.1]{bs} (since $\tilde \kappa$ is universally measurable, the sets $A(x'), x' \in \mathbb{X}$ are analytic, and the set $\mathcal{D}(\mathbb{A})$ is Borel).
Moreover, for all $x \in \mathbb{X}$, since $\zeta(x) \in {\tilde \mathcal{S}}_s(x)$, we have $\zeta(x) \{ x_0 = x\} = 1$ and $\zeta(x)\{ \tilde \kappa( A(x_n) \,|\, x_n; x) = 1, \, \forall \, n \geq 0 \} = 1$ by (\ref{cond-strm1a}) and Lemma~\ref{lem-Ss}.
In the case $\zeta(x) \in {\tilde \mathcal{S}}'_s(x)$, we also have $\zeta(x)\{ \tilde \kappa ( d a_n \,|\, x_n; x) \in \mathcal{D}(\mathbb{A}) , \, \forall \, n \geq 0\} = 1$ by Lemma~\ref{lem-Ss}.
Therefore,
\begin{equation} \label{eq-ummap-prf5}
\zeta(x)\{ (x_n, x_0) \in D \cup E \} = 0, \qquad \forall \, n \geq 0, \ x \in \mathbb{X}.
\end{equation}
Now define a semi-stationary policy $\mu$ as follows: for $(x_0, x') \in \mathbb{X}^2$,
\begin{equation} \label{eq-ummap-prf6}
\mu(d a \mid x_0, x') : = \begin{cases}
\tilde \kappa(d a \mid x' ; \, x_0), & \text{if} \ (x', x_0) \not\in D \cup E; \\
\mu^o(d a \mid x'), & \text{if} \ (x', x_0) \in D \cup E,
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
for some fixed $\mu^o \in \Pi'_s$. In the case $\mathcal{S}_\star = \mathcal{S}'_s$, this policy $\mu$ is nonrandomized.
By (\ref{eq-ummap-prf5}), the definition of $\tilde \kappa$, and Lemma~\ref{lem-Ss}, we have that for each $x \in \mathbb{X}$, it holds $\zeta(x)$-almost surely that
$\mu(d a_n \,|\, x_0, x_n) = \nu_n\big(d a_n \,|\, h_n; \zeta(x) \big)$ for all $n \geq 0$. By Lemma~\ref{lem-gen2} this implies $\zeta(x) = \rho_x[\mu]$ for all $x \in \mathbb{X}$, so $\mu$ is the desired semi-stationary policy in the case $\mathcal{S}_\star = \mathcal{S}_s$ or $\mathcal{S}'_s$.
The proof of Prop.~\ref{prp-ummap-pol} is now complete.
\subsubsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm-rep-nonrand}} \label{sec-proof-3}
In what follows we prove a more general version of Theorem~\ref{thm-rep-nonrand} with $\Pi$ replaced by the set $\Pi_\mathcal{C}$ of structured policies introduced in Section~\ref{sec-proof-1}. Our proof is similar to that of Feinberg \cite[Thm.\ 1]{Fei82a} and makes use of an important lemma in Gikhman and Skorokhod~\cite[Lem.\ 1.2]{GiS79}, from which the next lemma essentially follows.
Let $\lambda$ denote the Lebesgue measure on $[0,1]$.
\begin{lem} \label{lem-nonrand1}
For each $\pi : = \{ \mu_n \}_{n \geq 0} \in \Pi_\mathcal{C}$, there exist universally measurable functions $f_n : [0, 1] \times \hat H_n \to \mathbb{A}$, $n \geq 0$, such that for all $\hat h_n \in \hat H_n$,
$$ f_n(\theta, \hat h_n) \in A(x_n) \ \ \ \forall \, \theta \in [0,1], \quad \text{and} \quad \mu_n(d a_n \mid \hat h_n) = (\lambda \circ \phi_{\hat h_n}^{-1}) (da_n),$$
where $\lambda \circ \phi_{\hat h_n}^{-1}$ is the image measure of $\lambda$ under the mapping $\phi_{\hat h_n}: [0,1] \to \mathbb{A}$ given by $\phi_{\hat h_n} : = f_n(\cdot, \hat h_n)$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
For each $n \geq 0$, by \cite[Lem.\ 1.2]{GiS79}, there exists a $\mathcal{B}([0,1]) \times \mathcal{U}(\hat H_n)$-measurable function
$f_n: [0, 1] \times \hat H_n \to \mathbb{A}$ that meets the requirements except that the set $E: = \big\{(\theta, \hat h_n) \in [0,1] \times \hat H_n \mid f_n(\theta, \hat h_n) \not\in A(x_n) \big\}$ need not be empty. We modify $f_n$ on $E$ to define another function $\tilde f_n$ as follows.
Let $\tilde f_n : = f_n$ on $E^c$ and $\tilde f_n(\theta, \hat h_n) : = \mu^o(x_n)$ on $E$, for some analytically measurable selection $\mu^o$ of $\Gamma$.
Then $\tilde f_n(\theta, \hat h_n) \in A(x_n)$ for all $\theta \in [0,1], \hat h_n \in \hat H_n$.
Let us show that $\tilde f_n$ satisfies the rest of the requirements.
The set $E^c$ can be equivalently expressed as
$$E^c = \big\{(\theta, \hat h_n) \in [0,1] \times \hat H_n \mid (x_n, f_n(\theta, \hat h_n)\big) \in \Gamma \big\} = \psi^{-1}(\Gamma),$$
where $\psi$ denotes the mapping $(\theta, \hat h_n) \mapsto (x_n, f_n(\theta, \hat h_n))$.
Since $\psi$ is universally measurable by the measurability of $f_n$ and the set $\Gamma$ is analytic by our model assumption, $E^c$ is universally measurable \cite[Cor.\ 7.44.1]{bs}. This, together with the measurability of $f_n$, shows that $\tilde f_n$ is universally measurable.
For all $\hat h_n \in \hat H_n$, since $\mu_n(d a_n \mid \hat h_n) = (\lambda \circ \phi_{\hat h_n}^{-1}) (da_n)$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq-prf-nonrand1}
\lambda \big(\phi_{\hat h_n}^{-1}(A(x_n))\big) = \mu_n(A(x_n) \mid \hat h_n) = 1.
\end{equation}
In the above, for the validity of the first equality, we also used the fact that the set $\phi_{\hat h_n}^{-1}(A(x_n))$ is universally measurable. To see this, note that by the measurability of $f_n$, $\phi_{\hat h_n}$ is universally measurable, and since $\Gamma$ is analytic, its $x_n$-section $A(x_n)$ is analytic by \cite[Prop.\ 7.40]{bs}. Then by \cite[Cor.\ 7.44.1]{bs} $\phi_{\hat h_n}^{-1}(A(x_n))$ is universally measurable. Now from (\ref{eq-prf-nonrand1}) it follows that
$$ \lambda(E_{\hat h_n}) = \lambda \big( \{ \theta \in [0,1] \mid f_n(\theta, \hat h_n) \not\in A(x_n) \} \big) = 0,$$
where $E_{\hat h_n}$ denotes the $\hat h_n$-section of the set $E$. Since $\tilde f_n(\cdot, \hat h_n)$ can only differ from $f_n(\cdot, \hat h_n)$ on $E_{\hat h_n}$, this implies that
$$ \lambda \big( \{ \theta \in [0,1] \mid \tilde f_n(\theta, \hat h_n) \in B \} \big) = \lambda \big( \{ \theta \in [0,1] \mid f_n(\theta, \hat h_n) \in B \} \big), \qquad \forall \, B \in \mathcal{B}(\mathbb{A}),$$
or equivalently, expressed in terms of image measures, $\lambda \circ \tilde \phi_{\hat h_n}^{-1} = \lambda \circ \phi_{\hat h_n}^{-1}$, where $\tilde \phi_{\hat h_n} : = \tilde f_n(\cdot, \hat h_n)$.
Since $\mu_n(d a_n \,|\, \hat h_n) = (\lambda \circ \phi_{\hat h_n}^{-1}) (da_n)$, we have $\mu_n(d a_n \,|\, \hat h_n) = \lambda \circ \tilde \phi_{\hat h_n}^{-1}(d a_n)$. Thus the function $\tilde f_n$ satisfies all the requirements.
\end{proof}
For each $\pi \in \Pi_\mathcal{C}$, consider the family of functions $\{f_n\}$ given in Lemma~\ref{lem-nonrand1}. Corresponding to each point $\bar \theta : = (\theta_0, \theta_1, \ldots) \in [0,1]^\infty$, the sequence of functions $\bar f(\bar \theta) : = \{ f_n(\theta_n, \cdot) \}_{n\geq 0}$ defines a nonrandomized universally measurable policy in $\Pi_\mathcal{C}$. To simplify notation, we denote this policy also by $\bar f(\bar \theta)$.
\begin{lem} \label{lem-nonrand2}
Let $\pi \in \Pi_\mathcal{C}$, and consider the associated family of nonrandomized policies $\bar f(\bar \theta) \in \Pi_\mathcal{C}$, $\bar \theta \in [0,1]^\infty$, given by Lemma~\ref{lem-nonrand1}. The mapping $\psi : \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{X}) \times [0,1]^\infty\to \mathcal{P}(\Omega)$ with
$\psi (p_0, \bar \theta) : = \rho_{p_0}[ \bar f(\bar \theta)]$ is universally measurable.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
By \cite[Lem.\ 7.28(b)]{bs}, it suffices to show that for each $B \in \mathcal{B}(\Omega)$, $\rho_{p_0}[ \bar f(\bar \theta)](B)$ is universally measurable in $(p_0, \bar \theta)$. In turn, since those Borel sets of $\Omega$ with this property form a Dynkin system, by the Dynkin system theorem \cite[Prop.\ 7.24]{bs}, it suffices to consider the collection $\cup_{n \geq 0} \, \mathcal{B}(H'_n)$ of sets (which correspond to those cylindrical sets that generate $\mathcal{B}(\Omega)$) and to show that for each $B_n \in \mathcal{B}(H'_n)$, $\rho_{p_0}[ \bar f(\bar \theta)]\{ h'_n \in B_n\}$ is universally measurable in $(p_0, \bar \theta)$.
Now by \cite[Prop.\ 7.45]{bs} we can express $\rho_{p_0}[ \bar f(\bar \theta)]\{ h'_n \in B_n\}$ as the iterated integral
\begin{align}
\int_\mathbb{X} \int_\mathbb{X} \cdots \int_\mathbb{X} & \, \mathbb{1}_{B_n}\big(h_n, f_n(\theta_n, \hat h_n)\big) \, q\big(dx_n \mid x_{n-1}, f_{n-1}(\theta_{n-1}, \hat h_{n-1}) \big) \cdots
q\big(dx_1 \mid x_0, f_0(\theta_0, x_0) \big) \, p_0(d x_0). \label{eq-prf-nonrand2}
\end{align}
The functions $f_k$, $k \leq n$, are universally measurable by Lemma~\ref{lem-nonrand1}, the stochastic kernel $q$ is Borel measurable by our model assumption, and the identity mapping on $\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{X})$, $p_0 \mapsto p_0$, is also Borel measurable. It then follows from \cite[Prop.\ 7.46, Cor.\ 7.44.3]{bs} that the above integral is universally measurable in $(p_0, \theta_0, \theta_1, \ldots, \theta_n)$ and therefore universally measurable in $(p_0, \bar \theta)$.
\end{proof}
Recall that $\bar \lambda$ is the countable product of Lebesgue measures on $[0,1]$.
\begin{lem} \label{lem-nonrand3}
Let $\pi \in \Pi_\mathcal{C}$ and $\bar f(\bar \theta) \in \Pi_\mathcal{C}$, $\bar \theta \in [0,1]^\infty$, be as in Lemma~\ref{lem-nonrand2}.
Then for all $p_0 \in \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{X})$,
\begin{equation} \label{eq-rep-nonrand2}
\rho_{p_0}[ \pi](B) = \int_{[0,1]^\infty} \! \rho_{p_0}[ \bar f(\bar \theta)](B) \, \bar \lambda (d \bar \theta), \qquad \forall \, B \in \mathcal{B}(\Omega).
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma~\ref{lem-nonrand2} and \cite[Lem.\ 7.28(b) or Prop.\ 7.46]{bs}, the integral on the right-hand side of (\ref{eq-rep-nonrand2}) is well-defined for each $B \in \mathcal{B}(\Omega)$. Thus the right-hand side of (\ref{eq-rep-nonrand2}) defines a probability measure on $\mathcal{B}(\Omega)$. To show that this measure coincides with $\rho_{p_0}[\pi]$, it suffices to show that
(\ref{eq-rep-nonrand2}) holds for all subsets of $\Omega$ of the form $\{ h'_n \in B_n\}$ with $B_n \in \mathcal{B}(H'_n)$ for some $n \geq 0$ (since these subsets form an algebra that generates $\mathcal{B}(\Omega)$). This can be verified directly by using the iterated-integral expression (\ref{eq-prf-nonrand2}) for $\rho_{p_0}[ \bar f(\bar \theta)]\{ h'_n \in B_n\}$, and by successively integrating out the variables $\theta_n, \theta_{n-1}, \ldots, \theta_0$ and applying the Fubini theorem together with the relations $\mu_k(d a_k \,|\, \hat h_k) = (\lambda \circ \phi_{\hat h_k}^{-1}) (da_k), k \leq n$, provided by Lemma~\ref{lem-nonrand1}.
\end{proof}
Note that the relation (\ref{eq-rep-nonrand2}) is equivalent to (\ref{eq-rep-nonrand}) in Theorem~\ref{thm-rep-nonrand}(ii) (since a probability measure on $\mathcal{U}(\Omega)$ is uniquely determined by its restriction on $\mathcal{B}(\Omega)$).
With Lemmas~\ref{lem-nonrand2}-\ref{lem-nonrand3}, we have thus proved Theorem~\ref{thm-rep-nonrand}(i)-(ii) with $\Pi_\mathcal{C}$ in place of $\Pi$.
Letting $\Pi_\mathcal{C} = \Pi$ yields Theorem~\ref{thm-rep-nonrand}(i)-(ii), and letting $\Pi_\mathcal{C} = \Pi_m$ or $\Pi_{sm}$ yields the remaining assertions of Theorem~\ref{thm-rep-nonrand} regarding Markov or semi-Markov policies.
\subsection{Proofs for Section~\ref{sec-4}}
\subsubsection{Proofs of Proposition~\ref{prp-Si-pol} and Theorem~\ref{thm-pomdp-opt}} \label{sec-pomdp-proof}
In this subsection we consider the partially observable control model defined in Section~\ref{sec-pomdp} and prove Prop.~\ref{prp-Si-pol} and Theorem~\ref{thm-pomdp-opt}. Because the proofs are almost identical to those given earlier for MDPs, we will only outline the main arguments.
For the partially observable problem, let $h^o_n: = (x_0, z_0, a_0, \ldots, x_n)$,
$h_n : = (x_0, z_0, a_0, \ldots, x_n, z_n)$, and $h'_n : = (x_0, z_0, a_0, \ldots, x_n, z_n, a_n)$ for $n \geq 0$, and denote their spaces by $H^o_n$, $H_n$, and $H'_n$, respectively. For each $n \geq 0$, the stochastic kernels $\nu_n(d a_n \,|\, h_n; p)$ and $Q_n(d x_{n+1} \,|\, h'_n; p)$ are as defined in Section~\ref{sec-proof-0} with the spaces $\Omega$, $H_n$, and $H'_n$ corresponding to those in the partially observable problem. In addition:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=0.65cm,labelwidth=!]
\item Let $O_n(d z_n \mid h^o_n; p )$ be a Borel measurable stochastic kernel on $\mathbb{Z}$ given $H^o_n \times \mathcal{P}(\Omega)$ such that for each $p \in \mathcal{P}(\Omega)$, it is a conditional distribution of $z_n$ given $h^o_n$ w.r.t.\ $p$.
\item Let $\hat \nu_n(d a_n \,|\, i_n; p)$ be a Borel measurable stochastic kernel on $\mathbb{A}$ given $I_n \times \mathcal{P}(\Omega)$ such that for each $p \in \mathcal{P}(\Omega)$, it is a conditional distribution of $a_n$ given $i_n$ w.r.t.\ $p$.
\end{itemize}
The existence of these stochastic kernels is ensured by \cite[Cor.\ 7.27.1]{bs}, as explained in Section~\ref{sec-proof-0}.
For $p \in \mathcal{P}(\Omega)$, consider these constraints:
\begin{align}
p \{ (i_n, a_n ) \in \Gamma_n \} & = 1, \qquad \forall \, n \geq 0; \label{cond-pomdp-strm1} \\
Q_n(dx_{n+1} \mid h'_n; p) & = q(d x_{n+1} \mid x_n, a_n), \qquad \forall \, n \geq 0, \ \ \text{$p$-almost surely};\label{cond-pomdp-strm2} \\
O_n(d z_n \mid h^o_n; p ) & = \delta_{f(x_n)}(dz_n ), \qquad \forall \, n \geq 0, \ \ \text{$p$-almost surely};\label{cond-pomdp-strm3} \\
\nu_n(da_n \mid h_n; p) & = \hat \nu_n( da_n \mid i_n; p), \qquad \forall \, n \geq 0, \ \ \text{$p$-almost surely}; \label{cond-pomdp-strm4} \\
\hat \nu_n( da_n \mid i_n; p) & \in \mathcal{D}(\mathbb{A}), \qquad \forall \, n \geq 0, \ \ \text{$p$-almost surely}. \label{cond-pomdp-strm5}
\end{align}
Clearly, any strategic measure $p \in \S_I$ satisfies (\ref{cond-pomdp-strm1})-(\ref{cond-pomdp-strm4}), and any $p \in \S'_I$, being induced by a nonrandomized policy, satisfies (\ref{cond-pomdp-strm1})-(\ref{cond-pomdp-strm5}).
The lemma below follows from essentially the same line of argument for Lemma~\ref{lem-strm1}.
\begin{lem} \label{lem-pomdp-strm}
The set $\S_I = \big\{ p \in \mathcal{P}(\Omega) \mid p \ \text{satisfies (\ref{cond-pomdp-strm1})-(\ref{cond-pomdp-strm4})} \big\}$. The set $\S'_I = \big\{ p \in \mathcal{P}(\Omega) \mid p \ \text{satisfies (\ref{cond-pomdp-strm1})-(\ref{cond-pomdp-strm5})} \big\} = \S_I \cap M'$, where the set $M'$ is as given in Cor.~\ref{cor-S-Sm}.
\end{lem}
Using Lemma~\ref{lem-pomdp-strm} and the same reasoning given in the proofs of Prop.~\ref{prp-Sc}, Cor.~\ref{cor-S-Sm}, and Lemma~\ref{lem-ext-set}, we obtain that the sets $\S_I, \S'_I, \tilde \S_I$, and ${\tilde \S}'_I$ are analytic, and that they are Borel if $\Gamma_n, n \geq 0,$ are Borel.
This establishes Prop.~\ref{prp-Si-pol}(i).
Proposition~\ref{prp-Si-pol}(ii) then follows from Lemma~\ref{lem-pomdp-strm} and essentially the same proof arguments for Prop.~\ref{prp-Sc-ummap-pol}. Finally, similarly to the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm-opt} or~\ref{thm-ac-basic}, Theorem~\ref{thm-pomdp-opt} is a consequence of Prop.~\ref{prp-Si-pol}, Lemmas~\ref{lem-ac-lsa},~\ref{lem-risk-lsa}, and \cite[Props.\ 7.47, 7.50]{bs}.
\subsubsection{Proofs of Propositions~\ref{prp-minmax-strm1} and~\ref{prp-minmax-strm2}} \label{sec-minmax-proof}
In order to reuse some of the results in Section~\ref{sec-proof} and avoid repeating similar arguments, we view the strategic measures in the minimax control problem as the strategic measures in an MDP induced by policies with particular structures. Specifically, define a set-valued mapping $A(\cdot)$ on $\mathbb{X}$ by $A(x): = \{ a = (a^1, a^2) \in \mathbb{A}_1 \times \mathbb{A}_2 \mid a^1 \in A_1(x), \, a^2 \in A_2(x) \}, x \in \mathbb{X}$. Let $\Gamma$ be the graph of $A(\cdot)$; i.e., $\Gamma : = \{ (x, a) \in \mathbb{X} \times \mathbb{A} \mid (x, a^1) \in \Gamma_1, \, (x, a^2) \in \Gamma_2 \}$. Note that $\Gamma$ is the preimage of $\Gamma_1 \times \Gamma_2$ under the homeomorphism $(x, a^1, a^2) \mapsto (x, a^1, x, a^2)$ from $\mathbb{X} \times \mathbb{A}$ into $\mathbb{X} \times \mathbb{A}_1 \times \mathbb{X} \times \mathbb{A}_2$. Therefore, $\Gamma$ is analytic (Borel) if $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$ are analytic (Borel) by \cite[Props.\ 7.38, 7.40]{bs}.
The strategic measures in the minimax control problem can also be viewed as the strategic measures of a subset $\hat \Pi$ of policies in the MDP whose control constraints are specified by $\Gamma$, where $\hat \Pi$ consists of those policies $\pi : = \{\mu_n\}_{n \geq 0}$ such that each $\mu_n$ has the product form
\begin{equation} \label{eq-minmax-pi}
\mu_n(da_n \mid h_n) = \mu_n^1(da_n^1 \mid i_n) \, \mu_n^2(da_n^2 \mid h_n),
\end{equation}
for some universally measurable stochastic kernel $\mu_n^1$ on $\mathbb{A}_1$ given $I_n$ and some universally measurable stochastic kernel $\mu_n^2$ on $\mathbb{A}_2$ given $H_n$.
Recall that $\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{A}_1) \otimes \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{A}_2)$ denotes the set of all product probability measures on $\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{A}_1 \times \mathbb{A}_2)$.
Recall also that for $n \geq 0$, $\hat \nu^1_n(d a^1_n \,|\, i_n; p)$ is a Borel measurable stochastic kernel on $\mathbb{A}_1$ given $I_n \times \mathcal{P}(\Omega)$ such that for each $p \in \mathcal{P}(\Omega)$, it is a conditional distribution of $a^1_n$ given $i_n$ w.r.t.\ $p$.
For $i = 1, 2$, let $\nu^i_n(da^i_n \,|\, h_n; p)$ be a Borel measurable stochastic kernel on $\mathbb{A}_i$ given $H_n \times \mathcal{P}(\Omega)$ such that for each $p \in \mathcal{P}(\Omega)$, it is a conditional distribution of $a^i_n$ given $h_n$ w.r.t.\ $p$.
For $p \in \mathcal{P}(\Omega)$, consider these constraints:
\begin{align}
\nu_n(da_n \mid h_n; p) & \in \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{A}_1) \otimes \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{A}_2), \qquad \forall \, n \geq 0, \ \ \text{$p$-almost surely}; \label{cond-minmax-strm1} \\
\nu^1_n(da^1_n \mid h_n; p) & = {\hat \nu}^1_n( da^1_n \mid i_n; p), \qquad \forall \, n \geq 0, \ \ \text{$p$-almost surely}. \label{cond-minmax-strm2}
\end{align}
\begin{lem} \label{lem-minmax-strm}
The set $\S_M = \big\{ p \in \mathcal{P}(\Omega) \mid p \ \text{satisfies (\ref{cond-strm1a})-(\ref{cond-strm1b}) and (\ref{cond-minmax-strm1})-(\ref{cond-minmax-strm2})} \big\}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}[Proof (sketch)]
Clearly, every $p \in \S_M$ satisfies the constraints (\ref{cond-strm1a})-(\ref{cond-strm1b}) and (\ref{cond-minmax-strm1})-(\ref{cond-minmax-strm2}). The converse follows from the same line of proof for Lemma~\ref{lem-strm1}. Specifically, if $p$ satisfies these constraints, we define a pair of policies $\pi_i : = \{\mu_n^i\}_{n \geq 0} \in \Pi_i$, $i = 1, 2$, for the minimax control problem as follows.
For each $n \geq 0$,
we let $\mu_n^1(da_n^1 \,|\, i_n) : = {\hat \nu}^1_n( da^1_n \,|\, i_n; p)$ except on a set $D^1_n \in \mathcal{U}(I_n)$ with $p\{ i_n \in D^1_n\} = 0$, and we let $\mu_n^2 (da_n^2 \,|\, h_n) : = \nu^2_n(da^2_n \,|\, h_n; p)$ except on a set $D^2_n \in \mathcal{U}(H_n)$ with $p\{ h_n \in D^2_n\} = 0$. These sets $D^1_n$ and $D^2_n$ consist of points where the control constraints are violated:
$$D^1_n : = \big\{ i_n \in I_n \mid {\hat \nu}^1_n( A_1(x_n) \mid i_n; p) < 1 \big\}, \qquad D^2_n : = \big\{ h_n \in H_n \mid \nu^2_n( A_2(x_n) \mid h_n; p) < 1 \big\}.$$
Then, with $f_i : \mathbb{X} \to \mathbb{A}_i$ being an analytically measurable selection of $\Gamma_i$, $i = 1, 2$, we let $\mu_n^1(da_n^1 \,|\, i_n) : = f_1(x_n)$ on $D^1_n$, and we let $\mu_n^2(da_n^2 \,|\, h_n) : = f_2(x_n)$ on $D^2_n$.
Finally, by viewing $(\pi_1, \pi_2)$ as a single policy of the form (\ref{eq-minmax-pi}) in an MDP, we can apply Lemma~\ref{lem-gen2} to obtain that $p = \rho_x[\pi_1, \pi_2]$ and hence $p \in \S_M$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Prop.~\ref{prp-minmax-strm1} (sketch)]
Consider first the set $\big\{ p \in \mathcal{P}(\Omega) \mid p \ \text{satisfies (\ref{cond-strm1a})-(\ref{cond-strm1b}) and (\ref{cond-minmax-strm2})} \big\}$. As the proof of Prop.~\ref{prp-Sc} showed, this set is analytic (Borel) if $\Gamma$ is analytic (Borel). By Lemma~\ref{lem-gen1}(iii), for each $n \geq 0$, the set $\{ p \in \mathcal{P}(\Omega) \mid p \ \text{satisfies (\ref{cond-minmax-strm1}) for the given $n$} \}$ is Borel. Combining these results with Lemma~\ref{lem-minmax-strm} yields that the set $\S_M$ is analytic, and that it is Borel if $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$ are Borel.
The desired conclusion for the set ${\tilde \S}_M$ follows from the same proof for Lemma~\ref{lem-ext-set}. This proves part (i) of the proposition. Part (ii) of the proposition follows from arguments similar to those given in the proofs of Prop.~\ref{prp-Sc-ummap-pol} and Lemma~\ref{lem-minmax-strm}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Prop.~\ref{prp-minmax-strm2}]
{\bf (i)} For $n \geq 0$, let $E_n : = \big\{ (p, p') \in \mathcal{P}(\Omega)^2 \mid (p, p') \ \text{satisfies (\ref{eq-minmax-rel1}) for the given $n$} \big\}$ and
$F_n : = \big\{ (p, p') \in \mathcal{P}(\Omega)^2 \mid (p, p') \ \text{satisfies (\ref{eq-minmax-rel2}) for the given $n$} \big\}$.
We first prove that these sets are Borel. Indeed, for the set $E_n$, this follows from applying Lemma~\ref{lem-gen1}(iv) with $(\theta, p)$ in the lemma corresponding to $(p,p')$ here and with $\Psi_1$ and $\Psi_2$ corresponding to $\hat \nu_n^1(da_n^1 \mid i_n; p')$ and $ \hat \nu_n^1(da_n^1 \mid i_n; p)$, respectively.
Consider the set $F_n$. Note that the marginal $\hat p_{I_n}(p)$ of $p$ on $I_n$ is a Borel measurable function from $\mathcal{P}(\Omega)$ into $\mathcal{P}(I_n)$. For $\eta_1, \eta_2 \in \mathcal{P}(I_n)$, we write $\eta_1 \ll \eta_2$ if $\eta_1$ is absolutely continuous w.r.t.\ $\eta_2$, and we denote by $s(\eta_1, \eta_2)$ the singular part of $\eta_1$ w.r.t.\ $\eta_2$. By \cite[Thm.\ 2.10]{DuF65}, $s(\cdot, \cdot)$ is a Borel measurable function from $\mathcal{P}(I_n)^2$ into the space of nonnegative finite measures on $I_n$ (equipped with the topology of weak convergence), and therefore, the set
$$B : = \big\{ (\eta_1, \eta_2) \in \mathcal{P}(I_n)^2 \mid \eta_1 \ll \eta_2 \big\} = \big\{ (\eta_1, \eta_2) \in \mathcal{P}(I_n)^2 \mid s(\eta_1, \eta_2)(I_n) = 0 \big\}$$
is Borel by \cite[Thms.\ 2.1, 2.10]{DuF65}. Since $F_n$ is the preimage of $B$ under the Borel measurable mapping $(p, p') \mapsto \big(\hat p_{I_n}(p'), \hat p_{I_n}(p) \big)$, it follows that $F_n$ is Borel.
Now ${\widehat \S}_M = D \cap \big(\mathbb{X} \times \cap_{n \geq 0} (E_n \cap F_n) \big)$, where
$D : = \big\{ (x, p, p') \in \mathbb{X} \times \mathcal{P}(\Omega)^2 \mid (x, p) \in {\tilde \S}_M, \, (x, p') \in {\tilde \S}_M \big\}$.
Since $D$ is the preimage of the set ${\tilde \S}_M \times {\tilde \S}_M$ under the homeomorphism $(x, p, p') \mapsto (x, p, x, p')$ from $\mathbb{X} \times \mathcal{P}(\Omega)^2$ into $\mathbb{X} \times \mathcal{P}(\Omega) \times \mathbb{X} \times \mathcal{P}(\Omega)$, $D$ is analytic (Borel) if ${\tilde \S}_M$ is analytic (Borel) by \cite[Props.\ 7.38, 7.40]{bs}.
Combining this with Prop.~\ref{prp-minmax-strm1}(i) and the Borel measurability of $E_n$ and $F_n$, it follows that ${\widehat \S}_M$ is analytic (Borel) if $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$ are analytic (Borel). This proves part (i) of the proposition.
\smallskip
\noindent{\bf (ii)} Let $p = \rho_x[\pi_1, \pi_2]$ for some $x \in \mathbb{X}$, $\pi_1 : = \{ \mu_n^1\}_{n \geq 0} \in \Pi_1$, and $\pi_2 \in \Pi_2$.
It is clear that under Assumption~\ref{cond-minimax-abscont}, $\rho_x[\pi_1, \tilde \pi_2] \in {\widehat \S}_M(x,p)$ for all $\tilde \pi_2 \in \Pi_2$. Now consider an arbitrary $p' \in {\widehat \S}_M(x,p)$. Then $p' = \rho_x[\tilde \pi_1, \tilde \pi_2]$ for some $\tilde \pi_i = \{\tilde \mu_n^i\}_{n \geq 0} \in \Pi_i$, $i = 1, 2$, and furthermore, in view of (\ref{eq-minmax-rel1}), for all $n \geq 0$,
$$p' \big\{ \hat \nu_n^1(da_n^1 \mid i_n; p') = \tilde \mu_n^1(da_n^1 \mid i_n) \big\} = 1, \qquad p' \big\{ \hat \nu_n^1(da_n^1 \mid i_n; p') = \hat \nu_n^1(da_n^1 \mid i_n; p) \big\} = 1,$$
which implies $p' \big\{ \tilde \mu_n^1(da_n^1 \mid i_n) = \hat \nu_n^1(da_n^1 \mid i_n; p) \big\} = 1$. Combining this with the relations
$$\hat p_{I_n}(p') \ll \hat p_{I_n}(p) \ \ \ \text{and} \ \ \ p \big\{ \hat \nu_n^1(da_n^1 \mid i_n; p) = \mu_n^1(da_n^1 \mid i_n) \big\} = 1, \qquad \forall \, n \geq 0, $$
(where the first relation is from (\ref{eq-minmax-rel2})), we obtain that
$p'\big\{ \tilde \mu_n^1(da_n^1 \mid i_n) = \mu_n^1(da_n^1 \mid i_n) \big\} = 1$ for all $n \geq 0$.
This implies
$$p' \big\{ \nu_n(da_n \mid h_n; p') = \mu_n^1(da_n^1 \mid i_n) \, \tilde \mu_n^2(d a_n^2 \mid h_n),\, \forall \, n \geq 0 \big\} = 1.$$
Then by viewing $(\pi_1, \tilde \pi_2)$ as a single policy of the form (\ref{eq-minmax-pi}) in an MDP and by applying Lemma~\ref{lem-gen2}, we have that $p'= \rho_x[\pi_1, \tilde \pi_2]$. This proves part (ii) of the proposition.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Projective Class $\Sigma_2^1$ and Proof of Proposition~\ref{prp-ext-sel}} \label{sec-sel-proof}
First, we briefly explain some concepts and results from descriptive set theory \cite{Kec95} that will be needed in proving Prop.~\ref{prp-ext-sel}.
In descriptive set theory, the projective class $\Sigma_2^1$ consists of all sets $B$ such that for some Polish spaces $X$ and $Y$,
$B \subset X$ and $B$ is the image of some coanalytic set in $Y$ under a continuous mapping from $Y$ into $X$ \cite[Sec.\ 37.A]{Kec95}. The class $\Sigma_2^1$ is closed under countable intersections and unions, and continuous preimages and images (in particular, projections) \cite[Prop.\ 37.1]{Kec95}. It is also closed under the Souslin operation and contains all analytically measurable sets, as well as all limit-measurable sets (cf.\ \cite[Sec.\ 37.A]{Kec95} and \cite[Prop.\ B.10]{bs}).
We call a set in the class $\Sigma_2^1$ a $\Sigma_2^1$ set. Besides the aforementioned basic facts, the following results about $\Sigma_2^1$ sets are important for our purpose.
Let $X$ and $Y$ be Polish spaces. For a function $f$, let $\text{grh} \, f$ denote its graph.
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=0.7cm,labelwidth=!]
\item[\rm (a)] A uniformization theorem of Kond{\^o} \cite[Cor.\ 38.7]{Kec95} asserts that
if $B$ is a $\Sigma_2^1$ set in $X \times Y$,
then there exists a function $f : \text{proj}_X(B) \to Y$ with $\text{grh} \, f \subset B$ such that $\text{grh} \, f$ is a $\Sigma_2^1$ set.
\item[\rm (b)] Under the axiom of analytic determinacy, $\Sigma_2^1$ sets are universally measurable \cite[Thm.\ 36.20]{Kec95}.
\item[\rm (c)] Under the axiom of analytic determinacy, the function $f$ in (a) is universally measurable.
(This follows from (a) and (b), since for $E \in \mathcal{B}(Y)$, $f^{-1}(E) = \text{proj}_X\big(\text{grh} \, f \cap X \times E\big)$ is a $\Sigma_2^1$ set.)
\end{enumerate}
We are now ready to prove Prop.~\ref{prp-ext-sel}. The line of argument is almost the same as that of \cite[Props.\ 7.47, 7.50]{bs} and similar to that of \cite[Cor.\ 1, Thm.\ 2]{BrP73}, except that we use the above results for $\Sigma_2^1$ sets instead of the properties of analytic or Borel sets used in those cited references.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Prop.~\ref{prp-ext-sel}]
{\bf (i)} For each $r \in \mathbb{R}$, the set $\{ (x, y) \in D \mid f(x, y) < r \}$ is a $\Sigma_2^1$ set. To see this, write it as $D \setminus F_r$, where $F_r : = \{ (x, y) \in D \mid f(x, y) \geq r \}$. Since $f$ is upper semianalytic, $F_r$ is analytic \cite[Lem.\ 7.30(1)]{bs}; by assumption $D$ is analytic. Therefore, $D \setminus F_r$ is a $\Sigma_2^1$ set.
Then the set
$$E_r : = \{ x \in \text{proj}_X(D) \mid f^*(x) < r \} = \text{proj}_X \big( \{ (x, y) \in D \mid f(x, y) < r \} \big)
$$
is also a $\Sigma_2^1$ set \cite[Prop.\ 37.1]{Kec95}, so by \cite[Thm.\ 36.20]{Kec95}, under the axiom of analytic determinacy, $E_r$ is universally measurable for all $r \in \mathbb{R}$. By \cite[Thm.\ 4.1.6]{Dud02}, this implies that $f^*$ is universally measurable.
\smallskip
\noindent {\bf (ii)}
To prove the universal measurability of $E^*$, consider first the set
\begin{align}
G : = & \, \big\{ (x, y, b) \in X \times Y \times \bar \mathbb{R} \mid (x, y) \in D, \, f(x, y) \leq b \big\} \notag \\
= & \, \cap_{k \geq 1} \cup_{r \in \bar \mathbb{Q}} \, \big\{ (x, y, b) \in X \times Y \times \bar \mathbb{R} \,\big|\, (x, y) \in D, \, f(x, y) \leq r, \, r \leq b + k^{-1} \big\} \label{eq-sel-prf1}
\end{align}
where $\bar \mathbb{Q} : = \mathbb{Q} \cup \{ - \infty, + \infty\}$ (recall that $\mathbb{Q}$ is the set of rational numbers). The preceding proof for part (i) showed also that $\{ (x, y) \in D \mid f(x, y) \leq r \}$ is a $\Sigma_2^1$ set for $r \in \bar \mathbb{R}$ (since it is $D$ for $r = +\infty$, and for $r < +\infty$, it can be expressed as a countable intersection of sets of the form $\{ (x, y) \in D \mid f(x, y) < r' \}$, $r' \in \mathbb{R}$). This implies that for each $k$ and $r$, the set in the right-hand side of (\ref{eq-sel-prf1}) is a $\Sigma_2^1$ set. Consequently, $G$ and $\text{proj}_{X \times \bar \mathbb{R}} (G)$ are $\Sigma_2^1$ sets and therefore, universally measurable under the axiom of analytic determinacy \cite[Thm.\ 36.20]{Kec95}.
Next, define a mapping $T: \text{proj}_X(D) \to X \times \bar \mathbb{R}$ by $T(x): = (x, f^*(x))$.
The set $\text{proj}_X(D)$ is analytic since $D$ is analytic \cite[Prop.\ 7.39]{bs}.
As proved in (i), $f^*$ is universally measurable. Therefore, $T$ is universally measurable.
Since the set $E^*$ can be expressed as
$$E^* = \big\{ x \in \text{proj}_X(D) \mid \exists \, y \in D_x \ \text{s.t.} \ f(x, y) = f^*(x) \big\} = T^{-1} \big(\text{proj}_{X \times \bar \mathbb{R}} (G) \big),$$
in view of the universal measurability of $\text{proj}_{X \times \bar \mathbb{R}} (G)$ proved earlier, we have, by \cite[Cor.\ 7.44.1]{bs}, that $E^*$ is universally measurable.
We now prove the rest of the proposition, by constructing a function $\psi$ that satisfies the requirements for an arbitrary $\epsilon > 0$. To this end, we first define two other functions $\bar \psi$ and $\psi^*$ that will be needed in the construction.
Since $D$ is analytic, by the Jankov-von Neumann selection theorem \cite[Prop.\ 7.49]{bs}, there exists an analytically measurable function $\bar \psi: \text{proj}_X(D) \to Y$ with $\text{grh} \, \bar \psi \subset D$.
As proved above, $G$ is a $\Sigma_2^1$ set, so by a uniformization theorem of Kond{\^o} \cite[Cor.\ 38.7]{Kec95}, there exists a function $\phi: \text{proj}_{X \times \bar \mathbb{R}} (G) \to Y$ with $\text{grh} \, \phi \subset G$ such that $\text{grh} \, \phi$ is a $\Sigma_2^1$ set. Then $\phi$ is universally measurable under the axiom of analytic determinacy, as discussed before the proof.
Consequently, the function $\psi^*: E^* \to Y$ with $\psi^*(x) : = \phi(x, f^*(x)) = (\phi \circ T)(x)$ is also universally measurable \cite[Prop.\ 7.44]{bs}. Note that by the definition of $\psi^*$,
\begin{equation} \label{eq-sel-prf2}
\psi^*(x) \in D_x, \ \ \ f(x, \psi^*(x))= f^*(x), \qquad \forall \, x \in E^*.
\end{equation}
We now proceed to construct the function $\psi$.
For integers $k$, define sets
$$ F(k) : = \{ (x, y) \in D \mid f(x, y) < k \epsilon \}, \qquad B(k) : = \{ x \in \text{proj}_X(D) \mid (k-1) \epsilon \leq f^*(x) < k \epsilon \},$$
$$B(-\infty) : = \{ x \in \text{proj}_X(D) \mid f^*(x) = - \infty \}, \qquad B(+\infty) : = \{ x \in \text{proj}_X(D) \mid f^*(x) = + \infty \}.$$
As proved earlier in (i), $F(k)$ is a $\Sigma^1_2$ set, and $f^*$ is universally measurable. So, under the axiom of analytic determinacy, all these sets are universally measurable.
For each $k$,
by a uniformization theorem of Kond{\^o} \cite[Cor.\ 38.7]{Kec95}, there exists a function
$\psi_k : \text{proj}_X\big(F(k)\big) \to Y$ with $\text{grh} \, \psi_k \subset F(k)$ such that $\text{grh} \, \psi_k$ is a $\Sigma_2^1$ set. As discussed before the proof, under the axiom of analytic determinacy, $\psi_k$ is universally measurable.
Let $k^*$ be an integer such that $k^* \leq - \epsilon^{-2}$. Now define $\psi : \text{proj}_X(D) \to Y$ as follows.
Let $\psi(x) : = \psi^*(x)$ for $x \in E^*$. For $x \in \text{proj}_X(D) \setminus E^*$, let
$$
\psi(x) : = \begin{cases}
\psi_k(x) & \text{if} \ x \in B(k), \\
\bar \psi(x) & \text{if} \ x \in B(+\infty), \\
\psi_{k^*}(x) & \text{if} \ x \in B(-\infty).
\end{cases}
$$
Then $\psi$ is universally measurable and $\text{grh} \, \psi \subset D$, and moreover, in view of (\ref{eq-sel-prf2}) and the definitions of $B(k), B(+\infty)$, and $B(-\infty)$, $\psi$ satisfies (\ref{eq-ext-sel1})-(\ref{eq-ext-sel2}), as required. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem} \rm \label{rmk-sigma21}
As can be seen from the preceding proof, for the conclusions of Prop.~\ref{prp-ext-sel} to hold, it suffices that $D$ is a $\Sigma_2^1$ set and $f$ is such that $\{ (x, y) \in D \mid f(x, y) < r \}$ is a $\Sigma_2^1$ set. (Essentially we only need to make a minor change in the preceding proof, which is to apply Kond{\^o}'s uniformization theorem to $D$ in the definition of the function $\bar \psi$.) One can draw a parallel between this generalization of Prop.~\ref{prp-ext-sel} and the result in \cite[Props.\ 7.47, 7.50]{bs}, in which the above two sets are assumed to be analytic. Although this is beyond our scope, we note that the similarity between these two results reflects the parallelism between $\Sigma_2^1$ sets and analytic sets (see \cite[Sec.\ 37]{Kec95} on the hierarchy of projective classes for more details).
\qed
\end{rem}
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The author is grateful to Professor Eugene Feinberg for pointing her to several prior results on strategic measures and for helpful comments on earlier versions of this work.
\addcontentsline{toc}{section}{References}
\bibliographystyle{apa}
\let\oldbibliography\thebibliography
\renewcommand{\thebibliography}[1]{%
\oldbibliography{#1}%
\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
}
{\fontsize{9}{11} \selectfont
|
\section{Introduction}
This article presents a new method to reconstruct width variations of a slowly varying waveguide from multi-frequency one side boundary measurements in dimension 2. The considered varying waveguide is described by
\begin{equation} \Omega:=\left\{(x,y)\in \mathbb{R}^2 \, |\, 0<y<h(x)\right\},
\end{equation}
where $h\in \mathcal{C}^2(\mathbb{R})\cap W^{2,\infty}(\mathbb{R})$ is a positive profile function defining the top boundary. The bottom boundary is assumed to be flat (see an illustration in Figure \ref{meas}) but a similar analysis could be done when both boundaries are varying. In the time-harmonic regime, the wavefield $u$ satisfies the Helmholtz equation with Neumann boundary conditions
\begin{equation}\label{eqdebut}
\left\{\begin{array}{cl}
\Delta u+k^2u =- f & \text{ in } \Omega,\\ \partial_\nu u =b & \text{ on }\partial\Omega,
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
where $k\in (0,+\infty)$ is the frequency, $f$ is an interior source term, and $b$ is a boundary source term. In this work, a waveguide is said to be slowly varying when there exists a small parameter $\eta>0$ such that $\Vert h'\Vert_{\text{L}^\infty(\mathbb{R})}\leq \eta$ and $\Vert h''\Vert_{\text{L}^\infty(\mathbb{R})}\leq \eta^2$. Such waveguides are good models of ducts, corroded pipes, or metal plates (see \cite{honarvar1,legrand1}).
We focus in this work on the recovery of the function $h$ modeling the waveguide shape from the knowledge of the wavefield $d^\text{ex}(x) :=u(x,0)$ on one surface of the waveguide and for multiple frequencies $k$. This model and inverse problem is inspired from non destructive monitoring of plates done in \cite{balogun1,legrand2,ces1}. Hence we assume the knowledge of measurements of $u(x,y)$ for $x\in I$ where $I$ is an interval of $\mathbb{R}$ and $y=0$ in a frequency interval $K\subset (0,+\infty)$, as shown in Figure \ref{meas}.
If $k$ is chosen such that $k=n\pi/h(x^\star_k)$ with $n\in \mathbb{N}$ and $x^\star_k\in \mathbb{R}$, the Helmholtz problem is not well posed in general. Nevertheless, we prove in \cite{bonnetier2} that there exists a unique solution to this problem as long as the waveguide is slowly varying. In the same work, we also give a suitable explicit approximation of the wavefield that explicitly depends on $x^\star_k$. The aim in this article to recover the position of $x^\star_k$ for different frequencies, and then to recover the shape function $h$. Using these frequencies, the proposed inverse problem is highly non linear but a unique and stable recovering of $h$ is possible up to a controllable approximation error.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (-2,0) -- (9,0);
\draw (-2,1) -- (1,1);
\draw (7,1.2998) -- (9,1.2998);
\draw [domain=1:7, samples=200] plot (\x,{0.3*sin(4*pi*sqrt(\x)/sqrt(7) r)+1-0.3*sin(4*pi/sqrt(7) r)});
\draw (-2.7,0) node{$y=0$};
\draw (-2.8,1) node{$y=h(x)$};
\draw [white,fill=gray!40] (-1,0.9)--(1,0.9)--(1,1.1)--(-1,1.1)--(-1,0.9);
\draw (0,1.2) node[above]{$b$};
\draw [white,fill=gray!40] (3,0.6) circle (0.3);
\draw (3,0.6) node{$f$};
\draw (-1.5,0) node[regular polygon,regular polygon sides=4, fill=black, scale=0.5]{};
\draw (0.5,0) node[regular polygon,regular polygon sides=4, fill=black, scale=0.5]{};
\draw (2.5,0) node[regular polygon,regular polygon sides=4, fill=black, scale=0.5]{};
\draw (4.5,0) node[regular polygon,regular polygon sides=4, fill=black, scale=0.5]{};
\draw (6.5,0) node[regular polygon,regular polygon sides=4, fill=black, scale=0.5]{};
\draw (8.5,0) node[regular polygon,regular polygon sides=4, fill=black, scale=0.5]{};
\draw (-0.5,0) node[regular polygon,regular polygon sides=4, fill=black, scale=0.5]{};
\draw (1.5,0) node[regular polygon,regular polygon sides=4, fill=black, scale=0.5]{};
\draw (3.5,0) node[regular polygon,regular polygon sides=4, fill=black, scale=0.5]{};
\draw (5.5,0) node[regular polygon,regular polygon sides=4, fill=black, scale=0.5]{};
\draw (7.5,0) node[regular polygon,regular polygon sides=4, fill=black, scale=0.5]{};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{meas} Parametrization of a slowly variable waveguide of width $h$. A wavefield $u$ is generated by an internal source $f$ and/or a boundary source $b$. Squares represent measurements of $u$ taken on the surface $y=0$.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Scientific context}
The detection and reconstruction of shape defects in a waveguide are mentioned in different works. In articles \cite{lu1,abra1,abra2}, the authors use a conformal mapping to map the geometry of the perturbed waveguide to that of a regular waveguide. This method is beneficial to understand the propagation of waves in irregular waveguides. Still, it is not easily adaptable to the inverse problem and the reconstruction of defects since the transformation to a regular waveguide is not explicit and proves numerically expensive. Another approach based on the scattering field treatment is developed in \cite{norgren1}. Finally, articles \cite{pagneux2,folguera1} study the forward problem and give leads on how to use one side boundary measurements to reconstruct the width of a slowly varying waveguide.
Our work concerns a different approach, also used in \cite{bao1,bao2}, where we assume the data to be available for a whole interval of frequencies. This provides additional information that should help to localize and reconstruct the shape of the defect. Moreover, the use of multi-frequency data often provides uniqueness of the reconstruction (see \cite{acosta1}) and a better stability (see \cite{bao3,isakov1,sini1}).
In a previous work \cite{bonnetier1}, we already
presented a method to reconstruct small width variations using an inverse scattering procedure. However,
we
avoided all the cut-off frequencies of the waveguide, which are frequencies $k>0$ such that $k=n\pi/h(x^\star_k)$ for a mode $n\in \mathbb{N}$ and a longitudinal position $x^\star_k$. Since experimental works presented in \cite{balogun1,ces1} suggest that these resonant frequencies are helpful to reconstruct width variations, we choose in this article to work only with these frequencies. Using the study of the forward problem already done in \cite{bonnetier2}, we know that if $k$ is a locally resonant frequency, the wavefield $u$ strongly depends on $x^\star_k$. The main idea of our reconstruction method is to use measurements of $u$ to find back $x^\star_k$. Since $h(x^\star_k)=n\pi/k$, it then gives up the information about the width of the waveguide in one point. By taking different locally resonant frequencies $k$, we show that one can obtain a complete approximation of the width $h$ of the waveguide.
\subsection{Outline of the paper}
The key result of this paper is Theorem \ref{th2}, which proves that $u$ is close to a three parameters Airy function, one parameter being $x^\star_k$. As explained in Proposition \ref{leastsq}, it enables us to find the value of $x^\star_k$ for every locally resonant frequency, and to prove that our reconstruction method is $\text{L}^\infty$-stable. The paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we briefly recall results on the modal decomposition and the study of the forward problem. In section 3, we study the inverse problem with measurements taken at the surface of the waveguide and we provide a stability result for the reconstruction of the width of the waveguide. Finally, in section 4, we provide numerical reconstruction of different width defects.
\subsection{Notations}
The varying waveguide is denoted by $\Omega$, its boundary by $\partial\Omega$ and the subscript “top” (resp. “bot”) indicates the upper boundary of the waveguide (resp. lower). We denote $\nu$ the outer normal unit vector. For every $\ell>0$, we set $\Omega_\ell= \{(x,y)\in \Omega\, |\, |x|<\ell\}$. Spaces $\text{H}^1$ $\text{H}^2$, $W^{1,1}$, $\text{H}^{1/2}$ over $\Omega$ or $\mathbb{R}$ are classic Sobolev spaces. The Airy function of the first kind (resp. second kind) is denoted by $\mathcal{A}$ (resp. $\mathcal{B}$). They are linear independent solutions of the Airy equation $y''-xy=0$ (see \cite{abramowitz1} for more results about Airy functions). See in Figure \ref{airy} the graph of these two functions. The term $\delta_{x=s}$ denotes the Dirac distribution at the point $s\in \mathbb{R}$ and the function $\textbf{1}_{E}$ is the indicator function of the set $E$. Finally, the notation $\{a:b:\ell\}$ designates the uniform discretization of the interval $[a,b]$ with $\ell$ points.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{.5}{\input{airy}}
\caption{\label{airy} Representation of the Airy functions $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Brief study of the forward problem}
Before studying the inverse problem associated with the reconstruction of the width in a varying waveguide, we need to study the forward problem in order to find an approximation of the available data. In this section, we briefly recall all the main results on the study of the forward problem. These results and their proofs can be found in \cite{bonnetier1,bourgeois1}.
A useful tool when working in waveguides is the modal decomposition. The following definition provides a modal decomposition in varying waveguides:
\begin{defi}\label{def:modes} We define the sequence of functions $(\varphi_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ by
\begin{equation}\label{phin}
\forall (x,y)\in \Omega,\quad \varphi_n(x,y) :=
\left\{\begin{array}{cl}
1/\sqrt{h(x)}\quad &\text{if } n=0, \\
\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{h(x)}}\cos\left(\frac{n\pi y}{h(x)}\right)\quad &\text{if } n\geq 1,
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
which for any fixed $x\in \mathbb{R}$ defines an orthonormal basis of $\text{L}^2(0,h(x))$.\end{defi}
Hence, a solution $u \in \text{H}^2_{\text{loc}}\big(\Omega\big)$ of \eqref{eqdebut} admits a unique modal decomposition
\begin{equation}\label{decmode}
u(x,y)=\sum_{n\in \mathbb{N}} u_{n}(x) \varphi_n(x,y)\quad\text{where}\quad u_{n}(x):=\int_0^{h(x)} u(x,y)\varphi_n(x,y)\mathrm{d} y.
\end{equation}
Note that $ u_{n}$ does not satisfy in general any nice equation. However, when $h$ is constant (outside of $\supp(h')$), it satisfies an equation of the form $u_{n}''+k_n^2 u_{n}=- g_n$ where $k_n^2=k^2-n^2\pi^2/h^2$ is the wavenumber. When $h$ is variable, the decomposition \eqref{decmode} motivates the following definition:
\begin{defi}\label{def:wavenumber} The local wavenumber function of the mode $n\in\mathbb{N}$ is the complex function $k_n:\mathbb{R}\to \mathbb{C}$ defined by
\begin{equation}
k_n^2(x):=k^2-\frac{n^2\pi^2}{h(x)^2},
\end{equation}
with $\text{Re}(k_n), \text{Im}(k_n)\geq 0$.
\end{defi}
In this work, as $h(x)$ is non constant, $k_n(x)$ may vanish for some $x\in\mathbb{R}$ and change from a positive real number to a purely imaginary one. We then distinguish three different situations:
\begin{defi} A mode $n\in\mathbb{N}$ falls in one of these three situations:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $n<kh(x)/\pi$ for all $x\in\mathbb{R}$ then $k_n(x)\in(0,+\infty)$ for all $x\in\mathbb{R}$ and the mode $n$ is called propagative.
\item If $n>kh(x)/\pi$ for all $x\in\mathbb{R}$ then $k_n(x)\in i(0,+\infty)$ for all $x\in\mathbb{R}$ and the mode $n$ is called evanescent.
\item If there exists $x^\star_k\in \mathbb{R}$ such that $n=kh(x^\star_k)/\pi$ the mode $n$ is called locally resonant. Such points $x^\star_k$ are called resonant points, and there are simple if $h'(x^\star_k)\neq 0$, and multiple otherwise.
\end{enumerate}
A frequency $k>0$ for which there exists at least a locally resonant mode is called a locally resonant frequency.
\end{defi}
Using the wavenumber function, one can adapt the classic Sommerfeld (or outgoing) condition, defined in \cite{bonnetier1} for regular waveguides, to general varying waveguides $\Omega$. This condition is used to guarantee uniqueness for the source problem given in equation \eqref{eqdebut}.
\begin{defi}\label{def:outgoing} A wavefield $ u_k \in \text{H}^2_{\text{loc}}\big( \Omega\big)$ is said to be outgoing if it satisfies
\begin{equation} \label{sommer}\left| u_{n}'(x)\frac{x}{|x|}-ik_n(x) u_{n}(x) \right| \underset{|x|\rightarrow +\infty}{\longrightarrow} 0 \qquad \forall n\in \mathbb{N},
\end{equation}
where $u_{n}$ is given in \eqref{decmode}.
\end{defi}
In all this work, we make the following assumptions:
\begin{asum}\label{def:slow} We assume that $h\in \mathcal{C}^2(\mathbb{R})\cap W^{2,\infty}(\mathbb{R})$ with $h'$ compactly supported and we then define two constants $0<h_{\min}\leq h_{\max}<+\infty$ such that
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\forall x\in \mathbb{R} \quad h_{\min} \leq h(x) \leq h_{\max},
\end{equation}
and $h(x)=h_{\min}$ or $h(x)=h_{\max}$ if $x\notin \supp(h')$. For such a function, we define a parameter $\eta>0$ that satisfies
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\Vert h'\Vert_{\text{L}^\infty(\mathbb{R})} <\eta\quad\text{ and } \quad \Vert h''\Vert_{\text{L}^\infty(\mathbb{R})}<\eta^2.
\end{equation}
\end{asum}
Such a waveguide is represented in Figure \ref{wg}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (-1.5,0) -- (9,0);
\draw (-1.5,1) -- (0,1);
\draw (7,1.4) -- (9,1.4);
\draw (4.5,0.6) node{$\Omega$};
\draw [domain=0:7, samples=100] plot (\x,{1+12/7/7/7/7/7*\x*\x*\x*(\x*\x/5-7*\x/2+49/3+0.02)});
\draw (-1.5,1) node[left]{$h_{\min}$};
\draw (9,1.4) node[right]{$h_{\max}$};
\draw [dashed] (0,-0.2)--(0,1.6);
\draw [dashed] (7,-0.2)--(7,1.6);
\draw [<->] (0.1,-0.1)--(6.9,-0.1);
\draw (3.5,-0.4) node{supp($h'$)};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{wg} Representation of an increasing slowly and compactly varying waveguide.}
\end{figure}
The forward source problem is defined for every frequency $k>0$ by
\begin{equation}\label{eqmatlab} (\mathcal{H}_k) : \quad
\left\{\begin{array}{cl} \Delta u +k^2 u= -f & \text{ in } \Omega, \\
\partial_\nu u =b_\text{top} &\text{ in } \partial\Omega_\text{top},\\
\partial_\nu u =b_\text{bot} &\text{ in } \partial\Omega_\text{bot}, \\
u\text{ is outgoing,} \end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
As explained in \cite{bourgeois1}, this problem is not well-posed when $\{x \,|\, k_n(x)=0\}$ is a non-trivial interval of $\mathbb{R}$. This especially happens when $k=n\pi/h_{\min}$ or $k=n\pi/h_{\max}$. We then avoid these two forbidden situations and we set
\begin{equation}\label{delta}
\delta(k):=\min_{n\in \mathbb{N}}\left(\sqrt{\left|k^2-\frac{n^2\pi^2}{{h_{\min}}^2}\right|},\sqrt{\left|k^2-\frac{n^2\pi^2}{{h_{\max}}^2}\right|} \right).
\end{equation}
From now on, we define $(f_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ the modal decomposition of $f$, and
\begin{equation}\label{gn}
g_n(x):=\frac{f_n(x)}{\sqrt{h(x)}}+\varphi_n(1)b_\text{top}(x)\frac{\sqrt{1+(h'(x))^2}}{\sqrt{h}}+\varphi_n(0)b_\text{bot}(x) \frac{1}{\sqrt{h}}.
\end{equation}
Using the work done in \cite{bonnetier2}, we are able to provide an approximation of the solution of \eqref{eqmatlab}. If $h$ is increasing, we can state the following result using Theorem 1 and Remark 3 in \cite{bonnetier2}.
\begin{theorem}\label{th1}
Let $h$ be an increasing function defining a varying waveguide $\Omega$ that satisfies Assumption \ref{def:slow} with a variation parameter $\eta>0$. Consider sources $f\in \text{L}^\infty_c(\Omega)$, $b:=(b_\text{bot},b_\text{top})\in ({\text{H}}^{1/2}(\mathbb{R}))^2\cap (\text{L}^\infty_c(\mathbb{R})^2)$. Assume that there is a unique locally resonant mode $N\in \mathbb{N}$, associated with a simple resonant point $x^\star_k\in\mathbb{R}$. Let $I\subset \mathbb{R}$ be an interval of length $R>0$, and $\Omega_I:=\{(x,y)\in \Omega \, |\, x\in I\}$.
There exists $\eta_0>0$ depending only on $h_{\min}$, $h_{\max}$, $\delta(k)$ and $R$ such that if $\eta\leq \eta_0$, then the problem $(\mathcal{H}_k)$ admits a unique solution $u\in \text{H}^2_{\text{loc}}\big(\Omega)$. Moreover, this solution is approached by $u^{\text{app}}$ defined for almost every $(x,y)\in \Omega$ by
\begin{equation}\label{greentot}
u^{\text{app}}(x,y):=\sum_{n\in \mathbb{N}} \left(\int_\mathbb{R} G_{n}^{\text{app}}(x,s)g_n(s)\mathrm{d} s\right)\varphi_n\left(y\right),
\end{equation}
where $(f_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ is the modal decomposition of $f$, $\varphi_n$ is defined in \eqref{phin} and $G_{n}^{\text{app}}$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{greenfunction}
G_{n}^{\text{app}}(x,s):=
\left\{\begin{aligned}
&\frac{i}{2\sqrt{k_n(s)k_n(x)}}\exp\left(i\left|\int_s^xk_n\right|\right), & \quad\text{ if } n<N,\\
&\frac{1}{2\sqrt{|k_n|(s)|k_n|(x)}}\exp\left(-\left|\int_s^x|k_n|\right|\right), & \quad\text{if } n>N,\\
&\left\{\begin{aligned}
\frac{\pi(\xi(s)\xi(x))^{1/4}}{\sqrt{k_n(s)k_n(x)}}\big(i\mathcal{A}+\mathcal{B}\big)\circ\xi(s)\mathcal{A}\circ\xi(x)& \quad\text{ if } x<s, \\
\frac{\pi(\xi(s)\xi(x))^{1/4}}{\sqrt{k_n(s)k_n(x)}}\big(i\mathcal{A}+\mathcal{B}\big)\circ\xi(x)\mathcal{A}\circ\xi(s)& \quad\text{ if } x>s, \\
\end{aligned}\right.
&\quad\text{ if } n=N.
\end{aligned}\right.\end{equation}
Function $k_n$ is the wavenumber function defined in Definition \ref{def:wavenumber} and the function $\xi$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:xi}
\xi(x):=
\left\{\begin{aligned}
\left(-\frac{3}{2}i\int_x^{x^\star_k}k_N(t)\mathrm{d} t\right)^{2/3} & \text{ if } x<x^\star_k, \\ -\left(\frac{3}{2}\int_{x^\star_k}^x k_N(t) \mathrm{d} t \right)^{2/3} & \text{ if } x>x^\star_k.
\end{aligned}\right.\end{equation}
Precisely, there exist a constant $C_1>0$ depending only on $h_{\min}$, $h_{\max}$ and $N$ such that
\begin{equation}
\Vert u -u^{\text{app}}\Vert_{\text{H}^1(\Omega_I)}\leq C_1\eta R^2\delta(k)^{-8}\left(\Vert f\Vert_{\text{L}^2(\Omega)}+\Vert b\Vert_{\left({\text{H}}^{1/2}(\mathbb{R})\right)^2}\right).
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
This result provides an approximation of the measurements of the wavefield for every frequency, and a control of the approximation error. We represent in Figure \ref{direct_multi_freq} the wavefield for different frequencies. We also point out in Figure \ref{direct_multi_freq2} that the source should be located in an area where $h>h(x^\star)$ in order to generated a significant locally resonant mode.
\begin{figure}\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[width=4cm, height=1.7cm, axis on top, scale only axis, xmin=-7, xmax=7, ymin=-0.01, ymax=0.14, colorbar,point meta min=0,point meta max=0.1604, title={$k=30.9$}, colorbar style={ytick distance=0.1}, ytick distance=0.1,axis line style={draw=none},tick style={draw=none}]
\addplot graphics [xmin=-7,xmax=7,ymin=0,ymax=0.1013]{guide1.png};
\draw [red] (6,-0.01)--(6,0.11) node[above]{$s$};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{2mm}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[width=4cm, height=1.7cm, axis on top, scale only axis, xmin=-7, xmax=7, ymin=-0.01, ymax=0.14, colorbar,point meta min=0,point meta max=1.2831, title={$k=31.1$}, colorbar style={ytick distance=1.2}, ytick distance=0.1,axis line style={draw=none},tick style={draw=none}]
\addplot graphics [xmin=-7,xmax=7,ymin=0,ymax=0.1013]{guide2.png};
\draw [red] (6,-0.01)--(6,0.12) node[left]{$s$};
\draw [red] (3,-0.01)--(3,0.12) node[left]{$x^\star_k$};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[width=4cm, height=1.7cm, axis on top, scale only axis, xmin=-7, xmax=7, ymin=-0.01, ymax=0.14, colorbar,point meta min=0,point meta max=0.3587, title={$k=31.4$}, colorbar style={ytick distance=0.3}, ytick distance=0.1,axis line style={draw=none},tick style={draw=none}]
\addplot graphics [xmin=-7,xmax=7,ymin=0,ymax=0.1013]{guide3.png};
\draw [red] (6,-0.01)--(6,0.12) node[left]{$s$};
\draw [red] (-1.5,-0.01)--(-1.5,0.12) node[left]{$x^\star_k$};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{2mm}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[width=4cm, height=1.7cm, axis on top, scale only axis, xmin=-7, xmax=7, ymin=-0.01, ymax=0.14, colorbar,point meta min=0,point meta max=0.1383, title={$k=32$}, colorbar style={ytick distance=0.1}, ytick distance=0.1,axis line style={draw=none},tick style={draw=none}]
\addplot graphics [xmin=-7,xmax=7,ymin=0,ymax=0.1013]{guide4.png};
\draw [red] (6,-0.01)--(6,0.12) node[left]{$s$};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{direct_multi_freq} Representation of the wavefield amplitude $|u|$ solution of \eqref{eqmatlab} with a monochromatic source $f(x,y):=\delta_{x=s} \varphi_1(y)$ for different frequencies $k$. Data are generated using the finite element method described in Section \ref{num}. When $k=30.9$, the mode $n=1$ is evanescent, and the wavefield decreases very fast around the source. When $k=31.1$ and $k=31.4$, the mode $n=1$ is locally resonant and the wavefield propagates in the waveguide as an Airy function until it reaches the point $x^\star_k$. When $k=32$, the mode $n=2$ is propagative and the wavefield propagates in all the waveguide. In all these representations, the width $h$ is defined by the function \eqref{h4}. }
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[width=4cm, height=1.5cm, axis on top, scale only axis, xmin=-6, xmax=6, ymin=-0.01, ymax=0.14, colorbar,point meta min=0,point meta max=0.3188, title={$k=31$}, colorbar style={ytick distance=0.3}, ytick distance=0.1,axis line style={draw=none},tick style={draw=none}]
\addplot graphics [xmin=-7,xmax=7,ymin=0,ymax=0.1025]{guideb1.png};
\draw [red] (-1,-0.01)--(-1,0.125) node[right]{$s$};
\draw [red] (-2,-0.01)--(-2,0.125) node[left]{$x^\star_k$};
\draw [red] (2,-0.01)--(2,0.125) node[right]{$x^\star_k$};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{2mm}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[width=4cm, height=1.5cm, axis on top, scale only axis, xmin=-6, xmax=6, ymin=-0.01, ymax=0.14, colorbar,point meta min=0,point meta max=0.1002, title={$k=31$}, colorbar style={ytick distance=0.1}, ytick distance=0.1,axis line style={draw=none},tick style={draw=none}]
\addplot graphics [xmin=-7,xmax=7,ymin=0,ymax=0.1025]{guideb2.png};
\draw [red] (-4,-0.01)--(-4,0.12) node[left]{$s$};
\draw [red] (-2,-0.01)--(-2,0.125) node[right]{$x^\star_k$};
\draw [red] (2,-0.01)--(2,0.125) node[right]{$x^\star_k$};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[width=4cm, height=1.5cm, axis on top, scale only axis, xmin=-7, xmax=7, ymin=-0.01, ymax=0.14, colorbar,point meta min=0,point meta max= 0.2803, title={$k=32$}, colorbar style={ytick distance=0.2}, ytick distance=0.1,axis line style={draw=none},tick style={draw=none}]
\addplot graphics [xmin=-7,xmax=7,ymin=0,ymax=0.1]{guideb3.png};
\draw [red] (-5,-0.01)--(-5,0.12) node[left]{$s$};
\draw [red] (-2.5,-0.01)--(-2.5,0.12) node[right]{$x^\star_k$};
\draw [red] (2,-0.01)--(2,0.12) node[right]{$x^\star_k$};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{2mm}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[width=4cm, height=1.5cm, axis on top, scale only axis, xmin=-7, xmax=7, ymin=-0.01, ymax=0.14, colorbar,point meta min=0,point meta max=0.3037, title={$k=32$}, colorbar style={ytick distance=0.3}, ytick distance=0.1,axis line style={draw=none},tick style={draw=none}]
\addplot graphics [xmin=-7,xmax=7,ymin=0,ymax=0.1]{guideb4.png};
\draw [red] (6,-0.01)--(6,0.12) node[left]{$s$};
\draw [red] (2,-0.01)--(2,0.12) node[left]{$x^\star_k$};
\draw [red] (-2.5,-0.01)--(-2.5,0.12) node[left]{$x^\star_k$};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{direct_multi_freq2} Representation of the wavefield amplitude $|u|$ solution of \eqref{eqmatlab} with a monochromatic source $f(x,y):=\delta_{x=s} \varphi_1(y)$ for different positions $s$. On top, $h$ is a dilation defined in \eqref{h5} and on bottom, $h$ is a shrinkage defined in \eqref{h6}. Depending on the location of the source, we observe different behaviors: while top left, bottom left and bottom right show locally resonant modes, the picture on top right show an evanescent mode. In order to generate a significant locally resonant mode, the source $s$ should be placed at a width where $h(s)>h(x^\star_k)$ and the mode only propagates until it reaches the point $x^\star_k$.}
\end{figure}
We notice that at locally resonant frequencies, the wavefield strongly depends on the position of $x^\star_k$, which justify the idea of using it to develop an inverse method to reconstruct the width $h$. An illustration is provided in Figure \ref{direct} with a representation of the wavefield $u$ and the one side boundary measurement $u(x,0)$ when $k$ is a locally resonant frequency.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\input{direct2}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{direct} Illustration of the amplitude of the wavefield measurements in a varying waveguide. The wavefield $u$ is solution of \eqref{eqmatlab} where the profile $h$ is given in \eqref{h4} and $k=31.5$ is a locally resonant frequency. Data are generated using the finite element method described in Section \ref{num}. Top: amplitude of $|u|$ in the whole waveguide $\Omega$ (non scaled). Bottom: amplitude of the measurements of $|u|$ on the surface $y=0$.}
\end{figure}
\section{Shape Inversion using a monochromatic source \label{section2} }
In this section, we describe the method to recover the width $h$ from one side boundary measurements of the wavefield at locally resonant frequencies. We focus here on the reconstruction of the shape of $h$ on $\supp(h')$, assuming the \emph{a priori} knowledge of the constants $h_{\min}$ and $h_{\max}$ and of an interval containing $\supp(h')$. We detail in Appendix~A how these constants can be estimated. To recover the shape function $h$ on $\supp(h')$, we start by studying the simpler case of a source term $f$ generating only a single locally resonant mode in the waveguide. Hence we assume that $f$ takes the form
\begin{equation}\label{fN}
\forall (x,y)\in \Omega \quad f(x,y)=f_N(x) \varphi_N(y), \qquad f_N\in \text{L}^2(\mathbb{R}),
\end{equation}
where $f_N$ is compactly supported. We also assume the absence of boundary source term, meaning that $b=0$. This simplified situation is useful to understand the method of reconstruction. It will be generalized to any kind on internal and boundary sources in section \ref{section_general_source}.
In the simplest case of a single internal source \eqref{fN}, we know from the study of the forward problem in Theorem \ref{th1} that the measured data without noise $d^\text{ex}$ satisfies
\begin{equation} \label{dex}
d^\text{ex}(x):=u(x,0)\approx u_{N}^{\text{app}}(x) \varphi_N(0) \quad \text{where} \quad u_{N}^\text{app}(x)=\int_\mathbb{R} G_{N}^\text{app}(x,s)f_N(s)\mathrm{d} s.
\end{equation}
Our reconstruction method is based on the recovery of the resonant point $x^\star_k$ for every locally resonant frequencies $k$. It can be seen in Theorem \ref{th1} that the approached Green function $G_{N}^\text{app} $ depends on $x^\star_k$ through the function $\xi$. However, this dependence is intricate and hardly usable to find a direct link between $d^\text{ex}$ and $x^\star_k$. Thus, we need to find a simpler approximation of the measurements. In a first part, we provide an approximation of the measured data $d^\text{ex}$ using a three parameters model function
\begin{equation}\label{dapp}
d^\text{app}_{z,\alpha,x_k^\star} : x\mapsto z\mathcal{A}(\alpha(x_k^\star-x)),
\end{equation}
where $z\in \mathbb{C}^*$ is a complex amplitude, $\alpha>0$ is a scaling parameter and $x_k^\star$ is the resonant point playing the role of a longitudinal shift. In a second part, we first control the approximation error between this function and the exact measurements and then, we develop a stable way to reconstruct $x_k^\star$ from this approximated data.
\subsection{Wavefield approximation and measurements approximation}
In order to find a reconstruction of $x^\star_k$, we need to find an exploitable link between $d^\text{ex}:=u(x,0)$ and $x^\star_k$. To do so, we make a Taylor expansion of $G_{N}^{\text{app}}$ around the point $x^\star_k$. For every frequency $k>0$ and $R>0$, we denote
\begin{equation}
\Omega_R(x^\star_k):=\{(x,y)\in \Omega \ |\ |x-x^\star_k| < R\}, \qquad \Gamma_R(x^\star_k):=(x^\star_k-R,x^\star_k+R),
\end{equation}
and we consider the Taylor expansion on the interval $\Gamma_R$. Moreover, we assume that the source is located at the right of the interval $\Gamma_R$, and we thus we define
\begin{equation}
\Omega_R^+(x^\star_k):=\{(x,y)\in \Omega \, |\, x-x^\star_k> R\},\qquad \Gamma_R^+(x^\star_k)=(x^\star_k+R,+\infty).
\end{equation}
Both these sets are represented in Figure \ref{lambda_R}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (-1.5,0) -- (9,0);
\draw (-1.5,1) -- (0,1);
\draw (7,1.4) -- (9,1.4);
\draw [domain=0:7, samples=100] plot (\x,{1+12/7/7/7/7/7*\x*\x*\x*(\x*\x/5-7*\x/2+49/3+0.02)});
\draw [ultra thick] (2.5,-0.2)--(2.5,1.6);
\draw (2.5,-0.2) node[below]{$x^\star_k$};
\draw [>-<] (0.5,-0.1)--(4.5,-0.1);
\draw (1.3,-0.1) node[below]{$\Gamma_R(x^\star_k)$};
\draw [dashed] (0.5,-0.2)--(0.5,1.6);
\draw [dashed] (4.5,-0.2)--(4.5,1.6);
\fill[color=gray!20, pattern=north east lines] (0.5,0)--(0.5,1.0013) -- plot [domain=0.5:4.5] (\x,{1+12/7/7/7/7/7*\x*\x*\x*(\x*\x/5-7*\x/2+49/3+0.02)}) --(4.5,1.3028) -- (4.5,0)--(0.5,0);
\fill[white] (1.9,0.4)--(0.7,0.4)--(0.7,0.8)--(1.9,0.8)--(1.9,0.4);
\draw (1.3,0.6) node{$\Omega_R(x^\star_k)$};
\draw [white,fill=gray!30] (7,0.6) circle (0.3);
\draw (7,0.6) node{$f$};
\draw [>-] (4.5,-0.1)--(9,-0.1);
\draw (5.5,-0.1) node[below]{$\Gamma_R^+(x^\star_k)$};
\draw (5.5,0.6) node{$\Omega_R^+(x^\star_k)$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{lambda_R} Representation of $\Gamma_R(x^\star_k)$, $\Omega_R(x^\star_k)$, $\Gamma_R^+(x^\star_k)$ and $\Omega_R^+(x^\star_k)$. The source $f$ is assumed to be compactly supported in $\Gamma_R^+(x^\star_k)$.}
\end{figure}
The following Proposition shows that $u_{N}^\text{app}$ can be approached by a three parameters function of type $d^\text{app}_{z,\alpha,x_k^\star}$ if the shape function $h$ is steep enough at $x_k^\star$.
\begin{prop} \label{taylor} Assume that $\Omega$ satisfies assumptions \ref{def:slow}, let $R>0$ and $k>0$ be a locally resonant frequency associated to the mode $N\in \mathbb{N}$ and the locally resonant point $x_k^\star$ that satisfies $h'(x^\star_k)\geq \theta\eta$ for some $\theta>0$. There exist $z\in \mathbb{C}^*$, $\alpha>0$ and a constant $C_2>0$ depending only on $h_{\min}$, $h_{\max}$, $N$ and $\theta$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{taylorapp}
\Vert u^\text{app}_{N}-d^\text{app}_{z,\alpha,x_k^\star}\Vert_{\text{L}^2(\Gamma_{R}(x^\star_k))}\leq C_2\left(R^{3/2}\eta^{5/6}+R^{5/2}\eta^{7/6}\right),
\end{equation}
where $d^\text{app}_{z,\alpha,x_k^\star}$ is defined in \eqref{dapp}.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Using the information about the support of the source term, we know that
\begin{equation}\nonumber
u_{N}^{\text{app}}(x)=\int_{x^\star_k+R}^{+\infty}G_{N}^{\text{app}}(x,s)f_N(s)\mathrm{d} s.
\end{equation}
Using the definition of $G_{N}^\text{app}$ given in \eqref{greenfunction}, there exists a function $q_k$ such that for every $x\in \Gamma_R(x^\star_k)$,
\begin{equation}\nonumber
G_{N}^{\text{app}}(x,s)=q_k(s)\frac{(-\xi(x))^{1/4}}{\sqrt{k_n(x)}}\mathcal{A}(\xi(x)).
\end{equation}
It follows that
\begin{equation}\nonumber
u_{N}^{\text{app}}(x)=\frac{(-\xi(x))^{1/4}}{\sqrt{k_n(x)}}\mathcal{A}(\xi(x))\int_{x^\star_k+R}^{+\infty}q_k(s)f_N(s)\mathrm{d} s.
\end{equation}
In the following, we denote $\mathcal{O}(\cdot)$ bounds depending only on $h_{\max}$, $h_{\min}$ and $N$. We see that
\begin{equation}\nonumber
k_N(x)^2=\frac{2N^2\pi^2h'(x^\star_k)}{h(x^\star_k)^3}(x-x^\star_k) +\mathcal{O}(\eta^2(x-x^\star_k)^2).
\end{equation}
From now on, we assume that $x>x^\star_k$, which leads to
\begin{equation}\label{compkn}
k_N(x)=\sqrt{\frac{2N^2\pi^2h'(x^\star_k)}{h(x^\star_k)^3}}(x-x^\star_k)^{1/2} +\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{\eta^2(x-x^\star_k)^{3/2}}{\sqrt{h'(x^\star_k)}}\right),
\end{equation}
and so
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\xi(x)=\left(\frac{2N^2\pi^2h'(x^\star_k)}{h(x^\star_k)^3}\right)^{1/3}(x^\star_k-x)+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{\eta^2(x-x^\star_k)^{2}}{h'(x^\star_k)^{2/3}}\right).
\end{equation}
Then,
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\mathcal{A}(\xi(x))=\mathcal{A}\left(\left(\frac{2N^2\pi^2h'(x^\star_k)}{h(x^\star_k)^3}\right)^{1/3}(x^\star_k-x)\right)+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{\eta^2(x-x^\star_k)^{2}}{h'(x^\star_k)^{2/3}}\right),
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\frac{(-\xi(x))^{1/4}}{\sqrt{k_N(x)}}=\left(\frac{2N^2\pi^2h'(x^\star_k)}{h(x^\star_k)^3}\right)^{-1/6}+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{\eta^2(x-x^\star_k)}{h'(x^\star_k)^{7/6}}\right).
\end{equation}
We set
\begin{equation}\label{exppk}
z=\left(\frac{2N^2\pi^2h'(x^\star_k)}{h(x^\star_k)^3}\right)^{-1/6}\int_{x^\star_k+R}^{+\infty}q_k(s)f_N(s)\mathrm{d} s, \qquad \alpha=\left(\frac{2N^2\pi^2h'(x^\star_k)}{h(x^\star_k)^3}\right)^{1/3},
\end{equation}
and it follows that
\begin{equation}\nonumber
u_{N}^{\text{app}}(x)=z\mathcal{A}(\alpha(x^\star_k-x))+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{\eta^2(x-x^\star_k)}{h'(x^\star_k)^{7/6}}\right)+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{\eta^2(x-x^\star_k)^2}{h'(x^\star_k)^{5/6}}\right).
\end{equation}
The exact same study can be done in the case $x<x^\star_k$. Since $|x-x^\star_k|\leq R$, we conclude that
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\Vert u_{N}^{\text{app}}-d^\text{app}_{z,\alpha,x_k^\star}\Vert_{\text{L}^2(\Gamma_{R}(x^\star_k))}=\eta^2\mathcal{O}\left(R^{3/2}(h'(x^\star_k))^{-7/6}+R^{5/2}(h'(x^\star_k))^{-5/6}\right).
\end{equation}
To conclude, we use the fact that $h'(x^\star_k)\geq \theta\eta$.
\end{proof}
\begin{coro}\label{corobis}
Assume that $\Omega$ satisfies assumptions \ref{def:slow}, let $R>0$ and $k>0$ be a locally resonant frequency associated to the mode $N\in \mathbb{N}$ and the locally resonant point $x_k^\star$ that satisfies $h'(x^\star_k)\geq \theta\eta$ for some $\theta>0$. There exist $\eta>0$ such that if $\eta\leq \eta_0$ then there exist $z\in \mathbb{C}^*$, $\alpha>0$ and a constant $C_3>0$ depending only on $h_{\min}$, $h_{\max}$, $N$ and $\theta$ such that
\begin{equation}
\Vert d^\text{ex} - d^\text{app}_{z,\alpha,x_k^\star} \Vert_{\text{L}^2(\Gamma_R(x^\star_k))} \leq C_3\left( \delta(k)^{-8}R^2\eta+R^{3/2}\eta^{5/6}+R^{5/2}\eta^{7/6}\right).
\end{equation}
\end{coro}
\begin{proof}
We apply Proposition \ref{taylor}, Theorem \ref{th1} and trace results which prove that there exists a constant $\gamma>0$ depending only on $R$, $h_{\min}$ and $h_{\max}$ such that
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\Vert u(\cdot,0)-u^{\text{app}}(\cdot,0)\Vert_{\text{L}^2(\Gamma_{R}(x^\star_k))}\leq \Vert u-u^{\text{app}}\Vert_{\text{H}^{1/2}(\Gamma_{R}(x^\star_k))}\leq \gamma\Vert u-u^{\text{app}}\Vert_{\text{H}^{1}(\Omega_{R}(x^\star_k))}.
\end{equation}
\end{proof}
This result indicates a strategy to determine $x_k^\star$ from the exact data $d^\text{ex}$. Assuming that $\eta$ is small enough to see $d^\text{app}_{z,\alpha,x_k^\star}$ as a good approximation of $d^\text{ex}$, one may fit the three parameters $(\alpha,z,x_k^\star)$ that minimize the misfit $d^\text{ex} - d^\text{app}_{z,\alpha,x_k^\star}$ for some norm. We also see from this result that the error in the Taylor expansion strongly depends on the values of $\theta$, $R$ and $\delta(k)$. Since we plan on using different locally resonant frequencies, we need to get a uniform control over $k$ on the Taylor expansion. Moreover, we need to control the length $R$ of the measurement interval. If $R$ is too large, the quality of the Taylor expansion diminishes and if $R$ is too small, the data on the interval $\Gamma_{R}(x^\star_k)$ may not contain enough information to fit the three parameters $(z,\alpha,x_k^\star)$ with stability.
To prevent this, $R$ needs to be scaled depending on the parameter $\alpha$. Indeed, the change of variable $x\mapsto\alpha(x^\star_k-x)$ must cover a large enough interval to perform the desired fitting. Using the expression of $\alpha$ given in \eqref{exppk}, we say that $\alpha(x^\star_k-x)$ covers an interval of fixed radius $\sigma>0$ if
\begin{equation}\nonumber
R\geq \frac\sigma\alpha\geq\frac{\sigma h_{\max}}{2\beta^{1/3}N^2\pi^2}\eta^{-1/3}.
\end{equation}
This means that $R$ needs to be scaled as $\eta^{-1/3}$ and we assume now that
\begin{equation}
R:=r\eta^{-1/3}.
\end{equation}
where $r>0$ is a constant. We can now give a uniform approximation result between $d^\text{ex}$ and $d^\text{app}_{z,\alpha,x_k^\star}$ on the interval $\Gamma_{R(x^\star_k)}$.
\begin{theorem}\label{th2} Assume the same hypotheses than in Theorem \ref{th1}, and fix $N\in \mathbb{N}^*$ and $\theta>0$. There exists $\eta_0>0$ such for any $\eta <\eta_0$ and for any $k>0$ associated to the mode $N$ and the locally resonant point $x_k^\star$ satisfying $h'(x^\star_k)\geq \theta\eta$, there exist $\alpha>0$ and $z\in \mathbb{C}$ such that the following approximation holds on the interval $\Gamma_{R}(x^\star_k)$:
\begin{equation}\nonumber
d^\text{ex} = d^\text{app}_{z,\alpha,x_k^\star} + \mathcal{O}(\eta^{1/3}).
\end{equation}
More precisely, there exists a constant $C_4>0$ depending only on $h_{\min}$, $h_{\max}$, $\theta$ and $r$ such that
\begin{equation}
\norm{d^\text{ex} - d^\text{app}_{z,\alpha,x_k^\star}}{\text{L}^2(\Gamma_{R}(x^\star_k))}\leq C_4\eta^{1/3}.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
To prove this result, we need to provide a uniform lower bound for $\delta(k)$ under the hypothesis $h'(x^\star_k)\geq \theta\eta$. From the definition of $\delta(k)$, we assume without loss of generality that $\delta(k)$ is reached by the mode number $N\in \mathbb{N}$ and that $\delta(k)^2=\left|k^2-N^2\pi^2/h_{\max}^2\right|$. Hence, as $k$ is locally resonant, we know that $k=N\pi/h(x_k^\star)$ and that
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\delta(k)^2=N^2\pi^2\left|\frac{1}{h(x_k^\star)^2}-\frac{1}{h_{\max}^2}\right|\leq \frac{2N^2\pi^2}{ h_{\min}^2h_{\max}}(h_{\max}-h(x_k^\star)). \end{equation}
Let us call $t\geq 0$ such that $h(x_k^\star+t)=h_{\max}$, we necessarily have $h'(x_k^\star+t) = 0$. Using the hypothesis $h''\geq -\eta^2$, we know that $h'(x_k^\star+s)\geq \eta\theta-\eta^2s$ for all $s\in (0,t)$. This implies that $t\geq \theta/\eta$. Then,
\begin{equation}\nonumber
h_{\max}-h(x_k^\star) = \int_0^th'(x_k^\star+s)\mathrm{d} s\geq \eta\theta t - \eta^2\frac {t^2}2\geq \frac{\theta^2}2.
\end{equation}
Then,
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\delta(k)\geq \frac{N\pi}{h_{\min}\sqrt{h_{\max}}}\theta.
\end{equation}
The proof of Theorem \ref{th2} is now straightforward, we simply replace $R$ by $r\eta^{-1/3}$ in Corollary \ref{corobis} and use the lower bound on $\delta(k)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
We underline the fact that the constant in this estimation depends on the value of $\theta$, and tends toward infinity if $\theta$ tends to zero. This result is illustrated in Figure \ref{etanu} where we clearly notice that the error between $d^\text{ex}$ and $d^\text{app}_{z,\alpha,x^\star_k}$ deteriorates when $\theta$ become too small.
\end{rem}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\raisebox{0.5\height}{\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (-2,0.5)--(-1,0.5)--(1,1)--(2,1);
\draw (-2,0)--(2,0);
\draw [dashed] (0,-0.2)--(0,1) node[above]{$x^\star_k$};
\draw (0.3,0.4) node[right]{$h'(x^\star_k)=\theta \eta$};
\draw (-2,0.6) node[above]{$h_{\min}=0.0983$};
\draw (2,1.1) node[above]{$h_{\max}=0.1017$};
\end{tikzpicture}} \hspace{4mm}
\input{etanu}\end{center}
\caption{\label{etanu} Error of approximation $\Vert d^\text{ex}-d^\text{app}_{z,\alpha,x^\star_k} \Vert_{\text{L}^2(\Gamma_R(x^\star_k))}$ for different values of $\theta$ with a fixed value of $\eta$. The width $h$ is represented on the left of the picture and exact data $d^\text{ex}$ are generated as explained in section \ref{num} with a locally resonant mode $N=1$ and a source $f(x,y)=\delta_{x=6}\varphi_N(y)$. Then, $d^\text{ex}$ is compared with $d^\text{app}_{z,\alpha,x^\star_k}$ where $\alpha$ and $z$ are defined using the expression \eqref{exppk}. Here, $r=0.2$ and $\eta=8.10^{-4}$.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Stable reconstruction of $x^\star_k$}
We proved so far that the one side boundary measurements are close to the three parameters function
\begin{equation}
d^\text{app}_{z,\alpha,x_k^\star} : x\mapsto z\mathcal{A}(\alpha(x_k^\star-x)),
\end{equation}
on the interval $\Gamma_{r\eta^{-1/3}}(x^\star_k)=(x_k^\star-r\eta^{-1/3},x_k^\star+r\eta^{-1/3})$. The question is now to understand if one can get a stable evaluation of $x_k^\star$ from this approached data. We define then the following forward operator
\begin{equation}\label{eq:F}
F:\left\{\begin{array}{rcl}\mathbb{C}^*\times(0,+\infty)\times\mathbb{R} &\longrightarrow &\mathcal{C}^0(\Gamma_{R}(\beta/\alpha))\\
(z,\alpha,\beta) &\longmapsto & \left(x\mapsto z\mathcal{A}(\beta-\alpha x)\right)\end{array}\right. .
\end{equation}
If the three parameters are uniquely defined, we can deduce an approximation of the position $x_k^\star$ from the solution of $F(z,\alpha,\beta)=d^\text{app}_{z,\alpha,x^\star_k}$ through the identification $x_k^\star=\beta/\alpha$. The following result guarantee the uniqueness of the solution to this problem.
\begin{prop} Let $d_0:=F(z_0,\alpha_0,\beta_0)$, there exists $r_0>0$ such that if $r>r_0$ then the problem $F(z,\alpha,\beta)=d_0$ has a unique solution $(z_0,\alpha_0,\beta_0)$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof} If $r$ is high enough, the interval $\Gamma_{r\eta^{-1/3}}$ is large enough to contain the maximum amplitude of the function $d_0$ at position $x_{\max}$, and the two first zeros of the function $d_0$ called $x_1$ and $x_2$. Hence $(z_0,\alpha_0,\beta_0)$ are uniquely determined by
\begin{equation}\label{meth11}
z_0=\frac{d_0(x_{\max})}{\norm{\mathcal{A}}{\infty}},\qquad \alpha_0=\frac{y_1-y_2}{x_2-x_1}, \qquad \beta_0=\frac{y_1x_2-y_2x_1}{x_2-x_1},
\end{equation}
where $y_1$ and $y_2$ are the two first zeros of the Airy function $\mathcal{A}$.
\end{proof}
This result of uniqueness and the corresponding inversion formulas are not directly applicable. Indeed, these formulas are not robust to noise or data uncertainties and we remind the reader that an approximation is already made between $d^\text{ex}$ and $d^\text{app}_{z,\alpha,x^\star_k}$.
A first strategy would be to use the explicit formula \eqref{meth11} and apply some data regularization with a low-pass filter before doing the inversion (see \cite{mallat1} for more details). This method works perfectly with exact data, and will be called from now the ``direct parameters reconstruction method''.
However, few issues can be raised with this method. Firstly, it is not sufficiently robust if data are very noisy, as illustrated in Figure \ref{ercomp} where we use this method to reconstruct parameters with a random additive noise of increasing amplitude. Secondly, as mentioned in the previous subsection, we will only make measurements of the wavefield on the interval $\Gamma_R$, and we cannot be sure that neither the first two zeros nor the maximum of $\mathcal{A}$ will occur in this interval. Finally, it is more realistic to assume that we only have access to $d^\text{app}_{z,\alpha,x^\star_k}$ on a finite number of receivers positions. For all this reasons, a least squares approach is introduced. On can keep the previous method to find an initial guess of the parameters $\g p:=(z,\alpha,\beta)$.
We now assume that we have access to the data
\begin{equation}
d_i:=F(p)(t_i),\quad i=1,\dots,n,
\end{equation}
where $\g p:=(z,\alpha,\beta)$ and $\g t:=(t_i)_{i=1,\dots,n}\in \Gamma_R$ is an increasing subdivision of $\Gamma_R$. We denote by $\g d:=(d_1,\dots,d_n)\in \mathbb{C}^n$ the discrete data on the subdivision $\g t$. We aim to minimize the least squares energy functional
\begin{equation}
J_{\g d}(\g p):=\frac 12\Vert F(\g p)(\g t) - \g d\Vert_{\ell^2}^2.
\end{equation}
In this expression, the norm $\ell^2$ is the normalized euclidean norm defined by
\begin{equation}
\Vert \g d \Vert_{\ell^2}^2=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n d_i^2.
\end{equation}
Denoting by $\tau$ the step of the subdivision $\g t$, we know using quadrature results (see \cite{davis1} for more details) that for all functions $f\in \text{H}^{2}(\Gamma_R)$,
\begin{equation}\label{control_l2}
\left| \Vert f\Vert_{\text{L}^2(\Gamma_R)}-\Vert f(\g t)\Vert_{\ell^2}\right|\leq 2\tau \Vert f\Vert_{\text{H}^1(\Gamma_R)}.
\end{equation}
It shows that the $\ell^2$ norm is a good approximation of the $\text{L}^2(\Gamma_R)$ norm if the step of discretization $\tau$ is small enough.
We assume the knowledge of an open set $U\subset \mathbb{C}^*\times(0,+\infty)\times\mathbb{R}$ of the form
\begin{equation}
U:=B_\mathbb{C}(0,z_{\text{max}})\times (\alpha_{\min},\alpha_{\max})\times (\beta_{\min},\beta_{\max}), \quad z_{\max},\alpha_{\min},\alpha_{\max} \in \mathbb{R}_+^\star,\quad \beta_{\min},\beta_{\max} \in \mathbb{R},
\end{equation}
containing the solution $\g p$. The following proposition shows that the least squares problem is locally well-posed if the sampling size $n$ is large enough, and it quantifies the error on the recovered parameters.
\begin{prop}\label{leastsq}
There exists $n_0\in \mathbb{N}^*$ such that if $n\geq n_0$, then for every $\g p_0\in U$ and $\g d_0:=F(p_0)(\g x)$, there exist $\varepsilon>0$ and $U'\subset U$ such that for every $\g d\in \mathbb{R}^{n}$ satisfying $\Vert \g d-\g d_0\Vert_{\ell^2}< \varepsilon$ then the functional $J_{\g d}$ is strictly convex on $U'$ and admits a unique minimizer denoted $\g p_{\text{LS}}=(z_{\text{LS}},\alpha_{\text{LS}},\beta_{\text{LS}})$. Moreover, there exists a constant $C_5>0$ depending only on $U$, $\g p_0$ and $n$ such that
\begin{equation}
\Vert \g p_{\text{LS}}-\g p_0\Vert_{2}\leq C_5 \Vert \g d-\g d_0\Vert_{\ell^2}.
\end{equation}
Finally, if we denote
\begin{equation}
\Lambda : \left\{\begin{array}{rcl} B_2(\g d_0,\varepsilon) & \rightarrow & \mathbb{R} \\ \g d &\mapsto& \frac{\beta_{\text{LS}}}{\alpha_{\text{LS}}}\end{array} \right. ,
\end{equation}
the operator which approach the value of $x^\star_k$, there exists a constant $C_6>0$ depending only on $U$, $\g p_0$ and $n$ such that
\begin{equation}
|\Lambda(\g d)-\Lambda(\g d_0)|\leq C_6\Vert \g d-\g d_0\Vert_{\ell^2}.
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
The proof of this result is given in Appendix B. In this proof we can see that the choice of the data discretization points $\g t$ is important in order to improve the accuracy of the reconstruction. We illustrate that by choosing $\g p_0=(2+i,1.4,-2.8)$ and comparing the direct reconstruction of the parameters \eqref{meth11} with the least squares method for three different sets $\g t$:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\g t_1$ is a discretization of $[-6,-1]$ with 100 points, where the tail of the Airy function is located.
\item $\g t_2$ is a discretization of $[-2,6]$ with 100 points, where the Airy function varies.
\item $\g t_3$ is a discretization of $[-6,6]$ with 200 points.
\end{itemize}
In Figure \ref{airycomp}, we represent the four reconstructions where $\g d = \g d_0+\mathcal{N}$ and $\mathcal{N}$ is a normal random additive noise of amplitude $0.3$. We see that reconstructions with $\g t_2$ and $\g t_3$ seems more accurate than the one with $\g t_1$ and the direct reconstruction. We detail this in Figure \ref{ercomp}, where we compare the reconstruction errors with different noise amplitudes. We clearly see that using a least squares method improves the reconstruction if $\g t$ is well-chosen.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\input{airycomp}
\caption{\label{airycomp} Comparison of four different reconstructions of $F(\g p_0)$ where $\g d-\g d_0$ is a normal random additive noise of amplitude 0.3. Blue: direct reconstruction. Green: least square reconstruction with $\g t=\g t_1$. Red: least square reconstruction with $\g t=\g t_2$. Purple: least square reconstruction with $\g t=\g t_3$.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\input{ercomp} \hspace{3mm} \input{ercomp2}\end{center}
\caption{\label{ercomp} Error of reconstruction of $\g p_0$ and $\Lambda(\g d_0)$ with respect to the noise on the data for different method of reconstruction. On the left, $\Vert p_{\text{LS}}-p_0\Vert_{2}$ with respect to $\Vert \g d-\g d_0\Vert_{\ell^2}/\Vert \g d\Vert_{\ell^2}$. On the right, $|\Lambda(\g d_0)-\Lambda(\g d)|$ with respect to $\Vert \g d-\g d_0\Vert_{\ell^2}/\Vert \g d\Vert_{\ell^2}$. }
\end{figure}
We now have a stable method to reconstruct an approximation $x^{\star,\text{app}}_k$ of $x^\star_k$ from given measurements of $d(x):=u(x,0)$. Since $h(x^\star_k)=N\pi/k$, we can approximate the width at positions $x^{\star,\text{app}}_k$ with the formula
\begin{equation}
h^\text{app}(x^{\star,\text{app}}_k)=\frac{N\pi}{k}.
\end{equation}
This provides an approximation of $h$ in one point.
Then, we change the frequency $k>0$ to get approximations of $h$ all along the support of $h'$. From now on, we denote $u_k$ the wavefield propagating at frequency $k$. As mentioned before, we assume that we already have an approximation of $\supp(h')$, $h_{\min}$ and $h_{\max}$ (see Appendix A). We denote
\begin{equation}
k_{\max}:=\frac{N\pi}{h_{\min}}, \quad k_{\min}:=\frac{N\pi}{h_{\max}}.
\end{equation}
and we take a finite set of frequencies $K\subset (k_{\min},k_{\max})$. For every frequency $k\in K$, we introduce $\g t_k$ a discretization of $\Gamma_R$ and we set
\begin{equation}
\forall k\in K\qquad \g d_k:=u_k(\g t_k,0)+\zeta_k,
\end{equation}
the measurement of $u_k$ corrupted by an error term $\zeta_k$. For every $k\in K$, using Proposition \ref{leastsq}, we have an $\varepsilon_k$ and a constant $C_6^k$ associated with $\g d_{k,0}=d^\text{app}_{z,\alpha,x^\star_k}$. We define
\begin{equation} \varepsilon:=\min_{k\in K}(\varepsilon_k), \qquad C_6:=\max_{k\in K}(C_6^k),
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
X^{\star,\text{app}}:=\{\Lambda(\g d_k) ,\, k\in K\}.
\end{equation}
Using the known approximation of $\supp(h')$ provided by Appendix A, we set the coordinates $x_0$ and $x_{n+1}$ such that $\text{supp} (h')\subset (x_0,x_{n+1})$ and $X^{\star,\text{app}}\subset (x_0,x_{n+1})$. We then define the function $h^{\text{app}}$ as the piecewise linear function such that
\begin{equation}\label{happ}
h^{\text{app}}(x^{\star,\text{app}}_{k})=\frac{N\pi}{k} \quad \forall\, k\in K, \qquad h^{\text{app}}(x_0)=\frac{N\pi}{k_{\max}}, \qquad h^{\text{app}}(x_{n+1})=\frac{N\pi}{k_{\min}}.
\end{equation}
Using all the previous results, we are able to quantify the error of reconstruction between $h^{\text{app}}$ and $h$:
\begin{theorem}\label{th3}
Let $K$ be a finite subset of $(k_{\min},k_{\max})$. Assume the same hypotheses than in Theorem \ref{th1}, and fix $N\in \mathbb{N}^*$ and $\theta>0$ such that for every $k\in K$, $h'(x^\star_k)\geq \theta\eta$. There exist $\eta_1>0$ and $\zeta_0>0$ such that if $\eta <\eta_1$ and $\max_{k\in K}\Vert \zeta_k\Vert_{\ell^2}\leq \zeta_0$, then there exists a constant $C_7>0$ depending only on $h_{\min}$, $h_{\max}$, $N$, $r$, $\mu$ and $\theta$ such that
\begin{equation}
\Vert h^{\text{app}}(X^{\star,\text{app}})-h(X^{\star,\text{app}})\Vert_\infty\leq \eta C_7\left(\eta^{1/3}+\max_{k\in K}\Vert \zeta_k\Vert_{\ell^2}\right).
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
For every $k\in K$, we notice that
\begin{equation}\nonumber
|h^{\text{app}}(x^{\star,\text{app}}_k)-h(x^{\star,\text{app}}_k)|=|h(x^\star_{k})-h(x^{\star,\text{app}}_k)|\leq \eta |x^\star_{k}-x^{\star,\text{app}}_k|=\eta|\Lambda(\g d_0)-\Lambda(\g d_{k,0})|.
\end{equation}
Using Theorem \ref{th2} combined with the control \eqref{control_l2}, we know that
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\Vert \g d_k-\g d_{0,k}\Vert_{\ell^2}\leq 2\eta^{1/3} \tau C_4 \left(\Vert d^\text{ex}\Vert_{\text{H}^1(\Gamma_R)}+\Vert d^\text{app}_{z,\alpha,x^\star_k}\Vert_{\text{H}^1(\Gamma_R)}\right).
\end{equation}
Using Theorem \ref{th1}, we can control both these norm by a constant $c_2>0$ which does no depend on $k$. Then, if $\eta$ and $\max_{k\in K}\Vert \zeta_k\Vert_{\ell^2}$ are small enough then,
\begin{equation}\nonumber
2\tau C_4c_2\eta^{1/3}+\max_{k\in K}\Vert \zeta_k\Vert_{\ell^2}\leq \varepsilon,
\end{equation}
and using Proposition \ref{leastsq},
\begin{equation}\nonumber
|h^{\text{app}}(x^{\star,\text{app}}_k)-h(x^{\star,\text{app}}_k)|\leq \eta C_6\left(2\tau C_4c_2\eta^{1/3}+\max_{k\in K}\Vert \zeta_k\Vert_{\ell^2}\right).
\end{equation}
\end{proof}
The first error term in this theorem is a consequence of the approximation of the data $d^\text{ex}$ by the Airy function $d^\text{app}$, while the second error term is caused by the eventual presence of measurements noises. We illustrate this reconstruction in Figure \ref{pointsxp} where we choose a subset $K$ with $20$ points, and we compare $h^{\text{app}}(x^{\star,\text{app}}_k)$ and the exact values $h(x^\star_k)$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\input{pointsxp}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{pointsxp} Representation of $x^\star_k$ and $x^{\star,\text{app}}_k$ when $K=\{30.9:31.95:20\}$. Here, $h$ is defined in \eqref{h2}, $N=1$, and data are generated as explained in section \ref{num} with a source $f(x,y)=\delta_{x=6}\varphi_1(y)$.}
\end{figure}
To conclude, we have proved in this section that we are able to reconstruct in a stable way a set of resonant positions $x^\star_k$, which leads to a stable reconstruction of the function $h$. We present in the next section the general idea needed to generalize this reconstruction to more realistic non-monochromatic sources terms.
\section{Inversion using a general source term \label{section_general_source}}
We now consider the general case without any \text{a priori} assumptions on the source terms $f$ and $b$. We use the same arguments as before to reconstruct the width using the locally resonant mode $N$. However, other modes may also be present in the wavefield, and the previous approximation of $d^\text{ex}$ by $u_N^\text{app}$ (see \eqref{dex}) may not be valid. We provide here two methods to exploit the framework developed in the previous section.
The first idea is to treat all resonant and evanescent modes as an added noise to the locally resonant mode. Indeed, we know using Theorem \ref{th1} that
\begin{equation}
d^\text{ex}:=u(x,0)\approx \sum_{n\in \mathbb{N}} \int_\mathbb{R} G_{n}^{\text{app}}(x,s)g_n(s)\mathrm{d} s\,\varphi_n\left(y\right).
\end{equation}
Defining the noise
\begin{equation}
\zeta_k(x):=\sum_{n\neq N}\int_\mathbb{R} G_{n}^{\text{app}}(x,s)g_n(s)\,\mathrm{d} s\varphi_n\left(y\right),
\end{equation}
we see that
\begin{equation}
d^\text{ex}\approx u_{N}^{\text{app}}(x)\varphi_N(0)+\zeta_k(x).
\end{equation}
To make a successful use of Theorem \ref{th3}, the noise $\zeta_k$ needs to be smaller than the parameter $\zeta_0$. Using the expression of $G_{n}^{\text{app}}$ given in \eqref{greenfunction}, we notice that
\begin{equation}
\forall n\in \mathbb{N}, \qquad |G_{n}^{\text{app}}(x)|=\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{\min(|k_n|)}\right).
\end{equation}
Since
\begin{equation}
\frac{|k_N|}{|k_n|}\leq\frac{|k_N|^2h_{\max}^2}{\sqrt{2N-1}\pi},
\end{equation}
the amplitude of $\zeta_k$ seems to be neglectable compared to the amplitude of $u_{N}^{\text{app}}$ if the width $h_{\max}$ is small enough and if $\Vert f_n\Vert_{\text{L}^2(\mathbb{R})}=\mathcal{O}( \Vert f_N\Vert_{\text{L}^2(\mathbb{R})})$ for every $n\neq N$. We illustrate this in Figure \ref{ampli} where we compare the amplitude of $u(x,0)$ with the amplitude of $u_{N}^{\text{app}}(x)\varphi_N(0)$ for source terms $f(x,y)=y^2\delta_{x=6}$ and $b_{\text{top}}(x)=\delta_{x=6}$. We see that it is possible to fit directly the Airy function on $u(x,0)$, since the noise is very small.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\input{ampli}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{ampli} Representation of $u(x,0)$ and $u_{N}^{\text{app}}(x)\varphi_N(0)$ generated by a source $f(x,y)=y^2\delta_{x=6}$ and $b_{\text{top}}(x)=\delta_{x=6}$. Here $N=1$, $k=31.7$ and $h$ is defined as in \eqref{h2}. }
\end{figure}
However, in the general case, the noise of the other modes can not always be neglected. In this case, we can filter the measurements to keep only the locally resonant part. Evanescent modes vanish away from the source and so their contribution is negligible in $u(x,0)$. As for propagative modes, we notice that $k_n(x)$ is almost constant when $n<N$. Using \eqref{greenfunction}, it means that every propagative mode is oscillating with a frequency almost equal to $k_n$. We illustrate it in Figure \ref{fourier} with the Fourier transform of $u(x,0)$ and the contribution of each mode. Using a filter cutting all frequencies around $k_n(x)$ for $n<N$, we can clean the signal and get a good approximation of $u_{N}(x)\varphi_N(0)$ (see \cite{mallat1} for more details). We illustrate this in Figure \ref{passbas} where we represent $u(x,0)$, $u_{N}(x)\varphi_n(0)$ and the approximation obtained using this Fourier filtering.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\input{fourier}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{fourier} Influence of each mode on the Fourier transform of the measurements real part. Fourier transform of $\text{Real}(u_{n}\varphi_n(0))$ are plotted for every non evanescent mode ($n=0,1,2$). For comparison purpose, $k_n(0)$ is represented for every propagative modes ($n=1,2$). Here, $k=63.4$, $N=2$, $f(x,y)=\delta_{x=6}(3\varphi_0(y)+2\varphi_1(y)+\varphi_2(y))$ and $b_\text{top}=\delta_{x=6}$.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\input{passbas}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{passbas} Fourier filtering of $\text{Real}(u_k(x,0))$ and comparison with $\text{Real}(u_{k,N}^{\text{app}}(x)\varphi_N(0))$. Here, $k=63.4$, $N=2$, $f(x,y)=\delta_{x=6}(3\varphi_0(y)+2\varphi_1(y)+\varphi_2(y))$ and $b_\text{top}=\delta_{x=6}$.}
\end{figure}
We can now fit the three parameters Airy function on the measurements, and find an approximation of $x^\star_k$ as before. It proves that our method can be used in the case of general sources, providing a filtering of propagative mode, and does not need any \emph{a priori} information on sources as long as their locally resonant part does not vanish. Using the extension of Theorem \ref{th1} to non monotone waveguides provided in Section 4 of \cite{bonnetier2}, all the results presented in this section remain true in any kind of slowly varying waveguide.
\section{Numerical computations}
In this section, we show some numerical applications of our reconstruction method on slowly varying waveguides. We simulate one side boundary measurements using numerically generated data, and we provide reconstructions of increasing an non monotone waveguides with different shape profiles.
\subsection{Generation of data \label{num}}
In the following, numerical solutions of \eqref{eqmatlab} are generated using the software Matlab to solve numerically the equation in the waveguide $\Omega$. In every numerical simulation, we assume that $h'$ is supported between $x=-7$ and $x=7$. To generate the solution $u$ of \eqref{eqmatlab} on $\Omega_7$, we use a self-coded finite element method and a perfectly matched layer \cite{berenger1} on the left side of the waveguide between $x=-15$ and $x=-8$ and on the right side between $x=8$ and $x=15$. The coefficient of absorption for the perfectly matched layer is defined as $\alpha=-k((x-8)\textbf{1}_{x\geq 8}-(x+8)\textbf{1}_{x\leq -8})$ and $k^2$ is replaced in the Helmholtz equation with $k^2+i\alpha$. The structured mesh is built with a stepsize of $10^{-3}$.
\subsection{Method of reconstruction}
Using all the previous results, we summarize here all the steps to reconstruct the approximation $h^{\text{app}}$ of the width $h$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Find an approximation of $\supp(h')$, $k_{\min}$ and $k_{\max}$ using the method described at the beginning of Appendix A.
\item Choose a set of frequencies $K\subset (k_{\min},k_{\max})$ and sources $f$, $b_{\text{top}}$, $b_{\text{bot}}$. Then, for every frequency, measure the wavefield $d(x):=u(x,0)$ solution of \eqref{eqmatlab}.
\item Filter the data by eliminating in the Fourier transform responses around $k_n$ for every a propagative mode $n$.
\item Find an approximation of the coordinate $x_{\max}$ where $|u(x,0)|$ is maximal. Then, choose a length $R>0$, and discretize the interval $[x_{\max}-R,x_{\max}+R]$ into the set $\g t_k$. The available data $\g t_k$ are then the measurements of $u(\g t_k,0)$.
\item For every frequency, minimize the quantity $\Vert \g d_k-F(\g p)(\g t_k)\Vert_{\ell^2}$ using a gradient descent to find the approximation $x^{\star,\text{app}}_k$ of $x^\star_k$. The direct reconstruction method can be used to initialize the gradient descent method.
\item Compute $h^{\text{app}}$ using expression \eqref{happ}.
\end{enumerate}
In step $3$, we should normally discretize the interval $\Gamma_R(x^\star_k)$. However, since we do not know yet the value of $x^\star_k$, we use the fact that $x^\star_k$ is located near $x_{\max}$, and that the interval $[x_{\max}-R,x_{\max}+R]$ can be included into a bigger interval $\Gamma_{R'}(x^\star_k)$ where $R'>R$.
\subsection{Numerical results}
We now apply this method to reconstruct different profiles of slowly varying waveguides. Firstly, we present in Figure \ref{increasing} the reconstruction $h^{\text{app}}$ obtained for different increasing functions $h$. We choose four different waveguide profiles
\begin{equation}\label{h1}
\Omega_1: \quad h_1(x)=0.1+\gamma_1\left(\frac{x^5}{5}-32\frac{x^3}{3}+256x\right)\textbf{1}_{-4\leq x\leq 4}-\gamma_2\textbf{1}_{x<-4}+\gamma_2\textbf{1}_{x>4},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{h2}
\Omega_2:\quad h_2(x)=0.1+\gamma_3\left(\frac{x^5}{5}-2x^4+16\frac{x^3}{3}\right)\left(\textbf{1}_{0\leq x\leq 4}-\textbf{1}_{-4\leq x<0}\right)+ \gamma_4\left(\textbf{1}_{x>4}-\textbf{1}_{x<-4}\right),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{h3}
\Omega_3 :\quad h_3(x)=0.1+\gamma_5 x\textbf{1}_{-4\leq x\leq 4}+4\gamma_5\textbf{1}_{x>4}-4\gamma_4\textbf{1}_{x<-4},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{h4}
\Omega_4:\quad h_4(x)=0.1-4\gamma_5+4\gamma_5\frac{\sqrt{x+4}}{\sqrt{2}}\,\textbf{1}_{-4\leq x\leq 4}+8\gamma_5\textbf{1}_{x>4}.
\end{equation}
where $\gamma_1=3.10^{-6}$, $\gamma_2=8192/5.10^{-6}$, $\gamma_3=5.10^{-5}$, $\gamma_4=53/3.10^{-5}$, $\gamma_5=0.01/30$. All these profiles are represented in black in Figure \ref{increasing}. We impose that sources of \eqref{eqmatlab} need to be located at the right of the waveguide in order to generate significant locally resonant mode (see Figure \ref{direct_multi_freq2}), and we define
\begin{equation}\label{sourceincr}
f(x,y)=y\delta_{x=6}, \qquad b_{\text{top}}(x)=\delta_{x=6}, \qquad b_{\text{bot}}=0.
\end{equation}
We choose to work with the following sets of frequencies
\begin{equation}\label{Ki}
K_1=\{30.92:31.93:20\}, \quad K_2=\{30.9:31.95:20\}, \quad K_3=K_4=\{31.01:31.83:20\}.
\end{equation}
The profile $h_1$ and the set $K_1$ satisfy all the assumptions of Theorem \ref{th2}, while the derivative of $h_2\in \mathcal{C}^2(\mathbb{R})$ vanishes once. The last two profiles $h_3$ and $h_4$ are not in $\mathcal{C}^2(\mathbb{R})$ and show corners where the derivative of the profile is not continuous. The function $h_3'$ is piecewise continuous and bounded, contrary to $h_4'$ which explodes at $x=-4$.
We plot in red in Figure \ref{increasing} the reconstructions $h^{\text{app}}$, slightly shifted, obtained using our method of reconstruction. We also compute the $L^\infty$ norm of $h-h^{\text{app}}$ in each situation. We clearly see that the reconstruction deteriorates when $h'(x^\star_k)$ is too small or when the function $h$ is not sufficiently smooth.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.8}{\input{rec6}}\hspace{5mm} \scalebox{0.8}{\input{rec7}}\\[4mm]
\scalebox{0.8}{\input{rec4}} \hspace{5mm} \scalebox{0.8}{\input{rec1}}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{increasing} Reconstruction of four different increasing profiles. In black, the initial shape of $\Omega_5$ (not scaled), and in red the reconstruction, slightly shifted for comparison purposes. In each case, $K=K_i$ is defined in \eqref{Ki}, $h=h_i$ is defined in \eqref{h1}, \eqref{h2}, \eqref{h3}, \eqref{h4}, and the sources of \eqref{eqmatlab} are defined in \eqref{sourceincr}. We also compute the relative error $\Vert h-h^{\text{app}}\Vert_\infty/h_{\max}$ between the exact reconstruction and the approximation. Top left: $i=1$, $\Vert h-h^{\text{app}}\Vert_\infty/h_{\max}=0.49 \%$. Top right: $i=2$, $\Vert h-h^{\text{app}}\Vert_\infty/h_{\max}=0.94 \%$. Bottom left: $i=3$, $\Vert h-h^{\text{app}}\Vert_\infty/h_{\max}=0.40 \%$. Bottom right: $i=4$, $\Vert h-h^{\text{app}}\Vert_\infty/h_{\max}=1.6 \%$.}
\end{figure}
Secondly, we present in Figure \ref{recgene} the reconstruction $h^{\text{app}}$ obtained for different non monotoneous widths. We choose three different profiles defined by
\begin{equation}\label{h5}
\Omega_5: \quad h_5(x)=0.1+\gamma_6\sin\left(\frac{\pi}{10}(x+5)\right)\textbf{1}_{-5\leq x\leq 5},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{h6}
\Omega_6: \quad h_6(x)=0.1-\gamma_7(x+5)\textbf{1}_{-5\leq x\leq 0} +\frac{\gamma_6}{4}(x-4)\textbf{1}_{0<x\leq 4},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{h7}
\Omega_7: \quad h_7(x)=0.1-\gamma_8\sqrt{3}+2\gamma_8\sin\left(\frac{4\pi\sqrt{x+5}}{3}\right)\textbf{1}_{-3.5\leq x\leq 4}+2\gamma_8\sin\left(\frac{4\pi\sqrt{1.5}}{3}\right)\textbf{1}_{x<-3.5},
\end{equation}
where $\gamma_6=25.10^{-4}$, $\gamma_7=5.10^{-4}$, $\gamma_8=4.10^{-4}$. All these profiles are represented in black in Figure \ref{recgene}. The profile $h_5$ represent a dilation of the waveguide, while $h_6$ represent a compression of the waveguide. The profile $h_7$ is the more general one with both compressions and dilations. Again, sources in \eqref{eqmatlab} are located in every large area of the waveguide to generate significant locally resonant modes and are defined by
\begin{equation}\label{f5}
f^5(x,y)=\delta_{x=0}y, \quad b_{\text{top}}^5(x)=\delta_{x=0}(x), \quad b_{\text{bot}}^5=0,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{f6}
f^6(x,y)=(\delta_{x=6}+\delta_{x=-6})y, \quad b_{\text{top}}^6(x)=(\delta_{x=6}+\delta_{x=-6}), \quad b_{\text{bot}}^6=0,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{f7}
f^7(x,y)=(\delta_{x=-1.5}+\delta_{x=6})y, \quad b_{\text{top}}^7(x)=(\delta_{x=-1.5}+\delta_{x=6}), \quad b_{\text{bot}}^7=0.
\end{equation}
We also define the frequency sets
\begin{equation}\label{Ki2}
K_5=\{30.65:31.4:20\}, \quad K_6=\{31.42:32.21:20\}, \quad K_7=\{30.97:31.43:20\}.
\end{equation}
We plot in red in Figure \ref{recgene} the reconstructions $h^{\text{app}}$, slightly shifted, obtained using our method of reconstruction. We also compute the $L^\infty$ norm of $h-h^{\text{app}}$ in each situation.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.8}{\input{rec2}} \hspace{5mm}\scalebox{0.8}{\input{rec5}}\\[2mm]
\scalebox{0.8}{\input{rec8}}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{recgene} Reconstruction of three different general profiles. In black, the initial shape of $\Omega_6$, and in red, the reconstruction, slightly shifted for comparison purposes. In each case, $K=K_i$ is defined in \eqref{Ki2}, $h=h_i$ is defined in \eqref{h5}, \eqref{h6}, \eqref{h7}, and sources of \eqref{eqmatlab} are defined in \eqref{f5}, \eqref{f6}, \eqref{f7}. We also compute the relative error $\Vert h-h^{\text{app}}\Vert_\infty/h_{\max}$ between the exact reconstruction and the approximation. Top left: $i=5$, $\Vert h-h^{\text{app}}\Vert_\infty/h_{\max}=0.57\%$. Top right: $i=6$, $\Vert h-h^{\text{app}}\Vert_\infty/h_{\max}=0.81\%$. Bottom: $i=7$, $\Vert h-h^{\text{app}}\Vert_\infty/h_{\max}=0.97\%$. }
\end{figure}
To conclude, we have provided in this section a method to reconstruct slowly varying width defects given one side boundary measurements of the wavefield at local resonant frequencies. This method works for every type of source and does not require any \textit{a priori} information on the source except the fact that it is located away from the defect. This reconstruction method is very sensitive to small defects and works numerically to reconstruct dilatations or compressions of the waveguide.
\section{Conclusion}
In this article, we have used the study of the forward problem in slowly varying waveguide presented in \cite{bonnetier2} and the approximation of the solutions as combination of Airy functions to develop a new inverse method to reconstruct the width of slowly varying waveguides. Given wavefield measurements at the surface of the waveguide for different locally resonant frequencies, we reconstruct the associated locally resonant points which lead to a good approximation of the width of the waveguide.
One main advantage of this new method is that is does not require any \emph{a priori} information on the sources, and we believe that it could be applied to develop new non destructive passive monitoring methods. Moreover, using locally resonant modes, this method can detect small variations of the width with a high sensibility. More importantly, when we compare this new method with the usual back scattering method developed for instance in \cite{bonnetier1}, we notice that this new method seems a lot more precise: while the best relative reconstruction errors are of the order of $8\%$ in \cite{bonnetier1}, we reach in this papers relative errors of the order of less than $1\%$. Even if measurements are not taken in the same area, this improvement of the reconstruction precision must be underlined.
We believe that this work could be extended to elastic waveguides in two dimensions, using the modal decomposition in Lamb modes presented in \cite{pagneux2}. After generalizing it to elastic waveguide, we plan in future works to test the method developed in this article on experimental data to see if the good numerical results obtained using data generated by finite element methods can be reproduced. Indeed, different physical experiments have already been conducted to recover width defects using locally resonant frequencies (see \cite{balogun1,ces1}) and we hope that the present reconstruction method could both justify and improve these width reconstructions.
\section*{Appendix A: Identification of $\supp(h)$, $k_{\min}$ and $k_{\max}$}
Giving a compactly perturbed waveguide $\Omega$, we describe here how one side boundary measurements enable to approximate very precisely the quantities $\supp(h)$, $k_{\min}$ and $k_{\max}$. The article \cite{bourgeois1} mentions that the problem \eqref{eqmatlab} is not well-defined when $k_n(x)=0$ in a non-trivial interval, which especially happens when $k=n\pi/h_{\min}$ or $k=n\pi/h_{\max}$. Numerically, this results in an explosion of the solution when $k$ tends to $n\pi/h_{\min}$ (resp. $n\pi/h_{\max}$) with a source term located in the area where $h(x)=h_{\min}$ (resp. $h(x)=h_{\max}$). This behavior is illustrated in Figure \ref{explosion}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\input{explosion}
\caption{\label{explosion} $\text{L}^2$-norm of $u(x,0)$ on the interval $(-8,8)$ with respect to $k$ for a source $b_\text{top}=\delta_{x=-5}$ at the left of $\supp(h)$, and a source $b_\text{top}=\delta_{x=5}$ at the right of $\supp(h)$. For comparison purposes, $n\pi/h_{\max}$ and $n\pi/h_{\min}$ are plotted for $n=1$ and $n=2$.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Measuring the surface wavefield while $k$ varies and detecting its explosions provides a good approximation of the width at the left and the right of the waveguide. Then, we choose a frequency $k=n\pi/h_{\max}$ or $k=n\pi/h_{\min}$ and we move the sources while measuring the amplitude of the wavefield. It the source is located outside of the support of $h$, the wavefield is supposed to explode, which provides a good approximation of the support of $h$. This behavior is illustrated in Figure \ref{explosionsource}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\input{explosionsource}
\caption{\label{explosionsource} $\text{L}^2$-norm of $u(x,0)$ on the interval $(-8,8)$ with respect to the position $s$ of the source $b_\text{top}=\delta_{x=s}$, for a frequency $k=pi/h_{\max}$ and $k=\pi/h_{\min}$. For comparison purposes the support of $h$ is plotted.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section*{Appendix B: Proof of Proposition \ref{leastsq}}
\begin{proof}
For every $\g p\in U$, we compute
\begin{equation}
\nabla J_{\g d}(\g p)=\left(\begin{array}{c} \sum_{i=1}^{n}\mathcal{A}(\beta-\alpha t_i)(z\mathcal{A}(\beta-\alpha t_i)-d_i)\\
\sum_{i=1}^{n}-zt_i\mathcal{A}'(\beta-\alpha t_i)(z\mathcal{A}(\beta-\alpha t_i)-d_i) \\
\sum_{i=1}^{n}z\mathcal{A}'(\beta-\alpha t_i)(z\mathcal{A}(\beta-\alpha t_i)-d_i) \end{array}\right),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\nabla^2J_{\g d}(\g p)=\sum_{i=1}^{n}M_i(\beta-\alpha t_i),
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
M_i=\left(\begin{array}{ccc} \mathcal{A}^2 & -t_i\mathcal{A}'\times (2z\mathcal{A}-d_i) & \mathcal{A}'(2z\mathcal{A}-d_i) \\ -t_i\times \mathcal{A}'\times (2z\mathcal{A}-d_i) & \begin{array}{c} zt_i^2\mathcal{A}''\times (z\mathcal{A}-d_i)\\ \qquad +z^2t_i^2\times (\mathcal{A}')^2\end{array} & \begin{array}{c} -zt_i\times \mathcal{A}''(z\mathcal{A}-d_i)\\ \qquad -t_iz^2(\mathcal{A}')^2 \end{array}\\\mathcal{A}'\times (2z\mathcal{A}-d_i) & \begin{array}{c} -zt_i\times \mathcal{A}''(z\mathcal{A}-d_i)\\ \qquad -t_iz^2\times (\mathcal{A}')^2 \end{array} & \begin{array}{c} z\mathcal{A}''\times (z\mathcal{A}-d_i)\\ \qquad z^2(\mathcal{A}')^2 \end{array}\end{array}\right).\end{equation}
For every $h\in \mathbb{C}\times\mathbb{R}^2$, $h\neq 0$,
\begin{equation}
(\nabla^2J_{\g d}(\g p)h|h)=A(\g p,h)+B(\g p,h),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
A(\g p,h)=\sum_{i=1}^{n} (\mathcal{A}(\beta-\alpha t_i)h_1+z\mathcal{A}'(\beta-\alpha t_i)(h_3-h_2t_i))^2,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
B(\g p,h)=\sum_{i=1}^{n}(z\mathcal{A}(\beta-\alpha t_i)-d_i)(2\mathcal{A}'(\beta-\alpha t_i)h_1(h_3-h_2t_i)+z\mathcal{A}''(\beta-\alpha t_i)(h_3-h_2t_i)^2).
\end{equation}
We want to prove that $A(\g p,h)>0$. To do so, we use the following Lemma.
\begin{lem}
For every $(h_1,h_2,h_3)\in \mathbb{C}\times \mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}$ and $(z,\alpha,\beta)\in U$, the set of zeros of
\begin{equation}
x\mapsto h_1\mathcal{A}(\beta-\alpha x)+z\mathcal{A}'(\beta-\alpha x)\left(h_3-h_2x\right),
\end{equation}
is finite, and at most equal to $3\ell+3$ where $\ell$ is the number of zeros of $\mathcal{A}'$ on
\begin{equation}
I:=[\beta_{\min}-t,\beta_{\max}+t], \qquad \text{where} \qquad t=\alpha_{\max}\max(|t_1|,|t_n|).
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We do a change of variable $u=\beta-\alpha x$, and we see that for every $x\in [x_1,x_n]$, $u\in I$. We now look for $u\in I$ satisfying
\begin{equation}
g_1(u):= h_1\mathcal{A}(u)+z\mathcal{A}'(u)\left(h_3-\frac{h_2}{\alpha}(\beta-u)\right)=0.
\end{equation}
We notice that if $h_1=0$ then $g_1(u)=0$ if and only if $\mathcal{A}'(u)=0$ or $x=h_3/h_2$, which gives $\ell+1$ zeros of $g_1$. Otherwise, we notice that if $\mathcal{A}'(u)=0$ then $g_1(u)\neq 0$ since every zero of the Airy function is simple (see \cite{abramowitz1}). It means that there exist $\alpha\in \mathbb{C}$ and $\beta \in \mathbb{R}$ such that
\begin{equation}
g_1(u)=0 \quad \Leftrightarrow \quad \frac{\mathcal{A}}{\mathcal{A}'}(u)=\alpha u +\beta.
\end{equation}
We define
\begin{equation}
g_2(u)=\frac{\mathcal{A}}{\mathcal{A}'}(u)-\alpha u -\beta,
\end{equation}
and then
\begin{equation}
g_2'(u)=\left(1-u\left(\frac{\mathcal{A}(u)}{\mathcal{A}'(u)}\right)^2\right), \qquad g_2''(u)=\frac{\mathcal{A}(u)}{\mathcal{A}'(u)}\underbrace{\left(2-2u\left(\frac{\mathcal{A}(u)}{\mathcal{A}'(u)}\right)^2-\frac{\mathcal{A}(u)}{\mathcal{A}'(u)}\right)}_{>0}.
\end{equation}
Between two zeros of $\mathcal{A}'$, $\mathcal{A}$ vanishes only once, meaning that depending of the value of $\alpha$, $g_2'$ vanishes at most twice, and so depending of the value of $\beta$, $g_2$ vanishes at most three times.
\end{proof}
Back to the proof of Proposition \ref{leastsq}, we now set $n_0=3\ell+3$, and if $n>n_0$ then it shows that $A(\g p,h)>0$. We denote $\lambda_1(\g p)=\min_{h\in \mathbb{R}^3, h\neq 0}a(\g p,h)/\Vert h \Vert_2^2$. This function is continuous on a subset $U_1\subset U$, and we denote by $m$ the minimum of $\lambda_1$ on $U_1$. We also notice that
\begin{equation}
|b(\g p,h)|\leq \Vert z\mathcal{A}(\beta-\alpha X) -\g d\Vert_1(\Vert \mathcal{A}'\Vert _\infty+2z\Vert \mathcal{A}''\Vert_\infty)(1+\Vert \g t\Vert_\infty)\Vert h\Vert_2^2.
\end{equation}
We see that
\begin{equation}
\Vert z\mathcal{A}(\beta-\alpha X) -\g d\Vert_1=\Vert F(\g p)-\g d\Vert_1\leq \Vert F(\g p)-F(\g p_0)\Vert_1+\Vert \g d_0-\g d\Vert_1.
\end{equation}
There exists a constant $M>0$ depending on $U$ such that for every $\g p\in U$,
\begin{equation}
\Vert F(\g p)-F(\g p_0)\Vert_1\leq M\Vert \g p-\g p_0\Vert_1.
\end{equation}
We define $U_2=U_1\cap B_1(p_0,\varepsilon_1/M)$ where
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon_1:=\frac{m}{4(\Vert \mathcal{A}'\Vert _\infty+2z_{\max}\Vert \mathcal{A}''\Vert_\infty)(1+\max(|x_1|,|x_n|))}.
\end{equation}
It follows that for every $\g p\in U_2$ and $\g d\in B_1(\g d_0,\varepsilon_1)$,
\begin{equation}
\Vert F(\g p)-F(\g p_0)\Vert_1\leq \varepsilon_1, \quad |b(\g p,h)|\leq \frac{m}{2}\Vert h \Vert_2^2.
\end{equation}
The operator $J_{\g d}$ is then strictly convex on $U_2$ since
\begin{equation}
\Vert \nabla^2J_{\g d}(\g p)\Vert_2\geq \min_{h\in \mathbb{C}\times \mathbb{R}^2, h\neq 0}\frac{| A(\g p,h)|-|B(\g p,h)|}{\Vert h \Vert_2^2}\geq \frac{m}{2}>0
\end{equation}
We now need to prove that the minimum of $J_{\g d}$ is located inside of $U_2$ and not on its boundary. To do so, we look for a point $\g p\in U_2$ such that $\nabla J_{\g d}(\g p)=0$. We already know that $\nabla J_{\g d_0}(\g p_0)=0$. Using the implicit function theorem, there exists an open set $V\subset \mathbb{R}^{n}$ containing $\g d_0$ such that there exists a unique continuously differentiable function $G_1: V\rightarrow \mathbb{C}\times \mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}$ such that $\nabla F_{\g d}(G_1(\g d))=0$. We define $U'=G_1(V)\cap U_2$ and there exists $\varepsilon>0$ such that $B_2(\g d_0,\varepsilon)\subset G_1^{-1}(U')\cap B_1(\g d_0,\varepsilon_1)$. It shows that the application
\begin{equation}
G:\left\{\begin{array}{rcl} B_2(\g d_0,\varepsilon) & \rightarrow & U' \\ \g d& \mapsto& \text{argmin}_{\g p\in U'}J_{\g d}(\g p)\end{array}\right. ,
\end{equation}
is well-defined and continuously differentiable. Moreover, we also know that
\begin{equation}
\partial_{d_j}G(\g d)=-[\nabla^2J_{\g d}(G(\g d))]^{-1}[\partial_{d_j}\nabla J_{\g d}(G(\g d))].
\end{equation}
We denote $\g p_\text{LS}=G(\g d)$, and
\begin{equation}
\Vert \partial_{d_j}\nabla J_{\g d}(\g p_\text{LS})\Vert_2=\left\Vert\left(\begin{array}{c} -\mathcal{A}(\beta_\text{LS}-\alpha_\text{LS}t_j) \\
z_\text{LS}t_j\mathcal{A}'(\beta_\text{LS}-\alpha_\text{LS}t_j) \\
-z_\text{LS}\mathcal{A}'(\beta_\text{LS}-\alpha_\text{LS}t_j)\end{array}\right) \right\Vert_2\leq \sqrt{\Vert \mathcal{A}\Vert_\infty^2+\alpha_{\max}\Vert \mathcal{A}'\Vert_\infty^2(1+\Vert \g t\Vert_\infty)}:=c_1.
\end{equation}
If follows that
\begin{equation}
\Vert\g p_\text{LS}-\g p_0\Vert_2=\Vert G(\g d)-G(\g d_0)\Vert_2\leq \frac{2\sqrt{n}c_1}{m}\Vert \g d-\g d_0\Vert_2.
\end{equation}
Finally,
\begin{equation}
|\Lambda(\g d)-\Lambda(\g d_0)|\leq \frac{1}{\alpha_{\min}}|\beta_\text{LS}-\beta_0|+\frac{\beta_{\max}}{(\alpha_{\min})^2}|\alpha_\text{LS}-\beta_\text{LS}|\leq \left(\frac{1}{\alpha_{\min}}+\frac{\beta_{\max}}{(\alpha_{\min})^2}\right)\frac{2\sqrt{n}c_1}{m}\Vert \g d-\g d_0\Vert_{2}.
\end{equation}
\end{proof}
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
\section{Introduction}
This article presents a new method to reconstruct width variations of a slowly varying waveguide from multi-frequency one side boundary measurements in dimension 2. The considered varying waveguide is described by
\begin{equation} \Omega:=\left\{(x,y)\in \mathbb{R}^2 \, |\, 0<y<h(x)\right\},
\end{equation}
where $h\in \mathcal{C}^2(\mathbb{R})\cap W^{2,\infty}(\mathbb{R})$ is a positive profile function defining the top boundary. The bottom boundary is assumed to be flat (see an illustration in Figure \ref{meas}) but a similar analysis could be done when both boundaries are varying. In the time-harmonic regime, the wavefield $u$ satisfies the Helmholtz equation with Neumann boundary conditions
\begin{equation}\label{eqdebut}
\left\{\begin{array}{cl}
\Delta u+k^2u =- f & \text{ in } \Omega,\\ \partial_\nu u =b & \text{ on }\partial\Omega,
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
where $k\in (0,+\infty)$ is the frequency, $f$ is an interior source term, and $b$ is a boundary source term. In this work, a waveguide is said to be slowly varying when there exists a small parameter $\eta>0$ such that $\Vert h'\Vert_{\text{L}^\infty(\mathbb{R})}\leq \eta$ and $\Vert h''\Vert_{\text{L}^\infty(\mathbb{R})}\leq \eta^2$. Such waveguides are good models of ducts, corroded pipes, or metal plates (see \cite{honarvar1,legrand1}).
We focus in this work on the recovery of the function $h$ modeling the waveguide shape from the knowledge of the wavefield $d^\text{ex}(x) :=u(x,0)$ on one surface of the waveguide and for multiple frequencies $k$. This model and inverse problem is inspired from non destructive monitoring of plates done in \cite{balogun1,legrand2,ces1}. Hence we assume the knowledge of measurements of $u(x,y)$ for $x\in I$ where $I$ is an interval of $\mathbb{R}$ and $y=0$ in a frequency interval $K\subset (0,+\infty)$, as shown in Figure \ref{meas}.
If $k$ is chosen such that $k=n\pi/h(x^\star_k)$ with $n\in \mathbb{N}$ and $x^\star_k\in \mathbb{R}$, the Helmholtz problem is not well posed in general. Nevertheless, we prove in \cite{bonnetier2} that there exists a unique solution to this problem as long as the waveguide is slowly varying. In the same work, we also give a suitable explicit approximation of the wavefield that explicitly depends on $x^\star_k$. The aim in this article to recover the position of $x^\star_k$ for different frequencies, and then to recover the shape function $h$. Using these frequencies, the proposed inverse problem is highly non linear but a unique and stable recovering of $h$ is possible up to a controllable approximation error.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (-2,0) -- (9,0);
\draw (-2,1) -- (1,1);
\draw (7,1.2998) -- (9,1.2998);
\draw [domain=1:7, samples=200] plot (\x,{0.3*sin(4*pi*sqrt(\x)/sqrt(7) r)+1-0.3*sin(4*pi/sqrt(7) r)});
\draw (-2.7,0) node{$y=0$};
\draw (-2.8,1) node{$y=h(x)$};
\draw [white,fill=gray!40] (-1,0.9)--(1,0.9)--(1,1.1)--(-1,1.1)--(-1,0.9);
\draw (0,1.2) node[above]{$b$};
\draw [white,fill=gray!40] (3,0.6) circle (0.3);
\draw (3,0.6) node{$f$};
\draw (-1.5,0) node[regular polygon,regular polygon sides=4, fill=black, scale=0.5]{};
\draw (0.5,0) node[regular polygon,regular polygon sides=4, fill=black, scale=0.5]{};
\draw (2.5,0) node[regular polygon,regular polygon sides=4, fill=black, scale=0.5]{};
\draw (4.5,0) node[regular polygon,regular polygon sides=4, fill=black, scale=0.5]{};
\draw (6.5,0) node[regular polygon,regular polygon sides=4, fill=black, scale=0.5]{};
\draw (8.5,0) node[regular polygon,regular polygon sides=4, fill=black, scale=0.5]{};
\draw (-0.5,0) node[regular polygon,regular polygon sides=4, fill=black, scale=0.5]{};
\draw (1.5,0) node[regular polygon,regular polygon sides=4, fill=black, scale=0.5]{};
\draw (3.5,0) node[regular polygon,regular polygon sides=4, fill=black, scale=0.5]{};
\draw (5.5,0) node[regular polygon,regular polygon sides=4, fill=black, scale=0.5]{};
\draw (7.5,0) node[regular polygon,regular polygon sides=4, fill=black, scale=0.5]{};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{meas} Parametrization of a slowly variable waveguide of width $h$. A wavefield $u$ is generated by an internal source $f$ and/or a boundary source $b$. Squares represent measurements of $u$ taken on the surface $y=0$.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Scientific context}
The detection and reconstruction of shape defects in a waveguide are mentioned in different works. In articles \cite{lu1,abra1,abra2}, the authors use a conformal mapping to map the geometry of the perturbed waveguide to that of a regular waveguide. This method is beneficial to understand the propagation of waves in irregular waveguides. Still, it is not easily adaptable to the inverse problem and the reconstruction of defects since the transformation to a regular waveguide is not explicit and proves numerically expensive. Another approach based on the scattering field treatment is developed in \cite{norgren1}. Finally, articles \cite{pagneux2,folguera1} study the forward problem and give leads on how to use one side boundary measurements to reconstruct the width of a slowly varying waveguide.
Our work concerns a different approach, also used in \cite{bao1,bao2}, where we assume the data to be available for a whole interval of frequencies. This provides additional information that should help to localize and reconstruct the shape of the defect. Moreover, the use of multi-frequency data often provides uniqueness of the reconstruction (see \cite{acosta1}) and a better stability (see \cite{bao3,isakov1,sini1}).
In a previous work \cite{bonnetier1}, we already
presented a method to reconstruct small width variations using an inverse scattering procedure. However,
we
avoided all the cut-off frequencies of the waveguide, which are frequencies $k>0$ such that $k=n\pi/h(x^\star_k)$ for a mode $n\in \mathbb{N}$ and a longitudinal position $x^\star_k$. Since experimental works presented in \cite{balogun1,ces1} suggest that these resonant frequencies are helpful to reconstruct width variations, we choose in this article to work only with these frequencies. Using the study of the forward problem already done in \cite{bonnetier2}, we know that if $k$ is a locally resonant frequency, the wavefield $u$ strongly depends on $x^\star_k$. The main idea of our reconstruction method is to use measurements of $u$ to find back $x^\star_k$. Since $h(x^\star_k)=n\pi/k$, it then gives up the information about the width of the waveguide in one point. By taking different locally resonant frequencies $k$, we show that one can obtain a complete approximation of the width $h$ of the waveguide.
\subsection{Outline of the paper}
The key result of this paper is Theorem \ref{th2}, which proves that $u$ is close to a three parameters Airy function, one parameter being $x^\star_k$. As explained in Proposition \ref{leastsq}, it enables us to find the value of $x^\star_k$ for every locally resonant frequency, and to prove that our reconstruction method is $\text{L}^\infty$-stable. The paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we briefly recall results on the modal decomposition and the study of the forward problem. In section 3, we study the inverse problem with measurements taken at the surface of the waveguide and we provide a stability result for the reconstruction of the width of the waveguide. Finally, in section 4, we provide numerical reconstruction of different width defects.
\subsection{Notations}
The varying waveguide is denoted by $\Omega$, its boundary by $\partial\Omega$ and the subscript “top” (resp. “bot”) indicates the upper boundary of the waveguide (resp. lower). We denote $\nu$ the outer normal unit vector. For every $\ell>0$, we set $\Omega_\ell= \{(x,y)\in \Omega\, |\, |x|<\ell\}$. Spaces $\text{H}^1$ $\text{H}^2$, $W^{1,1}$, $\text{H}^{1/2}$ over $\Omega$ or $\mathbb{R}$ are classic Sobolev spaces. The Airy function of the first kind (resp. second kind) is denoted by $\mathcal{A}$ (resp. $\mathcal{B}$). They are linear independent solutions of the Airy equation $y''-xy=0$ (see \cite{abramowitz1} for more results about Airy functions). See in Figure \ref{airy} the graph of these two functions. The term $\delta_{x=s}$ denotes the Dirac distribution at the point $s\in \mathbb{R}$ and the function $\textbf{1}_{E}$ is the indicator function of the set $E$. Finally, the notation $\{a:b:\ell\}$ designates the uniform discretization of the interval $[a,b]$ with $\ell$ points.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{.5}{\input{airy}}
\caption{\label{airy} Representation of the Airy functions $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Brief study of the forward problem}
Before studying the inverse problem associated with the reconstruction of the width in a varying waveguide, we need to study the forward problem in order to find an approximation of the available data. In this section, we briefly recall all the main results on the study of the forward problem. These results and their proofs can be found in \cite{bonnetier1,bourgeois1}.
A useful tool when working in waveguides is the modal decomposition. The following definition provides a modal decomposition in varying waveguides:
\begin{defi}\label{def:modes} We define the sequence of functions $(\varphi_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ by
\begin{equation}\label{phin}
\forall (x,y)\in \Omega,\quad \varphi_n(x,y) :=
\left\{\begin{array}{cl}
1/\sqrt{h(x)}\quad &\text{if } n=0, \\
\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{h(x)}}\cos\left(\frac{n\pi y}{h(x)}\right)\quad &\text{if } n\geq 1,
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
which for any fixed $x\in \mathbb{R}$ defines an orthonormal basis of $\text{L}^2(0,h(x))$.\end{defi}
Hence, a solution $u \in \text{H}^2_{\text{loc}}\big(\Omega\big)$ of \eqref{eqdebut} admits a unique modal decomposition
\begin{equation}\label{decmode}
u(x,y)=\sum_{n\in \mathbb{N}} u_{n}(x) \varphi_n(x,y)\quad\text{where}\quad u_{n}(x):=\int_0^{h(x)} u(x,y)\varphi_n(x,y)\mathrm{d} y.
\end{equation}
Note that $ u_{n}$ does not satisfy in general any nice equation. However, when $h$ is constant (outside of $\supp(h')$), it satisfies an equation of the form $u_{n}''+k_n^2 u_{n}=- g_n$ where $k_n^2=k^2-n^2\pi^2/h^2$ is the wavenumber. When $h$ is variable, the decomposition \eqref{decmode} motivates the following definition:
\begin{defi}\label{def:wavenumber} The local wavenumber function of the mode $n\in\mathbb{N}$ is the complex function $k_n:\mathbb{R}\to \mathbb{C}$ defined by
\begin{equation}
k_n^2(x):=k^2-\frac{n^2\pi^2}{h(x)^2},
\end{equation}
with $\text{Re}(k_n), \text{Im}(k_n)\geq 0$.
\end{defi}
In this work, as $h(x)$ is non constant, $k_n(x)$ may vanish for some $x\in\mathbb{R}$ and change from a positive real number to a purely imaginary one. We then distinguish three different situations:
\begin{defi} A mode $n\in\mathbb{N}$ falls in one of these three situations:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $n<kh(x)/\pi$ for all $x\in\mathbb{R}$ then $k_n(x)\in(0,+\infty)$ for all $x\in\mathbb{R}$ and the mode $n$ is called propagative.
\item If $n>kh(x)/\pi$ for all $x\in\mathbb{R}$ then $k_n(x)\in i(0,+\infty)$ for all $x\in\mathbb{R}$ and the mode $n$ is called evanescent.
\item If there exists $x^\star_k\in \mathbb{R}$ such that $n=kh(x^\star_k)/\pi$ the mode $n$ is called locally resonant. Such points $x^\star_k$ are called resonant points, and there are simple if $h'(x^\star_k)\neq 0$, and multiple otherwise.
\end{enumerate}
A frequency $k>0$ for which there exists at least a locally resonant mode is called a locally resonant frequency.
\end{defi}
Using the wavenumber function, one can adapt the classic Sommerfeld (or outgoing) condition, defined in \cite{bonnetier1} for regular waveguides, to general varying waveguides $\Omega$. This condition is used to guarantee uniqueness for the source problem given in equation \eqref{eqdebut}.
\begin{defi}\label{def:outgoing} A wavefield $ u_k \in \text{H}^2_{\text{loc}}\big( \Omega\big)$ is said to be outgoing if it satisfies
\begin{equation} \label{sommer}\left| u_{n}'(x)\frac{x}{|x|}-ik_n(x) u_{n}(x) \right| \underset{|x|\rightarrow +\infty}{\longrightarrow} 0 \qquad \forall n\in \mathbb{N},
\end{equation}
where $u_{n}$ is given in \eqref{decmode}.
\end{defi}
In all this work, we make the following assumptions:
\begin{asum}\label{def:slow} We assume that $h\in \mathcal{C}^2(\mathbb{R})\cap W^{2,\infty}(\mathbb{R})$ with $h'$ compactly supported and we then define two constants $0<h_{\min}\leq h_{\max}<+\infty$ such that
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\forall x\in \mathbb{R} \quad h_{\min} \leq h(x) \leq h_{\max},
\end{equation}
and $h(x)=h_{\min}$ or $h(x)=h_{\max}$ if $x\notin \supp(h')$. For such a function, we define a parameter $\eta>0$ that satisfies
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\Vert h'\Vert_{\text{L}^\infty(\mathbb{R})} <\eta\quad\text{ and } \quad \Vert h''\Vert_{\text{L}^\infty(\mathbb{R})}<\eta^2.
\end{equation}
\end{asum}
Such a waveguide is represented in Figure \ref{wg}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (-1.5,0) -- (9,0);
\draw (-1.5,1) -- (0,1);
\draw (7,1.4) -- (9,1.4);
\draw (4.5,0.6) node{$\Omega$};
\draw [domain=0:7, samples=100] plot (\x,{1+12/7/7/7/7/7*\x*\x*\x*(\x*\x/5-7*\x/2+49/3+0.02)});
\draw (-1.5,1) node[left]{$h_{\min}$};
\draw (9,1.4) node[right]{$h_{\max}$};
\draw [dashed] (0,-0.2)--(0,1.6);
\draw [dashed] (7,-0.2)--(7,1.6);
\draw [<->] (0.1,-0.1)--(6.9,-0.1);
\draw (3.5,-0.4) node{supp($h'$)};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{wg} Representation of an increasing slowly and compactly varying waveguide.}
\end{figure}
The forward source problem is defined for every frequency $k>0$ by
\begin{equation}\label{eqmatlab} (\mathcal{H}_k) : \quad
\left\{\begin{array}{cl} \Delta u +k^2 u= -f & \text{ in } \Omega, \\
\partial_\nu u =b_\text{top} &\text{ in } \partial\Omega_\text{top},\\
\partial_\nu u =b_\text{bot} &\text{ in } \partial\Omega_\text{bot}, \\
u\text{ is outgoing,} \end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
As explained in \cite{bourgeois1}, this problem is not well-posed when $\{x \,|\, k_n(x)=0\}$ is a non-trivial interval of $\mathbb{R}$. This especially happens when $k=n\pi/h_{\min}$ or $k=n\pi/h_{\max}$. We then avoid these two forbidden situations and we set
\begin{equation}\label{delta}
\delta(k):=\min_{n\in \mathbb{N}}\left(\sqrt{\left|k^2-\frac{n^2\pi^2}{{h_{\min}}^2}\right|},\sqrt{\left|k^2-\frac{n^2\pi^2}{{h_{\max}}^2}\right|} \right).
\end{equation}
From now on, we define $(f_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ the modal decomposition of $f$, and
\begin{equation}\label{gn}
g_n(x):=\frac{f_n(x)}{\sqrt{h(x)}}+\varphi_n(1)b_\text{top}(x)\frac{\sqrt{1+(h'(x))^2}}{\sqrt{h}}+\varphi_n(0)b_\text{bot}(x) \frac{1}{\sqrt{h}}.
\end{equation}
Using the work done in \cite{bonnetier2}, we are able to provide an approximation of the solution of \eqref{eqmatlab}. If $h$ is increasing, we can state the following result using Theorem 1 and Remark 3 in \cite{bonnetier2}.
\begin{theorem}\label{th1}
Let $h$ be an increasing function defining a varying waveguide $\Omega$ that satisfies Assumption \ref{def:slow} with a variation parameter $\eta>0$. Consider sources $f\in \text{L}^\infty_c(\Omega)$, $b:=(b_\text{bot},b_\text{top})\in ({\text{H}}^{1/2}(\mathbb{R}))^2\cap (\text{L}^\infty_c(\mathbb{R})^2)$. Assume that there is a unique locally resonant mode $N\in \mathbb{N}$, associated with a simple resonant point $x^\star_k\in\mathbb{R}$. Let $I\subset \mathbb{R}$ be an interval of length $R>0$, and $\Omega_I:=\{(x,y)\in \Omega \, |\, x\in I\}$.
There exists $\eta_0>0$ depending only on $h_{\min}$, $h_{\max}$, $\delta(k)$ and $R$ such that if $\eta\leq \eta_0$, then the problem $(\mathcal{H}_k)$ admits a unique solution $u\in \text{H}^2_{\text{loc}}\big(\Omega)$. Moreover, this solution is approached by $u^{\text{app}}$ defined for almost every $(x,y)\in \Omega$ by
\begin{equation}\label{greentot}
u^{\text{app}}(x,y):=\sum_{n\in \mathbb{N}} \left(\int_\mathbb{R} G_{n}^{\text{app}}(x,s)g_n(s)\mathrm{d} s\right)\varphi_n\left(y\right),
\end{equation}
where $(f_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ is the modal decomposition of $f$, $\varphi_n$ is defined in \eqref{phin} and $G_{n}^{\text{app}}$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{greenfunction}
G_{n}^{\text{app}}(x,s):=
\left\{\begin{aligned}
&\frac{i}{2\sqrt{k_n(s)k_n(x)}}\exp\left(i\left|\int_s^xk_n\right|\right), & \quad\text{ if } n<N,\\
&\frac{1}{2\sqrt{|k_n|(s)|k_n|(x)}}\exp\left(-\left|\int_s^x|k_n|\right|\right), & \quad\text{if } n>N,\\
&\left\{\begin{aligned}
\frac{\pi(\xi(s)\xi(x))^{1/4}}{\sqrt{k_n(s)k_n(x)}}\big(i\mathcal{A}+\mathcal{B}\big)\circ\xi(s)\mathcal{A}\circ\xi(x)& \quad\text{ if } x<s, \\
\frac{\pi(\xi(s)\xi(x))^{1/4}}{\sqrt{k_n(s)k_n(x)}}\big(i\mathcal{A}+\mathcal{B}\big)\circ\xi(x)\mathcal{A}\circ\xi(s)& \quad\text{ if } x>s, \\
\end{aligned}\right.
&\quad\text{ if } n=N.
\end{aligned}\right.\end{equation}
Function $k_n$ is the wavenumber function defined in Definition \ref{def:wavenumber} and the function $\xi$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:xi}
\xi(x):=
\left\{\begin{aligned}
\left(-\frac{3}{2}i\int_x^{x^\star_k}k_N(t)\mathrm{d} t\right)^{2/3} & \text{ if } x<x^\star_k, \\ -\left(\frac{3}{2}\int_{x^\star_k}^x k_N(t) \mathrm{d} t \right)^{2/3} & \text{ if } x>x^\star_k.
\end{aligned}\right.\end{equation}
Precisely, there exist a constant $C_1>0$ depending only on $h_{\min}$, $h_{\max}$ and $N$ such that
\begin{equation}
\Vert u -u^{\text{app}}\Vert_{\text{H}^1(\Omega_I)}\leq C_1\eta R^2\delta(k)^{-8}\left(\Vert f\Vert_{\text{L}^2(\Omega)}+\Vert b\Vert_{\left({\text{H}}^{1/2}(\mathbb{R})\right)^2}\right).
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
This result provides an approximation of the measurements of the wavefield for every frequency, and a control of the approximation error. We represent in Figure \ref{direct_multi_freq} the wavefield for different frequencies. We also point out in Figure \ref{direct_multi_freq2} that the source should be located in an area where $h>h(x^\star)$ in order to generated a significant locally resonant mode.
\begin{figure}\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[width=4cm, height=1.7cm, axis on top, scale only axis, xmin=-7, xmax=7, ymin=-0.01, ymax=0.14, colorbar,point meta min=0,point meta max=0.1604, title={$k=30.9$}, colorbar style={ytick distance=0.1}, ytick distance=0.1,axis line style={draw=none},tick style={draw=none}]
\addplot graphics [xmin=-7,xmax=7,ymin=0,ymax=0.1013]{guide1.png};
\draw [red] (6,-0.01)--(6,0.11) node[above]{$s$};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{2mm}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[width=4cm, height=1.7cm, axis on top, scale only axis, xmin=-7, xmax=7, ymin=-0.01, ymax=0.14, colorbar,point meta min=0,point meta max=1.2831, title={$k=31.1$}, colorbar style={ytick distance=1.2}, ytick distance=0.1,axis line style={draw=none},tick style={draw=none}]
\addplot graphics [xmin=-7,xmax=7,ymin=0,ymax=0.1013]{guide2.png};
\draw [red] (6,-0.01)--(6,0.12) node[left]{$s$};
\draw [red] (3,-0.01)--(3,0.12) node[left]{$x^\star_k$};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[width=4cm, height=1.7cm, axis on top, scale only axis, xmin=-7, xmax=7, ymin=-0.01, ymax=0.14, colorbar,point meta min=0,point meta max=0.3587, title={$k=31.4$}, colorbar style={ytick distance=0.3}, ytick distance=0.1,axis line style={draw=none},tick style={draw=none}]
\addplot graphics [xmin=-7,xmax=7,ymin=0,ymax=0.1013]{guide3.png};
\draw [red] (6,-0.01)--(6,0.12) node[left]{$s$};
\draw [red] (-1.5,-0.01)--(-1.5,0.12) node[left]{$x^\star_k$};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{2mm}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[width=4cm, height=1.7cm, axis on top, scale only axis, xmin=-7, xmax=7, ymin=-0.01, ymax=0.14, colorbar,point meta min=0,point meta max=0.1383, title={$k=32$}, colorbar style={ytick distance=0.1}, ytick distance=0.1,axis line style={draw=none},tick style={draw=none}]
\addplot graphics [xmin=-7,xmax=7,ymin=0,ymax=0.1013]{guide4.png};
\draw [red] (6,-0.01)--(6,0.12) node[left]{$s$};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{direct_multi_freq} Representation of the wavefield amplitude $|u|$ solution of \eqref{eqmatlab} with a monochromatic source $f(x,y):=\delta_{x=s} \varphi_1(y)$ for different frequencies $k$. Data are generated using the finite element method described in Section \ref{num}. When $k=30.9$, the mode $n=1$ is evanescent, and the wavefield decreases very fast around the source. When $k=31.1$ and $k=31.4$, the mode $n=1$ is locally resonant and the wavefield propagates in the waveguide as an Airy function until it reaches the point $x^\star_k$. When $k=32$, the mode $n=2$ is propagative and the wavefield propagates in all the waveguide. In all these representations, the width $h$ is defined by the function \eqref{h4}. }
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[width=4cm, height=1.5cm, axis on top, scale only axis, xmin=-6, xmax=6, ymin=-0.01, ymax=0.14, colorbar,point meta min=0,point meta max=0.3188, title={$k=31$}, colorbar style={ytick distance=0.3}, ytick distance=0.1,axis line style={draw=none},tick style={draw=none}]
\addplot graphics [xmin=-7,xmax=7,ymin=0,ymax=0.1025]{guideb1.png};
\draw [red] (-1,-0.01)--(-1,0.125) node[right]{$s$};
\draw [red] (-2,-0.01)--(-2,0.125) node[left]{$x^\star_k$};
\draw [red] (2,-0.01)--(2,0.125) node[right]{$x^\star_k$};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{2mm}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[width=4cm, height=1.5cm, axis on top, scale only axis, xmin=-6, xmax=6, ymin=-0.01, ymax=0.14, colorbar,point meta min=0,point meta max=0.1002, title={$k=31$}, colorbar style={ytick distance=0.1}, ytick distance=0.1,axis line style={draw=none},tick style={draw=none}]
\addplot graphics [xmin=-7,xmax=7,ymin=0,ymax=0.1025]{guideb2.png};
\draw [red] (-4,-0.01)--(-4,0.12) node[left]{$s$};
\draw [red] (-2,-0.01)--(-2,0.125) node[right]{$x^\star_k$};
\draw [red] (2,-0.01)--(2,0.125) node[right]{$x^\star_k$};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[width=4cm, height=1.5cm, axis on top, scale only axis, xmin=-7, xmax=7, ymin=-0.01, ymax=0.14, colorbar,point meta min=0,point meta max= 0.2803, title={$k=32$}, colorbar style={ytick distance=0.2}, ytick distance=0.1,axis line style={draw=none},tick style={draw=none}]
\addplot graphics [xmin=-7,xmax=7,ymin=0,ymax=0.1]{guideb3.png};
\draw [red] (-5,-0.01)--(-5,0.12) node[left]{$s$};
\draw [red] (-2.5,-0.01)--(-2.5,0.12) node[right]{$x^\star_k$};
\draw [red] (2,-0.01)--(2,0.12) node[right]{$x^\star_k$};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{2mm}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[width=4cm, height=1.5cm, axis on top, scale only axis, xmin=-7, xmax=7, ymin=-0.01, ymax=0.14, colorbar,point meta min=0,point meta max=0.3037, title={$k=32$}, colorbar style={ytick distance=0.3}, ytick distance=0.1,axis line style={draw=none},tick style={draw=none}]
\addplot graphics [xmin=-7,xmax=7,ymin=0,ymax=0.1]{guideb4.png};
\draw [red] (6,-0.01)--(6,0.12) node[left]{$s$};
\draw [red] (2,-0.01)--(2,0.12) node[left]{$x^\star_k$};
\draw [red] (-2.5,-0.01)--(-2.5,0.12) node[left]{$x^\star_k$};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{direct_multi_freq2} Representation of the wavefield amplitude $|u|$ solution of \eqref{eqmatlab} with a monochromatic source $f(x,y):=\delta_{x=s} \varphi_1(y)$ for different positions $s$. On top, $h$ is a dilation defined in \eqref{h5} and on bottom, $h$ is a shrinkage defined in \eqref{h6}. Depending on the location of the source, we observe different behaviors: while top left, bottom left and bottom right show locally resonant modes, the picture on top right show an evanescent mode. In order to generate a significant locally resonant mode, the source $s$ should be placed at a width where $h(s)>h(x^\star_k)$ and the mode only propagates until it reaches the point $x^\star_k$.}
\end{figure}
We notice that at locally resonant frequencies, the wavefield strongly depends on the position of $x^\star_k$, which justify the idea of using it to develop an inverse method to reconstruct the width $h$. An illustration is provided in Figure \ref{direct} with a representation of the wavefield $u$ and the one side boundary measurement $u(x,0)$ when $k$ is a locally resonant frequency.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\input{direct2}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{direct} Illustration of the amplitude of the wavefield measurements in a varying waveguide. The wavefield $u$ is solution of \eqref{eqmatlab} where the profile $h$ is given in \eqref{h4} and $k=31.5$ is a locally resonant frequency. Data are generated using the finite element method described in Section \ref{num}. Top: amplitude of $|u|$ in the whole waveguide $\Omega$ (non scaled). Bottom: amplitude of the measurements of $|u|$ on the surface $y=0$.}
\end{figure}
\section{Shape Inversion using a monochromatic source \label{section2} }
In this section, we describe the method to recover the width $h$ from one side boundary measurements of the wavefield at locally resonant frequencies. We focus here on the reconstruction of the shape of $h$ on $\supp(h')$, assuming the \emph{a priori} knowledge of the constants $h_{\min}$ and $h_{\max}$ and of an interval containing $\supp(h')$. We detail in Appendix~A how these constants can be estimated. To recover the shape function $h$ on $\supp(h')$, we start by studying the simpler case of a source term $f$ generating only a single locally resonant mode in the waveguide. Hence we assume that $f$ takes the form
\begin{equation}\label{fN}
\forall (x,y)\in \Omega \quad f(x,y)=f_N(x) \varphi_N(y), \qquad f_N\in \text{L}^2(\mathbb{R}),
\end{equation}
where $f_N$ is compactly supported. We also assume the absence of boundary source term, meaning that $b=0$. This simplified situation is useful to understand the method of reconstruction. It will be generalized to any kind on internal and boundary sources in section \ref{section_general_source}.
In the simplest case of a single internal source \eqref{fN}, we know from the study of the forward problem in Theorem \ref{th1} that the measured data without noise $d^\text{ex}$ satisfies
\begin{equation} \label{dex}
d^\text{ex}(x):=u(x,0)\approx u_{N}^{\text{app}}(x) \varphi_N(0) \quad \text{where} \quad u_{N}^\text{app}(x)=\int_\mathbb{R} G_{N}^\text{app}(x,s)f_N(s)\mathrm{d} s.
\end{equation}
Our reconstruction method is based on the recovery of the resonant point $x^\star_k$ for every locally resonant frequencies $k$. It can be seen in Theorem \ref{th1} that the approached Green function $G_{N}^\text{app} $ depends on $x^\star_k$ through the function $\xi$. However, this dependence is intricate and hardly usable to find a direct link between $d^\text{ex}$ and $x^\star_k$. Thus, we need to find a simpler approximation of the measurements. In a first part, we provide an approximation of the measured data $d^\text{ex}$ using a three parameters model function
\begin{equation}\label{dapp}
d^\text{app}_{z,\alpha,x_k^\star} : x\mapsto z\mathcal{A}(\alpha(x_k^\star-x)),
\end{equation}
where $z\in \mathbb{C}^*$ is a complex amplitude, $\alpha>0$ is a scaling parameter and $x_k^\star$ is the resonant point playing the role of a longitudinal shift. In a second part, we first control the approximation error between this function and the exact measurements and then, we develop a stable way to reconstruct $x_k^\star$ from this approximated data.
\subsection{Wavefield approximation and measurements approximation}
In order to find a reconstruction of $x^\star_k$, we need to find an exploitable link between $d^\text{ex}:=u(x,0)$ and $x^\star_k$. To do so, we make a Taylor expansion of $G_{N}^{\text{app}}$ around the point $x^\star_k$. For every frequency $k>0$ and $R>0$, we denote
\begin{equation}
\Omega_R(x^\star_k):=\{(x,y)\in \Omega \ |\ |x-x^\star_k| < R\}, \qquad \Gamma_R(x^\star_k):=(x^\star_k-R,x^\star_k+R),
\end{equation}
and we consider the Taylor expansion on the interval $\Gamma_R$. Moreover, we assume that the source is located at the right of the interval $\Gamma_R$, and we thus we define
\begin{equation}
\Omega_R^+(x^\star_k):=\{(x,y)\in \Omega \, |\, x-x^\star_k> R\},\qquad \Gamma_R^+(x^\star_k)=(x^\star_k+R,+\infty).
\end{equation}
Both these sets are represented in Figure \ref{lambda_R}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (-1.5,0) -- (9,0);
\draw (-1.5,1) -- (0,1);
\draw (7,1.4) -- (9,1.4);
\draw [domain=0:7, samples=100] plot (\x,{1+12/7/7/7/7/7*\x*\x*\x*(\x*\x/5-7*\x/2+49/3+0.02)});
\draw [ultra thick] (2.5,-0.2)--(2.5,1.6);
\draw (2.5,-0.2) node[below]{$x^\star_k$};
\draw [>-<] (0.5,-0.1)--(4.5,-0.1);
\draw (1.3,-0.1) node[below]{$\Gamma_R(x^\star_k)$};
\draw [dashed] (0.5,-0.2)--(0.5,1.6);
\draw [dashed] (4.5,-0.2)--(4.5,1.6);
\fill[color=gray!20, pattern=north east lines] (0.5,0)--(0.5,1.0013) -- plot [domain=0.5:4.5] (\x,{1+12/7/7/7/7/7*\x*\x*\x*(\x*\x/5-7*\x/2+49/3+0.02)}) --(4.5,1.3028) -- (4.5,0)--(0.5,0);
\fill[white] (1.9,0.4)--(0.7,0.4)--(0.7,0.8)--(1.9,0.8)--(1.9,0.4);
\draw (1.3,0.6) node{$\Omega_R(x^\star_k)$};
\draw [white,fill=gray!30] (7,0.6) circle (0.3);
\draw (7,0.6) node{$f$};
\draw [>-] (4.5,-0.1)--(9,-0.1);
\draw (5.5,-0.1) node[below]{$\Gamma_R^+(x^\star_k)$};
\draw (5.5,0.6) node{$\Omega_R^+(x^\star_k)$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{lambda_R} Representation of $\Gamma_R(x^\star_k)$, $\Omega_R(x^\star_k)$, $\Gamma_R^+(x^\star_k)$ and $\Omega_R^+(x^\star_k)$. The source $f$ is assumed to be compactly supported in $\Gamma_R^+(x^\star_k)$.}
\end{figure}
The following Proposition shows that $u_{N}^\text{app}$ can be approached by a three parameters function of type $d^\text{app}_{z,\alpha,x_k^\star}$ if the shape function $h$ is steep enough at $x_k^\star$.
\begin{prop} \label{taylor} Assume that $\Omega$ satisfies assumptions \ref{def:slow}, let $R>0$ and $k>0$ be a locally resonant frequency associated to the mode $N\in \mathbb{N}$ and the locally resonant point $x_k^\star$ that satisfies $h'(x^\star_k)\geq \theta\eta$ for some $\theta>0$. There exist $z\in \mathbb{C}^*$, $\alpha>0$ and a constant $C_2>0$ depending only on $h_{\min}$, $h_{\max}$, $N$ and $\theta$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{taylorapp}
\Vert u^\text{app}_{N}-d^\text{app}_{z,\alpha,x_k^\star}\Vert_{\text{L}^2(\Gamma_{R}(x^\star_k))}\leq C_2\left(R^{3/2}\eta^{5/6}+R^{5/2}\eta^{7/6}\right),
\end{equation}
where $d^\text{app}_{z,\alpha,x_k^\star}$ is defined in \eqref{dapp}.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Using the information about the support of the source term, we know that
\begin{equation}\nonumber
u_{N}^{\text{app}}(x)=\int_{x^\star_k+R}^{+\infty}G_{N}^{\text{app}}(x,s)f_N(s)\mathrm{d} s.
\end{equation}
Using the definition of $G_{N}^\text{app}$ given in \eqref{greenfunction}, there exists a function $q_k$ such that for every $x\in \Gamma_R(x^\star_k)$,
\begin{equation}\nonumber
G_{N}^{\text{app}}(x,s)=q_k(s)\frac{(-\xi(x))^{1/4}}{\sqrt{k_n(x)}}\mathcal{A}(\xi(x)).
\end{equation}
It follows that
\begin{equation}\nonumber
u_{N}^{\text{app}}(x)=\frac{(-\xi(x))^{1/4}}{\sqrt{k_n(x)}}\mathcal{A}(\xi(x))\int_{x^\star_k+R}^{+\infty}q_k(s)f_N(s)\mathrm{d} s.
\end{equation}
In the following, we denote $\mathcal{O}(\cdot)$ bounds depending only on $h_{\max}$, $h_{\min}$ and $N$. We see that
\begin{equation}\nonumber
k_N(x)^2=\frac{2N^2\pi^2h'(x^\star_k)}{h(x^\star_k)^3}(x-x^\star_k) +\mathcal{O}(\eta^2(x-x^\star_k)^2).
\end{equation}
From now on, we assume that $x>x^\star_k$, which leads to
\begin{equation}\label{compkn}
k_N(x)=\sqrt{\frac{2N^2\pi^2h'(x^\star_k)}{h(x^\star_k)^3}}(x-x^\star_k)^{1/2} +\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{\eta^2(x-x^\star_k)^{3/2}}{\sqrt{h'(x^\star_k)}}\right),
\end{equation}
and so
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\xi(x)=\left(\frac{2N^2\pi^2h'(x^\star_k)}{h(x^\star_k)^3}\right)^{1/3}(x^\star_k-x)+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{\eta^2(x-x^\star_k)^{2}}{h'(x^\star_k)^{2/3}}\right).
\end{equation}
Then,
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\mathcal{A}(\xi(x))=\mathcal{A}\left(\left(\frac{2N^2\pi^2h'(x^\star_k)}{h(x^\star_k)^3}\right)^{1/3}(x^\star_k-x)\right)+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{\eta^2(x-x^\star_k)^{2}}{h'(x^\star_k)^{2/3}}\right),
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\frac{(-\xi(x))^{1/4}}{\sqrt{k_N(x)}}=\left(\frac{2N^2\pi^2h'(x^\star_k)}{h(x^\star_k)^3}\right)^{-1/6}+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{\eta^2(x-x^\star_k)}{h'(x^\star_k)^{7/6}}\right).
\end{equation}
We set
\begin{equation}\label{exppk}
z=\left(\frac{2N^2\pi^2h'(x^\star_k)}{h(x^\star_k)^3}\right)^{-1/6}\int_{x^\star_k+R}^{+\infty}q_k(s)f_N(s)\mathrm{d} s, \qquad \alpha=\left(\frac{2N^2\pi^2h'(x^\star_k)}{h(x^\star_k)^3}\right)^{1/3},
\end{equation}
and it follows that
\begin{equation}\nonumber
u_{N}^{\text{app}}(x)=z\mathcal{A}(\alpha(x^\star_k-x))+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{\eta^2(x-x^\star_k)}{h'(x^\star_k)^{7/6}}\right)+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{\eta^2(x-x^\star_k)^2}{h'(x^\star_k)^{5/6}}\right).
\end{equation}
The exact same study can be done in the case $x<x^\star_k$. Since $|x-x^\star_k|\leq R$, we conclude that
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\Vert u_{N}^{\text{app}}-d^\text{app}_{z,\alpha,x_k^\star}\Vert_{\text{L}^2(\Gamma_{R}(x^\star_k))}=\eta^2\mathcal{O}\left(R^{3/2}(h'(x^\star_k))^{-7/6}+R^{5/2}(h'(x^\star_k))^{-5/6}\right).
\end{equation}
To conclude, we use the fact that $h'(x^\star_k)\geq \theta\eta$.
\end{proof}
\begin{coro}\label{corobis}
Assume that $\Omega$ satisfies assumptions \ref{def:slow}, let $R>0$ and $k>0$ be a locally resonant frequency associated to the mode $N\in \mathbb{N}$ and the locally resonant point $x_k^\star$ that satisfies $h'(x^\star_k)\geq \theta\eta$ for some $\theta>0$. There exist $\eta>0$ such that if $\eta\leq \eta_0$ then there exist $z\in \mathbb{C}^*$, $\alpha>0$ and a constant $C_3>0$ depending only on $h_{\min}$, $h_{\max}$, $N$ and $\theta$ such that
\begin{equation}
\Vert d^\text{ex} - d^\text{app}_{z,\alpha,x_k^\star} \Vert_{\text{L}^2(\Gamma_R(x^\star_k))} \leq C_3\left( \delta(k)^{-8}R^2\eta+R^{3/2}\eta^{5/6}+R^{5/2}\eta^{7/6}\right).
\end{equation}
\end{coro}
\begin{proof}
We apply Proposition \ref{taylor}, Theorem \ref{th1} and trace results which prove that there exists a constant $\gamma>0$ depending only on $R$, $h_{\min}$ and $h_{\max}$ such that
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\Vert u(\cdot,0)-u^{\text{app}}(\cdot,0)\Vert_{\text{L}^2(\Gamma_{R}(x^\star_k))}\leq \Vert u-u^{\text{app}}\Vert_{\text{H}^{1/2}(\Gamma_{R}(x^\star_k))}\leq \gamma\Vert u-u^{\text{app}}\Vert_{\text{H}^{1}(\Omega_{R}(x^\star_k))}.
\end{equation}
\end{proof}
This result indicates a strategy to determine $x_k^\star$ from the exact data $d^\text{ex}$. Assuming that $\eta$ is small enough to see $d^\text{app}_{z,\alpha,x_k^\star}$ as a good approximation of $d^\text{ex}$, one may fit the three parameters $(\alpha,z,x_k^\star)$ that minimize the misfit $d^\text{ex} - d^\text{app}_{z,\alpha,x_k^\star}$ for some norm. We also see from this result that the error in the Taylor expansion strongly depends on the values of $\theta$, $R$ and $\delta(k)$. Since we plan on using different locally resonant frequencies, we need to get a uniform control over $k$ on the Taylor expansion. Moreover, we need to control the length $R$ of the measurement interval. If $R$ is too large, the quality of the Taylor expansion diminishes and if $R$ is too small, the data on the interval $\Gamma_{R}(x^\star_k)$ may not contain enough information to fit the three parameters $(z,\alpha,x_k^\star)$ with stability.
To prevent this, $R$ needs to be scaled depending on the parameter $\alpha$. Indeed, the change of variable $x\mapsto\alpha(x^\star_k-x)$ must cover a large enough interval to perform the desired fitting. Using the expression of $\alpha$ given in \eqref{exppk}, we say that $\alpha(x^\star_k-x)$ covers an interval of fixed radius $\sigma>0$ if
\begin{equation}\nonumber
R\geq \frac\sigma\alpha\geq\frac{\sigma h_{\max}}{2\beta^{1/3}N^2\pi^2}\eta^{-1/3}.
\end{equation}
This means that $R$ needs to be scaled as $\eta^{-1/3}$ and we assume now that
\begin{equation}
R:=r\eta^{-1/3}.
\end{equation}
where $r>0$ is a constant. We can now give a uniform approximation result between $d^\text{ex}$ and $d^\text{app}_{z,\alpha,x_k^\star}$ on the interval $\Gamma_{R(x^\star_k)}$.
\begin{theorem}\label{th2} Assume the same hypotheses than in Theorem \ref{th1}, and fix $N\in \mathbb{N}^*$ and $\theta>0$. There exists $\eta_0>0$ such for any $\eta <\eta_0$ and for any $k>0$ associated to the mode $N$ and the locally resonant point $x_k^\star$ satisfying $h'(x^\star_k)\geq \theta\eta$, there exist $\alpha>0$ and $z\in \mathbb{C}$ such that the following approximation holds on the interval $\Gamma_{R}(x^\star_k)$:
\begin{equation}\nonumber
d^\text{ex} = d^\text{app}_{z,\alpha,x_k^\star} + \mathcal{O}(\eta^{1/3}).
\end{equation}
More precisely, there exists a constant $C_4>0$ depending only on $h_{\min}$, $h_{\max}$, $\theta$ and $r$ such that
\begin{equation}
\norm{d^\text{ex} - d^\text{app}_{z,\alpha,x_k^\star}}{\text{L}^2(\Gamma_{R}(x^\star_k))}\leq C_4\eta^{1/3}.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
To prove this result, we need to provide a uniform lower bound for $\delta(k)$ under the hypothesis $h'(x^\star_k)\geq \theta\eta$. From the definition of $\delta(k)$, we assume without loss of generality that $\delta(k)$ is reached by the mode number $N\in \mathbb{N}$ and that $\delta(k)^2=\left|k^2-N^2\pi^2/h_{\max}^2\right|$. Hence, as $k$ is locally resonant, we know that $k=N\pi/h(x_k^\star)$ and that
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\delta(k)^2=N^2\pi^2\left|\frac{1}{h(x_k^\star)^2}-\frac{1}{h_{\max}^2}\right|\leq \frac{2N^2\pi^2}{ h_{\min}^2h_{\max}}(h_{\max}-h(x_k^\star)). \end{equation}
Let us call $t\geq 0$ such that $h(x_k^\star+t)=h_{\max}$, we necessarily have $h'(x_k^\star+t) = 0$. Using the hypothesis $h''\geq -\eta^2$, we know that $h'(x_k^\star+s)\geq \eta\theta-\eta^2s$ for all $s\in (0,t)$. This implies that $t\geq \theta/\eta$. Then,
\begin{equation}\nonumber
h_{\max}-h(x_k^\star) = \int_0^th'(x_k^\star+s)\mathrm{d} s\geq \eta\theta t - \eta^2\frac {t^2}2\geq \frac{\theta^2}2.
\end{equation}
Then,
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\delta(k)\geq \frac{N\pi}{h_{\min}\sqrt{h_{\max}}}\theta.
\end{equation}
The proof of Theorem \ref{th2} is now straightforward, we simply replace $R$ by $r\eta^{-1/3}$ in Corollary \ref{corobis} and use the lower bound on $\delta(k)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
We underline the fact that the constant in this estimation depends on the value of $\theta$, and tends toward infinity if $\theta$ tends to zero. This result is illustrated in Figure \ref{etanu} where we clearly notice that the error between $d^\text{ex}$ and $d^\text{app}_{z,\alpha,x^\star_k}$ deteriorates when $\theta$ become too small.
\end{rem}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\raisebox{0.5\height}{\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (-2,0.5)--(-1,0.5)--(1,1)--(2,1);
\draw (-2,0)--(2,0);
\draw [dashed] (0,-0.2)--(0,1) node[above]{$x^\star_k$};
\draw (0.3,0.4) node[right]{$h'(x^\star_k)=\theta \eta$};
\draw (-2,0.6) node[above]{$h_{\min}=0.0983$};
\draw (2,1.1) node[above]{$h_{\max}=0.1017$};
\end{tikzpicture}} \hspace{4mm}
\input{etanu}\end{center}
\caption{\label{etanu} Error of approximation $\Vert d^\text{ex}-d^\text{app}_{z,\alpha,x^\star_k} \Vert_{\text{L}^2(\Gamma_R(x^\star_k))}$ for different values of $\theta$ with a fixed value of $\eta$. The width $h$ is represented on the left of the picture and exact data $d^\text{ex}$ are generated as explained in section \ref{num} with a locally resonant mode $N=1$ and a source $f(x,y)=\delta_{x=6}\varphi_N(y)$. Then, $d^\text{ex}$ is compared with $d^\text{app}_{z,\alpha,x^\star_k}$ where $\alpha$ and $z$ are defined using the expression \eqref{exppk}. Here, $r=0.2$ and $\eta=8.10^{-4}$.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Stable reconstruction of $x^\star_k$}
We proved so far that the one side boundary measurements are close to the three parameters function
\begin{equation}
d^\text{app}_{z,\alpha,x_k^\star} : x\mapsto z\mathcal{A}(\alpha(x_k^\star-x)),
\end{equation}
on the interval $\Gamma_{r\eta^{-1/3}}(x^\star_k)=(x_k^\star-r\eta^{-1/3},x_k^\star+r\eta^{-1/3})$. The question is now to understand if one can get a stable evaluation of $x_k^\star$ from this approached data. We define then the following forward operator
\begin{equation}\label{eq:F}
F:\left\{\begin{array}{rcl}\mathbb{C}^*\times(0,+\infty)\times\mathbb{R} &\longrightarrow &\mathcal{C}^0(\Gamma_{R}(\beta/\alpha))\\
(z,\alpha,\beta) &\longmapsto & \left(x\mapsto z\mathcal{A}(\beta-\alpha x)\right)\end{array}\right. .
\end{equation}
If the three parameters are uniquely defined, we can deduce an approximation of the position $x_k^\star$ from the solution of $F(z,\alpha,\beta)=d^\text{app}_{z,\alpha,x^\star_k}$ through the identification $x_k^\star=\beta/\alpha$. The following result guarantee the uniqueness of the solution to this problem.
\begin{prop} Let $d_0:=F(z_0,\alpha_0,\beta_0)$, there exists $r_0>0$ such that if $r>r_0$ then the problem $F(z,\alpha,\beta)=d_0$ has a unique solution $(z_0,\alpha_0,\beta_0)$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof} If $r$ is high enough, the interval $\Gamma_{r\eta^{-1/3}}$ is large enough to contain the maximum amplitude of the function $d_0$ at position $x_{\max}$, and the two first zeros of the function $d_0$ called $x_1$ and $x_2$. Hence $(z_0,\alpha_0,\beta_0)$ are uniquely determined by
\begin{equation}\label{meth11}
z_0=\frac{d_0(x_{\max})}{\norm{\mathcal{A}}{\infty}},\qquad \alpha_0=\frac{y_1-y_2}{x_2-x_1}, \qquad \beta_0=\frac{y_1x_2-y_2x_1}{x_2-x_1},
\end{equation}
where $y_1$ and $y_2$ are the two first zeros of the Airy function $\mathcal{A}$.
\end{proof}
This result of uniqueness and the corresponding inversion formulas are not directly applicable. Indeed, these formulas are not robust to noise or data uncertainties and we remind the reader that an approximation is already made between $d^\text{ex}$ and $d^\text{app}_{z,\alpha,x^\star_k}$.
A first strategy would be to use the explicit formula \eqref{meth11} and apply some data regularization with a low-pass filter before doing the inversion (see \cite{mallat1} for more details). This method works perfectly with exact data, and will be called from now the ``direct parameters reconstruction method''.
However, few issues can be raised with this method. Firstly, it is not sufficiently robust if data are very noisy, as illustrated in Figure \ref{ercomp} where we use this method to reconstruct parameters with a random additive noise of increasing amplitude. Secondly, as mentioned in the previous subsection, we will only make measurements of the wavefield on the interval $\Gamma_R$, and we cannot be sure that neither the first two zeros nor the maximum of $\mathcal{A}$ will occur in this interval. Finally, it is more realistic to assume that we only have access to $d^\text{app}_{z,\alpha,x^\star_k}$ on a finite number of receivers positions. For all this reasons, a least squares approach is introduced. On can keep the previous method to find an initial guess of the parameters $\g p:=(z,\alpha,\beta)$.
We now assume that we have access to the data
\begin{equation}
d_i:=F(p)(t_i),\quad i=1,\dots,n,
\end{equation}
where $\g p:=(z,\alpha,\beta)$ and $\g t:=(t_i)_{i=1,\dots,n}\in \Gamma_R$ is an increasing subdivision of $\Gamma_R$. We denote by $\g d:=(d_1,\dots,d_n)\in \mathbb{C}^n$ the discrete data on the subdivision $\g t$. We aim to minimize the least squares energy functional
\begin{equation}
J_{\g d}(\g p):=\frac 12\Vert F(\g p)(\g t) - \g d\Vert_{\ell^2}^2.
\end{equation}
In this expression, the norm $\ell^2$ is the normalized euclidean norm defined by
\begin{equation}
\Vert \g d \Vert_{\ell^2}^2=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n d_i^2.
\end{equation}
Denoting by $\tau$ the step of the subdivision $\g t$, we know using quadrature results (see \cite{davis1} for more details) that for all functions $f\in \text{H}^{2}(\Gamma_R)$,
\begin{equation}\label{control_l2}
\left| \Vert f\Vert_{\text{L}^2(\Gamma_R)}-\Vert f(\g t)\Vert_{\ell^2}\right|\leq 2\tau \Vert f\Vert_{\text{H}^1(\Gamma_R)}.
\end{equation}
It shows that the $\ell^2$ norm is a good approximation of the $\text{L}^2(\Gamma_R)$ norm if the step of discretization $\tau$ is small enough.
We assume the knowledge of an open set $U\subset \mathbb{C}^*\times(0,+\infty)\times\mathbb{R}$ of the form
\begin{equation}
U:=B_\mathbb{C}(0,z_{\text{max}})\times (\alpha_{\min},\alpha_{\max})\times (\beta_{\min},\beta_{\max}), \quad z_{\max},\alpha_{\min},\alpha_{\max} \in \mathbb{R}_+^\star,\quad \beta_{\min},\beta_{\max} \in \mathbb{R},
\end{equation}
containing the solution $\g p$. The following proposition shows that the least squares problem is locally well-posed if the sampling size $n$ is large enough, and it quantifies the error on the recovered parameters.
\begin{prop}\label{leastsq}
There exists $n_0\in \mathbb{N}^*$ such that if $n\geq n_0$, then for every $\g p_0\in U$ and $\g d_0:=F(p_0)(\g x)$, there exist $\varepsilon>0$ and $U'\subset U$ such that for every $\g d\in \mathbb{R}^{n}$ satisfying $\Vert \g d-\g d_0\Vert_{\ell^2}< \varepsilon$ then the functional $J_{\g d}$ is strictly convex on $U'$ and admits a unique minimizer denoted $\g p_{\text{LS}}=(z_{\text{LS}},\alpha_{\text{LS}},\beta_{\text{LS}})$. Moreover, there exists a constant $C_5>0$ depending only on $U$, $\g p_0$ and $n$ such that
\begin{equation}
\Vert \g p_{\text{LS}}-\g p_0\Vert_{2}\leq C_5 \Vert \g d-\g d_0\Vert_{\ell^2}.
\end{equation}
Finally, if we denote
\begin{equation}
\Lambda : \left\{\begin{array}{rcl} B_2(\g d_0,\varepsilon) & \rightarrow & \mathbb{R} \\ \g d &\mapsto& \frac{\beta_{\text{LS}}}{\alpha_{\text{LS}}}\end{array} \right. ,
\end{equation}
the operator which approach the value of $x^\star_k$, there exists a constant $C_6>0$ depending only on $U$, $\g p_0$ and $n$ such that
\begin{equation}
|\Lambda(\g d)-\Lambda(\g d_0)|\leq C_6\Vert \g d-\g d_0\Vert_{\ell^2}.
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
The proof of this result is given in Appendix B. In this proof we can see that the choice of the data discretization points $\g t$ is important in order to improve the accuracy of the reconstruction. We illustrate that by choosing $\g p_0=(2+i,1.4,-2.8)$ and comparing the direct reconstruction of the parameters \eqref{meth11} with the least squares method for three different sets $\g t$:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\g t_1$ is a discretization of $[-6,-1]$ with 100 points, where the tail of the Airy function is located.
\item $\g t_2$ is a discretization of $[-2,6]$ with 100 points, where the Airy function varies.
\item $\g t_3$ is a discretization of $[-6,6]$ with 200 points.
\end{itemize}
In Figure \ref{airycomp}, we represent the four reconstructions where $\g d = \g d_0+\mathcal{N}$ and $\mathcal{N}$ is a normal random additive noise of amplitude $0.3$. We see that reconstructions with $\g t_2$ and $\g t_3$ seems more accurate than the one with $\g t_1$ and the direct reconstruction. We detail this in Figure \ref{ercomp}, where we compare the reconstruction errors with different noise amplitudes. We clearly see that using a least squares method improves the reconstruction if $\g t$ is well-chosen.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\input{airycomp}
\caption{\label{airycomp} Comparison of four different reconstructions of $F(\g p_0)$ where $\g d-\g d_0$ is a normal random additive noise of amplitude 0.3. Blue: direct reconstruction. Green: least square reconstruction with $\g t=\g t_1$. Red: least square reconstruction with $\g t=\g t_2$. Purple: least square reconstruction with $\g t=\g t_3$.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\input{ercomp} \hspace{3mm} \input{ercomp2}\end{center}
\caption{\label{ercomp} Error of reconstruction of $\g p_0$ and $\Lambda(\g d_0)$ with respect to the noise on the data for different method of reconstruction. On the left, $\Vert p_{\text{LS}}-p_0\Vert_{2}$ with respect to $\Vert \g d-\g d_0\Vert_{\ell^2}/\Vert \g d\Vert_{\ell^2}$. On the right, $|\Lambda(\g d_0)-\Lambda(\g d)|$ with respect to $\Vert \g d-\g d_0\Vert_{\ell^2}/\Vert \g d\Vert_{\ell^2}$. }
\end{figure}
We now have a stable method to reconstruct an approximation $x^{\star,\text{app}}_k$ of $x^\star_k$ from given measurements of $d(x):=u(x,0)$. Since $h(x^\star_k)=N\pi/k$, we can approximate the width at positions $x^{\star,\text{app}}_k$ with the formula
\begin{equation}
h^\text{app}(x^{\star,\text{app}}_k)=\frac{N\pi}{k}.
\end{equation}
This provides an approximation of $h$ in one point.
Then, we change the frequency $k>0$ to get approximations of $h$ all along the support of $h'$. From now on, we denote $u_k$ the wavefield propagating at frequency $k$. As mentioned before, we assume that we already have an approximation of $\supp(h')$, $h_{\min}$ and $h_{\max}$ (see Appendix A). We denote
\begin{equation}
k_{\max}:=\frac{N\pi}{h_{\min}}, \quad k_{\min}:=\frac{N\pi}{h_{\max}}.
\end{equation}
and we take a finite set of frequencies $K\subset (k_{\min},k_{\max})$. For every frequency $k\in K$, we introduce $\g t_k$ a discretization of $\Gamma_R$ and we set
\begin{equation}
\forall k\in K\qquad \g d_k:=u_k(\g t_k,0)+\zeta_k,
\end{equation}
the measurement of $u_k$ corrupted by an error term $\zeta_k$. For every $k\in K$, using Proposition \ref{leastsq}, we have an $\varepsilon_k$ and a constant $C_6^k$ associated with $\g d_{k,0}=d^\text{app}_{z,\alpha,x^\star_k}$. We define
\begin{equation} \varepsilon:=\min_{k\in K}(\varepsilon_k), \qquad C_6:=\max_{k\in K}(C_6^k),
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
X^{\star,\text{app}}:=\{\Lambda(\g d_k) ,\, k\in K\}.
\end{equation}
Using the known approximation of $\supp(h')$ provided by Appendix A, we set the coordinates $x_0$ and $x_{n+1}$ such that $\text{supp} (h')\subset (x_0,x_{n+1})$ and $X^{\star,\text{app}}\subset (x_0,x_{n+1})$. We then define the function $h^{\text{app}}$ as the piecewise linear function such that
\begin{equation}\label{happ}
h^{\text{app}}(x^{\star,\text{app}}_{k})=\frac{N\pi}{k} \quad \forall\, k\in K, \qquad h^{\text{app}}(x_0)=\frac{N\pi}{k_{\max}}, \qquad h^{\text{app}}(x_{n+1})=\frac{N\pi}{k_{\min}}.
\end{equation}
Using all the previous results, we are able to quantify the error of reconstruction between $h^{\text{app}}$ and $h$:
\begin{theorem}\label{th3}
Let $K$ be a finite subset of $(k_{\min},k_{\max})$. Assume the same hypotheses than in Theorem \ref{th1}, and fix $N\in \mathbb{N}^*$ and $\theta>0$ such that for every $k\in K$, $h'(x^\star_k)\geq \theta\eta$. There exist $\eta_1>0$ and $\zeta_0>0$ such that if $\eta <\eta_1$ and $\max_{k\in K}\Vert \zeta_k\Vert_{\ell^2}\leq \zeta_0$, then there exists a constant $C_7>0$ depending only on $h_{\min}$, $h_{\max}$, $N$, $r$, $\mu$ and $\theta$ such that
\begin{equation}
\Vert h^{\text{app}}(X^{\star,\text{app}})-h(X^{\star,\text{app}})\Vert_\infty\leq \eta C_7\left(\eta^{1/3}+\max_{k\in K}\Vert \zeta_k\Vert_{\ell^2}\right).
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
For every $k\in K$, we notice that
\begin{equation}\nonumber
|h^{\text{app}}(x^{\star,\text{app}}_k)-h(x^{\star,\text{app}}_k)|=|h(x^\star_{k})-h(x^{\star,\text{app}}_k)|\leq \eta |x^\star_{k}-x^{\star,\text{app}}_k|=\eta|\Lambda(\g d_0)-\Lambda(\g d_{k,0})|.
\end{equation}
Using Theorem \ref{th2} combined with the control \eqref{control_l2}, we know that
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\Vert \g d_k-\g d_{0,k}\Vert_{\ell^2}\leq 2\eta^{1/3} \tau C_4 \left(\Vert d^\text{ex}\Vert_{\text{H}^1(\Gamma_R)}+\Vert d^\text{app}_{z,\alpha,x^\star_k}\Vert_{\text{H}^1(\Gamma_R)}\right).
\end{equation}
Using Theorem \ref{th1}, we can control both these norm by a constant $c_2>0$ which does no depend on $k$. Then, if $\eta$ and $\max_{k\in K}\Vert \zeta_k\Vert_{\ell^2}$ are small enough then,
\begin{equation}\nonumber
2\tau C_4c_2\eta^{1/3}+\max_{k\in K}\Vert \zeta_k\Vert_{\ell^2}\leq \varepsilon,
\end{equation}
and using Proposition \ref{leastsq},
\begin{equation}\nonumber
|h^{\text{app}}(x^{\star,\text{app}}_k)-h(x^{\star,\text{app}}_k)|\leq \eta C_6\left(2\tau C_4c_2\eta^{1/3}+\max_{k\in K}\Vert \zeta_k\Vert_{\ell^2}\right).
\end{equation}
\end{proof}
The first error term in this theorem is a consequence of the approximation of the data $d^\text{ex}$ by the Airy function $d^\text{app}$, while the second error term is caused by the eventual presence of measurements noises. We illustrate this reconstruction in Figure \ref{pointsxp} where we choose a subset $K$ with $20$ points, and we compare $h^{\text{app}}(x^{\star,\text{app}}_k)$ and the exact values $h(x^\star_k)$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\input{pointsxp}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{pointsxp} Representation of $x^\star_k$ and $x^{\star,\text{app}}_k$ when $K=\{30.9:31.95:20\}$. Here, $h$ is defined in \eqref{h2}, $N=1$, and data are generated as explained in section \ref{num} with a source $f(x,y)=\delta_{x=6}\varphi_1(y)$.}
\end{figure}
To conclude, we have proved in this section that we are able to reconstruct in a stable way a set of resonant positions $x^\star_k$, which leads to a stable reconstruction of the function $h$. We present in the next section the general idea needed to generalize this reconstruction to more realistic non-monochromatic sources terms.
\section{Inversion using a general source term \label{section_general_source}}
We now consider the general case without any \text{a priori} assumptions on the source terms $f$ and $b$. We use the same arguments as before to reconstruct the width using the locally resonant mode $N$. However, other modes may also be present in the wavefield, and the previous approximation of $d^\text{ex}$ by $u_N^\text{app}$ (see \eqref{dex}) may not be valid. We provide here two methods to exploit the framework developed in the previous section.
The first idea is to treat all resonant and evanescent modes as an added noise to the locally resonant mode. Indeed, we know using Theorem \ref{th1} that
\begin{equation}
d^\text{ex}:=u(x,0)\approx \sum_{n\in \mathbb{N}} \int_\mathbb{R} G_{n}^{\text{app}}(x,s)g_n(s)\mathrm{d} s\,\varphi_n\left(y\right).
\end{equation}
Defining the noise
\begin{equation}
\zeta_k(x):=\sum_{n\neq N}\int_\mathbb{R} G_{n}^{\text{app}}(x,s)g_n(s)\,\mathrm{d} s\varphi_n\left(y\right),
\end{equation}
we see that
\begin{equation}
d^\text{ex}\approx u_{N}^{\text{app}}(x)\varphi_N(0)+\zeta_k(x).
\end{equation}
To make a successful use of Theorem \ref{th3}, the noise $\zeta_k$ needs to be smaller than the parameter $\zeta_0$. Using the expression of $G_{n}^{\text{app}}$ given in \eqref{greenfunction}, we notice that
\begin{equation}
\forall n\in \mathbb{N}, \qquad |G_{n}^{\text{app}}(x)|=\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{\min(|k_n|)}\right).
\end{equation}
Since
\begin{equation}
\frac{|k_N|}{|k_n|}\leq\frac{|k_N|^2h_{\max}^2}{\sqrt{2N-1}\pi},
\end{equation}
the amplitude of $\zeta_k$ seems to be neglectable compared to the amplitude of $u_{N}^{\text{app}}$ if the width $h_{\max}$ is small enough and if $\Vert f_n\Vert_{\text{L}^2(\mathbb{R})}=\mathcal{O}( \Vert f_N\Vert_{\text{L}^2(\mathbb{R})})$ for every $n\neq N$. We illustrate this in Figure \ref{ampli} where we compare the amplitude of $u(x,0)$ with the amplitude of $u_{N}^{\text{app}}(x)\varphi_N(0)$ for source terms $f(x,y)=y^2\delta_{x=6}$ and $b_{\text{top}}(x)=\delta_{x=6}$. We see that it is possible to fit directly the Airy function on $u(x,0)$, since the noise is very small.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\input{ampli}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{ampli} Representation of $u(x,0)$ and $u_{N}^{\text{app}}(x)\varphi_N(0)$ generated by a source $f(x,y)=y^2\delta_{x=6}$ and $b_{\text{top}}(x)=\delta_{x=6}$. Here $N=1$, $k=31.7$ and $h$ is defined as in \eqref{h2}. }
\end{figure}
However, in the general case, the noise of the other modes can not always be neglected. In this case, we can filter the measurements to keep only the locally resonant part. Evanescent modes vanish away from the source and so their contribution is negligible in $u(x,0)$. As for propagative modes, we notice that $k_n(x)$ is almost constant when $n<N$. Using \eqref{greenfunction}, it means that every propagative mode is oscillating with a frequency almost equal to $k_n$. We illustrate it in Figure \ref{fourier} with the Fourier transform of $u(x,0)$ and the contribution of each mode. Using a filter cutting all frequencies around $k_n(x)$ for $n<N$, we can clean the signal and get a good approximation of $u_{N}(x)\varphi_N(0)$ (see \cite{mallat1} for more details). We illustrate this in Figure \ref{passbas} where we represent $u(x,0)$, $u_{N}(x)\varphi_n(0)$ and the approximation obtained using this Fourier filtering.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\input{fourier}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{fourier} Influence of each mode on the Fourier transform of the measurements real part. Fourier transform of $\text{Real}(u_{n}\varphi_n(0))$ are plotted for every non evanescent mode ($n=0,1,2$). For comparison purpose, $k_n(0)$ is represented for every propagative modes ($n=1,2$). Here, $k=63.4$, $N=2$, $f(x,y)=\delta_{x=6}(3\varphi_0(y)+2\varphi_1(y)+\varphi_2(y))$ and $b_\text{top}=\delta_{x=6}$.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\input{passbas}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{passbas} Fourier filtering of $\text{Real}(u_k(x,0))$ and comparison with $\text{Real}(u_{k,N}^{\text{app}}(x)\varphi_N(0))$. Here, $k=63.4$, $N=2$, $f(x,y)=\delta_{x=6}(3\varphi_0(y)+2\varphi_1(y)+\varphi_2(y))$ and $b_\text{top}=\delta_{x=6}$.}
\end{figure}
We can now fit the three parameters Airy function on the measurements, and find an approximation of $x^\star_k$ as before. It proves that our method can be used in the case of general sources, providing a filtering of propagative mode, and does not need any \emph{a priori} information on sources as long as their locally resonant part does not vanish. Using the extension of Theorem \ref{th1} to non monotone waveguides provided in Section 4 of \cite{bonnetier2}, all the results presented in this section remain true in any kind of slowly varying waveguide.
\section{Numerical computations}
In this section, we show some numerical applications of our reconstruction method on slowly varying waveguides. We simulate one side boundary measurements using numerically generated data, and we provide reconstructions of increasing an non monotone waveguides with different shape profiles.
\subsection{Generation of data \label{num}}
In the following, numerical solutions of \eqref{eqmatlab} are generated using the software Matlab to solve numerically the equation in the waveguide $\Omega$. In every numerical simulation, we assume that $h'$ is supported between $x=-7$ and $x=7$. To generate the solution $u$ of \eqref{eqmatlab} on $\Omega_7$, we use a self-coded finite element method and a perfectly matched layer \cite{berenger1} on the left side of the waveguide between $x=-15$ and $x=-8$ and on the right side between $x=8$ and $x=15$. The coefficient of absorption for the perfectly matched layer is defined as $\alpha=-k((x-8)\textbf{1}_{x\geq 8}-(x+8)\textbf{1}_{x\leq -8})$ and $k^2$ is replaced in the Helmholtz equation with $k^2+i\alpha$. The structured mesh is built with a stepsize of $10^{-3}$.
\subsection{Method of reconstruction}
Using all the previous results, we summarize here all the steps to reconstruct the approximation $h^{\text{app}}$ of the width $h$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Find an approximation of $\supp(h')$, $k_{\min}$ and $k_{\max}$ using the method described at the beginning of Appendix A.
\item Choose a set of frequencies $K\subset (k_{\min},k_{\max})$ and sources $f$, $b_{\text{top}}$, $b_{\text{bot}}$. Then, for every frequency, measure the wavefield $d(x):=u(x,0)$ solution of \eqref{eqmatlab}.
\item Filter the data by eliminating in the Fourier transform responses around $k_n$ for every a propagative mode $n$.
\item Find an approximation of the coordinate $x_{\max}$ where $|u(x,0)|$ is maximal. Then, choose a length $R>0$, and discretize the interval $[x_{\max}-R,x_{\max}+R]$ into the set $\g t_k$. The available data $\g t_k$ are then the measurements of $u(\g t_k,0)$.
\item For every frequency, minimize the quantity $\Vert \g d_k-F(\g p)(\g t_k)\Vert_{\ell^2}$ using a gradient descent to find the approximation $x^{\star,\text{app}}_k$ of $x^\star_k$. The direct reconstruction method can be used to initialize the gradient descent method.
\item Compute $h^{\text{app}}$ using expression \eqref{happ}.
\end{enumerate}
In step $3$, we should normally discretize the interval $\Gamma_R(x^\star_k)$. However, since we do not know yet the value of $x^\star_k$, we use the fact that $x^\star_k$ is located near $x_{\max}$, and that the interval $[x_{\max}-R,x_{\max}+R]$ can be included into a bigger interval $\Gamma_{R'}(x^\star_k)$ where $R'>R$.
\subsection{Numerical results}
We now apply this method to reconstruct different profiles of slowly varying waveguides. Firstly, we present in Figure \ref{increasing} the reconstruction $h^{\text{app}}$ obtained for different increasing functions $h$. We choose four different waveguide profiles
\begin{equation}\label{h1}
\Omega_1: \quad h_1(x)=0.1+\gamma_1\left(\frac{x^5}{5}-32\frac{x^3}{3}+256x\right)\textbf{1}_{-4\leq x\leq 4}-\gamma_2\textbf{1}_{x<-4}+\gamma_2\textbf{1}_{x>4},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{h2}
\Omega_2:\quad h_2(x)=0.1+\gamma_3\left(\frac{x^5}{5}-2x^4+16\frac{x^3}{3}\right)\left(\textbf{1}_{0\leq x\leq 4}-\textbf{1}_{-4\leq x<0}\right)+ \gamma_4\left(\textbf{1}_{x>4}-\textbf{1}_{x<-4}\right),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{h3}
\Omega_3 :\quad h_3(x)=0.1+\gamma_5 x\textbf{1}_{-4\leq x\leq 4}+4\gamma_5\textbf{1}_{x>4}-4\gamma_4\textbf{1}_{x<-4},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{h4}
\Omega_4:\quad h_4(x)=0.1-4\gamma_5+4\gamma_5\frac{\sqrt{x+4}}{\sqrt{2}}\,\textbf{1}_{-4\leq x\leq 4}+8\gamma_5\textbf{1}_{x>4}.
\end{equation}
where $\gamma_1=3.10^{-6}$, $\gamma_2=8192/5.10^{-6}$, $\gamma_3=5.10^{-5}$, $\gamma_4=53/3.10^{-5}$, $\gamma_5=0.01/30$. All these profiles are represented in black in Figure \ref{increasing}. We impose that sources of \eqref{eqmatlab} need to be located at the right of the waveguide in order to generate significant locally resonant mode (see Figure \ref{direct_multi_freq2}), and we define
\begin{equation}\label{sourceincr}
f(x,y)=y\delta_{x=6}, \qquad b_{\text{top}}(x)=\delta_{x=6}, \qquad b_{\text{bot}}=0.
\end{equation}
We choose to work with the following sets of frequencies
\begin{equation}\label{Ki}
K_1=\{30.92:31.93:20\}, \quad K_2=\{30.9:31.95:20\}, \quad K_3=K_4=\{31.01:31.83:20\}.
\end{equation}
The profile $h_1$ and the set $K_1$ satisfy all the assumptions of Theorem \ref{th2}, while the derivative of $h_2\in \mathcal{C}^2(\mathbb{R})$ vanishes once. The last two profiles $h_3$ and $h_4$ are not in $\mathcal{C}^2(\mathbb{R})$ and show corners where the derivative of the profile is not continuous. The function $h_3'$ is piecewise continuous and bounded, contrary to $h_4'$ which explodes at $x=-4$.
We plot in red in Figure \ref{increasing} the reconstructions $h^{\text{app}}$, slightly shifted, obtained using our method of reconstruction. We also compute the $L^\infty$ norm of $h-h^{\text{app}}$ in each situation. We clearly see that the reconstruction deteriorates when $h'(x^\star_k)$ is too small or when the function $h$ is not sufficiently smooth.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.8}{\input{rec6}}\hspace{5mm} \scalebox{0.8}{\input{rec7}}\\[4mm]
\scalebox{0.8}{\input{rec4}} \hspace{5mm} \scalebox{0.8}{\input{rec1}}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{increasing} Reconstruction of four different increasing profiles. In black, the initial shape of $\Omega_5$ (not scaled), and in red the reconstruction, slightly shifted for comparison purposes. In each case, $K=K_i$ is defined in \eqref{Ki}, $h=h_i$ is defined in \eqref{h1}, \eqref{h2}, \eqref{h3}, \eqref{h4}, and the sources of \eqref{eqmatlab} are defined in \eqref{sourceincr}. We also compute the relative error $\Vert h-h^{\text{app}}\Vert_\infty/h_{\max}$ between the exact reconstruction and the approximation. Top left: $i=1$, $\Vert h-h^{\text{app}}\Vert_\infty/h_{\max}=0.49 \%$. Top right: $i=2$, $\Vert h-h^{\text{app}}\Vert_\infty/h_{\max}=0.94 \%$. Bottom left: $i=3$, $\Vert h-h^{\text{app}}\Vert_\infty/h_{\max}=0.40 \%$. Bottom right: $i=4$, $\Vert h-h^{\text{app}}\Vert_\infty/h_{\max}=1.6 \%$.}
\end{figure}
Secondly, we present in Figure \ref{recgene} the reconstruction $h^{\text{app}}$ obtained for different non monotoneous widths. We choose three different profiles defined by
\begin{equation}\label{h5}
\Omega_5: \quad h_5(x)=0.1+\gamma_6\sin\left(\frac{\pi}{10}(x+5)\right)\textbf{1}_{-5\leq x\leq 5},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{h6}
\Omega_6: \quad h_6(x)=0.1-\gamma_7(x+5)\textbf{1}_{-5\leq x\leq 0} +\frac{\gamma_6}{4}(x-4)\textbf{1}_{0<x\leq 4},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{h7}
\Omega_7: \quad h_7(x)=0.1-\gamma_8\sqrt{3}+2\gamma_8\sin\left(\frac{4\pi\sqrt{x+5}}{3}\right)\textbf{1}_{-3.5\leq x\leq 4}+2\gamma_8\sin\left(\frac{4\pi\sqrt{1.5}}{3}\right)\textbf{1}_{x<-3.5},
\end{equation}
where $\gamma_6=25.10^{-4}$, $\gamma_7=5.10^{-4}$, $\gamma_8=4.10^{-4}$. All these profiles are represented in black in Figure \ref{recgene}. The profile $h_5$ represent a dilation of the waveguide, while $h_6$ represent a compression of the waveguide. The profile $h_7$ is the more general one with both compressions and dilations. Again, sources in \eqref{eqmatlab} are located in every large area of the waveguide to generate significant locally resonant modes and are defined by
\begin{equation}\label{f5}
f^5(x,y)=\delta_{x=0}y, \quad b_{\text{top}}^5(x)=\delta_{x=0}(x), \quad b_{\text{bot}}^5=0,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{f6}
f^6(x,y)=(\delta_{x=6}+\delta_{x=-6})y, \quad b_{\text{top}}^6(x)=(\delta_{x=6}+\delta_{x=-6}), \quad b_{\text{bot}}^6=0,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{f7}
f^7(x,y)=(\delta_{x=-1.5}+\delta_{x=6})y, \quad b_{\text{top}}^7(x)=(\delta_{x=-1.5}+\delta_{x=6}), \quad b_{\text{bot}}^7=0.
\end{equation}
We also define the frequency sets
\begin{equation}\label{Ki2}
K_5=\{30.65:31.4:20\}, \quad K_6=\{31.42:32.21:20\}, \quad K_7=\{30.97:31.43:20\}.
\end{equation}
We plot in red in Figure \ref{recgene} the reconstructions $h^{\text{app}}$, slightly shifted, obtained using our method of reconstruction. We also compute the $L^\infty$ norm of $h-h^{\text{app}}$ in each situation.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\scalebox{0.8}{\input{rec2}} \hspace{5mm}\scalebox{0.8}{\input{rec5}}\\[2mm]
\scalebox{0.8}{\input{rec8}}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{recgene} Reconstruction of three different general profiles. In black, the initial shape of $\Omega_6$, and in red, the reconstruction, slightly shifted for comparison purposes. In each case, $K=K_i$ is defined in \eqref{Ki2}, $h=h_i$ is defined in \eqref{h5}, \eqref{h6}, \eqref{h7}, and sources of \eqref{eqmatlab} are defined in \eqref{f5}, \eqref{f6}, \eqref{f7}. We also compute the relative error $\Vert h-h^{\text{app}}\Vert_\infty/h_{\max}$ between the exact reconstruction and the approximation. Top left: $i=5$, $\Vert h-h^{\text{app}}\Vert_\infty/h_{\max}=0.57\%$. Top right: $i=6$, $\Vert h-h^{\text{app}}\Vert_\infty/h_{\max}=0.81\%$. Bottom: $i=7$, $\Vert h-h^{\text{app}}\Vert_\infty/h_{\max}=0.97\%$. }
\end{figure}
To conclude, we have provided in this section a method to reconstruct slowly varying width defects given one side boundary measurements of the wavefield at local resonant frequencies. This method works for every type of source and does not require any \textit{a priori} information on the source except the fact that it is located away from the defect. This reconstruction method is very sensitive to small defects and works numerically to reconstruct dilatations or compressions of the waveguide.
\section{Conclusion}
In this article, we have used the study of the forward problem in slowly varying waveguide presented in \cite{bonnetier2} and the approximation of the solutions as combination of Airy functions to develop a new inverse method to reconstruct the width of slowly varying waveguides. Given wavefield measurements at the surface of the waveguide for different locally resonant frequencies, we reconstruct the associated locally resonant points which lead to a good approximation of the width of the waveguide.
One main advantage of this new method is that is does not require any \emph{a priori} information on the sources, and we believe that it could be applied to develop new non destructive passive monitoring methods. Moreover, using locally resonant modes, this method can detect small variations of the width with a high sensibility. More importantly, when we compare this new method with the usual back scattering method developed for instance in \cite{bonnetier1}, we notice that this new method seems a lot more precise: while the best relative reconstruction errors are of the order of $8\%$ in \cite{bonnetier1}, we reach in this papers relative errors of the order of less than $1\%$. Even if measurements are not taken in the same area, this improvement of the reconstruction precision must be underlined.
We believe that this work could be extended to elastic waveguides in two dimensions, using the modal decomposition in Lamb modes presented in \cite{pagneux2}. After generalizing it to elastic waveguide, we plan in future works to test the method developed in this article on experimental data to see if the good numerical results obtained using data generated by finite element methods can be reproduced. Indeed, different physical experiments have already been conducted to recover width defects using locally resonant frequencies (see \cite{balogun1,ces1}) and we hope that the present reconstruction method could both justify and improve these width reconstructions.
\section*{Appendix A: Identification of $\supp(h)$, $k_{\min}$ and $k_{\max}$}
Giving a compactly perturbed waveguide $\Omega$, we describe here how one side boundary measurements enable to approximate very precisely the quantities $\supp(h)$, $k_{\min}$ and $k_{\max}$. The article \cite{bourgeois1} mentions that the problem \eqref{eqmatlab} is not well-defined when $k_n(x)=0$ in a non-trivial interval, which especially happens when $k=n\pi/h_{\min}$ or $k=n\pi/h_{\max}$. Numerically, this results in an explosion of the solution when $k$ tends to $n\pi/h_{\min}$ (resp. $n\pi/h_{\max}$) with a source term located in the area where $h(x)=h_{\min}$ (resp. $h(x)=h_{\max}$). This behavior is illustrated in Figure \ref{explosion}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\input{explosion}
\caption{\label{explosion} $\text{L}^2$-norm of $u(x,0)$ on the interval $(-8,8)$ with respect to $k$ for a source $b_\text{top}=\delta_{x=-5}$ at the left of $\supp(h)$, and a source $b_\text{top}=\delta_{x=5}$ at the right of $\supp(h)$. For comparison purposes, $n\pi/h_{\max}$ and $n\pi/h_{\min}$ are plotted for $n=1$ and $n=2$.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Measuring the surface wavefield while $k$ varies and detecting its explosions provides a good approximation of the width at the left and the right of the waveguide. Then, we choose a frequency $k=n\pi/h_{\max}$ or $k=n\pi/h_{\min}$ and we move the sources while measuring the amplitude of the wavefield. It the source is located outside of the support of $h$, the wavefield is supposed to explode, which provides a good approximation of the support of $h$. This behavior is illustrated in Figure \ref{explosionsource}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\input{explosionsource}
\caption{\label{explosionsource} $\text{L}^2$-norm of $u(x,0)$ on the interval $(-8,8)$ with respect to the position $s$ of the source $b_\text{top}=\delta_{x=s}$, for a frequency $k=pi/h_{\max}$ and $k=\pi/h_{\min}$. For comparison purposes the support of $h$ is plotted.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section*{Appendix B: Proof of Proposition \ref{leastsq}}
\begin{proof}
For every $\g p\in U$, we compute
\begin{equation}
\nabla J_{\g d}(\g p)=\left(\begin{array}{c} \sum_{i=1}^{n}\mathcal{A}(\beta-\alpha t_i)(z\mathcal{A}(\beta-\alpha t_i)-d_i)\\
\sum_{i=1}^{n}-zt_i\mathcal{A}'(\beta-\alpha t_i)(z\mathcal{A}(\beta-\alpha t_i)-d_i) \\
\sum_{i=1}^{n}z\mathcal{A}'(\beta-\alpha t_i)(z\mathcal{A}(\beta-\alpha t_i)-d_i) \end{array}\right),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\nabla^2J_{\g d}(\g p)=\sum_{i=1}^{n}M_i(\beta-\alpha t_i),
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
M_i=\left(\begin{array}{ccc} \mathcal{A}^2 & -t_i\mathcal{A}'\times (2z\mathcal{A}-d_i) & \mathcal{A}'(2z\mathcal{A}-d_i) \\ -t_i\times \mathcal{A}'\times (2z\mathcal{A}-d_i) & \begin{array}{c} zt_i^2\mathcal{A}''\times (z\mathcal{A}-d_i)\\ \qquad +z^2t_i^2\times (\mathcal{A}')^2\end{array} & \begin{array}{c} -zt_i\times \mathcal{A}''(z\mathcal{A}-d_i)\\ \qquad -t_iz^2(\mathcal{A}')^2 \end{array}\\\mathcal{A}'\times (2z\mathcal{A}-d_i) & \begin{array}{c} -zt_i\times \mathcal{A}''(z\mathcal{A}-d_i)\\ \qquad -t_iz^2\times (\mathcal{A}')^2 \end{array} & \begin{array}{c} z\mathcal{A}''\times (z\mathcal{A}-d_i)\\ \qquad z^2(\mathcal{A}')^2 \end{array}\end{array}\right).\end{equation}
For every $h\in \mathbb{C}\times\mathbb{R}^2$, $h\neq 0$,
\begin{equation}
(\nabla^2J_{\g d}(\g p)h|h)=A(\g p,h)+B(\g p,h),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
A(\g p,h)=\sum_{i=1}^{n} (\mathcal{A}(\beta-\alpha t_i)h_1+z\mathcal{A}'(\beta-\alpha t_i)(h_3-h_2t_i))^2,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
B(\g p,h)=\sum_{i=1}^{n}(z\mathcal{A}(\beta-\alpha t_i)-d_i)(2\mathcal{A}'(\beta-\alpha t_i)h_1(h_3-h_2t_i)+z\mathcal{A}''(\beta-\alpha t_i)(h_3-h_2t_i)^2).
\end{equation}
We want to prove that $A(\g p,h)>0$. To do so, we use the following Lemma.
\begin{lem}
For every $(h_1,h_2,h_3)\in \mathbb{C}\times \mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}$ and $(z,\alpha,\beta)\in U$, the set of zeros of
\begin{equation}
x\mapsto h_1\mathcal{A}(\beta-\alpha x)+z\mathcal{A}'(\beta-\alpha x)\left(h_3-h_2x\right),
\end{equation}
is finite, and at most equal to $3\ell+3$ where $\ell$ is the number of zeros of $\mathcal{A}'$ on
\begin{equation}
I:=[\beta_{\min}-t,\beta_{\max}+t], \qquad \text{where} \qquad t=\alpha_{\max}\max(|t_1|,|t_n|).
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We do a change of variable $u=\beta-\alpha x$, and we see that for every $x\in [x_1,x_n]$, $u\in I$. We now look for $u\in I$ satisfying
\begin{equation}
g_1(u):= h_1\mathcal{A}(u)+z\mathcal{A}'(u)\left(h_3-\frac{h_2}{\alpha}(\beta-u)\right)=0.
\end{equation}
We notice that if $h_1=0$ then $g_1(u)=0$ if and only if $\mathcal{A}'(u)=0$ or $x=h_3/h_2$, which gives $\ell+1$ zeros of $g_1$. Otherwise, we notice that if $\mathcal{A}'(u)=0$ then $g_1(u)\neq 0$ since every zero of the Airy function is simple (see \cite{abramowitz1}). It means that there exist $\alpha\in \mathbb{C}$ and $\beta \in \mathbb{R}$ such that
\begin{equation}
g_1(u)=0 \quad \Leftrightarrow \quad \frac{\mathcal{A}}{\mathcal{A}'}(u)=\alpha u +\beta.
\end{equation}
We define
\begin{equation}
g_2(u)=\frac{\mathcal{A}}{\mathcal{A}'}(u)-\alpha u -\beta,
\end{equation}
and then
\begin{equation}
g_2'(u)=\left(1-u\left(\frac{\mathcal{A}(u)}{\mathcal{A}'(u)}\right)^2\right), \qquad g_2''(u)=\frac{\mathcal{A}(u)}{\mathcal{A}'(u)}\underbrace{\left(2-2u\left(\frac{\mathcal{A}(u)}{\mathcal{A}'(u)}\right)^2-\frac{\mathcal{A}(u)}{\mathcal{A}'(u)}\right)}_{>0}.
\end{equation}
Between two zeros of $\mathcal{A}'$, $\mathcal{A}$ vanishes only once, meaning that depending of the value of $\alpha$, $g_2'$ vanishes at most twice, and so depending of the value of $\beta$, $g_2$ vanishes at most three times.
\end{proof}
Back to the proof of Proposition \ref{leastsq}, we now set $n_0=3\ell+3$, and if $n>n_0$ then it shows that $A(\g p,h)>0$. We denote $\lambda_1(\g p)=\min_{h\in \mathbb{R}^3, h\neq 0}a(\g p,h)/\Vert h \Vert_2^2$. This function is continuous on a subset $U_1\subset U$, and we denote by $m$ the minimum of $\lambda_1$ on $U_1$. We also notice that
\begin{equation}
|b(\g p,h)|\leq \Vert z\mathcal{A}(\beta-\alpha X) -\g d\Vert_1(\Vert \mathcal{A}'\Vert _\infty+2z\Vert \mathcal{A}''\Vert_\infty)(1+\Vert \g t\Vert_\infty)\Vert h\Vert_2^2.
\end{equation}
We see that
\begin{equation}
\Vert z\mathcal{A}(\beta-\alpha X) -\g d\Vert_1=\Vert F(\g p)-\g d\Vert_1\leq \Vert F(\g p)-F(\g p_0)\Vert_1+\Vert \g d_0-\g d\Vert_1.
\end{equation}
There exists a constant $M>0$ depending on $U$ such that for every $\g p\in U$,
\begin{equation}
\Vert F(\g p)-F(\g p_0)\Vert_1\leq M\Vert \g p-\g p_0\Vert_1.
\end{equation}
We define $U_2=U_1\cap B_1(p_0,\varepsilon_1/M)$ where
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon_1:=\frac{m}{4(\Vert \mathcal{A}'\Vert _\infty+2z_{\max}\Vert \mathcal{A}''\Vert_\infty)(1+\max(|x_1|,|x_n|))}.
\end{equation}
It follows that for every $\g p\in U_2$ and $\g d\in B_1(\g d_0,\varepsilon_1)$,
\begin{equation}
\Vert F(\g p)-F(\g p_0)\Vert_1\leq \varepsilon_1, \quad |b(\g p,h)|\leq \frac{m}{2}\Vert h \Vert_2^2.
\end{equation}
The operator $J_{\g d}$ is then strictly convex on $U_2$ since
\begin{equation}
\Vert \nabla^2J_{\g d}(\g p)\Vert_2\geq \min_{h\in \mathbb{C}\times \mathbb{R}^2, h\neq 0}\frac{| A(\g p,h)|-|B(\g p,h)|}{\Vert h \Vert_2^2}\geq \frac{m}{2}>0
\end{equation}
We now need to prove that the minimum of $J_{\g d}$ is located inside of $U_2$ and not on its boundary. To do so, we look for a point $\g p\in U_2$ such that $\nabla J_{\g d}(\g p)=0$. We already know that $\nabla J_{\g d_0}(\g p_0)=0$. Using the implicit function theorem, there exists an open set $V\subset \mathbb{R}^{n}$ containing $\g d_0$ such that there exists a unique continuously differentiable function $G_1: V\rightarrow \mathbb{C}\times \mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}$ such that $\nabla F_{\g d}(G_1(\g d))=0$. We define $U'=G_1(V)\cap U_2$ and there exists $\varepsilon>0$ such that $B_2(\g d_0,\varepsilon)\subset G_1^{-1}(U')\cap B_1(\g d_0,\varepsilon_1)$. It shows that the application
\begin{equation}
G:\left\{\begin{array}{rcl} B_2(\g d_0,\varepsilon) & \rightarrow & U' \\ \g d& \mapsto& \text{argmin}_{\g p\in U'}J_{\g d}(\g p)\end{array}\right. ,
\end{equation}
is well-defined and continuously differentiable. Moreover, we also know that
\begin{equation}
\partial_{d_j}G(\g d)=-[\nabla^2J_{\g d}(G(\g d))]^{-1}[\partial_{d_j}\nabla J_{\g d}(G(\g d))].
\end{equation}
We denote $\g p_\text{LS}=G(\g d)$, and
\begin{equation}
\Vert \partial_{d_j}\nabla J_{\g d}(\g p_\text{LS})\Vert_2=\left\Vert\left(\begin{array}{c} -\mathcal{A}(\beta_\text{LS}-\alpha_\text{LS}t_j) \\
z_\text{LS}t_j\mathcal{A}'(\beta_\text{LS}-\alpha_\text{LS}t_j) \\
-z_\text{LS}\mathcal{A}'(\beta_\text{LS}-\alpha_\text{LS}t_j)\end{array}\right) \right\Vert_2\leq \sqrt{\Vert \mathcal{A}\Vert_\infty^2+\alpha_{\max}\Vert \mathcal{A}'\Vert_\infty^2(1+\Vert \g t\Vert_\infty)}:=c_1.
\end{equation}
If follows that
\begin{equation}
\Vert\g p_\text{LS}-\g p_0\Vert_2=\Vert G(\g d)-G(\g d_0)\Vert_2\leq \frac{2\sqrt{n}c_1}{m}\Vert \g d-\g d_0\Vert_2.
\end{equation}
Finally,
\begin{equation}
|\Lambda(\g d)-\Lambda(\g d_0)|\leq \frac{1}{\alpha_{\min}}|\beta_\text{LS}-\beta_0|+\frac{\beta_{\max}}{(\alpha_{\min})^2}|\alpha_\text{LS}-\beta_\text{LS}|\leq \left(\frac{1}{\alpha_{\min}}+\frac{\beta_{\max}}{(\alpha_{\min})^2}\right)\frac{2\sqrt{n}c_1}{m}\Vert \g d-\g d_0\Vert_{2}.
\end{equation}
\end{proof}
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
|
\section{Introduction}
Our understanding of the dynamics of quantum field theories in many aspects relies on the ability to carry out perturbative analysis to a desired precision. The complexity of this analysis not only comes from the theory-specific interaction types and combinatorics of Feynman diagrams (or other equivalent expansion methods), but also is universally rooted in the integral of loop momenta. Along with the development of the modern on-shell methods in recent years it is gradually realized how the S-matrix at each perturbative order can be appropriately characterized as a robust physical and mathematical entity. For tree-level amplitudes and loop integrands of loop-level amplitudes, which are meromorphic functions of the external kinematic data and the loop momenta, there has been abundant understanding about the implication of physical principles on their mathematical structures (e.g., see \cite{Elvang:2015rqa,Weinzierl:2022eaz} and references therein). In special theories such as the maximal supersymmetric Yang--Mills in 4d (SYM) these quantities are even tied to generalizations of polytopes when expressed in a proper kinematic configuration space, where the theory's dynamical information is sharply encoded in the geometric and combinatoric properties of these entities \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2013jha,Arkani-Hamed:2013kca,Arkani-Hamed:2017vfh}.
When it comes to loop-level amplitudes, unitarity implies the prevailing occurrence of branch point singularities in the kinematic variables, hence these functions have much richer contents \cite{Eden:1966dnq}. While they are expected to belong to some very special class of functions, it is not yet understood in general how such functions can be directly characterized and be distinguished from those that are not physical. In order to analyze their analytic properties one usually have to decompose them into a set of well-studied elementary functions, such as multiple polylogarithms (MPLs) in the simplest cases (see, e.g., \cite{Duhr:2019tlz}). However, such practice inevitably introduces large amount of singularities in the kinematics which are not physical. Although these fake singularities ultimately get canceled in the whole amplitude, the detailed mechanism for the cancellation has to rely on delicate relations among the elementary functions. This often causes obstacles to the analysis of genuine physical properties. Fortunately, at least for amplitudes that can be expanded on MPLs the analysis can be greatly simplified by a mathematical object named \emph{symbols} \cite{Goncharov:2010jf,Duhr:2011zq,Duhr:2019tlz}. Roughly speaking the symbols originate from representations of MPLs in terms of iterated integrals and capture information about their singularities. In some sense they are intermediate objects between rational integrands and the corresponding integrated functions. Complicated relations among MPLs can reduce to algebraic identities among symbols, which is the main source for the power of this technique. Its has helped people gain much better understanding on the structure of loop-level amplitudes, especially in SYM (e.g., \cite{Golden:2013xva,Golden:2014xqa}), and they also serve as one of the essential ingredients in bootstrapping amplitudes at higher loops and higher points, where direct computation is extremely hard (e.g., \cite{Dixon:2014xca}, and \cite{Caron-Huot:2019vjl} for a state-of-the-art computation). Very recently there have also been many efforts in extending this tool to amplitudes beyond MPLs \cite{Broedel:2018qkq,Broedel:2019hyg,Weinzierl:2020kyq,Bourjaily:2022bwx}.
It is then very natural to seek for a direct determination of the symbols (or more broadly speaking the structure of singularities) from the Feynman integrals for loop amplitudes, since the latter is the usual starting point for a perturbative computation and its integrand is usually much better understood. In SYM such problem has been investigated with the help of Landau diagrams/equations\footnote{The Landau equations method originates in the early days of quantum field theories \cite{Eden:1966dnq}. For some more recent developments, see e.g., \cite{Mizera:2021icv}.} together with modern knowledge about the structure of the loop integrand (see \cite{Dennen:2015bet,Dennen:2016mdk}, and \cite{Mago:2020kmp,Mago:2020nuv,Mago:2021luw,Ren:2021ztg} for some recent developments). The symbols of Feynman integrals with uniform transcendentality have also been studied recently from the view points such as cluster algebras, dual conformal symmetries, etc \cite{Chicherin:2020umh,He:2021esx,He:2021eec,He:2022ctv}.
In order to study similar problems but for a generic scattering process, a convenient starting point is the Feynman parameter integral. For instance, for a given scalar Feynman diagram it takes the form \cite{Smirnov:2006ry}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:feynmanparameter0}
\int_0^\infty\mathrm{d}x_1\cdots\int_0^\infty\mathrm{d}x_n\,\delta(\sum_{i=1}^n x_i-1)\frac{\mathcal{U}^{a-(L+1)d/2}\prod_i x_i^{a_i-1}}{(-\mathcal{V}+\mathcal{U}\sum_im_i^2x_i)^{a-Ld/2}}.
\end{equation}
For simplicity we have omitted a constant factor in front. $d$ refers to the spacetime dimensions, $L$ the number of loops and $n$ the number of loop propagators. For each propagator labeled by the integer $i$ there is a corresponding Feynman parameter $x_i$, and the number $a_i$ denotes the multiplicity of the propagator (which for ordinary Feynman diagram is just $1$), and $a=\sum_{i=1}^na_i$. The two polynomials $\mathcal{U}$ and $\mathcal{V}$ can be determined by graphical methods
\begin{align}
\mathcal{U}&=\sum_{T\in T^1}\prod_{i\notin T}x_i,\qquad
\mathcal{V}=\sum_{T\in T^2}(k^{\rm T})^2\prod_{i\notin T}x_i.
\end{align}
Here $T^1$ is the set of all possible trees obtained by cutting propagators in the original loop diagram, and $T^2$ the set of all possible pair of disjoint trees obtained by cutting the same diagrams, so the $x_i$'s showing up in the expression correspond to those propagators that are cut. $k^T$ denotes the total momentum flowing from one side to the other side of the disjoint diagram. It is easy to see these polynomials have homogeneous degree $L$ and $L+1$ in $x$ respectively, and they are usually called Symanzik polynomials. The presence of the $\delta$ functions indicates that the integral contour is in fact a finite region, which has the shape of an $(n-1)$-simplex in $\mathbb{R}^{n-1}$.
The Feynman parameter integral \eqref{eq:feynmanparameter0} remains the same if one replaces the $\delta$ there by $\delta(\sum' x_i-1)$ where $\sum'$ only sums over any non-empty subset of the propagators, by the so-called Cheng--Wu theorem \cite{Cheng:1987}. This indicates that such integral can be better presented in a projective space. To make this manifest, for example we can replace the $\delta$ function by the extreme case $\delta(x_1-1)$, so that $x_1$ is localized to $1$ while the other variables are integrated over $[0,\infty)$. Then the resulting integral can be made projective by replacing the volume element
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&\mathrm{d}x_2\mathrm{d}x_3\cdots\mathrm{d}x_n\longmapsto
\langle X\mathrm{d}X^{n-1}\rangle\equiv\frac{1}{(n-1)!}\epsilon_{I_1I_2\cdots I_n}X^{I_1}\mathrm{d}X^{I_2}\wedge\mathrm{d}X^{I_3}\wedge\cdots\wedge\mathrm{d}X^{I_n},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
($\epsilon$ being the Levi--Civita symbol) and turning on $x_1$ again in the integrand such that both its numerator and denominator are homogeneous in $X=[x_1:x_2:\cdots:x_n]$ and the degree of $X$ is balanced. Consequently the integral \eqref{eq:feynmanparameter0} is now expressed as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:feynmanparameter1}
\int_{\Delta}\langle X\mathrm{d}X^{n-1}\rangle\,\frac{x_1^{-(L-1)d/2}\mathcal{U}^{a-(L+1)d/2}\prod_i x_i^{a_i-1}}{(-\mathcal{V}+\mathcal{U}\sum_im_i^2x_i)^{a-Ld/2}}.
\end{equation}
This integral is understood as an integral in $\mathbb{CP}^{n-1}$, where the extension into complex field is for the sake of studying analytic properties of the integral later on. $X=[x_1:x_2:\cdots:x_n]$ denotes the homogeneous coordinates in $\mathbb{CP}^{n-1}$, which enjoy the equivalence
\begin{equation}\label{eq:homogeneous}
[x_1:x_2:\cdots:x_n]\sim[\lambda x_1:\lambda x_2:\cdots:\lambda x_n],\qquad\forall \lambda\neq0,
\end{equation}
i.e., they represent the same point in $\mathbb{CP}^{n-1}$. In this way the domain of the integral becomes compact, so that there is no worry about any peculiarity caused by points at ``infinity'' when studying the emergence of singularities in the integral. The integral contour in \eqref{eq:feynmanparameter1} is a special $(n-1)$-simplex whose $n$ vertices are located at
\begin{equation}\label{eq:standardsimplex}
V_i=[\underbrace{0:0:\cdots:0}_{i-1}:1:\underbrace{0:0:\cdots:0}_{n-i-1}],\qquad\forall i=1,2,\ldots,n.
\end{equation}
In this paper we will always call a simplex with this special configuration a \emph{canonical simplex}. As directly derived from the Feynman integrals this contour entirely lives inside the real slice of $\mathbb{CP}^{n-1}$, but it is helpful to consider its deformation off the real slice without changing the integral, as will be described in more detail soon.
As is obviously seen the integrand in \eqref{eq:feynmanparameter1} is always a rational function. For a most generic scattering process, regardless of particle contents and interaction types, following the above treatment its Feynman parameter representation always takes the generic form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Feynmangeneral}
\int_\Delta\frac{\langle X\mathrm{d}X^{n-1}\rangle\,N[X^k]}{D[X^{n+k}]}.
\end{equation}
$N[X^k]$ and $D[X^{n+k}]$ are homogeneous polynomials of degree $k$ and $n+k$ respectively, which can be reducible. The contour can be relaxed to an arbitrary $(n-1)$-simplex, although by the $\mathrm{PGL}(n)$ automorphism of $\mathbb{CP}^{n-1}$ it can always be brought back to the canonical simplex described above. From the geometric point of view, singularities of the function that arises from such integral originate from configurations when singularities of the integrand hits the integral contour such that the contour allows no deformations to avoid it. Therefore in general the presence of a singularity and the behavior of the function in its neighborhood are closely tied to details of the contour simplex as well as the curve defined by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:singularitycurve}
D[X^{n+k}]=0.
\end{equation}
In higher dimensions the classification of such singular configurations can be very rich. An even more interesting questions is how these different singularities are related to each other. These are the crucial data governing the structure of singularities of the integral \eqref{eq:Feynmangeneral} that we are interested in gaining a better understanding in general. For integrals that receives decomposition into MPLs these data are encoded in term of their symbols. In this paper we will analyze explicit examples of \eqref{eq:Feynmangeneral} that are known to be of the MPL type, and show how their symbols can be directly constructed from the integral, without essentially doing the integration. Of course, the most general \eqref{eq:Feynmangeneral} definitely goes beyond MPLs, and to our knowledge there has not been a clear criteria judging the type of functions that this integral leads to. But as we will see later in the discussion, a plausible necessary condition seems to be that every irreducible component of the singularity curve \eqref{eq:singularitycurve} is rational.
There are two simplest situations of \eqref{eq:Feynmangeneral} that are known to decompose into MPLs. The first one is when $D[X^{n+k}]$ fully reduces to a product of linear factors. The prototype of such integrals is the Aomoto polylogarithms, which is simply a generalization of the usual definition for MPLs \cite{aomoto_1982,Arkani-Hamed:2017ahv}. The second one is when $D[X^{n+k}]$ is some multiple of a single degree-$2$ polynomial, which includes all one-loop Feynman integrals. Both classes of integrals were previously studied in \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2017ahv}, where efficient methods were proposed to learn about their symbols. In particular, for the one-loop integrals it introduced a so-called ``spherical projection'' that extracts certain discontinuities from the integral, from which the symbol of \eqref{eq:Feynmangeneral} can be directly read off (see also \cite{YelleshpurSrikant:2019khx,Feng:2022rwj} for related discussions). Unfortunately, the validity of this method heavily relies on the fact that \eqref{eq:singularitycurve} here defines a single quadric, and so it cannot be directly applicable to integrals with other types of $D[X^{n+k}]$ (although the Aomoto polylog integrals can be rewritten into a form of the one-loop type, so as to fit into this method indirectly).
In this paper we revisit the above mentioned two types of integrals. The purpose is to introduce a new strategy (differing from the previous ones) that provides a uniform framework to the analysis of the singularity structure in both cases, which may further receive a direct generalization to \eqref{eq:Feynmangeneral} integrals with higher-degree irreducible singularity curves (so as to be applicable to higher-loop integrals). This strategy involves two main ingredients. The first one is the identification of a stratum of carefully selected discontinuities obtained by modifications of the contour in the original integral \eqref{eq:Feynmangeneral}, according to specific fibrations of the contour. The second one is a method to work out the singularity points of each discontinuity that are seen on the principle sheet, or in other words, the first symbol entries. As will be explicitly seen in later discussions, this analysis does not require detailed results of the discontinuities in terms of known functions, but only their definition in terms of integrals. These discontinuities are labeled by geometric elements tied to the original integral contour as well as the singularity curve \eqref{eq:singularitycurve}. The combinatoric relations among these discontinuities, which are induced from these underlying geometries, turn out to provide sufficient characterization for the singularity structure of the integral \eqref{eq:Feynmangeneral}. As we will explicitly show later, the symbol of \eqref{eq:Feynmangeneral} can be systematically constructed from these data for the two classes of integrals mentioned above. Along with this analysis, by a simple application of global residue theorem in one dimension, the above combinatoric data also reveal a large set of rules that the symbol of \eqref{eq:Feynmangeneral} has to obey in general.
The plan of the paper is as follows. In Section \ref{sec:projection} we will carefully illustrate various aspects of the new strategy of analysis using the Aomoto polylog integrals. Possible issues and solutions when generalizing to integrals with more complicated $D[X^{n+k}]$ are then briefly discussed in Section \ref{sec:generalize}. In Section \ref{sec:quadric} with an explicit example we will show how this analysis applies to integrals of the one-loop type, i.e., whose singularity curve is a single quadric. In Section \ref{sec:higherdim} we will analyze another example of integral with a quadric, for the purpose of explaining how to properly deal with more general contours that one inevitably encounter during the analysis in higher dimensions. Various directions of future explorations are commented at the end.
\subsection{About Simplexes}\label{sec:simplex}
In the remaining of this introduction let us clarify some terminology regarding simplexes that will be frequently used in the paper. By its original definition an $(n-1)$-simplex is a natural generalization of a triangle in $\mathbb{R}^2$ to Euclidean space $\mathbb{R}^{n-1}$ with arbitrary $n$. It is a compact region \emph{uniquely} determined by its $n$ $0$-faces $V_i\in\mathbb{R}^{n-1}$, as any point in it can be represented by
\begin{equation}
\sum_{i=1}^nx_iV_i,\qquad \sum_{i=1}^nx_i=1\text{ and }(\forall i)\text{ }x_i\geq0,
\end{equation}
where the $x_i$'s are called barycentric coordinates of the point \cite{Nakahara:2003}. One can already observe that these coordinates behave exactly like what the Feynman parameters do. Boundary of the simplex can be reached by setting some subset of the barycentric parameters to zero. It is clear that each boundary itself receives an analogous barycentric coordinates representation, but with some subset of the $0$-faces $\{V_{i_1},V_{i_2},\ldots,V_{i_k}\}$ ($1\leq k<n$), and so it is a $(k-1)$-simplex, which we call a $(k-1)$-face of the original simplex, and we denote this face by $\overline{V_{i_1}V_{i_2}\cdots V_{i_k}}$ (following this notation we should also have denoted the $0$-faces as $\overline{V_i}$, but we ignore the overline for brevity). Each $(k-1)$-face obviously lives inside a plane of dimension $k-1$ in $\mathbb{R}^{n-1}$, which is specified by the corresponding $0$-faces. In this sense we say the boundaries/faces of a simplex are flat.
In the integral \eqref{eq:Feynmangeneral} we put an $(n-1)$-simplex in a complex projective space $\mathbb{CP}^{n-1}$ instead and use it as the contour. This leads to some essential differences that are worth to be pointed out.
First of all, such simplex still has real dimension $n-1$, even though it is put inside a space of complex dimension $n-1$ (and so of real dimension $2n-2$). One can still define such a simplex by starting with a set of $n$ points $V_i$ (which are now points in $\mathbb{CP}^{n-1}$) and representing points in it using real barycentric coordinates
\begin{equation}
\sum_{i=1}^nx_iV_i,\qquad (\forall i)\text{ }x_i\geq0,
\end{equation}
(and the $x_i$'s are not simultaneously zero). The distinction from the case in $\mathbb{R}^{n-1}$ is that these coordinates are no longer subject to the condition $\sum_i x_i=1$. This is a direct consequence of the fact that the above summation represents a point in $\mathbb{CP}^{n-1}$. Starting with this setup we can further extend the domain of $x_i$'s to complex field, so that the above barycentric coordinates $[x_1:x_2:\ldots:x_n]$ become some homogeneous coordinates for $\mathbb{CP}^{n-1}$, subject to the equivalence relation \eqref{eq:homogeneous}. In actual computation we have to choose a ``gauge-fixing'' condition to slice across these equivalence classes, which is the source for the Cheng--Wu theorem mentioned previously. In practice a convenient choice is just to set one particular $x_i$ to $1$.
Despite the above definition, as an integral contour an $(n-1)$-simplex in $\mathbb{CP}^{n-1}$ is not literally fixed as that in $\mathbb{R}^{n-1}$. This is not surprising, since already in the familiar one-dimensional integration in complex analysis we all know that a contour can be freely deformed without changing the integral, as long as its two end points are fixed and that the deformation does not encounter any singularity of the integrand. For integrals in higher dimensions, while any open subset of the contour behaves largely in similar manner, we have to be a bit careful with the boundaries.
To precisely describe the allowed deformations let us temporarily switch to a different view point. In fact, drawing analogy to the picture in $\mathbb{R}^{n-1}$, in $\mathbb{CP}^{n-1}$ we can define a different notion of ``simplex''. Note that for any selected subset $\{V_{i_1},V_{i_2},\ldots,V_{i_k}\}$ of the original $n$ points, they uniquely define a plane of complex dimension $k-1$. Points on such plane are represented by $\sum_{a=1}^kx_{i_a}V_{i_a}$ ($x_i\in\mathbb{C}$). So with a slight abuse of notation we denote such plane also as $\overline{V_{i_1}V_{i_2}\cdots V_{i_k}}$. It is obvious that the intersection relations among planes of this type are structurally the same as the incidence relations among various faces of an $(n-1)$-simplex in $\mathbb{R}^{n-1}$. Therefore we can treat such plane as some $(k-1)$-face, and name the collection of all such faces (with various $k$'s) the $(n-1)$-``simplex'' defined by the $n$ points $\{V_1,V_2,\ldots,V_n\}$. As is obvious from the definition, this ``simplex'' in $\mathbb{CP}^{n-1}$ is completely fixed and there is no room for any sort of deformations.
Now back to the actual simplex for the integral contour, with real dimension $n-1$, in general it can be deformed in $\mathbb{CP}^{n-1}$ under the following condition: each of its $(k-1)$-face (for any $1\leq k\leq n$), say $\overline{V_{i_1}V_{i_2}\cdots V_{i_k}}$, which has real dimension $k-1$, can only be deformed within the corresponding $(k-1)$-face $\overline{V_{i_1}V_{i_2}\cdots V_{i_k}}$ of the $(n-1)$-``simplex'', i.e.~the plane spanned by $\{V_{i_1},V_{i_2},\ldots,V_{i_k}\}$, which has complex dimension $k-1$. By this we see that for a simplex contour in $\mathbb{CP}^{n-1}$, only its $0$-faces are completely fixed, while all other faces are allowed to deform under the above constraints. An example is illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:simplex}. It is also in this sense that we say the faces of the simplex is flat, even though they may look curvy when counting real dimensions. This is to be distinguished from a more general situation to be discussed in Section \ref{sec:quadric} and \ref{sec:higherdim}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\clip (-3.2,-2.2) rectangle +(6,3);
\coordinate [label={180:$V_1$}] (v1) at (0,0);
\coordinate [label={180:$V_2$}] (v2) at (230:2);
\coordinate [label={0:$V_3$}] (v3) at (300:1);
\fill [BrickRed,opacity=0.6] (v1) -- (v2) -- (v3) -- cycle;
\draw [BrickRed,opacity=0.8] ($(v1)!2!(v2)$) -- ($(v2)!2!(v1)$);
\draw [BrickRed,opacity=0.8] ($(v1)!3!(v3)$) -- ($(v3)!3!(v1)$);
\draw [BrickRed,opacity=0.8] ($(v2)!2!(v3)$) -- ($(v3)!2!(v2)$);
\draw [BrickRed,very thick] (v1) -- (v2) -- (v3) -- cycle;
\fill [BrickRed] (v1) circle [radius=2pt];
\fill [BrickRed] (v2) circle [radius=2pt];
\fill [BrickRed] (v3) circle [radius=2pt];
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Example of a $2$-simplex. The thick line segments and points refers to its $1$- and $0$-faces. When viewed in $\mathbb{R}^2$ the thin lines are real lines and the $1$-faces are their segments, which are fixed. When viewed in $\mathbb{CP}^2$ instead, the thin lines represent $\mathbb{CP}^1$ subspaces that are determined by the $0$-faces, and each $1$-face is some real contour that can be deformed within the corresponding $\mathbb{CP}^1$.}
\label{fig:simplex}
\end{figure}
In this paper we will frequently talk about faces of the actual simplex contour as well as the planes that they are restricted in (the corresponding faces of the ``simplex'' above). The distinction between these two kinds of objects will be helpful in understanding several points that might appear to be confusing at first sight later on. Because they are closely related, when there is no confusion we will simply call both of them faces of a simplex, and use the same notation $\overline{V_{i_1}V_{i_2}\cdots V_{i_k}}$ as what have already been done above.
\section{Fibrations, Discontinuities and Symbol Construction}\label{sec:projection}
In this section we analyze generic Aomoto polylogarithms, which form a class of integrals whose geometries associate to a pair of simplexes and they always belong to MPLs. In order to work out their symbols, we will identify a set of their discontinuities and describe a way to learn about the first entry expressions in their own symbols. Geometrically each discontinuity can be treated as the projection of the original integral through a $0$-face of its contour. This analysis can be recursively applied for this class of integrals, and so ultimately we obtain a stratum of discontinuities together with the first entries of each one's symbol. By the end we will show how these data are utilized to construct the complete symbol of a given integral.
\subsection{Singularity and Discontinuity of Integrals in $\mathbb{CP}^1$}\label{sec:cp1}
To motivate the geometric nature of discontinuities in a generic higher-dimensional integral, let us begin by considering the familiar integral of a single variable that generates a log
\begin{equation}\label{eq:logintegral}
I=\int_\infty^0\frac{(r_1-r_2)\mathrm{d}x_1}{(x_1-r_1)(x_1-r_2)}=\log\frac{r_1}{r_2}.
\end{equation}
Its symbol is simply the argument inside the log function \footnote{Here we slightly abuse the usual notation by adding a $\otimes$ in front, to remind the reader that this term is to be understood in the context of a ``product'' $\otimes$ (as will be explicit in the general situation later), which is distinguished from an ordinary algebraic expression.}
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{S}[I]=\otimes\frac{r_1}{r_2}.
\end{equation}
The meaning of this symbol has two aspects. Firstly, the loci of singularities of $I$ can be learned by imposing
\begin{equation}\label{eq:singularitycondition}
\frac{r_1}{r_2}=0\qquad\text{or}\qquad\frac{r_1}{r_2}=\infty.
\end{equation}
Secondly, the discontinuity of $I$ is obtained by analytically continuing the argument $\frac{r_1}{r_2}$ around either of the above two branch points, resulting in $\pm2\pi i$ where the sign depends on the direction of continuation. When viewed as an operation acting on $\mathcal{S}[I]$ at the level of symbols, the discontinuity corresponds to deleting $\frac{r_1}{r_2}$ in the $\otimes$ product, with the remaining expression multiplied by $\pm2\pi i$
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{S}[\mathrm{Disc}_0I]=2\pi i\,\otimes,\qquad
\mathcal{S}[\mathrm{Disc}_\infty I]=-2\pi i\,\otimes.
\end{equation}
This case is too special as it yields empty $\otimes$ product.
To describe these facts in a more geometric setup, we rewrite \eqref{eq:logintegral} into an integral in $\mathbb{CP}^1$, with homogeneous coordinates $X=[x_1:x_2]$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:logintegralCP1}
I=\int_{[1:0]}^{[0:1]}\frac{(r_2-r_1)(x_1\mathrm{d}x_2-x_2\mathrm{dx_1})}{(x_1-r_1x_2)(x_1-r_2x_2)}.
\end{equation}
For any pair of points $P,Q\in\mathbb{CP}^1$ we can form a bracket $\langle PQ\rangle\equiv \epsilon_{IJ}P^IQ^J\equiv p_1q_2-p_2q_1$, and $\langle PQ\rangle=0$ is the condition for them to be coincident. If we identify two points
\begin{equation}
P_1=[r_1:1],\qquad P_2=[r_2:1].
\end{equation}
The above integral and its symbol are just
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cp1integral}
I=\int_\Delta\frac{\langle P_1P_2\rangle\langle X\mathrm{d}X\rangle}{\langle XP_1\rangle\langle XP_2\rangle}=\log\frac{\langle P_1V_1\rangle\langle P_2V_2\rangle}{\langle P_2V_1\rangle\langle P_1V_2\rangle},\qquad
\mathcal{S}I=\frac{\langle P_1V_1\rangle\langle P_2V_2\rangle}{\langle P_2V_1\rangle\langle P_1V_2\rangle}.
\end{equation}
This expression is intrinsically geometric because the ratio of brackets above is invariant under any $\mathrm{PGL}(2)$ transformation, the group of automorphism of $\mathbb{CP}^1$, and so it is independent of the choice of homogeneous coordinates for $\mathbb{CP}^1$. What \eqref{eq:cp1integral} tells is that any integral in $\mathbb{CP}^{1}$ whose contour is a $1$-simplex and whose integrand is a rational form determined by two simple poles is a pure log, given a proper normalization (see Figure \ref{fig:log}).
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[decoration={
markings,
mark=between positions 8mm and 1 step 7mm with {\arrow{stealth}}}]
\coordinate [label={0:$V_1$}] (v1) at (2,0.5);
\coordinate [label={180:$V_2$}] (v2) at (-2,0.5);
\coordinate [label={-90:$P_1$}] (p1) at (-0.75,0);
\coordinate [label={-90:$P_2$}] (p2) at (0.75,0);
\fill [BrickRed] (v1) circle [radius=2pt];
\fill [BrickRed] (v2) circle [radius=2pt];
\draw [RoyalBlue,thick] ($(p1)+(45:4pt)$) -- +(-135:2*4pt) ($(p1)+(135:4pt)$) -- +(-45:2*4pt);
\draw [RoyalBlue,thick] ($(p2)+(45:4pt)$) -- +(-135:2*4pt) ($(p2)+(135:4pt)$) -- +(-45:2*4pt);
\draw [BrickRed,very thick,postaction={decorate}] (v1) .. controls +(-150:1.5) and +(30:1.5) .. (v2);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Any $1$-simplex contour and a pair of singularity points in $\mathbb{CP}^1$ yields a log.}
\label{fig:log}
\end{figure}
Now applying the condition for singularities \eqref{eq:singularitycondition} there are four solution
\begin{equation}\label{eq:logsingularities}
\langle P_1V_1\rangle=0\quad\text{or}\quad\langle P_1V_2\rangle=0\quad\text{or}\quad\langle P_2V_1\rangle=0\quad\text{or}\quad\langle P_2V_2\rangle=0,
\end{equation}
each corresponding to a situation when one end of the contour $V_i$ hits one of the integrand poles $P_j$. This is clear because when such situation occurs the integral looks like $\int\frac{\mathrm{d}x}{x}$ in the neighborhood of $V_i$ (where $x$ is the local integration variable) and so there arises a log divergence. By a more careful inspection one may also question about the possibility of $P_1$ and $P_2$ coming close together and pinching the contour in the middle. However, when this happens the normalization factor $\langle P_1P_2\rangle$ also vanishes and so effectively this singularity is absent. Hence all the singularities have to do with the relation between the counter boundaries and the integrand singularities.
The discontinuities are computed by picking up any pair $(V_i,P_j)$ and analytically continue their bracket $\langle P_jV_i\rangle$ around zero (say counter-clockwisely). Geometrically this is the same as letting $V_i$ to deform around $P_j$. The resulting new contour differs from the original contour by a circle around $P_j$. So for instance for the pair $(V_1,P_2)$, taking discontinuity is the same as replacing the original contour by an $\mathrm{S}^1$ residue contour in the original integral
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{Disc}_{V_1,P_2}I=\int_{|\langle XP_2\rangle|=\epsilon}\frac{\langle P_1P_2\rangle\langle X\mathrm{d}X\rangle}{\langle XP_1\rangle\langle XP_2\rangle}=2\pi i.
\end{equation}
There are four coincidence situations in \eqref{eq:logsingularities}, and at first glance there are four types of discontinuities. However, it is easy to observe that deforming $V_1$ around $P_2$ is equivalent to deforming $V_2$ around $P_2$ in the opposite direction (and similar relation hold for $P_1$); see Figure \ref{fig:contourdeformCP1}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[decoration={
markings,
mark=between positions 8mm and 1 step 7mm with {\arrow{stealth}}}]
\begin{scope}
\coordinate [label={$V_1$}] (v1) at (1,1);
\coordinate [label={$V_2$}] (v2) at (-1,1);
\coordinate [label={0:$P_i$}] (pi) at (0,0);
\draw [RoyalBlue,thick] (45:4pt) -- (-135:4pt) (135:4pt) -- (-45:4pt);
\draw [BrickRed,very thick,postaction={decorate}] (v1) -- (v2);
\fill [BrickRed] (v1) circle [radius=2pt];
\fill [BrickRed] (v2) circle [radius=2pt];
\draw [BrickRed,very thick,postaction={decorate}] (pi) circle [radius=0.6];
\node [anchor=north] at (0,-1) {(b)};
\end{scope}
\node [anchor=center] at (-2.25cm,0.3cm) {$\Longleftrightarrow$};
\node [anchor=center] at (2.25cm,0.3cm) {$\Longleftrightarrow$};
\begin{scope}[xshift=-4.5cm]
\coordinate [label={$V_1$}] (v1) at (1,1);
\coordinate [label={$V_2$}] (v2) at (-1,1);
\coordinate [label={0:$P_i$}] (pi) at (0,0);
\draw [RoyalBlue,thick] (45:4pt) -- (-135:4pt) (135:4pt) -- (-45:4pt);
\draw [BrickRed,very thick,postaction={decorate}] (v1) .. controls +(180:0.6) and +(-45:0.7) .. ($(v2)+(45:0.6)$) arc [start angle=30,end angle=180,radius=0.6] .. controls +(-90:0.8) and +(180:1) .. ($(pi)+(-90:0.6)$) arc [start angle=-90,end angle=90,radius=0.6] .. controls +(180:0.6) and +(-45:0.2) .. (v2);
\fill [BrickRed] (v1) circle [radius=2pt];
\fill [BrickRed] (v2) circle [radius=2pt];
\node [anchor=north] at (0,-1) {(a)};
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[xshift=4.5cm]
\coordinate [label={$V_1$}] (v1) at (1,1);
\coordinate [label={$V_2$}] (v2) at (-1,1);
\coordinate [label={0:$P_i$}] (pi) at (0,0);
\draw [RoyalBlue,thick] (45:4pt) -- (-135:4pt) (135:4pt) -- (-45:4pt);
\draw [BrickRed,very thick,postaction={decorate}] (v1) .. controls +(-135:0.2) and +(0:0.6) .. ($(pi)+(90:0.6)$) arc [start angle=90,end angle=270,radius=0.6] .. controls +(0:1) and +(-90:0.8) .. ($(v1)+(0:0.6)$) arc [start angle=0,end angle=135,radius=0.6] .. controls +(-135:0.7) and +(0:0.6) .. (v2);
\fill [BrickRed] (v1) circle [radius=2pt];
\fill [BrickRed] (v2) circle [radius=2pt];
\node [anchor=north] at (0,-1) {(c)};
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The residue contour (b) can be obtained either (a) by deforming the $0$-face $V_2$ around the singularity point $P_i$ or (c) by deforming the other $0$-face $V_1$ around $P_i$ in the opposite direction.}
\label{fig:contourdeformCP1}
\end{figure}
So the number of different residue contours reduces by half, and it is more intuitive to write this function as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:logsymbolcombine}
I=\log\frac{\langle P_1V_1\rangle}{\langle P_1V_2\rangle}-\log\frac{\langle P_2V_1\rangle}{\langle P_2V_2\rangle},\qquad
\mathcal{S}[I]=\otimes\frac{\langle P_1V_1\rangle}{\langle P_1V_2\rangle}-\otimes\frac{\langle P_2V_1\rangle}{\langle P_2V_2\rangle}.
\end{equation}
Note the symbol is defined to satisfy the same algebraic relations as the log. In \eqref{eq:logsymbolcombine} each term associates to one irreducible component of the integrand singularity and the $1$-simplex contour. This pattern is going to be important in later discussions.
In the above special case where only two poles are present in $\mathbb{CP}^1$, the same residue contour can be viewed as either encircling $P_1$ or encircling $P_2$ in the opposite direction, so in effect there is only one type of residue contour. But we do not emphasize this further identification because it is subject to change when more singularities are present. For example, consider three simple poles in $\mathbb{CP}^1$. One such integral is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:3ptlog}
\begin{split}
&\int_\Delta\frac{\langle P_2P_3\rangle (LX)\langle X\mathrm{d}X\rangle}{\langle XP_1\rangle\langle XP_2\rangle\langle XP_3\rangle}
=\\
&\frac{\langle P_1L\rangle\langle P_2P_3\rangle}{\langle P_1P_2\rangle\langle P_1P_3\rangle}\log\frac{\langle P_1V_1\rangle}{\langle P_1V_2\rangle}-\frac{\langle P_2L\rangle}{\langle P_1P_2\rangle}\log\frac{\langle P_2V_1\rangle}{\langle P_2V_2\rangle}+\frac{\langle P_3L\rangle}{\langle P_1P_3\rangle}\log\frac{\langle P_3V_1\rangle}{\langle P_3V_2\rangle},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $(LX)$ is some linear numerator factor. Here the above mentioned ratio structure inside log still holds. While the three types of residue contours (encircling each $P_i$) are not identical, they satisfy a three term linear relation instead, which is just the global residue theorem. In this case we see the pinching singularities do have a chance to appear, but they only lead to poles of the form $\langle P_iP_j\rangle=0$. However, these are algebraic singularities (as can be easily verified using similar contour deformation argument). In principle these can be discovered in the coefficients after a discontinuity computation and are not of our principal concern.
Some interesting aspects about generic integrals in $\mathbb{CP}^1$ is already revealed in the example \eqref{eq:3ptlog}, which is worth to emphasize here. Firstly, by definition the integral has to be invariant under any $\mathrm{PGL}(2)$ transformation of $\mathbb{CP}^1$, which is easily seen by the balance of angle brackets between the numerators and the denominators on both LHS and RHS of \eqref{eq:3ptlog}. This property clearly descends to the discontinuities of the resulting function, since the definition of discontinuities differs from the original function just by a modification of the integral contour, and this operation is purely geometric.
Secondly, the integral should not depend on the scale of homogeneous coordinates used for $X$, which is manifest on LHS. This means the result cannot depend on the scale of coordinates for either $V_1$ or $V_2$. Although this does not hold for each individual log term on RHS of \eqref{eq:3ptlog}, it is satisfied by the whole result. For example, if we rescale the coordinates $V_1\to\lambda V_1$, the differences caused by this operation sum up to
\begin{equation}
\left(\frac{\langle P_1L\rangle\langle P_2P_3\rangle}{\langle P_1P_2\rangle\langle P_1P_3\rangle}-\frac{\langle P_2L\rangle}{\langle P_1P_2\rangle}+\frac{\langle P_3L\rangle}{\langle P_1P_3\rangle}\right)\log\lambda=0.
\end{equation}
Recalling that each coefficient above is identical to the result from a residue contour encircling one of $P_i$'s, this cancellation is exactly the consequence of the above mentioned global residue theorem. This indicates that in an actual computation the resulting arguments inside the logs may scale by a common factor depending on the coordinates we input for the contour end points, which is nevertheless irrelevant. This fact will be useful for understanding the integrals in higher dimensions later on.
\subsection{Aomoto Polylogarithms Revisited}
The log integral \eqref{eq:cp1integral} in $\mathbb{CP}^1$ receives a direct generalization to integrals in $\mathbb{CP}^{n-1}$, which are called Aomoto polylogarithms. Aomoto polylogs are defined by a pair of $(n-1)$-simplexes $\{\overline{\Delta},\underline{\Delta}\}$, $\overline{\Delta}$ for the integral contour, and $\underline{\Delta}$ for the integrand. In the following we will denote the $0$-faces that specifies $\overline{\Delta}$ as $\{V_1,V_2,\ldots,V_n\}$, while those specifying $\underline{\Delta}$ as $\{W_1,W_2,\ldots.W_n\}$. On the one hand, the contour simplex $\overline{\Delta}$ allows for certain deformations as described in Section \ref{sec:simplex}. On the other hand, precisely speaking the integrand simplex $\underline{\Delta}$ is in the sense of the "simplex" formed by planes of various complex dimensions determined by $W$'s, which were described in Section \ref{sec:simplex} as well. Alternatively, $\underline{\Delta}$ can also be specified by its $(n-2)$-faces, which satisfy equations of the form $\langle XW_{i_1}\cdots W_{i_{n-1}}\rangle=0$ and define simple poles of the integrand. For simplicity of notation we can define
\begin{equation}
(H_i)_{I}=\epsilon_{IJ_1J_2\ldots J_{n-1}}W_1^{J_1}\cdots W_{i-1}^{J_{i-1}}W_{i+1}^{J_i}\cdots W_{n}^{J_{n-1}},\qquad i=1,2,\ldots,n,
\end{equation}
and correspondingly $\langle H_1H_2\cdots H_n\rangle=\langle W_1W_2\cdots W_{n}\rangle^{n-1}$. Then the Aomoto polylog of this pair of simplexes can be defined in terms of two equivalent integrals
\begin{equation}\label{eq:defaomoto}
\begin{split}
\Lambda(\overline{\Delta},\underline{\Delta})
&=\int_{\overline{\Delta}}\frac{\langle W_1W_2\cdots W_n\rangle^{n-1}\langle X\mathrm{d}X^{n-1}\rangle}{\langle XW_1W_2\cdots W_{n-1}\rangle\langle XW_2W_3\cdots W_n\rangle\cdots\langle XW_nW_1\cdots W_{n-2}\rangle},\\
&=\int_{\overline{\Delta}}\frac{\langle H_1H_2\cdots H_n\rangle\langle X\mathrm{d}X^{n-1}\rangle}{(H_1X)(H_2X)\cdots (H_nX)},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $H_iX\equiv(H_i)_IX^I$. The function of this type always belongs to the multiple polylogarithms. Therefore similar to a pure log it has well-defined symbol, which was previously worked out in \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2017ahv}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:symbolaomoto}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{S}[\Lambda]
=\sum_{\rho,\sigma\in\mathrm{S}_n}&\mathrm{sign}(\rho)\mathrm{sign}(\sigma)\,\langle V_{\rho(1)}W_{\sigma(2)}W_{\sigma(3)}\cdots W_{\sigma(n)}\rangle\otimes\\
&\otimes\langle V_{\rho(1)}V_{\rho(2)}W_{\sigma(3)}\cdots W_{\sigma(n)}\rangle\otimes\cdots\otimes\langle V_{\rho(1)}V_{\rho(2)}\cdots V_{\rho(n-1)}W_{\sigma(n)}\rangle,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\mathrm{S}_n$ denotes permutations of the $n$ labels. The symbol in \eqref{eq:cp1integral} serves as a special case when $n=2$.
For later convenience let us very briefly review some properties of the symbols. Here we see that it in general is a summation of $\otimes$ products, where each product contain $n$ entries. $n$ is called the the length of the symbol, which indicates the transcendental weight of its corresponding function. Each individual entry of the symbol enjoys the same algebraic relations as a log
\begin{align}
\label{eq:symboltimes}A\otimes \alpha\otimes B+A\otimes \beta\otimes B&=A\otimes(\alpha\beta)\otimes B,\\
\label{eq:symbolpower}c(A\otimes \alpha\otimes B)&=A\otimes(\alpha^c)\otimes B,
\end{align}
where $A$ and $B$ can be any $\otimes$ product, and $c$ denotes any number. If any entry is purely a numeric value, then its corresponding $\otimes$ product is set to zero.
While \eqref{eq:symbolaomoto} takes care of the most generic situation of two arbitrary simplexes, in specific examples where some faces of the simplexes are fixed some terms in \eqref{eq:symbolaomoto} may vanish.
When we study logarithmic singularities of a function, at the level of the symbols this amounts to collect the first entries in all the $\otimes$ products. The zero locus of each first entry indicates the presence of such a singularity. In this particular case we have
\begin{equation}
(V_{\rho(1)}H_{\sigma(1)})\equiv\langle V_{\rho(1)}W_{\sigma(2)}W_{\sigma(3)}\cdots W_{\sigma(n)}\rangle=0,\qquad\forall \rho(1),\sigma(1)\in\{1,2,\ldots,n\}.
\end{equation}
Geometrically this is just the incidence relation for the point $V_{\rho(1)}$ to be on the hyperplane $H_{\sigma(1)}X=0$, one of the irreducible components of the singular loci of the integrand in $\Lambda(\overline{\Delta},\underline{\Delta})$. Comparing to the $\mathbb{CP}^1$ case in the previous subsection, we see the interpretation for the first symbol entries receives a direct generalization, where the singularity point in $\mathbb{CP}^1$ is replaced by a singularity hyperplane in $\mathbb{CP}^{n-1}$.
For each specific logarithmic singularity, say $V_1H_1=0$ the computation of its corresponding discontinuity at the symbol level is also quite similar. One basically selects all the terms whose first entry matches this singularity and then delete the first entries, yielding
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{S}[\mathrm{Disc}_{V_1,H_1}\Lambda]=2\pi i\sum_{\rho,\sigma\in S_{n-1}}\mathrm{sign}(1\rho)\mathrm{sign}(1\sigma)\langle V_1V_{\rho(1)}W_{\sigma(2)}\cdots W_{\sigma(n-1)}\rangle\otimes&\\
\otimes\langle V_1V_{\rho(1)}V_{\rho(2)}W_{\sigma(3)}\cdots W_{\rho(n-1)}\rangle\otimes\cdots\otimes\langle V_1V_{\rho(1)}\cdots V_{\rho(n-2)}W_{\sigma(n-1)}\rangle,&
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where both $\rho$ and $\sigma$ now are valued in permutations of the label set $\{2,3,\ldots,n\}$, and the symbol length is reduced by $1$. Note that if we formally ignore $V_1$ in every bracket, the above structure is identical to the symbol of an Aomoto polylog defined in $\mathbb{CP}^{n-2}$.
In the following subsections we will investigate the geometric origin of the above mentioned structures. The resulting picture will be further extended to more general integrals in later sections. But before that let us draw one additional observation from the symbol \eqref{eq:symbolaomoto}. Once we fix a choice of a $\otimes$ product except for its first entry, there are altogether four choices of $\langle VWW\cdots W\rangle$ brackets that can enter the first entry (depending on the sequence of $V_{\rho(1)}V_{\rho(2)}$ and of $W_{\sigma(1)}W_{\sigma(2)}$). In particular, with some algebraic manipulations we can carefully combine first entries with different $V_{\rho(1)}$'s as follows
\begin{equation}\label{eq:aomotosymbolorganized}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{S}[\Lambda]
=&\sum_{\rho\in\mathrm{S}_n/\mathbb{Z}_2,\sigma\in\mathrm{S}_n}\mathrm{sign}(\rho)\mathrm{sign}(\sigma)\,\frac{\langle V_{\rho(1)}W_{\sigma(2)}W_{\sigma(3)}\cdots W_{\sigma(n)}\rangle}{\langle V_{\rho(2)}W_{\sigma(2)}W_{\sigma(3)}\cdots W_{\sigma(n)}\rangle}\otimes\\
&\qquad\otimes\langle V_{\rho(1)}V_{\rho(2)}W_{\sigma(3)}\cdots W_{\sigma(n)}\rangle\otimes\cdots\otimes\langle V_{\rho(1)}V_{\rho(2)}\cdots V_{\rho(n-1)}W_{\sigma(n)}\rangle,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Here the $\mathbb{Z}_2$ in $\mathrm{S}_n/\mathbb{Z}_2$ means to ignore the ordering between $V_{\rho(1)}$ and $V_{\rho(2)}$ in the summation (although $\mathrm{sign}(\rho)$ still cares). This pattern should be compared with
\eqref{eq:logsymbolcombine}, which hints at a possible $\mathbb{CP}^1$ interpretation for the expressions in the first entries.
\subsection{Fibration of Simplex Contour and First Entries}\label{sec:fistentryaomoto}
For integrals in $\mathbb{CP}^1$ we have observed a close connection between its symbol and geometries of its contour and its integrand. The generalization of this geometric interpretation to arbitrary Aomoto polylogs is not straightforwardly obvious. In higher dimensions both $\overline{\Delta}$ and $\underline{\Delta}$ have faces of various dimensions, so the incidence relations between contour boundaries and integrand singularities becomes quite rich. It is not at all clear in the first place which should be responsible for the singularities of the integral on the principle sheet (the first entries in the symbol) and which can be seen only after analytic continuation (the subsequent entries).
In order to understand the structure in the symbol $\mathcal{S}[\Lambda]$, a convenient strategy is to decompose the problem such that ingredients that are responsible for the emergence of singularities each time are restricted to a $\mathbb{CP}^1$ subspace. For the simplex contour under study we can do the following. Let us choose a specific $0$-face of $\overline{\Delta}$, for example $V_1$, and consider all ($\mathbb{CP}^1$) lines passing through $V_1$. These lines provide a fibration of $\mathbb{CP}^{n-1}$ over $\mathbb{CP}^{n-2}$, where the target space is $\mathbb{CP}^1$. This fibration further induces a fibration of $\overline{\Delta}$ over an $(n-2)$-simplex in $\mathbb{CP}^{n-2}$ by intersection. This is very natural because each fibre of $\mathbb{CP}^{n-1}$ is exactly the space in which the corresponding fibre of $\overline{\Delta}$ can be deformed, according to Section \ref{sec:simplex}. Moreover, in this way faces of $\overline{\Delta}$ that are adjacent to $V_1$ are simultaneously fibrated in analogous manner. An explicit example with $n=3$ is shown in Figure \ref{fig:fibration}. Now imagine we parameterize $\mathbb{CP}^{n-1}$ accordingly: introduce a variable $t_1$ to represent points within each line, and introduce homogeneous coordinates $[t_2:t_3:\cdots:t_n]$ to parameterize configuration of the lines. In this way, the contour for the integral of the latter coordinates in $\mathbb{CP}^{n-2}$ does not depend on $t_1$ at all. Then it is safe to focus on each individual line and check what may happen for the $t_1$ integral within this $\mathbb{CP}^1$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\clip (-4,-4) rectangle +(8,5);
\coordinate [label={0:$V_1$}] (v1) at (0,0);
\coordinate [label={180:$V_2$}] (v2) at (230:2);
\coordinate [label={0:$V_3$}] (v3) at (300:1);
\foreach \i in {-50,-40,...,40,130,140,...,220}
\draw [gray,opacity=0.3] (v1) -- (\i:10);
\foreach \i in {50,60,...,120,240,250,...,290}
\draw [BrickRed,opacity=0.8] (v1) -- (\i:10);
\draw [BrickRed,opacity=0.8,name path=v12] (v1) -- (230:10);
\draw [BrickRed,opacity=0.8,name path=v13] (v1) -- (300:10);
\fill [BrickRed,opacity=0.6] (v1) -- (v2) -- (v3) -- cycle;
\draw [BrickRed,very thick] (v1) -- (v2) -- (v3) -- cycle;
\fill [BrickRed] (v1) circle [radius=2pt];
\fill [BrickRed] (v2) circle [radius=2pt];
\fill [BrickRed] (v3) circle [radius=2pt];
\draw [ForestGreen,thick,dashed,name path=H] (-4,-2) -- (4,-3.5);
\fill [BrickRed,name intersections={of=v12 and H,by={v12h}}] (v12h) circle [radius=2pt];
\fill [BrickRed,name intersections={of=v13 and H,by={v13h}}] (v13h) circle [radius=2pt];
\coordinate [label={180:$U_2$}] (v2h) at (v12h);
\coordinate [label={0:$U_3$}] (v3h) at (v13h);
\node [anchor=south east] at (4,-3.5) {$K$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Fibration of $\mathbb{CP}^2$ and a $2$-simplex, with respect to the $0$-face $V_1$. The red lines are the fibres that have non-trivial overlaps with the $2$-simplex. In this fibration the original integral divides into integral along each red line (where the contour is the intersection of the $2$-simplex and the line) and integral over the set of red lines. This fibration is special in that the $1$-faces adjacent to $V_1$, i.e., $\overline{V_1V_2}$ and $\overline{V_1V_3}$, are also analogously fibrated (although the induced fibration is trivial in this case of $\mathbb{CP}^2$).}
\label{fig:fibration}
\end{figure}
In practice this fibration is very easy to perform. Note that in any projective space $\mathbb{CP}^{n-1}$, once a choice of $n$ points $\{U_1,U_2,\ldots,U_n\}$ is made such that $\langle U_1U_2\cdots U_n\rangle\neq0$, then any point $P\in\mathbb{CP}^{n-1}$ receives a linear expansion on this set of points, where the collection of expansion coefficients can be treated as the homogeneous coordinates of $P$. Now we let $U_1=V_1$, and $U_i$ be collinear with $V_1$ and $V_i$ for each $i\in\{2,3,\ldots,n\}$. Because any $n-1$ points in $\mathbb{CP}^{n}$ live on a common hyperplane, we can explicitly specify these points by choosing a hyperplane $KX=0$ (as long as $KV_1\neq0$, which is illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:fibration}), then $U_i$ is just the unique intersection point of the line $\overline{V_1V_i}$ and hyperplane $K$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:newparameters}
U_i=V_i-\frac{KV_i}{KV_1}V_1,\qquad i=2,3,\ldots,n,
\end{equation}
and thus a generic point $X\in\mathbb{CP}^{n-1}$ is represented by
\begin{equation}
X=t_1V_1+\sum_{i=2}^nt_iU_i.
\end{equation}
For simplicity we can of course even set $U_i=V_i$, but we intentionally make the above general choice in order to justify a statement later on. For each set of values $\{t_2,t_3,\ldots,t_n\}$ the combination $\sum_{i=2}^nt_iU_i$ determines a point on the hyperplane $K$, and so $t_1$ parameterizes points on the line $\overline{V_1(\sum_{i=2}^nt_iU_i)}$. In our setup it is clear that the lines that have non-trivial overlap with the original contour $\overline{\Delta}$ have their parameters $[t_2:t_3:\ldots:t_n]$ valued in the canonical $(n-1)$-simplex in $\mathbb{CP}^{n-2}$ (whose $0$-faces as described in \eqref{eq:standardsimplex}). This is the contour for these variables in an actual integral, regardless of the value of $t_1$. Therefore the $t_1$ integral can be performed within each line separately.
Let us inspect the integral within a specific line. The $1$-simplex contour here always has one of its $0$-face anchored at $V_1$, while the other $0$-face (call it $V$) is located at the intersection of this line and the hyperplane $\langle XV_2V_3\cdots V_n\rangle=0$. By solving $t_1$ from the intersection condition
\begin{equation}
\left\langle\left(t_1V_1+\sum_{i=2}^nt_iU_i\right)V_2V_3\cdots V_n\right\rangle=0,
\end{equation}
and plugging back into \eqref{eq:newparameters}, this other vertex explicitly is
\begin{equation}
V=\sum_{i=2}^nt_iV_i.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, singularities on this line descend from the intersection of the line and the original singularity hypersurface in $\mathbb{CP}^{n-1}$. For Aomoto polylog the original singularity hypersurface consists of $n$ irreducible components, each of which is a hyperplane dictated by some $H_iX=0$. These configurations are illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:fibreintegral}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\clip (-4,-4.5) rectangle +(8,5);
\coordinate [label={0:$V_1$}] (v1) at (0,0);
\coordinate [label={180:}] (v2) at (230:2);
\coordinate [label={0:}] (v3) at (300:1);
\foreach \i in {-80,-70,...,80,100,110,...,260}
\draw [gray,opacity=0.3] (v1) -- (\i:10);
\draw [BrickRed,opacity=0.8] (v1) -- (90:10);
\draw [BrickRed,opacity=0.8,name path=v10] (v1) -- (270:10);
\fill [BrickRed,opacity=0.1] (v1) -- (v2) -- (v3) -- cycle;
\path [name path=v23] (v2) -- (v3);
\draw [BrickRed] (v1) -- (v2) -- (v3) -- cycle;
\fill [BrickRed] (v1) circle [radius=2pt];
\fill [BrickRed,name intersections={of=v23 and v10,by={v0}}] (v0) circle [radius=2pt];
\coordinate [label={-60:$V$}] (v23h) at (v0);
\draw [BrickRed,very thick] (v1) -- (v23h);
\draw [RoyalBlue,very thick,opacity=0.3,name path=H1] (-4,-2.5) -- (4,-4);
\draw [RoyalBlue,very thick,opacity=0.3,name path=H2] (-4,-3.5) -- (4,-1.5);
\draw [RoyalBlue,very thick,opacity=0.3,name path=H3] (-4,-1.7) -- (4,-2);
\draw [RoyalBlue,thick,name intersections={of=v10 and H1,by={v10h1}}] ($(v10h1)+(45:4pt)$) -- +(-135:2*4pt) ($(v10h1)+(135:4pt)$) -- +(-45:2*4pt);
\draw [RoyalBlue,thick,name intersections={of=v10 and H2,by={v10h2}}] ($(v10h2)+(45:4pt)$) -- +(-135:2*4pt) ($(v10h2)+(135:4pt)$) -- +(-45:2*4pt);
\draw [RoyalBlue,thick,name intersections={of=v10 and H3,by={v10h3}}] ($(v10h3)+(45:4pt)$) -- +(-135:2*4pt) ($(v10h3)+(135:4pt)$) -- +(-45:2*4pt);
\node [anchor=north east] at (v10h1) {$P_1$};
\node [anchor=north west] at (v10h2) {$P_2$};
\node [anchor=north east] at (v10h3) {$P_3$};
\node [anchor=south west] at (-4,-2.5) {$H_1$};
\node [anchor=north west] at (-4,-3.5) {$H_2$};
\node [anchor=south west] at (-4,-1.7) {$H_3$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Configuration for the integral on a specific $\mathbb{CP}^1$ fibre. The contour is induced by intersecting the fibre with the original contour. The singularity points are induced by intersecting the fibre with the original singularity hyperplanes.}
\label{fig:fibreintegral}
\end{figure}
Borrowing the result in \eqref{eq:3ptlog} and its generalization, such a $\mathbb{CP}^1$ system yields a log singularity of the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:t0log}
\log\frac{V_1H_i}{(\sum_{j=2}^nt_jV_j)H_i}\equiv\log\frac{\langle V_1W_1W_2\cdots W_{i_1}W_{i+1}\cdots W_n\rangle}{\langle \left(\sum_{j=2}^nt_jV_j\right)W_1W_2\cdots W_{i_1}W_{i+1}\cdots W_n\rangle}
\end{equation}
for each of the $n$ hyperplanes. Therefore each ratio in the above expression serves as a first entry of the symbol resulting from the $t_1$ integral.
These of course cannot directly appear in the symbol of the entire $\mathbb{CP}^{n-1}$ integral, as it still depends on the remaining integration variables. So what is the fate of these ``entries''? An intuitive argument is that later integrals do not modify them but simply add more symbol entries to their tail. To illustrate this it suffices to recall that the classical polylogs can be recursively defined as
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{Li}_2(z)=-\int_0^z\frac{\mathrm{d}x}{x}\log(1-x),\qquad
\mathrm{Li}_{n>2}(z)=\int_0^z\frac{\mathrm{d}x}{x}\mathrm{Li}_{n-1}(x),
\end{equation}
and that their symbols are
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{S}[\log(1-z)]=\otimes(1-z),\qquad
\mathcal{S}[\mathrm{Li}_n(z)]=-\,(1-z)\otimes\underbrace{z\otimes z\otimes\cdots\otimes z}_{n-1}.
\end{equation}
When we go from $\log(1-x)$ to $\mathrm{Li}_2(z)$, at the level of symbols we can treat the integral transform as appending the original symbol by an entry $x$ and then evaluating at the two ends of the contour
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{S}[\mathrm{Li}_2(z)]=-\mathcal{S}[\log(1-x)]\otimes x\big|_{x=0}^{x=z}=-(1-x)\otimes x\big|_{x=0}^{x=z}=-\,(1-z)\otimes z.
\end{equation}
Similarly, for $\mathrm{Li}_n(z)$ with higher weights we simply add more entries at the end according to the integrand and then evaluate at the boundaries
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{S}[\mathrm{Li}_n(z)]=\underbrace{-(1-x)\otimes x\otimes\cdots\otimes x}_{\mathcal{S}[\mathrm{Li}_{n-1}(x)]}\otimes x\big|_{x=0}^{x=z}.
\end{equation}
In short, each integral effectively evaluates the existing symbol of its integrand at the boundaries of the contour. For a multi-variate integral with a simplex contour as we encounter here, the ultimate effect is merely to evaluate the entries discovered in \eqref{eq:t0log} at the $n-1$ $0$-faces of the contour (which is a canonical simplex) for the remaining integrals respectively, where only one of the $t_i$'s is set to $1$ while the others to zero. The resulting expressions should serve as the first entries in $\mathcal{S}[\Lambda]$.
We can repeat the above analysis for fibrations with respect to other $0$-faces of $\overline{\Delta}$ as well. Note that due to the relation \eqref{eq:symbolpower} we have $\frac{\langle V_iWW\cdots W\rangle}{\langle V_jWW\cdots W\rangle}\otimes\cdots=-(\frac{\langle V_jWW\cdots W\rangle}{\langle V_iWW\cdots W\rangle}\otimes\cdots)$, and so these entries from different fibrations are treated as the same. These analyses altogether dictate that the symbol of Aomoto polylog takes the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:firstentrypattern}
\mathcal{S}[\Lambda]=\sum_{\substack{1\leq i_1<i_2\leq n\\1\leq j\leq n}}\#\,\frac{\langle V_{i_1}W_1\cdots W_{j-1}W_{j+1}\cdots W_n\rangle}{\langle V_{i_2}W_1\cdots W_{j-1}W_{j+1}\cdots W_n\rangle}\otimes\cdots,
\end{equation}
where the subsequent entries $\cdots$ and the coefficients $\#$ are not yet determined. Comparing with the structure observed in \eqref{eq:aomotosymbolorganized} we see this fibration analysis manages to recover all the first entries together with the pattern that they obey.
In fact, the above result suggests that when searching for the first entries it suffices to directly inspect the $\mathbb{CP}^1$ subspace of each $1$-face $\overline{V_{i_1}V_{i_2}}$. Generically the $n$ singularity hyperplanes of the integrand always intersect this $\mathbb{CP}^1$ at $n$ distinct locations, inducing $n$ singularity points in this subspace. The corresponding $1$-face of $\overline{\Delta}$ induces a $1$-simplex contour, which further yields a linear combination of $n$ log terms. This directly recovers the first entries of the form $\frac{\langle V_{i_1}WW\cdots W\rangle}{\langle V_{i_2}WW\cdots W\rangle}$ in \eqref{eq:firstentrypattern}. Enumerating all the $\frac{n(n-1)}{2}$ $1$-faces of $\overline{\Delta}$ then recovers all the first entry expressions.
\subsection{Discontinuities as Point Projection}\label{sec:discontinuity}
In the previous subsection we showed that in a given fibration of $\overline{\Delta}$ the integration along each fibre can be done independently. Following this perspective we now move on to discuss the discontinuities associated to the singularities that are emerged from this integral, i.e., the singularities associated to the first entries of $\mathcal{S}[\Lambda]$.
For concreteness let us return to the fibration with respect to the $0$-face $V_1$. From Section \ref{sec:cp1} we learned that a discontinuity is obtained by wrapping the $t_1$ integral contour around one of the singular points, by either deforming the end point $V_1$ or $V$ (which are equivalent apart from a sign). Hence like the pure $\mathbb{CP}^1$ case, this is again a residue computation in one variable ($t_1$). For instance, if the singularity point under study is the intersection of the line and the hyperplane $H_nX=0$, using the $t$ parameters this discontinuity is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:aomotodiscontinuity}
\begin{split}
\mathrm{Disc}_{V_1,H_n}\Lambda
&=\int\underset{t_1=-\sum_{i=2}^nt_{i}\frac{H_nU_i}{H_nV_1}}{\mathrm{Res}}\frac{\langle H_1H_2\cdots H_n\rangle\langle V_1V_2\cdots V_n\rangle\langle T\mathrm{d}T^{n-2}\rangle}{\prod_{j=1}^n(t_1(H_jV_1)+\sum_{i=2}^nt_{i}(H_jU_i))}\\
&=\int\frac{\langle H_1H_2\cdots H_n\rangle\langle V_1V_2\cdots V_n\rangle(H_nV_1)^{n-2}\langle T\mathrm{d}T^{n-2}\rangle}{\prod_{j=1}^{n-1}\sum_{i=2}^nt_{i}\left((H_nV_1)(H_jU_i)-(H_nU_i)(H_jV_1)\right)}\\
&=\int\frac{\langle H_1H_2\cdots H_n\rangle\langle V_1V_2\cdots V_n\rangle(H_nV_1)^{n-2}\langle T\mathrm{d}T^{n-2}\rangle}{\prod_{j=1}^{n-1}\sum_{i=2}^nt_{i}\left((H_nV_1)(H_jV_i)-(H_nV_i)(H_jV_1)\right)},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $T=[t_2:t_3:\ldots:t_{n}]$. The last identity holds by plugging in the decomposition of $U_i$ in \eqref{eq:newparameters}. Because discontinuities around logarithmic singularities always contain $2\pi i$, here and later in this paper we will always omit writing power of $2\pi i$.
\subsubsection*{A special class of discontinuities}
Let us pause for a moment to clarify what the object ``Disc'' really means. In a specific Aomoto polylog integral where the faces of simplexes are not all left completely generic, the discontinuities one may actually encounter can be complicated. This is because the integral contour for the remaining variables in expressions like \eqref{eq:aomotodiscontinuity} heavily depends on the geometry of the intersection between $\overline{\Delta}$ and the singularity hyperplane that we may get as we deform the parameters. For example, this can be easily seen by comparing picture (a) and (b) in Figure \ref{fig:discdef}. Nevertheless, a complete understanding of them is not necessary for the analysis in this paper, regarding the purpose of understanding the structure of symbol.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{scope}[xshift=-5cm]
\clip (-2.7,-2.6) rectangle +(4.4,3.2);
\coordinate [label={0:$V_1$}] (v1) at (0,0);
\coordinate [label={180:$V_2$}] (v2) at (230:2.4);
\coordinate [label={0:$V_3$}] (v3) at (300:1.2);
\foreach \i in {-50,-40,...,40,130,140,...,220}
\draw [gray,opacity=0.3] (v1) -- (\i:10);
\foreach \i in {50,60,...,120,230,240,...,300}
\draw [BrickRed,opacity=0.8] (v1) -- (\i:10);
\fill [BrickRed,opacity=0.1] (v1) -- (v2) -- (v3) -- cycle;
\draw [BrickRed,opacity=0.8] (v1) -- (v2) -- (v3) -- cycle;
\coordinate (v12) at ($(v1)!0.4!(v2)$);
\coordinate (v13) at ($(v1)!0.5!(v3)$);
\draw [RoyalBlue,very thick,opacity=0.3] ($(v12)!5!(v13)$) -- ($(v13)!5!(v12)$);
\draw [BrickRed,very thick] (v12) -- (v13);
\fill [BrickRed] (v12) circle [radius=2pt] (v13) circle [radius=2pt];
\node [anchor=west] at (-2.7,-0.8) {$H_i$};
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}
\clip (-2.7,-2.6) rectangle +(4.4,3.2);
\coordinate [label={0:$V_1$}] (v1) at (0,0);
\coordinate [label={180:$V_2$}] (v2) at (230:2.4);
\coordinate [label={0:$V_3$}] (v3) at (300:1.2);
\foreach \i in {-90,-80,...,40,90,100,...,220}
\draw [gray,opacity=0.3] (v1) -- (\i:10);
\foreach \i in {50,60,...,80,230,240,...,260}
\draw [BrickRed,opacity=0.8] (v1) -- (\i:10);
\path [name path=v10] (v1) -- +(260:10);
\fill [BrickRed,opacity=0.1] (v1) -- (v2) -- (v3) -- cycle;
\draw [BrickRed,opacity=0.8] (v1) -- (v2) -- (v3) -- cycle;
\path [name path=v23] (v2) -- (v3);
\coordinate (v12) at ($(v1)!0.7!(v2)$);
\path [name intersections={of=v10 and v23,by={vi}}] (vi) circle [radius=0pt];
\draw [RoyalBlue,very thick,opacity=0.3,name path=Hi] ($(v12)!5!(vi)$) -- ($(vi)!5!(v12)$);
\draw [BrickRed,very thick] (v12) -- (vi);
\fill [BrickRed] (v12) circle [radius=2pt] (vi) circle [radius=2pt];
\node [anchor=west] at (-2.7,-0.9) {$H_i$};
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[xshift=5cm]
\clip (-2.7,-2.6) rectangle +(4.4,3.2);
\coordinate [label={0:$V_1$}] (v1) at (0,0);
\coordinate [label={180:$V_2$}] (v2) at (230:2.4);
\coordinate [label={0:$V_3$}] (v3) at (300:1.2);
\foreach \i in {-50,-40,...,40,130,140,...,220}
\draw [gray,opacity=0.3] (v1) -- (\i:10);
\foreach \i in {50,60,...,120,230,240,...,300}
\draw [BrickRed,opacity=0.8] (v1) -- (\i:10);
\path [name path=v10] (v1) -- +(260:10);
\fill [BrickRed,opacity=0.1] (v1) -- (v2) -- (v3) -- cycle;
\draw [BrickRed,opacity=0.8] (v1) -- (v2) -- (v3) -- cycle;
\path [name path=v23] (v2) -- (v3);
\path [name path=v13] (v1) -- ($(v1)!3!(v3)$);
\coordinate (v12) at ($(v1)!0.7!(v2)$);
\path [name intersections={of=v10 and v23,by={vi}}] (vi) circle [radius=0pt];
\draw [RoyalBlue,very thick,opacity=0.3,name path=Hi] ($(v12)!5!(vi)$) -- ($(vi)!5!(v12)$);
\draw [BrickRed,very thick,name intersections={of=v13 and Hi,by={vj}}] (v12) -- (vj);
\fill [BrickRed] (v12) circle [radius=2pt] (vj) circle [radius=2pt];
\node [anchor=west] at (-2.7,-0.9) {$H_i$};
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[xshift=-0.5cm,yshift=-2.8cm]
\node [anchor=north] at (-5,0) {(a)};
\node [anchor=north] at (0,0) {(b)};
\node [anchor=north] at (5,0) {(c)};
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The contour for the remaining variables in an actual discontinuity depends on the specific geometries of the original contour and of the original singularity hyperplane. Two examples are in (a) and (b). In (a) the remaining variables are integrated in the same way as the original contour, while in (b) the remaining contour changes. However, in our definition for the discontinuities in this paper, the remaining variables (that parameterize the space of fibres) are always integrated along the same contour as that in the original simplex. Therefore, (b) should be replaced by (c) in our analysis, while (a) is directly accepted.}
\label{fig:discdef}
\end{figure}
The data relevant for our study are the following. For the integral at hand we can always think about turning on parameters such that any elements in the geometry of two simplexes $\{\overline{\Delta},\underline{\Delta}\}$ can be freely deformed. In this situation, there always exist a class of discontinuities, labeled by the fibration of $\overline{\Delta}$ wrst some $0$-face $V_i$ and a selected irreducible component of the integrand singularity $H_j$, which are obtained by deforming $V_i$ in the neighborhood of their incidence configuration $V_iH_j=0$. We denote such a discontinuity as $\mathrm{Disc}_{V_i,H_j}\Lambda$. As a result of this setup the contour for the remaining integrals in \eqref{eq:aomotodiscontinuity} is exactly as what it was in the $V_i$ fibration of $\overline{\Delta}$. In other words, the only difference between $\mathrm{Disc}_{V_i,H_j}\Lambda$ and $\Lambda$ is that the original $t_1$ contour on each fibre of $\overline{\Delta}$ is replaced by an $\mathrm{S}^1$ residue contour around $H_j$ in the same fibre. In turn, we can always treat this modification of the contour as a given definition of the ``discontinuity'' $\mathrm{Disc}_{V_i,H_j}$ discussed in this paper, even when it may not arise as an actual discontinuity for a specific integral under study (see picture (c) in Figure \ref{fig:discdef}). Very soon we will observe the collection of such discontinuities are sufficient to construct the symbol of $\Lambda$.
Returning to \eqref{eq:aomotodiscontinuity}, very amusingly this result is independent of the choice of the reference hyperplane $K$, i.e., independent of the detailed choice of $U_i$ on each line $\overline{V_1V_i}$. Therefore a better interpretation of the remaining coordinates $[t_2:t_3:\ldots:t_n]$ is that they parameterize the $\mathbb{CP}^{n-2}$ obtained by quotienting the original $\mathbb{CP}^{n-1}$ against lines through $V_1$. Because each line through $V_1$ is now identified as a point in the new space where the above discontinuity integral is defined, the discontinuity is geometrically identical to a point projection (or projection through a point).
As mentioned before $\mathrm{Disc}_{V_1,H_n}\Lambda$ describes the local property of $\Lambda$ in the neighborhood of the incidence configuration $V_1H_n=0$. Therefore its own symbol $\mathcal{S}[\mathrm{Disc}_{V_1,H_n}\Lambda]$ is expected to be embedded inside the original symbol $\mathcal{S}[\Lambda]$ as the entire part subsequent to the first entry $(V_1H_n)\equiv\langle V_1W_1W_2\cdots W_{n-1}\rangle$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:SAandSDisc}
\mathcal{S}[\Lambda]=\langle V_1W_1W_2\cdots W_{n-1}\rangle\otimes\mathcal{S}[\mathrm{Disc}_{V_1,H_n}\Lambda]+\cdots.
\end{equation}
It is important to note the remaining terms represented by ``$\cdots$'' here do not contain $\langle V_1W_1W_2\cdots W_{n-1}\rangle$ in their first entries at all. Similar structure holds for other fibrations and other singularity hyperplanes as well. When comparing with the structure of symbol \eqref{eq:firstentrypattern} resulted from studying first entries, we see this discontinuity does not come from an individual term in \eqref{eq:firstentrypattern}, but is rather a combination of contribution from different terms that commonly contain $\langle V_1W_1W_2\cdots W_{n-1}\rangle$ in their first entries. This observation is useful for the construction of $\mathcal{S}[\Lambda]$ later on.
\subsubsection*{Validity of the residue contour and singularities of the emergent integrand}
Careful readers might be slightly worried at this point, because even with $\mathrm{Disc}_{V_i,H_j}$ defined as a modification of the integral contour, this operation cannot always be well-defined. The $\mathrm{S}^1$ contour for the residue computation is well-defined only when the fibre line normally intersects the original singularity hyperplane $H_j$. Viewed in the original space, as we continuously scan over different fibres the residue contour smoothly deforms. However, this may fail as the fibre hit a point on $H_j$ where $H_j$ itself intersects other singularity hyperplanes. When viewed within the fibre, this corresponds to the situation when some other singularity point deforms towards the singularity under study, and finally hits it and pinches the residue contour around it (see Figure \ref{fig:residuefail}). In fact, this information is already automatically encoded in the integral for the discontinuity in \eqref{eq:aomotodiscontinuity}, by the the singularity of the new integrand!
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{scope}
\clip (-4,-4.5) rectangle +(8,5.5);
\coordinate [label={0:$V_1$}] (v1) at (0,0);
\coordinate [label={180:$V_2$}] (v2) at (230:2);
\coordinate [label={0:$V_3$}] (v3) at (300:1);
\foreach \i in {-50,-40,...,40,130,140,...,220}
\draw [gray,opacity=0.3] (v1) -- (\i:10);
\draw [RoyalBlue,opacity=0.8,dashed] (310:10) -- (v1) -- (130:10);
\draw [RoyalBlue,opacity=0.8,dashed] (210:10) -- (v1) -- (30:10);
\foreach \i in {50,60,...,120,240,250,...,290}
\draw [BrickRed,opacity=0.8] (v1) -- (\i:10);
\path [name path=l230] (v1)-- +(230:10);
\path [name path=l240] (v1)-- +(240:10);
\path [name path=l250] (v1)-- +(250:10);
\path [name path=l260] (v1)-- +(260:10);
\path [name path=l270] (v1)-- +(270:10);
\path [name path=l280] (v1)-- +(280:10);
\path [name path=l290] (v1)-- +(290:10);
\path [name path=l300] (v1)-- +(300:10);
\draw [BrickRed,opacity=0.8,name path=v12] (v1) -- (230:10);
\draw [BrickRed,opacity=0.8,name path=v13] (v1) -- (300:10);
\fill [BrickRed,opacity=0.1] (v1) -- (v2) -- (v3) -- cycle;
\draw [BrickRed,opacity=0.6] (v1) -- (v2) -- (v3) -- cycle;
\fill [BrickRed,opacity=0.6] (v1) circle [radius=2pt];
\draw [RoyalBlue,very thick,opacity=0.3,name path=H3] (-4,-1.5) -- (4,-3.5);
\draw [RoyalBlue,very thick,opacity=0.1,name path=H2] (-4,-4) -- (4,-3);
\draw [RoyalBlue,very thick,opacity=0.1,name path=H1] (-4,-5) -- (-2.2,1);
\fill [RoyalBlue,name intersections={of=H3 and H1,by={w2}}] (w2) circle [radius=2pt];
\fill [RoyalBlue,name intersections={of=H3 and H2,by={w1}}] (w1) circle [radius=2pt];
\fill [RoyalBlue,opacity=0.1,name intersections={of=H1 and H2,by={w3}}] (w3) circle [radius=2pt];
\coordinate [label={80:$W_1$}] (wl1) at (w1);
\coordinate [label={110:$W_2$}] (wl2) at (w2);
\coordinate [label={-60:$W_3$}] (wl3) at (w3);
\draw [BrickRed,very thick,name intersections={of=l230 and H3,by={p230}}] (p230) circle [x radius=6pt,y radius=4pt,rotate=50];
\draw [BrickRed,very thick,name intersections={of=l240 and H3,by={p240}}] (p240) circle [x radius=6pt,y radius=4pt,rotate=60];
\draw [BrickRed,very thick,name intersections={of=l250 and H3,by={p250}}] (p250) circle [x radius=6pt,y radius=4pt,rotate=70];
\draw [BrickRed,very thick,name intersections={of=l260 and H3,by={p260}}] (p260) circle [x radius=6pt,y radius=4pt,rotate=80];
\draw [BrickRed,very thick,name intersections={of=l270 and H3,by={p270}}] (p270) circle [x radius=6pt,y radius=4pt,rotate=90];
\draw [BrickRed,very thick,name intersections={of=l280 and H3,by={p280}}] (p280) circle [x radius=6pt,y radius=4pt,rotate=100];
\draw [BrickRed,very thick,name intersections={of=l290 and H3,by={p290}}] (p290) circle [x radius=6pt,y radius=4pt,rotate=110];
\draw [BrickRed,very thick,name intersections={of=l300 and H3,by={p300}}] (p300) circle [x radius=6pt,y radius=4pt,rotate=120];
\draw [RoyalBlue,thick,rotate=50] ($(p230)+(45:0.7*4pt)$) -- +(-135:1.4*4pt) ($(p230)+(135:0.7*4pt)$) -- +(-45:1.4*4pt);
\draw [RoyalBlue,thick,rotate=60] ($(p240)+(45:0.7*4pt)$) -- +(-135:1.4*4pt) ($(p240)+(135:0.7*4pt)$) -- +(-45:1.4*4pt);
\draw [RoyalBlue,thick,rotate=70] ($(p250)+(45:0.7*4pt)$) -- +(-135:1.4*4pt) ($(p250)+(135:0.7*4pt)$) -- +(-45:1.4*4pt);
\draw [RoyalBlue,thick,rotate=80] ($(p260)+(45:0.7*4pt)$) -- +(-135:1.4*4pt) ($(p260)+(135:0.7*4pt)$) -- +(-45:1.4*4pt);
\draw [RoyalBlue,thick,rotate=90] ($(p270)+(45:0.7*4pt)$) -- +(-135:1.4*4pt) ($(p270)+(135:0.7*4pt)$) -- +(-45:1.4*4pt);
\draw [RoyalBlue,thick,rotate=100] ($(p280)+(45:0.7*4pt)$) -- +(-135:1.4*4pt) ($(p280)+(135:0.7*4pt)$) -- +(-45:1.4*4pt);
\draw [RoyalBlue,thick,rotate=110] ($(p290)+(45:0.7*4pt)$) -- +(-135:1.4*4pt) ($(p290)+(135:0.7*4pt)$) -- +(-45:1.4*4pt);
\draw [RoyalBlue,thick,rotate=120] ($(p300)+(45:0.7*4pt)$) -- +(-135:1.4*4pt) ($(p300)+(135:0.7*4pt)$) -- +(-45:1.4*4pt);
\draw [RoyalBlue,thick,rotate=50,name intersections={of=l230 and H2,by={q230}}] ($(q230)+(45:0.7*4pt)$) -- +(-135:1.4*4pt) ($(q230)+(135:0.7*4pt)$) -- +(-45:1.4*4pt);
\draw [RoyalBlue,thick,rotate=60,name intersections={of=l240 and H2,by={q240}}] ($(q240)+(45:0.7*4pt)$) -- +(-135:1.4*4pt) ($(q240)+(135:0.7*4pt)$) -- +(-45:1.4*4pt);
\draw [RoyalBlue,thick,rotate=70,name intersections={of=l250 and H2,by={q250}}] ($(q250)+(45:0.7*4pt)$) -- +(-135:1.4*4pt) ($(q250)+(135:0.7*4pt)$) -- +(-45:1.4*4pt);
\draw [RoyalBlue,thick,rotate=80,name intersections={of=l260 and H2,by={q260}}] ($(q260)+(45:0.7*4pt)$) -- +(-135:1.4*4pt) ($(q260)+(135:0.7*4pt)$) -- +(-45:1.4*4pt);
\draw [RoyalBlue,thick,rotate=90,name intersections={of=l270 and H2,by={q270}}] ($(q270)+(45:0.7*4pt)$) -- +(-135:1.4*4pt) ($(q270)+(135:0.7*4pt)$) -- +(-45:1.4*4pt);
\draw [RoyalBlue,thick,rotate=100,name intersections={of=l280 and H2,by={q280}}] ($(q280)+(45:0.7*4pt)$) -- +(-135:1.4*4pt) ($(q280)+(135:0.7*4pt)$) -- +(-45:1.4*4pt);
\draw [RoyalBlue,thick,rotate=110,name intersections={of=l290 and H2,by={q290}}] ($(q290)+(45:0.7*4pt)$) -- +(-135:1.4*4pt) ($(q290)+(135:0.7*4pt)$) -- +(-45:1.4*4pt);
\draw [RoyalBlue,thick,rotate=120,name intersections={of=l300 and H2,by={q300}}] ($(q300)+(45:0.7*4pt)$) -- +(-135:1.4*4pt) ($(q300)+(135:0.7*4pt)$) -- +(-45:1.4*4pt);
\path [name path=ref] (-4,-4.5) -- +(8,0);
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The $\mathrm{S}^1$ residue contour is well-defined when the fibre is at normal intersection with the hyperplane under study ($H_3$ above). As the fibre deforms towards $W_1$, the singularity point induced by $H_2$ on the fibre moves towards that by $H_3$. In the fire through $W_1$ this contour becomes ill-defined. Similar phenomenon occurs for $W_2$ as well, but not $W_3$, which resides off $H_3$.}
\label{fig:residuefail}
\end{figure}
To understand this, we only need to answer the geometric meaning for the emerged factors in the denominator
\begin{equation}\label{eq:emergedsingularities}
\sum_{i=2}^nt_i\left((H_nV_1)(H_jV_i)-(H_nV_i)(H_jV_1)\right),\qquad j=1,2,\ldots,n-1.
\end{equation}
From the residue computation in \eqref{eq:aomotodiscontinuity} it is already clear that for each specific $j$ this polynomial is just the resultant of polynomials $H_nX$ and $H_jX$ (as polynomials of $t_1$). In other words the solution of this polynomial is the condition for $H_nX$ and $H_jX$ to have common roots. Because the latter two polynomials define $(n-2)$-faces of $\underline{\Delta}$, the zero loci of the polynomials in \eqref{eq:emergedsingularities} are nothing but the $(n-3)$-faces of $\underline{\Delta}$ that belong to the $(n-2)$-face $H_n$. These are indeed the singularity points one may encounter when deforming the fibre. Since these singularities only show up after a discontinuity is taken (or equivalently after a residue of the integrand is computed), they are not of our concern when dealing with the first entries of the symbol $\mathcal{S}[\Lambda]$ as well as their corresponding discontinuities. However, they do affect the subsequent entries and discontinuities.
Note that the original singularity curve also have singularity points other than those inside the $H_n$ hyperplane (e.g., $W_3$ in Figure \ref{fig:residuefail}), but they are irrelevant for the discontinuity $\mathrm{Disc}_{V_1,H_n}\Lambda$. This is because the residue contour leading to this discontinuity is only wrapping around one irreducible component of the original singularity curve, the hyperplane $H_n$, but not the others. This in turn teaches us that the resulting $\mathbb{CP}^{n-2}$ integral at the end of \eqref{eq:aomotodiscontinuity} can alternatively be treated as defined inside the hyperplane $H_n$. This will be very crucial for generalization to higher-degree curves later on.
\subsection{Subsequent Discontinuities and Projections}
Now we are ready to discuss the subsequent entries in $\mathcal{S}[\Lambda]$. By the relation \eqref{eq:SAandSDisc} we see the second entries of $\mathcal{S}[\Lambda]$ are related to the first entries of $\mathcal{S}[\mathrm{Disc}\Lambda]$. Moreover, we also observe the integral for $\mathrm{Disc}\Lambda$ in \eqref{eq:aomotodiscontinuity} is by itself identical to an Aomoto polylog defined in $\mathbb{CP}^{n-2}$. Therefore the discussion in the previous subsections should straightforwardly apply to $\mathcal{S}[\mathrm{Disc}\Lambda]$, and further recursively to its own discontinuities, etc, until there is no integration left over (of course the last integral is always a $\mathbb{CP}^1$ integral discussed at the beginning).
To be explicit, let us return to $\mathrm{Disc}_{V_1,H_n}\Lambda$ in \eqref{eq:aomotodiscontinuity}. The contour here is the canonical $(n-2)$-simplex, thus the coordinates $[t_2:t_3:\ldots:t_n]$ already provide our desired fibration with respect to any of its $0$-faces, and we do not have to reparameterize as before. By the identity
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&\langle V_1W_1\cdots W_{n-1}\rangle\langle V_iW_1\cdots W_{j-1}W_{j+1}\cdots W_n\rangle-\langle V_iW_1\cdots W_{n-1}\rangle\langle V_1W_1\cdots W_{j-1}W_{j+1}\cdots W_n\rangle\\
&=\langle V_1V_iW_1\cdots W_{j-1}W_{j+1}\cdots W_n\rangle\langle W_1W_2\cdots W_{n-1}\rangle,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
we can rewrite the integrand in \eqref{eq:aomotodiscontinuity} so that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:aomotodiscontinuity2}
\mathrm{Disc}_{V_1,H_n}\Lambda
=\int\frac{\langle V_1V_2\cdots V_n\rangle\langle V_1W_1\cdots W_{n-1}\rangle^{n-2}\langle T\mathrm{d}T^{n-2}\rangle}{\prod_{j=1}^{n-1}\sum_{i=2}^nt_i\langle V_1V_iW_1\cdots W_{j-1}W_{j+1}\cdots W_{n-1}\rangle}.
\end{equation}
To learn the first entries of the symbol, we pick out a pair of the contour's $0$-faces, say
\begin{equation}
[\underbrace{0:\ldots:0}_{i_1-2}:1:0:\ldots:0],\qquad [\underbrace{0:\ldots:0}_{i_2-2}:1:0:\ldots:0],
\end{equation}
and check the line that they span. On this line there are $n-1$ singularity points induced by intersecting $n-1$ singularity hyperplanes of the integrand, which now read
\begin{equation}
\sum_{i\in\{i_1,i_2\}}t_i\langle V_1V_iW_1\cdots W_{j-1}W_{j+1}\cdots W_{n-1}\rangle=0,\qquad j=1,2,\ldots,n-1.
\end{equation}
This makes the first entries of $\mathcal{S}[\mathrm{Disc}_{V_1,H_n}\Lambda]$ manifest. Following \eqref{eq:firstentrypattern} this symbol has the structure
\begin{equation}\label{eq:firstentrypattern2}
\mathcal{S}[\mathrm{Disc}_{V_1,H_n}\Lambda]=\sum_{\substack{2\leq i_1<i_2\leq n\\1\leq j \leq n-1}}\#\,\frac{\langle V_1V_{i_1}W_1\cdots W_{j-1}W_{j+1}\cdots W_{n-1}\rangle}{\langle V_1V_{i_2}W_1\cdots W_{j-1}W_{j+1}\cdots W_{n-1}\rangle}\otimes\cdots.
\end{equation}
Again the expansion coefficients and the subsequent entries are not yet determined. Geometrically each factor $\langle V_1V_iW_1\cdots W_{j-1}W_{j+1}\cdots W_{n-1}\rangle$ is the co-plannar condition in $\mathbb{CP}^{n-1}$ of the $n$ points listed in the bracket. Equivalently this is also the condition for the line $\overline{V_1V_i}$ to intersect the $\mathbb{CP}^{n-3}$ of the $(n-3)$-face of $\underline{\Delta}$ spanned by the $n-2$ vertices $\{W_1,\ldots,W_{j-1},W_{j+1},\ldots,W_{n-1}\}$, i.e., the intersection of hyperplanes $H_j\cap H_n$. When viewing the integral as defined in the quotient space $\mathbb{CP}^{n-2}$ from projecting through $V_1$, if we name the image of points $\{V_2,W_1,\ldots,W_{j-1},W_{j+1},\ldots,W_{n-1}\}$
via this projection as $\{V'_2,W'_1,\ldots,W'_{j-1},W'_{j+1},\ldots,W'_{n-1}\}$, then the above bracket is also the condition that $V'_2$ is incident to the hyperplane spanned by these $W'$s. This geometric picture in the quotient space is exactly equivalent to that in the original $\mathbb{CP}^{n-1}$.
Now an immediate question is how the first entries of $\mathcal{S}[\mathrm{Disc}_{V_1,H_n}\Lambda]$ found in \eqref{eq:firstentrypattern2} fit into the second entries of $\mathcal{S}[\Lambda]$ in \eqref{eq:firstentrypattern}. In general it is not possible to directly plug the ratios in \eqref{eq:firstentrypattern2} into the second entries in \eqref{eq:firstentrypattern} for every symbol term. The reason is, as we mentioned before, $\mathcal{S}[\mathrm{Disc}_{V_1,H_n}\Lambda]$ receives contributions from various terms in \eqref{eq:firstentrypattern}, and in order to organized the symbol into the pattern of \eqref{eq:firstentrypattern2} one usually need to recombine different terms using algebraic relations \eqref{eq:symboltimes}\eqref{eq:symbolpower}. This will be discussed in more detail in the next subsection.
Let us move on to compute the subsequent discontinuities. Without loss of generality, in the quotient space assume we check the discontinuity associated to the incidence of $V'_2$ to the singularity hyperplane spanned by $\{W'_1,W'_2,\ldots,W'_{n-2}\}$. This corresponds to fibrating the standard simplex with respect to $V'_2$ and wrap the $t_2$ contour around $t_2=t_{2*}\equiv-\sum_{i=3}^nt_i\frac{\langle V_1V_iW_1\cdots W_{n-2}\rangle}{\langle V_1V_2W_1\cdots W_{n-2}\rangle}$. Because the integral \eqref{eq:aomotodiscontinuity2} is structurally the same as the integral for $\Lambda$ \eqref{eq:defaomoto}, except that every bracket contains $V_1$, it is straightforward to see
\begin{equation}\label{eq:subsequentdisc}
\begin{split}
&\mathrm{Disc}_{\overline{V_1V_2},\underline{H_{n-1}\cap H_n}}\mathrm{Disc}_{V_1,H_n}\Lambda\\
&=\int\underset{t_2=t_{2*}}{\mathrm{Res}}\frac{\langle V_1V_2\cdots V_n\rangle\langle V_1W_1\cdots W_{n-1}\rangle^{n-2}\langle T\mathrm{d}T^{n-2}\rangle}{\prod_{j=1}^{n-1}\sum_{i=2}^nt_i\langle V_1V_iW_1\cdots W_{j-1}W_{j+1}\cdots W_{n-1}\rangle}\\
&=\int\frac{\langle V_1V_2\cdots V_n\rangle\langle V_1V_2W_1\cdots W_{n-2}\rangle^{n-3}\langle T'\mathrm{d}T'^{n-2}\rangle}{\prod_{j=1}^{n-2}\sum_{i=3}^nt_i\langle V_1V_2V_iW_1\cdots W_{j-1}W_{j+1}\cdots W_{n-2}\rangle},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $T'=[t_3:t_4:\ldots:t_n]$, and the contour for the remaining integral is the canonical $(n-3)$-simplex in $\mathbb{CP}^{n-3}$. Again this is of the same structure as \eqref{eq:defaomoto}, but with $V_1V_2$ contained in every bracket. Similar to $\mathrm{Disc}_{V_1,H_n}\Lambda$, the $\mathbb{CP}^{n-3}$ space for this new integral can be viewed as quotienting the previous $\mathbb{CP}^{n-2}$ further against lines through $V'_2$. It is interesting to note the final expression we get in the last line is symmetric (up to a possible sign) under exchange of $V_1$ and $V_2$, and under exchange of $H_{n-1}$ and $H_{n}$. One can check that this same subsequent discontinuity can be computed through different sequence of discontinuities
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&\mathrm{Disc}_{\overline{V_1V_2},\underline{H_{n-1}\cap H_n}}\mathrm{Disc}_{V_1,H_n}\Lambda
=\mathrm{Disc}_{\overline{V_1V_2},\underline{H_{n-1}\cap H_n}}\mathrm{Disc}_{V_2,H_n}\Lambda\\
=&\mathrm{Disc}_{\overline{V_1V_2},\underline{H_{n-1}\cap H_n}}\mathrm{Disc}_{V_1,H_{n-1}}\Lambda
=\mathrm{Disc}_{\overline{V_1V_2},\underline{H_{n-1}\cap H_n}}\mathrm{Disc}_{V_2,H_{n-1}}\Lambda.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Geometrically they corresponds to different sequence of point projections. In fact, this result can be better viewed directly in the original $\mathbb{CP}^{n-1}$, where it is equivalent to quotienting against planes through the line $\overline{V_1V_2}$, i.e., a projection through $\overline{V_1V_2}$. For this reason we can just abbreviate the notation for such subsequent discontinuity to $\mathrm{Disc}_{\overline{V_{12}},H_{n-1,n}}$, with $\overline{V_{ij}}\equiv\overline{V_iV_j}$ and $H_{ij}\equiv H_i\cap H_j$.
Similar pattern continues to hold for other discontinuities and subsequent discontinuities. Each discontinuity can always be interpreted as certain projections in the original space, and the nearby discontinuities in a given sequence are related by point projections. In this way, for any Aomoto polylog we ultimately obtain a web of discontinuity connected via projections, as illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:data}. Note that in this computation there is completely no need to determine the final expression of any discontinuities in terms of known elementary functions. Instead it suffices to just have their integral representations like \eqref{eq:aomotodiscontinuity2} and \eqref{eq:subsequentdisc}, which are related to their parent discontinuities (or the original function $\Lambda$) by contour modifications. On the other hand, with each individual discontinuity we also extract the first entry expressions in its own symbol using the method described in Section \ref{sec:fistentryaomoto}, which are in the form of a ratio (see the bottom of Figure \ref{fig:data}). In short, the data that we actually need from this web are the projection relations among the discontinuities together with the first entries of each discontinuity.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[anchor=center,disc/.style={rectangle,minimum size=6mm,rounded corners=2mm,draw=black,thick},discG/.style={rectangle,minimum size=6mm,rounded corners=2mm,draw=PineGreen,thick},ratio/.style={rectangle,minimum size=6mm,draw=black,thick}]
\draw [dotted,thick] (-0.5,-8) -- +(15,0);
\node [disc] (L) at (0.5,-4.5*0.8) {$\Lambda$};
\node [ratio] (L0F) at (0.5,-9.2) {$\displaystyle\frac{\langle V_{k_1}\widehat{W}_l\rangle}{\langle V_{k_2}\widehat{W}_l\rangle}$};
\draw [-latex,dashed] (L.south) -- (L0F.north);
%
\node [disc] (LV1H1) at (3,0) {$\mathrm{Disc}_{V_1,H_1}\Lambda$};
\node [disc] (LV2H1) at (3,-0.8) {$\mathrm{Disc}_{V_2,H_1}\Lambda$};
\node [disc] (LV3H1) at (3,-2*0.8) {$\mathrm{Disc}_{V_3,H_1}\Lambda$};
\node at (3,-3*0.8) {$\cdots$};
\node [disc] (LV1H2) at (3,-4*0.8) {$\mathrm{Disc}_{V_1,H_2}\Lambda$};
\node [disc] (LV2H2) at (3,-5*0.8) {$\mathrm{Disc}_{V_2,H_2}\Lambda$};
\node [disc] (LV3H2) at (3,-6*0.8) {$\mathrm{Disc}_{V_3,H_2}\Lambda$};
\node at (3,-7*0.8) {$\cdots$};
\node at (3,-8*0.8) {$\cdots$};
\node [discG] (LViHj) at (3,-9*0.8) {$\mathrm{Disc}_{V_{i_1},H_{j_1}}\Lambda$};
\node [ratio] (L1F) at (3,-9.2) {$\displaystyle\frac{\langle V_{i_1k_1}\widehat{W}_{j_1l}\rangle}{\langle V_{i_1k_2}\widehat{W}_{j_1l}\rangle}$};
\draw [-latex] (L.east) -- (LV1H1.west);
\draw [-latex] (L.east) -- (LV2H1.west);
\draw [-latex] (L.east) -- (LV3H1.west);
\draw [-latex] (L.east) -- (LV1H2.west);
\draw [-latex] (L.east) -- (LV2H2.west);
\draw [-latex] (L.east) -- (LV3H2.west);
\draw [-latex] (L.east) -- (LViHj.west);
\draw [-latex,dashed] (LViHj.south) -- (L1F.north);
%
\node [disc] (LV12H12) at (7,-1*0.8) {$\mathrm{Disc}_{\overline{V_{12}},H_{12}}\Lambda$};
\node [disc] (LV13H12) at (7,-3*0.8) {$\mathrm{Disc}_{\overline{V_{13}},H_{12}}\Lambda$};
\node [disc] (LV23H12) at (7,-5*0.8) {$\mathrm{Disc}_{\overline{V_{23}},H_{12}}\Lambda$};
\node at (7,-7*0.8) {$\cdots$};
\node at (7,-8*0.8) {$\cdots$};
\node [discG] (LViiHjj) at (7,-9*0.8) {$\mathrm{Disc}_{\overline{V_{i_1i_2}},H_{j_1j_2}}\Lambda$};
\node [ratio] (L2F) at (7,-9.2) {$\displaystyle\frac{\langle V_{i_1i_2k_1}\widehat{W}_{j_1j_2l}\rangle}{\langle V_{i_1i_2k_2}\widehat{W}_{j_1j_2l}\rangle}$};
\draw [-latex] (LV1H1.east) -- (LV12H12.west);
\draw [-latex] (LV1H1.east) -- (LV13H12.west);
\draw [-latex] (LV2H1.east) -- (LV12H12.west);
\draw [-latex] (LV2H1.east) -- (LV23H12.west);
\draw [-latex] (LV3H1.east) -- (LV13H12.west);
\draw [-latex] (LV3H1.east) -- (LV23H12.west);
\draw [-latex] (LV1H2.east) -- (LV12H12.west);
\draw [-latex] (LV1H2.east) -- (LV13H12.west);
\draw [-latex] (LV2H2.east) -- (LV12H12.west);
\draw [-latex] (LV2H2.east) -- (LV23H12.west);
\draw [-latex] (LV3H2.east) -- (LV13H12.west);
\draw [-latex] (LV3H2.east) -- (LV23H12.west);
\draw [-latex] (LViHj.east) -- (LViiHjj.west);
\draw [-latex,dashed] (LViiHjj.south) -- (L2F.north);
%
\node [disc] (LV123H123) at (11.5,-2*0.8) {$\mathrm{Disc}_{\overline{V_{123}},H_{123}}\Lambda$};
\node at (11.5,-5*0.8) {$\cdots$};
\node at (11.5,-7*0.8) {$\cdots$};
\node at (11.5,-8*0.8) {$\cdots$};
\node [discG] (LViiiHjjj) at (11.5,-9*0.8) {$\mathrm{Disc}_{\overline{V_{i_1i_2i_3}},H_{j_1j_2j_3}}\Lambda$};
\node [ratio] (L3F) at (11.5,-9.2) {$\displaystyle\frac{\langle V_{i_1i_2i_3k_1}\widehat{W}_{j_1j_2j_3l}\rangle}{\langle V_{i_1i_2i_3k_2}\widehat{W}_{j_1j_2j_3l}\rangle}$};
\draw [-latex] (LV12H12.east) -- (LV123H123.west);
\draw [-latex] (LV13H12.east) -- (LV123H123.west);
\draw [-latex] (LV23H12.east) -- (LV123H123.west);
\draw [-latex] (LViiHjj.east) -- (LViiiHjjj.west);
\draw [-latex,dashed] (LViiiHjjj.south) -- (L3F.north);
%
\node at (14,-3*0.8) {$\cdots$};
\node at (14,-5*0.8) {$\cdots$};
\node at (14,-7*0.8) {$\cdots$};
\node at (14,-8*0.8) {$\cdots$};
\node at (14,-9*0.8) {$\cdots$};
\node at (14,-9.2) {$\cdots$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The web of discontinuities computed recursively from $\Lambda$. The green blobs show the generic labeling for the discontinuities obtained at each level. From each discontinuity we determine the set of all its first entries, and it is important to keep track of the projection connections among the discontinuities. In the first entry ratios shown at the bottom we abbreviate $V_{i_1i_2\cdots i_k}\equiv V_{i_1}V_{i_2}\cdots V_{i_k}$ and $\widehat{W}_{j_1j_2\cdots j_k}\equiv W_1W_2\cdots\cancel{W_{i_1}}\cdots\cancel{W_{i_2}}\cdots W_n$ (i.e., $W$ with the indicated labels are deleted).}
\label{fig:data}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Constructing the Symbol of Aomoto Polylog}\label{sec:2.6}
Now let us show that the data collected above are sufficient to construct the entire symbol $\mathcal{S}[\Lambda]$. Because every step of taking discontinuity involves a recombination of symbol terms in general, as mentioned before it is not justified to na\"ively paste together the first entry ratios found in every sequence of discontinuities. Nevertheless, the transcendental weights of the discontinuities reduce one by one in whatever sequence we take. The correct strategy is to start with discontinuities with lowest weights and work step by step to those with higher weight, until we get back to the original function. Details are as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item First of all, all discontinuities with weight $1$ can be directly worked out since they are merely $\mathbb{CP}^1$ integrals. So we automatically know all their symbols.
\item For each discontinuity with weight $2$, we make an ansatz for its symbol based on the known first entries, so that the pieces that need to be assumed are just the second entry following each first entry. With this ansatz we take all possible discontinuities and compare their symbols with those of the weight-$1$ discontinuities known from the previous step. This comparison yields a set of equations that solve the ansatz. By this we may construct the symbol of every weight-$2$ discontinuity.
\item By the previous step we basically know all possible expressions that can show up in the last symbol entries. So for each discontinuity with weight $3$ we set up an ansatz based on the known first entries and these last entries, in other words the pieces assumed in the ansatz are again only the second entries. Again we take all possible discontinuities of this ansatz and compare with those already worked out at weight $2$. This allows us to construct the symbol of every weight-$3$ discontinuity.
\item Each time when we increase the weight by one, the procedure is very much like that at weight $3$. At some weight $w$, because we know all the pattern of symbol entries up to weight $w-2$ from previous steps, the unknown part of each new ansatz is only the second entries, which can be solved by matching discontinuities of the ansatz with those at lower weights.
\item Ultimately we continue this analysis to the function $\Lambda$ itself, hence $\mathcal{S}[\Lambda]$ is constructed.
\end{enumerate}
\subsubsection*{Aomoto polylog in $\mathbb{CP}^2$}
Let us illustrate the above strategy in two examples. The simplest non-trivial example is the Aomoto polylog defined in $\mathbb{CP}^2$, which expects to have transcendental weight $2$. Singularities of the integrand consist of three irreducible components. Because these components can be studied individually, let us just focus on one of them, e.g., the hyperplane spanned by $W_1$ and $W_2$. There are three $1$-faces of the contour. Each $\overline{V_iV_j}$ gives rise to a first entry of the form $\frac{\langle V_iW_1W_2\rangle}{\langle V_jW_1W_2\rangle}$. Therefore we can set up an ansatz for the part of the symbol contributed by $H_3\equiv\overline{W_1W_2}$, by assuming a set of variables for the second entries, which is
\begin{equation}
\frac{\langle V_1W_1W_2\rangle}{\langle V_2W_1W_2\rangle}\otimes s_{12}+\frac{\langle V_1W_1W_2\rangle}{\langle V_3W_1W_2\rangle}\otimes s_{13}+\frac{\langle V_2W_1W_2\rangle}{\langle V_3W_1W_2\rangle}\otimes s_{23}
\end{equation}
When studying discontinuity of the integral with respect to $V_1$, according to \eqref{eq:aomotodiscontinuity2} we have
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\mathrm{Disc}_{V_1,H_3}\Lambda
&=\int\frac{\langle V_1V_2V_3\rangle\langle V_1W_1W_2\rangle(t_1\mathrm{d}t_2-t_2\mathrm{d}t_1)}{(t_1\langle V_1V_2W_1\rangle+t_2\langle V_1V_3W_1\rangle)(t_1\langle V_1V_2W_2\rangle+t_2\langle V_1V_3W_2\rangle)}\\
&=\log\frac{\langle V_1V_2W_2\rangle\langle V_1V_3W_1\rangle}{\langle V_1V_2W_1\rangle\langle V_1V_3W_2\rangle}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
On the other hand, at the level of the symbol this discontinuity is computed by selecting terms whose first entry is $\langle V_1W_1W_2\rangle$ and chopping off this first entry, hence $\mathcal{S}[\mathrm{Disc}_{V_1,H_3}\Lambda]=s_{12}s_{13}$. Therefore from this discontinuity we obtain a relation
\begin{equation}
s_{12}s_{13}=\frac{\langle V_1V_2W_2\rangle\langle V_1V_3W_1\rangle}{\langle V_1V_2W_1\rangle\langle V_1V_3W_2\rangle}.
\end{equation}
By similarly studying discontinuities associated to the other two contour vertices we also have
\begin{equation}
\frac{s_{23}}{s_{12}}=\frac{\langle V_1V_2W_1\rangle\langle V_2V_3W_2\rangle}{\langle V_1V_2W_2\rangle\langle V_2V_3W_1\rangle},\qquad
\frac{1}{s_{13}s_{23}}=\frac{\langle V_1V_3W_2\rangle\langle V_2V_3W_1\rangle}{\langle V_1V_3W_1\rangle\langle V_2V_3W_2\rangle}.
\end{equation}
As easily seen, these three equations are not all independent, and they determine $s_{12}$ and $s_{23}$ in term of $s_{13}$ as
\begin{equation}
s_{12}=\frac{\langle V_1V_2W_2\rangle\langle V_1V_3W_1\rangle}{\langle V_1V_2W_1\rangle\langle V_1V_3W_2\rangle s_{13}},\qquad
s_{23}=\frac{\langle V_1V_3W_1\rangle\langle V_2V_3W_2\rangle}{\langle V_1V_3W_2\rangle\langle V_2V_3W_1\rangle s_{13}}.
\end{equation}
There is one d.o.f.~left over. However, when we plug this back into the ansatz, terms containing this remaining variable collect to be
\begin{equation}
\frac{\langle V_2W_1W_2\rangle}{\langle V_1W_1W_2\rangle}\otimes s_{13}+\frac{\langle V_1W_1W_2\rangle}{\langle V_3W_1W_2\rangle}\otimes s_{13}+\frac{\langle V_3W_1W_2\rangle}{\langle V_2W_1W_2\rangle}\otimes s_{13}
\end{equation}
which completely cancel away, and so the symbol is actually fully determined. To make the resulting expression symmetric, we can set $s_{13}=\frac{\langle V_1V_3W_1\rangle}{\langle V_1V_3W_2\rangle}$, and so the contribution from $\overline{W_1W_2}$ reads
\begin{equation}
\frac{\langle V_1W_1W_2\rangle}{\langle V_2W_1W_2\rangle}\otimes \frac{\langle V_1V_2W_2\rangle}{\langle V_1V_2W_1\rangle}+\frac{\langle V_1W_1W_2\rangle}{\langle V_3W_1W_2\rangle}\otimes \frac{\langle V_1V_3W_1\rangle}{\langle V_1V_3W_2\rangle}+\frac{\langle V_2W_1W_2\rangle}{\langle V_3W_1W_2\rangle}\otimes \frac{\langle V_2V_3W_2\rangle}{\langle V_2V_3W_1\rangle}.
\end{equation}
This nicely fits into the known expression \eqref{eq:symbolaomoto}. By studying the other two singularity hyperplanes the entire symbol can be recovered.
\subsubsection*{Aomoto polylog in $\mathbb{CP}^3$}
Let us continue to check the Aomoto polylog in $\mathbb{CP}^3$, which is slightly more non-trivial. Both the contour and the integrand singularities are $3$-simplexes. Again, let us just focus on contributions from the singularity hyperplane $H_4\equiv\overline{W_1W_2W_3}$. By the previous discussions we know each of the four discontinuities (one for each contour vertex) is by itself an Aomoto polylog in $\mathbb{CP}^2$. Hence using the previous example their symbol can already be determined by their own subsequent discontinuities, and we assume the four symbols
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{S}[\mathrm{Disc}_{V_1,H_4}\Lambda],\quad
\mathcal{S}[\mathrm{Disc}_{V_2,H_4}\Lambda],\quad
\mathcal{S}[\mathrm{Disc}_{V_3,H_4}\Lambda],\quad
\mathcal{S}[\mathrm{Disc}_{V_4,H_4}\Lambda]
\end{equation}
are known. For example, by organizing according to the last entries we have (Since we have fixed the singularity hyperplane to look at, we omit its label when denoting the discontinuity. And to save space we abbreviate $V_{i_1i_2\cdots i_k}\equiv V_{i_1}V_{i_2}\cdots V_{i_k}$ and similarly for sequence of $W$'s.)
\begin{equation}\label{eq:discV1Lambda}
\begin{split}
&\mathcal{S}[\mathrm{Disc}_{V_1}\Lambda]
=\\
&\frac{\langle V_{12}W_{12}\rangle\langle V_{13}W_{13}\rangle}{\langle V_{12}W_{13}\rangle\langle V_{13}W_{12}\rangle}\otimes\langle V_{123}W_1\rangle
+\frac{\langle V_{12}W_{23}\rangle\langle V_{13}W_{12}\rangle}{\langle V_{12}W_{12}\rangle\langle V_{13}W_{23}\rangle}\otimes\langle V_{123}W_2\rangle
+\frac{\langle V_{12}W_{13}\rangle\langle V_{13}W_{23}\rangle}{\langle V_{12}W_{23}\rangle\langle V_{13}W_{13}\rangle}\otimes\langle V_{123}W_3\rangle\\
&+\frac{\langle V_{12}W_{13}\rangle\langle V_{14}W_{12}\rangle}{\langle V_{12}W_{12}\rangle\langle V_{14}W_{13}\rangle}\otimes\langle V_{124}W_1\rangle
+\frac{\langle V_{12}W_{12}\rangle\langle V_{14}W_{23}\rangle}{\langle V_{12}W_{23}\rangle\langle V_{14}W_{12}\rangle}\otimes\langle V_{124}W_2\rangle
+\frac{\langle V_{12}W_{23}\rangle\langle V_{14}W_{13}\rangle}{\langle V_{12}W_{13}\rangle\langle V_{14}W_{23}\rangle}\otimes\langle V_{124}W_3\rangle\\
&+\frac{\langle V_{13}W_{12}\rangle\langle V_{14}W_{13}\rangle}{\langle V_{13}W_{13}\rangle\langle V_{14}W_{12}\rangle}\otimes\langle V_{134}W_1\rangle+\frac{\langle V_{13}W_{23}\rangle\langle V_{14}W_{12}\rangle}{\langle V_{13}W_{12}\rangle\langle V_{14}W_{23}\rangle}\otimes\langle V_{134}W_2\rangle+\frac{\langle V_{13}W_{13}\rangle\langle V_{14}W_{23}\rangle}{\langle V_{13}W_{23}\rangle\langle V_{14}W_{13}\rangle}\otimes\langle V_{134}W_3\rangle.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Similar expressions hold for other three discontinuities. Note that the expression contains nine different last entries. The ansatz for (the $H_4$ part of) $\mathcal{S}[\Lambda]$ is constructed in terms of a summation over different $1$-faces. For the $1$-face $\overline{V_1V_2}$ the relevant first entry is
\begin{equation}
\frac{\langle V_1W_{123}\rangle}{\langle V_2W_{123}\rangle}
\end{equation}
On the other hand, the last entries that show up in both $\mathcal{S}[\mathrm{Disc}_{V_1}I]$ and $\mathcal{S}[\mathrm{Disc}_{V_2}I]$ are
\begin{equation}
\langle V_{123}W_1\rangle,\quad
\langle V_{123}W_2\rangle,\quad
\langle V_{123}W_3\rangle,\quad
\langle V_{124}W_1\rangle,\quad
\langle V_{124}W_2\rangle,\quad
\langle V_{124}W_3\rangle.
\end{equation}
Based on these the terms related to $\overline{V_1V_2}$ in $\mathcal{S}[\Lambda]$ are set up as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{S}[\Lambda]\supset \sum_{i=3,4}\sum_{j=1}^3\frac{\langle V_1W_{123}\rangle}{\langle V_2W_{123}\rangle}\otimes s_{12}^{(i,j)}\otimes\langle V_{12i}W_j\rangle,
\end{equation}
which involves six unknown variables. By similar reasoning the terms related to $\overline{V_1V_3}$ are set as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{S}[\Lambda]\supset\sum_{i=2,4}\sum_{j=1}^3\frac{\langle V_1W_{123}\rangle}{\langle V_3W_{123}\rangle}\otimes s_{13}^{(i,j)}\otimes\langle V_{13i}W_j\rangle.
\end{equation}
For terms related to $\overline{V_1V_4}$ there are
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{S}[\Lambda]\supset\sum_{i=2,3}\sum_{j=1}^3\frac{\langle V_1W_{123}\rangle}{\langle V_4W_{123}\rangle}\otimes s_{14}^{(i,j)}\otimes\langle V_{14i}W_j\rangle.
\end{equation}
And there are three other groups of terms related to the remaining $1$-faces, which have very similar structure. The ansatz altogether contains $36$ variables from the second entries. The reason that we explicitly list out the above parts of $\mathcal{S}[\Lambda]$ is that $\mathcal{S}[\mathrm{Disc}_{V_1}\Lambda]$ in \eqref{eq:discV1Lambda} is only contributed by them when taking discontinuities. By matching terms with the same last entry we obtain nine equations for the second entries. For example, by matching $\langle V_{123}W_1\rangle$ in the last entry we obtain
\begin{equation}
s_{12}^{(3,1)}s_{13}^{(2,1)}=\frac{\langle V_{12}W_{12}\rangle\langle V_{13}W_{13}\rangle}{\langle V_{12}W_{13}\rangle\langle V_{13}W_{12}\rangle},
\end{equation}
and so on. There are further constraints from other discontinuities as well, and which are obtained in analogous way. To explicitly list out all the computation in the paper a bit tedious, but the computation itself is not at all complicated when implemented in a computer, and we leave it for interested readers. These constraints again fully determines $\mathcal{S}[I]$ that matches the expected result \eqref{eq:aomotosymbolorganized}. (Like the previous example, not all the above variables are solved by the constraints, but one can verify that the remaining variables all get cancelled away in the entire symbol.)
\subsection{Global Residue Theorem and the Structure of Symbols}\label{sec:grt}
Before ending this section let us return to the integral on individual fibres in a given fibration of the simplex contour. In Section \ref{sec:discontinuity} we computed the discontinuities by an $\mathrm{S}^1$ residue contour around each singularity point on the fibre, which are induced from the singularity hyperplanes in $\mathbb{CP}^{n-1}$. As mentioned at the end of Section \ref{sec:cp1} they satisfy a global residue theorem on the fibre, i.e., the summation of these contours turns into a trivial contour. This has an interesting consequence on the structure of $\mathcal{S}[\Lambda]$.
First of all, note that according to our definition for the discontinuities under study in Section \ref{sec:discontinuity}, for a fixed choice of fibration (e.g., with respect to $V_1$) the integral contour for the remaining variables is always the same canonical $(n-2)$-simplex in the discontinuity associated to any irreducible component of the integrand singularities (i.e., any $H_j$), as illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:discdef}. Therefore, summing up all the discontinuities in a given fibration is effectively just to sum up the residue contours on each fibre
\begin{equation}
\sum_{j=1}^{n}\mathrm{Disc}_{V_1,H_j}\Lambda
=\int\sum_{j=1}^{n}\underset{t_1=-\sum_{i=2}^nt_{i}\frac{H_jU_i}{H_jV_1}}{\mathrm{Res}}\frac{\langle H_1H_2\cdots H_n\rangle\langle V_1V_2\cdots V_n\rangle\langle T\mathrm{d}T^{n-2}\rangle}{\prod_{j=1}^n(t_1(H_jV_1)+\sum_{i=2}^nt_{i}(H_jU_i))}=0,
\end{equation}
which vanishes due to the global residue theorem on each fibre.
In the precious subsection we have shown that the set of $\mathcal{S}[\mathrm{Disc}_{V_i,H_j}\Lambda]$ for all $i,j$ fully determine $\mathcal{S}[\lambda]$. In particular, this computation can be performed for each fixed $H_j$ separated, which yields the part of $\mathcal{S}[\Lambda]$ that is associated to the singularity $H_j$, i.e., terms whose first entries are of the form $\frac{(V_{i_1}H_j)}{(V_{i_2}H_j)}$. Not surprisingly, the above relations among the discontinuities leads to relations among symbol terms whose first entries are tied to the same $1$-face of the contour $\overline{\Delta}$. To be concrete, let us focus on $\overline{V_1V_2}$ for example, and so pick out symbol terms in \eqref{eq:aomotosymbolorganized} whose first entries are of the form $\frac{\langle V_1\cdots\rangle}{\langle V_2\cdots\rangle}$. Their summation should vanish when the first entries are dropped
\begin{equation}\label{eq:grtcancellation}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{\rho\in\mathrm{S}_{n-2},\sigma\in\mathrm{S}_n}\mathrm{sign}(12\rho)\mathrm{sign}(\sigma)\,\cancel{\frac{\langle V_1W_{\sigma(2)}\cdots W_{\sigma(n)}\rangle}{\langle V_2W_{\sigma(2)}\cdots W_{\sigma(n)}\rangle}\otimes}\langle V_1V_2W_{\sigma(3)}W_{\sigma(4)}\cdots W_{\sigma(n)}\rangle\otimes\\
&\otimes\langle V_1V_2V_{\rho(3)}W_{\sigma(4)}\cdots W_{\sigma(n)}\rangle\otimes\cdots\otimes\langle V_1V_2V_{\rho(3)}\cdots V_{\rho(n-1)}W_{\sigma(n)}\rangle=0,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\rho$ is valued in the permutations of $\{3,4,\ldots,n\}$. The above expression vanishes because for whichever $\sigma$ the summation includes another term where the ordering between $\sigma(1)$ and $\sigma(2)$ is switched, but for any fixed $\rho$ these two terms have the same $\otimes$ product (after chopping off the first entries) and the only difference is a relative sign due to $\mathrm{sign}(\sigma)$. Similar relations hold for other choices of $1$-faces $\overline{V_iV_j}$, and since the discontinuities themselves are Aomoto polylogs, similar relations also hold for symbols of discontinuities and subsequent discontinuities and so on.
From an alternative point of view, recall that by definition the integral $\Lambda$ is independent of what specific homogeneous coordinates for the $0$-faces $V_i$ to be put into the expression. This means in particular that its symbol $\mathcal{S}[\Lambda]$ should remains the same for arbitrary rescaling of any $0$-faces $V_i\mapsto\lambda_iV_i$. This of course does not hold individual first entries, and so as already pointed out at the end of Section \ref{sec:cp1} in the case of $\mathbb{CP}^1$ this invariance should come in terms of cancellation between discontinuities of different logarithmic singularities. This leads to the condition \eqref{eq:grtcancellation} as well.
While we present the above condition on the structure of symbols in the context of Aomoto polylog here, the above reasoning from the independence of choice of homogeneous coordinates did not rely on whether the original singularity curve of the integrand consists of only linear irreducible components or not. Therefore in principle the same type of condition should hold for more general integrals, as we will clearly observe later on.
\section{From Aomoto to Integrals with Generic Rational Singularities}\label{sec:generalize}
In the previous section we discussed in detail discontinuities of Aomoto polylogs and their relation to the projections through $0$-faces of the simplex integral contour. We showed that recursive application of this operation leads to a method for the construction of the symbol of Aomoto polylog, without actually doing the integrals. For the Aomoto polylogs themselves the symbols can be studied in a simpler way, as was described in \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2017ahv}. However, the analysis in the previous section serves to provide a unified framework that can directly generalize to more complicated integrals \eqref{eq:Feynmangeneral}
\begin{equation}
I=\int_\Delta\frac{\langle X\mathrm{d}X^{n-1}\rangle\,N[X^k]}{D[X^{n+k}]}.
\end{equation}
In this generic setup the integral contour remains to be an $(n-1)$-simplex, but the condition for singularities of the integrand, $\mathcal{D}:\,D[X^{n+k}]=0$, is relaxed. $\mathcal{D}$ can still be reducible like the case in Aomoto polylog
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{D}=\bigcup_{i}\mathcal{D}_i,
\end{equation}
but its irreducible components $\mathcal{D}_i$ can be of higher degree and so are no longer linear. On the other hand, we require that each irreducible component is \emph{rational}, i.e., there exists some birational map between each $\mathcal{D}_i$ and $\mathbb{CP}^{n-2}$. The simplest non-trivial examples of this type is the quadrics (i.e., the degree-$2$ curves), which are always rational and will be discussed in the following two sections. The reason for rationality is that we want to keep the integral contour (in the discontinuities) living in a simply connected domain, otherwise the integral will go beyond the multiple polylogs in general, thus beyond the scope of our discussion.
A lot of features of the previous analysis can straightforwardly carry over to this more general situation, yet several new phenomena almost always occur, which we briefly comment as follows:
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[decoration={zigzag,amplitude=1pt,segment length=4pt}]
\foreach \x in {-4,-3,...,4}
\draw [gray,opacity=0.3] (\x,0.5) -- +(0,4);
\draw [RoyalBlue,very thick] (-4.5,4) -- (-4,4) .. controls +(1,0) and +(-2,0.8) .. (0,3) .. controls +(1,-0.4) and +(0,-0.5) .. (2,3) .. controls +(0,0.5) and +(1,0.4) .. (0,3) -- (-2,2.2) .. controls +(-0.5,-0.2) and +(0.5,0) .. (-4,1.8) -- (-4.5,1.8);
\node [anchor=east] at (-4.5,4) {$\mathcal{D}_1$};
\draw [RoyalBlue,very thick] (-4.5,3) -- (-4,3) .. controls +(1,0) and +(-0.4,0.3) .. (-2,2.2) .. controls +(0.2,-0.15) and +(-1.5,0) .. (1,1) .. controls +(1,0) and +(-0.5,-0.2) .. (3,1.4) -- +(1.5,0.6);
\node [anchor=east] at (-4.5,3) {$\mathcal{D}_2$};
\fill [RoyalBlue] (-2,2.2) circle [radius=2pt];
\fill [RoyalBlue] (0,3) circle [radius=2pt];
\fill [Plum] (2,3) circle [radius=2pt];
\node [anchor=north] at (-2,2.2) {$A$};
\node [anchor=north] at (0,3) {$B$};
\node [anchor=west] at (2,3) {$C$};
\draw [dashed,gray,opacity=0.3] (-2,0.5) -- +(0,-3.2);
\draw [dashed,gray,opacity=0.3] (0,0.5) -- +(0,-3.2);
\draw [dashed,gray,opacity=0.3] (2,0.5) -- +(0,-3.2);
\begin{scope}[yshift=-0.25cm]
\draw [decorate,Plum] (2,0) -- (4.5,0);
\draw [RoyalBlue,thick] ($(0,0)+(45:4pt)$) -- +(-135:2*4pt) ($(0,0)+(135:4pt)$) -- +(-45:2*4pt);
\draw [Plum,thick] ($(2,0)+(45:4pt)$) -- +(-135:2*4pt) ($(2,0)+(135:4pt)$) -- +(-45:2*4pt);
\draw [dotted] (-4.5,-0.4) rectangle +(9,0.8);
\node [anchor=east] at (-4.5,0) {$\mathcal{D}_1$ ($1^{\rm st}$ sheet)};
\node [anchor=east] at (0,0) {$B$};
\node [anchor=east] at (2,0) {$C$};
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[yshift=-1.25cm]
\draw [decorate,Plum] (2,0) -- (4.5,0);
\draw [RoyalBlue,thick] ($(-2,0)+(45:4pt)$) -- +(-135:2*4pt) ($(-2,0)+(135:4pt)$) -- +(-45:2*4pt);
\draw [RoyalBlue,thick] ($(0,0)+(45:4pt)$) -- +(-135:2*4pt) ($(0,0)+(135:4pt)$) -- +(-45:2*4pt);
\draw [Plum,thick] ($(2,0)+(45:4pt)$) -- +(-135:2*4pt) ($(2,0)+(135:4pt)$) -- +(-45:2*4pt);
\draw [dotted] (-4.5,-0.4) rectangle +(9,0.8);
\node [anchor=east] at (-4.5,0) {$\mathcal{D}_1$ ($2^{\rm nd}$ sheet)};
\node [anchor=east] at (-2,0) {$A$};
\node [anchor=east] at (0,0) {$B$};
\node [anchor=east] at (2,0) {$C$};
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[yshift=-2.25cm]
\draw [RoyalBlue,thick] ($(-2,0)+(45:4pt)$) -- +(-135:2*4pt) ($(-2,0)+(135:4pt)$) -- +(-45:2*4pt);
\draw [dotted] (-4.5,-0.4) rectangle +(9,0.8);
\node [anchor=east] at (-4.5,0) {$\mathcal{D}_2$ (single sheet)};
\node [anchor=east] at (-2,0) {$A$};
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{An example of folding curves during a fibration/projection. The curve under consideration here consists of two irreducible components $\mathcal{D}_1$ and $\mathcal{D}_2$. This figure shows three points that are at singular configuration with respect to the fibration: intersection between two components ($A$), self-interaction of a single component ($B$), and a smooth point which appears singular under projection ($C$). In the region illustrated in the figure, $\mathcal{D}_1$ is folded into two sheets by the projection, while $\mathcal{D}_2$ remains unfolded. In the space for $\mathcal{D}_1$ after projection, $C$ turns into a branch point connecting the two sheets, $B$ turns into a pole on each sheet (hence effectively this creates two poles in the entire $\mathcal{D}_1$), while $A$ turns into a pole that is present only on one sheet. In the space for $\mathcal{D}_2$ after projection, we only observe a pole from $A$.}
\label{fig:singularityemerge}
\end{figure}
\begin{itemize}
\item Because $\mathcal{D}_i$ can be of higher degree, unlike the hyperplanes it can intersect a line at several points. Locally we should treat them as distinct singularities. However, as we scan over different fibres in a fibration these singularities can meet at a point on $\mathcal{D}_i$ which is actually smooth (point $C$ in Figure \ref{fig:singularityemerge}). This situation is to be distinguished from the situation where two different irreducible components $\mathcal{D}_i$ and $\mathcal{D}_j$ intersect (point $A$ in Figure \ref{fig:singularityemerge}, as we already encounter in Aomoto polylogs), or the situation when $\mathcal{D}_i$ intersects itself at some singular point (point $B$ in Figure \ref{fig:singularityemerge}). In the latter two situations, when we introduce local variables in the neighborhood of the $A$ or $B$, the equation governing the singularity curves is reducible. For example in the simplest case it locally looks like
\begin{equation}
(t_1+a_1 t_2)(t_1+a_2t_2)=0,
\end{equation}
where $t_1$ parameterizes points on the fibre and $t_2$ parameterizes the space of fibres. Since the discontinuity computation effectively put the integral on an irreducible component of the singularity curve, as we deform the remaining contour (or equivalently deform the fibre) the point under study is always kept on the same irreducible component. So $A$ or $B$ is a pole when viewed on the curve. In comparison, for the point $C$ which is smooth, locally it looks like
\begin{equation}
t_1^2+a_0t_2=0,
\end{equation}
As we scan over fibres by deforming $t_2$ in the neighborhood of $C$, the solution to $t_1$ can smoothly deform from one to another, indicating that there are actually different Riemann sheets for the na\"ive quotient space obtained from point projection. Geometrically one can think about this phenomenon as folding the original (irreducible component of) singularity curve into several sheets during the point projection, which will be explained in further detail in the next section. As a consequence, the discontinuities as directly computed frequently contains branch points in the denominator of its integrand, which makes the subsequent analysis of emergence of singularities not so straightforward as that in Aomoto polylogs. No matter how the irreducible curve is folded, in order to fully understand the analytic properties of the resulting discontinuity one has to treat the corresponding integral as defined on the entire curve.
\item In Aomoto polylog integrals, when the discontinuity computation puts the integral onto any of the singularity hyperplanes, the resulting integral contour for the remaining variables is always a uniquely defined canonical simplex. In contrast, because any higher-degree $\mathcal{D}_i$ gets folded in a projection, the definition for the discontinuity undergoes certain ambiguity, as in principle one can choose which Riemann sheet a point of the contour resides on. It turns out that in this case we have to extend the original analysis to a finite set of discontinuities, for each fibration and each $\mathcal{D}_i$. This will be discussed in detail in the next section.
\item For any discontinuity in the above mentioned set there is a well-defined integral contour which is induced from geometries in the original $\mathbb{CP}^{n-1}$. Because such contour is intrinsically defined on $\mathcal{D}_i$, one can already expect that generically it is not a simplex in the ordinary sense. Even when $\mathcal{D}_i$ is rational as we assume in this paper, so that the domain can be mapped to some ordinary $\mathbb{CP}^{n-2}$, the image of the contour will in general have its ``faces'' curved (i.e., defined by some higher-degree equations). As we have seen so far, it is important to figure out a proper fibration of the integral in order to perform the analysis on its singularities and collect analogous data as summarized in Figure \ref{fig:data}. While this is straightforward to do for ordinary simplexes as in the Aomoto polylog integrals, to apply it to the above mentioned generalized contours calls for more detailed understanding about some general characteristic of their geometries. Nevertheless, at least for $\mathcal{D}_i$ which is a quadric there is a very natural type of fibration to use, which will be described in detail in Section \ref{sec:higherdim}. We expect this treatment may even extend to $\mathcal{D}_i$ with even higher degrees.
\end{itemize}
In the remaining of this paper we will examine the simplest non-trivial cases of the integral \eqref{eq:Feynmangeneral} with rational $\mathcal{D}_i$, where $\mathcal{D}$ is a multiple of a single quadric. We will use explicit examples to illustrate the above mentioned phenomena, and describe the way to deal with them properly. In each example we will show that the extended analysis serves to completely construct the symbol of the integral, like what we already have done in the Aomoto polylogs.
\section{Discontinuities from Quadric Singularities}\label{sec:quadric}
In this and next section we discuss integrals with quadric singularities to introduce the idea for solving the difficulties pointed out in the previous section. We do not seek for a most general discussion, but use explicit examples to illustrate the necessary ingredients.
For simplicity let us focus on the following integral in $\mathbb{CP}^3$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:egCP3a}
I=\int_\Delta\frac{4\sqrt{\det Q}\langle X\mathrm{d}X^3\rangle}{(XQX)^2},
\end{equation}
where $\Delta$ is the canonical $3$-simplex and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:egCP3b}
Q=\left(\begin{matrix}1&p_1&0&0\\p_1&1&p_2&0\\0&p_2&1&p_3\\0&0&p_3&1\end{matrix}\right).
\end{equation}
This integral can arise from, e.g., a five-point box diagram in 4d, where all the loop propagators have the same mass $m$, and all the external points have the same mass $M=\sqrt{2}m$ and are all on-shell, see Figure \ref{fig:boxdiagram}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\coordinate (v1) at (0,0);
\coordinate (v2) at (1.6,0);
\coordinate (v3) at (1.6,1.6);
\coordinate (v4) at (0,1.6);
\draw [ultra thick] (v1) -- (v2) -- (v3) -- (v4) -- cycle;
\draw [ultra thick] (v1) -- +(-135:.8);
\draw [ultra thick] (v2) -- +(-45:.8);
\draw [ultra thick] (v3) -- +(30:.8) (v3) -- +(60:.8);
\draw [ultra thick] (v4) -- +(135:.8);
\fill (v1) circle [radius=2pt];
\fill (v2) circle [radius=2pt];
\fill (v3) circle [radius=2pt];
\fill (v4) circle [radius=2pt];
\draw [-stealth,ultra thick] (v4) -- +(.9,0);
\node [anchor=north] at (.8,1.6) {$\ell$};
\node [anchor=south] at (.8,1.6) {$x_3$};
\node [anchor=east] at (0,.8) {$x_1$};
\node [anchor=west] at (1.6,.8) {$x_2$};
\node [anchor=north] at (.8,0) {$x_4$};
\node [anchor=east] at ($(v4)+(135:.8)$) {$1$};
\node [anchor=east] at ($(v1)+(-135:.8)$) {$5$};
\node [anchor=west] at ($(v3)+(60:.8)$) {$2$};
\node [anchor=west] at ($(v3)+(30:.8)$) {$3$};
\node [anchor=west] at ($(v2)+(-45:.8)$) {$4$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{A five-point box diagram in 4d.}
\label{fig:boxdiagram}
\end{figure}
The integral dictated by Feynman rules is
\begin{equation}
\int\frac{\mathrm{d}^4\ell}{(2\pi)^4}\frac{1}{(\ell^2-m^2)((\ell+k_1)^2-m^2)((\ell+k_1+k_5)^2-m^2)((\ell-k_2-k_3)^2-m^2)}.
\end{equation}
Because $k_i^2=2m^2$ ($\forall i$), by the Feynman parameter integral formula \eqref{eq:feynmanparameter1} it is easy to see that if we identify the parameters as
\begin{equation}
p_1=1-\frac{(k_4+k_5)^2}{2m^2},\qquad
p_2=1-\frac{(k_2+k_3)^2}{2m^2},\qquad
p_3=1-\frac{(k_1+k_5)^2}{2m^2},
\end{equation}
this Feynman loop integral is proportional to \eqref{eq:egCP3a}.
This integral is known to be a weight-$2$ pure function. Its symbol can by worked out, e.g., be the spherical projection method in \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2017ahv}, which is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:symbolquadricCP3}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{S}[I]=&\frac{1}{2}\bigg(\frac{p_1+i\sqrt{1-p_1^2}}{p_1-i\sqrt{1-p_1^2}}\otimes\frac{p_3\sqrt{1-p_1^2}+q}{p_3\sqrt{1-p_1^2}-q}+\frac{p_2+i\sqrt{1-p_2^2}}{p_2-i\sqrt{1-p_2^2}}\otimes\frac{p_1p_2p_3+q\sqrt{1-p_2^2}}{p_1p_2p_3-q\sqrt{1-p_2^2}}\\
&+\frac{p_3+i\sqrt{1-p_3^2}}{p_3-i\sqrt{1-p_3^2}}\otimes\frac{p_1\sqrt{1-p_3^2}+q}{p_1\sqrt{1-p_3^2}-q}\bigg),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $q=\sqrt{-\det Q}=\sqrt{-1+p_1^2+p_2^2+p_3^2-p_1^2p_3^2}$.
\subsection{First Entries and Discontinuities}
As in the Aotomo polylog, we start by analyzing the first entries. For this we still inspect configuration on the lines spanned by every pair of $0$-faces. For example, in $\overline{V_1V_2}$ we use $V_1$ and $V_2$ to set up homogeneous coordinates $[u_1:u_2]$ such that any point $X\in\overline{V_1V_2}$ is spanned by $X=u_1V_1+u_2V_2$. In terms of the $u$ coordinates these points are
\begin{equation}
V_1:\,[1:0]\quad\text{and}\quad V_2:\,[0:1].
\end{equation}
The induced integral contour is just the $1$-simplex whose $0$-faces are $V_1$ and $V_2$. The singularities seen in this $\mathbb{CP}^1$ is induced by intersecting the quadric $XQX=0$. By Bezout's theorem there are always two solutions, and let us name these points as $P_{12}^+$ and $P_{12}^-$. In terms of the $u$ coordinates they locate at
\begin{equation}
P_{12}^+:\,[-p_1+i\sqrt{1-p_1^2}:1]\quad\text{and}\quad P_{12}^-:\,[-p_1-i\sqrt{1-p_1^2}:1].
\end{equation}
Then the corresponding first entries in $\mathcal{S}[I]$ are
\begin{equation}\label{eq:f12}
f_{12}^\pm\equiv\frac{\langle P_{12}^\pm V_1\rangle}{\langle P_{12}^\pm V_2\rangle}=p_1\pm i\sqrt{1-p_1^2}.
\end{equation}
For later convenience we identify the notations $f_{ij}^\pm\equiv f_{ji}^\pm$. Applying this analysis to $\overline{V_2V_3}$ and $\overline{V_3V_4}$ we similarly obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq:f23f34}
f_{23}^\pm\equiv\frac{\langle P_{23}^\pm V_2\rangle}{\langle P_{23}^\pm V_3\rangle}=p_2\pm i\sqrt{1-p_2^2},\qquad
f_{34}^\pm\equiv\frac{\langle P_{34}^\pm V_3\rangle}{\langle P_{34}^\pm V_4\rangle}=p_3\pm i\sqrt{1-p_3^2}.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, when further applying to the remaining three $1$-faces $\overline{V_1V_3}$, $\overline{V_1V_4}$ and $\overline{V_2V_4}$ we can find the corresponding $f_{13}^\pm$, $f_{14}^\pm$ and $f_{24}^\pm$ are some numeric values. This means that the intersection points of the singularity curve and these lines are totally fixed, and so although they potentially lead to branch points in principle, these are never detected by the integral as a function of only $\{p_1,p_2,p_3\}$. Correspondingly, by definition terms with these numerical first entries are deleted in the symbol. However, because the discontinuities that we defined using contour modifications geometrically arise from an enlarged parameter space (so that the geometries allow for arbitrary deformations, see discussions around Figure \ref{fig:discdef}), later in the symbol construction such symbol terms will still play a role, but only discarded at the end.
Next let us compute the discontinuities of this integral. Again this is done via fibration, and there are four fibrations to be considered, with respect to each of the $0$-faces of $\Delta$. Let us first study $V_1$. Since the contour is canonical, the coordinates $X=[x_1:x_2:x_3:x_4]$ already provides a desired fibration by distinguishing $x_1$ from the other variables. Note again the contour for $[x_2:x_3:x_4]$ is independent of $x_1$. Each choice of $[x_2:x_3:x_4]$ specifies a $\mathbb{CP}^1$ fibre $\overline{V_1(x_2V_2+x_3V_3+x_4V_4)}$, on which the points are parameterized by $x_1$. On this fibre in general one observes two separate singularity points, their locations are learned by solving the equation $XQX=0$, which yields
\begin{equation}
x_1^\pm=-p_1x_2\pm \sqrt{(p_1^2-1)x_2^2-2p_2x_2x_3-x_3^2-2p_3x_3x_4-x_4^2}.
\end{equation}
We name the two corresponding points $P^+$ and $P^-$ respectively.
To compute the discontinuity, on each fibre we wrap the $x_1$ contour around one of the singularities. Without loss of generality we pick $P^+$. Then the corresponding discontinuity reads
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ambiguousintegral}
\begin{split}
&\int\underset{x_1=x_1^+}{\mathrm{Res}}\frac{4q\langle X\mathrm{d}X^3\rangle}{(XQX)^2}
=\int\frac{q(x_2\mathrm{d}x_3\wedge\mathrm{d}x_4-x_3\mathrm{d}x_2\wedge\mathrm{d}x_4+x_4\mathrm{d}x_2\wedge\mathrm{d}x_3)}{\left((p_1^2-1)x_2^2-2p_2x_2x_3-x_3^2-2p_3x_3x_4-x_4^2\right)^{3/2}}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
We do not yet give this discontinuity a name because there is a subtlety. At first sight this integral is defined on $\mathbb{CP}^2$, with coordinates $[x_2:x_3:x_4]$. However, due to the square root branch point shown in the denominator of the inegrand, rigorously speaking the domain of definition is really a double cover of $\mathbb{CP}^2$. While we say the contour is a $2$-simplex specified by its three $0$-faces, there is an ambiguity regarding which Riemann sheet each $0$-face actually locates at, and in principle the contour can travel across the branch cut to another sheet along its way.
It is helpful to clarify the nature of this ambiguity. In order to keep track of the behavior of the square root and the corresponding Riemann sheet, a common practice is to introduce an extra variable $x_0$ so that the following homogeneous equation always holds
\begin{equation}\label{eq:unfoldeqn}
\left((p_1^2-1)x_2^2-2p_2x_2x_3-x_3^2-2p_3x_3x_4-x_4^2
\right)-x_0^2=0.
\end{equation}
This again defines a quadric in $\mathbb{CP}^3$. In fact this curve is exactly the original $XQX=0$, as can be seen by reparameterizing the original space using
\begin{equation}
X=x_0V_1+x_2\underbrace{(V_2-p_1V_1)}_{V'_2}+x_3V_3+x_4V_4.
\end{equation}
In fact, one can first perform this change of integration variables before taking residue on the fibre, which will yield exactly the same result \eqref{eq:ambiguousintegral}. This is coherent with the view that the discontinuity integral \eqref{eq:ambiguousintegral} is defined in a quotient space from projecting the original $\mathbb{CP}^3$ through $V_1$ (but now double-covered). Therefore the appearance of two Riemann sheets is caused by folding the original quadric during the projection through $V_1$, and the branch points occurs at exactly the places where it folds, or in other words, when $x_0$ develops double roots in \eqref{eq:unfoldeqn}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{scope}[xshift=-5cm]
\clip (-3.5,-4) rectangle +(7,8);
\fill [RoyalBlue,opacity=0.1] (0,0) circle [radius=2.5];
\draw [RoyalBlue,opacity=0.3] (0,0) circle [radius=2.5];
\coordinate (N) at (0,1.8);
\coordinate (S) at (0,-1.8);
\fill (N) circle [radius=0.25pt];
\fill (S) circle [radius=0.25pt];
\coordinate (v1) at (0,3.5);
\coordinate (v2) at (0,2.8);
\coordinate (v3) at ($(v1)+(-69:0.8)$);
\coordinate (v4) at ($(v1)+(-52:0.7)$);
\fill [BrickRed,opacity=0.1] (v1) -- (v2) -- (v3) -- (v4) -- cycle;
\draw [dotted,BrickRed,opacity=0.8] (v2) -- (v4);
\draw [BrickRed,opacity=0.8] (v1) -- (v3);
\draw [BrickRed,opacity=0.8] (v1) -- (v2) -- (v3) -- (v4) -- cycle;
\coordinate (p13p) at (1.075,0.695);
\coordinate (p13m) at (1.775,-1.109);
\coordinate (p14p) at (1.905,1.075);
\coordinate (p14m) at (2.395,0.425);
\path [name path=v1v3] (v1) -- +(-69:7.5);
\path [name path=v1v4] (v1) -- +(-52:7.5);
\draw [dashed,thick,BrickRed,opacity=0.3,rotate=125,name path=cf125] (0:2.5) arc [start angle=0,end angle=180,x radius=2.5,y radius=1.28];
\draw [dashed,thick,BrickRed,opacity=0.8,rotate=125] (0:2.5) arc [start angle=0,end angle=-180,x radius=2.5,y radius=1.28];
\draw [dashed,thick,BrickRed,opacity=0.3,rotate=175] (0:2.5) arc [start angle=0,end angle=180,x radius=2.5,y radius=1.797];
\draw [dashed,thick,BrickRed,opacity=0.8,rotate=175,name path=cf175] (0:2.5) arc [start angle=0,end angle=-180,x radius=2.5,y radius=1.797];
\draw [dashed,thick,BrickRed,opacity=0.8] (1.52,-0.11) circle [x radius=1.25,y radius=0.81,rotate=67.5];
\fill [BrickRed,opacity=0.6] (N) .. controls +(-36:0.6) and +(124:0.3) .. (p13p) .. controls +(49:0.4) and +(167:0.25) .. (p14p) .. controls +(132:0.29) and +(-1:0.92) .. cycle;
\draw [BrickRed,very thick] (N) .. controls +(-36:0.6) and +(124:0.3) .. (1.075,0.695) .. controls +(49:0.4) and +(167:0.25) .. (1.905,1.075) .. controls +(132:0.29) and +(-1:0.92) .. cycle;
\draw [BrickRed,opacity=0.8] (v1) -- (N);
\draw [BrickRed,opacity=0.3] (N) -- ($(N)!1.15!(S)$);
\draw [BrickRed,opacity=0.8] (v1) -- ($(v1)!1.15!(p13m)$);
\draw [BrickRed,opacity=0.8] (v1) -- ($(v1)!1.15!(p14m)$);
\fill [BrickRed] (N) circle [radius=2pt];
\fill [BrickRed,opacity=2*0.3] (S) circle [radius=2pt];
\fill [BrickRed] (p13p) circle [radius=2pt];
\fill [BrickRed] (p13m) circle [radius=2pt];
\fill [BrickRed] (p14p) circle [radius=2pt];
\fill [BrickRed] (p14m) circle [radius=2pt];
\node [anchor=east] at (v1) {$V_1$};
\node [anchor=east] at (v2) {$V_2$};
\node [anchor=north] at (v3) {$V_3$};
\node [anchor=west] at (v4) {$V_4$};
\node [anchor=east] at (N) {$P_{12}^+$};
\node [anchor=east] at (S) {$P_{12}^-$};
\node [anchor=east] at (p13p) {$P_{13}^+$};
\node [anchor=west] at (p13m) {$P_{13}^-$};
\node [anchor=south] at (p14p) {$P_{14}^+$};
\node [anchor=west] at (p14m) {$P_{14}^-$};
\end{scope}
\begin{scope}[xshift=3cm,yshift=3cm]
\clip (0,-3) circle [radius=3];
\draw [BrickRed,thick,dashed,opacity=0.6] (0,-3) circle (2.4);
\coordinate [label={180:{$P_{13}^+$}}] (v2a) at (-0.8,-2);
\coordinate [label={180:{$P_{13}^-$}}] (v2b) at (-1.2,-3.6);
\coordinate [label={0:{$P_{14}^+$}}] (v3a) at (0.7,-1.6);
\coordinate [label={0:{$P_{14}^-$}}] (v3b) at (1.3,-3.9);
\fill [BrickRed] (v2a) circle [radius=2pt];
\fill [BrickRed] (v2b) circle [radius=2pt];
\fill [BrickRed] (v3a) circle [radius=2pt];
\fill [BrickRed] (v3b) circle [radius=2pt];
\draw [BrickRed,very thick] (v2a) .. controls (-0.4,-1.6) and (0.2,-1.4) .. (v3a);
\draw [dotted,BrickRed,very thick] (v2a) .. controls (-0.1,-2) and (0.9,-2.8) .. (v3b);
\draw [dotted,BrickRed,very thick] (v2b) .. controls (-0.4,-2) and (0.4,-1.7) .. (v3a);
\draw [dotted,BrickRed,very thick] (v2b) .. controls (-0.4,-3) and (0.4,-3) .. (v3b);
\end{scope}
\draw [-latex] (-2.9,-0.75) .. controls +(20:4) and +(-160:4) .. (0.7,-0.75);
\node [anchor=center] at (-0.1,-1.5) {$Q\cap\overline{V_1V_3V_4}$};
\begin{scope}[yshift=-3.2cm]
\node at (-5,0) {(a)};
\node at (3,0) {(b)};
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The generalized simplex contour on the quadric. It is fixed up to invariant deformations once each of its $0$-face is chosen. There are in total eight different contours for the discontinuity.}
\label{fig:generalizedsimplex}
\end{figure}
From the above discussion we see the entire domain of definition for the discontinuity integral is just the original quadric $Q$. Now comes the question of characterizing the contour in \eqref{eq:ambiguousintegral}. Such contour has real dimension $2$, and because it is induced from the $V_1$ fibration in $\mathbb{CP}^3$, it roughly has a shape that resembles a $2$-simplex. Viewed in the original $\mathbb{CP}^3$, each $0$-face of this contour is one of the intersection points between $Q$ and one $\overline{V_1V_i}$, i.e., one of the $P_{1i}^\pm$ points discussed a moment ago. Although there is an ambiguity here, the $0$-faces are completely fixed once a choice is made for each, so globally there are $8$ different configurations for them. As for the $1$-faces, each of them should lie in the intersection of $Q$ and one $\overline{V_1V_iV_j}$. In Figure \ref{fig:generalizedsimplex} we show the case of $\overline{V_1V_3V_4}$. At first sight there may appear to be 2 possible choices of each $1$-face, as seen in Figure \ref{fig:generalizedsimplex}-(a). This is however not correct. We need to keep in mind that $Q\cap\overline{V_1V_iV_j}$ is a curve of complex dimension $1$, while the corresponding $1$-face is just some path of real dimension $1$ in it. In this particular example $Q\cap\overline{V_1V_iV_j}$ is also a quadric, which is birational to $\mathbb{CP}^1$ and so is simply connected. Therefore, as illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:generalizedsimplex}-(b), for any fixed pair of $0$-faces in this intersection there always exists a unique $1$-simplex (up to deformation equivalence) that may serve as a $1$-face of the entire contour.
In consequence the contour for the discontinuity integral \eqref{eq:ambiguousintegral} is completely fixed by the choice of its $0$-faces, whose detailed geometric structure is determined by the line fibration and the ordinary simplex contour in the original higher dimensional space as described above. In later discussion we will call the shape of such contour a \emph{generalized simplex}. So in total we get a set of $8$ different discontinuities from the $V_1$ fibration, in correspondence to the $8$ choices of generalized simplexes.
One thing to be further pointed out is that the choice of $P^+$ or $P^-$ in the discontinuity computation \eqref{eq:ambiguousintegral} does not affect the choice of contour. Any point of the contour that lies on a generic fibre is determined by continuous deformation to the $0$-faces along the contour, and it can in principle be identified as either $P^+$ or $P^-$. What they really affect is merely whether to identify the square root in \eqref{eq:ambiguousintegral} as $+x_0$ or $-x_0$ in subsequent analysis. As long as we make a consistent choice of the sign, the final result should remain the same.
\subsection{Rationalization of Discontinuity Integrals}
We now move on to investigate the $8$ different discontinuities. For simplicity of discussion (mainly to avoid the appearance of many square roots) let us temporarily switch the parameter $p_1$ to $p_1=\frac{2t_1}{1+t_1^2}$, such that $\sqrt{1-p_1^2}=\frac{1-t_1^2}{1+t_1^2}$. Then the integral \eqref{eq:ambiguousintegral} is written into
\begin{equation}\label{eq:discintegrand0}
\int\frac{q(1+t_1^2)^3(x_2\mathrm{d}x_3\wedge\mathrm{d}x_4-x_3\mathrm{d}x_2\wedge\mathrm{d}x_4+x_4\mathrm{d}x_2\wedge\mathrm{d}x_3)}{\left(-(1-t_1^2)^2x_2^2-(1+t_1^2)^2(2p_2x_2x_3+x_3^2+2p_3x_3x_4+x_4^2)\right)^{3/2}}.
\end{equation}
So to keep track of the square root the new variable $x_0$ is introduced with the equation
\begin{equation}\label{eq:quadric1}
\left(-(1-t_1^2)^2x_2^2-(1+t_1^2)^2(2p_2x_2x_3+x_3^2+2p_3x_3x_4+x_4^2)\right)-x_0^2=0.
\end{equation}
As mentioned before the remaining contour lives on the quadric. Its $0$-faces are $P_{12}^\pm$, $P_{13}^\pm$ and $P_{14}^\pm$, and in terms of the coordinates $[x_0:x_2:x_3:x_4]$ they read
\begin{align}
P_{12}^\pm:&\,[i(1-t_1^2):\pm1:0:0],\\
P_{13}^\pm:&\,[i(1+t_1^2):0:\pm1:0],\\
P_{14}^\pm:&\,[i(1+t_1^2):0:0:\pm1].
\end{align}
So it is convenient to label these discontinuities as $\mathrm{Disc}_{V_1}^{\pm\pm\pm}I$ by the superscripts of the three $0$-faces \footnote{Following the notations in Aomoto polylogs we should have named these quantities $\mathrm{Disc}_{V_1,Q}^{\pm\pm\pm}I$. Because the integrand singularity is already irreducible in this example, we omit the subscript ``$Q$'' for brevity.}.
Let us focus on $\mathrm{Disc}_{V_1}^{+++}I$ first, whose $0$-faces are $P_{12}^+$, $P_{13}^+$ and $P_{14}^+$. Because a quadric is always rational, there is a well-define way to resolve the square root branch points and turn the integrand \eqref{eq:discintegrand0} into a rational expression. The idea is to project $\mathbb{CP}^3$ through a different point $R$, which now resides on the quadric. Each projection line intersects the quadric always at two points, one being fixed at $R$, the other scanning over the rest of the quadric. So such projection provides a one-to-one map from the quadric to $\mathbb{CP}^2$ (which is the quotient of $\mathbb{CP}^3$ again lines through $R$). So the goal is to map the integral on the quadric \eqref{eq:discintegrand0} to an integral on this $\mathbb{CP}^2$.
To define homogeneous coordinates on this quotient space we need to choose three points $U_2,U_3,U_4\in\mathbb{CP}^3$ and study linear combinations of lines $\overline{RU_2}$, $\overline{RU_3}$ and $\overline{RU_4}$. Specifically, a point $X\in\mathbb{CP}^3$ can be decomposed as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:rationalization0}
X\equiv [x_0:x_2:x_3:x_4]=tR+y_2U_2+y_3U_3+y_4U_4,
\end{equation}
for some $\{t,y_2,y_3,y_4\}$. Now requiring that $X$ resides on the quadric $\eqref{eq:quadric1}$ uniquely solves $t$ (we get a linear equation of $t$ because $R$ already satisfies the same equation). Plugging this value of $t$ back into \eqref{eq:rationalization0} gives a homogeneous relation between $[x_0:x_2:x_3:x_4]$ and $\{y_2,y_3,y_4\}$ for points on the quadric. The latter then makes up the desired homogeneous coordinates $Y=[y_2:y_3:y_4]$ for the above mentioned quotient space $\mathbb{CP}^2$. Transforming the integral \eqref{eq:discintegrand0} into these new coordinates helps remove the branch points. This procedure is also usually called rationalization.
There is a canonical choice for the points $\{U_2,U_3,U_4\}$, by identifying them as the contour's $0$-faces, $U_i=P_{1i}^+$. In this way the image of these $0$-faces will again be placed at the canonical locations $[1:0:0]$, $[0:1:0]$ and $[0:0:1]$ in the $Y$ space. As shown in Figure \ref{fig:rationalizationchoice}, with a generic projection reference $R$ the image of any $1$-face (say $\overline{P_{12}^+P_{13}^+}$) lives on a higher-degree curve in $\mathbb{CP}^{2}$ (degree $2$ in this case). To understand this, note that this original $1$-face is a path in the intersection of $Q$ and the hyperplane of a $2$-face of $\Delta$ through $V_1$ ($\overline{V_1V_2V_3}$ in Figure \ref{fig:rationalizationchoice}). When viewed inside the hyperplane this intersection is a degree-2 curve, and because generically $R$ stays off the hyperplane, the projection of this curve has its degree higher than $1$ as well. Therefore one can expect that the image of the contour after rationalization usually looks complicated. This is inevitable since the contour for the discontinuity is geometrically a generalized simplex, and the its image in $\mathbb{CP}^{2}$ is just a manifestation of this fact.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw [dashed,thick,BrickRed,name path=Q] (0,0) circle [x radius=1.2,y radius=2];
\draw [BrickRed,very thick] (0,2) arc [start angle=90,end angle=0,x radius=1.2,y radius=2];
\draw [BrickRed,very thick] (0,2) arc [start angle=90,end angle=220,x radius=1.2,y radius=2];
\path [name path=l75] (0,0) -- +(75:2.5);
\path [name path=l95] (0,0) -- +(95:2.5);
\path [name path=l115] (0,0) -- +(115:2.5);
\path [name path=l135] (0,0) -- +(135:2.5);
\path [name path=l155] (0,0) -- +(155:2.5);
\path [name path=l175] (0,0) -- +(175:2.5);
\path [name path=l195] (0,0) -- +(195:2.5);
\path [name path=l215] (0,0) -- +(215:2.5);
\path [name path=l235] (0,0) -- +(235:2.5);
\path [name path=l255] (0,0) -- +(255:2.5);
\path [name path=l275] (0,0) -- +(275:2.5);
\path [name path=l295] (0,0) -- +(295:2.5);
\path [name path=l315] (0,0) -- +(315:2.5);
\path [name path=l335] (0,0) -- +(335:2.5);
\path [name path=l355] (0,0) -- +(355:2.5);
\path [name path=l15] (0,0) -- +(15:2.5);
\path [name path=l35] (0,0) -- +(35:2.5);
\path [name path=l55] (0,0) -- +(55:2.5);
\fill [black,name intersections={of=Q and l75,by={p75}}] (p75) circle [radius=1.25pt];
\fill [black,name intersections={of=Q and l95,by={p95}}] (p95) circle [radius=1.25pt];
\fill [black,name intersections={of=Q and l115,by={p115}}] (p115) circle [radius=1.25pt];
\fill [black,name intersections={of=Q and l135,by={p135}}] (p135) circle [radius=1.25pt];
\fill [black,name intersections={of=Q and l155,by={p155}}] (p155) circle [radius=1.25pt];
\fill [black,name intersections={of=Q and l175,by={p175}}] (p175) circle [radius=1.25pt];
\fill [black,name intersections={of=Q and l195,by={p195}}] (p195) circle [radius=1.25pt];
\fill [black,name intersections={of=Q and l215,by={p215}}] (p215) circle [radius=1.25pt];
\fill [BrickRed,name intersections={of=Q and l235,by={p235}}] (p235) circle [radius=2pt];
\fill [BrickRed,name intersections={of=Q and l255,by={p255}}] (p255) circle [radius=2pt];
\fill [black,name intersections={of=Q and l275,by={p275}}] (p275) circle [radius=1.25pt];
\fill [black,name intersections={of=Q and l295,by={p295}}] (p295) circle [radius=1.25pt];
\fill [black,name intersections={of=Q and l315,by={p315}}] (p315) circle [radius=1.25pt];
\fill [BrickRed,name intersections={of=Q and l335,by={p335}}] (p335) circle [radius=2pt];
\fill [BrickRed,name intersections={of=Q and l355,by={p355}}] (p355) circle [radius=2pt];
\fill [black,name intersections={of=Q and l15,by={p15}}] (p15) circle [radius=1.25pt];
\fill [black,name intersections={of=Q and l35,by={p35}}] (p35) circle [radius=1.25pt];
\fill [black,name intersections={of=Q and l55,by={p55}}] (p55) circle [radius=1.25pt];
\path [name path=tp115] (p115) +(50:1) -- +(-130:6);
\path [name path=tp275] (p275) +(10:1) -- +(-170:6);
\fill [name intersections={of=tp115 and tp275,by={r}}] (r) circle [radius=1.25pt];
\coordinate (rp115) at ($(r)!0.45!(p115)$);
\fill (rp115) circle [radius=1.25pt];
\draw [Orange,very thick,name path=rimg0] (p235) .. controls +(175:1) and ($(r)!0.4!(p115)$) .. (rp115) .. controls ($(r)!0.5!(p115)$) and +(185:1.5) .. (p355);
\draw [dashed,thick,Orange,name path=rimg1] (p235) .. controls +(-5:1) .. +(-2:5);
\draw [dashed,thick,Orange,name path=rimg2] (p355) .. controls +(5:1.5) .. +(4:3);
\draw [Orange,opacity=0.3,name path=rp75] (r) -- (p75);
\draw [Orange,opacity=0.3,name path=rp95] (r) -- (p95);
\draw [Orange,opacity=0.3] (r) -- (p115);
\draw [Orange,opacity=0.3,name path=rp135] (r) -- (p135);
\draw [Orange,opacity=0.3,name path=rp155] (r) -- (p155);
\draw [Orange,opacity=0.3,name path=rp175] (r) -- (p175);
\draw [Orange,opacity=0.3,name path=rp195] (r) -- (p195);
\draw [Orange,opacity=0.3,name path=rp215] (r) -- (p215);
\draw [Orange,opacity=0.3,name path=rp235] (r) -- (p235);
\draw [gray,opacity=0.3,name path=rp255] (r) -- ($(r)!1.5!(p255)$);
\draw [gray,opacity=0.3,name path=rp275] (r) -- ($(r)!1.7!(p275)$);
\draw [gray,opacity=0.3,name path=rp335] (r) -- ($(r)!1.3!(p335)$);
\draw [Orange,opacity=0.3] (r) -- (p355);
\draw [Orange,opacity=0.3,name path=rp15] (r) -- (p15);
\draw [Orange,opacity=0.3,name path=rp35] (r) -- (p35);
\draw [Orange,opacity=0.3,name path=rp55] (r) -- (p55);
\fill [black,name intersections={of=rimg0 and rp75,by={ri75a,ri75b}}] (ri75b) circle [radius=1.25pt];
\fill [black,name intersections={of=rimg0 and rp95,by={ri95a,ri95b}}] (ri95b) circle [radius=1.25pt];
\fill [black,name intersections={of=rimg0 and rp135,by={ri135a,ri135b}}] (ri135a) circle [radius=1.25pt];
\fill [black,name intersections={of=rimg0 and rp155,by={ri155a,ri155b}}] (ri155a) circle [radius=1.25pt];
\fill [black,name intersections={of=rimg0 and rp175,by={ri175a,ri175b}}] (ri175a) circle [radius=1.25pt];
\fill [black,name intersections={of=rimg0 and rp195,by={ri195a,ri195b}}] (ri195a) circle [radius=1.25pt];
\fill [black,name intersections={of=rimg0 and rp215,by={ri215}}] (ri215) circle [radius=1.25pt];
\fill (rp115) circle [radius=1.25pt];
\fill [Orange,name intersections={of=rimg1 and rp255,by={ri255}}] (ri255) circle [radius=2pt];
\fill [black,name intersections={of=rimg1 and rp275,by={ri275}}] (ri275) circle [radius=1.25pt];
\fill [Orange,name intersections={of=rimg2 and rp335,by={ri335}}] (ri335) circle [radius=2pt];
\fill [black,name intersections={of=rimg0 and rp15,by={ri15a,ri15b}}] (ri15b) circle [radius=1.25pt];
\fill [black,name intersections={of=rimg0 and rp35,by={ri35a,ri35b}}] (ri35b) circle [radius=1.25pt];
\fill [black,name intersections={of=rimg0 and rp55,by={ri55a,ri55b}}] (ri55b) circle [radius=1.25pt];
\draw [dashed,thick,Magenta,name path=simg] ($(p235)!2!(p355)$) -- ($(p355)!2!(p235)$);
\draw [Magenta,very thick] (p235) -- (p355);
\draw [Magenta,opacity=0.3,name path=sp75] (p275) -- (p75);
\draw [Magenta,opacity=0.3,name path=sp95] (p275) -- (p95);
\draw [Magenta,opacity=0.3,name path=sp115] (p275) -- (p115);
\draw [Magenta,opacity=0.3,name path=sp135] (p275) -- (p135);
\draw [Magenta,opacity=0.3,name path=sp155] (p275) -- (p155);
\draw [Magenta,opacity=0.3,name path=sp175] (p275) -- (p175);
\draw [Magenta,opacity=0.3,name path=sp195] (p275) -- (p195);
\draw [Magenta,opacity=0.3,name path=sp215] (p275) -- (p215);
\draw [Magenta,opacity=0.3] (p275) -- (p235);
\draw [gray,opacity=0.3,name path=sp255] (p275) -- ($(p275)!3!(p255)$);
\draw [gray,opacity=0.3,name path=sp315] (p275) -- ($(p275)!3!(p315)$);
\draw [gray,opacity=0.3,name path=sp335] (p275) -- ($(p275)!1.6!(p335)$);
\draw [Magenta,opacity=0.3] (p275) -- (p355);
\draw [Magenta,opacity=0.3,name path=sp15] (p275) -- (p15);
\draw [Magenta,opacity=0.3,name path=sp35] (p275) -- (p35);
\draw [Magenta,opacity=0.3,name path=sp55] (p275) -- (p55);
\fill [name intersections={of=simg and sp75,by={si75}}] (si75) circle [radius=1.25pt];
\fill [name intersections={of=simg and sp95,by={si95}}] (si95) circle [radius=1.25pt];
\fill [name intersections={of=simg and sp115,by={si115}}] (si115) circle [radius=1.25pt];
\fill [name intersections={of=simg and sp135,by={si135}}] (si135) circle [radius=1.25pt];
\fill [name intersections={of=simg and sp155,by={si155}}] (si155) circle [radius=1.25pt];
\fill [name intersections={of=simg and sp175,by={si175}}] (si175) circle [radius=1.25pt];
\fill [name intersections={of=simg and sp195,by={si195}}] (si195) circle [radius=1.25pt];
\fill [name intersections={of=simg and sp215,by={si215}}] (si215) circle [radius=1.25pt];
\fill [Magenta,name intersections={of=simg and sp255,by={si255}}] (si255) circle [radius=2pt];
\fill [name intersections={of=simg and sp315,by={si315}}] (si315) circle [radius=1.25pt];
\fill [Magenta,name intersections={of=simg and sp335,by={si335}}] (si335) circle [radius=2pt];
\fill [name intersections={of=simg and sp15,by={si15}}] (si15) circle [radius=1.25pt];
\fill [name intersections={of=simg and sp35,by={si35}}] (si35) circle [radius=1.25pt];
\fill [name intersections={of=simg and sp55,by={si55}}] (si55) circle [radius=1.25pt];
\fill [BrickRed] (p235) circle [radius=2pt];
\fill [BrickRed] (p355) circle [radius=2pt];
\node [anchor=east] at (r) {$R$};
\node [anchor=north] at (p275) {$R'$};
\node [anchor=south east] at (p235) {$P_{12}^+$};
\node [anchor=south east] at (p355) {$P_{13}^+$};
\node [anchor=north east] at (p255) {$P_{12}^-$};
\node [anchor=north west] at (p335) {$P_{13}^-$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Images of a $1$-face ($\overline{P_{12}^+P_{13}^+}$) of the generalized simplex for different rationalizations. With \eqref{eq:rationalization0} and $U_i=P_{1i}^+$ we use points on $\overline{P_{12}^+P_{13}^+P_{14}^+}$ to parameterize the $\mathbb{CP}^2$ space of projection lines. The red path refers to the $1$-face, and the corresponding dashed circle denotes the curve where this path is restricted to, which is the intersection $Q\cap\overline{V_1V_2V_3}$. The orange path denotes the image of this $1$-face in the rationalization with a generic reference $R\in Q$. The magenta path denotes the image when the reference is chosen as $R'\in Q\cap\overline{V_1V_2V_3}$.}
\label{fig:rationalizationchoice}
\end{figure}
Fortunately, the above picture for the source of curvy faces simultaneously suggests a way of simplification. Because the original $1$-face $\overline{P_{12}^+P_{13}^+}$ entirely lives inside the hyperplane $\overline{V_1V_2V_3}$, as long as $R$ resides on the same hyperplane ($R'$ in Figure \ref{fig:rationalizationchoice}) every projection line relevant for this $1$-face will also be entirely restricted within this hyperplane. Consequently the image of $\overline{P_{12}^+P_{13}^+}$ turns into a path inside a line (a degree-$1$ curve) in $\mathbb{CP}^2$ (with the parameterization in \eqref{eq:rationalization0} this subspace is spanned by $P_{12}^+$ and $P_{13}^+$). Similar simplification holds for the other $1$-faces as well as long as $R$ is properly chosen.
In the extreme case we can chosen $R$ to reside on a $1$-face of $\Delta$, so that the rationalization image of only one $1$-face remains to live on higher-degree curves in $\mathbb{CP}^2$. Recall that the line of a $1$-face of $\Delta$ intersects the quadric at two point, one of which already serves as a $0$-face of the contour on the quadric, so we can choose the other to be $R$. Without loss of generality here we identify $R=P_{12}^-$, and the relation \eqref{eq:rationalization0} is fixed to
\begin{equation}\label{eq:rationalization1}
X\equiv [x_0:x_2:x_3:x_4]=tP_{12}^-+y_2P_{12}^++y_3P_{13}^++y_4P_{14}^+.
\end{equation}
Following the rationalization procedure described above we thus obtain the map (note that because $[x_0:x_2:x_3:x_4]$ are homogeneous coordinates, the map allows an overall scale, by which we can make RHS of the map purely polynomials.)
\begin{align}
\label{eq:x0toy}x_0&=i\Big(2(1-t_1^2)^3y_2^2+(1+t_1^2)^2(1+p_2-t_1^2+p_2t_1^2)y_3^2+(1-t_1^2)(1+t_1^2)^2y_4^2\nonumber\\
&\quad+2(1-t_1^4)(1+p_2-t_1^2+p_2t_1^2)y_2y_3+2(1-t_1^2)^2(1+t_1^2)y_2y_4\nonumber\\
&\quad+(1+t_1^2)^2((1+p_3)(1-t_1^2)+p_2(1+t_1^2))y_3y_4\Big),\\
\label{eq:x2toy}x_2&=2(1-t_1^2)^2y_2^2+(1-p_3)(1+t_1^2)^2y_3y_4+2(1-t_1^4)y_2(y_3+y_4),\\
x_3&=y_3\left(2(1-t_1^2)^2y_2+(1+t_1^2)(1+p_2-t_1^2+p_2t_1^2)y_3+(1-t_1^4)y_4\right),\\
x_4&=y_4\left(2(1-t_1^2)^2y_2+(1+t_1^2)(1+p_2-t_1^2+p_2t_1^2)y_3+(1-t_1^4)y_4\right),
\end{align}
Here we explicitly see the map is quadratic in $Y$, confirming that the new $\mathbb{CP}^2$ provides a double cover for the quotient space directly from the point projection through $V_1$. Note the last two lines show that $x_i\propto y_i$ for $i=3,4$. This is an indication that the images of the contour faces $x_i=0$ ($i=3,4$) are also flat, defined by the equation $y_i=0$. These faces are adjacent to the vertex $[1:0:0]$. Therefore the $Y$ coordinates provides are natural fibration of the contour in terms of lines through $[1:0:0]$, and the contour for $[y_3:y_4]$ (the segment between $[1:0]$ and $[0:1]$) is independent of $y_2$ (see Figure \ref{fig:rationalizationimage}). On the other hand, the remaining boundary, $x_2=0$, defines a non-trivial quadric by \eqref{eq:x2toy} in $Y$ space. This solves $y_2$ to be
\begin{equation}\label{eq:y2pmsolution}
y_2^\pm=\frac{1+t_1^2}{1-t_1^2}\left(-y_3-y_4\pm\sqrt{y_3^2+2p_3y_3y_4+y_4^2}\right).
\end{equation}
Only one of the solutions corresponds to the actual boundary of the contour. To find which one it is, we can plug them back into the above rationalization transform and work out the coordinates $X\equiv[x_0:x_2:x_3:x_4]$ as a function of $[y_3:y_4]$, and require that this expression reduces to the correct vertices in the limits
\begin{equation}
\lim_{[y_3:y_4]\to[1:0]}X(y_3,y_4)=P_{13}^+,\qquad
\lim_{[y_3:y_4]\to[0:1]}X(y_3,y_4)=P_{14}^+.
\end{equation}
(These identities should be understood with a freedom in the overall scale.) This determines that $y_2^+$ is the correct boundary. Therefore on each fibre specified by the pair $[y_3:y_4]$ the contour for $y_2$ is from $y_2=y_2^+(y_3,y_4)$ to $y_2=\infty$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\clip (-3.5,-2.25) rectangle +(6,4.5);
\draw [dashed,thick,BrickRed,name path=QH] (0,0) circle [radius=1.5];
\coordinate [label={-90:$P_{12}^+$}] (p12p) at (-2.5,0);
\foreach \i in {-20,-10,...,20,150,160,...,210}
\draw [BrickRed,opacity=0.8] (p12p) -- +(\i:6);
\foreach \i in {40,50,...,140,220,230,...,320}
\draw [gray,opacity=0.3] (p12p) -- +(\i:6);
\draw [BrickRed,opacity=0.8,name path=l13] (p12p) -- +(-30:6);
\draw [BrickRed,opacity=0.8,name path=l14] (p12p) -- +(30:6);
\fill [BrickRed,name intersections={of=QH and l13,by={p13p,p13m}}] (p13m) circle [radius=2pt];
\fill [BrickRed,name intersections={of=QH and l14,by={p14m,p14p}}] (p14m) circle [radius=2pt];
\fill [BrickRed,opacity=0.6] (p13p) arc [start angle=206.5,end angle=153.5,radius=1.5] -- (p12p) -- cycle;
\fill [BrickRed] (p12p) circle [radius=2pt];
\fill [BrickRed] (p13p) circle [radius=2pt];
\fill [BrickRed] (p14p) circle [radius=2pt];
\draw [BrickRed,very thick] (p13p) arc [start angle=206.5,end angle=153.5,radius=1.5] -- (p12p) -- cycle;
\draw [BrickRed,very thick,opacity=0.4] (p13m) arc [start angle=-86.5,end angle=86.5,radius=1.5];
\node [anchor=north east] at (p13p) {$P_{13}^+$};
\node [anchor=south east] at (p14p) {$P_{14}^+$};
\node [anchor=north] at (p13m) {$P_{13}^-$};
\node [anchor=south] at (p14m) {$P_{14}^-$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Contour on $\mathbb{CP}^2$ after rationalization wrst $P_{12}^-$. All the $1$-faces live on lines through $P_{12}^+$, except for $\overline{P_{13}^+P_{14}^+}$ (which is dual to $P_{12}^+$). This unique $1$-face is restricted to a quadric (represented by the dashed curve), which is in fact the image of $Q\cap\overline{V_1V_3V_4}$. Detailed geometry of this $1$-face is encoded in the solution $y_2^+$ in \eqref{eq:y2pmsolution}. The other solution $y_2^-$ corresponds to a path linking $P_{13}^-$ and $P_{14}^-$, and is not the actual $1$-face.}
\label{fig:rationalizationimage}
\end{figure}
Now we use this rationalization transformation to rewrite the discontinuity integral \eqref{eq:discintegrand0}. The new contour is already described in the above. Note that under this transform the volume elements are related by
\begin{align}
(x_2\mathrm{d}x_3\wedge\mathrm{d}x_4+\cdots)&=-2i(1-t_1^2)x_0(LY)\langle Y\mathrm{d}Y^2\rangle,\\
L&=[2(1-t_1^2)^2:(1+t_1^2)(1+p_2-t_1^2+p_2t_1^2):(1-t_1^4)].
\end{align}
So \eqref{eq:discintegrand0} becomes
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{Disc}_{V_1}^{+++}I=-2iq(1-t_1^2)(1+t_1^2)^3\int\frac{(LY)\,\langle Y\mathrm{d}Y^2\rangle}{x_0^2},
\end{equation}
where $x_0$ is to be replaced by RHS of \eqref{eq:x0toy}, which is a quadric in $Y$. It is known that integrands of the above form are exact forms in general, and so can be localized onto codim-$1$ boundaries of the contour via Stokes' theorem \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2017ahv}. In fact, the situation here is much more special: it turns out to be a total derivative of $y_2$, the variable on each fibre in the above natural fibration of the contour! From the geometric point of view this means, when localizing this exact form onto the boundaries, only the unique curvy boundary yields non-zero contribution. Due to this phenomenon we can directly integrate $y_2$ away (recall its integration domain is $[y_2^+,\infty]$), and obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq:discintegrand1}
\begin{split}
\mathrm{Disc}_{V_1}^{+++}I=\int\frac{-iq(1+t_1^2)(y_3\mathrm{d}y_4-y_4\mathrm{d}y_3)}{(1-t_1^2)(y_3^2+y_4^2)+y_3\left(2p_3(1-t_1^2)y_4+p_2(1+t_1^2)\sqrt{y_3^2+2p_3y_3y_4+y_4^2}\right)},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where the contour is the canonical $1$-simplex (in the quotient space of $\mathbb{CP}^2$ against lines through $P_{12}^+$). The appearance of a new square root is not surprising, since this integration is local to the degree-$2$ in Figure \ref{fig:rationalizationimage}. In order to perform the remaining integral correctly we again need to figure out on which Riemann sheet the two $0$-faces reside. First we resolve the square root by introducing a variable $y_0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ycurverefine}
(y_3^2+2p_3y_3y_4+y_4^2)-y_0^2=0.
\end{equation}
This represents the same quadric in Figure \ref{fig:rationalizationimage}, but using a different parameterization $[y_0:y_3:y_4]$ which is related to the original one by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ycoordredef}
Y\equiv[y_2:y_3:y_4]=\frac{(1+t_1^2)}{2(1-t_1^2)}y_0[1:0:0]+y_3\left[-\frac{(1+t_1^2)}{2(1-t_1^2)}:1:0\right]+y_4\left[-\frac{(1+t_1^2)}{2(1-t_1^2)}:0:1\right].
\end{equation}
This can be checked by the fact that plugging it into \eqref{eq:x2toy}$=0$ yields the equation \eqref{eq:ycurverefine}. In the original $Y$ coordinates the vertices locate at $[0:1:0]$ and $[0:0:1]$. Substituting these values into LHS of \eqref{eq:ycoordredef}, we can then confirm that in terms of the new coordinates $[y_0:y_3:y_4]$ these $0$-faces are at $[1:1:0]$ and $[1:0:1]$ respectively, which then uniquely defines the integral \eqref{eq:discintegrand1}. When actually performing the integral \eqref{eq:discintegrand1} we apply a further rationalization to the dim-$1$ quadric \eqref{eq:ycurverefine}, similar to what we did before. This gives rise to an ordinary $\mathbb{CP}^1$ integral and translating $t_1$ back into the parameter $p_1$ we finally obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq:discontinuityresult1}
\mathrm{Disc}_{V_1}^{+++}I=\log\frac{(p_3+1)\sqrt{1-p_1^2}+p_2+q}{(p_3+1)\sqrt{1-p_1^2}+p_2-q}.
\end{equation}
Therefore its symbol is just the ratio inside the log
\begin{equation}\label{eq:disc1ppp}
\mathcal{S}[\mathrm{Disc}_{V_1}^{+++}I]=\otimes\frac{(p_3+1)\sqrt{1-p_1^2}+p_2+q}{(p_3+1)\sqrt{1-p_1^2}+p_2-q}\equiv\otimes r_1^{+++}.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Symbol Construction}
The analysis presented in the previous subsection can straightforwardly apply to the computation of other discontinuities. Especially, for the remaining $7$ types of discontinuities associated to vertex $V_1$ they are worked out to be
\begin{align}
\mathcal{S}[\mathrm{Disc}_{V_1}^{+-+}I]&=\otimes\frac{(p_3-1)\sqrt{1-p_1^2}+p_2+q}{(p_3-1)\sqrt{1-p_1^2}+p_2-q}\equiv\otimes r_1^{+-+},\\
\mathcal{S}[\mathrm{Disc}_{V_1}^{++-}I]&=\otimes\frac{(p_3-1)\sqrt{1-p_1^2}-p_2+q}{(p_3-1)\sqrt{1-p_1^2}-p_2-q}\equiv\otimes r_1^{++-},\\
\label{eq:disc1pmm}\mathcal{S}[\mathrm{Disc}_{V_1}^{+--}I]&=\otimes\frac{(p_3+1)\sqrt{1-p_1^2}-p_2+q}{(p_3+1)\sqrt{1-p_1^2}-p_2-q}\equiv\otimes r_1^{+--},
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
\mathcal{S}[\mathrm{Disc}_{V_1}^{-,m_3,m_4}I]&=-\mathcal{S}[\mathrm{Disc}_{V_1}^{+,-m_3,-m_4}I]=\otimes\frac{1}{r^{+,-m_3,-m_4}}\equiv\otimes r_1^{-,m_3,m_4},
\end{align}
where $m_3,m_4$ are individually either $+$ or $-$.
Discontinuities associated to other vertices can be computed analogously. We use similar notations to represent them, where the sequence of three signs is to be understood in lexicographic order, e.g., in $\mathrm{Disc}_{V_2}^{m_1,m_3,m_4}$ the sign $m_i$ specifies the singularity point on $\overline{V_2V_i}$. With this convention, the result from the $V_2$ projection is
\begin{align}
\mathcal{S}[\mathrm{Disc}_{V_2}^{+++}]&=\otimes\frac{(p_3+\sqrt{1-p_2^2})\sqrt{1-p_1^2}+p_1p_2-q}{(p_3+\sqrt{1-p_2^2})\sqrt{1-p_1^2}+p_1p_2+q}\equiv\otimes r_2^{+++},\\
\mathcal{S}[\mathrm{Disc}_{V_2}^{+-+}]&=\otimes\frac{(p_3-\sqrt{1-p_2^2})\sqrt{1-p_1^2}+p_1p_2-q}{(p_3-\sqrt{1-p_2^2})\sqrt{1-p_1^2}+p_1p_2+q}\equiv\otimes r_2^{+-+},\\
\mathcal{S}[\mathrm{Disc}_{V_2}^{++-}]&=\otimes\frac{(p_3-\sqrt{1-p_2^2})\sqrt{1-p_1^2}-p_1p_2-q}{(p_3-\sqrt{1-p_2^2})\sqrt{1-p_1^2}-p_1p_2+q}\equiv\otimes r_2^{++-},\\
\mathcal{S}[\mathrm{Disc}_{V_2}^{+--}]&=\otimes\frac{(p_3+\sqrt{1-p_2^2})\sqrt{1-p_1^2}-p_1p_2-q}{(p_3+\sqrt{1-p_2^2})\sqrt{1-p_1^2}-p_1p_2+q}\equiv\otimes r_2^{+--},\\
\mathcal{S}[\mathrm{Disc}_{V_2}^{-,m_3,m_4}]&=\otimes\frac{1}{r_2^{+,-m_3,-m_4}}\equiv\otimes r_2^{-,m_3,m_4},\qquad \forall m_3,m_4.
\end{align}
For the $V_3$ projection we have
\begin{align}
\mathcal{S}[\mathrm{Disc}_{V_3}^{+++}]&=\otimes\frac{(p_1+\sqrt{1-p_2^2})\sqrt{1-p_3^2}+p_2p_3+q}{(p_1+\sqrt{1-p_2^2})\sqrt{1-p_3^2}+p_2p_3-q}\equiv\otimes r_3^{+++},\\
\mathcal{S}[\mathrm{Disc}_{V_3}^{+-+}]&=\otimes\frac{(p_1-\sqrt{1-p_2^2})\sqrt{1-p_3^2}+p_2p_3+q}{(p_1-\sqrt{1-p_2^2})\sqrt{1-p_3^2}+p_2p_3-q}\equiv\otimes r_3^{+-+},\\
\mathcal{S}[\mathrm{Disc}_{V_3}^{++-}]&=\otimes\frac{(p_1+\sqrt{1-p_2^2})\sqrt{1-p_3^2}-p_2p_3-q}{(p_1+\sqrt{1-p_2^2})\sqrt{1-p_3^2}-p_2p_3+q}\equiv\otimes r_3^{++-},\\
\mathcal{S}[\mathrm{Disc}_{V_3}^{+--}]&=\otimes\frac{(p_1-\sqrt{1-p_2^2})\sqrt{1-p_3^2}-p_2p_3-q}{(p_1-\sqrt{1-p_2^2})\sqrt{1-p_3^2}-p_2p_3+q}\equiv\otimes r_3^{+--},\\
\mathcal{S}[\mathrm{Disc}_{V_3}^{-,m_2,m_4}]&=\otimes\frac{1}{r_3^{+,-m_2,-m_4}}\equiv\otimes r_3^{-,m_2,m_4},\qquad \forall m_2,m_4.
\end{align}
And finally the $V_4$ projection yields
\begin{align}
\mathcal{S}[\mathrm{Disc}_{V_4}^{+++}]&=\otimes\frac{(p_1+1)\sqrt{1-p_3^2}+p_2-q}{(p_1+1)\sqrt{1-p_3^2}+p_2+q}\equiv\otimes r_4^{+++},\\
\mathcal{S}[\mathrm{Disc}_{V_4}^{+-+}]&=\otimes\frac{(p_1-1)\sqrt{1-p_3^2}+p_2-q}{(p_1-1)\sqrt{1-p_3^2}+p_2+q}\equiv\otimes r_4^{+-+},\\
\mathcal{S}[\mathrm{Disc}_{V_4}^{++-}]&=\otimes\frac{(p_1+1)\sqrt{1-p_3^2}-p_2+q}{(p_1+1)\sqrt{1-p_3^2}-p_2-q}\equiv\otimes r_4^{++-},\\
\mathcal{S}[\mathrm{Disc}_{V_4}^{+--}]&=\otimes\frac{(p_1-1)\sqrt{1-p_3^2}-p_2+q}{(p_1-1)\sqrt{1-p_3^2}-p_2-q}\equiv\otimes r_4^{+--},\\
\label{eq:disc4m}\mathcal{S}[\mathrm{Disc}_{V_4}^{-,m_2,m_3}]&=\otimes\frac{1}{r_4^{+,-m_2,-m_3}}\equiv\otimes r_4^{-,m_2,m_3},\qquad \forall m_2,m_3.
\end{align}
According to the discussion of Aomoto polylogarithms in Section \ref{sec:projection}, once we know all the first entries of all the discontinuities at every level there is a chance to construct the symbol completely. Now we have collected all the necessary data according to this criteria, let us inspect whether they are sufficient to fully construct the symbol $\mathcal{S}[I]$ \eqref{eq:symbolquadricCP3} of the correct example.
From the above results we can first observe the integral $I$ expects to be a pure function of weight $2$. Using the first entries worked out at the beginning we can setup an ansatz for its symbol in the same way as that in Aomoto polylogarithms
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{S}[I]=\sum_{1\leq i<j\leq4}\left(f_{ij}^+\otimes s_{ij}^++f_{ij}^-\otimes s_{ij}^-\right),
\end{equation}
where $\{f_{12}^\pm,f_{23}^\pm,f_{34}^\pm\}$ are given in \eqref{eq:f12}\eqref{eq:f23f34}. As mentioned before $\{f_{13}^\pm,f_{14}^\pm,f_{24}^\pm\}$ are just numeric values and the corresponding terms can be omitted in the end, but for the time being these terms have to be included in order to take care of discontinuities in the most general possibility, as is required by the discontinuity integrals in our definition.
When studying the symbol of a specific discontinuity, $\mathcal{S}[\mathrm{Disc}_{V_i}^{m_j,m_k,m_l}I]$, only the terms with first entries $\{f_{ij}^{m_j},f_{ik}^{m_k},f_{il}^{m_l}\}$ contribute. According to our convention for the first entries set at the beginning, $f_{ij}^{m_j}=0$ corresponds to the situation when $V_{\min(i,j)}$ hits $P_{ij}^{m_j}$, while $f_{ij}^{m_j}=\infty$ when $V_{\max(i,j)}$ hits $P_{ij}^{m_j}$ (same holds for $k,l$ as well). Therefore we have the following equations for the second entries
\begin{align}
r_1^{m_2,m_3,m_4}&=s_{12}^{m_2}s_{13}^{m_3}s_{14}^{m_4},&\forall m_2,m_3,m_4,\\
r_2^{m_1,m_3,m_4}&=\frac{s_{23}^{m_3}s_{24}^{m_4}}{s_{12}^{m_1}},&\forall m_1,m_3,m_4,\\
r_3^{m_1,m_2,m_4}&=\frac{s_{34}^{m_4}}{s_{13}^{m_1}s_{23}^{m_2}},&\forall m_1,m_2,m_4,\\
r_4^{m_1,m_2,m_3}&=\frac{1}{s_{14}^{m_1}s_{24}^{m_2}s_{34}^{m_3}},&\forall m_1,m_2,m_3.
\end{align}
As easily seen from these equations, in order that they simultaneously hold the second entries $r_i^{m_j,m_k,m_l}$ have to satisfy various relations. They fall into two types:
\begin{itemize}
\item For each vertex $V_i$ we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:relationI}\frac{r_i^{m,+,+}r_i^{m,-,-}}{r_i^{m,+,-}r_i^{m,-,+}}=1,\quad
\frac{r_i^{+,m,+}r_i^{-,m,-}}{r_i^{+,m,-}r_i^{-,m,+}}=1,\quad
\frac{r_i^{+,+,m}r_i^{-,-,m}}{r_i^{+,-,m}r_i^{-,+,m}}=1,\quad\forall m.
\end{equation}
Given that in this case we always have $r_i^{m_j,m_k,m_l}=1/r^{-m_j,-m_k,-m_l}$, there is only one independent relation among the above for each vertex $V_i$.
\item For each pair of vertices we have
\begin{align}
\label{eq:relationII}&\frac{r_1^{+,j,k}}{r_1^{-,j,k}}\frac{r_2^{+,m,n}}{r_2^{-,m,n}}=1,\qquad
\frac{r_1^{j,+,k}}{r_1^{j,-,k}}\frac{r_3^{+,m,n}}{r_3^{-,m,n}}=1,\qquad
\frac{r_1^{j,k,+}}{r_1^{j,k,-}}\frac{r_4^{+,m,n}}{r_4^{-,m,n}}=1,\nonumber\\
&\frac{r_2^{j,+,k}}{r_2^{j,-,k}}\frac{r_3^{m,+,n}}{r_3^{m,-,n}}=1,\qquad
\frac{r_2^{j,k,+}}{r_2^{j,k,-}}\frac{r_4^{m,+,n}}{r_4^{m,-,n}}=1,\qquad
\frac{r_3^{j,k,+}}{r_3^{j,k,-}}\frac{r_4^{m,n,+}}{r_4^{m,n,-}}=1,
\end{align}
for any choice of signs in $j,k,m,n$.
\end{itemize}
These relations may serve as a consistency check for the discontinuity computations, and indeed they hold with the results listed from \eqref{eq:disc1ppp} to \eqref{eq:disc4m}! This is a non-trivial check, as the $r_i^{m_j,m_k,m_l}$'s were computed using very differrent contours. Solving these equations yields
\begin{equation}\label{eq:solutionsec4}
\begin{split}
&s_{12}^+=\frac{r_1^{+++}}{r_1^{-++}}s_{12}^-,\qquad\quad\;\,
s_{13}^+=\frac{r_1^{+++}}{r_1^{+-+}}s_{13}^-,\qquad
s_{14}^+=\frac{1}{r_1^{++-}}\frac{1}{s_{12}^-s_{13}^-},\\
&s_{14}^-=\frac{1}{r_1^{+++}}\frac{1}{s_{12}^-s_{13}^-},\qquad
s_{23}^+=\frac{r_2^{+++}}{r_2^{+-+}}s_{23}^-,\qquad
s_{24}^+=\frac{1}{r_2^{++-}}\frac{s_{12}^-}{s_{23}^-},\\
&s_{24}^-=\frac{1}{r_2^{+++}}\frac{s_{12}^-}{s_{23}^-},\qquad\quad\;\,
s_{34}^+=\frac{1}{r_3^{++-}}\frac{s_{13}^-}{s_{23}^-}\qquad
s_{34}^-=\frac{1}{r_3^{+++}}\frac{s_{13}^-}{s_{23}^-}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Three variables from the ansatz are left free. This is quite similar to the situation we already observed in Aomoto polylogarithms. Because in this example the first entries satisfy
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ff1}
f_{ij}^+f_{ij}^-=1,\qquad \forall i\neq j,
\end{equation}
the dependence on these variables completely cancel within each pair of symbol terms $f_{ij}^+\otimes s_{ij}^++f_{ij}^-\otimes s_{ij}^-$. Therefore the symbol $\mathcal{S}[I]$ is fully determined.
In fact, \eqref{eq:ff1} also implies that $f_{ij}^+/f_{ij}^-=(f_{ij}^+)^2=(f_{ij}^-)^{-2}$, by which we can rewrite the symbol into
\begin{equation}\label{eq:symbolcomputesec4}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{S}[\Lambda]&=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{1\leq i<j\leq4}\frac{f_{ij}^+}{f_{ij}^-}\otimes\frac{s_{ij}^+}{s_{ij}^-}\\
&=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{f_{12}^+}{f_{12}^-}\otimes\frac{r_1^{+++}}{r_1^{-++}}+\frac{f_{23}^+}{f_{23}^-}\otimes\frac{r_2^{+++}}{r_2^{+-+}}+\frac{f_{34}^+}{f_{34}^-}\otimes\frac{r_3^{+++}}{r_3^{++-}}\right).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The second line above is obtained by plugging in the solution \eqref{eq:solutionsec4}, and we have omitted terms whose first entries are purely numeric. We see the undetermined variables automatically drop away. By a slight computation using our results for the discontinuities we find
\begin{align}
\frac{r_1^{+++}}{r_1^{-++}}=\frac{p_3\sqrt{1-p_1^2}+q}{p_3\sqrt{1-p_1^2}-q},\quad
\frac{r_2^{+++}}{r_2^{+-+}}=\frac{p_1p_2p_3+q\sqrt{1-p_2^2}}{p_1p_2p_3-q\sqrt{1-p_2^2}},\quad
\frac{r_3^{+++}}{r_3^{++-}}=\frac{p_1\sqrt{1-p_3^2}+q}{p_1\sqrt{1-p_3^2}-q}.
\end{align}
Therefore the result \eqref{eq:symbolcomputesec4} recovers the expected $\mathcal{S}[I]$ in \eqref{eq:symbolquadricCP3}. As observed in Section \ref{sec:grt}, terms whose first entries associate to a particular $1$-face should sum to zero after the first entries are chopped, due to the global residue theorem on individual fibres. In \eqref{eq:symbolcomputesec4} this is obvious, as the first entries $f_{ij}^+$ and $f_{ij}^-$ from $\overline{V_iV_j}$ already form a ratio $f_{ij}^+/f_{ij}^-$.
\section{Generalized Simplexes in Higher Dimensions}\label{sec:higherdim}
In the analysis of the previous example in $\mathbb{CP}^3$, \eqref{eq:egCP3a}\eqref{eq:egCP3b}, we already observed that the residue contour for the discontinuity computation effectively puts the remaining integrals on an irreducible singularity curve (in that case a $2$-dimensional quadric). The resulting contour is not a simplex in the usual sense, and to distinguish we named it a generalized simplex. The detailed geometries of such contour heavily depends on the projection and the singularity curve under study. In that example because the dimension is sufficiently low it is easy to perform the direct integration as we did, which leads to log functions. However, for integrals in higher dimensions similar generalized simplex contours expect to generate functions of higher transcendental weights. According to our strategy illustrated so far we need to understand how to extract first entries as well as discontinuities from such integrals.
In this section we illustrate the proper treatment to this problem using an explicit example in $\mathbb{CP}^4$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:exampleCP4}
I=\int_\Delta\frac{3q\langle X\mathrm{d}X^4\rangle}{(XQX)^{5/2}},\qquad q=\sqrt{\det Q},
\end{equation}
where the quadric is defined by
\begin{equation}
Q=\left(\begin{matrix}1&c_1&c_2&c_3&c_4\\c_1&1&0&0&0\\c_2&0&1&0&0\\c_3&0&0&1&0\\c_4&0&0&0&1\end{matrix}\right).
\end{equation}
The integral contour has the shape of the canonical $4$-simplex in the $X$ space. Note the integrand now already contains square root branch points. So the integration domain is in fact a double cover of $\mathbb{CP}^4$, which can be represented by the quadric
\begin{equation}\label{eq:singularityCP5}
XQX-x_0^2=0,
\end{equation}
embedded in $\mathbb{CP}^5$ and we have to specify which Riemann sheet the simplex' $0$-faces reside on. In this example we choose them to be
\begin{equation}
V_i=[\underbrace{1}_{x_0}:\underbrace{0:\cdots:0}_{i-1}:1:0:\cdots:0],\qquad i=1,2,\ldots,5.
\end{equation}
In analogy to \eqref{eq:discintegrand0} this integral can be viewed as a discontinuity of an integral with quadric singularities \eqref{eq:singularityCP5} in $\mathbb{CP}^5$ (where we denote the extra $0$-face as $V_0=[1:0:0:0:0:0]$). Therefore the integrand in \eqref{eq:exampleCP4} expects to be an exact form. To see this explicitly we first perform a rationalization. Inspired by the previous discussions we can choose the reference point of rationalization to be the corresponding point of $V_1$ on the opposite Riemann sheet
\begin{equation}
R=[-1,1,0,0,0,0].
\end{equation}
We then introduce new coordinates $Y=[y_1:y_2:\ldots:y_5]$ by letting an arbitrary point to be spanned as
\begin{equation}
tR+\sum_{i=1}^5y_iV_i.
\end{equation}
Requiring this point to be on the quadric \eqref{eq:singularityCP5} uniquely solves $t$, which in turn yields a map from $Y$ space to the quadric. It turns out that again the new integrand is a total derivative in $y_1$. Furthermore, the new integral contour again receives a natural fibration by the $Y$ coordinates, in terms of lines through (image of) $V_1$ where each line is parameterized by $y_1$. In particular, its $3$-faces that are adjacent to $V_1$ are restricted to hyperplanes and are automatically fibrated in analogous ways. The only curvy $3$-face is the one dual to $V_1$, which is restricted to
\begin{equation}
y_1=\frac{1}{2}\left(-y_2-y_3-y_4-y_5+y_0\right),\qquad y_0\equiv\sqrt{y_2^2+y_3^2+y_4^2+y_5^2}.
\end{equation}
After integrating $y_1$ we then have an integral in $\mathbb{CP}^3$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:afterRI}
I=-q\int\frac{(2y_0+c_1y_2+c_2y_3+c_3y_4+c_4y_5)\,\langle Y'\mathrm{d}{Y'}^3\rangle}{y_0^3(y_0+c_1y_2+c_2y_3+c_3y_4+c_4y_5)^2},
\end{equation}
where $Y'=[y_2:y_3:y_4:y_5]$. In terms of the $Y'$ coordinates the remaining integral contour is the ordinary canonical $3$-simplex. But because of the presence of branch points, this integral is defined on a double cover of $\mathbb{CP}^3$ and so one has to figure out the correct Riemann sheet where the contour's $0$-faces reside. As discussed before this can be resolved by thinking about \eqref{eq:afterRI} as really being defined on the quadric
\begin{equation}\label{eq:seedQ}
\mathcal{C}_0\equiv y_2^2+y_3^2+y_4^2+y_5^2-y_0^2=0
\end{equation}
in $\mathbb{CP}^4$. One can easily find the corresponding contour has its four $0$-faces anchored at (the coordinates refer to $[y_0:y_2:y_3:y_4:y_5]$)
\begin{equation}
V_2:\,[1:1:0:0:0],\quad
V_3:\,[1:0:1:0:0],\quad
V_4:\,[1:0:0:1:0],\quad
V_5:\,[1:0:0:0:1].
\end{equation}
Now this contour is a generalized simplex with curvy $1$- and $2$-faces, since it entirely lives inside a quadric. However, projections of these faces onto $Y'$ space have to be straight, since they emerge from the quadric intersecting $3$-faces of the original $4$-simplex that are adjacent to $V_0=[1:0:0:0:0]$.
\subsection{Fibration of Generalized Simplex}
At this stage there arise the main problem to be addressed in this section. The integrand in \eqref{eq:afterRI} is not an exact form and so the remaining integrals expect to create further logarithmic singularities. Following our general strategy the immediate task is to work out the first entries in $\mathcal{S}[I]$ and identify a proper set of discontinuities $\mathrm{Disc}I$. According to the analyses in previous examples the computation starts by choosing fibration with respect to a $0$-face of the contour, $V_i$. However, in the current integral the contour has curvy faces. If we set up fibration in the usual projective way using lines through $V_i$, the resulting integration will in general be quite complicated to perform. In the previous example, in particular in Figure \ref{fig:rationalizationimage} we already obtained some hint on a possible solution. There we saw that a properly chosen rationalization map leads to an image of the generalized simplex contour that is properly fibrated by lines. In the following we provide a more geometric explanation for this phenomenon and the corresponding general guidance on fibration of generalized simplexes.
In order to carry out analogous analysis as before, the fibration in need should meet the requirement that the contour induced in each fibre has one end joining at the common point $V_i$. Moreover, such fibration should also simultaneously induce analogous fibrations on each faces (with various dimensions) of the generalized simplex that are adjacent to $V_i$. In the extreme situation, this means that all the $1$-faces of the generalized simplex adjacent to $V_i$ should each live on a fibre in such fibration. Recall that in this example these faces are the intersections of some dim-$2$ hyperplanes through $V_0$ in $\mathbb{CP}^4$ and the quadric \eqref{eq:seedQ}, so naturally we expect this fibration to be a class of degree-$2$ curves through $V_i$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{scope}
\clip (-4,-4) rectangle +(8,8);
\draw [dashed,BrickRed] (0,-6) -- (0,6);
\fill [RoyalBlue,opacity=0.1] (0,0) circle [radius=2.5];
\draw [RoyalBlue,opacity=0.3] (0,0) circle [radius=2.5];
\coordinate (N) at (0,1.8);
\coordinate (S) at (0,-1.8);
\fill (N) circle [radius=0.25pt];
\fill (S) circle [radius=0.25pt];
\coordinate (v1) at (0,3.5);
\fill [BrickRed,opacity=0.03] (v1) -- (S) -- ++(-36:3.2) -- ($(v1)+(-36:3.2)$) -- cycle;
\draw [BrickRed,opacity=0.1] (v1) -- (S) -- ++(-36:3.2) -- ($(v1)+(-36:3.2)$) -- cycle;
\path [name path=h125] ($(v1)+(-36:3.2)$) -- +(-90:6);
\fill [BrickRed,opacity=0.03] (v1) -- (S) -- ++(-25.5:3.2) -- ($(v1)+(-25.5:3.2)$) -- cycle;
\draw [BrickRed,opacity=0.1] (v1) -- (S) -- ++(-25.5:3.2) -- ($(v1)+(-25.5:3.2)$) -- cycle;
\path [name path=h135] ($(v1)+(-25.5:3.2)$) -- +(-90:6);
\fill [BrickRed,opacity=0.03] (v1) -- (S) -- ++(-17:3.2) -- ($(v1)+(-17:3.2)$) -- cycle;
\draw [BrickRed,opacity=0.1] (v1) -- (S) -- ++(-17:3.2) -- ($(v1)+(-17:3.2)$) -- cycle;
\path [name path=h145] ($(v1)+(-17:3.2)$) -- +(-90:6);
\fill [BrickRed,opacity=0.03] (v1) -- (S) -- ++(-10.5:3.2) -- ($(v1)+(-10.5:3.2)$) -- cycle;
\draw [BrickRed,opacity=0.1] (v1) -- (S) -- ++(-10.5:3.2) -- ($(v1)+(-10.5:3.2)$) -- cycle;
\path [name path=h155] ($(v1)+(-10.5:3.2)$) -- +(-90:6);
\fill [BrickRed,opacity=0.03] (v1) -- (S) -- ++(-4.95:3.2) -- ($(v1)+(-4.95:3.2)$) -- cycle;
\draw [BrickRed,opacity=0.1] (v1) -- (S) -- ++(-4.95:3.2) -- ($(v1)+(-4.95:3.2)$) -- cycle;
\path [name path=h165] ($(v1)+(-4.95:3.2)$) -- +(-90:6);
\fill [BrickRed,opacity=0.03] (v1) -- (S) -- ++(-1:3.2) -- ($(v1)+(-1:3.2)$) -- cycle;
\draw [BrickRed,opacity=0.1] (v1) -- (S) -- ++(-1:3.2) -- ($(v1)+(-1:3.2)$) -- cycle;
\path [name path=h175] ($(v1)+(-1:3.2)$) -- +(-90:6);
\path [name path=v1v3] (v1) -- +(-69:7.5);
\path [name path=v1v4] (v1) -- +(-52:7.5);
\draw [gray,opacity=0.3,rotate=5] (0:2.5) arc [start angle=0,end angle=180,x radius=2.5,y radius=1.797];
\draw [gray,opacity=0.1,rotate=5] (0:2.5) arc [start angle=0,end angle=-180,x radius=2.5,y radius=1.797];
\draw [gray,opacity=0.3,rotate=15] (0:2.5) arc [start angle=0,end angle=180,x radius=2.5,y radius=1.771];
\draw [gray,opacity=0.1,rotate=15] (0:2.5) arc [start angle=0,end angle=-180,x radius=2.5,y radius=1.771];
\draw [gray,opacity=0.3,rotate=25] (0:2.5) arc [start angle=0,end angle=180,x radius=2.5,y radius=1.714];
\draw [gray,opacity=0.1,rotate=25] (0:2.5) arc [start angle=0,end angle=-180,x radius=2.5,y radius=1.714];
\draw [gray,opacity=0.3,rotate=35] (0:2.5) arc [start angle=0,end angle=180,x radius=2.5,y radius=1.621];
\draw [gray,opacity=0.1,rotate=35] (0:2.5) arc [start angle=0,end angle=-180,x radius=2.5,y radius=1.621];
\draw [gray,opacity=0.3,rotate=45] (0:2.5) arc [start angle=0,end angle=180,x radius=2.5,y radius=1.478];
\draw [gray,opacity=0.1,rotate=45] (0:2.5) arc [start angle=0,end angle=-180,x radius=2.5,y radius=1.478];
\draw [gray,opacity=0.3,rotate=55] (0:2.5) arc [start angle=0,end angle=180,x radius=2.5,y radius=1.28];
\draw [gray,opacity=0.1,rotate=55] (0:2.5) arc [start angle=0,end angle=-180,x radius=2.5,y radius=1.28];
\draw [gray,opacity=0.3,rotate=65] (0:2.5) arc [start angle=0,end angle=180,x radius=2.5,y radius=1.008];
\draw [gray,opacity=0.1,rotate=65] (0:2.5) arc [start angle=0,end angle=-180,x radius=2.5,y radius=1.008];
\draw [gray,opacity=0.3,rotate=75] (0:2.5) arc [start angle=0,end angle=180,x radius=2.5,y radius=0.65];
\draw [gray,opacity=0.1,rotate=75] (0:2.5) arc [start angle=0,end angle=-180,x radius=2.5,y radius=0.65];
\draw [gray,opacity=0.3,rotate=85] (0:2.5) arc [start angle=0,end angle=180,x radius=2.5,y radius=0.226];
\draw [gray,opacity=0.1,rotate=85] (0:2.5) arc [start angle=0,end angle=-180,x radius=2.5,y radius=0.226];
\draw [gray,opacity=0.1,rotate=95] (0:2.5) arc [start angle=0,end angle=180,x radius=2.5,y radius=0.226];
\draw [gray,opacity=0.3,rotate=95] (0:2.5) arc [start angle=0,end angle=-180,x radius=2.5,y radius=0.226];
\draw [gray,opacity=0.1,rotate=105] (0:2.5) arc [start angle=0,end angle=180,x radius=2.5,y radius=0.65];
\draw [gray,opacity=0.3,rotate=105] (0:2.5) arc [start angle=0,end angle=-180,x radius=2.5,y radius=0.65];
\draw [gray,opacity=0.1,rotate=115] (0:2.5) arc [start angle=0,end angle=180,x radius=2.5,y radius=1.008];
\draw [gray,opacity=0.3,rotate=115] (0:2.5) arc [start angle=0,end angle=-180,x radius=2.5,y radius=1.008];
\draw [BrickRed,opacity=0.1,rotate=125,name path=cf125] (0:2.5) arc [start angle=0,end angle=180,x radius=2.5,y radius=1.28];
\draw [BrickRed,opacity=0.3,rotate=125] (0:2.5) arc [start angle=0,end angle=-180,x radius=2.5,y radius=1.28];
\draw [BrickRed,opacity=0.1,rotate=135] (0:2.5) arc [start angle=0,end angle=180,x radius=2.5,y radius=1.478];
\draw [BrickRed,opacity=0.3,rotate=135] (0:2.5) arc [start angle=0,end angle=-180,x radius=2.5,y radius=1.478];
\draw [BrickRed,opacity=0.1,rotate=145] (0:2.5) arc [start angle=0,end angle=180,x radius=2.5,y radius=1.621];
\draw [BrickRed,opacity=0.3,rotate=145] (0:2.5) arc [start angle=0,end angle=-180,x radius=2.5,y radius=1.621];
\draw [BrickRed,opacity=0.1,rotate=155] (0:2.5) arc [start angle=0,end angle=180,x radius=2.5,y radius=1.714];
\draw [BrickRed,opacity=0.3,rotate=155] (0:2.5) arc [start angle=0,end angle=-180,x radius=2.5,y radius=1.714];
\draw [BrickRed,opacity=0.1,rotate=165] (0:2.5) arc [start angle=0,end angle=180,x radius=2.5,y radius=1.771];
\draw [BrickRed,opacity=0.3,rotate=165] (0:2.5) arc [start angle=0,end angle=-180,x radius=2.5,y radius=1.771];
\draw [BrickRed,opacity=0.1,rotate=175] (0:2.5) arc [start angle=0,end angle=180,x radius=2.5,y radius=1.797];
\draw [BrickRed,opacity=0.3,rotate=175,name path=cf175] (0:2.5) arc [start angle=0,end angle=-180,x radius=2.5,y radius=1.797];
\fill [BrickRed,opacity=0.6] (N) .. controls +(-36:0.6) and +(124:0.3) .. (1.075,0.695) .. controls +(49:0.4) and +(167:0.25) .. (1.905,1.075) .. controls +(132:0.29) and +(-1:0.92) .. cycle;
\draw [BrickRed,very thick] (N) .. controls +(-36:0.6) and +(124:0.3) .. (1.075,0.695) .. controls +(49:0.4) and +(167:0.25) .. (1.905,1.075) .. controls +(132:0.29) and +(-1:0.92) .. cycle;
\path [name path=ref125] (N) -- +(-36:2);
\path [name path=ref135] (N) -- +(-25.5:2);
\path [name path=ref145] (N) -- +(-17:2);
\path [name path=ref155] (N) -- +(-10.5:2);
\path [name path=ref165] (N) -- +(-4.95:2);
\path [name path=ref175] (N) -- +(-1:2);
\path [name intersections={of=v1v3 and ref125,by={a1}}] (a1) circle [radius=0];
\path [name intersections={of=v1v4 and ref175,by={a2}}] (a2) circle [radius=0];
\path [name path=a1a2] (a1) -- (a2);
\path [name intersections={of=a1a2 and ref135,by={b135}}] (b135) circle [radius=0];
\path [name path=l135] (v1) -- ($(v1)!3!(b135)$);
\path [name intersections={of=a1a2 and ref145,by={b145}}] (b145) circle [radius=0];
\path [name path=l145] (v1) -- ($(v1)!3!(b145)$);
\path [name intersections={of=a1a2 and ref155,by={b155}}] (b155) circle [radius=0];
\path [name path=l155] (v1) -- ($(v1)!3!(b155)$);
\path [name intersections={of=a1a2 and ref165,by={b165}}] (b165) circle [radius=0];
\path [name path=l165] (v1) -- ($(v1)!3!(b165)$);
\draw [BrickRed,opacity=0.1,name intersections={of=h125 and v1v3,by=i125}] (v1) -- (i125);
\draw [BrickRed,opacity=0.1,name intersections={of=h135 and l135,by=i135}] (v1) -- (i135);
\draw [BrickRed,opacity=0.1,name intersections={of=h145 and l145,by=i145}] (v1) -- (i145);
\draw [BrickRed,opacity=0.1,name intersections={of=h155 and l155,by=i155}] (v1) -- (i155);
\draw [BrickRed,opacity=0.1,name intersections={of=h165 and l165,by=i165}] (v1) -- (i165);
\draw [BrickRed,opacity=0.1,name intersections={of=h175 and v1v4,by=i175}] (v1) -- (i175);
\fill [BrickRed] (v1) circle [radius=2pt];
\fill [BrickRed] (N) circle [radius=2pt];
\fill [BrickRed] (S) circle [radius=2pt];
\node [anchor=east] at (v1) {$V_0$};
\node [anchor=east] at (N) {$V_2$};
\node [anchor=east] at (S) {$V_2^{\rm c}$};
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Induced fibration of the quadric and of the generalized simplex. Each fibre of the quadric is induced from a $\mathbb{CP}^2$ fibre in $\mathbb{CP}^4$ intersecting the quadric. The original $\mathbb{CP}^4$ is fibrated into dim-$2$ planes through the line $\overline{V_0V_2}$. For better illustration the picture above is drawn with one dimension less.}
\label{fig:gsfibration}
\end{figure}
In fact, the geometric origin of the generalized simplex' faces as intersections straightforwardly provides such a fibration. To be explicit, without loss of generality let us fix the $0$-face under study to be $V_2$. We begin by fibrating $\mathbb{CP}^4$ using dim-$2$ planes through the line $\overline{V_0V_2}$ (so each fibre here is a $\mathbb{CP}^2$). The set of all such planes forms a $\mathbb{CP}^2$, which is manifested by a set of homogeneous coordinates $[z_3:z_4:z_5]$ and the map
\begin{equation}\label{eq:higherfibration}
[z_3:z_4:z_5]\,\longmapsto\,\overline{V_0V_2(z_3V_3+z_4V_4+z_5V_5)}.
\end{equation}
The advantage of this choice of map is that the dim-$2$ planes that have non-trivial overlap (more than the $1$-face on $\overline{V_0V_2}$) with the original simplex in $\mathbb{CP}^4$ form exactly the canonical $2$-simplex in the $z$ space. Then our desired fibration of the quadric is induced from intersecting this fibration in one higher dimensions and the quadric. In other words, each fibre in the fibration of quadric is the intersection of such dim-$2$ plane and the quadric, which is a dim-$1$ degree-$2$ curve, see Figure \ref{fig:gsfibration}. Unlike the fibration in the case of ordinary simplexes, these curves meet at two common points, which are the intersection of the line $\overline{V_0V_2}$ and the quadric. One of these points is just $V_2$, and let us name the other one $V_2^{\rm c}$, whose explicit coordinates are $V_2^{\rm c}=[-1:1:0:0:0]$. This can be easily visualized by any rational map from the quadric to some $\mathbb{CP}^3$.
The induced contour along each fibre has one of its ends fixed exactly at $V_2$, as what we have required. In our specific example, the singularities of the integrand in \eqref{eq:afterRI} have two irreducible components, and generically each of them intersects the fibre at two points. On the one hand, we need to pick out the fibre that are $1$-faces of the generalized simplex, and the above mentioned one-dimensional integrals on them are supposed to generate information about first entries of $\mathcal{S}[I]$. On the other hand, we can obtain a class of discontinuities $\mathrm{Disc}I$ by computing the residue at the singular points on each fibre, which should correspond to the branch points emerged from the situation when $V_2$ hits one of the irreducible singularities in \eqref{eq:afterRI}.
During an actual computation, no matter for the original function $I$ or for its discontinuity $\mathrm{Disc}I$, the integral along each fibre is done by selecting a proper parameterization of the fibre. Since each fibre is a quadric restricted in a plane, this can again be done by a rationalization map to $\mathbb{CP}^1$. The choice of such map on each fibre is highly non-unique, and in principle the choices made on different fibres do not have to be related. However, different choices only lead to a difference by some $\mathrm{PGL}(2)$ automorphism on $\mathbb{CP}^1$. Therefore by the discussion at the end of Section \ref{sec:cp1} the result of the integral along each fibre is independent of detailed rationalization and so intrinsically remains to be a geometric quantity. This guarantees that the $\mathrm{Disc}I$ from the remaining integrals is well-defined.
Note that when calculating the integral on a specific fibre, the square root in the original integrand in \eqref{eq:afterRI} can be treated as folding that fibre into two $\mathbb{CP}^1$ Riemann sheets (glued at the branch points). This means the square root will be automatically resolved after the above rationalization map to $\mathbb{CP}^1$. And so one can analyze the residue at each singularity with no further worry.
Of course, to randomly choose different rationalization maps for different fibres is not economic. In this case of an integral on a quadric there is a natural improvement to make. Recall that the reference point for the rationalization of a quadric curve can be any point on the quadric. In the fibration discussed above, apart from $V_2$ which is a $0$-face of the contour, there is another point $V_2^{\rm c}$ that resides on all the fibres. Now we can use $V_2^{\rm c}$ as the reference point to rationalize the entire quadric \eqref{eq:seedQ}. Together with the $0$-faces of the contour we span any point in $\mathbb{CP}^4$ as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:spanCP4}
tV_2^{\rm c}+z_2V_2+z_3V_3+z_4V_4+z_5V_5.
\end{equation}
Restricting this point to the quadric \eqref{eq:seedQ} again uniquely solves $t$. By plugging it back above we thus obtain a rationalization map from the space $Z=[z_2:z_3:z_4:z_5]\in\mathbb{CP}^3$ to the quadric $\mathcal{C}_0$
\begin{align}
\label{eq:y2z1}y_0&=z_2(2z_2+z_3+z_4+z_5)+\sum_{2\leq i<j\leq 5}z_iz_j+\sum_{i=3}^5z_i^2,\\
y_2&=z_2(2z_2+z_3+z_4+z_5)+\sum_{2\leq i<j\leq 5}z_iz_j,\\
\label{eq:y2z2}y_{i>2}&=z_i(2z_2+z_3+z_4+z_5).
\end{align}
Comparing \eqref{eq:spanCP4} to \eqref{eq:higherfibration} we see that for any fixed $[z_3:z_4:z_5]$ the other two variables $(t,z_2)$ actually serves as the affine coordinates on the corresponding $\mathbb{CP}^2$ plane fibre in the fibration of $\mathbb{CP}^4$ considered there (note the three points $V_0$, $V_2$ and $V_2^{\rm c}$ are collinear). So the restriction of $t$ means that $z_2$ is the variable that parameterize the intersection of this plane and the quadric, i.e., the fibre in the fibration of the quadric. This further indicates that the above rationalization of the quadric simultaneously provides a rationalization for each fibre of the quadric, mapping it to some $\mathbb{CP}^1$. This is manifest in that every $[z_3:z_4:z_5]$ determines a line in the $Z$ space, which is also parameterized by $z_2$. Hence via the above map our desired fibration of the quadric is mapped to the ordinary line fibration of $\mathbb{CP}^3$.
Of course, the generalized simplex contour in the quadric is not mapped to an ordinary simplex in the $Z$ space. However, because the faces of the generalized simplex that are adjacent to $V_2$ are all properly fibrated, their images, i.e., the faces of the new contour in the $Z$ space adjacent to the image of $V_2$ are all flat, and by \eqref{eq:y2z2} they correspond to the faces of the canonical simplex in $[z_3:z_4:z_5]$. Only image of the $2$-face dual to $V_2$ (and its own faces) are curved. So effectively this lands on a picture very similar to that in Figure \ref{fig:rationalizationimage}, but in one higher dimension.
\subsection{First Entries and Discontinuities}
Based on the above fibration of the generalized simplex contour and the rationalization choice, we move on to determine the first entries and the discontinuities associated to $V_2$.
Descending from the integral expression \eqref{eq:afterRI} the singularities of the new integrand consist of two irreducible components
\begin{align}
\label{eq:singularityC1}\mathcal{C}_1\equiv y_0=0,\\
\mathcal{C}_2\equiv y_0+c_1y_2+c_2y_3+c_3y_4+c_4y_5=0,
\end{align}
with $y$'s given in \eqref{eq:y2z1} through \eqref{eq:y2z2}. Both are quadratic in $z$'s and so correspond to some quadrics in the $Z$ space. The full expression for the new integrand can be straightforwardly worked out from the map and we do not bother to explicitly write it out here. An interesting phenomena that can be quickly observed is, on any fibre (fixed by $[z_3:z_4:z_5]$) the $\mathrm{S}^1$ residue contour for $z_2$ that wraps around either of the two roots of $y_0=0$ turns out to be zero! This means the curve $\mathcal{C}_1$ is in fact irrelevant for the emergence of the integral's singularities, and so it can be completely ignored.
\subsubsection*{First entries from $V_2$ fibration}
As a direct consequence, to work out the first entries of $\mathcal{S}[I]$ we only need to consider the contribution from $\mathcal{C}_2$. For simplicity let us call images of $V_i$ after the rationalization map by the same name $V_i$. In the $Z\equiv[z_2:z_3:z_4:z_5]$ space they have the coordinates
\begin{equation}
V_2:\,[1:0:0:0],\quad
V_3:\,[0:1:0:0],\quad
V_4:\,[0:0:1:0],\quad
V_5:\,[0:0:0:1].
\end{equation}
As mentioned before the $1$-faces of the resulting contour adjacent to $V_2$, i.e., $\overline{V_2V_3}$, $\overline{V_2V_4}$ and $\overline{V_2V_5}$ each already lives in some $\mathbb{CP}^1$, so we can directly study the geometries on their corresponding lines. The curve $\mathcal{C}_2$ intersects these three lines at
\begin{align}
\label{eq:P23pm}P_{23}^\pm&=\left[\frac{-1-c_1-c_2\pm\sqrt{-1+c_1^2+c_2^2}}{2(1+c_1)}:1:0:0\right],\\
P_{24}^\pm&=\left[\frac{-1-c_1-c_3\pm\sqrt{-1+c_1^2+c_3^2}}{2(1+c_1)}:0:1:0\right],\\
\label{eq:P25pm}P_{25}^\pm&=\left[\frac{-1-c_1-c_4\pm\sqrt{-1+c_1^2+c_4^2}}{2(1+c_1)}:0:0:1\right].
\end{align}
Since $P_{2i}^\pm$ and $V_2$ and $V_i$ reside on the same line $\overline{V_2V_i}$, to obtain their $\mathbb{CP}^1$ coordinates on this line we can just ignore the entries other than the $2^{\rm nd}$ and $i^{\rm th}$ in the above coordinates. Then we can obtain six first entries
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:f2ipm}f_{2i}^\pm\equiv\frac{\langle P_{2i}^\pm V_2\rangle}{\langle P_{2i}^\pm V_i\rangle}=\frac{1+c_1+c_{i-1}\pm\sqrt{-1+c_1^2+c_{i-1}^2}}{(1+c_{i-1})},
\end{equation}
where each pair $f_{2i}^\pm$ associate to the $1$-face $\overline{V_2V_i}$. In principle we should also work out the first entries for the other three $1$-faces $\overline{V_iV_j}$ ($3\leq i<j\leq5$), but because they live in higher-degree curves in this space the computation requires further rationalization for each of them. We choose not to do it here, because according to the general strategy we will study fibrations wrst other $0$-faces as well later on, where the computation of these remaining first entries is straightforward.
\subsubsection*{Discontinuities from $V_2$ fibration}
Next let us work out the discontinuity $\mathrm{D}_{V_2,\mathcal{C}_2}I$. For convenience of computation let us again change the parameters $c_i=\frac{1-c_1^2+t_i^2}{2t_i}$ such that $\sqrt{-1+c_1^2+c_i^2}=\frac{-1+c_1^2+t_i^2}{2t_i}$, for $i=2,3,4$. Then the two roots of $\mathcal{C}_2=0$ as an equation in $z_2$ are
\begin{align}
z_2&=z_2^\pm\equiv\sum_{i=3}^5\frac{c_1^2-2c_1t_{i-1}-(1+t_{i-1})^2}{4(1+c_1)t_{i-1}}z_i\pm\frac{\sqrt{\mathcal{C}_3}}{4(1+c_1)t_2t_3t_4},\\
\frac{\mathcal{C}_3}{(t_2t_3t_4)^2}&=\sum_{i=3}^5\frac{(-1+c_1^2+t_{i-1}^2)^2}{t_{i-1}^2}z_i^2+2\sum_{3\leq i<j\leq 5}\frac{(1-c_1^2+t_{i-1}^2)(1-c_1^2+t_{j-1}^2)}{t_{i-1}t_{j-1}}z_iz_j.
\end{align}
We now choose one of the root and compute the residue at its corresponding pole, which results in an integral in $[z_3:z_4:z_5]$. As one can expect, the new integrand coming out of this residue contains the square root $\sqrt{\mathcal{C}_3}$ and so should be understood as defined on a double cover of $\mathbb{CP}^2$, which is equivalently described by the quadric
\begin{equation}\label{eq:C3curve}
\mathcal{C}_3-z_0^2=0.
\end{equation}
This quadric is equivalent to $\mathcal{C}_2=0$ by a coordinates transformation. Hence again we observe that the operation of taking residue effectively puts the remaining integral on the original irreducible singularity curve under study. The choice of which residue to compute is irrelevant, because (as already discussed in the previous example) this only affect whether we should identify $z_0=\sqrt{\mathcal{C}_3}$ or $z_0=-\sqrt{\mathcal{C}_3}$ in subsequent computation.
To uniquely specify the discontinuity, however, we do have to specify the resulting contour. In the $[z_3:z_4:z_5]$ space the contour is just the canonical $2$-simplex (descending from the original fibration of the quadric $\mathcal{C}_0$). Analogous to the discussion in the previous example, we need to choose the Riemann sheet for each of the $0$-faces. The corresponding points are just the ones listed in \eqref{eq:P23pm}-\eqref{eq:P25pm}. Transforming to the $[z_0:z_3:z_4:z_5]$ coordinates and using the new parameters they become
\begin{align}
P_{23}^\pm&=[(-1+c_1^2+t_2^2)t_3t_4:\pm1:0:0],\\
P_{24}^\pm&=[(-1+c_1^2+t_3^2)t_2t_4:0:\pm1:0],\\
P_{25}^\pm&=[(-1+c_1^2+t_4^2)t_2t_3:0:0:\pm1].
\end{align}
Therefore again there are eight discontinuities to compute, resulting from the two choices for each $0$-face respectively, and following our convention we denote them as $\mathrm{Disc}_{V_2,\mathcal{C}_2}^{\pm\pm\pm}I$.
Take $\mathrm{Disc}_{V_2,\mathcal{C}_2}^{+++}I$ as an example. We first rationalize the quadric \eqref{eq:C3curve} by spanning points on it as
\begin{equation}
[z_0:z_3:z_4:z_5]=tP_{23}^-+u_3P_{23}^++u_4P_{24}^++u_5P_{25}^+,
\end{equation}
and solves $t$ using \eqref{eq:C3curve}. This generates the rationalization map that transform the $[z_3:z_4:z_5]$ coordinates into the $[u_3:u_4:u_5]$ coordinates. Because of the special choice of the reference point $P_{23}^-$, the image of the contour in the new space is automatically properly fibrated into lines through the image of $P_{23}^+$, each of which parameterized by $u_3$. Very amusingly the resulting integrand turns out to be a total derivative in $u_3$ again, so that we directly integrate it out. Because the $1$-face dual to the image of $P_{23}^+$ is curved, the remaining integral in $[u_4:u_5]$ contains a further square root, and so a further rationalization is needed in order to deal with this last one-dimensional integral. Because the analysis resembles what we have been doing, we do not write out the further detailed computation, but just emphasize again that the result does not depend on the way how rationalization is carried out, as long as one carefully keep track of the image of the contour from the corresponding map. At the end of this computation the integrals nicely reduce to a log, and its symbol is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:disc2Cppp}
\mathcal{S}[\mathrm{Disc}_{V_2,\mathcal{C}_2}^{+++}I]=\otimes\frac{h_{12}c_3c_4+h_{13}c_2c_4+h_{14}c_2c_4+h_{12}h_{13}h_{14}-(-1+c_1^2)q}{h_{12}c_3c_4+h_{13}c_2c_4+h_{14}c_2c_4+h_{12}h_{13}h_{14}+(-1+c_1^2)q}\equiv\otimes r_{V_2,\mathcal{C}_2}^{+++},
\end{equation}
where $h_{ij}=\sqrt{-1+c_i^2+c_j^2}$ and $q=\sqrt{\det Q}$. The other seven discontinuities can be worked out analogously, and the results are
\begin{align}
\mathcal{S}[\mathrm{Disc}_{V_2,\mathcal{C}_2}^{+-+}I]&=\otimes\frac{h_{12}c_3c_4-h_{13}c_2c_4+h_{14}c_2c_4-h_{12}h_{13}h_{14}-(-1+c_1^2)q}{h_{12}c_3c_4-h_{13}c_2c_4+h_{14}c_2c_4-h_{12}h_{13}h_{14}+(-1+c_1^2)q}\equiv\otimes r_{V_2,\mathcal{C}_2}^{+-+},\\
\mathcal{S}[\mathrm{Disc}_{V_2,\mathcal{C}_2}^{++-}I]&=\otimes\frac{h_{12}c_3c_4+h_{13}c_2c_4-h_{14}c_2c_4-h_{12}h_{13}h_{14}-(-1+c_1^2)q}{h_{12}c_3c_4+h_{13}c_2c_4-h_{14}c_2c_4-h_{12}h_{13}h_{14}+(-1+c_1^2)q}\equiv\otimes r_{V_2,\mathcal{C}_2}^{++-},\\
\mathcal{S}[\mathrm{Disc}_{V_2,\mathcal{C}_2}^{+--}I]&=\otimes\frac{h_{12}c_3c_4-h_{13}c_2c_4-h_{14}c_2c_4+h_{12}h_{13}h_{14}-(-1+c_1^2)q}{h_{12}c_3c_4-h_{13}c_2c_4-h_{14}c_2c_4+h_{12}h_{13}h_{14}+(-1+c_1^2)q}\equiv\otimes r_{V_2,\mathcal{C}_2}^{+--},
\end{align}
and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:disc2Cm}
\mathcal{S}[\mathrm{Disc}_{V_2,\mathcal{C}_2}^{-,m_4,m_5}I]=\otimes\frac{1}{r_{V_2,\mathcal{C}_2}^{+,-m_4,-m_5}}\equiv\otimes r_{V_2,\mathcal{C}_2}^{-,m_4,m_5},\qquad\forall m_4,m_5.
\end{equation}
\subsubsection*{Consistency in first entries and symbol construction}
The same analysis applies to fibration with respect to the remaining $0$-faces of the original contour on the quadric $\mathcal{C}_0$. The results for various discontinuities are summarized in the appendix.
Before constructing the symbol $\mathcal{S}[I]$ the only thing to be clarified is a subtlety regarding the first entries. Recall that in the fibration wrst $V_2$ we only worked out the first entries associated to the $1$-faces $\overline{V_2V_i}$, with the help of a special rationalization choice. Now we work out the remaining first entries based on other fibrations. For example let us look at the fibration wrst $V_3$. Its analysis can be simplified by an analogous choice of rationalization of the quadric $\mathcal{C}_0$, where the reference point now is $V_3^{\rm c}$, the intersection point of $\overline{V_0V_3}$ and $\mathcal{C}_0$ other than $V_3$. By the map
\begin{equation}
[y_0:y_2:y_3:y_4:y_5]=tV_3^{\rm c}+z_2V_2+z_3V_3+z_4V_4+z_5V_5
\end{equation}
(where $t$ is solved by $\mathcal{C}_0=0$), the images of the $1$-faces $\overline{V_2V_3}$, $\overline{V_3V_4}$ and $\overline{V_3V_5}$ are lines in the $[z_2:z_3:z_4:z_5]$. Therefore the first entries associated to these three $1$-faces are straightforwardly obtained from this fibration, which are
\begin{align}
\label{eq:f23pm}f_{23}^\pm&=\frac{1+c_1+c_2\pm\sqrt{-1+c_1^2+c_2^2}}{2(1+c_2)},\\
f_{3i}^\pm&=\frac{1+c_2+c_{i-1}\pm\sqrt{-1+c_2^2+c_{i-1}^2}}{(1+c_{i-1})},\qquad i=4,5.
\end{align}
Comparing \eqref{eq:f23pm} with \eqref{eq:f2ipm} we see the entries $f_{23}^\pm$ worked out here both differ from those from the $V_2$ fibration by a factor of $1/2$. This is caused by the fact that in the two fibrations we were doing different rationalization to the $1$-face $\overline{V_2V_3}$, which leads to a difference in the specific coordinates worked out for $P_{23}^+$ \footnote{In a generic integral such difference may even depend on free variables in the integral.}. In the generic expression $\frac{\langle P_{23}^\pm V_2\rangle}{\langle P_{23}^\pm V_3\rangle}$ this is equivalent to a rescale in the homogeneous coordinates used for the vertices $V_2$ and $V_3$. By now we know this rescaling is totally irrelevant, as it ultimately gets canceled between first entries ($f_{23}^+$ and $f_{23}^+$) belonging to the same $1$-face of the contour. It is interesting to observe that the global residue theorem on the fibres (discussed in Section \ref{sec:grt}) plays an essential role in ensuring self-consistency of the analysis when we have to deal with a generalized simplex contour.
As a consequence, the symbol expressions subsequent to each pair of $f_{ij}^+$ and $f_{ij}^-$ should exactly differ by a sign in their coefficients. Therefore a better presentation of the first entries is just to take the ratio $f_{ij}=f_{ij}^+/f_{ij}^-$, and the final results are
\begin{equation}
f_{ij}=\frac{1+c_{i-1}+c_{j-1}+\sqrt{-1+c_{i-1}^2+c_{j-1}^2}}{1+c_{i-1}+c_{j-1}-\sqrt{-1+c_{i-1}^2+c_{j-1}^2}},\qquad 2\leq i<j\leq5.
\end{equation}
Correspondingly, we can set up the ansatz for the symbol as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{S}[I]=\sum_{2\leq i<j\leq 5}f_{ij}\otimes s_{ij}\equiv\sum_{2\leq i<j\leq 5}\frac{f_{ij}^+}{f_{ij}^-}\otimes s_{ij}.
\end{equation}
From the locations of $f_{ij}^\pm$ it should be clear how the assumed second entries are related to the symbols of the discontinuities we computed
\begin{align}
r_{V_2,\mathcal{C}_2}^{m_3,m_4,m_5}&=(s_{23})^{m_3}(s_{24})^{m_4}(s_{25})^{m_5},\\
r_{V_3,\mathcal{C}_2}^{m_2,m_4,m_5}&=(s_{23})^{-m_2}(s_{34})^{m_4}(s_{35})^{m_5},\\
r_{V_4,\mathcal{C}_2}^{m_2,m_3,m_5}&=(s_{24})^{-m_2}(s_{34})^{-m_3}(s_{45})^{m_5},\\
r_{V_5,\mathcal{C}_2}^{m_2,m_3,m_4}&=(s_{25})^{-m_2}(s_{35})^{-m_3}(s_{45})^{-m_4}.
\end{align}
Again in order that these equations simultaneously hold the various $r$'s have to satisfy the same set of conditions as listed in \eqref{eq:relationI} and \eqref{eq:relationII} for the previous example (by with the labels shifted by one). This is because the relations between discontinuities and second entries purely descend from the geometric incidence relations among $0$- and $1$-faces of the integral contour, which are the same in both examples. Using the results summaries in Appendix \ref{app:disc} one can verify that they continue to hold in the current example. Based on this, the above equations are solved to give
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&(s_{23})^2=\frac{r_{V_2,\mathcal{C}_2}^{+++}}{r_{V_2,\mathcal{C}_2}^{-++}},\qquad
(s_{24})^2=\frac{r_{V_2,\mathcal{C}_2}^{+++}}{r_{V_2,\mathcal{C}_2}^{+-+}},\qquad
(s_{25})^2=\frac{r_{V_2,\mathcal{C}_2}^{+++}}{r_{V_2,\mathcal{C}_2}^{++-}},\\
&(s_{34})^2=\frac{r_{V_3,\mathcal{C}_2}^{+++}}{r_{V_3,\mathcal{C}_2}^{+-+}},\qquad
(s_{35})^2=\frac{r_{V_3,\mathcal{C}_2}^{+++}}{r_{V_3,\mathcal{C}_3}^{++-}},\qquad
(s_{45})^2=\frac{r_{V_4,\mathcal{C}_2}^{+++}}{r_{V_4,\mathcal{C}_2}^{++-}},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
and the explicit results can be unified into a single formula
\begin{equation}
(s_{ij})^2=\frac{\frac{c_1c_2c_3c_4}{c_{i-1}c_{j-1}}-q\sqrt{-1+c_{i-1}^2+c_{j-1}^2}}{\frac{c_1c_2c_3c_4}{c_{i-1}c_{j-1}}+q\sqrt{-1+c_{i-1}^2+c_{j-1}^2}},\qquad 2\leq i<j\leq5,
\end{equation}
where $q=\sqrt{\det Q}=\sqrt{1-c_1^2-c_2^2-c_3^2-c_4^2}$. In consequence the symbol of this example is
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{S}[I]=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{1\leq i<j\leq4}\frac{1+c_i+c_j+\sqrt{-1+c_i^2+c_j^2}}{1+c_i+c_j-\sqrt{-1+c_i^2+c_j^2}}\otimes\frac{\frac{c_1c_2c_3c_4}{c_ic_j}-q\sqrt{-1+c_i^2+c_j^2}}{\frac{c_1c_2c_3c_4}{c_ic_j}+q\sqrt{-1+c_i^2+c_j^2}}.
\end{equation}
We have verified that this result exactly matches the one worked out from the spherical projection method in \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2017ahv}.
\section{Discussions and Outlook}
In this paper we proposed a strategy to study the structure of singularities of a class of integrals which the Feynman parameter representations of loop diagrams belong to. This strategy utilizes a collection of sequences of discontinuities defined by modifying the contour of the original integral, together with a method to identify singularities of each discontinuity on the principle sheet. The discontinuities are selected in a way closely tied to the geometries of the original integral contour and integrand singularities. With explicit examples with a well-defined symbol, we showed that the symbol can be directly constructed from these data, and the required computation involves no non-trivial integrals (and so is largely algebraic). This strategy is designed with the purpose that it may ultimately be applicable (without an essential modification) to arbitrary integrals of the type \eqref{eq:Feynmangeneral} that can decompose into MPLs and admit a well-defined symbol.
Of course this paper itself does not mean to be exhaustive regarding the above mentioned goal. Instead, it serves as only a first step towards the goal, where we use concrete examples to illustrate the basic ideas and tools that are needed in our proposed analysis. Therefore there are many things to be explored in future, which we briefly comment below.
\begin{itemize}
\item Even in the case when the $D[X^{n+k}]=0$ has a single quadric we did not seek for a general discussion in this paper. Although in the two examples we explicitly verified that the symbol constructed by the current method and the one worked out by the previous spherical projection method in \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2017ahv} are the same, a general proof for the equivalence of the two method does not seem to be very straightforward. It would be nice to gain a more systematic understanding of what this strategy does in arbitrary $\mathbb{CP}^{n-1}$ even for this restricted class of integrals.
\item Careful readers may already notice that the examples considered in this paper all decompose into MPLs with constant coefficients. In general the number $N[X^k]$ in \eqref{eq:Feynmangeneral} may leads to coefficients that are algebraic functions of the free variables. While we mentioned that in principle these coefficients can be observed at the end of every sequence of discontinuities. It will be nice to explicitly see how they are recovered along the strategy discussed here.
\item The analysis directly discussed in this paper applies to integrals where the geometries of the contour and those of the integrand singularities are at generic configurations, in the sense that there is no assumed incidence condition. However, a large class of interesting Feynman diagrams are indeed special in this regard, because the presence of a massless loop propagator immediately indicates that one $0$-face of the contour resides on the integrand's singularity curve (as is obvious by the Symanzik polynomial). In order to carry out analysis for such situation, one possible solution is to start by giving this propagator a slight mass and return to the original configuration at the end of the computation. However, one can easily imagine this will usually introduce a lot of unnecessary complication to the analysis itself. In order that this strategy be practically useful in treating actual Feynman integrals, it will be important to understand how to directly deal with such special configurations.
\item As was already mentioned in our long-term goal, it will be very interesting to see how the strategy illustrated here can apply to integrals where the integrand's singularity curve has irreducible components with degree higher than $2$. We leave this for further explorations.
\item It is in general a question of great interest what type of function a given Feynman integral belongs to. To our knowledge, it is even not yet crystal clear what is the criterion for a Feynman integral to be within the class of MPLs. From the analysis on the geometries, as we mentioned in Section \ref{sec:generalize}, it is tempting to think that at least we would want the irreducible components of $D[X^{n+k}]=0$ all to be rational. In any case, the precise connection calls for further investigations.
\item Regardless of the above question, the rationality condition for $D[X^{n+k}]=0$ is already interesting on its own. As one can see from the explicit analysis, the ability to map a singularity curve to some $\mathbb{CP}^{m}$ is the minimal condition in order that the analysis on the contour maintains to be simple at every stage. There are however some subtleties here, as we are not sure whether every rational curve can be mapped to some $\mathbb{CP}^{m}$ in terms of certain projection (i.e., in some stereographic way). If it turns out this does not hold for some curve that is nevertheless rational, then the method here may not be directly applicable, and it will be interesting to see how such case can be analyzed.
\item At higher loops singularity curves dictated by the Symanzik polynomial make up a very special class of curves. For instance, while the total degree of this polynomial grows with the number of loops, the degree in each Feynman parameter can only top up to $2$. It will be both interesting and physically important to gain a better understanding of the structure of these curves in general, because this may possibly lead to significant improvement to the strategy introduced in this paper, when it really comes to higher-loop diagrams. For example, a class of Feynman integrals that allow for simultaneous rationalization of multiple roots of the Symanzik polynomial was recently discussed in \cite{Besier:2018jen}, and they can be systematically integrated. (It is interesting to note that quite many Feynman integrals turn out to be directly integrable, given that one carefully choose a proper sequence of integrations for the variables such that the so-called linear reducibility property can be confirmed \cite{Brown:2009ta,Panzer:2014caa,Bogner:2014mha,Panzer:2015ida}. See e.g., \cite{Bourjaily:2021lnz} and reference therein for some more recent developments.)
\item During the analysis on the example with quadric singularities we have observed that the intermediate steps necessarily involves treatment of the generalized simplexes, contours analogous to simplexes but living on generic rational algebraic varieties. In general these contours have curvy faces, but we showed that there exist natural fibrations of these contours induced by projections from higher dimensions, which make a direct analysis of the related integrals possible. In fact we can think about this treatment in the inverse way as well. Imagine that in an integral problem where the contour has curvy boundaries, if we can find out that the contour originates from higher dimensions by projecting a simplex onto certain rational hypersurface, then such relation will straightforwardly provide a convenient fibration to study the analytic properties of the integral. In this sense the strategy introduced here may potentially extend beyond the integrals covered by \eqref{eq:Feynmangeneral}.
\item While in this paper we only deal with integrals where the contour is a simplex, integrals where the contour is a generic complex can also be analyzed, at least via triangulation. However, it is interesting to check how this strategy can be extended so as to be directly applicable to complex contours.
\item In this paper we observed that the global residue theorem on a fibre in the fibration at every stage may imply certain consistency conditions on the structure of the symbol. It would be nice to further check how strong such conditions are and whether such conditions may help bootstrapping the symbol of an integral.
\item As we mentioned before, the discontinuities that we selected in the analysis are closely tied to the underlying geometries. Inversely, one could also ask that, given the symbol of an integral, what kind of geometric or combinatoric data can be read out from the structure of the symbol, and when it comes to the integral for an actual Feynman diagram, how these data are related to the corresponding physics. Investigations of this favor was already made for amplitudes in SYM. The analysis suggested in the paper might provide some hint on extending such study for broader range of scattering process.
\item For the examples in the paper which have well-defined symbols we showed that the data we computed for the selected stratum of discontinuities are sufficient to recover the complete symbol. Here we remind the reader that these data of the discontinuities do not at all rely on the existence of a symbol, hence in some sense they provide a description for the analytic properties of the given integral which might potentially be still useful when going beyond the realm of MPLs. We hope that this might find some useful application for the study of more general scattering.
\end{itemize}
\acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Bo Feng and Lilin Yang for useful discussions. JG and EYY are supported by National Science Foundation of China under Grant No.~12175197 and Grand No.~12147103. EYY is also supported by National Science Foundation of China under Grant No.~11935013, and by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Chinese Central Universities under Grant No.~226-2022-00216.
|
\section{Introduction}
There are presently several approaches to quantum gravity. These differ
in starting assumptions, including the structures that are to remain
fixed before quantization is implemented \citep{Isham:1995wr,Carlip:2017dtj}. Guided by the quantum resolution of the Coulomb singularity in electromagnetism, all approaches agree on the necessity of resolving spacetime curvature singularities. For cosmology this is the Big Bang singularity, and for black holes it is the singularity inside the event horizon.
To date most work has focused on cosmological singularites. The corresponding models are quantum mechanical with a few degrees of freedom \citep{Misner:1969hg,Blyth:1975is,Agullo:2016tjh} rather than field theoretic, and are therefore relatively easier to quantize than inhomogeneous models that describe black hole formation. Although there is much work on gravitational collapse in classical general relativity, there is relatively little work to date on whether and how collapsing matter bounces and dynamically avoids singularity formation in quantum gravity; a recent work on dust collapse is a notable exception \citep{Kelly:2020lec,Husain:2021ojz,Husain:2022gwp}.
It is known from Hawking's work that black holes are semiclassically
unstable \cite{Hawking:1975vcx}, and evaporate by emitting radiation of quanta of matter fields propagating on the black hole background. This is a low energy result that remains robust under modification of the dispersion relations of the field with a Planck-scale cutoff \citep{Jacobson:1999ay,Unruh:2004zk}. The evaporating black hole has led to the well-known ``information loss'' conformal diagram (pg. 219 of \cite{Hawking:1975vcx}). This picture has been the focus of much attention even though it retains the spacelike curvature singularity inside the event horizon and is not the conformal diagram of any explicit metric.
This unsatisfactory feature has led to models of non-singular black
holes from various directions, with the aim of proposing alternative
conformal diagrams which include quantum gravity effects \citep{Ashtekar:2005cj,Hayward:2005gi,Martin-Dussaud:2019wqc}. Although these are useful for discussing possibilities, a conformal diagram must ultimately come from an actual ``effective'' metric that is derived from a theory of quantum gravity.
A related question is whether the global teleological object that
is the event horizon should remain as a sacred classical structure
that survives quantization, or whether it is replaced by dynamical
horizons that form and ultimately disappear. Recent analytical and numerical work on dust collapse with quantum gravity corrections provides evidence for the latter outcome; it suggests that black holes end with shock wave emission \cite{Husain:2021ojz}. Whether this results holds for other types of matter is an open question.
Lastly, it is uncontroversial that classical gravitational collapse leads to a unique long-time static limit which is a black hole, at least for sufficiently dense concentrations of matter. What is the corresponding situation for gravitational collapse with quantum gravity features built into models? If a black hole is no longer a universal attractor, and singularity avoidance causes a matter bounce, the details could be matter-type dependent and not universal. This is because a matter bounce would necessarily involves dynamics intrinsic to its unique Lagrangian.
Motivated by these questions, and past work on non-singular black
holes, we propose and study a class of time dependent, asymptotically
flat, spherically symmetric metrics that model dynamical singularity
avoidance. As such, our work may be viewed as extending the ideas in
\citep{Hayward:2005gi}, and motivated by the recent results on dust collapse \citep{Husain:2021ojz} mentioned above.
The metrics we describe are naturally written in the Painleve-Gullstrand (PG) coordinates \citep{Guven:1999hc,Martel:2000rn} with a specific form of time-dependent mass function that describes inflow followed by outflow of matter. PG coordinates cover the classical spacetime of matter collapse, and there are no known Kruskal-like extensions with matter fields. Therefore these coordinates should also be sufficient to capture a matter bounce. The class of metrics we describe, exhibit horizon formation and evaporation with a temporary event horizon, and provide a parameter-dependent formula for black hole lifetime.
Although not a solution to any specific model of quantum gravity,
the metrics smoothly capture essential features expected of singularity
resolution and matter bounce in quantum gravity. This is similar in
spirit to various types of ``metric engineering'', including wormholes
\citep{Morris:1988tu} and warp drives \citep{Alcubierre:2017pqm}.
\section{Modeling quantum gravitational collapse}
Our goal is to construct spherically symmetric metrics that can model
gravitational collapse and bounce in quantum gravity, which are asymptotically
flat and represent the Schwarzschild solution outside an inner radial
region.
The generic spherically symmetric metric may be written in the form
\begin{equation}
ds^{2}=-N^{2}(x,t)dt^{2}+f^{2}(x,t)\left(dx+N^{x}(x,t)dt\right)^{2}+g^{2}(x,t)d\Omega^{2}\label{eq:Gen-metric}
\end{equation}
where $N$ is the lapse, $N^{x}$ is the shift, $x$ is a radial coordinate
and $f(x,t),\,g(x,t)$ are arbitrary functions. A particular and useful
special case of this metric is the Painleve-Gullstrand form \citep{Martel:2000rn,Guven:1999hc}
obtained by setting $g(x,t)=r$, $N(r,t)=1=f(r,t)$, and
\begin{equation}
N^{x}(r,t)=\sqrt{\frac{2Gm(r,t)}{r}}.
\end{equation}
This defines the mass function $m(r,t)$. This function gives the
mass contained within a radius $r$ at a time $t$ and is related to
the density by
\begin{equation}
m(r,t)=4\pi\int_{0}^{r}r^{2}\rho(r,t)dr.
\end{equation}
If $\rho(r,t)>0$, then $m(r,t)$ is an increasing function with the
property that
\begin{equation}
\lim_{r\to\infty}m(r,t)=M
\end{equation}
for asymptotically flat metrics. $M$ is then the Arnowitt-Deser-Misner
mass. If $r^2\rho(r,t)$ goes to zero near the origin $r=0$, $m(r,t)$
rises from zero and asymptotes to the value $M$; the corresponding
density $\rho(r,t)$ is non-zero in the regions where the mass function
increases monotonically with $r$.
These considerations suggest modeling collapse and bounce by using
mass functions that initially move toward $r=0$, reverse direction
at some small $r$, and then move outward. While far from being unique,
these features are efficiently captured by the function
\begin{equation}
m(r,t)=M_{0}\left[1+\tanh\left(\frac{r-r_{0}-v(r,t)t}{\alpha\ l_{0}}\right)\right]^{a}\tanh\left(\frac{r^{b}}{l_{0}^{b}}\right).\label{m}
\end{equation}
Here $l_{0}$ is a scale (typically the Planck length); $r_{0}$ is associated to the radial position of the bounce (as we will see below); $M_{0}$ scales the total ADM mass $M$; $\alpha$ determines how sharply the mass function rises;
$a$ and $b$ are positive integers (or reals) to be chosen such that
the density
\begin{equation}
\rho(r,t)=\frac{1}{4\pi r^{2}}\frac{\partial m}{\partial r}\label{rho}
\end{equation}
is bounded as $r\rightarrow0$, a feature necessary for singularity
avoidance; $v(r,t)$ is the velocity function of the density profile. The hyperbolic tangent function is the simplest choice
that captures the desired properties of the mass function.
The velocity function is to be chosen such that an initially inward
falling mass profile bounces and starts to move outward, and
the profile speeds up as it falls inward and slows down as it moves
outward. These features are captured in the function
\begin{equation}
v(r,t)=\frac{A}{(1+r)^{n}}\tanh\left(\frac{t-t_{0}}{l_{0}}\right),\label{v}
\end{equation}
where $A>0$ is a real constant $t_{0}$ is the time when the bounce occurs, and $n$ is a positive constant (which, as we will see, determines the black hole lifetime).
This completes our description of the metric designed to model non-singular
gravitational collapse and bounce, as might emerge from a quantum theory
of gravity. As we have mentioned, such metrics are not unique, but the one we present captures interesting dynamical features such as ``horizon bubbles'' speculated on in \citep{Hayward:2005gi}.
\section{Physical features}
We describe several interesting properties that can be extracted from
the above class of metrics, and indeed many others like it. These are the evolution of mass and density,
horizon formation and evaporation, and black hole lifetime. The last
feature is a function of the power $n$ in the velocity function \eqref{v} defined
above.
Fig. \ref{fig:Mass-Density-grr} shows time sequences of the mass function \eqref{m},
density \eqref{rho}, and the apparent horizon function
\begin{equation}
\Theta(r,t)=g^{ab}\partial_{a}r\partial_{b}r=g^{rr}
\end{equation}
whose roots give the horizon trajectories $r_{H}(t)$.
\begin{figure}[H]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{DensityMassgrr}
\caption{Time sequences of the mass function $m$ (green), density $\rho$ (red), and horizon function $\Theta$ (blue): the first row shows in-going matter with horizons (roots of the $\Theta$) appearing, and the second row shows matter bouncing and moving outward. Horizons eventually disappear by the last frame. The outer horizon for most of the evolution remains at a fixed location until it disappears with the root of $\Theta$. \label{fig:Mass-Density-grr}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{DensityProfile3D}
\caption{Density function $\rho(r,t)$ at the indicated times. The frames top-left to bottom-right show how the ingoing density profile nears $r=0$, bounces, and moves outward.}
\label{density-3d}
\end{figure}
These quantities are scaled in Fig. \ref{fig:Mass-Density-grr} to fit in the same frames. In this figure, the first row shows
the incoming density and horizons (the two roots of $\Theta$) appearing, and
the second row shows matter bouncing and horizons disappearing as
matter moves outward. Fig. \ref{density-3d} shows two-dimensional
bouncing density profile. The parameters used for Figs. 1 to 5, and 7, are $a=2$, $b=3$, $\alpha=1$, $M_0=4$, and $r_0=5$ in the mass function \eqref{m}, and $A=n=1$ in the velocity function (\ref{v}), (except for Fig. 7 which exhibits three values of $n$). These values are chosen for illustration; qualitatively similar results arise for other choices.
\subsection{Microscopics of horizons}
A detailed look at the dynamical horizons with the mass function used
for the first two figures reveals interesting features of the trajectories of the horizons and peak value of the density. Fig. \ref{fig:HorizonsCausal-all} shows the horizon trajectory in $r,t$ plane: the red line is the outer horizon, the blue one is the inner horizon, and the green line shows the peak of
the density function. A pair of horizons form in region 1 and begin to diverge. The inner horizon and density lines then move inward together, bounce in region 3, and then travel outward until the inner
and outer horizons merge and annihilate in region 6. The outer horizon (red) is null for almost the entirety of its lifetime.
\begin{figure}
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{HorizonsandDensityPower1}
\par\end{centering}
\caption{Horizon and density peak trajectories. Horizons form and diverge from point 1, density peak (green) and inner horizon (blue) bounce at point 4, and the inner (blue) and outer (red) horizons merge and annihilate at point 6 (details of each region appear magnified in the next figure). \label{fig:HorizonsCausal-all}}
\end{figure}
\noindent Details of each boxed region in Fig. \ref{fig:HorizonsCausal-all} appear in Fig. \ref{fig:HorizonsCausal-all-2}, together with the
local light cones at selected points. The following features are apparent in Fig. \ref{fig:HorizonsCausal-all-2}:
\begin{itemize}
\item Region 1: after formation the outer horizon (red) is spacelike and becomes null, and the inner horizon becomes timelike.
\item Region 2: the density peak (green) crosses from outside the inner horizon to the region between the two horizons, the inner horizon is timelike, the density peak is timelike before crossing into the region between the two horizons and becomes spacelike after moving into that region.
\item Region 3: the outer horizon is null for nearly all of its finite lifetime.
\item Region 4 is the bounce phase: the inner horizon and density peak change from ingoing to outgoing. The inner horizon changes from timelike to spacelike, and the density peak (green) remains spacelike while inside the regions between the two horizons. The region to the left of the inner horizon is nearly flat.
\item Region 5: this is a near reflection of region 2. The density peak emerges from within the inner horizon and becomes timelike, while the inner horizon remains spacelike.
\item Region 6: the inner and outer horizons merge and the black hole region disappears. The peak matter density (not shown) is timelike and propagates outward.
\end{itemize}
\noindent Throughout this process the peak matter density remains timelike while it is outside the region between the two horizons. The density profile is, however, not a thin shell and so has tails that straddle both sides of the inner horizon while it's peak enters and then exits the region between the two horizons. It would require a more microscopic view to take into account the thickness of the density profile.
The details of the evolution of the inner horizon depends on the sharpness of the density profile derived from the mass function; a slower increase of the mass function (larger $\alpha$ in (\ref{m})) gives a wider density profile; a linear combination of mass functions of the type (\ref{m}) with different values of $r_0$ is a monotonic function that rises from zero, remains constant for a radial range, and then rises again to its asymptotic value--this produces a double peaked energy density with corresponding different behaviour of apparent horizons.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{LightConeRegionsAll}
\caption{ Close up of regions 1-6 of Fig. \ref{fig:HorizonsCausal-all}. R1: Horizons form. The outer one becomes null and stays at constant radius, while the inner one is timelike. R2: the peak density crosses from the interior of the inner horizon to the region between the two horizons. R3: the outer horizon becomes null after its formation. R4: the inner horizon and matter density bounce. The inner horizon goes from timelike to spacelike and the peak matter density stays spacelike inside the region between the two horizons. Lightcones near $r=0$ resemble those of flat spacetime. R5: matter density peak emerges from within the region between the two horizons and becomes timelike. R6: inner and outer horizons merge and annihilate.}
\label{fig:HorizonsCausal-all-2}
\end{figure}
Fig. \ref{fig:PolarHorizonsAll} shows a radial view of the horizons and peak matter density for the same parameters: the first frame shows the configuration at $t=1$ where the inner and outer horizons are nearly coincident and the peak matter density is inside both horizons. The middle frame shows the inward movement of the inner horizon, and the last frame shows the situation near the bounce point where the peak matter density lies between the two horizons.
Fig. \ref{fig:PenroseD} shows the Penrose diagram corresponding to Fig. \ref{fig:HorizonsCausal-all}. The red bubble is the region between the two horizons. The outer horizon is a null segment of what classically would be the event horizon. The inner horizon is timelike, then becomes spacelike after the bounce. The blue matter density peak follows the inner horizon, enters the bubble region, and then emerges before the horizons merge and disappear.
\noindent
\begin{figure}
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{PolarHorizonsAll}
\par\end{centering}
\caption{Radial views of horizons and peak matter density. Left: inner and outer horizons are nearly coincident with matter density peak at a smaller radius. Middle: inner horizon has moved inward and the density peak lies at a smaller radius just outside the trapped region between the horizons. Right: density density peak enters the trapped region between the two horizons.}
\label{fig:PolarHorizonsAll}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\columnwidth]{PenroseD2.png}%
\begin{picture}(0,0)
\put(-15,110){$i^0$}
\put(-145,110){$r=0$}
\put(-60,160){${\cal J}^+$}
\put(-60,62){${\cal J}^-$}
\end{picture}
\par\end{centering}
\caption{Conformal diagram for the metric with mass function (\ref{m}). The red lines show the horizons. The outer horizon segment is null. The inner horizon is timelike before the bounce and becomes spacelike after the bounce. The blue line is the peak of the density profile. It is timelike outside the bubble region (between the horizons) and spacelike inside it.}
\label{fig:PenroseD}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Black hole lifetime}
We define the black hole lifetime $T_{BH}$ as the time interval between horizon pair formation $t_i$ (when roots of $\Theta(r,t)$ first appear) and horizon annihilation $t_f$ (when roots of $\Theta(r,t)$ disappear):
\begin{equation}
T_\mathrm{BH}= t_f - t_i.
\end{equation}
For the case shown in Fig. \ref{fig:HorizonsCausal-all}, this is approximately the time interval between regions 1 and 6. With a given velocity function of the form (\ref{v}), and ADM mass associated to the mass function (\ref{m}), $T_{\rm BH}$ is readily determined by numerically tracking the roots of $\Theta(r,t)$. (This process was also followed in \cite{Husain:2021ojz}, with the same definition of black hole lifetime.)
The power $n$ in the velocity function (\ref{v}) determines the ingoing and outgoing radially dependent velocity for a fixed parameter $A$; the larger the value of $n$, the slower the speed, and hence the longer the lifetime. This expectation is borne out: Fig. \ref{fig:lifetime-compare} shows log-log graphs of $T_{\rm BH}$ vs. ADM mass $M$ for $n=1,\ldots, 3$ with $A=1$ in (\ref{v}). The fit to these points is well approximated by the formula
\begin{equation}
T_{\rm BH}\approx2^{n+2}M^{n+1}.
\end{equation}
This expression quantitatively ties the power $n$ in the velocity function to the black hole lifetime as defined above. It contains the $M^2$ case calculated for dust collapse in \cite{Husain:2021ojz} (albeit without an outgoing shock wave since the metrics we are considering are smooth), and the Hawking evaporation case with lifetime proportional to $M^3$.
\begin{figure}
\noindent \begin{centering}
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{LifeTimeComparison.PDF}
\par\end{centering}
\caption{Black hole lifetime $T_{\rm BH}$ as a function of ADM mass $M$ with mass function (\ref{m}) and velocity (\ref{v}). The lines are fit by the formula $T_{\rm BH}\approx 2^{n+2} M^{n+1}$} \label{fig:lifetime-compare}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions and discussion}
We have exhibited a non-singular spherically symmetric asymptotically flat time-dependent metric in PG coordinates that describes matter collapse and bounce of the type that might arise from a quantum theory of gravity. The main intuition built into the metric is that of a matter bounce through a smooth time-dependent mass function.
For early times before the bounce (in the PG coordinate time), the metric could be that of classically collapsing matter in GR, i.e., outside the matter region it is Schwarzschild spacetime, and in the matter region it is a metric that satisfies the dominant energy condition. However, during and just after the bounce phase, the metric would correspond to a GR solution with matter that violates the dominant and strong energy conditions, but where the energy density $\rho$ in \eqref{rho} remains positive and finite everywhere for all $t$. Horizon formation and evaporation as shown in Figs. \ref{fig:PenroseD} follow directly from the features built into the mass function.
Whether such a metric arises as an effective description from a quantum theory of gravity is an open question. However, quantum resolution of the singularity rules out the standard classical collapse and Hawking's ``information loss'' conformal diagrams, as both of these contain the $r=0$ spacelike singularity inside the event horizon. (Indeed, there is no known metric which gives the information-loss diagram due to the corner where the $r=0$ singularity transitions to a timelike curve). In the metric we propose, the classical event horizon is replaced by a segment of it, along with an inner-horizon, both of which last for a finite duration depending on the bounce velocity function.
There are other conjectured proposals for nonsingular black holes with corresponding conformal diagrams. These include \cite{Ashtekar:2005cj,Hayward:2005gi} which are similar in spirit to what is presented here, but without an explicit metric. Ref. \cite{Martin-Dussaud:2019wqc} on the other hand describes a black hole to white hole transition, where the black hole event horizon connects directly to a white hole horizon, but again no explicit non-vacuum metric is presently available. The conformal diagram derived from quantum gravity corrected dust collapse in \cite{Husain:2021ojz,Husain:2022gwp} is similar to Fig. \ref{fig:PenroseD}, but with a shock wave that arises in that calculation.
Lastly, there is a possibility not envisioned in the scenarios just summarized, and not contained in the metric we have presented. This corresponds to the situation where matter collapses, bounces and expands outward, and then eventually begins to recollapse. The process then repeats ad-infinitum. This seems physically reasonable since classical gravity should be valid in regions of low curvature. It could be modeled by an oscillating velocity profile, different from the one we give in (\ref{v}). In the final analysis, it is a computational question for a quantum theory of gravity which of these scenarios accompany singularity avoidance. There are other possibilities such as a quasistatic hovering ball of matter where the inward collapse tendency is balanced by the outward singularity avoiding``pressure."
\begin{acknowledgements}
We thank Edward Wilson-Ewing for comments on the manuscript. This work was supported in part by the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
\end{acknowledgements}
|
\section{Introduction}
In meteorology the analysis of motions of the atmosphere on the Earth has been done using various mathematical models and using various approximations. Actually models used for numerical weather prediction or climate simulation must take into account various factors besides the fundamental state variables of the gas and must meet practical computational efficiency with moderate accuracy
in the process of the numerical simulations. Discussions of choice of models have been accumulated as an enormous collection in the meteorological literatures. However fundamental mathematically rigorous inquiries of the structure of solutions of the equations adopted as models in atmospheric dynamics have not yet been thoroughly done even for the simplest model. In this article we try to investigate the fundamental mathematical properties of the simplest model with the compressible Euler equations and the barotropic, or, isentropic motion of the ideal gas described in the co-ordinate system which rotates with a constant angular velocity. Although there remains open problems to be solved in mathematically rigorous way, some elementary aspects of the inquiry are exhibited in this article. \\
In the following in this section the equations and the boundary condition
to be considered are going to be described, and the definition of some concepts of solutions are going to be given. In Section 2 stationary solutions with comactly supported density and zero relative velocity will be discussed. The limit of allowable
magnitude of the angular velocity of the rotation should be noted. In Section 3 Lagrangian co-ordinate description of the equations for the perturbations near the stationary solutions will be discussed, and in Section 4 we shall show that the linearized wave equation for the perturbations allows an application of the Hille-Yosida theory of existence of solutions. Higher order regularities of the solutions remains in an open problem. In Section 5 the so called 'variational principle' will be formurated and its efficiency will be discussed. Although the concept of eigenfrequency and eigenvectors to the wave equations for the perturbations is remarkable, the existence and completeness of eigenvectors is in an open problem when the rotation is present. In Section 6 differentially rotating stationary solutions will be discussed. The velocity can be a non-constant arbitrary function of the distence from the rotation axis in the azimuthal direction only. Application of the Hille-Yosida theory to the linearized wave equation for the perturabations from these stationary solutions will be shown to be similarly done as in the case of stationary solutions with no wind. \\
Let us describe the situation to be considred precisely.
We consider motions of an atmosphere governed by the compressible Euler equations described by the uniformly rotating coordinate system $(t, \mbox{\boldmath$x$})$:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
&\frac{D\rho}{Dt}+\rho(\nabla|\mbox{\boldmath$v$})=0, \label{1.1a}\\
&\rho\Big[\frac{D\mbox{\boldmath$v$}}{Dt}+2\mbox{\boldmath$\Omega$}\times\mbox{\boldmath$v$}
\Big]
+\nabla P+\rho\nabla \Phi^{\langle \Omega \rangle}=0 \label{1.1b}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
on $t \in \mathbb{R}, \mbox{\boldmath$x$}=(x^1,x^2,x^3) \in
\mathbb{R}^3\setminus {\mathfrak{B}}_0:=
\{ \mbox{\boldmath$x$} \in \mathbb{R}^3 \ |\ r:=\|\mbox{\boldmath$x$}\| > R_0 \}$,
where
\begin{equation}
{\mathfrak{B}}_0=\{ \mbox{\boldmath$x$} \in \mathbb{R}^3 \ |\ r:=\|\mbox{\boldmath$x$}\| \leq R_0 \},
\end{equation}
$R_0$ being a positive number. The variables
$\rho, P$ are the density, the pressure
and $\mbox{\boldmath$v$}=(v^1,v^2,v^3)^{\top}$ is the velocity field. We are denoting
\begin{equation}
\frac{D}{Dt}:=
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}+(\mbox{\boldmath$v$}|\nabla)=
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} +
\sum_{k=1}^3v^k\frac{\partial}{\partial x^k}
\end{equation}
and $\displaystyle (\nabla|\bm{v})=\sum_k
\frac{\partial v^k}{\partial x^k}$.
On the other hand
\begin{equation}
\mbox{\boldmath$\Omega$}=\Omega\frac{\partial}{\partial x^3},
\end{equation}
$\Omega$ being a constant, and $\Phi^{\langle \Omega \rangle}$ is the geopotential given as
\begin{equation}
\Phi^{\langle \Omega \rangle}(\mbox{\boldmath$x$})=-\frac{{\mathsf{G}M_0}}{r}-\frac{\Omega^2}{2}\varpi^2 \label{Geopote}
\end{equation}
where
$$ r=\sqrt{(x^1)^2+(x^2)^2+(x^3)^2},\quad \varpi=\sqrt{(x^1)^2+(x^2)^2},$$
${\mathsf{G}M_0}$ being a positive constant.
Since we are concerned with the value of the potential $\Phi^{\langle\Omega\rangle}$ only on the domain $\mathbb{R}^3\setminus \mathfrak{B}_0$, we assume that $\Phi^{\langle\Omega\rangle} \in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^3)$ and \eqref{Geopote} holds for $r=\|\bm{x}\| >R_0$ by replacing the singularity $\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}$ at $r=0$
by a smooth function near $r=0$.
The atmosphere is surrounding the Earth of radius $R_0$, mass $M_0$ and $\mathsf{G}$ is the gravitational constant. $\Omega$ is the angular velocity of the rotation.\\
We assume \\
{\bf (A) :} {\it $P$ is the function of $\rho$ defined by
\begin{equation}
P=\mathsf{A}\rho^{\gamma} \quad\mbox{for}\quad \rho >0,
\end{equation}
$\mathsf{A}, \gamma$ being positive constants such that $1<\gamma<2$.
}\\
Under this assumption we introduce the variable $\varUpsilon$ by
\begin{equation}
\varUpsilon:=\int_0^{\rho}\frac{dP}{\rho}=\frac{\mathsf{A}\gamma}{\gamma-1}\rho^{\gamma-1}
\quad\mbox{for}\quad \rho >0.
\end{equation}\\
Since we are interested in solutions with $\rho$ which has a vacuum region on which $\rho=0$, the concept of classical solutions needs a precise definition. The following are the definitions adopted in this article.\\
\begin{Definition}
An open connected subset $\mathfrak{D}$ of
$\mathbb{R}^3$ is said to be an admissible domain with cover $\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}$ if $\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}=\mathfrak{D}\cup \mathfrak{B}_0$ is an open connected subset of $\mathbb{R}^3$ such that
$\mathfrak{D}=\tilde{\mathfrak{D}} \setminus \mathfrak{B}_0$
and $ \partial\mathfrak{D}$ is smooth.
\end{Definition}
Here and hereafter we use the following
\begin{Notation}
Let $A, B$ be subsets of $\mathbb{R}^3$. $\complement A$ denotes the complement of $A$ and $A \setminus B$ stands for $A \cap \complement B$. $\mathbf{Cl}A$ stands for the closure of $A$, $\mathbf{Int}A$ stands for the interior of $A$, and $\partial A$ stands for the boundary of $A$, namely, $\partial A=\mathbf{Cl}A\setminus\mathbf{Int}A$.
\end{Notation}
Note that, if $\mathfrak{D}$ is an admissible domain, then, for a sufficiently small positive $\delta$, we have
$$\{ R_0 < r \leq (1+\delta)R_0 \} \subset \mathfrak{D}.$$
\begin{Definition}
Let $\mathfrak{D}$ be an admissible domain with cover $\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}$. A vector field $\bm{v}$ defined on $[0,T[\times \mathfrak{D}$ is said to be a classical admissible velocity field on $[0,T[\times\mathfrak{D}$ if 1) $\bm{v}$ has an extension onto $[0,T[\times\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}$ of class $C^1([0,T[\times \tilde{\mathfrak{D}})$
and 2) the boundary condition
\begin{equation}
(\bm{v}|\bm{n})=0\quad\mbox{on}\quad [0,T[\times \partial \mathfrak{B}_0 \label{adminBC}
\end{equation}
holds, where $\mbox{\boldmath$n$}=
\mbox{\boldmath$n$}(\mbox{\boldmath$x$})=-\mbox{\boldmath$x$}/R_0$ is the outer normal vector at the boundary point
$\mbox{\boldmath$x$} \in \partial\mathfrak{B}_0$.
\end{Definition}
\begin{Definition}
Let $\mathfrak{D}$ be an admissible doman with cover $\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}$.
A function $(\rho, \mbox{\boldmath$v$})$ defined on $[0,T[\times \mathfrak{D}$ is said to be a classical
$(\rho, \mbox{\boldmath$v$})$-solution on $[0,T[\times \mathfrak{D}$ if
1) $(\rho, \mbox{\boldmath$v$})$
has an extension onto $[0,T[\times \tilde{\mathfrak{D}}$ of class
$C^1([0,T[\times \tilde{\mathfrak{D}})$, 2) $\rho \geq 0$ on $[0,T[\times \mathfrak{D}$, 3) $(\rho, \mbox{\boldmath$v$})$ satsfies \eqref{1.1a}\eqref{1.1b} on $[0,T[\times \mathfrak{D}$, and 4) $\rho > 0$ on $[0,T[\times
\partial\mathfrak{B}_0$ and the boundary condition
\begin{equation}
(\mbox{\boldmath$v$}|\mbox{\boldmath$n$})=0 \quad\mbox{on}\quad [0,T[\times \partial\mathfrak{B}_0, \label{C.1}
\end{equation}
holds, where $\mbox{\boldmath$n$}=
\mbox{\boldmath$n$}(\mbox{\boldmath$x$})=-\mbox{\boldmath$x$}/R_0$ is the outer normal vector at the boundary point
$\mbox{\boldmath$x$} \in \partial\mathfrak{B}_0$.
\end{Definition}
We want to permit the variable $\varUpsilon$ to take negative values somewhere. In order to do this we extend the equations devided by $\rho$ where $\rho >0$ to the equations:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
&\frac{D\varUpsilon}{Dt}+(\gamma-1)\varUpsilon(\nabla|\mbox{\boldmath$v$})=0, \label{C.2a} \\
&\frac{D\mbox{\boldmath$v$}}{Dt}+2\mbox{\boldmath$\Omega$} \times \mbox{\boldmath$v$}
+\nabla(\varUpsilon +\Phi^{\langle\Omega\rangle})=0 \label{C.2b}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\begin{Definition}\label{DEF.3}
Let $\mathfrak{D}$ be an admissible domain with cover $\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}$. A function $(\varUpsilon, \mbox{\boldmath$v$})$
defined on $[0,T[\times\mathfrak{D}$ is said to be a classical
$(\varUpsilon,\mbox{\boldmath$v$})$-solution on $[0,T[\times\mathfrak{D}$, if
1) $(\varUpsilon, \mbox{\boldmath$v$})$
has an extension onto $[0,T[\times \tilde{\mathfrak{D}}$ of class
$C^1([0,T[\times \tilde{\mathfrak{D}})$,
2)
$(\varUpsilon, \mbox{\boldmath$v$})$ satisfies \eqref{C.2a}\eqref{C.2b} on $[0,T[\times
\mathfrak{D}$, and 4)
$\varUpsilon >0$ on
$[0,T[\times \partial\mathfrak{B}_0$ and
the boundary condition
\begin{equation}
(\mbox{\boldmath$v$}|\mbox{\boldmath$n$})=0\quad\mbox{on}\quad [0,T[\times \partial\mathfrak{B}_0 \label{1.10}
\end{equation}
holds, where $\mbox{\boldmath$n$}=
\mbox{\boldmath$n$}(\mbox{\boldmath$x$})=-\mbox{\boldmath$x$}/R_0$ is the outer normal vector at the boundary point
$\mbox{\boldmath$x$} \in \partial\mathfrak{B}_0$.
\end{Definition}
As for the variable $\varUpsilon$, $\varUpsilon \geq 0$ is not assumed. When
$(\varUpsilon, \mbox{\boldmath$v$})$ is a classical $(\varUpsilon, \mbox{\boldmath$v$})$-solution on the admmisible domain $[0,T[\times \mathfrak{D}$, then $(\rho, \mbox{\boldmath$v$})$ defined by
\begin{equation}
\rho=\Big(\frac{\gamma-1}{\mathsf{A}\gamma}\varUpsilon\vee 0\Big)^{\frac{1}{\gamma-1}} \label{C.4}
\end{equation}
turns out to be a classical $(\rho, \mbox{\boldmath$v$})$-solution
on $[0,T[\times\mathfrak{D}$. Here and hereafter we use the
\begin{Notation}
We denote
\begin{equation}
Q\vee Q'=\max\{ Q, Q'\},\quad Q\wedge Q'=\min\{ Q, Q'\}.
\end{equation}
\end{Notation}
But the inverse may be impossible, namely, we cannot expect that any classical $(\rho, \mbox{\boldmath$v$})$-solution comes from classical $(\varUpsilon,\mbox{\boldmath$v$})$-solution by the above procedure, \eqref{C.4}, since
$1<\frac{1}{\gamma-1}<+\infty$ but $0<\gamma-1 <1$ so that
$\rho \in C^1$ does not imply $\rho^{\gamma-1}\in C^1$ at the vacumm boundary.
In this sense the concept of classical $(\rho, \mbox{\boldmath$v$})$-solutions is weaker than that of classical $(\varUpsilon, \mbox{\boldmath$v$})$-solutions.
Moreover we note that the uniqueness of solution cannot be expected under the concept of classical $(\rho, \mbox{\boldmath$v$})$-solutions in the following sense:
Let $(\rho, \mbox{\boldmath$v$})$ be a classical $(\rho, \mbox{\boldmath$v$})$-solution on $[0,T[\times
\mathfrak{D}$, $\mathfrak{D}$ being an admissible domain with cover $\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}$. Suppose that $(]0,T[\times \mathfrak{D})
\setminus \mathbf{Cl}\{ \rho >0\}\not=\emptyset$, and consider a velocity field
$\mbox{\boldmath$v$}'\in C^1([0,T[\times \tilde{\mathfrak{D}})$ such that
$\mbox{\boldmath$v$}'(t,\mbox{\boldmath$x$})=\mbox{\boldmath$v$}(t,\mbox{\boldmath$x$})$ on $([0,T[\times \mathfrak{D})\setminus \mathcal{V}$ and
$\mbox{\boldmath$v$}'(t,\mbox{\boldmath$x$})\not=\mbox{\boldmath$v$}(t,\mbox{\boldmath$x$})$ on $\mathcal{V}$,
where $\mathcal{V}$ is a non-empty open subset of $(]0,T[\times\mathfrak{D})\setminus
\mathbf{Cl}\{\rho>0\}$. Clearly $(\rho, \mbox{\boldmath$v$}')$ is another classical
$(\rho, \mbox{\boldmath$v$})$-solution such that it coincides with the original $(\rho, \mbox{\boldmath$v$})$ on $[0,t_1]\times\mathfrak{D}$ but it is different from the original $(\rho, \mbox{\boldmath$v$})$ after $t=t_1$ with $0<\exists t_1 <T$. \\
It is possible to define a further weaker concept of classical solutions, although we shall not utilize it in this article, as follows:
The equations \eqref{1.1a}\eqref{1.1b} can be written in the conservation law form as
\begin{align*}
&\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial t}+(\nabla| \rho\mbox{\boldmath$v$})=0, \\
&\frac{\partial}{\partial t}(\rho\mbox{\boldmath$v$})+2\mbox{\boldmath$\Omega$}\times(\rho\mbox{\boldmath$v$})+
\nabla(
\rho \mbox{\boldmath$v$} \otimes \mbox{\boldmath$v$}
+P)+\rho\nabla\Phi^{\langle\Omega\rangle}=0.
\end{align*}
Here the symol $\nabla(
\rho \mbox{\boldmath$v$} \otimes \mbox{\boldmath$v$}
+P)$ means the vector with the components
$$
\Big[
\nabla(
\rho \mbox{\boldmath$v$} \otimes \mbox{\boldmath$v$}
+P)
\Big]^j=
\sum_k
\frac{\partial}{\partial x^k}
\Big(\rho v^jv^k+P\delta_j^k\Big).$$
Denoting $\mbox{\boldmath$m$}=\rho\mbox{\boldmath$v$}$, these equations reads
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
&\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial t}+(\nabla|\mbox{\boldmath$m$})=0, \label{1.13a} \\
&\frac{\partial\mbox{\boldmath$m$}}{\partial t}+
2\mbox{\boldmath$\Omega$}\times\mbox{\boldmath$m$}+
\nabla\Big(\frac{\mbox{\boldmath$m$}
\otimes
\mbox{\boldmath$m$} }{\rho}+P\Big)+\rho
\nabla\phi^{\langle\Omega\rangle}=0, \label{1.13b}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
with the convention of symbols
\begin{equation}
\frac{\mbox{\boldmath$m$}
\otimes
\mbox{\boldmath$m$} }{\rho}\quad\mbox{reads}\quad 0
\quad\mbox{when}\quad \rho=0, \mbox{\boldmath$m$}=0. \label{1.14}
\end{equation}
Here the equation \eqref{1.13b}, written in the vector form, means
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial m^j}{\partial t}+
\Big[2\mbox{\boldmath$\Omega$}\times \mbox{\boldmath$m$}\Big]^j+
\sum_{k=1}^3
\frac{\partial}{\partial x^k}\Big(
\frac{m^jm^k}{\rho}+P\delta_k^j \Big)+
\rho\frac{\partial}{\partial x^j}\Phi^{\langle\Omega\rangle}=0,
\quad j=1,2,3.
\end{equation}
\begin{Definition}
Let $\mathfrak{D}$ be an admissible domain with cover $\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}$.
A function $(\rho, \mbox{\boldmath$m$})$ defined on
$[0,T[\times \mathfrak{D}$ is said to be a classical $(\rho,\mbox{\boldmath$m$})$-solution on
$[0,T[\times\mathfrak{D}$, if 1) $(\rho, \mbox{\boldmath$m$})$ is extended onto $[0,T[\times\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}$ as a field of class
$C^1([0,T[\times\tilde{\mathfrak{D}})$, $\rho \geq 0$ on $[0,T[\times\mathfrak{D}$, 3) for any point $(t, \mbox{\boldmath$x$}) \in [0,T[\times \tilde{\mathfrak{D}} $ there is a neighborhood $\mathcal{V}$ of $(t,\mbox{\boldmath$x$})$ on which
$\|\mbox{\boldmath$m$}\|\leq C_{\mathcal{V}}\rho$ with $\exists C_{\mathcal{V} }<+\infty$,
3) $\rho \geq 0$ on $[0,T[\times\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}$, 3) $(\rho, \mbox{\boldmath$m$})$ satisfies \eqref{1.13a}\eqref{1.13b} with the convention \eqref{1.14}, and
4) $\rho >0$ on $[0,T[\times \partial\mathfrak{B}_0$ and the boundary condition
\begin{equation}
(\mbox{\boldmath$m$}|\mbox{\boldmath$n$})=0\quad\mbox{on}\quad [0,T[\times \partial\mathfrak{B}_0
\end{equation}
holds,
where $\mbox{\boldmath$n$}=
\mbox{\boldmath$n$}(\mbox{\boldmath$x$})=-\mbox{\boldmath$x$}/R_0$ is the outer normal vector at the boundary point
$\mbox{\boldmath$x$} \in \partial\mathfrak{B}_0$.
\end{Definition}
It is clear that, if $(\rho, \mbox{\boldmath$v$})$ is a classical $(\rho, \mbox{\boldmath$v$})$-solution on
$[0,T[\times \mathfrak{D}$, the field $(\rho, \rho\mbox{\boldmath$v$})$ is a classical $(\rho, \mbox{\boldmath$m$})$-solution on $[0,T[\times\mathfrak{D}$. But the inverse cannot be expected generally, namely, we cannot say any classical $(\rho, \mbox{\boldmath$v$})$-solution comes from a $(\rho, \mbox{\boldmath$m$})$-solution by putting
$\mbox{\boldmath$v$}=\mbox{\boldmath$m$}/\rho$, since $\mbox{\boldmath$m$}/\rho$ may not be continuous at the vacuum boundary $\partial\{ \rho >0\}$.\\
We are interested in motions with compactly supported $\rho$. Namely we use
\begin{Definition}
Let $\mathfrak{D}$ be an admisible domain. A classical $(\rho,\bm{v})$-solution $(\rho,\bm{v})$ on $[0,T[\times \mathfrak{D}$ is said to be compactly supported if, for any fixed $t \in [0,T[$, $\mathbf{Cl}\{ \bm{x} | \rho(t,\bm{x})>0\}$
is a comoact subset of $\partial\mathfrak{B}_0 \cup \mathfrak{D}$.
\end{Definition}
Ler $(\rho, \bm{x})$ be a compactly supported classical solution on $[0,T[\times \mathfrak{D}$, $\mathfrak{D}$ being an admissible domain. Then
we can consider the quatities $M, E, \bm{j} $ defined by
\begin{align}
&M:=\int_{\mathfrak{D}}\rho(t, \bm{x})d\bm{x}, \\
&E:= \int_{\mathfrak{D}}\Big(\frac{1}{2}\rho \|\bm{v}\|^2+\hat{\varUpsilon}+
\rho\Phi^{\langle \Omega\rangle}\Big)d\bm{x}, \\
\mbox{where} \quad &
\hat{\varUpsilon}=\int_0^{\rho}\varUpsilon d\rho=
\frac{P}{\gamma-1}, \nonumber \\
&\bm{j}:=\int_{\mathfrak{D}}\bm{x}\times
\rho(\bm{v}+\bm{\Omega}\times\bm{x})d\bm{x}.
\end{align}
It follows that these quantities turn out to be constants with respect to $t$, that is,
$$\frac{dM}{dt}=0,\quad \frac{dE}{dt}=0, \quad \frac{d\bm{j}}{dt}=\mathbf{0}$$
for $0 \leq t < T$. \\
We shall use the cylindrical coordinate system $(\varpi, \phi, z)$ and
the spherical coordinate system
$(r,\vartheta, \phi)$
defined by
\begin{align}
x^1&=\varpi\cos\phi=r\sin\vartheta\cos\phi \nonumber \\
x^2&=\varpi\sin\phi=r\sin\vartheta\sin\phi \nonumber \\
x^3&=z=r\cos\vartheta.
\end{align}
\section{Stationary solutions}
Let us look for stationary solutions $(\rho, \bm{v})=
(\rho(\bm{x}), \mathbf{0})$: $\rho$ is a function of $\bm{x}$ independent of $t$ and $\mbox{\boldmath$v$}=0$. Then the equations are reduced to
\begin{equation}
\nabla (\varUpsilon + \Phi^{\langle \Omega \rangle})=0.
\end{equation}
Immediately
we get the integration
\begin{equation}
\Phi^{\langle \Omega \rangle}+\varUpsilon=\mbox{Const.}. \label{B}
\end{equation}
Specifying the constant in \eqref{B}, we take
\begin{align}
\varUpsilon:&=
-\Phi^{\langle \Omega \rangle}-\frac{{\mathsf{G}M_0}}{R} \\
\mbox{so that}& \nonumber \\
\varUpsilon&={\mathsf{G}M_0}\Big(\frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{R}\Big)+\frac{\Omega^2}{2}\varpi^2
\quad\mbox{for}\quad r > R_0, \nonumber
\end{align}
where $R$ is a positive constant at the present.
If $R \geq R_0$, then $R-R_0$ is the height of the stratosphere at the North and South Poles, and
\begin{equation}
\varUpsilon_{\mathsf{P}}:=
{\mathsf{G}M_0}\Big(\frac{1}{R_0}-\frac{1}{R}\Big)\geq 0
\end{equation}
gives the density of the atmosphere at the Poles
\begin{equation}
\rho_{\mathsf{P}}:=\Big(\frac{\gamma-1}{\mathsf{A}\gamma}
\varUpsilon_{\mathsf{P}}\Big)^{\frac{1}{\gamma-1}}
=\Big(\frac{(\gamma-1){\mathsf{G}M_0}}{\mathsf{A}\gamma}\Big(\frac{1}{R_0}-\frac{1}{R}\Big)\Big)^{\frac{1}{\gamma-1}} .
\end{equation}\\
Now we are going to observe the shape of the set
\begin{equation}
\mathfrak{U}:=\{ (\varpi, z)\ |\
0\leq\varpi, |z|<\infty, R_0 <r,
-\Phi^{\langle \Omega \rangle}-\frac{{\mathsf{G}M_0}}{R}>0 \}.
\end{equation}
Let us introduce the non-dimensional variables $X=\varpi/R_0, Z=z/R_0$
and put
\begin{align}
&F(X^2, Z^2;\kappa):=\frac{1}{\sqrt{X^2+Z^2}}+\kappa X^2, \\
&\kappa=\frac{\Omega^2R_0^3}{2{\mathsf{G}M_0}}.
\end{align}
Then
\begin{equation}
\Phi^{\langle \Omega \rangle}=-\frac{{\mathsf{G}M_0}}{R_0}F(X^2, Z^2; \kappa)
\end{equation}
and $\{
\displaystyle -\Phi^{\langle \Omega \rangle}-\frac{{\mathsf{G}M_0}}{R}
> 0\}=\{ \displaystyle F >\frac{R_0}{R}\}$. Let us observe te shape of the level set $\{ F
(X^2,Z^2;\kappa)=\lambda\}$ of $F$, $\lambda$ being a positive number. To do so, solving
\begin{equation}
F(X^2, Z^2; \kappa)=\lambda,
\end{equation}
we consider
\begin{equation}
Z^2=\frac{g(X^2)}{(\lambda-\kappa X^2)^2},
\end{equation}
for $\displaystyle X^2 <{\frac{\lambda}{\kappa}}$,
where
\begin{equation}
g(Q)=g(Q;\kappa, \lambda):=1-\lambda^2Q+2\lambda\kappa Q^2
-\kappa^2Q^3.
\end{equation}
We see
$$g(0)=1,\qquad g\Big(\frac{\lambda}{\kappa}\Big)=1,$$
and
$$Dg(Q)=
(\lambda -\kappa Q)(3\kappa Q -\lambda).
$$
Note that $$g\Big(\frac{\lambda}{3\kappa}\Big)>0
\quad \Leftrightarrow \lambda^3 <\frac{27}{4}\kappa.$$\\
We see the shape of the graph of the function $g$ according to the following three cases:\\
Case(L): $\lambda^3 <\frac{27}{4}\kappa$.
Then $g(Q)>0$ for $0\leq Q <Q_{\infty}$, $g(Q_{\infty})=0$,
$g(Q)<0$ for $Q_{\infty}<Q<+\infty$. Here $Q_{\infty}=Q_{\infty}(\frac{\lambda^3}{\kappa})$ is a number such that $Q_{\infty} > \frac{\lambda}{\kappa}$.\\
Case (M): $\lambda^3=\frac{27}{4}\kappa$.
Then $g(Q)>0$ for $0\leq Q <\frac{\lambda}{3\kappa}(=\frac{9}{4\lambda^2})$,
$g(\frac{\lambda}{3\kappa})=0$, $g(Q)>0$ for $\frac{\lambda}{3\kappa} <Q < Q_{\infty}$,
$g(Q_{\infty})=0$, $g(Q)<0$ for $Q_{\infty}<Q <+\infty$. \\
Case (H): $\lambda^3 >\frac{27}{4}\kappa$.
Then $g(Q)>0$ for $ 0\leq Q <Q_-$, $g(Q_-)=0$, $g(Q)<0$ for $Q_-<Q<Q_+$,
$g(Q_+)=0$, $g(Q)>0$ for $Q_+ < Q <Q_{\infty}$,
$g(Q_{\infty})=0$, $g(Q)<0$ for $Q_{\infty}<Q <+\infty$. Here $Q_{\pm}=Q_{\pm}(\frac{\lambda^3}{\kappa})$ are numbers such that
$0 < Q_- < \frac{\lambda}{3\kappa}<Q_+<\frac{\lambda}{\kappa}$ and
$Q_{\pm}\rightarrow \frac{\lambda}{3\kappa}$ as $\frac{\lambda^3}{\kappa}\rightarrow
\frac{27}{4}$.\\
Recall that we need the function $g(Q)$ only for $0\leq Q \leq \frac{\lambda}{\kappa}$, and we do not take care of the behavior of $g(Q)$
beyond $Q=\frac{\lambda}{\kappa}$, a fortiori, neither near nor beyond $Q=Q_{\infty}$.
Anyway, correspondingly we see the shape of the set $\{ F >\lambda\}$ as follows:\\
In Case (L), the set $\{ F >\lambda\}$ is unbounded.\\
In Case (M), the set $\{ F > \lambda\}$ consistes of two connected components, say, $\mathfrak{U}_0$ and $\mathfrak{U}_{\infty}$, where
$\mathfrak{U}_0$ is bounded and included in $\{ 0 \leq X <\sqrt{\frac{\lambda}{3\kappa}}(=\frac{3}{2\lambda}) \}$ but $\mathfrak{U}_{\infty}$ is an unbounded subset of $\{ \sqrt{\frac{\lambda}{3\kappa}} < X< \sqrt{\frac{\lambda}{\kappa}} \}$. Note that $Dg(\frac{\lambda}{3\kappa})=0$ so that $\partial\mathfrak{U}_0=\{ F=\lambda, X \leq \frac{3}{2\lambda} \}$ has a corner at the point $(X,Z)=(\sqrt{\frac{\lambda}{3\kappa}}, 0)$.
Namely $\partial\mathfrak{U}_0$ near this point can be described as
$$Z=\pm C\Big(\frac{3}{2\lambda}-X\Big)
\Big(1+\Big[X-\frac{3}{2\lambda}\Big]_1\Big)\quad\mbox{as}\quad
X \rightarrow \frac{3}{2\lambda}-0,
$$
where $C=C(\kappa)$ is a positive constant and $[Y]_1$ stads for a convergent power series of the form
$\sum_{k\geq 1}a_kY^k$. \\
In Case (H), the set $\{ F >\lambda \}$ consistes of two connected components, say
$\mathfrak{U}_0 \subset \{ 0\leq X<\sqrt{Q_- }\}$ and
$\mathfrak{U}_{\infty} \subset
\{ \sqrt{Q_+} < X < \sqrt{\frac{\lambda}{\kappa}} \}$. $\mathfrak{U}_0$ is bounded but $\mathfrak{U}_{\infty}$ is unbounded. Note that $X$ along $\partial\mathfrak{U}_0$ can be solved as a smooth ( real analytic) function of $Z, |Z| \ll 1$,
near the point $(X,Z)=(\sqrt{Q_-}, 0)$.
Namely the shape of $\partial\mathfrak{U}_0=\{ F=\lambda, X <\sqrt{\frac{\lambda}{3\kappa} } \}$ near this point is
$$ Z=\pm C \sqrt{Q_--X}(1+[X-Q_-]_1)
\quad\mbox{as}\quad X \rightarrow Q_--0,$$
$C=C(\kappa,\lambda)$ beng a positive constant.
The point is not a corner, and $\partial\mathfrak{U}_0$ is smooth.
However it should be noticed that $\mathfrak{U}_0$ is not an ellipse.\\
Therefore, applying the above observations to $\displaystyle \lambda=\frac{R_0}{R}$, we claim
\begin{Theorem}
Compactly supported axially and equatorially symmetric stationary solutions with the height of the stratosphere at the North Pole $R > R_0$ and constant angular velocity $\Omega$ exist if and only if $\displaystyle\kappa= \frac{\Omega^2R_0^3}{2{\mathsf{G}M_0}} \leq \frac{4}{27}\Big(\frac{R_0}{R}\Big)^3$.
\end{Theorem}
In this sense we should restrict ourselves to the case $0 \leq \kappa < \frac{4}{27}\lambda^3$, that is, we require the following assumption\\
{\bf (K): } {\it $R > R_0$ and it holds
\begin{equation}
0 \leq \Big(\frac{R}{R_0}\Big)^3\kappa=\frac{\Omega^2R^3}{2{\mathsf{G}M_0}} < \frac{4}{27}.
\end{equation}
}\\
We put
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{R}_1(\Omega^2):=
\begin{cases}
+\infty \quad\mbox{for}\quad \Omega^2=0 \\
\\
\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}\Big(\frac{{\mathsf{G}M_0}}{\Omega^2}\Big)^{\frac{1}{3}} \quad\mbox{for}\quad \Omega^2 > 0
\end{cases}.
\end{equation}
Then the condition {\bf (K)} reads
\begin{equation}
R_0 < R < \mathcal{R}_1(\Omega^2).
\end{equation}\\
In order that $R_0 <\mathcal{R}_1(\Omega^2)$ it is necessary that
\begin{equation}
\Omega^2 <\Omega^2_{\mathrm{max}}:=\frac{4}{9}\frac{{\mathsf{G}M_0}}{(R_0)^3}.
\end{equation}\\
Under the assumption {\bf (K)}, or, in Case (H) with $\lambda=
\frac{R_0}{R}$, we
consider the number $\frac{3R}{2R_0}=\frac{3}{2\lambda}$. Since
$\frac{3}{2\lambda}<\sqrt{ \frac{\lambda}{3\kappa}}$ and since $\displaystyle g\Big(\frac{9}{4\lambda^2}\Big)<0$, which is not obvious but can be shown, we see that $\sqrt{Q_-} <\frac{3}{2\lambda}$. On the other hand, we see obviosly that
$ \frac{3}{2\lambda}<\sqrt{\frac{\lambda}{3\kappa}}<\sqrt{Q_+}$. Therefore we have the estimate
$$ \sqrt{Q_-} < \frac{3}{2\lambda}=\frac{3R}{2R_0} <\sqrt{Q_+}. $$ Thus
the closure of $\mathfrak{U}_0$ is included in
$\{R_0 \leq r,\varpi <{3R}/{2}\}$, and $\varUpsilon$ is a classical solution
on $[0,+\infty[\times \mathfrak{D}$, where
$\mathfrak{D}=\{R_0 < r,\varpi <{3R}/{2}\}$. So
$$\bar{\rho}=
\Big(\frac{\gamma-1}{\mathsf{A}\gamma}(
\varUpsilon \restriction \mathfrak{D} )
\vee 0\Big)^{\frac{1}{\gamma-1}}$$
turns out to be a classical solution on $[0,+\infty[\times\mathfrak{D}$. In other words, if we put
\begin{equation}
\varUpsilon_{\blacktriangle}=
\begin{cases}
\varUpsilon \quad\mbox{on}\quad \mathfrak{U}_0 \\
0 \quad\mbox{on}\quad \{R_0 < r\}\setminus \mathfrak{U}_0,
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
that is,
\begin{align}
\varUpsilon_{\blacktriangle}&=(\varUpsilon\vee 0)\cdot 1_{\varpi <3R/2}
=(\varUpsilon\cdot 1_{\varpi < 3R/2})\vee 0 \nonumber \\
&=
\begin{cases}
\varUpsilon \quad\mbox{if}\quad \varUpsilon>0\quad\mbox{and}\quad \varpi <\frac{3R}{2} \\
0 \quad\mbox{otherwise}
\end{cases},
\end{align}
the density distribution $\bar{\rho}$ given by
\begin{equation}
\bar{\rho}=\Big(\frac{\gamma-1}{\mathsf{A}\gamma}
\varUpsilon_{\blacktriangle}\Big)^{\frac{1}{\gamma-1}}
\end{equation}
gives a classical solution $(\bar{\rho}, \mathbf{0})$ on $[0,\infty[\times
( \mathbb{R}^3\setminus {\mathfrak{B}}_0)$.
Note that $(\varUpsilon \cdot 1_{\varpi <3R/2}, \mathbf{0})$ is not a classical $(\varUpsilon, \mbox{\boldmath$v$})$-solution on $[0,+\infty[\times ( \mathbb{R}^3\setminus {\mathfrak{B}}_0)$ in the sense of Definition \ref{DEF.3}.\\
We are considering the uniformly rotating atmosphere which occupies
\begin{equation}
\mathfrak{R}:=\{ \mbox{\boldmath$x$} \in \mathbb{R}^3 \ |\
R_0 <r, \rho^{\flat}(\mbox{\boldmath$x$})=\rho(\varpi, z)>0 \},
\end{equation}
provided {\bf (K)}.
Then the boundary $\partial\mathfrak{R}$ of he atmosphere consists of the two connected components $\Sigma_0=\partial\mathfrak{B}_0=\{ r = R_0\}$, the surface of the Earth,
and $$\Sigma_1=\{ \frac{1}{\sqrt{X^2+Z^2}}+\kappa X^2=\frac{R_0}{R}, \quad\mbox{with}\quad
\varpi=R_0X, z=R_0Z \}, $$
the stratosphere of the atmosphere. We are going to
show that the boundary $\Sigma_1$ is a physical vacuum boundary, that is,
at each boundary point $\mathrm{P} \in \Sigma_1$ we have ($\nabla \varUpsilon^{\flat}|\mbox{\boldmath$n$})<0$, where $\mbox{\boldmath$n$}$ is the outer normal vector at $\mathrm{P}$ and $\varUpsilon^{\flat}(\mbox{\boldmath$x$})=\varUpsilon(\varpi, z)$. Recall that $\displaystyle \varUpsilon=\frac{1}{\gamma-1}\frac{dP}{d\rho}$, while $\displaystyle \frac{dP}{d\rho}$ is the square of the sound speed.
In fact if we consider the situation in the $(X, Z)$-plane at $\mathrm{P}: X=X_1, Z= Z_1$ with $0<X_1<\sqrt{Q_-}, Z_1=f(X_1)$ where
$$f(X):=\frac{\sqrt{g(X^2)}}{\lambda-\kappa X^2} \quad\mbox{with}\quad \lambda=\frac{R_0}{R}. $$
By a straight calculation, it can be shown that $Df(X) < 0$ for $0<X<\sqrt{Q_-}$. We have
$$\mbox{\boldmath$n$}=\frac{1}{1+Df(X_1)^2}\Big(-Df(X_1)\frac{\partial}{\partial X}+\frac{\partial}{\partial Z}\Big)$$ so that
\begin{align*}
(\nabla \varUpsilon^{\flat}|\mbox{\boldmath$n$})&=
\frac{1}{1+Df(X_1)^2}\Big(-\frac{\partial \varUpsilon}{\partial X}Df(X_1)+\frac{\partial \varUpsilon}{\partial Z}\Big) \\
&=\frac{1}{1+Df(X_1)^2}\frac{{\mathsf{G}M_0}}{R_0}\Big(
\frac{XDf(X)-f (X)}{(X^2+f(X)^2)^{3/2}}-2\kappa XDf(X)\Big)_{X=X_1}.
\end{align*}
Since $0< X_1, 0<f(X_1), Df(X_1) <0, 0 <\kappa $, we see $(\nabla \varUpsilon^{\flat}|\mbox{\boldmath$n$}) <0$ at $\mathrm{P}$. The exceptional cases, the North Pole ($X=0$) and the Equator
($X=\sqrt{Q_-}$\ ) , can be checked easily. \\
\section{Description of the flow by the Lagrangian co-ordinate}
Let $\mathfrak{D}_0$ be an admissible domain with cover $\tilde{\mathfrak{D}_0}$, and let $ \mbox{\boldmath$v$}$ be a classical admissible velocity field on $[0,T_0[\times \mathfrak{D}_0$.
Let $\mathfrak{D}$ with a cover $\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}$ be an admissible subdomain of $\mathfrak{D}$,
which we shall call a {\it proper asdmissible subdomain of} $\mathfrak{D}$,
such that
$\tilde{ \mathfrak{D}} \Subset \tilde{\mathfrak{D}_0}$, namely,
there is a compact set $K$ such that
$\mathbf{Cl}\tilde{\mathfrak{D}} \subset \mathbf{Int}K \subset K \subset \tilde{\mathfrak{D}_0}$.
Then {\it there is a positive number $T (<T)$ such that
for any $(\tau, \bar{\bm{x}}) \in [0,T]\times \tilde{\mathfrak{D}}$ the initial value problem of the ordinary differential equation
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
&\frac{d \bm{x}}{dt}=\mbox{\boldmath$v$}(t, \bm{x}), \label{FlowIVa}\\
& \bm{x}|_{t=\tau}=\bar{{\bm{x}}} \label{FlowIVb}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
admits the unique solution $\bm{x}=\bm{\varphi}(t, \tau, \bar{{\bm{x}}})$ which exists on $t \in [0, T]$ while $ \bm{x} \in \tilde{\mathfrak{D}_0}$}. We shall call $\varphi$ {\it the flow associated with the velocity field} $\bm{v}$. The flow $\varphi$, as a function, belongs to the class
$C^1([0,T]\times[0,T]\times \mathbf{Cl}\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}\ ;\ \tilde{\mathfrak{D}_0})$.\\
In fact the fundamental theorems of ordinary differential equations (see e.g., \cite{CoddingtonL} ) applied to the vector field $\mbox{\boldmath$v$}$ considered as a $C^1$-field on $[0,T_0[\times \tilde{\mathfrak{D}_0}$ guarantee the existence and uniqueness of the flow on $[0,T]$
valued in $\tilde{\mathfrak{D}_0}$ for $\mbox{\boldmath$x$} \in \mathbf{Int}K$. On the other hand the boundary condition \eqref{adminBC} of $\mbox{\boldmath$v$}$ on $\partial \mathfrak{B}_0$ guarantees that $\partial \mathfrak{B}_0$ is an invarinat set of the equation so that the flow starting with
$\bar{\bm{x}} \in \mathfrak{D}$ cannot touch $\partial\mathfrak{B}_0$ and must remain inside of $\complement \mathfrak{B}_0$, namely,
$\bm{x} \in \tilde{\mathfrak{D}}\setminus \mathfrak{B}_0=\mathfrak{D}$.\\
Of course, abstractly speaking, we can consider the existence domain for $\bm{\varphi}$ of the form
$\mathcal{O}=\bigcup_{(\tau, \bar{\bm{x}}) \in [0,T_0[\times \tilde{\mathfrak{D}_0}}
I_{\tau, \bar{\bm{x}}} \times\{\tau\}\times\{\bar{\bm{x}}\}$, where $I_{\tau, \bar{\bm{x}}}
\subset [0,T_0[$ is the maximal interval of existence of the solution of \eqref{FlowIVa}\eqref{FlowIVb}.
The above observation says that
$[0,T] \subset I_{\tau, \bar{\bm{x}}}$ uniformly for $\forall (\tau, \bar{\bm{x}} )\in [0,T]\times \tilde{\mathfrak{D}}$.\\
Hereafter, we consider $\bm{\varphi}(t, 0, \bar{\bm{x}})$ and denote
$$ \bm{\varphi}(t,\bar{\bm{x}}):=\bm{\varphi}(t,0, \bar{\bm{x}}).$$\\
Now let us suppose that the velocity field $\bm{v}$ is that of a classical $(\varUpsilon,\bm{v})$-solution $(\varUpsilon,\bm{v})$ on $[0,T_0[\times \mathfrak{D}_0$. Denote
\begin{equation}
\overset{\circ}{\varUpsilon}(\bm{x})=\varUpsilon(0,\bm{x}).
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
D\bm{\varphi}(t,\bar{\bm{x}})=((D\bm{\varphi})_k^j(t,\bar{\bm{x}}))_{j,k}=
\Big(\frac{\partial}{\partial \bar{x}^k}\varphi^j(t,0, \bar{\bm{x}})\Big)_{j,k}.
\end{equation}\\
Integrating the equation of contihuity \eqref{C.2a}, we claim
\begin{Proposition}\label{Prop.Conti}
It holds that
\begin{equation}
\varUpsilon(t, \bm{\varphi}(t,\bar{\bm{x}}))=
\overset{\circ}{\varUpsilon}(\bar{\bm{x}})\mathrm{det}
D\bm{\varphi}(t,\bar{\bm{x}})^{-(\gamma-1)}
\end{equation}
for $t \in [0,T], \bar{\bm{x}} \in \mathfrak{D}$.
\end{Proposition}
Proof.
The equation \eqref{C.2a} reads
$$\frac{D}{Dt}\log \varUpsilon=-(\gamma-1)(\nabla|\mbox{\boldmath$v$}) (t,{\mbox{\boldmath$x$}})$$
where $\varUpsilon \not=0$. Therefore
$$ \varUpsilon(t,\underline{\bm{x}})=\overset{\circ}{\varUpsilon}(\bar{\bm{x}})\exp\Big[
-(\gamma-1)\int_0^t
(\nabla|\mbox{\boldmath$v$})(t', \bm{\varphi}(t', 0, \bar{\mbox{\boldmath$x$}}))dt' \Big]
$$
Here
\begin{align*}
&(\nabla|\mbox{\boldmath$v$})(t,{\mbox{\boldmath$x$}})=\mathrm{tr}D\mbox{\boldmath$v$}(t,{\mbox{\boldmath$x$}})\quad\mbox{with}\quad D\mbox{\boldmath$v$}=(\partial v^i/\partial {x}^j)_{i,j} , \\
& D\bm{\varphi}(t,\bar{\mbox{\boldmath$x$}})=D_{\bar{\mbox{\boldmath$x$}}} {\mbox{\boldmath$x$}}(t,0,\bar{\bm{x}}).
\end{align*}
But, since
\begin{align*}
\Big(\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Big)_{\bar{\mbox{\boldmath$x$}}}D\bm{\varphi}(t,\bar{\mbox{\boldmath$x$}})&=D_{\bar{\mbox{\boldmath$x$}}}\Big(\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Big)_{\bar{\mbox{\boldmath$x$}}}{\mbox{\boldmath$x$}}(t,0, \bar{\mbox{\boldmath$x$}})=D_{\bar{\mbox{\boldmath$x$}}}\mbox{\boldmath$v$}(t,{\mbox{\boldmath$x$}}) \\
&=D_{{\mbox{\boldmath$x$}}}\mbox{\boldmath$v$}(t,{\mbox{\boldmath$x$}}).D_{\bar{\mbox{\boldmath$x$}}}{\mbox{\boldmath$x$}} =
D_{{\mbox{\boldmath$x$}}}\mbox{\boldmath$v$}(t,{\mbox{\boldmath$x$}}).D\bm{\varphi}(t,\bar{\mbox{\boldmath$x$}}),
\end{align*}
we have
$$D\mbox{\boldmath$v$}(t,{\mbox{\boldmath$x$}})=
\Big(\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Big)_{\bar{\mbox{\boldmath$x$}}}D\bm{\varphi}(t,\bar{\mbox{\boldmath$x$}}).
D\bm{\varphi}(t,\bar{\mbox{\boldmath$x$}})^{-1}.
$$
Thus
$$(\nabla|\mbox{\boldmath$v$})(t,{\mbox{\boldmath$x$}})=
\mathrm{tr}\Big(\Big(\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Big)_{\bar{\mbox{\boldmath$x$}}}D\bm{\varphi}(t,\bar{\mbox{\boldmath$x$}}).
D\bm{\varphi}(t,\bar{\mbox{\boldmath$x$}})^{-1} \Big)
=\Big(\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Big)_{\bar{\bm{x}}}\log \mathrm{det} D\bm{\varphi}(t,\bar{\mbox{\boldmath$x$}}).
$$
Since $D\bm{\varphi}(0,\bar{\mbox{\boldmath$x$}})=I$, it follows that
$$\int_0^t(\nabla|\bm{v})(t', \varphi(t',0, \bar{\bm{x}}))dt'=
\log\mathrm{det}D\bm{\varphi}(t,\bar{\mbox{\boldmath$x$}}).$$
$\square$\\
Let us consider the equation of motion \eqref{C.2b}, namely
$$ \frac{D\bm{v}}{D t}+2\bm{\Omega}\times \bm{v}+\nabla (\varUpsilon+\Phi^{\langle\Omega\rangle})=0.
$$
If we consider the function $\bm{v}_L$ defiened by
\begin{equation}
\bm{v}_L(t,\bar{\bm{x}})=\bm{v}(t,\bm{\varphi}(t,\bar{\bm{x}})) \quad
(t \in [0, T], \bar{\bm{x}} \in \tilde{\mathfrak{D}} ),
\end{equation}
the equation reads
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\bm{v}_L+2\Omega\bm{J}\bm{v}_L+\bm{F}(t,\bar{\bm{x}})=\mathbf{0}, \label{vLEq}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\bm{J}=
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & -1 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{align}
& \bm{F}(t,\bar{\bm{x}})= (F^1(t, \bar{\bm{x}}), F^2(t, \bar{\bm{x}}), F^3(t, \bar{\bm{x}}))^{\top}, \nonumber \\
&F^j(t,\bar{\bm{x}})=\sum_k ((D\bm{\varphi}(t,\bar{\bm{x}}))^{-1})_j^k
\frac{\partial}{\partial \bar{x}^k}\Big[
\overset{\circ}{\varUpsilon}(\bar{\bm{x}})
\mathrm{det}(D\bm{\varphi}(t, \bar{\bm{x}}))^{-(\gamma-1)} + \nonumber \\
&+\Phi^{\langle\Omega\rangle}(\bm{\varphi}(t,\bar{\bm{x}}))
\Big], \quad j=1,2,3. \label{FEq}
\end{align}
Since $\displaystyle \frac{\partial\bm{\varphi}}{\partial t}(t,\bar{\bm{x}})=\bm{v}_L(t,\bar{\bm{x}})$, this equation reads
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial^2\bm{\varphi}}{\partial t^2}+
2\Omega\bm{J}\frac{\partial\bm{\varphi}}{\partial t}+\bm{F}(t,\bar{\bm{x}})=\mathbf{0}. \label{phiEq}
\end{equation}\\
Integrating the equation \eqref{vLEq}, which can be considered as an ordinary differential equation for the unknown $\bm{v}_L(\cdot, \bar{\bm{x}})$ with a parameter
$\bar{\bm{x}}$, we have
\begin{equation}
\bm{v}_L(t,\bar{\bm{x}})=
\overset{\circ}{\bm{v}}(\bar{\bm{x}})-
\int_0^te^{-2\Omega(t-s)\bm{J}}\bm{F}(s, \bar{\bm{x}})ds. \label{3.9}
\end{equation}
Note that
\begin{equation}
e^{\tau\bm{J}}=
\begin{bmatrix}
\cos\tau & -\sin\tau & 0 \\
\sin\tau & \cos\tau & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1
\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation}
The initial value $\overset{\circ}{\bm{v}}(\bm{x})=\bm{v}(0,\bm{x})$ is supposed to be given.
Integrating \eqref{3.9} once more, where
$\bm{v}_L(t,\bar{\bm{x}})=\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\bm{\varphi}(t,\bar{\bm{x}})$, we have the equation
\begin{equation}
\bm{\varphi}(t,\bar{\bm{x}})=\bar{\bm{x}}+\overset{\circ}{\bm{v}}(\bar{\bm{x}})t-
\int_0^t(t-s) K(-2\Omega(t-s))\bm{F}(s,\bar{\bm{x}})ds,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
K(\tau)=
\begin{cases}
=\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau}\int_0^{\tau}e^{\sigma\bm{J}}d\sigma=
\frac{1}{\tau}
\begin{bmatrix}
\sin\tau & \cos\tau -1 & 0 \\
-\cos\tau+1 & \sin\tau & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \tau
\end{bmatrix}
\quad\mbox{for}\quad \tau\not=0,\\
\\
= I \quad\mbox{for}\quad \tau=0.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}\\
Moreover let us put
\begin{align}
& \bm{F}_0(t,\bar{\bm{x}})= (F_0^1(t, \bar{\bm{x}}), F_0^2(t, \bar{\bm{x}}), F_0^3(t, \bar{\bm{x}}))^{\top}, \nonumber \\
&F_0^j=\sum_k ((D\bm{\varphi}(t,\bar{\bm{x}}))^{-1})_j^k
\frac{\partial}{\partial \bar{x}^k}\Big[
\overset{\circ}{\varUpsilon}(\bar{\bm{x}})
\mathrm{det}(D\bm{\varphi}(t, \bar{\bm{x}}))^{-(\gamma-1)}\Big],
\quad j=1,2,3, \label{F0Eq}
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
&\bm{g}^{\langle\Omega\rangle}:=\nabla \Phi^{\langle\Omega\rangle} \\
\mbox{so that} & \nonumber \\
&\bm{g}^{\langle\Omega\rangle}(\bm{x})=
\frac{\mathsf{G}M_0}{r^2}\bm{e}_r+\bm{\Omega}\times(\bm{\Omega}\times\bm{x}) \quad\mbox{for}\quad r=\|\bm{x}\| >R_0.
\end{align}
Then the equation \eqref{phiEq}
reads
\begin{align}
\bm{\varphi}(t,\bar{\bm{x}})&=\bar{\bm{x}}+\overset{\circ}{\bm{v}}(\bar{\bm{x}})t -
\int_0^t(t-s)K(-2\Omega(t-s))\bm{g}^{\langle\Omega\rangle}(\bm{\varphi}(s,\bar{\bm{x}}))ds \nonumber \\
&-\int_0^t(t-s)K(-2\Omega(t-s))\bm{F}_0(s,\bar{\bm{x}})ds.
\end{align} \\
Now let us suppose that there is a vector field ${\bm{\varphi}}(t, \bar{\bm{x}}), (t, \bar{\bm{x}}) \in
[0,T]\times \tilde{\mathfrak{D}} ,$ such that $ \bm{\varphi}
\in \bigcap_{\ell =1,2}C^{2-\ell}([0, T];C^{\ell}(\mathbf{Cl}\tilde{\mathfrak{D}} ))$ and
$$ \bm{\varphi}(0,\bar{\bm{x}})=\bar{\bm{x}} $$
satisfies the equation \eqref{phiEq},
forgetting that the vector field $\bm{\varphi}$ comes from the flow generated by the velocity field $\bm{v}$ of a classical solution $(\varUpsilon,\bm{v})$.
Namely, we use the following definitions:
\begin{Definition}
Let $\mathfrak{D}$ be an admissible domain with cover $\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}$. A scalar field $\overset{\circ}{\varUpsilon}$ defined on $\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}$ is called an admissible $\varUpsilon$-data, if $\overset{\circ}{\varUpsilon} \in C^1(\mathbf{Cl}\tilde{\mathfrak{D}})$ and
$\overset{\circ}{\varUpsilon} >0$ on $\partial\mathfrak{B}_0$.
\end{Definition}
\begin{Definition}
Let $\mathfrak{D}$ be an admissible domain with cover $\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}$, and let $\overset{\circ}{\varUpsilon}$ be an admissible $\varUpsilon$-data on $\mathfrak{D}$. A vector field $\varphi$ is said to be an admissible flow on $[0,T]\times\mathfrak{D}$
associated with $\overset{\circ}{\varUpsilon}$, if 1) $ \bm{\varphi}
\in \bigcap_{\ell =1,2}C^{2-\ell}([0, T];C^{\ell}(\mathbf{Cl}\tilde{\mathfrak{D}} ))$,
2) the equation \eqref{phiEq} is satisfied on $[0,T]\times \mathfrak{D}$, and 3)
the initial condition
$$ \bm{\varphi}(0,\bar{\bm{x}})=\bar{\bm{x}} \quad\mbox{for}\quad \forall
\bar{\bm{x}}\in \tilde{\mathfrak{D}}$$
holds.
\end{Definition}
It is not clear whether the image
$\bm{\varphi}(t, \tilde{\mathfrak{D}})$ is sufficiently vast or not. So, we
keep in mind the following
\begin{Proposition}\label{Prop.EulerDomain}
Let $\bm{\varphi} \in \bigcap_{\ell =1,2}C^{2-\ell}([0, T];C^{\ell}(\mathbf{Cl}\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}) $ be a vector field such that
$$ \bm{\varphi}(0,\bar{\bm{x}})=\bar{\bm{x}} \quad\mbox{for}\quad \forall
\bar{\bm{x}}\in \tilde{\mathfrak{D}},$$
Let ${\mathfrak{O}}, \mathfrak{O}_0, \mathfrak{O}_1$ be connected open subsets of $\mathbb{R}^3$ such that
\begin{equation}
\mathfrak{B}_0 \subset\mathfrak{O}_0\Subset{\mathfrak{O}}
\Subset \mathfrak{O}_1
\Subset\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}
\end{equation}
and $\mathbf{Cl}\mathfrak{O}_1$ is convex. Then
for a sufficiently small ${\underline{T}} (<T)$ there is a function $\bm{\psi}(t,\cdot): {\mathfrak{O}} \rightarrow \mathfrak{O}_1$, $t$ being $\in [0,{\underline{T}}]$, such that
\begin{equation}
\underline{\bm{x}}=\bm{\varphi}(t, \bm{\psi}(t,\underline{\bm{x}}))
\end{equation}
for $\forall (t,\underline{\bm{x}}) \in [0,{\underline{T}}]\times {\mathfrak{O}}$. Moreover
\begin{equation}
\mathfrak{O}_0 \subset \bm{\psi}(t, {\mathfrak{O}})=
\{ \bm{\psi}(t,\underline{\bm{x}} ) \ |\ \underline{\bm{x}} \in {\mathfrak{O}} \}
\end{equation}
for $\forall t \in [0,{\underline{T}}]$.
\end{Proposition}
Proof. Fixing $t$, we are going to solve the equation for unknown $\bar{\bm{x}}$
$$\underline{\bm{x}}=\bm{\varphi}(t,\bar{\bm{x}})
$$
for gven $\underline{\bm{x}}$. Writing
$$F(\bar{\bm{x}})=\underline{\bm{x}}+\bar{\bm{x}}-\bm{\varphi}(t,\bar{\bm{x}}),$$
we convert the equation to the fixed point problem
$$\bar{\bm{x}}=F(\bar{\bm{x}}). $$
Note
\begin{align*}
&\|F(\bar{\bm{x}})-\underline{\bm{x}}\|=\|\bar{\bm{x}}-\bm{\varphi}(t,\bar{\bm{x}})\|=
o(1),\\
& \| DF(\bar{\bm{x}})\|=\| I -D\bm{\varphi}(t,\bar{\bm{x}})\|=o(1)
\end{align*}
uniformly for $\bar{\bm{x}} \in \mathfrak{O}_1$ as $t \rightarrow 0$, since
$ \bm{\varphi}(0,\bar{\bm{x}})=\bar{\bm{x}}$. Therefore, if $\underline{\bm{x}} \in
{\mathfrak{O}}$, we see
$F(\bar{\bm{x}}) \in \mathfrak{O}_1$ for $\bar{\bm{x}} \in \mathfrak{O}_1$ and
$\|F(\bar{\bm{x}}')-F(\bar{\bm{x}})\|\leq \Theta \|\bar{\bm{x}}'-\bar{\bm{x}}\| $
for $\bar{\bm{x}}', \bar{\bm{x}} \in \mathfrak{O}_1$, $\Theta$ being $\in ]0,1[$, provided that $0\leq t \leq {\underline{T}} \ll 1$. Here recall that $\mathfrak{O}_1$ is supposed to be convex. Therefore the fixed point problem admits the unique soluton $\bar{\bm{x}}=\bm{\psi}(t,\underline{\bm{x}}) \in \mathfrak{O}_1$ for $(t,\underline{\bm{x}})
\in [0,{\underline{T}}]\times {\mathfrak{O}}$. Then
$$\underline{\bm{x}}=\bm{\varphi}(t,\bm{\psi}(t,\underline{\bm{x}}))
$$
for $(t,\underline{\bm{x}})\in [0, {\underline{T}}]\times{\mathfrak{O}}$.
Since $\mathbf{Cl}\mathfrak{O}_0 \subset {\mathfrak{O}}$, taking ${\underline{T}}$ smaller if necessary, we can assume that
$\bm{\varphi}(t,\bar{\bm{x}}) \in \tilde{\mathfrak{D}}$ if
$(t, \bar{\bm{x}}) \in [0, {\underline{T}}] \times
\mathfrak{O}_0$. Thus, if $\bar{\bm{x}}\in \mathfrak{O}_0$, there is $\underline{\bm{x}} \in {\mathfrak{O}}$ such that
$\bar{\bm{x}}=\bm{\psi}(t,\underline{\bm{x}})$ provided that $t \in [0,{\underline{T}}]$.
$\square$\\
\begin{Proposition}\label{Prop.BC}
Let $\bm{\varphi}, {\mathfrak{O}}, \mathfrak{O}_0, \mathfrak{O}_1$ and ${\underline{T}}$ be those of Proposition \ref{Prop.EulerDomain}.
The following two conditions 1), 2) are equivalent:\\
1)
the boundary condition
\begin{equation}
\Big(\frac{\partial\bm{\varphi}}{\partial t}\Big|\bm{\varphi}(t,\bar{\bm{x}})\Big)=0\quad\mbox{if}\quad
\|\bm{\varphi}(t,\bar{\bm{x}})\|=R_0
\label{BCEuler}
\end{equation}
holds for $\forall (t, \bar{\bm{x}}) \in [0,{\underline{T}}] \times \mathfrak{O}_0$;\\
2)
\begin{equation}
\|\bm{\varphi}(t,\bar{\bm{x}})\| > R_0\quad\Leftrightarrow
\quad \|\bar{\bm{x}}\| >R_0,
\end{equation}
or
\begin{equation}
\bm{\varphi}(t,\bar{\bm{x}}) \in \mathfrak{D}\quad\Leftrightarrow
\quad \bar{\bm{x}} \in \mathfrak{D}
\end{equation}
for $(t,\bar{\bm{x}}) \in [0,{\underline{T}}]\times \mathfrak{O}_0$.
\end{Proposition}
Proof. 1) $\Rightarrow$ 2):
We consider
$$\sum_j\frac{\partial\varphi^j}{\partial t}
\frac{\partial}{\partial {x}^j}
=v^{{r}}\bm{e}_{{r}}+v^{{\vartheta}}\bm{e}_{{\vartheta}}+
v^{{\phi}}\bm{e}_{{\phi}}.
$$
where
\begin{align*}
&{x}^1={r}\sin{\vartheta}\cos{\phi},
\quad {x}^2={r}\sin{\vartheta}\sin{\phi},
\quad {x}^3={r}\cos{\vartheta}, \\
& \bm{e}_{{r}}=\frac{\partial}{\partial{r}},
\quad \bm{e}_{{\vartheta}}=\frac{1}{{r}}\frac{\partial}{\partial{\vartheta}},
\quad \bm{e}_{{\phi}}=\frac{1}{{r}\sin{\vartheta}}
\frac{\partial}{\partial{\phi}}.
\end{align*}
Then variables $v^{{r}}, v^{{\vartheta}}, v^{{\phi}}$ are functions of $(t, \bm{x})$ and, through $\bm{x}=
\bm{\psi}(t,\underline{\bm{x}})$, functions of $(t,\underline{\bm{x}})$, for
$(t,\underline{\bm{x}}) \in [0,{\underline{T}}]\times
{\mathfrak{O}}$, namely
\begin{align*}
v^{{r}}=f^r(t,{r}, {\vartheta}, {\phi}), \\
v^{{\vartheta}}=f^{\vartheta}(t,{r}, {\vartheta}, {\phi}), \\
v^{{\phi}}=f^{\phi}(t,{r}, {\vartheta}, {\phi}),
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
& \frac{\partial{r}}{\partial t}=f^r(t,{r}, {\vartheta}, {\phi}), \\
& \frac{\partial{\vartheta}}{\partial t}=f^{\vartheta}(t,{r}, {\vartheta}, {\phi}), \\
& \frac{\partial {\phi}}{\partial t}=f^{\phi}(t,{r}, {\vartheta}, {\phi}),
\end{align*}
where
$$
\sum_j{x}^j\frac{\partial}{\partial {x}^j}=\sum_j\varphi^j\frac{\partial}{\partial {x}^j}=
{r}\bm{e}_{{r}}.
$$
The boundary condition \eqref{BCEuler} means
$$f^r(t, R_0, {\vartheta}, {\phi})=0\quad\forall t, {\vartheta},{\phi}
$$
provided that
$t \in [0, {\underline{T}}],
{x}=R_0\bm{e}_{{r}} \in {\mathfrak{O}}$. The functions are of class $C^1$. So, thanks to the uniqueness of continuation of solutions of ordinary differential equations, we see that for solutions
$ ({r}(t), {\vartheta}(t),{\phi}(t))$,
${r}(t_0)=R_0$ at $\exists t_0 \in [0,{\underline{T}}]$ if and only if
${r}(t)=R_0$ for $\forall t \in [0,{\underline{T}}]$.
Therefore, if we consider the solution
${r}(\cdot, \bar{\bm{x}}), {\vartheta}(\cdot,\bar{\bm{x}}),
{\phi}(\cdot, \bar{\bm{x}})$ of the initial value problem
$${r}(0, \bar{\bm{x}})=\bar{r},\quad
{\vartheta}(0,\bar{\bm{x}})=\bar{\vartheta},\quad
{\phi}(0,\bar{\bm{x}})=\bar{\phi},
$$
where
$$
\bar{x}^1=\bar{r}\sin\bar{\vartheta}\cos\bar{\phi}
\quad \bar{x}^2=r\sin\bar{\vartheta}\sin\bar{\phi}
\quad \bar{x}^3=\bar{r}\cos\bar{\vartheta}
$$
and $\bar{\bm{x}} \in \mathfrak{O}_0$ so that
there is $\underline{\bm{x}} \in {\mathfrak{O}} $ such that
$\bar{\bm{x}}=\bm{\psi}(t, \underline{\bm{x}}), \underline{\bm{x}}=\bm{\varphi}(t,\bar{\bm{x}})$,
we can claim
$${r}(t,\bar{\bm{x}}) >R_0 \quad \Leftrightarrow\quad \bar{r} >R_0.$$
This means
$$\|\bm{\varphi}(t,\bar{\bm{x}})\| >R_0\quad\Leftrightarrow \|\bar{\bm{x}}\| >R_0$$
for $(t,\bar{\bm{x}}) \in [0,{\underline{T}}]\times\mathfrak{O}_0$. \\
2) $\Rightarrow$ 1):
If $\|\bm{\varphi}(t_0,\bar{\bm{x}}_0)\|
=R_0$, then $
\|\bar{\bm{x}}_0\| = R_0$, where $(t_0, \bar{\bm{x}}_0) \in [0,{\underline{T}}]\times \mathfrak{O}_0$, and $\|\bm{\varphi}(t, \bar{\bm{x}}_0)\|=R_0$ for
$\forall t \in [0,{\underline{T}}]$. So,
$$\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\|\bm{\varphi}(t, \bar{\bm{x}}_0)\|^2=0,$$
that is, \eqref{BCEuler} holds at $t=t_0, \bar{\bm{x}}=\bar{\bm{x}}_0$.
$\square$\\
In this situation, we can claim
\begin{Theorem}
Let $\mathfrak{D}$ be an admissible domain with cover $\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}$, $\overset{\circ}{\varUpsilon}$ be an admissible $\varUpsilon$-data
on $\mathfrak{D}$, and $\varphi$ be an admissible flow associated with $\overset{\circ}{\varUpsilon}$. Let
${\underline{T}}, {\mathfrak{O}}$ be those of Proposition \ref{Prop.EulerDomain}.
Put
\begin{align}
&\varUpsilon(t,\bm{x})=
\overset{\circ}{\varUpsilon}(\bm{\psi}(t, \bm{x}))\mathrm{det}
D\bm{\varphi}(t, \bm{\psi}(t,\bm{x}))^{-(\gamma-1)} \\
&
\bm{v}(t,\bm{x})=\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\bm{\varphi}(t, \bar{\bm{x}})\Big|_{\bar{\bm{x}}=\bm{\psi}(t,\bm{x})}
\end{align}
for $(t, \bm{x}) \in [0,{\underline{T}}]\times {\mathfrak{O}}$.
Suppose that the condition of Proposition \ref{Prop.BC} holds valid.
Then $(\varUpsilon,\bm{v})$ is a classical $(\varUpsilon,\bm{v})$-solution on $[0,{\underline{T}}] \times
\underline{\mathfrak{D}}$, where $\underline{\mathfrak{D}}={\mathfrak{O}}\setminus
\mathfrak{B}_0$.
\end{Theorem}
Hereafter we shall denote by $\underline{\bm{x}}, \bm{x}$ the co-ordinate variables $\bm{x}, \bar{\bm{x}}$, respectively. That is, $\underline{\bm{x}}$ stands for the Eulerian co-ordinate, and $\bm{x}$ stands for the Lagrangian co-ordinate. So, the argument of the function $\bm{\varphi}$ of the flow should be $(t, \bm{x})$ instead of $(t,\bar{\bm{x}})$. The equation \eqref{phiEq} is considered as
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2}\bm{\varphi}(t,\bm{x})+
2\Omega\bm{J}\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\bm{\varphi}(t,\bm{x})+\bm{F}(t,\bm{x})=\mathbf{0}, \label{FlEq}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\bm{J}=
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & -1 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{align}
& \bm{F}(t,{\bm{x}})= (F^1(t, {\bm{x}}), F^2(t, {\bm{x}}), F^3(t, {\bm{x}}))^{\top}, \nonumber \\
&F^j(t,\bm{x})=\sum_k ((D\bm{\varphi}(t,{\bm{x}}))^{-1})_j^k
\frac{\partial}{\partial {x}^k}\Big[
\overset{\circ}{\varUpsilon}({\bm{x}})
\mathrm{det}(D\bm{\varphi}(t, {\bm{x}}))^{-(\gamma-1)} + \nonumber \\
&+\Phi^{\langle\Omega\rangle}(\bm{\varphi}(t,{\bm{x}}))
\Big], \quad j=1,2,3.
\end{align}
We consider the equation \eqref{FlEq} for
$ \bm{\varphi}
\in \bigcap_{\ell =1,2}C^{2-\ell}([0, T];C^{\ell}(\mathbf{Cl}\tilde{\mathfrak{D}} ))$,
where $T>0$ and $\mathfrak{D}$ is an admissible domain with cover $\tilde{\mathfrak{D}}$. Here the initial data $\overset{\circ}{\varUpsilon}$ belongs to
$C^1(\mathbf{Cl}\tilde{\mathfrak{D}})$ and it is supposded that $\overset{\circ}{\varUpsilon} >0 $ on $\partial\mathfrak{B}_0$. \\
Now let us derive the linearized approximation of the equation
\eqref{FlEq}, in the situation that $ \bm{\varphi}-\bm{x},
D\bm{\varphi}-I$ are negrigibly small.
Let $\bar{\varUpsilon}$ be a stationary solution, say,
$$\bar{\varUpsilon}(\bm{x})=-\Phi^{\langle\Omega\rangle}(\bm{x})
-\frac{\mathsf{G}M_0}{R} $$
under the assumption {\bf (K)}. Then we have
\begin{align*}
&F^j(t,\bm{x})=\sum_k ((D\bm{\varphi}(t,{\bm{x}}))^{-1})_j^k
\frac{\partial}{\partial {x}^k}\Big[
\overset{\circ}{\varUpsilon}({\bm{x}})
\mathrm{det}(D\bm{\varphi}(t, {\bm{x}}))^{-(\gamma-1)} + \nonumber \\
&-\bar{\varUpsilon}(\bm{\varphi}(t,\bm{x}))\Big], \quad j=1,2,3.
\end{align*}
and the approximation turns out to be
\begin{equation}
F^j \approx
\frac{\partial}{\partial x^j}
\Big[\overset{\circ}{\varUpsilon}(\bm{x})-(\gamma-1)\overset{\circ}{\varUpsilon}(\bm{x})(\nabla|\bm{\varphi}-\bm{x})-\bar{\varUpsilon}(\bm{x})-(\nabla\bar{\varUpsilon}|\bm{\varphi}-\bm{x})
\Big]. \label{approxS}
\end{equation}
Here we have asumed that
$\overset{\circ}{\varUpsilon}-\bar{\varUpsilon}$ is small in the same as or less order than $\bm{\varphi}-\bm{x}, D\bm{\varphi}-I$.
Therefore, if a small constant vector $\overset{\circ}{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}$ is given, then we take the initial data defined by
\begin{equation}
\overset{\circ}{\varUpsilon}=
\bar{\varUpsilon}-(\gamma-1)\bar{\varUpsilon}
(\nabla|\overset{\circ}{\bm{\xi}})
-(\nabla\bar{\varUpsilon}|\overset{\circ}{\bm{\xi}}).
\label{ou}
\end{equation}
Then it follows that
\begin{align*}
\clubsuit &:= \overset{\circ}{\varUpsilon}
-(\gamma-1)\overset{\circ}{\varUpsilon}(\nabla|\bm{\varphi}-\bm{x})
-\bar{\varUpsilon}
-(\nabla\bar{\varUpsilon}|\bm{\varphi}-\bm{x}) \\
&=-\Big[
(\gamma-1)\bar{\varUpsilon}(\nabla|\bm{\varphi}-\bm{x}+\overset{\circ}{\bm{\xi}})
+(\nabla\bar{\varUpsilon}|\bm{\varphi}-\bm{x}+\overset{\circ}{\bm{\xi}})
\Big]
+(\bar{\varUpsilon}-\overset{\circ}{\varUpsilon})
(\nabla|\bm{\varphi}-\bm{x}).
\end{align*}
Its linearized approximation is
$$ \clubsuit \approx -\overline{ \frac{d\varUpsilon}{d\rho} }
(\nabla|\bar{\rho}(\bm{\varphi}-\bm{x}+\overset{\circ}{\bm{\xi}})).
$$
So, \eqref{approxS}:
$$ {F}^j \approx \frac{\partial}{\partial x^j}\clubsuit
$$
gives the linearized approximation
\begin{equation}
{F}^j =
\frac{\partial}{\partial x^j}\Big(-\overline{\frac{d\varUpsilon}{d\rho}}(\nabla|\bar{\rho}
{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}})\Big) \quad \mbox{with}\quad
{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}=\bm{\varphi}-\bm{x}+\overset{\circ}{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}. \label{LinS}
\end{equation}\\
Now the domain $\mathfrak{R}=
\{\bar{\rho}>0\}=\{\bar{\varUpsilon}>0\}\cap \{\varpi <3R/2\}$
has the form
$$\mathfrak{R}=\{ R_0<r <R\cdot H(\zeta^2;\kappa,\lambda),\quad -1 \leq \zeta:=\frac{z}{r}\leq 1 \},$$
where $\zeta^2 \mapsto H(\zeta^2;\kappa, \lambda)$ is a smooth monotone function on $[0,1]$ such that
$1=H(1;\kappa,\lambda)\leq H(0;\kappa, \lambda)$. (Note $H(1)=H(0) \Leftrightarrow \kappa=0, \mbox{that is,} \Omega=0$.)
Given a small $\overset{\circ}{\bm{\xi}}$, we consider
$\overset{\circ}{\varUpsilon}$ determined by \eqref{ou}.
Of course $\overset{\circ}{\varUpsilon}-\bar{\varUpsilon}$ is small, but
the topology of
$\{ \overset{\circ}{\varUpsilon} > 0\}\cap \{\varpi <3R/2\}$
is not clear, generaly speaking. In fact, as for
$ \{ \overset{\circ}{\varUpsilon} >0 \} =
\Big\{\Big(1-(\gamma-1)(\nabla|\overset{\circ}{\bm{\xi}})\Big)\bar{\varUpsilon} >
(\nabla \bar{\varUpsilon}|\overset{\circ}{\bm{\xi}}) \Big\}$,
we have that $\displaystyle \frac{\nabla\bar{\varUpsilon}}{\bar{\varUpsilon}}$ may diverge along the vacuum boundary $\Sigma_1$ of $\bar{\rho}$. At least, if, for example, $\overset{\circ}{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}_1 \in C_0^{\infty}(\Sigma_0\cup \mathfrak{R})$, then for $\overset{\circ}{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}=
\varepsilon\overset{\circ}{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}_1$ with $\varepsilon \ll 1$, it is guaranteed that $\{ \overset{\circ}{\varUpsilon} >0\}\cap\{ \varpi <3R/2\}=\mathfrak{R}
(=\{ \bar{\varUpsilon} > 0 \}\cap\{ \varpi <3R/2\})
$.
More generally, {\bf if
$\displaystyle
\frac{1}{\bar{\rho}}(\nabla|\bar{\rho}\overset{\circ}{\bm{\xi}}_1)=
(\nabla\log\bar{\rho}|\overset{\circ}{\bm{\xi}}_1)+(\nabla|\overset{\circ}{\bm{\xi}}_1) \subset
\frac{1}{\gamma-1}(\nabla\log\bar{\varUpsilon}|\overset{\circ}{\bm{\xi}}_1)+(\nabla|\overset{\circ}{\bm{\xi}}_1)$
is bounded on a neighborhood of the vacuum boundary $\Sigma_1$ of $\bar{\rho}$, then $\bar{\rho}>0 \Leftrightarrow
\overset{\circ}{\varUpsilon}>0$ there for $\overset{\circ}{\bm{\xi}}=\varepsilon\overset{\circ}{\bm{\xi}}_1$ with $\varepsilon \ll 1$}.\\
{\bf Historical Remark:}\ The derivation of the linearized approximation of the equations in Lagrangian co-ordinate system can be found
\cite[Sect. 56]{LedouxW}, \cite[pp. 139-140.]{Batchelor}, \cite[p.11, (A)]{Bjerknes}, \cite{LyndenBO}, \cite[p.500, (1)]{Lebovitz} and so on. But there was considered only the case of $\overset{\circ}{\rho}=\bar{\rho}$.\\
Here we should consider the boundary condition of the perturbation in the linearized approximation. We propose the condition
\begin{equation}
\Big(\frac{\partial\bm{\varphi}}{\partial t}\Big|\bm{x}\Big)=0\quad\mbox{if}\quad
\|\bm{x}\|=R_0. \label{approxBC}
\end{equation}
as the linearized approximation of the condition \eqref{BCEuler} settled in
Proposition \ref{Prop.BC}.
Let $\|\bm{\varphi}(t,\bm{x})\|=R_0$. Then the condition \eqref{approxBC} implies
\begin{equation}
\Big(\frac{\partial\bm{\varphi}}{\partial t}(t, \bm{\varphi}(t,\bm{x}))\Big|
\bm{\varphi}(t,\bm{x})\Big)=0. \label{XX}
\end{equation}
But from the point of view of the linarized approximation the left hand side of \eqref{XX} is equivalent to
$\displaystyle \Big(\frac{\partial\bm{\varphi}}{\partial t}(t,\bm{x})+\Big(\bm{\varphi}(t,\bm{x})-\bm{x}\Big|\nabla_{\underline{\bm{x}}}\Big)\frac{\partial\bm{\varphi}}{\partial t}(t,\bm{x})\Big|\bm{\varphi}\Big)$ or to
$ \displaystyle \Big(\frac{\partial\bm{\varphi}}{\partial t}\Big|\bm{\varphi}\Big)$.
Thus \eqref{approxBC} implies the linearized approximation of the condition \eqref{BCEuler}, namely,
$$\Big(\frac{\partial\bm{\varphi}}{\partial t}(t,\bm{x})\Big|\bm{\varphi}(t,\bm{x})\Big)
\approx 0 \quad\mbox{if}\quad
\|\bm{\varphi}(t,\bm{x})\|=R_0.
$$
Note that it follows from the condition \eqref{approxBC} that
$$\|\bm{\varphi}(t,\bm{x})\|=R_0 \quad\forall t \quad\mbox{if}\quad
\|\bm{x}\|=R_0,$$
provided that $\bm{\xi}$ is of $C^1$-class. But we may be impossible to claim that
$$\|\bm{\varphi}(t,\bm{x})\|>R_0 \quad\forall t \quad\mbox{if}\quad
\|\bm{x}\|>R_0$$
by dint of the condition \eqref{approxBC}.
\section{Linearized equations for perturbations}
Let us fix a stationary solution
\begin{equation}
\bar{\varUpsilon}=
-\Phi^{\langle \Omega \rangle}-\frac{{\mathsf{G}M_0}}{R},
\quad \bar{\bm{v}}=\mathbf{0}
\end{equation}
under the assumption {\bf (K)}. We write $\mathfrak{R}=\{ \bar{\rho} >0\}$.
We consider the linearized approximation of the equation \eqref{FlEq} by \eqref{LinS}. That is, we are going to analyze the linear equation
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial^2 \bm{\xi}}{\partial t^2}+
2\Omega\bm{J}\frac{\partial \bm{\xi} }{\partial t}+
\nabla G=0 \label{E}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
G=-\overline{\frac{d\varUpsilon}{d\rho}}(\nabla|\bar{\rho}\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$})
\end{equation}
on $[0, +\infty[\times \mathfrak{D}$, supposing that $\mathfrak{R} \subset \mathfrak{D}$.
Here the unknown function $\bm{\xi}$ stands for $\bm{\varphi}-\bm{x}+\overset{\circ}{\bm{\xi}}$,
namely, $\bm{\varphi}(t,\bm{x})=\bm{x}+\bm{\xi}(t,\bm{x})-\overset{\circ}{\bm{\xi}}(\bm{x})$,
so that
$\bm{\xi}(0,\bm{x})=\overset{\circ}{\bm{\xi}}(\bm{x})$, which may be $\not= \bm{0}$ but is small,
and
$\displaystyle \frac{\partial\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}{\partial t}(0,\mbox{\boldmath$x$})$ is equal to the initial perturbed velocity
$ \overset{\circ}{\bm{v}}=\mbox{\boldmath$v$}(0,\mbox{\boldmath$x$})$, which is supposed to be sufficiently small. \\
Let us write the equation \eqref{E} as
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial^2\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}{\partial t^2}+2\Omega\mbox{\boldmath$J$}\frac{\partial\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}{\partial t}+\mbox{\boldmath$L$}\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}=0, \label{3.12}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align}
&\mbox{\boldmath$J$}=
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & -1 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{bmatrix}, \\
&\mbox{\boldmath$L$}\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}=\nabla G, \quad G=-\overline{\frac{d\varUpsilon}{d\rho}}g,\quad g=(\nabla | \bar{\rho}\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}).
\end{align}
We consider the differential operator $\mbox{\boldmath$L$}$ in the Hilbert space
$\mathfrak{H}=\mathfrak{H}^{(R,\Omega^2)}$ of all measurable functions $\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}$
defined on $\mathfrak{R}=\mathfrak{R}^{(R,\Omega)}$ such that
$\|\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}\|_{\mathfrak{H}} < \infty$, where
\begin{equation}
\|\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}\|_{\mathfrak{H}}^2=\int_{\mathfrak{R}}\|\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}(\mbox{\boldmath$x$})\|^2\bar{\rho}(\mbox{\boldmath$x$})d\mbox{\boldmath$x$},
\end{equation}
that is, the inner product of $\mathfrak{H}$ is
\begin{equation}
(\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}_1|\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}_2)_{\mathfrak{H}}=
\int_{\mathfrak{R}}(\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}_1(\mbox{\boldmath$x$})|\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}_2(\mbox{\boldmath$x$}))\bar{\rho}(\mbox{\boldmath$x$})d\mbox{\boldmath$x$}.
\end{equation}
Of course
$$(\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}_1(\mbox{\boldmath$x$})|\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}_2(\mbox{\boldmath$x$})):=\sum_k \xi_1^k(\mbox{\boldmath$x$})(\xi_2^k(\mbox{\boldmath$x$}))^*
\quad\mbox{for}\quad
\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}_{\mu}(\mbox{\boldmath$x$})=
\begin{bmatrix}
\xi_{\mu}^1(\mbox{\boldmath$x$}) \\
\\
\xi_{\mu}^2(\mbox{\boldmath$x$})\\
\\
\xi_{\mu}^ 3(\mbox{\boldmath$x$})
\end{bmatrix}, \mu=1,2.$$\\
Here and hereafter $Z^*$ denotes the complex conjugate $X-\mathrm{i}Y$of $Z=X+\mathrm{i}Y$, while $\mathrm{i}$ stands for the imaginary unit, $\sqrt{-1}$.\\
Briefly speaking, we consider $\mathfrak{H}=L^2(\mathfrak{R}, \bar{\rho}dx; \mathbb{C}^3)$.\\
For $\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}_{\mu}\in C_0^{\infty}(\mathfrak{R}), \mu=1,2$, we have
\begin{equation}
(\mbox{\boldmath$L$}\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}_1|\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}_2)_{\mathfrak{H}}=
\int_{\mathfrak{R}}
\overline{\frac{d\varUpsilon}{d\rho}}g_1g_2^*d\mbox{\boldmath$x$},\quad\mbox{with}\quad
g_{\mu}=(\nabla | \bar{\rho}\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}_{\mu}).
\end{equation}\\
So we put
\begin{equation}
Q(\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}_1,\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}_2)=
\int_{\mathfrak{R}}
\overline{\frac{d\varUpsilon}{d\rho}}g_1g_2^*d\mbox{\boldmath$x$}\quad\mbox{with}\quad
g_{\mu}=(\nabla| \bar{\rho}\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}_{\mu}),
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
Q[\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}]=Q(\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}, \mbox{\boldmath$\xi$})=\int_{\mathfrak{R}}\overline{\frac{d\varUpsilon}{d\rho}}|g|^2d\mbox{\boldmath$x$}\quad
\mbox{with}\quad g=(\nabla | \bar{\rho}\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}). \label{3.19}
\end{equation}\\
We start from the operator $\mathfrak{\underline{T}}_c$ in $\mathfrak{H}$ defined by
$\mathfrak{\underline{T}}_c : \mbox{\boldmath$\xi$} \mapsto \mbox{\boldmath$L$}\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$} $ on the domain
$\mathsf{D}(\mathfrak{\underline{T}}_c)=C_0^{\infty}(\mathfrak{R})$. Then $\mathfrak{\underline{T}}_c$ is
densely defined, symmetric and bounded from below as
$$(\mathfrak{\underline{T}}_c\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}|\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$})_{\mathfrak{H}}=Q[\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}] \geq 0.
$$Therefore, seeing, e.g., \cite[Chapter VI, Section 2.3]{Kato}, we have that $\mathfrak{\underline{T}}_c$ admits the Friedrichs extension $\mathfrak{\underline{T}}$ which is a self-adjoint operator in $\mathfrak{H}$. The domain of $\mathfrak{\underline{T}}$ is
\begin{equation}
\mathsf{D}(\mathfrak{\underline{T}})=\{ \mbox{\boldmath$\xi$} \in \mathfrak{H}_0^{\mathrm{div}}\ |\ \mbox{\boldmath$L$}\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$} \in \mathfrak{H} \quad \mbox{in the sense of distribution} \}.
\end{equation}
Here $\mathfrak{H}_0^{\mathrm{div}}=(\mathfrak{H}_0^{\mathrm{div}})^{(R,\Omega^2)}$ is the Hilbert space of all
$\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$} \in \mathfrak{H}$ such that there is a sequence
$\mbox{\boldmath$\varphi$}_n \in C_0^{\infty}(\mathfrak{R})$ such that
\begin{align*}
&\mbox{\boldmath$\varphi$}_n \rightarrow \mbox{\boldmath$\xi$} \quad\mbox{in}\quad \mathfrak{H}\quad\mbox{as}\quad
n \rightarrow \infty, \\
&Q[\mbox{\boldmath$\varphi$}_m-\mbox{\boldmath$\varphi$}_n] \rightarrow 0\quad\mbox{as}\quad
n,m \rightarrow \infty.
\end{align*}
In order to fix the idea we use
\begin{Definition}
We put
\begin{equation}
\mathfrak{H}^{\mathrm{div}}=\{ \bm{\xi} \in \mathfrak{H} \ |\
g=(\nabla|\bar{\rho}\bm{\xi}) \in L^2(\mathfrak{R};
\overline{\frac{d\varUpsilon}{d\rho}}d\bm{x})
\}, \label{DefHdiv}
\end{equation}
and regard it as a Hilbert space endowed with the inner product
\begin{equation}
(\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}_1|\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}_2)_{\mathfrak{H}^{\mathrm{div}}}=
Q(\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}_1, \mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}_2)+(\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}_1|\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}_2)_{\mathfrak{H}}.
\end{equation}
\end{Definition}
Thus we are saying
\begin{Definition} $\mathfrak{H}_0^{\mathrm{div}}$ is the closure of $C_0^{\infty}(\mathfrak{R})$ in $\mathfrak{H}^{\mathrm{div}}$.
\end{Definition}
Hereafter we shall denote by $\mbox{\boldmath$L$}$ the Friedrichs extension $\mathfrak{\underline{T}}$, diverting the letter. So we have
\begin{Theorem}
The operator $\mbox{\boldmath$L$}$ is a self-adjoint operator bounded from below by $0$ in the Hilbert
space $\mathfrak{H}$, whose domain is
\begin{equation}
\mathsf{D}(\mbox{\boldmath$L$})=\{ \mbox{\boldmath$\xi$} \in \mathfrak{H}_0^{\mathrm{div}} \ |\ \mbox{\boldmath$L$}\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$} \in \mathfrak{H}\}.
\end{equation}
\end{Theorem}
Note that $\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$} \in \mathsf{D}(\mbox{\boldmath$L$}) \subset \mathfrak{H}_0^{\mathrm{div}}$ enjoys the boundary condition
\begin{equation}
\xi^r:=
\Big(\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}\Big|
\frac{\partial}{\partial r}\Big)=0\quad\mbox{on}\quad
\Sigma_0=\{ r=R_0\} \label{0416}
\end{equation}
in the following sense: There is known to uniquely exist the `normal trace operator'
$\gamma_{\mathrm{n}}$ which maps $\mathfrak{H}^{\mathrm{div}}$ into $H^{-1/2}(\Sigma_0)$ continuously such that $\gamma_{\mathrm{n}}\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}=(\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}|-\frac{\partial}{\partial r})$ when $\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$} \in C^1(\mathfrak{R}\cup\partial\mathfrak{R})$, and $\gamma_{\mathrm{n}}(\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$})=0$ when
$\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$} \in \mathfrak{H}_0^{\mathrm{div}}$. (See e.g., \cite[Chapter I]{GR86}.)
Here we have used the fact that $\displaystyle \bar{\rho}, \overline{\frac{d\varUpsilon}{d\rho}} \in C^{\infty}(\mathfrak{R}\cup\Sigma_0)$
and
\begin{align*}
&\bar{\rho}\geq
\Big(\frac{\gamma-1}{\mathsf{A}\gamma}\Big)^\frac{1}{\gamma-1}
\Big({\mathsf{G}M_0}\Big(\frac{1}{R_0}-\frac{1}{R}\Big)\Big)^{\frac{1}{\gamma-1}}>0
\quad\mbox{on}\ \Sigma_0, \\
&\overline{\frac{d\varUpsilon}{d\rho}}
\geq
(\gamma-1)\Big(\frac{\mathsf{A}\gamma}{\gamma-1}\Big)^{\frac{1}{\gamma-1}}
\Big({\mathsf{G}M_0}\Big(\frac{1}{R_0}-\frac{1}{R}\Big)\Big)^{-\frac{2-\gamma}{\gamma-1}}
>0
\quad\mbox{on}\ \Sigma_0,
\end{align*}
thanks to the assumption $R>R_0$,
so that
\begin{align*}
&\|\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}\|^2\bar{\rho}d\mbox{\boldmath$x$} =
\frac{1}{\bar{\rho}}\|\hat{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}\|^2d\mbox{\boldmath$x$}
\geq \frac{1}{C}
\|\hat{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}\|^2d\mbox{\boldmath$x$}\quad \mbox{on}\ \mathfrak{R}, \\
&\overline{\frac{d\varUpsilon}{d\rho}}|(\nabla|\bar{\rho}\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$})|^2d\mbox{\boldmath$x$} =
{\mathsf{A}\gamma}{\bar{\rho}^{\gamma-2}}
|(\nabla|\hat{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}})|^2d\mbox{\boldmath$x$}
\geq
\frac{1}{C}
|(\nabla|\hat{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}})|^2d\mbox{\boldmath$x$}
\quad \mbox{on}\ \mathfrak{R},
\end{align*}
where $\hat{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}:=
\bar{\rho}{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}$
and $C$ is a sufficiently large finite positive number, and the theory on the functional spaces $H({\mathrm{div}}; \mathfrak{R}), H_0({\mathrm{div}};\mathfrak{R}), H^{1/2}(\partial\mathfrak{R}), H^{-1/2}(\partial\mathfrak{R})$ and the normal trace operator $\gamma_{\mathrm{n}}$ seen in \cite{GR86} can be applied
to the vector filed $\hat{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}=\bar{\rho}\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}$,
since the above estimates guarantee that the space
$\hat{\mathfrak{H}}^{\mathrm{div}}:=\{ \hat{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}} | \mbox{\boldmath$\xi$} \in \mathfrak{H}^{\mathrm{div}}\},
\hat{\mathfrak{H}}_0^{\mathrm{div}}:=\{ \hat{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}} | \mbox{\boldmath$\xi$} \in \mathfrak{H}_0^{\mathrm{div}}\}
$ are continuously imbedded into
$H(\mathrm{div}; \mathfrak{R}),
H_0(\mathrm{div}; \mathfrak{R})$.
Note that \eqref{0416} is nothing but that condition \eqref{approxBC} formally. \\
As for the operator $\mbox{\boldmath$J$}\cdot : \mbox{\boldmath$\xi$} \mapsto \mbox{\boldmath$J$}\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}$, it is clear that it is a bounded linear operator on $\mathfrak{H}$. Moreover we see
\begin{align}
(\mbox{\boldmath$J$}\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}_{(1)}|\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}_{(2)})_{\mathfrak{H}}&=
\int_{\mathfrak{R}}\Big[-\xi_{(1)2}(\xi_{(2)1})^*+\xi_{(1)1}(\xi_{(2)2})^*\Big]\bar{\rho}(\mbox{\boldmath$x$})d\mbox{\boldmath$x$} = \nonumber \\
&=-(\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}_{(1)}|\mbox{\boldmath$J$} \mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}_{(2)})_{\mathfrak{H}}
\end{align}
and
\begin{equation}
(\mbox{\boldmath$J$}\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}|\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$})_{\mathfrak{H}}=
\mathrm{i}\int2\mathfrak{Im}[\xi^1(\xi^2)^*]\bar{\rho}(\mbox{\boldmath$x$})d\mbox{\boldmath$x$}..
\end{equation}
Therefore
\begin{equation}
\mathfrak{Re}[(\mbox{\boldmath$J$}\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}|\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$})_{\mathfrak{H}}]=0,\quad\mbox{and}\quad |(\mbox{\boldmath$J$}\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}|\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$})_{\mathfrak{H}}|\leq \|\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}\|_{\mathfrak{H}}^2. \label{J0}
\end{equation}
Later we shall use
the densely defined closed operator
\begin{equation}
\mbox{\boldmath$L$}^{c\Omega}:=\mbox{\boldmath$L$}+c\Omega\mbox{\boldmath$J$},\quad \mathsf{D}(\mbox{\boldmath$L$}^{c\Omega})=\mathsf{D}(\mbox{\boldmath$L$}),
\end{equation}
$c$ being a real number. When $c\Omega \not=0$, we cannot say that it is self-adjoint, but we can claim at least the following
\begin{Proposition}\label{Resolv}
For any $ c \in \mathbb{R}$ and $\lambda >|c\Omega|$ the operator
$\mbox{\boldmath$L$} +c\Omega\mbox{\boldmath$J$}+\lambda$ has the bounded linear inverse operator $(\mbox{\boldmath$L$}+c\Omega\mbox{\boldmath$J$}+\lambda)^{-1}$ defined on the whole space $\mathfrak{H}$
such that
\begin{equation}
|\|(\mbox{\boldmath$L$}+c\Omega\mbox{\boldmath$J$}+\lambda)^{-1}\||_{\mathcal{B}(\mathfrak{H})}\leq \frac{1}{\lambda-|c\Omega|}.
\end{equation}
\end{Proposition}
Proof. First we see $\mbox{\boldmath$L$} \pm c\Omega\mbox{\boldmath$J$}+\lambda$ is invertible. In fact, if
$$(\mbox{\boldmath$L$}\pm c\Omega\mbox{\boldmath$J$}+\lambda)\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}=\mbox{\boldmath$f$},\quad \mbox{\boldmath$\xi$} \in \mathsf{D}(\mbox{\boldmath$L$}),\quad \mbox{\boldmath$f$} \in \mathfrak{H},
$$
then by \eqref{J0} we see
$$
(\lambda-|c\Omega|)\|\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}\|_{\mathfrak{H}}^2 \leq Q[\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}]
+c\Omega(\mbox{\boldmath$J$}\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}|\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$})_{\mathfrak{H}}
+\lambda\|\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}\|_{\mathfrak{H}}^2 = (\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}|\mbox{\boldmath$f$})_{\mathfrak{H}} \leq \|\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}\|_{\mathfrak{H}}\|\mbox{\boldmath$f$}\|_{\mathfrak{H}},
$$
therefore we have
$$\|\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}\|_{\mathfrak{H}}\leq \frac{1}{\lambda-|c\Omega|}\|\mbox{\boldmath$f$}\|_{\mathfrak{H}}.
$$
We claim that the range $\mathsf{R}(\mbox{\boldmath$L$}+c\Omega\mbox{\boldmath$J$}+\lambda)$ is dense in $\mathfrak{H}$. In fact, suppose
$$((\mbox{\boldmath$L$}+c\Omega \mbox{\boldmath$J$} +\lambda)\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}|\mbox{\boldmath$f$})=0\quad \forall \mbox{\boldmath$\xi$} \in \mathsf{D}(\mbox{\boldmath$L$}).
$$
Then $$((\mbox{\boldmath$L$}\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}|\mbox{\boldmath$f$})=(\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}|c\Omega\mbox{\boldmath$J$}\mbox{\boldmath$f$} -\lambda\mbox{\boldmath$f$}) \quad \forall \mbox{\boldmath$\xi$} \in \mathsf{D}(\mbox{\boldmath$L$}).$$
Hence $\mbox{\boldmath$f$} \in \mathsf{D}(\mbox{\boldmath$L$}^*)$ and
$$\mbox{\boldmath$L$}^*\mbox{\boldmath$f$}=
c\Omega\mbox{\boldmath$J$}\mbox{\boldmath$f$} -\lambda\mbox{\boldmath$f$}.$$
Since $\mbox{\boldmath$L$}=\mbox{\boldmath$L$}^*$, this means that $\mbox{\boldmath$f$} \in \mathsf{D}(\mbox{\boldmath$L$})$ and
$$(\mbox{\boldmath$L$}-c\Omega\mbox{\boldmath$J$}+\lambda)\mbox{\boldmath$f$}=0.$$
Since $\mbox{\boldmath$L$}-c\Omega\mbox{\boldmath$J$}+\lambda$ is invertible, it follows that $\mbox{\boldmath$f$}=0$. Summing up, we have the assertion. $\square$\\
We are going to apply the Hille-Yosida theory to the initial-boundary value problem
\begin{align}
&\frac{\partial^2\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}{\partial t^2}+2\Omega\mbox{\boldmath$J$}\frac{\partial\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}{\partial t}+
\mbox{\boldmath$L$}\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}=\bf{0}, \nonumber \\
&\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}=\overset{\circ}{\bm{\xi}},\quad \frac{\partial\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}{\partial t}=\overset{\circ}{\mbox{\boldmath$v$}}=
\begin{bmatrix}
v^1(0,\mbox{\boldmath$x$}) \\
\\
v^2(0,\mbox{\boldmath$x$}) \\
\\
v^3(0,\mbox{\boldmath$x$})
\end{bmatrix}
\quad \mbox{at}\quad t=0, \nonumber \\
&\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}(t,\cdot)\in \mathsf{D}(\mbox{\boldmath$L$})\quad\mbox{for}\quad \forall t \geq 0. \label{IBV}
\end{align}
We put
\begin{align}
&U=
\begin{bmatrix}
\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$} \\
\\
\dot{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}
\end{bmatrix},
\quad \dot{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}=\frac{\partial\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}{\partial t}, \\
&\mathbf{A}U=
\begin{bmatrix}
O & -I \\
\\
\mbox{\boldmath$L$} & 2\Omega\mbox{\boldmath$J$}
\end{bmatrix}
U
=
\begin{bmatrix}
-\dot{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}} \\
\\
2\Omega\mbox{\boldmath$J$}\dot{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}+\mbox{\boldmath$L$}\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}
\end{bmatrix}, \\
&\mathfrak{E}=\mathfrak{H}_0^{\mathrm{div}}\times \mathfrak{H} \nonumber \\
\mbox{with}& \nonumber \\
&(U_1|U_2)_{\mathfrak{E}}=
(\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}_1|\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}_2)_{\mathfrak{H}^{\mathrm{div}}}+(\dot{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}_1|\dot{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}_2)_{\mathfrak{H}}= \nonumber \\
&=Q(\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}_1, \mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}_2)+(\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}_1|\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}_2)_{\mathfrak{H}}+
(\dot{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}_1|\dot{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}_2)_{\mathfrak{H}}, \\
&\mathsf{D}(\mathbf{A})=\mathsf{D}(\mbox{\boldmath$L$})\times \mathfrak{H}_0^{\mathrm{div}}.
\end{align}
Then the initial-boundary value problem \eqref{IBV} can be written as
\begin{equation}
\frac{dU}{dt}+\mathbf{A}U=\mathbf{0},\quad U|_{t=0}=U_0, \label{IV}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
U_0=
\begin{bmatrix}
\overset{\circ}{\bm{\xi}} \\
\\
\overset{\circ}{\mbox{\boldmath$v$}}
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{equation}
Applying \cite[Theorem 7.4]{Brezis}, we can claim
\begin{Proposition}\label{Prop.2}
If $U_0 \in \mathsf{D}(\mathbf{A})$, say, if
$\overset{\circ}{\bm{\xi}} \in \mathsf{D}(\bf{L})$ and
$\overset{\circ}{\mbox{\boldmath$v$}} \in \mathfrak{H}_0^{\mathrm{div}}$, then there exists a unique solution
$U \in C^1([0,+\infty[, \mathfrak{E})\cap C([0,+\infty[, \mathsf{D}(\mathbf{A}))
$
to the problem \eqref{IV}. Moreover $E(t)=\|U(t)\|_{\mathfrak{E}}^2$ enjoys
\begin{equation}
E(t)\leq e^{2\Lambda t}E(0),
\end{equation}
where $\Lambda=1 \vee 2|\Omega|$.
\end{Proposition}
Here we consider that $\mathsf{D}(\mathbf{A})$ is equipped with the operator norm
$(\|U\|_{\mathfrak{E}}^2+\|\mathbf{A}U\|_{\mathfrak{E}}^2)^{1/2}$.
Proof of Proposition \ref{Prop.2}. Firstly $\mathbf{A}+1$ is monotone, that is, for $\forall U \in \mathsf{D}(\mathbf{A})$ we have
\begin{align*}
\mathfrak{Re}[(\mathbf{A}U|U)_{\mathfrak{E}}]+\|U\|_{\mathfrak{E}}^2&=\mathfrak{Re}\Big[-Q(\dot{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}},\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$})-(\dot{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}|\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$})_{\mathfrak{H}}+(\mbox{\boldmath$L$}\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}|\dot{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}})_{\mathfrak{H}}+
2\Omega(\mbox{\boldmath$J$}\dot{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}|\dot{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}})_{\mathfrak{H}} \Big]+ \\
&+Q[\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}]+\|\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}\|_{\mathfrak{H}}^2+
\|\dot{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}\|_{\mathfrak{H}}^2 = \\
&=-\mathfrak{Re}[(\dot{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}|\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$})_{\mathfrak{H}}]+
\|\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}\|_{\mathfrak{H}}^2+
\|\dot{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}\|_{\mathfrak{H}}^2 + Q[\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}] \\
&\geq 0,
\end{align*}
since
$(\mbox{\boldmath$L$}\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}|\dot{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}})_{\mathfrak{H}}
=Q(\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}, \dot{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}})=Q(\dot{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}},\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$})^*$ and
$\mathfrak{Re}[(\mbox{\boldmath$J$}\dot{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}|\dot{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}})_{\mathfrak{H}}]=0$. If $\Lambda > 2|\Omega|$, then the operator $\mathbf{A}+\Lambda$ has the bounded inverse defined on $\mathfrak{E}$. Actually the equation
$$\mathbf{A}U+\Lambda U=F=
\begin{bmatrix}
\mbox{\boldmath$f$} \\
\\
\mbox{\boldmath$g$}
\end{bmatrix}
\in \mathfrak{E}
$$
means
$$
\begin{cases}
-\dot{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}+\Lambda\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}=\mbox{\boldmath$f$} \in \mathfrak{H}_0^{\mathrm{div}} \\
\\
2\Omega\mbox{\boldmath$J$}\dot{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}+\mbox{\boldmath$L$}\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}+\Lambda\dot{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}=\mbox{\boldmath$g$} \in \mathfrak{H},
\end{cases}
$$
which can be solved as
$$
\begin{cases}
\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}=
(\mbox{\boldmath$L$}+2\Lambda\Omega\mbox{\boldmath$J$}+\Lambda^2)^{-1}(2\Omega\mbox{\boldmath$J$}\mbox{\boldmath$f$}+\Lambda\mbox{\boldmath$f$}+\mbox{\boldmath$g$})
\in \mathsf{D}(\mbox{\boldmath$L$}),\\
\\
\dot{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}=
(\mbox{\boldmath$L$}+2\Lambda\Omega\mbox{\boldmath$J$}+\Lambda^2)^{-1}(2\Omega\mbox{\boldmath$J$}\mbox{\boldmath$f$}+\Lambda\mbox{\boldmath$f$}+\mbox{\boldmath$g$})
-\mbox{\boldmath$f$} \in \mathfrak{H}_0^{\mathrm{div}},
\end{cases}
$$
thanks to Proposition \ref{Resolv},
since $\Lambda^2 >2\Lambda|\Omega|$ for
$\Lambda > 2|\Omega|$. $\square$\\
Therefore,
considering the problem
\begin{align}
&\frac{\partial^2\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}{\partial t^2}+2\Omega\mbox{\boldmath$J$}\frac{\partial\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}{\partial t}+
\mbox{\boldmath$L$}\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}=\bf{0},
\nonumber \\
&\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}=\overset{\circ}{\bm{\xi}},\quad \frac{\partial\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}{\partial t}=\overset{\circ}{\mbox{\boldmath$v$}}
\quad \mbox{at}\quad t=0, \nonumber \\
&\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}(t,\cdot)\in \mathsf{D}(\mbox{\boldmath$L$})\quad\mbox{for}\quad \forall t \geq 0. \label{HomIBV},
\end{align}
we can claim
\begin{Theorem}
Suppose $\overset{\circ}{\bm{\xi}} \in \mathsf{D}(\bm{L})$ and
$\overset{\circ}{\mbox{\boldmath$v$}}\in \mathfrak{H}_0^{\mathrm{div}}$.
Then the initial-boundary value problem \eqref{HomIBV} admits a unique solution
$$\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}\in C^2([0,+\infty[, \mathfrak{H})\cap
C^1([0,+\infty[,\mathfrak{H}_0^{\mathrm{div}})
\cap C([0,+\infty[, \mathsf{D}(\mbox{\boldmath$L$}))$$
and the energy
\begin{align}
E(t)&=\|\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}\|_{\mathfrak{H}^{\mathrm{div}}}^2+\|\dot{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}\|_{\mathfrak{H}}^2 \nonumber \\
&=\|\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}||_{\mathfrak{H}}^2+Q[\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}]+\Big\|\frac{\partial\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}{\partial t}\Big\|_{\mathfrak{H}}^2
\end{align}
enjoys the estimate
\begin{equation}
\sqrt{E(t)}\leq e^{\Lambda t}\cdot\sqrt{E(0)},
\end{equation}
where $\Lambda=1\vee 2|\Omega|$.
\end{Theorem}
Here $\mathsf{D}(\mbox{\boldmath$L$})$ is equipped with the norm
$(\|\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}\|_{\mathfrak{H}^{\mathrm{div}}}^2+\|\mbox{\boldmath$L$}\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}\|_{\mathfrak{H}}^2)^{1/2}$.\\
Correspondingly we may consider the inhomogeneous initial-boundary value problem
\begin{equation}
\frac{dU}{dt} +\mathbf{A}U=F(t),\quad U|_{t=0}=U_0. \label{0336}
\end{equation} We can claim
\begin{Proposition}
If $U_0 \in \mathsf{D}(\mathbf{A})$ and $F \in C([0,+\infty[; \mathfrak{E})$, then there exists a unique solution
$$U\in C^1([0,+\infty[; \mathfrak{E}) \cap C([0,+\infty[; \mathsf{D}(\mathbf{A}) )$$
to the problem \eqref{0336}, and it enjoys the estimate
\begin{equation}
\|U(t)\|_{\mathfrak{E}}\leq
e^{\Lambda t}\Big(
\|U_0\|_{\mathfrak{E}}+\int_0^t
e^{-\Lambda s}\|F(s)\|_{\mathfrak{E}}ds\Big),
\end{equation}
where $\Lambda=1\vee 2|\Omega|$.
\end{Proposition}
Therefore,
considering the problem
\begin{align}
&\frac{\partial^2\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}{\partial t^2}+2\Omega\mbox{\boldmath$J$}\frac{\partial\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}{\partial t}+
\mbox{\boldmath$L$}\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}=\mbox{\boldmath$f$}(t, \mbox{\boldmath$x$}), \nonumber \\
&\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}=\overset{\circ}{\bm{\xi}},\quad \frac{\partial\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}{\partial t}=\overset{\circ}{\mbox{\boldmath$v$}}
\quad \mbox{at}\quad t=0, \nonumber \\
&\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}(t,\cdot)\in \mathsf{D}(\mbox{\boldmath$L$})\quad\mbox{for}\quad \forall t \geq 0. \label{nonHIBV},
\end{align}
we can claim
\begin{Theorem}
Suppose $\overset{\circ}{\bm{\xi}} \in \mathsf{D}(\bm{L})$,
$\overset{\circ}{\mbox{\boldmath$v$}}\in \mathfrak{H}_0^{\mathrm{div}}$
and $ \mbox{\boldmath$f$} \in C([0,+\infty[; \mathfrak{H})$. Then the initial-boundary value problem \eqref{nonHIBV} admits a unique solution
$$\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}\in C^2([0,+\infty[, \mathfrak{H})\cap
C^1([0,+\infty[,\mathfrak{H}_0^{\mathrm{div}})
\cap C([0,+\infty[, \mathsf{D}(\mbox{\boldmath$L$}))$$
and the energy
\begin{align}
E(t)=E(t, \mbox{\boldmath$\xi$})&:=\|\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}\|_{\mathfrak{H}^{\mathrm{div}}}^2+\|\dot{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}\|_{\mathfrak{H}}^2 \nonumber \\
&=\|\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}||_{\mathfrak{H}}^2+Q[\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}]+\Big\|\frac{\partial\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}{\partial t}\Big\|_{\mathfrak{H}}^2
\end{align}
enjoys the estimate
\begin{equation}
\sqrt{E(t)}\leq e^{\Lambda t}\Big(\sqrt{E(0)}+\int_0^te^{-\Lambda s}
\|\mbox{\boldmath$f$}(s)\|_{\mathfrak{E}}ds \Big)
\end{equation}
for $\Lambda=1\vee 2|\Omega|$.
\end{Theorem}
\section{Eigenfrequency, eigenvector, the variational principle}
Astrophysicists used to discuss on the so called `variational principle'. See \cite{Chandra64}, \cite{Clement}, \cite{LyndenBO}, and so on. Although they discuss
about self-gravitating gaseous masses, we would like to follow their discussions by applying them to the present case of the model of rotating atmosphere on the Earth, namely, we consider the linearized wave equation \eqref{3.12}.\\
Since the operator $\mbox{\boldmath$J$}$ is skew symmetric, we introduce the operator $\mbox{\boldmath$J$}_{\star}$ defined by
\begin{equation}
\mbox{\boldmath$J$}_{\star}=\mathrm{i}\mbox{\boldmath$J$}.
\end{equation}
Then the operator $\mbox{\boldmath$J$}_{\star}$ is a bounded self-adjoint operator on $\mathfrak{H}$.
Recall
\begin{equation}
(\mbox{\boldmath$J$}_{\star}\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}|\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$})_{\mathfrak{H}}=
-2\int_{\mathfrak{R}}\mathfrak{Im}[\xi^1(\xi^2)^*]\bar{\rho}(\mbox{\boldmath$x$})d\mbox{\boldmath$x$}. \label{V.2}
\end{equation}
The equation
\eqref{3.12}
reads
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial^2\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}{\partial t^2}-2\Omega\mathrm{i}\mbox{\boldmath$J$}_{\star}\frac{\partial\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}{\partial t}
+\mbox{\boldmath$L$}\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}=0 \label{V.3}
\end{equation}\\
Let us suppose that there exiats a solution ${\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}$ to \eqref{V.3} of the form
\begin{equation}
{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}(t,\mbox{\boldmath$x$})=e^{\mathrm{i}\sigma t}\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}(\mbox{\boldmath$x$}) \label{V.4}
\end{equation}
where $\sigma \in \mathbb{C}$ and $\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}\in \mathsf{D}({\mbox{\boldmath$L$}})$. Then the equation \eqref{V.3} reduces to
\begin{equation}
-\sigma^2\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}+\sigma 2\Omega \mbox{\boldmath$J$}_{\star}\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}+\mbox{\boldmath$L$}\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}=\mathbf{0}, \label{EigEq}
\end{equation}
or the equation \eqref{3.12} reduces to
\begin{equation}
-\sigma^2\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}+\mathrm{i}\sigma 2\Omega \mbox{\boldmath$J$}\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}+\mbox{\boldmath$L$}\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}=\mathbf{0}, \label{non*EigEq}.
\end{equation}
So, we use
\begin{Definition}
When the equation \eqref{EigEq} [\!( \eqref{non*EigEq} )\!] is satisfied for $\sigma \in \mathbb{C} $ and $\bm{\Xi} \in \mathsf{D}(\bm{L}), \not=\mathbf{0}$, then $\sigma$ is called an eigenfrequency of the wave equation
\eqref{V.3} [\!( \eqref{3.12} )\!] and $\bm{\Xi}$ is called an eigenvector associated with the eigenfrequency $\sigma$.
\end{Definition}
Note that $0$ is an eigenfrequency. In fact the vector
$$\bm{\Xi}=\frac{1}{\bar{\rho}}\nabla \times \bm{a} $$
belongs to $\mathrm{Ker}\bm{L}$ for any $\bm{a} \in C_0^{\infty}(\mathfrak{R}; \mathbb{C}^3) $, and turns outto be an eigenvector associated with the eingenfrequency $0$ provided that $\bm{\Xi}\not=\mathbf{0}$.\\
Here let us recall the operator $\mathbf{A}$ defined as
$$
\mathbf{A}U=
\begin{bmatrix}
O & -I \\
\\
\bm{L} & 2\Omega\bm{J}
\end{bmatrix}
U=
\begin{bmatrix}
-\dot{\bm{\Xi}} \\
\\
2\Omega\bm{J}\dot{\bm{\Xi}}+\bm{L}\bm{\Xi}
\end{bmatrix}
$$
for
$$
U=\begin{bmatrix}
\bm{\Xi} \\
\\
\dot{\bm{\Xi}}
\end{bmatrix}
\in \mathsf{D}(\mathbf{A})=\mathsf{D}(\bm{L})\times\frak{H}_0^{\mathrm{div}},
$$
which was introduced in order to alpply the Hille-Yosida theory to the linear evolution equation in the preceeding section. Obviously we can claim
\begin{Proposition}
If and only if $\sigma \in \mathbb{C}$ is an eigenfrequency of the equation \eqref{V.3} [\!( \eqref{3.12} )\!] ,
$\Lambda=\mathrm{i}\sigma $ is an eigenvalue of the operator $-\mathbf{A}$.
\end{Proposition}
Let us introduce the following
\begin{Definition}
We denote by $\mathfrak{L}$ the one parameter family of operators
$(-\sigma^2+\sigma 2\Omega\bm{J}_{\star}+\bm{L})_{\sigma \in \mathbb{C}}$, which is called 'quadratic pencil'. We denote
\begin{equation}
\mathfrak{L}(\sigma):=
-\sigma^2+\sigma 2\Omega\bm{J}_{\star}+\bm{L}.
\end{equation}
If the operator $\mathfrak{L}(\sigma)=-\sigma^2+\sigma 2\Omega \bm{J}_{\star}+\bm{L}$ admits the bounded inverse defined on $\mathfrak{H}$, $\sigma$ is said to belong to the resolvent set $\varrho(\mathfrak{L})$. We denote
$\sigma(\mathfrak{L})=\mathbb{C} \setminus \varrho(\mathfrak{L})$, and call it the spectrum of the quadratic pencil $\mathfrak{L}$.
\end{Definition}
If $\sigma$ is an eigenfrequency, then it belongs to the spectrum $\sigma(\mathfrak{L})$, so, $ 0 \in \sigma(\mathfrak{L})$, but belonging to
$\sigma(\mathfrak{L})$ does not mean being an eigenfrequency a priori, of course.
\begin{Proposition}
$\varrho(\mathfrak{L})$ is an open subset of $\mathbb{C}$, and $\sigma(\mathfrak{L})$ is closed.
\end{Proposition}
Proof. Let us consider $\sigma \in \varrho(\mathfrak{L})$. Then
$$\mathfrak{L}(\sigma+\Delta\sigma)=
\mathfrak{L}(\sigma)\Big[
I+ \mathfrak{L}(\sigma)^{-1}(\Delta\sigma(-2\sigma+2\Omega\bm{J}_{\star}-\Delta\sigma)\Big]
$$
admits the bounded inverse and $\sigma+\Delta\sigma \in \varrho(\mathfrak{L})$, if
$$|\|\mathfrak{L}(\sigma)^{-1}\Delta\sigma(-2\sigma+2\Omega\bm{J}_{\star}-\Delta\sigma)\||_{\mathcal{B}(\mathfrak{H})} <1.$$
For this inequality, it is sufficient that
$$|\|\mathfrak{L}(\sigma)^{-1}\||_{\mathcal{B}(\mathfrak{H})}\cdot|\Delta\sigma|\cdot|(2(|\sigma|
+|\Omega|)+|\Delta\sigma| ) < 1,$$
or
$$|\Delta\sigma|<-(|\sigma|+|\Omega|)+\sqrt{\frac{1}{|\|\mathfrak{L}(\sigma)^{-1}\||_{\mathcal{B}(\mathfrak{H})}}+
(|\sigma|+|\Omega|)^2}.$$
This means $\varrho(\mathfrak{L})$ is open.
$\square$\\
We claim
\begin{Proposition}
It holds that
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{i}\varrho(\mathfrak{L})=\varrho(-\mathbf{A}),
\quad
\mathrm{i}\sigma(\mathfrak{L})=\sigma(-\mathbf{A}).
\end{equation}
Here $\varrho(-\mathbf{A}), \sigma(-\mathbf{A})$ stand for the usual resolvent set, the spectrum of the operator $-\mathbf{A}$ in the Hilbert space $\mathfrak{E}=\mathfrak{H}_0^{\mathrm{div}}\times \mathfrak{H}$.
\end{Proposition}
Proof. Let $\sigma \in \varrho(\mathfrak{L})$ and $\Lambda=\mathrm{i}\sigma$. Consider the equation
$$\mathbf{A}U+\Lambda U=F=
\begin{bmatrix}
\bm{f} \\
\\
\bm{g}
\end{bmatrix}
\in \mathfrak{E}, $$
or,
$$
\begin{cases}
&-\dot{\bm{\Xi}}+\mathrm{i}\sigma \bm{\Xi}=\bm{f} \in \mathfrak{H}_0^{\mathrm{div}}, \\
& \\
&2\Omega J\dot{\bm{\Xi}}+\bm{L}\bm{\Xi}+
\mathrm{i}\sigma\dot{\bm{\Xi}}=\bm{g} \in \mathfrak{H}.
\end{cases}
$$
This system of equations can be solved
as
$$
\begin{cases}
\bm{\Xi}&=
(-\sigma^2-\mathrm{i}\sigma 2\Omega\bm{J}+\bm{L})^{-1}
(2\Omega J \bm{f}-\mathrm{i}\sigma\bm{f}+\bm{g})
\in \mathsf{D}(\bm{L}), \\
& \\
\dot{\bm{\Xi}}&=
(-\sigma^2-\mathrm{i}\sigma 2\Omega\bm{J}+\bm{L})^{-1}
(2\Omega J \bm{f}-\mathrm{i}\sigma\bm{f}+\bm{g})
-\bm{f} \in \mathfrak{H}_0^{\mathrm{div}},
\end{cases}
$$
since $\sigma \in \varrho(\mathfrak{L})$, while
$F \mapsto U$ is continuous. Therefore $\Lambda=\mathrm{i}\sigma \in
\varrho(-\mathbf{A})$, or, $\mathrm{i}\varrho(\mathfrak{L}) \subset
\varrho(-\mathbf{A})$.
Inversely let $\Lambda \in \varrho(-\mathbf{A})$ and $ \sigma=-\mathrm{i}\Lambda$. Consider the equation
$$(-\sigma^2+\mathrm{i}\sigma 2\Omega\bm{J}+\bm{L})\bm{\Xi}=\bm{f}
\in \mathfrak{H},$$
or
$$(\Lambda^2+\Lambda 2\Omega\bm{J}+\bm{L})\bm{\Xi}=\bm{f},
$$
which is equivalent to the system of equations
$$
\begin{cases}
& \Lambda\dot{\bm{\Xi}}+2\Omega\bm{J}\dot{\bm{\Xi}}
+\bm{L}\bm{\Xi}=\bm{f}, \\
& \\
&\dot{\bm{\Xi}}=\Lambda\bm{\Xi}.
\end{cases}
$$
But this is nothing but
$$\mathbf{A}U+\Lambda U=
\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{0} \\
\\
\bm{f}
\end{bmatrix}.
$$
Since $\Lambda \in \varrho(-\mathbf{A})$ is supposed, this admits the solution
$$U=
\begin{bmatrix}
\bm{\Xi} \\
\\
\dot{\bm{\Xi}}
\end{bmatrix}=
(\mathbf{A}+\Lambda)^{-1}
\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{0} \\
\\
\bm{f}
\end{bmatrix},
$$
and $\bm{f} \mapsto \bm{\Xi}$ is continuous, that is,
$\sigma =-\mathrm{i}\Lambda \in \varrho(\mathfrak{L})$. $\square$\\
When $\Omega=0$, we have
$$\sigma(\mathfrak{L})=
\{ \sigma \in \mathbb{C} \ |\ \lambda=\sigma^2 \in \sigma(\bm{L}) \},
$$
where $\sigma(\bm{L})$ is the spectrum of the self-adjoint operator $\bm{L}$
in the Hilbert space $\mathfrak{H}$. Since $\bf{L}$ is self-adjoint and $\bm{L}\geq 0$, we have $\sigma(\bm{L}) \subset \{ \lambda \in \mathbb{R} \ |\ \lambda \geq 0\}$. Thus it holds that
\begin{equation}
\sigma(\mathfrak{L}) \subset \mathbb{R} \quad\mbox{and}\quad
\{\Lambda\in\mathbb{C}\ |\ \mathfrak{Re}[\Lambda]\not=0\}\subset\varrho(-\mathbf{A}),\label{0508}
\end{equation}
when $\Omega=0$.
But, when $\Omega\not=0$, the situation is not so evident. At least,
we can claim
$$\sigma(\mathfrak{L}) \subset
\mathbb{C}\setminus
]-\infty, -2|\Omega|[\mathrm{i}, $$
since
$$\{ \Lambda \in \mathbb{R}\ |\ \Lambda >2|\Omega| \}
\subset \varrho(-\mathbf{A}), $$
as shown in the proof of Proposition \ref{Prop.2}.
Moreover, it is clear that $\mathfrak{L}(\sigma^*)=(\mathfrak{L}(\sigma))^*$, since $2\Omega\bm{J}_{\star}$ and $\bm{L}$ are self-adjoint. Therefore we have
\begin{equation}
\sigma \in \varrho(\mathfrak{L})\quad\Leftrightarrow\quad
\sigma^*\in\varrho(\mathfrak{L}).
\end{equation}
This means that $\varrho(\mathfrak{L})$ and $\sigma(\mathfrak{L})$ are symmetric re the real axis in the complex number plane. Correspondingly, $\sigma(-\mathbf{A})$ and $\varrho(-\mathbf{A})$ are symmetric re the imaginary axis. Thus we can claim
\begin{align}
&\sigma(\mathfrak{L}) \subset
\mathbb{C}\setminus
(]-\infty, -2|\Omega|[
\cup ]2|\Omega|, +\infty[)\mathrm{i} \quad\mbox{and} \nonumber \\
&\{ \Lambda \in \mathbb{R}\ |\ |\Lambda| >2|\Omega| \} \subset
\varrho(-\mathbf{A}). \label{0510}
\end{align}
However
the gap between the information \eqref{0508} for $\Omega=0$ and that \eqref{0510} for $\Omega\not=0$ is too much. So, we are want to strengthen \eqref{0510} when $\Omega\not=0$. In order to do it, we use the following
\begin{Proposition}\label{Rbelow}
If $\sigma \in \varrho(\mathfrak{L})$, then it holds that
\begin{equation}
|\| \mathfrak{L}(\sigma)^{-1}\||_{\mathcal{B}(\mathfrak{H})} \geq \frac{1}{d(2(|\sigma|+|\Omega|)+d)},
\end{equation}
where $d:=\mathrm{dist}(\sigma, \sigma(\mathfrak{L}))$.
\end{Proposition}
Proof. Let $\sigma \in \varrho(\mathfrak{L})$. Then, for $\Delta\sigma \in \mathbb{C}$, the operator
$$\mathfrak{L}(\sigma+\Delta\sigma)=
\mathfrak{L}(\sigma)\Big[I+
\mathfrak{L}(\sigma)^{-1}\Delta\sigma(-2\sigma+2\Omega\bm{J}_{\star}-\Delta\sigma)\Big]$$
admits the bounded inverse in $\mathcal{B}(\mathfrak{H})$ and $\sigma+\Delta\sigma \in
\varrho(\mathfrak{L})$, if
$$|\|\mathfrak{L}(\sigma)^{-1}\Delta\sigma(-2\sigma+2\Omega\bm{J}_{\star}-\Delta\sigma)\||_{\mathcal{B}(\mathfrak{H})} <1.$$
For this inequality, it is sufficient that
$$|\|\mathfrak{L}(\sigma)^{-1}\||_{\mathcal{B}(\mathfrak{H})}\cdot|\Delta\sigma|\cdot|(-2\sigma
+2\Omega\bm{J}_{\star}-\Delta\sigma| <1.$$
In other words, if $\sigma+\Delta\sigma \in \sigma(\mathfrak{L})$, then it should hold
$$|\|\mathfrak{L}(\sigma)^{-1}\||_{\mathcal{B}(\mathfrak{H})}\cdot|\Delta\sigma|\cdot|(-2\sigma
+2\Omega\bm{J}_{\star}-\Delta\sigma| \geq 1,
$$
and necessarily
$$|\|\mathfrak{L}(\sigma)^{-1}\||_{\mathcal{B}(\mathfrak{H})}\cdot|\Delta\sigma|\cdot|(2(|\sigma|
+|\Omega|)+|\Delta\sigma| )\geq 1.$$
If $d <+\infty$, then there is a sequence $\sigma+(\Delta\sigma)_n
\in \sigma(\mathfrak{L})$ such that $|(\Delta\sigma)_n| \rightarrow d$, and the assertion follows. $\square$\\
Let us fix $\sigma_{\infty} \in \partial\sigma(\mathfrak{L})$. We are going to show $\sigma_{\infty} \in \mathbb{R}$.
Let us consider a sequance $(\sigma_n)_n$ such that $\sigma_n \in \varrho(\mathfrak{L})$ and
$\sigma_n \rightarrow \sigma_{\infty}$ as $ n \rightarrow \infty$. By Proposition \ref{Rbelow}
we have $|\|(\mathfrak{L}(\sigma_n)^{-1}\||_{\mathcal{B}(\mathfrak{H})} \rightarrow +\infty$, therefore
there are $\bm{f}_n \in \mathfrak{H}$ such that $\|\bm{f}_n\|_{\mathfrak{H}}=1$ and $\|\mathfrak{L}(\sigma_n))^{-1}\bm{f}_n\|_{\mathfrak{H}}
\rightarrow +\infty$ as $n \rightarrow \infty$. Put $\bm{\xi}_n=\mathfrak{L}(\sigma_n)^{-1}\bm{f}_n (\in \mathsf{D}(\bm{L}))$ and $\bm{\eta}_n=\bm{\xi}_n/\|\bm{\xi}_n\|_{\mathfrak{H}}$. Then $\|\bm{\eta}_n\|_{\mathfrak{H}}=1$ and $$
\Big|(\mathfrak{L}(\sigma_n)\bm{\eta}_n|\bm{\eta}_n)_{\mathfrak{H}}\Big|
=\Big|\frac{1}{\|\bm{\xi}_n\|_{\mathfrak{H}}^2}(\bm{f}_n|\bm{\xi}_n)_{\mathfrak{H}}\Big|
\leq \frac{1}{\|\bm{\xi}_n\|_{\mathfrak{H}}} \rightarrow 0.$$
But we see
$$
(\mathfrak{L}(\sigma_n)\bm{\eta}_n|\bm{\eta}_n)_{\mathfrak{H}}=-(\sigma_n)^2+\sigma_nb_n+c_n,$$
where
$$b_n:=2\Omega(\bm{J}_{\star}\bm{\eta}_n|\bm{\eta}_n)_{\mathfrak{H}},
\quad c_n=(\bm{L}\bm{\eta}_n|\bm{\eta}_n)_{\mathfrak{H}}=Q[\bm{\eta}_n].$$
Therefore $b_n, c_n $ are real and
$$|b_n|\leq 2|\Omega|,\qquad c_n \geq 0.$$
Hence, by taking a subsequence if necessary, we can suppose that $b_n$ tends to a limit $b_{\infty}$ such that $|b_{\infty}|\leq2|\Omega|$. Put
$c_{\infty}:=(\sigma_{\infty})^2-\sigma_{\infty}b_{\infty}$. Then we see
$c_n \rightarrow c_{\infty}$. Hence $c_{\infty}$ is real and $ \geq 0$,
and $\sigma_{\infty}$ turns out to enjoy the quadratic equation
$$-(\sigma_{\infty})^2+b_{\infty}\sigma_{\infty}+c_{\infty}=0.$$
Consequently,
$$\sigma_{\infty}=\frac{b_{\infty}}{2}+\sqrt{\frac{b_{\infty}^2}{4}+c_\infty}
\quad\mbox{or}\quad
\sigma_{\infty}=\frac{b_{\infty}}{2}-\sqrt{\frac{b_{\infty}^2}{4}+c_\infty},$$
so, anyway, $\sigma_{\infty} \in \mathbb{R}$. This was to be prooved. \\
Summing up, we can claim
\begin{Proposition}\label{BoundarySpectrum}
It holds that
\begin{equation}
\partial \sigma(\mathfrak{L}) \subset \mathbb{R}. \label{BdSpec}
\end{equation}
\end{Proposition}
This conclusion owes to \cite[Theorem 1]{DysonS}. But their original proof
is little bit logically weak, and we have needed to edit it as above. \\
Let us consider $\sigma_0=\alpha_0+\beta_0\mathrm{i} \in \sigma(\mathfrak{L})$, where
$\alpha_0, \beta_0 \in \mathbb{R}$. We are going to show that $|\beta_0|\not=0$ implies a contradiction. By the symmetricity of $\sigma(\mathfrak{L})$ we can suppose $\beta_0 >0$ without loss of generality. Choosing $K >2|\Omega| \vee \beta_0$, we consider the segment
\begin{align*}
I&=[\sigma, K\mathrm{i}] \\
&=\{ \sigma(t)=(1-t)\alpha_0+
(\beta_0+(K-\beta_0)t)\mathrm{i} \ |\ 0\leq t \leq 1 \}.
\end{align*}
Note that $\sigma(0)=\sigma_0 \in \sigma(\mathfrak{L})$ and
$\sigma(1)=K\mathrm{i} \in \varrho(\mathfrak{L})$ by \eqref{0510}, since
$K >2|\Omega|$. Put
$$\bar{t}:=\sup\{ t\in [0,1]\ |\ \sigma(t) \in \sigma(\mathfrak{L}) \}.$$
Then $0\leq \bar{t} <1, \sigma(\bar{t})\in \sigma(\mathfrak{L})$ and
$\sigma(t) \in \varrho(\mathfrak{L})$ for $t >\bar{t}$. Hence $\sigma(\bar{t})\in \partial\sigma(\mathfrak{L})$. But $\mathfrak{Im}[\sigma(\bar{t})] \geq \beta_0>0$, a contradiction to $\partial\sigma(\mathfrak{L}) \in \mathbb{R}$. $\square$\\
Therefore we can claim
\begin{Theorem} \label{Th.realspector}
It holds that
\begin{equation}
\sigma(\mathfrak{L}) \subset \mathbb{R}
\end{equation}
even when $\Omega\not=0$.
\end{Theorem}
Now we note that it is known that there is a sequence of eigenfrequencies $\sigma_{n, \pm}=
\pm \sqrt{\lambda_n^{\mathcal{N}}}, n \in \mathbb{N}$, when $\Omega=0$. ( See the discussion given later.) However, up to now, we have no knowledge on the existence of eigenfrequencies when $\Omega\not=0$.
When $\Omega=0$, then \eqref{non*EigEq} reads
$$ -\sigma^2\bm{\Xi}+\bm{L}\bm{\Xi}=\mathbf{0}, $$
so that the eigenvctor $\bm{\Xi}$ associated with the eigenfrequency $\sigma\not=0$ can be supposed to be real, since $\sigma \in \mathbb{R}$. However, when $\Omega\not=0$, the situation is different. Namely, we claim
\begin{Proposition}
Suppose $\Omega\not=0$. Let $\sigma\not=0$ be an eigenfrequency of
the equation \eqref{V.3} [\!( \eqref{3.12} )\!] and $\bm{\Xi}$ be an associated eigenvector. Then the eigenvector $\bm{\Xi}$ is impossible to be real, that is, $\mathfrak{Im}[\bm{\Xi}(\bm{x})]$ cannot vanish everywhere.
\end{Proposition}
Proof. By Theorem \ref{Th.realspector} we see $\sigma \in \mathbb{R}$. Let us look at \eqref{non*EigEq}:
\begin{equation}
-\sigma^2\bm{\Xi}+\mathrm{i}\sigma 2\bm{\Omega}\times\bm{\Xi}+\bm{L}\bm{\Xi}=\mathbf{0}. \label{R1}.
\end{equation}
Let us denote $\bm{X}(\bm{x})=\mathfrak{Re}[\bm{\Xi}(\bm{x})],
\bm{Y}(\bm{x})=\mathfrak{Im}[\bm{\Xi}(\bm{x})]$ so that
$\bm{X}(\bm{x}), \bm{Y}(\bm{x}) \in \mathbb{R}, \bm{\Xi}=\bm{X}+\mathrm{i}\bm{Y}$,
Suppose that $\bm{Y}=0$ and deduce a contradiction. Now \eqref{R1} means
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
&-\sigma^2\bm{X}-\sigma 2\bm{\Omega}\times \bm{Y}+\bm{L}\bm{X}=\mathbf{0}, \label{R2a} \\
&-\sigma\bm{Y}+\sigma 2\bm{\Omega}\times \bm{X}+\bm{L}\bm{Y}=\mathbf{0}. \label{R2b}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Since $\bm{Y}=\mathbf{0}$ is supposed, this reads
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
&-\sigma^2\bm{X}+\bm{L}\bm{X}=\mathbf{0}, \label{R3a} \\
&\sigma 2\bm{\Omega}\times \bm{X}=\mathbf{0} \label{R3b}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Since $\sigma\not=0, \Omega\not=0$, \eqref{R3b} implies
\begin{equation}
X^1=X^2=0, \label{R4}
\end{equation}
where $\bm{X}=(X^1, X^2, X^3)^{\top}$. Then \eqref{R3a} reads
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial}{\partial x^1}\Big(-\overline{\frac{d\varUpsilon}{d\rho}}
\frac{\partial}{\partial x^3}(\bar{\rho}X^3)\Big)&=0, \label{R5a} \\
\frac{\partial}{\partial x^2}\Big(-\overline{\frac{d\varUpsilon}{d\rho}}
\frac{\partial}{\partial x^3}(\bar{\rho}X^3)\Big)&=0, \label{R5b} \\
-\sigma^2 X^3 +
\frac{\partial}{\partial x^3}\Big(-\overline{\frac{d\varUpsilon}{d\rho}}
\frac{\partial}{\partial x^3}(\bar{\rho}X^3)\Big)&=0. \label{R5c}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Consequently, \eqref{R5a} and \eqref{R5b} imply that
$\displaystyle -\overline{\frac{d\varUpsilon}{d\rho}}\frac{\partial}{\partial x^3}(\bar{\rho}X^3)$ is a function of $x^3$ independent of
$x^1, x^2$, and,
since $\sigma\not=0$, \eqref{R5c} implies that
$X^3$ is so, too.
However $\bm{\Xi}=\bm{X} \in \mathsf{D}(\bm{L})$ suppose the boundary condition
$$\Big(\bm{\Xi}\Big|\frac{\partial}{\partial r}\Big)=0\quad \mbox{on}\quad r=R_0.$$
Namely,
$$X^3(x^3)x^3=0\quad\mbox{on}\quad \Sigma_0=\{\ r= R_0\ \},
$$
therefore $X^3=0$, and $\bm{\Xi}=(X^1,X^2.X^3)^{\top}=\mathbf{0}$, a contradiction. $\square$\\
Let $\sigma$ be an eigenfrequency of the equation \eqref{3.12} and $\bm{\Xi}$ be an associated eigenvector.
Then $\bm{\xi}(t,\bm{x})=e^{\mathrm{i}\sigma t}\bm{\Xi}(\bm{x})$ is a solution of the equation \eqref{3.12}. Since the coefficients of the equation \eqref{3.12} are real and the equation is linear, we can claim that $\bm{\xi}(t,\bm{x})^*, \mathfrak{Re}[\bm{\xi}(t,\bm{x})],
\mathfrak{Im}[\bm{\xi}(t,\bm{x})]$ are solutions of \eqref{3.12}, too. But, since $\sigma$ is real by Theorem \ref{Th.realspector}, we see
\begin{align*}
\bm{\xi}_{\mathfrak{R}}(t,\bm{x}):=\mathfrak{Re}[\bm{\xi}(t,\bm{x})]&=\mathfrak{Re}[e^{\mathrm{i}\sigma t}\bm{\Xi}(\bm{x})]= \\
&=\cos(\sigma t) \bm{\Xi}_{\mathfrak{R}}(\bm{x})-
\sin(\sigma t)\bm{\Xi}_{\mathfrak{I}}(\bm{x}) = \\
&=\|\bm{\Xi}(\bm{x})\|\cos(\sigma t+\alpha(\bm{x})),
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
& \bm{\Xi}_{\mathfrak{R}}(\bm{x}):=\mathfrak{Re}[\bm{\Xi}(\bm{x})],\quad
\bm{\Xi}_{\mathfrak{I}}(\bm{x}):=\mathfrak{Im}[\bm{\Xi}(\bm{x})] \\
& \tan \alpha(\bm{x})=\frac{\bm{\Xi}_{\mathfrak{I}}(\bm{x})}{\bm{\Xi}_{\mathfrak{R}}(\bm{x})},\quad\mbox{so that}\quad
\bm{\Xi}(\bm{x})=\|\bm{\Xi}(\bm{x})\|e^{\mathrm{i}\alpha(\bm{x})}.
\end{align*}
Note that the field $\bm{\xi}_{\mathfrak{R}}(t,\bm{x})$ is a real-valued solution of \eqref{3.12}
such that $\bm{\xi}_{\mathfrak{R}}(0,\bm{x})=\bm{\Xi}_{\mathfrak{R}}(\bm{x})$.\\
Let $\sigma, \mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}(\not=\mathbf{0})$ be an eigenfrequency and an associated eigenvector.
Multiplying \eqref{EigEq} by $\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}^*\bar{\rho}(\mbox{\boldmath$x$})$ and integrating it, we have
\begin{equation}
-\sigma^2\|\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}\|_{\mathfrak{H}}^2+
\sigma 2\Omega(\mbox{\boldmath$J$}_{\star}\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}|\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$})_{\mathfrak{H}}+Q[\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}]=0. \label{V.6}
\end{equation}
Recall the quadratic form $Q$ is defined by \eqref{3.19}. If we write
\begin{equation}
a=\|\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}\|_{\mathfrak{H}}^2,\quad
b=2\Omega (\mbox{\boldmath$J$}_{\star}\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}|\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$})_{\mathfrak{H}},
\quad c=Q[\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}], \label{V.7}
\end{equation}
then $a, b, c$ are real numbers, and $\sigma$ satisfies
the quadratic equation
\begin{equation}
-a\sigma^2+b\sigma +c=0, \label{V.8}
\end{equation}
whoe roots are
\begin{equation}
\sigma=\frac{b}{2a}\pm\sqrt{\frac{b^2}{4a^2}+\frac{c}{a}}.\label{V.9}
\end{equation}\\
Here D. Lynden-Bell and J. P. Ostriker, \cite[p.301, line 18]{LyndenBO}, say:
\begin{quote}
Equation (36) [ read \eqref{V.9} ] shows that the system is stable if $c$ is positive for each eigen $\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}$ [ read $\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}$ ] . This assured if $\mathbf{C}$ [ read $\mbox{\boldmath$L$}$] is positive definite. Thus:
A sufficient condition for stability is that $\mathbf{C}$ [read $\mbox{\boldmath$L$}$ ] is positive definite. This is {\it the } condition for secular stability.
\end{quote}
This saying sounds strange. In fact, we may suppose the meaning of the words `stability'
and `secular stability' as C. Hunter \cite{Hunter} defines:
\begin{quote}
A general system is said to be ordinarily or dynamically unstable if the amplitude of some mode grows exponentially in time, but ordinarily stable if every mode is oscillatory in time. An ordinarily stable system can be said to be secularly unstable if small additional dissipative forces can cause some perturbation to grow. Otherwise, the system is sad to be secularly stable.
\end{quote}
As C. Hunter says in the same article, the definition of secular instability does not always confirm to that given above, so, we consider the (ordinary) stability. If there is an eigenfrequancy $\sigma$ which is not real, then the system described by \eqref{V.3} is unstable. It is true. But this means that there is an eigenfrequency $\sigma$ and an associated eigenvector $\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}$ such that
$$\frac{b^2}{4a^2}+\frac{c}{a} <0.$$
Normalizing $a=\|\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}\|_{\mathfrak{H}}^2=1$, this means
$$\frac{b^2}{4}+c <0.$$
Therefore we can claim that the system is unstable if there is an eigenvector $\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}$ such that
$$\frac{b^2}{4}+c =\Omega^2(\mbox{\boldmath$J$}_{\star}\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}|\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$})_{\mathfrak{H}}+Q[\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}] <0.
$$
However, logically speaking, the condition $
c=Q[\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}]>0 $ for each eigenvector $\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}$ is far from the condition of the stability,
contrary to the saying of D. Lynden-Bell and J. P. Ostriker.
Moreover let us note the following fact: $Q[\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}] \geq 0$ for any
$\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$} \in \mathfrak{H}^{\mathrm{div}}$, but $Q[\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}]=0$ does not imply $\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}=\mathbf{0}$; In fact
$$\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}(\mbox{\boldmath$x$})=\frac{1}{\bar{\rho}(\mbox{\boldmath$x$})}\nabla\times \mbox{\boldmath$a$},$$
$\mbox{\boldmath$a$}$ being an arbitrary vector field belonging to
$C_0^{\infty}(\mathfrak{R})$, belongs to the kernel of $\mbox{\boldmath$L$}$, that is, $Q[\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}]=0$.\\
Anyway, we are going to describe the `variational principle'.
Let us suppose that there exist $\sigma_0 \in \mathbb{R}$ and $\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}_0 \in \mathfrak{H}^{\mathrm{div}}\ (\not=\mathbf{0})$ such that
\begin{equation}
-\sigma_0^2\|\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}_0\|_{\mathfrak{H}}^2+
\sigma_0 2\Omega (\mbox{\boldmath$J$}_{\star}\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}_0|\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}_0)_{\mathfrak{H}}+
Q[\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}_0]=0. \label{V.10}
\end{equation}
Of course if $\sigma_0, \mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}_0$ are real eigenfrequency and an associated eigenvector then \eqref{V.10} is satisfied. Now we assume that
\begin{equation}
a_0=\|\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}_0\|_{\mathfrak{H}}^2,\quad
b_0=2\Omega
(\mbox{\boldmath$J$}_{\star}\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}_0|\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}_0)_{\mathfrak{H}},\quad
c_0=Q[\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}_0] \label{V.11}
\end{equation}
satisfies
\begin{equation}
\frac{b_0}{4a_0^2}+\frac{c_0}{a_0} >0. \label{V.12}
\end{equation}
Then
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
&\sigma_0=\frac{b_0}{2a_0}+\sqrt{\frac{b_0^2}{4a_0^2}+\frac{c_0}{a_0}} \label{V.13}\\
\mbox{or}& \nonumber \\
&\sigma_0=\frac{b_0}{2a_0}-\sqrt{\frac{b_0^2}{4a_0^2}+\frac{c_0}{a_0}}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
In order fix the idea, suppose that \eqref{V.13} is the case. Then we can consider $\sigma$ as a functional
of $\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$} \in \mathfrak{H}^{\mathrm{div}}$ near $\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}_0$, say, $\|\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}-\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}_0\|_{\mathfrak{H}^{\mathrm{div}}}
\leq \delta ( \ll 1)$, defined by
\begin{equation}
\sigma(\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$})=\frac{b(\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$})}{2a(\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$})}+
\sqrt{\frac{b(\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$})^2}{4a(\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$})^2}+\frac{c(\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$})}{a(\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$})}} \label{V.15}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
a(\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$})=\|\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}\|_{\mathfrak{H}}^2,\quad
b(\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$})=2\Omega (\mbox{\boldmath$J$}_{\star}\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}|\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$})_{\mathfrak{H}},
\quad
c(\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$})=Q[\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}]. \label{V.16}
\end{equation}
Here we take $\delta$ so small that
\begin{equation}
\frac{b(\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$})^2}{4a(\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$})^2}+\frac{c(\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$})}{a(\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$})} >0
\quad\mbox{for}\quad \|\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}-\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}_0\|_{\mathfrak{H}^{\mathrm{div}}}\leq\delta.
\end{equation}\\
The variation $\mbox{\boldmath$\delta$}\sigma=\mbox{\boldmath$\delta$}\sigma(\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$})$ of $\sigma$ at $\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$},
\|\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}-\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}_0\|_{\mathfrak{H}^{\mathrm{div}}}\leq\delta$, is the linear functional on $\mathfrak{H}^{\mathrm{div}}$ defined by
\begin{equation}
\langle \mbox{\boldmath$\delta$}\sigma(\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$})|\mbox{\boldmath$h$} \rangle =
\lim_{\tau \rightarrow 0}\frac{1}{\tau}
(\sigma(\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}+\tau \mbox{\boldmath$h$})-\sigma(\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$})).
\end{equation}
It follows from \eqref{V.15} the equation
\begin{equation}
-\sigma^2\|\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}\|_{\mathfrak{H}}^2+
\sigma 2\Omega (\mbox{\boldmath$J$}_{\star}\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}|\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$})_{\mathfrak{H}}+
Q[\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}]=0. \label{V.18}
\end{equation}
holds for $\sigma=\sigma(\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}), \mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$} \in \mathfrak{H}^{\mathrm{div}}, \|\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}-\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}_0\|_{\mathfrak{H}^{\mathrm{div}}}\leq\delta$.
Therefore we have
\begin{align*}
&(-2\sigma \|\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}\|_{\mathfrak{H}}^2+2\Omega (\mbox{\boldmath$J$}_{\star}\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}|\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$})_{\mathfrak{H}})\mbox{\boldmath$\delta$}\sigma + \\
&-\sigma^2\mbox{\boldmath$\delta$}\|\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}\|_{\mathfrak{H}}^2
+\sigma \mbox{\boldmath$\delta$}(2\Omega J_{\star}\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}|\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$})_{\mathfrak{H}}
+\mbox{\boldmath$\delta$} Q[\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}] =0,
\end{align*}
or, precisely writing,
\begin{align*}
&(-2\sigma \|\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}\|_{\mathfrak{H}}^2+2\Omega (\mbox{\boldmath$J$}_{\star}\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}|\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$})_{\mathfrak{H}})\langle \mbox{\boldmath$\delta$}\sigma(\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$})|\mbox{\boldmath$\delta$}\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}\rangle + \\
&
+2\mathfrak{Re}\Big[
-\sigma^2
(\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$} |\mbox{\boldmath$\delta$}\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$})_{\mathfrak{H}}
+\sigma 2\Omega (J_{\star}\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}|\mbox{\boldmath$\delta$} \mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$})_{\mathfrak{H}}
+ Q(\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}, \mbox{\boldmath$\delta$}\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$})
\Big] =0
\end{align*}
for $\forall \mbox{\boldmath$\delta$}\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$} \in \mathfrak{H}^{\mathrm{div}}$.
Here we note that
\begin{align*}
-2\sigma \|\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}\|_{\mathfrak{H}}^2+2\Omega (\mbox{\boldmath$J$}_{\star}\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}|\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$})_{\mathfrak{H}}&=
-2\sigma a(\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}0+b(\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}) = \\
&=-\sqrt{
\frac{b(\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$})^2}{4a(\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$})^2}+\frac{c(\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$})}{a(\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$})}
}\not=0
\end{align*}
for $\|\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}-\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}_0\|_{\mathfrak{H}^{\mathrm{div}}}\leq \delta$.
Therefore $\mbox{\boldmath$\delta$} \sigma(\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$})=0$ if and only if
$$-\sigma^2
(\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$} |\mbox{\boldmath$h$})_{\mathfrak{H}}
+\sigma 2\Omega (J_{\star}\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}|\mbox{\boldmath$h$})_{\mathfrak{H}}
+ Q(\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}, \mbox{\boldmath$h$})
=0$$
for $\forall \mbox{\boldmath$h$} \in \mathfrak{H}^{\mathrm{div}}$.
Thus we can claim the following `variational principle':
\begin{Theorem}
Let $\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}_0 \in \mathfrak{H}^{\mathrm{div}}$ satisfy
$$\|\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}_0\|_{\mathfrak{H}}^2 >0, \quad
\frac{(2\Omega
(\mbox{\boldmath$J$}_{\star}\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}_0|\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}_0)_{\mathfrak{H}})^2}{4\|\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}_0\|_{\mathfrak{H}}^4}+
\frac{Q[\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}_0]}{\|\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}_0\|_{\mathfrak{H}}^2} >0.
$$
The variation $\mbox{\boldmath$\delta$} \sigma$ of $\sigma$ (specified by \eqref{V.15}) vanishes at $\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}_0$ if and only if
$\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}_0 \in \mathsf{D}(\mbox{\boldmath$L$})$ and enjoys the equation \eqref{EigEq}:
$$
-\sigma_0^2\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}_0+\sigma_0 2\Omega \mbox{\boldmath$J$}_{\star}\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}_0+\mbox{\boldmath$L$}\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}_0=\mathbf{0}.
$$
Then $e^{\mathrm{i}\sigma_0t}\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}_0(\mbox{\boldmath$x$})$ is a solution of the equation \eqref{V.3}. Here $\sigma_0=\sigma(\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}_0)$.
\end{Theorem}
This principle tells us that, if we want to find an eigenfrequency, we may try to find a stationary point of the functional
$$\sigma(\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$})=\frac{b(\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$})}{2}\pm\sqrt{\frac{b(\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$})^2}{4}+c(\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$})}
$$ under the constraint $\|\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}\|_{\mathfrak{H}}=1$. But it seems that this principle is far from
the solution of the problem to establish the existence and completeness of the system of eigenvectors.
For example, as a `practical use of the variational principle', D. Lynden-Bell and J. P. Ostriker, \cite[Section 2.6]{LyndenBO}, proposed the following scheme:
\begin{quote}
Take sufficiently many functions $\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}_{(i)}, i=1,\cdots, N$ as those who consist a base, and consider the trial function
$$\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}=\sum_{i=1}^Na^i\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}_{(i)},\quad
\mbox{\boldmath$a$} =
\begin{bmatrix}
a^1 \\
\cdot \\
\cdot \\
a^N
\end{bmatrix}.
$$
Put
\begin{align*}
& \mbox{\boldmath$A$}= (A_{ij})_{i,j},\quad A_{ij}=(\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}_{(i)}|\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}_{(j)})_{\mathfrak{H}}, \\
& \mbox{\boldmath$B$}=(B_{ij})_{i,j} ,\quad B_{ij}=2\Omega(\mbox{\boldmath$J$}_{\star}\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}_{(i)}|\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}_{(j)})_{\mathfrak{H}}, \\
& \mbox{\boldmath$C$}=(C_{ij})_{i,j} , \quad C_{ij}=Q(\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}_{(i)}, \mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}_{(j)}).
\end{align*}
Then $$\sigma(\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$})=
\Big((-\sigma^2\mbox{\boldmath$A$}+\sigma \mbox{\boldmath$B$}+\mbox{\boldmath$C$})\mbox{\boldmath$a$} \Big| \mbox{\boldmath$a$}\Big).
$$
Thus, D. Lynden-Bell and J. P. Ostriker say, the variational principle reads
$$\mbox{\boldmath$\delta$} \Big((-\sigma^2\mbox{\boldmath$A$}+\sigma \mbox{\boldmath$B$}+\mbox{\boldmath$C$})\mbox{\boldmath$a$}\Big|\mbox{\boldmath$a$}\Big)=0
$$
and, varying $\mbox{\boldmath$a$}$, we obtain the `secular determinant'
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{det}
(-\sigma^2\mbox{\boldmath$A$}+\sigma \mbox{\boldmath$B$}+\mbox{\boldmath$C$} ) =0\label{V.det}
\end{equation}
for the determination of the variationally best eigenfrequencies $\sigma$.
\end{quote}
But it is doubtful that this scheme is so practtical, since we have no confidence that the equation \eqref{V.det}, which is an algebraic equation for the unknown $\sigma$ of degree is $2N$, can be numerically solved to determine an approximating eigenfrequency $\sigma_N$ so that they converge to a true eigenfrequency as $N \rightarrow \infty$.
On the other hand, since
$$\sigma(\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$})=\frac{b(\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$})}{2}+
\sqrt{\frac{b(\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$})^2}{4}+c(\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$})} \geq 0
$$
for $\forall \mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$} \in \mathfrak{H}^{\mathrm{div}}$, we can consider
$$\sigma_*:=\inf\{ \sigma(\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}) | \mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$} \in \mathfrak{H}^{\mathrm{div}}, \|\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}\|_{\mathfrak{H}}=1 \}
$$ and we may expect that the minimum might give an eigenfrequency. But, when $\Omega \not=0$, we are not sure about the existence of a $\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}_*$ which attains the infimum, namely $ \sigma_*=\sigma(\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}_*)$, in general, since the imbedding
$\mathfrak{H}^{\mathrm{div}} \hookrightarrow \mathfrak{H}$ is not compact
and we may be unable to extract convergent subsequences from a minimizing sequence, say, a sequence
$(\bm{\Xi}_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ such that
$\bm{\Xi}_n \in \mathfrak{H}^{\mathrm{div}}, \|\bm{\Xi}_n\|_{\mathfrak{H}}=1,
\sigma(\bm{\Xi}_n) \rightarrow \sigma_*$ as $n \rightarrow \infty$.
When $\Omega=0$, then $ b(\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$})=0$, and the variational problem
$$\lambda_*(=\sigma_*^2)=\inf\{ c(\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}) (=Q[\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}] ) | \mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$} \in \mathfrak{H}^{\mathrm{div}}, \|\mbox{\boldmath$\Xi$}\|_{\mathfrak{H}}=1 \}
$$
actually admits the trivial solution $\lambda_*=0$ with any eigenvector $\in \mathrm{Ker}(\mbox{\boldmath$L$})$.
But the Mini-Max principle does not work, for, since
$\mathrm{dim.Ker}(\mbox{\boldmath$L$})=\infty$, we cannot go ahead across the $0$ eigenvalue eternally, although there actually remain infinitely many positive eigenvalues.
Thus also in this case the variational principle seems to be not so useful.
However, when $\Omega=0$, the equation \eqref{EigEq} reduces to
\begin{equation}
-\lambda\bm{\Xi}+\bm{L}\bm{\Xi}=\mathbf{0}, \label{501}
\end{equation}
where $\lambda=\sigma^2$, and this eigenvalue problem is completely solved as follows: \\
Suppose $\Omega=0$. We note that the background stationary solution $\bar{\rho}$ is a spherically symmetric equilibrium, say,
\begin{equation}
\bar{\rho}(\bm{x})=\Big(\frac{(\gamma-1)\mathsf{G}M_0}{\mathsf{A}\gamma}\Big(\frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{R}\Big)\Big)^{\frac{1}{\gamma-1}} \label{502}
\end{equation}
and $\mathfrak{R}=\{\bar{\rho} >0\}=\{ R_0 < r < R\}$ is an annulus. Taking the divergence of $\bar{\rho}$ times \eqref{501}, the problem reduces to
\begin{equation}
-\lambda g-\mathrm{div}\bar{\rho}\Big(\mathrm{grad}
\overline{\frac{d\varUpsilon}{d\rho}} g\Big)=0, \label{503}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
g=\mathrm{div}(\bar{\rho}\bm{\Xi}). \label{504}
\end{equation}
Note that we can treat the operator $\mathcal{N}: g \mapsto
\mathrm{div}\bar{\rho}\Big(\mathrm{grad}
\overline{\frac{d\varUpsilon}{d\rho}} g\Big)$ as that with the similar property to the Laplacian operator $\triangle=\mathrm{div.grad}$, taking into account the singular behaviors of $\bar{\rho}$ and
$\displaystyle \overline{\frac{d\varUpsilon}{d\rho}}$ at the physical vacuum boundary, say,
\begin{align*}
&\bar{\rho} \sim \Big(\frac{(\gamma-1)\mathsf{G}M_0}{\mathsf{A}\gamma}\Big)^{\frac{1}{\gamma-1}}
(R-r)^{\frac{1}{\gamma-1}}, \\
&\overline{\frac{d\varUpsilon}{d\rho}} \sim
\mathsf{A}\gamma \Big(\frac{(\gamma-1)\mathsf{G}M_0}{\mathsf{A}\gamma}\Big)^{\frac{\gamma-2}{\gamma-1}}
(R-r)^{-\frac{2-\gamma}{\gamma-1}}
\end{align*}
near $\Sigma_1=\{ r= R\}$. Therefore we can claim:\\
{\it The operator $\mathcal{N}$ can be considered as a self-adjoint operator in the Hilbert space $\mathfrak{G}$
and its spectrum $\sigma(\mathcal{N})$ is of the Sturm-Liouville type, that is,
$\sigma(\mathcal{N})=\{ \lambda_n^{\mathcal{N}} | n \in \mathbb{N}\}$, where $\lambda_n^{\mathcal{N}}$ is an eigenvalue with finite multiplicity,
$0<\lambda_0^{\mathcal{N}}<\cdots <
\lambda_n^{\mathcal{N}} < \lambda_{n+1}^{\mathcal{N}}$, and $\lambda_n^{\mathcal{N}} \rightarrow +\infty $ as $ n \rightarrow \infty$.
Here $$\mathfrak{G}=
L^2\Big(\mathfrak{R}; \overline{\frac{d\varUpsilon}{d\rho}}d\bm{x}\Big)
\cap\Big\{ g \ |\ \int_{\mathfrak{R}}gd\bm{x}=0\Big\}.$$
}\\
Note that the imbedding of $ L^2(\mathfrak{R}; \overline{\frac{d\varUpsilon}{d\rho}}d\bm{x})$ into $L^2(\mathfrak{R}; d\bm{x})
(\hookrightarrow
L^1(\mathfrak{R};d\bm{x}))$ is continuous.
For a proof see the proof of \cite[Theorem 2]{JJTM2020}. Hence the argument of \cite{JJTM2020} leads us to the following conclusion:\\
{\it When $\Omega=0$, $\bm{L}$ can be considered as a self-adjoint operator in the Hilbert space $\mathfrak{F}$ and its spectrum $\sigma(\bm{L})$ coincides with
$\sigma(\mathcal{N}) \cup \{0\}$, while $\mathrm{dim.Ker}(\bm{L})=\infty$ and $\lambda=\lambda_n^{\mathcal{N}}\not=0$ is an eigenvalue with finite multilicity.
Here
$$\mathfrak{F}=
\{ \bm{\Xi}\in\mathfrak{H}\ |\ \mathrm{div}(\bar{\rho}\bm{\Xi} )\in \mathfrak{G}\}
=\{ \bm{\Xi}\in \mathfrak{H}^{\mathrm{div}}\ |\
\int_{\mathfrak{R}} \mathrm{div}(\bar{\rho}\bm{\Xi})d\bm{x}=0\}. $$
}\\
Note that $\mathfrak{F}$ is a closed subspace of $\mathfrak{H}^{\mathrm{div}}$, since
$ \mathfrak{G} \ni g \mapsto \int_{\mathfrak{R}}gd\bm{x}$ is constinuous.
In fact, we have $\displaystyle \int_{\mathfrak{R}}\overline{\frac {d\rho}{d\Upsilon}}d\bm{x}
<+\infty$ thanks to $\gamma >1$ so that
$$\Big| \int g \Big| \leq
\Big[\int\overline{\frac{d\Upsilon}{d\rho}}|g|^2\Big]^{1/2}
\Big[\int_{\mathfrak{R}}\overline{\frac{ d\rho}{d\Upsilon}} \Big]^{1/2}
\lesssim \|g\|_{L^2(\frac{d\Upsilon}{d\rho}d\bm{x})}.$$
We have $\mathfrak{H}_0^{\mathrm{div}} \subset \mathfrak{F}$, since
$$\int \mathrm{div}(\bar{\rho}\bm{\varphi})d\bm{x}=0 \quad\mbox{for}\quad
\forall \bm{\phi} \in C_0^{\infty}(\mathfrak{R}).$$
Therefore by the well-known theorem (
\cite[p.905, X.3.4.Theorem]{DunfordS} complemented by
\cite[p. 177, Chapter III, Theorem 6.15]{Kato}),
we can say that the eigenvectors of a CONS of $\mathrm{Ker}(\bm{L})$
and all
$$\psi_n=
\frac{1}{\lambda_n^{\mathcal{N}}}\bar{\rho}\mathrm{grad}\Big(-
\overline{\frac{d\varUpsilon}{d\rho}}\varphi_n^{\mathcal{N}}\Big)
\Big\|
\frac{1}{\lambda_n^{\mathcal{N}}}\bar{\rho}\mathrm{grad}\Big(-
\overline{\frac{d\varUpsilon}{d\rho}}\varphi_n^{\mathcal{N}}\Big)
\Big\|^{-1},
$$
$\varphi_n^{\mathcal{N}}$ being an eigenvalue of $\mathcal{N}$ associated with the eigenvalue $\lambda_n^{\mathcal{N}}\not=0$ form a complete ortogonal system of the Hilbert space
$\mathfrak{F}$. \\
In this sense, when $\Omega=0$, the eigenfrequency problem is completely solved.
\begin{Remark}
Let $\Omega=0$.
If we consider the operator $\bm{L}$ in the space $\mathfrak{H}$, we can claim that $\{0\}\cap \sigma(\mathcal{N})=\{ 0, \lambda_0^{\mathcal{N}}, \lambda_1^{\mathcal{N}},\cdots \} \subset
\sigma(\bm{L})$, but we do not know whether they coincide or not, say,
we do not know whether there are real continuous spectrum between the eigenvalues or not.
\end{Remark}
However, when $\Omega\not=0$, the above discussion seems not to work. In fact the term
$2\Omega(\nabla|\bar{\rho}J_{\star}\bm{\Xi})$
may cause trouble, since it cannot be reduced to a quantity determined by $g=(\nabla|\bar{\rho}\bm{\Xi})$.
\section{Differentially rotating stationary solutions}
The stationary solutions considered up to now are rotating with the same angular velocity uniformly as the co-ordinate system. In this section we consider axisymmetric stationary solutions with differential rotation, namely solutions of the form
$\rho=\bar{\rho}(\varpi, z), \mbox{\boldmath$v$}=
\bar{\mbox{\boldmath$v$}}(\varpi, z)$ which can be $\not=\mathbf{0}$.
We are lokking for stationary solutions $\varUpsilon=\varUpsilon(\bm{x}), \bm{v}=\bm{v}(\bm{x})$. The equation to be satisfied are
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
(\bm{v}|\nabla)\varUpsilon +(\gamma-1)\varUpsilon(\nabla|\bm{v})=0, \label{601a} \\
(\bm{v}|\nabla)\bm{v}+2\bm{\Omega}\times\bm{v}+
\nabla(\varUpsilon+\Phi^{\langle\Omega\rangle})=0. \label{601b}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Let us use the cylindrical co-ordinate system $(\varpi, \phi, z)$ defined by
$$x^1=\varpi\cos\phi,\quad x^2=\varpi\sin\phi, \quad x^3=z.$$
The basis of the co-ordinates consists of the unit vectors
\begin{align*}
\bm{e}_{\varpi}&=\frac{1}{\varpi}\frac{\partial}{\partial\varpi}=
\frac{1}{\varpi}\Big(\cos\phi\frac{\partial}{\partial x^1}+\sin\phi\frac{\partial}{\partial x^2}\Big), \\
\bm{e}_{\phi}&=\frac{1}{\varpi}\frac{\partial}{\partial\phi}=-\sin\phi\frac{\partial}{\partial x^1}+\cos\phi\frac{\partial}{\partial x^2}, \\
\bm{e}_z&=\frac{\partial}{\partial x^3}.
\end{align*}\\
Suppose that the velocity field $\bm{v}$ is of th form
\begin{equation}
\bm{v}=V^{\phi}\bm{e}_{\phi}=\frac{V^{\phi}}{\varpi}\frac{\partial}{\partial\phi}.
\label{603}
\end{equation}
Since
$$(\bm{v}|\nabla)=\frac{V^{\phi}}{\varpi}\frac{\partial}{\partial\phi},\quad
(\nabla|\bm{v})=\frac{1}{\varpi}\frac{\partial V^{\phi}}{\partial\phi}, $$
the equation of continuity \eqref{601a} reduces to
$$\frac{V^{\phi}}{\varpi}\frac{\partial\varUpsilon}{\partial\phi}+
(\gamma-1)\frac{\varUpsilon}{\varpi}\frac{\partial V^{\phi}}{\partial\phi}=0. $$
This equation holds if
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial V^{\phi}}{\partial\phi}=0, \quad \frac{\partial\varUpsilon}{\partial\phi}=0. \label{604}
\end{equation}
So, supposing \eqref{604}, we solve te equation of motion \eqref{601b}. Since
\begin{align*}
(\bm{v}|\nabla)\bm{v}&=-(V^{\phi})^2\bm{e}_{\varpi}
+\frac{V^{\phi}}{\varpi}\frac{\partial V^{\phi}}{\partial\phi}\bm{e}_{\phi}=-(V^{\phi})^2\bm{e}_{\varpi}, \\
2\bm{\Omega}\times\bm{v}&=-2\Omega\varpi V^{\phi}\bm{e}_{\varpi}, \\
\nabla(\varUpsilon+\Phi^{\langle \Omega\rangle})&=
\frac{\partial}{\partial\varpi}(\varUpsilon+\Phi^{\langle \Omega\rangle})\bm{e}_{\varpi}
+\frac{1}{\varpi}\frac{\partial}{\partial\phi}(\varUpsilon+\Phi^{\langle \Omega\rangle})\bm{e}_{\phi} + \\
&+\frac{\partial}{\partial z}(\varUpsilon+\Phi^{\langle \Omega\rangle})
\bm{e}_z,
\end{align*}
the equation \eqref{601b} reduces to
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
-(V^{\phi})^2-2\Omega\varpi V^{\phi}+\frac{\partial}{\partial\varpi}(\varUpsilon+\Phi^{\langle \Omega\rangle})&=0, \label{605a} \\
\frac{\partial}{\partial z}(\varUpsilon+\Phi^{\langle \Omega\rangle})=0. \label{605b}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Here recall that $\frac{\partial}{\partial\phi}\Phi^{\langle\Omega\rangle}=0$ and that we are supposing $\frac{\partial}{\partial\phi}\varUpsilon=0$.\\
Taking
$$ \frac{\partial}{\partial z}\mbox{\eqref{605a}}-\frac{\partial}{\partial\varpi}\mbox{\eqref{605b}}=0,$$
we see $\partial V^{\phi}/\partial z=0$. Therefore there should exist a function $\omega$ such that
$\bar{V}^{\phi}=\varpi\omega(\varpi)$, namely, we consider
\begin{equation}
{\mbox{\boldmath$v$}}=\omega(\varpi)\frac{\partial}{\partial\phi}
=\varpi\omega(\varpi)\mbox{\boldmath$e$}_{\phi}.
\end{equation}
Integration of \eqref{605a}, \eqref{605b} gives
$$ \varUpsilon+
\Phi^{\langle \Omega \rangle}
+\frac{\Omega^2}{2}\varpi^2
-\mathsf{B}(\varpi)=\mbox{Const.},
$$
where
\begin{equation}
\mathsf{B}(\varpi):=\int_0^{\varpi}
(\omega(\acute{\varpi})+\Omega)^2\acute{\varpi}d\acute{\varpi}.
\end{equation}
Recall
$$\Phi^{\langle \Omega \rangle}
+\frac{\Omega^2}{2}\varpi^2=-\frac{{\mathsf{G}M_0}}{r}. $$
As in Section 2, let us specify the constant so that
\begin{equation}
{\varUpsilon}={\mathsf{G}M_0}\Big(\frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{R}\Big)+\mathsf{B}(\varpi).
\end{equation}\\
Thus we have stationary soltion
\begin{equation}
\varUpsilon=\mathsf{G}M_0\Big(\frac{1}{r}-\frac{1}{R}\Big)+\mathsf{B}(\varpi), \qquad
\bm{v}=\varpi\omega(\varpi)\bm{e}_{\phi}.
\end{equation}
Here, in order to fix the idea, let us suppose the following assumption:\\
{\bf (B):} \ The function $
\omega $ belongs to the class $ C^1([0,+\infty[)\cap L^{\infty}(0,+\infty)$. \\
Under this assumption, we put
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\kappa}(X^2)=
\frac{R_0}{\mathsf{G}M_0}
\frac{\mathsf{B}(R_0X)}{X^2}=
\frac{R_0}{\mathsf{G}M_0}\frac{1}{X^2}
\int_0^{R_0X}(\omega(\acute{\varpi})+\Omega)^2\acute{\varpi}d\acute\varpi.
\end{equation}
Note $X^2 \mapsto \tilde{\kappa}(X^2)X^2$ is continuos and montone
nondecreasing.
Put
\begin{equation}
\kappa:=\sup_{X^2>0}\tilde{\kappa} =
\frac{R_0^3}{2\mathsf{G}M_0}\|\omega+\Omega\|^2,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\|\omega+\Omega\|=\sup_{\varpi>0}|\omega(\varpi)+\Omega|.
\label{0408}
\end{equation}
Let us consider the stationary solution with compactly supported $\rho$ under the assumption \\
($\tilde{\mathbf{K}}$): It holds that
\begin{equation}
R_0 <R,\qquad \Big(\frac{R}{R_0}\Big)^3\kappa
=\frac{R^3}{2\mathsf{G}M_0}\|\omega+\Omega\|^2<\frac{4}{27}.
\end{equation}
The density is given by
\begin{equation}
{\rho}=\Big(\frac{\gamma-1}{\mathsf{A}\gamma}\Big)^{\frac{1}{\gamma-1}}
({\varUpsilon}_{\blacktriangle})^{\frac{1}{\gamma1-1}}
\quad\mbox{with}\quad
{\varUpsilon}_{\blacktriangle}=({\varUpsilon}\vee 0)\cdot 1_{\varpi <3R/2}.
\end{equation}
In fact, $\{ \varUpsilon >0\}$ is $\{F(X^2,Z^2;\tilde{\kappa}) >\lambda=
\frac{R_0}{R} \}$, where
\begin{equation}
F(X^2,Z^2;\tilde{\kappa})=
\frac{1}{\sqrt{X^2+Z^2}}+\tilde{\kappa}(X^2)X^2.
\end{equation}
Here we are using the change of varialble
$\varpi=R_0X, z=R_0Z$
Then $F(X^2, Z^2;\tilde{\kappa}) >\lambda$ if and only if
either
1) $\tilde{\kappa}(X^2)X^2 \geq \lambda$, or
2)
$$\tilde{\kappa}(X^2)X^2 <\lambda \quad \mbox{and}\quad Z^2<f(X^2;\tilde{\kappa})
$$
where
$$f(X^2;\tilde{\kappa})=\frac{1}{(\lambda-\tilde{\kappa}(X^2)X^2)^2}
-X^2.
$$
Note that $f(X^2;\tilde{\kappa})\leq f(X^2;\kappa)$.
Now we are supposing $$\tilde{\kappa}(X^2) \leq \kappa<
\frac{4}{27}\Big(\frac{R_0}{R}\Big)^3.$$
So, $\{ \varUpsilon >0\}$ has a bounded connected component of the form
$\{ 0<X^2 < Q_-, Z^2<f(X^2,\tilde{\kappa})\} $. Here
$Q_-$ is a positive number $\leq Q_-
(\frac{\lambda^3}{\kappa})<\frac{3}{2}\lambda$ such that
$f(X^2;\tilde{\kappa})>0$ for $0<X^2<Q_-$, and $f(Q_-;\tilde{\kappa})=0$.
\begin{Remark}
In this situation with $R (>R_0)$ being fixed, it is sufficient that the function $\omega$ is given on the finite interval $[0, {3R}/{2}]$ as a function of $C^1$-class on this interval, under a weaker assumption than {\bf (B)}, and we can put
$$
\|\omega+\Omega\|_{\infty}=\sup_{0\leq \varpi \leq 3R/2}|\omega(\varpi)+\Omega|
$$
instead of \eqref{0408}.
\end{Remark}
Let us fix a stationary solution
$\displaystyle \bar{\rho}(\varpi, z), \bar{\mbox{\boldmath$v$}}=\omega(\varpi)\frac{\partial}{\partial\phi}$
which enjoys ($\tilde{\mathbf{K}}$ ). We consider small perturbations from this back ground.\\
In order to derive the equation of the perturbations, we note that it hold
\begin{equation}
(\nabla|\bar{\rho}\bar{\mbox{\boldmath$v$}})=0\quad\mbox{and}\quad \frac{D\bar{\mbox{\boldmath$v$}}}{Dt}=(\bar{\mbox{\boldmath$v$}}|\nabla)\bar{\mbox{\boldmath$v$}}=0. \label{0417}
\end{equation}
Then by a tedious calculation we see that the equation for the perturbation
$\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}=\bm{\varphi}-\bm{x}$
reads
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial^2\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}{\partial t^2}+(\bar{\mbox{\boldmath$v$}}|\nabla)\frac{\partial \mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}{\partial t}+
2\mbox{\boldmath$\Omega$}\times\frac{\partial \mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}{\partial t}
-2\mbox{\boldmath$\Omega$}\times
\bar{\mbox{\boldmath$v$}} -2\mbox{\boldmath$\Omega$}\times\Delta\bar{\mbox{\boldmath$v$}} +\Delta\nabla(\varUpsilon-\bar{\varUpsilon})=0.
\end{equation}
Therefore the linearized approximation of the equation turns out to be
\begin{align}
&\frac{\partial^2\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}{\partial t^2}+2\mbox{\boldmath$\Omega$}\times\frac{\partial\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}{\partial t}+
(\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}|\nabla)(-2\mbox{\boldmath$\Omega$}\times\bar{\mbox{\boldmath$v$}})+
\nabla G=2\mbox{\boldmath$\Omega$}\times\bar{\mbox{\boldmath$v$}}, \nonumber \\
&\mbox{with}\quad G=-\overline{\frac{d\varUpsilon}{d\rho}}(\nabla|\bar{\rho}\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}). \label{ExtE}
\end{align}
Here we have used the following approximation:\\
\begin{Approximation}
We neglect the term
\begin{equation}
(\bar{\mbox{\boldmath$v$}}|\nabla)\frac{\partial\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}{\partial t}=\omega(\varpi)\frac{\partial}{\partial\phi}\frac{\partial\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}{\partial t} \label{Approx}
\end{equation}
as a term with very small magnitude compared with $\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}, \partial\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}/\partial t$.
\end{Approximation}
Of course this term \eqref{Approx} vanishes if the perturbation $\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}$ is axisymmetric, say, $\partial\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}/\partial\phi=0$.
And we have used the identity
\begin{equation}
-2\mbox{\boldmath$\Omega$}\times(\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}|\nabla)\bar{\mbox{\boldmath$v$}} = (\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}|\nabla)(-2\mbox{\boldmath$\Omega$}\times\bar{\mbox{\boldmath$v$}})
\end{equation}
for the linearised approximation of
$$-2\bm{\Omega}\times\Delta\bar{\bm{v}}\approx
-2\bm{\Omega}\times (\bm{\xi}|\nabla)\bar{\bm{v}}.$$
Any way we note that $\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}$ given by
$$\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}(t,\mbox{\boldmath$x$})=\bar{\mbox{\boldmath$v$}}(\mbox{\boldmath$x$})t $$
is a particular solution of \eqref{ExtE}. Here
$\displaystyle \bar{\mbox{\boldmath$v$}}=\omega(\varpi)\frac{\partial}{\partial\phi}$ belongs to $\mathsf{D}(\mbox{\boldmath$L$})$ for
$(\nabla|\bar{\rho}\bar{\mbox{\boldmath$v$}})=0$.
In fact, using \eqref{0417}, we can see that
the equation for
\begin{equation}
\hat{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}:=\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}-\bar{\mbox{\boldmath$v$}}(\mbox{\boldmath$x$})t +\overset{\circ}{\bm{\xi}}
\end{equation}
turns out to be
\begin{align}
&\frac{\partial^2\hat{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}}{\partial t^2}+2\mbox{\boldmath$\Omega$}\times\frac{\partial\hat{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}}{\partial t}+
(\hat{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}|\nabla)(-2\mbox{\boldmath$\Omega$}\times\bar{\mbox{\boldmath$v$}})+
\nabla \hat{G}=0, \nonumber \\
&\mbox{with}\quad \hat{G}=-\overline{\frac{d\varUpsilon}{d\rho}}(\nabla|\bar{\rho}\hat{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}), \label{ExtEhat}
\end{align}
and this equation has the trivial solution $\hat{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}=\mathbf{0}$.
Rewriting $\bm{\xi}$ instead of $\hat{\bm{\xi}}=\bm{\xi}-\bar{\bm{v}}(\bm{x})t+\overset{\circ}{\bm{\xi}}$, we consider the initial-boundary value problem
\begin{align}
&\frac{\partial^2{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}}{\partial t^2}+2\mbox{\boldmath$\Omega$}\times\frac{\partial{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}}{\partial t}+
({\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}|\nabla)(-2\mbox{\boldmath$\Omega$}\times\bar{\mbox{\boldmath$v$}})+
\nabla {G}=0, \nonumber \\
&\mbox{with}\quad {G}=-\overline{\frac{d\varUpsilon}{d\rho}}(\nabla|\bar{\rho}{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}), \label{ExtEnonhat} \\
&\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}=\overset{\circ}{\bm{\xi}},\quad
\frac{\partial\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}{\partial t}=\overset{\circ}{\mbox{\boldmath$v$}}
\Big(=\bar{\mbox{\boldmath$v$}}(\mbox{\boldmath$x$})+\Delta\mbox{\boldmath$v$}|_{t=0} \Big) \quad\mbox{at}\quad t=0 , \nonumber \\
& \mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}(t,\cdot) \in \mathsf{D}(\tilde{\mbox{\boldmath$L$}})
\quad\mbox{for}\quad \forall t \geq 0. \label{ExtIV}
\end{align}
The equation \eqref{ExtEnonhat} can be written as
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial^2\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}{\partial t^2}+2\mbox{\boldmath$\Omega$}\mbox{\boldmath$J$}\frac{\partial\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}{\partial t}+\tilde{\mbox{\boldmath$L$}}\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}=\bf{0},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align}
&\mbox{\boldmath$J$}=
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & -1 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{bmatrix}
, \nonumber \\
&\tilde{\mbox{\boldmath$L$}}\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}=
(\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}|\nabla)(-2\mbox{\boldmath$\Omega$}\times\bar{\mbox{\boldmath$v$}})+\nabla G,\quad G=-\overline{\frac{d\varUpsilon}{d\rho}}(\nabla|\bar{\rho}\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}).
\end{align}
We note that
\begin{equation}
(\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}|\nabla)(-2\mbox{\boldmath$\Omega$}\times\bar{\mbox{\boldmath$v$}})=2\Omega
\Big[(\omega(\varpi)-\Omega)\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}'+\frac{(\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}'|\mbox{\boldmath$x$}')}{\varpi}D\omega(\varpi)\mbox{\boldmath$x$}'\Big],
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\mbox{\boldmath$x$}'=x^1\frac{\partial}{\partial x^1}+x^2\frac{\partial}{\partial x^2}
=
\begin{bmatrix}
x^1 \\
\\
x^2 \\
\\
0
\end{bmatrix}
,\quad
\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}'=\xi^1\frac{\partial}{\partial x^1}+\xi^2\frac{\partial}{\partial x^2}
=\begin{bmatrix}
\xi^1 \\
\\
\xi^2 \\
\\
0
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{equation}\\
As in Section 3.2, we consider the operator $\tilde{\mbox{\boldmath$L$}}$ in the Hilbert space $\mathfrak{H}=L^2(\bar{\rho}d\mbox{\boldmath$x$})$. Since the operator
$\mbox{\boldmath$b$}: \mbox{\boldmath$\xi$} \mapsto (\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}|\nabla)(-2\mbox{\boldmath$\Omega$}\times\bar{\mbox{\boldmath$v$}})$ is bouned and symmetric operator on $\mathfrak{H}$, we see that $\tilde{\mbox{\boldmath$L$}}=\mbox{\boldmath$b$}+\mbox{\boldmath$L$}$ can be considered as a self-adjoint operator bounded from below in $\mathfrak{H}$ with the domain
$\mathsf{D}(\tilde{\mbox{\boldmath$L$}})=\mathsf{D}(\mbox{\boldmath$L$})$. Thus we have
\begin{Theorem}
The operator $\tilde{\mbox{\boldmath$L$}}$ is a self-adjoint operator bounded from below in the Hilbert
space $\mathfrak{H}$, whose domain is
\begin{equation}
\mathsf{D}(\tilde{\mbox{\boldmath$L$}})=\{ \mbox{\boldmath$\xi$} \in \mathfrak{H}_0^{\mathrm{div}} \ |\ \mbox{\boldmath$L$}\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$} \in \mathfrak{H}
\quad(\Leftrightarrow \tilde{\mbox{\boldmath$L$}}\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$} \in \mathfrak{H} )\}.
\end{equation}
\end{Theorem}
Also we can claim
\begin{Proposition}\label{ExtResolv}
For any $ c \in \mathbb{R}$ and $\lambda >|c\Omega|+|\|\mbox{\boldmath$b$}\||_{\mathcal{B}(\mathfrak{H})}$ the operator
$\tilde{\mbox{\boldmath$L$}} +c\Omega\mbox{\boldmath$J$}+\lambda$ has the bounded linear inverse operator $(\tilde{\mbox{\boldmath$L$}}+c\Omega\mbox{\boldmath$J$}+\lambda)^{-1}$ defined on the whole space $\mathfrak{H}$
such that
\begin{equation}
|\|(\tilde{\mbox{\boldmath$L$}}+c\Omega\mbox{\boldmath$J$}+\lambda)^{-1}\||_{\mathcal{B}(\mathfrak{H})}\leq \frac{1}{\lambda-|c\Omega|-|\|\mbox{\boldmath$b$}\||_{\mathcal{B}(\mathfrak{H})}}.
\end{equation}
\end{Proposition}
We can apply the Hille-Yosida theory to the problem
\begin{equation}
\frac{dU}{dt}+\tilde{\mathbf{A}}U=\mathbf{0},
\quad
U|_{t=0}=U_0, \label{ExtHYP}
\end{equation}
by putting
\begin{align}
&U=
\begin{bmatrix}
\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$} \\
\\
\dot{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}
\end{bmatrix},
\quad \dot{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}=\frac{\partial\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}{\partial t}, \\
&\tilde{\mathbf{A}}U=
\begin{bmatrix}
O & -I \\
\\
\tilde{\mbox{\boldmath$L$}} & 2\Omega\mbox{\boldmath$J$}
\end{bmatrix}
U=
\begin{bmatrix}
-\dot{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}} \\
\\
2\Omega \mbox{\boldmath$J$}\dot{\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}}+\tilde{\mbox{\boldmath$L$}}\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}
\end{bmatrix}, \\
&\mathfrak{E}=\mathfrak{H}_0^{\mathrm{div}}\times\mathfrak{H}, \\
&\mathsf{D}(\tilde{\mathbf{A}})=\mathsf{D}(\tilde{\mbox{\boldmath$L$}})\times \mathfrak{H}_0^{\mathrm{div}}
=\mathsf{D}({\mbox{\boldmath$L$}})\times \mathfrak{H}_0^{\mathrm{div}}
, \\
&U_0=
\begin{bmatrix}
\overset{\circ}{\bm{\xi}} \\
\\
\overset{\circ}{\mbox{\boldmath$v$}}
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{align}
Then we have
\begin{Proposition}
If $U_0 \in \mathsf{D}(\tilde{\mathbf{A}})$, say, if
$\overset{\circ}{\bm{\xi}} \in \mathsf{D}(\bm{L})$ and
$\overset{\circ}{\mbox{\boldmath$v$}} \in \mathfrak{H}_0^{\mathrm{div}}$, then there exists a unique solution
$U \in C^1([0,+\infty[, \mathfrak{E})\cap C([0,+\infty[, \mathsf{D}(\tilde{\mathbf{A}}))
$
to the problem \eqref{ExtHYP}.
\end{Proposition}
Therefore we have
\begin{Theorem}
Suppose $\overset{\circ}{\bm{\xi}} \in \mathsf{D}(\tilde{\bm{L}})=\mathsf{D}(\bm{L})$ and $ \overset{\circ}{\mbox{\boldmath$v$}}\in \mathfrak{H}_0^{\mathrm{div}}$. Then the initial-boundary value problem \eqref{ExtE} \eqref{ExtIV} admits a unique solution
$$\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$}\in C^2([0,+\infty[, \mathfrak{H})\cap
C^1([0,+\infty[,\mathfrak{H}_0^{\mathrm{div}})
\cap C([0,+\infty[, \mathsf{D}(\tilde{\mbox{\boldmath$L$}})).$$
\end{Theorem}
\vspace{15mm}
{\bf\Large Acknowledgment}\\
The author expresses his sincere thanks to Professor Akitaka Matsumura (Osaka University) for kindly having helpful discussions on this research and especially enlghting the author on the boundary trace of the divergence spaces $H(\mathrm{div}), H_0(\mathrm{div})$. This work is supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP21K03311.\\
{\bf\Large The data availability statement}\\
No new data were created or analyzed in this study.
\vspace{15mm}
|
\section{Introduction}
Lower dimensional gravity has been a very active field for a long time
in theoretical physics due to both its simplicity and its features,
which have a strong similarity to those in the four-dimensional
gravity theory. Black hole solutions were found in several lower
dimensional models like the well-known $(2+1)$-dimensional
BTZ ({\it{Bañados-Teitelboim-Zanelli}}) black
hole~\cite{Banados:1992wn} and the solutions of Jackiw
gravity~\cite{Jackiw:1984je} in $(1+1)$-dimensions among others (for an
extensive survey see~\cite{Mann:1991qp}). The Gauss-Bonnet (GB)
gravity is a particular case of Lovelock
theories~\cite{Lovelock:1971yv}, which includes higher curvature
corrections to the Einstein-Hilbert action given in terms of the
Riemann tensor. The equations of motion are differential equations of
second-order for the metric tensor components. A special feature of
those higher-curvature terms is that they are identically zero if the
spacetime dimension is bounded by $D<5$.
More recently, a proposal to evade the Lovelock theorem and allow
higher-curvature terms, in particular, the GB term, to survive without
extra fields for $D < 5$ was proposed
in~\cite{Glavan:2019inb}. Nevertheless, in several papers its was shown
that such a proposal leads to an ill-defined
theory~\cite{Gurses:2020ofy,Hennigar:2020lsl,Arrechea:2020evj}. Despite
such inconsonance, it is still possible to include the
four-dimensional GB corrections in a consistent
way~\cite{Lu:2020iav,Kobayashi:2020wqy}, showing that the
four-dimensional solution reported in~\cite{Glavan:2019inb} could be
obtained from a scalar-tensor theory which is a subclass of Horndeski
family~\cite{Horndeski:1974wa}. Following the same guidelines, a
$(2+1)$-dimensional black hole solution with GB correction was found
by Henningar {\it{et
al.}}~\cite{Hennigar:2020fkv,Hennigar:2020drx}. Such a
family of solutions admits a generalization of the BTZ black hole, which is
recovered in the limit when the GB coupling goes to zero. In our
present work we are interested in a deeper comprehension of those GB-BTZ
black holes in $(2+1)$ dimensions, specially in the role that the GB coupling
constant plays on the stability when the metric is perturbed by probe fields.
As it is essential to understand in which situations a black hole
solution is stable under small perturbations, the study of the field
propagation and the determination of the quasinormal spectrum
due to probe matter fields in the geometry of the (2+1)-dimensional
GB-BTZ black holes can shed some light on this stability. Moreover,
the stable or unstable nature of the metric is closely related to
the shape of each wave potential~\cite{hor2000}.
Much work has been done on linear perturbations of GB black holes in
different dimensions. Recent studies include the gravitational
perturbations and the ringdown phase of black holes in
Einstein-dilaton-Gauss-Bonnet gravity in four
dimensions~\cite{Blazquez-Salcedo:2016enn} and the
use of quasi-periodic oscillations to constrain the space of
parameters of the theory~\cite{Maselli:2014fca}. In addition,
in~\cite{Konoplya:2019fpy} the calculation of the black hole shadow
radius is implemented in the Einstein-scalar-Gauss-Bonnet gravity with
non-trivial scalar hair and in~\cite{Konoplya:2020bxa} the quasinormal
modes and the stability of the new four-dimensional Gauss-Bonnet black
holes were investigated. Moreover, an interesting relation between the
shadow radius and quasinormal spectrum was stablished
in~\cite{Jusufi_2020a,Jusufi_2020,Cuadros_Melgar_2020}. Whether such a
relation can be assigned to three-dimensional black holes still
remains an open question.
In addition, we are interested in exploring some thermodynamical aspects
of the (2+1)-dimensional GB-BTZ black hole. Since the pioneering works of
Bekenstein~\cite{PhysRevD.7.949} and Hawking~\cite{Hawking1975}, which
led to the identification of the black hole surface gravity and the
event horizon area with the temperature and the entropy of a
thermodynamical system, respectively, the black hole thermodynamics has
developed and brought different techniques that have improved our
understanding of the properties of these remarkable objects. One of
these physical quantities is the black hole entropy, which accounts for
the maximum entropy a physical system can carry. If an object is
captured by a black hole, according to the generalized second law of
thermodynamics, the entropy should always increase as well as the
event horizon area since they are connected through the
Bekenstein-Hawking classical formula, $S_{BH} = Area/4$. Based on this
observation, Bekenstein proposed the existence of an upper bound on
the entropy of any system~\cite{PhysRevD.23.287} carrying an energy
$E$ and with a characteristic dimension $R$, {\it i.e.}, $S \leq 2\pi ER$, which
proved to be universal until nowadays. Along with this subject is the
need to include quantum aspects in the description of black hole
entropy. In this way, 't Hooft brought a proposal forward by considering
a thermal bath of scalar fields just outside the event horizon so that
they could contribute to the entropy provided that a cut-off both close and
far from the black hole is included. This technique is known as the
brickwall method~\cite{THOOFT1985727} and its calculation leads to a
dominant correction also correlated to the event horizon area. In
fact, the coefficient of proportionality is universal for each
spacetime dimensionality. It is our aim to verify if these properties
can be fulfilled by the (2+1)-dimensional GB-BTZ black hole.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec.\ref{sec1} we discuss the
main features of $(2+1)$ GB-BTZ black hole solution. In Sec.\ref{sec2}
we compute the quasinormal modes and frequencies due to a massless
scalar probe field and discuss the effect of the GB coupling upon the
stability. Sec.\ref{sec3} brings the massless spinorial field as the
probe field and the quasinormal modes and spectrum are obtained. In
Sec.\ref{sec4} the hydrodynamic approximation for the probe scalar
field in the limit of small GB coupling constant is considered and its
interpretation in terms of gauge/gravity correspondence is
discussed. Sec.\ref{sec5} is devoted to some thermodynamical aspects
of the black hole solutions. Finally, in Sec.\ref{sec6}, we discuss
our results and possible perspectives for future work.
\section{Gauss-Bonnet black hole solutions in $(2+1)$-dimensions}\label{sec1}
The action that describes the Gauss-Bonnet (GB) gravity in
$(2+1)$-dimensions, encoding the main characteristics of its
$(3+1)$-dimensional counterpart, is given by \cite{Hennigar:2020fkv},
\begin{equation}\label{action}
S = \int d^3 x \sqrt{-g}\left\{R-2\Lambda + \alpha\left[\phi
\mathcal{G} +4G^{ab}\partial_{a}\phi\partial_{b}\phi -
4(\partial\phi)^{2}\square\phi +
2((\nabla\phi)^2)^{2}\right]\right\}\,,
\end{equation}
where we have the Einstein-Hilbert term plus a cosmological constant
$\Lambda$, the corrections coming from the GB term~\footnote{Notice
that the GB term identically vanishes in a
$(2+1)$-dimensional spacetime.}
$\mathcal{G} = R_{abcd}R^{abcd} - 4R_{ab}R^{ab}+R^2$, being $\alpha$ the GB
coupling constant, and an additional scalar field $\phi$. Notice that
the same coupling between the Einstein tensor $G_{ab}$ and the kinetic
term of $\phi$ is present in the Horndeski theory and, indeed, the
theory represented by the action (\ref{action}) is a special case of
Horndeski class~\cite{Horndeski:1974wa}.
As pointed out in~\cite{Hennigar:2020fkv}, the GB part of
(\ref{action}) can be obtained at least by two different methods.
Namely, a Kaluza-Klein (KK) dimensional reduction of a $D$-dimensional theory
compactified on an internal maximally symmetric space that leads to a
$D=3$ GB gravity~\cite{Lu:2020iav} and the generalization of Ross-Mann
method to obtain the $D\rightarrow 2$ limit of General
Relativity~\cite{Mann:1992ar} through a conformal transformation on
the metric $\tilde{g_{ab}} = e^{\Psi}g_{ab}$ and an expansion of the action
around the spatial dimension of interest. Both methods lead to the
action (\ref{action}) as long as the maximally symmetric space used in
the KK approach is flat, otherwise, additional terms are
generated~\cite{Hennigar:2020fkv},
\begin{equation}\label{action_internal}
S_{\lambda} = -2\int d^{3}x\sqrt{-g}\left[\lambda e^{-2\phi}\left(R + 6 (\partial\phi)^{2}\right) + 3\lambda^2 e^{-4\phi}\right]\,,
\end{equation}
where $\lambda$ represents the curvature of the internal space.
In order to obtain black hole solutions to the GB gravity in
$(2+1)$ dimensions we consider the equations of motion that
come from the action (\ref{action}) together with the additional terms
(\ref{action_internal}) and the following {\it{ansatz}} for
the line element~\cite{Hennigar:2020fkv},
\begin{equation}\label{ansatz}
ds^{2} = -f(r)dt^2 + \frac{1}{f(r)h(r)}dr^2 + r^2\left(d\varphi -
\frac{J}{2r^2}dt\right)^2\,,
\end{equation}
where $J$ is a constant. In addition, the scalar field $\phi$ depends
only on the radial coordinate, $\phi=\phi(r)$. Then, using this
{\it{ansatz}} and varying the action with respect to $f(r)$,
$h(r)$, and $\phi(r)$ we obtain three equations of motion, whose
simplest solution is the BTZ black hole~\cite{Banados:1992wn} when
considering $h(r)=1$, $\phi = \hbox{constant}$ and $\lambda = 0$,
\begin{equation}\label{btz}
f_{BTZ}(r) = -M + \frac{r^2}{L^2} +\frac{J}{4r^2}\,,
\end{equation}
with $M$ and $J$ denoting the black hole mass and angular momentum,
respectively, and the cosmological constant $\Lambda$ is related to
the curvature radius $L$ by $\Lambda = L^{-2}$.
Furthermore, new black hole solutions in three dimensions depending on
the GB coupling are achieved by considering a non-constant scalar
field $\phi(r)$. In the static case $J=0$ and setting $\lambda=0$ the
equations of motion admit the following
solution~\cite{Hennigar:2020fkv},
\begin{equation}\label{new_bh}
f(r)_{\pm} = -\frac{r^2}{2\alpha}\left(1\pm\sqrt{1+\frac{4\alpha}{r^2}\left(-M + \frac{r^2}{L^2}\right)}\right)\,,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{new_scalar}
\phi(r) = \ln\left(\frac{r}{L}\right)\,.
\end{equation}
The positive branch $f(r)_{+}$ of solution (\ref{new_bh}) does not
have a well-defined limit as the GB coupling constant goes to
zero, in fact, in this limit it reduces to
\begin{equation}\label{positive_branch}
f(r)_{+} \approx M -\frac{r^2}{L^2} - \frac{r^2}{\alpha}\,,
\end{equation}
which goes to infinity as $\alpha\rightarrow 0$. In this sense, the
positive branch does not describe a physical system. Conversely, the
negative branch $f(r)_{-}$ reduces to BTZ black hole in the same
limit. Also, at large distances the negative branch is described by an
AdS-like metric, what yields a condition on the allowed values
of the GB coupling in order to have a well-defined solution at
spatial infinity, {\it i.e.}, $\alpha > -L^2/4$.
Since the negative branch admits a bounded limit for small $\alpha$
and is well behaved at large distances, we are going to consider only
$f(r)_{-}$ as black hole solution and, thus, we will drop the subscript
$-$ in $f(r)_{-}$ from now on. As the event horizon $r=r_{+}$ of this
metric is the same as that of the BTZ solution, $r_{+} = LM^{1/2}$, we see
that the GB coupling does not change the location of the event
horizon. Moreover, the near horizon limit of $f(r)$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{nh_metric}
f(r)\approx \frac{2M^{1/2}}{L}(r-r_{+}) + \mathcal{O}((r-r_{+})^{2})\,,
\end{equation}
showing that $\alpha$ contributes only for large distances from $r_{+}$.
Furthermore, we can distinguish two cases in the internal geometric
structure of the negative branch. When $\alpha>0$, the black hole has
a branch singularity analogous to GB higher-dimensional
solutions. This singularity can be found by using the condition that
the argument of the square root in the metric vanishes, thus we have
\begin{equation}\label{branch}
r_b = 2L \sqrt{\frac{M\alpha}{L^2+4\alpha}} = 2
\sqrt{\frac{\alpha}{L^2+4\alpha}} \,r_+ < r_+\,,
\end{equation}
where the last inequality shows that the branch singularity remains
inside the event horizon. Around $r_b$ the Kretschmann scalar behaves
as
\begin{equation}\label{Kb}
K \equiv R_{\alpha\beta\mu\nu} R^{\alpha\beta\mu\nu}\sim \frac{r_b ^3
(L^2+4\alpha)}{32 \alpha^2 L^2 (r-r_b)^3} + \cdots \,.
\end{equation}
This type of divergence is the same found in higher-dimensional GB
solutions~\cite{PhysRevD.71.124002} and shows that $r_b$ is a true
curvature singularity.
On the other hand, when $-L^2/4<\alpha<0$, the metric continues until
$r=0$, where the Kretschmann scalar behaves as
\begin{equation}\label{K0}
K \sim -\frac{2M}{\alpha r^2} + \cdots \,,
\end{equation}
showing that at $r=0$ a curvature singularity is located.
The Kruskal-Szekeres extension of black solution (\ref{new_bh}) and its
Penrose-Carter diagram can be constructed by a detailed examination of
the metric near the event horizon $r=r_{+}$ and at spatial infinity
$r\rightarrow \infty$.
Near the event horizon it is possible to approximate the function $f(r)$ as $f(r)\approx 2\kappa_{+}(r-r_{+})$, where $\kappa_{+}=f'(r_{+})/2$, and in this region the tortoise coordinate $r_{*}$ can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{tortoise_horizonte}
r_{*} \approx \frac{1}{\kappa_{+}}\ln{|\kappa_{+}(r-r_{+})|}.
\end{equation}
Defining a double null system of coordinates, $U_{+} = t - r_{*}$ and $V_+ = t + r_{*}$, we obtain the Kruskal-Szekeres extension near the event horizon,
\begin{equation}\label{KS_horizon}
U_{+}V_{+}=\mp \kappa_{+}|(r-r_{+})|,
\end{equation}
in which the minus sign refers to the region $r>r_{+}$ and the plus sign corresponds to the region $r<r_{+}$.
At spatial infinity $r\rightarrow\infty$ the Kruskal-Szekeres extension reads
\begin{equation}\label{KS_infinito}
U_{\infty}V_{\infty} = -e^{\frac{2}{L^2 r^2}}.
\end{equation}
Combining each extension (\ref{KS_horizon})-(\ref{KS_infinito})
through the Penrose coordinates $T=\frac{1}{2}(\tilde{U}+\tilde{V})$
and $R=\frac{1}{2}(\tilde{U}-\tilde{V})$ with $\tilde{U}=\arctan(U)$
and $\tilde{V}=\arctan(V)$, we accomplish the Penrose-Carter diagrams
for the entire spacetime as shown in Fig. \ref{diagrama}. Notice
that the structure of these diagrams is
the same as that of the $(2+1)$-dimensional black hole in the presence
of anisotropic fluids~\cite{deOliveira:2018weu}. The spatial infinity
is conformally AdS and the nature of the singularity located at
$r=r_b$ ($\alpha>0$) or $r=0$ ($-L^2/4<\alpha<0$) is spacelike. In
both cases the singularity is always covered by an event horizon at $r=r_+$.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=7.0cm, width=7.0cm]{diagrama_gauss_bonnet_3d_2.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=7.0cm, width=7.0cm]{diagrama_gauss_bonnet_3d.pdf}
\caption{Penrose-Carter diagrams for the $(2+1)$-dimensional
GB-BTZ black hole with $\alpha>0$ (left) and $-L^2/4<\alpha<0$
(right).}
\label{diagrama}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
After describing the main features of the black hole spacetime,
in the next sections we are going to consider two different kinds
of probe fields evolving in such geometry, namely, the massless scalar
and the massless spinor fields. The analysis of the dynamics of the
fields provides some insight on the black hole stability through
the computation of quasinormal frequencies as we will see.
\section{Probe scalar field}\label{sec2}
Let us consider a massless scalar field $\Psi(x^{\mu})$, whose
dynamics is governed by the Klein-Gordon equation,
\begin{equation}\label{kg1}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{-g}}\partial_{\mu}\left(\sqrt{-g}g^{\mu\nu}\partial_{\nu}\Psi\right)=0,
\end{equation}
in the geometry of a GB-BTZ black hole (\ref{new_bh}) with
$x^{\mu}=(t,r,\varphi)$. The tortoise coordinate defined through
$dr_{*}=dr/f$ has its domain on the region I of the diagram
shown in Fig. \ref{diagrama}, running from $-\infty$ to a constant
value as $r \in [r_+, \infty]$. Performing the following separation of
variables
\begin{equation}\label{separacao}
\Psi(t,r,\varphi) = \sum_{m}\frac{\psi (r,t)}{\sqrt{r}}e^{im\varphi}= \sum_{m}\frac{R(r)}{\sqrt{r}}e^{-i\omega t + im\varphi},
\end{equation}
the field equation (\ref{kg1}) can be cast to the form
\begin{equation}\label{kg2}
\frac{d^2R}{dr_{*}^2} +\left(\omega^2 - V(r)\right)R = 0,
\end{equation}
in which $V(r)$ is the effective potential for the scalar field dynamics
in the black hole geometry. Explicitly, we have
\begin{equation}\label{potential_scalar}
V(r) = f(r)\left(\frac{m^2}{r^2}-\frac{f(r)}{4r^2}+\frac{1}{2r}\frac{df(r)}{dr}\right).
\end{equation}
The effective potential $V(r)$ depends on all the parameters that
characterize the black hole geometry $(M, L, \alpha)$ and on the
scalar field azimutal number $m$.
In Fig. \ref{pot_escalar} we plot different potentials varying the
GB parameter $\alpha$ with fixed $M$, $L$, and $m$. For $\alpha=0$ we
recover the effective potential for the BTZ black
hole~\cite{Cardoso:2001hn} and as $\alpha$ increases, the value of the
potential for a given radial position $r$ decreases, showing that the
GB coupling attenuates the interaction
between the geometry and the probe massless scalar field.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics[height=10.0cm, width=15.0cm]{scalar_potential.eps}
\caption{(color online) Main panel: Effective scalar potential $V(r)$
with $m=0$, $M=L=1$ for different values of GB coupling
$\alpha = 0$ (blue), $\alpha=5\times 10^{-2}$ (dashed red), and
$\alpha = 3\times 10^{-1}$ (dotted green). Upper left panel:
Effective scalar potential $V(r)$ with $m=2$, $M=L=1$ for different
values of GB coupling $\alpha = 0$ (blue), $\alpha=5\times
10^{-2}$ (dashed red), and $\alpha = 3\times 10^{-1}$ (dotted
green).}
\label{pot_escalar}
\end{figure}
The quasinormal spectra due to the evolution of a massless scalar
field can be obtained with several known methods. We consider the
characteristic integration in double null coordinates given by
$du=dt-dr_*$ and $dv=dt+dr_*$, turning Eq. (\ref{kg2}) to the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{e1}
\left(4\frac{\partial^2}{\partial u \partial v} + V(r) \right)\psi = 0.
\end{eqnarray}
Now, the usual discretization scheme (described in the specific
literature~\cite{Konoplya:2011qq} and references therein) gives the
following equation,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{e2}
\psi_N = \left( 1+ \frac{h^2}{16}V_S \right)^{-1} \left( \psi_W+\psi_E-\psi_S - \frac{h^2}{16}(V_W\psi_W+V_E\psi_E+V_S\psi_S)\right)\,,
\end{eqnarray}
which we can integrate yielding the field evolution with the quasinormal
signal present. After getting the field profile, acquired
through the characteristic integration, we can apply the Prony method
described in~\cite{Konoplya:2011qq} to pick up the
frequencies.
In order to cross-check the results of the obtained quasinormal modes,
we also developed a Frobenius method, similar to that of
Ref. \cite{hor2000}. The equations for this numerical implementation
are given in Appendix \ref{ap1}. We obtained a good agreement between the
results collected with both methods for $\alpha < 0.13$. The maximum
deviation between the results of both methods appears in the case of very
small $\alpha$. Actually, for $\alpha = 10^{-4}$ we obtained an outcome with a
$2\%$ maximal deviation in the cases of higher $r_+$. Except for those
occurrences, the convergence of both methods is higher than
$0.2\%$. The Tables \ref{tb1} and \ref{tb2} display the quasinormal
frequencies for different geometry parameters.
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{The fundamental quasinormal modes for a massless scalar
field with $L=1$ and azimutal number $m =0$.}
\addtolength\tabcolsep{10pt}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
\hline
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{$r_+=1$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$r_+=10$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$r_+=100$} \\
$\alpha$ & {$\Re(\omega)$} & {$-\Im(\omega)$} & {$\Re(\omega)$} & {$-\Im(\omega)$} & {$\Re(\omega)$} & {$-\Im(\omega)$} \\
\hline \hline
$1 \cdot 10^{-4}$ & 0.0201015 & 1.99975 & 0.204054 & 19.99609 & 2.04054 & 199.96092 \\
$1 \cdot 10^{-3}$ & 0.0633286 & 1.99781 & 0.633286 & 19.97806 & 6.33286 & 199.78061 \\
$1 \cdot 10^{-2}$ & 0.198807 & 1.97948 & 1.98807 & 19.79481 & 19.88068 & 197.94808 \\
$1 \cdot 10^{-1}$ & 0.572319 & 1.79642 & 5.72319 & 17.96419 & 57.23187 & 179.64185 \\
$2 \cdot 10^{-1}$ & 0.718720 & 1.62834 & 7.18720 & 16.28342 & 71.87195 & 162.83424 \\
$3 \cdot 10^{-1}$ & 0.788886 & 1.49642 & 7.88886 & 14.96417 & 78.88860 & 149.64175 \\
$4 \cdot 10^{-1}$ & 0.825547 & 1.39082 & 8.25547 & 13.90820 & 82.55466 & 139.08200 \\
$5 \cdot 10^{-1}$ & 0.844776 & 1.30425 & 8.44776 & 13.04249 & 84.47757 & 130.42490 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tb1}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{The fundamental quasinormal modes for a massless scalar
field with $L=1$ and azimutal number $m =1$.}
\addtolength\tabcolsep{10pt}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
\hline
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{$r_+=1$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$r_+=10$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$r_+=100$} \\
$\alpha$ & {$\Re(\omega)$} & {$-\Im(\omega)$} & {$\Re(\omega)$} & {$-\Im(\omega)$} & {$\Re(\omega)$} & {$-\Im(\omega)$} \\
\hline \hline
$1 \cdot 10^{-4}$ & 0.999652 & 1.99883 & 1.02051 & 19.99608 & 2.27236 & 199.96092 \\
$1 \cdot 10^{-3}$ & 1.00185 & 1.99727 & 1.18394 & 19.97796 & 6.41138 & 199.78060 \\
$1 \cdot 10^{-2}$ & 1.01893 & 1.97500 & 2.22700 & 19.79394 & 19.90599 & 197.94799 \\
$1 \cdot 10^{-1}$ & 1.13028 & 1.77622 & 5.80817 & 17.96072 & 57.24044 & 179.64150 \\
$2 \cdot 10^{-1}$ & 1.18365 & 1.60429 & 7.25065 & 16.27948 & 71.87833 & 162.83384 \\
$3 \cdot 10^{-1}$ & 1.20435 & 1.47060 & 7.94319 & 14.96002 & 78.89406 & 149.64133 \\
$4 \cdot 10^{-1}$ & 1.20937 & 1.36369 & 8.30458 & 13.90386 & 82.55958 & 139.08156 \\
$5 \cdot 10^{-1}$ & 1.20626 & 1.27595 & 8.49345 & 13.03798 & 84.48215 & 130.42445 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tb2}
\end{table}
The fundamental frequencies with $m=0$ show an interesting feature:
there is a linear scaling between the real and imaginary parts of
$\omega$ and the black hole event horizon, a
characteristic first observed in~\cite{hor2000}. In that work the
temperature and the quasinormal modes are fitted by a straight line
for large black holes (high $r_+$) in AdS universes. However, for
intermediate size black holes (with size of the order of the AdS
radius) this scaling disappears. One of the reasons put forward by the
authors is that when the temperature is slowly lowered, one encounters
the Hawking-Page transition and the supergravity description is no
longer valid, {\it i.e.}, the relaxation time is not related to the
imaginary part of the fundamental quasinormal frequency anymore. In
our case we still preserve the scaling with the temperature even for
intermediate size black holes since the relation $T \propto r_+$ is always
valid. Thus, using the same argument given in Ref. \cite{hor2000} we
can conclude that this scaling is kept because there are no phase
transitions in the (2+1)-dimensional GB-BTZ black hole, a fact that we
will briefly discuss in Sec. \ref{sec5}.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[scale=0.36]{wr.pdf}}\hskip 5ex
\subfigure{\includegraphics[scale=0.36]{wi.pdf}}\hskip 5ex
\caption{Quasinormal modes of the GB-BTZ black hole for different coupling parameter. The azimutal number of the field reads $m=0$.}
\label{scale}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In Fig. \ref{scale} we show the quasinormal modes for different values
of $\alpha$ parameter. The interesting feature here is the increment
of the value of $\Re (\omega )$ with increasing $\alpha$, together
with the attenuation of $-\Im ( \omega)$. In the small-$\alpha$ regime
($m=0$) our results for the real part of the frequency suggest a
scaling given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{e3}
\Re (\omega ) = (0.843-0.738 e^{-10.663 \alpha })r_+ \,,
\end{eqnarray}
and a linear scaling for the imaginary part expressed by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{e4}
-\Im (\omega ) = (1.9999 - 2.0435\alpha )r_+ \,,
\end{eqnarray}
with linear correlation factor $R^2=0.99976$.
In Fig. \ref{scale}, we observe that the real part of the quasinormal
frequencies increases with $\alpha$, reaching a maximum at
$\alpha=\alpha_{max}$ and then starts to decrease. The same behavior
was obtained in the case of massless scalar perturbations of the
$(3+1)$-dimensional GB black hole~\cite{Konoplya:2020bxa}, where the
value $\alpha=\alpha_{max}$ indicates the possibility of gravitational
instabilities since $\Re(\omega)$ is non-monotonic.
Since no negative potential was present in the region I of the
Penrose diagram for every tested parameter, we consistently found no
instabilities in the propagation of the scalar field subject to
well-behaved initial data. Thus, the scalar perturbation can be
decomposed after an initial burst in the traditional towers of
quasinormal modes labeled by an overtone number. Whether more than one
family of quasinormal modes can exist in the (2+1)-dimensional GB-BTZ
black hole geometry remains an open issue to be further investigated.
In the next section we follow our stability study with the Weyl field,
whose perturbative analysis is also performed with the same tools
described in the present section.
\section{Probe massless spinorial field}\label{sec3}
In this section we are going to consider the problem of a massless
spinor field $\Phi$ evolving in the geometry of the (2+1)-dimensional GB-BTZ black
hole (\ref{new_bh}). The equation that dictates the dynamics of $\Phi$
is the well-known Dirac equation in its covariant form,
\begin{equation}\label{eq_dirac}
i\gamma^{(a)}e_{(a)}^{\;\mu}\nabla_{\mu}\Phi = 0,
\end{equation}
where our index notation is the following, Latin indices
enclosed in parenthesis refer to the coordinates defined in the flat
tangent space and Greek indices indicate the spacetime coordinates. In
the tangent space we define the triad basis as in
Eq. (\ref{triad}) and the spinor covariant derivative
$\nabla_{\mu}$ is given by the following expression,
\begin{equation}\label{cov_derivative}
\nabla_{\mu} = \partial_{\mu} +\frac{1}{8}\omega^{(a)(b)}\left[\gamma_{(a)},\gamma_{(b)}\right],
\end{equation}
in terms of spin connections $\omega_{\mu}^{(a)(b)}$ and gamma
matrices $\gamma^{(a)}$, which can be written in terms of usual Pauli
matrices \footnote{In this work we set $\gamma^{(0)}=i\sigma_2$,
$\gamma^{(1)}=\sigma_1$ and $\gamma^{(2)}=\sigma_3$.}. The
components of the spin connection can be computed using the expression
in terms of the triad and the spacetime metric connections
$\Gamma_{\mu\rho}^{\nu}$ as
\begin{equation}\label{spin_connections1}
\omega_{\mu}^{(a)(b)} = e_{\nu}^{(a)}\partial_{\mu}e^{(b)\nu} + e_{\nu}^{(a)}\Gamma^{\nu}_{\mu\rho}e^{\rho (b)}.
\end{equation}
The explicit expressions for the triad basis and the metric
connections are given in Appendix \ref{ap2}. Here we list the two
non-vanishing components of $\omega_{\mu}^{(a)(b)}$, computed using
the expressions (\ref{triad})-(\ref{connections}),
\begin{equation}\label{spin_connections2}
\omega_{t}^{(t)(r)} = \frac{1}{2}\frac{df}{dr}\,, \quad
\omega_{\varphi}^{(r)(\varphi)} = -\sqrt{f}.
\end{equation}
The spinor field $\Phi$ can be written in terms of its two-components
$\Phi_1$ and $\Phi_2$ as
\begin{equation}\label{spinor_1}
\Phi =
\begin{pmatrix}
\Phi_1(t,r,\varphi) & \\
\Phi_2(t,r,\varphi)& \\
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
Using the tortoise coordinate $r_{*}$ and redefining the spinor components as
\begin{equation}\label{spinor_2}
\begin{pmatrix}
\Phi_1(t,r,\varphi) & \\
\Phi_2(t,r,\varphi)& \\
\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}
i\left(r^2 f\right)^{1/4}e^{-i\omega t +im\varphi}Y_+(r) & \\
\left(r^2 f\right)^{1/4}e^{-i\omega t +im\varphi}Y_-(r)& \\
\end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
the Dirac equation (\ref{eq_dirac}) can be cast to the following form
\begin{equation}\label{eq_dirac_2}
\left(\frac{d}{dr_{*}}\pm i\omega \right)Y_{\pm} = WY_{\mp},
\end{equation}
where the superpotential $W$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{superpotential}
W = m\frac{\sqrt{f}}{r}.
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[height = 6cm,width=8.0cm]{weyl_1.pdf}}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[height = 6cm,width=8.0cm]{weyl_2.pdf}}
\caption{{\it{Left panel:}} Potential $V_{+}$ for the massless spinor with $\alpha = 0$ (blue), $\alpha = 0.1$ (dashed red), and $\alpha = 0.5$ (dotted green). {\it{Right panel:}} Potential $V_{-}$ for the massless spinor with the same values of $\alpha$ as in the left panel. }
\end{figure}
The final step to obtain the so-called superpartner potentials
$V_{\pm}$ is to introduce the
pair of coordinates $R_{+}$ and $R_{-}$ as $R_{\pm} = Y_{+}\pm Y_{-}$
into (\ref{eq_dirac_2}), so that
\begin{equation}\label{eq_dirac_3}
\left(\frac{d^2}{dr_{*}^2}+\omega^2\right)R_{\pm} = V_{\pm}R_{\pm}\,,
\end{equation}
where $V_{\pm}$ can be expressed in terms of the superpotential $W$ as
\begin{equation}\label{potential_spinor}
V_{\pm} = W^2 \pm \frac{dW}{dr_{*}}\,.
\end{equation}
Finally, the explicit form of the superpartner potentials for the
massless spinorial field evolving in the spacetime of the
(2+1)-dimensional GB-BTZ black hole is
\begin{equation}\label{superpotentials}
V_{\pm} = m^2 \frac{f}{r^2} \pm m\frac{\sqrt{f}}{r}\left[\frac{1}{2}\frac{df}{dr}-\frac{f}{r}\right].
\end{equation}
The propagation of a massless spinor field in the black hole geometry
dictated by Eq. (\ref{eq_dirac_3}) recovers the
quasinormal modes through the signal of field profiles. The profiles
are obtained as described in the previous section with the double null
integration technique. After an initial perturbation (gauge), the quasinormal
evolution takes place and the frequencies are drawn with the
Prony method, mentioned in the previous section. We use the usual
gaussian packages in null coordinates as initial surface
to evolve the field.
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{The fundamental quasinormal modes for a massless spinorial field with $L=1$ and azimutal number $m = 1$ with potential $V_+$. The frequencies represent a stable field evolution with a purely imaginary decay, except for $r_+=1$.}
\addtolength\tabcolsep{6pt}
\begin{tabular}{c|ccccccc}
\hline
$r_+$ & \multicolumn{7}{c}{$\alpha$} \\
& 0.001 & 0.01 & 0.1 & 0.2 & 0.3 & 0.4 & 0.5 \\
\hline \hline
1 & 1.10795 & 1.10722 & 1.09530 & 1.07726 & 1.05788 & 1.03867 & 1.02019 \\
& -0.86224i & -0.85258i & -0.76950i & -0.69847i & -0.64240i & -0.59673i & -0.55863i \\
\hline
5 & -2.71475i & -2.71715i & -2.74155i & -2.77000i & -2.80042i & -2.83343i & -2.86972i \\
\hline
10 & -5.10072i & -5.10171i & -5.11161i & -5.12270i & -5.13402i & -5.14566i & -5.15771i \\
\hline
50 & -25.01925i & -25.01943i & -25.02117i & -25.02308i & -25.02501i & -25.02695i & -25.02893i \\
\hline
100 & -50.00967i & -50.00976i & -50.01062i & -50.01158i & -50.01253i & -50.01350i & -50.01448i \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tb3}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{The fundamental quasinormal modes for a massless spinorial field with $L=1$ and azimutal number $m = 1$ with potential $V_-$. The frequencies represent a stable field evolution with a purely imaginary decay.}
\addtolength\tabcolsep{6pt}
\begin{tabular}{c|ccccccc}
\hline
$r_+$ & \multicolumn{7}{c}{$\alpha$} \\
& 0.001 & 0.01 & 0.1 & 0.2 & 0.3 & 0.4 & 0.5 \\
\hline \hline
1 & -0.10731i & -0.10670i & -0.10115i & -0.095998i & -0.091609i & -0.087790i & -0.084415i \\
5 & -2.33789i & -2.33677i & -2.32594i & -2.31449i & -2.30348i & -2.29281i & -2.28241i \\
10 & -4.91111i & -4.91040i & -4.90340i & -4.89582i & -4.88837i & -4.88098i & -4.87362i \\
50 & -24.98117i & -24.98100i & -24.97936i & -24.97756i & -24.97576i & -24.97395i & -24.97211i \\
100 & -49.99043i & -49.99035i & -49.98951i & -49.98858i & -49.98766i & -49.98673i & -49.98579i \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tb4}
\end{table}
The quasinormal modes are listed in the Tables \ref{tb3} and
\ref{tb4}. There we can verify an interesting behavior: for
increasing $\alpha$ the damping factor varies in opposite directions,
increasing for $V_+$ and decreasing for $V_-$. This effect is more
pronounced for small $r_+$ such that the spectra of larger black holes
are very mildly influenced by the variation of $\alpha$. A scaling
between $r_+$ and the quasinormal frequency emerges for large black
holes,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{sc1}
\omega \simeq \frac{r_+}{2}
\end{eqnarray}
for both $V_+$ and $V_-$. This is the same result obtained for the
quasinormal modes of the BTZ black hole to zeroth order in
$m$~\cite{deOliveira:2018weu}. Interestingly, $\alpha$ plays no
important role in the spectra for large black holes in the spinorial field
profile contrarily to the scalar case.
The evolution of the massless spinorial field was extensively
investigated with our methods and found to be stable. The field profile,
after an initial burst, decomposes into a tower of quasinormal modes from
which specific cases are listed in Tables \ref{tb3} and
\ref{tb4}. This is an expected result for the potential $V_+$,
however, it is not granted for the potential $V_-$ since a small region with
$V<0$ exists for $r>r_+$ in this case.
As usual, in AdS-like black holes the spectra for both $V_+$ and
$V_-$ are not the same. Such behavior of isospectrality of the
potentials is found whenever a series expansion of the transmission
coefficients associated to $W$ is the same for $V_+$ and
$V_-$~\cite{Chandrasekhar:1985kt,cardoso2004quasinormal}. The fact that
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{sc2}
W\Big|_{r\rightarrow r_+}^{r \rightarrow \infty} = W_\infty > 0\,.
\end{eqnarray}
is sufficient to break the isospectrality of the potentials.
\section{Scalar quasinormal modes in the hydrodynamical
approximation}\label{sec4}
In this section we are going to consider the hydrodynamical limit of
probe scalar field. In general, an interacting theory can be described
by means of hydrodynamics in the limit of large wavelength and small
wavenumbers compared to the typical temperature of the
system~\cite{Landau1987FluidMechanics}. From Gauge/Gravity
correspondence it is well-know that the characteristic thermalization
timescale for a dual thermal state at the boundary is given by the
inverse of the imaginary part of the fundamental quasinormal frequency
in the hydrodynamical limit~\cite{hor2000}. Such a result has been
confirmed in $(2+1)-$dimensional black holes with Lifshitz
scaling~\cite{Abdalla2012ThreeDimensional}.
In order to establish this limit, we define the quantities
$\mathfrak{w}=\omega/2\pi T$ and $\mathfrak{q} = m/2\pi T$ and
consider the limit $\mathfrak{q}\rightarrow 0$, such that the radial
equation for the massless scalar field can be cast to
\begin{equation}\label{kg_hidro1}
R''(u) +\left[\frac{h'}{h} -\frac{1}{u}\right]R'(u) +\frac{4\alpha^2}{h^{2}L^4}\mathfrak{w}^2 R(u) = 0,
\end{equation}
where we have performed the change of variable $u=r_{+}/r$ and defined
\begin{equation}\label{hfunction}
h = 1-\left[1+\frac{4\alpha}{L^2}(1-u^2)\right]^{1/2}.
\end{equation}
In the case in which $\mathfrak{w}<<1$ we expand $R(u)$ in powers of $\mathfrak{w}$,
\begin{equation}\label{expansion1}
R(u)\approx h(u)^{\sigma}\left(F_{0}(u) + i\mathfrak{w}F_{1}(u) +\mathcal{O}(\mathfrak{w}^2)\right).
\end{equation}
The exponent $\sigma$ is determined by imposing the ingoing boundary
condition for the scalar field at the location of the black hole event
horizon $r_{+}$. We thus obtain $\sigma = -i\mathfrak{w}/2$.
Substituting the expansion (\ref{expansion1}) in the scalar field
radial equation (\ref{kg_hidro1}) we obtain two ordinary differential
equations for the functions $F_{0}(u)$ and $F_{1}(u)$,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{F0}
F_{0}''(u)+\left(\frac{h'}{h} - \frac{1}{u}\right)F_{0}'(u)=0\,,\\ \label{F1}
F_{1}''(u) +\left(\frac{h'}{h} - \frac{1}{u}\right)F_{1}'(u) -
\frac{h'}{h} F_0'+\left(\frac{h'}{u}-h''\right)\frac{F_0}{2 h}= 0\,.
\end{eqnarray}
In order to analyze the influence of GB coupling constant $\alpha$ on the
frequencies in the hydrodynamical limit, we will consider the
small-$\alpha$ limit. Expanding $h(u)$ in such a limit we obtain,
\begin{equation}\label{expand_h}
h(u) \approx \frac{2}{L^2}(u^2 - 1)\left[\alpha
+\frac{\alpha^2}{L^2}(u^2-1)\right]\,.
\end{equation}
In this scenario the solution for Eq. (\ref{F0}) is
\begin{equation}\label{sol_F0}
F_{0}(u) = A - \frac{B}{2L^2}\ln \left[{\frac{(u^2-1)}{(L^2 +\alpha(u^2 -1))}}\right]\,,
\end{equation}
where $A$ and $B$ are constants.
To satisfy the ingoing boundary condition at the event horizon and avoid
divergences in $F_{0}(u)$, we need impose $B=0$ in (\ref{sol_F0}). Thus,
the solution becomes $F_{0}(u) = A$. With this result we solve
Eq. (\ref{F1}) for $F_1(u)$ obtaining,
\begin{equation}
F_{1}(u) = C +\frac{2A\alpha - D}{2L^2}\ln{(u^2-1)} +\frac{D+2A(L^2-\alpha)}{2L^2}\ln{[L^2 + (u^2 -1)\alpha]},
\end{equation}
where $C$ and $D$ are constants. Again, the solution has to be finite
as $u\rightarrow 1$, thus, we must have $D=2A\alpha$. Also, the ingoing boundary condition at the event horizon implies that $F_{1}(1) = 0$, then,
\begin{equation}
C = -A\ln{(L^2)}.
\end{equation}
Finally, the solution for $F_{1}(u)$, finite and obeying the physical
boundary condition at the event horizon, turns to be
\begin{equation}\label{F1_2}
F_{1}(u) = A\ln{\left[1+\frac{\alpha}{L^2}(u^2 - 1)\right]}.
\end{equation}
Replacing the solutions for $F_{0}(u)$ and $F_{1}(u)$ back in
Eq. (\ref{expansion1}) we have
\begin{equation}\label{R_2}
R(u) = A\, h(u)^{-i\mathfrak{w}/2}\left\{1+i\mathfrak{w}\ln{\left[1+\frac{\alpha}{L^2}(u^2 - 1)\right]}\right\}\,.
\end{equation}
Imposing the Dirichlet boundary condition at spatial infinity for the
scalar field, $R(0) = 0$, we arrive to the following allowed set of
frequencies,
\begin{equation}\label{omega}
\mathfrak{w} = \frac{i}{\ln{\left(1-\frac{\alpha}{L^2}\right)}},
\end{equation}
which in terms of black hole temperature $T$ reads
\begin{equation}\label{omega2}
\omega = \frac{2\pi T i}{\ln{\left(1-\frac{\alpha}{L^2}\right)}}.
\end{equation}
The hydrodynamical frequencies are purely imaginary, showing the same
behavior as the three-dimensional black holes with Lifshitz
symmetry~\cite{Abdalla2012ThreeDimensional} and those surrounded by
anisotropic fluids~\cite{deOliveira:2018weu}. In terms of Gauge/Gravity
correspondence the perturbation of a black hole in the gravity side is
equivalent to perturb a thermal state in the gauge theory side. In
this context, the inverse of the imaginary part of the fundamental
quasinormal frequency corresponds to the relaxation time which the
perturbed thermal state needs in order to return to thermal
equilibrium. Thus, in our case this timescale is given by
\begin{equation}\label{timescale}
\tau = \frac{\ln{\left(1-\frac{\alpha}{L^2}\right)}}{2\pi T}.
\end{equation}
At high temperatures the timescale $\tau$ approaches zero
suggesting that the perturbations of thermal states in the
$(1+1)-$field theory are not long-lived. However, as $\alpha$
increases (provided that $-L^2/4<\alpha<0$) with fixed
black hole temperature, the timescale $\tau$ increases as well
indicating the possibility of having long-lived perturbations in the gauge
theory.
In the next section we will discuss some aspects of the thermodynamics
of (2+1)-dimensional GB-BTZ black holes.
\section{Thermodynamical aspects}\label{sec5}
The thermodynamics of the black hole described by the negative branch
of Eq. (\ref{new_bh}) is very simple as quoted
by~\cite{Hennigar:2020fkv}, in which the main thermodynamical variables
are listed as follows,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{thq}
&T = \frac{r_{+}}{2\pi L^2}\,, \quad P=\frac{1}{8\pi L^2}\,, \quad
V=\pi r_+ ^2 \,,& \nonumber \\
&M = \frac{r_+ ^2}{8L^2}\,, \quad S = \frac{\pi r_+}{2} \,, \psi_\alpha
= 0\,,&
\end{eqnarray}
where $\psi_\alpha$ is the potential conjugated to the GB parameter.
In particular, we notice that its Hawking temperature grows
monotonically with $r_+$, so that there are no phase transitions. This
fact can also be seen from the simple equation of state obtained
combining $T$, $V$, and $P$ in the list of Eqs.(\ref{thq}),
\begin{equation}
P = \frac{T}{v}\,,
\end{equation}
where we have defined the specific volume as ${v} =
4\sqrt{V/\pi}$. This equation clearly has no critical points.
Another analysis that supports this conclusion is the study of null
geodesics in this geometry. It is known that the photon sphere radius
and the impact parameter related to it play an interesting role during
a black hole phase transition and can serve as order parameters to
describe such a phenomenon~\cite{PhysRevD.97.104027}. Thus, by
considering the Lagrangian
\begin{equation}
2{\cal L} = -f(r) \dot t^2 + \frac{\dot r^2}{f(r)} + r^2 \dot\varphi^2 \,,
\end{equation}
and the constants of motion defined by the generalized momenta
corresponding to $t$ and $\varphi$,
\begin{equation}
p_t = -f(r) \dot t = -E \,,\qquad p_\varphi = r^2 \dot\varphi = L\,,
\end{equation}
we can obtain the radial equation for a photon moving in this
spacetime,
\begin{equation}
\dot r^2 + V_{eff} = 0 \,, \quad \hbox{with }\quad V_{eff} =
\frac{fL^2}{r^2} - E^2 \,.
\end{equation}
Applying the usual conditions in order to obtain the photon
sphere\footnote{As we are working in (2+1) dimensions, {\it photon
circumference} would be a more appropiate term.} radius $r_{ps}$
\begin{equation}\label{pscond}
V_{eff}=0\,, \quad \frac{dV_{eff}}{dr} = 0 \,, \quad \frac{d^2
V_{eff}}{dr^2} <0 \quad \hbox{at } r_{ps} \,,
\end{equation}
we notice that the second equation of set (\ref{pscond}) cannot be
solved for any finite $r_{ps}$. In fact, as happens in BTZ solution,
this (2+1)-dimensional GB-BTZ black hole has no photon circumference. Then, the
absence of phase transitions becomes evident.
In what follows we discuss some entropy aspects for this geometry,
namely, we calculate the Bekenstein entropy bound and the
leading correction to the black hole entropy using the brickwall
method.
\subsection{Entropy bound}
We consider the motion of a particle near a black hole described by
the metric (\ref{new_bh}). The constants of motion correspond to the
energy and angular momentum of the particle, respectively,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{EJ}
E &=& \pi_t = g_{tt} \dot t \,, \nonumber \\
J &=& -\pi_\varphi = -g_{\varphi\varphi} \dot \varphi \,.
\end{eqnarray}
In addition, the energy conservation for a particle of mass $m$
implies,
\begin{equation}\label{Econs}
-m^2 = g^{\mu\nu}\pi_\mu \pi_\nu \,,
\end{equation}
so that
\begin{equation}\label{Eeq}
r^2 E^2 - J^2 f(r) - m^2 r^2 f(r) = 0 \,,
\end{equation}
whose solution gives an expression for the particle's energy,
\begin{equation}\label{ener}
E = \frac{\sqrt{f(r)}}{r} \sqrt{J^2 + m^2 r^2} \,.
\end{equation}
As the particle is gradually approaching the black hole, it finally
reaches the event horizon when the proper distance from its center of mass
to this horizon equals $R$, the characteristic dimension of the
particle,
\begin{equation}\label{Rdist}
\int_{r_+} ^{r_+ + \delta(R)} \sqrt{g_{rr}} dr = R \,,
\end{equation}
where the upper limit of the integral represents the point of capture
of the particle by the black hole. Expanding to first order we obtain
for $\delta$,
\begin{equation}\label{deltaR}
\delta (R) \approx \frac{r_+ R^2}{2L^2} \,.
\end{equation}
And we can minimize the energy (\ref{ener}) at the point of capture with respect
to the particle's angular momentum, {\it i.e.},
\begin{equation}\label{minE}
\frac{dE}{dJ}\bigg|_{r_+ +\delta} = 0 \quad \Rightarrow \quad J=0\,,
\end{equation}
thus obtaining,
\begin{equation}\label{Emini}
E_{min} = m \sqrt{f(r_+ + \delta)} = \frac{mr_+ R}{L^2}\,.
\end{equation}
Now, according to the first law of thermodynamics we have that
\begin{equation}\label{1law}
dM = E_{min} = T\,dS = \frac{\kappa}{2\pi} dS \,,
\end{equation}
being $\kappa$ the surface gravity at the event horizon,
\begin{equation}\label{sgrav}
\kappa = \frac{f'}{2}\bigg|_{r=r_+} = \frac{r_+}{L^2}\,.
\end{equation}
At the same time, the generalized second law of thermodynamics says
that after the capture of the particle the entropy of the black hole
cannot decrease,
\begin{equation}\label{2law}
S_{BH} (M+dM) \geq S_{BH} (M) + S \,.
\end{equation}
Thus, combining both laws we can obtain an upper bound on the entropy
of the particle
\begin{equation}
S \leq dS = S_{BH} (M+dM) - S_{BH} (M) = 2\pi m R \equiv 2\pi ER \,.
\end{equation}
This bound shows to be independent of the black hole parameters and
agrees with the universal result obtained by
Bekenstein~\cite{PhysRevD.23.287}, valid for any dimensionality.
\subsection{Entropy semiclassical correction}
In order to find semiclassical corrections to the black hole entropy,
we use 't Hooft's brickwall method~\cite{THOOFT1985727}. This method
considers a thermal bath of scalar fields quantized using the
partition function of statistical mechanics, whose leading
contribution yields the Bekenstein-Hawking formula. The method
introduces certain conditions on the scalar field $\Phi$ aiming to avoid
divergences, namely, an ultraviolet cut-off near the event horizon
($\Phi=0$ for $r\leq r_+ + \epsilon$) and an infrared cut-off far from
the black hole ($\Phi=0$ for $r \geq L \gg r_+$).
The scalar field of mass $\mu$ obeys the massive version of the Klein-Gordon
equation given by Eq. (\ref{kg1}),
\begin{equation}\label{kgm}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{-g}} \partial_\mu (\sqrt{-g} g^{\mu\nu} \partial_\nu
\Phi) -\mu^2 \Phi = 0\,.
\end{equation}
Using the {\it ansatz} $\Phi (t,r,\varphi) = e^{-iEt+im\varphi} R(r)$ the radial
part of Eq. (\ref{kgm}) turns out to be
\begin{equation}\label{radeq}
\frac{d^2 R}{dr^2} + \left( \frac{f'}{f} + \frac{1}{r} \right)
\frac{dR}{dr} + \frac{1}{f} \left( \frac{E^2}{f}-\frac{m^2}{r^2}
-\mu^2 \right) R = 0 \,.
\end{equation}
In order to obtain the radial wave number $K$, we use a WKB
approximation for $R(r) \sim e^{iS(r)}$, with $S(r)$ being a rapidly varying
phase. To leading order the only significative contribution to the
radial wave number comes from the first derivative of $S$ obtained
from the real part of Eq. (\ref{radeq}),
\begin{equation}\label{waven}
K \equiv S' = \frac{1}{\sqrt{f}} \left[ \frac{E^2}{f} - \left(
\frac{m^2}{r^2} +\mu^2 \right) \right]^{1/2}\,.
\end{equation}
Then, we use $K$ to quantize the number of radial modes $n_r$ of the
field as follows,
\begin{equation}\label{radmodes}
\pi n_r = \int_{r_+ +\epsilon} ^L K(r,m,E)\, dr \,.
\end{equation}
Moreover, in order to find the black hole entropy of the system, we
calculate the Helmholtz free energy $F$ of the scalar thermal bath
with temperature $\beta^{-1} = \kappa/2\pi$ as follows,
\begin{equation}
F = \frac{1}{\beta} \int 2\,dm \int \ln(1-e^{-\beta E})\, dn_r = -\int 2
\,dm \int \frac{n_r}{e^{\beta E}-1} \,dE \,.
\end{equation}
Performing the integral in $m$ and using Eq. (\ref{radmodes}) we obtain
\begin{equation}
F = -\frac{1}{2} \int_0 ^\infty \frac{dE}{e^{\beta E}-1} \int_{1
+\bar\epsilon} ^{\bar L} \frac{r_+ ^2 y}{\sqrt{f(y)}} \left(
\frac{E^2}{f(y)} - \mu^2 \right) dy \,,
\end{equation}
where we rescaled the quantities, $y=r/r_+$, $\bar L = L/r_+$, and
$\bar\epsilon = \epsilon/r_+$. Thus, the metric coefficient can be
written as
\begin{equation}
f(y) = -\frac{r_+ ^2}{2\alpha} y^2 \left[ 1-\sqrt{1+
\frac{4\alpha}{y^2 L^2}(y^2-1)} \right] \,.
\end{equation}
Expanding near the event horizon where $y\rightarrow 1$ and performing
the Bose-Einstein integral we get
\begin{equation}\label{fhelm}
F \approx -\frac{\zeta (3)}{\beta^3} \frac{(2\alpha)^{3/2}}{r_+}
\int_{1 + \bar\epsilon} ^{\bar L} \left[ -1 +
\sqrt{1+\frac{4\alpha}{L^2} (y^2-1)} \right]^{-3/2} dy \,,
\end{equation}
with $\zeta(x)$ being the Riemann zeta function.
The semiclassical correction we are searching comes from the divergent
contribution of Eq. (\ref{fhelm}), {\it i.e.}, from the lower limit of
the integral, whose leading order term reads,
\begin{equation}
F_\epsilon = -\frac{\zeta (3)L^3}{\beta^3 \sqrt{2r_+ \epsilon}}\,.
\end{equation}
The corresponding entropy $S_\epsilon $ follows directly,
\begin{equation}\label{entropy1}
S_\epsilon = \beta^2 \frac{\partial
F_\epsilon}{\partial\beta} = \frac{3\zeta(3) L^3}{\beta^2 \sqrt{2r_+ \epsilon}}\,.
\end{equation}
In order to write this correction in a more familiar way, we use the
proper thickness $\xi$ defined as
\begin{equation}
\xi = \int_{r_+} ^{r_+ + \epsilon} \sqrt{g_{rr}}\,dr \approx \frac{L\sqrt{2\epsilon}}{\sqrt{r_+}}\,,
\end{equation}
as well as the event horizon ``area'' $A=2\pi r_+$ and the Hawking
temperature $T = \frac{1}{\beta} = \frac{r_+}{2\pi L^2}$, obtained
from the surface gravity (\ref{sgrav}), to finally achieve,
\begin{equation}\label{scent}
S_\epsilon = \frac{3 \zeta(3) A}{8\pi^3 \xi}\,,
\end{equation}
which is a universal expression in three-dimensional
gravity~\cite{ART001199184,Kim2009ThermodynamicsOW}.
\section{Final Remarks}\label{sec6}
In this paper, we have studied the perturbative and thermodynamical
aspects of the $(2+1)$-dimensional GB-BTZ black hole found by Hennigar
{\it{et. al.}}~\cite{Hennigar:2020fkv,Hennigar:2020drx}. This solution
describes a family of lower-dimensional black holes parametrized by
the mass term $M$, the AdS$_3$ radius $L$, and the GB coupling
constant $\alpha$. Also, the BTZ limit of the solutions exists as
$\alpha\rightarrow 0$, and the event horizon is located at
$r_{+}=LM^{1/2}$. In order to understand the role of the GB coupling
constant $\alpha$ in the context of the black hole stability problem,
we performed the computations and analysis of the GB-BTZ black hole
quasinormal spectrum. In addition, the Bekenstein entropy bound and
the semiclassical correction to the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy were
also computed.
We analyzed two different types of perturbations represented by a scalar
field and a massless spinorial field. For intermediate
black holes, both scalar and spinorial perturbations are affected
reasonably by the variation of the GB coupling constant, although the
influence in the scalar case is much more pronounced. This is also
true for large black holes perturbed by the scalar field. Interestingly enough,
such a picture changes for large black holes in the massless
spinorial case, where the influence of the coupling constant is almost
insignificant. To first order in the angular momentum we can
understand the perturbation in a common ground as the same reported
for a BTZ black hole when $\alpha=0$ (see
e. g.~\cite{deOliveira:2018weu}), establishing no role played by $\alpha$
on the perturbation. In both cases analyzed here the extensive search
for profiles with different geometry parameters results in a stable
spacetime against the field perturbations.
The quasinormal modes obtained for the scalar and spinorial
perturbations in the background of the GB-BTZ black hole are assembled
in Tables \ref{tb1} to \ref{tb4} and display interesting features of
the geometry, already described in the previous sections. In the
scalar case, for instance, we remark the presence of a peak
in the graphic of $\frac{\Re (\omega )}{r_+}$ vs. $\alpha$ and the
linear scaling of $\alpha $ and $-\frac{\Im (\omega )}{r_+}$ in the
small-$\alpha$ regime. Moreover, for the fundamental mode we see a
linear scaling between the quasinormal frequencies and the temperature
of the black hole, which can be interpreted as an absence of phase
transitions in the model, also confirmed by the thermodynamical
analysis.
As for the massless spinorial perturbation, only oscillatory modes are
present for the scalar field with $V_-$ potential, different from
what is found in the pure BTZ case~\cite{Cardoso:2001hn} and the
(2+1)-dimensional Lifshitz black hole~\cite{Cuadros_Melgar_2012}.
In the case of $V_+$ potential a critical $r_+$ exists such that it
points out the transition from oscillatory to non-oscillatory modes, a
behavior also found in $(2+1)$-dimensional-black holes with anisotropic
fluids~\cite{deOliveira:2018weu}.
Subsequently, regarding the quasinormal spectrum due to scalar perturbations,
we found that the hydrodynamical or high-temperature
approximation leads to an exact result for the quasinormal spectrum
$w= i(2\pi T)/\ln(1-\alpha/L^2)$ in the small-$\alpha$ limit provided
that $-L^2/4<\alpha<0$. As the hydrodynamical
frequencies are purely imaginary, there is not oscillatory phase in
this limit either. In the context of Gauge/Gravity correspondence this
result suggests that perturbations of thermal states in the
$(1+1)-$field theory are not long-lived.
Afterwards, we briefly discussed the thermodynamics of the
(2+1)-dimensional GB-BTZ black hole, stressing that there are no phase
transitions since its temperature is a monotonic growing function, a
result that is also reinforced by the absence of a photon
circumference in the geometry. Furthermore, we calculated the
Bekenstein entropy bound for an object captured by this black hole
obeying the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Our result
complies with the universality of the bound. In addition, we computed
the leading semiclassical correction to the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy
by means of the brickwall method. This correction shows a perfect
agreement with other (2+1)-dimensional black holes.
Finally, according to our results we can conclude that the
(2+1)-dimensional GB-BTZ black holes are dynamically stable under
scalar and spinorial linear perturbations. We should also stress that
as in this dimensionality the metric or gravitational perturbations
reduce to a scalar mode only because there are no propagating
degrees of freedom~\cite{Carlip_2005}, what also happens even in
higher-dimensional braneworld models~\cite{Cuadros_Melgar_2011}, our
stability analysis is a good candidate for a definitive answer on this
matter. Moreover, this dynamical stability is also accompanied by a
thermodynamical stability and a full agreement of our results with the
universality of entropy aspects discussed here. The stability analysis
of more general solutions, including charge or angular momentum as shown in
Ref.\cite{Hennigar_2020}, is left for future works.
\begin{acknowledgments}
This work was partially supported by UFMT (Universidade Federal de Mato
Grosso) under grant 001/2021 - Edital PROPEQ de Apoio à Pesquisa.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{\bf Background: Quantum Computation and Communication}
\label{sec:bg-qc}
We start with giving a brief background on two key quantum concept relevant to our paper: quantum circuits and our choice of universal gate set as unary and CZ gates, and quantum
communication methods used in our work.
\para{Quantum Circuits.} Quantum computation is typically abstracted as a \emph{circuit}, where horizontal ``wires'' represent \emph{qubits} which carry quantum data, and operations on the qubits performed by vertical ``gates'' connecting the operand wires~\cite{nielsen_chuang_2010}. Quantum computers (QCs) evaluate a circuit by applying the gates in the left-to-right order, so this circuit can also be understood as a sequence of machine-level instructions (gates) over fixed number of data cells (qubits).
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{bg-circuit-eg.pdf}
\caption{Quantum Circuit Example.}
\vspace*{-3ex}
\label{fig:bg-circuit-eg}
\end{figure}
Analogous to classical Boolean circuits, there are several universal gate sets for quantum computation: any quantum computation can be expressed by a circuit consisting only of gates from a universal gate set. In particular, the ``\emph{Controlled-Z}'' binary gate, denoted by \cz, along with the set of all possible unary gates forms a universal gate set. We use this universal gate set in this paper since the symmetry of \cz gates allows a simpler formulation of distributed execution by creating linked copies using cat-entanglements (see below).
Fig.~\ref{fig:bg-circuit-eg} shows the pictorial representation of an example circuit, consisting only of unary gates (boxes) and \id{CZ} gates (vertical connectors).
Without loss of generality, we ignore measurement gates; measurement can be postponed to the end and treated as unary operations.
\para{Quantum Communication.}
If a given quantum circuit is to be evaluated in a distributed fashion over a network of QCs, we have to first distribute the qubits over the QCs. But such a distribution may induce gates in the circuit to span different QCs. To execute such \emph{non-local} gates, we need to bring all operands' values into a single QC via quantum communication.
However, direct/physical transmission of quantum data
is subject to unrecoverable errors,
as classical procedures such as amplified signals
or re-transmission cannot be applied due to quantum no-cloning~\cite{wooterszurek-nocloning,Dieks-nocloning}.\footnote{Quantum error
correction mechanisms~\cite{muralidharan2016optimal,devitt2013quantum} can be used to mitigate the transmission errors,
but their implementation is very challenging and is not expected to be used
until later generations of quantum networks.}
Fortunately, there are other viable ways to
communicate qubits across network nodes, as described below.
\softpara{Teleportation.}
An alternative approach to physically transmit qubits is via \emph{teleportation}~\cite{Bennett+:93}
which requires an a priori distribution of maximally-entangled pair (MEP) of qubits (e.g., Bell Pair) over the two nodes. With an MEP distributed over nodes $A$ and $B$, teleportation of a qubit state from $A$ to $B$ can be accomplished using classical communication and local gate operations, while consuming/destroying the MEP.
\softpara{Cat-Entanglement: Creating ``Linked Copies'' of a Qubit.}
Another means of communicating qubit states is by creating \emph{linked copies} of a qubit across QCs, via \emph{cat-entanglement} operations~\cite{Eisert+:00,YimsiriwattanaL:05} which, like teleportation, require
a Bell Pair to be shared \emph{a priori}. These linked copies are particularly useful in efficient distributed evaluation of circuits involving only \cz and unary gates, as follows.
The symmetry of \cz operation allows for either of the qubit operands to act as the (read only) control operand, and, more importantly, the control qubit can be just a linked copy of the original qubit operand (and since a linked copy is read-only, many copies can exist and used simultaneously).
However, since a unary operation on the original qubit $q$ may \emph{change} its state,
linked copies of $q$ may not remain true copies; thus, we ``disentangle'' any linked copies of $q$ via a dual operation called \emph{cat-disentanglement} before applying a unary operation on $q$---the dis-entanglement operation doesn't require a Bell Pair.
\section{\bf General DQC Problem (with Teleportations)}
\label{sec:dynamicPart}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{tele_soln.png}
\eat{\caption{Benefit of using teleportations to execute non-local gates. (a) A quantum circuit instance. (b) The {DQC}\xspace solution for the instance. Here, the circles signify the computer assigned to the qubit; thus, initially the
set of qubits $\{q_1, q_2\}$ and $\{q_3,q_4\}$ are assigned to the first and second computer respectively,
and then at the red line the qubits assigned to the two computer changes to $\{q_1, q_3\}$ and $\{q_2, q_4\}$.}}
\caption{Circuit illustrating the benefit of including teleportations, see Example~2.}
\vspace*{-1ex}
\label{fig:tele}
\end{figure}
We now consider the general {DQC}\xspace problem which allows teleportations as well as migrations. We start with illustrating the benefit of teleportations. Then, we design two algorithms for the general {DQC}\xspace problem; our algorithms use {\tt DQC-M}\xspace from the previous section as a subroutine.
\para{Example 2. Benefit of Teleportations.} Consider the circuit instance shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:tele}(a).
We seek to distribute this circuit across two computers, each with a storage memory of two units.
If we allow only migrations, then it is easy to observe that the optimal solution assigns the qubits
$\{q_1, q_2\}$ and $\{q_3,q_4\}$ to the two computers respectively and uses five migrations to cover
all the gates (since only 5 of the 11 gates are non-local for the given home-computer mapping).
Now, consider the solution shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:tele}(b) which uses teleportations too. Here, we essentially change the home-computer mapping at the time instant denoted by the red vertical line,
which makes all the gates local; thus, the total cost is
only 2---for the two teleportations needed to change the home-computer function at the red line.
\blue{Note that the above example can be scaled to exhibit arbitrarily large the benefit from using teleportations.}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{sequence.png}
\caption{{\tt Sequence}\xspace algorithm at index $t_{i+1}$. Note that the points of teleportation are determined in sequence from right to left.}
\vspace*{-1ex}
\label{fig:sequenceRun}
\end{figure}
\para{{\tt Sequence}\xspace Algorithm.} Our first algorithm called {\tt Sequence}\xspace is a greedy approach, wherein we go over the
given circuit from left to right, and determine, at each gate, whether or not changing the home-computer function just before it would be beneficial to the overall cost of teleportations and migrations required.
Recall that we create additional time instants in between gates, and teleportation can only happen at these additional non-gate instants.
Consider a binary gate at time $t+1$. Let us assume that the {\tt Sequence}\xspace algorithm has already determined the teleportation points for all the time points before $t-1$.
To determine whether teleportations should happen at $t$ (i.e., the home-computer function should be changed at $t$),
we estimate the total cost incurred for the full circuit with optimal teleportations at $t$ \blue{(and none later than $t$)} and compare this estimated cost with no teleportations at $t$ \blue{or later}.
The cost incurred for the full circuit with optimal teleportations at $t$, with $i$ prior instants where teleportations were done, can be estimated in the following way.
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\alph*)]
\item Run the {\tt DQC-M}\xspace algorithm on each of the $i+2$ sub circuits resulting from the $i$ previously chosen instants of teleportation and $t$.
\item Compute the total migration cost by adding the migration cost of each sub circuit.
\item Compute the total teleportation cost by adding the teleportation cost between every pair of consecutive sub circuits.
\item The cost incurred for the full circuit with optimal teleportations at $t$ is the sum of the total migration cost and total teleportation cost.
\end{enumerate}
The total cost of the whole circuit without teleportation at $t_{i+1}$ can also be similarly estimated (in fact, has already been computed in previous iterations of the algorithm). If the cost with teleportations at $t$ is lower than without the teleportations at $t$, then $t$ is added to the list of time instants where teleportation is to be done.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{split.png}
\caption{{\tt Split}\xspace algorithm's iteration considering $t_{i+1}$ as the next teleportation-point. Note that the points of teleporation may not be determined in sequence.}
\vspace*{-1ex}
\label{fig:example3}
\end{figure}
\para{{\tt Split}\xspace Algorithm.} Our alternate approach to solving the {DQC}\xspace problem is the {\tt Split}\xspace algorithm. {\tt Split}\xspace is similar to {\tt Sequence}\xspace in that {\tt Split}\xspace also select points of teleportations iterations through a similar cost-estimation methodology. However, rather than going over the circuit from left to right, {\tt Split}\xspace iteratively picks the best time instant {\em anywhere} in the circuit where teleportation will help the most.
Consider a stage in the algorithm, where the time instants $t_1, t_2, \ldots, t_i$ have already been determined to be points of teleportations in previous iterations; note that these points need not be ordered left to right.
Then, in the following iteration, the algorithm determines the next point
$t_{i+1}$ of teleportation; this
determination is done by exhaustive search, by considering all possible points in the circuit and picking the one that yields the best total cost estimate. The total cost can be estimated in a similar manner as described in the previous {\tt Sequence}\xspace algorithm.
A high-level pseudo-code of \textsc{Split} is as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item Assume $i$ points of teleportations $t_1, t_2, \dots , t_i$ have already been chosen; these may not be in left-to-right order. We describe how to select $t_{i+1}$.
\item For every possible time instant $t$ in the circuit \blue{not in $\{t_1, t_2, \ldots t_i\}$}:
\begin{itemize}
\item Note that choosing $t$ as a point of teleportation results in $i+2$ sub-circuits.
\item Run {\tt DQC-M}\xspace on each of these sub-circuits to obtain an initial home-computer function and a migration cost associated with each sub-circuit.
\item Determine the total estimated cost of picking $t=$ $\sum$ migration costs + $\sum$ teleportation cost of changing the home-computer function.
\end{itemize}
\item Pick the $t$ with minimum cost as $t_{i+1}$ if and only if it reduces cost from the previous iteration (cost associated with $t_i$).
\item Repeat the above steps until no $t$ reduces the cost.
\item Run {\tt DQC-M}\xspace on each sub-circuit to obtain an initial qubit assignment, a set of migrations and a set of teleportations.
\end{itemize}
As in the {\tt Sequence}\xspace algorithm, we note that many of the cost components remain unchanged (as the sub-circuits remain unchanged) from one iteration to the next. Hence, these cost components need not be recomputed.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{SplitvSeq.jpg}
\caption{An example wherein {\tt Split}\xspace outperforms {\tt Sequence}\xspace.}
\vspace*{-1ex}
\label{fig:splitvseq}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{sequencevsplit.png}
\caption{An example wherein {\tt Sequence}\xspace outperforms {\tt Split}\xspace.}
\vspace*{-1ex}
\label{fig:seqvsplit}
\end{figure}
\para{{\tt Sequence}\xspace vs.\ {\tt Split}\xspace Algorithms.}
Since {\tt Split}\xspace's search methodology is more general, it is expected to outperform {\tt Sequence}\xspace; this observation is also confirmed in our empirical results in the next section. However, there are specific instances of the {DQC}\xspace problem where either may outperform the other.
Fig.~\ref{fig:splitvseq} shows an instance where {\tt Split}\xspace outperforms {\tt Sequence}\xspace and Fig.~\ref{fig:seqvsplit}) shows an instance where {\tt Sequence}\xspace outperforms {\tt Split}\xspace. In Fig.~\ref{fig:splitvseq}, we observe that {\tt Sequence}\xspace tends to pick the earliest point of teleportation that offers an improvement in cost. In contrast, {\tt Split}\xspace parses the entire circuit and picks the best point of teleportation. This, however, is not always preferable. For example, in Fig.~\ref{fig:seqvsplit}, {\tt Split}\xspace chooses the best point of teleportation in the first iteration (by arbitrary tie-breaking). This forces {\tt Split}\xspace to perform one migration and two teleportations. In subsequent iterations, {\tt Split}\xspace can at best replace the migration with a teleportation, and can never reduce the cost.
\para{Time Complexity of {\tt Sequence}\xspace and {\tt Split}\xspace.} {\tt Sequence}\xspace algorithm parses the circuit from left to right, deciding whether or not to teleport at each time instant. Its time complexity is $\mathcal{O}(N_g(T_{DQC\text{-}M}+N_qN_p))$, where $N_q$ is the number of qubits, $N_p$ is the number of computers, $N_g$ is the number of gates in the circuit,
and $T_{DQC\text{-}M}$ is the time taken by the {\tt DQC-M}\xspace algorithm.
{\tt Split}\xspace Algorithm repeatedly parses the whole circuit and picks one point of teleportation in each parse. Its time complexity is $\mathcal{O}({N_g}^2(T_{DQC\text{-}M}+N_qN_p))$. In both cases, the term $N_qN_p$ arises from the computation of teleportations.
\section{\bf Evaluation}
\label{sec:eval}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{subfigure}{\linewidth}
\vspace*{-3.6cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{LABEL_ONLY.png}
\vspace{-3.8cm}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[Varying number of qubits]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{VaryQubitsAbsoluteNew.png}
\captionlistentry{}
\label{fig:VaryQubits}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{VaryPartAbsoluteNew.png}
\captionlistentry{}
\label{fig:VaryPart}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.49\linewidth}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{VaryFracCZNew.png}
\captionlistentry{}
\label{fig:VaryFracCZ}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.49\linewidth}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{VaryprobabilityNew.png}
\captionlistentry{}
\label{fig:VaryProbability}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.49\linewidth}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{VarygateRatioAbsoluteNew.png}
\captionlistentry{}
\label{fig:VarygateRatio}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.49\linewidth}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{VarymemoryConstraintsAbsoluteNew.png}
\captionlistentry{}
\label{fig:VarymemoryConstraints}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\caption{Total communication cost incurred by different algorithms for varying parameter values.}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\end{figure*}
Here, we present the evaluation of our algorithms over randomly generated quantum circuits and networks.
The performance metric used in our evaluations is the the overall communication cost comprising of
the \blue{total} cost of migrations and teleportations as defined before.
\para{Algorithms Compared.} We compare the following four algorithms: (i) {\tt DQC-M}\xspace from \S\ref{sec:mdqcproblem}, which uses only migrations; (iii) {\tt DQC-M-Greedy}\xspace which is same as {\tt DQC-M}\xspace, except that it uses a simple greedy algorithm\footnote{An iterative greedy algorithm that selects either a single migration or a pair of migrations that cover the most number of uncovered binary gates without considering execution memory constraints.} instead of {\tt DQC-M}\xspace's Step 2 to select migrations;
(iii) {\tt Sequence}\xspace from~\S\ref{sec:dynamicPart} which determines teleportation points by scanning the circuit from left to right; (iv) {\tt Split}\xspace from~\S\ref{sec:dynamicPart} which determines teleportations iteratively at arbitrary time instants.
\para{Generating Random Quantum Networks.} A quantum network is created based on the following parameters.
\begin{itemize}
\item Number of quantum computers
\item Probability of a link, between a pair of nodes.
\item Qubit storage capacity of each computer
\item Execution memory capacity of each computer
\end{itemize}
To ensure that we generate only connected networks, we use a Python-based library~\cite{networkx} to repeatedly generate Erdős-Rényi graphs with \blue{a given} edge probability until a connected graph is obtained. Erdős-Rényi graphs are generated on $k$ vertices by choosing every edge uniformly at random with probability $p$. Erdős-Rényi have the useful property that when $p> \frac{(1+\epsilon) \log k}{k}$ for some small $\epsilon>0$, the generated graph is connected with high probability. In our case, the choices of $k$ and $p$ are sufficient to ensure high probability of connectivity. \eat{We choose $k$, the number of computers, and $p$, the probability of a link, carefully so as to ensure connectivity.}
We choose the qubit storage capacity of each computer to be $60\%$ to $140\%$ of the average storage requirement (ratio of number of qubits to number of computers). Similarly, we choose the execution memory capacity for each computer to be $30\%$ to $70\%$ of the average storage requirement.
\para{Generating Random Quantum Circuits.}
A quantum circuit is created based on the following parameters.
\begin{itemize}
\item Number of qubits
\item Total number of gates (unary and binary) per qubit
\item Fraction of binary gates, i.e., ratio of binary gates to the total number gates
\end{itemize}
Let
$f$ be the fraction of binary gates. We generate the gates sequentially, and, at each point, determine whether the gate should be binary (unary) with probability of $f$ ($1-f$). Then, we choose the gate operand(s) randomly.
\para{Evaluation Results.}
We evaluate each of the above four algorithm over generated random networks and circuits as described above. We vary six
parameters in our simulations (the parenthesized values are the corresponding default values): (i) number of computers (10); (ii) probability of an edge (0.5); (iii) number of qubits (50); (iv) number of gates per qubit (50); (v) fraction of binary gates (0.5), (vi) execution memory capacity ($30\%$ to $70\%$ of the average storage requirement).
In each of the experiments, we vary one of the above five parameter values, while fixing the remaining five to their default values. We present the evaluation plots in Figures~\ref{fig:VaryQubits}-\ref{fig:VarygateRatio}.
Overall, we make the following observations \blue{on} the relative performances of the algorithms compared.
\begin{itemize}
\item Using a combination of teleportations and migrations offers a significant reduction in cost
compared to using only migrations; this is by observing that {\tt Sequence}\xspace and {\tt Split}\xspace algorithms outperform the other two algorithms
in all of our experiments. In particular, in Fig.~\ref{fig:VaryQubits} we see that allowing teleportations reduces the total cost by around $10\%$ on average using {\tt Sequence}\xspace and around
$15\%$ using {\tt Split}\xspace algorithm.
\item In almost all cases, {\tt Split}\xspace outperforms {\tt Sequence}\xspace; this is as expected, since {\tt Split}\xspace can be looked upon as a generalization of the {\tt Sequence}\xspace algorithm in terms of the candidates considered for teleportation times.
\item
The order of the algorithms from highest to lowest performance is: {\tt Split}\xspace, {\tt Sequence}\xspace, {\tt DQC-M}\xspace, {\tt DQC-M-Greedy}\xspace; as expected, {\tt DQC-M-Greedy}\xspace performs the worst since it completely disregards the execution-memory constraints initially and resolves the resulting violations in post-processing.
\end{itemize}
We also observed that the {\tt DQC-M}\xspace algorithm rarely resulted in memory violations, and thus, rarely required any post-processing.
We also make the following observations regarding how the
performance of the algorithms varies with varying parameter values.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:VaryFracCZ}, we observe that with the increase in the ratio of
binary gates, the performance gap between the various algorithms decreases---since with fewer unary gates, migrations
don't need to be disentangled much which allows them to
cover more gates, reducing the advantage of teleportations over migrations.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:VaryProbability}, we observe that the cost of all algorithms decrease with increasing probability of a network edge,
due to shorter paths.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:VarygateRatio}, we observe that the cost of all algorithms increase as expected with increase in total number of gates. Finally, in Fig.~\ref{fig:VarymemoryConstraints}, we vary the execution memory capacity of each computer in the quantum network from $1$ to $6$ units, that is, $20\%$ to $120\%$ of average storage requirement (note that the execution memory capacity per computer used in all other plots is $30\%$ to $70\%$ of average storage requirement which amounts to $1$ to $4$ units for each computer). \blue{As expected, cost decreases with increasing execution memory until there is sufficient memory.}
\section{{DQC}\xspace Problem}\label{sec:generalized_Problem}
In the {DQC}\xspace problem, we seek to distribute a quantum circuit across quantum computers of varying qubit and ebit-storage capacities in a manner that minimizes the overall communication cost.
Note that cuts portion the input circuit into several sub-circuits with varying initial qubit-assignments. We pass each such sub-circuit to the Iterative Max-$k$-Cover algorithm presented in section \ref{sec:mdqcproblem} to obtain a set of migrations that cover all CZ gates in the sub-circuit. Finally, we merge migrations that remain the same across adjacent cuts.
Thus, an initial partition, along with migrations and teleportations that cover all CZ gates form a solution of the {DQC}\xspace problem. The cost of such a solution depends on the number of migrations and teleportations.
\begin{definition}[Communication Cost]
Given a collection of migrations $\mathcal{M}=\{M_1,M_2,\dots , M_r\}$ and a collection of teleportations $\mathrm{T}=\{\tau _1, \tau_2,\dots , \tau_s\}$ corresponding to a quantum circuit, the total communication cost of the circuit is $\mathcal{C}= \sum \limits _{i=1}^ r cost(M_i)+ \sum _{j=1}^s cost(\tau_j)$.
\end{definition}
\para{{DQC}\xspace Problem Formulation.}
Let $C=\{Q, \{g_1,g_2, \dots , g_m\}\}$ be a quantum circuit, $P=\{P_1, P_2, \dots ,P_p\}$ be a network topology of quantum computers with qubit storage capacities $[a_1, a_2, \dots, a_p]$ and execution memory constraints $[b_1, b_2, \dots, b_p]$. The objective of the {DQC}\xspace problem is to determine an initial assignment of the qubits to computers, along with a sequence of feasible migrations and teleportations that cover all the non-local CZ gates, while minimizing the total communication cost.
\subsection{Overall Algorithm}
Our overall algorithm runs Sequence and Split algorithms for each input, and chooses the set of cuts with lower cost. Once we obtain the cuts, we run Tabu search and Iterative Max-$k$-Cover algorithms on each of the portions to obtain migrations that cover all CZ gates and teleportations that change the home-computers of qubits.
\floatname{algorithm}{Algorithm}
\begin{algorithm}[h]
\caption{Overall Algorithm}
\label{alg:Overall}
\begin{flushleft}
\textbf{Input:} A circuit $C$ over qubits $Q$, a network graph $G=(v_1, v_2, \dots, v_p)$ and a vector of qubit storage capacities $\mathcal{A}=[a_1,\dots, a_p]$ and ebit memory constraints $\mathcal{B}=[b_1,\dots b_p]$. Let $\mathcal{T}=\{1,\dots, m\}$ be the indices of the CZ gates in $C$. \\
\textbf{Output:} An initial assignment of qubits to computers called $partition$, a set of migrations $\mathcal{M}$ and a set of teleportations $\mathrm{T}$.
\end{flushleft}
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE Split cuts= Split Algorithm($C$, $Q$, $G$)
\STATE Sequence cuts= Sequence Algorithm($C$, $Q$, $G$)
\STATE Best cuts = $argmin_{cost}$(Split cuts, Sequence cuts)
\STATE $\mathcal{M}, \mathcal{T} = \emptyset$.
\STATE initial partition= \textsc{Tabu Search} ($C[0:$Best cuts[0] $],G, \mathcal{A}, \mathcal{B}$).
\STATE $\mathcal{M}_0$ = \textsc{IterativeMaxkCover}($C$[0:Best cuts[0]], initial partition, $\mathcal{B}$)
\STATE previous partition = initial partition
\FOR{ $i$ in Best cuts[1:]}
\STATE partition= \textsc{Tabu Search} ($C[i-1: i],G, \mathcal{A}, \mathcal{B}$).
\STATE $\mathcal{M}_{i}$= \textsc{IterativeMaxkCover}($C[i-1: i]$, partition, $\mathcal{B}$)
\STATE $\mathcal{T}_i$= teleportations(previous partition, partition)
\STATE $\mathcal{M} \leftarrow \mathcal{M} \cup \mathcal{M}_i$, $\mathcal{T} \leftarrow \mathcal{T} \cup \mathcal{T}_i$.
\ENDFOR
\RETURN initial partition, $\mathcal{M}, \mathcal{T}$.
\end{algorithmic}
\label{alg:hc}
\end{algorithm}
\section{\bf Introduction}
\para{Motivation.} There are two crucial technological hurdles that constrain the realization of quantum computing's potential: (a) the limited number of \emph{qubits}, the basic store of quantum information, in any single quantum computer; (b) severe loss of information due to noisy operations and unwanted interactions with the environment~\cite{Preskill2018quantumcomputingin}. The second hurdle can be overcome in principle by using error-correcting codes, but that results in a blowup in the number of qubits needed for a computation, thereby exacerbating the first hurdle.
Distributing a quantum computation requiring a large number of qubits over a network of quantum computers (QCs) is a way to overcome this \blue{hurdle}~\cite{cirac1999distributed, YimsiriwattanaL:04,YimsiriwattanaL:05}.
\para{State of the Art.}
Quantum \emph{circuits}, which specify a sequence of \emph{gates} (operations) on a set of qubits, is a common abstraction between higher-level quantum \emph{programs} and lower-level computing hardware. Distributing a quantum circuit over a quantum network involves assigning the circuit's qubits to QCs, and introducing communication operations to perform non-local operations (i.e. operations that span multiple QCs). The cost of distributing a circuit is the number of added communication operations.
Optimally distributing a given quantum circuit for evaluation over a network of QCs has been the focus of several earlier works~\cite{Daei+:19,Andres-MartinezH:19,g2021efficient}. They assume a \emph{homogeneous} network--- all QCs in the network have the same number of qubits, and the cost of quantum communication between any pair of QCs in the network is uniform. Even under this setting, the optimal distribution problem is intractable~\cite{Andres-MartinezH:19}.
While~\cite{Daei+:19} use teleportation as the only means of communication between QCs, \cite{Andres-MartinezH:19} and~\cite{g2021efficient} use \emph{cat-entanglement}~\cite{YimsiriwattanaL:04} which allows for the creation of shared copies of qubits (see \S\ref{sec:bg-qc}) and often yields lower-cost solutions. But~\cite{Andres-MartinezH:19} and~\cite{g2021efficient} ignore the storage requirements for multiple simultaneous cat-entanglements which could be substantial~\cite{Andres-MartinezH:19}. \blue{Distributed quantum computation over heterogeneous networks is considered in~\cite{Ferrari-etal-2021}, where the cost, measured as increase in circuit depth, is not minimized, but bounded by a linear factor.}
\para{This Paper.}
In this work, we consider the problem of \emph{optimally distributing a quantum circuit across an \blue{arbitrary} topology network of heterogeneous quantum computers.} In particular, we consider the following generalizations to the optimal distribution problem:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The cost of communication between two QCs in a given network is a function of their network distance.
\item Each QC has specified qubit capacity, and an ``execution memory" of limited size for storing cat-entangled qubits; these two limits may vary across QCs in the network.
\item Communication may be via cat-entanglement, or teleportation whose effect is to dynamically alter the assignment of qubits to QCs.
\end{enumerate}
Performing distributed quantum computing in practice, when technology makes it feasible, will require us to drop the homogeneity assumption and study the problem in the more general setting described above.
\para{Contributions and Organization.}
We formalize the optimal distribution problem under these generalizations as the {DQC}\xspace problem. We then provide polynomial-time heuristics for this intractable problem in multiple steps.
We first consider a special case of {DQC}\xspace, called {DQC-M}\xspace, that considers only cat-entanglement-based communication (i.e., without generalization (3) above); see \S\ref{sec:mdqcproblem}. We solve {DQC-M}\xspace in two steps: (i) First, we use a Tabu-search-based heuristic to partition the given circuit's qubits among QCs taking the heterogeneity of the network and storage limits into account.
(ii) Then, we develop an algorithm for introducing cat-entanglements to ``cover'' non-local gates, i.e., gates whose operands are in assigned to QCs. In a restricted setting, this yields an $\mathcal{O}(\log n)$-approximate solution (here $n$ is the number of non-local gates).
For solving the general {DQC}\xspace problem (see \S\ref{sec:dynamicPart}), we provide two greedy heuristics, {\tt Sequence}\xspace and {\tt Split}\xspace, each using our solution to the {DQC-M}\xspace problem as a subroutine.
Although {\tt Sequence}\xspace has lower complexity than {\tt Split}\xspace, neither is uniformly better than the other---we provide examples where each heuristic outperforms the other. In \S\ref{sec:eval}, we present our evaluation results, which show that {\tt Split}\xspace performs better than {\tt Sequence}\xspace in most cases.
We begin with a brief background in quantum computation and communication (\S\ref{sec:bg-qc}) for completeness followed by a formal description of the problem (\S\ref{section:dqcproblem}).
\eat{The distributed quantum circuit ({DQC}\xspace) model is based on two fundamental ideas-
\begin{itemize}
\item The \emph{linear structure} of a quantum circuit, which makes it possible to determine the cost of a distribution before the evaluation of the circuit.
\item \emph{Entanglement}, which helps establish a quantum communication channel across quantum computers.
\end{itemize}
The objective of the {DQC}\xspace problem is to compute an optimal mapping from qubits to QCs followed by a set of minimum cost communication steps that enable the execution of all operations involved in the given quantum computation.
The problem of efficiently distributing quantum circuits has been studied before~\cite{g2021efficient, Andres-MartinezH:19}. \cite{Andres-MartinezH:19} consider a refined communication model involving quantum entanglements and reduce the {DQC}\xspace problem to hypergraph partitioning. They also provide a hueristic to solve the problem.
\para{Our Contributions.}
We pose the problem of optimal distribution of a quantum circuit across multiple quantum computers.
We consider three variants of the problem and provide suitable algorithms to tackle each of them.
\begin{itemize}
\item Ebit memory constraints
\item Underlying network topology of QCs.
\item Allowing dynamic partitioning.
\end{itemize}
Finally, we consider a general form of the problem called {DQC}\xspace that combines all three variants. We then provide an overall algorithm derived from the algorithms for each variant.
\para{Paper Organization.} In the following two sections, we describe a brief background on quantum circuits and quantum communication operations. In Section \ref{sec:mdqcproblem}, we address the special case of the {DQC}\xspace problem that allows only migrations, i.e., does not allow for teleportations. Then, in the next section, we use the algorithm for the above special case as a subroutine to iteratively solve the general {DQC}\xspace problem. In \S\ref{sec:eval}, we present our evaluation results, followed by concluding remarks in the following section.
}
\section{\bf {DQC-M}\xspace Problem: {DQC}\xspace with Only Migrations}
\label{sec:mdqcproblem}
For ease of presentation, we first address a simpler version of the {DQC}\xspace problem, wherein we do
not allow any teleportations. We refer to this problem as {DQC-M}\xspace. In this special case {DQC-M}\xspace problem, the home-computers of the qubits never change after the initial placement and we need to cover all the non-local gates with just migrations.
In effect, the {DQC-M}\xspace problem boils down to picking an initial assignment of qubits to computers such that non-local gates can be covered with minimum-cost migrations.
We design a two-step algorithm for the {DQC-M}\xspace problem, as discussed below.
\para{Two-Step Algorithm ({\tt DQC-M}\xspace) for {DQC-M}\xspace.}
The {DQC-M}\xspace problem is a direct generalization of the problem addressed in our earlier
work in~\cite{g2021efficient} wherein the computers were assumed to have uniform storage memory with unbounded execution memory and the network was assumed to have a complete topology.
As in~\cite{g2021efficient}, we develop a two-step algorithm, we call {\tt DQC-M}\xspace,
wherein in the first step we determine the assignment of qubits to computers (i.e., the
initial home-computer mapping which then remains unchanged), and then, in the second step,
we determine
the migrations to cover the non-local gates. We discuss these two steps in the following subsections.
See the high-level pseudo-code of the two-step {\tt DQC-M}\xspace algorithm.
\floatname{algorithm}{Algorithm}
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{{\tt DQC-M}\xspace}
\label{alg:NoTele}
\begin{flushleft}
\textbf{Input:} Quantum circuit $C$ over qubits $Q$, Network graph $G$ with nodes $P$\\
\textbf{Output:} A valid home-computer function $\pi$ and a set of feasible migrations $\mathcal{M}^*$ that cover all non-local gates in $C$
\end{flushleft}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State $\pi \leftarrow$ A valid home-computer function such that the cost required migrations is low.
\State ${\mathcal{M}}\leftarrow$ A low-cost set of migrations that covers all the non-local gates resulting from $\pi$.
\State (Post-processing step) $\mathcal{M}^* \leftarrow$ A low-cost set of feasible migrations covering all non-local gates obtained by resolving memory constraint violations in $\mathcal{M}$.
\State \Return $\pi, {\mathcal{M}^*}$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\input{NetworkTop}
\subsection{\bf {\tt DQC-M}\xspace Step 2: Selection of Migrations to Cover Gates}
\label{sec:step2-wo-tel}
In this section, given an assignment of qubits to computers, we seek to compute a minimum-cost feasible set of migrations that cover all the non-local gates.
\para{Basic Idea.}
\blue{Selecting migrations to cover non-local gates is essentially
a generalization of the set-cover problem, with two key differences:}
\begin{enumerate}
\item
First, we are restricted to choose only a feasible set of migrations.
Fortunately, the execution-memory constraints can be expressed as linear constraints---and hence, can be handled by using approximation techniques from~\cite{azar2012efficient} that studies the related maximum-coverage problem with linear constraints.
\item
Second, a gate may be covered by a pair of migrations together which translates to allowing a pair of sets to cover an element together; see the ``{\em Coverage by a Migration}'' paragraph in \S\ref{sec:terms}.
Such a generalization breaks the submodularity of the objective function---and in general, can render the coverage problem inapproximable.
\end{enumerate}
\blue{It should be noted that with generalization (2) alone but in the absence of (1), we gave an approximation algorithm in~\cite{g2021efficient}.}
However, neither the technique from~\cite{azar2012efficient} nor~\cite{g2021efficient} can be extended to
handle both the above generalizations together while ensuring a performance guarantee.
Thus, we develop a heuristic based on ~\cite{azar2012efficient} as described below. We start with considering the special case of home-coverage (i.e., select migrations to cover gates using only home-coverage), and then extend our algorithm to general coverage.
\floatname{algorithm}{Algorithm}
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{Step 2 of {\tt DQC-M}\xspace.}
\label{alg:step-2-dqcm}
\begin{flushleft}
\textbf{Input:} Quantum Network $G$, Quantum circuit $C$, Home-computer function $\pi$. \\
\textbf{Output:} A set of migrations $\mathcal{M}$ that covers all non-local binary gates.
\end{flushleft}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State uncovered $\leftarrow$ non-local binary gates in ${C}$ due to $\pi$.
\While{(uncovered) }
\State ($S$, covered) $\leftarrow$ \textsc{Cover-$\alpha$}(uncovered, $G$, $\pi$)
\State uncovered $\leftarrow$ uncovered $\setminus$ covered
\State $\mathcal{M} \leftarrow \mathcal{M} \cup S$
\EndWhile
\State \Return $\mathcal{M}$.
\Function{Cover-$\alpha$}{uncovered, $G$, $\pi$}
\State minCost = 1;
\State maxCost = $|$uncovered$|$ $\times$ (Diameter of $G$)
\For {c in [minCost, maxCost]}
\State ($S$, covered) $\leftarrow$ {\tt AG-Algo}\xspace(c, ${C}$, $\pi$, $G$, uncovered)
\If{$|$covered$|\geq \alpha|$uncovered$|$}
\State Break
\EndIf
\EndFor
\State \Return ($S$, covered)
\EndFunction
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\para{Approximation Algorithm for Home-Coverage.}
We note that \textsc{Multiplicative-updates} algorithm from~\cite{azar2012efficient}, hereafter referred to as the {\tt AG-Algo}\xspace,
maximizes the number of elements covered under a {\em given cost
budget} of sets with linear constraints. In contrast, the Step-2 of {\tt DQC-M}\xspace needs to select minimum-cost migrations to cover
{\em all} gates---which is in some sense, a dual of the \eat{maximum-coverage} problem solved by {\tt AG-Algo}\xspace.
To cover all the gates with minimum-cost migrations based on {\tt AG-Algo}\xspace, we use an iterative algorithm where, in each iteration, we cover at least a certain constant fraction $\alpha$ of the remaining gates using a minimum-cost set of migrations. Iterations are repeated until all binary gates are covered. \blue{To find a minimum-cost set of migrations covering at least $\alpha$ fraction of the gates using {\tt AG-Algo}\xspace, we exploit the fact that cost is an integer bounded by the product of the number of binary gates in a circuit and the diameter of the network, as shown below.}
\eat{
At a high-level, our migration-selection algorithm for the second step of {\tt DQC-M}\xspace is as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item In each iteration, pick a minimum-cost set of feasible migrations that cover at least $\alpha$ fraction of the remaining uncovered binary gates, as described below.
\item Repeat until there are no uncovered binary gates left.
\end{itemize}
Each iteration to cover an $\alpha$ fraction of remaining gates works as follows.
}
\begin{itemize}
\item For each cost $c$:
\begin{itemize}
\item Select, using {\tt AG-Algo}\xspace, a feasible set of migrations costing at most $c$ that covers the maximum number of gates.
\end{itemize}
\item
Pick the solution with smallest $c$ for which the {\tt AG-Algo}\xspace solution could cover $\alpha$ fraction of the remaining gates.
\end{itemize}
We use $\alpha = 0.4$ in our implementation, based on the approximation factor of the {\tt AG-Algo}\xspace.
For a more formal and complete description, see the pseudocode shown in Algorithm~\ref{alg:step-2-dqcm}. We make two remarks. First, \blue{while each iteration returns a feasible set of migrations, their union may not be feasible,} i.e., may violate execution-memory constraints; we resolve them as a post-processing step below. Second,
in subroutine \textsc{Cover-$\alpha$}, we can use a binary search to more efficiently iterative over all possible costs.
For sake to clarity, we have intentionally omitted details of the {\tt AG-Algo}\xspace algorithm, but at a high-level it is an iterative approach that picks the migration based on an objective that considers both---the number of gates covered as well as the ability to cause constraint violations.
\softpara{Performance Guarantee.} It can be shown that the above algorithm yields a $\mathcal{O}(\log n)$-approximation solution (where $n$ is the number of non-local gates) for the problem of selection of minimum-cost set of migrations to cover all gates given a home-computer function,
\blue{ while bounding the violation of execution-memory constraints (violations fixed in \S\ref{sec:post-proc})}. Note that $n \ll N_g$, the number of all gates in the circuit.
We formalize the performance guarantee below.
\begin{thm-wo-prf}
Given a network $G$, circuit ${C}$, and a home-computer function $\pi$, let $k^*$ be the optimal-cost of a set of feasible migrations that home-covers all the non-local gates for $\pi$, and $n$ be the total number of non-local gates for $\pi$.
\blue{Algorithm~2} returns a solution $\mathcal{M}$ such that:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathcal{M}$ covers all non-local gates.
\item $|\mathcal{M}|\leq (\log n) k^*$.
\item \blue{For every computer $p$ in $G$, the amount of execution memory in $p$ used by ${\cal M}$ at any time instant is at most $(\log n) e_{p}$.}
\end{itemize}
\vspace*{-15pt}
\end{thm-wo-prf}
\para{Generalization to General Coverage.}
Recall that the above algorithm was under the restriction of home-coverage. To allow for general coverage of gates by migrations, i.e., to allow a pair of migrations to together cover a gate, we need to modify the {\tt AG-Algo}\xspace subroutine accordingly. Note that {\tt AG-Algo}\xspace works iteratively, wherein in each iteration it selects a single migration. To allow for general coverage, we modify the {\tt AG-Algo}\xspace subroutine to also consider pairs of
migrations for selection in each iteration. \blue{This change is straightforward,} and we omit the details. Unfortunately, allowing general coverage by migrations breaks down the approximation guarantee of {\tt AG-Algo}\xspace.
\subsection{\bf Post-Processing to Resolve any Memory Violations.}
\label{sec:post-proc}
While our algorithm selects a feasible set of migrations in every iteration, the overall solution may violate memory constraints. We resolve these violations by replacing some migrations with migrations of smaller duration.
Consider a migration $(q, p, t_s, t_e)$ which covers gates at time $t_1, t_2$ and $t_3$. We can covert this migration into three separate migrations, viz., $(q, p, t_1, t_1), (q, p, t_2, t_2)$ and $(q, p, t_3, t_3)$, each of which covers the gates at $t_1, t_2$ and $t_3$ respectively.
The above conversion reduces the usage of execution memory at $p$, while increasing the total cost of migrations.
Note that there always exists a solution that uses only such ``instanteneous'' migrations and requires only one unit of execution memory at each computer, since there is at most one gate at each time instant.
Thus, a simple strategy to resolve execution-memory violations could be to
convert migrations into multiple shorter migrations iteratively.\footnote{Note that since our algorithms only create migrations for yet-uncovered gates, such a conversion strategy would not yield ``redundant'' instantaneous migrations---and thus, conversions alone should yield a feasible solution.}
Based on the above, our post-processing algorithm to resolve execution-memory violations is
as follows: we iteratively pick the migration that causes a violation and covers the least number of gates, and covert it into instantaneous migrations as described above.
\para{Time Complexity of {\tt DQC-M}\xspace Algorithm.} Overall, the {\tt DQC-M}\xspace Algorithm runs in
$\mathcal{O}(\lambda {N_q}^3 + N_pn^6\log n)$ time, where $\lambda$ is the number of iterations chosen for our Tabu search heuristic,$N_q$ is the number of qubits, $N_p$ is the number of computers in the quantum network, and \blue{$n$ is the number of non-local binary gates with the chosen home-computer function; note $n \ll N_g$, the number of gates in the circuit}. In our implementation, we pick $\lambda$ to be $20$, beyond which Tabu search offers minimal improvement in solutions for our instances.
\subsection{\bf {\tt DQC-M}\xspace Step 1: Assignment of Qubits to Computers}
\label{sec:NetworkTop}
Here, we address the first step of {\tt DQC-M}\xspace --- which \blue{assigns qubits to computers to}
minimize the
cost of migrations required to cover all the non-local gates.
\blue{In our earlier work~\cite{g2021efficient} where we considered a special case of
{DQC-M}\xspace problem with homogeneous network and unbounded execution memories, we used a balanced graph-partitioning to assign qubits to
computers.} However, in the current {DQC-M}\xspace problem, the cost of separating qubits $q_1$ and $q_2$ depends on the specific computers they are assigned to due to the network's
heterogeneity--- hence, a graph partitioning approach \blue{is inapplicable to} the {DQC-M}\xspace
problem's first step.
\blue{Here, we develop a search-based algorithm--- in particular, based on Tabu search~\cite{GLOVER1986533}--- to assign qubits to computers.}
\para{Tabu Search and Motivation.} Tabu search is a local-search \blue{heuristic} that
starts with an initial solution, and then picks a better solution among
the neighbors of the current solution. To avoid getting stuck in a local minimum, it sometimes also picks a worse solution, especially, if there is no better solution among
the neighbors. The key distinction of Tabu search compared to other local-search algorithms is that it maintains a list of recently-visited solutions and \blue{incurs a penalty each time} one of these solutions is chosen again.
Our motivation for choosing a Tabu-based search heuristic is that our problem closely resembles the well-studied quadratic-assignment problem for which Tabu search has been shown to perform well~\cite{skorin1990tabu}. \blue{This relationship is clear from our objective function shown under ``Solution' Cost'' below.}
\para{Tabu Search Algorithm for Assignment of Qubits.}
To design a Tabu-search based algorithm for our problem of assignment of qubits to
computers, we need to define three key aspects of the algorithm: (i) Solution,
(ii) Solution's neighbors, and (iii) Solution's Cost.
\softpara{Solution and Its Neighbors.}
In our context, a solution is a valid home-computer function.
Neighbors of a given solution $\pi$ can be defined as valid solutions $\pi'$ that result from
either: (i) changing the assignment/mapping of a single qubit without violating the storage
constraint, or (ii) ``swapping'' of two qubits mapped to two different computers in $\pi$.
\softpara{Solution's Cost.}
A solution's cost can be defined as an
estimate of the cost of migrations needed to cover the non-local gates resulting from the
solution's qubit assignment.
More formally, the cost of a solution $\pi$, \blue{denoted by $\id{cost}(\pi)$ is}
$$\id{cost}(\pi) = \sum_{q_1, q_2 \in Q} w(q_1, q_2) \times \text{distance}(\pi(q_1), \pi(q_2))$$
where $w(q_1, q_2)$ is the \emph{number} of migrations needed to cover the binary gates between $q_1$ and $q_2$ if they are assigned to different computers.
We estimate $w(q_1, q_2)$ as described below.
\medskip
\noindent
\emph{Estimating $w(q_1, q_2)$.}
Let ${C}$ is the original circuit that includes two qubits $q_1$ and $q_2$. To estimate
$w(q_1, q_2)$ in ${C}$,
we consider
\blue{an induced circuit ${C}'$ that consists only of qubits $q_1$ and $q_2$ and the sequence of gates from ${C}$ that involve $q_1$ and $q_2$. We can compute the optimal number of migrations} required to cover all the gates in
\blue{the induced circuit ${C}'$} when $q_1$ and $q_2$ are assigned to different computers using the {\em optimal} home-coverage algorithm (called \textsc{MS-HC}) from \cite{g2021efficient}.
\eat{
small
{DQC-M}\xspace instance along with a home-computer function as follows.
We consider two computers with $q_1$ assigned to one of them
and $q_2$ assigned to the other, and consider only those gates from $C$ that
involve $q_1$ and $q_2$ (i.e., binary gates between $q_1$ and $q_2$ in $C$, and
all the unary gates involving them).
In the above instance, we}
Note that \blue{in ${C}'$} only home-coverage of gates by migrations is possible.
We use the optimal number of migrations required in \blue{${C}'$} as the estimate
for $w(q_1, q_2)$ in the given circuit ${C}$.
\softpara{{\tt Tabu}\xspace Algorithm.} \
Based on the above discussion, the
algorithm (called {\tt Tabu}\xspace) for
the first step of {\tt DQC-M}\xspace is defined as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\pi^* = \pi =$ initial random solution
\item $L = [\ ]$ /* a bounded-length list of forbidden solutions */
\item Repeat for $\lambda$ iterations:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\pi = \id{argmin}_{\pi' \in \id{neighbors}(\pi)-L}\ \id{cost}(\pi')$
\item $\pi^* = \pi$ if $\id{cost}(\pi) < \id{cost}(\pi^*)$
\item $L = L \cup \{\pi\}$, removing the oldest element from $L$ if necessary to maintain length bound.
\end{enumerate}
\item Return $\pi^*$
\end{enumerate}
\section{\bf Relevant Concepts and Problem Formulation}
\label{section:dqcproblem}
In this section, we define the {DQC}\xspace problem of distributing quantum circuits across
quantum computers. We start with an informal description, define the relevant terms
and concepts, and then formulated the {DQC}\xspace problem addressed in this paper.
\para{Informal Problem Description.}
The goal of the {\em Distributing Quantum Circuits} ({DQC}\xspace) problem addressed in this paper
is to determine an efficient distribution of a given quantum circuit, over a given
network of QCs. Efficient distribution essentially entails two tasks: distributing the qubits
over the distributed QCs, \blue{and then executing the given gates, including non-local gates using a judicious combination of teleportation and/or cat-entanglement operations.}
Informally, the {DQC}\xspace problem is to execute the given (centralized) quantum circuit over the
given quantum network using a minimum cost of teleportations and cat-entanglements used
to execute the non-local gates, under the given memory constraints.
\para{Closest Related Work.} The closest work that addresses the above problem is our own recent work~\cite{g2021efficient} ---where we address the {DQC}\xspace problem under the simple settings of homogeneous computers with unbounded execution memory (to store cat-entanglement copies), complete network topology, and no teleportations.
For the simplified setting,~\cite{g2021efficient} presents a two-step algorithm for the {DQC}\xspace problem, wherein
the first step determines the partitioning of qubits to computers through balanced graph partitioning and the second step minimizes the number of cat-entanglement operations via
an iterative greedy approach.
In this paper, we address the generalized {DQC}\xspace problem wherein each computer may have non-uniform
storage memory (to store the qubits) and bounded non-uniform execution memory (to allow for copies
from cat-entanglements). Most importantly, we allow teleportations, which may dynamically change the partitioning of qubits across computers, but can improve the communication cost.
\subsection{\bf Key Concepts and Terminology}
\label{sec:terms}
\para{Quantum Circuit Representation.}
As in~\cite{Andres-MartinezH:19}, we consider the universal gate set with (binary) \cz and unary gates.
Also, in our context, we do not need to represent the type of unary gates. Thus, we represent an \emph{abstract quantum circuit} $C$ over a set of qubits $Q = \{q_1, q_2, \ldots\}$ as a sequence of gates $\langle g_1, g_2, \ldots \rangle$ where each $g_k$ is either binary CZ gate
or a unary gate.
We thus represent binary gates in a circuit as triplets $(q_i, q_j, k)$, where $q_i$ and $q_j$ are the two operands, and $k$ is the time instant (see below) of the gate in the circuit; and unary gates as pairs $(q_i, k)$, where $q_i$ is the operand and $k$ is the time instant.
We use $N_q$ and $N_g$ to denote the number of qubits and gates in the circuit, respectively.
Each gate occurs uniquely at a time instant.
In addition to the instants where the gates occur, we introduce additional {\bf time instants} in between gates for cat-entanglement/teleportation operations. See Fig.~\ref{fig:time_instants}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{time_instants.png}
\caption{In the above figure, \blue{the gates are at odd-numbered time instants} $t_1, t_3, \ldots, t_{9}$, and the even-numbered time instants between each pair of consecutive gates have been introduced for convenience.}
\vspace*{-3ex}
\label{fig:time_instants}
\end{figure}
\para{Quantum Network (QN).}
We represent quantum network as a connected undirected graph with nodes representing QCs and edges representing (quantum and classical) direct communication links. \blue{Nodes of the network are denoted by $P$;} we use the words node, computer, and QC interchangeably. \blue{We denote the number of nodes in the network by $N_p$.}
Each computer $p\in P$ has quantum memory to store qubits; for simplicity, we divide this memory into two parts: qubit storage
memory to store the ``original'' qubits, with capacity denoted by $s_p$, and \emph{execution memory} used to store the linked copies (ebits) from cat-entanglements, with capacity denoted by $e_p$. Thus, as part of the given QN specification,
each node has
has a certain amount of qubit storage and execution memory.
\para{Home Computers.}
To distribute execution of a given quantum circuit, we first distribute qubits of the given circuit across the network nodes.
At any point of time, each qubit $q$ of the circuit resides (i.e., is stored) at a unique node in the network---which we call its \emph{home computer} or just \emph{home}.
Cat-entanglement will create a linked copy of a qubit $q$ at another computer, but does not change $q$'s home. However, a qubit's home can be changed by teleporting it to another computer.
The home computers of qubits are represented by a set of home-computer functions, $\pi_t$, one for each time
instant $t$. Each home-computer function
maps a circuit's qubits to computers, i.e., $\pi_t: Q \mapsto P$. Thus, $\pi_t(q)$ denotes the home of qubit $q$ at time $t$. A home-computer function $\pi_t$ is valid if and only if it obeys the storage memory constraint--- i.e., for any computer $p$ with a storage memory of $s_p$ units,
there are at most $s_p$ qubits $q$ such that $\pi_t(q) = p$. A gate $(q_i, q_j, t)$ is defined as \textbf{non-local} at time $t$ if $q_i$ and $q_j$ have different home-computers, i.e., $\pi_{t}(q_i) \neq \pi_{t}(q_j)$.
\para{Representing Teleportations.}
We represent teleportation by a triplet $(q, p, t)$ which signifies that the qubit $q$ was teleported to
the computer $p$ at time $t$. The teleportation $(q, p, t)$ results in changing
the home-computer function such that $\pi_t(q) = p$. For simplicity, we enforce that teleportations only happen at times with no gates.
To simplify the issue of storage memory violations due to teleportations, we assume that all the
teleportation at time $t$ happen simultaneously- -- and do not require additional
memories for the \mbox{EPs}\xspace used in teleportations. Thus, the set of teleportations occurring at time $t$ can be
looked upon as changing the entire home-computer function from a valid $\pi_{t-1}$ to a valid $\pi_{t}$.
\para{Migrations (formalizing Cat-Entanglements).}
As described before, we use
cat-entanglements to make linked copies of qubits to execute non-local gates.
As in our earlier work~\cite{g2021efficient}, we use the term {\em migrations} to denote cat-entanglement.
However, since we now allow teleportations
which change the home computers of qubits over time, formal definition of
migrations differs from that used in~\cite{g2021efficient}.
Informally, a qubit $q$ can be migrated from its
home computer to another for a certain duration of time $(\ts, \te)$; such a migration is considered
{\em valid} if, during the time interval $(\ts, \te)$, there are no unary operation on $q$ and its home computer doesn't change. For simplicity, we assume that there are no gates at $\ts$ and $\te$.
\begin{definition}[Migration]
\label{defn:migration}
Given a quantum circuit, a quantum network, and the home-computer function at each time instant,
a \emph{migration} is a quadruple $(q, p, t_s, t_e)$ to denote migration of qubit $q$ from its home-computer at $t_s$ to another computer $p$ for the period $(t_s, t_e)$. For the migration to be valid,
the following conditions must hold.
\begin{itemize}
\item $p \not=\pi_{t_s}(q_i)$, i.e., $q$ is migrated to a computer $p$ different from its home computer at $t_s$.
\item $\pi_t(q)=\pi_{t_s}(q)$ for all $t$ in $(t_s, t_e)$. That is, the qubit $q$'s home computer doesn't change for the duration of the migration; i.e., $q$ is not teleported during the period.
\item There are no unary gates on $q$ during $(t_s, t_e)$.
\end{itemize}
\vspace*{-15pt}
\end{definition}
\softpara{Coverage by a Migration; Home-Coverage.} \label{defn:coverage}
We use the term ``cover'' to denote migrations that help execute a non-local gate, and formally define the notion of coverage of
a gate by migration(s) as follows.
A binary gate $g=(\qi, \qj, t)$ can be covered by one or two migrations as follows.
\begin{enumerate}
\item By a single migration $(\qi, \pi_t(\qj), t_s, t_e )$ or $(\qj, \pi_t(\qi), t_s, t_e)$, where $t_s\leq t \leq t_e$; this represents migrating one operand to the other's home computer to enable the gate's local execution.
\item By a pair of migrations \{$(\qi, p, t_{s1}, t_{e1}), (\qj, p, t_{s2}, t_{e2})\}$ for some computer $p$, where $t_{s1} \leq t \leq t_{e1}$ and $t_{s2} \leq t \leq t_{e2}$. This represents migrating both operands to a common computer $p$ and executing the gate locally there.
\end{enumerate}
Coverage of a gate by a single migration
is called \emph{home-coverage}.
\para{Feasible Set of Migrations.}
Limited execution memory at each computer restricts the maximum number of linked copies that can be present in a computer at any point of time.
Consequently, a set of migrations is
feasible only if the created linked copies obey
the execution memory constraint at every computer at every point of time. We define this formally below.
Let $m$ be a migration, $p$ a computer, and $t$ a time instant, and let $\mathcal{A}(m, p, t)$ be a function that is $1$ iff there is a linked-copy of a qubit at computer $p$ at time $t$ due to migration $m$. More formally:%
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{A}(m, p, t)=
\begin{cases}
1 \text{ \quad if $m = (q, p, t_s, t_e)$ and $t_s\leq t \leq t_e$}\\
0 \text{ \quad Otherwise}
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
A set of migrations $\mathcal{M}$ are said to be \emph{feasible} if and only if $\sum _{m \in \mathcal{M}} \mathcal{A}(m, p, t) \leq e_p$ for all computers $p$, for all times $t$, where $e_p$ is the capacity of execution memory at $p$.
\para{Cost of Migrations and Teleportations.}
The cost of a migration $(q, p, t_s, t_e)$ is
defined as the distance between the nodes $\pi_{t_s}(q)$ to $p$ in the given network graph.
This cost accounts for the fact that migrating a qubit from $\pi_{t_s}(q)$ to $p$ requires
an \mbox{EP}\xspace over nodes $p$ and $\pi_{t_s}(q)$ whose generation cost we assume to be proportional
to the distance between $p$ and $\pi_{t_s}(q)$.
Similarly, cost of a teleportation $(q,p,t)$ is defined as to be the distance between $\pi_{t-1}(q)$ to $p$.
\subsection{\bf Problem Formulation and Example}
We now define the {DQC}\xspace problem formally, based on the above concepts and terms.
\para{{DQC}\xspace Problem.}
Given a quantum circuit and a quantum network, the {DQC}\xspace problem is to:
(i) determine a valid home-computer function at all time instants
(which also yields the teleportations incurred),
and (ii) a feasible set of migrations that cover all the non-local gates,
while minimizing the total cost of migrations and teleportations used.
The above {DQC}\xspace problem can be shown to be NP-hard, by a reduction from the {DQC}\xspace problem
that only allows migration (and no teleportations) which is known to be NP-hard~~\cite{Andres-MartinezH:19}. We omit the details of the
reduction here.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{runningExample.png}
\eat{
\caption{\blue{A} {DQC}\xspace problem instance with four qubits and two computers.
The figure also shows \blue{an optimal} solution,
with the colored circles signifying the home-computer function, and the two arrows signifying migrations, \blue{and the dashed vertical line signifying teleportations that interchange the home computers of qubits $q_2$ and $q_3$.}}}
\caption{{DQC}\xspace problem instance from Example~1}
\vspace*{-3ex}
\label{fig:runningExample}
\end{figure}
\para{Example 1.} Consider a {DQC}\xspace problem instance in Figure~\ref{fig:runningExample}---a circuit with four qubits and two computers each with a storage memory of two and execution-memory of 1. We assume the computers to be connected by a network link, and thus, the cost of any migration or teleportation is one.
The figure also illustrates an optimal solution to the {DQC}\xspace problem of cost four. Initially, qubits $q_1$ and $q_2$ are assigned to the first computer (signified by purple circles), while $q_3$ and $q_4$ are assigned to the second computer (signified by yellow circles). At the time instant denoted by the red line, the qubit assignment is changed (via appropriate teleportations): $q_2$ is teleported to the second computer while $q_3$ is teleported to the first. The only non-local gates are the ones marked in orange and green --- each requiring one migration. Thus, the total cost is 4, comprised of two teleportations and two migrations.
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we consider the problem of distributing a quantum circuit across a network of heterogeneous quantum computers in a way that minimizes the overall communication cost. We described efficient algorithms which tackle issues that arise due to the heterogeneity of the network and different modes of communication. We evaluated our algorithms on randomly-generated quantum circuits and networks to study their performance. Several avenues of future research remain. Efficient simulation of quantum computations on classical machines (e.g.,~\cite{Wang-etal:Simulation:2021}), and analysis of quantum programs (e.g.,~\cite{Yu-Palsberg:2021}) employ partitioning similar to this work; it will be interesting to investigate this relationship further.
|
\section{Introduction}
The ability to detect single radio-frequency photons has become increasingly essential due to the rise of superconducting quantum computing. The bolometer approach of single-photon detectors is more appropriate than others because of the extreme sensitivity of temperature-change-induced physical measurement capabilities \cite{chatterjee2021microwavephoton, irwin1995applicationelectrothermal, miller2003photoncounter, lita2008countingphotons}. The key requirements in designing a bolometer-type photon number detector are to ensure spatial separation between the absorber (the part of the system absorbing the photons) and the bolometer (the part that is used as a platform for measurement) so that the measurement process does not wash out the absorbed photoelectron, rapid and deterministic energy transfer from the absorber to the bolometer so that the parasitic radiative decay process does not annihilate the excited photoelectron before the measurement can be performed, and high-precision resolution, given the relatively small energy of a single radio-frequency photon. Past proposals have focused on hybrid 2D/3D systems, with a 2D surface state absorbing the ambient photons and subsequently transferring energy through heat transfer to the 3D bulk phonon modes, upon which the energy gain in the bulk is measured via bolometry. Examples of this setup include transition edge sensors (TESs) \cite{irwin1995applicationelectrothermal, miller2003photoncounter, lita2008countingphotons}, and more recently, Dirac semimetals such as Cd\textsubscript{3}As\textsubscript{2} \cite{chatterjee2021microwavephoton} consisting of a proximity-induced superconducting bulk (with a gap larger than the microwave photon frequency) and a graphene-like topological surface state. Although such systems achieve absorber-bolometer spatial separation, with the Cd\textsubscript{3}As\textsubscript{2} detector achieving rapid energy transfer from the photoelectrons to the bolometer as well, the large volume required for the hybrid 2D/3D systems sharply limits the temperature increase per absorbed photon, with sub-micro-ohm measurement required to resolve the temperature-induced resistance increase in the bulk.
In order to achieve a measurement resolution sufficient for detecting every absorbed single photon, it is therefore desirable to use a low-dimensional detector that reduces vastly the heat capacity and, thus, increases the temperature contrast. To this end, superconducting nanowires (consisting of a 1D semiconductor that has acquired a superconducting gap through proximity) provide an ideal platform for single photon detection. Superconducting nanowire single photon detectors (SNSPDs), which involve a photon absorbed by a Cooper pair causing the nanowire to revert to the normal (non-superconducting) state, thereby reducing the current flow through the wire, have gained popularity as a means of detecting optical photons \cite{jaspan2006heraldingphoton, hadfield2006quantumkey, hadfield2009singlephoton, nataranjan2012superconductingnanowire, zadeh2021superconductingnanowire}. However, due to efficiency constraints at lower photon frequencies, research thus far has been limited to telecommunication wavelengths \cite{hu2009fibercoupled, miki2010multichannelsnspd}, or more recently infrared wavelengths \cite{marsili2013detectingsingle}.
Here, we propose a system consisting of a $p$-wave superconducting nanowire side-coupled to a quantum dot at each end. The topological edge state of such a nanowire has been theorized to be a Majorana bound state \cite{sau2010genericplatform, dassarma2015majoranamodes}, which is by itself incapable of absorbing single photons due to the lack of an electric dipole moment. However, the hybrid Majorana-QD mode can absorb single photons, exciting the system to the higher-energy state consisting of a superposition of an excited QD electron and a nanowire edge state excitation. Ideally, the excitation would then decay to the ground state via nonradiative heat transfer to the phonon modes of the nanowire. The consequent temperature increase in the wire can then be determined by measuring the increase in the longitudinal resistivity. We will calculate the resistance increase per photon as a function of the sample dimensions and material properties, with the goal of ensuring high-precision resolution for the detector. In order to measure the longitudinal resistance without perturbing the Majorana modes (thus ensuring absorber-bolometer separation), we will place each lead at least 150 nm inward from the corresponding edge. Furthermore, we will theoretically derive the nonradiative energy transfer time from the QD-Majorana mode to the nanowire phonons, so that we can compare to the time for the undesired radiative decay process.
Our ultra-high-precision microwave photon number detector serves as a major breakthrough in multiple respects. It is the first real-world application of Majorana zero modes other than topological quantum computing. It also provides a revolutionary improvement in detection resolution for microwave photons, with a 9-orders-of-magnitude resolution improvement over a Cd\textsubscript{3}As\textsubscript{2} detector \cite{chatterjee2021microwavephoton}. Finally, the system is highly integrable due to the extremely small size of each QD-Majorana complex.
The paper is organized as follows: In Sec.~\ref{sec: QD-Majorana Hybrid States and Photon Absorption}, we derive the QD-Majorana hybridized spectrum and the interaction strength between a photon and an electron in this complex. In Sec.~\ref{sec: Temperature Increase Per Absorbed Photon}, we calculate the heat capacity of the nanowire, and from that the temperature increase per absorbed photon. Section~\ref{sec: Energy Transfer Rate from QD-Majorana to Nanowire Bulk} shows the method for calculating the energy transfer rate from the excited photoelectron to the nanowire phonons. In Sec.~\ref{sec: Ensuring Deterministic Photon Number Detection}, we lay out the means of calculating the photon absorption probability for a system of QD-nanowire complexes on-chip inside a microwave cavity. Finally, in Sec.~\ref{sec: Optimizing Parameters}, we optimize the numerical values for the parameters. The results demonstrate a near-deterministic photon absorption probability of over 99\%, an absorber-to-bolometer energy transfer rate exceeding the parasitic radiative decay rate by over 11 orders of magnitude, and most crucially, an over 6-order-of-magnitude improvement in single-photon resolution compared to a 2D/3D hybrid system such as a Cd\textsubscript{3}As\textsubscript{2} detector \cite{chatterjee2021microwavephoton}.
\section{QD-Majorana Hybrid States and Photon Absorption}
\label{sec: QD-Majorana Hybrid States and Photon Absorption}
The setup of the QD-nanowire system is depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:systemdiagram}.
\begin{widetext}
\begin{figure}[!tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2\linewidth]{NanowireQDWithLeadsAndBuffer.png}
\caption{(Wider figure) System diagram. Note that the figure is not drawn to scale.}
\label{fig:systemdiagram}
\end{figure}
\end{widetext}
At low temperatures, the $s$-wave superconducting strips induce $p$-wave superconductivity in the semiconducting nanowire, leading to the formation of Majorana zero modes (MZMs) at the edges. A pair of leads with diameter 100 nm and length 500 $\mu$m are connected at the ends of the intermediate region between the $s$-wave strips (with a roughly 150-nm gap between each lead and the nearest $s$-wave strip) in order to dynamically measure the resistance increase (which serves as a proxy for temperature increase). In general, the length of each $s$-wave strip should be greater than the material's superconducting coherence length $L'$, while the length of the intermediate region should be significantly less than $2L'$ \cite{lutchyn2010majoranafermions}. Consequently, a useful design would be to have the intermediate region cover the middle $1/5$ of the nanowire length, with $4/5$ of the nanowire length covered by the $s$-wave strips, leaving enough room for resistance measurement through the intermediate region. The nanowire is side-coupled to a QD at each end, with a hopping parameter of $\lambda$ between a QD mode and the Majorana zero mode (MZM) facing the QD, as depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:qdnanowirediagram}.
\begin{figure}[!tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{QDNanowireDiagram2.png}
\caption{Depiction of the coupling between each quantum dot (QD) and the adjacent Majorana zero mode (MZM).}
\label{fig:qdnanowirediagram}
\end{figure}
The length of the nanowire will be set at over 100 times the coherence length of the Majorana wavefunction, thus rendering any coupling between the opposite-end Majorana modes negligible. For each quantum dot, we start by setting the gate voltage such that the its energy level (when occupied) is aligned with that of the Majorana state. We set the ladder operators for the quantum dot with Fock states $\ket{0}$ (unoccupied) and $\ket{1}$ (occupied) as:
\begin{align}
d = \ket{0}\bra{1}, \\
d^{\dag} = \ket{1}\bra{0}.
\end{align}
Similarly, the Majorana operator $\eta$ induces transition at the nanowire topological edge between the vacuum state $\ket{V}$ and the Majorana bound state $\ket{M}$:
\begin{align}
\eta \ket{V} &= \ket{M}, \\
\eta \ket{M} &= \ket{V},
\end{align}
where $\ket{V}$ and $\ket{M}$ are energy-degenerate (both at the Fermi level) in the absence of coupling. Recall that $\ket{M}$ consists of a superposition of an electronic state and a hole state \cite{alicea2012newdirections, beenakker2014annihilationquasiparticles}. The overlap between the MZM wavefunction and the quantum dot wavefunction gives rise to the following Hamiltonian \cite{liu2011detectingmajorana}, under the assumption that the superconducting nanowire is sufficiently long such that overlap between the Majorana bound states at the opposite ends can be ignored:
\begin{equation} \label{eq: QD-Majorana Hamiltonian}
H = \hbar \lambda (d + d^{\dag}) \eta.
\end{equation}
In the composite basis $\Big(\ket{0V},\ket{0M}, \ket{1V}, \ket{1M}\Big)$, the Hamiltonian is represented by the following matrix:
\begin{equation}
H = \hbar
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0 & \lambda \\
0 & 0 & \lambda & 0 \\
0 & \lambda & 0 & 0 \\
\lambda & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
It is evident that the Hamiltonian couples $\ket{0V}$ with $\ket{1M}$ and separately $\ket{0M}$ with $\ket{1V}$. Physically, we can explain it as the QD-Majorana interaction simultaneously switching both the QD and Majorana states. The latter pair of states features a well-defined total particle number, with the transition between $\ket{0M}$ and $\ket{1V}$ corresponding to an electron hopping between the quantum dot state and the electronic part of the Majorana state. On the other hand, the former pair lacks a well-defined particle number, which can be explained by the fact that the transition from $\ket{1M}$ to $\ket{0V}$ corresponds to the QD electron hopping to the nanowire and annihilating the hole part of the Majorana state. Solving for the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of $H$, we find that the energy levels become the following:
\begin{equation}
E_{\pm} = \pm \hbar \lambda,
\end{equation}
corresponding to the following composite wavefunctions:
\begin{align}
\ket{1,+} &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \Big(\ket{0V} + \ket{1M}\Big), \\
\ket{2,+} &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \Big(\ket{0M} + \ket{1V}\Big), \\
\ket{1,-} &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \Big(\ket{0V} - \ket{1M}\Big), \\
\ket{2,-} &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \Big(\ket{0M} - \ket{1V}\Big),
\end{align}
where each state is labeled $+$ or $-$ based on whether the corresponding energy is $+\hbar \lambda$ or $-\hbar \lambda$. The hybridization of the states is depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:qdnanowireenergylevels}.
\begin{figure*}[!tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{QDNanowireEnergyLevels.png}
\caption{Depiction of hybridization process between the quantum dot (QD) state and the Majorana-zero-mode (MZM) state. Note that an energy gap resonant with a photon frequency of $2\lambda$ is opened.}
\label{fig:qdnanowireenergylevels}
\end{figure*}
Conceptually, the energy level shift relative to an uncoupled system can be understood as being distributed across the quantum dot mode and the Majorana bound state, thus corresponding to the splitting of the Majorana zero mode.
We are now ready to consider the photon absorption by the QD-Majorana coupled system, provided a photon field resonant with the gap between the $-$ and $+$ QD-Majorana states, i.e. $\omega = 2\lambda$. The electric field $\bm{E}$ interacts with the dipole moment $\bm{d}$ of the QD-Majorana complex via the following perturbative Hamiltonian:
\begin{equation}
H' = -\bm{d} \cdot \bm{E}.
\end{equation}
The dipole moment calculation is discussed in detail in Appendix~\ref{sec: Calculating the Dipole Matrix Elements}. For the transmon frequency of about 5 GHz, the results reveal a dipole matrix element amplitude of $|d_{+,-}| = 2.9 \times 10^{-27} \textrm{ C} \cdot \textrm{m}$ for a QD coherence length matching that of the Majorana wavefunction, corresponding a QD-Majorana center-to-center distance of 51 nm.
On the other hand, the photon field can be expanded in terms of the ladder operators $a^{(\dag)}$ in the conventional manner:
\begin{equation}
\bm{E} = \bm{E_\mathrm{zpf}} \Big(a + a^{\dag}\Big),
\end{equation}
where the electric field zero-point function $\bm{E_\mathrm{zpf}}$ is oriented along the field polarization axis and carries the following amplitude as a function of the frequency $\omega$ and cavity volume $V$ \cite{kakazu1994quantizationelectromagnetic}:
\begin{equation}
E_\mathrm{zpf} = \sqrt{\frac{\hbar \omega}{\epsilon_0 V}}
\end{equation}
The Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian $H'$ can thus be expressed in terms of the ladder operators as an interaction with coupling coefficient $g$:
\begin{equation}
H' = \hbar g \bigg(\Big(a^{\dag} B_1 + a B_1^{\dag}\Big) + \Big(a^{\dag} B_2 + a B_2^{\dag}\Big)\bigg),
\end{equation}
where the operator $B_n$ ($n = 1,2$) is defined as follows:
\begin{equation}
B_n = \ket{n,-} \bra{n,+},
\end{equation}
and the interaction coefficient $g$ takes the following value (note that $n = 1,2$):
\begin{align} \label{eq: QD-photon coupling coefficient}
\begin{split}
g &= \braket{n,-|-\bm{d} \cdot \bm{\hat{E}}|n,+} \frac{E_\mathrm{zpf}}{\hbar} \\
&= -\braket{n,-|\bm{d} \cdot \bm{\hat{E}}|n,+} \sqrt{\frac{\omega}{\hbar \epsilon_0 V}} \\
&= -d_{+,-} \sqrt{\frac{\omega}{\hbar \epsilon_0 V}},
\end{split}
\end{align}
Once the system has been photoexcited, we desire for the excitation to rapidly decay via heat transfer to the nanowire phonon modes, while avoiding radiative decay. Quantitatively, this corresponds to a nonradiative decay rate $\Gamma_\mathrm{nr}$ much greater than the radiative decay rate $\Gamma_\mathrm{rad}$, i.e. $\Gamma_\mathrm{nr} \gg \Gamma_\mathrm{rad}$. On the other hand, it is also important to ensure that the nonradiative loss rate is well below the gap frequency, i.e. $\Gamma_\mathrm{nr} \ll \omega$, so that the spectral broadening does not wash out the distinctness of the states. Furthermore, we also wish to ensure that a measurable temperature increase is registered in the nanowire for a single-photon absorption by the QD-Majorana system.
\section{Temperature Increase Per Absorbed Photon}
\label{sec: Temperature Increase Per Absorbed Photon}
Here, we determine the heat capacity of the superconducting nanowire in order to calculate the temperature increase caused by the absorption of a single photon by the QD-Majorana system. In the low-temperature limit, the occupied phonon modes are restricted to the long-wavelength acoustic modes, thus enabling the use of the Debye model \cite{debye1912zurtheorie}. The nanowire contains 1 longitudinal acoustic branch and 2 transverse (torsional) acoustic branches \cite{mante2018acousticphonons}. To first order, these branches feature approximately equal speeds of sound, and we label the average value as $v_s$. Applying the Bose-Einstein distribution, the total phonon energy equals the following summation over the wavevectors $\bm{q}$:
\begin{equation} \label{eq: U_ph summation}
U_{ph}(T) = 3 \sum_{\bm{q}} \frac{\hbar \omega_q}{e^{\frac{\hbar \omega_q}{k_B T}} - 1},
\end{equation}
where $\omega_q = v_s q$ represents the average frequency of a mode at wavevector $\bm{q}$. As in a 3D lattice, this summation can be solved by determining the density of states for each branch, given a 1D lattice of length $L$:
\begin{equation}
D(\omega) = 2 \frac{dN}{dq} \frac{dq}{d\omega} = 2 \frac{L}{2\pi} \frac{1}{v_s} = \frac{L}{\pi v_s}. \label{eq: phonon density of states}
\end{equation}
Note that the factor of 2 in the first line is inserted in order to ensure that for each wavevector amplitude $q$, the modes at both $+\bm{q}$ and $-\bm{q}$ are included.
We thus convert the summation in Eq.~\eqref{eq: U_ph summation} to integral form by incorporating the density of states. Since only the linear regime of the acoustic branches is non-negligibly occupied at low temperatures, we can integrate to infinite energy without measurable loss of accuracy:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
U_{ph}(T) &= 3 \int_0^{\infty} d\omega D(\omega) \frac{\hbar \omega}{e^{\frac{\hbar \omega}{k_B T}} - 1} \\
&= \frac{3L}{\pi v_s} \int_0^{\infty} d\omega \frac{\hbar \omega}{e^{\frac{\hbar \omega}{k_B T}} - 1} \\
&= \frac{3 L k_B^2 T^2}{\pi v_s \hbar} \int_0^{\infty} d\bigg(\frac{\hbar \omega}{k_B T}\bigg) \frac{\frac{\hbar \omega}{k_B T}}{e^{\frac{\hbar \omega}{k_B T}} - 1} \\
&= \frac{3 L k_B^2 T^2}{\pi v_s \hbar} \bigg(\frac{\pi^2}{6}\bigg).
\end{split}
\end{align}
While the total phonon energy scales quadratically with temperature $T$, the corresponding heat capacity varies linearly in the baseline temperature, as expected for a 1D lattice:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq: heat capacity}
C_{ph}(T) = \frac{dU_{ph}}{dT} = \frac{\pi L k_B^2}{\hbar v_s} T.
\end{equation}
Intuitively, the scaling of the heat capacity with the lattice length $L$ corresponds to a fact that a larger lattice is more resistant to temperature change. Furthermore, the inverse variation with the speed of sound is due to the fact that a higher speed of sound leads to a lower number of occupied states (due to the sharper dispersion), causing greater occupation number increase per state for a given total energy gain, in turn leading to a greater temperature increase. Similarly, the variation with the baseline temperature $T$ can be explained by the fact that a higher baseline temperature lifts the maximum occupied energy level, resulting in a higher number of occupied states and hence a lower occupation number increase per state for a given total energy gain (and thus a lower temperature increase as well). Upon absorption of a single photon of angular frequency $\omega$ by the QD-Majorana system, the temperature increase $\Delta T$ in the nanowire is thus calculated as follows:
\begin{align} \label{eq: temperature gain single photon}
\begin{split}
\hbar \omega &= \bigg(\frac{\pi L k_B^2}{\hbar v_s} T + C_s\bigg) \Delta T, \\
\Delta T &= \hbar \omega \bigg(\frac{\pi L k_B^2}{\hbar v_s} T + C_s\bigg)^{-1},
\end{split}
\end{align}
where $C_s$ is the heat capacity of the $s$-wave superconducting strips. It is therefore desirable to minimize the superconducting critical temperature when selecting the nanowire material. It is worth noting that when calculating the actual peak temperature increase, it is important to consider dissipation through the leads. We will consider the resulting attenuation of the temperature increase in detail later in this work.
\section{Energy Transfer Rate from QD-Majorana to Nanowire Bulk}
\label{sec: Energy Transfer Rate from QD-Majorana to Nanowire Bulk}
We now calculate the energy transfer rate through carrier-phonon interaction from the photoexcited carriers of the QD-Majorana system to the phonon modes of the nanowire. We first characterize the approximate wavefunctions for the Majorana bound states and QD states at the nanowire edges in order to calculate the carrier-phonon matrix elements connecting the higher-energy and lower-energy QD-Majorana composite states. Fundamentally, carrier-phonon interaction cannot act on the Majorana mode, since the Majorana state is by itself chargeless (due to the superposition of the electron and the hole). Instead, it specifically acts on a QD mode occupied by an electron. Consequently, the allowed QD-Majorana tensor-product transitions are $\ket{1V}_+ \rightarrow \ket{1V}_-$ and $\ket{1M}_+ \rightarrow \ket{1M}_-$, corresponding to the composite state transitions $\ket{2,+} \rightarrow \ket{2,-}$ and $\ket{1,+} \rightarrow \ket{1,-}$, respectively. Given a carrier-phonon interaction Hamiltonian $H''$ (which will be defined later in equation \eqref{eq:Hpp}), the respective transitions between composite states generated by emission of a phonon of wavevector $q$ and branch $\mu$ can be reduced to Majorana state transitions as follows:
\begin{widetext}
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
&\braket{(1,-), n_{\mu,q} + 1|H''|(1,+), n_{\mu,q}} \\
&= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \Big(\bra{0V, n_{\mu,q} + 1} - \bra{1M, n_{\mu,q} + 1}\Big) H'' \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \Big(\ket{0V, n_{\mu,q}} + \ket{1M, n_{\mu,q}}\Big) \\
&= -\frac{1}{2} \braket{-, n_{\mu,q} + 1|H''|+, n_{\mu,q}}, \\
&\braket{(2,-), n_{\mu,q} + 1|H''|(2,+), n_{\mu,q}} \\
&= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \Big(\bra{0M, n_{\mu,q} + 1} - \bra{1V, n_{\mu,q} + 1}\Big) H'' \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \Big(\ket{0M, n_{\mu,q}} + \ket{1V, n_{\mu,q}}\Big) \\
&= -\frac{1}{2} \braket{-, n_{\mu,q} + 1|H''|+, n_{\mu,q}},
\end{split}
\end{align}
\end{widetext}
where $n_{\mu,q}$ represents the phonon number in a mode at wavevector $q$ and branch $\mu$, and we have introduced the notation $\ket{+}$ and $\ket{-}$ to distinguish the higher-energy and lower-energy QD states. Note that in converting the Majorana mode dynamics to the composite state dynamics, the transition amplitude is attenuated by half, corresponding to a 4-fold reduction in the transition rate. This is due to the fact that for each of the composite-state transitions, only 1 out of the 4 corresponding tensor-product transitions is allowed by $H''$.
Next, we estimate the wavefunction for the QD state so that we can decompose it into plane wave states with well-defined momenta and thereby calculate the matrix element $\braket{-, n_{\mu,q} + 1|H''|+, n_{\mu,q}}$ for any phonon wavevector $q$. Although we modeled this wavefunction as an exponential function in Appendix~\ref{sec: Calculating the Dipole Matrix Elements}, its narrowness relative to the length of the nanowire ensures that it can be approximated as the square-root of a Dirac delta function from the perspective of the full nanowire:
\begin{equation}
\psi_{QD}(x) =
\begin{cases}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{b}}, & 0 < x < b \\
0, & \textrm{otherwise}
\end{cases},
\end{equation}
where $b$ denotes the span of the QD. Following the treatment in our prior analysis of Cd\textsubscript{3}As\textsubscript{2} \cite{chatterjee2021microwavephoton}, this localized state decomposes into plane-wave states $\ket{k}$ delocalized along the span of the nanowire (where $k$ is the wavevector corresponding to a particular plane-wave state) with approximately equal weight for each wavevector:
\begin{equation}
\ket{QD} = \sqrt{\frac{b}{L}} \sum_{k = -\pi/b}^{\pi/b} \ket{k}.
\end{equation}
As this expression shows, a spatially narrower edge state corresponds to a wider range of momenta, and vice versa, thus satisfying the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. This representation is useful since, in general, the carrier-phonon Hamiltonian $H''$ couples initial wavevector $k$ and final wavevector $k-q$ through emission (absorption) of a phonon $q$ ($-q$) from branch $\mu$:
\begin{equation}
H'' = \sum_{\mu,k,q} \hbar g_{\mu,q} c_{k-q}^{\dag} c_{k} \Big(b_{\mu,q}^{\dag} + b_{\mu,-q}\Big), \label{eq:Hpp}
\end{equation}
where $c_{k'} = \ket{0}\bra{k'}$ is defined as the annihilation operator for the electron at wavevector $k'$. Note that the coupling coefficient $g_{\mu,q}$ is independent of the initial wavevector $k$ (see Appendix A of \cite{chatterjee2021microwavephoton} for quantitative proof). As a result, the matrix element corresponding to the transition from $\ket{+}$ to $\ket{-}$ via phonon emission can be simplified in the following manner:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
&\braket{-, n_{\mu,q} + 1|H''|+, n_{\mu,q}} \\
&= \frac{a}{L} \sum_{k} \braket{k-q,n_{\mu,q} + 1|H''|k,n_{\mu,q}} \\
&= \hbar \frac{a}{L} g_{\mu,q} \sqrt{n_{\mu,q} + 1} \sum_{k = -\pi/a}^{\pi/a} 1.
\end{split}
\end{align}
Since the reciprocal space between $k = -\pi/a$ and $\pi/a$ is divided into $L/a$ segments (each of length $2\pi/L$), the transition matrix element from $\ket{+}$ to $\ket{-}$ due to emission of a phonon $q$ is simply equivalent to the transition from any initial wavevector $k$ to final wavevector $k-q$ through the same process:
\begin{align} \label{eq: carrier-phonon matrix element}
\begin{split}
&\braket{-, n_{\mu,q} + 1|H''|+, n_{\mu,q}} \\
&= \hbar g_{\mu,q} \sqrt{n_{\mu,q} + 1} \\
&= \braket{k-q,n_{\mu,q} + 1|H''|k,n_{\mu,q}}.
\end{split}
\end{align}
Next, we examine the values of the coefficients $g_{\mu,q}$. Here, we note that since the energy gap between $\ket{+}$ and $\ket{-}$ corresponds to the long-wavelength acoustic phonon regime, we can use the deformation potential treatment \cite{bardeen1950deformationpotentials}:
\begin{equation} \label{eq: deformation potential}
\sum_{\mu} |\hbar g_{\mu,q}|^2 = \frac{\hbar D^2}{2 \rho v_s V} |q|,
\end{equation}
where $D$, $v_s$ and $V$ represent the nanowire deformation potential, speed of sound, and quantization volume, respectively.
We are now ready to determine the nonradiative decay rate. In general, for a continuum of electronic states, a rapid carrier-carrier rethermalization occurs first, elevating the system to a hot electron Fermi-Dirac distribution \cite{mihnev2016microscopicorigins, sun2008ultrafastrelaxation, dawlatya2008measurementultrafast, lundgren2015electroniccooling}. This is then followed by heat transfer from the hot electron distribution to the phonon modes via electron-phonon interaction, bringing the electron and phonon temperatures to equilibrium. Here, however, we have a discrete two-level electronic spectrum. Therefore, the sole non-negligible means of nonradiative decay is through phonon emission, which disturbs the Bose-Einstein phonon distribution and immediately gives rise to a rethermalization of the phonon modes. To this end, the phonon emission rate by an electron in $\ket{+}$ is calculated through Fermi's Golden Rule:
\begin{widetext}
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\Gamma_\mathrm{nr} &= \frac{2\pi}{\hbar} \sum_{\mu,q} \frac{1}{4} \Big|\braket{-, n_{\mu,q} + 1|H''|+, n_{\mu,q}}\Big|^2 \delta\Big(E_+ - E_- - \hbar v_s |q|\Big) \\
&= \frac{\pi}{2\hbar} \sum_{\mu} \Big|\braket{-, n_{\mu,\pm \omega/v_s} + 1|H''|+, n_{\mu,\pm \omega/v_s}}\Big|^2 \frac{D(\omega)}{\hbar},
\end{split}
\end{align}
\end{widetext}
where $\omega = (E_+ - E_-)/\hbar$. The Dirac delta function enforces energy conservation, ensuring that the emitted phonon carries an frequency of $\omega = v_s q$, where $q$ is the phonon wavevector. We thus replaced the summation of the Dirac delta functions with the density of phonon modes with respect to energy, i.e. $D(\omega)/\hbar$, at $q = \pm \omega/v_s$. Using the matrix element value calculated in Eqs.~\eqref{eq: carrier-phonon matrix element} and~\eqref{eq: deformation potential}, and substituting the nanowire phonon density of states from Eq.~\eqref{eq: phonon density of states}, we find the following expression for the nonradiative decay rate at baseline nanowire temperature $T$:
\begin{align} \label{eq: nonradiative decay rate}
\begin{split}
\Gamma_\mathrm{nr}(\omega,T) &= \frac{\pi}{2\hbar} \bigg(\frac{\hbar D^2}{2 \rho v_s V} \frac{\omega}{v_s}\bigg) \Big(n(\omega,T) + 1\Big) \bigg(\frac{L}{\pi \hbar v_s}\bigg) \\
&= \frac{D^2 \omega}{4 \hbar \rho A v_s^3} \Big(\Big(e^{\frac{\hbar \omega}{k_B T}} - 1\Big)^{-1} + 1\Big),
\end{split}
\end{align}
where $n(\omega,T)$ is the Bose-Einstein phonon occupation number at frequency $\omega$ and temperature $T$, and $A$ denotes the cross-sectional area of the nanowire. We note that the nonradiative decay rate rises with increasing temperature, as expected due to the greater phonon occupation number at higher temperatures. Furthermore, in the limit $e^{\hbar \omega/k_B T} \gg 1$, it scales linearly with the phonon frequency $\omega$, since the transition strength (i.e. the matrix element amplitude-squared) increases linearly with the wavevector magnitude $|q|$. Finally, the rate varies inversely with the nanowire cross-sectional area $A$. This can be conceptualized as follows: A broader area leads to a reduction in the vibrational amplitude of each bond for a given mode energy (thus lowering the electron-phonon coupling strength per phonon), without simultaneously increasing the number of phonon modes (in the 1D limit).
\section{Ensuring Deterministic Photon Number Detection}
\label{sec: Ensuring Deterministic Photon Number Detection}
Here, we seek to verify the deterministic nature of the measurement process in two steps: first, by ensuring that the absorbed photon energy is faithfully transferred to the internal energy of the nanowire, and second, by designing a network of QD-nanowire complexes on-chip inside a cavity such that multiple absorbers can be effectuated in parallel, and the system will have a vast number of opportunities to absorb each photon (since each photon travels back and forth inside the cavity). For the former step, it is essential to calculate the parasitic radiative loss rate in order to ensure that it is negligible compared to the energy transfer rate from the photoelectrons to the bulk phonons (calculated in the previous section). For the latter step, we will derive the absorption rate per QD-nanowire complex, from which we can determine the overall probability that a photon inside the cavity is absorbed by the system before it escapes the cavity.
Both the radiative loss and absorption rates vary quadratically with the transition dipole moment amplitude $|d_{+,-}|$ (which was calculated in Appendix~\ref{sec: Calculating the Dipole Matrix Elements}). The radiative decay rate is determined as follows \cite{hilborn1982einsteincoefficients}:
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_\mathrm{rad} = \frac{\omega^3}{3\pi \epsilon_0 \hbar c^3} |d_{+,-}|^2.
\end{equation}
Note that the radiative loss rate scales cubically with the resonance frequency. Since the microwave frequency range we are interested in falls about 5 orders of magnitude below the typical optical frequency, we would expect the rate to be far smaller than the radiative loss rate for an optical transition. In the next section, we will numerically demonstrate that the radiative loss rate is multiple orders of magnitude smaller than the phonon emission rate, given practical material parameters.
Next, we seek to derive the absorption rate for a QD-nanowire complex and lay out a procedure for calculating the total absorption probability for a system of QD-nanowires on-chip inside a cavity. For a single complex, the photon absorption rate $\Gamma_\mathrm{abs}$ is determined using Fermi's Golden Rule:
\begin{widetext}
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
&\Gamma_\mathrm{abs} \\
&= \Big(f_-(\omega,T) - f_+(\omega,T)\Big) \frac{2\pi}{\hbar} \Big(\Big|\braket{(2,+),n-1|H'|(1,-),n}\Big|^2 + \Big|\braket{(1,+),n-1|H'|(2,-),n}\Big|^2\Big) \delta(E_+ - E_- - \hbar \omega) \\
&= \Big(f_-(\omega,T) - f_+(\omega,T)\Big) \frac{4\pi}{\hbar} |\hbar g \sqrt{n}|^2 \delta(E_+ - E_- - \hbar \omega) \\
&= \Big(f_-(\omega,T) - f_+(\omega,T)\Big) \frac{4\pi |g|^2 n}{\Gamma_+ + \Gamma_-},
\end{split}
\end{align}
\end{widetext}
where the parameters $f_{\pm}(\omega,T)$ denote the equilibrium populations of the upper and lower levels, respectively, of the QD-Majorana hybridization ladder, and $\Gamma_{\pm}$ represent the spectral broadening of the respective levels. In a lattice featuring a continuum of electronic states, the populations would be governed by the Fermi-Dirac distribution, with the thermal broadening dominated by electron-electron interaction. However, in this highly localized QD-Majorana system, the lack of a significant electron population strongly suppresses electron-electron interaction, leaving the dominant thermal broadening mechanism as the interaction between the QD-Majorana electrons and the nanowire phonons. To this end, the equilibrium electron populations are achieved when the phonon emission rate by upper-level electrons is balanced out by the phonon absorption rate by lower-level electrons. In turn, the phonon absorption and emission rates are proportional to $n(\omega,T)$ and $n(\omega,T) + 1$, respectively, where $n(\omega,T)$ represents the phonon number for a mode featuring a frequency $\omega$ with a lattice temperature $T$. Using the Bose-Einstein distribution to model the phonon population, we find the following relationship between $f_+$ and $f_-$:
\begin{equation}
f_+(\omega,T) \Big(\Big(e^{\frac{\hbar \omega}{k_B T}} - 1\Big)^{-1} + 1\Big) = f_-(\omega,T) \Big(e^{\frac{\hbar \omega}{k_B T}} - 1\Big)^{-1}.
\end{equation}
Furthermore, in the low-temperature limit, each two-level system consists of a single ground-state electron and a vacuum excited state. Consequently, the total electron population for each two-level system should be one, with the individual-state population representing the probability that the single electron is residing in that state:
\begin{equation}
f_+(\omega,T) + f_-(\omega,T) = 1.
\end{equation}
The above 2 expressions yield the following state populations:
\begin{align}
\label{eq: f_-}
f_-(\omega,T) &= \frac{1}{1 + e^{-\frac{\hbar \omega}{k_B T}}}, \\
\label{eq: f_+}
f_+(\omega,T) &= \frac{1}{1 + e^{\frac{\hbar \omega}{k_B T}}}.
\end{align}
As expected, for the low-temperature limit ($k_B T \ll \hbar \omega$), all of the population is concentrated in the ground state (i.e, $f_- \rightarrow 1$ and $f_+ \rightarrow 0$), whereas in the high-temperature limit ($k_B T \gg \hbar \omega$), the spectral broadening makes the states indistinguishable in population (i.e., $f_-,f_+ \rightarrow 1/2$.
We now turn to the spectral broadening of the upper and lower states ($\Gamma_+$ and $\Gamma_-$, respectively). As we discussed previously, the electron-phonon interaction serves as the dominant decay mechanism for both states. Consequently, $\Gamma_+$ and $\Gamma_-$ are approximately equivalent to the phonon emission and absorption rates, respectively, at frequency $\omega$ and temperature $T$. Based on Eq.~\eqref{eq: nonradiative decay rate}, this yields the following spectral broadening values:
\begin{align}
\label{eq: Gamma_+}
\Gamma_+ &\approx \frac{D^2 \omega}{4 \hbar \rho A v_s^3} \Big(\Big(e^{\frac{\hbar \omega}{k_B T}} - 1\Big)^{-1} + 1\Big), \\
\label{eq: Gamma_-}
\Gamma_- &\approx \frac{D^2 \omega}{4 \hbar \rho A v_s^3} \Big(e^{\frac{\hbar \omega}{k_B T}} - 1\Big)^{-1}.
\end{align}
Comporting with intuition regarding thermal broadening, a higher temperature leads to a higher spectral broadening, and vice versa.
We are thus in a position to derive a closed-form expression for the single-pass absorption probability $P_\mathrm{abs} = \Gamma_\mathrm{abs} l/c$ for a single photon in a cavity of length $l$ and beam area $A_\mathrm{beam}$ (such that the effective cavity volume $V = A_\mathrm{beam} l$), substituting state populations $f_{\pm}(\omega,T)$ from Eqs.~\eqref{eq: f_-} and~\eqref{eq: f_+}, photon-material coupling coefficient $g$ from Eq.~\eqref{eq: QD-photon coupling coefficient}, and spectral broadening values $\Gamma_{\pm}$ from Eqs.~\eqref{eq: Gamma_+} and~\eqref{eq: Gamma_-}:
\begin{equation}
P_\mathrm{abs} = \bigg(\frac{\sinh{x}}{1 + \cosh{x}}\bigg) \bigg(\frac{e^x - 1}{e^x + 1}\bigg) \frac{16\pi \rho v_s^3}{\epsilon_0 D^2 c} \frac{A}{A_\mathrm{beam}} |d_{+,-}|^2,
\end{equation}
where $x = \hbar \omega/k_B T$ represents the ratio between the gap energy and the thermal energy parameter. Note that the single-pass absorption probability for each QD-nanowire complex varies inversely with the beam area $A_\mathrm{beam}$. Consequently, for an array of complexes on a 2D chip, the total single-pass absorption probability will vary with the spatial density of complexes $\sigma = N/A_\mathrm{beam}$, where $N$ is the number of complexes covered by the beam:
\begin{align} \label{eq: absorption probability}
\begin{split}
P_\mathrm{abs,chip} &= P_\mathrm{abs} N \\
&= \bigg(\frac{\sinh{x}}{1 + \cosh{x}}\bigg) \bigg(\frac{e^x - 1}{e^x + 1}\bigg) \frac{16\pi \rho A v_s^3}{\epsilon_0 D^2 c} |d_{+,-}|^2 \sigma.
\end{split}
\end{align}
The optimal method for achieving deterministic photon absorption is by placing the chip in a high-finesse cavity. In general, Bragg mirrors can feature transmittance rates as low as 1 ppm \cite{BraggMirrorsMinimumTransmittance}. Labeling this single-pass loss probability as $P_\mathrm{loss}$, we calculate the overall absorption probability as follows:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
P_\mathrm{abs,net} &= P_\mathrm{abs,chip} + P_\mathrm{abs,chip} \Big(1 - P_\mathrm{abs,chip} - P_\mathrm{loss}\Big) \\
&\quad + P_\mathrm{abs,chip} \Big(1 - P_\mathrm{abs,chip} - P_\mathrm{loss}\Big)^2 + ... \\
&= P_\mathrm{abs,chip} \sum_{n = 0}^{\infty} \Big(1 - P_\mathrm{abs,chip} - P_\mathrm{loss}\Big)^n \\
&= \frac{1}{1 + P_\mathrm{loss}/P_\mathrm{abs,chip}}.
\end{split}
\end{align}
In the next section, we will calculate the numerical value for the net absorption probability $P_\mathrm{abs,chip}$ given a maximal on-chip complex density $\sigma$. The results will demonstrate near-deterministic photon absorption by the detector system.
\section{Optimizing Parameters}
\label{sec: Optimizing Parameters}
Here, we provide a recipe for optimizing the controllable parameters, namely the nanowire dimensions, the nanowire material, the $s$-wave superconducting material used to induce superconductivity in the nanowire (and the associated critical temperature), and the baseline temperature relative to the critical temperature. We also calculate the temperature increase and corresponding resistance increase for a single absorbed photon, accounting for thermal dissipation.
We start by discussing the trade-offs when choosing an $s$-wave superconductor based on the critical temperature. This serves as the key temperature parameter, since the baseline temperature is only about 10-20\% lower than the critical temperature (as we will discuss later in this section). The primary advantage of a lower temperature is more deterministic detection, due to a greater photon absorption rate. The increase in the photon absorption rate is due to two effects of suppressing the electron-phonon interaction rate: first, the spectral broadening of the hybridized QD-Majorana states is reduced, thus sharpening the absorption peak; second, the population contrast between the upper and lower hybridized states is increased, thus causing the raw photon absorption process to dominate more strongly over stimulated emission. On the other hand, the key advantage of a higher critical temperature is a larger superconducting gap, which allows for detection of photons in a wider range of frequencies.
Another controllable parameter is the nanowire cross-sectional area $A$, which plays an important role in the electron-phonon interaction rate. In order to suppress the spectral broadening of the QD-Majorana system (thus ensuring a high absorption rate and a deterministic detection process), we set $A$ high enough such that the nonradiative decay rate $\Gamma_\mathrm{nr}$ (see Eq.~\eqref{eq: nonradiative decay rate}) is much lower than the resonance frequency $\omega$:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\frac{A}{\Big(e^{\frac{\hbar \omega}{k_B T}} - 1\Big)^{-1} + 1} & \gg \frac{D^2}{4 \hbar \rho v_s^3}.
\end{split}
\end{align}
On the other hand, we set $A$ low enough such that the phonon modes behave as a true 1D system, i.e. the energy gap between phonon wavevectors separated along the transverse axis is much greater than the thermal energy $k_B T$, thereby ensuring that the phonon population in the transverse-propagating branches is negligible and the heat capacity is minimized (thus optimizing the resolution of the detector):
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
k_B T &\ll \hbar v_s \frac{2\pi}{\sqrt{A}}, \\
T \sqrt{A} &\ll \frac{h v_s}{k_B}.
\end{split}
\end{align}
Together, these two conditions set a range for the nanowire diameter (which approximately equals $\sqrt{A}$) in terms of the baseline temperature $T = r T_c$ (where $r$ is the ratio between the baseline temperature and critical temperature) and the material properties:
\begin{equation} \label{eq: sqrtA inequality}
\frac{D}{2} \sqrt{\frac{1}{\hbar \rho v_s^3}} \Big(\Big(e^{\frac{\hbar \omega}{k_B T}} - 1\Big)^{-1} + 1\Big)^{1/2} \ll \sqrt{A} \ll \frac{h v_s}{k_B T}.
\end{equation}
Based on the example of InAs (indium arsenide) as a typical nanowire, we use the material parameters $v_s \approx 4500 \textrm{ m}/\textrm{s}$ \cite{mariager2010acousticoscillations}, $\rho \approx 5700 \textrm{ kg}/\textrm{m}^3$, and $D \approx 6.0 \textrm{ eV}$ \cite{vurgaftman2001bandparameters}. Here, it is worth noting that the high speed of sound relative to other materials (such as InSb nanowires, which feature a speed of about 2900 m/s \cite{jurgilaitis2014timeresolved}) is advantageous for the same reason as a lower baseline temperature: it provides a greater detector absorption probability (see Eq.~\eqref{eq: absorption probability}.
We now consider the optimal range of baseline temperatures, which is related to the critical temperature of the superconducting metal used to induce superconductivity in the nanowire. Here, it is essential to choose a material such that the superconducting gap (the energy required to break a Cooper pair) is significantly larger than the photon frequency in order to ensure that the photon can only be absorbed by the QD-Majorana complex at either edge rather than by the nanowire bulk. For proximity-induced superconductivity in a nanowire, studies have shown that the nanowire critical temperature is similar to the critical temperature of the metal inducing the superconductivity \cite{pendharkar2021paritypreserving}. Quantitatively, this condition corresponds to the following expression for the superconducting critical temperature $T_c$:
\begin{equation}
T_c \gg \frac{\hbar \omega}{3.5 k_B}
\end{equation}
For a resonance frequency of 5 GHz (i.e., $\omega = \pi \times 10^{10} \textrm{ s}^{-1}$), a reasonable low-end value for $T_c$ would be 0.39 K, i.e. the critical temperature for titanium \cite{matthias1963superconductivity}, corresponding to a Cooper-pair-breaking frequency of $3.5 k_B T_c/h = 28 \textrm{ GHz}$ (far above the 5-GHz photon frequency). This lies far above the 5-GHz photon frequency, allowing for a detectable photon frequency range up to about 10 GHz. The baseline temperature should be somewhat below the critical temperature, since the superconducting gap will then approach the maximum value while the rate of change of resistance over temperature is still significant. As such, we can consider the low-end value for the baseline temperature to be roughly 0.3 K. On the other hand, a reasonable high-end value for the baseline temperature is about 0.7 K, since this is roughly the highest temperature for which a large range of nanowire diameters is available (see Eq.~\eqref{eq: sqrtA inequality}). This would allow for a detectable photon frequency range up to about 20 GHz.
Before we proceed to determining the absorption probability and detection resolution as functions of temperature and nanowire diameter, we compare the nonradiative decay rate to the radiative loss rate in order to ensure that the energy transfer from excited photoelectrons to bulk phonons is far faster than parasitic spontaneous emission. We specifically calculate the minimum nonradiative decay rate, which is applicable at the zero-temperature limit for a maximally wide nanowire. Since nanowires typically feature an upper-bound diameter of about 100 nm, we use the corresponding cross-sectional area to determine the nonradiative decay rate at the zero-temperature limit from Eq.~\eqref{eq: nonradiative decay rate}:
\begin{align}
\Gamma_\mathrm{nr,min} &= \frac{D^2 \omega}{4 \hbar \rho A v_s^3} \\
&= 1.7 \times 10^7 \textrm{ s}^{-1}.
\end{align}
On the other hand, based on the dipole moment matrix element amplitude of $|d_{+,-}| = 9.3 \times 10^{-28} \textrm{ C} \cdot \textrm{m}$ (as calculated in Appendix~\ref{sec: Calculating the Dipole Matrix Elements}), the radiative decay rate is determined using the expression laid out in Sec.~\ref{sec: Ensuring Deterministic Photon Number Detection}:
\begin{align} \label{eq: radiative decay rate}
\begin{split}
\Gamma_\mathrm{rad} &= \frac{\omega^3}{3\pi \epsilon_0 \hbar c^3} |d_{+,-}|^2 \\
&= 1.1 \times 10^{-4} \textrm{ s}^{-1},
\end{split}
\end{align}
for $\omega = \pi \times 10^{10} \textrm{ s}^{-1}$. The radiative loss rate is thus negligible even compared to the minimum nonradiative decay rate. As a result, the excited photoelectron in the QD-Majorana system will decay through the desired phonon emission channel rather than through the undesired spontaneous photon emission process.
Having established that the energy transfer from the excited photoelectrons to the nanowire phonons is dominant, we now return to our analysis of the absorption probability as a function of temperature and nanowire diameter in order to prove that the overall detection process is deterministic. As discussed previously, we select the baseline temperature range 0.3 to 0.7 K. For the diameters, we select the values roughly satisfying Eq.~\eqref{eq: sqrtA inequality} for all temperatures up to 0.7 K. This yields a range of approximately 15 to 30 nm. In desigining the chip consisting of QD-nanowire complexes, we maximize the spatial density of nanowires by setting the transverse and longitudinal distances to physically feasible minimum values of 100 nm and 16 $\mu$m, respectively. Note also that there exist 2 QD-Majorana hybridized systems per nanowire, since each nanowire features quantum dots on both ends (see Fig.~\ref{fig:qdnanowirediagram}). These parameters yield a maximum achievable QD-Majorana on-chip density of $5 \times 10^{12} \textrm{ m}^{-2}$. Figure~\ref{fig:absorptionprob} thus depicts the absorption probability (i.e., the detector efficiency) for the given temperature and diameter ranges.
\begin{figure}[!tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{AbsorptionProbability.png}
\caption{Photon absorption probability as a function of baseline temperature and nanowire diameter for a chip consisting of indium arsenide (InAs) nanowires coupled to quantum dots inside a high-finesse cavity, assuming transverse and longitudinal spacings of 100 nm and 16 $\mu$m, respectively, between nanowires and a resonance frequency of 5 GHz.}
\label{fig:absorptionprob}
\end{figure}
As desired, the efficiency exceeds 98\% for all design parameters shown in Figure \ref{fig:absorptionprob}, with an efficiency above 99\% for all temperatures in the range given a diameter of 20 nm or greater, indicating an extremely deterministic detector. Also, as expected, the efficiency increases with nanowire diameter while decreasing with baseline temperature, since higher diameter and lower temperature values lower the nonradiative decay rate, thus yielding sharper absorption peaks. Recall that a lower temperature also creates a greater contrast in equilibrium population between upper and lower hybridized states, thus increasing the raw absorption rate relative to the stimulated emission rate.
Next, we consider the resolution of the detector by calculating the temperature increase per absorbed photon. Here, it is important to consider the role played by thermal dissipation, which will serve to lower the peak temperature increase. As depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:systemdiagram}, each nanowire is surrounded by vacuum and a thermally insulating buffer. However, a pair of superconducting leads (typically made from aluminum) is continuously connected to the nanowire in order to dynamically measure the longitudinal resistance, with the other end of each lead connecting to a thermal reservoir. These leads thus serve as the dominant channel of thermal dissipation from the nanowire. Given a length $l_\mathrm{lead}$, cross-sectional area $A_\mathrm{lead}$, and thermal conductivity $k_t$ for each lead, the rate constant for thermal dissipation through the 2 leads can be calculated in terms of the nanowire heat capacity $C_{ph}(T)$ and the heat capacity $C_s$ of the $s$-wave superconducting strips as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq: dissipation rate}
\gamma_\mathrm{dis} = \frac{2 k_t A_\mathrm{lead}}{(C_{ph}(T) + C_s) l_\mathrm{lead}},
\end{equation}
where we substituted the relationship between $C_{ph}$ and the temperature $T$ shown in Eq.~\eqref{eq: heat capacity}. The $s$-wave heat capacity $C_s$ can be calculated to first order for a generic metal using the expression determined by Phillips for aluminum \cite{phillips1959heatcapacity}, since the Fermi temperatures for the relevant metals are similar to first order:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
C_s \approx 7.1 \gamma T_c n V_s e^{-1.34 T_c/T},
\end{split}
\end{align}
where $n$ denotes the molar density of the material (i.e. $10^5$ mol/$\textrm{m}^3$ for aluminum, corresponding to 4 atoms per unit cell), $V_s$ denotes the volume of the material, and $\gamma = 1.35 \times 10^{-3} \textrm{ J}/(\textrm{mol} \cdot \textrm{K}^2)$. Regarding the volume, the material covers about $4/5$ of the nanowire length, with a thickness as low as $d_s = 5 \textrm{ nm}$, yielding $V_s \approx 0.8 d_s L \sqrt{A}$, where $L$ and $\sqrt{A}$ are the nanowire length and diameter, respectively. Finally, as will be discussed later in this section, the baseline temperature $T$ lies slightly below the critical temperature $T_c$, with a relationship of approximately $T \approx 0.86 T_c$. Substituting these, we find that $C_s$ is linear in the nanowire length $L$ and baseline temperature $T$, as is the case with the nanowire heat capacity $C_{ph}$:
\begin{equation}
C_s \approx \zeta \sqrt{A} L T,
\end{equation}
where $\zeta = 9.4 \times 10^{-7} \textrm{ J}/(\textrm{K}^2 \cdot \textrm{m}^2)$. Based on Eq.~\eqref{eq: temperature gain single photon}, this induces the following temperature increase per photon $(\Delta T)_\mathrm{max}$ in the absence of thermal dissipation:
\begin{equation}
(\Delta T)_\mathrm{max} = \frac{\hbar \omega}{L T} \bigg(\frac{\pi k_B^2}{\hbar v_s} + \zeta \sqrt{A}\bigg)^{-1}.
\end{equation}
Per Eq.~\eqref{eq: dissipation rate}, the dissipation rate $\gamma_\mathrm{dis}$ takes the following form:
\begin{equation} \label{eq: dissipation rate 2}
\gamma_\mathrm{dis} = \frac{2 k_t A_\mathrm{lead}}{\Big(\frac{\pi k_B^2}{\hbar v_s} + \zeta \sqrt{A}\Big) l_\mathrm{lead} L T}.
\end{equation}
Given an input heat transfer rate from the absorbed photoelectron at a rate $\Gamma_\mathrm{nr}$, we can evaluate the actual temperature increase per absorbed photon as a function of ideal increase $(\Delta T)_\mathrm{max}$ using the following differential equation:
\begin{equation}
\frac{d(\Delta T)}{dt} = (\Delta T)_\mathrm{max} \Gamma_\mathrm{nr} e^{-\Gamma_\mathrm{nr} t} - \gamma_\mathrm{dis} \Delta T.
\end{equation}
Solving this, we find that the attenuation factor (i.e. the ratio between the peak temperature increase and the dissipationless ideal increase) becomes a function of $r = \gamma_\mathrm{dis}/\Gamma_\mathrm{nr}$:
\begin{equation}
\Delta T = (\Delta T)_\mathrm{max} r^{\frac{r}{1 - r}}.
\end{equation}
Note that if the dissipation rate is much higher than the nonradiative decay rate (i.e. if $r \gg 1$), then this relationship reduces to $\Delta T \approx (\Delta T)_\mathrm{max}/r$. We can obtain an analytical approximate expression for $\Delta T$ based on the dissipation rate $\gamma_\mathrm{dis}$ from Eq.~\eqref{eq: dissipation rate 2} and the nonradiative electron-phonon interaction rate $\Gamma_\mathrm{nr}$ from Eq.~\eqref{eq: nonradiative decay rate} in this regime:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq: Delta T high dissipation rate}
\Delta T \approx \frac{D^2 \omega^2 l_\mathrm{lead}}{8 \rho v_s^3 k_t A_\mathrm{lead} A} \Big(\Big(e^{\frac{\hbar \omega}{k_B T}} - 1\Big)^{-1} + 1\Big).
\end{equation}
Note that the temperature increase for the high-dissipation regime is independent of nanowire length $L$, since the higher heat capacity associated with a greater length leads to a reduced ideal temperature increased but also a lower dissipation rate, with these two shifts cancelling out. For the other two controllable parameters, i.e. nanowire cross-sectional area $A$ and baseline temperature $T$, $\Delta T$ increases with temperature and decreases with cross-sectional area. These correlations are due to the fact that the a lower cross-sectional area and a higher temperature yield a greater electron-phonon interaction rate, as previously mentioned, thus causing more rapid heat transfer into the nanowire phonons and enhancing the peak temperature increase.
We now substitute practical values to numerically calculate the temperature increase per absorbed photon. As discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec: QD-Majorana Hybrid States and Photon Absorption}, our superconducting aluminum leads feature a minimum diameter of 100 nm and a maximum length (from nanowire to thermal reservoir) of 500 $\mu$m. The thermal conductivity in the superconducting temperature range can be extrapolated from experimental data as $k_t \approx (1 \textrm{ W}/(\textrm{m} \cdot \textrm{K}^2)) T$ \cite{baudouy2014lowtemperature}. For a nanowire of diameter 20 nm, Fig.~\ref{fig:tempgain} depicts the temperature increase per photon for nanowire lengths ranging from 5 $\mu$m to 15 $\mu$m.
\begin{figure}[!tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{TemperatureGainWithDissipation.png}
\caption{Single-photon temperature increase as a function of nanowire length for a resonance frequency of 5 GHz and diameter 20 nm, at baseline temperatures 0.3 K (solid), 0.5 K (dot-dashed), and 0.7 K (dotted).}
\label{fig:tempgain}
\end{figure}
Note that the lower-bound value for the length is over 300 times greater than the Majorana wavefunction coherence length of 14 nm \cite{chiu2020scalablemajorana}, ensuring that the overlap between opposite Majorana states is negligible. As desired, the actual temperature increase lies in the high end of the microKelvin range, thus improving the resolution far beyond the nanoKelvin range found for a cadmium arsenide (Cd\textsubscript{3}As\textsubscript{2}) detector \cite{chatterjee2021microwavephoton}. The corresponding increase in longitudinal resistance across the intermediate region can be determined from the characteristic $d\rho_e/dT$ of the material at $T$ (where $\rho_e$ is the resistivity) and the nanowire dimensions:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\Delta R &= \frac{0.2L - 2\delta}{A} \frac{d\rho_e}{dT} \Delta T \\
&= \frac{0.2L - 2\delta}{A} (\Delta T)_\mathrm{max} r^{\frac{r}{1 - r}} \frac{d\rho_e}{dT},
\end{split}
\end{align}
where $0.2L$ is the overall length of the intermediate region as previously discussed, and the parameter $\delta$ represents the distance between each end of the intermediate region and the side of the corresponding lead facing the center of the nanowire. Given a lead diameter of 100 nm and a spacing of 150 nm between the $s$-wave material and the side of the lead facing the material, this parameter reduces to $\delta = 250 \textrm{ nm}$. In general, the rate of increase of resistivity with temperature, $d\rho_e/dT$, varies with the magnetic field along the nanowire. Generalizing from the results in Fig. 5(a) of Yoshizawa \textit{et al.} \cite{yoshizawa2021atomiclayer}, and setting the baseline temperature at $T = 0.9T_c$ (in order to establish a sufficient superconducting gap while also ensuring a sufficient increase of resistance with temperature) we deduce that for a magnetic field of $0.15B_c$, $d\rho_e/dT \approx 0.6\rho_\mathrm{max}/T_{c,0}$, while for a field of $0.25B_c$, $d\rho_e/dT \approx 1.7\rho_\mathrm{max}/T_{c,0}$, where $T_{c,0}$ is the critical temperature at zero magnetic field. Note that $B_c$ and $\rho_\mathrm{max}$ denote the critical magnetic field and normal-state resistivity, respectively. For the InAs nanowire, the normal-state resistivity is about $\rho_\mathrm{max} = 5.5 \times 10^{-3} \textrm{ } \Omega \cdot \textrm{m}$ \cite{zeng2018electricaltransport}, while the critical magnetic field will be set by the $s$-wave superconducting material in proximity to the InAs nanowire. Consequently, the resistance increase per photon takes the following form:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\Delta R &= \frac{L - 2\delta}{A} \frac{n \rho_\mathrm{max}}{T_{c,0}} (\Delta T)_\mathrm{max} r^{\frac{r}{1 - r}},
\end{split}
\end{align}
where $n = 0.6$ and $1.7$ for $B = 0.15B_c$ and $0.25B_c$, respectively. Figure~\ref{fig:resistancegain} depicts the single-photon resistance increase as a function of nanowire length for a diameter of 20 nm and a zero-field critical temperature $T_{c,0} = 0.56 \textrm{ K}$.
\begin{figure}[!tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{ResistanceGainWithDissipation.png}
\caption{Single-photon resistance increase as a function of nanowire length for diameter of 20 nm, a resonance frequency of 5 GHz and zero-magnetic-field critical temperature $T_{c,0} = 0.56 \textrm{ K}$, at magnetic field strengths of 15\% (solid) and 25\% (dot-dashed) of the critical field $B_c$. Note that the baseline temperatures are $0.873T_{c,0}$ and $0.843T_{c,0}$, respectively, yielding $T \approx 0.5 \textrm{ K}$.}
\label{fig:resistancegain}
\end{figure}
For the purpose of setting a precise baseline temperature, it is important to note that the critical temperature decreases slightly as the magnetic field is increased to $0.25B_c$, reaching values of $0.97T_{c,0}$ and $0.937T_{c,0}$ for field strengths of $0.15B_c$ and $0.25B_c$, respectively. As previously discussed, we set the baseline temperature 10\% below the critical temperature, yielding baseline values of $0.873T_{c,0}$ and $0.843T_{c,0}$ for the respective fields, corresponding to $T \approx 0.5 \textrm{ K}$. Throughout the relevant range of nanowire lengths, we find a resistance increase above in the kiloohm range, far above the minimum resolution for resistance measurement. In fact, the resistance increase per photon is on the order of 9 orders of magnitude higher than the corresponding resistance increase in a Cd\textsubscript{3}As\textsubscript{2} device \cite{chatterjee2021microwavephoton}. As such, we could set the baseline temperature even significantly below 90\% of the critical temperature. That way, we would further increase the superconducting gap (allowing for the detection of a greater range of photon frequencies) while still obtaining an easily resolvable single-photon resistance increase.
We now briefly discuss how to tune the QD-Majorana coupling coefficient $\lambda$ in order to satisfy the resonance condition $\omega = 2\lambda$ and physically implement the scheme discussed in Appendix~\ref{sec: Calculating the Dipole Matrix Elements}. To this end, the ability to open a microwave-frequency gap in the Majorana zero mode has been recently demonstrated experimentally \cite{vanzanten2020photonassisted}. In general, $\lambda$ can be controlled by properly setting the distance between the QD electronic mode and the nanowire edge mode. It is desirable to fabricate the system such that the length of the QD yields the center-to-center distance required for the hybridization gap to be resonant with the photon frequency. However, small adjustments may be required post-fabrication in order to satisfy the resonance condition more precisely. One potential means of achieving this is by using a piezoelectric material. Specifically, such a structure can be built by fabricating the quantum dot in a pillar protruding out from the buffer material, as has been demonstrated by Oulton \cite{oulton2014electrifyingcavities}. Similarly, the nanowire can also levitated by a couple of insulating supports above the buffer. The piezoelectric material can be then be sandwiched between the base of the quantum dot pillar and the nearest support for the nanowire. By applying a small voltage, the piezoelectric material can be stretched or compressed, thus providing for the ability to tune the QD-nanowire distance. Another means of tuning the QD-Majorana coupling is by adjusting the height of the potential energy barrier separating the two wells. Appendix~\ref{sec: Fine-Tuning the Dipole Matrix Element} provides an analysis of the shift in barrier height required to induce a particular fractional change in the QD-Majorana coupling strength (and hence in the resonance frequency).
\section{Conclusion}
We have theoretically demonstrated a revolutionary ultra-high-precision microwave photon number detector using a 1D system consisting of a nanowire coupled to a quantum dot at each end. To the best of our knowledge, our system serves as the first real-world application of Majorana zero modes since topological computing. The Majorana edge states couple with the quantum dots, giving rise to a hybridized energy spectrum well-suited for microwave photon absorption, while the superconducting nanowire bulk acts as a bolometer. As with our previous Cd\textsubscript{3}As\textsubscript{2} detector \cite{chatterjee2021microwavephoton}, this system offers the benefits of complete spatial separation between the absorber and the bolometer, as well as rapid and deterministic energy transfer from the absorber electrons to the bolometer phonons. However, owing to the vastly reduced heat capacity caused by the low dimensionality, our nanowire system improves upon the Cd\textsubscript{3}As\textsubscript{2} detector's measurement precision (resistance increase per photon) by 9 orders of magnitude, serving as a major breakthrough in microwave-photon detection resolution.
In addition to serving as a photon number detector, the nanowire-QD system will provide a highly promising platform for conclusively proving the existence of Majorana zero modes. Specifically, demonstrating photon absorption would prove the existence of a zero-energy edge mode that hybridizes with the quantum dot. Furthermore, we can verify the spinlessness and charge-neutrality of such a mode by applying new magnetic and DC electric fields to test the Zeeman and Stark effects, respectively. The energy level of a spinless and charge-neutral Majorana edge mode would be unperturbed by these fields, while the quantum dot level would shift, thus breaking the QD-Majorana hybridization and suppressing photon absorption. Our nanowire-QD system thus holds significant potential in solving one of the central physics questions in recent decades.
\begin{acknowledgements}
Sandia National Laboratories is a multimission laboratory managed and operated by National Technology \& Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Honeywell International Inc., for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Ad- ministration under contract DE-NA-0003525.
\end{acknowledgements}
\begin{appendix}
\section{Calculating the Dipole Matrix Elements}
\label{sec: Calculating the Dipole Matrix Elements}
Here, we will calculate the dipole matrix element corresponding to transitions between lower-energy and higher-energy QD-Majorana hybrid states. It is important to note that an electromagnetic field cannot induce a transition between the vacuum state and the occupied state in either the QD or the nanowire edge alone. Instead, a field acts on the complex by shifting the electron position in a manner that induces hopping between the QD and the nanowire edge. As such, net charge must be conserved in any photon-induced transition. Consequently, the dipole moment can only act between $\ket{0M}$ and $\ket{1V}$, or between $\ket{0V}$ and $\ket{1M}$, the former (latter) coupling the QD electronic state to the electronic (hole) part of the Majorana state. We thus solve the dipole matrix element for each pair by decomposing the Majorana wavefunction into the constituent electron and hole wavefunctions:
\begin{align}
\begin{split} \label{eq: state pair 1 decomposition}
\ket{1,\pm} &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \bigg(\ket{00} \pm \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \Big(\ket{1e} + \ket{1h}\Big)\bigg) \\
&= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \ket{00} \pm \frac{1}{2} \ket{1e} \pm \frac{1}{2} \ket{1h},
\end{split}
\\
\begin{split} \label{eq: state pair 2 decomposition}
\ket{2,\pm} &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \bigg(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \Big(\ket{0e} + \ket{0h}\Big) \pm \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \ket{10}\bigg) \\
&= \frac{1}{2} \ket{0e} + \frac{1}{2} \ket{0h} \pm \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \ket{10}.
\end{split}
\end{align}
In solving for the dipole matrix elements, it is conventional to express the dipole operator $\bm{d}$ in terms of the momentum operator $\bm{p}$ instead:
\begin{equation}
\braket{n,+|\bm{d}|n,-} = -\frac{i q_e}{m\omega} \braket{n,+|\bm{p}|n,-},
\end{equation}
where $q_e$ and $m$ represent the electron charge and mass, respectively, and $\omega = (E_+ - E_-)/\hbar$.
In terms of the hybrid states, Eqs.~\eqref{eq: state pair 1 decomposition} and~\eqref{eq: state pair 2 decomposition} imply that the two valid transitions are $\ket{2,-} \leftrightarrow \ket{2,+}$ and $\ket{1,-} \leftrightarrow \ket{1,+}$. For the former, the dipole operator specifically acts between $\ket{e0}$ and $\ket{0e}$, i.e. it shifts the electron back and forth between the Majorana mode and the QD, with one of the modes being in the vacuum state at any given time:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\braket{2,+|\bm{d}|2,-} &= -\frac{i q_e}{m\omega} \braket{2,+|\bm{p}|2,-} \\
&= -\frac{i q_e}{2 \sqrt{2} m\omega} \Big(\braket{10|\bm{p}|0e} - \braket{0e|\bm{p}|10}\Big) \\
&= \frac{i q_e}{\sqrt{2} m\omega} \textrm{Im}\Big[\braket{0e|\bm{p}|10}\Big],
\end{split}
\end{align}
where the result in the last line is a consequence of the Hermitian nature of the momentum operator $\bm{p}$. On the other hand, for the transition $\ket{1,-} \leftrightarrow \ket{1,+}$, the dipole operator acts between $\ket{00}$ and $\ket{1h}$ by inducing electron hopping from the occupied QD mode to the occupied Majorana mode, where it annihilates the hole part of the Majorana fermion and collapses the system to vacuum, or the inverse process whereby the BCS vacuum in the nanowire loses an electron to the QD via hopping, thus giving rise to a Majorana fermion:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\braket{1,+|\bm{d}|1,-} &= -\frac{i q_e}{m\omega} \braket{1,+|\bm{p}|1,-} \\
&= -\frac{i q_e}{2 \sqrt{2} m\omega} \Big(\braket{1h|\bm{p}|00} - \braket{00|\bm{p}|1h}\Big) \\
&= \frac{i q_e}{\sqrt{2} m\omega} \textrm{Im}\Big[\braket{00|\bm{p}|1h}\Big],
\end{split}
\end{align}
Conceptually, this process can be envisioned as the hole hopping back and forth between the Majorana mode and the QD, but in a direction opposite to that of the electron in the process connecting $\ket{2,-}$ and $\ket{2,+}$. Consequently, the reversals in charge and parity cancel each other out, yielding $\braket{1,+|\bm{d}|1,-} = \braket{2,+|\bm{d}|2,-}$. It is also worth noting that these matrix elements are non-zero if and only if the QD-Majorana hopping dipole moment contains an imaginary component. Indeed, since $\bm{p} = -i\hbar \nabla$, and since $\ket{0e}$ and $\ket{0e}$ are both localized states with fully real wavefunction values in position space, the matrix elements are fully imaginary, as desired. Defining $\bm{\hat{y}}$ as the direction of the electric field $\bm{E}$, the matrix elements for $\bm{d} \cdot \bm{\hat{E}}$ thus reduce to the following for $n = 1,2$:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
d_{+,-} &= \braket{n,+|\bm{d} \cdot \bm{\hat{E}}|n,-} \\
&= \frac{i q_e}{\sqrt{2} m \omega} \braket{0e|(-i \hbar) \partial_y|10} \\
&= \frac{q_e \hbar}{\sqrt{2} m \omega} \braket{0e|\partial_y|10}.
\end{split}
\end{align}
Although the localized states $\ket{10}$ and $\ket{0e}$ effectively reduce to Dirac delta functions from the point of view of the nanowire length, it is convenient to model them as ground-state solutions to finite potential wells, with exponentially decaying tails outside their respective wells:
\begin{equation}
\psi(y) = N
\begin{cases}
\cos{(ky)}, & |y| < \frac{w}{2} \\
A e^{-\kappa |y|}, & |y| > \frac{w}{2}
\end{cases},
\end{equation}
where $\kappa$, $A$, and the normalization coefficient $N$ are functions of the well width $w$ and the constant $k$ (proportional to the square of the state energy):
\begin{align}
\kappa &= k \tan{\bigg(\frac{kw}{2}\bigg)}, \\
A &= e^{\kappa w/2} \cos{\bigg(\frac{kw}{2}\bigg)}, \\
N &= \bigg(\frac{kw + \sin{(kw)}}{2k} + \frac{1 + \cos{(kw)}}{2\kappa}\bigg)^{-1/2}.
\end{align}
The potential well depth can be expressed in terms of $k$ and $\kappa$ as $V_0 = f(k^2 + \kappa^2)$, where $f = \hbar^2/2m$.
In order for the exponentially decaying part of each wavefunction to be dominant, it is necessary that the well width be much smaller than the wavefunction span, i.e. $w \ll 1/\kappa$. Furthermore, for the ground state, it is necessary that $w \ll 1/k$. Applying these limits, we find that the normalization coefficient $N$ approximately reduces to $\sqrt{\kappa}$, and $A \approx 1$. Then, if the QD and Majorana mode centers are separated by a length $l > 1/\kappa \gg w$, the dipole matrix element is solved by the following integral:
\begin{align} \label{eq: d_+,-}
\begin{split}
d_{+,-} &= \frac{q_e \hbar}{\sqrt{2} m \omega} \int dy \Big(N A e^{\kappa (y-l)}\Big) \partial_y \Big(N A e^{-\kappa y}\Big) \\
&\approx -\frac{q_e \hbar N^2 A^2 \kappa}{\sqrt{2} m \omega} e^{-\kappa l} \int_{w/2}^{l - w/2} dy \\
&\approx -\frac{q_e \hbar \kappa^2 l}{\sqrt{2} m \omega} e^{-\kappa l},
\end{split}
\end{align}
Note that for $|y - l/2| > (l-w)/2$, the initial and final wavefunctions are both even about $y = l/2$, thus negating the contribution of these regions to the dipole matrix element. It is also worth noting that at small center-to-center distances $l$, the dipole matrix element increases with the distance, whereas at long distances, the correlation is reversed. This is due to the trade-off between an increase of dipole moment with distance between charges and the drop-off in wavefunction overlap with distance.
Next, we seek to solve for the center-to-center distance $l$ that produces the desired QD-Majorana coupling $\lambda = \omega/2$, where $\omega$ is the RF photon angular frequency. Note that $\hbar \lambda$ represents the transition amplitude for a charge carrier between the QD mode and the Majorana mode. To calculate this hopping parameter, we use as our operator the alteration of the potential energy landscape induced by the new neighboring potential well:
\begin{equation}
\Delta V(y) =
\begin{cases}
0, & x < l - \frac{w}{2} \\
-V, & l - \frac{w}{2} < x < l + \frac{w}{2} \\
0, & x > l + \frac{w}{2}
\end{cases}.
\end{equation}
Consequently, the hopping parameter is determined as follows:
\begin{widetext}
\begin{align} \label{eq: lambda generic}
\begin{split}
\lambda &= \frac{1}{\hbar} \Big|\braket{\psi_\textrm{MZM}|\Delta V|\psi_\textrm{QD}}\Big| \\
&= \frac{\hbar}{2m} \bigg|\int_{l-w/2}^{l+w/2} dy \Big(N \cos{(k(y-l))}\Big) (-\kappa^2 - k^2) \Big(N A e^{-\kappa y}\Big)\bigg| \\
&\approx \frac{\hbar}{2m} \bigg|\int_{l-w/2}^{l+w/2} dy \Big(\sqrt{\kappa}\Big) (-k^2) \Big(\sqrt{\kappa} e^{-\kappa l}\Big)\bigg| \\
&\approx \frac{\hbar \kappa^2}{m} e^{-\kappa l},
\end{split}
\end{align}
\end{widetext}
where we used the narrow-well approximations $\kappa w \ll 1$ and $kw \ll 1 < \kappa l$, yielding $N \approx \sqrt{\kappa}$, $A \approx 1$, and $k^2 \approx 2\kappa/w \gg \kappa^2$. It is now straightforward to determine the dipole matrix element $d_{+,-}$ by dividing Eq.~\eqref{eq: d_+,-} by~\eqref{eq: lambda generic} and substituting $\omega = 2\lambda$:
\begin{equation}
d_{+,-} \approx -\frac{q_e l}{2 \sqrt{2}}.
\end{equation}
As intuitively expected, the dipole moment amplitude linearly varies with the center-to-center length $l$. Regarding the value of $\kappa$, it is reasonable to assume a coherence length of about 14 nm for Majorana zero modes in a nanowire \cite{chiu2020scalablemajorana}. Using the inverse of this as $\kappa$, we find that for a frequency of 5 GHz, $l = 51 \textrm{ nm}$, corresponding to $d_{+,-} = -2.9 \times 10^{-27} \textrm{ C} \cdot \textrm{m}$. The center-to-center length value is nearly 4 times the coherence length of each wavefunction, as desired. It is worth noting that both the center-to-center length and the dipole matrix element correlate negatively with the resonance frequency. This is due to the fact that a higher resonance frequency necessitates a stronger QD-Majorana coupling strength, which in turn requires a closer spacing between the modes, thus lowering the center-to-center distance $l$. This also reduces the dipole moment due to the aforementioned attenuation at lower center-to-center spacing.
\section{Fine-Tuning the Dipole Matrix Element}
\label{sec: Fine-Tuning the Dipole Matrix Element}
Here, we discuss the adjustments required to the height of the barrier separating the QD and Majorana wells in order to tune the QD-Majorana coupling strength. This method is advantageous in that it preserves symmetry in the potential energy landscape for the two modes. Labeling the shift in the potential energy barrier as $\delta V$, we obtain the following wavefunctions for the quantum dot and Majorana states, respectively, in the narrow-well limit:
\begin{align}
\psi_\mathrm{QD}(y) &\approx \bigg(\frac{1}{\kappa_1} + \frac{1}{\kappa_2}\bigg)^{-1/2}
\begin{cases}
e^{\kappa_1 x}, & x < -\frac{w}{2} \\
1, & -\frac{w}{2} < x < \frac{w}{2} \\
e^{-\kappa_2 x}, & x > \frac{w}{2}
\end{cases}, \\
\begin{split}
\psi_\mathrm{MZM}(y) &\approx \bigg(\frac{1}{\kappa_1} + \frac{1}{\kappa_2}\bigg)^{-1/2} \\
&\quad\times
\begin{cases}
e^{\kappa_2 x}, & x < l - \frac{w}{2} \\
1, & l - \frac{w}{2} < x < l + \frac{w}{2} \\
e^{-\kappa_1 x}, & x > l + \frac{w}{2}
\end{cases},
\end{split}
\end{align}
where $\kappa_1$ and $\kappa_2$ are defined in the following manner:
\begin{align}
\kappa_1 &= \sqrt{\frac{2mV_1}{\hbar^2} - k^2}, \\
\kappa_2 &= \sqrt{\frac{2m(V_1 + \delta V)}{\hbar^2} - k^2} = \sqrt{\kappa_1^2 + \frac{2m \delta V}{\hbar^2}}.
\end{align}
Similar to our approximation that $k^2 \approx 2\kappa/w$ for the case of $V_1 = V_2 = V$, we can show that $k^2 \approx (\kappa_1 + \kappa_2)/w$ for the general case. If we also assume a perturbative barrier potential energy shift such that $\delta V \ll V_1$, we can approximate the relationship between the decay constants $\kappa_1$ and $\kappa_2$ and the original $\kappa$ (for $\delta V = 0$) as follows:
\begin{align}
\label{eq: kappa1 approx}
\kappa_1 &\approx \kappa - \frac{m \delta V}{2 \hbar^2 \kappa} \\
\label{eq: kappa2 approx}
\kappa_2 &\approx \kappa + \frac{m \delta V}{2 \hbar^2 \kappa}
\end{align}
We are now in a position to calculate the change in the hopping parameter induced by the barrier potential energy shift $\delta V$. To this end, we use the method that we introduced in Eq.~\eqref{eq: lambda generic}:
\begin{widetext}
\begin{align} \label{eq: lambda asymmetric}
\begin{split}
\lambda &= \frac{1}{\hbar} \Big|\braket{\psi_\textrm{MZM}|\Delta V|\psi_\textrm{QD}}\Big| \\
&\approx \frac{\hbar}{2m} \bigg|\int_{l-w/2}^{l+w/2} dy \bigg(\frac{1}{\kappa_1} + \frac{1}{\kappa_2}\bigg)^{-1/2} (-\kappa_2^2 - k^2) \bigg(\frac{1}{\kappa_1} + \frac{1}{\kappa_2}\bigg)^{-1/2} e^{-\kappa_2 y}\bigg| \\
&\approx \frac{\hbar}{2m} \bigg(\frac{1}{\kappa_1} + \frac{1}{\kappa_2}\bigg)^{-1} \bigg|\int_{l-w/2}^{l+w/2} dy (-k^2) e^{-\kappa_2 l}\bigg| \\
&\approx \frac{\hbar \kappa_1 \kappa_2}{m} e^{-\kappa_2 l},
\end{split}
\end{align}
\end{widetext}
Defining $\delta \kappa = m \delta V/(2 \hbar^2 \kappa)$, we can make the first-order approximation that $\kappa_1 \kappa_2 \approx \kappa^2$, leading to the conclusion that the dominant effect of the shift in the potential energy barrier occurs on the exponential term due to the replacement $e^{-\kappa l} \rightarrow e^{-(\kappa + \delta k) l}$. Consequently, given the fact that $\lambda$ is proportional to the resonance frequency $\omega$, the original resonance frequency $\omega_0$ can be shifted to a different value $\omega'$ via the following potential energy barrier shift $\delta V$:
\begin{equation} \label{eq: delta V}
\delta V \approx -\frac{2 \hbar^2 \kappa}{m l} \ln{\bigg(\frac{\omega'}{\omega_0}\bigg)}
\end{equation}
As desired, lowering the barrier ($\delta V < 0$) leads to stronger QD-Majorana hybridization and hence a larger frequency gap, and vice versa.
The dipole moment $d_{+,-}$ is solved in a manner analogous to Eq.~\eqref{eq: d_+,-}, focusing on the region between the wells which dominates the overlap:
\begin{align} \label{eq: d_+,- asymmetric}
\begin{split}
&d_{+,-} \\
&= \frac{q_e \hbar}{\sqrt{2} m \omega} \int dy \Bigg(\bigg(\frac{1}{\kappa_1} + \frac{1}{\kappa_2}\bigg)^{-1/2} e^{\kappa_2 (y-l)}\Bigg) \\
&\quad \times \partial_y \Bigg(\bigg(\frac{1}{\kappa_1} + \frac{1}{\kappa_2}\bigg)^{-1/2} e^{-\kappa_2 y}\Bigg) \\
&\approx -\frac{q_e \hbar}{\sqrt{2} m \omega} \bigg(\frac{1}{\kappa_1} + \frac{1}{\kappa_2}\bigg)^{-1} \kappa_2 e^{-\kappa_2 l} \int_{w/2}^{l - w/2} dy \\
&\approx -\frac{q_e \hbar \kappa_1 \kappa_2^2 l}{\sqrt{2} m \omega (\kappa_1 + \kappa_2)} e^{-\kappa_2 l},
\end{split}
\end{align}
Substituting $\omega = 2\lambda$, and merging Eqs.~\eqref{eq: lambda asymmetric} and~\eqref{eq: d_+,- asymmetric}, we find $d_{+,-}$ in terms of the center-to-center distance $l$ and the decay constants $\kappa_1$ and $\kappa_2$:
\begin{equation}
d_{+,-} \approx -\frac{q_e l}{2\sqrt{2}} \frac{\kappa_2}{\kappa_1 + \kappa_2}.
\end{equation}
We can express the dipole moment perturbation $\delta d_{+,-}$ due to the barrier potential energy shift $\delta V$ required to induce the resonance frequency shift $\omega_0 \rightarrow \omega'$ by substituting the approximate expressions from Eq.~\eqref{eq: kappa1 approx} and~\eqref{eq: kappa2 approx}, as well as the expression in Eq.~\eqref{eq: delta V} relating $\delta V$ to the ratio between new and original resonance frequencies:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\delta d_{+,-} &\approx -\frac{q_e l}{2\sqrt{2}} \frac{\delta \kappa}{2\kappa} \\
&\approx -\frac{q_e l}{4\sqrt{2} \kappa} \frac{m}{2 \hbar^2 \kappa} \delta V \\
&\approx \frac{q_e}{4\sqrt{2} \kappa} \ln{\bigg(\frac{\omega'}{\omega_0}\bigg)}.
\end{split}
\end{align}
\end{appendix}
|
\section{Introduction and statement of result}
The problem of bounding automorphic $L$-functions on the central line $\text{Re}(s)=1/2$, has enthralled researchers for over a century. The first subconvex bound was announced by Littlewood in a proceedings of the London Mathematical Society in 1921. Adopting a method of Weyl for bounding exponential sums, Hardy and Littlewood proved that
\begin{align*}
\zeta(\tfrac{1}{2}+it)\ll_\varepsilon (1+|t|)^{\frac{1}{6}+\varepsilon},
\end{align*}
for any $\varepsilon>0$. In contrast the trivial (convexity) bound, a simple consequence of the functional equation of the zeta function, yields the exponent $1/4$ in place of $1/6$. Complete details of the proof of Hardy-Littlewood's result appeared only later in a paper of Landau \cite{landau}. The exponent $1/6$, which is $2/3$-rd of the convexity bound, is `fundamental', and can be achieved using other methods, e.g. short moment computation of Iwaniec \cite{Iwaniec1979} and high moment computation of Heath-Brown \cite{HB-twelfth-moment}. To go beyond $1/6$, the so called Weyl bound, one needs deeper understanding of short exponential sums, as was done systematically by van der Corput and others \cite{graham_kolesnik_1991}. Accordingly the Weyl bound has been breached, albeit mildly, dozens of times in the last hundred years, and the present record is due to Bourgain \cite{bourgain} which states that
\begin{align*}
\zeta(\tfrac{1}{2}+it)\ll_\varepsilon (1+|t|)^{\frac{1}{6}-\frac{1}{84}+\varepsilon}.
\end{align*}
The interest in such improvements lies not in the bound itself, but in the method that leads to it. However the strength of the bound documents the strength of the method, and as such is an important marker. \\
The classical result of Hardy-Littlewood-Weyl was first extended to degree two $L$-functions by Good \cite{Good} in 1980's. For any holomorphic form $f$ of full level, Good established the bound
\begin{align*}
L(\tfrac{1}{2}+it,f)\ll_{f,\varepsilon} (1+|t|)^{\frac{1}{3}+\varepsilon}.
\end{align*}
Since this $L$-function can be compared with the square of the Riemann zeta function, one notices that the above exponent matches with the Weyl exponent. Later the same bound was established for the much broader class of Maass forms by Meurmann \cite{Meurman}. Around the same time Jutila \cite{Jut87} proved the same result using more elementary means based on his study of exponential sums twisted by $GL(2)$ Fourier coefficients. In a recent work, Booker et al \cite{Bo-Mi-Ng} have established Weyl bound for $L$-functions of holomorphic cusp forms for $\Gamma_1(N)$ for any level $N$. This was extended to degree two $L$-functions, of any level, nebentypus and spectral parameter by the first author \cite{Agg2018published}. However any improvement over this bound is yet to be achieved. The recent work \cite{Ho-Mu-Qi-2021arxiv} of the third author together with Holowinsky and Qi, makes some progress towards this important problem by establishing cancellation in very short sums (beyond the Weyl range). Unfortunately their work does not yield anything new in the generic length (square root of the conductor), and hence one does not get a sub-Weyl bound for the $L$-function.\\
The $t$-aspect subconvexity problem for degree three $L$-functions remained an important open problem for a long time, till the breakthrough work of Li \cite{Li1}, where she adopted the method of Conrey and Iwaniec \cite{Conrey-Iwaniec} to establish subconvex bound for symmetric square (self-dual) $L$-functions
\begin{align*}
L(\tfrac{1}{2}+it, \mathrm{Sym}^2 f)\ll_{f,\varepsilon} (1+|t|)^{\frac{11}{16}+\varepsilon}.
\end{align*}
Since non-negativity of central $L$-values play a crucial role in the Conrey-Iwaniec approach, it seems that Li's method can not be extended beyond self-dual forms. However the bound has been improved substantially. First McKee, Sun and Ye \cite{McKee-Sun-Ye} established the exponent $2/3$, using the techniques of Li, but applying finer tools to deal with the exponential integrals. This was further improved by Nunes \cite{Nunes2017} to $5/8$, which doubles the initial saving given by Li. A recent preprint of Lin, Nunes and Qi \cite{Lin-Nunes-Qi-arxiv} establish the much stronger exponent $3/5$, which is most likely the limit of the method in this set-up, but still falls short of the Weyl exponent $1/2$. Hybrid bounds have been obtain by Young \cite{Young-second-moment} and Khan-Young \cite{khan_young_2021} by estimating the second moment of $\rm GL_3\times GL_2$ $L$-functions. In the case of general non self-dual degree three $L$-functions $L(s,\pi)$, the first subconvex bound was established by the third author \cite{Mun3} using the delta method -
\begin{align*}
L(\tfrac{1}{2}+it,\pi)\ll_{\pi,\varepsilon} (1+|t|)^{\frac{11}{16}+\varepsilon}.
\end{align*}
This was improved by the first author \cite{Agg-IJNT}, who established the exponent $27/40$ by applying delta method with more careful analysis of integral transforms. His exponent is the limit of the delta method recipe in this context. \\
In a recent pre-print, Nelson \cite{Nelson21} has announced a solution of the $t$-aspect subconvexity problem for standard $L$-functions, regardless of its degree. This breakthrough work is based on period approach introduced in earlier landmark papers of Bernstein-Reznikov \cite{Bernstein-Reznikov} and Michel-Venkatesh \cite{Michel-Venkatesh}. For low degree $L$-functions, Nelson's bound is worse than what is already known. It is however understood that the method has the potential to produce strong bounds even in the case of low degrees.\\
\subsection{Statement of Results and Methodology}
We now state our results and discuss the main ideas. Let $\pi$ be a Hecke cusp form of type $(\nu_1,\nu_2)$ for $\rm SL_3(\BZ)$. Let the normalized Fourier coefficients be given by $\lambda(m_1,m_2)$ (so that $\lambda(1,1)=1$). The $L$-series associated with $\pi$ is given by
$$L(s,\pi) = \sum_{n\geq1}\lambda(1,n)n^{-s}, \quad \text{ for } Re(s)>1.$$
Our main result is given as the following theorem.
\begin{Theorem}\label{SecondMomentThm}
Let $\pi$ be a Hecke-Maass cusp form for $SL_3(\BZ)$.
Then for any $\varepsilon>0$ and $t^{1/2} < M < t^{1-\varepsilon}$, we have \begin{align*}
\int_{t-M}^{t+M} \left|L\left(\frac{1}{2}+iv,\pi\right)\right|^2 dv \ll_{\pi,\varepsilon}t^\varepsilon\left(\frac{t^{9/4}}{M^{3/2}}+\frac{M^3}{t^{21/20}}+M^{7/4}t^{3/40}+M^{15/14}t^{15/28}\right).
\end{align*}
In particular, when $M=t^{2/3}$, we have \begin{align*}
\int_{t-t^{2/3}}^{t+t^{2/3}} \left|L\left(\frac{1}{2}+iv,\pi\right)\right|^2dv \ll_{\pi,\varepsilon} t^{5/4+\varepsilon}.
\end{align*}
\end{Theorem}
The second moment average can be used to bound the $L$-function by modifying Good's arguments \cite{Good} (Lemma \ref{ShortMomentLemma}). We obtain that for any $\log(t)<M<t^{1-\varepsilon}$,
\begin{align}\label{second-moment}
\left|L\left(\frac{1}{2}+it,\pi\right)\right|^2\ll&\log t\left(1+\int_\BR U\left(\frac{v}{M}\right)\left|L\left(\frac{1}{2}+it+iv,\pi\right)\right|^2dv\right),
\end{align}
\noindent where $U(x)\in C_c^\infty([1,2])$ is an appropriate bump function. This yields the following subconvexity bound.
\begin{Theorem}\label{main theorem gl3}
Let $\pi$ be a Hecke-Maass cusp form for $SL_3(\BZ)$. Then for any $\varepsilon>0$,
\begin{equation*}
L\left(1/2+it,\pi\right)\ll_{\pi, \varepsilon} t^{3/4-1/8+\varepsilon}.
\end{equation*}
\end{Theorem}
Studying moments of $L$-functions is an important theme in modern analytic number theory. Various results have been obtained by estimating the first and second moment of $L$-functions in the last fifteen years.
Li \cite{Li1} and subsequent works improving her subconvexity exponent consider the first moment of a family of $\rm GL_3\times GL_2$ $L$-functions
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{|t_j-T|<M} L(1/2, \pi\times f_j) + \int_{T-M}^{T+M} |L(1/2+it, \pi)|^2 dt.
\end{equation*}
Here the $\rm GL_3$ form $\pi$ is self-dual and fixed, and the average is taken over a family of $\rm GL_2$ forms $\{f_j\}$ with eigenvalues $t_j$. In comparison, we consider a short second moment of the $L$-function of a fixed $\rm GL_3$ Hecke-Maass cusp form. The clear advantage is our ability to take $\pi$ not necessarily self-dual.\\
We briefly discuss the main ideas to highlight the novelty of our proof. We start with using an approximate functional equation in \eqref{second-moment} and execute the $v$-integral to obtain a shifted sum twisted with an additive character
\begin{align*}
S_{M,H}(N)\sim M\sum_{h\sim H}\sum_{n\sim N}\lambda(1,n)\overline{\lambda(1,n+h)}e\left(\frac{th}{2\pi n}\right),
\end{align*}
with $H$ going up to $N^{1+\varepsilon}/M$. Next, we apply Duke-Friedlander-Iwaniec's delta method (Lemma \ref{DFILemma}) to separate the oscillations of the Fourier coefficients \begin{align*}
S_{M,H}(N)\sim M\sum_{h\sim H}\sum_{n\sim N}\lambda(1,n)e\left(\frac{th}{2\pi n}\right)\sum_{m\sim N}\overline{\lambda(1,m)}\delta(m=n+h).
\end{align*}
Application of the delta method contributes $Q^2$-many additive frequencies of size $1\leq q\leq Q$, where $Q$ is a parameter to be chosen later. This is followed by applying dual summation formulas to the $n, m$ and $h$ sums. However, at this point, we diverge from the `routine' and apply a combination of Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and the Duality principle. This allows us to change the lengths of summations inside the absolute-value squared obtained after Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and may be considered the first novelty of our proof.
The next step is to apply dual summation formulas to the new $m$ and $n$ sums followed by stationary phase analysis of the various integral transforms. Although not novel, one needs extreme care in this analysis. This brings us close to the convexity barrier.
Previous application of Cauchy-Schwarz and Duality principle had created two copies of the $h$ and $q$-sums. The final steps involve applying Poisson summation formula to the new $h_1, h_2$-sum and the $q_1, q_2$-sum. However, we are faced with a unique issue due to the Duality principle. The $q_1, q_2$-sum has structure of the form
\begin{align*}
\sup_{\|\beta\|_2=1}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{q_1,q_2\sim Q}\beta(q_1)\overline{\beta(q_2)}e\left(\frac{aq_2}{q_1}+\frac{bq_1}{q_2}\right)G(q_1,q_2),
\end{align*}
where $a,b$ are some integers, $G$ is some function and $\beta$ is a sequence of complex numbers appearing from the Duality principle. While we would like to extract savings from the $q_1,q_2$-sums, the presence of $\beta$ is an obstacle. To overcome this hurdle, we apply Cauchy-Schwarz inequality to take out $q_1$-sum. This allows us to get rid of $\beta(q_1)$ and hence perform Poisson summation in $q_1$-sum to obtain cancellations. If we stop the analysis here, the character sum present at this stage is a Kloosterman sum. Application of the Weil-Deligne bound yields
\begin{align*}
\int_{t-M}^{t+M}\left|L\left(\frac{1}{2}+it,\pi\right)\right|^2dt \ll_{\pi,\varepsilon}t^\varepsilon\left(\frac{t^{9/4}}{M^{3/2}}+\frac{M^3}{t^{21/20}}+M^{7/4}t^{3/40}+M^{9/8}t^{9/16}\right).
\end{align*}
The optimal choice of the length of the second moment is $M=t^{27/42}$, giving the subconvexity bound
\begin{align*}
L\left(\frac{1}{2}+it,\pi\right)\ll_{\pi,\varepsilon} t^{9/14+\varepsilon}.
\end{align*}
\iffalse
{\color{red}Please verify the correctness:} The main tools used in the proof are Duke-Friedlander-Iwaniec's delta method, Voronoi formula, stationary phase analysis and bounds on exponential sums due to Adolphson and Sperber obtained by their extension of Dwork's cohomology theory from smooth projective hypersurfaces in characteristic $p$ to a general class of exponential sums. {\color{red}Adolphson-Sperber also mention $\ell$-adic cohomology, see pg 369 line 5 of \cite{Adolphson-Sperber}. I don't know if/how to mention this.}\\
\iffalse{
Then applying the approximate functional equation (Lemma \ref{AFE}) and a smooth partition of unity, followed by opening the square and integrating shows that the above short second moment is essentially bounded by the shifted sum
\begin{align}
Mt^\varepsilon+t^\varepsilon\sup_{H\ll\frac{Nt^\varepsilon}{M}}\sup_{1\leq N\ll t^{3/2+\varepsilon}}\frac{S_{M,H}(N)}{N},
\end{align}
where roughly \begin{align}
S_{M,H}(N)\sim M\sum_{h\sim H}\sum_{n\sim N}\lambda(1,n)\overline{\lambda(1,n+h)}e\left(\frac{th}{2\pi n}\right).
\end{align}
An application of the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality followed by the Ramanujan bound on average (Lemma \ref{Ram bound}) gives the trivial bound $S_{M,H}(N)\ll MHN^{1+\varepsilon}\ll N^{2+\varepsilon}$. To obtain subconvexity, it suffices to improve upon this bound when $N$ is in the range $t^{3/2-\delta}<N<t^{3/2+\varepsilon}$ for some $\delta>0$.
To analyse the shifted sum, we apply Duke-Friedlander-Iwaniec's delta method (Lemma \ref{DFILemma}) to separate the oscillations of the Fourier coefficients \begin{align}
S_{M,H}(N)\sim M\sum_{h\sim H}\sum_{n\sim N}\lambda(1,n)e\left(\frac{th}{2\pi n}\right)\sum_{m\sim N}\overline{\lambda(1,m)}\delta(m=n+h).
\end{align}
The next steps are to apply dual summation formulas. After some cleaning up, we will apply the following duality principle.
}\fi
After some further analysis and clean up, we eventually obtain a structure of the form \begin{align*}
\sup_{\|\beta\|_2=1}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{q_1,q_2\sim Q}\beta(q_1)\overline{\beta(q_2)}e\left(\frac{aq_2}{q_1}+\frac{bq_1}{q_2}\right)G(q_1,q_2),
\end{align*}
with $a,b,Q$ are some numbers, $G$ is some function and $\beta$ being any sequence of complex numbers satisfying $\|\beta\|_2=1$ comes from the duality lemma above. While we would like to extract savings from the $q_1,q_2$-sums, the presence of $\beta$ is an obstacle. To overcome this hurdle, we apply Cauchy-Schwarz inequality to take out $q_1$-sum. This allows us to then perform Poisson summation in $q_1$ to extract savings from the $q_1$-sum. If one stops the analysis here, the character sum present at this stage is a Kloosterman sum. Using the Weil bound {\color{red}Is it better to write RH for finite field or sth that is kind of generalized to the later character sums?} on the character sum would yield the bound \begin{align*}
\int_{t-M}^{t+M}\left|L\left(\frac{1}{2}+it,\pi\right)\right|^2dt \ll_{\pi,\varepsilon}t^\varepsilon\left(\frac{t^{9/4}}{M^{3/2}}+\frac{M^3}{t^{21/20}}+M^{7/4}t^{3/40}+M^{9/8}t^{9/16}\right),
\end{align*}
and choosing $M=t^{27/42}$ optimally yields \begin{align*}
L\left(\frac{1}{2}+it,\pi\right)\ll_{\pi,\varepsilon} t^{9/14+\varepsilon}.
\end{align*}
\fi
This already improves upon the best known exponent of $27/40$ for a not-necessarily self-dual form obtained in \cite{Agg-IJNT}, but we can do better. Since the above process did not make use of the $q_2$-sum, we apply the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality to create two copies of it, say $q_2$ and $q_3$ sums. The same analysis is done to the $q_2$-sum without using the $q_3$-sum. We can thus iterate the above process ad infinitum to get further savings. This may be considered the second novelty of our proof.
We highlight that doing so results in increasingly complicated character sums. We bound these exponential sums by using the methods due to Adolphson and Sperber \cite{Adolphson-Sperber} obtained by their extension of Dwork's cohomology theory from smooth projective hypersurfaces in characteristic $p$ to a general class of exponential sums. The associated Newton polyhedron after the first such application is depicted below.
\begin{figure}[h]\label{fig1}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=2.5]
\draw[->,opacity=.7] (xyz cs:x=-1.5) -- (xyz cs:x=1.5) node[above] {$y$};
\draw[->,opacity=.7] (xyz cs:y=-1.5) -- (xyz cs:y=1.5) node[right] {$z$};
\draw[->,opacity=.7] (xyz cs:z=-2.5) -- (xyz cs:z=2.5) node[above] {$x$};
\fill[yellow!50,opacity=.5] (0,0,-1)--(1,-1,0)--(0,-1,1)--(-1,0,0)--cycle;
\fill[blue!50,opacity=.5] (-1,1,0)--(0,0,1)--(0,-1,1)--(-1,0,0)--cycle;
\fill[red!50,opacity=.5] (0,0,-1)--(1,-1,0)--(1,0,0)--(0,1,-1)--cycle;
\fill[gray,opacity=.5] (-1,1,0)--(0,1,-1)--(0,0,-1)--(-1,0,0)--cycle;
\fill[green,opacity=.5] (-1,1,0)--(0,1,0)--(0,1,-1)--cycle;
\fill[green,opacity=.3] (-1,1,0)--(0,1,0)--(0,0,1)--cycle;
\fill[pink,opacity=.3] (0,0,1)--(0,1,0)--(1,0,0)--cycle;
\fill[orange,opacity=.3] (1,0,0)--(0,1,0)--(0,1,-1)--cycle;
\node[fill,circle,inner sep=1.5pt,label={right:\footnotesize$(0,0,1)$}] (a) at (0,1,0) {};
\node[fill,circle,inner sep=1.5pt,label={below right:\footnotesize$(1,0,0)$}] (g) at (0,0,1) {};
\node[fill,circle,inner sep=1.5pt,label={right:\footnotesize$(-1,0,0)$}] (c) at (0,0,-1) {};
\node[fill,circle,inner sep=1.5pt,label={below right:\footnotesize$(0,1,0)$}] (d) at (1,0,0) {};
\node[fill,circle,inner sep=1.5pt,label={below left:\footnotesize$(0,-1,0)$}] (h) at (-1,0,0) {};
\node[fill,circle,inner sep=1.5pt,label={below:\footnotesize$(1,0,-1)$}] (f) at (0,-1,1) {};
\node[fill,circle,inner sep=1.5pt,label={right:\footnotesize$(0,1,-1)$}] (e) at (1,-1,0) {};
\node[fill,circle,inner sep=1.5pt,label={right:\footnotesize$(-1,0,1)$}] (b) at (0,1,-1) {};
\node[fill,circle,inner sep=1.5pt,label={left:\footnotesize$(0,-1,1)$}] (i) at (-1,1,0) {};
\draw [red] (b)-- (a) -- (i) -- (b) -- (d) -- (e) -- (f) -- (g) -- (d) -- (a) -- (g) --(i) --(h) -- (f);
\draw [red,dashed] (h)-- (c) -- (b);
\draw [red,dashed] (e)-- (c);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Newton polyhedron for the character sum in base case}
\label{fig:my_label}
\end{figure}
We also highlight that we need a careful application of the sophisticated tools developed by Adolphson-Sperber because the size of the Newton polyhedron grows with each application of the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality.
\iffalse
Using {\color{red} How to call the Newton polyhedron method, some deep theory ???}, we get the bound \begin{align*}
\int_{t-M}^{t+M}\left|L\left(\frac{1}{2}+it,\pi\right)\right|^2dt \ll_{\pi,\varepsilon}t^\varepsilon\left(\frac{t^{9/4}}{M^{3/2}}+\frac{M^3}{t^{21/20}}+M^{7/4}t^{3/40}+M^{19/16}t^{15/32}\right),
\end{align*}
and choosing $M=t^{57/86}$ optimally yields \begin{align*}
L\left(\frac{1}{2}+it,\pi\right)\ll_{\pi,\varepsilon} t^{27/43+\varepsilon}.
\end{align*}
We then iterate the above process sufficiently many times, using the full power of {\color{red} How to call the Newton polyhedron method, some deep theory ???} to bound a character sum that has Newton polyhedron generated from iterations of figure \ref{fig1}, thus obtaining the bound presented in Theorem \ref{main theorem gl3} and \ref{SecondMomentThm}.
\fi
\subsection*{Notations} In the rest of the paper, we use the notation $e(x)=e^{2\pi ix}$. For $a$ and $b$ that are either both positive or both negative, we denote $a\sim b$ to mean $k_1<a/b<k_2$ for some absolute constants $k_1,k_2>0$. For $j\geq0$, $a\sim_j b$ means $k_1<a/b<k_2$ but $k_1, k_2$ may depend on $j$. We use $\varepsilon$ to denote an arbitrarily small positive constant that can change depending on the context. We denote $a\asymp b$ to mean that for any $\varepsilon>0$, $t^{-\varepsilon}|b|\ll_\varepsilon |a|\ll_\varepsilon t^\varepsilon |b|$. We must add that for brevity of notation, we assume $t>0$. Indeed, the same analysis holds for $t<0$ by replacing $t$ with $-t$ appropriately.
We will denote by $U(x)$ and $\varphi(x)$ two compactly supported smooth weight functions whose definitions can be revised based on the context. For $\alpha>1$, $C\in\BR$ and $k\in\BZ$, we will refer to the intervals $[\alpha^k C, \alpha^{k+1}C]$ as dyadic intervals even though $\alpha$ may not be equal to $2$.
\section{Sketch of Proof}
We expand upon the above discussion via a sketch of proof for Theorem \ref{SecondMomentThm}. Let $\log t<M<t^{1-\varepsilon}$ be a parameter and $U\in C_c^\infty([-2,2])$ such that $U(x)=1$ for $-1\leq x\leq 1$.
\subsection{Short second moment average and approximate functional equation} By the approximate functional equation (\ref{AFE}), it suffices to bound
\begin{align*}
S(N):=\int_\BR U\left(\frac{v}{M}\right) \left|\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\lambda(1,n)\,n^{-i(t+v)}V\left(\frac{n}{N}\right)\right|^2dv,
\end{align*}
where $V\in C_c^\infty([1,2])$ may depend on $t$ and satisfies $V^{(j)}(x)\ll_j1$ for $j\geq0$. Opening the square and integrating yields a shifted sum (Lemma \ref{SMHLemma}),
\begin{align*}
S(N) \ll Mt^\varepsilon+\sup_{H\ll\frac{Nt^\varepsilon}{M}}\sup_{1\leq N\ll t^{3/2+\varepsilon}}\frac{S_{M,H}(N)}{N},
\end{align*}
where we get the shifted sum
\begin{align*}
S_{M,H}(N)\sim M\sum_{h\sim H}\sum_{n\sim N}\lambda(1,n)\overline{\lambda(1,n+h)}e\left(\frac{th}{2\pi n}\right).
\end{align*}
For sketch, we focus on the generic cases $H=\frac{N}{M}$, i.e. we focus on $S_{M,N/M}(N)$.
We note that Lemma \ref{Ram bound} gives us the trivial bound \begin{align}\label{sketch.TrivialBound}
S_{M,N/M}(N)\ll N^2t^\varepsilon.
\end{align}
\subsection{Delta method} Next we apply the DFI delta method in Lemma \ref{DFILemma} to detect $m=n+h$, \begin{align*}
S_{M,N/M}(N)\sim& \frac{M}{Q}\sum_{1\leq q\leq Q}\frac{1}{q}\sum_{h\sim \frac{N}{M}}\sum_{n\sim N}\lambda(1,n)e\left(\frac{th}{2\pi n}\right)\sum_{m\sim N}\overline{\lambda(1,m)}\nonumber\\
&\times\ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\alpha\bmod q}e\left(\frac{\alpha(n+h-m)}{q}\right)\int_\BR g(q,x)e\left(\frac{(n+h-m)x}{qQ} \right)dx.
\end{align*}
For sketch, we focus on the generic case $x\sim 1$.
\subsection{Dual summation formulas} After separating the variables with the delta method, we apply dual summation formulas. Applying Poisson summation to the $h$-sum, and Voronoi summation (Lemma \ref{gl3voronoi}) to the $m$ and $n$ sums, we roughly get
\begin{align*}
S_{M,N/M}(N)\sim&\frac{MN^{4/3}}{Q^2t^{1-\varepsilon}}\sum_{q\sim Q} \sum_{h\sim\frac{qt}{N}}\sum_{m\ll\frac{N^2}{Q^3}}\frac{\overline{\lambda(m)}}{m^{1/3}}\sum_{n\ll \frac{N^2}{Q^3}+\frac{Q^3t^3}{M^3N}}\frac{\lambda(n)}{n^{1/3}}\\
&\times S\left(\overline{h},m;q\right)S\left(\overline{h},n;q\right)\int_{|u|\ll1}e\left(f_1(m,h,q,u)+f_2(n,h,q,u)\right)du,
\end{align*}
with the analytic oscillations being of size $f_1(m,h,q,u)\sim \frac{N}{qQ}$ and $f_2(n,h,q,u)\sim\frac{(nN)^{1/3}}{q}$. The variable $u$ is a secondary oscillatory terms that is created in the Voronoi summation to the $n$-sum. It does not have any significance in the generic case when $N\sim t^{3/2}$, but we get a little bit extra saving when $N$ is smaller and the main oscillatory terms cancel out in the diagonal case. In the rigorous proof, we do not utilize the cancellations in the integrals until later stages due to the fact that $x$ can be smaller than 1. We choose $Q\ll\sqrt{\frac{MN}{t}}$. Indeed to match the oscillation, we want to choose $Q=\sqrt{\frac{MN}{t}}$, but we will choose $Q$ smaller when $N$ is small. Focusing on the generic case $m\sim\frac{N^2}{Q^3}$ and $n\sim\frac{N^2}{Q^3}+\frac{Q^3t^3}{M^3N}\sim \frac{N^2}{Q^3}$, we roughly have \begin{align*}
S_{M,N/M}(N)\sim&\frac{M}{t^{1-\varepsilon}}\sum_{q\sim Q} \sum_{h\sim\frac{qt}{N}}\sum_{m\sim\frac{N^2}{Q^3}}\overline{\lambda(m)}\sum_{n\sim \frac{N^2}{Q^3}}\lambda(n)\\
&\times S\left(\overline{h},m;q\right)S\left(\overline{h},n;q\right)\int_{|u|\ll1}e\left(f_1(m,h,q,u)+f_2(n,h,q,u)\right)du,
\end{align*}
with the analytic oscillations being of size $f_1(m,h,q), f_2(n,h,q)\sim \frac{N}{qQ}$.
\subsection{Cauchy Schwarz inequality} Next we apply Cauchy-Schwarz inequality to take out the $q, h$ sums, giving us \begin{align*}
S_{M,N/M}(N)\ll \sqrt{S_1S_2},
\end{align*}
where roughly \begin{align*}
S_j\sim \frac{M}{t^{1-\varepsilon}}\sum_{q\sim Q} \sum_{h\sim\frac{qt}{N}}\left|\sum_{m\sim\frac{N^2}{Q^3}}\lambda(m) S\left(\overline{h},m;q\right)\int_{|u|\ll1}e\left(f_j(m,h,q,u)\right)du\right|^2.
\end{align*}
\begin{Remark}\label{CS+Duality}
One should note that the length of the $q$ and $h$ sums are shorter than the $n$ and $m$ sums. Therefore it would have been beneficial to instead take out the $n$ and $m$ sums out of the absolute value squared in the above step. However, our approach benefits by allowing us to separate the $n$ and $m$ sums.
\end{Remark}
\subsection{Duality principle} We apply the duality principle (Lemma \ref{dualitylemma}) together with Lemma \ref{Ram bound} to take the $n$ and $m$ sums outside the absolute value squared and obtain
\begin{align*}
S_j\ll \frac{MN^2}{Q^3t^{1-\varepsilon}}\sup_{\|\beta\|_2=1}\sum_{m\sim\frac{N^2}{Q^3}}\left|\sum_{q\sim Q} \sum_{h\sim\frac{qt}{N}}\beta(q,h) S\left(\overline{h},m;q\right)\int_{|u|\ll1}e\left(f_j(m,h,q,u)\right)du\right|^2.
\end{align*}
This also rids us of the $\rm GL_3$ Fourier coefficients decreasing the complexity of the problem at hand.
\subsection{Poisson summation formula} Opening the square and apply Poisson summation on the $m$-sum gives us roughly \begin{align*}
S_j\ll &\frac{MN^4}{Q^8t^{1-\varepsilon}}\sup_{\|\beta\|_2=1}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{q_1,q_2\sim Q} \mathop{\sum\sum}_{h_i\sim\frac{q_i t}{N}}\sum_{|m|\ll\frac{Q^2\sqrt{q_1q_2}}{N}}\beta(q_1,h_1)\overline{\beta(q_2,h_2)}\\
&\times \sum_{\gamma\bmod q_1q_2}S\left(\overline{h_1},\gamma;q_1\right)S\left(\overline{h_2},\gamma;q_2\right)\\
&\times \int_{|u_1|\ll1}\int_{|u_2|\ll1}\int_\BR V(y) e\left(f\left(\frac{N^2}{Q^3}y,h_1,q_1,u_1\right)-f\left(\frac{N^2}{Q^3}y,h_2,q_2,u_2\right)-\frac{mN^2y}{q_1q_2Q^3}\right)dydu_1du_2.
\end{align*}
Now we have a spectrum of cases depending on the size of $m$. For the sketch, we shall focus on the two extreme cases, the diagonal corresponding to $m=0$, and the off-diagonal where $m\sim\frac{Q^3}{N}$ is as large as possible. The other cases will yield bounds in between these two cases.
\subsection{Diagonal terms} For the diagonal $m=0$, we essentially have $q_1=q_2(=q), h_1=h_2$ and $|u_1-u_2|\ll\frac{q^2t}{MN}$. In such a case, one can evaluate the $\gamma$-sum and obtain the bound \begin{align*}
\frac{MN^4}{Q^8t^{1-\varepsilon}}Q^3\frac{Q^2t}{MN}\ll\frac{N^3t^\varepsilon}{Q^3}.
\end{align*}
Here is the only place where we extract a extra saving coming from the secondary oscillatory terms having $u_1,u_2$. This is possible as the main oscillatory terms cancel out when $q_1=q_2,h_1=h_2$. Moreover, we'll see that $\frac{Q^2t}{MN}$ is less than $1$ only when $N$ is smaller than the generic size $t^{3/2}$ by our choice of $Q$.
\subsection{Off-diagonal terms} For the off-diagonal where $m\sim\frac{Q^3}{N}$, evaluating the $\gamma$-sum and apply stationary phase analysis on the $y$-integral gives us roughly \begin{align*}
&\frac{MN^{7/2}}{Q^5t^{1-\varepsilon}}\sup_{\|\beta\|_2=1}\sum_{m\sim\frac{Q^3}{N}}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{q_1,q_2\sim Q} \mathop{\sum\sum}_{h_1,h_2\sim\frac{qt}{N}}\beta(q_1,h_1)\overline{\beta(q_2,h_2)}\\
&\times e\left(-\frac{\overline{mh_1}q_2}{q_1}-\frac{\overline{mh_2}q_1}{q_2}\right)e\left(F(m,h_1,h_2,q_1,q_2)\right),
\end{align*}
with $F(m,h_1,h_2,q_1,q_2)\sim \frac{N}{Q^2}$. Here we dropped the $u_1,u_2$-integral in sketch as we will just bound it trivially. The bound at this point is \begin{align*}
\frac{MN^{7/2}}{Q^5t^{1-\varepsilon}}\frac{Q^3}{N}Q\frac{Qt}{N}\ll MN^{3/2}t^\varepsilon.
\end{align*}
We want to get saving from the $q_j$ sums. Assuming we are in the generic case $(q_1,q_2)=1$ in sketch, reciprocity gives us \begin{align*}
&\frac{MN^{7/2}}{Q^5t^{1-\varepsilon}}\sup_{\|\beta\|_2=1}\sum_{m\sim\frac{Q^3}{N}}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{q_1,q_2\sim Q} \mathop{\sum\sum}_{h_i\sim\frac{q_it}{N}}\beta(q_1,h_1)\overline{\beta(q_2,h_2)}\\
&\times e\left(\frac{\overline{q_1}q_2}{mh_1}+\frac{\overline{q_2}q_1}{mh_2}\right)e\left(-\frac{q_2}{mh_1q_1}-\frac{q_1}{mh_2q_2}+F(m,h_1,h_2,q_1,q_2)\right).
\end{align*}
\subsection{Infinite Cauchy-Schwarz and Poisson summation} We want to apply Poisson summation to the $q_1,q_2$ sums, but the $\beta$ coefficients obtained from the duality principle prevent us from doing so. To deal with the $\beta$ coefficients, we have to apply Cauchy-Schwarz inequality to take out the $q_1$-sum while leaving the $q_2$-sum inside the square. Applying Poisson summation afterwards on the $q_1$-sum would give us a saving of \begin{align*}
\left(\sqrt{\frac{\text{old length}}{\text{new length}}}\right)^{1/2}\sim \left(\frac{N^2}{Qt^2}\right)^{1/4}
\end{align*}
in $S_1(N)$. The process of Cauchy Schwarz creates two copies of $q_2$-sum, say $q_2,q_3$ sums. We then repeat the process of taking out the $q_2$-sum, leaving $q_3$-sum inside the square and applying Poisson summation on the $q_2$-sum. This gives us a saving of \begin{align*}
\left(\frac{N^2}{Qt^2}\right)^{1/8}
\end{align*}
\begin{Remark}
The above saving is a result of careful analysis of complicated exponential sums, and we need to apply the Weil-Deligne bound via the result of Adolphson-Sperber obtained by their extension of Dwork's cohomology theory from smooth projective hypersurfaces in characteristic $p$ to a general class of exponential sums.
\end{Remark}
Iterating this process $\nu$ times for $\nu$ sufficiently large yields a total saving of \begin{align*}
\left(\frac{N^2}{Qt^2}\right)^{1/4}\times\left(\frac{N^2}{Qt^2}\right)^{1/8}\times\cdots \times \left(\frac{N^2}{Qt^2}\right)^{1/2^\nu}\sim \left(\frac{N^2}{Qt^2}\right)^{1/2}t^{-\varepsilon}
\end{align*}
and hence we get the contribution of $m\sim\frac{Q^3}{N}$ is bounded by \begin{align*}
MN^{3/2}t^{\varepsilon}\left(\frac{Qt^2}{N^2}\right)^{1/2}\ll M\sqrt{QN}t^{1+\varepsilon}.
\end{align*}
\subsection{Final calculations} As a result, assuming all other cases lie between the two cases in sketch, we have for $Q\ll\sqrt{\frac{MN}{t}}$, \begin{align*}
S_j\ll \frac{N^3t^\varepsilon}{Q^3}+M\sqrt{QN}t^{1+\varepsilon},
\end{align*}
and hence \begin{align*}
\frac{S_{M,N/M}(N)}{N}\ll \frac{N^2t^\varepsilon}{Q^3}+\frac{\sqrt{Q}Mt^{1+\varepsilon}}{\sqrt{N}}
\end{align*}
We choose $Q=\frac{\sqrt{M}N^{2/3}}{t^{3/4}}\ll\sqrt{\frac{MN}{t}}$, giving us \begin{align*}
\frac{S_{M,N/M}(N)}{N}\ll \frac{t^{9/4+\varepsilon}}{M^{3/2}}+\frac{M^{5/4}t^{5/8+\varepsilon}}{N^{1/6}}.
\end{align*}
Together with the trivial bound in (\ref{sketch.TrivialBound}), we have \begin{align*}
\frac{S_{M,N/M}(N)}{N}\ll \frac{t^{9/4+\varepsilon}}{M^{3/2}}+\min\left\{Nt^\varepsilon,\frac{M^{5/4}t^{5/8+\varepsilon}}{N^{1/6}}\right\}\ll \frac{t^{9/4+\varepsilon}}{M^{3/2}}+M^{15/14}t^{15/28+\varepsilon}.
\end{align*}
The optimal choice is $M=t^{2/3}$, which gives us the bound \begin{align*}
\frac{S_{M,N/M}(N)}{N}\ll t^{5/4+\varepsilon},
\end{align*}
and \begin{align*}
\left|L\left(\frac{1}{2}+it,\pi\right)\right|^2\ll&\log t\left(1+\int_\BR U\left(\frac{v}{t^{2/3}}\right)\left|L\left(\frac{1}{2}+it+iv,\pi\right)\right|^2dv\right)\ll_{\pi,\varepsilon} t^{5/4+\varepsilon}.
\end{align*}
\section{Preliminaries on automorphic forms}
Let $\pi$ be a Maass form of type $(\nu_1,\nu_2)$ for $\rm SL_3(\BZ)$, which is an eigenfunction for all the Hecke operators. Let the Fourier coefficients be $\lambda(n_1,n_2)$, normalized so that $\lambda(1,1)=1$. The Langlands parameter $(\alpha_1,\alpha_2, \alpha_3)$ associated with $\pi$ are $\alpha_1=-\nu_1-2\nu_2+1,\ \alpha_2= -\nu_1+\nu_2,\ \alpha_3= 2\nu_1+\nu_2-1$. The dual cusp form $\tilde{\pi}$ has Langlands parameters $(-\alpha_3, -\alpha_2, -\alpha_1)$. The $L$-function $L(s,\pi)$ satisfies a functional equation
$$\gamma(s,\pi)L(s,\pi) = \gamma(s,\tilde{\pi})L(1-s,\tilde{\pi}), $$
where $\gamma(s,\pi)$ and $\gamma(s,\tilde{\pi})$ are the associated gamma factors. We refer the reader to Goldfeld's book on automorphic forms for $\rm GL_n(\BZ)$ \cite{goldfeldbook} for the theory of automorphic forms on higher rank groups.
\subsection{Approximate functional equation and Voronoi summation formula}
We are interested in bounding $L(s,\pi)$ on the critical line, $Re(s)=1/2$. For that, we approximate $L(1/2+it, \pi)$ by a smoothed sum of length $t^{3/2+\varepsilon}$. This is known as the approximate functional equation and is proved by applying Mellin transformation to $f$ followed by using the above functional equation.
\begin{Lemma}[{\cite[Theorem 5.3]{Iw-Ko}}]\label{AFE}
Let $G(u)$ be an even, holomorphic function bounded in the strip $-4\leq Re(u)\leq 4$ and normalized by $G(0)=1$. Then for $s$ in the strip $0\leq \sigma\leq 1$
$$ L(s,\pi) = \sum_{n\geq1} \lambda(1,n)n^{-s}V_s(n) + \frac{\gamma(s,\tilde{\pi})}{\gamma(s,\pi)} \sum_{n\geq1} \overline{\lambda(1,n)}n^{-(1-s)}V_{1-s}(n),$$
where
$$V_s(y) = \frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{(3)}y^{-u}G(u)\frac{\gamma(s+u,\tilde{\pi})}{\gamma(s,\pi)}\frac{du}{u}, $$
and $\gamma(s,\pi)$ is a product of certain $\Gamma$-functions appearing in the functional equation of $L(s,f)$.
\end{Lemma}
\begin{Remark}
On the critical line, Stirling's approximation to $\gamma(s,\pi)$ followed by integration by parts to the integral representation of $V_{1/2\pm it}(n)$ gives arbitrary saving for $n\gg (1+|t|)^{3/2+\varepsilon}$.
\end{Remark}
One of the main tools in our proof is a Voronoi type formula for $\rm GL_3(\BZ)$. Let $h$ be a compactly supported smooth function on $(0, \infty)$, and let $\tilde{h}(s)=\int_0^\infty h(x)x^{s-1}\ dx$ be its Mellin transform. For $\sigma>-1+\max\{-Re(\alpha_1), -Re(\alpha_2), -Re(\alpha_3)\}$ and $a=0, 1$, define
\begin{equation*}
\gamma_a(s) = \frac{\pi^{-3s-3/2}}{2}\prod_{i=1}^3\frac{\Gamma(\frac{1+s+\alpha_i+a}{2})}{\Gamma(\frac{-s-\alpha_i+a}{2})}.
\end{equation*}
Further set $\gamma_\pm(s) = \gamma_0(s)\mp i\gamma_1(s)$ and let
\begin{equation}\label{H_pm}
H_\pm(y) = \frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{(\sigma)} y^{-s}\gamma_\pm(s)\tilde{h}(-s)\ ds.
\end{equation}
We need the following Voronoi type formula (See \cite{Blo12, Li1, Miller-Schmid}).
\begin{Lemma}\label{gl3voronoi}
Let $h$ be a compactly supported smooth function on $(0, \infty)$. We have
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{n=1}^\infty \lambda(1,n) e(an/q)h(n) = q\sum_\pm \sum_{n_0|q}\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{\lambda(n,n_0)}{nn_0} S(\overline{a}, \pm n; q/n_0) H_\pm (n_0^2n/q^3),
\end{equation*}
where $(a,q)=1$ and $a\overline{a}\equiv 1\bmod q$.
\end{Lemma}
Stirling approximation of $\gamma_{\pm}(s)$ gives $\gamma_\pm(\sigma+i\tau)\ll 1+|\tau|^{3\sigma+3/2}$. Moreover on $Re(s)=-1/2$
\begin{equation*}
\gamma_\pm(-1/2+i\tau) = (|\tau|/e\pi)^{3i\tau}\Phi_\pm(\tau), \qquad \text{ where } \Phi_\pm'(\tau)\ll |\tau|^{-1}.
\end{equation*}
\begin{Lemma}[{\cite[Lemma 6]{Blo12}}]\label{voronoi}
Let $h$ be a compactly supported smooth function on $[a, b]\subset(0, \infty)$ and $H_\pm$ be defined as in \eqref{H_pm}. Then there exist constants $\gamma_\ell$ depending only on the Langlands parameters $(\alpha_1, \alpha_2, \alpha_3)$ such that
\begin{equation*}
H_\pm(x) = x\int_0^\infty h(y) \sum_{\ell=1}^L \frac{\gamma_\ell}{(xy)^{\ell/3}}e(\pm 3(xy)^{1/3})\, dy + R(x),
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{equation*}
x^k\frac{d^k}{dx^k}R(x) \ll ||h||_\infty^{1+(k-L)/3}.
\end{equation*}
The implied constant above depends on $a, b, \alpha_1, \alpha_2, \alpha_3, k$ and $L$.
\end{Lemma}
\subsection{Short second moment average} We bound the square of the $L$-function by a second moment average over a short interval by following Good's arguments \cite{Good}.
\begin{Lemma}\label{ShortMomentLemma}
Let $T/2\leq t\leq T$, then we have \begin{align*}
\left|L\left(\frac{1}{2}+it,\pi\right)\right|^2\ll \log T\left(1+\int_{-\log T}^{\log T}\left|L\left(\frac{1}{2}+it+iv,\pi\right)\right|^2e^{-v^2/2}\, dv\right).
\end{align*}
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $c = 1/\log t$ for $t\geq 10$. By the residue theorem,
\begin{equation*}
L^2(1/2+it,\pi) = \frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{(c)} L^2(1/2+it+s, \pi)\frac{e^{s^2}}{s}\, ds - \frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{(-c)} L^2(1/2+it+s, \pi)\frac{e^{s^2}}{s}\, ds.
\end{equation*}
Functional equation for $L(s,\pi)$ and Stirling's approximation give $$L(1/2-c+i(t+v))\ll (1+|t+v|^{3c})|L(1/2+c+i(t+v))|.$$
Therefore
\begin{equation}\label{square-estimate}
|L(1/2+it, \pi)|^2 \ll \int_{-\infty}^\infty |L(1/2+c+i(t+v))|^2(1+|t+v|^{6c})\frac{e^{-v^2}}{(v^2+c^2)^{1/2}}\, dv.
\end{equation}
Similarly, for $1/2<\sigma<1$,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
L^2(\sigma + i\tau_1, \pi) &= \frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_{(1)}L^2(\sigma + i\tau_1+ s, \pi)\frac{e^{s^2}}{s}\, ds - \frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_{(1/2-\sigma)}L^2(\sigma + i\tau_1+ s, \pi)\frac{e^{s^2}}{s}\, ds \\
&\ll 1 + \int_{-\infty}^\infty |L(1/2+i(\tau_1+\tau_2), \pi)|^2 \frac{e^{-\tau_2^2}}{(\tau_2^2+(1/2-\sigma)^2)^{1/2}}\, d\tau_2.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Putting $\sigma=1/2+c$, $\tau_1 = t+v$, substituting the above estimate into \eqref{square-estimate} and trivially estimating the $\tau_2$-integral, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\left|L\left(\frac{1}{2}+it,\pi\right)\right|^2\ll \log t \left(1+\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\left|L\left(\frac{1}{2}+it+iv,\pi\right)\right|^2e^{-v^2/2}\, dv\right).
\end{align*}
Since $L(1/2+it+iv, \pi)$ is polynomially bounded, the integral can be cutoff at $[-\log T, \log T]$ for a negligible error term.
\end{proof}
We will also use Ramanujan bound on average which follows from the Rankin--Selberg theory.
\begin{Lemma}[Ramanujan bound on average] \label{Ram bound}
We have
\begin{equation*}
\underset{n_1^2n_2\leq x}{\sum\sum}|\lambda(n_2,n_1)|^2 \ll_{\pi,\varepsilon} x^{1+\varepsilon}.
\end{equation*}
\end{Lemma}
\section{Preliminary lemmas}
\begin{Lemma}[DFI delta method]\label{DFILemma}
Let $Q>1$. Then we have
\begin{equation*}
\delta(n=0) = \frac{1}{Q}\sum_{1\leq q\leq Q} \frac{1}{q}\ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{a\bmod q}e\bigg(\frac{an}{q}\bigg) \int_{\BR} g(q,x) e\bigg(\frac{nx}{qQ}\bigg)\, dx,
\end{equation*}
where $g(q,x)$ is a smooth function satisfying
\begin{align}\label{gqx}
g(q,x) = 1 + O_A\bigg(\frac{Q}{q}\bigg(\frac{q}{Q}+|x|\bigg)^{A}\bigg), \quad g(q,x)\ll |x|^{-A}, \quad \text{ for any } A\geq1,
\end{align}
and
$$ \frac{\partial^j}{\partial x^j}g(q,x)\ll |x|^{-j}\min(|x|^{-1}, Q/q)\log Q, \quad \text{ for } j\geq 1.$$
Moreover, $g(q,x)$ satisfies
\begin{align}\label{gqxBound}
g(q,x)\ll Q^\varepsilon.
\end{align}
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof}
See \cite[Section 20.5]{Iw-Ko}, and \cite[Lemma 15]{Huang1} for minor corrections in the original estimates of the derivatives of $g(q,x)$. To prove \eqref{gqxBound}, we observe that when $q>Q^{1-\varepsilon}$, the first property in \eqref{gqx} gives us $g(q,x)\ll Q^\varepsilon$ by taking $A=1$. In the case $q\leq Q^{1-\varepsilon}$ and $x>Q^\varepsilon$, the second property in \eqref{gqx} gives us $g(q,x)\ll Q^\varepsilon$ by taking $A=1$. In the remaining case where $q,x\leq Q^{1-\varepsilon}$, then the first property gives us $g(q,x)\ll1$ by taking $A$ sufficiently large. Combining all the cases, we have the result.
\end{proof}
\iffalse
{We will also need the $L^2$-norm on $g(q,x)$. Let $f(u)$ and $w(u)$ be compactly supported (or at least rapidly decreasing) functions on $\BR$. Let
\begin{equation}
\Delta_q(u) = \sum_{r\geq1} \frac{1}{qr}(w(qr) - w(|u|/qr)).
\end{equation}
If $w(u)$ is supported in $[Q,2Q]$ and satisfies $w^{(a)}(u)\ll Q^{-a-1}$, then $\Delta_q(u)$ satisfies the bounds
\begin{equation}
\Delta_q(u) \ll \frac{1}{(q+Q)Q} + \frac{1}{|u|+qQ}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\Delta_q^{(a)}(u)\ll (qQ)^{-1}(|u|+qQ)^{-a}.
\end{equation}
By Fourier inversion, we have
\begin{equation}
g(q,x) = \int_{\BR} \Delta_q(u)f(u)e(-ux/qQ)du.
\end{equation}
We can take $f(u) = e^{-u/Q^2}$. Since $||g||_2 = ||\Delta_q\cdot f||_2$, we have,
\begin{equation}\label{g2norm}
\begin{split}
||g(q,\cdot)||_2^2 &= ||qQ\Delta_q(qQ\cdot)f(qQ\cdot)||_2^2 = (qQ)^2\int_\BR |\Delta_q(uqQ)e^{-uq/Q}|^2du\\
&\ll (qQ)^2 \int_{|u|\leq 1} \frac{1}{(qQ)^2}du + (qQ)^2 \int_{|u|>1}\frac{1}{(uqQ)^2} du\ll 1.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Similarly, we have \begin{align}\label{gDer2norm}
||g_y(q,\cdot)||_2^2 &= ||qQ\cdot\Delta_q(qQ\cdot)f(qQ\cdot)||_2^2 = (qQ)^2\int_\BR |u\Delta_q(uqQ)e^{-uq/Q}|^2du\nonumber\\
&\ll (qQ)^2 \int_{|u|\leq Q/q} \frac{1}{(qQ)^2}du+(qQ)^2 \int_{|u|>Q/q}e^{-uq/Q} du\ll \frac{Q}{q}.
\end{align}
}
\fi
We will also use the Duality principle (see \cite[Chapter 7]{Iw-Ko}).
\begin{Lemma}[Duality principle]\label{dualitylemma}
Let $\phi:\BZ^2\rightarrow{\mathbb {C}}} \newcommand{\BD}{{\mathbb {D}}$. For any complex numbers $a_m$, \begin{align*}
\sum_n\left|\sum_m a_m\phi(m,n)\right|^2\ll \left(\sum_m |a_m|^2\right)\sup_{\|\beta\|_2=1}\sum_m\left|\sum_n\beta(n)\phi(m,n)\right|^2,
\end{align*}
where the supremum is taken over all sequences of complex numbers $\beta(n)$ such that $$\|\beta\|_2=\sqrt{\sum_n|\beta(n)|^2}=1.$$
\end{Lemma}
\section{Stationary phase analysis}
We need to use stationary phase analysis for oscillatory integrals. Let ${\mathcal {I}}} \newcommand{\CJ}{{\mathcal {J}}$ be an integral of the form
\begin{equation}\label{eintegral}
{\mathcal {I}}} \newcommand{\CJ}{{\mathcal {J}} = \int_{a}^b w(t)e^{i \phi(t)}\, dt,
\end{equation}
where $w$ and $\phi$ are real valued smooth functions on $\BR$. The fundamental estimate for integrals of the form \eqref{eintegral} is the $r^{th}$-derivative test
\begin{equation*}
{\mathcal {I}}} \newcommand{\CJ}{{\mathcal {J}}\ll \bigg(\underset{[a,b]}{Var}\, w(t)\bigg)\bigg/\bigg(\min_{[a,b]}|\phi^{(r)}(t)|^{1/r}\bigg).
\end{equation*}
We will however need sharper estimates and will use the stationary phase analysis of Blomer--Khan--Young \cite{BKY} to analyze ${\mathcal {I}}} \newcommand{\CJ}{{\mathcal {J}}$ and state these in the language of inert functions as given by Kiral--Petrow--Young \cite{Kiral-Petrow-Young}.
\begin{Definition}
Let $\CF$ be an indexing set and $X : \CF \rightarrow [1,\infty)$ be a function of $T\in\CF$, so that $X_T\in[1, \infty)$. A family $\{w_T\}_{T\in\CF}$ of smooth functions supported on a product of dyadic intervals in $\BR^d_{>0}$ is called $X$-inert if for each $j=(j_1,...,j_d)\in\BZ^d_{\geq0}$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{T\in\CF} \,\, \sup_{(x_1,...,x_d)\,\in\,\BR^d_{>0}} X_T^{-(j_1+...+j_d)}\big|x_1^{j_1}...\, x_d^{j_d}\, w_T^{(j_1,...,j_d)}(x_1,...,x_d) \big| \ll_{j_1,...j_d} 1.
\end{equation*}
\end{Definition}
\begin{Lemma}\label{statlemma}
Suppose that $w = w_T(t)$ is a family of $X$-inert functions with compact support of $[Z, 2Z]$, so that $w^{(j)}(t)\ll (X/Z)^j$. Also suppose that $\phi$ is smooth and satisfies $\phi^j(t)\ll Y/Z^j$ for some $Y/X^2\geq R\geq 1$ for all $t$ in the support of $w$. Let
$${\mathcal {I}}} \newcommand{\CJ}{{\mathcal {J}} = \int_{-\infty}^\infty w(t)e^{i \phi(t)}\, dt. $$
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $|\phi'(t)|\gg Y/Z$ in the support of $w$, then ${\mathcal {I}}} \newcommand{\CJ}{{\mathcal {J}}\ll_A ZR^{-A}$ for arbitrarily large $A$. Moreover, the statement also holds under the weaker condition $Y/X\geq R$.
\item If $\phi'(t)\gg Y/Z^2$ in the support of $w$, and there exists some not necessarily unique $t_0\in\BR$ such that $\phi'(t_0) = 0$, then
\begin{equation*}
{\mathcal {I}}} \newcommand{\CJ}{{\mathcal {J}} = \frac{e^{i\phi(t_0)}}{\sqrt{\phi''(t_0)}}F_T(t_0) + O_A(ZR^{-A})
\end{equation*}
for any $A\geq0$, where $F_T$ is a family of $X$-inert functions (possibly depending on $A$) supported on $t_0\asymp Z$.
\item Same setting as (2). Let $U\gg R^\varepsilon(\phi''(t_0))^{-1/2}$ and let $W_0\in C_c^\infty([-2,2])$ such that $W_0(x)=1$ for $|x|\leq 1$. Then we have \begin{align*}
{\mathcal {I}}} \newcommand{\CJ}{{\mathcal {J}} = \int_{-\infty}^\infty w(t)W_0\left(\frac{t-t_0}{U}\right)e^{i \phi(t)}\, dt+O_A\left(R^{-A}\right)
\end{align*}
for any $A\geq0$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Lemma}
\iffalse
We shall also use the following estimates on exponential integrals in two variables. Let $f(x, y)$ and $g(x, y)$ be two real valued smooth functions on the rectangle $[a, b] \times [c,d]$. We consider the exponential integral in two variables given by
\begin{equation*}
\int_a^b \int_c^d g(x, y) e(f(x, y))\ dx \ dy.
\end{equation*}
Suppose there exist parameters $p_1, p_2>0$ such that
\begin{align} \label{conditionf}
\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial^2 x}\gg p_1^2, \hspace{1cm} \frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial^2 y}\gg p_2^2,\hspace{1cm} \frac{\partial^2 f(x, y)}{\partial^2 x} \frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial^2 y} - \left[\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial x \partial y} \right]^2 \gg p_1^2 p_2^2,
\end{align} for all $x, y \in [a, b] \times [c,d]$. Then we have (See \cite[Lemma 4]{BR2})
\[
\int_a^b \int_c^d e(f(x, y)) dx dy \ll \frac{1}{p_1 p_2}.
\] Further suppose that $ \textrm{Supp}(g) \subset (a,b) \times (c,d)$. The total variation of $g$ equals
\begin{equation*}
\textrm{var}(g) = \int_a^b \int_c^d \left| \frac{\partial^2 g(x, y)}{\partial x \partial y} \right| dx dy.
\end{equation*}
We have the following result (see \cite[Lemma 5]{BR2}).
\begin{Lemma} \label{double expo sum}
Let $f$ and $g$ be as above. Let $f$ satisfy the conditions given in equation \eqref{conditionf}. Then we have
\[
\int_a^b \int_c^d g(x, y) e(f(x, y)) dx dy \ll \frac{\textrm{var}(g)}{p_1 p_2},
\] with an absolute implied constant.
\end{Lemma}
\subsection{A Fourier-Mellin transform} Let $U$ be a smooth real valued function supported on the interval $[a, b] \subset (0, \infty)$ and satisfying $U^{(j)}\ll_{a, b, j} 1$. Let $r\in \mathbb{R}$ and $s= \sigma + i \beta \in \mathbb{C}$. We consider the following integral transform
\begin{equation*}
U^\dagger(r, s) := \int_0^{\infty} U(x) e(-rx) x^{s-1} dx.
\end{equation*}
We are interested in the behaviour of this integral in terms of the parameters $\beta$ and $r$. The integral $U^\dagger (r, s) $ is of the form given in equation \eqref{eintegral} with functions
\[
g(x) = U(x) x^{\sigma-1} \ \ \ \ \textrm{and} \ \ \ \ f(x) =\frac{1}{2 \pi} \beta \log x - rx.
\]
We shall use the following lemma.
\begin{Lemma}\cite[Lemma 5]{Mun4} \label{Fourier Mellin}
Let $U$ be a smooth real valued function with $\textrm{supp} (U) \subset[a, b] \subset (0, \infty)$ that satisfies $U^{(j)}(x)\ll_{a, b, j} 1$. Let $r\in \mathbb{R}$ and $s= \sigma + i \beta \in \mathbb{C}$. We have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
U^{\dagger}(r,s)=\frac{\sqrt{2\pi}e(1/8)}{\sqrt{-\beta}}\left(\frac{\beta}{2\pi er}\right)^{i\beta} U_0\bigg(\sigma, \frac{\beta}{2\pi r}\bigg) + O_{a,b,\sigma}\left(\min\{|\beta|^{-3/2},|r|^{-3/2}\}\right),
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
where $U_0(\sigma,x) := x^\sigma U(x)$.
Moreover, we have the bound
\begin{equation}\label{dagger repeated ibp}
U^\dagger (r, s) = O_{a, b, \sigma, j} \left(\min \left\lbrace \left(\frac{1+|\beta|}{|r|} \right)^j , \left(\frac{1+|r|}{|\beta|} \right)^j \right\rbrace \right).
\end{equation}
\end{Lemma}
Here $\sqrt{-1}=e^{i\pi/2}$. Moreover, since $U$ is supported on a compact subset of $(0,\infty)$, the main term vanishes if $\beta$ and $r$ have opposite signs.
\fi
\section{Main Calculations}
\subsection{A Short Second Moment}
We first apply Lemma \ref{ShortMomentLemma} to bound the square of $L(1/2+it,\pi)$ by a short second moment. Let $T/2\leq t\leq T$, then we have \begin{align}\label{ApplyingShortMomentLemma}
\left|L\left(\frac{1}{2}+it,\pi\right)\right|^2\ll \log T\left(1+\int_{-\log T}^{\log T} \left|L\left(\frac{1}{2}+it+iv,\pi\right)\right|^2e^{-v^2/2}\, dv\right).
\end{align}
Let $\varepsilon>0$ and let $1<M<t^{1-\varepsilon}$ be a parameter. Let $U\in C_c^\infty(\R)$ be a fixed function supported in $[-2, 2]$ and satisfying $U(x)=1$ for $-1\leq x\leq 1$, then (\ref{ApplyingShortMomentLemma}) gives us
\begin{align*}
\left|L\left(\frac{1}{2}+it,\pi\right)\right|^2\ll\log t\left(1+\int_\BR U\left(\frac{v}{M}\right)\left|L\left(\frac{1}{2}+it+iv,\pi\right)\right|^2dv\right).
\end{align*}
Applying Lemma \ref{AFE}, we get \begin{align*}
\left|L\left(\frac{1}{2}+it,\pi\right)\right|^2\ll&\log t\left(1+\int_\BR U\left(\frac{v}{M}\right)\left|L\left(\frac{1}{2}+it+iv,\pi\right)\right|^2dv\right)\nonumber\\
\ll& \log t\left(1+\sup_{1\leq N\ll t^{3/2+\varepsilon}}\frac{S(N)}{N}\right),
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
S(N):=\int_\BR U\left(\frac{v}{M}\right) \left|\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\lambda(1,n)\,n^{-i(t+v)}V\left(\frac{n}{N}\right)\right|^2dv,
\end{align*}
with $V\in C_c^\infty([1,2])$ depending on $t$ satisfying $V^{(j)}(x)\ll_j1$ for any $j\geq0$ ({See e.g. \cite[Proposition 5.4]{Iw-Ko}}). Opening the square and integrating yields
\begin{align*}
S(N)=\sum_n\lambda(1,n)V\left(\frac{n}{N}\right)\sum_m\overline{\lambda(1,m)}\overline{V\left(\frac{m}{N}\right)}\left(\frac{m}{n}\right)^{it}\int_\BR U\left(\frac{v}{M}\right) \left(\frac{m}{n}\right)^{iv} dv.
\end{align*}
By repeated integration by parts on the $v$-integral, we obtain arbitrary saving unless \begin{align*}
|m-n|\ll\frac{Nt^\varepsilon}{M}.
\end{align*}
Hence we have
\begin{align*}
S(N)=&M\sum_{|h|\ll\frac{Nt^\varepsilon}{M}}\sum_n\lambda(1,n)\overline{\lambda(1,n+h)}V\left(\frac{n}{N}\right)\overline{V\left(\frac{n+h}{N}\right)}\left(\frac{n+h}{n}\right)^{it}\nonumber\\
&\times\int_\BR U\left(v\right) \left(\frac{n+h}{n}\right)^{iMv} dv + O(t^{-A}),
\end{align*}
for any $A>0$. For $h=0$, (\ref{Ram bound}) on the $n$-sum gives us \begin{align*}
M\sum_n|\lambda(1,n)|^2\left|V\left(\frac{n}{N}\right)\right|^2\int_\BR U\left(v\right) dv\ll MNt^\varepsilon.
\end{align*}
Now performing a smooth dyadic subdivision of $h$-sum for $h\neq0$ yields \begin{align*}
S(N)\ll&\sup_{H\ll\frac{Nt^\varepsilon}{M}}\sum_\pm M\sum_h\sum_n\lambda(1,n)\overline{\lambda(1,n+h)} V\left(\frac{n}{N}\right)\overline{V\left(\frac{n+h}{N} \right)}\varphi_\pm\left(\frac{h}{H}\right)\left(\frac{n+h}{n}\right)^{it}\nonumber\\
&\times\int_\BR U\left(v\right) \left(\frac{n+h}{n}\right)^{iMv} dv+MNt^\varepsilon,
\end{align*}
where $\varphi_\pm(y)=\varphi(\pm y)$ for some fixed function $\varphi\in C_c^\infty([1/2,2])$. Finally, we rewrite \begin{align*}
\left(\frac{n+h}{n} \right)^{it} = e\left(\frac{t}{2\pi}\log\left(1+\frac{h}{n}\right)\right) = e\left(\frac{th}{2\pi n}\right)e\left(\frac{t}{2\pi}\left(\log\left(1+\frac{h}{n}\right) - \frac{h}{n}\right)\right)
\end{align*}
Notice that when multiplied by the weight function $V(n/N)\varphi_\pm(h/H)$, the integral $\int_\BR U\left(v\right) \left(\frac{n+h}{n}\right)^{iMv}dv$ is $t^\varepsilon$-inert as a function of $n$ and $h$, while $e\left(\frac{t}{2\pi}\left(\log\left(1+\frac{h}{n}\right)-\frac{h}{n}\right)\right)$ is $t^\varepsilon$-inert as a function of $n$ and $h$ when $M\gg t^{1/2+\varepsilon}$. For brevity of notation, we define
\begin{equation*}
W_\pm(x,y) = V(x)\varphi_\pm(y)e\left(\frac{t}{2\pi}\left(\log\left(1+\frac{Hy}{Nx}\right)- \frac{Hy}{Nx}\right)\right)\int_\BR U\left(v\right) \left(\frac{Nx+Hy}{Nx}\right)^{iMv} dv.
\end{equation*}
As a result, we obtain the following lemma.
\begin{Lemma}\label{SMHLemma}
Let $\varepsilon, A>0$ and let $t^{1/2+\varepsilon}\ll M\ll t^{1-\varepsilon}$. Then there exist functions $W_\pm\in C_c^\infty([1,2]\times[\pm1,\pm2])$ satisfying $$x^{j_1}y^{j_2}W_\pm^{(j_1,j_2)}(x,y)\ll_{j_1,j_2}1 \text{ for any } j_1,j_2\geq0,$$ such that \begin{align*}
\left|L\left(\frac{1}{2}+it,\pi\right)\right|^2\ll&\log t\left(1+\int_\BR U\left(\frac{v}{M}\right)\left|L\left(\frac{1}{2}+it+iv,\pi\right)\right|^2dv\right)\nonumber\\
\ll& \log t\left(Mt^\varepsilon+\sup_{H\ll\frac{Nt^\varepsilon}{M}}\sup_{1\leq N\ll t^{3/2+\varepsilon}}\sum_\pm\frac{S_{M,H}^\pm(N)}{N}\right),
\end{align*}
where \begin{align*}
S_{M,H}^\pm(N):=M\sum_h\sum_n\lambda(1,n)\overline{\lambda(1,n+h)}W_\pm\left(\frac{n}{N},\frac{h}{H}\right)e\left(\frac{th}{2\pi n}\right).
\end{align*}
\end{Lemma}
\subsection{Trivial Bound}
Applying Cauchy-Schwartz inequality together with Lemma \ref{Ram bound}, we have the trivial bound \begin{align}\label{trivialBound}
S_{M,H}^\pm(N)\ll M\sum_{|h|\ll H}\left(\sum_{n\ll N}|\lambda(1,n)|^2\right)^{1/2}\left(\sum_{n\ll N}|\lambda(1,n+h)|^2\right)^{1/2}\ll MHNt^\varepsilon.
\end{align}
We will apply this bound for the cases with $H\ll\frac{N}{t^{1-\varepsilon}}$. Hence we will restrict our attention to the case $H\gg\frac{N}{t^{1-\varepsilon}}$ in the rest of the paper.
\subsection{Application of the Delta Method}
Now we focus on the case $H\gg\frac{N}{t^{1-\varepsilon}}$. To bound $S_{M,H}^\pm(N)$, we start by applying the DFI delta method (Lemma \ref{DFILemma}) to separate the oscillations. Let $U\in C_c^\infty([1/2,5/2])$ be fixed such that $U(x)=1$ for $3/4\leq x\leq 9/4$. Then \begin{align*}
S_{M,H}^\pm(N)=& M\sum_h\sum_n \lambda(1,n)W_\pm\left(\frac{n}{N},\frac{h}{H}\right)e\left(\frac{th}{2\pi n}\right)\sum_m\overline{\lambda(1,m)}U\left(\frac{m}{N}\right) \delta(m = n+h) \nonumber\\
=&\frac{M}{Q}\sum_{1\leq q\leq Q}\frac{1}{q}\sum_h\sum_n\lambda(1,n)W_\pm\left(\frac{n}{N},\frac{h}{H}\right)e\left(\frac{th}{2\pi n}\right)\nonumber\\
&\times\sum_m\overline{\lambda(1,m)}U\left(\frac{m}{N}\right)\ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\alpha\bmod q}e\left(\frac{\alpha(n+h-m)}{q}\right)\int_\BR g(q,x)e\left(\frac{(n+h-m)x}{qQ} \right)dx.
\end{align*}
We divide the $q$-sum into segments $C\leq q<(1+10^{-10})C$ to get
\begin{align}\label{qDyadicSub}
S_{M,H}^\pm(N) \ll t^\varepsilon\sup_{1\leq C\ll Q} S_{M,H,C}^\pm(N),
\end{align}
where \begin{align*}
S_{M,H,C}^\pm(N)=&\frac{M}{Q}\sum_{C\leq q< (1+10^{-10})C}\frac{1}{q}\sum_h\sum_n\lambda(1,n)W_\pm\left(\frac{n}{N},\frac{h}{H}\right)e\left(\frac{th}{2\pi n}\right)\nonumber\\
&\times\sum_m\overline{\lambda(1,m)}U\left(\frac{m}{N}\right)\ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\alpha\bmod q}e\left(\frac{\alpha(n+h-m)}{q}\right)\int_\BR g(q,x)e\left(\frac{(n+h-m)x}{qQ} \right)dx.
\end{align*}
\subsection{Dual summation formulas}
We shall now apply dual summation formulas to the $h$, $m$ and $n$ sums.
\subsubsection{Analysis of the $h$-sum}
We start with an application of the Poisson summation formula to the $h$-sum $\bmod\, q$, giving us \begin{align*}
&\sum_h W_\pm\left(\frac{n}{N},\frac{h}{H}\right)e\left(\frac{\alpha h}{q}+\frac{th}{2\pi n}+\frac{hx}{qQ}\right)\\
=&\sum_h\frac{1}{q}\sum_{\gamma\bmod q}e\left(\frac{(\alpha+h)\gamma}{q}\right)\int_\BR W_\pm\left(\frac{n}{N},\frac{y}{H}\right)e\left(\frac{ty}{2\pi n} +\frac{xy}{qQ}-\frac{hy}{q}\right)dy\\
=&H\sum_h\delta\left(\alpha\equiv - h\bmod q\right)\int_\BR W_\pm\left(\frac{n}{N},y\right)e\left(\frac{tHy}{2\pi n}+\frac{Hxy}{qQ}-\frac{hHy}{q}\right)dy.
\end{align*}
The above congruence condition and $(\alpha,q)=1$ imply $(h,q)=1$, so that when $h=0$, the terms with $q>1$ vanish. Since $H\gg\frac{N}{t^{1-\varepsilon}}$, choosing $Q\gg \frac{N}{t^{1-\varepsilon}}$ and repeated integration by parts gives us arbitrary saving unless \begin{align*}
h\neq 0 \text{ and } h\sim\frac{qt}{N}\sim \frac{Ct}{N}.
\end{align*}
This gives arbitrary saving unless $C\gg\frac{N}{t^{1+\varepsilon}}$ and yields
\begin{align*}
S_{M,H,C}^\pm(N)=&\frac{MH}{Q}\sum_{\substack{\frac{Ct}{Nt^\varepsilon}<H'<\frac{Ct^{1+\varepsilon}}{N}\\ dyadic}}\sum_{C\leq q<(1+10^{-10})C}\frac{1}{q}\sum_{\substack{H'\leq h<(1+10^{-10})H'\\(h,q)=1}}\sum_n\lambda(1,n)\sum_m\overline{\lambda(1,m)}U\left(\frac{m}{N}\right)\nonumber\\
&\times e\left(\frac{-h(n-m)}{q}\right) \int_\BR\int_\BR g(q,x)W_\pm\left(\frac{n}{N},y\right)e\left(\frac{(n + Hy-m)x}{qQ}+\frac{tHy}{2\pi n}-\frac{hHy}{q}\right)dxdy+O\left(t^{-A}\right),
\end{align*}
for any $A>0$.
\subsubsection{Analysis of the $m$-sum}
Next we apply the Voronoi summation formula (Lemma \ref{gl3voronoi}) to the $m$-sum,
\begin{align*}
&\sum_m\overline{\lambda(1,m)}U\left(\frac{m}{N}\right)e\left(\frac{hm}{q}-\frac{mx}{qQ}\right)\nonumber\\
=&q\sum_{\eta_1=\pm}\sum_{m_0|q}\sum_m\frac{\overline{\lambda(m,m_0)}}{m_0m}S\left( \overline{h},\eta_1 m;\frac{q}{m_0}\right)\tilde{U}_{1,\eta_1}\left(\frac{m_0^2m}{q^3},q,x\right),
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
\tilde{U}_{1,\eta_1}\left(\frac{m_0^2m}{q^3},q,x\right)=\left(\frac{m_0^2m}{q^3}\right)^\frac{2}{3}\int_0^\infty U\left(\frac{w}{N}\right)\overline{U}_0\left(\frac{m_0^2m}{q^3},w\right)w^{-\frac{1}{3}}e\left(\frac{-wx}{qQ}+\eta_13\left(\frac{m_0^2mw}{q^3}\right)^\frac{1}{3}\right)dw,
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align}\label{Voronoi-weight-fn}
U_0(u,w) = \sum_{\ell=1}^L \frac{\gamma_\ell}{(uw)^{\frac{\ell-1}{3}}},
\end{align}
for a fixed large $L$, and $\gamma_\ell$ as give in Lemma \ref{voronoi}. Note that $U_0(u,w)$ is a fixed flat function. By a change of variables, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\tilde{U}_{1,\eta_1}\left(\frac{m_0^2m}{q^3},q,x\right)=\left(\frac{m_0^2mN}{q^3}\right)^\frac{2}{3}\int_0^\infty U\left(w\right)\overline{U}_0\left(\frac{m_0^2m}{q^3},Nw\right)w^{-\frac{1}{3}}e\left(f_1(w,x)\right)dw,
\end{align*}
where the phase function is
\begin{align*}
f_1(w,x)=\eta_13\left(\frac{m_0^2mNw}{q^3}\right)^\frac{1}{3} - \frac{Nwx}{qQ}.
\end{align*}
Repeated integration by parts gives us arbitrary saving unless
\begin{align*}
m_0^2m\ll \frac{N^2t^\varepsilon}{Q^3}.
\end{align*}
Writing \begin{align}\label{U1Def}
U_{1,\eta_1}\left(\frac{m_0^2m}{q^3},q,x\right)=\int_0^\infty U\left(w\right)\overline{U}_0\left(\frac{m_0^2m}{q^3},Nw\right)w^{-\frac{1}{3}}e\left(f_1(w,x)\right)dw
\end{align}
we obtain
\begin{align*}
S_{M,H,C}^\pm(N)=&\frac{MHN^{2/3}t^\epsilon}{Q}\sum_{\eta_1=\pm}\sup_{H'\sim \frac{Ct}{N}}\sum_{C\leq q<(1+10^{-10})C}\frac{1}{q^2} \sum_{\substack{H'\leq h<(1+10^{-10})H'\\(h,q)=1}}\sum_n\lambda(1,n)\nonumber\\
&\times \sum_{m_0|q}\sum_{m_0^2m\ll\frac{N^2t^\varepsilon}{Q^3}}\overline{\lambda(m,m_0)}\left(\frac{m_0}{m}\right)^{1/3} S\left(\overline{h},\eta_1 m;\frac{q}{m_0}\right)e\left(\frac{-hn}{q}\right)\nonumber\\
&\times\int_\BR\int_\BR g(q,x)W_\pm\left(\frac{n}{N},y\right)U_{1,\eta_1}\left(\frac{m_0^2m}{q^3},q,x\right)\nonumber\\
&\times e\left(\frac{(n+ Hy)x}{qQ}+\frac{tHy}{2\pi n}-\frac{hHy}{q}\right)dxdy+O\left(t^{-A}\right)
\end{align*}
for any $A>0$.
\subsubsection{Analysis of the $n$-sum}
Finally, we apply Voronoi formula (Lemma \ref{gl3voronoi}) to the $n$-sum. Applying similar analysis as above yields
\begin{align*}
&\sum_n\lambda(1,n)W_\pm\left(\frac{n}{N},y\right)e\left(\frac{-hn}{q}+\frac{nx}{qQ}+\frac{tHy}{2\pi n}\right)\\
=&\frac{N^{2/3}}{q}\sum_{\eta_2=\pm}\sum_{n_0|q}\sum_n\lambda(n,n_0)\left(\frac{n_0}{n}\right)^{1/3}S\left(-\overline{h},\eta_2 n;\frac{q}{n_0}\right)W_{0,-\eta_2}^\pm(n_0^2n,q,x,y),
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align}\label{W0Def}
W_{0,\eta_2}^\pm(n_0^2n,q,x,y)=&\int_0^\infty W_\pm\left(w,y\right)U_{0}\left(\frac{n_0^2n}{q^3},Nw\right)w^{-\frac{1}{3}}\nonumber\\
&\times e\left(\frac{Nwx}{qQ}+\frac{tHy}{2\pi Nw}-\eta_23\left(\frac{n_0^2nNw}{q^3}\right)^\frac{1}{3}\right)dw,
\end{align}
where $U_{0}$ is given in \eqref{Voronoi-weight-fn}. Since $H\gg\frac{N}{t^{1-\varepsilon}}$, repeated integration by parts gives us arbitrary saving unless \begin{align*}
n_0^2n\ll \left(\frac{N^2}{Q^3}+\frac{(CHt)^3}{N^4}\right)t^\varepsilon.
\end{align*}
By choosing $Q^2\ll NM/t^{1-\varepsilon}$, the first term on the right side dominates, so that $n_0^2n\ll N^2t^\varepsilon/Q^3$. Changing $\eta_2$ to $-\eta_2$ for ease of notation, this yields
\begin{align}\label{SMHAfterAllDual}
S_{M,H,C}^\pm(N)=&\frac{MHN^{4/3}t^\epsilon}{Q}\sum_{\eta_1,\eta_2=\pm}\sup_{H'\sim \frac{Ct}{N}}\,\sum_{C\leq q<(1+10^{-10})C} \frac{1}{q^3}\sum_{\substack{H'\leq h<(1+10^{-10})H'\\(h,q)=1}}\sum_{n_0|q}\,\sum_{n_0^2n\ll \frac{N^2t^\varepsilon}{Q^3}}\lambda(n,n_0)\left(\frac{n_0}{n}\right)^{1/3}\nonumber\\
&\times \sum_{m_0|q}\sum_{m_0^2m\ll\frac{N^2t^\varepsilon}{Q^3}}\overline{\lambda(m,m_0)}\left(\frac{m_0}{m}\right)^{1/3}S\left(\overline{h},\eta_1 m;\frac{q}{m_0}\right)S\left(\overline{h},\eta_2 n;\frac{q}{n_0}\right)\nonumber\\
&\times \int_\BR\int_\BR g(q,x)W_{0,\eta_2}^\pm(n_0^2n,q,x,y)U_{1,\eta_1}\left(\frac{m_0^2m}{q^3},q,x\right)e\left(\frac{Hxy}{qQ}-\frac{hHy}{q}\right)dydx+O\left(t^{-A}\right)
\end{align}
for any $A>0$.
\subsubsection{Analysis of integral transforms obtained by dual summation}
We now consider the $y,w$-integral. Then (\ref{W0Def}) and a change of variable gives us \begin{align*}
&\int_\BR W_{0,\eta_2}^\pm(n_0^2n,q,x,y)e\left(\frac{Hxy}{qQ}-\frac{hHy}{q}\right)dy\\
=&\int_0^\infty U_{0,\eta_2}\left(\frac{n_0^2n}{q^3},Nw\right)w^{-\frac{1}{3}}e\left(\frac{Nwx}{qQ}-\eta_23\left(\frac{n_0^2nNw}{q^3}\right)^\frac{1}{3}\right)\\
&\times\int_\BR W_\pm(w,y)e\left(\frac{tHy}{2\pi Nw}+\frac{Hxy}{qQ}-\frac{hHy}{q}\right)dydw\\
=&e\left(\frac{tx}{2\pi hQ}\right)\int_\BR U_{0,\eta_2}\left(\frac{n_0^2n}{q^3},\frac{qt}{2\pi h}+Nu\right)\left(\frac{qt}{2\pi hN}+u\right)^{-\frac{1}{3}}\\
&\times e\left(\frac{Nxu}{qQ}-\eta_23\left(\frac{n_0^2nN}{q^3}\left(\frac{qt}{2\pi hN}+u\right)\right)^\frac{1}{3}\right)\\
&\times \int_\BR W_\pm\left(\frac{qt}{2\pi hN}+u,y\right)e\left(\frac{tHy}{2\pi N}\left(\frac{qt}{2\pi hN}+u\right)^{-1}+\frac{Hxy}{qQ}-\frac{hHy}{q}\right)dydu.
\end{align*}
Since $C\gg\frac{N}{t^{1+\varepsilon}}$ and $H\ll\frac{Nt^\varepsilon}{M}$, choosing $MQ>t^{1+\varepsilon}$ gives us $\frac{Hxy}{qQ}\ll\frac{t^{1+\varepsilon}}{MQ}\ll1$. Hence repeated integration by parts on the $y$-integral gives us arbitrary saving unless \begin{align*}
\left|\frac{tH}{2\pi N}\left(\frac{qt}{2\pi hN}+u\right)^{-1}-\frac{hH}{q}\right|\ll t^\varepsilon & \Longleftrightarrow \left|\frac{1}{1+\frac{2\pi hNu}{qt}}-1\right|\ll\frac{qt^\varepsilon}{hH}\ll\frac{N}{Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}\\
&\Longleftrightarrow |u|\ll\frac{N}{Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}.
\end{align*}
Take a fixed function $U\in C_c([-2,-2])$ such that $U(x)=1$ for $-1\leq x\leq 1$, and let \begin{align*}
\phi_{1}\left(\frac{uHt^{1-\varepsilon}}{N},q,h,x\right)=&\left(\frac{qt}{2\pi hN}+u\right)^{-\frac{1}{3}}\\
&\times\int_\BR W_\pm\left(\frac{qt}{2\pi hN}+u,y\right)e\left(\frac{tHy}{2\pi N}\left(\frac{qt}{2\pi hN}+u\right)^{-1}+\frac{Hxy}{qQ}-\frac{hHy}{q}\right)dy
\end{align*}
Then $\phi_{1}\left(\frac{uHt^{1-\varepsilon}}{N},q,h,x\right)$ is $t^\varepsilon$-inert and the $y,w$-integral becomes \begin{align*}
&e\left(\frac{tx}{2\pi hQ}\right)\int_\BR U\left(\frac{uHt^{1-\varepsilon}}{N}\right)\phi_{1}\left(\frac{uHt^{1-\varepsilon}}{N},q,h,x\right)U_{0}\left(\frac{n_0^2n}{q^3},\frac{qt}{2\pi h}+Nu\right)\nonumber\\
&\times e\left(\frac{Nxu}{qQ}-\eta_23\left(\frac{n_0^2nN}{q^3}\left(\frac{qt}{2\pi hN}+u\right)\right)^\frac{1}{3}\right)du+O\left(t^{-A}\right)\nonumber\\
=&\frac{N}{Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}e\left(\frac{tx}{2\pi hQ}\right)\int_\BR U(u) \phi_{1}\left(u,q,h,x\right)U_{0}\left(\frac{n_0^2n}{q^3},\frac{qt}{2\pi h}+\frac{N^2u}{Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}\right)\nonumber\\
&\times e\left(\frac{N^2xu}{qQHt^{1-\varepsilon}}-\eta_23\left(\frac{n_0^2nN}{q^3}\left(\frac{qt}{2\pi hN}+\frac{Nu}{Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}\right)\right)^\frac{1}{3}\right)du+O\left(t^{-A}\right).
\end{align*}
Defining \begin{align}\label{W1Def}
W_{1,\eta_2}^\pm(n_0^2n,q,h,u):=&U_{0}\left(\frac{n_0^2n}{q^3},\frac{qt}{2\pi h}+\frac{N^2u}{Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}\right)e\left(-\eta_23\left(\frac{n_0^2nN}{q^3}\left(\frac{qt}{2\pi hN}+\frac{Nu}{Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}\right)\right)^\frac{1}{3}\right),
\end{align}
we have \begin{align*}
S_{M,H,C}^\pm(N)=&\frac{MN^{7/3}t^\epsilon}{Qt^{1-\varepsilon}}\sum_{\eta_1,\eta_2=\pm}\sup_{H'\sim \frac{Ct}{N}}\,\sum_{C\leq q<(1+10^{-10})C} \frac{1}{q^3}\sum_{\substack{H'\leq h<(1+10^{-10})H'\\(h,q)=1}}\sum_{n_0|q}\sum_{n_0^2n\ll \left(\frac{N^2}{Q^3}+\frac{(CHt)^3}{N^4}\right)t^\varepsilon}\lambda(n,n_0)\left(\frac{n_0}{n}\right)^{1/3}\nonumber\\
&\times \sum_{m_0|q}\sum_{m_0^2m\ll\frac{N^2t^\varepsilon}{Q^3}}\overline{\lambda(m,m_0)}\left(\frac{m_0}{m}\right)^{1/3}S\left(\overline{h},\eta_1 m;\frac{q}{m_0}\right)S\left(\overline{h},\eta_2 n;\frac{q}{n_0}\right)\nonumber\\
&\times \int_{\BR}U(u)W_{1,\eta_2}^\pm(n_0^2n,q,h,u)\int_\BR g(q,x)\phi_{1}\left(u,q,h,x\right)\nonumber\\
&\times U_{1,\eta_1}\left(\frac{m_0^2m}{q^3},q,x\right)e\left(\frac{N^2xu}{qQHt^{1-\varepsilon}}+\frac{tx}{2\pi hQ}\right)dxdu+O\left(t^{-A}\right)
\end{align*}
for any $A>0$. Applying smooth dyadic subdivisions on the $m_0^2m,n_0^2n$ sums, we get
\begin{align*}
S_{M,H,C}^\pm(N)\ll& t^\varepsilon\sup_{N_1\ll\frac{N^2t^\varepsilon}{Q^3}}\sup_{N_2\ll\frac{N^2t^\varepsilon}{Q^3}}\sup_{H'\sim\frac{Ct}{N}}\sum_{\eta_1,\eta_2=\pm}\frac{MN^{7/3}}{Qt}\sum_{C\leq q<(1+10^{-10})C}\frac{1}{q^3}\sum_{\substack{H'\leq h\leq (1+10^{-10})H'\\(h,q)=1}}\nonumber\\
&\times \sum_{m_0|q}\sum_m\overline{\lambda(m,m_0)}\left(\frac{m_0}{m}\right)^{1/3}\varphi\left(\frac{m_0^2m}{N_1}\right)\sum_{n_0|q}\sum_n \lambda(n,n_0)\left(\frac{n_0}{n}\right)^{1/3}\varphi\left(\frac{n_0^2n}{N_2}\right)\\ &\times S\left(\overline{h},\eta_1 m;\frac{q}{m_0}\right) S\left(\overline{h},\eta_2 n;\frac{q}{n_0}\right)\int_\BR U(u) W_{1,\eta_2}^\pm(n_0^2n,q,h,u)\nonumber\\
&\times \int_\BR g(q,x)\phi_{1}\left(u,q,h,x\right)U_{1,\eta_1}\left(\frac{m_0^2m}{q^3},q,x\right)e\left(\frac{N^2xu}{qQHt^{1-\varepsilon}}+\frac{tx}{2\pi hQ}\right)dxdu+t^{-A}
\end{align*}
for some fixed $\varphi\in C_c^\infty([1/2,2])$.
\subsubsection{$x$-integral} We get arbitrary saving for $|x|\gg t^\epsilon$ due to bounds on $g(q,x)$ as given in \eqref{gqx}. So we can restrict $|x|\ll t^\epsilon$. Moreover, we expect to obtain cancellations in the $x$-integral when $|x|\gg CQt^\epsilon/N$. Therefore we use a smooth partition of unity to split the $x$-integral into dyadic segments and a small `remainder' part of size $CQt^\epsilon/N$.
Let $\varphi:(0,\infty)\rightarrow[0,1]$ be a smooth compactly supported function satisfying
\begin{equation*}
supp(\varphi) \subset [1/2, 2] \quad \text{ and } \quad \sum_{j\in\BZ}\varphi\bigg(\frac{y}{2^j}\bigg) = 1 \, \text{ for } \, y\in(0,\infty).
\end{equation*}
Define $\varphi_0(0)=1$, and for $y\in \BR\backslash\{0\}$
\begin{equation*}
\varphi_0(y) := \sum_{i\geq1} \varphi\bigg(\frac{2^{i}y}{CQt^\epsilon/N}\bigg) + \varphi\bigg(\frac{-2^{i}y}{CQt^\epsilon/N}\bigg) \quad \text{ and } \quad \varphi_X(y) := \varphi\bigg(\frac{y}{X}\bigg) \, \text{ for } X = \pm \frac{2^{j-1}CQt^\epsilon}{N}\, \text{ and }\, j\geq1.
\end{equation*}
Then $\varphi_0(y)$ is smooth and supported in $\displaystyle \bigg(\frac{-CQt^\epsilon}{N}, \frac{CQt^\epsilon}{N}\bigg)$ with $\varphi_0(y)=1$ for $\displaystyle y\in\bigg[\frac{-CQt^\epsilon}{2N}, \frac{CQt^\epsilon}{2N}\bigg]$.
\iffalse
i.e. let $\varphi_{Y}(y)=\varphi\left(\frac{y}{Y}\right)$ with the same fixed $\varphi\in C_c^\infty([1/2,5/2])$, we have \begin{align*}
\varphi_0\left(x\right):=1-\sum_{\eta_0=\pm}\sum_{\substack{\frac{CQt^\varepsilon}{N}\leq X \leq t^\varepsilon\\\text{Dyadic}}}\varphi_{\eta_0X}\left(x\right)
\end{align*}
is smooth and supported on $$(-\infty,-t^\varepsilon)\bigcup\left(-\frac{CQt^\varepsilon}{N},\frac{CQt^\varepsilon}{N}\right)\bigcup(t^\varepsilon,\infty).$$
\fi
Hence we have
\begin{align*}
S_{M,H,C}^\pm(N)\ll& t^\varepsilon\sup_{\substack{\frac{CQt^\varepsilon}{N}\leq |X| \leq t^\varepsilon\\ \text{or } X=0}}\sup_{N_1\ll\frac{N^2t^\varepsilon}{Q^3}}\sup_{N_2\ll\frac{N^2t^\varepsilon}{Q^3}}\sup_{H'\sim\frac{Ct}{N}}\sup_{\eta_1,\eta_2=\pm}\frac{MN^{7/3}}{Qt}\sum_{C\leq q<(1+10^{-10})C}\frac{1}{q^3}\nonumber\\
&\times \sum_{\substack{H'\leq h<(1+10^{-10})H'\\(h,q)=1}}\sum_{m_0|q}\sum_m\overline{\lambda(m,m_0)}\left(\frac{m_0}{m}\right)^{1/3}\varphi\left(\frac{m_0^2m}{N_1}\right)\sum_{n_0|q}\sum_n\lambda(n,n_0)\left(\frac{n_0}{n}\right)^{1/3}\varphi\left(\frac{n_0^2n}{N_2}\right)\nonumber\\
&\times S\left(\overline{h},\eta_1 m;\frac{q}{m_0}\right) S\left(\overline{h},\eta_2 n;\frac{q}{n_0}\right)\int_\BR U(u) W_{1,\eta_2}^\pm(n_0^2n,q,h,u)\nonumber\\
&\times \int_\BR \varphi_X(x)g(q,x)\phi_{1}\left(u,q,h,x\right)U_{1,\eta_1}\left(\frac{m_0^2m}{q^3},q,x\right)e\left(\frac{N^2xu}{qQHt^{1-\varepsilon}}+\frac{tx}{2\pi hQ}\right)dxdu+t^{-A}.
\end{align*}
\iffalse
Note that by choosing $Q^2<Nt^{-\varepsilon}$, the bounds for $g(q,x)$ in Lemma \ref{DFILemma} and (\ref{gqxBound}) implies the bound \begin{align}\label{phi0supp}
\varphi_0(x)g(q,x)\ll t^\varepsilon\delta\left(|x|\ll\frac{CQt^\varepsilon}{N}\right)+t^{-A}
\end{align}
for any $A>0$.
\fi
\subsection{Cauchy-Schwartz Inequality and the Duality principle}
We now apply Cauchy-Schwartz inequality to take out everything in (\ref{SMHAfterAllDual}) except the $m,m_0,n,n_0$-sums and the $x$-integral, giving us
\begin{align*}
S_{M,H,C}^\pm(N)\ll& t^\varepsilon\sup_{\eta_1,\eta_2=\pm}\sup_{\substack{\frac{CQt^\varepsilon}{N}\leq |X| \leq t^\varepsilon\\ \text{or } X=0}}\sup_{N_1\ll\frac{N^2t^\varepsilon}{Q^3}}\sup_{N_2\ll\frac{N^2t^\varepsilon}{Q^3}}\sup_{H'\sim\frac{Ct}{N}}\left(\tilde{S}_{1,X}(N)\tilde{S}_{2}(N)\right)^{1/2}+t^{-A}
\end{align*}
for any $A>0$, where
\begin{align*}
\tilde{S}_{1,X}(N):=&\tilde{S}_{1,M,H,H',C,X}^{\pm,\eta_1}(N,N_1)\nonumber\\
=&\frac{MN^{7/3}}{Qt}\sum_{C\leq q<(1+10^{-10})C} \frac{1}{q^3} \sum_{\substack{H'\leq h<(1+10^{-10})H'\\(h,q)=1}}\int_\BR U(u)^2\nonumber\\
&\times \left|\sum_{m_0|q}\sum_m\overline{\lambda(m,m_0)}\left(\frac{m_0}{m}\right)^{1/3}\varphi\left(\frac{m_0^2m}{N_1}\right)S\left(\overline{h},\eta_1 m;\frac{q}{m_0}\right)\right.\nonumber\\
&\times \left.\int_\BR \varphi_X(x)g(q,x)\phi_{1}\left(u,q,h,x\right)U_{1,\eta_1}\left(\frac{m_0^2m}{q^3},q,x\right)e\left(\frac{N^2xu}{qQHt^{1-\varepsilon}}+\frac{tx}{2\pi hQ}\right)dx\right|^2du
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
\tilde{S}_{2}(N):=&\tilde{S}_{2,M,H,H',C}^{\pm,\eta_2}(N,N_2)\nonumber\\
=&\frac{MN^{7/3}}{Qt}\sum_{C\leq q<(1+10^{-10})C} \frac{1}{q^3} \sum_{\substack{H'\leq h<(1+10^{-10})H'\\(h,q)=1}}\int_\BR U(u)^2\nonumber\\
&\times\left|\sum_{n_0|q}\sum_n\lambda(n,n_0)\left(\frac{n_0}{n}\right)^{1/3}\varphi\left(\frac{n_0^2n}{N_2}\right)S\left(\overline{h},\eta_2 n;\frac{q}{n_0}\right) W_{1,\eta_2}^\pm(n_0^2n,q,h,u)\right|^2du.
\end{align*}
By the duality principle (Lemma \ref{dualitylemma}) and Lemma \ref{Ram bound}, we have the following theorem.
\begin{Theorem}\label{S1S2Thm}
For any positive numbers $A>0$, $\sqrt{t}\ll M\ll N$, $\frac{N}{t^{1-\varepsilon}}\ll H\ll\frac{Nt^\varepsilon}{M}$, $Q\gg \frac{N}{t^{1-\varepsilon}}$, $C\ll Q$, we have
\begin{align*}
S_{M,H,C}^\pm(N)\ll t^{-A}
\end{align*}
unless $C\gg\frac{N}{t^{1+\varepsilon}}$. When $C\gg\frac{N}{t^{1+\varepsilon}}$, we have
\begin{align*}
S_{M,H,C}^\pm(N)\ll& t^\varepsilon\sup_{|u|\ll1}\sup_{\eta_1,\eta_2=\pm}\sup_{\substack{\frac{CQt^\varepsilon}{N}\leq |X| \leq t^\varepsilon\\ \text{or } X=0}}\sup_{N_1\ll\frac{N^2t^\varepsilon}{Q^3}}\sup_{N_2\ll\frac{N^2t^\varepsilon}{Q^3}}\sup_{H'\sim\frac{Ct}{N}}\left(S_{1,X}(N)S_{2}(N)\right)^{1/2}+t^{-A},
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align}\label{S1AfterDuality}
S_{1,X}(N):=&S_{1,M,H,H',C,X}^{\pm,\eta_1}(N,N_1)\nonumber\\
=&\frac{MN_1^{1/3}N^{7/3}}{Qt^{1-\varepsilon}}\sup_{\|\beta\|_2=1}\sum_{m_0}\frac{1}{m_0}\sum_m\varphi\left(\frac{m_0^2m}{N_1}\right)\left|\sum_{\frac{C}{m_0}\leq q< (1+10^{-10})\frac{C}{m_0}}\frac{1}{q^{3/2}}\sum_{\substack{H'\leq h<(1+10^{-10})H'\\(h,qm_0)=1}}\right.\nonumber\\
&\times S\left(\overline{h} ,\eta_1 m;q\right)\int_\BR U(u) \beta(m_0q,h,u)\int_\BR \varphi_X(x)g(m_0q,x)\phi_{1}\left(u,q,h,x\right)\nonumber\\
&\times \left.U_{1,\eta_1} \left(\frac{m}{q^3m_0},m_0q,x\right)e\left(\frac{N^2xu}{m_0qQHt^{1-\varepsilon}}+\frac{tx}{2\pi hQ}\right)dxdu\right|^2,
\end{align}
and \begin{align}\label{S2AfterDuality}
S_{2}(N):=&S_{2,M,H,H',C,u}^{\pm,\eta_2}(N,N_2)\nonumber\\
=&\frac{MN_2^{1/3}N^{7/3}}{Qt^{1-\varepsilon}}\sup_{\|\beta\|_2=1}\sum_{n_0}\frac{1}{n_0}\sum_n\varphi\left(\frac{n_0^2n}{N_2}\right)\left|\sum_{\frac{C}{n_0}\leq q< (1+10^{-10})\frac{C}{n_0}}\frac{1}{q^{3/2}}\sum_{\substack{H'\leq h<(1+10^{-10})H'\\(h,qn_0)=1}}S\left(\overline{h},\eta_2 n;q\right)\right.\nonumber\\
&\times
\left.\int_\BR U(u)\beta(n_0q,h,u) W_{1,\eta_2}^\pm(n_0^2n,n_0q,h,u)du\right|^2,
\end{align}
with $U_{1,\eta_1}, W_{1,\eta_2}^\pm$ as defined in (\ref{U1Def}) and (\ref{W1Def}) respectively.
\end{Theorem}
\section{Opening the square and Poisson summation to \texorpdfstring{$S_{1,X}(N)$}{S1X(N)}}
In this section we focus on the analysis of $S_{1,X}(N)$. We will then apply similar treatment to $S_{2}(N)$ in the next section.
\subsection{Opening the square and Poisson summation}
Opening the square in (\ref{S1AfterDuality}), we get \begin{align*}
S_{1,X}(N)=&\frac{MN_1^{1/3}N^{7/3}}{Qt^{1-\varepsilon}}\sup_{\|\beta\|_2=1}\sum_{m_0}\frac{1}{m_0}\sum_m\varphi\left(\frac{m_0^2m}{N_1}\right)\mathop{\sum\sum}_{\frac{C}{m_0}\leq q_1,q_2< (1+10^{-10})\frac{C}{m_0}}\frac{1}{(q_1q_2)^{3/2}}\nonumber\\
&\times \mathop{\sum\sum}_{\substack{H'\leq h_1, h_2<(1+10^{-10})H'\\(h_1,q_1m_0)=1\\(h_2,q_2m_0)=1}}S\left(\overline{h_1} ,\eta_1 m;q_1\right)S\left(\overline{h_2} ,\eta_1 m;q_2\right)\nonumber\\
&\times \int_\BR U(u_1)\beta(m_0q_1,h_1,u_1)\int_\BR \varphi_X(x_1)g(m_0q_1,x_1)\phi_{1}\left(u_1,m_0q_1,h_1,x_1\right) \nonumber\\
&\times U_{1,\eta_1} \left(\frac{m}{q_1^3m_0},m_0q_1,x_1\right)e\left(\frac{N^2x_1u_1}{m_0q_1QHt^{1-\varepsilon}}+\frac{tx_1}{2\pi h_1Q}\right)dx_1du_1\nonumber\\
&\times \int_\BR U(u_2)\overline{\beta(m_0q_2,h_2,u_2)}\int_\BR \varphi_X(x_2)\hspace{0.1cm} \overline{g(m_0q_2,x_2)\phi_{1}\left(u_2,m_0q_2,h_2,x_2\right)} \nonumber\\
&\times \overline{U_{1,\eta_1} \left(\frac{m}{q_2^3m_0},m_0q_2,x_2\right)}e\left(-\frac{N^2x_2u_2}{m_0q_2QHt^{1-\varepsilon}}-\frac{tx_2}{2\pi h_2Q}\right)dx_2du_2.
\end{align*}
Applying Poisson summation to the $m$-sum, we have
\begin{align*}
&\sum_m\varphi\left(\frac{m_0^2m}{N_1}\right)S\left(\overline{h_1} ,\eta_1 m;q_1\right)S\left(\overline{h_2} ,\eta_1 m;q_2\right) U_{1,\eta_1} \left(\frac{m}{q_1^3m_0},m_0q_1,x_1\right)\overline{U_{1,\eta_1} \left(\frac{m}{q_2^3m_0},m_0q_2,x_2\right)}\nonumber\\
=&\frac{N_1}{m_0^2q_1q_2}\sum_m\mathcal{C}_{\eta_1}(m,h_1,h_2,q_1q_2)\mathcal{J}_{1,1}(m,m_0,q_1,q_2,x_1,x_2),
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align}\label{CharDef}
\mathcal{C}_{\eta_1}(m,h_1,h_2,q_1q_2)=\sum_{\gamma\bmod q_1q_2}S\left(\overline{h_1} ,\eta_1 \gamma;q_1\right)S\left(\overline{h_2} ,\eta_1 \gamma;q_2\right)e\left(\frac{m\gamma}{q_1q_2}\right)
\end{align}
and \begin{align}\label{J11Def}
&\mathcal{J}_{1,1}(m,m_0,q_1,q_2,x_1,x_2)\nonumber\\
=&\int_0^\infty \varphi(z)U_{1,\eta_1} \left(\frac{N_1z}{(m_0q_1)^3},m_0q_1,x_1\right)\overline{U_{1,\eta_1} \left(\frac{N_1z}{(m_0q_2)^3},m_0q_2,x_2\right)}e\left(-\frac{mN_1z}{m_0^2q_1q_2}\right)dz.
\end{align}
Now we analyse $\mathcal{J}_{1,1}(m,m_0,q_1,q_2,x_1,x_2)$. Recall the definition of $U_{1,\eta_1}\left(\frac{N_1z}{(m_0q_j)^3},m_0q_j,x_j\right)$ in (\ref{U1Def}) for $j=1,2$. The oscillatory integral in $U_{1,\eta_1}$ has the phase function \begin{align*}
f_1(w)=-\frac{Nwx_j}{m_0q_jQ}+\eta_13\left(\frac{N_1Nwz}{(m_0q_j)^3}\right)^\frac{1}{3}.
\end{align*}
Differentiating gives us \begin{align*}
f_1'(w)=&-\frac{Nx_j}{m_0q_jQ}+\eta_1\left(\frac{N_1Nz}{(m_0q_j)^3w^2}\right)^\frac{1}{3}\\
f_1''(w)=&-\eta_1\frac{2}{3}\left(\frac{N_1Nz}{(m_0q_j)^3w^5}\right)^\frac{1}{3}\\
f_1^{(j)}(w)\ll&_j \frac{(N_1N)^\frac{1}{3}}{C}
\end{align*}
for any $j\geq2$.
For the case $X=0$, the support of $\varphi_0(x_j)$ gives us $\frac{Nx_j}{CQ}\ll t^\varepsilon$, and hence (1) in Lemma \ref{statlemma} gives us arbitrary saving unless \begin{align*}
\left(\frac{N_1N}{C^3}\right)^\frac{1}{3}\ll t^\varepsilon \Longleftrightarrow N_1\ll \frac{C^3t^\varepsilon}{N}.
\end{align*}
In such case, $U_{1,\eta_1}$ is $t^\varepsilon$-inert. Now by repeated integration by parts on the $z$-integral in $\mathcal{J}_{1,1}$, we get arbitrary saving unless \begin{align*}
|m|\ll\frac{C^2t^\varepsilon}{N_1}.
\end{align*}
We have $\mathcal{J}_{1,1}(m,m_0,q_1,q_2,x_1,x_2)$ is $t^\varepsilon$-inert when $|m|\ll\frac{C^2t^\varepsilon}{N_1}$ and \begin{align*}
S_{1,0}(N)=&\frac{MN_1^{4/3}N^{7/3}}{Qt^{1-\varepsilon}}\delta\left(N_1\ll \frac{C^3t^\varepsilon}{N}\right)\sup_{\|\beta\|_2=1}\sum_{m_0}\frac{1}{m_0^3}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{\frac{C}{m_0}\leq q_1,q_2< (1+10^{-10})\frac{C}{m_0}}\frac{1}{(q_1q_2)^{5/2}}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{\substack{H'\leq h_1, h_2<(1+10^{-10})H'\\(h_1,q_1m_0)=1\\(h_2,q_2m_0)=1}}\nonumber\\
&\times \sum_{|m|\ll\frac{C^2t^\varepsilon}{N_1}}\mathcal{C}_{\eta_1}(m,h_1,h_2,q_1q_2)\int_\BR\int_\BR U(u_1)U(u_2)\beta(m_0q_1,h_1,u_1)\overline{\beta(m_0q_2,h_2,u_2)}\nonumber\\
&\times \int_\BR \varphi_0(x_1)g(m_0q_1,x_1)\phi_{1}\left(u_1,m_0q_1,h_1,x_1\right)\int_\BR \varphi_0(x_2)\overline{g(m_0q_2,x_2)\phi_{1}\left(u_2,m_0q_2,h_2,x_2\right)}\nonumber\\
&\times \mathcal{J}_{1,1}(m,m_0,q_1,q_2,x_1,x_2)e\left(\frac{N^2x_1u_1}{m_0q_1QHt^{1-\varepsilon}}-\frac{N^2x_2u_2}{m_0q_2QHt^{1-\varepsilon}}+\frac{tx_1}{2\pi h_1Q}-\frac{tx_2}{2\pi h_2Q}\right)\nonumber\\
& dx_2dx_1du_2du_1+O\left(t^{-A}\right)
\end{align*}
for any $A>0$.
We get
\begin{align}\label{S10}
S_{1,0}(N)\ll&\frac{QMN_1^{4/3}N^{1/3}}{Ct^{1-\varepsilon}}\delta\left(N_1\ll \frac{C^3t^\varepsilon}{N}\right)\sup_{\|\beta\|_2=1}\sum_{m_0}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{\frac{C}{m_0}\leq q_1,q_2< (1+10^{-10})\frac{C}{m_0}}\frac{1}{q_1q_2}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{\substack{H'\leq h_1, h_2<(1+10^{-10})H'\\(h_1,q_1m_0)=1\\(h_2,q_2m_0)=1}}\nonumber\\
&\times \int_{|u_1|\ll1}\int_{|u_2|\ll1}|\beta(m_0q_1,h_1,u_1)\beta(m_0q_2,h_2,u_2)|du_2du_1\sum_{|m|\ll\frac{C^2t^\varepsilon}{N_1}}|\mathcal{C}_{\eta_1}(m,h_1,h_2,q_1q_2)|+t^{-A}.
\end{align}
For the case $X\neq0$, the support of $\varphi_X(x_j)$ gives us $\frac{Nx_j}{CQ}\sim\frac{NX}{CQ}\gg t^\varepsilon$, (1) in Lemma \ref{statlemma} gives us arbitrary saving unless \begin{align*}
\eta_1X>0 \text{ and } \frac{(N_1N)^{1/3}}{C}\sim \frac{NX}{CQ}\gg t^\varepsilon.
\end{align*}
In such case, we have $f_1''(w)\gg t^\varepsilon$. Computing the stationary phase point $f_1'(w_0)=0$, we get \begin{align*}
w_0=&\sqrt{\frac{N_1Q^3z}{N^2|x_j|^3}}\\
f_1(w_0)=&\frac{2Nx_jw_0}{m_0q_jQ}=2\sqrt{\frac{N_1Qz}{(m_0q_j)^2|x_j|}}.
\end{align*}
Hence for any $A>0$, (2) in Lemma \ref{statlemma} yields \begin{align*}
U_{1,\eta_1}\left(\frac{N_1z}{(m_0q_j)^3},m_0q_j,x_j\right)=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{f_1''(w_0)}}\delta\left(\eta_1X>0\right)U_2\left(\frac{N_1Q^3z}{N^2|x_j|^3}\right)e\left(2\sqrt{\frac{N_1Qz}{(m_0q_j)^2|x_j|}}\right)\\
&+O\left(t^{-A}\right)
\end{align*}
for some $t^\varepsilon$-inert function $U_2\in C_c^\infty([1/4,25/4])$.
Writing \begin{align*}
U_3\left(\frac{N_1Q^3z}{N^2m_0^3|x_j|^3},m_0q_j,x_j\right)=\frac{(N_1N)^{1/6}}{\sqrt{C}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{f_1''(w_0)}}U_2\left(\frac{N_1Q^3z}{N^2|x_j|^3}\right),
\end{align*}
then $U_3$ is a $t^\varepsilon$-inert function supported on $[1/4,25/4]\times\R\times\R$ such that \begin{align*}
U_{1,\eta_1}\left(\frac{N_1z}{(m_0q_j)^3},m_0q_j,x_j\right)=&\frac{\sqrt{C}}{(N_1N)^{1/6}}\delta\left(\eta_1X>0\right)U_3\left(\frac{N_1Q^3z}{N^2|x_j|^3},m_0q_j,x_j\right)\\
&\times e\left(2\sqrt{\frac{N_1Qz}{(m_0q_j)^2|x_j|}}\right)+O\left(t^{-A}\right).
\end{align*}
Inserting this back into (\ref{J11Def}) yields \begin{align*}
&\mathcal{J}_{1,1}(m,m_0,q_1,q_2,x_1,x_2)\\
=&\frac{C}{(N_1N)^{1/3}}\delta\left(\eta_1X>0\right)\int_0^\infty \varphi(z)U_3 \left(\frac{N_1Q^3z}{N^2|x_1|^3},m_0q_1,x_1\right)\overline{U_3 \left(\frac{N_1Q^3z}{N^2|x_2|^3},m_0q_2,x_2\right)}\\
&\times e\left(2\sqrt{\frac{N_1Qz}{(m_0q_1)^2|x_1|}}-2\sqrt{\frac{N_1Qz}{(m_0q_2)^2|x_2|}}-\frac{mN_1z}{m_0^2q_1q_2}\right)dz.
\end{align*}
Repeated integration by parts gives us arbitrary saving unless \begin{align*}
\frac{|m|N_1}{m_0^2q_1q_2}\ll\sqrt{\frac{N_1Q}{C^2|X|}}\Longleftrightarrow |m|\ll\frac{C\sqrt{Q}}{\sqrt{N_1|X|}}t^\varepsilon\sim\frac{CQ^2}{NX^2}t^\varepsilon.
\end{align*}
Hence we have for $X\neq 0$, \begin{align}\label{S1XAfterFirstCauchy}
S_{1,X}(N)\ll&\frac{CMN_1N^2}{Qt^{1-\varepsilon}}\delta(\eta_1X>0)\sup_{\|\beta\|_2=1}\sum_{m_0}m_0^{-3}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{\frac{C}{m_0}\leq q_1,q_2< (1+10^{-10})\frac{C}{m_0}}(q_1q_2)^{-5/2}\nonumber\\
&\times \mathop{\sum\sum}_{\substack{H'\leq h_1, h_2<(1+10^{-10})H'\\(h_1,q_1m_0)=1\\(h_2,q_2m_0)=1}}\sum_{|m|\ll\frac{CQ^2}{NX^2}t^\varepsilon}\mathcal{C}_{\eta_1}(m,h_1,h_2,q_1q_2)\nonumber\\
&\times \int_\BR\int_\BR U(u_1)U(u_2)\beta(m_0q_1,h_1,u_1)\overline{\beta(m_0q_2,h_2,u_2)}\int_\BR \varphi_X(x_1)g(m_0q_1,x_1)\nonumber\\
&\times \phi_{1}\left(u_1,m_0q_1,h_1,x_1\right)\int_\BR \varphi_X(x_2)\overline{g(m_0q_2,x_2)\phi_{1}\left(u_2,m_0q_2,h_2,x_2\right)}\nonumber\\
&\times \int_0^\infty \varphi(z)U_3 \left(\frac{N_1Q^3z}{N^2|x_1|^3},m_0q_1,x_1\right)\overline{U_3 \left(\frac{N_1Q^3z}{N^2|x_2|^3},m_0q_2,x_2\right)}\nonumber\\
&\times e\left(2\sqrt{\frac{N_1Qz}{m_0^2q_1^2|x_1|}}-2\sqrt{\frac{N_1Qz}{m_0^2q_2^2|x_2|}}-\frac{mN_1z}{m_0^2q_1q_2}\right)dz\nonumber\\
&\times e\left(\frac{N^2x_1u_1}{m_0q_1QHt^{1-\varepsilon}}-\frac{N^2x_2u_2}{m_0q_2QHt^{1-\varepsilon}}+\frac{tx_1}{2\pi h_1Q}-\frac{tx_2}{2\pi h_2Q}\right)dx_2dx_1du_2du_1+t^{-A}
\end{align}
for any $A>0$.
\subsection{Bounding \texorpdfstring{$S_{1,0}(N)$}{S10(N)}}
To bound $S_{1,0}(N)$, we are left to bound the character sum $\mathcal{C}_{\eta_1}(m,h_1,h_2,q_1q_2)$ in (\ref{S10}). Recalling the definition in (\ref{CharDef}), we get for $m=0$,
\begin{align}\label{CharSum0}
\mathcal{C}_{\eta_1}(0,h_1,h_2,q_1q_2)=&\sum_{\gamma\bmod q_1q_2}S\left(\overline{h_1} ,\eta_1 \gamma;q_1\right)S\left(\overline{h_2} ,\eta_1 \gamma;q_2\right)\nonumber\\
=&\ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\alpha_1\bmod q_1}e\left(\frac{\alpha_1\overline{h_1}}{q_1}\right)\ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\alpha_2\bmod q_2}e\left(\frac{\alpha_2\overline{h_2}}{q_2}\right)\sum_{\gamma\bmod q_1q_2}e\left(\eta_1\frac{(\overline{\alpha_1}q_2+\overline{\alpha_2}q_1)\gamma}{q_1q_2}\right)\nonumber\\
=&q_1q_2\ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\alpha_1\bmod q_1}e\left(\frac{\alpha_1\overline{h_1}}{q_1}\right)\ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\alpha_2\bmod q_2}e\left(\frac{\alpha_2\overline{h_2}}{q_2}\right)\delta\left(\overline{\alpha_1}q_2\equiv-\overline{\alpha_2}q_1\bmod q_1q_2\right)\nonumber\\
=&q_1^2\ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\alpha\bmod q_1}e\left(\frac{\alpha(\overline{h_1}-\overline{h_2})}{q_1}\right)\delta(q_1=q_2)\nonumber\\
=&q_1^2\sum_{q_1'|q_1}q_1'\mu\left(\frac{q}{q_1'}\right)\delta\left(h_1\equiv h_2\bmod q_1', q_1=q_2\right).
\end{align}
Hence the contribution of $m=0$ to $S_{1,0}(N)$ is bounded by \begin{align*}
\ll&\frac{QMN_1^{4/3}N^{1/3}}{Ct^{1-\varepsilon}}\delta\left(N_1\ll \frac{C^3t^\varepsilon}{N}\right)\sup_{\|\beta\|_2=1}\sum_{m_0}\sum_{\frac{C}{m_0}\leq q< (1+10^{-10})\frac{C}{m_0}}\sum_{q'|q}q'\mathop{\sum\sum}_{\substack{H'\leq h_1, h_2<(1+10^{-10})H'\\(h_1,q_1m_0)=1\\(h_2,q_2m_0)=1\\ h_1\equiv h_2\bmod{q'}}}\\
&\times \int_{|u_1|\ll1}\int_{|u_2|\ll1}|\beta(m_0q,h_1,u_1)\beta(m_0q,h_2,u_2)|du_2du_1.
\end{align*}
Applying Cauchy-Schwartz inequality, we get the above is bounded by \begin{align}\label{S100Bound}
\ll& \frac{QMN_1^{4/3}N^{1/3}}{Ct^{1-\varepsilon}}\delta\left(N_1\ll\frac{C^3t^\varepsilon}{N}\right)\sup_{\|\beta\|_2=1}\nonumber\\
&\times \left(\sum_{m_0}\sum_{\frac{C}{m_0}\leq q< (1+10^{-10})\frac{C}{m_0}}\sum_{q'|q}q'\mathop{\sum\sum}_{\substack{H'\leq h_1, h_2<(1+10^{-10})H'\\h_1\equiv h_2\bmod{q'}}}\int_{|u_1|\ll1}\int_{|u_2|\ll1}|\beta(m_0q,h_1,u_1)|^2du_2du_1\right)^{1/2}\nonumber\\
&\times \left(\sum_{m_0}\sum_{\frac{C}{m_0}\leq q< (1+10^{-10})\frac{C}{m_0}}\sum_{q'|q}q'\mathop{\sum\sum}_{\substack{H'\leq h_1, h_2<(1+10^{-10})H'\\h_1\equiv h_2\bmod{q'}}}\int_{|u_1|\ll1}\int_{|u_2|\ll1}|\beta(m_0q,h_2,u_2)|^2du_2du_1\right)^{1/2}\nonumber\\
\ll&\frac{QMN_1^{4/3}N^{1/3}}{t^{1-\varepsilon}}\left(1+\frac{t}{N}\right)\delta\left(N_1\ll\frac{C^3t^\varepsilon}{N}\right).
\end{align}
\begin{Remark}
To get the inequality above, we have used $$\sum_{m_0}\sum_{\frac{C}{m_0}\leq q< (1+10^{-10})\frac{C}{m_0}}F(m_0,q)=\sum_{C\leq q<(1+10^{-10})C}\sum_{m_0|q}F\left(m_0,\frac{q}{m_0}\right)\ll q^\varepsilon\sum_{C\leq q<(1+10^{-10})C}\sup_{m_0|q}F\left(m_0,\frac{q}{m_0}\right).$$
\end{Remark}
For the case $m\neq 0$, the character sum is \begin{align}\label{CharSumNon0}
\mathcal{C}_{\eta_1}(m,h_1,h_2,q_1q_2)=&\sum_{\gamma\bmod q_1q_2}S\left(\overline{h_1} ,\eta_1 \gamma;q_1\right)S\left(\overline{h_2} ,\eta_1 \gamma;q_2\right)e\left(\frac{m\gamma}{q_1q_2}\right)\nonumber\\
=&\ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\alpha_1\bmod{q_1}}e\left(\frac{\overline{\alpha_1h_1}}{q_1}\right)\ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\alpha_2\bmod{q_2}}e\left(\frac{\overline{\alpha_2h_2}}{q_2}\right)\sum_{\gamma\bmod{q_1q_2}}e\left(\frac{(\eta_1(\alpha_1q_2+\alpha_2q_1)+m)\gamma}{q_1q_2}\right)\nonumber\\
\ll&q_1q_2\ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\alpha_1\bmod{q_1}}\ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\alpha_2\bmod{q_2}}\delta\left(-\eta_1 m\equiv \alpha_1q_2+\alpha_2q_1\bmod{q_1q_2}\right).
\end{align}
Hence (\ref{S10}) gives us the contribution of $m\neq0$ to $S_{1,0}(N)$ is bounded by \begin{align*}
\ll& \frac{QMN_1^{4/3}N^{1/3}}{Ct^{1-\varepsilon}}\delta\left(N_1\ll \frac{C^3t^\varepsilon}{N}\right)\sup_{\|\beta\|_2=1}\sum_{m_0}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{\frac{C}{m_0}\leq q_1,q_2< (1+10^{-10})\frac{C}{m_0}}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{\substack{H'\leq h_1, h_2<(1+10^{-10})H'\\(h_1,q_1m_0)=1\\(h_2,q_2m_0)=1}}\\
&\times \int_{|u_1|\ll1}\int_{|u_2|\ll1}|\beta(m_0q_1,h_1,u_1)\beta(m_0q_2,h_2,u_2)|du_2du_1\nonumber\\
&\times \sum_{|m|\ll\frac{C^2t^\varepsilon}{N_1}}\ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\alpha_1\bmod{q_1}}\ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\alpha_2\bmod{q_1}}\delta\left(-\eta_1 m\equiv \alpha_1q_2+\alpha_2q_1\bmod{q_1q_2}\right)+t^{-A}
\end{align*}
for any $A>0$. Performing Cauchy-Schwartz inequality as the $m=0$ case, we get the above is bounded by \begin{align*}
\ll& \frac{QMN_1^{4/3}N^{1/3}}{Ct^{1-\varepsilon}}\delta\left(N_1\ll\frac{C^3t^\varepsilon}{N}\right)\sup_{\|\beta\|_2=1}\Bigg\{\sum_{m_0}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{\frac{C}{m_0}\leq q_1,q_2< (1+10^{-10})\frac{C}{m_0}}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{H'\leq h_1, h_2<(1+10^{-10})H'}\sum_{|m|\ll\frac{C^2t^\varepsilon}{N_1}}\nonumber\\
&\times \ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\alpha_1\bmod{q_1}}\ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\alpha_2\bmod{q_2}}\delta\left(-\eta_1 m\equiv \alpha_1q_2+\alpha_2q_1\bmod{q_1q_2}\right)\int_{|u_1|\ll1}\int_{|u_2|\ll1}|\beta(m_0q_1,h_1,u_1)|^2du_2du_1\Bigg\}^{1/2}\nonumber\\
&\times \Bigg\{\sum_{m_0}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{\frac{C}{m_0}\leq q_1,q_2< (1+10^{-10})\frac{C}{m_0}}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{H'\leq h_1, h_2<(1+10^{-10})H'}\sum_{|m|\ll\frac{C^2t^\varepsilon}{N_1}}\ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\alpha_1\bmod{q_1}}\ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\alpha_2\bmod{q_2}}\nonumber\\
&\times \delta\left(-\eta_1 m\equiv \alpha_1q_2+\alpha_2q_1\bmod{q_1q_2}\right)\int_{|u_1|\ll1}\int_{|u_2|\ll1}|\beta(m_0q_2,h_2,x_2,u_2)|^2du_2du_1\Bigg\}^{1/2}.
\end{align*}
To analyse the congruence condition, we let $q_0=(q_1,q_2)$, $q_1=q_0q_{1,0}q_1'$, $q_2=q_0q_{2,0}q_2'$ such that $q_{1,0},q_{2,0}|q_0^\infty$ and $(q_0,q_1')=(q_0,q_2')=1$. Then the congruence condition decompose into $q_0|m$ and \begin{align}\label{CongruenceAnalysis}
-\eta_1\frac{m}{q_0}\equiv& \alpha_1q_{2,0}q_2'+\alpha_2q_{1,0}q_1'\bmod{q_0q_{1,0}q_{2,0}}\nonumber\\
\alpha_1\equiv& -\eta_1\frac{m\overline{q_{2,0}q_2'}}{q_0}\bmod{q_1'}\nonumber\\
\alpha_2\equiv& -\eta_1\frac{m\overline{q_{1,0}q_1'}}{q_0}\bmod{q_2'}.
\end{align}
This implies
\begin{align*}
&\sum_{m_0}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{\frac{C}{m_0}\leq q_1,q_2< (1+10^{-10})\frac{C}{m_0}}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{H'\leq h_1, h_2<(1+10^{-10})H'}\sum_{|m|\ll\frac{C^2t^\varepsilon}{N_1}}\ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\alpha_1\bmod{q_1}}\ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\alpha_2\bmod{q_2}}\nonumber\\
&\times \delta\left(-\eta_1 m\equiv \alpha_1q_2+\alpha_2q_1\bmod{q_1q_2}\right)\int_{|u_1|\ll1}\int_{|u_2|\ll1}|\beta(m_0q_1,h_1,u_1)|^2du_2du_1\nonumber\\
\ll& \frac{Ct}{N}\sum_{C\leq q_1<(1+10^{-10})C}\mathop{\sum\sum\sum}_{\substack{m_0q_0q_{1,0}q_1'=q_1\\q_{1,0}|q_0^\infty\\(q_1',q_0)=1}}\sum_{\frac{Ct}{N}\leq h_1<(1+10^{-10})\frac{Ct}{N}}\int_{|u_1|\ll1}|\beta(q_1,h_1,u_1)|^2du_1\nonumber\\
&\times \sum_{\substack{|m|\ll\frac{C^2t^\varepsilon}{N_1}\\q_0|m}}\sum_{\substack{C\leq q_2<(1+10^{-10})C\\m_0q_0|q_2}}\sum_{\substack{m_0q_0q_{2,0}q_2'=q_2\\q_{2,0}|q_0^\infty\\(q_2',q_1)=1}}\ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\substack{\alpha_1\bmod{q_1}\\\alpha_1\equiv -\eta_1\frac{m\overline{q_{2,0}q_2'}}{q_0}\bmod{q_1'}}}\ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\substack{\alpha_2\bmod{q_2}\\\alpha_2\equiv -\eta_1\frac{m\overline{q_{1,0}q_1'}}{q_0}\bmod{q_2'}}}\nonumber\\
&\times \delta\left(-\eta_1\frac{m}{q_0}\equiv \alpha_1q_{2,0}q_2'+\alpha_2q_{1,0}q_1'\bmod{q_0q_{1,0}q_{2,0}}\right)\nonumber\\
\ll& \frac{C^4t^{1+\varepsilon}}{N_1N}.
\end{align*}
Hence the contribution of $m\neq0$ to $S_{1,0}(N)$ is bounded by \begin{align}\label{S10non0Bound}
\ll \frac{QMN_1^{4/3}N^{1/3}}{Ct^{1-\varepsilon}}\delta\left(N_1\ll\frac{C^3t^\varepsilon}{N}\right)\frac{C^4t}{N_1N}\ll \frac{C^3QMN_1^{1/3}t^\varepsilon}{N^{2/3}}\delta\left(N_1\ll\frac{C^3t^\varepsilon}{N}\right).
\end{align}
Combining (\ref{S100Bound}) and (\ref{S10non0Bound}), we get \begin{align}\label{S10Bound}
S_{1,0}(N)\ll \frac{C^3QMN_1^{1/3}t^\varepsilon}{N^{2/3}}\delta\left(N_1\ll\frac{C^3t^\varepsilon}{N}\right).
\end{align}
\subsection{Integral Analysis for \texorpdfstring{$X\neq 0$}{X not equal to 0}}
Consider the $x_1$-integral in (\ref{S1XAfterFirstCauchy}), \begin{align*}
&\int_\BR\varphi_X(x_1)g(m_0q_1,x_1)\phi_{1}\left(u_1,m_0q_1,h_1,x_1\right)U_3 \left(\frac{N_1Q^3z}{N^2|x_1|^3},m_0q_1,x_1\right)\\
&\times e\left(2\sqrt{\frac{N_1Qz}{m_0^2q_1^2|x_1|}}+\frac{N^2x_1u}{m_0q_1QHt^{1-\varepsilon}}+\frac{tx_1}{2\pi h_1Q}\right)dx_1\\
=&X\int_\BR\varphi(x_1)g(m_0q_1,Xx_1)\phi_{1}\left(u_1,m_0q_1,h_1,Xx_1\right)U_3 \left(\frac{N_1Q^3z}{N^2X^3x_1^3},m_0q_1,Xx_1\right)e\left(F_1(x_1)\right)dx_1,
\end{align*}
where the phase function is \begin{align*}
F_1(x_1)=2\sqrt{\frac{N_1Qz}{m_0^2q_1^2|X|x_1}}+\frac{N^2Xx_1u}{m_0q_1QHt^{1-\varepsilon}}+\frac{tXx_1}{2\pi h_1Q}.
\end{align*}
Recall we have $N_1\sim\frac{N^2X^3}{Q^3}$ by the support of $U_3$. Differentiating, we get \begin{align*}
F_1'(x_1)=&-\sqrt{\frac{N_1Qz}{m_0^2q_1^2|X|x_1^3}}+\frac{N^2Xu}{m_0q_1QHt^{1-\varepsilon}}+\frac{tX}{2\pi h_1Q}\\
F_1''(x_1)=&\frac{3}{2}\sqrt{\frac{N_1Qz}{m_0^2q_1^2|X|x_1^5}}\sim \frac{\sqrt{N_1Q}}{C\sqrt{X}}\\
F_1^{(j)}(x_1)\ll&_j \frac{\sqrt{N_1Q}}{C\sqrt{X}}
\end{align*}
for any $j\geq2$. The stationary point $x_{1,0}$ satisfying $F_1'(x_{1,0})=0$ is \begin{align*}
x_{1,0}=\left(\frac{2\pi h_1}{m_0q_1t}\right)^{2/3}\frac{Q(N_1z)^{1/3}}{|X|}\left(1+\frac{2\pi h_1N^2u}{m_0q_1Ht^{2-\varepsilon}}\right)^{-2/3}
\end{align*}
and \begin{align*}
F_1(x_{1,0})=3\sqrt{\frac{N_1Qz}{m_0^2q_1^2|X|x_{1,0}}}=3\left(\frac{N_1tz}{2\pi h_1(m_0q_1)^2}\left(1+\frac{2\pi h_1N^2u}{m_0q_1Ht^{2-\varepsilon}}\right)\right)^{1/3}.
\end{align*}
Note that the properties of $g(m_0q_1,Xx_1)$ stated in Lemma \ref{DFILemma} gives us \begin{align}\label{gDerProp}
\begin{cases}
g(m_0q_1,Xx_1)=1+O\left(t^{-A}\right) \text{ for any } A>0 & \text{ if } X<t^{-\varepsilon/10} \text{ and } C<Qt^{-\varepsilon/10}\\
g(m_0q_1,Xx_1) \text{ is } t^{\varepsilon/10} \text{-inert w.r.t. } x_1 & \text{ otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\end{align}
Since $X\gg\frac{CQt^\varepsilon}{N}$, we have $F_1''(x_1)\sim \frac{\sqrt{N_1Q}}{C\sqrt{X}}\sim\frac{NX}{CQ}\gg t^\varepsilon$. Hence by (2) in Lemma \ref{statlemma}, there exists a $t^\varepsilon$-inert function $\Phi$ supported on $[1/4,25/4]\times\BR$ such that the $x_1$-integral is equal to
\begin{align*}
&X\int_\BR\varphi(x_1)g(m_0q_1,Xx_1)\phi_{1}\left(u_1,m_0q_1,h_1,Xx_1\right)U_3 \left(\frac{N_1Q^3z}{N^2X^3x_1^3},m_0q_1,Xx_1\right)e\left(F_1(x_1)\right)dx_1\nonumber\\
=&X\sqrt{\frac{C\sqrt{X}}{\sqrt{N_1Q}}}t^\varepsilon\Phi\left(\frac{N_1Q^3z}{N^2X^3},m_0q_1,u_1\right)g(m_0q_1,Xx_{1,0})e\left(3\left(\frac{N_1tz}{2\pi h_1(m_0q_1)^2}\left(1+\frac{2\pi h_1N^2u_1}{m_0q_1Ht^{2-\varepsilon}}\right)\right)^{1/3}\right)\nonumber\\
&+O\left(t^{-A}\right)
\end{align*}
for any $A>0$. Applying the same treatment to the $x_2$-integral and inserting them back into (\ref{S1XAfterFirstCauchy}), there exists a $t^\varepsilon$-inert function $\Phi'$ supported on $[1/4,25/4]\times\BR$ such that \begin{align}\label{S1XAfterIntegral}
S_{1,X}(N)=&\frac{C^2M\sqrt{N_1}N^2X^{5/2}}{Q^{3/2}t^{1-\varepsilon}}\delta(\eta_1X>0)\sup_{\|\beta\|_2=1}\sum_{m_0}m_0^{-3}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{\frac{C}{m_0}\leq q_1,q_2< (1+10^{-10})\frac{C}{m_0}}(q_1q_2)^{-5/2}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{\substack{H'\leq h_1, h_2<(1+10^{-10})H'\\(h_1,q_1m_0)=1\\(h_2,q_2m_0)=1}}\nonumber\\
&\times \sum_{|m|\ll\frac{CQ^2}{NX^2}t^\varepsilon}\mathcal{C}_{\eta_1}(m,h_1,h_2,q_1q_2)\int_\BR\int_\BR U(u_1)U(u_2) \beta(m_0q_1,h_1,u_1)\overline{\beta(m_0q_2,h_2,u_2)}\int_0^\infty \varphi(z)\nonumber\\
&\times \Phi \left(\frac{N_1Q^3z}{N^2X^3},m_0q_1,u_1\right)\Phi'\left(\frac{N_1Q^3z}{N^2X^3},m_0q_2,u_2\right)g(m_0q_1,Xx_{1,0})g(m_0q_2,Xx_{2,0})\nonumber\\
&\times e\left(3\left(\frac{N_1tz}{2\pi h_1(m_0q_1)^2}\left(1+\frac{2\pi h_1N^2u_1}{m_0q_1Ht^{2-\varepsilon}}\right)\right)^{1/3}\right)\nonumber\\
&\times e\left(-3\left(\frac{N_1tz}{2\pi h_2(m_0q_2)^2}\left(1+\frac{2\pi h_2N^2u_2}{m_0q_2Ht^{2-\varepsilon}}\right)\right)^{1/3}-\frac{mN_1z}{m_0^2q_1q_2}\right)dzdu_2du_1+O\left(t^{-A}\right)
\end{align}
for any $A>0$, and \begin{align}\label{xj0Def}
x_{j,0}=\left(\frac{2\pi h_j}{m_0q_jt}\right)^{2/3}\frac{Q(N_1z)^{1/3}}{X}\left(1+\frac{2\pi h_jN^2u}{m_0q_jHt^{2-\varepsilon}}\right)^{-2/3}
\end{align}
for $j=1,2$. Note that $x_{j,0}$ is flat with respect to $z$.
Before we continue the analysis of $S_{1,X}(N)$, we first reduce $S_{2}(N)$ in a similar fashion as above.
\section{Opening the square and Poisson summation to \texorpdfstring{$S_{2}(N)$}{S2(N)}}
In this section, we apply similar treatment to $S_{2}(N)$ as done in the previous section. Recall that in (\ref{S2AfterDuality}) we have \begin{align*}
S_{2}(N)=&\frac{MN_2^{1/3}N^{7/3}}{Qt^{1-\varepsilon}}\sup_{\|\beta\|_2=1}\sum_{n_0}\frac{1}{n_0}\sum_n\varphi\left(\frac{n_0^2n}{N_2}\right)\left|\sum_{\frac{C}{n_0}\leq q< (1+10^{-10})\frac{C}{n_0}}\frac{1}{q^{3/2}}\sum_{\substack{H'\leq h<(1+10^{-10})H'\\(h,qn_0)=1}}S\left(\overline{h},\eta_2 n;q\right)\right.\nonumber\\
&\times \left.\int_\BR U(u)\beta(n_0q,h,u)W_{1,\eta_2}^\pm(n_0^2n,n_0q,h,u)du\right|^2
\end{align*}
Opening the square, we get \begin{align}\label{S2AfterOpenSquare}
S_{2}(N)=&\frac{MN_2^{1/3}N^{7/3}}{Qt^{1-\varepsilon}}\sup_{\|\beta\|_2=1}\sum_{n_0}\frac{1}{n_0}\sum_n\varphi\left(\frac{n_0^2n}{N_2}\right)\mathop{\sum\sum}_{\frac{C}{n_0}\leq q_1,q_2< (1+10^{-10})\frac{C}{n_0}}\frac{1}{(q_1q_2)^{3/2}}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{\substack{H'\leq h_1, h_2<(1+10^{-10})H'\\(h_1,q_1n_0)=1\\(h_2,q_2n_0)=1}}\nonumber\\
&\times S\left(\overline{h_1} ,\eta_2 n;q_1\right)S\left(\overline{h_2} ,\eta_2 n;q_2\right)\int_\BR\int_\BR U(u_1)U(u_2)\beta(n_0q_1,h_1,u_1)\overline{\beta(n_0q_2,h_2,u_2)}\nonumber\\
&\times W_{1,\eta_2}^\pm \left(n_0^2n,n_0q_1,h_1,u_1\right)\overline{W_{1,\eta_2}^\pm \left(n_0^2n,n_0q_2,h_2,u_2\right)}du_2du_1.
\end{align}
Applying Poisson summation to the $n$-sum, we have
\begin{align*}
&\sum_n \varphi\left(\frac{n_0^2n}{N_2}\right)S\left(\overline{h_1} ,\eta_2 n;q_1\right)S\left(\overline{h_2} ,\eta_2 n;q_2\right) W_{1,\eta_2}^\pm \left(n_0^2n,n_0q_1,h_1,u_1\right)\overline{W_{1,\eta_2}^\pm \left(n_0^2n,n_0q_2,h_2,u_2\right)}\nonumber\\
=&\frac{N_2}{n_0^2q_1q_2}\sum_n\mathcal{C}_{\eta_2}(n,h_1,h_2,q_1q_2)\mathcal{J}_{2,1}(n,n_0,q_1,q_2,h_1,h_2,u_1,u_2),
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{C}_{\eta_2}(n,h_1,h_2,q_1q_2)=\sum_{\gamma\bmod q_1q_2}S\left(\overline{h_1} ,\eta_2 \gamma;q_1\right)S\left(\overline{h_2} ,\eta_2 \gamma;q_2\right)e\left(\frac{n\gamma}{q_1q_2}\right)
\end{align*}
is the same character sum defined in (\ref{CharDef}). Therefore, by (\ref{W1Def})
\begin{align*}
&\mathcal{J}_{2,1}(n,n_0,q_1,q_2,h_1,h_2,u_1,u_2)\nonumber\\
=&\int_0^\infty \varphi(z)W_{1,\eta_2}^\pm \left(N_2z,n_0q_1,h_1,u_1\right)\overline{W_{1,\eta_2}^\pm \left(N_2z,n_0q_2,h_2,u_2\right)}e\left(-\frac{nN_2z}{n_0^2q_1q_2}\right)dz\nonumber\\
=&\int_0^\infty \varphi(z)U_{0,\eta_2}\left(\frac{N_2z}{(n_0q_1)^3},\frac{n_0q_1t}{2\pi h_1}+\frac{N^2u_1}{Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}\right)\overline{U_{0,\eta_2}\left(\frac{N_2z}{(n_0q_2)^3},\frac{n_0q_2t}{2\pi h_2}+\frac{N^2u_2}{Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}\right)}\nonumber\\
&\times e\left(-\eta_23\left(\frac{N_2Nz}{(n_0q_1)^3}\left(\frac{n_0q_1t}{2\pi h_1N}+\frac{Nu_1}{Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}\right)\right)^\frac{1}{3}+\eta_23\left(\frac{N_2Nz}{(n_0q_2)^3}\left(\frac{n_0q_2t}{2\pi h_2N}+\frac{Nu_2}{Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}\right)\right)^\frac{1}{3}-\frac{nN_2z}{n_0^2q_1q_2}\right)dz.
\end{align*}
Repeated integration by parts in the $z$-integral gives us arbitrary saving unless \begin{align*}
|n|\ll\frac{CN^{1/3}t^\varepsilon}{N_2^{2/3}}.
\end{align*}
Inserting this back into (\ref{S2AfterOpenSquare}), we get \begin{align}\label{S2After1stCauchy}
S_{2}(N)=&\frac{MN_2^{4/3}N^{7/3}}{Qt^{1-\varepsilon}}\sup_{\|\beta\|_2=1}\sum_{n_0}n_0^{-3}\sum_{|n|\ll\frac{CN^{1/3}t^\varepsilon}{N_2^{2/3}}}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{\frac{C}{n_0}\leq q_1,q_2< (1+10^{-10})\frac{C}{n_0}}(q_1q_2)^{-5/2}\nonumber\\
&\times \mathop{\sum\sum}_{\substack{H'\leq h_1, h_2<(1+10^{-10})H'\\(h_1,q_1n_0)=1\\(h_2,q_2n_0)=1}}\mathcal{C}_{\eta_2}(n,h_1,h_2,q_1q_2)\int_\BR\int_\BR U(u_1)U(u_2)\beta(n_0q_1,h_1,u_1)\overline{\beta(n_0q_2,h_2,u_2)} \nonumber\\
&\mathcal{J}_{2,1}(n,n_0,q_1,q_2,h_1,h_2,u_1,u_2)du_2du_1+O\left(t^{-A}\right)
\end{align}
for any $A>0$.
\section{Analysis of \texorpdfstring{$S_{1,X}(N)$}{S1X(N)} and \texorpdfstring{$S_{2}(N)$}{S2(N)}}
Using $N_1\sim\frac{N^2X^3}{Q^3}$, (\ref{S10Bound}), (\ref{S1XAfterIntegral}) and (\ref{S2After1stCauchy}), we have the following Lemma.
\begin{Lemma}\label{LemmaAfterFirstStep}
For $0\leq |X|\ll t^\epsilon$, we have \begin{align*}
S_{1,X}(N)\ll&\frac{C^2QMN_1^{4/3}N^{1/3}}{t^{1-\varepsilon}}\delta\left(\eta_1 X>0, N_1\sim\frac{N^2X^3}{Q^3}\right)\\
&\times \left(\frac{Ct}{N_1N}\delta\left(N_1\ll\frac{C^3t^\varepsilon}{N}\right)+\mathcal{R}_1(N)\right)+O\left(t^{-A}\right)
\end{align*}
and \begin{align*}
S_2(N)\ll\frac{MN_2^{4/3}N^{7/3}}{Qt^{1-\varepsilon}}\mathcal{R}_2(N)+O\left(t^{-A}\right)
\end{align*}
for any $A>0$, where for $j=1,2$, \begin{align*}
\mathcal{R}_j(N)=&\sup_{\|\beta\|_2=1}\sum_{n_0}n_0^{-3}\sum_{|n|\ll\frac{CN^{1/3}t^\varepsilon}{N_j^{2/3}}}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{\frac{C}{n_0}\leq q_1,q_2< (1+10^{-10})\frac{C}{n_0}}(q_1q_2)^{-5/2}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{\substack{H'\leq h_1, h_2<(1+10^{-10})H'\\(h_1,q_1n_0)=1\\(h_2,q_2n_0)=1}}\mathcal{C}_{\eta_j}(n,h_1,h_2,q_1q_2)\nonumber\\
&\times \int_\BR\int_\BR U(u_1)U(u_2)\beta(n_0q_1,h_1,u_1)\overline{\beta(n_0q_2,h_2,u_2)} \mathcal{J}_j(n,n_0,q_1,q_2,h_1,h_2,u_1,u_2)du_2du_1,
\end{align*}
and \begin{align*}
&\mathcal{J}_j(n,n_0,q_1,q_2,h_1,h_2,u_1,u_2)\\
=&\int_0^\infty \varphi(z)\Phi_{j,\eta_j}\left(n_0q_1,n_0q_2,u_1,u_2\right)(g(n_0q_1,Xx_{1,0})g(n_0q_2,Xx_{2,0}))^{2-j}\nonumber\\
&\times e\left(-\eta_j'3\left(\frac{N_jNz}{(n_0q_1)^3}\left(\frac{n_0q_1t}{2\pi h_1N}+\frac{Nu_1}{Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}\right)\right)^\frac{1}{3}+\eta_j'3\left(\frac{N_jNz}{(n_0q_2)^3}\left(\frac{n_0q_2t}{2\pi h_2N}+\frac{Nu_2}{Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}\right)\right)^\frac{1}{3}-\frac{nN_jz}{n_0^2q_1q_2}\right)dz,
\end{align*}
with $\eta_1'=1, \eta_2'=\eta_2$, $x_{1,0},x_{2,0}$ are defined in (\ref{xj0Def}) and $\Phi_{j,\eta_j}$ is a $t^\varepsilon$-inert function. Moreover, $x_{1,0},x_{2,0}$ are flat with respect to $q_1,q_2,z$.
\end{Lemma}
With the above lemma, we are left to bound $\mathcal{R}_j(N)$. We separate the analysis into 4 cases depending on the size of $|n|$.
\subsection{Diagonal Contribution}
We first deal with the case $n=0$. Its contribution to $\mathcal{R}_j(N)$ is equal to \begin{align*}
&\sup_{\|\beta\|_2=1}\sum_{n_0}n_0^{-3}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{\frac{C}{n_0}\leq q_1,q_2< (1+10^{-10})\frac{C}{n_0}}(q_1q_2)^{-5/2}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{\substack{H'\leq h_1, h_2<(1+10^{-10})H'\\(h_1,q_1n_0)=1\\(h_2,q_2n_0)=1}}\mathcal{C}_{\eta_j}(0,h_1,h_2,q_1q_2)\nonumber\\
&\times \int_\BR\int_\BR U(u_1)U(u_2)\beta(n_0q_1,h_1,u_1)\overline{\beta(n_0q_2,h_2,u_2)}\mathcal{J}_j(0,n_0,q_1,q_2,h_1,h_2,u_1,u_2)du_2du_1.
\end{align*}
Recall that (\ref{CharSum0}) gives us \begin{align*}
\mathcal{C}_{\eta_j}(0,h_1,h_2,q_1q_2)=q_1^2\sum_{q_1'|q_1}q_1'\mu\left(\frac{q}{q_1'}\right)\delta\left(h_1\equiv h_2\bmod q_1', q_1=q_2\right).
\end{align*}
Using (\ref{gDerProp}) and $x_{j,0}$ is flat with respect to $z$, repeated integration by parts on the $z$-integral in $\mathcal{J}_j$ with $q_1=q_2=q$ gives us arbitrary saving unless \begin{align*}
&\left|\left(\frac{N_jN}{(n_0q)^3}\left(\frac{n_0qt}{2\pi h_1N}+\frac{Nu_1}{Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}\right)\right)^\frac{1}{3}-\left(\frac{N_jN}{(n_0q)^3}\left(\frac{n_0qt}{2\pi h_2N}+\frac{Nu_2}{Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}\right)\right)^\frac{1}{3}\right|\ll t^\varepsilon\\
\Longrightarrow & \left|\frac{n_0qt}{2\pi N}(h_1^{-1}-h_2^{-1})+\frac{N}{Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}(u_1-u_2)\right|\ll\frac{Ct^\varepsilon}{(N_jN)^{1/3}}\\
\Longrightarrow & 0\neq |h_2-h_1|\ll\frac{C^2t^{1+\varepsilon}}{N_j^{1/3}N^{4/3}}+\frac{Ct^\varepsilon}{H} \text{ or } \left( h_1=h_2 \text{ and } |u_2-u_1|\ll\frac{CHt^{1+\varepsilon}}{N_j^{1/3}N^{4/3}} \right).
\end{align*}
Note that (\ref{gqxBound}) gives us $\mathcal{J}_j\ll t^\varepsilon$ for both $j=1,2$.
Applying Cauchy-Schwartz inequality gives us the contribution of $n=0$ to $\mathcal{R}_j(N)$ is bounded by \begin{align}\label{DiagonalBound}
\ll &t^\varepsilon\sup_{\|\beta\|_2=1}\sum_{n_0}n_0^{-3}\sum_{\frac{C}{n_0}\leq q< (1+10^{-10})\frac{C}{n_0}}q^{-3}\sum_{q'|q}q'\mathop{\sum\sum}_{\substack{H'\leq h_1, h_2<(1+10^{-10})H'\\h_1\equiv h_2\bmod q'\\|h_2-h_1|\ll\frac{C^2t^{1+\varepsilon}}{N_j^{1/3}N^{4/3}}}}\int_{|u_1|\ll1}\int_{|u_2|\ll1}\nonumber\\
&\times |\beta(n_0q_1,h_1,u_1)||\beta(n_0q_2,h_2,u_2)|\left(\delta(h_1\neq h_2)+\delta\left(h_1=h_2,|u_2-u_1|\ll\frac{CHt^{1+\varepsilon}}{N_j^{1/3}N^{4/3}}\right)\right)du_2du_1\nonumber\\
\ll & \frac{t^\varepsilon}{C^3}\sup_{\|\beta\|_2=1}\Bigg\{\sum_{n_0}\sum_{\frac{C}{n_0}\leq q< (1+10^{-10})\frac{C}{n_0}}\sum_{q'|q}q'\mathop{\sum\sum}_{\substack{H'\leq h_1, h_2<(1+10^{-10})H'\\h_1\equiv h_2\bmod q'\\|h_2-h_1|\ll\frac{C^2t^{1+\varepsilon}}{N_j^{1/3}N^{4/3}}}}\int_{|u_1|\ll1}\int_{|u_2|\ll1}|\beta(n_0q,h_1,u_1)|^2\nonumber\\
&\times \left(\delta(h_1\neq h_2)+\delta\left(h_1=h_2,|u_2-u_1|\ll\frac{CHt^{1+\varepsilon}}{N_j^{1/3}N^{4/3}}\right)\right)du_2du_1\Bigg\}^{1/2}\nonumber\\
&\times \Bigg\{\sum_{n_0}\sum_{\frac{C}{n_0}\leq q< (1+10^{-10})\frac{C}{n_0}}\sum_{q'|q}q'\mathop{\sum\sum}_{\substack{H'\leq h_1, h_2<(1+10^{-10})H'\\h_1\equiv h_2\bmod q'\\|h_2-h_1|\ll\frac{C^2t^{1+\varepsilon}}{N_j^{1/3}N^{4/3}}}}\int_{|u_1|\ll1}\int_{|u_2|\ll1}|\beta(n_0q,h_2,u_2)|^2\nonumber\\
&\times \left(\delta(h_1\neq h_2)+\delta\left(h_1=h_2,|u_2-u_1|\ll\frac{CHt^{1+\varepsilon}}{N_j^{1/3}N^{4/3}}\right)\right)du_2du_1\Bigg\}^{1/2}\nonumber\\
\ll& \frac{t^\varepsilon}{C^2}\frac{CHt}{N_j^{1/3}N^{4/3}}=\frac{Ht^{1+\varepsilon}}{CN_j^{1/3}N^{4/3}}.
\end{align}
\subsection{Contribution when \texorpdfstring{$n$}{n} is small}
Now we deal with the case $0\neq|nN_j|\ll C^2t^\varepsilon$. Since $|nN_j|\ll C^2t^\varepsilon$, we have $e\left(-\frac{nN_jz}{n_0^2q_1q_2}\right)$ is $t^\varepsilon$-inert. Using (\ref{gDerProp}) and $x_{j,0}$ is flat with respect to $z$, repeated integration by parts in the $z$-integral in $\mathcal{J}_j$ gives us arbitrary saving unless \begin{align*}
&\left|\left(\frac{N_jN}{(n_0q_1)^3}\left(\frac{n_0q_1t}{2\pi h_1N}+\frac{Nu_1}{Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}\right)\right)^\frac{1}{3}-\left(\frac{N_jN}{(n_0q_2)^3}\left(\frac{n_0q_2t}{2\pi h_2N}+\frac{Nu_2}{Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}\right)\right)^\frac{1}{3}\right|\ll t^\varepsilon\\
\Longrightarrow & \left|\frac{t}{2\pi n_0^2N}\left(\frac{1}{q_1^2h_1}-\frac{1}{q_2^2h_2}\right)+\frac{N}{n_0^3Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}\left(\frac{u_1}{q_1^3}-\frac{u_2}{q_2^3}\right)\right|\ll\frac{t^\varepsilon}{C^2(N_jN)^{1/3}}\\
\Longrightarrow & \left|q_2-\sqrt{\frac{h_1}{h_2}}q_1\right|\ll\frac{C^2t^\varepsilon}{n_0(N_jN)^{1/3}}+\frac{CN}{n_0Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}.
\end{align*}
Together with (\ref{CharSumNon0}) giving us \begin{align*}
\mathcal{C}_{\eta_j}(n,h_1,h_2,q_1,q_2)\ll q_1q_2\ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\alpha_1\bmod{q_1}}\ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\alpha_2\bmod{q_2}}\delta\left(n\equiv \alpha_1q_2+\alpha_2q_1\bmod{q_1q_2}\right),
\end{align*}
the contribution of $0\neq |nN_j|\ll C^2t^\varepsilon$ to $\mathcal{R}_j(N)$ is bounded by \begin{align*}
\ll&t^\varepsilon\sup_{\|\beta\|_2=1}\sum_{n_0}n_0^{-3}\sum_{0\neq |n|\ll \frac{C^2t^\varepsilon}{N_j}}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{H'\leq h_1, h_2<(1+10^{-10})H'}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{\substack{\frac{C}{n_0}\leq q_1,q_2< (1+10^{-10})\frac{C}{n_0}\\\left|q_2-\sqrt{\frac{h_1}{h_2}}q_1\right|\ll\frac{C^2t^\varepsilon}{n_0(N_jN)^{1/3}}+\frac{CN}{n_0Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}}}(q_1q_2)^{-3/2}\nonumber\\
&\times \ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\alpha_1\bmod{q_1}}\ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\alpha_2\bmod{q_2}}\int_{|u_1|\ll1}\int_{|u_2|\ll1} |\beta(n_0q_1,h_1,u_1)||\beta(n_0q_2,h_2,u_2)|du_2du_1\nonumber\\
&\times \left(g(n_0q_1,Xx_{1,0})g(n_0q_2,Xx_{2,0})\right)^{2-j}\delta\left(n\equiv \alpha_1q_2+\alpha_2q_1\bmod{q_1q_2}\right).
\end{align*}
Applying Cauchy-Schwartz inequality and (\ref{gqxBound}) giving us $g(m_0q_j,Xx_{j,0})\ll t^\varepsilon$, we get this is bounded by \begin{align*}
\ll &\frac{N_j^{4/3}t^\varepsilon}{C^3}\sup_{\|\beta\|_2=1}\Bigg\{\sum_{0\neq |n|\ll \frac{C^2t^\varepsilon}{N_j}}\sum_{n_0}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{H'\leq h_1, h_2<(1+10^{-10})H'}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{\substack{\frac{C}{n_0}\leq q_1,q_2< (1+10^{-10})\frac{C}{n_0}\\\left|q_2-\sqrt{\frac{h_1}{h_2}}q_1\right|\ll\frac{C^2t^\varepsilon}{n_0(N_jN)^{1/3}}+\frac{CN}{n_0Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}}}\nonumber\\
&\times \ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\alpha_1\bmod{q_1}}\ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\alpha_2\bmod{q_2}}\int_{|u_1|\ll1} |\beta(n_0q_1,h_1,u_1)|^2du_1\delta\left(n\equiv \alpha_1q_2+\alpha_2q_1\bmod{q_1q_2}\right)\Bigg\}^{1/2}\nonumber\\
&\times \Bigg\{\sum_{0\neq |n|\ll \frac{C^2t^\varepsilon}{N_j}}\sum_{n_0}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{H'\leq h_1, h_2<(1+10^{-10})H'}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{\substack{\frac{C}{n_0}\leq q_1,q_2< (1+10^{-10})\frac{C}{n_0}\\\left|q_2-\sqrt{\frac{h_1}{h_2}}q_1\right|\ll\frac{C^2t^\varepsilon}{n_0(N_jN)^{1/3}}+\frac{CN}{n_0Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}}}\nonumber\\
&\times \ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\alpha_1\bmod{q_1}}\ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\alpha_2\bmod{q_2}}\int_{|u_2|\ll1} |\beta(n_0q_2,h_2,u_2)|^2du_2\delta\left(n\equiv \alpha_1q_2+\alpha_2q_1\bmod{q_1q_2}\right)\Bigg\}^{1/2}.
\end{align*}
Applying the same analysis as in $S_{1,0}(N)$ using (\ref{CongruenceAnalysis}), the above is bounded by
\begin{align}\label{SmallnBound}
\ll \frac{t^\varepsilon}{C^3}\frac{C^2}{N_j}\frac{Ct}{N}\left(1+\frac{C^2}{(N_jN)^{1/3}}+\frac{CN}{Ht}\right)\ll\frac{t^{1+\varepsilon}}{N_jN}\left(1+\frac{C^2}{(N_jN)^{1/3}}+\frac{CN}{Ht}\right).
\end{align}
Notice we have this contribution only when $N_j\ll C^2t^\varepsilon$.
\subsection{Integral Analysis}
Now we continue the analysis when $|n|N_j\gg C^2t^\varepsilon$. Recalling the definition of $\mathcal{J}_j$ in Lemma \ref{LemmaAfterFirstStep}, the phase function is \begin{align*}
F_3(z):=-\tilde{\eta_j}3\left(\frac{N_jNz}{(n_0q_1)^3}\left(\frac{n_0q_1t}{2\pi h_1N}+\frac{Nu_1}{Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}\right)\right)^\frac{1}{3}+\tilde{\eta_j}3\left(\frac{N_jNz}{(n_0q_2)^3}\left(\frac{n_0q_2t}{2\pi h_2N}+\frac{Nu_2}{Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}\right)\right)^\frac{1}{3}-\frac{nN_jz}{n_0^2q_1q_2}.
\end{align*}
Differentiating, we get \begin{align*}
F'_3(z)=&-\tilde{\eta_j}\left(\frac{N_jN}{(n_0q_1)^3z^2}\left(\frac{n_0q_1t}{2\pi h_1N}+\frac{Nu_1}{Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}\right)\right)^\frac{1}{3}+\tilde{\eta_j}\left(\frac{N_jN}{(n_0q_2)^3z^2}\left(\frac{n_0q_2t}{2\pi h_2N}+\frac{Nu_2}{Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}\right)\right)^\frac{1}{3}-\frac{nN_j}{n_0^2q_1q_2}\\
F''_3(z)=&\tilde{\eta_j}\frac{2}{3}\left(\frac{N_jN}{(n_0q_1)^3z^5}\left(\frac{n_0q_1t}{2\pi h_1N}+\frac{Nu_1}{Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}\right)\right)^\frac{1}{3}-\tilde{\eta_j}\frac{2}{3}\left(\frac{N_jN}{(n_0q_2)^3z^5}\left(\frac{n_0q_2t}{2\pi h_2N}+\frac{Nu_2}{Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}\right)\right)^\frac{1}{3}\\
F_3^{(j)}(z)\ll&_j (N_jN)^{1/3}\left(\frac{1}{n_0q_1}\left(\frac{n_0q_1t}{2\pi h_1N}+\frac{Nu_1}{Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}\right)^\frac{1}{3}-\frac{1}{n_0q_2}\left(\frac{n_0q_2t}{2\pi h_2N}+\frac{Nu_2}{Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}\right)^\frac{1}{3}\right)
\end{align*}
for any $j\geq2$. Computing the stationary phase point $F_3'(z_0(q_1,q_2))=0$, we get \begin{align*}
z_0(n_0q_1,n_0q_2)=\frac{\sqrt{N}}{n^{3/2}N_j}\left(-\tilde{\eta_j} n_0q_2\left(\frac{n_0q_1t}{2\pi h_1N}+\frac{Nu_1}{Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}\right)^{1/3}+\tilde{\eta_j}n_0q_1\left(\frac{n_0q_2t}{2\pi h_2N}+\frac{Nu_2}{Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}\right)^{1/3}\right)^{3/2}
\end{align*}
and \begin{align*}
&F_3(z_0(n_0q_1,n_0q_2))=\frac{2nN_jz_0}{n_0^2q_1q_2}\nonumber\\
=&2\sqrt{\frac{N}{n}}\left(-\tilde{\eta_j}\left(\frac{q_2t}{2\pi h_1q_1N}\left(1+\frac{2\pi h_1N^2u_1}{n_0q_1Ht^{2-\varepsilon}}\right)\right)^{1/3}+\tilde{\eta_j}\left(\frac{q_1t}{2\pi q_2h_2N}\left(1+\frac{2\pi h_2N^2u_2}{n_0q_2Ht^{2-\varepsilon}}\right)\right)^{1/3}\right)^{3/2}
\end{align*}
Using (\ref{gDerProp}) and $x_{j,0}$ is flat with respect to $z$ together with $|nN_j|\gg C^2t^\varepsilon$, (1) in Lemma \ref{statlemma} gives us arbitrary saving unless \begin{align*}
F_3''(z)\sim \frac{|n|N_j}{C^2}\gg t^\varepsilon.
\end{align*}
Hence (2) in Lemma \ref{statlemma} gives us
\begin{align}\label{Jjasymp}
&\mathcal{J}_j(n,n_0,q_1,q_2,h_1,h_2,u_1,u_2)\nonumber\\
=&\frac{C}{\sqrt{|n|N_j}}(g(n_0q_1,Xx_1)g(n_0q_2,Xx_2))^{2-j}\nonumber\\
&\times \tilde{\Phi}(z_0(n_0q_1,n_0q_2), n, n_0, n_0q_1, n_0q_2, h_1, h_2, u_1, u_2)e\left(F_3(z_0(n_0q_1,n_0q_2))\right)+O\left(t^{-A}\right),
\end{align}
for any $A>0$, with some flat function $\tilde{\Phi}$ supported on $[1/2,5/2]\times\BR^7$, and
\begin{align*}
x_j:=x_j(z_0(n_0q_1,n_0q_2))=\left(\frac{2\pi h_j}{n_0q_jt}\right)^{2/3}\frac{Q(N_1z_0(n_0q_1,n_0q_2))^{1/3}}{X}\left(1+\frac{2\pi h_jN^2u}{n_0q_jHt^{2-\varepsilon}}\right)^{-2/3},
\end{align*}
for $j=1,2$. Inserting this back into (\ref{S2After1stCauchy}) yields the contribution of $nN_j\gg C^2t^\varepsilon$ to $\mathcal{R}_j(N)$ is equal to \begin{align*}
&\frac{1}{C^2\sqrt{N_j}}\sup_{\|\beta\|_2=1}\sum_{n_0}\sum_{\frac{C^2t^\varepsilon}{N_j}\ll |n|\ll \frac{CN^{1/3}t^\varepsilon}{N_j^{2/3}}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{|n|}}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{\frac{C}{n_0}\leq q_1,q_2< (1+10^{-10})\frac{C}{n_0}}\frac{1}{q_1q_2}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{\substack{H'\leq h_1, h_2<(1+10^{-10})H'\\(h_1,q_1n_0)=1\\(h_2,q_2n_0)=1}}\nonumber\\
&\times \mathcal{C}_{\eta_j}(n,h_1,h_2,q_1q_2)\int_\BR\int_\BR U(u_1)U(u_2)\beta(n_0q_1,h_1,u_1)\overline{\beta(n_0q_2,h_2,u_2)}\nonumber\\
&\times \Phi(z_0(n_0q_1,n_0q_2), n, n_0, n_0q_1, n_0q_2, h_1, h_2, u_1, u_2)e\left(F_3(z_0(n_0q_1,n_0q_2))\right)du_2du_1+O\left(t^{-A}\right),
\end{align*}
for any $A>0$, with
\begin{align*}
&\Phi(z_0(n_0q_1,n_0q_2), n, n_0, n_0q_1, n_0q_2, h_1, h_2, u_1, u_2)\nonumber\\
:=&\frac{C^3}{(n_0^2q_1q_2)^{3/2}}\tilde{\Phi}(z_0(n_0q_1,n_0q_2), n, n_0, n_0q_1, n_0q_2, h_1, h_2, u_1, u_2)(g(n_0q_1,Xx_1)g(n_0q_2,Xx_2))^{2-j}.
\end{align*}
Using (\ref{gqxBound}) and (\ref{gDerProp}), $\Phi$ is a $t^\varepsilon$-inert function supported on $[1/2,5/2]\times\BR^7$ up to an arbitrarily small error.
\subsection{Contribution when \texorpdfstring{$|n|$}{|n|} is of intermediate size}
For a technical reason, we deal with the case \begin{align*}
\frac{C^2t^\varepsilon}{N_j}\ll|n|\ll\frac{CN^{4/3}}{N_j^{2/3}Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}
\end{align*}
before proceeding further. Note that the restriction of $z_0(n_0q_1,n_0q_2)\sim1$ implies \begin{align*}
&\left|n_0q_2\left(\frac{n_0q_1t}{2\pi h_1N}+\frac{Nu_1}{Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}\right)^{1/3}-n_0q_1\left(\frac{n_0q_2t}{2\pi h_2N}+\frac{Nu_2}{Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}\right)^{1/3}\right|\sim \frac{nN_j^{2/3}}{N^{1/3}}\\
\Longrightarrow & \left|n_0q_2\left(\frac{n_0q_1t}{h_1N}\right)^{1/3}-n_0q_1\left(\frac{n_0q_2t}{h_2N}\right)^{1/3}\right|\ll\frac{|n|N_j^{2/3}}{N^{1/3}}+\frac{CN}{Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}\ll\frac{CN}{Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}\\
\Longrightarrow& \left|q_2-\sqrt{\frac{h_1}{h_2}}q_1\right|\ll\frac{CN}{n_0Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}.
\end{align*}
Performing similar procedure as the case $0\neq |n|N_j\ll C^2t^\varepsilon$, Cauchy-Schwartz inequality and (\ref{CharSumNon0}) gives us the contribution of $\frac{C^2t^\varepsilon}{N_j}\ll|n|\ll\frac{CN^{4/3}}{N_j^{2/3}Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}$ to $\mathcal{R}_j(N)$ is bounded by \begin{align*}
\ll& \frac{t^\varepsilon}{C^2\sqrt{N_j}}\sup_{\|\beta\|_2=1}\Bigg\{\sum_{0\neq |n|\ll \frac{CN^{4/3}}{N_j^{2/3}Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{|n|}}\sum_{n_0}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{H'\leq h_1, h_2<(1+10^{-10})H'}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{\substack{\frac{C}{n_0}\leq q_1,q_2< (1+10^{-10})\frac{C}{n_0}\\\left|q_2-\sqrt{\frac{h_1}{h_2}}q_1\right|\ll\frac{CN}{n_0Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}}}\nonumber\\
&\times \ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\alpha_1\bmod{q_1}}\ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\alpha_2\bmod{q_2}}\int_{|u_1|\ll1} |\beta(n_0q_1,h_1,u_1)|^2du_1\delta\left(n\equiv \alpha_1q_2+\alpha_2q_1\bmod{q_1q_2}\right)\Bigg\}^{1/2}\nonumber\\
&\times \Bigg\{\sum_{0\neq |n|\ll \frac{CN^{4/3}}{N_j^{2/3}Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{|n|}}\sum_{n_0}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{H'\leq h_1, h_2<(1+10^{-10})H'}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{\substack{\frac{C}{n_0}\leq q_1,q_2< (1+10^{-10})\frac{C}{n_0}\\\left|q_2-\sqrt{\frac{h_1}{h_2}}q_1\right|\ll\frac{CN}{n_0Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}}}\ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\alpha_1\bmod{q_1}}\ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\alpha_2\bmod{q_2}}\nonumber\\
&\times \int_{|u_2|\ll1} |\beta(n_0q_2,h_2,u_2)|^2du_2\delta\left(n\equiv \alpha_1q_2+\alpha_2q_1\bmod{q_1q_2}\right)\Bigg\}^{1/2}.
\end{align*}
Applying the same analysis as in $S_{1,0}(N)$ using (\ref{CongruenceAnalysis}), the above is bounded by
\begin{align}\label{MidnBound}
\ll \frac{t^\varepsilon}{C^2\sqrt{N_j}}\frac{\sqrt{C}N^{2/3}}{N_j^{1/3}\sqrt{Ht}}\frac{Ct}{N}\left(1+\frac{CN}{Ht}\right)=\frac{t^{1/2+\varepsilon}}{\sqrt{CH}N_j^{5/6}N^{1/3}}\left(1+\frac{CN}{Ht}\right).
\end{align}
Notice we have this contribution only when $N_j\ll\frac{C^{3/2}N^2}{(Ht)^{3/2}}t^\varepsilon$.
\subsection{Contribution when \texorpdfstring{$|n|$}{|n|} is big}
Let $\mathcal{R}_j^*(N)$ denote the contribution of $|n|\gg \left(\frac{C^2}{N_j}+\frac{CN^{4/3}}{N_j^{2/3}Ht}\right)t^\varepsilon$ to $\mathcal{R}_j(N)$ in Lemma \ref{LemmaAfterFirstStep}, i.e. \begin{align*}
\mathcal{R}_j^*(N)=&\sup_{\|\beta\|_2=1}\sum_{n_0}n_0^{-3}\sum_{\left(\frac{C^2}{N_j}+\frac{CN^{4/3}}{N_j^{2/3}Ht}\right)t^\varepsilon\ll|n|\ll\frac{CN^{1/3}t^\varepsilon}{N_j^{2/3}}}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{\frac{C}{n_0}\leq q_1,q_2< (1+10^{-10})\frac{C}{n_0}}(q_1q_2)^{-5/2}\nonumber\\
&\times \mathop{\sum\sum}_{\substack{H'\leq h_1, h_2<(1+10^{-10})H'\\(h_1,q_1n_0)=1\\(h_2,q_2n_0)=1}}\mathcal{C}_{\eta_j}(n,h_1,h_2,q_1q_2)\nonumber\\
&\times \int_\BR\int_\BR U(u_1)U(u_2)\beta(n_0q_1,h_1,u_1)\overline{\beta(n_0q_2,h_2,u_2)} \mathcal{J}_j(n,n_0,q_1,q_2,h_1,h_2,u_1,u_2)du_2du_1.
\end{align*}
\subsubsection{Character Sum Analysis}
Recall that (\ref{CharSumNon0}) gives us \begin{align*}
\mathcal{C}_{\eta_j}(n,h_1,h_2,q_1q_2)=q_1q_2\ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\alpha_1\bmod{q_1}}e\left(\frac{\overline{\alpha_1h_1}}{q_1}\right)\ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\alpha_2\bmod{q_2}}e\left(\frac{\overline{\alpha_2h_2}}{q_2}\right)\delta\left(-\eta_j n\equiv \alpha_1q_2+\alpha_2q_1\bmod{q_1q_2}\right).
\end{align*}
Apply the same analysis as in (\ref{CongruenceAnalysis}): Write $(q_1,q_2)=q_0$, let $q_{1,0},q_1',q_{2,0},q_2'$ be unique positive integers such that $q_{1,0},q_{2,0}|q_0^\infty$, $(q_1'q_2',q_0)=1$ with $q_1=q_0q_{1,0}q_1'$ and $q_2=q_0q_{2,0}q_2'$. Then the congruence condition above breaks down into $q_0|n$ and \begin{align*}
-\eta_1\frac{n}{q_0}\equiv& \alpha_1q_{2,0}q_2'+\alpha_2q_{1,0}q_1'\bmod{q_0q_{1,0}q_{2,0}}\\
\alpha_1\equiv& -\eta_2\frac{n}{q_0}\overline{q_{2,0}q_2'}\bmod{q_1'}\\
\alpha_2\equiv& -\eta_2\frac{n}{q_0}\overline{q_{1,0}q_1'}\bmod{q_2'}.
\end{align*}
Then the Chinese Remainder Theorem and reciprocity yields \begin{align*}
\mathcal{C}_{\eta_j}(n,h_1,h_2,q_1q_2)=&q_1q_2e\left(-\eta_j\frac{\overline{nh_1q_{1,0}}q_{2,0}q_2'}{q_1'}-\eta_j\frac{\overline{nh_2q_{2,0}}q_{1,0}q_1'}{q_2'}\right)\\
&\times \ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\beta_1\bmod{q_0q_{1,0}}}\ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\beta_2\bmod{q_0q_{2,0}}}e\left(\frac{\beta_1\overline{h_1q_1'}}{q_0q_{1,0}}+\frac{\beta_2\overline{h_2q_2'}}{q_0q_{2,0}}\right)\\
&\times \delta\left(q_0|n, -\eta_j\frac{n}{q_0}\equiv \beta_1q_1'\overline{q_1'}q_{2,0}q_2'+\beta_2q_2'\overline{q_2'}q_{1,0}q_1'\bmod{q_0q_{1,0}q_{2,0}}\right)\\
=&q_1q_2e\left(\eta_j\frac{\overline{q_1'}q_{2,0}q_2'}{nh_1q_{1,0}}+\eta_j\frac{\overline{q_2'}q_{1,0}q_1'}{nh_2q_{2,0}}-\eta_j\frac{q_{2,0}q_2'}{nh_1q_{1,0}q_1'}-\eta_j\frac{q_{1,0}q_1'}{nh_2q_{2,0}q_2'}\right)\\
&\times \ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\beta_1\bmod{q_0q_{1,0}}}\ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\beta_2\bmod{q_0q_{2,0}}}e\left(\frac{\beta_1}{q_0q_{1,0}}+\frac{\beta_2}{q_0q_{2,0}}\right)\\
&\times \delta\left(q_0|n, -\eta_j\frac{n}{q_0}\equiv \beta_1h_1q_{2,0}q_1'q_2'+\beta_2h_2q_{1,0}q_1'q_2'\bmod{q_0q_{1,0}q_{2,0}}\right)
\end{align*}
Together with (\ref{Jjasymp}), we get \begin{align*}
\mathcal{R}_j^*(N)=&\frac{1}{C^2\sqrt{N_j}}\sup_{\|\beta\|_2=1}\sum_{\left(\frac{C^2}{N_j}+\frac{CN^{4/3}}{N_j^{2/3}Ht}\right)t^\varepsilon\ll |n|\ll \frac{CN^{1/3}t^\varepsilon}{N_j^{2/3}}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{|n|}}\sum_{n_0}\sum_{q_0|n}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{q_{1,0},q_{2,0}|q_0^\infty}\nonumber\\
&\times \sum_{C\leq q_1=n_0q_0q_{1,0}q_1'< (1+10^{-10})C}\sum_{\substack{C\leq q_2=n_0q_0q_{2,0}q_2'< (1+10^{-10})C\\(q_1',q_2')=1}}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{\substack{H'\leq h_1, h_2<(1+10^{-10})H'\\(h_1,q_1)=1\\(h_2,q_2)=1}}\nonumber\\
&\times e\left(\eta_j\frac{\overline{q_1'}q_{2,0}q_2'}{nh_1q_{1,0}}+\eta_j\frac{\overline{q_2'}q_{1,0}q_1'}{nh_2q_{2,0}}-\eta_j\frac{q_{2,0}q_2'}{nh_1q_{1,0}q_1'}-\eta_j\frac{q_{1,0}q_1'}{nh_2q_{2,0}q_2'}\right)\nonumber\\
&\times \ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\beta_1\bmod{q_0q_{1,0}}}\ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\beta_2\bmod{q_0q_{2,0}}}e\left(\frac{\beta_1}{q_0q_{1,0}}+\frac{\beta_2}{q_0q_{2,0}}\right)\nonumber\\
&\times \delta\left(-\eta_j\frac{n}{q_0}\equiv \beta_1h_1q_{2,0}q_1'q_2'+\beta_2h_2q_{1,0}q_1'q_2'\bmod{q_0q_{1,0}q_{2,0}}\right)\nonumber\\
&\times \int_\BR\int_\BR U(u_1)U(u_2)\beta(q_1,h_1,u_1)\overline{\beta(q_2,h_2,u_2)}\nonumber\\
&\times \Phi(z_0(n_0q_1,n_0q_2), u_1, u_2, n_0, q_1, q_2, h_1, h_2)e\left(F_3(z_0(n_0q_1,n_0q_2))\right)du_1du_2+O\left(t^{-A}\right)
\end{align*}
for any $A>0$.
\subsubsection{Second Cauchy-Schwartz Inequality and Poisson Summation}
Notice that
\begin{align*}
&\sup_{\|\beta\|_2=1}\sum_{0\neq|n|\ll \frac{CN^{1/3}t^\varepsilon}{N_j^{2/3}}}\frac{1}{n}\sum_{C\leq q_1<(1+10^{-10})C}\mathop{\sum\sum\sum}_{\substack{n_0q_0q_{1,0}|q_1\\q_0|n\\q_{1,0}|q_0^\infty}}q_0\sum_{\substack{q_{2,0}< (1+10^{-10})\frac{C}{q_0}\\q_{2,0}|q_0^\infty}}\\
&\times \mathop{\sum\sum}_{\frac{Ct}{N}\leq h_1,h_2<(1+10^{-10})\frac{Ct}{N}}\int_{|u_1|\ll1}|\beta(q_1,h_1,u_1)|^2du_1\int_{|u_2|\ll1}du_2\ll \frac{Ct^{1+\varepsilon}}{N},
\end{align*}
Let $\Upsilon\in C_c^\infty([1-10^{-9},1+10^{-9}])$ be a fixed function such that $\Upsilon(x)=1$ for $1\leq x<1+10^{-10}$. Then applying Cauchy-Schwartz inequality to take out $n,n_0,q_0,q_{1,0},q_{2,0},q_1', h_1, h_2$-sums and the $u_1,u_2$-integrals, we get
\begin{align}\label{S2After2ndCauchy}
\mathcal{R}_j^*(N)\ll &\frac{t^{1/2+\varepsilon}}{C^{3/2}\sqrt{N_jN}} \sup_{\|\beta\|_2=1} \sup_{|u_1|\ll1}\Bigg\{\int_{|u_2|\ll1}\sum_{n_0}\sum_{\left(\frac{C^2}{N_2}+\frac{CN^{4/3}}{N_2^{2/3}Ht}\right)t^\varepsilon\ll |n|\ll \frac{CN^{1/3}t^\varepsilon}{N_2^{2/3}}}\sum_{q_0|n}\frac{1}{q_0}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{q_{1,0},q_{2,0}|q_0^\infty} \nonumber\\
&\times \sum_{q_1'}\Upsilon\left(\frac{n_0q_0q_{1,0}q_1'}{C}\right)\mathop{\sum\sum}_{\substack{C\leq q_2=n_0q_0q_{2,0}q_2'<(1+10^{-10})C\\C\leq q_3=n_0q_0q_{2,0}q_3'<(1+10^{-10})C \\(q_2'q_3',q_1')=1}}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{\substack{H'\leq h_1, h_2<(1+10^{-10})H'\\(h_1,n_0q_0q_{1,0}q_1')=1\\(h_2,q_2q_3)=1}}\nonumber\\
&\times \mathcal{D}_1(q_1')\overline{\beta(q_2,h_2,u_2)}\beta(q_3,h_2,u_2)\Psi(n_0q_0q_{1,0}q_1',q_2,q_3)\nonumber\\
&\times e\left(F_3(z_0(n_0q_0q_{1,0}q_1',q_2))-F_3(z_0(n_0q_0q_{1,0}q_1',q_3))\right)du_2\Bigg\}^{1/2}+t^{-A}
\end{align}
for any $A>0$, where \begin{align}\label{D1Def}
\mathcal{D}_1(q_1')=&e\left(\eta_j\frac{\overline{q_1'}q_{2,0}(q_2'-q_3')}{nh_1q_{1,0}}+\eta_j\frac{(\overline{q_2'}-\overline{q_3'})q_{1,0}q_1'}{nh_2q_{2,0}}\right)\nonumber\\
&\times \ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\beta_1\bmod{q_0q_{1,0}}}\ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\beta_1'\bmod{q_0q_{1,0}}}\ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\beta_2\bmod{q_0q_{2,0}}}\ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\beta_2'\bmod{q_0q_{2,0}}}e\left(\frac{\beta_1-\beta_1'}{q_0q_{1,0}}+\frac{\beta_2-\beta_2'}{q_0q_{2,0}}\right)\nonumber\\
&\times \delta\left(-\eta_j\frac{n}{q_0}\equiv \beta_1h_1q_{2,0}q_1'q_2'+\beta_2h_2q_{1,0}q_1'q_2'\bmod{q_0q_{1,0}q_{2,0}},\right.\nonumber\\
&\left. -\eta_j\frac{n}{q_0}\equiv \beta_1'h_1q_{2,0}q_1'q_3'+\beta_2'h_2q_{1,0}q_1'q_3'\bmod{q_0q_{1,0}q_{2,0}}\right),
\end{align}
\begin{align*}
\Psi(n_0q_0q_{1,0}q_1',q_2,q_3)=&\Phi(z_0(n_0q_0q_{1,0}q_1',q_2),u_1,u_2,n_0,n_0q_0q_{1,0}q_1',q_2,h_1,h_2)\\
&\times \overline{\Phi(z_0(n_0q_0q_{1,0}q_1',q_3),u_1,u_2,n_0,n_0q_0q_{1,0}q_1',q_3,h_1,h_2)}\\
&\times e\left(-\eta_j\frac{q_{2,0}(q_2'-q_3')}{nh_1q_{1,0}q_1'}-\eta_j\frac{q_{1,0}q_1'}{nh_2q_{2,0}q_2'}+\eta_j\frac{q_{1,0}q_1'}{nh_2q_{2,0}q_3'}\right),
\end{align*}
with \begin{align*}
z_0(x,q)=\frac{\sqrt{N}}{n^{3/2}N_j}\left(-\tilde{\eta_j} q\left(\frac{xt}{2\pi h_1N}+\frac{Nu_1}{Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}\right)^{1/3}+\tilde{\eta_j}x\left(\frac{qt}{2\pi h_2N}+\frac{Nu_2}{Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}\right)^{1/3}\right)^{3/2},
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
F_3(z_0(n_0q_0q_{1,0}q_1',q))=&\frac{2nN_j}{n_0q_0q_{1,0}q_1'q}z_0(n_0q_0q_{1,0}q_1',q),
\end{align*}
as before.
Consider the $q_1'$-sum. Notice that $\mathcal{D}_1(q_1')$ is determined by $q_1'$ mod $nh_1h_2q_0q_{1,0}q_{2,0}$, hence applying Poisson summation gives us \begin{align*}
&\sum_{q_1'}\Upsilon\left(\frac{n_0q_0q_{1,0}q_1'}{C}\right)\mathcal{D}_1(q_1')\varphi\left(\frac{n_0q_0q_{1,0}q_1'}{C}\right)\Psi(n_0q_0q_{1,0}q_1',q_2,q_3)\nonumber\\
&\times e\left(F_3(z_0(n_0q_0q_{1,0}q_1',q_2))-F_3(z_0(n_0q_0q_{1,0}q_1',q_3))\right)\nonumber\\
=&\frac{C}{n_0nh_1h_2q_0^2q_{1,0}^2q_{2,0}}\sum_{q_1'}\sum_{\gamma\bmod{nh_1h_2q_0q_{1,0}q_{2,0}}}\mathcal{D}_1(\gamma)e\left(\frac{q_1'\gamma}{nh_1h_2q_0q_{1,0}q_{2,0}}\right)\nonumber\\
&\times \int_0^\infty\Upsilon(y)\Psi(Cy,q_2,q_3)e\left(F_3(z_0(Cy,q_2))-F_3(z_0(Cy,q_3))-\frac{q_1'Cy}{n_0nh_1h_2q_0^2q_{1,0}^2q_{2,0}}\right)dy.
\end{align*}
Differentiating gives us
\begin{align}\label{z_0Diff}
\frac{d}{dy}z_0(Cy,q)=&\frac{3\sqrt{N}}{2n^{3/2}N_j}\left(-\tilde{\eta_j} q\left(\frac{Cty}{2\pi h_1N}+\frac{Nu_1}{Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}\right)^{1/3}+\tilde{\eta_j}Cy\left(\frac{qt}{2\pi h_2N}+\frac{Nu_2}{Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}\right)^{1/3}\right)^{1/2}\nonumber\\
&\times \left(-\frac{\tilde{\eta_j}q}{3}\left(\frac{Cty}{2\pi h_1N}+\frac{Nu_1}{Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}\right)^{-2/3}\frac{Ct}{2\pi h_1N}+\tilde{\eta_j}C\left(\frac{qt}{2\pi h_2N}+\frac{Nu_2}{Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}\right)^{1/3}\right)\nonumber\\
=&\frac{z_0(Cy,q)}{y}+\tilde{\eta_j}\frac{CN^{1/3}}{nN_j^{2/3}}z_0(Cy,q)^{1/3}\left(\frac{qt}{2\pi h_2N}+\frac{Nu_2}{Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}\right)^{1/3}\nonumber\\
&+\frac{\tilde{\eta_j}qN^{4/3}u_1}{2nN_j^{2/3}Ht^{1-\varepsilon}y}\left(\frac{Cty}{2\pi h_1N}+\frac{Nu_1}{Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}\right)^{-2/3},
\end{align}
which together with the condition $H\gg\frac{N}{t^{1-\varepsilon}}$ yields
\begin{align}\label{z_0DiffBound}
\left|\frac{d^j}{dy^j}z_0\left(Cy,q\right)\right|\ll \left(\frac{CN^{1/3}}{nN_j^{2/3}}\right)^j
\end{align}
for any $j\geq0$. Together with $\Phi$ (not $\Psi$ because of $z_0(n_0q_0q_{1,0}q_1',q_2,q_3)$) is flat, repeated integration by parts gives us arbitrary saving unless
\begin{align*}
|q_1'|\ll& \frac{n_0nh_1h_2q_0^2q_{1,0}^2q_{2,0}}{C}\left(1+\frac{CN^{1/3}}{|n|N_j^{2/3}}\right)\left(1+\frac{|n|N_j}{C^2}\right)t^\varepsilon\ll n_1q_0q_{1,0}^2Q_B,
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align}\label{QBDef}
Q_B:=\frac{n_0n'q_0q_{2,0}N_j^{1/3}t^{2+\varepsilon}}{N^{5/3}}.
\end{align}
Here we used $\frac{C^2t^\varepsilon}{N_j}\ll |n|\ll \frac{CN^{1/3}t^\varepsilon}{N_j^{2/3}}$. Inserting the above back into (\ref{S2After2ndCauchy}) yields \begin{align}\label{S2After2ndPoisson}
\mathcal{R}_j^*(N)\ll &\frac{t^{1/2+\varepsilon}}{C\sqrt{N_jN}} \sup_{\|\beta\|_2=1}\sup_{|u_1|\ll1} \Bigg\{\int_{|u_2|\ll1}\sum_{n_0}\sum_{\left(\frac{C^2}{N_j}+\frac{CN^{4/3}}{N_j^{2/3}Ht}\right)t^\varepsilon\ll |n|\ll \frac{CN^{1/3}t^\varepsilon}{N_j^{2/3}}}\sum_{q_0|n}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{q_{1,0},q_{2,0}|q_0^\infty}\nonumber\\
&\times \mathop{\sum\sum}_{\substack{C\leq q_2=n_0q_0q_{2,0}q_2'<(1+10^{-10})C\\C\leq q_3=n_0q_0q_{2,0}q_3'<(1+10^{-10})C \\(q_2'q_3',q_1')=1}}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{\substack{H'\leq h_1, h_2<(1+10^{-10})H'\\(h_1,n_0q_0q_{1,0}q_1')=1\\(h_2,q_2q_3)=1}}\frac{1}{n_0nh_1h_2q_0^3q_{1,0}^2q_{2,0}}\overline{\beta(q_2,h_2,u_2)}\beta(q_3,h_2,u_2)\nonumber\\
&\times \sum_{|q_1'|\ll n_1q_0q_{1,0}^2Q_B}\sum_{\gamma\bmod{nh_1h_2q_0q_{1,0}q_{2,0}}}\mathcal{D}_1(\gamma)e\left(\frac{q_1'\gamma}{nh_1h_2q_0q_{1,0}q_{2,0}}\right)\int_0^\infty\Upsilon(y)\Psi\left(Cy,q_2,q_3\right)\nonumber\\
&\times e\left(F_3(z_0(Cy,q_2))-F_3(z_0(Cy,q_3))-\frac{q_1'Cy}{n_0nh_1h_2q_0^2q_{1,0}^2q_{2,0}}\right)dydu_2\Bigg\}^{1/2}+t^{-A}
\end{align}
for any $A>0$.
We first deal with the character sum \begin{align*}
\sum_{\gamma\bmod{nh_1h_2q_0q_{1,0}q_{2,0}}}\mathcal{D}_1(\gamma)e\left(\frac{q_1'\gamma}{nh_1h_2q_0q_{1,0}q_{2,0}}\right).
\end{align*}
Recall the definition of $\mathcal{D}_1$ in (\ref{D1Def}). Writing $n=n_1n'$ with $n_1|q_0^\infty$, $(n',q_0)=1$, and $h_0=(n'h_1,h_2)$, $h_2=h_0h_{2,0}h_2'$ with $h_{2,0}|h_0^\infty$, $(h_2',h_0)=1$, the Chinese Remainder Theorem yields \begin{align*}
&\sum_{\gamma\bmod{nh_1h_2q_0q_{1,0}q_{2,0}}}\mathcal{D}_1(\gamma)e\left(\frac{q_1'\gamma}{nh_1h_2q_0q_{1,0}q_{2,0}}\right)\nonumber\\
=&\sum_{\gamma\bmod{nh_1h_2q_0q_{1,0}q_{2,0}}}e\left(\frac{q_1'\gamma}{nh_1h_2q_0q_{1,0}q_{2,0}}+\eta_j\frac{\overline{\gamma}q_{2,0}(q_2'-q_3')}{nh_1q_{1,0}}+\eta_j\frac{(\overline{q_2'}-\overline{q_3'})q_{1,0}\gamma}{nh_2q_{2,0}}\right)\nonumber\\
&\times \ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\beta_1\bmod{q_0q_{1,0}}}\ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\beta_1'\bmod{q_0q_{1,0}}}\ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\beta_2\bmod{q_0q_{2,0}}}\ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\beta_2'\bmod{q_0q_{2,0}}}e\left(\frac{\beta_1-\beta_1'}{q_0q_{1,0}}+\frac{\beta_2-\beta_2'}{q_0q_{2,0}}\right)\nonumber\\
&\times \delta\left(-\eta_j\frac{n}{q_0}\equiv \beta_1h_1q_{2,0}\gamma q_2'+\beta_2h_2q_{1,0}\gamma q_2'\bmod{q_0q_{1,0}q_{2,0}},\right.\nonumber\\
&\left. -\eta_j\frac{n}{q_0}\equiv \beta_1'h_1q_{2,0}\gamma q_3'+\beta_2'h_2q_{1,0}\gamma q_3'\bmod{q_0q_{1,0}q_{2,0}}\right)\nonumber\\
=&h_2'S(q_1'\overline{q_0q_{1,0}q_{2,0}n_1h_2'}+\eta_j(\overline{q_2'}-\overline{q_3'})h_1q_{1,0}\overline{q_{2,0}n_1h_2'},\eta_j q_{2,0}(q_2'-q_3')h_0h_{2,0}\overline{q_{1,0}n_1};n'h_1h_0h_{2,0})\nonumber\\
&\times \delta\left(q_1'\equiv -\eta_j q_0h_1(\overline{q_2'}-\overline{q_3'})\bmod{h_2'}\right)\mathcal{D}_0(q_2',q_3'),
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align}\label{D0Def}
\mathcal{D}_0(q_2',q_3')=&\sum_{\gamma\bmod{n_1q_0q_{1,0}q_{2,0}}}e\left(\frac{q_1'\gamma\overline{n'h_1h_2}}{q_0q_{1,0}q_{2,0}n_1}+\eta_j\frac{(q_2'-q_3')\overline{\gamma n'h_1}}{n_1q_{1,0}}+\eta_j\frac{(\overline{q_2'}-\overline{q_3'})q_{1,0}\gamma\overline{n'h_2}}{n_1q_{2,0}}\right)\nonumber\\
&\times \ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\beta_1\bmod{q_0q_{1,0}}}\ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\beta_1'\bmod{q_0q_{1,0}}}\ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\beta_2\bmod{q_0q_{2,0}}}\ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\beta_2'\bmod{q_0q_{2,0}}}e\left(\frac{\beta_1-\beta_1'}{q_0q_{1,0}}+\frac{\beta_2-\beta_2'}{q_0q_{2,0}}\right)\nonumber\\
&\times \delta\left(-\eta_j\frac{n}{q_0}\equiv \beta_1h_1q_{2,0}\gamma q_2'+\beta_2h_2q_{1,0}\gamma q_2'\bmod{q_0q_{1,0}q_{2,0}},\right.\nonumber\\
&\left. -\eta_j\frac{n}{q_0}\equiv \beta_1'h_1q_{2,0}\gamma q_3'+\beta_2'h_2q_{1,0}\gamma q_3'\bmod{q_0q_{1,0}q_{2,0}}\right)\ll n_1q_0^3q_{1,0}q_{2,0}.
\end{align}
Hence the Weil bound for Kloosterman sums gives us
\begin{align}\label{D1Bound}
&\sum_{\gamma\bmod{nh_1h_2q_0q_{1,0}q_{2,0}}}\mathcal{D}_1(\gamma)e\left(\frac{q_1'\gamma}{nh_1h_2q_0q_{1,0}q_{2,0}}\right)\nonumber\\
\ll & n_1h_2'q_0^3q_{1,0}q_{2,0}\sqrt{n'h_1h_0h_{2,0}(q_1'\overline{q_0q_{1,0}}+\eta_jh_1q_{1,0}(\overline{q_2'}-\overline{q_3'}),h_0h_{2,0}(q_2'-q_3'),n'h_1h_0h_{2,0})} t^\varepsilon\nonumber\\
&\times \delta\left(q_1'\equiv -\eta_j q_0h_1(\overline{q_2'}-\overline{q_3'})\bmod{h_2'}\right)
\end{align}
Next we analyse the $y$-integral with the phase function being \begin{align*}
&F_3(z_0(Cy,q_2))-F_3(z_0(Cy,q_3))-\frac{q_1'Cy}{n_0nh_1h_2q_0^2q_{1,0}^2q_{2,0}}\\
=&\frac{2nN_j}{Cy}\left(\frac{z_0(Cy,q_2)}{q_2}-\frac{z_0(Cy,q_3)}{q_3}\right)-\frac{q_1'Cy}{n_0nh_1h_2q_0^2q_{1,0}^2q_{2,0}}.
\end{align*}
Denote \begin{align}\label{GDef}
G\left(y,z\right)=&G_{h_1,h_2}(y,z)=F_3(z_0(Cy,Cz))\nonumber\\
=&\sqrt{\frac{2t}{\pi n}}\left(-\tilde{\eta_j} \left(\frac{z}{h_1y}+\frac{2\pi N^2u_1z}{CHt^{2-\varepsilon}y^2}\right)^{1/3}+\tilde{\eta_j}\left(\frac{y}{h_2z}+\frac{2\pi N^2u_2y}{CHt^{2-\varepsilon}z^2}\right)^{1/3}\right)^{3/2}.
\end{align}
Lemma \ref{OGfDer} gives us \begin{align*}
\frac{d}{dy}G\left(y,\frac{q}{C}\right)=&\tilde{\eta_j}\sqrt{\frac{t}{2\pi n}}\left(-\tilde{\eta_j} \left(\frac{q}{h_1Cy}+\frac{2\pi qN^2u_1}{C^2Ht^{2-\varepsilon}y^2}\right)^{1/3}+\tilde{\eta_j}\left(\frac{Cy}{h_2q}+\frac{2\pi CN^2u_2y}{q^2Ht^{2-\varepsilon}}\right)^{1/3}\right)^{1/2}\\
&\times \Bigg\{\left(\frac{q}{h_1Cy^4}+\frac{2\pi qN^2u_1}{C^2Ht^{2-\varepsilon}y^5}\right)^{1/3}+\left(\frac{C}{h_2qy^2}+\frac{2\pi CN^2u_2}{q^2Ht^{2-\varepsilon}y^2}\right)^{1/3}\\
&+\frac{2\pi qN^2u_1}{C^2Ht^{2-\varepsilon}y^3}\left(\frac{q}{h_1Cy}+\frac{2\pi qN^2u_1}{C^2Ht^{2-\varepsilon}y^2}\right)^{-2/3}\Bigg\}.
\end{align*}
We split the analysis depending on whether $|q_1'|\ll n_1q_0q_{1,0}^2Q_S$ or not, where
\begin{align}\label{QsDef}
Q_S:=\frac{n_0q_0q_{2,0}C^3t^{2+\varepsilon}}{n_1n(N_jN)^{4/3}}.
\end{align}
We first deal with the case $|q_1'|\ll n_1q_0q_{1,0}^2Q_S$ including $q_1'=0$. Using (\ref{z_0DiffBound}) to bound the derivatives of $\Psi$, applying (1) in Lemma \ref{statlemma} on the $y$-integral gives us arbitrary saving unless there exists $y'\in[1-10^{-9},1+10^{-9}]$ such that $z_0(Cy',q_j)\sim1$ for $j=1,2$ and \begin{align*}
\frac{d}{dy}\Bigg|_{y=y'}\left(G\left(y,\frac{q_2}{C}\right)-G\left(y,\frac{q_3}{C}\right)\right)\ll \frac{C^2N^{2/3}t^\varepsilon}{n^2N_j^{4/3}}
\end{align*}
Note that for any $y$ such that $z_0(Cy,q)\sim1$, together with the condition $|n|\gg\frac{CN^{4/3}}{N_j^{2/3}Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}$, implies \begin{align}\label{z0condition}
&\left|-\tilde{\eta_j} q\left(\frac{Cty}{2\pi h_1N}+\frac{Nu_1}{Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}\right)^{1/3}+\tilde{\eta_j}Cy\left(\frac{qt}{2\pi h_2N}+\frac{Nu_2}{Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}\right)^{1/3}\right|\sim\frac{nN_j^{2/3}}{N^{1/3}}\nonumber\\
\Longrightarrow & \left|\left(\frac{q}{h_1Cy}+\frac{2\pi qN^2u_1}{C^2Ht^{2-\varepsilon}y^2}\right)^{1/3}-\left(\frac{Cy}{h_2q}+\frac{2\pi CN^2u_2y}{q^2Ht^{2-\varepsilon}}\right)^{1/3}\right|\sim \frac{nN_j^{2/3}}{C^{4/3}t^{1/3}}.
\end{align}
Hence in the case where such $y'$ exists, the bound for the derivative above implies \begin{align*}
&\left|\left(\left(\frac{q_2}{h_1Cy'}+\frac{2\pi q_2N^2u_1}{C^2Ht^{2-\varepsilon}y'^2}\right)^{1/3}-\left(\frac{Cy'}{h_2q_2}+\frac{2\pi CN^2u_2y'}{q_2^2Ht^{2-\varepsilon}}\right)^{1/3}\right)\left(\left(\frac{q_2}{h_1Cy'}+\frac{2\pi q_2N^2u_1}{C^2Ht^{2-\varepsilon}y'^2}\right)^{1/3}\right.\right.\nonumber\\
&\left.+\left(\frac{Cy'}{h_2q_2}+\frac{2\pi CN^2u_2y'}{q_2^2Ht^{2-\varepsilon}}\right)^{1/3}+\frac{2\pi q_2N^2u_1}{C^2Ht^{2-\varepsilon}y'^2}\left(\frac{q_2}{h_1Cy'}+\frac{2\pi q_2N^2u_1}{C^2Ht^{2-\varepsilon}y'^2}\right)^{-2/3}\right)^2\\
&\left.-\left(\left(\frac{q_3}{h_1Cy'}+\frac{2\pi q_3N^2u_1}{C^2Ht^{2-\varepsilon}y'^2}\right)^{1/3}-\left(\frac{Cy'}{h_2q_3}+\frac{2\pi CN^2u_2y'}{q_3^2Ht^{2-\varepsilon}}\right)^{1/3}\right)\left(\left(\frac{q_3}{h_1Cy'}+\frac{2\pi q_3N^2u_1}{C^2Ht^{2-\varepsilon}y'^2}\right)^{1/3}\right.\right.\nonumber\\
&\left.\left.+\left(\frac{Cy'}{h_2q_3}+\frac{2\pi CN^2u_2y'}{q_3^2Ht^{2-\varepsilon}}\right)^{1/3}+\frac{2\pi q_3N^2u_1}{C^2Ht^{2-\varepsilon}y'^2}\left(\frac{q_3}{h_1Cy'}+\frac{2\pi q_3N^2u_1}{C^2Ht^{2-\varepsilon}y'^2}\right)^{-2/3}\right)^2\right|\\
\ll&\frac{C^2N^{2/3}}{n^2N_j^{4/3}}\frac{n(N_jN)^{1/3}}{Ct^{1-\varepsilon}}=\frac{CN}{nN_jt^{1-\varepsilon}},
\end{align*}
and simplifying gives \begin{align}\label{q2q30close}
|q_2-q_3|\ll \frac{C^3t^\varepsilon}{nN_j}.
\end{align}
Moreover, (\ref{z0condition}) gives us \begin{align*}
\left|y^{2/3}-\left(\frac{h_2q_2^2}{h_1C^2}\right)^{1/3}\right|\sim\frac{nN_j^{2/3}}{CN^{1/3}}+O\left(\frac{N}{Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}\right)\Longrightarrow\left|y-\frac{\sqrt{h_2}q_2}{\sqrt{h_1}C}\right|\sim \frac{nN_j^{2/3}}{CN^{1/3}}.
\end{align*}
Here we used $|n|\gg\frac{CN^{4/3}}{N_j^{2/3}Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}$. Hence the $y$-integral is bounded by \begin{align*}
\ll \frac{nN_j^{2/3}t^\varepsilon}{CN^{1/3}}\delta\left(|q_2-q_3|\ll \frac{C^3t^\varepsilon}{nN_j}\right)+t^{-A}
\end{align*}
for any $A>0$. Together with (\ref{D1Bound}), this gives us the contribution of $|q_1'|\ll n_1q_0q_{1,0}^2Q_S$ to $S_{2}(N)^*$ in (\ref{S2After2ndPoisson}) is bounded by \begin{align*}
\ll &\frac{t^{1/2+\varepsilon}}{C\sqrt{N_jN}} \sup_{\|\beta\|_2=1}\sup_{|u_1|\ll1}\Bigg\{\int_{|u_2|\ll1}\sum_{n_0}\sum_{q_0}\sum_{q_0|n_1|q_0^\infty}\sum_{\substack{0\neq |n=n_1n'|\ll \frac{CN^{1/3}t^\varepsilon}{N_j^{2/3}}\\(n',q_0)=1}}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{q_{1,0},q_{2,0}|q_0^\infty}\frac{nN_j^{2/3}}{CN^{1/3}}\nonumber\\
&\times \sum_{h_0}\mathop{\sum\sum\sum}_{\substack{H'\leq h_0|h_1, h_2=h_0h_{2,0}h_2'<(1+10^{-10})H'\\h_{2,0}|h_0^\infty\\(h_1/h_0,h_{2,0}h_2')=(h_2',h_0)=1}}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{\substack{C\leq q_2=n_0q_0q_{2,0}q_2'<(1+10^{-10})C\\C\leq q_3=n_0q_0q_{2,0}q_3'<(1+10^{-10})C\\|q_2-q_3|\ll\frac{C^3t^\varepsilon}{nN_j}}}\sum_{\substack{|q_1'|\ll n_1q_0q_{1,0}^2Q_S\\q_1'\equiv -\eta_j q_0h_1(\overline{q_2'}-\overline{q_3'})\bmod{h_2'}}}\\
&\times |\beta(q_2,h_2,u_2)\beta(q_3,h_2,u_2)|du_2\frac{\sqrt{(q_1'\overline{q_0q_{1,0}}+\eta_jh_1q_{1,0}(\overline{q_2'}-\overline{q_3'}),h_0h_{2,0}(q_2'-q_3'),n'h_1h_0h_{2,0})}}{n_0q_{1,0}\sqrt{n'h_1h_0h_{2,0}}}\Bigg\}^{1/2}.
\end{align*}
Applying Cauchy-Schwartz inequality to take out everything, we get the above is bounded by
\begin{align*}
\ll &\frac{t^{1/2+\varepsilon}}{C\sqrt{N_jN}} \sup_{\|\beta\|_2=1}\sup_{|u_1|\ll1}\Bigg\{\int_{|u_2|\ll1}\sum_{n_0}\sum_{q_0}\sum_{q_0|n_1|q_0^\infty}\sum_{0\neq |n=n_1n'|\ll \frac{CN^{1/3}t^\varepsilon}{N_j^{2/3}}}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{q_{1,0},q_{2,0}|q_0^\infty}\frac{nN_j^{2/3}}{CN^{1/3}}\sum_{h_0}\nonumber\\
&\times \mathop{\sum\sum\sum}_{\substack{H'\leq h_0|h_1, h_2=h_0h_{2,0}h_2'<(1+10^{-10})H'\\h_{2,0}|h_0^\infty}}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{\substack{C\leq q_2=n_0q_0q_{2,0}q_2'<(1+10^{-10})C\\C\leq q_3=n_0q_0q_{2,0}q_3'<(1+10^{-10})C\\|q_2-q_3|\ll\frac{C^3t^\varepsilon}{nN_j}}}|\beta(q_2,h_2,u_2)|^2du_2\nonumber\\
&\times \frac{\sqrt{(q_1'\overline{q_0q_{1,0}}+\eta_jh_1q_{1,0}(\overline{q_2'}-\overline{q_3'}),h_0h_{2,0}(q_2'-q_3'),n'h_1h_0h_{2,0})}}{n_0q_{1,0}\sqrt{n'h_1h_0h_{2,0}}}\nonumber\\
&\times \left(\delta\left(q_2'\equiv q_3'\bmod{h_2'}\right)+\frac{n_0q_0^2q_{1,0}^2q_{2,0}C^3t^2}{h_2'n(N_jN)^{4/3}}\right)\Bigg\}^{1/4}\Bigg\{\int_{|u_2|\ll1}\sum_{n_0}\sum_{q_0}\sum_{q_0|n_1|q_0^\infty}\sum_{0\neq |n=n_1n'|\ll \frac{CN^{1/3}t^\varepsilon}{N_j^{2/3}}}\nonumber\\
&\times \mathop{\sum\sum}_{q_{1,0},q_{2,0}|q_0^\infty}\frac{nN_j^{2/3}}{CN^{1/3}}\sum_{h_0}\mathop{\sum\sum\sum}_{\substack{H'\leq h_0|h_1, h_2=h_0h_{2,0}h_2'<(1+10^{-10})H'\\h_{2,0}|h_0^\infty}}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{\substack{C\leq q_2=n_0q_0q_{2,0}q_2'<(1+10^{-10})C\\C\leq q_3=n_0q_0q_{2,0}q_3'<(1+10^{-10})C\\|q_2-q_3|\ll\frac{C^3t^\varepsilon}{nN_j}}}|\beta(q_3,h_2,u_2)|^2du_2\nonumber\\
&\times \left(\delta\left(q_2'\equiv q_3'\bmod{h_2'}\right)+\frac{n_0q_0^2q_{1,0}^2q_{2,0}C^3t^2}{h_2'n(N_jN)^{4/3}}\right)\nonumber\\
&\times \frac{\sqrt{(q_1'\overline{q_0q_{1,0}}+\eta_jh_1q_{1,0}(\overline{q_2'}-\overline{q_3'}),h_0h_{2,0}(q_2'-q_3'),n'h_1h_0h_{2,0})}}{n_0q_{1,0}\sqrt{n'h_1h_0h_{2,0}}}\Bigg\}^{1/4}\nonumber\\
\ll&\frac{t^{1/2+\varepsilon}}{C\sqrt{N_jN}} \Bigg\{\frac{CN^{1/3}}{N_j^{2/3}}\left(\frac{Ct}{N}+\frac{C^2}{(N_jN)^{1/3}}\sqrt{\frac{N}{Ct}\frac{N_j^{2/3}}{CN^{1/3}}}+\frac{C^2}{(N_jN)^{1/3}}\frac{C^3t^2}{(N_jN)^{4/3}}\frac{N}{Ct}\frac{N_j^{2/3}}{CN^{1/3}}\right)\Bigg\}^{1/2}\nonumber\\
\ll& \mathcal{B}_1,
\end{align*}
where \begin{align}\label{B1Def}
\mathcal{B}_1:=\frac{t^{1/2+\varepsilon}}{\sqrt{C}N_j^{5/6}N^{1/3}} \left(\frac{C}{\sqrt{t}}+\frac{C^3t}{N_jN}\right)^{1/2}.
\end{align}
Inserting the above analysis back into (\ref{S2After2ndPoisson}) yields \begin{align*}
\mathcal{R}_j^*(N)\ll &\frac{t^{1/2+\varepsilon}}{C\sqrt{N_jN}} \sup_{\|\beta\|_2=1}\sup_{|u_1|\ll1} \Bigg\{\int_{|u_2|\ll1}\sum_{n_0}\sum_{\left(\frac{C^2}{N_j}+\frac{CN^{4/3}}{N_j^{2/3}Ht}\right)t^\varepsilon\ll |n|\ll \frac{CN^{1/3}t^\varepsilon}{N_j^{2/3}}}\sum_{q_0|n}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{q_{1,0},q_{2,0}|q_0^\infty}\nonumber\\
&\times \mathop{\sum\sum}_{\substack{C\leq q_2=n_0q_0q_{2,0}q_2'<(1+10^{-10})C\\C\leq q_3=n_0q_0q_{2,0}q_3'<(1+10^{-10})C \\(q_2'q_3',q_1')=1}}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{\substack{H'\leq h_1, h_2<(1+10^{-10})H'\\(h_1,n_0q_0q_{1,0}q_1')=1\\(h_2,q_2q_3)=1}}\frac{1}{n_0nh_1h_2q_0^3q_{1,0}^2q_{2,0}}\nonumber\\
&\times \overline{\beta(q_2,h_2,u_2)}\beta(q_3,h_2,u_2)\sum_{n_1q_0q_{1,0}^2Q_S\ll |q_1'|\ll n_1q_0q_{1,0}^2Q_B}\mathcal{D}_2(q_2',q_3')\nonumber\\
&\times \int_0^\infty\Upsilon(y)\tilde{\Psi}\left(Cy,q_2,q_3\right)e\left(G\left(y,\frac{q_2}{C}\right)-G\left(y,\frac{q_3}{C}\right)-\frac{q_1'Cy}{n_0nh_1h_2q_0^2q_{1,0}^2q_{2,0}}\right)dydu_2\Bigg\}^{1/2}+\mathcal{B}_1,
\end{align*}
with
\begin{align}\label{D2Def}
\mathcal{D}_2(q_2',q_3')=&h_2'S(q_1'\overline{q_0q_{1,0}q_{2,0}n_1h_2'}+\eta_j(\overline{q_2'}-\overline{q_3'})h_1q_{1,0}\overline{q_{2,0}n_1h_2'},\eta_j q_{2,0}(q_2'-q_3')h_0h_{2,0}\overline{q_{1,0}n_1};n'h_1h_0h_{2,0})\nonumber\\
&\times \delta\left(q_1'\equiv -\eta_j q_0h_1(\overline{q_2'}-\overline{q_3'})\bmod{h_2'}\right)\mathcal{D}_0(q_2',q_3')
\end{align}
and the notations $n=n_1n'$ with $n_1|q_0^\infty$, $(n',q_0)=1$, and $h_0=(n'h_1,h_2)$, $h_2=h_0h_{2,0}h_2'$ with $h_{2,0}|h_0^\infty$, $(h_2',h_0)=1$ and $\mathcal{D}_0(q_2',q_3')$ as in (\ref{D0Def}).
\subsubsection{Third Cauchy Schwarz Inequality and Poisson Summation}
Now we consider the remaining case $|q_1'|\gg Q_S$ by iterating the above process.
Notice that
\begin{align*}
&\sup_{\|\beta\|_2=1}\sum_{C\leq q_2<(1+10^{-10})C}\mathop{\sum\sum\sum}_{\substack{n_0q_0q_{2,0}q_2'=q_2\\q_{2,0}|q_0^\infty}}\sum_{\substack{q_{1,0}< (1+10^{-10})\frac{C}{q_0}\\q_{1,0}|q_0^\infty}}\sum_{0<|q_1'|\ll n_1q_0q_{1,0}^2Q_B}\sum_{q_0|n_1|q_0^\infty}\sum_{0\neq|n=n_1n'|\ll \frac{CN^{1/3}t^\varepsilon}{N_j^{2/3}}}\\
&\times \frac{1}{n_1nh_1q_{1,0}q_{2,0}|q_1'|}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{H'\leq h_1,h_2<(1+10^{-10})H'}\int_{|u_2|\ll1}|\beta(q_2,h_2,u_2)|^2du_2\sum_{\gamma\bmod{n_1q_0q_{1,0}q_{2,0}}}\\
&\times \left|\ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\beta_1\bmod{q_0q_{1,0}}}\ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\beta_2\bmod{q_0q_{2,0}}}\delta\left(-\eta_j\frac{n}{q_0}\equiv \beta_1h_1q_{2,0}\gamma q_2'+\beta_2h_2q_{1,0}\gamma q_2'\bmod{q_0q_{1,0}q_{2,0}}\right)\right|^2\ll t^\varepsilon.
\end{align*}
Recall the definition of $\mathcal{D}_2$ in (\ref{D2Def}), applying Cauchy-Schwartz inequality to take out $n,n_0,q_0,q_{1,0},q_{2,0},q_1',q_2', h_1, h_2, \gamma$-sums, we get for the same fixed $\Upsilon\in C_c^\infty([1-10^{-9},1+10^{-9}])$ as before,
\begin{align}\label{S2After3rdCS}
\mathcal{R}_j^*(N)\ll &\frac{t^{1/2+\varepsilon}}{C\sqrt{N_jN}} \sup_{\|\beta\|_2=1} \sup_{|u_1|\ll1} \Bigg\{\int_{|u_2|\ll1}\sum_{n_0}\sum_{q_0}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{q_{1,0},q_{2,0}|q_0^\infty}\sum_{q_0|n_1|q_0^\infty}\sum_{n_1q_0q_{1,0}^2Q_S\ll |q_1'|\ll n_1q_0q_{1,0}^2Q_B}\nonumber\\
&\times \sum_{\substack{\left(\frac{C^2}{N_j}+\frac{CN^{4/3}}{N_j^{2/3}Ht}\right)t^\varepsilon\ll |n=n_1n'|\ll \frac{CN^{1/3}t^\varepsilon}{N_j^{2/3}}\\(n',q_0)=1}}\sum_{q_2=n_0q_0q_{2,0}q_2'}\Upsilon\left(\frac{q_2}{C}\right)\mathop{\sum\sum}_{\substack{C\leq q_3=n_0q_0q_{2,0}q_3'<(1+10^{-10})C\\C\leq q_4=n_0q_0q_{2,0}q_4'<(1+10^{-10})C \\(q_3'q_4',q_1')=1}}\nonumber\\
&\times \mathop{\sum\sum}_{\substack{H'\leq h_1, h_2<(1+10^{-10})H'\\(h_1,n_0q_0q_{1,0}q_1')=1\\(h_2,q_2q_3)=1}}\frac{|q_1'|}{n_0^2n'h_1h_2^2q_0^6q_{1,0}^3q_{2,0}}\beta(q_3,h_2,u_2)\overline{\beta(q_4,h_2,u_2)}\nonumber\\
&\times\mathcal{D}_2'(q_2',q_3')\mathcal{D}_2'(q_2',q_4')\overline{\mathcal{D}_0(q_3',q_4')}I_2(q_1',q_2,q_3,q_4)du_2\Bigg\}^{1/4}+\mathcal{B}_1,
\end{align}
where
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{D}_2'(q_2',q')=&h_2'S(q_1'\overline{q_0q_{1,0}q_{2,0}n_1h_2'}+\eta_j(\overline{q_2'}-\overline{q'})h_1q_{1,0}\overline{q_{2,0}n_1h_2'},\eta_j q_{2,0}(q_2'-q')h_0h_{2,0}\overline{q_{1,0}n_1};n'h_1h_0h_{2,0})\nonumber\\
&\times \delta\left(q_1'\equiv -\eta_j q_0h_1(\overline{q_2'}-\overline{q'})\bmod{h_2'}\right),
\end{align*}
with the previous notations $h_0=(n'h_1,h_2)$, $h_2=h_0h_{2,0}h_2'$ with $h_{2,0}|h_0^\infty$, $(h_2',h_0)=1$ and $\mathcal{D}_0(q_3',q_4')$ as in (\ref{D0Def}), and
\begin{align*}
I_2(q_1',q_2,q_3,q_4)=&\int_0^\infty\Upsilon(y_1)\Psi(Cy_1,q_2,q_3)e\left(G\left(y_1,\frac{q_2}{C}\right)-G\left(y_1,\frac{q_3}{C}\right)-\frac{q_1'Cy_1}{n_0nh_1h_2q_0^2q_{1,0}^2q_{2,0}}\right)dy_1\nonumber\\
&\times \int_0^\infty\Upsilon(y_2)\overline{\Psi(Cy_2,q_2,q_4)}e\left(-G\left(y_2,\frac{q_2}{C}\right)+G\left(y_2,\frac{q_4}{C}\right)+\frac{q_1'Cy_2}{n_0nh_1h_2q_0^2q_{1,0}^2q_{2,0}}\right)dy_2,
\end{align*}
with
\begin{align*}
G\left(y,z\right)=&\sqrt{\frac{2t}{\pi n}}\left(-\tilde{\eta_j} \left(\frac{z}{h_1y}+\frac{2\pi N^2u_1z}{CHt^{2-\varepsilon}y^2}\right)^{1/3}+\tilde{\eta_j}\left(\frac{y}{h_2z}+\frac{2\pi N^2u_2y}{CHt^{2-\varepsilon}z^2}\right)^{1/3}\right)^{3/2},
\end{align*}
as in (\ref{GDef}). Notice that $\mathcal{D}_2'$ is defined $\bmod{n'h_1h_2}$. Now we apply Poisson summation on the $q_2'$-sum to get \begin{align*}
&\sum_{q_2'}\Upsilon\left(\frac{n_0q_0q_{2,0}q_2'}{C}\right)\mathcal{D}_2'(q_2',q_3')\overline{\mathcal{D}_2'(q_2',q_4')}I_2(q_1',q_2,q_3,q_4)\\
=&\frac{C}{n_0n'h_1h_2q_0q_{2,0}}\sum_{q_2'}\sum_{\gamma \bmod{n'h_1h_2}}\mathcal{D}_2'(\gamma,q_3')\overline{\mathcal{D}_2'(\gamma,q_4')}e\left(\frac{\gamma q_2'}{n'h_1h_2}\right)\\
&\times \int_0^\infty \Upsilon(y_3)I_2\left(q_1',Cy_3,q_3,q_4\right)e\left(-\frac{q_2'Cy_3}{n_0n'h_1h_2q_0q_{2,0}}\right)dy_3.
\end{align*}
Applying a similar computation as the computation on $\mathcal{D}_1$ in the previous section with the Chinese remainder theorem, the character sum simplifies to
\begin{align*}
&\sum_{\gamma \bmod{n'h_1h_2}}\mathcal{D}_2'(\gamma,q_3')\overline{\mathcal{D}_2'(\gamma,q_4')}e\left(\frac{\gamma q_2'}{n'h_1h_2}\right)\nonumber\\
=&h_2'^2\delta\left(q_3'\equiv q_4'\bmod{h_2'}\right)e\left(\frac{q_0q_2'\overline{n'h_0h_{2,0}(q_3'-\eta_jq_1')}}{h_2'}\right)\mathcal{D}_3(q_3',q_4'),
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align}\label{D3Def}
\mathcal{D}_3(q_3',q_4')=&\ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\gamma \bmod{n'h_1h_0h_{2,0}}}e\left(\frac{\gamma q_2'h_2'}{n'h_1h_0h_{2,0}}\right)\nonumber\\
&\times S(q_1'\overline{q_0q_{1,0}q_{2,0}n_1h_2'}+\eta_j(\overline{\gamma}-\overline{q_3'})h_1q_{1,0}\overline{q_{2,0}n_1h_2'},\eta_j q_{2,0}(\gamma-q_3')h_0h_{2,0}\overline{q_{1,0}n_1};n'h_1h_0h_{2,0})\nonumber\\
&\times S(q_1'\overline{q_0q_{1,0}q_{2,0}n_1h_2'}+\eta_j(\overline{\gamma}-\overline{q_4'})h_1q_{1,0}\overline{q_{2,0}n_1h_2'},\eta_j q_{2,0}(\gamma-q_4')h_0h_{2,0}\overline{q_{1,0}n_1};n'h_1h_0h_{2,0}).
\end{align}
Applying Lemma \ref{CharSumLemmaFirstCase}, we have \begin{align}\label{D3Bound}
\mathcal{D}_3(q_3',q_4')\ll &(n'h_1h_0h_{2,0})^2t^\varepsilon\delta\left(*_3\right)+(n'h_1h_0h_{2,0})^{3/2}t^\varepsilon,
\end{align}
where $*_3$ is the condition
\begin{align*}
*_3=\Bigg\{& q_3'\equiv q_4'\bmod n'h_1h_0h_{2,0}\nonumber\\
&\text{or } q_1'\overline{q_0q_{1,0}}\pm h_1q_{1,0}(\overline{q_3'}-\overline{q_4'})\equiv 0 \bmod n'h_1h_0h_{2,0}\nonumber\\
&\text{or } q_1'\overline{q_0q_{1,0}}-\eta_jh_1q_{1,0}\overline{q_3'}\equiv 0\bmod n'h_1h_0h_{2,0}\nonumber\\
&\text{or } q_1'\overline{q_0q_{1,0}}-\eta_jh_1q_{1,0}\overline{q_4'}\equiv 0\bmod n'h_1h_0h_{2,0}\Bigg\}.
\end{align*}
Using (\ref{z_0Diff}) as before, repeated integration by parts now gives us arbitrary saving unless \begin{align*}
|q_2'|\ll& \frac{n_0n'h_1h_2q_0q_{2,0}}{C}\left(1+\frac{CN^{1/3}}{|n|N_j^{2/3}}\right)\left(1+\frac{|n|N_j}{C^2}\right)t^\varepsilon\ll Q_B,
\end{align*}
with $Q_B$ defined in (\ref{QBDef}). Inserting this back into (\ref{S2After3rdCS}), we get \begin{align}\label{S2After3rdPoisson}
\mathcal{R}_j^*(N)\ll &\frac{t^{1/2+\varepsilon}}{C\sqrt{N_jN}} \sup_{\|\beta\|_2=1} \sup_{|u_1|\ll1} \Bigg\{C\int_{|u_2|\ll1}\sum_{n_0}\sum_{q_0}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{q_{1,0},q_{2,0}|q_0^\infty}\sum_{q_0|n_1|q_0^\infty}\sum_{n_1q_0q_{1,0}^2Q_S\ll |q_1'|\ll n_1q_0q_{1,0}^2Q_B}\nonumber\\
&\times \sum_{\substack{\left(\frac{C^2}{N_j}+\frac{CN^{4/3}}{N_j^{2/3}Ht}\right)t^\varepsilon\ll |n=n_1n'|\ll \frac{CN^{1/3}t^\varepsilon}{N_j^{2/3}}\\(n',q_0)=1}}\sum_{|q_2'|\ll Q_B}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{\substack{C\leq q_3=n_0q_0q_{2,0}q_3'<(1+10^{-10})C\\C\leq q_4=n_0q_0q_{2,0}q_4'<(1+10^{-10})C \\(q_3'q_4',q_1')=1}}\nonumber\\
&\times \mathop{\sum\sum}_{\substack{H'\leq h_1, h_2<(1+10^{-10})H'\\(h_1,n_0q_0q_{1,0}q_1')=1\\(h_2,q_2q_3)=1}}\frac{|q_1'|h_2'^2}{n_0^3n'^2h_1^2h_2^3q_0^7q_{1,0}^3q_{2,0}^2}\beta(q_3,h_2,u_2)\overline{\beta(q_4,h_2,u_2)}\nonumber\\
&\times\mathcal{D}_3(q_3',q_4')\mathcal{D}_{3,0}(q_3',q_4')I_3(q_1',q_2',q_3,q_4)du_2\delta\left(q_3'\equiv q_4'\bmod{h_2'}\right)\Bigg\}^{1/4}+\mathcal{B}_1,
\end{align}
where \begin{align}\label{D30Def}
\mathcal{D}_{3,0}(q_3',q_4')=e\left(\frac{q_0q_2'\overline{n'h_0h_{2,0}(q_3'-\eta_jq_1')}}{h_2'}\right)\overline{\mathcal{D}_0(q_3',q_4')}\ll n_1q_0^3q_{1,0}q_{2,0},
\end{align}
by (\ref{D0Def}), and \begin{align}\label{J2Def}
I_3(q_1',q_2',q_3,q_4)=&\int_0^\infty \Upsilon(y_3)I_2\left(q_1',Cy_3,q_3,q_4\right)e\left(-\frac{q_2'Cy_3}{n_0n'h_1h_2q_0q_{2,0}}\right)dy_3.
\end{align}
Now we want to again separate the contribution when $|q_2'|$ is small, applying similar treatment as the case $|q_1'|\ll n_1q_0q_{1,0}^2Q_S$. Precisely, we first deal with the case \begin{align*}
|q_2'|\ll Q_S=\frac{n_0q_0q_{2,0}C^3t^{2+\varepsilon}}{n_1n(N_jN)^{4/3}}
\end{align*}
including the case $q_2'=0$. Applying (1) in Lemma \ref{statlemma} on the $y_3$-integral, we get arbitrary saving unless there exists $y_3'\in [1/2,5/2]$ such that \begin{align*}
\left|\frac{d}{dy_3}\bigg|_{y=y_3'}\left(G(y_1,y_3)-G(y_2,y_3)\right)\right|\ll \frac{C^2N^{2/3}t^\varepsilon}{n^2N_j^{4/3}}.
\end{align*}
Applying the same analysis as in the previous subsection (to get (\ref{q2q30close})) with Lemma \ref{OGfDer}, (\ref{z0condition}) on $z_0(Cy_1,y_3),z_0(Cy_2,y_3)\sim1$ in $\Psi$, the above bound for the derivative yields
\begin{align}\label{y_1y_20close}
|y_1-y_2|\ll \frac{C^2t^\varepsilon}{nN_j}.
\end{align}
Inserting these conditions into $I_3(q_1',q_2',q_3,q_4)$, writing $y_2=y_1+v$ and bounding the $y_3$-integral trivially, we have for $|q_2'|\ll Q_S$, \begin{align*}
&I_3(q_1',q_2',q_3,q_4)\\
\ll& t^\varepsilon\sup_{y_3\sim 1} \int_{|v|\ll\frac{C^2t^\varepsilon}{nN_j}}\int_0^\infty\Upsilon(y_1)\Upsilon(y_1+v)\Psi(Cy_1,Cy_3,q_3)\overline{\Psi(C(y_1+v),Cy_3,q_4)}\nonumber\\
&\times e\left(G(y_1,y_3)-G\left(y_1,\frac{q_3}{C}\right)-G(y_1+v,y_3)+G\left(y_1+v,\frac{q_4}{C}\right)+\frac{q_1'Cv}{n_0nh_1h_2q_0^2q_{1,0}^2q_{2,0}}\right)dy_1dv+ t^{-A}
\end{align*}
for any $A>0$. Applying Taylor expansion on the functions involving $1+\frac{v}{y_1}$ and $1+\frac{v}{y_1}$, using $H\gg\frac{N}{t^{1-\varepsilon}}$, and bounding the $v_1$-integral trivially, there exists some $\frac{CN}{n^{3/2}N_j\sqrt{t}}t^\varepsilon$-inert function $\varphi$ such that \begin{align*}
I_3(q_1',q_2',q_3,q_4)\ll& \frac{C^2t^\varepsilon}{nN_j}\sup_{|v_1|\ll \frac{C^2t^\varepsilon}{nN_j}}\int_0^\infty\Upsilon(y)\Psi_2(Cy,q_3,q_4) e\left(-G\left(y,\frac{q_3}{C}\right)+G\left(y,\frac{q_4}{C}\right)\right)dy,
\end{align*}
with
\begin{align*}
\Psi_2(Cy,q_3,q_4)=\Psi(Cy,Cy_3,q_3)\overline{\Psi(C(y+v),Cy_3,q_4)}\varphi(y,y_3,v,q_3,q_4),
\end{align*}
being a $\left(\frac{CN^{1/3}}{|n|N_j^{2/3}}+\frac{CN}{|n|^{3/2}N_j\sqrt{t}}\right)t^\varepsilon$-inert function. Applying the same repeated integration by parts process on the $y$-integral, we get
\begin{align*}
I_3(q_1',q_2',q_3,q_4)\ll& \frac{C^2t^\varepsilon}{nN_j}\delta\left(|q_3-q_4|\ll \left(\frac{C^2}{(N_jN)^{1/3}}+\frac{C^2N^{1/3}}{\sqrt{|n|t}N_j^{2/3}}\right)t^\varepsilon\right)+t^{-A},
\end{align*}
for any $A>0$.
\begin{Remark}
We are using the same analysis to get (\ref{q2q30close}) and (\ref{y_1y_20close}). One may notice the difference in the truncation above, which is a result of the weight function being $\left(\frac{CN^{1/3}}{nN_j^{2/3}}+\frac{CN}{n^{3/2}N_j\sqrt{t}}\right)t^\varepsilon$-inert and instead of $\frac{C^2N^{2/3}}{n^2N_j^{4/3}}t^\varepsilon$ due to the presence of $e\left(-\frac{q_1'Cy}{n_0nh_1h_2q_0^2q_{1,0}^2q_{2,0}}\right)$ or $e\left(-\frac{q_2'Cy_3}{n_0q_0q_{2,0}}\right)$.
\end{Remark}
Inserting (\ref{D30Def}) and the above bound for $I_3$ into (\ref{S2After3rdPoisson}), we get the contribution of $|q_2'|\ll Q_S$ is bounded by \begin{align*}
\ll&\frac{t^{1/2+\varepsilon}}{C\sqrt{N_jN}} \sup_{\|\beta\|_2=1} \sup_{|u_1|\ll1} \Bigg\{\int_{|u_2|\ll1}\sum_{n_0}\sum_{q_0}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{q_{1,0},q_{2,0}|q_0^\infty}\sum_{q_0|n_1|q_0^\infty}\sum_{n_1q_0q_{1,0}^2Q_S\ll |q_1'|\ll n_1q_0q_{1,0}^2Q_B}\nonumber\\
&\times \sum_{\left(\frac{C^2}{N_j}+\frac{CN^{4/3}}{N_j^{2/3}Ht}\right)t^\varepsilon\ll |n=n_1n'|\ll \frac{CN^{1/3}t^\varepsilon}{N_j^{2/3}}}\frac{C^3}{nN_j}\sum_{|q_2'|\ll Q_S}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{\substack{C\leq q_3=n_0q_0q_{2,0}q_3'<(1+10^{-10})C\\C\leq q_4=n_0q_0q_{2,0}q_4'<(1+10^{-10})C \\|q_3-q_4|\ll \left(\frac{C^2}{(N_jN)^{1/3}}+\frac{C^2N^{1/3}}{\sqrt{|n|t}N_j^{2/3}}\right)t^\varepsilon\\(q_3'q_4',q_1')=1}}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{\substack{H'\leq h_1, h_2<(1+10^{-10})H'\\(h_1,n_0q_0q_{1,0}q_1')=1\\(h_2,q_2q_3)=1}}\nonumber\\
&\times \frac{|q_1'|h_2'^2n_1}{n_0^3n'^2h_1^2h_2^3q_0^4q_{1,0}^2q_{2,0}}|\beta(q_3,h_2,u_2)\beta(q_4,h_2,u_2)||\mathcal{D}_3(q_3',q_4')|du_2\delta\left(q_3'\equiv q_4'\bmod{h_2'}\right)\Bigg\}^{1/4}.
\end{align*}
Recall that $Q_S, Q_B$ are defined in (\ref{QsDef}) and (\ref{QBDef}) respectively. Applying Cauchy-Schwarz inequality as before to deal with the $\beta$ terms, using (\ref{D3Bound}), the above is bounded by \begin{align*}
\ll&\frac{t^{1/2+\varepsilon}}{C\sqrt{N_jN}} \Bigg\{\sum_{|n|\ll \frac{CN^{1/3}t^\varepsilon}{N_j^{2/3}}}\frac{C^3}{nN_j}\left(\frac{nN_j^{1/3}t^2}{N^{5/3}}\right)^2\left(1+\frac{C^3t^2}{n(N_jN)^{4/3}}\right)\frac{1}{n^2}\left(\frac{Ct}{N}\right)^{-3}\\
&\times\left(\frac{C^2}{(N_jN)^{1/3}}+\frac{C^2N^{1/3}}{\sqrt{|n|t}N_j^{2/3}}+\frac{Ct}{N}\right)\left(\frac{nCt}{N}\right)^{3/2}\Bigg\}^{1/4}\\
\ll&\frac{t^{9/8+\varepsilon}}{C^{1/4}(N_jN)^{5/6}} \left(1+\frac{\sqrt{Ct}}{N_j^{1/6}N^{5/12}}\right)\left(\frac{C^2}{(N_jN)^{1/3}}+\frac{Ct}{N}\right)^{1/4}.
\end{align*}
Indeed, with the same process we have the following technical Lemma that we will apply repeatedly later.
\begin{Lemma}\label{TechnicalLemmaForDiagonal}
Let $q_3,q_4\sim C$. Let $B\ll\frac{C^2N^{2/3}t^\varepsilon}{n^2N_j^{4/3}}$ and let $\eta=0$ or $1$. Let $W$ be a $\left(\frac{CN^{1/3}}{|n|N_j^{2/3}}+\eta \frac{CN}{|n|^{3/2}N_j\sqrt{t}}\right)t^\varepsilon$-inert function and let \begin{align*}
J=&\int_0^\infty\Upsilon(y)\int_0^\infty\Upsilon(y_1)\int_0^\infty\Upsilon(y_2)\Psi(Cy_1,Cy,q_3)\overline{\Psi(Cy_2,Cy,q_4)}W(y,y_1,y_2,q_3,q_4)\nonumber\\
&\times e\left(G(y_1,y)-G\left(y_1,\frac{q_3}{C}\right)-G(y_2,y)+G\left(y_2,\frac{q_4}{C}\right)+(1-\eta)By\right)dy_2dy_1dy.
\end{align*}
Then there exists some $\left(\frac{CN^{1/3}}{|n|N_j^{2/3}}+\frac{CN}{|n|^{3/2}N_j\sqrt{t}}\right)t^\varepsilon$-inert function $\tilde{W}$ and some function $F$ such that \begin{align*}
J=&\int_{1/2}^{5/2}\int_{|v|\ll \left((1-\eta)\frac{C^2}{nN_j}+\eta \left(\frac{C}{(N_jN)^{1/3}}+\frac{CN^{1/3}}{\sqrt{|n|t}N_j^{2/3}}\right)\right)t^\varepsilon} F(u,v)\int_0^\infty \Upsilon (y)\Upsilon(y+v)\Psi(Cy,Cu,q_3)\\
&\times \overline{\Psi(C(y+v),Cu,q_4)}\tilde{W}(u,y,y+v,q_3,q_4)e\left(-G\left(y,\frac{q_3}{C}\right)+G\left(y,\frac{q_4}{C}\right)\right)dydvdu.
\end{align*}
Moreover, we have \begin{align*}
J\ll& \left((1-\eta)\frac{C^2}{nN_j}+\eta\left(\frac{C}{(N_jN)^{1/3}}+ \frac{CN^{1/3}}{\sqrt{|n|t}N_j^{2/3}}\right)\right)t^\varepsilon\\
&\times \delta\left(|q_3-q_4|\ll \left(\frac{C^2}{(N_jN)^{1/3}}+\frac{C^2N^{1/3}}{\sqrt{|n|t}N_j^{2/3}}\right)t^\varepsilon\right)+t^{-A}
\end{align*}
for any $A>0$.
\end{Lemma}
All together we have
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{R}_j^*(N)\ll &\frac{t^{1/2+\varepsilon}}{C\sqrt{N_jN}} \sup_{\|\beta\|_2=1} \sup_{|u_1|\ll1} \Bigg\{C\int_{|u_2|\ll1}\sum_{n_0}\sum_{q_0}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{q_{1,0},q_{2,0}|q_0^\infty}\sum_{q_0|n_1|q_0^\infty}\sum_{n_1q_0q_{1,0}^2Q_S\ll |q_1'|\ll n_1q_0q_{1,0}^2Q_B}\nonumber\\
&\times \sum_{\substack{\left(\frac{C^2}{N_j}+\frac{CN^{4/3}}{N_j^{2/3}Ht}\right)t^\varepsilon\ll |n=n_1n'|\ll \frac{CN^{1/3}t^\varepsilon}{N_j^{2/3}}\\(n',q_0)=1}}\sum_{Q_S\ll |q_2'|\ll Q_B}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{\substack{C\leq q_3=n_0q_0q_{2,0}q_3'<(1+10^{-10})C\\C\leq q_4=n_0q_0q_{2,0}q_4'<(1+10^{-10})C \\(q_3'q_4',q_1')=1}}\nonumber\\
&\times \mathop{\sum\sum}_{\substack{H'\leq h_1, h_2<(1+10^{-10})H'\\(h_1,n_0q_0q_{1,0}q_1')=1\\(h_2,q_2q_3)=1}}\frac{|q_1'|h_2'^2}{n_0^3n'^2h_1^2h_2^3q_0^7q_{1,0}^3q_{2,0}^2}\beta(q_3,h_2,u_2)\overline{\beta(q_4,h_2,u_2)}\nonumber\\
&\times\mathcal{D}_3(q_3',q_4')\mathcal{D}_{3,0}(q_3',q_4')I_3(q_1',q_2',q_3,q_4)du_2\delta(q_3'\equiv q_4'\bmod{h_2'})\Bigg\}^{1/4}+\mathcal{B}_2+\mathcal{B}_1,
\end{align*}
where $\mathcal{B}_1$ is defined in (\ref{B1Def}) and \begin{align}\label{B2Def}
\mathcal{B}_2:=&\frac{t^{9/8+\varepsilon}}{C^{1/4}(N_jN)^{5/6}} \left(1+\frac{\sqrt{Ct}}{N_j^{1/6}N^{5/12}}\right)\left(\frac{C^2}{(N_jN)^{1/3}}+\frac{Ct}{N}\right)^{1/4}.
\end{align}
\subsubsection{Iteration of the above Process}
By iterating the above process, we prove the following lemma in this subsection.
\begin{Lemma}\label{IteraionLemma}
For any positive integer $\nu\geq2$, we have \begin{align*}
\mathcal{R}_j^*(N)\ll &\mathcal{A}_\nu+\sum_{j=1}^\nu\mathcal{B}_j,
\end{align*}
where \begin{align*}
\mathcal{A}_\nu=&\frac{t^{1/2+\varepsilon}}{\sqrt{CN_jN}} \sup_{\|\beta\|_2=1} \sup_{|u_1|\ll1} \Bigg\{\frac{1}{C}\int_{|u_2|\ll1}\sum_{n_0}\sum_{q_0}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{q_{1,0},q_{2,0}|q_0^\infty}\sum_{q_0|n_1|q_0^\infty}\sum_{\left(\frac{C^2}{N_j}+\frac{CN^{4/3}}{N_j^{2/3}Ht}\right)t^\varepsilon\ll |n=n_1n'|\ll \frac{CN^{1/3}t^\varepsilon}{N_j^{2/3}}}\nonumber\\
&\times \sum_{n_1q_0q_{1,0}^2Q_S\ll |q_1'|\ll n_1q_0q_{1,0}^2Q_B}\mathop{\sum\cdots\sum}_{Q_s\ll |q_2'|,...,|q_\nu'|\ll Q_B}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{\substack{C\leq q_{\nu+1}=n_0q_0q_{2,0}q_{\nu+1}'<(1+10^{-10})C\\C\leq q_{\nu+2}=n_0q_0q_{2,0}q_{\nu+2}'<(1+10^{-10})C \\(q_{\nu+1}'q_{\nu+2}',q_1')=1}}\nonumber\\
&\times \mathop{\sum\sum}_{\substack{H'\leq h_1, h_2<(1+10^{-10})H'\\(h_1,n_0q_0q_{1,0}q_1')=1\\(h_2,q_{\nu+1}q_{\nu+2})=1}}\frac{n_1^{2^{\nu-1}-2}h_2'^{2^{\nu-1}}|q_1'^{2^{\nu-1}-1}q_2'^{2^{\nu-2}-1}\cdots q_{\nu-1}'|}{n_0^{2^\nu-1}n'^{2^{\nu-1}}h_1^{2^{\nu-1}}h_2^{2^\nu-1}q_0^{2^{\nu+1}-1}q_{1,0}^{2^{\nu-1}+1}q_{2,0}^{2^{\nu-1}}}D(\nu)\delta(q_{\nu+1}'\equiv q_{\nu+2}'\bmod{h_2'})\nonumber\\
&\beta'(q_{\nu+1},h_2,u_2)\overline{\beta'(q_{\nu+2},h_2,u_2)}\mathcal{D}_{\nu+1}(q_{\nu+1}',q_{\nu+2}')\mathcal{D}_0'(q_{\nu+1}',q_{\nu+2}')I_{\nu+1}(q_1',...,q_\nu',q_{\nu+1},q_{\nu+2})du_2\Bigg\}^{2^{-\nu}},
\end{align*}
with the notations $n=n_1n'$ with $n_1|q_0^\infty$, $(n',q_0)=1$, and $h_0=(n'h_1,h_2)$, $h_2=h_0h_{2,0}h_2'$ with $h_{2,0}|h_0^\infty$, $(h_2',h_0)=1$. Here $\beta'=\beta$ or $\overline{\beta}$, $\mathcal{D}_0'=\mathcal{D}_0$ or $\overline{\mathcal{D}_0}$ depending on $\nu$, with $\mathcal{B}_1$, $\mathcal{D}_0$, $\mathcal{D}_3$, $I_3$ as defined in (\ref{B1Def}), (\ref{D0Def}), (\ref{D3Def}) and (\ref{J2Def}) respectively, \begin{align*}
D(\nu)=\begin{cases}
e\left(\frac{q_0q_2'\overline{n'h_0h_{2,0}(q_3'-\eta_jq_1')}}{h_2'}\right) & \nu=3\\
e\left(\frac{q_{\nu}'q_{\nu+1}'\overline{n'h_0h_{2,0}}}{h_2'}\right)& \nu>3.
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
The character sum and integral $\mathcal{D}_\nu(q_{\nu+1}',q_{\nu+2}')$ and $I_\nu(q_1',...,q_\nu',q_{\nu+1},q_{\nu+2})$ are defined recursively by \begin{align*}
\mathcal{D}_{\nu+1}(q_{\nu+1}',q_{\nu+2}')=\sum_{\gamma\bmod{n'h_1h_0h_{2,0}}}\mathcal{D}_\nu(\gamma,q_{\nu+1}')\overline{\mathcal{D}_\nu(\gamma,q_{\nu+2}')}e\left(\frac{\gamma q_\nu'\overline{h_2'}}{n'h_1h_0h_{2,0}}\right)
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
I_{\nu+1}(q_1',...,q_\nu',q_{\nu+1},q_{\nu+2})=&\int_0^\infty\Upsilon(y_{2^\nu-1})I_{\nu}(q_1',...,q_{\nu-1}',Cy_{2^\nu-1},q_{\nu+1})\\
&\times\overline{I_{\nu}(q_1',...,q_{\nu-1}',Cy_{2^\nu-1},q_{\nu+2})}e\left(-\frac{q_{\nu}'Cy_{2^\nu-1}}{n_0n'h_1h_2q_0q_{2,0}}\right)dy_{2^\nu-1}
\end{align*}
respectively, and for $\ell\geq2$, \begin{align*}
\mathcal{B}_\ell=&\frac{\sqrt{C}t^{2+\varepsilon}}{N_jN^{3/2}} \Bigg\{\frac{N_j^{2/3}N^{8/3}}{C^3t^{7/2}}\left(1+\frac{C^2t^2}{N_j^{2/3}N^{5/3}}\right)\left(\frac{Ct}{N}+\frac{C^2}{(N_jN)^{1/3}}\right)\Bigg\}^{2^{-\ell}}.
\end{align*}
Moreover, we have the bound \begin{align*}
\mathcal{D}_{\nu+1}(q_{\nu+1}',q_{\nu+2}')\ll (n'h_1h_0h_{2,0})^{2^{\nu-1}-1/2}t^\varepsilon\left(\sqrt{n'h_1h_0h_{2,0}}\delta(*_{\nu-2})+1\right),
\end{align*}
where $*_{\nu-2}$ is the condition \begin{align*}
*_{\nu-2}'=\Bigg\{& q_{\nu+1}'\equiv q_{\nu+2}'\bmod n'h_1h_0h_{2,0}\nonumber\\
&\text{or } q_1'\overline{q_0q_{1,0}}\pm h_1q_{1,0}(\overline{q_{\nu+1}'}-\overline{q_{\nu+2}'})\equiv 0 \bmod n'h_1h_0h_{2,0}\nonumber\\
&\text{or } q_1'\overline{q_0q_{1,0}}-\eta_jh_1q_{1,0}\overline{q_{\nu+1}'}\equiv 0\bmod n'h_1h_0h_{2,0}\nonumber\\
&\text{or } q_1'\overline{q_0q_{1,0}}-\eta_jh_1q_{1,0}\overline{q_{\nu+2}'}\equiv 0\bmod n'h_1h_0h_{2,0}\Bigg\}.
\end{align*}
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof}
We prove this by induction. Note that $\mathcal{B}_2$ coincides with the definition in (\ref{B2Def}) and the statement is proved in the previous subsection for $\nu=2$. Assume the statement is true for $\nu=k$, then we have \begin{align*}
S_{2}(N)^*\ll \mathcal{A}_k+\sum_{j=1}^k\mathcal{B}_j,
\end{align*}
Notice that
\begin{align*}
&\sup_{\|\beta\|_2=1}\sum_{C\leq q_{k+1}<(1+10^{-10})C}\mathop{\sum\sum\sum}_{\substack{n_0q_0q_{2,0}q_{k+1}'=q_{k+1}\\q_{2,0}|q_0^\infty}}\sum_{\substack{q_{1,0}< (1+10^{-10})\frac{C}{q_0}\\q_{1,0}|q_0^\infty}}\sum_{q_0|n_1|q_0^\infty}\sum_{0\neq|n=n_1n'|\ll \frac{CN^{1/3}t^\varepsilon}{N_j^{2/3}}}\sum_{0<|q_1'|\ll n_1q_0q_{1,0}^2Q_B}\\
&\times \mathop{\sum\cdots\sum}_{0<|q_2'|,...,|q_k'|\ll Q_B}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{H'\leq h_1,h_2<(1+10^{-10})H'}\frac{1}{n_1nh_1q_{1,0}q_{2,0}|q_1'\cdots q_k'|}\int_{|u_2|\ll1}|\beta(q_{k+1},h_2,u_2)|^2du_2\sum_{\gamma\bmod{n_1q_0q_{1,0}q_{2,0}}}\\
&\times \left|\mathcal{D}(k)\ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\beta_1\bmod{q_0q_{1,0}}}\ \sideset{}{^\star}\sum_{\beta_2\bmod{q_0q_{2,0}}}\delta\left(-\eta_j\frac{n}{q_0}\equiv \beta_1h_1q_{2,0}\gamma q_{k+1}'+\beta_2h_2q_{1,0}\gamma q_{k+1}'\bmod{q_0q_{1,0}q_{2,0}}\right)\right|^2\ll t^\varepsilon.
\end{align*}
Recall the definition of $\mathcal{D}_0$ in (\ref{D0Def}), applying Cauchy-Schwarz inequality to take out $n,n_0,q_0,q_{1,0},q_{2,0},q_1',q_2',h_1,h_2$-sums, $\gamma$-sum in $\mathcal{D}_0$ and the $u_2$-integral, we get for the same fixed $\Upsilon\in C_c^\infty([1-10^{-9},1+10^{-9}])$ as before,
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{A}_k\ll &\frac{t^{1/2+\varepsilon}}{\sqrt{CN_jN}} \sup_{\|\beta\|_2=1} \sup_{|u_1|\ll1} \Bigg\{\frac{1}{C^2}\int_{|u_2|\ll1}\sum_{n_0}\sum_{q_0}\sum_{q_0|n_1|q_0^\infty}\sum_{\left(\frac{C^2}{N_j}+\frac{CN^{4/3}}{N_j^{2/3}Ht}\right)t^\varepsilon\ll |n=n_1n'|\ll \frac{CN^{1/3}t^\varepsilon}{N_j^{2/3}}}\nonumber\\
&\times \mathop{\sum\sum}_{q_{1,0},q_{2,0}|q_0^\infty}\sum_{n_1q_0q_{1,0}^2Q_S\ll |q_1'|\ll n_1q_0q_{1,0}^2Q_B}\mathop{\sum\cdots\sum}_{Q_s\ll |q_2'|,...,|q_k'|\ll Q_B}\sum_{q_{k+1}=n_0q_0q_{2,0}q_{k+1}'}\Upsilon\left(\frac{q_{k+1}}{C}\right)\nonumber\\
&\times \mathop{\sum\sum}_{\substack{C\leq q_{k+2}=n_0q_0q_{2,0}q_{k+2}'<(1+10^{-10})C\\C\leq q_{k+3}=n_0q_0q_{2,0}q_{k+3}'<(1+10^{-10})C \\(q_{k+2}'q_{k+3}',q_1')=1}}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{\substack{H'\leq h_1, h_2<(1+10^{-10})H'\\(h_1,n_0q_0q_{1,0}q_1')=1\\(h_2,q_{k+2}q_{k+3})=1}}\frac{n_1^{2^\nu-2}h_2'^{2^\nu}|q_1'^{2^{\nu}-1}q_2'^{2^{\nu-1}-1}\cdots q_{\nu-1}'^3|}{n_0^{2^{\nu+1}-2}n'^{2^\nu-1}h_1^{2^\nu-1}h_2^{2^{\nu+1}-2}q_0^{2^{\nu+2}-2}q_{1,0}^{2^\nu+2}q_{2,0}^{2^\nu-1}}\nonumber\\
&\times \beta'(q_{k+2},h_2,u_2)\overline{\beta'(q_{k+3},h_2,u_2)}\mathcal{D}_k(q_{k+1}',q_{k+2}')\overline{\mathcal{D}_k(q_{k+1}',q_{k+3}')}\delta(q_{k+1}'\equiv q_{k+2}'\equiv q_{k+3}'\bmod{h_2'})\nonumber\\
&\times \overline{\mathcal{D}_0'(q_{k+2}',q_{k+3}')}I_k(q_1',...,q_k',q_{k+1},q_{k+2})\overline{I_k(q_1',...,q_k',q_{k+1},q_{k+3})}du_2\Bigg\}^{2^{-k-1}}.
\end{align*}
Note that $\mathcal{D}_k$ is defined $\bmod{n'h_1h_0h_{2,0}}$. Applying Poisson summation on the $q_{k+1}'$-sum, we get \begin{align*}
&\sum_{q_{k+1}'}\Upsilon\left(\frac{n_0q_0q_{2,0}q_{k+1}'}{C}\right)\mathcal{D}_k(q_{k+1}',q_{k+2}')\overline{\mathcal{D}_k(q_{k+1}',q_{k+3}')}\delta(q_{k+1}'\equiv q_{k+2}'\equiv q_{k+3}'\bmod{h_2'})\\
&\times I_k(q_1',...,q_k',q_{k+1},q_{k+2})\overline{I_k(q_1',...,q_k',q_{k+1},q_{k+3})}\\
=&\frac{C}{n_0n'h_1h_2q_0q_{2,0}}\sum_{q_{k+1}'}\sum_{\gamma \bmod{n'h_1h_2}}\mathcal{D}_k(\gamma,q_{k+2}')\overline{\mathcal{D}_k(\gamma,q_{k+3}')}\delta(\gamma\equiv q_{k+2}'\equiv q_{k+3}'\bmod{h_2'})e\left(\frac{\gamma q_{k+1}'}{n'h_1h_2}\right)\\
&\times \int_0^\infty \Upsilon(y_{2^{k+1}-1})I_k(q_1',...,q_k',Cy_{2^{k+1}-1},q_{k+2})\\
&\times \overline{I_k(q_1',...,q_k',Cy_{2^{k+1}-1},q_{k+3})}e\left(-\frac{q_{k+1}'Cy_{2^{k+1}-1}}{n_0n'h_1h_2q_0q_{2,0}}\right)dy_{2^{k+1}-1}.
\end{align*}
For the character sum, the Chinese remainder theorem yields \begin{align*}
&\sum_{\gamma \bmod{n'h_1h_2}}\mathcal{D}_k(\gamma,q_{k+2}')\overline{\mathcal{D}_k(\gamma,q_{k+3}')}\delta(\gamma\equiv q_{k+2}'\equiv q_{k+3}'\bmod{h_2'})e\left(\frac{\gamma q_{k+1}'}{n'h_1h_2}\right)\\
=&e\left(\frac{q_{k+1'}q_{k+2}'\overline{n'h_1h_0h_{2,0}}}{h_2'}\right)\delta(q_{k+2}'\equiv q_{k+3}'\bmod{h_2'})\\
&\times \sum_{\gamma\bmod{n'h_1h_0h_{2,0}}}\mathcal{D}_k(\gamma,q_{k+2}')\overline{\mathcal{D}_k(\gamma,q_{k+3}')}e\left(\frac{\gamma q_{k+1}'\overline{h_2'}}{n'h_1h_0h_{2,0}}\right)\\
=&\mathcal{D}(k+1)\mathcal{D}_{k+1}(q_{k+2}',q_{k+3}')\delta(q_{k+2}'\equiv q_{k+3}'\bmod{h_2'}).
\end{align*}
For the integral, note that the phase function in the $y_{2^{k+1}-1}$-integral is \begin{align*}
(-1)^{k+1}\left(G(y_{2^{k-1}-k+1},y_{2^{k+1}-1})-G(y_{2^k+2^{k-1}-k},y_{2^{k+1}-1})\right)
-\frac{q_{k+1}'Cy_{2^{k+1}-1}}{n_0q_0q_{2,0}}.
\end{align*}
Hence repeated integration by parts gives us arbitrary saving unless $|q_{k+1}'|\ll Q_B$.
Let $\mathcal{B}_{k+1}$ be the contribution when $|q_{k+1}'|\ll Q_s$ including the case $q_{k+1}'=0$. Then we have \begin{align*}
S_{2}(N)^*\ll \mathcal{A}_{k+1}+\sum_{j=1}^{k}\mathcal{B}_j+\tilde{\mathcal{B}}_{k+1},
\end{align*}
with $\mathcal{A}_{k+1}, \mathcal{B}_1,...,\mathcal{B}_k$ as defined in the statement and \begin{align*}
\tilde{\mathcal{B}}_{k+1}:=&\frac{t^{1/2+\varepsilon}}{\sqrt{CN_jN}} \sup_{\|\beta\|_2=1} \sup_{|u_1|\ll1} \Bigg\{\frac{1}{C}\int_{|u_2|\ll1}\sum_{n_0}\sum_{q_0}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{q_{1,0},q_{2,0}|q_0^\infty}\sum_{q_0|n_1|q_0^\infty}\sum_{\left(\frac{C^2}{N_j}+\frac{CN^{4/3}}{N_j^{2/3}Ht}\right)t^\varepsilon\ll |n=n_1n'|\ll \frac{CN^{1/3}t^\varepsilon}{N_j^{2/3}}}\nonumber\\
&\times \sum_{n_1q_0q_{1,0}^2Q_S\ll |q_1'|\ll n_1q_0q_{1,0}^2Q_B}\mathop{\sum\cdots\sum}_{Q_s\ll |q_2'|,...,|q_k'|\ll Q_B}\sum_{|q_{k+1}'|\ll Q_S}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{\substack{C\leq q_{k+2}=n_0q_0q_{2,0}q_{k+2}'<(1+10^{-10})C\\C\leq q_{k+3}=n_0q_0q_{2,0}q_{k+3}'<(1+10^{-10})C \\(q_{k+2}'q_{k+3}',q_1')=1}}\nonumber\\
&\times \mathop{\sum\sum}_{\substack{H'\leq h_1, h_2<(1+10^{-10})H'\\(h_1,n_0q_0q_{1,0}q_1')=1\\(h_2,q_{k+2}q_{k+3})=1}}\frac{n_1^{2^{k}-2}h_2'^{2^{k}}|q_1'^{2^{k}-1}q_2'^{2^{k-1}-1}\cdots q_{k}'|}{n_0^{2^{k+1}-1}n'^{2^{k}}h_1^{2^{k}}h_2^{2^{k+1}-1}q_0^{2^{k+2}-1}q_{1,0}^{2^{k}+1}q_{2,0}^{2^{k}}}D(k+1)\delta(q_{k+2}'\equiv q_{k+3}'\bmod{h_2'})\nonumber\\
&\beta'(q_{k+2},h_2,u_2)\overline{\beta'(q_{k+3},h_2,u_2)}\mathcal{D}_{k+2}(q_{k+2}',q_{k+3}')\mathcal{D}_0'(q_{k+2}',q_{k+3}')I_{k+2}(q_1',...,q_{k+1}',q_{k+2},q_{k+3})du_2\Bigg\}^{2^{-k-1}}
\end{align*}
Applying Lemma \ref{TechnicalLemmaForDiagonal} with $\eta=0$ on the $y_{2^{k+1}-1}$-integral, then $\eta=1$ for $(2^k-2)$-times on the remaining integrals, followed by the final statement on the single integral left after the process, we get for $|q_{k+1}'|\ll Q_S$, \begin{align*}
&I_{k+2}(q_1',...,q_{k+1}',q_{k+2},q_{k+3})\\
\ll& \frac{C^2t^\varepsilon}{nN_j}\left(\frac{C}{(N_jN)^{1/3}}+ \frac{CN^{1/3}}{\sqrt{|n|t}N_j^{2/3}}\right)^{2^k-2} \delta\left(|q_{k+2}-q_{k+3}|\ll \left(\frac{C^2}{(N_jN)^{1/3}}+\frac{C^2N^{1/3}}{\sqrt{|n|t}N_j^{2/3}}\right)t^\varepsilon\right)+t^{-A}
\end{align*}
for any $A>0$. The fact that every use of Lemma \ref{TechnicalLemmaForDiagonal} will truncate two variables of integration and finally truncate the distance between $q_{k+2}', q_{k+3}'$ can be seen by noticing every integral $y_i$ appears in some $G(\cdot,\cdot)$ in the phase function of the $(2^{k+1}-1)$-fold integral twice and no two of them appears in the same $G(\cdot,\cdot)$. Also, the way $q_{k+2},q_{k+3}$ is constructed through iterations of Cauchy-Schwarz inequality shows that the truncation between them occurs at last.
On the other hand, notice that the character sum $\mathcal{D}_{k+2}$ is exactly of the form defined before Lemma \ref{CharSumLemmaGeneral}. Indeed, we have \begin{align*}
&\mathcal{D}_{k+2}(q_{k+2}',q_{k+3}')\\
=&\mathcal{C}_{k-1}(a_{I_{k-1}},q_1'\overline{q_0q_{1,0}q_{2,0}n_1h_2'},\eta_jh_1q_{1,0}\overline{q_{2,0}n_1h_2'},\eta_jq_{2,0}h_0h_{2,0}\overline{q_{1,0}n_1},n'h_1h_0h_{2,0},q_{k+2}',q_{k+3}'),
\end{align*}
with $a_{I_{k-1}}$ is some set consisting of $q_j'h_2'$ appropriately.
Hence Lemma \ref{CharSumLemmaGeneral} gives us \begin{align*}
\mathcal{D}_{k+2}(q_{k+2}',q_{k+3}')\ll (n'h_1h_0h_{2,0})^{2^k-1/2}t^\varepsilon\left(\sqrt{n'h_1h_0h_{2,0}}\delta(*_{k-1})+1\right),
\end{align*}
where $*_{k-1}$ is the condition \begin{align*}
*_{k-1}=\Bigg\{& q_{k+2}'\equiv q_{k+3}'\bmod n'h_1h_0h_{2,0}\nonumber\\
&\text{or } q_1'\overline{q_0q_{1,0}}\pm h_1q_{1,0}(\overline{q_{k+2}'}-\overline{q_{k+3}'})\equiv 0 \bmod n'h_1h_0h_{2,0}\nonumber\\
&\text{or } q_1'\overline{q_0q_{1,0}}-\eta_jh_1q_{1,0}\overline{q_{k+2}'}\equiv 0\bmod n'h_1h_0h_{2,0}\nonumber\\
&\text{or } q_1'\overline{q_0q_{1,0}}-\eta_jh_1q_{1,0}\overline{q_{k+3}'}\equiv 0\bmod n'h_1h_0h_{2,0}\Bigg\}.
\end{align*}
This proves the last statement of the Lemma.
Together with $\mathcal{D}(k+1)\ll1$ and $\mathcal{D}_0\ll n_1q_0^3q_{1,0}q_{2,0}$ as in (\ref{D0Def}), this yields \begin{align*}
\tilde{\mathcal{B}}_{k+1}\ll&\frac{t^{1/2+\varepsilon}}{\sqrt{CN_jN}} \sup_{\|\beta\|_2=1} \sup_{|u_1|\ll1} \Bigg\{\frac{1}{C}\int_{|u_2|\ll1}\sum_{n_0}\sum_{q_0}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{q_{1,0},q_{2,0}|q_0^\infty}\sum_{q_0|n_1|q_0^\infty}\nonumber\\
&\times \sum_{\left(\frac{C^2}{N_j}+\frac{CN^{4/3}}{N_j^{2/3}Ht}\right)t^\varepsilon\ll |n=n_1n'|\ll \frac{CN^{1/3}t^\varepsilon}{N_j^{2/3}}}\sum_{n_1q_0q_{1,0}^2Q_S\ll |q_1'|\ll n_1q_0q_{1,0}^2Q_B}\mathop{\sum\cdots\sum}_{Q_s\ll |q_2'|,...,|q_k'|\ll Q_B}\sum_{|q_{k+1}'|\ll Q_S}\nonumber\\
&\times \mathop{\sum\sum}_{\substack{C\leq q_{k+2}=n_0q_0q_{2,0}q_{k+2}'<(1+10^{-10})C\\C\leq q_{k+3}=n_0q_0q_{2,0}q_{k+3}'<(1+10^{-10})C \\q_{k+2}'\equiv q_{k+3}'\bmod{h_2'}\\ |q_{k+2}-q_{k+3}|\ll\left(\frac{C^2}{(N_jN)^{1/3}}+\frac{C^2N^{1/3}}{\sqrt{|n|t}N_j^{2/3}}\right)t^\varepsilon}}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{\substack{H'\leq h_1, h_2<(1+10^{-10})H'\\(h_1,n_0q_0q_{1,0}q_1')=1\\(h_2,q_{k+2}q_{k+3})=1}}\frac{n_1^{2^{k}-1}h_2'^{2^{k}}|q_1'^{2^{k}-1}q_2'^{2^{k-1}-1}\cdots q_{k}'|}{n_0^{2^{k+1}-1}n'^{2^{k}}h_1^{2^{k}}h_2^{2^{k+1}-1}q_0^{2^{k+2}-4}q_{1,0}^{2^{k}}q_{2,0}^{2^{k}-1}}\nonumber\\
&|\beta(q_{k+2},h_2,u_2)\beta(q_{k+3},h_2,u_2)| \frac{C^2t^\varepsilon}{nN_j}\left(\frac{C}{(N_jN)^{1/3}}+ \frac{CN^{1/3}}{\sqrt{|n|t}N_j^{2/3}}\right)^{2^k-2}du_2\nonumber\\
&\times (n'h_1h_0h_{2,0})^{2^k-1/2}\left(\sqrt{n'h_1h_0h_{2,0}}\delta(*_{k-1})+1\right)\Bigg\}^{2^{-k-1}}.
\end{align*}
Recall the definition of $Q_S, Q_B$ in (\ref{QsDef}) and (\ref{QBDef}). Applying Cauchy-Schwarz inequality to deal with $\beta$ as before, we get \begin{align*}
\tilde{\mathcal{B}}_{k+1}\ll&\frac{t^{1/2+\varepsilon}}{\sqrt{CN_jN}} \Bigg\{\frac{1}{C}\sum_{|n|\ll \frac{CN^{1/3}t^\varepsilon}{N_j^{2/3}}}n^{2^{k+1}-7/2}\left(\frac{N_j^{1/3}t^2}{N^{5/3}}\right)^{2^{k+1}-2}\left(1+\frac{C^3t^2}{n(N_jN)^{4/3}}\right)\left(\frac{Ct}{N}\right)^{-2^k+1/2}\\
&\times \left(\frac{Ct}{N}+\frac{C^2}{(N_jN)^{1/3}}+\frac{C^2N^{1/3}}{\sqrt{|n|t}N_j^{2/3}}\right)\frac{C^2}{N_j}\left(\frac{C}{(N_jN)^{1/3}}+ \frac{CN^{1/3}}{\sqrt{|n|t}N_j^{2/3}}\right)^{2^k-2}\Bigg\}^{2^{-k-1}}\\
\ll&\frac{\sqrt{C}t^{2+\varepsilon}}{N_jN^{3/2}} \Bigg\{\frac{N_j^{2/3}N^{8/3}}{C^3t^{7/2}}\left(1+\frac{C^2t^2}{N_j^{2/3}N^{5/3}}\right)\left(\frac{Ct}{N}+\frac{C^2}{(N_jN)^{1/3}}\right)\Bigg\}^{2^{-k-1}}.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
With the above lemma, we are left to bound $I_{\nu+1}(q_1',...,q_\nu',q_{\nu+1},q_{\nu+2})$.
\subsubsection{Integral Analysis for \texorpdfstring{$I_{\nu+1}$}{Iv}}
Now we apply stationary phase analysis on the integral $I_{\nu+1}(q_1',...,q_\nu',q_{\nu+1},q_{\nu+2})$. Recall that such an integral is defined recursively by \begin{align*}
I_{\nu+1}(q_1',...,q_\nu',q_{\nu+1},q_{\nu+2})=&\int_0^\infty\Upsilon(y_{2^\nu-1})I_{\nu}(q_1',...,q_{\nu-1}',Cy_{2^\nu-1},q_{\nu+1})\\
&\times\overline{I_{\nu}(q_1',...,q_{\nu-1}',Cy_{2^\nu-1},q_{\nu+2})}e\left(-\frac{q_{\nu}'Cy_{2^\nu-1}}{n_0n'h_1h_2q_0q_{2,0}}\right)dy_{2^\nu-1}
\end{align*}
with \begin{align*}
&I_3(q_1',q_2',q_3,q_4)=\int_0^\infty \Upsilon(y_3)I_2\left(q_1',Cy_3,q_3,q_4\right)e\left(-\frac{q_2'Cy_3}{n_0n'h_1h_2q_0q_{2,0}}\right)dy_3\\
=&\int_0^\infty \Upsilon(y_3)\int_0^\infty\Upsilon(y_1)\Psi(Cy_1,Cy_3,q_3)e\left(G(y_1,y_3)-G\left(y_1,\frac{q_3}{C}\right)-\frac{q_1'Cy_1}{n_0nh_1h_2q_0^2q_{1,0}^2q_{2,0}}\right)dy_1\nonumber\\
&\times \int_0^\infty\Upsilon(y_2)\overline{\Psi(Cy_2,Cy_3,q_4)}e\left(-G(y_2,y_3)+G\left(y_2,\frac{q_4}{C}\right)+\frac{q_1'Cy_2}{n_0nh_1h_2q_0^2q_{1,0}^2q_{2,0}}\right)dy_2\nonumber\\
&\times e\left(-\frac{q_2'Cy_3}{n_0n'h_1h_2q_0q_{2,0}}\right)dy_3.
\end{align*}
Recall the definition of $G$ in (\ref{GDef}). Applying Taylor expansion, we get
\begin{align*}
G(y,z)=\tilde{G}(y,z)+\theta(y,z),
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
\theta(y,z)=&\sqrt{\frac{2t}{\pi n}}\sum_{j=1}^\infty a_j \left(-\tilde{\eta_j} \left(\frac{z}{2\pi h_1y}\right)^{1/3}+\tilde{\eta_j}\left(\frac{y}{h_2z}\right)^{1/3}\right)^{3/2-j}\\
&\times \left(-\tilde{\eta_j} \left(\frac{z}{h_1y}\right)^{1/3}\sum_{\ell=1}^\infty b_{\ell}\left(\frac{2\pi h_1N^2u_1}{CHt^{2-\varepsilon}}\right)^\ell+\tilde{\eta_j}\left(\frac{y}{h_2z}\right)^{1/3}\sum_{\ell=1}^\infty b_\ell\left(\frac{2\pi h_2N^2u_2}{CHt^{2+\varepsilon}z}\right)^\ell\right)^j
\end{align*}
for some constants $a_j,b_\ell\in\R$. Then $e\left(\theta(y,z)\right)$ is $\frac{N^{3/2}}{\sqrt{C|n|}Ht^{1-\varepsilon}}$-inert and $I_3$ is simplified to \begin{align*}
&I_3(q_1',q_2',q_3,q_4)\\
=&\int_0^\infty \Upsilon(y_3)\int_0^\infty\Upsilon(y_1)\tilde{\Psi}(Cy_1,Cy_3,q_3)e\left(\tilde{G}(y_1,y_3)-\tilde{G}\left(y_1,\frac{q_3}{C}\right)-\frac{q_1'Cy_1}{n_0nh_1h_2q_0^2q_{1,0}^2q_{2,0}}\right)dy_1\nonumber\\
&\times \int_0^\infty\Upsilon(y_2)\overline{\tilde{\Psi}(Cy_2,Cy_3,q_4)}e\left(-\tilde{G}(y_2,y_3)+\tilde{G}\left(y_2,\frac{q_4}{C}\right)+\frac{q_1'Cy_2}{n_0nh_1h_2q_0^2q_{1,0}^2q_{2,0}}\right)dy_2\\
&\times e\left(-\frac{q_2'Cy_3}{n_0n'h_1h_2q_0q_{2,0}}\right)dy_3,
\end{align*}
where \begin{align*}
\tilde{\Psi}\left(x,y,z\right)=\Psi\left(x,y,z\right)e\left(\theta(x,y)-\theta(x,z)\right)
\end{align*}
is $\left(1+\frac{CN^{1/3}}{|n|N_j^{2/3}}+\frac{N^{3/2}}{\sqrt{C|n|}Ht}\right)t^\varepsilon$-inert by (\ref{z_0DiffBound}) and above analysis on $\theta$.
Write $q_1''=\frac{q_1'}{n_1q_0q_{1,0}^2}$ and $q_j''=q_j'$ for all $2\leq j\leq \nu$. Note that $n\gg \left(\frac{C^2}{N_j}+\frac{CN^{4/3}}{N_j^{2/3}Ht}\right)t^\varepsilon$ and $|q_j'|\gg Q_s\theta_j\left(n_1q_0q_{1,0}^2\right)$, this allows us to apply Lemma \ref{S2IntegralLemma} ($2^\nu-1$)-times to bound the integral. (The lower bounds for $q_j'$ and $n$ are needed so that the oscillation of $\tilde{\psi}$ satisfies the condition in Lemma \ref{S2IntegralLemma}.) For $1\leq j\leq \nu$, we choose \begin{align*}
U_j=&\left(1+\delta(j>1)\left(\frac{nN_j^{2/3}\sqrt{q_1''+\cdots+q_{j-1}''}}{CN^{1/3}\sqrt{q_j''}}+\frac{(N_jN)^{1/3}n_0n'h_1h_2q_0q_{2,0}}{\sqrt{\min\left\{q_u'':1\leq u\leq j-1\right\}q_j''}C^2}\right)\right)\\
&\times \sqrt{\frac{n_0n'h_1h_2q_0q_{2,0}}{q_j''C}}
\end{align*}
as the parameter $U$ in Lemma \ref{S2IntegralLemma} on the $2^{\nu-j}$ integrals with $q_j'$. We first apply $1$ time on the integral with $q_\nu'$ , then $2$-times on the $2$ integrals with $q_2'$ and go on until we apply $2^{\nu-1}$-times on the $2^{\nu-1}$ integrals with $q_1'$. Such choices of $U$ are made so that the conditions of Lemma \ref{S2IntegralLemma} is fulfilled in the next iteration.
\begin{Remark}
Explanation on the choice of $U_j$: Suppose we have applied Lemma \ref{S2IntegralLemma} on all the integrals involving $q_\nu'',...,q_k'$. Then a number of functions of the form $W_0\left(\frac{y_u-y_0}{U_j}\right)$ is created, and they are $\frac{t^\varepsilon}{U_j}\left(1+\frac{(N_jN)^{1/3}}{Cq_j''Z}\right)$-inert by Lemma \ref{S2IntegralLemma}, where $Z=\frac{C}{n_0n'h_1h_2q_0q_{2,0}}$. To apply Lemma \ref{S2IntegralLemma} on the integrals involving $q_{k-1}'$, we need to make sure $U_\nu,...,U_k$ are chosen such that \begin{align*}
q_{k-1}'\gg \frac{1}{\theta_{k-1}\left(n_1q_0q_{1,0}^2\right)Z}\frac{t^\varepsilon}{U_j^2}\left(\frac{nN_j^{2/3}}{CN^{1/3}}+\frac{(N_jN)^{1/3}}{Cq_j''Z}\right)^2
\end{align*}
for all $k\leq j\leq \nu$.
\end{Remark}
Applying the above procedure and bounding the resulting integral trivially yields \begin{align*}
&I_{\nu+1}(q_1',...,q_\nu',q_{\nu+1},q_{\nu+2})\ll_\nu U_1^{2^{\nu-1}}U_2^{2^{\nu-2}}\cdots U_\nu t^\varepsilon\\
\ll_\nu&\prod_{j=2}^\nu\left(1+\frac{nN_j^{2/3}\sqrt{q_1''+\cdots+q_{j-1}''}}{CN^{1/3}\sqrt{q_j''}}+\frac{(N_jN)^{1/3}n_0n'h_1h_2q_0q_{2,0}}{\sqrt{\min\left\{q_u'':1\leq u\leq j-1\right\}q_j''}C^2}\right)^{2^{\nu-j}}\\
&\times \frac{(n_1q_0q_{1,0}^2)^{2^{\nu-2}}(n_0n'h_1h_2q_0q_{2,0})^{2^{\nu-1}-1/2}}{q_1'^{2^{\nu-2}}q_2'^{2^{\nu-3}}\cdots q_\nu'^{2^{-1}}C^{2^{\nu-1}-1/2}}t^\varepsilon
\end{align*}
for any $\nu\geq2$.
Inserting the above bound into the bound of $\mathcal{R}_j^*(N)$ in Lemma \ref{IteraionLemma}, together with $\mathcal{D}(k+1)\ll1$, $\mathcal{D}_0\ll n_1q_0^3q_{1,0}q_{2,0}$ as in (\ref{D0Def}) and the last statement of Lemma \ref{IteraionLemma} on $\mathcal{D}_{\nu+1}(q_{\nu+1}',q_{\nu+2}')$, we get for any $\nu\geq2$, \begin{align*}
\mathcal{R}_j^*(N)\ll &\frac{t^{1/2+\varepsilon}}{\sqrt{CN_jN}} \sup_{\|\beta\|_2=1} \sup_{|u_1|\ll1} \Bigg\{\frac{1}{C}\int_{|u_2|\ll1}\sum_{n_0}\sum_{q_0}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{q_{1,0},q_{2,0}|q_0^\infty}\sum_{q_0|n_1|q_0^\infty}\sum_{0< |n=n_1n'|\ll \frac{CN^{1/3}t^\varepsilon}{N_j^{2/3}}}\nonumber\\
&\times \sum_{n_1q_0q_{1,0}^2Q_S\ll |q_1'|\ll n_1q_0q_{1,0}^2Q_B}\mathop{\sum\cdots\sum}_{Q_s\ll |q_2'|,...,|q_\nu'|\ll Q_B}\mathop{\sum\sum}_{\substack{C\leq q_{\nu+1}=n_0q_0q_{2,0}q_{\nu+1}'<(1+10^{-10})C\\C\leq q_{\nu+2}=n_0q_0q_{2,0}q_{\nu+2}'<(1+10^{-10})C \\(q_{\nu+1}'q_{\nu+2}',q_1')=1}}\nonumber\\
&\times \mathop{\sum\sum}_{\substack{H'\leq h_1, h_2<(1+10^{-10})H'\\(h_1,n_0q_0q_{1,0}q_1')=1\\(h_2,q_{\nu+1}q_{\nu+2})=1}}\frac{n_1^{3(2^{\nu-2})-1}h_2'^{2^{\nu-1}}\sqrt{q_{2,0}}|q_1'^{2^{\nu-2}-1}q_2'^{2^{\nu-3}-1}\cdots q_{\nu}'^{2^{-1}-1}|}{n_0^{2^{\nu-1}-1/2}\sqrt{n'h_1}h_2^{2^{\nu-1}-1/2}q_0^{3(2^{\nu-1})-7/2}C^{2^{\nu-1}-1/2}}\nonumber\\
&\times |\beta(q_{\nu+1},h_2,u_2)\beta(q_{\nu+2},h_2,u_2)|du_2\nonumber\\
&\prod_{j=2}^\nu\left(1+\frac{nN_j^{2/3}\sqrt{q_1''+\cdots+q_{j-1}''}}{CN^{1/3}\sqrt{q_j''}}+\frac{(N_jN)^{1/3}n_0n'h_1h_2q_0q_{2,0}}{\sqrt{\min\left\{q_u'':1\leq u\leq j-1\right\}q_j''}C^2}\right)^{2^{\nu-j}}\nonumber\\
&\times (n'h_1h_0h_{2,0})^{2^{\nu-1}-1/2}\left(\sqrt{n'h_1h_0h_{2,0}}\delta(*_{\nu-2})+1\right)\delta(q_{\nu+1}'\equiv q_{\nu+2}'\bmod{h_2'})\Bigg\}^{2^{-\nu}}+\sum_{\ell=1}^\nu\mathcal{B}_\ell,
\end{align*}
with $(*_{\nu-2}), (*_{\nu-2}')$ as defined in Lemma \ref{IteraionLemma}. Recall the definition of $Q_B$ in (\ref{QBDef}). Applying Cauchy-Schwarz inequality to deal with $\beta'$ as before, together with $\mathcal{D}_2(q_3',q_4')\ll nh_1h_2q_0q_{1,0}q_{2,0}$ from (\ref{D2Def}), we get the above is bounded by \begin{align}\label{S2BignBound}
\mathcal{R}_j^*(N)\ll& \frac{t^{1/2+\varepsilon}}{\sqrt{CN_jN}} \sup_{\|\beta\|_2=1} \sup_{|u_1|\ll1}\Bigg\{\frac{1}{C^{2^{\nu-1}+1/2}}\sum_{|n|\ll\frac{CN^{1/3}t^\varepsilon}{N_j^{2/3}}}n^{3(2^{\nu-2})-3/2}\left(\frac{N_j^{1/3}t^2}{N^{5/3}}\right)^{2^{\nu-2}-1/2}\nonumber\\
&\times \left(\frac{Ct}{N}\right)^{2^{\nu-1}-1/2}\left(\frac{Ct}{N}+C\right)\left(\left(\frac{nN_j^{1/3}t^2}{N^{5/3}}\right)^{2^{\nu-2}}+\left(\frac{nN_j^{1/3}t^2}{N^{5/3}}\right)^{2^{\nu-2}-1/2}\right)\Bigg\}^{2^{-\nu}}+\nu\sup_{1\leq \ell\leq \nu}\mathcal{B}_\ell\nonumber\\
\ll& \frac{\sqrt{C}t^{2+\varepsilon}}{N_jN^{3/2}}\left(\frac{(N_jN)^{5/6}}{(Ct)^{3/2}}\right)^{2^{-\nu}} +\nu\sup_{1\leq \ell\leq \nu}\mathcal{B}_\ell
\end{align}
for $N\gg t^{1-\varepsilon}$.
\begin{Remark}
To get the above bound in the first line, first observe that the worst case scenario for $q_j'$ is when $q_2',...,q_\nu'$ are as big as possible, and $|q_1'|$ is either 1 or as big as possible.
\end{Remark}
\subsection{Bound for \texorpdfstring{$\mathcal{R}_j(N)$}{Rj(N)}}
Recall the definition of $\mathcal{R}_j(N)$ in Lemma \ref{LemmaAfterFirstStep}, the definition of $\mathcal{B_\ell}$ in (\ref{B1Def}) and Lemma \ref{IteraionLemma}. Taking $\nu=t^\varepsilon$ in (\ref{S2BignBound}) and combining it with the bounds (\ref{DiagonalBound}), (\ref{SmallnBound}) and (\ref{MidnBound}), we get for $N\gg t^{1-\varepsilon}$, \begin{align}\label{RjBound}
\mathcal{R}_j(N)\ll& \frac{Ht^{1+\varepsilon}}{CN_j^{1/3}N^{4/3}}+ \frac{t^{1+\varepsilon}}{N_jN}\left(1+\frac{C^2}{(N_jN)^{1/3}}+\frac{CN}{Ht}\right)\delta\left(N_j\ll C^2t^\varepsilon\right)\nonumber\\
&+\frac{t^{1/2+\varepsilon}}{\sqrt{CH}N_j^{5/6}N^{1/3}}\left(1+\frac{CN}{Ht}\right)\delta\left(N_j\ll\frac{C^{3/2}N^2}{(Ht)^{3/2}}t^\varepsilon\right)+\frac{t^{1/2+\varepsilon}}{\sqrt{C}N_j^{5/6}N^{1/3}}\left(\frac{C}{\sqrt{t}}+\frac{C^3t}{N_jN}\right)^{1/2}\nonumber\\
&+\frac{\sqrt{C}t^{2+\varepsilon}}{N_jN^{3/2}}+t^\varepsilon\sup_{2\leq \ell\leq t^\varepsilon}\frac{\sqrt{C}t^{2+\varepsilon}}{N_jN^{3/2}}\Bigg\{\frac{N_j^{2/3}N^{8/3}}{C^3t^{7/2}}\left(1+\frac{C^2t^2}{N_j^{2/3}N^{5/3}}\right)\left(\frac{Ct}{N}+\frac{C^2}{(N_jN)^{1/3}}\right)\Bigg\}^{2^{-\ell}}.
\end{align}
\section{Final Bound}
We choose $Q$ such that $\frac{N}{t^{1-\varepsilon}}<Q<\frac{N}{\sqrt{Ht}}t^\varepsilon$. Inserting (\ref{RjBound}) into Lemma \ref{LemmaAfterFirstStep}, the conditions $\frac{N}{t^{1+\varepsilon}}\ll C\ll Qt^\varepsilon$, $t^{1/2+\varepsilon}\ll H\ll\frac{Nt^\varepsilon}{M}$, $t^{1/2+\varepsilon}\ll M\ll t^{1-\varepsilon}$, $N\ll t^{3/2+\varepsilon}$, $N_1\sim\frac{N^2X^3}{Q^3}$ and $N_2\ll \left(\frac{N^2}{Q^3}+\frac{(CHt)^3}{N^4}\right)t^\varepsilon\ll\frac{N^2t^\varepsilon}{Q^3}$ (by the choice of $Q$) implies \begin{align*}
&\left(S_{1,X}(N)S_2(N)\right)^{1/2}\\
\ll&\frac{CM(N_1N_2)^{2/3}N^{4/3}}{t^{1-\varepsilon}}\Bigg\{\left(\frac{Ct}{N_1N}\delta\left(N_1\ll\frac{C^3t^\varepsilon}{N}\right)+\mathcal{R}_1(N)\right)\mathcal{R}_2(N)\Bigg\}^{1/2}\\
\ll&t^\varepsilon\Bigg\{Q^3M+\frac{MHN^2}{Q^3}+Q^{5/3}MN^{1/3}\left(1+\frac{Q^{4/3}}{N^{1/3}}+\frac{QN}{Ht}\right)+\min\left\{\frac{MN^2}{Q\sqrt{Ht}},\frac{Q^{5/4}MN^2}{(Ht)^{5/4}}\right\}\left(1+\frac{QN}{Ht}\right)\\
&+\frac{MN^2}{Q\sqrt{t}}\left(\frac{\sqrt{Q}}{t^{1/4}}+\frac{Q^3\sqrt{t}}{N^{3/2}}\right)+\sqrt{QN}Mt\left(1+\frac{N}{Q^{5/4}t^{7/8}}\left(1+\frac{Q\sqrt{t}}{N^{3/4}}\right)\left(\left(\frac{Qt}{N}\right)^{1/4}+\frac{Q^{3/4}}{N^{1/4}}\right)\right)\Bigg\}.
\end{align*}
including the case $X=0$.
We choose $Q=\frac{M^{5/6}H^{1/3}N^{1/3}}{t^{3/4}}$, then $Q$ satisfies $\frac{N}{t^{1-\varepsilon}}<Q<\frac{N}{\sqrt{Ht}}t^\varepsilon$ when $H\gg \frac{N^2}{M^{5/2}t^{3/4-\varepsilon}}$. Inserting the bound into Theorem \ref{S1S2Thm} and then (\ref{qDyadicSub}), we get for $t^{1/2+\varepsilon}\ll M\ll t^{1-\varepsilon}$, $N\ll t^{3/2+\varepsilon}$, $\sqrt{t}+\frac{N^2}{M^{5/2}t^{3/4-\varepsilon}}\ll H\ll \frac{Nt^\varepsilon}{M}$, \begin{align*}
\frac{S_{M,H}^\pm(N)}{N}\ll& t^\varepsilon\Bigg\{\frac{t^{9/4}}{M^{3/2}}+\frac{M^{5/2}}{t^{3/4}}+\frac{M^{29/9}}{H^{1/9}t^{7/6}}+\frac{M^{23/8}t^{3/16}}{H^{3/2}}+\frac{M^{7/12}t^{7/8}}{H^{1/6}}+\frac{M^{5/4}t^{5/8}}{N^{1/6}}\Bigg\}.
\end{align*}
Inserting the above bound together with the trivial bound (\ref{trivialBound}) into Lemma \ref{SMHLemma}, we get \begin{align*}
\left|L\left(\frac{1}{2}+it,\pi\right)\right|^2\ll&\log t\left(1+\int_\BR U\left(\frac{v}{M}\right)\left|L\left(\frac{1}{2}+it+iv,\pi\right)\right|^2dv\right)\nonumber\\
\ll& t^\varepsilon\Bigg\{\frac{t^{9/4}}{M^{3/2}}+\frac{M^{5/2}}{t^{3/4}}+\sup_{H}\min\left\{\frac{M^{29/9}}{H^{1/9}t^{7/6}}+\frac{M^{23/8}t^{3/16}}{H^{3/2}}+\frac{M^{7/12}t^{7/8}}{H^{1/6}}, MH\right\}\nonumber\\
&+\frac{t^{9/4}}{M^{3/2}}+\sup_{N}\min\left\{\frac{M^{5/4}t^{5/8}}{N^{1/6}},N\right\}\Bigg\}\nonumber\\
\ll & t^\varepsilon\left(\frac{t^{9/4}}{M^{3/2}}+\frac{M^{5/2}}{t^{3/4}}+\frac{M^3}{t^{21/20}}+M^{7/4}t^{3/40}+M^{9/14}t^{3/4}+M^{15/14}t^{15/28}\right)\nonumber\\
\ll &t^\varepsilon\left(\frac{t^{9/4}}{M^{3/2}}+\frac{M^3}{t^{21/20}}+M^{7/4}t^{3/40}+M^{15/14}t^{15/28}\right).
\end{align*}
The optimal choice of $M$ is $M=t^{2/3}$, which yields
\begin{align*}
\left|L\left(\frac{1}{2}+it,\pi\right)\right|^2\ll&\log t\left(1+\int_\BR U\left(\frac{v}{t^{2/3}}\right)\left|L\left(\frac{1}{2}+it+iv,\pi\right)\right|^2dv\right)\nonumber\\
\ll& t^{5/4+\varepsilon}.
\end{align*}
This completes the proof of Theorem \ref{main theorem gl3} and Theorem \ref{SecondMomentThm}.
|
\section{Introduction}
The discovery of eclipsing binary pulsar system PSR J0737-3039A/B
\citep{burgay03,lyne}
has been hailed as a milestone both in observational search for an important predicted
product of stellar evolution, as an important tool in studying relativistic gravitational physics, and plasma physics in close environment
of neutron stars \citep{Breton,2005MNRAS.361.1243P,2006Sci...314...97K,2009CQGra..26g3001K,2008ARA&A..46..541K}.
In this system, a fast recycled Pulsar A with period $P_A= 22.7$ msec
orbits
a slower but younger Pulsar B which has a period $P_B=2.77$ sec in the tightest binary neutron star\ orbit
of $P_b= 2.4$ hours. In addition to testing general relativity, this system provides a truly golden opportunity to verify and advance our models of pulsars magnetospheres, mechanisms of generation of radio emission and properties of their relativistic winds. This is made possible by a fortunate coincidence that
the line of sight lies almost
in the orbital plane, with inclination less than half a degree \citep{ransom04,lt05}.
This leads to a number of exceptional observational properties of the system. The most important one is that
Pulsar A is eclipsed once per orbit,
for a duration of $\sim 30$ s
centered around superior conjunction (when Pulsar B is between the observer and Pulsar A).
The width of the eclipse is only a weak function of the observing frequency
\citep{kaspi}. Most surprisingly, during eclipse the Pulsar A radio flux is
modulated by the rotation of Pulsar B:
there are narrow, transparent windows in which
the flux from Pulsar A rises nearly to the unabsorbed level \citep{mclau04}.
Importantly, the width of the region which causes this periodic modulation is smaller by a factor of $\sim 4-6$ than the estimated size of the magnetosphere
of Pulsar B.
The basis for understanding the behavior of the system is provided by the work of
\cite{lt05} \citep[see also][]{2005MNRAS.362.1078L,2014MNRAS.441..690L}, who constructed a
model of A eclipses, which successfully reproduces the eclipse light curves, down to intricate details. The model assumes that the radio pulses of A are absorbed by relativistic particles populating the B magnetosphere\ through synchrotron absorption.
The modulation of the radio flux during the eclipse is due to
the fact that -- at some rotational phases of Pulsar B -- the line
of sight only passes through open magnetic field lines where absorption
is assumed to be negligible.
The model explains most of the
properties of the eclipse: its asymmetric form, the nearly
frequency-independent duration,
and the modulation of the brightness of Pulsar A
at both once and twice the rotation frequency of Pulsar B in different parts
of the eclipse. There are modest deviations between the model and the data near the edges of
the eclipse that could be used to probe the distortion of magnetic field
lines from a true dipole.
Importantly, the plasma on closed field lines should be very dense, with multiplicity $\sim 10^6$ of the \cite{GJ} density.
Presence of high multiplicity,
relativistically hot plasma on the closed field lines of Pulsar B is somewhat surprising, but not unreasonable.
Dense, relativistically hot plasma can be effectively stored
in the outer magnetosphere, where cyclotron cooling is slow \citep{lt05}.
The gradual loss of particles inward through the cooling radius, occurring on time
scales of millions of Pulsar B periods, can be easily
compensated by a relatively weak upward flux driven by a fluctuating component
of the current. For example, if suspended material is resupplied at a rate of
one Goldreich-Julian density per B period and the particle residence time is million
periods, the equilibrium density will be as high
as $10^6 n_{GJ}$.
\section{Plasma entry from wind of A into magnetosphere\ of B}
There are two challenges that the model of \cite{lt05,2014MNRAS.441..690L} requires to be explained.
One is that closed field lines are populated with hot dense plasma, exceeding the minimal
Goldreich-Julian density by a factor $\sim 10^5$. This runs contrary to the conventional view that closed field lines are dead, populated by a cold plasma with minimum Goldreich-Julian density.
Second, the size of eclipsing region is some 4-6 times smaller than the expected size of the wind-confined magnetosphere\ of Pulsar B \citep{lt05}. For approximately dipolar field, $B^2 \propto r^{-6}$, this is a large difference, if one considers the pressure balance.
The current model addresses both these points: particles from the Pulsar A wind diffuse inward from the magnetopause. As a result plasma density increases inward within the magnetosphere. This explains both the high multiplicity of absorbing plasma and the smaller eclipse size.
Three steps are involved: first particle should penetrate the closed field lines. Then particles diffuse inwards - this is the topic of the present paper.
Finally particles precipitate due to synchrotron losses. In this paper we address the second question: how does the particle diffusion proceeds in a corotating magnetosphere\ of Pulsar B.
As for particles' entry into the magnetosphere, there are two generic ways plasma may enter magnetosphere, through the cusp region (reconnection model \citep{Dungey}) and through plasma instabilities over the whole interface \citep[dayside reconnection][]{1961CaJPh..39.1433A,1964P&SS...12..273A,1973SSRv...14..511K,1974ApJS...27..261C,1981JGR....8610049S}.
The relative importance of two mechanisms depend on the details of the magnetospheric structure
\citep[see, eg a comparison of Jovian and Earth auroras][]{2021SciA....7.1204Z}.
The orbital dependence of the pulsed X-ray emission from Pulsar B \citep{2016ApJ...824...87I} is due to reconnection-induced, orbital phase-dependent penetration of the wind plasma onto closed field lines. The plasma entry through the cusp depends on the average angle between the cusp normal and the wind \citep{2004spip.book.....K}; in the Double Pulsar system this average angle depends on the orbital location.
Even without cusp penetration,
observations of the planetary magnetospheres\ indicate that the
magnetospheric boundary is porous, allowing $\sim 10\%$ of the incoming plasma to penetrate \citep{1971JGR....76..883H}.
One of the key observational and theoretical problems in planetary magnetospheres\ is radial diffusion of trapped plasma particles and the associated formation of Van Allen radiation belts \citep{1974ApJS...27..261C,Lanzerotti,2010GeoRL..3722107T,1998JGR...10320487S,2019JGRA..124.8319L}.
Radial diffusion in the Earth magnetosphere\ requires violation of the third adiabatic invariant associated with particle's drift around the Earth. Typically the third invariant is violated due to resonant interaction of the electron drift motion with ultra-low frequency (ULF, mHetz range) electromagnetic\ fluctuations. \citep[ULF waves are global oscillations of the earth {magnetic field}, see \eg][]{2005JGRA..11010202U}.
In this paper we consider the question of plasma dynamics in the magnetosphere\ of Pulsar B: ``How does radial diffusion proceed in highly co-rotating Pulsar B's magnetosphere?''
We demonstrate that radial diffusion in the Pulsar B magnetosphere\ will proceed in a different way if compared with the case of the Earth and Jupiter: in a highly corotating regime. Most importantly {\it the spin frequency in this case is much larger than the third adiabatic frequency}. This is a new, unexplored regime of radial diffusion.
As we demonstrate in this paper, periodic perturbations of the magnetosphere due to the rotation of Pulsar B ``rotationally pump-in'' particles from larger radii towards the star without a need for additional scattering by fluctuating disturbances.
\section{Dungey-type model of corotating magnetosphere}
\subsection{Oscillating Dungey-type magnetospheres}
We start with a mathematically simple Dungey-type magnetospheres, and extend it to more realistic geometries in \S \ref{distorted3}.
The structure of the planetary magnetospheres\ distorted by the Solar wind is a mathematically complicated problem \citep[\eg][]{2002JGRA..107.1179T,2002JGRA..107.1309J}.
\cite{Dungey} constructed a simple, but highly illuminating model of the interaction of the planetary magnetospheres\ with the solar wind. The model approximates the magnetosphere\ as spherical, and provides analytical estimates of the overall structure, like the location of the magnetopause.
Dungey model of magnetosphere, when the total {magnetic field}\ is represented as a linear sum of dipole fields plus wind's {magnetic field}, is a very successful model of plasma entry into Earth magnetosphere.
Importantly, in the case of Pulsar B the confined magnetosphere\ is in corotation. This makes it similar to the Jovian magnetosphere, where corotation dominates up-to magnetopause, opposite to Earth case where corotation is observed only at low plasma sphere
\citep{1970Icar...13..173B}.
Below we adopt the simple prescription of \cite{Dungey} for the structure of corotating magnetosphere\ of Pulsar B.
Since {magnetic field}\ lines are compresses at the head part of the magnetosphere, and stretched out in the tail part, we approximate this periodic expansion-contraction as {\it an oscillating Dungey magnetospheres}.
This simplification neglects day/night and dawn-dusk asymmetry within the magnetospheres. Dawn-dusk asymmetry means that the magnetopause on the dawn side is further away than on dusk. This is seen in simulations Jovian magnetosphere\ \citep{1998JGR...103..225O}, as well as in simulations of Pulsar B \citep{2004cosp...35.4117S}.
In some respect, the relativistic magnetically dominated magnetospheres\ of pulsar B is simpler than the Earth/Jupiter magnetospheres.
Since both the pulsar magnetospheres\ and the winds are highly magnetized we can neglect plasma loading, but still allow plasma to carry currents required by the dynamics - a dynamic force-free approximation. Effects of gravity are not important. There is no rotationally supported magneto-disk, where dipolar field lines are stretched out by centripetal force acting on the trapped plasma, as in Jupiter. There is also no Io to supply the plasma internally. Also, Pulsar B does not have the tail plasma sheet: beyond the Pulsar B's light cylinder interaction of the pulsars proceeds via wind-wind interaction, not of the wind and static magnetic field. \cite[See interesting early discussion by][]{1975SSRv...17..857K}.
\subsection{Mathematics of oscillating magnetospheres}
Let's approximate the magnetosphere\ of B as spherical, with oscillating radius $R_0 (t)$. The following are the solutions for magnetic potential $\Phi$, magnetic flux function $\Psi$, toroidal component of the vector potential $A_\phi$, the {magnetic field}, the {electric field}, and toroidal currents:
\begin{eqnarray} &&
\Phi = - \left(\frac{R_0{}^2}{r^2}+\frac{2 r}{R_0} \right)\cos (\theta )
\mbox{} \nonumber \\ \mbox{} &&
\Psi = \left(\frac{R_0{}^2}{r}-\frac{r^2}{R_0}\right) \sin ^2(\theta )
\mbox{} \nonumber \\ \mbox{} &&
A_\phi = \left(\frac{R_0{}^2}{r^2}-\frac{r}{R_0}\right) \sin (\theta )
\mbox{} \nonumber \\ \mbox{} &&
{\bf B} = \nabla \Phi ={\rm curl\,} {\bf A} = \nabla \Psi \times \nabla \phi=
\left\{\cos (\theta ) \left(\frac{2
R_0{}^2}{r^3}-\frac{2}{R_0}\right),\frac{\sin (\theta )
\left(\frac{R_0{}^3}{r^3}+2\right)}{R_0},0\right\}
\mbox{} \nonumber \\ \mbox{} &&
{\bf E} =\left\{0,0,-\frac{\sin (\theta ) \left(r^3+2 R_0{}^3\right) \dot{R_0}}{r^2
R_0{}^2}\right\}
\mbox{} \nonumber \\ \mbox{} &&
E_\phi = - \partial_t A_\phi
\mbox{} \nonumber \\ \mbox{} &&
\nabla \times {\bf E} = - \partial_t {\bf B}
\mbox{} \nonumber \\ \mbox{} &&
J_\phi = \nabla \times {\bf B} - \partial_t {\bf E} = \frac{\sin (\theta ) \left(R_0 \left(r^3+2 R_0{}^3\right) {\ddot{R}_0} -2
\left(r^3-R_0{}^3\right) \left(\dot{R}_0\right){}^2\right)}{r^2 R_0{}^3}
\label{1}
\end{eqnarray}
where overall normalization and the factor $4 \pi$ have been absorbed into the definitions.
Equation for field line
\begin{eqnarray} &&
\frac{\left(1-\tilde{r}^3\right) \sin ^2(\theta )}{\tilde{r}}=\frac{1-L^3}{L}
\mbox{} \nonumber \\ \mbox{} &&
\tilde{r} = \frac{r}{R_0}
\label{l}
\end{eqnarray}
Parameter $0< L <1 $ is the analogue of the conventional magnetic shell parameter in the theory of radial diffusion, but defined at each moment with respect to the overall radius at that time.
The electromagnetic\ drift velocity
\begin{eqnarray} &&
\beta_{EM} = \frac{{\bf E}\times {\bf B}}{B^2}=
\left\{\sin ^2(\theta ) \left(5 r^3 R_0{}^3+2 r^6+2 R_0{}^6\right),\sin (2
\theta ) \left(r^3 R_0{}^3+r^6-2 R_0{}^6\right),0\right\}
\times
\mbox{} \nonumber \\ \mbox{} &&
\frac{2 r \dot{R}_0}{-4 r^3 (3 \cos (2 \theta )+1) R_0{}^4+8 r^6 R_0+(3 \cos (2
\theta )+5) R_0{}^7}
\mbox{} \nonumber \\ \mbox{} &&
|\beta_{EM} |= \frac{\sqrt{2} r \sin (\theta ) \left(r^3+2 R_0{}^3\right)}{\sqrt{-4 r^3 (3 \cos
(2 \theta )+1) R_0{}^5+8 r^6 R_0{}^2+(3 \cos (2 \theta )+5) R_0{}^8}} {\dot{R}_0}
\end{eqnarray}
Fig. \ref{1}. On the surface $\beta_{EM} =\{ {\dot{R}_0},0,0\}$.
Since electromagnetic\ velocity is perpendicular to {magnetic field}, this is approximately the rate of change of $L$. Importantly, $\beta_{EM} \approx r/R_0$ - it varies slowly within the magnetospheres. The electromagnetic-induced diffusion is not suppressed by large {magnetic field}\ closer to the star.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[width=.99\textwidth]{betaofr}
\caption{Velocity $|\beta_{EM}|$ of oscillating Dungey's magnetospheres: top curve for $\theta = \pi/2$, bottom for $\theta =\pi/4$. This illustrates that the velocity of oscalailateiton is $ \beta \approx r $. }
\label{111}
\end {figure}
The above solutions establish the large scale electromagnetic\ field within the magnetosphere. Next we consider particle dynamics in the given electromagnetic\ fields, first theoretically in \S \ref{radial}, and then numerically in \S \ref{Simulations}
\section{Theory of radial diffusion in corotating magnetospheres}
\label{radial}
\subsection{The three adiabatic invariants }
For particles trapped on closed field lines, there are three adiabatic invariants: first associated with cyclotron motion around a field line, second associate with bouncing motion between the magnetic poles, and a third one associated with azimuthal B-cross-grad-B drift.
In the Double Pulsar, the
conservations of the first invariant is assured by very short cyclotron time even at the magnetospheric boundary.
The second adiabatic invariant is mildly conserved in the corotating magnetosphere, which extends nearly to the light cylinder.
The bounce period for relativistic particle \citep[second adiabatic invariant,][Eq. 4.28]{2005igtr.book.....W}
\begin{equation}
\tau_b \sim 5.4 {r \over c} \leq {2\pi}/\Omega_B
\end{equation}
This is somewhat shorter than the Pulsar B period at the outer parts of the magnetosphere, and even shorter deeper inside magnetosphere\ -- the second invariant is mostly conserved, and is well conserved in the inner regions.
Thus, similarly to the case of planetary magnetospheres, radial diffusion in the Pulsar B magnetosphere\ occurs through breakdown of the third adiabatic invariant: spin-induced variation of the magnetosphere\ lead to changing $L$ parameter. We consider this process next.
\subsection{Magnetic pumping/betatron induced diffusion}
As an illustration how varying magnetic field leads to diffusion, let's
consider straight {magnetic field}\ changing in time $B_z= B$. (This is a local approximation, hence we are not concerned with the global structure of the fields.) Choosing vector potential in the Landau gauge
\begin{equation}
{\bf A} = - \{ B y,0,0\}
\label{AAA}
\end{equation}
We find the Hamiltonian
\begin{equation}
H = \frac{(p_x +B y)^2 +p_y^2}{2}
\end{equation}
The $x$ momentum is a conserved quantity,
\begin{equation}
p_x= p_{x,0}
\end{equation}
while equation for $y$-momentum becomes
\begin{eqnarray} &&
\partial_t p_y =- B(p_{x,0}+ B y)
\mbox{} \nonumber \\ \mbox{} &&
\partial_t y = p_y
\end{eqnarray}
with the appropriate constants ($c,m_e,e$) set to unity.
For harmonic variation of the field (this is to be used in the expression for vector potential (\ref{AAA}))
\begin{equation}
B = B_0 + (\delta B) \cos (\Omega t)
\end{equation}
we find
\begin{eqnarray} &&
\ddot{p}_y ={(\delta B)} \Omega \sin ( \Omega t) \left(-\frac{2
\dot{p}_y}{{B_0}+{(\delta B)} \cos ( \Omega t
)}-{p_{x,0}}\right)-p_y ({B_0}+{(\delta B)} \cos ( \Omega t
))^2 \approx
\mbox{} \nonumber \\ \mbox{} &&
{(\delta B)} \left(-\frac{\Omega \sin ( \Omega t) \left({B_0} {p_{x,0}}+2
\dot{p}_y\right)}{{B_0}}-2 {B_0} p_y \cos ( \Omega t)\right)-{B_0}^2 p_y
\end{eqnarray}
For small frequencies $\Omega \to 0$ this reduces to Mathieu's equation
\begin{equation}
\ddot{p_y} + {B_0}^2 p_y+2 {B_0} {(\delta B)} \cos ( \Omega t
) p_y =0
\label{Mathieu}
\end{equation}
Mathieu's equation has instability bands \citep{MCLACHLAN}: {\it this is the origin of radial diffusion in corotating magnetospheres}.
\subsection{The diffusion coefficient}
The particle motion within the magnetosphere\ of Pulsar B obeys Mathieu's equation. As parameters of the orbit change, particle motion occasionally becomes unstable, with large changes in the L-parameter. The motion is stochastic, but non-diffusive, periods of constant L-parameter are intermittent with periods of rapid radial evolution. To understand time-average behavior we may still use a concept of diffusion (time-averaging here means that motion is averaged over sufficiently long times, including many episodes of rapid L-evolution).
The particles trapped in the magnetosphere\ of Pulsar B form the analogues of planetary radiation belts (van Allen belts). Both in planetary magnetospheres\ and the Pulsar B particles are injected at the magnetosheath, and then diffuse inward. The radial diffusion is achieved by breaking of the 3d adiabatic invariant \citep{1968epf..conf..157F} and is described by radial diffusion equation
\begin{equation}
\partial_t f = \partial_ L \left( D_{LL} {1\over L^2} \partial_ L( L^2 f) \right)
\end{equation}
where $D_{LL} $ is the diffusion coefficient
The diffusion coefficient $D_{LL} $ is a product of typical velocity times typical jump in $L$.
The diffusion is driven by the E-cross-B velocity oscillations, approximately $\propto L$, Fig. \ref{1}. The induced diffusions is a non-adiabatic effect, proportional to the Larmor radius of the particles.
Conservation of the first adiabatic invariant implies betatron condition $\epsilon_\perp \propto B$ - as a result, the Larmor radius remains nearly constant as a particle diffuse inward.
Thus,
$D_{LL} = \kappa_0 L$, where $\kappa$ is some constant.
Then the rate of change of average value of $<L>$ is
\begin{equation}
\partial_t <L> \propto \kappa_0 = {\rm constant}
\end{equation}
while the steady state is
\begin{equation}
f \propto \frac{1}{L}
\end{equation}
Qualitatively, this is our main result: diffusion in fast corotating magnetospheres\ produces density of trapped particles $\propto 1/r$.
\section{Simulations}
\label{Simulations}
\subsection{Code verification}
We have developed a Boris-based pusher \citep{boris_69,birdsall}. Particles are injected at a given radius and move in the fields given by (\ref{1}),
At each point the $L$ parameters is calculated according to (\ref{l}). We verified that for non-rotating case $\Omega=0$ and sufficiently small Larmor radius parameter $L$ remains constant, Fig. \ref{example}.
We also verified that if initial velocity of particles is zero, they just move with the electromagnetic\ drift velocity (\ref{1}). Non-zero initial momentum, even if directed along the local {magnetic field}, leads to complicated particle dynamics with changing $L$ parameter. This is due to both effects of finite Larmor radius, and various drifts.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[width=.49\textwidth]{example.png}
\includegraphics[width=.49\textwidth]{flower.png}
\caption{Example of particle motion calculated with our code in steady-state Dungey field ($z- \sqrt{x^2+y^2}$ and $x-y$ projections). Particle is injected at $L=0.8$ at the equator. It experiences bouncing motion. The parameter $L$ remains constant }
\label{example}
\end {figure}
\subsection{Analysis of simulations}
For small gyration momenta particles initially just follow the {magnetic field}, with extra the drift motion. But eventually gets out of phase and the trajectory becomes random.
We observe that the dynamics is not of a simple diffusion type: long intervals of just periodic oscillations are interrupted by intervals of fast diffusion, Fig. \ref{example1}. We attribute these changes to the complicated structure of unstable bands of the Mathieu's equation, see (\ref{Mathieu}).
\begin{comment}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[width=.49\textwidth]{zofr.png}
\includegraphics[width=.49\textwidth]{loftomega01.png}
\caption{Particle trajectory for time-dependent oscillations of the overall radius, $\delta R= 0.1$. Particle experiences diffusion in $L$ and stochastic trajectory (right panel).}
\label{example2}
\end {figure}
\end{comment}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[width=.49\textwidth]{zoftom01.png}
\includegraphics[width=.49\textwidth]{loftom01.png}
\caption{An example demonstrating that intervals of just periodic oscillations are often intermittent with intervals of fast diffusion. This is expected, since the particle motion is controlled by the Mathieu's equation (\protect\ref{Mathieu}) which has stable/unstable bands depending on the parameters.}
\label{example1}
\end {figure}
We also observe that some injected particles often quickly escape. We attribute this to the fact that the value of the E-cross-B drift is larger at larger radii. Thus, a particle oscillating along a given field line will have larger radial velocity when it is further out.
One of the main points of the present work is illustrated in Fig. \ref{laveoft}, which shows that particles drift inwards from the injection point.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[width=.49\textwidth]{laveoft.png}
\includegraphics[width=.49\textwidth]{BorisRadialDiff001.jpeg}
\caption{Left Panel: Average value of the $L$ parameter as a function of time, showing that particles on average drift inwards. Particles are injected at $L =0.8$ with the same total momentum but random direction. Right Panel: evolution of the distribution $f(L)$ - particles are injected at $L=0.8$, and generally diffuse inward. }
\label{laveoft}
\end {figure}
The diffusion is not homogeneous (in a sense that it does not obey the conventional diffusion equation), but stochastic: many particles remain at a fixed $L$, until they get into the regime of a parametric resonance.
\section{Radial diffusion in rotating distorted magnetosphere}
\label{distorted3}
Next we complement our analysis with a model of distorted and rotating confined magnetospheres, following \cite{Stern94,1995JGR...100.5599T}, (previously applied to the Double Pulsar by \cite{2005MNRAS.362.1078L}). It is a different way of modeling the distorted magnetosphere: instead of time-dependent underlying fields we construct a spatially-dependent models of rotating confined magnetic configurations. \citep[We also note a relevant paper by ][where a somewhat different model of the distorted planetary field was used. Importantly, the magnetosphere\ was not co-rotating in that study.]{2003JGRA..108.1116E}
First we employ the method of distortion transformation of
Euler potentials \citep{Stern94,1981P&SS...29....1V} to find {magnetic field}.
A major advantage of the stretching model of magnetosphere is that it reproduces fairly
well the structure of a
tilted dipole \citep{Stern94}. Next we find rotationally induced {electric field}, and then repeat out calculations of the trajectories. This method is somewhat different from the oscillating Dungey's magnetosphere: in the case all the fields are stationary.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[width=.49\textwidth]{distortedomega0-l}
\includegraphics[width=.49\textwidth]{distortedzofromega0}\\
\includegraphics[width=.49\textwidth]{distortedomega005-l}
\includegraphics[width=.49\textwidth]{distortedzofromega005}
\caption{Top row: $\Omega=0$ case. Evolution of the L-parameter $L(t)$ (left panel) and particle trajectory $z(\sqrt{ x^2+y^2})$ (right panel). Bottom row: $\Omega =0.05$. Same initial velocities, distortion parameter $C=1/2$. Initial location corresponds to $L=0.4$.}
\label{distorted}
\end {figure}
Magnetic field can be described by two
Euler potentials $\alpha$ and $\beta$ (sometimes called Clebsh potentials):
\begin{equation}
{\bf B} = \nabla \alpha \times \nabla \beta
\end{equation}
so that magnetic field line is defined by an
intersection of surfaces with constant
$\alpha$ and $\beta$.
Magnetosphere of B enshrouded by magnetopause resembles
a dipole field compressed on the dayside and stretched out on the nightside. The structure
of the nightside
magnetosphere
can be approximated by stretching transformations of the
Euler potentials $\alpha$ and $\beta$.
In axially-symmetric magnetosphere,
\begin{eqnarray} &&
\alpha = \Phi,\, \mbox{Eq. (\protect\ref{1}), with constant $R_0$}
\mbox{} \nonumber \\ \mbox{} &&
\beta = \phi
\end{eqnarray}
Converting to Cartesian coordinates, stretching the $x$ coordinate by transformation $ x \to C x$ we find the new Euler potentials and the {magnetic field}\ ${\bf B}_1$
(relations become cumbersome so we omit then here: the procedure is clear). By construction the new field ${\bf B}_1$ satisfies $\div {\bf B}_1=0$.
The shape of the cavity is
\begin{equation}
C^2 x^2 +y^2 +z^2 =R_0^2
\end{equation}
On the surface the normal component of the {magnetic field}\ vanishes.
The $L$ parameter (\ref{l}) is now defined as
\begin{equation}
\frac{\left(x^2+y^2\right) \left(R_0^3-\left(C^2
x^2+y^2+z^2\right)^{3/2}\right)}{\left(x^2+y^2+z^2\right) \sqrt{C^2
x^2+y^2+z^2}}=\frac{1-L^3}{L}
\end{equation}
As novel step, let's assume that the central star is rotating. Purely for simplicity, and to demonstrate the principal effect, let's assume that the star's spin is along $z$ axis, so that inside the cavity the plasma moves with constant coordinate $z$.
This requires
\begin{equation}
C^2 x \beta_x + y \beta_y =0
\end{equation}
Thus
\begin{eqnarray} &&
\beta_x = -\frac{y \Omega \sqrt{x^2+y^2}}{C^2 x \sqrt{\frac{y^2}{C^4
x^2}+1}}
\mbox{} \nonumber \\ \mbox{} &&
\beta_y= \frac{\Omega \sqrt{x^2+y^2}}{\sqrt{\frac{y^2}{C^4 x^2}+1}}
\end{eqnarray}
The {electric field}\ is then
\begin{equation}
{\bf E}_1 = - {\bf \beta} \times {\bf B}_1
\end{equation}
Using fields $B_1$ and $E_1$ in the Boris pusher, we find dynamics very similar to the case of oscillating Dungey magnetosphere, Fig. \ref{distorted}.
The results of the two approaches (oscillating Dungey magnetosphere, and the stretched out rotating magnetosphere) show qualitatively the same picture: strong radial diffusion is induced by the rotating magnetosphere.
Thus, using two complementary methods: oscillating Dungey's magnetosphere\ and rotating stationary magnetosphere\ we arrive at the same result: betatron-type induced radial diffusion.
\section{Application to Pulsar B}
Let us assume that injection rate is fraction of influx of the Pulsar A wind hitting the Pulsar B magnetosphere. Pulsar A's spindown power can be related to the particle influx at Pulsar B magnetosphere:
\begin{equation}
L_A = 4\pi r_{AB}^2 n \Gamma_w m c^3
\end{equation}
where $L_A$ is Pulsar A's spindown power, $ r_{AB}$ is the distance between two pulsars, and $\Gamma_w$ is the Lorentz factor\ of the Pulsar A's wind ($\sigma \sim 1$ is assumed for estimates).
The magnetosphere\ of Pulsar B covers approximately $10^{-3}$ of $ 4 \pi$, as seen from Pulsar A \citep{lt05}. Let's assume that efficiency of getting into magnetosphere\ is $\zeta$ (it likely depends on the orbital phase, \eg\ as a fraction of polar cap ``facing the wind''). The injection rate is then
\begin{equation}
\dot{N} = {L_A \eta \zeta \over \Gamma_w m c^2}
\label{dotN}
\end{equation}
The density of particles in the magnetosphere\ is determined by the balance of the injection rate (\ref{dotN}) and the rate at which particles fall onto the star due to radiative losses.
Radiative decay rate is $N/(\kappa P_B)$
\begin{eqnarray} &&
\dot{N} = N/(\kappa P_B)
\mbox{} \nonumber \\ \mbox{} &&
N= \dot{N} \kappa P_B
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
\kappa = \frac{1}{8} \left( \frac{ R_m}{ R_{cool}} \right)^{-3} \sim 2\times 10^{-5}
\end{equation}
is the inverse of a typical time (in periods of Pulsar B) that particles spend in the magnetospheres, $R_m = 4 \times 10^9$ cm is the radius of the wind-confined magnetosphere\ of Pulsar B, $R_{cool}= 2.4 \times 10^{8} $ cm is the cooling radius (where cooling time becomes of the order of the Pulsar B period), \cite{lt05}.
The equilibrium density is then
\begin{eqnarray} &&
n = { N \over ( 4\pi /3) R_m^3}= { \dot{N} \kappa P_B \over ( 4\pi /3) R_m^3}
\mbox{} \nonumber \\ \mbox{} &&
\lambda= { n \over n_{GJ}} = {3 \pi e L_A \eta \kappa \zeta \over B_m c m R_m ^3 \Gamma_w \Omega_B ^2}
={ 3\times 10^8 \over \Gamma_w/(10^5)}
\label{lambda}
\end{eqnarray}
($\lambda $ is the over-density with respect to the \cite{GJ}) density $n_{GJ}$).
The estimate (\ref{lambda}) exceeds the minimal density required imposed by the eclipse model of \cite{lt05}.
\section{Discussion}
In this paper we discuss an unusual regime of radial diffusion in the wind-confined magnetospheres: when the secondary (Pulsar B in this case) is fast rotating, so that the rotational period is shorter than the time scale of azimuthal drifts. In this regime the third adiabatic invariant is strongly violated just by the electromagnetic\ fields arising from rotational compression of the magnetosphere. No extra turbulence is needed. We demonstrate that in this case the radial diffusions is driven purely by the rotating of the central star - there is no need for turbulent pitch angle scattering to induce the radial diffusion. The radial diffusion occurs to what can be called ``a betatron-induced diffusion": fluctuations of the {electric field}\ (either in Lagrangian or Eulerian sense - the two models we considered) induce (occasional) parametric instability in particle's orbits.
Thus, the magnetospheric boundary is indeed where \cite{lt05} calculated it to be. But the density of the trapped practices increases inward - hence smaller eclipsing region, by a factor of $\sim 3$.
\section{ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS}
I would like to thank Mary Hudson for comments on the manuscript and Maura McLaughlin for discussions.
This work had been supported by NASA grants 80NSSC17K0757 and 80NSSC20K0910, NSF grants 1903332 and 1908590.
\section{DATA AVAILABILITY}
The data underlying this article will be shared on reasonable request to the corresponding author.
\bibliographystyle{apj}
|
\section{Introduction and main results}\label{sec:intro}
\subsection{A null model for unsupervised learning}
Given $n$ data points $\text{\boldmath $x$}_1,\dots,\text{\boldmath $x$}_n\in\mathbb{R}^d$, Friedman and Tukey \cite{friedman1974projection} proposed to look for interesting structures by plotting histograms of their projections onto $m$-dimensional subspaces (with $m\in\{1,2\}$). They suggested to seek for
projections that maximize a certain index of clustering of the resulting histograms. Diaconis and Freedman \cite{diaconis1984asymptotics} showed that under incoherence conditions
on the points $\{\text{\boldmath $x$}_i\}_{i\le n}$, most one-dimensional projections are nearly Gaussian.
They also studied the null model in which $\{\text{\boldmath $x$}_i\}_{i\le n}\sim_{\mathrm{i.i.d.}}{\sf N}(\mathrm{\bf 0},{\boldsymbol I}_d)$,
in the high-dimensional setting $n,d\to\infty$.
They proved that, if $n/d\to \infty$ then the `least Gaussian' one-dimensional projection converges
to a standard Gaussian (in Kolmogorov-Smirnov distance), while, if $n/d\to \alpha\in(0,\infty)$,
it does not.
We will study the (Gaussian) null model of \cite{diaconis1984asymptotics},
under the proportional asymptotics $n/d\to \alpha\in(0,\infty)$.
Let $\mathscr{P} (\mathbb{R}^{m})$ denote the space of all probability measures on $\mathbb{R}^{m}$, and
$\{\text{\boldmath $x$}_i\}_{i\le n}\sim_{\mathrm{i.i.d.}}{\sf N}(\mathrm{\bf 0},{\boldsymbol I}_d)$. Denote by $\text{\boldmath $X$}\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times d}$
the matrix with rows $\text{\boldmath $x$}_i^\top$, $i\le n$.
We say that $P \in \mathscr{P} (\mathbb{R}^{m})$ is $(\alpha, m)$-feasible if there exists a
sequence of random orthogonal matrices $\text{\boldmath $W$} = \text{\boldmath $W$}_n (\text{\boldmath $X$},\omega) \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times m}$ ($\text{\boldmath $W$}^\top \text{\boldmath $W$} = {\boldsymbol I}_m$)
such that the empirical distribution of the projections $\{\text{\boldmath $W$}^{\top}\text{\boldmath $x$}_i\}_{i\le n}$
converges weakly to $P$, in probability with respect to the randomness in $\text{\boldmath $X$},\text{\boldmath $W$}$.
(Here $\omega$ denotes additional randomness that can be used in the construction of $\text{\boldmath $W$}$.)
In formulas:
\begin{align}
\mathscr{F}_{m,\alpha}:= \Big\{P \in \mathscr{P} (\mathbb{R}^{m}):\; & \exists
\text{\boldmath $W$} = \text{\boldmath $W$}_n (\text{\boldmath $X$},\omega), \ \text{\boldmath $W$}^\top \text{\boldmath $W$} = {\boldsymbol I}_m \\
& \mbox{ such that }
\frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \delta_{\text{\boldmath $W$}^\top \text{\boldmath $x$}_i} \stackrel{w}{\Rightarrow} P\; \mbox{ in probability }
\Big\}\, .\label{eq:FeasibleFirst}
\end{align}
(See Section \ref{sec:MainUnsupervised} for clarifications about this definition.)
Understanding $\mathscr{F}_{m,\alpha}$ is relevant for a broad array of
unsupervised learning methods. Indeed, non-Gaussian
projections are sought by independent component analysis \cite{hyvarinen2000independent},
blind deconvolution \cite{levin2011understanding}, and related methods
\cite{blanchard2006search,sasaki2016non,loperfido2018skewness}.
The problem of characterizing $\mathscr{F}_{m,\alpha}$ was recently studied by Bickel, Kur and Nadler \cite{bickel2018projection}, for the case $m=1$.
Denoting by $\mu_2(P) = \int x^2\, P({\rm d} x)$ the second moment of
$P$, and by $d_{\mbox{\scriptsize\rm KS}}(P_1,P_2)$ the Kolmogorov-Smirnov distance between $P_1$ and $P_2$,
\cite{bickel2018projection} proved the following:
\begin{align}
\alpha\le 1&\;\; \Rightarrow \big\{P:\, \mu_2(P)\le \alpha^{-1}-1\big\}
\subseteq \mathscr{F}_{1, \alpha}\subseteq
\big\{P:\, \mu_2(P)\le (\alpha^{-1/2}+1)^2\big\}\, ,\label{eq:Bickel1}\\
\alpha> 1&\;\; \Rightarrow
\mathscr{F}_{1, \alpha}\subseteq
\big\{P:\, d_{\mbox{\scriptsize\rm KS}}(P,{\sf N}(0,1))\le C\sqrt{\alpha^{-1}\log\alpha}\big\}\, .
\label{eq:Bickel2}
\end{align}
The paper \cite{bickel2018projection} also proved that certain mixtures of a Gaussian and a non-Gaussian component are
feasible for $\alpha>1$, leading the authors to conjecture that this is the case for all
the feasible distributions.
We will establish several new results on this model:
\begin{description}
\item[Wasserstein radius for $m=1$.] Denoting by $W_2(P_1,P_2)$ the second Wasserstein distance between two probability measures $P_1$ and $P_2$,
we prove that $\sup\{W_2(P,{\sf N}(0,1)): P\in \mathscr{F}_{1, \alpha}\}=1/\sqrt{\alpha}$.
Note that this implies as a corollary the outer bound in Eq.~\eqref{eq:Bickel1}, but it is significantly
stronger.
%
\item[KL-Wasserstein outer bound.] We show that, for any $m$, $\mathscr{F}_{m,\alpha}$ is contained
in a $W_2$ neighborhood of the set of distributions $P$ such that
$D_{\rm KL}(P\|{\sf N}(\mathrm{\bf 0},{\boldsymbol I}_m))\le C m \alpha^{-1}(1\vee \log \alpha)$, with $D_{\rm KL}$ the
Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence (relative entropy). As a corollary, this bound implies an
upper bound on the $W_2$ radius of $\mathscr{F}_{m,\alpha}$ that is tight within
a factor $C\log \alpha$. However, the KL bound is significantly tighter than the $W_2$ bound
for distributions $P$ that are less regular than Gaussians.
%
\item[Information dimension bound.] Denoting by $\underline{d}(P)$
the lower information dimension of $P$ (see Definition~\ref{def:info_dim}), we prove that
$\mathscr{F}_{m,\alpha}$ is contained in $\{P: \underline{d}(P) \ge m(1-1/\alpha)\}$ for $\alpha > 1$.
For instance, if $P$ is supported on an $s$-dimensional smooth manifold in $\mathbb{R}^m$,
then $\underline{d}(P)\le s$, and therefore $P$ is $(\alpha,m)$-feasible only if $\alpha\le m/(m-s)$.
%
\item[$\chi^2$-KL divergence inner bound.] We establish an inner bound for the feasibility
set $\mathscr{F}_{m, \alpha}$, which is expressed in terms of $\chi^2$ and KL divergence.
For probability distributions $P$ for which these two distances from ${\sf N}(\mathrm{\bf 0},{\boldsymbol I}_m)$
are comparable, this inner bound implies a lower bound on the maximum $\alpha$
for which $P$ is feasible, which is tight up to a logarithmic factor.
As a comparison, the inner bound result in Eq.~\eqref{eq:Bickel1} only applies to the
case $\alpha \le 1$.
\end{description}
\subsection{A null model for supervised learning}\label{sec:NullModel}
Our main motivation to revisit projection pursuit comes from supervised learning, and we establish their connection below.
To be definite, we consider a data model whereby
$\{ ( \text{\boldmath $x$}_i, y_i ) \}_{i \in [n]}$ are i.i.d., with isotropic Gaussian covariates
$\text{\boldmath $x$}_i \sim \mathsf{N} (\mathrm{\bf 0}, {\boldsymbol I}_d)$ and responses $y_i \in \{+1,-1\}$ depending on low-dimensional
projections of the $\text{\boldmath $x$}_i$'s. Namely, for $k\le d$, let $\text{\boldmath $V$} \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times k}$
be an orthogonal matrix such that $\text{\boldmath $V$}^\top \text{\boldmath $V$} = {\boldsymbol I}_k$.
We assume that the conditional distribution of $y_i$ given
$\text{\boldmath $x$}_i$ only depends on $\text{\boldmath $V$}^\top \text{\boldmath $x$}_i$:
\begin{align}\label{eq:SupervisedModel}
\P \left( y_i =+1 \vert \text{\boldmath $x$}_i \right) = \varphi(\text{\boldmath $V$}^\top \text{\boldmath $x$}_i ) \, ,
\end{align}
(and $\P( y_i = -1 \vert \text{\boldmath $x$}_i) = 1-\varphi(\text{\boldmath $V$}^\top \text{\boldmath $x$}_i )$)
for a
measurable function $\varphi: \mathbb{R}^{k} \to [0, 1]$. We notice in passing
that this model can be easily generalized to continuous sub-Gaussian responses $y_i$,
and our proofs apply to this case as well.
In many supervised learning methods, one seeks a model that only depends on a
low-dimensional projection of the covariates. Fitting such a model requires
to consider the possible distributions
over $\{+1,-1\}\times\mathbb{R}^m$ that can be obtained by projecting the
covariates onto an $m$-dimensional subspace of $\mathbb{R}^d$.
This motivates the following definition.
We say that $P \in \mathscr{P} (\{+1,-1\}\times \mathbb{R}^{m})$ is $(\alpha, m)$-feasible if there exists a
sequence of random orthogonal matrices $\text{\boldmath $W$} = \text{\boldmath $W$}_n (\text{\boldmath $X$},\text{\boldmath $y$},\omega) \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times m}$
($\text{\boldmath $W$}^\top \text{\boldmath $W$} = {\boldsymbol I}_m$)
such that the empirical distribution of the pairs $\{(y_i,\text{\boldmath $W$}^{\top}\text{\boldmath $x$}_i)\}_{i\le n}$
converges weakly to $P$ (in probability with respect to the randomness in $\text{\boldmath $X$}$, $\text{\boldmath $y$}$ and $\text{\boldmath $W$}$).
In formulas:
\begin{align*}
\mathscr{F}^{\varphi}_{m,\alpha}:= \Big\{P \in \mathscr{P} ( \{ \pm 1 \} \times \mathbb{R}^{m}):\; & \exists
\text{\boldmath $W$}= \text{\boldmath $W$}_n (\text{\boldmath $X$},\text{\boldmath $y$},\omega), \ \text{\boldmath $W$}^\top \text{\boldmath $W$} = {\boldsymbol I}_m \\
& \mbox{ such that }
\frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \delta_{\left(y_i,\text{\boldmath $x$}_i^\top \text{\boldmath $W$} \right)} \stackrel{w}{\Rightarrow} P \mbox{ in probability }
\Big\}\, .
\end{align*}
Characterizing the set $\mathscr{F}^{\varphi}_{m,\alpha}$ gives access to a number of statistical
quantities of interest. In this paper, we present the following results.
\begin{description}
\item[General ERM asymptotics.] We consider a class of empirical risk minimization
(ERM) problems over functions $f:\mathbb{R}^d\to \mathbb{R}$ of the form
$f(\text{\boldmath $x$}) = h(\text{\boldmath $W$}^\top\text{\boldmath $x$})$, where both $h$ and $\text{\boldmath $W$}$ are optimized over.
We show that the asymptotics of the minimum empirical
risk can be expressed in terms of a variational problem over the feasibility set $\mathscr{F}_{m,\alpha}^{\varphi}$.
%
\item[Wasserstein bound for $m=1$.] We prove an outer bound on $\mathscr{F}_{1,\alpha}^{\varphi}$
for general $k=O(1)$,
which generalizes the Wasserstein radius result obtained in the unsupervised setting.
In fact this outer bound characterizes the maximum $W_2$ distance between the
empirical distribution of one-dimensional projections and the expected distribution.
%
\item[Interpolation for two-layer networks.]
As a corollary to the previous result, we prove that a neural network with two-layers and $m$
hidden neurons can separate $n$ data points in $d$ dimensions with margin $\kappa$ only if
$md\ge C\kappa^2n$ (where the limit $n,d\to\infty$ with $n/d\to\alpha$ is understood).
Earlier bounds only required $md\ge C n/\log(d/\kappa)$.
%
\item[Margin distributions for linear classifier.] We demonstrate the tightness of our
$W_2$ bound by deriving the asymptotic distribution of the margins in linear max-margin
classification.
\end{description}
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. We formally state our results for
unsupervised and supervised learning, respectively, in Section
\ref{sec:MainUnsupervised}, Section \ref{sec:2nd_moment}, and Section \ref{sec:MainSupervised}. We
describe some of the proof ideas in Section \ref{sec:ProofIdeas}, with actual proofs deferred to
the appendices.
\subsection*{Notations}\label{sec:notation}
We denote by $\delta_{x}$ the Dirac measure at $x \in \mathcal{X}$, where $\mathcal{X}$ is a measurable space. The set of all probability measures on $\mathcal{X}$ is denoted as $\mathscr{P}(\mathcal{X})$.
For a random variable $U$, $\mathrm{Law} (U)$
denotes the probability distribution of $U$. For a positive integer $n$,
we let $[n]$ be the set $\{ 1, 2, \cdots, n \}$. For two measures $P$ and $Q$, we use
$P \otimes Q$ to denote their product measure.
We consistently use lowercase letters to denote scalars, boldface lowercase
letters to denote vectors, and boldface uppercase letters to denote matrices.
For a scalar $a$, we write $a_+ = \max (a, 0)$ and $a_- = \max(- a, 0)$. For two vectors
$\text{\boldmath $u$}$ and $\text{\boldmath $v$}$, $\langle \text{\boldmath $u$}, \text{\boldmath $v$} \rangle$ denotes their scalar product.
We use $\norm{\text{\boldmath $u$}}_2$ to denote the Euclidean norm of a vector $\text{\boldmath $u$}$. We denote by
$\S^{d - 1}$ the unit sphere in $\mathbb{R}^d$.
We always use $\Phi$ and $\phi$ to denote the CDF and PDF of a standard normal variable,
respectively. We write $X \perp Y$ if $X$ and $Y$ are two independent random variables.
We denote by $O(d, m)$ the set of all $d \times m$ orthogonal matrices $\text{\boldmath $W$}$ such that
$\text{\boldmath $W$}^\top \text{\boldmath $W$} = {\boldsymbol I}_m$.
Finally, whenever clear from the context, we identify a vector $\text{\boldmath $x$}\in\mathbb{R}^k$
with its transpose $\text{\boldmath $x$}^{\top}$: This reduces some notational burden, and amounts
to identifying $\mathbb{R}^k$ with its dual.
\section{Outer bounds: Unsupervised learning}\label{sec:MainUnsupervised}
Before stating our results, it is useful to recall the definition of feasibility set
\eqref{eq:FeasibleFirst}, and to clarify one element of this definition.
Note that $\hat{P}_{n,\text{\boldmath $W$}}:=n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{n} \delta_{\text{\boldmath $W$}^\top \text{\boldmath $x$}_i}$
is a random probability distribution on $\mathbb{R}^m$. We say that $\hat{P}_{n,\text{\boldmath $W$}}\stackrel{w}{\Rightarrow} P$
in probability if, for any $\varepsilon>0$, $\P(d_{W}(\hat{P}_{n,\text{\boldmath $W$}},P)>\varepsilon)\to 0$, where
$d_W$ is a distance that metrizes weak convergence. For instance $d_W$ can be taken to be
the bounded Lipschitz distance or the L\'{e}vy-Prokhorov metric.
Given two probability distributions $P,Q$ on $\mathbb{R}^m$,
we denote by $W_2 (P,Q)$ the second Wasserstein distance between $P$ and $Q$.
Namely
\begin{align}
W_2(P,Q) := \left( \inf_{\gamma\in \Gamma(P,Q)} \int\|\text{\boldmath $x$}-\text{\boldmath $y$}\|_2^2\gamma(\d \text{\boldmath $x$}\times \d \text{\boldmath $y$}) \right)^{1 / 2} \, ,
\end{align}
where the infimum is taken over the space $\Gamma(P,Q)$ of couplings of $(P,Q)$.
\begin{thm}[Wasserstein radius for $m=1$]\label{thm:outer_bound_1_dim}
Consider the case $m = 1$. Then for any $\alpha\in(0, \infty)$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:outer_bound_1_dim}
\sup\big\{W_2 ( P, \mathsf{N} (0, 1)):\; P\in\mathscr{F}_{1, \alpha}\big\} =\frac{1}{\sqrt{\alpha}}.
\end{equation}
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}
The supremum above is achieved by taking $P= \mathsf{N}(0,(1+\alpha^{-1/2})^2)$.
Indeed, as shown in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:outer_bound_1_dim}, this distribution is feasible by taking $\text{\boldmath $W$}= (\text{\boldmath $v$}_1(\text{\boldmath $X$}))$,
where $\text{\boldmath $v$}_1(\text{\boldmath $X$})$ is the top right singular vector of $\text{\boldmath $X$}$.
\end{rem}
Recall the definition of the KL divergence.
Given two probability measures $P$ and $Q$ on a measure space $\mathcal{X}$, if $P$ is absolutely continuous
with respect to $Q$, then
\begin{equation}\label{eq:KL_def}
D_{\mbox{\scriptsize\rm KL}} \left( P \Vert Q \right) = \int_{\mathcal{X}} \log \left( \frac{\d P}{\d Q} \right) \d P,
\end{equation}
where $\d P / \d Q$ denotes the Radon-Nikodym derivative of $P$ with respect to $Q$.
Otherwise, $D_{\rm KL}(P \Vert Q) = \infty$.
\begin{thm}[KL-Wasserstein outer bound]\label{thm:div_outer_bd}
For $a, b > 0$, define the following neighborhood of $\mathsf{N} (\mathrm{\bf 0}, {\boldsymbol I}_m)$:
\begin{equation*}
\mathscr{S}_m (a, b) = \Big\{ P \in \mathscr{P} (\mathbb{R}^m): \exists Q \in \mathscr{P} (\mathbb{R}^m), \
\text{s.t.} \ W_2 (P, Q) \le a \ \text{and} \ D_{\rm KL}(Q \Vert \mathsf{N} (\mathrm{\bf 0}, {\boldsymbol I}_m)) \le b \Big\}\, .
\end{equation*}
Then, there exist absolute constants $C > 0$ and $\varepsilon_0 > 0$ such that for any $\varepsilon \in (0, \varepsilon_0)$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\mathscr{F}_{m,\alpha} \subseteq \mathscr{S}_m \left( \left( 1 + \frac{1}{\sqrt{\alpha}} \right) \sqrt{m} \varepsilon, \,\frac{m}{\alpha} \log \left( \frac{C}{\varepsilon} \right) \right).
\end{equation*}
\end{thm}
As a direct consequence of Theorem~\ref{thm:div_outer_bd}, we obtain the following:
\begin{thm}\label{thm:m_W2_outer_bd}
There exists an absolute constant $C_1 > 0$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\mathscr{F}_{m,\alpha} \subseteq \left\{P \in \mathscr{P} (\mathbb{R}^m): \;\;
W_2 \left( P, \mathsf{N} (\mathrm{\bf 0}, {\boldsymbol I}_m) \right) \le C_1 \sqrt{m} \sqrt{\frac{\max(\log \alpha, 1)}{\alpha}}
\right\}.
\end{equation*}
Further, there exists $P\in \mathscr{F}_{m,\alpha}$ such that
$W_2( P, \mathsf{N} (\mathrm{\bf 0}, {\boldsymbol I}_m))=\sqrt{m/\alpha}$.
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}
This theorem gives an upper bound on the $W_2$ radius of $\mathscr{F}_{m,\alpha}$ for all $m$. A comparison with Theorem \ref{thm:outer_bound_1_dim} suggests that the
$\log \alpha$ factor might be due to the artifact of the proof, and we expect it to be
removed via a more refined analysis.
On the other hand, the lower bound shows that the factor $\sqrt{m}$ is necessary.
\end{rem}
Let us emphasize that even in the one-dimensional case,
Theorem~\ref{thm:div_outer_bd} is not a consequence of Theorem~\ref{thm:outer_bound_1_dim}.
There exist infeasible distributions that are excluded by Theorem~\ref{thm:div_outer_bd}
and satisfy $W_2 (P, \mathsf{N}(0, 1)) \le 1 / \sqrt{\alpha}$.
An interesting case is the one in which $P$ is supported on a set of lower dimension.
In particular for certain values of $\alpha$, probability measures supported on low-dimensional
manifolds in $\mathbb{R}^m$ are not feasible, no matter how close they are to the standard normal distribution
in $W_2$ distance.
\begin{defn}[Information dimension \cite{renyi1959dimension}]\label{def:info_dim}
Let $X = (X_1, \cdots, X_m)$ be an arbitrary random variable in $\mathbb{R}^m$, and denote for $\varepsilon > 0$ the following discretization of $X$:
\begin{equation*}
\langle X \rangle_{\varepsilon} = \varepsilon \left\lfloor \frac{X}{\varepsilon} \right\rfloor, \ \text{where} \ \left\lfloor \frac{X}{\varepsilon} \right\rfloor = \left( \left\lfloor \frac{X_1}{\varepsilon} \right\rfloor, \cdots, \left\lfloor \frac{X_m}{\varepsilon} \right\rfloor \right).
\end{equation*}
Let $H(Z)$ denote the Shannon entropy of a discrete random variable $Z$, i.e., $H(Z) = - \sum_{z} \P(Z = z) \log \P(Z = z)$, and define
\begin{equation*}
\underline{d} (X) = \liminf_{\varepsilon \to 0} \frac{H (\langle X \rangle_{\varepsilon})}{\log (1 / \varepsilon)}, \;\;\;\text{and} \;\;\; \overline{d} (X) = \limsup_{\varepsilon \to 0} \frac{H (\langle X \rangle_{\varepsilon})}{\log (1 / \varepsilon)},
\end{equation*}
where $\underline{d} (X)$ and $\overline{d} (X)$ are called lower and upper information dimensions of $X$, respectively.
With an abuse of notation, we will write $\underline{d} (P_X):=\underline{d} (X)$,
$\overline{d} (P_X):=\overline{d} (X)$ when $X\sim P_X$.
\end{defn}
\begin{thm}\label{thm:infeasible_info_dim}
Assume $\alpha > 1$, and $P \in \mathscr{P} (\mathbb{R}^m)$ satisfies $\underline{d} (P) < m (1 - 1 / \alpha)$. Then, $P$ is not $(\alpha, m)$-feasible. As a consequence, if $P$ is supported on an $s$-dimensional smooth manifold in $\mathbb{R}^m$ (where $s < m$) such that $\alpha > m / (m - s)$, then $P$ is not $(\alpha, m)$-feasible.
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}\label{rem:feasible_set}
Since any discrete distribution $P \in \mathscr{P}(\mathbb{R}^m)$ with finite entropy has
information dimension equal to $0$, we know that $P$ is not $(\alpha, m)$-feasible provided
$\alpha > 1$.
As a consequence, for any $\alpha>1$, $\varepsilon>0$, we can construct a distribution $P$ such
that $W_2(P,\mathsf{N}(\mathrm{\bf 0},{\boldsymbol I}_m))\le \varepsilon$, and yet $P$ is infeasible. This is achieved by
discretizing $\mathsf{N}(\mathrm{\bf 0},{\boldsymbol I}_m)$ on a scale $\varepsilon$, obtaining $P$ that is a countable combination
of point masses at points in $\varepsilon\cdot \mathbb{Z}^m$.
A cartoon of the $W_2$ geometry of $\mathscr{F}_{1, \alpha}$ is given in Figure \ref{fig:CartoonW2}.
\end{rem}
Note that, since $\mathscr{F}_{m,\alpha}$ is closed under weak convergence (Lemma~\ref{lem:closure_prop}), the
last infeasibility result applies to distributions $P$ that have a density in $\mathbb{R}^m$ but
are sufficiently close ---say--- to a low-dimensional manifold.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=25em]{feasible}
\put(-160, 100){$\mathsf{N}(0, 1)$}
\put(-120, 60){$1 / \sqrt{\alpha}$}
\put(-117.5, 142.5){ $\varepsilon$}
\put(-225, 135){ $\mathscr{F}_{1, \alpha}$}
\put(-60, 195){$W_2$ ball}
\caption{A cartoon of the $W_2$ geometry of the feasibility set $\mathscr{F}_{1, \alpha}$ (blue shaded area).
The outer $W_2$ radius of $\mathscr{F}_{1, \alpha}$
(with respect to center $\mathsf{N} (0, 1)$) is equal to $1 / \sqrt{\alpha}$,
but the inner radius is zero. Namely, for any $\varepsilon$, the $W_2$ ball centered at $\mathsf{N} (0, 1)$
with radius
$\varepsilon$ is not contained in $\mathscr{F}_{1, \alpha}$ for any $\alpha > 1$.}\label{fig:CartoonW2}
\end{figure}
\section{Inner bounds: Unsupervised learning}\label{sec:2nd_moment}
In this section, we present our main results on inner bounds for the feasibility set
$\mathscr{F}_{m, \alpha}$. Given a target distribution $P$, we will show that it is feasible
(below a critical value of $\alpha$) in two steps:
First, we consider a discretization of $P$ supported on a finite set of points
$A\subseteq\mathbb{R}^m$. We will prove that the corresponding discretization of the empirical
distribution $\hat{P}_{n,\text{\boldmath $W$}}$ of the projected points converges to the discretization of $P$.
We then establish feasibility of $P$ by taking increasingly denser meshes $A$.
For $P \in \mathscr{P} (\mathbb{R}^m)$ and a finite set $A = \{ \aa_1, \dots, \aa_M \} \subset \mathbb{R}^m$, define the
$A$-discretization of $P$ as follows:
\begin{defn}[$A$-discretization]
For $\text{\boldmath $x$} \in \mathbb{R}^m$, denote the projection of $\text{\boldmath $x$}$ onto $A$ as $\langle \text{\boldmath $x$} \rangle_A$, namely
\begin{equation*}
\langle \text{\boldmath $x$} \rangle_A = \mathrm{argmin}_{\aa_i \in A} \norm{\text{\boldmath $x$} - \aa_i}_2.
\end{equation*}
The $A$-discretization of $P$ is then defined as $\langle P \rangle_A =
\mathrm{Law} (\langle X \rangle_A)$ where $X \sim P$.
\end{defn}
Let $P_A$ be a probability distribution with support on $A$ such that $P_{A}(\aa_i)>0$
for every $\aa_i\in A$.
We next define the feasibility lower bound $\overline{\alpha}_{\rm lb} (P_A)$ for $P_A$. As stated formally below, for
$\alpha<\overline{\alpha}_{\rm lb} (P_A)$ we can find projections $\text{\boldmath $W$}=\text{\boldmath $W$}_n(\mathrm{\bf X})$ such that
the $A$-discretization of the empirical distribution of projected points is close to
$P_{A}$ with probability bounded away from zero.
%
\begin{defn}[Feasibility threshold of $P_{A}$]\label{def:2nd_thres}
For $\text{\boldmath $Q$} \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times m}$ satisfying $\text{\boldmath $Q$}^\top \text{\boldmath $Q$} \preceq {\boldsymbol I}_m$,
let $\Phi^{(2)}_{A,\text{\boldmath $Q$}}$ be the following probability distribution supported on $A\times A$:
\begin{equation*}
\Phi^{(2)}_{A,\text{\boldmath $Q$}} := \mathrm{Law}\left( \langle \text{\boldmath $G$}_1 \rangle_A , \ \langle \text{\boldmath $G$}_2 \rangle_A \right),
\;\;\; (\text{\boldmath $G$}_1, \text{\boldmath $G$}_2) \sim \mathsf{N} \left( \mathrm{\bf 0}, \ \begin{bmatrix}
{\boldsymbol I}_m & \text{\boldmath $Q$} \\
\text{\boldmath $Q$}^\top & {\boldsymbol I}_m
\end{bmatrix} \right)\, .
\end{equation*}
We define the probability distribution $R^{(2)}_{A,\text{\boldmath $Q$}}$ supported on $A\times A$
via:
%
\begin{equation}\label{eq:def_info_proj_Q}
%
R^{(2)}_{A,\text{\boldmath $Q$}} :=
\mathrm{argmin}_{R \in \mathscr{P}(A \times A)} \Big\{ D_{\mbox{\scriptsize\rm KL}}(R \Vert \Phi^{(2)}_{A,\text{\boldmath $Q$}}):\;\;
\mbox{\rm subject to} \ \sum_{j=1}^{M} R(\aa_i,\aa_j)= \sum_{j=1}^{M} R(\aa_j,\aa_i)=
P_A(\aa_i), \ \forall i \in [M]\Big\}\, ,
%
\end{equation}
where, specializing Eq.~\eqref{eq:KL_def}, we have
$D_{\mbox{\scriptsize\rm KL}}(R \Vert \Phi^{(2)}) = \sum_{i, j = 1}^{M} R(\aa_i,\aa_j) \log (R(\aa_i,\aa_j)/
\Phi^{(2)}(\aa_i,\aa_j))$. In words,
$R^{(2)}_{A,\text{\boldmath $Q$}}$ is the information projection of the distribution $\Phi^{(2)}_{A,\text{\boldmath $Q$}}$
onto the set of distributions on $A \times A$ whose both margins are
$P_{A}$.
Next define $\Psi(\cdot\,;P_{A}):\mathbb{R}^{m\times m}\to \mathbb{R}$ via
%
\begin{align}
%
\Psi(\text{\boldmath $Q$};P_{A}) := D_{\mbox{\scriptsize\rm KL}} \big( R^{(2)}_{A,\text{\boldmath $Q$}} \Vert \Phi^{(2)}_{A,\text{\boldmath $Q$}}\big) + \frac{1}{\alpha}I(\text{\boldmath $Q$}) \, ,
\;\;\;\; I(\text{\boldmath $Q$}) := - \frac{1}{2}\log \det ({\boldsymbol I}_m - \text{\boldmath $Q$}^\top \text{\boldmath $Q$}) \, .
%
\end{align}
%
(We set $\Psi(\text{\boldmath $Q$};P_{A})=+\infty$ if $\|\text{\boldmath $Q$}\|_{\mathrm{op}}>1$, which is equivalent to defining $\Psi(\text{\boldmath $Q$};P_{A})$ only when $\text{\boldmath $Q$}^\top \text{\boldmath $Q$} \preceq {\boldsymbol I}_m$.)
Finally, we define
\begin{align}
\overline{\alpha}_{\rm lb} (P_A) := \sup\Big\{\alpha>0\, :\;\; \Psi(\text{\boldmath $Q$};P_{A})>\Psi(\mathrm{\bf 0};P_{A}), \,
\;\;\;\forall \text{\boldmath $Q$}\neq \mathrm{\bf 0}\Big\}\, .
\end{align}
\end{defn}
We next establish that $\overline{\alpha}_{\rm lb} (P_A)$ is indeed a lower bound on the
feasibility threshold for $P_A$. (Here, feasibility is understood for the discretized
projections.)
\begin{thm}\label{thm:discrete_lower_bd}
Let $P_A$ be a probability distribution on the finite set $A\subseteq\mathbb{R}^m$ giving
strictly positive mass to every $\aa_i\in A$.
If $\alpha < \overline{\alpha}_{\rm lb} (P_A)$, then there exists a constant $C$ and
a sequence of a random orthogonal matrices $\text{\boldmath $W$} = \text{\boldmath $W$}_n (\text{\boldmath $X$})$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\liminf_{n \to \infty} \P \left( d_{\mbox{\scriptsize\rm TV}} \left( \langle \hat{P}_{n, \text{\boldmath $W$}} \rangle_A, P_{A} \right) \le \frac{C}{n} \right) > 0,
\end{equation*}
where $\hat{P}_{n, \text{\boldmath $W$}} = (1/n) \sum_{i=1}^{n} \delta_{\text{\boldmath $W$}^\top \text{\boldmath $x$}_i}$ is the empirical
distribution of the projected data points, and $d_{\mbox{\scriptsize\rm TV}}$ is
the total variation distance.
\end{thm}
In the next two subsections, we will apply this result
to prove lower bounds on the supremum of $\alpha$ such that $P\in \mathscr{F}_{m,\alpha}$
for $P$ a probability distribution with a density on $\mathbb{R}^m$. We treat the cases $m=1$
and $m>1$ separately and carry out a more accurate analysis in the first case.
As anticipated above, our proof is based on approximating $P$ by $P_A=\<P\>_A$ for a sequence of
finite sets $A$ of increasing cardinality.
It will be crucial to control the lower bounds $\overline{\alpha}_{\rm lb} (P_A)$ along such a sequence.
The following variational representation of
the KL divergence turns out to be particularly useful.
\begin{lem}[Donsker-Varadhan representation of KL divergence]\label{lem:var_rep_KL}
Let $Q$ and $P$ be two probability measures on the same space $\mathcal{X}$, then we have
\begin{equation*}
D_{\mbox{\scriptsize\rm KL}} \left( Q \Vert P \right) = \sup_{g: \ \mathcal{X} \to \mathbb{R}} \left\{ \mathbb{E}_{Q} \left[ g(X) \right] - \log \mathbb{E}_{P} \left[ \exp(g(X)) \right] \right\}.
\end{equation*}
Moreover, recalling $R^{(2)}_{A,\text{\boldmath $Q$}}$ and $\Phi^{(2)}_{A,\text{\boldmath $Q$}}$ from
Definition~\ref{def:2nd_thres}, and denoting
\begin{equation*}
\Phi_A := \mathrm{Law}\big(\langle \text{\boldmath $G$} \rangle_A \big) \;\; \text{for} \;\; \text{\boldmath $G$} \sim \mathsf{N} (\mathrm{\bf 0}, {\boldsymbol I}_m),
\end{equation*}
we get that
\begin{align*}
D_{\mbox{\scriptsize\rm KL}} (R^{(2)}_{A,\text{\boldmath $Q$}}\Vert \Phi^{(2)}_{A,\text{\boldmath $Q$}}) - & D_{\mbox{\scriptsize\rm KL}} \left(
R^{(2)}_{A,\mathrm{\bf 0}}\Vert \Phi^{(2)}_{A,\mathrm{\bf 0}} \right) \\
&\ge \sup_{(\lambda_i, \mu_i)_{i \in [M]}} \left\{ \sum_{i = 1}^{M} \left( \lambda_i + \mu_i \right) P_A(\aa_i) - \log \left( \sum_{i, j=1}^{M} e^{\lambda_i + \mu_j} \frac{P_A(\aa_i)P_A(\aa_j)}{\Phi_A(\aa_i)\Phi_A(\aa_j)} \Phi^{(2)}_{A,\text{\boldmath $Q$}}(\aa_i,\aa_j)\right) \right\}.
\end{align*}
\end{lem}
\subsection{Inner bound for $m = 1$}\label{sec:1D_inner_bd}
Here we specialize our results to the case $m = 1$, and consequently obtain an inner bound for
$\mathscr{F}_{1, \alpha}$. To simplify our treatment,
we will require that our target distribution $P$ has a density $p(x)$ on $\mathbb{R}$,
which satisfies the following assumption:
\begin{ass}\label{ass:1D_inner_bd}
Denote by $\phi (x)$ the density of the standard normal distribution. Assume that
$P(\d x) = p(x)\, \d x$,
$\mathbb{E}_P [X] = \int_{\mathbb{R}} x p (x) \, {\rm d} x= 0$, and that the chi-square distance between
$P$ and $\mathsf{N} (0, 1)$ is finite, namely
\begin{equation*}
\chi^2 \left( P, \mathsf{N} (0, 1) \right) = \int_{\mathbb{R}} \frac{(p(x) - \phi(x))^2}{\phi(x)}\, \d x < \infty.
\end{equation*}
Since the KL divergence is always dominated by the chi-square distance, we know that $D_{\mbox{\scriptsize\rm KL}} (P \Vert \mathsf{N}(0, 1)) < \infty$.
\end{ass}
\begin{thm}[Lower bound on feasibility threshold for $m=1$]\label{thm:inner_bd_1D}
Let $P \in \mathscr{P}(\mathbb{R})$ have density function $p(x)$ satisfying Assumption~\ref{ass:1D_inner_bd},
and denote
\begin{equation*}
c_2 = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \mathbb{E}_P (X^2 - 1) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \int_{\mathbb{R}} (x^2 - 1) (p(x) - \phi(x)) \, \d x.
\end{equation*}
(Note that $c_2^2 \le \chi^2 (P, \mathsf{N}(0, 1))$ by Cauchy-Schwarz inequality.)
Define the following lower bound on the feasibility threshold for $P$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:def_feas_thres_cont}
\alpha_{\rm lb} (P) = \max_{q \in [0, 1]} \min \left\{ \frac{I(q)}{D_{\mbox{\scriptsize\rm KL}} (P \Vert \mathsf{N}(0, 1))}, \ \frac{1}{2 \left( c_2^2 + q \left( \chi^2 (P, \mathsf{N}(0, 1)) - c_2^2 \right) \right)} \right\},
\end{equation}
where $I(q) = - \log (1 - q^2) / 2$. Then, as long as $\alpha < \alpha_{\rm lb} (P)$,
$P$ is $(\alpha, 1)$-feasible.
\end{thm}
\begin{prop}[Characterization of $\alpha_{\rm lb} (P)$]\label{prop:char_lower_bd}
Let $\alpha_{\rm lb} (P)$ be as defined in Eq.~\eqref{eq:def_feas_thres_cont}. Then, we have
\begin{equation*}
\alpha_{\rm lb} (P) \ge \frac{1}{4} \cdot \min \left\{ \frac{1}{c_2^2}, \ \frac{1}{D_{\mbox{\scriptsize\rm KL}} (P \Vert \mathsf{N}(0, 1))^{1/3} \left( \chi^2 (P, \mathsf{N}(0, 1)) - c_2^2 \right)^{2/3} } \right\}\, .
\end{equation*}
\end{prop}
\begin{rem}
Recall that $D_{\mbox{\scriptsize\rm KL}} (P \Vert \mathsf{N}(0, 1))\le \chi^2 (P, \mathsf{N}(0, 1))$ always holds.
If, in addition, $ \chi^2 (P, \mathsf{N}(0, 1)) \le C_0 \cdot D_{\mbox{\scriptsize\rm KL}} (P \Vert \mathsf{N}(0, 1))$,
for a constant $C_0$, then there exists another constant $C=C(C_0)$ depending on $C_0$ such that the following lower bound on the feasibility threshold holds:
\begin{equation*}
\alpha_{\rm lb} (P) \ge \frac{C}{D_{\mbox{\scriptsize\rm KL}} (P \Vert \mathsf{N}(0, 1))}\, .
\end{equation*}
This matches the outer bound in Theorem~\ref{thm:div_outer_bd} up to a logarithmic factor.
\end{rem}
\subsection{Inner bound for general $m>1$}\label{sec:mD_inner_bd}
We now generalize the results in Section~\ref{sec:1D_inner_bd} to dimensions $m > 1$.
\begin{ass}\label{ass:mD_inner_bd}
We assume that $P \in \mathscr{P} (\mathbb{R}^m)$ has zero mean, and
$\chi^2 (P, \mathsf{N} (\mathrm{\bf 0}, {\boldsymbol I}_m)) < \infty$.
In particular, $P$ has a density which we denote by $p(\text{\boldmath $x$})$.
Let $\phi(\text{\boldmath $x$})$ be the density of $\mathsf{N} (\mathrm{\bf 0}, {\boldsymbol I}_m)$,
and further denote $h(\text{\boldmath $x$}) = (p(\text{\boldmath $x$}) - \phi(\text{\boldmath $x$})) / \phi(\text{\boldmath $x$})$. For any
$\text{\boldmath $U$} \in O(m, m)$, the function $h(\text{\boldmath $U$} \text{\boldmath $x$})$ has the following multivariate Hermite expansion
(see the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:inner_bd_mD}):
\begin{equation*}
h \left( \text{\boldmath $U$} \text{\boldmath $x$} \right) = \sum_{\vert \text{\boldmath $n$} \vert \ge 2} c_{\text{\boldmath $n$}} (\text{\boldmath $U$}) {\rm He}_{n_1} (x_1) \cdots {\rm He}_{n_m} (x_m),
\end{equation*}
where $\text{\boldmath $x$} = (x_1, \cdots, x_m)$, $\text{\boldmath $n$} = (n_1, \cdots, n_m)$, $c_{\text{\boldmath $n$}} (\text{\boldmath $U$}) = c_{n_1, \cdots, n_m} (\text{\boldmath $U$})$, and
$ \vert \text{\boldmath $n$} \vert = n_1 + \cdots + n_m$. Moreover, we know that for $\text{\boldmath $G$} \sim \mathsf{N} (\mathrm{\bf 0}, {\boldsymbol I}_m)$,
\begin{equation*}
\chi^2 (P, \mathsf{N}(\mathrm{\bf 0}, {\boldsymbol I}_m)) = \mathbb{E} [h(\text{\boldmath $G$})^2] = \mathbb{E} [h(\text{\boldmath $U$} \text{\boldmath $G$})^2] =
\sum_{\vert \text{\boldmath $n$} \vert \ge 2} c_{\text{\boldmath $n$}} (\text{\boldmath $U$})^2,
\end{equation*}
which is independent of $\text{\boldmath $U$}$ due to rotational invariance of $\mathsf{N} (\mathrm{\bf 0}, {\boldsymbol I}_m)$.
\end{ass}
\begin{thm}[Lower bound on feasibility threshold for $m\ge 2$]\label{thm:inner_bd_mD}
Let $P \in \mathscr{P} (\mathbb{R}^m)$ satisfy Assumption~\ref{ass:mD_inner_bd}, and define
$\alpha_{\rm lb} (P)$ to be the supremum of all $\alpha > 0$ such that the following happens:
There exists a neighborhood $Q_0$ of $\mathrm{\bf 0}$, such that for any $\text{\boldmath $Q$} \in Q_0$
having singular values $\{ q_1, \cdots, q_m \}$,
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{\text{\boldmath $U$} \in O(m, m)} \left\{ \sum_{\vert \text{\boldmath $n$} \vert \ge 2} c_{\text{\boldmath $n$}} (\text{\boldmath $U$})^2 \prod_{i=1}^{m} q_i^{n_i} \right\} <
\frac{1}{2 \alpha} \sum_{i=1}^{m} q_i^2 = \frac{1}{2 \alpha} \norm{\text{\boldmath $Q$}}_{\rm F}^2,
\end{equation*}
and that
\begin{equation*}
\alpha < \frac{\inf_{\text{\boldmath $Q$} \notin Q_0} I(\text{\boldmath $Q$})}{D_{\mbox{\scriptsize\rm KL}} (P \Vert \mathsf{N} (\mathrm{\bf 0}, {\boldsymbol I}_m))}.
\end{equation*}
Then, as long as $\alpha < \alpha_{\rm lb} (P)$, $P$ is $(\alpha, m)$-feasible.
\end{thm}
\section{Main results: Supervised learning}\label{sec:MainSupervised}
In order to motivate our generalization of previous results to supervised learning,
consider the following empirical risk minimization (ERM) problem:
\begin{align}\label{eq:EmpiricalRisk}
%
\widehat R_n^{\star}(\text{\boldmath $X$},\text{\boldmath $y$}):= \inf_{h\in \mathcal{H}_m} \inf_{\text{\boldmath $W$}\in O(d,m)}\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n
L(y_i,h(\text{\boldmath $W$}^\top\text{\boldmath $x$}_i))\, .
%
\end{align}
Here the minimization is over $\text{\boldmath $W$}$ in $O(d, m)$, the set of $d\times m$ orthogonal matrices,
and $h$ in a set $\mathcal{H}_m$ of functions $h:\mathbb{R}^m\to\mathbb{R}$. For instance, we could consider
$\mathcal{H}_m:=\{h:\mathbb{R}^m\to\mathbb{R}:\|h\|_{\mbox{\tiny\rm Lip}}\le C\}$ (the set of functions with Lipschitz modulus at most
$C$), or $\mathcal{H}_m:=\{h(\text{\boldmath $u$}) = \sum_{i=1}^ma_i\sigma(u_i):\;\|\aa\|_1\le B\}$
so that $\text{\boldmath $x$}\mapsto h(\text{\boldmath $W$}^\top\text{\boldmath $x$})$ is a two-layer neural network with total second-layer
weights bounded by $B$ and orthonormal first-layer weights.
Finally $\mathcal{H}_m:=\{h(\text{\boldmath $u$}) = \sum_{i=1}^ma_i\sigma(\<\text{\boldmath $b$}_i,\text{\boldmath $u$}\>):\;\|\aa\|_1\le B\,, \
\|\text{\boldmath $b$}_i\|_2 \le B, \ \forall i \le m \}$ allows to treat all two-layer networks with $m$ neurons and bounded first and second-layer weights.
The next proposition establishes that the minimum of the empirical risk is
given asymptotically by a variational problem over the feasibility set $\mathscr{F}_{m,\alpha}^{\varphi}$.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:ERM_asymptotics}
Assume $n,d\to\infty$ with $n/d\to\alpha\in (0,\infty)$.
Further assume $L:\{+1,-1\}\times\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ to be bounded continuous, and
$\mathcal{H}_m\subseteq\{h:\mathbb{R}^m\to\mathbb{R}:\|h\|_{\mbox{\tiny\rm Lip}}\le C\}$, for some constant $C$. Then, we have
\begin{equation}
\plimsup_{n,d\to\infty}\widehat R_n^{\star}(\text{\boldmath $X$},\text{\boldmath $y$}) = \inf_{h\in \mathcal{H}_m}
\inf_{P\in\mathscr{F}^{\varphi}_{m,\alpha}}
\int_{\{\pm 1\} \times \mathbb{R}^m} L(y,h(\text{\boldmath $z$}))\, P(\d y,\d \text{\boldmath $z$})\, .\label{eq:ERM-asymp}
\end{equation}
(For a sequence of random variables $\{Z_n\}_{n\ge 1}$ and a constant $c$,
$\plimsup_{n \to\infty}Z_n=c$ if $c$ is the infimum of all $c'$ such that
$\lim_{n \to\infty}\P(Z_n\ge c')=0$.)
\end{prop}
\subsection{Wasserstein outer bound for $m = 1$}
Throughout this section, we assume $m=1$, so that $\text{\boldmath $W$}=\text{\boldmath $w$}\in\S^{d-1}$.
Recall the data model defined in Section \ref{sec:NullModel},
whereby $\text{\boldmath $x$}_i\sim{\sf N}(\mathrm{\bf 0},{\boldsymbol I}_d)$ and $y_i\in\{+1,-1\}$ are such that
\begin{equation*}
\P(y_i=+1|\text{\boldmath $x$}_i)= \varphi(\text{\boldmath $V$}^\top\text{\boldmath $x$}_i) = 1 - \P(y_i=-1|\text{\boldmath $x$}_i),
\end{equation*}
with $\text{\boldmath $V$}\in O(d,k)$. Notice that we allow for $k>1$.
We are interested in the empirical distribution of $\{(y_i,\<\text{\boldmath $w$},\text{\boldmath $x$}_i\>)\}_{i\le n}$, denoted by
\begin{equation*}
\hat{P}_{n, \text{\boldmath $w$}} := \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i = 1}^{n} \delta_{\left( y_i, \langle \text{\boldmath $x$}_i, \text{\boldmath $w$} \rangle \right)}.
\end{equation*}
We begin with an elementary calculation that characterizes the asymptotics of this
distribution for a vector $\text{\boldmath $w$}$ that does not depend on the data $\text{\boldmath $X$},\text{\boldmath $y$}$.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:key_triple}
Let the random variables $(Y, G, Z)$ be such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:key_triple}
(Y, G) \perp Z, \ G \sim \mathsf{N} \left( \mathrm{\bf 0}, {\boldsymbol I}_k \right), \ Z \sim \mathsf{N} (0, 1), \ \text{and} \ \P (Y = +1 \vert G) = \varphi(G) = 1 - \P (Y = -1 \vert G)\, .
\end{equation}
For $\text{\boldmath $w$} \in \S^{d - 1}$ independent of $\text{\boldmath $X$},\text{\boldmath $y$}$, define
\begin{equation}\label{eq:p_w_dist}
P_{\text{\boldmath $w$}} = \mathrm{Law} \left( Y, \text{\boldmath $w$}^\top \text{\boldmath $V$} G + \sqrt{1 - \norm{\text{\boldmath $V$}^\top \text{\boldmath $w$}}_2^2} \cdot Z \right)\,.
\end{equation}
Then, in the limit $n,d\to\infty$ (not necessarily proportionally), we have, in probability,
%
\begin{align}
\lim_{n,d\to\infty}d_{\mbox{\scriptsize\rm KS}}(\hat{P}_{n, \text{\boldmath $w$}},P_{\text{\boldmath $w$}}) = 0\,.
\end{align}
\end{lem}
In other words, the empirical distribution we are interested in, $\hat{P}_{n, \text{\boldmath $w$}}$,
is close to $P_{\text{\boldmath $w$}}$ for `most' directions $\text{\boldmath $w$}$. This is analogous to the result of
\cite{diaconis1984asymptotics} establishing, in the unsupervised setting,
that one-dimensional projections are Gaussian along most directions. (Note
however that, unlike \cite{diaconis1984asymptotics}, we assume here a specific data distribution.)
We next quantify the $W_2$ deviation of $\hat{P}_{n, \text{\boldmath $w$}}$ from $P_\text{\boldmath $w$}$ along
`atypical' directions. It is useful to define a modified $W_2$ distance for future applications.
\begin{defn}[$\eta$-constrained $W_2$ distance]\label{def:cons_wp_metric}
Let $P$ and $Q$ be two probability measures on $\mathbb{R}^d$.
For any $\eta \ge 0$, the $\eta$-constrained $W_2$ distance between $P$ and $Q$
is defined by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cons_wp_metric}
W_{2}^{(\eta)} ( P, Q ) = \left(
\inf_{\gamma \in \Gamma^{(\eta)}(P, Q)} \int_{\mathbb{R}^d \times \mathbb{R}^d}
\norm{\text{\boldmath $x$} - \text{\boldmath $y$}}_2^2 \gamma (\d \text{\boldmath $x$} \times \d \text{\boldmath $y$}) \right)^{1/2},
\end{equation}
where $\Gamma^{(\eta)}(P, Q)$ denotes the set of all couplings $\gamma$ of
$P$ and $Q$ which satisfy
\begin{equation*}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^d \times \mathbb{R}^d} \<\text{\boldmath $e$}_1, \text{\boldmath $x$} - \text{\boldmath $y$} \>^2 \, \gamma (\d \text{\boldmath $x$} \times \d \text{\boldmath $y$}) \le \eta^2\,,
\end{equation*}
where $\text{\boldmath $e$}_1 = (1, 0, \cdots, 0)^\top$. By convention
$W_{2}^{(\eta)} ( P, Q ) = \infty$ whenever $\Gamma^{(\eta)}(P, Q) = \emptyset$.
\end{defn}
We notice that this definition can be easily generalized to $W_p$ distance for every $p \ge 1$, and to projections along more than
one direction.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:W2_outer_bd}
Consider i.i.d. data $(\text{\boldmath $y$}, \text{\boldmath $X$}) = \{ (y_i, \text{\boldmath $x$}_i) \}_{i \in [n]}$,
with $\text{\boldmath $x$}_i\sim\mathsf{N}(\mathrm{\bf 0},{\boldsymbol I}_d)$ and $\P \left( y_i =+1 \vert \text{\boldmath $x$}_i \right) = \varphi(\text{\boldmath $V$}^\top \text{\boldmath $x$}_i )$,
cf. Section~\ref{sec:NullModel}. Assume that $n, d \to \infty$ with
$n / d \to \alpha \in (0, \infty)$ with $k$ fixed.
Then for all $\eta > 0$, we have, almost surely,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:W2_as_conv}
\lim_{n,d \to \infty} \max_{\norm{\text{\boldmath $w$}}_2 = 1} \left( W_2^{(\eta)} \left( \hat{P}_{n, \text{\boldmath $w$}}, P_{\text{\boldmath $w$}} \right) - \frac{1}{\sqrt{\alpha}} \sqrt{1 - \norm{\text{\boldmath $V$}^\top \text{\boldmath $w$}}_2^2} \right)_{+} =0\, .
\end{equation}
\end{thm}
Informally, this theorem ensures that the $W_2$ distance between the empirical distribution
of $\{\<\text{\boldmath $w$},\text{\boldmath $x$}_i\>\}_{i\le n}$ and the second marginal distribution of $P_{\text{\boldmath $w$}}$ is upper bounded by
$\sqrt{(1 - \Vert \text{\boldmath $V$}^\top \text{\boldmath $w$} \Vert_2^2)/\alpha}$ if we match the two probability measures
on their first marginal (by letting $\eta\to 0$).
\begin{rem}
Since the constrained Wasserstein distance always dominates the original one, an immediate consequence of Theorem~\ref{thm:W2_outer_bd} is that, almost surely,
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{n,d \to \infty} \max_{\norm{\text{\boldmath $w$}}_2 = 1} \left( W_2 \left( \hat{P}_{n, \text{\boldmath $w$}}, P_{\text{\boldmath $w$}} \right) - \frac{1}{\sqrt{\alpha}} \sqrt{1 - \norm{\text{\boldmath $V$}^\top \text{\boldmath $w$}}_2^2} \right)_+ =0,
\end{equation*}
which further implies that
\begin{equation*}
\mathscr{F}^{\varphi}_{1,\alpha} \subseteq \bigcup_{\norm{\text{\boldmath $\beta$}}_2 \le 1} \left\{ P \in \mathscr{P} ( \{ \pm 1 \} \times \mathbb{R}): W_2 \left(P, \ \mathrm{Law} \left( Y, \text{\boldmath $\beta$}^\top G + \sqrt{1 - \norm{\text{\boldmath $\beta$}}_2^2} Z \right) \right) \le \frac{\sqrt{1 - \norm{\text{\boldmath $\beta$}}_2^2}}{\sqrt{\alpha}} \right\}.
\end{equation*}
While the above bounds are for $m=1$, any one-dimensional projection of a probability distribution
in $\mathscr{F}_{m, \alpha}^{\varphi}$ must belong to $\mathscr{F}_{1, \alpha}^{\varphi}$.
We thus obtain the following outer bound on $\mathscr{F}_{m, \alpha}^{\varphi}$:
\begin{equation*}
\mathscr{F}^{\varphi}_{m,\alpha} \subseteq \bigcap_{\norm{\text{\boldmath $\theta$}}_2 = 1} \bigcup_{\norm{\text{\boldmath $\beta$}}_2 \le 1} \left\{ P \in \mathscr{P} ( \{ \pm 1 \} \times \mathbb{R}^{m}): W_2 \left(\text{\boldmath $\theta$}^\top P, \ \mathrm{Law} \left( Y, \text{\boldmath $\beta$}^\top G + \sqrt{1 - \norm{\text{\boldmath $\beta$}}_2^2} Z \right) \right) \le \frac{\sqrt{1 - \norm{\text{\boldmath $\beta$}}_2^2}}{\sqrt{\alpha}} \right\},
\end{equation*}
where we recall the triple $(Y, G, Z)$ from Lemma~\ref{lem:key_triple}, and define $\text{\boldmath $\theta$}^\top P = \mathrm{Law} (Y, \text{\boldmath $\theta$}^\top U)$ for $P = \mathrm{Law} (Y, U)$.
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}\label{rem:sub_gauss_resp}
While for simplicity we state Theorem \ref{thm:W2_outer_bd} for the case of binary
responses $y_i\in \{+1,-1\}$, the proof actually applies to the case of continuous sub-Gaussian responses
$y_i\in \mathbb{R}$ as well.
\end{rem}
\subsection{Interpolation threshold for two-layers neural network}\label{sec:small_nn_apply}
As mentioned at the beginning of this section, a bound on the feasibility set
$\mathscr{F}^{\varphi}_{m,\alpha}$ can be used to bound the typical value of the training
error (minimum empirical risk) over certain function classes, in the proportional asymptotics.
Of particular interest is the case of zero training error, which corresponds
to interpolation\footnote{Notice that the vanishing of \eqref{eq:ERM-asymp}
does not imply exactly vanishing training error but $\widehat R_n^{\star}(\text{\boldmath $X$},\text{\boldmath $y$})$.
For instance, in the case of hinge loss this means that all but $o(n)$ points are
classified correctly with margin $\kappa-o(1)$.}.
We provide an illustration of
this application by considering binary classification with a positive margin $\kappa>0$,
using two-layer networks with $m$ hidden neurons.
For $\kappa > 0$, consider the loss function $L(y, \hat{y}) = (\kappa - y \hat{y})_+$
and the following set of functions:
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{H}_m = \left\{ h (\text{\boldmath $u$}) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{m}} \sum_{i = 1}^{m} a_i \sigma \left( \langle \text{\boldmath $b$}_i, \text{\boldmath $u$} \rangle \right): \norm{\aa}_1 \le m B, \ \max_{i \in [m]} \norm{\text{\boldmath $b$}_i}_2 \le B \right\},
\end{equation*}
where $B > 0$ is a constant.
Recalling the definition of $\hat{R}_n^\star (\text{\boldmath $X$}, \text{\boldmath $y$})$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:EmpiricalRisk}, we have $\hat{R}_n^\star (\text{\boldmath $X$}, \text{\boldmath $y$}) = 0$
if and only if there exists a function $f (\text{\boldmath $x$}; \hat{\aa}, \hat{\text{\boldmath $W$}}) \in \mathcal{F}_{\mathsf{NN}}^{m, B}$
such that $y_i f(\text{\boldmath $x$}_i; \hat{\aa}, \hat{\text{\boldmath $W$}}) \ge \kappa$ for all $i \in [n]$. Here,
$\mathcal{F}_{\mathsf{NN}}^{m, B}$ denotes the collection of two-layers neural networks with bounded first and second-layer coefficients:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:2_layer_NN}
\mathcal{F}_{\mathsf{NN}}^{m, B} = \Big\{
f \left( \text{\boldmath $x$}; \aa, \text{\boldmath $W$} \right) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{m}} \sum_{j=1}^{m} a_j \sigma \left( \langle \text{\boldmath $w$}_j, \text{\boldmath $x$} \rangle \right), \ \norm{\aa}_1 \le m B, \ \max_{j \in [m]} \norm{\text{\boldmath $w$}_j}_2 \le B \Big\}.
\end{equation}
Our next theorem applies the $W_2$ upper bound of the previous section to bound
the $\kappa$-margin interpolation threshold for this model.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:NN_upper_bd}
Consider i.i.d. data $(\text{\boldmath $y$}, \text{\boldmath $X$}) = \{ (y_i, \text{\boldmath $x$}_i) \}_{1 \le i \le n}$ where
$y_i \sim \mathrm{Unif} (\{ + 1,-1 \})$ is independent of $\text{\boldmath $x$}_i \sim \mathsf{N} (\mathrm{\bf 0}, {\boldsymbol I}_m)$.
Assume $n, d \to \infty$ with $m$ fixed, and further assume that
$\sigma(x)$ is $L$-Lipschitz. Then,
\begin{equation}
\frac{n}{md} > \frac{2 L^2 B^4}{\kappa^2} \;\;\implies\;\; \lim_{n,d \to \infty} \P \left( \hat{R}_n^\star (\text{\boldmath $X$}, \text{\boldmath $y$}) = 0 \right) = 0.
\end{equation}
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}
Notice that the bound of Theorem \ref{thm:W2_outer_bd} holds for $m=1$, while
the last theorem considers models with general $m\ge 1$. In the proof we show that
the $m=1$ bound can be leveraged to control higher-dimensional cases as well.
\end{rem}
Notice thar the Lipschitz constant of $f\in \mathcal{F}_{\mathsf{NN}}^{m, B}$ is upper bounded
by $\overline{\rm Lip}=LB^2$. Hence the last theorem indicates that
a $\kappa$-margin interpolating network exists only if $md/n\ge\kappa^2/(2\overline{\rm Lip}^2)$.
The dependence on $m,d,n$ is the natural one: we expect vanishing training error to be possible only
if the number of parameters $md$ is larger than the sample size $n$. Despite this
is an intuitive necessary condition, we are not aware of a proof of this fact, even in the asymptotic setting
treated here. A recent paper \cite{montanari2020interpolation} proves
that if a $\kappa$-margin solution exists, then $md/n\ge C_{L,B}/\log(d/\kappa)$
which is significantly weaker in large dimensions.
We also point out that the case $m=1$ corresponds to linear separability, and
has been studied in detail (see next section). In that case the condition
above reduces to $d/n\ge \kappa^2/(2\overline{\rm Lip}^2)$, which captures the known correct dependence on $\kappa$
for $\kappa$ bounded away from $0$.
\subsection{Distribution of margins for max-margin classification}\label{sec:max_margin_apply}
In this section we assume $m = k=1$ and write $\text{\boldmath $V$}=\text{\boldmath $\theta$}_*\in \S^{d - 1}$. Hence, for $i \in [n]$,
we have $\text{\boldmath $x$}_i\sim{\sf N}(\mathrm{\bf 0},{\boldsymbol I}_d)$ and $\P (y_i = + 1 \vert \text{\boldmath $x$}_i) = \varphi (\langle \text{\boldmath $x$}_i, \text{\boldmath $\theta$}_* \rangle) = 1 - \P (y_i = - 1 \vert \text{\boldmath $x$}_i)$,
cf. Eq.~\eqref{eq:SupervisedModel}.
The max-margin classifier is defined by
\begin{equation}
\hat{\text{\boldmath $\theta$}}^{\mathrm{MM}} := \hat{\text{\boldmath $\theta$}}^{\mathrm{MM}} (\text{\boldmath $y$}, \text{\boldmath $X$}) = \argmax_{\norm{\text{\boldmath $\theta$}}_2 = 1} \min_{1 \le i \le n} \left\{ y_i \langle \text{\boldmath $\theta$}, \text{\boldmath $x$}_i \rangle \right\}\, .
\end{equation}
Define the random variables $(Y, G, Z)$ as in Eq.~\eqref{eq:key_triple}, for $k=1$.
We will assume that $\varphi$ is such that $\P(YG>x)\wedge \P(YG< -x)>0$ for all $x$ (Assumption 3 in \cite{montanari2019generalization}).
It was proven in \cite{candes2020phase,montanari2019generalization} that,
for $\kappa\ge 0$, a $\kappa$-margin solution exists
with high probability if $\alpha<\alpha_{\mathrm s} (\kappa)$,
and does not exist with high probability if $\alpha>\alpha_{\mathrm s} (\kappa)$.
The critical threshold $\alpha_{\mathrm s} (\kappa)$ is defined as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:crt_thres}
\alpha_{\mathrm s} (\kappa) := \max_{\rho \in [-1, 1]} F_{\kappa} (\rho) \, ,\;\;\;\;\;
F_{\kappa} (\rho) = \frac{1 - \rho^2}{\mathbb{E} \left[ \left( \kappa - \rho YG - \sqrt{1 - \rho^2} Z \right)_+^2 \right]}\, .
\end{equation}
For $\alpha < \alpha_{\mathrm s} (0)$, we define $\kappa_{\rm s} (\alpha)$
to be the unique $\kappa > 0$ such that $\alpha = \alpha_{\mathrm s} (\kappa)$, whose existence is ensured by the fact that $\alpha_s (\kappa)$ is strictly decreasing.
Here we are interested in the distribution of margins for the max-margin solution.
To be accurate, we denote the empirical distribution of margins by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:max_margin_dist}
\hat{P}_{n, \hat{\text{\boldmath $\theta$}}^{\mathrm{MM}}} = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i = 1}^{n} \delta_{y_i \left\langle \hat{\text{\boldmath $\theta$}}^{\mathrm{MM}}, \text{\boldmath $x$}_i \right\rangle}.
\end{equation}
The margin distribution
provides useful information about the structure of the
max-margin classifier.
In order to state our result, we need to establish the following analytical fact.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:unique_F_kappa}
The function $F_{\kappa} (\rho)$ defined in Eq.~\eqref{eq:crt_thres} has a unique maximizer $\rho_* (\kappa) \in (- 1, 1)$.
\end{lem}
Following the notation of this lemma, we define
\begin{equation}\label{eq:mm_limit_dist}
P_{\kappa, \varphi} = \mathrm{Law} \left( \max \left( \kappa, \rho_* (\kappa) YG + \sqrt{1 - \rho_*(\kappa)^2} Z \right) \right).
\end{equation}
The next theorem is proved by an application of the $W_2$ bound
of Theorem \ref{thm:W2_outer_bd}.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:mm_margin_dist}
Consider i.i.d. data $\{ (y_i, \text{\boldmath $x$}_i) \}_{1 \le i \le n}$ where
$\text{\boldmath $x$}_i \sim \mathsf{N} (\mathrm{\bf 0}, {\boldsymbol I}_d)$ and $y_i\in\{+1,-1\}$ are such that
$\P (y_i = + 1 \vert \text{\boldmath $x$}_i) =\varphi (\langle \text{\boldmath $x$}_i, \text{\boldmath $\theta$}_* \rangle) = 1 - \P (y_i = - 1 \vert \text{\boldmath $x$}_i)$.
Assume $n, d \to \infty$ with $n / d \to \alpha \in ( 0, \alpha_{\mathrm s} (0) )$
and denote $\kappa = \kappa_{\mathrm s} (\alpha)$.
Recall
$\hat{P}_{n, \hat{\text{\boldmath $\theta$}}^{\mathrm{MM}}}$ from Eq.~\eqref{eq:max_margin_dist} and
$P_{\kappa, \varphi}$ from Eq.~\eqref{eq:mm_limit_dist}. Then we have
\begin{equation*}
\plim_{n\to\infty }W_2 \big( \hat{P}_{n, \hat{\text{\boldmath $\theta$}}^{\mathrm{MM}}}, P_{\kappa, \varphi} \big) =0\, .
\end{equation*}
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}
This result is already non-trivial in the case of purely random labels, i.e., if
$\varphi(x) = \varphi_0(x) = 1/2$ identically. In this case $\rho_* (\kappa) \equiv 0$ and the limiting distribution
is $P_{\kappa, \varphi_0} = \mathrm{Law}(\max(\kappa, Z))$ where $Z \sim \mathsf{N} (0, 1)$. In other words, $P_{\kappa,\varphi_0}$
is a Gaussian truncated at $\kappa$, with the missing density replaced by a point mass at $\kappa$.
It is easy to check that
the mass at $\kappa$ is equal to $1 - \Phi(\kappa)$:
%
\begin{align*}
P_{\kappa,\varphi_0}(\d x) = (1 - \Phi(\kappa)) \delta_{\kappa}+ \phi(x){\bf 1}_{x\ge \kappa}\d x\,,
\end{align*}
%
with $\phi(x)$ the standard Gaussian density. In words, roughly $(1 - \Phi(\kappa)) n$ of the training samples
have margin $\kappa$, and the others have Gaussian margins, conditional on being at least $\kappa$.
\end{rem}
\section{Proof techniques}\label{sec:ProofIdeas}
In the previous sections we presented two types of general outer bounds for the set of
$(\alpha, m)$-feasible probability measures: $(i)$~Tight uniform upper bound on
$W_2 (P, \mathsf{N} (0, 1))$, where $P \in \mathscr{F}_{1, \alpha}$; $(ii)$~Characterization of
$\mathscr{F}_{m,\alpha}$ via the KL-Wasserstein neighborhood for general $m \ge 1$.
We hereby briefly describe the methods we use to prove these two types of results,
with most of the technical work deferred to the appendices. We will mainly focus on the
unsupervised case: the supervised case is technically more cumbersome, but can be
addressed using the same ideas. We also illustrate the lower bound on the $W_2$
radius by constructing specific feasible distributions on $\mathbb{R}^m$, and sketch the proof of the
$\chi^2$-KL inner bound via the second moment method.
\noindent \textit{Wasserstein outer bound for $m = 1$.} We begin with defining the following random variable:
\begin{align*}
\xi_{n} = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{\alpha}} - \max_{\norm{\text{\boldmath $w$}}_2 = 1} W_2 \left( \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i = 1}^{n} \delta_{\langle \text{\boldmath $x$}_i, \text{\boldmath $w$} \rangle}, \mathsf{N} (0, 1) \right) \\
= & \min_{\norm{\text{\boldmath $w$}}_2 = 1} \left\{ \frac{1}{\sqrt{\alpha}} - W_2 \left( \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i = 1}^{n} \delta_{\langle \text{\boldmath $x$}_i, \text{\boldmath $w$} \rangle}, \mathsf{N} (0, 1) \right) \right\} \\
= & \min_{\norm{\text{\boldmath $w$}}_2 = 1, \text{\boldmath $u$} \in \mathbb{R}^d} \max_{\text{\boldmath $\lambda$} \in \mathbb{R}^n} \left\{ \frac{1}{\sqrt{\alpha}} - W_2 \left( \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i = 1}^{n} \delta_{u_i}, \mathsf{N} (0, 1) \right) + \frac{1}{n} \text{\boldmath $\lambda$}^\top \left( \text{\boldmath $u$} - \text{\boldmath $X$} \text{\boldmath $w$} \right) \right\}.
\end{align*}
Note that a uniform $W_2$ upper bound is equivalent to a lower bound on $\xi_n$.
Applying a variant of Gordon's Gaussian comparison
inequality \cite{gordon1985some,thrampoulidis2015regularized}
(with some additional technical work since the domains are unbounded) then yields
\begin{equation*}
\P \left( \xi_{n} \le t \right) \le 2 \P \left( \xi_{n}^{(1)} \le t \right), \ \forall t \in \mathbb{R},
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{equation*}
\xi_n^{(1)} = \min_{\norm{\text{\boldmath $w$}}_2 = 1, \text{\boldmath $u$} \in \mathbb{R}^d} \max_{\text{\boldmath $\lambda$} \in \mathbb{R}^n} \left\{ \frac{1}{\sqrt{\alpha}} - W_2 \left( \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i = 1}^{n} \delta_{u_i}, \mathsf{N} (0, 1) \right) + \frac{1}{n} \text{\boldmath $\lambda$}^\top \left( \text{\boldmath $u$} - \norm{\text{\boldmath $w$}}_2 \text{\boldmath $h$} \right) + \frac{1}{n} \norm{\text{\boldmath $\lambda$}}_2 \text{\boldmath $w$}^\top \text{\boldmath $g$} \right\}.
\end{equation*}
Here, $\text{\boldmath $g$} \sim \mathsf{N} (\mathrm{\bf 0}, {\boldsymbol I}_d)$ and $\text{\boldmath $h$} \sim \mathsf{N} (\mathrm{\bf 0}, {\boldsymbol I}_n)$ are mutually independent, and further independent of $\text{\boldmath $X$}$.
It then suffices to obtain a high-probability lower bound for $\xi_n^{(1)}$. By direct calculation,
\begin{align*}
\xi_n^{(1)} = & \min_{\text{\boldmath $u$} \in \mathbb{R}^d} \max_{\text{\boldmath $\lambda$} \in \mathbb{R}^n} \left\{ \frac{1}{\sqrt{\alpha}} - W_2 \left( \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i = 1}^{n} \delta_{u_i}, \mathsf{N} (0, 1) \right) + \frac{1}{n} \text{\boldmath $\lambda$}^\top \left( \text{\boldmath $u$} - \text{\boldmath $h$} \right) - \frac{1}{n} \norm{\text{\boldmath $\lambda$}}_2 \norm{\text{\boldmath $g$}}_2 \right\} \\
= & \min_{ \text{\boldmath $u$} \in \mathbb{R}^d} \max_{\gamma \ge 0} \left\{ \frac{1}{\sqrt{\alpha}} - W_2 \left( \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i = 1}^{n} \delta_{u_i}, \mathsf{N} (0, 1) \right) + \frac{\gamma}{\sqrt{n}} \left( \norm{\text{\boldmath $u$} - \text{\boldmath $h$}}_2 - \norm{\text{\boldmath $g$}}_2 \right) \right\} \\
\ge & \min_{\text{\boldmath $u$} \in \mathbb{R}^d} \max_{0 \le \gamma \le 1} \left\{ \frac{1}{\sqrt{\alpha}} - W_2 \left( \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i = 1}^{n} \delta_{u_i}, \mathsf{N} (0, 1) \right) + \frac{\gamma}{\sqrt{n}} \left( \norm{\text{\boldmath $u$} - \text{\boldmath $h$}}_2 - \norm{\text{\boldmath $g$}}_2 \right) \right\}.
\end{align*}
By the law of large numbers, with high probability we have
\begin{equation*}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \left( \norm{\text{\boldmath $u$} - \text{\boldmath $h$}}_2 - \norm{\text{\boldmath $g$}}_2 \right) \ge W_2 \left( \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i = 1}^{n} \delta_{u_i}, \mathsf{N} (0, 1) \right) - \frac{1}{\sqrt{\alpha}} - \varepsilon
\end{equation*}
for an (arbitrarily) small $\varepsilon > 0$, which in turn implies $\xi_n^{(1)} \ge - \varepsilon$. Hence, $\P \left( \xi_{n} \le - \varepsilon \right) \to 0$ as $n \to \infty$. Consequently, the following holds with high probability:
\begin{equation*}
\max_{\norm{\text{\boldmath $w$}}_2 = 1} W_2 \left( \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i = 1}^{n} \delta_{\langle \text{\boldmath $x$}_i, \text{\boldmath $w$} \rangle}, \mathsf{N} (0, 1) \right) \le \frac{1}{\sqrt{\alpha}} + \varepsilon.
\end{equation*}
Combining the above uniform (for $\text{\boldmath $w$} \in \S^{d - 1}$) upper bound with a compactness argument implies that any feasible distribution $P$ must satisfy $W_2 (P, \mathsf{N}(0, 1)) \le 1 / \sqrt{\alpha}$.
\\
\noindent \textit{KL-Wasserstein outer bound for general $m$.} The proof follows from a covering argument on the Stielfel manifold $O(d, m)$. Assume $P \in \mathscr{F}_{m,\alpha}$, then with high probability there exists a $\text{\boldmath $W$} \in N_{\varepsilon} (d, m)$ such that $W_2 (\hat{P}_{n, \text{\boldmath $W$}}, P) = O(\varepsilon)$, where $N_{\varepsilon} (d, m)$ is an $\varepsilon$-covering of $O(d, m)$ and the big-$O$ notation only hides universal constant. Here, $\hat{P}_{n, \text{\boldmath $W$}}$ denotes the empirical distribution $(1 / n) \sum_{i = 1}^{n} \delta_{\text{\boldmath $x$}_i^\top \text{\boldmath $W$}}$. This calculation implies that $\mathscr{F}_{m,\alpha}$ is contained in a $W_2$-neighborhood with radius $O(\varepsilon)$ of the set $\{ \hat{P}_{n, \text{\boldmath $W$}}: \text{\boldmath $W$} \in N_{\varepsilon} (d, m) \}$.
To prove Theorem~\ref{thm:div_outer_bd}, we need to show that $\{ \hat{P}_{n, \text{\boldmath $W$}}: \text{\boldmath $W$} \in N_{\varepsilon} (d, m) \}$ is contained in a KL-divergence ball centered at $\mathsf{N} (\mathrm{\bf 0}, {\boldsymbol I}_m)$. For any fixed $\text{\boldmath $W$} \in N_{\varepsilon} (d, m)$ and $a > 0$, the KL divergence between $\hat{P}_{n, \text{\boldmath $W$}}$ and $\mathsf{N} (\mathrm{\bf 0}, {\boldsymbol I}_m)$ is upper bounded by $a$ with probability at least $1 - \exp(- n (a + o(1)))$ (Sanov's theorem, see, e.g., \cite[Thm. 6.2.10]{Dembo_2010}). This result is a typical application of large deviations theory for empirical distributions. Now we can apply the union bound to $\text{\boldmath $W$} \in N_{\varepsilon} (d, m)$. Properly choosing $a = a(\varepsilon)$ yields a high-probability upper bound on $\max_{\text{\boldmath $W$} \in N_{\varepsilon} (d, m)} D_{\rm KL} (\hat{P}_{n, \text{\boldmath $W$}} \Vert \mathsf{N} (\mathrm{\bf 0}, {\boldsymbol I}_m))$, which, together with the $W_2$ approximation, gives the desired KL-Wasserstein outer bound.
\\
\noindent \textit{Lower bound on $W_2$ radius.} The lower bound on the $W_2$ radius $\sup\{W_2(P,{\sf N}(\mathrm{\bf 0},{\boldsymbol I}_m)): \; P\in \mathscr{F}_{m,\alpha}\}$
is obtained by taking $\text{\boldmath $W$} = (\text{\boldmath $v$}_1(\text{\boldmath $X$}),\dots,\text{\boldmath $v$}_m(\text{\boldmath $X$}))$, where
$\text{\boldmath $v$}_{i}(\text{\boldmath $X$})\in \mathbb{R}^d$ is the $i$-th right singular vector of $\text{\boldmath $X$}$.
We therefore have $\text{\boldmath $X$}\text{\boldmath $W$} = (s_1\text{\boldmath $u$}_1(\text{\boldmath $X$}),\dots,s_m\text{\boldmath $u$}_m(\text{\boldmath $X$}))$,
where $s_i$ is the $i$-th singular value and $\text{\boldmath $u$}_i(\text{\boldmath $X$})$ is the $i$-th
left singular vector of $\text{\boldmath $X$}$.
By the Bai-Yin law (see, e.g., \cite{bai2010spectral}), $s_1,\dots,s_m \to (1+\alpha^{-1/2})$ almost surely, and
by rotational invariance $(\text{\boldmath $u$}_1(\text{\boldmath $X$}),\dots,\text{\boldmath $u$}_m(\text{\boldmath $X$}))\in O(n,m)$ is uniformly random on the
Stiefel manifold, whence it is easy to show that, in probability
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^m\delta_{\text{\boldmath $W$}^{\top}\text{\boldmath $x$}_i} \stackrel{w}{\Rightarrow} P ={\sf N}(\mathrm{\bf 0},(1+\alpha^{-1/2})^2{\boldsymbol I}_m)\, .
\end{align*}
It is then sufficient to compute $W_2(P,{\sf N}(\mathrm{\bf 0},{\boldsymbol I}_m))= \sqrt{m / \alpha}$.
\\
\noindent \textit{$\chi^2$-KL divergence inner bound.} As described in Section
\ref{sec:2nd_moment}, the proof follows the following scheme: $(1)$~Discretize the probability
distribution $P$ using a finitely supported distribution $P_A$;
$(2)$~Prove a feasibility result for the discrete distribution $P_A$
(Theorem \ref{thm:discrete_lower_bd});
$(3)$~Control the limit of finer and finer discretizations
Theorem \ref{thm:inner_bd_1D} and Theorem \ref{thm:inner_bd_mD}).
The proof of Theorem \ref{thm:discrete_lower_bd} is based on the second moment
method and is the most technical part of the paper.
The second moment method has been successful in proving existence of solutions for
random constraint satisfaction problems (CSPs) \cite{achlioptas2002asymptotic, achlioptas2005rigorous, achlioptas2006random}.
Usually, one constructs a non-negative random variable $Z = Z(\text{\boldmath $X$})$ such that $Z > 0$
if and only if a solution exists. The Paley-Zygmund inequality can then be used to
lower bound the probability that there exists a solution:
\begin{equation*}
\P \left( \text{A solution exists} \right) = \P (Z > 0) \ge \frac{\mathbb{E} [Z]^2}{\mathbb{E} [Z^2]}.
\end{equation*}
In the context of projection pursuit, one seeks a projection matrix $\text{\boldmath $W$}$ such that $\hat{P}_{n, \text{\boldmath $W$}}$ is close to the target distribution $P$. Therefore, a nature choice for $Z$ would be
\begin{equation*}
Z:= \int_{O(d, m)} \mathrm{\bf 1} \left\{ \hat{P}_{n, \text{\boldmath $W$}} \in \mathsf{B}_{\varepsilon} (P) \right\} \mu_{d, m} (\d \text{\boldmath $W$}),
\end{equation*}
where $\mu_{d, m}$ is the uniform measure on $O(d, m)$, and $\mathsf{B}_{\varepsilon} (P)$ is a small
neighborhood of $P$ in $\mathscr{P} (\mathbb{R}^m)$ with respect to some topology. We then calculate the first and second moments of $Z$, and show that
$\mathbb{E} [Z^2] = O(1) \cdot \mathbb{E} [Z]^2$ for $\alpha$ below a certain feasibility threshold. When computing these moments,
we use a refined version of the classical Sanov's theorem to obtain exact asymptotics
of the large deviation probability $\P (\hat{P}_{n, \text{\boldmath $W$}} \in \mathsf{B}_{\varepsilon} (P))$, which
can be found in \cite{dinwoodie1992mesures, ney1983dominating}.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
This work was supported by the NSF through award DMS-2031883, the Simons Foundation through Award
814639 for the Collaboration on the Theoretical Foundations of Deep Learning, the NSF grant CCF-2006489, the ONR grant N00014-18-1-2729.
\bibliographystyle{alpha}
|
\section{Introduction}
Bayesian inference gains significant popularity during the last two decades due to the advance in modern computing power.
As a method of statistical analysis based on probabilistic modelling, Bayesian inference allows natural uncertainty quantification on the unknown parameters via a posterior distribution. In the classical Bayesian framework, the data $X^{(n)}=\{X_1,\ldots,X_n\}$ is assumed to consist of i.i.d.~samples generated from a probability distribution $p(X\,|\,\theta)$ depending on an unknown parameter $\theta$ in parameter space $\Theta\subset \mathbb R^d$. Domain knowledge and prior beliefs can be characterized by a probability distribution $\pi(\theta)$ over $\Theta$ called prior (distribution), which is then updated into a posterior (distribution) $p(\theta\,|\,X^{(n)})$ by multiplying with the likelihood function
$$
\mathcal L_n(\theta;\,X^{(n)}):\,=\prod_{i=1}^n p(X_i\,|\,\theta)
$$
evaluated on the observed data $X^{(n)}$ using the Bayes theorem. The classical Bayesian framework relies on the likelihood formulation, which hinders its use in problems where the data generating model is hard to fully specify or is not our primary interest. The pseudo-posterior~\citep{JMLR:v17:15-290,ghosh2020general} idea provides a more general probabilistic inference framework to alleviate this restriction by replacing the negative log-likelihood function in the Bayesian posterior with a criterion function. For example, when applied to risk minimization problems, the so-called Gibbs posteriors~\citep{bhattacharya2020gibbs,syring2020gibbs} use the (scaled) empirical risk function as the criterion function, thus avoiding imposing restrictive assumptions on the statistical model through a fully specified likelihood function.
Despite the conceptual appeal of Bayesian inference, its practical implementation is a notoriously difficult computational problem. For example, the posterior $p(\theta\,|\,X^{(n)})$ involves a normalisation constant that can be expressed as a multidimensional integral
$$
\int_\Theta \mathcal L_n(\theta;\,X^{(n)}) \,\pi(\theta)\,{\rm d}\theta.
$$
This integral is usually analytically intractable and hard to numerically approximate, especially when the parameter dimension $d$ is high. Different from those numerical methods for directly computing the normalisation constant, the Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithm~\citep{hastings1970monte,geman1984stochastic,robert2004monte} constructs a Markov chain, whose simulation only requires evaluations of the likelihood ratio under a pair of parameters, such that its stationary distribution matches the target posterior distribution. Thus, MCMC provides an appealing alternative for Bayesian computation by turning the integration problem into a sampling problem that does not require computing the normalisation constant. Despite its popularity, the theoretical analysis of the computational efficiency of MCMC algorithms is mostly carried out for smooth and log-concave target distributions, and is comparatively rare in the Bayesian literature where a (pseudo-)posterior can be non-smooth and non-log-concave.
In addition, precise characterizations of the computational complexity (or mixing time) and its dependence on the parameter dimension $d$ for commonly used MCMC algorithms are important for guiding their practical designs and use.
One of the most popular MCMC algorithms is the Metropolis random walk (MRW), a zeroth-order method that queries the value of the target density ratio under two points per iteration. \cite{JMLR:v20:19-306} shows that for a log-concave and smooth target density, the $\varepsilon$-mixing time in total variation distance (the number of iterations required to converge
to an $\varepsilon$-neighborhood of stationary distribution in the total variation distance) for MRW is at most $\mathcal O\big(d\log ({1}/{\varepsilon})\big)$. On the other hand, the $\mathcal O(d)$ scaling limit of \cite{gelman1997weak} suggests that their linear dependence on dimension $d$ is optimal. For a class of Bayesian pseudo-posteriors that can be non-smooth and non-log-concave, it has been shown in~\cite{10.2307/30243694} that as the sample size $n$ grows to infinity while the parameter dimension $d$ does not grow too quickly relative to $n$ so that the pseudo-posterior satisfies a Bernstein-von Mises (asymptotic normality) result, then MRW for sampling from the target pseudo-posterior constrained on an approximate compact set with a warm start has an asymptotic total variation $\varepsilon$-mixing time upper bound as $\mathcal O_p\big(d^2 \log (1/{\varepsilon})\big)$.
Another popular class of MCMC algorithms, called Metropolis-adjusted Langevin algorithm (MALA) that makes use of additional gradient information about the target density, is shown to have a faster mixing time when compared to MRW. For example,~\cite{pmlr-v134-chewi21a} show that if the negative log-density (will be referred to as potential) of the target distribution is twice continuously differentiable and strongly convex, then the $\varepsilon$-mixing time in $\chi^2$ divergence for MALA with a warm start scales as $\Theta(d^{1/2})$ modulo polylogarithmic factors in $\varepsilon$. Moreover,~\cite{10.2307/2985986} and~\cite{pmlr-v134-chewi21a} show that the optimal dimension dependence for MALA is $d^{1/3}$ for some product measures satisfying stringent conditions like the standard Gaussian. However, for Bayesian (pseudo-)posteriors, it is common that the smoothness and strong convexity properties of the log-density assumed in literature are not satisfied. For example, in Bayesian quantile regression based on the (possibly misspecified) asymmetric Laplace likelihood for mimicking the check loss function $\ell(x,q) = (q-x)\cdot \big(\tau-\bold{1}(q<x)\big)$ for a given quantile level $\tau\in (0,1)$ with $\bold{1}(\cdot)$ denoting the indicator function,
the Bayesian posterior is neither differentiable nor strongly log-concave.
For such non-differentiable densities, we slightly extend the MALA by using any subgradient to replace the gradient in its algorithm formulation. Thus it is natural to investigate:
\begin{quote}\normalsize
What is the optimal dimension dependence when using MALA to sample from a possibly non-smooth and non-log-concave (pseudo-)posterior density, subject to the statistical large sample theory which restricts the deviation of the posterior from being smooth and log-concave in a very specific manner?
\end{quote}
In particular, it is interesting to see whether MALA can achieve a better mixing time dependence on the parameter dimension compared with MRW in the context of Bayesian posterior sampling.
\smallskip
\noindent {\bf Our contributions.}
In this work, we show an upper bound on the $\varepsilon$-mixing time of MALA for sampling from a class of possibly non-smooth and non-log-concave distributions with non-product forms (c.f.~Condition A for a precise definition) with an $M_0$-warm start (defined in~Section~\ref{sec:problem}) as $\mathcal O\big(\max\big\{d^{1/3}\log (\varepsilon^{-1}\log M_0),\,\log M_0\big\}\big)$, which matches (up to logarithmic terms in $(M_0,\varepsilon)$) the lower bound result proved in~\cite{pmlr-v134-chewi21a} that the mixing time of MALA for the standard Gaussian is at least $\mathcal O(d^{1/3})$.
Specially, our condition requires the target distribution (after proper rescaling by the sample size $n$) to be close to a multivariate Gaussian subject to small perturbations.
We verify that a wide class of Gibbs posteriors~\citep{bhattacharya2020gibbs,syring2020gibbs}, including conventional Bayesian posteriors defined through likelihood functions, meets our condition under a minimal set of assumptions. One of the assumptions explicitly states an upper bound on the growth of parameter dimension $d$ relative to sample size $n$ in a non-asymptotic manner.
It is worthwhile mentioning that the perturbations in our Condition A are not required to vanish as $n$ tends to infinity; while in the context of Bayesian posteriors, these perturbations indeed decay to zero under minimal assumptions on the statistical model. Therefore, our mixing time result is more generally applicable to problems beyond Bayesian posterior sampling, for example, to optimization of approximately convex functions via simulated annealing~\citep{belloni2015escaping}, where the target distribution can deviate from being smooth and strongly log-concave by a finite amount. In such settings, the computational complexity of sampling
algorithms scales as $\mathcal O(d^{1/3})$ with the variable dimension $d$ under reasonably good initialization while that of a wide class of gradient-based optimization algorithms may scale exponentially~\citep{ma2019sampling}.
Our result on the $\mathcal O(d^{1/3})$ dimension dependence for the mixing time of MALA after the burn-in period for the perturbed Gaussian class strengthens our understanding of sampling from non-smooth and non-log-concave distributions. It also partly fills the gap between the optimal $d^{1/3}$ mixing time for a class of sufficiently regular product distributions derived from the scaling limit approach in~\cite{10.2307/2985986} and the $d^{1/2}$ lower bound on the class of all log-smooth and strongly log-concave distributions obtained in~\cite{pmlr-v134-chewi21a}, by identifying a much larger class of distributions of practical interest that attain the optimal $d^{1/3}$ dimension dependence. Moreover, we introduce a somewhat more general average conductance argument based on the $s$-conductance profile in Section~\ref{mixingboundscp} to improve the warming parameter dependence without deteriorating the dimension dependence. More specifically, our mixing time upper bound improves upon existing results~\citep[e.g.][]{pmlr-v134-chewi21a} in the dependence on the warming parameter $M_0$ from logarithmic to doubly logarithmic (the $\log\log(M_0)$ term in Theorem~\ref{thmala}) when $\log M_0\leq d^{\frac{1}{3}}$, by adapting the $s$-conductance profile and the log-isoperimetric inequality device~\citep{JMLR:v21:19-441}, or more generally, the log-Sobolev inequality device~\citep{lovasz1999faster,kannan2006blocking}, to our target distribution class. In addition, we study a variant of MALA where the (sub-)gradient vector in the Langevin SDE is preconditioned by a matrix for capturing the local geometry, for example, the Fisher information matrix in the context of Bayesian posterior sampling. We illustrate both theoretically (c.f. Corollary~\ref{cor:smoothloss} and Corollary~\ref{co:quantile}) and empirically (c.f. Section~\ref{sec:num}) that MALA with suitable preconditioning may improve the convergence of the sampling algorithm even though the target density is non-differentiable.
Our analysis is motivated by the statistical large sample theory suggesting the Bayesian posterior to be close to a multivariate Gaussian. We develop mixing time bounds of MALA for sampling from
general Gibbs posteriors (possibly with increasing parameter dimension and non-smooth criterion function) by establishing non-asymptotic Bernstein-von Mises results, applying techniques from empirical process theory, including chaining, peeling, and localization. Due to the delicate analysis in our mixing time upper bound proof that utilizes the explicit form of Gaussian distributions for bounding the acceptance probability in each step of MALA, we obtain a better dimension dependence of $d^{1/3}$ than the $d^{1/2}$ dependence derived for general smooth and log-concave densities. In addition, by utilizing our $s$-conductance profile technique, we can obtain a mixing time upper bound for sampling from the original Bayesian posterior instead of a truncated version considered in~\cite{10.2307/30243694}.
\smallskip
\noindent {\bf Organization.} The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section~\ref{sec:prelim}, we describe the background and formally formulate the theoretical problem of analyzing the computational complexity of MALA for Bayesian posterior sampling that is addressed in this work. In Section~\ref{mixingboundscp}, we briefly review some common concepts and existing techniques for analyzing the computational complexity (in terms of mixing time) of a Markov chain, and introduce our improved technique based on $s$-conductance profile.
In Section~\ref{sec:MALA_mixtime}, we apply the generic technique developed in Section~\ref{mixingboundscp} to analyze MALA for Bayesian posterior sampling.
In Section~\ref{sec:application}, we specialize the general mixing bound of MALA to the class of Gibbs posteriors, and apply it to both Gibbs posteriors with smooth and non-smooth loss functions.
Section~\ref{sec:proof_sketch} sketches the main ideas in proving the MALA mixing time bound and discuss some main differences with existing proofs.
Some numerical studies are provided in Section~\ref{sec:num}, where we empirically compare the convergence of MALA and MRW. All proofs and technical details are deferred to the appendices in the supplementary material.
\noindent {\bf Notation.}
For two real numbers, we use $a\wedge b$ and $a\vee b$ to denote the maximum and minimum between $a$ and $b$. For two distributions $p$ and $q$, we use $\|p-q\|_{\scriptsize \rm TV}=\frac{1}{2}\int|p(x)-q(x)|\, {\rm d} x$ to denote their the total variation distance and $\chi^2(p,\,q)$ to denote their $\chi^2$ divergence. We use $\|\cdot\|_p$ to denote the usual vector $\ell_p$ norm, and suppress the subscript when $p=2$. We use $\bold{0}_d$ to denote the $d$-dimensional all zero vector, and $B_r(x)$ to denote the closed ball centered at $x$ with radius $r$ (under the $\ell_2$ distance) in the Euclidean space; in particular, we use $B_r^d$ to denote $B_r(\bold{0}_d)$ when no ambiguity may arise. We use $\mathbb S^{d}=\big\{x\in \mathbb R^{d+1}:\, \|x\|=1\big\}$ to denote the $d$-dimensional sphere. We use $N_d(\mu, \Sigma)$ to denote the $d$-dimensional multivariate Gaussian distribution with mean vector $\mu\in \mathbb{R}^d$ and covariance matrix $\Sigma\in \mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$. We use $\mathcal P(K)$ to denote the set of probability measures on a set $K$. For a function $f:\mathbb R^d\to \mathbb R$, we use $\nabla f(x)$ to denote the $d$-dimensional gradient vector of $f$ at $x$ and ${\rm Hess}(f(x))$ to denote the Hessian matrix of $f$ at $x$. For a matrix $J$, we use $\mnorm{J}_{\scriptsize \rm op}$ and $\mnorm{J}_{\scriptsize \rm F}$ to denote its operator norm and Frobenius norm respectively, and use $\lambda_{\max}(J)$ and $\lambda_{\min}(J)$ to denote the maximal and minimal eigenvalues of $J$. Throughout, $C$, $c$, $C_0$, $c_0$, $C_1$, $c_1$, \ldots are generically used to denote positive constants independent of $n,d$ whose values might change from one line to another.
\section{Background and Problem Setup}\label{sec:prelim}
We first review the Bayesian (pseudo-)posterior framework and the Metropolis-adjusted Langevin algorithm (MALA).
After that, we discuss an extension of MALA to handle the case where the target density is non-smooth by using the subgradient to replace the gradient and formulate the theoretical problem to be addressed in this work.
\subsection{Bayesian pseudo-posterior}\label{pseudo-posterior}
A standard Bayesian model consists of a prior distribution (density) $\pi(\theta)$ over parameter space $\Theta\subset\mathbb R^d$ as the marginal distribution of the parameter $\theta$ and a sampling distribution (density) $p(X\,|\,\theta)$ as the conditional distribution of the observation random variable $X$ given $\theta$.
After obtaining a collection of $n$ observations $X^{(n)}=\{X_1,X_2,\cdots,X_n\}$ modelled as $n$ independent copies of $X$ given $\theta$, we update our beliefs about $\theta$ from the prior by calculating the posterior distribution (density)
\begin{align}\label{eqn:Bayes_post}
p(\theta\,|\,X^{(n)}) = \frac{\exp\big\{\log\pi(\theta)+\log \mathcal L_n(\theta;\,X^{(n)})\big\}}{\int_\Theta \exp\big\{\log\pi(\theta)+\log \mathcal L_n(\theta;\,X^{(n)})\big\}\,{\rm d}\theta}, \quad\theta\in\Theta,
\end{align}
where recall that $\mathcal L_n(\theta;\,X^{(n)})=\prod_{i=1}^n p(X_i|\theta)$ is the likelihood function.
Despite the Bayesian formulation, in our theoretical analysis, we will adopt the frequentist persepective by assuming the data $X^{(n)}$ to be i.i.d.~samples from an unknown data generating distribution $\mathcal P^\ast:\,=p(X\,|\,\theta^\ast)$, where $\theta^\ast$ will be referred to as the true parameter, or simply truth, throughout the rest of the paper.
In many real situations, practitioners may not be interested in learning the entire data generating distribution $\mathcal P^\ast$, but want to draw inference on some characteristic as a functional $\theta=\theta(\mathcal P^\ast)$ of $\mathcal P^\ast$, which alone does not fully specify $\mathcal P^\ast$.
An illustrative example is the quantile regression where the goal is to learn the conditional quantile of the response given the covariates; however, the conventional Bayesian framework requires a full specification of the condition distribution by imposing extra restrictive assumptions on the model, which may lead to model misspecification and sacrifice estimation robustness.
A natural idea to alleviate the limitation of requiring a well-specified likelihood function is to replace the log-likelihood function $\log \mathcal L_n(\theta;\,X^{(n)})$ in the usual Bayesian posterior~\eqref{eqn:Bayes_post} by a criterion function $\mathcal C_n(\theta;\, X^{(n)})$. The resulting distribution,
\begin{align}\label{eqn:Bayes_q_post}
\pi_n(\theta\,|\,X^{(n)}) = \frac{\exp\big\{\log\pi(\theta)+\mathcal C_n(\theta;\,X^{(n)})\big\}}{\int_\Theta \exp\big\{\log\pi(\theta)+ \mathcal C_n(\theta;\,X^{(n)})\big\}\,{\rm d}\theta}, \quad\theta\in\Theta,
\end{align}
is called the Bayesian pseudo-posterior with criterion function $\mathcal C_n:\, \Theta\times \mathcal X^n\to\mathbb R$, and we may use the shorthand $\pi_n(\cdot)$ to denote the pseudo-posterior $\pi_n(\cdot|X^{(n)})$ when no ambiguity may arise. A popular choice of a criterion function is $\mathcal C_n(\theta;\, X^{(n)})=-\alpha\, n\, \mathcal R_n(\theta)$, where
$$\mathcal R_n(\theta):\,=n^{-1} \, \sum_{i=1}^n \ell(X_i,\,\theta)$$ is the empirical risk function induced from a loss function $\ell:\,\mathcal X\times\Theta \to\mathbb R$, and $\alpha\in(0,\infty)$ is the learning rate parameter. The corresponding Bayesian pseudo-posterior is called the Gibbs posterior associated with loss function $\ell$ in the literature~\citep[e.g.\!][]{bhattacharya2020gibbs,syring2020gibbs}.
In particular, the usual Bayesian posterior~\eqref{eqn:Bayes_post} is a special case when the loss function is $\ell(X,\theta)=-\log p(X\,|\,\theta)$ and $\alpha=1$. For Bayesian quantile regression, we may take the check loss function $\ell(x,q) = (q-x)\cdot \big(\tau-\bold{1}(q<x)\big)$ for a given quantile level $\tau\in (0,1)$, since the $\tau$-th quantile of any one-dimensional random variable $X$ corresponds to the population risk function minimizer $\argmin_{q\in\mathbb R}\mathbb E[\ell(X,q)]$.
A direct computation of either the posterior $p(\theta\,|\,X^{(n)})$ or the pseudo-posterior~\eqref{eqn:Bayes_q_post} involves the normalisation constant (the denominator) as a $d$-dimensional integral, which is often analytically intractable unless the prior distributions form a conjugate family to the likelihood (criterion) function. In practice, Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithm~\citep{hastings1970monte,geman1984stochastic,robert2004monte} is instead employed as an automatic machinery for sampling from the (pseudo-)posterior, whose implementation is free of the unknown normalisation constant. The aim of this paper is to provide a rigorous theoretical analysis on the computational complexity of a popular and widely used class of MCMC algorithms described below. In particular, we are interested in characterizing a sharp dependence of their mixing times on the parameter dimension in the context of Bayesian posterior sampling.
\subsection{Metropolis-adjusted Langevin algorithm}\label{intro:MALA}
Consider a generic (possibly unnormalized) density function $f(\theta)=\exp\{-U(\theta)\}$ defined on a set $\Theta\subset\mathbb R^d$, where $U:\, \Theta\to\mathbb R$ is called the potential (function) associated with $f$. For example, in the Bayesian setting with target posterior~\eqref{eqn:Bayes_q_post}, we can take $U(\theta) = -\log\pi(\theta) - \mathcal C_n(\theta;\,X^{(n)})$.
Suppose our goal is to sample from the probability distribution $\mu$ induced by $f$, where $\mu(A)=\frac{\int_A f(\theta)\, {\rm d}\theta}{\int_\Theta f(\theta)\, {\rm d}\theta}$ for any measurable set $A\subset \Theta$.
Metropolis-adjusted Langevin algorithm (MALA), as an instance of MCMC with a special design of the proposal distribution, aims at
producing a sequence of random points $\{\theta_k\}_{k\geq 0}$ in $\Theta$ such that the distribution of $\theta_k$ approaches $\mu$ as $k$ tends to infinity, so that for sufficiently large $k_0$, the $k_0$-th iterate $\theta_{k_0}$ can be viewed as a random variable approximately sampled from the target distribution $\mu$. In practice, every $k_0$ iterates from the chain can be collected (called thinning), which together form approximately independent draws from $\mu$.
Specifically, given step size $\widetilde h>0$ and initial distribution $\mu_0$ on $\Theta$, MALA produces $\{\theta_k\}_{k\geq 0}$ sequentially as follows: for $k=0,1,2,\ldots$,
\begin{enumerate}
\item ({\bf Initialization}) If $k=0$, sample $\theta_0$ from $\mu_0$;
\item ({\bf Proposal}) If $k\geq 1$, given previous state $\theta_{k-1}$, generate a candidate point $y_k$ from proposal distribution $$Q(\theta_{k-1},\,\cdot):\,=N_d\big(\theta_{k-1}-\widetilde h\nabla U(\theta_{k-1}), \,2\widetilde h\, I_d\big),$$
or equivalently,
$$
y_k = \theta_{k-1}-\widetilde h\,\nabla U(\theta_{k-1}) +\sqrt{2\widetilde h} \,z_k,\quad\mbox{with } z_k\sim N_d(0,\, I_d).
$$
\item ({\bf Metropolis-Hasting rejection/correction}) Set acceptance probability $A(\theta_{k-1},\,y_{k}):\,=1\wedge \alpha(\theta_{k-1},\,y_{k})$ with acceptance ratio statistic $$
\alpha(\theta_{k-1},y_{k}):\,=\frac{f(y_k)\,\cdot \,Q(y_k,\,\theta_{k-1})}{f(\theta_{k-1})\cdot Q(\theta_{k-1},\,y_k)}.
$$
Flip a coin and accept $y_k$ with probability $A(\theta_{k-1},\,y_{k})$ and set $\theta_k=y_k$; otherwise, set $\theta_k=\theta_{k-1}$.
\end{enumerate}
In step 3 of above algorithm description, we have ambiguously used $Q:\,\mathcal X\times\mathcal X\to \mathbb R$ to also denote the the transition density function as defined in step 2.
It is straightforward to verify that MALA described above produces a Markov chain whose transition kernel is
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:MALA_tran}
T(\theta,\cdot)=\Big( \underbrace{1-\int_{\Theta} A(\theta,\,y)\, Q(\theta,\,y)\, {\rm d} y}_{\mbox{\small rejection probability}} \Big) \cdot \delta_{\theta}(\cdot)+A(\theta,\,\cdot)\,Q(\theta,\,\cdot),
\end{equation}
where $\delta_\theta$ denotes the point mass measure at $\theta$. In practice, the target density $f$ can be non-smooth at certain point $\theta\in \Theta$, and we address this issue by replacing the gradient $\nabla U(\theta)$ with any of its subgradient $\widetilde\nabla U(\theta)$\footnote{A subgradient of a function $f:\mathbb R^d\to \mathbb R$ at point $x\in\mathbb R^d$ is a vector $g\in\mathbb R^d$ such that
$f(y) \geq f(x) + \langle g,\, y-x \rangle + \mathcal O(\|y-x\|)$ as $y\to x$} in MALA. Furthermore, MALA can be generalized by introducing a symmetric positive-definite preconditioning matrix $\widetilde I\in \mathbb {R}^{d\times d}$, so that the proposal $Q$ in MALA is modified as
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:new_prop}
Q(\theta_{k-1},\cdot)=N_d(\theta_{k-1}-\widetilde h\widetilde{I}\,\widetilde\nabla U(\theta_{k-1}),2\widetilde h\,\widetilde{I}).
\end{equation}
It has been shown that~\citep{https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9868.2010.00765.x,5947220} for a suitable preconditioning matrix, the resulting preconditioned MALA can help to alleviate the issue caused by the anisotropicity of the target measure. We illustrate both empirically (c.f. Section~\ref{sec:num}) and theoretically (c.f.~Corollary~\ref{cor:smoothloss}) that a suitable preconditioning matrix may improve the convergence of the sampling algorithm for Bayesian posteriors.
A closely related algorithm is the unadjusted Langevin algorithm~\citep[ULA,][]{durmus2017nonasymptotic,cheng2018sharp}, which corresponds to discretization of the following Langevin stochastic differential equation (SDE),
$$
{\rm d} X_t= -\nabla U(X_t)\,{\rm d} t+ \sqrt{2}\,{\rm d} B_t, \quad t>0,
$$
and does not have
the Metropolis-Hasting correction step 3. As a consequence, the stationary distribution of ULA is of order $\mathcal O(\sqrt{dh})$ away from $\mu$ under several commonly used metrics~\citep{durmus2019analysis}. Due to this error, even in the strongly log-concave scenario, unlike MALA which requires
at most poly-$\log(1/\varepsilon)$ iterations with a constant step size $h$ to get one sample distributed close from $\mu$ with accuracy $\varepsilon$, ULA requires poly-$(1/\varepsilon)$ iterations and an $\varepsilon$-dependent choice of $h$~\citep{durmus2019analysis}.
Another closely related algorithm is the classical Metropolis random walk (MRW), which instead uses $N_d\big(\theta_{k-1}, \,2\widetilde h\, I_d\big)$ without the gradient term in the proposal distribution $Q$. As we will see, the extra gradient information improves the exploration efficiency as the dimension dependence of the complexity can be improved from $\mathcal O(d)$~\citep{gelman1997weak,JMLR:v20:19-306} to $\mathcal O(d^{1/3})$ in sampling from Bayesian posteriors.
\subsection{Problem setup}\label{sec:problem}
The goal of this paper is to characterize the computational complexity of MALA for sampling from the Bayesian pseudo-posterior $\pi_n$ defined in~\eqref{eqn:Bayes_q_post}. Assume we have access to a \emph{warm start} defined as follows.
\begin{definition}
We say $\mu_0$ is an $M_0$-warm start with respect to the stationary distribution $\mu$, if $\mu_0(E)\leq M_0\, \mu(E)$ holds for all Borel set $E\subset \mathbb R^d$, and we call $M_0$ the warming parameter.
\end{definition}
We state our problem as \emph{characterizing the $\varepsilon$-mixing time in $\chi^2$ divergence of the Markov chain produced by (preconditioned) MALA starting from an $M_0$-warm start $\mu_0$ for obtaining draws from $\pi_{n}(\theta)$}, which is mathematically defined as the minimal number of steps required for the chain to be within $\varepsilon^2$-$\chi^2$ divergence from its stationary distribution, or
\begin{equation*}
\tau_{\rm mix}(\varepsilon, \mu_0)={\inf} \big\{k\in\mathbb N:\,\sqrt{\chi^2\big(\mu_k,\,\pi_{n}(\theta)\big)}\leq \varepsilon\big\},
\end{equation*}
where $\mu_k$ denotes the probability distribution obtained after $k$ steps of the Markov chain. Note that a mixing time upper bound in $\chi^2$ divergence implies that in total variation distance since $\|p-q\|_{\rm TV} \leq \sqrt{\chi^2(p,\,q)}$.
\section{Mixing Time Bounds via $s$-Conductance Profile}\label{mixingboundscp}
In this section, we introduce a general technique of using $s$-conductance profile to bound the mixing time of a Markov chain. We first review some common concepts and previous results in Markov chain convergence analysis, and then provide an improved analysis for obtaining a sharp mixing time upper bound of MALA in this work.
\noindent {\bf Ergodic Markov chains:} Given a Markov transition kernel $T(\cdot,\,\cdot)$ with stationary distribution $\mu\in \mathcal P(\mathbb R^d)$, the ergodic flow of a set $S$ is defined as
$$
\phi(S)=\int_{S} \bigg\{\int_{S^c} T(\xi,\,y)\,{\rm d} y\bigg\}\,{\rm d}\mu(\xi).
$$
It captures the average mass of points leaving $S$ in one step of the Markov chain under stationarity. A Markov chain is said to be ergodic if $\phi(S)>0$ for all measurable set $S\subset \mathbb R^d$ with $0<\mu(S)<1$. Let $\mu_k$ denote the probability distribution obtained after $k$ steps of a Markov chain. If the Markov chain is ergodic, then $\mu_k\to \mu$ as $k\to\infty$ in total variation distance~\citep{3240040402} regardless of the initial distribution $\mu_0$.
\noindent {\bf Conductance of Markov chain and rapid mixing:} The (global) conductance of an ergodic Markov chain characterizes
the least relative ratio between $\phi(S)$ and the measure $\mu(S)$ of $S$, and is formally defined as
$$
\Phi=\inf\bigg\{\frac{\phi(S)}{\mu(S)}:\, 0<\mu(S)\leq \frac{1}{2}\bigg\}.
$$
The conductance is related to the spectral gap\footnote{The spectral gap is define as $\Lambda=\inf\{ \mathcal E(f,f)/{\rm Var}_{\mu}(f)\,:\, f\in L^2(\mu), {\rm Var}_{\mu}(f)>0\}$, where $\mathcal E(f,g)=\int (f(x)-g(y))^2 T(x,y)\,{\rm d} \mu(x)$ is the \emph{Dirichlet form}.} of the Markov chain via Cheeger’s inequality~\citep{cheeger2015lower}, and thus can be used to characterize the convergence of the Markov chain. For example, Corollary 1.5 in~\cite{3240040402} shows that if $\mu_0$ is an $M_0$-warm start with respect to the stationary distribution $\mu$, then
$$
\| \mu_k - \mu\|_{\scriptsize \rm TV} \leq \sqrt{M_0}\, \Big(1-\frac{\Phi^2}{2}\Big)^k,\quad k\geq 0.
$$
In many situations, the more flexible notion of $s$-conductance, defined as
$$
\Phi_s:=\inf\bigg\{ \frac{\phi(S)}{\mu(S)-s}:\, s<\mu(S)\leq \frac{1}{2}\bigg\},\quad\mbox{for }s\in(0,1/2),
$$
can be convenient to use due to technical reasons. Using the $s$-conductance, one can prove a similar bound implying the exponential convergence of the algorithm up to accuracy level $s$ as
$$
\| \mu_k - \mu\|_{\scriptsize \rm TV} \leq M_0\,s+M_0\,\Big(1-\frac{\Phi_s^2}{2}\Big)^k,\quad k\geq 0.
$$
Consequently, the $\varepsilon$-mixing time with respect to the total variation distance of the Markov chain starting from an $M_0$-warm start can be upper bounded by $\frac{2}{\Phi_s^2}\log \frac{2M_0}{\varepsilon}$ if we choose $s=\frac{\varepsilon}{2M_0}$.
\noindent {\bf Conductance profile of Markov chain:} Instead of controlling mixing times via a worst-case conductance bound, some recent works have introduced more refined methods based on the conductance profile. The conductance profile is defined as the following collection of conductance,
$$
\Phi(v):=\inf\bigg\{\frac{\phi(S)}{\mu(S)}\,:\,0<\mu(S)\leq v\bigg\}, \quad \mbox{indexed by }v\in\Big(0,\,\frac{1}{2}\,\Big].
$$
Note that the classic conductance constant $\Phi$ is a special case that can be expressed as $\Phi=\Phi(\frac{1}{2})$. Based on the conductance profile,~\cite{JMLR:v21:19-441} consider the concept of $\Omega$-restricted conductance profile for a convex set $\Omega$, given by
\begin{equation*}
\Phi_{\Omega}(v):=\inf\bigg\{\frac{\phi(S)}{\mu(S\cap \Omega)}\,:\,0<\mu(S\cap \Omega)\leq v\bigg\},\quad v\in\Big(0,\,\frac{\mu(\Omega)}{2}\,\Big].
\end{equation*}
It has been shown in~\cite{JMLR:v21:19-441} that given an $M_0$-warm start $\mu_0$, if $$
\mu(\Omega)\geq 1-\frac{\varepsilon^2}{3M_0^2} \quad\mbox{and}\quad \Phi_{\Omega}(v)\geq \sqrt{B\log \frac{1}{v}} \ \ \mbox{for all } \ v\in \Big[\,\frac{4}{M_0},\,\frac{1}{2}\,\Big],
$$
then the $\varepsilon$-mixing time in $\chi^2$ divergence of the chain is bounded from above by $\mathcal O\big(\frac{1}{B}\log (\frac{\log M_0}{\varepsilon})\big)$. Therefore, compared with the (global) conductance, employing the technique of conductance profile may improve the warming parameter dependence in the mixing time bound from $\log M_0$ to $\log\log M_0$. This improvement from a logarithmic dependence to the double logarithmic dependence may dramatically sharpen the mixing time upper bound, since in a typical Bayesian setting $M_0$ may grow exponentially in the dimension $d$. However, one drawback of the conductance profile technique from~\cite{JMLR:v21:19-441} is that the high probability set $\Omega$ should be constrained to be convex (Lemma 4 of~\cite{JMLR:v21:19-441}) to bound the $\Omega$-restricted conductance profile $\Phi_{\Omega}(v)$. This convexity constraint may cause $\Phi_{\Omega}(v)$ to have a worse dimension dependence compared with the complexity analysis using the $s$-conductance $\Phi_s$.
In order to address the above issues of previous analysis, we introduce the following notion of \emph{$s$-conductance profile }, which combines ideas from the $s$-conductance and conductance profile,
\begin{equation*}
\Phi_s(v):=\inf \left\{\frac{\phi(S)}{\mu(S)-s}\,\bigg|\, s< \mu(S)\leq v\right\} \quad \mbox{indexed by } \ s\in \Big(0,\,\frac{1}{2}\,\Big) \ \ \mbox{and} \ \ v\in \Big(s,\,\frac{1}{2}\,\Big].
\end{equation*}
The $s$-conductance profile evaluated at $v=\frac{1}{2}$ corresponds to the $s$-conductance that is commonly-used in previous study for analyzing the mixing time of Markov chain~\citep{pmlr-v134-chewi21a,JMLR:v20:19-306}. We show in the following lemmas that a lower bound on the $s$-conductance profile can be translated into an upper bound on the mixing time in $\chi^2$-squared divergence.
\begin{lemma}[\bf Mixing time bound via $s$-conductance profile]\label{lemma:mixingtime}
Consider a reversible, irreducible, $\zeta$-lazy\footnote{A Markov chain is said to be $\zeta$-lazy if at each iteration, the chain is forced to stay at previous iterate with probability $\zeta$. The laziness of Markov chain is also assumed in previous analysis based on $s$-conductance~\citep{3240040402} and conductance profile~\citep{JMLR:v21:19-441}.} and smooth Markov chain\footnote{We say that the Markov chain satisfies the smooth chain assumption
if its transition probability function $T$ can be expressed in the form
$T(x,y) =\theta(x,y)+\alpha_x\delta_x(y)$ where $\theta$ is the non-negative transition kernel.} with stationary distribution $\mu$. For any error tolerance $\varepsilon\in(0,1)$, and an $M_0$-warm distribution $\mu_0$, the mixing time in $\chi^2$ divergence of the chain can be bounded as
\begin{equation*}
\tau_{\rm mix}(\varepsilon,\mu_0)\leq \frac{16}{\zeta}\,\int_{\frac{4}{M_0}}^{\frac{1}{2}} \frac{{\rm d} v}{v\,\Phi_s^2(v)}+ \frac{64}{\zeta}\, \int_{\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{4\sqrt{2}}{\varepsilon}} \frac{{\rm d} v}{v\,\Phi_s^2(\frac{1}{2})},
\end{equation*}
where $s=\frac{\varepsilon^2}{16M_0^2}$.
\end{lemma}
\noindent The next lemma shows that the $s$-conductance profile can be lower bounded given one can: 1.~prove a log-isoperimetric inequality for $\mu$; 2.~bound the total variation distance between $T(x,\cdot)$ and $T(z,\cdot)$ for any two sufficiently close points $x, z$ in a high probability set (not necessarily convex) of $\mu$, which will be referred to as the overlap argument.
\begin{lemma}[\bf $s$-conductance profile lower bound]\label{lemma:conductance}
Consider a Markov chain with Markov transition kernel $T$ and stationary distribution $\mu$. Given a tolerance $\varepsilon\in (0,1)$ and warming parameter $M_0$, if there are two sets $K$, $E$, and positive numbers $\lambda$, $\psi$ so that
\begin{enumerate}
\item the probability measure of $\mu$ constrained on $K$, denoted as $\mu|_{K}(\cdot)=\frac{\mu(\cdot\, \cap K)}{\mu(K)}$, satisfies the following log-isoperimetric inequality:
\begin{equation*}
\mu|_{K}(S_3)\geq \lambda\cdot t\cdot \min\big\{ \mu|_{K}(S_1),\, \mu|_{K}(S_2)\big\}\cdot \sqrt{\log\Big(1+\frac{1}{ \min\big\{ \mu|_{K}(S_1), \,\mu|_{K}(S_2)\big\}}\Big)}\ ,
\end{equation*}
for any partition\footnote{$\bigcup_{j=1}^J A_j$ forms a partition of set $\Omega=$ means $\Omega = \bigcup_{j=1}^J A_j$ and $\{A_j\}_{j=1}^J$ are mutually disjoint.} $K=S_1\cup S_2\cup S_3$ satisfying $\inf_{x\in S_1, y\in S_2}\|x-z\|\geq t$;
\item for any $x,z\in E$, if $\|x-z\|\leq \psi$, then $\|T(x,\cdot)-T(z,\cdot)\|_{\rm TV}\leq \frac{17}{18}$;
\item it holds that $\mu(E)\geq 1-(\lambda\psi\wedge 1)\,\frac{\varepsilon^2}{256M_0^2}$ and $\mu(K)\geq 1-(\lambda\psi\wedge 1)\,\frac{\varepsilon^2}{256M_0^2}$;
\end{enumerate}
then the $s$-conductance profile $\Phi_s(v)$ with $s=\frac{\varepsilon^2}{16M_0^2}$ can be bounded from below by
\begin{equation*}
\Phi_s(v)\geq \frac{1}{72}\,\min\bigg\{1,\,\frac{\lambda\,\psi}{9} \sqrt{\log\big(1+\frac{1}{v}\big)}\,\bigg\}.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\smallskip
\noindent By combining this lemma with Lemma~\ref{lemma:mixingtime}, we obtain that if the assumptions in Lemma~\ref{lemma:conductance} hold, then the mixing time of the chain can be bounded as
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\tau_{\rm mix}(\varepsilon,\mu_0)&\leq \frac{C_1}{\zeta}\, \log M_0+ \frac{C_1}{\zeta}\, \lambda^{-2}\psi^{-2} \log(\log M_0) + \frac{C_1}{\zeta}\, \lambda^{-2}\psi^{-2}\log \frac{1}{\varepsilon},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
for some universal constant $C_1$. Therefore, the problem of bounding the mixing time can be converted to verify the assumptions in Lemma~\ref{lemma:conductance}.
Among previous works of mixing time analysis of MALA,~\cite{JMLR:v21:19-441} study the problem of sampling from general smooth and strongly log-concave densities, using the technique of $\Omega$-restricted conductance profile. Their bound has a double logarithmic $\log\log M_0$ dependence on the warmth parameter $M_0$ under certain regime (of step size $h$), and a sub-optimal $\mathcal O(d)$-dependence on the dimension. The reason is that to bound the $\Omega$-restricted conductance profile $\Phi_{\Omega}(v)$, they require the set $E=\Omega$ to be convex in their version of lemma~\ref{lemma:conductance}, which may lead to a smaller $\psi$ and deteriorate the dimension dependence in the mixing time. On the other hand,~\cite{pmlr-v134-chewi21a} study the same problem as~\cite{JMLR:v21:19-441} and obtain a mixing time bound with an optimal $\mathcal O(d^{\frac{1}{2}})$-dependence, based on the $s$-conductance technique. However, the bound in~\cite{pmlr-v134-chewi21a} has a quadratic dependence on $\log M_0$. By utilizing our $s$-conductance profile argument, we can improve their bounds from $h^{-1}\log(\frac{M_0}{\epsilon})$ to $\max\{h^{-1}\log(\frac{\log M_0}{\epsilon}),\, \log M_0\}$, where $h$ is the step size used in Theorem 3 of~\cite{pmlr-v134-chewi21a}.
\section{Mixing Time of MALA}\label{sec:MALA_mixtime}
In this section, we describe our main result by providing an upper bound to the mixing time of (preconditioned) MALA for sampling from the Bayesian pseudo-posterior $\pi_n$. As a common practice~\citep{JMLR:v21:19-441,https://doi.org/10.1002/rsa.3240040402} to simplify the analysis, we consider the $\zeta$-lazy version of MALA\footnote{The corresponding Markov transition kernel of the $\zeta$-lazy version of MALA is given by $T(\theta,\cdot)=\big(1-(1-\zeta)\cdot\int_{\Theta}A(\theta,y)\,Q(\theta,y)\, {\rm d} y\big)\cdot\delta_{\theta}(\cdot)+(1-\zeta)\cdot A(\theta,\cdot)Q(\theta,\cdot)$, where $A(\cdot,\cdot)$ and $Q(\cdot,\cdot)$ are defined in Section~\ref{intro:MALA}.}, where at each iteration, the chain is forced to remain unchanged with probability $\zeta$.
Moreover, We assume that a warm start is accessible, which is another common assumption~\citep[e.g.][]{JMLR:v20:19-306,mangoubi2019nonconvex}. For example, Corollary~\ref{cor:smoothloss} in Section~\ref{sec:smoothloss} provides a construction of $M_0$-warm start for general Gibbs posterior with smooth criterion function, where $M_0$ is bounded above by an $(n,d)$-independent constant.
Note that the Bayesian pseudo-posterior with criterion function $\mathcal C_n$ can be rewritten as
\begin{align}
&\qquad\qquad \pi_{n}(\theta\,|\,X^{(n)}) = \frac{\exp\big\{-V_n\big(\sqrt{n}(\theta-\widehat\theta)\big)\big\}}{\int_{\Theta} \exp\big\{-V_n\big(\sqrt{n}(\theta-\widehat\theta)\big)\big\}\,{\rm d}\theta} \quad \forall \theta\in\Theta, \label{Eqn:loc_posterior}\\
&\qquad\mbox{where}\quad \hat\theta=\underset{\theta\in \Theta}{\argmax}\,\,\mathcal C_n(\theta) \quad\mbox{and}\\
& V_n(\xi)=-\mathcal C_n\Big(\widehat{\theta}+\frac{\xi}{\sqrt{n}};X^{(n)}\Big)+\mathcal C_n\big(\widehat{\theta}\,; X^{(n)}\big)-\log \pi\Big(\widehat{\theta}+\frac{\xi}{\sqrt{n}}\Big)+\log \pi(\widehat\theta\,) \notag
\end{align}
is the corresponding rescaled potential (function). In the expression of $V_n$, we deliberately added two terms independent of $\xi$ so that $V_n(0)=0$ for simplifying the analysis. Motivated by the classical Bernstein-von Mises theorem\footnote{When sample size $n$ is large, the Bayesian posterior is close to the Gaussian distribution $N_d(\widehat{\theta}_{\rm MLE},\,n^{-1}\mathcal J^{-1})$, where $\widehat{\theta}_{\rm MLE}$ is the maximum likelihood estimator and $\mathcal J$ the Fisher information matrix.}~\citep{van2000asymptotic} for Bayesian posteriors, we impose following conditions on $V_n$, stating that $V_n(\xi)$ is close to a quadratic form and the subgradient of $V_n(\xi)$ employed in MALA is close to a linear form, uniformly over a high probability set of the rescaled target measure $\pi_{\rm loc}=(\sqrt{n}(\cdot-\widehat\theta))_{\#}\pi_n$.\footnote{We use $\mu=G_{\#}\nu$ to denote the push forward measure so that for any measurable set $A$, $\mu(A)=\nu(G^{-1}(A))$.}
\paragraph{Condition A:} Given a tolerance $\varepsilon\in (0,1)$, preconditioning matrix $\widetilde I$, step size parameter $h$ (rescaled by $n$), warming parameter $M_0$ and numbers $R,\widetilde\varepsilon_1\geq 0$, $\rho_1,\rho_2>0$. There exists a symmetric positive definite matrix $J\in \mathbb R^{d\times d}$ so that
\begin{enumerate}
\item for any $\xi\in K=\{x:\|\widetilde I^{-1/2}x\|\leq R\}$\footnote{Here the notation $A^{-1/2}$ of a symmetric positive definite matrix $A$ means the inverse of its matrix square root $A^{1/2}$.}
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\big|V_n(\xi)-\frac{1}{2}{\xi^TJ\xi} \big|\leq 0.04 \quad\mbox{and}\quad
\big\|\widetilde{\nabla}V_n(\xi)-J\xi\|\leq\widetilde\varepsilon_1,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
where $\widetilde{\nabla}V_n(\xi)$ is a subgradient of $V_n(\xi)$;
\item $\rho_1 I_d \preceq \widetilde J=\widetilde{I}^{1/2} J \widetilde{I}^{1/2} \preceq \rho_2 I_d$;
\item $\pi_n\big(\sqrt{n}\,\|\widetilde {I}^{-1/2}(\theta-\widehat\theta)\|\leq R/2\big)\geq 1-\frac{h\rho_1\varepsilon^2}{M_0^2}$ and $R\geq 8\sqrt{d/\lambda_{\min}(\widetilde J)}\,$.
\end{enumerate}
\smallskip
Condition A requires the localized (rescaled) posterior $\pi_{\rm loc}=(\sqrt{n}(\cdot-\widehat\theta))_{\#}\pi_n$ to be close to a Gaussian distribution $N_d(0,J^{-1})$, so that we can analyze the mixing time of MALA for sampling $\pi_n$ or $\pi_{\rm loc}$ (note that the complexity for sampling from $\pi_n$ with step size $\widetilde h=h/n$ is equivalent to that from $\pi_{\rm loc}$ with rescaled step size $h$) by comparing its transition kernel $T$ expressed in~\eqref{eqn:MALA_tran} with the transition kernel $T^{\Delta}$ induced from the MALA for sampling the Gaussian distribution. Interestingly, we find that as long as the deviance of $\pi_{\rm loc}$ to Gaussian is sufficiently small but not necessarily diminishing as $n,d\to \infty$, some key properties (more precisely, conductance lower bound) of $T^\Delta$ guarantee that the fast mixing of MALA will be inherited by $T$, so that the mixing time associated with $T$ can be controlled. Using this argument, we prove a mixing time upper bound without imposing the smoothness and strongly convexity assumptions on $V_n(\xi)$ that are restrictive and commonly assumed in the literature for analyzing the convergence of MALA~\citep{pmlr-v134-chewi21a,JMLR:v21:19-441}. As a concrete example, Theorem~\ref{th:Gibbsmixing} in Section~\ref{sec:application} shows that under mild assumptions, Condition A holds for the broad class of all Gibbs posteriors~\citep{bhattacharya2020gibbs} mentioned in Section~\ref{pseudo-posterior} where the criterion function $\mathcal C_n$ is proportional to the negative empirical risk function $\mathcal R_n$, as long as $d$ is relatively small compared to $n$.
Now we are ready to state the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}[\bf MALA mixing time upper bound]\label{thmala}
Consider a tolerance $\varepsilon\in (0,1)$, lazy parameter $\zeta\in (0,\frac{1}{2}]$, preconditioning matrix $\widetilde I$, warming parameter $M_0$, and the target distribution $\pi_{n}$ defined in~\eqref{Eqn:loc_posterior}. Consider the step size $\widetilde h=h/n$ with
\begin{equation*}
h=c_0\cdot\bigg[\rho_2\Big(d^{\frac{1}{3}}+d^{\frac{1}{4}}\big(\log \frac{M_0d\kappa}{\varepsilon}\big)^{\frac{1}{4}}+\big(\log \frac{M_0d\kappa}{\varepsilon}\big)^{\frac{1}{2}}+\mnorm{\widetilde I}_{\rm op}R^2\widetilde\varepsilon_1^2\Big)\bigg]^{-1}, \text{ where } \kappa=\frac{\rho_2}{\rho_1}.
\end{equation*}
There exists some small enough absolute $(n,d)$-independent constants $c_0$ so that if Condition A holds for some $R$, $\widetilde\varepsilon_1\geq 0$ and $\rho_2\geq\rho_1>0$, then the $\zeta$-lazy version of MALA with an $M_0$-warm start $\mu_0$, proposal distribution given in~\eqref{eqn:new_prop} and step size $\widetilde h$ has $\varepsilon$-mixing time in $\chi^2$ divergence bounded as
\begin{equation}\label{mixingbound}
\tau_{\rm mix}(\varepsilon,\mu_0)\leq \frac{C_1}{\zeta} \cdot\bigg\{\bigg[\rho_1^{-1}\cdot h^{-1}\log\big(\frac{\log M_0}{\varepsilon}\big)\bigg]\vee \log M_0\bigg\},
\end{equation}
where $C_1$ is an $(n,d)$-independent constant.
\end{theorem}
The mixing time bound~\eqref{mixingbound} is proved using the technique of $s$-conductance profile introduced in Section~\ref{mixingboundscp}. A similar mixing time bound can be obtained if when consider the sampling of $\pi_{\rm loc}$ constrained on the high probability set $K=\{x:\|\widetilde I^{-1/2}x\|\leq R\}$, which is adopted by~\cite{10.2307/30243694} for analyzing the mixing time of WRW; however, our result does not require such a constraining step. According to Theorem~\ref{thmala}, for a fixed tolerance (accuracy level) $\varepsilon$, the $\varepsilon$-mixing time is determined by the parameter dimension $d$, warming parameter $M_0$, preconditioning matrix $\widetilde I$, approximation error $\widetilde\varepsilon_1$ of the gradient, radius $R$ of the high probability set of $\pi_{\rm loc}$ and the precision matrix $J$ of the Gaussian approximation to $\pi_{\rm loc}$. The forth term $\mnorm{\widetilde I}_{\rm op}R^2\widetilde\varepsilon_1^2$ in the expression of $h$ will be dominated by others once $\widetilde\varepsilon_1$ is sufficiently small. For example, suppose $\widetilde I =I_d$, $\log \frac{M_0\kappa}{\varepsilon}=\mathcal O(d)$ and $\pi_{\rm loc}$ has a sub-Gaussian type tail behavior, or
$$
\pi_{\rm loc}\big(\|\xi\|\geq c_1(\sqrt{d}+t)\big)\leq \exp(-c_2 t^2), \quad t>0,
$$
then we can choose the radius as $R=\mathcal O(\sqrt{d})$, and the term $\mnorm{\widetilde I}_{\rm op}R^2\widetilde\varepsilon_1^2$ will be dominated by the $\mathcal O(d^{\frac{1}{3}})$ term once $\widetilde\varepsilon_1=\mathcal O(d^{-\frac{1}{3}})$. This suggests that a $d^{\frac{1}{3}}$-mixing time upper bound is achievable as long as the (sub)gradient used in MALA deviates from a linear form with approximation error at most $d^{-\frac{1}{3}}$, which is independent of the sample size. Therefore, when $d\ll n$, it is safe to fix a mini-batch dataset for computing the (sub)gradient in MALA instead of using the full batch. As another remark, our theorem also gives a sharp mixing time upper bound $\mathcal O(d)$ of WRW by taking $\widetilde{\varepsilon}_1=O(1)$, corresponding to the case where the gradient estimate is completely uninformative.
Our mixing time bound has a linear dependence (modulo logarithmic term) on the condition number $\kappa={\rho_2}/{\rho_1}$. While among previous studies, the best condition number dependence for MALA under strong convexity is ${\rho_2^{{4}/{3}}}/{\rho_1^{{3}/{2}}}$~\citep{pmlr-v134-chewi21a}. Note that the gradient descent (without acceleration) for optimizing a strongly convex function also has a complexity linear in the conditional number, suggesting our result to be tight. Moreover, by introducing preconditioning matrix $\widetilde I$, a small condition number can be obtained once $\widetilde I$ acts as a reasonable estimator to $J^{-1}$, which will lead to a faster mixing time when $J$ is ill-conditioned. On the other hand, assume $\kappa$ is bounded above by an $(n,d)$-independent constant and
$$
\big(\mnorm{\widetilde I}_{\rm op}R^2\widetilde\varepsilon_1^2\big)\vee \log \Big(\frac{M_0}{\varepsilon}\Big)\leq d^{\frac{1}{3}},
$$
we have $\tau_{\rm mix}(\varepsilon,\mu_0)\leq C_1\, d^{\frac{1}{3}}\log (\frac{\log M_0}{\varepsilon})$. This upper bound matches the lower bound proved in~\cite{pmlr-v134-chewi21a} that the mixing time of MALA for sampling from the standard Gaussian target is at least $\mathcal O(d^{\frac{1}{3}})$, and it improves the warming parameter dependence from $\log M_0$ to $\log(\log M_0)$ compared with the upper bound proved in~\cite{pmlr-v134-chewi21a}. Therefore, in order to attain the best achievable mixing time $\mathcal O(d^{\frac{1}{3}})$, we need to find a initial distribution $\mu_0$ that is close to $\pi_{n}$, so that the warming parameter $M_0$ can be controlled. For $\pi_{n}$ that is close to a Gaussian, it is natural to use the Gaussian distribution $N_d(\widehat \theta,n^{-1}\widetilde I)$ constrained on a compact set as the initialization $\mu_0$. The following lemma provides an upper bound to the corresponding warming parameter $M_0$.
\begin{lemma}[\bf Warming parameter control]\label{lemma:Warm}
For any compact set $K\subset \mathbb R^d$, the initial distribution as
\begin{equation*}
\mu_0=N_d(\widehat \theta,n^{-1}\widetilde{I})|_{\{\theta\,:\,\sqrt{n}(\theta-\widehat\theta)\in K\}}
\end{equation*}
is $M_0$-warm with respect to $\pi_{n}$, where
\begin{equation*}
\log M_0\leq -\log \pi_n\big(\{\theta\,:\,\sqrt{n}(\theta-\widehat\theta)\in K\}\big)\,+\,\underset{\xi\in K}{\sup}{\big|\,\xi^T(\widetilde I^{-1}-J)\xi\big|}\,+\,2\cdot\underset{\xi \in K}{\sup}|V_n(\xi)-\frac{1}{2}x^TJx|.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\noindent
Our theoretical results suggest that under condition A we may control the warming parameter $M_0$ in MALA by choosing a reasonable estimator $\widetilde I$ to the asymptotic covariance matrix $ J^{-1}$ of $\pi_{\rm loc}$. For example, for Bayesian Gibbs posterior sampling where the loss function $\ell$ is continuously twice differentiable, we may choose the plug-in estimator
$$
{\widetilde I}=\bigg\{\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n {\rm Hess}_{\theta}(\ell(X_i,
\widehat\theta))\bigg\}^{-1}
$$
for $J^{-1}$, where ${\rm Hess}_{\theta}(\ell(x,\theta))$ denotes the Hessian matrix of $\ell(x,\cdot)$ evaluated at $\theta$ (see Corollary~\ref{cor:smoothloss} for more details).
\smallskip
\noindent According to Lemma~\ref{lemma:Warm} and Theorem~\ref{thmala}, a reasonably good approximation to matrix $J$ in Condition A will improve both the mixing time of MALA after burn-in period and the initialization affecting the burn-in.
However, in some complicated problems especially when $\log \pi_{\rm loc}$ is not differentiable, a good estimator for the matrix $J$ may not be easy to construct. One possible strategy is to use adaptive MALA~\citep{Atchade_2006}, where the preconditioner $\widetilde I$ and step size $h$ are updated in each iteration by using the history draws. It has been empirically shown in~\cite{Atchade_2006} that adaptive MALA outperforms non-adaptive counterparts in many interesting applications.
We leave a rigorous theoretical analysis of adaptive MALA as a future direction.
\section{Sampling from Gibbs Posteriors}\label{sec:application}
Recall from Section~\ref{pseudo-posterior} that a Gibbs posterior is a Bayesian pseudo-posterior defined in~\eqref{eqn:Bayes_q_post} with the criterion function $\mathcal C_n(\theta;\, X^{(n)})=-\alpha\, n\, \mathcal R_n(\theta)$, where $\alpha$ is an $(n,d)$-independent positive learning rate and $\mathcal R_n(\theta):\,=n^{-1} \, \sum_{i=1}^n \ell(X_i,\,\theta)$ is the empirical risk function induced from a loss function $\ell:\,\mathcal X\times\Theta \to\mathbb R$. In this section, we first provide generic conditions under which Condition A for Theorem~\ref{thmala} can be verified for the the Gibbs posterior so that the mixing time bound of the corresponding MALA can be applied. After that, we specialize the result to two representative cases: Gibbs posterior with a generic smooth loss function, and Gibbs posterior in Bayesian quantile regression where the check loss function is non-smooth.
Firstly, we make the following smoothness and local convexity conditions on the population level risk function $\mathcal R(\theta)=\mathbb E[\ell(X,\theta)]$. Recall that $\theta^\ast={\arg\min}_{\theta\in \Theta} \mathcal R(\theta)$ denotes the true parameter. The key idea is that although the sample level risk function (i.e.~empirical risk function) $\mathcal R_n$ is allowed to be non-smooth, but as the sample size $n$ grows, it becomes closer and closer to the population level risk function $\mathcal R(\theta)$, which can be properly analyzed if smooth.
\vspace{0.5em}
\noindent \textbf{Condition B.1 (Risk function):} For some $(n,d)$-independent constants $(C'
,C,r)>0$ and $( \gamma_0,\gamma_1,\gamma_2 )\geq 0$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\mathcal R(\theta)$ is twice differentiable with mixed partial derivatives of order two being uniformly bounded by $C$ on $B_r(\theta^\ast)$; for any $\theta\in \Theta$, $\mathcal R(\theta)-\mathcal R(\theta^\ast)\geq C'\,d^{-\gamma_0}\,(d^{-\gamma_1}\wedge\|\theta-\theta^\ast\|^2)$.
\item Let $\mathcal H_{\theta}$ denote the Hessian of $\mathcal R$ at $\theta$. For any $\theta\in B_r(\theta^\ast)$, $\mnorm{\mathcal H_{\theta}-\mathcal H_{\theta^\ast}}_{\scriptsize \rm op}\leq C\,d^{\gamma_2}\|\theta-\theta^\ast\|$.
\end{enumerate}
\noindent We then make the following Lipschitz continuity assumption on the loss function $\ell$.
\vspace{0.5em}
\noindent \textbf{Condition B.2 (Loss function):} There exist $(n,d)$-independent constants $C>0$ and $\gamma\geq 0$ such that for any $x\in \mathcal X$ and $(\theta,\,\theta')\in \Theta^2$, it holds that $|\ell (x,\theta)-\ell(x,\theta')|\leq C\, d^{\gamma}\,\|\theta-\theta'\|$.
\vspace{0.5em}
\noindent Next, we assume a function $g: \mathcal X\times \Theta \to \mathbb R^d$ to satisfy the following conditions. For example, we may take $g(x,\cdot)$ as the gradient (any subgradient) of $\ell(x,\cdot)$ for $x\in\mathcal X$ when $\ell$ is (not) differentiable.
\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{Condition B.3 (Subgradient of loss function):} For some $(n,d)$-independent constants $(C,r,\beta_1)$ and $(\gamma_3,\gamma_4)$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item For any $\theta\in B_r(\theta^\ast)$, it holds $\mathbb E [g(X,\theta)]=\nabla \mathcal R(\theta)$ and $\sup_{x\in \mathcal X} \|g(x,\theta)\|\leq C\,d^{\gamma}$, where $\gamma$ is the same as that defined in Condition B.2.
\item Let $d_n^{g}(\theta,\theta')=\sqrt{n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^n \|g(X_i,\theta)-g(X_i,\theta')\|^2}\,$ be a pseudo-metric. The logarithm of the $\varepsilon$-covering number of $B_r(\theta^\ast)$ with respect to $d_n^{g}$ is upper bounded by $C\,d\log(\frac{nd}{\varepsilon})$.
\item For any $v\in \mathbb S^{d-1}$ and $\theta,\, \theta'\in B_r(\theta^\ast)$, it holds that $\mathbb{E} \big[\big(v^Tg(X,\theta)-v^Tg(X,\theta')\big)^2 \big]\leq C\,d^{\gamma_3}\,\|\theta-\theta'\|^{2\beta_1}$ and $\mathbb{E}\big[\big(\ell(X,\theta)-\ell(X,\theta')-g(X,\theta')(\theta-\theta')\big)^2\big]\leq Cd^{\gamma_3}\, \|\theta-\theta'\|^{2+2\beta_1}$.
\item Let $\Delta_{\theta^\ast}=\mathbb E[\,g(X,\theta^\ast)\,g(X,\theta^\ast)^T]$ be the covariance matrix of the ``score vector'' $g(X,\theta^\ast)$. It holds that $\mathcal H_{\theta^\ast}^{-1}\Delta_{\theta^\ast} \mathcal H_{\theta^\ast}^{-1}\preceq Cd^{\gamma_4}\,I_d$.
\end{enumerate}
\noindent Note that Conditions B.1-B.3 do not require the loss function $\ell(x,\,\theta)$ to be differentiable with respect to $\theta$. In particular, in many statistical applications, the expectation in the population level risk function $\mathcal R(\theta)=\mathbb E[\ell(X,\theta)]$ has the smoothing effect of rendering $\mathcal R$ to be twice differentiable. Note that the Conditions B.1-B.3 can cover the usual smooth case where the loss function is continuously twice differentiable (c.f. Corollary~\ref{cor:smoothloss}); and also general cases with non-smooth loss, such as quantile regression (c.f. Corollary~\ref{co:quantile}). In addition, we assume the following smoothness condition to the prior and compactness of the parameter space.
\vspace{0.5em}
\noindent\textbf{Condition B.4 (Prior and parameter space):} There exist positive $(n,d)$-independent constants $(C,r)$ so that the parameter space $\Theta$ satisfies $B_r(\theta^\ast)\subset \Theta\subset [-C,C]^d$, and for any $\theta \in \Theta$, $\|\nabla (\log \pi) (\theta)\|\leq C\sqrt{d}$.
\vspace{0.5em}
\noindent Finally, we made the following conditions to the preconditioning matrix $\widetilde I$.
\smallskip
\noindent\textbf{Condition C (Preconditioning matrix):} There exist some $(n,d)$-independent constants $C$ so that the preconditioning matrix $\widetilde I$ satisfies that
\begin{equation*}
\mnorm{\widetilde I^{-1}}_{\rm op}\mnorm{\widetilde I}_{\rm op}\leq C \mnorm{\mathcal H_{\theta^*}}_{\rm op}\mnorm{\mathcal H_{\theta^*}^{-1}}_{\rm op}\quad\text{and}\quad {\mnorm{\widetilde I}_{\rm op}\mnorm{(\widetilde I^{\frac{1}{2}}H_{\theta^*}\widetilde I^{\frac{1}{2}})^{-1}}_{\rm op}}\leq C\, \mnorm{\mathcal H_{\theta^*}^{-1}}_{\rm op}.
\end{equation*}
\begin{remark}
The requirement for the preconditioning matrix $\widetilde I$ holds when $\widetilde I$ and its inverse has constant-order eigenvalues, such as the identity matrix that is conventionally used in MALA. On the other hand, it can also cover the case when $\widetilde I$ acts as a reasonable estimator to $\mathcal H_{\theta^*}^{-1}$ (i.e, $\widetilde{I}^{1/2} \mathcal H_{\theta^*} \widetilde{I}^{1/2}$ and its inverse has constant-order eigenvalues).
\end{remark}
\noindent We now state the following theorem that provides a mixing time bound for sampling from a Gibbs posterior using MALA. Note that the (sub)gradient $g$ is used for constructing the proposal in each step MALA.
\begin{theorem}[\bf Complexity of MALA for Bayesian sampling]\label{th:Gibbsmixing}
Consider sampling from the Bayesian Gibbs posteriors where $\mathcal C_n(\theta;\, X^{(n)})=-n\,\alpha\,\mathcal R_n(\theta)$. Under Conditions B.1-B.4 and Condition C, consider positive numbers $\rho_1,\rho_2$, warming parameter $M_0$ and tolerance $\varepsilon$ satisfying (1) $\rho_1 I_d \preceq \widetilde{I}^{1/2} \mathcal H_{\theta^*} \widetilde{I}^{1/2} \preceq \rho_2 I_d$; (2) $\log (\frac{M_0}{\varepsilon})\leq C_1\,(d^{\gamma_5}+\log n)$ for $(n,d)$-independent constants $C_1$ and $\gamma_5\geq 1$. Let
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
&\kappa_1
= {\frac{1}{1+2\gamma+6\gamma_0+4\gamma_2+\gamma_4}}\wedge {\frac{\beta_1}{1+\gamma_3+[(2\gamma_0)\vee ((\gamma_5+\gamma_0)(1+\beta_1))]}}\wedge \frac{1}{\gamma_0+\gamma_1+\gamma_5}\\
&\wedge {\frac{1}{2\gamma+2\gamma_0+2\gamma_1+[2\vee (1+\gamma_4)]}}\wedge {\frac{1}{3\gamma_5+\gamma_0+[(2\gamma)\vee (\gamma_4+2\gamma_2+\gamma_0)\vee(2\gamma_2+2\gamma_0)]}}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
If $d\leq c \frac{n^{\kappa_1}}{\log n}$ for a small enough constant $c$, then with probability at least $1-n^{-1}$, the mixing time bound~\eqref{mixingbound} in Theorem~\ref{thmala} holds for
\begin{equation*}
h=c_0\cdot\bigg[\rho_2\Big(d^{\frac{1}{3}}+d^{\frac{1}{4}}\big(\log \frac{M_0d\kappa}{\varepsilon}\big)^{\frac{1}{4}}+\big(\log \frac{M_0d\kappa}{\varepsilon}\big)^{\frac{1}{2}}\Big)\bigg]^{-1}, \text{ where } \kappa=\frac{\rho_2}{\rho_1},
\end{equation*}
and $c_0$ is an $(n,d)$-independent constant.
\end{theorem}
\noindent Theorem~\ref{th:Gibbsmixing} is proved by verifying Condition A for Bayesian Gibbs posteriors. The classical proof of the Gaussian approximation of Bayesian posteriors with smooth likelihoods is based on the Taylor expansion of the likelihood function around $\widehat\theta$~\citep[e.g.~see][]{Ghosh2003}. For the general non-smooth cases, we instead apply the Taylor expansion to the population level risk function $\mathcal R$ and use chaining and localization techniques in the empirical process theory to relate it to the sample version. Moreover, we keep track of the parameter dimension dependence, making Theorem~\ref{th:Gibbsmixing} adaptable to more general cases under increasing dimension.
\subsection{Gibbs posterior with smooth loss function}\label{sec:smoothloss}
One representative example of Gibbs posterior satisfying Conditions B.1-B.4 is the one equipped with a smooth loss function. More specifically, we need Condition B.1 for the local convexity of the risk function, Condition B.4 for the smoothness of the prior and the following smoothness condition to the loss function.
\noindent\textbf{Condition B.3' (Smoothness of loss function):}. There exist some $(n,d)$-independent constants $C>0$ and $(\gamma,\gamma_2,\gamma_3,\gamma_4)\geq 0$ so that (1) the loss function is twice differentiable so that for any $x\in \mathcal X$ and $\theta\in \Theta$, $\|\nabla_{\theta}\ell(x,\theta)\|\leq Cd^{\gamma}$; $\mnorm{{\rm Hess}_{\theta}(\ell(x,\theta))}_{\rm op}^2\leq Cd^{\gamma_3}$;\footnote{We use $\nabla_{\theta}\ell(x,\theta)$ and ${\rm Hess}_{\theta}(\ell(x,\theta))$ to denote the gradient and Hessian matrix of $\ell_x(\cdot)=\ell(x,\cdot)$ evaluated at $\theta$, respectively. } and for any $\theta,\theta'\in \Theta$, $\vert\kern-0.25ex\vert\kern-0.25ex\vert{\rm Hess}_{\theta}(\ell(x,\theta))-{\rm Hess}_{\theta}(\ell(x,\theta'))\vert\kern-0.25ex\vert\kern-0.25ex\vert_{\rm op}\leq C\, d^{\gamma_2}\|\theta-\theta'\|$; (2) let $\Delta_{\theta^*}=\mathbb{E}[\nabla_{\theta} \ell(X,\theta^*)\nabla_{\theta} \ell(X,\theta^*)^T]$, then $\mathcal H_{\theta^*}^{-1}\Delta_{\theta^*}\mathcal H_{\theta^*}^{-1}\preceq C\, d^{\gamma_4}I_d $.
\begin{corollary}[\bf Sampling from smooth posteriors]\label{cor:smoothloss}
Consider the Bayesian Gibbs posterior with loss function $\ell$. Suppose (1) Conditions B.1, B.3' and B.4 hold; (2) the warming parameter $M_0$ and tolerance $\varepsilon$ satisfying $\log (\frac{M_0}{\varepsilon})\leq C_1\,(d^{\gamma_5}+\log n)$ for $(n,d)$-independent constants $C_1$ and $\gamma_5\geq 1$; (3) $d\leq c\frac{n^{\kappa_1}}{\log n}$ for a small enough constant $c$, where $\kappa_1$ is defined in Theorem~\ref{th:Gibbsmixing} with $\beta_1=1$. Then there exists an $(n,d)$-independent constant $c_0$ so that it holds with probability at least $1-n^{-1}$ that
\begin{enumerate}
\item consider the identity preconditioning matrix $\widetilde I=I_d$. the mixing time upper bound~\eqref{mixingbound} holds for any $\rho_1\leq \rho_2$ so that $\rho_1I_d\preceq\mathcal H_{\theta^*}\preceq\rho_2I_d$, $\log (\frac{\rho_1}{\rho_2})\leq C_1 d^{\gamma_5}$ and
\begin{equation*}
h=c_0\cdot\bigg[\rho_2\cdot\Big(d^{\frac{1}{3}}+d^{\frac{1}{4}}\big(\log \frac{M_0d}{\varepsilon}\big)^{\frac{1}{4}}+\big(\log \frac{M_0d}{\varepsilon}\big)^{\frac{1}{2}}\Big)\bigg]^{-1};
\end{equation*}
\item consider the inverse empirical Hessian matrix $\widetilde I=\big(n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^n {\rm Hess}_{\theta}(\ell(X_i,\widehat\theta))\big)^{-1}$, then the mixing time upper bound~\eqref{mixingbound} holds with $\rho_1=\frac{1}{2}$ and
\begin{equation*}
h=c_0\cdot\bigg[\Big(d^{\frac{1}{3}}+d^{\frac{1}{4}}\big(\log \frac{M_0d}{\varepsilon}\big)^{\frac{1}{4}}+\big(\log \frac{M_0d}{\varepsilon}\big)^{\frac{1}{2}}\Big)\bigg]^{-1};
\end{equation*}
moreover, let $\mu_0=N_d(\widehat\theta,n^{-1}\widetilde I)\big|_{\{\theta:\sqrt{n}\widetilde I^{-\frac{1}{2}}(\theta-\widehat\theta)\|\leq 3c_1\sqrt{d}\}}$, where $c_1$ is a constant so that
$c_1\geq 3\vee \underset{i\in [d],j\in [d]}{\sup} \frac{\partial^2\mathcal R(\theta^*)}{\partial \theta_i\partial\theta_j} $, then $\mu_0$ is $M_0$-warm with respect to $\pi_n$ with $\log M_0\leq 2$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{corollary}
When the Hessian matrix $\mathcal H_{\theta^*}$ is ill-conditioned, introducing the preconditioning matrix
$$\widetilde I=\big(n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^n {\rm Hess}_{\theta}(\ell(X_i,\widehat\theta))\big)^{-1}$$
may lead to a faster mixing. Furthermore, if the tolerance satisfying $ \log (\frac{1}{\varepsilon})=\mathcal O(d^{\frac{1}{3}})$, then the second statement of Corollary~\ref{cor:smoothloss} can lead to an optimal mixing time bound $\mathcal O\big(d^{\frac{1}{3}}\log(\frac{1}{\varepsilon})\big)$.
\subsection{Bayesian quantile regression}\label{Sec:Quantile_reg}
We consider Bayesian quantile regression as a representative example where the loss function is non-smooth.
Specifically, in quantile regression~\citep{10.2307/1913643}, for a fixed $\tau \in (0,1)$, the $\tau^{th}$ quantile $q_{\tau}(Y|\widetilde X)$ of the response $Y\in \mathbb{R}$ given the covariates $\widetilde{X}\in \mathbb{R}^d$ is modelled as $q_{\tau}(Y|\widetilde{X})=\widetilde{X}^T\theta^\ast$. Here we consider the homogeneous case where the error $e=Y-\widetilde X^T\theta^*$ is independent of the covariates $\widetilde X$. Given a set of $n$ i.i.d. samples $X^{(n)}=\{X_i=(\widetilde X_i,Y_i)\}_{i\in[n]}$, the quantile regression solves the following convex optimization problem:
$$
\widehat{\theta}= {\arg\min}_{\theta\in \Theta} \sum_{i=1}^n \Big[(Y_i-\widetilde{X}_i^T\theta) \cdot \big(\tau-\bold{1} (Y_i<\widetilde{X}_i^T\theta) \big)\Big],
$$
where the loss function $\ell_{q}\big((\widetilde X, Y),\theta\big)=(Y-\widetilde{X}^T\theta)\cdot\big(\tau-\bold{1} (Y<\widetilde{X}^T\theta)\big)$ is referred to as the check loss. The minimization of the check loss function is equivalent to the maximization of a likelihood function formed by combining independently distributed asymmetric Laplace densities~\citep{YU2001437}. The posterior for Bayesian quantile regression can thus be formed by assuming a (possibly misspecified) asymmetric Laplace distribution (ALD) for the response, which is
$$
\pi_{n}(\theta)\propto \exp\big(-n\,\mathcal R_n(\theta)\big)\,\pi(\theta),\quad \theta\in\mathbb R^d,
$$
with $\pi(\theta)$ being a prior on $\Theta$ and $\mathcal R_n(\theta)=n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^n \ell_q(X_i,\theta)$ being the empirical risk function. Furthermore, by adding a multiplier $\alpha>0$ to the likelihood, we can obtain the Gibbs (or tempered) posterior.
Since the loss function $\ell_q(X,\theta)$ for quantile regression is not differentiable when $Y=\widetilde X^T\theta$, in order to sampling from the Gibbs posterior associated with Bayesian quantile regression using the (preconditioned) MALA, we need to consider the subgradient of $\ell_q$ with respect to $\theta$, given by
$$
g(X,\theta)=\big(\bold{1}(Y<\widetilde X^T\theta)-\tau\big)\, \widetilde X, \quad X=(\widetilde X, Y), \ \ \theta\in \mathbb R^d.
$$
The following corollary quantifies the computational complexity for sampling from $\pi_{n}$ using MALA. We first state the required conditions.
\vspace{0.5em}
\noindent\textbf{Condition D.1:} There exist $(n,d)$-independent constants $(C,C') >0$ and $(\alpha_0,\alpha_1)\geq 0$ such that (1) the support $\mathcal X$ of the covariates $\widetilde X$ is included in $[-C,C]^d$; (2) for any $v\in \mathbb S^{d-1}$, $ \mathbb E|\widetilde{X}^Tv|^2\geq C'd^{-\alpha_0}$ and $\mathbb E|\widetilde{X}^Tv|^3\leq Cd^{\alpha_1}$.
\vspace{0.5em}
\noindent\textbf{Condition D.2:} Let $f_{e}(\cdot)$ denote the probability density function of the homogeneous error $e=Y-\widetilde X^T\theta^\ast$, then there exist $(n,d)$-independent constants $(C,C') >0$ such that (1) $\int_{-\infty}^{0} f_{e}(z)dz=\tau$; (2) $f_{e}(0)>C'$ and $\sup_{e\in \mathbb R^d}f_{e}(e)\leq C$; (3) for any $e_1,e_2\in \mathbb R$, $|f_{e}(e_1)- f_{e}(e_2)|\leq C|e_1-e_2| $.
\begin{corollary}[\bf Sampling from non-smooth posteriors]\label{co:quantile}
Suppose Conditions D.1, D.2, and B.4 are satisfied, and the warming parameter $M_0$ and tolerance $\varepsilon$ satisfying $\log (\frac{M_0}{\varepsilon})\leq C_1\,(d^{\alpha_2}+\log n)$ for $(n,d)$-independent constants $C_1$ and $\alpha_2\geq 1$. Assume $d\leq c(\frac{n^{\widetilde \alpha}}{\log n})$ with $\widetilde \alpha=\frac{1}{2+4\alpha_1+7\alpha_0}\wedge \frac{1}{2+3\alpha_0+2\alpha_1+3\alpha_2}$ and a small enough constant $c$, and let the inverse empirical Gram matrix $\widetilde I=\big(n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^n \widetilde X_i\widetilde X_i^T\big)^{-1}$ be the preconditioning matrix, then it holds with probability larger than $1-\frac{1}{n}$ that that the mixing time upper bound~\eqref{mixingbound} is true with $\rho_1=\frac{1}{2}f_{e}(0)$ and
\begin{equation*}
h=c_0\cdot\bigg[{f_{e}(0)}\cdot\Big(d^{\frac{1}{3}}+d^{\frac{1}{4}}\big(\log \frac{M_0d}{\varepsilon}\big)^{\frac{1}{4}}+\big(\log \frac{M_0d}{\varepsilon}\big)^{\frac{1}{2}}\Big)\bigg]^{-1}
\end{equation*}
with $c_0$ being an $(n,d)$-independent constant.
\end{corollary}
\section{Proof Sketch of Theorem~\ref{thmala}}\label{sec:proof_sketch}
In this section, we provide a sketched proof about how to utilize the general machinery of $s$-conductance profile developed in Section~\ref{mixingboundscp} to analyze the mixing time of MALA under Condition A. We consider the identity preconditioning matrix (i.e. $\widetilde I=I_d$) in this sketch for simplicity, and the case for general preconditioning matrix can be proved by considering the transformation $G(\theta)=\sqrt{n}\widetilde{I}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(\theta-\widehat\theta)$, see Appendix A.1 for further details.
Let $T^{\zeta}_x(y)=T^{\zeta}(x,y)$ denote the Markov transition kernel of the $\zeta$-lazy version of MALA for sampling from $\pi_{\rm loc}$ as described in Section~\ref{sec:MALA_mixtime} with rescaled step size $h$. To apply Lemma~\ref{lemma:conductance}, we first need to establish a log-isoperimetric inequality, which is a property of $\pi_{\rm loc}$ alone and is not specific to MALA. This step can be done by adapting existing proofs of a log-isoperimetric inequality for Gaussians~(e.g.~Lemma 16 of~\cite{JMLR:v21:19-441}) to $\pi_{\rm loc}$ via a perturbation analysis (see Lemma A.2 and its proof in the appendix for details). Second, we need to apply an overlap argument for bounding the total variation distance between $T^{\zeta}_x(\cdot)$ and $T^{\zeta}_z(\cdot)$ for $x$ and $z$ satisfying $\|x-z\|\leq C \sqrt{h}$ and belonging to a high probability set $E$ under $\pi_{\rm loc}$. This step utilizes the structure and properties of MALA algorithm, and we briefly sketch its proof below (details can be found in Lemma A.3 in the appendix) and discuss its difference from existing proofs.
We construct the high probability set as $E=\{\xi\in B_{R/2}^d: \big|\xi^T\widetilde J^3\xi-{\rm tr}(\widetilde J^2)\big|\leq r_d\}\cap \{\xi\in B_{R/2}^d: \big|\xi^T\widetilde J^2\xi-{\rm tr}(\widetilde J)\big|\leq r_d/\rho_2\}$, where the value of $r_d$ makes $\pi_{\rm loc}(E)\geq 1-2\frac{h\rho_1\varepsilon^2}{M_0^2}$ based on the last property of Condition A (details can be found in Lemma B.2).
We utilize the following identity:
\begin{equation}\label{decompositionTV}
\begin{aligned}
2\,\|T^{\zeta}_x-T^{\zeta}_z\|_{\scriptsize \rm TV}&= T^{\zeta}_x(\{x\})+ T^{\zeta}_z(\{z\})+(1-\zeta)\int_{(B_R^d)^c} \big|Q(x,y)A(x,y)-Q(z,y)A(z,y)\big|\,{\rm d} y\\ &+(1-\zeta)\int_{B_R^d} \big|Q(x,y)A(x,y)-Q(z,y)A(z,y)\big|\,{\rm d} y,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where recall that $A(x,y)=1\wedge \frac{\pi_{\rm loc}(y)\,Q(y,x)}{\pi_{\rm loc}(x)\,Q(x,y)}$ is the acceptance probability. We will separately bound the four terms on the right hand side of~\eqref{decompositionTV} as follows. For the fourth term in~\eqref{decompositionTV}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{decompositionTV3}
\begin{aligned}
\int_{B_R^d} \big|Q(x,y)A(x,y)& -Q(z,y)A(z,y)\big|\,{\rm d} y\leq \int_{B_R^d} Q(x,y)\,\big(1-A(x,y)\big)\,{\rm d} y\\
& + \int_{B_R^d} Q(z,y)\,\big(1-A(z,y)\big)\,{\rm d} y \ +\ 2\,\|Q_x-Q_z\|_{\scriptsize \rm TV}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Now we use Condition A by comparing $Q_x(\cdot)=Q(x,\cdot)$ with the proposal distribution
$$
Q^{\Delta}_x(\cdot)=Q^{\Delta}(x,\cdot)=N_d(x-hJx,\,2hI_d)
$$
of MALA for sampling from the Gaussian $\overline{\pi}:\,=N_d(0,J^{-1})$, leading to
\begin{equation}\label{decompositionTV3.1}
\begin{aligned}
\int_{B_R^d}Q(x,y)\,\big(1-A(x,y)\big)\, {\rm d} y&\leq 2\,\|Q_x-Q^{\Delta}_x\|_{\scriptsize \rm TV}+ {\int\Big|Q^{\Delta}(x,y)-\frac{\overline\pi(y)Q^{\Delta}(y,x)}{\overline\pi(x)}\Big|\,{\rm d} y} \\
&+ \int_{B_R^d}\Big|\frac{\overline\pi(y)Q^{\Delta}(y,x)}{\overline\pi(x)}-\frac{\pi_{\rm loc}(y)Q(y,x)}{\pi_{\rm loc}(x)}\Big|\,{\rm d} y.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
By combining the two preceding displays, it can be proved using Condition A and Pinsker's inequality after some careful calculations (see Lemmas B.3 and B.4 in the appendix) that
$$
\int_{B_R^d}\big|Q(x,y)A(x,y)-Q(z,y)A(z,y)\big|\,{\rm d} y\leq 1/2.
$$
Our proof of Lemma B.3 for bounding $\int \big|Q^{\Delta}(x,y)- {\overline\pi(y)Q^{\Delta}(y,x)}/{\overline\pi(x)}\big|\,{\rm d} y$ is technically similar to that of Proposition 38 in~\cite{pmlr-v134-chewi21a} for bounding the mixing time of MALA with a standard Gaussian target (i.e.~$\overline{\pi}=N_d(0,I_d)$). The non-trivial part in our analysis lies in keeping track of the dependence on the maximal and minimal eigenvalues of $J$. For the first three terms in~\eqref{decompositionTV}, we use
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
&T^\zeta_{x}(\{x\})+(1-\zeta)\cdot \int_{(B_R^d)^c} Q(x,y) A(x,y)\,{\rm d} y\\
&=\zeta+(1-\zeta)\cdot\int_{B_R^d}(1- A(x,y)) Q(x,y)\,{\rm d} y+(1-\zeta)\cdot\int_{(B_R^d)^c} Q(x,y)\,{\rm d} y\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
where term $\int_{(B_R^d)^c} Q(x,y)\,{\rm d} y$ can be upper bounded by $\frac{1}{6}$ using the condition of $R$ in Condition A.
Note that decompositions~\eqref{decompositionTV},~\eqref{decompositionTV3}, and~\eqref{decompositionTV3.1} together can lead to the projection characterization of Metropolis-Hasting adjustment considered in Theorem 6 of~\cite{pmlr-v134-chewi21a} by choosing $R=\infty$, $\overline\pi=\pi_{\rm loc}$, and $Q^{\Delta}$ as any reversible kernel with respect to $\pi_{\rm loc}$; thus our decomposition can be seen as a generalization of that in~\cite{pmlr-v134-chewi21a}. Finally, with the lower bound on $\pi_{\rm loc}(E)$ and the upper bound on $\|T^\zeta_x -T^\zeta_z\|_{\rm TV}$, we are then able to apply the $s$-conductance profile argument developed in Section~\ref{mixingboundscp} to control the mixing time. It is worth mentioning that the analysis in~\cite{JMLR:v21:19-441} requires the high probability set, which is set $E$ in our case, to be convex. This requirement will deteriorate the $d$ dependence of the mixing time bound since $\|T^\zeta_x-T^\zeta_z\|_{\rm TV}$ for $x,z\in E$ can no longer be controlled under a large step size $h$ as ours. This motivates us to introduce the more flexible notion of \emph{$s$-conductance profile} that extends the commonly used conductance profile~\citep{10.1214/EJP.v11-300,JMLR:v21:19-441} and $s$-conductance~\citep{https://doi.org/10.1002/rsa.3240040402}. Analysis based on the $s$-conductance profile leads to a better warming parameter dependence than that obtained in~\cite{pmlr-v134-chewi21a,10.2307/30243694} without affecting our obtained dimension dependence (based on $s$-conductance). A complete proof of this theorem is included in Appendix A.1. Similar analysis can also be carried over for analyzing general smooth and strictly log-concave densities to improve the warming parameter dependence~\citep[e.g.][]{pmlr-v134-chewi21a,10.2307/30243694} from logarithmic to doubly logarithmic.
\section{Numerical Study}\label{sec:num}
In this section, we empirically compare the convergence performance of MALA and MRW, and investigate whether the use of a preconditioning matrix in MALA can help improve the sampling performance in the case of a non-smooth Bayesian posterior.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\vspace{1em}
\subfigure[$\theta_1$]{
\includegraphics[trim={0.1cm 0.5cm 0.1cm 2cm}, clip,
width=0.48\textwidth]{graph/Grplot_mean_1.png}}
\subfigure[$\theta_2$]{
\includegraphics[trim={0.1cm 0.5cm 0.1cm 2cm}, clip, width=0.48\textwidth]{graph/Grplot_mean_2.png}\vspace{2em}}
\subfigure[$\theta_3$]{
\includegraphics[trim={0.1cm 0.5cm 0.1cm 2cm}, clip, width=0.48\textwidth]{graph/Grplot_mean_3.png}}
\subfigure[$\theta_4$]{
\includegraphics[trim={0.1cm 0.5cm 0.1cm 2cm}, clip, width=0.48\textwidth]{graph/Grplot_mean_4.png}\vspace{2em}}
\subfigure[$\theta_5$]{
\includegraphics[trim={0.1cm 0.5cm 0.1cm 2cm}, clip, width=0.48\textwidth]{graph/Grplot_mean_5.png}\vspace{2em}}
\caption{Gelman–Rubin plots for each dimension of parameter vector $\theta$ in Bayesian quantile regression: mean.}
\label{Fig_mean}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\vspace{1em}
\subfigure[$\theta_1$]{
\includegraphics[trim={0.1cm 0.5cm 0.1cm 2cm}, clip,
width=0.48\textwidth]{graph/Grplot_quantile_1.png}}
\subfigure[$\theta_2$]{
\includegraphics[trim={0.1cm 0.5cm 0.1cm 2cm}, clip, width=0.48\textwidth]{graph/Grplot_quantile_2.png}\vspace{2em}}
\subfigure[$\theta_3$]{
\includegraphics[trim={0.1cm 0.5cm 0.1cm 2cm}, clip, width=0.48\textwidth]{graph/Grplot_quantile_3.png}}
\subfigure[$\theta_4$]{
\includegraphics[trim={0.1cm 0.5cm 0.1cm 2cm}, clip, width=0.48\textwidth]{graph/Grplot_quantile_4.png}\vspace{2em}}
\subfigure[$\theta_5$]{
\includegraphics[trim={0.1cm 0.5cm 0.1cm 2cm}, clip, width=0.48\textwidth]{graph/Grplot_quantile_5.png}\vspace{2em}}
\caption{Gelman–Rubin plots for each dimension of parameter vector $\theta$ in Bayesian quantile regression: $97.5\%$ quantile.}
\label{Fig_quantile}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Set up}
We carry out experiment using the Bayesian quantile regression example, where the corresponding Bayesian posterior is given by
$$
\pi_n(\theta\,|\,X^{(n)})\propto \exp\bigg\{-\sum_{i=1}^n (Y_i-\widetilde{X}_i^T\theta) \cdot \big(\tau-\bold{1}(Y_i<\widetilde{X}_i^T\theta)\big)\bigg\}\,\pi(\theta), \ \ \theta\in\mathbb R^d.
$$
We choose the sample size $n=500$ and parameter dimension $d=5$. The covariates $\widetilde X$ is generated from a multivariate Gaussian distribution with zero mean and covariance matrix being chosen as a matrix whose diagonal elements are all $1$ and other elements are all $0.2$. We then generate a random error variable $e$ follows a Laplace distribution with location parameter being $0$ and scale parameter being $2$. The response variable $Y$ is then given by $Y=\widetilde X^T\theta^\ast+e$ with $\theta^\ast=(1,2,3,4,5)$. We consider the parameter space $\Theta=[-100,100]^d$ and the prior is chosen to be a uniform distribution over $\Theta$. We use three MCMC methods: MRW, MALA and MALA with a preconditioning matrix $n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^n \widetilde X_i\widetilde X_i^T$ as suggested by Corollary~\ref{co:quantile}.
\subsection{Results} We use the Gelman–Rubin convergence diagnostic tool~\citep{10.1214/ss/1177011136} to check the convergence of the Markov chains, and use their effective sample sizes to report the efficiency of the proposed MCMC algorithm. The Gelman–Rubin plots for each algorithm are given in Figure~\ref{Fig_mean} and Figure~\ref{Fig_quantile}, we can see MALA converges much faster than MRW and adding a preconditioning matrix to MALA can help to improve the convergence speed. More specifically, the number of iterations required for the MCMC procedure to have a shrink factor less than $1.01$ are $3434$ for MRW, $648$ for MALA and $449$ for preconditioned MALA. Moreover, for the effective sample size, the average required numbers of iterations for MRW to have a $300$ effective sample size for all dimensions is $6639$, while that is $1745$ for MALA and $1205$ for preconditioned MALA. In addition, the effective sample sizes of the Markov chain for each dimension of samples with a total number of $5000$ iterations are on average $(281, 253,266,226,274)$ for MRW, $(1002,902,1447,887,1151)$ for MALA, and $(1561,1571,1244,1375,1690)$ for preconditioned MALA. We can see that MALA has much higher efficiency than MRW and adding a preconditioning matrix in MALA will further improve the sampling efficiency.
\section{Conclusion and Discussion}
In this paper, we studied the sampling complexity of Bayesian (pseudo-)posteriors using MALA under large sample size, covering cases where the posterior density is non-smooth and/or non-log-concave. A variant of MALA that includes a preconditioning matrix was also considered. While our analysis for the preconditioned MALA suggests an adaptive MALA with a data-driven preconditioning matrix may be preferable, its rigorous theoretical analysis may leave as our future work. When applying our main result to Bayesian inference, we mainly considered the Gibbs posterior, while similar analysis may carry over to other types of Bayesian pseudo-posterior, such as Bayesian empirical likelihood~\citep{10.1093/biomet/90.2.319}, and we leave this for future research.
\bibliographystyle{ba}
|
\section{Introduction}
In the past two decades, radial basis functions (RBF)-based discretizations have emerged as a viable alternative to established approaches for computational fluid mechanics \citep{fornberg2015solving}. RBF-based methods are often referred to as \emph{mesh-free} as they facilitate the discretization of partial differential operators directly on a set of scattered nodes, i.e., without the need of local elements. The main promise of RBF-based methods is that they can combine the ease of implementation and high order of accuracy of finite differences (FD) with the geometrical flexibility of finite volume (FV), element, and discontinuous Galerkin (DG) methods.
RBF approximations provide high-order accuracy, flexibility, and ease of implementation for interpolation and differentiation.
Historically, RBFs were often used as global interpolants over all nodes. These global RBF methods with spectral-like nominal accuracy have been applied to a variety of problems \citep{flyer2011radial,flyer2010rotational,flyer2007transport,flyer2009radial,kansa1990multiquadrics1,kansa1990multiquadrics2,wright2010hybrid}. They are, however, computationally expensive for large problems and often suffer from ill-conditioning and numerical instability. Remedies to these problems have been found in the form of regularizations like hyperviscosity \citep{flyer2012guide,fornberg2011stabilization} and preconditioners \citep{kansa2000circumventing}.
The use of local RBF stencils was pioneered by \citep{shu2003local,tolstykh2000using,wang2002point,wright2003radial} and yields a class of so-called RBF-FD methods that are named in reference to classical finite differences. Just like classical FDs, RBF-FD methods generate sparse differentiation matrices. The level of sparsity depends on the local stencil size, which in turn is determined by the desired order of accuracy. Common choices of RBFs for fluid flow problems are Gaussians (GA), multiquadrics (MQ), and inverse multiquadrics (IMQ).
\citet{flyer2012guide}, for example, demonstrated the use of GA-type RBFs for solving the shallow water equations on a sphere and compared the performance to other high-order numerical methods.
Applications to the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations (NSE) include the local MQ-differential quadrature (DQ) method by \citet{shu2005computation}, its extension to 3D by \citet{ding2006numerical}, the compact RBF-FD scheme by \citet{chinchapatnam2009compact}, which in turn is based on the work by \citet{wright2006scattered}, and the method by \citet{xie2021improved}, who introduced a regularization term for IMQ RBFs and a semi-Lagrangian scheme for transient simulations. Incompressible flow solvers with convective heat transfer have been implemented by \citep{shu2003local,waters2015global,zamolo2019solution}.
All these implementations use infinitely smooth RBFs that are characterized by a shape parameter.
This shape parameter, in turn, significantly impacts both accuracy and stability, and extensive works, most empirical, have been devoted to investigating its effect \citep{carlson1991parameter,fasshauer2007choosing,fornberg2004stable,franke1982scattered,hardy1971multiquadric,rippa1999algorithm}.
Good accuracy is often associated with near-flat RBFs. RBFs in this flat limit, however, often yield ill-conditioned discretizations and suffer from stagnation, or saturation, errors \citep{flyer2016role}.
Numerical schemes that address these problems include Contour-Pad\'e \citep{fornberg2004stable}, RBF-QR \citep{fornberg2011stable,fornberg2008stable,larsson2013stable}, and RBF-GA \citep{fornberg2013stable} methods.
More recently, RBF-FDs based on polyharmonic splines augmented with polynomials (PHS+poly), that do not require a shape parameter were introduced by \citet{flyer2016enhancing}.
Later, \citet{flyer2016role} demonstrated the use of higher-order polynomial augmentations, which improve the accuracy of derivative approximations of local RBF stencils and mitigate the stagnation error under node refinement.
\citet{bayona2017role} used PHS+poly for solving elliptic PDEs and showed that a larger stencil size near domain boundaries helps to avoid the Runge phenomenon. Using closed-form RBFs, \citet{bayona2019insight} later provided an analytical validation of this result. Numerical demonstrations for 2-D and 3-D examples were presented in \citet{bayona2019role}.
Several comparisons to other mesh-free approaches, including polynomial least-squares approximations \citep{flyer2016role}, the RBF-GA method near the flat limit \citep{santos2018comparing}, and the moving least-squares (MLS) method \citep{bayona2019comparison} have confirmed the competitiveness of PHS+poly-based RBF-FDs in terms of accuracy, robustness, and computational efficiency.
While there are numerous demonstrations of PHS+poly RBF-FDs for advection-diffusion problems \citep{bartwal2021application,gunderman2020transport,shankar2018hyperviscosity,shankar2018rbf},
their application to the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations has been explored only very recently. \citet{shahane2021high}, for example, simulated incompressible flows using an explicit fractional-step method and considered several test problems to gauge accuracy. A semi-implicit algorithm was proposed by \citet{shahane2021semi} and later implemented by \citet{unnikrishnan2021shear} to simulate Taylor-Couette flow.
The consistency and convergence of this algorithm with respect to grid resolution were later examined in \citet{shahane2022consistency}.
We build on this successful combination of fractional-step methods with PHS+poly RBF-FD discretizations and make two main contributions, one in terms of improving computational efficiency and the other in terms of error analysis.
A significant reduction in computational cost is achieved through the use of a staggered-grid arrangement that permits the use of smaller stencils and, at the same time, much coarser grids.
The staggered grid arranges the velocity and pressure at different nodes to circumvent the numerical instability known as odd-even decoupling.
While the idea of grid staggering originates from the classical FD Marker-And-Cell scheme by \citet{harlow1965numerical}, staggering occurs naturally in finite volume methods that define velocity in terms of fluxes across cell faces.
Similarly, the proposed staggering strategy is based on an underlying triangular grid, generated using any standard grid generator, and defines the pressure at the vertices and velocities at the centers of the faces.
The second contribution is the use of modified wavenumber diagrams, as known from classical FD analysis, to gauge the accuracy of the PHS+poly RBF-FDs on the staggered nodes.
Modified wavenumber analysis was originally designed to examine the truncation error of FD methods on lattice-based grids but has also been applied to unstructured FD discretizations \citep{nishikawa2021flexible,park2007numerical}.
Accuracy and error analysis for RBF approximations are not straightforward and often done in a problem-specific manner.
For PHS+poly RBF-FDs, for example, test problems such as the summation of sinusoids \citep{flyer2016enhancing,flyer2016role}, Poisson’s equation \citep{bayona2017role}, Kovasznay flow, and cylindrical Couette flow \citep{shahane2021high} were considered.
These studies mainly focused on the discretization error under grid refinement and have demonstrated that the convergence rate is determined by the degree of the polynomial augmentation.
Here, we first conduct a systematic parameter study to identify a set of parameters, i.e., stencil size, PHS exponent, and polynomial degree, that minimizes the relative error for a wave-like test function on a representative, highly heterogeneous grid.
We proceed with a two-dimensional modified wavenumber analysis to quantify the order of accuracy on the staggered grids. The analysis shows that the selected 28-point stencil PHS+poly RBF-FDs provide accuracy comparable to 6th-order Pad\'e-type FDs.
This paper is organized as follows:
\S \ref{RBF} introduces the PHS+poly RBF-FD method,
\S \ref{Spatial Discretization} describes the unstructured staggered node arrangement and the fractional-step method, and
\S \ref{error_analysis} the parameter selection and error and accuracy analysis for the staggered grids.
The performance of the incompressible Navier-Stokes solver is demonstrated in \S \ref{applications} on the lid-driven cavity and cylinder flow as benchmark problems.
Finally, \S \ref{conclusion} concludes and summarizes the paper.
\section{Radial basis functions (RBFs)} \label{RBF}
The underlying idea of radial basis functions (RBFs) is to approximate a given function $f(\vb*{x})$ using a
smooth radial function $\phi(r)$.
For a set of $n$ scattered nodes, $\{\vb*{x}\}_{j=1}^n$, we seek the interpolant
\begin{equation}
s(\vb*{x})=\sum_{j=1}^n \lambda_j \phi(\|\vb*{x}-\vb*{x}_j\|) \label{rbf_intp}
\end{equation}
that satisfies $s(\vb*{x}_i)=f(\vb*{x}_i)$ for $i= 1,2,\dots ,n$, where $\|\cdot\|$ denotes the
standard Euclidean norm.
The interpolation coefficients $\lambda_1,\cdots,\lambda_n$ can be found as the solution of the linear system
\begin{equation}
\underbrace{\mqty[\phi(\|\vb*{x}_1-\vb*{x}_1\|) & \phi(\|\vb*{x}_1-\vb*{x}_2\|) & \cdots & \phi(\|\vb*{x}_1-\vb*{x}_n\|)\\
\phi(\|\vb*{x}_2-\vb*{x}_1\|) & \phi(\|\vb*{x}_2-\vb*{x}_2\|) & \cdots & \phi(\|\vb*{x}_2-\vb*{x}_n\|)\\
\vdots & \vdots & & \vdots\\
\phi(\|\vb*{x}_n-\vb*{x}_1\|) & \phi(\|\vb*{x}_n-\vb*{x}_2\|) & \cdots & \phi(\|\vb*{x}_n-\vb*{x}_n\|)
]}_{\vb*{A}} \mqty[ \lambda_1 \\ \lambda_2 \\ \vdots \\ \lambda_n]=\mqty[ f(\vb*{x}_1) \\ f(\vb*{x}_2) \\ \vdots \\ f(\vb*{x}_n)], \label{A}
\end{equation}
where $\vb*{A}$ is the interpolation matrix.
The RBF interpolant $s(\vb*{x})$ based on these coefficients can then be used to approximate the function $f(\vb*{x})$ in the local region described by the set of nodes, $\{\vb*{x}\}_{j=1}^n$.
Common choices for RBFs include Gaussian (GA), multiquadrics (MQ), and inverse multiquadrics (IMQ). See \cite{fornberg2015solving} for a comprehensive overview.
These RBF types are known to suffer from the stagnation (or saturation) error under refinement and have a free shape parameter that significantly impacts their accuracy and stability.
In this work, we use polyharmonic splines (PHS),
\begin{align}
\phi(r) =r^m,\qquad \text{where}\,\, m\,\, \text{is an odd positive integer,}
\end{align}
as the basis functions. This choice is motivated by recent studies \cite{bayona2017role,bayona2019role,flyer2016enhancing,flyer2016role},
which highlight the advantageous properties of the PHS-type RBFs for discretizations, described next.
\subsection{RBF-FD method and augmentation with polynomials}
A direct approach for the generation of RBF-based differentiation operations is the RBF-FD method, which
approximates the action of any linear operator, $\mathcal{L}$, as a linear combination of the function values, $f(\vb*{x}_j)$, such that
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}f(\vb*{x}_0)=\sum_{j=1}^n w_{j} f(\vb*{x}_j). \label{Lf}
\end{equation}
Here, $x_0$ is a given location, and $w_j$ are the unknown differentiation weights.
Using equation (\ref{rbf_intp}), the function value $f(\vb*{x})$ can be approximated by the RBF interpolant $s(\vb*{x})$ and the corresponding weight vector $\vb*{w}=(w_1,\cdots, w_n)^T$ is then obtained by solving the linear system
\begin{equation}
\mqty[& &\\&\vb*{A}&\\ & &] \mqty[ w_{ 1} \\ w_{ 2} \\ \vdots \\ w_{ n} ]=\mqty[ \eval{\mathcal{L}\phi(\|\vb*{x}-\vb*{x}_1\|)}_{\vb*{x}=\vb*{x}_0} \\
\eval{\mathcal{L}\phi(\|\vb*{x}-\vb*{x}_2\|)}_{\vb*{x}=\vb*{x}_0} \\
\vdots \\
\eval{\mathcal{L}\phi(\|\vb*{x}-\vb*{x}_n\|)}_{\vb*{x}=\vb*{x}_0}]. \label{w_local}
\end{equation}
An implicit assumption of the RBF-FD method is that the derivative of the basis functions, $\mathcal{L}\phi$, is continuous.
A commonly used extension of equation (\ref{Lf}) to enforce consistency with Taylor expansion-based FD approximations is polynomial augmentation \cite{flyer2016enhancing,fornberg2011stabilization,fornberg2015solving,larsson2013stable,wright2006scattered}.
For 2D problems, this RBF-FD method with polynomial augmentation up to degree $q$ takes the form
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}f(\vb*{x}_0)=\sum_{j=1}^n w_{j} f(\vb*{x}_j) + \sum_{i=1}^{(q+1)(q+2)/2} c_i P_i(\vb*{x}_0). \label{Lf_PHS}
\end{equation}
The use of multivariate polynomial terms, $P_i(\vb*{x})$, to match the local Taylor series introduces the additional constraints
\begin{align}
\sum_{j=1}^n w_j P_i(\vb*{x}_j) = \mathcal{L} P_i(\vb*{x}_0), \qquad \text{for} \,\, 1\leq i\leq \frac{(q+1)(q+2)}{2},
\end{align}
also known as the vanishing momentum conditions \cite{iske2003approximation}, for the differentiation weights.
These constraints ensure that the RBF approximations reproduce locally polynomial behaviour up to degree $q$ \cite{flyer2016role} and
appropriately decay in the far-field \cite{fornberg2002observations}.
As an example, consider the linear system for $q=1$,
\begin{equation} \label{rbf_poly}
\left[
\begin{array}{c c c; {2pt/2pt} c c c}
& & & 1 & x_1 & y_1\\
&\vb*{A} & & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots \\
& & & 1 & x_n & y_n \\ \hdashline[2pt/2pt]
1 & \cdots & 1 & & & \\
x_1 & \cdots & x_n & &\vb*{0} &\\
y_1 & \cdots & y_n& & &
\end{array}\right]
\mqty[ w_{ 1} \\ \vdots \\ w_{ n} \\\hdashline[2pt/2pt] c_1 \\c_2\\c_3]=\mqty[ \eval{\mathcal{L}\phi(\|\vb*{x}-\vb*{x}_1\|)}_{\vb*{x}=\vb*{x}_0} \\
\vdots \\
\eval{\mathcal{L}\phi(\|\vb*{x}-\vb*{x}_n\|)}_{\vb*{x}=\vb*{x}_0}\\ \hdashline[2pt/2pt]
\eval{\mathcal{L}1}_{\vb*{x}=\vb*{x}_0}\\
\eval{\mathcal{L}x}_{\vb*{x}=\vb*{x}_0}\\
\eval{\mathcal{L}y}_{\vb*{x}=\vb*{x}_0}].
\end{equation}
The interpolation matrix $\vb*{A}$ is the same one defined in equation (\ref{w_local}). A more general and compact expression for equation (\ref{rbf_poly}) takes the form
\begin{equation} \label{rbf_poly_compact}
\left[
\begin{array}{c c }
\vb*{A} & \vb*{P} \\
\vb*{P}^{\small{T}} & \vb*{0}
\end{array}\right]
\mqty[\vb*{w}\\ \vb*{c}]=\mqty[{\mathcal{L}\vb*{\phi}}\\
{\mathcal{L}\vb*{P}}].
\end{equation}
This procedure ensures consistency with the local expansion, but equation (\ref{Lf}) is used to approximate the actual differentiation operations.
The use of polynomial augmentation for PHS RBFs has shown to improve the accuracy for interpolation and derivative approximations \cite{flyer2016role}, numerical solutions of elliptic PDE problems \cite{bayona2017role}, and approximations near domain boundaries \cite{bayona2019role}. Our practical implementation follows \citep{flyer2016enhancing}.
\subsection{Global differentiation operators}
Differentiation matrices provide a straightforward and flexible way to discretize partial differential equations (PDEs).
The use of global RBFs leads to full matrices, which is it is computationally expensive and requires a lot of memory.
To obtain sparse matrices instead, we seek local differentiation operators that utilize a smaller number of neighboring nodes.
Assume the given domain is discretized by two sets of scattered nodes, $\{\vb*{x}_i^{(\alpha)}\}_{i=1}^N$ and $\{\vb*{x}_j^{(\beta)}\}_{j=1}^M$.
Given the function values at node set $\beta$, $f(\vb*{x}^{(\beta)})$, we seek a differentiation matrix such that $\vb*{D}_{\mathcal{L}}^{(\alpha,\beta)} f(\vb*{x}^{(\beta)})$ approximates the derivatives, $\mathcal{L}f(\vb*{x}^{(\alpha)})$, at node set $\alpha$.
The differentiation matrix $\vb*{D}_{\mathcal{L}}^{(\alpha,\beta)} $ must hence satisfy
\begin{equation}
\underbrace{\mqty[w_{11} & w_{12} & \cdots & w_{1N}\\
w_{21} & w_{2 2} & \cdots & w_{2 N}\\
\vdots & \vdots & & \vdots\\
w_{M 1} & w_{M 2} & \cdots & w_{M N}
]}_{\vb*{D}_{\mathcal{L}}^{(\alpha,\beta)} } \mqty[ f(\vb*{x}_1^{(\beta)}) \\ f(\vb*{x}_2^{(\beta)}) \\ \vdots \\ f(\vb*{x}_N^{(\beta)})]=\mqty[ \mathcal{L} f(\vb*{x}_1^{(\alpha)}) \\ \mathcal{L} f(\vb*{x}_2^{(\alpha)}) \\ \vdots \\ \mathcal{L} f(\vb*{x}_M^{(\alpha)})].
\end{equation}
Note that for collocated grids, we have $\alpha=\beta$.
For this arrangement, the $j$th row of the matrix $\vb*{D}_{\mathcal{L}}^{(\alpha,\beta)}$ approximates the derivative at node $\vb*{x}^{(\alpha)}_j$ using the $n\ll N$ nearest nodes of the $\beta$-grid as the stencil for equation (\ref{rbf_poly_compact}).
The remaining weights are set to zero.
As argued in \cite{flyer2016role}, the use of local RBF-FD approximations
has the additional advantage that each stencil has its own supporting polynomial that can be locally adjusted.
The fully assembled matrix, $\vb*{D}_{\mathcal{L}}^{(\alpha,\beta)} $, is sparse with $M\times n$ nonzero elements.
In this work, we demonstrate the use of these RBF-based differentiation matrices for incompressible flow simulations with staggered nodes. The following section discusses the discretization of the computational domain and the numerical scheme.
\section{Governing equations and numerical approach} \label{Spatial Discretization}
The motion of a general incompressible two-dimensional Newtonian fluid is governed by the Navier-Stokes and continuity equations,
\begin{align}
&\pdv{u}{t} = -\left(u\pdv{u}{x}+v\pdv{u}{y}\right) -\pdv{p}{x}+\frac{1}{\mathrm{Re}}\left(\pdv{^2 u}{x^2}+\pdv{^2 u}{y^2}\right),\label{x_mom}\\
&\pdv{v}{t} = -\left(u\pdv{v}{x}+v\pdv{v}{y}\right) -\pdv{p}{y}+\frac{1}{\mathrm{Re}}\left(\pdv{^2 v}{x^2}+\pdv{^2 v}{y^2}\right),\label{y_mom}\\
&\pdv{u}{x}+\pdv{v}{y}=0.
\end{align}
All variables are nondimensionalized by the velocity scale $V$ and the length scale $L$, and $\mathrm{Re}$ denotes the Reynolds number.
Numerical instabilities are a known problem of standard FD methods that uses the Cartesian grid. This error can be traced back to central differencing schemes on collocated grids \cite{patankar2018numerical}.
Similar grid oscillations are also observed on unstructured meshes. The arguably most common strategy to address this issue is the use of hyperviscosity \citep{flyer2012guide,fornberg2015solving,fornberg2011stabilization,shankar2018hyperviscosity}.
Instead of \emph{ad-hoc} regularization, we propose the use of a staggered node arrangement that discretizes the pressure in the computational domain $\Omega$ by $M$ scattered nodes that form the $P-$grid, and the velocity by $N$ scattered nodes that form the $V-$grid.
The $P-$grid is obtained using the Matlab algorithm {\tt DistMesh} developed by \citep{persson2005mesh}. This algorithm generates unstructured triangular meshes in 2-D. Inspired by standard FV methods that define the flux across the cell boundaries, we arrange the velocity components at the midpoints of cell edges. The resulting $N$ scattered nodes are the $V-$grid.
This staggered node arrangement is different from the classical staggered grid, which evaluates the horizontal and vertical velocities at different locations, but is similar to that used in FV methods.
The resulting ratio $N/M$ is around 3.
\begin{figure}[hbt!]
\centering
\includegraphics[trim = 0mm 2mm 0mm 8mm, clip, width=0.7\textwidth]{mesh.pdf}
\caption{Unstructured staggered node layout for flow around a cylinder: (a) V-grid; (b) P-grid; (c) grid spacing histograms. This grid is used for both the accuracy and error analyses in \S \ref{error_analysis}, and the simulations of the cylinder wake in \S \ref{cylinder flow}.}\label{staggered}
\end{figure}
Panels \ref{staggered}(a,b) shows this unstructured staggered node arrangement for the example of a cylinder in a rectangular domain with increased resolution close to the cylinder and in the wake region.
For each set of nodes that form a local stencil, a characteristic length $\Delta r$ can be determined as the locally averaged distance between adjacent nodes. The histograms of $\Delta r$ for the $V-$ and $P-$grids, shown in figure \ref{staggered}(c), indicate that the two grids are highly heterogeneous. The smallest characteristic spacing used to resolve the boundary layer near the cylinder differs by about one order of magnitude from the largest spacing in the far-field.
Several variants of the original fractional-step method by \cite{kim1985application}
using RBF-FD discretizations on collocated Cartesian grids \cite{javed2014shape,xie2021improved} and unstructured grids \cite{shahane2021high,unnikrishnan2021shear} can be found in literature.
These previous implementations do not require regularizations, but, as we will demonstrate, significant savings in terms of the total number of grid points and stencil size is achieved by using the staggered node layout. We propagate the flow field from $j-$th time step to $(j+1)-$th time step by the following three-stage semi-implicit approach. The primitive variables $u,v,p$ are expressed in vector form as $\vb*{u},\vb*{v},\vb*{p}$, respectively.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
In the first stage, we use the second-order Adam-Bashforth method to discretize equations (\ref{x_mom}) and (\ref{y_mom}) in time explicitly, yielding
\begin{align}
\frac{\vb*{u}^*-\vb*{u}_{j}}{\Delta t} = \frac{3}{2}\vb*{C}_j(\vb*{u}_j)-\frac{1}{2}\vb*{C}_{j-1}(\vb*{u}_{j-1}), \qquad \frac{\vb*{v}^*-\vb*{v}_{j}}{\Delta t} = \frac{3}{2}\vb*{C}_j(\vb*{v}_j)-\frac{1}{2}\vb*{C}_{j-1}(\vb*{v}_{j-1}).
\end{align}
Here the convective term, $\vb*{C}_j$, is defined as
\begin{align}
\vb*{C}_j(\vb*{q})&= -\left[ \vb*{u}_j\circ\left(\vb*{D}^{(V,V)}_x\vb*{q}\right) +\vb*{v}_j\circ \left( \vb*{D}^{(V,V)}_y \vb*{q}\right)\right],
\end{align}
where $\vb*{q}\in \{\vb*{u}, \vb*{v}\}$, superscripts $(\cdot)^*$ and $(\cdot)^{**}$ denote intermediate, non-divergence-free velocity fields, and $\circ$ the Hadamard product.
\item
In the second stage, the viscous terms are advanced by the second-order implicit Crank-Nicholson scheme in time as
\begin{align}\label{u_ss}
\left(\vb*{I}-\frac{\Delta t}{2 \mathrm{Re}}\vb*{D}^{(V,V)}_{\Delta}\right)\vb*{u}^{**}= \left(\vb*{I}+\frac{\Delta t}{2 \mathrm{Re}}\vb*{D}^{(V,V)}_{\Delta}\right)\vb*{u}^{*}, \qquad \left(\vb*{I}-\frac{\Delta t}{2 \mathrm{Re}}\vb*{D}^{(V,V)}_{\Delta}\right)\vb*{v}^{**}= \left(\vb*{I}+\frac{\Delta t}{2 \mathrm{Re}}\vb*{D}^{(V,V)}_{\Delta}\right)\vb*{v}^{*},
\end{align}
where $\vb*{I}$ denotes the identity matrix.
The use of the Crank-Nicholson scheme eliminates the diffusive time-step constraint while maintaining second-order accuracy.
\item
In the third stage, incompressibility is enforced via pressure correction. First, we calculate the divergence of the intermediate velocity, $(\cdot)^{**}$, on the $P$-grid as
\begin{align} \label{divergence}
\vb*{F}_{j+1} = \vb*{D}^{(P,V)}_x \vb*{u}^{**} + \vb*{D}^{(P,V)}_y \vb*{v}^{**}.
\end{align}
Upon solution of the pressure-Poisson equation,
\begin{align}\label{pressure_Poisson}
\vb*{D}^{(P,P)}_{\Delta} \tilde{\vb*{p}}_{j+1} = \frac{1}{\Delta t} \vb*{F}_{j+1},
\end{align}
for the pressure correction, $\tilde{\vb*{p}}$, the pressure is obtained as
\begin{align}
\vb*{p}_{j+1} = \tilde{\vb*{p}}_{j+1} -\frac{\Delta t}{2\mathrm{Re}} \vb*{D}^{(P,P)}_{\Delta} \tilde{\vb*{p}}_{j+1}.
\end{align}
The velocity components at the $(j+1)$-th time step are then calculated as
\begin{align} \label{velocity_next_timestep}
\vb*{u}_{j+1} =\vb*{u}^{**} -\Delta t\vb*{D}^{(V,P)}_x \tilde{\vb*{p}}_{j+1}, \qquad \vb*{v}_{j+1}= \vb*{v}^{**}-\Delta t\vb*{D}^{(V,P)}_y \tilde{\vb*{p}}_{j+1}.
\end{align}
\end{enumerate}
Following \citet{kim1985application}, the boundary conditions for the intermediate velocities are
\begin{align}
\vb*{u}^{**}=\vb*{u}_{j+1} +\Delta t\vb*{D}^{(V,P)}_x \tilde{\vb*{p}}_{j} , \qquad \vb*{v}^{**}= \vb*{v}_{j+1}+\Delta t\vb*{D}^{(V,P)}_y \tilde{\vb*{p}}_{j}.
\end{align}
The matrix inversions in equations (\ref{u_ss}) and (\ref{pressure_Poisson}) are solved using LU factorization.
\section{Accuracy and error analysis} \label{error_analysis}
The spatial discretization scheme introduced in \S 3 above requires four types of differentiation matrices:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\vb*{D}^{(V,V)}_x$, $\vb*{D}^{(V,V)}_y$, and $\vb*{D}^{(V,V)}_{\Delta}$ with dimension $N\times N$ from V-grid to V-grid;
\item $\vb*{D}^{(P,V)}_x$, $\vb*{D}^{(P,V)}_y$ with dimension $M\times N$ from V-grid to P-grid;
\item $\vb*{D}^{(P,P)}_{\Delta}$ with dimension $M\times M$ from P-grid to P-grid;
\item $\vb*{D}^{(V,P)}_x$, $\vb*{D}^{(V,P)}_y$ with dimension $N\times M$ from P-grid to V-grid.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{figure}[hbt!]
\centering
\includegraphics[trim = 10mm 15mm 15mm 0mm, clip,width=0.7\textwidth]{mesh_neighborhood_cylinder.pdf}
\caption{Stencils (magenta circles) for differentiation matrices: (a) $\vb*{D}^{(V,V)} $ ; (b) $\vb*{D}^{(P,P)} $; (c) $\vb*{D}^{(V,P)} $ ; (d) $\vb*{D}^{(P,V)}$. A constant stencil size $n=28$ is used to approximate the derivatives at given nodes (red). Referred to figure \ref{staggered} for the markers. }\label{mesh_neighbor}
\end{figure}
Refer to figure \ref{staggered} for the grid topology. For any given node, the RBF stencil consists of the nearest $n$ nodes. For $n=28$, figure \ref{mesh_neighbor} shows examples of stencils used for the four different cases. In panels \ref{mesh_neighbor}(a) and (b), $\alpha=\beta$ and the node of interests hence is a node on the grid. In panels \ref{mesh_neighbor}(c) and (d), on the other hand, the nodes
comprising the stencil are from different grids.
In the following, we propose an error analysis strategy that minimizes the truncation error of the spatial derivatives on the staggered grid
by selecting an appropriate combination of the stencil size, $n$, the exponent of the PHS, $m$, and the degree of polynomials, $q$.
In previous studies, the discretization error for the augmented RBF-PHS method has been examined in terms of the convergence rate under grid refinement \cite{bayona2017role,flyer2016enhancing,flyer2016role,shahane2021high}.
A general observation is that the error convergence depends on the degree of the polynomial, and a minimum stencil size is required for numerical stability.
In this work, we propose the use of modified wavenumber analysis, which we generalize to scattered nodes.
Classical modified wavenumber analysis for lattice-based node sets is commonly used to measure the accuracy of finite difference schemes, see e.g., \citep{moin2010fundamentals}.
For a given lattice with grid spacing $\Delta x$, the modified wavenumber, $k^*$, is computed by applying the finite difference to the discretized
sinusoidal function $g(x)=\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} k x}$.
The difference between $k^*\Delta x$ and $k\Delta x$ indicates the numerical error as a function of wavenumber.
To be able to investigate the discretization error as a function of the wave angle, $\theta=\arctan{(k_y/k_x)}$, relative to the fixed set of scattered nodes, we define the transformed radial coordinate $\tilde{r}= (k_x x+k_y y)/\tilde{k}$, where $\tilde{k} = \sqrt{k_x^2+k_y^2}$ is the radial wavenumber. As in \cite{sengupta2011analysis, tan2021two}, the radial modified wavenumber is then given as
\begin{align} \label{2d_mw}
k^* = -\mathrm{i} \delta_{\tilde{r}}\qty{\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} \tilde{k}\tilde{r}}} \mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i} \tilde{k}\tilde{r}},
\end{align}
where ${\delta}_{\tilde{r}}$ is the discrete RBF-FD differentiation operator. Equation (\ref{2d_mw}) reduces to the standard one-dimensional case for $k_x=0$ or $k_y=0$. Prior to performing the modified wavenumber analysis, we first identify the optimal parameters using a fixed nondimensional wavenumber, $k\Delta r= \sqrt{2}$, highlighted in figures \ref{mw_V2V} and \ref{mw_P2P}. This specific value is chosen to guarantee the `spectral-like resolution' \citep{lele1992compact} that is achieved by higher-order Pad\'e-type compact finite differences, and that has made the latter a popular choice for direct numerical simulation (DNS) \citep{colonius1997sound,joslin1993spatial,kloker1997robust,lee1993direct,samtaney2001direct,suzuki2003shock}.
The test function takes the form
\begin{align}\label{test}
g_j(\vb*{x}) =\cos{\left(\frac{x}{\Delta r_j}\right)}\cos{\left(\frac{y}{\Delta r_j}\right)},
\end{align}
where $j$ is the node index. The corresponding wavelength is $\lambda = \sqrt{2}\pi \Delta r_j$. The average relative error of the augmented RBF-PHS method is determined as
\begin{align}\label{relative_error}
E^{(\alpha,\beta)} = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{j=1}^N \frac{\lvert {\delta}_j^{(\alpha,\beta)} g_j(\vb*{x}^{(\beta)})-\mathcal{L}g_j(\vb*{x}^{(\alpha)})\lvert}{\max\{\lvert \mathcal{L}g_j(\vb*{x})\lvert\}},
\end{align}
where $\delta_j$ represents the local RBF differentiation operation at the $j$th node.
The local minima of the error guides the selection of parameters:
$n$, the stencil size, $m$, the exponent of the PHS, and $q$, the polynomial degree. It has been shown by \cite{bayona2017role,flyer2016enhancing,flyer2016role,shahane2021high} that $q$ determines the overall order of accuracy.
In the remainder of this section, we use as the test mesh for the error analysis the {\tt distmesh} grid shown in figure \ref{staggered} above. Due to its highly non-uniform node distribution and large variation of $\Delta r$, $0.03 <\Delta r< 0.79$, it is representative of meshes used to discretize complex geometries. This ensures that the error estimates are conservative and applicable to non-generic scenarios.
Our requirements for the Navier-Stokes solver are:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item compact stencil size of $n\lesssim 30$ for numerical efficiency,
\item formal order-of-accuracy of $q\geq 2$ for physical accuracy,
\item small relative error,
\item stability (requires $n\gtrsim(q+1)(q+2)$ for scattered nodes, see e.g. \citep{bayona2019insight,bayona2017role,bayona2019role, flyer2016enhancing}).
\end{enumerate}
To meet these criteria, we vary the different parameters and conduct detailed error analyses for the $(V,V)$- and $(P,P)$-grids, reported in \S \ref{V2V} and \S \ref{P2P}, respectively. The analyses for the remaining combinations are reported in \ref{V2P_P2V}.
\subsection{V-grid to V-grid} \label{V2V}
\begin{figure}[hbt!]
\centering
\includegraphics[trim = 5mm 8mm 5mm 5mm, clip, width=0.75\textwidth]{error_ddx_V2V.pdf}
\caption{Relative error for $\vb*{D}^{(V,V)}_x$
for different combinations of PHS exponents, $m$, and polynomial orders, $q$: (a) no polynomial augmentation; (b) $q=1$; (c) $q=2$; (d) $q=3$; (e) $q=4$; (f) $q=5$. The results for the $y$-derivatives (`+') are almost indistinguishable. }\label{error_dx_V2V}
\end{figure}
We first consider the differentiation matrices $\vb*{D}_{x}^{(V,V)}$ and $\vb*{D}_{\Delta}^{(V,V)}$, which operate on the $(V,V)$-grid shown in figure \ref{mesh_neighbor}(a).
Figure \ref{error_dx_V2V} shows the average relative errors, equation (\ref{relative_error}), computed for the first derivative in the $x$-direction for the test function, equation (\ref{test}).
By comparing the different subplots of figure \ref{error_dx_V2V}, we observe that the relative error for $m=5$ is largely independent of the polynomial order, $q$. For $q\leq 3$, the relative error for $m=5$ is larger than for $m=7$ and $9$, and we hence do not further consider $m=5$.
A general trend is that the truncation error decreases with increasing stencil size and then stagnates.
Similar results are also found in \citet{bayona2017role}.
The last observation is that for $q=5$, the relative error has increased for all $m$. To avoid the Runge phenomenon near the domain boundary, a smaller value of $q$ is favored for a fixed stencil size \citep{bayona2019insight,bayona2017role,bayona2019role}.
With the goal to minimize both the stencil size error, we identify $n=28$, $m=7$, and $q=3$ as the best combination. Note that the order of accuracy is not reflected in this analysis of the relative error for a fixed $k\Delta r$.
The modified wavenumber analysis (shown in figures \ref{mw_V2V} and \ref{mw_q4} below) will, however, show that increasing $q$ beyond $3$ does not improve the order of accuracy for a fixed stencil size, $n=28$.
\begin{figure}[hbt!]
\centering
\includegraphics[trim = 5mm 12mm 5mm 5mm, clip, width=0.75\textwidth]{error_L_V2V.pdf}
\caption{Relative error for $\vb*{D}^{(V,V)}_{\Delta}$ for different combinations of
PHS exponents, $m$, and polynomial orders, $q$: (a) no polynomial; (b) $q=1$; (c) $q=2$; (d) $q=3$; (e) $q=4$; (f) $q=5$. }\label{error_L_V2V}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{error_L_V2V} shows the relative error for the second derivatives contained in the Laplacian, $\vb*{D}^{(V,V)}_{\Delta}$.
We repeat the same analysis as for the first derivative, and similar trends are observed.
Following the same arguments stated above, and for consistency, we proceed with $(n,m,q) = (28,7,3)$ for the Laplacian as well.
\begin{figure}[hbt!]
\centering
\includegraphics[trim = 10mm 20mm 10mm 15mm, clip, width=0.7\textwidth]{MW_V2V_sd.pdf}
\caption{Modified wavenumber diagrams for the differentiation matrices $\vb*{D}^{(V,V)}$ with $(n,m,q)=(28,7,3)$ for: (a) the first; (b) the second derivatives. Shaded areas represent the standard deviations for the results in the $x$- (red) and $y$- (blue) directions, respectively (overlapping regions appear purple).
Results for Pad\'e-type methods are shown for comparison. The recommended maximum modified wavenumber of $k\Delta r=\sqrt{2}$ is highlighted in green. }\label{mw_V2V}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{mw_V2V} shows the modified wavenumber diagrams for the differentiation matrices $\vb*{D}^{(V,V)}$ with the corresponding standard deviations. Results for the
standard $2$nd-order central, and $4$th- and $6$th-order Pad\'e-type methods are shown for comparison.
Despite the inhomogeneity of the mesh, the truncation errors in the $x$ and $y$ directions are very similar.
The accuracy of the first and second derivatives is almost identical to the $6$th-order Pad\'e scheme up to $k\Delta r=2$. Also shown is the standard deviation of the modified wavenumbers obtained from all grid points.
The important observation is that the standard deviation is negligible until the mean modified wavenumber deviates from the theoretical curve.
Wavenumbers beyond this point have to be considered underresolved and have to be filtered out or, ideally, avoided entirely through grid refinement.
The proposed maximum modified wavenumber of $k\Delta r=\sqrt{2}$ (green lines in figure \ref{mw_V2V}) ensures the spectral-like accuracy, which exceeds the second-order accuracy (dotted lines) of most commercial and general-purpose computational fluid mechanics codes.
\begin{figure}[hbt!]
\centering
\includegraphics[trim = 15mm 20mm 0mm 15mm, clip, width=0.7\textwidth]{MW_2d_V2V.pdf}
\caption{2D modified wavenumber diagrams (normalized) for the differentiation matrices $\vb*{D}^{(V,V)} $ with $(n,m,q)=(28,7,3)$ : (a) first and (b) second derivatives. The recommended maximum modified wavenumber of $\tilde{k}\Delta r=\sqrt{2}$ is highlighted in green. }\label{mw_V2V_2d}
\end{figure}
To assess the inhomogeneity of the computational grid, we extend the modified wavenumber analysis to two dimensions by plotting the ratio $k^*/\tilde{k}$, where $\tilde{k}=\sqrt{k_x^2+k_y^2}$, in the $x$-$y$ wavenumber plane. This is shown in figure \ref{mw_V2V_2d}.
An important observation is that the normalized modified wavenumbers are almost independent of the direction of the wave. This finding is encouraging since the local topology of an unstructured mesh, in principle, can have arbitrary orientations.
At the proposed maximum modified wavenumber of $\tilde{k}\Delta r=\sqrt{2}$ (green lines),
the ratio deviates from the spectral limit by at most
$0.5\%$ and $0.1\%$ for the first and second derivatives, respectively.
These observations suggest that the 28-point PHS+poly RBF-FD discretization provides high-order accuracy independent of grid orientation
if the nodes are taken as the midpoints of a {\tt{DistMesh}} grid, see figure \ref{staggered}.
\subsection{P-grid to P-grid} \label{P2P}
\begin{figure}[hbt!]
\centering
\includegraphics[trim = 5mm 12mm 5mm 5mm, clip, width=0.75\textwidth]{error_L_P2P.pdf}
\caption{Relative error for $\vb*{D}^{(P,P)}_{\Delta}$ for different combinations of PHS exponents, $m$, and polynomial orders, $q$: (a) no polynomial; (b) $q=1$; (c) $q=2$; (d) $q=3$; (e) $q=4$; (f) $q=5$.}\label{error_L_P2P}
\end{figure}
Next, we repeat the analysis of \S \ref{V2V} for the differentiation matrix $\vb*{D}_{\Delta}^{(P,P)}$, which operates on the $(P,P)$-grid shown in figure \ref{mesh_neighbor}(b).
We focus on the truncation error of the discretized Laplace operator that is used to solve the pressure Poisson problem, equation \ref{pressure_Poisson}.
Figure \ref{error_L_P2P} shows the relative error for different parameters. The combination $(n,m,q)=(28,7,3)$ that was identified as optimal for the $(V,V)$-grid is taken as the baseline.
Deviating from the baseline case, increasing $m$ to $m=9$ with $q$ constant or increasing $q$ to $q=4$ with $m$ constant yields a small decrease of the error. We choose consistency over these marginal gains and proceed with $(n,m,q)=(28,7,3)$ for $\vb*{D}_{\Delta}^{(P,P)}$.
Prior to making this choice, we confirmed that further increasing $m$ does not further decrease the error significantly.
In fact, letting $m=11$ leads to numerical instability, as can be seen in figure \ref{error_L_P2P}(d). In the following, we will show that increasing $q$ beyond $3$ does not provide a higher accuracy for a fixed stencil size of $n=28$.
\begin{figure}[hbt!]
\centering
\includegraphics[trim = 10mm 20mm 10mm 15mm, clip, width=0.7\textwidth]{WM_P2P_sd.pdf}
\caption{
Same as figure \ref{mw_V2V} for $\vb*{D}^{(P,P)}$ with $(n,m,q)=(28,7,3)$. Results for $(n,m,q)=(28,7,4)$ are reported in panels \ref{mw_q4}(c,d) with negligible difference.
}\label{mw_P2P}
\end{figure}
The modified wavenumber diagrams for the differentiation matrices $\vb*{D}^{(P,P)}$ are reported in figure \ref{mw_P2P}. As before, the analytical results for the $2$nd-order central, and $4$th- and $6$th-order Pad\'e-type methods are shown for comparison.
It is found that the modified wavenumber curves for the $(P,P)$-grid are as good or better as the $6$th-order Pad\'e scheme for both the first and second derivatives.
Furthermore, the variances are much lower compared to the results for the $(V,V)$-grid, previously shown in figure \ref{mw_V2V}.
The likely reason is that the local topology of the $(P,P)$-grid is more evenly distributed in space. This becomes apparent when comparing figure \ref{mesh_neighbor}(b,c) to (a,d) of the same figure.
It is also observed that the modified wavenumber curves for
the $x$- and $y$-directions, in particular for the second derivatives, differ.
We suspect that this is due to the inhomogeneity of the computational domain, which results from its elongated shape and the local grid refinement of the wake region that is also oriented in the $x-$direction.
We conclude that the discretization is also robust in the presence of grid non-homogeneity while preserving higher-order accuracy.
\begin{figure}[hbt!]
\centering
\includegraphics[trim = 15mm 20mm 0mm 15mm, clip, width=0.7\textwidth]{MW_2d_P2P.pdf}
\caption{Same as figure \ref{mw_V2V_2d} for $\vb*{D}^{(P,P)}$ with $(n,m,q)=(28,7,3)$. }\label{mw_P2P_2d}
\end{figure}
The effect of grid orientation is assessed for the first and second derivatives in terms of the two-dimensional modified wavenumber diagrams in figure \ref{mw_P2P_2d}(a) and (b), respectively. Similar to what was found for the $(V,V)-$grid in figure \ref{mw_V2V_2d}, no strong directional preference is observed. At the recommended maximum modified wavenumber of $\tilde{k}\Delta r=\sqrt{2}$, the ratios $k^*/\tilde{k}$ deviate from the spectral limit by only around $0.9\%$ and $1.5\%$.
Similar values were obtained for the $(V,V)-$grid. The direct comparison with figure \ref{mw_V2V_2d} reveals that the modified wavenumber stays closer to unity of a larger radius. This implies that the $(P,P)-$grid will yield accurate results over a wider wavenumber range. The relative error analyses for $\vb*{D}^{(V,P)}$ and $\vb*{D}^{(P,V)}$, that is, cases (c) and (d) in figure \ref{mesh_neighbor}, are reported in \ref{V2P_P2V}. The results are similar to those of the non-mixed grids above. To maintain the overall accuracy of the numerical scheme, which involves combinations of all grids, we hence retain the recommended value of
$\tilde{k}\Delta r=\sqrt{2}$.
\section{Applications} \label{applications}
We demonstrate the viability, robustness, and flexibility of the fractional-step, staggered-node, PHS+poly RBF-FD algorithm on two examples, internal lid-driven cavity flow and the flow past a cylinder. Both test cases are established benchmark problems. The parameters identified from the error and accuracy analyses in the previous section, i.e., $(n,m,q)=(28,7,3)$, are used throughout, and it is ensured that the {\tt{DistMesh}} grid properly resolves the flow by adhering to the $\tilde{k}\Delta r\lesssim \sqrt{2}$ recommendation.
\subsection{Lid-driven cavity flows} \label{Lid-Driven cavity flows}
The lid-driven cavity problem is often used to validate
different implementations of RBF-FD methods. In the past, these implementations often used specific grid arrangements, such as Cartesian or quasi-uniform grids \citep{sanyasiraju2008local, xie2021improved}, or locally orthogonal grids near the boundary \citep{ chinchapatnam2009compact, shu2003local,shu2005computation}. A notable exception is the vorticity/stream function-based steady-state solver by \citet{bayona2017role}, which uses scattered nodes throughout. Here, we solve the transient problem on scattered nodes with local grid refinement near the walls.
\begin{figure}[hbt!]
\centering
\includegraphics[trim = 0mm 22mm 0mm 18mm, clip, width=0.85\textwidth]{mesh_cavity_Re_10000.pdf}
\caption{Computational domain and solution for the lid-driven cavity at $\mathrm{Re}=10000$: (a) V-grid with $N= 42799\approx 207^2$ nodes, colored by vorticity; (b) P-grid with $M=14606\approx 121^2$ nodes, colored by pressure.
}\label{mesh_cavity}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{mesh_cavity} shows the discretization of the unit square cavity domain, $\Omega=[0,1]\times[0,1]$, with $N^{(V)}=42799\approx 207^2$ and $N^{(P)}=14606\approx 121^2$.
The characteristic distance of the P-grid is 0.004 near the walls and averages at 0.008 for the whole domain.
The flow inside the square cavity is driven by the motion of the top wall with unit velocity, $U_0=1$. No-slip boundary conditions are prescribed at all walls.
The fluid is at rest at $t=0$.
A time step $\Delta t = 0.00125$, corresponding to a CFL number around 0.7, is used in the computation. Results at Reynolds numbers, $\mathrm{Re}=\frac{U_0}{\nu}$, ranging from 100 to 10000 are investigated for comparison with the benchmark results by \citet{ghia1982high}. While other RBF-based codes often rely on hyperviscosity or other means of regularization, the present implementation runs stably for the entire range of Reynolds numbers.
\begin{figure}[hbt!]
\centering
\includegraphics[trim = 8mm 20mm 8mm 15mm, clip, width=0.8\textwidth]{velocity_centerline_PHS_0.pdf}
\caption{Velocity profiles for the lid-driven cavity flow
at $\mathrm{Re}=100$ (magenta), $\mathrm{Re}=400$ (cyan), $\mathrm{Re}=1000$ (black), $\mathrm{Re}=3200$ (black), $\mathrm{Re}=5000$ (green) and $\mathrm{Re}=7500$ (red) through the: (a) horizontal centerline; (b) vertical centerline. Results at $\mathrm{Re}=10000$ (purple) are the time-averaged profiles.
The obtained results (solid) are compared to those of \citet{ghia1982high} (`+').}\label{velocity_centerline}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{velocity_centerline}(a) and (b) display the obtained velocity profiles through the horizontal and vertical centerlines of the cavity, respectively. The present results compare well with the benchmark data of \citet{ghia1982high}, who used $129^2$
and $257^2$ nodes for Reynolds numbers smaller and larger or equal than 5000, respectively. After reaching steady-state, a periodic solution with frequency $f=0.63$ is found at $\mathrm{Re}=10000$. The corresponding curves in figure \ref{velocity_centerline} are therefore time-averaged velocity profiles.
The oscillation frequency varies in the literature, and the frequency obtained here falls well in the reported range \citep{auteri2002numerical,bruneau20062d,peng2003transition,tiesinga2002bifurcation}. After confirming the quantitative agreement of our results with the literature, we next examine the corresponding flow fields.
\begin{figure}[hbt!]
\centering
\includegraphics[trim = 10mm 20mm 5mm 20mm, clip, width=0.8\textwidth]{vorticity_evolution_new.pdf}
\caption{Vorticity fields for $\mathrm{Re}=3200$ (a, e), $\mathrm{Re}=5000$ (b, f), $\mathrm{Re}=7500$ (c, g) and $\mathrm{Re}=10000$ (d, h) at: (a-d) $t=15$; (e-g) steady-state; (h) limit-cycle .
The vorticity vector is calculated as $\vb*{\omega}=\vb*{D}_x^{(V,V)}\vb*{v}-\vb*{D}_y^{(V,V)}\vb*{u}$. }\label{vorticity_evolution}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{vorticity_evolution} shows the vorticity fields for the four highest Reynolds numbers.
For $\mathrm{Re}\leq 5000$, the primary vortices seen in figure \ref{vorticity_evolution}(a,b) evolve into the steady-state solutions shown in \ref{vorticity_evolution}(e,f).
Despite its more chaotic evolution, the flow at $\mathrm{Re}=7500$ also converges to a steady state.
It is generally observed that the higher the Reynolds numbers, the longer it takes to reach steady-state.
For $\mathrm{Re}=10000$, the flow-field is doe not possess a steady-state solution, and we hence show an instantaneous state within the limit-cycle.
After confirming that the proposed scheme is well-suited for simulating this unsteady incompressible internal flow,
we next focus on the more challenging example of open flow over a cylinder.
\subsection{Cylinder flow} \label{cylinder flow}
Wakes behind bluff bodies are an ubiquitous phenomenon in engineering, and the flow over a circular cylinder is often used as an unsteady benchmark problem for numerical methods.
RBF-based discretization facilitates easy local grid refinement near the solid boundaries and in the wake region.
To the best knowledge of the authors, previous works on RBF for cylinder flows have exclusively used polar meshes to discretize the region around the cylinder \cite{ding2004simulation,javed2013hybrid,javed2014shape,shu2005computation,xie2021improved} (or have not reported the mesh topology).
Here, we use scattered nodes, as described in \S \ref{Spatial Discretization} and previously shown in figure \ref{staggered}, throughout the entire domain.
\begin{figure}[hbt!]
\centering
\includegraphics[trim = 3mm 33mm 5mm 30mm, clip, width=0.85\textwidth]{mesh_cylinder_refine.pdf}
\caption{Computational grids for cylinder flow: (a) V-grid with $N^{(V)}= 55671$ nodes showing $\omega$; (b) P-grid with $N^{(P)}=18647$ nodes showing $p$ at Re=100, respectively. }\label{mesh_cylinder}
\end{figure}
Following \cite{calhoun2002cartesian,russell2003cartesian}, we take the computational domain $\Omega$ as the exterior of the cylinder $r\geq D/2 =0.5$ within the rectangle $-8\leq x\leq 24,\, -8\leq y\leq 8$. Local grid refinement is used to resolve the regions near the cylinder and the wake.
Figure \ref{mesh_cylinder}(a,b) show the V-grid with $N^{(V)}= 55671$ and P-grid with $N^{(P)} = 18647$, respectively. The characteristic distances of the P-grid are $\Delta r^{(p)}=0.03$ near the cylinder, 0.04 on the wake centerline, $x > 0.5, y = 0$, and averaged at 0.123 in the whole domain.
The inflow is uniform with $U_{\infty}=1,\, V_{\infty}=0$, symmetric boundary conditions with $v=\partial u/\partial y =0$ are applied at the transverse boundaries, a no-slip condition is prescribed on the cylinder, and a stress-free outflow condition, $-p\vb*{n}+\frac{1}{\mathrm{Re}} \nabla \vb*{U}\cdot\vb*{n}=0$, where $\vb*{n}=[1,0]^T$, is prescribed at the outlet.
The flow field is initialized with $\vb*{U}_0=[\vb*{1},\vb*{0}]^T$.
The time step is $\Delta t=0.005$, corresponding to a CFL number of 0.67. Two Reynolds numbers, $\mathrm{Re}= \frac{U_{\infty} D}{\nu}=$100 and 200, are considered.
\begin{figure}[hbt!]
\centering
\includegraphics[trim = 15mm 20mm 5mm 16mm, clip, width=0.8\textwidth]{vortex_shedding_1.pdf}
\caption{
Instantaneous vorticity fields for $\mathrm{Re}=100$ (a, c, e), and $\mathrm{Re}=200$ (b, d, h) at: (a, b) $t=25$; (c, d) $t=40$; (e, f) limit-cycle .
} \label{vortex_shedding}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{vortex_shedding} shows the vorticity field at three different time instances for both Reynolds numbers.
For both cases, these three time instances capture the gradual evolution of the unstable wake flow through a transient that finally results in the limit-cycle oscillation. This limit-cycle oscillation is the well-known periodic von K{\'a}rm{\'a}n vortex street seen in figures \ref{vortex_shedding}(e) and \ref{vortex_shedding}(f).
We next quantify these results by examining the drag and lift coefficients on the limit cycle, defined as
\begin{align}
C_D = \frac{F_D}{\frac{1}{2}\rho U_{\infty}^2 D},\qquad C_L = \frac{F_L}{\frac{1}{2}\rho U_{\infty}^2 D},
\end{align}
respectively. The drag, $F_D$, and lift, $F_L$, forces are computed by integrating the pressure and and wall-shear over the cylindrical surface using the Simpson’s rule.
\begin{table}[!htb]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c||c|c|c| }
\cline{2-7}
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{3}{ c|| }{$\mathrm{Re}=100$} & \multicolumn{3}{ c| }{$\mathrm{Re}=200$}\\ \cline{2-7}
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & $C_D$ & $C_L$ & $\mathrm{St}$& $C_D$ & $C_L$ & $\mathrm{St}$\\
\hline \hline
\citet{braza1986numerical} & $1.364\pm 0.015$ & $\pm 0.25$ & - & $1.40\pm 0.05$ & $\pm 0.75$ & -\\
\hline
\citet{liu1998preconditioned} & $1.350\pm 0.012$ & $\pm 0.339$ & 0.164 & $1.31\pm 0.049$ & $\pm 0.69$ & 0.192\\
\hline
\citet{calhoun2002cartesian} & $1.330\pm 0.014$ & $\pm 0.298$ & 0.175 & $1.17\pm 0.058$ & $\pm 0.67$ & 0.202 \\
\hline
\citet{russell2003cartesian} & $1.38\pm 0.007$ & $\pm 0.300$ & 0.169 & $1.29\pm 0.022$ & $\pm 0.50$ & 0.195 \\
\hline
\citet{ding2004simulation} & $1.325\pm 0.008$ & $\pm 0.28$ & 0.164 & $1.327\pm 0.045$ & $\pm 0.60$ & 0.196 \\
\hline
\citet{shu2005computation} & $1.362\pm 0.010$ & $\pm 0.32$ & 0.166 & $1.352\pm 0.049$ & $\pm 0.62$ & 0.192 \\
\hline
\citet{shahane2021high} & $1.354\pm 0.009$ & $\pm 0.333$ & 0.166 & $1.364\pm 0.045$ & $\pm 0.690$ & 0.197 \\
\hline
Present & 1.353 $\pm$ 0.010 & $\pm$ 0.342 & 0.171& 1.382 $\pm$ 0.046 & $\pm$ 0.683 & 0.201\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Summary of published results for drag, lift and the fundamental vortex shedding frequency the flow behind a cylinder at $\mathrm{Re}=100$ and $\mathrm{Re}=200$, and comparison to current results.}
\label{results_cylinder}
\end{table}
Table \ref{results_cylinder} compares previous results for both Reynolds numbers to the values obtained here. The vortex shedding frequency is reported in terms of the Strouhal number, $\mathrm{St}=f D/U_{\infty}$.
It can be seen that our results fall well within the range of the previous results, which vary by as much as $16\%$ at $\mathrm{Re}=200$.
Out of the reported literature, the work of \citet{shahane2021high} is most closely related to the present study. \citet{shahane2021high} report results for their collocated PHS-RBF method for two different grid resolutions.
Their results on the finer grid are reported in table \ref{results_cylinder}.
The staggered-grid arrangement used here utilizes around $65 \%$ fewer nodes on the $V-$grid, or $85\%$ on the $P-$grid, and an about one-third smaller RBF stencil.
\section{Summary and discussion} \label{conclusion}
The main objective of this work was to advance the state-of-the-art in RBF-based discretizations to enable future high-fidelity simulations of engineering or natural flows in complex domains. To this end, a semi-implicit fractional-step algorithm for the time-dependent Navier-Stokes equations that uses PHS+poly RBF-FDs to approximate spatial derivatives on scattered nodes was presented. The algorithm achieves high accuracy and stability by staggering the pressure at the vertices and the velocities at the face centers of unstructured triangular meshes. A systematic study has shown that the parameter combination $(n,m,q)=(28,7,3)$ yields a good balance between accuracy and stencil size. In particular, this parameter triplet ensures high accuracy up to a proposed maximum modified wavenumber of $\tilde{k} \Delta r =\sqrt{2}$, that is, the same `spectral-like resolution' of higher-order Pad\'e-type compact finite differences \citep{lele1992compact}. For a stencil size $n=28$, it was found that increasing the polynomial degree beyond $q=3$ does not improve accuracy and that a PHS exponent of $m=7$ yields the smallest error within the considered parameter space. A two-dimensional modified wavenumber analysis has further shown that the error between the computed derivatives and the spectral limit does not exceed $1.5\%$ at $\tilde{k} \Delta r =\sqrt{2}$ for varying wave angles, hence demonstrating high-order accuracy in the presence of grid non-homogeneity. The incompressible Navier-Stokes solver is demonstrated on two benchmark problems, lid-driven cavity, and cylinder flow. Over a range of Reynolds numbers, the results compare well with data reported in previous works at a comparably low computational cost.
Since the pioneering work by \citet{hardy1971multiquadric}, RBF discretizations have been applied to a large variety of mostly canonical problems and have been continuously improved and specialized. Take as examples most relevant to this contribution the introduction of RBF-FDs \citep{tolstykh2000using}, PHS+poly RBFs \citep{flyer2016enhancing}, and, most recently, the use of PHD+poly RBFs to solve the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations by \citet{shahane2021high}. Despite the impressive conceptual and algorithmic progress, the technology transition to a general-purpose CFD tool for physical exploration or engineering applications has, arguably, not been yet accomplished in the same way as for FD, FV, finite element, and DG methods. The present contribution should be seen as a continuation of the works referenced above with this goal. The natural next steps along these lines are hence the extension to 3-D and demonstration on non-canonical geophysical or engineering flows. A conceptual advantage of RBF-FDs, which it shares with classical FDs, is that they can directly be used in the strong formulation. This makes the construction of sparse differentiation operators, and therefore global Jacobians for hydrodynamic stability analysis, particularly easy. The latter application is another direction of our current research.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
The authors would like to thank Bengt Fornberg for sharing his insights. We gratefully acknowledge support by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. CBET-1953999 (PM Ron Joslin).
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\renewcommand{\theequation}{{\rm A}.\arabic{equation}}
|
\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}%
\z@{.5\linespacing\@plus.7\linespacing}{.1\linespacing}%
{\normalfont\itshape}}
\makeatother
\title{Sphere Packing Densities of Sublattices of the Mordell-Weil Lattices of Two Families of Elliptic Curves}
\author{Arjun Nigam}
\date{\today}
\theoremstyle{plain}
\newtheorem{thm}{Theorem}[section]
\newtheorem*{thm*}{Theorem}
\newtheorem{cor}[thm]{Corollary}
\newtheorem{lem}[thm]{Lemma}
\newtheorem{prop}[thm]{Proposition}
\theoremstyle{definition}
\newtheorem{defin}[thm]{Definition}
\theoremstyle{remark}
\newtheorem*{rem}{Remark}
\numberwithin{equation}{section}
\newcommand{\Addresses}{
\bigskip
Arjun Nigam, \textsc{University of Arizona}\\ \nopagebreak
\textit{E-mail address}: \href{mailto:<EMAIL>}{<EMAIL>}
}
\usepackage{indentfirst}
\setlength{\parindent}{20pt}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
In this paper, we examine certain maximal rank sublattices of the Mordell-Weil lattices of two families of elliptic curves over fields of characteristic $p>0$. We compute explicit lower bounds on the densest sphere packings of these sublattices by finding lower bounds on the minimal norms of the sublattices and explicitly computing the volumes of their fundamental domains.
\end{abstract}
\section{Preliminaries}
A sphere packing in $\mathbb{R}^n$ is an arrangement of non-overlapping spheres of the same radius. The densest sphere packing in $n$ dimensions is a sphere packing in $\mathbb{R}^n$ such that the fraction of the volume occupied by the spheres is maximal. Lagrange proved in $1773$ that the densest sphere packing in two dimensions is the hexagonal packing. More than 200 years later, Thomas Hales proved that the cubic close packing and hexagonal close packing arrangements achieve the densest sphere packing in three dimensions. In 2016, Henry Cohn, Abhinav Kumar, Stephen D. Miller, Danylo Radchenko, and Maryna Viazovska resolved the problem of finding the densest sphere packing for dimensions $8$ and $24$.
\begin{defin}
Let $\Lambda$ be a free $\mathbb{Z}$-module in $\mathbb{R}^n$ of maximal rank. A sphere packing on $\Lambda$ is a non-overlapping arrangement of spheres of the same radius in $\mathbb{R}^n$ such that each sphere is centered at a point of $\Lambda$. The \textbf{densest sphere packing} of $\Lambda$ is a sphere packing on $\Lambda$ of maximal density.
\end{defin}
\begin{defin}
Let $\Lambda$ be a free $\mathbb{Z}$-module in $\mathbb{R}^n$ of maximal rank. The \textbf{packing radius} of $\Lambda$ is the radius of the largest open ball in $\mathbb{R}^n$ whose translates by elements of $\Lambda$ do not overlap.
\end{defin}
\begin{defin}
Let $k$ and let $E$ be a $k$-scheme. Then a point $P$ of $E$ is called a $\pmb{k}$\textbf{-rational point} if it is a section of the morphism $E\longrightarrow Spec(k)$. When $E$ is a projective variety, this translates to each coordinate of $P$ being an element of $k$. The set of rational points of $E$ over $k$ is denoted as $E(k)$.
\end{defin}
\begin{defin}
An \textbf{elliptic curve over a field} $\pmb{k}$ is a smooth, projective, one-dimensional algebraic $k$-variety $E$ of genus $1$ with a specified $k$-rational point.
\end{defin}
It is a well-known fact that there is a binary operation on $E(k)$ which makes it into an abelian group. Moreover, if $k$ is a number field or a function field over a finite field, then $E(k)$ is a finitely generated abelian group. Thus, we get that $E(k)_{\text{free}}:=E(k)/E(k)_{\text{torsion}}$ is a free abelian group of finite rank. There is also a positive-definite quadratic form $\hat{h}:E(k)_{\text{free}}\longrightarrow\mathbb{R}$ called the Néron–Tate height. The Néron–Tate height has an associated positive-definite symmetric bilinear form $<-,->:E(k)_{\text{free}}\times E(k)_{\text{free}}\longrightarrow \mathbb{R}$ given by $$<P,Q>=\frac{1}{2}(\hat{h}(P+Q)-\hat{h}(P)-\hat{h}(Q))$$.
\begin{defin}
A \textbf{lattice} is a finitely generated free abelian group equipped with a positive-definite symmetric bilinear form. The \textbf{Mordell-Weil} lattice of $k$-rational points of an elliptic curve $E$ is the group $E(k)_{\text{free}}$ equipped with the bilinear form described above.
\end{defin}
If $(\Lambda,<-,->)$ is a lattice where $\Lambda$ is of rank $n$, then we can find a group homomorphism $\Phi:\Lambda\longrightarrow \mathbb{R}^n$ such that $(\Phi(P))\cdot(\Phi(Q))=<P,Q>$ for all $P$ and $Q$ in $\Lambda$. $\Phi$ can be constructed using the Gram-Schmidt process. Thus, instead of studying the lattice $(\Lambda,<-,->)$, we can study its image in $\mathbb{R}^n$ equipped with the usual dot product. Note that $\Phi$ is not unique. In fact, the images of $\Lambda$ under different $\Phi$ may be different. However, they will be isomorphic as lattices. Thus, we can define the $k$-density of the densest sphere packing associated to an elliptic curve $E$ as the density of the densest sphere packing of an embedding of the lattice $E(k)_\text{free}$ into $\mathbb{R}^n$.
\section{General Results}
\begin{prop}
Let $\rho$ be packing radius of a maximal rank abelian subgroup $\Lambda\subseteq \mathbb{R}^n$ and let $V(\Lambda)$ be the volume of the fundamental domain of $\Lambda$. Then the density of the densest sphere packing of $\Lambda$ is given by $$\frac{\pi^{\frac{n}{2}}}{V(\Lambda)\cdot\Gamma(\frac{n}{2}+1)}\rho^n.$$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
This follows from the formula for the volume of the $n$-ball of radius $\rho$ and the observation that the volume of the fundamental domain occupied by the spheres to achieve the densest packing is exactly the volume of an $n$-sphere of radius $\rho$.
\end{proof}
\begin{defin}
Let $\Lambda$ be a maximal rank free subgroup of $\mathbb{R}^n$. Then the \textbf{normalized center density} $\delta_\Lambda$ is given by
$$
\frac{\rho^n}{V(\Lambda)}
$$ where $\rho$ is the packing radius of $\Lambda$ and $V(\Lambda)$ is the volume of the fundamental domain of $\Lambda$.
\end{defin}
It is easy to see that for a fixed $n$, the ratio of the normalized sphere density and the sphere density is constant for all lattices in $\mathbb{R}^n$. Thus, having a large lower bound on the normalized sphere packing density gives us a large lower bound on the sphere packing density.
\begin{prop}
\cite{Elk}
Let $E$ be an elliptic curve over $K$ where $K$ is a number field or function field over a finite field. For any subfield $k$ of $K$, the normalized center density of $E(k)$ is given by $$
\Delta^{-1/2}\left(\frac{N_{\text{min}}}{4}\right)^{n/2}
$$ where $n$ is the rank of $E(k)$, $N_{min}$ is the minimal non-zero value of the Néron–Tate height function, and $\Delta$ is the absolute value of the determinant of the pairing matrix of the generators of $E(k)_{\text{free}}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Note that the volume of the fundamental domain of a lattice is the square root of the absolute value of the determinant matrix of a set of generators of the lattice. To avoid overlaps in the Mordell-Weil lattice, the packing radius $\rho$ must be half the minimal distance between any two distinct points of the lattice. This minimal distance is given by $\sqrt{N_{min}}$.
\end{proof}
\section{The Curve $E: y^2=x^3+t^q-t$}
Let $p>3$ be a prime such that $p\equiv-1$ mod $6$, $q$ an odd power of $p$, and $r$ a sufficiently large power of $p$ (the notion of ``sufficiently large" is made precise below). In this section, we consider the curve given by $y^2=x^3+t^q-t$ over the field $k:=\mathbb{F}_r(t)$.
\begin{defin}
Fix an odd $p$-power $q=p^c$. We say that $r:=p^s$ is \textbf{sufficiently large} if $s$ is a multiple of $c$, $8$ divides $(p+1)s$, and $3(p^c-1)$ divides $p^s-1$. In particular, $\mathbb{F}_q\subseteq \mathbb{F}_r$. If $r$ is sufficiently large, then so are all powers of $r$.
\end{defin}
\begin{defin}
The \textbf{naive height} $h$ of a $\mathbb{F}_r(t)$-rational point $P=(x,y)$ on an elliptic curve is $\text{deg}(x):=\text{max}(\text{deg}(f),\text{deg}(g))$ where $x=\frac{f(t)}{g(t)}$ for $f$ and $g$ coprime polynomials. If $P=[0:1:0]$, then we define $h(P)=0$.
\end{defin}
We wish to find a lower bound on $N_\text{min}$ for our elliptic curve. This is the same as finding the minimum value of $\hat{h}$ on non-torsion points. Since $\hat{h}$ has a bounded difference with the naive height, it is perhaps useful to find a lower bound on the naive height.
\begin{prop}
The naive height on $E$ is bounded below by $\frac{q+1}{3}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $\text{ord}_\infty$ denote the valuation at $\infty$. Let $P=(x,y)$ be a point on $E$ that is not the identity. Then we can apply $\text{ord}_\infty$ to both sides of $y^2=x^3+t^q-t$ to get
$$
2\text{ord}_\infty(y)=\text{ord}_\infty(x^3+t^q-t)
.$$
Note that $\text{ord}_\infty(t)=-1\neq-q=\text{ord}_\infty(t^q)$. Thus, we may use the strict triangle inequality to get that $\text{ord}_\infty(t^q-t)=-q$. However, $q$ is not a multiple of $3$, whereas $\text{ord}_\infty(x^3)=3\text{ord}_\infty(x)$ is, so we must have, using the strict triangle inequality again, that $$\text{ord}_\infty(x^3+t^q-t)=\text{min}(3\text{ord}_\infty(x),-q).$$
We also know that $2\text{ord}_\infty(y)=\text{ord}_\infty(y^2)=\text{min}(3\text{ord}_\infty(x),-q)$. Since $2$ does not divide $q$, we must have that $3\text{ord}_\infty(x)< -q$. Thus, we get
$$
\text{ord}_\infty(x)\leq -\left(\frac{q+1}{3}\right)
.$$
This shows that $x$ has a pole of order at least $\frac{q+1}{3}$ at $\infty$, so we must have $h(P)=\text{deg}(x)\geq \frac{q+1}{3}$.
\end{proof}
Using this proposition, we can now prove that the naive height and the Néron–Tate height are the same for our curve.
\begin{prop}
The Néron–Tate height and the naive height agree on $E$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Since the Neron-Tate height $\hat{h}$ is uniquely characterized by the fact that its difference with the naive height $h$ is bounded and $\hat{h}(2P)=4\hat{P}$ for all $\mathbb{F}_r(t)$-rational point on the curve, it suffices to show that the naive height on $E$ satisfies
$$
h(2P)=4h(P)
$$
for all rational points points $P$ on the curve $E$. Clearly, this holds for when $P$ is the identity. Let $P=(x,y)$ be a non-identity $\mathbb{F}_r(t)$-rational point on the curve where $x=\frac{f(t)}{g(t)}$ where $f$ and $g$ are coprime polynomials. By the proof of Proposition 3.3, we have
$$\text{deg}(g)-\text{deg}(f)=\text{ord}_\infty(x)\leq -\left(\frac{q+1}{3}\right).$$
This implies that $\text{deg}(f)\geq \text{deg}(g)+\frac{q+1}{3}$, so we conclude that $\text{deg}(x)=\text{deg}(f)$ for all points $P=(x,y)$ with $x=\frac{f}{g}$ where $f$ and $g$ are coprime polynomials.\\
Now, we compute $2P$ explicitly. Using basic arithmetic of elliptic curves, we see that the first coordinate of the point $2P$ is
$$
\frac{f^4-8fg^3\cdot(t^q-t)}{4(gf^3+g^4\cdot(t^q-t))}
.$$
By our earlier observation on the height of $\mathbb{F}_r(t)$-rational points of $E$, if there is no cancellation between the numerator and the denominator, the naive height of $2P$ is $\text{deg}(f^4-8fg^3\cdot(t^q-t))$. However, using Proposition 3.3, we get $$\text{deg}(f^4)=4\text{deg}(f)\geq \text{deg}(f)+3\text{deg}(g)+q+1>\text{deg}(8fg^3\cdot(t^q-t)).$$
Thus, we get $\text{deg}(f^4-8fg^3\cdot(t^q-t))=\text{deg}(f^4)=4\text{deg}(f)=4h(P)$.\\
All we need to show now is that
$$
\frac{f^4-8fg^3\cdot(t^q-t)}{4(gf^3+g^4\cdot(t^q-t))}
$$
has no cancellation. Assume that $\tau$ is an irreducible (in $\mathbb{F}_r[t]$) that divides both the numerator and denominator. Then $\tau$ must also divide
$$
g(f^4-8fg^3\cdot(t^q-t))-\frac{f}{4}(4(gf^3+g^4\cdot(t^q-t)))=-9g^4f\cdot(t^q-t).
$$
Since $\tau$ is irreducible and $9\neq 0$, we must then have that $\tau$ either divides $g,f,$ or $t^q-t$. \\
\\
\textbf{Case 1:} $\tau$ divides $g$\\
Since $\tau$ divides both $f^4-8fg^3\cdot(t^q-t)$ and $g$, we must have that it divides $f$ as well. This is a contradiction as $f$ and $g$ were assumed to be coprime polynomials.\\
\textbf{Case 2:} $\tau$ divides $f$\\
Since $\tau$ divides both $gf^3+g^4\cdot(t^q-t)$ and $f$, we must have that it divides either $g$ or $t^q-t$. Since $g$ and $f$ are coprime polynomials, this can only happen if $\tau$ divides $t^q-t$. However, $\mathbb{F}_q\subseteq \mathbb{F}_r$ and the roots of $t^q-t$ are precisely the elements of $\mathbb{F}_q$. Thus, the irreducible $\tau$ must be of the form $t-\alpha$ for some $\alpha\in\mathbb{F}_q$. Since $\tau$ divides $f$, we must have that $f$ has a root at $\alpha$. Since $x=\frac{f(t)}{g(t)}$ where $f$ and $g$ are coprime polynomials, we also get that $x$ has a root at $\alpha$. Since $t^q-t$ has a root at $\alpha$ of multiplicity one, we can use the strict triangle inequality to get
$$
2\text{ord}_\alpha(y)=\text{ord}_\alpha(y^2)=\text{ord}_\alpha(x^3+t^q-t)=\text{min}(\text{ord}_\alpha(x^3),\text{ord}_\alpha(t^q-t))=1,
$$
which is a contradiction as $2$ does not divide $1$.
\\
\textbf{Case 3:} $\tau$ divides $t^q-t$\\
Since $\tau$ divides both $f^4-8fg^3\cdot(t^q-t)$ and $t^q-t$, we must have that it divides $f$ as well. This then leads to the same contradiction as in Case 2.
\\
This shows that there is no cancellation in $\frac{f^4-8fg^3\cdot(t^q-t)}{4(gf^3+g^4\cdot(t^q-t))}$, so the naive height satisfies $h(2P)=4h(P)$.
\end{proof}
Remark: Using Proposition 3.4, we can give an elementary argument to show that $E(\mathbb{F}_r(t))$ is torsion-free for $r$ sufficiently large.
Let $P=(x,y)$ be a non-trivial $\mathbb{F}_r(t)$-rational point on $E$ that is torsion. By Proposition 3.4, we know that $0=\hat{h}(P)=\text{deg}(x)$. This is only possible if $x=c$ for some $c\in\mathbb{F}_r$. This would imply that $y^2=t^q-t+c^3$. This means that $y$ is a polynomial in $t$. Since $q$ is an odd integer, $t^q-t+c^3$ cannot be the square of a polynomial. This is a contradiction.
\begin{prop}
For $r$ sufficiently large, rank$(E(\mathbb{F}_r(t)))=2(q-1)$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
This is Proposition 8.4.1(3) in \cite{GU20}.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}
$\Delta$ is bounded above by $r^{\lfloor \frac{q}{6} \rfloor}$ for $r$ sufficiently large.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
This follows from Corollary 9.2(3) in \cite{GU20} and the trivial bound $\Sha(E)\geq 1$.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}
For $r$ sufficiently large, the normalized center density $\delta_{E(\mathbb{F}_r(t))}$ is bounded below by
$$\frac{1}{(r^{\lfloor \frac{q}{6} \rfloor})^{1/2}}\cdot\left(\frac{q+1}{12}\right)^{q-1}.$$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
This follows by combining the results of Proposition 2.3, Proposition 3.3, Proposition 3.4, Proposition 3.5, and Proposition 3.6.
\end{proof}
Let $\Lambda$ be a maximal rank sublattice of the Mordell-Weil lattice of $E$. We may then replace $\Delta$ by $V(\Lambda)$ in the forumla in Proposition 2.3 to find a lower bound on the normalized packing density of E. With this as the motivation, we list some explicit rational points on the curve and consider the sublattice they generate.
\begin{prop}
Let $\sigma$ be a solution to $\sigma^{6(q-1)}=-1$ and $\beta$ a solution to $\beta^q+\beta=1$ in $\mathbb{F}_r$ for $r$ sufficiently large. Then $P=(\sigma^2(t-(\beta/\sigma^6))^\frac{q+1}{3},\sigma^3(t-(\beta/\sigma^6)^q)^\frac{q+1}{2})$ is a point in $E(K)$. Thus, we get $6q(q-1)$ $\mathbb{F}_r(t)$-rational points on $E$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
This can be verified by plugging in the point $P$ into the defining equation of our elliptic curve and using the relations on $\sigma$ and $\beta$. Alternatively, these points can be deduced by considering the map $C_{6,q}\longrightarrow E_0$ which we get by presenting $C_{6,q}$ and $E_0:y^2=x^3+1$ as quotients of the Fermat curve of degree $q+1$.
\end{proof}
Using MAGMA, we now compute explicit lower bounds on $E$ for various values of $p,q,$ and $r$.
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ | m{2em} | m{1cm}| m{4.1cm} | m{3.2cm} | m{2cm} | m{4cm} | }
\hline
$q$ & $r$ & Lower Bound on Normalized Density (Using MAGMA) & Lower Bound on Normalized Density (Using Proposition 3.7) & Dimension & Best Known (Normalized) Sphere Packing Density (If Known) \cite{Cohn}\\
\hline
$5$ & $5^4$ & $0.0625$ & $0.0625$ & $8$ & $0.0625$\\
\hline
$5$ & $5^8$ & $0.0625$ & $0.0625$ & $8$ & $0.0625$\\
\hline
$5$ & $5^{12}$ & $0.0625$ & $0.0625$ & $8$ & $0.0625$\\
\hline
$5^3$ & $5^{16}$ & $\sim 265329770514442013394$ & $\sim 619829712395103$ & $248$ & \\
\hline
$11$ & $11^2$ & $\sim 0.0909$ & $\sim 0.0909$ & $20$ & $\sim 0.1315$\\
\hline
$11$ & $11^6$ & $\sim 0.0909$ & $\sim 0.00075$ & $20$ & $\sim 0.1315$\\
\hline
$17$ & $17^4$ & $\sim 2.272$ & $\sim 0.0078$ & $32$ & $\sim 2.565$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
From this table, we see that there is repetition in the lower bound of the normalized density (computed using MAGMA) when $q$ is fixed and $r$ varies. This is to be expected as the explicit points in Proposition 3.8 and the explicit formulation of the Néron–Tate height do not depend on $r$ (assuming that $r$ is sufficiently large). Thus, they generate the same lattice. The same repetition is not observed in the lower bound obtained using Proposition 3.7. This is likely due to the fact that we used the trivial bound on $|\Sha(E(\mathbb{F}_r(t)))|$ when computing it and $\Sha(E(\mathbb{F}_r(t)))$ may depend on $r$.
Remark: $E_8$ is the unique lattice (up to isometry and rescaling) to have the highest density sphere packing in dimension $8$. For $q=5$ and $r=5^4$, we observe that the lower bound obtained equals the sphere packing density of $E_8$. This means that the Mordell-Weil lattice must have sphere packing density equal to $E_8$ which, by uniqueness, implies that the Mordell-Weil lattice is $E_8$. Additionally, we get that the explicit points of Proposition $3.8$ generate the entire Mordell-Weil lattice.
\section{The Legendre Curve}
Let $p$ be an odd prime and $d=p^f+1$ for some positive integer $f$. Consider the function field $K_d:=\mathbb{F}_p(\mu_d,u)$ where $\mu_d$ is the set of primitive $d^\text{th}$ roots of unity and $u^d-t=0$ for indeterminate $t$. We study the elliptic curve $$
E:y^2=x(x+1)(x+t).
$$
As with the previous curve, we would like to have explicit points on this curve.
\begin{prop}
Let $E$ and $K_d$ be as defined. Then for a fixed primitive $d^{\text{th}}$ root of unity $\zeta$ and $i\in\{0,1,\ldots,d-1\}$, the point given by $
P_i^{(d)}:=(\zeta^i_du,\zeta^i_du(\zeta^i_du+1)^{d/2})
$
is a $K_d-$rational point of $E$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
This can be checked by plugging in each $P^{(d)}_i$ into the equation defining $E$ or by observing the action of $Gal(K_d/K)$ on the $K_d-$ rational point $P:=(u,u(u+1)^{d/2})$.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}
The set of explicit rational points in Proposition 4.1 generate a rank $d-2$ subgroup of the Mordell-Weil group. $E(K_d)$ also has rank $d-2$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The first part of this proposition follows from Corollary 4.3 in \cite{Ulm14} and the second part follows from Corollary 5.3 of the same paper.
\end{proof}
Thus, we get that the subgroup generated by the $P_i^{(d)}$ is of finite index in $E(K_d)$.
Just like in the previous section, it is difficult to find a set of generators for the free part of the Mordell-Weil group. However, instead of finding a lower bound on the normalized sphere packing density of $E$, we can find a lower bound on the normalized sphere packing density of the finite index sublattice generated by the $P_i^{(d)}$.
\begin{prop}
The height pairing of the points $P^{(d)}_i$ is given by
$$
<P^{(d)}_i,P^{(d)}_j> = \begin{dcases}
\frac{(d-1)(d-2)}{2d} & \text{if } i=j \\
\frac{1-d}{d} & \text{if } i\neq j \text{ and } i-j \text{ is even} \\
0 & \text{if } i-j \text{ is odd} \\
\end{dcases}
$$
\begin{proof}
This is Theorem 8.2 in \cite{Ulm14}
\end{proof}
\end{prop}
\begin{prop}
For any non-torsion point $Q$ in the subgroup generated by the $P_i^{(d)}$, we have the inequality $$\frac{d-1}{2d}\leq \hat{h}(Q).$$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $Q=\sum_{0}^{d-1} a_iP_i^{(d)}$ be a point in the subgroup generated by the $P_i^{(d)}$. Then we can use bilinearity of the height pairing and the previous proposition to get $$\hat{h}(Q)=<\sum_{0}^{d-1} a_iP_i^{(d)},\sum_{0}^{d-1} a_iP_i^{(d)}>=\frac{(d-1)(d-2)(a_0^2+\cdots+a_{d-1}^2)+(1-d)(\sum_{i-j\text{ is even}}2a_ia_j)}{2d}.$$
Thus, we may write $\hat{h}(Q)$ as $\frac{d-1}{2d}\cdot m$ where $m$ is some integer. Since the height function is positive definite, we must have that $m\geq 1$. This gives us the required lower bound.
\end{proof}
Using these results, we can now compute explicit lower bounds on the normalized sphere packing density of $E$ for various primes $p$ and non-negative integers $f$. We list a few examples below\\
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ | m{2em} | m{1cm}| m{1.5cm} | m{3cm} | m{4cm} |}
\hline
$p$ & $f$ & Dimension & Normalized Density (Lower Bound) & Best Known (Normalized) Sphere Packing Density \cite{Cohn}\\
\hline
$3$ & $1$ & $2$ & $\sim 0.125$ & $\sim 0.288$ \\
\hline
$3$ & $2$ & $8$ & $\sim 1.953\times 10^{-6}$ & $\sim 0.0625$ \\
\hline
$3$ & $3$ & $26$ & $\sim 3.208\times 10^{-26}$ & $\sim 0.577$\\
\hline
$5$ & $1$ & $4$ & $\sim 0.005$ & $\sim 0.125$\\
\hline
$5$ & $2$ & $24$ & $\sim 8.119 \times 10^{-24}$ & $\sim 1.003$\\
\hline
$7$ & $1$ & $6$ & $\sim 1.22\times 10^{-4}$ & $\sim 0.0721$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
We observe that as $p$ and $f$ get larger, the normalized density gets smaller. This is because the Gram matrix obtained from the height pairing has a large determinant for large values of $p$ and $f$.
\section{MAGMA code}
\subsection{Code for a lower bound on the density of the curve $y^2=x^3+t^q-t$}
\begin{verbatim}
p:=5; /* can be any prime equivalent to -1 mod 6*/
c:=1; /* can be any odd integer */
s:=4; /* must be chosen such that it is a multiple of c, (p+1)s is divisible by 8, and 3(p^c-1)
divides p^s-1. Once we find such an s, all multiples of it will also work */
r:=p^s;
q:=p^c;
k<zeta> := GF(r);
K<t>:=FunctionField(k);
R<y>:=PolynomialRing(GF(r));
E:=EllipticCurve([0,t^q-t]);
h:= function(P) return Maximum(Degree(Denominator(P[1])),Degree(Numerator(P[1]))); end function;
bil:= function(Q,R) return (h(Q+R)-h(R)-h(Q))/2; end function;
L:=Roots(y^(6*q-6)+1);
M:=Roots(y^q+y-1);
sumt:=t;
B:=[v[1]: v in M];
A:=[u[1]: u in L];
S:=car<A,B>;
Sol:=[E![x[1]^2*(sumt-(x[2]/x[1]^6))^((q+1) div 3),x[1]^3*(sumt-(x[2]/x[1]^6)^q)^((q+1) div 2)]:
x in S]; /* These are the explicit points of proposition 3.8 */
I:=[Sol[1]];
k:=2;
while k lt #S and #I lt 2*(q-1) do /* This loop returns a maximal rank sequence of points of Sol */
x:=Sol[k];
M := ZeroMatrix(IntegerRing(),#I+1);
for i in [1..#I] do
for j in [1..#I] do
M[i,j]:=bil(I[i],I[j]);
end for;
end for;
for s in [1..#I] do
M[s,#I+1]:=bil(I[s],x);
end for;
for r in [1..#I] do
M[#I+1,r]:=bil(x,I[r]);
end for;
M[#I+1,#I+1]:=bil(x,x);
if Determinant(M) eq 0 then
k:=k+1;
else
Append(~I,x);
k:=k+1;
end if;
end while; /* Our next step is to replace I by a Z-linearly independent sequence of points that
generates a subgroup bigger than the subgroup generated by I. This will be done by successive
iterations of introducing points from Sol and performing the smith-normal form process */
SNFBAS:=[];
for i in [1..#I] do
v:=ZeroMatrix(IntegerRing(),#I+1,1);
v[i,1]:=1;
Append(~SNFBAS,v);
end for;
Grm:= function(J) /* returns the Gram matrix of a sequence of points */
Gr:=ZeroMatrix(RationalField(),#J);
for i in [1..#J] do
for j in [1..#J] do
Gr[i,j]:=bil(J[i],J[j]);
end for;
end for;
return Gr;
end function;
lincom:= function(Q,J) /* given a basis J and a point Q, the function returns the rational
coefficients of Q when written as a linear combination of elements of J */
CfQ:=ZeroMatrix(RationalField(),#J,1);
for i in [1..#J] do
CfQ[i,1]:=bil(Q,J[i]);
end for;
return (Grm(J)^(-1))*CfQ;
end function;
newbasis:= function(Q,J) /* given a basis J and a point Q, this function returns a Z-basis for the
subgroup generated by Q and the elements of J*/
n:=lincom(Q,J);
U:=[];
for p in [1..#J] do
Append(~U,Denominator(n[p,1]));
end for;
d:=LCM(U);
if d eq 1 then
return J;
else
L:=[];
W := ZeroMatrix(IntegerRing(),#J,#J+1);
for i in [1..#J] do
W[i,i]:=d;
end for;
for j in [1..#J] do
W[j,#J+1]:=n[j,1]*d;
end for;
_,_,WSF:=SmithForm(W);
for j in [1..#J] do
Append(~L,WSF*SNFBAS[j]);
end for;
newbas:=[];
for i in [1..#J] do
vp:=E!0;
den:=[];
for j in [1..#J] do
vp:=vp+L[i][j,1]*J[j];
end for;
vp:=vp+L[i][#J+1,1]*Q;
Append(~newbas,vp);
end for;
return newbas;
end if;
end function;
for i in [1..#Sol] do
I:=newbasis(Sol[i],I);
end for;
In:=I;
DetGH:=Numerator(Determinant(Grm(In)));
k:=0;
while((DetGH mod p^k) eq 0) do
k:=k+1;
end while;
densitylower:=((p^(k-1))^(-0.5))*(((q+1)/12)^(#In div 2));
densitylower;
\end{verbatim}
\subsection{Code for a lower bound on the density of the Legendre Curve}
\begin{verbatim}
p:=3; /* can choose any odd prime */
f:=2; /* f can be any positive integer */
d:=p^f+1;
M:=ZeroMatrix(RationalField(),d-2); /* the Gram matrix of P_i*/
for i in [1..d-2] do
for j in [1..d-2] do
if i eq j then
M[i,j]:=((d-1)*(d-2))/(2*d);
elif (i-j) mod 2 eq 0 then
M[i,j]:=(1-d)/d;
end if;
end for;
end for;
det:=AbsoluteValue(Determinant(M));
N:=(d-1)/(2*d);
lowerdensity:= ((N/4)^((d-2)/2))/(Sqrt(det));
lowerdensity;
\end{verbatim}
\section{Acknowledgements}
I would like to thank Dr. Douglas Ulmer for suggesting the project and mentoring me with it. Dr. Ulmer's constant encouragement, wisdom, and patient guidance were invaluable in the writing of this paper.
\printbibliography
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
If $E$ is a directed graph and $K$ a field, the Leavitt path algebra $L_K(E)$ and its operator theory counterpart, the graph $C^*$-algebra $C^*(E),$ have been the subjects of a variety of important results as well as of some thought provoking conjectures. We focus on one of these conjectures, the Graded Classification Conjecture, and its stronger version.
The algebra $L_K(E)$ is naturally graded by the group of integers $\mathbb Z.$ In the unital case (when $E$ has finitely many vertices), this grading induces an action of the infinite cyclic group $\Gamma=\langle x\rangle\cong \mathbb Z$ on the set of the graded isomorphism classes of finitely generated graded projective $L_K(E)$-modules. This action makes the Grothendieck group formed using the finitely generated {\em graded} projective modules and their {\em graded} isomorphism classes into a pre-ordered $\Gamma$-group. Although the notation $K_0^{\operatorname{gr}}(L_K(E))$ has often been used for this group, we use $K_0^\Gamma(L_K(E))$ in order to emphasize that the Grothendieck group itself is not graded by $\Gamma$ but that $\Gamma$ acts on it. If $L_K(E)$ is unital, $[L_K(E)]$ is an order-unit of the group $K_0^\Gamma(L_K(E)).$ If $L_K(E)$ is not unital, $K_0^\Gamma(L_K(E))$ can be defined via the standard (or any other) unitization of $L_K(E)$ and a certain generating interval can be considered instead of $[L_K(E)].$
The Graded Classification Conjecture was formulated by Roozbeh Hazrat in \cite{Roozbeh_Annalen} (published in 2013, on arXiv since 2011). The conjecture was originally stated for row-finite graphs. However, without considering generating intervals, the conjecture is applicable only to the unital case.
The statement below matches a widely accepted formulation (e.g. in \cite{LPA_book} and in \cite{Ara_Pardo_graded_K_classification}).
{\bf The Graded Classification Conjecture (GCC)} is stating that the following conditions are equivalent for finite graphs $E$ and $F$ and a field $K.$
\begin{enumerate}
\item The algebras $L_K(E)$ and $L_K(F)$ are isomorphic as unital $\mathbb Z$-graded $K$-algebras.
\item There is an order-preserving $\Gamma$-group isomorphism of $K_0^\Gamma(L_K(E))$ and $K_0^\Gamma(L_K(F))$ which maps the order-unit $[L_K(E)]$ to the order-unit $[L_K(F)].$
\end{enumerate}
Let $\mathbf {LE_{fin}}$ stands for the category of Leavitt path algebras of finite graphs in which the graded homomorphisms are considered modulo conjugations by invertible elements of the zero components of the algebras. Let $\mathbf {POG}^u$ stands for the category of pre-ordered $\Gamma$-groups with order-units and $\mathbb Z[\Gamma]$-module homomorphisms which preserve the order and the order-units. If we consider $K_0^\Gamma$ as a functor from $\mathbf {LE_{fin}}$ to $\mathbf {POG}^u$, then {\bf the Strong Graded Classification Conjecture}, also formulated in \cite{Roozbeh_Annalen}, is stating that the functor $K_0^\Gamma$ is full and faithful.
By allowing infinite emitters to be present and by considering the generating intervals instead of the order-units, one can formulate the GCC also in the non-row-finite and the non-unital cases and thus extend its scope to all graphs. This generalized version, the generalized GCC, is stating that the condition (1) holds without the requirement that the isomorphism is unital if and only if there is an order-preserving isomorphism of the $\Gamma$-groups of $L_K(E)$ and $L_K(F)$ which preserves the generating intervals.
In \cite{Roozbeh_Annalen}, the GCC is shown to hold for polycephalic graphs. These are finite graphs in which every vertex connects to a sink, a cycle without exits, or to a vertex emitting no other edges but finitely many loops and the graph is such that when these loops as well as an edge of each cycle with no exits are removed, the resulting graph is a finite acyclic graph. In \cite{Ara_Pardo_graded_K_classification}, a weaker version of the GCC is shown to hold for finite graphs without sources or sinks. In \cite{Roozbeh_Lia_Ultramatricial}, the generalized GCC is shown to hold for countable graphs in which no cycle has an exit and in which every infinite path ends in a (finite or infinite) sink or in a cycle. By \cite{Eilers_et_al}, the generalized GCC holds for countable graphs for which whenever there is an edge from a vertex $v$ to a vertex $w,$ there are infinitely many edges from $v$ to $w$.
If $\mathcal V^\Gamma(L_K(E))$ is the $\Gamma$-monoid of the graded isomorphism classes of finitely generated graded projective modules (or its non-unital version defined using an unitization of $L_K(E)$ in the case when $L_K(E)$ is non-unital), this monoid is {\em cancellative} by \cite[Corollary 5.8]{Ara_et_al_Steinberg}. Since we prominently use this result, we illustrate why this cancellability holds while the standard (``nongraded'') monoid $\mathcal V(L_K(E))$ can be fatally non-cancellative. Consider the graph $\;\;\xymatrix{\bullet\ar@(ul,dl)_e\ar@(ur, dr)^f}\;\;$ and let $R$ stand for its Leavitt path algebra over any field $K.$
The map $(x, y)\mapsto ex+fy$ is an $R$-module isomorphism of $R\oplus R$ and $R.$ The existence of such map implies that the relation
\[[R]=[R]+[R]\]
holds in $\mathcal V(R)$ and forces cancellability to fail on $\mathcal V(R).$ However, in the graded case, this map is an isomorphism of $R(1)\oplus R(1),$ not $R\oplus R,$ and $R$
where $R(1)$ is $R$ shifted by $1\in \mathbb Z$ (more detail are reviewed in section \ref{subsection_graded_rings}). Thus, the relation \[[R]=x[R]+x[R]\]
holds in $\mathcal V^\Gamma(L_K(E)),$ producing no obstruction of cancellability.
Cancellability enables one to go back and forth from an equality of positive elements at the $K_0^\Gamma$-level to a graded isomorphism on the algebra level (Lemma \ref{lemma_cancellativity}). Thus, a Leavitt path algebra shares this favorable property with a graded ultramatricial algebra over a graded field. In the analogy, the vertices correspond to some of the diagonal standard matrix units and the edges to some of the off-diagonal standard matrix units. This analogy is the underlying idea of our proof of Theorem \ref{theorem_fullness}, stating that
\begin{center}
the functor $K_0^\Gamma$ is full for Leavitt path algebras of countable graphs with finitely many vertices.
\end{center}
In particular, $K_0^\Gamma$ {\em is} full on $\mathbf {LE_{fin}}.$
Theorem \ref{theorem_fullness} also states that the graded algebra homomorphism
obtained from an {\em injective} map on the $K_0^\Gamma$-level is also
{\em injective}. Thus, if condition (2) holds for two
finite graphs $E$ and $F$ then there are graded algebra embeddings
$L_K(E)\hookrightarrow L_K(F)$ and $L_K(F)\hookrightarrow L_K(E)$ which
are mutually inverse isomorphisms on the $K_0^\Gamma$-level (Corollary \ref{corollary_of_fullness}). In section \ref{subsection_constructiveness}, we reflect on the level of constructiveness of Theorem \ref{theorem_fullness}, (i.e. whether one can explicitly obtain an algebra homomorphism given a $K_0^\Gamma$-level map).
In section \ref{section_faithfullness}, we show Theorem \ref{theorem_faithfulness} stating that $K_0^\Gamma$ is faithful for finite graphs in the following weaker sense: for graded homomorphisms $\phi,\psi: L_K(E)\to L_K(F),$ $K_0^\Gamma(\phi)=K_0^\Gamma(\psi)$
if and only if
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(LE)] there is an invertible $z\in L_K(F)_0$ such that $\phi(v)=z\psi(v)z^{-1}$ for every vertex $v$ of $E$.
\end{enumerate}
Example \ref{example_not_faithful} shows that one cannot find an element $z$ as in (LE) such that $\phi(e)=z\psi(e)z^{-1}$ also holds for all edges $e$ of $E$. By this example (and also by \cite[Example 6.7]{Ara_Pardo_graded_K_classification}),
$K_0^\Gamma$ is not faithful on $\mathbf {LE_{fin}}$ so the Strong GCC fails. However, if we say that two graded homomorphisms are {\em locally equal} if (LE) holds for them, then the functor $K_0^\Gamma$ is full and faithful on the category obtained from $\mathbf {LE_{fin}}$ by considering graded homomorphisms modulo local equality instead of modulo conjugations by invertible elements of the zero components.
\section{Prerequisites}
\label{section_prerequisites}
In sections \ref{subsection_preordered_groups} to \ref{subsection_graded_Grothendieck}, $\Gamma$ stands for arbitrary group and $\varepsilon$ is the identity of $\Gamma$. In the rest of the paper, $\Gamma$ stands for the infinite cyclic group $\langle x\rangle$ on one generator $x.$
\subsection{Pre-ordered \texorpdfstring{$\Gamma$}{TEXT}-monoids and \texorpdfstring{$\Gamma$}{TEXT}-groups}\label{subsection_preordered_groups}
If $M$ is an additive monoid with a left action of a group $\Gamma$ which agrees with the monoid operation, we say that $M$ is a {\em $\Gamma$-monoid}. If $G$ an abelian group with a left action of $\Gamma$ which agrees with the group operation, we say that $G$ is a {\em $\Gamma$-group}. Such action of $\Gamma$ uniquely determines a left $\mathbb Z[\Gamma]$-module structure on $G,$ so $G$ is also a left $\mathbb Z[\Gamma]$-module.
Let $\geq$ be a reflexive and transitive relation (a pre-order) on a $\Gamma$-monoid $M$ ($\Gamma$-group $G$) such that $g_1\geq g_2$ implies $g_1 + h\geq g_2 + h$ and $\gamma g_1 \geq \gamma g_2$ for all $g_1, g_2, h$ in $M$ (in $G$) and $\gamma\in \Gamma.$ We say that such monoid $M$ is a {\em pre-ordered $\Gamma$-monoid} and that such a group $G$ is a {\em pre-ordered $\Gamma$-group}.
If $G$ is a pre-ordered $\Gamma$-group, the $\Gamma$-monoid $G^+=\{x\in G\mid x\geq 0\}$ is the {\em positive cone} of $G.$ If $G$ and $H$ are pre-ordered $\Gamma$-groups, a $\mathbb Z[\Gamma]$-module homomorphism $f\colon G\to H$ is {\em order-preserving} if $f(G^+)\subseteq H^+.$
An element $u$ of a pre-ordered $\Gamma$-group $G$ is an \emph{order-unit} if $u\in G^+$ and for any $x\in G$, there is a nonzero $a\in \mathbb Z^+[\Gamma]$ such that $x\leq au.$
If $G$ and $H$ are pre-ordered $\Gamma$-groups with order-units $u$ and $v$ respectively, an order-preserving $\mathbb Z[\Gamma]$-module homomorphism $f\colon G\to H$ is {\em order-unit-preserving} if $f(u)=v.$ One writes $f: (G, u)\to (H,v)$ in this case and says that $f$ is a homomorphism of pointed groups.
We let $\mathbf {POG}_\Gamma$ denote the category whose objects are pre-ordered $\Gamma$-groups and whose morphisms are order-preserving $\mathbb Z[\Gamma]$-homomorphisms, we let $\mathbf {POG}^u_\Gamma$ denote the category whose objects are pairs $(G, u)$ where $G$ is an object of $\mathbf {POG}_\Gamma$ and $u$ is an order-unit of $G$ and whose morphisms are morphisms of $\mathbf {POG}_\Gamma$ which are order-unit-preserving.
\subsection{Graded rings}\label{subsection_graded_rings}
A ring $R$ (not necessarily unital) is {\em graded} by a group $\Gamma$ if $R=\bigoplus_{\gamma\in\Gamma} R_\gamma$ for additive subgroups $R_\gamma$ and $R_\gamma R_\delta\subseteq R_{\gamma\delta}$ for all $\gamma,\delta\in\Gamma.$ The elements of the set $\bigcup_{\gamma\in\Gamma} R_\gamma$ are said to be {\em homogeneous}. A {\em graded} ring homomorphism $f:R\to S$ is a ring homomorphism such that $f(R_\gamma)\subseteq S_\gamma$ for $\gamma\in \Gamma.$ We write $\cong_{\operatorname{gr}}$ for a graded ring isomorphism.
A unital and commutative graded ring $R$ is a \emph{graded field} if every nonzero homogeneous element has a multiplicative inverse.
We use the standard definitions of graded right and left $R$-modules, graded module homomorphisms and we use $\cong_{\operatorname{gr}}$ for a graded module isomorphism. If $M$ is a graded right $R$-module and $\gamma\in\Gamma,$ the $\gamma$-\emph{shifted} graded right $R$-module $(\gamma)M$ is defined as the module $M$ with the $\Gamma$-grading given by $(\gamma)M_\delta = M_{\gamma\delta}$ for all $\delta\in \Gamma.$ If $N$ is a graded left module, the $\gamma$-shift of $N$ is the graded module $N$ with the $\Gamma$-grading given by $M(\gamma)_\delta = M_{\delta\gamma}$ for all $\delta\in \Gamma.$
Any finitely generated graded free right $R$-module has the form $(\gamma_1)R\oplus\ldots\oplus (\gamma_n)R$ and any finitely generated graded free left $R$-module has the form
$R(\gamma_1)\oplus\ldots\oplus R(\gamma_n)$ for $\gamma_1, \ldots,\gamma_n\in\Gamma$ (\cite[Section 1.2.4]{Roozbeh_book} contains more details). A finitely generated graded projective module is a direct summand of a finitely generated graded free module.
Analogously to the non-homogeneous idempotents, two homogeneous idempotents $p$ and $q$ of a graded ring $R$ are {\em orthogonal} if $pq=qp=0.$ In this case, $p+q$ is a homogeneous idempotent. The relation $\leq,$ given by
$p\leq q$ if $pq=qp=p$ for homogeneous idempotents $p$ and $q,$ is such that $p\leq q$ implies that $q-p$ is also a homogeneous idempotent and $p$ and $q-p$ are orthogonal.
\subsection{Graded algebraic equivalence}
\label{subsection_sima_and_sims}
Two idempotents $p,q$ of any ring $R$ are {\em algebraically equivalent}, written as $p\sima_R q$ (or simply $p\sima q$ if it is clear from context) if there are $x,y\in R$ such that $xy=p$ and $yx=q.$ In this case, we say that $x$ and $y$ {\em realize} the equivalence $p\sima q.$ By replacing $x$ with $pxq$ and $y$ with $qyp,$ we can assume that $x\in pRq$ and $y\in qRp$ so that the left multiplication with $x$ is an isomorphism $qR\cong pR$ with the left multiplication by $y$ as its inverse. Conversely, if $\phi: qR\cong pR$ for some idempotents $p,q\in R,$ then $\phi(q)=x$ and $\phi^{-1}(p)=y$ realize the relation $p\sima q.$ These claims generalizes to graded rings as in the lemma below.
\begin{lemma} \cite[Lemma 2.2]{Lia_graded_UR}
Let $R$ be a $\Gamma$-graded ring and $p,q$ homogeneous idempotents of $R$. The following conditions are equivalent.
\begin{enumerate}[\upshape(1)]
\item $pR\cong_{\operatorname{gr}} (\gamma^{-1})qR$ for some $\gamma\in\Gamma.$
\item $Rp\cong_{\operatorname{gr}} Rq(\gamma)$ for some $\gamma\in\Gamma.$
\item There is $x\in R_{\gamma}$ and $y\in R_{\gamma^{-1}}$ such that $xy=p$ and $yx=q.$
\item There is $x\in pR_{\gamma}q$ and $y\in qR_{\gamma^{-1}}p$ such that $xy=p$ and $yx=q.$
\end{enumerate}
\label{lemma_graded_equivalence}
\end{lemma}
If $p$ and $q$ satisfy the conditions in the above lemma, we say that $p$ and $q$ are {\em graded algebraically equivalent} and write $p\sima_{\operatorname{gr}}q$. If $\gamma=\varepsilon,$ the relation $p\sima_{\operatorname{gr}}q$ is $p\sima_{R_\varepsilon} q.$
\subsection{The graded Grothendieck group}
\label{subsection_graded_Grothendieck}
If $R$ is a unital $\Gamma$-graded ring, let $\mathcal V^{\Gamma}(R)$ denote the monoid of the graded isomorphism classes $[P]$ of finitely generated graded projective right $R$-modules $P$ with the addition given by $[P]+[Q]=[P\oplus Q]$ and the left $\Gamma$-action given by $(\gamma, [P])\mapsto [(\gamma^{-1})P].$ The monoid $\mathcal V^\Gamma(R)$ can be represented using the classes of left modules in which case the $\Gamma$-action is $(\gamma, [P])\mapsto [P(\gamma)].$ The two representations are equivalent (see \cite[Section 1.2.3]{Roozbeh_book}). The group $K_0^{\Gamma}(R)$ can also be defined via homogeneous matrices and \cite[section 3.2]{Roozbeh_book} has more details. Although we focus on the case when $\Gamma$ is $\mathbb Z,$ we note that the definitions and results of \cite[Section 3.2]{Roozbeh_book} carry to the case when $\Gamma$ is not necessarily abelian by \cite[Section 1.3]{Lia_realization}.
The \emph{Grothendieck $\Gamma$-group} $K_0^{\Gamma}(R)$ is the group completion of the $\Gamma$-monoid $\mathcal V^{\Gamma}(R)$ with
the action of $\Gamma$ inherited from $\mathcal V^{\Gamma}(R)$. If $\Gamma$ is the trivial group, $K_0^{\Gamma}(R)$ is the usual $K_0$-group.
The image of the $\Gamma$-monoid $\mathcal V^{\Gamma}(R)$ of a $\Gamma$-graded unital ring $R$ under the natural map $\mathcal V^{\Gamma}(R)\to K_0^{\Gamma}(R)$ is a positive cone making $K_0^{\Gamma}(R)$ into an object of $\mathbf {POG}_\Gamma.$ Moreover, $(K_0^{\Gamma}(R), [R])$ is an object of $\mathbf {POG}^u_\Gamma.$ If $\phi$ is a graded ring homomorphism, then $K_0^\Gamma(\phi)$ is a morphism of $\mathbf {POG}_\Gamma.$ If $\phi$ is unital (i.e. $\phi$ maps the identity onto identity), then $K_0^{\Gamma}(\phi)$ is a morphism of $\mathbf {POG}^u_\Gamma.$
\subsection{Graphs and Leavitt path algebras}\label{subsection_LPAs}
If $E$ is a directed graph, we let $E^0$ denote the set of vertices, $E^1$ denote the set of edges, and $\mathbf{s}$ and $\mathbf{r}$ denote the source and the range maps of $E.$ A {\em sink} of $E$ is a vertex which emits no edges and an {\em infinite emitter} is a vertex which emits infinitely many edges. A vertex of $E$ is {\em regular} if it is not a sink nor an infinite emitter. The graph $E$ is {\em row-finite} if it has no infinite emitters, $E$ is {\em finite} if it has finitely many vertices and edges, and it is {\em countable} if it has countably many vertices and edges.
A {\em path} is a single vertex or a sequence of edges $e_1e_2\ldots e_n$ for some positive integer $n$ such that $\mathbf{r}(e_i)=\mathbf{s}(e_{i+1})$ for $i=1,\ldots, n-1.$ The functions $\mathbf{s}$ and $\mathbf{r}$ extend to paths naturally.
Extend a graph $E$ to the graph with the same vertices and with edges $E^1\cup \{e^*\mid e\in E^1\}$ where the range and source functions are the same as in $E$ for $e\in E^1$ and $\mathbf{s}(e^*)=\mathbf{r}(e)$ and $\mathbf{r}(e^*)=\mathbf{s}(e)$ for the added edges.
If $K$ is any field, the \emph{Leavitt path algebra} $L_K(E)$ of $E$ over $K$ is a free $K$-algebra generated by the set $E^0\cup E^1\cup\{e^\ast\mid e\in E^1\}$ such that for all vertices $v,w$ and edges $e,f,$
\begin{tabular}{ll}
(V) $vw =0$ if $v\neq w$ and $vv=v,$ & (E1) $\mathbf{s}(e)e=e\mathbf{r}(e)=e,$\\
(E2) $\mathbf{r}(e)e^\ast=e^\ast\mathbf{s}(e)=e^\ast,$ & (CK1) $e^\ast f=0$ if $e\neq f$ and $e^\ast e=\mathbf{r}(e),$\\
(CK2) $v=\sum_{e\in \mathbf{s}^{-1}(v)} ee^\ast$ for each regular vertex $v.$ &\\
\end{tabular}
By the first four axioms, each element of $L_K(E)$ is a sum of the form $\sum_{i=1}^n k_ip_iq_i^\ast$ for some $n$, paths $p_i$ and $q_i$, and elements $k_i\in K,$ for $i=1,\ldots,n$ where $v^*=v$ for $v\in E^0$ and $p^*=e_n^*\ldots e_1^*$ for a path $p=e_1\ldots e_n.$ The algebra $L_K(E)$ is unital if and only if $E^0$ is finite in which case the sum of all vertices is the identity. If we consider $K$ to be trivially graded by $\mathbb Z,$ $L_K(E)$ is graded by $\mathbb Z$ so that the $n$-component $L_K(E)_n$ is the $K$-linear span of the elements $pq^\ast$ for paths $p, q$ with $|p|-|q|=n$ where $|p|$ denotes the length of a path $p.$
By \cite[Proposition 2.1.14 and Corollary 2.1.16]{LPA_book}, the zero component $L_K(E)_0$ is isomorphic to a direct limit of matricial algebras. If $E$ is row-finite, the direct limit can be taken over $\mathbb Z^+$ so that $L_K(E)_0$ is isomorphic to an ultramatricial algebra and, if $E$ is finite, the connecting maps are unital.
If $R$ is a $K$-algebra which contains the elements $p_v$ for $v\in E^0,$ and $x_e$ and $y_e$ for $e\in E^1$ such that the five axioms hold for these elements, the set of these elements forms an {\em $E$-family}. In this case, the Universal Property of $L_K(E)$ states that there is a unique algebra homomorphism $\phi:L_K(E)\to R$ such that $\phi(v)=p_v, \phi(e)=x_e,$ and $\phi(e^*)=y_e$ (see \cite[Remark 1.2.5]{LPA_book}). By the Graded Uniqueness Theorem (\cite[Theorem 2.2.15]{LPA_book}), $\phi$ is injective if $p_v\neq 0$ for $v\in E^0.$ If $R$ is $\mathbb Z$-graded and $p_v\in R_0$ for $v\in E^0,$ $x_e\in R_1$ and $y_e\in R_{-1}$ for $e\in E^1,$ then $\phi$ is graded.
\subsection{The Grothendieck \texorpdfstring{$\Gamma$}{TEXT}-group of a graph}\label{subsection_graph_group}
If $E$ is a graph and $\Gamma$ is a group, the authors of \cite{Ara_et_al_Steinberg} construct a commutative monoid $M^\Gamma_E$ which is isomorphic to $\mathcal V^{\Gamma}(L_K(E))$ as a $\Gamma$-monoid. The authors of \cite{Roozbeh_Lia_comparability} provide an alternative construction of $M^\Gamma_E$ which we briefly review.
Recall that we fixed $\Gamma=\langle x\rangle$ to be the infinite cyclic group on $x$ from after section \ref{subsection_graded_Grothendieck} on. The {\em graph $\Gamma$-monoid $M_E^\Gamma$} (also called the talented monoid) is the free abelian $\Gamma$-monoid on generators $[v]$ for $v\in E^0$ and $[v-\sum_{e\in Z}ee^*]$ for infinite emitters $v$ and nonempty and finite sets $Z\subseteq \mathbf{s}^{-1}(v)$ subject to the relations
\[[v]=\sum_{e\in \mathbf{s}^{-1}(v)}x[\mathbf{r}(e)],\hskip.4cm [v]=[v-\sum_{e\in Z}ee^*]+\sum_{e\in Z}x[\mathbf{r}(e)],\,\mbox{ and }\;[v-\sum_{e\in Z}ee^*]=[v-\sum_{e\in W}ee^*]+\sum_{e\in W-Z}x[\mathbf{r}(e)]\]
where $v$ is a vertex which is regular for the first relation and an infinite emitter for the second two relations in which $Z\subsetneq W$ are finite and nonempty subsets of $\mathbf{s}^{-1}(v).$ The power 1 of $x$ in the formulas above signifies the fact that $e$ is a path of unit length. Consequently, if $p$ is a path of length $n$, the relation $[\mathbf{s}(p)]=x^n[\mathbf{r}(p)]+a$ holds in $M_E^\Gamma$ for some $a\in M_E^\Gamma.$ Thus, the ``talent'' of this monoid is to register the lengths of paths between vertices while the standard monoid $\mathcal V(L_K(E))$ can only register whether two vertices are connected or not.
The monoids $M^\Gamma_E$ and $\mathcal V^{\Gamma}(L_K(E))$ are isomorphic as pre-ordered $\Gamma$-monoids. The group completion $G^\Gamma_E$ of $M^\Gamma_E$ is a pre-ordered $\Gamma$-group. If $L_K(E)$ is unital, there is a $\mathbf {POG}_\Gamma^u$-isomorphism of
$(K^\Gamma_0(L_K(E)), [L_K(E)])$ and $(G_E^\Gamma, [1_E])$ where $[1_E]$ denotes the sum $\sum_{v\in E^0}[v].$
\section{Fullness}\label{section_fullness}
In the rest of the paper, $K$ is any field. We also recall that $\Gamma=\langle x\rangle\cong\mathbb Z$ is the infinite cyclic group generated by $x.$ After a lemma which follows from \cite[Corollary 5.8]{Ara_et_al_Steinberg}, we formulate and prove the fullness result, Theorem \ref{theorem_fullness}.
\begin{lemma}
Let $E$ be an arbitrary graph. If $P$ and $Q$ are two finitely generated graded projective modules, the relation $[P]=[Q]$ holds in $K_0^\Gamma(L_K(E))$ if and only if $P\cong_{\operatorname{gr}}Q.$
\label{lemma_cancellativity}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By \cite[Corollary 5.8]{Ara_et_al_Steinberg}, the monoid $\mathcal V^\Gamma(L_K(E))$ is cancellative.
This implies that $V^\Gamma(L_K(E))=K_0^\Gamma(L_K(E))^+.$ So, the relation $[P]=[Q]$ holds in $K_0^\Gamma(L_K(E))$ if and only if the same relation holds in $\mathcal V^\Gamma(L_K(E)).$ By the definition of the monoid $\mathcal V^\Gamma(L_K(E)),$ this implies that the modules $P$ and $Q$ are in the same graded isomorphism class.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem} (Fullness)
Let $E$ and $F$ be graphs with finitely many vertices and let $E$ have countably many edges. For a morphism $f: (K_0^\Gamma(L_K(E)), [L_K(E)])\to (K_0^\Gamma(L_K(F)), [L_K(F)])$ of the category $\mathbf {POG}_\Gamma^u,$ there is a unital graded algebra homomorphism $\phi: L_K(E)\to L_K(F)$ such that $K_0^\Gamma(\phi)=f.$ Moreover, if $f$ is injective, then $\phi$ is injective.
\label{theorem_fullness}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
For a given $\mathbf {POG}_\Gamma^u$-morphism $f: (K_0^\Gamma(L_K(E)), [L_K(E)])\to (K_0^\Gamma(L_K(F)), [L_K(F)]),$ we define the elements $p_v\in L_K(F)_0$ for $v\in E^0$ and
$p_e\in L_K(F)_0,$ $x_e\in L_K(F)_1,$ and $y_e\in L_K(F)_{-1}$ for $e\in E^1$ such that the elements $p_v, x_e, y_e$ form an $E$-family.
{\bf Defining $\mathbf{p_v}$ for $\mathbf{v\in E^0}$.}
Representing $K_0^\Gamma(L_K(E))$ via the finitely generated graded projective right modules, we have that $[L_K(E)]=[\bigoplus_{v\in E^0} vL_K(E)]=\sum_{v\in E^0}[vL_K(E)].$ So, \[[L_K(F)]=f([L_K(E)])=\sum_{v\in E^0}[P_v]=[\bigoplus_{v\in E^0}P_v]\] for some finitely generated graded projective right $L_K(F)$-modules $P_v$ such that $[P_v]=f([vL_K(E)]).$ Without any additional assumptions on $f$, $P_v$ is possibly trivial for some $v\in E^0.$ By Lemma \ref{lemma_cancellativity}, there is a graded isomorphism $L_K(F)\cong_{\operatorname{gr}}\bigoplus_{v\in E^0}P_v.$ Let $Q_v\leq L_K(F)$ be a graded direct summand of $L_K(F)$ such that $Q_v\cong_{\operatorname{gr}} P_v$ by the restriction of the isomorphism $L_K(F)\cong_{\operatorname{gr}}\bigoplus_{v\in E^0}P_v.$ Hence, there are mutually orthogonal homogeneous idempotents $p_v$ in $L_K(F)$ with their sum equal to the identity element of $L_K(F)$ such that $p_vL_K(F)=Q_v\cong_{\operatorname{gr}} P_v.$ So, \[[p_vL_K(F)]=f([vL_K(E)])\] holds in $K_0^\Gamma(L_K(F)).$
{\bf Defining $\mathbf{p_e}$ for $\mathbf{e\in E^1}.$} Next, we define elements $p_e$ such that $[p_e]=[f(ee^*)]$ for every $e\in E^1.$ We first do that for edges with regular sources. So, let $v$ be a regular vertex. In this case, we have that $[p_vL_K(F)]=f([vL_K(E)])=\sum_{e\in \mathbf{s}^{-1}(v)}f([ee^*L_K(E)]).$ Thus, there are finitely generated graded projective right $L_K(F)$-modules $P_e$ such that
\[[p_vL_K(E)]=[\bigoplus_{e\in \mathbf{s}^{-1}(v)} P_e]\] and that $[P_e]=f([ee^*L_K(E)]).$ By Lemma \ref{lemma_cancellativity}, $p_vL_K(F)\cong_{\operatorname{gr}} \bigoplus_{e\in \mathbf{s}^{-1}(v)} P_e.$
Let $Q_e$ be a direct summand of $p_vL_K(F)$
such that $Q_e\cong_{\operatorname{gr}} P_e$ by the restriction of the isomorphism $p_vL_K(F)\cong_{\operatorname{gr}}\bigoplus_{e\in \mathbf{s}^{-1}(v)} P_e.$
Thus, there are mutually orthogonal homogeneous idempotents $p_e\in p_vL_K(F)_0p_v$ such that $p_eL_K(F)=Q_e\cong_{\operatorname{gr}}P_e.$ Hence, \[[p_eL_K(F)]=f([ee^*L_K(E)])\] holds in $K_0^\Gamma(L_K(F)).$
If $v$ is an infinite emitter, we aim to define homogeneous idempotents $p_e$ and $p_Z^v$ to be the images of $ee^*$ and $v-\sum_{e\in Z}ee^*$ respectively for $e\in \mathbf{s}^{-1}(v)$ and finite and nonempty set $Z\subseteq \mathbf{s}^{-1}(v).$ Let us index the elements of $\mathbf{s}^{-1}(v)$ so that it is equal to $\{e_0, e_1,\ldots\}$ and let $Z_n=\{e_0,\ldots, e_n\}.$
For $e=e_0,$ $ee^*v=vee^*=ee^*$ so $ee^*\leq v$ implying that $v-ee^*$ is also a homogeneous idempotent and that $ee^*L_K(E)$ is a direct summand of $vL_K(E)$ with the complement $(v-ee^*)L_K(E)$. Hence, there are finitely generated graded projective right $L_K(F)$-modules $P_e$ and $P_e^v$ such that $[P_e]+[P_e^v]=[p_vL_K(F)].$ Using Lemma \ref{lemma_cancellativity} again, we obtain orthogonal homogeneous idempotents $p_e$ and $p_{\{e\}}^v$ in $p_vL_K(F)p_v$ such that $p_e+p_{\{e\}}^v=p_v.$ Repeating the same argument for $f=e_1$ and for $v-ee^*$ in the place of $v$ (which works since $v-ee^*=ff^*+(v-ee^*-ff^*)$), we obtain orthogonal homogeneous idempotents $p_f$ and $p_{\{e,f\}}^v$ which add up to $p_{\{e\}}^v$ and such that $p_e$ is orthogonal to $p_f.$ Let $p_{\{f\}}^v$ be $p_e+p_{\{e,f\}}^v$ so that we have that $p_v=p_e+p_{\{e\}}^v=p_e+p_f+p_{\{e,f\}}^v=p_f+p_{\{f\}}^v$ and that $p_{\{e\}}^v=p_v-p_e=p_f+p^v_{\{f\}}-p_e=p_f+p_e+p_{\{e,f\}}^v-p_e=p_f+p_{\{e,f\}}^v.$
Continuing this argument inductively, we obtain
orthogonal idempotents $p_{e_n}$ and $p_{Z_n}^v$ with $p^v_{Z_{n-1}}$ as their sum. This ensures that $p_{e_n}$ is orthogonal to $p_{e_i}$ for all $i=0, \ldots, n-1.$ Since $p^v_{Z_{n-1}}\leq p_v$ and $p_{e_n}\leq p^v_{Z_{n-1}},$ we have that $p_{e_n}\leq p_v$ so $p_{e_n}p_v=p_vp_{e_n}=p_{e_n}.$
If $Z\subseteq Z_n$ contains $e_n,$ we define $p_Z^v$ to be $p^v_{Z_n}+\sum_{e\in Z_n-Z} p_e.$ Hence,
\[p_Z^v+\sum_{e\in Z}p_e=p^v_{Z_n}+\sum_{e\in Z_n-Z}p_e+\sum_{e\in Z}p_e=p_{Z_n}^v+\sum_{e\in Z_n}p_e=p_{Z_{n-1}}^v-p_{e_n}+\sum_{e\in Z_n}p_e=p_{Z_{n-1}}^v+\sum_{e\in Z_{n-1}}p_e=p_v\]
and if $W$ is such that $Z\subsetneq W\subseteq Z_n$ also contains $e_n,$ then
\[p^v_Z=p^v_{Z_n}+\sum_{e\in Z_n-Z}p_e=
p^v_{Z_n}+\sum_{e\in Z_n-W}p_e+\sum_{e\in W-Z}p_e=p_W^v+\sum_{e\in W-Z}p_e.\]
{\bf Defining $\mathbf{x_e}$ and $\mathbf{y_e}$ for $\mathbf{e\in E^1}.$} Note that $e$ and $e^*$ realize the equivalence $ee^*\sima_{\operatorname{gr}} e^*e$ for $e\in E^1.$ So, $ee^*L_K(E)\cong_{\operatorname{gr}} (-1)e^*eL_K(E)$ by Lemma \ref{lemma_graded_equivalence}. Hence, in $K_0^\Gamma(L_K(F)),$ we have that \[[p_eL_K(F)]=f([ee^*L_K(E)])=f([(-1)e^*eL_K(E)])=f(x[\mathbf{r}(e)L_K(E)])=\]\[xf([\mathbf{r}(e)L_K(E)])=x[p_{\mathbf{r}(e)}L_K(F)]=[(-1)p_{\mathbf{r}(e)}L_K(F)]\] for every $e\in E^1.$
By Lemma \ref{lemma_cancellativity}, this implies that $p_eL_K(F)\cong_{\operatorname{gr}}(-1)p_{\mathbf{r}(e)}L_K(F).$ By Lemma \ref{lemma_graded_equivalence}, there are $x_e\in p_eL_K(F)_1p_{\mathbf{r}(e)}$ and $y_e\in p_{\mathbf{r}(e)}L_K(F)_{-1}p_e$ such that $x_ey_e=p_e$ and $y_ex_e=p_{\mathbf{r}(e)}.$
{\bf Checking the axioms.} We check that
the elements $p_v, x_e, y_e$ for $v\in E^0, e\in E^1$ form an $E$-family.
By construction of $p_v$ for $v\in E^0$, the axiom (V) holds.
The relations $x_e\in p_eL_K(F)_1p_{\mathbf{r}(e)}, y_e\in p_{\mathbf{r}(e)}L_K(F)_{-1}p_e$ imply that
$x_ep_{\mathbf{r}(e)}=x_e$ and $p_{\mathbf{r}(e)}y_e=y_e.$ In addition, if $v=\mathbf{s}(e)$ is regular, then
$p_vx_e=\sum_{f\in \mathbf{s}^{-1}(v)} p_f x_e=\sum_{f\in \mathbf{s}^{-1}(v)} p_f p_ex_e=p_ex_e=x_e$ and, similarly,
$y_ep_v=y_e\sum_{f\in \mathbf{s}^{-1}(v)} p_f=y_ep_e\sum_{f\in \mathbf{s}^{-1}(v)} p_f=y_ep_e=y_e.$ If $v=\mathbf{s}(e)$ is an infinite emitter, then $p_vx_e=p_v(p_ex_e)=(p_vp_e)x_e=p_ex_e=x_e$ and, similarly,
$y_ep_v=(y_ep_e)p_v=y_e(p_ep_v)=y_ep_e=y_e.$
Thus, both (E1) and (E2) hold.
To check that the axiom (CK1) holds, recall that that $y_ex_e=p_{\mathbf{r}(e)}.$ If $e\neq f$ are edges with the same source, then $y_ex_f=(y_ep_e)(p_fx_f)=y_e(p_ep_f)x_f=0$
since $p_ep_f=0$ by the definition of the elements $p_e$ and $p_f.$ If $e\neq f$ and $\mathbf{s}(e)=v\neq w=\mathbf{s}(f),$ then $y_ex_f=(y_ep_v)(p_wx_f)=y_e(p_vp_w)x_f=0$
since $p_vp_w=0.$ This shows that (CK1) holds.
The axiom (CK2) holds since $\sum_{e\in \mathbf{s}^{-1}(v)} x_ey_e=\sum_{e\in \mathbf{s}^{-1}(v)} p_e=p_v$ if $v$ is a regular vertex.
{\bf The final step.}
By the Universal Property of $L_K(E)$ (see section \ref{subsection_LPAs}), there is a unique algebra homomorphism $\phi: L_K(E)\to L_K(F)$ which maps $v\in E^0$ to $p_v,$ $e\in E^1$ to $x_e,$ and $e^*$ to $y_e.$ Since $p_v$ is in $L_K(F)_0,$ $x_e$ is in $L_K(F)_1,$ and $y_e$ is in $L_K(F)_{-1},$ the homomorphism $\phi$ is graded.
Note also that $\phi$ is unital since \[\phi(1_{L_K(E)})=\phi(\sum_{v\in E^0} v)=\sum_{v\in E^0}p_v=1_{L_K(F)}.\]
As $\phi(v)=p_v$ for any $v$ and, if $v$ is an infinite emitter, $\phi(v-\sum_{e\in Z}ee^*)=p_Z^v,$ $K_0^\Gamma(\phi)$ and $f$ are equal on the generators of $K_0^\Gamma(L_K(E)).$ Hence, $K_0^\Gamma(\phi)=f.$
It remains to show that if $f$ is injective, then $\phi$ is also injective. If $f$ is injective, the condition $[vL_K(E)]\neq 0$ ensures that $[p_vL_K(F)]\neq 0$ which implies that $p_vL_K(F)\neq 0.$ Thus, $\phi(v)=p_v\neq 0$ for every $v\in E^0.$ By the Graded Uniqueness Theorem (see section \ref{subsection_LPAs}), $\phi$ is injective.
\end{proof}
The last sentence of Theorem \ref{theorem_fullness}, showed using the Graded Uniqueness Theorem, ensures that the homomorphisms $\phi$ and $\psi$ in the following direct corollary of Theorem \ref{theorem_fullness}, are injective.
\begin{corollary}
If $E$ and $F$ are finite graphs and $f:(K_0^\Gamma(L_K(E)), [L_K(E)])\to (K_0^\Gamma(L_K(F)),$ $[L_K(F)])$ is an isomorphism of $\mathbf {POG}^u_\Gamma,$ then there are unital graded algebra monomorphisms $\phi: L_K(E)\to L_K(F)$ and $\psi: L_K(F)\to L_K(E)$ such that $K_0^\Gamma(\phi)=f$ and $K_0^\Gamma(\psi)=f^{-1}.$
\label{corollary_of_fullness}
\end{corollary}
\section{Weak faithfulness}\label{section_faithfullness}
Theorem \ref{theorem_faithfulness} specifies the level of faithfulness of the functor $K_0^\Gamma.$ Using vertices and edges of the graph instead of the standard matrix units, the proof generalizes the standard argument for faithfulness of $K_0$ for matricial algebras over a field when the homomorphisms are considered modulo inner automorphisms.
\begin{theorem} (Weak faithfulness)
If $E$ and $F$ are any graphs and if $\phi, \psi: L_K(E)\to L_K(F)$ are graded algebra homomorphisms (not necessarily unital), then the following are equivalent.
\begin{enumerate}[\upshape(1)]
\item $K^\Gamma_0(\phi)=K^\Gamma_0(\psi).$
\item The relations $\phi(v)\sima \psi(v)$ and $\phi(ee^*)\sima \psi(ee^*)$ hold in $L_K(F)_0$ for every $v\in E^0$ and every $e\in E^1.$
\end{enumerate}
If $E$ and $F$ are finite, conditions (1) and (2) are equivalent with each of the following conditions.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\em (3)}] The relations $\phi(v)\sima \psi(v)$ hold in $L_K(F)_0$ for every $v\in E^0.$
\item[{\em (4)}] There exist elements $x,y\in L_K(F)_0$ such that $xy=\phi(1_{L_K(E)}),$ $yx=\psi(1_{L_K(E)}),$ $x\psi(v)y=\phi(v)$ for every $v\in E^0$.
\item[{\em (4$^+$)}] There exist elements $x,y\in L_K(F)_0$ such that $xy=\phi(1_{L_K(E)}),$ $yx=\psi(1_{L_K(E)}),$ $x\psi(v)y=\phi(v)$ for every $v\in E^0$ and $x\psi(ee^*)y=\phi(ee^*)$ for every $e\in E^1$.
\item[{\em (5$^+$)}] There is an invertible element $z$ of $L_K(F)_0$ such that $z\psi(v)z^{-1}=\phi(v)$ for every $v\in E^0$ and $z\psi(ee^*)z^{-1}=\phi(ee^*)$ for every $e\in E^1.$
\item[{\em (5)}] There is an invertible element $z$ of $L_K(F)_0$ such that $z\psi(v)z^{-1}=\phi(v)$ for every $v\in E^0.$
\end{enumerate}
\label{theorem_faithfulness}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
For brevity, let $L_K(F)=S.$
Having Lemma \ref{lemma_cancellativity}, the implication (1) $\Rightarrow$ (2) is rather direct. If (1) holds and $v\in E^0,$ then
\[[\phi(v)L_K(F)]=K^\Gamma_0(\phi)([vL_K(E)])=K^\Gamma_0(\psi)([vL_K(E)])=[\psi(v)L_K(F)],\] so that
$\phi(v)L_K(F)\cong_{\operatorname{gr}}\psi(v)L_K(F)$
holds by Lemma \ref{lemma_cancellativity}. Thus, $\phi(v)\sima_{S_0} \psi(v)$ holds by Lemma \ref{lemma_graded_equivalence}. Similarly, for every $e\in E^1,$
$[\phi(ee^*)L_K(F)]=K^\Gamma_0(\phi)([ee^*L_K(E)])=K^\Gamma_0(\psi)([ee^*L_K(E)])=[\psi(ee^*)L_K(F)]$ which implies $\phi(ee^*)L_K(F)\cong_{\operatorname{gr}}\psi(ee^*)L_K(F)$ by Lemma \ref{lemma_cancellativity} so that
$\phi(ee^*)\sima_{S_0} \psi(ee^*)$ holds by Lemma \ref{lemma_graded_equivalence}. This shows that (2) holds.
The converse (2) $\Rightarrow$ (1) holds since (2) implies that the maps $K^\Gamma_0(\phi)$ and $K^\Gamma_0(\psi)$ are equal on the generators of $K_0^\Gamma(L_K(E)).$
Let us assume that $E$ and $F$ are finite graphs now. Condition (2) trivially implies (3) and (3) implies (1) by the same argument as for (2) $\Rightarrow$ (1).
To finish the proof, we show that $(2) \Rightarrow (4^+)\Rightarrow (5^+)\Rightarrow (5)\Rightarrow (3).$ The proof of $(4^+)\Rightarrow (5^+)$ also shows that (4) $\Rightarrow$ (5), so this also shows that $(2) \Rightarrow (4)\Rightarrow (5)\Rightarrow (3).$
Assume that (2) holds. For every $e\in E^1,$ let $x_e\in \phi(ee^*)S_0\psi(ee^*)$ and $ y_e\in \psi(ee^*)S_0\phi(ee^*)$ be such that $x_ey_e=\phi(ee^*)$ and $ y_ex_e=\psi(ee^*).$
If $e\neq f,$ $y_ex_f=y_e\phi(ee^*)\phi(ff^*)x_f=y_e\phi(ee^*ff^*)x_f=y_e0x_f=0.$ Similarly, $x_ey_f=0.$
For $v\in E^0$ regular, let $x_v=\sum_{e\in \mathbf{s}^{-1}(v)} x_e$ and $y_v=\sum_{e\in \mathbf{s}^{-1}(v)} y_e.$ We claim that $x_v$ and $y_v$ realize the equivalence $\phi(v)\sima_{S_0}\psi(v).$ Indeed,
\[x_vy_v=\sum_{e\in \mathbf{s}^{-1}(v)}\sum_{f\in \mathbf{s}^{-1}(v)} x_e y_f=\sum_{e\in \mathbf{s}^{-1}(v)} x_ey_e=\sum_{e\in \mathbf{s}^{-1}(v)} \phi(ee^*)=\phi(\sum_{e\in \mathbf{s}^{-1}(v)}ee^*)= \phi(v).\] Analogously, $y_vx_v=\psi(v).$ Note that $\phi(v)x_v=\sum_{e\in \mathbf{s}^{-1}(v)}\phi(ee^*)\sum_{f
\in \mathbf{s}^{-1}(v)}x_f=\sum_{e\in \mathbf{s}^{-1}(v)}\phi(ee^*)x_e=\sum_{e\in \mathbf{s}^{-1}(v)}x_e=x_v.$ By analogous arguments, $x_v\in S_0\psi(v)$ and $y_v\in \psi(v)S_0\phi(v).$
If $v$ is a sink, we let $x_v\in \phi(v)S_0\psi(v)$ and $y_v\in \psi(v)S_0\phi(v)$ be any two elements realizing the equivalence $\phi(v)\sima_{S_0} \psi(v).$
If $v$ and $w$ are two different vertices of $E,$ we have that
\[x_vy_w=x_v\psi(v)\psi(w)y_v=x_v\psi(vw)y_v=x_v0y_v=0.\] Similarly, $y_vx_w=0.$
Let $x=\sum_{v\in E^0}x_v$ and $y=\sum_{v\in E_0}y_v.$ Then
\[
xy = \sum_{v\in E^0} x_v\sum_{w\in E^0} y_w= \sum_{v\in E^0}x_vy_v= \sum_{v\in E^0} \phi(v)
=\phi(\sum_{v\in E^0}v)=\phi(1_{L_K(E)})
\]
and, similarly, $yx=\psi(1_{L_K(E)}).$
For $v\in E^0,$ we have that
\[
x\psi(v)y =
\sum_{w\in E^0}x_w \psi(v) \sum_{w\in E^0}y_w=x_v\psi(v)y_v=x_vy_v=\phi(v).\]
For any $e\in E^1,$ we have that
\[
x\psi(ee^*)y =
\sum_{w\in E^0}x_w \psi(ee^*) \sum_{w\in E^0}y_w=x_{\mathbf{s}(e)}\psi(ee^*)y_{\mathbf{s}(e)}=\]\[
\sum_{f\in \mathbf{s}^{-1}(\mathbf{s}(e)))}x_f \psi(ee^*) \sum_{f\in \mathbf{s}^{-1}(\mathbf{s}(e)))}y_f=x_e\psi(ee^*)y_e=\phi(ee^*).\]
This shows that (4$^+$) holds.
Assume that (4$^+$) holds and let us show (5$^+$). For brevity, let $1_E=1_{L_K(E)}$ and $1_F=1_{L_K(F)}.$ By replacing $x$ with $\phi(1_E)x\psi(1_E)$ and $y$ with $\psi(1_E)y\phi(1_E),$ we can assume that $x\in \phi(1_E)S_0\psi(1_E)$ and $y\in \psi(1_E)S_0\phi(1_E)$ realize the equivalence $\phi(1_E)\sima_{S_0}\psi(1_E).$ Since $F$ is a finite graph, $S_0$ is isomorphic to an ultramatricial algebra over $K$ with unital connecting maps (\cite[Corollary 2.1.16]{LPA_book}). Hence, $S_0$ is a unit-regular ring. By \cite[Theorem 4.1]{Goodearl_book}, if two idempotents $p$ and $q$ of a unit-regular ring are algebraically equivalent then $1-p$ and $1-q$ are also algebraically equivalent.
Thus, the equivalence $\phi(1_E)\sima_{S_0}\psi(1_E)$ implies that $1_F-\phi(1_E)\sima_{S_0}1_F-\psi(1_E).$ Let $x'\in (1_F-\phi(1_E))S_0(1_F-\psi(1_E))$ and $y'\in (1_F-\psi(1_E))S_0(1_F-\phi(1_E))$ be any elements realizing this equivalence. Note that $xy'=y'x=yx'=x'y=0.$ So, if $z=x+x'$ and $w=y+y',$ then
\[zw=(x+x')(y+y')=xy+x'y'=\phi(1_E)+1_F-\phi(1_E)=1_F.\] Similarly, $wz=1_F$. In addition, for $v\in E^0,$ we have that
\[
z\psi(v)w = (x+x')\psi(v)(y+y') = x\psi(v)y=\phi(v).\] Similarly, $z\psi(ee^*)w=\phi(ee^*).$
As (5$^+$) trivially implies (5), it remains to prove (5) $\Rightarrow$ (3). Assume that (5) holds and let $z\in S_0$ be as in condition (5). The elements $x_v=z\psi(v)$ and $y_v=z^{-1}$
realize the algebraic equivalence $\phi(v)\sima_{S_0}\psi(v)$ since $z\psi(v)z^{-1}=\phi(v)$ for any $v\in E^0.$ Hence, (3) holds.
\end{proof}
In the case that $E=F,$ $\phi$ is a graded automorphism, and $\psi$ is the identity, \cite[Proposition 6.3]{Ara_Pardo_graded_K_classification} states that condition (1) of Theorem \ref{theorem_faithfulness} is equivalent with the requirement that there is an inner automorphism $\theta$ of $L_K(E)_0$ such that $\phi$ and $\theta$ coincide on a nonempty and finite subset of $L_K(E)_0.$
If $E$ and $F$ are graphs without sources and if the maps $\phi$ and $\psi$ as in the assumption of Theorem \ref{theorem_faithfulness} are also graded {\em isomorphisms} such that condition (1) of Theorem \ref{theorem_faithfulness} holds, then \cite[Theorem 6.5]{Ara_Pardo_graded_K_classification} exhibits an
injective graded endomorphism $\theta$ of $L_K(F)$ such that the restriction of $\theta$ to $F^0$ is the conjugation by an invertible element of $L_K(F)_0$ and such that $\theta\psi=\phi.$ A necessary and sufficient condition for such $\theta$ to be onto is also given.
Next, we exhibit an example showing that one cannot strengthen condition (5) of Theorem \ref{theorem_faithfulness} by requiring that $\phi(e)=z\psi(e)z^{-1}$ holds for all edges $e$ of $E$. This example also implies that $K_0^\Gamma$ is not faithful on $\mathbf {LE_{fin}}$ (note that this also follows from \cite[Example 6.7]{Ara_Pardo_graded_K_classification}).
\begin{example}
Let $E$ be the graph $\xymatrix{\bullet^u\ar@(ul,ur)^e\ar@(dl, dr)_f \ar[r]^g&\bullet^v },$ let $\phi$ be the identity map on $L_K(E)$, and let $\psi$ map the elements $u,v, g$ and $g^*$ identically to themselves and map $e$ to $f,$ $f$ to $e,$ $e^*$ to $f^*,$ and $f^*$ to $e^*.$ One checks that the elements of the image of $\psi$ constitute an $E$-family, so $\psi$ extends to a ring homomorphism which we also call $\psi$ and which is graded since the degrees of the $E$-family are adequate. The maps $\phi$ and $\psi$ satisfy condition (3) of Theorem \ref{theorem_faithfulness}, so they induce the same map on $K_0^\Gamma(L_K(E)).$ The unitary and selfadjoint element $w=ef^*+fe^*+gg^*+v$ is such that conditions (5) and (5$^+$) hold. Note that $we\neq fw$ (assuming that $we=fw$ implies $e=f$ which is a contradiction).
We show that there is no invertible $z\in L_K(E)_0$ such that $\theta\psi=\phi$ where $\theta$ is the conjugation by $z.$ Assume, on the contrary, that there is an invertible element $z\in L_K(E)_0$ such that $z\psi(r)z^{-1}=r$ holds for every $r\in L_K(E).$ Let
\[z=kv+k_ggg^*+\sum_{i=1}^nk_ip_igg^*q_i^*+\sum_{j=1}^m k_j r_js_j^*\]
where the paths $p_i, q_i, r_j,$ and $s_j$ consist only of edges $e$ and $f,$ $|p_i|=|q_i|>0,$ $|r_j|=|s_j|>0,$ and $k, k_g, k_i, k_j\in K$ for every $i=1,\ldots, n$ and every $j=1,\ldots, m.$ Note that $uz=z-kv.$
Let $p$ be any path consisting only of edges $e$ and $f$ which has the length larger than any of $p_i, q_j, r_j,$ and $s_j.$ Let $q=\psi(p).$
Since $pz=zq,$ we have that $p^*pz=p^*zq,$ so $z-kv=uz=p^*zq.$ As $p^*v=p^*g=p^*p_ig=0$ for any $i=1,\ldots, n,$ we have that
\[z-kv=\sum_{j=1}^m k_jp^*r_js_j^*q.\]
We claim that the sum on the right side is zero. Note that $p^*r_j$ is zero unless $r_j$ is a prefix of $p,$ necessarily proper by the choice of $p.$ Also, $s_j^*q=0$ unless $s_j$ is a prefix of $q.$ Hence, if $p=r_jt,$ either $p^*r_js_j^*q$ is zero or $q=s_j\psi(t)$ in which case
$p^*r_js_j^*q=t^*r_j^*r_js_j^*s_j\psi(t)=t^*\psi(t)=0$ since $t$ and $\psi(t)$ have the first edge different. Thus, we have that $z-kv=0$ and so $z=kv.$ This is a contradiction since $kv$ is not invertible ($kvu=0,$ for example).
\label{example_not_faithful}
\end{example}
\section{Some reflections on the results}
\label{section_reflections}
The progress made by Theorem \ref{theorem_fullness} and Corollary \ref{corollary_of_fullness} does not settle the question whether the GCC holds. We list some other questions and thoughts.
\subsection{Removing the cardinality assumptions}
Let $E$ and $F$ have infinitely many vertices
and the standard generating intervals of $L_K(E)$ and $L_K(F)$ be considered instead of the standard order-units. If the assumption of Theorem \ref{theorem_fullness} is modified accordingly, the question is whether the conclusion of Theorem \ref{theorem_fullness} holds without the requirement that the graded algebra map is unital.
\subsection{The level of constructiveness of Theorem \ref{theorem_fullness}}\label{subsection_constructiveness}
Another natural question is whether one can explicitly produce a graded homomorphism $\phi$ as in Theorem \ref{theorem_fullness}. The proof of Theorem \ref{theorem_fullness} has several non-constructive steps present mainly because
a relation $[P]=[Q]$ on the $K_0^\Gamma$-level does not produce a specific graded isomorphism $P\cong_{\operatorname{gr}} Q$ on the algebra level. Such isomorphism would be needed if one is to explicitly produce $p_v$ for a module $P_v$ in the first step of the proof of Theorem \ref{theorem_fullness}.
The same non-constructive step is present in the subsequent stage of the proof when defining $p_e.$ Similarly, when defining $x_e$ and $y_e,$ one would need to know a specific graded isomorphism $p_eL_K(F)\cong_{\operatorname{gr}}(-1)p_{\mathbf{r}(e)}L_K(F)$ in order to come up with the elements $x_e$ and $y_e$ realizing the equivalence $p_e\sima_{\operatorname{gr}} p_{\mathbf{r}(e)}$. So, one can say that the proof of Theorem \ref{theorem_fullness} is not constructive.
\subsection{A relation of the GCC with symbolic dynamics}
Let $E$ and $F$ be finite graphs without sinks, let $A_E$ and $A_F$ be their incidence matrices, and let $G_E^\Gamma$ and $G_F^\Gamma$ be the graph $\Gamma$-groups of $E$ and $F$ respectively.
Recall that $L_K(E)$ and $L_K(F)$ are graded Morita equivalent if there is an equivalence of the categories of graded right modules of $L_K(E)$ and $L_K(F)$ which commutes with the shift functor $\tau_n$ (given by $\tau_n(M)=(n)M$ for all $n\in \mathbb Z).$
If the shift equivalence and the strong shift equivalence in the diagram below refer to such equivalences over $\mathbb Z^+,$ then the two implications in the second row of the diagram below hold by \cite[Proposition 15]{Roozbeh_Dynamics} (the first also by \cite[Theorem 3.12]{Ara_Pardo_graded_K_classification}). The other three implications in the diagram are direct and the equivalence in the second row holds by \cite[Corollary 12]{Roozbeh_Dynamics} (if $E$ and $F$ have no sources, also by \cite[Theorem 3.10]{Ara_Pardo_graded_K_classification}).
{\tiny
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
& &
\begin{tabular}{|c|}\hline
$L_K(E)\cong_{\operatorname{gr}}L_K(F)$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}& $\Rightarrow$ &
\begin{tabular}{|c|}\hline
$(G^\Gamma_E, 1_E)\cong (G^\Gamma_F, 1_F)$
\\ \hline
\end{tabular} & &
\\
&&$\Downarrow$&&$\Downarrow$&&\\
\begin{tabular}{|c|}\hline
$A_E$ and $A_F$ are\\
strongly shift equiv. +\\ $E$ and $F$ have no sources.\\ \hline
\end{tabular} & $\Rightarrow$ &
\begin{tabular}{|c|}\hline
$L_K(E)$ and $L_K(F)$ are \\
graded Morita equivalent.\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
& $\Rightarrow$ &
\begin{tabular}{|c|}\hline
$G^\Gamma_E\cong G^\Gamma_F$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular} & $\Leftrightarrow$ &\begin{tabular}{|c|}\hline
$A_E$ and $A_F$ are \\
shift equivalent.\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}}
By \cite[Example 18]{Roozbeh_Dynamics}, there
is a finite graph $E$ without sources or sinks (in particular $E$ is nontrivial, essential and irreducible) such that $A_E$ and $A^t_E$ are strongly shift equivalent. If $F$ is the opposite graph of $E$ (obtained by reversing the edges of $E$), then $A_F=A^t_E.$
However, by the same example, no order-preserving map $G_E^\Gamma\to G_F^\Gamma$ can also be order-unit-preserving. In particular, this shows that $L_K(E)$ and $L_K(F)$ are not graded isomorphic. Hence, the vertical implications are strict.
By the Kim-Rouch example from \cite{Kim_Rouch}, there are $7\times 7$ matrices $A$ and $B$ with their entries in $\mathbb Z^+$ such that $A$ and $B$ are shift equivalent but not strongly shift equivalent. If $E$ and $F$ are graphs such that their incidence matrices are $A$ and $B$ respectively, then $E$ and $F$ have no sources or sinks. This shows that the composition of the two implications in the second row is strict. So, at least one of these two implications is strict, but it is not clear which one, possibly both. The statement that the second implication is not strict for all finite graphs is sometimes also referred to as the GCC.
We also note that, by \cite[Theorem A]{Eilers_et_al}, the four conditions in the middle two columns of the above diagram are all equivalent for countable graphs with the property that if there is an edge from a vertex $v$ to a vertex $w,$ then there are infinitely many edges from $v$ to $w$.
|
\section*{Significance Statement}
Network models of the brain have emerged as among the most powerful tools for understanding its structure and function. Recently, neuroscientists and complexity scientists have begun studying higher-order interactions between multiple brain regions that cannot be easily modeled as a network. In this paper, we use multivariate information theory to show that the brain has a large number of higher-order, synergisitic subsystems that are invisible when considering a pairwise graph structure. We analytically relate these synergies to mathematical notions of complexity and show how the brain can be understood as a complex system combining elements of integration, segregation, synergy, and redundancy. The space of higher-order dependencies represents a large, unexplored territory for neuroscience research.
\newpage
\section*{Introduction}
Perhaps the most ubiquitous model used in complex systems is the \textit{network}, comprising pairwise interactions between different elements of the system as directed or undirected graphs \cite{barabasi_network_2016,menczer_first_2020}. While network models can be extremely powerful, they are also fundamentally limited by the constructional rule that every interaction between elements is strictly bivariate. Hence, interactions between three or more nodes must be indirectly inferred, using methods such as motifs \cite{sporns_motifs_2004}, transitivity or clustering coefficients \cite{watts_collective_1998}, and mapping cores or mesoscale communities \cite{fortunato_community_2010, betzel_community_2020}. Increasingly, statistical interactions involving more than two elements (termed ``higher-order" interactions) are recognized to be a key feature of complex systems \cite{battiston_networks_2020,battiston_physics_2021}, making the task of recognizing and modeling higher-order structures an important, developing field. However, a lack of well-developed, formal tools, as well as the inherent computational and combinatorial difficulties associated with higher-order interactions have limited their application. In neuroscience, higher-order interactions have been theoretically implicated as building blocks of complexity \cite{tononi_measure_1994,tononi_complexity_1998} and functional integration \cite{tononi_schizophrenia_2000}. Empirically, they have been found at multiple scales, including in neuronal networks \cite{timme_high-degree_2016,faber_computation_2018,sherrill_partial_2021,sherrill_correlated_2020,varley_information_2021,scagliarini_quantifying_2021}, electrophysiological signals \cite{rosas_reconciling_2020,varley_differential_2020}, and fMRI BOLD data \cite{luppi_synergistic_2020,luppi_synergistic_2022,gatica_high-order_2021}, where higher-order interactions have been proposed to relate to emergent mental phenomena and consciousness \cite{luppi_what_2021}.
Recently, Rosas and Mediano \cite{rosas_quantifying_2019} proposed that information theory could be used to identify higher-order interactions in multivariate systems, and furthermore, that it is possible to disentangle qualitatively different \textit{kinds} of interactions, characterized by pairwise \textit{redundant} and \textit{synergistic} modes of information sharing. Intuitively, redundant information corresponds to information that is ``copied" over many different elements such that the observation of a single element resolves the corresponding uncertainty in all of the other elements. In contrast, synergistic information sharing occurs when uncertainty can only be resolved by considering the \textit{joint state} of two or more variables. This space of redundant and synergistic interactions in the brain remains largely unexplored, as it comprises interactions that are typically inaccessible to a bivariate, functional connectivity network analysis. Synergy is of potential interest because it tracks the ability of the brain to generate \textit{novel} information through the interactions of multiple brain regions (sometimes called information ``modification") \cite{lizier_towards_2013}. In studies of cortical neural networks, synergy has been associated with neural ``computation" (the genesis of new information through a non-trivial interaction of multiple inputs) \cite{timme_high-degree_2016,faber_computation_2018,sherrill_correlated_2020,sherrill_partial_2021,varley_information_2021}. The pure synergy itself is hard to calculate, however (requiring super-exponential computing time for even modestly sized systems), prompting a search for scalable heuristic measures of redundancy/synergy bias. Rosas et al. introduced the O-information \cite{rosas_quantifying_2019} as such a measure, which gives an overall estimate of the extent to which a system is redundancy \textit{dominated} or synergy \textit{dominated}, with negative O-information indicating the presence of predominantly synergistic interactions. Despite strong appeal as a quantitative metric related to computation the origins and neural manifestations of O-information have remained elusive, if not ``enigmatic" \cite{james_anatomy_2011}.
In this work, we apply a range of information-theoretic measures to resting state fMRI data acquired from human cerebral cortex with the aim to identify ensembles of regions (subsystems) that express specific modes of higher-order statistical dependencies. First, we introduce the mathematical machinery required to derive the O-information, and its interpretation in the context of multivariate information sharing processes. We disclose an analytic relationship of O-information to other, more well-known multivariate metrics such as the Tononi-Sporns-Edelman complexity \cite{tononi_complexity_1998}. Next, we apply multivariate information metrics to brain data and uncover the presence of abundant and widely distributed subsystems expressing synergy (negative O-information) across the entire cerebral cortex. Finally, we discuss what our insights reveal about the structure and functional roles of higher-order relations in brain activity.
\section{Theory}
\subsection{Integration, Segregation, Redundancy, Synergy}
A fundamental idea in modern theoretical neuroscience states that the nervous system maintains a balance between ``integration" and ``segregation" \cite{tononi_measure_1994}. The integration-segregation balance principle is based on the insight that the nervous system combines regional elements of functional specialization, with system-wide functional integration. Considerable empirical work has gone into the neural integration-segregation hypothesis, and the on-going balance of integrated and segregated dynamics has been found to be regulated by distinct neuromodulatory systems \cite{deco_rethinking_2015,shine_neuromodulatory_2019}, and correlates with conscious awareness \cite{luppi_consciousness-specific_2019,luppi_lsd_2021}.
The segregation-integration spectrum is typically visualized as a one-dimensional space: on one extreme the system is totally dis-integrated and every element is behaving entirely independently of all the others. On the other extreme is the case of total integration: every element synchronizes with every other element so that the whole system is densely connected. In the middle there is a ``complex" regime where the system combines elements of independence and integration. As it was originally formulated, integration and segregation were discussed in the contexts of networks, and higher-order interactions were inferred via partitioning the system into subsets of varying numbers of nodes \cite{tononi_measure_1994}. These arguments pre-dated the rigorous, mathematical distinction between redundancy and synergy, introduced in the work of Williams and Beer almost two decades later \cite{williams_nonnegative_2010}. Building on these foundations, as well as the definition of O-information from Rosas et al., \cite{rosas_quantifying_2019}, we argue that the notion of integration can be expanded to include \textit{redundant integration} and \textit{synergistic integration}, resulting in a more complex space described by distinct dimensions of integration, segregation, redundancy, and synergy (although these do not form an orthogonal basis). This high-dimensional, qualitative configuration space may be viewed as an informational ``morphospace" \cite{mcghee_theoretical_1991,avena-koenigsberger_network_2015,varley_topological_2021} and provides a framework for the detailed comparison of different systems.
\subsection{Information Theory and Higher-Order Information-Sharing}
In this section, we introduce the basics of information theory necessary to understand its application to higher-order relationships. For a more thorough introduction, readers may be interested in Cover \& Thomas \cite{cover_elements_2012}. The basic object of study in information theory is the \textit{entropy} \cite{shannon_mathematical_1948}, which quantifies the uncertainty that we, as observers, have about the state of a variable $X$. If the states of $X$ are drawn according to the probability distribution $P(X=x)$ with Support Set $\mathcal{X}$, then the entropy of $X$ is:
\begin{equation}
H(X) = -\sum_{x\in\mathcal{X}}P(x)\log_2P(x)
\end{equation}
Now consider two variables $X_1$ and $X_2$: how does knowing the state of $X_1$ reduce our uncertainty (the entropy) about the state of $X_2$? The answer is given by the mutual information \cite{shannon_mathematical_1948}, which can be written in two mathematically equivalent forms:
\begin{eqnarray}
I(X_1;X_2) &=& H(X_1) + H(X_2) - H(X_1, X_2) \label{eq:mi1} \\
&=& H(X_1, X_2) - [ H(X_1|X_2) + H(X_2 | X_1) ] \label{eq:mi2}
\end{eqnarray}
The bivariate mutual information is often applied in the study of complex systems for the inference of functional connectivity networks (e.g. \cite{friston_functional_1994,van_diessen_opportunities_2015,ursino_transfer_2020,barnett_decreased_2020}), which can reveal the structure of dyadic interactions between different elements \cite{sporns_networks_2010}. While functional connectivity networks are extremely powerful, they are fundamentally limited by their pairwise structure and are insensitive to ``higher-order" interactions between two or more variables.
The natural place to begin an analysis of higher-order structures in neural data, then, is by attempting to generalize the mutual information to account for more than two variables. Unfortunately, there is no single unique generalization, and at least three are known to exist: the total correlation, the dual total correlation, and the interaction/co-information (which we will not address here) \cite{cover_elements_2012}. The \textit{total correlation}, (also referred to as the ``integration" in \cite{tononi_measure_1994}) is formally a straightforward generalization of Eq. \ref{eq:mi1}:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:tc}
TC(\textbf{X}) &= \sum_{i=1}^{N}H(X_i) - H(\textbf{X}) \\
\label{eq:tc_dkl}
&= D_{KL}(P(X_1,\ldots,X_N) || \prod_{i=1}^{N}P(X_i))
\end{align}
Where $\textbf{X}$ is a ``macro-variable" comprised of an ensemble of multiple random variables: $\textbf{X} = \{X_1, X_2, \ldots, X_N\}$ and $D_{KL}()$ is the Kullback-Leibler divergence. The total correlation is low when every variable is independent, and high when every variable is individually highly entropic but the joint-state of the whole has low entropy. This occurs when the whole system is dominated by \textit{redundant} interactions: the state of a single variable discloses a large amount of information about the state of every other variable.
The second generalization of mutual information is the \textit{dual total correlation}, formally a generalization of Eq. \ref{eq:mi2}:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:dtc}
DTC(\textbf{X}) = H(\textbf{X}) - \sum_{i=1}^{N}H(X_i|\textbf{X}^{-i})
\end{equation}
where $H(X_i|\textbf{X}^{i})$ refers to the \textit{residual entropy} \cite{abdallah_measure_2012}: the uncertainty intrinsic to the the $i^{th}$ element of $\textbf{X}$ that is not resolved by any other variable, or collection of variables in \textbf{X}. The difference between the joint entropy and the sum of the residual entropies is all the entropy that is ``shared" between at least two elements of $\textbf{X}$ (i.e. is redundantly common to two or more elements). Curiously, while total correlation monotonically increases as $\textbf{X}$ transitions from randomness to synchrony, the dual total correlation is low both for totally random, and totally synchronized systems, peaking when $\textbf{X}$ is dominated by ``shared" information.
Rosas et al. \cite{rosas_quantifying_2019}, propose that the difference between $TC(\textbf{X})$ and $DTC(\textbf{X})$ (first explored by James and Crutchfield as the \textit{enigmatic information} \cite{james_anatomy_2011}) could provide a measure of the overall balance between \textit{redundancy} and \textit{synergy} in multivariate systems: if $TC(\textbf{X})>DTC(\textbf{X})$, then the global constraints on the system dominate and force a redundant dynamic, while if $TC(\textbf{X})<DTC(\textbf{X})$ the system is dominated by information that is both shared, but not redundant. Rosas et al., rechristen this measure the \textit{organizational information}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\Omega(\textbf{X}) &=& TC(\textbf{X}) - DTC(\textbf{X}) \label{eq:o}
\end{eqnarray}
While O-information has been applied in a variety of contexts (such as to questions about the aging brain \cite{gatica_high-order_2021}, information flow in neuronal circuits \cite{stramaglia_quantifying_2021}, and even music composition \cite{scagliarini_quantifying_2021}), there remains considerable uncertainty around how ``synergy" should be intuitively understood. To help elucidate the answer, we relate O-information to the original measure of integration/segregation balance proposed by Tononi, Sporns, and Edelman: the TSE complexity \cite{tononi_measure_1994} and show that a geometric interpretation of the O-information exists that brings with it a novel perspective on redundancy and synergy.
The TSE-complexity admits two formulations:
\begin{eqnarray}
TSE(\textbf{X}) &=& \sum_{i=1}^{\lfloor n/2 \rfloor} \mathbb{E}[I(\textbf{X}^{\gamma} ; \textbf{X}^{-\gamma})]_{|\gamma|=i} \label{eq:tse1} \\
&=& \sum_{i=1}^{N}\bigg(\frac{i}{N} TC(\textbf{X}) - \mathbb{E}[ TC(\textbf{X}^{\gamma})]\bigg)_{|\gamma|=i} \label{eq:tse2}
\end{eqnarray}
The first (Eq. \ref{eq:tse1}) defines the TSE complexity as the average mutual information between the pairs of every possible bipartition of the system \textbf{X}. For every integer \textit{i} between 1 and $\lfloor n/2\rfloor$, we compute all possible subsets of $\textbf{X}$ with $i$ elements (notated by $\textbf{X}^{\gamma}$) and compute the mutual information between that set and it's complement ($\textbf{X}^{-\gamma}$). The second equation (Eq. \ref{eq:tse2}) provides an alternative interpretation: the TSE complexity quantities the difference, at every scale, between the ``expected" integration of the scale if the system were fully integrated, and the actual integration of that scale (calculated as the average total correlation of every subset of size $k$). In this interpretation, the TSE complexity is highest when the smallest scales are relatively dis-integrated, but the macro-scales are relatively \textit{more} integrated. This balance of integration and segregation is emblematic of TSE ``complexity." For a visualization of the TSE complexity calculation as the difference between the expected and empirical values, see Figure \ref{fig:1}.
Computing the full TSE complexity itself requires analyzing every possible subsystem (or bipartition) of \textbf{X}: an insurmountable task for all but the smallest networks, as the combinatorics grow super-exponentially. A useful approximation is to look only at the second-to-top ``layer" of the full TSE complexity summation, which only requires finding the average total correlation for the $N$ sets $\textbf{X}^{-i}$ (where $\textbf{X}^{-i}$ is every $X\in\textbf{X}$ excluding $X_i$. We refer to this measure as the \textit{description complexity} of \textbf{X} \cite{tononi_complexity_1998,sporns_theoretical_2002}. Formally:
\begin{equation}
C(\textbf{X}) := TC(\textbf{X})-\frac{TC(\textbf{X})}{N} - \mathbb{E}[TC(\textbf{X}^{-i})] \label{eq:cd}
\end{equation}
The definition of $C(\textbf{X})$ as successive pruning of information. $TC(\textbf{X})$ is the total integration of $\textbf{X}$. $-TC(\textbf{X})/N$ is \textit{expected} decrease in integration associated with a single element (on average), and $-\mathbb{E}[ TC(\textbf{X}^{-i})]$ is the \textit{actual} decrease in integrated associated with removing every element on its own. $C$, then, computes the difference between the expected decrease in integration associated with removing a single node and the actual decrease. $C$ has several obvious conceptual parallels with the $DTC$ and there is indeed an analytic relationship between $DTC$ and $C$ (for proof, see SI):
\begin{equation}
DTC(\textbf{X}) = N\times C(\textbf{X})
\end{equation}
This result was independently derived in \cite{ay_unifying_2006}. The relationship between $DTC$ and $C$ allows us to rewrite the O-information purely in terms of total correlations:
\begin{eqnarray}
\Omega(\textbf{X}) &=& TC(\textbf{X}) - N\times C(\textbf{X}) \label{eq:o_tc1} \\
&=& (2-N)TC(\textbf{X}) + \sum_{i=1}^{N}TC(\textbf{X}^{-i}) \label{eq:o_tc2}
\end{eqnarray}
This allows us to re-conceptualize redundancy- and synergy-dominance in terms of just redundancy: synergistic information is information that is redundantly present in large ensembles of elements considered jointly but not in any subset of those ensembles. This is conceptually very similar to the definition of synergy provided by the partial information decomposition \cite{williams_nonnegative_2010}, which defines synergy in terms of redundant information shared by higher-order collections of elements. We can also propose a geometric interpretation of the sign of the O-information: based on Eqs. \ref{eq:o} and \ref{eq:o_tc1}, we can see that $\Omega(\textbf{X}) < 0 \iff TC/N < C$ and $\Omega(\textbf{X}) > 0 \iff TC/N > C$. This means that a system $\textbf{X}$ is \textit{synergy-dominated} if the removal of a single element (on average) decreases the integration of the remaining $N-1$ elements \textit{more} than would be expected in the null case of a totally integrated system. The two possible cases (redundancy-dominated, with $\Omega > 0$ and synergy-dominated, with $\Omega < 0$) are visualized and discussed in the context of the TSE complexity in Figure \ref{fig:1}.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{Figure_1.png}
\caption{\textbf{Understanding O-information in the context of the TSE Complexity.} The TSE Complexity provides a system-wide summary statistic of how integrated the system is at every scale. The O-information can be understood as measuring how sensitive the global integration is to the removal of single elements (on average). \textbf{A}: The panel shows a TSE curve for a low-synergy system: $TC(\textbf{X})/N > DTC(\textbf{X})/N$, so $\Omega(\textbf{X}) > 0$. The erasure of any single element, on average, does not change the overall integration of the remaining $(N-1)$ elements much more than would be expected in the null case. \textbf{B}: The panel shows the case where $TC(\textbf{X})/N < DTC(\textbf{X})/N$, so $\Omega(\textbf{X}) < 0$ and the system is ``synergy dominated". Intuitively, this can be understood by recognizing that, on average, the removal of any of the $N$ elements causes a large decrease in the integration among the remaining $(N-1)$ elements.}
\label{fig:1}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{Figure_2.png}
\caption{\textbf{Approximating TSE complexity with total correlation and dual total correlation.} Data are from 100,000 randomly selected subsets of 10 nodes (blue: HCP data; red: MICA data), with TSE complexity computed exactly, by sampling all subsystems. \textbf{(A)} Sum of TC+DTC versus TSE complexity; HCP: $R=0.998, p=0$; MICA: $R=0.999, p=0$. \textbf{(B)} DTC versus TSE; HCP: $R=0.982, p=0$; MICA: $R=0.992, p=0$.}
\label{fig:2}
\end{figure*}
Another heuristic approximation of the TSE complexity is the sum of the total correlation and dual total correlation. Following the notation from Rosas et al.:
\begin{equation}
\Sigma(\textbf{X}) = TC(\textbf{X}) + DTC(\textbf{X})
\end{equation}
James et al. previously termed this measure the \textit{exogenous information} and described it as a ``very mutual information": quantifying all of the shared dependencies between each single variable and every other subset of the system:
\begin{equation}
\Sigma(\textbf{X}) = \sum_{i=1}^N I(X_i ; \textbf{X}^{-i})
\end{equation}
Given the obvious similarity to Eq. \ref{eq:tse1}, Rosas et al., hypothesized that
$\Sigma(\textbf{X}) \propto TSE(\textbf{X})$, which was verified to hold in simple simulations with small $N$ \cite{rosas_quantifying_2019}. By leveraging the Gaussian assumptions here, we can empirically estimate the correlation between TSE and exogenous information and assess how well the relationship holds as $N$ gets large. Figure \ref{fig:2} confirms the strong correlations between TSE complexity with both TC+DTC and DTC alone. These correlations hold over a range of subset sizes, from three to fifteen elements.
\section{Results}
We set out to identify subsystems (subsets of dynamically interacting elements) that express negative O-information (synergy) in the human brain. Leveraging Gaussian assumptions \cite{cover_elements_2012} (see Methods), multivariate information theoretic measures can be estimated from covariance (correlation) matrices expressing empirically recorded functional connectivity (FC). We computed long-time averages of FC derived from two normative samples of human resting-state fMRI, the Human Connectome Project (main data set; \cite{van_essen_wu-minn_2013}) and an open-source multimodal MRI dataset for Microstructure-Informed Connectomics (MICA-MICs; replication data set; \cite{royer_open_2021}). For both data sets we computed a single FC matrix (HCP: 95 participants, 4 runs each; MICA-MICs: 50 participants, 1 run each). Both FC covered the entire cerebral cortex parcellated into a common set of 200 nodes \cite{schaefer_local-global_2018} and node time series were derived from BOLD signals after performing global signal regression, which removes signal components that are common to all nodes in the system, i.e. globally redundant (Fig. SI1).
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{Figure_3.png}
\caption{\textbf{Information measures computed from randomly sampled 10-node subsets.} \textbf{(A)} Fraction (left) and number (right) of subsets with negative O-information, obtained by randomly sampling subsets from the HCP (blue) and MICA (red) FC matrix. Fraction and number estimated from samples of 5,000 (3-12 nodes) or 200 (13-15 nodes) subsets with negative O-information. As the size of the subset grows, the fraction expressing an overall synergy-dominated structure (negative O-information) drops precipitously, while their absolute number continues to climb due to combinatorics. \textbf{(B)} The relation between O-information and TSE complexity in 100,000 randomly sampled 10-node subsystems (HCP data). While very few randomly-sampled sets have negative O-information (see panel A), TSE complexity generally increases with the strength of the dependencies visible to the O-information ($R=0.642, p=0$). \textbf{(C)} The participation quantifies, for each node pair, how often they are encountered as part of a subset with negative o-information (10 nodes, 5,000 random samples, HCP data), The plot shows the relation of the participation against the FC, with each data point representing one of the 19,900 unique node pairs. Node pairs with strong mutual FC (positive or negative) are rarely encountered as part of the same synergistic subset, while node pairs that are more frequently encountered tend to show weak FC. Spearman's rho between absolute FC and participation: $\rho=-0.504$, $p=0$.}
\label{fig:3}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{Figure_4.png}
\caption{\textbf{Topography and functional specialization of randomly sampled synergistic subsets in the brain.} Data in panels A and B was derived from a random sample of 100,000 synergistic 10-node subsets (HCP data). \textbf{(A)} Drawing random sub-samples of 500 subsets, we computed their Jaccard similarity, capturing the number of nodes in common between each subset pair. The similarity matrix was clustered using the kmeans algorithm, iterating between 2 and 30 clusters, with 10,000 repetitions. Optimal cluster quality was determined using the 'silhouette' criterion on the resulting cluster assignments. Random samples consistently yielded around 9-11 optimal clusters, with one example (10 clusters) shown in this panel. A Jaccard similarity of 0.25 corresponds to two subsets having 4 out of 10 nodes in common. \textbf{(B)} Frequency of individual node participation across 100,000 synergistic subsets, displayed on a surface rendering of the cerebral cortex indicating the boundaries of the 200 nodes used for constructing the FC matrix. \textbf{(C)} Each of the 200 nodes is affiliated with one of 7 canonical functional systems \cite{yeo_organization_2011}. Frequency of participation of individual nodes in synergistic subsets (negative O-information, subset size ranging from 3 to 15 nodes) is aggregated (averaged) for each functional system. The plot displays the ratio of empirical frequency over the expected frequency if nodes were selected by chance. A ratio $>1$ or $<1$ indicates that the system is over-represented or under-represented, respectively, in synergistic subsets. Sample sizes identical to those used in Fig \ref{fig:4}A.}
\label{fig:4}
\end{figure*}
Computing O-Information on the full-size 200-node FC matrix results in positive quantities for both data sets (HCP: $\Omega$ = 79.16 nats; MICA: $\Omega$ = 46.69 nats), indicating that the full structure is redundancy-dominated, which might potentially obscure the presence of higher-order, synergistic correlations. We asked if smaller subsets of nodes were present within the full-size FC that generated synergy, or negative O-information. Random sampling of small subsets (between 3 and 16 nodes) indeed yields abundant subsets that express negative O-information (Fig \ref{fig:3}A). Their relative abundance declines rapidly with growing subset size, reflecting the increasing dominance of redundant information and exhaustive capture of unique information. While synergistic subsets account for rapidly diminishing fractions of all subsets, their total number can be non-negligible (10-node subsets: 0.41 percent and $9.23\times10^{13}$, respectively). In a large random sample of 10-node subsets, the O-information is positively correlated with TSE complexity (Fig \ref{fig:3}B; $\rho = 0.642$, $p = 0$; HCP data). Focusing on a separate random sample of 5000 10-node subsets with negative O-information, we asked if the frequency with which pairs of nodes participate in such subsets is related to their pairwise FC. Indeed, the absolute pairwise FC is strongly negatively correlated with the frequency of participation in synergistic subsets ($\rho = -0.504$, $p = 0$, HCP; $\rho = -0.485$, $p = 0$, MICA, HCP; Fig \ref{fig:3}C). This indicates that strongly positive or negative FC between two nodes makes their joint inclusion in a synergistic subset unlikely, while node pairs with low FC magnitude could either be truly disintegrated, or participating in a highly synergistic subsystem.
Participation of nodes in randomly sampled synergistic subsets varies systematically across the cortex. Over a large random sample of 100,000 10-node subsets, all nodes participate at least once, with several nodes participating in more than 10,000 distinct synergistic subsets. Hence, the complete repertoire of co-expressed synergistic subsets covers the entire cortex, with some overlap between subsets, centered on high-participation nodes that form “focal points” or clusters (Fig \ref{fig:4}A). Projecting the participation of individual nodes (brain regions) onto the cortical surface shows significant consistency between HCP (Fig \ref{fig:4}B) and MICA data (Fig SI4) (the two maps are correlated with $\rho = 0.579$, $p = 2.5\times 10^{-19}$, between the two data sets). Functional systems \cite{yeo_organization_2011} distribute unevenly as well, with highest frequencies of participation found in the frontoparietal (FP) system, for synergistic subsets of 10 nodes (HCP: Fig \ref{fig:4}C; MICA: Fig SI2C). For larger subset sizes, participation of limbic (LIM) regions dominates over FP regions.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{Figure_5.png}
\caption{\textbf{O-Information, brain topography and functional specialization of optimally synergistic subsets identified by simulated annealing} All panels show data from the HCP sample. \textbf{(A)} Annealing was carried out 5,000 times for each subset size. plot shows O-information for each optimized subset (gray dots) and their mean (blue line). Note that annealing fails to converge onto any synergistic subsets for subsets containing more than 24 nodes. Optimally negative O-information is achieved for subsets between 8 and 12 nodes. \textbf{(B)} Frequency of individual node participation across optimally synergistic 10-node subsets (4021 unique subsets out of 5,000 annealing runs), displayed on a surface rendering of the cerebral cortex (cf. Fig \ref{fig:4}B). \textbf{(C)} Mean O-information (left) and fraction of synergistic subsets (right) encountered in samples of 20,000 subsets that contained nodes belonging to between 1 and 7 canonical FC systems (HCP data). The mean O-information for samples obtained exclusively from each of the 7 FC systems is indicated (red dots).}
\label{fig:5}
\end{figure*}
Combinatorics prevent exhaustive exploration of subsets of even modest sizes, and the random sampling strategy employed so far is likely to miss subsets that express maximal synergy. To identify subsets with maximally negative O-information (maximal synergy), we used an optimization algorithm based on simulated annealing (references and details are contained in the Methods section). Multiple runs of the algorithm yielded consistent and highly similar outcomes (Fig SI3), indicating convergence of the optimization while again highlighting the existence of a large reservoir of non-identical (degenerate) subsets, all expressing highly negative O-information. Deploying this algorithm while varying subset sizes between 3 and 30 nodes, we identified large numbers of subsets that express highly negative O-information, for subset sizes 3-24 nodes (HCP; Fig. \ref{fig:5}A) and 3-27 nodes (MICA; Fig. SI4). No synergistic subsets are found for subset sizes greater than 27 nodes, as redundancy starts to overwhelm the unique informational contributions of individual nodes at larger subset sizes.
Minimal O-information was achieved for subsets comprising approximately 10 nodes for both data sets. Mapping subsets of nodes expressing near minimal O-information onto a surface plot of the cerebral cortex reveals consistent topography. Fig. \ref{fig:5}B shows the frequency with which individual cortical parcels (nodes) were identified across 5000 runs of the optimization algorithm, yielding 4021 unique solutions (HCP Fig. \ref{fig:5}B; 4166 unique solutions for MICA data, Fig SI4B). Brain-wide nodal frequencies are significantly correlated across HCP and MICA data sets (Spearman’s $\rho = 0.522$, $p = 2.2\times10^{-15}$). When mapping these nodal frequencies to seven canonical resting-state functional systems \cite{yeo_organization_2011}, we find that each of these seven systems contributes, but to different extent. In HCP data, for optimally synergistic 10-node subsets, the visual, frontoparietal and default mode networks are over-represented, while only the FP system appears over-represented in the MICA data; Fig SI5).
The nature of negative O-information (synergy) requires that individual nodes make largely unique (non-redundant) contributions to the multivariate information metric. This suggests that nodes derived from different, informationally distinct (intrinsically redundant, but extrinsically non-redundant) functional communities or systems might be favored as constituents of synergistic subsets. To test this hypothesis, we created sets of 20,000 randomly sampled subsets that were comprised of nodes derived from between 1 and all 7 canonical functional systems (HCP, Fig. \ref{fig:5}C; MICA, Fig. SI4C). The mean O-information, across all randomly chosen subsets, was found to be positive regardless of how many FC systems were included in the subsets. For samples derived from just 1 FC system, the O-information was most positive (i.e. subsets were most redundancy-dominated) for visual, somatomotor and attention systems, and they were least redundancy-dominated for default, frontoparietal and limbic systems. Importantly, the mean O-information decreased, and the fraction of synergstic subsets increased, as subsets were sampled from larger numbers of canonical systems. No subset derived from a single functional system was capable of expressing synergy. Subsets spanning 6 or 7 canonical systems were most likely to express synergy, as indexed by the fraction of negative O-information encountered in the sample. The finding supports the notion that dividing the brain into canonical functional systems prioritizes grouping nodes by redundant over synergistic information, hence missing a potentially important substrate for neural computation.
\section{Discussion}
In this paper, we have shown how the O-information \cite{rosas_quantifying_2019}, a measure of higher-order interactions in multivariate data, can reveal synergistic ensembles of brain regions that are invisible to bivariate functional connectivity analyses. Our primary theoretical result is to provide a geometric interpretation of the O-information that unifies multiple disparate measures of multivariate information sharing into a single framework, built around the Tononi-Sporns-Edelman complexity \cite{tononi_measure_1994}. By re-writing $\Omega(\textbf{X})$ in terms of the total correlation between multiple subsets of \textbf{X}, we find that ``synergy" occurs when removing any single element causes the system to become less integrated (more so than would be expected if structure was uniformly distributed over \textbf{X}). In this sense, synergy captures how the ``whole" can be greater than the sum of it's parts \cite{griffith_irreducibility_2013}. Applied to two separate fMRI brain data sets we find that synergistic subsets of brain regions are ubiquitous and abundant, comprising between 3 and 25 regions and extending over the entire cerebral cortex. While redundant interactions dominate functional connectivity at larger subset sizes, the application of multivariate information measures demonstrates a previously hidden repertoire of synergistic ensembles, each integrating diverse and distinct sources of information.
The theoretical results, including the geometric interpretation of the O-information presents a new, intuitive approach to understanding the often un-intuitive notion of synergy. By re-writing $\Omega(\textbf{X})$ in terms of only sums and differences of total correlations, we can see that synergy can be approximately understood as that ``integration" that is present in the whole but not smaller subsets (in this case, the $N$ subsets created by removing each $X_i$). This intuition is conceptually similar to the formal definition of synergy from the partial information decomposition framework \cite{williams_nonnegative_2010}, which computes synergy as the information ``left over" when everything accessible in simpler combinations of sources has been accounted for. The exclusive use of total correlations also allows us to consider the O-information purely in terms of Kullback-Leibler divergences from independent to joint probability distributions (Eq. \ref{eq:tc_dkl}. This shows us that all of these measures can be understood in the context of ``inferences" about structure (relative to a disintegrated prior). In the context of synergy, the ``extra" information in the joint state is information \textit{about} something: specifically about the relative likelihood of a configuration with respect to the maximum entropy case.
When randomly sampling subsystems in two datasets (HCP and MICA), we found a large number of synergy-dominated ensembles distributed throughout the brain. Recent work by Luppi et al., \cite{luppi_synergistic_2022} proposed a ``synergistic core" to the human brain where complex processing occurs. While we found that there is significant over-representation of specific regions (including portions reported by Luppi et al., such as prefrontal cortex, occipital pole, the precuneus, and cingulate regions), synergy-dominated subsystems could include any region of cortex: regions contributing to synergistic subsets are very widely distributed. Almost every region contributed to at least some synergistic ensembles, although some regions contribute more reliably than others. This suggests that synergy is a widespread property of multivariate information emerging from resting-state brain activity.
Interestingly, the randomly sampled ensembles that were most likely to be synergy dominated where those that involved nodes that spanned multiple canonical subsystems, while sets of regions all within one system were strongly dominated by redundancy (Fig. \ref{fig:5}C). This would be consistent with the hypothesis that functional connectivity, when viewed entirely as bivariate interaction, is largely sensitive to redundant, but insensitive to synergistic, dependencies between brain regions. Consequently, the functional connectivity matrix is not a ``complete" map of the statistical structure in a dataset, but only of dependencies characterized by redundancy. This is consistent with findings from Ince \cite{ince_partial_2017} and Finn and Lizier \cite{finn_generalised_2020} who argued that bivariate correlations are intrinsically redundancy-dominated. Higher-order synergies represent, in a sense, a kind of ``shadow structure" and consequently missed by network-focused approaches that omit higher-order interactions. This hypothesis finds some support in \cite{luppi_synergistic_2022}, who found that the distribution of synergies was anticorrelated with the functional connectivity network structure, while the distribution of redundancies was positively correlated.
Given the novelty of tools like the O-information, the significance of these synergistic dependencies remains almost entirely unknown, although the small number of studies to date suggest intriguing patterns. One study found alterations to the redundancy/synergy bias across the human lifespan \cite{gatica_high-order_2021}, while other studies have suggested that loss of consciousness induced by propofol is associated with decreased synergistic dynamics \cite{luppi_synergistic_2020}. Future avenues of work include deeper analyses of how higher-order dynamics change between rest and task conditions, in cases of psychopathology or brain injury and non-human animals. We should note that, in the context of the O-information, synergy is not necessarily a ``causal" measure: in related contexts, synergy has been discussed as a measure of ``computation" in neural circuits \cite{faber_computation_2018,sherrill_correlated_2020,sherrill_partial_2021,varley_decomposing_2022}, although it remains unexplored how exactly these two approaches relate to each-other. The O-information measures instantaneous, higher-order correlation structures, while the work by Sherill et al., is done in the context of information dynamics \cite{lizier_towards_2013}. Future research may explore how a synergistic correlation structure might facilitate computations within the system over time.
In addition to the insights into synergy specifically, the results presented here also have implications for researchers interested in multivariate information theoretic analyses. For example, the TSE complexity has long been an object of theoretical interest \cite{ay_unifying_2006}, but the intractable combinatorics have limited its applicability in empirical data (although its use is not unheard of \cite{timme_criticality_2016}). The finding that the exogenous information $\Sigma(\textbf{X}) \propto TSE(\textbf{X})$ for reasonably large $N$ (first reported in \cite{rosas_quantifying_2019}), even more so than the original heuristic $C$, opens the door to applications application in experimental neuroscience.
In a broader scientific context, our work contributes to the increasing interest in higher-order interactions, beyond the standard, pairwise network model \cite{battiston_physics_2021,rosas_disentangling_2022}. The information-theoretic approach (such as the work reported here, as well as in \cite{luppi_synergistic_2020,varley_intersectional_2021,varley_decomposing_2022,scagliarini_quantifying_2021,stramaglia_quantifying_2021,luppi_synergistic_2022}) is based largely on a statistical inference, while alternative frameworks based on simplicial complexes, algebraic topology, and hypergraphs has been developed largely in parallel \cite{sizemore_importance_2018,saggar_towards_2018,billings_simplicial_2021,varley_topological_2021,stolz_topological_2021,battiston_networks_2020}. How these different mathematical frameworks relate to each other remains an open question, and the potential for a more unified approach to understanding higher-order interactions both in terms of topology and statistical inferences is an alluring promise.
The optimization of maximally synergistic subsets via simulated annealing can be thought of as an attempt to find a maximally efficient, dimensionally-reduced representation of a potentially large data set: when modeling a system, it is generally desirable to capture as many statistical dependencies as possible with the fewest required degrees of freedom. By finding a representation that incorporates synergies while simultaneously pruning redundant information that would be ``double counted", we can attempt to build the most computationally efficient model of a system under study \cite{varley_emergence_2022,wollstadt_rigorous_2021}. While dimensionality reduction and feature selection algorithms are widespread in many computational sciences, a rigorous treatment of the ways that synergistic and redundant information can inform the analysis of brain dynamics and functional networks remains a space of active development (for an example, see \cite{novelli_large-scale_2019,wollstadt_rigorous_2021}).
The O-information scales far more gracefully than related measures of synergistic information (such as the partial information decomposition, which is practically impossible to apply to systems larger than 5 elements \cite{gutknecht_bits_2021}). However the combinatorics associated with assessing every possible subsystem becomes intractable as the system size grows, an issue first noted for the TSE complexity. In standard functional and effective network research, it is common to compute all pairwise interactions (which only grows with $N^2$), and then filter out spurious edges as needed \cite{novelli_large-scale_2019}. While this may be possible for very small subsystems, it is intractable for larger ones. If one can pre-select a set of elements, then the computation of O-information is trivial up to hundreds of items. However, the requirement to select subsets of interest can itself be computationally intensive and time-consuming. Consequently heuristic measures such as optimization, random sampling, or pre-filtering subsystems to exclude collections of elements will be required.
In this article, we demonstrate how an information-theoretic measure of multivariate interactions (the O-information or synergy) can be used to uncover higher-order interactions in the human brain dynamics. We analytically show that the O-information can be related to an older measure of systemic complexity, the TSE complexity, and from this derive a novel geometric interpretation of redundancy- and synergy-dominated systems. With a combination of random sampling and optimization, we show that a large number of subsystems displaying synergistic dynamics exist in the human brain and that these systems form a highly distributed ``shadow structure" that is entirely overlooked in standard, bivariate functional connectivity models. We conclude that the space of higher-order interactions in the human brain represents a large, and under-explored area of study with a rich potential for new discoveries and experimental work.
\section{Methods}
\subsection{Gaussian Information Theory}
In this paper, we focus on higher-order information sharing in fMRI BOLD signals. Prior work has established that BOLD data is well-modeled by multivariate Gaussian distributions \cite{hlinkaa_functional_2011,liegeois_interpreting_2021} and that more complex and highly-parameterized models provide little additional benefit \cite{schulz_different_2020}. While information theory was originally formalized in the context of discrete random variables, in the specific case of Gaussian random variables, closed-form estimators exist for almost all the standard information measures (for an accessible review, see \cite{lizier_jidt_2014} supplementary material). For a univariate, Gaussian random variable $X \sim \mathcal{N}(\mu, \sigma)$, the entropy (given in nats) is defined as:
\begin{equation}
H^{\mathcal{N}}(X) = \frac{\ln(2\pi e \sigma^2)}{2}
\end{equation}
For a multivariate Gaussian random variable $\textbf{X}=\{X_1, X_2,...X_N\}$, the joint entropy is given by:
\begin{equation}
H^{\mathcal{N}}(\textbf{X}) = \frac{\ln[(2\pi e)^N|\Sigma|]}{2}
\end{equation}
where $|\Sigma|$ refers to the determinant of the covariance matrix of \textbf{X}. The bivariate mutual information (nats) between $X_1$ and $X_2$ is:
\begin{equation}
I^{\mathcal{N}}(X_1;X_2) = \frac{-\ln(1-\rho^2)}{2}
\end{equation}
where $\rho$ is the Pearson correlation coefficient between $X_1$ and $X_2$. Note that, since the mutual information is a function of $\rho$ for Gaussian variables, this special case of mutual information is \textbf{not} generally sensitive to non-linear relationships in the data in the way that non-parametric estimators are. Finally, the Gaussian estimator for total correlation is:
\begin{equation}
TC^{\mathcal{N}}(\textbf{X}) = \frac{-\ln(|\Sigma|)}{2}
\end{equation}
From these, it is possible to calculate all of the measures described above (dual total correlation, description complexity, O-information, and TSE complexity) for multivariate Gaussian variables. While the assumption of linearity that comes with a parametric Gaussian model can be limiting, the standard technique for assessing functional connectivity (the Pearson correlation coefficient) makes identical assumptions, so our work is consistent with assumptions made when applying standard approaches to FC analysis.
\subsection{Datasets}
Two independent fMRI resting state data sets were employed in the empirical analyses, one derived from the Human Connectome Project (HCP data; \cite{van_essen_wu-minn_2013}) and the other from a recently published open-source repository (MICA; \cite{royer_open_2021}). The HCP data, derived from a set of 100 unrelated subjects, have been used in several previous studies (for more detailed description see \cite{sporns_dynamic_2021}). All participants provided informed consent, and the Washington University Institutional Review Board approved all of the study protocols and procedures. A Siemens 3T Connectom Skyra equipped with a 32-channel head coil was used to collect data. Resting-state functional MRI (rs-fMRI) data was acquired during four scans on two separate days. This was done with a gradient-echo echo-planar imaging (EPI) sequence (scan duration: 14:33 min; eyes open). Acquisition parameters of TR = 720 ms, TE = 33.1ms, 52° flip angle, isotropic voxel resolution = 2 mm, with a multiband factor of 8 were used for data collection. A parcellation scheme covering the cerebral cortex developed in ref. \cite{schaefer_local-global_2018} was used to map functional data to 200 regions. This parcellation can also be aligned to the canonical resting state networks found in ref. \cite{yeo_organization_2011}.
Of the 100 unrelated subjects considered in the original dataset, 95 were retained for inclusion in empirical analysis in this study. Exclusion criteria were established before the present study was conducted. They included the mean and mean absolute deviation of the relative root mean square (RMS) motion across either four resting-state MRI scans or one diffusion MRI scan, resulting in four summary motion measures. Subjects that exceeded 1.5 times the interquartile range (in the adverse direction) of the measurement distribution in two or more of these measures were excluded. Following these criteria, four subjects were excluded. Due to a software error during diffusion MRI processing, one additional subject was excluded. The remaining 95 subjects were 56\% female, had a mean age of 29.29 $\pm$ 3.66, and an age range of 22 to 36.
The MICA dataset includes 50 unrelated subjects, who also provided written informed consent. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital. Resting state data was collected in a single scan session using a 3T Siemens Magnetom Prisma-Fit with a 64-channel head coil. Resting state scans lasted for 7 minutes during which participants were instructed to look at a fixation cross. Imaging was completed with an EPI sequence, and acquisition parameters of TR = 600ms, TE = 48ms, 52° flip angle, isotropic voxel resolution = 3 mm, and multiband factor 6. The parcellation used in this dataset was the same as the one used for the HCP data (described above).
\subsection{Preprocessing}
Minimal preprocessing of the HCP rs-fMRI data followed these steps \cite{glasser_minimal_2013}: 1) distortion, susceptibility, and motion correction; 2) registration to subjects’ respective T1-weighted data; 3) bias and intensity normalization; 4) projection onto the 32k\_fs\_LR mesh; and 5) alignment to common space with a multimodal surface registration \cite{robinson_msm_2014}. The preprocessing steps described produced an ICA+FIX time series in the CIFTI grayordinate coordinate system. Two additional preprocessing steps were performed: 6) global signal regression and 7) detrending and band pass filtering (0.008 to 0.08 Hz) \cite{parkes_evaluation_2018}. After confound regression and filtering, the first and last 50 frames of the time series were discarded, resulting in a final scan length of 13.2 min (1,100 frames).
Preprocessing of the MICA dataset was performed as described in ref. \cite{royer_open_2021} for resting state data. Briefly, the data was passed through the Micapipe \cite{cruces_micapipe_2022} processing pipeline, which includes motion and distortion correction, as well as FSL's ICA FIX tool trained with an in-house classifier. Time series were projected to each subject's FreeSurfer surface, where nodes were also defined. Further details about the processing pipeline can be found in \cite{cruces_micapipe_2022}. The data was global signal regressed in addition to the other preprocessing steps described in this pipeline.
For calculating the covariance matrix used in computing O-information, total correlation and dual total correlation, the functional data from all scans and all subjects were combined to create a single COV or FC matrix. Aggregation was carried out by appending the nodal time series across all subjects and runs and then calculating a single Pearson correlation for each node pair. An alternative approach (taking the mean over the single-run, single-subject COV/FC matrices) yielded virtually identical results. Following preprocessing and using the common 200-node parcellation of cerebral cortex, the mean COV/FC matrices for the HCP and MICA data sets were highly correlated ($R=0.851, p=0$).
\subsection{Random Sampling and Optimization}
Subsets of regions were selected from the full-size (200 nodes/regions) FC matrices in two ways, by random sampling and by search through optimization. Random sampling is simple to implement but because of the vast repertoire of potential subsets ($\binom{N}{k}$) it cannot fully disclose the extent of variations in informational measures present in the data. Instead, search under an objective function (optimization) can guide exploration to specific sub-spaces enriched in subsets with distinct informational signatures.
To perform optimizations we implemented a variant of simulated annealing \cite{metropolis_equation_1953}. As objectives we chose multivariate informational measures such as the O-information (OI), total correlation (TC), and dual total correlation (DTC), which could be maximized or minimized. Each run of the simulated annealing algorithm was carried out in one FC matrix and for one subset size. We carried out 5000 runs, with subset sizes ranging from 3 to 30 nodes. A random selection of nodes was chosen according to the given subset size to initiate each run. The corresponding covariance matrix was extracted from the full COV/FC and used to compute the information theoretic metric of interest. The composition of the subset was then varied and variations were selected under the objective function. Annealing operates by selecting variations stochastically, depending on a temperature parameter that determines the amount of noise permitted in the selection process. Initially, the temperature is high, resulting in the somewhat random exploration of the landscape. As the temperature is lowered, the optimization becomes more deterministic, focusing more and more on local gradient descent. For each run the algorithm proceeded for a maximum of 10,000 steps. At each step, a new set of nodes was generated by randomly replacing nodes, with the number determined by a normal distribution (frequencies of 1, 2 and 3 element flips were 0.68, 0.27 and 0.04, respectively). A new covariance matrix was computed for the new set of nodes and the objective function was calculated for that set. The set was retained if its cost was lower than the current set or if a random number drawn from the uniform distribution between 0 and 1 was less than $ \exp(-((C_n - C_)/T_c)$, where $C_n$ is the cost of the new set of nodes, $C_L$ is the cost of the current set of nodes and $T_c$ is the current temperature. At each step, the current temperature decays to a fraction of the initial temperature, as a function of the number of steps completed:
\begin{equation}
T_c(h) = T_0{T_{exp}}^h
\end{equation}
where $T_c$ is the current temperature, $T_0$ is the initial temperature (set to $T_0 = 1$), $T_{exp}$ governs the steepness of the temperature gradient, and $h$ is the current iteration step. By decreasing the temperature at every step, the algorithm becomes progressively more deterministic.
\subsection*{Acknowledgements}
T.F.V. and M.P. are supported by the NSF-NRT grant 1735095, Interdisciplinary Training in Complex Networks and Systems. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
\section*{Supplementary Figures}
\beginsupplement
\begin{figure*}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{Figure SI 1.png}
\caption{\textbf{Functional Connectivity (FC) for the two data sets.} \textbf{(A)} Functional connectivity matrix for the HCP data set (95 subjects, 4 runs each). \textbf{(B)} Functional connectivity matrix for the MICA data set (50 subjects, 1 run each). The two FC matrices are displayed with canonical functional systems indicated along the main diagonal (top to bottom: VIS, visual; SOM, somatomotor; DAN, dorsal attention; VAN, ventral attention; LIM, limbic; FP, frontoparietal; DMN, default mode). The two data sets are highly correlated ($R=0.851, p=0$)}
\label{fig:SI1}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{Figure SI 2.png}
\caption{\textbf{Topography and functional specialization of randomly sampled synergistic subsets in the brain (MICA data).} Compare to Fig \ref{fig:4}B,C in main text. \textbf{(A)} Frequency of individual node participation across 100,000 synergistic 10-node subsets, displayed on a surface rendering of the cerebral cortex indicating the boundaries of the 200 nodes used for constructing the FC matrix. \textbf{(B)} Each of the 200 nodes is affiliated with one of 7 canonical functional systems \cite{yeo_organization_2011}. Frequency of participation of individual nodes in synergistic subsets (negative O-information, subset size ranging from 3 to 15 nodes) is aggregated (averaged) for each functional system. The plot displays the ratio of empirical frequency over the expected frequency if nodes were selected by chance. A ratio $>1$ or $<1$ indicates that the system is over-represented or under-represented, respectively, in synergistic subsets.}
\label{fig:SI2}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{Figure SI 3.png}
\caption{\textbf{Nodes selected in 500 runs of the optimization algorithm (HCP data, 10-node subsets).} The plot displays the selected nodes (black raster) for each run, sorted by final values of the objective function (here, negative O-information), with the most optimal subsets at the left of the x-axis. Note that multiple runs deliver consistent node configurations.}
\label{fig:SI3}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{Figure SI 4.png}
\caption{\textbf{O-Information, brain topography and functional specialization of optimally synergistic subsets identified by simulated annealing} All panels show data from the MICA sample. \textbf{(A)} Annealing was carried out 5,000 times for each subset size. plot shows O-information for each optimized subset (gray dots) and their mean (blue line). Note that annealing fails to converge onto any synergistic subsets for subsets containing more than 27 nodes. Optimally negative O-information is achieved for subsets between 8 and 12 nodes, comparable to findings for the HCP data (see main text). \textbf{(B)} Frequency of individual node participation across optimally synergistic 10-node subsets (4166 unique subsets out of 5,000 annealing runs), displayed on a surface rendering of the cerebral cortex. \textbf{(C)} Mean O-information (left) and fraction of synergistic subsets (right) encountered in samples of 20,000 subsets that contained nodes belonging to between 1 and 7 canonical FC systems (HCP data). The mean O-information for samples obtained exclusively from each of the 7 FC systems is indicated (red dots).}
\label{fig:SI4}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Figure SI 5.png}
\caption{\textbf{Participation of canonical FC systems in subsets expressing optimal synergy (negative O-information)} Panels \textbf{(A)} and \textbf{(B)} display data obtained from HCP and MICA FC, respectively. Compare to Fig \ref{fig:SI4} above. Briefly, Each of the 200 nodes is affiliated with one of 7 canonical functional systems \cite{yeo_organization_2011}. Frequency of participation of individual nodes in synergistic subsets (negative O-information, subset size ranging from 3 to 24/27 nodes) is aggregated (averaged) for each functional system. The plot displays the ratio of empirical frequency over the expected frequency if nodes were selected by chance. A ratio $>1$ or $<1$ indicates that the system is over-represented or under-represented, respectively, in synergistic subsets.}
\label{fig:SI5}
\end{figure*}
\newpage
\section*{Proof that $\mathbf{DTC = N\times C_D}$}
\label{a1:proof}
Recall the following definitions:
\textit{Description Complexity}
\begin{equation}
C_D(\textbf{X}) = TC(\textbf{X}) - \frac{TC(\textbf{X})}{N} - \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{N}TC(\textbf{X}^{-i})}{N} \nonumber
\end{equation}
\textit{Dual Total Correlation}
\begin{eqnarray}
DTC(\textbf{X}) &=& (1-N)H(\textbf{X}) + \sum_{i=1}^{N}H(\textbf{X}^{-i}) \nonumber \\
&=&\sum_{i=1}^{N}H(\textbf{X}^{-i}) - (N-1)H(\textbf{X}) \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{widetext}
Derivation:
\begin{eqnarray*}
C_D(\textbf{X}) &=& \big[TC(\textbf{X})\times \frac{N}{N} \big]- \frac{TC(\textbf{X})}{N} - \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{N}TC(\textbf{X}^{-i})}{N} \\
&=& \frac{N\times TC(\textbf{X}) - TC(\textbf{X})}{N} - \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{N}TC(\textbf{X}^{-i})}{N} \\
&=& \frac{N\times TC(\textbf{X}) - TC(\textbf{X}) - \sum_{i=1}^{N}TC(\textbf{X}^{-i})}{N} \\
&=& \frac{(N-1)TC(\textbf{X}) - \sum_{i=1}^{N}TC(\textbf{X}^{-i})}{N} \\
&=& \frac{(N-1)\big[\sum_{i=1}^{N}H(X_i) - H(\textbf{X}) \big] - \sum_{i=1}^{N}\big[\sum_{i=1}^{N-1}H(X_i) - H(\textbf{X}^{-i}) \big]}{N} \\
&=& \frac{(N-1)\sum_{i=1}^{N}H(X_i) - (N-1)H(\textbf{X}) - (N-1)\sum_{i=1}^{N}H(X_i) + \sum_{i=1}^{N}H(\textbf{X}^{-i})}{N} \\
&=& \frac{- (N-1)H(\textbf{X}) + \sum_{i=1}^{N}H(\textbf{X}^{-i})}{N} \\
&=& \frac{DTC(\textbf{X})}{N} \square \nonumber
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{widetext}
\section*{Higher-Order Information \& Entropy Decomposition}
To develop a better understanding of higher-order modes of information sharing, we leverage a closely-related area of information theory called \textit{information decomposition} \cite{williams_generalized_2011,gutknecht_bits_2021}. Information decomposition was initially proposed as a framework by which the joint mutual information two source variables disclose about a single target ($I(X_1, X_2 ; Y)$) could be broken down into redundant, unique, and synergistic parts. More recently, attempts have been made to generalize the partial information decomposition framework to decomposing the joint entropy into different modes of information sharing \cite{ince_partial_2017,finn_generalised_2020}. While the mathematical details are too complex to fully cover here (interested readers are referred to the citations above), the core of the entropy decomposition rests on defining a notion of ``shared" entropy (often called ``redundant" entropy in the literature as well). For a set of interacting variables, the shared entropy is the uncertainty that is common to all variables: said otherwise, it is the uncertainty in all variables that can be resolved by observing a single one at random. Following the notation introduced by Ince \cite{ince_partial_2017}, we refer to this function as the \textit{partial entropy function}. For a set of three interacting variables $\{X_1, X_2, X_3\}$, we refer to the redundant entropy shared by all of them as: $H_\partial(\{1\}\{2\}\{3\})$, where only the indices are included to simplify the notation. Similarly, the information redundantly present in just two variables is denoted as $H_\partial(\{1\}\{2\})$. The partial entropy function has obvious similarities to the definition of Shannon's mutual information (and for Gaussian variables they are often identical \cite{barrett_exploration_2015}). There are key differences however, the most significant being that (as described above) the mutual information is only uniquely defined in the bivariate case and admits multiple multivariate generalizations. Multiple different shared entropy functions have been proposed (for example, Ince proposed one based on the co-information \cite{ince_partial_2017}, while Finn and Lizier proposed one based on the maximum/minimum local entropy terms \cite{finn_generalised_2020}, and Makkeh et al., proposed a measure based on shared exclusions of probability mass \cite{makkeh_introducing_2021}). Conveniently, for our purposes, we do not need to actually define a shared entropy function, it is sufficient to simply assume it exists and proceed with the abstract decomposition.
To build intuition, consider how we might decompose the joint entropy between to variables $X_1$ and $X_2$ into redundant entropy atoms.
\begin{equation}
H(X_1, X_2) = H_\partial(\{1\}\{2\}) + H_\partial(\{1\}) + H_\partial(\{2\}) + H_\partial(\{1,2\})
\end{equation}
The terms can be understood as follows: $H_\partial(\{1\}\{2\})$ is the shared entropy common to both $X_1$ and $X_2$ redundantly. $H_\partial(\{1\})$ is uncertainty intrinsic to $X_1$ that is \textit{not} resolved by observing $X_2$. Finally $H_\partial(\{1,2\})$ is the ``synergistic" entropy: the uncertainty about the joint state of $X_1$ and $X_2$ considered together that is neither shared between $X_1$ and $X_2$ redundantly, nor resolvable by observing either $X_1$ or $X_2$ on its own. By the same logic, the univariate marginal entropies can be decomposed as:
\begin{eqnarray}
H(X_1) = H_\partial(\{1\}\{2\}) + H_\partial(\{1\}) \\
H(X_2) = H_\partial(\{1\}\{2\}) + H_\partial(\{2\}) \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
From there we can easily see that:
\begin{equation}
I(X_1 ; X_2) = H_\partial(\{1\}\{2\}) - H_\partial(\{1,2\})
\end{equation}
This decomposition of mutual information was derived in both the frameworks proposed by Ince \cite{ince_partial_2017} and by Finn and Lizier \cite{finn_generalised_2020} and shows how the mutual information is distinct from the shared entropy: the mutual information is the difference between the shared entropy and the ``macro-scale" uncertainty (as an aside, this complicates the usual intuition around mutual information - many users believe they are just getting $H_\partial(\{1\}\{2\})$ when in fact they are getting $H_\partial(\{1\}\{2\}) - H_\partial(\{1,2\})$, which is compromised by the existence of the higher-order synergy term.
Similar decompositions can be done for the total correlation and dual total correlation, and by extension, the O-information. While it is only practical to do it for the case of $N=3$ variables (in which case O-information is identical to the co-information \cite{rosas_quantifying_2019}), this decomposition provides a complementary perspective to the one introduced above and can help build intuition about what seeing a negative (or positive) O-information tells us about information-sharing in complex systems.
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:o3}
\Omega(X_1;X_2;X_3) &=& H_\partial(\{1\}\{2\}\{3\}) \\
&& - H_\partial(\{1\}\{2,3\}) \nonumber \\
&& - H_\partial(\{2\}\{1,3\}) \nonumber \\
&& - H_\partial(\{3\}\{1,2\}) \nonumber \\
&& - 2\times H_\partial(\{1,2\}\{1,3\}\{2,3\}) \nonumber \\
&& - H_\partial(\{1,2\}\{1,3\}) \nonumber \\
&& - H_\partial(\{2,3\}\{1,3\}) \nonumber \\
&& - H_\partial(\{1,2\}\{2,3\}) \nonumber \\
&& + H_\partial(\{1,2,3\}) \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
We can see from equation \ref{eq:o3} that $\Omega$ is negative when most of the information is present in greater-than pairwise interactions: for example, $H_\partial(\{1\}\{2,3\})$ refers to information shared between $X_1$ and the joint state of $X_2$ and $X_3$ together (and no simpler combination of sources. Similarly, the exotic term $H_\partial(\{1,2\}\{1,3\}\{2,3\})$, which refers to the information shared by all the pairwise joint states is double-counted. In contrast, $\Omega$ is positive if most of the shared entropy is redundantly present in all three elements ($H_\partial(\{1\}\{2\}\{3\})$). Curiously, the O-information counts the macro-scale synergistic entropy ($H_\partial(\{1,2,3\})$) as positive. The intuitive interpretation of purely synergistic entropy remains uncertain, and so the significance of this second, positively-weighted term in the O-information remains a matter for further research. Notice that the O-information is insensitive to bivariate interactions (e.g. $\{1\}\{2\}$): consequently, for a system composed entirely of bivariate interactions (which is the standard assumption underpinning most statistical network inference pipelines), the O-information will be zero.
How does this decomposition square with the geometric interpretation of redundancy and synergy? If the dominant partial-entropy atom is $H_\partial(\{1\}\{2\}\{3\})$, then the removal of any single element doesn't compromise the overall information structure, since whatever information was lost when that single element was deleted is preserved in the remaining pair. Consequently, the description complexity of $\{X_1, X_2, X_3\}$ is low. Conversely if the dominant partial entropy atom is $H_\partial(\{1,2\}\{1,3\}\{2,3\})$, then the removal of any single element disrupts at least two of the three different collections of elements. That deletion would correspond to a a high description complexity.
\section*{Simple XOR Models}
This interpretation of negative O-information and synergistic entropy can be made more concrete by considering simple toy systems.
\subsubsection{Logical XOR}
\label{sec:xor}
\iffalse
\begin{table}[]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{@{}lllll@{}}
\toprule
P & $X_1$ & $X_2$ & & Y \\ \midrule
1/4 & 0 & 0 & & 0 \\
1/4 & 0 & 1 & & 1 \\
1/4 & 1 & 0 & & 1 \\
1/4 & 1 & 1 & & 0 \\ \bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{\textbf{The logical XOR distribution}}
\label{tab:xor}
\end{table}
\fi
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{tse_xor.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{The TSE-complexity curve of the logical XOR function.}}
\label{fig:tse_xor}
\end{figure*}
The simplest and most well-explored example of synergy in a complex system is that of the logical XOR gate. The gate has a total correlation of 1 bit, and a dual total correlation of 2 bit, leaving an O-information of -1 bit, indicating a synergy-dominated system. The normalized O-information is -1/3, indicating that, on average, the collapse in integration after the removal of any element is greater than what we would expect if information was evenly distributed over all the elements of the system. This can be shown without much difficulty, as the mutual information (or pairwise integration) for any pair of elements $X_1$, $X_2$, and $Y$ is trivially 0. From this insight, we can propose an intuition behind what it means for a variable to be ``synergistic" with respect to others: we might say that a variable contributes ``synergy" if its presence creates an ``information bridge" between variables that, on their own, appear to be uncorrelated. In the XOR example, we know \textit{a priori} that $X_1 \bot X_2$, and so $I(X_1 ; X_2)=0$ bit. By the logic of the XOR gate, $I(X_1;Y) = I(X_2;Y) = 0$ bit. By conditioning the bivariate mutual information of any two elements on the third, however, the statistical relationship ``becomes visible:" $I(X_1;X_2|Y) = 1$ bit.
\bibliographystyle{unsrt}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
For over a decade now, Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) outperformed conventional techniques in various research areas including language translation~\cite{sutskever2014sequence}, image classification~\cite{krizhevsky2012imagenet} and image synthesis~\cite{goodfellow2014generative}.
Although new state-of-the-art performances are being reported continuously for areas like Melanoma detection~\cite{tang2022fusionm4net,hasan2022dermoexpert}, an unconstrained application of Deep Learning (DL) in real-world, high-stakes medical decision-making is still considered questionable due to a lack of robustness and intelligibility.
Several works have revealed weak spots of the current technology like the presence of adversarial examples~\cite{szegedy2014intriguing}, the influence of distribution shifts~\cite{quinonero2008dataset} and the bias-variance tradeoff~\cite{geman1992neural}.
Geirhos et al.~\cite{geirhos2018imagenet} disproved the widespread \textit{shape hypothesis}, which states that Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) hierarchically combine lower-lever features into higher-level features for generating the final predictions.
Instead the authors propose the \textit{texture hypothesis}, stating that an inherent \textit{texture-bias} in the dataset can lead to a lack of robustness in CNNs.
Similarly, other works~\cite{yin2019fourier} have reported a higher importance of texture-like high-frequency input features, which aligns with the vulnerability to high-frequency adversarial attacks~\cite{wang2020towards}.
Through expensive modification of the training dataset, exchanging the dataset's \textit{texture-bias} to a \textit{shape-bias}, the authors of~\cite{geirhos2018imagenet} achieve improved classification robustness.
Along similar lines, recent works~\cite{chen2021amplitude,xu2021fourier} exploit the idea that the phase spectrum of a Fourier-transformed image mainly encodes semantic information resembling edges and outlines used by humans for object identification.
The authors propose different data augmentation strategies for improved robustness, inducing explicit focus on the phase spectra of images, shifting the networks' focus towards shape information.
The common idea in these works is the explicit alignment of a network's non-functional requirements with those used in analytical, human decision-making (i.e. focusing on shape more than on texture).
Despite recent efforts towards suppressing high-frequency texture features in DL, Ilyas et al.~\cite{ilyas2019adversarial} argue that datasets can contain robust features which are indeed imperceptible to humans.
This alternative perspective is particularly interesting when dealing with complex medical problems which are yet to be fully understood by human experts and cannot be easily solved through intuition.
One of such high-stakes use-cases of DL in medicine is the classification of Melanoma, which is mainly driven by non-analytic clinical reasoning (i.e. pattern analysis~\cite{kittler2016dermatoscopy}).
The statistical relevance of shapes, textures and colors in dermoscopic images for Melanoma detection has been extensively investigated in different studies.
Marques et al.~\cite{marques2012role} reported that color and texture features individually have a high relevance for skin lesion classification, but their combination is even more informative.
In other works~\cite{ruela2013color,barata2014bag} the superior role of color features is reported.
Ruela et al.~\cite{ruela2013shape} investigate the importance of shape features, concluding that, although shape is relevant for classification, the use of texture and color descriptors is more effective.
Beyond texture, shape, and color, other studies indicate a high relevance of spectral features for predictive performance~\cite{betta2006dermoscopic,lopez2021multi}.
However, the influence of individual features, as well as the effect of the \textit{shape-bias} on DL-based skin lesion classifiers has not yet been explored.
In this paper, we revisit the \textit{shape-bias} and it's effect on the analysis of dermoscopic images using DL-based models.
To that end, we explore the relevance of individual image features known to be relevant in dermoscopy (i.e. \textit{Texture}, \textit{Shape}, and \textit{Color}).
A spectral analysis on different datasets is performed to investigate the distribution of relevant image features in the spectral domain, and to revisit the effectiveness of robustness methods enforcing explicit \textit{shape-bias} on deep feature extractors.
Lastly, a new variant of the Amplitude-Phase Recombination~\cite{chen2021amplitude} robustness method is introduced, which is more aligned with the complex needs of dermoscopic skin lesion analysis.
We argue that the current trend of focusing network robustness in Deep Learning purely on the \textit{shape-bias} is to narrow-minded, and that medical imaging tasks (like dermoscopy) in particular, have radically different requirements when it comes to non-functional properties of their decision-making.
Section~\ref{sec:background} gives a brief introduction into the notions of \textit{Texture}, \textit{Shape}, and \textit{Color} in dermoscopy and describes image ablations used to isolate these different features.
The datasets used in throughout our work, as well as the general experimentation setting is outlined in section~\ref{sec:datasets_and_methodology}.
In section~\ref{sec:isolated_feature_relevance}, the individual importance of isolated image features is investigated, and their encoding in the DL-based models' feature space.
A spectral analysis on different datasets is performed in section~\ref{sec:spectral_analysis}, followed by an investigation of shape-focused robustness methods.
Finally, the results are discussed in section~\ref{sec:discussion}, followed by the concluding remarks.
\section{Definition and Isolation of Texture, Shape, and Color in Skin Lesions}
\label{sec:background}
To properly investigate the influence of individual image features, we need to isolate image features and feature combinations from the input images.
We follow the previous lines of work and concentrate on the \textit{Texture}, \textit{Shape} and \textit{Color} features as the main components descriptive of skin lesion images.
First, the individual features are briefly defined, based on the relevant literature.
Then, the transformations achieving the different feature isolations are elaborated and presented.
\paragraph{\textbf{Texture}} Marques et al.~\cite{marques2012role} define textures in skin lesions as conveying "\textit{information about the differential structures (pigment network, dots, streaks, etc) present in the lesion}".
We therefore argue that textures are solely encoded in structures such as fine edges, and color contrasts.
\paragraph{\textbf{Shape}} Shape descriptors are computed in~\cite{ruela2013shape} based on the segmented lesion outline.
The measures include simple shape descriptors such as the lesion's area, compactness, and rectangularity, but also more advanced features such as symmetry-related features and moment invariants.
In this work, we define the shape of a lesion by the size and area of a lesion's segmentation, as well as the regularity and overall shape of it's outline.
For the sake of simplicity, we omit information regarding the smoothness of a lesion's transition.
\paragraph{\textbf{Color}} In~\cite{marques2012role}, color features are defined as containing "\textit{information about the color distribution and number of colors in the skin lesion}".
Ruela et al.~\cite{ruela2013color} compute different color descriptors based on different color spaces.
Most descriptors contain only information about the quantitative distribution of color in an image, whereas one descriptor also encodes information about the spatial location.
We argue that color information is not only encoded in the absolute color values, but also in the contrast information of broader surfaces.
However, we do not regard spatial color information for the sake of simplicity.
\subsection{Feature Ablations}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig1_ablation_overview.png}
\caption{Illustration of the different augmentations designed to isolate individual image features in skin lesion images. The original image is provided on the left. The first row shows augmentations for isolated images, while the second row shows combinations of two individual features.}
\label{fig:ablations}
\end{figure}
To isolate the effect of individual features, we design different data augmentation strategies, each representing one of the seven unique feature combinations.
An illustration of the different transformations is provided in figure~\ref{fig:ablations}.
The original images combine all three features and serve as the baseline.
An ablation representing only the \textit{Color} feature is obtained by randomly scrambling the spatial ordering of individual image pixels, while preserving the sample's original color distribution.
A combination of \textit{Texture} and \textit{Shape} is achieved by explicitly removing the \textit{Color} cues.
This is done by changing the style of a sample to a sketch-like image, in order to remove color value and contrast information, while maintaining the characteristic edges necessary to identify textures and shapes.
A DL-based segmentation model\footnote{BA-Transfomer architecture proposed by Wang et al.~\cite{wang2021boundary}, trained on ISIC2016-2018 challenge datasets.} is tuned for the computation of lesion segmentation maps, representing the isolated \textit{Shape} feature.
The \textit{Shape} feature is removed from the original image with the help of the segmentations as well.
Therefore, the segmentation map is divided in equally-sized patches to identify image regions containing information about the lesion's outline (i.e. containing both lesion and background pixels).
After removing all outline patches, a new image is assembled by alternatingly sampling random patches from the lesion and the background, to ensure that no information about the lesion's absolute size is retained.
A similar procedure is followed to obtain the isolation of the \textit{Texture} feature.
Instead of scrambling image patches of the original image, the sketch transformation is used in order to spare color information.
A combination of \textit{Shape} and \textit{Color} is obtained by separately scrambling the spatial ordering of individual image pixels within the lesion region, and the background.
Images with radical domain shifts (through sketch transformation or segmentation) are shaded with the channel-wise average of the dataset's color.
\section{Datasets and Methodology}
\label{sec:datasets_and_methodology}
\subsection{Datasets}
\paragraph{\textbf{ISIC \& ISIC-b}} The International Skin Imaging Collaboration (ISIC) organized several skin cancer classification challenges over the last decade.
The challenge datasets are hosted on the ISIC's online archive\footnote{https://www.isic-archive.com/}, which is the largest public database of dermoscopic skin images to date.
The complete archive consists of over 69.000 clinical and dermoscopic images of different provenance.
We follow Cassidy et al.~\cite{cassidy2022analysis}, who propose a duplicate removal strategy for the ISIC challenge datasets to avoid overlap between training and evaluation sets.
For experimentation, we combine all duplicate-free challenge training sets and generate new training, validation and testing splits under stratification.
The complete ISIC dataset has annotations for eight classes, i.e. Actinic Keratosis (AK), Basal Cell Carcinoma (BCC), Benign Keratosis (BKL), Dermatofibroma (DF), Melanoma (MEL), Nevus (NV), Squamous Cell Carcinoma (SCC) and Vascular Lesions (VASC).
We generate a multi-class variant of the dataset (henceforth referred to as \textit{ISIC}) comprising of 23.868 training, 2.653 validation and 2.947 testing samples.
In addition, a binary variant consisting of only NV and MEL samples (henceforth referred to as \textit{ISIC-b}) is generated comprising of 10.543 training, 4.519 validation and 6.456 testing samples.
\paragraph{\textbf{D7P \& D7P-b}} The seven-point checklist criteria dataset (\textit{D7P}) proposed in~\cite{kawahara2018seven} consists of clinical and dermoscopic images of 1.011 skin lesions.
Each image is annotated with regards to its diagnostic class, several dermoscopic criteria as well as further clinical data.
In this work, we only consider the subset of dermoscopic images along with the respective annotations of dermoscopic criteria and final diagnosis.
We follow the original work, categorizing the fine-grained annotations into BCC, NV, MEL, Sebbhoreic Keratosis (SK) as well as a miscellaneous (MISC) classes.
Again, we generate a stratified binary variant of only NV and MEL samples (henceforth referred to as \textit{D7P-b}) comprising of 371 training, 183 validation and 273 testing samples. For concept detection experiments, we follow the same splitting procedure for each dermoscopic concept.
\subsection{Experimental Setup}
If not mentioned otherwise, all experiments are conducted with a ResNet50, pre-trained on \textit{ImageNet}.
Training is conducted using softmax cross-entropy loss and AdamW optimizer.
The learning rate and weight decay are determined by hyperparameter tuning on the baseline setting.
A plateau learning rate scheduler is used in conjunction with an early stopping scheme to ensure convergence of the models.
Each training and respective evaluation is run $10$ times with varying random seeds to ensure significance of the reported results.\footnote{Reproducible code available on GitHub https://github.com/adriano-lucieri/shape-bias-in-dermoscopy}
\section{Deep Feature Extractors for Dermoscopy Can Encode Disentangled Features}
\label{sec:isolated_feature_relevance}
In this section, we perform an extensive study on the influence of individual features for the DL-based classification of dermoscopic skin lesions.
We show that even within the dermoscopy domain, biases are dataset-dependent.
Moreover, we show that although feature extractors are inclined towards learning entangled features, last-layer retraining can recover at least some features successfully.
\subsection{Different Dermoscopic Skin Lesion Datasets have Different Biases}
\label{sec:tsc_datasetwise}
In a first experiment, we train separate classifiers on the individual ablations introduced in section~\ref{sec:background}.
By training and testing on a specific ablation, we want to quantify the CNN-based feature extractor's capability to leverage individual, interpretable features from the images.
We consider both binary and multiclass skin lesion datasets to account for possible effects of varying task complexity.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig2_tsc-datasetwise.png}
\caption{Macro averaged F1-scores from models trained and tested on individual \textit{Texture}, \textit{Shape} and \textit{Color} feature ablations. The first bar of each group represents the reference F1-score achieved by models trained on unaltered data, followed by the three feature isolation and feature removal ablations.}
\label{fig:tsc}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:tsc} shows the macro averaged F1-scores on the test set of the respective ablations.
When providing only single features in isolation, we observe that both binary and multiclass datasets based on \textit{D7P}, show a stronger bias towards \textit{Shape}, whereas the \textit{ISIC} datasets are more sensitive with respect to \textit{Texture}.
This is indicated by the lower decrease in F1-scores when training on the respective isolated feature.
It can also be observed that \textit{Color} is the most important of all three features, resulting in the lowest performance decline.
Training on a pair of two individual features can be considered as the removal of the absent feature, and therefore serves as an inverted indicator for feature importance.
The previous observations are also confirmed by the results of removing \textit{Texture} and \textit{Shape}, except for \textit{ISIC-b} which is influenced almost equally.
Surprisingly, removing the \textit{Color} did not indicate similar relevance as indicated by the isolation experiment.
A reason for this behaviour could be that the combination of \textit{Shape} and \textit{Texture} information forms stronger higher-level features as compared to combinations including \textit{Color}.
\subsection{Dermoscopic Skin Lesion Classifiers Learn Entangled Features}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig3_tsc-transfer.png}
\caption{Comparison of macro averaged F1-scores from models trained and tested on different data ablations. Blue bars show results of models trained on original images, and tested on different ablations. Orange bars show results of models trained on individual ablations, and tested on original images. \textit{T}, \textit{S}, \textit{C} refer to \textit{Texture}, \textit{Shape} and \textit{Color} features, respectively.}
\label{fig:feature_transfer}
\end{figure}
The previous results showed that for some datasets, decent classification performances can be achieved even if only one or two features are present in the data.
We now investigate the ability of trained classifiers to transfer their features in ablated scenarios.
Therefore, the performance of each classifier trained in the previous experiment is measured across all ablations, as well as the original data.
Figure~\ref{fig:feature_transfer} shows a comparison of the results obtained when evaluating the models trained on the original input data on the test sets of all individual ablations (blue bars), with the inverse case, where different models trained on individual ablations are evaluated only on the original test set (orange bars).
The data clearly shows that the baseline classifier is unable to properly transfer it's learned features to the classification of ablated data, representing isolated input features.
However, the increased scores of the ablation-trained classifiers on the original data indicates the validity of the features even on unablated data.
Hence, we conjecture that the baseline models are not capable of making decisions purely based on the remaining features, but are instead overrelying on an entangled representation of different features.
\subsection{Feature Extractors are only partially Feature Biased}
\label{sec:dfr}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig4_tsc-DFR.png}
\caption{Comparison of macro averaged F1-scores from models tested on different feature ablations. Blue bars show results of a baseline model trained on original images, and tested on all ablations. Orange bars show results of the same models after \textit{Deep Feature Reweighting}. Green bars show results of models trained and tested on ablations. \textit{T}, \textit{S}, \textit{C} refer to \textit{Texture}, \textit{Shape} and \textit{Color} features, respectively.}
\label{fig:tsc-DFR}
\end{figure}
Inspired by \textit{Deep Feature Reweighting} (DFR) proposed in~\cite{kirichenko2022last}, we explore the level of entanglement in the skin lesion classifiers' feature spaces.
We again utilise the models trained on the original images from section~\ref{sec:tsc_datasetwise} but retrain the fully connected classification layers using the respective feature-ablated training and test sets.
In figure~\ref{fig:tsc-DFR}, the macro averaged F1-scores of baseline models with naive transfer, and DFR is compared to the accuracies of the models trained end-to-end on the ablated data.
It can be seen that in some cases (e.g. \textit{Color}, \textit{Shape + Color} and partially \textit{Texture + Color} as well as \textit{Texture + Shape} for \textit{ISIC-b}) DFR is able to achieve classification performances near the ideal values represented by the results of models trained and tested on ablations.
For models trained on different skin lesion datasets, the successfully recovered features vary significantly.
In contrast to \textit{D7P} and \textit{D7P-b} models, where only \textit{Color} could be recovered, models trained on \textit{ISIC-b} were able to recover all individual features to a sufficient degree.
A similar observation can be made when inspecting the results of multiclass \textit{ISIC} trained models.
Another striking observation is that combinations of two features resulted in higher DFR performance across all datasets. The results indicate that the feature extractor is always inclined towards learning entangled features.
However, the fact that individual features are additionally encoded, particularly in more complex and feature-rich datasets, confirms the results reported in~\cite{kirichenko2022last}.
This also suggests that an abundance of mostly redundant features in a dataset allows networks to learn alternative, isolated representations.
\section{Dermoscopy Relies on Complex Feature Combinations in Spectral Domain}
\label{sec:spectral_analysis}
In this section, we investigate the difference between feature entanglement in skin lesion classification tasks and common visual recognition.
For comparability, we consider the distinction of features in the spectral domain, which has been commonly examined in previous studies~\cite{yin2019fourier,chen2021amplitude,xu2021fourier}.
We show that, compared to conventional visual recognition tasks, dermoscopy is more reliant on features across both amplitude and phase spectra.
To contrast the spread of dermoscopic features to those used in common visual recognition tasks, we utilize two subsets of \textit{ImageNet}~\cite{deng2009imagenet}, namely \textit{Imagenette} and \textit{Imagewoof}\footnote{https://github.com/fastai/imagenette}.
\subsection{Dermoscopy Features are Spread over Phase and Amplitude}
\label{sec:phase-amplitude-dependence}
First, we implement phase- and amplitude-randomization augmentations which are applied to train, validation and test images alike.
Phase-randomization (i.e. \textit{Amplitude-Only}) is applied by replacing the phase spectrum of an image, with the phase spectrum of a randomly sampled image of Gaussian noise in Fourier domain.
The same procedure is followed analogously for Amplitude-randomization (i.e. \textit{Phase-Only}).
\begin{table}[t!]
\caption{Resulting testing accuracies from retraining ResNet50 with different spectral randomizations.
For both spectral randomizations, the performance decrease with respect to the baseline training is provided in a separate row.
}
\label{tab:randomization}
\begin{tabular}{p{0.22\textwidth}p{0.1\textwidth}p{0.1\textwidth}p{0.1\textwidth}p{0.1\textwidth}p{0.16\textwidth}p{0.16\textwidth}}
\toprule
\textbf{Dataset} & \textbf{D7P-b} & \textbf{D7P} & \textbf{ISIC-b} & \textbf{ISIC} & \textbf{Imagenette} & \textbf{Imagewoof} \\ \midrule
Baseline & \phantom{-}82.01 & \phantom{-}69.13 & \phantom{-}88.45 & \phantom{-}85.93 & \phantom{-}97.77 & \phantom{-}92.53 \\ \cline{2-7}
Amplitude-Only & \phantom{-}69.71 & \phantom{-}36.53 & \phantom{-}78.42 & \phantom{-}52.94 & \phantom{-}50.28 & \phantom{-}26.86 \\
\phantom{----}$\Delta$ Baseline & -15.00 & -47.16 & -11.34 & -38.39 & -48.57 & -70.97 \\ \cline{2-7}
Phase-Only & \phantom{-}67.66 & \phantom{-}45.45 & \phantom{-}80.78 & \phantom{-}69.29 & \phantom{-}91.98 & \phantom{-}81.53 \\
\phantom{----}$\Delta$ Baseline & -17.50 & -34.25 & -08.67 & -19.36 & -05.92 & -11.89 \\ \bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table~\ref{tab:randomization} shows the test results of models trained in the \textit{Amplitude-} and \textit{Phase-Only} settings in comparison to the baseline classification accuracies over five different datasets.
It can be observed that \textit{Amplitude-Only} always leads to comparatively high deterioration of accuracy for all datasets.
However, \textit{Phase-Only} results in comparable accuracy drops over all skin lesion datasets, even causing a higher relative performance decrease for \textit{D7P-b}.
Both visual recognition datasets instead show a significantly higher decrease in accuracy when providing only amplitude information, as compared to the \textit{Phase-Only} setting.
The results indicate that skin lesion datasets rely heavily on both amplitude- and phase-spectra, therefore potentially considering a more complex composition and variety of features beyond simple shape information.
In contrast, both \textit{ImageNet} subsets show a significant bias towards the phase spectra of the images.
The higher drop in accuracy when training \textit{Imagewoof} \textit{Phase-Only} indicates that a combination of phase and color is extremely important to achieve high performance in some classes, although phase being mostly sufficient.
Interestingly, an inspection of the confusion matrices reveals that in the \textit{Phase-Only} setting, networks tend to most often confuse \textit{Beagles} with \textit{English Foxhounds}, which share many features in their physique.
A similar observation was made for the \textit{Amplitude-Only} setting, where \textit{Rhodesian Ridgebacks} and \textit{Dingos} where confused most often, sharing a similar fur color.
\subsection{Focusing on Amplitude can Improve Performance}
Amplitude-Phase Recombination (\textit{APR}) has been proposed in~\cite{chen2021amplitude} as a method to increase the robustness of DL classifiers by focusing the feature extraction on the phase-spectrum of images.
$\mathcal{F}_x$ is the spatial Discrete Fourier Transform (DFT) of an image $x$ over each individual channel.
This frequency representation can be decomposed into an amplitude component ($\mathcal{A}_x$) and a phase component ($\mathcal{P}_x$) as follows:
\begin{equation}\small
\setlength{\abovedisplayskip}{3pt}
\setlength{\belowdisplayskip}{3pt}
\mathcal{F}_x = \mathcal{A}_x \otimes e^{i \cdot \mathcal{P}_x},
\label{eqn:freq}
\end{equation}
Amplitude-Phase Recombination for pair samples (\textit{APR-P})~\cite{chen2021amplitude} augments a given input image $x_j$ by replacing its amplitude spectrum $\mathcal{A}_{x_j}$ with the spectrum of another randomly selected image from the batch ($\mathcal{A}_{x_k}$).
\begin{equation}\small
\setlength{\abovedisplayskip}{3pt}
\setlength{\belowdisplayskip}{3pt}
x_{j,aug} = iDFT(\mathcal{A}_{x_k} \otimes e^{i \cdot \mathcal{P}_{x_j}}),
\label{eqn:freq}
\end{equation}
Instead, we propose two new variations of \textit{APR-P}, namely Amplitude-Focused \textit{APR-P} (\textit{AF-APR-P}) and Mixed \textit{APR-P} (\textit{Mix-APR-P}).
\textit{AF-APR-P} swaps the phase spectrum of images as follows:
\begin{equation}\small
\setlength{\abovedisplayskip}{3pt}
\setlength{\belowdisplayskip}{3pt}
x_{j,aug} = iDFT(\mathcal{A}_{x_j} \otimes e^{i \cdot \mathcal{P}_{x_k}}),
\label{eqn:freq}
\end{equation}
Therefore, the ground truth label corresponding to the original image's amplitude spectrum is preserved.
\textit{Mix-APR-P} randomly selects the spectral component from which to assign the respective label, forcing the network to extract both phase and amplitude features.
Table~\ref{tab:aprp-results} shows the test performance of models trained with different variations of \textit{APR-P} augmentation.
\textit{AF-APR-P} outperformed the other variations in the case of binary skin lesion classification, although statistical significance is only achieved in case of \textit{ISIC-b}.
When classifying skin lesions in multiple disease classes, neither augmentation showed any benefit.
However, it can be seen that \textit{APR-P} decreased the average test accuracy in all skin classification tasks.
For both visual recognition datasets, neither \textit{APR} augmentation improved the results.
As expected, \textit{AF-APR-P} and \textit{Mix-APR-P} even led to a significant decrease in most cases.
\begin{table}[t!]
\caption{Average test results of random retraining with different variants of \textit{APR} augmentation. Statistical significance of average accuracy to the baseline training is indicated by asterisks.}
\label{tab:aprp-results}
\begin{tabular}{p{0.18\textwidth}p{0.1\textwidth}p{0.12\textwidth}p{0.1\textwidth}p{0.1\textwidth}p{0.17\textwidth}p{0.17\textwidth}}
\toprule
\textbf{Dataset} & \textbf{D7P-b} & \textbf{ISIC-b} & \textbf{D7P} & \textbf{ISIC} & \textbf{Imagenette} & \textbf{Imagewoof} \\ \midrule
Baseline & 82.01 & 88.45 & \textbf{69.13} & \textbf{85.93} & \textbf{97.77} & \textbf{92.53} \\ \cline{2-7}
APR-P & 80.4* & 88.62 & 66.05* & 82.79 & 96.52 & 91.47 \\
AF-APR-P & \textbf{82.42} & \textbf{89.23**} & 67.43 & 84.18 & 97.06** & 91.91*** \\
MIX-APR-P & 81.5 & 89.16 & 68.62 & 84.22 & 97.3** & 91.68 \\ \bottomrule
\addlinespace[1ex]
\multicolumn{3}{l}{\textsuperscript{***}$p<0.01$,
\textsuperscript{**}$p<0.05$,
\textsuperscript{*}$p<0.1$}
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:discussion}
We have shown there exist different, dataset-dependend biases with respect to \textit{Texture}, \textit{Shape} and \textit{Color} features in dermoscopy.
\textit{D7P} datasets seem to be more biased towards \textit{Shape} as compared to \textit{Texture}.
One possible explanation for this finding is the significant difference in training size between \textit{ISIC} and \textit{D7P} ($\times 28$ for binary and $\times 53$ for multiclass) allows the \textit{ISIC}-trained models to pick up more nuanced features including fine-grained textures.
This effect requires further investigation and is of special importance for the robustness and explainability of skin lesion classifiers in clinical use.
The results in section~\ref{sec:dfr} show differences between the feature entanglement of binary and multiclass classification tasks and indicated that a partial or even full encoding of disentangled features is possible depending on the complexity of the target task.
However, it has also been shown that the end-to-end trained classifier does not necessarily use these features independently, potentially suffering a loss in robustness.
Additional experimentation is required to investigate potential mechanisms leading to disentangled classification layers from end-to-end training.
One possible way would be the explicit data augmentation with the different feature isolations proposed in section~\ref{sec:background}.
Another interesting direction would be the application of contrastive losses from self-supervised learning to achieve a better alignment of different feature-isolated ablations.
Section~\ref{sec:phase-amplitude-dependence} revealed that features relevant for dermoscopic classification are spread across different components in the spectral domain, whereas visual recognition classifiers are deliberately biased towards only the phase component in order to increase robustness.
A reason for this phenomenon might lie in the relevance of \textit{Texture}, \textit{Shape} and \textit{Color} in skin lesion classification.
The phase spectrum is known to encode mainly edges, which often correspond to coarse structures as outlines, but also fine-grained structures resembling textures.
On the other hand, color is mainly encoded in the amplitude spectrum, as it contains information about the magnitude of specific frequency components in the respective color channels.
These findings indicated that common methods for increased robustness, which reinforce the \textit{shape-bias} are not necessarily suitable for skin lesion classification.
However, skin lesion classification has been shown to significantly benefit from our proposed Amplitude-Focused \textit{APR} augmentation.
Multiclass skin lesion classification seem to not benefit, or even suffer from the Fourier-domain augmentation.
A reason for this behaviour might be the increasing relevance of \textit{Texture} and \textit{Shape} features in multiclass settings, as reported in section~\ref{sec:dfr}.
The intuition behind the \textit{Mix-APR-P} augmentation was that a random exposure to phase- or amplitude-randomized samples might implicitly force the network to learn individual features.
Yet, this assumption has been disproved.
Overall, the findings of this work indicate an inherent complexity of the dermoscopic skin lesion classification task.
Indeed, the process of clinical reasoning has already been shown to be fundamentally different from other human decision such as visual recognition, based mostly on analytical reasoning.
Norman et al.~\cite{norman2009iterative} describe the process of clinical reasoning as an iterative approach, combining non-analytical with analytical operations to varying degrees, depending upon personal style preferences, experience, and awareness of the diagnostic task~\cite{dinnes2018visual}.
Commonly applied diagnostic procedures in dermoscopy are manual algorithms like the ABCD rule~\cite{stolz1994abcd}, the Menzies method~\cite{menzies1996frequency}, the seven-point checklist~\cite{argenziano1998epiluminescence} as well as the method of pattern analysis~\cite{kittler2016dermatoscopy}.
Methods like the seven-point checklist and pattern analysis are based on the identification of complex dermoscopic features such as Blue-Whitish-Veil or Pigment Networks.
The successful application of pattern analysis requires years of extensive training.
Evidence suggest, that clinical reasoning in dermoscopy puts more emphasis on the non-analytical, unconscious description of overall patterns as compared to analytical processes~\cite{gachon2005first,zalaudek2008time}.
This suggests that dermoscopic skin lesion classification and other medical imaging tasks pose particularly interesting challenges upon the whole computer vision community.
Due to the inherent complexity of the task, special efforts are required from the community working on explainable Artificial Intelligence, in order to properly disentangle features and align explanations with the human clinical reasoning processes.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
In this paper, we revisit the utility of developing \textit{shape-biased} models for recognition beyond natural images.
Particularly, we consider the domain of dermoscopic skin lesion classification.
Through a range of different experiments, we have shown that deep features learnt for the classification of skin lesions are inherently entangled due to the complexity of the underlying task.
At the same time, our analysis reveals that feature disentanglement can be achieved even on networks trained without constraints, and found that an increasing task complexity as well as a higher number of training samples leads deep feature extractors to learn a more diverse set of redundant and isolated features.
Additionally, we showed that dermoscopic features are spread over different spectral components in contrast to common visual recognition tasks like \textit{Imagenet}.
This indicates that the commonly desired \textit{shape-bias} for improved model robustness does not apply in dermoscopy, and that the task requires specifically tailored solutions.
We demonstrated a first step towards dermoscopy-specific robustness measures beyond \textit{shape-bias} by introducing Amplitude-Focused Amplitude-Phase Recombination, showing improved performance on binary skin lesion classification tasks.
More importantly, this work highlights the importance of scrutinizing a given computer vision task in order to find relevant, and robust requirements for the decision-making.
Dermoscopy is only one out of plenty use-cases with unique requirements which extend beyond the simple analytical procedures of visual object recognition.
These kind of considerations are particularly important for pivotal areas such as self-supervised learning, where an adequate requirement engineering will potentially lead to enormous performance improvements.
\bibliographystyle{splncs04}
|
\section{Introduction}
Symmetry plays a fundamental role in constructing gauge theories for particle interactions. In much wider contexts, symmetry offers a powerful method for understanding systems in quantum mechanics and quantum field theories~\cite{Coleman:1985rnk}. Even outside gauge and/or space-time symmetries, the approximate symmetry in the hadron spectrum, for example, brought us valuable insights, revealing some of the key features of the strong force~\cite{Ikeda:1959zz,Gell-Mann:1962yej,Okubo:1961jc}.
In neutrino physics, there have been discussions on symmetries from various phenomenological points of view. The large mixing angles $\theta_{23}$ and $\theta_{12}$ observed experimentally naturally triggered interests in the possibilities of symmetries connecting the first and the second octants of the mixing angles~\cite{Fogli:1996nn,deGouvea:2000pqg,Fogli:2001wi}. It may be elaborated to discussions about the discrete symmetries in the context of models of neutrino masses and flavor mixings~\cite{Altarelli:2010gt}.
The parameter degeneracy, problem of multiple solutions for given observables, can be understood at least partly as a consequence of the approximate or exact symmetries of the oscillation probability in systems within the Standard Model (SM)~\cite{Fogli:1996pv,Minakata:2001qm,Minakata:2010zn}, or with interactions beyond SM~\cite{Coloma:2016gei}. Related discussions are about the region of definition of the mixing angles and phases~\cite{deGouvea:2008nm}, and the perturbative formulation which respects symmetry~\cite{Zhou:2016luk}.
In previous papers~\cite{Minakata:2021dqh,Minakata:2021goi}, we have introduced {\em ``Symmetry Finder''} (SF), a method for hunting reparametrization symmetry of mass eigenstate exchange type in neutrino oscillation probability in matter. The SF method allows us to uncover the eight reparametrization symmetries of the 1-2 state exchange type in the Denton {\it et al.} (DMP) perturbation theory~\cite{Denton:2016wmg}, and the similar sixteen symmetries of the 1-3 state exchange type in (a particular version of) the atmospheric-resonance perturbation (ARP) theory~\cite{Minakata:2015gra}.\footnote{
Here the term ``resonance'' should be understood in a less strict sense than usual, see refs.~\cite{Wolfenstein:1977ue,Mikheyev:1985zog,Barger:1980tf,Smirnov:2016xzf}. }
The symmetry enlargement factor from before to after SF is large, one existing symmetry~\cite{Denton:2016wmg} to eight~\cite{Minakata:2021dqh} in DMP, and one symmetry~\cite{Martinez-Soler:2019nhb} to sixteen~\cite{Minakata:2021goi} in the ARP theories, respectively, showing the power of the systematic method.
Recently, we have formulated a new framework to incorporate unitarity violation (UV)\footnote{
We are aware that in physics literatures UV usually means ``ultraviolet''. But, in this paper UV is used as an abbreviation for ``unitarity violation'' or ``unitarity violating''.
}
effect into the DMP theory, a framework dubbed as the ``DMP-UV'' perturbation theory~\cite{Minakata:2021nii}.
In this paper we investigate the reparametrization symmetry of the 1-2 state exchange type in this theory. Non-unitarity in the flavor mixing matrix~\cite{Antusch:2006vwa,Escrihuela:2015wra,Blennow:2016jkn,Fong:2016yyh,Fong:2017gke} is one of the promising ways to discuss physics beyond the $\nu$SM, a shorthand notation for the neutrino-mass embedded SM. See, e.g., refs.~\cite{Fernandez-Martinez:2007iaa,Goswami:2008mi,Antusch:2009pm,Antusch:2009gn,Antusch:2014woa,Ge:2016xya,Fernandez-Martinez:2016lgt,Dutta:2016vcc,Parke:2015goa,Ellis:2020hus,Coloma:2021uhq} for an incomplete list of the references on non-unitarity. We hope our DMP-UV perturbation theory serves as a theoretical laboratory for non-unitarity approach to ``beyond the SM'' physics.
In fact, we have led into the present investigation reported here in carrying out our previous work~\cite{Minakata:2021nii}. We have observed that the oscillation probability derived to first order in the DMP-UV expansion obeys Symmetry IA and IB-DMP in the nomenclature defined in ref.~\cite{Minakata:2021dqh}. See the first three columns of Table~\ref{tab:DMPUV-symmetry} in this paper for a summary of the $\nu$SM DMP symmetries reported in ref.~\cite{Minakata:2021dqh}. Nonetheless, we failed to mention about it in ref.~\cite{Minakata:2021nii}, because we are puzzled about their nature: They have no associate UV parameter transformations. In the SF framework, as we will explain in section~\ref{sec:SF-DMP-UV}, the 1-2 space rotation of the $V$ matrix is involved and it must act on the UV part as well. Then, it should induce transformations of the UV parameters. In due course of our analysis in this paper, we will resolve this apparent puzzle.
Yer, apart from the above point, study of symmetry in the UV extended DMP theory looks like a simple extension of the treatment of the DMP theory to that of DMP-UV. One may wonder whether we expect to find something qualitatively new. Here we give our tentative answer to this question in the positive, prior to our real investigation, but without full explanation of the technical terms:
\begin{itemize}
\item
Announcing the result first, all the eight $\nu$SM DMP symmetries, IA, IB, $\cdot \cdot \cdot $, IVB, reported in ref.~\cite{Minakata:2021dqh} have their UV extensions. This seemingly ``normal and expected'' statement will reveal to be highly nontrivial after we see remarkable consistency between the constraints from the unitary evolution and the genuine non-unitary parts. See sections~\ref{sec:SF-DMP-UV}, \ref{sec:SF-solution-UV}, and \ref{sec:SF-solution-EV}.
\item
The ``curious'' property of IA and IB without the UV $\alpha$ parameters' transformations mentioned above is found to come out from the SF method. Interestingly, the remaining six symmetries are accompanied by the $\alpha$ transformations. See Table~\ref{tab:DMPUV-symmetry}. Then, it means that the DMP-UV reparametrization symmetries, as a whole, recognize the $\nu$SM and the UV sectors of the theory and {\em can distinguish} between the two sectors. It suggests an interesting view of the reparametrization symmetry as a tool for diagnostics of neutrino theory with UV. This adds to the possible utility mentioned in refs.~\cite{Minakata:2021dqh,Minakata:2021goi}.
\item
The rephasing matrix Rep(X) appears in the transformation property of the flavor basis Hamiltonian as $H \rightarrow \text{Rep(X)} H \text{Rep(X)}^{\dagger}$ under Symmetry X,\footnote{
For our repeated use of the phrase ``$\mathcal{O}$ transforms under the transformations of Symmetry X'', we simply say ``$\mathcal{O}$ transforms under Symmetry X'' to avoid cumbersome repetition of the words.
}
and is the key to establish an all-order proof of the symmetry~\cite{Minakata:2021dqh}. While it is a purely $\nu$SM concept, we show that in fact our treatment of the SF equation in the UV sector allows a new representation of Rep(X), which innovates the Hamiltonian proof of the symmetry. See sections~\ref{sec:SF-solution-UV} and \ref{sec:hamiltonian-symmetry}. It is a remarkable indication for intriguing interplay between the $\nu$SM and UV sectors of the theory.
\end{itemize}
The organization of this paper contains, in addition to the above, a compact review of the DMP-UV perturbation theory in section~\ref{sec:DMP-UV}, its treatment by the $V$ matrix method in section~\ref{sec:Vmatrix-method}, the summary of the DMP-UV symmetries with Table~\ref{tab:DMPUV-symmetry} and Table~\ref{tab:SF-solutions} in section~\ref{sec:summary}, and an all-order proof of the DMP-UV symmetries in section~\ref{sec:hamiltonian-symmetry}.
\section{Three active-neutrino system with non-unitary flavor mixing matrix}
\label{sec:3nu-non-unitarity}
This section is to define the system of three active neutrinos propagating under the influence of non-unitary flavor mixing matrix and the matter potential. In our formalism the three active neutrino evolution in matter in the presence of non-unitary flavor mixing is based on the Schr\"odinger equation in the vacuum mass eigenstate basis~\cite{Blennow:2016jkn,Fong:2017gke}, the ``check basis'',
\begin{eqnarray}
i \frac{d}{dx} \check{\nu} =
\frac{1}{2E}
\left\{
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \Delta m^2_{21} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \Delta m^2_{31} \\
\end{array}
\right] +
N^{\dagger} \left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
a - b & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -b & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -b \\
\end{array}
\right] N
\right\}
\check{\nu}.
\label{evolution-check-basis}
\end{eqnarray}
In eq.~(\ref{evolution-check-basis}), $N$ denotes the $3 \times 3$ non-unitary flavor mixing matrix which relates the flavor neutrino states to the vacuum mass eigenstates as
\begin{eqnarray}
\nu_{\alpha} = N_{\alpha i} \check{\nu}_{i}.
\label{N-def}
\end{eqnarray}
Hereafter, the subscript Greek indices $\alpha$, $\beta$, or $\gamma$ run over $e, \mu, \tau$, and the Latin indices $i$, $j$ run over the mass eigenstate indices $1,2,$ and $3$. $E$ is neutrino energy and $\Delta m^2_{ji} \equiv m^2_{j} - m^2_{i}$. The usual phase redefinition of neutrino wave function is done to leave only the mass squared differences. Notice, however, that doing this phase redefinition or not (see eq.~\eqref{H-LHS-def})
does not affect our symmetry discussion in this paper.
The functions $a(x)$ and $b(x)$ in eq.~(\ref{evolution-check-basis}) denote the
Wolfenstein matter potential \cite{Wolfenstein:1977ue} due to charged current (CC) and neutral current (NC) reactions, respectively,
\begin{eqnarray}
a(x) &=&
2 \sqrt{2} G_F N_e E \approx 1.52 \times 10^{-4} \left( \frac{Y_e \rho}{\rm g\,cm^{-3}} \right) \left( \frac{E}{\rm GeV} \right) {\rm eV}^2,
\nonumber \\
b(x) &=& \sqrt{2} G_F N_n E = \frac{1}{2} \left( \frac{N_n}{N_e} \right) a,
\label{matt-potential}
\end{eqnarray}
where $G_F$ is the Fermi constant.
$N_e$ and $N_n$ are the electron and neutron number densities in matter. $\rho$ and $Y_e$ denote, respectively, the matter density and number of electrons per nucleon in matter. These quantities except for $G_F$ are, in principle, position dependent.
We use so called the $\alpha$ parametrization~\cite{Escrihuela:2015wra} for the non-unitary flavor mixing matrix $N$,
\begin{eqnarray}
N
&=&
\left( \bf{1} - \alpha \right) U
=
\left\{
\bf{1} -
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
\alpha_{ee} & 0 & 0 \\
\alpha_{\mu e} & \alpha_{\mu \mu} & 0 \\
\alpha_{\tau e} & \alpha_{\tau \mu} & \alpha_{\tau \tau} \\
\end{array}
\right]
\right\}
U,
\label{alpha-matrix-def}
\end{eqnarray}
where $U \equiv U_{\text{\tiny MNS}}$ denotes the usual unitary $\nu$SM mixing matrix~\cite{Maki:1962mu}. The $\alpha$ parametrization originates in refs.~\cite{Schechter:1980gr,Okubo:1961jc}. If we use the Particle Data Group (PDG) convention~\cite{Zyla:2020zbs}, for example, $U = U_{\text{\tiny PDG}}$ and $\alpha$ in eq.~\eqref{alpha-matrix-def} defines the $\alpha$ matrix in the PDG convention.
For convenience of our discussion, following ref.~\cite{Minakata:2021dqh}, we use the solar (SOL) convention for the $U$ and $\alpha$ matrices. They are defined by the phase redefinition of those of the PDG convention~\cite{Martinez-Soler:2018lcy}:
\begin{eqnarray}
U_{\text{\tiny SOL}}
&=&
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & e^{ - i \delta} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & e^{ - i \delta} \\
\end{array}
\right]
U_{\text{\tiny PDG}}
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & e^{ i \delta} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & e^{ i \delta} \\
\end{array}
\right]
=
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & c_{23} & s_{23} \\
0 & - s_{23} & c_{23} \\
\end{array}
\right]
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
c_{13} & 0 & s_{13} \\
0 & 1 & 0 \\
- s_{13} & 0 & c_{13} \\
\end{array}
\right]
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
c_{12} & s_{12} e^{ i \delta} & 0 \\
- s_{12} e^{- i \delta} & c_{12} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right]
\nonumber \\
&\equiv&
U_{23} (\theta_{23}) U_{13} (\theta_{13}) U_{12} (\theta_{12}, \delta),
\nonumber \\
\alpha_{\text{\tiny SOL}}
&=&
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & e^{ - i \delta} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & e^{ - i \delta} \\
\end{array}
\right]
\alpha
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & e^{ i \delta} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & e^{ i \delta} \\
\end{array}
\right]
\equiv
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
\widetilde{\alpha}_{ee} & 0 & 0 \\
\widetilde{\alpha}_{\mu e} & \widetilde{\alpha}_{\mu \mu} & 0 \\
\widetilde{\alpha}_{\tau e} & \widetilde{\alpha}_{\tau \mu} & \widetilde{\alpha}_{\tau \tau} \\
\end{array}
\right],
\label{U-alpha-SOL-def}
\end{eqnarray}
with the obvious notations $s_{ij} \equiv \sin \theta_{ij}$ etc., $\delta$ for the CP violating lepton KM phase~\cite{Kobayashi:1973fv}, and $\widetilde{\alpha}_{\beta \gamma}$ for the SOL convention $\alpha$ parameters.\footnote{
The other useful form of the $U$ matrix is the one of the atmospheric (ATM) convention used e.g., in refs.~\cite{Minakata:2015gra,Denton:2016wmg,Martinez-Soler:2018lcy}
in which the phase factor $e^{ \pm i \delta}$ is attached to $s_{23}$ as opposed to $s_{12}$ in the SOL convention. }
The second line in eq.~\eqref{U-alpha-SOL-def} defines the rotation matrices in the 2-3, 1-3, and 1-2 spaces in order.
\section{DMP-UV perturbation theory in a nutshell}
\label{sec:DMP-UV}
To present our formulation of the DMP-UV perturbation theory, an extension of DMP to include non-unitarity, we rely on the basic formulation given in our previous paper~\cite{Minakata:2021nii}, which will be referred for details. On the other hand, we have to go beyond the treatment of ref.~\cite{Minakata:2021nii} for the following three reasons:
(1) While we remain in the first-order treatment in most part of this paper, we have to keep the second-order term in the Hamiltonian when we attempt to give an all-order proof of the symmetries in section~\ref{sec:hamiltonian-symmetry}.
(2) In the SF framework we need so called the $V$ matrix formalism~\cite{Minakata:1998bf}, which will be formulated for our theory in section~\ref{sec:Vmatrix-method}.
(3) We take the eigenvalue-renormalized basis for the eigenstate in matter, which is slightly different from the one in ref.~\cite{Minakata:2021nii}.
The DMP-UV perturbation theory has two kind of the expansion parameters, $\epsilon$ and the UV $\widetilde{\alpha}$ parameters. $\epsilon$ is defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\epsilon \equiv \frac{ \Delta m^2_{21} }{ \Delta m^2_{ \text{ren} } },
\hspace{10mm}
\Delta m^2_{ \text{ren} } \equiv \Delta m^2_{31} - s^2_{12} \Delta m^2_{21},
\label{epsilon-Dm2-ren-def}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Delta m^2_{ \text{ren} }$ is the ``renormalized'' atmospheric-scale $\Delta m^2$~\cite{Minakata:2015gra}. The other expansion parameters are the $\widetilde{\alpha}$ parameters~\eqref{U-alpha-SOL-def} which represent the UV effects.
We start from the tilde-basis Hamiltonian
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\widetilde{H}
=
( U_{13} U_{12} ) \check{H} ( U_{13} U_{12} )^{\dagger}
=
\widetilde{H} _{ \nu\text{SM}}
+ \widetilde{H}_\text{ UV }^{(1)}
+ \widetilde{H}_\text{ UV }^{(2)},
\label{tilde-H}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\widetilde{H} _{ \nu\text{SM}}
=
\frac{ \Delta m^2_{ \text{ren} } }{ 2E }
\left\{
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
\frac{ a(x) }{ \Delta m^2_{ \text{ren} }} + s^2_{13} + \epsilon s^2_{12} &
0 & c_{13} s_{13} \\
0 & \epsilon c^2_{12} & 0 \\
c_{13} s_{13} & 0 & c^2_{13} + \epsilon s^2_{12} \\
\end{array}
\right]
+
\epsilon c_{12} s_{12}
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 &
c_{13} e^{ i \delta} &
0 \\
c_{13} e^{ - i \delta} &
0 &
- s_{13} e^{ - i \delta} \\
0 &
- s_{13} e^{ i \delta} &
0 \\
\end{array}
\right]
\right\}.
\nonumber \\
\label{tilde-H-SM}
\end{eqnarray}
The UV part has the first and second order terms in the $\widetilde{\alpha}$ parameters
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\widetilde{H}_\text{ UV }^{(1)} =
\frac{b}{2E}
U_{23}^{\dagger} A U_{23},
\nonumber \\
&&
\widetilde{H}_\text{ UV }^{(2)} =
- \frac{b}{2E}
U_{23}^{\dagger} A^{(2)} U_{23},
\label{tilde-H-UV}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
A &\equiv&
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
2 \widetilde{\alpha}_{ee} \left( 1 - \frac{ a (x) }{ b (x) } \right) &
\widetilde{\alpha}_{\mu e}^* &
\widetilde{\alpha}_{\tau e}^* \\
\widetilde{\alpha}_{\mu e} &
2 \widetilde{\alpha}_{\mu \mu} &
\widetilde{\alpha}_{\tau \mu}^* \\
\widetilde{\alpha}_{\tau e} &
\widetilde{\alpha}_{\tau \mu} &
2 \widetilde{\alpha}_{\tau \tau} \\
\end{array}
\right],
\nonumber \\
A^{(2)}
&\equiv&
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
\widetilde{\alpha}_{ee}^2 \left( 1 - \frac{ a (x) }{ b (x) } \right)
+ |\widetilde{\alpha}_{\mu e}|^2 + |\widetilde{\alpha}_{\tau e}|^2 &
\widetilde{\alpha}_{\mu e}^* \widetilde{\alpha}_{\mu \mu}
+ \widetilde{\alpha}_{\tau e}^* \widetilde{\alpha}_{\tau \mu} &
\widetilde{\alpha}_{\tau e}^* \widetilde{\alpha}_{\tau \tau} \\
\widetilde{\alpha}_{\mu e} \widetilde{\alpha}_{\mu \mu}
+ \widetilde{\alpha}_{\tau e} \widetilde{\alpha}_{\tau \mu}^* &
\widetilde{\alpha}_{\mu \mu}^2 + |\widetilde{\alpha}_{\tau \mu}|^2 &
\widetilde{\alpha}_{\tau \mu}^* \widetilde{\alpha}_{\tau \tau} \\
\widetilde{\alpha}_{\tau e} \widetilde{\alpha}_{\tau \tau} &
\widetilde{\alpha}_{\tau \mu} \widetilde{\alpha}_{\tau \tau} &
\widetilde{\alpha}_{\tau \tau}^2 \\
\end{array}
\right].
\label{A-A2-def}
\end{eqnarray}
In $\widetilde{H} _{ \nu\text{SM}}$ in eq.~\eqref{tilde-H-SM}, the rephasing to remove the NC potential is understood~\cite{Minakata:2021nii}. For a consistent nomenclature $A$ must carry the superscript as $A^{(1)}$, but for simplicity of the expressions we omit it throughout this paper.
In what follows we keep omitting the superscript $^{(1)}$ for many of the quantities in first order in the $\widetilde{\alpha}$ parameters, because our treatment will be free from the second order terms apart from section~\ref{sec:hamiltonian-symmetry}.
\subsection{The renormalized eigenvalue (bar) basis}
\label{sec:bar-basis}
We use the two successive rotations in the 1-3 and 1-2 spaces with the angles $\phi$ and $\psi$, $\theta_{13}$ and $\theta_{12}$ in matter, respectively, to diagonalize the most part of $\widetilde{H} _{ \nu\text{SM}}$~\cite{Denton:2016wmg}. The diagonalized basis is denoted as the ``bar basis'' with the Hamiltonian
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{H}
&=&
U_{12}^{\dagger} (\psi, \delta) U^\dagger_{13}(\phi)
\widetilde{H}
U_{13}(\phi) U_{12} (\psi, \delta)
=
\bar{H}^{(0)}_{ \nu\text{SM}} + \bar{H}^{(1)}_{ \nu\text{SM}}
+ \bar{H}^{(1)}_{ \nu\text{UV}} + \bar{H}^{(2)}_{ \nu\text{UV}}.
\label{barH-4terms}
\end{eqnarray}
The notations are such that $U_{12} (\psi, \delta)$, for example, implies $U_{12} (\theta_{12}, \delta)$ with replacement of $\theta_{12}$ by $\psi$. The $\nu$SM part of $\bar{H}$ takes the form in the SOL convention as
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\bar{H}^{(0)}_{ \nu\text{SM}} + \bar{H}^{(1)}_{ \nu\text{SM}}
=
\frac{1}{2E}
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
\lambda_{1}^{ \nu\text{SM} } & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \lambda_{2}^{ \nu\text{SM} } & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \lambda_{3}^{ \nu\text{SM} } \\
\end{array}
\right]
+
\epsilon c_{12} s_{12}
\sin ( \phi - \theta_{13} ) \frac{ \Delta m^2_{ \text{ren} } }{2E}
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & - s_\psi \\
0 & 0 & c_\psi e^{ - i \delta} \\
- s_\psi & c_\psi e^{ i \delta} & 0
\end{array}
\right],
\nonumber \\
\label{barH-nuSM}
\end{eqnarray}
where
$\lambda_{i}^{ \nu\text{SM} } / 2E$ denote the zeroth-order eigenvalues of the $\nu$SM Hamiltonian given in ref.~\cite{Denton:2016wmg}. The UV part of the bar-basis Hamiltonian reads
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\bar{H}^{(1)}_{ \text{UV}}
= \frac{b}{2E} G,
\hspace{10mm}
\bar{H}^{(2)}_{ \text{UV}}
= - \frac{b}{2E} G^{(2)}.
\label{barH-UV}
\end{eqnarray}
where the $G$ matrices are the 2-3, 1-3 and 1-2 rotated $A$ matrices in eq.~\eqref{A-A2-def}:
\begin{eqnarray}
G &=&
U_{12} (\psi, \delta)^{\dagger} U^\dagger_{13}(\phi)
U_{23}^{\dagger} (\theta_{23})
A
U_{23} (\theta_{23})
U_{13}(\phi) U_{12} (\psi, \delta),
\nonumber \\
G^{(2)} &=&
U_{12} (\psi, \delta)^{\dagger} U^\dagger_{13}(\phi)
U_{23}^{\dagger} (\theta_{23})
A^{(2)}
U_{23} (\theta_{23})
U_{13}(\phi) U_{12} (\psi, \delta).
\label{G-G2-def}
\end{eqnarray}
For simplicity in the discussion of reparametrization symmetry we take the renormalized bar basis in which the diagonal elements of the $G$ matrices are absorbed into the eigenvalues of $\bar{H}^{(0)}$:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\lambda_{i}
= \lambda_{i}^{ \nu\text{SM} } + b G_{ii} - b G^{(2)}_{ii} ~~~~~ (i=1,2,3).
\label{ren-eigenvalues}
\end{eqnarray}
The off-diagonal part of the $G$ matrix is left in the last term in $\bar{H}^{(1)}_{ \text{UV}}$ and $\bar{H}^{(2)}_{ \text{UV}}$ in eq.~\eqref{barH-UV}, and is treated as perturbation. Here, we must remark that the formal expressions of sine and cosine $2\psi$ (and $2\phi$) expressed in terms of $\lambda_{i}$ are the same as those of the original DMP~\cite{Denton:2016wmg}, but they are in fact different quantities because of the shifts in the eigenvalues. It implies that our mixing angles in matter, $\psi$ and $\phi$, differ from the ones in ref.~\cite{Denton:2016wmg} by first order quantities.
From now on until section~\ref{sec:hamiltonian-symmetry}, we concentrate on the first order term in the Hamiltonian and parametrize the $G$ matrix as
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
G =
D H D^{\dagger}
=
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
H_{11} & e^{ i \delta} H_{12} & H_{13} \\
e^{ - i \delta} H_{21} & H_{22} & e^{ - i \delta} H_{23} \\
H_{31} & e^{ i \delta} H_{32} & H_{33} \\
\end{array}
\right],
\label{Hmatrix-def}
\end{eqnarray}
where $D \equiv \text{diag} (e^{ i \delta}, 1, e^{ i \delta} )$, with the diagonal elements untouched, $G_{ii} = H_{ii}$. We have introduced the $H$ matrix because of the two reasons:
(1) Overall $e^{ \pm i \delta }$ factors in the elements $G_{12}$ and $G_{23}$ are taken out to prevent proliferation of hidden $\delta$ in the expressions of the probability. See the explicit expressions of $H_{ij}$ given in Appendix~\ref{sec:H-elements}.
(2) It makes the $\delta$ dependences of the $\nu$SM and UV parts of the SF equation more coherent.
Then, by using the renormalized eigenvalues, the bar-basis Hamiltonian is given to first order in DMP-UV expansion as
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{H}
&=&
\frac{1}{2E}
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
\lambda_{1} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \lambda_{2} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \lambda_{3} \\
\end{array}
\right]
+
\epsilon c_{12} s_{12}
\sin ( \phi - \theta_{13} ) \frac{\Delta m^2_{ \text{ren} }}{2E}
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & - s_\psi \\
0 & 0 & c_\psi e^{ - i \delta} \\
- s_\psi & c_\psi e^{ i \delta} & 0
\end{array}
\right]
\nonumber \\
&+&
\frac{b}{2E}
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & e^{ i \delta} H_{12} & H_{13} \\
e^{ - i \delta} H_{21} & 0 & e^{ - i \delta} H_{23} \\
H_{31} & e^{ i \delta} H_{32} & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right].
\label{barH-0th-1st}
\end{eqnarray}
Hereafter we denote the first term of eq.~\eqref{barH-0th-1st} as $\bar{H}^{(0)}$, and the second and third as $\bar{H}^{(1)}$ which are treated as perturbation.
After identifying the unperturbed and perturbed Hamiltonian, there is a standard route to compute the $S$ matrix and the oscillation probability. This task is carried out explicitly in the $\nu_{\mu} \rightarrow \nu_{e}$ channel in ref.~\cite{Minakata:2021nii} to first order in the DMP-UV expansion.
As in ref.~\cite{Minakata:2021nii} we use the uniform matter density approximation until section~\ref{sec:hamiltonian-symmetry}.
\section{$V$ matrix method}
\label{sec:Vmatrix-method}
Symmetry Finder (SF)~\cite{Minakata:2021dqh,Minakata:2021goi} is formulated by using the $V$ matrix formalism~\cite{Minakata:1998bf}, and for this reason we construct it for the DMP-UV perturbation theory. If we have the expression of the flavor eigenstate in terms of the mass eigenstate basis in matter as $\nu_{\alpha} = V_{\alpha i} \bar{\nu}_{i}$, the oscillation probability can readily be calculated:
\begin{eqnarray}
P(\nu_\beta \rightarrow \nu_\alpha) =
-4\sum_{j>i} \mbox{Re}[V_{\alpha i} V_{\beta i}^* V_{\alpha j}^* V_{\beta j}]
\sin^2 \frac{( \lambda_j - \lambda_i) x}{4E}
\nonumber\\
-2\sum_{j>i} \mbox{Im}[V_{\alpha i} V_{\beta i}^* V_{\alpha j}^* V_{\beta j}]
\sin \frac{( \lambda_j - \lambda_i) x}{2E}.
\label{probability-matter}
\end{eqnarray}
The $V$ matrix method has been utilized e.g., in refs.~\cite{Minakata:2015gra,Denton:2016wmg}.
However, since we deal with the theory with non-unitary mixing matrix a proper care is needed. We recall that the flavor eigenstate $\nu_{\alpha}$ is related with the vacuum mass eigenstate (denoted as the check basis) as
$\nu_{\alpha} = \left\{ ( 1 - \widetilde{\alpha} ) U \right\}_{\alpha i} \check{\nu}_{i}$~\cite{Minakata:2021nii}.
From eqs.~\eqref{tilde-H} and \eqref{barH-4terms}, the relation between the bar and the check bases are given by \\
$\bar{H} = U_{12}^{\dagger} (\psi, \delta) U^\dagger_{13}(\phi) U_{13} U_{12} \check{H} U_{12}^{\dagger} U_{13}^{\dagger} U_{13}(\phi) U_{12} (\psi, \delta)$. The relation between the states is
\begin{eqnarray}
\check{\nu}_{i}
=
\left[ U_{12}^{\dagger} U_{13}^{\dagger} U_{13}(\phi) U_{12} (\psi, \delta) \right] _{ij} \bar{\nu}_{j}.
\label{bar-check-state}
\end{eqnarray}
Then, the flavor state is connected to the bar-basis state as
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\nu_{\alpha}
= \left\{ ( 1 - \widetilde{\alpha} ) U \right\}_{\alpha i} \check{\nu}_{i}
=
\left[ ( 1 - \widetilde{\alpha} )
U_{23} U_{13}(\phi) U_{12} (\psi, \delta) \right] _{\alpha j} \bar{\nu}_{j}.
\label{flavor-check}
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{$V$ matrix at the zeroth order}
\label{sec:Vmatrix-0th}
If we switch off the perturbation $\bar{H}^{(1)}$, the mass eigenstate in matter is given by the bar-basis wave function $\bar{\nu}_{i}^{(0)}$, which is the eigenstates of $\bar{H}^{(0)}$ in eq.~\eqref{barH-0th-1st}. Then, we have at the zeroth order
\begin{eqnarray}
\nu_{\alpha} =
\left[ U_{23} (\theta_{23}) U_{13} (\phi) U_{12} (\psi, \delta) \right]_{\alpha j} \bar{\nu}_{j}^{(0)},
\hspace{6mm}
\text{or}
\hspace{6mm}
\bar{\nu}_{j}^{(0)} =
\left[ U_{23} (\theta_{23}) U_{13} (\phi) U_{12} (\psi, \delta) \right]^{\dagger}_{j \alpha} \nu_{\alpha}.
\nonumber \\
\label{bar-0th-flavor}
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, the $V$ matrix is given at the zeroth order by
\begin{eqnarray}
V^{(0)} = U_{23} (\theta_{23}) U_{13} (\phi) U_{12} (\psi, \delta).
\label{V0-def}
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{First-order correction to the $V$ matrix}
\label{sec:Vmatrix-1st}
The first-order correction to the $V$ matrix arises in the two ways. The first one is from the UV implementing factor $( 1 - \widetilde{\alpha} )$, and the other from perturbative corrections due to $\bar{H}^{(1)}$. We call the former as the genuine UV part and the latter the unitary evolution part. See ref.~\cite{Martinez-Soler:2018lcy} for these concepts, which will be briefly reviewed in section~\ref{sec:probability-Vmatrix}. The genuine UV part of the $V$ matrix in first-order in the DMP-UV expansion can readily be read off from eq.~\eqref{flavor-check}:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
V_{ \text{UV} }
=
- \widetilde{\alpha} U_{23} (\theta_{23}) U_{13}(\phi) U_{12} (\psi, \delta).
\label{Vmatrix-UV-1st}
\end{eqnarray}
In computing the unitary evolution part of the first-order correction to the $V$ matrix we take out the prefactor $( 1 - \widetilde{\alpha} )$ because the effect of this $\widetilde{\alpha}$ produces the second order effect. Then, the method for obtaining the first-order correction for the $V$ matrix is identical to the one used in computing the first-order correction to the wave function in quantum mechanics. When we write $\bar{\nu}_{i} = \bar{\nu}_{i}^{(0)} + \bar{\nu}_{i}^{(1)}$, the first-order correction can be calculated as
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{\nu}_{i}^{(1)}
=
\sum_{j\neq i} \frac{ 2E \bar{H}^{(1)}_{ij} }{ \lambda_i - \lambda_j }
\bar{\nu}_{j}^{(0)}.
\label{nu-bar-first-order}
\end{eqnarray}
See a clarifying note for eq.~\eqref{nu-bar-first-order} in Appendix~\ref{sec:QM-1st-order}.
Using the first-order terms in $\bar{H}$ in eq.~\eqref{barH-0th-1st}, we obtain $\bar{\nu}_{i}^{(1)} = W_{ij} \bar{\nu}_{j}^{(0)}$, where
\begin{eqnarray}
\hspace{-8mm}
W &=&
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & \tilde{\epsilon} s_\psi \frac{ \Delta m^2_{ \text{ren} } }{ \lambda_3 - \lambda_1 } \\
0 & 0 & - \tilde{\epsilon} c_\psi e^{ - i \delta} \frac{ \Delta m^2_{ \text{ren} } }{ \lambda_3 - \lambda_2 } \\
- \tilde{\epsilon} s_\psi \frac{ \Delta m^2_{ \text{ren} } }{ \lambda_3 - \lambda_1 } &
\tilde{\epsilon} c_\psi e^{ i \delta} \frac{ \Delta m^2_{ \text{ren} } }{ \lambda_3 - \lambda_2 } & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right]
+
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & - e^{ i \delta} H_{12} \frac{ b }{ \lambda_2 - \lambda_1 } &
- H_{13} \frac{ b }{ \lambda_3 - \lambda_1 } \\
e^{ - i \delta} H_{21} \frac{ b }{ \lambda_2 - \lambda_1 } & 0 &
- e^{ - i \delta} H_{23} \frac{ b }{ \lambda_3 - \lambda_2 } \\
H_{31} \frac{ b }{ \lambda_3 - \lambda_1 } &
e^{ i \delta} H_{32} \frac{ b }{ \lambda_3 - \lambda_2 } &
0 \\
\end{array}
\right]
\nonumber \\
&\equiv&
W_{ \nu\text{SM} } + W_{ \text{EV} }.
\label{W-1st-order}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\tilde{\epsilon} \equiv \epsilon c_{12} s_{12} \sin ( \phi - \theta_{13} )$. In the last line in eq.~\eqref{W-1st-order}, we have defined the $\nu$SM part $W_{ \nu\text{SM} }$ and the unitary evolution part $W_{ \text{EV} }$. The latter comes from the UV part of the Hamiltonian $\bar{H}^{(1)}$ in eq.~\eqref{barH-0th-1st}, but it represents the unitary evolution of the system~\cite{Martinez-Soler:2018lcy}.
Then, the energy eigenstate calculated to first order can be written, using eqs.~\eqref{bar-0th-flavor} and~\eqref{W-1st-order}, as
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{\nu}
&=&
\bar{\nu}^{(0)} + \bar{\nu}^{(1)}
= ( 1 + W ) \bar{\nu}^{(0)}
\nonumber \\
&=&
\left( 1 + W_{ \nu\text{SM} } + W_{ \text{EV} } \right)
\left[ U_{23} (\theta_{23}) U_{13} (\phi) U_{12} (\psi, \delta) \right]^{\dagger} \nu.
\label{1st-order-bar-flavor}
\end{eqnarray}
Inverting this relation and adding the contribution from the genuine unitary part in eq.~\eqref{bar-0th-flavor}, we obtain the expression of the flavor state by the mass eigenstate in matter to first order as
\begin{eqnarray}
\nu
&=&
\left[
- \widetilde{\alpha} V^{(0)}
+ V^{(0)} \left( 1 + W_{ \nu\text{SM} } + W_{ \text{EV} } \right) ^{\dagger}
\right]
\bar{\nu}
\equiv V \bar{\nu},
\label{flavor-bar-state-final}
\end{eqnarray}
where we have used the expression of the zeroth-order $V$ matrix in eq.~\eqref{V0-def}.
\subsection{Computing the oscillation probability using the $V$ matrix method}
\label{sec:probability-Vmatrix}
Having obtained the $V$ matrix as in eq.~\eqref{flavor-bar-state-final}, it is straightforward to compute the oscillation probability by using the formula~\eqref{probability-matter}. We restrict ourselves into the zeroth- and first-order terms of the oscillation probability. In the UV extensions of the perturbative formulations of neutrino oscillation in matter using the $S$ matrix method~\cite{Martinez-Soler:2018lcy,Martinez-Soler:2019noy,Minakata:2021nii}, the probability can be written to first order in the DMP-UV expansion as
\begin{eqnarray}
P(\nu_\beta \rightarrow \nu_\alpha)
=
P(\nu_\beta \rightarrow \nu_\alpha)^{(0)}_{ \nu\text{SM} }
+ P(\nu_\beta \rightarrow \nu_\alpha)^{(1)} _{ \nu\text{SM} }
+ P(\nu_\beta \rightarrow \nu_\alpha)^{(1)} _{ \text{EV} }
+ P(\nu_\beta \rightarrow \nu_\alpha)^{(1)} _{ \text{UV} },
\nonumber \\
\label{probability-0th-1st}
\end{eqnarray}
where the first two terms denote the standard $\nu$SM contributions. $P(\nu_\beta \rightarrow \nu_\alpha)^{(1)} _{ \text{EV} }$ is the UV-effect driven but unitary evolution part, and $P(\nu_\beta \rightarrow \nu_\alpha)^{(1)} _{ \text{UV} }$ the genuine non-unitary contribution which violates unitarity at the $S$ matrix and the probability level~\cite{Martinez-Soler:2018lcy}.
The first two terms, $P(\nu_\beta \rightarrow \nu_\alpha)^{(0)}_{ \nu\text{SM} }$ and $P(\nu_\beta \rightarrow \nu_\alpha)^{(1)} _{ \nu\text{SM} }$, are fully calculated in ref.~\cite{Denton:2016wmg}. See also arXiv v3 of ref.~\cite{Minakata:2020oxb} for the less abstract expressions in all the relevant channels. Therefore, we just concentrate into the UV related parts, $P(\nu_\beta \rightarrow \nu_\alpha)^{(1)} _{ \text{EV} }$ and $P(\nu_\beta \rightarrow \nu_\alpha)^{(1)} _{ \text{UV} }$, in this paper. In our $V$ matrix formulation, $P(\nu_\beta \rightarrow \nu_\alpha)^{(1)} _{ \text{UV} }$ comes from $V_{ \text{UV} }$ in eq.~\eqref{Vmatrix-UV-1st}, and $P(\nu_\beta \rightarrow \nu_\alpha)^{(1)} _{ \text{EV} }$ from $V^{(0)} W_{ \text{EV} }^{\dagger}$ part of eq.~\eqref{flavor-bar-state-final}.
The computed results of $P(\nu_\mu \rightarrow \nu_e)^{(1)} _{ \text{EV} }$ and $P(\nu_\mu \rightarrow \nu_e)^{(1)} _{ \text{UV} }$ are given in Appendices~\ref{sec:EV-part} and \ref{sec:UV-part}, respectively. One can readily see that $P(\nu_\mu \rightarrow \nu_e)^{(1)}_{ \text{UV} }$ is identical with the corresponding formula in ref.~\cite{Minakata:2021nii}, and that $P(\nu_\mu \rightarrow \nu_e)^{(1)}_{ \text{EV} }$ agrees with the one in ref.~\cite{Minakata:2021nii}, apart from that our expression in Appendix~\ref{sec:UV-probabilities} misses the $(b x) / 2E$ term, eq.~(4.9) in ref.~\cite{Minakata:2021nii}. But, there is no problem because the $(b x) / 2E$ term shows up if we expand the renormalized eigenvalues \eqref{ren-eigenvalues} by $b G_{ii} = b H_{ii}$, as will be shown in eq.~\eqref{bx-correction} in Appendix~\ref{sec:bx-term}.
\section{Symmetry Finder for the DMP-UV perturbation theory}
\label{sec:SF-DMP-UV}
For the convenience of formulating the SF equation we rewrite the expression of the flavor state~\eqref{flavor-bar-state-final} with use of the $V$ matrix in the following form:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
\nu_{e} \\
\nu_{\mu} \\
\nu_{\tau} \\
\end{array}
\right]
=
U_{23} (\theta_{23}) U_{13} (\phi) U_{12} (\psi, \delta)
\biggl\{
1 + \mathcal{W}_{ \nu\text{SM} } ^{(1)}
+ \mathcal{W}_{ \text{EV} } ^{(1)}
- \mathcal{Z} _{ \text{UV} } ^{(1)}
\biggr\}
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
\nu_{1} \\
\nu_{2} \\
\nu_{3} \\
\end{array}
\right].
\label{Vmatrix-for-SF}
\end{eqnarray}
That is, we label the mass eigenstate basis, the bar-basis state, $\nu_{i}$ ($i=1,2,3$) to make the state label more explicit in our discussion of the reparametrization symmetry which involves the state exchange.
In eq.~\eqref{Vmatrix-for-SF}, we give $V^{(0)}$ in eq.~\eqref{flavor-bar-state-final} the explicit form as in eq.~\eqref{V0-def}, and move it to the front position in the right-hand side of eq.~\eqref{Vmatrix-for-SF}.
For this purpose we have introduced $\mathcal{Z} _{ \text{UV} } ^{(1)}$ with the definition
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\widetilde{\alpha} V^{(0)}
=
V^{(0)} \mathcal{Z} _{ \text{UV} } ^{(1)},
\label{Z-def}
\end{eqnarray}
which can readily be solved for $\mathcal{Z} _{ \text{UV} } ^{(1)}$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\mathcal{Z} _{ \text{UV} } ^{(1)} ( \theta_{23}, \delta, \phi, \psi; \widetilde{\alpha}_{\beta \gamma} )
=
\left( V^{(0)} \right)^{\dagger} \widetilde{\alpha} V^{(0)}.
\label{Z-sol}
\end{eqnarray}
The first two first-order terms in eq.~\eqref{Vmatrix-for-SF} take the obvious forms which come from eq.~\eqref{flavor-bar-state-final}. Noticing that the $H$ matrix is hermitian, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{W}_{ \nu\text{SM} } ^{(1)}
( \theta_{23}, \delta, \phi, \psi; \lambda_{1}, \lambda_{2} )
\equiv W_{ \nu\text{SM} }^{\dagger}
&=&
\epsilon c_{12} s_{12} \sin ( \phi - \theta_{13} )
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 &
- s_\psi \frac{ \Delta m^2_{ \text{ren} } }{ \lambda_3 - \lambda_1 } \\
0 & 0 &
c_\psi e^{ - i \delta} \frac{ \Delta m^2_{ \text{ren} } }{ \lambda_3 - \lambda_2 } \\
s_\psi \frac{ \Delta m^2_{ \text{ren} } }{ \lambda_3 - \lambda_1 } &
- c_\psi e^{ i \delta} \frac{ \Delta m^2_{ \text{ren} } }{ \lambda_3 - \lambda_2 } & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right],
\nonumber \\
\mathcal{W}_{ \text{EV} } ^{(1)}
( \theta_{23}, \delta, \phi, \psi; \lambda_{1}, \lambda_{2} )
\equiv W_{ \text{EV} }^{\dagger}
&=&
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & e^{ i \delta} H_{12} \frac{ b }{ \lambda_2 - \lambda_1 } &
H_{13} \frac{ b }{ \lambda_3 - \lambda_1 } \\
- e^{ - i \delta} H_{21} \frac{ b }{ \lambda_2 - \lambda_1 } & 0 &
H_{23} e^{ - i \delta} \frac{ b }{ \lambda_3 - \lambda_2 } \\
- H_{31} \frac{ b }{ \lambda_3 - \lambda_1 } &
- H_{32} e^{ i \delta} \frac{ b }{ \lambda_3 - \lambda_2 } & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right].
\label{W-DMP-UV}
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Symmetry Finder (SF) equation}
\label{sec:SFeq}
We introduce the concept of Symmetry Finder (SF)~\cite{Minakata:2021dqh,Minakata:2021goi} and the associated machinery, the SF equation. For clarity we restrict ourselves to the reparametrization symmetry of the 1-2 state exchange type. We define another state closely related to the one in eq.~\eqref{Vmatrix-for-SF}:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\hspace{-6mm}
F \left[
\begin{array}{c}
\nu_{e} \\
\nu_{\mu} \\
\nu_{\tau} \\
\end{array}
\right]
=
F
U_{23} (\theta_{23}) U_{13} (\phi) U_{12} (\psi, \delta)
R^{\dagger} R
\biggl\{
1 + \mathcal{W}_{ \nu\text{SM} } ^{(1)}
+ \mathcal{W}_{ \text{EV} } ^{(1)}
- \mathcal{Z} _{ \text{UV} } ^{(1)}
\biggr\}
R^{\dagger} R
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
\nu_{1} \\
\nu_{2} \\
\nu_{3} \\
\end{array}
\right], ~~
\label{SFeq-ansatz-DMPUV}
\end{eqnarray}
with use of the flavor state rephasing matrix $F$ and the generalized $1 \leftrightarrow 2$ state exchange matrix $R$ parametrized as\footnote{
In ref.~\cite{Minakata:2021dqh}, we have used the notation $G$ for the $R$ matrix in eq.~\eqref{F-R-def}. We use here the symbol $R$ not to confuse it to the $G$ matrix in eq.~\eqref{G-G2-def}.
}
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
F \equiv
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
e^{ i \tau } & 0 & 0 \\
0 & e^{ i \sigma } & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right],
\hspace{8mm}
R \equiv
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & - e^{ i ( \delta + \alpha) } & 0 \\
e^{ - i ( \delta + \beta) } & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right],
\label{F-R-def}
\end{eqnarray}
respectively, where $\tau$, $\sigma$, $\alpha$, and $\beta$ denote the arbitrary phases.
Notice that rephasing of the states does not change the physical contents of the states. Therefore, the states defined by eqs.~\eqref{Vmatrix-for-SF} and \eqref{SFeq-ansatz-DMPUV} are physically equivalent to each other, which implies existence of symmetry. The similar statement is made first for the states in vacuum in ref.~\cite{Parke:2018shx}.
Then, it should be possible to write the state \eqref{SFeq-ansatz-DMPUV} in a way similar to the one in eq.~\eqref{Vmatrix-for-SF} but with the transformed parameters
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
e^{ i \tau } & 0 & 0 \\
0 & e^{ i \sigma } & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right]
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
\nu_{e} \\
\nu_{\mu} \\
\nu_{\tau} \\
\end{array}
\right]
=
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & c_{23} & s_{23} e^{ i \sigma } \\
0 & - s_{23} e^{ - i \sigma } & c_{23} \\
\end{array}
\right]
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
c_{13} & 0 & s_{13} e^{ i \tau } \\
0 & 1 & 0 \\
- s_{13} e^{ - i \tau } & 0 & c_{13} \\
\end{array}
\right]
\nonumber \\
&\times&
F U_{12} (\psi, \delta) R^{\dagger} R
\biggl\{
1 + \mathcal{W}_{ \nu\text{SM} }^{(1)} (\Phi; \lambda_{1}, \lambda_{2})
+ \mathcal{W}_{ \text{EV} }^{(1)} (\Phi, \widetilde{\alpha}; \lambda_{1}, \lambda_{2})
- \mathcal{Z} _{ \text{UV} }^{(1)} (\Phi, \widetilde{\alpha})
\biggr\}
R^{\dagger} R
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
\nu_{1} \\
\nu_{2} \\
\nu_{3} \\
\end{array}
\right]
\nonumber \\
&=&
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & c_{23}^{\prime} & s_{23}^{\prime} \\
0 & - s_{23}^{\prime} & c_{23}^{\prime} \\
\end{array}
\right]
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
c_{13} & 0 & s_{13}^{\prime} \\
0 & 1 & 0 \\
- s_{13}^{\prime} & 0 & c_{13}^{\prime} \\
\end{array}
\right]
U_{12} ( \psi^{\prime}, \delta + \xi)
\nonumber \\
&\times&
\biggl\{
1 + \mathcal{W}_{ \nu\text{SM} }^{(1)} (\Phi^{\prime}; \lambda_{2}, \lambda_{1})
+ \mathcal{W}_{ \text{EV} }^{(1)} (\Phi^{\prime}, \widetilde{\alpha}^{\prime}; \lambda_{2}, \lambda_{1})
- \mathcal{Z} _{ \text{UV} }^{(1)} (\Phi^{\prime}, \widetilde{\alpha}^{\prime})
\biggr\}
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
- e^{ i ( \delta + \alpha) } \nu_{2} \\
e^{ - i ( \delta + \beta) } \nu_{1} \\
\nu_{3} \\
\end{array}
\right].
\label{SFeq-DMPUV}
\end{eqnarray}
In eq.~\eqref{SFeq-DMPUV}, $\Phi$ denotes the collective representation of all the parameters involved, $\theta_{23}$, $\phi$, $\psi$, $\delta$, $\theta_{12}$, and $\theta_{13}$, and $\Phi^{\prime}$ their transformed ones. $\widetilde{\alpha}^{\prime}$ is for the transformed $\widetilde{\alpha}$, the collective notation for the $\widetilde{\alpha}$ parameters, and $\delta^{\prime} = \delta + \xi$. Equation~\eqref{SFeq-DMPUV} provides the two different ways of expressing the physically identical states, the left-hand side of eq.~\eqref{SFeq-DMPUV}. It defines the SF equation which is valid to first order in the DMP-UV perturbation theory.
Clarifying remarks on the structure of the SF equation and the relationship between the DMP and DMP-UV theories are in order:
(1) Due to the perturbative formulation of the SF equation it can be decomposed into the zeroth and the first order parts, which will be denoted as the first and second conditions, respectively. The former contains only the $\nu$SM variables.
(2)
The three first-order entities in the second condition,
$\mathcal{W}_{ \nu\text{SM} }^{(1)} (\Phi^{\prime}; \lambda_{1}, \lambda_{2})$,
$\mathcal{W}_{ \text{EV} }^{(1)} (\Phi, \widetilde{\alpha}; \lambda_{1}, \lambda_{2})$, and $\mathcal{Z} _{ \text{UV} }^{(1)} (\Phi, \widetilde{\alpha})$, do not affect to each other due to the differences in their variable dependence. One can confirm this property by the explicit treatment of the second condition on the UV parts in sections~\ref{sec:2nd-condition-EV} and~\ref{sec:2nd-condition-UV}, which is added to the one for the $\nu$SM part in ref.~\cite{Minakata:2021dqh}. Therefore, the second condition decomposes into the three independent equations. See eq.~\eqref{2nd-eq-DMPUV}.
\subsection{The first condition}
\label{sec:1st-condition}
By eliminating all the first-order terms in the SF equation~\eqref{SFeq-DMPUV},
we obtain the first condition. We look for the solution under the ansatz $s_{23} e^{ i \sigma } = s_{23}^{\prime}$ and $s_{\phi} e^{ i \tau } = s_{\phi}^{\prime}$. Apparently we have no other choice within the present SF formalism. The ansatz implies that the possible values of $\tau$ and $\sigma$ are restricted to integer multiples of $\pi$.
Then the first condition takes the form
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
F U_{12} (\psi, \delta) R^{\dagger} = U_{12} ( \psi^{\prime}, \delta + \xi),
\label{1st-eq-DMPUV}
\end{eqnarray}
where we recall that
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
U_{12} (\psi, \delta)
=
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
c_{\psi} & s_{\psi} e^{ i \delta} & 0 \\
- s_{\psi} e^{- i \delta} & c_{\psi} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right].
\label{U12-def}
\end{eqnarray}
It is shown~\cite{Minakata:2021dqh} that the first condition, which is common in our case, can be reduced to
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
c_{\psi^{\prime}}
= - s_{\psi} e^{ - i ( \alpha - \tau ) }
= - s_{\psi} e^{ i ( \beta + \sigma ) },
\hspace{8mm}
s_{\psi^{\prime}}
= c_{\psi} e^{ i ( \beta + \tau - \xi ) }
= c_{\psi} e^{ - i ( \alpha - \sigma - \xi ) }.
\label{1st-condition}
\end{eqnarray}
We note that under the above restriction of $\tau$ and $\sigma$ being integer multiples of $\pi$, eq.~\eqref{1st-condition} implies that all the rest of the phase parameters, $\xi$, $\alpha$, and $\beta$, must also be integer multiples of $\pi$. All the solutions of the first condition are obtained in ref.~\cite{Minakata:2021dqh}, and they are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:SF-solutions}.
\subsection{The second condition}
\label{sec:2nd-condition}
The first-order terms in the SF equation~\eqref{SFeq-DMPUV} constitute the second condition which can be decomposed into the $\nu$SM, EV, and the UV parts,
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
R \mathcal{W}_{ \nu\text{SM} }^{(1)} ( \theta_{23}, \delta, \phi, \psi; \lambda_{1}, \lambda_{2} )
R^{\dagger}
=
\mathcal{W}_{ \nu\text{SM} }^{(1)} ( \theta_{23}^{\prime}, \delta + \xi, \phi^{\prime}, \psi^{\prime}; \lambda_{2}, \lambda_{1} ),
\nonumber \\
&&
R \mathcal{W}_{ \text{EV} }^{(1)} ( \theta_{23}, \delta, \phi, \psi, \widetilde{\alpha}_{\beta \gamma}; \lambda_{1}, \lambda_{2} )
R^{\dagger}
=
\mathcal{W}_{ \text{EV} }^{(1)} ( \theta_{23}^{\prime}, \delta + \xi, \phi^{\prime}, \psi^{\prime}, \widetilde{\alpha}_{\beta \gamma}^{\prime}; \lambda_{2}, \lambda_{1} ),
\nonumber \\
&&
R \mathcal{Z}_{ \text{UV} }^{(1)} (\theta_{23}, \delta, \phi, \psi, \widetilde{\alpha}_{\beta \gamma})
R^{\dagger}
=
\mathcal{Z}_{ \text{UV} }^{(1)} (\theta_{23}^{\prime}, \delta + \xi, \phi^{\prime}, \psi^{\prime}, \widetilde{\alpha}_{\beta \gamma}^{\prime}).
\label{2nd-eq-DMPUV}
\end{eqnarray}
The decomposability of the second condition implies, together with the common first condition in the both DMP and DMP-UV theories, that the symmetries of the DMP-UV theory cannot be larger than the eight symmetries of the $\nu$SM DMP. The question is whether all of them survive in the UV extension.
The second condition works as follows:
The $\nu$SM part, the first line in eq.~\eqref{2nd-eq-DMPUV}, determines transformation property of $\psi$ etc., as fully worked out in ref.~\cite{Minakata:2021dqh}. It produces the eight DMP symmetries, IA, IB, $\cdot \cdot \cdot $, IVB, where the type A (B) means that no $\delta$ is involved ($\delta$ is involved) in the symmetry transformations. See Table~\ref{tab:DMPUV-symmetry}.
With the knowledge of the eight $\nu$SM symmetries we examine the second conditions on $\mathcal{W}_{ \text{EV} }^{(1)}$ and $\mathcal{Z}_{ \text{UV} }^{(1)}$ to know if the consistent solutions exist. In the rest of this section, we reduct the EV and UV second conditions a little further to make them ready to solve. It will be followed by the solutions of the $\mathcal{Z}_{ \text{UV} }^{(1)}$ and $\mathcal{W}_{ \text{EV} }^{(1)}$ equations in the next two sections~\ref{sec:SF-solution-UV} and \ref{sec:SF-solution-EV},
respectively.
\subsection{The second condition on the unitary evolution part}
\label{sec:2nd-condition-EV}
The second condition~\eqref{2nd-eq-DMPUV} with the explicit form of $\mathcal{W}_{ \text{EV} }^{(1)}$ in eq.~\eqref{W-DMP-UV} can be written, using the $H$ matrix defined in eq.~\eqref{Hmatrix-def} as
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 &
e^{ i ( \delta + \alpha + \beta ) } H_{21} \frac{ b }{ \lambda_2 - \lambda_1 } &
- e^{ i \alpha } H_{23} \frac{ b }{ \lambda_3 - \lambda_2 } \\
- e^{ - i ( \delta + \alpha + \beta ) } H_{12} \frac{ b }{ \lambda_2 - \lambda_1 } &
0 & e^{ - i ( \delta + \beta) } H_{13} \frac{ b }{ \lambda_3 - \lambda_1 } \\
e^{ - i \alpha } H_{32} \frac{ b }{ \lambda_3 - \lambda_2 } &
- e^{ i ( \delta + \beta) } H_{31} \frac{ b }{ \lambda_3 - \lambda_1 } & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right]
\nonumber \\
&=&
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & - e^{ i ( \delta + \xi ) } H_{12}^{\prime} \frac{ b }{ \lambda_2 - \lambda_1 } &
H_{13}^{\prime} \frac{ b }{ \lambda_3 - \lambda_2 } \\
e^{ - i ( \delta + \xi ) } H_{21}^{\prime} \frac{ b }{ \lambda_2 - \lambda_1 } & 0 &
e^{ - i ( \delta + \xi ) } H_{23}^{\prime} \frac{ b }{ \lambda_3 - \lambda_1 } \\
- H_{31}^{\prime} \frac{ b }{ \lambda_3 - \lambda_2 } &
- e^{ i ( \delta + \xi ) } H_{32}^{\prime} \frac{ b }{ \lambda_3 - \lambda_1 } & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right].
\label{2nd-condition-EV}
\end{eqnarray}
We notice that it can be written in the condensed form as
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
H_{12}^{\prime}
=
- e^{ i ( \alpha + \beta - \xi ) } H_{21},
\nonumber \\
&&
H_{23}^{\prime}
=
e^{ - i ( \beta - \xi ) } H_{13},
\nonumber \\
&&
H_{13}^{\prime}
= - e^{ i \alpha } H_{23}.
\label{2nd-condition-EV2}
\end{eqnarray}
The condition on $H_{ji}$ can be obtained from that on $H_{ij}$ using the hermitisity
$H_{ji} = H_{ij}^*$.
\subsection{The second condition on the genuine non-unitary part}
\label{sec:2nd-condition-UV}
Using eq.~\eqref{Z-sol} the second condition with $\mathcal{Z}_{ \text{UV} }^{(1)}$ in eq.~\eqref{2nd-eq-DMPUV} takes the form
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
R \left[ V^{(0)} ( \theta_{23}, \psi, \phi, \delta) \right]^{\dagger} \widetilde{\alpha}
V^{(0)} ( \theta_{23}, \psi, \phi, \delta) R^{\dagger}
=
\left[ V^{(0)} ( \theta_{23}^{\prime}, \psi^{\prime}, \phi^{\prime}, \delta + \xi) \right]^{\dagger} \widetilde{\alpha} ^{\prime}
V^{(0)} ( \theta_{23}^{\prime}, \psi^{\prime}, \phi^{\prime}, \delta + \xi).
\nonumber \\
\label{2nd-condition-UV}
\end{eqnarray}
where $V^{(0)} ( \theta_{23}, \psi, \phi, \delta)$ is defined in eq.~\eqref{V0-def}.
Then, the transformed $\widetilde{\alpha}$ can be obtained in a closed form as
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\widetilde{\alpha} ^{\prime}
=
V^{(0)} ( \theta_{23}^{\prime}, \psi^{\prime}, \phi^{\prime}, \delta + \xi)
R
\left[ V^{(0)} ( \theta_{23}, \psi, \phi, \delta) \right]^{\dagger}
\widetilde{\alpha}
V^{(0)} ( \theta_{23}, \psi, \phi, \delta) R^{\dagger}
\left[ V^{(0)} ( \theta_{23}^{\prime}, \psi^{\prime}, \phi^{\prime}, \delta + \xi) \right]^{\dagger}.
\nonumber \\
\label{2nd-condition-UV2}
\end{eqnarray}
Notice the vastly different features of the second condition on $\mathcal{W}_{ \text{EV} }^{(1)}$ in eq.~\eqref{2nd-condition-EV2} and the one on $\mathcal{Z}_{ \text{UV} }^{(1)}$ in eq.~\eqref{2nd-condition-UV2}. It makes consistency between them highly nontrivial.
\section{Solution of the SF equation: Genuine non-unitary part}
\label{sec:SF-solution-UV}
As we have already pointed out, possibility of UV extension of the $\nu$SM DMP symmetries depends on whether or not the second conditions on $\mathcal{W}_{ \text{EV} }^{(1)}$ and $\mathcal{Z}_{ \text{UV} }^{(1)}$ produce {\em independently} the consistent solutions for the transformation properties of the $\widetilde{\alpha}$ parameters. Therefore, we first examine the second condition~\eqref{2nd-condition-UV2} on $\mathcal{Z}_{ \text{UV} }^{(1)}$, the genuine non-unitary part, because it will reveal an interesting feature for the SF formalism itself. It tells us how $\widetilde{\alpha}$ transform under the DMP-UV symmetries.
To calculate the right-hand side of eq.~\eqref{2nd-condition-UV2} in a transparent way, we introduce $C [12]$ defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
C [12] \equiv
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
c_{\psi}^{\prime} & s_{\psi}^{\prime} e^{ i (\delta + \xi) } & 0 \\
- s_{\psi}^{\prime} e^{- i (\delta + \xi) } & c_{\psi}^{\prime} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right]
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & - e^{ i ( \delta + \alpha) } & 0 \\
e^{ - i ( \delta + \beta) } & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right]
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
c_{\psi} & - s_{\psi} e^{ i \delta} & 0 \\
s_{\psi} e^{- i \delta} & c_{\psi} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right], ~~~
\label{C12-def}
\end{eqnarray}
such that
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
V^{(0)} ( \theta_{23}^{\prime}, \psi^{\prime}, \phi^{\prime}, \delta + \xi)
R
\left[ V^{(0)} ( \theta_{23}, \psi, \phi, \delta) \right]^{\dagger}
\nonumber \\
&=&
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & c_{23}^{\prime} & s_{23}^{\prime} \\
0 & - s_{23}^{\prime} & c_{23}^{\prime} \\
\end{array}
\right]
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
c_{\phi}^{\prime} & 0 & s_{\phi}^{\prime} \\
0 & 1 & 0 \\
- s_{\phi}^{\prime} & 0 & c_{\phi}^{\prime} \\
\end{array}
\right]
C [12]
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
c_{\phi} & 0 & - s_{\phi} \\
0 & 1 & 0 \\
s_{\phi} & 0 & c_{\phi} \\
\end{array}
\right]
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & c_{23} & - s_{23} \\
0 & s_{23} & c_{23} \\
\end{array}
\right].
\label{VRVdagger}
\end{eqnarray}
We will see immediately below that $C [12]$ and $V^{(0)} (\Phi^{\prime}) R^{\dagger} [V^{(0)} (\Phi) ]^{\dagger}$ in eq.~\eqref{VRVdagger} are equal to each other in a quite interesting manner. See eq.~\eqref{identity}.
\subsection{Useful Identities for the rephasing matrix}
\label{sec:identity}
In ref.~\cite{Minakata:2021dqh} we have introduced the rephasing matrix Rep(X) to characterize the transformation property of the flavor basis Hamiltonian as $H \rightarrow \text{Rep(X)} H \text{Rep(X)}^{\dagger}$ under Symmetry X.\footnote{
We generically quote symmetry as ``Symmetry X'' when X applies to all the DMP-UV symmetries. When we quote X for a particular property in a more specific way, such as e.g., ``X = II, III, and IV'', it means that the property holds for the both XA and XB.
}
The rephasing matrix is a key concept in the proof of the DMP symmetries as the Hamiltonian symmetries. Rep(X) is given by Rep(I) = diag (1,1,1), and\footnote{
Rep(II) = diag (-1,1,-1) in ref.~\cite{Minakata:2021dqh}, but this is equivalent to diag (1,-1,1) as in eq.~\eqref{Rep-II-III-IV}. Similarly, Rep(IV) can be written as diag (1,1,-1). As the rephasing factor it does not affect the physical observables.
}
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\text{Rep(II)} =
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right],
\hspace{6mm}
\text{Rep(III)} =
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
- 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1
\end{array}
\right],
\hspace{6mm}
\text{Rep(IV)} =
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
- 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1
\end{array}
\right].
\label{Rep-II-III-IV}
\end{eqnarray}
Now, we derive the identities:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
C [12]
=
V^{(0)} ( \theta_{23}^{\prime}, \psi^{\prime}, \phi^{\prime}, \delta + \xi)
R
\left[ V^{(0)} ( \theta_{23}, \psi, \phi, \delta) \right]^{\dagger}
= \text{Rep(X)}.
\label{identity}
\end{eqnarray}
It is easy to prove the first equality in eq.~\eqref{identity}, $C [12]=$ Rep(X), by explicit calculation of $C [12]$ for all the eight DMP symmetries with use of the values of the parameters $\alpha$, $\beta$ etc. for each symmetry, all given in Table~\ref{tab:SF-solutions}.
To show how the second equality holds, we examine the cases of symmetries IVA and IVB and compute $V^{(0)} (\Phi^{\prime}) R [V^{(0)} (\Phi) ]^{\dagger}$. Inserting $C [12]=$Rep(IV) in eq.~\eqref{VRVdagger} we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
V^{(0)} ( \theta_{23}^{\prime}, \psi^{\prime}, \phi^{\prime}, \delta^{\prime} )
R
\left[ V^{(0)} ( \theta_{23}, \psi, \phi, \delta) \right]^{\dagger}
\nonumber \\
&=&
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & c_{23}^{\prime} & s_{23}^{\prime} \\
0 & - s_{23}^{\prime} & c_{23}^{\prime} \\
\end{array}
\right]
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
c_{\phi}^{\prime} & 0 & s_{\phi}^{\prime} \\
0 & 1 & 0 \\
- s_{\phi}^{\prime} & 0 & c_{\phi}^{\prime} \\
\end{array}
\right]
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
- 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right]
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
c_{\phi} & 0 & - s_{\phi} \\
0 & 1 & 0 \\
s_{\phi} & 0 & c_{\phi} \\
\end{array}
\right]
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & c_{23} & - s_{23} \\
0 & s_{23} & c_{23} \\
\end{array}
\right]
=
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
-1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right],
\nonumber \\
\label{equality-IX}
\end{eqnarray}
thanks to the properties that
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\hspace{-6mm}
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
c_{\phi}^{\prime} & 0 & s_{\phi}^{\prime} \\
0 & 1 & 0 \\
- s_{\phi}^{\prime} & 0 & c_{\phi}^{\prime} \\
\end{array}
\right]
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
-1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right]
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
c_{\phi} & 0 & - s_{\phi} \\
0 & 1 & 0 \\
s_{\phi} & 0 & c_{\phi} \\
\end{array}
\right]
=
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & c_{23}^{\prime} & s_{23}^{\prime} \\
0 & - s_{23}^{\prime} & c_{23}^{\prime} \\
\end{array}
\right]
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
-1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right]
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & c_{23} & - s_{23} \\
0 & s_{23} & c_{23} \\
\end{array}
\right]
=
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
-1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right].
\nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}
Notice that $s_{\phi}^{\prime} = - s_{\phi}$ and $s_{23}^{\prime} = - s_{23}$ in Symmetry IVA and IVB. What happens is that when Rep(IV) move to the left to get out to the front, it remedies the transformed parameters into the un-transformed parameters through passage, which occurs for both $s_{\phi}$ and $s_{23}$ in Symmetry IV.
Similarly, one can prove the second equality in eq.~\eqref{identity} for all the remaining symmetries X=I, II, and III. For Symmetry I, Rep(I) = 1, and no transformation on $s_{23}$ and $s_{\phi}$. For Symmetry II (III) the ``sign remedy'' occurs only for $s_{23}$ ($s_{\phi}$).
We note that the identities~\eqref{identity} of $C [12]$ and $V^{(0)} (\Phi^{\prime}) R [V^{(0)} (\Phi) ]^{\dagger}$ with Rep(X) are totally unexpected to us. Before actually calculating them, neither that they are constant matrices nor that they are equal to each other {\em were not} expected by the author. Probably, we are observing a new (or might be well known) mathematical structure of the reparametrization symmetry. We observe that the identities have highly nontrivial consequences. They include:
(1) a simple transformation property of $\widetilde{\alpha}$ as discussed below, and
(2) an innovation in the Hamiltonian proof of the symmetries as shown in section~\ref{sec:hamiltonian-symmetry}.
We will also give a conjecture on possible further enlargement of symmetry in section~\ref{sec:conclusion}.
\subsection{Solution of the second condition: Genuine non-unitary part}
\label{sec:solution-UV}
The solution of the second condition \eqref{2nd-condition-UV2} can readily be obtained by using the second identity in eq.~\eqref{identity}:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\widetilde{\alpha} ^{\prime}
=
\text{ Rep(X) } \widetilde{\alpha} \text{ Rep(X)}^{\dagger},
\label{2nd-condition-UV-sol}
\end{eqnarray}
which implies that $\widetilde{\alpha} ^{\prime} = \widetilde{\alpha}$ for Symmetry X = I, and
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\widetilde{\alpha} ^{\prime}
=
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
\widetilde{\alpha}_{ee} & 0 & 0 \\
- \widetilde{\alpha}_{\mu e} & \widetilde{\alpha}_{\mu \mu} & 0 \\
\widetilde{\alpha}_{\tau e} & - \widetilde{\alpha}_{\tau \mu} & \widetilde{\alpha}_{\tau \tau} \\
\end{array}
\right],
\hspace{5mm}
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
\widetilde{\alpha}_{ee} & 0 & 0 \\
- \widetilde{\alpha}_{\mu e} & \widetilde{\alpha}_{\mu \mu} & 0 \\
- \widetilde{\alpha}_{\tau e} & \widetilde{\alpha}_{\tau \mu} & \widetilde{\alpha}_{\tau \tau} \\
\end{array}
\right],
\hspace{5mm}
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
\widetilde{\alpha}_{ee} & 0 & 0 \\
\widetilde{\alpha}_{\mu e} & \widetilde{\alpha}_{\mu \mu} & 0 \\
- \widetilde{\alpha}_{\tau e} & - \widetilde{\alpha}_{\tau \mu} & \widetilde{\alpha}_{\tau \tau} \\
\end{array}
\right],
\label{alpha-transf-II-IV}
\end{eqnarray}
for X = II, III, and IV, in order.
The resulting transformation properties of the $\widetilde{\alpha}$ parameters and Rep(X) are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:DMPUV-symmetry} and Table~\ref{tab:SF-solutions}, respectively.
The obtained solution for Symmetry I implies that no $\widetilde{\alpha}$ parameters' transformation is involved. Thus, our empirical observation of invariance of $P(\nu_{\mu} \rightarrow \nu_{e})^{(1)} _{ \text{EV} }$ and $P(\nu_{\mu} \rightarrow \nu_{e})^{(1)} _{ \text{UV} }$ under $\nu$SM Symmetry IA and IB made in ref.~\cite{Minakata:2021nii} (see section~4) is reassured by the SF framework. But, to conclude, we have to examine the unitary evolution part to check the whole consistency.
\section{Solution of the SF equation: Unitary evolution part}
\label{sec:SF-solution-EV}
We analyze the the second condition eq.~\eqref{2nd-condition-EV2} for the unitary evolution part to determine the transformation property of the $H_{ij}$ parameters. After verifying the consistency with the $\widetilde{\alpha}$ parameter transformations~\eqref{alpha-transf-II-IV}, we examine the invariance of the oscillation probability under the $H_{ij}$ parameters.
\subsection{Solution of the second condition: Unitary evolution part}
\label{sec:solution-EV}
The solutions of the first condition depend not only on the symmetry types denoted generically as XA and XB, but also the upper and lower signs of the phase parameters $\alpha$, $\beta$, etc., as summarized in Table~\ref{tab:SF-solutions}. Using the phase parameters, one can show that the second condition~\eqref{2nd-condition-EV2} implies that $H_{ij}$ transform under Symmetry X as
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\text{Symmetry IA, IIB}: ~~~
H_{12}^{\prime} = - H_{21},
\hspace{8mm}
H_{23}^{\prime} = \pm H_{13},
\hspace{8mm}
H_{13}^{\prime} = \mp H_{23},
\nonumber \\
&&
\text{Symmetry IB, IIA}: ~~~
H_{12}^{\prime} = H_{21},
\hspace{8mm}
H_{23}^{\prime} = \pm H_{13},
\hspace{8mm}
H_{13}^{\prime} = \pm H_{23},
\nonumber \\
&&
\text{Symmetry IIIA, IVB}: ~~
H_{12}^{\prime} = H_{21},
\hspace{8mm}
H_{23}^{\prime} = \mp H_{13},
\hspace{8mm}
H_{13}^{\prime} = \mp H_{23},
\nonumber \\
&&
\text{Symmetry IIIB, IVA}: ~~
H_{12}^{\prime} = - H_{21},
\hspace{8mm}
H_{23}^{\prime} = \mp H_{13},
\hspace{8mm}
H_{13}^{\prime} = \pm H_{23}.
\label{Hij-transf}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\pm$ (or $\mp$) sign refers to the upper and lower signs in Table~\ref{tab:SF-solutions} and Table~\ref{tab:DMPUV-symmetry}, which are synchronized between them. Notice that the transformation property of $H_{ji}$ can be obtained by using the hermiticity $H_{ji} = (H_{ij})^*$.
The pairings may look curious because the pair IA and IIB, and also IB and IIA, differ in the property that the former (latter) does not (does) contain the transformation of the $\widetilde{\alpha}$ parameters. But, we reassure these pairings in section~\ref{sec:consistency}. It appears that the pairing of the two symmetries is dictated by the transformation property of $\psi$, which is the same inside the pair.
\subsection{Consistency between the $H_{ij}$ and the $\widetilde{\alpha}$ parameter transformations}
\label{sec:consistency}
Now, we are left with the consistency check between the solutions of the second conditions derived from the genuine unitary part~\eqref{alpha-transf-II-IV} and the unitary evolution part~\eqref{Hij-transf}. The way we carry it out is to use the transformation properties of the $\nu$SM variables and the $\widetilde{\alpha}$ parameters in eq.~\eqref{alpha-transf-II-IV}, the both of whose are in Table~\ref{tab:DMPUV-symmetry}, to obtain the $H_{ij}$ transformation properties and see if they agree with the ones in eq.~\eqref{Hij-transf}.
Then, we immediately notice a problem for $H_{ii}$ ($i=1,2,3$), the diagonal elements. Their transformation properties are absent in eq.~\eqref{Hij-transf}.
It is because they are absorbed into the eigenvalues, see eq.~\eqref{ren-eigenvalues}. Note that $G_{ii}=H_{ii}$. In fact, $H_{ii}$ calculated with the above recipe transform, under all Symmetry X = IA, IB, $\cdot \cdot \cdot $, IVB, as
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
H_{11} \leftrightarrow H_{22},
\label{H-diag-transf}
\end{eqnarray}
and $H_{33}$ is invariant. It must be the case because we are dealing with the 1-2 state exchange symmetry $\lambda_{1} \leftrightarrow \lambda_{2}$ for which the both transformations $\lambda_{1}^{ \nu\text{SM} } \leftrightarrow \lambda_{2}^{ \nu\text{SM} }$ and $H_{11} \leftrightarrow H_{22}$ must occur simultaneously under all Symmetry X. Therefore, the consistency is met for the diagonal $H_{ii}$.
Now we discuss the off-diagonal $H_{ij}$ ($i \neq j$).
For concreteness we give explicit treatments of Symmetry I and II. In Appendix~\ref{sec:H-elements} the $H_{ij}$ elements are given by using the $K_{ij}$ elements, whose latter depend only on $\theta_{23}$, $\phi$ and the $\widetilde{\alpha}$ parameters. Since none of them is involved in the transformations of Symmetry IA and IB, all the $K_{ij}$ elements are invariant under these symmetries.
Then, the $H_{ij}$ elements transform under IA and IB only through the $\nu$SM parameter transformations in Table~\ref{tab:DMPUV-symmetry} as
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
H_{12} \rightarrow - H_{21},
\hspace{8mm}
H_{13} \rightarrow \mp H_{23},
\hspace{8mm}
H_{23} \rightarrow \pm H_{13} ~~~~\text{(IA)},
\nonumber \\
&&
H_{12} \rightarrow H_{21},
\hspace{8mm}
H_{13} \rightarrow \pm H_{23},
\hspace{8mm}
H_{23} \rightarrow \pm H_{13} ~~~~\text{(IB)}.
\label{Hij-transf-IA-IB}
\end{eqnarray}
Notice that they reproduces the relevant lines in eq.~\eqref{Hij-transf}. It means that no $\widetilde{\alpha}$ parameter transformation is involved in Symmetry IA- and IB-DMP-UV, and only the $\nu$SM parameter transformations suffice. Thus, the SF treatment gives us the result we have quoted as ``puzzling'' in Introduction without any problem.
Under Symmetry IIA and IIB, the two $K_{ij}$ elements flip sign
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
K_{12} \rightarrow - K_{12},
\hspace{10mm}
K_{23} \rightarrow - K_{23},
\label{Kij-transf-II}
\end{eqnarray}
and all the other $K_{ij}$ elements are invariant. Then, one can show that the resulting $H_{ij}$ element transformations are as
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
H_{12} \rightarrow H_{21},
\hspace{8mm}
H_{13} \rightarrow \pm H_{23},
\hspace{8mm}
H_{23} \rightarrow \pm H_{13} ~~~~\text{(IIA)},
\nonumber \\
&&
H_{12} \rightarrow - H_{21},
\hspace{8mm}
H_{13} \rightarrow \mp H_{23},
\hspace{8mm}
H_{23} \rightarrow \pm H_{13} ~~~~\text{(IIB)}.
\label{Hij-transf-IIA-IIB}
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore, the pairings between IA-IIB, and IB-IIA in the first and second lines of eq.~\eqref{Hij-transf}, which we have referred as ``curious'' are reproduced.
Similarly one can work out the $H_{ij}$ transformation properties for Symmetry III and IV to confirm eq.~\eqref{Hij-transf}. Therefore, the $\widetilde{\alpha}$ parameter transformation from the second condition on $\mathcal{Z}_{ \text{UV} }^{(1)}$ is perfectly consistent with the $H_{ij}$ transformation property derived from that of the unitary evolution part $\mathcal{W}_{ \text{EV} }^{(1)}$.
\subsection{Invariance of the oscillation probability}
\label{sec:invariance-P}
The oscillation probability $P(\nu_{\mu} \rightarrow \nu_{e})^{(1)}_{ \text{EV} }$ given in Appendix~\ref{sec:EV-part} is written in terms of the $\nu$SM and $H_{ij}$ parameters without any naked $\widetilde{\alpha}$ parameters. Therefore, showing the invariance under Symmetry X can be carried out straightforwardly for all the eight symmetries with the transformation properties of these parameters given in Table~\ref{tab:DMPUV-symmetry} and eq.~\eqref{Hij-transf}. This exercise for invariance proof, simple but slightly lengthy, is left for the interested readers.
On the other hand, the probability $P(\nu_{\mu} \rightarrow \nu_{e})^{(1)}_{ \text{UV} }$ in Appendix~\ref{sec:UV-part} consists of the $\nu$SM and the naked $\widetilde{\alpha}$ parameters. We can use the transformation properties of these variables summarized in Table~\ref{tab:DMPUV-symmetry} to prove the invariance under the all Symmetry X.
In this paper we do not discuss the other oscillation channels explicitly, apart from $\nu_{\mu} \rightarrow \nu_{e}$ above, because we will prove the Hamiltonian invariance in section~\ref{sec:hamiltonian-symmetry} which automatically applies to all the oscillation channels.
\section{The DMP-UV symmetry: Summary}
\label{sec:summary}
Here, we give our summary of all the eight DMP-UV symmetries, denoted as Symmetry X-DMP-UV where X = IA, IB, $\cdot \cdot \cdot $, IVB. Up until this section our results are valid to first order in the DMP-UV expansion. We attempt at an all-order proof of all Symmetry X in section~\ref{sec:hamiltonian-symmetry}.
In Table~\ref{tab:DMPUV-symmetry} we give the transformation properties of the $\nu$SM and the UV $\widetilde{\alpha}$ parameters under Symmetry X.
\begin{table}[h!]
\vglue 0.2cm
\begin{center}
\caption{All reparametrization symmetries of the 1-2 state exchange type in the DMP-UV perturbation theory and the transformation properties of the variables are summarized. In the text we refer them as ``Symmetry IA-DMP-UV'', etc.
}
\label{tab:DMPUV-symmetry}
\vglue 0.2cm
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c}
\hline
Symmetry &
Vacuum parameter transf. &
Matter parameter transf. &
UV parameter transf.
\\
\hline
\hline
IA &
none &
$\lambda_{1} \leftrightarrow \lambda_{2}$,
$c_{\psi} \rightarrow \mp s_{\psi}$,
$s_{\psi} \rightarrow \pm c_{\psi}$ &
none
\\
\hline
IB &
$\theta_{12} \rightarrow - \theta_{12}$,
$\delta \rightarrow \delta + \pi$. &
$\lambda_{1} \leftrightarrow \lambda_{2}$,
$c_{\psi} \rightarrow \pm s_{\psi}$,
$s_{\psi} \rightarrow \pm c_{\psi}$ &
none
\\
\hline
IIA &
$\theta_{23} \rightarrow - \theta_{23}$,
$\theta_{12} \rightarrow - \theta_{12}$. &
$\lambda_{1} \leftrightarrow \lambda_{2}$,
$c_{\psi} \rightarrow \pm s_{\psi}$,
$s_{\psi} \rightarrow \pm c_{\psi}$ &
$\widetilde{\alpha}_{\mu e} \rightarrow - \widetilde{\alpha}_{\mu e}$,
$\widetilde{\alpha}_{\tau \mu} \rightarrow - \widetilde{\alpha}_{\tau \mu}$
\\
\hline
IIB &
$\theta_{23} \rightarrow - \theta_{23}$,
$\delta \rightarrow \delta + \pi$. &
$\lambda_{1} \leftrightarrow \lambda_{2}$,
$c_{\psi} \rightarrow \mp s_{\psi}$,
$s_{\psi} \rightarrow \pm c_{\psi}$ &
same as IIA
\\
\hline
IIIA &
$\theta_{13} \rightarrow - \theta_{13}$,
$\theta_{12} \rightarrow - \theta_{12}$. &
$\lambda_{1} \leftrightarrow \lambda_{2}$,
$\phi \rightarrow - \phi$ &
$\widetilde{\alpha}_{\mu e} \rightarrow - \widetilde{\alpha}_{\mu e}$,
$\widetilde{\alpha}_{\tau e} \rightarrow - \widetilde{\alpha}_{\tau e}$
\\
& &
$c_{\psi} \rightarrow \pm s_{\psi}$,
$s_{\psi} \rightarrow \pm c_{\psi}$ &
\\
\hline
IIIB &
$\theta_{13} \rightarrow - \theta_{13}$,
$\delta \rightarrow \delta + \pi$. &
$\lambda_{1} \leftrightarrow \lambda_{2}$,
$\phi \rightarrow - \phi$ &
same as IIIA
\\
& &
$c_{\psi} \rightarrow \mp s_{\psi}$,
$s_{\psi} \rightarrow \pm c_{\psi}$ &
\\
\hline
IVA &
$\theta_{23} \rightarrow - \theta_{23}$,
$\theta_{13} \rightarrow - \theta_{13}$. &
$\lambda_{1} \leftrightarrow \lambda_{2}$,
$\phi \rightarrow - \phi$ &
$\widetilde{\alpha}_{\tau e} \rightarrow - \widetilde{\alpha}_{\tau e}$,
$\widetilde{\alpha}_{\tau \mu} \rightarrow - \widetilde{\alpha}_{\tau \mu}$
\\
& &
$c_{\psi} \rightarrow \mp s_{\psi}$,
$s_{\psi} \rightarrow \pm c_{\psi}$ &
\\
\hline
IVB &
$\theta_{23} \rightarrow - \theta_{23}$,
$\theta_{13} \rightarrow - \theta_{13}$, &
$\lambda_{1} \leftrightarrow \lambda_{2}$,
$\phi \rightarrow - \phi$ &
same as IVA
\\
&
$\theta_{12} \rightarrow - \theta_{12}$, $\delta \rightarrow \delta + \pi$.
&
$c_{\psi} \rightarrow \pm s_{\psi}$, $s_{\psi} \rightarrow \pm c_{\psi}$ &
\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\vglue -0.4cm
\end{table}
In Table~\ref{tab:SF-solutions}, we tabulate the solutions of the first condition~\eqref{1st-condition} and the rephasing matrix Rep(X)~\eqref{Rep-II-III-IV} for Symmetry X-DMP-UV, where X= IA, IB, $\cdot \cdot \cdot $, IVB.
\begin{table}[h!]
\vglue -0.2cm
\begin{center}
\caption{All the solutions of the first condition~\eqref{1st-condition} for Symmetry X where X = IA, IB, $\cdot \cdot \cdot $, IVB, and the rephasing matrix Ref(X)~\eqref{Rep-II-III-IV} are tabulated.
The labels ``upper'' and ``lower'' imply the upper and lower sign in the corresponding rows in Table~\ref{tab:DMPUV-symmetry}.
}
\label{tab:SF-solutions}
\vglue 0.2cm
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c}
\hline
Symmetry &
$\tau, \sigma, \xi$ &
$\alpha, \beta$ &
Rep(X)
\\
\hline
\hline
IA &
$\tau = \sigma = 0$, $\xi = 0$ &
$\alpha = \beta = 0$ (upper) & diag(1,1,1) \\
& &
$\alpha = \pi, \beta = - \pi$ (lower) & \\
\hline
IB &
$\tau = \sigma = 0$, $\xi = \pi$ &
$\alpha = \pi, \beta = - \pi$ (upper) & same as IA \\
& & $\alpha = \beta = 0$ (lower) & \\
\hline
IIA &
$\tau = 0, \sigma = - \pi$, $\xi = 0$ &
$\alpha = \pi, \beta = 0$ (upper) & diag(1,-1,1) \\
& & $\alpha = 0, \beta = \pi$ (lower) & \\
\hline
IIB &
$\tau = 0, \sigma = - \pi$, $\xi = \pi$ &
$\alpha = 0, \beta = \pi$ (upper) & same as IIA \\
& & $\alpha = \pi, \beta = 0$ (lower) & \\
\hline
IIIA &
$\tau = \pi, \sigma = 0$, $\xi = 0$ &
$\alpha = 0, \beta = \pi$ (upper) & diag(-1,1,1) \\
& & $\alpha = \pi, \beta = 0$ (lower) & \\
\hline
IIIB &
$\tau = \pi, \sigma = 0$, $\xi = \pi$ &
$\alpha = \pi, \beta = 0$ (upper) & same as IIIA \\
& &
$\alpha = 0, \beta = \pi$ (lower) & \\
\hline
IVA &
$\tau = \sigma = \pi$, $\xi = 0$ &
$\alpha = \pi, \beta = - \pi$ (upper) & diag(-1,-1,1) \\
& &
$\alpha = \beta = 0$ (lower) & \\
\hline
IVB &
$\tau = \sigma = \pi$, $\xi = \pi$ &
$\alpha = \beta = 0$ (upper) & same as IVA \\
& &
$\alpha = \pi, \beta = - \pi$ (lower) & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\vglue -0.4cm
\end{table}
\section{DMP-UV symmetry as a Hamiltonian symmetry}
\label{sec:hamiltonian-symmetry}
In this section we discuss all the DMP-UV symmetries summarized in Table~\ref{tab:DMPUV-symmetry} to show that they are the symmetries of the flavor basis Hamiltonian. By showing the invariance we aim at establishing that all the DMP-UV symmetries hold in all orders in the DMP-UV perturbation theory. Therefore, our discussion in this section will include the full Hamiltonian including the second order UV terms $A^{(2)}$ in eq.~\eqref{A-A2-def}.
We have the two ways to construct the flavor basis Hamiltonian, $H_{\text{\tiny LHS}}$ and $H_{\text{\tiny RHS}}$, as discussed in ref.~\cite{Minakata:2021dqh}. Of course, $H_{\text{\tiny LHS}} = H_{\text{\tiny RHS}}$. We discuss first the transformation property of $H_{\text{\tiny LHS}}$, and later introduce the other Hamiltonian $H_{\text{\tiny RHS}}$, repeating the same exercise but offering an alternative view complementary to that from $H_{\text{\tiny LHS}}$.
\subsection{Transformation property of $H_{\text{\tiny LHS}}$}
\label{sec:H-LHS-transf}
In unitary case in vacuum $H_{ \text{flavor} } = U \check{H} U^{\dagger}$, where $\check{H}$ is the vacuum mass eigenstate basis Hamiltonian, and $U$ the $\nu$SM flavor mixing matrix, see eq.~\eqref{alpha-matrix-def}.
In non-unitary case in matter, since the flavor basis $\nu$ is related to the mass eigenstate basis $\check{\nu}$ as $\nu = N \check{\nu}$, the flavor-basis Hamiltonian which we call $H_{\text{\tiny LHS}}$ reads
\begin{eqnarray}
H_{\text{\tiny LHS}}
&=&
N \check{H} N^{\dagger}
=
\frac{1}{2E} N
\left\{
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
m^2_{1} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & m^2_{2} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & m^2_{3} \\
\end{array}
\right]
+
N^{\dagger} \left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
a - b & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -b & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -b \\
\end{array}
\right] N
\right\} N^{\dagger},
\label{H-LHS-def}
\end{eqnarray}
where we use a slightly different phase-redefined basis from the one in eq.~(\ref{evolution-check-basis}) to make the vacuum Hamiltonian more symmetric on $m^2_{i}$ ($i=1,2,3$). Note that the rephasing does not affect our symmetry discussion.
Using $N= \left( 1 - \widetilde{\alpha} \right) U$, $2E H_{\text{\tiny LHS}}$ reads
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
2E H_{\text{\tiny LHS}}
\nonumber \\
&=&
\left( 1 - \widetilde{\alpha} \right)
\left\{
U (\Xi)
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
m^2_{1} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & m^2_{2} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & m^2_{3} \\
\end{array}
\right]
U (\Xi)^{\dagger}
+
( 1 - \widetilde{\alpha} )^{\dagger}
\cdot
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
a - b & 0 & 0 \\
0 & - b & 0 \\
0 & 0 & - b \\
\end{array}
\right]
\cdot
\left( 1 - \widetilde{\alpha} \right)
\right\}
( 1 - \widetilde{\alpha} )^{\dagger}
\nonumber \\
\label{H-LHS}
\end{eqnarray}
where we have used another collective notation $\Xi$ for all the vacuum parameters involved. The similar collective notation $\Phi$ in eq.~\eqref{SFeq-DMPUV} includes the matter-dressed variables. Notice that a part of the vacuum parameters does transform under Symmetry IB, II, III, and IV.
We have shown in ref.~\cite{Minakata:2021dqh} that the vacuum term transforms under Symmetry X as
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\left\{
U (\Xi)
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
m^2_{1} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & m^2_{2} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & m^2_{3} \\
\end{array}
\right]
U (\Xi)^{\dagger}
\right\}
\rightarrow
\text{ Rep(X) }
\left\{
U (\Xi)
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
m^2_{1} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & m^2_{2} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & m^2_{3} \\
\end{array}
\right]
U (\Xi)^{\dagger}
\right\}
\text{ Rep(X)}^{\dagger}.
\nonumber \\
\label{Hvac-transform}
\end{eqnarray}
where Rep(X) is the rephasing matrix defined in eq.~\eqref{Rep-II-III-IV}.
Using the transformation property of the $\widetilde{\alpha}$ parameters in eq.~\eqref{2nd-condition-UV-sol}, $\widetilde{\alpha} ^{\prime} = \text{ Rep(X) } \widetilde{\alpha} \text{ Rep(X)}^{\dagger}$, the matter term in eq.~\eqref{H-LHS} which originates from the $\nu$SM and the UV sectors of the theory obeys the same transformation property as in the vacuum term. Then, the whole $H_{\text{\tiny LHS}}$ transforms under Symmetry X as
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
H_{\text{\tiny LHS}}
\rightarrow
\text{ Rep(X)} H_{\text{\tiny LHS}}
\text{ Rep(X)}^{\dagger},
\label{H-LHS-transformed}
\end{eqnarray}
which means that $H_{\text{\tiny LHS}}$ is invariant under Symmetry X up to the rephasing factor Rep(X). By being the real diagonal matrix, Rep(X) does not affect physical observables as it can be absorbed into the neutrino wave functions.
We note that our success in demonstrating the transformation property of $H_{\text{\tiny LHS}}$ in a transparent way as above heavily owes the $\alpha$ parametrization~\cite{Escrihuela:2015wra} of the non-unitary matrix, eq.~\eqref{alpha-matrix-def}. It entails the neat $\widetilde{\alpha}$ transformation~\eqref{2nd-condition-UV-sol}, and enabled us to have the simple and revealing form of $H_{\text{\tiny LHS}}$ in eq.~\eqref{H-LHS}.
Therefore, the invariance property~\eqref{H-LHS-transformed} ultimately comes from the fact that the transformation property of the $\widetilde{\alpha}$ parameters is determined by the identical rephasing matrix Rep(X) that governs the transformation of the $\nu$SM part of the Hamiltonian. Despite that it must be the case for proving the Hamiltonian invariance, it is remarkable to see that it indeed occurs via the genuine UV part of the SF equation~\eqref{2nd-condition-UV2}. It indicates an intriguing interplay between the $\nu$SM and UV sectors in the theory.
In passing, we note that we do not use the property that the matter density is uniform to obtain the invariance proof, the feature which prevails in the proof of invariance of $H_{\text{\tiny RHS}}$ in section~\ref{sec:H-RHS-transf}.
\subsection{Transformation property of $H_{\text{\tiny RHS}}$: New method}
\label{sec:H-RHS-transf}
In this section we discuss $H_{\text{\tiny RHS}}$ to show that it is invariant under Symmetry X-DMP-UV with the same rephasing matrix as needed for $H_{\text{\tiny LHS}}$.
By $H_{\text{\tiny RHS}}$ we mean the flavor-basis Hamiltonian written in terms of the diagonalized variables
\begin{eqnarray}
H_{\text{\tiny RHS}}
&=&
U_{23} (\theta_{23} ) U_{13} (\phi) U_{12} (\psi, \delta)
\bar{H}
U^{\dagger}_{12} (\psi, \delta) U^{\dagger}_{13} (\phi) U^{\dagger}_{23} (\theta_{23}).
\label{H-RHS}
\end{eqnarray}
The bar-basis Hamiltonian $\bar{H}$ is given in eq.~\eqref{barH-0th-1st}, which ignores the second order term in eq.~\eqref{barH-UV} with the $G^{(2)}$ matrix in eq.~\eqref{G-G2-def}. In this section we proceed with the bar-basis Hamiltonian~\eqref{barH-0th-1st} to prove invariance of $H_{\text{\tiny RHS}}$ under Symmetry X. In the next section~\ref{sec:2nd-order} we will present a simple argument to show that our proof of invariance prevails even after we include the second order effect.
Since we use an entirely new method to prove the invariance $H_{\text{\tiny RHS}}$, we include the $\nu$SM part as well, though its invariance has been fully discussed in ref.~\cite{Minakata:2021dqh}. From the identity~\eqref{identity} one obtains
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
V^{(0)} ( \theta_{23}^{\prime}, \psi^{\prime}, \phi^{\prime}, \delta^{\prime} )
=
\text{Rep(X)}
V^{(0)} ( \theta_{23}, \psi, \phi, \delta) R^{\dagger}.
\label{V0-prime-V0}
\end{eqnarray}
Then, $H_{\text{\tiny RHS}}$ in eq.~\eqref{H-RHS} with use of eq.~\eqref{V0-def} transforms under Symmetry X as
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
H_{\text{\tiny RHS}}
=
V^{(0)} ( \theta_{23}, \psi, \phi, \delta)
\bar{H} ( \theta_{23}, \theta_{12}, \psi, \phi, \delta; \widetilde{\alpha}_{\beta \gamma}, \lambda_{i} )
\left[ V^{(0)} ( \theta_{23}, \psi, \phi, \delta) \right]^{\dagger}
\nonumber \\
&\rightarrow&_{\text{\tiny Symmetry X}}
V^{(0)} ( \theta_{23}^{\prime}, \psi^{\prime}, \phi^{\prime}, \delta^{\prime} )
\bar{H} ( \theta_{23}^{\prime}, \theta_{12}^{\prime}, \psi^{\prime}, \phi^{\prime}, \delta^{\prime}; \widetilde{\alpha}_{\beta \gamma}^{\prime}, \lambda_{i}^{\prime} )
\left[ V^{(0)} ( \theta_{23}^{\prime}, \psi^{\prime}, \phi^{\prime}, \delta^{\prime} ) \right]^{\dagger}
\nonumber \\
&=&
\text{Rep(X)}
V^{(0)} ( \theta_{23}, \psi, \phi, \delta) R^{\dagger}
\bar{H} ( \theta_{23}^{\prime}, \theta_{12}^{\prime}, \psi^{\prime}, \phi^{\prime}, \delta^{\prime}; \widetilde{\alpha}_{\beta \gamma}^{\prime}, \lambda_{i}^{\prime} )
R
\left[ V^{(0)} ( \theta_{23}, \psi, \phi, \delta) \right]^{\dagger}
\text{Rep(X)} ^{\dagger}.
\nonumber \\
\label{H-RHS-UV}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that $R$ is the ``untransformed'' matrix. What is remarkable is that one can show by using the $H_{ij}$ transformation property in eq.~\eqref{Hij-transf} that
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
R^{\dagger}
\bar{H} ( \theta_{23}^{\prime}, \theta_{12}^{\prime}, \psi^{\prime}, \phi^{\prime}, \delta^{\prime}; \widetilde{\alpha}_{\beta \gamma}^{\prime}, \lambda_{i}^{\prime} )
R
=
\bar{H} ( \theta_{23}, \theta_{12}, \psi, \phi, \delta; \widetilde{\alpha}_{\beta \gamma}, \lambda_{i} )
\label{RGR}
\end{eqnarray}
for all the X-DMP-UV symmetries where X= IA, IB, $\cdot \cdot \cdot $, IVB. It means that $H_{\text{\tiny RHS}}$ transforms under Symmetry X as
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
H_{\text{\tiny RHS}}
\rightarrow
\text{Rep(X)}
H_{\text{\tiny RHS}}
\text{Rep(X)} ^{\dagger}.
\label{H-RHS-UV-invariance}
\end{eqnarray}
That is, $H_{\text{\tiny RHS}}$ is invariant apart from the rephasing factors $\text{Rep(X)}$ and $\text{Rep(X)} ^{\dagger}$. Notice again that Rep(X) is rooted in the $\nu$SM, see eq.~\eqref{identity}, but also governs the UV part of the theory.
\subsection{Including the second-order UV effect}
\label{sec:2nd-order}
Now let us include the second-order UV effect into our proof of invariance by turning on $\bar{H}^{(2)}_{ \text{UV}} = - (b/2E) G^{(2)}$ in eq.~\eqref{barH-UV}.
Recapitulating our nomenclature, once the $A^{(2)}$ matrix is given as in eq.~\eqref{A-A2-def}, one can define the $G^{(2)}$ matrix as in eq.~\eqref{G-G2-def}. Then, we can similarly define $H^{(2)}$ matrix as $G^{(2)} = D H^{(2)} D^{\dagger}$ as in eq.~\eqref{Hmatrix-def}. If one wants to obtain the explicit forms of the $H^{(2)}_{ij}$ matrix elements, one can follow eq.~\eqref{G-K-def} by replacing $A$ by $A^{(2)}$ in Appendix~\ref{sec:H-elements}.
We first show that the transformation properties of the $A^{(2)}$ matrix is identical with that of the $A$ matrix, the both defined in eq.~\eqref{A-A2-def}. Notice that only the $\widetilde{\alpha}$ parameters transform in them. Using the $\widetilde{\alpha}$ parameter transformations~\eqref{alpha-transf-II-IV} and with the explicit expressions of the $A$ and $A^{(2)}$ matrices it is a straightforward exercise to show that the transformation properties of the $A$ and $A^{(2)}$ matrices under Symmetry X are the same.
It means that the transformation properties of the $G^{(2)}$ matrix under Symmetry X, where X=IA, IB, $\cdot \cdot \cdot $, IVB, is the same as that of $G$ matrix, because $G = [ V^{(0)} ( \theta_{23}, \psi, \phi, \delta) ]^{\dagger} A V^{(0)} ( \theta_{23}, \psi, \phi, \delta)$ and $G^{(2)} = [ V^{(0)} ( \theta_{23}, \psi, \phi, \delta) ]^{\dagger} A^{(2)} V^{(0)} ( \theta_{23}, \psi, \phi, \delta)$, see eq.~\eqref{G-G2-def}.
Our last step is to show that the key equation~\eqref{RGR} for proof of invariance of the Hamiltonian is satisfied after the second order effect $- (b/2E) G^{(2)}$ in included. To prove eq.~\eqref{RGR} we have used the $H_{ij}$ transformations in eq.~\eqref{Hij-transf}. But, one can readily show that the above constructed $H^{(2)}_{ij}$ matrix elements transform under Symmetry X in the same way as $H_{ij}$. Since inclusion of the second order UV term merely changes $H_{ij}$ to $H_{ij} - H_{ij}^{(2)}$ in eq.~\eqref{RGR}, and their transformation properties are the same, the invariance proof given in section~\ref{sec:H-RHS-transf} remains valid with inclusion of the second order UV effect.
To summarize, we have shown in this section that the flavor basis Hamiltonian $H_{ \text{flavor} }$ (the both $H_{\text{\tiny LHS}}$ and $H_{\text{\tiny RHS}}$) transforms as $H_{ \text{flavor} } \rightarrow \text{Rep(X)} H_{ \text{flavor} } \text{Rep(X)} ^{\dagger}$ under Symmetry X. This establishes the property of Symmetry X as the Hamiltonian symmetry which holds in all-orders in the DMP-UV perturbation theory in all the oscillation channels.
\section{Summary and outlook}
\label{sec:conclusion}
We have discussed the reparametrization symmetry of the 1-2 state exchange type in the DMP perturbation theory extended to include non-unitarity implemented with use of the $\alpha$ parametrization. This is the third example for the successful application of ``Symmetry Finder'' (SF) method after the cases of $\nu$SM DMP ~\cite{Minakata:2021dqh} and ARP (atmospheric-resonance perturbation) theories~\cite{Minakata:2021goi}. In this paper we have obtained the eight DMP-UV symmetries, the UV-extension of Symmetry X-DMP (X=IA, IB, $\cdot \cdot \cdot $, IVB), as summarized in Table~\ref{tab:DMPUV-symmetry}.
We recall that the effects of unitarity violation (UV) manifest in the two forms called the ``genuine UV'' part, and the ``unitary evolution'' part~\cite{Martinez-Soler:2018lcy}, which are abbreviated as ``UV'' and ``EV'', respectively. See section~\ref{sec:Vmatrix-1st}. They produce independently the $\widetilde{\alpha}$ ($\alpha$ parameter in the SOL convention) transformation property under Symmetry X. The genuine UV part of the SF equation entails the transformation property $\widetilde{\alpha} \rightarrow \text{ Rep(X) } \widetilde{\alpha} \text{ Rep(X)}^{\dagger}$, where Rep(X) denotes the rephasing matrix which appeared in the $\nu$SM DMP~\cite{Minakata:2021dqh} and defined in eq.~\eqref{Rep-II-III-IV}. Whereas the EV constraint produces a little more involved transformation properties of the UV effect elements $H_{ij}$, which are written by the $\widetilde{\alpha}$ elements. See Appendix~\ref{sec:H-elements}. Importantly, the $\widetilde{\alpha}$ and $H_{ij}$ transformation properties are completely consistent with each other.
We note the two features in our SF treatment that are characteristically new:
\begin{itemize}
\item
The $\nu$SM-rooted rephasing matrix determines the transformation property of $\widetilde{\alpha}$. It is realized thanks to the key identity
$V^{(0)} (\Phi^{\prime}) R [V^{(0)} (\Phi) ]^{\dagger} =$ Rep(X).\footnote{
$V^{(0)} (\Phi) = U_{23} (\theta_{23}) U_{13} (\phi) U_{12} (\psi, \delta)$ with $\Phi$ ($\Phi^{\prime}$) being the collective notation for the arguments before (after) the transformation. $R$ denotes the generalized 1-2 exchange matrix. See section~\ref{sec:identity}. }
\item
The key identity allows a transparent proof of the transformation property $H_{ \text{flavor} } \rightarrow \text{Rep(X)} H_{ \text{flavor} } \text{Rep(X)} ^{\dagger}$ under Symmetry X with Rep(X) common to the $\nu$SM and UV parts, allowing an innovation in the proof of invariance of the Hamiltonian.
\end{itemize}
It appears that the emerged structure indicates an intriguing interplay between the $\nu$SM and UV sectors in the theory, the question addressed in ref.~\cite{Minakata:2021nii} from a different perspective. By having the key identity which may be generalized into generic state exchange symmetries, not restricted to the 1-2, we are observing possibly a new mathematical structure to understand the reparametrization symmetry due to the SF framework.
\subsection{What is understood, what is left?}
There are many unknowns about the reparametrization symmetries in neutrino oscillation in matter even if we restrict ourselves to the eigenstate exchange type. That is why we stated earlier that we are in the phase of collecting knowledges on these symmetries. For an alternative approach to reparametrization symmetries see ref.~\cite{Denton:2021vtf}.
Then, the natural question would be: What do we know and what we don't? For brevity we restrict ourselves to discuss below only the two issues:
\begin{itemize}
\item
What does the reparametrization symmetry reveal?
\end{itemize}
To our prejudice it illuminates the structure of the DMP-UV perturbation theory by distinguishing between the $\nu$SM and the UV sectors of the theory. To make a clearer statement we need a sharper distinction between $\nu$SM and the UV variables. Let us momentarily take the original framework in ref.~\cite{Minakata:2021nii} in which the expansion is up to first order and we restrict to the unrenormalized treatment of the eigenvalues $\lambda_{i} = \lambda_{i}^{ \nu\text{SM} }$ by removing the $H_{ii}$ term in eq.~\eqref{ren-eigenvalues}. Now there exists the $(b x) / 2E$ term in $P(\nu_\mu \rightarrow \nu_e)^{(1)} _{ \text{EV} }$ in eq.~\eqref{bx-correction}. Then, there is no mixed up between the $\nu$SM and the UV variables.
Suppose then that the theory is (second-) quantized. Our results on Symmetry IA and IB imply that the IA or IB symmetry generators act on the $\nu$SM operators, but not on the UV operators. Whereas the symmetry generators of the remaining symmetries, X=II, III, IV, do act on the both $\nu$SM and the UV operators. In this sense our reparametrization symmetries of the state exchange type, Symmetry X-DMP-UV as a whole, recognize the both $\nu$SM and the UV sectors of the theory, and can distinguish between them. Thus, it appears that the symmetry can serve for diagnostics of neutrino theory with non-unitarity.
What is elusive and {\em is} intriguing to know is how this understanding at low energies can be matched to a fundamental theory at high scales.
The related question to the above point is whether or not Symmetry IA and IB are special, and if yes in what sense. We can make only brief remarks about this question. IA and IB are distinct from the other symmetries
even within the $\nu$SM framework by no need for non-unity Rep(X). In the exact treatment of neutrino oscillation in uniform density matter~\cite{Zaglauer:1988gz} it appears that IA and IB are the only known reparametrization symmetries as noted in refs.~\cite{Parke:2018shx,Minakata:2021dqh}.
\begin{itemize}
\item
How big is the symmetry?
\end{itemize}
Empirically the answer depends on which theories we talk about, and relatedly on which types of the state exchange examined. Among our reparametrization symmetries \'a la SF, there exist the eight 1-2 exchange symmetries in the DMP and DMP-UV theories~\cite{Minakata:2021dqh}, and the sixteen 1-3 exchange symmetries in the ARP theory~\cite{Minakata:2021goi}. With the current technology we cannot make arbitrary choice of the state exchange type for a given theory.
Within our concrete framework of 1-2 state exchange in the DMP and DMP-UV theories, we suspect that our eight symmetries exhaust the candidate list. We have to have the rephasing matrix Rep(X) for a Hamiltonian proof of Symmetry X. Rep(X) must be a diagonal matrix because otherwise it alters the physical observables by changing the flavor labels. As far as the real diagonal matrices are concerned, our Rep(X) with X = I, II, III, IV in Table~\ref{tab:SF-solutions} constitute all possible choices. The remaining possibility is the case of complex diagonal matrix Rep(X), whose existence, however, eludes us at this moment.
We want to call the readers' attention on a new possibility that might be suggested from our result. As mentioned at the two itemized statements earlier in this section, the identity eq.~\eqref{identity} and the transformation property of $H_{\text{\tiny RHS}}$ in eq.~\eqref{H-RHS-UV} with the equality~\eqref{RGR} needed for invariance, do not refer, at least formally, which states are exchanged. Noice that they are all the key elements for the Hamiltonian proof of the DMP-UV symmetries. Therefore, we suspect that even more generic state exchange symmetry exists which might be extended to $S_{3}$, for example, with the suitably generalized $R$ matrix. If it is the case, the formulation would become a more abstract one because the task is not transparent, at best, with an explicit parametrization of the $U$ matrix~\cite{Minakata:2021goi}. The author believes that this possibility is worth to explore.
|
\section{Introduction}
Recently, large-scale pre-training and fine-tuning of transformers~\cite{vaswani2017attention} have been successful in various domains \cite{Devlin2019BERTPO,liu2019roberta,raffel2020exploring,Lu2019ViLBERTPT,Tan2019LXMERTLC,cho2021unifying,he2021masked,bao2021beit,dosovitskiy2021an}.
As the model size grows rapidly, fine-tuning the entire parameter set of the large pre-trained model has become very costly.
Parameter-efficient transfer learning (PETL)~\cite{Lester2021ThePO,houlsby2019parameter,mahabadi2021parameter,mahabadi2021compacter,li2021prefix,sung2021training,zaken2021bitfit,guo2021parameter,hu2021lora,he2022towards,mao2021unipelt,Zhang2021TipAdapterTC,Gao2021CLIPAdapterBV,Sung2021VLAdapterPT, Zhang2019SideTuningNA} is a recent research direction for online or multi-task learning.
The goal is to build a system that performs well on all tasks without training an entire new model for every new task.
Concretely, PETL methods select a small subset of pre-trained parameters and/or insert a few parameters to a pre-trained network and update those parameters for new tasks, while freezing most of the original parameters.
In the natural language processing (NLP), computer vision (CV), and vision-and-language (VL) domains,
two types of parameters have been commonly updated for parameter-efficient transfer learning:
(a) \textit{Adapters}~\cite{houlsby2019parameter,mahabadi2021compacter,mahabadi2021parameter}: small modules inserted into transformer blocks;
(b) \textit{Prompt}~\cite{li2021prefix,Lester2021ThePO}: small parameters concatenated with input embeddings (see \Cref{fig:teaser}).
However, while parameter-efficient techniques reduce the number of parameters to update, they do not reduce the memory requirement during training by much (up to $30\%$).
In other words, if a large pre-trained language model does not fit on a GPU, these techniques usually do not help to fit the model on the GPU. In other words, these techniques usually do not help to fit a large pre-trained language model on a GPU if the model cannot be trained on the GPU with standard fine-tuning.
Since the updated parameters are inside the backbone language models, to calculate gradients for these parameters for backpropagation, we still need to run the backward pass through the large pre-trained language models.
This prevents PETL methods from being applied to many real-world applications with limited computational resources.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.42\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/best_performance_different_method.pdf}
\caption{\looseness=-1 Comparison between full fine-tuning, Adapter, LoRA, BitFit, and Ladder Side-Tuning over GLUE tasks. The y-axis is the average accuracy of 8 GLUE tasks, while the x-axis is the GPU memory usage during training. Unless specially stated, we use the T5-base in the figure.
}
\label{fig:teaser-plot}
\end{minipage}
\hfill%
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.55\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/teaser-architecuture.pdf}
\caption{Comparison between transfer learning with
(a) Adapters, (b) Prompt Tuning, and our (b) Ladder Side-Tuning (LST).
LST reduces memory usage by removing the need of backpropgation through backbone networks.
}
\label{fig:teaser}
\end{minipage}
\vspace{-8pt}
\end{figure*}
To address this issue, we propose Ladder Side-Tuning (LST), a memory-efficient PETL method.
LST separates trainable parameters from the backbone model to construct a side network, which is responsible for adapting the entire model to new tasks.
Concretely, we train a \textit{ladder} side network, a lightweight network that takes intermediate activations via shortcut connections (ladders) from the backbone networks as input and makes predictions.
As shown in \Cref{fig:teaser}, unlike previous (a) adapters and (b) prompt tuning methods, (c) our LST does not add trainable parameters inside the pre-trained model, and this completely eliminates the need for expensive backpropagation of a large backbone network and saves substantial memory during transfer learning. Instead of initializing the side network's weights randomly, we utilize a network pruning technique to retrieve a smaller pruned network and use it as the side network. In addition to our standard design of the side network, we also boost the efficiency of LST by dropping layers of the side network. We empirically demonstrate that the layer dropping can significantly improve both memory and parameter efficiency without sacrificing performance. Furthermore, during inference, even though we have to propagate forward through two distinct networks, LST does not necessarily use more inference time because the same level of the backbone network and the side network can be computed in parallel.
\looseness=-1 We conduct comprehensive studies on LST using diverse NLP and VL tasks, namely, GLUE~\cite{wang2018glue}, VQA~\cite{Goyal2017MakingTV}, GQA~\cite{hudson2019gqa}, NLVR$^2$~\cite{Suhr2019ACF} and MSCOCO~\cite{chen2015MicrosoftCC}. Overall, in GLUE experiments, LST saves $69\%$ of the GPU memory that is needed for fine-tuning the entire backbone model, saving 2.7x memory compared against Adapter and LoRA. Also, LST achieves higher accuracy than other PETL methods in a low-memory regime. To take advantage of this better memory efficiency, we also apply LST to larger language models (T5-large and T5-3B) and find that it achieves higher accuracy than other PETL techniques when GPU memory utilization is similar. The findings still hold in the Vision-Language (VL) experiments; LST is not only a method that can fit in a 16GB GPU with 7.5\% trainable parameters, but it also has similar or better accuracy than other PETL methods (and again with 2.7x memory savings). To justify our design of LST, we conduct ablation studies on initialization strategies and alternatives to add shortcut connections. The results reveal that these components considerably help performance with minor computation overhead.
\section{Related Work}
\subsection{Parameter-efficient Transfer Learning (PETL)}
\noindent\textbf{PETL for NLP.}
In the past few years, large pre-trained language models have made huge success in NLP.
Parameter-efficient transfer learning (PETL) is a research direction that reduces computational cost of adapting large pre-trained models to new tasks, by avoiding updates of the entire parameters.
A popular line of work on PETL is to add a few trainable parameters and only tune them.
For example, Adapters
\cite{Rusu2016ProgressiveNN,houlsby2019parameter} are small bottleneck modules that are inserted into transformer layers, and experiments have shown that training adapters with layer normalization layers is sufficient to achieve full fine-tuning performance. In a similar trend, LoRA \cite{hu2021lora} injects trainable rank decomposition matrices into a frozen pre-trained model.
Instead of inserting new parameters into pre-trained models, prompt-based \cite{Lester2021ThePO,li2021prefix} methods add trainable parameters to the input and keep the entire pre-trained model unchanged during training. The inserted prompts learn to make use of the knowledge of the pre-trained model to solve new tasks. Although the concept of adapter-based and prompt-based approaches is different, \citet{he2022towards} unify the two lines of approaches (including LoRA) into adapter-based methods. In addition to approaches that introduce new parameters, there are also various methods \cite{sung2021training,zaken2021bitfit,guo2021parameter} that select a sparse subset of parameters from the pre-trained model to update, without adding any new parameters. One of such representative methods is BitFit \cite{zaken2021bitfit}, which updates every bias term in the model.
\noindent\textbf{PETL for CV/VL.}
While most of the progress in PETL is made in NLP domain, researchers have also applied this technique to the CV \cite{Rebuffi2018EfficientPO,Rebuffi2017LearningMV,Jia2022VisualPT,Zhang2019SideTuningNA,Zhou2021LearningTP,anonymous2022how,Zhang2021TipAdapterTC,He2022ParameterefficientFF} and VL \cite{Sung2021VLAdapterPT,Zhang2022HyperPELTUP,Zhou2021LearningTP,anonymous2022how,Zhang2021TipAdapterTC} domains. VL-Adapter \cite{Sung2021VLAdapterPT} benchmarks adapter-based and prompt-based methods on multiple image-text and video-text tasks, and shows adapters enable us to efficiently learn fusion information of vision and language. On the CV side, benefitting from the parameter efficiency of adapters and prompt-tuning, some works \cite{Zhou2021LearningTP,anonymous2022how,Zhang2021TipAdapterTC} apply these approaches to CLIP \cite{radford2021learningTV} to achieve strong few-shot performance in image classification tasks.
Side-Tuning \cite{Zhang2019SideTuningNA} uses an additive side network, which sums its representation with the backbone network in the last layer, to solve various tasks with ResNet \cite{He2016DeepRL} and BERT \cite{Devlin2019BERTPO}.
Although LST takes inspiration and has similarities to Side-Tuning, we argue that there are major differences in motivations, architecture designs, and applied tasks between the two methods. LST aims to reduce the memory requirement of current PETL methods, whereas Side-Tuning does not focus on memory reduction (sometimes their side network is even as big as the backbone network), but instead their motivation is to ease the forgetfulness in incremental learning. Our ladder side network is more robust than their design because the shortcuts fuse the intermediate information from the backbone network, and we also use layer dropping and network pruning techniques to make LST more efficient and stronger. Lastly, we further extend LST in VL architecture and demonstrate its usefulness on multiple VL tasks.
Current PETL approaches explore how to achieve competitive results using as few parameters as possible. However, parameter efficiency does not necessarily mean memory efficiency. In this work, we propose LST that has these two benefits simultaneously. Concurrently, \citet{Liu2022YTuningAE} also propose Y-tuning to address a similar issue; it exhausts all possible labels and feeds them into a model to select the best answer from the input. However, it is intractable oftentimes to list all answers in some tasks, for example, regression and open-ended generation tasks. On the other hand, LST is more flexible in applying to different architectures and tasks. We show that LST can outperform Y-tuning with fewer parameter updates in Table~\ref{tab:comparison with y-tuning}.
\subsection{Network Pruning}
In this paper, we use network pruning to extract a sub-network that contains critical information of the backbone model, and use it as the initialization for our side network. Network pruning makes models lighter by removing unimportant parameters or neurons. This technique aims to produce pruned architectures with fast inference speed, low memory footprint, and competitive performance. While PETL still uses those untrained parameters in the forward pass, network pruning entirely discards them or sets them to zero. As a result, network pruning can generate models for faster inference speed while PETL can achieve sufficient performance by updating fewer parameters. The standard procedure of network pruning is (1) learn \cite{Frankle2019TheLT,Frankle2020LinearMC} or heuristically define \cite{Li2017PruningFF} an "importance measure" to identify the importance of parameters, (2) prune $p\%$ of parameters with lower importance scores, (3) repeat the first and second steps until reaching the target sparsity. The rewinding procedure enables pruning techniques to find a more sparse sub-network. In this paper, to keep the whole pruning process efficient, we either use weights magnitude \cite{Li2017PruningFF} or Fisher Information \cite{sung2021training,Liu2021GroupFP} as the importance measure, and reach the target sparsity in one shot. As a PETL method, LST makes use of the intermediate information of the backbone model as the inputs, and we empirically demonstrate those additional inputs significantly improve the performance in \Cref{fig:ablation shortcuts}.
\section{Ladder Side-Tuning (LST)}
\label{sec: ladder_side_tuning}
We introduce Ladder Side-Tuning (LST),
a new PETL technique that can also reduce training memory requirements by substantial amounts than previous methods.
In \Cref{sec: backpropagation}, we analyze the computational cost for fine-tuning with trainable modules in backbone models.
Then we explain the architectural details (\Cref{sec: side transformer}), structural weight initialization based on network pruning (\Cref{sec: weight init}), and dropping side network layers for more efficiency (\Cref{sec: layer dropping}).
\subsection{Dependency on Backpropagation through Large Backbone Model}
\label{sec: backpropagation}
We consider a $N$ multilayer perceptron (MLP):
$f_N(f_{N-1}(...f_2(f_1( x ))...))$,
where the $i^{th}$ layer $f_i(x) = \sigma_i (W_i x + b_i)$ consists of weight $W_i$, bias $b_i$, and nonlinear function $\sigma_i$.
We denote the output of $i^{th}$ layer as $a_{i+1}$ and the pre-activation as $z_{i+1}$, where $a_{i+1} = \sigma_i (z_{i+1}) = \sigma_i (W_i a_{i} + b_i)$.
In backpropagation with loss $L$,
the gradient with respect to $W_i$ and $b_i$:
\begin{align} \label{eq: gradient of weights}
\frac{\partial L}{dW_i} = \frac{\partial L}{\partial a_{i+1}}\frac{\partial a_{i+1}}{\partial z_{i+1}}\frac{\partial z_{i+1}}{\partial W_i} =
\frac{\partial L}{\partial a_{i+1}} \sigma_{i}' a_i
, \qquad \frac{\partial L}{db_i} = \frac{\partial L}{\partial a_{i+1}} \sigma_{i}'
\end{align}
where $\sigma_{i}'$ is the derivative of $\sigma_i$.
$\frac{\partial L}{\partial a_{i+1}}$, the gradient with respect to $a_i$, can be calculated with the gradients with respect to $a_{i+2}$, using the chain rule:
\begin{equation} \label{eq: chain output}
\frac{\partial L}{\partial a_{i+1}} =
\frac{\partial L}{\partial a_{i+2}}\frac{\partial a_{i+2}}{\partial z_{i+2}}\frac{\partial z_{i+2}}{\partial a_{i+1}} =
\frac{\partial L}{\partial a_{i+2}} \sigma_{i+1}' W_{i+1}
\end{equation}
As shown in \Cref{eq: gradient of weights,eq: chain output},
during backpropagation, there are two terms dominating the memory footprint:
1) $\{a\}$ corresponding to updated parameters $\{W\}$ and 2) $\{\sigma'\}$ that must be cached for the chain rule. Note that we use $\{\cdot\}$ to denote a set of activations, parameters, or gradients.
Existing PETL methods, such as Adapters~\cite{houlsby2019parameter}, LoRA~\cite{hu2021lora}, Prompt-tuning~\cite{Lester2021ThePO}, and BitFit~\cite{zaken2021bitfit,cai2020tinytl} could reduce the memory footprint by making $|a|$ smaller, as they have fewer $\{W\}$ to update, but do not reduce $|\sigma'|$, where $|\cdot|$ means the size of set $\{\cdot\}$.
Since most activation functions do not change dimensions (i.e., $|a| = |\sigma'|$), the memory footprint for backpropagation $|a| + |\sigma'|$ can be reduced by up to 50\% by the PETL methods when they reduce the entire memory footprint for $|a|$.
By making the updated parameter do not require backpropagation through the backbone network, our LST can achieve better memory efficiency beyond 50\%, and we explain it below.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.9\textwidth]{figures/architecture.pdf}
\caption{
Illustration of Ladder Side-Tuning (LST) with transformer described in \Cref{sec: side transformer}.
(a) shows a high-level overview of LST, and
(b) shows LST with an encoder-decoder architecture.
}
\label{fig:architecture}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Ladder Side Network for Transformers}
\label{sec: side transformer}
Unlike existing transfer learning methods that insert additional parameters
inside a transformer network, we propose training a \textit{ladder} side network, a small and separate network that takes intermediate activations from the backbone transformer as input and makes predictions.
As illustrated in \Cref{fig:architecture} (a), since the ladder side network parameters $\phi$ are not used during the forward pass of the backbone transformer with parameters $\theta$, the update of the ladder side network does not require expensive backpropagation of the large backbone transformer.
Note that our LST method is not limited to a specific architecture.
We provide a simplified overview of LST with an encoder architecture in \Cref{fig:architecture} (a) and an illustration of LST with an encoder-decoder architecture in \Cref{fig:architecture} (b).
\paragraph{Lightweight architecture.}
Our side network $g$ is a lightweight version of the backbone transformer $f$, where all weights and hidden state dimensions of in $g$ are $\frac{1}{r}$ times of the original weights and hidden states of $f$, where $r$ is a reduction factor (e.g. $r=$ 2, 4, 8, 16).
For example, if the backbone $f$ has a 768-dimensional hidden state, then the side network $g$
with $r=16$ has a hidden state of 48 dimensions (= 768/16).
The side network $g$ reuses frozen word embeddings (`Emb' in \Cref{fig:architecture} (a)) and the language model head (`LM head' in \Cref{fig:architecture} (a)) of the backbone $f$.
Following the analysis in \Cref{sec: backpropagation}, we also examine the memory cost of LST.
Recall that original memory footprint for backpropagation is $|a| + |\sigma'|$.
Because we do not have to run a backward pass through the backbone network,
we can only consider the gradients for the side network, whose memory footprint is $\frac{|a| + |\sigma'|}{r}$.
Therefore, LST has a better memory efficiency than other PETL methods (saving up to 50\%) as long as $r$ is greater than 2 (we find 8 works well in most experiments).
\paragraph{Gated ladder connections.}
Although \citet{Zhang2019SideTuningNA} found that late fusion to combine the representations of the backbone and the side network works well with convolutional networks for CV tasks,
in our experiments, we find that late fusion hurts the performance of the transformer architecture in NLP tasks (see \Cref{fig:ablation shortcuts} in \Cref{sec: results} for details).
To address this, we use the shortcut connection (called \textit{ladder}, due to the overall shape created from the multiple shortcut connections) from intermediate activations from the backbone $f$ to the side network $g$ and find it helpful.
We learn linear projections to downsample ($\times \frac{1}{r}$) the intermediate activations (including word embeddings) of $f$ to low-dimensional attention blocks in $g$.
Then, we learn a linear projection to upsample ($\times r$) the side network output to the dimension of the original language model head. The linear projections are illustrated as green trapezoids in \Cref{fig:architecture} (a).
The $i^{th}$ transformer layer of the side network $g$ combines the activation of the backbone $h^{f}_i$ and the activation of the previous layer of the side network $h^{g}_{i-1}$ with learned gating: $\mu_i * h^{f}_i + (1-\mu_i) * h^{g}_{i-1}$,
where
$\mu_i = \texttt{sigmoid}(\frac{\alpha_{i}}{T})$ is a gate parameterized with
a learnable zero-initialized scalar $\alpha_{i}$ and temperature $T$ ($=0.1$).
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.8\textwidth]{figures/weightinit_layerdrop.pdf}
\caption{
Illustration of (a) Structural Weight Initialization (\Cref{sec: weight init}) and (b) Layer Dropping (\Cref{sec: layer dropping}).
In our experiments, we find that initialization of side network parameters from backbone network parameters improves performance, and
dropping some shortcut connections improves efficiency without hurting performance.
}
\label{fig:weightinit_layerdrop}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Structural Weight Initialization for Ladder Side Network}
\label{sec: weight init}
We find it helpful to initialize the weights of the side network $\phi$ from the weight of the backbone network $\theta$ based on structural pruning~\cite{Li2017PruningFF}, as shown in \Cref{fig:weightinit_layerdrop} (a).
Concretely,
given a weight matrix $W \in \mathbb{R}^{d_{out} \times d_{in}}$ of the backbone network that maps the $d_{in}$-dim vectors to the $d_{out}$-dim space, and the importance matrix of the weight $I \in \mathbb{R}^{d_{out} \times d_{in}}$,
we first calculate the importance score of each row $s_i =\sum_{j} |I_{i,j}|$, denoting the importance of each weight vector. Note that the importance matrix $I$ used in this work are either weight magnitude~\cite{Li2017PruningFF} ($I = W$) or empirical Fisher Information~\cite{sung2021training} ($I = F_W = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}(\nabla_W \log p(y_i|x_i))^{2}$; $(x_i, y_i), ..., (x_N, y_N)$ are samples from data).
Then, we choose the rows of $W$ which have the top $\frac{d_{out}}{r}$ importance scores and prune the remaining rows to obtain a new weight matrix $W^P \in \mathbb{R}^{\frac{d_{out}}{r} \times d_{in}}$.
The columns of the weights and the importance matrix in the next layer corresponding to the pruned feature map are also pruned.
By iterating this process, we obtain the set of weight matrices whose rows and columns are pruned $\frac{1}{r}$ times from the backbone network and use them to initialize the side network.
In our experiments shown in \Cref{fig:ablation initialization}, we find that using Fisher information as an importance score metric generally performs well, and therefore we use it in our structural weight initialization.
\subsection{Layer Dropping in the Ladder Side Network}
\label{sec: layer dropping}
We explore to increase efficiency of LST even further by making side network more compact,
by dropping its intermediate transformer layers, as illustrated in \Cref{fig:weightinit_layerdrop} (b).
Similar to LayerDrop~\cite{Fan2020Reducing}, we drop layers in the side network, and this can linearly reduce the memory and parameter requirements of LST.
For instance, a side network with $N$ layers
will only have $2^{nd}$, $4^{th}$, $6^{th}$ $\ldots$ layers left, after we drop half of the layers. Refer to \Cref{sec: experiment setup} for more details on applying layer dropping on an encoder-decoder architecture.
In \Cref{fig:performance efficiency trade-off dropping layers}, we show that layer dropping can greatly boost the model's efficiency without sacrificing performance.
\section{Experiment Setup}
\label{sec: experiment setup}
\paragraph{Datasets.}
We evaluate LST on NLP and VL tasks. For NLP tasks, we use the GLUE \cite{wang2018glue} benchmark, which consists of seven classification and one regression task. The benchmark evaluate models on multiple diverse tasks over linguistic acceptability (CoLA~\cite{warstadt2018neural}), sentiment analysis (SST-2~\cite{socher-etal-2013-recursive}), similarity and paraphrase (MRPC~\cite{dolan2005automatically}, QQP~\cite{iyer2017qqp}, STS-B~\cite{cer2017semeval}) and natural language inference (MNLI~\cite{williams2017broad}, QNLI~\cite{rajpurkar2016squad}, RTE~\cite{Bentivogli09thefifth}).
For VL tasks, we experiment with visual question answering (VQA~\cite{Goyal2017MakingTV}, GQA~\cite{hudson2019gqa}), visual reasoning (NLVR$^{2}$~\cite{Suhr2019ACF}) and image captioning (MSCOCO~\cite{chen2015MicrosoftCC}) tasks.
\paragraph{Training and Evaluation Setup.}
For NLP tasks, we use T5~\cite{raffel2020exploring}, a pre-trained encoder-decoder language model as our backbone.
We use T5-base in most experiments, except that we scale up LST on T5-large and T5-3B to demonstrate its memory efficiency.
The training and evaluation process follows the setup used by \citet{mahabadi2021compacter}.
Since there is no local test set, we split 1k samples from the training set as the new validation set and use the original validation set as the test set.
For datasets whose samples are less than 10k (RTE, MRPC, STS-B, CoLA), we split the validation set into two equal-sized subsets and treat them as a new validation and test set. For MNLI, we use the mismatched set as the validation set and matched set as the test set. We train every approach with 10 epochs on large datasets and 20 epochs on small ones (RTE, MRPC, STS-B, CoLA) for complete convergence. We search for learning rates over $\{3 \times 10^{-4}, 1 \times 10^{-3}, 3 \times 10^{-3} \}$ for LST and LoRA\cite{hu2021lora}, and we use the optimal learning rates that are used by \citet{mahabadi2021compacter} for other methods. The reduction factor used in LST is set to 8 if not additionally specified. T5-base has 12 layers each in encoder and decoder, while T5-large and T5-3B have 24 layers each. In our experiments, we do not drop layers in T5-base unless we specially mention it. For T5-large and T5-3B, we drop 24 layers (12 layers each in encoder and decoder) and 46 layers (23 each) of the side network to make the memory usage close to our baselines. The experiments on T5 take around 12 hours to train with one A6000 GPU (48GB).
\looseness=-1 For VL tasks, we experiment with CLIP-T5 \cite{Sung2021VLAdapterPT}, which is a VL architecture combining CLIP \cite{radford2021learningTV} and T5 \cite{raffel2020exploring}. We always freeze the CLIP and only train the T5 for new tasks. The CLIP visual representation is concatenated with the text embedding, and the combined input is fed to T5 to make predictions. A visual projection layer is added between CLIP and T5 to let the visual representation have the same dimension as the text embedding. To avoid updating the visual projection layer by the gradients from the backbone model, we do not feed combined inputs to the backbone model, but only text inputs. The combined inputs are fed to the side network, so we can achieve efficient training by only computing the gradients from the side network. Because the backbone network only uses texts as the input, the information from the backbone network via shortcut connections is only summed to the text part of the side network's combined inputs.
We follow the multi-tasking setting for training and evaluation used in VL-Adapter \cite{Sung2021VLAdapterPT}.
We report the performance on Karpathy test/test-dev/test-P/Karpathy test split for VQA/GQA/NLVR$^2$/MSCOCO, and train models for 20 epochs. We search learning rates over $\{3 \times 10^{-4}, 1 \times 10^{-3}, 3 \times 10^{-3} \}$ for PETL methods, and use $1 \times 10^{-4}$ used by \citet{Sung2021VLAdapterPT} for full fine-tuning. We set the reduction factor for the side network to 4. We train CLIP-T5 for 16 hours on one A6000 GPU.
\section{Experimental Results} \label{sec: results}
In this section, we show experiments to justify our design of LST and demonstrate that LST performs the best among all approaches in the scenario with limited memory. As the result, LST is the most efficient tool to fine-tune large-scale pre-trained models for real-world applications.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\caption{\looseness=-1 Comparison between multiple parameter-efficient training methods on GLUE benchmark. We use T5-base if we don't additionally specify.
We report accuracy for SST-2, MNLI, QNLI and RTE. For CoLA and STS-B, we use Matthew's Correlation and Pearson-Spearman Correlation as the metrics, respectively. For MRPC and QQP, we report the average of F1 score and accuracy. Each number in the table is the average result over three seeds, and the subscripts are standard deviations. For the results with $^\dagger$, we report the best performance out of three seeds due to the instability of the method.
}
\label{tab:main result}
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{lccccccccccc}
\toprule
\makecell{Method} & \makecell{Update Param. \\ per Task (\%)} & \makecell{ Memory \\ Usage (GB)} & \makecell{CoLA} & \makecell{SST-2} & \makecell{MRPC} & \makecell{QQP} & \makecell{MNLI} & \makecell{QNLI} & \makecell{RTE} & \makecell{STS-B} & \makecell{Avg.}\\
\midrule
Full fine-tuning & 100 & 17.6 & 62.8$_{2.5}$ & 93.9$_{0.6}$ & 91.9$_{1.0}$ & 89.9$_{0.4}$ & 86.2$_{0.4}$ & 92.5$_{0.3}$ & 74.1$_{1.0}$ & 90.3$_{0.1}$ & 85.2$_{0.4}$ \\
Adapters & 1.63 & 13.0 & 64.4$_{1.5}$ & 94.2$_{0.5}$ & 88.9$_{0.2}$ & 88.9$_{0.1}$ & 86.4$_{0.2}$ & 93.1$_{0.2}$ & 75.1$_{0.7}$ & 91.1$_{0.2}$ & 85.3$_{0.2}$ \\
LoRA & 1.71 & 12.6 & 63.3$_{0.1}$ & 94.3$_{0.1}$ & 90.1$_{0.7}$ & 89.0$_{0.1}$ & 86.3$_{0.1}$ & 93.2$_{0.1}$ & 75.5$_{3.3}$ & 90.9$_{0.0}$ & 85.3$_{0.5}$ \\
BitFit & 0.13 & 10.7 & 61.8$_{1.5}$ & 94.3$_{0.1}$ & 91.0$_{0.2}$ & 88.7$_{0.0}$ & 85.6$_{0}$ & 93.1$_{0.1}$ & 67.6$_{0.6}$ & 90.8$_{0.2}$ & 84.1$_{0.1}$ \\
Prompt-tuning & 0.03 & 11.6 & 0$^\dagger_{2.5}$ & 90.3$^\dagger_{16.3}$ & 74.6$_{0.0}$ & 88.5$_{0.2}$ & 82.5$_{0.9}$ & 92.5$_{0.2}$ & 59.5$_{2.9}$ & 90.1$_{0.1}$ & 72.2$_{1.6}$ \\
\midrule
Ladder Side-Tuning & 1.74 & 5.5 & 58.1$_{3.2}$ & 94.1$_{0.3}$ & 90.4$_{1.0}$ & 88.8$_{0.1}$ & 85.6$_{0.1}$ & 93.3$_{0.1}$ & 71.9$_{2.1}$ & 90.7$_{0.2}$ & 84.1$_{0.5}$ \\
Ladder Side-Tuning (T5-large) & 1.23 & 12.2 & 65.3$_{1.9}$ & 95.7$_{0.1}$ & 91.6$_{1.0}$ & 89.7$_{0.0}$ & 88.6$_{0.0}$ & 94.1$_{0.2}$ & 79.9$_{0.0}$ & 92.4$_{0.1}$ & 87.1$_{0.2}$ \\
Ladder Side-Tuning (T5-3B) & 0.08 & 22.4 & 66.4$_{1.7}$ & 96.5$_{0.1}$ & 92.9$_{0.8}$ & 89.7$_{0.1}$ & 90.7$_{0.1}$ & 95.1$_{0.2}$ & 80.1$_{1.0}$ & 93.0$_{0.3}$ & 88.1$_{0.4}$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}
\vspace{-10pt}
\paragraph{LST outperforms other methods under similar memory usage.}
\Cref{fig:teaser-plot} and \Cref{tab:main result} show the results on GLUE of different approaches applying on T5-base. We drop 6 layers (3 layers each in side encoder and decoder) for LST to match the parameter usage of the Adapter and LoRA.
Under the same parameter usage, LST can save $69\%$ of memory cost to fully fine-tune the model, while Adapter and LoRA only save 26\% of that, leading to LST having a 2.7x more memory saving.
Compared to BitFit, LST achieves the same average performance but costs 5GB less GPU memory. LST also surpasses Prompt-tuning in terms of both performance and memory cost. To further take advantage of the memory efficiency of LST, we also train T5-large and T5-3B with LST. We find that with a similar budget of memory usage in Adapter and LoRA, LST with T5-large can surpass the performance of other methods by a large margin. The result on T5-3B also outperforms the result on T5-large, demonstrating the scalability of our memory-efficiency method on large language models.
\begin{wraptable}[5]{r}{50mm}
\centering
\vspace{-15pt}
\caption{LST vs. Y-tuning.
}
\label{tab:comparison with y-tuning}
\resizebox{.36\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\toprule
\makecell{Method} & \makecell{Update \\ Param. per Task (\%)} & \makecell{Avg. \\ GLUE} \\
\midrule
Y-tuning & 7.7 & 76.9 \\
LST & 2.6 & 82.1 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\end{wraptable}
In \Cref{tab:comparison with y-tuning}, we also compare LST with a concurrent work, Y-tuning \cite{Liu2022YTuningAE} on GLUE tasks (except for STS-B) with BART-large~\cite{Lewis2020BARTDS} encoder as backbone.
Following their experimental setup, we use a different learning rate and report the best accuracy out of three seeds for each task.
Overall, LST outperforms Y-tuning by a large margin with fewer updated parameters.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\caption{Comparison between multiple parameter-efficient training methods on VQA, GQA, NLVR$^2$, and MSCOCO. We use T5-base for all approaches. We report accuracy for VQA, GQA and NLVR while we use CIDEr to evaluate MSCOCO. Each number in the table is the average result over three seeds, and the subscripts are standard deviations.}
\label{tab:vl result}
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{lccccccc}
\toprule
\makecell{Method} & \makecell{Update \\ Param. (\%)} & \makecell{ Memory \\ Usage (GB)} & \makecell{VQA} & \makecell{GQA} & \makecell{NLVR$^2$} & \makecell{MSCOCO} & \makecell{Avg.} \\
\midrule
Full fine-tuning & 100 & 36.2 & 67.1$_{0.1}$ & 56.3$_{0.3}$ & 74.3$_{0.4}$ & 112.2$_{0.3}$ & 77.5$_{0.3}$ \\
Adapters & 7.98 & 28.4 & 67.1$_{0.1}$ & 56.0$_{0.4}$ & 72.7$_{0.3}$ & 111.8$_{0.1}$ & 76.9$_{0.2}$ \\
LoRA & 7.54 & 27.9 & 63.7$_{0.2}$ & 53.3$_{0.1}$ & 70.0$_{0.3}$ & 110.3$_{0.4}$ & 74.3$_{0.1}$ \\
BitFit & 0.83 & 22.7 & 55.1$_{0.2}$ & 45.5$_{0.2}$ & 51.7$_{1.1}$ & 101.2$_{0.2}$ & 63.4$_{0.1}$ \\
Prompt-tuning & 1.26 & 38.7 & 47.4$_{0.7}$ & 40.6$_{0.4}$ & 51.0$_{0.4}$ & 96.1$_{0.9}$ & 58.8$_{0.6}$ \\
\midrule
Ladder Side-Tuning & 7.46 & 15.3 & 67.2$_{0.1}$ & 56.7$_{0.2}$ & 73.6$_{0.3}$ & 108.0$_{0.4}$ & 76.4$_{0.2}$ \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}
\paragraph{LST is competitive on VL tasks.}
\looseness=-1 As we have mentioned beforehand, we also extend LST on a multi-modal architecture, CLIP-T5, on multiple VL tasks, and we demonstrate the outcome in \Cref{tab:vl result}. With similar parameter usage, LST is the only method that can fit into a single 16GB GPU. Besides the efficiency, it is as competitive as full fine-tuning and Adapter, outperforming other PETL approaches.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/performance_memory_tradeoff_with_errorbar_dimension.pdf}
\caption{The accuracy-memory trade-off for Adapter, LoRA, and Ladder Side-Tuning over GLUE tasks. We vary the reduction factor in Ladder Side-Tuning, hidden dimension in Adapter, rank in LoRA to get the architectures with different training costs.
}
\label{fig:performance efficiency trade-off dimension}
\end{minipage}
\hfill%
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/performance_memory_tradeoff_with_errorbar_drop_layers.pdf}
\caption{The accuracy-memory trade-off for Adapter, LoRA, BitFit, LST over GLUE tasks. we drop $N \in \{0, 6, 12, 18\}$ layers in an interleaving manner for LST while we gradually freeze the first $N \in \{0, 6, 12, 18\}$ layers in other methods (also remove inserted parameters in those layers).
}
\label{fig:performance efficiency trade-off dropping layers}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure*}
\paragraph{LST performs the best in low-memory regime.}
To have a better understand of the memory advantage of LST, we adjust the hyper-parameters in our method (reduction factor $\in \{32, 16, 8, 4\}$), Adapter (hidden dimension $\in \{6, 12, 24, 48\}$) and LoRA (rank $\in \{4, 8, 16, 32\}$) to create multiple architectures with different memory costs. \Cref{fig:performance efficiency trade-off dimension} shows the performance and memory efficiency trade-off for all methods. We find the memory saving is not obvious for Adapter and LoRA, because the gradients of the backbone model's intermediate outputs are still computed (see \Cref{sec: backpropagation} for details). Even though the Adapter and LoRA can get slightly better memory efficiency by reducing the hidden dimension and the rank, we find that the performance drops significantly. On the other hand, LST is quite robust across a wide range of side network sizes.
We also consider another way to compare LoRA, Adapter and BitFit to LST in different memory budgets. While we drop $N \in \{0, 6, 12, 18\}$ layers in an interleaving manner to improve memory efficiency, we freeze the first $N$ layers and remove the corresponding inserted modules in other approaches. With this, other methods can achieve better memory efficiency because gradients do not propagate to those earlier frozen layers. We discuss the layer dropping and layer freezing with details in the following. In LST, we drop $\frac{N}{2}$ layers in both side encoder and side decoder. However, in other PETL approaches, we start from freezing layers in the encoder and then turn to freeze layers in the decoder (e.g. freezing 18 layers means freezing all encoder layers and first 6 decoder layers). We display the comparison in \Cref{fig:performance efficiency trade-off dropping layers}, showing that LST has a better performance and memory trade-off and outperforms other methods in the low-memory regime. We also find that layer dropping generally reduces the training cost without hurting performance.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/ablation_initialization.pdf}
\caption{The ablation study on different initialization strategies. Y-axis denotes the average score over GLUE tasks.
}
\label{fig:ablation initialization}
\end{minipage}
\hfill%
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/ablation_shortcuts.pdf}
\caption{The comparison between network pruning, Side-Tuning, and LST on GLUE tasks.
}
\label{fig:ablation shortcuts}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure*}
\paragraph{The ablation of weight initialization on the side network.}
We compare the different initialization strategies for the side network and demonstrate the results in \Cref{fig:ablation initialization}. ``Random'' denotes we randomly initialize the network while we use network pruning to select initial weights for the side network based on two importance measures, ``Weight Magnitude'' and ``Fisher Information.'' In general, the initialization from the pruned network helps no matter the size of the side network, showing the effectiveness of our network pruning strategy.
\paragraph{Comparison LST to network pruning and side-tuning.}
In \Cref{sec: side transformer}, we mention that shortcut connections are added to every layer of the side network. We justify this design by comparing LST to two approaches: (1) network pruning, which discards all shortcut connections and the entire backbone model; (2) side-tuning, which only adds one shortcut connection to merge representations right before the output layer. Note that we do not drop any layer in the side network but only remove the shortcuts in this experiment. \Cref{fig:ablation shortcuts} shows the comparison and LST outperforms the other two methods significantly, suggesting the intermediate shortcut connections are useful. We conclude that PETL methods are stronger than network pruning as they use the information from the backbone model. This also suggests that network pruning approaches do not perform as well as PETL methods when training the same number of parameters.
\section{Conclusion}
We propose Ladder Side-Tuning (LST), a parameter- and memory-efficient method to adapt a large backbone network.
LST does not require backpropagation through the backbone network, which allows for significantly lower memory requirement during training than recently proposed parameter-efficient training techniques.
We demonstrate that LST allows users to adapt a larger and more powerful backbone network to target tasks with a limited memory requirement, which cannot be achieved with recent parameter-efficient techniques.
We also show that LST achieves a more efficient accuracy-memory trade-off than recent baselines, the impact of weight initialization of side networks, and the usefulness of intermediate shortcut connections. Finally, we show that the LST can be also extended beyond NLP tasks, with strong results on VL tasks.
We hope that LST helps users with limited computational resources tune larger models in diverse domains.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This work was supported by ARO Award W911NF2110220, ONR Grant N000141812871, and NSF-AI Engage Institute DRL-211263. The views, opinions, and/or findings contained in this article are those of the authors and not of the funding agency.
{\small
|
\section{Introduction}
We are living in the era of the accelerated expansion of the Universe, as illustrated by the wealth of data from type Ia supernovae, baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO), galaxy clusters and other observational probes \cite{Riess1998, Peebles2003, Lapuente2010}. Arguably the simplest and the most successful explanation for the accelerating expansion as of yet is the cosmological constant. Nonetheless, the discrepancy between the value of the cosmological constant determined in cosmology and that calculated in quantum field theory could hint towards a more complicated model for the accelerated expansion. Similarly, contemporary problems in cosmology, such as the $H_{0}$ tension, could be hinting towards new physics. In this context, modifying general relativity offers an alternative explanation to some of the puzzles outlined above \cite{Joyce2016, Clifton2012, Di_Valentino2021, Braglia2021, Benisty2021}.
A subset of theories of special interest are scalar field models that possess a screening mechanism. These are theories that turn off modified gravity effects in and around high density regions, hence satisfying the tight Solar System observational constraints, while still possibly allowing interesting effects on cosmological scales. Well known examples of screening mechanisms include the chameleon, the symmetron and the Vainshtein models \cite{Vainshtein1972, Khoury2004, Hinterbichler2011, Babichev2013}. Despite the elusive nature of screened fifth forces mediated by these types of scalar fields, there exists a number of techniques to detect them in laboratory and cosmology tests. In particular, extensive cosmological and laboratory constrains have been put on chameleon screening \cite{Terukina2014, Wilcox2015, Burrage2018, Sabulsky2019, Tamosiunas2021}. Similarly, techniques for constraining symmetron and Vainshtein screening are well described in the literature as well \cite{Llinares2014, Burrage2016, Jimenez2016, Dima2018, Hammami2017, Llinares2019}.
In the context of cosmological tests of gravity, a system of special interest is that of cosmic voids. Voids are the largest underdensities in the Universe and their properties are inherently linked to the physics of large scale structure. Given these properties, cosmic voids make ideal cosmological laboratories for testing screened gravity theories. Using voids as a testing ground for models of modified gravity has been explored extensively in the literature (e.g. see Ref.~\cite{Cai2015, Perico2019, Padilla2015, Davies2019}). Nonetheless, many unanswered questions regarding the properties of cosmic voids remain to be addressed. Specifically, an interesting question to ask is how does the fifth force depend on the density distribution in cosmic voids? Previous work has been done to deduce the magnitude of the fifth force in voids; however, these analyses have been performed primarily using a top hat/step function density models for the voids (e.g. see Ref.~\cite{Clampitt2013}). Recent simulations and observational studies indicate that void density distributions are significantly more complicated than that of a step function. Hence, one might ask what is the relation between different void density distributions and the magnitude of the fifth force? As an extension of our previous numerical work (Ref.~\cite{Tamosiunas2021}), here we attempt to answer this question by numerically solving the chameleon equation of motion (EOM) for different void density profiles.
In the following sections we introduce the model at hand along with the numerical methods used to solve the EOM. Specifically, section \ref{chameleon_gravity} introduces the specific chameleon model that we will investigate. Section \ref{finite_element_method} briefly describes the SELCIE code used to solve the chameleon EOM. Section \ref{cosmic_voids} introduces some basic properties of voids, with a particular emphasis on different density profiles used in our analysis. The analytic and the numerical results are described in sections \ref{analytic_investigation} and \ref{numerical_investigation}. In this work we use natural units ($c = \hbar =1$) and a mostly positive metric signature $\eta_{\mu \nu} = \mathrm{diag}(-1,1,1,1)$. We denote the reduced Planck mass as $M_{\rm Pl} = (8 \pi G)^{-1}$, with $G$ as the Newton's constant. In all the shown figures we used rescaled radial units, such that $\hat{r} = r/L$, with $L = 2 \times 31.68$ Mpc/$h$ (twice the typical void size as described in Ref.~\cite{Chantavat2017}). Similarly, the densities are rescaled by the critical density of the Universe $\hat{\rho} = \rho/\rho_{\mathrm{c}}$ with $\rho_{\mathrm{c}}=3 H^{2}/8 \pi G=1.8788 \times 10^{-26} h^{2} \mathrm{~kg} \mathrm{~m}^{-3}$ with $h = 0.673$.
\section{Chameleon Gravity}
\label{chameleon_gravity}
A non-minimally coupled scalar-tensor theory is described by the following action:
\begin{equation}
S=\int \mathrm{d} x^{4} \sqrt{-g}\left(\frac{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^{2}}{2} R-\frac{1}{2} \nabla_{\mu} \phi \nabla^{\mu} \phi-V(\phi)\right)-\int \mathrm{d} x^{4} \mathcal{L}_{m}\left(\varphi_{m}^{(i)}, \tilde{g}_{\mu \nu}^{(i)}\right),
\end{equation}
\noindent with $\phi$ as the scalar field, $V(\phi)$ as the potential, $\mathcal{L}_{m}$ as the matter Lagrangian, $\varphi_{m}^{(i)}$ as the matter fields and $\tilde{g}_{\mu \nu}^{(i)}$ as the Jordan frame metric. The superscript \textit{i} here refers to the i-th matter species. The Jordan frame metric can be related to the Einstein frame metric via the following relation:
\begin{equation}
\tilde{g}_{\mu \nu}^{(i)}=A_{i}^{2}(\phi) g_{\mu \nu}.
\end{equation}
\noindent Chameleon gravity refers to a particular choice of $A_{i}$ and $V(\phi)$, e.g.
\begin{equation}
A_{i}(\phi) = e^{\beta_{i} \phi/M_{Pl}},
\end{equation}
\noindent with $\beta_{i}$ term here as the coupling constant for the i-th matter species and
\begin{equation}
V(\phi)=\Lambda^{4}\left(1+\frac{\Lambda^{n}}{\phi^{n}}\right),
\label{potential}
\end{equation}
\noindent with an energy scale $\Lambda$ (note that other choices of the potential that lead to chameleon screening are possible). Assuming a universal coupling to matter, the EOM is given by:
\begin{equation}
\nabla^{2} \phi=-\frac{n \Lambda^{n+4}}{\phi^{n+1}}+\frac{\rho}{M}.
\label{eq:EOM}
\end{equation}
\noindent Note that here we have also assumed a time-independent scalar field and defined $M \equiv M_{\mathrm{Pl}} / \beta$, where we dropped the index for $\beta$ under the assumption of a universal coupling constant.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth]{./Figures/chameleon_constraints.png}
\caption{Observational and laboratory constraints of chameleon gravity. The regions excluded by each specific test are indicated in the figure. The figure on the left shows the constraints on $\Lambda$ and $M$, for $n = 1$. The figure on the right shows the corresponding constraints for $n$ and $M$ for $\Lambda = 2.4$ meV. The region labelled astrophysics contains the bounds from both Cepheid and rotation curve tests. The dashed line indicates the dark energy scale $\Lambda = 2.4$ meV. The black, red, and blue arrows in both figures show the lower bound on $M$ coming from neutron bouncing and interferometry experiments. In this work we focus on the white regions of the parameter space. Figure adapted from \cite{Burrage2018}. }
\label{chameleon_constraints}
\end{figure}
For the above potential, Eq.~\ref{potential}, the different chameleon models correspond to different choices of the three parameters: $n$, $\Lambda$, $M$. In this work we primarily focus on the models that are still allowed by the current observational constraints (see Fig.~\ref{chameleon_constraints}). Specifically, we investigate the parameter space regions still allowed by the observational constraints to determine which region would produce the highest values for the chameleon acceleration. In accordance with our previous work in Ref.~\cite{Tamosiunas2021}, we will find that in order to maximise the chameleon acceleration, the smallest allowed value of $M$ is needed. Similarly, the smallest allowed value of $n$ is required to maximise the chameleon acceleration. Lastly, we want $\Lambda$ to be as large as possible. Putting all these requirements together the parameter values that maximise the fifth force, while still being in the allowed parameter space, are: $n = 1$, $M = 10^{-14} \times M_{\rm Pl}$ and $\Lambda = 10^{-4}$ eV.
The chameleon EOM is non-linear and finding exact analytic solutions for complex non-symmetric density distributions is generally not possible. Hence, to find solutions we will apply the numerical technique known as FEM. FEM allows finding solutions to non-linear equations for arbitrary density distributions. Specifically, in order to solve the EOM, we will employ the software package SELCIE, which is described further in the upcoming section.
\section{The SELCIE Solver}
\label{finite_element_method}
FEM refers to a widely used numerical technique for solving linear and non-linear differential equations in one, two or three spatial dimensions. FEM has now existed for over 80 years and its range of applications varies widely from fluid mechanics and engineering to meteorology and physics \cite{Turner1956, Liu2021, Hrennikoff2021}. Recently FEM has also been applied extensively in the context of modified gravity \cite{Braden2021, Burrage2021, Briddon2021, Tamosiunas2021}.
FEM subdivides the problem domain into smaller subdomains referred to as finite elements. Specifically, the domain is segmented into cells, whose boundaries are defined by their vertices. The value of the field inside each cell is then approximated by a piecewise polynomial function that matches the field values at each of the cell’s vertices. For non-linear second order differential equations one can use Green's theorem and Taylor expand the non-linear term. The static solution can then be obtained at each mesh point using algorithms such as the Picard or the Newton iteration methods.
In the case of the chameleon EOM, we start by rescaling the equation (following our previous approach in Ref.~\cite{Briddon2021}):
\begin{equation}
\alpha \hat{\nabla}^{2} \hat{\phi}=-\hat{\phi}^{-(n+1)}+\hat{\rho},
\label{eq:rescaled_EOM}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\hat{\phi} = \phi/\phi_{\infty}$, $\hat{\rho} = \rho/\rho_{\infty}$, $\hat{\nabla}^{2} = L^{2} \nabla^{2}$, $L$ is the domain size and all the constants have been absorbed into the $\alpha$ parameter. The $\rho_{\infty}$ and $\phi_{\infty}$ here refer to the background density and the corresponding background value of the field. The $\alpha$ parameter is given by:
\begin{equation}
\alpha \equiv\left(\frac{M \Lambda}{L^{2} \rho_{\infty}}\right)\left(\frac{n M \Lambda^{3}}{\rho_{\infty}}\right)^{\frac{1}{n+1}}.
\label{eq:alpha}
\end{equation}
To linearise Eq.~\ref{eq:rescaled_EOM} we can Taylor expand the non-linear term around some estimate of the field, $\phi_{k}$:
\begin{equation}
\begin{gathered}
\hat{\phi}^{-(n+1)} \approx \hat{\phi}_{k}^{-(n+1)}-(n+1) \hat{\phi}_{k}^{-(n+2)}\left(\hat{\phi}-\hat{\phi}_{k}\right)+\mathcal{O}\left(\hat{\phi}-\hat{\phi}_{k}\right)^{2} \\
\approx(n+2) \hat{\phi}_{k}^{-(n+1)}-(n+1) \hat{\phi}_{k}^{-(n+2)} \hat{\phi}+\mathcal{O}\left(\hat{\phi}-\hat{\phi}_{k}\right)^{2}.
\end{gathered}
\label{eq:taylor_expansion}
\end{equation}
\noindent We can then obtain the required variational (integral) form for the EOM, Eq.~\ref{eq:rescaled_EOM}, by applying Green's theorem and multiplying each term by $v_{j}$, which is an arbitrary test function that vanishes on the boundary of our domain, $\partial \Omega$. Finally, substituting the expansion for the non-linear term, Eq.~\ref{eq:taylor_expansion}, into the variational form of the EOM, we obtain:
\begin{equation}
\alpha \int_{\Omega} \hat{\nabla} \hat{\phi} \cdot \hat{\nabla} v_{j} \mathrm{~d} x+\int_{\Omega}(n+1) \hat{\phi}_{k}^{-(n+2)} \hat{\phi} v_{j} \mathrm{~d} x=\int_{\Omega}(n+2) \hat{\phi}_{k}^{-(n+1)} v_{j} \mathrm{~d} x-\int_{\Omega} \hat{\rho} v_{j} \mathrm{~d} x.
\label{eq:expanded_EOM}
\end{equation}
We can solve the non-linear EOM iterativly, by solving the above linearised version, Eq.~\ref{eq:expanded_EOM}, for some estimate of the field $\hat{\phi}_k$ and updating the estimate using
\begin{equation}
\hat{\phi}_{k+1}=\omega \hat{\phi}+(1-\omega) \hat{\phi}_{k},
\label{eq:picard_iteration}
\end{equation}
\noindent until the solution has converged to the desired degree of accuracy. The $\omega$ in Eq.~\ref{eq:picard_iteration} is the relaxation parameter, which controls the step size between the consecutive solutions found by the solver. This iterative procedure is called the Picard method.
To automate the solution to Eq.~\ref{eq:expanded_EOM}, we employ the SELCIE algorithm\footnote{SELCIE is available at: \url{https://github.com/C-Briddon/SELCIE}.} \cite{Briddon2021}. SELCIE is a FEM algorithm that automates the solution to the chameleon EOM for arbitrary density distributions. It allows for an easy mesh creation procedure as well as using different solvers to obtain solutions in 2D and 3D. SELCIE is based on the FEniCS Project software package, which is a collection of free and open-source software modules dedicated to automating solutions to differential equations via the FEM \cite{Logg2011, Logg2012, Alnaes2012, Scroggs2021}. Note that the approach laid out here is nearly identical to the methods previously applied to study chameleon gravity in NFW halos \cite{Tamosiunas2021}. The SELCIE software package and the procedure of solving the chameleon EOM is described in detail in Ref.~\cite{Briddon2021, Tamosiunas2021}. In summary, to obtain the solutions, we used the FEniCS in-built preconditioned Krylov solver with the conjugate gradient solver method and the default preconditioner settings (see section 4.3 in Ref.~\cite{Briddon2021} for further details). The mesh precision (the number of mesh cells per unit length) was set to 150. The code execution was set to stop when the absolute change in the field variable becomes smaller than $\delta \hat{\phi} = 10^{-14}$. The relaxation parameter, $\omega$, was set to 0.3, a value determined by experimentation.
\section{Cosmic Voids}
\label{cosmic_voids}
Cosmic voids are the most underdense regions in the Universe, found between the network of filaments in the cosmic web. The astrophysical properties of voids make them objects of special interest in cosmology and studies of gravity. Namely, being a major component of the cosmic web, as well as some of the largest objects in the Universe, voids hold a wealth of information about the underlying cosmology. The voids' structures, shapes and mutual alignments are sensitive to the properties of dark energy and gravity. Voids, being nearly empty (yet still populated by galaxies), also form a natural environment to study galaxy formation and evolution. Finally, the low densities found in voids make them a great environment for studying screening mechanisms.
The properties of cosmic voids have been studied extensively, both observationally and by using large scale structure formation simulations. Estimates of void sizes range between 10-50 $\mathrm{Mpc}/h$ \cite{Plionis2001, Hoyle2002}. A more recent study based on the Cosmic Void Catalog discovered similar results, with most void sizes falling between 10-30 $\mathrm{Mpc}/h$ \cite{Russell2017}. While the vast majority of the voids have sizes near the middle of the mentioned range, there are examples of extremely large/small voids. As an example, the Bootes void is know as one of the largest objects in the Universe with an approximate radial size of 44-50 $\mathrm{Mpc}/h$ \cite{Kirshner1987,Wegner2019}. On the lower side of the size spectrum, mini-voids have been detected with sizes in the range of 0.7-3.5 $\mathrm{Mpc}/h$ \cite{Karachentsev2004,Weygaert2011}.
There have been a number of studies investigating the density profiles of cosmic voids. Multiple universal void profiles have been proposed, based on both simulations and observational data. The simplest type of a profile explored in the literature is the step function (top hat) profile, described by:
\begin{equation}
\hat{\rho}_{\rm ST}(\hat{r})= \begin{cases}\hat{\rho}_{\rm out}, & \hat{r}>\hat{r}_{\rm step} \\ \hat{\rho}_{\rm in}, & \hat{r} \leq \hat{r}_{\rm step}\end{cases}
\label{step_function_profile}.
\end{equation}
\noindent Here $\hat{\rho}_{\rm in}$ and $\hat{\rho}_{\rm out}$ refer to the inner and the outer density and $\hat{r}_{\rm step}$ is the radial position of the step. Note that the densities here are rescaled by the critical density of the Universe, while the radial variables are divided by the size of the domain of the problem at hand, $L$. While such a profile is simple to work with, and has been explored in the literature extensively, e.g. \cite{Clampitt2013}, in this work we will show that such a profile is not realistic enough to model the chameleon models that are left unconstrained by the current observational data. A more realistic profile choice is based on the hyperbolic tangent function, given by:
\begin{equation}
\hat{\rho}_{\rm th} (\hat{r}) = \frac{1}{2} \bigg[ (\hat{\rho}_{\rm in} + \hat{\rho}_{\rm out}) + (\hat{\rho}_{\rm out} - \hat{\rho}_{\rm in})\tanh(k(\hat{r} - \hat{r}_{\rm step})) \bigg].
\label{tanh_profile}
\end{equation}
\noindent This profile converges to a Heaviside step function for $k \rightarrow \infty$. As before, the densities and the radial variables are rescaled.
In Ref.~\cite{Hamaus2014} a more physically motivated four-parameter profile based on observational data and simulation studies is introduced:
\begin{equation}
\hat{\rho}_{\mathrm{v}}(\hat{r}) -1=\delta_{\mathrm{c}} \frac{1-\left(\hat{r} / \hat{r}_{\mathrm{s}}\right)^{\alpha_{\mathrm{v}}}}{1+\left(\hat{r} / \hat{r}_{\mathrm{v}}\right)^{\beta_{\mathrm{v}}}}+\gamma_{\mathrm{v}}.
\label{void_profile}
\end{equation}
\noindent The $\delta_{\mathrm{c}}$ parameter here is the central density contrast, $\hat{r}_{\mathrm{v}}$ is the void radius rescaled by the domain size, $\hat{r}_{\mathrm{s}}$ is the rescaled scale radius at which $\rho_{\mathrm{v}} = \bar{\rho}$ (or $\hat{\rho}_{v} = 1$ in rescaled units) while $\alpha_{\mathrm{v}}$ and $\beta_{\mathrm{v}}$ determine the inner and outer slope of the void density distribution. The extra parameter $\gamma_{\mathrm{v}}$ is introduced in some works to account for the fact that a given void can be located in a under/over-dense region (e.g. as discussed in Ref.~\cite{Chantavat2017}).
In Ref.~\cite{Nadathur2014, Nadathur2015} a variation of the profile in Eq.~\ref{void_profile} is fitted to simulated void data. Specifically, the void radius is replaced with the scale radius in the denominator of Eq.~\ref{void_profile} and fitted to realistic mock luminous red galaxy (LRG) catalogues from the Jubilee simulation, as well as void catalogues constructed from the SDSS LRG and Main Galaxy samples \cite{Nadathur_Hotchkiss2014, Watson2013, Nadathur2015}. The voids were detected using the watershed transform algorithm ZOBOV \cite{Neyrinck2008}. The self-similarity and universality of void density profiles were further studied in Ref.~\cite{Ricciardelli2014}, while the velocity profiles were studied in Ref.~\cite{Massara2018}. In Ref.~\cite{Chantavat2017} the profile described in Eq.~\ref{void_profile} is fitted to the lensing potential map from Planck CMB lensing reconstruction analysis data in combination with the “Public Cosmic Void Catalog”. The analysis in Ref.~\cite{Chantavat2017} determined that introducing an extra parameter, $\gamma_{\mathrm{v}}$, improves the fit to the data. This is done to account for the fact that Sloan Digital Sky Survey voids reside in an underdense region. In our analysis we will employ the profiles and the best-fit numbers from Ref.~\cite{Nadathur2014, Chantavat2017}
as a benchmark to compare the calculated results against. Specifically, for Ref.~\cite{Nadathur2014}, the following best-fit numbers will be used: $\delta_{\mathrm{c}}=-0.69$, $\hat{r}_{\mathrm{s}}=0.81 \hat{r}_{\mathrm{v}}$, $\alpha_{\mathrm{v}} = 1.57$, $\beta_{\mathrm{v}} = 5.72$. Similarly, for the best-fit profile from Ref.~\cite{Chantavat2017}, we will use $\delta_{\mathrm{c}}=-0.78$, $\hat{r}_{\mathrm{s}}=1.26 \hat{r}_{\mathrm{v}}$, $\alpha_{\mathrm{v}} = 2.69$, $\beta_{\mathrm{v}} = 13.85$. For the void size we will use a value of $r_{\mathrm{v}} = 31.68$ Mpc/$h$, which is a good estimate for the size of a typical void as discussed in Ref \cite{Chantavat2017}. The $\gamma_{\mathrm{v}}$ parameter will generally be set to zero, but, for the sake of completeness, the effects of the mentioned parameter will be investigated in Fig.~\ref{density_varying_params2}. The referenced profiles are plotted in Fig.~\ref{void_density_profiles}, where we see that there is significant variation between the best-fit void profiles in different works in the literature. This is not entirely surprising, as the best-fit parameters in Ref.~\cite{Nadathur2014, Chantavat2017} have been determined using different techniques and come with different systematics and errors. In this work this will not be an issue, as we will only use the outlined profiles as a benchmark, and the void parameters will be varied to explore a large set of possible profiles.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.60\textwidth]{./Figures/density_profiles.png}
\caption{Void density profiles determined from the CMB and SDSS data and simulations as discussed in \cite{Chantavat2017} and \cite{Nadathur2014}. The density is rescaled by the value of the critical density of the Universe, while the radial value is divided by the size of the domain: $L = 2 \times 31.68 \; \mathrm{Mpc}/h$, i.e. twice the typical size of a void. The values in the brackets refer to the best-fit parameters: ($\delta_{\rm c}$, $\alpha_{\rm v}$, $\beta_{\rm v}$, $\hat{r}_{\rm s}/\hat{r}_{\rm v}$, $\gamma_{\rm v}$). The blue band corresponds to the standard deviation around the best-fit values.}
\label{void_density_profiles}
\end{figure}
Given the form of Eq.~\ref{void_profile}, one can derive an analytical expression for the void mass enclosed by some radius $R$ assuming spherical symmetry:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
M_{\mathrm{v}}(R) = \int_{0}^{R} 4 \pi r^{2} \rho_{\mathrm{v}}(r) dr &= 4 \pi \rho_{c} R^{3} \Bigg[ \frac{1}{3} + \frac{\delta_{c}}{3(\alpha_{\mathrm{v}}+3)} \bigg((\alpha_{\mathrm{v}}+3) \; { }_{2} F_{1}\bigg(1, \frac{3}{\beta_{\mathrm{v}}} ; \frac{\beta_{\mathrm{v}}+ 3}{\beta_{\mathrm{v}}} ; - \bigg(\frac{R}{r_{\mathrm{v}}}\bigg)^{\beta_{\mathrm{v}}} \bigg) \\
&\quad - 3\bigg(\frac{R}{r_{\mathrm{s}}}\bigg)^{\alpha_{\mathrm{v}}} { }_{2} F_{1}\bigg(1, \frac{\alpha_{\mathrm{v}}+3}{\beta_{\mathrm{v}}}; \frac{\alpha_{\mathrm{v}} + \beta_{\mathrm{v}} + 3 }{\beta_{\mathrm{v}}}; \bigg( \frac{R}{r_{\mathrm{s}}} \bigg)^{\beta_{\mathrm{v}}} \bigg) \bigg) + \frac{\gamma_{\mathrm{v}}}{3} \Bigg],
\end{split}
\label{void_mass}
\end{equation}
\noindent where ${ }_{2} F_{1}$ corresponds to the hypergeometric function, defined as:
\begin{equation}
{ }_{2} F_{1}(a, b ; c ; z)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{(a)_{n}(b)_{n}}{(c)_{n}} \frac{z^{n}}{n !}=1+\frac{a b}{c} \frac{z}{1 !}+\frac{a(a+1) b(b+1)}{c(c+1)} \frac{z^{2}}{2 !}+\cdots
\label{hypergeometric_function}
\end{equation}
\noindent Integrating the Poisson equation then gives the relation for the regular Newtonian gravitational acceleration:
\begin{equation}
a_{\mathrm{Newt}}(R) = -\frac{GM_{\mathrm{v}}(R)}{R^{2}}.
\label{Newtonian_acceleration}
\end{equation}
\section{Analytic Investigation}
\label{analytic_investigation}
When it comes to analyzing the effects of cosmic void density profiles on chameleon screening, a lot of headway can be made analytically. As previously discussed in Ref.~\cite{Tamosiunas2021}, for much of the allowed parameter space (when dealing with cosmological length scales) the chameleon field tracks the minimum value of its effective potential.
More specifically, in terms of the EOM (Eq.~\ref{eq:EOM}), this refers to the regime where $\alpha \nabla^2 \phi \ll V'_{\rm eff}(\phi)$, with $V_{\rm eff}(\phi) = V(\phi) + \rho \phi/M$. We will refer to this as the small-$\alpha$ regime. In this regime we can use the approximation:
\begin{equation}
\hat{\phi}(\hat{r}) \approx [\hat{\rho}_{\mathrm{v}}(\hat{r})]^{-\frac{1}{n+1}}.
\label{small_alpha_approx}
\end{equation}
\noindent An approximate analytic expression for the field gradient is therefore given by the derivative of Eq.~\ref{small_alpha_approx}:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial \hat{\phi}(\hat{r})}{\partial \hat{r}} \approx -\frac{[\hat{\rho}_{\rm v}(\hat{r})]^{-\frac{n+2}{n+1}}}{n + 1} \frac{\partial \hat{\rho}_{\rm v}(\hat{r})}{\partial \hat{r}}.
\label{void_grad_phi_analytic}
\end{equation}
\noindent Eq.~\ref{void_grad_phi_analytic} illustrates that the chameleon field depends strongly on the shape of the void density profile. This behaviour is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{analytic_results}. In particular, we plot different density profiles, starting with the universal density profile described in Fig.~\ref{void_density_profiles} and ending with a step function (top hat) profile. For the more realistic Hamaus-Chantavat-type profile (Eq.~\ref{void_profile}), we also vary the $\alpha_{\mathrm{v}}$ parameter (which controls the shape of the inner slope of the void), while keeping the other parameters fixed to their best-fit values. A general conclusion that can be made here is that the more step function-like a profile is, the larger the corresponding radial derivative of the chameleon field. The radial derivative of the field is maximised for the step function profile in the region of the step. In this case, the radial derivative of the density and the corresponding chameleon field goes to infinity. For this reason, the analytic approximation for the small-$\alpha$ regime, Eq.~\ref{small_alpha_approx}, cannot be used to accurately describe the behaviour of the field at the step region. The full numerical solutions that we will describe in Section \ref{numerical_investigation} are required to compute the chameleon field at the step region.
While the step function profile is clearly not a realistic description of the density distribution inside of a void, it is an interesting limiting case. To investigate this limiting case further we will explore the hyperbolic tangent profile described in Eq.~\ref{tanh_profile}. Such a profile converges to a step function for large values of $k$. The resulting ratios between the chameleon and the Newtonian acceleration are shown in Fig.~\ref{analytic_results_tanh_rho}. Specifically, the acceleration ratios are shown for different values of $k$ along with the different depths of the void. The key finding here is that the acceleration ratios are primarily limited by the inner slope of the void profile along with the inner depth of the density distribution. In principle one could obtain arbitrarily large values for the acceleration ratio by increasing the inner slope of the density distribution. As before, however, for large values of $k$ the small-$\alpha$ approximation breaks down and full numerical treatment is needed. By applying a small perturbation to the field value given by Eq.~\ref{small_alpha_approx}, we can find that the small-$\alpha$ approximation will hold only if $\sqrt{\alpha} \ll 1/k$. For $\alpha$ to lie in the allowed regions of the parameter space it must satisfy $\alpha < 10^{-12}$. Therefore, so long as $k \ll 10^6$, the small-$\alpha$ approximation will hold for all values of $\alpha$ allowed by the parameter space.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\makebox[\linewidth][c]{%
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.37\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.00\textwidth]{./Figures/analytic_density.png}
\label{analytic_results_rho}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.37\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.00\textwidth]{./Figures/analytic_grad_density.png}
\label{analytic_results_grad_rho}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.37\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.00\textwidth]{./Figures/analytic_grad_phi.png}
\label{analytic_results_grad_phi}
\end{subfigure}
}
\caption{The results of the analytic investigation. \textbf{Left:} different density profiles. The black dashed and the blue solid lines correspond to the profiles described in Fig.~\ref{void_density_profiles}. The dashed and the dotted blue lines were generated by varying the $\alpha_{\rm v}$ parameter value, while keeping the other parameters fixed to the best-fit values used for the solid blue line (i.e. the Ref.~\cite{Chantavat2017} values). The dotted line corresponds to the step function density profile. The arrow corresponds to the Dirac delta function (i.e. the value goes off to infinity). \textbf{Centre:} the corresponding radial derivative of the different density profiles. \textbf{Right:} the corresponding radial gradients of the chameleon field. Note that all quantities are rescaled as defined in section \ref{finite_element_method}.}
\label{analytic_results}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\makebox[\linewidth][c]{%
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.37\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.00\textwidth]{./Figures/tanh_rho_density.png}
\label{analytic_results_tanh_rhos}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.37\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.00\textwidth]{./Figures/acceleration_ratio.png}
\label{acceleration_ratios_tanh}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.37\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.00\textwidth]{./Figures/acceleration_ratio_different_depths.png}
\label{acceleration_ratios_tanh_depths}
\end{subfigure}
}
\caption{The results of the analytic investigation for a tanh density profile. \textbf{Left:} different density profiles for different values of the $k$ parameter. \textbf{Center:} the corresponding chameleon-to-Newtonian acceleration ratios. \textbf{Right:} acceleration ratios for different inner void densities (i.e. different depths). In this case each profile is calculated with $k = 40$ and $\hat{\rho}_{\mathrm{out}} = 1.0$. In all cases the dotted black line corresponds to the step function profile, while the black arrow denotes the profile going infinite (Dirac delta function). Note that all quantities are rescaled as defined in section \ref{finite_element_method}.}
\label{analytic_results_tanh_rho}
\end{figure}
\section{Numerical Investigation}
\label{numerical_investigation}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\makebox[\linewidth][c]{%
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.37\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.00\textwidth]{./Figures/density_alphas.png}
\label{density_alphas}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.37\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.00\textwidth]{./Figures/density_betas.png}
\label{density_betas}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.37\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.00\textwidth]{./Figures/density_rs_rv.png}
\label{density_rs_rv}
\end{subfigure}
}
\caption{Void density profiles for different free parameters. The $\alpha_{\mathrm{v}}$, $\beta_{\mathrm{v}}$ and $\hat{r}_{s}/\hat{r}_{\mathrm{v}}$ parameters are varied, while keeping the other parameters fixed to their best-fit values in each case (i.e. we are varying the best-fit parameter values of the blue profile in Fig.~\ref{void_density_profiles}). As before the black dotted line and the blue band refers to the best-fit profiles from Ref. \cite{Chantavat2017} and \cite{Nadathur2014}. Note that all quantities are rescaled as defined in section \ref{finite_element_method}.}
\label{density_varying_params1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\makebox[\linewidth][c]{%
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.365\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.00\textwidth]{./Figures/acceleration_alphas.png}
\label{acceleration_alphas}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.37\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.00\textwidth]{./Figures/acceleration_betas.png}
\label{acceleration_betas}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.37\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.00\textwidth]{./Figures/acceleration_rs_rv.png}
\label{acceleration_rs_rv}
\end{subfigure}
}
\caption{The chameleon-to-Newtonian acceleration ratios for density profiles depicted in Fig.~\ref{density_varying_params1}. }
\label{acceleration_varying_params1}
\end{figure}
In this section we turn our attention to more realistic density distributions. In particular, we explore the Nadathur and Hamaus-Chantavat-type density profiles from Ref.~\cite{Nadathur2014, Chantavat2017} (as depicted in Fig.~\ref{void_density_profiles}). Each free parameter is varied (while keeping the other parameters fixed to their best-fit values). For each set of the parameters we solve the EOM numerically by employing SELCIE, as described in more detail in section \ref{finite_element_method}. Fig.~\ref{density_varying_params1} depicts the various density profiles generated by varying the $\alpha_{\mathrm{v}}$, $\beta_{\mathrm{v}}$ and the $\hat{r}_{\mathrm{s}}/\hat{r}_{\mathrm{v}}$ parameters, while Fig.~\ref{acceleration_varying_params1} shows the corresponding chameleon-to-Newtonian acceleration ratios. Fig.~\ref{density_varying_params1} and \ref{acceleration_varying_params2} show the corresponding results for voids of varying depths.
We find that for the more realistic profiles, as depicted in Fig.~\ref{density_varying_params1}, the acceleration ratio values are generally lower than in the case of the step function and the tanh density profiles, Eq.~\ref{tanh_profile}. A key finding is that the parameters that control the depth of the void along with the inner density slope (i.e. $\delta_{\mathrm{c}}$ and $\alpha_{\mathrm{v}}$) have the most significant effect on the values of the acceleration ratios. Similarly, the $\gamma_{\mathrm{v}}$ parameter has a similar effect to the $\delta_{\mathrm{c}}$ parameter through its effect on the central depth of the void.
An interesting observation that can be drawn from the $\alpha_{\mathrm{v}}$ variation plot (Fig.~\ref{acceleration_varying_params1}) is that there are generally two regimes of behaviour. Specifically, for $\alpha_{\mathrm{v}} \lesssim 2$ the acceleration ratios reach maximal values towards the centre of the void. However, for $\alpha_{\mathrm{v}} \gtrsim 2$, the acceleration ratio curve falls to some maximally negative value before turning back towards zero in the central region of the void. Such behaviour is determined by the gradient of the density profile in the central region of the void along with the slope closer to the region where the void density reaches its maximum value, i.e. the compensation wall. On the other hand, varying $\beta_{\mathrm{v}}$ and the $\hat{r}_{\mathrm{s}}/\hat{r}_{\mathrm{v}}$ ratio only changes the slope in the outer regions of the void, thus the two regimes of behaviour are not observed in those cases. The depth of the void is also of key importance for determining the maximum value of the acceleration ratio. Generally, the deeper the void, the larger the chameleon-to-Newtonian acceleration ratio. This can be achieved by either having a small value of $\delta_{\mathrm{c}}$ or a large negative value of $\gamma_{\mathrm{v}}$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\makebox[\linewidth][c]{%
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.4\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.00\textwidth]{./Figures/density_deltas.png}
\label{density_deltas}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.4\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.00\textwidth]{./Figures/density_gammas.png}
\label{density_gammas}
\end{subfigure}
}
\caption{Void density profiles for different $\delta_{\rm c}$ (void depths) and $\gamma_{\rm v}$ parameters. As before, the other parameters are set to the best-fit values from \cite{Chantavat2017} and \cite{Nadathur2014}. Note that all quantities are rescaled as defined in section \ref{finite_element_method}.}
\label{density_varying_params2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\makebox[\linewidth][c]{%
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.4\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.00\textwidth]{./Figures/acc_ratios_deltas.png}
\label{acc_ratio_deltas}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.4\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.00\textwidth]{./Figures/acc_ratios_gammas.png}
\label{acc_ratio_gammas}
\end{subfigure}
}
\caption{Chameleon-to-Newtonian acceleration ratios corresponding to the density profiles depicted in Fig.~\ref{density_varying_params2}.}
\label{acceleration_varying_params2}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}
In this work we have investigated the surviving chameleon models in the context of cosmic voids. Specifically, we have studied chameleon models still allowed by the observational and laboratory constraints and solved the chameleon EOM given a selection of void density profiles using both analytic and numerical techniques. In the case of a step function profile, we showed that the chameleon acceleration vanishes in all regions except for the step itself. At the step, the radial derivative of the density profile goes to infinity, which, under the small-$\alpha$ approximation, would result in an infinite chameleon acceleration. However, as discussed in section \ref{analytic_investigation}, the small-$\alpha$ approximation is not valid in profiles of sufficient steepness, hence full numerical treatment is required, which results in large (but finite) values at the step region. In summary, while the step-function profile is not physically realistic, it is nonetheless useful as it acts as a limiting case that maximises the chameleon acceleration. In other words, the more step function-like a void is, the higher is the corresponding chameleon acceleration. While, in principle, the void acceleration is only limited by the steepness of the inner density gradient, in practice, for voids of realistic gradients, chameleon-to-Newtonian acceleration ratios of $a_{\phi}/a_{\rm Newt} \sim 10^{-6} - 10^{-5}$ can be obtained.
When investigating the more physically motivated profiles we have shown that the chameleon field profiles exhibit a rich and complex behaviour. In summary, the chameleon-to-Newtonian acceleration ratios are most sensitive to the inner density slope and the depth of the void. The variation of the inner density slope, in particular, can lead to two different behaviours -- the acceleration ratios reaching maximum (negative) values towards the centre of the void or somewhere between the center and the compensation wall of the void. However, irrespective of which of these two regimes we consider, the acceleration ratios reach similar values of $\sim 10^{-6}$.
Our results shine light on the observational prospects of detecting the effects of the chameleon field in cosmic voids. With acceleration ratios in the range of $a_{\phi}/a_{\rm Newt} \approx 10^{-6}-10^{-5}$ for realistic void profiles, detecting such a signal in individual voids will be challenging. This is the maximum acceleration that a single object in the void would experience. If the test object is large and dense enough to be screened from the chameleon field it will experience a smaller acceleration. It should be noted, however, that the mentioned acceleration ratios are only bounded by the void depth and the inner density gradient, hence much larger values are obtained in voids that are extremely deep and step-like. The fifth force could also potentially be detected statistically through its effects on structure formation. A fifth force, in the central region of a void, or near the compensation wall, could potentially increase the average void depth and the size of the typical compensation wall. To investigate such effects in detail, large scale structure simulations with modified gravity effects would be required. Ideally, one would run hydrodynamic modified gravity simulations to investigate the possible degeneracies between astrophysical effects and effects due to a fifth force. Such a detailed study is out of the scope of this work and will be left for future publications.
The study described in this work can be extended in multiple ways. For instance, here we had made a key assumption of voids being spherically symmetric. Real cosmic voids are better described as triaxial objects. While generally voids tend to become more spherical with expansion, their axis ratios vary between $\sim 0.5-1.0$ \cite{Weygaert2011}. Hence, analogously to NFW halos, which we had previously studied in Ref.~\cite{Tamosiunas2021}, we expect fifth force effects that depend on the void shape. Nonetheless, we do not expect these effects to significantly increase or reduce the chameleon-to-Newtonian acceleration ratios. Effects due to void shapes could also be investigated in detail by employing modified gravity simulations.
Finally, it should be noted that in this work we had only investigated simple void systems -- i.e. single voids of different depths. There are, however, other more complicated systems that could be investigated numerically. As an example, a system of multiple voids separated by filaments would lead to a large gradient in the density distribution, which, in turn, would lead to relatively high values of the chameleon accleration. Such systems could be investigated with SELCIE; however, a more detailed study would require hydrodynamical modified gravity simulations. On a similar note, such systems are also of special interest in other modified gravity models, e.g. the symmetron, which are currently less constrained. The symmetron-type models exhibit complex time-dependent behaviour (e.g. domain walls). Such behaviour could be investigated by employing the SELCIE code; however, at the time of writing, the code does not allow for the solving of time-dependent equations. We are currently working towards expanding the code functionality to include a solver for the symmetron EOM and to model time-dependent systems.
\iffalse
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
\textit{Foreign-trade statistics} comprise national import and export summaries, and are instrumental both for
national governments and for official supranational
and international organizations.
These statistics are used, for example, to produce a country's National Accounts, which is the official bookkeeping of its economic activity,
as well as to provide accurate measures of that nation's
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) \cite{sna2009}.
The \textit{utility} of accurate foreign-trade statistics, however,
surpasses governments, as they can provide valuable information
to society as a whole.
The release to the public of accurate trade statistics enables many useful analyses including, for example,
the identification of harmful economic practices such as forgery and predatory prices (dumping)~\cite{a_vi_gatt_1994},
market and economic studies for new businesses planning, and
assessment of the impact of governmental policies.
However, utility to society is not the government's only concern when releasing foreign-trade statistics.
In order to foster a fair, free-market environment,
several countries grant companies legal rights to some level of
\textit{fiscal secrecy} about their foreign-trade transactions.
In Brazil, federal legislation requires public disclosure of foreign-trade statistics,\footnote{Item X of Article 92, Decree 9745 of April \nth{8}, 2019 and Article 1, Item XII of the Brazilian Tax and Customs Administration internal regiment (Annex I Ordinance 284 of July \nth{27}, 2020).} but leaves the specific granularity of what is disclosed to each governmental agency's discretion.
On the other hand, Brazilian fiscal secrecy legislation recognizes as
sensitive information ---and therefore worthy of protection---
the values and volumes of goods traded by individual companies.
It also forbids governmental entities from publishing this kind
of information without the usage of disclosure control techniques protecting the identity of the importer in each
transaction.\footnote{Article 198, National Tax Law 5.172, October \nth{25}, 1966.}
In order to balance the utility (to the general public)
of foreign-trade statistics and the
legally required fiscal secrecy (of companies),
Brazilian governmental agencies have (since 2007) been
publishing
datasets of foreign-trade transactions anonymized using techniques such as de-identification, generalization and suppression\footnote{Ordinance SRF 306, March \nth{22} of 2007.} (detailed in Section~\ref{sec:overview-datasets} ahead).
In this paper we describe, formalize, implement, and experimentally evaluate a novel transaction re-identification attack against official
foreign-trade statistics releases in Brazil.
The attack's goal is to re-identify the importers of foreign-trade transactions (by revealing the the identity of the company performing that transaction), which consequently violates those importers’
fiscal secrecy (by revealing sensitive information: the
value and volume of traded goods).
After properly formalizing and implementing our attack, we demonstrate its effectiveness against Brazilian releases of official foreign-trade statistics by performing 2,003 transaction re-identifications that in total amount to over \$100M in value, and affects 348 companies.
It is noteworthy that, although in the past the
methodology for collection and organization of foreign-trade statistics
varied significantly from country to country, nowadays a
standardization provided by the United Nations (UN)~\cite{un_imts_2010} is adopted by many countries, including Brazil.
This means that Brazilian foreign-trade statistics analyzed in this paper are highly compatible with those of other countries, and therefore our
novel attack might also be of concern to those countries.
\subsection{Contributions and plan of the paper}
The main contributions of this paper are the following.
\begin{enumerate}
\item We identify and describe a novel transaction re-identification attack that violates the fiscal secrecy of companies by reconstructing foreign-trade transaction data
from publicly available datasets in the context of Brazil.
Since production of Brazilian foreign-trade statistics follows the UN's standard methodology, our attack may be of concern to other countries as well.
(\Sec{sec:overview}).
\item We provide a mathematical formalization of the fiscal secrecy problem of transaction re-identification using principles from the framework of \emph{quantitative information flow} (QIF)~\cite{ScienceOfQIF},
which has sound information- and decision-theoretic grounds to naturally model an adversary's knowledge, goals, and capabilities, as well as the leakage of information caused by an attack. (\Sec{sec:model}).
\item We carefully identify the main sources of imprecision in the
official foreign-trade statistics used as side-information in our attack, including:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
the splitting of transaction information across various datasets;
\item
the sanitization techniques employed by the Brazilian government in the publishing of these statistics, such as de-identification, generalization, and suppression; and
\item
rounding errors introduced (voluntarily or not) in the data publishing process.
\end{enumerate}
To cope with such sources of uncertainty, we
model transaction re-construction as a linear optimization problem solvable through integer linear programming (ILP), and show that it is NP-complete. We then provide a methodology to identify tractable instances of the problem, as well as to simplify some intractable instances by finding further constraints in order to try to make them tractable (\Sec{sec:implementation}).
\item We exemplify the feasibility of our attack and its algorithmic solution through a concrete case study in which over 2,000 transactions are re-identified and the fiscal secrecy of hundreds of companies are violated in Brazil, using as computational resources only a modest personal computer (\Sec{sec:experiments}).
\end{enumerate}
Finally, in \Sec{sec:related-work} we discuss related work, and in \Sec{sec:conclusion} we present our conclusions and future prospects.
\subsection{Ethical Considerations}
\label{sec:ethical_cons}
The results of this study have already been presented to the relevant government agencies ---the Brazilian Customs and Tax administration---
in order to give them time to act. On December \nth{16} 2021 they removed public access to
one of their main databases, which is sufficient to prevent the type of attack presented here. For ethical reasons we have also chosen not to disclose in this paper other points of access to the data used in the description of our attack. Throughout this text we omit the underlying business direct identifiers and, in particular, we do not provide identifiers for businesses whose privacy is affected by this attack.
On May \nth{4} we contacted the UN Statistical Commission and the Tax and Customs administration of a particular country ---whose name we omit here for precaution\footnote{This country was directly contacted as it is, to our knowledge, the one whose disclosure methodology most closely resembles the Brazilian, and thus for which our attack could be easily adapted.}. Neither had replied to our e-mail by the time we finished this document.
\section{The problem, the datasets, and the attack}\label{sec:overview}
In this section we provide an overview of the problem tackled in this paper and motivate why it is a serious fiscal secrecy matter.
We start with a description of the Brazilian environment for production,
processing, and publication of foreign-trade information.
We then describe the publicly available data used in our attack,
and provide a concrete attack instance used to compromise fiscal secrecy.
Since Brazilian foreign-trade statistics methodology is highly compatible
with that of other countries, the attack we identify may be replicable in
those countries as well.
A proper formalization of the attack ---including its general form--- and
full algorithmic solutions are deferred to Sections~\ref{sec:model} and~\ref{sec:implementation}, respectively.
\subsection{Fiscal secrecy vs.\ societal utility in foreign-trade statistics}\label{overview-trade}
The current legal framework for the collection, treatment, usage,
and publication of individuals' and companies' data by the government
has two conflicting goals.
On one hand, there is an increasing desire for
\textit{Open Government Data}, which ``promotes transparency, accountability and value creation by making government data available to all''.\footnote{\url{https://web.archive.org/web/20201120073847/https://www.oecd.org/gov/digital-government/open-government-data.htm}}
This transparency is extremely useful for civil society to, e. g., follow and evaluate the effectiveness of public policies, or detect
fraud in the use of public money, or even malpractices by ill-intended business.
In this context, it is desirable that the published data have high \textit{utility}, in the sense of being as accurate, detailed, complete, and freely available as possible.
On the other hand, there are various concerns about the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information about individuals or companies, a worry that has sprouted many data protection laws around the globe.\footnote{Notable examples or privacy legislation include the General Data Protection Regulation in the European Union (GDPR 2016/679), the \textit{Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados Pessoais} in Brazil (LGPD 13.709/2018), the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act in Canada (PIPEDA April \nth{13} 2000), and The Data Privacy Act in the Philippines (2012).}
Although these novel protection laws, as well as media and public attention, tend to focus on protecting data about individuals (\textit{privacy}), in this paper we focus on the unwanted disclosure of information about commercial transactions between companies (\textit{fiscal secrecy}).
A recent example of the risks associated with the latter is the case in which the American National Security Agency (NSA) was accused of worldwide industrial espionage and the shock produced by these allegations.\footnote{\url{https://web.archive.org/web/20210417032720if\_/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-security-snowden-germany-idUSBREA0P0DE20140126}}
For a more concrete example of the importance of fiscal secrecy,
consider a small company $A$ that, through its own research and merit,
has established an agreement with a new foreign supplier which has
given $A$ a significant edge on the market.
Now say that $B$, a very large (and ill-intentioned) competitor of $A$,
is interested in finding out $A$'s new supplier to
approach it and either offer it an exclusivity contract (in which the supplier could only sell to $B$), or just start buying all the supplier's capacity in order to starve $A$.
This could lead to $A$ being pushed out of the market and to significant
losses for its owners and employees.
In general, violations of fiscal secrecy can be harmful to the idea of free markets.
Indeed, \textit{symmetric information} is recognized as one the key requirements for a free competitive market~\cite{LofgrenKarl-Gustaf2002MwAI}.
Of course, in real world markets there is no such a thing as
perfectly symmetric information.
Each player will know something different about their market, and that is considered acceptable when such information was acquired through legal methods such as research, qualified personnel, etc. Nonetheless, when the information is acquired illegally it is usually tagged as ``privileged'' or \qm{espionage}, and seen as detrimental in fair free-market competition.
In this context, fiscal secrecy violations ---whereby some companies may
illegally obtain secret information about other companies--- are of concrete concern.
It is thus a challenge for governments to balance the utility (to the general public) of foreign-trade statistics and the fiscal secrecy (of companies).
\subsection{The data release methodology}\label{sec:overview-datasets}
\Fig{fig:reidentification} provides an overview of
the process of production, compilation, sanitization, and publication of foreign-trade statistics in Brazil.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{info_flow_overview_v}
\end{center}
\caption{Overview of the generation of foreign-trade statistics.}\label{fig:reidentification}
\end{figure}
The process begins with each company in the country
producing and submitting
to Siscomex (the Brazilian International Commerce System)\footnote{\url{https://www.gov.br/receitafederal/pt-br/assuntos/aduana-e-comercio-exterior/manuais/despacho-de-importacao/topicos-1/conceitos-e-definicoes/despacho-de-importacao}}
a legally required \emph{Declaration of Imports} (DI)
whenever an import transaction occurs.
The DI contains detailed information about each transaction
performed by the company, including the goods imported, its quantity, from whom, and at what price and date. It is a document analogous to an invoice in the foreign-trade context,
and it clearly states the seller and the importer of each transaction.
Upon receiving all DIs from all over the country,
the government compiles them into a single collection of
foreign-trade transactions.
This raw-data collection is only used internally by the
government, but a sanitized form of it is published after the
application of the following sanitization techniques:
\emph{de-identification}, by which obvious individual identifiers (such as an importer's name) are removed;
\emph{generalization}, by which data is provided in coarser granularity (e. g. when transaction values are grouped by city); and
\emph{suppression}, in which part of the data is removed from the collection.
The goal of these disclosure methods is to break the connection between the goods imported and the companies behind such transactions.
The end result of this process are the 4 datasets described below,
which have been publicly available in the period we conducted this study,
and were updated monthly.
For brevity, only relevant fields from each dataset are included here; full dataset details are provided in Appendix~\ref{sec:sargasso-dataset-structure}. In addition, as explained in \Sec{sec:ethical_cons}, we have chosen not to disclose public access urls for these datasets.
\begin{enumerate}
\item The \dataset{De-identified transactions} dataset (Tbl.~\ref{tab:rfb-fields}) contains detailed records
from the original compilation of all companies'
DIs, with all importer's direct identifiers omitted.\footnote{During our study, and until December \nth{16} 2021,
the Tax and Customs Administration\xspace kept an up-to-date version of the dataset on its website.}
\begin{table}[!htbp]
\centering
\begin{subtable}[b]{\linewidth}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{L{0.28\linewidth}L{0.62\linewidth}}
\textbf{Field} & \textbf{Description}
\\\hline
\texttt{NUMERO DE ORDEM} & Transaction identification number.
\\
\texttt{ANOMES} & Year and month of transaction registry.
\\
\texttt{COD.NCM} & DI header: NCM of imported goods.
\\
\texttt{PAIS DE ORIGEM} & DI header: country of origin.
\\
\texttt{PESO LIQUIDO} & DI header: net weight in kg.
\\
\texttt{VMLE DOLAR} & DI header: FOB value in USD.
\\
\texttt{NAT. INFORMACAO} & DI header: nature of the operation.
\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Relevant fields from the \dataset{De-identified transactions} dataset.}
\label{tab:rfb-fields}
\end{subtable}
\begin{subtable}[b]{\linewidth}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{L{0.28\linewidth}L{0.62\linewidth}
}
\textbf{Field} & \textbf{Description}
\\\hline
\texttt{CNPJ} & Company's registration number.
\\
\texttt{EMPRESA} & Company's name.
\\
\texttt{MUNICÍPIO} & Company's city.
\\
\texttt{UF} & Company's federation state.
\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Relevant fields from the \dataset{Importers} dataset.}
\label{tab:importers-fields}
\end{subtable}
\begin{subtable}[b]{\linewidth}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{L{0.28\linewidth}L{0.62\linewidth}}
\textbf{Field} & \textbf{Description}
\\\hline
\texttt{CO\_ANO} & Year of registry.
\\
\texttt{CO\_MES} & Month of registry.
\\
\texttt{SH4} & Imported goods' SH4
code.
\\
\texttt{CO\_PAIS} & Imported goods' country
of origin.
\\
\texttt{SG\_UF\_MUN} & Importer's federation
state.
\\
\texttt{CO\_MUN} & Importer's city.
\\
\texttt{KG\_LIQUIDO} & Imported goods' total
net weight in kg.
\\
\texttt{VL\_FOB} & Imported goods' total
value in USD.
\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Relevant fields from the \dataset{Summary by city} dataset.}
\label{tab:hs4-city-fields}
\end{subtable}
\begin{subtable}[b]{\linewidth}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{L{0.28\linewidth}L{0.62\linewidth}}
\textbf{Field} & \textbf{Description}
\\\hline
\texttt{CO\_ANO} & Year of registry.
\\
\texttt{CO\_MES} & Month of registry.
\\
\texttt{CO\_NCM} & Imported goods NCM
code number.
\\
\texttt{CO\_PAIS} & Imported goods' country
of origin.
\\
\texttt{SG\_UF\_NCM} & Importer' federation state.
\\
\texttt{KG\_LIQUIDO} & Imported goods' total net weight in kg.
\\
\texttt{VL\_FOB} & Imported goods' total value in USD.
\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Relevant fields from the \textsc{Summary by state}\xspace dataset.}
\label{tab:ncm-uf-fields}
\end{subtable}
\caption{Relevant fields of published datasets, whose full descriptions can be found in Appendix~\ref{sec:sargasso-dataset-structure}.}
\label{tab:published-datasets}
\end{table}
\item The \dataset{Importers} dataset (Tbl.~\ref{tab:importers-fields}) contains data about businesses that have conducted at least one import operation in the current year. New businesses were added to the list each month, so
anyone with access to the dataset could pinpoint the exact month in which a given importer started importing by tracking the additions made to the list.
\item The \dataset{Summary by city} dataset (Tbl.~\ref{tab:hs4-city-fields})
contains data of transactions' value and weight aggregated by city.
\item The \textsc{Summary by state}\xspace dataset,
(Tbl.~\ref{tab:ncm-uf-fields})
contains aggregated data for value, weight, freight, insurance and quantity of transactions, grouped by states.
This dataset contains the official figures of foreign commerce
for the National Accounting System, which are used to calculate the Brazilian GDP~\cite{NotaTecnicaSecex}.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Overview of the attack, and the correlations it exploits}
The crucial challenge in our transaction re-identification attack is how to reconstruct a row of the original raw-data dataset from the publicly released, sanitized datasets described in the previous section.
Clearly, from the reconstructed transaction row the adversary immediately
recovers the transaction's importer and its sensitive values.
The attack exploits the following correlations among the datasets published by the government.
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{NCM fields.}
The fields \texttt{COD.NCM} in \textsc{De-identified transactions}\xspace, \texttt{SH4} in \textsc{Summary by city}\xspace and \texttt{CO\_NCM} in \textsc{Summary by state}\xspace are all related to the \emph{Common Mercosur Nomenclature} (NCM), which is a regional product categorization system used in the Mercosur Economic Region since 1995.\footnote{\url{https://receita.economia.gov.br/orientacao/aduaneira/classificacao-fiscal-de-mercadorias/ncm}}
It was derived from (and is highly compatible with) the \emph{Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System} (HS), which was designed and is maintained by the World Customs Organization.\footnote{\url{http://www.wcoomd.org/en/topics/nomenclature/overview/what-is-the-harmonized-system.aspx}} NCM codes are 8-digits long and follow a hierarchical organization. Eg., the NCM code 08051000 identifies \textit{Fresh oranges}. Its first four digits, 0805, represent the hierarchical level labeled SH4
\textit{Citrus fruit, fresh or dried}. Whenever a NCM code appears in \textsc{De-identified transactions}\xspace, it also appears in \textsc{Summary by state}\xspace, and its SH4 appears in \textsc{Summary by city}\xspace.
\item \textbf{Final destination fields.}
The fields \texttt{MUNICÍPIO} in \textsc{Importers}\xspace, \texttt{CO\_MUN} in \textsc{Summary by city}\xspace and \texttt{CO\_URF} in \textsc{Summary by state}\xspace are all related to the importer's official address. The first two fields refer to the importer's city, and the last refers to the importer's state. Whenever a city appears in \textsc{Summary by city}\xspace, it also appears in \textsc{Importers}\xspace, and its state appears in \textsc{Summary by state}\xspace.
\item \textbf{Country of origin fields.}
The fields \texttt{PAIS DE ORIGEM} in \textsc{De-identified transactions}\xspace and \texttt{CO\_PAIS} in both \textsc{Summary by city}\xspace and \textsc{Summary by state}\xspace are all related to the country of origin of the imported goods. If a country appears in \textsc{De-identified transactions}\xspace, it also appears in \textsc{Summary by city}\xspace and in \textsc{Summary by state}\xspace.
\end{itemize}
In the absence of any anonymization technique, the
solution to the problem of reconstructing transaction rows from the
public datasets could be obtained via a system
of linear equations, whose variables would be the quantities
(values and weights) in each transaction, whose constraints would be the summary statistics, and whose solution space would be defined by the whole set of transactions.
Even in this simpler situation, however, it would still be possible that
multiple solutions existed, ie., multiple mappings of transactions to importers that satisfied all constraints.
But since anonymization techniques such as suppression and generalization are employed on the published data, further uncertainty
is added to the problem, increasing the number of possible solutions.
For the reasons above, we model transaction reconstruction as a
linear optimization problem solvable through integer linear programming.
In Sec.~\ref{sec:model} we formalize the attack,
and in Sec.~\ref{sec:implementation} we detail its algorithmic
solution, including
how we cope with further uncertainties introduced by imperfect data.
Before that, however, we present a concrete motivating example of
our attack.
\subsection{A motivating example}\label{sec:overview-example}
Here we provide a concrete instance of
our transaction re-identification attack.
which is formalized in Sec.~\ref{sec:model}.
In this attack, depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:attack-flow},
an adversary with very limited prior knowledge applies
integer programming techniques (the \texttt{ATTACK ALGORITHM} detailed in Sec.~\ref{sec:implementation}) to publicly available
data.
Her goal is to reconstruct the link between a transaction chosen
as target in
the \dataset{De-identified transactions} dataset and a company in the \dataset{Importers} dataset, effectively re-identifying the target transaction's importer and inferring its sensitive attributes (value and volume).
In our concrete example we describe how the adversary
is able to re-identify the importer of a real transaction
valued at $\sim${\$3400} USD, performed in January 2021. For ethical reasons, we omit the importer's identity.
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{attack_algorithm}
\caption{Phases and steps of the attack algorithm.}
\label{fig:attack-flow}
\end{figure*}
\textbf{Before the attack.}
The adversary starts with access to only the publicly available \dataset{De-identified transactions} and \dataset{Importers} datasets (Tbls.~\ref{tab:rfb-fields} and~\ref{tab:importers-fields}, respectively).
She picks as her target for re-identification the
transaction
specified in Tbl.~\ref{tab:example-specific-target}, which
we refer to by its identifying \texttt{NR ORDEM}: 10653400001.
\begin{table}[!htbp]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ll}
\textbf{NR ORDEM} & 10653400001 \\
\textbf{Description} &
Cotton T-400 [...] Metros:1.013,70(09 rolos) \\
\textbf{Quantity} & 420.69 kg \\
\textbf{Value (USD)} & 3,388.41 \\
\textbf{NCM} & 52083900 \\
\textbf{Origin} & China \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Target transaction for re-identification.}
\label{tab:example-specific-target}
\end{table}
Although real-world adversaries typically have some common knowledge
about foreign trade (eg., they know that a clothing manufacturer is more likely to buy 400 kg of cotton cloth than a toy store is),
here we are conservative and assume a very modest
adversary who lacks any such common knowledge.
She just assumes,
a priori, that every company is equally likely to be the
importer of any given transaction.
This means that our adversary's best strategy to re-identify
the target transaction before the attack is performed
is just to blindly guess which company among the ${18,430}$
present in the \dataset{Importers} dataset is the actual importer. Therefore, the adversary's probability of a successful
transaction re-identification at this point is $\nicefrac{1}{18,430} \approx 0.005\%$.
\textbf{Attack execution.}
During the attack the adversary gains access to the \dataset{Summary by city} and \dataset{Summary by state}
datasets, and uses them as auxiliary information to re-identify the target transaction's importer.
She breaks her task into two parts as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item First, she tries to infer the city of the target transaction.
This is done by using \textsc{Summary by city}\xspace in Phase 1
to try to link the target transaction directly to a city.
If that direct step is computationally intractable (as
we shall see in \Sec{sec:implementation}, the \texttt{PACKAGE ALLOCATION} algorithm used to link datasets is exponential), the adversary tries to find further constraints to simplify the problem.
For that, she uses \textsc{Summary by city}\xspace in conjunction with \textsc{Summary by state}\xspace in Phase 2 to try to first link the target transaction to a state, and only then she moves to Phase 3 and tries to link the target transaction to a city, given that the state is already known.
\item Second, if the adversary has successfully linked the target transaction to only one city, she guesses as the importer a company based on that city, found by querying the \textsc{Importers}\xspace dataset.
\end{itemize}
We now describe the attack phases in more detail.
\textbf{Attack Phase 1: Trying to link the target transaction directly to a city.}
To try to directly link the target transaction (from \Table{tab:example-specific-target}) to its city
of occurrence, the adversary will perform two steps:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Filter \textsc{Summary by city}\xspace and \textsc{De-identified transactions}\xspace by SH4 = 5208 and country of origin = China (same parameters as target transaction). This yields 19 cities and 99 transactions.
\item Try to run the \texttt{PACKAGE ALLOCATION} algorithm to link the target transaction to one of the cities.
\end{enumerate}
Step 1 already reduces the number of possible importers from over 18,000 to fewer than 5,000 (just the ones linked to those 19 cities). However, for our computationally bounded adversary, Step 2 is intractable. Therefore she proceeds to Phase 2.
\textbf{Attack Phase 2: Reducing the instance's size by first trying to link the target transaction to a state.}
Here the adversary tries to link the target transaction to its state as an intermediate step for finding the transaction's city. This is also done in two steps:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Filter \textsc{Summary by state}\xspace and \textsc{De-identified transactions}\xspace by NCM = 52083900 and country of origin = China (same parameters as target transaction). The results of these queries are show in Tbls.~\ref{tab:example-possible-states} and \ref{tab:example-all-transactions} respectively.
\item Try to run the \texttt{PACKAGE ALLOCATION} algorithm to link the target transaction to one of the states.
\end{enumerate}
The key idea behind this linkage algorithm is that the adversary knows that there must exist at least one valid partition of these transactions among states that produces the same sums observed in \Table{tab:example-possible-states}.
(Notice that the totals on both tables are the same, ignoring the decimal places; we shall discuss rounding errors in \Sec{sec:implementation-rounding}).
\begin{table}[!htbp]
\centering
\begin{subtable}[b]{\linewidth}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{rrr}
\textbf{NR ORDEM} & \textbf{Value USD} & \textbf{kg} \\ \hline
\underline{10653400001} &3,388.41 &420.69 \\
08986300003 & 111.91 & 23.1 \\
02113100001 & 1,116.52 & 242.86 \\
05566500003 & 19,856.21 & 4,055 \\
12343400002 & 20,216.8 & 2,091.3 \\
12319800004 & 1,346.64 & 136 \\
12634700012 & 7,698.19 & 918.25 \\
02898100002 & 57,194.45 & 14,986 \\
13460400002 & 13,434.69 & 2,420 \\
11554100002 & 2,400.31 & 182 \\
11722800003 & 9,064.28 & 1,644 \\
11717600002 & 22,297.1 & 1,850 \\
11722600002 & 7,024.53 & 1,265 \\
10652800002 & 3,618.88 & 425.34 \\
\textbf{Total} &\textbf{168,768.92} &\textbf{30,659.54} \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Transactions in \textsc{De-identified transactions}\xspace which are in the same NCM and country of origin as selected target-transaction.}
\label{tab:example-all-transactions}
\end{subtable}
\begin{subtable}[b]{\linewidth}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lrr}
\textbf{State} & \textbf{Value (USD)} & \textbf{Weight (kg)} \\ \hline
CEARA &19,856 &4,055 \\
ESPIRITO SANTO &112,762 &22,483 \\
MINAS GERAIS &27,224 &2,937 \\
SANTA CATARINA &8,815 &1,161 \\
SAO PAULO &112 &23 \\
\textbf{Total} &\textbf{168,769} &\textbf{30,659} \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{States in the \textsc{Summary by state}\xspace dataset which are compatible with the selected target-transaction.}
\label{tab:example-possible-states}
\end{subtable}
\caption{Intermediate results used in the motivating example.}
\label{fig:example-tables}
\end{table}
If there is just one possible partition, or if in all possible partitions the target package would only fit in one destination, then
the adversary can be sure that she has correctly identified
the target transaction's destination state, and can proceed to Phase~3.
Otherwise, the adversary will have more than one state and many companies left as possible importers, and she just makes a blind guess among those to infer the correct one.
In the latter case, the adversary will not be absolutely certain of a
correct re-identification, but can still have some probabilistic confidence
in the result.
\textbf{The algorithm.}
The algorithm used to find these valid partitions
that link a transaction to its city/state employs integer programming techniques,
and is fully explained in Sec.~\ref{sec:implementation}.
Here we provide an overview of it in the context of our motivating example.
For this algorithm, the records from
\textsc{De-identified transactions}\xspace (\Table{tab:example-all-transactions})
are represented as ``packages'', as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:packages}.
Each package is represented by a rectangle whose
width and height are the transaction's value and weight, respectively.
The totals by state from \textsc{Summary by state}\xspace
(\Table{tab:example-possible-states}) are represented
as target coordinates in the plane, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:bins}.
The $x$ coordinate of these targets is positioned at the total value per state, and the $y$ coordinate is at the total weight per state.
\begin{figure*}[!htbp]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.24\linewidth}
\centering
\begin{scriptsize}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.7]
\filldraw[fill=Green] (0,0) rectangle (0.338841, 0.42069)
node[below, at start] {10653400001};
\draw [|-|] (0, 0.7) -- (0.338841, 0.7)
node[sloped,above,midway] {3,388.41 USD};
\draw [|-|] (0.6, 0.42069) -- (0.6, 0)
node[right, midway] {420.69 kg};
\end{tikzpicture}
\vspace{2mm}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.7]
\filldraw[fill=gray!20] rectangle (2.02168, 2.0913)
node[midway, align=center] {123434\\00002};
\draw [|-|] (0, 2.4) -- (2.02168, 2.4)
node[sloped,above,midway] {20,216 USD};
\draw [|-|] (2.3, 2.0913) -- (2.3, 0)
node[sloped,above,midway] {2,091.3 kg};
\end{tikzpicture}
\vspace{2mm}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.7]
\filldraw[fill=gray!20] (0,0) rectangle (0.361888, 0.42534)
node[below, at start] {10652800002};
\draw [|-|] (0, 0.7) -- (0.361888, 0.7)
node[sloped,above,midway] {3,618.88 USD};
\draw [|-|] (0.7, 0.42534) -- (0.7, 0)
node[right, midway] {425.34 kg};
\end{tikzpicture}
\vspace{2mm}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.7]
\filldraw[fill=gray!20] (0,0) rectangle (1.985621, 4.055)
node[midway, align=center] {055665\\00003};
\draw [|-|] (0, 4.3) -- (1.985621, 4.3)
node[sloped,above,midway] {19,856.21 USD};
\draw [|-|] (2.3, 4.055) -- (2.3, 0)
node[sloped,above,midway] {4,055 kg};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{scriptsize}
\caption{Representation of de-identified transactions. The green one is the adversary's target.}
\label{fig:packages}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.24\linewidth}
\centering
\begin{scriptsize}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.7]
\draw[->] (-0.1, 0) -- (3, 0) coordinate (x axis);
\draw[->] (0, -0.1) -- (0, 3.2) coordinate (y axis);
\filldraw (2.7224, 2.937) circle (2pt) node(a) {};
\draw[dashed] (a) -- (a |- x axis);
\draw[dashed] (a) -- (y axis |- a);
\node[below] at (a |- x axis) {27,224 USD};
\node[left] at (y axis |- a) {\rotatebox{90}{2,937 kg}};
\node[above,align=left] at (a) {MINAS\\GERAIS};
\end{tikzpicture}
\vspace{2mm}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.7]
\draw[->] (-0.1, 0) -- (2.1, 0) coordinate (x axis);
\draw[->] (0, -0.1) -- (0, 4.3) coordinate (y axis);
\filldraw (1.9856, 4.055) circle (2pt) node(a) {};
\draw[dashed] (a) -- (a |- x axis);
\draw[dashed] (a) -- (y axis |- a);
\node[below] at (a |- x axis) {19,856 USD};
\node[left] at (y axis |- a) {\rotatebox{90}{4,055 kg}};
\node[above,align=left] at (a) {CEARA};
\end{tikzpicture}
\vspace{2mm}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.7]
\draw[->] (-0.1, 0) -- (1.1, 0) coordinate (x axis);
\draw[->] (0, -0.1) -- (0, 1.3) coordinate (y axis);
\filldraw (0.8815, 1.161) circle (2pt) node(a) {};
\draw[dashed] (a) -- (a |- x axis);
\draw[dashed] (a) -- (y axis |- a);
\node[below] at (a |- x axis) {8,815 USD};
\node[left] at (y axis |- a) {\rotatebox{90}{1,161 kg}};
\node[above,align=left,right] at (a) {SANTA\\CATARINA};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{scriptsize}
\caption{Representation of summaries by states.}
\label{fig:bins}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.24\linewidth}
\centering
\begin{scriptsize}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.7]
\filldraw[fill=Green] (0,0) rectangle (0.338841, 0.42069);
\filldraw[fill=gray!20] (0.338841, 0.42069) rectangle (2.360521, 2.51199)
node[midway,align=center] {123434\\00002};
\filldraw[fill=gray!20] (2.360521, 2.51199) rectangle (2.722409, 2.93733);
\draw[->] (-0.1, 0) -- (3, 0) coordinate (x axis);
\draw[->] (0, -0.1) -- (0, 3.2) coordinate (y axis);
\filldraw (2.7224, 2.937) circle (2pt) node(a) {};
\draw[dashed] (a) -- (a |- x axis);
\draw[dashed] (a) -- (y axis |- a);
\node[below] at (a |- x axis) {27,224 USD};
\node[left] at (y axis |- a) {\rotatebox{90}{2,937 kg}};
\node[above,align=left] at (a) {MINAS\\GERAIS};
\end{tikzpicture}
\vspace{2mm}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.7]
\filldraw[fill=gray!20] (0,0) rectangle (1.985621, 4.055)
node[midway, align=center] {055665\\00003};
\draw[->] (-0.1, 0) -- (2.1, 0) coordinate (x axis);
\draw[->] (0, -0.1) -- (0, 4.3) coordinate (y axis);
\filldraw (1.9856, 4.055) circle (2pt) node(a) {};
\draw[dashed] (a) -- (a |- x axis);
\draw[dashed] (a) -- (y axis |- a);
\node[below] at (a |- x axis) {19,856 USD};
\node[left] at (y axis |- a) {\rotatebox{90}{4,055 kg}};
\node[above,align=left] at (a) {CEARA};
\end{tikzpicture}
\vspace{2mm}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.7]
\filldraw[fill=gray!20] (0,0) rectangle (0.769819, 0.91825);
\filldraw[fill=gray!20] (0.769819, 0.91825) rectangle (0.881471, 1.16111);
\draw[->] (-0.1, 0) -- (1.1, 0) coordinate (x axis);
\draw[->] (0, -0.1) -- (0, 1.3) coordinate (y axis);
\filldraw (0.8815, 1.161) circle (2pt) node(a) {};
\draw[dashed] (a) -- (a |- x axis);
\draw[dashed] (a) -- (y axis |- a);
\node[below] at (a |- x axis) {8,815 USD};
\node[left] at (y axis |- a) {\rotatebox{90}{1,161 kg}};
\node[above,align=left,right] at (a) {SANTA\\CATARINA};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{scriptsize}
\caption{Representation of a valid solution.}
\label{fig:example-valid-solution}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.24\linewidth}
\centering
\begin{scriptsize}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.7]
\filldraw[fill=Green] (0,0) rectangle (0.338841, 0.42069);
\filldraw[fill=gray!20] (0.338841, 0.42069) rectangle (2.324462, 4.447569)
node[midway,align=center] {055665\\00003};
\draw[->] (-0.1, 0) -- (3, 0) coordinate (x axis);
\draw[->] (0, -0.1) -- (0, 3.2) coordinate (y axis);
\filldraw (2.7224, 2.937) circle (2pt) node(a) {};
\draw[dashed] (a) -- (a |- x axis);
\draw[dashed] (a) -- (y axis |- a);
\node[below] at (a |- x axis) {27,224 USD};
\node[left] at (y axis |- a) {\rotatebox{90}{2,937 kg}};
\node[above,right,align=left] at (a) {MINAS\\GERAIS};
\end{tikzpicture}
\vspace{2mm}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.7]
\filldraw[fill=Green] (0,0) rectangle (0.338841, 0.42069);
\filldraw[fill=gray!20] (0.338841, 0.42069) rectangle (2.324462, 4.47569)
node[midway, align=center] {055665\\00003};
\draw[->] (-0.1, 0) -- (2.1, 0) coordinate (x axis);
\draw[->] (0, -0.1) -- (0, 4.3) coordinate (y axis);
\filldraw (1.9856, 4.055) circle (2pt) node(a) {};
\draw[dashed] (a) -- (a |- x axis);
\draw[dashed] (a) -- (y axis |- a);
\node[below] at (a |- x axis) {19,856 USD};
\node[left] at (y axis |- a) {\rotatebox{90}{4,055 kg}};
\node[above,align=left] at (2.324462, 4.47569) {CEARA};
\end{tikzpicture}
\vspace{2mm}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.7]
\filldraw[fill=gray!20] (0,0) rectangle (0.769819, 0.91825);
\filldraw[fill=Green] (0.769819, 0.91825) rectangle (1.10866, 1.33894);
\draw[->] (-0.1, 0) -- (1.1, 0) coordinate (x axis);
\draw[->] (0, -0.1) -- (0, 1.3) coordinate (y axis);
\filldraw (0.8815, 1.161) circle (2pt) node(a) {};
\draw[dashed] (a) -- (a |- x axis);
\draw[dashed] (a) -- (y axis |- a);
\node[below] at (a |- x axis) {8,815 USD};
\node[left] at (y axis |- a) {\rotatebox{90}{1,161 kg}};
\node[right,align=left] at (1.10866, 1.33894) {SANTA\\CATARINA};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{scriptsize}
\caption{Representation of an invalid solution.}
\centering
\label{fig:example-invalid-solution}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Graphical representation of the package-allocation algorithm for Phase 2 of the attack, linking transactions to states.}
\label{fig:algorithm-packages}
\end{figure*}
From this setup, the adversary tries to fit all the ``packages'' to the planes without violating the boundaries represented by the dashed lines.
The packages must be stacked by their corners as shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:example-valid-solution} and \ref{fig:example-invalid-solution}.
This arrangement guarantees that in a valid solution the sum of packages' values will be equal to the total observed in the state represented by the corner point.
Figs.~\ref{fig:example-valid-solution} and \ref{fig:example-invalid-solution} depict valid and invalid solutions, respectively.
It is easy to see that in the valid one, the sums of the packages with \texttt{NO\_ORDEM} 12343400002, 10653400001 and 10652800002 match the total values of
the state of MINAS GERAIS, whereas the package with
\texttt{NO\_ORDEM} 05566500003 alone matches the totals of the state of CEARA.
If, however, we swap the packages with \texttt{NO\_ORDEM} 12343400002 and
05566500003, we no longer have a valid solution for either state.
Moreover, it is possible to test if there is any other valid allocation in which the package with \texttt{NO\_ORDEM} 10653400001 is placed in a state other than MINAS GERAIS.
In fact, for this example there is not.
This is conclusive evidence that this package must have been purchased by a company based in MINAS GERAIS.
With that, the adversary has successfully linked the target transaction to a single state, and she can move on to the next phase of the attack.
\textbf{Attack Phase 3: Trying to link the target transaction to a city once the state is known.}
Now that the adversary knows that the target transaction was made by a company based in MINAS GERAIS she can return to a similar problem to the one she faced in Phase 1. Before knowing the state there were too many possible solutions and the problem was intractable. But by incorporating restrictions found in Phase 3, she is able to reduce the number of possible allocations and (potentially) make the problem tractable. The algorithm used to solve this new, reduced instance is the same as the one explained for the case of the states. If this reduced instance of the problem is tractable, the adversary may link the target transaction to a specific city.
In our example, the adversary is able to identify the city of OURO BRANCO, in the state of MINAS GERAIS, as the location of the target transaction.
\textbf{After match: Inferring importer from city.}
After the city in which the transactions have occurred has been identified, the adversary proceeds to infer which company based on that city may be the importer.
In our example, a simple inspection of the \dataset{Importers} dataset
reveals to the adversary that there is only one company in the city of OURO BRANCO, which leads to an immediate re-identification of the importer.
(For ethical reasons, we omit the affected company's name.)
Hence, in our example the adversary has a high confidence that she achieved a deterministic re-identification.
This leads to the inference of the following sensitive
information:
(i) the importer purchased 420.69 kg of a specific type of cotton cloth; and
(ii) that purchase cost 3,388.41 USD, so the average price is approximately 8.06 USD/ton.
In our view, this is a clear violation of the importer's
fiscal secrecy within Brazilian legal framework.\footnote{Article 198 of the National Tax Law 5.172, October \nth{25} of 1966 and Article \nth{8} of Ordinance 7,017 of March \nth{11} of 2020.}
In the following sections we formalize the general version of this
attack, and explain how to compute its overall leakage of secret fiscal information.
\section{Attack model}\label{sec:model}
We now formalize our model, generalizing from the previous section's example, using principles from \emph{quantitative information flow} (QIF)~\cite{ScienceOfQIF},
which has sound information- and decision-theoretic grounds to model an adversary's knowledge, goals, and capabilities, as well as the
leakage of information caused by an attack. This formalism is helpful for 1) measuring the attack effectiveness and reach and 2) to provide a baseline that future works can use to compare different defensive strategies against this attack.
\subsection{Channels, secrets and adversaries}
Using QIF we model adversaries who employ \emph{Bayesian inference} on
data release mechanisms modelled as noisy information-theoretic channels. The adversary updates her prior knowledge about sensitive values or ``secrets'' using Bayes' rule, thereby inducing a measure of ``channel leakage'', which incorporates the difference between her prior and posterior knowledge as well as her goals. We now make these ideas more precise.
A \emph{secret} models the information sought by the adversary; the set of possible secrets is denoted by $\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}$.
A \emph{prior} models the adversary's prior knowledge about the secrets (ie., before the attack is even performed), which can come from various sources, including other datasets, media,
or simply common-sense about foreign trade.
Prior knowledge is formalized as a probability distribution on possible
secret values denoted $\pi \in \mathbb{D}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}$.
(Here, $\mathbb{D}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}$ is the set of probability distributions over the elements of set $\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}$.)
A \emph{channel} $C$ takes inputs (secrets) $x \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}$ and produces an observation $y \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}$ according to some distribution in $\mathbb{D}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}}$. When $\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}$ and $\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}$ are discrete we write $C$ as a matrix whose element $C_{x,y}$ is the probability of producing $y \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}$ when the input is $x \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}$. Rows in $C$ are distributions over $\ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}$ and hence are 1-summing; if $C$ is deterministic then every entry in $C$ is $0$ or $1$, with each row containing exactly one value $1$.
Under the \emph{g-leakage} framework~\cite{ScienceOfQIF}, the adversary's goal is modelled with a \emph{gain function}, and her strategy is to maximize her expected gain using her knowledge of the channel. In this work we adopt the ``Bayes vulnerability'' gain function which simply models an adversary whose goal is to guess the secret in a single attempt. We describe the attack in terms of the secret's ``vulnerability'' with respect to the adversary in question.
Given the adversary's prior $\pi \in \mathbb{D}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}}$, the prior vulnerability of the secret is given by
\[
V_{1}(\pi) ~=~ \max\limits_{x \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}} \pi(x) ~,
\]
and it measures how likely it is that the adversary can correctly guess the secret value in one try.
Given access to the channel $C$, the posterior vulnerability (i. e., after the attack is performed) can be computed as\footnote{ See ~\cite[Ch 5 Thm 5.15]{ScienceOfQIF} for details.}
\[
V_{1}(\pi, C) ~=~ \sum\limits_{y \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{Y}}} \max\limits_{x \in \ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}} \pi(x){\times}C_{x,y} ~,
\]
and it represents the expected probability of the adversary's
correctly inferring the secret value in a single attempt after having observed
the output of the channel.
Finally, we can compute the leakage of the channel (multiplicatively) by computing how much the channel increases the adversary's success, as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:bayesleak}
\call_{1}(\pi,C) ~=~ \frac{V_{1}(\pi,C)}{V_{1}(\pi)}~.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Modelling the reconstruction}
In our scenario, the adversary's goal is to identify the company behind a transaction chosen as the target, using the information from the data release. We model the \emph{secrets} $\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}$ as the set of possible importers and the adversary's \emph{prior} as uniform on $\ensuremath{\mathcal{X}}$. That is, we assume a fairly weak adversary who lacks any common knowledge on trade transactions.
We model the data release mechanism \emph{for the target transaction}~\footnote{We would model the entire data release as a channel if the adversary's goal was to learn information about \emph{any} transaction.} as a channel~\footnote{In fact what this encodes is the \emph{correlation}, which is a joint distribution, but this can be factorized into a channel by taking appropriate marginals.} which maps importers (secrets) to cities (observations).
Before the attack, the channel is ``noisy'' from the adversary's perspective, as she lacks precise information about the correlation between the target transaction and the city of import. The attack's goal is to reconstruct (more precisely) this correlation, and therefore to improve her likelihood of guessing the correct importer, by exploiting the information released in the \textsc{Summary by city}\xspace and \textsc{Summary by state}\xspace datasets.
\subsection{Measuring the leakage of information caused by the attack}
We now return to the example of \Sec{sec:overview-example} to describe how the channel is constructed and to examine the overall leakage caused by the attack, which is quantified by comparing the
adversary's measure of success before and after the attack was
conducted, as per Eqn~(\ref{eq:bayesleak}).
\Table{tab:chance_of_success_by_phase} presents the adversary's probability
of correctly re-identifying the importer of the target transaction (10653400001) at each phase of the attack.
Before the attack, this probability is uniform over all importers, and thus the prior vulnerability is simply $\nicefrac{1}{18,430}$, as our
ill-informed adversary could only perform a blind guess over the all equally likely $18,430$ importers.
At this point the \emph{channel} representing the data release has as its inputs all $18,430$ importers and as its outputs all possible cities.
At the end of Phase 1, after having access to the \textsc{Summary by city}\xspace, the adversary knows that the target transaction could have gone to one of the 19 cities that imported from China in the SH4 5208.
This reduces the number of possible importers from the initial 18,430 to 4,923. In our channel model, this has the effect of updating the adversary's \emph{prior} to become uniform over the remaining $4,923$ importers (eliminating the remainder options). The (posterior) vulnerability after this update is $\sum_{x} \pi(x) C_{x,y} = \nicefrac{1}{4,923}$. The information leakage caused by this phase of the attack is
$\call_{1}(\pi,C) = \nicefrac{(\nicefrac{1}{4,923})}{(\nicefrac{1}{18,430})} \approx 3.7$,
which means that the adversary's probability of correctly re-identifying the target transaction's importer has increased by a factor of $3.7$ when compared to before the attack.
At the end of Phase 2, the adversary knows that the transaction went to one of the 3 cities of the state of MINAS GERAIS that imported in the SH4 from China. The \textsc{Importers}\xspace dataset shows that BELO HORIZONTE has 276 registered importers, EXTREMA has 49, and OURO BRANCO has 1. This reduces the number of possible importers from 4,923 to 326. As before, the posterior vulnerability increases to $\nicefrac{1}{326}$, and the information leakage caused by this phase is $\nicefrac{(\nicefrac{1}{326})}{(\nicefrac{1}{4,923})} \approx 15$.
Finally, at the end of Phase 3, the adversary knows that the transaction went to the city of OURO BRANCO, which has only one registered importer. Thus the posterior vulnerability is now $1$ (i. e. the adversary's probability of guessing the importer is $1$) and the leakage caused by the final phase is $326$.
\begin{table}[!htbp]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{
l
c
}
\textbf{Phase} & \textbf{Probability of correct re-identification}
\\
\hline
Prior & $\nicefrac{1}{18,430} = 0.005\%$
\\
Phase 1 & $\nicefrac{1}{4,923} = 0.02\%$
\\
Phase 2 & $\nicefrac{1}{326} = 0.3\%$
\\
Phase 3 & $\nicefrac{1}{1} = 100\%$
\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Measure of the adversary's success by phase. Notice that by the end of Phase 1 the adversary's probability of correct re-identification
increases by a factor $3.7$ over the prior.
At the end of Phase 3, the increase factor is of $326$
over the previous phase, and of $18,430$ over the prior.}
\label{tab:chance_of_success_by_phase}
\end{table}
\section{The attack algorithm}\label{sec:implementation}
In this section we introduce the mathematical modelling of the task of placing transactions (packages) into cities or states (bins) as an integer linear program (ILP). In this setting, we aim to introduce variables whose $1$ or $0$ value, after the execution of the algorithm, will indicate whether a package is or is not placed in a bin. The motivation to recourse to this framework is twofold.
First, a brute force attack that attempts to test all possible allocations and verify whether they satisfy validity constraints given by value and weight is intractable under current computational resources even for small examples. For instance, the example described in \Sec{sec:overview-example} yields more than six billion ways of distributing 14 transactions in 5 states.
In general, if one iterates over all possible allocations of $n$ packages in $m$ possible bins, this yields $m^n$ possible allocations. A slightly larger instance than the one considered in \Sec{sec:overview-example}, with $n = 40$ and $m = 12$, yields as many as roughly $10^{43}$ possibilities. Clearly, several of these possibilities do not need to be tested as they can be identified as sub-cases of already infeasible allocations. For instance, in Tbls.~\ref{tab:example-possible-states} and \ref{tab:example-all-transactions}, package 02898100002 can only fit in the state of ESPIRITO SANTO, thus all further tested attempts should be made with this allocation set, which eventually leads to the backtracking paradigm for testing exponentially many possibilities.
Upon modelling the problem as an integer linear program, standard techniques to solve such programs, implemented in what is typically referred to as an \textit{ILP solver}, already employ the backtracking paradigm in conjunction with other geometric methods, yielding branch-and-bound or branch-and-cut strategies, for example. In principle, a suitable backtracking implementation should be marginally faster \textit{if an exact allocation exists}.
However, this may come at the cost of being much less flexible to modifications later observed in the data, and also of being harder to implement.
The second reason why we argue the ILP formulation is more suited than brute force, or the more sophisticated backtracking methods, is that the data typically does not allow for an exact allocation. As errors can be introduced in the data either involuntarily or by design (suppressing decimals, for instance), one should not expect the values in \Table{tab:example-all-transactions} to sum up exactly to the ones seen in \Table{tab:example-possible-states}, for example. Therefore one will typically wish to find an allocation that minimizes error --- as it happens, the branch-and-bound method to solve ILPs is essentially backtracking applied when a target linear function needs to be minimized.
Finally, note that it could still be the case that a clever approach could find a package allocation more quickly, upon exploring a possible specific combinatorial structure of the problem. We believe that is highly unlikely, however, as we can show that the formal problem underlying our modelling is NP-complete (Thm.~\ref{thm:npcomplete} ahead).
\subsection{Mathematical modelling and complexity}\label{sec:implementation-modelling}
We now mathematically model the problem of allocating transactions (packages) into cities or states (bins). This shall be referred to as the \texttt{PACKAGE ALLOCATION} decision problem, whose instances are as follows. The mathematical formulation shown in \Fig{fig:ilp-formulation} will be helpful for any future replication or expansion of this work, and Theorem~1 is important to base our decision of using ILP and not some other custom tailored algorithm.
\paragraph*{Instance:}
\begin{equation}
\mathfrak{I} = (P, k, w, B, c, \rho, \beta, \varepsilon) \label{eq:instance}
\end{equation}
is the input tuple for the PACKAGE ALLOCATION problem, where:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $P = \{p_1, p_2, ..., p_n\}$ is a set of $n$ packages.
\item $k$ is the number of attributes each package has. In principle, each attribute is a non-negative rational number. In the example shown in \Sec{sec:overview-example} there are two attributes: weight and value.
\item $w : P \to \mathbb{Q}_+^k$ is a function that determines for each package its attribute set. The $i$th attribute of package $p$ will be denoted by $w(p;i)$.
\item $B = \{b_1, b_2, ..., b_m\}$ is a set of $m$ bins.
\item $c : B \to \mathbb{Q}_+^k$ is a function that determines for each bin its capacity for each attribute.
\item $\rho \in P$ is a special, target package.
\item $\beta \in B$ is a special, target bin for the target package.
\item $\varepsilon : B \to \mathbb{Q}_{+}^k$ is a non negative tolerance for each bin and for each attribute.
\end{enumerate}
An instance is a \texttt{YES}-instance if and only if there exists a function $X : P \times B \to \{0,1\}$ (naturally identified with a $|P| \times |B|$ matrix with $0/1$ entries) satisfying:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(a)] For each $p \in P$,
$\sum_{b \in B} X_{pb} = 1$.
(Each package is allocated to exactly one bin).
\item[(b)] For each $i \in \{1,...,k\}$, and for each $b \in B$,
$\sum_{p \in P} X_{pb} w(p;i) \leq c(b;i) + \varepsilon(b;i),$
and
$\sum_{p \in P} X_{pb} w(p;i) \geq c(b;i) - \varepsilon(b;i)$.
(Bins' capacities are filled up to tolerance for all attributes).
\item[(c)] $X_{\rho \beta} = 1$.
(Package $\rho$ is allocated at bin $\beta$).
\end{enumerate}
It is immediate to verify that \texttt{PACKAGE ALLOCATION} is in NP, as any given function $X$ can be verified in time polynomial to the size of the instance. More interestingly, we have the following result.
\begin{restatable}[]{theorem}{thmnpcomplete}
\label{thm:npcomplete}
\texttt{PACKAGE ALLOCATION} is NP-complete.
\end{restatable}
\begin{proof}
An instance of the \texttt{SUBSET SUM} problem is a set of natural numbers $N = \{n_1,...,n_\ell\}$ and a natural number $S$. It is an \texttt{YES}-instance if and only if a subset of $N$ sums to exactly $S$. This problem is well known to be NP-complete (see for instance \cite[Theorem 8.23]{kleinberg2006algorithm}). Given an instance of \texttt{SUBSET SUM} as above, generate $\ell$ instances of \texttt{PACKAGE ALLOCATION}, each of which contains $\ell$ packages (one for each number), only one attribute (the value of the natural number), two bins, one of capacity $S$ and one of capacity $\sum n_i - S$, $\varepsilon \equiv 0$, fixing $\beta$ to be the bin of capacity $S$ and making $\rho$ vary over all packages. It is immediate to verify that an instance of \texttt{SUBSET SUM} is \texttt{YES} if and only if there is at least one package $\rho$ for which the corresponding instance of \texttt{PACKAGE ALLOCATION} is \texttt{YES}. As this is a polynomial reduction, the result follows.
\end{proof}
Since a tailored efficient algorithm is likely nonexistent, we present
in \Fig{fig:ilp-formulation}
an exact integer linear program
formulation. We use Instance \eqref{eq:instance} and allow $M$ to be a large enough number exceeding the sums of attributes.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\noindent\textbf{\texttt{PACKAGE ALLOCATION} ILP formulation:}
\begin{align*}
\text{minimize } & y_1 + ... + y_k. \\
\text{subject to } & \\
(a)\quad & \sum_{b \in B} X_{pb} = 1, \quad \text{for all }p \in P; \\
(b)\quad & \sum_{p \in P} X_{pb} w(p;i) \leq c(b;i) + \varepsilon(b;i) + y_i M, \\ & \qquad \qquad \text{for all }b \in B, i \in [k]; \\
(c)\quad & \sum_{p \in P} X_{pb} w(p;i) \geq c(b;i) - \varepsilon(b;i) - y_i M, \\ & \qquad \qquad \text{for all }b \in B, i \in [k]; \\
(d)\quad & X_{\rho\beta} = 1 \\
(e)\quad & X_{pb} \in \{0,1\}, \quad \text{for all }p \in P, b \in B ;\\
(f)\quad & y_i \in \{0,1\}, \quad \text{for all }i \in [k].
\end{align*}
\caption{Formulation of the \texttt{PACKAGE ALLOCATION} problem in ILP.}
\label{fig:ilp-formulation}
\end{figure}
It is immediate to verify that the optimum solution of the program above is equal to $0$ if and only if the given instance is a \texttt{YES} instance. Moreover, the optimum solution, if not equal to $0$, indicates which bins and attributes had to be violated in a best possible allocation, possibly helping to indicate where inconsistencies
in the data occur, as we discuss in \Sec{sec:implementation-rounding}.
Finally, for the sake of intelligibility, below we discuss a modified model in which only one attribute is considered, rendering the formulation above significantly simpler. In this case, the objective function simply minimizes a real variable $z$, understood to model the maximum bin violation, thus restrictions of type (b) and (c) are replaced, respectively, for
\[
\sum_{p \in P} X_{pb} w(p){\leq} c(b){+}z
\quad \text{and} \quad
\sum_{p \in P} X_{pb} w(p){\geq}c(b){-}z.
\]
In this case, the instance is accepted if and only if the optimum $z$ is below a given threshold, henceforth introduced as $\nu$. One advantage of this model with only one attribute is that, upon removing the constraint for the special package and target bin, the solver will always return a feasible solution. This can be interpreted as a best possible allocation,
and therefore allows for a good measure of the quality of the data. For example, data which has suffered artificial modifications will typically result in best possible allocations with large errors.
The ILP presented above can be readily implemented in any solver, as we discuss in \Sec{sec:experiments}.
\subsection{Exact algorithm}\label{sec:implementation-exact}
In our attack model, we assume the adversary wants to know all the possible cities (or states) where the target transaction ($\rho$) might be placed.
There are two ways to achieve that.
One of them requests the solver to print all feasible solutions whose objective value has achieved a given threshold. Not all solvers will handle this task particularly efficiently.
A second direct approach is as follows. First, request one valid allocation without restricting the bin where the package $\rho$ can be placed, within the overflow tolerance $\nu$.\footnote{The adversary knows that the summary statistics are produced from the microdata, so they can be sure that at least one valid allocation exists.}
After the first iteration, we retrieve the bin $b$ where the package $\rho$ was allocated and add as a restriction that $X_{\rho b} = 0$ for a next run of the \texttt{PACKAGE ALLOCATION} solver routine, thus finding possible new allocations for which package $\rho$ is placed in a different bin. The procedure then loops, adding restrictions until it becomes infeasible. The set $R \subseteq B$ containing the possible bins for the package $\rho$ is returned at the end.
For later reference, we will call this our \texttt{ATTACK ALGORITHM}.
Notice how $R$ contains all mathematically possible bins on which the package $\rho$ would fit. If $\rho$ is to be placed in a bin not present in $R$ that would necessarily create a partition of packages in which at least one of the bins capacity would be greatly overflown (beyond the tolerance). The algorithm's exactness is translated to an assured re-identification given the assumption that \textsc{De-identified transactions}\xspace contains the same transactions used to produce the total shown at \textsc{Summary by city}\xspace and
\textsc{Summary by state}\xspace (which is ensured by the Brazilian government with high degree of certainty \cite{NotaTecnicaSecex}).
\subsection{Dealing with imperfect data}\label{sec:implementation-rounding}
Although the foreign-trade statistics disclosed in the four datasets presented in Sec.~\ref{sec:overview-datasets} derive from the same source, some methodological differences produce divergences in the data.
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{Numeric precision}: The \textsc{De-identified transactions}\xspace reports values with up to 2 decimal places for currency and 5 decimal places for weight. \textsc{Summary by city}\xspace and \textsc{Summary by state}\xspace round all values to integers.
\item \textbf{Data suppression}: The \textsc{De-identified transactions}\xspace does not disclose those NCMs in which less than 4 importers operated, in an attempt to preserve privacy. It is, however, easy to find which NCMs were omitted by observing the differences (in NCMs) between \textsc{De-identified transactions}\xspace and \textsc{Summary by state}\xspace.
\item \textbf{Outliers treatment}: \textsc{Summary by city}\xspace and \textsc{Summary by state}\xspace datasets are intended for statistical purposes and international comparability. Transactions that are caught in internal controls might be discarded from the official publications, and this process is opaque to external scrutiny.
\item \textbf{Transactions inclusion criteria}: On April \nth{7}, 2021 the Ministry of Economy changed its foreign commerce statistics methodology and started including some imports classified as ADMINISTRATIVE or SPECIAL in their reports. The information used for the selection criteria is not present in the datasets~\cite{NotaTecnicaSecex} and we are unaware of publicly available datasets that have this information.
\end{enumerate}
Divergences caused by rounding values are easy to deal with, as our tolerance parameters can be adjusted accordingly. Divergences caused by the data suppression, treatment of outliers, and the different inclusion criteria, however, do have a detrimental effect on our attack algorithm, even though only the data suppression technique has confidentiality as a goal.
Despite the fact that this kind of data manipulation may act as a kind of protection
against database reconstruction attacks,
it was not introduced with the explicit intent of increasing privacy, nor was it applied in a controlled manner.
Importantly, it lacks the formal guarantees of techniques based
on, e. g., differential privacy~\cite{DifferentialPrivacy}, and consequently, as we shall see,
did not meaningfully protect against our attack.
For instance, by grouping the \textsc{De-identified transactions}\xspace, \textsc{Summary by city}\xspace, and \textsc{Summary by state}\xspace datasets by SH4 and NCM codes, and comparing the total USD values we found the following for January/2021:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Using the \textsc{Summary by state}\xspace dataset as the official source, the total imports amount to 15.2 billion USD spread across 7,062 unique NCMs.
\item There is no divergence between the \textsc{Summary by state}\xspace and \textsc{Summary by city}\xspace datasets when they are grouped by SH4, country of origin, and state.
\end{enumerate}
As for differences between the \textsc{De-identified transactions}\xspace and \textsc{Summary by state}\xspace datasets in the month of January/2021, we can highlight:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textsc{De-identified transactions}\xspace suppressed the information of all transactions among 2,277 NCMs. This amounts to 1.5 billion USD (10\% of the total imported in the period of interest).
\item For 1,672 NCMs which amount to 5.3 billion USD (35\% of the total imported)
the differences for values are between 2 and -2 USD. This might be caused just by rounding or small transactions included or excluded by each publisher.
\item For 284 NCMs which amount to 1.8 billion USD (12\% of the total imported)
the totals obtained from \dataset{De-identified transactions} values is greater than or equal to 2 USD, when compared to \dataset{Summary by State}. Those differences might be related to the outliers treatment.
\item For the remaining 1,211 NCMs which amount to 6.4 billion USD (42\% of the total imported)
the totals obtained from \dataset{De-identified transactions} values is lower than or equal to 2 USD. Those differences are mainly related to the inclusion of some ADMINISTRATIVE transactions in the releases.
\end{enumerate}
The different methodologies used pose some challenges to the applicability of the \texttt{ATTACK ALGORITHM}. The main one is that the algorithm operates under the premise that each package must go to exactly one bin. However, as discussed above, there are some cases in which the Ministry of Economy deliberately discards some of the transactions from their summaries. In such cases, if we included those transactions in the algorithm we would end up with an allocation that does not reflect reality. To avoid this kind of problem, we need to
identify the cases in which the Ministry of Economy has discarded some transactions and
either: (i) use the \texttt{ATTACK ALGORITHM} to identify which transactions were discarded before trying to use the same algorithm to track the transaction importer; or (ii) simply not solve these cases because of the extra complexity. In this work, we only considered the second alternative.
Although this second option is simpler, we still need, in both cases, to correctly identify those cases where the Ministry of Economy might have discarded some transactions from the summaries. This task would be trivial if we could model our problem without considering any rounding errors. The challenge therefore lies in how to distinguish divergences caused by discarded transactions from those caused by the rounding methodology.
If the rounding mechanism is unknown,\footnote{We tried 1) rounding the transactions' values to the closest integer, and then summing, and 2) adding up all transactions and rounding the totals. In neither case were we able to replicate the rounding methodology used by the Ministry of Economy.} it is possible to model it as a random error with a uniform distribution. If we are interested only in the differences produced by rounding mechanisms, a function that rounds a number to an integer will produce similar results to adding a small random number to it.
For instance, assume $n$ transactions with rational values $v_i \in \mathbb{Q}$ were reported instead as their nearest integer. We can model those values as $v_i = k_i + \varepsilon_i$, where $k_i$ is an integer and $-0.5 < \varepsilon_i \leq 0.5$. Assuming the decimals in the rational numbers follow a uniform distribution, then so do the variables $\varepsilon_i$. We can therefore write $\sum^{n}{v_i} - \sum^{n}{k_i} = \sum^{n}{\varepsilon_i}$, and the maximum value that $\sum^{n}{\varepsilon_i}$ can assume is $n \times 0.5$. This could be used as a threshold
to distinguish differences due to rounding from those due to transaction exclusion.
Note, however, that this limit
is already too loose. As $n$ grows, it becomes increasingly unlikely for $\sum^{n}{\varepsilon_i}$ to be equal to $n \times 0.5$. In fact by the Central Limit Theorem~\cite{EstatisticaBasica}, the probability that $\sum^{n}{\varepsilon_i} > n \times \nicefrac{2.33}{\sqrt{12n}}$ is lower than 1\%. That is the threshold
we adopted for telling apart which differences in the figures reported were due to rounding and which were due to some exclusion criteria adopted by the Ministry of Economy.
For example, if we have 3 transactions whose original values sum up to 5.7, but the reported sum is 4.5, the actual difference is 1.2, and the threshold
is 1.165. Hence, if our premises are right, there is less than a 1\% chance that this difference is due to just rounding, and the more probable hypothesis is that one of the transactions was not included in the total report. In such cases we did not try to re-identify the transactions.
\section{Experimental evaluation}\label{sec:experiments}
In this section we evaluate how our \texttt{ATTACK ALGORITHM} from
\Sec{sec:implementation-exact} performs in a large-scale
re-identification attack on the \textsc{De-identified transactions}\xspace
dataset from January/2021.
This case study is conducted with the treatment of imperfect data
discussed in \Sec{sec:implementation-rounding}, and the
ILPs from \Sec{sec:implementation-modelling} are used as sub-routines.
\subsection{Experimental set-up and computational cost}\label{sec:experiments-cost}
Our \texttt{ATTACK ALGORITHM} was implemented in Python 3.7
and uses the optimization package Pyomo 6.0.1 (for the solver routine), as well as the Pandas 1.3.1 package.
The solver used was IBM$^\text{\textregistered}$ ILOG$^\text{\textregistered}$ CPLEX$^\text{\textregistered}$ version 12.9.0.0.
The whole experimental evaluation was run in a personal computer Intel$^{\text{\textregistered}}$ Core$^{\text{TM}}$ i7-8550U CPU @ 1.80GHz with 32GB of ram memory.
We set 1 minute as the threshold for considering an instance
solved in reasonable time.
Through all attack phases, 84,698 instances of the problem
were built, and of, those, 69,244 (82\%) were successfully
solved within the time limit.
The remaining 15,454 (18\%) either failed to return a result within the time constraint or were ignored due to the errors produced by the rounding mechanism being over the threshold explained in \Sec{sec:implementation-rounding}. This took in total almost 62 hours of active processing.
\Table{tab:solving_stat} shows that the average solving time (for the instances that were solved) was 1 second. In fact, more than 99\% of the solved instances (around ${68,000}$) were solved in under 28 seconds.
Finally, \Fig{fig:complexity_vs_solving_time} shows how the average solving time (in seconds) increased with the instance complexity (defined here as $\log_{10}{m^{n}}$ where $m$ is the number of bins and $n$ the number of packages in the instance. This value gives a sense of the ILP search space, higher numbers represent bigger search spaces).
\begin{table}[!htbp]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\textbf{Status}&\textbf{Count}&\textbf{Avg. Complexity}&\textbf{Avg. Solving time (s)}
\\ \hline
Unsolved& 15,454 & 136.4 & - \\
Solved & 69,244 & 3.73 & 1.39 \\
Total & 84,698 & 28 & - \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Statistics about solved and non-solved instances. The Avg. complexity is the simple mean of $log_{10}{m^n}$ across all instances.}
\label{tab:solving_stat}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{complexity_vs_solving_time}
\caption{Average solving time by complexity ($\log_{10}{m}^{n}$), where $m$ is the number of bins and $n$ the number of packages.}
\label{fig:complexity_vs_solving_time}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Results and analyses}\label{sec:experiments-results}
After the complete execution of our attack
(i. e., all 3 Phases described in \Sec{sec:overview-example}),
we were able to re-identify with certainty the
importer's city for 138,413 transactions
out of a total of 817,468 in the dataset
(amounting to 6.1 billion dollars, or 40\% of the total value imported in the period of interest).
For 2,003 of such transactions (amounting to 137.3 million dollars, or 0.9\% of the total value imported), there is only one importer in the recovered city. Thus, we were able to learn with high confidence sensitive details of 348 companies (2\% of the total that imported something in the period of interest). Tbl.~\ref{tab:most-violated-cities} shows the top 5 cities (from a total of 348) in which the total value of transactions re-identified with absolute certainty was largest.
Tbl.~\ref{tab:final-results} summarizes
the adversary's success in each attack phase and step.
We provide the probability of re-identification
of a randomly selected transaction, as well as
the corresponding multiplicative leakage (i. e.,
the factor by which this probability increases wrt.\ the prior one).
In particular, after the conclusion of Phase 3, Step 2, the adversary's probability of re-identification is 0.9\%, corresponding to an increase of $168\times$ over the prior risk. Although this probability appears to be small, observe that it corresponds to a significant number of transactions with a combined value of 137 mi USD.
We also provide the number of transactions that
can be re-identified with certainty, and these
transaction values in USD.
In our interpretation, it is clear that these are violations of fiscal secrecy.
\begin{table}[!htbp]
\centering
\begin{subtable}[b]{\linewidth}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lC{0.30\linewidth}C{0.2\linewidth}}
\hiderowcolors
\textbf{City}&\textbf{Transactions re-identified}&\textbf{Value (USD)}
\\ \midrule
\showrowcolors
OURO BRANCO (MG)& 28 & 24.6 mi \\
IPAUSSU (SP) & 3 & 10 mi \\
G.\ DO NORTE (MT)& 5 & 9.9 mi \\
SAO GABRIEL (RS)& 66 & 7.3 mi \\
COMODORO (MT) & 3 & 4.1 mi \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Cities with the largest values of transactions re-identified with certainty.}
\label{tab:most-violated-cities}
\end{subtable}
\begin{subtable}[b]{\linewidth}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{C{0.16\linewidth}C{0.18\linewidth}C{0.14\linewidth}C{0.20\linewidth}C{0.12\linewidth}}
\textbf{Attack Phase/Step} & \textbf{Prob.\ of re-identification} & \textbf{Mult.\ Leakage} & \textbf{Transactions re-identified} & \textbf{Value (USD)} \\ \hline
Prior & 0.05\% & -- & 0 & 0 \\
1/1 & 0.10\% & $16\times$ & 91 & 3 mi \\
1/2 & 0.44\% & $80\times$ & 980 & 99 mi \\
3/1 & 0.65\% & $120\times$ & 1,463 & 110 mi \\
3/2 & 0.90\% & $168\times$ & 2,003 & 137 mi\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Metrics of attack success by phase and step.}
\label{tab:final-results}
\end{subtable}
\caption{Experimental results for the concrete case study..}
\label{fig:experimental-results}
\end{table}
\section{Related work}\label{sec:related-work}
As has been previously demonstrated in the Netflix prize \citep{narayanan2006break} and AOL\footnote{https://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/technology/09aol.html} data leaks, techniques such as the ones used by the Brazilian Government are weak against database reconstruction attacks. Even when de-identification, pseudonymization and generalization are used, the data release usually enables the construction of a set of constraints which are sufficiently restrictive as to agree with just one arrangement of the microdata.~\citep{10.1145/3287287}
An Australian report~\cite{HealthDataAustralia} shows how database reconstruction attacks can be used to re-identify individuals in the Australian health records public datasets. These Australian datasets contain billing information regarding procedures undertaken by individuals and paid by the government and their insurers. These billing records are de-identified and pseudonymized, nonetheless, the authors argue that around 900,000 individuals have unique sums regarding their paid expenditures and that the fact that they are unique can aid in the re-identification. Of course, those expenditure sums were calculated because the records were pseudonymized, \textit{i. e.} there was a field used for grouping the transactions. We think that the algorithm presented here shows that even if the artificially created ids are stripped from the public datasets the same sums could be reconstructed.
In the context of Brazil, a recent study has shown how
the national educational census database, released by Brazilian authorities, can be used to reveal if a student has a physical disability with 99.69\% probability of success~\cite{GabrielNunes}.
The procedure we present here shows that even if the Brazilian authorities started to only release certain sensitive attributes in summaries, i. e., just disclose the total number of students with disabilities per school, re-identification would be possible, although the chance of success could be lower.
\section{Conclusion and prospects}\label{sec:conclusion}
In this paper we have presented a re-identification attack against a Brazilian dataset of foreign-trade statistics which successfully identified importers for transactions totalling 137 mi USD, thus violating those importers' rights to fiscal secrecy.
The main real-world practical consequence of our work was to inform the Brazilian Tax and Customs Administration (RFB) of the vulnerabilities we observed, in June 17th, 2021. Later in 2021, RFB removed access to the dataset named \textsc{De-identified transactions}\xspace (Ordinance 100 of December \nth{16} of 2021).
We cannot state that this removal was a direct consequence of our work, but it is sufficient to avoid the attack presented here. Also, the periodicity of the \textsc{Importers}\xspace dataset changed in February \nth{7}, 2022 and a technical note\footnote{\url{https://balanca.economia.gov.br/balanca/metodologia/Nota_publicacao_anual_da_lista_de_empresas_exportadoras_e_importadoras.pdf}} stated clearly that this was due to \qm{the possible vulnerabilities to the fiscal secrecy regarding linking this dataset with other open data}.
As mentioned before, since Brazilian foreign-trade statics follow international standards, it is possible that attacks similar to ours
may still be of concern to other countries.
One immediate goal created by our work is the proposal of techniques within the realm of differential privacy and its variants to allow for the publication of data maintaining statistical utility while enforcing privacy. A primary goal should be to introduce enough uncertainty so that all importers are able to plausibly deny being responsible for any given transaction, therefore the total amount of published data cannot contain enough information so as to violate the privacy of any importer with full certainty. In the case of foreign-trade statistics, ``plausible deniability'' is a sufficient guarantee to deter malicious actors from making reliable inferences; the requirements for utility are yet to be fully investigated. We leave this goal as future work.
One important aspect we overlooked is the fact that any real-world attacker will make use of economic common-sense --- a mining company is unlikely to import car parts, for example. Potential work in this area would be to incorporate machine learning methods for pre-processing data to provide a stronger (and perhaps more realistic) prior for the adversary against which new privacy defences could be evaluated.
In terms of the optimization modelling and attack algorithm, several research prospects unfold from this work. First, it would be interesting to implement database reconstruction attacks with tailored implementation of backtracking methods or dynamic programming, as these should be more scalable and less prone to numerical instability. The necessity to deal with errors might lead to imperatively complicated implementations. Second, the framework of integer linear programs more often than not leads to efficiently solvable approximation algorithms, which we intend to investigate both in the theoretical model of \texttt{Package Allocation} and also in the practical setting of our work. Third, and finally, the introduction of noise to the data deforms the feasibility region of the program. The inverse optimization problem of determining which direction in the feasible set is least affected by the noise can lead to very interesting considerations. Assuming noise shall be eventually introduced to data with the intent of maximizing privacy protection and minimizing loss of utility, it might be possible to frame this task as a geometric modelling problem. We leave this investigation to future work.
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
The groundbreaking publication which defined the optimal design concept predates R. A. Fisher's foundational 1935 work \emph{The Design of Experiments} \citep{atkRev, fisher:1935, firstGopt}. Kirstine Smith, a Danish female statistician working under Karl Pearson, published guidance in a 1918 Biometrika paper on how the residual error variance suggests designing an experiment used to fit a polynomial \citep{firstGopt}. \citet{atkRev} note that this contribution is considered the seminal optimal design paper and was 30 years ahead of its time. This paper's contribution provided what we now refer to as $G$-optimal designs for a $K=1$ factor experiment supporting a first up to sixth-degree polynomial.
The exact $G$-optimal design generation problem is recognized as the notoriously difficult mini-max problem: we are seeking designs that minimize the maximum prediction variance over the study space. It wasn't until recent decades that modern computing resources were cheap enough to enable the application of well-suited meta-heuristic optimization approaches to this problem. \citet{jobo1} provided one of the earliest applications of Genetic Algorithms (GAs) for generating \emph{exact} optimal designs over the hypercube supporting a second-order response surface model in $K = 1, 2, 3$ design factors and for experiment sizes $N = 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9$, $N = 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12$, and $N = 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16$ respectively. \citet{jobo1} adapted a GA to generate $G$-, $D$-, $I$-, and $A$-optimal designs and published a proposed catalog of exact optimal designs for each criterion. In contrast to continuous designs which can appeal to the \emph{General Equivalence Theorem} to verify the global optimality of a proposed continuous design, no such general theory exists for exact designs and so the community recognizes that proposed global exact optimal designs must be published and then challenged by future developments and algorithm applications. Therefore, the results provided in \cite{jobo1} have become a `ground truth' standard data set against which to compare results of newly developed algorithms to solve this problem. Until this point, the exact $G$-optimal designs of Borkowski (2003) remained the best-known designs for these scenarios and were subsequently reproduced by \cite{rodman} via an augmented application of the coordinate exchange and used as a benchmark by \cite{gIopt}.
The next large investigation into generating and establishing the properties of exact $G$-optimal designs is provided by \cite{rodman}. In this paper, the authors adapted the coordinate exchange (CEXCH) algorithm of \cite{mncoord} in conjunction with Brent's minimization algorithm (used to score a candidate design on the $G$-scale) to generate exact $G$-optimal designs. These authors covered all scenarios in Borkowski (2003) and were able to reproduce these designs with their new algorithm. A second contribution of this work was an extension of the algorithm to generate designs for a few $K = 4, 5$ factor cases---a design scenario not addressed to that point due to computation cost. The authors propose candidate exact $G$-optimal designs for $K = 4$, $N = 15, 20, 24$ and $K=5$, $N = 21, 26, 30$ which support the second-order response surface model. A third contribution of this work was a detailed comparison of the resulting $G$-CEXCH generated exact $G$-optimal design's properties (via fraction of design space plots) with corresponding $D$- and $I$-optimal designs. The authors found that, for scenarios where post-hoc prediction was the primary objective, the $I$-optimal designs exhibited smaller prediction variance than the corresponding $G$-optimal designs over large percentages of the design space (even though the $G$-optimal design has lower maximum prediction variance). This observation motivated the authors to recommend that the additional computing cost required for $G$-optimal designs may not be worth the effort and $I$-optimal designs might be preferred for many practical experimental scenarios. Nonetheless, this catalog of proposed exact $G$-optimal designs for small response surface models remains a useful and referenced data set against which computational statisticians can compare the performance of the adaptation of new algorithms to this problem.
The most recent publication on generating exact $G$-optimal designs is offered by \cite{gIopt}. The primary focus of this paper is the computational cost associated with generating $G$-optimal designs. These authors noticed a correspondence between continuous $I_\lambda$-optimal designs and $G$-optimal designs. They propose a new algorithm that exploits the structural relationship between these two types of designs which first generates a continuous $I_\lambda$-optimal design as a starting point for the exact $G$-optimal design search, Then they apply the CEXCH algorithm to locally improve the candidate $G$-optimal design. We will refer to their algorithm as $G(I_\lambda)$-CEXCH. These authors are the first to completely run $G(I_\lambda)$-CEXCH and rerun the searches via GA by Borkowski (2003) in \textsc{Matlab}\xspace, and CEXCH by \cite{rodman} in JMP (they also reported the architecture of their PC) in order to compare computing efficiency of their proposed algorithm to the others. They implemented 200 runs of each algorithm for each design scenario discussed in \cite{jobo1} and also ran two new scenarios: $K = 4$, $N = 17$ and $K = 5$, $N = 23$ with only $G(I_\lambda)$-CEXCH (they indicated that $G$-CEXCH would have taken 25 and 166 days respectively to complete the task, and so this algorithm was not run on these scenarios). To briefly summarize their results, they found that, with respect to finding the highest $G$-optimal designs, the GA was superior (finding the best design each set of 200 algorithm runs) but that $G$-CEXCH and $G(I_\lambda)$-CEXCH produced designs with high relative efficiency vs. $GA$ generated designs with relative-efficiencies of 90\% or greater. However, the GA achieves this superiority at high computational cost exhibiting 2-orders of magnitude increase in the number of objective function evaluations as compared to the $G(I_\lambda)$-CEXCH. $G(I_\lambda)$-CEXCH was demonstrated to produce designs with high $G$-optimality as well as $G$-CEXCH but with computing times at a fraction of $G$-CEXCH for the higher dimensional searches. Thus they propose that $G(I_\lambda)$-CEXCH is a good choice for generating exact $G$-optimal designs as it is 1.) demonstrated to produce designs with high relative efficiency to GA generated designs and 2.) does this more efficiently than existing algorithms.
Particle swarm optimization (PSO) is a mature, simple, but highly effective meta-heuristic optimization algorithm (well suited for finding global optima on multimodal objectives) in the class of evolutionary algorithms (including GA) and has not been applied to this problem to date. Since its publishing by \cite{opso_1995} in the machine learning literature, this algorithm has attained widespread application and success in many scientific domains---to date Google tracks this paper with over 69,216 citations (queried January 17, 2022) which illustrates its widespread impact in algorithm development research and applications to engineering and applied science domains. This success notwithstanding, PSO has seen relatively few applications in optimal design, and for those publications that do address the topic, they tend to focus on using PSO to generate optimal \emph{continuous} designs---see, for example, \cite{chen0, wong, chen1, chen2, Chen3, chen4}. There have also been some applications of PSO, with apparent high success, outside of the response surface design framework---see, for example, \cite{lukemire} for an application of PSO to generating $D$-optimal designs for logistic-regression models and \cite{joseph} for an application of PSO to generating space filling designs. The contribution of our paper is: 1) a first application of PSO to the exact $G$-optimal design generation problem, 2) a review and summary of PSO generated results against those algorithms and results published over the last 20 years, and 3) we update the proposed catalog of exact $G$-optimal designs with new-found improved $G$-optimal designs for many of the studied scenarios.
In the next section we present our notation and define the exact $G$-optimal design generation problem. In section 3 we develop a yet unpublished extension of PSO for generating exact optimal designs. In section 4 we compare $G$-PSO generated designs to those provided by \cite{jobo1}, \cite{rodman} and \cite{gIopt}. In section 5 we provide discussion, conclusions, and future research directions. Based on the new information reported in this paper, we conclude with a recommendation for which algorithm appears to be best suited for generating exact $G$-optimal designs.
\section{$G$-Optimal Designs}
\label{sec:gopt}
As in previous publications, we will be working with the second-order response surface model under standard assumptions. Our notation is as follows. Let $\mathcal{X}$ denote a design space. Without loss of generality with respect to generating optimal designs on irregular hyper-rectangular design regions, it is common, in a response surface setting, to assume that the design factors have been scaled to $[-1, 1]$. In which case the design space is the $K$-dimensional hypercube $\mathcal{X} = [-1, 1]^K$ for $K$ factors. Let $\mathbf{x}' \in \mathcal{X}$ denote a $1 \times K$ point in the design space. For $N$ specified design points, the set of distinct design points $\mathbf{x}'_i, \text{ } i = 1, 2, \hdots, N$ are organized as the rows of the $N \times K$ design matrix
$$\mathbf{X} = \begin{pmatrix} \mathbf{x}'_1 \\ \mathbf{x}'_2 \\ \vdots \\ \mathbf{x}'_N \end{pmatrix}.$$
Next, we provide some notation that clarifies the difference between the design space and the model space---the latter of which is required to evaluate the properties and the quality of a candidate design $\mathbf{X}$. Let $p$ represent the number of parameters of the model that one intends to fit to the data. We denote the $N \times p$ model matrix as $\mathbf{F}(\mathbf{X})$. Here we have emphasized that the model matrix is a function of the design matrix. For simplicity, however, from this point forward we will simply represent the model matrix by the shorthand $\mathbf{F}$. A similar device is required for a model vector, which is a function that maps a candidate design point to the model space. We adopt the notation $\mathbf{f}'(\mathbf{x}')$ which is a $1 \times p$ row-vector.
We provide an example for the case of an $N$ point design with $K = 3$ design factors on the second order model to clarify the use of this notation. In this case there are
$$p = {K + 2 \choose 2} = {5 \choose 2} = 10 $$
parameters in the second-order model \citep{rsm, jobo1}. The design matrix for this model is
$$\mathbf{X} = \begin{pmatrix} \mathbf{x}'_1 \\ \mathbf{x}'_2 \\ \vdots \\ \mathbf{x}'_N \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} x_{11} & x_{12} & x_{13} \\ x_{21} & x_{22} & x_{23} \\ & \vdots & \\ x_{N1} & x_{N2} & x_{N3} \end{pmatrix}.$$ The second-order model, for a single design point $\mathbf{x}' = (x_1 \quad x_2 \quad x_3 )$ in scalar form is written
$$y = \beta_0 + \sum_{i = 1}^K\beta_ix_i + \sum_{i=1}^{K-1}\sum_{j = i + 1}^K\beta_{ij}x_i x_j + \sum_{i=1}^K \beta_{ii}x_i^2 + \epsilon, $$
and so the mapping of the design point $\mathbf{x}'$ into the model space is the $1 \times p$ vector
$$\mathbf{f}'(\mathbf{x}') = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & x_1 & x_2 & x_3 & x_1 x_2 & x_1 x_3 & x_2 x_3 & x_1^2 & x_2^2 & x_3^2 \end{pmatrix}.$$
The mapping of the design matrix into the model matrix is
$$ \mathbf{F}(\mathbf{X}) := \mathbf{F} = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & x_{11} & x_{12} & x_{13} & x_{11} x_{12} & x_{11} x_{13} & x_{12} x_{13} & x_{11}^2 & x_{12}^2 & x_{13}^2 \\ 1 & x_{21} & x_{22} & x_{23} & x_{21} x_{22} & x_{21} x_{23} & x_{22} x_{23} & x_{21}^2 & x_{22}^2 & x_{23}^2 \\ \vdots & & \vdots & & \vdots & & \vdots & &\vdots & \\ 1 & x_{N1} & x_{N2} & x_{N3} & x_{N1} x_{N2} & x_{N1} x_{N3} & x_{N2} x_{N3} & x_{N1}^2 & x_{N2}^2 & x_{N3}^2 \end{pmatrix}. $$
This enables writing the full second-order linear model in the $N$ design points in matrix form
$$\mathbf{y} = \mathbf{F}\bm{\beta} + \bm{\epsilon},$$
where $\bm{\beta}$ is a $p \times 1$ vector of parameters. Under the ordinary least squares (OLS) framework, it is assumed that $\bm{\epsilon} \sim \mathcal{N}_N(\mathbf{0}, \sigma^2 \mathbf{I}_N)$ where $\mathcal{N}_N$ denotes the $N$-dimensional multivariate normal distribution. The least-squares estimate of the $\bm{\beta}$'s (which in this framework are also ML estimates) is
$$\hat{\bm{\beta}} = (\mathbf{F}'\mathbf{F})^{-1}\mathbf{F}'\mathbf{y},$$
which have variance-covariance
$$\text{Var}(\hat{\bm{\beta}}) = \sigma^2 (\mathbf{F}'\mathbf{F})^{-1}.$$
A prediction of the response at new point $\mathbf{x}'$ is denoted as $\hat{y}(\mathbf{x}')$, and the variance of the mean predicted value is
$$\text{Var}(\hat{y}(\mathbf{x}')) = \sigma^2\mathbf{f}'(\mathbf{x}')(\mathbf{F}'\mathbf{F})^{-1}\mathbf{f}(\mathbf{x}').$$
The total information matrix for $\bm{\beta}$, specifically $\mathbf{M}(\mathbf{X}) = \mathbf{F}'\mathbf{F}$, plays an important role in optimal design of experiments---all optimal design objective functions are functions of this matrix.
While $\mathcal{X}$ denotes the space of candidate \emph{design points} $\mathbf{x}'$, a \emph{design matrix} $\mathbf{X}$ is a collection of $N$ such design points. Thus, the space of all candidate designs can be denoted
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:exactModspace}
\mathbf{X} \in \bigtimes_{j = 1}^N \mathcal{X} = \bigtimes_{j = 1}^N [-1, 1]^K = [-1, 1]^{NK} = \mathcal{X}^N,
\end{equation}
and the practitioner must choose a design from $\mathcal{X}^N$ to implement the experiment in practice. Note that the optimization problem has dimension $N*K$ (the dimension of the optimization search for the designs studied here is sometimes, erroneously, referred to as `small' and only viewed as a function of the number of design factors $K$). An optimality criterion is used to define which candidate designs $\mathbf{X} \in \mathcal{X}^N$ are `good' designs. An optimization algorithm (such as GA, $G$-CEXCH, or $G(I_\lambda)$-CEXCH) is used to search $\mathcal{X}^N$ to find the `best', or hopefully, globally optimal design. A $G$-optimal design is that design which minimizes the maximum scaled prediction variance over all points of prediction in $\mathcal{X}$. Recall that the variance of a mean prediction is
$$\text{Var}(\hat{y}(\mathbf{x}')) = \sigma^2\mathbf{f}'(\mathbf{x}')(\mathbf{F}'\mathbf{F})^{-1}\mathbf{f}(\mathbf{x}')$$
for any point of prediction $\mathbf{x}' \in \mathcal{X}$. The scaled prediction variance (SPV) removes the scale parameter $\sigma^2$ and re-scales to $N$ by multiplying by the factor $N / \sigma^2$. Thus, SPV is defined as (for a candidate design $\mathbf{X}$)
\begin{align}
\label{eq:spvsc}
\text{SPV}(\mathbf{x}') &:= \mathbf{f}'(\mathbf{x}') \mathbf{M}^{-1}(\mathbf{X}) \mathbf{f}(\mathbf{x}')\nonumber \\
& = N \mathbf{f}'(\mathbf{x}')(\mathbf{F}'\mathbf{F})^{-1}\mathbf{f}(\mathbf{x}').
\end{align}
Note that defining $SPV$ as in the second line of Eq. \ref{eq:spvsc} is necessary, as will be explained leading up to Eq. \ref{eq:gbound}.
The $G$-score of an arbitrary design $\mathbf{X}$ is defined as the maximum scaled prediction variance over all points of prediction $\mathbf{x}' \in \mathcal{X}$
\begin{align}
\label{eq:gscore}
G(\mathbf{X}) &:= \max_{\mathbf{x}'\in\mathcal{X}} \text{SPV}(\mathbf{x}') \nonumber \\
&= \max_{\mathbf{x}'\in\mathcal{X}} N \mathbf{f}'(\mathbf{x}')(\mathbf{F}'\mathbf{F})^{-1}\mathbf{f}(\mathbf{x}').
\end{align}
Eq.\@ \ref{eq:gscore} indicates that for a fixed candidate design $\mathbf{X}$, scoring the candidate on the $G$ scale is itself an optimization problem. The $G$-optimal design $\mathbf{X}^*$ is that design which minimizes, over all designs $\mathbf{X} \in \mathcal{X}^N$, the maximum scaled prediction variance, namely
\begin{align}
\label{eq:gdesign}
\mathbf{X}^* & := \argmin_{\mathbf{X} \in \mathcal{X}^N} G(\mathbf{X}) \nonumber \\
& = \argmin_{\mathbf{X} \in \mathcal{X}^N} \max_{\mathbf{x}'\in\mathcal{X}} \text{SPV}(\mathbf{x}') \nonumber \\
&= \argmin_{\mathbf{X} \in \mathcal{X}^N} \max_{\mathbf{x}'\in\mathcal{X}} N \mathbf{f}'(\mathbf{x}')(\mathbf{F}'\mathbf{F})^{-1}\mathbf{f}(\mathbf{x}').
\end{align}
Eq.\@ \ref{eq:gdesign} shows that finding the $G$-optimal design is a minimax problem. This optimization has proved notoriously difficult to solve because neither of the optimizations required to compute $\mathbf{X}^*$ are convex. The scale of $G$ for an arbitrary design has known bounds. The General Equivalence Theorem of \cite{kiefer} demonstrates that the lower bound on $G(\mathbf{X})$ is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:gbound}
G(\mathbf{X}) = \max_{\mathbf{x}'\in\mathcal{X}} \text{SPV}(\mathbf{x}') \ge p.
\end{equation}
That is, the smallest that the maximum scaled prediction variance of candidate design $\mathbf{X}$ may be is $p$, the number of parameters. This apprently gives a way to verify if a proposed exact $G$-optimal design is globally optimal, however, not all design scenarios have globally $G$-optimal designs that will achieve this lower bound. Further, if design $\mathbf{X}^*$ is globally $G$-optimal and achieves the result in Eq. \ref{eq:gbound}, then for this design $\text{SPV}(\mathbf{x'}) = p$ at all diagonals of the hat matrix $\mathbf{F}(\mathbf{F}'\mathbf{F})^{-1}\mathbf{F}'$ and
$\text{SPV}(\mathbf{x'}) \le p$ at all other points of prediction $\mathbf{x}' \in \mathcal{X}$ \citep{rsm}. These are the only results from the theory of continuous optimal designs that also apply directly to exact optimal designs. The result stated in Eq. \ref{eq:gbound} is an important result---it means that the scale of $G$-optimality is not arbitrary (at least up to the number of parameters in the model $p$). It is customary to exploit this fact and score candidate designs on the $G$-efficiency scale,
\begin{equation}
G_{\text{eff}}(\mathbf{X}) = 100 \times \frac{p}{G(\mathbf{X})},
\end{equation}
in order to gauge the quality of a candidate design $\mathbf{X}$ (larger $G_{\text{eff}}$ on this scale implies a better design). Last, the \emph{relative efficiency} of two candidate designs may be computed as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:grelleff}
G_{\text{releff}}(\mathbf{X}_{1}, \mathbf{X}_{2}) = 100\frac{G_{\text{eff}}(\mathbf{X}_{1})}{G_{\text{eff}}(\mathbf{X}_{2})}
\end{equation}
The reason for constructing an algorithm to search $\mathcal{X}^N$ globally for the $G$-optimal design is that once one has a candidate design $\mathbf{X}$, one must gauge its quality via Eq. \ref{eq:gscore}. In the context of the larger search of $\mathcal{X}^N$ for the globally optimal design $\mathbf{X}$, each candidate $\mathbf{X}$ must be scored on the $G$-scale via Eq. \ref{eq:gscore}, and this is a separate optimization of a multimodal function. There are two published approaches in the literature suggesting ways to score a candidate matrix $\mathbf{X}$ via computing or approximating $G(\mathbf{X})$.
First, authors \cite{jobo1} and \cite{gIopt} exploit the symmetry of the SPV-surface for a $G$-optimal design and recommend using a $5^K$ point grid over $\mathcal{X}$ with each factor containing $x_j \in \{-1, 0.5, 0, 0.5, 1\}$ for $j = 1, \hdots, K$ grid-points. The full grid defined as $\mathbf{G}_\mathcal{X} = \{-1, 0.5, 0, 0.5, 1\}^K$ \citep{gIopt}. Once one has a candidate design, the SPV is evaluated on $\mathbf{G}_\mathcal{X}$ and the maximum value is taken as an approximation of the $G$-score for the candidate design. While this approach computes an approximate $G$-score for a candidate design $\mathbf{X}$ both authors have noted that, due to the symmetry of the $G$-surface for $G$-optimal designs, the approximation is quite adequate and supports finding highly $G$-optimal designs.
A second approach is published by authors \cite{rodman} who apply a different approach to scoring a candidate design on the $G$-scale during the evolution of the $G$-CEXCH algorithm. In this algorithm once a candidate is available (e.g. after every coordinate exchange) they employ Brent's minimization algorithm to search for the maximum prediction variance for the candidate design over
Regarding the choice of method for scoring a candidate design on the $G$-scale in this paper: we implemented the $5^K$ grid approach recommended by \cite{jobo1} and \cite{gIopt} for several reasons. First, it is easy to implement in the context of the larger $G$-optimal design search on $\mathcal{X}^N$. Second, in preliminary studies we also found these approximations to the $G$-score to be adequate and subject to small error. Third, in preliminary studies, we attempted a separate optimization approach similar to \cite{rodman} but found that if a candidate design was mis-scored the effect was disastrous on the evolution of the algorithm searching $\mathcal{X}^N$ for the optimal design.
In the next section we describe the PSO algorithm and provide an extension of PSO to generate $G$-optimal designs used to produce the results presented in this paper.
\section{Particle Swarm Optimization}
\label{sec:meth}
PSO has been demonstrated to perform very well for high-dimensional optimization of multimodal objective functions, see for example, \cite{opso_1995, spso1_2007, spso2_2011, hal_spso, opso2_1995, ken_1997, eberhart_1998, clerc2, engel, zombook, bratton}. PSOs strengths include: 1) few-to-no assumptions about the properties of the objective function $f$ to be optimized, 2) PSO is demonstrated to be strongly robust to entrapment in local optima, and thereby is a good `match' to the exact optimal design generation problem, 3) simplicity---the core function of the algorithm can be explained via two simple update equations, and 4) in contrast to other meta-heuristics where studying a range of tuning parameters can yield more efficient searches for specific problems, PSO only has three tuning parameters and these have been studied extensively theoretically and empirically with optimal values demonstrated for searches (such as ours) that fall on the typical Euclidean geometry, see \cite{clerc2, ebershi_3, clerc1, shi2} among others. Therefore, we employ the values of the PSO tuning parameters as suggested in the machine learning literature, and these values are guaranteed to 1) ensure a large degree of swarm exploration of the search space and 2) ensure that the particles in the swarm eventually settle on a consensus point for the optimal solution to the optimization problem \citep{clerc2, hal_spso}.
PSO is suited to perform the calculation
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{x}^* = \argmin_{\mathbf{x} \in \mathcal{X}} f(\mathbf{x})
\end{equation}
for objective $f$ with $K\times 1$ input vector $\mathbf{x}$. The algorithm proceeds by first randomly drawing several candidate solution points (\ie the particles) $\mathbf{x}_i$ according to a multivariate uniform distribution in $\mathcal{X}$ for $i = 1, \hdots, S$ particles. Similarly each particle is assigned an initial velocity $\mathbf{v}_1$ which governs particle $i$'s step size and direction for its search of the optimizer of $f$. Then, for iteration $t$ of the PSO algorithm the particles step through the search space (searching for the optimum of $f$) according to velocity and position update equations
\begin{flalign}
&& \mathbf{v}_i(t+1) & = \omega \mathbf{v_i}(t) && \text{(inertia)} \label{eq:inertia} \\
&& + & c_1 U_K(\mathbf{0}, \mathbf{1}) \odot\left(\mathbf{p}_{\text{best},i} - \mathbf{x}_i(t) \right) && \text{(cognitive)} \label{eq:cognitive} \\
&& + & c_2U_K(\mathbf{0}, \mathbf{1}) \odot\left(\mathbf{g}_{\text{best}} - \mathbf{x}_i(t) \right) && \text{(social)} \label{eq:social} \\
&& \mathbf{x}_i(t+1) & = \mathbf{x}_i(t) + \mathbf{v}_i(t+1) && \text{(position update)}\label{eq:posup}
\end{flalign}
where $\odot$ represents the Hadamard product (elementwise multiplication), $\mathbf{p}_{\text{best},i}$ is the `personal best' position in $\mathcal{X}$ regarding fitness on $f$ that particle $i$ has visited to time $t$ (e.g.\@ this is the particle's `memory'), $\mathbf{g}_{\text{best}}$ represents the `group best' position in $\mathcal{X}$ regarding fitness on $f$ that particle $i$ found by the swarm to time $t$ (e.g.\@ this the the swarm's `communication'), and $U_K(\mathbf{0}, \mathbf{1}) = \{u_j\}$ for $j = 1, \hdots, K$ where $u_j \overset{i.i.d.}{\sim} U(0,1)$ is a random scaling factor for each velocity update component. Finding optimal velocity weighting constants $\omega, c_1, $ and $c_2$ was the subject of intense research over approximately a decade. In this work we employ, as recommended by the extensive PSO literature for optimization problems of our nature, $ \omega = 0.72984, c_1 = c_2 = 2.05\omega = 1.496172 $. These values are guaranteed to balance particle exploration while ensuring that the velocities eventually scale down so that the swarm radius eventually decreases to 0, \ie the particles in the swarm come to a consensus regarding a solution to $\argmin_{\mathbf{x} \in \mathcal{X}} f(\mathbf{x})$ \citep{hal_spso, clerc1, clerc2}. Last, the personal best position of particle $i$, $\mathbf{p}_{\text{best},i}$, and the group's best position, $\mathbf{g}_{\text{best}}$, are updated at each iteration $t$ via the simple logic
\begin{align*}
& \textbf{if} f(\mathbf{x}_i) < f(\mathbf{p}_{\text{best},i}) \\
& \hspace{0.4cm}\mathbf{p}_{\text{best},i} \leftarrow \mathbf{x}_i \\
& \hspace{0.4cm}\textbf{if} f(\mathbf{p}_{\text{best},i}) < f(\mathbf{g}_{\text{best}}) \\
& \hspace{0.8cm}\mathbf{g}_{\text{best}} \leftarrow \mathbf{p}_{\text{best},i}. \\
\end{align*}
The use of $\mathbf{g}_{\text{best}}$ in the description of PSO above represents the swarm \emph{communication topology}---in this case all members of the swarm communicate and share knowledge of the global value $\mathbf{g}_{\text{best}}$ and so this is referred to as the global communication topology \citep{hal_spso, engel}. The most effective communication topology was heavily researched during the development of PSO. Several other communication topologies were considered. A random local topology, where communication neighborhoods are randomly instantiated for particle $i$ with a small number, say 3, of expected connections (\ie particle $i$ can only share the information its gained about $f$ to the particles in its neighborhood) was found to be effective in improving the robustness of the swarm to entrapment in local optima for multimodal objectives and exact optimal design problems \citep{engel, walsh}. In this approach if the swarm does not find a better fitness on $f$ at time $t$ then the communication links are randomly re-instantiated at time $t+1$, thus creating a new local communication neighborhood for particle $i$ and, hence, new information sharing among the particles. In this scenario the term $\mathbf{l}_{\text{best},i}$, which represents the best position in $\mathcal{X}$ found \emph{in the communication neighborhood of particle $i$} to time $t$, replaces $\mathbf{g}_{\text{best}}$. Thus, the local communication topology encourages the swarm to explore $\mathcal{X}$ more thoroughly at the expense of more iterations. However, we view this as an acceptable tradeoff if we are seeking the global optima of a difficult-to-optimize objective function.
\subsection{Extending PSO to the Optimal Design Problem}
PSO is formulated to optimize a function $f$ which takes a $K\times 1$ vector input $\mathbf{x}$. In contrast, optimal design requires optimizing an objective function which takes an $N \times K$ dimensional matrix input $\mathbf{X}$. We considered using the standard formulation of PSO by implementing $\mathbf{x}^* = \text{vec}(\mathbf{X})$ where vec is the vectorization operator (\ie it stacks the columns of a matrix) as this would give us access to off-the-shelf implementations of PSO. Due to programming and research considerations we implemented an alternate but equivalent approach by extending the PSO update equations as
\begin{flalign}
&& \mathbf{V}_i(t+1) & = \omega \mathbf{V_i}(t) && \text{(inertia)} \label{eq:ch3matinertia} \\
&& + & c_1 \mathbf{U} \odot\left(\mathbf{P}_{\text{best},i} - \mathbf{X}_i(t) \right) && \text{(cognitive)} \label{eq:ch3matcognitive} \\
&& + & c_2\mathbf{U} \odot\left(\mathbf{L}_{\text{best}_i} - \mathbf{X}_i(t) \right) && \text{(social)} \label{eq:ch3matsocial} \\
&& \mathbf{X}_i(t+1) & = \mathbf{X}_i(t) + \mathbf{V}_i(t+1) && \text{(position update)}\label{eq:ch3matposup}
\end{flalign}
where the $N\times K$ matrix $\mathbf{U} = \{u_{nk}\}$ with $u_{nk} \overset{i.i.d.}{\sim} U(0, 1)$ (\ie all elements are randomly drawn from a uniform distribution). It is evident that equations (\ref{eq:ch3matinertia}-\ref{eq:ch3matposup}) reduce to Eq.s (\ref{eq:inertia}-\ref{eq:posup}) when $N=1$ and the resulting vectors are transposed. Thus, in our formulation, a particle is now a candidate design matrix $\mathbf{X}_i$ and has a corresponding velocity matrix $\mathbf{V}_i$ which governs how particle matrix $i$ will step through the search space $\mathbf{X} \in \mathcal{X}^N$ in search of the exact globally optimal design. To fully implement PSO to search for optimal designs on the hypercube, there are several other technical problems to address (e.g.\@ how do we deal with design points that leave $\mathcal{X}$ during the search?). For these we have adapted standard PSO solutions as found in the literature \citep{hal_spso}. Our full PSO algorithm for generating optimal designs on the hypercube is provided in Algorithm \ref{alg:bpso}. The user can specify lower and upper bounds on each of the $K$ factors, and in line 1 we have set defaults as $\mathbf{l}_b = -\mathbf{1}_K$ and $\mathbf{u}_b = \mathbf{1}_K$ respectively without loss of general study because the initialization of PSO takes into account the size of the search space (a type of standardization), but these may be relaxed to irregular hyper-rectangular regions if required for alternate searches. Lines 4-11 show the initialization of the particle swarm (which is here a set of randomly drawn design matrices and initial velocities). In line 4 the $j$th row of initial design matrix is drawn corresponding to a uniform distribution with lower and upper bounds $\mathbf{l}_b$ and $\mathbf{u}_b$ \citep{hal_spso}. The $j$th row of the velocity matrix of particle $i$ is initialized similarly as shown in line 5. Line 6 shows that the stepsize of elements of the design matrices is controlled for each of the $k$th factors via parameter $\nu_k^{\text{max}}$, and \cite{hal_spso} recommends setting this parameter to half the length of the search space in one dimension though they do indicate that the use of this parameter is superfluous with the use of the values of $\omega, c_1, c_2$ as employed in this paper (because the initialization of PSO takes into account the size of the search space which is a type of standardization). Line 7 indicates the instantiation of $\mathbf{N}_i$ which represents a vector indicating which particles are in the communication neighborhood of particle $i$. Further, this vector is created by subroutine \texttt{genNeighbors} according to \cite{hal_spso} which sets neighborhood links for particle $i$ randomly such that the expected number of communication links is 3 but may range from 1 (\ie the particle only informs itself) to $S$ (\ie the particle can inform all other particles). With initial particle positions and velocities determined, line 10 initializes the solution, and line 11 shows initialization of the neighborhood best locations. Line 13 starts the swarm search which iterates until a stopping criteria is met. Lines 14-16 check the solution at time $t$ and if it is unchanged from time $t-1$ then the communication neighborhoods, $\mathbf{N}_i$, are randomly re-instantiated. Lines 18-29 describe velocity updating, position updating, and swarm knowledge updating as previously discussed in this section. Note the subroutine \texttt{confine} on line 22. It is possible that a particle moves outside the search space during the search and so we implement a `reflecting wall' particle confinement as in \cite{hal_spso}. Function \texttt{confine} checks every element of $\mathbf{X}$. If any element has moved out of the search space, that position is set to the closest point on the boundary (in its respective dimension) of the $\mathcal{X}$ and its velocity is halved and reversed in that direction (i.e. it `bounces off the wall'), see \cite{walsh} for technical details. Last, lines 31-24 show how the local neighborhood best locations are updated after the personal best's $\mathbf{P}_{\text{best},i}$ are updated. The algorithm progresses in this manner until a stopping criterion is met.
\onehalfspace
\begin{algorithm}[htbp]
\caption{PSO for Generating Exact Optimal Designs on the Hypercube}
\label{alg:bpso}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\vspace{0.2cm}
\STATE \textbf{Input:} Objective function $f$, number of particles $S$, search space bounds $\mathbf{l}_b = -\mathbf{1}_K$ and $\mathbf{u}_b= \mathbf{1}_K$
\vspace{0.2cm}
\STATE \hspace{0pt}{\textbf{//} Randomly draw $S$ candidate designs $\mathbf{X}_i$ and initialize }
\STATE \hspace{0pt}{\textbf{for each }{$i = 1, \ldots, S$ \textbf{do}}} \label{initialize:loop:1}
\STATE \hspace{8pt}{$\mathbf{x}'_{ij} \sim U_K(\mathbf{l}_b, \mathbf{u}_b) \text{ for } j = 1, \hdots, N$ giving candidate design $\mathbf{X}_i$ with rows $\mathbf{x}'_{ij}$ }
\STATE \hspace{8pt}{$\mathbf{v}'_{ij} \sim U_K\left(\frac{\mathbf{l}_b - \mathbf{x}_{ij}}{2}, \frac{\mathbf{u}_b - \mathbf{x}_{ij}}{2} \right)\text{ for } j = 1, \hdots, N$ giving velocity matrix $\mathbf{V}_i$ with rows $\mathbf{v}'_{ij}$ }
\STATE \hspace{8pt}{$\{v_{ijk}\leftarrow\min\{v_{ijk}, v_{k}^\text{max}\}\}$ for $j = 1, \hdots, N$ \textbf{//} limit stepsize}
\STATE \hspace{8pt}{$\mathbf{N}_i \leftarrow \texttt{genNeighbors}(\mathbf{X}_i)$ \textbf{//} generate communication neighborhood for particle $i$}
\STATE \hspace{8pt}{$\mathbf{P}_{\text{best},i} \leftarrow \mathbf{X}_i$ \textbf{//}set initial personal best position}
\STATE \hspace{0pt}\textbf{endfor}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\STATE \hspace{0pt}{$\mathbf{G}_{\text{best}} \leftarrow \underset{\mathbf{X}_i \in \{\mathbf{X}_1, \mathbf{X}_2, \ldots, \mathbf{X}_S\}}{\mathrm{argmin}} f(\mathbf{X}_i)$ \textbf{//} current best design among swarm}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\STATE \hspace{0pt}{$\mathbf{L}_{\text{best},i} \leftarrow \underset{\mathbf{X}_i \in \mathbf{N}_i}{\mathrm{argmin}} f(\mathbf{X}_i)$ for $i = 1, \hdots, S$ \textbf{//} current best design in local neighborhoods}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\STATE \hspace{0pt}{\textbf{//} swarm search loop}
\STATE \hspace{0pt}{\textbf{while} stopping criteria not met \textbf{do} (this is iteration over $t$)} \label{search:loop:2}
\STATE \hspace{8pt}{\textbf{if} $\mathbf{G}_{\text{best}}(t) = \mathbf{G}_{\text{best}}(t-1)$}
\STATE \hspace{16pt}{\textbf{//} if the solution doesn't improve, reform the local communication networks}
\STATE \hspace{16pt}{$\mathbf{N}_i \leftarrow \texttt{genNeighbors}(\mathbf{X}_i)$ }
\STATE \hspace{8pt}{\textbf{endif}}
\STATE \hspace{8pt}{\textbf{for each }{$i = 1, \ldots, S$ \textbf{do}} \textbf{//} Update velocities and positions}
\STATE \hspace{16pt}{$\mathbf{V}_i \leftarrow \omega \mathbf{V_i} + c_1 \mathbf{U} \odot\left(\mathbf{P}_{\text{best},i} - \mathbf{X}_i \right) + c_2\mathbf{U} \odot\left(\mathbf{L}_{\text{best},i} - \mathbf{X}_i \right)$}
\STATE \hspace{16pt}{$\{v_{ijk}\leftarrow\min\{v_{ijk}, v_{k}^\text{max}\}\}$ for $j = 1, \hdots, N$}
\STATE \hspace{16pt}{$\mathbf{X}_i \leftarrow \mathbf{X}_i + \mathbf{V}_i$}
\STATE \hspace{16pt}{$\mathbf{X}_i \leftarrow \texttt{confine} (\mathbf{X}_i)$ \textbf{//} keep candidates in searchspace}
\STATE \hspace{16pt}{\textbf{if} $f(\mathbf{X}_i) < f(\mathbf{P}_{\text{best},i})$ \textbf{//} update knowledge about best known design to time $t$}
\STATE \hspace{24pt}{$\mathbf{P}_{\text{best},i} \leftarrow \mathbf{X}_i$}
\STATE \hspace{24pt}{\textbf{if} $f(\mathbf{P}_{\text{best},i}) < f(\mathbf{G}_{\text{best}})$}
\STATE \hspace{32pt}{$\mathbf{G}_{\text{best}} \leftarrow \mathbf{P}_{\text{best},i}$}
\STATE \hspace{24pt}{\textbf{endif}}
\STATE \hspace{16pt}{\textbf{endif}}
\STATE \hspace{8pt}\textbf{endfor}
\STATE \hspace{8pt}{\textbf{for each }{$i = 1, \ldots, S$ \textbf{do}} \textbf{//} with personal best's update, can update local best}
\STATE \hspace{16pt}{\textbf{if} $f(\mathbf{P}_{\text{best},i}) < f(\mathbf{L}_{\text{best},i})$}
\STATE \hspace{24pt}{$\mathbf{L}_{\text{best},i} \leftarrow \mathbf{P}_{\text{best},i}$ \textbf{//} update best known design in local neighborhoods}
\STATE \hspace{16pt}{\textbf{endif}}
\STATE \hspace{8pt}\textbf{endfor}
\STATE \hspace{0pt}{\textbf{endwhile}}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\STATE \textbf{Output:} Particle swarm solution---the best optimal design found $\mathbf{G}_{\text{best}}$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Computing Architecture}
\singlespace
We implemented Algorithm \ref{alg:bpso} in the \texttt{Julia} language \citep{julia}. Our initial prototyping was done in \texttt{R} \citep{R}, and while single runs of PSO were reasonably fast for low dimension problems, we identified the need for a faster implementation so that we could study several problems of moderate to high dimension in a reasonable time. \texttt{Julia} offers such speed on two fronts 1.) it is a high level syntax data science language, like \texttt{R}, \textsc{Matlab}\xspace, or \texttt{Python} and so offers the same rapid development speed as those languages, and 2.) unlike \texttt{R}, \textsc{Matlab}\xspace, or \texttt{Python}, which are interpreted languages, \texttt{Julia} is \emph{just in time compiled} meaning that the second run of the algorithm in \texttt{Julia} offers speeds on par with compiled languages such as C++. Further, \texttt{Julia} has parallel computing inherently `built in' and so made it easy to run many independent runs of PSO on different computing cores of our CPU. Our machine is an Intel i7-6700K which has 4 cores and 8 compute threads running at 4.0GHz. Thus we could send multiple runs of PSO to 7 of the cores at the same time.
\cite{gIopt} is the only reference that reported computing cost among our references, and they offer two measures: 1.) number of function evaluations over all runs for each design scenario and 2.) computing time wall-clock for the set of searches for each algorithm and design scenario and so a way to check the efficiency of $G$-PSO relative to the state-of-the-art. We will compare the efficiency of PSO to the other algorithms by reporting number of function evaluations during the runs of PSO. This measure is, of course, senstive to the number of particles and the stopping criterion. We ran all PSO searches with $S=150$ particles and our stopping criterion was a non-zero change in $f$ less than the square-root of machine-epsilon (about $10^{-8}$).
\subsection{Design Scenarios}
We ran $G$-PSO $n_{\text{run}} = 140$ times for all design scenarios (and searches for the optimal design that supports the second-order model) covered by \cite{jobo1}. These scenarios cover $K = 1, 2, 3$ design factors with experiment sizes $N = 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9$, $N = 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12$, and $N = 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16$, respectively. Both \cite{jobo1} and \cite{gIopt} ran the GA for these scenarios, but, they did not find the same exact $G$-optimal designs (in part related to the stopping criterion implemented by \cite{gIopt}). Regarding $G$-optimality, \cite{jobo1} found the current best-known $G$-optimal designs (to this point). \cite{gIopt} found highly $G$-optimal designs relative to those of \cite{jobo1}, but used their GA generated designs to compare their results from the other two algorithms in their study.
We also ran $G$-PSO $n_{\text{run}} = 210$ for the additional scenarios in \cite{rodman}. These scenarios cover $K = 4, 5$ with experiment sizes $N = 15, 20, 24$ and $N = 21, 26, 30$ respectively. Last, we ran $G$-PSO $n_{\text{run}} = 210$ for the additional scenarios in \cite{gIopt}, specifically $K = 4, N =17$ and $K = 5, N = 23$.
In total we've covered all published exact $G$-optimal designs for 29 design scenarios requiring 4620 independent runs of PSO. In the next section we compare $G$-PSO results to those of \cite{jobo1}, \cite{rodman}, and \cite{gIopt}.
\section{Results}
\label{sec:verify}
\subsection{The $K = 1, 2, 3$ design scenarios}
The proposed $G$-optimal designs generated by the GA implemented by \cite{jobo1} were reproduced by $G$-CEXCH in \cite{rodman} and heretofore have remained the best known exact $G$-optimal designs for the second-order model and each of the $K=1,2,3$ design scenarios. We provide a comparison of the $n_{\text{run}}=140$ PSO search results (for each scenario) to the $G$-GA designs of \cite{jobo1} in Figure \ref{fig:first}. The data presented in this graphic are efficiencies of the $G$-PSO designs relative to the $G$-GA designs. Therefore, scores over 100 indicate that the PSO generated design is an improvement over the GA generated design. For the $K = 1$ scenarios, which are low-dimensional optimization from 3 to 9 dimensions, the graphic illustrates that all PSO runs are finding designs with equivalent $G$-score relative to the GA designs. In the second panel the results for the $K=2$ designs now shows a distribution in the $G$-releff score, but, for each scenario, the PSO produced designs with 90\% relative efficiency or higher for every single run. Further, PSO found a better $G$-optimal design for design sizes $N = 9, 10, 11, 12$. The last panel of the graphic indicates that, for $K=3$ factors and all experiment sizes $N$, PSO has identified an improved $G$-optimal design than those currently known, and the improvements are non-negligible, with increases ranging from 2-8\% efficiency.
\citet{gIopt} provides a comparison of $G(I_\lambda)$-CEXCH, $G$-CEXCH and $G$-GA and their relative ability to generate designs with the highest/best $G$-optimality. We note that, in their data, \cite{gIopt} did not compare their results to the $G$-GA designs as published by \cite{jobo1}, rather, they re-ran the GA algorithm $n_{\text{run}} = 200$ times in order to compare relative costs of the algorithm. Thus, the $G$-GA optimal designs in \cite{gIopt} are equal to or less efficient than those of \cite{jobo1}. Nonetheless, we can use their data to compare all algorithms vs. the GA designs of \cite{jobo1} (which are the best known to date). Table \ref{tab:Geffs} reports the efficiencies of the optimal design relative to the GA design found by \cite{jobo1} for each scenario and algorithm. In all cases, it can be seen that PSO finds the best design vs. all other algorithms.
Regarding computing cost, run time wall-clock for the entire set $140*21 = 2940$ of PSO searches over $K=1,2,3$ factors and the $N$ aforementioned was approximately 30 minutes (recall we are using \texttt{Julia} as well as parallel computing). \citet{gIopt} provides algorithm cost in the form of number of function evaluations over $n_{\text{run}} = 200$ runs of $G(I_\lambda)$-CEXCH, $G$-CEXCH and $G$-GA. Table \ref{tab:run} contains comparison of the \cite{gIopt} cost data to the cost of running $G$-PSO over our $n_{\text{run}} = 140$ runs. We provide a comparison of $G$-PSO cost on \cite{gIopt}'s $n_{\text{run}} = 200$ run scale by estimating the expected number of function evaluations and a 95\% confidence interval via Poisson statistics. Table \ref{tab:run} shows that $GA$ is the most expensive algorithm, and often via 2 orders of magnitude for the higher-dimensional problems. $G(I\lambda)$-CEXCH is slightly more costly than $G$-CEXCH for the lower dimensional problems, but is cheaper for the higher dimensional problems (often by an order of magnitude). Last, the 95\% confidence interval on the expected number of function evaluations in 200 PSO searches indicates that, in all cases, $G$-PSO has approximately the same cost as the new $G(I_\lambda)$-CEXCH (with some scenarios being slightly higher, but many scenarios being slightly lower cost than $G(I_\lambda)$-CEXCH).
These results illustrate that $G$-PSO is approximately the same cost as the state-of-the-art algorithm $G(I_\lambda)$-CEXCH for generating $G$-optimal designs, while PSO generates highly optimal designs more efficiently, as it is demonstrated here to produce the current best-known exact $G$-optimal designs for these scenarios.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width = \textwidth]{01_Gscores_paper.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Distributions of $G$-PSO design efficiencies relative to the published GA designs \label{fig:first}}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[]
\caption{Relative efficiencies of $G$-optimal designs for each algorithm relative to GA generated designs of \cite{jobo1}.}
\label{tab:Geffs}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ c c c c }
\cline{1-4}
\multicolumn{4}{c}{$K=1$ Factor} \\ \hline \hline
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{$N$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$G$-CEXCH} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$G(I_{\lambda})$-CEXCH} & $G$-PSO \\ \cline{1-4}
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{3} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{100.0} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{100.0} & 100.0 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{4} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{98.7} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{96.2} & 100.0 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{5} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{98.7} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{97.0} & 100.0 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{6} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{100.0} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{100.0} & 100.0 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{7} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{99.7} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{98.8} & 100.0 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{8} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{99.4} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{94.7} & 100.0 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{9} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{89.4} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{100.0} & 100.0 \\ \cline{1-4}
& & & \\ \cline{1-4}
\multicolumn{4}{c}{$K=2$ Factors} \\ \hline \hline
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{$N$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$G$-CEXCH} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$G(I_{\lambda})$-CEXCH} & $G$-PSO \\ \cline{1-4}
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{6} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{96.5} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{94.1} & 100.3 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{7} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{97.9} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{95.5} & 100.1 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{8} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{99.7} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{94.7} & 100.0 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{9} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{97.0} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{95.8} & 100.3 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{10} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{97.5} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{93.2} & 101.7 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{11} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{94.0} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{97.0} & 101.0 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{12} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{101.2} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{95.1} & 103.9 \\ \cline{1-4}
& & & \\ \cline{1-4}
\multicolumn{4}{c}{$K=3$ Factors} \\ \hline \hline
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{$N$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$G$-CEXCH} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$G(I_{\lambda})$-CEXCH} & $G$-PSO \\ \cline{1-4}
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{10} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{93.1} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{95.4} & 101.6 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{11} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{92.9} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{96.9} & 104.2 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{12} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{90.7} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{90.3} & 103.8 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{13} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{92.9} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{99.9} & 103.2 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{14} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{87.6} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{100.0} & 100.5 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{15} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{98.5} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{100.1} & 102.5 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{16} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{100.1} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{100.2} & 108.1 \\ \cline{1-4}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}[]
\caption{Algorithm cost comparison. Table value is log10(\# $f$ evaluations). The first PSO column reports the observed number of function evaluations in 140 runs of PSO. The gray columns report an estimate of the expected number of function evaluations in 200 PSO runs with a 95\% confidence interval.}
\label{tab:run}
\begin{center}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.15}
\begin{tabular}{ccc|ccccc
}
\hline\hline
\multicolumn{2}{c}{Design Scenario} & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{$G$-PSO} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$G(I_\lambda)$-CEXCH} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$G$-CEXCH} & $G$-GA \\ \hline
$K$ & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$N$} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\cellcolor[HTML]{FFFFFF}$n_{\text{run}} = 140$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$n_{\text{run}} = 200$} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{$n_{\text{run}} = 200$} \\ \hline\hline
\textbf{} & \textbf{} & \textbf{} & \textbf{estimate} & \textbf{95\% CI} & \textbf{} & & \\
1 & 3 & 6.000 & 6.155 & (6.145, 6.165) & 6.0 & 5.5 & 6.9 \\
1 & 4 & 6.535 & 6.690 & (6.684, 6.695) & 6.4 & 5.7 & 7.0 \\
1 & 5 & 6.681 & 6.835 & (6.831, 6.840) & 6.6 & 5.8 & 7.1 \\
1 & 6 & 6.226 & 6.381 & (6.373, 6.388) & 6.4 & 5.9 & 7.2 \\
1 & 7 & 6.685 & 6.840 & (6.835, 6.845) & 6.8 & 6.0 & 7.2 \\
1 & 8 & 6.761 & 6.916 & (6.912, 6.921) & 6.8 & 6.0 & 7.3 \\
1 & 9 & 6.405 & 6.560 & (6.553, 6.566) & 6.9 & 6.1 & 7.4 \\
& & & & & & & \\
2 & 6 & 7.088 & 7.243 & (7.240, 7.246) & 7.2 & 7.3 & 8.4 \\
2 & 7 & 7.086 & 7.241 & (7.238, 7.244) & 7.4 & 7.3 & 8.5 \\
2 & 8 & 7.042 & 7.197 & (7.194, 7.200) & 7.2 & 7.5 & 8.6 \\
2 & 9 & 7.119 & 7.274 & (7.271, 7.277) & 7.0 & 7.5 & 8.6 \\
2 & 10 & 7.163 & 7.318 & (7.315, 7.321) & 7.3 & 7.6 & 8.7 \\
2 & 11 & 7.221 & 7.376 & (7.373, 7.378) & 7.4 & 7.6 & 8.7 \\
2 & 12 & 7.196 & 7.351 & (7.348, 7.354) & 7.7 & 7.7 & 8.7 \\
& & & & & & & \\
3 & 10 & 7.437 & 7.592 & (7.590, 7.594) & 8.0 & 8.7 & 9.6 \\
3 & 11 & 7.511 & 7.666 & (7.664, 7.668) & 7.8 & 8.8 & 9.7 \\
3 & 12 & 7.544 & 7.699 & (7.697, 7.701) & 7.9 & 8.8 & 9.7 \\
3 & 13 & 7.538 & 7.692 & (7.691, 7.694) & 7.5 & 8.9 & 9.7 \\
3 & 14 & 7.543 & 7.698 & (7.696, 7.700) & 7.6 & 9.0 & 9.8 \\
3 & 15 & 7.515 & 7.670 & (7.668, 7.671) & 7.6 & 9.2 & 9.8 \\
3 & 16 & 7.556 & 7.711 & (7.709, 7.713) & 7.6 & 9.9 & 9.8 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
\subsection{The $K = 4, 5$ design scenarios}
Due to the computational cost, this number of experimental factors is the highest that the design community has gone to date. Searching for $G$-optimal designs for more factors will take a considerable time/computing investment. Note, however, that $K$ does not define the dimension of the optimization search: the dimension is $N*K$ so the largest problem we study here is $K = 5$, $N = 30$ which is an optimization search in a 150 dimensional parameter space.
Table \ref{tab:new45} contains the $G$-efficiencies of the best $G(I_\lambda)$-CEXCH, $G$-CEXCH, and $G$-PSO generated design, as well as the relative efficiency of the $G$-PSO design to the indicated CEXCH algorithm. In all cases PSO is found to generate better $G$-optimal designs, and in some cases with a significant improvement. We present distributions of the $G$-releff scores of the PSO designs to the corresponding CEXCH generated designs in Figure \ref{fig:sec}. In all cases it can be seen that PSO found an equivalent or better $G$-optimal design (evidenced by relative efficiencies over 100). We note that each of the CEXCH algorithms was run $n_{\text{run}}=200$ times in the work of \cite{gIopt} and the PSO searches were run $n_{\text{run}}=210$ times (a number evenly distributed on 7 computer cores). The graphic further illustrates PSO's ability to seek highly optimal designs each run, evidenced by the distributions of $G$-releff being tightly packed at or over 100\% relative efficiency. For many scenarios, there is apparently a high probability that PSO would generate a design with 95\% efficiency or better in a single run.
Regarding the significant improvements in designs, 1.) for the $K=4, N = 15$ case PSO provided a design with 145\% relative efficiency to the best-known design, 2.) for the $K = 4, N = 20$ scenario, PSO produced a design with 123\% improved efficiency, and 3.) for the $K=5, N = 21$ scenario, PSO found a design with 177\% relative efficiency. We contacted the authors of \cite{rodman} to investigate these large discrepancies. For the $K=4, N = 15$ and $K = 5, N = 21$ scenarios, it was confirmed that the designs published by \cite{rodman} were mis-scored on the $G$-scale (personal email correspondence with Dr. Bradley Jones, June 20, 2020). Given that \cite{rodman} employs a separate optimization search to score each candidate design on the $G$-scale, these results illustrate the consequences of failing to find the maximum prediction variance for a candidate design, and, to our opinion, support the approach of using the $5^K$ grid $\mathbf{G}_\mathcal{X}$ to score candidate designs.
The information for a proper time comparison for generating designs with $K=4, 5$ factors via PSO vs. the other approaches does not exist due to algorithms being run on different machines and computing languages. Nonetheless, for information we report what data do exist for computing times on the $K=4, N = 17$ and $K=5, N = 23$ design scenarios. \citet{gIopt} report that they were able to run $G(I_\lambda)$-CEXCH $n_{\text{run}} = 200$ times on the $K=4, N = 17$ in 20.13 hours on their computing platform (approx 6.0m for each run). They were not able to run $G$-CEXCH as they estimated that 200 runs would have taken 25 days on their machine. Our approach (PSO, Julia, $n_{\text{run}} = 210$ parallel PSO runs [30 runs per 7 cores]) took about 3 hours which translates into approximately 6m per each individual run. \citet{gIopt} report that they were able to run $G(I_\lambda)$-CEXCH $n_{\text{run}} = 200$ times on the $K=5, N = 23$ in 25.07 hours on their computing platform (approx 7.5m for each run). They were not able to run $G$-CEXCH as they estimated that 200 runs would have taken 166 days on their machine. Our approach (PSO, Julia, $n_{\text{run}} = 210$ parallel PSO runs [30 runs per 7 cores]) took about 20h which translates into approximately 40m per each individual run. These results imply that PSO has more difficulty scaling to higher dimension. The reason why PSO took approximately 6 times longer for the $K=5$ scenario than for the $K=4$ scenario is that the respective $5^K$ grids used to score each candidate design during the search have $5^5 = 3125$ and $5^4 = 625$ points respectively, and \emph{each particle} (\ie each candidate design) must have the $G$-score evaluated \emph {at each of these grid points, at each iteration of the algorithm}. Nonetheless, we believe this time increase to be of little hindrance to scaling PSO to efficient searches for higher dimensional designs due to the use of Julia and parallel computing, and the additional cost is easily mitigated via CPUs with more computer cores.
\begin{table}[]
\caption{$G$-efficiencies of published $G$-optimal designs for $K=4,5$ factors. The last column is the relative efficiency of the best $G$-PSO design compared to previously published designs. Author \cite{rodman} used the $G$-CEXCH while \cite{gIopt} used the $G(I_\lambda)$-CEXCH.}
\label{tab:new45}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline
\multicolumn{5}{c}{$K=4$ Factors} \\ \hline \hline
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{$N$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{source} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{CEXCH} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$G$-PSO} & $G$-releff \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{15} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Rodriguez (2010)} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{48.89} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{71.09} & 145.41 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{17} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Hernandez (2018)} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{70.14} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{73.90} & 105.36 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{20} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Rodriguez (2010)} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{65.11} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{80.20} & 123.18 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{24} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Rodriguez (2010)} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{81.05} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{85.95} & 106.05 \\ \hline
& & & & \\ \hline
\multicolumn{5}{c}{$K=5$ Factors} \\ \hline \hline
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{$N$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{source} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{CEXCH} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$G$-PSO} & $G$-releff \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{21} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Rodriguez (2010)} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{38.74} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{68.67} & 177.26 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{23} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Hernandez (2018)} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{73.02} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{73.19} & 100.24 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{26} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Rodriguez (2010)} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{72.47} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{75.31} & 103.92 \\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{30} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Rodriguez (2010)} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{75.80} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{76.16} & 100.47 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width = \textwidth]{01_Gscores45_paper.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Distributions of $G$-PSO design efficiencies relative to the published CEXCH designs for $K=4, 5$ factors.\label{fig:sec}}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conc}
In this paper we summarized the last two decades of research into algorithm development for generating exact $G$-optimal designs. To date, PSO has not been applied to this problem and so we proposed an extension of PSO to generate exact $G$-optimal designs. We then ran PSO on all published design scenarios. For the 21 $N$ scenarios on $K=1, 2, 3$ design factors studied in \cite{jobo1, rodman, gIopt}, PSO found better $G$-optimal designs for 12 of the higher dimension scenarios, some of these improvements offering 5\% or better efficiency than currently known designs. On our computing setup, the total run time for all 2940 PSO searches on the 21 $K=1,2,3$ design scenarios was less than 30 minutes with the the $n_{\text{run}}=140$ PSO searches for the $K=1$ scenarios taking less than a minute, and the $n_{\text{run}}=140$ PSO searches for the $K= 3$, $N = 16$ (\ie a 48 dimensional optimization) took approximately 4 minutes, or about 12 seconds for each individual PSO search (using $S=150$ particles). The use of \texttt{Julia} and parallel computing definitely helps to run many PSO searches very quickly. We believe this speed may enable realistic searches for good $G$-optimal designs for practitioners.
There are not many published proposed exact $G$-optimal designs for $K = 4, 5$ design factor cases due to the expense of searching for optimal designs for these scenarios. To date, there are only 4 design scenarios for each $K$ covered by \cite{rodman} and \cite{gIopt}. In all cases, $G$-PSO found as good or better $G$-optimal designs than those currently known.
PSO is distinct from the various coordinate exchange algorithms studied in the following way. CEXCH starts with a randomly drawn design and then optimizes this design locally in $\mathcal{X}^N$. In CEXCH, there is no `intelligence' which seeks to search $\mathcal{X}^N$ more globally for the best possible optimum. PSO, in contrast, uses $S$ randomly drawn design matrices which are searching $\mathcal{X}^N$ for the best possible fitness on the objective. Further, these candidate designs remember and communicate their best positions, have a tendency to want to revisit these locations, and this increases the likelihood of PSO to find the global optimum. In this sense, and due to the demonstrated computational cost, we propose that PSO should now be viewed as state-of-the art for generating optimal designs.
The genetic algorithm has enjoyed large success in academic research and is demonstrated, to this point, to be the superior algorithm for generating optimal designs with the best optimality scores. The GA, however, is computationally expensive, and so it is not a great tool for the practitioner of experiments to generate candidate optimal designs for their problem. This work has demonstrated that PSO, in repeated runs, performs as well or better than GA in generating optimal designs at a fraction of the cost. Therefore, we propose that PSO should be applied further in academic research in generating optimal designs instead of GA.
Our future research trajectory in this regard is as follows. We will extend our PSO code to generate designs for linearly constrained design spaces. We will also apply PSO to generating other optimal designs e.g.\@ $D$-, $I$-, and $A$- designs are popular to study in research---as $G$-optimal design generation is a much harder problem than these other criteria, we are expecting PSO to perform well. We are also planning to apply PSO to generate optimal designs with a specified pure-replication structure. Last, we plan to extend the PSO to generating optimal designs for mixture experiments. The results presented in this paper suggest PSO will perform well in these future applications.
In conclusion, PSO is hereby demonstrated to be superior to existing algorithms for generating exact $G$-optimal designs. It costs roughly the same as the state-of-the-art algorithm, but is more efficient at finding the global optimal design in all studied cases.
\bigskip
\begin{center}
{\large\bf SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL}
\end{center}
\begin{description}
\item[PSO $G$-optimal designs:] File containing all PSO generated $G$-optimal designs for all scenarios discussed in this paper (can be used to verify optimality scores). (.csv file)
\item[R-code for scoring the newly found proposed exact $G$-optimal designs:] this script may be applied to the provided .csv file in order to verify the $G$-scores of the PSO generated designs published in this paper, and to reproduce several of the discussed results.
\end{description}
\bibliographystyle{spbasic}
|
\section{Introduction}
Nuclear reactions of neutron-rich nuclei play a key role in nucleosynthesis both in astrophysical environments \cite{Arnould07} as well as terrestially in accelerator-based experiments \cite{Oganessian10, Horowitz19}.
One topic of particular interest both theoretically as well as experimentally is the question about the enhancement or suppression of the fusion cross-section for neutron-rich nuclei \cite{Montagnoli17,KGA16, Canto09, Canto15}. For extremely neutron-rich nuclei, as a result of their weakly bound valence neutrons, one might observe reduced spatial coupling of the neutron and proton distributions and the emergence of novel neutron dynamics which enhance the fusion cross-section.
At energies near the fusion barrier the fusion process is particularly interesting as the timescale of the collision is sufficiently long for collective dynamics of the neutron and proton density distributions to influence the fusion process. It is presently unclear how this dynamics is impacted by the shell structure of the initial nuclei.
Although it is well established that inelastic excitation of the two nuclei as they approach \cite{Stefanini95} and transfer of one or more nucleons \cite{Rowley92, Jia14} can modify the fusion probability in particular systems, a more comprehensive understanding is presently lacking \cite{Jia14}.
Theoretical calculations of the fusion using a density-constrained TDHF approach found an enhancement of fusion for the asymmetric system $^{24}$O + $^{16}$O as compared to $^{16}$O + $^{16}$O \cite{Umar12}. This enhancement is understood as resulting from neutron transfer which modifies the potential between the nuclei, lowering the barrier. For even more neutron-rich nuclei--at the limit of stability-- namely $^{24}$O + $^{24}$O, fusion is suppressed relative to $^{24}$O + $^{16}$O. This suppression of fusion for symmetric neutron-rich systems has been attributed to a repulsive Pauli potential
arising from the overlap of the neutron-rich tails \cite{Simenel17}.
However, these calculations are one-body and neglect many-body correlations which could enhance correlated transfer. Moreover, they are limited in that they only reflect the average behavior of the system.
Experimental evidence of fusion enhancement for neutron-rich nuclei also exists. Neutron exchange of valence neutrons in Ni + Ni systems were proposed as possibly responsible for an observed increase in the sub-barrier fusion cross-section \cite{Beckerman80}. Recent measurements provide further evidence of fusion enhancement due to the presence of a one-neutron halo ($^{15}$C) \cite{Alcorta11} or an unpaired neutron ($^{19}$O) \cite{Singh17}. However, experimental measurements confirm that the neutron-richness of the colliding nuclei alone is not the only factor impacting the fusion probability as indicated by examination of Ca+Ca collisions. While fusion of a $^{48}$Ca projectile with a $^{40}$Ca target nucleus is enhanced as compared to a $^{40}$Ca projectile \cite{Aljuwair84}, fusion of $^{48}$Ca + $^{48}$Ca is suppressed below the barrier \cite{Montagnoli12}. It has recently been observed that, at above-barrier energies, after accounting for systematic size and Coulomb effects, the fusion cross-section for open shell nuclei near the N=20 and N=28 shells is larger than that of the closed-shell nuclei \cite{Singh21}. This result has been interpreted as enhanced binding of the closed-shell nuclei as compared to open-shell nuclei as they merge.
In the present work, motivated by these prior above-barrier results, we examine for the first time fusion in $^{39,41,45,47}$K and $^{36,44}$Ar +$^{28}$Si and explore the role of shell structure and N/Z equilibration on the fusion cross-section.
\section{Experimental Data}
Radioactive beams of K and Ar ions were produced by the coupled cyclotron facility at MSU-NSCL and thermalized in a linear gas stopper before being re-accelerated by the ReA3 linac \cite{Singh21}. The re-accelerated beam was
transported to the experimental setup where it impinged upon the $^{28}$Si target. Details on the experimental setup have been previously published \cite{Vadas18}.
Contaminants in the radioactive beam were identified and rejected on a particle-by-particle basis by performing a $\Delta$E-TOF measurement \cite{Vadas18, Singh21}.
The target composition was characterized using Rutherford
Backscattering measurement (RBS) and confirmed using X-ray Photoelectron spectroscopy \cite{Johnstone20}. This RBS measurement revealed a $^{28}$Si thickness of 258 $\pm$ 10 $\mu$g/cm$^2$ and an oxygen thickness of 98 $\pm$ 4 $\mu$g/cm$^2$. The experimental resolution allowed reaction products from the fusion of the beam with $^{28}$Si and $^{16}$O to be distinguished \cite{Vadas18}.
The intensities of the K and Ar beams incident on the target ranged between 1.0 x 10$^4$ ($^{44}$Ar/s) and 4.5 x 10$^{4}$ ($^{39}$K/s). Fusion of the incident K and Ar ions with the oxygen nuclei has been previously published \cite{Singh21}.
Fusion of K (Ar) ions
with the $^{28}$Si target results in a compound nucleus (CN) of As (Ge).
De-excitation of the CN {\em via} neutron, proton and $\alpha$ emission deflects the resulting evaporation residue (ER) from the beam direction. The ER was detected
in annular Si(IP) detectors (1.0$^\circ$ $<$ $\theta_{lab}$ $<$ 7.3$^\circ$) and distinguished from scattered beam using the energy/time-of-flight (ETOF) technique \cite{Vadas18}.
Extraction of the fusion cross-section, $\sigma_F$, is achieved by measuring the yield of ERs and utilizing the relation
$\sigma_F$ = N$_{ER}$/($\epsilon_{ER}$ $\times$ t $\times$ N$_{I}$) where
N$_{ER}$
is the number of evaporation residues detected, N$_{I}$ is the number of beam particles of a given type incident on the target, t is the target
thickness, and $\epsilon_{ER}$ is the detection efficiency. The number of detected residues,
N$_{ER}$, is determined by summing the number of detected residues identified by the ETOF technique. Uncertainty in identifying an ER associated with fusion on
$^{28}$Si is reflected in the error bars presented.
Beam particles with the appropriate identification in the $\Delta$E-TOF map provided the measure of
N$_{I}$.
A statistical model was
employed to describe the de-excitation of the fusion product. Together with the geometric acceptance of the experimental setup
this provided the detection efficiency, $\epsilon_{ER}$. which varied between $\approx$ 78-84\% over the
entire energy range.
An effective means of comparing the fusion excitation function for different systems is the use of the reduced excitation function \cite{Canto15}. Comparison of fusion for an isotopic chain allows utilization of the simplest scaling prescription.
The systematic increase in size with increasing mass number A is accounted for by scaling
the fusion cross-section $\sigma_F$ by the quantity (A$_P^{1/3}$ + A$_T^{1/3}$)$^2$. Differences in the Coulomb barrier for the different systems are considered for by examining the dependence of this reduced cross-section
on the incident energy relative to the Coulomb barrier.
The Coulomb barrier, V$_C$, is taken as V$_C$=1.44Z$_P$Z$_T$/(1.4(A$_P^{1/3}$ + A$_T^{1/3}$)). This simple accounting of the Coulomb barrier suffices as significant interpenetration of the charge distribution does not occur outside the fusion barrier.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.52]{XSi_ReducedSigma_perZ.eps}
\caption{Comparison of the reduced fusion excitation functions.
}
\label{fig:Fus_Red_VC}
\end{figure}
Presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:Fus_Red_VC}a are the reduced fusion excitation functions for $^{39,41,45,47}$K + $^{28}$Si. For all systems the reduced fusion cross-section above the barrier is similar. Below the barrier however, significant differences are apparent between the different systems. The data clearly organize into two groups: one associated with $^{39}$K and $^{47}$K (closed neutron shells at N=20 and N=28 respectively)
and the other with $^{41}$K and $^{45}$K (open neutron shells).
This similarity of the reduced fusion cross-section for $^{39}$K and $^{47}$K projectiles indicates that the density distributions, relevant to fusion, for the two closed-shell K isotopes are similar when scaled by A$^{1/3}$.
In marked contrast,
a larger reduced fusion cross-section is evident for the open-shell $^{41}$K (N=22) and $^{45}$K (N=26), beyond the systematic A$^{1/3}$ scaling.
This enhancement of the fusion cross-section for the open-shell nuclei increases
with decreasing energy below the barrier.
The same enhancement at sub-barrier energies is observed for the open-shell
$^{36,44}$Ar nuclei as compared to the closed-shell K isotopes in Fig.~\ref{fig:Fus_Red_VC}b.
This present observation of the difference in the fusion of open-shell and closed-shell was
confirmed by reexamining the literature. Enhancement of the fusion cross-section for an open-shell nucleus ($^{124}$Sn) as compared to a closed-shell nucleus ($^{132}$Sn) is also evident for $^{40,48}$Ca targets \cite{Kohley13}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.52]{XSi_ReducedSigma_perN.eps}
\caption{
Reduced excitation functions for the measured systems. The upper panel shows
the systems closest to the N=20 shell closure. The lower panel shows the systems
closest to the N=28 shell closure.
}
\label{fig:Fus_Red_VC_N}
\end{figure}
Presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:Fus_Red_VC_N} are the reduced fusion excitation functions grouped by their proximity to the N=20 and N=28 shells. In Fig.~\ref{fig:Fus_Red_VC_N}a one observes that $^{36}$Ar and $^{41}$K exhibit similar excitation functions with a marked enhancement of the reduced fusion cross-section as compared to the closed-shell $^{39}$K (N=20). This result indicates that the presence of two holes below the closed-shell ($^{36}$Ar) is effectively the same as the presence of two particles above the closed-shell ($^{41}$K) in determining the reduced fusion cross-section.
A similar enhancement in the reduced fusion cross-section is observed at the N=28 shell for the presence of two holes in $^{44}$Ar and $^{45}$K as compared to $^{47}$K.
\section{Comparison with Theoretical Models}
The simplest description of fusion involves the
interaction of the density distributions of the two interacting nuclei. For a non-adiabatic interaction (sudden approximation) consideration of the ground-state density distributions suffices. For adiabatic collisions, collective modes
in the colliding nuclei can be excited and also need to be considered. Inclusion of
these modes in a coupled channels (CC) formalism results in an increase in the
fusion cross-section at energies near and below the Coulomb barrier \cite{StG81,ADT89}.
To investigate whether the observed fusion excitation functions can
be described by the interaction of the density distributions of
the projectile and target nuclei, the S\~{a}o Paulo model was used.
The S\~ao Paulo potential (SPP)~\cite{CPH97} is a local equivalent double folding of the projectile and target matter densities on the zero-range interaction.
Prior work demonstrated the sensitivity of the fusion cross-section to accurate ground-state density distributions \cite{Singh21}. To provide reasonably accurate matter density distributions, which include two-body correlations, we performed Dirac-Hartree-Bogoliubov (DHB) calculations \cite{CaH00}. The correlations in the DHB calculations of the present work are limited to surface-pairing correlations. These correlations can make
subtle modifications to the nuclear surface, extending and
modifying the nuclear density. The details of these mean field calculations using an axially-symmetric self-consistent approximation are reported in Ref.~\cite{CCG21}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{XSi_RawSigma_withTheory.eps}
\caption{
Comparison of the experimental cross-sections with the predictions of the S\~ao Paulo
model using DHB densities for both the ground state and coupled channel calculations.}
\label{fig:Expt_vs_theory}
\end{figure}
Using the ground-state DHB matter distributions for both the projectile and $^{28}$Si target nuclei,
the SPP was generated and used to calculate the fusion cross-section.
The theoretical predictions, represented by the dashed lines, are compared with the experimental data in
Fig. ~\ref{fig:Expt_vs_theory}.
Comparison of these one-channel (DHB-OC) theoretical predictions with the
experimental excitation functions is revealing.
For the closed neutron shell isotopes $^{39,47}$K, the DHB-OC calculations
provide a reasonable prediction of the excitation function over the entire energy interval measured although the model calculations lie slightly below the experimental data particularly in the sub-barrier regime.
In the case of the open neutron shell $^{41}$K,
$^{45}$K and $^{36}$Ar, the model dramatically under-predicts the measured cross-sections, particularly at sub-barrier energies. This
under-prediction for the case of the open-shell nuclei suggests that the ground-state configurations alone are insufficient in describing the measured cross-sections. In the case of $^{44}$Ar insufficient data exists at low energy to draw a definitive conclusion.
As coupling to low-lying collective modes acts to increase the fusion cross-section we have performed coupled-channels (CC) calculations to investigate the extent to which the presence of low-lying states increases the fusion cross-section. The 1.779 MeV, $2^{+}$ and 4.618 MeV, $4^{+}$ first states of the target were considered. The coupling to the low-lying projectiles states does not produce a considerable effect on the fusion cross-section. To account for the couplings between the low-lying states the transition probabilities were taken from Ref.~\cite{RNT01}.
The results of the CC calculations are shown in
Fig. ~\ref{fig:Expt_vs_theory} as solid lines. In the case of the closed-shell nuclei, $^{39}$K and $^{47}$K, inclusion of the excitations considered provides a good description of the fusion cross-section. However, in the case of the open-shell nuclei the experimental data are significantly enhanced relative to the CC calculations with inclusion of low-lying excitations. It is particularly interesting to note that the magnitude of the enhancement is much larger than the increase due to the inclusion of inelastic excitation in the CC calculations. This enhancement suggests that transfer might be occurring prior to fusion.
\begin{table} [t!]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline
{Q} & {$^{39}$K} & {$^{41}$K} & {$^{45}$K} & {$^{47}$K} \\ [0,4ex]
\hline
1n & -4.604 & -1.621 & -0.432 & 0.105 \\
2n & -6.068 & 1.187 & 2.899 & 3.843 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Q-values (in MeV) for one- and two-neutron transfer.}
\label{table:Qval}
\end{table}
Neutron transfer prior to fusion is often proposed as responsible for an enhancement in the fusion cross-section \cite{Beckerman80,Montagnoli13,Trotta01}.
For a system with zero Q-value for two neutron transfer, $^{60}$Ni + $^{58}$Ni, inelastic excitations dominate and neutron transfer plays a negligible role \cite{Stefanini95}. When one of the colliding nuclei is neutron-rich relative to its collision partner, as in the case of $^{40}$Ca + $^{96}$Zr positive Q-value neutron transfer channels act to increase the fusion cross-section at sub-barrier energies as compared to $^{40}$Ca + $^{90}$Zr \cite{Timmers97,Timmers98,Stefanini06,Stefanini14}. We present the relevant Q-values in Table~\ref{table:Qval} \cite{nudat}.
With the exception of $^{39}$K the Q-value for two-neutron transfer in the other K isotopes is positive.
Transfer of one neutron from $^{39}$K to $^{28}$Si is -4.604 MeV, while for $^{47}$K it is slightly positive (+0.1 MeV). Nonetheless, the fusion excitation function for these two nuclei with $^{28}$Si is comparable.
The Q-value for neutron transfer for the open-shell cases $^{41,45}$K lies between that of $^{39}$K and $^{47}$K yet the fusion excitation functions of the open-shell cases differ from those of the closed-shell. Clearly the observed
behavior of the experimental fusion excitation functions cannot be understood simply by consideration of the Q-value for neutron transfer.
The consideration of the Q-value for neutron transfer ignores the role of protons during the fusion process.
Description of fusion using a density-constrained time-dependent Hartree-Fock (DC-TDHF) model allows the neutron and proton density distributions to evolve as the collision proceeds while incorporating all of the dynamical
entrance channel effects such as neck formation, particle
exchange, internal excitations, and deformation effects \cite{Oberacker13}. Such calculations for the system $^{132}$Sn + $^{40,48}$Ca clearly indicate the correlated flow of neutrons and protons. Unfortunately, for nuclei with unpaired nucleons the DC-TDHF calculations are considerably more challenging with a significant sensitivity to the inclusion of pairing \cite{Steinbach14a}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.43]{PES_V_2x2.eps}
\caption{
Potential energy surfaces (in MeV) for binary fragmentation of each of the K + $^{28}$Si systems. The arrows indicate the gradient of the liquid drop surface calculated with shell and proximity corrections for impact parameter zero. The initial projectile-target combination is indicated by the solid (red) symbol.
}
\label{fig:PES}
\end{figure}
We therefore consider qualitatively how initial nucleon exchange could impact fusion at near and sub-barrier energies using a conceptually simple physical framework. When the two colliding nuclei are within the range of the strong force nucleon exchange is allowed. This exchange of protons and neutrons is governed by a potential energy surface (PES). Flow of nucleons between the two nuclei is stochastic and allows equilibration of mass, charge, and energy \cite{Randrup79}. The differential flow of neutrons and protons between the colliding nuclei results in both a net change in the atomic and mass numbers as well as excitation of the system. The nucleon flow is mitigated by Pauli-blocking of scattering into occupied states.
Independent of the gradient of the potential, proton exchange is initially disfavored relative to neutron exchange because of the Coulomb barrier between the two nuclei.
This physical picture was largely successful in explaining the charge and mass distributions associated with strongly damped collisions along with the characteristic dissipation of kinetic energy \cite{Schroder84}.
A key factor driving the equilibration of N/Z in strongly-damped heavy-ion collisions is the gradient of the PES in the vicinity of the entrance channel \cite{desouza88}. A stochastic mean field approach utilizing this nucleon exchange framework successfully explained the dispersion of the mass distribution in $^{58}$Ni + $^{60}$Ni for damped collisions \cite{Yilmaz18}. It was hypothesized that for slightly more central collisions that resulted in fusion such a physical picture should still be valid. Unfortunately,
the diffusion approach employed does not allow a description of the transition from multi-nucleon transfer to fusion \cite{Yilmaz18}. We emphasize that in the present work we only utilize this physical picture to understand the factors influencing the {\em initial} neutron and proton exchanges prior to fusion.
To assess the factors influencing the initial nucleon exchanges, the PES was calculated for all binary combinations of a colliding system. The PES calculated corresponds to the liquid drop energy modified by shell corrections as well as a proximity interaction \cite{Schroder84}. The surface was calculated at the strong absorption radius (approximately 10 fm in all cases shown) for zero impact parameter. As our aim is a qualitative description for these near and sub-barrier collisions and the systems considered are similar in mass asymmetry, ignoring the role of angular momentum in modifying the surface is justified.
The PES for each of the four K + $^{28}$Si systems is displayed in Fig. ~\ref{fig:PES}. Arrows indicate the gradient of the potential in the NZ plane with the initial projectile-target combination indicated by the solid (red) symbol. The magnitude of the gradient is indicated by the numbers (in MeV) adjacent to selected arrows.
To begin we examine the cases of extremes in neutron-richness which nonetheless exhibit the same reduced fusion excitation function. In the case of $^{39}$K, the projectile-target combination already lies along the valley of the PES in the NZ plane. Therefore, correlated neutron and proton exchange is required in order to maintain N/Z equilibrium. While any initial proton transfer is disfavored because of the Coulomb barrier, proton transfer from $^{28}$Si to $^{39}$K is additionally suppressed by Pauli blocking \cite{Schroder84}. This suppression of initial proton exchange suppresses the neutron exchange.
In the case of $^{47}$K, the PES is quite different. The initial system has a significant gradient to decrease the neutron number and increase the atomic number of the $^{47}K$ nucleus. While neutron transfer out of the K nucleus is favored, proton pickup from the $^{28}$Si is also favored due to the large N/Z asymmetry of the system. Pauli blocking of initial proton transfer limits the ability of the system to follow the gradient of the PES and attain N/Z equilibrium in an effective manner.
For the open neutron shell nuclei, neutron transfer is not hindered by the energy cost of breaking the neutron shell.
For $^{41}$K, as indicated by the PES, transfer of a neutron from $^{41}$K to $^{28}$Si can occur without any driving force for proton transfer. Net transfer of one neutron in this physical picture corresponds to multiple neutron exchanges. These multiple neutron exchanges excite the K nucleus which lessens the Pauli-blocking of subsequent proton exchanges. Subsequent proton transfer into or out of the K nucleus are equally energetically favorable as indicated by the PES. One might hypothesize that these initial neutron exchanges, not just the net transfer of one neutron, by reducing the Pauli-blocking act to increase the fusion probability.
The case of the $^{45}$K is intermediate between that of $^{41}$K and $^{47}$K and more difficult to interpret. While pickup of a proton by the $^{45}$K is favored along with loss of a neutron, the magnitude of the gradient is less than in the $^{47}$K case. The smaller driving force for proton pickup relative to $^{47}$K suggests a lesser role of proton transfer on the fusion cross-section.
\section{Conclusions}
Comparison of the fusion excitation functions for
$^{39,41,45,47}$K + $^{28}$Si and $^{36,44}$Ar + $^{28}$Si reveals that at sub-barrier energies the open neutron shell nuclei of
$^{41,45}$K manifest a significantly larger reduced fusion cross-section as compared to the closed neutron shell isotopes $^{39,47}$K.
For the closed-shell nuclei, the
use of Dirac-Hartree-Bogoliubov (DHB)
ground state densities in the S\~ao Paulo
fusion model provided a reasonable description of the data - one that was improved by inclusion of low-lying states of the $^{28}$Si. For the open-shell nuclei, use of the DHB densities, even with the inclusion of the excited states, significantly under-predicts the measured
cross-sections, particularly below the barrier.
Q-value calculations of neutron transfer alone are unable to explain the similarity in cross-section for the closed-shell nuclei and the enhancement for the open-shell nuclei.
If transfer is the reason for the enhancement, a slightly more expansive perspective is required.
Consideration of the energetics involved with {\em both} proton and neutron exchange, along with Pauli-blocking, provided insight into the difference between the closed-shell and open-shell nuclei. A more quantitative description of the observations requires development of a more complete theoretical description, one which properly accounts for multi-nucleon transfer and Pauli-blocking in the initial stages of the collision.
\begin{acknowledgments}
We acknowledge the high quality beams provided by the staff at NSCL, Michigan Sate University that made this experiment possible.
This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science under Grant Nos.
DE-FG02-88ER-40404 (Indiana University), DE-FG02-93ER-40773 (Texas A\&M University) and the National Science Foundation under PHY-1712832. Brazilian authors acknowledge partial financial support from CNPq, FAPERJ, FAPESP, CAPES and INCT-FNA (Instituto Nacional de Ci\^ {e}ncia e Tecnologia- F\' isica Nuclear e Aplica\c {c}\~ {o}es) Research Project No. 464898/2014-5
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
This paper studies the entanglement entropy of free fermions on
inhomogeneous lattices in various dimensions.
In quantum many-body physics, bipartite entanglement relates to how much a
part denoted $\mathcal{A}$ of a system is correlated with its complement $\bar{\mathcal{A}}$.
Quantifying this property is naturally of interest and warrants systematic investigation
\cite{AFOV08,ECP08, Latorre:2009zz} as it plays in particular a key role in
the characterization of critical points \cite{OAFF02,ON02,VLRK03,CC04} and
is of relevance in quantum information \cite{nielsen2002quantum}. One such way of quantifying
entanglement is through the entanglement entropy, provided by the von Neumann
entropy $S_{vN}$ of the reduced density matrix $\rho_\mathcal{A}$ of $\mathcal{A}$. For a
system in the pure state $| \Psi \rangle\!\rangle$, the entanglement entropy is
defined by
\begin{equation}
S_{vN} = - \Tr(\rho_\mathcal{A} \log \rho_\mathcal{A}), \quad \quad \rho_\mathcal{A}
= \Tr_{\bar \mathcal{A}}| \Psi \rangle\!\rangle \langle\!\langle \Psi |.
\label{EE}
\end{equation}
The entanglement entropy computation for an $N$-body system in the
large-$N$ limit is generally a challenging problem. Considerable attention
has been focused on free-fermion models in one dimension, where this
computation becomes tractable. Indeed, owing to the
quadratic nature of such models, the spectrum of the reduced density
matrix can be obtained solely from the truncated two-point correlation
matrix $C$ \cite{peschel2003calculation},
which readily yields the entanglement entropy. For one-dimensional homogeneous chains, analytic results are available, see e.g. \cite{jin2004,its2005entanglement, calabrese2010universal, fagotti2011universal,eisler2013free, eisler2017analytical, eisler2018properties}. In particular, for the spin-1/2 XX spin chain with open boundary conditions, exact calculations based on the generalized Fisher-Hartwig conjecture \cite{fagotti2011universal} show that the entanglement entropy of a block of $\ell$ contiguous sites adjacent to a boundary scales as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:SvnScaling}
S_{vN} = \frac 16 \log \ell + \dots \,
\end{equation}
in the limit of a large system embedded in an infinite chain. This is in agreement with results of conformal field theory (CFT) \cite{holzhey1994geometric,CC04,CC05} with central charge $c=1$.
Over recent years, a strong theoretical effort has also been aimed at better understanding entanglement properties of spatially-inhomogeneous systems \cite{ramirez2015entanglement,DSVC17,rodriguez2017more,Crampe:2019upj,Crampe:2021,FA20,BSR21,FA21}. While analytical methods used for homogeneous chains do not generalize to the inhomogeneous case, results have been obtained using CFT in curved background \cite{DSVC17,rodriguez2017more,FA21}. In Ref. \cite{FA21}, the authors use this formalism to argue that the entanglement entropy of a large class of inhomogeneous chains scales as in Eq. \eqref{eq:SvnScaling}, where the inhomogeneous nature of the chains affects the sub-leading terms.
These one-dimensional models, both homogeneous and inhomogeneous, have a
deep connection to orthogonal polynomials (more precisely, families of
uni-variate orthogonal polynomials that belong to the Askey scheme \cite{koekoek2010hypergeometric}).
An additional interesting feature of these models, made possible by the
underlying bispectral context, is the existence of a tridiagonal Heun operator that commutes with $C$.
The identification of this commuting operator exploits the parallel
between the diagonalization of $C$ (which is constructed out of
operators projecting onto (i) the set of sites forming part $\mathcal{A}$ and (ii)
states corresponding to energies that are present in the Fermi sea) with discrete-discrete
problems in signal processing (that look at optimizing the concentration in
time of a band-limited function), see \cite{grunbaum2018algebraic}.
Motivated by these results, we introduce here an inhomogeneous model of
free fermions that hop on a $(D-1)$-dimensional hyperplane sublattice of a
$D$-dimensional hypercubic lattice. This model has $D(D-1)/2$ continuous parameters
that control the strength of hopping between nearest-neighbor sites, as
well as $D$ discrete parameters. For
$D=2$, this model reduces to the Krawtchouk chain \cite{Crampe:2019upj}. We solve the general
model exactly, and find that the eigenfunctions are given by
multidimensional generalizations of Krawtchouk polynomials. These polynomials were introduced by Griffiths more than 50 years ago \cite{griffiths1972orthogonal}, rediscovered at the turn of the millennium
and much studied thereafter \cite{ mizukawa2004n+, hoare2008probablistic, iliev2012rahman, iliev2012lie, diaconis2014introduction,Iliev2007,grunbaum2011system,geronimo2010bispectrality,GVZ2103}. For simplicity, we
focus here on special cases (with one or more parameters set to zero) that were
studied by Tratnik \cite{tratnik1991some}\footnote{These
multivariate polynomials of Griffiths and Tratnik types have also been used
recently to design spin lattices with useful properties such as perfect
state transfer \cite{miki2012quantum, miki2019quantum}.}. Moreover, we construct a multidimensional generalization of the $D=2$ Heun operator
found in \cite{Crampe:2019upj} which commutes with the chopped correlation matrix $C$.
We compute the entanglement entropy numerically for $D=2,3,4$, for a wide range of different parameters. For $D=2$, where the model has just one continuous parameter $p \in (0,1)$, we confirm recent results for $p=1/2$ \cite{FA21}, and obtain new results for $p\ne 1/2$. In particular, we observe oscillations in the sub-leading contribution to the entanglement entropy, for which we conjecture an exact expression.
For $D>2$, we find logarithmic violations of the area law for the entanglement entropy with nontrivial dependence on the parameters.
The paper will unfold as follows. The multidimensional inhomogeneous free-fermion model is introduced in Sec. \ref{sec:model}, and various special cases are spelled out. Their analytic solutions are provided. A quick review of the characterization of the Griffiths polynomials is also given. The framework for the entanglement study is established in Sec. \ref{sec:cormat} by specifying the eigenstate in which the system will be taken, and by formulating the correlation matrix in that state. Upon fixing what has been called the part $\mathcal{A}$ of the system (the part whose entanglement we wish to concentrate on), the appropriate multidimensional generalization of the Heun operator is constructed and shown to commute with the chopped correlation matrix. This sets the stage for the determination of the entanglement entropy of various cases which is carried out in Sec. \ref{sec:entanglement}. Conclusions and perspectives are offered in Sec. \ref{sec:end}.
\section{The inhomogeneous free-fermion model}\label{sec:model}
In this section we define an inhomogeneous free-fermion model on a hyperplane lattice, and derive its exact solution. We introduce the model in Sec. \ref{sec:defH}, and point out special cases for $D>2$, namely the Tratnik and the one-parameter cases. We diagonalize the general Hamiltonian in Sec. \ref{sec:Solution} with the help of eigenfunctions that are investigated in more detail in Sec. \ref{sec:eigenfunctions}. In particular, we obtain closed-form formulas for the various special cases under consideration in terms of Krawtchouk polynomials, which will be used for the computations in Sec. \ref{sec:entanglement}.
\subsection{Definition of the model}\label{sec:defH}
We consider free fermions defined on the set of points $V =\{ \vec x \in
\mathbb{N}^{D} | x_{1} + \ldots + x_{D} = N\,, x_{i} \ge 0 \}$, that is,
vertices of a hypercubic lattice in $D$ dimensions satisfying the constraint
\begin{equation}
\sum_{i=1}^{D} x_{i} = N\,,
\label{xconstraint}
\end{equation}
which defines a $(D-1)$-dimensional hyperplane. The number of such vertices is
\begin{equation}
n(N,D) = {N+D-1\choose D-1} \,.
\label{dim}
\end{equation}
The parameter $N$ gives the diameter of the hyperplane, and two sites $\Vec{x}$ and $\Vec{y}$ are nearest neighbors if there exist indices $i, j \in \{1, \dots, D\}$ such that
\begin{equation}
\Vec{x} - \Vec{y} = \Vec{\epsilon}_i - \Vec{\epsilon}_j,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align}
\Vec{\epsilon}_i = (\underbrace{0, \dots, 0 }_{i-1 \text{ times}}, 1,\underbrace{0, \dots, 0 }_{D- i \text{ times}}).
\label{epsi}
\end{align}
As examples, the case $D=2$ corresponds to a linear lattice, and
the case $D=3$ corresponds to a planar triangular lattice, as illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig:D23}. In these figures, the vertices are denoted by dots, and nearest neighbors are connected by lines. The maximum possible number of nearest neighbors that a lattice site can have in these examples is 2 and 6, respectively, and in general is given by $D(D-1)$. In contrast, on a $D$-dimensional hypercubic lattice without the constraint \eqref{xconstraint}, the maximum number of nearest neighbors is only $2D$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.4\linewidth]{figD2}
\includegraphics[width=.4\linewidth]{figD3}
\caption{{\it Left}: Lattice for $D=2, \ N=3$. {\it Right:} Lattice for $D=3, \ N=3$.}
\label{fig:D23}
\end{figure}
The Hamiltonian is given by
\begin{equation}
{\cal H} = \sum_{\vec x \in V} \sum_{i=1}^{D} \alpha_{i} \left\{
\sum_{j,k=1; j\ne k}^{D} R_{ij}\, R_{ik} \sqrt{x_{j} (x_{k}+1)}
c^{\dagger}_{\vec x - \vec\epsilon_{j}+ \vec\epsilon_{k}}\, c_{\vec x}
+ \sum_{j=1}^{D} R_{ij}^{2}\, x_{j}\, c^{\dagger}_{\vec x}\, c_{\vec x} \right\} \,,
\label{Hamiltonian}
\end{equation}
where the fermion annihilation and creation operators obey the usual
anticommutation relations
\begin{equation}
\left\{ c_{\vec x'} \,, c_{\vec x} \right\} = 0 = \left\{
c^{\dagger}_{\vec x'} \,, c^{\dagger}_{\vec x} \right\}\,, \qquad
\left\{ c_{\vec x'} \,, c^{\dagger}_{\vec x} \right\} = \delta_{\vec
x',\vec x} \,,
\end{equation}
and $R$ is an $SO(D)$ matrix, namely
\begin{equation}
R^{t}\, R = R\, R^{t} =\mathbb{I}\,, \qquad \det(R) = 1\ .
\end{equation}
This matrix can be expressed as $R=e^{B}$, where $B$ is a real antisymmetric $D \times D$ matrix which has $D(D-1)/2$ independent parameters. Finally, we restrict the real parameters $\vec \alpha = (\alpha_{1}, \ldots, \alpha_{D})$ to discrete values $\alpha_{i} \in \{0, 1 \}$, which is required for the construction of the Heun operator in Sec. \ref{sec:Heun}. The first term in the Hamiltonian \eqref{Hamiltonian} corresponds to nonuniform nearest-neighbor hopping, while the second term corresponds to a nonuniform chemical potential.
\subsubsection[The case $D=2$]{The case $\boldsymbol{D=2}$}
For $D=2$, with $\vec x = (x, N-x)$, $\vec \alpha
=(1,0)$, $p\in \mathbb{R}$ such that $0 < p < 1$ and
\begin{equation}
R =
\begin{pmatrix}
\sqrt{1-p} & \sqrt{p} \\
-\sqrt{p} & \sqrt{1-p}
\end{pmatrix}\,,
\label{RKraw}
\end{equation}
the Hamiltonian \eqref{Hamiltonian} becomes
\begin{align}
{\cal H} = \sum_{x=0}^{N-1}
\sqrt{p(1-p)(x+1)(N-x)}\left( c^{\dagger}_{x}\, c_{x+1}
+c^{\dagger}_{x + 1}\, c_{x} \right) + \sum_{x=0}^{N} \left(p N + x(1-2p)\right)\, c^{\dagger}_{x}\, c_{x} \,.
\label{HD2}
\end{align}
We recognize this model as one associated
with the Krawtchouk polynomials, see e.g. \cite{Crampe:2019upj}. For general values of $D$,
we shall see that the Hamiltonian \eqref{Hamiltonian} is similarly
associated with multivariate Krawtchouk polynomials.
\subsubsection{Tratnik cases}
The case $D=3$ with $R_{12}=0$ is associated with the so-called
bivariate Krawtchouk polynomials of Tratnik type \cite{tratnik1991some, geronimo2010bispectrality, GVZ2103}. For this case, the matrix
$R$ depends on 2 (rather than 3) independent parameters, which we denote by
$p_{1}=R_{13}^2$ and $p_{2}=R_{23}^2$:
\begin{equation}
R= \begin{pmatrix}
\sqrt{1-p_{1}} &0 &\sqrt{p_{1}} \\
-\sqrt{\frac{p_{1} p_{2}}{1-p_{1}}}
& \sqrt{\frac{1-p_{1} -p_{2}}{1-p_{1}}}
& \sqrt{p_{2}}\\
-\sqrt{\frac{p_{1}(1-p_{1}- p_{2})}{1-p_{1}}}
& -\sqrt{\frac{p_{2}}{1-p_{1}}}
&\sqrt{1-p_{1}-p_{2}}
\end{pmatrix}\,.
\label{Rtratnik}
\end{equation}
Similarly, for $D=4$, the Tratnik-type rotation matrix has 3 zero matrix elements, and 3 independent parameters that we denote by $p_{1}=R_{14}^2$, $p_{2}=R_{24}^2$ and $p_{3}=R_{34}^2$:
\begin{equation}
R= \begin{pmatrix}
\sqrt{1-p_1} & 0 & 0 & \sqrt{p_1} \\
-\sqrt{\frac{p_1 p_2}{1-p_1}} & \sqrt{\frac{1-p_1-p_2}{1-p_1}} &0 & \sqrt{p_2}\\
\sqrt{\frac{p_1 p_3}{1-p_1}} & \sqrt{\frac{p_2 p_3}{(1-p_1)(1-p_1-p_2)}} & \sqrt{\frac{1-p_1-p_2-p_3}{1-p_1-p_2}} & -\sqrt{p_3} \\
-\sqrt{\frac{p_1(1-p_1-p_2-p_3)}{1-p_1}} & -\sqrt{\frac{p_2(1-p_1-p_2-p_3)}{(1-p_1)(1-p_1-p_2)}} & \sqrt{\frac{p_3}{1-p_1-p_2}} & \sqrt{1-p_1-p_2-p_3}
\end{pmatrix}\,.
\label{Rtratnik4}
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{One-parameter cases}
The $D=3$ rotation matrix with a single parameter $p$,
\begin{equation}
R= \begin{pmatrix}
1 &0 &0 \\
0 & \sqrt{1-p} & \sqrt{p}\\
0 & -\sqrt{p} & \sqrt{1-p}
\end{pmatrix},
\label{Roneparam}
\end{equation}
is associated with a single uni-variate Krawtchouk polynomial. This matrix can be obtained from \eqref{Rtratnik} by setting $p_1=0$ and $p_2 = p$.
Similarly, the $D=4$ rotation matrix \eqref{Rtratnik4} reduces for $p_1=p_2=0$ and $p_3 = p$ to
\begin{equation}
R= \begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \sqrt{1-p} & -\sqrt{p} \\
0 & 0 & \sqrt{p} & \sqrt{1-p}
\end{pmatrix}\,,
\label{RoneparamD4}
\end{equation}
and is also associated with a single uni-variate Krawtchouk polynomial.
\subsection{Solution}\label{sec:Solution}
In order to solve this model, we begin by rewriting the Hamiltonian \eqref{Hamiltonian}
in terms of a set of $n(N,D) \times n(N,D)$ matrices $\left( H_{i} \right)_{\vec x',\vec x}$,
\begin{equation}
{\cal H} = \sum_{\vec x, \vec x' \in V} \sum_{i=1}^{D} \alpha_{i}\,
c^{\dagger}_{\vec x'}\, \left( H_{i} \right)_{\vec x',\vec x}\, c_{\vec x} \,,
\label{Hamiltonian2}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\left( H_{i} \right)_{\vec x',\vec x} = \sum_{j,k =1; j \ne k}^{D}
R_{ij} R_{ik}\,\sqrt{x_{j} (x_{k}+1)}
\delta_{\vec x', \vec x - \vec\epsilon_{j} + \vec\epsilon_{k}}
+ \sum_{j=1}^{D} R_{ij}^{2} x_{j} \delta_{\vec x', \vec x} \,.
\label{Hxx}
\end{equation}
We now proceed to diagonalize the matrices $\left( H_{i} \right)_{\vec x',\vec x}$. To this end, let
us introduce, following \cite{GVZ2103}, a set of $D$ harmonic oscillator operators with commutation
relations
\begin{equation}
\left[a_{i} \,, a_{j} \right] = 0 \,, \qquad
\left[a^{\dagger}_{i} \,, a^{\dagger}_{j} \right] = 0 \,, \qquad
\left[a_{i} \,, a^{\dagger}_{j} \right] = \delta_{i,j} \,, \qquad
i, j = 1, \ldots, D \,.
\label{hoalgebra}
\end{equation}
The algebra \eqref{hoalgebra} has a representation on the orthonormal states
\begin{equation}
|\vec x \rangle = |x_{1} \rangle \otimes \ldots \otimes |x_{D}
\rangle \,, \qquad
\vec x \in \mathbb{N}^{D} \,, \qquad x_{i} \ge 0 \,,
\end{equation}
defined by
\begin{align}
a_{i} | \vec x \rangle &= \sqrt{x_{i}} | \cdots, x_{i}-1, \cdots
\rangle \,, \nonumber \\
a^{\dagger}_{i} | \vec x \rangle &= \sqrt{x_{i}+1} | \cdots, x_{i}+1, \cdots
\rangle \,.
\label{arep}
\end{align}
We define the operators $X_{i}$ and $H_{i}$ in terms of the harmonic
oscillator operators by
\begin{equation}
X_{i} = a^{\dagger}_{i}\, a_{i} \,, \qquad
H_{i} = \sum_{j,k=1}^{D}R_{ij}\, R_{ik}\, a^{\dagger}_{j}\, a_{k}\,,
\qquad i = 1, \ldots, D \,,
\label{XH}
\end{equation}
which satisfy\footnote{We also remark that
\begin{align}
\left[ X_{i} \,, \left[ X_{i} \,, \left[ X_{i} \,, H_{j} \right]
\right] \right] &= \left[ X_{i} \,, H_{j} \right] \,, \nonumber \\
\left[ H_{i} \,, \left[ H_{i} \,, \left[ H_{i} \,, X_{j}\right]
\right] \right] &= \left[ H_{i} \,, X_{j} \right] \,. \nonumber
\end{align}
Moreover, for generic parameters $R$, the two sets of operators $X_i$ and $H_i$ generate together the whole $su(D)$-algebra realized by the operators $a^{\dagger}_{j}\, a_{k}$. Indeed, we have
\[\frac{1}{2R_{ij}R_{ik}}\bigl([X_k,[X_j,H_i]]-[X_j,[X_k,[X_j,H_i]]]\bigr)=a^{\dagger}_{j}\, a_{k}\,,\]
see also Lemma 2.2 in \cite{iliev2012lie}.}
\begin{equation}
\left[X_{i}\,, X_{j} \right] = 0 \,, \qquad \left[H_{i}\,, H_{j} \right] = 0 \,.
\end{equation}
It is important to note that these operators are related by a unitary transformation,
\begin{equation}
U(R)^{\dagger}\, X_{i}\, U(R) = H_{i}\,, \qquad i = 1, \ldots, D\,,
\label{XHreltn}
\end{equation}
where $U(R)$ is defined by \cite{GVZ2103}
\begin{equation}
U(R) = \exp\left(\sum_{k,l=1}^{D} B_{kl}\, a^{\dagger}_{k} a_{l} \right) \,,
\label{UR}
\end{equation}
and whose action on the harmonic oscillator operators is
\begin{equation}
U(R)\, a^{\dagger}_{i}\, U(R)^{\dagger} = \sum_{j=1}^{D} R_{ji}\,
a^{\dagger}_{j} \,, \qquad
U(R)\, a_{i}\, U(R)^{\dagger} = \sum_{j=1}^{D} R_{ji}\,
a_{j} \,.
\end{equation}
In view of \eqref{arep}, we see that
\begin{equation}
X_{i} | \vec x \rangle = x_{i} | \vec x \rangle \,, \qquad i = 1, \ldots, D\,,
\label{Xxbasis}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
H_{i} | \vec x \rangle = \sum_{j,k =1; j \ne k}^{D}
R_{ij} R_{ik}\,\sqrt{x_{j} (x_{k}+1)}| \vec x - \vec\epsilon_{j} + \vec\epsilon_{k}\rangle
+ \sum_{j=1}^{D} R_{ij}^{2} x_{j} | \vec x \rangle \,.
\label{Hax}
\end{equation}
For a given $N$, we restrict ourselves to values of $\vec x$ that satisfy \eqref{xconstraint}.
The result \eqref{Hax} implies that the matrices \eqref{Hxx} can be expressed as matrix elements of $H_{i}$,
\begin{equation}
\left( H_{i} \right)_{\vec x',\vec x} = \langle \vec x' | H_{i} | \vec x \rangle \,.
\label{Hxbasis}
\end{equation}
From \eqref{XHreltn} and \eqref{Xxbasis}, we see that
\begin{equation}
H_{i} | \vec k \rangle = k_{i} | \vec k \rangle \,, \qquad i = 1, \ldots, D\,,
\label{Hkbasis}
\end{equation}
where the eigenvectors $| \vec k \rangle$ are given by
\begin{equation}
| \vec k \rangle = U(R)^{\dagger}\, | \vec x \rangle \Big\vert_{\vec x=\vec k}\,,
\label{kbasis}
\end{equation}
and the corresponding eigenvalues are given by $\vec k = \vec x \in
V$. In particular, $\sum_{i=1}^{D} k_{i} = N$.
We note that $\langle \vec x | \vec k \rangle = \langle \vec k
| \vec x \rangle$, and
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\vec k \in V} \langle \vec x' | \vec k \rangle
\langle \vec k |\vec x \rangle = \delta_{\vec x', \vec x} \,, \qquad
\sum_{\vec x \in V} \langle \vec k' | \vec x \rangle
\langle \vec x |\vec k \rangle = \delta_{\vec k', \vec k} \,.
\end{equation}
We can also obtain the result
\begin{equation}
X_{i}\, | \vec k \rangle = \sum_{j,l =1; j \ne l}^{D}
R_{ji} R_{li}\, \sqrt{k_{j}(k_{l}+1)}\,
| \vec k - \vec\epsilon_{j} + \vec\epsilon_{l} \rangle
+ \sum_{j=1}^{D} R_{ji}^{2} k_{j}\, | \vec k \rangle \,
\label{Xak}
\end{equation}
by acting with $H'_{i} \equiv \sum_{j,k=1}^{D}R_{ji}\, R_{ki}\, a^{\dagger}_{j}\, a_{k}$ on $| \vec x \rangle$, obtaining a result similar to \eqref{Hax}, and then using $H'_{i} = U(R)\, X_{i}\, U(R)^{\dagger}$
and \eqref{kbasis}.
We see from Eqs. \eqref{Xxbasis}, \eqref{Hax}, \eqref{Hkbasis} and
\eqref{Xak} that the overlaps~$\langle \vec x | \vec k \rangle$ are solutions
to a bispectral problem defined from the set of equations obtained by equating in
$\langle \vec x | X_i |\vec k \rangle$ and $\langle \vec x | H_i | \vec k \rangle$
the actions of $X_i$ and $H_i$ respectively on the bra and on the ket
\footnote{Recall that a function of two sets of variables is said to be solution of a bispectral problem \cite{duistermaat1986differential}
if it is an eigenfunction of operators acting on the variables of the first set with eigenvalues
depending on the variables of the second set and vice versa. With their recurrence relations and their differential or difference equation,
classical orthogonal polynomials are standard examples of such solutions.}.
In terms of the overlaps, the Hamiltonian \eqref{Hamiltonian} reads
\begin{align}
{\cal H} &= \sum_{\vec x, \vec x' \in V}
c^{\dagger}_{\vec x'}\, \langle \vec x'| \vec\alpha \cdot \vec H |
\vec x \rangle \, c_{\vec x} \nonumber\\
&= \sum_{\vec x, \vec x', \vec k \in V}
c^{\dagger}_{\vec x'}\, \langle \vec x'| \vec\alpha \cdot \vec H |
\vec k \rangle \langle \vec k | \vec x \rangle \, c_{\vec x} \nonumber\\
&= \sum_{\vec x, \vec x', \vec k \in V}
\vec\alpha \cdot \vec k \,
\langle \vec x' | \vec k \rangle
\langle \vec k | \vec x \rangle \,
c^{\dagger}_{\vec x'}\, c_{\vec x}
\,,
\label{Hamiltonian3}
\end{align}
where we used \eqref{Hamiltonian2}, \eqref{Hxbasis} and
\eqref{Hkbasis}. We introduce Fourier-transformed fermionic operators~$\tilde{c}_{\vec k}$,
\begin{equation}
\tilde{c}_{\vec k} = \sum_{\vec x \in V} \langle \vec x | \vec k \rangle
c_{\vec x} \,, \qquad
c_{\vec x} = \sum_{\vec k \in V} \langle \vec x | \vec k \rangle
\tilde{c}_{\vec k} \,,
\end{equation}
which satisfy the anticommutation relations
\begin{equation}
\left\{ \tilde{c}_{\vec k'} \,, \tilde{c}_{\vec k} \right\} = 0 =
\left\{ \tilde{c}^{\dagger}_{\vec k'} \,, \tilde{c}^{\dagger}_{\vec k} \right\}\,, \qquad
\left\{ \tilde{c}_{\vec k'} \,, \tilde{c}^{\dagger}_{\vec k} \right\} =
\delta_{\vec k',\vec k} \,.
\label{ctildeccr}
\end{equation}
Performing the sums over $\vec x$ and $\vec x'$ in
\eqref{Hamiltonian3}, we finally arrive at the diagonal form of
the Hamiltonian,
\begin{equation}
{\cal H} = \sum_{\vec k \in V} \vec\alpha \cdot \vec k\,
\tilde{c}^{\dagger}_{\vec k}\, \tilde{c}_{\vec k} \,.
\label{Hamiltonian4}
\end{equation}
The eigenvectors of the Hamiltonian are given by
\begin{equation}
|\Psi\rangle\!\rangle = \prod_{\vec k \in \mathcal{F}}
\tilde{c}^{\dagger}_{\vec k} |0\rangle\!\rangle \,,
\label{Fermioneigenstates}
\end{equation}
where the vectors in $\mathcal{F} \subseteq V$ are pairwise distinct, and
$|0\rangle\!\rangle$ is the vacuum state,
\begin{equation}
\tilde{c}_{\vec k} |0\rangle\!\rangle = 0 \qquad \forall \vec k \in V \,.
\end{equation}
Indeed,
\begin{equation}
{\cal H}\, |\Psi\rangle\!\rangle = E |\Psi\rangle\!\rangle \,, \qquad
E = \sum_{\vec k \in \mathcal{F}} \vec\alpha \cdot \vec k \,.
\label{spectrum}
\end{equation}
The number of fermions in the state $|\Psi\rangle\!\rangle$ \eqref{Fermioneigenstates} is given by $|\mathcal{F}|$, the cardinality of the set $\mathcal{F}$.
We observe that the model's spectrum is integer valued, and does not
depend on the matrix $R$. This can be understood from the fact that
the Hamiltonian is constructed from operators $H_{i}$ that are related
to $X_{i}$ by a unitary transformation \eqref{XHreltn}. For the
trivial rotation $R=\mathbb{I}$ (i.e., $R_{ij} = \delta_{i,j}$),
we see that $H_{i}=X_{i}$, and the Hamiltonian \eqref{Hamiltonian}
becomes diagonal in the $|\vec x\rangle$ basis,
\begin{equation}
{\cal H} = \sum_{\vec x \in V} \vec\alpha \cdot \vec x\,
c^{\dagger}_{\vec x}\, c_{\vec x} \,, \nonumber
\end{equation}
which leads to the spectrum in \eqref{spectrum}. Although the
spectrum does not depend on $R$, the eigenfunctions $\langle \vec x
|\vec k \rangle$ do depend on $R$, and are quite nontrivial, as described below.
\subsection{Eigenfunctions}\label{sec:eigenfunctions}
We discuss here some further properties of the eigenfunctions $\langle \vec k
|\vec x \rangle$, corresponding to the eigenvectors of the $H_{i}$
operators \eqref{Hkbasis}. We have
\begin{equation}
\langle \vec k |\vec x \rangle =
\langle \vec x'| U(R) |\vec x \rangle\Big\vert_{\vec x' = \vec k}
= \sqrt{W(\vec x, \vec k)}\, Q_{\vec x}(\vec k)\,,
\label{overlap}
\end{equation}
where the first equality follows from \eqref{kbasis},
and the second equality follows from results in \cite{GVZ2103}.
The functions $Q_{\vec x}(\vec k)$ are multivariate Krawtchouk
polynomials, which obey the recurrence relation \cite{GVZ2103}
\begin{equation}
k_{i} Q_{\vec x}(\vec k) = \sum_{j,l =1; j \ne k}^{D}
\frac{R_{ij} R_{il} R_{D,k}}{R_{D,j}}\, x_{j}\,
Q_{\vec x - \vec\epsilon_{j} + \vec\epsilon_{l}}(\vec k)
+ \sum_{j=1}^{D} R_{ij}^{2} x_{j}
Q_{\vec x}(\vec k) \,, \qquad \vec x, \vec k \in V \,.
\label{recurrence}
\end{equation}
(While the notation of reference \cite{GVZ2103} will be adopted in the
following, the reader might wish to consult the following papers
\cite{griffiths1972orthogonal, mizukawa2004n+, hoare2008probablistic, iliev2012rahman, iliev2012lie, diaconis2014introduction} for more on these polynomials.)
The polynomials $Q_{\vec x}(\vec k)$ can be obtained from a generating function \cite{GVZ2103}
\begin{equation}
\prod_{i=1}^{D} \left(\sum_{j=1}^{D} \frac{R_{ij}R_{D,D}}{R_{i,D} R_{D,j}}
z_{j}\right)^{k_{i}} = \sum_{\vec x \in V}\frac{N!}{x_{1}! \ldots x_{D}!}\,
Q_{\vec x}(\vec k)\, z_{1}^{x_{1}} \ldots z_{D-1}^{x_{D-1}} \,,
\label{genfunc}
\end{equation}
where $z_{D} \equiv 1$. Moreover, the function $W(\vec x, \vec k)$ in
\eqref{overlap}, which is given by
\begin{equation}
W(\vec x, \vec k) = \frac{N!}{x_{1}! \ldots x_{D}!}
\frac{N!}{k_{1}! \ldots k_{D}!}
\frac{\prod_{j=1}^{D} R_{D,j}^{2 x_{j}}}{R_{D,D}^{N}}
\frac{\prod_{j=1}^{D} R_{j,D}^{2 k_{j}}}{R_{D,D}^{N}}\,,
\label{W}
\end{equation}
is the discrete measure appearing in the orthogonality relation \cite{GVZ2103},
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\vec k\in V}
W(\vec x, \vec k)\,
Q_{\vec x}(\vec k)\,
Q_{\vec x'}(\vec k) = \delta_{\vec x, \vec x'} \,.
\label{orthogonality}
\end{equation}
Let us perform a consistency check by using \eqref{overlap} to
rewrite the recurrence relation \eqref{recurrence} in terms of $\langle \vec k | \vec x \rangle$,
\begin{align}
k_{i} \langle \vec k | \vec x \rangle &= \sum_{j,l =1; j \ne l}^{D}
\frac{R_{ij} R_{il} R_{D,l}}{R_{D,j}}\, x_{j}
\sqrt{\frac{W(\vec x, \vec k)}{W(\vec x - \vec\epsilon_{j} +
\vec\epsilon_{l}, \vec k)}}\,
\langle \vec k | \vec x - \vec\epsilon_{j} + \vec\epsilon_{l}\rangle + \sum_{j=1}^{D} R_{ij}^{2} x_{j}
\langle \vec k | \vec x \rangle \,.
\label{recurrence2}
\end{align}
Using \eqref{W}, we observe the following simplification,
\begin{equation}
\frac{W(\vec x, \vec k)}{W(\vec x - \vec\epsilon_{j} + \vec\epsilon_{l}, \vec k)}
= \frac{(x_{l}+1)}{x_{j}} \frac{R_{D,j}^{2}}{R_{D,l}^{2}} \,.
\end{equation}
Hence, the recurrence relation \eqref{recurrence2} takes the form
\begin{equation}
k_{i} \langle \vec k | \vec x \rangle = \sum_{j,l =1; j \ne l}^{D}
R_{ij} R_{il}\,\sqrt{x_{j} (x_{l}+1)}
\langle \vec k | \vec x - \vec\epsilon_{j} + \vec\epsilon_{l}\rangle
+ \sum_{j=1}^{D} R_{ij}^{2} x_{j} \langle \vec k | \vec x \rangle \,,
\label{recurrence3}
\end{equation}
which coincides with the result obtained by applying $\langle \vec k |$
to \eqref{Hax} and then using \eqref{Hkbasis}.
The functions $Q_{\vec x}(\vec k)$ also satisfy the difference equation \cite{GVZ2103}
\begin{equation}
x_{i} Q_{\vec x}(\vec k) = \sum_{j,l =1; j \ne l}^{D}
\frac{R_{ji} R_{li} R_{l,D}}{R_{j,D}}\, k_{j}\,
Q_{\vec x}(\vec k - \vec\epsilon_{j} + \vec\epsilon_{l})
+ \sum_{j=1}^{D} R_{ji}^{2} k_{j} Q_{\vec x}(\vec k) \,, \qquad \vec x,
\vec k \in V \,.
\label{diff}
\end{equation}
Similarly as before, we can use \eqref{overlap} to rewrite the difference equation in terms of
$\langle \vec x | \vec k \rangle$, and obtain
\begin{equation}
x_{i} \langle \vec x | \vec k \rangle = \sum_{j,l =1; j \ne l}^{D}
R_{ji} R_{li}\, \sqrt{k_{j}(k_{l}+1)}\,
\langle \vec x | \vec k - \vec\epsilon_{j} + \vec\epsilon_{l} \rangle
+ \sum_{j=1}^{D} R_{ji}^{2} k_{j} \langle \vec x | \vec k \rangle \,,
\label{diff3}
\end{equation}
which coincides with the result obtained by applying $\langle \vec x |$
to \eqref{Xak} and then using \eqref{Xxbasis}.
\subsubsection[The case $D=2$]{The case $\boldsymbol{D=2}$}
For the case $D=2$ with the matrix $R$ given by \eqref{RKraw}, the
functions $Q_{\vec x}(\vec k)$ can be expressed in terms of Krawtchouk
polynomials,
\begin{equation}
Q_{x_{1}, x_{2}}(k_{1}, k_{2})=\frac{1}{(-N)_{x_{1}}}
\mathcal{k}_{x_{1}}(k_{1};p;N) \,,
\label{QKrawt}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{k}_{x}(k;p;N) = (-N)_{x}\ {}_{2}F_{1} \left(\begin{matrix} -k, & & -x
\\&-N &\end{matrix}\
;\frac{1}{p}\right) \,,
\label{Krawt}
\end{equation}
and the Pochhammer (or shifted factorial) symbol $(a)_{k}$ is defined by
\begin{equation}
(a)_{0} = 1\,, \qquad (a)_{k} = a (a+1)(a+2) \cdots (a+k-1) \,,
\quad k = 1, 2, \ldots \,.
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Tratnik cases}
For the case $D=3$ with $R_{12}=0$ in Eq. \eqref{Rtratnik}, $Q_{\vec x}(\vec
k)$ can be expressed as a product of two uni-variate Krawtchouk
polynomials \cite{GVZ2103} (see also \cite{Iliev2007} and the appendix of \cite{geronimo2010bispectrality}),
\begin{equation}
Q_{x_{1}, x_{2}, x_{3}}(k_{1}, k_{2}, k_{3})=\frac{1}{(-N)_{x_{1}+x_{2}}}
\mathcal{k}_{x_{1}}(k_{1};p_{1};N-x_{2})\,
\mathcal{k}_{x_{2}}\Big(k_{2};\frac{p_{2}}{1-p_{1}};N-k_{1}\Big) \,,
\label{QTratnik}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{k}_{x}(k;p;N)$ is given by \eqref{Krawt}.
For the case $D=4$ with the rotation matrix given by \eqref{Rtratnik4},
the functions $Q_{\vec x}(\vec k)$ can be expressed as a product of three uni-variate Krawtchouk polynomials \cite{Iliev2007}\footnote{To avoid indeterminate values when evaluating these functions numerically, it is convenient to define the uni-variate Krawtchouk polynomials $\mathcal{k}_{x}(k;p;N)$ \eqref{Krawt} to be $0$ if $N < \min(x,k)$.},
\begin{multline}
Q_{\vec x}(\vec k)=\frac{1}{(-N)_{x_{1}+x_{2}+x_3}}
\mathcal{k}_{x_{1}}(k_{1};p_{1};N-x_{2}-x_{3})\,
\mathcal{k}_{x_{2}}\Big(k_{2};\frac{p_{2}}{1-p_{1}};N-x_{3}-k_{1}\Big) \\ \times \mathcal{k}_{x_{3}}\Big(k_{3};\frac{p_{3}}{1-p_{1}-p_{2}};N-k_{1}-k_{2}\Big)\,.
\label{QTratnikD4}
\end{multline}
\subsubsection{One-parameter cases}\label{sec:oneP}
For the $D=3$ case with one parameter \eqref{Roneparam}, the normalized eigenfunctions are given in terms of a single uni-variate Krawtchouk polynomial \cite{GVZ2103},
\begin{multline}
\langle \vec k |\vec x \rangle = \delta_{k_1, x_1}
\sqrt{\frac{(-1)^{x_2}(N-k_1)!} {k_2! x_2! (N-k_1-k_2)!\, (k_1 - N)_{x_2}}} \\ \times (1-p)^{\frac{1}{2}(N-k_1-k_2-x_2)} p^{\frac{1}{2}(k_2 + x_2)}\, \mathcal{k}_{x_2}(k_2; p; N-k_1) \,.
\label{eigoneparam}
\end{multline}
Similarly, for the $D=4$ case with one parameter \eqref{RoneparamD4}, the normalized eigenfunctions are given by
\begin{multline}
\langle \vec k |\vec x \rangle = \delta_{k_1, x_1}\, \delta_{k_2, x_2}
\sqrt{\frac{(-1)^{x_1+x_2+x_3}N! x_1! x_2!} {k_1! k_2! k_3! x_3! (N-k_1-k_2-k_3)!\, (- N)_{x_1+x_2+x_3}}} \\
\times (1-p)^{\frac{1}{2}(N-k_1-k_2-k_3-x_3)} p^{\frac{1}{2}(k_3 + x_3)}\, \mathcal{k}_{x_3}(k_3; p; N-k_1-k_2) \,.
\label{eigoneparamD4}
\end{multline}
\subsubsection{A derivation of the overlap coefficients}
The explicit results for overlap coefficients given above, which will be needed for the entanglement entropy computations in Sec. \ref{sec:entanglement}, were borrowed from the literature. For completeness, we sketch here a way of deriving such results, see also \cite{iliev2012lie,mizukawa2004n+}.
Denote by $v_1,\dots,v_D$ the standard orthonormal basis vectors of $\mathbb{C}^D$ and $(E_{ij})_{i,j=1,\dots,D}$ the elementary $D\times D$ matrices, so that $E_{ij}\cdot v_k=\delta_{j,k}v_i$. The matrices $E_{ij}$ act on $(\mathbb{C}^D)^{\otimes N}$ by
\begin{equation}
E_{ij}\cdot v_{i_1}\otimes\dots\otimes v_{i_N}=\sum_{a=1}^N v_{i_1}\otimes\dots\otimes E_{ij}\cdot v_{i_a}\otimes\dots \otimes v_{i_N}\,.
\end{equation}
We will use the following notation for the natural orthonormal basis of $(\mathbb{C}^D)^{\otimes N}$:
\begin{equation}
v_{(i_1,\dots,i_N)}=v_{i_1}\otimes\dots\otimes v_{i_N}\,,\quad\ \ \ \ \ \ \ i_1,\dots,i_N\in\{1,\dots,D\}\,.
\end{equation}
The basis vectors $|\vec{x}\rangle$ in bijection with the lattice sites are realized as an orthonormal basis of the symmetric part in the tensor product $(\mathbb{C}^D)^{\otimes N}$. More precisely, consider the $N$-th symmetrizer, that is the normalized sum over all permutations in $S_N$ of the factors in the tensor product:
\begin{equation}
P\cdot v_{(i_1,\dots,i_N)}=\frac{1}{N!}\sum_{\pi\in S_N} v_{(i_{\pi(1)},\dots,i_{\pi(N)})}\,.
\end{equation}
Note that $P$ commutes with $E_{ij}$. Then we set
\begin{equation}
|\vec{x}\rangle=|x_1,\dots, x_D\rangle=\frac{\sqrt{N!}}{\sqrt{x_1!\dots x_D!}}\,P\cdot v_{(\underbrace{1\,\!,\dots,1}_{x_1},\dots\dots\dots,\underbrace{D\,\!,\dots,D}_{x_D})}\,,\ \ \qquad x_1+\dots+x_D=N \,.
\label{vecxwithP}
\end{equation}
The prefactor ensures that the vectors $|\vec{x}\rangle$ are orthonormal. Note that $|\vec{x}\rangle$ is also obtained by applying~$P$, with the same prefactor, on $v_{(i_1,\dots,i_N)}$ whenever $(i_1,\dots,i_N)$ contains $x_1$ times $1$, $x_2$ times $2$, and so on.
It is easy to check that the action of $E_{ij}$ on these vectors is
\begin{equation}
E_{ij}|\vec{x}\rangle=a_i^{\dagger}a_j|\vec{x}\rangle, \quad i,j=1,\dots,D\,,
\end{equation}
where $a_i^{\dagger}, a_j$ are as in \eqref{arep}.
Now recall that $R\in SO(D)$ and define $U(R)$ on $(\mathbb{C}^D)^{\otimes N}$ by $R\otimes \dots\otimes R$, that is
\begin{equation}
U(R)\cdot v_{(i_1,\dots,i_N)}=\sum_{a_1,\dots,a_N} R_{a_1i_1}\dots R_{a_Ni_N}v_{(a_1,\dots,a_N)}\,.
\label{actionR}
\end{equation}
The operators $P$ and $U(R)$ commute, so that $U(R)$ restricts to the symmetrized product. Therefore, $U(R)$ acts on $|\vec{x}\rangle$. The operators $X_i$ and $H_i$ acting on $|\vec{x}\rangle$ are defined by
\begin{equation}
X_i=E_{ii}, \qquad H_i=U(R)^{\dagger}X_iU(R)=\sum_{j,k=1}^DR_{ij}R_{ik}E_{jk}\ ,
\end{equation}
in agreement with \eqref{XH}.
To obtain the eigenvectors $| \vec{k}\rangle$ of $H_i$, we need to apply $U(R)^{\dagger}$ to the eigenbasis $|\vec{x}\rangle$ of $X_i$, and for this we are going to use \eqref{vecxwithP}, the fact that $U(R)$ commutes with $P$ and \eqref{actionR}.
\paragraph{$\boldsymbol{D=2}$.} Let us detail the calculation for $D=2$. We have, for $k_1+k_2=N$,
\begin{align}
|k_1,k_2\rangle& =\frac{\sqrt{N!}}{\sqrt{k_1!k_2!}}U(R)^{\dagger}P\cdot v_{(\underbrace{1\dots,1}_{k_1},\underbrace{2\dots,2}_{k_2})} \nonumber\\
&=\frac{\sqrt{N!}}{\sqrt{k_1!k_2!}}PU(R)^{\dagger}\cdot v_{(\underbrace{1\dots,1}_{k_1},\underbrace{2\dots,2}_{k_2})} \nonumber\\
& = \displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{N!}}{\sqrt{k_1!k_2!}}P \sum_{a_1,\dots,a_{k_1},b_1,\dots,b_{k_2}} R_{1a_1}\dots R_{1a_{k_1}}R_{2b_1}\dots R_{2b_{k_2}}v_{(a_1,\dots,a_{k_1},b_1,\dots,b_{k_2})} \nonumber \\
& = \displaystyle \sum_{x_1,x_2} \frac{\sqrt{x_1!x_2!}}{\sqrt{k_1!k_2!}}\left( \sum_{i=0}^{x_1} \binom{k_1}{i}\binom{k_2}{x_1-i}R_{11}^iR_{21}^{x_1-i}R_{12}^{k_1-i}R_{22}^{k_2-(x_1-i)}\ \right) |x_1,x_2\rangle \,.
\label{D2overlap}
\end{align}
For the last equality, we collect all terms in the sum with $x_1$ occurrences of $1$ in $(a_1,\dots,a_{k_1},b_1,\dots,b_{k_2})$. We can choose $i$ of them among $(a_1,\dots,a_{k_1})$, resulting in $R_{11}^i$, and $(x_1-i)$ among $(b_1,\dots,b_{k_2})$, resulting in $R_{21}^{x_1-i}$.
If we take the matrix
$R=\left(\begin{array}{cc} \sqrt{1-p} & \sqrt{p} \\ -\sqrt{p} & \sqrt{1-p} \end{array}\right)$
as in \eqref{RKraw}, we find
\begin{multline}
\langle x_1,x_2|k_1,k_2\rangle = \frac{\sqrt{x_1!(N-x_1)!}}{\sqrt{k_1!(N-k_1)!}} (\sqrt{1-p})^{N-(k_1+x_1)}(\sqrt{p})^{x_1+k_1}(-1)^{x_1}\\ \times \sum_{i=0}^{x_1} \binom{k_1}{i}\binom{N-k_1}{x_1-i}(-1)^i(1-p)^{i}p^{-i}\,.
\end{multline}
We recover \eqref{overlap} for $D=2$ with \eqref{QKrawt}, see e.g. \cite{MathWorld}.
\paragraph{Arbitrary $\boldsymbol{D}$.}
Define the binomial, and more generally multinomial coefficients, as
\begin{equation}
\binom{k}{a,b}=\frac{k!}{a!b!}\, , \qquad \binom{k}{a_1,\dots,a_D}=\frac{k!}{a_1!\dots a_D!}\,.
\end{equation}
We can write the formulas for the overlap coefficients for $D=2$ in \eqref{D2overlap} as
\begin{equation}
\frac{\sqrt{x_1!x_2!}}{\sqrt{k_1!k_2!}}\sum_{(a_{ij})} \binom{k_1}{a_{11},a_{21}}\binom{k_2}{a_{12},a_{22}}\prod_{\mu,\nu}R_{\nu\mu}^{a_{\mu\nu}}\,,
\end{equation}
where the sum is over nonnegative integers $a_{11},a_{12},a_{21},a_{22}$ satisfying:
\[\begin{array}{cccl}
a_{11} & a_{12} & \rightarrow & x_1 \qquad\qquad\text{(the sum of this line is $x_1$)}\\
a_{21} & a_{22} & \rightarrow & x_2 \qquad\qquad\text{(the sum of this line is $x_2$)}\\[0.5em]
\downarrow & \downarrow \\
k_1 & k_2 & & \qquad\qquad\text{(the sums of the columns are respectively $k_1$ and $k_2$).}
\end{array}\]
Of course, here there is only one independent index $a_{11}$, which can go from $0$ to $x_1$. Reproducing straightforwardly the reasoning made for $D=2$, one obtains the following result for general $D$,
\begin{equation}
\langle x_1,\dots,x_D|k_1,\dots ,k_D\rangle = \displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{x_1! \ldots x_D!}}{\sqrt{k_1! \ldots k_D!}} \sum_{(a_{ij})} \binom{k_1}{a_{11},\dots,a_{D1}}\dots \binom{k_D}{a_{1D},\dots,a_{DD}}\prod_{\mu,\nu}R_{\nu\mu}^{a_{\mu\nu}}\,,
\end{equation}
where the sum is now over nonnegative integers $(a_{ij})_{i,j=1,\dots ,D}$ such that the sum of the $r$-th line gives $x_r$ and the sum of the $r$-th column is $k_r$.
\section{Correlation matrix and algebraic Heun operator}\label{sec:cormat}
In this section, we define the correlation matrix and express its entries in terms of overlaps, which are given in Sec. \ref{sec:eigenfunctions}. We then construct, for any $D$, an operator that commutes with the chopped correlation matrix, thereby generalizing the $D=2$
tridiagonal Heun operator found in \cite{Crampe:2019upj, Crampe:2021}.
\subsection{Correlation matrix}
Let us consider a fermionic eigenstate $|\Psi\rangle\!\rangle$ as
in \eqref{Fermioneigenstates}, where the set $\mathcal{F}\subseteq V$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{F} = \{ \vec k \in V | \vec\alpha \cdot \vec k \le K \} \,, \qquad 0
\le K \le N \,.
\label{tildeSset}
\end{equation}
The correlation matrix in this state, which will be needed later for the
entanglement entropy computation, is given by the matrix elements
\begin{equation}
\hat C_{\vec x', \vec x} = \langle\! \langle \Psi |
c^{\dagger}_{\vec x'}\, c_{\vec x}\, |\Psi\rangle\!\rangle
= \sum_{\vec k', \vec k \in V}
\langle \vec x' | \vec k' \rangle
\langle \vec x | \vec k \rangle
\langle\! \langle \Psi | \tilde{c}^{\dagger}_{\vec k'}\,
\tilde{c}_{\vec k}\, |\Psi\rangle\!\rangle \,.
\label{cormat1}
\end{equation}
We find using \eqref{ctildeccr} and \eqref{Fermioneigenstates} that
\begin{equation}
\langle\! \langle \Psi | \tilde{c}^{\dagger}_{\vec k'}\, \tilde{c}_{\vec k}\, |\Psi\rangle\!\rangle
= \begin{cases}
1 & \text{ if } \quad\vec k = \vec k' \in \mathcal{F} \\
0 & \text{ otherwise }
\end{cases} \,.
\end{equation}
The correlation matrix elements \eqref{cormat1} are therefore given by
\begin{equation}
\hat C_{\vec x', \vec x} = \sum_{\vec k \in \mathcal{F}}
\langle \vec x' | \vec k \rangle
\langle \vec k | \vec x\rangle\,,
\label{cormat2}
\end{equation}
which implies that the correlation matrix is
\begin{equation}
\hat C = \sum_{\vec x', \vec x \in V} |\vec x'\rangle \hat C_{\vec
x', \vec x}\, \langle \vec x | = \sum_{\vec k \in \mathcal{F}}
| \vec k \rangle \langle \vec k | \,.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Algebraic Heun operator}\label{sec:Heun}
Recall that the set $\mathcal{F}$ is defined in \eqref{tildeSset}, and
let us now define a similar set $\mathcal{A} \subseteq V$ by
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{A} = \{ \vec x \in V | \vec\beta \cdot \vec x \le L \} \,, \qquad 0
\le L \le N \,,
\label{Sset}
\end{equation}
where $\vec \beta = (\beta_{1}, \ldots, \beta_{D})$ with $\beta_i \in \{0,
1 \}$. The corresponding projection operators are
\begin{equation}
\pi_{1} = \sum_{\vec x \in \mathcal{A}} |\vec x\rangle \langle \vec x | \,, \qquad
\pi_{2} = \sum_{\vec k \in \mathcal{F}} |\vec k\rangle \langle \vec k | \,.
\end{equation}
We consider a general symmetric bilinear expression of the bispectral operators
$X_{i}$ and $H_{i}$ introduced in Sec. \ref{sec:Solution},
\begin{equation}
T = \sum_{i=1}^{D} \mu_{i} X_{i} + \sum_{i=1}^{D} \nu_{i} H_{i} +
\sum_{i,j=1}^{D} \rho_{ij} \{H_{i} \,, X_{j} \} \,.
\label{Heun}
\end{equation}
This provides an extension to higher dimensional bispectral problems of the algebraic Heun operator introduced in \cite{grunbaum2018algebraic}, see also \cite{eisler2013free, eisler2018properties, Crampe:2019upj, Crampe:2021}. We solve for the coefficients $\mu_{i}, \nu_{i}, \rho_{ij}$ such that $T$ commutes with both $\pi_{1}$ and $\pi_{2}$.
Let us first consider the commutativity of $T$ with $\pi_{1}$. We observe that
$\vec x \in \mathcal{A}$ iff $\sum_{i \in \mathcal{b}} x_{i} \le L$,
for some set $\mathcal{b} \subseteq \{1, \ldots, D \}$
corresponding to the choice of $\vec \beta$. Furthermore,
$\left[T\,,\pi_{1} \right] = 0$ iff $\langle \vec x' | T | \vec x
\rangle = 0$ for all $\vec x$ and $\vec x'$ such that
\begin{equation}
\sum_{i \in \mathcal{b}} x_{i} \le L\,, \qquad \sum_{i \in
\mathcal{b}} x'_{i} > L \,.
\label{xy1}
\end{equation}
The fact that $T$ is linear in $H_{i}$ implies that $T$ is linear in $E_{jk}:=
a^{\dagger}_{j} a_{k}$ with $j \ne k$, which has the property $E_{jk}
|\vec x \rangle = |\vec x -\vec \epsilon_{j} + \vec \epsilon_{k}
\rangle$. Therefore, $\langle \vec x' | T | \vec x
\rangle = 0$ unless
\begin{equation}
\sum_{i \in \mathcal{b}} x_{i} = L\,, \qquad \sum_{i \in
\mathcal{b}} x'_{i} = L + 1 \,.
\label{xy2}
\end{equation}
Let us consider $\vec x$ and $\vec x'$ as in \eqref{xy2}. Then
\begin{equation}
\langle \vec x' | T | \vec x \rangle = \sum_{i=1}^{D} \Bigl[\nu_{i} +
\sum_{j=1}^{D} \rho_{ij} (x'_{j} + x_{j}) \Bigr]
\langle \vec x' | H_{i} | \vec x \rangle \,.
\label{step1}
\end{equation}
We choose
\begin{equation}
\rho_{ij} =
\begin{cases}
0 & \text{ if } \quad j \notin \mathcal{b} \\
1 & \text{ if } \quad j \in \mathcal{b}
\end{cases} \,.
\end{equation}
It then follows from \eqref{step1} that
\begin{equation}
\langle \vec x' | T | \vec x \rangle = \sum_{i=1}^{D} \Bigl[\nu_{i} +
\sum_{j \in \mathcal{b}} (x'_{j} + x_{j}) \Bigr]
\langle \vec x' | H_{i} | \vec x \rangle \nonumber\\
= \sum_{i=1}^{D} \Bigl[\nu_{i} + (2L+1) \Bigr] \langle \vec x' | H_{i}
| \vec x \rangle\,,
\end{equation}
which vanishes for $\nu_{i} = -(2L +1)$.
For the commutativity of $T$ with $\pi_{2}$, we repeat the
calculation in the $|\vec k\rangle$ basis. In particular,
$\vec k \in \mathcal{F}$ iff $\sum_{i \in \mathcal{f}} k_{i}
\le K$, where $\mathcal{f} \subseteq \{1, \ldots, D \}$
corresponds to the choice of $\vec \alpha$.
The fact that $T$ is linear in $X_{i}$ implies that
$\langle \vec k' | T | \vec k \rangle = 0$ unless
\begin{equation}
\sum_{i \in \mathcal{f}} k_{i} = K\,, \qquad \sum_{i \in
\mathcal{f}} k'_{i} = K + 1 \,.
\label{kkp}
\end{equation}
Setting
\begin{equation}
\rho_{ij} =
\begin{cases}
0 & \text{ if } \quad i \notin \mathcal{f} \\
1 & \text{ if } \quad i \in \mathcal{f}
\end{cases} \,,
\end{equation}
we obtain $\mu_{j} = -(2K +1)$.
In conclusion, the operator $T$ in \eqref{Heun} commutes with both projectors,
\begin{equation}
\left[T\,,\pi_{1} \right] = 0\,, \qquad \left[T\,,\pi_{2}
\right] = 0
\end{equation}
for the coefficient values
\begin{equation}
\mu_{i} = -(2K +1) \beta_{i}\,, \qquad \nu_{i} = -(2L +1)
\alpha_{i}\,, \qquad \rho_{ij} = \alpha_{i} \beta_{j} \,.
\end{equation}
It follows that
\begin{equation}
\left[T\,, C \right] = 0\,,
\end{equation}
where $C$ is the chopped correlation matrix
\begin{equation}
C = \pi_{1} \pi_{2} \pi_{1} \,.
\label{choppedC}
\end{equation}
We have checked numerically for various examples that the eigenvalues (apart from $0$) of the chopped Heun operator $\pi_1\, T\, \pi_1 = \pi_1\, T$ are not degenerate.
For $D=2$, the result in \cite{Crampe:2019upj, Crampe:2021} for the Heun operator is recovered.
While the eigenvalues of $C$ are expected to agglomerate near $0$ and $1$, the spectrum of $T$ is usually well spaced and thus free of such problem. Since both matrices share a common eigenbasis, the Heun operator $T$ offers an interesting tool to diagonalize the chopped correlation matrix $C$. It also opens the door to the application of Bethe ansatz methods, which was done for the case $D = 2$ \cite{bernard2021heun}.
\section{Entanglement entropy}\label{sec:entanglement}
In this section, we investigate the entanglement entropy of certain eigenstates $|\Psi\rangle\!\rangle$ of the Hamiltonian~\eqref{Hamiltonian}. Because the Hamiltonian is quadratic in terms of the fermionic operators, the reduced density matrix associated to a region $\mathcal{A}$ is a Gaussian operator whose eigenvalues can be obtained \cite{CP01, peschel2003calculation, PE09} from the chopped correlation matrix $C$ in \eqref{choppedC}. Accordingly, the entanglement entropy \eqref{EE} reads
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:SvNCorr}
S_{vN} = -\Tr( C \log C +(\mathbb{I}-C)\log(\mathbb{I}-C)).
\end{equation}
In studying the entanglement entropy as a function of $N$ for given values of $D$, $\vec\alpha$, and $\vec\beta$, it is also necessary to specify the integers $K$ and $L$ which define the sets $\mathcal{F}$ in \eqref{tildeSset} and $\mathcal{A}$ in \eqref{Sset}, respectively.
Let us note that if $\vec \alpha = (1, 1,\dots, 1)$, then the entanglement entropy trivially vanishes. Indeed, in that case we have $\vec \alpha \cdot \vec k = \sum_{i=1}^D k_i=N$ for all $\vec k \in V$. From the definition \eqref{tildeSset} of $\mathcal{F}$, it follows that for this case $|\mathcal{F}|=0$ if $K<N$ and $|\mathcal{F}|=n(N,D)$ if $K=N$, where $n(N,D)$ is given by \eqref{dim}. These situations correspond to a filling fraction $|\mathcal{F}|/n(N,D)$ equal to
$0$ and $1$, respectively, and in both cases the system is in a product state with zero entanglement entropy.
A natural choice is to consider $K$ such that the system is at half filling, namely that the number of elements in $\mathcal{F}$ is $|\mathcal{F}| = \frac{1}{2}n(N,D)$. Moreover, for simplicity, we always choose $\vec \alpha$ such that $\vec\alpha=\vec\epsilon_i$ for some value of $i$ (see Eq. \eqref{epsi}). In that case, the choice of $K$ does not depend on $i$.
For $D=2$ (the one-dimensional chain), the notion of half filling is straightforward, and we choose $K=N/2$. Looking at the definition of $\mathcal{F}$ in \eqref{tildeSset}, this implies that $|\mathcal{F}|=\lfloor N/2 \rfloor +1$ (remember that the chain has $N+1$ sites for $D=2$). Hence, we have a perfect half filling for odd values of $N$, whereas for even $N$ the filling is $\frac{N+2}{2(N+1)}$ and tends to half filling in the limit $N \to \infty$.
For $D>2$ however, it is not always possible to choose a value of $K$ such that we are perfectly at half filling. In these cases, we choose the largest integer $K$ such that $|\mathcal{F}|$ is less than or equal to $\frac{1}{2}n(N,D)$. For $D=3,4$, we find that the value of $K$ that satisfies this property is $K=N/D-1$. The formula becomes more involved for larger values of $D$, but we do not consider these cases.
Similarly, we take $\vec\beta=\vec\epsilon_j$ for some value of $j$, and systematically set $L=K$, for simplicity.
\subsection[The case $D=2$]{The case $\boldsymbol{D=2}$}\label{sec:D2}
For $D=2$, the system is a one-dimensional chain of length $N+1$, and we fix $\vec \alpha=\vec \beta=\vec \epsilon_1$. We note that the entropy does not change if we choose $\vec \alpha=\vec \beta=\vec \epsilon_2$ instead. The entropy also depends on the parameter $p$ (see Eq. \eqref{HD2}), and if instead of $\vec \alpha=\vec \beta$ we had $\vec \alpha \neq \vec \beta$, this would be equivalent to substituting $p$ with $1-p$ in our results. Since we investigate the dependence of the entanglement entropy on $p$, our choice for $\vec \alpha$ and $\vec \beta$ is thus generic.
We compute the entanglement entropy for $L=K=N/2$ as a function of $N$ for various values of~$p$. Numerically, we use the eigenfunctions given in \eqref{QKrawt} and \eqref{Krawt} to compute the chopped correlation matrix and use Eq. \eqref{eq:SvNCorr}. We conjecture the following result for the entanglement entropy,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Svn1dConj}
S_{vN} = \frac 16 \log \left(\frac {N+1}2\right)+ a(p) + \frac{1}{2(N+1)}\frac{\cos(\frac{\pi}{2}\frac{N+1}{m(p)})}{\sin(\frac{\pi}{2m(p)})}+\dots \, ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:mp}
m(p)=\frac{1}{2}\left(1-\log p +\frac{1-\log 2}{2p}\right),
\end{equation}
$a(p)$ is a non-universal constant with respect to $N$, and the ellipsis indicate terms of order smaller than~$N^{-1}$ in the large-$N$ limit. We compare our conjecture with numerical results in the left panel of Fig. \ref{fig:Svn1d} and find excellent agreement, already for moderate values of $N$. We computed the entanglement entropy for numerous values of $p$, and systematically found a similar match between the numerical data and the conjecture of Eq. \eqref{eq:Svn1dConj}. However, we did not include all the corresponding graphs in Fig. \ref{fig:Svn1d} for clarity.
The leading term $\frac 16 \log \left(\frac {N+1}2\right)$ in Eq. \eqref{eq:Svn1dConj} is in agreement with previous results from Ref. \cite{FA21}. In that paper, the authors used methods from CFT in a curved background \cite{DSVC17} to extract the leading contribution for the special case $p=1/2$ at half filling. In particular, the system is described by a CFT of massless Dirac fermions in a curved $(1+1)$-dimensional background. We find that this leading contribution holds for any values of $p$ at half filling.
The constant term with respect to $N$ in Eq. \eqref{eq:Svn1dConj}, that we denote $a(p)$, depends non-trivially on the parameter $p$. For $p=1/2$, we find $a(1/2)=0.4786$, which corresponds to the exact results for the homogeneous XX chain \cite{fagotti2011universal} at half filling. This was already observed in Ref. \cite{FA21}. We report our results for $a(p)$ in the right panel of Fig. \ref{fig:Svn1d}. The dots are obtained from numerical fits of our results for the entropies, and the solid line is a guide to the eye. The latter does not reflect an analytical prediction or a conjecture, and therefore we do not report its expression here.
Finally, we observe oscillations in the sub-leading contribution of order $N^{-1}$ in Eq. \eqref{eq:Svn1dConj}. Similar oscillations have already been studied extensively for homogeneous chains \cite{calabrese2010parity,calabrese2010universal,fagotti2011universal,bonsignori2019symmetry,murciano2020symmetry,berthiere2021entanglement} and in the context of the so-called Rainbow chain \cite{rodriguez2017more}. For homogeneous chains, the frequency of the oscillations depends only on the filling fraction. Here, for a fixed filling fraction (we are always at half filling), we observe that the frequency of the oscillations depends on the model through the parameter $p$ and the function $m(p)$ in Eq. \eqref{eq:mp}. As a particular case, for $p=1/2$ we have $m(1/2)=1$ and we recover the results of Ref. \cite{FA21}. The non-trivial dependence of the frequencies of sub-leading oscillations on the parameters of the model is one of our main results, and it calls for further investigations at different filling fractions and for different inhomogeneous chains. These issues will be addressed in a forthcoming publication.
\begin{figure
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.43\hsize]{Svn1d.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.43\hsize]{ap.png}
\caption{\textit{Left}: Entanglement entropy as a function of $N$ for $D=2$, $\vec \alpha=\vec \beta=\vec \epsilon_1$ and $ K=L=N/2$ for various values of $p$. The sold lines are our conjecture of Eq. \eqref{eq:Svn1dConj}, whereas the dots are obtained from exact diagonalization of the chopped correlation matrix. \textit{Right}: Value of the constant parameter $a(p)$ in Eq. \eqref{eq:Svn1dConj} as a function of $p$. The dots are obtained from numerical fits, and the solid line serves as a guide to the eye.}
\label{fig:Svn1d}
\end{figure}
\subsection[The case $D=3$]{The case $\boldsymbol{D=3}$}
In this subsection, we investigate the entanglement entropy for $D=3$, where the whole system is a planar triangle, as depicted on the right of Fig. \ref{fig:D23}. As discussed as the beginning of Sec. \ref{sec:entanglement}, we systematically take $L=K=N/3-1$.
\subsubsection[Numerical results for Tratnik with $D=3$]{Numerical results for Tratnik with $\boldsymbol{D=3}$}\label{sec:D3Trat}
We start with the Tratnik case $D=3$ and $R_{12}=0$, where the eigenfunctions $\langle \vec x |\vec k \rangle$ have a simple closed form, see Eqs. \eqref{overlap}, \eqref{W} and \eqref{QTratnik}. The entropy depends on $p_1,p_2$, as well as the system size, the eigenstate under consideration and the subsystem, through the respective choices of $N$, $K$ and $\vec{\alpha}$, and $L$ and $\vec{\beta}$. We compute the entanglement entropy numerically for various values of $p_1$ and $p_2$ with $N=3n+1$, $L=K=N/3-1$, $\vec{\alpha}=\vec \epsilon_2$, and $\vec{\beta}=\vec \epsilon_1$. We display our results on the top panels of Fig. \ref{fig:SvnTratnik}. The dots are the numerical data obtained by direct diagonalization of the chopped correlation matrix, and the solid lines correspond to fits of the form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:SvnD3Trat}
S_{vN} = \gamma \ N \log N + \dots
\end{equation}
where the ellipsis indicates terms that are sub-leading compared to $N \log N$ in the large-$N$ limit.
For critical free fermions in $d$ dimensions, the entanglement entropy exhibits a logarithmic violation of the area law \cite{ECP08} and scales as $S_{vN}~\sim~N^{d-1}\log N$, where $N$ is a characteristic length scale of the subsystem along one spatial dimension \cite{wolf2006violation,gioev2006entanglement,li2006scaling}. In our case, the fact that the leading contribution to the entanglement entropy in Eq. \eqref{eq:SvnD3Trat} scales as $N \log N$ thus indicates that, similarly to the one-dimensional case discussed in Sec. \ref{sec:D2}, our inhomogeneous system has a similar behavior as critical free fermions in two dimensions. However, here the leading coefficient depends on the parameters $p_1$ and $p_2$ in a non-trivial way, and we restrict ourselves to numerical evaluation of $\gamma$. In the bottom left panel of Fig. \ref{fig:SvnTratnik}, we show the dependence of this coefficient on $p_2$ for fixed values of $p_1$. The dots are obtained from our numerical data, and the solid lines are fits that serve as guides to the eyes. We do not report their expressions.
Another difference with the one-dimensional chain is that here we do not have parameter-dependent oscillations. In the bottom right panel of Fig. \ref{fig:SvnTratnik}, we plot the entanglement entropy with the same parameters as in the top panels, but for all values of $N$ (instead of focusing on $N=3n+1$). We observe plateaus where the entropy has almost the same value for consecutive values of $N$. This phenomenon is very different in nature from the oscillations we observe in the one-dimensional chain, since here the plateaus do not depend on $p_1,p_2$, but instead appear because of our choices for $L$ and $K$. In fact, we verified that for $L=K=N/M-1$ (hence away from half filling for $M \neq 3$), we have plateaus of length $M$. Here they have length $3$ because $L=K=N/3-1$. These plateaus are thus artifacts of the geometry of the model, and we remove them by considering $N=3n+1$.
\begin{figure
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.43\hsize]{SvnD3Tratnikb.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.43\hsize]{SvnD3Tratnik.png} \\
\includegraphics[width=0.43\hsize]{gammap.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.43\hsize]{SvnD3_plateaus.png}
\caption{\textit{Top}: Entanglement entropy as a function of $N=3n+1$ for the Tratnik case with $D=3$, $L=K=N/3-1$, $\vec{\alpha}=\vec \epsilon_2$, $\vec{\beta}=\vec \epsilon_1$ and various values of $p_1,p_2$. The dots are obtained from direct diagonalization of the chopped correlation matrix, and the solid lines are fits of the form of Eq. \eqref{eq:SvnD3Trat}. \textit{Bottom left}: Leading coefficient $\gamma$ in the expansion of Eq. \eqref{eq:SvnD3Trat} as a function of $p_2$ with $p_1=1/2$ and $p_1=1/4$. The dots are obtained from our numerical data, and the solid lines serve as guides to the eye. \textit{Bottom right}: Entanglement entropy as a function of $N$ for the Tratnik case with $D=3$ and the same parameters as in the top panels. We do not impose $N=3n+1$ and observe clear plateaus of length 3. }
\label{fig:SvnTratnik}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection[Symmetric point for Tratnik at $p_1=1/2$, $p_2=1/4$]{Symmetric point for Tratnik at $\boldsymbol{p_1=1/2}$, $\boldsymbol{p_2=1/4}$}
For the $D=3$ Tratnik case with parameter values $p_1=1/2$, $p_2=1/4$, the nonzero matrix elements of the rotation matrix \eqref{Rtratnik} are $\pm 1/2\,, \pm 1/\sqrt{2}$, and both Krawtchouk polynomials in \eqref{QTratnik} have the same parameter value (namely, $1/2$). For this case, we find numerically that
the entanglement entropies corresponding to various pairs $( \vec\alpha, \vec\beta)$ are equal. For example, all the pairs $\{ (\vec\epsilon_1, \vec\epsilon_1)\,, ( \vec\epsilon_2, \vec\epsilon_2)\,, ( \vec\epsilon_3, \vec\epsilon_2)\,, (\vec\epsilon_1, \vec\epsilon_3) \}$ correspond to the same entanglement entropy, and similarly for $\{ (\vec\epsilon_2, \vec\epsilon_1)\,, ( \vec\epsilon_3, \vec\epsilon_1)\,, ( \vec\epsilon_2, \vec\epsilon_3)\,, (\vec\epsilon_3, \vec\epsilon_3) \}$.
Many of the above equivalences in entanglement entropy can be explained by the existence of simple changes of basis for this special case. Indeed, consider the transformation ${\cal P}^{(1)}$ defined by
\begin{equation}
{\cal P}^{(1)} |x_1, x_2, x_3 \rangle = |x_3, x_2, x_1 \rangle \,,
\end{equation}
whose action on the $k$-basis is given by
\begin{equation}
{\cal P}^{(1)} |k_1, k_2, k_3 \rangle = (-1)^{N+k_1}|k_1, k_3, k_2 \rangle \,.
\end{equation}
Conjugation by ${\cal P}^{(1)}$ therefore gives
\begin{equation}{\cal P}^{(1)}\ :\
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
X_1\mapsto X_3\\[0.2em]
X_2\mapsto X_2\\[0.2em]
X_3\mapsto X_1
\end{array}\right.\ \ \ \ \text{and}\ \ \ \ \ \left\{\begin{array}{l}
H_1\mapsto H_1\\[0.2em]
H_2\mapsto H_3\\[0.2em]
H_3\mapsto H_2
\end{array}\right. \,.
\end{equation}
Similarly, conjugation by ${\cal P}^{(1)}$ on the projectors gives
\begin{equation}{\cal P}^{(1)}\ :\
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\pi_{X_1}\mapsto \pi_{X_3}\\[0.2em]
\pi_{X_2}\mapsto \pi_{X_2}\\[0.2em]
\pi_{X_3}\mapsto \pi_{X_1}
\end{array}\right.\ \ \ \ \text{and}\ \ \ \ \ \left\{\begin{array}{l}
\pi_{H_1}\mapsto \pi_{H_1}\\[0.2em]
\pi_{H_2}\mapsto \pi_{H_3}\\[0.2em]
\pi_{H_3}\mapsto \pi_{H_2}
\end{array}\right. \,,
\end{equation}
where $\pi_{X_i}$ and $\pi_{H_i}$
denote the projectors $\pi_1$ with $\beta=\epsilon_i$,
and $\pi_2$ with $\alpha=\epsilon_i$, respectively.
Consequently, the chopped correlation matrices
$\pi_{X_1}\pi_{H_1}\pi_{X_1}$ and
$\pi_{X_3}\pi_{H_1}\pi_{X_3}$ are related by conjugation, which explains the fact that $(\vec\epsilon_1, \vec\epsilon_1)$ and
$(\vec\epsilon_1, \vec\epsilon_3)$ have the same entanglement entropy. With this argument, we find the following equivalences:
\begin{equation}\label{equivalence}
\begin{array}{c}
(\vec{\epsilon_1},\vec{\epsilon_1})\sim (\vec{\epsilon_1},\vec{\epsilon_3})\,, \\[0.4em]
(\vec{\epsilon_2},\vec{\epsilon_2})\sim (\vec{\epsilon_3},\vec{\epsilon_2})\,, \\[0.4em]
(\vec{\epsilon_2},\vec{\epsilon_1})\sim (\vec{\epsilon_3},\vec{\epsilon_3})\,, \\[0.4em]
(\vec{\epsilon_3},\vec{\epsilon_1})\sim (\vec{\epsilon_2},\vec{\epsilon_3})\,. \\[0.4em]
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Similarly, the transformation ${\cal P}^{(2)}$ defined by
\begin{equation}
{\cal P}^{(2)} |x_1, x_2, x_3 \rangle = (-1)^{x_2} |x_3, x_2, x_1 \rangle \,,
\end{equation}
has the following action on the $k$-basis
\begin{equation}
{\cal P}^{(2)} |k_1, k_2, k_3 \rangle = (-1)^{N+k_1}|k_1, k_2, k_3 \rangle \,.
\end{equation}
Therefore
\begin{equation}{\cal P}^{(2)}\ :\
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
X_1\mapsto X_3\\[0.2em]
X_2\mapsto X_2\\[0.2em]
X_3\mapsto X_1
\end{array}\right.\ \ \ \ \text{and}\ \ \ \ \ \left\{\begin{array}{l}
H_1\mapsto H_1\\[0.2em]
H_2\mapsto H_2\\[0.2em]
H_3\mapsto H_3
\end{array}\right. \,,
\end{equation}
and similarly for the corresponding projectors.
It follows that the last two lines of \eqref{equivalence} also have the same entanglement entropy.
\subsubsection{Decoupled Tratnik case}\label{sec:decoupled}
We observe that for the $D=3$ Tratnik case \eqref{Rtratnik} with $R_{12}=0$, the entanglement entropy exactly vanishes for a specific set of vectors $(\vec\alpha\,, \vec\beta)$, namely
\begin{equation}
S_{vN}(\vec\alpha, \vec\beta, K, L, N) = 0\,, \qquad
\vec\alpha = \vec\epsilon_1\,, \quad \vec\beta=\vec\epsilon_2\,,
\label{special}
\end{equation}
for all allowed values of $K, L, N$. This is consistent with the fact that, for this case, the subsystem does not interact with its complement, as illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig:special}.
\begin{figure
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.43\hsize]{special3}
\caption{System with $N=D=3$, $\vec\alpha=\vec\epsilon_1$, $\vec\beta=\vec\epsilon_2$, and $L=0$. The vertices in the set $\mathcal{A}$ \eqref{Sset} (the subsystem), which are labeled by their coordinates $(x_1,x_2,x_3)$, are denoted by stars, and lines connect vertices between which hopping is allowed by the Hamiltonian \eqref{Hamiltonian}. In this case, hopping is not allowed between the subsystem and its complement.}
\label{fig:special}
\end{figure}
More generally, it follows from the definitions \eqref{XH} that
\begin{equation}
\left[ X_l \,, H_i \right] = \sum_{k=1}^DR_{il}R_{ik}a^{\dagger}_la_k-\sum_{j=1}^DR_{ij}R_{il}a^{\dagger}_ja_l \,.
\label{commutespecial}
\end{equation}
This gives $0$ if $R_{il}=0$. We consider the following particular situation. Given a matrix $R$, we choose $\vec{\alpha}$ and $\vec{\beta}$ such that the only pairs $(\alpha_i,\beta_l)$ equal to $(1,1)$ correspond to coefficients $R_{il}=0$, that is,
\begin{equation}
\text{if}\ (\alpha_i,\beta_l)=(1,1)\ \ \ \ \ \text{then}\ \ R_{il}=0\ .
\label{conditioncommute}
\end{equation}
Then we deduce that in this case:
\begin{equation}
\left[ \vec\alpha \cdot \vec H \,, \vec\beta \cdot \vec X \right] = 0 \,.
\label{commutespecial2}
\end{equation}
Now recall that $\pi_1$ is the projector on the sum of certain eigenspaces of $\vec\beta \cdot \vec X$, and as such it is a polynomial in $\vec\beta \cdot \vec X$. Similarly, $\pi_2$ is a polynomial in $\vec\alpha \cdot \vec H$. From (\ref{commutespecial2}), we have that $\pi_1$ and $\pi_2$ commute. Therefore they can be simultaneously diagonalized (with eigenvalues either $0$ or $1$) and thus $C = \pi_1\, \pi_2\, \pi_1 = \pi_1\, \pi_2$ has eigenvalues which are either $0$ or $1$. Therefore, the entanglement entropy vanishes in the particular situation (\ref{conditioncommute}).
\subsubsection{One-parameter case}\label{sec:1pD3}
Let us now consider the one-parameter case for $D=3$, with Hamiltonian \eqref{Roneparam} whose eigenfunctions are given by \eqref{eigoneparam}, and let us set $\vec\alpha=\vec\epsilon_2$. (The case $\vec\alpha=\vec\epsilon_3$ is similar, while here $\vec\alpha=\vec\epsilon_1$ is trivial.) For $\vec\beta=\vec\epsilon_1$, the system becomes decoupled and has 0 entanglement entropy, as in Sec. \ref{sec:decoupled}. However, for $\vec\beta=\vec\alpha=\vec\epsilon_2$, the entanglement entropy is nonzero. As for the Tratnik case discussed in Sec. \ref{sec:D3Trat}, we observe plateaus if we consider all values of $N$. We impose $N=3n+1$, and again observe that the entropy exhibits a logarithmic violation of the area law, see the left panel of Fig. \ref{fig:SvnOneparam}. The leading coefficient $\gamma$ from the expansion \eqref{eq:SvnD3Trat} is displayed on the right panel of Fig. \ref{fig:SvnOneparam}. Similarly to the Tratnik case, we restrict ourselves to a numerical evaluation of this coefficient and the solid lines are simple guides to the eye.
A notable difference with the Tratnik case discussed of Sec. \ref{sec:D3Trat} is that $\gamma$ appears to depend only weakly on $p$. Most of the curves in the left panel of Fig. \ref{fig:SvnOneparam} are close to each other, as compared to the ones in the top panels of Fig. \ref{fig:SvnTratnik}. In particular, the curves for $p=1/3,1/4$ and $1/5$ are almost indistinguishable. A potential explanation for this behavior is the following. In the case of homogeneous free fermions on the square lattice, the scaling $S_{vN}\sim N \log N$ stems from the fact that the Hamiltonian in two dimensions can be expressed as a sum of Hamiltonians for one-dimensional chains via dimensional reduction \cite{chung2000density,murciano2020symmetry}. The entanglement entropy of a two-dimensional strip is exactly given as a sum of~$N$ entropies of one-dimensional chains at different filling fraction, and each of them scales as $\log N$. The dimensional reduction thus allows one to not only understand the logarithmic violation of the area law, but also to compute the coefficient of the leading term, as well as the sub-leading ones. In our model, considering the one-parameter case with $\vec \alpha= \vec \epsilon_2$ implies that the Hamiltonian \eqref{Hamiltonian} only contains hopping interactions along lines parallel to $\vec \epsilon_2-\vec \epsilon_3$, and hence can be seen as a sum of one-dimensional chains. The fact that the leading term of the entanglement entropy in one dimension is independent of~$p$ may help explain the weak dependence on $p$ here. However, because of the geometry of the problem, the computation of the leading coefficient $\gamma$ from one-dimensional chains appears more involved than on the square lattice, and we have not investigated that issue further.
\begin{figure
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.43\hsize]{SvnD3Tratnik1para.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.43\hsize]{gammap_1param.png}
\caption{\textit{Left}: Entanglement entropy as a function of $N=3n+1$ for the one-parameter case with $D=3$, $L=K=N/3-1$ and $\vec{\alpha}=\vec{\beta}=\vec \epsilon_2$ for various values of $p$. The dots are obtained from direct diagonalization of the chopped correlation matrix, and the solid lines are fits of the form of Eq. \eqref{eq:SvnD3Trat}. \textit{Right}: Leading coefficient $\gamma$ in the expansion of Eq. \eqref{eq:SvnD3Trat} as a function of $p$. The dots are obtained from our numerical data, and the solid line serves as guides to the eye.}
\label{fig:SvnOneparam}
\end{figure}
\subsection[The case $D=4$]{The case $\boldsymbol{D=4}$}
In this section, we investigate the entanglement entropy for $D=4$. Based on our results for $D=2,3$, we expect the entropy to exhibits a logarithmic violation of the area law, and to scale as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:SvnD4}
S_{vN}= \gamma \ N^2 \log N + \dots \,.
\end{equation}
We consider two particular cases, (i) the Tratnik case, see Eq. \eqref{Rtratnik4}, for which the the eigenfunctions are given by \eqref{QTratnikD4}, and (ii) the one-parameter case discussed in Sec. \ref{sec:oneP}. Similarly as for the case $D=3$, we choose $L=K=N/4-1$. Without restrictions on the allowed values for $N$, we also observe plateaus-like effects, that are only related to the geometry of the system and our choices of $L$ and $K$. Hence, we restrict ourselves to $N=4n+1$.
We display our numerical results in the left and right panels of Fig. \ref{fig:SvnD4} for cases (i) and (ii), respectively. The dots are obtained by direct diagonalization of the chopped correlation matrix, whereas the solid lines correspond to fits of the form of Eq. \eqref{eq:SvnD4}.
For the one-parameter case, the curves for $p=1/3,1/4,1/5$ and $1/6$ are almost indistinguishable, and correspond to a leading term of $\gamma \simeq 0.06$. Our heuristic explanation for this phenomenon is similar as the one we discuss in Sec. \ref{sec:1pD3} for the one-parameter case for $D=3$.
\begin{figure
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.43\hsize]{SvnD4Tratnik.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.43\hsize]{SvnD4_One_Param.png}
\caption{\textit{Left}: Entanglement entropy as a function of $N=4n+1$ for the Tratnik case with $D=4$, $L=K=N/4-1$ and $\vec{\alpha}=\vec{\beta} = \vec \epsilon_1$ for various values of $p_1,p_2,p_3$. \textit{Right}: Entanglement entropy as a function of $N=4n+1$ for the one-parameter case with $D=4$, $L=K=N/4-1$ and $\vec{\alpha}=\vec{\beta} = \vec \epsilon_3$ for various values of $p$. In both panels, the dots are obtained by direct diagonalization of the chopped correlation matrix, and the solid lines correspond to fits of the form of Eq. \eqref{eq:SvnD4}.}
\label{fig:SvnD4}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion and outlook}\label{sec:end}
In this paper, we introduced and solved a new inhomogeneous model of free fermions in arbitrary spatial dimensions. The model coincides with the Krawtchouk chain \cite{Crampe:2019upj} in the one-dimensional case, and its solution in arbitrary dimensions relies on multivariate Krawtchouk polynomials. Moreover, using bispectral properties of the problem, we constructed an operator that commutes with the chopped correlation matrix and provides a natural extension of the Heun operator obtained in \cite{Crampe:2019upj} to higher dimensions.
We investigated the entanglement properties of half-filled eigenstates of the Hamiltonian \eqref{Hamiltonian} for $D=2,3,4$, which correspond to systems in one, two and three spatial dimensions, respectively. We found that the entanglement entropy scales as
\begin{equation}
S_{vN} = \gamma \ N^{D-2}\log N + \dots \, ,
\end{equation}
and thus exhibits a logarithmic violation of the area law. For $D=2$, the leading coefficient is $\gamma=1/6$, in agreement with previous results obtained in the framework of curved-space CFT \cite{FA21}. We also observed and conjectured the exact form of sub-leading oscillations, see Eq. \eqref{eq:mp}, but an analytical proof is beyond the scope of this paper. Crucially, the frequencies of those oscillations depend on the model through the parameter $p$. This property is in stark contrast with known sub-leading oscillations in homogeneous systems, which depend only on the filling fraction, and represents one of the main results of this paper. For $D=3,4$, the leading coefficient $\gamma$ depends on the parameters of the model, and this dependence is much weaker for the one-parameter cases. We restricted ourselves to numerical evaluations of this coefficient.
There are many open problems that are worth investigating in the future. A first one would be to provide an analytical proof for the conjecture of Eqs. \eqref{eq:Svn1dConj}, \eqref{eq:mp}, and hence extend the results of Ref. \cite{fagotti2011universal} to inhomogeneous systems. However, we expect this problem to be very challenging, since the inhomogeneity of the model breaks the Toeplitz and Hankel structure of the correlation matrix. Another complementary idea is to use curved-space CFT methods to understand the sub-leading oscillations, similarly to the Rainbow chain \cite{rodriguez2017more}, as well as the leading terms for $p\neq 1/2$. In parallel to analytical results, we believe that the model-dependent sub-leading oscillations deserve further investigations in the context of other inhomogeneous chains. For instance, preliminary results suggests that a similar phenomenon occurs for the anti-Krawtchouk chain \cite{GVYZ2016}. It would also be interesting to better understand the dependence of $\gamma$ on the parameters of the model for $D=3,4$, either via analytical computations or with field-theoretical arguments in higher dimensions. Another intriguing question is whether one could use the Heun operator to compute entanglement entropies faster and with higher precision than via direct diagonalization of the chopped correlation matrix. Preliminary results seem to suggest so. Moreover, the Heun operator could also be used to derive analytical results for the entanglement entropy via Bethe ansatz techniques \cite{bernard2021heun}. Other natural extensions of our work include the investigation of inhomogeneous models based on other representations of $su(D)$ and on graphs of P- and Q- polynomial association schemes \cite{Bannai1984AlgebraicCI, brouwer2012distance}. The entanglement entropy of free fermions on the celebrated Hamming scheme was found to be related to the entanglement in Krawtchouk chains \cite{bernard2021entanglement}, and similarly the entanglement of free fermions on ordered Hamming graphs \cite{miki2019quantum} is expected to be related to the entanglement in the higher-dimensional models introduced in this paper.
\paragraph{Acknowledgements}
PAB holds an Alexander-Graham-Bell scholarship from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). NC and LPA are supported by the international research project AAPT of the CNRS and the ANR Project AHA ANR-18-CE40-0001.
RN gratefully acknowledges financial support from a CRM--Simons professorship, and the warm hospitality extended to him at the Centre de Recherches Math\'ematiques (CRM) during his visit to Montreal. GP holds a CRM--ISM postdoctoral fellowship and acknowledges support from the Mathematical Physics Laboratory of the CRM. The research of LV is supported by a Discovery Grant from NSERC. GP thanks Cl\'ement Berthiere, Riccarda Bonsignori and Juliette Geoffrion for useful discussions.
\bibliographystyle{utphys}
|
\section{0pt}{0.1\baselineskip plus 5pt minus 5pt}{0.1\baselineskip plus 5pt minus 5pt}
\usepackage{caption}
\captionsetup[table]{skip=0pt}
\captionsetup[figure]{skip=0pt}
\captionsetup[subfigure]{skip=0pt}
\captionsetup{belowskip=0pt}
\begin{document}
\twocolumn[
\icmltitle{Optimal Clipping and Magnitude-aware Differentiation \\ for Improved Quantization-aware Training}
\begin{icmlauthorlist}
\icmlauthor{Charbel Sakr}{to}
\icmlauthor{Steve Dai}{to}
\icmlauthor{Rangharajan Venkatesan}{to}
\icmlauthor{Brian Zimmer}{to}
\icmlauthor{William J. Dally}{to}
\icmlauthor{Brucek Khailany}{to}
\end{icmlauthorlist}
\icmlaffiliation{to}{The authors are with NVIDIA Corporation, Santa Clara, CA 95051 USA}
\icmlcorrespondingauthor{Charbel Sakr}{<EMAIL>}
\icmlkeywords{Machine Learning, ICML}
\vskip 0.3in
]
\printAffiliationsAndNotice{}
\begin{abstract}
Data clipping is crucial in reducing noise in quantization operations and improving the achievable accuracy of quantization-aware training (QAT). Current practices rely on heuristics to set clipping threshold scalars and cannot be shown to be optimal. We propose Optimally Clipped Tensors And Vectors (OCTAV), a recursive algorithm to determine MSE-optimal clipping scalars. Derived from the fast Newton-Raphson method, OCTAV finds optimal clipping scalars on the fly, for every tensor, at every iteration of the QAT routine. Thus, the QAT algorithm is formulated with provably minimum quantization noise at each step. In addition, we reveal limitations in common gradient estimation techniques in QAT and propose magnitude-aware differentiation as a remedy to further improve accuracy. Experimentally, OCTAV-enabled QAT achieves state-of-the-art accuracy on multiple tasks. These include training-from-scratch and retraining ResNets and MobileNets on ImageNet, and Squad fine-tuning using BERT models, where OCTAV-enabled QAT consistently preserves accuracy at low precision (4-to-6-bits). Our results require no modifications to the baseline training recipe, except for the insertion of quantization operations where appropriate.
\end{abstract}
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Deep neural networks (DNNs) are powerful models achieving state-of-the-art accuracy on various cognitive tasks such as image classification, object detection, and natural language processing \cite{lecunNature}. However, DNN successes have been achieved at the expense of a high computational and parameter complexity. Indeed, networks commonly require around 4 billion multiply-accumulates (MACs) \cite{resnet} or have over 100 million parameters \cite{deepface}. With further progress in deep learning, the growth of DNN resource requirements shows no sign of slowing down \cite{bianco2018benchmark}. Fortunately, reduced-precision implementation has been shown to largely lower the computational complexity of deep learning models \cite{ibmIcml15}.
Reduced-precision deep learning is widely adopted and multi-faceted. One option is to perform post-training quantization (PTQ), which benefits inference only and consists of taking a pretrained network and implementing it in reduced-precision, with no retraining allowed. While conceptually simple, PTQ is challenging, as determining an accuracy-preserving quantization strategy is non-trivial. In recent works, proposed practical PTQ solutions include speculative hybrid high/low precision number formats \cite{biscaledDAC,predictivenet} and Batch-Norm-guided data free quantization \cite{nagelDFQ}.
The results presented in our work apply to any quantization setup, including PTQ. However, the main feature is the ability to optimize quantization metadata on the fly. This is most arguably effective for another facet: quantization-aware training (QAT), where weights and activations are quantized during training. A superset of this problem is fully quantized training (FQT) \cite{sakrICLRfx}, where gradients and weight updates are also quantized. While we focus on QAT here, an interesting and important extension of our work is to apply our results to FQT.
\subsection{Quantization-aware training and related works}
There are three main use cases for QAT:
\textbf{training-from-scratch} where the starting point is a randomly initialized network; \textbf{retraining} where a pretrained model is quantized and retrained for a short time on the same dataset; and \textbf{fine-tuning} where the starting point is a model pretrained on one dataset and trained on another.
Early works on QAT showed that binary-weighted \cite{binaryConnect} and fully-binarized \cite{binaryNet} networks can be accurately trained on simple models and datasets. To improve accuracy in more difficult tasks, DoReFa-Net \cite{dorefa} increased the forward precision to 4-bit and used \textit{max-scaling}, i.e., matching the largest quantized representation to the largest value in the set of elements (tensor or vector) to be quantized.
An advantage of max-scaling is that it is well-defined. Indeed, max-scaled QAT can be implemented using the same training recipe as a full precision baseline, simply by inserting the quantization operations where appropriate. Thus, there are no hyperparameters required, and results can be readily reproduced. Unfortunately, max-scaling incurs large amounts of quantization noise, harming accuracy. Nevertheless, quantization fidelity can be improved with clipping, which has been researched by several recent works.
Making the \textit{clipping scalar} a learned parameter, as was done in PACT \cite{pact}, has been shown to significantly improve accuracy. However, by virtue of the added learnable parameters, a QAT-dedicated training recipe is required. As such, PACT is highly sensitive to hyperparameter tuning and is therefore difficult to reproduce and cannot easily generalize. An advantage of PACT is that, much like max-scaling, it computes quantization metadata on the fly. We term such a scheme \textbf{dynamic quantization}, which is useful for setups with time-varying tensor statistics, such as training-from-scratch and fine-tuning.
Alternatively, \textbf{static quantization} was explored by \cite{wu2020integer} who used calibration on pretrained data in order to fix the clipping scalars at the start of QAT. Such an approach can only be applied when tensor statistics minimally change over time, e.g., in a short retraining or fine-tuning setup. Further, the choice of calibration strategy is closely tied to the performance of QAT, necessitating network-specific exploration. Percentile calibration was shown to be robust \cite{wu2020integer}, and state-of-the-art retraining accuracy was obtained through extensive calibration exploration \cite{paretoCVPR21}. An advantage of static quantization is its conceptual simplicity; once a good calibration strategy is identified, a QAT routine can be readily and reproducibly implemented.
The above works all use uniform quantization, also called integer quantization \cite{wu2020integer} and fixed-point quantization \cite{sakrICLRfx}. In this work, we also focus on uniform quantization, which is well-suited for efficient hardware implementations, particularly at low (less-than-8-bit) precision \cite{hanEIE}.
Still, we do note that recent works have shown promising results for QAT under non-uniform quantization: structured quantization, such as that derived from low precision floating-point \cite{ibmNips18,IBMNIPS2019} and logarithmic \cite{lee2017lognet, nvidiaLNS} number systems, as well as custom formats, such as Flexpoint \cite{flexpoint}, AdaptivFloat \cite{tambeAdaptivfloat}, and LQNets \cite{lqnet}. We derive all our theoretical and experimental results for uniform quantization; however, our work can be extended to non-uniform quantization.
Finally, in our work, we use the exact same training recipe as the full-precision baseline for training-from-scratch and fine-tuning. For retraining, we use a shortened version of the training-from-scratch recipe. Recent works have attempted to improve accuracy using QAT-specific training techniques, such as distillation \cite{distillationCVPR2020}. Such works are orthogonal to ours; our methods can be inserted on top of any training routine.
\subsection{Contributions}
None of the prior arts provides guarantees on the optimality of the chosen clipping scalars. Most works use a strategy believed to be adequate, e.g., relying on the training algorithm \cite{pact}, or yielding small quantization noise on calibrated data \cite{wu2020integer}. In contrast, our work makes the following contributions:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*,itemsep=0.1\baselineskip,topsep=0pt]
\item We derive OCTAV: a fast recursive algorithm based on the Newton-Raphson method to determine MSE-minimizing clipping scalars. With OCTAV, optimal quantization metadata can be computed for every tensor, at every iteration of the QAT routine. Thus, the QAT algorithm is formulated with minimum quantization noise at each iteration.
\item We analyze common candidates for quantized gradient estimation, for which we reveal risks of gradient explosion and partial premature stoppage of convergence. We avoid these risks by proposing magnitude-aware differentiation, which leads to a noticeable improvement in QAT accuracy.
\item We show that OCTAV-enabled training-from-scratch QAT achieves state-of-art accuracy on several ImageNet benchmarks. Indeed, 4-bit training of ResNet-50, ResNet-18, ResNet-101, and MobileNet-V2 models results in less-than-1\% accuracy degradation compared to the full precision baseline. We also provide promising results on the much-harder-to-quantize MobileNet-V3-Small and MobileNet-V3-Large. For all results, no modification to the baseline training recipe is made.
\item We find OCTAV-enabled QAT to always yield highly accurate solutions in 4-bit retraining. We find static quantization more accurate for large models, such as ResNets; and thus propose static-OCTAV for fast calibration yielding high accuracy. In contrast, small models such as MobileNets require dynamic quantization for retraining, and OCTAV is shown to be far superior to any other strategy.
\item Finally, we find OCTAV-enabled QAT to be most appropriate for Squad fine-tuning of BERT models. Even when restricted to static quantization, we find that static-OCTAV consistently outperforms other calibration methods.
\end{itemize}
\section{Clipped Quantization}
\label{sec:clipped_quantization}
Consider some data $x$ derived from a distribution $f_X()$. We define $B$-bit quantization as the process of mapping $x$ to one of $2^B$ predefined levels $\{r_i\}_{i=1}^{2^B}$. The quantized data is obtained as:
$ \mathbbm{Q}(x) = \arg\min_{\{r_i\}_{i=1}^{2^B}}|x-r_i|.$
The choice of $\{r_i\}_{i=1}^{2^B}$ is crucial in setting the fidelity of quantization, which we metricize via the mean squared error (MSE):
\begin{align}
\label{eqn:mse_definition}
J = \mathbbm{E}\left[ \left(\mathbbm{Q}(X) - X \right)^2 \right]
\end{align}
For unconstrained quantization, this metric can be minimized using the Lloyd-Max algorithm \cite{lloyd_max}.
Among uniformly constrained quantizers, we first introduce the maxed-scaled one. Assume there exists a scalar $s_{\max}$ such that $f_X(x)=0$ for $|x|>s_{\max}$. In practice, $s_{\max}$ can be the largest available element in absolute value. The max-scaled quantizer assigns the levels $\{r_i\}_{i=1}^{2^B}$ as an arithmetic progression on $\left[-s_{\max},s_{\max}\right]$\footnote{We assume signed data, without loss of generality. In Appendix \ref{appendix:unsigned}, we list all required modifications for our results to apply to the unsigned case, i.e., quantization over $\left[0,s_{\max}\right]$.}. Thus, the max-scaled quantization operation is given by:
\begin{align}
\label{eqn:max_scaled_quantization}
\mathbbm{Q}(x) = s_{\max}\cdot2^{1-B}\cdot\text{round}\left({x\cdot2^{B-1}}/{s_{\max}} \right)
\end{align}
with the rounding operation being applied on integers\footnote{For notational simplicity and mathematical tractability, boundary effects introduced by number systems (e.g., two's complement) are neglected. They are, however, implemented in our experiments.}.
This quantizer has been extensively studied in signal processing \cite{goelQnoise} and machine learning \cite{sakrICML} and its MSE, derived using an additive model of quantization noise, is given by $J=s_{\max}^2\frac{4^{-B}}3$.
Often, max-scaling is data inefficient due to its large quantization range and thus step size. A simple, but powerful method to improve uniform quantization is to allow for data clipping \cite{sakrTSP,gonugondlaICCAD}. Specifically, a narrower quantization interval $[-s,s]$ is used, with the clipping scalar $s<s_{\max}$, and the quantization operation given by:
\begin{align}
&\mathbbm{Q}(x) = \text{clip}\left(s\cdot2^{1-B}\cdot\text{round}\left({x\cdot2^{B-1}}/{s}\right) ,-s,s\right) \nonumber \\
&=\begin{cases}
-s \quad \text{if } x<-s\\
s\cdot2^{1-B}\cdot\text{round}\left({x\cdot2^{B-1}}/{s}\right) ~ \text{if } x\in[-s,s]\\
s \quad \text{if } x>s
\end{cases}
\label{eqn:clipped_quantization_definition}
\end{align}
With clipping, the MSE in \eqref{eqn:mse_definition} depends on $s$ and is given by:
\begin{align}
\label{eqn:clipped_quantization_mse}
J(s) = \frac{4^{-B}}3s^2\int_0^sf_{|X|}(x)dx + \int_s^{\infty}(s-x)^2f_{|X|}(x)dx
\end{align}
where $f_{|X|}()$ is the distribution of the absolute value of the data. Equation \eqref{eqn:clipped_quantization_mse} is obtained by evaluating \eqref{eqn:mse_definition} using the law of total expectation; the aforementioned additive noise model is assumed on the discretization interval $[-s,s]$ and the definition of MSE is used when clipping occurs. {For discretization noise, the term $\frac{s^24^{-B}}{3}$ does not require \emph{a priori} knowledge of data distribution. It is obtained through sampling theory where quantization noise arises via approximating the neighborhood of a quantization level of \emph{any} distribution as a local rectangle \cite{widrowBook}. }
\begin{figure}[!t]
\begin{center}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[trim=0 2cm 0 2cm, clip, width = 0.99\linewidth,page=1]{figures/paper_figures.pdf}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[trim=0 2cm 0 1cm, clip, width = 0.99\linewidth,page=2]{figures/paper_figures.pdf}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\end{center}
\caption{Sweep of the quantization MSE as a function of the clipping scalar $s$ for two arbitrary weight (a) and activation (b) layers in a pretrained ResNet-50 model. Activation data is obtained by sampling a random input batch from the training set. Solid lines are obtained by evaluating the MSE formula in \eqref{eqn:clipped_quantization_mse} using histograms and numerical integration. Dashed lines are obtained by empirically evaluating \eqref{eqn:mse_definition}, i.e., quantizing each tensor element according to \eqref{eqn:clipped_quantization_definition} and averaging the resulting squared errors.}
\label{fig:mse_vs_scalars_curves}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:mse_vs_scalars_curves} shows variations in quantization MSE as a function of clipping scalar. We use data from a trained ResNet-50 model \cite{resnet}, with activations corresponding to a random input batch sampled from the ImageNet dataset \cite{imagenet}. We depict both the evaluation of \eqref{eqn:clipped_quantization_mse} using histograms and numerical integration, and the empirically measured MSE in \eqref{eqn:mse_definition} via element-wise quantization and squared error averaging. We observe the following:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*,itemsep=0.1\baselineskip,topsep=0pt
\item Our formula closely matches the empirical MSE. Thus, we use it as a building block for our upcoming analyses.
\item There exists an optimal scalar $s^*$ minimizing the MSE. This optimum balances the trade-off between discretization and clipping noise. When $s<s^*$, excess clipping leads to an increase in $J$ in spite of smaller discretization noise. Conversely, when $s>s^*$, clipping is minimal but the larger quantization step size causes an increase in discretization noise and $J$.
\item The optimal scalar $s^*$ is a function of both data distribution $f_{X}()$ and number of bits $B$. The dependence on $f_X()$ is identified by virtue of $s^*$ being different for different layers (e.g., when $B=4$, $s^*$ is approximately $0.1$ and $0.05$ for weight layers \#17 and \#45, respectively). The dependence on $B$ is identified by virtue of $s^*$ varying with precision when data is unchanged (e.g., for activation layer \#13, $s^* $ is approximately $1.0$ and $2.0$ for $B=4$ and $B=8$, respectively).
\end{itemize}
Finding $s^*$ can be done \textbf{offline} through brute force search, i.e., sweeping the value of $s$. However, this task is highly time-consuming and hard to implement dynamically. The analytical evaluation of \eqref{eqn:clipped_quantization_mse} requires histograms to estimate $f_X()$ and numerical integration. Similarly, an empirical evaluation requires successive rounding and reduction operations on large tensors.
In the next section, we present a method to determine the optimal clipping scalar $s^*$ \textbf{online}.
\section{Optimally Clipped Tensors And Vectors}
\label{sec:octav}
We present our main theoretical result: a recursive formula to analytically determine $s^*$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:octav}
Given a data distribution $f_X()$, the clipping scalar $s^*$ minimizing the clipped quantization MSE in \eqref{eqn:clipped_quantization_mse} can be found by assigning a random guess $s_1$ and recursively computing $\{s_n\}_{n>1}$ until convergence using:
\begin{align}
\label{eqn:octav_theorem}
s_{n+1} = \frac{\mathbbm{E}\left[|X|\cdot \mathbbm{1}_{\{|X|>s_n\}} \right]}{\frac{4^{-B}}{3}\mathbbm{E}\left[\mathbbm{1}_{\{|X|\leq s_n\}}\right] +\mathbbm{E}\left[ \mathbbm{1}_{\{|X|>s_n\}}\right]}
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We provide the complete proof in Appendix \ref{appendix:octav_proof}. For the benefit of the interested reader, we here mention the main idea behind the result. It consists of using the Newton-Raphson algorithm, which recursively computes
$s_{n+1} = s_n - {J'(s_n)}/{J''(s_n)}$.
In Appendix \ref{appendix:octav_proof}, we show how first and second derivatives of $J(s)$ are derived to obtain \eqref{eqn:octav_theorem}.
\end{proof}
Theorem \ref{thm:octav} applies to an arbitrary distribution, and the following corollary applies to tensor and vector quantization.
\begin{corollary}
\label{corr:octav}
The clipping scalar $s^*$ minimizing the clipped quantization MSE in a tensor or vector $\vec{t}$ can be found by assigning a random guess $s_1$ and recursively computing $\{s_n\}_{n>1}$ until convergence using:
\begin{align}
&s_{n+1} =\frac{\sum_{x\in\vec{t}}\left[|x|\cdot \mathbbm{1}_{\{|x|>s_n\}} \right]}{\frac{4^{-B}}{3}\sum_{x\in\vec{t}}\left[\mathbbm{1}_{\{0<|x|\leq s_n\}}\right] +\sum_{x\in\vec{t}}\left[\mathbbm{1}_{\{|x|>s_n\}}\right]}
\label{eqn:octav_corr}
\end{align}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
The empirical distribution of the data inside $\vec{t}$ is used in lieu of the abstract $f_X()$ in Theorem \ref{thm:octav}. Thus, expectations in \eqref{eqn:octav_theorem} are replaced by average summations. Numerator and denominator are both multiplied by the number of elements in $\vec{t}$, suppressing the need for division. As zeros can be represented using integer quantization, zero elements in $\vec{t}$ are excluded from the distribution (see first term in the denominator). This is done to prevent an over-estimation of the total quantization noise for very sparse tensors.
\end{proof}
We call the algorithm in Corollary \ref{corr:octav} Optimally Clipped Tensors And Vectors (OCTAV). Derived from the Newton-Raphson method, OCTAV converges very quickly algorithmically. We only use 10 iterations for any OCTAV implementation in this paper. Additionally, OCTAV is insensitive to the choice of initial guess. Indeed, for weight and activation tensors of a pretrained ResNet-50 network, OCTAV consistently converges to the same solution for various choices of $s_1$ including $0$, $s_{\max}$, $3\sigma_{\vec{t}}$, $4\sigma_{\vec{t}}$, and $5\sigma_{\vec{t}}$; where $\sigma_{\vec{t}}$ denotes the tensor standard deviation. In our upcoming experiments, we use $s_1 = \sum_{x\in\vec{t}}|x|/\sum_{x\in\vec{t}}\mathbbm{1}_{|x|>0}$, which is the value of $s_3$ if the initial guess is set to $s_{\max}$.
Computationally, each iteration of the OCTAV algorithm can be implemented using fast operations. Indeed, the only vector/tensor operations required are the indicator function, which is realizable via simple Boolean datatype casting, and element-wise absolute values, multiplications, and comparisons. Afterwards, sum reductions are performed and only residual scalar operations remain, including one division.
The algorithmic and computational efficiencies of OCTAV make it significantly faster than a conventional brute force search for $s^*$. On a CPU, and with no code optimizations, OCTAV is $\sim$10$\times$ faster than brute force when applied to weight and activation tensors of a BERT-Base model. Details of this comparison are included in Appendix \ref{appendix:timing_comparison}.
Importantly, all operations required in \eqref{eqn:octav_corr} are tensor operations. Thus, OCTAV can be implemented on GPUs using any deep learning package. For instance, our implementation only invokes native PyTorch \cite{pytorch} operations. Consequently, we can embed OCTAV into any QAT routine to realize dynamic quantization using optimal clipping scalars for each tensor at each iteration. The added optimization does incur an overhead, but because OCTAV is fast, it is possible to perform the desired QAT in reasonable amounts of time. We also note that all OCTAV operations are broadcastable and can be used when sub-tensor scaling is required \cite{wu2020integer}. Thanks to the broadcasts, optimization for finer-grained scaling incurs no slowdown.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\begin{center}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[trim=7cm 0cm 7cm 0cm, clip, width = 0.99\linewidth,page=5]{figures/paper_figures.pdf}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[trim=7cm 0cm 7cm 0cm, clip, width = 0.99\linewidth,page=6]{figures/paper_figures.pdf}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\end{center}
\caption{Comparison of (a) optimal clipping scalar as determined by a brute force search (solid lines) and OCTAV (dashed lines), and (b) corresponding empirically measured clipped quantization MSE at every weight and activation layer in a pretrained ResNet-50 model for $B=4,8$. The OCTAV-determined clipping scalar is the result of invoking Corollary \ref{corr:octav} and \eqref{eqn:octav_corr} while the brute force search is realized by sweeping the value and $s$ and empirically evaluating \eqref{eqn:mse_definition}.}
\label{fig:octav_sweep_comparison_resnet}
\end{figure}
The OCTAV algorithm is guaranteed to converge to the global optimum of the convex MSE $J(s)$ in \eqref{eqn:clipped_quantization_mse}. The trade-off between clipping and discretization noise discussed in Section \ref{sec:clipped_quantization} leads to this convexity, which is verified by virtue of the second derivative $J''(s)$ being positive (see Appendix \ref{appendix:octav_proof}). In Figure \ref{fig:octav_sweep_comparison_resnet}(a), we plot the optimal clipping scalar for all weight and activation layers in a ResNet-50 pretrained model, as determined by OCTAV and a brute force search. Consistently, both solutions are either equal or close to one another. Even in the case of a slight mismatch, the resulting quantizers have identical MSE, as shown in Figure \ref{fig:octav_sweep_comparison_resnet}(b).
Recall that \eqref{eqn:clipped_quantization_mse} is derived with additive noise assumed in the discretization region. This model is valid provided the quantization step is small \cite{widrowBook}. On rare occasions, and in the presence of very large outliers, this model can be inaccurate. Indeed, using a large clipping scalar to cater for outliers at the expense of quantizing all small values to zero leads to one local minimum of the empirical MSE in \eqref{eqn:mse_definition} unidentified by \eqref{eqn:clipped_quantization_mse}. In this case, OCTAV still converges to the local minimum balancing discretization and clipping, where the noise model in \eqref{eqn:clipped_quantization_mse} is valid. This rare phenomenon was observed in some activation layers of BERT models and investigated in Appendix \ref{appendix:mse_convexity}. Interestingly, the local minimum to which OCTAV converges to is a favorable one for QAT, as shown in Section \ref{sec:fine_tuning}.
{The formulation above minimizes the quantization MSE by choice. We aspire to train with minimum quantization noise variance, and have shown above how to do so using OCTAV. Minimizing noise is a desirable feature of QAT, and our promising experimental results in Section \ref{sec:experiments} support this contention. Using the above idea of online optimization using the Newton-Raphson algorithm, it is possible to derive similar methods for minimizing alternative quantization fidelity metrics such as $L_p$-norm, KL divergence, and others. Such optimizations are beyond the scope of this paper, but can form the basis of interesting extensions of our work.}
\section{Improving QAT Gradient Estimation}
\label{sec:gradients}
The OCTAV algorithm enables QAT with minimal noise at each iteration, thereby boosting accuracy. Nonetheless, QAT fundamentally relies on differentiating the discontinuous quantization operation, requiring a gradient estimator. The estimation choice impacts convergence, warranting an analysis of available options. We present mathematical limitations of the commonly employed straight-through estimator (STE) and piece-wise linear (PWL) gradients for clipped quantization.
We then overcome these limitations by proposing the magnitude-aware derivative (MAD).
\subsection{Limitations of Current Gradient Estimation}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim=6.5cm 2.5cm 8cm 2cm, clip, width = 0.67\linewidth,page=7]{figures/paper_figures.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Gradient estimators for the clipped quantization operation including STE, PWL, and our proposed MAD. For this example, we assume the clipping scalar to be $s=1$.}
\label{fig:derivatives_comparisons}
\end{figure}
We start with an analysis of gradient back-propagation using the STE that overlooks \eqref{eqn:clipped_quantization_definition} to set $\frac{\partial^{\text{(STE)}}\mathbbm{Q}(x)}{x} = 1$. With clipping, this approximation results in gradient explosion, which causes instability. This is shown via a second order (variance) study similar to that of \cite{heInit} for initialization. Such analysis is useful for assessing the suitability of back-propagation with quantization \cite{sakrICLRfl}.
For an arbitrary activation $x_l$ at layer $l$, we write $\Delta x_l=\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}}{\partial x_l}$ to be the true gradient with respect to the loss function $\mathcal{L}$. This gradient is fundamentally defined as the rate of marginal change in loss function for a marginal change in activation value. Further, let $\Delta^{\text{(STE)}}x_l$ be the estimate of $\Delta x_l$ under STE. The following result holds.
\begin{proposition}[Gradient explosion with STE]
\label{prop:grad_explosion}
In an $L$-layer network, there exists a positive $\delta$ such that the ratio of variances of STE gradient $\text{Var}\left(\Delta^{\text{(STE)}}X_l \right)$ to true gradient $\text{Var}\left(\Delta X_l \right)$ at layer $l$ is lower bounded by:
\begin{align}
\label{eqn:grad_explosion}
\frac{\text{Var}\left(\Delta^{\text{(STE)}}X_l \right)}{\text{Var}\left(\Delta X_l \right)} \geq (1+\delta)^{L-l}
\end{align}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The proof is provided in Appendix \ref{appendix:grad_explosion_proof}. The main insight is that STE carries excess variance due to its assigning unity to gradients of clipped weight (see Figure \ref{fig:derivatives_comparisons})
\end{proof}
The result in Proposition \ref{prop:grad_explosion} highlights an exponential explosion of back-propagated STE gradients. In contrast,
the PWL estimator sets $\frac{\partial^{\text{(PWL)}}\mathbbm{Q}(x)}{x} = \mathbbm{1}_{x\in[-s,s]}$ and does not suffer from such gradient explosion. However, weight tensors trained using PWL encounter a partial stoppage of convergence, as early as the first training iteration. Early stopping is equivalent to model size reduction, which can impede the achievable accuracy. The following result holds.
\begin{proposition}[Convergence stoppage with PWL]
\label{prop:pwl_stoppage}
Given a statically clipped $N_{\vec{w}}$-element weight tensor $\vec{w}$, whose gradient is estimated using PWL, only $\tilde{N}^{(i)}_{\vec{w}}$ of its parameters are leaned at iteration $i$, and the following inequalities hold:
\begin{align}
\label{eqn:pwl_stoppage}
N_{\vec{w}} > \tilde{N}^{(i)}_{\vec{w}} \geq \tilde{N}^{(i+1)}_{\vec{w}}
\end{align}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The proof is provided in Appendix \ref{appendix:pwl_stoppage_proof}. The main insight is that PWL repeatedly zeroes out gradients of clipped weights (see Figure \ref{fig:derivatives_comparisons}), halting their updates.
\end{proof}
The monotonic decrease in Proposition \ref{prop:pwl_stoppage} requires static quantization. Nevertheless, dynamic quantization exhibits a similar, albeit milder, convergence stoppage, where the first strict inequality in \eqref{eqn:pwl_stoppage} also holds.
\subsection{Magnitude-aware Differentiation}
\label{sec:mad}
To formulate an improved gradient estimator, we first present a simple result: rather than treating clipping as a piece-wise selection, we write it as a \textit{magnitude attenuation}.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:mad_clipping}
The clipping operator is given by:
\begin{align}
\label{eqn:mad_clipping}
\text{clip}(x,-s,s) = \alpha\cdot x
\end{align}
where $\alpha = \mathbbm{1}_{\{|x|\leq s\}} + \frac{s}{|x|}\mathbbm{1}_{\{|x|>s\}}$
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The result can readily be obtained by replacing the indicator function by its definition, i.e.: \\
$\mathbbm{1}_{\{|x|\leq s\}} = (1-\mathbbm{1}_{\{|x|>s\}}) = \begin{cases}1 \quad \text{if } |x|\leq s\\
0 \quad \text{if } |x|>s
\end{cases}$
\end{proof}
Using Proposition \ref{prop:mad_clipping}, we formulate the magnitude-aware derivative (MAD). Treating $\alpha$ as a constant in \eqref{eqn:mad_clipping}, we obtain:
\begin{align}
\label{eqn:mad_derivative}
\frac{\partial^{\text{(MAD)}}\mathbbm{Q}(x)}{x} = \mathbbm{1}_{\{|x| \leq s\}} + \frac{s}{|x|}\mathbbm{1}_{\{|x|>s\}}
\end{align}
In Figure \ref{fig:derivatives_comparisons}, we plot the three gradient estimators: STE, PWL, and MAD, for $s=1$. They are identical in the discretization region. However, while PWL zeroes out the clipping region, MAD uses a magnitude-aware attenuation factor and is continuous. Therefore, for a MAD-trained weight tensor $\vec{w}$, we do guarantee that $\tilde{N}^{(i)}_{\vec{w}} = N_{\vec{w}}$ at any iteration $i$, and there is no early stoppage of convergence.
In some measure, PWL and MAD are similar. The former approximates $\frac{\partial \mathbbm{1}_{\{|x|\leq s\}}}{\partial s} = \frac{\partial \mathbbm{1}_{\{|x|>s\}}}{\partial s} = 0$. This style of approximation is predominant and useful in deep learning, e.g., it is used to train networks with ReLU-like activation functions. Similarly, MAD approximates a combination of indicator functions as being a constant to obtain a useful gradient estimator that evades the limitations of PWL.
Above, we have shown that MAD improves differentiation for quantized weights. There is no clear advantage to using MAD over PWL for activations. The only difference between the two is the occasional zeroing out of activation gradients under PWL. We argue that this is in fact desirable for potential regularization. Indeed, it mimics Dropout \cite{dropout} in the backward path. Thus, we generally recommend using MAD for weight gradients and PWL for activation gradients. In our experiments, we term such a combination MAD-PWL Hybrid (MPH).
{Finally, we note that MAD is different from \emph{magnitude-aware} gradients in Bi-Real Net \cite{birealnet}, where a triangular pulse combined with an approximate sign operator estimates gradients for \emph{binarization only}. In contrast, and orthogonally, we formulate a derivative to clipped quantization by analyzing its magnitude attenuation effect.}
\section{Quantization-aware Training Studies}
\label{sec:experiments}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width = 0.99\linewidth]{figures/gradient_related/resnet_50_convergence.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Convergence curves for 4-bit ResNet-50 training-from-scratch including full precision baseline, max-scaling, and OCTAV-enabled QAT. For the last, various gradient estimation strategies discussed in Section \ref{sec:gradients} are included: STE, PWL, MAD, and MPH. }
\label{fig:resnet_50_convergence}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[!t]
\centering
\small
\caption{4-bit ResNet-50 training-from-scratch accuracy}
\label{table:resnet50_gradient_ablation}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\specialcell{Full \\Precision}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\specialcell{Max-\\Scaling}} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{OCTAV}\\
\cline{3-6}
& & STE&PWL&MAD&MPH\\
\hline
76.07&72.67&67.75&74.31&74.81&\textbf{75.15}\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table*}[!t]
\centering
\small
\caption{Accuracies for training-from-scratch QAT on ImageNet}
\label{table:qat_from_scratch}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c||c|c||c|c||c|c|}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Network} & \multirow{2}{*}{\specialcell{Full Precision\\ Baseline}} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{$B=4$}&\multicolumn{2}{c||}{$B=6$}&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{$B=8$} \\
\cline{3-8}
& & \textbf{OCTAV} & Max-Scaling & \textbf{OCTAV} & Max-Scaling & \textbf{OCTAV} & Max-Scaling\\
\hline \hline
ResNet-50 & 76.07 & \textbf{75.15} & 72.67 & 76.07 & 76.01 & 76.24 & 76.12 \\
\hline
ResNet-18 & 70.12 & \textbf{69.17} & 65.65 & 69.78 & 69.52 & 70.07 & 70.19 \\
\hline
ResNet-101 & 77.28 & \textbf{76.48} & 72.53 & 77.30 & 77.04 & 77.31 & 77.15\\
\hline
MobileNet-V2 & 71.71 & \textbf{70.88} & 69.17 & 71.64 & 71.79 & 71.71 & 71.77 \\
\hline
MobileNet-V3-Small & 65.99 & 54.68 & 0.39 & \textbf{65.02} & 60.17 & 65.98 & 65.14 \\
\hline
MobileNet-V3-Large & 72.97 & 65.86 & 1.25 & \textbf{72.12} & 69.38 & 72.89 & 72.78\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
We conduct numerical experiments to show the impact of our proposed methods. We evaluate training-from-scratch and retraining QAT using ResNet \cite{resnet} and MobileNet \cite{mobilenetv2,mobilenetv3} models deployed on the ImageNet \cite{imagenet} dataset for image classification. For fine-tuning QAT, we use BERT \cite{bert} language models pretrained on the Wikipedia \cite{wikipedia} and BookCorpus \cite{bookcorpus} datasets and fine-tuned on Squad v1.1 \cite{squad} for question-answering.
Our implementations are derived from the NVIDIA `Deep Learning Examples'
repository \footnote{Code retrieved from: \url{https://github.com/NVIDIA/DeepLearningExamples}.}. All details are in Appendix \ref{appendix:implementations_details}.
\subsection{Training-from-scratch QAT on ImageNet}
\label{sec:training_from_scratch}
To get started, we single out 4-bit ResNet-50 training-from-scratch to point out various aspects of our results. In Figure \ref{fig:resnet_50_convergence}, we compare convergence of test accuracy for the full precision baseline, max-scaled QAT, and OCTAV-enabled QAT, including gradient estimation options from Section \ref{sec:gradients}.
Conforming to the gradient explosion prediction in Proposition \ref{prop:grad_explosion}, using the STE to differentiate the clipped quantization operation leads to a clear training instability. Furthermore, using PWL is clearly inferior to MAD, which confirms our analysis on early stoppage of convergence for the former and justifies our proposal for the latter. We obtained a marginal improvement in accuracy over MAD with the MPH scheme, due to its better regularization property described at the end of Section \ref{sec:mad}. All further clipped QAT results use MPH.
Table \ref{table:resnet50_gradient_ablation} summarizes ResNet-50 results and lists achieved accuracy for various schemes considered. We find that OCTAV-enabled QAT improves on max-scaling by $\sim$2.5$\%$ and achieves a less-than-1\% accuracy drop compared to the full precision baseline. This by itself matches the current state-of-the-art in 4-bit QAT \cite{pact}.
We emphasize the significance of this result by recalling that no modification to the training recipe was required, such as adding learned parameters or hyperparameter tuning.
Additional training-from-scratch experiments are reported in Table \ref{table:qat_from_scratch} for various networks and precisions. We consider 4-bit, 6-bit, and 8-bit QAT for: ResNet-50, ResNet-18, ResNet-101, MobileNet-V2, MobileNet-V3-Small, and MobileNet-V3-Large. We highlight results yielding high accuracy at low-precision.
For ResNets, 6-bit is enough to achieve close-to-baseline accuracy, even with max-scaling. However, at 4-bit, OCTAV is required to remain within 1\% of the baseline while max-scaling leads to a drop in accuracy of up to $\sim$5$\%$.
Similar trends are observed for MobileNet-V2; we find this network easier to quantize compared to MobileNet-V3.
We speculate that this is due to the former using ReLU6 activations as opposed to the latter, which uses the Hardswish function \cite{mobilenetv3}.
Max-scaled QAT of MobileNet-V3 leads to a large drop in accuracy of $\sim$ 3-to-5 \% at 6-bit, and further quantization to 4-bit {fails to converge} and results in near zero accuracy.
In contrast, OCTAV-enabled QAT of MobileNet-V3 is successful at 6-bit. A noticeable, but not total, accuracy drop at 4-bit leaves room for improvement. We speculate that accuracy can be recovered through a QAT-friendly training recipe, such as distillation \cite{profitECCV2020}, but this is beyond the scope of our work.
\subsection{Retraining ImageNet networks at 4-bit}
\label{sec:re_training}
\begin{table*}[!t]
\centering
\small
\caption{Accuracies for {short} 4-bit retraining QAT on ImageNet}
\label{table:retraining_qat}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c||c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Network} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{Dynamic Quantization} & \multicolumn{5}{c|}{Static Quantization} \\
\cline{2-8}
& \textbf{OCTAV} & Max-Scaling & \textbf{OCTAV} & MSE Sweep & $99.9^{\text{th}}$ Perc. & $99.99^{\text{th}}$ Perc. & $99.999^{\text{th}}$ Perc.\\
\hline \hline
ResNet-50 & \textbf{75.38} & 71.44 & \textbf{75.84} & 75.85 & 75.66 & 75.51 & 75.29 \\
\hline
ResNet-18 & \textbf{69.16} & 65.53 & \textbf{69.18} & 69.28 & 69.04 & 69.08 & 68.93 \\
\hline
ResNet-101 & \textbf{76.10} & 70.88 & \textbf{76.96} & 77.01 & 76.79 & 76.99 & 76.34\\
\hline
MobileNet-V2 & \textbf{69.32} & 66.94 & 0.66 & 0.93 & 1.72 & 2.14 & 2.76 \\
\hline
MobileNet-V3-Small & \textbf{53.52} & 0.10 & 0.43 & 0.58 & 0.65 & 0.10 & 1.46 \\
\hline
MobileNet-V3-Large & \textbf{64.97} & 39.46 & 0.39 & 0.30 & 0.34 & 0.71 & 0.57\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\begin{table}[!t]
\centering
\small
\caption{{Accuracies for long 4-bit retraining QAT on ImageNet using OCTAV}}
\label{table:retraining_qat_full}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|}
\hline
Network & Dynamic-OCTAV & Static-OCTAV \\
\hline \hline
ResNet-50 & \textbf{76.21} & \textbf{76.46} \\
\hline
ResNet-18 & \textbf{69.90} & \textbf{70.13} \\
\hline
ResNet-101 & \textbf{76.84} & \textbf{77.48} \\
\hline
MobileNet-V2 & \textbf{71.23} & 1.21 \\
\hline
MobileNet-V3-Small & \textbf{58.93} & 0.80 \\
\hline
MobileNet-V3-Large & \textbf{69.21} & 0.60 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
We also study 4-bit retraining of the aforementioned networks. We use a \emph{shortened} version of the same training recipe, with details included in Appendix \ref{appendix:implementations_details}. We include static quantization in our results and follow similar methods as \cite{wu2020integer}. We report results for $99.9^{\text{th}}$, $99.99^{\text{th}}$, and $99.999^{\text{th}}$ percentile calibration, which were claimed to work well in the retraining setup. {For these experiments, Resnet-50 and ResNet-101 are retrained for 15 epochs, while other networks are retrained for 30 epochs.}
We also include static-OCTAV, which calibrates clipping scalars using \eqref{eqn:octav_corr}. As calibration can be performed offline, we also include results when using a 100-point brute force MSE sweep to set the clipping scalars.
Retraining results are listed in Table \ref{table:retraining_qat} and promising OCTAV results are highlighted. A clear trend is observed. Large models, such as ResNets, are much easier to retrain compared to small models, such as MobileNets. This finding is consistent with recent literature \cite{dboukEECV2020} and leads to several novel conclusions.
For large models, static quantization is most suitable, though OCTAV-enabled dynamic quantization also yields high accuracy, within $\sim$1$\%$ of the baseline. As large models are easy to quantize, we speculate that a low-precision solution exists near the pretrained starting point. When an aspect of the parameters (the clipping scalars) is forced to be static, the model rapidly settles around a close solution to this starting point. In the case of ResNets, this solution is highly accurate. Highest accuracy is consistently achieved using static-OCTAV and the MSE sweep, both similar as expected.
For small models, such as MobileNets, static quantization is unfit, yielding near-zero accuracy. For such models, a good quantized solution is unlikely to be close to the pretrained starting point. Thus, retraining requires dynamic quantization to track changes in tensor distributions occurring as the model adapts to low precision. Furthermore, OCTAV is found to be far superior to other strategies and can recover some accuracy across all MobileNets.
Interestingly, we find that retraining can be less accurate than training-from-scratch. For MobileNet-V2, OCTAV reaches 69.32\% for the former and 70.88\% for the latter. However, this is due to the shorter training time of 30 epochs used in retraining. When equalizing QAT time and retraining for 300 epochs using OCTAV, we obtain an accuracy of \textbf{71.23}\%. Thus, using a pretrained starting-point has some merits in spite of the large amounts of quantization noise suffered by MobileNets at low precision.
{To further explore the potential of OCTAV and to understand the merits of retraining, we also perform \emph{long} 4-bit retraining of all ImageNet models considered. We retrain with OCTAV both dynamically and using static calibration, following the above setup. The full long retraining recipes are identical to those employed for training-from-scratch experiments in Section \ref{sec:experiments}.1 but for two aspects. First, the starting point is the pretrained model in full precision; and, second, the starting learning rate value is attenuated by a factor of $10^{-2}$ compared to that of the training-from-scratch recipe. For these experiments, ResNets and MobileNets are retrained for 150 and 300 epochs, respectively.}
{Accuracies for long 4-bit retraining QAT are reported in Table \ref{table:retraining_qat_full} and promising results are highlighted. Compared to results in Table \ref{table:retraining_qat}, long retraining always leads to a noticeable improvement, which establishes the merits of prolonged training. Consistent with earlier observations, static-OCTAV is found to yield highest accuracy for ResNets, but suffers catastrophic degradation on MobileNets. Similarly, dynamic-OCTAV once more yields high accuracy for all networks.}
{For ResNets, the achieved accuracy is either close to, or superior to that of the full precision baseline. This indicates that OCTAV's quantization effects are so small and fundamentally fall below the training algorithm's inherent noise floor. Our results are comparable in absolute terms to the state-of-the-art reported accuracies for 4-bit QAT on ResNets established using learned quantization such as PACT \cite{pact} and LSQ \cite{LSQ}. Comparing relative accuracy to the starting full precision baseline, our results improve the state-of-the-art. For instance, for ResNet-50, 4-bit OCTAV improves the baseline accuracy by $\sim$0.4$\%$ while 4-bit LSQ degrades it by $\sim$0.2$\%$.}
{Trends of long MoblileNet retraining are similar to those previously observed for training-from-scratch and short retraining. Failure of static calibration, in spite of prolonged training time, illustrates the importance of tracking tensor statistics when retraining small models. The improvement in final accuracy under dynamic-OCTAV is promising but not enough in the case of Mobilenet-V3. As mentioned in Section \ref{sec:experiments}.1, further QAT techniques may be required to achieve close-to-baseline accuracy.}
\subsection{Fine-tuning QAT of BERT Models on Squad}
\label{sec:fine_tuning}
\begin{table*}[!t]
\centering
\small
\caption{Accuracies for fine-tuning BERT-Base \& BERT-Large on Squad v1.1}
\label{table:bert_combined}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c||c|c|c|c|c||c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{Network} & \multicolumn{5}{c||}{BERT-Large (Baseline Accuracy: 91.00)} & \multicolumn{5}{c|}{BERT-Base (Baseline Accuracy: 88.24)}\\
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{\# of bits $B$} & 4& 5& 6& 7& 8& 4& 5& 6& 7& 8\\
\hline \hline
\multirow{2}{*}{\specialcell{Dynamic\\ Quantization}}& \textbf{OCTAV} & \textbf{87.09}& \textbf{89.77}& \textbf{90.51}& \textbf{90.81}& \textbf{90.78}& \textbf{84.51}& \textbf{86.30}& \textbf{87.43}& \textbf{88.28}& \textbf{88.34} \\
\cline{2-12}
&Max-Scaling &6.92& 80.06& 87.71& 90.04& 90.48& 11.51& 78.97& 85.17& 87.46& 88.01\\
\hline \hline
\multirow{5}{*}{\specialcell{Static\\ Quantization }}& \textbf{OCTAV} &\textbf{87.08}& \textbf{89.54}& \textbf{90.60}& \textbf{90.79}& \textbf{90.61}& \textbf{83.60}& \textbf{85.82}& \textbf{87.14}& \textbf{87.67}& \textbf{88.02} \\
\cline{2-12}
&MSE Sweep & 85.54& 89.77& 90.39& 90.80& 90.55& 81.82& 84.16& 87.14& 87.68& 87.97\\
\cline{2-12}
&$99.9^{\text{th}}$ Perc. &86.98& 89.79& 89.99& 90.07& 90.11& 81.06& 85.78& 86.73& 86.84& 87.34\\
\cline{2-12}
&$99.99^{\text{th}}$ Perc. &6.90& 87.63& 90.38& 90.79& 90.33& 67.90& 83.20& 86.78& 87.60& 87.94\\
\cline{2-12}
&$99.999^{\text{th}}$ Perc. &4.56& 5.66& 89.76& 90.44& 90.83& 26.85& 82.15& 86.27& 87.51& 88.08\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
Finally, we study fine-tuning QAT of BERT-Base and BERT-Large on Squad v1.1. As research on low-precision transformer networks is still in the early stages, we study QAT using every bit-width from 4 to 8 bits to understand the difficulties in quantizing these networks.
We employ the same strategies of dynamic and static quantization as were used for retraining in Section \ref{sec:re_training}. For BERT-Base, we compare calibration times on a CPU when using OCTAV and the MSE sweep. Details are included in Appendix \ref{appendix:timing_comparison} and the former is found to be $\sim$10$\times$ faster.
Fine-tuning results are included in Table \ref{table:bert_combined} where various F1 scores are reported, and OCTAV results are highlighted.
For both networks, 7-bit or more is enough to match the baseline accuracy, regardless of the quantization strategy. At 6-bit, only dynamic-OCTAV yields an accuracy within 1\% of the baseline for the two networks. At lower precision, dynamic-OCTAV exhibits the most graceful degradation in accuracy, reaching a drop of $\sim$4$\%$ for both networks at 4-bit. As fine-tuning consists of re-adapting the model to a new task, it is reasonable to expect changes in tensor statistics, warranting the use of dynamic quantization for tracking. Thus, dynamic-OCTAV being consistently superior to all other strategies is expected.
Static quantization performs generally well, and static-OCTAV is clearly its best candidate. Its accuracy gracefully degrades to a 4-to-5 \% drop compared to the baseline. A surprising result is the definite superiority of static-OCTAV compared to the MSE sweep. It turns out that, for a few activation layers, the clipped quantization MSE is not convex, leading to divergent solutions for the two strategies. This issue occurs due to the presence of large outliers. The local minimum closest to zero is selected by OCTAV while the MSE sweep chooses to zero out all small values. This phenomenon is described in Appendix \ref{appendix:mse_convexity}. The better choice made by OCTAV leads to $\sim$1.5$\%$ better accuracy compared to the sweep at 4-bit.
\section{Discussion}
\subsection{Current limitations and directions for future work}
We have shown, analytically and empirically, that OCTAV-enabled QAT improves accuracy of low-precision training without requiring modifications to the learning algorithm. As efforts to scale down DNN precision continue, an interesting avenue of future research is to combine OCTAV with quantization-dedicated training recipes, such as distillation, to increase accuracy even further.
In addition, while the OCTAV overhead is at least an order of magnitude lower than an equivalent sweep, it is still pronounced. Research to reduce this overhead is needed to accelerate FQT in an accuracy-optimal manner. Similarly, for DNN inference acceleration, often hindered by dynamic quantization, techniques to match OCTAV accuracy in the static setup are desired. Our proposed static-OCTAV calibration strategy is one step in that direction.
Finally, the theoretical technique employed in this work may be applied to complexity reduction beyond quantization. We have formulated quantization noise as an objective function to be minimized on the fly using the Newton-Raphson algorithm. Similarly, other hardware-aware models, such as those for sparsification, can be rapidly optimized for reduced complexity. Such work can be impactful in the context of neural architecture search for hardware-efficient DNNs.
\subsection{Conclusion}
We have proposed OCTAV for enabling QAT with minimal quantization noise for each tensor at every iteration. We have also analyzed current clipped gradient estimators and proposed magnitude-aware differentiation as a tool to further improve QAT. Empirically, we have demonstrated that our methods lead to state-of-the-art accuracy in low-precision training of DNNs, without modifying the learning algorithm. Our contributions are an important step in the advancement of low-complexity deep learning.
\subsection*{Acknowledgement}
{The authors wish to thank Ben Keller and Hao Wu from NVIDIA for useful discussions.}
|
\section{}
\section*{Acknowledgment}
The authors would like to thank US Army Artificial Innovation Institute (A2I2) for funding the data collection and annotation, and financially supporting graduate students at Texas A \& M for this project. The authors also acknowledges experimentation support from DEVCOM Chemical \& Biological Center (CBC) during the Data collection process.
\ifCLASSOPTIONcaptionsoff
\newpage
\fi
{\small
\input{bare_jrnl.bbl}
}
\input{chapters/7_Biography}
\end{document}
\section{Introduction }
\IEEEPARstart{S}{cene} understanding in outdoor environments for applications such as intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), and autonomous vehicle navigation is extremely challenging in the presence of smoke, and other adverse weather conditions due to haze, fog, and mist. These atmospheric phenomena with smoke particles or microscopic water droplets significantly interfere with the operations of onboard vision systems, often resulting in imagery with non-linear noise, blur, reduced contrast levels, and color dimming issues. These visual artifacts, generated from uncontrolled and potentially dynamic outdoor environments or other DVE effects, pose major challenges in many components of semantic scene understanding, including image enhancement, image restoration, object localization, and object classification.
To address these challenges, a key requirement is benchmarks to accurately evaluate the performance of these algorithms relative to different quantifiable haze levels. This is beyond the reach and scope of most of the existing curated haze datasets such as RESIDE~\cite{li2019benchmarking}, NH-Haze~\cite{NH-Haze_2020}, and REVIDE~\cite{REVIDE}. Furthermore, these datasets are inadequate to quantitatively and fairly compare computer vision algorithms on hazy vs. haze-free imagery on a specific scene. They cannot isolate and measure the effect of haze and have a shortfall in scene object diversity (Discussed in Section II).
In this study, we leverage the US Army’s unique capability to produce and measure smoke/obscurant to generate haze in a controlled fashion. We collect imagery of target objects such as civilian vehicles, mannequins, and man-made obstacles from UAVs and UGVs. We also collect metadata such as altitude and local haze density from moving and stationary sensors. We then develop an image dataset with metadata for realistic, accurate, and fine-grained algorithm evaluation in hazy DVEs. In summary, the contributions of this paper are as follows:
a) We present A2I2-Haze, the first real haze dataset with in-situ smoke measurement aligned to aerial and ground imagery. This multi-purpose dataset has paired haze and haze-free imagery to allow fine-grained evaluation of low-level vision (dehazing) and high-level vision (detection) tasks. Exemplar images are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:a2i2_teaser}.
b) We conduct a comprehensive study and evaluation on state-of-the-art single image dehazing and object detection algorithms using this non-synthetic benchmark dataset.
\section{Previous Work }
This section summarizes some of the key findings from previous DVE studies. In subsection A, we provide an overview of the haze DVE datasets that are publicly available for benchmarking the performance of computer vision algorithms. We then survey current state-of-the-art single image dehazing methods and object detection techniques used for evaluating DVE datasets in subsections B and C, respectively.
\subsection{Haze Datasets}
Several of the currently available Haze DVE datasets (Table 1), such as 3R~\cite{zhang2020nighttime}, HazeRD~\cite{Zhang:HazeRD:ICIP17b}, 4K~\cite{4K_Xiao_2022} and RESIDE~\cite{li2019benchmarking} were synthetically generated using scattering models to simulate hazy conditions. However, while these simulation techniques are useful in generating large-scale training datasets comprising of both hazy and reference haze-free images, they often use unrealistic parameters and assumptions such as homogeneity. Further, while synthetically simulating haze ensures all other conditions in the scene are preserved, the technique still poses challenges while transferring the knowledge to real-world target domains.
More recently, a few real-world hazy datasets such as O-Haze~\cite{O-HAZE_2018}, I-Haze~\cite{I-HAZE_2018}, REVIDE~\cite{REVIDE}, and NH-Haze~\cite{NH-Haze_2020} have been published, with images captured in the presence of haze that is generated using professional-grade haze machines. Among the four datasets listed above, NH-HAZE is most representative of a realistic haze scene with non-homogeneous hazy and haze-free pairs. NH-Haze and O-Haze are the only datasets with outdoor scenes that make them relevant to ISR and autonomous UGV applications. However, these datasets also pose several limitations. The smoke generators and the sensors for data collection in the (NH, O, and I)-Haze datasets are typically mounted in a fixed location and do not capture the spatial variability of the scene. Furthermore, all these datasets are limited to ground view imagery. Moreover, they do not provide a measurement of haze or smoke transmissibility for training and evaluation. The main distinction between our A2I2-Haze dataset from previous efforts is that our dataset provides ground and aerial imagery with haze-free reference images taken from mobile sensors in an outdoor environment. We also provide highly synchronized qualitative and quantitative measurements of smoke transmissibility, using human assessments and in-situ measurements from ground sensors. This will be discussed in detail in subsequent sections.
\begin{table}[ht]
\caption{Properties of A2I2-Haze relative to other public dehazing benchmarks. Aer and Gr stands for aerial-view and ground-view, respectively. NH stands for non-homogeneous. HM stands for haze measurement. Details of A2I2-Haze is in the first paragraph of Section IV.}
\centering
\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c|c}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Datasets} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{Attributes} \\
\cline{2-7}
& Aer/Gr & In/Outdoor & NH & Syn/Real & \#Images & HM \\
\hline
3R~\cite{zhang2020nighttime} & G & O & & S & $2,750$ & \\
HazeRD~\cite{Zhang:HazeRD:ICIP17b} & G & O & & S & $33$ & \\
O-Haze~\cite{O-HAZE_2018} & G & O & & R & $45$ & \\
I-Haze~\cite{I-HAZE_2018} & G & I & & R & $35$ & \\
4K~\cite{4K_Xiao_2022} & G & O & & S & $10,000$ & \\
REVIDE~\cite{REVIDE} & G & I & & R & 1982 & \\
RESIDE~\cite{li2019benchmarking} & G & I+O & & S+R & $100,076$ & \\
NH-HAZE~\cite{NH-Haze_2020} & G & O & \cmark & R & $55$ & \\
{\bf A2I2-Haze} & {\bf A+G} & {\bf O} & {\bf \cmark} & {\bf R} & {\bf 1,033} & {\bf \cmark} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\label{table:nonlin}
\end{table}
\subsection{Single Image Dehazing}
Based on \textit{Atmospheric scattering model} (ASM)~\cite{mccartney1976optics,nayar1999vision,narasimhan2003contrast}, a hazy image $I$ can be represented as:
\begin{equation}
I(x)=t(x)J(x)+(1-t(x))A,
\end{equation}
where $J$, $t$, and $A$ denote the latent haze-free image, transmission map, and
global atmospheric light, respectively.
Dehazing using ASM involves estimating the transmission map $t(x)$ and global atmospheric light $A$. Existing approaches for dehazing can be broadly categorized as prior-based methods and learning-based methods.
\subsubsection{Prior-based Methods}
Dehazing methods based on priors~\cite{peng2007image,rao2005algorithms,berman2016non,fattal2008single,fattal2014dehazing,he2010single,tan2008visibility,zhu2015fast} first estimate transmission maps by exploiting the statistical properties of clean images, and then obtain dehazed results using the scattering model.
Tan~\emph{et al}\onedot~\cite{tan2008visibility} proposed an adaptive contrast enhancement method for haze removal by maximizing the local contrast of hazy images.
He~\emph{et al}\onedot~\cite{he2010single} put forward an approach with a dark channel prior (DCP) that assumes the existence of at least one channel for every pixel whose value is close to zero.
Zhu~\emph{et al}\onedot~\cite{zhu2015fast} proposed a color attenuation prior for haze removal by estimating the scene depth using a linear model.
Fattal~\cite{fattal2014dehazing} proposed a color-line prior for the transmission map estimation by exploiting the regularity in natural images wherein small image patches lay in a one-dimensional distribution in the RGB color space.
Berman~\emph{et al}\onedot~\cite{berman2016non} proposed a non-local prior based on a key observation that pixels in a given cluster are often non-local. Thus, colors of a haze-free image could be approximated by a few hundred distinct colors.
Despite some promising results, prior-based approaches have limitations in performance because some of the strong assumptions of these hand-crafted priors often do not hold in a real-world environment.
\subsubsection{Learning-based Methods}
With the availability of large-scale paired data and powerful CNNs, learning-based dehazing methods have become popular in recent years.
MSCNN~\cite{ren2016single} estimated transmission map of the hazy images in a coarse-to-fine manner, where the coarse-scale net produced a holistic map based on the whole image and the fine-scale net refined it locally.
DehazeNet~\cite{cai2016dehazenet} proposed an end-to-end network that learned and estimated the mapping relations between hazy image patches and their corresponding medium transmissions.
DCPDN~\cite{zhang2018densely} embedded the atmospheric scattering model into the network so that it could jointly learn to estimate the transmission map, atmospheric light, and dehazing.
Dehaze-cGAN~\cite{li2018single} estimated the clean image based on an encoder-decoder-based conditional generative adversarial network (cGAN). It also introduced the VGG features and $\ell_1$ regularized gradient prior to improve realism.
AOD-Net~\cite{li2017aod} recovered hazy images by reformulating the physical scattering model and developing a light weight CNN to extract clean images. This approach has been extended to an end-to-end video dehazing and detection network~\cite{li2018end}.
GFN~\cite{ren2018gated} introduced a multi-scale gated fusion end-to-end encoder-decoder network. This network obtains dehazed images by gating the important features of three inputs derived from the original hazy image by applying White Balance (WB), Contrast Enhancing (CE), and Gamma Correction (GC).
EPDN~\cite{qu2019enhanced} formulated the dehazing task as an image-to-image translation problem and proposed an enhanced pix2pix network to solve it. This work also introduced Perceptual Index (PI) as a metric to evaluate the dehazing quality from the perceptual perspective.
MSBDN~\cite{dong2020multi} used a boosting strategy and error feedback for progressive restoration.
Despite improved performance, learning-based methods also have limitations. They require a large amount of data (often paired hazy and haze-free images), and they don't have debugging capabilities on failure cases.
\subsection{Object Detection}
In the deep learning era, object detectors can be grouped into two genres: ``two-stage detectors'' and ``one-stage detectors''.
One-stage detectors classify and localize objects in a single-shot for dense prediction. Two-stage detectors have a region proposal module for sparse prediction. Compared to one-stage detectors, two-stage detectors usually achieve better accuracy but lower speed. RCNN series (RCNN~\cite{girshick2014rich}, Fast-RCNN~\cite{girshick2015fast}, Faster-RCNN~\cite{ren2016faster}, R-FCN~\cite{dai2016r}, and Mask-RCNN~\cite{he2017mask}) are the most representative of two-stage detectors. YOLO~\cite{redmon2016you,redmon2017yolo9000,redmon2018yolov3,bochkovskiy2020yolov4,ge2021yolox}, SSD~\cite{liu2016ssd}, RetinaNet~\cite{lin2017focal}, CenterNet~\cite{zhou2019objects}, and FCOS~\cite{tian2019fcos} are some of the state-of-the-art one-stage detectors.
\paragraph{Architecture} The anatomy of an object detector includes a backbone, a neck, and a head. The backbone~\cite{he2016deep,howard2017mobilenets} serves as a feature extractor that starts from low-level structures to high-level semantics. The neck, composed of several bottom-up and top-down paths, is adopted to collect feature maps from different stages (scales). The most representative necks include FPN~\cite{lin2017feature}, PAN~\cite{liu2018path}, BiFPN~\cite{tan2020efficientdet}, and NAS-FPN~\cite{ghiasi2019fpn}. The head makes predictions in a multi-scale fashion. Head could either decouple object localization and classification (in two-stage detectors) or simultaneously make the predictions for localization and classification (in one-stage detectors). In the head, anchors typically give the objects' prior location, shape and size. Recently, anchor-free one-stage detectors such as CenterNet~\cite{zhou2019objects}, FCOS~\cite{tian2019fcos}, and YOLOX~\cite{ge2021yolox} have gained popularity.
\paragraph{Label Assignment} Label assignment defines classification and regression targets for each anchor/grid cell. Traditional assigning strategies utilize local-view information, such as Intersection-over-Union (IoU)~\cite{ren2016faster,redmon2016you} or Centerness~\cite{tian2019fcos}. DeTR~\cite{carion2020end} is the first work that revisits label assignment from a global view, by considering one-to-one assignments using the Hungarian algorithm. To obtain the optimal global assignment under the one-to-many situation, OTA~\cite{ge2021ota} formulates label assignment as an Optimal Transport problem that defines each gt (together with the background) as the supplier and each anchor/grid cell as the demander. Thus, the best assignment could be obtained by solving the optimal transport in a Linear Programming form.
\section{A2I2-Haze Dataset}
The A2I2-Haze Dataset consists of paired haze and haze-free aerial and ground imagery acquired by a small UAS and UGV, respectively. The data set is synchronized with in-situ smoke measurements as well as altitude data acquired from the flight controller. This section provides a detailed description of the data collection procedure and the post-processing pipeline.
\subsection{Data Collection}
Data collection was conducted at the DEVCOM Chemical and Biological Center's (CBC) M-field test range utilizing the world's most comprehensive obscurant generation facility and assessment technologies to measure the smoke concentration accurately. The facility has a platoon of six M56E1 smoke generating systems (shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:smoke_generator}) that provide large area obscuration by disseminating obscurants either simultaneously or separately while stationary or mobile. The current onboard obscuration capabilities include visual obscuration using fog oil, infrared obscuration using graphite, and radar obscuration using carbon fiber. These obscurants thus can degrade the perception capabilities of threat weapons and Reconnaissance, Intelligence, Surveillance, Targeting, and Acquisition (RISTA) operating in the Visual, Infra-Red (IR), and Milimeter Wave (MMW) portions of the electromagnetic spectrum. Specifically, the obscurant materials are designed to effectively absorb and scatter energy, thus making target acquisition difficult.
As part of the Phase 1 DVE data collection, we obtained a wide range of imagery of targets in the DEVCOM CBC M-Field test area using visual obscurants generated using fog oil in the M56E1 Smoke Generating System. The target objects included vehicles, mannequins, and man-made obstacles encountered during UGV maneuvers, such as traffic cones, barriers, and barricades. The ground truth for smoke concentration was measured using laser-based transmissometers. These instruments measured transmittance through the smoke cloud at a $625$nm wavelength and provided a quantitative measure of the clouds' effectiveness in attenuating visible light. The transmissometers' light sources were Z-Laser, S3 series diode modules (Edmund Optics; Barrington, NJ) with output wavelength and power of $625$nm and $5$mW, respectively.
The laser power received at the detector was measured prior to obscuration, providing a baseline to compare the effect of the fog oil obscurant. During the series of trials, the transmittance was reduced from $100\%$ to below $1\%$, providing a range of obscurant concentrations to correlate with sensor performance. This variation in transmittance (and thus obscurant concentration) is critical as real-world scenarios will have varying haze concentrations. All measurements were time-synchronized with the UAV and UGV sensors to relate the obscuration properties to the sensor's response.
In addition to the transmissometer-based obscuration measurement, we used target boards, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:data_collection}, as the second technique for haze measurement. The black and white pylons in the bottom two figures show target contrast boards used for haze density local measurement.
\subsubsection{UAV Dataset}
Aerial video of the DVE releases was captured by Deep Purple 3 (DP3), a custom UAS developed and operated by DEVCOM CBC. DP3 was primarily designed to carry sensor payloads weighing up to 6lbs using the Array Configured of Remote Networked Sensors (ACoRNS) interface system. In addition to sensor payloads, DP3 can also be equipped with a variety of camera systems. For the A2I2-Haze data collection, a pair of cameras were mounted in the nosecone to capture both longwave Infrared (LWIR) and visible spectrum. DP3 was equipped with a FLIR Boson 640 ($95°$ FOV) for LWIR data capture. Calibrated visible spectrum data was captured using an ELP-USBFHD01M-L21 with a 2.1mm lens, approximately $120°$ field of view, and an OV2710 sensor. Cameras mounted on the nosecone could be rotated to face $0°$, $45°$, $90°$ relative to the body of the UAS, with $90°$ being a nadir pointing camera, and $0°$ in line with the nose of the UAS. For the A2I2 collection, cameras were clocked at either $90°$ or $45°$.
The flight plan for the collection was defined using a survey grid in Mission Planner to generate a cross-hatch pattern over a predefined area. The area was selected using an arbitrary rectangle within the Mission Planner, with the bounds of the rectangle selected to keep the area of interest within view of the cameras as much as possible over a range of altitudes. The survey grid was cross-hatched with a 10m lane spacing. In order to maintain consistency between altitudes, the survey grid was copied, and the altitude was increased in 5m increments from 15-50m. UAS was commanded to face toward the center of the grid at all points during its flight. The GPS coordinate for the center of the grid was determined by the UAS by manually placing the UAS at the point of interest and using its GPS to determine the center of the grid.
\subsubsection{UGV Dataset}\label{sec:ugv_dataset_generation}
In addition to the aerial vehicle dataset collection described above, a ground vehicle was also used to capture a second viewpoint from inside the haze effect on the surface. The ground vehicle used to collect this dataset is a Clearpath Husky mobile robot which is equipped with a variety of cameras and lidar sensing modalities. The visual dataset for this paper was collected from the color image from the left camera of a Carnegie Robotics MultisenseSL stereo + lidar sensor, which was mounted in a forward-facing position at the front of the robot at the height of 0.6 meters. This sensor package also generated a frame-synchronized second monochrome image from the right camera, a depth image, and a lidar point cloud from the included Hokuyo 2D lidar scanner, which is actuated through rotation about the forward axis to cover a 3D hemispherical volume. A Flir Boson infrared camera was also used to capture thermal images of the scene. The robot also collected point clouds from an Ouster OS1-64 lidar which is used with a robot mapping engine based on OmniMapper~\cite{trevor2014omnimapper} to localize the UGV in a global frame of reference. The trajectory of the UGV was teleoperated from a remote location via live sensor feedback to collect these datasets. In this paper, only the visual imagery is analyzed; however, the analysis of additional sensor modalities is planned for future work and can be made available to other interested researchers.
\subsection{Data Augmentation and Synchronization }
The raw data collected by sensors were subjected to a series of data augmentation and synchronization procedures in order to enhance their quality. The high mobility of UAV-mounted cameras has brought additional challenges compared to traditional datasets, such as variations in altitude, view angles, and weather conditions. NDFT~\cite{wu2019delving} named these variations as UAV-specific nuisances, which constitute a large number of fine-grained domains. NDFT shows that these nuisances can be used to train a cross-domain object detector that stays robust to many fine-grained domains. As part of A2I2-Haze, we collected these UAV-specific nuisances as metadata that are synchronized with UAV's clock.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{labelformat=empty,justification=centering,farskip=1pt,captionskip=1pt}
\centering
\subfloat
{
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{figures/metadata_sync/uav_baro_transm.png}
}
\subfloat{
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{figures/metadata_sync/uav_contrast.png}
}
\caption{UAV visual data synchronized with collected metadata. The left figure shows the visual data synchronized with the barometer and transmissometer metadata. The barometer records the height data of UAV, and the transmissometer records the laser transmission rate, which measures the haze density. The right figure shows the synchronization of visual data with contrast on three target boards, the second technique that measures the haze density.}
\label{fig:sync_uav}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\captionsetup[subfigure]{labelformat=empty,justification=centering,farskip=1pt,captionskip=1pt}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{figures/metadata_sync/ugv_transm.png}
\caption{UGV visual data synchronized with contrast on target board, which is the second technique that measures the haze density.}
\label{fig:sync_ugv}
\end{figure}
Fig.~\ref{fig:sync_uav} shows the UAV visual data synchronized to the metadata, including the altitude measured by UAV's barometer, and haze density measured by two independent techniques (section III A)- a) using laser transmission rate on a transmissometer and b) using visual contrasts on three target boards. Similar techniques were used for synchronizing the UGV dataset to haze density measurement, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:sync_ugv}.
\subsection{Labeling and pairing of UAV Dataset}
Quantitative evaluation of low-level dehazing and high-level detection tasks require paired (hazy and haze-free) images with annotated target objects.
The detection task requires accurate data curation using 2D bounding box annotation tools to define regions of interest. Annotation was performed by external annotators from Engineering and Computer Simulations (ECS) using their labeling platform. Ten object classes were provided as an ontology for labeling. The objects classes were: Sedan, Van, Pickup Truck, Utility Task Vehicle (UTV), Mannequin, Unmanned Ground Vehicle (UGV), Barrel, Jersey Barrier, Aluminum Truss, and Red backpacks. The annotators provided rectangular bounding boxes for each object. They also provided the subjective haze level for each bounding box as light, medium, or heavy.
Dehazing task requires paired hazy and haze-free images. Due to UAV's high flying altitude and rapid movement speed, we sought scene-level pairing rather than pixel-level pairing. We proposed a "Coarse-to-Fine" strategy to achieve the scene-level pairing. Given two video sequences (hazy and haze-free), we first cut each video into short clips of 2 seconds. We then manually selected hazy and haze-free clips that were similar at the scene level. Lastly, for each selected clip pair ($V_s$ and $V_t$), we used Alg.~\ref{algo:coarse2fine} to find the best pair-able frames with least amount of translation or rotation. Since $V_s$ and $V_t$ were describing the same scene, we hypothesize that the homography matrix (computed from keypoint matching by LoFTR~\cite{sun2021loftr}) is mostly composed of rotational and translational transformation.
The distance of the homography matrix to an identity matrix served as a metric that measures scene-level similarity. We assume that the best pair-able frames has the smallest distance.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Coarse-to-Fine Matching}\label{algo:coarse2fine}
\SetAlgoLined
$N,M \gets \text{Size}(V_s), \text{Size}(V_t)$ \\
$d_{min} \gets \infty$\\
\For {$i \gets 1$ \KwTo $N$} {
\For{$j \gets 1$ \KwTo $M$}{
$I_s, I_t \gets V_s[i], V_t[j]$ \\
\tcp{Keypoints Matching}
$p_s, p_t \gets {\small \text{LoFTR}(I_s, I_t)}$ \\
$\mathbf{M} \gets {\small \text{HomographyMatrix}(p_s,p_t))}$ \\
$d \gets \text{sqrt}(\text{Trace}( (\mathbf{M}-\mathbf{I})^\intercal*(\mathbf{M}-\mathbf{I})))$ \\
\If{$d < d_{min}$}{
$I_s^*, I_t^* \gets I_s, I_t$
}
}
}
\Return $I_s^*, I_t^*$
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Labeling and Pairing for UGV Dataset }
Labeling the UGV dataset presents unique challenges due to the difficulty of determining object bounding boxes in hazy images to a human labeler. To address these issues, a 3D object labeling scheme was developed to assist with the labeling process. Initial bounding boxes were generated by projecting the 3D bounding volumes of each object visible in each image, given the UGV's known observation point. To determine the UGV's global position and orientation for each captured image, the Monte-Carlo particle filter-based localization package \emph{AMCL}~\cite{ros} from ROS~\cite{quigley2009ros} was used to localize into a 2D map which was generated for each obstacle configuration using OmniMapper~\cite{trevor2014omnimapper}. The lidar data from the Ouster OS1-64 was used with the UGV's odometry and internal IMU to generate this map. The projections of the 3D object bounding volumes were then refined by hand with LabelMe~\cite{labelme}.
Two UGV trajectories were collected for each object configuration: one with the haze effect present and the other with the haze effect turned off. A 2D map was generated for each obstacle configuration and used to localize the UGV with Monte-Carlo localization as described in Section~\ref{sec:ugv_dataset_generation}. This global localization was used to tag each image with the UGV's position and orientation at the capture time. This position and orientation information was used with a Hungarian algorithm to find the optimal pairing between haze and haze-free images, which minimizes the error metric $E=10*\Delta_o + \Delta_p$ where $\Delta_o$ is the difference in orientation and $\Delta_p$ is the difference in position. This metric weighs orientation more heavily as changes in orientation have a more significant effect on image viewpoint.
\section{Quantitative Evaluation}
Within A2I2-Haze dataset, we created two separate subsets, A2I2-UAV and A2I2-UGV, dedicated to UAV and UGV sets, respectively.
A2I2-UAV includes a training set UAV-train with $224$ pairs of hazy and corresponding haze-free images, and an additional $240$ haze-free images. The testing set of UAV-test has $119$ hazy images. The training set of A2I2-UGV - UGV-train has $50$ pairs of hazy and corresponding haze-free images, and an additional $200$ haze-free images. UGV-test has $200$ hazy images.
\subsection{Object Detection}\label{det_eval}
\subsubsection{Detection Approaches}
We use four state-of-the-art detectors that are widely used both in industry and academia: (a) \textit{YOLOv5}~\cite{yolov5}, (b) \textit{YOLOX}~\cite{ge2021yolox}, (c) \textit{Faster R-CNN}~\cite{ren2016faster}, and (d) \textit{CenterNet}~\cite{zhou2019objects} to evaluate the proposed A2I2-Haze dataset. For experiments on A2I2-UAV, all detectors are pretrained on a merged set of VisDrone2019-DET~\cite{cao2021visdrone} and UAVDT-M~\cite{du2018unmanned} and adopt official COCO-based implementation. For experiments on A2I2-UGV, all detectors are pretrained on Cityscapes~\cite{cordts2016cityscapes} and adopt official COCO-based implementation.
\subsubsection{Results and Analyses} Table~\ref{tab:detection_nodehaze} shows the performance of various object detectors without dehazing on both A2I2-UAV and A2I2-UGV subsets of A2I2-Haze. In the first row, we infer that object detectors can be ordered by their detection performance on A2I2-UAV as follows: $\text{CenterNet} > \text{YOLOv5} > \text{YOLOX} > \text{FasterRCNN}$. In the second row, we show that utilizing the collected altitude metadata to learn an altitude variation robust detector by NDFT~\cite{wu2019delving} could improve the detection performance for all the four detectors. For A2I2-UGV (the third row), the detectors can be ordered based on their performance as $\text{CenterNet} > \text{FasterRCNN} > \text{YOLOv5} > \text{YOLOX}$. Among the four detectors, YOLOX consistently gives the worst performance on both A2I2-UAV and A2I2-UGV. It frequently mistakes small contrast boards as vehicles, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:failed}.
\subsection{Dehazing}
\subsubsection{Baseline Approaches}
We benchmark three state-of-the-art homogeneous dehazing approaches: (I) \textit{GCANet}~\cite{chen2019gated}, (II) \textit{FFA-Net}~\cite{qin2020ffa}, and (III) \textit{MSBDN}~\cite{dong2020multi}. In addition, we also benchmark another set of three state-of-the-art non-homogeneous dehazing approaches: (IV) \textit{SRKT}~\cite{chen2021srktdn}, (V) \textit{DWDehaze}~\cite{fu2021dw}, and (VI) \textit{Trident-Dehazing}~\cite{liu2020trident}. All dehazing models are pre-trained using official implementations.
\subsubsection{Proposed Cycle-DehazeNet}
Inspired by CycleGAN~\cite{engin2018cycle,zhu2017unpaired}, we propose a dehazing model that could be trained for image translation tasks on the hazy image domain and haze-free image domain without paired training samples.
Cycle-DehazeNet is trained on $512\times 512$ patches (CycleGAN's constraint). It takes $512 \times 512$ as input resolution and restores $512 \times 512$ output images to minimize computational costs. In the inference, we first pad the input HR image from $1845 \times 1500$ to $2048 \times 1536$, so that the width and height are divisible by $512$. Then we extract overlapping $512 \times 512$ patches at a stride of $256$. Each pixel in the image may be covered by multiple patches. Last, the pixel value is computed as a weighted sum of all the collided pixels from different patches, where the weight is measured by the distance between the pixel and the patch center. The weight is decayed by a Gaussian distribution with controllable sigma parameter.
As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:cycle-dehaze}, Cycle-DehazeNet has two losses: cycle-consistency loss~\cite{zhu2017unpaired} and perceptual loss~\cite{johnson2016perceptual}.
Cycle-consistency loss relieves the constraint of paired training samples. Perceptual loss remedies the local texture information that is heavily corrupted by haze and preserves the original image structure by analyzing the high and low-level features extracted from VGG Net.
We observe that the hazy area is typically further away from the image center in A2I2-Haze.
The cropped four $512 \times 512$ patches from the corners of each image is used as ``focus'' (red bounding boxes in Fig.~\ref{fig:cycle-dehaze}). We emphasize more on the hazy area than the whole image by assigning larger weights for the ``focus'' patch in the final loss.
\subsubsection{Evaluation Metric}
We use object detection score on the dehazed images as the metric to quantitatively measure restoration capability of the dehazing technique on image semantics. We use the same four detectors as in Section.~\ref{det_eval} (a) \textit{YOLOv5}, (b) \textit{YOLOX}, (c) \textit{Faster R-CNN}, and (d) \textit{CenterNet}.
\subsubsection{Results and Analyses}
Fig.~\ref{fig:detection-benchmarks} shows detection results on original hazy images and dehazed images. Fig.~\ref{fig:detection_dehaze} shows AP$_{0.5:0.95}$ score as metric to compare various detectors and various dehazing approaches. Fig.~\ref{fig:detection_dehaze} gives two perspective: object detectors (the red line) and dehazing approaches (the gray lines). The red line shows the averaged AP$_{0.5:0.95}$ across the four detectors for different dehazing approaches. The gray lines show the AP$_{0.5:0.95}$ across different dehazing approaches for the four detectors.
Fig.~\ref{fig:detection-benchmarks} shows the visual effect of various dehazing approaches on three randomly selected images. Among the seven dehazing approaches used, FFA-Net leads to the worst detection performance, and our proposed Cycle-DehazeNet gives the best mAP on YOLOv5, Faster R-CNN and CenterNet. In general, we observe that non-homogeneous dehazing algorithms have better mAP compared to the homogeneous dehazing algorithms.
\section{Discussions and Future Works}
A2I2-Haze being the first attempt to develop a real-world hazy dataset with in-situ measurements, we acknowledge several limitations in the data collection procedure. We propose the following research directions to address the gaps:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
\item \textbf{Object Diversity:} Both UAV and UGV datasets have a limited number of object categories and instances. Improving the diversity in objects will be a crucial step towards developing a more comprehensive dataset.
\item \textbf{Background Diversity:} A2I2-Haze was primarily collected in two different scenarios: with concrete and grass backgrounds. Including additional scenes with diverse backgrounds will make the dataset a more challenging benchmark.
\item \textbf{Global Haze Measure:} The smoke measurement for A2I2-Haze was made using two laser transmissometers. These measurements can be highly localized in a non-homogeneous setting. A novel sensor network for grid-based measurement is required to improve the accuracy of the in-situ data.
\item \textbf{Synchronized Aerial-Ground View:} A2I2-Haze could be extended to a multi-view dataset using air-ground coordination and multi-source image matching.
\item \textbf{Jointly Optimized Dehazing and Detection Pipeline:}
If jointly optimized, low-level image processing could be made beneficial for high-level semantic tasks~\cite{liu2020connecting,li2017aod}. In this study, dehazing can be considered a pre-processing step for the subsequent detection task. Thus, as a future research direction, detection and dehazing could be jointly designed and trained to optimize detection performance in the presence of haze. This could be particularly significant in the case of aerial-view imagery. Furthermore, as this approach removes the constraint of maintaining the aesthetic quality of the image, dehazing could be utilized to purely restore image semantics for object detection.
\item \textbf{Metadata Utilization:}
The annotated UAV-specific nuisance or metadata in A2I2-Haze could be utilized to improve the robustness of the learned features via adversarial training as discussed in NDFT~\cite{wu2019delving}. In Tab.~\ref{tab:detection_nodehaze}, we have shown some preliminary success by learning a detector robust to altitude variation on A2I2-UAV. Utilizing the haze density metadata to train a dehazing-aware detector better could be a future research direction.
\end{itemize}
\section{Conclusion }
In this paper we develop a challenging real-haze UAV and UGV dataset for foundational research in scene understanding in obscured conditions. Advanced smoke-generation and measurement techniques were used to develop this dataset for object detection and dehazing tasks. All images were curated precisely using a combination of both manual and partially- automated techniques. Further, the images are synchronized with haze density measurements and altitude of the UAV. Quantitative evaluation was performed using state-of-the-art object detectors and de-hazing models. Overall the baseline approaches were found to perform poorly on DVE-Haze and we hope the dataset will serve as a good benchmark for future algorithmic advances. As discussed in the paper, we also plan to address the limitations of A2I2-Haze in future research efforts.
|
\section{\label{sec:intro}Introduction}
Active systems continuously take energy from their environment and convert it into mechanical stress which drives the system out of equilibrium.
Active matter has recently received considerable attention in the community because of its potential as a way of interpreting biological mechanics and as examples of non-equilibrium statistical physics \citep{julicher2018hydrodynamic, marchetti2013hydrodynamics, chen2018mechanical}.
Dense active systems, and in particular the continuum theory of active nematics, have been used successfully to model the dynamics of a variety of biological systems, such as myosin-driven actin-microtubule networks \citep{lee2021myosin}, bacterial biofilms \citep{yaman2019emergence} and confluent cell monolayers \citep{saw2017topological, mueller2019emergence, duclos2017topological, saw2018biological}. A key property of active nematics, which distinguishes them from passive liquid crystals, is active turbulence. This is a chaotic flow state characterised by strong vorticity and topological defects which are continually created and destroyed. Unlike in passive systems, where topological defects of opposite charge tend to annihilate over time due to the relaxation of the large elastic energy associated with them, in active systems the number of topological defects is finite at steady-state, and motile $+1/2$ defects move through the fluid like self-propelled, oriented particles \citep{vromans2016orientational}. Considerable experimental and theoretical work has been devoted to understanding the statistical properties of active turbulence and the motion of the associated topological defects, in both two and three dimensions \citep{duclos2020topological, binysh2020three, vcopar2019topology,ruske2021morphology}.
A major research theme has been to investigate how to control the chaotic flows and defect motion in active materials. Guiding active flow and defects along selected paths is likely to be a prerequisite to using active matter for
powering micro-machines or targeting the delivery of drugs. It has been proposed that this control can be achieved in two-dimensional (2D) systems by patterns of activity on a substrate. This causes the orientation of $+1/2$ defects to align along activity gradients and hence the defects to move along paths defined by activity patterns \citep{zhang2021spatiotemporal, shankar2019hydrodynamics}. Further work has investigated the alignment of individual topological defects by activity gradients in 2D using theoretical arguments and numerical simulations \citep{tang2021alignment, mozaffari2021defect}. More recently it has also proved possible to design active materials that allow imaging of a three-dimensional (3D) active nematic and, in particular, the associated motile disclination loops and lines \citep{duclos2020topological}. These articles have focused primarily on how activity patterns affect flows and the alignment of individual topological defects, and it is still poorly understood how activity gradients affect systems in the absence of topological defects or how well the concept of 2D topological defects as effective oriented particles translates to disclination line segments in 3D materials.
In this paper we numerically investigate how active nematics respond to spatial variations in activity in both two and three dimensions. We start by outlining the well-established hydrodynamic theory of active nematics and the numerical methods we use to solve the equations of motion.
In section~\ref{subsec:act} we show how non-uniform activity creates active forces which, in the absence of defects, set up flows which rotate the nematic director field. This effectively creates an active force which favours either normal or tangential alignment of the nematic director with respect to activity gradients for contractile or extensile active stress, respectively.
In the following section~\ref{subsec:2d}, we show that activity gradients in 2D active turbulence induce polar order of $+1/2$ defects, which is consistent with previous theoretical predictions considering active torques on isolated defects \citep{tang2021alignment}.
In section~\ref{subsec:3d} we investigate how activity gradients in 3D systems affect nematic alignment and the polarisation of disclination lines. We find that disclination lines, which locally resemble $+1/2$ or twist defects, are polarized in opposite directions, aligning parallel or anti-parallel to activity gradients, respectively.
The last section of the paper summarizes the key results, highlights similarities between activity gradients and active-passive interfaces and points out possible connections to experiment.
\section{\label{sec:methods} Equations of motion}
We numerically solve the continuum equations of motion of an active nematic fluid \citep{marenduzzo2007hydrodynamics}. The ordering of the nematic constituents in 3D is quantified by the tensor order parameter $Q_{ij} = \frac{3}{2}S (n_i n_j - \delta_{ij}/3)$, where the scalar $S$ quantifies the magnitude of the order and the director field $\mathbf{n}$ the direction. We work in the uniaxial limit, ignoring higher-order effects such as biaxial order close to disclination cores \citep{schimming2020anisotropic, long2021geometry}. The evolution of the nematic tensor $\mathbf{Q}$ is coupled to the velocity field $\mathbf{u}$ of the fluid and follows \citep{beris1994thermodynamics}
\begin{equation}
D_t \mathbf{Q} -\mathbf{\mathcal{W}} = \Gamma \mathbf{H} \: ,
\label{eq:Q}
\end{equation}
where $D_t$ denotes the material derivative and $\Gamma$ the rotational diffusivity which controls the relaxation of the order parameter towards equilibrium through the molecular field $\mathbf{H} = -\delta \mathcal{F}/\delta \mathbf{Q} + (\mathbf{I}/3) \text{Tr}( \delta \mathcal{F} / \delta \mathbf{Q})$. The free energy $\mathcal{F}=\int f dV$ of the system includes a Landau-de Gennes bulk term $f_{bulk} = \frac{A}{2} \text{Tr}~\mathbf{Q}^2 + \frac{B}{3} \text{Tr}~\mathbf{Q}^3 + \frac{C}{4} (\text{Tr}~\mathbf{Q}^2)^2$, where we chose the coefficients $A,B,C$ such that nematic ordering $S_{eq}>0$ is favoured in equilibrium, and an elastic term $f_{el} = K_{el} \left( \mathbf{\nabla} \mathbf{Q} \right)^2$, which penalizes distortions in the director field $\mathbf{n}$ using the one-elastic-constant approximation. This commonly used approximation has been shown to accurately describe many experimental systems in 2D and 3D \citep{saw2018biological,saw2017topological,norton2018insensitivity,duclos2020topological,zhang2018interplay,schimming2020anisotropic}. It should also be noted that active nematic dynamics are only weakly affected by the bulk energy scale and mainly depend on the magnitude of $K_{el}$. The second term on the left-hand side of eq.~(\ref{eq:Q}) is the co-rotational term $\mathbf{\mathcal{W}}$ which describes the response of a flow-tumbling director field to gradients in the flow field $\mathbf{u}$ \citep{marenduzzo2007hydrodynamics},
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{\mathcal{W}}_{ij} = \Omega_{ik} Q_{jk} + Q_{ik} \Omega_{jk} \: ,
\end{equation}
where $\Omega_{ij}=(\partial_j u_i - \partial_i u_j)/2$ is the anti-symmetric part of the velocity gradient tensor. The time evolution of the velocity field obeys the incompressible Navier-Stokes equation
\begin{equation}
\rho \: D_t \mathbf{u} = \mathbf{\nabla} \cdot \left( \Pi^{visc} + \Pi^{el} + \Pi^{act} \right) \: ,
\label{eq:u}
\end{equation}
where $\rho$ is the density of the fluid and the stress tensor on the right-hand side comprises the viscous stress $\Pi^{visc}$ of a Newtonian fluid, elastic stress $\Pi^{el}$ caused by the relaxation of $\mathbf{Q}$ (for details see Supplementary Information \citep{si}), and an active stress component $\Pi^{act}$. Activity locally induces dipolar stress, of magnitude $\zeta$, along the axis of the director field, $\Pi^{act}_{ij} = -\zeta Q_{ij}$ which drives the system out of equilibrium \citep{simha2002hydrodynamic}. The parameter $\zeta$ quantifies the type and magnitude of dipolar stress produced by the constituents, where $\zeta>0$ describes extensile systems in which particles push out fluid along their long axis $\mathbf{n}$ and pull in fluid in the plane perpendicular to $\mathbf{n}$. $\zeta<0$ describes contractile activity where the flow direction is reversed. It is apparent from eq.~(\ref{eq:u}) that active forces are induced by gradients in either $\mathbf{Q}$ or $\zeta$. They induce the well-known hydrodynamic bend or splay instability of the director field $\mathbf{n}$ in homogeneous active nematic bulk systems \citep{simha2002hydrodynamic}. We solve the equations of motion using a hybrid Lattice Boltzmann-finite difference method \citep{marenduzzo2007hydrodynamics} with parameter values stated in the Supplementary Information \citep{si}.
We consider periodic variations of activity along one coordinate axis with alternating extensile ($\zeta>0$) and contractile activity ($\zeta<0$) in two and three-dimensions,
\begin{equation}
\zeta(\mathbf{x}) = \zeta_{max} \cdot \cos(\mathbf{k} \cdot \mathbf{x}) \: ,
\end{equation}
with wave-vector $\mathbf{k}$ indicating the direction $\mathbf{k}/|\mathbf{k}|$ and wavelength $\lambda = 2\pi/|\mathbf{k}|$ of activity patterns (Fig.~\ref{fig:1} a,f). In the following we will denote the coordinate axes parallel and perpendicular to the plane of constant activity as the tangential and normal direction, respectively. We define a dimensionless activity number $\mathcal{A}=\lambda \sqrt{|\zeta_{max}|/K_{el}}$ as the ratio of the wavelength $\lambda$ to the active nematic length-scale $\ell_\zeta = \sqrt{K_{el}/|\zeta_{max}|}$. For more complex, aperiodic activity patterns $\mathcal{A}$ can be defined as the ratio of a characteristic domain size $L$ to the active length-scale $\ell_\zeta$.
\section{\label{subsec:act} Active forces in the absence of defects}
We start by summarising results for systems with heterogeneous activity in which the magnitude of active stress is too small to create active defects. Assuming gradients in the order parameter $\mathbf{Q}$ are small, the active force density can be approximated by
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{F}_{act} \approx S \left( \mathbf{\nabla} \zeta - 2 \left( \mathbf{\nabla} \zeta \cdot \mathbf{n} \right) \mathbf{n} \right) \: ,
\end{equation}
This approximation is justified as long as $|\mathbf{\nabla} \zeta| \gg |\zeta ~ \mathbf{n}(\mathbf{\nabla} \cdot \mathbf{n})|$, which is satisfied in the transition area between extensile and contractile domains $\left(\zeta \approx 0 \right)$ or in the absence of topological defects in active regions which create strong distortions in the order parameter. The force component along the tangential direction, perpendicular to the activity gradient, is \citep{bhattacharyya2021coupling}
\begin{equation}
F^{||}_{act} = - 2 |\mathbf{\nabla} \zeta| \cdot S \cos\theta \sin\theta \: ,
\end{equation}
where $\theta \in [-\pi/2, \pi/2]$ denotes the angle of director field $\mathbf{n}$ with respect to the activity gradient vector $\mathbf{\nabla} \zeta$. Whenever $\mathbf{n}$ is not aligned parallel or perpendicular to a finite activity gradient, active forces will generate flows along the tangential direction, which are maximal at the steepest point of the activity gradient (Fig.~\ref{fig:1} b,d). As a consequence of the co-rotation term $\mathbf{\mathcal{W}}$ in eq.~(\ref{eq:Q}), the resulting shear flow rotates the director field $\mathbf{n}$ until a stable equilibrium is reached where the elastic energy associated with director deformations balances co-rotation by the flow.
In the case of $0< \theta < \pi/2$ and considering a $\mathbf{\nabla} \zeta > 0$, the resulting shear flow rotates the director clockwise left of the maximum of $|\mathbf{\nabla} \zeta|$ and anti-clockwise to its right. Hence the director in the contractile domain points along the normal, parallel to the activity gradient $\mathbf{k}$, while in the extensile domain the director aligns tangentially, perpendicular to the activity gradient (Fig.~\ref{fig:1} c). The magnitude of nematic alignment depends on the relative strengths of the flow-induced rotation of the director field through the co-rotational term $\mathcal{W}$ and the relaxation of nematic distortions through the molecular field $\mathbf{H}$. Thus spatial variations of $|\theta|$ along the normal coordinate become larger for increasing activity $\zeta_{max}$ (faster flow) and decreasing elastic constant $K_{el}$ (slower relaxation) (Fig.~\ref{fig:1} e).
The nematic alignment induced by active flows at points of large activity gradients therefore acts as an effective anchoring force, favouring normal anchoring on the contractile side and tangential anchoring on the extensile side of transition regions. To investigate how the shape of activity profiles modifies the dynamics, we also used activity profiles which feature sharper interfaces between extensile and contractile domains,
\begin{equation}
\zeta(\mathbf{x}) =
\begin{cases}
\zeta_{max} ,& \text{if } 0 \leq x\leq L/3,\\
-\zeta_{max} ,& \text{if } L/2 \leq x\leq 5/6 L,\\
\zeta_{max} \cdot \cos\left(\frac{6 \pi}{L} x \right) ,& \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\:
\end{equation}
We find that this does not qualitatively change the dynamics in the laminar regime and only slightly modifies the shape of flow and director profiles (Fig.~S1 a,b \citep{si}).
In 3D systems where activity varies along one of the coordinate axes, the director alignment with respect to the gradient direction $\mathbf{k}$ is quantified by the director angle $|\theta_x| = |\text{cos}^{-1}(\mathbf{k}/|\mathbf{k}| \cdot \mathbf{n})|$. As for the 2D case, the director field follows variations in activity and aligns normal to the activity gradient in contractile domains. In extensile domains, however, the tangential director orientation is degenerate and points along a random direction within the two-dimensional plane perpendicular to $\mathbf{k}$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:1} f,g).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8.7cm]{SM_Fig/Fig1.pdf}
\caption{(a) Cosinusoidal variation of active stress along the normal direction. Extensile and contractile regions are labeled as E and C respectively. (b) Active flows form along the tangential direction in the transition regions where $\zeta \approx 0$. (c) Director field aligns tangential (normal) to the gradient direction $\mathbf{k}$ in extensile (contractile) regions. (d,e) Before the onset of active turbulence, the magnitude of flows and the degree of tangential (normal) alignment increases with activity number $\mathcal{A}=\lambda \sqrt{|\zeta_{max}|/K_{el}}$. (f,g) Three-dimensional systems in which activity varies along one coordinate axis show the same quasi-two-dimensional behaviour. However, the director alignment in extensile regions is degenerate within the two-dimensional tangential plane.\\
}
\label{fig:1}
\end{figure}
\section{\label{subsec:2d} Defect polarization in 2D active turbulence}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8.7cm]{SM_Fig/Fig2.pdf}
\caption{For sufficiently large activity, the system transitions into an active turbulent state, which is characterised by (a) chaotic flow fields and (b) motile topological defects. Comet-like $+1/2$ defects are self-propelled and are shown in red; trefoil-like $-1/2$ defects are only passively advected and are highlighted in blue. (c) The onset of active turbulence is characterised by chaotic flows with components along the normal coordinate, as indicated by a sharp increase of the average flow component along the normal coordinate $\mathbf{u}_N$ relative to the root-mean-squared velocity $\mathbf{u}_{rms}$ in the system. The critical activity $\zeta_{max}$ at which this transition occurs depends on the dimensionless activity number $\mathcal{A}=\lambda \sqrt{|\zeta_{max}|/K_{el}} \sim 10$. (d) The average alignment of the director field in the turbulent regime decreases with $\mathcal{A}$ as shown by the time-averaged director angle $\langle |\theta| \rangle = \langle |\text{cos}^{-1}(\mathbf{k}/|\mathbf{k}| \cdot \mathbf{n})| \rangle$. (e) The magnitude of alignment $A_\theta$, which is defined as the amplitude of variations of $\langle |\theta| \rangle$ along the normal direction, increases monotonically with $\mathcal{A}$ in the laminar regime and decays with increasing activity in the turbulent regime. The mean director angle and normal flow component were calculated by averaging quantities over the tangential coordinate and over time $t=[0,80000]$ ($80$ snapshots).
}
\label{fig:2}
\end{figure}
We will now consider systems with large active stress $\zeta_{max}$, where the soft confinement introduced by passive boundaries between extensile and contractile regions is too weak to prevent the system transitioning to active turbulence. Active turbulence is characterised by strong vorticity and topological $\pm 1/2$ defects which are continually created and destroyed (Fig.~\ref{fig:2} a,b). In 2D systems the transition occurs at a critical activity number $\mathcal{A} \gtrsim 10$, thus depending on the magnitude of active stress $\zeta_{max}$, the elastic constant $K_{el}$ and the wavelength of the activity patterns (Fig.~\ref{fig:2} c).
Although topological defects and chaotic flow fields tend to destroy any nematic ordering, the time-averaged director field still shows some finite normal (tangential) alignment in contractile (extensile) domains in the turbulent state as shown by the time-averaged director angle $\langle |\theta| \rangle$ between director $\mathbf{n}$ and gradient axis (Fig.~\ref{fig:2} d). The magnitude of alignment $A_\theta$, which is defined as the amplitude of variations of $\langle |\theta| \rangle$ along the normal direction, reaches a maximum at the onset of active turbulence and decays with increasing activity (Fig.~\ref{fig:2} e). The director $\mathbf{n}$ eventually approaches a random distribution, $\theta \sim \mathcal{U} \left( -\pi/2,\pi/2 \right)$, which yields $\langle |\theta| \rangle \rightarrow \pi/4$ throughout the system.
In the active turbulent regime, both $\pm 1/2$ defects move in the background flow, but comet-shaped $+1/2$ defects are also self-motile, with their propulsion speed being proportional to activity $|\zeta|$ \citep{giomi2015geometry}. Their propulsion direction $\mathbf{v}$ is parallel (anti-parallel) to the defect orientation vector $\mathbf{p} = \mathbf{\nabla} \cdot \mathbf{Q} / |\mathbf{\nabla} \cdot \mathbf{Q}|$ (which points from head to tail), in contractile (extensile) systems. Activity gradients across $+1/2$ defects give rise an active torque $\Gamma_{act}$ which acts to align $+1/2$ defects parallel to activity gradients, $\mathbf{p} \propto \mathbf{\nabla} \zeta$ (Fig.~S3 a,b \citep{si}). On the other hand, the flow-driven normal (tangential) director field alignment in contractile (extensile) domains acts as a soft boundary condition on the director field $\mathbf{n}$. $+1/2$ defects which align anti-parallel to the activity gradient, $\mathbf{p} \propto -\mathbf{\nabla} \zeta$, minimize distortions in $\mathbf{n}$, thus elastic forces create an elastic torque $\Gamma_{el}$ which minimize the elastic energy of the system (Fig.~S3 c,d \citep{si}). The elastic torque $\Gamma_{el}$ on $+1/2$ defects thus opposes the active torque $\Gamma_{act}$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:3} a). While the magnitude of active and elastic torques can be easily measured for single $+1/2$ defects subject to external activity gradients or nematic boundary conditions, it is not immediately clear which contribution dominates in the regime of active turbulence, where a finite alignment magnitude $A_\theta$ of the average director field $\langle |\theta| \rangle$ gives rise to soft boundary conditions and interactions between defects become important.
To investigate the behaviour of defects in the regime of active turbulence, we track the position and orientation $\mathbf{p}$ of $+ 1/2$ defects in the system. By considering active and elastic forces in the vicinity of defects, we can calculate elastic and active torques on $+1/2$ defects as a function of defect orientation (see Supplementary Information \citep{si}). By averaging over defects and time, we confirm that elastic torques indeed oppose active torques (Fig.~\ref{fig:3} b). However, active torques remain the dominant contribution to the total torque $\Gamma = \Gamma_{el} + \Gamma_{act}$ in the regime of active turbulence (Fig.~\ref{fig:3} c).
In order to quantify to which extent defects are locally polarized by active torques, we measure the angular distribution of defect orientations $\mathbf{p}$, averaging over time (Fig.~S2 a \citep{si}). We define the defect orientation order parameter $\mathcal{P} = \sqrt{ \langle p_x \rangle^2 + \langle p_y \rangle^2 }$, which is is zero if $+1/2$ defects are oriented randomly and equals one if the defects perfectly align along one direction. The polarization direction, $\langle \mathbf{p} \rangle$, is calculated as the circular mean of the distribution of $\mathbf{p}$. Even though the motion of individual defects is highly chaotic in the regime of active turbulence, we find that $+1/2$ defects are strongly polarized at the boundaries between extensile and contractile domains (Fig.~\ref{fig:3} d). The average defect orientation aligns with and is proportional to the activity gradient, $\langle \mathbf{p} \rangle \propto \mathbf{\nabla} \zeta$, in agreement with previous theoretical predictions which considered active torques on individual defects \citep{zhang2021spatiotemporal, shankar2019hydrodynamics}. A strong polarization of defects along activity gradients thus confirms once more that active torques on $+1/2$ defects are dominating elastic torques, $\Gamma_{act} > \Gamma_{el}$. It should be emphasised, however, that both torques originate from activity gradients since the nematic boundary condition giving rise to $\Gamma_{el}$ is driven by active tangential flows.
In systems with sharp activity interfaces, non-zero defect polarization $\langle \mathbf{p} \rangle$ and average director alignment $\langle |\theta| \rangle$ are limited to boundaries and vanish in contractile and extensile bulk regions as expected for isotropic active turbulence (Fig.~S1 c,d \citep{si}).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8.7cm]{SM_Fig/Fig3.pdf}
\caption{(a) $+1/2$ defects are subject to an elastic torque $\Gamma_{el}$, which tries to minimize the elastic energy of the system (orange), and an active torque $\Gamma_{act}$, which is caused by differential self-propulsion $\mathbf{v}$ across the defect (red). (b) Activity gradients create an active torque on $+1/2$ defects, which is strongest if the defect orientation $\mathbf{p}$ is perpendicular to the activity gradient $\mathbf{\nabla} \zeta$ ($\alpha = \pm \pi/2$) and vanishes at $\alpha = 0,\pi$. Active torques align $+1/2$ defects parallel to activity gradients, which is evident from the stable fixed-point at $\alpha = 0$. Elastic torques, on the other hand, oppose active torques and favour $+1/2$ defects to align anti-parallel to activity gradients (see Fig.~S3 \citep{si}). We find that the average torque on defects $\Gamma = \Gamma_{el} + \Gamma_{act}$ is dominated by active contributions in the regime of active turbulence. Average torques $\Gamma_{act}$ and $\Gamma_{el}$ were obtained by averaging over defects within an orientation window $[\alpha-\pi/12, \alpha+\pi/12]$. (c) The relative magnitude of active and elastic torques does not significantly change as function of activity number $\mathcal{A}$. Error bars show the mean and standard deviation of $\Gamma_{el}/\Gamma_{act}$ when averaged over defect orientations $\alpha$. (d) $+1/2$ defects are polarized at positions of large activity gradients between contractile and extensile domains with their tail pointing towards extensile domains. The fluctuations in polarization $\mathcal{P}$ are caused by the finite sample size of defect orientations. The defect polarization $\mathcal{P}$ as a function of normal coordinate $x$ was obtained by averaging over defect orientations $\mathbf{p}$ in intervals $[x-\lambda/20, x+\lambda/20]$ along $x$ and averaging over time $t=[0,400000]$ ($200$ snapshots).}
\label{fig:3}
\end{figure}
\section{\label{subsec:3d} Disclination line properties in 3D active turbulence }
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=17cm]{SM_Fig/Fig4.pdf}
\caption{(a) Three-dimensional active turbulence is characterised by motile disclination lines which form closed loops or span the entire system as open lines. (b) Disclination lines can be locally classified by a continuous twist-angle $0 < \beta < \pi$ which quantifies how the director field winds around the disclination core in the plane perpendicular to the line tangent. $\beta$ is the angle between the line tangent $\mathbf{t}$ and the rotation axis $\mathbf{\Omega}$ around which the director winds while moving around the disclination core. Quasi-two-dimensional $\pm 1/2$ defects correspond to $\beta = \approx 0, \pi$, respectively, and $\beta \approx \pi/2$ describes twist disclinations, which are unique to three-dimensional systems (radial twist-type shown here). (c) The relative density of $\pm 1/2$ and twist segments depends on the type of activity (extensile/contractile) and follows spatial variations in active stress (fluctuations are caused by finite sample size). (d) The director field alignment in 3D systems in the turbulent regime decays with $\mathcal{A}=\lambda \sqrt{|\zeta_{max}|/K_{el}}$, as shown by the time-averaged director angle $\langle \cos(\theta_x) \rangle$. (e) As for 2D systems, the magnitude of alignment $A_\theta$, which in 3D is defined as the amplitude of variations of $\langle \cos(\theta_x) \rangle$ along the normal direction, decays with increasing activity number $\mathcal{A}$. Black diamonds show $A_\theta/A_\theta^{max}$ as a function of $\zeta_{max}$ for different parameters $K_{el} = [0.04,0.08,0.12,0.2]$, where $A_\theta^{max}$ is the maximum alignment realized just before the onset of active turbulence (dashed line). Pink diamonds show normalized data taken from Fig.~\ref{fig:2} e. The mean director angle and disclination line densities were calculated by averaging quantities over both tangential coordinates and time $t=[0,500000]$ ($250$ snapshots).}
\label{fig:4}
\end{figure*}
We next consider 3D bulk systems in which activity varies along one direction.
The point defects of 2D nematics are replaced by disclination lines which can continuously transform from a local $-1/2$ configuration, in the plane perpendicular to the line tangent, into a $+1/2$ configuration through an intermediate twist defect, which is inherently three-dimensional (Fig.~\ref{fig:4} a,b). The director configuration of the defects along a disclination line can be locally classified by the {\it twist angle} $\beta$, where $-1/2$ ($+1/2$) wedge-type defects correspond to $\beta=0$ $(\pi)$ and line segments with twist defects are indicated by $\beta = \pi/2$. Radial twist and $+1/2$ defects both have a unique polar direction $\mathbf{p}$ in the plane perpendicular to the line tangent (Fig.~\ref{fig:4} b).
The flows and morphological dynamics of disclination lines in 3D active nematics are governed by the local director profile \citep{binysh2020three, vcopar2019topology}. While disclination lines in purely extensile systems are predominantly twist-like, contractile activity favours the creation of the wedge-like line segments with cross-sections that resemble $\pm 1/2$ defects \citep{nejad2022active, ruske2021morphology}. This is reflected by variations in the spatial density of $\pm 1/2$ and twist line segments across a system with extensile and contractile domains (Fig.~\ref{fig:4} c).
In 3D active turbulence with homogeneous activity the orientation of the director field $\mathbf{n}$ is, by symmetry, randomly distributed, $\cos \theta_x \sim \mathcal{U}(0,1)$, where $\theta_x$ is the angle between the director field and a random reference vector. Deviations from the average director angle $\langle \cos(\theta_x) \rangle = 1/2$ thus indicate that the time-averaged director field is either aligned parallel $\left( \langle \cos \theta_x \rangle > 1/2 \right)$ or perpendicular $\left( \langle \cos \theta_x \rangle < 1/2 \right)$ with respect to the reference vector. For 3D active turbulence with heterogeneous activity we find that the time-averaged director field is aligned normal (tangential) with respect to the activity gradient in contractile (extensile) domains, as for 2D systems (Fig.~\ref{fig:4} d). The nematic alignment in 3D systems can be quantified by $A_\theta$, the amplitude of variations of $\langle \cos(\theta_x) \rangle$ along the normal direction. To compare the variation of the alignment magnitude with activity in 2D ($A_\theta \in [0,\pi/4]$) and 3D systems ($A_\theta \in [0,0.5]$), we normalize $A_\theta$ with respect to $A_\theta^{max}$, the maximum alignment realized just before the onset of active turbulence. We find that with increasing activity, the average alignment of the director field in 3D decays much {more slowly} compared to 2D systems, where $A_\theta$ sharply drops at the onset of active turbulence (Fig.~\ref{fig:4} e).
To gain further insight, we measure the angle $\gamma_x$ between disclination line segments and the gradient direction $\mathbf{k}$. We find that disclination lines are preferentially oriented perpendicular to activity gradients, $\gamma_x \approx \pi/2$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:5} a). This preferred alignment is caused by active torques $\Gamma_\gamma$ on line segments when they lie along activity gradients (Fig.~\ref{fig:5} b). This implies that the orientation of the defect structures in the plane perpendicular to line segments can be either parallel ($\mathbf{p} \propto \mathbf{\nabla} \zeta$), anti-parallel ($\mathbf{p} \propto -\mathbf{\nabla} \zeta$) or perpendicular ($\mathbf{p} \cdot \mathbf{\nabla} \zeta = 0$) to the activity gradient.
We define the polarization order parameter for disclination lines as $\mathcal{P} = \sqrt{ \langle p_x \rangle^2 + \langle p_y \rangle^2 + \langle p_z \rangle^2}$, which is is zero if defects are oriented randomly and equals one if the defects perfectly align along one direction. The polarization order parameter $\mathcal{P}$ and direction of $+1/2$ and twist segments are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:5} c and Fig.~\ref{fig:5} d, respectively. While $+1/2$ disclination are polarized parallel to activity gradients, $\langle \mathbf{p} \rangle \propto \mathbf{\nabla} \zeta$, like in 2D systems, twist disclinations are polarized anti-parallel to the activity gradient $\langle \mathbf{p} \rangle \propto -\mathbf{\nabla} \zeta$.
We argue that this is caused by a different balance between elastic torques $\Gamma_{el}$ and active torques $\Gamma_{act}$ on different defect types. While active torques $\Gamma_{act}$ dominate elastic torques $\Gamma_{el}$ for $+1/2$ disclinations (see Fig.~\ref{fig:3} b), active forces around twist disclinations feature out-of-plane components, yielding an active torque which does not align with the line tangent (Fig.~S6 \citep{si}). Thus the orientation $\mathbf{p}$ of twist defects is less affected by active torques than the orientation of $+1/2$ defects (Fig.~S6 c), causing twist defects to align in a way which minimizes the elastic energy of the system. Indeed, since active torque is generated by differential velocities across defects, we would expect a smaller active torque on twist defects because they have a lower self-propulsion speed than $+1/2$ defects \citep{binysh2020three, ruske2021morphology}.
Sharp activity interfaces in 3D systems give rise to similar dynamics, where defect polarization $\langle \mathbf{p} \rangle$ and director alignment $\langle \cos \theta_x \rangle$ are limited to boundary regions and vanish in contractile and extensile bulk regions (Fig.~S4 \citep{si}).
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=17cm]{SM_Fig/Fig5.pdf}
\caption{(a) The angle $\gamma_x$ between disclination line segments and the normal axis along which activity varies is measured for all disclination lines in the system. The time-averaged distribution of $|\cos(\gamma_x)|$ shows that disclination line segments preferentially point perpendicular to activity gradients ($\gamma_x = \pi/2$), independent of twist-angle $\beta$. The distribution of orientation $\gamma_x$ was obtained by averaging over all disclination line segments and time $t=[0,500000]$. (b) When a $+1/2$ disclination line points along an activity gradients $\mathbf{\nabla} \zeta$ ($\gamma_x=0$), active forces (black arrows) create a torque $\Gamma_\gamma$ (pink arrow), which re-orients the disclination line perpendicular the gradient direction ($\gamma_x = \pi/2$). The magnitude of the line torque $\Gamma_\gamma$ depends on the self-propulsion speed of the disclination type, thus it is strongest for $+1/2$ line segments and vanishes for $-1/2$ segments. Since disclination line segments of different types $\beta$ are connected with each other, line torques $\Gamma_\gamma$ acting on $+1/2$ and twist segments also align passive $-1/2$ segments. (c) As in 2D systems, active torques align the orientation $\mathbf{p}$ of $+1/2$ defects parallel to activity gradients $\mathbf{\nabla} \zeta$, causing a large polarization of $+1/2$ disclinations ($\beta\in[7\pi/8,\pi]$) at points of large activity gradients. (d) Twist disclinations ($\beta\in[3\pi/8,5\pi/8]$) are dominated by elastic torque rather than active torque, thus they are polarized anti-parallel to activity gradients. The fluctuations in polarization $\mathcal{P}$ are caused by the finite sample size of $+1/2$ and twist defect orientations. The polarization $\mathcal{P}$ of disclination lines was calculated by averaging over defect orientations $\mathbf{p}$ in intervals $[x-\lambda/20, x+\lambda/20]$ along the normal coordinate $x$ and averaging over time $t=[0,500000]$ ($250$ snapshots).
}
\label{fig:5}
\end{figure*}
\section{\label{sec:conclusion} Conclusion}
In this paper we have investigated how two- and three-dimensional active nematic bulk systems respond to one-dimensional spatial variations of active stress. We have shown that, in the absence of defects, activity gradients induce an effective anchoring force which aligns the director field along the normal direction in contractile domains and tangentially in extensile domains. In line with recent analytical work \citep{shankar2019hydrodynamics, tang2021alignment}, we found that the orientation of motile $+1/2$ defects in 2D active turbulence are dominated by active torque and polarized parallel to activity gradients, $\mathbf{p}\propto \mathbf{\nabla}\zeta$. Since the director field in the vicinity of polarized $+1/2$ defects opposes the director alignment set up by active flows perpendicular to activity gradients, the average alignment of the director field in 2D active turbulence remains weak.
In 3D systems we find that disclination line segments are oriented perpendicular to activity gradients, thereby allowing the orientation of the defect structures in the plane perpendicular to line segments to point parallel, anti-parallel or perpendicular to activity gradients. Like in 2D systems, active torque robustly aligns $+1/2$ disclination lines parallel to activity gradients, even in the turbulent regime. In contrast, the alignment of twist disclinations is dominated by elastic interactions rather than active torques, causing them to be polarized anti-parallel to activity gradients. Thereby the director field in the vicinity of twist defects matches with the alignment set up by active flows in the plane perpendicular to activity gradients and the average alignment of the director field decays more slowly with activity number $\mathcal{A}$ than in 2D systems. Deriving exact expressions for the elastic torque on disclination line segments in the turbulent regime remains challenging since the local torque on line segments depends not only on the nematic boundary conditions in the plane perpendicular to the line segment, but also on elastic forces acting along disclination lines and their local curvature. Active-passive systems which are purely extensile or contractile with spatial activity profiles $\zeta(\mathbf{x}) = \zeta_{max} (\cos(\mathbf{k} \cdot \mathbf{x}) \pm 1)$ are qualitatively similar to extensile-contractile systems and are presented in the Supplementary Information \citep{si} (Fig.~S2,S5).
We note that the alignment of the director field and defects due to active force gradients is not unique to bulk systems. In systems with isotropic-nematic interfaces ($\mathbf{\nabla} S > 0$), active forces create flows which align the director field either perpendicular or planar to the interface in contractile or extensile systems, respectively \citep{blow2014biphasic}. This effect, termed \textit{active anchoring}, also affects the orientation of defects close to an interface and can be observed both in experiments \citep{dell2018growing} and in simulations in two and three dimensions \citep{doostmohammadi2016defect, ruske2021morphology}.
Experiments with spatially structured activity have been realised by combining actin filaments with light-activated gear-shifting myosin motors, where light locally induces extensile active stress in an otherwise passive fluid \citep{zhang2021spatiotemporal}. Extending the concept of light-modulated activity to contractile systems, it might be possible to create artificial systems with distinct extensile and contractile domains in the future by selectively activating molecular motors mediating either extensile or contractile stress. Spatial variations of active stress are also ubiquitous in biological systems, ranging from structure formation during embryonic development driven by a heterogeneous distribution of myosin motors \citep{streichan2018global,he2014apical,mason2013apical} to flows and deformations of cell aggregates, such as tumors, caused by differential cell growth and death as a consequence of limited access to nutrients in the core of the aggregate \citep{jagiella2016inferring, delarue2013mechanical, delarue2014stress, ranft2010fluidization}. Understanding the response of two- and three-dimensional active nematic systems to activity gradients is thus an important step towards applying physical theories in the life sciences.
\section*{Conflicts of interest}
There are no conflicts to declare.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
This project was funded by the European Commission’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No 812780.
\providecommand*{\mcitethebibliography}{\thebibliography}
\csname @ifundefined\endcsname{endmcitethebibliography}
{\let\endmcitethebibliography\endthebibliography}{}
\begin{mcitethebibliography}{39}
\providecommand*{\natexlab}[1]{#1}
\providecommand*{\mciteSetBstSublistMode}[1]{}
\providecommand*{\mciteSetBstMaxWidthForm}[2]{}
\providecommand*{\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue}
{\def\unskip.}{\unskip.}}
\providecommand*{\mciteBstWouldAddEndPunctfalse}
{\let\unskip.}\relax}
\providecommand*{\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct}[3]{}
\providecommand*{\mciteSetBstSublistLabelBeginEnd}[3]{}
\providecommand*{\unskip.}}{}
\mciteSetBstSublistMode{f}
\mciteSetBstMaxWidthForm{subitem}
{(\emph{\alph{mcitesubitemcount}})}
\mciteSetBstSublistLabelBeginEnd{\mcitemaxwidthsubitemform\space}
{\relax}{\relax}
\bibitem[J{\"u}licher \emph{et~al.}(2018)J{\"u}licher, Grill, and
Salbreux]{julicher2018hydrodynamic}
F.~J{\"u}licher, S.~W. Grill and G.~Salbreux, \emph{Reports on Progress in
Physics}, 2018, \textbf{81}, 076601\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Marchetti \emph{et~al.}(2013)Marchetti, Joanny, Ramaswamy, Liverpool,
Prost, Rao, and Simha]{marchetti2013hydrodynamics}
M.~C. Marchetti, J.-F. Joanny, S.~Ramaswamy, T.~B. Liverpool, J.~Prost, M.~Rao
and R.~A. Simha, \emph{Reviews of Modern Physics}, 2013, \textbf{85},
1143\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Chen \emph{et~al.}(2018)Chen, Saw, M{\`e}ge, and
Ladoux]{chen2018mechanical}
T.~Chen, T.~B. Saw, R.-M. M{\`e}ge and B.~Ladoux, \emph{Journal of Cell
Science}, 2018, \textbf{131}, jcs218156\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Lee \emph{et~al.}(2021)Lee, Leech, Rust, Das, McGorty, Ross, and
Robertson-Anderson]{lee2021myosin}
G.~Lee, G.~Leech, M.~J. Rust, M.~Das, R.~J. McGorty, J.~L. Ross and R.~M.
Robertson-Anderson, \emph{Science Advances}, 2021, \textbf{7}, eabe4334\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Yaman \emph{et~al.}(2019)Yaman, Demir, Vetter, and
Kocabas]{yaman2019emergence}
Y.~I. Yaman, E.~Demir, R.~Vetter and A.~Kocabas, \emph{Nature Communications},
2019, \textbf{10}, 1--9\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Saw \emph{et~al.}(2017)Saw, Doostmohammadi, Nier, Kocgozlu, Thampi,
Toyama, Marcq, Lim, Yeomans, and Ladoux]{saw2017topological}
T.~B. Saw, A.~Doostmohammadi, V.~Nier, L.~Kocgozlu, S.~Thampi, Y.~Toyama,
P.~Marcq, C.~T. Lim, J.~M. Yeomans and B.~Ladoux, \emph{Nature}, 2017,
\textbf{544}, 212--216\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Mueller \emph{et~al.}(2019)Mueller, Yeomans, and
Doostmohammadi]{mueller2019emergence}
R.~Mueller, J.~M. Yeomans and A.~Doostmohammadi, \emph{Physical Review
Letters}, 2019, \textbf{122}, 048004\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Duclos \emph{et~al.}(2017)Duclos, Erlenk{\"a}mper, Joanny, and
Silberzan]{duclos2017topological}
G.~Duclos, C.~Erlenk{\"a}mper, J.-F. Joanny and P.~Silberzan, \emph{Nature
Physics}, 2017, \textbf{13}, 58--62\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Saw \emph{et~al.}(2018)Saw, Xi, Ladoux, and Lim]{saw2018biological}
T.~B. Saw, W.~Xi, B.~Ladoux and C.~T. Lim, \emph{Advanced Materials}, 2018,
\textbf{30}, 1802579\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Vromans and Giomi(2016)]{vromans2016orientational}
A.~J. Vromans and L.~Giomi, \emph{Soft Matter}, 2016, \textbf{12},
6490--6495\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Duclos \emph{et~al.}(2020)Duclos, Adkins, Banerjee, Peterson,
Varghese, Kolvin, Baskaran, Pelcovits, Powers,
Baskaran,\emph{et~al.}]{duclos2020topological}
G.~Duclos, R.~Adkins, D.~Banerjee, M.~S. Peterson, M.~Varghese, I.~Kolvin,
A.~Baskaran, R.~A. Pelcovits, T.~R. Powers, A.~Baskaran \emph{et~al.},
\emph{Science}, 2020, \textbf{367}, 1120--1124\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Binysh \emph{et~al.}(2020)Binysh, Kos, {\v{C}}opar, Ravnik, and
Alexander]{binysh2020three}
J.~Binysh, {\v{Z}}.~Kos, S.~{\v{C}}opar, M.~Ravnik and G.~P. Alexander,
\emph{Physical Review Letters}, 2020, \textbf{124}, 088001\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[{\v{C}}opar \emph{et~al.}(2019){\v{C}}opar, Aplinc, Kos, {\v{Z}}umer,
and Ravnik]{vcopar2019topology}
S.~{\v{C}}opar, J.~Aplinc, {\v{Z}}.~Kos, S.~{\v{Z}}umer and M.~Ravnik,
\emph{Physical Review X}, 2019, \textbf{9}, 031051\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Ruske and Yeomans(2021)]{ruske2021morphology}
L.~J. Ruske and J.~M. Yeomans, \emph{Physical Review X}, 2021, \textbf{11},
021001\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Zhang \emph{et~al.}(2021)Zhang, Redford, Ruijgrok, Kumar, Mozaffari,
Zemsky, Dinner, Vitelli, Bryant,
Gardel,\emph{et~al.}]{zhang2021spatiotemporal}
R.~Zhang, S.~A. Redford, P.~V. Ruijgrok, N.~Kumar, A.~Mozaffari, S.~Zemsky,
A.~R. Dinner, V.~Vitelli, Z.~Bryant, M.~L. Gardel \emph{et~al.}, \emph{Nature
Materials}, 2021, \textbf{20}, 875--882\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Shankar and Marchetti(2019)]{shankar2019hydrodynamics}
S.~Shankar and M.~C. Marchetti, \emph{Physical Review X}, 2019, \textbf{9},
041047\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Tang and Selinger(2021)]{tang2021alignment}
X.~Tang and J.~V. Selinger, \emph{Physical Review E}, 2021, \textbf{103},
022703\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Mozaffari \emph{et~al.}(2021)Mozaffari, Zhang, Atzin, and
de~Pablo]{mozaffari2021defect}
A.~Mozaffari, R.~Zhang, N.~Atzin and J.~J. de~Pablo, \emph{Physical Review
Letters}, 2021, \textbf{126}, 227801\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Marenduzzo \emph{et~al.}(2007)Marenduzzo, Orlandini, and
Yeomans]{marenduzzo2007hydrodynamics}
D.~Marenduzzo, E.~Orlandini and J.~M. Yeomans, \emph{Physical Review Letters},
2007, \textbf{98}, 118102\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Schimming and Vi{\~n}als(2020)]{schimming2020anisotropic}
C.~D. Schimming and J.~Vi{\~n}als, \emph{Physical Review E}, 2020,
\textbf{102}, 010701\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Long \emph{et~al.}(2021)Long, Tang, Selinger, and
Selinger]{long2021geometry}
C.~Long, X.~Tang, R.~L. Selinger and J.~V. Selinger, \emph{Soft Matter}, 2021,
\textbf{17}, 2265--2278\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Beris and Edwards(1994)]{beris1994thermodynamics}
A.~N. Beris and B.~J. Edwards, \emph{Thermodynamics of flowing systems with
internal microstructure}, Oxford University Press, New York ; Oxford,
1994\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Norton \emph{et~al.}(2018)Norton, Baskaran, Opathalage, Langeslay,
Fraden, Baskaran, and Hagan]{norton2018insensitivity}
M.~M. Norton, A.~Baskaran, A.~Opathalage, B.~Langeslay, S.~Fraden, A.~Baskaran
and M.~F. Hagan, \emph{Physical Review E}, 2018, \textbf{97}, 012702\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Zhang \emph{et~al.}(2018)Zhang, Kumar, Ross, Gardel, and
De~Pablo]{zhang2018interplay}
R.~Zhang, N.~Kumar, J.~L. Ross, M.~L. Gardel and J.~J. De~Pablo,
\emph{Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences}, 2018, \textbf{115},
E124--E133\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[si()]{si}
\emph{See Supplementary Information for supplementary
figures and details on numerical implementation.}\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPunctfalse
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Simha and Ramaswamy(2002)]{simha2002hydrodynamic}
R.~A. Simha and S.~Ramaswamy, \emph{Physical Review Letters}, 2002,
\textbf{89}, 058101\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Bhattacharyya and Yeomans(2021)]{bhattacharyya2021coupling}
S.~Bhattacharyya and J.~M. Yeomans, \emph{Soft Matter}, 2021, \textbf{17},
10716--10722\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Giomi(2015)]{giomi2015geometry}
L.~Giomi, \emph{Physical Review X}, 2015, \textbf{5}, 031003\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Nejad and Yeomans(2022)]{nejad2022active}
M.~R. Nejad and J.~M. Yeomans, \emph{Physical Review Letters}, 2022,
\textbf{128}, 048001\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Blow \emph{et~al.}(2014)Blow, Thampi, and Yeomans]{blow2014biphasic}
M.~L. Blow, S.~P. Thampi and J.~M. Yeomans, \emph{Physical Review Letters},
2014, \textbf{113}, 248303\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Dell’Arciprete \emph{et~al.}(2018)Dell’Arciprete, Blow, Brown,
Farrell, Lintuvuori, McVey, Marenduzzo, and Poon]{dell2018growing}
D.~Dell’Arciprete, M.~Blow, A.~Brown, F.~Farrell, J.~S. Lintuvuori, A.~McVey,
D.~Marenduzzo and W.~C. Poon, \emph{Nature Communications}, 2018, \textbf{9},
1--9\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Doostmohammadi \emph{et~al.}(2016)Doostmohammadi, Thampi, and
Yeomans]{doostmohammadi2016defect}
A.~Doostmohammadi, S.~P. Thampi and J.~M. Yeomans, \emph{Physical Review
Letters}, 2016, \textbf{117}, 048102\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Streichan \emph{et~al.}(2018)Streichan, Lefebvre, Noll, Wieschaus, and
Shraiman]{streichan2018global}
S.~J. Streichan, M.~F. Lefebvre, N.~Noll, E.~F. Wieschaus and B.~I. Shraiman,
\emph{Elife}, 2018, \textbf{7}, e27454\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[He \emph{et~al.}(2014)He, Doubrovinski, Polyakov, and
Wieschaus]{he2014apical}
B.~He, K.~Doubrovinski, O.~Polyakov and E.~Wieschaus, \emph{Nature}, 2014,
\textbf{508}, 392--396\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Mason \emph{et~al.}(2013)Mason, Tworoger, and Martin]{mason2013apical}
F.~M. Mason, M.~Tworoger and A.~C. Martin, \emph{Nature Cell Biology}, 2013,
\textbf{15}, 926--936\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Jagiella \emph{et~al.}(2016)Jagiella, M{\"u}ller, M{\"u}ller,
Vignon-Clementel, and Drasdo]{jagiella2016inferring}
N.~Jagiella, B.~M{\"u}ller, M.~M{\"u}ller, I.~E. Vignon-Clementel and
D.~Drasdo, \emph{PLoS Computational Biology}, 2016, \textbf{12},
e1004412\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Delarue \emph{et~al.}(2013)Delarue, Montel, Caen, Elgeti, Siaugue,
Vignjevic, Prost, Joanny, and Cappello]{delarue2013mechanical}
M.~Delarue, F.~Montel, O.~Caen, J.~Elgeti, J.-M. Siaugue, D.~Vignjevic,
J.~Prost, J.-F. Joanny and G.~Cappello, \emph{Physical Review Letters}, 2013,
\textbf{110}, 138103\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Delarue \emph{et~al.}(2014)Delarue, Joanny, J{\"u}licher, and
Prost]{delarue2014stress}
M.~Delarue, J.-F. Joanny, F.~J{\"u}licher and J.~Prost, \emph{Interface Focus},
2014, \textbf{4}, 20140033\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\bibitem[Ranft \emph{et~al.}(2010)Ranft, Basan, Elgeti, Joanny, Prost, and
J{\"u}licher]{ranft2010fluidization}
J.~Ranft, M.~Basan, J.~Elgeti, J.-F. Joanny, J.~Prost and F.~J{\"u}licher,
\emph{Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences}, 2010, \textbf{107},
20863--20868\relax
\mciteBstWouldAddEndPuncttrue
\mciteSetBstMidEndSepPunct{\mcitedefaultmidpunct}
{\mcitedefaultendpunct}{\mcitedefaultseppunct}\relax
\unskip.}
\end{mcitethebibliography}
\end{document}
|
\subsection{Three-queue system}
\label{sec: 3q}
This section presents the heavy traffic distribution for a simpler system which we call the Three-queue system. The dynamics of the Three-queue system is similar to that of the Input-queued switch.
We provide the mathematical model for the Three-queue system considered in this paper in Section \ref{sec: 3q_model}. We also present the result about the state-space collapse of the Three-queue system onto a two-dimensional subspace in the same section. Finally, the results related to Three-queue system is presented in \ref{sec: 3q_results}.
\subsubsection{Model of the Three-queue system}
\label{sec: 3q_model}
We consider a simplification of $2\times 2$ Input-queued switch (consisting of four queues) by picking the arrival rate for the fourth queue to be zero, i.e., $\lambda_4 = 0$. We use the same model as in Section \ref{sec: switch_model} with the modification that $q_4(t)=0$ for all values of $t$. Thus, the queue length vector is given by by $\mathbf{q}(t) = \big(q_1(t), q_2(t), q_3(t) \big)$ and the arrival vector is given by $\mathbf{a}(t) = \big( a_1(t),a_2(t),a_3(t)\big) $ with $\mathbb{E}[\mathbf{a}(t)] = \boldsymbol{\lambda}$ and Var$(\mathbf{a}(t)) = \boldsymbol{\sigma}^2$, where $\boldsymbol \sigma^2$ is a $3\times 3$ diagonal matrix. The two possible schedules for the three-queue system are $(1,0,0)$ and $(0,1,1)$. Further, without loss of generality, we assume that the schedule $(1,0,0)$ is chosen only if $q_1(t)>0$, because if $q_1(t)=0$, choosing the schedule $(1,0,0)$ does not provide any service. So, the first is not chosen for server unless there are jobs waiting in the queue. This implies that unused service for the first queue is always zero, i.e., $u_1(t)=0$ for all $t\geq 0$. Now, the capacity region and the corresponding boundary is given by
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{C} = \Big\{ \boldsymbol \lambda \in \mathbb{R}^3_+ : \lambda_1+ \lambda_2 <1, \lambda_1 + \lambda_3 <1\Big\}, && \mathcal{F} = \Big\{ \boldsymbol \nu \in \mathbb{R}^3_+ : \nu_1+ \nu_2 =1, \nu_1+ \nu_3 =1\Big\}
\end{align*}
We assume that for any $i$, $\lambda_i >0$, as otherwise the system can be simplified further. Thus, there exists a $\boldsymbol \nu \in \mathcal{F}$ and the \textit{heavy traffic parameter} $\epsilon \in (0,1)$ such that $\mathbf{\boldsymbol \lambda} = (1-\epsilon)\mathbf{\boldsymbol \nu}$. The parameter $\epsilon$ is a measure of distance of the arrival rate vector from the boundary $\mathcal{F}$. The system approaches heavy traffic when the heavy traffic parameter $\epsilon$ tends to $0$.
And as $\lambda_i > 0$ for all $i$, $\nu_{\min} \triangleq \min_{i} \nu_{i} >0.$
The state space collapse for the Three-queue system says that the 3-dimensional state vector can be closely approximated by a two dimensional workload process in heavy traffic.
Consider the subspace $\mathcal{S} \subseteq \mathbb{R}^3$ given by,
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{S} = \Big\{ \mathbf{y} \in \mathbb{R}^3 : y_1 = y_2 + y_3 \Big\} = \Big\{ \mathbf{y} \in \mathbb{R}^{3} : \exists \mathbf{w} \in \mathbb{R}^{2} \ s.t. \ \mathbf{y} =\mathbf B \mathbf w \Big\}.
\end{equation*}
where $\mathbf B = \begin{bmatrix}
1 & 1 & 0\\
1 & 0 & 1
\end{bmatrix}^T$. Now, for any vector $\mathbf{x} \in \mathbb{C}^3$, we define $\mathbf{x}_{\|}$ as the projection to the subspace $\mathcal{S}$ and $\mathbf x_{\perp} = \mathbf{x} - \mathbf{x}_{\|}$.
Note that unlike Input-queued switch, for Three-queue system, the lower dimensional representation of $\mathbf x_{\|}$ is unique, i.e., there is a unique $\mathbf w$ such that $\mathbf x_{\|} = \mathbf B \mathbf w $.
\begin{definition}
\label{def: 3q_ssc}
For the Three-queue system as defined in Section \ref{sec: 3q_model}
operating under a given scheduling algorithm, we say that the algorithm achieves \textit{state space collapse}, if for every $\theta \in \mathbb{R}$, there exists $\epsilon( \theta) >0$ such that for every $0< \epsilon \leq \epsilon( \theta)$, the steady state queue length vector satisfies,
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon \theta \| \mathbf{q}_{\perp} \|}] < C^\star< \infty.
\end{equation*}
where $\mathbf{q}_{\perp} = \mathbf{q} - \mathbf{q}_{\|} $ and the expectation is taken under the steady-state distribution.
As a conclusion, for any scheduling policy that achieves state space collapse, we have that for every $ \theta \in \mathbb{R}$, $\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon \theta \| \mathbf{q}_{\perp} \|}] < \infty.$ Furthermore, there exists a $C_r$ independent of $\epsilon$ such that,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq: 3q_bound}
\mathbb{E} \Big [\|\mathbf{q}_{\perp }\|^r \Big] \leq C_r \quad \forall r \geq 1.
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
For Three-queue system, MaxWeight scheduling chooses the schedule $(1,0,0)$ if $q_1(t)> q_2(t)+q_3(t)$, otherwise it chooses the schedule $(0,1,1)$. Similar to Input-queued switch, for Three-queue system also, MaxWeight scheduling achieves state space collapse according to Definition \ref{def: 3q_ssc}. The proof follows on similar lines as that in \cite[Proposition 2]{maguluri2016heavy}.
\subsubsection{Results for Three-queue system}
\label{sec: 3q_results}
In this section, we present the results related to the heavy traffic distribution of the Three-queue system under general variance condition. Theorem \ref{theo: 3q_functional_eq} presents the functional equation that the heavy traffic distribution of the Three-queue system satisfies. Theorem \ref{thm: 3q_dist} provides the heavy traffic distribution for the Three-queue system under a condition on the variance of the arrival process.
\begin{theorem}
\label{theo: 3q_functional_eq}
Consider the Three-queue system as defined in Section \ref{sec: 3q_model} operating under a scheduling algorithm that achieves state space collapse according to Definition \ref{def: 3q_ssc}. Let $\Theta = \{\boldsymbol \theta \in \mathbb{C}^{n^2} : \boldsymbol \theta \in \mathcal{S}, \ Re(\mathbf B^T \boldsymbol \theta) \leq \mathbf 0_{3}\}$
and take $\boldsymbol\theta \in \boldsymbol \Theta$.
Then, for all $\boldsymbol \theta \in \Theta$, the limiting scaled queue length satisfies,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq: 3q_functional_eq}
\left( -\frac{1}{2}\langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{1}_{3} \rangle + \frac{1}{2} \langle \boldsymbol{\theta} , \boldsymbol\sigma^2 \boldsymbol{\theta} \rangle \right) L(\boldsymbol{\theta}) + \theta_2 M_2(\boldsymbol\theta)+\theta_3 M_3(\boldsymbol\theta) = 0.
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align*}
L(\boldsymbol \theta) = \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon \langle \boldsymbol \theta, \mathbf{q} \rangle}], && M_2(\boldsymbol \theta) = \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon} \mathbb{E} [u_2e^{\epsilon (\theta_2 + 2 \theta_3)q_3}], && M_3(\boldsymbol \theta) = \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon} \mathbb{E} [u_3e^{\epsilon (2\theta_2 + \theta_3)q_2}],
\end{align*}
where the expectation is taken under steady state distribution.
\end{theorem}
Theorem \ref{theo: 3q_functional_eq} gives a characterization of the functional equation for the three-queue system. The functional equation presented in Theorem \ref{theo: 3q_functional_eq} can be derived by performing the Lyapunov drift analysis on the complex exponential function and then doing the second-order approximation in terms of the heavy traffic parameter $\epsilon$. Note that $M_1(\boldsymbol \theta) =0$ as $u_1 =0$ by our convention. We provide a brief outline of the proof in Section \ref{sec: 3q_outline} and the complete proof is provided in Appendix \ref{app: 3q_functional_eq}. Next, we provide a uniqueness result that says that there is a unique solution for the functional equation provide in Eq. \eqref{eq: 3q_functional_eq}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem: 3q_uniqueness}
Consider the Three-queue system as defined in Section \ref{sec: 3q_model} operating under a scheduling algorithm that achieves state space collapse according to Definition \ref{def: 3q_ssc}. Then, there is a unique solution to the functional equation given in Eq. \eqref{eq: 3q_functional_eq} that is a valid Laplace transform of a joint distribution of two variables.
\end{lemma}
We use Lemma \ref{lem: 3q_uniqueness} to ensure that the functional equation for the Three-queue system given in Eq. \eqref{eq: 3q_functional_eq} has a unique solution. The complete proof of Lemma \ref{lem: 3q_uniqueness} is provided in Appendix \ref{app: 3q_uniqueness}. A brief outline of the proof for Lemma \ref{lem: 3q_uniqueness} is provided in Section \ref{sec: 3q_outline}. This is in contrast with the Conjecture \ref{lem: switch_uniqueness}, as even though the uniqueness of the solution of the functional equation for switch is not known, for simpler systems like Three-queue system, we are able to prove the uniqueness of the solution of the functional equation.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm: 3q_dist}
Consider the Three-queue system as defined in Section \ref{sec: 3q_model} operating under a scheduling algorithm that achieves state space collapse. Suppose the variance vector $\boldsymbol \sigma^2$ satisfy the condition $2\sigma_1^2 = \sigma_2^2 + \sigma_3^2 $. Then, the heavy traffic steady state queue length vector is given by
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \epsilon \mathbf{q} = (\Upsilon_1+\Upsilon_2,\Upsilon_1,\Upsilon_2)
\end{equation*}
where $\Upsilon_1$ and $\Upsilon_2$ are independent exponential random variables of variance $\frac{3\sigma_2^2 + \sigma_3^2}{4}$ and $\frac{\sigma_2^2 + 3\sigma_3^2}{4}$ respectively.
\end{theorem}
Theorem \ref{thm: 3q_dist} says that the limiting distribution of the three dimensional state vector of Three-queue system can be represented by using two independent exponential random variables as long as the variances satisfy the condition $2\sigma_1^2 = \sigma_2^2 + \sigma_3^2 $. The proof of Theorem \ref{thm: 3q_dist} uses the results provided in Theorem \ref{theo: 3q_functional_eq} and Lemma \ref{lem: 3q_uniqueness}. The mathematical details regarding the proof of Theorem \ref{thm: 3q_dist} is provided in Appendix \ref{app: 3q_dist}.
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor: 3q_max}
For the Three-queue system as defined in Section \ref{sec: 3q_model}, MaxWeight scheduling satisfies the functional equation given in Theorem \ref{theo: 3q_functional_eq} and the heavy traffic distribution in Theorem \ref{thm: 3q_dist}.
\end{corollary}
As mentioned in Section \ref{sec: 3q_model}, MaxWeight scheduling achieves state space collapse according to Definition \ref{def: 3q_ssc}. Now, Corollary \ref{cor: 3q_max} is a direct application of Theorem \ref{theo: 3q_functional_eq} and Theorem \ref{thm: 3q_dist}.
\subsubsection{Comparison with Input-queued switch}
Three-queue system is a simpler queueing system as compared to Input-queued switch but they are analogous in basic structure. Even though, there are some distinctions in terms of the behavior of these two systems. The first difference between these two systems is the state space collapse result. For the Three-queue system, the state space collapse occurs to a two-dimensional subspace, and the two dimensional representation of the projection of the queue length vector to the corresponding subspace is unique. In contrast to that, for the Input-queued switch of size $n$, the state space collapse occurs to a subspace of size $2n-1$ and the projection of the queue length vector to its corresponding subspace does not have a unique representation. This non-unique representation in the case of Input-queued switch is, intuitively, the reason behind an additional $\Tilde{\Upsilon}$ term for Input-queued switch as seen in Theorem \ref{thm: switch_dist}.
Another difference is in terms of the uniqueness of the functional equation of the two systems. The functional equation for the Three-queue system involves only two variables and so the functional equation for the Three-queue system has a unique solution as shown by Lemma \ref{lem: 3q_uniqueness}. As opposed to that, the functional equation for the Input-queued switch has more than two variables. Currently, we do not have proof of the uniqueness of the solution for the functional equation for the Input-queued switch. Finally, the third difference between these two systems is in terms of the condition on the variances of the arrival process under which the heavy traffic distribution is shown to be represented by using independent exponential random variables. For Three-queue system, the variance condition in Theorem \ref{thm: 3q_dist} (i.e. $2\sigma_1^2 = \sigma_2^2 + \sigma_3^2$) is more general than the symmetric variance condition (i.e., $\boldsymbol \sigma^2 = \sigma^2 \mathbf I_{n^2}$) as considered in Theorem \ref{thm: switch_dist}.
\section{Proofs for Three-queue system}
\label{app: 3q}
\color{red}
\color{black}
\subsection{Properties of the projection}
\label{app: 3q_projection}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem: 3q_projection}
We define some matrices as follows:
\begin{align*}
\mathbf B = \begin{bmatrix}
1 & 1\\
1 & 0\\
0 & 1
\end{bmatrix}, &&
\mathbf D = \mathbf B^T\mathbf B = \begin{bmatrix}
2 & 1\\
1 & 2
\end{bmatrix}, &&
\mathbf D^{-1} = \frac{1}{3} \begin{bmatrix}
2 & -1 \\
-1 & 2
\end{bmatrix}, &&
\mathbf A = \mathbf{B}(\mathbf{B}^T\mathbf{B})^{-1}\mathbf{B}^T= \frac{1}{3} \begin{bmatrix}
2 & 1 & 1\\
1 & 2 & -1\\
1&-1&2
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{align*}
Let $\mathbf x \in \mathbb{C}^3$ and suppose $\mathbf x_{\|}$ denotes the projection of $\mathbf{x}$ onto the space $\mathcal{S}$, where $\mathcal{S}$ is the space spanned by the columns of $\mathbf B$. And $\mathbf x_{\perp} = \mathbf x - \mathbf x_{\|}$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item For any $\boldsymbol \phi \in \mathbb{C}^2$, the vector $\boldsymbol \theta = \mathbf B \boldsymbol \phi$ lies in the space $\mathcal{S}$. Also, for any $\mathbf x \in \mathbb{C}^3$,
\begin{equation*}
\langle \boldsymbol \theta, \mathbf{x} \rangle = \langle \boldsymbol \theta, \mathbf{x}_{\|} \rangle = \langle \mathbf{d}_1, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle x_{\| 1} + \langle \mathbf{d}_2, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle x_{\| 2},
\end{equation*}
where $\mathbf{d}_1$ and $\mathbf{d}_2$ are columns of $\mathbf D $.
\item The closed form expression for $\mathbf x_{\|}$ is given by $\mathbf x_{\|} = \mathbf A \mathbf{x}$. And the perpendicular component $\mathbf x_\perp$ is
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf x_{\perp} = \frac{1}{3}(x_2+x_3 -x_1)\begin{bmatrix}
-1\\1\\1
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{equation*}
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
Lemma \ref{lem: 3q_projection} provides the properties of the projection of any vector onto the space $\mathcal{S}$. By the definition of the matrix $\mathbf{A}$ we have the relation that $\mathbf{B}^T \mathbf{A} = \mathbf{B}^T$ and $\mathbf{A}\mathbf{B} = \mathbf{B}$. The proof of Lemma \ref{lem: 3q_projection} follows by simple application of linear algebra and the mathematical details, as provided below.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{lem: 3q_projection}]
Proof of part 1 simply follows by the structure of the subspace $\mathcal{S}$. Observe that as $\boldsymbol \theta \in \mathcal{S}$, we have that $\langle \boldsymbol \theta, \mathbf{x}_\perp \rangle = 0$. This gives us that
\begin{align*}
\langle \boldsymbol \theta, \mathbf{x} \rangle = \langle \boldsymbol \theta, \mathbf{x}_{\|} \rangle &= \theta_1(x_{\| 2}+x_{\| 3})+\theta_2 x_{\| 2} +\theta_3 x_{\| 3} \\
& = (\phi_1+\phi_2)(x_{\| 2}+x_{\| 3})+\phi_1 x_{\| 2} +\phi_2 x_{\| 3}\\
& = (2\phi_1+\phi_2)x_{\| 2}+(\phi_1+2\phi_2)x_{\| 3 }\\
& = \langle \mathbf{d}_1, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle x_{\| 2} + \langle \mathbf{d}_2, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle x_{\| 3}.
\end{align*}
This completes the proof of part 1. The proof of part 2 follows simply by using the theory of projection to a linear subspace.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Required Lemma}
\label{app: 3q_mgf_equivalence}
Before presenting the proof of the results for Three-queue system, we present a necessary Lemma as given below.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem: 3q_mgf_equivalence}
Consider the Three-queue system as defined in Section \ref{sec: 3q_model} operating under scheduling policy that achieves state space collapse according to the Definition \ref{def: 3q_ssc}. For any $\tilde{\boldsymbol \theta} \in \mathbb{C}^3$, let $\boldsymbol \theta$ be its projection onto the space $\mathcal{S}$ and suppose $\exists \boldsymbol \phi \in \mathbb C^2$ such that $\boldsymbol \theta = \mathbf B \boldsymbol \phi \in \boldsymbol \Theta $, then we have that
\begin{enumerate}
\item \begin{align*}
\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \big| \mathbb{E} \big[ e^{\epsilon \langle \Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta} , \mathbf{q} \rangle} \big] \big| < \infty, && \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon} \big|\mathbb{E}[u_2 e^{\epsilon \langle \Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta} , \mathbf{q} \rangle}] \big|<\infty, &&\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon} \big|\mathbb{E}[u_3 e^{\epsilon \langle \Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta} , \mathbf{q} \rangle}] \big| < \infty.
\end{align*}
The results holds even after replacing $\Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta} $ by $\boldsymbol \theta$.
\item \begin{equation*}
\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0}\mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon \langle \tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}, \mathbf{q} \rangle}] = \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon \langle \boldsymbol \theta, \mathbf{q} \rangle}] = \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon (\langle \mathbf{d}_1, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle q_2 + \langle \mathbf{d}_2, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle q_3)}],
\end{equation*}
\item \begin{equation*}
\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon} \mathbb{E}[ u_2e^{\epsilon \langle \tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}, \mathbf{q} \rangle}]
= \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon}\mathbb{E}[u_2 e^{\epsilon \langle \boldsymbol \theta, \mathbf{q} \rangle}]
= \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0}\frac{1}{\epsilon} \mathbb{E}[u_2 e^{\epsilon \langle \mathbf{d}_2, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle q_3}],
\end{equation*}
\item \begin{equation*}
\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon} \mathbb{E}[ u_3e^{\epsilon \langle \tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}, \mathbf{q} \rangle}]
= \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon}\mathbb{E}[u_3 e^{\epsilon \langle \boldsymbol \theta, \mathbf{q} \rangle}]
= \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0}\frac{1}{\epsilon} \mathbb{E}[u_3 e^{\epsilon \langle \mathbf{d}_1, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle q_2}],
\end{equation*}
\end{enumerate}
where all the expectation are taken under the steady state distribution.
\end{lemma}
According to Lemma \ref{lem: 3q_mgf_equivalence}, in order to characterize the heavy traffic steady state distribution of the Three-queue system, we just need to the consider the set of $\boldsymbol \theta$ that lie in $\mathcal{S}$. This is a consequence of the state space collapse of the Three-queue system onto the subspace $\mathcal{S}$.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{lem: 3q_mgf_equivalence}]
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)]
As $\mathcal{S}$ is a linear subspace, suppose $\tilde{\boldsymbol \theta} = \boldsymbol \theta +\boldsymbol \theta_{\perp}$. Then,
\begin{align}
\label{eq: 3q_theta_relation}
\langle \tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}, \mathbf{q} \rangle &= \langle \boldsymbol \theta , \mathbf{q} \rangle + \langle \boldsymbol \theta_{\perp} , \mathbf{q} \rangle \nonumber\\
& \stackrel{(a)}{=} \langle \boldsymbol \theta , \mathbf{q} \rangle + \langle \boldsymbol \theta_{\perp} , \mathbf{q}_{\perp} \rangle \nonumber\\
&\stackrel{(b)}{=} (\phi_1 +\phi_2)q_1 + \phi_1 q_2 + \phi_2 q_3 + \langle \boldsymbol \theta_{\perp} , \mathbf{q}_{\perp} \rangle\nonumber\\
& = (2\phi_1 +\phi_2)q_2 +(\phi_1 +2\phi_2) q_3 + (\phi_1 +\phi_2) (q_1 - q_2 - q_3) + \langle \boldsymbol \theta_{\perp} , \mathbf{q}_{\perp} \rangle\nonumber\\
& \stackrel{(c)}{=}\langle \mathbf{d}_1, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle q_2 + \langle \mathbf{d}_2, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle q_3 - \langle 3(\phi_1 +\phi_2)\mathbf{1}_3, \mathbf{q}_{\perp} \rangle+ \langle \boldsymbol \theta_{\perp} , \mathbf{q}_{\perp} \rangle\nonumber\\
& \stackrel{(d)}{=} \langle \mathbf{d}_1, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle q_2 + \langle \mathbf{d}_2, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle q_3 + \langle \boldsymbol \theta' , \mathbf{q}_{\perp} \rangle,
\end{align}
where (a) follows because $\langle \boldsymbol \theta_{\perp} , \mathbf{q}_\| \rangle =0$ be the property of projection; (b) follows by using $\boldsymbol \theta = \mathbf B \boldsymbol \phi$; $\mathbf d_1$ and $\mathbf d_2$ are columns of $\mathbf D$; and (d) follows by taking $\boldsymbol \theta' = \boldsymbol \theta_{\perp} - 3(\phi_1+\phi_2)\mathbf 1_3$.
Now, suppose $\mathbf{q}$ follows the steady state distribution of the Markov process $\{\mathbf{q}(t)\}_{t=0}^\infty$, then
\begin{align}
\label{eq: 3q_laplacelim}
\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \big| \mathbb{E} \big[ e^{\epsilon \langle \Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta} , \mathbf{q} \rangle} \big] \big| & \leq \lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E} \big[\big| e^{\epsilon (\langle \mathbf{d}_1, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle q_2 + \langle \mathbf{d}_2, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle q_3 - \langle \boldsymbol \theta', \mathbf{q}_{\perp} \rangle)}\big| \big]\nonumber\\
& \stackrel{(a)}{\leq} \lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E} \big[\big| e^{-\epsilon \langle \boldsymbol \theta', \mathbf{q}_{\perp} \rangle}\big| \big]\nonumber\\
&\stackrel{(b)}{<} \infty,
\end{align}
where (a) follows by using $Re(\langle \mathbf{d}_1, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle ) \leq 0$ and $Re(\langle \mathbf{d}_2, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle ) \leq 0$ for any $\boldsymbol \phi $ such that $\mathbf B \boldsymbol \phi \in \boldsymbol \Theta$; and (b) follows by using the Definition \ref{def: 3q_ssc}. The queue length vector evolve according to the equation,
\begin{align}
\label{eq: 3q_lindley}
\mathbf{q}(t+1) &= [\mathbf{q}(t) + \mathbf{a}(t) - \mathbf{s}(t)]^+ = \mathbf{q}(t) + \mathbf{a}(t) - \mathbf{s}(t) + \mathbf{u}(t),
\end{align}
where $\mathbf{u}(t)$ is the unused service in the time slot $t$.
Suppose $\mathbf{q}^+$ is the state of the Markov chain following the state $\mathbf{q}$, then, as the system is stable and $\mathbf{q}$ follows the steady state distribution, $\mathbf{q}^+$ also follows the steady state distribution and so,
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}[q_1^+ + q_2^+] - \mathbb{E}[ q_1+q_2] = 0,
\end{align*}
as the drift is zero in steady state.
Then, by using the Eq. \eqref{eq: 3q_lindley},
\begin{align}
\label{eq: 3q_unused_epsilon}
\mathbb{E}[ u_1+u_2] = \mathbb{E}[ s_1+s_2] -\lambda_1 - \lambda_2 = 1-\lambda_1 - \lambda_2 = \epsilon,
\end{align}
where the second equality follows because the chosen schedule can either be $(1,0,0)$ or $(0,1,1)$; third equality follows because $\boldsymbol\lambda = (1-\epsilon)\boldsymbol\nu$ where $\boldsymbol \nu \in \mathcal{F}$ as mentioned in Section \ref{sec: 3q_model}. By using a similar argument, we can show that $\mathbb{E}[ u_1+u_3] = \epsilon$. Now,
\begin{align}
\label{eq: 3q_laplace_boundarylim}
\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon} \big|\mathbb{E}[u_2 e^{\epsilon \langle \Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}, \mathbf{q} \rangle}] \big| &\leq \lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon} \mathbb{E} \big[ u_2\big| e^{-\epsilon \langle \boldsymbol \theta', \mathbf{q}_{\perp} \rangle}\big| \big]\nonumber\\
& \stackrel{(a)}{\leq } \lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon} \mathbb{E} \big[ u_2 e^{\epsilon \|\boldsymbol \theta'\|\| \mathbf{q}_{\perp}\| } \big]\nonumber\\
& \stackrel{(b)}{\leq } \lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon} \mathbb{E} [ u_2 ] + \|\boldsymbol \theta'\| \lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon} \mathbb{E} \big[ \epsilon u_2 \| \mathbf{q}_{\perp}\| e^{\epsilon \|\boldsymbol \theta'\|\| \mathbf{q}_{\perp}\| } \big]\nonumber\\
&\stackrel{(c)}{\leq } 1 + \|\boldsymbol \theta'\| \lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E} \big[ \| \mathbf{q}_{\perp}\| e^{\epsilon \|\boldsymbol \theta'\|\| \mathbf{q}_{\perp}\| } \big]\nonumber\\
&\stackrel{(d)}{\leq } 1 + \|\boldsymbol \theta'\| \lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E} \big[ \| \mathbf{q}_{\perp}\|^2 \big]^{\frac{1}{2}} \mathbb{E} \big[ e^{2\epsilon \|\boldsymbol \theta'\|\| \mathbf{q}_{\perp}\| }\big]^{\frac{1}{2}}\nonumber\\
& \stackrel{(e)}{< } \infty,
\end{align}
where (a) follows as by Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, $| \langle \boldsymbol \theta', \mathbf{q}_{\perp} \rangle| \leq \|\boldsymbol \theta'\|\| \mathbf{q}_{\perp} \|$; (b) follows by using $e^x \leq 1+ xe^x$ for all $x\geq 0$; (c) follows as $\mathbb{E} [ u_2 ] \leq \epsilon$ and also $u_2 \leq 1$; (d) follows by using the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality again; and finally, (e) follows as by using Definition \ref{def: 3q_ssc},
\begin{align*}
\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E} \big[ \| \mathbf{q}_{\perp}\|^2 \big] < \infty, && \lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0}\mathbb{E} \big[ e^{2\epsilon \|\boldsymbol \theta'\|\| \mathbf{q}_{\perp}\| }\big] < \infty.
\end{align*}
Note that the argument in Eq. \eqref{eq: 3q_laplace_boundarylim} works if we replace $u_2$ by $u_3$.
Also, by using the relation presented in Eq. \eqref{eq: 3q_theta_relation}, the arguments in Eq. \eqref{eq: 3q_laplacelim} and Eq. \ref{eq: 3q_laplace_boundarylim} hold after replacing $\Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}$ with $\boldsymbol \theta$ and $\boldsymbol \theta'$ with $-3(\phi_1 +\phi_2)\mathbf{1}_3$, which completes the result in part 1.
\item[(2)] From Eq. \eqref{eq: 3q_theta_relation}, $\langle \tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}, \mathbf{q} \rangle = \langle \mathbf{d}_1, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle q_2 + \langle \mathbf{d}_2, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle q_3 + \langle \boldsymbol \theta' , \mathbf{q}_{\perp} \rangle$. Then,
\begin{align*}
\label{eq: 3q_mgf_equi_part1}
\left| \mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon \langle \tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}, \mathbf{q} \rangle}] - \mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon (\langle \mathbf{d}_1, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle q_2 + \langle \mathbf{d}_2, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle q_3)}] \right| &= \mathbb{E}\big[\left|e^{\epsilon \langle \mathbf{d}_1, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle q_2 + \langle \mathbf{d}_2, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle q_3} \right| \big| \big( 1- e^{\epsilon \langle \boldsymbol \theta', \mathbf{q}_{\perp} \rangle} \big) \big|\big] \nonumber\\
&\stackrel{(a)}{\leq} \mathbb{E}\bigg[\left| 1- e^{\epsilon \langle \boldsymbol \theta', \mathbf{q}_{\perp} \rangle} \right| \bigg]\nonumber \allowdisplaybreaks \\
& \stackrel{(b)}{\leq} \mathbb{E}\bigg[ |\epsilon \langle \boldsymbol \theta', \mathbf{q}_{\perp} \rangle| e^{\epsilon | \langle \boldsymbol \theta', \mathbf{q}_{\perp} \rangle|} \bigg] \nonumber \allowdisplaybreaks \\
& \stackrel{(c)}{\leq} \mathbb{E}\big[ |\epsilon \langle \boldsymbol \theta', \mathbf{q}_{\perp} \rangle|^{2} \big]^{\frac{1}{2}} \mathbb{E}\bigg[ e^{2\epsilon | \langle \boldsymbol \theta', \mathbf{q}_{\perp} \rangle|} \bigg]^{\frac{1}{2}} \nonumber \allowdisplaybreaks \\
& \stackrel{(d)}{\leq} \epsilon \| \boldsymbol \theta' \| \mathbb{E}\big[ \| \mathbf{q}_{\perp} \|^{2} \big]^{\frac{1}{2}} \mathbb{E}\bigg[ e^{2\epsilon \|\boldsymbol \theta'\|\| \mathbf{q}_{\perp}\|} \bigg]^{\frac{1}{2}}\nonumber
\end{align*}
where (a) follows by using $Re(\langle \mathbf{d}_1, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle ) \leq 0$ and $Re(\langle \mathbf{d}_2, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle ) \leq 0$ as $\mathbf B \boldsymbol \phi \in \boldsymbol \Theta $; (b) holds because $|e^x-1| \leq |x|e^{|x|}$ for any $x\in \mathbb{C}$; (c) and (d) holds by using Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. Now, by arguments presented in Eq. \eqref{eq: 3q_laplace_boundarylim}, $\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E} \big[ \| \mathbf{q}_{\perp}\|^2 \big]^{\frac{1}{2}} \mathbb{E} \big[ e^{2\epsilon \|\boldsymbol \theta'\|\| \mathbf{q}_{\perp}\| }\big]^{\frac{1}{2}} < \infty$, and so,
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \left| \mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon \langle \tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}, \mathbf{q} \rangle}] - \mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon (\langle \mathbf{d}_1, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle q_2 + \langle \mathbf{d}_2, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle q_3)}] \right| = \lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \epsilon \| \boldsymbol \theta' \| \mathbb{E}\big[ \| \mathbf{q}_{\perp} \|^{2} \big]^{\frac{1}{2}} \mathbb{E}\bigg[ e^{2\epsilon \|\boldsymbol \theta'\|\| \mathbf{q}_{\perp}\|} \bigg]^{\frac{1}{2}} = 0.
\end{equation*}
Note that the same argument holds after replacing $\Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}$ with $\boldsymbol \theta$ and $\boldsymbol \theta'$ with $-3(\phi_1 +\phi_2)\mathbf{1}_3$, which gives us the result
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \left| \mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon \langle \boldsymbol \theta, \mathbf{q} \rangle}] - \mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon (\langle \mathbf{d}_1, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle q_2 + \langle \mathbf{d}_2, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle q_3)}] \right| = 0.
\end{equation*}
This completes the proof of part 2.
\item[(2)] Using the similar arguments as in part 2,
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{\epsilon}\left| \mathbb{E}[u_2e^{\epsilon \langle \tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}, \mathbf{q} \rangle}] - \mathbb{E}[u_2e^{\epsilon (\langle \mathbf{d}_1, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle q_2 + \langle \mathbf{d}_2, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle q_3)}] \right|
&\leq \frac{1}{\epsilon} \mathbb{E}\bigg[ u_2 |\epsilon \langle \boldsymbol \theta', \mathbf{q}_{\perp} \rangle| e^{\epsilon | \langle \boldsymbol \theta', \mathbf{q}_{\perp} \rangle|} \bigg] \nonumber \allowdisplaybreaks \\
& = \mathbb{E}\bigg[ u_2 | \langle \boldsymbol \theta', \mathbf{q}_{\perp} \rangle| e^{\epsilon | \langle \boldsymbol \theta', \mathbf{q}_{\perp} \rangle|} \bigg] \nonumber \allowdisplaybreaks \\
& \leq \mathbb{E}[u_2^{2}]^{\frac{1}{2}} \mathbb{E}\bigg[ | \langle \boldsymbol \theta', \mathbf{q}_{\perp} \rangle|^2 e^{2\epsilon | \langle \boldsymbol \theta', \mathbf{q}_{\perp} \rangle|} \bigg]^{\frac{1}{2}} \nonumber \allowdisplaybreaks \\
& \leq \sqrt{\epsilon} \| \boldsymbol \theta' \| \mathbb{E}\big[ \| \mathbf{q}_{\perp} \|^{4} \big]^{\frac{1}{4}} \mathbb{E}\bigg[ e^{4\epsilon \|\boldsymbol \theta'\|\| \mathbf{q}_{\perp}\|} \bigg]^{\frac{1}{4}},
\end{align*}
where last two inequalities follow by Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and using $\mathbb{E}[u_2^{2}]=\mathbb{E}[u_2]\leq \epsilon$ as shown in Eq. \eqref{eq: 3q_unused_epsilon}. Now, by using Definition \ref{def: 3q_ssc},
\begin{align*}
\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E} \big[ \| \mathbf{q}_{\perp}\|^4 \big] < \infty, && \lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0}\mathbb{E} \big[ e^{4\epsilon \|\boldsymbol \theta'\|\| \mathbf{q}_{\perp}\| }\big] < \infty.
\end{align*}
and also, $u_2 = 1$ only if $q_2 = 0$, and so,
\begin{equation*}
u_2e^{\epsilon (\langle \mathbf{d}_1, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle q_2 + \langle \mathbf{d}_2, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle q_3)} = u_2e^{\epsilon \langle \mathbf{d}_2, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle q_3}.
\end{equation*}
Combining these with the above argument gives us,
\begin{align*}
\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon}\left| \mathbb{E}[u_2e^{\epsilon \langle \tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}, \mathbf{q} \rangle}] - \mathbb{E}[u_2e^{\epsilon \langle \mathbf{d}_2, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle q_3}] \right| = \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \sqrt{\epsilon} \| \boldsymbol \theta' \| \mathbb{E}\big[ \| \mathbf{q}_{\perp} \|^{4} \big]^{\frac{1}{4}} \mathbb{E}\bigg[ e^{4\epsilon \|\boldsymbol \theta'\|\| \mathbf{q}_{\perp}\|} \bigg]^{\frac{1}{4}} = 0.
\end{align*}
Note that the same argument holds after replacing $\Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}$ with $\boldsymbol \theta$ and $\boldsymbol \theta'$ with $-3(\phi_1 +\phi_2)\mathbf{1}_3$, which gives us the result
\begin{align*}
\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon}\left| \mathbb{E}[u_2e^{\epsilon \langle \boldsymbol \theta, \mathbf{q} \rangle}] - \mathbb{E}[u_2e^{\epsilon \langle \mathbf{d}_2, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle q_3}] \right| = 0.
\end{align*}
This completes the proof of part 3. Now, proof of part 4 follows on exact same lines as that of part 3.
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{theo: 3q_functional_eq}}
\label{app: 3q_functional_eq}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{theo: 3q_functional_eq}]
As mentioned in the theorem, $\boldsymbol \theta \in \boldsymbol \Theta$ and suppose $\boldsymbol \phi \in \mathbb C^2$ such that $\boldsymbol \theta = \mathbf B \boldsymbol \phi$. With slight abuse of notation, we are using $\boldsymbol \theta$ and $\boldsymbol \phi$ interchangeably. Using Lemma \ref{lem: 3q_mgf_equivalence} presented in Appendix \ref{app: 3q_mgf_equivalence}, we get that, $|L(\boldsymbol \phi)| < \infty$, $|M_2(\boldsymbol \phi)| < \infty$ and $|M_3(\boldsymbol \phi)| < \infty$ for all $\mathbf B \boldsymbol \phi \in \Theta$. Suppose $\mathbf{q}$ follows the steady state distribution and $\mathbf{q}^+$ is the state of the Markov chain following the state $\mathbf{q}$, then, as the system is stable, $\mathbf{q}^+$ also follows the steady state distribution.
Now,
\begin{align*}
e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q}^+ \rangle } \Big( e^{- \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{u} \rangle} -1 \Big) = e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q}^+ \rangle } \Big( -\epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{u} \rangle + \frac{\epsilon^2}{2} \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{u} \rangle^2 + \sum_{k = 3}^\infty \frac{\epsilon^k}{k!} \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{u} \rangle^k \Big),
\end{align*}
where the first equality follows by using Lemma \ref{lem: 3q_projection} and second equality follows by the definition of complex exponential function. For the second term, by using Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and the fact that $u_i$'s are binary variables, we get that,
\begin{align*}
\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0 } \Big| \mathbb{E} \Big[ \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{u} \rangle^2 e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q}^+ \rangle } \Big] \Big|
&\leq \|\boldsymbol{\theta}\|^2 \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E} \Big[ \| \mathbf{u} \|^2 \big| e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q}^+ \rangle} \big| \Big] \\
& =\|\boldsymbol{\theta}\|^2 \sum_{i=1}^3 \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E} [ u_i \big| e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q}^+ \rangle} \big| ]\\
& \leq \|\boldsymbol{\theta}\|^2 \sum_{i=1}^3 \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E} [ u_i]^{\frac{1}{2}} \big|\mathbb{E} [ e^{ 2\epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q}^+ \rangle} \big| ]^{\frac{1}{2}}\\
&= 0.
\end{align*}
where
the last equality follows because $\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E} [ e^{ 2\epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q}^+ \rangle} \big| ]$ exists by similar arguments as in Eq. \eqref{eq: 3q_laplacelim} and $\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E} [ u_i] = 0$ for all $i$ by using Eq. \eqref{eq: 3q_unused_epsilon}. Now, as $u_i$'s are Bernoulli random variable, so $\|\mathbf{u}\|^2 \leq 3$, and thus,
\begin{align*}
\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \Big| \sum_{k = 3}^\infty \frac{\epsilon^{k-2}}{k!} \mathbb{E} \Big[ \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{u} \rangle^k e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q}^+ \rangle} \Big] \Big|
&\leq \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \sum_{k = 3}^\infty \frac{\epsilon^{k-2}}{k!} \mathbb{E} \Big[ \|\boldsymbol{\theta}\|^{k} \|\mathbf{u}\|^{k} \big| e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q}^+ \rangle} \big| \Big] \\
&\leq \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \sum_{k = 3}^\infty \frac{\epsilon^{k-2}}{k!} \|\boldsymbol{\theta}\|^{k} 3^{k} \mathbb{E} \Big[ \big| e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q}^+ \rangle} \big| \Big] \\
&\leq \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E} \Big[ \big| e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q}^+ \rangle} \big| \Big] \sum_{k = 3}^\infty \frac{\epsilon^{k-2}}{k!} \|\boldsymbol{\theta}\|^{k} 3^{k} \\
& \stackrel{(a)}{=} \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E} \Big[ \big| e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q}^+ \rangle} \big| \Big] \times \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \sum_{k = 3}^\infty \frac{\epsilon^{k-2}}{k!} \|\boldsymbol{\theta}\|^{k} 3^{k} \\
& \stackrel{(b)}{=} 0,
\end{align*}
where (a) and (b) holds by using that the first term, $\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E} \Big[ \big| e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q}^+ \rangle} \big| \Big] =\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E} \Big[ \big| e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q} \rangle} \big| \Big]$ exists by using Lemma \ref{lem: 3q_mgf_equivalence} presented in Appendix \ref{app: 3q_mgf_equivalence}, and also $\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \sum_{k = 3}^\infty \frac{\epsilon^{k-2}}{k!} \|\boldsymbol{\theta}\|^{k} 3^{k} $ exists and is equal to zero.
This gives us that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq: 3q_lhs_u}
\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon^2} \mathbb{E} \Bigg[ e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q}^+ \rangle } \Big( -\epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{u} \rangle + \frac{\epsilon^2}{2} \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{u} \rangle^2 + \sum_{k = 3}^\infty \frac{\epsilon^k}{k!} \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{u} \rangle^k \Big) \Bigg] = - \Bigg \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon} \mathbb{E} \Big[ \mathbf{u} e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q}^+ \rangle} \Big] \Bigg \rangle.
\end{equation}
Thus, for any $i$,
\begin{align}
\label{eq: 3q_plus_remove}
\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon} \Big| \mathbb{E} \Big[ u_i \Big( e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q}^+ \rangle} - e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q} \rangle }\Big) \Big] \Big|
&\leq \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon} \mathbb{E} [u_i^2]^{\frac{1}{2}} \mathbb{E} \Big[ \Big| e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q} \rangle} \Big( e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{a} - \mathbf{s} +\mathbf{u} \rangle } - 1 \Big)\Big|^2 \Big]^{\frac{1}{2}} \nonumber\\
& \stackrel{(a)}{\leq } \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon}} \mathbb{E} \Big[ \big|e^{ 2\epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q} \rangle}\big| \Big| e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{a} - \mathbf{s} +\mathbf{u} \rangle } - 1 \Big|^2 \Big]^{\frac{1}{2}} \allowdisplaybreaks\nonumber\\
& \leq \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon}} \mathbb{E} \Big[ \big|e^{ 2\epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q} \rangle}\big| \Big( e^{ \epsilon |\langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{a} - \mathbf{s} +\mathbf{u} \rangle| } - 1 \Big)^2 \Big]^{\frac{1}{2}} \allowdisplaybreaks\nonumber\\
& \stackrel{(b)}{\leq } \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon}} \mathbb{E} \Big[ \big|e^{ 2\epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q} \rangle}\big| \Big( e^{ 3\epsilon \| \boldsymbol{\theta}\| a_{\max} } - 1 \Big)^2 \Big]^{\frac{1}{2}} \allowdisplaybreaks\nonumber\\
& \leq \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon}}\Big( e^{ 3\epsilon \| \boldsymbol{\theta}\| a_{\max} } - 1 \Big) \mathbb{E} \Big[ \big|e^{ 2\epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q} \rangle}\big| \Big]^{\frac{1}{2}} \allowdisplaybreaks\nonumber\\
& =0,
\end{align}
where (a) follows using $\mathbb{E}[u_i^{2}]=\mathbb{E}[u_i ]\leq \epsilon$ as shown in Eq. \eqref{eq: 3q_unused_epsilon}; and (b) follows as $a_i -s_i +u_i \leq a_{\max}$ for all $i\in \{1,2,3\}$. Combining this with Eq. \eqref{eq: 3q_lhs_u},
\begin{equation}
\label{eq: 3q_marginal_m}
\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon^2} \mathbb{E} \Big[e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q}^+ \rangle } \Big( e^{- \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{u} \rangle} -1 \Big) \Big] = - \Bigg \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon} \mathbb{E} \Big[ \mathbf{u} e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q} \rangle} \Big] \Bigg \rangle = - \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{M}(\boldsymbol{\phi}) \rangle,
\end{equation}
where the last equality follows by using Lemma \ref{lem: 3q_mgf_equivalence} presented in Appendix \ref{app: 3q_mgf_equivalence}.
By using the equation $\mathbf{q}^+ = \mathbf{q} + \mathbf{a} - \mathbf{s} +\mathbf{u}$,
\begin{align}
\label{eq: 3q_fun_eq_theo_lhs}
\mathbb{E} \Big[ e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q}^+ \rangle } \Big( e^{- \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{u} \rangle} -1 \Big) \Big]
& = \mathbb{E} \Big[ e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q} \rangle } e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{a }- \mathbf{s } \rangle } \Big] - \mathbb{E} \Big[ e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q}^+ \rangle}\Big] \allowdisplaybreaks \nonumber \\
& \stackrel{(a)}{=} \mathbb{E} \Big[ e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q} \rangle } \Big] \mathbb{E} \Big[ e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{a }- \mathbf{s } \rangle } \Big] - \mathbb{E} \Big[ e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q}^+ \rangle}\Big] \allowdisplaybreaks \nonumber \\
& \stackrel{(b)}{=} \mathbb{E} \Big[ e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q} \rangle } \Big] \Bigg( \mathbb{E} \Big[ e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{a }- \mathbf{s } \rangle } \Big] - 1\Bigg) \allowdisplaybreaks \nonumber \\
& \stackrel{(c)}{=} \mathbb{E} \Big[ e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q} \rangle } \Big] \Bigg( \mathbb{E} [ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{a }- \mathbf{s } \rangle + \frac{\epsilon^2}{2} \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{a }- \mathbf{s } \rangle^2 + \sum_{k=3}^\infty \frac{\epsilon^k}{k!} \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{a }- \mathbf{s } \rangle^k \Bigg),
\end{align}
where (a) follows as the arrivals are independent of the queue length vector and $\langle \boldsymbol \theta,\mathbf{s}\rangle = (\phi_1+\phi_2)s_1 +\phi_1 s_2 + \phi_2 s_3 = \langle \boldsymbol \phi, \mathbf{1}_2\rangle$ for both the schedules $(1,0,0)$ and $(0,1,1)$, and so $\langle \boldsymbol \theta,\mathbf{s}\rangle$ is also independent of $\mathbf{q}$; (b) holds as $\mathbf{q}$ follows steady state distribution, then $\mathbf{q}^{+}$ also follows steady state distribution; and (c) follows by the definition of complex exponential function. Similar to $\langle \boldsymbol \theta,\mathbf{s}\rangle$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{E}[\langle \boldsymbol \theta,\mathbf{a}\rangle] = \langle \boldsymbol \theta,\boldsymbol \lambda\rangle = \langle \boldsymbol \theta,\boldsymbol \lambda\rangle = (1-\epsilon) \langle \boldsymbol \theta,\boldsymbol \nu\rangle = (1-\epsilon) \langle \boldsymbol \phi, \mathbf{1}_2\rangle
\end{equation*}
where last equality holds because $\boldsymbol \nu\in \mathcal{F}$. Thus,
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E} [ \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{a }- \mathbf{s } \rangle ] = - \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol \phi, \mathbf{1}_2 \rangle.
\end{align*}
This gives us that $\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon} \mathbb{E} [ \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{a }- \mathbf{s } \rangle ] = - \langle \boldsymbol \phi, \mathbf{1}_2 \rangle$. Also,
\begin{align}
\label{eq: 3q_func_eq_variance}
\mathbb{E}[ \langle \boldsymbol \theta , \mathbf{a }- \mathbf{s } \rangle^2 ] &= \text{Var} \big(\langle \boldsymbol \theta , \mathbf{a }- \mathbf{s } \rangle\big) + \big(\mathbb{E}[ \langle \boldsymbol \theta , \mathbf{a }- \mathbf{s } \rangle ] \big)^2 \nonumber \allowdisplaybreaks\\
& \stackrel{(a)}{=} \text{Var}\big(\langle \boldsymbol \theta , \mathbf{a} \rangle\big) + \epsilon^2\langle \boldsymbol \phi, \mathbf{1}_2 \rangle^2\nonumber \allowdisplaybreaks\\
& = \boldsymbol \theta^T \boldsymbol \sigma^2 \boldsymbol \theta + \epsilon^2 \langle \boldsymbol \phi, \mathbf{1}_2 \rangle^2 \nonumber\\
& = \boldsymbol \phi^T \mathbf{B}^T \boldsymbol \sigma^2 \mathbf{B} \boldsymbol \phi + \epsilon^2 \langle \boldsymbol \phi, \mathbf{1}_2 \rangle^2 \nonumber\allowdisplaybreaks\\
& \stackrel{(b)}{=} \langle \boldsymbol \phi, \boldsymbol \Gamma \boldsymbol \phi \rangle + \epsilon^2 \langle \boldsymbol \phi, \mathbf{1}_2 \rangle^2,
\end{align}
where (a) follows because $\langle \boldsymbol \theta , \mathbf{s}\rangle$ is constant and (b) follows by taking $\boldsymbol \Gamma = \mathbf{B}^T\boldsymbol \sigma^2 \mathbf{B}$. Thus,
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E}[ \langle \boldsymbol \theta , \mathbf{a }- \mathbf{s } \rangle^2 ] = \langle \boldsymbol \phi, \boldsymbol \Gamma \boldsymbol \phi \rangle.
\end{equation*}
Also, as arrivals are bounded by $a_{\max}$, $|a_i -s_i| \leq a_{\max} $ and so $\|\mathbf{a }- \mathbf{s } \| \leq 3a_{\max}$. Then,
\begin{align*}
\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \Big| \sum_{k=3}^\infty \frac{\epsilon^{k-1}}{k!} \mathbb{E} [ \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{a }- \mathbf{s } \rangle^k ] \Big| & \leq \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \sum_{k=3}^\infty \frac{\epsilon^{k-2}}{k!} \| \boldsymbol{\theta}\|^{k} \mathbb{E} [ \|\mathbf{a }- \mathbf{s } \|^k ] \leq \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \sum_{k=3}^\infty \frac{\epsilon^{k-2}}{k!} \| \boldsymbol{\theta}\|^{k} 3^k a_{\max}^k = 0.
\end{align*}
Using the above arguments and the fact that $\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E} \Big[ e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q} \rangle } \Big]$ exists by Lemma \ref{lem: 3q_mgf_equivalence} presented in Appendix \ref{app: 3q_mgf_equivalence}, we get that for any $\boldsymbol \phi \in \Phi$,
\begin{align*}
\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon^2} \mathbb{E} \Big[ e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q}^+ \rangle } \Big( e^{- \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{u} \rangle} -1 \Big) \Big]
& = \Big( -\langle \boldsymbol{\phi}, \mathbf{1}_2 \rangle + \frac{1}{2} \langle \boldsymbol{\phi} , \Gamma \boldsymbol{\phi} \rangle \Big) \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E} \Big[ e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q} \rangle } \Big] \\
& = \left( -\langle \boldsymbol{\phi}, \mathbf{1}_2 \rangle + \frac{1}{2} \langle \boldsymbol{\phi} , \Gamma \boldsymbol{\phi} \rangle \right) L(\boldsymbol{\phi}),
\end{align*}
where $L(\boldsymbol{\phi})$ is the Laplace transform of heavy traffic distribution of the queue length, i.e., $L(\boldsymbol{\phi}) = \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E} \Big[ e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q} \rangle } \Big]$.
Combining this with Eq. \eqref{eq: 3q_marginal_m}, for any $\boldsymbol \phi \in \Phi$,
\begin{equation*}
\left( -\langle \boldsymbol{\phi},\mathbf{1}_2 \rangle + \frac{1}{2} \langle \boldsymbol{\phi} , \boldsymbol \Gamma \boldsymbol{\phi} \rangle \right) L(\boldsymbol{\phi}) + \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{M}(\boldsymbol{\phi}) \rangle = 0
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{align*}
L(\boldsymbol \phi) = \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon \langle \boldsymbol \theta, \mathbf{q} \rangle}] && M_2(\boldsymbol \phi) = \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon} \mathbb{E} [u_2e^{\epsilon \langle \mathbf{d}_2, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle q_3}] && M_3(\boldsymbol \phi) = \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon} \mathbb{E} [u_3e^{\epsilon\langle \mathbf{d}_1, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle q_2}].
\end{align*}
Note that $M_1(\boldsymbol\phi)=0$ because $u_1=0$ by the definition of the service process.
Finally, as $\boldsymbol \theta = \mathbf B \boldsymbol \phi$, we get that $\theta_2 = \phi_1$ and $\theta_3 = \phi_2$. Thus, $ \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{M}(\boldsymbol{\phi}) \rangle = \phi_1 M_2(\boldsymbol\phi)+\phi_2 M_3(\boldsymbol\phi)$. This gives us the Laplace equation in Eq. \eqref{eq: 3q_functional_eq}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Lemma \ref{lem: 3q_uniqueness}}
\label{app: 3q_uniqueness}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{lem: 3q_uniqueness}]
In order to prove Lemma \ref{lem: 3q_uniqueness}, we are going to use Lemma \ref{lem: functional_uniqueness}. We already know that the heavy traffic distribution exists.
Next, we do a linear transform of the variable $\boldsymbol \phi$ so that the Laplace transform $M_2(\cdot)$ and $M_3(\cdot)$ depends only on one variable. We pick $\psi_1 = \langle \mathbf{d}_1, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle$ and $\psi_2 = \langle \mathbf{d}_2, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle$, i.e., $\boldsymbol \psi = (\psi_1,\psi_2) = \mathbf D \boldsymbol \phi$. Thus, $\boldsymbol \phi = \mathbf D^{-1} \boldsymbol \psi $, i.e., $\phi_1 = \frac{1}{3} (2\psi_1 - \psi_2)$ and $\phi_2 =\frac{1}{3} ( 2\psi_2 - \psi_1)$. Then, $M_2(\boldsymbol \phi) = M_2(\psi_2)$ and $M_3(\boldsymbol \phi) = M_3(\psi_1)$.
The functional equation can be rewritten as,
\begin{equation*}
\left( - \frac{1}{3} \langle \boldsymbol{\psi},\mathbf{1}_2 \rangle + \frac{1}{2} \langle \boldsymbol{\psi} , \tilde{\boldsymbol \Gamma} \boldsymbol{\psi} \rangle \right) L(\boldsymbol{\psi}) +
\frac{1}{3} (2\psi_1 - \psi_2)M_2(\psi_2) +\frac{1}{3} (2\psi_2 - \psi_1)M_3(\psi_1) = 0,
\end{equation*}
where $\tilde{\boldsymbol \Gamma} =\mathbf D^{-1} \mathbf{B}^T\boldsymbol \sigma^2 \mathbf{B} \mathbf D^{-1} $. As the functional equation in Eq. \eqref{eq: 3q_functional_eq} holds for any $\boldsymbol \phi \in \Phi$, so the rewritten functional equation above holds for any $\boldsymbol \psi$ such that $Re(\boldsymbol \psi) \leq \mathbf{0}_2$. Now, by using Lemma \ref{lem: 3q_mgf_equivalence} presented in Appendix \ref{app: 3q_mgf_equivalence},
\begin{align*}
L(\boldsymbol \psi) = \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon (\psi_1 q_2 + \psi_2 q_3)}],
&& M_2(\psi_2) = \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon} \mathbb{E} [u_2e^{\epsilon \psi_2 q_3}] && M_3(\psi_1) = \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon} \mathbb{E} [u_3e^{\epsilon\psi_1 q_2}].
\end{align*}
Now, note that $M_2(\psi_2)$ can be rewritten as
\begin{equation*}
M_2(\psi_2) = \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon} \mathbb{E} [u_2\mathbf{1}_{\{q_2=0\}} e^{\epsilon \psi_2 q_3}].
\end{equation*}
This holds because if $u_2=1$ then there is unused service, which implies that $q_2 =0$ and so, $u_2 = u_2\mathbf{1}_{\{q_2=0\}}$. Thus, $M_2(\psi_2)$ is a Laplace transform of a boundary measure that is restricted to the axes $q_2=0$. Similarly, $ M_3(\psi_1)$ is a Laplace transform of a boundary measure restricted to the axes $q_3=0$.
Now, this matches with the form we have in Eq. \eqref{eq: functional}. In this case, the reflection matrix $\mathbf R$ matches with $\mathbf{D}^{-1}$, i.e., $\mathbf{R} = \mathbf{D}^{-1}$. And the interior drift is $\boldsymbol\alpha = -\frac{1}{3} \mathbf{1}_2$. Now it is easy to observe that the required conditions in Lemma \ref{lem: functional_uniqueness} is satisfied. This gives us that the functional equation for Three-queue system has a unique solution.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm: 3q_dist}}
\label{app: 3q_dist}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm: 3q_dist}]
If we pick any $\Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta} \in \mathbb{C}^3 $ such that $\boldsymbol \theta = \mathbf B \boldsymbol \phi$ where $\boldsymbol \phi \in \Phi$, then from Lemma \ref{lem: 3q_mgf_equivalence},
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0}\mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon \langle \Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}, \mathbf{q} \rangle}] = \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon \langle \boldsymbol \theta, \mathbf{q} \rangle}] = L(\boldsymbol \phi).
\end{equation*}
This implies that it is enough to characterize the Laplace transform of the queue length vector for $\boldsymbol \theta \in \mathcal{S}$. Now, from here onwards we pick $\boldsymbol \theta \in \mathcal{S}$.
Pick $\boldsymbol \phi $ such that $\boldsymbol \theta = \mathbf{B}\boldsymbol\phi \in \boldsymbol \Theta$. The Laplace transform of the considered distribution is given by
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}[e^{\theta_1 (\Upsilon_1+\Upsilon_2)+\theta_2 \Upsilon_1 + \theta_3 \Upsilon_2 }] &= \mathbb{E}[e^{(2\theta_2 + \theta_3) \Upsilon_1+(\theta_2 + 2\theta_3)\Upsilon_2}] \\
&= \frac{1}{\bigg( 1- (2\theta_2 + \theta_3) \frac{3\sigma_2^2 + \sigma_3^2}{8}\bigg)\bigg( 1- (\theta_2 + 2\theta_3)\frac{\sigma_2^2 + 3\sigma_3^2}{8}\bigg)}.
\end{align*}
Now pick
\begin{align}
\label{eq: 3q_laplacesolution}
L(\boldsymbol \phi) = \frac{1}{\bigg( 1- \langle \mathbf{d}_1, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle \frac{3\sigma_2^2 + \sigma_3^2}{8}\bigg)\bigg( 1- \langle \mathbf{d}_2, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle\frac{\sigma_2^2 + 3\sigma_3^2}{8}\bigg)},\nonumber\\ M_2 (\boldsymbol \phi) = \frac{1}{1- \langle \mathbf{d}_2, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle\frac{\sigma_2^2 + 3\sigma_3^2}{8}}, && M_3 (\boldsymbol \phi) = \frac{1}{1- \langle \mathbf{d}_1, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle\frac{3\sigma_2^2 + \sigma_3^2}{8}}.
\end{align}
For this to satisfy the functional equation given in Eq. \eqref{eq: 3q_functional_eq}, we need,
\begin{equation*}
\left( -\langle \boldsymbol{\phi},\mathbf{1} \rangle + \frac{1}{2} \langle \boldsymbol{\phi} , \boldsymbol \Gamma \boldsymbol{\phi} \rangle \right) + \phi_1 \bigg( 1- \langle \mathbf{d}_1, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle\frac{3\sigma_2^2 + \sigma_3^2}{8}\bigg)+\phi_2 \bigg( 1- \langle \mathbf{d}_2, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle\frac{\sigma_2^2 + 3\sigma_3^2}{8}\bigg) = 0,
\end{equation*}
which can be simplified to the condition,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq: 3q_provefunctional}
4 \langle \boldsymbol{\phi} , \boldsymbol \Gamma \boldsymbol{\phi} \rangle - \phi_1 \langle \mathbf{d}_1, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle(3\sigma_2^2 + \sigma_3^2)-\phi_2 \langle \mathbf{d}_2, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle(\sigma_2^2 + 3\sigma_3^2) = 0.
\end{equation}
For the first term,
\begin{align}
\label{eq: 3q_provefunctionalterm1}
\langle \boldsymbol{\phi} , \boldsymbol \Gamma \boldsymbol{\phi} \rangle = \boldsymbol{\phi}^T\mathbf{B}^T \boldsymbol \sigma^2 \mathbf{B} \boldsymbol{\phi} &= \begin{bmatrix}
\phi_1 + \phi_2& \phi_1 & \phi_2
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
\frac{\sigma_2^2 +\sigma_3^2}{2} & 0 & 0\\
0& \sigma_2^2 & 0\\
0 & 0 & \sigma_3^2
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
\phi_1+ \phi_2 \\ \phi_1 \\ \phi_2
\end{bmatrix} \nonumber \allowdisplaybreaks\\
&=\phi_1^2 \Big( \frac{3\sigma_2^2+\sigma_3^2}{2} \Big) +\phi_2^2 \Big( \frac{\sigma_2^2+3\sigma_3^2}{2} \Big) + \phi_1\phi_2 (\sigma_2^2+\sigma_3^2).
\end{align}
Next,
\begin{align}
\label{eq: 3q_provefunctionalterm2}
\phi_1 \langle \mathbf{d}_1, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle(3\sigma_2^2 + \sigma_3^2)+\phi_2 \langle \mathbf{d}_2, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle(\sigma_2^2 + 3\sigma_3^2) &= \phi_1 (2\phi_1 + \phi_2)(3\sigma_2^2 + \sigma_3^2)+\phi_2 (\phi_1 + 2\phi_2)(\sigma_2^2 + 3\sigma_3^2)\nonumber\\
& = 2 \phi_1^2 ( 3\sigma_2^2+\sigma_3^2) +2\phi_2^2( \sigma_2^2+3\sigma_3^2) + 4\phi_1\phi_2 (\sigma_2^2+\sigma_3^2).
\end{align}
From Eq. \eqref{eq: 3q_provefunctionalterm1} and Eq. \eqref{eq: 3q_provefunctionalterm2}, we can easily observe that Eq. \eqref{eq: 3q_provefunctional} is satisfied. Thus, $L(\boldsymbol \phi)$, $M_1(\boldsymbol \phi)$ and $M_2(\boldsymbol \phi)$ given in Eq. \eqref{eq: 3q_laplacesolution} solves the functional equation given in Eq. \eqref{eq: 3q_functional_eq}. From Lemma \ref{lem: 3q_uniqueness}, we get that the solution given by Eq. \eqref{eq: 3q_provefunctional} is the unique solution and so $L(\boldsymbol \phi)$ in Eq. \eqref{eq: 3q_laplacesolution} gives the Laplace transform of the heavy traffic joint distribution. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of Results for Input-queued switch}
\subsection{Properties of the projection}
\label{sec: switch_projection}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem: switch_projection}
Let $\mathbf B \in \{0,1\}^{n^2\times2n}$ is such that for any $1\leq i,j\leq n$,
\begin{equation*}
B_{i+n(j-1),i} =B_{i+n(j-1),n+j} = 1,
\end{equation*}
and all other elements are zero.
Let $\mathbf x \in \mathbb{C}^{n^2}$ and suppose $\mathbf x_{\|}$ denotes the projection of $\mathbf{x}$ onto the space $\mathcal{S}$ where
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{S} = \Big\{ \mathbf{x} \in \mathbb{R}^{n^2} : \exists \mathbf{w} \in \mathbb{R}^{2n} \ s.t. \ \mathbf x = \mathbf
B \mathbf w\Big\}.
\end{equation*}
And $\mathbf x_{\perp} = \mathbf x - \mathbf x_{\|}$.
Further, define $\mathbf{D} = \mathbf{B}^T\mathbf{B}$ and $\mathbf A = \mathbf{B}(\mathbf{B}^T\mathbf{B})^{-1}\mathbf{B}^T$. Then,
\begin{enumerate}
\item The matrix $\mathbf B$ satisfies
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{B}\begin{bmatrix} \mathbf{1}_n \\\mathbf{0}_n \end{bmatrix} = \mathbf{B}\begin{bmatrix} \mathbf{0}_n \\ \mathbf{1}_n \end{bmatrix} = \mathbf{1}_{n^2}, && \mathbf{B}^T \mathbf{1}_{n^2} = n\mathbf{1}_{2n}.
\end{align*}
This also gives us that
\begin{align*}
\sum_{i=1}^n \mathbf d_i =\mathbf{B}^T\mathbf{B}\begin{bmatrix} \mathbf{1}_n \\\mathbf{0}_n \end{bmatrix}= \mathbf 1_{2n}, &&\sum_{j=1}^n \mathbf d_{n+j} =\mathbf{B}^T\mathbf{B}\begin{bmatrix} \mathbf{0}_n \\\mathbf{1}_n \end{bmatrix}= \mathbf 1_{2n}, &&
\sum_{i=1}^{2n}\mathbf d_i = 2n \mathbf 1_{2n},
\end{align*}
where $\{\mathbf d_1, \dots , \mathbf d_{2n}\}$ are columns of $ \mathbf{D}$.
\item The closed form expression for $\mathbf x_{\|}$ is given by $\mathbf x_{\|} = \mathbf A \mathbf{x}$.
\item For any $\boldsymbol \phi \in \mathbb{C}^{2n}$, the vector $\boldsymbol \theta = \mathbf B \boldsymbol \phi$ lies in the space $\mathcal{S}$. Also, for any $\mathbf x \in \mathbb{C}^{n^2}$, and suppose $\mathbf w \in \mathbb{C}^{2n}$ is such that $\mathbf x_{\|} =\mathbf B\mathbf{w}$. Then,
\begin{equation*}
\langle \boldsymbol \theta, \mathbf{x} \rangle = \langle \boldsymbol \theta, \mathbf{x}_{\|} \rangle = \boldsymbol \phi^T\mathbf{B}^T\mathbf{B} \mathbf w = \sum_{i=1}^{2n} \langle \boldsymbol \phi , \mathbf d_i \rangle w_i.
\end{equation*}
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
Lemma \ref{lem: switch_projection} provides the properties of the projection of any vector onto the space $\mathcal{S}$. By the definition of the matrix $\mathbf{A}$ we have the relation that $\mathbf{B}^T \mathbf{A} = \mathbf{B}^T$ and $\mathbf{A}\mathbf{B} = \mathbf{B}$.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{lem: switch_projection}]
Proof of Lemma \ref{lem: switch_projection} part 1 follows directly from the structure of the matrix $\mathbf B$. Part 2 follows as $A$ is the projection matrix for the space spanned by the matrix $\mathbf B$. For part 3, note that $\mathbf x_{\perp}$ is perpendicular to the subspace $\mathcal S$. Then, as $\boldsymbol \theta \in \mathcal{S}$, $\langle \boldsymbol \theta, \mathbf{x}_{\perp} \rangle =0$ and so,
\begin{align*}
\langle \boldsymbol \theta, \mathbf{x} \rangle &= \langle \boldsymbol \theta, \mathbf{x} - \mathbf{x}_\perp \rangle =\langle \boldsymbol \theta, \mathbf{x}_\| \rangle = \boldsymbol \phi^T\mathbf{B}^T\mathbf{B} \mathbf w = \sum_{i=1}^{2n} \langle \boldsymbol \phi , \mathbf d_i \rangle w_i,
\end{align*}
where third equality follows as $\boldsymbol \theta = \mathbf B \boldsymbol \phi$ and $\mathbf x_{\|} =\mathbf B\mathbf{w}$; and the last equality follows by using the definition of $\mathbf D$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Required Lemma}
\label{app: switch_mgf_equivalence}
Before presenting the results for the Input-queued switch, we present a required lemma as given below. For the ease of notations, we consider $\boldsymbol \Phi = \{\boldsymbol \phi\in \mathbb C^{2n}: Re(\langle \mathbf d_i, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle \leq 0, \ \forall 1\leq i\leq 2n)\}$, where $\mathbf d_i$'s are the columns of the matrix $\mathbf D = \mathbf B^T \mathbf B$. Then, for any $\boldsymbol\phi \in \boldsymbol\Phi$, $\boldsymbol\theta = \mathbf B \boldsymbol \phi \in \boldsymbol \Theta$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem: switch_mgf_equivalence}
Consider the Input-queued switch system as defined in Section \ref{sec: switch_model} operating under scheduling policy that achieves state space collapse according to the Definition \ref{def: switch_ssc}. For any $\tilde{\boldsymbol \theta} \in \mathbb{C}^{n^2}$, let $\boldsymbol \theta$ be its projection onto the space $\mathcal{S}$ and suppose $\exists \boldsymbol \phi \in \boldsymbol \Phi$ such that $\boldsymbol \theta = \mathbf B \boldsymbol \phi $, then we have that
\begin{enumerate}
\item \begin{align*}
\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \big| \mathbb{E} \big[ e^{\epsilon \langle \Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta} , \mathbf{q} \rangle} \big] \big| < \infty, && \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon} \big|\mathbb{E}[u_k e^{\epsilon \langle \Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta} , \mathbf{q} \rangle}] \big|<\infty, \ \ \ \ \forall k \in \{1,2,\dots,n^2\}
\end{align*}
The results holds even after replacing $\Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta} $ by $\boldsymbol \theta$.
\item Suppose $\mathbf r \in \mathbb R^{2n}_{+}$ is such that $\mathbf{q}_{\| \mathcal{ K}} = \mathbf B \mathbf r$. Then,
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0}\mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon\langle \Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}, \mathbf{q} \rangle }] = \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon \langle \boldsymbol \theta, \mathbf{q} \rangle}] = \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon \sum_{l=1}^{2n} \langle \boldsymbol \phi,\mathbf d_l \rangle r_l}],
\end{equation*}
\item For all $k =i+n(j-1)$ such that $i,j\in \{1,2,\dots,n\}$, \begin{equation*}
\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon} \mathbb{E}[ u_k e^{\epsilon \langle \tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}, \mathbf{q} \rangle}]
= \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon}\mathbb{E}[u_k e^{\epsilon \langle \boldsymbol \theta, \mathbf{q} \rangle}]
= \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0}\frac{1}{\epsilon} \mathbb{E}[u_k e^{\epsilon \sum_{l=1, \\ l\neq i,l\neq n+j}^{2n} \langle \boldsymbol \phi,\mathbf d_l \rangle r_l}],
\end{equation*}
\end{enumerate}
where all the expectation are taken under the steady state distribution.
\end{lemma}
Part 1 of Lemma \ref{lem: switch_mgf_equivalence} says that the Laplace transform of the heavy traffic distribution $(L(\boldsymbol \phi), \mathbf M(\boldsymbol \phi))$ exists. This is necessary to establish the functional equation given in Eq. \eqref{eq: switch_functional_eq}. Part 2 and 3 of Lemma \ref{lem: switch_mgf_equivalence} says that the Laplace transform of the heavy traffic distribution depends only on the limiting distribution of the projection of the state vector $\mathbf{q}$ onto the cone $\mathcal{K}$.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{lem: switch_mgf_equivalence}]
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)]
As $\mathcal{S}$ is a linear subspace, suppose $\tilde{\boldsymbol \theta} = \boldsymbol \theta +\boldsymbol \theta_{\perp}$. Also, suppose $\mathbf r \in \mathbb R^{2n}_{+}$ is such that $\mathbf{q}_{\| \mathcal{ K}} = \mathbf B \mathbf r$. Then,
\begin{align}
\label{eq: switch_theta_relation}
\langle \tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}, \mathbf{q} \rangle &= \langle \boldsymbol \Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta} , \mathbf{q}_{\|\mathcal K} \rangle + \langle \Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta} , \mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K} \rangle \nonumber\\
&= \langle \boldsymbol \boldsymbol \theta , \mathbf{q}_{\|\mathcal K} \rangle + \langle \boldsymbol \boldsymbol \theta_{\perp} , \mathbf{q}_{\|\mathcal K} \rangle+ \langle \Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta} , \mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K} \rangle \nonumber\\
&\stackrel{(a)}{=} \langle \boldsymbol \boldsymbol \theta , \mathbf{q}_{\|\mathcal K} \rangle + \langle \Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta} , \mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K} \rangle \nonumber\\
& \stackrel{(b)}{=} \sum_{i=1}^{2n} \langle \boldsymbol \phi,\mathbf d_i \rangle r_i + \langle \Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta} , \mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K} \rangle,
\end{align}
where (a) follows because $\mathbf{q}_{\|\mathcal K} \in \mathcal{ K} \subset \mathcal S$ and $\boldsymbol \theta_{\perp}$ is orthogonal to the subspace $\mathcal{S}$ and so, $\langle \boldsymbol \boldsymbol \theta_{\perp} , \mathbf{q}_{\|\mathcal K} \rangle =0$, and (b) follows by using $\mathbf{q}_{\| \mathcal{ K}} = \mathbf B \mathbf r$ and $\boldsymbol \theta = \mathbf B \boldsymbol \phi$.
Now, suppose $\mathbf{q}$ follows the steady state distribution of the Markov process $\{\mathbf{q}(t)\}_{t=0}^\infty$, then
\begin{align}
\label{eq: switch_laplacelim}
\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \big| \mathbb{E} \big[ e^{\epsilon \langle \Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta} , \mathbf{q} \rangle} \big] \big| & = \lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E} \big[\big| e^{\epsilon (\sum_{i=1}^{2n} \langle \boldsymbol \phi,\mathbf d_i \rangle r_i + \langle \Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta} , \mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K} \rangle)}\big| \big]\nonumber\\
& \stackrel{(a)}{\leq} \lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E} \big[\big| e^{\epsilon \langle \Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta} , \mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K} \rangle}\big| \big]\nonumber\\
& \stackrel{(b)}{\leq} \lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E} \big[ e^{\epsilon \| \Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta} \|\| \mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K} \|} \big]\nonumber\\
&\stackrel{(c)}{<} \infty,
\end{align}
where (a) follows by using $Re(\langle \mathbf{d}_i, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle ) \leq 0, \forall i\in \{1,2,\dots 2n\} $ for any $\boldsymbol \phi \in \Phi $; (b) follows by Cauchy-Schwarz inequality; and (c) follows by using the Definition \ref{def: switch_ssc}. The queue length vector evolve according to the equation,
\begin{align}
\label{eq: switch_lindley}
\mathbf{q}(t+1) &= [\mathbf{q}(t) + \mathbf{a}(t) - \mathbf{s}(t)]^+ = \mathbf{q}(t) + \mathbf{a}(t) - \mathbf{s}(t) + \mathbf{u}(t),
\end{align}
where $\mathbf{u}(t)$ is the unused service in the time slot $t$.
Suppose $\mathbf{q}^+$ is the state of the Markov chain following the state $\mathbf{q}$, then, as the system is stable and $\mathbf{q}$ follows the steady state distribution, $\mathbf{q}^+$ also follows the steady state distribution and so, for any $i \in \{1,2,\dots ,n\}$,
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}\big[\sum_{j=1}^n q_{i + n(j-1)}^+ \big] - \mathbb{E}\big[ \sum_{j=1}^n q_{i + n(j-1)}\big] = 0,
\end{align*}
as the drift is zero in steady state.
Then, by using the Eq. \eqref{eq: switch_lindley}, for any $i \in \{1,2,\dots ,n\}$,
\begin{align}
\label{eq: switch_unused_epsilon}
\mathbb{E}\big[ \sum_{j=1}^n u_{i + n(j-1)}\big] = \mathbb{E}\big[ \sum_{j=1}^n s_{i + n(j-1)}\big] -\sum_{j=1}^n \lambda_{i + n(j-1)} = 1-\sum_{j=1}^n \lambda_{i + n(j-1)}= \epsilon,
\end{align}
where the second equality follows because $\sum_{j=1}^n s_{i + n(j-1)}=1$ for any schedule in $\mathcal X$; third equality follows because $\boldsymbol\lambda = (1-\epsilon)\boldsymbol\nu$ where $\boldsymbol \nu \in \mathcal{F}$ as mentioned in Section \ref{sec: switch_model}. By using a similar argument, we can show that $\mathbb{E}\big[ \sum_{i=1}^n u_{i + n(j-1)}\big] = \epsilon, \forall j \in \{1,2,\dots ,n\}$. Now, for any $k\in\{1,2,\dots,n^2\}$,
\begin{align}
\label{eq: switch_laplace_boundarylim}
\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon} \big|\mathbb{E}[u_k e^{\epsilon \langle \Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}, \mathbf{q} \rangle}] \big| &\leq \lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon} \mathbb{E} \big[ u_k\big| e^{\epsilon \langle \Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}, \mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K} \rangle}\big| \big]\nonumber\\
& \stackrel{(a)}{\leq } \lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon} \mathbb{E} \big[ u_k e^{\epsilon \|\Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}\|\| \mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K}\| } \big]\nonumber\\
& \stackrel{(b)}{\leq } \lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon} \mathbb{E} [ u_k ] + \|\Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}\| \lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon} \mathbb{E} \big[ \epsilon u_k \| \mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K}\| e^{\epsilon \|\Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}\|\| \mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K}\| } \big]\nonumber\\
&\stackrel{(c)}{\leq } 1 + \|\Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}\| \lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E} \big[ \| \mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K}\| e^{\epsilon \|\Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}\|\| \mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K}\| } \big]\nonumber\\
&\stackrel{(d)}{\leq } 1 + \|\Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}\| \lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E} \big[ \| \mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K}\|^2 \big]^{\frac{1}{2}} \mathbb{E} \big[ e^{2\epsilon \|\Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}\|\| \mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K}\| }\big]^{\frac{1}{2}}\nonumber\\
& \stackrel{(e)}{< } \infty,
\end{align}
where (a) and (d) follows by Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, $| \langle \Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}, \mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K} \rangle| \leq \|\Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}\|\| \mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K} \|$; (b) follows by using $e^x \leq 1+ xe^x$ for all $x\geq 0$; (c) follows as, for any $k\in\{1,2,\dots,n^2\}$, $\mathbb{E} [ u_k ] \leq \epsilon$ and $u_k \leq 1$; and finally, (e) follows as by using Definition \ref{def: switch_ssc},
\begin{align*}
\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E} \big[ \| \mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K}\|^2 \big] < \infty, && \lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0}\mathbb{E} \big[ e^{2\epsilon \|\Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}\|\| \mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K}\| }\big] < \infty.
\end{align*}
Also, as the arguments in Eq. \eqref{eq: switch_laplacelim} and Eq. \eqref{eq: switch_laplace_boundarylim} hold for any $\Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta} \in \mathbb C^{n^2}$, it also holds if we replace $\Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}$ by $\boldsymbol \theta \in \mathcal S$.
\item[(2)] From Eq. \eqref{eq: switch_theta_relation}, $\langle \tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}, \mathbf{q} \rangle = \sum_{i=1}^{2n} \langle \boldsymbol \phi,\mathbf d_i \rangle r_i + \langle \Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta} , \mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K} \rangle$. Then,
\begin{align*}
\label{eq: 3q_mgf_equi_part1}
\left| \mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon \langle \tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}, \mathbf{q} \rangle}] - \mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon \sum_{i=1}^{2n} \langle \boldsymbol \phi,\mathbf d_i \rangle r_i }] \right|
&= \mathbb{E}\big[\left|e^{\epsilon \sum_{i=1}^{2n} \langle \boldsymbol \phi,\mathbf d_i \rangle r_i } \right| \big| \big( 1- e^{\epsilon \langle \Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}, \mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K} \rangle} \big) \big|\big] \nonumber\\
&\stackrel{(a)}{\leq} \mathbb{E}\bigg[\left| 1- e^{\epsilon \langle \Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}, \mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K} \rangle} \right| \bigg]\nonumber \allowdisplaybreaks \\
& \stackrel{(b)}{\leq} \mathbb{E}\bigg[ |\epsilon \langle \Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}, \mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K} \rangle| e^{\epsilon | \langle \Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}, \mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K} \rangle|} \bigg] \nonumber \allowdisplaybreaks \\
& \stackrel{(c)}{\leq} \mathbb{E}\big[ |\epsilon \langle \Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}, \mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K} \rangle|^{2} \big]^{\frac{1}{2}} \mathbb{E}\bigg[ e^{2\epsilon | \langle \Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}, \mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K} \rangle|} \bigg]^{\frac{1}{2}} \nonumber \allowdisplaybreaks \\
& \stackrel{(d)}{\leq} \epsilon \| \Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta} \| \mathbb{E}\big[ \| \mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K} \|^{2} \big]^{\frac{1}{2}} \mathbb{E}\bigg[ e^{2\epsilon \|\Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}\|\| \mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K}\|} \bigg]^{\frac{1}{2}}\nonumber
\end{align*}
where (a) follows by using $Re(\langle \mathbf{d}_i, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle ) \leq 0$ for all $i \in \{1,2,\dots,2n\}$ for any $\boldsymbol \phi \in \Phi $; (b) holds because $|e^x-1| \leq |x|e^{|x|}$ for any $x\in \mathbb{C}$; (c) and (d) holds by using Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. Now, by arguments presented in Eq. \eqref{eq: switch_laplace_boundarylim}, $\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E} \big[ \| \mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K}\|^2 \big]^{\frac{1}{2}} \mathbb{E} \big[ e^{2\epsilon \|\Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}\|\| \mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K}\| }\big]^{\frac{1}{2}} < \infty$, and so,
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \left| \mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon \langle \tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}, \mathbf{q} \rangle}] - \mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon \sum_{i=1}^{2n} \langle \boldsymbol \phi,\mathbf d_i \rangle r_i }] \right| = \lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \epsilon \| \Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta} \| \mathbb{E}\big[ \| \mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K} \|^{2} \big]^{\frac{1}{2}} \mathbb{E}\bigg[ e^{2\epsilon \|\Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}\|\| \mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K}\|} \bigg]^{\frac{1}{2}} = 0.
\end{equation*}
Note that, as the above argument holds for any $\Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta} \in \mathbb C^{n^2}$, it also holds if we replace $\Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}$ by $\boldsymbol \theta \in \mathcal S$.
This completes the proof of part 2.
\item[(3)] Suppose $k = i+n(j-1)$ where $i,j\in\{1,2,\dots, n\}$. Also, if $u_k = 1$ then $q_k = 0$, which implies that $q_{\perp \mathcal K, i+n(j-1)}+ r_i +r_{n+j} = 0$. Now, as $r_i \geq 0$ and $r_{n+j} \geq 0$, we get
\begin{align*}
|r_i| \leq |\mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K, i+n(j-1)}|\leq \|\mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K}\|, && |r_{n+j}| \leq |\mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K, i+n(j-1)}|\leq \|\mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K}\|.
\end{align*}
This gives us that,
\begin{align*}
|\langle \Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}, \mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K} \rangle + \langle \boldsymbol \phi,\mathbf d_i \rangle r_i +\langle \boldsymbol \phi,\mathbf d_{n+j} \rangle r_{n+j}| \leq \big( \| \Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}\| + |\langle \boldsymbol \phi,\mathbf d_i \rangle| + |\langle \boldsymbol \phi,\mathbf d_{n+j} \rangle| \big) \| \mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K} \|
\end{align*}
Now, by picking $\| \Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}\| + |\langle \boldsymbol \phi,\mathbf d_i \rangle| + |\langle \boldsymbol \phi,\mathbf d_{n+j} \rangle| = \theta'$,
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{\epsilon}\Big| \mathbb{E}[u_k e^{\epsilon \langle \tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}, \mathbf{q} \rangle}] & - \mathbb{E}[u_k e^{\epsilon \sum_{l=1, l\neq i,l\neq n+j}^{2n} \langle \boldsymbol \phi,\mathbf d_l \rangle r_l}] \Big| \\
&=\frac{1}{\epsilon}\mathbb{E}\Big[u_k \left|e^{\epsilon \sum_{l=1,l\neq i,l\neq n+j}^{2n} \langle \boldsymbol \phi,\mathbf d_l \rangle r_l } \right| \big| \big( 1- e^{\epsilon (\langle \Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}, \mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K} \rangle + \langle \boldsymbol \phi,\mathbf d_i \rangle r_i +\langle \boldsymbol \phi,\mathbf d_{n+j} \rangle r_{n+j})} \big) \big|\Big] \nonumber \allowdisplaybreaks\\
&\stackrel{(a)}{\leq} \frac{1}{\epsilon}\mathbb{E}\Big[u_k \big| 1- e^{\epsilon (\langle \Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}, \mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K} \rangle + \langle \boldsymbol \phi,\mathbf d_i \rangle r_i +\langle \boldsymbol \phi,\mathbf d_{n+j} \rangle r_{n+j})} \big|\Big] \nonumber \allowdisplaybreaks\\
&\stackrel{(b)}{\leq} \frac{1}{\epsilon}\mathbb{E}\Big[u_k \big( e^{\epsilon \theta' \|\mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K}\|} -1 \big)\Big] \nonumber \allowdisplaybreaks\\
& \stackrel{(c)}{\leq} \mathbb{E}\bigg[ u_k \theta' \|\mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K}\| e^{\epsilon \theta' \|\mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K}\|} \bigg] \nonumber \allowdisplaybreaks \\
& \leq \mathbb{E}[u_k^{2}]^{\frac{1}{2}} \mathbb{E}\bigg[ (\theta' \|\mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K}\|)^2 e^{2\epsilon \theta' \|\mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K}\|} \bigg]^{\frac{1}{2}} \nonumber \allowdisplaybreaks \\
& \leq \sqrt{\epsilon} \theta' \mathbb{E}\big[ \| \mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K} \|^{4} \big]^{\frac{1}{4}} \mathbb{E}\bigg[ e^{4\epsilon \theta'\| \mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K}\|} \bigg]^{\frac{1}{4}},
\end{align*}
where (a) follows by using $Re(\langle \mathbf{d}_i, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle ) \leq 0$ for all $i \in \{1,2,\dots,2n\}$ for any $\boldsymbol \phi \in \Phi $; (b) follows as $\| \Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}\| + |\langle \boldsymbol \phi,\mathbf d_i \rangle| + |\langle \boldsymbol \phi,\mathbf d_{n+j} \rangle| = \theta'$; (c) holds because $|e^x-1| \leq |x|e^{|x|}$ for any $x\in \mathbb{C}$; and last two inequalities follow by Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and using $\mathbb{E}[u_2^{2}]=\mathbb{E}[u_2]\leq \epsilon$ as shown in Eq. \eqref{eq: switch_unused_epsilon}. Now, by using Definition \ref{def: switch_ssc},
\begin{align*}
\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E} \big[ \| \mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K}\|^4 \big] < \infty, && \lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0}\mathbb{E} \big[ e^{4\epsilon \theta'\| \mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K}\| }\big] < \infty.
\end{align*}
Combining these with the above argument gives us,
\begin{align*}
\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon}\Big| \mathbb{E}[u_k e^{\epsilon \langle \tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}, \mathbf{q} \rangle}] & - \mathbb{E}[u_k e^{\epsilon \sum_{l=1, l\neq i,l\neq n+j}^{2n} \langle \boldsymbol \phi,\mathbf d_l \rangle r_l}] \Big| = \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \sqrt{\epsilon} \theta' \mathbb{E}\big[ \| \mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K} \|^{4} \big]^{\frac{1}{4}} \mathbb{E}\bigg[ e^{4\epsilon \theta'\| \mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K}\|} \bigg]^{\frac{1}{4}} = 0.
\end{align*}
Note that the same argument holds after replacing $\Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}$ with $\boldsymbol \theta$.
\hfill $\blacksquare$
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm: switch_functional_eq}}
\label{app: switch_functional_eq}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm: switch_functional_eq}]
For the ease of notations, we consider $\boldsymbol \Phi = \{\boldsymbol \phi\in \mathbb C^{2n}: Re(\langle \mathbf d_i, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle \leq 0, \ \forall 1\leq i\leq 2n)\}$, where $\mathbf d_i$'s are the columns of the matrix $\mathbf D = \mathbf B^T \mathbf B$. Then, for any $\boldsymbol\phi \in \boldsymbol\Phi$, $\boldsymbol\theta = \mathbf B \boldsymbol \phi \in \boldsymbol \Theta$. Also, with slight abuse of notation, we use $\boldsymbol \theta$ and $\boldsymbol \phi$ interchangeably. Using Lemma \ref{lem: switch_mgf_equivalence} presented in Appendix \ref{app: switch_mgf_equivalence}, we get that, $|L(\boldsymbol \phi)| < \infty$, $|M_k(\boldsymbol \phi)| < \infty, \forall k\in \{1,2,\dots,n^2\}$ for all $\boldsymbol \phi \in \Phi$. Suppose $\mathbf{q}$ follows the steady state distribution and $\mathbf{q}^+$ is the state of the Markov chain following the state $\mathbf{q}$, then, as the system is stable, $\mathbf{q}^+$ also follows the steady state distribution.
Then,
\begin{align}
\label{eq: switch_mfunction}
\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon^2} \mathbb{E} \Bigg[ e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q}^+ \rangle } \Big( e^{- \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{u} \rangle} -1 \Big) \Bigg] &=\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon^2} \mathbb{E} \Bigg[ e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q}^+ \rangle } \Big( -\epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{u} \rangle + \frac{\epsilon^2}{2} \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{u} \rangle^2 + \sum_{k = 3}^\infty \frac{\epsilon^k}{k!} \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{u} \rangle^k \Big) \Bigg]\nonumber\allowdisplaybreaks\\
&\stackrel{(a)}{=} - \Bigg \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon} \mathbb{E} \Big[ \mathbf{u} e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q}^+ \rangle} \Big] \Bigg \rangle \nonumber\allowdisplaybreaks\\
&\stackrel{(b)}{=} - \Bigg \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon} \mathbb{E} \Big[ \mathbf{u} e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q} \rangle} \Big] \Bigg \rangle \nonumber\allowdisplaybreaks\\
&= - \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{M}(\boldsymbol{\phi }) \rangle,
\end{align}
where (a) and (b) follows on exact same lines as Eq. \eqref{eq: 3q_lhs_u} and Eq. \eqref{eq: 3q_plus_remove} in the proof of Theorem \ref{theo: 3q_functional_eq}. Now, by using similar argument as in Eq. \eqref{eq: 3q_fun_eq_theo_lhs},
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E} \Big[ e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q}^+ \rangle } \Big( e^{- \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{u} \rangle} -1 \Big) \Big]
= \mathbb{E} \Big[ e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q} \rangle } \Big] \Bigg( \mathbb{E} [ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{a }- \mathbf{s } \rangle + \frac{\epsilon^2}{2} \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{a }- \mathbf{s } \rangle^2 + \sum_{k=3}^\infty \frac{\epsilon^k}{k!} \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{a }- \mathbf{s } \rangle^k \Bigg)
\end{align*}
By the definition of the subspace $\mathcal{S}$, for any schedule in $\mathcal{X}$, $\langle \boldsymbol \theta,\mathbf{s}\rangle = \langle \boldsymbol \phi, \mathbf 1_{2n} \rangle$. Similarly,
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{E}[\langle \boldsymbol \theta,\mathbf{a}\rangle] = \langle \boldsymbol \theta,\boldsymbol \lambda \rangle = (1-\epsilon) \langle \boldsymbol \theta,\boldsymbol \nu \rangle = (1-\epsilon) \langle \boldsymbol \phi, \mathbf 1_{2n} \rangle.
\end{equation*}
where last equality holds because $\boldsymbol \nu\in \mathcal{F}$. Thus,
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E} [ \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{a }- \mathbf{s } \rangle ]
& = - \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol \phi, \mathbf{1}_{2n} \rangle.
\end{align*}
This gives us that $\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon} \mathbb{E} [ \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{a }- \mathbf{s } \rangle ] = - \langle \boldsymbol \phi, \mathbf{1}_{2n} \rangle$. Also, by making similar argument as in Eq. \eqref{eq: 3q_func_eq_variance},
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}[ \langle \boldsymbol \theta , \mathbf{a }- \mathbf{s } \rangle^2 ] &= \langle \boldsymbol \phi, \boldsymbol \Gamma \boldsymbol \phi \rangle + \epsilon^2 \langle \boldsymbol \phi, \mathbf{1} \rangle^2,
\end{align*}
where $\boldsymbol \Gamma = \mathbf{B}^T\boldsymbol \sigma^2 \mathbf{B}$. Thus,
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E}[ \langle \boldsymbol \theta , \mathbf{a }- \mathbf{s } \rangle^2 ] = \langle \boldsymbol \phi, \boldsymbol \Gamma \boldsymbol \phi \rangle
\end{equation*}
Now, as the arrival and the service process are bounded, i.e., $a_{i+n(j-1)} \leq a_{\max} $ for all $i,j \in \{1,\dots,n\}$, so
\begin{align*}
\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \Big| \sum_{k=3}^\infty \frac{\epsilon^{k-1}}{k!} \mathbb{E} [ \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{a }- \mathbf{s } \rangle^k ] \Big|& \leq \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \sum_{k=3}^\infty \frac{\epsilon^{k-2}}{k!} \| \boldsymbol{\theta}\|^{k} \mathbb{E} [ \|\mathbf{a }- \mathbf{s } \|^k ] \\
& \leq \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \sum_{k=3}^\infty \frac{\epsilon^{k-2}}{k!} \| \boldsymbol{\theta}\|^{k} n^{2k}a_{\max}^k = 0.
\end{align*}
Using the above arguments, we get that
\begin{align*}
\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon^2} \mathbb{E} \Big[ e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q}^+ \rangle } \Big( e^{- \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{u} \rangle} -1 \Big) \Big]
&= \Big( -\langle \boldsymbol{\phi}, \mathbf{1}_{2n} \rangle + \frac{1}{2} \langle \boldsymbol{\phi} , \boldsymbol\Gamma \boldsymbol{\phi} \rangle \Big) \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E} \Big[ e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q} \rangle } \Big] \\
&= \left( -\langle \boldsymbol{\phi}, \mathbf{1}_{2n} \rangle + \frac{1}{2} \langle \boldsymbol{\phi} , \boldsymbol\Gamma \boldsymbol{\phi} \rangle \right) L(\boldsymbol{\phi}),
\end{align*}
Combining this with Eq. \eqref{eq: switch_mfunction} gives us the functional equation as in Eq. \eqref{eq: switch_functional_eq}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm: switch_dist}}
\label{app: switch_dist}
\begin{proof}[Proof for Theorem \ref{thm: switch_dist}]
For the ease of notations, we consider $\boldsymbol \Phi = \{\boldsymbol \phi\in \mathbb C^{2n}: Re(\langle \mathbf d_i, \boldsymbol \phi \rangle \leq 0, \ \forall 1\leq i\leq 2n)\}$, where $\mathbf d_i$'s are the columns of the matrix $\mathbf D = \mathbf B^T \mathbf B$. Then, for any $\boldsymbol\phi \in \boldsymbol\Phi$, $\boldsymbol\theta = \mathbf B \boldsymbol \phi \in \boldsymbol \Theta$. Also, with slight abuse of notation, we use $\boldsymbol \theta$ and $\boldsymbol \phi$ interchangeably. Using Lemma \ref{lem: switch_projection}, and as $\boldsymbol \theta = \mathbf{B} \boldsymbol \phi$,
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol \theta, \mathbf{q}\rangle = \sum_{i=1}^{2n} \langle \boldsymbol \phi , \mathbf d_i \rangle (\Upsilon_i - \Tilde{\Upsilon} ),
\end{equation*}
where $\Tilde{\Upsilon} = \min_{1\leq k\leq 2n} \Upsilon_k $.
For any $i$ and $j \neq i$, due to the strong memoryless property of exponential random variables, $\{\Upsilon_{j} - \Upsilon_{i} | \Tilde{\Upsilon} = \Upsilon_{i}\}$ is an exponential random variable with mean $\frac{\sigma^2}{2}$. Also, for any $j$ and $k$, $\{\Upsilon_{j} - \Upsilon_{i} | \Tilde{\Upsilon} = \Upsilon_{i}\}$ and $\{\Upsilon_{k} - \Upsilon_{i} | \Tilde{\Upsilon} = \Upsilon_{i}\}$ are independent of each other. And as $\{\Upsilon_1,\dots,\Upsilon_{2n}\}$ are independent and identically distributed, $\mathbb{P}(\Tilde{\Upsilon} = \Upsilon_{i}) = \frac{1}{2n}$ for any $i$. Thus, the Laplace transform of the considered distribution is given by
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}[ e^{\sum_{j=1}^{2n} \langle \boldsymbol \phi , \mathbf d_j \rangle (\Upsilon_j - \Tilde{\Upsilon} )}]
& = \sum_{i=1}^{2n} \mathbb{P}(\Tilde{\Upsilon} = \Upsilon_{i}) \mathbb{E}[ e^{\sum_{j=1}^{2n} \langle \boldsymbol \phi , \mathbf d_j \rangle (\Upsilon_j - \Tilde{\Upsilon} )} | \Tilde{\Upsilon} = \Upsilon_{i}] \allowdisplaybreaks\\
& = \sum_{i=1}^{2n} \mathbb{P}(\Tilde{\Upsilon} = \Upsilon_{i}) \prod_{j\neq i} \mathbb{E}[ e^{\langle \boldsymbol \phi , \mathbf d_j \rangle (\Upsilon_j - \Tilde{\Upsilon} )} | \Tilde{\Upsilon} = \Upsilon_{i}]\allowdisplaybreaks\\
& = \sum_{i=1}^{2n} \frac{1}{2n} \times \frac{ 1- \langle \boldsymbol \phi , \mathbf d_i \rangle \frac{\sigma^2}{2} }{ \prod_{j}\big( 1- \langle \boldsymbol \phi , \mathbf d_j \rangle \frac{\sigma^2}{2}\big)}\\
& = \frac{ 1 - \langle \boldsymbol \phi , \mathbf 1_{2n}\rangle \frac{\sigma^2}{2}\ }{\prod_{j}\big( 1- \langle \boldsymbol \phi , \mathbf d_j \rangle \frac{\sigma^2}{2}\big)}.
\end{align*}
Thus, for any $i,j \in \{1,\dots,n\}$
\begin{align}
\label{eq: switch_laplacesolution}
L(\boldsymbol \phi) = \frac{ 1 - \langle \boldsymbol \phi , \mathbf 1_{2n}\rangle \frac{\sigma^2}{2}\ }{\prod_{j}\big( 1- \langle \boldsymbol \phi , \mathbf d_j \rangle \frac{\sigma^2}{2}\big)}, && M_{i+n(j-1)}(\boldsymbol \phi)= \frac{\big( 1- \langle \boldsymbol \phi , \mathbf d_i \rangle \frac{\sigma^2}{2}\big)\times\big( 1- \langle \boldsymbol \phi , \mathbf d_{n+j} \rangle \frac{\sigma^2}{2}\big)}{n\prod_{k}\big( 1- \langle \boldsymbol \phi , \mathbf d_k \rangle \frac{\sigma^2}{2}\big)}.
\end{align}
Now, for this to satisfy the functional equation given in Eq. \eqref{eq: switch_functional_eq}, we need,
\begin{align}
\label{eq: switch_provefunctional}
\Big( -\langle \boldsymbol{\phi}, \mathbf{1}_{2n} \rangle + &\frac{1}{2} \langle \boldsymbol{\phi} , \boldsymbol\Gamma \boldsymbol{\phi} \rangle \Big) \left(1 - \langle \boldsymbol \phi , \mathbf 1_{2n}\rangle \frac{\sigma^2}{2}\right) \nonumber\\
&= - \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n\sum_{j=1}^n \theta_{i+n(j-1)} \times\left( 1- \langle \boldsymbol \phi , \mathbf d_i \rangle \frac{\sigma^2}{2}\right)\times\left( 1- \langle \boldsymbol \phi , \mathbf d_{n+j} \rangle \frac{\sigma^2}{2}\right).
\end{align}
Under the symmetric variance condition, $\boldsymbol \sigma^2 = \sigma^2 \mathbf{I}_{n^2}$, then,
\begin{align}
\label{eq: switch_lhs}
\langle \boldsymbol{\phi} , \boldsymbol\Gamma \boldsymbol{\phi} \rangle = \boldsymbol{\phi}^T \mathbf{B}^T \boldsymbol \sigma^2 \mathbf{B}\boldsymbol{\phi} = \sigma^2\boldsymbol{\phi}^T \mathbf{B}^T \mathbf{I}_{n^2} \mathbf{B}\boldsymbol{\phi} = \sigma^2\boldsymbol{\phi}^T \mathbf{B}^T \mathbf{B}\boldsymbol{\phi} = \sigma^2 \langle\boldsymbol{\theta}, \boldsymbol{\theta} \rangle
\end{align}
The RHS in the Eq. \eqref{eq: switch_provefunctional} can be simplified as follows,
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n\sum_{j=1}^n &\theta_{i+n(j-1)} \times \left( 1- \langle \boldsymbol \phi , \mathbf d_i \rangle \frac{\sigma^2}{2}\right) \times\left( 1- \langle \boldsymbol \phi , \mathbf d_{n+j} \rangle \frac{\sigma^2}{2}\right)\\
&= \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n\sum_{j=1}^n (\phi_{i} +\phi_{n+j}) \times \left( 1- \langle \boldsymbol \phi , \mathbf d_i \rangle \frac{\sigma^2}{2}\right)\times\left( 1- \langle \boldsymbol \phi , \mathbf d_{n+j} \rangle \frac{\sigma^2}{2}\right)\allowdisplaybreaks\\
& = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \phi_{i}\left( 1- \langle \boldsymbol \phi , \mathbf d_i \rangle \frac{\sigma^2}{2}\right)\sum_{j=1}^n\left( 1- \langle \boldsymbol \phi , \mathbf d_{n+j} \rangle \frac{\sigma^2}{2}\right)\allowdisplaybreaks\\
& \quad \quad+\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n \phi_{n+j}\left( 1- \langle \boldsymbol \phi , \mathbf d_{n+j} \rangle \frac{\sigma^2}{2}\right)\sum_{i=1}^n\left( 1- \langle \boldsymbol \phi , \mathbf d_i \rangle \frac{\sigma^2}{2}\right)\allowdisplaybreaks\\
& = \sum_{i} \phi_{i}\left( 1- \langle \boldsymbol \phi , \mathbf d_i \rangle \frac{\sigma^2}{2}\right)\left( 1- \langle \boldsymbol \phi , \mathbf 1_{2n} \rangle \frac{\sigma^2}{2}\right)+ \sum_{j} \phi_{j}\left( 1- \langle \boldsymbol \phi , \mathbf d_j \rangle \frac{\sigma^2}{2}\right)\left( 1- \langle \boldsymbol \phi , \mathbf 1_{2n} \rangle\frac{\sigma^2}{2}\right)\allowdisplaybreaks\\
& = \left( 1- \langle \boldsymbol \phi , \mathbf 1_{2n} \rangle \frac{\sigma^2}{2}\right)\sum_{i=1}^{2n} \phi_{i}\left( 1- \langle \boldsymbol \phi , \mathbf d_i \rangle \frac{\sigma^2}{2}\right)\allowdisplaybreaks\\
& = \left( 1- \langle \boldsymbol \phi , \mathbf 1_{2n} \rangle \frac{\sigma^2}{2}\right) \left( \langle \boldsymbol \phi , \mathbf 1_{2n} \rangle -\frac{\sigma^2}{2} \sum_{i=1}^{2n} \langle \boldsymbol \phi , \mathbf d_i \rangle \phi_i \right)\allowdisplaybreaks\\
& = \left( 1- \langle \boldsymbol \phi , \mathbf 1_{2n} \rangle \frac{\sigma^2}{2}\right) \left( \langle \boldsymbol \phi , \mathbf 1_{2n} \rangle -\frac{\sigma^2}{2} \langle \boldsymbol \theta, \boldsymbol \theta \rangle\right)
\end{align*}
Combining the above with Eq. \eqref{eq: switch_lhs} gives us that Eq. \eqref{eq: switch_provefunctional} is satisfied. This shows that $L(\boldsymbol \phi) $ and $\mathbf M (\boldsymbol \phi)$ given in Eq. \eqref{eq: switch_laplacesolution} is a solution of the functional equation. Now, under the assumption that Conjecture \ref{lem: switch_uniqueness} holds true, we get that Eq. \eqref{eq: switch_laplacesolution} gives the unique solution to the functional equation given by Eq. \eqref{eq: switch_functional_eq}. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\section{Proofs for $\mathcal{N}$-system }
\label{app: n_sys}
\subsection{Proof of state space collapse for MaxWeight}
\label{app: n_sys_ssc}
\begin{proof}
The proof follows by using $V(\mathbf{q}) = (q_2-q_1)\mathbf{1}_{\{q_2>q_1\}}$ as the Lyapunov test function and applying \cite[Lemma 10]{Weina_bandwidth}. Suppose $V(\mathbf{q}) \geq 2$, then $q_2 \geq q_1 +2$ and so there are three possible transitions for the queue length vector:
\begin{itemize}
\item First transition is due to an arrival to the first queue which increases $q_1$ by $1$. The rate of this transition is $\lambda_1$.
\item Second transition is due to an arrival to the second queue which increases $q_2$ by $1$ and the transition rate is $\lambda_2$.
\item Third transition is because of service to the second queue. Note that as $q_2 >q_1$, only the second queue is served by both the queues. In this case, $q_2$ decreases by $1$ and the rate of this transition is $\mu_1 + \mu_2$.
\end{itemize}
Also, note that in all three cases we still satisfy the condition that second queue is greater than the first queue. Using the above three cases, the drift of the Lyapunov function $V(\mathbf{q})$ when $V(\mathbf{q}) \geq 2$ is given by,
\begin{align*}
\Delta V(\mathbf{q}) = \lambda_1 \times (-1) + \lambda_2 \times 1 + (\mu_1 + \mu_2) \times (-1) \stackrel{(a)}{=} -2\mu_1 + \epsilon (2\mu_1 - \gamma \mu_1 -\gamma \mu_2) \stackrel{(b)}{\leq} -\mu_1
\end{align*}
where (a) follows by using the Eq. \eqref{eq: n_sys_arrival_vector} and (b) easily follows whenever $2\mu_1 - \gamma \mu_1 -\gamma \mu_2 \leq 0$ or $2\mu_1 - \gamma \mu_1 -\gamma \mu_2> 0$ and $\epsilon \leq \frac{1}{\mu_1} (2\mu_1 - \gamma \mu_1 -\gamma \mu_2)$. This fulfils the first requirement in \cite[Lemma 10]{Weina_bandwidth}. For the second condition, note that any transition will change the queue length of exactly one queue by exactly 1 (either increase or decrease). So, for any transition, $V(\mathbf{q})$ can change by atmost 1. And finally, the third condition in \cite[Lemma 10]{Weina_bandwidth} is satisfied because all the transition rates are finite. Then, from the result of \cite[Lemma 10]{Weina_bandwidth}, we get that MaxWeight achieves state space collapse according to Definition \ref{def: n_sys_ssc}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Required Lemma}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem: nsys_mgf_equivalence}
Consider the $\mathcal{N}$-system as defined in Section \ref{sec: n_sys_model} operating under scheduling policy that achieves state space collapse according to the Definition \ref{def: n_sys_ssc}. For any $\boldsymbol \phi \in \boldsymbol \Phi$ where $\boldsymbol \Phi = \{\boldsymbol \phi \in\mathbb{C}^2: Re(\phi_1) \leq 0, Re(\phi_1 + \phi_2 )\leq 0\}$, then
\begin{enumerate}
\item \begin{align*}
\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \big| \mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon(\phi_1 q_1+\phi_2 q_2)}]\big| < \infty, && \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \big| \mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon(\phi_1+ \phi_2)q_2} |q_1 \leq q_2] \big|<\infty, &&\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0}\big| \mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon \phi_1 q_1}|q_2 =0] \big| < \infty.
\end{align*}
\item \begin{equation*}
\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon(\phi_1 q_1+\phi_2 q_2)}] = \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon(\phi_1 (q_1-q_2)\mathbf{1}_{\{q_1\geq q_2\}} + (\phi_1 + \phi_2)q_2 )}],
\end{equation*}
\end{enumerate}
where all the expectation are taken under the steady state distribution.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{lem: nsys_mgf_equivalence}]
As $q_{\perp} = (q_2-q_1)\mathbf{1}_{\{q_1 < q_2\}}$, we have
\begin{align*}
\phi_{1} q_1 + \phi_2 q_2 &= \phi_1 (q_1-q_2)\mathbf{1}_{\{q_1\geq q_2\}} + (\phi_1 + \phi_2)q_2 + \phi_1 (q_1-q_2)\mathbf{1}_{\{q_1 < q_2\}}\\
& = \phi_1 (q_1-q_2)\mathbf{1}_{\{q_1\geq q_2\}} + (\phi_1 + \phi_2)q_2 - \phi_1 q_{\perp},
\end{align*}
where $q_\perp = (q_1-q_2)\mathbf{1}_{\{q_1 < q_2\}}$. This gives us that,
\begin{align*}
\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \big| \mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon(\phi_1 q_1+\phi_2 q_2)}] \big| &\leq \lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E}[|e^{\epsilon(\phi_1 (q_1-q_2)\mathbf{1}_{\{q_1\geq q_2\}} + (\phi_1 + \phi_2)q_2 - \phi_1 q_{\perp})}|] \\
&\stackrel{(a)}{\leq} \lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E}[|e^{-\epsilon\phi_1 q_{\perp}}|]\\
&\stackrel{(b)}{<} \infty,
\end{align*}
where (a) holds as $Re(\phi_1)\leq $ and $Re(\phi_1 + \phi_2) \leq 0$ and (b) holds by using Definition \ref{def: n_sys_ssc}. Similarly, as $Re(\phi_1)\leq $ and $Re(\phi_1 + \phi_2) \leq 0$, $|e^{\epsilon(\phi_1+ \phi_2)q_2}|\leq 1$ and $|e^{\epsilon \phi_1 q_1}| \leq 1$ and so,
\begin{align*}
\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \big| \mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon(\phi_1+ \phi_2)q_2} |q_1 \leq q_2] \big|<\infty, &&\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0}\big| \mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon \phi_1 q_1}|q_2 =0] \big| < \infty.
\end{align*}
This completes the proof of part 1. Now, for part 2,
\begin{align*}
\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \big|\mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon(\phi_1 q_1+\phi_2 q_2)}] -& \mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon(\phi_1 (q_1-q_2)\mathbf{1}_{\{q_1\geq q_2\}} + (\phi_1 + \phi_2)q_2 )}]\big| \allowdisplaybreaks\\
&= \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \big| \mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon(\phi_1 (q_1-q_2)\mathbf{1}_{\{q_1\geq q_2\}} + (\phi_1 + \phi_2)q_2 )} \big(e^{-\epsilon\phi_1 q_{\perp}} -1 \big)]\big|\allowdisplaybreaks\\
& \stackrel{(a)}{\leq}\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E}[\big| e^{-\epsilon\phi_1 q_{\perp}} -1 \big| ]\allowdisplaybreaks\\
& \stackrel{(b)}{\leq}\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E}[\epsilon |\phi_1|| q_{\perp}| e^{\epsilon|\phi_1 ||q_{\perp}} | ]\allowdisplaybreaks\\
& \stackrel{(c)}{\leq}\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \epsilon |\phi_1| \mathbb{E}[| q_{\perp}|^2]^{\frac{1}{2}} \mathbb{E}[e^{2\epsilon|\phi_1 ||q_{\perp}} | ]^{\frac{1}{2}},
\end{align*}
where (a) holds as $Re(\phi_1)\leq $ and $Re(\phi_1 + \phi_2) \leq 0$; (b) holds because $|e^x-1| \leq |x|e^{|x|}$ for any $x\in \mathbb{C}$; (c) holds by using Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. Now, as the scheduling policy achieves state space collapse according to Definition \ref{def: n_sys_ssc}, $\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E}[| q_{\perp}|^2]^{\frac{1}{2}} \mathbb{E}[e^{2\epsilon|\phi_1 ||q_{\perp}} | ]^{\frac{1}{2}} < \infty$. This gives us that,
\begin{align*}
\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \big|\mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon(\phi_1 q_1+\phi_2 q_2)}] - \mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon(\phi_1 (q_1-q_2)\mathbf{1}_{\{q_1\geq q_2\}} + (\phi_1 + \phi_2)q_2 )}]\big| = 0.
\end{align*}
This completes the proof of part 2.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{theo: n_sys_mgf_eq}}
\label{app: n_sys_mgf_eq}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{theo: n_sys_mgf_eq}]
In order to prove the Eq. \eqref{eq: n_sys_mgf_eq} in Theorem \ref{theo: n_sys_mgf_eq}, we first need that the Laplace transform of the heavy traffic distribution exists, i.e., the absolute value of $L(\boldsymbol \phi), M_1(\boldsymbol \phi)$ and $M_2(\boldsymbol \phi)$ are finite.
Using Lemma \ref{lem: nsys_mgf_equivalence}, we get that, $|L(\boldsymbol \phi)| < \infty$ for all $\boldsymbol \phi \in \Phi$. Similarly, $|M_1(\boldsymbol \phi)| < \infty$ and $|M_2(\boldsymbol \phi)| < \infty$ for all $\boldsymbol \phi \in \Phi$.
Now, consider the exponential Lyapunov function
\begin{equation*}
V(q_1,q_2) = e^{\epsilon(\phi_1 q_1+\phi_2 q_2)}.
\end{equation*}
The drift of the function $V(q_1,q_2) $ is given by,
\begin{align}
\label{eq: n_sys_thm1_drift}
\Delta V(q_1,q_2) = e^{\epsilon(\phi_1 q_1 + \phi_2 q_2)}& [ \lambda_1 (e^{\epsilon\phi_1 }-1) + \lambda_2 (e^{\epsilon\phi_2 }-1)+ \mu_1(e^{-\epsilon\phi_1 }-1) \mathbf{1}_{\{q_1 > q_2,q_1>0\}} \nonumber\\
& \ +\mu_2(e^{-\epsilon\phi_2 }-1) \mathbf{1}_{\{q_1 > q_2,q_2>0\}}
+ (\mu_2+\mu_1)(e^{-\epsilon\phi_2 }-1) \mathbf{1}_{\{q_1 \leq q_2,q_2 >0\}} \big].
\end{align}
In the above equation, the first two terms correspond to the drift due to arrivals in each of the queue; the third and the fourth term correspond to the service for each queue when $q_1>q_2$; and the last term correspond to the service when $q_2\geq q_1$ in which case the only $q_2$ is served. We have also used the fact that a queue can be served only when the queue length is greater than zero. The drift of a well defined Lyapunov function is zero in steady state. So, $\mathbb{E}[\Delta V(q_1,q_2)] = 0$ for all $\boldsymbol \phi \in \Phi$, where expectation is taken under steady state distribution.
By putting $\phi_2 = 0$ in Eq. \eqref{eq: n_sys_thm1_drift}, we get that
\begin{align*}
\Delta V(q_1,q_2) = e^{\epsilon\phi_1 q_1} [ \lambda_1 (e^{\epsilon\phi_1 }-1) + \mu_1(e^{-\epsilon\phi_1 }-1) \mathbf{1}_{\{q_1 > q_2\}} \big].
\end{align*}
We can now use $\mathbb{E}[\Delta V(q_1,q_2)] = 0$ in steady state to get
\begin{align*}
\lambda_1 \mathbb{E}[ e^{\epsilon\phi q_1} ] &= \mu_1 e^{-\epsilon\phi_1} \mathbb{E}[ e^{\epsilon\phi_1 q_1}\mathbf{1}_{\{q_1 > q_2\}} ]
\end{align*}
Now, by again putting $\phi_1 =0$ in the above equation, we get that,
\begin{align}
\label{eq: n_sys_prob_surface1}
\mathbb{P}(q_1 \leq q_2) = 1-\frac{\lambda_1}{ \mu_1} = \epsilon
\end{align}
After some manipulation, we can rewrite the Eq. \eqref{eq: n_sys_thm1_drift} as
\begin{align*}
\Delta V(q_1,q_2) = e^{\epsilon(\phi_1 q_1 + \phi_2 q_2)}& \big[ \lambda_1 (e^{\epsilon\phi_1 }-1) + \lambda_2 (e^{\epsilon\phi_2 }-1)+ \mu_1(e^{-\epsilon\phi_1 }-1) +\mu_2(e^{-\epsilon\phi_2 }-1)\\
& \ \ + \mu_1(e^{-\epsilon\phi_2 }-e^{-\epsilon\phi_1 })\mathbf{1}_{\{q_1 \leq q_2\}}\big]\\
& \ \ - \mu_2e^{\epsilon\phi_1 q_1 }(e^{-\epsilon\phi_2 }-1) \mathbf{1}_{\{q_2 =0\}} - \mu_1(e^{-\epsilon\phi_2 }-1) \mathbf{1}_{\{q_1=q_2 =0\}},
\end{align*}
where we have used that $e^{\epsilon(\phi_1 q_1+\phi_2 q_2) }\mathbf{1}_{\{q_2 =0\}}= e^{\epsilon\phi_1 q_1 }\mathbf{1}_{\{q_2 =0\}}$ and $e^{\epsilon(\phi_1 q_1+\phi_2 q_2) }\mathbf{1}_{\{q_1=q_2 =0\}}= \mathbf{1}_{\{q_2 =0\}}$.
By taking expectation,
\begin{align}
\label{eq: n_sys_funcprove_termall}
\mathbb{E}[\Delta V(q_1,q_2)] =\big[& \lambda_1 (e^{\epsilon\phi_1 }-1) + \lambda_2 (e^{\epsilon\phi_2 }-1)+ \mu_1(e^{-\epsilon\phi_1 }-1) +\mu_2(e^{-\epsilon\phi_2 }-1)\big] \mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon(\phi_1 q_1 + \phi_2 q_2)}]\nonumber \\
& +\mu_1(e^{-\epsilon\phi_2 }-e^{-\epsilon\phi_1 }) \mathbb{P}(q_1\leq q_2) \mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon(\phi_1 q_1 + \phi_2 q_2)}| q_1\leq q_2]\nonumber\\
& - \mu_2 (e^{-\epsilon\phi_2 }-1)\mathbb{P}(q_1=0)\mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon\phi_1 q_1 }| q_2 = 0] - \mu_1(e^{-\epsilon\phi_2 }-1) \mathbb{P}(q_1=q_2 =0).
\end{align}
Next, by putting $\phi_1 = 0$ in the above equation,
\begin{equation*}
(\mu_2 - \lambda_2e^{\epsilon \phi_2})\mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon\phi_2 q_2}] + \mu_1 \mathbb{P}(q_1\leq q_2) \mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon\phi_2 q_2}| q_1\leq q_2] - \mu_2 \mathbb{P}(q_1=0) - \mu_1 \mathbb{P}(q_1=q_2 =0) = 0.
\end{equation*}
And now by putting $\phi_2 =0$,
\begin{align*}
& \mu_2 - \lambda_2 +\mu_1 \mathbb{P}(q_1\leq q_2) + \mu_2 \mathbb{P}(q_1=0) + \mu_1 \mathbb{P}(q_1=q_2 =0) = 0.
\end{align*}
We can simplify the above equation by putting $\mathbb{P}(q_1\leq q_2) = 1- \frac{\lambda_1}{\mu_1}$ from Eq. \eqref{eq: n_sys_prob_surface1}, to get
\begin{align}
\label{eq: n_sys_prob_surface2}
\mu_2 \mathbb{P}(q_1=0) + \mu_1 \mathbb{P}(q_1=q_2 =0) = \mu_1 + \mu_2 - \lambda_1- \lambda_2 = \gamma \epsilon(\mu_1 + \mu_2).
\end{align}
Now, we can do the heavy traffic approximation, where we use the Taylor expansion of complex exponential function upto the second order. For the first term,
\begin{align}
\label{eq: n_sys_funcprove_term1}
& \lambda_1 (e^{\epsilon\phi_1 }-1) + \lambda_2 (e^{\epsilon\phi_2 }-1)+ \mu_1(e^{-\epsilon\phi_1 }-1) +\mu_2(e^{-\epsilon\phi_2 }-1)\nonumber\\
& \stackrel{(a)}{=} \mu_1(1-\epsilon) \big(\epsilon\phi_1+ \epsilon^2 \frac{\phi_1^2}{2}\big) + \big((1-\gamma\epsilon) \mu_2 + \epsilon \mu_1 (1-\gamma)\big)\big(\epsilon\phi_2+ \epsilon^2 \frac{\phi_2^2}{2}\big) \nonumber\\
& \quad \quad + \mu_1 \big(-\epsilon\phi_1+ \epsilon^2 \frac{\phi_1^2}{2}\big) + \mu_2 \big(-\epsilon\phi_2+ \epsilon^2 \frac{\phi_2^2}{2}\big) + o(\epsilon^2)\nonumber\\
& = \epsilon^2 \big[\mu_1 (-\phi_1+\phi_1^2) + \mu_2 (-\gamma\phi_2+\phi_2^2)+ \phi_2\mu_1(1-\gamma) \big] +o(\epsilon^2),
\end{align}
where (a) follows by using the value of $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ as in Eq. \eqref{eq: n_sys_arrival_vector}. For the second term,
\begin{align*}
\Big| \mathbb{E} \Big[ \mathbf{1}_{\{q_1\leq q_2\}} \big( e^{\epsilon (\phi_1 q_1 +\phi_2 q_2)} - e^{\epsilon (\phi_1 + \phi_2)q_2}\big) \Big] \Big| &= \Big| \mathbb{E} \Big[ \mathbf{1}_{\{q_1\leq q_2\}} e^{\epsilon (\phi_1 + \phi_2)q_2} \big( e^{-\epsilon \phi_1(q_2-q_1)} - 1 \big)\Big] \Big| \allowdisplaybreaks\\
&\stackrel{(a)}{\leq} \mathbb{E} \Big[ \mathbf{1}_{\{q_1\leq q_2\}} \Big| e^{-\epsilon \phi_1(q_2-q_1)} - 1 \Big|\Big] \allowdisplaybreaks\\
& \stackrel{(b)}{=} \mathbb{E} \Big[ \mathbf{1}_{\{q_1\leq q_2\}} \big| e^{-\epsilon \phi_1(q_2-q_1)\mathbf{1}_{\{q_1< q_2\}} } - 1 \big|\Big] \allowdisplaybreaks\\
& \stackrel{(c)}{\leq}\mathbb{E} [ \mathbf{1}_{\{q_1\leq q_2\}}]^{\frac{1}{2}} \mathbb{E} \Big[ \big| e^{-\epsilon\phi_1 q_{\perp}} - 1 \big|^2\Big]^{\frac{1}{2}}\allowdisplaybreaks\\
& \stackrel{(d)}{\leq} \sqrt{\epsilon} \mathbb{E} \Big[ \big| e^{\epsilon |\phi_1 |q_{\perp}} - 1 \big|^2\Big]^{\frac{1}{2}}\allowdisplaybreaks\\
&\stackrel{(e)}{\leq} \epsilon^{\frac{3}{2}}|\phi_1 | \mathbb{E} \Big[ q_{\perp}^2 e^{2\epsilon |\phi_1|q_{\perp}} \Big]^{\frac{1}{2}}\allowdisplaybreaks\\
&\stackrel{(f)}{\leq} \epsilon^{\frac{3}{2}}|\phi_1| \mathbb{E} [ q_{\perp}^4]^{\frac{1}{4}}\mathbb{E} \Big[ e^{4\epsilon |\phi_1 |q_{\perp}} \Big]^{\frac{1}{4}},
\end{align*}
where (a) follows as $Re(\phi_1 +\phi_2)\leq 0$ and so $|e^{\epsilon (\phi_1 + \phi_2)q_2}| \leq 1$; (b) follows as the term inside expectation is zero when $q_1 \geq q_2$; (c) uses the notation $q_\perp = (q_1-q_2)\mathbf{1}_{\{q_1< q_2\}}$ and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality; (d) follows by Eq. \eqref{eq: n_sys_prob_surface1}; (e) uses the fact that $|e^x -1|\leq |x|e^{|x|}$ for all $x\in \mathbb{C}$ and finally (f) follows by Cauchy-Schwarz inequality.
Now, from Definition \ref{def: n_sys_ssc}, we know that $\mathbb{E} [ q_{\perp}^4] < \infty$ and $\mathbb{E} \Big[ e^{4\epsilon |\phi_1|q_{\perp}} \Big] < \infty$. This gives us that
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{E} \Big[ \mathbf{1}_{\{q_1\leq q_2\}} e^{\epsilon (\phi_1 q_1 +\phi_2 q_2)} \Big] = \mathbb{E} \Big[ \mathbf{1}_{\{q_1\leq q_2\}} e^{\epsilon (\phi_1 + \phi_2)q_2} \Big] +o(\epsilon).
\end{equation*}
And so, by using $(e^{-\epsilon\phi_2} -e^{-\epsilon\phi_1}) = -\epsilon(\phi_2 - \phi_1) + o(\epsilon)$ and $\mathbb{P}(q_1\leq q_2 ) = \epsilon$ from Eq. \eqref{eq: n_sys_prob_surface1},
\begin{align}
\label{eq: n_sys_funcprove_term2}
\mu_1 (e^{-\epsilon\phi_2} -e^{-\epsilon\phi_1}) \mathbb{E} \Big[ \mathbf{1}_{\{q_1\leq q_2\}} e^{\epsilon (\phi_1 q_1 +\phi_2 q_2)} \Big] &= \epsilon^2 \mu_1 (\phi_1-\phi_2) \mathbb{E} \Big[ e^{\epsilon (\phi_1 + \phi_2)q_2} |q_1\leq q_2 \Big] +o(\epsilon^2).
\end{align}
Finally,
\begin{align}
\label{eq: n_sys_funcprove_term3}
\mu_2 & (e^{-\epsilon\phi_2 }-1)\mathbb{P}(q_1=0)\mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon\phi_1 q_1 }| q_2 = 0] + \mu_1(e^{-\epsilon\phi_2 }-1) \mathbb{P}(q_1=q_2 =0)\nonumber \\
& = -\epsilon^2 \bigg[ \mu_2 \phi_2 \frac{\mathbb{P}(q_1=0)}{\epsilon} \mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon\phi_1 q_1 }| q_2 = 0] + \mu_1 \phi_2 \frac{\mathbb{P}(q_1=q_2=0)}{\epsilon} \bigg] + o(\epsilon^2).
\end{align}
Now by substituting Eq. \eqref{eq: n_sys_funcprove_term1}, \eqref{eq: n_sys_funcprove_term2} and \eqref{eq: n_sys_funcprove_term3} in the Eq. \eqref{eq: n_sys_funcprove_termall} and taking $\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon^2} \mathbb{E}[\Delta V(q_1,q_2)] = 0$, where the expectation is taken under steady state distribution, we get that for any $\boldsymbol \phi \in \Phi$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq: nsys_mgf_withp2}
L(\boldsymbol \phi) \big[ \mu_2 (-\gamma\phi_2 +\phi_2^2)+\phi_2\mu_1(1-\gamma)+ \mu_1 (-\phi_1+\phi_1^2)\big] +\mu_1(\phi_1-\phi_2) M_1(\boldsymbol \phi) +\mu_2\phi_2 p_1 M_2(\boldsymbol \phi) + \mu_1 \phi_2 p_2 =0,
\end{equation}
where $L(\boldsymbol \phi), M_1(\boldsymbol \phi) $ and $M_2(\boldsymbol \phi) $ are as defined in the Theorem \ref{theo: n_sys_mgf_eq} and
\begin{align*}
p_1 = \lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \frac{\mathbb{P}(q_2=0)}{\epsilon} && p_2 = \lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \frac{\mathbb{P}( q_1=q_2=0)}{\epsilon}
\end{align*}
Now, we claim that $p_2 =0$. This can be seen as follows. By putting $\phi_1 = 0$ in Eq. \eqref{eq: nsys_mgf_withp2},
\begin{equation*}
L(\boldsymbol \phi) \big[ \mu_2 (-\gamma\phi_2 +\phi_2^2)+\phi_2\mu_1(1-\gamma)\big] -\mu_1\phi_2 M_1(\boldsymbol \phi) +\mu_2\phi_2 p_1 M_2(\boldsymbol \phi) + \mu_1 \phi_2 p_2 =0.
\end{equation*}
As the above equation is true for any $\phi_2$ such that $Re(\phi_2)\leq 0$, we get,
\begin{equation*}
L(\boldsymbol \phi) \big[ \mu_2 (-\gamma +\phi_2)+\mu_1(1-\gamma)\big] -\mu_1 M_1(\boldsymbol \phi) +\mu_2 p_1 M_2(\boldsymbol \phi) + \mu_1 p_2 =0.
\end{equation*}
Now, by the property of exponential function, as $Re(\phi_2) \rightarrow -\infty$, we have $L(\boldsymbol\phi) \rightarrow 0$, $M_1(\boldsymbol \phi)\rightarrow 0$, $M_2(\boldsymbol \phi)\rightarrow 0$ and finally $\phi_2L(\boldsymbol\phi) \rightarrow 0$. By using this in the previous equation, we get $p_2 =0$. Using this in Eq. \eqref{eq: n_sys_prob_surface2} gives us that $p_1 = \frac{\gamma(\mu_1+\mu_2)}{\mu_2}$. Substituting the value of $p_1$ back in Eq. \eqref{eq: nsys_mgf_withp2} completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Lemma \ref{lem: n_sys_uniqueness}}
\label{app: n_sys_uniqueness}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{lem: n_sys_uniqueness}]
In order to prove Lemma \ref{lem: n_sys_uniqueness}, we are going to Lemma \ref{lem: functional_uniqueness}. We already know that the heavy traffic distribution of the scaled queue length vector i.e., the distribution of $\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \epsilon \mathbf{q}$ exists. Next, we do a linear transform of the variable $\boldsymbol \phi$ so that the Laplace transform $M_1(\cdot)$ and $M_2(\cdot)$ depends only on one variable. We can pick $\psi_1 = \phi_1$ and $\psi_2 = \phi_1 +\phi_2$, i.e., $\boldsymbol \psi = (\psi_1,\psi_2) = (\phi_1,\phi_1 +\phi_2)$. Which implies that $\boldsymbol \phi = (\psi_1,\psi_2-\psi_1) $. Then, $M_1(\boldsymbol \phi) = M_1(\psi_2)$ and $M_2(\boldsymbol \phi) = M_2(\psi_1)$.
The functional equation can be rewritten as,
\begin{align*}
\big((\mu_1+\mu_2) \psi_1^2 +\mu_2 \psi_2^2 -2\mu_2 \psi_1\psi_2 +& \psi_1(\gamma(\mu_1+\mu_2) - 2\mu_1) + \psi_2(\mu_1 - \gamma(\mu_1+\mu_2)) \big) L(\boldsymbol{\psi})\\
&+ \mu_1(2\psi_1 -\psi_2) M_1(\psi_2) +\gamma(\mu_1+\mu_2)(\psi_2 - \psi_1)M_2(\psi_1) = 0.
\end{align*}
As the functional equation in Eq. \eqref{eq: n_sys_mgf_eq} holds for any $\boldsymbol \phi \in \Phi$, so the rewritten functional equation above holds for any $\boldsymbol \psi$ such that $Re(\boldsymbol \psi) \leq \mathbf{0}_2$.
Also, as shown in the proof of Theorem \ref{theo: n_sys_mgf_eq},
\begin{align*}
\phi_{1} q_1 + \phi_2 q_2 = \psi_1 (q_1-q_2)\mathbf{1}_{\{q_1\geq q_2\}} + \psi_2q_2 + \psi_1 q_{\perp},
\end{align*}
By using the state space collapse,
\begin{align*}
L(\boldsymbol \phi) = \lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E}\big[ e^{\epsilon (\psi_1 (q_1-q_2)\mathbf{1}_{\{q_1\geq q_2\}} + \psi_2q_2)}\big]
\end{align*}
This can be seen as follows,
\begin{align*}
\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \Big|\mathbb{E}[ & e^{\epsilon( \phi_{1} q_1 + \phi_2 q_2)}] - \mathbb{E}\big[ e^{\epsilon (\psi_1 (q_1-q_2)\mathbf{1}_{\{q_1\geq q_2\}} + \psi_2q_2)}\big]\Big|\\
& \leq\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E}\big[ \big| e^{\epsilon (\psi_1 (q_1-q_2)\mathbf{1}_{\{q_1\geq q_2\}} + \psi_2q_2)}\big| \big|(1- e^{\epsilon\phi_1 q_\perp})\big|\big]\\
&\stackrel{(a)}{\leq} \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E}\big[ \big|(1- e^{\epsilon\psi_1 q_\perp})\big|\big]\\
&\stackrel{(b)}{\leq}\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \epsilon |\psi_1| \mathbb{E}[|q_\perp|] \mathbb{E}[e^{|\epsilon\psi_1 q_\perp|}]\\
& \stackrel{(c)}{=} 0,
\end{align*}
where (a) holds as $\boldsymbol \phi\in \Phi$ and so, $ \big| e^{\epsilon (\psi_1 (q_1-q_2)\mathbf{1}_{\{q_1\geq q_2\}} + \psi_2q_2)}\big| \leq 1$; (b) holds as $|e^x-1|\leq |x|e^{|x|}$ for any $x\in \mathbb{C}$; and (c) holds by using Definition \ref{def: n_sys_ssc}. Now, $M_1(\boldsymbol \phi)$ is the Laplace transform of $(\psi_1 (q_1-q_2)\mathbf{1}_{\{q_1\geq q_2\}} + \psi_2q_2)$ under the condition that $(q_1-q_2)\mathbf{1}_{\{q_1\geq q_2\}} =0$ which is same as the condition $q_1 \leq q_2$. Similarly, $M_2(\boldsymbol \phi)$ is the Laplace transform under the condition that $q_2 =0$ in which case $\psi_1 (q_1-q_2)\mathbf{1}_{\{q_1\geq q_2\}} + \psi_2q_2)$ reduces to $\psi_1 q_1$. Thus, $M_1(\boldsymbol \phi)$ and $M_2(\boldsymbol \phi)$ define the Laplace transform of the boundary measures of $(\psi_1 (q_1-q_2)\mathbf{1}_{\{q_1\geq q_2\}} + \psi_2q_2)$. Now, this matches with the form we have in Eq. \eqref{eq: functional}. In this case, the reflection matrix $\mathbf R$ and the interior drift $\boldsymbol \alpha$ is
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{R} = \begin{bmatrix}
2\mu_1 && - \gamma (\mu_1 + \mu_2)\\
-\mu_1 && \gamma (\mu_1 + \mu_2).
\end{bmatrix} && \boldsymbol \alpha = \begin{bmatrix}
\gamma (\mu_1 + \mu_2)-2\mu_1\\
\mu_1 - \gamma (\mu_1 + \mu_2).
\end{bmatrix}
\end{align*}
Now we can observe that the required conditions in Lemma \ref{lem: functional_uniqueness} is satisfied. This gives us that the functional equation for $\mathcal{N}$-system has a unique solution.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{theo: n_sys_distribution}}
\label{app: n_sys_distribution}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{theo: n_sys_distribution}]
We know that the Laplace transform of distribution uniquely defines the distribution.
For the considered distribution, $\epsilon q_1 \rightarrow \Upsilon_1+ \Upsilon_2$ and $\epsilon q_2 \rightarrow \Upsilon_2$ as $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$ is equivalent to saying that for all $\boldsymbol \phi \in \Phi$,
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon(\phi_1 q_1+\phi_2 q_2)}] = \mathbb{E}[e^{\phi_1 \Upsilon_1+(\phi_1+\phi_2) \Upsilon_2}] = \frac{1}{(1-\phi_1)\big(1- \frac{\phi_1+\phi_2}{2\gamma}\big)}.
\end{equation*}
Under the condition $\mu_1 = \mu_2$, the Laplace equation given in Eq. \eqref{eq: n_sys_mgf_eq} becomes,
\begin{align}
L(\boldsymbol \phi) \big[ (1-2\gamma)\phi_2 & +\phi_2^2 -\phi_1+\phi_1^2\big] +(\phi_1-\phi_2) M_1(\boldsymbol \phi) +2\gamma\phi_2 M_1(\boldsymbol \phi) =0,
\end{align}
Now, if we choose,
\begin{align*}
L(\boldsymbol \phi) = \frac{1}{(1-\phi_1)\big(1- \frac{\phi_1+\phi_2}{2\gamma}\big)},&&
M_1(\boldsymbol \phi) = \frac{1}{1- \frac{\phi_1+\phi_2}{2\gamma}}, &&
M_2(\boldsymbol \phi) = \frac{1}{1-\phi_1},
\end{align*}
then,
\begin{align}
L(\boldsymbol \phi) &\big[ (1-2\gamma)\phi_2 +\phi_2^2 -\phi_1+\phi_1^2\big] +(\phi_1-\phi_2) M_1(\boldsymbol \phi) +2\gamma\phi_2 M_1(\boldsymbol \phi) \nonumber\\
&= \frac{(1-2\gamma)\phi_2 +\phi_2^2 -\phi_1+\phi_1^2}{(1-\phi_1)\big(1- \frac{\phi_1+\phi_2}{2\gamma}\big)}+\frac{\phi_1-\phi_2}{1- \frac{\phi_1+\phi_2}{2\gamma}} + \frac{2\gamma\phi_2}{1-\phi_1}\nonumber\allowdisplaybreaks\\
& = \frac{1}{(1-\phi_1)\big(1- \frac{\phi_1+\phi_2}{2\gamma}\big)} \left[ (1-2\gamma)\phi_2 +\phi_2^2 -\phi_1+\phi_1^2 + (1-\phi_1)(\phi_1-\phi_2) + 2\gamma\phi_2\left(1- \frac{\phi_1+\phi_2}{2\gamma}\right)\right]\nonumber\allowdisplaybreaks\\
& = 0.
\end{align}
Thus, for the chosen solution $(L(\boldsymbol \phi) , M_1(\boldsymbol \phi), M_2(\boldsymbol \phi))$, the Laplace equation in Eq. \eqref{eq: n_sys_mgf_eq} is satisfied. And from Lemma \ref{lem: n_sys_uniqueness}, we know that there is a unique solution to the Eq. \eqref{eq: n_sys_mgf_eq}. Thus, this gives the distribution of the heavy traffic steady state queue length.
\end{proof}
\end{appendix}
\section{Discussion \& Future work}
\label{sec: discussion}
In this paper, we looked at queueing systems that do not satisfy the CRP condition and developed a technique using the Laplace transform to specify the heavy traffic distribution. The idea is to use complex exponential as the test function and set its drift to zero in steady-state. If the system satisfies the CRP condition, then this analysis gives the explicit closed-form expression for the Laplace transform of the heavy traffic distribution. For a non-CRP system, the same analysis gives an implicit equation which is termed the functional equation of the system. For the considered systems, we characterized their heavy traffic distribution using the functional equation and provided the solution to the functional equation under some specific conditions on the system parameters. Before concluding this paper, we present a few small remarks and future directions for this work.
\subsubsection{Uniqueness of functional equation for Input-queued switch} Proving the uniqueness of the solution the functional equation for the Input-queued switch has turned out to be a difficult task. The ideas presented in \cite{franceschi2019integral} are not enough to prove the statement given by Conjecture \ref{lem: switch_uniqueness}. One idea is to look at the extensions of the Carleman Boundary value problem and then attempt a similar technique as presented in \cite{franceschi2019integral}. Completing the proof for Conjecture \ref{lem: switch_uniqueness} is crucial to extend the results presented in this paper to more general SPNs.
\subsubsection{Heavy traffic distribution under general variance condition} For all three queueing systems considered in this paper, we have shown that the heavy traffic distribution of the steady-state scaled queue length vector can be represented by independent exponential random variables under some specific condition on the variance of the arrival process. The authors in \cite{franceschi2019integral} use the theory of the Carleman Boundary value problem to solve for the heavy traffic distribution when the corresponding functional equation consists of two variables, and provide the solution as a Cauchy integral which are hard to interpret. Finding the heavy traffic distribution under more general variance conditions is still an open problem.
\section{Introduction}
Stochastic Processing Networks (SPNs) \cite{williams_survey_SPN} are ubiquitous in engineering with applications in manufacturing, telecommunications, transportation, computer systems, etc. A general stochastic processing network consists of jobs or packets that compete for service by limited resources. SPNs in general are modeled using a set of interacting queues. A key performance metric of interest in such systems is delay and queue length. In general, it is not possible to obtain an exact expression for the steady-state behavior in such queues. Therefore, SPNs are studied in various asymptotic regimes. In this paper, we consider the heavy-traffic regime where the system is loaded close to its capacity. The queue length in this case, usually blows up to infinity, at a rate of $1/\epsilon$, where $\epsilon$ is the heavy-traffic parameter, denoting the gap between the arrival rate and the system capacity. Therefore, the objective of interest is typically the asymptotic behavior of the queue length, scaled by $\epsilon$.
Heavy-traffic analysis took root in the work of Kingman \cite{kingman1962_brownian}, who showed that the scaled queue length of a single server queue converges to an exponential random variable in heavy traffic. This was done using diffusion limit approximation and studying the limiting reflected Brownian motion process.
Since then, a variety of SPNs has been studied in heavy traffic. A key phenomenon in the heavy-traffic regime is that the multi-dimensional queue-length vector typically collapses to a lower-dimensional subspace. This is called the \textit{State Space Collapse} (SSC), and simplifies the analysis of an SPN. When the so-called Complete Resource Pooling (CRP) condition is satisfied, various SPNs exhibit an SSC to a one-dimension subspace, i.e., a line. In this case, the SPN behaves like a single server queue in heavy traffic, and the limiting distribution of scaled queue lengths can be represented using a single exponential random variable. CRP intuitively means that there is a single bottleneck in the system leading to heavy traffic. A popular example of such a system is the load-balancing system under an algorithm such as join-the-shortest queue \cite{foschini1978basic}.
However, several SPNs that arise in practice do not satisfy the CRP condition, and the SSC occurs to a multi-dimensional subspace. Except in special cases, the classical diffusion limit approach fails in this setting.
Recent work \cite{maguluri2016heavy,Hurtado-gen-switch-SIGMETRICS} developed the drift method and used it to characterize the mean (weighted) sum of the queue lengths in such systems under great generality. However, it was shown in \cite{Hurtado_gen-switch_arxiv} that the drift method is insufficient to even obtain the individual mean queue lengths. Going beyond the mean queue lengths, the key question we focus on in this paper is: \textit{What is the heavy traffic \textbf{joint distribution} of queue lengths in an SPN when the CRP condition is not satisfied?} We answer this question in this paper by studying two systems that have served as representatives of non-CRP systems in the literature.
We do this by developing a novel transform method for non-CRP systems. Transform method was first developed in \cite{hurtado2020transform} with the goal of overcoming the limitations of the drift method. The key idea in the transform method is to work with exponential Lyapunov functions, which enables one to work with Laplace or Fourier transforms. However, \cite{hurtado2020transform} was limited to CRP systems. A major methodological contribution of this paper is to extend the transform method for non-CRP systems, and
use it to study two systems that have served as representatives of non-CRP systems in the literature.
\subsection{Main Contribution}
The main contributions of this paper are the following.
\subsubsection{Transform method for non-CRP systems}
Based on the transform method for CRP systems in \cite{hurtado2020transform}, we use complex exponential as the test function for non-CRP systems. For CRP systems, when the drift of this test function is set to zero in steady-state, one obtains an exact expression for the Fourier transform of the limiting distribution, as SSC occurs to a line. Based on this limiting transform, one immediately concludes convergence in distribution to an exponential random variable. For non-CRP systems, when the complex exponential is used as test function, after using the multidimensional SSC, we obtain an \textit{implicit functional equation} in the Laplace transform of the limiting distribution. A major challenge in non-CRP systems is in solving this implicit functional equation. When SSC is into two dimensional subspace, such functional equations are solved in the literature \cite{franceschi2019integral}, using Carleman boundary value problem \cite{litvinchuk1970generalized}. We adopt these results to obtain the limiting distribution under two dimensional SSC.
\subsubsection{Input-queued switch}
Input-queued switch that also models a data center networks is a discrete-time queueing systems that also has served as a representative of non-CRP systems in the literature. Historically, developments on input queued switch have served as guide posts to study more general SPNs. In Section \ref{sec: switch}, we then consider the input-queued switch with $n$ ports and $n^2$ queues operating under a class of scheduling policies that satisfies SSC (e.g. MaxWeight scheduling). We obtain the implicit functional equation for the transform of the limiting queue-length vector. Solving this functional equation is a major challenge. In particular, the key difficulty is in establishing uniqueness of its solution. We identify one solution of this functional equation and \textit{conjecture} that this solution is unique.
Our solution for the heavy-traffic joint distribution of the queue lengths in a switch involves a non-linear transformation of $2n$ iid exponential random variables.
The mean of the sum of the queue-lengths under the proposed joint distribution matches with the known solution in the literature \cite{maguluri2016heavy}.
After that, in Section \ref{sec: 3q}, we consider a special case consisting of just three queues, which we call the Three-queue system. The dynamics of the Three-queue system is similar to that of an Input-queued switch, although it has only three-queues. For Three-queue system, the three dimensional queue vector collapses to a two-dimensional subspace in heavy traffic. We characterize the heavy-traffic queue-length vector in terms of the linear combinations of two independent exponential random variables. For the Three-queue system, we prove that the uniqueness conjecture holds, i.e., the functional equation has a unique solution. This is in contrast with the Input-queued switch, for which we conjecture that the functional equation has a unique solution.
\subsubsection{$\mathcal{N}$-system }
$\mathcal{N}$-system is a two-server parallel server system operating in continuous time under Poisson arrivals and exponential service times.
It is one of the simplest parallel server system that preserves much of the complexity of more general models, and so has been extensively studied, albeit only under CRP. We study it under the MaxWeight policy when the CRP condition is not satisfied. In this case, the two dimensional state of the system collapses to a two-dimensional cone (and thus, there is no dimensionality reduction). We present the heavy traffic joint distribution of the steady-state scaled queue length vector of the $\mathcal{N}$-system in terms of two independent and exponentially distributed random variables. The details of our results for $\mathcal{N}$-system are presented in Section \ref{sec: n_sys}.
\subsection{Outline of our method}
The analysis presented in this paper is based on the transform method for heavy-traffic analysis that was first developed in \cite{hurtado2020transform}. It is a variant of the drift method, where a complex exponential is chosen as a Lyapunov test function, and its drift is set to zero in steady-state. This leads to working with the Laplace or Fourier transform of the stationary-distribution in the heavy-traffic limit. When the CRP condition is satisfied, one first establishes a one-dimensional SSC. Using this SSC result, setting the drift of the test function to zero, one obtains an exact expression for the transform of the limiting stationary distribution (i.e., the moment-generating function). By identifying the limiting MGF with that of an exponential random variable, one concludes convergence in distribution to the exponential. In this paper, we extend this framework to non-CRP systems.
After first establishing SSC, our framework is then in two steps. The first step is to use the complex exponential as the Lyapunov function and equate its expected drift to zero in steady-state.
After that, we use the second-order approximation of the complex exponential in terms of the heavy traffic parameter to get the functional equation that characterizes the heavy traffic distribution of the scaled queue length vector. Here we make use of the SSC result.
To be more specific, due to the SSC, the number of variables in the functional equation matches with the dimension of subspace into which SSC occurs.
The second step is to solve the derived functional equation to get the Laplace transform of the heavy traffic distribution of the steady-state scaled queue length vector. Solving the functional equation, in general, is not easy. Under some specific conditions on the parameter involved in the functional equation, one could guess the solution and check whether it satisfies the functional equation or not. If it does, then the solution gives the Laplace transform of the heavy traffic distribution. A crucial step to solve the functional equation is to show that it has a unique solution. This ensures that the guessed solution is the only solution for the functional equation. In this paper, we use the results presented in \cite{franceschi2019integral} to show that if the queueing system has a functional equation in two variables (for example, $\mathcal{N}$-system and Three-queue system), then there is a unique solution to the functional equation. For a system with a functional equation with a higher number of variables than two, we conjecture that the functional equation has a unique solution.
\subsection{Related Work}
Using diffusion limit to study the behaviour of a queueing system in heavy traffic was first introduced by Kingman \cite{kingman1962_brownian}, where he studied a single server queue. Using the state space collapse to study the heavy traffic optimality was first introduced by in \cite{foschini1978basic}, where the authors studied the performance of the Join-the-shortest queue policy in a multi-server system. This method was successfully applied to several queueing systems that satisfies the CRP condition \cite{harrison1998heavy, harrison1987brownian, Williams_CRP, stolyar2004maxweight, gamarnik2006validity}. The idea has also been used to study some non-CRP systems, eg., bandwidth sharing network \cite{Weina_bandwidth, kang2009state, zwart_bandwidth_diffusion, yeyaobandwidth2012}. A major drawback of the diffusion limit method is that it involves a certain interchange of limits which is hard to establish.
The idea behind diffusion limits \cite{gurvich2014diffusion, Williams_state_space, rei_state_space} is to show a \textit{process level convergence} of the scaled queue length vector to a Reflected Brownian Motion (RBM) \cite{harrison_2013_book, morters2010brownian, uhlenbeck1930theory}. Due to state space collapse, the corresponding RBM lives in a lower dimensional subspace as compared to the original state space of the queueing system. Next step is to study the stationary distribution of the obtained RBM process.
The stationary distribution of an RBM motion can be characterized the Basic Adjoint Relationship (BAR) \cite{dai2011nonnegativity}. Solving the BAR to obtain the stationary distribution is hard in general. But under the skew-symmetry condition \cite{harrison1987multidimensional, williams1987reflected, harrison1987brownian}, one can solve the BAR to show that the stationary distribution of the RBM is given by product-form exponential. A few papers \cite{franceschi2019integral, harrison1978diffusion} attempt to solve the BAR even when the skew-symmetry condition is not satisfied, while others \cite{dai2011reflecting, Franceschi2017asymptotic} use the BAR to study the tail behaviour of the stationary distribution of the RBM. Numerical methods to solve the BAR and obtain the stationary distribution is presented in \cite{dai1991steady, dai1992reflected}.
In addition to diffusion limits method, there are three different \textit{direct methods} to study the heavy traffic behaviour of a queueing system. Major advantage of these direct methods over the diffusion limit method is that these method do not require the interchange of limits. The first direct method, named as the \textit{drift method} uses the idea of choosing a test function and equating its expected drift to zero in steady-state. Drift method was introduced in \cite{atilla} to study the moments of weighted queue lengths of a multi server system. The analysis in \cite{atilla} is an extension of results presented in \cite{kingman}. A common choice for test functions in drift method is polynomial test functions, which can be used to obtain bounds on the moments of queue length. However, for non-CRP systems, the drift method with polynomial test functions is not enough to obtain bounds on the higher moments of queue lengths \cite{Hurtado-gen-switch-SIGMETRICS}. Transform methods \cite{hurtado2020transform} is an extension of the drift methods where an exponential test function is used. Second is \textit{BAR method} \cite{braverman_BAR} which studies a continuous time system under general arrivals and services by using exponential functions to get a handle on the jumps. The third method is \textit{Stein's method} \cite{gurvich2014diffusion, braverman2017stein}, which focuses on studying the rate of convergence to the diffusion limit. Among the direct methods, the primary focus of BAR method and the Stein's method are the systems that satisfy the CRP condition, while only drift method is used to study the non-CRP system. In this paper, we extend the transform methods by using complex exponential as the test function to study two well-known non-CRP system, i.e., $\mathcal{N}$-system and Input-queued switch.
A general model for a parallel server system (including the $\mathcal{N}$-system ) is provided in \cite{rubino2009dynamic}. The Brownian control problem for parallel server systems is presented in \cite{harlop_state_space}, where a linear program in terms of arrival rates and mean service times was presented to define the heavy traffic regime for this system and articulate the condition for complete resource pooling. In \cite{belwil_state_space}, the authors studied a Brownian control problem for $\mathcal{N}$-system under CRP condition. They proposed a threshold control policy which is asymptotically optimal in the heavy traffic limit. Similar work for $\mathcal{N}$-system with reneging is presented in \cite{tezcan2010dynamic} which shows that under certain conditions on the service speed, a $c\mu$-type greedy policy is asymptotically optimal in the heavy traffic. The focus of most of the existing literature on $\mathcal{N}$-system is minimizing the cost under CRP condition. More recently, the mean delay of parallel server systems are studied under non-CRP condition \cite{Hurtado-gen-switch-SIGMETRICS} with MaxWeight as the scheduling algorithm. Ours is the first work that studies the heavy traffic distribution of $\mathcal{N}$-system under non-CRP condition.
Input-queued switch is one of the most popular queueing system that does not satisfy the CRP condition and as mentioned in \cite{shah2012optimal, williams_survey_SPN}, Input-queued switch serves a guiding principle for design and analysis of scheduling algorithms in general SPNs. Papers \cite{mckeown1995scheduling, mckeown96walrand, 665071} study the performance and throughput optimality of different scheduling algorithms (including MaxWeight) for Input-queued switch. The holding cost for a generalized switch model under CRP condition with MaxWeight as scheduling algorithm was studied in \cite{stolyar2004maxweight}. While the mean delay of Input-queued switch operating under MaxWeight scheduling in heavy traffic was studied using the drift method in the paper \cite{maguluri2016heavy} with some extensions provided in \cite{QUESTA_switch,Hurtado-gen-switch-SIGMETRICS,jhunjhunwala2021low}. The diffusion approximation for Input-queued switch of size $n$ under MaxWeight scheduling was presented in \cite{kang2012diffusion}, where the authors showed the process level convergence of a $(2n-1)$-dimensional workload process to a semimartingale-RBM.
\subsection{Basic Notations}
We use $\mathbb R$ to denote the set of real numbers and $\mathbb{C}$ to denote the set of complex numbers. Also, we use $\mathbb R_+$ to denote the set of positive real numbers. Similarly, $\mathbb R^d$ and $\mathbb C^d$ denote the set of $d$-dimensional real and complex vectors, respectively. For any complex vector $x\in \mathbb C^d$, $Re(x)$ and $Im(x)$ denote the real part and imaginary part of $x$, respectively. For any vector $\mathbf{x}$, we use $x_i$ to denote the $i^{th}$ element of $\mathbf{x}$. The inner product of two vectors $\mathbf{x}$ and $\mathbf{y}$ is defined as $\langle \mathbf{x},\mathbf{y}\rangle = \mathbf{x}^T \Bar{\mathbf{y}}$, where $\Bar{\mathbf{y}}$ is the complex conjugate of $\mathbf{y}$. If the vectors $\mathbf{x}$ and $\mathbf{y}$ are both real vectors, then $\langle \mathbf{x},\mathbf{y}\rangle$ just represents the dot product of two vectors. The function $|\mathbf{x}| = \sqrt{\langle \mathbf{x} , \mathbf{x}\rangle }$ denotes the absolute value of $\mathbf{x}$. Further, $\|\cdot\|$ denotes the $L_2$-norm of real vector in $\mathbb R^d$. For any set $A$, $\mathbf{1}_A$ denotes the indicator random variable for set $A$. For any positive natural number $d$, $\mathbf{1}_d$ and $\mathbf{0}_d$ denotes the vector of all ones and vector of all zeros of size $d$ respectively, and $\mathbf{I}_{d}$ denotes the identity matrix of size $d$. For any given system, $\mathbb{E}[\cdot]$ denotes the expectation under the steady state distribution of the corresponding system.
For any queueing system, suppose $\mathbf{q}$ is the queue length vector that follows the steady-state distribution, then we call the steady state scaled queue length vector to be $\epsilon \mathbf{q}$, where $\epsilon$ is the heavy traffic parameter that captures the distance of arrival rate vector from the boundary of capacity region. Note that the steady-state distribution itself depends on $\epsilon$, although we have omitted it from the notation $\mathbf{q}$ for convenience. We use the term \textit{heavy traffic distribution} to denote the limiting distribution $\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \epsilon \mathbf{q}$. Under the condition that the Laplace transform of the heavy traffic distribution exists for a given $\boldsymbol \theta$, it is given by $\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon \langle \boldsymbol \theta , \mathbf{q}\rangle}]$.
\section{$\mathcal{N}$-System}
\label{sec: n_sys}
We study a parallel server system consisting of two queues (each representing a different job class) and two servers. The system is commonly known as $\mathcal{N}$-system. The first server can only serve the first job class, while the second server can serve both the job classes. We assume that the service time of any job is server-dependent and not class-dependent, i.e., the mean service time depends only on the server that serves the job.
$\mathcal{N}$-system has been heavily studied under the CRP condition, where only one of the two queues are loaded close to the capacity. This assumption leads to a much simpler mathematical analysis. In our paper, we study the $\mathcal{N}$-system under a regime in which CRP condition is not satisfied, i.e., both the queues are simultaneously working close to the capacity. $\mathcal{N}$-system is one of the simplest systems for which CRP condition is not satisfied.
In Section \ref{sec: n_sys_model}, we provide the basic model for the $\mathcal{N}$-system operating in a continuous-time fashion. Section \ref{sec: nsys_ssc} gives the heavy traffic distribution of steady-state scaled queue length vector under the condition that service rates of the two servers are symmetric. In Section \ref{sec: n_sys_dist}, we provide the functional equation that models the heavy traffic steady-state distribution of the $\mathcal{N}$-system under general service rates, along with the claim that the functional equation for $\mathcal{N}$-system has a unique solution.
\subsection{Model for $\mathcal{N}$-system }
\label{sec: n_sys_model}
We consider a continuous time $\mathcal{N}$-system with two queues given by $q_1$ and $q_2$, each denoting a different job class. With slight abuse of notation, the corresponding queue lengths, at time $t$, are denoted by $q_1(t)$ and $q_2(t)$. The arrival process of jobs for $q_1$ and $q_2$ are independent of each other and follows Poisson distribution with parameters $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$. There are two servers in the system denoted by $S_1$ and $S_2$.
The jobs in $q_1$ can be served only by $S_1$, while the jobs in the $q_2$ are more flexible and can be processed by both $S_1$ and $S_2$. Thus, server $S_1$ can serve jobs from either of the queues but it cannot serve both the queues simultaneously. As a result, there are two possible service configurations. First one is that $S_1$ serves $q_1$ and $S_2$ serves $q_2$, and the second configuration being $S_1$ and $S_2$ both serves $q_2$. The processing time of jobs on the servers are exponentially distributed with parameter $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ and are independent of the job they are serving. The model for $\mathcal{N}$-system is pictorially depicted in Fig. \ref{n_system}.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[>=latex]
\draw (0,0) -- ++(2cm,0) -- ++(0,-0.5cm) -- ++(-2cm,0);
\draw (0,1) -- ++(2cm,0) -- ++(0,-0.5cm) -- ++(-2cm,0);
\draw (4,-0.25cm) circle [radius=0.25cm];
\draw (4,0.75cm) circle [radius=0.25cm];
\draw[->] (2.25,-0.25) -- +(35pt,0);
\draw[->] (2.25,-0.15) -- +(35pt,0.8);
\draw[<-] (0,-0.25) -- +(-20pt,0) node[left] {$\lambda_2 $};
\node at (4,-0.25cm) {$\mu_2$};
\draw[->] (2.25,0.75) -- +(35pt,0);
\draw[<-] (0,0.75) -- +(-20pt,0) node[left] {$\lambda_1 $};
\node at (4,0.75cm) {$\mu_1$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The model for $\mathcal{N}$-system}
\label{n_system}
\end{figure}
A scheduling policy is an underlying rule by which the system chooses the service configuration to use in any time slot. In this paper, we only consider the scheduling algorithms for which the process $\{\mathbf{q}(t)\}_{t=0}^\infty$ forms an irreducible and aperiodic Markov chain, where $\mathbf{q}(t) = (q_1(t),q_2(t))$. The scheduling policy is said to be \textit{stable} if the Markov chain $\{\mathbf{q}(t)\}_{t=0}^\infty$ is positive recurrent. The \textit{capacity region} $\mathcal{C}$ is the set of arrival rate vectors $\boldsymbol \lambda = (\lambda_1,\lambda_2)$ for which there exists a scheduling policy such the $\mathcal{N}$-system is stable. The capacity region of $\mathcal{N}$-system is given by
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{C} = \{\boldsymbol \lambda \in \mathbb{R}^2_+ : \lambda_1 + \lambda_2 < \mu_1 + \mu_2, \lambda_1< \mu_1 \}.
\end{equation*}
We define the boundary of $\mathcal C$ to be $\mathcal F = \mathcal{F}_1 \cup \mathcal{F}_2 \cup \mathcal{F}_3 $, where
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{F}_1 &= \{\boldsymbol \nu \in \mathbb{R}^2_+ : \nu_1 + \nu_2 = \mu_1 + \mu_2, \nu_1< \mu_1 \},\\
\mathcal{F}_2 &= \{\boldsymbol \nu \in \mathbb{R}^2_+ : \nu_1 + \nu_2 < \mu_1 + \mu_2, \nu_1= \mu_1 \}, \\
\mathcal{F}_3 &= \{\boldsymbol \nu \in \mathbb{R}^2_+ : \nu_1 = \mu_1 , \nu_2= \mu_2 \}.
\end{align*}
The system operates in heavy traffic if the arrival rate $\boldsymbol \lambda$ is very close to the boundary of the capacity region $\mathcal{F}$. $\mathcal{N}$-system satisfies the CRP condition when the arrival rate vector $\boldsymbol \lambda$ approaches $\mathcal{F}_1 $ or $\mathcal{F}_2$. On the other hand, when $\boldsymbol \lambda$ approaches the boundary $\mathcal{F}_3$, i.e., the arrival vector converges to the point $\mathcal{F}_3 = (\mu_1,\mu_2)$, the CRP condition is not satisfied. For any $\boldsymbol \nu \in \mathcal{F}$, we assume that $\boldsymbol \lambda$ converges to the point $\boldsymbol \nu$ according to the trajectory,
\begin{align}
\label{eq: n_sys_arrival_vector}
\lambda_1 = (1-\epsilon)\nu_1, && \lambda_1 + \lambda_2 =(1-\gamma \epsilon)( \nu_1 + \nu_2),
\end{align}
where $\epsilon$ is the heavy traffic parameter. In this section, we assume that the arrival vector $\boldsymbol \lambda \rightarrow (\nu_1,\nu_2)$ as $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$ according to Eq. \eqref{eq: n_sys_arrival_vector}.
The parameter $\gamma >0$ defines the direction of approach of the arrival rate vector $\boldsymbol \lambda$ to the point $(\nu_1,\nu_2)$. This gives us that $\lambda_2 = (1-\gamma\epsilon) \nu_2 + \epsilon \nu_1 (1-\gamma)$.
For $\mathcal{N}$-system, MaxWeight scheduling policy prefers the queue with higher queue length, i.e., if $q_2(t) \geq q_1(t)$, then both $S_1 $ and $S_2$ serve the jobs in the queue $q_2$, otherwise $S_1$ serves $q_1$ and $S_2$ serves $q_2$.
Under MaxWeight, the queue length process $\{\mathbf{q}(t)\}_{t\geq0}$ forms a continuous time Markov chain, where $\mathbf{q}(t) = (q_1(t),q_2(t))$.
\subsection{State-space collapse for $\mathcal{N}$-system}
\label{sec: nsys_ssc}
In this section, we provide the definition of state space collapse for $\mathcal{N}$-system. Consider the cone $\mathcal{K}_1$, $\mathcal{K}_2$ and $\mathcal{K}_3$ to be
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{K}_1 = \left\{ \mathbf{x}\in \mathbb{R}^2_+ : x_2 = x_1 \right\},&&\mathcal{K}_2 = \left\{ \mathbf{x}\in \mathbb{R}^2_+ : x_2 = 0 \right\}, &&\mathcal{K}_3 = \left\{ \mathbf{x}\in \mathbb{R}^2_+ : x_2 \leq x_1 \right\}.
\end{align*}
For any vector $\mathbf{y} \in \mathbb{R}^2_+$, let $\mathbf y_{\| \mathcal{K}_i}$ denotes the projection of vector $\mathbf y$ onto the cone $\mathcal K_i$ for $i \in \{1,2,3\}$. Then,
\begin{align*}
\mathbf y_{\| \mathcal{K}_1} = \frac{y_1+y_2}{2} \begin{bmatrix} 1\\1 \end{bmatrix}, && \mathbf y_{\| \mathcal{K}_2} = \begin{bmatrix} y_1\\0 \end{bmatrix}, && \mathbf{y}_{\| \mathcal{K}_3} = \mathbf{y} \mathbf{1}_{\{y_2 \leq y_1\}} + \frac{y_1+y_2}{2} \begin{bmatrix} 1\\1 \end{bmatrix} \mathbf{1}_{\{y_2 > y_1\}}.
\end{align*}
Now, the perpendicular component $\mathbf{y}_{\perp \mathcal{K}_i} = \mathbf y - \mathbf y_{\| \mathcal{K}_i} $ for $i\in \{1,2,3\}$ is given by
\begin{align*}
\mathbf y_{\perp \mathcal{K}_1} = \frac{y_2-y_1}{2} \begin{bmatrix} -1\\1 \end{bmatrix}, && \mathbf y_{\perp \mathcal{K}_2} = \begin{bmatrix} 0\\y_2 \end{bmatrix}, && \mathbf{y}_{\perp \mathcal{K}_3} = \frac{y_2-y_1}{2} \begin{bmatrix} -1\\1 \end{bmatrix} \mathbf{1}_{\{y_2 > y_1\}}.
\end{align*}
Please note that in Appendix \ref{app: n_sys}, we have provided mathematical details mostly for the non-CRP case, i.e., when $\boldsymbol \lambda \rightarrow \boldsymbol \nu$ where $\boldsymbol\nu\in \mathcal{F}_3$, and so, in Appendix \ref{app: n_sys}, for the sake of convenience, we have used the notation $\mathbf y_{\|} = \mathbf y_{\| \mathcal{K}_3} $ and $\mathbf y_{\perp} = \mathbf y_{\perp \mathcal{K}_3}$ for any vector $\mathbf y \in \mathbb R^2$.
\begin{definition}
\label{def: n_sys_ssc}
Consider the $\mathcal{N}$-system as defined in Section \ref{sec: n_sys_model} operating under a given scheduling policy. Pick any $i\in \{1,2,3\}$ and suppose $\boldsymbol \lambda \rightarrow \boldsymbol \nu$ as $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$, where $\boldsymbol \nu \in \mathcal{F}_i$.
Then, we say that the scheduling policy achieves \textit{state space collapse}, if for every $\theta \geq 0$, there exists $\epsilon( \theta) >0$ such that for every $0< \epsilon \leq \epsilon(\theta)$,
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon \theta \|\mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal{K}_i} \| }] < C^\star < \infty,
\end{equation*}
where $\mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal{K}_i} = \mathbf{q} -\mathbf{q}_{\| \mathcal{K}_i} $ and the expectation is taken under the steady-state distribution.
As a conclusion, for any scheduling policy that achieves state space collapse, we have that for every $\theta > 0$, $\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon \theta \|\mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal{K}_i} \| }] < \infty.$ Further, for every non-negative integer $r$, there exists a $C_r$ independent of $\epsilon$ such that \[\mathbb{E} \big [\|\mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal{K}_i} \|^r \big] \leq C_r.\]
\end{definition}
From the above definition, if $\boldsymbol \lambda \rightarrow \boldsymbol \nu$ as $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$, where $\boldsymbol \nu \in \mathcal{F}_i$ for $i\in \{1,2\}$, then the state space collapse happens to a one-dimensional subspace, which is same as saying that the system satisfies the CRP condition. But if $\boldsymbol \lambda \rightarrow \boldsymbol \nu$ as $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$, where $\boldsymbol \nu \in \mathcal{F}_3$, the state space of the queue length vector does not collapse to a lower dimensional subspace, but the size of the state space reduces. Similar to the previously considered systems, for $\mathcal{N}$-system also, MaxWeight scheduling achieves the state space collapse according to Definition \ref{def: n_sys_ssc}. The proof of state space collapse for MaxWeight when $\boldsymbol \lambda \rightarrow \boldsymbol \nu$ as $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$, for $\boldsymbol \nu \in \mathcal{F}_3$ is provided in Appendix \ref{app: n_sys_ssc}, which follows by using the result presented in \cite[Lemma 10]{Weina_bandwidth}.
\subsection{Results for $\mathcal{N}$-System}
\label{sec: n_sys_dist}
In this section, we present the functional equation (in Theorem \ref{theo: n_sys_mgf_eq}) that the heavy traffic distribution for the $\mathcal{N}$-system satisfies under the non-CRP condition. We also prove that the solution to the functional equation is unique, i.e., there is a unique distribution that satisfies the functional equation. We also provide the heavy traffic distribution (in Theorem \ref{theo: n_sys_distribution}) for $\mathcal{N}$-system under the condition that service rates are symmetric. With a slight abuse of notation, we reuse the notation $q_1$ and $q_2$ to denote the steady state queue length for the $\mathcal{N}$-system.
\begin{theorem}
\label{theo: n_sys_mgf_eq}
Consider the $\mathcal{N}$-system as defined in Section \ref{sec: n_sys_model}, operating under a scheduling policy that achieves state space collapse according to the Definition \ref{def: n_sys_ssc}. Suppose $\boldsymbol \lambda \rightarrow (\mu_1,\mu_2)$. Let
$\Phi = \{\boldsymbol \phi \in\mathbb{C}^2: Re(\phi_1) \leq 0, Re(\phi_1 + \phi_2 )\leq 0\}$.
Then, for any $\boldsymbol \phi \in \Phi$,
\begin{align}
\label{eq: n_sys_mgf_eq}
L(\boldsymbol \phi) \big[ \mu_2 (-\gamma\phi_2 & +\phi_2^2)+\phi_2\mu_1(1-\gamma) \nonumber\\
& + \mu_1 (-\phi_1+\phi_1^2)\big] +\mu_1(\phi_1-\phi_2) M_1(\boldsymbol \phi) +\gamma(\mu_1 +\mu_2)\phi_2 M_2(\boldsymbol \phi) =0,
\end{align}
where
\begin{align*}
L(\boldsymbol \phi) = \lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon(\phi_1 q_1+\phi_2 q_2)}], && M_1(\boldsymbol \phi) = \lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon(\phi_1+ \phi_2)q_2} |q_1 \leq q_2], && M_2(\boldsymbol \phi) =\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon \phi_1 q_1}|q_2 =0].
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}
Theorem \ref{theo: n_sys_mgf_eq} provides the functional equation for the heavy traffic distribution of $\mathcal{N}$-system under the non-CRP condition, i.e., when the arrival rate vector $\boldsymbol \lambda$ approaches the point $(\mu_1,\mu_2)$ according to a direction with
direction parameter $\gamma$. Note that Theorem \ref{theo: n_sys_mgf_eq} holds for any value of $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$, while in Theorem \ref{theo: n_sys_distribution} case (c), we took $\mu_1 = \mu_2$. This is only because we can solve Eq. \eqref{eq: n_sys_mgf_eq} under the condition $\mu_1 = \mu_2$. Finding the analytic solution Eq. \eqref{eq: n_sys_mgf_eq} when $\mu_1\neq \mu_2$ is in general quite hard. One approach is presented in \cite{franceschi2019integral}, where the solution can be represented as a complicated Cauchy integral by solving a properly defined boundary value problem.
The idea behind the proof of Theorem \ref{theo: n_sys_mgf_eq} is that for any stable scheduling policy, the expected drift of a well-defined Lyapunov function is zero in steady-state. For our analysis, we choose complex exponential as the Lyapunov function. As shown in the proof of Theorem \ref{theo: n_sys_mgf_eq}, $\boldsymbol \phi$ is chosen in such a way that the exponential Lyapunov function for $\mathcal{N}$-system is well defined. By equating the drift of complex exponential function to zero in steady state and then by using a second-order approximation in terms of the heavy traffic parameter $\epsilon$, we obtain the functional equation (i.e. Eq. \ref{eq: n_sys_mgf_eq}) for $\mathcal{N}$-system as $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$. The complete proof for Theorem \ref{theo: n_sys_mgf_eq} is provided in Appendix \ref{app: n_sys_mgf_eq}. Next, we claim that there is a unique distribution that solves the functional equation.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem: n_sys_uniqueness}
Consider the $\mathcal{N}$-system as defined in Section \ref{sec: n_sys_model}, operating under a scheduling policy that achieves state space collapse according to the Definition \ref{def: n_sys_ssc}. Then, there is a unique solution $(L(\boldsymbol \phi) , M_1(\boldsymbol \phi), M_2(\boldsymbol \phi))$ to the functional equation given in Eq. \eqref{eq: n_sys_mgf_eq} that is a valid Laplace transform.
\end{lemma}
A crucial step to solve the functional equation given in Theorem \ref{theo: n_sys_mgf_eq} is to ensure that it has a unique solution. Then, one can just guess the solution and check that it satisfies the functional equation. Using this idea, we solve the functional equation under the condition $\mu_1=\mu_2$ to derive the result presented in Theorem \ref{theo: n_sys_distribution}.
The proof of Lemma \ref{lem: n_sys_uniqueness} follows by using the results presented in \cite{franceschi2019integral} and the complete proof is presented in Appendix \ref{app: n_sys_uniqueness}.
\begin{theorem}
\label{theo: n_sys_distribution}
Consider the $\mathcal{N}$-system defined in Section \ref{sec: n_sys_model}, operating under a scheduling policy that achieves state space collapse according to the Definition \ref{def: n_sys_ssc}. Then,
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] If $\boldsymbol \lambda \rightarrow \boldsymbol\nu$ for some $\boldsymbol \nu \in \mathcal{F}_1$, the heavy traffic distribution is given by,
\begin{align*}
\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \epsilon (q_1,q_2) = (\Upsilon_2,\Upsilon_2),
\end{align*}
\item[(b)] If $\boldsymbol \lambda \rightarrow \boldsymbol\nu$ for some $\boldsymbol \nu \in \mathcal{F}_2$, the heavy traffic distribution is given by,
\begin{align*}
\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \epsilon (q_1,q_2) = (\Upsilon_1,0),
\end{align*}
\item[(c)] If $\boldsymbol \lambda \rightarrow \boldsymbol\nu $ for $ \boldsymbol \nu \in \mathcal{F}_3$, i.e., $\nu = (\mu_1,\mu_2)$, and suppose $\mu_1 = \mu_2$ the heavy traffic distribution is given by,
\begin{align*}
\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \epsilon (q_1,q_2) = (\Upsilon_1+\Upsilon_2,\Upsilon_2),
\end{align*}
where $\Upsilon_1$ and $\Upsilon_2$ are independent exponential random variables with mean $1$ and $\frac{1}{2\gamma}$ respectively.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
Theorem \ref{theo: n_sys_distribution} provides the heavy traffic distribution for $\mathcal{N}$-system . For part (a) and (b), the $\mathcal{N}$-system satisfies the CRP condition and the analysis for these cases is very similar to the analysis presented in \cite{hurtado2020transform}. Our major focus in Theorem \ref{theo: n_sys_distribution} is part (c), which does not satisfy the CRP condition as both the queues are in heavy traffic. Part (c) of Theorem \ref{theo: n_sys_distribution} says that, if both the queues are in heavy traffic and the service rates are symmetric, the heavy traffic distribution of $\mathcal{N}$-system is represented using two independent exponential random variables.
Note that the boundary sets $\mathcal{F}_1$ and $\mathcal{F}_2$ are line segments and the set $\mathcal{F}_3$ is a common end point of the line segments $\mathcal{F}_1$ and $\mathcal{F}_2$. Thus, intuitively, if the system approaches the boundary $\mathcal{F}_3$ in heavy traffic, it displays a behaviour which is a combination of the behaviour it displays on the other two boundaries $\mathcal{F}_1$ and $\mathcal{F}_2$.
The proof of Theorem Theorem \ref{theo: n_sys_distribution} part (a) and part (b) follows from the analysis provided in \cite{hurtado2020transform}, as in part (a) and (b), the system satisfies the CRP condition. For the non-CRP case, i.e., Theorem \ref{theo: n_sys_distribution} part (c),
the proof uses the functional equation provided in Theorem \ref{theo: n_sys_mgf_eq}. Complete proof of Theorem \ref{theo: n_sys_distribution} part (c) is given in Appendix \ref{app: n_sys_distribution}.
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor: n_sys_max}
Consider the $\mathcal{N}$-system defined in Section \ref{sec: n_sys_model}, operating under the MaxWeight scheduling policy. Then, the heavy traffic distribution of the corresponding queue length vector satisfies the result mentioned in Theorem \ref{theo: n_sys_mgf_eq} and Theorem \ref{theo: n_sys_distribution}.
\end{corollary}
As mentioned in Section \ref{sec: nsys_ssc}, MaxWeight scheduling achieves state space collapse according to the Definition \ref{def: n_sys_ssc}. Thus, Corollary \ref{cor: n_sys_max} is a direct application of Theorem \ref{theo: n_sys_mgf_eq} and Theorem \ref{theo: n_sys_distribution}.
\section{Outline of Proof for Three-queue system}
\label{sec: 3q_outline}
In this section, we present a brief outline of the proof of the results presented in Section \ref{sec: 3q_results}. The complete proof for all the results in provided in Appendix \ref{app: 3q}. Note that for this section, we are using the notations presented in Section \ref{sec: 3q_model}.
The arguments presented in this section presents much of the mathematical complexity required to prove the results mentioned in previous sections while omitting most of the technical details details.
\begin{proof}[Proof outline for Theorem \ref{theo: 3q_functional_eq}]
First step is to show that the Laplace transform of queue length vector exists for any $\boldsymbol \theta \in \Theta $, which follows by using the fact that $Re(\mathbf B^T \boldsymbol \theta) \leq \mathbf 0_{3}$. The details of this is provided in Lemma \ref{lem: 3q_mgf_equivalence} in Appendix \ref{app: 3q_mgf_equivalence}. Next, we use the definition of the complex exponential function to get,
\begin{align*}
e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q}^+ \rangle } \Big( e^{- \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{u} \rangle} -1 \Big) = e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q}^+ \rangle } \Big( -\epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{u} \rangle + \sum_{k = 2}^\infty \frac{\epsilon^k}{k!} \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{u} \rangle^k \Big).
\end{align*}
Now, next step is to prove that higher order terms in RHS of the above equation goes to $0$ as $\epsilon\rightarrow 0$ by eliminating the higher order terms as $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$, and doing some further technical manipulation, we get
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon^2} \mathbb{E} \Big[e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q}^+ \rangle } \Big( e^{- \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{u} \rangle} -1 \Big) \Big] = - \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{M}(\boldsymbol{\theta}) \rangle.
\end{equation*}
Next, we have the equivalence,
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E} \Big[ e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q}^+ \rangle } \Big( e^{- \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{u} \rangle} -1 \Big) \Big] \nonumber
& = \mathbb{E} \Big[ e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q} \rangle } e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{a }- \mathbf{s } \rangle } \Big] - \mathbb{E} \Big[ e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q}^+ \rangle}\Big] \allowdisplaybreaks \nonumber \\
& = \mathbb{E} \Big[ e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q} \rangle } \Big] \mathbb{E} \Big[ e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{a }- \mathbf{s } \rangle } \Big] - \mathbb{E} \Big[ e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q}^+ \rangle}\Big] \allowdisplaybreaks \nonumber \\
& = \mathbb{E} \Big[ e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q} \rangle } \Big] \Bigg( \mathbb{E} \Big[ e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{a }- \mathbf{s } \rangle } \Big] - 1\Bigg) \allowdisplaybreaks \nonumber \\
&= \mathbb{E} \Big[ e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q} \rangle } \Big] \Bigg( \mathbb{E} [ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{a }- \mathbf{s } \rangle] + \frac{\epsilon^2}{2} \mathbb{E} [ \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{a }- \mathbf{s } \rangle^2] + \sum_{k=3}^\infty \frac{\epsilon^k}{k!} \mathbb{E} [ \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{a }- \mathbf{s } \rangle^k] \Bigg).
\end{align}
The above equality use three key ideas: first is that $\mathbf{q}^+ = \mathbf{q} +\mathbf{a}- \mathbf{s} +\mathbf{u} $, second is that the steady-state distribution of $\mathbf{q}$ and $\mathbf{q}^{+}$ (the state following $\mathbf{q}$) is same, and third is the Taylor expansion of the complex exponential function. Now, by simple calculations,
\begin{align*}
\epsilon\mathbb{E} [ \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{a }- \mathbf{s } \rangle ] = - \frac{\epsilon^2}{2} \langle \boldsymbol \theta, \mathbf{1}_3 \rangle, && \frac{\epsilon^2}{2}\mathbb{E}[ \langle \boldsymbol \theta , \mathbf{a }- \mathbf{s } \rangle^2 ] = \frac{\epsilon^2}{2} \langle \boldsymbol \theta, \boldsymbol \sigma^2 \boldsymbol \theta \rangle + \frac{\epsilon^4}{8}\langle \boldsymbol \theta, \mathbf{1}_3 \rangle^2.
\end{align*}
As the higher order terms can be eliminated as $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$, for any $\boldsymbol \theta \in \boldsymbol \Theta$,
\begin{align*}
\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon^2} \mathbb{E} \Big[ e^{ \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{q}^+ \rangle } \Big( e^{- \epsilon \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{u} \rangle} -1 \Big) \Big]
= \left( -\frac{1}{2}\langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{1}_{3} \rangle + \frac{1}{2} \langle \boldsymbol{\theta} , \boldsymbol\sigma^2 \boldsymbol{\theta} \rangle \right) L(\boldsymbol{\theta}).
\end{align*}
Combining the above results gives us that for any $\boldsymbol \theta \in \boldsymbol \Theta$,
\begin{equation}
\left( -\frac{1}{2}\langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{1}_{3} \rangle + \frac{1}{2} \langle \boldsymbol{\theta} , \boldsymbol\sigma^2 \boldsymbol{\theta} \rangle \right) L(\boldsymbol{\theta}) + \theta_2 M_2(\boldsymbol\theta)+\theta_3 M_3(\boldsymbol\theta) = 0.
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align*}
L(\boldsymbol \theta) = \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon \langle \boldsymbol \theta, \mathbf{q} \rangle}], && M_2(\boldsymbol \theta) = \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon} \mathbb{E} [u_2e^{\epsilon (\theta_2+2\theta_3)q_3}], && M_3(\boldsymbol \theta) = \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon} \mathbb{E} [u_3e^{\epsilon (2\theta_2+\theta_3)q_2}],
\end{align*}
Note that $M_1(\boldsymbol\theta)=0$ because $u_1=0$ by the definition of the service process.
This gives us the functional equation in Eq. \eqref{eq: 3q_functional_eq}.
\end{proof}
Next, we present the uniqueness result for a functional equation with two variables.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem: functional_uniqueness}
Consider a functional equation of the form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq: functional}
\gamma(\boldsymbol \theta) \Phi (\boldsymbol \theta) + \gamma_1(\boldsymbol \theta) \Phi_1 (\theta_2) +\gamma_2(\boldsymbol \theta) \Phi_2 (\theta_1) = 0
\end{equation}
for all $\boldsymbol \theta \in \mathbb{C}^2$ such that $Re(\boldsymbol \theta ) \leq \mathbf 0$, where $\Phi (\boldsymbol \theta), \Phi_1 (\theta_2)$ and $\Phi_2 (\theta_1)$ are Laplace transform of unknown probability distributions $\pi(x_1,x_2), \nu_1(x_2)$ and $\nu_2(x_1)$ respectively, where the support of $\pi(x_1,x_2)$ is the positive orthant of two-dimension and $\nu_1(x_2)$ and $\nu_2(x_1)$ are the boundary measure that has support on the axes.
\begin{align*}
\gamma(\boldsymbol \theta) &= \alpha_1 \theta_1 + \alpha_2 \theta_2 + \frac{1}{2} (\sigma_{11} \theta_1^2 + 2\sigma_{12} \theta_1\theta_2 + \sigma_{22}\theta_2^2), &&\gamma_1 (\boldsymbol \theta) = r_{11} \theta_1 + r_{21}\theta_2, && \gamma_2 (\boldsymbol \theta) = r_{12} \theta_1 + r_{22}\theta_2.
\end{align*}
Suppose the following conditions are satisfied,
\begin{align}
r_{11} > 0, && r_{22} >0, && r_{11}r_{22} -r_{12}r_{21} >0 && r_{22}\alpha_1 -r_{12}\alpha_{2} <0, && r_{11}\alpha_2 -r_{21}\alpha_{1} <0.
\end{align}
Then, there is a unique solution $(\Phi (\boldsymbol \theta), \Phi_1 (\theta_2)$, $\Phi_2 (\theta_1))$ to the functional equation given in Eq. \eqref{eq: functional}.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{lem: functional_uniqueness}]
The proof of Lemma \ref{lem: functional_uniqueness} uses the result provided in \cite[Theorem 1]{franceschi2019integral}. Consider a SRBM \cite{williams1995semimartingale}\cite[Equation 1]{franceschi2019integral} with drift in the quarter plane $\mathbb{R}_+^2$. Suppose following are the parameters of the SRBM: $\Sigma$ is the covariance matrix of the Brownian motion, $\boldsymbol \alpha$ denotes the interior drift and $\mathbf R$ be the reflection matrix given by,
\begin{align*}
\Sigma = \begin{bmatrix} \sigma_{11} & \sigma_{12}\\ \sigma_{21} & \sigma_{22} \end{bmatrix}, && \boldsymbol \alpha = \begin{bmatrix} \alpha_1\\ \alpha_2 \end{bmatrix}, && \mathbf R = \begin{bmatrix} r_{11} & r_{12}\\ r_{21} & r_{22} \end{bmatrix}.
\end{align*}
Then, for this SRBM, the functional equation, as presented in \cite{franceschi2019integral} matches with the functional equation as given in Eq. \eqref{eq: functional}. Then, from the result provided in \cite[Theorem 1]{franceschi2019integral}, we know that there is a unique solution to the functional equation given in Eq. \eqref{eq: functional}. The result in \cite[Theorem 1]{franceschi2019integral} provide the unique solution to the functional equation in terms of Cauchy integrals. For the proof of Lemma \ref{lem: functional_uniqueness}, we only use the fact that the solution is unique.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof outline for Lemma \ref{lem: 3q_uniqueness}]
The proof of Lemma \ref{lem: 3q_uniqueness} follows by using Lemma \ref{lem: functional_uniqueness}. The idea is to substitute $\boldsymbol \theta$ using the relation $\boldsymbol \psi = (\psi_1,\psi_2) = \mathbf B^T \boldsymbol \theta$. Now, by using the fact that $\boldsymbol \theta \in \mathcal S$, $\theta_1 = \theta_2+\theta_3$ and so, $\psi_1 = 2\theta_2 + \theta_3$ and $\psi_2 = \theta_2 + 2\theta_3$. Then, we can rewrite the functional equation as
\begin{equation*}
\left( - \frac{1}{3} \langle \boldsymbol{\psi},\mathbf{1} \rangle + \frac{1}{2} \langle \boldsymbol{\psi} , \tilde{\boldsymbol \Gamma} \boldsymbol{\psi} \rangle \right) L(\boldsymbol{\psi}) +
\frac{1}{3} (2\psi_1 - \psi_2)M_2(\psi_2) +\frac{1}{3} (2\psi_2 - \psi_1)M_3(\psi_1) = 0,
\end{equation*}
where $\tilde{\boldsymbol \Gamma} =\mathbf D^{-1} \mathbf{B}^T\boldsymbol \sigma^2 \mathbf{B} \mathbf D^{-1} $ and $\mathbf D = \mathbf B^T\mathbf B = \begin{bmatrix}
2 & 1\\
1 & 2
\end{bmatrix} $.
Now this functional equation holds for any $\boldsymbol \psi$ such that $Re(\boldsymbol \psi) \leq \mathbf{0}_2$. The above functional equation has the same form as the functional equation in Lemma \ref{lem: functional_uniqueness} by taking the reflection matrix $\mathbf{R} = \mathbf{D}^{-1}$ and the interior drift is $\boldsymbol\alpha = -\frac{1}{3} \mathbf{1}_2$. Now it is easy to observe that the required conditions in Lemma \ref{lem: functional_uniqueness} is satisfied and so, the functional equation for Three-queue system has a unique solution.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof outline for Theorem \ref{thm: 3q_dist}]
If we pick any $\Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta} \in \mathbb{C}^3 $ such that $\boldsymbol \theta$ is the projection of $\Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}$ onto the space $\mathcal{S}$ and $\boldsymbol \theta \in \boldsymbol \Theta$, then by using the state space collapse result for the Three-queue system, we can prove that
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0}\mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon \langle \Tilde{\boldsymbol \theta}, \mathbf{q} \rangle}] = \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon \langle \boldsymbol \theta, \mathbf{q} \rangle}] = L(\boldsymbol \theta).
\end{equation*}
The proof for this is provided in Lemma \ref{lem: 3q_mgf_equivalence} in Appendix \ref{app: 3q_mgf_equivalence}.
This implies that it is sufficient to characterize the Laplace transform of the queue length vector for $\boldsymbol \theta \in \mathcal{S}$. So, $\theta_1 = \theta_2 + \theta_3$. The Laplace transform of the proposed limiting distribution is given by
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}[e^{\theta_1 (\Upsilon_1+\Upsilon_2)+\theta_2 \Upsilon_1 + \theta_3 \Upsilon_2 }] &= \mathbb{E}[e^{(2\theta_2 + \theta_3) \Upsilon_1+(\theta_2 + 2\theta_3)\Upsilon_2}] \\
&= \frac{1}{\bigg( 1- (2\theta_2 + \theta_3) \frac{3\sigma_2^2 + \sigma_3^2}{8}\bigg)\bigg( 1- (\theta_2 + 2\theta_3)\frac{\sigma_2^2 + 3\sigma_3^2}{8}\bigg)}.
\end{align*}
Now pick
\begin{align}
L(\boldsymbol \theta) = \frac{1}{\bigg( 1- (2\theta_2 + \theta_3) \frac{3\sigma_2^2 + \sigma_3^2}{8}\bigg)\bigg( 1- (\theta_2 + 2\theta_3)\frac{\sigma_2^2 + 3\sigma_3^2}{8}\bigg)},\nonumber\\ M_2 (\boldsymbol \theta) = \frac{1}{1- (2\theta_2 + \theta_3)\frac{\sigma_2^2 + 3\sigma_3^2}{8}}, && M_3 (\boldsymbol \theta) = \frac{1}{1- (\theta_2 + 2\theta_3)\frac{3\sigma_2^2 + \sigma_3^2}{8}}.
\end{align}
By some algebraic manipulation, we can show that this satisfies the functional equation given in Eq. \eqref{eq: 3q_functional_eq} under the condition $2\sigma^2_1 = \sigma_2^2 +\sigma_3^2$. And from Lemma \ref{lem: 3q_uniqueness}, as the solution to the functional equation is unique, this has to be the only solution of the functional equation.
\end{proof}
\section{Input-queued switch}
\label{sec: switch}
In this section, we provide our results on the heavy traffic distribution of the Input-queued switch.
In Section \ref{sec: switch_model}, we present the model for a switch and in Section \ref{sec: switch_ssc}, we provide the state space collapse result for the switch system. The results regarding the heavy traffic distribution of the Input-queued switch is presented in Section \ref{sec: switch_results}. The results for the Input-queued switch holds under the assumption that a certain conjecture holds (see Conjecture \ref{lem: switch_uniqueness}). In Section \ref{sec: 3q}, we present a simpler system, which we call the Three-queue system, for which the conjecture holds.
\subsection{Preliminaries for Input-queued switch}
In this section, we present the model (in Section \ref{sec: switch_model}) and the SSC result (in Section \ref{sec: switch_ssc}) for the switch system.
\subsubsection{Model for Input-queued switch}
\label{sec: switch_model}
An Input-queued switch (or just switch) is a device that exchanges data from one channel to another in a data center. A switch of size $n$ consists of $n$ input ports and $n$ output ports. The message packets flow from input ports to output ports in a time-slotted manner.
For time slot $t$, we denote the arrival $a_{i+n(j-1)}(t)$ to be the number of packets that come input $i$ to be sent to output port $j$. As there are $n^2$ such input-output pairs, the arrival in any time slot can be represented by an $n^2$ vector $\mathbf{a}(t)$. The architecture of the device doesn't allow all the packets to be transferred in one go, which leads to a queue build up on the inputs. We use $q_{i+n(j-1)}(t)$ (or $\mathbf{q}(t)$ in vector notation) to denote the backlog of packets that need to be transferred to the output $j$ from input $i$. We assume that the arrivals are i.i.d. with respect to $t$ and the distribution of the arrivals have a bounded support (i.e. for $(i,j)$ and $t$, $a_{i+n(j-1)}(t)\leq a_{\max}$). The mean arrival rate vector is given by $\mathbb E[\mathbf{a}(t)] = \boldsymbol \lambda$ and let $\boldsymbol \sigma^2$ be the co-variance matrix of the arrival vector $\mathbf{a}(t)$. The independence of the arrivals across the input-output pair gives us that the co-variance matrix $\boldsymbol\sigma^2$ is a diagonal matrix. Also, under the symmetric variance condition, all the variances are equal and then $\boldsymbol \sigma^2 =\sigma^2 \mathbf{I}_{n^2} $, where $\mathbf{I}_{n^2}$ is the identity matrix of size $n^2$.
The bottlenecks in the system don't allow the transfer of all the packets in the queue simultaneously. Every port can send or receive at most one packet in any time slot, i.e., any input port can send at most one packet in a given time slot. Similarly, any output port can receive at most one packet in a given time slot. The packet transfer can happen only among the connected input-output pairs in that time slot. Therefore, the switch system can be modeled analogously as a complete bipartite graph with $2n $ nodes where $q_{i+n(j-1) }(t)$ denotes the weight of the edge $(i,j)$.
A \textit{schedule} denoted by $\mathbf{s}(t) \in \{0,1\}^{n^2}$ gives the set of input-output pairs that are connected in time slot $t$. The element $s_{i+n(j-1)}(t) =1$ if and only if the pair $(i,j)$ is connected in time slot $t$. Using the idea of the complete bipartite graph, a schedule corresponds to a perfect matching between input and output nodes.
It follows that the set of possible schedules $\mathcal{X}$ is given by
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{X} = \left\{ \mathbf{s} \in \{0,1\}^{n^2} : \sum_{i=1}^n s_{i+n(j-1)} = 1 \ \forall j, \sum_{j=1}^n s_{i+n(j-1)} = 1 \ \forall i \right\}
\end{equation*}
The queue length evolution process is given by
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{q}(t+1) &= [\mathbf{q}(t) + \mathbf{a}(t) - \mathbf{s}(t)]^+= \mathbf{q}(t) + \mathbf{a}(t) - \mathbf{s}(t) + \mathbf{u}(t),
\end{align*}
where operation $[\cdot]^+ = \max(0,\cdot)$ in the above equation is used because the queue length can't be negative. The terms $\mathbf{u}(t)$ is the unused service, which arises because it might happen that there is a connection between a input-output pair but there is no packet available to be transferred. Thus, for any $i,j \in \{1,2,\dots n\}$, $u_{i+n(j-1)}(t) =1$ if and only if $s_{i+n(j-1)}(t) =1, a_{i+n(j-1)}(t) =0$ and $q_{i+n(j-1)}(t) =0$. This gives us that $q_{i+n(j-1)}(t+1)u_{i+n(j-1)}(t) = 0 $ for all $(i,j)$, which in vector notation is given by $\langle \mathbf{q}(t+1),\mathbf{u}(t) \rangle = 0$.
A scheduling algorithm is then the policy that chooses the schedule in each time slot.
We define the \textit{weight} of the schedule as the sum of the queue lengths that are being served in any time slot. A popular scheduling algorithm for switch system is \textit{MaxWeight} scheduling which chooses the schedule with maximum weight, i.e.,
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{s}(t) = \max_{\mathbf{s} \in \mathcal{X}} \langle \mathbf{q}(t) , \mathbf{s} \rangle = \max_{\mathbf{s} \in \mathcal{X}} \sum_{i=1}^n\sum_{j=1}^n s_{i+n(j-1)} \times q_{i+n(j-1)}(t).
\end{equation*}
In this paper, we only consider the scheduling algorithms for which the process $\{\mathbf{q}(t)\}_{t=0}^\infty$ forms an irreducible and aperiodic Markov chain. The stability of the system in this scenario means that the queue lengths are not going to infinity. More mathematically, we define a system to be stable if the Markov chain $\{\mathbf{q}(t)\}_{t=0}^\infty$ is positive recurrent. The term \textit{capacity region} is used to denote the set of arrival rate vectors for which there exists a scheduling policy for which the system is stable.
The capacity region of the switch system is given by
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal C = \Big \{ \mathbf{\boldsymbol \lambda} \in \mathbb{R}_+^{n^2 } : \sum_{i=1}^n \lambda_{i+n(j-1)} < 1 \ \forall j, \ \sum_{j=1}^n \lambda_{i+n(j-1)} < 1 \ \forall i \Big \}.
\end{equation*}
It has been proved in prior literature that MaxWeight scheduling is \textit{throughput optimal} \cite{665071}, i.e., the corresponding Markov chain is stable for any arrival rate vector in $\mathcal{C}$.
To prove that the Markov chain is stable, one can use the Foster-Lyapunov Theorem by showing that the expected drift of a suitably chosen Lyapunov function is negative as shown in \cite{maguluri2016heavy, 665071}. The two requirements for using the Foster-Lyapunov Theorem, i.e., irreducibility and aperiodicity of the Markov chain can be obtained by using the arguments presented in \cite[Exercise 4.2]{srikant2014communication}.
Let $\mathcal{F}$ denote the part of boundary of the capacity region given by the convex hull of $\mathcal X$, i.e.,
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal F = \Big \{ \boldsymbol \nu \in \mathbb{R}_+^{n^2 } : \sum_{i=1}^n \nu_{i+n(j-1)} = 1 \ \forall j, \sum_{j=1}^n \nu_{i+n(j-1)} =1 \ \forall i \Big \}.
\end{equation*}
A switch system is in heavy traffic when the arrival rate vector $\boldsymbol \lambda$ approaches the boundary $\mathcal{F}$. For simplicity, we are going to assume that arrival rate vector approaches the boundary through a straight line, i.e., there exists a vector $\boldsymbol \nu \in \mathcal{F}$ and the heavy traffic parameter $\epsilon \in (0,1)$ such that $\boldsymbol\lambda = (1-\epsilon)\boldsymbol \nu$. Further, we assume that none of the arrival rates are zeros, which leads to the conclusion $\nu_{\min} = \min_{ij}\nu_{i+n(j-1)} > 0$. This is also called the \textit{Completely Saturated Case} \cite{maguluri2016heavy}. Next, we look at the SSC result for the switch system.
\subsubsection{State space collapse for Input-queued switch}
\label{sec: switch_ssc}
In this section, we present some of the existing results that are necessary for the analysis of the heavy traffic distribution of the switch. Before presenting the definition of state space collapse for switch, we present some required geometry.
Let $\mathbf B \in \{0,1\}^{n^2\times2n}$ is such that for any $1\leq i,j\leq n$,
\begin{equation*}
B_{i+n(j-1),i} =B_{i+n(j-1),n+j} = 1,
\end{equation*}
Consider the subspace $\mathcal{S} \subseteq \mathbb{R}^{n^2}$ given by,
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{S} = \Big\{ \mathbf{y} \in \mathbb{R}^{n^2} : \exists \mathbf{w} \in \mathbb{R}^{2n} \ s.t. \ y_{i+n(j-1)} = w_{i} + w_{n+j} \Big\} = \Big\{ \mathbf{y} \in \mathbb{R}^{n^2} : \exists \mathbf{w} \in \mathbb{R}^{2n} \ s.t. \ \mathbf{y} =\mathbf B \mathbf w \Big\}.
\end{equation*}
We say that a vector $\mathbf x \in \mathbb{C}^{n^2}$ lies in the space $\mathcal{S}$ if $Re(\mathbf{x}) \in \mathcal{S}$ and $Im(\mathbf{x}) \in \mathcal{S}$. Suppose for any vector $\mathbf x \in \mathbb{C}^{n^2}$, $\mathbf x_{\|}$ denotes the projection of $\mathbf{x}$ onto the space $\mathcal{S}$ and $\mathbf x_{\perp} = \mathbf x - \mathbf x_{\|}$. As $\mathbf x_{\|} \in \mathcal{S}$, $\exists \mathbf{w} \in \mathbb{R}^{2n}$ such that $\mathbf x_{\|} =\mathbf B \mathbf w$. In this case, we call $\mathbf w$ the lower dimensional (or $2n$-dimensional) representation of $\mathbf x_{\|}$. Note that the vector $\mathbf w$ need not be unique. A possible candidate is $\mathbf w = (\mathbf{B}^T\mathbf{B})^{-1}\mathbf{B}^T \mathbf x$. Although for any $\mathbf w$ such that $\mathbf{x}_{\|} = \mathbf{B}\mathbf{w}$, $\mathbf{w}' = \mathbf{w} - w\begin{bmatrix} \mathbf{1}_n \\-\mathbf{1}_n \end{bmatrix}$ for any $w\in \mathbb R$ also satisfies $\mathbf{x}_{\|} = \mathbf{B}\mathbf{w}'$ as $\mathbf{B}\begin{bmatrix} \mathbf{1}_n \\-\mathbf{1}_n \end{bmatrix} = \mathbf{0}_{n^2}$ by structure of matrix $\mathbf B$. This is because even though we are using $2n$ elements to represent a vector in $\mathcal{S}$, the dimension of $\mathcal{S}$ is $(2n-1)$ as we can fix one of the elements of $\mathbf w$ to $0$. Also, suppose the cone $\mathcal K \subset \mathcal S$ is given by,
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{K} &= \Big\{ \mathbf{y} \in \mathbb{R}^{n^2} : \exists \mathbf{r} \in \mathbb{R}^{2n}_+ \ s.t. \ y_{i+n(j-1)} = r_{i} + r_{n+j} \Big\} = \Big\{ \mathbf{y} \in \mathbb{R}^{n^2} : \exists \mathbf{r} \in \mathbb{R}^{2n}_+ \ s.t. \ \mathbf{y} =\mathbf B \mathbf r \Big\}.
\end{align*}
For any vector $\mathbf x\in \mathbb R^{n^2}$, we use $\mathbf x_{\| \mathcal K}$ as the projection to the cone $\mathcal{K}$, and $\mathbf x_{\perp \mathcal K} = \mathbf x - \mathbf x_{\| \mathcal K}$. Note that as $\mathcal{K} \subset \mathcal{S}$, we get that $\|\mathbf x_{\perp}\| \leq \|\mathbf x_{\perp \mathcal K}\|$. Similar to that for the projection on to the space $\mathcal{S}$, the lower dimensional representation to the projection on to the cone $\mathcal{K}$ is also not unique, i.e., there can be multiple $r$ such that $\mathbf x_{\| \mathcal K} = \mathbf B \mathbf r$. One way to ensure that the lower dimensional representation is unique to enforce an extra condition that smallest element in the vector $\mathbf r$ is zero, i.e., $\min_{1\leq i\leq 2n}r_i =0$.
\begin{definition}
\label{def: switch_ssc}
For the Input-queued switch as defined in Section \ref{sec: switch_model}
operating under a given scheduling algorithm, we say that the algorithm achieves \textit{state space collapse}, if for every $\theta \in \mathbb{R}$, there exists $\epsilon(\theta) >0$ such that for every $0< \epsilon \leq \epsilon(\theta)$, the steady state queue length vector satisfies,
\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon \theta \| \mathbf{q}_{\perp}\|}] \leq \mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon \theta \| \mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K}\|}] < C^\star< \infty.
\end{equation*}
where $\mathbf{q}_{\|}$ and $\mathbf{q}_{\| \mathcal{K}}$ are the projection of $\mathbf{q}$ onto the subspace $\mathcal S$ and cone $\mathcal K$, respectively. Also, $\mathbf{q}_{\perp} = \mathbf{q} - \mathbf{q}_{\|} $ and $\mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal{K}} = \mathbf{q} - \mathbf{q}_{\| \mathcal{K}}$. And the expectation $\mathbb E[\cdot]$ is taken under the steady-state distribution.
As a conclusion, for any scheduling policy that achieves state space collapse, for every $\theta \in \mathbb R$, \[\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon \theta \| \mathbf{q}_{\perp}\|}] \leq \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon \theta \| \mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K}\|}] < \infty.\] Furthermore, there exists a $C_r$ independent of $\epsilon$ such that,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq: switch_qperp_bound}
\mathbb{E} \Big [\|\mathbf{q}_{\perp }\|^r \Big] \leq \mathbb{E} \Big [\|\mathbf{q}_{\perp \mathcal K }\|^r \Big] \leq C_r \quad \forall r \geq 1.
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
According to Definition \ref{def: switch_ssc}, for any scheduling algorithm that achieves state space collapse, the moments of $\mathbf{q}_{\perp}$ are bounded irrespective of the heavy traffic parameter $\epsilon$. We know from \cite[Proposition 1]{maguluri2016heavy}, that in heavy traffic, queue length scales at least at the rate of $\Omega(1/\epsilon)$.
This shows that, in heavy traffic, $\mathbf{q}_{\perp}$ is insignificant compared to $\mathbf{q}$ and so $\mathbf{q}$ is nearly equal to its projection $\mathbf{q}_{\|}$.
For the Input-queued switch, MaxWeight scheduling achieves state space collapse according to the Definition \ref{def: switch_ssc}.
The proof of this is provided in \cite[Proposition 2]{maguluri2016heavy}, which in turn uses the result given in \cite{hajek1982hitting}.
In \cite{jhunjhunwala2021low}, the authors prove that several algorithms other than MaxWeight also achieve state space collapse according to Definition \ref{def: switch_ssc}.
\subsection{Results for Input-queued switch}
\label{sec: switch_results}
In this section, we present our results for the Input-queued switch. Theorem \ref{thm: switch_functional_eq} provides a functional equation that characterizes the heavy traffic distribution of the scaled queue length vector for Input-queued switch. Under the assumption that Conjecture \ref{lem: switch_uniqueness} holds true, Theorem \ref{thm: switch_dist} provides the solution of the functional equation given in Theorem \ref{thm: switch_functional_eq} under the symmetric variance condition.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm: switch_functional_eq}
Consider the Input-queued switch as defined in Section \ref{sec: switch_model}
operating under a given scheduling algorithm that achieves state space collapse according to Definition \ref{def: switch_ssc}. Let $\Theta = \{\boldsymbol \theta \in \mathbb{C}^{n^2} : \boldsymbol \theta \in \mathcal{S}, \ Re(\mathbf B^T \boldsymbol \theta) \leq \mathbf 0_{2n}\}$.
Then, for any $\boldsymbol\theta \in \boldsymbol \Theta$, the heavy traffic scaled queue length vector satisfies,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq: switch_functional_eq}
\left( -\frac{1}{n}\langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{1}_{n^2} \rangle + \frac{1}{2} \langle \boldsymbol{\theta} , \boldsymbol\sigma^2 \boldsymbol{\theta} \rangle \right) L(\boldsymbol{\theta}) = - \langle \boldsymbol{\theta}, \mathbf{M}(\boldsymbol{\theta}) \rangle.
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align*}
L(\boldsymbol \theta) = \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \mathbb{E}[e^{\epsilon \langle \boldsymbol \theta, \mathbf{q} \rangle}], && M_{k}(\boldsymbol \theta) = \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\epsilon} \mathbb{E} [u_{ k}e^{\epsilon \langle \boldsymbol \theta, \mathbf{q} \rangle }], \ \ \forall k \in \{1,2,\dots,n^2\}.
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}
Theorem \ref{thm: switch_functional_eq} gives a characterization of the functional equation for the input-queued switch. The functional equation is mathematical relationship between the term $L(\boldsymbol \theta)$, which is the Laplace transform of the limiting heavy traffic distribution and the terms $M_k(\boldsymbol{\theta})$, which intuitively denote the Laplace transform under the condition $q_k=0$ (as $u_k =1$ implies $q_k =0$).
In order to establish the functional equation presented in Theorem \ref{thm: switch_functional_eq}, the first step is to use the complex exponential as the Lyapunov function and equate its expected drift to zero in steady-state.
After that, we use the second-order approximation of the complex exponential in terms of the heavy traffic parameter $\epsilon$ and eliminate the higher order terms to get the functional equation. Here, SSC plays a key role in the technical analysis. To be more specific, due to the SSC, we only need to consider the set of $\boldsymbol \theta$ for which $Re(\boldsymbol \theta), Im(\boldsymbol \theta) \in \mathcal S$. As a consequence, we only have to consider $\mathbf{q}_{\|}$ (as $\langle \boldsymbol \theta, \mathbf{q} \rangle = \langle \boldsymbol \theta, \mathbf{q}_{\|} \rangle$ for any $\boldsymbol \theta\in \mathcal S$). This allows us to perform the technical analysis to characterize the heavy traffic distribution using the functional equation.
Also, the condition $Re(\mathbf B^T \boldsymbol \theta) \leq \mathbf 0_{2n}$ is chosen to ensure that the limiting Laplace transforms $L(\boldsymbol \theta)$ and $\mathbf M(\boldsymbol \theta)$ exists. More mathematical details on the existance of the Laplace transforms is provided in Lemma \ref{lem: switch_mgf_equivalence} in Appendix \ref{app: switch_mgf_equivalence}.
The complete proof for Theorem \ref{thm: switch_functional_eq} is presented in Appendix \ref{app: switch_functional_eq}.
After establishing the functional equation, the next step is to solve the derived functional equation to get the Laplace transform of the heavy traffic distribution of the steady-state scaled queue length vector. Solving the functional equation, in general, is not easy. One way to solve the functional equation is to
guess the solution and check whether it satisfies the functional equation or not. If it does, then the solution gives one possible candidate for the Laplace transform of the heavy traffic distribution. Next crucial step is to show that the functional equation has a unique solution. This ensures that the guessed solution is the only solution for the functional equation. For Input-queued switch, we conjecture that the functional equation has a unique solution as given below.
\begin{conjecture}
\label{lem: switch_uniqueness}
Consider the Input-queued switch as defined in Section \ref{sec: switch_model}
operating under a given scheduling algorithm that achieves state space collapse according to Definition \ref{def: switch_ssc}. Then, there is a unique solution $(L(\boldsymbol \theta),\mathbf M(\boldsymbol\theta))$ to the functional equation given in Eq. \eqref{eq: switch_functional_eq} that is a valid Laplace transform of a probability distribution.
\end{conjecture}
A major challenge in solving the implicit functional equation given in Eq. \eqref{eq: switch_functional_eq} is proving that the functional equation has a unique solution. For simpler systems such as Three-queue system or $\mathcal{N}$-system (later part of the paper) where the SSC happens to a two dimensional subspace, we can prove that the corresponding functional equation has a unique solution using Carleman boundary value problem \cite{litvinchuk1970generalized}. Extending that result to a functional equation with more than two variables turns out to be highly non-trivial. Next, we present Theorem \ref{thm: switch_dist}, which assumes that the Conjecture \ref{lem: switch_uniqueness} holds, to solve the functional equation under symmetric variance condition.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm: switch_dist}
Consider the Input-queued switch as defined in Section \ref{sec: switch_model}
operating under a given scheduling algorithm that achieves state space collapse according to Definition \ref{def: switch_ssc}. Assume Conjecture \ref{lem: switch_uniqueness} holds. Suppose the variance vector $\boldsymbol \sigma^2$ is symmetric, i.e. $\boldsymbol \sigma^2 =\sigma^2 \mathbf{I}_{n^2} $. Then, the heavy traffic steady state queue length vector is given by
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \epsilon q_{i+n(j-1)} = \Upsilon_i + \Upsilon_{n+j} - 2 \Tilde{\Upsilon}, \ \ \forall i,j \in \{1,\dots,n\},
\end{equation*}
where $\{\Upsilon_1,\dots,\Upsilon_{2n}\}$ are independent exponential random variable with mean $\frac{\sigma^2}{2}$ and $\Tilde{\Upsilon} =\displaystyle \min_{1\leq k\leq 2n} \Upsilon_k$. In vector notations, this is given by
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \epsilon \mathbf{q} = \mathbf B ( \boldsymbol \Upsilon - \Tilde{\Upsilon} \mathbf 1_{2n}),
\end{equation*}
where $\boldsymbol \Upsilon $ is the vector $ \boldsymbol \Upsilon = (\Upsilon_1,\dots,\Upsilon_{2n})$.
\end{theorem}
Theorem \ref{thm: switch_dist} gives the complete characterization of the heavy traffic distribution of the Input-queued switch under the symmetric variance condition, where the heavy traffic distribution is represented using $2n$ independent exponential random variable. This suggests that the heavy traffic distribution of the switch is light-tailed even when the symmetric variance condition is not satisfied.
The idea behind the proof is to show that the Laplace transform of the limiting distribution provided in the Theorem \ref{thm: switch_dist} is a solution of a functional equation (given in Theorem \ref{thm: switch_functional_eq}) when the variances of the arrival process are symmetric. And under the assumption that the functional equation has a unique solution (claimed by Conjecture \ref{lem: switch_uniqueness}), the solution provided in Theorem \ref{thm: switch_dist} is the unique solution for the heavy traffic distribution for Input-queued switch under symmetric variance condition. The mathematical proof of Theorem \ref{thm: switch_dist} is provided in Appendix \ref{app: switch_dist}. Remember that for the projection on to the cone $\mathcal{ K}$, we can ensure that the lower dimensional representation $\mathbf r$ is unique by adding an extra constraint that $\min_{1\leq i\leq 2n} r_i =0$. Such a condition is satisfied by the vector $\boldsymbol \Upsilon - \Tilde{\Upsilon} \mathbf 1_{2n}$. This provides an intuitive reasoning behind the appearance of the term $\Tilde{\Upsilon} $.
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor: switch_max}
For the Input-queued switch as defined in Section \ref{sec: switch_model}, MaxWeight scheduling satisfies the functional equation given in Theorem \ref{thm: switch_functional_eq} and the heavy traffic distribution in Theorem \ref{thm: switch_dist}.
\end{corollary}
As mentioned in Section \ref{sec: switch_ssc}, MaxWeight scheduling achieves SSC according to Definition \ref{def: switch_ssc}. Now, Corollary \ref{cor: switch_max} is a direct application of Theorem \ref{thm: switch_functional_eq} and Theorem \ref{thm: switch_dist}. Similarly, the class of algorithms presented in \cite{jhunjhunwala2021low} also satisfies the result presented in Theorem \ref{thm: switch_functional_eq} and Theorem \ref{thm: switch_dist}.
Next, we reiterate the results mentioned in Theorem \ref{thm: switch_dist} for a $2\times 2$ switch to provide more clarity. With slight abuse of notation, we use the matrix notation $q_{ij} = q_{i+n(j-1)}$, i.e., the queue length matrix and its corresponding projection is given by,
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{q} = \begin{bmatrix}
q_{11} & q_{12}\\
q_{21} & q_{22}
\end{bmatrix},
&& \mathbf{q}_{\|} = \begin{bmatrix}
w_1 & w_1\\
w_2 &w_2
\end{bmatrix} + \begin{bmatrix}
w_3 & w_4\\
w_3 &w_4
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{align*}
From the above representation, we note that $\mathbf{q}_{\|}$ is represented as the sum of two matrices. For the first matrix, row elements are common and for the second matrix, column elements are common. Note that, even though the representation of $\mathbf{q}_{\|}$ involves four elements, $\mathbf{q}_{\|}$ lies in a three-dimensional subspace. Now, according to Theorem \ref{thm: switch_dist}, in heavy traffic and under symmetric variance condition,
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0} \epsilon\mathbf{q} = \begin{bmatrix}
\Upsilon_1 & \Upsilon_1\\
\Upsilon_2 &\Upsilon_2
\end{bmatrix} + \begin{bmatrix}
\Upsilon_3 & \Upsilon_4\\
\Upsilon_3 &\Upsilon_4
\end{bmatrix} - \begin{bmatrix}
\Tilde{\Upsilon} & \Tilde{\Upsilon}\\
\Tilde{\Upsilon} &\Tilde{\Upsilon}
\end{bmatrix},
\end{equation*}
where $\Upsilon_1,\Upsilon_2,\Upsilon_3$ and $\Upsilon_4$ are exponential random variables with mean $\sigma^2/2$ and $\Tilde{\Upsilon} = \min\{\Upsilon_1,\Upsilon_2,\Upsilon_3,\Upsilon_4\}$. By SSC, we know that $\epsilon\mathbf{q}_{\perp} \approx 0$ and so $\epsilon \mathbf{q} \approx \epsilon \mathbf{q}_{\|}$ in heavy traffic. This means that we can think of $\epsilon w_{i}$ converging to $\Upsilon_i - \Tilde{\Upsilon}$ in distribution. Next, we look at a simpler system, which we call Three-queue system.
|
\section{Introduction}
Automatic semantic segmentation of medical images is widely done using deep-learning-based segmentation networks. To apply these networks, a pre-processing step that resamples all images into the same space is currently performed, as the images can have different orientation, field-of-view and resolution. Choosing the common space can be done in many ways, \emph{e.g.}, based on the median voxel size of the training population \cite{isensee2021nnu}. This step is required for stacking channel dimensions when working on multi-modal(channel) data, but also if a batch size larger then one is required. This type of pre-processing is performed in the majority of biomedical challenges, \emph{e.g}, BRATS \cite{menze2014multimodal}, Medical Segmentation Decathlon \cite{antonelli2021medical} and the WMH Segmentation Challenge \cite{kuijf2019standardized}.
Pre-processing images by resampling to a common space can be seen as a normalisation step, intended to decrease data variance and facilitate both model fitting and generalisability. However, resampling introduces values not present in the original image through interpolation. Furthermore, it has a smoothing effect that, unless coordinates fall exactly at voxel centres, reduces the observed noise variance: let $y = ax_1 + (1 - a)x_2$ be the interpolation of two values $x_1 \sim \mathcal{N}(m_1,~v)$ and $x_2 \sim \mathcal{N}(m_2,~v)$, with $a \in [0, 1]$ ; then, $\text{Var}[y] = (1 - 2a(1 - a))v \leq v$. In addition, interpolation algorithms do not embed prior knowledge about the objects being interpolated, resulting in overly smooth images that can bias analyses and cause false positives \cite{yushkevich2010bias,thompson2011bias}. These limitations can make it challenging to generalise segmentation networks to a wide array of voxel sizes. Furthermore, the networks have no way to know how confident they should be about a particular voxel value, \emph{i.e.}, whether it has been highly interpolated or preserves the raw value. This could be particularly problematic when working with routine clinical MRIs, where thick-sliced (high in-plane, low through-plane resolution), multi-modal acquisitions are the default.
The simplest method for fusing modalities of different image resolution is perhaps to fit separate networks to each modality and then combine their individual predictions. This can be done by integrating multi-modal features from the top layer of each network \cite{suk2014hierarchical,nie2016fully}, or by fusing their outputs via averaging and majority voting \cite{kamnitsas2017ensembles}. However, such output-fusion strategies learn only modality-specific features and ignore the complex interactions between modalities. To better account for correlations across modalities, several layer-level fusion methods have been proposed. For example, Hi-Net \cite{zhou2020hi}, which learns individual modality features via a modality-specific network and a layer-wise fusion strategy, or HyperDense-Net \cite{dolz2018hyperdense}, which employs dense connections across multi-modal streams. However, none of these methods model the fact that the images are defined on different grids in their native spaces. SynthSeg \cite{billot2021synthseg}, on the other hand, introduced a convolutional neural network (CNN) that learns a mapping between multi-modal scans, defined on different grids, by simulating high-resolution scans from the training data by interpolating the low-resolution scans to 1 mm isotropic. Since the interpolation is simulated from the training data, the network becomes robust to variable image resolutions. The method presented in this paper would avoid interpolation, instead using the proposed splat layers. Finally, CNN-based models exist that take irregularly sampled inputs \cite{szczotka2020learning}, but they are currently not easily extended to multi-modal data.
In this paper, we propose a method for directly fitting segmentation networks to the raw image data. Our method is based on the splatting operation, which pushes images, across subjects and channels, into a mean space. The network produces its predictions in this space, which are then pulled back into the native space of each input subject where the loss function is computed. If multiple modalities are provided, the loss is computed on the image on which the target segmentation was annotated. The splat layer avoids interpolating the input data, allowing the network to instead infer on the raw voxel values. We validate our proposed method on two semantic segmentation tasks, on publicly available multi-modal brain MR images. Our validation shows that extending a UNet with our proposed splat layers gives improved segmentations, compared to fitting to data that have been pre-processed by resampling. Our implementation uses a PyTorch backend, with custom splatting and resampling layers written in C++/CUDA, publicly available at \url{https://github.com/balbasty/nitorch}.
\section{Methods}
The idea of our method is quite simple; when fitting a segmentation network, instead of resampling the input images as a pre-processing step, we instead add two new layers to the network, one at its head and one at its tail. These two layers are based on the splatting operation \cite{westover1989interactive}, which allow the network to learn on the raw voxel data of the images. This avoids interpolation that could introduce partial-volume effects, and for the loss to be computed on the native space data. The idea is that the network implicitly interpolates the data whilst training. To conceptualise the idea of splatting, we next show a simple 1D toy example. The methodology is then extended to $D$-dimensional input tensors in the subsequent section.
\subsection{1D Toy Example}
Let's assume we have a training population of $M$ sets of native-space input vectors ($D=1$), where each set of input vectors represents $C$ channels and can be of different length (\emph{i.e.}, it is not always possible to stack the $C$ vectors of training data). For training a segmentation network, we want to be able to concatenate all input vectors across $C$ and $M$ onto a common grid (\emph{i.e.}, having equal length). Let us define one of these vectors as $\mathbf{f}_{mc}=[10,~11,~12,~13]^{\text{T}}$, with $N_{mc}=4$ elements and the affine mapping\footnote{For medical images, the affine mapping can be read from the image header. In general, it can be defined from knowledge of orientation, pixel size and field-of-view.} $\mathbf{A}_{mc}=\begin{psmallmatrix}2.5 & 0\\ 0 & 1\end{psmallmatrix}$. This vector's identity grid is given by $\mathbf{i}_{mc}=[0,~1,~2,~3]^{\text{T}}$. To resize the input vector on a common training grid, we define its length ($N_t$) and affine mapping ($A_t$). This could be done in a number of ways, in this paper we use a \emph{mean space}. The mean space is defined later; in this example, for simplicity, we assume $N_t=8$ and $\mathbf{A}_t=\begin{psmallmatrix}1 & 0\\ 0 & 1\end{psmallmatrix}$.
There are two ways of resizing the input vector onto the mean-space grid. The standard method is resampling, in which we define an identity grid in the mean space: $\mathbf{i}_{t}=[0,~1,~2,~3,~4,~5,~6,~7]^{\text{T}}$. We then compose the affine mappings as $\mathbf{A}=\mathbf{A}_{mc}^{-1}\mathbf{A}_{t}=\begin{psmallmatrix}0.4 & 0\\ 0 & 1\end{psmallmatrix}$ and transform the identity grid with $\mathbf{A}$ to get the deformation $\bm{\phi}_{t}=[0,~0.4,~0.8,~1.2,~1.6,~2,~2.4,~2.8]^{\text{T}}$. Using $\bm{\phi}_{t}$ we can then pull values from $\mathbf{f}_{mc}$ onto a grid $\mathbf{f}_{t}$ using some form of interpolation. With linear interpolation we get $\mathbf{f}_{t}=[10,~10.4,~10.8,~11.2,~11.6,~12,~12.4,~12.8]^{\text{T}}$.
This operation can be conceptualised as multiplying $\mathbf{f}_{mc}$ with a sparse matrix $\mathbf{f}_{t}=\mathbf{\Psi}_t\mathbf{f}_{mc}$, where:
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{\Psi}_t = \begin{bmatrix}
1.0, & 0.0, & 0.0, & 0.0\\
0.6, & 0.4, & 0.0, & 0.0\\
0.2, & 0.8, & 0.0, & 0.0\\
0.0, & 0.8, & 0.2, & 0.0\\
0.0, & 0.4, & 0.6, & 0.0\\
0.0, & 0.0, & 1.0, & 0.0\\
0.0, & 0.0, & 0.6, & 0.4\\
0.0, & 0.0, & 0.2, & 0.8
\end{bmatrix}
\end{align*}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{splatting}
\caption{1D examples of expansive and compressive splatting.}
\label{fig:splatting}
\end{figure*}
Splatting, on the other hand, does not interpolate the values in $\mathbf{f}_{mc}$. Instead the affine mapping is defined as $\mathbf{A}=\mathbf{A}_{t}^{-1}\mathbf{A}_{mc}=\begin{psmallmatrix}2.5 & 0\\ 0 & 1\end{psmallmatrix}$ and the identity grid of the input vector ($\mathbf{i}_{mc}$) transformed as $\bm{\phi}_{mc}=[0,~2.5,~5,~7.5]^{\text{T}}$. This deformation is then used to push each value in $\mathbf{f}_{mc}$ to a location in the mean-space grid, giving us $\mathbf{f}_{t}=[10,~0,~5.5,~5.5,~0,~12,~6.5,~6.5]^{\text{T}}$.
As multiple values can be pushed to the same location, a count image is also computed $\mathbf{c}_{t}=[1,~0,~0.5,~0.5,~0,~1,~0.5,~0.5]^{\text{T}}$, which we additionally provide as input to the segmentation network. Note that the splatting is expansive in this example, as there are fewer input voxels than output voxels, so the count image has lots of zeros. Splatting can also be compressive, meaning that multiple values can be pushed onto the same output voxel. As resampling, splatting can be conceptualised as a matrix multiplication $\mathbf{f}_{t}=\mathbf{\Lambda}_t\mathbf{f}_{mc}$, where:
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{\Lambda}_t = \begin{bmatrix}
1.0, & 0.0, & 0.0, & 0.0, & 0.0, & 0.0, & 0.0, & 0.0\\
0.0, & 0.0, & 0.5, & 0.5, & 0.0, & 0.0, & 0.0, & 0.0\\
0.0, & 0.0, & 0.0, & 0.0, & 0.0, & 1.0, & 0.0, & 0.0\\
0.0, & 0.0, & 0.0, & 0.0, & 0.0, & 0.0, & 0.5, & 0.5
\end{bmatrix}
\end{align*}
This matrix is in fact the conjugate transpose of the resampling from the mean space to the input space, that is $\mathbf{\Lambda}_t=\mathbf{\Psi}_{mc}^{\text{T}}$. The expansive and compressive splatting operations are visualised in Fig. \ref{fig:splatting}.
The splatting operation, and its conjugate transpose, are what we add as layers to the head and tail of a segmentation network, respectively. When splatting and its transpose are conceptualised as layers, we now have the first and last layer of the network as adjoint operations, similarly to how convolutions in the encoder and transposed convolutions in the decoder of a UNet are adjoint operations. An additional parallel between splatting (followed by a convolution) and transposed convolutions can be drawn, as they both let the network learn how to optimally invent missing data.
Having the splat operation at the head of the network allows any sized input images to be provided to a network, with multiple channels that may have different sizes or orientations, because the image's voxels will be pushed onto the common training grid. Having the conjugate transpose of the splat operator at the tail of the network allows the loss function (\emph{e.g.}, Dice) to be computed in the image's native space, where the target segmentations were originally drawn. Note that we apply the conjugate transpose to the `logit' output of the network, and afterwards apply the softmax operation. Furthermore, the splatting operations assume that voxels outside the field-of-view are zero, and the conjugate transposes assume that data outside of the field of view are part of the background class. In the next section we extend the operations to an arbitrary number of dimensions.
\subsection{Splatting and Resampling}
Let us write as $\mathcal{N}: \mathbb{R}^{N \times C_i} \rightarrow
\mathbb{R}^{N \times C_o}$ a CNN that maps $N$ voxels and $C_i$ input channels
to $N$ voxels and $C_o$ output channels. Implicitly, each voxel of the grid is
associated with a spatial index $\mathbf{x}_n$, which is identical in the input
and output images, and in all channels within them. Furthermore, voxel
coordinates can be linked to a common coordinate system through the mapping
$\mathbf{A} : \mathbf{x}_n \mapsto \mathbf{y}$, which can be encoded in an
affine orientation matrix $\mathbf{A} \in \mathbb{R}^{D+1, D+1}$ ($D$ is the
dimensionality of the input). These matrices are saved in the headers of
most medical imaging file formats. In practice, multiple MR contrasts
$\left\{\mathbf{f}_c \in \mathbb{R}^{N_c}\right\}_{c=1}^{C_i}$ may be defined on
different grids, with different coordinate systems $\left\{\mathbf{A}_c \in
\mathbb{R}^{D+1,D+1}\right\}_{c=1}^{C_i}$. Because CNNs require all images to
`live' on the same grid, they are commonly resampled to the same space. For
segmentation, this is typically the space in which the manual labels were drawn.
In general, resampling can be written as $\hat{f}_m = \sum_{n=1}^N f_n
w(\boldsymbol{\phi}(\hat{\mathbf{x}}_m), \mathbf{x}_n)$, where
$\boldsymbol{\phi}$ is a mapping from the
new grid ($\hat{\mathbf{x}}$) to the old ($\mathbf{x}$) and $w$ is a
weight that depends on the distance
between
a voxel $\mathbf{x}_m$ and the sampled location
$\boldsymbol{\phi}(\mathbf{x}_n)$. This
operation can be conceptualised as a
large linear operation $\hat{\mathbf{f}} = \mathbf{\Phi}\mathbf{f}$, although in
practice, the support of $w$ is small and $\mathbf{\Phi}$ is
sparse. In this paper, we use trilinear interpolation weights.
Let us write the loss function as $\mathcal{L}$ and the labels as
$\mathbf{f}_l$, the forward pass of the CNN should therefore really be written
as:
\begin{equation}
\left\{\mathbf{f}_c \in \mathbb{R}^{N_c}, \mathbf{A}_c \in \mathbb{R}^{D+1,D+1}\right\}_{c=1}^{C_i}
\mapsto
\mathcal{L}\left(\mathcal{N}\left(\left[\mathbf{\Phi}_c\mathbf{f}_c\right]_{c=1}^{C_i}\right), \mathbf{\Phi}_l\mathbf{f}_l\right)
~,
\end{equation}
although in general the common space is chosen to be that of the labels so that
$\mathbf{\Phi}_l$ is the identity. When labels have a lower resolution than some
of the input images, a different formulation could be to re-slice all images to
the higher resolution space (\emph{e.g.}, 1 mm isotropic), and resample the
output of the network to the label space:
\begin{equation}
\left\{\mathbf{f}_c \in \mathbb{R}^{N_c}, \mathbf{A}_c \in \mathbb{R}^{D+1,D+1}\right\}_{c=1}^{C_i}
\mapsto
\mathcal{L}\left(\mathbf{\Psi}_l\mathcal{N}\left(\left[\mathbf{\Phi}_c\mathbf{f}_c\right]_{c=1}^{C_i}\right), \mathbf{f}_l\right)
~,
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{\Psi}_l$ maps from the common space to the native label
space, whereas $\mathbf{\Phi}_l$ was used to map from the native label space to
the common space (the underlying transformations $\boldsymbol{\psi}_l$ and
$\boldsymbol{\phi}_l$ are inverse of each other). However, this does not solve
the issues related to the resampling of the input images raised earlier.
In this paper, we propose to replace the initial resampling with the adjoint
operation of its inverse, as part of the forward pass. Since resampling is a linear operation, its adjoint is simply
its transpose $\mathbf{\Psi}^{\text{T}}\mathbf{f}$. In practice, it means that
native data are \emph{splatted} onto the mean space: $\hat{f}_m = \sum_{n=1}^N
f_n w(\boldsymbol{\psi}(\mathbf{x}_n), \hat{\mathbf{x}}_m)$. Importantly,
it means that if the resolution of the common space is higher than that of the
native space, the splatted image has many zeros (the data are \emph{not}
interpolated). The output of the network is then
resampled to the native label space, where the loss is computed:
\begin{equation}
\left\{\mathbf{f}_c \in \mathbb{R}^{N_c}, \mathbf{A}_c \in \mathbb{R}^{D+1,D+1}\right\}_{c=1}^{C_i}
\mapsto
\mathcal{L}\left(\mathbf{\Psi}_l\mathcal{N}\left(\left[\mathbf{\Psi}_c
^{\text{T}}\mathbf{f}_c,
\mathbf{\Psi}_c^{\text{T}}\mathbf{1}\right]_{c=1}^{C_i}\right),
\mathbf{f}_l\right)
~,
\end{equation}
where we have let the network know which zeros are missing and which are native
values, by concatenating splatted images of ones ($\mathbf{\Psi}_c^{\text{T}}\mathbf{1}$) to the input. We note that $\mathbf{\Psi}_c^{\text{T}}\mathbf{f}_c$ can be seen as the gradient of the resampling operation with respect to its input, while $\mathbf{\Psi}_c^{\text{T}}\mathbf{1}$ can be seen as a diagonal approximation of its Hessian.
\subsection{The Mean Space}
What is the best way of defining the common space, in which the training and inference takes place? Using one of the input images to define this space,
for the complete dataset, is not optimal \cite{yushkevich2010bias}. A more principled solution is to compute a mean space from all input orientation matrices
\cite{ashburner2013symmetric,pennec2013exponential}. Briefly, this involves (1)
extracting all linear components from the input orientation matrices; (2)
computing their barycentric mean in an iterative fashion by alternately
projecting them to the tangent space of GL(3) about the current barycentre and
updating the barycentre by zero-centering the tangent data; (3) finding the
closest matrix, in the least square sense, that can be encoded by the product of
a rotation matrix (the orientation) and an anisotropic scaling matrix (the voxel
size). In this work, we compute the mean space once, from the entire training
set, although one mean space per mini-batch could alternatively be used. We
constrain the mean-space dimensions to be a power of two or three, to facilitate
fitting encoding/decoding architectures. Finally, we use a voxel size of 1 mm
isotropic. This could be customised however, \emph{e.g.}, by using larger voxels
for a more lightweight model.
\section{Experiments and Results}
This section investigates whether the splat layer can improve multi-modal MRI brain segmentation in the scenario where, for each subject, we have multiple MR contrasts of differing resolution and the target labels are defined on one of the contrasts. We use a simple baseline network that we fit in two ways: (1) to images that, for each subject, have been resampled to the grid of the target labels; and (2), to native space images, by extending the baseline network with our proposed splat layers. The number of learnable parameters in both networks are the same.
\subsection{The Baseline Network}
We use a fairly light-weight UNet architecture \cite{ronneberger2015u} with $(16,~32,~64,~128)$ channels in the encoder layer and $(128,~64,~32,~32)$ in the decoder layer, where kernel size $3 \times 3 \times 3$ and stride two is used throughout. This is followed by a layer of $3 \times 3 \times 3$ stacked convolutions with $(32,~16,~16)$ channels each, and a stride of one. The last layer then outputs the $K$ segmentations labels, which are passed through a softmax. All layers use ReLU activations and batch normalisation. The final network has about 1 million parameters. This is the baseline network, denoted
\emph{UNet}. The UNet is then extended with our proposed splat layers as described in the Methods section. We denote this network \emph{MeanSpaceNet}. The mean-space has dimensions $(192,~192,~192)$ with 1 mm isotropic voxels. Note that the mean-space is defined on only the training data. Both networks are optimised using the Dice loss and the ADAM optimiser (lr=$10^{-3}$). During training, we augment with multiplicative smooth intensity non-uniformities and random diffeomorphic deformations. For the mean-space model, any spatial augmentation needs to be defined in the mean-space and then composed to each image's native space using the affine matrices. We train for a fixed number of 100 epochs, with a batch size of one.
\subsection{Simulated Data: Brain Tumour Segmentation}
\subsubsection{TCGA-GBM Dataset.}
In this experiment, we use the pre-operative, multi-institutional scans of The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM) collection \cite{bakas2017advancing,bakas2017data}, publicly available in The Cancer Imaging Archive \cite{clark2013cancer}. The dataset was acquired from different MRI scanners. Each subject has skull-stripped and co-registered multi-modal (T1w, T1-Gd, T2w, T2-FLAIR) MRIs and segmentation labels of the enhancing part of the tumor core (ET), the non-enhancing part of the tumor core (NET), and the peritumoral edema (ED). All MRIs have been resampled to 1 mm isotropic voxel size and the same dimensions. In this experiment, we use only the subjects with manually-corrected segmentation labels, which gives in total $N_{\text{gbm}}=97$ subjects, each with four MR modalities and three tumour labels.
\subsubsection{Experiment.}
We simulate two datasets from TCGA-GBM. The first dataset, denoted $\mathcal{D}_{\text{nat}}^{\text{gbm}}$, is created by downsampling the T2-FLAIR image and the segmentation by a factor of three, in a randomly selected dimension. This emulates the situation where manual labels have been drawn on one modality (here the T2-FLAIR), and the other modalities have different voxel size (here the T1w, T1-Gd and T2w). The second dataset, denoted $\mathcal{D}_{\text{res}}^{\text{gbm}}$, is created by trilinearly re-slicing the T1w, T1-Gd and T2w images to the space of the downsampled T2-FLAIR, so that all images have the same dimensions. This in turn emulates the situation where all modalities are resampled to the space of the modality on which the manual labels were drawn. We split the two datasets into equal (train, validation, test) sets as $(40,~17,~40)$. We then fit the UNet to $\mathcal{D}_{\text{res}}^{\text{gbm}}$ and the MeanSpaceNet to $\mathcal{D}_{\text{nat}}^{\text{gbm}}$. Note that it would not be possible to train the UNet model on the $\mathcal{D}_{\text{nat}}^{\text{gbm}}$ dataset, as the subjects' input modalities have different dimensions. After training we apply the two trained networks to their test sets and compute pairwise Dice scores between predicted and target segmentations.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{gbm}
\caption{Pairwise Dice scores computed on the TCGA-GBM test set ($N_{\text{gbm}}^{\text{test}}=40$), for three tumour labels (ED, ET, NET), and two CNN models (MeanSpaceNet, UNet). On each box, the central mark indicates the median, and the bottom and top edges of the box indicate the 25th and 75th percentiles, respectively. The whiskers extend to the most extreme data points not considered outliers. Asterisks indicate statistical significance of paired Wilcox tests after Holm–Bonferroni correction: 0.05 ($\ast$), 0.01 ($\ast\ast$), 0.001 ($\ast\ast\ast$) \& 0.0001 ($\ast\ast\ast\ast$).}
\label{fig:gbm}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Results.}
The experimental results are shown in the boxplot in Figure \ref{fig:gbm}. The MeanSpaceNet model achieves the best median Dice score over all classes 0.677 vs 0.528; as well as for all individual classes: 0.705 vs 0.639 for ED, 0.731 vs 0.626 for ET and 0.513 vs 0.340 for NET. Paired Wilcoxon tests with Holm-Bonferroni correction shows that the segmentation results are all significant ($p<0.0001$).
\subsection{Real Data: Brain Tissue Segmentation}
\subsubsection{MRBrains18 Dataset.}
In this experiment, we use the original scans (before any pre-processing) from the MICCAI MRBrainS18 grand segmentation challenge (\url{https://mrbrains18.isi.uu.nl}). The dataset was acquired from the same MRI scanner. Each subject has multi-modal (T1w, T1-IR, T2-FLAIR) MRIs and segmentation labels of ten brain structures: Cortical gray matter (CGM), subcortical gray matter (SGM), white matter (WM), white matter lesions (WML), cerebrospinal fluid in the extracerebral space (ECSF), ventricles (VEN), cerebellum (CBM), brain stem (BS), infarction (INF) and other (OTH). In this experiment, we do not use the INF and OTH labels, and we combine WM and WML into a single label. The images' voxel sizes (mm) are: T1w $(1.0,~1.0,~1.0)$, T1-IR $(0.96,~0.96,~3.0)$ and T2-FLAIR $(0.96,~0.96,~3.0)$. The segmentations were drawn in resampled $(0.96,~0.96,~3.0)$ space. In total, we have $N_{\text{brain}}=7$ subjects, each with three MR modalities and seven brain labels.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{mrbrain}
\caption{Pairwise Dice scores computed on the MRBrainS18 datasets from leave-one-out cross-validation ($N=7$), for seven brain labels (BS, CBM, CGM, ECSF, SGM, VEN, WM), and two CNN models (MeanSpaceNet, UNet).}
\label{fig:brain}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Experiment.}
As in the TCGA-GBM experiment, we construct two datasets. The first dataset, denoted $\mathcal{D}_{\text{nat}}^{\text{brain}}$, is simply the original scans from the MRBrainS18 dataset. The second dataset, denoted $\mathcal{D}_{\text{res}}^{\text{brain}}$, is created by, for each subject in the MRBrainS18 dataset, trilinearly re-slice the T1w image to the space of the segmentation, so that all images have the same dimensions. As the MRBrainS18 dataset has a small number of subjects we perform leave-one-out cross-validation, fitting the UNet on $\mathcal{D}_{\text{res}}^{\text{brain}}$ and the MeanSpaceNet on $\mathcal{D}_{\text{nat}}^{\text{brain}}$, seven times in total, and for each fold computing pairwise Dice scores on the subject held out from training.
\subsubsection{Results.}
The experimental results are shown in Figure \ref{fig:brain}. The MeanSpaceNet model achieves the best median Dice score over all classes 0.864 vs 0.813; as well as for all individual classes: 0.878 vs 0.827 for BS, 0.908 vs 0.836 for CBM, 0.816 vs 0.798 for CGM, 0.783 vs 0.770 for ECSF, 0.824 vs 0.749 for SGM, 0.943 vs 0.910 for VEN and 0.871 vs 0.836 for WM. Paired Wilcoxon tests with Holm-Bonferroni correction shows that the segmentation results are significant ($p<0.05$) for four out of seven segmentation classes.
\section{Conclusions}
In this paper, we described a splat layer that allows a segmentation network to automatically handle resolution mismatches in input data. The idea is to splat each input channel into a mean-space, without interpolating. The forward pass is then computed in this mean-space and its output prediction pulled back into the original resolution of the target labels. The splat layer therefore removes the need for explicit resolution adjustment. We showed on two multi-modal MRI segmentation tasks that splatting was preferred over resampling. Besides allowing segmentation networks to work on the raw image voxels, and computing the loss function in the space of the original target labels, the splat model could also streamline model deployment as a user does not need to ensure that input images have a specific size. The dimension of the mean-space can additionally be defined to allow optimal application of operations, such as strided convolutions, and/or be made small for faster inference.
Splatting and resampling have the same complexity, which is linear in the number of native voxels. In practice, the loop over native voxels is parallelised (whether running on a CPU or GPU), which makes splatting slightly slower than resampling because multiple native voxels may be pushed to the same output voxel, necessitating the use of atomic assignment (this also makes splatting non-deterministic, as the order in which values are summed-up in an output voxel is architecture-dependent). The cost is therefore somewhat equivalent, compared to resampling all images to the same grid. However, we introduce an additional input channel with the count image, which increases the number of convolution filters in the first layer. However, if the mean space is known a priori, input images can be splatted offline, as a preprocessing step. In this case, only resampling of the prediction to the loss space needs to happen online.
|
\section*{Acknowledgements}
This work is supported by the QuantiXLie Centre of Excellence, a project co financed by the Croatian Government and European Union through the European Regional Development Fund, the Competitiveness and Cohesion Operational Programme (KK.01.1.1.01.0004).
\bibliographystyle{apsrev4-2}
|
\section{Making Sense of the World Through Predictions}
It has long been suggested that predictions of future experience can provide useful and intuitive features to support decision-making---particularly in partially-observable or non-Markovian environments \citep{singh2003learning, littman2001predictive, jaeger2000observable}. It is certainly true for biological agents: humans and many animals build predictive sensorimotor models of their world. These predictions of experience form the basis for biological perception \citep{rao1999predictive, wolpert1995internal,gilbert2009stumbling}. A principled and well understood way of making temporally extended predictions in computational reinforcement learning is by estimating many value functions. Value functions predict the long-term expected accumulation of a signal in a given state \citep{sutton1988learning}, and can predict not only reward, but any signal available to an agent via its senses \citep{white2015developing}. Prior works have used these General Value Function (GVF) estimates as features to adapt the control interfaces of bionic limbs \citep{edwards2016application}, design reflexive control systems for robots \citep{modayil2014prediction} and living cats \citep{dalrymple2020pavlovian}, and to inform industrial welding systems of estimated weld quality \citep{GUNTHER20161}. \DIFaddbegin \DIFadd{In this paper, we explore how an agent can independently choose GVFs in order to augment its observations in order to construct it's own }\textit{\DIFadd{agent-state}}\DIFadd{: an approximation of state from the agent's subjective perspective.
}\DIFaddend
An open challenge when using GVF estimates as input features is determining what aspects of an agent's experience to predict. Of all the possible predictions an agent could make, which subset of GVFs are most useful to inform and support decision making? This choice is often made by the system designer \citep{modayil2014prediction,dalrymple2020pavlovian,edwards2016application,GUNTHER20161}. However, recent work has explored how an agent might independently specify its own GVFs. In \cite{schlegel2018baseline} an agent randomly selects the parameters that define what aspect of the environment is being estimated. After a period of learning, the agent replaces a subset of its GVFs based on their learning progress.
\DIFaddbegin
\DIFaddend Determining which GVFs to replace is a core challenge for such {\em generate-and-test} approaches: A GVF may be accurate and have low prediction error, but just because a prediction is well estimated does not mean that it is useful as a predictive feature for control \citep{good-prediction}. Examining a learned prediction estimate without considering its use---as is done in generate-and-test for GVF specification---inherently limits the ability of an agent to choose {\em useful} predictive features.
An alternative to random selection of GVFs is to parameterise the specification of a GVF and perform meta-gradient descent.
By taking the gradient of a control learner's error with respect to a GVF's meta-parameters, what each prediction is about can be incrementally updated based on feedback from the control learner. Although not used for learning predictive inputs, recent work has shown early success in using meta-gradient descent as a means of learning meta-parameters that specify GVFs \citep{DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1909-04607} for use as auxiliary tasks \citep{jaderberg2016reinforcement}.
When used as auxiliary tasks, GVF estimates themselves are not directly used in decision-making, but rather as regularisers for the control agent's artificial neural network. In this auxiliary task setting, the parameters that determine what is being predicted and the parameters that are used to select actions are explicitly kept and learned independent of one another. We propose meta update where the core RL update of a control learner directly influences {\em what} an agent is predicting.
\section{Meta-Learning General Value Functions}
In this manuscript, we integrate the discovery and use of GVFs for reinforcement learning control problems. We present a fully self-supervised approach, using meta-gradient descent to autonomously discover GVFs that are useful as predictive features for control. We do so by parameterising the functions that determine what aspect of the environment a GVF prediction is about, and constructing a loss that shapes the predictions based on the control agent's learning process. The resulting learning process can be successfully implemented incrementally and online. By this process, we enable agents to independently specify GVFs to be used directly as features by a control learner to solve two partially-observable problems. In doing so, we are providing a new solution to a long standing problem in using GVFs as predictive input features.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,height=2in, keepaspectratio]{figures/GVF_control.pdf}
\centering
\caption{The control agent updates its action-value function $Q({\bm{s}}, a; {\bm{w}})$ according to the TD-error $\delta$ and chooses actions according to policy $\pi$ based on value estimates..}
\label{fig:control}
\end{subfigure}\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,height=2in, keepaspectratio]{figures/GVF_agent.pdf}
\centering
\caption{The typical agent-environment diagram of Reinforcement Learning, where the control agent learns values as a function of both observations and GVF outputs.}
\label{fig:architecture}
\end{subfigure}\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{.32\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,height=2in, keepaspectratio]{figures/GVF_meta.pdf}
\centering
\caption{A GVF outputs predictions according to its current weights $V({\bm{s}}; {\boldsymbol{\nu}})$, while its updates are defined by the cumulant $c$, discount $\gamma$, and policy-correction $\rho$.}
\label{fig:gvf}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{}
\end{figure}
Our meta-learning process (Figure \ref{fig:architecture}) operates on an agent structured in three parts : 1) a value-based control unit that learns weights ${\bm{w}}$ for an action-value function (Figure~\ref{fig:control});
2) a collection of GVFs that each learn weights ${\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ to output prediction vector ${\bm{v}}$ (Figure~\ref{fig:gvf}); and
3) a set of meta-weights ${\boldsymbol{\omega}}$ that parameterize each GVF's learning rule (the right half of Figure~\ref{fig:gvf}).
The control unit is a typical Q-learning agent, although it learns a value function over the \newterm{agent-state} ${\bm{s}}$, which is constructed from the observations ${\bm{o}}$ and a vector of GVF predictions ${\bm{v}}$, rather than observation alone:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:agentstate}
{\bm{s}}_t = \phi({\bm{o}}_t, {\bm{v}}_t).
\end{equation}
The action-value function $Q({\bm{s}}_t, a; {\bm{w}}_t)$ may be learned by any relevant RL algorithm. We define the loss function $\mathcal{L}_t = \delta_t^2$, where:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:delta}
\delta_t = r_{t+1} + \gamma\max_a Q({\bm{s}}_{t+1}, a; {\bm{w}}_t) - Q({\bm{s}}_t, a_t; {\bm{w}}_t).
\end{equation}
GVFs may use any reinforcement learning method for learning, but their structure is defined by three functions of the current state\footnote{note that this is the GVF-specific state, independent of the \emph{agent-state} defined above}: the cumulant or target $c$, the discount or termination signal $\gamma$, and the policy $\pi$ (see chapter 4 in \cite{white2015developing}).
The cumulant function $z({\bm{s}}_t)$ determines the current target $c_t$: in classic RL, the cumulant simply singles out the current reward $r_t$. The discount factor $\gamma$ determines how far into the future the signal-of-interest should be attended to. While in simple RL approaches it is generally a fixed value, in GVFs it can be any function of the current state $\gamma_t = g({\bm{s}}_t)$. The policy allows each GVF to condition its prediction on specific behaviours, and is used to compute the importance-sampling correction against the behaviour policy $\mu$: $\rho_t = \frac{\pi({\bm{s}}_t, a_t)}{\mu({\bm{s}}_t, a_t)}$. The output of a GVF is determined not only by the current weights ${\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ but also the functions that define its update procedure. We will use ${\boldsymbol{\omega}}$ to refer to the collective parameters that define the GVF structure, disambiguating with superscripts when necessary:
\begin{equation}
v^i_t = V({\bm{s}}; {\boldsymbol{\nu}}^i, {\boldsymbol{\omega}}^i).
\end{equation}
During execution of our meta-learning process, each time-step contains an action and learning phase. First, the agent receives an observation from the environment ${\bm{o}}_t$, which is used to compute the GVF state
\begin{equation}
{\bm{s}}^\nu_t = \phi^\nu({\bm{o}}_t).
\end{equation}
For each GVF $i$, the prediction value $v^i_t$ is calculated as a function of the GVF state ${\bm{s}}^\nu_t$ and prediction weights ${\boldsymbol{\nu}}^i$:
\begin{equation}
v^i_t = V({\bm{s}}^\nu_t; {\boldsymbol{\nu}}_t^i).
\end{equation}
The vector of GVF predictions, along with the current observation, is transformed into the agent-state using a fixed function (see Equation~\ref{eq:agentstate} where $\phi$ may include e.g.: state aggregation, tile coding, artificial neural net). The policy unit $\pi$ uses $Q({\bm{s}}_t, a; {\bm{w}}_t)$ to determine the next action\footnote{in the following results we use $\epsilon$-greedy action selection}. Once the action is executed and $({\bm{o}}_{t+1}, r_{t+1})$ received, the learning phase begins.
The key to our meta-learning method is that the Q-learning error, as noted earlier (see Equation~\ref{eq:delta} and illustrated with the read lines in Figure~\ref{fig:gvf}), is a function of not only the value function weights ${\bm{w}}$, but also the agent-state vector ${\bm{s}}$.
As the agent-state is constructed from the GVF predictions, which in turn are are adjusted according to the meta-weights ${\boldsymbol{\omega}}$, we can use the control agent's loss function $\mathcal{L}_t=\delta^2_t$ to update the meta-weights. For the $i$th GVF, meta-weights $j\in\{c, \rho\}$ are adjusted:
\begin{equation}
\Delta{\boldsymbol{\omega}}^{i,j}_t = \alpha^{i,j}\nabla_{\!\omega^{i,j}}\mathcal{L}_t
\end{equation}
Once the meta-weights have been updated, each GVF computes the current $\rho_t$, $c_t$, and $\gamma_t$, updates its predictions weights ${\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. Finally, updated agent-state ${\bm{v}}_{t+1}$ is computed and used by the control agent to update its Q-learning weights ${\bm{w}}_{t+1}$. Pseudocode is provided in Appendix \ref{appendix:alg}.
\section{Can An Agent Learn What To Predict?}
Using the meta process we introduced, can an agent find useful GVFs for use as predictive input features? We first evaluate meta specification of GVFs on a partially observable control problem, Monsoon World (Figure \ref{fig:monsoon}). We choose to introduce this problem as it is a minimal, clear example of a situation where temporal abstraction is neccessary to solve the problem. This enables us to assess in a clear way whether meta-gradient descent (MGD) is capable of specifying useful predictions, and precisely examine what predictions the agent chooses to learn.
In Monsoon World, there are two seasons: monsoon and drought. The underlying season determines whether the agent receives reward for its chosen action, however the underlying season is not directly observable. Although the agent cannot directly observe seasons, it can observe the result of a given action: something impacted by the seasons. The agent tends to a field by choosing to either water, or not water their farm. Watering the field during a drought will result in a reward of 1; watering the field during monsoon season does not produce growth and results in a reward of 0, and vice versa during a monsoon. If the agent chooses the right action corresponding to the underlying season, a reward of 1 can be obtained on each time-step. Regardless of the action chosen by the agent, time progresses.
This monsoon world problem can be solved, and an optimal policy found, if the agent reliably estimates how long until watering produces a particular result. This can be done by learning \newterm{echo GVFs} (c.f. \citep{schlegel2021general}). Echo GVFs estimate the time to an event using a state-conditioned discount and cumulant. In plain terms, the two GVF's that when learned provide estimates that solve the problem can be described as ``How long until watering produces growth''? or ``How long until not watering produces growth''? Indirectly, these capture the time until either the monsoon or drought. These two predictions can be described as \newterm{off-policy} estimates: predictions that are conditioned on a particular behaviour. Given the agent has two actions where $a_0$ is not watering and $a_1$ is watering, we can describe the policy ``if the agent waters'' as a deterministic policy \(\pi = [0,1]\). The signal of interest is, \( c_t =
1 \text{ if } r_t = 1 \text{ \& } 0 \text{ otherwise}
\). Similarly, a state-dependent discounting function terminates the accumulation, \( \gamma_t =
0 \text{ if } c_t = 1 \text{ \& } 0.9 \text{ otherwise.}
\) Off-policy GVFs can be estimated online, incrementally, while the agent is engaging in behaviours that do not strictly match the target policies of the prediction \citep{maei2011gradient}. \label{monsoon:intro} Having constructed the aforementioned GVFs, an agent can express what is hidden from its observation stream: how long until the next season. While no information was given about the season, by relating what is sensed by the agent with the actions that were taken, the agent is able to learn about the seasons indirectly.
\subsection{Learning to Specify GVFs in Monsoon World}
GVF estimates can resolve the partial observability of monsoon world. Through MGD, can an agent find similar predictions? We compare three different agent configurations (Figure \ref{monsoon:results}): 1) a baseline agent that only receives environmental observations as inputs (in blue), 2) an agent that in addition to the environmental observations, has two inputs that capture underlying seasons (`oracle', in orange), and 3) an agent that has two GVFs whose cumulants and policies are learned through meta-gradient descent (in black).
\begin{figure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.4\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,height=1.5in,keepaspectratio]{figures/Monsun_world_2.PNG}
\centering
\caption{The monsoon problem. On each time-step the agent observes a binary value that determines whether the crops have grown. Growth of crops is determined by both the action an agent takes (to water crops or not), and the unobserved underlying season. There are four phases of the season that an agent can exist in: two monsoon and two drought (inner circles). The outer arrows indicate how the seasons change as the agent transitions through the cycle.}
\label{fig:monsoon}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.55\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth, height=2in, keepaspectratio]{figures/monsoon-reward.png}
\centering
\caption{Three different learners that use 1) the environmental observations as inputs (blue), 2) two additional inputs which express the seasons (in orange), 3) two additional predictions that are updated using meta-gradient descent (in black). Each independent agent's mean reward is averaged over 30 independent trials. Error bars are standard error. The optimal control learner (in orange) achieves an average reward of 1 on each time-step.}
\label{monsoon:results}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{}
\end{figure}
Learning by MGD to specify GVFs introduces two additional sets of meta-weights to initialise: weights ${\boldsymbol{\omega}}^{\pi}$ that specify the policy a prediction is condition on, and weights ${\boldsymbol{\omega}}^{c}$ that determine the signal of interest from the environment that is being learnt about. Target policies are initialised to an equiprobable weighting of actions, and are passed through a Softmax activation function $v_t^i = \mathtt{softmax}({\bm{o}}_t^\top {\bm{w}}_t^{\pi})$ so that their sum is between [1, 0]. The cumulant meta-weights ${\boldsymbol{\omega}}^{c}$ are initialised to -5, and a sigmoid activation is applied such that $v^{c} = \mathtt{sigmoid}({\bm{o}}_t^\top {\boldsymbol{\omega}}^{c})$. We pass the cumulant meta-weights through a sigmoid to bound the cumulant between [0,1]. The meta-weights are updated each time-step incrementally. We apply an L2 regulariser to the meta-loss with $\lambda = 0.001$. The control learner is a linear Q-learner. Additional experiment details are in Appendix A.
In Figure \ref{monsoon:results}, we plot the average reward per time-step during the final 100 time-steps during which we evaluate agent performance given greedy behaviour. \DIFaddbegin \DIFadd{While the agents deterministically follow their policy during the evaluation phase--i.e., $\epsilon = 0$--learning still occurs during the evaluation phase: updates are made to the GVFs, which in turn influence the control agent's inputs in the case of the MGD agent. Moreover, the control learner continues to update its action-value function during the evaluation phase. This continued learning accounts for irregularity in the oscillations presented in Figure \ref{monsoon:results}.
}
\DIFaddend The policy learnt using only environment observations is roughly equivalent to equiprobably choosing an action: the learned policy is no better than a coin-toss (Figure \ref{monsoon:results}, depicted in blue). This is as expected, given observations alone are insufficient to determine the optimal action on a given time-step. When the underlying season is provided as input (depicted in orange), the learned policy is approximately optimal. By augmenting environmental observations with predictive features that estimate the time to each season, an agent is able to solve the problem. Using meta-gradient descent, the agent was able to select its own predictive features without any prior knowledge of the domain. {\em Using meta-gradient descent, the agent is able to solve the task with performance on-par with the hand-crafted solution without being given what to predict.}
\begin{figure}[p]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.71\linewidth,height=3in, keepaspectratio]{figures/predictions.png}
\centering
\caption{Value estimates from each GVF during all independent trials.}
\label{fig:predictions}
\end{subfigure}
\vfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,height=3in, keepaspectratio]{figures/cumulants.png}
\centering
\caption{The cumulant meta-weights ${\boldsymbol{\omega}}^c$ learned through MGD. }
\label{fig:cumulants}
\end{subfigure}
\vfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,height=3in, keepaspectratio]{figures/fail-vs-success.png}
\centering
\caption{The policy meta-weights ${\boldsymbol{\omega}}^\rho$ learned through MGD.}
\label{fig:policies}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{}
\label{fig:meta-params}
\end{figure}
\DIFdelbegin
\DIFdelend If an agent can find GVFs to solve monsoon world, what are the useful predictions the agent found? Do they relate to our expert's GVFs? In Figure \ref{fig:predictions}, the value-estimates on the final 10 time-steps of each run are presented, as well as the meta-weights for the cumulants (Figure \ref{fig:cumulants}) and policies (Figure \ref{fig:policies}). We found that two distinct types of policy and cumulant were learned for each of the two GVFs. In one of the 30 independent trials, the agent failed to solve the problem, and we depict the learned meta-weights of this failed trial independently. The third column illustrates how different the relationship of the two value estimates are in this failure case (from both successful and expert-specified GVFs).
\DIFdelbegin
\DIFdelend Over the course of successful runs, GVFs found by MGD do not look exactly like the echo GVFs introduced in Section \ref{monsoon:intro}. Some characteristics are similar: i.e., one of the policies approaches $\pi \approx [1,0]$; however, the other policy $\pi \approx [0.8, 0.2]$ looks quite different from the deterministic policies. Even when the \emph{value estimates} output by the self-supervised GVFs are similar to those from expert-specified GVFs, the cumulant and policies can be quite different.
For the best parameter settings in our sweep, one of 30 independent trials failed, achieving an average reward per-step of 0.5 (note this performance is similar to that of the agent with only environmental observations). For this failed run, the learned policy and cumulant do not fit the categorisations of cumulants or policies learned in successful trials. Importantly, the learned value estimates presented to the control agent as features do not share the same cyclic values that capture the underlying seasons of the environment. From this failed run, we can see that simply adding \textit{any} prediction does not enable the agent to solve the problem: in successful trials, the policies and cumulants learned by MGD are meaningful and specific to the environment. These specific cumulants and policies are what enable the agents to solve the problem.
\subsection{Learning to Specify GVFs in Frost Hollow}
The previous example explored whether using MGD an agent could learn to specify predictions in order to resolve the partial-observability of its environment. In this section, we add two additional complications: 1) instead of a linear control agent, we use a more complex function approximator; and 2) we use a domain where the reward is sparse, thus complicating the GVF specification process. Frost Hollow (depicted in Figure \ref{fig:frost-hollow}) \citep{butcher2022pavlovian,brenneis2021assessing} was first proposed as a joint-action problem where \DIFdelbegin \DIFdel{a learned GVF is passed as an input feature to another agent }\DIFdelend \DIFaddbegin \DIFadd{two agents attempt to cooperatively solve a control problem: a prediction agent passes a cue to a control agent based on a learned prediction; using this cue as an additional input, the control agent takes an action. Frost Hollow was designed as an environment where predictive inputs are used to augment a control-agent's inputs}\DIFaddend , making it well suited for assessing whether via MGD an agent can independently choose what GVFs to learn \DIFaddbegin \DIFadd{in order to improve performance on a control task}\DIFaddend .
While simple, Frost Hollow poses a difficult learning problem. The reward is sparse: an agent can only observe a reward after successfully accumulating heat and dodging regular hazards. It takes at a minimum 50 time-steps, or 5 successive cycles of dodging the the hazard successfully, before the agent can acquire a single reward. While the hazard itself is observable to the agent when active, the agent must pre-emptively take shelter before the hazard's onset in order to avoid losing its accumulated heat. All of this must be learnt from a sparse reward signal. Learning an additional GVF and using its estimate as an additional predictive feature can enable both humans, and value-based agents to successfully gain reward \citep{butcher2022pavlovian,brenneis2021assessing}.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=4cm, width=\linewidth, keepaspectratio]{figures/frost_hollow.pdf}
\caption{A depiction of the frost hollow problem. Frost hollow is a linear walk where an agent collects a unit of heat by standing next to a fire in the center state. Once the agent accumulates 12 units of heat, it receives a reward of 1. Every 8 time-steps, a wind hazard gusts for two consecutive time-steps, removing all of the agent's accumulated heat if it is exposed to the hazard. To avoid losing its heat, the agent can take shelter in either of the end states. On each time-step, the agent observes its own location, the amount of heat it has accumulated, and whether the wind hazard is present.}
\label{fig:frost-hollow}
\end{figure}
In the frost-hollow setting, the control agent receives a single \textit{on-policy} prediction as an additional input feature: the GVF is conditioned on the agent's behaviour rather than a policy specified by MGD. The discount $\gamma$ is a constant valued $0.9$, following \cite{butcher2022pavlovian}. We compare the meta-gradient learning process to two baselines: 1) where the control agent receives a expert defined GVF, as specified in \cite{butcher2022pavlovian}; and where an agent that receives only the environment observations---no additional predictive features or information. In this setting we use a DQN agent for the control learner \citep{mnih2015human} adapted from Dopamine \citep{castro18dopamine}. We train all agents for 249 000 time-steps, and evaluate their performance on the final 1000 time-steps. During the evaluation phase the $\epsilon$ is set to 0.01, limiting non-greedy actions. All reported results are averaged over 30 independent trials. See Appendix B for additional experiment details.
\pagebreak
\pagebreak
In Figure \ref{fig:fh:results} we present Agent performance on Frost-hollow throughout the trials (Fig. \ref{fig:fh:cumreward}), and the average cumulative reward during the final evaluation steps (Fig. \ref{fig:fh:table}). \DIFdelbegin \DIFdel{During the }\DIFdelend \DIFaddbegin \DIFadd{If an agent is deterministically following the optimal policy during the }\DIFaddend evaluation phase, the maximum possible cumulative reward is 50. \DIFdelbegin \DIFdel{The }\DIFdelend \DIFaddbegin \DIFadd{In \mbox
\cite{butcher2022pavlovian}}\hskip0p
, the best performing agent with a highly specialised representation was able to achieve a cumulative reward of around 40; however, many of the agents with hand-selected predictions introduced in \mbox
\cite{butcher2022pavlovian} }\hskip0p
received a cumulative reward of approximately 30.
}
\DIFadd{In our experiments, the }\DIFaddend baseline agent without any additional predictions achieves an average cumulative reward of 7. By adding an additional predictive input feature that is specified by MGD, we are able to achieve an average cumulative reward of 18.7. Interestingly, the MGD agent learned to specify a cumulant that is different from those chosen in \cite{butcher2022pavlovian}. Successful runs learn a cumulant that predominantly weights the accumulated heat, input 8 (as depicted in Figure \ref{fig:fh:cumulants}). In Figure \ref{fig:fh:cumulants} we report the average meta-weights specifying the cumulant over the course of the entire experiment. In \cite{butcher2022pavlovian}, the expert chosen prediction is of the oncoming hazard: input 7. There is a logic to \DIFdelbegin \DIFdel{this discrepancy}\DIFdelend \DIFaddbegin \DIFadd{the prediction selected by MGD}\DIFaddend : the heat an agent accumulates is directly related to reward---reward is recieved after an agent acquires 12 heat. Moreover, the heat accumulated is indirectly related to the hazard: if the agent is unprotected before the hazard, it should anticipate a drop in it's accumulated heat. By predicting accumulated heat, the agent is dually capturing information about both the sparse reward signal and the original aspect of the environment that the expertly defined prediction sought to predict.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\DIFdelbeginFL
\DIFdelendFL \DIFaddbeginFL \begin{subfigure}[b]{.55\textwidth}
\DIFaddendFL \centering
\includegraphics[height=1.5in, width=\linewidth, keepaspectratio]{figures/cumulative-reward}
\caption{Mean cumulative reward over \DIFdelbeginFL \DIFdelFL{all time }\DIFdelendFL \DIFaddbeginFL \DIFaddFL{the entire duration of the trials }\DIFaddendFL in Frost Hollow. \DIFaddbeginFL \DIFaddFL{Assuming an agent follows the optimal policy deterministically for the total 2.5 milllion time-steps the maximum possible reward is $125000$.}\DIFaddendFL Error bars are the standard error.}
\label{fig:fh:cumreward}
\end{subfigure}
\DIFaddbeginFL \hfill
\DIFaddendFL \begin{subfigure}[b]{.4\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{Agent Type} & \textbf{Cumulative Reward:} \\
& \textbf{Evaluation Phase} \\
\hline
baseline & \\
(environment obs) & $7 \pm 2.9$ \\
\hline
baseline & \\
(expert chosen GVF) & $3.3 \pm 1.6$\\
\hline
Agent with MGD & \\
specified GVF & $18.7 \pm 4.2$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Cumulative reward and standard error of the mean during final 1000 evaluation steps for best configuration of each agent. Maximum possible cumulative reward is 50.}
\label{fig:fh:table}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Mean cumulative reward for each agent in the Frost Hollow, averaged over 30 trials.}
\label{fig:fh:results}
\end{figure}
Interestingly, the baseline agent which used an expert-specified prediction performed less well than the MGD agent, receiving an average cumulative reward of 3.3. This is a revealing example: while the expert-specified GVF was well suited to the tabular setting explored in prior work \citep{butcher2022pavlovian}, its effectiveness as a predictive feature did not generalise to the function approximation setting. This highlights a challenge that we believe is present across domains and environmental settings. What predictive features might be useful to an agent is not only influenced by the environment, but also differences in state construction and the underlying learning method. Together, these factors all influence what GVFs may be useful for decision-making.
\section{Limitations \& Future Work }
In this paper we \DIFdelbegin \DIFdel{explored meta-learning the specification of cumulants and policies for GVFs . For this paper, }\DIFdelend \DIFaddbegin \DIFadd{demonstrate for the first time that end-to-end learning of GVFs used as predictive inputs is possible. Moreover, we demonstrate this within the setting that GVFs were originally proposed: continual life-long learning. This has been an open challenge in GVF research since their introduction 10 years ago. However, this paper is not the final word on MGD discovery of GVFs. Assessing how well the method presented scales in environments with non-stationarity, or greater observational complexity is important future work. In this paper, }\DIFaddend we decided to fix the discount $\gamma$---the time-horizon over which a prediction is estimated. Previous work has enabled GVFs to be learned over many timescales at once, enabling inference over arbitrary horizons \citep{sherstan2020gamma}. Future work could explore how Sherstan {\em et al.}'s $\gamma$-net formulation could improve the scalability and flexibilty of the meta-learning process we introduce. \DIFdelbegin \DIFdel{Along these lines, how well meta-gradient selection performs in domains with higher-dimensional observations and more actions remains to be seen. Moreover, many domains of interest for continual, }\DIFdelend \DIFaddbegin \DIFadd{This paper makes progress in enabling agents to choose what to predict. How an agent may decide the number of predictions to learn remains an important open question. Similarly, how an agent might incrementally increase its capacity by adding new predictions during }\DIFaddend life-long learning \DIFdelbegin \DIFdel{systems are non-stationary. How well meta-gradient GVF selection perform is an open question}\DIFdelend \DIFaddbegin \DIFadd{remains to be explored. One possibility is to arrange predictions in multiple layers, similar to GVF networks: \mbox
\citep{schlegel2021general}}\hskip0p
. Questions regarding GVF structure and scale are exciting open frontiers, and this manuscript provides a foundation that enables such questions to be asked in future work}\DIFaddend .
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{subfigure}[b]{\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,keepaspectratio]{figures/meta-weights-fh-success}
\centering
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,keepaspectratio]{figures/meta-weights-fh-failures}
\centering
\end{subfigure}
\caption{A depiction of the weights of the meta-weights $\omega_\text{c}$ for cumulants learned. Inputs $0 - 6$ are a binary encoding of the agent's location in the linear walk. Input 7 is a binary feature that encodes whether the wind hazard is present. Input 8 is the accumulated heat.}
\label{fig:fh:cumulants}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper we introduced a process that enables agents to meta-learn the specifications of predictions in the form of GVFs. This process enabled agents to learn what aspects of the environment to predict while also learning the predictions themselves and learning how to use said predictions to inform action-selection. This meta-learning process was able to be implemented in an online, incremental fashion, making it possible for long-lived continual learning agents to self-supervise the specification and learning of their own GVFs. We found that an agent with no prior knowledge of the environment was able to select predictions that yielded performance equitable to, or better than agents using expertly chosen predictive features. Even in an environment with a sparse reward, an agent was still able to learn to specify useful predictions to use as additional features based on the control-learner's error. In sum total, this work provides an important step-change in the design of agents that use predictive knowledge.
It has long been suggested that predictions of future experience in the form of GVFs can provide useful features to support decision-making in computational reinforcement learning. Requiring system designers to re specify the GVFs for every permutation of an agent and its environment is a burden for applications of predictive features, and yet it is still the norm in both research and applied settings. Fundamentally, the requirement of designers to hand-specify GVFs prevents the development of fully independent and autonomous agents. Moreover, this has inhibited the application of GVFs, especially in long-lived continual learning domains that may exhibit non-stationarity. In this paper, we contributed a meta-gradient descent processes by which agents were able to find GVFs that improved decision-making relative to environment observations alone In doing so, we provide a research path for resolving an open challenge in the GVF literature that has existed for over a decade.
\section{Making Sense of the World Through Predictions}
It has long been suggested that predictions of future experience can provide useful and intuitive features to support decision-making---particularly in partially-observable or non-Markovian environments \citep{singh2003learning, littman2001predictive, jaeger2000observable}. It is certainly true for biological agents: humans and many animals build predictive sensorimotor models of their world. These predictions of experience form the basis for biological perception \citep{rao1999predictive, wolpert1995internal,gilbert2009stumbling}. A principled and well understood way of making temporally extended predictions in computational reinforcement learning is by estimating many value functions. Value functions predict the long-term expected accumulation of a signal in a given state \citep{sutton1988learning}, and can predict not only reward, but any signal available to an agent via its senses \citep{white2015developing}. Prior works have used these General Value Function (GVF) estimates as features to adapt the control interfaces of bionic limbs \citep{edwards2016application}, design reflexive control systems for robots \citep{modayil2014prediction} and living cats \citep{dalrymple2020pavlovian}, and to inform industrial welding systems of estimated weld quality \citep{GUNTHER20161}. In this paper, we explore how an agent can independently choose GVFs in order to augment its observations in order to construct it's own \textit{agent-state}: an approximation of state from the agent's subjective perspective.
An open challenge when using GVF estimates as input features is determining what aspects of an agent's experience to predict. Of all the possible predictions an agent could make, which subset of GVFs are most useful to inform and support decision making? This choice is often made by the system designer \citep{modayil2014prediction,dalrymple2020pavlovian,edwards2016application,GUNTHER20161}. However, recent work has explored how an agent might independently specify its own GVFs. In \cite{schlegel2018baseline} an agent randomly selects the parameters that define what aspect of the environment is being estimated. After a period of learning, the agent replaces a subset of its GVFs based on their learning progress.
Determining which GVFs to replace is a core challenge for such {\em generate-and-test} approaches: A GVF may be accurate and have low prediction error, but just because a prediction is well estimated does not mean that it is useful as a predictive feature for control \citep{good-prediction}. Examining a learned prediction estimate without considering its use---as is done in generate-and-test for GVF specification---inherently limits the ability of an agent to choose {\em useful} predictive features.
An alternative to random selection of GVFs is to parameterise the specification of a GVF and perform meta-gradient descent. By taking the gradient of a control learner's error with respect to a GVF's meta-parameters, what each prediction is about can be incrementally updated based on feedback from the control learner. Although not used for learning predictive inputs, recent work has shown early success in using meta-gradient descent as a means of learning meta-parameters that specify GVFs \citep{DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1909-04607} for use as auxiliary tasks \citep{jaderberg2016reinforcement}.
When used as auxiliary tasks, GVF estimates themselves are not directly used in decision-making, but rather as regularisers for the control agent's artificial neural network. In this auxiliary task setting, the parameters that determine what is being predicted and the parameters that are used to select actions are explicitly kept and learned independent of one another. We propose meta update where the core RL update of a control learner directly influences {\em what} an agent is predicting.
\section{Meta-Learning General Value Functions}
In this manuscript, we integrate the discovery and use of GVFs for reinforcement learning control problems. We present a fully self-supervised approach, using meta-gradient descent to autonomously discover GVFs that are useful as predictive features for control. We do so by parameterising the functions that determine what aspect of the environment a GVF prediction is about, and constructing a loss that shapes the predictions based on the control agent's learning process. The resulting learning process can be successfully implemented incrementally and online. By this process, we enable agents to independently specify GVFs to be used directly as features by a control learner to solve two partially-observable problems. In doing so, we are providing a new solution to a long standing problem in using GVFs as predictive input features.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,height=2in, keepaspectratio]{figures/GVF_control.pdf}
\centering
\caption{The control agent updates its action-value function $Q({\bm{s}}, a; {\bm{w}})$ according to the TD-error $\delta$ and chooses actions according to policy $\pi$ based on value estimates..}
\label{fig:control}
\end{subfigure}\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.32\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,height=2in, keepaspectratio]{figures/GVF_agent.pdf}
\centering
\caption{The typical agent-environment diagram of Reinforcement Learning, where the control agent learns values as a function of both observations and GVF outputs.}
\label{fig:architecture}
\end{subfigure}\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[t]{.32\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,height=2in, keepaspectratio]{figures/GVF_meta.pdf}
\centering
\caption{A GVF outputs predictions according to its current weights $V({\bm{s}}; {\boldsymbol{\nu}})$, while its updates are defined by the cumulant $c$, discount $\gamma$, and policy-correction $\rho$.}
\label{fig:gvf}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{}
\end{figure}
\clearpage
Our meta-learning process (Figure \ref{fig:architecture}) operates on an agent structured in three parts : 1) a value-based control unit that learns weights ${\bm{w}}$ for an action-value function (Figure~\ref{fig:control});
2) a collection of GVFs that each learn weights ${\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ to output prediction vector ${\bm{v}}$ (Figure~\ref{fig:gvf}); and
3) a set of meta-weights ${\boldsymbol{\omega}}$ that parameterize each GVF's learning rule (the right half of Figure~\ref{fig:gvf}).
The control unit is a typical Q-learning agent, although it learns a value function over the \newterm{agent-state} ${\bm{s}}$, which is constructed from the observations ${\bm{o}}$ and a vector of GVF predictions ${\bm{v}}$, rather than observation alone:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:agentstate}
{\bm{s}}_t = \phi({\bm{o}}_t, {\bm{v}}_t).
\end{equation}
The action-value function $Q({\bm{s}}_t, a; {\bm{w}}_t)$ may be learned by any relevant RL algorithm. We define the loss function $\mathcal{L}_t = \delta_t^2$, where:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:delta}
\delta_t = r_{t+1} + \gamma\max_a Q({\bm{s}}_{t+1}, a; {\bm{w}}_t) - Q({\bm{s}}_t, a_t; {\bm{w}}_t).
\end{equation}
GVFs may use any reinforcement learning method for learning, but their structure is defined by three functions of the current state\footnote{note that this is the GVF-specific state, independent of the \emph{agent-state} defined above}: the cumulant or target $c$, the discount or termination signal $\gamma$, and the policy $\pi$ (see chapter 4 in \cite{white2015developing}).
The cumulant function $z({\bm{s}}_t)$ determines the current target $c_t$: in classic RL, the cumulant simply singles out the current reward $r_t$. The discount factor $\gamma$ determines how far into the future the signal-of-interest should be attended to. While in simple RL approaches it is generally a fixed value, in GVFs it can be any function of the current state $\gamma_t = g({\bm{s}}_t)$. The policy allows each GVF to condition its prediction on specific behaviours, and is used to compute the importance-sampling correction against the behaviour policy $\mu$: $\rho_t = \frac{\pi({\bm{s}}_t, a_t)}{\mu({\bm{s}}_t, a_t)}$. The output of a GVF is determined not only by the current weights ${\boldsymbol{\nu}}$ but also the functions that define its update procedure. We will use ${\boldsymbol{\omega}}$ to refer to the collective parameters that define the GVF structure, disambiguating with superscripts when necessary:
\begin{equation}
v^i_t = V({\bm{s}}; {\boldsymbol{\nu}}^i, {\boldsymbol{\omega}}^i).
\end{equation}
During execution of our meta-learning process, each time-step contains an action and learning phase. First, the agent receives an observation from the environment ${\bm{o}}_t$, which is used to compute the GVF state
\begin{equation}
{\bm{s}}^\nu_t = \phi^\nu({\bm{o}}_t).
\end{equation}
For each GVF $i$, the prediction value $v^i_t$ is calculated as a function of the GVF state ${\bm{s}}^\nu_t$ and prediction weights ${\boldsymbol{\nu}}^i$:
\begin{equation}
v^i_t = V({\bm{s}}^\nu_t; {\boldsymbol{\nu}}_t^i).
\end{equation}
The vector of GVF predictions, along with the current observation, is transformed into the agent-state using a fixed function (see Equation~\ref{eq:agentstate} where $\phi$ may include eg: state aggregation, tile coding, artificial neural net). The policy unit $\pi$ uses $Q({\bm{s}}_t, a; {\bm{w}}_t)$ to determine the next action\footnote{in the following results we use $\epsilon$-greedy action selection}. Once the action is executed and $({\bm{o}}_{t+1}, r_{t+1})$ received, the learning phase begins.
The key to our meta-learning method is that the Q-learning error, as noted earlier (see Equation~\ref{eq:delta} and illustrated with the read lines in Figure~\ref{fig:gvf}), is a function of not only the value function weights ${\bm{w}}$, but also the agent-state vector ${\bm{s}}$.
As the agent-state is constructed from the GVF predictions, which in turn are are adjusted according to the meta-weights ${\boldsymbol{\omega}}$, we can use the control agent's loss function $\mathcal{L}_t=\delta^2_t$ to update the meta-weights. For the $i$th GVF, meta-weights $j\in\{c, \rho\}$ are adjusted:
\begin{equation}
\Delta{\boldsymbol{\omega}}^{i,j}_t = \alpha^{i,j}\nabla_{\!\omega^{i,j}}\mathcal{L}_t
\end{equation}
Once the meta-weights have been updated, each GVF computes the current $\rho_t$, $c_t$, and $\gamma_t$, updates its predictions weights ${\boldsymbol{\nu}}$. Finally, updated agent-state ${\bm{v}}_{t+1}$ is computed and used by the control agent to update its Q-learning weights ${\bm{w}}_{t+1}$. Pseudocode is provided in Appendix \ref{appendix:alg}.
\section{Can An Agent Learn What To Predict?}
Using the meta process we introduced, can an agent find useful GVFs for use as predictive input features? We first evaluate meta specification of GVFs on a partially observable control problem, Monsoon World (Figure \ref{fig:monsoon}). We choose to introduce this problem as it is a minimal, clear example of a situation where temporal abstraction is neccessary to solve the problem. This enables us to assess in a clear way whether meta-gradient descent (MGD) is capable of specifying useful predictions, and precisely examine what predictions the agent chooses to learn.
In Monsoon World, there are two seasons: monsoon and drought. The underlying season determines whether the agent receives reward for its chosen action, however the underlying season is not directly observable. Although the agent cannot directly observe seasons, it can observe the result of a given action: something impacted by the seasons. The agent tends to a field by choosing to either water, or not water their farm. Watering the field during a drought will result in a reward of 1; watering the field during monsoon season does not produce growth and results in a reward of 0, and vice versa during a monsoon. If the agent chooses the right action corresponding to the underlying season, a reward of 1 can be obtained on each time-step. Regardless of the action chosen by the agent, time progresses.
This monsoon world problem can be solved, and an optimal policy found, if the agent reliably estimates how long until watering produces a particular result. This can be done by learning \newterm{echo GVFs} (c.f. \citep{schlegel2021general}). Echo GVFs estimate the time to an event using a state-conditioned discount and cumulant. In plain terms, the two GVF's that when learned provide estimates that solve the problem can be described as ``How long until watering produces growth''? or ``How long until not watering produces growth''? Indirectly, these capture the time until either the monsoon or drought. These two predictions can be described as \newterm{off-policy} estimates: predictions that are conditioned on a particular behaviour. Given the agent has two actions where $a_0$ is not watering and $a_1$ is watering, we can describe the policy ``if the agent waters'' as a deterministic policy \(\pi = [0,1]\). The signal of interest is, \( c_t =
1 \text{ if } r_t = 1 \text{ \& } 0 \text{ otherwise}
\). Similarly, a state-dependent discounting function terminates the accumulation, \( \gamma_t =
0 \text{ if } c_t = 1 \text{ \& } 0.9 \text{ otherwise.}
\) Off-policy GVFs can be estimated online, incrementally, while the agent is engaging in behaviours that do not strictly match the target policies of the prediction \citep{maei2011gradient}. \label{monsoon:intro} Having constructed the aforementioned GVFs, an agent can express what is hidden from its observation stream: how long until the next season. While no information was given about the season, by relating what is sensed by the agent with the actions that were taken, the agent is able to learn about the seasons indirectly.
\subsection{Learning to Specify GVFs in Monsoon World}
GVF estimates can resolve the partial observability of monsoon world. Through MGD, can an agent find similar predictions? We compare three different agent configurations (Figure \ref{monsoon:results}): 1) a baseline agent that only receives environmental observations as inputs (in blue), 2) an agent that in addition to the environmental observations, two inputs that capture underlying seasons (`oracle', in orange), and 3) an agent that has two GVFs whose cumulants and policies are learned through meta-gradient descent (in black).
\begin{figure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.4\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,height=1.5in,keepaspectratio]{figures/Monsun_world_2.PNG}
\centering
\caption{The monsoon problem. On each time-step the agent observes a binary value that determines whether the crops have grown. Growth of crops is determined by both the action an agent takes (to water crops or not), and the unobserved underlying season. There are four phases of the season that an agent can exist in: two monsoon and two drought (inner circles). The outer arrows indicate how the seasons change as the agent transitions through the cycle.}
\label{fig:monsoon}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.55\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth, height=2in, keepaspectratio]{figures/monsoon-reward.png}
\centering
\caption{Three different learners that use 1) the environmental observations as inputs (blue), 2) two additional inputs which express the seasons (in orange), 3) two additional predictions that are updated using meta-gradient descent (in black). Each independent agent's mean reward is averaged over 30 independent trials. Error bars are standard error.}
\label{monsoon:results}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{}
\end{figure}
Learning by MGD to specify GVFs introduces two additional sets of meta-weights to initialise: weights ${\boldsymbol{\omega}}^{\pi}$ that specify the policy a prediction is condition on, and weights ${\boldsymbol{\omega}}^{c}$ that determine the signal of interest from the environment that is being learnt about. Target policies are initialised to an equiprobable weighting of actions, and are passed through a Softmax activation function $v_t^i = \mathtt{softmax}({\bm{o}}_t^\top {\bm{w}}_t^{\pi})$ so that their sum is between [1, 0]. The cumulant meta-weights ${\boldsymbol{\omega}}^{c}$ are initialised to -5, and a sigmoid activation is applied such that $v^{c} = \mathtt{sigmoid}({\bm{o}}_t^\top {\boldsymbol{\omega}}^{c})$. We pass the cumulant meta-weights through a sigmoid to bound the cumulant between [0,1]. The meta-weights are updated each time-step incrementally. We apply an L2 regulariser to the meta-loss with $\lambda = 0.001$. The control learner is a linear Q-learner. Additional experiment details are in Appendix A.
In Figure \ref{monsoon:results}, we plot the average reward per time-step during the final 100 time-steps during which we evaluate agent performance given greedy behaviour. While the agents deterministically follow their policy during the evaluation phase, learning still occurs during the evaluation phase: updates are made to the GVFs, which affect the input observations to the control agent (in the case of the MGD agent), and the control learner continues to update its action-value function. This continued learning accounts for irregularity in the oscillations.
The policy learnt using only environment observations is roughly equivalent to equiprobably choosing an action: the learned policy is no better than a coin-toss (Figure \ref{monsoon:results}, depicted in blue). This is as expected, given observations alone are insufficient to determine the optimal action on a given time-step. When the underlying season is provided as input (depicted in orange), the learned policy is approximately optimal. By augmenting environmental observations with predictive features that estimate the time to each season, an agent is able to solve the problem. Using meta-gradient descent, the agent was able to select its own predictive features without any prior knowledge of the domain. {\em Using meta-gradient descent, the agent is able to solve the task with performance on-par with the hand-crafted solution without being given what to predict.}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=0.71\linewidth,height=3in, keepaspectratio]{figures/predictions.png}
\centering
\caption{Value estimates from each GVF during all independent trials.}
\label{fig:predictions}
\end{subfigure}
\vfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,height=3in, keepaspectratio]{figures/cumulants.png}
\centering
\caption{The cumulant meta-weights ${\boldsymbol{\omega}}^c$ learned through MGD. }
\label{fig:cumulants}
\end{subfigure}
\vfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,height=3in, keepaspectratio]{figures/fail-vs-success.png}
\centering
\caption{The policy meta-weights ${\boldsymbol{\omega}}^\rho$ learned through MGD.}
\label{fig:policies}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{}
\label{fig:meta-params}
\end{figure}
If an agent can find GVFs to solve monsoon world, what are the useful predictions the agent found? Do they relate to our expert's GVFs? In Figure \ref{fig:predictions}, the value-estimates on the final 10 time-steps of each run are presented, as well as the meta-weights for the cumulants (Figure \ref{fig:cumulants}) and policies (Figure \ref{fig:policies}). We found that two distinct types of policy and cumulant were learned for each of the two GVFs. In one of the 30 independent trials, the agent failed to solve the problem, and we depict the learned meta-weights of this failed trial independently. The third column illustrates how different the relationship of the two value estimates are in this failure case (from both successful and expert-specified GVFs).
Over the course of successful runs, GVFs found by MGD do not look exactly like the echo GVFs introduced in Section \ref{monsoon:intro}. Some characteristics are similar: i.e., one of the policies approaches $\pi \approx [1,0]$; however, the other policy $\pi \approx [0.8, 0.2]$ looks quite different from the deterministic policies. Even when the \emph{value estimates} output by the self-supervised GVFs are similar to those from expert-specified GVFs, the cumulant and policies can be quite different.
For the best parameter settings in our sweep, one of 30 independent trials failed, achieving an average reward per-step of 0.5 (note this performance is similar to that of the agent with only environmental observations). For this failed run, the learned policy and cumulant do not fit the categorisations of cumulants or policies learned in successful trials. Importantly, the learned value estimates presented to the control agent as features do not share the same cyclic values that capture the underlying seasons of the environment. From this failed run, we can see that simply adding \textit{any} prediction does not enable the agent to solve the problem: in successful trials, the policies and cumulants learned by MGD are meaningful and specific to the environment. These specific cumulants and policies are what enable the agents to solve the problem.
The policies and cumulants found through meta-gradient descent make sense when comparing to predictions chosen by domain experts. Importantly, Not just any prediction will do: we observed that successful runs can be categorised into particular policies and cumulants learned, and that the run that was unable to improve upon random behaviour learned a policy and cumulant that falls outside of the
\subsection{Learning to Specify GVFs in Frost Hollow}
The previous example explored whether using MGD an agent could learn to specify predictions in order to resolve the partial-observability of its environment. In this section, we add two additional complications: 1) instead of a linear control agent, we use a more complex function approximator; and 2) we use a domain where the reward is sparse, thus complicating the GVF specification process. Frost Hollow (depicted in Figure \ref{fig:frost-hollow}) \citep{butcher2022pavlovian,brenneis2021assessing} was first proposed as a joint-action problem where two agents attempt to cooperatively solve a control problem: a prediction agent passes a cue to a control agent based on a learned prediction; using this cue as an additional input, the control agent takes an action. Frost Hollow was designed as an environment where predictive inputs are used to augment a control-agent's inputs, making it well suited for assessing whether via MGD an agent can independently choose what GVFs to learn in order to improve performance on a control task.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=4cm, width=\linewidth, keepaspectratio]{figures/frost_hollow.pdf}
\caption{A depiction of the frost hollow problem. Frost hollow is a linear walk where an agent collects a unit of heat by standing next to a fire in the center state. Once the agent accumulates 12 units of heat, it receives a reward of 1. Every 8 time-steps, a wind hazard gusts for two consecutive time-steps, removing all of the agent's accumulated heat if it is exposed to the hazard. To avoid losing its heat, the agent can take shelter in either of the end states. On each time-step, the agent observes its own location, the amount of heat it has accumulated, and whether the wind hazard is present.}
\label{fig:frost-hollow}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.55\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=1.5in, width=\linewidth, keepaspectratio]{figures/cumulative-reward}
\caption{Mean cumulative reward over the entire duration of the trials in Frost Hollow. Assuming an agent follows the optimal policy deterministically for the total 2.5 milllion time-steps the maximum possible reward is $125000$ Error bars are the standard error.}
\label{fig:fh:cumreward}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}[b]{.4\textwidth}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|c}
\textbf{Agent Type} & \textbf{Cumulative Reward:} \\
& \textbf{Evaluation Phase} \\
\hline
baseline & \\
(environment obs) & $7 \pm 2.9$ \\
\hline
baseline & \\
(expert chosen GVF) & $3.3 \pm 1.6$\\
\hline
Agent with MGD & \\
specified GVF & $18.7 \pm 4.2$ \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Cumulative reward and standard error of the mean during final 1000 evaluation steps for best configuration of each agent. Maximum possible cumulative reward is 50.}
\label{fig:fh:table}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Mean cumulative reward for each agent in the Frost Hollow, averaged over 30 trials.}
\label{fig:fh:results}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{subfigure}[b]{\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,keepaspectratio]{figures/meta-weights-fh-success}
\centering
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{\linewidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,keepaspectratio]{figures/meta-weights-fh-failures}
\centering
\end{subfigure}
\caption{A depiction of the weights of the meta-weights $\omega_\text{c}$ for cumulants learned. Inputs $0 - 6$ are a binary encoding of the agent's location in the linear walk. Input 7 is a binary feature that encodes whether the wind hazard is present. Input 8 is the accumulated heat.}
\label{fig:fh:cumulants}
\end{figure}
While simple, Frost Hollow poses a difficult learning problem. The reward is sparse: an agent can only observe a reward after successfully accumulating heat and dodging regular hazards. It takes at a minimum 50 time-steps, or 5 successive cycles of dodging the hazard successfully, before the agent can acquire a single reward. While the hazard itself is observable to the agent when active, the agent must pre-emptively take shelter before the hazard's onset in order to avoid losing its accumulated heat. All of this must be learnt from a sparse reward signal. Learning an additional GVF and using its estimate as an additional predictive feature can enable both humans, and value-based agents to successfully gain reward \citep{butcher2022pavlovian,brenneis2021assessing}.
In the frost-hollow setting, the control agent receives a single \textit{on-policy} prediction as an additional input feature: the GVF is conditioned on the agent's behaviour rather than a policy specified by MGD. The discount $\gamma$ is a constant valued $0.9$, following \cite{butcher2022pavlovian}. We compare the meta-gradient learning process to two baselines: 1) where the control agent receives a expert defined GVF, as specified in \cite{butcher2022pavlovian}; and where an agent that receives only the environment observations---no additional predictive features or information. In this setting we use a DQN agent for the control learner \citep{mnih2015human} adapted from Dopamine \citep{castro18dopamine}. We train all agents for 249 000 time-steps, and evaluate their performance on the final 1000 time-steps. During the evaluation phase the $\epsilon$ is set to 0.01, limiting non-greedy actions. All reported results are averaged over 30 independent trials. See Appendix B for additional experiment details.
In Figure \ref{fig:fh:table}, we report the average cumulative reward during the final evaluation steps. If an agent is deterministically following the optimal policy during the evaluation phase, the maximum possible cumulative reward is 50. In \cite{butcher2022pavlovian}, the best performing agent with a highly specialised representation was able to achieve a cumulative reward of around 40; however, many of the agents with hand-selected predictions introduced in \cite{butcher2022pavlovian} received a cumulative reward of approximately 30.
In our experiments, the baseline agent without any additional predictions achieves an average cumulative reward of 7. By adding an additional predictive input feature that is specified by MGD, we are able to achieve an average cumulative reward of 18.7. Interestingly, the MGD agent learned to specify a cumulant that is different from those chosen in \cite{butcher2022pavlovian}. Successful runs learn a cumulant that predominantly weights the accumulated heat, input 8 (as depicted in Figure \ref{fig:fh:cumulants}). In Figure \ref{fig:fh:cumulants} we report the average meta-weights specifying the cumulant over the course of the entire experiment. In \cite{butcher2022pavlovian}, the expert chosen prediction is of the oncoming hazard: input 7. There is a logic to the prediction selected by MGD: the heat an agent accumulates is directly related to reward---reward is recieved after an agent acquires 12 heat. Moreover, the heat accumulated is indirectly related to the hazard: if the agent is unprotected before the hazard, it should anticipate a drop in it's accumulated heat. By predicting accumulated heat, the agent is dually capturing information about both the sparse reward signal and the original aspect of the environment that the expertly defined prediction sought to predict.
Interestingly, the baseline agent which used an expert-specified prediction performed less well than the MGD agent, receiving an average cumulative reward of 3.3. This is a revealing example: while the expert-specified GVF was well suited to the tabular setting explored in prior work \citep{butcher2022pavlovian}, its effectiveness as a predictive feature did not generalise to the function approximation setting. This highlights a challenge that we believe is present across domains and environmental settings. What predictive features might be useful to an agent is not only influenced by the environment, but also differences in state construction and the underlying learning method. Together, these factors all influence what GVFs may be useful for decision-making.
\section{Limitations \& Future Work }
In this paper we demonstrate for the first time that end-to-end learning of GVFs used as predictive inputs is possible. Moreover, we demonstrate this within the setting that GVFs were originally proposed: continual life-long learning. This has been an open challenge in GVF research since their introduction 10 years ago. However, this paper is not the final word on MGD discovery of GVFs. Assessing how well the method presented scales in environments with non-stationarity, or greater observational complexity is important future work. In this paper, we decided to fix the discount $\gamma$---the time-horizon over which a prediction is estimated. Previous work has enabled GVFs to be learned over many timescales at once, enabling inference over arbitrary horizons \citep{sherstan2020gamma}. Future work could explore how Sherstan {\em et al.}'s $\gamma$-net formulation could improve the scalability and flexibilty of the meta-learning process we introduce. This paper makes progress in enabling agents to choose what to predict. How an agent may decide the number of predictions to learn remains an important open question. Similarly, how an agent might incrementally increase its capacity by adding new predictions during life-long learning remains to be explored. One possibility is to arrange predictions in multiple layers, similar to GVF networks: \citep{schlegel2021general}. Questions regarding GVF structure and scale are exciting open frontiers, and this manuscript provides a foundation that enables such questions to be asked in future work.
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper we introduced a process that enables agents to meta-learn the specifications of predictions in the form of GVFs. This process enabled agents to learn what aspects of the environment to predict while also learning the predictions themselves and learning how to use said predictions to inform action-selection. This meta-learning process was able to be implemented in an online, incremental fashion, making it possible for long-lived continual learning agents to self-supervise the specification and learning of their own GVFs. We found that an agent with no prior knowledge of the environment was able to select predictions that yielded performance equitable to, or better than agents using expertly chosen predictive features. Even in an environment with a sparse reward, an agent was still able to learn to specify useful predictions to use as additional features based on the control-learner's error. In sum total, this work provides an important step-change in the design of agents that use predictive knowledge.
It has long been suggested that predictions of future experience in the form of GVFs can provide useful features to support decision-making in computational reinforcement learning. Requiring system designers to re specify the GVFs for every permutation of an agent and its environment is a burden for applications of predictive features, and yet it is still the norm in both research and applied settings. Fundamentally, the requirement of designers to hand-specify GVFs prevents the development of fully independent and autonomous agents. Moreover, this has inhibited the application of GVFs, especially in long-lived continual learning domains that may exhibit non-stationarity. In this paper, we contributed a meta-gradient descent processes by which agents were able to find GVFs that improved decision-making relative to environment observations alone In doing so, we provide a research path for resolving an open challenge in the GVF literature that has existed for over a decade.
\subsubsection*{Acknowledgments}
This work was supported in part by The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), the Canada CIFAR AI Chairs Program, the Alberta Machine Intelligence Institute (Amii), and the Canada Research Chairs program. AKK was supported by scholarships and awards from NSERC and Alberta Innovates.
|
\section{Introduction}
We are often interested in how to make predictions on the basis of observed data. This question is at the heart of scientific inference and statistics. It is also important for the project of building artificial intelligence which can make inferences from observed data and act accordingly. Thus, there are many good reasons to be concerned about the right framework for predictive inference.
One way to tackle this question is the \emph{Bayesian approach}, which uses a prior probability distribution over all relevant hypotheses and then updates this prior by conditionalization on the observed data \parencite{Earman1992}. The resulting posterior distribution can be used to make predictions and guide action. The Bayesian approach gives us a unified framework to think about predictive inference and has been successfully applied across many fields, from astronomy to finance. However, the Bayesian approach requires us to start with a prior probability distribution over all relevant hypotheses. How should we select such a prior probability distribution? This is the \emph{problem of the priors}.
A natural response to the problem of the priors is to say that we should assign higher prior probability to \emph{simpler} hypotheses. This idea is often known as `Ockham's razor' and seems intuitively appealing to many people. However, how do we measure the simplicity of hypotheses? A possible answer to this question is provided by the framework of \emph{Solomonoff prediction}, which formalizes the simplicity of hypotheses using tools from algorithmic information theory \parencite{Solomonoff1964, Hutter2007, Sterkenburg2016, Li2019}. The \emph{Solomonoff prior} assigns higher probability to hypotheses which are simpler in this sense. Since the Solomonoff prior is defined for a very broad range of hypotheses, it provides a very general response to the problem of the priors. Moreover, proponents of Solomonoff prediction argue that the Solomonoff prior is an `objective' and `universal' prior. Thus, the framework of Solomonoff prediction potentially sheds light on the foundations of scientific inference, the problem of induction and our prospects for building `Universal Artificial Intelligence' \parencite{Hutter2004}.
There are two well-known problems for Solomonoff prediction. First, the Solomonoff prior is relative to a choice of Universal Turing machine, which means that different choices of Universal Turing machine lead to different priors and different predictions. It is natural to worry that this undermines the ambition of Solomonoff prediction to provide an `objective' and `universal' prior. Second, the Solomonoff prior is not computable, which means that no scientist or AI system could actually use the Solomonoff prior to make predictions.
There are well-known responses to both objections. While it is true that the Solomonoff prior is relative to a choice of Universal Turing machine, it can be shown that different Solomonoff priors \emph{converge} with more and more data (in a sense which will be made precise below). Further, while the Solomonoff prior is not computable, there are \emph{computable approximations} to it.
I argue that there is a deep tension between these two responses. This is because different computable approximations to Solomonoff prediction do \emph{not} always converge. Therefore, if we care about universal convergence, computable approximations to Solomonoff prediction do not give us what we want. Thus, proponents of Solomonoff prediction face a pressing dilemma. Either they have to give up universal convergence, which leads to problems of language dependence and subjectivity. Or they have to accept that Solomonoff prediction is essentially uncomputable and so cannot be of any help to guide the inferences of human and artificial agents. Therefore, Solomonoff prediction does \emph{not} solve the problem of finding a universal prior probability distribution which can be used as a foundation for scientific inference and artificial intelligence.
\section{Solomonoff Prediction}
I start by giving a brief introduction to Solomonoff prediction \parencite{Solomonoff1964, Hutter2007, Sterkenburg2016, Li2019}.\footnote{For more discussion, see \cite{Ortner2009, Rathmanner2011, Vallinder2012, Chater2013, Icard2017, Sterkenburg2018thesis}.}
Suppose you are given this initial segment of a binary string:
\begin{equation*}
00000000...
\end{equation*}
Given this initial segment, what is your prediction for the next bit?
In a Bayesian framework, we can answer this question by consulting a \emph{prior probability measure} over the set of all binary strings. To make this answer precise, we first need to introduce some notation. Let $\mathcal{B}^\infty$ be the set of all infinite binary strings and $\mathcal{B}^*$ be the set of all finite binary strings. If $x \in \mathcal{B}^*$ and $y \in \mathcal{B}^* \cup \mathcal{B}^\infty$, we write $xy$ to denote the \emph{concatenation} of $x$ and $y$, the (finite or infinite) binary string which starts with $x$ and continues with $y$. We say that $x$ is a (proper) \emph{prefix} of $y$ if $y = xz$ for some string $z$ (and $z$ is not the empty string).
At first, we focus on a particular kind of set of infinite binary strings:
\begin{definition}
For every $x \in \mathcal{B}^*$, the \emph{cylinder} $\Gamma_x \subseteq \mathcal{B}^\infty$ is defined by $\Gamma_x = \{ x\omega : \omega \in \mathcal{B}^\infty \}$ \parencite[265]{Li2019}.
\end{definition}
Intuitively, a cylinder is a set of binary strings which begin with the same string and then diverge. For example, $\Gamma_1 = \{ 1\omega : \omega \in \mathcal{B}^\infty \}$ is the set of all binary strings which begin with $1$. We write $\epsilon$ for the empty string. Therefore, $\Gamma_{\epsilon}$ is the set of all binary strings which begin with the empty string, which is just the set of all binary strings. We write $\mathfrak{C}$ for the set of all cylinders.
With this framework in place, we can define a probability measure as follows. First, we define:
\begin{definition}
A \emph{pre-measure} is a function $p : \mathfrak{C} \to [0,1]$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $p(\Gamma_{\epsilon}) = 1,$
\item $p(\Gamma_x) = p(\Gamma_{x0}) + p(\Gamma_{x1})$ for all $x \in \mathcal{B}^*$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
Intuitively, a pre-measure assigns probabilities to all cylinder sets. Once we have defined probabilities for all cylinder sets, we can extend our assignment of probabilities to more complicated sets. Let $\mathfrak{F}$ be the result of closing $\mathfrak{C}$ under complementation and countable union. Thus, $\mathfrak{F}$ is a $\sigma$-algebra. By Carath{\'e}odory's Extension theorem, every pre-measure $p : \mathfrak{C} \to [0,1]$ determines a unique probability measure $p: \mathfrak{F} \to [0,1]$ which satisfies the standard Kolmogorov axioms.\footnote{\textcite[64]{Sterkenburg2018thesis} sketches a more detailed version of this argument. A similar application of Carath{\'e}odory's Extension theorem is discussed by \textcite[61]{Earman1992}.} In light of this, we will abuse notation in what follows and sometimes refer to a pre-measure $p : \mathfrak{C} \to [0,1]$ as a probability measure. If $x \in \mathcal{B}^*$, we will often write $p(x)$ to abbreviate $p(\Gamma_x)$.
Now the basic idea of Solomonoff prediction is that we should assign higher prior probability to \emph{simpler} binary strings. However, what do we mean by `simplicity' or `complexity'? We can formalize the complexity of a string as its \emph{Kolmogorov complexity}: the length of the shortest program in some universal programming language which outputs that string. We can model a universal programming language as a monotone Universal Turing machine $U$ \parencite[303]{Li2019}. A monotone Universal Turing Machine has a one-way read-only input tape and a one-way write-only output tape. The input tape contains a binary string which is the \emph{program} to be executed, and the output tape contains a binary string which is the \emph{output}. The Turing machine must further be \emph{universal}, which means that it can emulate any computable function. Finally, to say that the Turing machine is \emph{monotone} means that the output tape is write-only, so the machine cannot edit its previous outputs.\footnote{The focus on monotone machines is to ensure, via Kraft's inequality, that the sum in (\ref{solprior}) is less than or equal to one \parencite[275]{Li2019}. See also Definition 2 in \cite{Wood2013}.}
Then, we define the \emph{Solomonoff prior}, which assigns prior `probability' to binary strings inversely proportional to their Kolmogorov complexity. For every finite binary string $b \in \mathcal{B}^*$, we have:
\begin{equation}\label{solprior}
\lambda_U(b) = \sum_{\rho \in D_{U, b}} 2^{- \ell(\rho)},
\end{equation}
where $D_{U, b}$ is the set of minimal programs which lead $U$ to output a string starting with $b$ and $\ell(\rho)$ is the length of program $\rho$. To say that $D_{U, b}$ is the set of minimal programs which lead $U$ to output a string starting with $b$ means that (i) upon reading any program in $D_{U, b}$, $U$ will output a string starting with $b$ and (ii) no proper prefix of any program in $D_{U, b}$ leads $U$ to output a string starting with $b$.\footnote{See \cite[307]{Li2019}, \cite[466]{Sterkenburg2016}, Definition 5 in \cite{Wood2013}.} As a rough heuristic, we can think of $\lambda_U(b)$ as the `probability' of producing the string $b$ by feeding random bits to the Universal Turing Machine $U$ on its input tape. (As we will see in a moment, the Solomonoff prior is not a probability measure, so this is not quite correct.)
As a simple example, consider a binary string which consists in a very long sequence of zeros:
\begin{equation*}
000000000...
\end{equation*}
Here $D_{U, b}$ is the set of minimal programs which output a very long sequence of zeros. In Python, one of these might be the following program $\rho$:\footnote{Both here and below, I do \emph{not} claim that these are actually minimal programs but merely use them as simple toy examples.}
\begin{python}
while True:
print(0)
\end{python}
In this example, $\ell(\rho)$ is the Kolmogorov complexity of our string since it is the length of one of the minimal programs which outputs our string. To find the Solomonoff prior of our string, we start by computing $2^{-\ell(\rho)}$. However, there might be more than one minimal program which outputs our string. To take this into account, we take the sum over \emph{all} such minimal programs, resulting in formula (\ref{solprior}). As this example shows, there are two assumptions build into this framework. First, strings which are produced by \emph{simpler} programs should get a higher prior probability. Second, strings which are produced by \emph{more} programs should get a higher prior probability.
Each Solomonoff prior $\lambda_U(\cdot)$ induces a Solomonoff predictor, which we can write as follows for every $x \in \mathcal{B}^*$:
\begin{equation}\label{solpredictor}
\lambda_U({x1}\mid {x}) = \frac{\lambda_U({x1})}{\lambda_U({x})},
\lambda_U({x0}\mid {x}) = 1- \lambda_U({x1}\mid {x}).
\end{equation}
Intuitively, $\lambda_U({x1}\mid {x})$ tells us the probability that the next bit is $1$ given that we observed a string starting with $x$. So if we fix a Universal Turing machine $U$, this answers our earlier question what we should predict about the next bit after seeing some initial sequence. The hope is that we can encode all real-world inference problems as problems about predicting the next bit of a binary sequence. If this is possible, we can use the Solomonoff predictor to predict any kind of real-word event: the probability that the sun will rise tomorrow, the probability that the stock market will go up next month and so on.\footnote{In any concrete application, our predictions will depend not only on the Solomonoff prior, but also on how we encode a given real-world inference problem as a binary sequence. There are many different ways to represent (say) the state of the stock market as a binary sequence. Thus, there is a worry about language dependence here. However, I will bracket this worry, as it turns out that there is another more direct worry about language dependence, to be discussed in section (\ref{relativity-convergence}) below.}
As suggested above, the Solomonoff prior is \emph{not} a pre-measure on $\mathfrak{C}$. In particular, we only have
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\lambda_U({\epsilon}) \leq 1,$
\item $\lambda_U(x) \geq \lambda_U({x0}) + \lambda_U({x1})$
\end{enumerate}
for $x \in \mathcal{B}^*$. However, sometimes these inequalities will be strict \parencite[Lemma 15]{Wood2013}. Therefore, the Solomonoff prior is only a \emph{semi-measure}, which we can think of as a `defective' probability measure. This is a problem, because there are good reasons to think that rationality requires adherence to the axioms of probability. There are \emph{dutch book arguments}, going back to \textcite{DeFinetti1937}, which show that probabilistically incoherent credences lead agents to accept a sequence of bets which are jointly guaranteed to yield a sure loss. Further, there are \emph{accuracy dominance arguments} which show that probabilistically incoherent credences are guaranteed to be less accurate than some probabilistically coherent credences.\footnote{Standard accuracy arguments are formulated in a setting with a finite algebra of events \parencite{Predd2009, Pettigrew2016}. However, there are extensions of these arguments to infinite algebras \parencite{KelleyForthcoming}.} Therefore, from a Bayesian point of view, the Solomonoff prior is arguably a non-starter if it does not satisfy the axioms of probability. Call this the \emph{semi-measure problem}.
To fix this problem, we can define the \emph{normalized Solomonoff prior} $\Lambda_U$ as follows \parencite[308]{Li2019}. We have $\Lambda_U(\epsilon) = 1$ and for every $x \in \mathcal{B}^*$, we recursively define:\begin{equation}\label{normsolprior}
\Lambda_U({x1}) = \Lambda_U(x)\left( \frac{\lambda_U({x1})}{\lambda_U({x0}) + \lambda_U({x1})} \right), \Lambda_U({x0}) = 1 - \Lambda_U({x1}).
\end{equation}
\noindent $\Lambda_U$ is a pre-measure on $\mathfrak{C}$ and so determines a unique probability measure on $\mathfrak{F}$.\footnote{There are different ways to normalize $\lambda_U$ which is a potential source of subjectivity and arbitrariness. I will not pursue this line of criticism here. \textcite[Section 4.7]{Li2019} provide a great historical overview of the different approaches to the semi-measure problem by Solomonoff, Levin and others}
Alternatively, we can interpret the (unnormalized) Solomonoff prior $\lambda_U$ as a probability measure on the set of infinite and \emph{finite} binary strings \parencite[641]{Sterkenburg2019}. From this perspective, cases in which $\lambda_U(x) > \lambda_U({x0}) + \lambda_U({x1})$ represent a situation in which $\lambda_U$ assigns positive probability to the possibility that the binary string ends after the initial segment $x$.
Does it matter which of these strategies we pick? It turns out that there is an interesting connection between normalization and the approximation reply to be discussed below. In particular, normalizing the Solomonoff prior makes it \emph{harder} to maintain the approximation reply. But the point of this paper is that there is a tension between the approximation reply and the convergence reply, and this tension will arise no matter how we deal with the semi-measure problem. Therefore, my main argument is not much affected by this choice
\section{Relativity and Convergence}\label{relativity-convergence}
We have defined the Solomonoff prior with reference to a Universal Turing machine $U$. Since there are infinitely many Universal Turing machines, there are infinitely many Solomonoff priors. Furthermore, these priors will often disagree in their verdicts. How much of a problem is this? Let us take a closer look.
Consider our example above. Suppose you are given the initial segment of a binary string:
\begin{equation*}
0000000000...
\end{equation*}
Given this initial segment, what is your prediction for the next bit?
You might hope that Solomonoff prediction can vindicate the intuitive verdict that the next bit is likely to be a zero. There is an intuitive sense in which a string consisting entirely of zeros is `simple', and you might hope that our formal framework captures this intuition, because the shortest program which outputs a string of all zeros is shorter than the shortest program which outputs a string of ten zeros followed by ones.
In Python, for example, one of the shortest programs to output a string of all zeros might be the following:
\begin{python}
while True:
print(0)
\end{python}
In contrast, one of the shortest programs to output a string of ten zeros followed by ones might be the following more complicated program:
\begin{python}
i = 0
while True:
while i <= 9:
print(0)
i = i + 1
print(1)
\end{python}
Thus, it seems reasonable to expect that our Solomonoff predictor should assign a high probability to the next bit being zero.
If you find this kind of reasoning compelling, you might also hope that Solomonoff prediction helps us to handle the `New Riddle of Induction' and tells us why, after observing a number of green emeralds, we should predict that the next emerald is green rather than \emph{grue} (either green and already observed, or blue and not yet observed) \parencite{Goodman1955}.\footnote{See \cite{Elgin1997} for a collection of classic papers on the `New Riddle of Induction'.} Both the hypothesis that all emeralds are green and that all emeralds are grue fit our data equally well, but perhaps the all-green hypothesis is simpler and so should get a higher prior probability.\footnote{A similar line of argument is suggested by \textcite[42]{Vallinder2012}.}
However, such hopes are quickly disappointed. This is because different Universal Turing machines differ in how they measure the Kolmogorov complexity of strings. Relative to a `natural' Universal Turing machine, a string with all zeros is simpler than a string with some zeros first and ones after. However, relative to a `gruesome' Universal Turing Machine, a string with some zeros first and ones afterwards is simpler. If we think about the issue in terms of programming languages, this is quite obvious---it all depends on which operations in our programming language are taken to be primitive. Thus, different Solomonoff priors will license different predictions: Some will predict that a sequence of zeros will continue with a zero, others will predict that a sequence of zeros will continue with a one. Thus, if we use one of the Solomonoff priors, there is \emph{no guarantee whatsoever} that, after observing a long sequence of zeros, we assign a high probability to the next bit being zero.
The argument just sketched is a variant on the familiar point that simplicity is language dependent. Therefore, different choices of language (Universal Turing machine) will lead to different priors.\footnote{Readers familiar with \textcite{Goodman1955} will recognize that a version of this argument was leveled by Goodman against the idea that `green' is more simple than `grue'---it all depends on your choice of primitives.} Without a principled reason for why a `natural' Universal Turing machine should be preferred over a `gruesome' Universal Turing machine, the framework of Solomonoff prediction does not give us any reason for why, given an initial sequence of zeros, we should predict that the next bit is a zero rather than a one. Therefore, it does not look like the framework of Solomonoff prediction is any help in distinguishing `normal' and `gruesome' inductive behavior. As a consequence, it does not look like the framework of Solomonoff prediction gives a satisfying solution to the problem of the priors.
However, proponents of Solomonoff predictions can respond to this argument. According to them, the relativity of the Solomonoff prior to a choice of Universal Turing machine is not too worrying, because one can prove that all Solomonoff priors eventually \emph{converge} towards the same verdicts given more and more data. Thus, while different choices of Universal Turing Machine lead to different predictions in the short run, these differences `wash out' eventually. So while there is an element of subjectivity in the choice of Universal Turing machine, this subjective element disappears in the limit. Call this the \emph{convergence reply}.\footnote{This reply is discussed by \textcite[1133]{Rathmanner2011}, \textcite[32]{Vallinder2012} and \textcite[473]{Sterkenburg2016}.}
Why is it true that different Solomonoff priors converge in their verdicts? To show this, we can invoke a standard convergence result from Bayesian statistics. To get this result on the table, we first need to introduce a bit more notation. Let $p$ and $p'$ be two probability measures on $\mathfrak{F}$. We define:
\begin{definition}
\emph{$p$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $p'$} if for all $A \in \mathfrak{F}$, \[ p(A) > 0 \implies p'(A) > 0.\]
\end{definition}
We now need a way of measuring the difference between two probability functions. Let $p$ and $p'$ be two probability functions on $\mathfrak{F}$. We define:
\begin{definition}
The \emph{total variational distance} between $p$ and $p'$ is \[sup_{A \in \mathfrak{F}} \mid p(A) - p'(A) \mid.\]
\end{definition}
\noindent Intuitively, the total variational distance between two probability functions defined on the same domain is the `maximal disagreement' between them.
We are interested in what happens after learning more and more data. To capture this, we define:
\begin{definition}
$E_n : \mathcal{B}^\infty \to \mathfrak{C}$ is the function which, given an infinite binary string $b \in \mathcal{B}^\infty$, outputs the cylinder set of strings which agree with $b$ in the first $n$ places.
\end{definition}
\noindent Intuitively, $E_n$ is a random variable which tells us the first $n$ digits of the string we are observing.\footnote{One can prove the Bayesian convergence result in a considerably more general setting, working with an abstract probability space and modeling evidence as sequence of increasingly fine-grained finite partitions (or sub $\sigma$-algebras). However, it is sufficient for our purposes to work with the measurable space $\langle \mathcal{B}^\infty, \mathfrak{F} \rangle$ introduced earlier.} We further define:
\begin{definition}
A probability function $p : \mathfrak{F} \to [0,1]$ is \emph{open-minded} if $p(\Gamma_x) > 0$ for all $x \in \mathcal{B}^*$.
\end{definition}
\noindent This captures the class of probability functions which do not rule out any finite initial sequence by assigning probability zero to it.
We want to talk about arbitrary probability functions $p : \mathfrak{F} \to [0,1]$, so we write $\Delta(\mathfrak{F})$ for the set of all probability functions on $\mathfrak{F}$. Now we define:
\begin{definition}
For any open-minded probability function $p : \mathfrak{F} \to [0,1]$, $p(\cdot \mid E_n) : \mathcal{B}^\infty \to \Delta(\mathfrak{F})$ is the function which outputs $p(\cdot \mid E_n(b))$ for each $b \in \mathcal{B}^\infty$.
\end{definition}
\noindent So $p(\cdot \mid E_n)$ is the result of conditionalizing $p(\cdot)$ on the first $n$ digits of the observed sequence. To make sure that $p(\cdot \mid E_n)$ is always well-defined, we restrict our attention to open-minded probability functions.
Now we can invoke the following well-known result in Bayesian statistics \parencite{BlackwellDubin1962}:\footnote{This and related results are discussed extensively by \cite{Earman1992}, \cite{Huttegger2015}, \cite{NielsenStewart2018}, \cite{NielsenSteward2019}.}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:merge}
Let $p$ and $p'$ be two open-minded probability functions on $\mathfrak{F}$ such that $p$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $p'$. Then, we have
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{n \to \infty} sup_{A \in \mathfrak{F}} \mid p(A \mid E_n) - p'(A \mid E_n) \mid = 0,
\end{equation*}
$p$-almost surely. Therefore, $p$-almost surely, the total variational distance between $p$ and $p'$ goes to zero as $n \to \infty$.
\end{theorem}
Let me briefly comment on this result. First, to say that the equality holds `$p$-almost surely' means that it holds for all binary sequences except perhaps a set to which $p$ assigns probability zero. Second, as a direct corollary, if $p$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $p'$ and vice versa---so $p$ and $p'$ agree on which events have prior probability zero---then $p$ and $p'$ will also agree that, almost surely, their maximal disagreement will converge to zero as they observe more and more data. This captures a natural sense of what it means for $p$ and $p'$ to converge in their verdicts.
With this result in place, the (almost sure) asymptotic equivalence of all Solomonoff priors follows straightforwardly.\footnote{For the purpose of stating the convergence result, I will assume that the Solomonoff priors are normalized to be probability measures on $\mathfrak{F}$. It is possible to obtain convergence result with the weaker assumption that Solomonoff priors are semi-measures, but there are difficulties in interpreting these results \parencite[200]{Sterkenburg2018thesis}---so to simplify our discussion, I'll stick with probability measures.} Let $\lambda_{U}$ and $\lambda_{U'}$ be two Solomonoff priors defined relative to two Universal Turing Machines $U$ and $U'$. Now $\lambda_{U^\prime}$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $\lambda_{U}$ because $\lambda_U$ \emph{dominates} $\lambda_{U^\prime}$, which means that there is a constant $c$, depending on $U$ and $U'$, such that for all $x \in \mathcal{B}^*$, we have $\lambda_U(x) \geq c \lambda_{U'}(x)$ \parencite[71-2]{Sterkenburg2018thesis}. This is because the shortest programs producing a given string relative to two different Universal Turing machines cannot differ by more than a constant, as stated by the \emph{Invariance Theorem} \parencite[105]{Li2019}. Since $\lambda_{U}$ and $\lambda_{U'}$ were arbitrary, it follows that all Solomonoff priors are absolutely continuous with respect to each other.
Furthermore, each Solomonoff prior is open-minded. This is because it assigns positive probability to all computable sequences and every finite sequence is computable. (In the worst case, we can just hard-code the sequence into our program.) Therefore, by theorem \ref{thm:merge}, we have
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{n \to \infty} sup_{A \in \mathfrak{F}} \mid \lambda_U(A \mid E_n) - \lambda_{U'}(A \mid E_n) \mid = 0,
\end{equation*}
almost surely, so $\lambda_U$ and $\lambda_{U'}$ converge towards the same verdicts. Thus, all the infinitely many Solomonoff priors are (almost surely) asymptotically equivalent.\footnote{The `almost sure' qualification matters: it is \emph{not} true that different Solomonoff priors are asymptotically equivalent on \emph{all} sequences, as shown by \textcite[95]{Sterkenburg2018thesis} drawing on \textcite{Hutter2007semi}. However, this is generally true of Bayesian convergence theorems and no particular problem affecting Solomonoff prediction. For this reason, I will continue to say that different Solomonoff priors are `asymptotically equivalent' and sometimes drop the qualifier `almost surely'.}
As another consequence, we can show that any Solomonoff prior converges (almost surely) to optimal predictions on any sequence which is generated by some computable stochastic process \parencite[467]{Sterkenburg2016}. This means that we can think about the Solomonoff prior as a `universal pattern detector' which makes asymptotically optimal predictions on the minimal assumption that the data we are observing is generated by some computable process.
There is much more to say about the convergence reply. In particular, worries about subjectivity in the short run remain unaffected by long-run convergence results of the kind explained above \parencite[314]{Elga2016}. We still have no argument for why, after observing a finite number of green emeralds, it is more reasonable to predict that the next emerald is green rather than grue. However, I am happy to grant for the sake of argument that long-run convergence endows Solomonoff prediction with some kind of desirable objectivity. The focus of my argument is how the emphasis on long-run convergence interacts with another problematic feature of Solomonoff prediction: the fact that none of the Solomonoff priors are themselves computable.
\section{Computability and Approximation}
There is a second problem for Solomonoff prediction: None of the infinitely many Solomonoff priors are computable. This means that there is no possible algorithm which will tell us, after finitely many steps, what the Solomonoff prior of a particular binary sequence \emph{is}---even if we have fixed a choice of Universal Turing machine.
Let us first define what it means for a pre-measure $p : \mathfrak{C} \to [0,1]$ to be computable, following \textcite[36]{Li2019}:
\begin{definition}
$p : \mathfrak{C} \to [0,1]$ is computable if there exists a computable function $g(x, k) : \mathfrak{C} \times \mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{Q}$ such that for any $\Gamma_x \in \mathfrak{C}$ and $k \in \mathbb{N}$,
\begin{equation*}
\mid p(\Gamma_x) - g(\Gamma_x, k) \mid < \frac{1}{k}.
\end{equation*}
\end{definition}
This means that a pre-measure $p: \mathfrak{C} \to [0,1]$ is computable if there is an algorithm which we can use to approximate $p(\Gamma_x)$ to any desired degree of precision for any cylinder set $\Gamma_x \in \mathfrak{C}$.
Then, we have the following:
\begin{theorem}
For any Universal Turing Machine $U$, $\lambda_{U}$ is not computable \parencite[303]{Li2019}.
\end{theorem}
\noindent \textcite{Leikehutter2018} discuss further results on the computability of Solomonoff prediction and related frameworks.
Since it seems plausible that we can only use computable inductive methods, this looks like a big problem. It is impossible for anyone to actually use Solomonoff prediction for inference or decision making. The lack of computability also seems to undermine the intended application of Solomonoff prediction as a foundation for artificial intelligence, since it is impossible to build an AI system which uses Solomonoff prediction. One might worry that for this reason, Solomonoff prediction is \emph{completely useless} as a practical guide for assigning prior probabilities. Further, the lack of computability might cut even deeper. It is unclear whether it is even possible for us, or any AI agent we might build, to `adopt' one of the uncomputable Solomonoff priors. I will return to this issue below.
Again, proponents of Solomonoff prediction can respond to this argument. While it is true that Solomonoff prediction is not computable, it is \emph{semi-computable}, which means that there are algorithms which get closer to $\lambda_{U}(x)$ at each step. This means that there are algorithms which \emph{approximate} the Solomonoff prior in some sense. Call this the \emph{approximation reply}.\footnote{This reply is discussed by \textcite[11]{Solomonoff1964} and \textcite[8-9]{Solomonoff2009}.}
To see how such approximations could work, let me first explain in a bit more detail \emph{why} the Solomonoff prior is not computable. Recall that the Solomonoff prior of a binary string $b$ is inversely proportional to the Kolmogorov complexity of $b$: the length of the shortest program which outputs $b$, given some Universal Turing Machine. However, Kolmogorov complexity is not computable.\footnote{\textcite{Chaitin1995} provide a direct proof of this fact by reducing the problem of computing Kolmogorov complexity to the Halting problem.} There is no possible algorithm which, given an arbitrary binary string, outputs the Kolmogorov complexity of that string. As a consequence, the Solomonoff prior is not computable.
However, while Kolmogorov complexity is not computable, there are computable approximations to it. To simplify drastically, we can approximate the Kolmogorov complexity of a given string by stopping the search for the shortest program which outputs that string after a fixed time and consider the shortest program \emph{so far} which outputs the string. Call this \emph{bounded Kolmogorov complexity}.\footnote{See \cite[Chapter 7]{Li2019} for a rich discussion.} We can define a prior which assigns probability inversely proportional to bounded Kolmogorov complexity. As we let the search time go to infinity, we recover the original Kolmogorov complexity of our string.\footnote{\textcite{Veness2011} provide a concrete approximation to Solomonoff prediction. Also see \cite{Schmidhuber2002}.}
Given such approximations, one might hope that Solomonoff prediction is still a useful constraint on priors. It provides an ideal for the prior probabilities of a computationally unbounded reasoner, and in practice, we should do our best to approximate this ideal using our finite computational resources. This attitude is expressed, for example, when \textcite[83]{Solomonoff1997a} writes that ``despite its incomputability, algorithmic probability can serve as a kind of `gold standard' for induction systems''.
As before, there is much more to say about this argument, which raises interesting questions about `ideal theorizing' and the value of approximation.\footnote{See \cite{Staffel2019, CarrForthcoming} for recent discussions of `ideal' vs. `non-ideal' theorizing in epistemology and the value of approximation.} However, I am happy to grant for the sake of argument that there may be something valuable about an ideal theory which can never be implemented but only approximated.
There are some messy details which I'm ignoring here. First, it turns out that the Solomonoff \emph{predictor} is not even semi-computable \parencite[651]{Sterkenburg2019}. Furthermore, the normalized Solomonoff prior is not even semi-computable \parencite{Leikehutter2018}. Both only satisfy the weaker requirement of \emph{limit computability}: there is an algorithm which will converge to the correct probability value in the limit, but is \emph{not} guaranteed to get closer at each step. These messy details make it harder to maintain the convergence reply, because they make it harder to see how we could have \emph{any} sensible method for approximating Solomonoff prediction. However, the point I will discuss next is an \emph{additional} problem even if these messy details can somehow be cleaned up.
\section{A Dilemma}
When pressed on the relativity of the Solomonoff prior to a Universal Turing machine, it is natural to appeal to asymptotic convergence. When pressed on the uncomputability of the Solomonoff prior, it is natural to appeal to computable approximations. However, there is a deep tension between the convergence reply and the approximation reply.
The tension arises for the following reason. Suppose we accept the approximation reply. We hold that while Solomonoff prediction is not computable, we can use some computable approximation of Solomonoff prediction to guide our inductive reasoning and construct AI systems. However, this response undercuts the convergence reply because, for reasons I will explain in a moment, \emph{different computable approximations to Solomonoff prediction are not necessarily asymptotically equivalent}. Therefore, we can no longer respond to the worry about language dependence by invoking long-run convergence.
To see why different computable approximations to Solomonoff prediction are not guaranteed to converge, recall first that different Solomonoff priors \emph{do} converge because they are absolutely continuous with respect to each other. Now consider some computable approximation to Solomonoff prediction. There are different ways to spell out what it means to `approximate' the Solomonoff prior, but for my argument, the details of how we think about our `approximation strategy' will be largely irrelevant. As explained above, there are considerable difficulties in whether we can make sense of such an approximation strategy for the Solomonoff predictor and normalized Solomonoff prior, since they are only limit computable. I will sidestep these difficulties by treating the approximation strategy as a black box---what matters is just that our computable approximation to the Solomonoff prior is \emph{some computable probability measure}.
Why should it be a probability measure, as opposed to a semi-measure? For standard Bayesian reasons: to avoid dutch books and accuracy dominance. Why should it be computable? Because the whole point of the approximation reply is that we can actually use the approximation to make inferences and guide decisions. So we should better be able to compute, in a finite time, what the probability of a given event is. Otherwise, the approximation reply seems like a non-starter.
So let us consider some approximation to Solomonoff prediction, which is some computable probability measure. I claim that this computable approximation must assign probability zero to some computable sequence. This is because \emph{every computable probability measure assigns probability zero to some computable sequence}:
\begin{theorem}
Let $p : \mathfrak{F} \to [0,1]$ be a computable probability measure. Then, there is some computable $b \in \mathcal{B}^\infty$ such that $p(b) = 0$.
\end{theorem}
This result is originally due to \textcite{Putnam1963}, who gives a beautiful `diagonal argument' for it.\footnote{For a wide-ranging discussion of Putnam's argument, see \cite[Chapter 9]{Earman1992}. In statistics, a similar result is due to \textcite{Oakes1985}, which is explicitly connected to Putnam's argument by \textcite{Dawid1985}. See also \cite{Schervish1985}.} Consider some computable prior $p$. Here is how to construct a `diagonal sequence' $D$ for our prior $p$, where $D_i$ denotes the $i$-th bit of $D$ and $E_n$ denotes the first $n$ bits of $D$:
\begin{equation*}
D_1 = 0
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
D_{n+1} =
\begin{cases*}
1 & if $p(1 \mid E_n) < \frac{1}{2}$ \\
0 & if $p(1 \mid E_n) \geq \frac{1}{2}$
\end{cases*}
\end{equation*}
We arbitrarily start our sequence with a zero. To determine the next digit, we first check what our prior $p$ predicts after observing a zero. Then, we do the opposite. We iterate this procedure infinitely many times, and our binary sequence $D$ is finished. Since we have assumed that $p$ is computable, $D$ must be computable as well.
Now why must $p$ assign probability zero to $D$? Because by construction, $p(D_{n+1} \mid E_n)$ can never go above $\frac{1}{2}$. Therefore, even though the sequence we are observing is generated by a deterministic computable process, our computable prior cannot predict the next bit better than random guessing. However, if $p(D)$ were greater than zero, then $p(D_{n+1} \mid E_n)$ would eventually climb above $\frac{1}{2}$, which contradicts our assumption.
\textcite{Sterkenburg2019} discusses the relationship between Solomonoff prediction and Putnam's diagonal argument and concludes that ``Putnam's argument stands'' \parencite[653]{Sterkenburg2019}. In particular, Putnam's argument provides an alternative way to prove that the Solomonoff prior is not computable.\footnote{Further, \textcite[651]{Sterkenburg2019} points out that we can use Putnam's argument to show that the Solomonoff predictor is not semi-computable but only limit-computable.} My argument here is different, since my point is that we can use Putnam's argument to highlight a deep tension between the approximation reply and the convergence reply. While the tension between the approximation reply and the convergence reply is a relatively straightforward consequence of Putnam's diagonal argument, this particular point has not received any attention in the debate surrounding Solomonoff prediction. I conjecture that this is because the convergence reply and the approximation reply are often discussed separately, while not enough attention is paid to how they interact with each other. The convergence reply inhabits the realm of `ideal theorizing', where we don't really care about constraints of computability, while the approximation reply tries to connect ideal theory to the real world. However, it is important to pay close attention to how these different features of our theory interact. With this paper, I hope to take some steps to remedy this `cognitive fragmentation'.
After clarifying what this paper aims to accomplish, let's get into the argument. Suppose we use a computable approximation to Solomonoff prediction. \emph{The key point is that we face a choice between different approximations which are not guaranteed to be asymptotically equivalent.}
Consider two different computable priors $p$ and $p'$ which approximate Solomonoff prediction in some sense. Note that this could mean two different things: it could mean that we fix a given Solomonoff prior $\lambda_U$ and use two different `approximation strategies'. Alternatively, it could mean that we fix an `approximation strategy' and apply it to two different Solomonoff priors $\lambda_U$ and $\lambda_{U'}$ based on different Universal Turing Machines. The second possibility is closely related to the kind of language dependence discussed earlier---we might face the choice between a `natural' and a `gruesome' Universal Turing Machine. The first possibility seems a bit different, it is best characterized as a kind of `approximation dependence'. My argument will work with either of these options.
So we have two computable approximations $p$ and $p'$. This means, as I have argued above, that both $p$ and $p'$ are computable probability measures. By Putnam's argument, both $p$ and $p'$ assign probability zero to some computable sequences. Call these sequences $D$ and $D'$. Note, first, that both $p$ and $p'$ rule out some computable hypotheses and so seem to make substantive assumptions about the world \emph{beyond} computability. For those who hold that Solomonoff prediction gives us an `universal pattern detector' which can find any computable pattern, this is already a problem, because the approximations $p$ and $p'$ cannot find \emph{every} computable pattern. This is a first hint that the asymptotic properties which make Solomonoff prediction great are \emph{not} preserved in computable approximations to Solomonoff prediction.
Now the key point for my argument is that, if $p$ and $p'$ are different, then $D$ and $D'$ might be different as well. So $p$ might assign a positive probability to $D'$. Conversely, $p'$ might assign a positive probability to $D$. The crucial observation is that while each prior $p$ is forced to assign probability zero to its `own' diagonal sequence $D$ on pain of inconsistency, no inconsistency arises when some prior $p$ assigns positive probability to the diagonal sequence $D'$ for some \emph{other} prior $p'$.\footnote{Here is a simple example. Let $p'$ be generated by the uniform measure which assigns probability $2^{-n}$ to each binary sequence of length $n$. Applying Putnam's construction, the diagonal sequence $D'$ for this prior is the sequence $s_0$ consisting of all zeros. However, we can easily find \emph{another} (computable) prior $p$ which assigns positive probability to $s_0$, just let $p(\{s_0\}) = 1$.}
In the case just discussed, $p$ and $p'$ fail to be absolutely continuous with respect to each other, since they differ in what events are assigned probability zero. Therefore, it is \emph{not} guaranteed that $p$ and $p'$ are (almost surely) asymptotically equivalent. They might yield different verdicts forever. This means that if there is a subjective element in the choice between $p$ and $p'$, this subjective element is \emph{not} guaranteed to `wash out' in the long run.
To bring this out more clearly, we can draw on a recent result by \textcite{NielsenStewart2018}. They relax the assumption of absolute continuity and study what happens to Bayesian convergence results in this more general setting. What they show is the following: If prior $p$ is \emph{not} absolutely continuous with respect to prior $p'$, then $p$ must assign some positive probability to the event that $p$ and $p'$ \emph{polarize}, which means that the total variational distance between them converges to 1 as they learn an increasing sequence of shared evidence.\footnote{See their theorem 3, which generalizes the classic merging-of-opinion results due to \textcite{BlackwellDubin1962}.} So if two priors fail to be absolutely continuous with respect to each other, they must assign positive probability to the event that learning shared evidence drives them towards maximal disagreement.
I have argued above that two computable approximations of the Solomonoff prior might fail to be absolutely continuous with respect to each other. In combination with the result by \textcite{NielsenStewart2018}, this means that two computable approximations of the Solomonoff prior might assign positive probability to polarization in the limit: further evidence drives them towards maximal disagreement. This gives us a clear sense in which, when we consider computable approximations to the Solomonoff prior, subjectivity is \emph{not} guaranteed to `wash out' as we observe more evidence. This, in turn, means that the choice between our two approximations introduces a significant subjective element which is \emph{not} guaranteed to wash out, but might, with positive probability, persist indefinitely. This looks like bad news for the convergence reply.
Let me add an important clarification. My argument shows that for two computable approximations $p$ and $p'$ of the Solomonoff prior, it is not guaranteed that that $p$ and $p'$ will converge \emph{without making further assumptions}. We might add additional requirements on `acceptable approximations' which rule out such cases by forcing all computable approximations to the Solomonoff prior to be absolutely continuous with respect to each other. However, any such strategy faces a deep problem. Since each computable prior must assign probability zero to some computable sequence, this would mean that our set of approximations to the Solomonoff prior rules out some computable sequences \emph{a priori}. However, this looks incompatible with the motivation behind Solomonoff prediction. The Solomonoff prior is supposed to be a `universal pattern detector' which can learn any computable pattern. So the price for forcing asymptotic agreement among different approximations to the Solomonoff prior would be to make substantive assumptions \emph{beyond} computability, which is exactly what Solomonoff prediction was designed to avoid.
So there is a deep tension between the convergence reply and the approximation reply. If we accept the approximation reply, this means that we should use some computable approximation to the Solomonoff prior to guide our inductive reasoning. However, the move to computable approximations undercuts the convergence reply, since different computable approximations are \emph{not} necessarily asymptotically equivalent. They might, with positive probability, yield different verdicts forever, and \emph{never} converge to the same predictions. Therefore, we can no longer dismiss the worry about language dependence by invoking long-run convergence. For example, if two different approximations arise from two different Universal Turing Machines, the difference between `natural' and `gruesome' Universal Turing Machines is \emph{not} guaranteed to wash out in the long run, but might stay with us forever. So we better come up with some good reasons for why we should use a `natural' rather than a `gruesome' Universal Turing machine.\footnote{See, for example, \textcite[1113]{Rathmanner2011}, who (inconclusively) explore the issue of whether some Universal Turing Machines might be more `natural' than others.} More generally, we have to face the problem of subjectivity in the choice of Universal Turing machine head-on and cannot downplay the significance of this choice by invoking asymptotic convergence. In fact, the situation is even more bleak: Even if we find convincing arguments for why some Universal Turing Machine is the `correct' or `natural' one, we might still face the choice between different `approximation strategies' which introduce a persistent subjective element. So when we consider computable approximations to Solomonoff prediction, both language dependence and approximation dependence introduce subjective elements which are \emph{not} guaranteed to wash out.
Suppose, on the other hand, that we are convinced by the convergence reply. In this case, we think that what makes Solomonoff prediction great is that different choices of Universal Turing machine lead to priors which are (almost surely) asymptotically equivalent and which assign positive probability to all computable sequences. However, in this case we have to embrace that Solomonoff prediction is essentially uncomputable. This is because there is no computable prior which assigns positive probability to all computable sequences. So the emphasis on convergence undercuts the approximation reply. From this perspective, what makes Solomonoff prediction great is its asymptotic behavior. \emph{However, no computable approximation to Solomonoff prediction preserves this great asymptotic behavior.} Therefore, it is not clear why there is any point in using a computable approximation to Solomonoff prediction to guide our inductive inferences or as a foundation for AI.
You might object to my argument as follows: `Suppose I adopt the Solomonoff prior. In response to the charge that it's not objective, I invoke convergence. In response to the charge that the Solomonoff prior is not computable, I invoke approximation. In response to the charge that these computable approximations need not themselves converge, I simply deny that there's any problem. The computable approximations are not \emph{my probabilities}, they are just useful computational tools that I can use to calculate and report my (approximate) probabilities.'\footnote{Thanks to an anonymous referee for pressing this objection.}
Let me reply to this objection by making clear what the target of my argument is. I grant that if one can really `adopt' one of the Solomonoff priors and use computable approximations merely as a tool to report one's probabilities, this gets around the problem. But is it really possible for us, or an AI agent we build, to adopt an incomputable probability function as a prior? This depends on what makes it the case that an agent has a particular prior, which is a difficult question I cannot fully discuss here. But it seems plausible that any physically implemented agent can only represent and act according to a computable prior. Therefore, it is unclear whether we can really `adopt' an uncomputable prior. The same reasoning holds for any AI system which we might construct. The best we can do is to adopt some approximation to the Solomonoff prior, and my point is that we face some difficult choices in choosing such an approximation.
\section{Convergence for Subjective Bayesians}
Let me finish by briefly discussing how my argument relates to broader questions in Bayesian epistemology. As we have seen in the beginning, one of the big questions for Bayesians is how to choose a prior---the problem of the priors. Solomonoff prediction is an attempt to solve this problem by specifying a `universal' prior. But, as I have argued, this ambition ultimately fails, because we lose guaranteed convergence if we use computable approximations to the Solomonoff prior.
One might wonder whether this argument poses problems for Bayesian convergence arguments more generally. Bayesians often argue that the choice of prior is not very significant, because given `mild' assumptions, different priors converge as more data is observed.\footnote{See, for example, the classic discussion in \cite[Chapter 6]{Earman1992}.} However, the key assumption is absolute continuity: different priors must assign positive probability to the same events. And Putnam's argument shows that every computable prior must assign probability zero to some computable hypothesis. Taken together, this suggests that we can only hope for convergence if we agree on substantive assumptions about the world---beyond computability. So the scope of Bayesian convergence arguments is more limited than one might have hoped.\footnote{This is also the conclusion of \textcite{NielsenStewart2018}, who argue that Bayesian rationality is compatible with persistent disagreement after learning shared evidence.}
This should not come as a surprise to \emph{subjective} Bayesians who hold that the choice of prior embodies substantive assumptions which reflect the personal beliefs of an agent. Consider, for example, the following passage in \textcite{Savage1972} defending a `personalistic' (subjective Bayesian) view of probability: ``The criteria incorporated in the personalistic view do not guarantee agreement on all questions among all honest and freely communicating people, even in principle. That incompleteness, if one will call it such, does not distress me, for I think that at least some of the disagreement we see around us is due neither to dishonesty, to errors in reasoning, nor to friction in communication [...]'' \parencite[67-8]{Savage1972}.
If you agree that the choice of prior embodies a subjective element, then the fact that we cannot guarantee convergence without shared substantive assumptions should not come as a shock. So my argument does not raise new problems for subjective Bayesians. However, it raises problems for any attempt to define a `universal' or `objective' prior which does not embody substantive assumptions about the world.
\section{Conclusion}
Proponents of Solomonoff prediction face a dilemma. They cannot simultaneously respond to worries about language dependence by invoking asymptotic convergence while responding to worries about uncomputability by invoking computable approximations. This is because, for very general reasons, no computable approximation to Solomonoff prediction has the same asymptotic behavior as the Solomonoff priors.
In the absence of principled criteria for choosing a Universal Turing machine, it looks like Solomonoff prediction is either subject to thorny problems of subjectivity and language dependence, or else essentially uncomputable and therefore useless as a guide to scientific inference and the design of optimal artificial agents.
\printbibliography
\end{document} |
\section{Introduction} \label{sec:Intro}
Discovering the properties of dark matter remains an outstanding problem in cosmology \cite{Peebles1933}. Observations indicate that the dark matter is cold and collisionless, though its specific particle nature is not known \cite{Spergel_2003, Aghanim2018}. Numerical studies allow us to compare observations with the predictions of simulations of different dark matter models \cite{Vogelsberger}. Understanding where our numerical methods are valid is then necessary to interpreting the predictions of these studies.
One interesting dark matter model is scalar field dark matter (SFDM) \cite{Hu2000, Preskill:1982, Turner1983, Schive_2016, mocz2019, Guth2015, Seidel:1994zb, Arvanitaki_2020, ABBOTT1983133, Marsh_2016, hui2021wave, pozo2021detection, Lentz2019}. This model involves extremely light scalar particles with masses typically somewhere in the range $10^{-5} - 10^{-22} \, \mathrm{eV}$. The QCD axion is a potential SFDM candidate \cite{Preskill:1982} making simulations of this model relevant for many axion detection experimental setups \cite{admx, hui2021wave, Braine2020, Zhong2018, Salemi}.
The low mass in this model creates a system where phase space occupation numbers are extremely high and, on the lowest mass end of the model, particles have a typical deBroglie wavelength on the $\sim \, \mathrm{kpc}$ length scale \cite{Hu2000, ABBOTT1983133, Guth2015, Arvanitaki_2020}. It is has been shown that power at length scales below the deBroglie wavelength would be suppressed but structure on larger scales would be left similar to standard $\Lambda$ cold dark matter cosmology ($\mathrm{\Lambda CDM}$) \cite{mocz2019, Hu2000, Arvanitaki_2020}. This model then allows one to tune the particle mass to account for discrepancies between simulation and observation on small scales, creating a potential solution to small scale structure problems. On small scales observations of structure deviate from the predictions of dark matter only cosmological simulations \cite{Weinberg2015, Arvanitaki_2020, Marsh_2016, Schive:2014dra, pozo2021detection}. Typically this deviation is summarized as three problems. The core-cusp problem: describing the observed flattening of galactic density profiles (cores) near the center of galaxies, as opposed to an increasingly steep density profile (cusp) \cite{navarro1996,Walker_2011}. The missing satellites problem: describing the lack of observed Milky-Way satellite galaxies \cite{Klypin:1999uc, Moore1994, Moore1999}. And the too-big-to-fail problem: describing the lack of observed massive dark matter sub halos \cite{Papastergis, Boylan-Kolchin2011}. This problem admits a number of solutions in addition to scalar field dark matter. Improved observational efforts, self interacting dark matter, and Baryonic effects are also suspected as possible solutions \cite{Governato2012, Nadler:2019zrb, vandenBosch:1999ka, Brooks_2013, Papastergis2016, Tulin2017}. It should also be mentioned that scalar field dark matter is associated with other interesting phenomenology in regions of parameter space where small scale structure is left largely unchanged \cite{Arvanitaki_2020, Marsh_2016, hui2021wave}.
The high occupation numbers of degenerate Bosons motivate approximating scalar field dark matter with a classical mean field theory (MFT) \cite{Guth2015, Kirkpatrick2020, Hertberg2016, mocz2019, Hu2000, Arvanitaki_2020, ABBOTT1983133, Marsh_2016, eberhardt2021Q}. Likewise, for dark matter models which have misalignment as their production mechanism, the initial quantum state is thought to be well described by a coherent state \cite{ABBOTT1983133, Preskill:1982}. Such models would therefore be well described at early times by MFT. Generally, numerical studies of SFDM proceed by solving the Schr\"odinger Poisson equations on a grid using a single classical field to represent the dark matter phase space \cite{mocz2019, Hu2000, Schive:2014dra, zhang2019}. It is known that MFT accurately approximates weakly interacting highly degenerate Bosonic systems such as Bose Einstein Condensates and coherent electromagnetic radiation \cite{bial1977, Gross, Pi, BECrev}.
However the extent to which MFT can approximate the evolution of strongly interacting systems is a topic of interest \cite{Dvali_2018, Hertberg2016, Sikivie:2016enz, Dvali:2017eba, Dvali:2013vxa, sreedharan2020, Chakrabarty:2017fkd, kopp2021nonclassicality, Lentz2019, Lentz2020, eberhardt2021Q}. It is possible that the mean field description of SFDM fails in some regimes or on some timescale relevant to cosmological simulations and that quantum effects begin to become important \cite{Sikivie:2016enz, Seidel:1994zb, chakrabarty2021, Chakrabarty:2017fkd, kopp2021nonclassicality, Lentz2019}. This is due to the spreading of the quantum wavefunction around the classical solution, an effect generic to nonlinear systems \cite{Yurke1986, sreedharan2020, Lewenstein1996, Cabellero2008, eberhardt2021Q, eberhardt2021}. The timescale on which the classical and quantum evolutions begin to differ is often referred to as the ``quantum breaktime". Estimations of this timescale have been performed for scalar field dark matter \cite{Dvali_2018, kopp2021nonclassicality, Sikivie2012}. However, these estimations have either relied on significant approximations about the behavior of the spread of the wavefunction or simulations of significantly less complicated systems. The main focus of this work will be to characterize the behavior of quantum corrections for large systems undergoing gravitational collapse. We use a solver which tracks the leading order correction to the MFT which is proportional to the second order field moments. This allows us to directly numerically integrate the evolution of the quantum corrections in a way numerically efficient enough to allow us to estimate the behavior of these corrections for systems much larger than have been previously investigated numerically.
This is done using the field moment expansion method (FME), described in \cite{eberhardt2021}, which estimates the relative size of quantum correction terms in the evolution of a system initially well described by mean field theory. When these terms pass a certain threshold we define MFT to have broken down. We estimate the quantum breaktime as a function of occupation number and self interaction strength for the gravitational collapse of an initial spatial overdensity. An appendix contains a brief discussion of other systems we tested.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \ref{sec:background}, we discuss background on mean field theory, its quantum deviations and corrections. Section \ref{sec:numerics} explains the numerical implementation of the various theories. Section \ref{sec:results} contains results of applying this method to scalar field dark matter. We include a general discussion of the results in Section \ref{sec:conclusions}, focusing on the implication for simulations of scalar field dark matter.
\section{Background} \label{sec:background}
\subsection{Quantum description}
The evolution of a quantum system is determined by its Hamiltonian and the initial conditions of the quantum state. In this work we will use the following Hamiltonian
\begin{equation} \label{Ham}
\hat H = \sum_j^M \omega_j \hat a_j^\dagger \hat a_j + \sum_{ijkl}^M \frac{\Lambda_{kl}^{ij}}{2} \hat a_k^\dagger \hat a_l^\dagger \hat a_i \hat a_j \, .
\end{equation}
Which, with appropriate choice of $\omega_j$ and $\Lambda^{ij}_{kl}$, describes a variety of non-relativistic field physics, see for example \cite{Sikivie:2016enz, Sikivie2012, Hertberg2016, eberhardt2021Q}. $M$ is the total number of allowed modes, $\hat a_j$ and $\hat a_j^\dagger$ are annihilation and creation operators on mode $j$ respectively, and $\omega_j$ is the kinetic energy associated with mode $j$. Throughout this paper we will assume that the mode functions are the momentum eigenstates and that $\omega_j \propto \hbar j^2 / (2m)$. The matrix $\Lambda^{ij}_{kl}$ describes the potential energy of the field, including self interactions. If we write this matrix as
\begin{equation} \label{Lambda}
\Lambda^{ij}_{kl} = \left( \frac{C}{2(p_k - p_i)^2} + \frac{C}{2(p_k - p_j)^2}\right) \delta^{ij}_{kl}
\end{equation}
then $C = -4 \pi\, G\, m^2/ \hbar $ describes the gravitational self interaction and $C = 4 \pi k_e\,q\, m/ \hbar $ describes the electrostatic self interaction, via four point vertex.
In the Heisenberg picture, the dynamical variables are the operators themselves, which evolve according to the Heisenberg equation of motion
\begin{align} \label{eqnMotion}
\partial_t \hat a_p &= i [\hat H, \hat a_p] = -i\left[ \omega_p \hat a_p + \sum_{ijl} \Lambda^{ij}_{pl} \hat a_l^\dagger \hat a_i \hat a_j \right] \, .
\end{align}
All that is left is to specify the initial quantum state. Because we are primarily concerned with ultra light scalar field dark matter we will assume that the initial conditions are approximately coherent. We will define what we mean by approximately coherent in later sections. For now we will say that is that the initial quantum state is close to
\begin{equation} \label{coherentStates}
\ket{\Vec{z}} = \bigotimes_{i=1}^M \exp \left[ -\frac{|z_i|^2}{2} \right] \sum_{n_i=0}^\infty \frac{ z_i^{n_i}}{\sqrt{n_i!}} \ket{n_i} \, .
\end{equation}
where $\Vec{z} \in \mathbb{C}^M$ parameterizes the state. Physically a coherent state is defined ss a displacement from the vacuum state. $\ket{n_i}=\frac{ (\hat a^\dagger_i(t=0))^{n_i}}{\sqrt{n_i!}} \ket{0}$ represents the number eigenstates corresponding to having $n_i$ particles in the $i$th mode. For axions produced by the misalignment mechanism a coherent state is thought to initially provide an accurate description \cite{ABBOTT1983133, Preskill:1982}.
Coherent states have the following important property: for a coherent state the expectation value of any normally ordered operator is given
\begin{align} \label{coherentProp}
\braket{\Vec{z} | \, f(\set{\hat a^\dagger}) \, g(\set{\hat a}) \, | \Vec{z} } = f(\set{z^\dagger}) \, g(\set{z})
\end{align}
where $\hat a = \hat a(t=0)$.
\subsection{Obtaining the classical theory}
MFT is obtained by replacing the operators in equation \ref{eqnMotion} with complex numbers which are then the ``classical field". This means that the classical field equation of motion is written
\begin{align} \label{clEqnMotion}
\partial_t a^{cl}_p = -i\left[ \omega_p a^{cl}_p + \sum_{ijl}\Lambda^{ij}_{pl} a^{cl\dagger}_l a^{cl}_i a^{cl}_j \right] \, .
\end{align}
Typically, initially, $a^{cl}_p$ corresponds to the mean of the field operator $\hat a_p$, that is
\begin{align} \label{clEqnMotionInitialCons}
a^{cl}_p \biggr\rvert_{t=0} = \braket{\hat a_p} \biggr\rvert_{t=0} \, .
\end{align}
And in fact we can think of the MFT equation of motion as resulting from the following approximation
\begin{align} \label{clApprox}
\partial_t \braket{\hat a_p} = \braket{F(\set{\hat a})} \approx F(\set{ \braket{\hat a} }) \, .
\end{align}
Where $F(\set{\hat a})$ is the right hand side of equation \ref{eqnMotion}. The first equality above is the result of taking the expectation value of equation \ref{eqnMotion}. The approximation gives equation \ref{clEqnMotion}.
This approximation is accurate when the mean value of the operator is large compared to its root variance. We will make this requirement more precise in the next section.
For coherent state initial conditions, at $t=0$ we can use the property in equation \ref{coherentProp} to restore the approximation in equation \ref{clApprox} to an equality.
Notice also that taking a Fourier transform of equation \ref{clEqnMotion} and defining $\Lambda^{ij}_{pl}$ as we have in the previous section recoveres the familiar Schr\"odinger-Poisson equations of motion.
\begin{align} \label{Schr_eqn}
\partial_t \psi(x) &= -i \left[ \frac{-\nabla^2}{2m} + m V(x) \right] \psi(x) \, , \\
\nabla^2 V &= 4 \pi G m \, \psi^\dagger(x) \psi(x) \, , .
\end{align}
where
\begin{equation} \label{psi2a}
\psi(x) = \sum_i a_i^{cl} u^\dagger_i(x) \,
\end{equation}
$u_i(x)$ is the momentum eigenstate with momentum $p_i$. Note the above equations describe gravity, in the electromagnetic case we simply make the replacements $G \rightarrow -k_e$ and $\sqrt{m} \rightarrow \sqrt{q}$.
\begin{widetext}
\subsection{Corrections to the classical theory} \label{sec:correctionsToClassical}
In order to understand how the corrections to the classical theory arise we return to equation \ref{clApprox}. This approximation can be returned to an equality if we write the rightmost side as the following series
\begin{align} \label{eqMotion}
\partial_t \braket{\hat a_p} &= \braket{F(\set{\hat a})} \nonumber \\
&= F(\set{ \braket{\hat a} }) + \left( \sum_{\set{\hat a}} \braket{\delta \hat a_i \delta \hat a_j} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial \hat a_i \partial \hat a_j } + \braket{\delta \hat a_i \delta \hat a^\dagger_j} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial \hat a_i \partial \hat a^\dagger_j } \, + \dots \right) F(\set{ \braket{\hat a} }) .
\end{align}
The series in the parentheses represent how higher order moments effect the exact evolution of the mean field. Notice that each term in the sum is written as a central moment weighting a derivative of the same order representing the response of the evolution function to that central moment. This kind of expansion is commonly used to approximate probability distributions.
\end{widetext}
By applying this expansion to the evolution of the expectation value of any operator we can find quantum correction terms to the classical equations of motion. Notice that at each order in this process we introduce additional moments that themselves have equations of motion. This process then generates an infinite series of coupled equations of motion. If the initial conditions and evolution are such that the growth of each central moment of a given order is hierarchical, i.e. moments of a higher order grow slower than ones of a lower order, than we can truncate this series at some order and always improve upon the accuracy of a lower order truncation up until the highest order correction terms become large. For coherent state initial conditions we expect such a hierarchical growth condition to be satisfied.
Very approximately the ratio of the second order and classical terms can be given by the following parameter
\begin{equation} \label{eqQ}
Q \equiv \sum_i^M \frac{\braket{\delta \hat a_i^\dagger \delta \hat a_i}}{n_{tot}} \, .
\end{equation}
\begin{comment}
\mk{Is there some argument for why the trace is the most interesting quantity to study? For instance, could the eigenvalues of $\braket{\delta \hat a_i^\dagger \delta \hat a_j}$ be more informative?} \aeber{this quantity is the average fractional error in the classical approximation of the momentum density. Eigenvalues are 1) much more expensive to calculate (especially since we are going to eventually move to 3D), 2) I do not have a good intuition for what they would correspond to physically and 3) would not be consistent with our previous papers on this topic. Is there a particular idea you have in mind that requires calculating the eigenvalues?}
\end{comment}
For a coherent state this parameter is $0$. When $Q$ is no longer much smaller than $1$ we expect the quantum correction terms to begin becoming important and for the classical theory to break down. Therefore, the quantum breaktime will be on the same timescale. Using our hierarchical growth assumption we can also say that the evolution of the second order equations of motion will remain accurate until this time. Therefore, a second order expansion should be sufficient to predict the breaktime.
We therefore define a quantum breaktime as follows
\begin{equation} \label{breakTime}
Q(t_{br}) \equiv 0.15 \, .
\end{equation}
Note that our results should be fairly robust to the specific choice of $Q(t_{br})$, we choose $0.15$ here simple because it is clear that at this time it is likely true that the classical solution admits terms that are no longer sub-leading order and that the second order solution is still an accurate approximation of the exact quantum evolution, as the third order terms should still be sub-leading order. If the quantum correction terms are no longer small compared to the classical terms it is unlikely that the predictions of the classical field theory will remain accurate.
\begin{widetext}
\section{Numerical Implementation} \label{sec:numerics}
We solve the coupled equations of motion for the first and second order moments of the field operator.
\begin{align} \label{FME_eqn}
\partial_t \braket{\hat a_p} &\approx -i\left[ \omega_p \braket{\hat a_p} + \sum_{ijl} \Lambda^{ij}_{pl} \left( \braket{\hat a_l^\dagger} \braket{\hat a_i} \braket{\hat a_j} + \braket{\delta \hat a_i \delta \hat a_{j}} \braket{\hat a^\dagger_l} + \braket{\delta \hat a^\dagger_l \delta \hat a_{i}} \braket{\hat a_j} + \braket{\delta \hat a^\dagger_l \delta \hat a_{j}} \braket{\hat a_i} \, \right) \right] \, , \\
\partial_t \braket{\delta \hat a_i \delta \hat a_j} &\approx -i \left[(\omega_i+\omega_j)\braket{ \delta \hat a_i \delta \hat a_j} + \sum_{kp} \Lambda^{ij}_{pk} \braket{\hat a_k} \braket{\hat a_p} \right. \label{daa_dt} \\
&\left. + \sum_{kpl} \Lambda^{ij}_{pl} \left( \braket{ \delta \hat a_l \delta \hat a_j} \braket{\hat a^\dagger_k} \braket{\hat a_p} + \braket{ \delta \hat a_j \delta \hat a_p} \braket{\hat a^\dagger_k} \braket{\hat a_l} + \braket{\delta \hat a_k^\dagger \delta \hat a_j} \braket{\hat a_l} \braket{\hat a_p} \right) + (i \leftrightarrow j) \right] \, , \nonumber \\
\partial_t \braket{\delta \hat a_i^\dagger \delta \hat a_j} &\approx i \left[ (\omega_i - \omega_j)\braket{\delta \hat a_i^\dagger a_j} + \right. \label{dba_dt} \\
&\left. + \sum_{kpl} \Lambda^{ij}_{pl} \left( \braket{\delta \hat a_j \delta \hat a_k} \braket{\hat a^\dagger_p} \braket{\hat a^\dagger_l} + \braket{\delta \hat a^\dagger_p \delta \hat a_j} \braket{\hat a^\dagger_l} \braket{\hat a_k} + \braket{\delta \hat a^\dagger_l \delta \hat a_l} \braket{\hat a^\dagger_p} \braket{\hat a_k} \right) + (c.c., \, i \leftrightarrow j) \right] \, . \nonumber
\end{align}
To do this we use the the CHiMES repository available at \href{https://github.com/andillio/CHiMES}{https://github.com/andillio/CHiMES}. These operators can then be used to estimate the breaktime as we have defined it in equation \ref{breakTime}. Appendix \ref{appendixB} contains a discussion of the choice of the mode number $N$ and timestep $dt$.
\end{widetext}
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\includegraphics[width = .97\textwidth]{phaseSpaceCompare.pdf}
\caption{ Here we plot the evolution of sinusoidal over-density. The top two rows show the phase space density evolution for two different values of $\tilde \hbar$. The phase space is represented by the Husimi function of the classical field with fixed $\sigma_x$. The bottom row shows the density for both. Each column represents a different timestep, with the left most column showing the initial conditions, and the middle column showing shell crossing, the point at which the scaling of the breaktime transitions from logarithmic to a power law. }
\label{fig:phaseSpaceSin}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\includegraphics[width = .49\textwidth]{Q_evolution.pdf}
\caption{Here we plot how the wavefunction spreads at different stages in the evolution of the system, for the gravitational collapse of a sinewave overdensity. The top plot shows the evolution of $Q(t)$ and the bottom plot the maximum value of the potential, $V(t)$. We see that $Q$ first grows quadratically at early times when the growth of the potential is approximately linear, then begins to grow exponentially until the collapse time at $t= t_{dyn}$, after this time, it again grows according to a power law before undergoing runaway growth near the breaktime shortly after $t \approx 2 \, t_{dyn}$. The exponential growth of $Q$ corresponds to the exponential growth of the overdensity, following the collapse the wavefunction spreads much slower. Here we set $\tilde \hbar = 2.5 \times 10^{-4}$, $n_{tot} \approx 10^{10}$. }
\label{fig:Qgrowth}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\includegraphics[width = .95\textwidth]{Q_compare.pdf}
\caption{ Here we plot the evolution of $Q(t)$ for two systems with different $\tilde \hbar$ and $n_{tot}$. Notice that the behavior of $Q(t)$ is mostly constant between the two simulations despite a relatively large change in the simulation parameters. Both are fit well by the quadratic approximation at early times and then have a similar exponential growth prior to collapse at $t=t_d$. This is somewhat unsurprising as prior to shell crossing both systems have a similar mean field evolution, which is well approximated by classical particles and so we would not expect the evolution to depend sensitively on its scalar field qualities. }
\label{fig:Qcompare}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\includegraphics[width = .97\textwidth]{varCompare.pdf}
\caption{Here we look at the mean field theory differs from the field moment expansion, the left column showing spatial operators and the right momentum space operators. The top row shows $(\braket{\hat \psi^\dagger(y) \hat \psi(x)} - \psi^{cl \dagger}(y) \otimes \psi^{cl}(x))/n_{tot}$ and $(\braket{\hat a^\dagger(k_j) \hat a(k_i)} - a^{cl \dagger}(k_j) \otimes a^{cl}(k_i))/n_{tot}$. The bottom row shows the difference between the overdensities predicted by the number operators $\braket{\hat \psi^\dagger(x) \hat \psi(x)}$ and $\braket{\hat a^\dagger(k_i) \hat a(k_i)}$, and the square of the classical field $|\psi^{cl}(x)|^2$ and $| a^{cl}(k_i)|^2$. The difference between the blue and orange lines in the bottom row plots is given by the diagonal of the top row plots. We can see that quantum corrections occur in the momentum density but are off diagonal for the spatial covariance. This follows from the fact that the non-linearity is in the spatial potential and therefore directly effects the momentum evolution. }
\label{fig:varCompare}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\includegraphics[width = .47\textwidth]{breaktimes2.pdf}
\caption{ Here we show the scaling of the breaktime, $t_{br}$, with total particle number, $n_{tot}$, for the sinusoidal overdensity. The breaktime is defined using $Q$, see equations \eqref{eqQ} and \eqref{breakTime}, which compares the spread of the wavefunction to the total number of particles. We can see that for systems with breaktimes shorter than the collapse time, i.e. $t_{br} < t_{d} $, the scaling of the breaktime with total occupation number is $\propto \log(n_{tot})$. However, after the collapse time, $t_{d}$, the scaling follows a power law. Each color line corresponds to a different classical field evolution, which is determined by the value of $\tilde \hbar$, we set $\tilde \hbar = h \times 2.5 \times 10^{-4}$. The trend of larger $\tilde \hbar$ corresponding to longer breaktimes implies that the breaktime decreases as mass is increased.}
\label{fig:sinCollapse_tbr}
\end{figure}
\section{Results} \label{sec:results}
\subsection{Test problem set up}
Here we show the breaktime calculated for the collapse of a gravitational overdensity. We simulate the first and second order moments of the field using the method described in section \ref{sec:numerics}. The field moments are initialized as follows
\begin{align}
\psi(x) &= \sqrt{1 + \delta \, \cos \left( 2 \pi x / L \right)} / \mathrm{Norm} \, , \\
\braket{\delta \hat a_i \delta \hat a_j} &= 0 \, , \\
\braket{\delta \hat a^\dagger_i \delta \hat a_j} &= 0 \, .
\end{align}
Recall that $\psi(x)$ and $z_p$ are related via Fourier transform, i.e. $\psi(x) = \sum_p z_p u_p(x)$. We normalized each initial conditions such that the square norm equals the total number of particles, i.e. $\sum_p |z_p|^2 = \sum_x |\psi(x)|^2 = n_{tot}$. The overdensity tends to grow exponentially until shell crossing, see bottom plot in figure \ref{fig:Qgrowth}, resulting in a characteristic phase space spiral, see figure \ref{fig:phaseSpaceSin}.
When simulating classical particles, for cold initial conditions, the growth of structure is ``scale free". This means that characteristic phase space spiral will continue indefinitely resulting in ever smaller structure. If we instead use a classical field, phase space structures smaller than $\hbar$ will be washed out, and a central core will form in the density as opposed to a cusp, see for example \cite{Eberhardt2020, Hu2000, hui2021wave}. The velocity dispersion of the collapsing system is set by the gravitational potential, which is well measured in cosmology. This velocity scale then sets a deBroglie wavelength which washes out structures below that spatial scale, this can be seen in figure \ref{fig:phaseSpaceSin}.
We will be interested in how the leading order and correction terms compare throughout the evolution as we scale the total number of particles, $n_{tot}$. The MFT corresponds to the infinite particle limit, thus as we scale the number of particles we will do so in a way that keeps the classical field evolution of the system fixed so that systems at different occupation can be meaningfully compared to one another. This means that we hold $M_{tot}, \, \tilde \hbar \equiv \hbar / m ,$ and $\Lambda \, n_{tot}$ constant. Notice that for the numerical implementation purposes this implies the following scalings $m \propto 1/n_{tot}$, $\hbar \rightarrow 1/n_{tot}$, and $\Lambda \propto 1/n_{tot}$. We simulate each system until the breaktime, defined to occur at $Q(t_{br}) = 0.15$. Recall that $\hbar$ sets the scale for quantum corrections. When we perform the varying procedure described here we can parameterize the size of quantum corrections holding the mean field theory fixed such that their behavior can be studied as a function of the total particle number, and extrapolated to higher occupations.
\subsection{Spread of the wavefunction}
The wavefunction spreads around the mean field value throughout the evolution. This spread can be characterized by the growth of $Q$, defined in equation \eqref{eqQ}. This parameter measures how the mode variances compare with the total occupation number. We plot the growth of $Q$ for a highly occupied system with $n_{tot} \sim 10^{10}$ particles and $\tilde \hbar = 2.5 \times 10^{-4}$ in figure \ref{fig:Qgrowth}. The system is initialized so that at the initial conditions $Q(t=0) = 0$, representing an initial coherent state. Generally, we can characterize the growth of $Q$ by discussing four phases: initial quadratic growth, the collapsing phase, the post collapse phase, and runaway growth. It is useful to also look at the behavior of the overdensity, which can help describe the transition between these phases. We plot both $Q(t)$ and the maximum potential value, a proxy for the size of the overdensity in figure \ref{fig:Qgrowth}.
We can see by looking at equations \eqref{FME_eqn}-\eqref{dba_dt} that at early times, $t \ll t_d$ and $\braket{\delta \hat a_i \delta \hat a_j}, \, \braket{\delta \hat a_i^\dagger \delta \hat a_j} \ll 1$, the evolution of the second order moments is governed by the $\sum_{kp} \Lambda^{ij}_{pl} \braket{\hat a_k} \braket{\hat a_p}$ term in equation \eqref{daa_dt}, i.e. at early times
\begin{align}
\partial_t \braket{\delta \hat a_i \delta \hat a_j} \sim -i \sum_{kp} \Lambda^{ij}_{pl} \braket{\hat a_k} \braket{\hat a_p} \, .
\end{align}
This term is proportional to $[\hat a^\dagger, \hat a]$ and seeds the variance term, which is initially $0$ for a coherent state. We can take a second temporal derivative of equation \eqref{dba_dt} and plug in the above equation which should dominate at these early times, this implies that the initial evolution goes as
\begin{align} \label{DefinitionKappa}
\partial_{tt} \braket{\delta \hat a_i^\dagger \delta \hat a_j} &\sim 2 \mathbb{R}\left[ \sum_{kplbc} \Lambda^{ij}_{pl} \Lambda^{kj}_{bc} \braket{\hat a_b} \braket{\hat a_c} \braket{\hat a_p^\dagger} \braket{\hat a_l^\dagger} \right] \nonumber \\
&\equiv \kappa_{ij} \, .
\end{align}
We now can define the quantity $\kappa$ which describes the rate of the growth of quantum corrections at early times. We can see in figure \ref{fig:Qgrowth} that initially $Q(t) = \mathrm{Tr}[\kappa_{ij}] \, t^2 / 2n_{tot}$. The approximation fits quite well at early times when the overdensity is growing slowly.
Following this initial quadratic growth phase, the overdensity begins to grow quickly as the system collapses. During this collapse the wavefunction spreads exponentially around its mean field value. This continues until shell crossing, here defined to occur at $t = t_d$. The exponential spread of the wavefunction is behavior typical of quantum systems which exhibit classical chaos and corroborates previous studies of nonlinear systems, see for example \cite{eberhardt2021Q}. It is interesting to note that during this and the quadratic growth phase of $Q(t)$ the classical field behavior is still well approximated by classical particles, see for review \cite{Eberhardt2020}. We can see in figure \ref{fig:Qcompare} that the evolution of $Q(t)$ during the quadratic and exponential growth phases depend only weakly on the value of $\tilde \hbar$ and $n_{tot}$, assuming that both are chosen such that $Q(t) \ll 1$ during these phases. After shell crossing, the growth again becomes a power law for a time before experiencing runaway growth.
\subsection{Effect of corrections on densities}
We plot the second order central moments as well as the difference in the spatial over-density given by the number operator, which is a second order moment, and the amplitude of the classical field in figure \ref{fig:varCompare}. We see that in the spatial case the covariance is predominantly off diagonal and therefore, there is no difference between the square amplitude of the spatial classical field and the spatial number operator. On the other hand the momentum density admits differences between $| a^{cl}(k_i)|^2$ and $\braket{\hat a^\dagger(k_i) \hat a(k_i)}$. We can see that a leading order effect of the corrections is to smooth interference patterns in the momentum density. This corroborates our intuition as it has been shown in previous work that phase diffusion is a leading order effect of quantum corrections, see for example figure 1 in \cite{eberhardt2021}.
\subsection{Behavior of the quantum breaktime}
We simulate a number of systems with different occupations, $n_{tot}$, and values of $\tilde \hbar$, and then plot the breaktime as defined in equation \eqref{breakTime} in figure \ref{fig:sinCollapse_tbr}. We see a logarithmic scaling of the breaktime during the collapses phase and then a power law scaling following shell crossing, a logarithmic enhancement in the breaktime is consistent with the expected behavior of quantum systems which exhibit classical chaos \cite{Hertberg2016, eberhardt2021Q}. This behavior is consistent across all the systems we tested. We can see that systems with large occupations at fixed $\tilde \hbar$, as well as larger $\tilde \hbar$ at fixed $n_{tot}$, have longer breaktimes. These results align with our expectation as it is generally argued that large occupation number per deBroglie wavelength imply long quantum breaktimes \cite{Hertberg2016,Guth2015}.
The system with the largest value of $\tilde \hbar$ we tested, the blue line in figure \ref{fig:sinCollapse_tbr}, had all the dynamical momentum modes highly occupied even at the breaktime. This is the system that behaved most similar to the classical field theory. We can see that the slope of the logarithmic scaling of the breaktime in figure \ref{fig:sinCollapse_tbr} is approximately $1/7$. This means that even as $Q(t)$ was no longer $\ll 1$ its growth was still well described by the exponential growth shown in figure \ref{fig:Qcompare}.
A typical realistic system would be continuously undergoing collapsing and merging. From our results studying the spread of the wavefunction we can then expect that during these processes the wavefunction spreads exponentially around its mean field value but spread slowly during periods of linear growth or once the system is already virialized. We expect quantum effects to start becoming very large when $Q(t) \sim 1$. Given the growth rates we found in figure \ref{fig:Qcompare} and assuming a system that is constantly undergoing collapse and merging events, this would imply that this happens when $e^{7t} \sim n_{tot}$, at such high occupations this time depends only weakly on the initial quadratic growth of $Q(t)$. This would imply a breaktime
\begin{align} \label{TbreakEstimate}
t_{br} \sim \frac{\ln(n_{tot})}{7} \, t_d \, ,
\end{align}
in the large $n_{tot}$ limit. This is about $\sim 30$ dynamical times at $n_{tot} \sim 10^{100}$. However, it is important to note that the wavefunction is only exponentially growing during nonlinear growth. We found that when the potential is slowly changing or the system has already collapsed the wavefunction only spreads slowly around its mean field value.
Squeezing, the shrinking of the spread of the wave function in one direction in phase space, is accompanied by the initial quadratic spreading of the wave function $Q(t) = \mathrm{Tr}[\kappa_{ij}] \, t^2 / 2n_{tot}$, see equation \eqref{DefinitionKappa}.
The time scale at which this genuine quantum effect because large, the so-called squeezing time scale, was discussed in previous work \cite{kopp2021nonclassicality,eberhardt2021Q}. However, as we already noted, $t_{br}$ is dominated by the exponential growth which is due to the chaotic behavior.
It thus not expected that the squeezing time scale is related to the quantum break time \eqref{TbreakEstimate}.
The squeezing time scale was derived using the single mode (``Hartree'') ansatz in \cite{kopp2021nonclassicality}. However it was shown in \cite{eberhardt2021Q} that in multimode system deviations occur already before the single-mode squeezing time scale. Here we shown the existence a physically distinct time scale at which quantum effects become strong, $t_{br}$ in equation \eqref{TbreakEstimate}, which is genuine multi-mode phenomenon.
\section{Conclusions} \label{sec:conclusions}
We have simulated the gravitational collapse of an initial overdensity with long range attractive interactions tracking the mean and second order field operators. The second order operators tell us how the quantum field is spreading around its mean field value. We find that this spread is exponential during the nonlinear growth and collapse of the overdensity, see figure \ref{fig:Qgrowth}. However, at very early times or after the collapse the wavefunction spreads much slower, growing only as a power law. Interestingly we find that the rate of exponential growth depends only weakly on the mass of the constituent particles as long as we remain in the highly occupied regime, see figure \ref{fig:Qcompare}.
Using our definition of the quantum breaktime in equation \eqref{breakTime}, we can determine an approximate timescale \eqref{TbreakEstimate} when quantum corrections to the classical field theory evolution are no longer small. This is done by measuring how the uncertainty compares with the mean field value. The breaktime scales logarithmically with $n_{tot}$ for a time and then shifts to a power law scaling, see figure \ref{fig:sinCollapse_tbr}. A logarithmic enhancement in the quantum breaktime with increasing total particle number is typical of chaotic systems and corraborates earlier results studying similar problems \cite{eberhardt2021Q,Hertberg2016, Han2016,Albrecht2014}.
We have found that nonlinear growth drives the exponential spread of the wavefunction. This work then implies that quantum corrections are most significant for systems which have histories of continuous and violent nonlinear growth and mergers. For highly occupied systems the breaktime depends very weakly on the spread of the wavefunction at early times. We can therefore put a a rough order of magnitude estimate on the timescale when quantum corrections grow large as $t_{br} \sim \frac{\ln(n_{tot})}{7} \, t_d$. The tendency of the quantum corrections to decay field amplitudes and smooth oscillation peaks implies that they may be most important for phenomena that depend strongly on the interference properties of SFDM evolution such as \cite{Dalal2022}.
It is important to note the following limitations of this analysis and the need for future work addressing them. First, the test problems we simulate here are very simple and include only a single spatial dimension. More realistic initial conditions in three spatial dimensions with an expanding background would produce a more reliable estimation of the breaktime. Second, our approximation scheme tracks only the first two moments of the field, effectively a Gaussian approximation. This is the lower order correction to the mean field theory and including the contribution of higher order moments may alter the prediction of the quantum breaktime. 3D simulations which include higher order moment contributions will be included in a subsequent work. Finally, we have neglected to include the effect of decoherence by the environment which has the tendency to prevent the formation of observable macroscopic superpositions. Understanding this effect requires both an estimation of the decoherence timescale as a function of mass, as is done in \cite{Allali_2020, Allali_2021}, and the pointer states into which the quantum state is effectively projected.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\includegraphics[width = .45\textwidth]{breaktimes.pdf}
\caption{ Here we show the scaling of the breaktime with $n_{tot}$ for two stream instability. Like in case of the gravitational overdensity we see an initial logarithmic scaling followed by a power law scaling. The logarithmic scaling occurs during the time when the potential is growing. }
\label{fig:sinCollapse_tbr_2s}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\includegraphics[width = .45\textwidth]{overDensity.pdf}
\caption{ Here the top plot shows the evolution of $Q$ and the bottom plot the maximum value of the potential, $V$, for the gravitational collapse of a sinewave overdensity. Here we set $\tilde \hbar = 2.5 \times 10^{-4}$, $n_{tot} \approx 10^{6}$. }
\label{fig:twoStreamoverdense}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width = .45\textwidth]{Gaussian_t.pdf}
\caption{ Here we show the scaling of the breaktime with $n_{tot}$ for the gravitational collapse of a Gaussian. Like in case of the gravitational overdensity we see an initial logarithmic scaling followed by a power law scaling. The logarithmic scaling occurs prior to shell crossing. }
\label{fig:gaussCollapse_tbr}
\end{figure}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
Model acquisition has been a hallmark sub-field of automated planning for decades. From the early approaches to extracting simple planning models in an automated way \cite{shen1989rule} to modern techniques for extracting lifted action theories from state tokens alone \cite{abs-2105-10830}, the planning community has developed dozens of approaches to model acquisition for various settings. Simultaneously, there have been a few surveys that capture the status of this
rich sub-field and characterize the approach across many axes
\cite{JimenezRFFB12, hud20380, AroraFPMP18}.
What is missing from the collective focus on the suite of techniques available is a unifying framework that allows researchers to explore both the existing techniques, as well as the gaps in what we are capable of solving.
While the explosion in model learning techniques has dated past surveys
pretty quickly, our open-source approach and live interface to the
repository aims to make \texttt{MACQ}\xspace the one-stop-shop for learning planning models.
In this work, we present the first major step towards such a unified framework. Both from a theoretical standpoint -- characterizing model acquisition techniques in terms familiar to the planning community -- and from the practical standpoint with growing implementation of the core algorithms. Our contribution goes substantially further than just a survey of the existing techniques. By integrating them under a single theoretical framework and implementation, we effectively open the door to systematically characterizing the entire sub-field of research.
We accomplish this characterization by identifying the key properties that distinguish model acquisition techniques and then applying knowledge compilation techniques to map out what is known from the field. We are thus able to holistically view what is possible theoretically (i.e., papers exist to address the setting), what is possible practically (an implementation exists in the framework), and what remains an open research question.
Finally, having the suite of tools for state trace generation, modification, and analysis all under a single framework allows us to rapidly test different approaches to a specific setting. New use-cases for model acquisition can leverage the growing library of implemented techniques for model acquisition, and this provides tangible benefits to those outside the planning community who wish to apply planning techniques in their domain of expertise.
\section{Background}
\label{sec:background}
\begin{itemize}
\item Observations (Bonet \& Geffner) <-- probably not, since we aren't going deep into the theory on this
\item Terms for ``generation'', ``tokenization'', and ``extraction''.
\item Intro PDDL.
\item State traces.
\item (maybe) SAT theories and knowledge compilation
\end{itemize}
\section{\texttt{MACQ}\xspace Framework}
\label{sec:methodology}
There are three core components to the \texttt{MACQ}\xspace framework: (1) trace generation; (2) observation tokenization; and (3) model extraction. Not all of these are mandatory, but each complements the others to offer a rich array of functionality. We discuss each of them in turn in Section \ref{sec:methodology},
but lead this section with a discussion of key features and assumptions
of concern in describing a model learning task.
\subsection{Feature Analysis}
\label{subsec:features}
A model learning task involves three key considerations --
1) what are the features of the agent whose model is being learned;
2) what are the features of the model being learned; and
3) what are the features of the data from which the model is being learned.
Note the distinction between (2) and (3). This separation of features
allows our framework with the flexibility to
provide the user with the choice of what
kind of model to learn from what kind of data.
For example, a user can choose to use a stochastic model extraction technique
on noisy data instead of modelling noise directly. More on this
``token casting'' feature later in Section \ref{subsubsec:token-casting}.
\subsubsection{Agent Features}
\begin{itemize}
\item {\bf Rationality} The primary consideration here is whether the observed
agent is rational or not. By default, we assume that this is unknown or
that there is no assumption of rationality in an extraction technique.
If there is, we allow for two types of rationality --
optimal traces (in the classical
sense) or causally relevant traces where there are no redundant actions
in a plan i.e. there are no (subsets of) actions that
can be removed from the trace and the agent can still reach its goal.
\end{itemize}
\subsubsection{Model Features}
\begin{itemize}
\item {\bf Uncertainty} The first feature of interest is
whether uncertainty is captured by the model -- a model
can take three forms: 1) deterministic, 2) non-deterministic,
and 3) probabilistic. Note that (3) implies (2)and (1);
and (2) implies (1). Thus, a model can have at least one and at most one
of these features -- this is generally not true for the rest of the features.
\item {\bf Parameterization} These features capture whether actions (as well
as predicates) in the model are parameterized by the objects they operate on
and whether those objects in turn are typed or atomic.
\end{itemize}
\subsubsection{Data Features}
\begin{itemize}
\item {\bf Observability} One of the primary features of concern in a
model learning task is how much of the environment is observable.
The fluents describing the state may be 1) fully or 2) partially observable
or 3) not observable at all. Similar to the discussion on model uncertainty,
the ability of a model extraction technique to deal with (2) implies (1);
but (3) implies neither of (1) or (2).
\item {\bf Action Observability} In addition to whether the fluents are
observable, an additional consideration is whether the action labels and
parameters are known and whether there is a seed model, to begin with.
\item {\bf Parameterization} This mirrors the model features by the same names.
Additionally, it also includes the possibility to have action costs.
\item {\bf Noise} Noise in data may manifest either as noise in fluent observations or noise in observed action labels.
\item {\bf Access} to the initial and goal state of a trace.
\item {\bf Trace} Finally trace-level features include whether there
is access to the cost of the plan and to what extent (full or partial) the trace
is observable i.e. whether there are missing actions or not.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Trace Generation}
Plan traces may be sourced from a variety of sources, and the first component (trace generation) serves as both a rich set of techniques to \textit{generate} planning traces as well as a suite of tools to parse and process existing data for model extraction. Here, we describe some of the highlights in functionality for the ``trace generation'' part of the \texttt{MACQ}\xspace ecosystem.
\subsubsection*{CSV Processing}
As a trivial baseline for trace generation, the \texttt{MACQ}\xspace library offers functionality to load and package up simple CSV files. Columns with the values \verb|0| or \verb|1| will be retained (presumed to be boolean fluents), and a single specially designated column for the ``action'' label is required. This does not cover the full set of data format assumptions (e.g., parameterized actions), but is nonetheless a common starting point for many model acquisition tasks.
\subsubsection*{Statespace Sampling}
Given any valid classical planning problem, \texttt{MACQ}\xspace has the ability to generate random statespace trajectories. The PDDL model supplied (either as raw PDDL, pointers to existing files, or a reference to
the \href{https://api.planning.domains/}{api.planning.domains} problem ID \cite{planning.domains}) is parsed by the \textsc{Tarski}\xspace library \cite{tarski}, and actions are selected (uniformly at random) starting in the initial state. The goal is ignored in this case, and \texttt{MACQ}\xspace will generate the predefined number of traces at a given length.
As an added feature, we have also incorporated the methodology adopted by the FastDownward system \cite{helmert2006fast} to perform random state sampling to a depth based on heuristic computation.\footnote{Details: \url{https://github.com/aibasel/downward/blob/main/src/search/task_utils/sampling.cc}}
\subsubsection*{Goal-Oriented Sampling}
Another approach for generating a single trace is to compute a plan for the given domain/problem pair. However, as a generation technique, it is limited to generating just a single trace. \texttt{MACQ}\xspace has expanded on this by allowing for random goal sampling. The approach works as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Use the statespace sampling to compute a sequence of actions/states of length $k$.
\item Sample subsets of fluents of size $g$ from the final state in this sequence such that,
\begin{enumerate}
\item It reflects the same type of fluents in the original goal.
\item It is not easily achieved from the original initial state.
\end{enumerate}
\item Use those sampled subsets as goals for computing a plan.
\end{enumerate}
There are several design decisions to be made: user-selected values for $k$ and $g$ (which may be domain-specific); sampling procedure in step 2 to adhere to 2(a); measuring the quality of a goal candidate in step 2(b); etc. \texttt{MACQ}\xspace currently includes a preference to use fluents corresponding to the goal predicates for step 2(a), and uses a computed plan as a proxy for 2(b) -- the closer the found plan is to length $k$, then the better the goal candidate is.
This technique provides a rich mechanism for data generation given a single seed planning problem. Not only is it useful for exploring model extraction techniques, but we predict it may have wider use in the area of planning and learning.
\subsection{Observation Tokenization}
There is a vast array of model acquisition techniques that exist (some surveys on the space are discussed in Section \ref{sec:introduction}). In an effort to provide a common foundation for a library that encompasses this rich variety, we appeal to the notion of \emph{observation tokens} \cite{2013Geffner}. To unify various approaches for planning with partial observability, \citeauthor{2013Geffner} introduces a notion of an observation token. It succinctly captures what the agent sees and can act upon. At times, this may be an indication of a sensing outcome. At other times, it may capture the partial state information viewable by the agent. We adopt this concept wholeheartedly for use in \texttt{MACQ}\xspace.
\begin{quote}
Every extraction method works on a set of observation token lists of a specific token type.
\end{quote}
\subsubsection{Observation Token Types}
Driven by the variety of extraction methods captured by \texttt{MACQ}\xspace, we have identified several useful forms of observation tokens. These include:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textsc{Identity}: Full state / action information is provided.
\item \textsc{PartialState}: Some fluents are masked as unknown.
\item \textsc{State ID}: No action or fluent information is provided -- same states correspond to the same token.
\item \textsc{NoisyState}: Some fluents may be incorrectly assigned.
\item \textsc{ActionOnly}: No state information is provided.
\end{itemize}
This list, although not exhaustive, provides a sense of the variety embedded within \texttt{MACQ}\xspace. Each extraction method will designate the token types it is capable of processing, and this allows for the automatic discovery of methods applicable to data of a particular form. This means that \texttt{MACQ}\xspace has the ability to automatically suggest the extraction methods that can work with a particular source of trace data.
\subsubsection{Tokenization}
To explore the effectiveness of extraction techniques, every form of observation token has the functionality to ``tokenize'' ground-truth data. For example, \textsc{PartialState} tokens can be created by specifying the likelihood of masking a fluent, along with the set of fluents that are eligible (defaulting to the entire state).
This functionality is essential for the development of new extraction methods, as well as testing pre-existing ones. Combined with the methods for trace generation in \texttt{MACQ}\xspace, this provides a robust means for data generation in the model acquisition space.
\subsubsection{Token Casting}
\label{subsubsec:token-casting}
The extraction techniques are tightly coupled with the type of representations they can handle. An approach for partially observable states will only operate on the appropriate class of \verb|PartiallyObservable| token types for the trace. To extend this, we allow for ``token casting'', which will (if possible) transform tokens of one type to another. Taking our example further, if we have fully observable states and we wanted to test a technique implemented in \texttt{MACQ}\xspace dedicated to partially observable state spaces (because of other functionality it offers), we can ``token cast'' the trace data to partially observable tokens.
Token casting is not always feasible, but the \texttt{MACQ}\xspace framework is set up such that finding these casting paths is naturally available. Every contribution to the space of model acquisition is characterized by the limited scope of the paper/work. Through methods like tokenization and token casting, we open the door to applying techniques in a richer variety of settings, not originally envisioned by the authors.
\subsection{Action Model Extraction}
The bulk of the \texttt{MACQ}\xspace project is dedicated to the extraction of action theories. At the time of writing, we have re-implemented a representative sample of model acquisition techniques spanning several features discussed in Section \ref{subsec:features} to demonstrate the potential of the \texttt{MACQ}\xspace system:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textsc{Observer} \cite{observer}: One of the first and most simple methods for model acquisition, this technique assumes full observability, noise-free data, and deterministic actions. The extracted theories are in STRIPS form, and the methods are mostly set-based.
\item \textsc{ARMS} \cite{arms,armsj}: This line of work handles partially observable states (fluents are hidden) as well as traces (entire states may be missing). There is an assumption that the goal and initial states are known, and while the actions and predicates are parameterized, they are not typed. The technique uses MaxSAT to solve a particular encoding for model extraction.
\item \textsc{SLAF} \cite{slaf}: This method also focuses on partially observable state traces and appeals to a logical encoding to extract the action theories. It is capable of producing one action theory, or several that fit the data. It operates by iteratively calling a SAT solver to find the entailments that lead to a valid theory (i.e., one that adheres to the observations). The input traces are assumed to be noise-free.
\item \textsc{AMDN} \cite{amdn}: This technique relies on MaxSAT to find the most likely action models given potentially disordered and noisy plan traces (here, noise means actions may be out of order). Further, the states may be partially observable and noisy, and the actions occur in parallel.
\end{itemize}
A common element of these approaches is the heavy reliance on SAT or MaxSAT technology. Because of this commonality, several elements of functionality have been included in the \texttt{MACQ}\xspace project for extraction techniques to make use of. These include model building, solving with wrapped binaries, and solution extraction. Specifically, the project relies on the Bauhaus \cite{bauhaus}, python-nnf \cite{pynnf}, and PySAT \cite{pysat} libraries, as well as the kissat \cite{kissat} and RC2 \cite{rc2} SAT / MaxSAT solvers. While the current focus is SAT-based, the full scope of model acquisition techniques are planned for eventual implementation.
Finally, custom and flexible representations for learned actions and fluents are shared across the approaches. This allows for a uniform treatment of what is produced -- regardless of extraction technology -- and further allows us to efficiently generalize the serialization of the action theories. This final step (writing to PDDL) is achieved using the Tarski library \cite{tarski}.
\section{\texttt{MACQ}\xspace in Action}
\label{sec:demo}
Here, we briefly showcase some of the interface for the toolkit, as well as the summary view of the work.
\begin{figure}[tbp!]
\scriptsize
\begin{minted}[mathescape,
linenos,
numbersep=5pt,
gobble=0,
frame=lines,
framesep=2mm]{csharp}
from macq import generate, extract
from macq.trace import PlanningObject, Fluent, TraceList
from macq.observation import PartialObservation
def get_fluent(name: str, objs: list[str]):
objects = [PlanningObject(o.split0[0], o.split()[1])
for o in objs]
return Fluent(name, objects)
traces = TraceList()
generator = generate.pddl.TraceFromGoal(problem_id.1801)
generator.change_goal({
get_fluent(
"communicated_soil_data",
["waypoint waypoint2"]
),
get_fluent(
"communicated_rock_data",
["waypoint waypoint3"]
),
get_fluent(
"communicated_image_data",
["objective objective)", "mode high_res"]
),
})
traces.append(generator.generate_trace())
generator.change_goal({
get_fluent(
"communicated_soil_data",
["waypoint waypoint3"]
),
get_fluent(
"communicated_rock_data",
["waypoint waypoint2"]
),
get_fluent(
"communicated_image_data",
["objective objective)", "mode high_res"]
),
})
traces.append(generator.generate_trace())
observations = traces.tokenize(
PartialObservation,
percent_missing = 0.60
)
model = extract.Extract(
observations,
extract.modes.ARMS,
upper_bound = 2,
min_support = 2,
action_weight = 110,
info_weight = 100,
threshold = 0.6,
info3_default = 30,
plan_default = 30,
)
print(model.details())
\end{minted}
\caption{\texttt{MACQ}\xspace usage}
\label{fig:arm-example}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!th]
\scriptsize
\begin{verbatim}
Actions:
(communicate_soil_data waypoint
lander
rover
waypoint):
precond:
at rover waypoint
add:
at_rock_sample waypoint
have_rock_analysis rover waypoint
communicated_soil_data waypoint
channel_free lander
at_soil_sample waypoint
delete:
(communicate_image_data lander
waypoint
rover
objective
mode
waypoint):
precond:
calibrated camera rover
communicated_rock_data waypoint
at_rock_sample waypoint
have_soil_analysis rover waypoint
channel_free lander
at rover waypoint
add:
have_image rover objective mode
calibrated camera rover
communicated_image_data objective mode
delete:
calibrated camera rover
(drop store rover):
precond:
have_image rover objective mode
have_soil_analysis rover waypoint
available rover
calibrated camera rover
at rover waypoint
add:
have_image rover objective mode
calibrated camera rover
delete:
...
\end{verbatim}
\caption{Sample of the output from the ARMS extraction.}
\label{fig:arm-example-output}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Library Usage}
Corresponding to the three main components detailed in Section \ref{sec:methodology} -- trace generation, observation tokenization, and model extraction -- the \texttt{MACQ}\xspace library offers a range of functionality for each. Usage of \texttt{MACQ}\xspace also follows this natural order of first generating or loading traces, then optionally applying tokenization, and then doing the model extraction.
Figure \ref{fig:arm-example} shows the code required to (1) generate traces for a problem found in the online repository at \url{api.planning.domains}, (2) tokenize by removing 60\% of the fluents seen, and (3) apply the ARMS algorithm to extract potential actions. A portion of the output is shown in Figure \ref{fig:arm-example-output}.
As long as the type of tokens in a trace allows for it\footnote{See the Section on ``Token Casting'' for details on how traces can be transformed to different types.}, various extraction techniques can be substituted and compared. Similarly, various data sources (from generative to pre-existing) can be used to seed the entire approach.
The \texttt{MACQ}\xspace library was built from the ground up to be (1) extensible and generalizable to all of the common model acquisition techniques; (2) serve as a rich resource for practitioners looking to apply model acquisition; and (3) provide a foundation for new research in the area of model acquisition.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig/treemap.png}
\caption{\texttt{MACQ}\xspace treemap view.}
\label{fig:treemap}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig/hierarchy.png}
\caption{\texttt{MACQ}\xspace hierarchical view.}
\label{fig:hierarchy}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Visual Interface}
\label{subsec:viz}
The \texttt{MACQ}\xspace library also comes with a visual interface
for users to explore the available papers on the topic
through various lenses.
The primary view provides a taxonomic account
of the various topics identified in the field and how
papers are classified along those topics -- for us,
these topics correspond to the features discussed
in Section \ref{subsec:features}.
This is shown in Figures \ref{fig:treemap} and \ref{fig:hierarchy}.
The next view displays the papers in \texttt{MACQ}\xspace's knowledge
in the latent space of features.
This document embedding is computed according to
the approach in \cite{specter2020cohan},
inspired by a similar application in \cite{RushStrobelt2020}.
In this view, the user can select subsets of papers in
feature space, filter by features by clicking on the tags
and even simulate the evolution of the feature space
over time. Figure \ref{fig:affinity} provides an illustration
of the same.
Finally, from the PDF documents of the papers,
we also automatically extract a citation network
to illustrate the most influential hubs in the world of \texttt{MACQ}\xspace.
This is shown in Figure \ref{fig:network}.
As in the case of the similarity view, here too the user
can modify the network view using the feature space
as well as simulate how the network evolves over time.
\begin{figure}[tbp!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig/affinity.png}
\caption{Exploring papers written by Hankz Hankui Zhuo,
a prominent author in the field of model acquisition, in feature space.
Top right inset illustrates simulation of his over time while feature tags
(sized and colourized by frequency) summarize salient topics in his papers.}
\label{fig:affinity}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbp!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig/network.png}
\caption{Exploring the influence network in \texttt{MACQ}\xspace -- this particular
cluster being hovered over belongs to \cite{slaf}, one of the seminal papers
in the field.}
\label{fig:network}
\end{figure}
\section{Research Recommendations}
\label{sec:research-rec}
As a research field matures, our understanding of the gaps in our knowledge dwindles. Our efforts include not only a taxonomy of existing techniques for model acquisition (and an implementation of some of the most popular ones) but also a mechanism for exploring the research space as well. For every work documented by the \texttt{MACQ}\xspace project, we have a feature vector that characterizes the technique. These are detailed above in Section \ref{subsec:features}. Further, we have a growing set of \textit{semantic constraints} over this taxonomy.
For example, ``if a technique can operate on partially observable traces, it must be able to work on fully observable traces'' and ``every technique must have full, partial, or no observability''. Specifying these constraints has one immediate benefit: it allows us to systematically verify the documented features of the existing approaches. This has led to several ``bug fixes'' of the data collected already. However, the true power lies in the potential for viewing the research field both holistically and logically.
Alongside \texttt{MACQ}\xspace, and in collaboration with the visualization project used to exhibit the research area, we have developed a logical theory that corresponds to the \textit{valid space of research} according to the features detailed in Section \ref{subsec:features} and manually specified constraints over them. All of the model acquisition techniques are validated but further encoded as constraints themselves (their features being converted to a conjunction of Boolean variables or their negation).
\begin{figure*}[!th]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig/recommendation.png}
\caption{Imagining future KEPS papers on the \texttt{MACQ}\xspace visual interface.}
\label{fig:recommendation}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Logical Encoding of Research Potential}
Given the conjunction of constraints on the features, and the negation of the disjunction on the pre-existing literature (thus ruling out existing feature profiles), we have a logical theory where a satisfying assignment corresponds to a valid selection of features/assumptions about a model acquisition technique, and further is one that has not yet been explored in the known literature. Further preferences on specific features (e.g., wanting to only handle settings without parameters) can be included as unit clauses to further constrain the space of satisfying research configurations.
While this is a seemingly simple concept, there is tremendous potential in taking this viewpoint. We have implemented the above encoding and found that modern SAT solvers and knowledge compilers are readily capable of handling the theory. We further developed a novel research recommendation procedure for the space of model acquisition techniques. Making use of a knowledge compiler and repeated logical conditioning, the procedure is as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Encode the constraints and existing techniques into a logical theory $T$.
\item Define a full set of soft preferences $P$ over the features that stipulate ``simple'' or ``nominal'' settings (e.g., fully observable over partially observable).
\item Run a full knowledge compilation on $T$, to get a d-DNNF representing all possible solutions $S$.
\item Iterate over $p \in P$, and if $p$ is consistent with $S$, enforce $p$ by setting $S = S \wedge p$.
\end{enumerate}
At the end of this procedure, we will have a single assignment to the full set of features that (1) adheres to a maximal number of preferences; and (2) differs from every other existing approach. Different orders for step 2 will potentially result in different final outcomes, and we will see one such example later on in this paper.
Finally, with a candidate area of unexplored research in hand, we can perform a matching algorithm to find the closest existing approaches to the one being proposed. Our system limits this to 3 and displays the core differences between the existing work and the newly proposed one. An example of this functionality is also provided below.
\subsection{Unwritten Paper Recommendations}
Figure \ref{fig:recommendation} illustrates this process
in action on the \texttt{MACQ}\xspace visual interface, introduced
in Section \ref{subsec:viz}.
The visualization unfolds in three sections:
\begin{itemize}
\item[-] The first part of the exposition describes the features of this newly imagined paper in terms of its features. The tag hierarchy is displayed.
\item[-] The hypothetical paper is now visualized in feature space: this view
shows where it belongs when all the papers known to \texttt{MACQ}\xspace are projected
onto a latent space only\footnote{This view is slightly different from
the similarity view described Section \ref{subsec:viz}. There,
a document includes these features but also all the rest of the
paper metadata in terms of authors, title, abstract, venue, and so on.} consisting of the features from Section \ref{subsec:features}.
\item[-] Finally, and perhaps most interestingly, the above visual leads into
neighbouring (in feature space) papers that the user can tap into as the state of the art closest to this new imagined paper. In addition to the metadata of
the neighbouring papers, \texttt{MACQ}\xspace surfaces the features of those neighbours that
need to change (either relaxed or extended) in order to make a hop from
a known relevant paper to this non-existent paper.
\end{itemize}
Currently, we are working on making this interface more interactive
so the user can query the system with a partial selection of
papers and features of interest; and iteratively make hops to the
next imagined paper. With this feature implemented, we intend to do pilot
studies on how quickly we can onboard new students into a field using
this exposition and exploration technique over survey data.
\section{Discussion}
\section{Open Research Questions}
\label{sec:open-questions}
Given the holistic analysis of the field that \texttt{MACQ}\xspace offers, we have identified several promising areas for further research. Here, we highlight just a few of them.
\subsection{Operationalizing \texttt{MACQ}\xspace}
\label{subsec:git}
Most of the existing approaches to model learning
deal with a one-time model learning task while not taking into
account the operational considerations of deploying a system
with that model.
In reality, models are deployed and maintained over time.
As such, such models drift \cite{bryce2016maintaining} and thus
systems require a certain level of hand-holding in terms of
how to deal with such evolution of models they are deployed with.
For learning systems, this is increasingly becoming a trend \cite{gitlab},
with approaches that try to reconcile new models with past
decisions \cite{bansal2019case} thereby offering a certain level
of consistency. We envisage similar processes to dovetail
with the core \texttt{MACQ}\xspace functionality when systems are deployed on top
of model learning tools in their portfolio.
\subsection{XAIP Crossover}
\label{subsec:xaip}
Interestingly, most of the models learned from data are
underdetermined -- i.e. there are many equivalent models that
can ``explain'' a set of observed circumstances.
This also holds for iterative or ``online'' approaches with
a domain writer in the loop.
In fact, some approaches e.g. \cite{yang2007learning} specifically
looked at pattern mining tools to bias the learning approaches towards
more likely models.
Even so, the decisions made by the model learning algorithm remain rather opaque
and it may well be the case that some models rejected by it could have made
more sense when presented to the domain writer.
We are currently exploring the possible adoption of model-space reasoning
techniques from the emerging field of explainable AI planning or XAIP
\cite{chakraborti-ijcai-2020} to engage in a more transparent model
learning interface where the domain writer can be empowered to query
and explore the trade-offs made among the equivalence class of
models that satisfy a set of observed behaviours.
\subsection{Will AI write the papers of the future?}
\label{subsec:yolanda}
In her presidential address \cite{gil2022will} at AAAI 2020,
Yolanda Gil, one of the early pioneers \cite{carbonell1990learning, gil1994learning}
in the field of model learning for automated planning,
asked: {\em ``Will AI write scientific papers in the future?''}.
The question was posed to facilitate
an exploration of the influence that AI algorithms,
from process management to knowledge discovery, increasingly
have on our scientific endeavours.
As we demonstrated in Section \ref{subsec:viz},
the set of exploratory features made available by \texttt{MACQ}\xspace also belongs to this
emerging theme of collaboration between AI and the scientist: not to synthesize the papers directly, but rather to provide the automated insights necessary for researchers to know where next to look.
To the extent that that question applies to the KEPS community,
\texttt{MACQ}\xspace is most certainly going
to (help) write the papers of the future!
\section{Example \texttt{MACQ}\xspace Usage}
|
\section{Introduction}
The recently discovered heavy-fermion superconductor UTe$_{2}$ is a promising candidate for the realization of chiral spin-triplet superconductivity with equal-spin pairing. Support for this picture comes from its close proximity to magnetic order, its unusually large critical magnetic field (far exceeding the Pauli limit for a weakly coupled BCS superconductor), as well as the observation of only a small change in the Knight shift below its superconducting transition temperature $T_{\mathrm{c}} \approx 1.6$~K~\cite{ran_nearly_2019, ran_extreme_2019, knafo_magnetic-field-induced_2019, knebel_field-reentrant_2019, nakamine_superconducting_2019, jiao_stm_2020, aoki_unconventional_2022}.
UTe$_{2}$ crystallizes in a body-centered orthorhombic structure ($Immm$)~\cite{ran_nearly_2019}. Unlike closely related orthorhombic ($Pnma$) URhGe and UCoGe, for which superconductivity emerges within the ferromagnetically ordered state \cite{aoki_unconventional_2022}, no magnetic order has been observed in UTe$_{2}$ down to $25$~mK~\cite{sundar_coexistence_2019, paulsen_anomalous_2021}. While strong magnetic fluctuations are believed to play a major role in facilitating superconductivity in UTe$_{2}$ \cite{aoki_unconventional_2022}, the nature of those is still a matter of contention. Indeed, whilst some experiments give evidence for ferromagnetic fluctuations~\cite{ran_nearly_2019}, recent neutron scattering data show excitations at an antiferromagnetic wave-vector, indicating dominant antiferromagnetic fluctuation driven by RKKY interactions between the 4$f$ moments~\cite{duan_incommensurate_2020}. Studies under hydrostatic pressure also support the presence of antiferromagnetic fluctuations \cite{thomas_evidence_2020, aoki_multiple_2021}.
When a magnetic field is applied along the magnetically hard $b$ axis, a reinforcement of superconductivity is observed above $15$~T, which is extended up to $\mu_0 H_{\mathrm{m}} \approx 35$~T. At the latter field, a first-order metamagnetic transition into a field-polarized paramagnetic phase occurs below 8~K, leading to a jump of $0.5\,\mu_{\mathrm{B}}$ in the magnetization and the termination of the superconducting state~\cite{ran_extreme_2019, knebel_field-reentrant_2019, miyake_metamagnetic_2019}. A smaller anomaly around $6.5\,\mathrm{T}$ was also reported in magnetization data for $H\parallel a$~\cite{miyake_metamagnetic_2019}. As is the case in many heavy-fermion superconductors~\cite{aoki_unconventional_2019}, the similar energy scales of the metamagnetic transition ($35\,\mathrm{T}$) and the susceptibility maximum at around $40$~K~\cite{miyake_metamagnetic_2019, knafo_magnetic-field-induced_2019} suggest a single mechanism behind both phenomena. It is likely that a Fermi-surface reconstruction as well as a volume/valence change accompanies the metamagnetic transition~\cite{miyake_magnetovolume_2022}; thermopower and Hall data show a change of the majority charge and heat carriers from electrons to holes and there is a step-like increase in the resistivity~\cite{knafo_magnetic-field-induced_2019}. Based on the Hall data, the estimated carrier density for $H> H_{\mathrm{m}}$ is around a factor of six lower than that for $H < H_{\rm m}$~\cite{niu_evidence_2020}.
On rotating the magnetic field from $b$ towards $c$, the metamagnetic transition shifts upwards. Interestingly, when the field lies in a narrow angular range around the $[011]$ direction ({\it i.e.,} $\approx 23.7^{\circ}$ away from the $b$ axis towards the $c$ axis), transport measurements evidence that superconductivity reemerges within the field polarized paramagnetic phase above $H_{\rm m}$. It is not clear whether or not this proposed high-field superconducting phase is suppressed by magnetic fields $>60\,\mathrm{T}$~\cite{ran_extreme_2019, knafo_comparison_2021, aoki_unconventional_2022}. Scenarios involving ferromagnetic fluctuations~\cite{ran_extreme_2019} and dimensionality reduction~\cite{lebed_restoration_1998, lebed_restoration_2020} have been invoked to explain the high-field superconducting phase. However, the relevance of the latter mechanism is presently unclear; though the unit cell of UTe$_2$ is elongated along the $c$ direction, and ARPES data suggest the presence of quasi-one-dimensional Fermi-surface sheets due to Te bands~\cite{miao_low_energy_2020}, the electrical transport is rather isotropic and calculations produce a range of possible Fermi surfaces, some of which are rather three dimensional~\cite{aoki_unconventional_2022}.
To date, one specific heat study indicates a second superconducting phase establishing the reinforcement of the critical field along the $b$ axis \cite{rosuel_arxiv_2022}, evidence for the high-field superconducting phase have been detected using transport techniques; confirmation by bulk thermodynamic measurements is still lacking~\cite{ran_extreme_2019, aoki_unconventional_2022}. Thus far, thermodynamic measurements have mainly focused on temperatures above $T_{\rm c}$ and fields along the $b$ axis; they revealed a large jump in the sample temperature and an enhancement of the effective mass at $H = H_{\mathrm{m}}$\cite{imajo_thermodynamic_2019, miyake_enhancement_2021, miyake_magnetovolume_2022}. Magnetocaloric effect (MCE) measurements~\cite{jaime_high_2002, silhanek_irreversible_2006} are eminently applicable in this context, as they provide an unambiguous thermodynamic detection of phase transitions and can be conducted in the pulsed magnetic fields required to observe the high-field superconducting phase~\cite{ran_extreme_2019}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{Figure1.jpg}
\caption{(a) Low temperature phase diagram of UTe$_{2}$ as a function of the applied magnetic field $H$ and angle $\theta$, where $\theta = 0^{\circ}$ corresponds to $H\parallel b$ and $\theta = 90^{\circ}$ to $H\parallel c$. Blue squares mark the transition from the low field superconducting ground state ($\mathrm{SC_{PM}}$) to the paramagnetic state or the \textit{re-entrant} superconducting state ($\mathrm{SC_{RE}}$) at $\theta \approx 0^{\circ}$. The black circles and open triangles denote the first order metamagnetic transition into the field polarized paramagnetic state (FP). Critical fields were obtained from PDO (black circles) and torque $\tau_{\mathrm{up/dn}}$ measurements (black open triangles, for up- and down-sweep) in this work. The green triangles encircle the proposed high-field superconducting phase ($\mathrm{SC_{FP}}$) within in the field polarized paramagnetic phase; points were taken from Ran \textit{et al.} \cite{ran_extreme_2019}; corresponding to PDO measurements at $0.5\,\mathrm{K}$. (b) Specific heat vs. temperature for a UTe$_{2}$ single crystal synthesized in the same batch as the ones used for MCE measurements. (c) Schematic of the sample arrangements for simultaneous magnetocaloric effect and PDO measurements in pulsed fields. (d) Magnetic field $H$ (black line) and $\mathrm{d}H/\mathrm{d}t$ (red line) as a function of time. The data represents a $55\,\mathrm{T}$ pulse in the NHMFL mid-pulse magnet that was used for the magnetocaloric measurements.}
\label{fig:figure1}
\end{figure}
Here we present a field-orientation-dependent study of the superconducting phases of UTe$_2$ using the MCE in fields up to $55\,\mathrm{T}$. Simultaneous transport/ susceptibility measurements are carried out using a proximity detector oscillator (PDO)~\cite{altarawneh_proximity_2009, ghannadzadeh_measurement_2011} to ensure comparability with earlier published pulsed field results on UTe$_{2}$~\cite{ran_extreme_2019, aoki_unconventional_2022, aoki_unconventional_2022}.
\section{Experimental Details}
Single crystals of UTe$_2$ are grown using chemical vapor transport; the conditions are the same as for sample s4 described in Ref. \cite{rosa_single-component_2021}, where further details can be found. To provide initial characterization prior to the pulsed-field experiments, heat-capacity measurements are performed using a commercial calorimeter that utilizes a quasi-adiabatic thermal relaxation technique. In addition, the electrical resistivity $\rho$ is characterized using a standard four-probe configuration with an AC resistance bridge. Resistivity (not shown) and heat-capacity measurements on crystals from this batch show a single sharp transition around $1.9\,\mathrm{K}$ [Fig. \ref{fig:figure1}(b)].
Fig.~\ref{fig:figure1}(c) shows a schematic drawing of the sample environment for the pulsed-field experiments. The pancake coil for the PDO measurements (10 turns of insulated 50-gauge copper wire) is sandwiched between a G10 holder and the single-crystal UTe$_2$ sample. The sample was coated with a thin film of GE varnish to avoid electrical contact with the layers above. The MCE thermometer is an approximately $100\,\mathrm{nm}$ thick semiconducting AuGe film ($16\,\mathrm{at}\%$ Au) deposited directly on the varnish-coated sample to ensure good thermal coupling between sample and film. To improve the contact resistance, Au pads are deposited on the AuGe film. The AuGe film is calibrated against a commercial Cernox sensor; film resistances range from $6\,\Omega$ at room temperature to $250\,\Omega$ at $0.6\,\mathrm{K}$. The sample is glued to the holder with STYCAST epoxy to prevent any sample movement due to the large magnetic torque when the field is aligned close to the $b$ axis.
The simultaneous PDO measurements employ equipment similar to that described in Refs.~\cite{altarawneh_proximity_2009, ghannadzadeh_measurement_2011,Xiang2021,PCHo,SMYLIE,NIKOLO}; the technique is well established for mapping the irreversibility and upper critical fields of superconductors in pulsed magnetic fields~\cite{SMYLIE,NIKOLO}.
The magnetocaloric and PDO experiments were performed in the NHMFL's mid-pulse magnet, which provides a peak magnetic field of $55\,\mathrm{T}$ with a rise time of approximately $30\,\mathrm{ms}$ and a total pulse duration of $500\,\mathrm{ms}$. A typical field pulse and its derivative is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:figure1}(d). The sample holder was fixed to the rotating platform of a cryogenic goniometer~\cite{goniometer} placed within a simple $^3$He cryostat. The sample was immersed in liquid ${}^{3}\mathrm{He}$ at a bath temperature of $0.6\pm0.1$~K during the field pulses.
Additionally we conducted Piezo torque magnetometry measurements in pulsed magnetic fields up to $75\,\mathrm{T}$ by using Membrane-type Surface-stress Sensors at the NHMFL at LANL
with a high-frequency ($\approx 300\,\mathrm{kHz}$) AC excitation current of $\approx 500 \,\mu\mathrm{A}$. The angular dependent torque measurements were performed at $0.7\,\mathrm{K}$ with the sample immersed in liquid ${}^{3}$He. In the experiments, we used a balanced Wheatstone bridge between the piezoresistive pathways. Crystals were mounted with the $b$ axis perpendicular to the cantilever plane.
\section{Experimental Results}
Fig.~\ref{fig:figure1}(a) shows the phase diagram of UTe$_{2}$ as a function of magnetic field and field orientation; the angle $\theta$ describes the field rotating from parallel to the crystallographic $b$ axis ($\theta = 0^{\circ}$) towards the $c$ axis ($\theta = 90^{\circ}$). The phase diagram is based on prior magnetization, electric and thermal transport measurements~\cite{ran_nearly_2019, ran_extreme_2019, knafo_magnetic-field-induced_2019, knebel_field-reentrant_2019, knafo_comparison_2021, aoki_unconventional_2022}; the points surrounding the high-field superconducting phase $\mathrm{SC_{FP}}$ were taken from Ran \textit{et al.}~\cite{ran_extreme_2019}. Despite sample temperature $T$ excursions of up to $\approx 1.0$~K (described in detail below), far from equilibrium with the $^3$He bath temperature ($\approx 0.6$~K), the field positions of both the high-field metamagnetic and low-field transition out of the SC$_{\rm PM}$ phase obtained from our PDO and MCE measurements are in good agreement with prior data.
In the case of the metamagnetic transition this is unsurprising, as $H_{\rm m}$ is virtually temperature independent for $T<4$~K~\cite{aoki_unconventional_2022}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{Figure2.jpg}
\caption{(a) Sample temperature $T$ versus field data for $H\parallel b$ ($\theta = 0$). Data for the up-sweep (rising field) portion of the field pulse are shown in black and those for the down-sweep (falling field) are in red. The background color indicates the superconducting and magnetic phases displayed in Fig. \ref{fig:figure1}(a). Note that the critical fields for the low field superconducting state (arrows) are marked for the down-sweep curves. (b) $T$ versus $H$ data for $\theta=33^\circ$. (c, d) PDO data, shown as frequency $f$ versus field, recorded simultaneously with the thermal measurements shown in (a, b). The color scheme is the same as in (a, b).}
\label{fig:figure2}
\end{figure}
Examples of sample temperature $T$ versus field curves for $H\parallel b$ ($\theta = 0$) and $\theta = 33^{\circ}$ are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:figure2}(a, b) alongside data from simultaneous PDO measurements (c, d). Referring to the phase diagram [Fig.~\ref{fig:figure1}(a)], at sub-Kelvin temperatures and $\theta =0$, the up-sweep of a 55~T field pulse first traverses the low-field SC$_{\rm PM}$ phase, then the so-called re-entrant superconducting phase (SC$_{\rm RE}$) and the metamagnetic transition at $H_{\rm m}$ before finally entering the field-polarized (FP) (non-superconducting) phase. By contrast, at $\theta =33^\circ$, a similar pulse goes through the SC$_{\rm PM}$ phase, a metallic (non-superconducting) phase and the metamagnetic transition (shifted to higher field), where it enters the SC$_{\rm FP}$ phase. As we will now see, these different paths across the phase diagram result in different thermal responses.
Turning first to the MCE data at $\theta = 0$ [Fig.~\ref{fig:figure2}(a)], as $H$ initially rises (black curve) there is a steep increase in $T$ from the $^3$He bath temperature ($\approx 0.6$~K) to $\approx 1.1$~K. This heating is attributable to an avalanche-like, dissipative vortex movement in the superconducting SC$_{\rm PM}$ phase, a phenomenon frequently seen in pulsed-field measurements of more conventional superconductors ({\it e.g.}, Ref.~\cite{SMYLIE}). Thereafter, $T$ relaxes towards the bath temperature until a sharp step upwards denotes the first-order phase transition at $H_{\rm m}$. Once in the FP state, $T$ again relaxes for the rest of the up-sweep and during the start of the down-sweep (red curve). However, at $H_{\rm m}$ on the down-sweep there is another sharp increase in $T$, followed by further relaxation down to around 15~T; below $\approx 13\,\mathrm{T}$ there is a gentle rise in $T$, again likely attributable to dissipative vortex motion in the SC$_{\rm PM}$ phase. Note that the down-sweep of $H$ is much slower than the up-sweep, allowing more time for heat generated by vortex motion to dissipate~\cite{SMYLIE}.
The simultaneous PDO data at $\theta =0$ [Fig.~\ref{fig:figure2}(c)] reflect these $T$ changes. As the field increases (black curve) there is a sharp fall in $f$ at about 15~T, indicating the SC$_{\rm PM}$ to SC$_{\rm RE}$ transition (the corresponding $T$ versus $H$ curve in (a) flattens at about the same field). The sample exits the SC$_{\rm RE}$ phase at $\mu_{0} H_{\mathrm{m}}=35\,\mathrm{T}$; once in the non-superconducting FP phase, shifts $\Delta f$ in the PDO frequency are dominated by changes in the sample resistivity $\Delta \rho$, with an approximate proportionality $\Delta f \propto -\Delta \rho$~\cite{ran_extreme_2019, altarawneh_proximity_2009,ghannadzadeh_measurement_2011}. At $H_{\rm m}$, $\rho$ is known to exhibit a sharp increase~\cite{ran_extreme_2019}, leading to a downward step in $f$. Above $H_{\rm m}$, the normal-state resistivity of UTe$_2$ is rather $T-$independent in the range $0.6-2$~K~\cite{ran_extreme_2019}; hence, despite the varying $T$ seen in the MCE data, the PDO frequency on the down-sweep of the field (red curve) overlies the up-sweep data. Below $H_{\rm m}$, slight hysteresis between down-sweep (red) and up-sweep PDO data marks the presence of the SC$_{\rm RE}$ phase before a step upwards (marked by an arrow) shows the transition back to the SC$_{\rm PM}$ phase; as $T$ is lower on the down-sweep [Fig.~\ref{fig:figure2}(a)], this latter feature occurs at a slightly higher field than the corresponding feature in the up-sweep.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{Figure3.jpg}
\caption{(a) PDO frequency vs. magnetic field for different angles $\theta$ displayed on the left of the each curve. The field up- and down-sweeps are shown as black and red curves respectively. (b) Derivative of the down-sweep curves shown in (a). The inset shows a low-field feature indicating the transition between the SC$_{\rm PM}$ and SC$_{\rm RE}$ superconducting states close to $\theta = 0$. Curves in (a) and (b) are shifted vertically by an offset $\Delta$ for clarity.}
\label{fig:figure3}
\end{figure}
Below about 15~T, the MCE and PDO data for $\theta = 33^{\circ}$ [Fig.~\ref{fig:figure2}(b,d)], behave in a similar way to their counterparts at $\theta = 0$. However the lack of the SC$_{\rm RE}$ phase at $\theta =33^\circ$ means that $T$, rather than flattening, continues to fall until $H_{\rm m}$ is reached. Correspondingly, the PDO signal above 15~T at $\theta = 33^\circ$ decreases roughly linearly, reflecting the increasing normal-state magnetoresistance, rather than flattening out as it did at $\theta = 0$ due to the presence of the SC$_{\rm RE}$ phase. However, the biggest contrast for $\theta = 33^\circ$ compared to $\theta = 0$ occurs on crossing $H_{\rm m}$, where the sample enters the SC$_{\rm FP}$ superconducting phase; a significantly weaker, almost reversible, cooling effect is observed. During the down-sweep, the $T$ change at $H_{\mathrm{m}}$ is now negative - displaying an overall cooling of the sample when exiting the SC$_{\rm FP}$ state [Fig.~\ref{fig:figure2}(b)]. (The full angular dependence of the MCE at $H_{\mathrm{m}}$ is discussed below). Continuing along the down-sweep curves, the $33^\circ$ PDO data show an increase in $f$ due to the normal-to-SC$_{\rm PM}$ transition, accompanied by slight heating due to vortex motion revealed by the MCE data.
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\includegraphics{Figure4.jpg}
\caption{Contour plot of the sample temperature $T$ as a function of the angle $\theta$ for the up-sweep (a) and down-sweep (b) of the magnetic field. The circles indicate the superconducting/ metamagnetic phase transitions discussed in the text, green triangles enveloping the high-field superconducting state were taken from Ran \textit{et al.}~\cite{ran_extreme_2019}. The initial temperature before the field pulse is approximately $T_{0} = (0.6\pm 0.1)\,\mathrm{K}$, variations in $T_{0}$ cause vertical stripes to appear in both contour plots.}
\label{fig:figure4}
\end{figure*}
Having described the signatures of the various phase boundaries in the PDO and MCE data, we now turn to
Fig.~\ref{fig:figure3}(a), which shows PDO frequencies for 15 angles in the range $0\leq \theta \leq 48^\circ$; as before, black curves signify rising $H$ and red curves falling $H$. Note that the field at which the drop in $f$ associated with the exit from the SC$_{\rm PM}$ phase (either into the SC$_{\rm RE}$ phase $(\theta \leq 10^\circ)$ or normal state $(\theta > 10^\circ)$ occurs at lower fields on the field up-sweep due to the heating caused by dissipative vortex motion (see below); the sample is much closer to the bath temperature on the down-sweep, so that the corresponding step is at higher fields~\cite{SMYLIE}.
Corresponding derivatives $(1/\mu_0)(\mathrm{d} f/\mathrm{d}H)$ of the down-sweep data are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:figure3}(b). For the three lowest $\theta$ values $(0, 5^\circ, 10^\circ)$ there is only a weak, broad feature between 15 and 20~T, reflecting that the transition is between two superconducting phases (SC$_{\rm PM}$ and SC$_{\rm RE}$). For $\theta> 10^\circ$, the weak feature is replaced by a well-defined minimum, as it now corresponds to a superconductor (SC$_{\rm PM}$)-to-normal transition.
The MCE measurements are summarized in Fig.~\ref{fig:figure4}; the increase in $T$ in the SC$_{\rm FP}$ phase around $\theta = 33^{\circ}$ clearly stands out, especially in the down-sweep data. This provides thermodynamic evidence that the SC$_{\rm FP}$ state observed in UTe$_{2}$ is indeed a bulk phase. As mentioned above, due to the large heating effect caused by vortex motion at the beginning of the magnet pulse, no clear phase boundary of the low field superconducting phase can be identified in the up-sweep MCE data. Based on the PDO data (Fig. \ref{fig:figure3}), the SC$_{\rm PM}$ phase is suppressed at a field of a few Tesla on the up-sweep. During the down-sweep, the phase boundary into the SC$_{\rm PM}$ phase coincides with the onset of gentle sample heating below $\approx 15\,\mathrm{T}$ and the corresponding upward step in the PDO data (Fig. \ref{fig:figure3}).
At the close of this section, we again emphasize that though the corresponding features in the PDO and MCE data are weak, there are distinct indications of the boundary between the SC$_{\rm PM}$and SC$_{\rm RE}$ phases. This seems to confirm that though both states are superconducting, they are distinct phases with subtly different properties~\cite{aoki_unconventional_2022}.
\section{Discussion}
Before treating the thermodynamics of the onset of the high-field SC$_{\rm FP}$ state in more detail, it is worth considering whether there is an alternative explanation for the previous (non-thermodynamic) data used to identify the apparent superconductivity of this phase.
One possibility might be a low (but nonzero) resistivity metallic phase caused by a field-induced Fermi-surface reconstruction at $H_{\rm m}$ that occurs over a restricted range of field orientations. However, existing experimental data provide a number of objections to such an interpretation.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
As mentioned in the Introduction, Hall-effect and thermopower measurements~\cite{knafo_magnetic-field-induced_2019}for $H \parallel b$ indicate a very significant {\it decrease} in the charge-carrier density as one crosses $H_{\rm m}$ into the FP (normal) state, leading to a strong {\it increase} in the resistivity~\cite{knafo_magnetic-field-induced_2019,ran_extreme_2019}.
\item
To counter the previous point, one might argue that a significantly different change in electrical properties ({\it i.e.}, a large {\it increase} in carrier density and/or a decrease in resistivity) occurs at $H_{\rm m}$, but only over a special, restricted range of $\theta$. In such a case, one would expect that the metamagnetic transition would also change in character for these angles. However, torque magnetometry data (Fig. \ref{fig:figure6}) carried out over a wide range of field orientations show that the position and size of the magnetization jump at $H_{\rm m}$ vary smoothly and monotonically with $\theta$.
\item
An increase in the charge-carrier density at $H_{\rm m}$ would lead to cooling (see \cite{jaime_closing_2000, jaime_frontiers_2009} for Ce$_3$Bi$_4$Pt$_3$ and \cite{jaime_high_2002} for URu$_2$Si$_2$) in the MCE during the field up-sweep and heating in the down-sweep, which is incompatible with the data in this paper.
\item
The PDO data used to detect the SC$_{\rm FP}$ state in Ref.~\cite{ran_extreme_2019} (and those in this paper) behave in a qualitatively similar manner to PDO measurements on more conventional superconductors such as pnictides~\cite{SMYLIE,NIKOLO} and cuprates~\cite{CdC}, especially in the hysteresis observed between up-sweeps and down-sweeps of the field. By contrast, PDO data measured in systems where there is a large field-induced increase in carrier density but no superconductivity~\cite{Xiang2021,PCHo} behave in a very different way.
\item
The typical energy scales associated with the transition at $H_{\rm m}$ are $\sim 40~$K (see {\it Introduction} above).
Any phenomenon associated with increased (normal-state) conductivity due to a Fermi-surface change at $H_{\rm m}$ would be expected to persist (or slowly die away) over a temperature range similar to this. By contrast, the upper temperature limit of the SC$_{\rm FP}$ phase is about 1.9~K~\cite{ran_extreme_2019}, very similar to the critical temperatures of the SC$_{\rm PM}$ and SC$_{\rm RE}$ superconducting phases~\cite{aoki_unconventional_2022}, suggesting a common or closely related origin.
\end{enumerate}
In view of the above points, the following discussion of the thermodynamics occurring at and around $H_{\mathrm{m}}$ assumes that the SC$_{\rm FP}$ phase is superconducting.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics{Figure5.jpg}
\caption{(a) Temperature vs. time during the up-sweep of the magnetic field pulse for $H\parallel b$. The time frame shows the metamagnetic transition and the subsequent relaxation back to the bath temperature, which is approximated by an exponential decay (red line). (b) Temperature change $\Delta T_{\mathrm{FP}}(\theta)$ at the metamagnetic transition during the up-sweep (black triangles) and down-sweep (red circles) of the magnetic field. (c, d) Reversible and irreversible component of $\Delta T_{\mathrm{FP}}$ as a function of the angle $\theta$ (left axes). The corresponding entropy changes are shown on the right axes of each figure.}
\label{fig:figure5}
\end{figure}
As shown in a previous study~\cite{imajo_thermodynamic_2019} for $H \parallel b$, the metamagnetic transition at $H_{\rm m}$ is first order at low temperatures and accompanied by hysteresis losses plus a significant release of latent heat. In the current, field-orientation-dependent study, the temperature change $\Delta T_{\mathrm{FP}}$ observed at $H_{\rm m}$ can be described as follows (see Fig.~\ref{fig:figure5}). (i)~During the up-sweep, $\Delta T_{\mathrm{FP}}$ is positive and decreases with increasing $\theta$ (dashed line in Fig.~\ref{fig:figure5}(b)) once the transition is between two normal conducting states ({\it i.e.}, once we are clear of the region $\theta \leq 10^\circ$ over which the SC$_{\rm RE}$ phase is present). (ii)~$\Delta T_{\mathrm{FP}}$ increases for $\theta$ between $25^{\circ}$ and $35^{\circ}$ as the sample transitions into the SC$_{\rm FP}$ state. (iii)~$\Delta T_{\mathrm{FP}}$ decreases with $\theta$ once again when the SC$_{\rm FP}$ state is suppressed at larger $\theta$. During the down-sweep of the field, $\Delta T_{\mathrm{FP}}$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:figure5}(b), red points) is always smaller than that during the up-sweep. This is consistent with observations in Ref.~\cite{imajo_thermodynamic_2019} for $H \parallel b$. For falling field, $\Delta T_{\mathrm{FP}}$ is positive for $\theta < 27^{\circ}$ and becomes negative for larger angles.
In making a quantitative description of the thermodynamics of the metamagnetic transition, we assume that the overall entropy change is a sum of reversible and irreversible processes,
\begin{equation}
\Delta S = \Delta S_{\mathrm{rev}} + \Delta S_{\mathrm{irr}} = \frac{C_{p}\Delta T}{T} + \frac{\partial Q_{\mathrm{loss}}}{T}.
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\Delta S_{\mathrm{rev}}$ describes the latent heat released during the transition, which is recovered when the field crosses $H_{\mathrm{m}}$ in the opposite sense; and $C_P$ is the heat capacity at constant pressure. The small field width of the metamagnetic transition leads us to assume adiabatic conditions and extract the temperature change $\Delta T$ directly from the magnetocaloric measurements. The time to cross the transition at $H_{\mathrm{m}}$ is $\sim 0.6\,\mathrm{ms}$ - significantly longer than the thermal relaxation timescale $\tau$ of the sample which is around $10\,\mathrm{ms}$ for our equipment. $\tau$ was estimated from the $T(t)$ behavior above $H_{\mathrm{m}}$ [Fig. \ref{fig:figure5}(a)]. We obtain the reversible temperature changes at the metamagnetic transition through $\Delta T_{\mathrm{rev}} = (\Delta T_{\mathrm{FPup}} - \Delta T_{\mathrm{FPdown}})/2$, where the subscripts ``up'' and ``down'' refer to the up- and downsweeps of the field respectively. On the other hand, irreversible processes such as Joule heating contribute to the temperature change in both field-sweep directions, therefore $\Delta T_{\mathrm{irr}} = (\Delta T_{\mathrm{FPup}} + \Delta T_{\mathrm{FPdown}})/2$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics{Figure6.jpg}
\caption{Metamagnetic transition in UTe$_{2}$ as seen in the magnetic torque signal measured at different angles at $T=(0.7\pm 0.1)\,\mathrm{K}$. Up- and down-sweep of the magnetic field are indicated by arrows. In general, the curve with the higher transition field corresponds to the upsweep.}
\label{fig:figure6}
\end{figure}
Using the fact that $C_{p}/T \approx 250$~mJmol$^{-1}$K$^{-2}$ and assuming that $C_{p}$ is nearly temperature independent below $2\,\mathrm{K}$ at $35\,\mathrm{T}$ \cite{imajo_thermodynamic_2019}, for $\theta <25^\circ$ we obtain an almost constant value, $\Delta S_{\mathrm{rev}} \approx 30$~mJmol$^{-1}$K$^{-1}$. Within the SC$_{\rm FP}$ phase, $\Delta S_{\rm rev}$ increases, peaking at $\Delta S_{\mathrm{rev}} \approx 80$~mJmol$^{-1}$K$^{-1}$ close to $\theta=35^\circ$ [Fig.~\ref{fig:figure5}(c)]~\footnote{We note a discrepancy in the entropy change at the metamagnetic transition between the present results and the values reported in the brief report by Imajo \textit{et al.} Ref.~\cite{imajo_thermodynamic_2019}. The difference is likely related to the conditions in the present work, \textit{i.e.} a stronger link to the thermal bath needed to reach lower $^3$He temperatures leading to quasiadiabatic magnetization of the sample. The difference does not affect the conclusions of the current paper.} Therefore, entering the SC$_{\rm FP}$ phase releases an additional $\approx 50$~mJmol$^{-1}$K$^{-1}$ in latent heat. Assuming (as justified above) that the SC$_{\rm FP}$ represents a field-induced superconducting state, the additional latent heat is likely to result from the formation of a gap at the Fermi energy and an entropy reduction due to pair condensation~\cite{aoki_unconventional_2022}.
The irreversible component $\Delta S_{irr}$ mainly consists of hysteretic losses during the first-order metamagnetic transition and, bearing in mind the similarity of the behaviour of the PDO data in the SC$_{\rm FP}$ state to that in the SC$_{\rm PM}$ phase (see also Ref.~\cite{ran_extreme_2019}), what is likely to be dissipation due to vortex movement. As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:figure5}(d), rotating $H$ to higher $\theta$ leads to an overall decrease in $\Delta S_{\mathrm{irr}}$, apart from a local maximum around $\theta = 35^{\circ}$. As this is roughly in the middle of the $\theta$ range over which the SC$_{\rm FP}$ phase occurs, it possibly coincides with the strongest vortex pinning and thus the largest dissipation caused by vortex motion. Note that while $H_{\mathrm{m}}$ increases with increasing $\theta$, the jump in the magnetization at $H_{\mathrm{m}}$ at $1.4\,\mathrm{K}$ does not change significantly between $H\parallel b$ and $H\parallel [011]$ \cite{miyake_enhancement_2021}. Torque measurements shown in Fig. \ref{fig:figure6} also vary smoothly as a function of angle. Therefore it is unlikely that the additional latent heat released when entering the SC$_{\rm FP}$ phase is of magnetic origin; rather it is probably related to its electronic and/or superconducting properties.
Finally, we remark that the boundaries between the various low-temperature/high-magnetic-field phases of UTe$_2$ derived in this work from PDO and MCE data match those in the literature~\cite{ran_extreme_2019, aoki_unconventional_2022} very closely. This is of interest because the zero- or low-field behaviour of UTe$_2$ seems very sensitive to the source, growth method, and quality of the crystals used (an excellent summary is given in Ref.~\cite{aoki_unconventional_2022}). The present study employs crystals from completely different sources to those used to produce the phase diagrams reported in Refs.~\cite{ran_extreme_2019, aoki_unconventional_2022}, perhaps suggesting that the high-field properties of UTe$_2$ are in some sense less sensitive to sample dependent disorder than those in zero or small magnetic fields.
\section{Summary}
Simultaneous magnetocaloric effect and MHz conductivity measurements are carried out on a single crystal of UTe$_2$ as a function of magnetic field orientation, using pulsed magnetic fields of up to 55~T. A pronounced heating effect is observed close to the metamagnetic transition into the high-field SC$_{\rm FP}$ phase. This strongly suggests vortex movement in a bulk superconducting state, giving thermodynamic evidence that the SC$_{\rm FP}$ state represents a field-stabilized bulk superconducting phase of UTe$_{2}$, an interpretation that is supported by phase diagrams proposed from previous electrical transport measurements. With the field aligned close to the $b$ axis, a more subtle feature is observed around $15\,\mathrm{T}$, suggesting that the superconducting SC$_{\rm PM}$ and SC$_{\rm RE}$ states represent separate, distinct phases.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We thank Minseong Lee for helpful discussions. A portion of this work was performed at the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory, which is supported by the NSF Cooperative Agreement No. DMR-1644779, the U.S. DOE and the State of Florida. This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, National Quantum Information Science Research Centers. P.F.S.R. acknowledges support from the Los Alamos Laboratory Directed Research and Development program through project 20210064DR. J.S. thanks the DoE BES FWP ``Science of 100~T'' for support in developing techniques used in these experiments. R.S. , Y. L. and M.J. acknowledge support by the NHMFL UCGP program and the G. T. Seaborg Institute Postdoctoral Fellow Program under project number 20210527CR.
\section*{Apendix A: Complete angular dependent Magnetocaloric data set}
Here we show the entire angular dependent magnetocaloric data set (Fig. \ref{fig:figure7}) measured with the sample immersed in liquid ${}^{3}$He. The data was used to generate the contour plots shown in Fig \ref{fig:figure4}.
\begin{figure*}\includegraphics{Figure7.jpg}
\caption{Sample temperature vs. magnetic field for different angles denoted in the graphs, where $0^{\circ}$ is $H\parallel b$ and $90^{\circ}$ is $H\parallel c$. Field up- and down-sweep data are depicted as black and red lines respectively.}
\label{fig:figure7}
\end{figure*}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Biometric authentication systems based on face recognition are taking prominence in both everyday life and high-value transactions with strong security requirements. However, despite the recent advances in computer vision, these systems are still confined to specialized hardware that utilizes depth or NIR sensors for preventing Presentation Attacks. Among the Presentation Attacks, print and replay attacks are the most common, and detecting them became an important problem in the field of biometric authentication. From the practical application perspective, developing a robust algorithm for detecting such attacks on commercial webcams using only signals from the video stream would enable wide adoption of face-based authentication and verification.
Recently published results show that deep learning-based models can achieve good results on the datasets they were trained on \cite{CDCNN}\cite{CNN-LSTM}\cite{3d-synth}, but the generalization to other datasets is not so easily achieved - i.e. when the model that achieved a state-of-the-art result on benchmark A is tested on benchmark B (the protocol we will be referring to as "cross-test"), the discrepancy in scores is quite significant, even with the latest breakthroughs in domain adaptation that were aimed to address this problem. The consequences of such discrepancy in the real world are quite damaging for the application security.
The key motivation behind this work is that achieving strong generalization on cross-testing on multiple string benchmarks would reliably reflect the effectiveness of the algorithm in the wild. We propose to achieve this generalization by changing the approach to collecting training data. Moreover, motivated by the previous work in self-supervised learning\cite{big-self-supervised}\cite{SEER}, we experiment with the network pretraining on larger datasets to improve the results further.
To validate the effectiveness of the developed method, we report the evaluation results in two experimental settings: intra-dataset test is evaluated on a test portion of our internal dataset, and cross-test is evaluated on well-known and established benchmarks: MSU-MFSD\cite{MFSD}, Replay-Attack\cite{mci/Chingovska2012}, and OULU-NPU\cite{OULU_NPU_2017}.
\subsection{Contribution}
In this paper we present the following results:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Large-scale dataset with additional semantic annotation for training anti-spoofing models, together with an efficient approach to labeled data collection.
\item Effectiveness of task-agnostic unsupervised pretraining and explicitly defined spoofing attributes as a part of training objective.
\item New state of the art results on MSU-MFSD\cite{MFSD} and Replay-Attack\cite{mci/Chingovska2012} cross-dataset tests (with the results surpassing even the best \textit{intra-tests}), and cross-test on OULU-NPU\cite{OULU_NPU_2017}. Most importantly, we demonstrate consistently strong results across the most difficult face anti-spoofing benchmarks, which indicates low degree of domain overfitting.
\end{enumerate}
\section{Related work}
Recent publications on task-agnostic self-supervised and semi-supervised pretraining show that using large unlabeled datasets for unsupervised pretraining followed by supervised fine-tuning is capable of outperforming standard supervised learning methods \cite{big-self-supervised} \cite{SEER}. This is especially promising for the field of face anti-spoofing, where the problem of lack of comprehensive labeled datasets suitable for building models viable for security applications is especially severe. There have been efforts to alleviate this problem with using rich semantic annotations \cite{CelebA-Spoof}. Alternative paradigms of circumventing the data shortage by domain adaptation and generating synthetic data were demonstrated by \cite{GFA-CNN} \cite{3d-synth}, citing the problem of domain shift as one of the most critical for anti-spoofing.
The main problem of existing methods is still in the domain shift and the lack of generalization between different datasets, as shown in cross-dataset tests, even in works that demonstrate state-of-the-art results on intra-dataset tests \cite{GFA-CNN} \cite{3d-synth} \cite{CNN-LSTM} \cite{CDCNN}.
\section{Method}
\subsection{Entry Antispoofing Dataset}
Existing datasets for face anti-spoofing cover too narrow a domain, compared to the diversity of camera/lighting/distance/attack conditions seen in the real world. While achieving low error scores on open-source benchmarks using a cross-dataset protocol is indicative of good performance of a network under some subset of conditions, it turned out to be an unreliable predictor of the stability and accuracy when used in a real application. Specifically, regardless of the Attack Presentation Classification Error Rate (APCER) and Bona Fide Presentation Classification Error Rate (BPCER) shown by a candidate model trained on open-source datasets, there always were multiple sets of conditions where the model's predictions started being inconsistent. We have addressed this problem by building an internal dataset that would consist of the training portion and a test subset that would be comprehensive enough to address the missing subdomains in other benchmarks.
Entry Antispoofing Dataset consists of 83000 live video recordings collected via a custom-built UI that simulates the process of logging into a web-based biometric authentication system like Entry. The recordings were collected and labeled via a crowdsourcing data labeling service, from 45000 participants from more than 20 countries on five continents.
Each recording was made on a mobile or laptop webcam (with roughly $30\%$ of recordings being from laptop cameras, and $70\%$ - from mobile), with subject's face visible from multiple angles. Subjects' genders, ages and ethnicities are not correlated with their collected recordings being spoofing or bona fide sessions, but overall distribution was not restricted in order to be as close to real-life demographic of potential users as possible. The process of collecting the dataset was iterative, with each version of the dataset produced after identifying a "blind spot subdomain" — specific set of camera/lighting/distance/other conditions, that were leading to unstable performance of the model. These blind spots were identified by crowdsourcing attacks on different iterations of earlier anti-spoofing models that were provided by our research team.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l | c | c
\toprule
\textbf{Dataset} & \textbf{Videos} & \textbf{Subjects} \\
\midrule
\midrule
\textbf{Entry} & \textbf{83000} & \textbf{45000} \\
MSU-MFSD\cite{MFSD} & 280 & 35 \\
Replay-Attack\cite{mci/Chingovska2012} & 1300 & 50 \\
OULU-NPU\cite{OULU_NPU_2017} & 4950 & 55 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Comparison of existing datasets for face anti-spoofing.}
\label{datasets}
\end{table}
\subsection{Architecture and algorithm}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{diagram.png}
\caption{Network architecture. We apply the network for each frame in a video stream, sequentially before aggregating received predictions to get the final spoofing score for the entire session.}
\label{fig:onecol}
\end{figure}
The training process is split into two steps in the following way:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Task-aware fine-tuning (TAFT) of a larger network using Entry Antispoofing Dataset.
\item Distillation of a high-accuracy network into a smaller one, suitable for production use.
\end{enumerate}
\subsubsection{Task-aware fine-tuning}
Our training process follows the general approach described by Chen et al. in \cite{big-self-supervised}. To recap, their training pipeline starts with an unsupervised pretraining of a large network on a large amount of unlabeled data, followed by supervised fine-tuning on a (typically smaller) task-specific labeled dataset. In our experiments, an open source pretrained network provided by Meta \cite{SEER} substitutes the pretraining step. We do not fine-tune the layers imported from RegNet, following the established practice \cite{big-self-supervised} \cite{SEER} based on the observation that a large self-supervised pretrained network improves the generalization.
Our network structure is modified from RegNet-32g\cite{SEER}: for the final layer we use a multi-headed classifier composed from $8$ independent binary classifiers with the following semantics:
\begin{itemize}
\item Heads 1-6 represent the explicitly defined, visible signals that the login session was being spoofed, i.e.: fingers holding a device, visible device border, mobile UI, moire patterns, screen glare, and reflections in the screen.
\item Head 7 represents the probability of an attack that is not discernible to a human eye. In the dataset it meant that the video recording was a successful spoofing attempt, but no visible signals were identified.
\item Head 8 represents the overall probability that the frame is fraudulent.
\end{itemize}
The training is done with the pretrained layers from \cite{SEER} frozen. We are optimizing the Reduced Focal Loss function \cite{ReducedFocalLoss} with AdamW\cite{AdamW} for 3 epochs with learning rate set to $1e-6$. Frames that are samples from source videos are heavily augmented to further prevent the domain shift with the following set of augmentations:
\begin{itemize}
\item Random crop (ratio $0.33 - 1.0$ with random resize (ratio $0.7 - 1.35$).
\item Random HSV shift
\item Random Gaussian noise, motion blur
\item Random ISO noise, 90 degree rotaion, horizontal flip
\end{itemize}
During training, we optimize a multi-class classification loss function for heads 1-8, but during inference only the probability from Head 8 is used. We observe that introducing an explicit classification of visible signals in a spoofing attempt improves the convergence speed and stabilizes the training process, but the actual spoofing detection does not require fine-grained classification.
\subsubsection{Network distillation}
After the network is trained, we perform the distillation procedure with a smaller architecture, to make the real-time inference feasible. Since we have a large number of labeled videos in our training dataset $\mathcal{D}$, we are leveraging the weighted distillation loss from \cite{big-self-supervised}:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L} = & -(1-\alpha) \sum_{(x_i, y_i) \in \mathcal{D}^L} \Big[\log \mathit{P}^S(y_i|x_i)\Big] \\
- & \alpha \sum_{x_i \in \mathcal{D}} \Big[
\sum_y \mathit{P}^T(y|x_i;\tau)\log \mathit{P}^S(y|x_i;\tau)
\Big]
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\tau$ is a scalar temperature parameter, $\alpha$ is a balancing parameter, $\mathit{P}^T(y|x_i)$ is the output of the teacher network, which is frozen after training, and $\mathit{P}^S(y|x_i)$ is the output of the student network.
The architecture for the student network is EfficientNet-B3\cite{efficientnet}.
\section{Experiments}
\subsection{Benchmarks}
We evaluate the effectiveness of our network from two aspects: an evaluation portion of Entry Antispoofing Dataset for intra-test, and MSU-MFSD, Replay-Attack, and OULU-NPU for cross-database tests. When it comes to the baselines, we compare the results of our models that were never fine-tuned on target datasets to both intra-test and cross-test results of existing state-of-the-art methods, indicating which is which in the tables. When the prior cross-test result is reported for a particular baseline, we choose the best score of all cross-tests for that model.
\paragraph{}\textbf{MSU-MFSD}. This dataset contains 280 videos of 35 subjects. Despite smaller scale, this benchmark is more challenging due to higher average quality of recordings used for spoofing, which is reflected in the baseline scored cited in this work.
\paragraph{} \textbf{Replay-Attack}. This dataset contains 1300 videos of 50 subjects. All videos are generated by either having a (real) client trying to access a laptop through a built-in webcam or by displaying a photo or a video recording of the same client for at least 9 seconds.
\paragraph{} \textbf{OULU-NPU}. This dataset contains 4950 videos of 55 subjects, collected in different lighting conditions, on six different mobile devices.
\subsection{Protocol}
The main goal of this work is to demonstrate strong generalization of our model across several challenging benchmarks.
\subsection{Metric}
Our reported metric for cross-test evaluation is HTER (Half Total Error Rate)\cite{HTER}, which is widely used for comparing models in the field of biometric anti-spoofing. It is defined in terms of two error rates, False Acceptance Rate (FAR) and False Rejection Rate (FRR):
\begin{equation}
HTER = \frac{FAR + FRR}{2}
\end{equation}
\section{Results}
In this paper we are reporting the results on two models, sharing the same general architecture and trained on the same data, with one architectural difference:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{Entry V1}. This model predicts only the probability of spoofing directly, without utilizing explicitly defined features as described in section "Task-aware fine-tuning". Instead, this model is trained as a simple binary classification CNN.
\item \textbf{Entry V2}. This model is trained according to the protocol from "Task-aware fine-tuning".
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Intra-test on Entry Dataset}
First, we examine the results of the intra-test on a test subset of the internal Entry Antispoofing Dataset.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{@{}lc@{}}
\toprule
\textbf{Method} & \textbf{Intra-test on Entry} \\
\midrule
\midrule
Entry-V1 & 3.54 \\
\textbf{Entry-V2} & \textbf{0.74} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{HTER(\%) scores on internal test subset of Entry Antispoofing Dataset. }
\label{tab:intra-test}
\end{table}
Our primary hypothesis related to the dataset is that if the model achieving low HTER scores on it is capable of achieving similarly low error rates on other datasets, it will attest to the high level of generalization across domains it provides, and suggest that this dataset could be used on its own for comprehensive quality assessment moving forward.
\subsection{Cross-test}
We consider the generalizability of the model to be the main goal of building an accurate anti-spoofing algorithm, which is why we make the emphasis on cross-database testing. Following the established practice for conducting cross-database evaluation, we evaluate HTER scores on three challenging datasets: MSU-MFSD \cite{MFSD}, Replay-Attack \cite{mci/Chingovska2012}, OULU-NPU \cite{OULU_NPU_2017}. For the OULU-NPU evaluation, we chose Protocol I to be able to compare with the existing state-of-the-art results.
Model \textbf{Entry V2} achieves $HTER = 0$ on MSU-MFSD and Replay-Attack, therefore, it's possible to make a direct comparison with the results obtained on intra-tests that use Equal Error Rate metric, which is equivalen to $HTER$ at $EER = 0$.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{@{}lc@{}}
\toprule
\textbf{Method} & \textbf{MSU-MFSD} \\
\midrule
\midrule
$CNN-LSTM^{AM}$ (Replay $\rightarrow$ MFSD)\cite{CNN-LSTM} & 25.72 \\
GFA-CNN (Replay $\rightarrow$ MFSD)\cite{GFA-CNN} & 23.5 \\
Entry-V1 & 2.4 \\
\textbf{Entry-V2} & \textbf{0} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Cross-dataset HTER(\%) scores on MSU-MFSD\cite{MFSD}.}
\label{tab:cross-test}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{@{}lc@{}}
\toprule
\textbf{Method} & \textbf{Replay-Attack} \\
\midrule
\midrule
$CNN-LSTM^{AM}$ (MFSD $\rightarrow$ Replay)\cite{CNN-LSTM} & 12.37 \\
GFA-CNN (CASIA $\rightarrow$ Replay)\cite{GFA-CNN} & 21.4 \\
GFA-CNN (MFSD $\rightarrow$ Replay)\cite{GFA-CNN} & 25.8 \\
CNCN (CASIA $\rightarrow$ Replay)\cite{CDCNN} & 15.5 \\
CNCN++ (CASIA $\rightarrow$ Replay)\cite{CDCNN} & 6.5 \\
Entry-V1 & 2.7 \\
\textbf{Entry-V2} & \textbf{0} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Cross-dataset HTER(\%) scores on Replay-Attack\cite{mci/Chingovska2012}.}
\label{tab:cross-test}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{@{}lc@{}}
\toprule
\textbf{Method} & \textbf{OULU-NPU} \\
\midrule
\midrule
A-DeepPixBis (Replay $\rightarrow$ OULU)\cite{DeepPixBis} & 25.57 \\
DeepPixBiS (Replay $\rightarrow$ OULU)\cite{DeepPix} & 22.7 \\
Bi-FAS-S (Replay $\rightarrow$ OULU)\cite{Bi-FPNFAS} & 21.24 \\
Bi-FAS (Replay $\rightarrow$ OULU)\cite{Bi-FPNFAS} & 18.33 \\
LBP-SVM (Replay $\rightarrow$ OULU)\cite{DeepPix} & 12.1 \\
IQM-SVM (Replay $\rightarrow$ OULU)\cite{IQM} & 3.9 \\
\textbf{Entry-V1 (ours)} & \textbf{5.6} \\
\textbf{Entry-V2 (ours} & \textbf{2.6} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Cross-dataset HTER(\%) scores comparison on Protocol I of the OULU-NPU dataset.}
\label{tab:cross-test}
\end{table}
Additionally, for OULU-NPU we report the comparison on ACER metric.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{@{}lc@{}}
\toprule
\textbf{Method} & \textbf{OULU-NPU (ACER)} \\
\midrule
\midrule
LBP-SVM (intra-test)\cite{DeepPix} & 25.0 \\
IQM-SVM (intra-test)\cite{IQM} & 32.29 \\
A-DeepPixBis (intra-test)\cite{DeepPixBis} & 0.75 \\
\textbf{DeepPixBiS (intra-test)}\cite{DeepPix} & \textbf{0.42} \\
Bi-FAS-S (intra-test)\cite{Bi-FPNFAS} & 1.97\\
Bi-FAS (intra-test)\cite{Bi-FPNFAS} & 3.12\\
Entry-V1 (ours) & 3.33 \\
Entry-V2 (ours) & 3.2 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Cross-dataset ACER(\%) scores on Protocol I of the OULU-NPU dataset for more direct comparison with existing intra-tests. All models except ours were trained on OULU specifically. This comparison illustrates the closing gap between the results obtained by a strongly generalizable model (Entry) and the ones trained exclusively on OULU.}
\label{tab:cross-test}
\end{table}
\subsection{Application}
This work was done as a part of R\&D effort inside XIX.ai supporting the key technology behind our biometric authentication system Entry. That was the reason why the generalization and performance requirements were dictated by the real-world applicability.
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{High accuracy after distillation}. While the initial large network produces remarkable results, its size makes the scalability inefficient and, depending on the GPU accelerator used, prohibitively expensive. We have found that knowledge distillation does not have a noticeable effect on the model's accuracy when fine-tuned on Entry Antispoofing.
\item \textbf{Real-time inference}. The anti-spoofing network, as all security-critical components, is being run on the backend, using cloud-hosted GPU accelerators. Since it turned out to be possible to distill the large model into a lightweight EfficientNet-B3, the throughput capacity was more than enough for processing multiple parallel video streams.
\end{enumerate}
\section{Conclusions}
In this paper we have presented an approach to training highly generalizable neural networks for face anti-spoofing, outlined the requirements for collecting labeled data sufficient for achieving the level of accuracy required for secure biometric authentication, and described the approach for post-processing of a model needed for deploying it as a part of a real-time video processing pipeline. We have shown the significant increase in accuracy on multiple established benchmarks by achieving the new state-of-the-art results from a combination of unsupervised pretraining and fine-tuning for the specific problem.
Augmenting the training objective with classification outputs predicting specific attributes of a spoofing attack alongside with the probability of an attack itself consistently improves the accuracy of the model further, without compromising on the generalization.
Finally, we have tested the performance differences and the increase in the inference throughput after the model distillation to prove the viability of this model in a live application.
{\small
\bibliographystyle{ieee_fullname}
|
\section{Introduction}
A breakthrough in information theory happened in 2010 when Williams and Beer~\cite{WB} published a method called {\it partial information decomposition} which provided a framework under which the mutual information, shared between the inputs and the output of a probabilistic system, could be decomposed into components which measure different aspects of the information: the unique information that each input conveys about the output; the shared information that all inputs possess regarding the output; the information that the inputs in combination have about the output. They also defined a decomposition method, Imin. Several authors criticised the definition of the redundancy component in the Imin method~\cite{HSP, BERT, GK, RI} thus spawning several new methods for computing a partial information decomposition (PID), including: Ibroja which was developed independently by Bertschinger, Rauh, Olbrich, Jost and Ay~\cite{BERT} and by Griffiths and Koch~\cite{GK}, Idep invented by James, Emenheiser and Crutchfield~\cite{James}, Iccs invented by Ince~\cite{RI}, Ipm a PID invented by Finn and Lizier~\cite{FL}, and Isx developed by Makkeh, Gutknecht and Wibral~\cite{MGW, IDTxl}. The Ibroja and Idep PIDs are guaranteed to have nonnegative components while the other three methods are defined in a pointwise manner by considering information measures at the level of individual realisations and defining partial information components at this level. Pointwise PIDs can produce negative components and they are described as providing {\it misinformation} in such cases~\cite{locinf}
An important feature of PID is that it enables the shared information and synergistic information in a system to be estimated separately. This provides an advance on earlier research in which the interaction information was used to estimate synergy~\cite{SBB, GT}, but could be negative, and the three-way mutual information~\cite{KFP} or coinformation~\cite{Bell}, which also could be negative, was used as an objective function in neural networks with two distinct sets of inputs from receptive and contextual fields, respectively.
Partial information decomposition has been applied to data in neuroscience, neuroimaging, neural networks and cellular automata; see, e.g.~\cite{Wibral} --\cite{WLP}. A major selling point of the Isx PID is that the components are differentiable, unlike other PIDs. This makes it possible to build neural networks with a particular neural goal involving PID components as the objective function~\cite{WPKLP, MG}. For an overview of PID, see~\cite{LBJW}, and for an excellent tutorial, see~\cite{TL}.
We will provide a systematic comparison of the different methods by applying the Ibroja, Idep, Iccs, Ipm and Isx PIDs to data recorded in two different studies. First, we present more detailed analyses and comparisons of physiological data recorded from cortical layer 5b (L5b) pyramidal neurons in a study of GABA$_{\rm B}$ receptor-mediated regulation of dendro-somatic synergy. The influence of GABA$_{\rm B}$ receptor-mediated inhibition of the apical dendrites evoked by local application of the GABA$_{\rm B}$ receptor agonist baclofen will be studied by making within-neuron paired comparisons of PID components. We will also shed light on unique information asymmetries as revealed by the PID analyses, as well as discussing the evidence for apical amplification in the presence and absence of GABA$_{\rm B}$ receptor-mediated inhibition of apical dendrites.
The stereotypical morphology of pyramidal neurons suggests that they have at least two functionally distinct sets of fine dendrites, the basal dendrites that feed directly into the cell body, or soma, from where output action potential(AP)s are generated, and the dendrites of the apical tuft, which are far more distant from the soma and connected to it by the apical trunk. Inputs to the branches of the apical tuft arise from diverse sources that specify various aspects of the context within which the feedforward input to the basal dendrites is processed~\cite{RM, Schu}. These apical inputs are summed at an integration zone near the top of the apical trunk, which, when sufficiently activated, generates calcium-dependent regenerative potentials in the apical trunk, thus providing a cellular mechanism by which these pyramidal cells can respond more strongly to activation of their basal dendrites when that coincides with activation of their apical dendrites~\cite{ML2013}. Though these experiments require an exceptionally high level of technical expertise, there are now many anatomical and physiological studies indicating that some classes of pyramidal cell can operate as context-sensitive two-point processors, rather than as integrate-and-fire point processors~\cite{WS, ML2013, BNSPS}. Thick-tufted L5b pyramidal cells are the class of pyramidal cell in which operational modes approximating context-sensitive two-point processing have most clearly been demonstrated, but it may apply to some other classes of pyramidal cell also, though not to all~\cite{FW}. These advances in our knowledge of the division of labor between apical and basal dendrites now give the interaction between apical and basal dendritic compartments a prominent role within the broader field of dendritic computation~\cite{PP}.
The second study~\cite{Shai} considers data on spike counts obtained using an amended version of the Hay compartmental model~\cite{HHSMS}. Spike counts are available for many different combinations of basal and apical inputs. While PIDs can be computed for the entire dataset, an interesting diversity of balance between basal drive and apical drive is revealed by applying the PID methods to subsets of the data defined by various combinations of basal and apical inputs. For one set of subsets this reveals a bifurcation in unique information asymmetry, and a difference among the methods in how this is expressed. A different analysis of subsets allows a full discussion of the extent to which evidence of cooperative context-sensitivity is revealed by the nature of the PID components.
Many empirical findings have been interpreted as indicating that cooperative context-sensitivity is common throughout perceptual and higher cognitive regions of the mammalian neocortex. For example, consider the effect of a flanking context on the ability to detect a short faint line. A surrounding context is neither necessary nor sufficient for that task, but many psychophysical and physiological studies show that context can have large effects, nevertheless, as reviewed, for example, by Lamme~\cite{Lamme1, Lamme2} and by~\cite{GS}. In~\cite{KIDP, KP2020}, theoretical studies on the effects of context (then called `contextual modulation') were explored. Here we have the opportunity to explore this topic using data from real and simulated L5b pyramidal cells. The ideal properties of cooperative context-sensitivity are described in the Methods section.
\section{Methods}
\subsection{Data}
Physiological data recorded from rat L5b pyramidal neurons during dual patch-clamp recordings from soma and apical dendrite before and during local application of the GABA$_{\rm B}$B receptor agonist baclofen was taken from~\cite{SKBL}. Spike count data obtained using an amended version of the Hay compartmental model was taken from~\cite{Shai}.
\subsection{Notation and Definitions}
We consider trivariate probabilistic systems involving three discrete random variables: an output $Y$ and two inputs $B$ and $A$. Hence, underlying the discrete data sets we consider is a probability mass function $\Pr(Y =y, B =b, A=a)$, where $y, b, a$ belong to the finite alphabets $\mathcal{A}_Y, \mathcal{A}_B, \mathcal{A}_A$, respectively.
We now define the standard information theoretic terms that are required in this work and they are based on results in~\cite{CT}. We denote by the function $H$ the usual Shannon entropy, and note that any term with zero probability makes no contribution to the sums involved.
The joint mutual information that is shared by $Y$ and the pair $(B, A)$ is given by,
\begin{equation}
I(Y; B, A) = H(Y) + H(B, A) - H(Y, B, A). \label{totmi}
\end{equation}
The information that is shared between $Y$ and $B$ but not with $A$ is
\begin{equation}
I(Y; B |A) = H(Y, A) + H(B, A) - H(A) - H(Y, B, A), \label{yx1Gx2}
\end{equation}
and the information that is shared between $Y$ and $A$ but not with $R$ is
\begin{equation}
I(Y; A |B) = H(Y, B) + H(B, A) - H(B) - H(Y, B, A). \label{yx2Gx1}
\end{equation}
The information shared between $Y$ and $B$ is
\begin{equation}
I(Y; B) = H(Y) + H(B) - H(Y, B)
\end{equation}
and between $Y$ and $A$ is
\begin{equation}
I(Y; A) = H(Y) + H(A) - H(Y, A)
\end{equation}
The interaction information~\cite{McG} is a measure of information involving all three variables, $Y, B, A$ and is defined by
\begin{equation}
II(Y; B; A) = I(Y; B, A) - I(Y; B) - I(Y; A) \label{IntInf}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Partial Information Decomposition}
The information decomposition can be expressed as~\cite{WPKLP}
\begin{equation} I(Y; B, A) = I_{unq}(Y; B|A) + I_{unq}(Y; A|B) + I_{shd}(Y; B, A) + I_{syn}(Y; B, A). \label{totalDecomp} \end{equation}
Adapting the notation of~\cite{WPKLP} we express our joint input mutual information in four terms as follows:
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{p{0.3\textwidth} p{0.6\textwidth}}
$\text{Unq}B \equiv I_{unq}(Y; B|A)$ & denotes the unique information that $B$ conveys about $Y$;\\\\
$ \text{Unq}A \equiv I_{unq}(Y; A| B)$ & is the unique information that $A$ conveys about $Y$;\\\\
$\text{Shd~~~~} \equiv I_{shd}(Y; B, A)$ & gives the shared (or redundant) information that both $B$ and $A$ have about $Y$;\\\\
$\text{Syn~~~~} \equiv I_{syn}(Y; B, A)$ & is the synergy or information that the joint variable $(B, A)$ has about $Y$ that cannot be obtained by observing $B$ and $A$ separately.
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
It is possible to make deductions about a PID by using the following four equations which give a link between the components of a PID and certain classical Shannon measures of mutual information. The following are in~\cite[eqs. 4, 5]{WPKLP} , with amended notation; see also~\cite{WB}.
\begin{align}
I(Y; B) &= \text{Unq}B + \text{Shd} \label{ux1red}\\
I(Y; A) &= \text{Unq}A + \text{Shd}, \label{ux2red} \\
I(Y; B| A) &= \text{Unq}B + \text{Syn}, \label{ux1syn}\\
I(Y; A | B) & = \text{Unq}A + \text{Syn}. \label{ux2syn}
\end{align}
Using~$\eqref{totalDecomp}, \eqref{ux1red}, \eqref{ux2red}$ we may deduce the following connections between classical information measures and partial information components.
\begin{equation}
II(Y;B;A) = \text{Syn} - \text{Shd} \label{synshd}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
I(Y; B) - I(Y; A) = \text{UnqB} - \text{UnqA} \label{unqs}
\end{equation}
When the partial information components are known {\it a priori} to be non-negative, we may deduce the following from~$\eqref{totmi}$, $\eqref{ux1red}$, $\eqref{ux2red}$. When the interaction information in~$\eqref{IntInf}$ is positive, a lower bound on the synergy of a system is given by the interaction information~\cite{McG}. Also, the expression in~$\eqref{unqs}$ provides a lower bound for UnqB, when $I(Y; B) > I(Y;A)$. Thus some deductions can be made without considering a PID. While such deductions can be useful in providing information bounds, it is only by computing a PID that the actual values of the partial information components can be obtained.
When making comparisons between different systems it is sometimes necessary to normalise the PID components by dividing each term by their sum, the joint mutual information, $I(Y; B, A)$. Such normalisation will be applied in the analyses considered in the sequel. This means that the sum of the PID components is equal to unity and so they are negatively correlated.
In this study, the PID component, Shd, has not been separated into a sum of source, ShdS, and mechanistic, ShdM, terms~\cite{HSP, KIDP, PICA} as
\begin{equation*}
\text{Shd} = \text{ShdS} + \text{ShdM}
\end{equation*}
because not all of the five PIDs considered include definitions regarding how to achieve this task. For probability distributions in which the inputs $B$ and $A$ are marginally independent the source shared information, ShdS, should be equal to zero, and hence the shared information, Shd, is entirely mechanistic shared information - shared information due to the probabilisitic mechanism involved in the information processing.
\subsection{Unique Information Asymmetry}
We define the unique information asymmetry (UIA) to be UnqB - UnqA. From $\eqref{ux1syn}, \eqref{ux2syn}, \eqref{unqs}$ we have that
\begin{equation}
\text{UnqB} - \text{UnqA} = I(Y; B) - I(Y; A) = I(Y;A|B) - I(Y;B|A) \label{uia}
\end{equation}
The value of UIA is the same for every PID method. When UIA > 0, we say that the basal input is mainly driving, whereas when UIA < 0 it is the apical input that is mainly providing the drive. Asymmetries for which UIA > 0 and UnqA is zero or small in magnitude are of interest in relation to property CSS3 of cooperative context-sensitivity, as defined below.
\subsection{Pointwise PID methods}
The PID methods Ibroja and Idep produce PID components that are non-negative, whereas Iccs, Ipm and Isx can produce negative values. The PIDs Iccs, Ipm and Isx are pointwise-based methods in which local information measures are employed at the level of individual realizations of the random variables. Local mutual information is explained by Lizier in~\cite{locinf}. If $U, V$ are discrete random variables then the mutual information $I(U, V)$ shared between $U$ and $V$ can be written as an average of the local mutual information terms $i(u; v)$, for each individual realization $(u, v)$ of $(U, V)$, as follows
\begin{equation}
I(U; V) = \sum_{u, v} p(u, v) \log_{2} \frac{p(u, v)}{p(u) p(v)} = \sum_{u, v} p(u, v) \log_{2} \frac{p(u | v)}{p(u)} = \sum_{u, v} p(u, v) \log_{2} i(u; v),
\label{midecomp}\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation*}
i(u; v) = \log_{2} \frac{p(u | v)}{p(u)} \end{equation*} is the local mutual information associated with the realization $(u, v)$ of $(U, V)$.
The local mutual information $i(u; v)$ is positive when $p(u|v) > p(u)$, so that ``knowing the value of $v$ increased our expectation of (or positively informed us about) the value of the measurement $u$''~\cite{locinf}. The local mutual information $i(u; v)$ is negative when $p(u|v) < p(u)$, so that ``knowing about the value of $v$ actually changed our belief $p(u)$ about the probability of occurrence of the outcome $u$ to a smaller value $p(u | v)$, and hence we considered it less likely that $u$ would occur when knowing $v$ than when not knowing $v$, in a case were $u$ nevertheless occurred''~\cite{locinf}. Of course, the average of these local measures is the mutual information $I(U; V)$, as in~$\eqref{midecomp}$, but when pointwise information measures are used to construct a PID there can be negative averages. For further details of how negative values of PID components can occur, see~\cite{ RI, FL, MGW, KIDP}.
In the analyses reported below, it will be found that the pointwise PIDs can give negative values for the unique information due to $A$, or for the unique information due to $B$, or both. We interpret this to mean that the unique information provided by $A$, or by $B$ is, on average, less likely to result in predicting the correct value of the output $Y$. We adopt the term `misinformation' from~\cite{FL, MGW, locinf}, and describe this as 'unique misinformation due to $A$ (or $B$)'.
\subsection{Ideal properties of cooperative context-sensitivity}
We now state key properties of cooperative context-sensitivity (which are a modified form of those specified for contextual modulation in~\cite{KP2020}), while recognising that in any biological system these properties are likely to be observed only as an approximation to the ideal. It is assumed that the basal input is driving and the apical input provides the context. The context amplifies the transmission of information about the necessary, or driving, input when criterion CCS3 is met.
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin = 1.5cm]
\item[CCS1:] The drive, $B$, is sufficient for the output to transmit information about the input, so context, $A$, is not necessary.
\item[CCS2:] The drive, $B$, is necessary for the output to transmit information about the input, so context, $A$, is not sufficient.
\item[CCS3:] The output transmits unique information about the drive, $B$, but little or no unique information or misinformation about the context, $A$, although synergistic or shared mechanistic components, or both, are present.
\item[CCS4:] The context strengthens the transmission of information about $B$ when $B$ is weak. As the strength of $B$ increases the synergy and shared mechanistic information decrease.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Statistics}
Summary statistics are presented as the sample median and the sample quartiles. Significance testing based on within-neuron differences is conducted using a two-sided exact Wilcoxon signed rank test of equality of population medians, and the threshold for declaring statistical significance of a single test is P < 0.05. Where multiple tests are used the individual P values were corrected by using the Bonferroni method to ensure that the family-wise error rate is at most 0.05; if $m$ simultaneous tests are conducted, a test with p value P has a corrected value of $\min(m P, 1)$.
\subsection{Software}
The Ibroja PID was estimated using {\sf compute UI}~\cite{ADM}. The discrete information theory library {\sf dit}~\cite{dit} was used to estimate the Iccs, Idep and Ipm PIDs. R~\cite{R} code was also used to estimate the Iccs and Idep PIDs. Python code was called from RStudio~\cite{R} by using the {\sf reticulate} package~\cite{reticulate}. The graphics were produced by using the {\sf ggplot2} package~\cite{ggplot2} in RStudio. Statistical testing made use of the {\sf coin} package~\cite{coin} in RStudio.
\section{Results}
\subsection{Real data from patch-clamp recordings in L5b pyramidal neurons}
In a study of GABA$_B$ receptor-mediated regulation of dendro-somatic synergy in L5b pyramidal neurons~\cite{SKBL}, the relationship between AP output, $Y$, to input currents during combined current injections into the soma, $S$ (referred to as basal input, $B$, in the sequel) and distant apical dendrite of thick-tufted L5b pyramidal neurons, $D$ (referred to as apical input, $A$, in the sequel) in rat somatosensory cortex was recorded. Current waveforms injected via patch-clamp pipettes were used to mimic synaptic responses to contralateral hind limb stimulation in vivo~\cite{Palmer}. AP trains were recorded for $\geq 25$ (range: 25-49) combinations of different current levels (see Figure 1).
The normalised injected waveforms were scaled by separate amplification factors ranging from 0 pA up to 1500 pA, resulting in at most 49 trials for each neuron.
Trials for which there were no APs for a treatment condition were omitted from consideration. Care was taken to ensure that the input distributions for the treatment conditions considered within a neuron contained exactly the same combinations of somatic and dendritic amplitude. This is particularly important since there is interest in comparing the PIDs obtained under different treatment conditions within each neuron. Ensuring that
the input (B, A) distributions match ensures that any observed difference in a PID component within a neuron is not simply due to a difference in the input distributions.
Data of time-varying input currents and resulting AP times, from the admitted trials, were binned into non-overlapping segments of 120 ms to maximize the joint mutual information (see~\cite{SKBL}, Figure S1). Within each bin the AP number, the mean somatic and mean dendritic signals were computed. The values of each of the input signals were binned into quartiles to maximize entropy~\cite{TL}. The output was categorized as 0, 1 or 2+ APs. Thus, we generated a 4 by 4 by 3 probability distribution for each of the neurons considered under each of the treatment conditions.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width= 12cm]{Fig_HLS_111117a1_v6.png}
\caption{Dual dendritic and somatic patch-clamp recording from a L5b pyramidal neuron of rat somatosensory cortex enables the study of amplification of somatic AP output by apical dendritic input and its regulation by dendritic inhibition. (A) Locations of dual dendritic and somatic patch-clamp recordings are indicated on a biocytin-filled L5 pyramidal neuron. After recordings in the control condition, the GABA$_{\rm B}$ agonist baclofen (50 $\mu$M) was puffed onto the apical dendrite at 50 to 100 $\mu$m distal to the dendritic patch pipette. Example membrane potential responses to combined current injections into soma and dendrite are shown in control condition (left) and during the puff of baclofen (right). Peak current amplitude was 1,000 pA for dendritic and somatic current injections. (B) Top, injected current waveforms based on {\em in vivo} responses to sensory stimulation~\cite{Palmer}. Dendritic current is shown in green, somatic in purple. Bottom, raster plot of APs emitted in individual episodes during increasing levels of dendritic and somatic stimulation strength. Control is shown on the left. A raster plot of APs emitted in the same neuron during activation of dendritic GABA$_{\rm B}$Rs by a puff of baclofen onto the apical dendrite is shown on the right. Different levels of the injected current in 36 combinations are indicated by the right colour bars (S, somatic; D, dendritic). The peak amplitude of the current waveform was increased from 0 pA (white) to 1,250 (black) in soma and dendrite, respectively. Step size was 250 pA. (C) Peri-stimulus time histogram of APs across all current combinations for both conditions. All data was taken from~\cite{SKBL}.}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 14 cm]{InfMeas_norm.png}
\caption{Physiological L5b neuronal recording data. For each of the 15 neurons under each of the Control and Baclofen conditions, the values of the four normalised classic mutual information measures that are involved in the definition of a PID are displayed. Their values are given as their relative contributions to the joint mutual information in each case.}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Classic mutual information measures}
The classic mutual information measures were computed for each neuron under each of the two experimental conditions. The values of the joint mutual information (JMI) between the AP count ($Y$) and the pair of basal and apical inputs ($B, A$) ranged from 0.49 to 0.93 bit for neurons in the Control condition and from 0.45 to 1.02 bit for neurons exposed to baclofen. Therefore the information measures computed for each neuron under each condition were normalised by dividing by their respective JMI values. Normalised values are displayed in Figure~\ref{fig2}.
It is worth noting that when normalised the information measures values satisfy the equations
\begin{equation} I(Y;B)+ I(Y;A|B) = 1 = I(Y;A) + I(Y;B|A) \label{norm} \end{equation}
which means that $I(Y;B)$ and $I(Y;A|B)$ are negatively correlated, as are $I(Y;A)$ and $I(Y;B|A)$.
Following the vertical dashed lines in Figure~\ref{fig2}, we notice that the mutual information between the AP count and the basal input is much larger than that between the AP count and the apical input, indicating clear unique information asymmetry. For these neurons the AP count is more strongly related to the basal than the apical input. This is the case for both of the experimental conditions. We can therefore anticipate that each of the PIDs considered will also express these asymmetries between the values of their unique basal and apical PID components.
In Figure~\ref{fig2}, for most neurons under both conditions we see that when $I(Y;B|A)$ is high the corresponding $I(Y;A)$ values are low and when the $I(Y;B)$ values are large the corresponding $I(Y;A|B)$ values are small. These simply reflect the negative correlations between the respective normalised measures as a result of $\eqref{norm}$.
\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\caption{Physiological L5b neuronal recording data. Summary statistics for the sample of 15 neurons.
Summary statistics of the normalised information measures, showing for each measure the median and interquartile range for the sample of 15 neurons under both experimental conditions, given as percentages of the joint mutual information. \label{Tab1} }
\begin{tabular}{cccccc} \toprule
Condition & $I(Y ; B)$ &$ I(Y ; A)$ & $I(Y; B |A)$ & $I(Y ; A | B)$ & $II(Y ; B ; A)$ \\ \midrule
Control& 61.2 & 16.3 & 83.7 & 38.8 &26.9 \\
& (52.1, 69.8) & (11.8, 19.5) & (80.5, 88.2) & (30.2, 47.9) & (14.5, 30.0) \\ \hline
Baclofen& 77.6& 5.2 & 94.8 & 22.4 & 13.6 \\
& (71.6, 86.3) & (4.3, 8.2) & (91.8, 95.7) & (13.7, 28.4) & (9.6, 22.3) \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
From Table~\ref{Tab1} we find that $I(Y;B)$ increases on average when baclofen is present and that the sample distribution of values has shifted upwards while having approximately the same interquartile range. It is also noticeable that $I(Y;A)$ has decreased on average in the presence of baclofen and that the sample distribution of values has shifted downwards with an approximate 50\% reduction in interquartile range. By considering $\eqref{norm}$, we find corresponding changes in the conditional mutual informations $I(Y;B|A)$ and $I(Y;A|B)$, which indicate, on average, an increase in the conditional dependence between the AP output and the basal input along with a decrease in the conditional dependence between the AP output and the apical input.
These changes, which are associated with the presence of baclofen, show that, as expected, when there is inhibitory input to the distal apical dendrite, the AP output becomes more strongly related to the basal input and less strongly related to the apical input. It remains to be seen just how these changes are reflected in the differences between the components of the PIDs.
All of the thirty values of the interaction information are positive. Thus we can deduce the presence of at least some synergy {\it a priori} for all fifteen neurons under each condition for PIDs that are guaranteed to possess nonnegative components.
\subsubsection{Comparison of PID components}
The components of the five PIDs are plotted in Figure~\ref{fig3}. For each PID component, the values given by the Ibroja, Idep and Iccs appear to be reasonably similar for each of the Control and Baclofen conditions, although the Iccs method provides a small negative value of unique information due to the apical input for a few neurons.
By way of contrast, the Ipm and Isx provide different ranges of values for each PID component, particularly evident in the plots of shared information and synergy where their ranges of values do not overlap at all with those of the PIDs Ibroja, Idep and Iccs, and they give much larger values for these components. In particular, both of the methods Ipm and Isx give very negative values of the unique information due to the apical input, much more strongly negative in the case of Ipm. Ipm also gives negative values in most cases for the unique basal information; for Isx this happens only in one case. Also, the ranges of values provided by Ipm and Isx do not overlap at all except for the case of the unique information due to the basal input. The Ipm method also has values for synergy that are greater than 1, which suggests somewhat counterintuitively that more information is transmitted in the form of synergy than is available in the joint mutual information.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c}
\begin{subfigure}{\textwidth}\centering{\includegraphics[width =13 cm]{UnqB.png}} \label { } \end{subfigure}\\
\begin{subfigure}{\textwidth}\centering{\includegraphics[width = 13 cm]{UnqA.png}} \label { } \end{subfigure}\\
\begin{subfigure}{\textwidth}\centering{\includegraphics[width = 13 cm]{Shd.png}} \label { } \end{subfigure}\\
\begin{subfigure}{\textwidth}\centering{\includegraphics[width = 13 cm]{Syn.png}} \label { } \end{subfigure}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Physiological L5b neuronal recording data. Plots of each PID component, connected by each neuron, for the five PID methods: A (UnqB), B (UnqA), C (Shd) and (D) Syn. For each neuron under each experimental condition, the values of the PID components are given as proportions of the respective joint mutual informations.}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure}
Summary statistics for the sample of fifteen neurons are given in Table 2. For each of the PID components, the median values for the Ipm and Isx PIDs are very different from those produced by the Ibroja, Idep and Iccs methods, being much smaller (or negative) for UnqB and UnqA and also much larger for the components Shd and Syn. On average, The Idep and Iccs PIDs generally have slightly larger values of the unique informations than does the Ibroja PID, and correspondingly lower values for Shd and Syn. It is clear from Table 2 and Figure~\ref{fig3} that, for these data sets, the Ipm and Isx methods produce remarkably different PIDs. If one were interested in estimating the actual value of each component then researchers using different methods would obtain very different values, including much larger estimates of shared information and of synergy!
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{4pt}
\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\caption{Physiological L5b neuronal recording data. Summary statistics for 15 neurons. PID components are shown for each PID method and each experimental condition. The sample median (Md) and the sample quartiles (q$_{\rm L}$, q$_{\rm U}$) are stated as percentages of the joint mutual information.}
\begin{tabular}{lcrrrrrrrrrrr} \toprule
& & \multicolumn{5}{c}{Control} && \multicolumn{5}{c}{Baclofen} \\ \toprule
& & Ibroja & Idep & Iccs & Ipm & Isx && Ibroja & Idep & Iccs & Ipm & Isx \\ \midrule \\
& q$_{\rm L}$ & 33.7 & 43.5 & 39.7 & $-33.1$ & 13.9 && 65.7& 65.8 & 64.3 & $-16.0$ & 13.6 \\
UnqB & Md & 49.7 & 51.9 & 47.7 & $-27.8 $& 18.5 && 74.5 & 74.6 & 70.0 &$ -12.7$& 19.2 \\
& q$_{\rm U}$ &60.8 & 65.7& 61.1 & $ -24.7$& 28.3 && 82.0 & 84.3 & 78.4& $-8.2$ & 24.0 \\ \midrule \\
& q$_{\rm L}$ & 0.2 & 6.1 & 1.7 & $-79.8$ & $-33.3$ && 0.0& 1.9&$ -0.7$&$ -88.5$ & $-34.5$ \\
UnqA & Md & 0.7 & 10.3 & 6.7 & $-67.8$ & $-24.2$&& 0.7 & 4.0 & $-0.1$ &$ -81.7$ & $-22.2$ \\
& q$_{\rm U}$ &5.3 & 13.6& 12.2 & $-59.2$&$ -15.6$&& 1.9 & 5.5 & 2.1& $-72.7$ & $ -15.5$ \\ \midrule \\
& q$_{\rm L}$ & 19.4 & 3.9 & 6.3 & 80.0& 36.7 && 3.5& 1.8 & 3.6 & 85.5 & 38.8 \\
Shd & Md & 11.9 & 5.4 & 7.4 & 86.6& 38.3 && 5.0& 2.7 & 4.7 & 88.4& 42.9 \\
& q$_{\rm U}$ & 17.1 & 6.6& 10.1 & 91.9& 43.5 && 5.5 & 3.4& 7.6& 94.2 & 46.0 \\ \midrule \\
& q$_{\rm L}$ & 25.9 & 20.3 & 26.9 & 109.3 & 62.3 && 12.7& 11.3& 16.7 & 101.4 & 55.8 \\
Syn & Md & 38.6 & 32.2 & 34.3 & 112.4 & 65.1 && 21.1 & 17.7 & 23.2 & 106.3 & 58.7\\
& q$_{\rm U}$ &44.4 & 38.6& 39.2& 116.6& 66.2 && 27.2 & 25.9 & 28.5& 110.0 & 62.3 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
If the interest in the components were relative, however, and involved comparing PID components under different conditions then perhaps the dramatic differences between the Ipm and Isx methods and the other methods would be somewhat attenuated, thus rendering the results produced by the different PID methods to be fairly similar in a relative sense, if not at an absolute level.
The purpose of the the study by Schulz et al.~\cite{SKBL} was to examine the effect of the GABA$_{\rm B}$ receptor-mediated dendritic inhibition on dendritic integration, and in particular whether it was associated with a change in synergy. This involves the examination of within-neuron differences of the synergy component, and so it means the comparison of the relative values of synergy in the absence and presence of local baclofen application that activated GABA$_{\rm B}$ receptors in the distal apical dendrite. We now turn attention to these comparisons.
\subsubsection{Analysis of within-neuron differences in PID components}
In Figure~\ref{fig4} the within-neuron differences in each PID component are plotted for each neuron.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 13 cm]{AllCompts__diff.png}
\caption{Physiological L5b neuronal recording data. Within-neuron differences in each PID component for 15 neurons, taken as Baclofen minus Control. Different vertical scales are employed for each component.}
\label{fig4}
\end{figure}
It is clear that the five PID methods produce differences which lie on the same scale. For UnqB, we see that the differences for all but one neuron are positive for all of the five PID methods, suggesting a general increase in UnqB in the presence of baclofen. For UnqA, most of the differences are negative for all five PIDs, thus indicating a general decrease in UnqA in the presence of baclofen. The Shd component differences reveal a possible divergence of the PID methods: while the Ibroja, Idep and Iccs differences are almost all negative, those for Ipm and Isx are mostly positive, thus suggesting a general increase rather than a general decrease. Apart from one neuron, the synergy differences are all negative, suggesting a general decrease in synergy in the presence of baclofen.
These observations on the plots of the component differences are also reflected in the summary statistics provided in Table 3.
\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\caption{Physiological L5b neuronal recording data. Summary statistics of within-neuron differences for 15 neurons. The sample median (Md) and the sample quartiles (q$_{\rm L}$, q$_{\rm U}$) of the differences (taken as Baclofen minus Control) are provided for each PID component. }
\begin{tabular}{llrrrrr} \toprule
& & Ibroja & Idep & Iccs& Ipm & Isx \\ \midrule
& q$_{\rm L}$ & 21.7& 16.9 & 14.6& 12.6 & 13.1 \\
UnqB & Md & 26.6 & 22.1 & 22.1 & 14.8 & 14.8 \\
& q$_{\rm U}$ & 24.2 & 24.2 & 23.4 & 19.2 & 17.8 \\ \midrule
& q$_{\rm L}$ & $~~~~-0.0$ & $ -9.0 $& $-8.9$ & $-14.1$ & $-15.3$ \\
UnqA & Md & $-0.0$ & $-6.2$ & $-6.8$ & $-11.6$ & $-13.5$ \\
& q$_{\rm U}$ & 0.0 & $-4.0$ & $ -5.1 $& $ -5.7$ & $ -8.4 $ \\ \midrule
& q$_{\rm L}$ & $-10.3$ & $-3.4$ & $-3.6$ & $0.1$ & 1.1 \\
Shd & Md & $-7.4$ & $-2.5$ & $-2.4$ & 2.5 & 2.7 \\
& q$_{\rm U}$ & $ -4.6$ & $-1.8$ & $-1.8 $ & 3.8 & 5.1 \\ \midrule
& q$_{\rm L}$ &$ -19.0$ & $-13.0 $&$ -14.4$ &$ -8.0 $&$ -6.6$ \\
Syn& Md &$ -14.9$ &$ -10.6$ & $-9.9$ & $-6.5$ & $-4.3$ \\
& q$_{\rm U}$ & $ -12.6$& $ -6.8$ & $ -5.7$ & $ -2.9$ & $-3.6$ \\ \bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{Statistical significance?}
For the physiological L5b neuronal recording data~\cite{SKBL}, there is interest mainly in the synergy components. Suppose that five different researchers were to each use a different PID method and then apply a statistical test of the null hypothesis that the median value of synergy is the same in the absence and in the presence of baclofen. It turns out that all five researchers would find a significant reduction, on average, in the synergy component (all p values are less than 0.001) when baclofen is present. Therefore, despite the dramatic differences between the PID results, both in the absence and in the presence of baclofen, all five researchers would arrive at the same formal statistical conclusion.
Suppose, however, that interest lay in the shared information component. For this component all five PIDs do not produce the same formal statistical conclusion. The researchers using Ibroja (P < 0.001), Idep (P < 0.001) and Iccs (P < 0.006) would all find a statistically significant reduction, on average, in the shared information in the presence of baclofen. On the other hand, the researcher using Ipm would declare that there is no statistically significant difference, on average, in this component when baclofen is introduced (P = 0.2), and with Isx the researcher would declare a statistically significant {\it increase}, on average, in the shared component (P < 0.006).
\subsubsection{Unique Information Asymmetry}
Recall from Section 2.3 that the unique information asymmetry (UIA) is defined as UnqB - UnqA. For a given probability distribution the UIA has the same value for every PID. Figure~\ref{fig5} shows the the UnqB and UnqA values for each experimental condition and each PID. The 15 neurons have positive values of the UIA under each experimental condition. Despite the fact that the Iccs PID has a few very small negative values for UnqA it appears that the three PIDs, Ibroja, Idep and Iccs, have very similar patterns to each other under each of the experimental conditions. On the other hand Ipm and Isx express the asymmetries very differently, and even differently from each other. Apart from one of the 15 neurons, Ipm has negative values for UnqB and more negative values for UnqA. Hence the asymmetries are being expressed in terms of there being much more unique apical misinformation than unique basal misinformation. For each of the 15 neurons, Isx has positive values for UnqB and negative values for UnqA. Therefore, it expresses the asymmetry as a balance of unique basal information and unique apical misinformation, with the former being larger for some neurons and smaller for others.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 5in]{uia_plot.png}
\caption{Physiological L5b neuronal recording data. A plot of the unique information asymmetries provided by each of the five PIDs for each experimental condition for 15 neurons. }
\label{fig5}
\end{figure}
One property of apical amplification (CSS3) in a neuron is that there is no or little unique apical information or misinformation in a PID, coupled with the requirement that synergy or mechanistic shared information, or both, are present. It is clear in Figure~\ref{fig5} that both Ipm and Isx mostly have large unique misinformation components and so, while they do have large values of synergy, their PIDs are generally not compatible with property CCS3. Therefore, we focus on the other three PIDs. For Ibroja, most of the neurons have small nonnegative unique apical components as well as appreciable synergy components (see Figure~\ref{fig3}) and so they provide some evidence of apical amplification. The Idep and Iccs PIDs tend to produce larger values for the unique informations than those obtained using Ibroja, but in the Control condition a few neurons have small unique apical components, and this is more markedly the case in the presence of baclofen. From Figure~\ref{fig3}, we see that several of these neurons also have appreciable values for synergy. Thus, some evidence of apical amplification is given by these neurons when using the Idep and Iccs methods but the Ibroja method provides the strongest support for apical amplification.
Some summary statistics of the UIA values and their differences, with Bonferroni-corrected p values, are provided in Table~\ref{Tab4}. The UIA is significantly positive, on average, under the control condition, and also in the presence of baclofen. When baclofen is present, the UIA is significantly larger, on average, than in the control condition. For the Ibroja, Idep and Iccs PIDs, these results taken together with Figure~\ref{fig4}, which shows for 14 of the neurons that in the presence of baclofen there is an increase in the transmission of unique basal information, coupled with a decrease in shared information and synergy, confirm the finding in~\cite{SKBL} that `GABA$_{\rm B}$R-mediated inhibition shifts the balance towards somatic control of AP output and potently decreases apical amplification'.
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{6pt}
\textcolor{blue}{\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\caption{Physiological L5b neuronal recording data. Summary statistics of the values of unique information asymmetry for 15 neurons. The sample median (Md) and the sample quartiles (q$_{\rm L}$, q$_{\rm U}$) are stated as percentages of the joint mutual information. The differences between the unique information asymmetries are taken as Baclofen minus Control. The quoted P values have been Bonferroni-corrected since three simultaneous tests have been performed. } \label{Tab4}
\begin{tabular}{cccc} \toprule
& Control & Baclofen & Difference \\ \midrule
q$_{\rm L}$ & 33.3 & 64.7 & 21.8 \\
Md & 44.6& 74.5& 27.9 \\
q$_{\rm U}$ & 60.7& 80.1& 33.4 \\ \midrule
P & < 0.0002 & <0.0002 & < 0.0004 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table} }
\subsection{Simulated data from a detailed compartmental model}
Shai et al.~\cite{Shai} reported simulations of a L5b model neuron that was based on a model originally fitted to data recorded from the rat somatosensory cortex by Hay et al.~\cite{HHSMS} and then adapted to recordings from the adult mouse visual cortex by manual manipulation of dendritic calcium and I$_{\rm H}$ conductance parameters.
NMDA/AMPA synapses were randomly distributed across the tuft and basal dendrites ranging in number from 0 to 300, in steps of 10, in the basal dendrites and 0 to 200, in steps of 10, in the apical dendrites. While many bursts of APs were observed, information regarding their occurrence was not recorded and so is unavailable in the data set (Adam Shai, {\it personal communication}). Hence we work with spike counts.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width =4in]{Spikes.png}
\caption{Simulated mouse L5b neuron model data. The number of action potentials emitted are provided for 651 combinations of the numbers of basal and apical inputs to the cell. The number of basal inputs ranges from 0 to 300 in steps of 10. The number of apical inputs ranges from 0 to 200 in steps of 10.}
\label{spikes}
\end{figure}
Information regarding the observed numbers of APs for the combinations of numbers of basal and apical inputs used in the study is provided in Figure~\ref{spikes}.
No APs are evoked by apical inputs when there are 0 or 10 basal inputs, but when there are no apical inputs APs occur provided that the number of basal inputs is at least 160. This suggests that the basal input is driving when the number of apical inputs is very low. When the number of basal inputs is very low (30-50) APs occur as long as the number of apical inputs is 110 or larger, suggesting that apical inputs may be the more effective driver of AP output under certain circumstances. When the numbers of basal and apical inputs are both large then at least 3 APs occur.
Since there are relatively few combination with 1 or 4 APs (see Figure~\ref{spikes}) the categories of the output variable $Y$ were taken to be 0, 1-2, 3-4 APs. The numbers of basal and apical inputs were not categorised. Each of the 651 observed combinations was given a probability of $1/651$, with the remaining possibilities having a probability of 0, thus creating a 31 values for the basal input, $B$, 21 values for the apical input, $A$, and 3 possible values for AP count, $Y$, in a 31 by 21 by 3 probability distribution.
Several classical information measures were computed for this probability distribution.
\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\caption{Simulated mouse L5b neuron model data. Estimated mutual information measures.
Some estimated classical mutual information measures (the unit is bit), given to two decimal places. The numbers in parentheses are the values of the measures as a percentage of the joint mutual information. \label{Tab5} }
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
\toprule
$I(Y; B)$ & $I(Y;A)$ & $I(Y;B|A)$ & $I(Y;A|B)$ & $I(Y; B, A)$ & $II(Y; B; A)$ & $H(Y)$\\ \midrule
0.74 &0.16 & 1.37 & 0.79& 1.54 & 0.63& 1.54\\
(48.3) & (10.7) & (89.3) & (51.7) & (100) & (41.0) & (100)\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
In this 31 by 21 by 3 system, the joint mutual information $I(Y; B, A)$ is 1.54 bits, while the difference $I(Y; B) - I(Y; A)$ is 0.58 bit. Therefore in any PID the unique information due to basal input will be larger than that contributed by apical input by 0.58 bit. The interaction information in this system is 0.63 bit, which is 41\% of the joint mutual information. Thus without performing a PID we can deduce, for any PID having nonnegative components, that at least 41\% of the mutual information between the output $Y$ and the inputs $(B, A)$ will be due to synergy.
To obtain the actual values of the partial information components, the five PIDs were applied to the whole data set and the results are given in Figure~\ref{ShaiBar}.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 3in, height =0.5in]{Nbroja_leg.png}
\includegraphics[width =4in]{Shai_bar.png}
\caption{Simulated mouse L5b neuron model data. Stacked bar plots showing the values of the components for each of the five PIDs using the full data set }
\label{ShaiBar}
\end{figure}
We now describe the bar plots in terms of percentages of the joint mutual information. As expected all five PIDs reveal the asymmetry between the unique basal and apical components, possibly due to the disparity in numbers of apical and basal inputs -- but see Figures~\ref{fig8}, \ref{fig9} which contain a combination where both basal and apical have the same range of inputs: 0-200. There are differences in how this asymmetry is expressed. The Ibroja PID has 37.7\% of the joint mutual information transmitted as information unique to the basal input and no unique information due to the apical input. For the Idep PID, the respective numbers are 42.2\% and 4.5\%, while for the Iccs PID they are 43.7\% and 6.1\%. This suggests for all three PIDs that the basal input is primarily driving while the apical input is mostly amplifying. Thus these three PIDs express the asymmetry in a similar manner, with Ibroja providing the strongest suggestion of apical amplification.
On the other hand the PIDs Ipm and Isx express the asymmetry rather differently. For Ipm, 13.8\% is transmitted as information unique to the basal input, whereas 23.9\% is transmitted as unique apical misinformation. The corresponding numbers for Isx are 17.4\% and 20.3\%. These two PIDs express the asymmetry in a similar manner. The numbers suggest that both the basal and apical inputs are driving, with the basal input transmitting information while the apical input is contributing a larger percentage as misinformation. For all five PIDs a large percentage of the joint mutual information is transmitted as synergy, with much larger percentages for the PIDs Ipm and Isx than for the other three PIDs. Also, the percentage of information transmitted as shared information is much larger for the PIDs Ipm and Isx.
\subsubsection{PID analysis for varying strengths of basal and apical input}
In previous work on cooperative context-sensitivity~\cite{KIDP, KP2020}, by utilising pre-defined probability models and particular transfer functions, it was possible to explore ideal properties, as defined in the Methods section. In order to investigate such matters here with realistic data, we consider increasing subsets of numbers of basal and apical inputs, from 0-100 to 0-200 for each of the basal and apical inputs. We think of a range which has larger numbers of inputs as being stronger than a range with a smaller number of inputs; so the range 0-130 is viewed as being stronger input that the range 0-100, and if the ranges of basal and apical inputs are both, say, 0-150 we consider the strengths of the basal and apical inputs to be equal.
We take the large range 0-100 as a baseline as there is no information in several smaller ranges since there are no APs (Figure~\ref{spikes}). Starting with the range 0-100 an additional 10 units were added incrementally until the range 0-200 was reached.
Therefore, when basal and apical both have the range 0 -100, we see from Figure~\ref{spikes} that there are 11 distinct basal inputs and 11 distinct apical inputs, and for each of the 121 combinations there are three possible values for the output. Therefore the PIDs are based on an 11 by 11 by 3 probability distribution, with each observed combination having an equal probability of 1/121, with the remaining combinations having probability zero. Similarly, when the apical range is 0-100 and the basal range is 0-200 the PIDs are based on a 21 by 11 by 3 probability distribution, with each observed combination having equal probability 1/231, with the rest having probability zero. When the ranges are both 0-200 the PIDs are based on a 21 by 21 by 3 probability distribution with each observed cell having probability 1/441, with the rest having probability zero. Thus there are 121 different combinations of ranges of basal and apical input. Given the different sizes of the probability distributions and the resulting differences in the values of the joint mutual information, the components of a PID in each combination were normalised by dividing by the joint mutual information for that combination. A representative sample of the 121 PIDs for each of the five methods is displayed in Figures~\ref{fig8}, \ref{fig9}.
Focusing on the Ibroja results in Figure~\ref{fig8}, we notice that there is a large synergy component in each combination, as well as an appreciable level of shared information. These levels of synergy and shared information appear to be fairly constant in all combinations for which the apical range is 0-130 or greater.
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width = 3in, height =0.5in]{Nbroja_leg.png}
\end{center}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{p{2cm}p{4cm}p{4cm}p{3cm}p{2.5cm}}
&Ibroja & Idep & Iccs&\\
\end{tabular}
\includegraphics[width =13.5 cm]{Shai_sym_3pid.png}
\caption{Simulated mouse L5b neuron model data. Ibroja (left column), Idep (middle column) and Iccs (right column) PIDs for various combinations of increasing ranges of basal inputs and increasing ranges of apical inputs: B1(0-100), B2(0-130), B3(0-150), B4(0-170), B5(0-200) and A1(0-100), A2(0-130), A3(0-150), A4(0-170), A5(0-200).}
\label{fig8}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width = 3in, height =0.5in]{Nbroja_leg.png}
\end{center}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{p{4.5cm}p{4cm}p{3cm}p{3cm}}
& Ipm & Isx&\\
\end{tabular}
\includegraphics[width =9 cm]{Shai_sym_2pid.png}
\caption{Simulated mouse L5b neuron model data. Ipm (left column) and Isx (right column) PIDs for various combinations of increasing ranges of basal inputs and increasing ranges of apical inputs: B1(0-100), B2(0-130), B3(0-150), B4(0-170), B5(0-200) and A1(0-100), A2(0-130), A3(0-150), A4(0-170), A5(0-200). }
\label{fig9}
\end{figure}
When the apical input is 0-100, however, we do notice some changes in the shared information and the synergy. As the basal range increases there is an increase in both of these components until the range 0-150 and thereafter a small decrease in both as the basal range increases.
We now comment in the changes in the unique informations and their relative values for these PIDs. When the basal input is 0-130, or lower, this asymmetry is negative for these subsets and there is very little unique basal information at all. On the other hand, when the basal input is 0-170 or greater the asymmetry is positive and there is very little unique apical information.
The negative asymmetry is present because the number of basal inputs is not sufficient to drive APs, whereas apical inputs are more effective at driving APs. With regard to the the positive asymmetry, now the situation changes, because basal inputs do drive APs; however, they do this in a more graded fashion than apical inputs.
See Figure~\ref{spikes}.
When the basal input is 0-150 we find that the asymmetry becomes positive, and one could say that by considering all the basal input ranges there is a unique information asymmetry bifurcation which happens when the number of basal inputs increases from 140 to 150, irrespective of the strength of the apical input. Thus these results reveal a much more diverse picture than the PID analysis of the whole dataset. For basal input up to 0-140 we say that the apical input is driving, whereas this begins to reverse at 0-150 and more strongly so for the larger basal input ranges. It is interesting that these patterns of results are not obtained if one were to reverse the roles of basal and apical and consider increasing apical strength; this reveals a fundamental asymmetry within the distributions.
A unique information asymmetry can also be seen when the ranges of basal and apical ranges are equal. For low values of both basal and apical there is apical drive and this changes to basal drive when the numbers of basal and apical inputs {\it both} change from 140 to 150. Even though the basal and apical strengths are equal, we find that the basal input comes to dominate in terms of unique information as the common strength increases.
These revelations also apply to the results obtained using the Idep and Iccs PIDs, although they both tend to produce larger values for the unique information components.
The Ipm and Isx results are given in Figure~\ref{fig9}. The comments regarding the unique information asymmetry bifurcation hold also for these PIDs due to the fact that unique information asymmetry is the same for all PIDs. It is expressed very differently, however. With Ipm, both unique informations are generally negative, so the asymmetry is described as the presence of more unique basal misinformation switching to more unique apical misinformation. The Isx PID generally expresses the bifurcation in UIA as a mixture of unique apical information and unique basal misinformation changing to a mixture of unique basal information and unique apical misinformation.
\subsubsection{Cooperative context-sensitivity as revealed by PID analyses}
In these experiments, we add further basal ranges to the previous increasing ranges of basal inputs considered in Section 3.3, up to 0-300, but now we consider three fixed apical ranges with a view to assessing the effect of different fixed strengths of apical input on the basal distributions of the PID components. From Figure~\ref{spikes}, we see that for apical ranges 110 -150 and 160-200, there are 5 distinct input values, and so the probability distributions range from 11 by 5 by 3 (for basal 0-100), with equal probability 1/55, to 31 by 5 by 3 (for basal 0-300), with equal probability 1/155 for the observed combinations and zero for the rest. The PID components for each combination of input ranges are normalised by the joint mutual information for that combination.
The results obtained with the Ibroja, Idep and Iccs PIDs are given in Figure~\ref{fig10}, and those for the Ipm and Isx PIDs are in Figure~\ref{fig11}.
We now discuss the plots in Figs.~\ref{spikes}, \ref{fig10}, \ref{fig11} with regard to the ideal properties of cooperative context-sensitivity defined in the Methods section, with the basal input as the `drive' and the apical input as the `context'.
\subsubsection*{Properties CSS1 and CSS2}
In Figure~\ref{spikes} we find, in the absence of apical input, that APs are emitted when the number of basal inputs is at least 150. This shows that the basal input is sufficient for the output to transmit information about the input in the absence of context. Thus property CSS1 holds: $B$ is sufficient and $A$ is not necessary. When there is no basal input we see that no APs are emitted. Thus the apical input is not sufficient for information transmission and the basal input is necessary, and therefore property CSS2 holds.
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width = 3in, height =0.5in]{Nbroja_leg.png}
\end{center}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{p{2cm}p{4cm}p{4cm}p{3cm}p{2.5cm}}
&Ibroja & Idep & Iccs&\\
\end{tabular}
\includegraphics[width =13.5 cm]{Shai_Apical3_3pid.png}
\caption{Simulated mouse L5b neuron model data. Ibroja (left column), Idep (middle column) and Iccs (right column) PIDs for various combinations of increasing ranges of basal inputs and three fixed ranges of apical inputs: B1(0-100), B2(0-130), B3(0-150), B4(0-170), B5(0-200), B6(0-250), B7(0-300) and A1(0-100), A6(110-150) and A7(160-200). }
\label{fig10}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection*{Property CSS3}
In Figure~\ref{fig10}, when the apical inputs are in ranges A6 and A7, and the basal inputs are in ranges B1-B7, the Ibroja, Idep and Iccs PIDs have large unique basal components as well as zero or small unique apical components, and synergy and some shared information are present; hence the these PIDs are consistent with property CSS3. When the apical inputs range from 0-100, only the Ibroja PIDs for 0-150, 0-170 and 0-300 basal inputs are consistent with CSS3, while for the Idep and Iccs PIDs this is so only when the basal input range is 0-300.
In Figure~\ref{fig11}, the Ipm PID satisfies property CSS3 mainly when the basal input ranges are 0-200, 0-250 and 0-300, for all three ranges of apical input. The Isx PID does not have small components for unique apical information or misinformation and hence it does not produce results that are consistent with property CSS3. Therefore, property CSS3 holds most widely for the Ibroja PID, less so for Idep and Iccs, for several basal-apical combinations with the Ipm PID and not at all for Isx.
\subsubsection*{Property CSS4}
In each of the probability distributions considered which are defined in terms of combinations of ranges of basal and apical inputs, $B$ and $A$ are marginally independent, and so the source shared information, ShdS, is equal to zero. Therefore the shared information components describe mechanistic shared information. For Ibroja, in Figure~\ref{fig10}, when the apical input range is 0-100, and the strength of the basal input increases from 0-130 to 0-150 we see that the combined value of the UnqB, Shd and Syn information components increases, thus increasing the transmission of information about the basal input.
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width = 3in, height =0.5in]{Nbroja_leg.png}
\end{center}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{p{4.5cm}p{4cm}p{3cm}p{3cm}}
& Ipm & Isx&\\
\end{tabular}
\includegraphics[width =9 cm]{Shai_Apical3_2pid.png}
\caption{Simulated mouse L5b neuron model data. Ipm (left column) and Isx (right column) PIDs for various combinations of increasing ranges of basal inputs and three fixed ranges of apical inputs: B1(0-100), B2(0-130), B3(0-150), B4(0-170), B5(0-200), B6(0-250), B7(0-300) and A1(0-100), A6(110-150) and A7(160-200). }
\label{fig11}
\end{figure}
As the strength of the basal input is further increased we find that the shared and synergistic components generally decrease. This provides support for property CSS4. These observations hold also for the Idep PID components as well as the Iccs components. In Figure~\ref{fig11}, the Ipm PID does not show the increase in the combined value of the information components Shd and Syn (UnqB is misinformation) as the basal strength is increased from 0-130 to 0-150. As the strength of the basal input is increased we do find, however, the same pattern of decreasing synergy and shared information as given by Ibroja, Idep and Iccs. Hence Ipm is partially consistent with property CCS4. The Isx PIDs show the same characteristics that were shown with Ibroja, Idep and Iccs and so it is consistent with property CCS4.
\section{Conclusions}
\subsection*{Rat somatosensory cortical L5b pyramidal neuron recording data}
The PID analyses reveal that the Ibroja, Idep and Iccs methods produce broadly similar PIDs for the 15 neurons under each experimental condition, whereas the Ipm and Isx methods produce components which have very different values than those given by the Ibroja, Idep and Iccs methods. In particular, the Ipm and Isx methods produce much larger estimates of shared information and synergy. The Ipm method even produces some values for synergy that are larger than the joint mutual information, which seems nonsensical!
When the relative values of the PID components are considered - as with the within-neuron differences in the PID components used in the investigation of the effect of baclofen - then these differences can be considered on the same scale for all five PID methods, and the results are generally more similar, although not for the shared information component. Statistical testing shows that for the synergy component five independent researchers, each using one of the five methods, would arrive at the same formal statistical conclusion. Were they to consider the shared information, however, the researchers using the Ipm or Isx methods would reach a different formal statistical conclusion than obtained by those using the Ibroja, Idep and Iccs methods.
While the values of the unique information asymmetry are the same for all five methods, the asymmetry is expressed in different ways. The Ibroja, Idep and Iccs methods all exhibit strong basal drive and there is evidence of apical amplification for several neurons. Examination of the within-neuron differences and statistical testing conducted on the asymmetry values provide support for the conclusion in ~\cite{SKBL} regarding the effect of GABA$_{\rm B}$R-mediated inhibition. Neither conclusion applies to the Ipm and Isx methods.
As to the question of which method(s) to rely on it seems wise, for probability distributions of the type considered in this study, to employ the Ibroja, Idep and Iccs methods since they give broadly similar results, rather than the Ipm or Isx method.
\subsection*{Simulated mouse L5b neuron model data}
The PID analyses of the full dataset again reveal differences among the five methods, with the Ibroja, Idep and Iccs decompositions again being broadly similar. The Ipm and Isx methods transmit higher percentages of the information as synergy and shared information and an appreciable percentage as unique apical misinformation that is larger in magnitude than the transmitted unique basal information.
A richer picture emerges when various subsets of the data are analysed. When the basal and apical inputs are treated on an equal footing, and various combinations of strengths of basal and apical inputs considered, we find that there is a bifurcation in unique information asymmetry for all PIDs. While the values of the asymmetries are fixed by classical measures of mutual information, the nature of the asymmetries is only revealed by the PIDs. For Ibroja, Idep and Iccs, we find that as the strength of the basal input increases, to the extent that it is sufficient to drive AP output, there is a switch from apical drive to basal drive, and that this occurs at the same strength of basal input for every strength of apical input. We also find that this bifurcation happens when we consider combinations where the basal and apical strengths are equal. The Ipm and Isx PIDs express the asymmetry in terms of combinations of basal and apical misinformation or a combination of a unique information with a unique misinformation.
In a second exploration of subsets, increasing basal strengths were considered for three fixed apical strengths. With regards to cooperative context-sensitivity, we find that all five PIDs provide at least some support for the ideal properties. The Ibroja PID satisfies the properties to the fullest extent, with Idep and Iccs close behind. Ipm and Isx provide partial support.
Both investigated data sets have different intrinsic limitations. In the first study, direct current injection was used as an experimental approximation of synaptic inputs. The model neuron of the second study is expected to provide limited accuracy in the precise AP number evoked by synaptic inputs due to the intrinsic difficulties in modeling the fast underlying conductances appropriately~\cite{HHSMS}. However, our analyses converge at the conclusion that apical dendritic inputs may mainly contribute to synergy, i.e. have a modulatory role, rather than driving output information. The reason for this is that, in the investigated pyramidal neurons, apical dendritic inputs are bound to recruit an amplifying Ca$^{2+}$ spike mechanism in the apical dendrite if they were to activate somatic APs directly. Therefore, apical dendritic inputs cannot provide the graded impact on AP output that basal dendritic inputs do. We can conclude that under these circumstances, the role of apical dendritic inputs is largely restricted to amplifying output rather than driving output information.
\begin{flushleft}
{\large\bf Abbreviations}
\end{flushleft}
\begin{flushleft}
{Partial Information Decomposition}
\end{flushleft}
\begin{description}[labelsep =1cm, align =left, labelwidth = 1.2cm, labelindent =0.2cm]
\item[PID] \parbox[t]{0.7\textwidth}{Partial Information Decomposition, with components UnqB, UnqA, Shd and Syn, defined in Section 2.3}\\
\item[Ibroja] \parbox[t]{0.7\textwidth}{The PID developed by Bertschinger et al.~\cite{BERT} }
\item[Idep] \parbox[t]{0.7\textwidth}{The PID developed by James et al.~\cite{James} }
\item[Iccs] \parbox[t]{0.7\textwidth}{The PID developed by Ince~\cite{RI} }
\item[Ipm] \parbox[t]{0.7\textwidth}{The PID developed by Finn \& Lizier.~\cite{FL} }
\item[Isx] \parbox[t]{0.7\textwidth}{The PID developed by Makkeh et al.~\cite{MGW} }
\end{description}
\begin{flushleft}
{Others}
\end{flushleft}
\begin{description} [labelsep = 1cm, align =left, labelwidth =1.2cm, labelindent = 0.2cm]
\item[AMPA] \parbox[t]{0.7\textwidth}{ $\alpha$-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic acid }
\item[AP] \parbox[t]{0.7\textwidth} {Action potential }
\item[GABA] \parbox[t]{0.7\textwidth}{gamma-aminobutyric acid}
\item[GABA$_{\rm {\bf B}}$] \parbox[t]{0.7\textwidth}{A GABA$_{\rm B}$ receptor is a G-protein receptor, or metabotropic receptor}
\item[JMI] \parbox[t]{0.7\textwidth}{Joint mutual information between the output $Y$ and the inputs $(B, A)$, as defined in Section 2.2}
\item[L5b] \parbox[t]{0.7\textwidth}{Layer 5b }
\item[NMDA] \parbox[t]{0.7\textwidth}{N-methyl-D-aspartate }
\item[UIA] \parbox[t]{0.7\textwidth}{Unique information asymmetry, as defined in Section 2.4}
\end{description}
|
\section{Introduction}
\IEEEPARstart{T}{he} Internet of Things (IoT) has the potential to change the technological landscape and bring great economical and societal benefits. The success of IoT on a large scale depends on several key enabling technologies, one of which is wireless communication.
Low-power wide-area (LPWA) networks are a new paradigm of wireless networking that is expected to become one of the key drivers of massive IoT \cite{raza2017low}.
Compared to the legacy technologies, such as cellular and short-range wireless networks, {the benefits offered by LPWA networks include} wide-area connectivity for low-power and low-data-rate devices and low capital expenditure due to the use of the unlicensed spectrum.
To enable long-range connectivity, LPWA networks primarily use sub-1GHz bands due to the favorable propagation conditions. Ultra-narrowband (UNB) LPWA solutions apply the ultra-narrowband transmissions, which enable demodulation at a very low received power. Furthermore, UNB LPWA networks normally rely on simple ALOHA-like access protocols, where IoT devices avoid associating and synchronizing with any UNB {base station} (BS); in essence, IoT devices operate in a broadcast mode, transmitting their packets at arbitrary time and frequency. Normally, the BSs operate in a decentralized manner and packet decoding occurs at the BSs, as opposed to at a central server where the received symbols from all BSs in the network could be combined. Therefore, the packet is successfully transmitted if any BS decodes any of the packet transmissions.
{Due to the extremely low bandwidth (hundreds of Hz), the frequency drift of the local oscillator in the commodity hardware becomes comparable to the transmission bandwidth, thus rendering slotted access infeasible.} UNB networks solve this problem by allowing the devices to transmit in an unslotted manner, while the receiving BSs do the task of accurately syncing on to a signal in frequency.
This is accomplished by performing fast Fourier transform (FFT) at a very fine sampling interval over the entire bandwidth of the multiplexing band, which is the portion of the spectrum across which UNB transmissions occur.
Naturally, a UNB network would benefit from a wider multiplexing band.
However, since the complexity of the FFT scales with the bandwidth of the multiplexing band, the multiplexing band has a feasibility limit on its bandwidth.
One way to introduce more frequency diversity would be to use several multiplexing bands with each BS associated to one band and IoT devices transmitting freely across any band.
This would keep the capital expenditure the same since the BSs would still use the same hardware, only tuned to different multiplexing bands, while the capacity of the network could potentially increase. Indeed, in \cite{hattab2018spectrum, hattab2020spectrum} it has been shown that the capacity does increase by applying this paradigm at no additional cost. However, the scope of \cite{hattab2018spectrum, hattab2020spectrum} does not consider optimization of the BS infrastructure, leaving room for further enhancements.
\IEEEpubidadjcol
Optimizing the {deployment of the} BS infrastructure, namely the BS placement and frequency band assignment, is precisely the focus of this paper.
The BS placement and channel assignment are jointly optimized, however, the approaches that we will propose naturally extend to optimizing channel assignment without placement and vice versa. {We have developed an approach for joint optimization of BS placement and band assignment, however, this approach can be applied to solve the problem of
band assignment only, when the placement is predetermined. It can also be applied
to solving for placement only, when there is a single band.}
Moreover, we assume that some BSs may be present in the environment already and the network is expanded by introducing additional BSs. In that case, the optimization will include channel assignment for the current BSs as well as both channel assignment and placement for the new BSs.
{The objective is to maximize the probability of decoding of a packet (PDP), irrespective of the source {IoT device}}.
We cast the problem as an integer non-linear problem (INLP), for which we then find an approximate solution. In order to implement this solution, we are faced with learning the \emph{average decoding probability (ADP)} at several locations in the network and the \emph{joint decoding probability (JDP)} between several pairs of locations in the IoT network.
{JDP between a pair of locations is defined as the probability of successfully decoding a transmission from an IoT device at both locations in the pair.}
The model-based approach requires fewer measurements, however, it is based on stochastic models of device placement, channel, and interference, which the environment should match.
{The measurement-based approach directly estimates the required JDPs and ADPs.} It involves no assumptions on device placement, channel, and interference at the cost of a more demanding training phase. Due to its training complexity, this approach is more suitable for optimizing only channel assignment when the placement { is not optimized, due to, for example, infrastructure constraints that decide the BS placement}.
In both approaches, we do not assume to know the locations of IoT devices, rather, our optimization is based on the information collected by the {BSs that are receiving the packets.}
{Our main contributions can be summarized as follows:}
\begin{itemize}
\item We formulate joint BS placement and frequency assignment for maximizing PDP as an optimization problem and derive an approximate solution, which we show to require the estimation of ADP and JDP at several locations in the network.
\item We propose a model-based approach for predicting ADP and the JDP at locations for which we do not have any measurements. First, we use stochastic geometry to derive models of ADP and JDP as a function of the location.
We then use the derived models to develop an algorithm for prediction of ADP and JDP for any location in the network.
\item We develop an algorithm for efficient direct learning of ADP and JDP for candidate locations for the BSs, which is the basis for the approach that we refer to as the measurement-based approach.
\end{itemize}
\emph{Organization:}
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \ref{sec:related-work}, we summarize the related work and state the novelty compared to related work.
In Sec. \ref{sec:iot-network-model}, we describe the model of the UNB IoT network and the incumbent devices. In Sec. \ref{sec:problem}, we mathematically describe the problem of BS placement and BS band assignment and pose it as an INLP. We then show how the problem can be relaxed such that it can be solved by knowing ADPs and JDPs at a number of locations in the environment.
In Sec. \ref{sec:model-based-approach}, we describe the model-based approach and in Sec. \ref{sec:training}, we describe its training procedure. In Sec. \ref{sec:meas-approach}, we describe the measurement-based approach. In Sec. \ref{sec:sim-results}, we run simulations to evaluate and compare our approaches, and in Sec. \ref{sec:conclusions}, we provide conclusions and directions for future work.
{
\emph{Notations:} Scalars, vectors, and matrices are denoted by regular, bold lower-case, and bold upper-case letters, respectively. The $(i, j)$-th element of $\mathbf{A}$ is denoted by $[\mathbf{A}]_{i, j}$. A two-element tuple is denoted as $(a,b)$. An uniform random distribution in a closed interval $[a,b]$ is denoted as $\mathcal{U}[a,b]$. The set of all vectors of size $N$ with binary valued entries is denoted as $\mathbb{Z}_2^N$. The function $\mathbf{1}_A$ is an indicator function equal to 1, if the logic statement $A$ is true, and 0 otherwise. $|\mathcal{A}|$ is the Lebesque measure of a continuous set $\mathcal{A}$ or the cardinality of a discrete set $\mathcal{A}$. $\text{vec}(\mathbf{A})$ flattens a matrix into a column vector.
}
\section{Related Work}
{\subsection{Our previous work}}
{The theoretical benefits of multiband UNB LPWAN networks have been analyzed in \cite{hattab2018spectrum, hattab2020spectrum} using a stochastic geometry framework and simulation studies.
Using multiple bands reduces IoT collisions and interference with incumbents. However, to fully exploit these gains when each BS is restricted to listen to one of the bands, it is necessary to optimize the BS-band selection policy.
In \cite{krijestorac2020band}, we proposed an algorithm for optimal BS-to-band assignment in a LPWA UNB multi-band network. This paper is an extension of that work with the focus expanding to joint BS placement and band assignment optimization.
One of the two main proposed algorithms that we will discuss in this paper, the measurement-based approach, is based on our work in \cite{krijestorac2020band}, but in this work it has been extended to be applicable for placement optimization. The second approach that will introduce in this paper, the model-based approach is entirely novel.
}
{\subsection{Existing prior literature}}
{While the channel assignment and BS placement problems were previously researched in the context of various wireless technologies such as LPWANs, Wi-Fi networks \cite{ling2006joint}, cellular networks \cite{uygungelen2011graph, narayanan2001static, chae2011radio}, and cognitive unlicensed radio networks \cite{ahmed2014channel}, to the best of our knowledge, no problem setting has considered the problem of optimal BS placement and band assignment in a multi-band UNB LPWAN.
The distinctions arise due to two characteristics: (i) We consider a multi-band network in which IoT devices are able to transmit in any band but the receivers (BSs) are tuned to only one band {over a long period of time}; and (ii) we assume that there is no association between devices and BSs, i.e. any BS that receives a transmission is expected to decode it, which is the case for a limited number of network architectures. While LPWANs such as LoRa often satisfy characteristic (ii), the characteristic (i) is not met. Other technologies, such as Wi-Fi or cellular, in general neither meet (i) nor (ii).
}
{
In the context of LPWANs, there are several works that consider BS placement optimization but not channel assignment. In \cite{ousat2019lora}, the authors consider the optimal placement of BSs for LoRa networks, however, their main objective is to minimize the capital-expenditure costs and maximize energy efficiency of the devices. Furthermore, it is assumed that the locations of the IoT devices are known which makes it possible to fairly reliably predict the PDP of a device given a particular BS placement, which is taken advantage of in their approach. We do not make the same assumptions since it is unlikely that all devices served by the BSs will be equipped with a GPS or other localization technologies due them often being energy limited.
In \cite{matni2019optimal}, a similar objective is considered for the general category of LPWAN networks with known IoT device locations. The work in \cite{tian2018optimized} considers placement when gateways perform interference cancellation with the objective of maximizing the packet delivery ratio, equivalent to PDP in this paper, however, it is assumed that the locations of the IoT devices are known. In summary, no approaches that were previously developed for placement in LPWANs would apply to the problem that we consider. Furthermore, to the best of our knowledge, no works in LPWANs consider channel assignment on the BS side because the BSs are normally assumed to operate on a single channel.
\label{sec:related-work}
{\subsection{Overview of current technologies}}
{Several commercial UNB LPWAN {technologies} are available on the market at the time of this writing, such as Sigfox \cite{sigfox_usa_2020}, WAWIoT NB-Fi \cite{wawiot}, and Telensa \cite{telensa}. For a more detailed survey of various LPWAN technologies, including UNB, the reader is referred to \cite{finnegan2018comparative}. Here, we briefly summarize the main characteristics cited in the technical specifications of these technologies that will be relevant to this thesis. First, the expected range of reliable communication is up to 10 miles. The uplink packet size payload is up to 12 bytes, depending on the type of data being transmitted, and the bandwidth of packet transmission ranges from 50Hz to 600Hz across technologies. Multiplexing band bandwidth ranges from 200kHz to 500kHz and the bands are located in the sub 1GHz unlicensed ISM bands for all existing commercial solutions.}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{figures/system_model_journal.eps}
\caption{The system model of the LPWAN IoT network.}
\label{fig:my_label}
\end{figure}
\section{Model of the IoT network}
\label{sec:network-model}
\label{sec:iot-network-model}
In this section, we describe the IoT network considered for the BS placement optimization and BS frequency assignment.
{We are interested in the planning of the operation of a LPWA UNB IoT network operating across multiple sub-1GHz unlicensed bands.}
The interference is assumed to come not only from other devices of the same technology, as the IoT network is assumed to share the unlicensed band with other incumbent technologies such as LoRa, Zigbee or 802.11 WLANs.
{
Among the assumptions made in this section, only the assumptions described in Sec. \ref{sec:iot-network-model-a}
are used by the measurement-based approach while others are only necessary for model-based approach.
}
\subsection{UNB network topology and transmission model}
\label{sec:iot-network-model-a}
We denote the number of BSs present in the network as $B$. There are $M$ multiplexing bands, each with bandwidth $W$. {For ease of exposition, we assume a constant $W$ across bands $m\in\left\{1,..,M\right\}$, even though our analysis is not dependent on this assumption.} IoT devices use ALOHA random access protocol to access the bands and transmit signals at power $P$, occupying a bandwidth $w$ with a random center frequency.
Each packet is repeated $R$ times, consecutively over time, yet randomly hopping from one frequency to another {across any of the $M$ bands}, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:my_label}. The packet transmission duration is $T$. We label the transmissions of IoT devices with a tuple $(n,r)$, where {$n\in\left\{1,2,..,\infty\right\}$} is the packet index and $r\in\left\{1,..,R\right\}$ corresponds to the repetition number of the packet. Therefore, the probality of a device being active is $\frac{NRT}{1~h}$.
{In UNB LPWANs such as Sigfox, IoT devices are allowed to transmit at an average rate of up to $N$ packets per hour \cite{sigfox_usa_2020}, although they may transmit less in order to conserve energy. We assume that all devices are transmitting $N$ packets per hour and that packets are transmitted as soon as they arrive into the queue, since there is no listen-before-talk mechanism. Hence, we model packet arrivals as a Poission process, with independent arrivals across devices.}
We denote the time of a transmission $(n,r)$ as $t(n,r)$.
The transmission signals are extremely narrowband and the channel access is assumed to be unslotted, therefore we model the carrier frequency $f(n, r)$ as a uniform random distribution $\mathcal{U}\left[\frac{w}{2},WM-\frac{w}{2}\right]$.
Similarly, since the devices randomly transmit across any of the multiplexing bands, we can model the band selected for a particular packet transmission $\beta(n,r)$ as a discrete uniform random variable that takes on the values $m \in \{1,...,M \}$. The probability distributions across each band is approximately $\Pr(\beta(n,r)=m)=\frac{1}{M}$, since $w \ll W$.
\subsection{Interfering networks}
We will assume a similar regular access pattern for incumbent devices with $N_I$ packets per hour, $R_I$ repetitions, power $P_I$, bandwidth $w_I$ and transmission time $T_I$ . {The transmit probability of incumbent devices is then $\frac{N_I T_I}{1~h}$. We also assume that transmissions can be modeled by a Poisson point process that operates independently across devices. } {This assumptions is true only when the queues at each device are backlogged or packets arrivals at each device are sporadic.} {Otherwise, the analysis would be very difficult due to spatio-temporal correlation between incumbent transmissions \cite{zhong2020spatio}.}
{To simplify our analysis, we further assume that the interference across multiplexing bands is uncorrelated. With this assumption, if a particular device is occupying several bands, it can only be approximately modeled by separate uncorrelated virtual devices.}
The number of incumbent devices operating on each multiplexing band $m$ may not be the same, therefore IoT devices on some bands may experience a higher incumbent interference than on others.
The assumption of unequal incumbent interference across different frequencies is consistent with measurement studies performed in IoT networks \cite{vejlgaard2017interference}, which show non-uniform interference power distribution in sub-1 GHz ISM bands.
\subsection{UNB and Interfering devices' topology}
There are $D$ UNB IoT devices {across an area of interest} $\mathcal{A}$ whose locations are assumed to be unknown, however, we assume that their locations are sampled from a uniform distribution.
{The area $\mathcal{A}$ contains all the IoT devices for which we aim to maximize the PDP by optimizing the BS deployment.}
Modeling the distribution of the locations of wireless devices as uniform is justified in many instances, including IoT networks. The number of incumbent devices on each multiplexing band $m$ is $D_{I,m}$ and their locations are also sampled from a uniform distribution across $\mathcal{A}$.
\section{Problem statement and proposed solutions}
\label{sec:problem}
In this section, we define the problem of optimal BS placement and the optimal assignment of BSs to multiplexing bands.
\subsection{Problem statement}
The main objective of the algorithm will be to maximize the probability of decoding a packet (PDP) for a typical device in the network.
There are $B \geq 0$ currently deployed BSs and we assume that there is a need to expand the BS infrastructure by installing new BSs in $\mathcal{A}$.
The network will be expanded by introducing additional $\Delta B \geq 0$ BSs to the network, and we need to find an optimal placement for these BSs and their multiplexing band assignment. When new BSs are installed, the band assignment of the currently deployed BSs may need to be updated. We assume $\Delta B$ is pre-determined by the resource availability of the network operator { and not optimized}. When $\Delta B=0$, then the problem reduces to the optimal assignment of BSs to bands. When installing new BSs, we assume that there are $C \geq \Delta B$ candidate locations for new BSs. This would be determined by practical constraints such as connectivity to the core network or real-estate considerations. Among the $C$ candidate locations, $\Delta B$ locations will be populated by new BSs.
Let us introduce an extended set of BS locations that includes the locations currently occupied by BSs and the candidate locations for the new BSs $b \in \{ 1,\dots,B,\dots B+C\}$, where the locations $b \in \{ 1, \dots, B\}$ correspond to the locations currently occupied by the BSs.
We will be solving for the binary assignment variable $\mathbf{X}\in \mathbb{Z}_2^{(B+C) \times M}$, where
\begin{equation}
[\mathbf{X}]_{b,m}=\begin{cases}
1 & \text{A BS is placed at }b\text{ and assigned to band }m\\
0 & \text{No BS at location }b\text{ and band }m
\end{cases}.
\end{equation}
Given an assignment $\mathbf{X}$, our objective is to maximize the average PDP of a packet $n$, defined as follows:
\begin{equation}
P_{\text{PDP}}(\mathbf{X})=\Pr\left(\bigcup_{r}\bigcup_{b}\left[\mathbf{X}\right]_{b,\beta(n,r)}\text{SINR}_{b,\beta(n,r)}(n,r)>\tau\right)
\label{eq:main_obj}
\end{equation}
{We are interested in maximizing the probability of decoding of a packet irrespective of its source. The union over $r$ in (\ref{eq:main_obj}) captures that if any of the repetitions $r=1,...,R$ is decoded, the packet $n$ is considered decoded.
The union over $b$ captures that a packet repetition is decoded if at any of the locations $b$ there is a BS synchronized to band $\beta(n,r)$ (i.e. $\left[\mathbf{X}\right]_{b,\beta(n,r)} = 1$) that is able to decode it. A BS can decode a repetition at location $b$ if the SINR of the packet repetition at the location $b$, $\text{SINR}_{b,\beta(n,r)}(n,r)$, exceeds the decoding threshold $\tau$. }
The optimization problem can be stated as:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align} \label{eq:P1}
\max_{\mathbf{X}} & \quad P_{\text{PDP}}(\mathbf{X}) \tag{P.1.1} \\
\textrm{s.t.} & \quad \left[\begin{array}{c}
\mathbf{1}_{B} \\
\mathbf{0}_{C}
\end{array}\right] \leq \mathbf{X}\mathbf{1}_{M} \leq \left[\begin{array}{c}
\mathbf{1}_{B} \\
\mathbf{1}_{C}
\end{array}\right], \tag{P1.2} \label{P1.2} \\
&\left[\begin{array}{cc}
\mathbf{0}_{B}^{T} & \mathbf{1}_{C}^{T}\end{array}\right]\mathbf{X}\mathbf{1}_{M}=\Delta B, \tag{P1.3} \label{P1.3} \\
& \quad \mathbf{X}\in \mathbb{Z}_2^{(B+C) \times M} \tag{P1.4} \label{P1.4}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
In the above, $\mathbf{1}_{B}$ is a vector of ones of size $B \times 1$ and $\mathbf{0}_{C}$ is a vector of zeros of size $C \times 1$. The constraint (\ref{P1.2}) ensures that BSs $b\in\{1,\dots,B\}$ that are already installed, remain at their location and are assigned to listen to a multiplexing band and none of the BSs are assigned to more than one band. The constraint (\ref{P1.3}) ensures that $\Delta B$ BSs are placed to one of the $C$ candidate locations and assigned to one of the $M$ multiplexing bands. The constraint (\ref{P1.4}) constrains the assignment variable $\mathbf{X}$ to have entries limited to $\{0,1\}$.
In order to be able to solve this problem, we would have to know what the function $P_{\text{PDP}}(\mathbf{X})$ is in terms of the assignment variable $\mathbf{X}$.
Learning or estimating this function would be non-trivial since the number of possible $\mathbf{X}$ is ${C \choose {\Delta B}} M^{B + \Delta B}$.
\subsection{Suboptimal solution to P1}
To relax the optimization problem (P1), we seek to optimize the probability of decoding of a repetition of a packet,
$
P_{\text{TDP}}(\mathbf{X})=\Pr\left(\bigcup_{b}\left[\mathbf{X}\right]_{b,\beta(r)}\text{SINR}_{b,\beta(r)}(r)>\tau\right)
$,
which is a lower bound on $P_{\text{PDP}}(\mathbf{X})$. $P_{\text{TDP}}(\mathbf{X})$ is a lower bound on $P_{\text{PDP}}(\mathbf{X})$ since a packet is decoded if any of its $R$ repetitions is decoded, therefore $P_{\text{PDP}}(\mathbf{X})$ is always larger than $P_{\text{TDP}}(\mathbf{X})$. As we will demonstrate in this section, working with the expression for $P_{\text{TDP}}(\mathbf{X})$ makes the analysis more tractable and allows us to arrive at a simpler optimization problem. The relaxed problem (P1) is:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\max_{\mathbf{X}} & \quad P_{\text{TDP}}(\mathbf{X}) \\
\textrm{s.t.} & \quad \text{(\ref{P1.2}), (\ref{P1.3}), (\ref{P1.4})}
\end{aligned}
\tag{P2}
\label{P2}
\end{equation}
{
Note that (\ref{P2}) is equivalent to (P1) when the number of repetitions is $R = 1$.
}
\begin{proposition}{}
\label{prop:suboptimal}
For a given $\tau$, a suboptimal solution to \ref{P2} can be obtained by solving the following convex integer optimization problem:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\max_{\mathbf{X}} \quad & \sum_{m}\bigg(\sum_{b}[\mathbf{X}]_{b,m}\mathbb{E}_r\{A_{b,m}(r)\}-\\
&\sum_{b<v}[\mathbf{X}]_{b,m}[\mathbf{X}]_{v,m}\mathbb{E}_r\{A_{b,m}(r)A_{v,m}(r)\}\bigg)\\
\textrm{s.t.} & \quad \text{(\ref{P1.2}), (\ref{P1.3}), (\ref{P1.4})}
\end{aligned}
\tag{P3}
\label{P3}
\end{equation}
where $A_{b,m}(r) = \mathbf{1_{(\text{SINR}_{b,\beta(n,r)}(n,r)>\tau)}}$. The objective function is a concave function and is also a lower bound on the objective function in (\ref{P3}). Therefore, the objective function in (\ref{P3}) is a lower bound on the objective function in (P1).
\end{proposition}
\begin{IEEEproof}
The proof is given in Appendix \ref{appendix:suboptimal}.
\end{IEEEproof}
{\subsection{Practical solution of the proposed optimization problem}}
As shown by our results in the latter sections, approximating the problem (P1) by (\ref{P3}) proves to be a suitable relaxation for finding the BS assignment and placement that will result in maximizing the PDP in a realistic environment.
{While the solution given by (\ref{P3}) can be used to maximize the lower bound on packet decoding probability, in order to implement it, we need to know $\mathbb{E}_r\{A_{b,m}\}~\forall b$, which are the ADPs at each of the locations in the set $\{1,\dots,B+C\}$. We also need the knowledge of $\mathbb{E}_r\{A_{b,m}(r)A_{v,m}(r)\} ~ \forall b,v$, which are the JDPs between all pairs of locations in the set $\{1,\dots,B+C\}$. {Additionally, even with the knowledge of ADPs and JDPs the problem may be difficult to solve due to integer constraints on the optimization variables.}
{While general integer optimization problems are known to be NP-hard, the optimization problem (\ref{P3}) stands out in that its objective function is convex and its constraints are linear. It can be shown that there exists an algorithm that can solve a convex integer problem in polynomial time given a fixed number of variables \cite[p.~574]{junger200950}. However, the worst-case computational complexity asymptotically grows exponentially with the number of variables. In our case, the number of variables is $M\times(B+C)$. Therefore, even though this problem is solvable it may not be tractable. In our solution we use a branch-and-bound algorithm to solve this problem and place a $T_{sol}$ threshold on the solver CPU time as a stopping criterion. $T_{sol}$ was selected such that in the majority of cases the optimal solution was found on our machine. To guarantee tractability, relaxations of the problem (\ref{P3}) could be pursued to lower computational complexity, however that is beyond of the scope of this paper}.
Therefore, the main challenge that we will focus on is to accurately and efficiently estimate the ADPs $\mathbb{E}_r\{A_{b,m}\}~\forall b$ and JDPs $\mathbb{E}_r\{A_{b,m}(r)A_{v,m}(r)\} ~ \forall b,v$. Due to this critical aspect of our problem, we will propose two alternative algorithms for BS placement and band assignment:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \emph{Measurement-based (MEAS) placement and assignment approach}: In this approach, we directly measure $\mathbb{E}_r\{A_{b,m}\}~\forall b$ and $\mathbb{E}_r\{A_{b,m}(r)A_{v,m}(r)\} ~ \forall b,v$ through an optimized training procedure during the operation of the network. However, the complexity of this training procedure scales with the number of candidate locations since the number of JDP parameters to be estimated is ${B+C}\choose{2}$. For this reason, we have developed an alternative, more practical approach.
\item \emph{Model-based (MOD) placement and assignment approach}: In this approach, we will use models of ADP and JDP to predict $\mathbb{E}_r\{A_{b,m}\}~\forall b$ and $\mathbb{E}_r\{A_{b,m}(r)A_{v,m}(r)\} ~ \forall b,v$.
This approach necessitates development of suitable models of ADP and JDP and estimating the parameters of these models to make the correct predictions on ADP and JDP.
\end{enumerate}
\section{Model-based placement and assignment approach}
\label{sec:model-based-approach}
In this section, we describe the proposed model-based approach. In Sec. \ref{sec:model-adp}, we will develop a model of ADP as a function of a set of parameters $\psi_{\ensuremath{\text{ADP}}, m}$ dependent on band $m$, denoted as $\ensuremath{\Pr\left(\text{SINR}_{b,m}\geq\tau ~|~ \ADPPARAM\right)}$ (Theorem \ref{theorem:adp-model}).
In Sec. \ref{sec:model-jdp}}, we will develop a model of JDP as a function of a set of parameters, $\ensuremath{\psi_{\JDP, m}}$,
and the separation between receiving locations $b$ and $v$, $d_{b,v}$, denoted as $\ensuremath{\Pr\left(\text{SINR}_{b,m}\geq\tau,\text{SINR}_{v,m}\geq\tau~|~d_{b,v},\JDPPARAM\right)}$ (Theorem \ref{theorem:model-jdp}).
Then, the models of ADP and JDP can be applied in a real environment by estimating the parameters $\psi_{\ensuremath{\text{ADP}},m}$ and $\psi_{\ensuremath{\text{JDP}},m}$ and using the estimated parameters to predict ADPs and JDPs as:
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}_r\{A_{b,m}(r)\} = \ensuremath{\Pr\left(\text{SINR}_{b,m}\geq\tau ~|~ \ADPPARAM\right)}~\forall b,
\end{equation}
\begin{multline}
\mathbb{E}_r\{A_{b,m}(r)A_{v,m}(r)\} = \\ \ensuremath{\Pr\left(\text{SINR}_{b,m}\geq\tau,\text{SINR}_{v,m}\geq\tau~|~d_{b,v},\JDPPARAM\right)} ~ \forall b,v
\end{multline}
Hence, (\ref{P3}) can be solved using the predicted ADPs and JDPs.
\subsection{Stochastic geometry preliminaries}
\label{sec:prelim}
In this section, we introduce some fundamental concepts from stochastic geometry that will assist us in development of the model of the ADP, $\ensuremath{\Pr\left(\text{SINR}_{b,m}\geq\tau ~|~ \ADPPARAM\right)}$, and the model of the JDP, $\ensuremath{\Pr\left(\text{SINR}_{b,m}\geq\tau,\text{SINR}_{v,m}\geq\tau~|~d_{b,v},\JDPPARAM\right)}$.
Stochastic geometry is linked to spatial point processes. A point process (PP) is a countable random collection of points that reside in some measure space, usually the Euclidean space $\mathbb{R}^d$ \cite{haenggi2012stochastic}. Formally, a PP is a countable random set
$\Phi = \{x_1,x_2,...\} \in \mathbb{R}^d$ consisting of random variables $x_i \in \mathbb{R}^d$ as its elements.
A PP model that is often used to model the topologies of wireless networks is the Homogeneous Poisson Point Process (HPPP). A HPPP with density $\lambda$ is a PP in $\mathbb{R}^d$ such that for every compact set $\mathcal{A}$, the number of points has a Poisson distribution with mean $\lambda |\mathcal{A}|$, where $|\cdot|$ is the Lebesgue
measure in $d$ dimensions, and if two compact sets $\mathcal{A}_1$ and $\mathcal{A}_2$ are disjoint, then the number of points in each is independent of one other.
One important result for the {analysis} of HPPP that we will utilize is the probability generating functional (PFGL) of a HPPP. Let $\mathcal{V}$ be the family of measurable functions, then for a $v(x) \in \mathcal{V}$ and a HPPP with density $\lambda$ \cite[p.~150]{haenggi2012stochastic}:
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}_{\Phi}\left(\prod_{x\in\Phi} v(x) \right) = \exp\left(-\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}[1-v(x)]\lambda dx\right).
\end{equation}
With these basic concepts covered, we will explain how stochastic geometry can be used to model our problem.
\subsection{Stochastic modeling of the IoT network}
{In this section, we describe a way of modeling the activity of IoT and incumbent devices as random processes. In our modeling, we preserve the assumptions about the IoT network and the {environment, stated in Sec. \ref{sec:network-model}}.
By applying
theorems from stochastic geometry on these random processes, we will develop models of the
ADP and JDP in the {later} sub-sections.}}
\subsubsection{Modeling the topology of active devices as a HPPP}
While we assume that the number and the position of the nodes in the network is fixed, given that the IoT and incumbent devices access the medium using the ALOHA protocol, the set of devices that are transmitting at some time $\Tilde{t}$ and frequency $\Tilde{f}$ in $|\mathcal{A}|$ is random.
We will argue that that the distribution of both IoT and incumbent devices of active devices at some time $\Tilde{t}$ and frequency $\Tilde{f}$ can be modeled as a HPPP and can then be analyzed using the tools from stochastic geometry. Furthermore, it is important to emphasize that the analysis of networks using stochastic geometry is in most cases applied to finding the average of some random quantity over many realizations of wireless networks sampled from some spatial point process. In our case, we are interested in a deterministic topology of devices but as we will argue in this section due to the random access nature of IoT and incumbent devices, their activity from one time slot to the next can be approximately modeled as a HPPP.
Let us focus on the IoT devices first, since our model for the incumbent network is similar in all aspects except that incumbents are operating over a single multiplexing band. {Since we assume an ALOHA-like protocol and Markovian packet arrivals}, the probability of an IoT device being active at some time $\Tilde{t}$ and frequency $\Tilde{f}$ is $p$, where
\begin{equation}
p = 2\frac{NRT}{1~h} \times 2 \frac{w}{MW}.
\label{eq:what_is_p}
\end{equation}
Let the set of active IoT devices at time $\Tilde{t}$ and frequency $\Tilde{f}$ be $\Phi$. Then the size of $\Phi$, $|\Phi|$, is {given by a Binomial distributions}, $\Pr(|\Phi|) = {D\choose |\Phi|}p^{|\Phi|}(1-p)^{(D-|\Phi|)}$. Since $D$ is large and $p \ll 1$, we can approximate the Binomial distribution model of $|\Phi|$ by a Poisson distribution with a parameter $Dp$, $\Pr(|\Phi|) = \frac{(Dp)^{|\Phi|} \exp(-Dp)}{|\Phi|!}$. According to a rule of thumb, this approximation is good if $D$ is large and $p$ is small, and $Dp$ is not large \cite{steele1994cam}.
Furthermore, the devices in $\Phi$ are uniformly distributed across $\mathcal{A}$, therefore the set of active devices $\Phi$ can be approximated to be a realization of an HPPP with density $\lambda = \frac{Dp}{|\mathcal{A}|}$.
Using a similar reasoning, we can approximately model the set of active incumbent nodes ${\Phi}_I$ at time $\Tilde{t}$ and frequency $\Tilde{f}$ as a HPPP with density ${\lambda}_{I,m} = \frac{{D}_{I,m}{p}_{I,m}}{|\mathcal{A}|}$, where the density of the incumbent devices depends on the multiplexing band $m$.
Note that the activity of incumbent and IoT devices could be modelled slightly more accurately using a homogenous binomial point process (HBPP), where the number of points in a closed set is modeled using a Binomial distribution. However, we choose to use the HPPP over the HBPP since it allows us to arrive at some general expressions for models of ADP and JDP.
\subsubsection{Modelling the SINR of transmissions}
Let the SINR of some transmission $(n,r)$ from IoT device $i$ to BS $b$ over multiplexing band $m$ be $\text{SINR}_{i,b,m}(n,r)$.
A transmission $(n,r)$ is considered to be successfully decoded if $\text{SINR}_{i,b,m}(n,r)$ at any of BS $b$ listening to the band $\beta(n,r)$ exceeds a threshold $\tau$. In practice, $\tau$ can be the minimum SINR required to achieve a certain bit error rate (BER) performance.
The value of $\tau$ depends on specific coding, modulation, and detection schemes being employed. For example, in the Sigfox technical documentation it is stated that a good detection probability can be achieved if the SINR exceeds 8 dB \cite{sigfox2017sigfox}. The $\text{SINR}_{i,b,m}$ from an IoT device $i$ is modeled as
\begin{equation}
\text{SINR}_{i,b,m}=\frac{h_{i}p_{i,b}^{-\alpha}}{\hat{P}_{N}+
\sum_{j\in\Phi}f_{j}p_{j,b}^{-\alpha}+\sum_{j'\in{\Phi}_{I,m}} \hat{P}_I f_{j'}p_{j',b}^{-\alpha}}
\end{equation}
where $p_{i,b}$ is the distance of the device $i$ to BS $b$, $p_{j,b}$ is the distance of an interfering IoT device $j$, and $p_{j',b}$ is the distance of an incumbent device $j'$. $\alpha$ is the path-loss exponent and $h_i$, $f_j$ and $g_{j'}$ are fading gains, modeled as Exp$(1)$. {$\hat{P}_N$ and $\hat{P}_I$ are noise power and incumbent device power expressed as a fraction of the IoT device transmission power. In order for the path loss function $p^{-\alpha}$ to be integrable ($\int_0^{\infty} p \times p^{-\alpha} dp < \infty$)}, we assume that $\alpha > 2$.
\title{Optimal band assignment for UNB LPWA networks with multiband access}
\subsection{Modeling the ADP}
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
\label{sec:model-adp}
We first derive the expression for the probability of decoding a transmission from a device $i$ at a receiver $b$, on band $m$, denoted as $\Pr\left(\text{SINR}_{i,b,m}\geq\tau~|~p_{i,b}\right)$. Then we use $\Pr\left(\text{SINR}_{i,b,m}\geq\tau~|~p_{i,b}\right)$ to derive a model of the ADP, $\Pr(\text{SINR}_{b,m}\geq\tau)$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{theorem:ccdf-sinr}
The complementary cumulative distribution (CCDF) of $\text{SINR}_{i,b,m}$ when noise power is negligible ($\hat{P}_N\rightarrow0$) is:
\begin{equation}
\Pr(\text{SINR}_{i,b,m}\geq\tau\mid p_{i,b})
= \exp\left(-\epsilon_m\tau^{\frac{2}{\alpha}}p_{i,b}^{2}\right),
\label{eq:sinr-ccdf}
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon_m = \pi\left(\lambda+\hat{P}_{I}^{\frac{2}{\alpha}}{\lambda}_{I,m}\right)\frac{2\pi/\alpha}{\sin(2\pi/\alpha)}$.
The term $\epsilon_m$ is proportional to the interference in the network, since it depends on the density of incumbent and IoT users. {Note that as $\alpha$ increases, the term $\hat{P}_{I}^{\frac{2}{\alpha}}{\lambda}_{I,m}$ approaches ${\lambda}_{I,m}$, in cases when either $\hat{P}_{I}>1$ (the incumbent power is stronger than IoT device power) or when $\hat{P}_{I}\leq1$, which indicates that as $\alpha$ increases, the power of incumbent devices relative to IoT devices becomes less important, and only the density matters.} This is sensible since when $\alpha$ is large, the signal power from distant devices decays significantly and only the activity of devices close to the BS is important. However, if an incumbent device close to the BS is active during a transmission its transmit power is not relevant as it will likely have a higher power than the IoT transmission anyway due its proximity to the BS.
\end{theorem}
\begin{IEEEproof}
The proof is shown in Appendix \ref{proof:ccdf-sinr}.
\end{IEEEproof}
We will now evaluate the ADP {across all transmitters} for a finite network $\mathcal{A}$ around the receiver $b$.
\begin{theorem}
The ADP irrespective of the source is
\begin{equation}
\Pr\left(\text{SINR}_{b,m}\geq\tau \right) = \int_{\mathcal{A}} \exp\left(-\psi_mp_{i,b}^{2}\right)\frac{p_{i}}{|\mathcal{A}|}dp_{i}\theta_{i},
\label{eq:adp-model}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{figures/ccdf-sinr.eps}
\caption{Simulated and modeled ADP as a function of the decoding threshold $\tau$. The modeled results are obtained using (\ref{eq:adp-model}).
We have simulated a disk shaped UNB IoT network with the following parameters: $300$km radius, $D = D_I = 15E6$, $M=1$, $N=3$, $R=3$, $w=600$Hz, $w_I=200$kHz, $W=200$kHz, $T=(208/w)$s, and $T_I=(2080/w_I)$s.}
\label{fig:ccdf-sinr}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\vspace{-10pt}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.75\linewidth]{figures/correl5.eps}
\caption{Simulated and modeled JDP as a function of the separation between BS, $d_{b,v}$. The modeled results are obtained using the derived expression in \ref{eq:jdp-model}.
The simulated results are obtained by measuring the average rate of transmissions decoded by both BS $b$ and $v$.
The graph is obtained in the same simulation environment as the one described in Fig. \ref{fig:ccdf-sinr}. Additionally, we set $\tau=0$ dB.}
\label{fig:jdp-sinr}
\end{figure}
where $|\mathcal{A}|$ and $(p_{i},\theta_{i})$ are the coordinates of the device $i$ with respect to the origin.
Let $(p_{b},\theta_{b})$ be the polar coordinates of the receiving location, then $p_{i,b}^2=p_{i}^2+p_{b}^2-2p_ip_b\cos(\theta_i-\theta_b)$. Moreover, $\psi_m=\epsilon_m\tau^{\frac{2}{\alpha}}$, and hence $\ensuremath{\psi_{\ADP, m}}=\{\psi_m, \mathcal{A}\}$.
The unit of $\psi_m$ is m$^{-2}$.
\label{theorem:adp-model}
\end{theorem}
\begin{IEEEproof}
The expression is obtained by taking the expectation over $p_i$ and $\theta_i$ in the expression in (\ref{eq:sinr-ccdf}).
The joint PDF of $p_i$ and $\theta_i$ is $\frac{p_{i}dp_{i}\theta_{i}}{|\mathcal{A}|}$.
\end{IEEEproof}
To the best of our knowledge, the integral in (\ref{eq:adp-model}) cannot be simplified to a closed-form expression, hence when evaluating the ADP we will use numerical integration.
In Fig. \ref{fig:ccdf-sinr}, we show the simulated ADP as a function of the decoding threshold $\tau$ for a disk-shaped $\mathcal{A}$ centered around the receiver $b$. The ADP modeled using (\ref{eq:adp-model}) closely matches the simulated results which supports our model of the IoT network as a HPPP and the model in (\ref{eq:adp-model}).
\subsection{Modeling the JDP}
\label{sec:model-jdp}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{figures/dipole.eps}
\caption{Illustration of the example used to model the joint decoding probability between two BSs.}
\label{fig:dipole}
\end{figure}
Here, we derive the expression for the JDP, denoted as $\Pr(\text{SINR}_{i,b,m}\geq\tau,\text{SINR}_{i,v,m}\geq\tau)$. First, we will derive the expression for the upper bound on the JDP for a given transmitter $i$, denoted as $\Pr(\text{SINR}_{i,b,m}\geq\tau,\text{SINR}_{i,v,m}\geq\tau~|~i)$. We assume that the BSs $b$ and $v$ are located at the origin of the polar coordinate system as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:dipole} with coordinates $(\frac{d_{b,v}}{2}, \frac{\pi}{2})$ and $(\frac{d_{b,v}}{2}, -\frac{\pi}{2})$, respectively.
\begin{theorem}
\label{theorem:joint-pdp}
The upper bound on conditional JDP for a given transmitter $i$ is:
\begin{multline}
\Pr(\text{SINR}_{i,b,m}\geq\tau,\text{SINR}_{i,v,m}\geq\tau~|~i) \leq \\
\exp\left(-\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_m\tau^{\frac{2}{\alpha}}d_{b,v}^{2}\right) \times
\exp\left(\left(-\frac{2}{\alpha}-1\right)\epsilon_m\tau^{\frac{2}{\alpha}}p_i^{2}\right)
\label{eq:jdp}
\end{multline}
where $p_i$ is the distance of a device $i$ to the origin of the coordinate system. Note that the validity of this model depends on the approximation that the midpoint between the two BSs is located at the origin, therefore it can only serve as an approximation for BS pairs that are located near the edge.
\end{theorem}
\begin{IEEEproof}
The proof is shown in Appendix \ref{proof:joint-pdp}.
\end{IEEEproof}
\begin{theorem}
The JDP irrespective of the source is:
\begin{equation}
\Pr\left(\text{SINR}_{b,m}\geq\tau,\text{SINR}_{v,m}\geq\tau\right) =
\Psi_m\exp\left(-\frac{1}{2}\psi_m d_{b,v}^{2}\right)
\label{eq:jdp-model}
\end{equation}
where $\Psi_m = \int_{\mathcal{A}}\exp\left(\left(-\frac{2}{\alpha}-1\right)\epsilon_m\tau^{\frac{2}{\alpha}}p_i^{2}\right)$. Then, $\ensuremath{\psi_{\JDP, m}}=\{\psi_m,\Psi_m\}$. This theorem allows us to model JDP between two BSs as a function of their separation, $d_{b,v}$.
\label{theorem:model-jdp}
\end{theorem}
\begin{IEEEproof}
The proof is obtained by taking the expectation with respect to $p_i$ of the expression in (\ref{eq:jdp}).
\end{IEEEproof}
In Fig. \ref{fig:jdp-sinr}, we show the simulated JDP for two BSs, $b$ and $v$, whose separation $d_{b,v}$ is varied.
The JDP modeled using Theorem \ref{theorem:model-jdp} is an upper bound to the simulated results.
\subsection{Summary of the proposed algorithm}
In Algorithm \ref{alg:assign}, we summarize the MOD approach for assignment and placement assuming that $\ensuremath{\psi_{\JDP, m}}$, $\ensuremath{\psi_{\ADP, m}}$ and positions of the BSs are known. The algorithm is based on predicting ADP and JDP using Theorem \ref{theorem:adp-model} and Theorem \ref{theorem:model-jdp}, respectively. The predicted ADPs and JDPs are used in (\ref{P3}) to solve for optimal placement and frequency assignment of BSs.
In Sec. \ref{sec:training}, we describe the method for estimation of parameters of $\ensuremath{\psi_{\JDP, m}}$ and $\ensuremath{\psi_{\ADP, m}}$ during network operation.
\begin{algorithm}[t!]
\DontPrintSemicolon
\KwIn{$\{\psi_m,\Psi_m\}~\forall m$,~$(p_b,\theta_b)~\forall b$,~$\mathcal{A}$}
\KwOut{Assignment $\mathbf{X}$}
\For{$b \in \{1,\dots,B+C\}$}{
\% Estimate the ADP
$\mathbb{E}_r\{A_{b,m}(r)\} \leftarrow \int_{\mathcal{A}} \exp\left(-\psi_mp_{i,b}^{2}\right)\frac{p_{i}}{|\mathcal{A}|}dp_{i}\theta_{i}~\forall m$
\For{$v \in \{1,\dots,b\}$}{
$d_{b,v} \leftarrow \sqrt{p_b^2+p_v^2-2p_bp_v\cos(\theta_b-\theta_v)}$
\% Estimate the JDP
$\mathbb{E}_r\{A_{b,m}(r)A_{v,m}(r)\} \leftarrow \Psi_m\exp\left(-\frac{1}{2}\psi_m d_{b,v}^{2}\right)~\forall m$
}
}
Solve for $\mathbf{X}$ in (\ref{P3})
\caption{Model-based placement and frequency assignment algorithm}
\label{alg:assign}
\end{algorithm}
\section{Learning approach for model-based assignment}
\label{sec:training}
\subsection{Parameter estimation}
\label{sec:training-parameter-estimation}
As shown in Algorithm \ref{alg:assign}, to perform the assignment, our approach requires the information about $\Psi_m$ and $\psi_m$ for all $m$, locations of current BSs and candidate locations and the contour
of the {area} $\mathcal{A}$. It is assumed that the contour of the {area} $\mathcal{A}$ is known by the network operator network, without assuming that the locations of the IoT devices are known or their number. We will now discuss how to estimate parameters $\psi_m$ and $\Psi_m$ for all $m$ during the operation of the network.
We will use {estimates} of JDP between BSs in $\mathcal{A}$ to estimate $\psi_m$ and $\Psi_m$ for all $m$.
Furthermore, we will denote the estimates JDP between two locations $b$ and $v$ as $\tilde{\mathbb{E}}_r\{A_{b,m}(r)A_{v,m}(r)\}$.
{Let us denote the set of JDP estimates on each band as $\mathcal{S}_m$, where $|\mathcal{S}_m| = S_m$.}
To estimate $\psi_m$ and $\Psi_m$ for all $m$, we will use the least squares criterion between the measured JDP and the fitted model. Parameter estimation is then a non-linear least squares (NLSQ) optimzation problem:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\min_{\psi_m, \Psi_m} & \sum_{m \in\{1,\dots,M\} } \sum_{(b,v) \in \mathcal{S}_m }|\tilde{\mathbb{E}}_r\{A_{b,m}(r)A_{v,m}(r)\}- \\
& \Psi_m\exp{\left(-\psi_m d_{b,v}^2\right)}|^2
\end{aligned}
\tag{P4}
\label{P4}
\end{equation}
which can be solved using the Levenberg–Marquardt algorithm \cite{more1978levenberg} for all $m$.
The root mean square error (RMSE) of ADP and JDP prediction as a function of $S_m$ is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:interpolation}. Based on the simulation results, we observe that the accuracy of prediction stops significantly decreasing past $S_m = 10$ and saturates past $S_m = 20$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{figures/interpolation.eps}
\caption{Root mean square error (RMSE) in prediction of ADP and JDP at a random location in $\mathcal{A}$ as a function of $S_m$ used to estimate the ADP and JDP model parameters. The graph is obtained in the same simulation environment as the one described in Fig. \ref{fig:ccdf-sinr}}
\label{fig:interpolation}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Training procedure for estimation of $\ensuremath{\psi_{\ADP, m}}$ and $\ensuremath{\psi_{\JDP, m}}$}
\label{sec:mod-training-procedure}
In this section, we describe the training procedure for collection of measurements of JDP. The training episode is executed to keep up with changes in the network or the environment, for example, if the density of IoT devices changes or if the IoT network expands.
The required $\mathcal{S}_m$ estimates will be collected by the currently installed BSs and, if necessary, measurements collected by $\hat{B}$ temporary installed BSs that can assist with training.
Installation of temporary BSs can be assisted with the help of UAVs that can carry and place the BSs to a designated location.
During the operation of the network, installed BSs and temporary BSs will record transmissions that they receive, as well as their timestamps and the band that they were received on. Using the core network, BSs forward their recordings to a central processor, which then estimates the JDPs, $\tilde{\mathbb{E}}_r\{A_{b,m}(r)A_{v,m}(r)\}$.
We assume that the central processor can identify all the successful transmissions that occurred from the captures.
{Hence, the network can only have information about the successful transmissions, but not directly about the unsuccessful ones. In order to find the expected JDP, the infrastructure should know how many packets have been sent and how many repetitions have been made. This can be known by, for example, IoT devices adding packet and repetition numbering to their transmissions.}
The number of different $S_m$ estimates of JDP that can be collected for a given number of temporary and installed BSs is determined by their assignment to bands. For example, if there are $B_m$ BSs assigned to operate on a band $m$, then we can collect ${B_m}\choose{2}$ estimates of JDP on that band.
However, if $S_m >$ ${B_m}\choose{2}$ estimates are needed for parameter estimation then it will be necessary to move BSs across bands to collect the necessary measurements. While the assignment of temporary BSs to bands can be changed without repercussions, the reassignment of installed BSs to bands will impact the PDP and therefore cannot be changed arbitrarily, since we assume that the temporary BSs do not contribute to the PDP. For example, we cannot assign all of the installed BSs to a single band during training as leaving the other bands to be unoccupied would severely harm the PDP.
Let $\{1,\dots,B,\dots,\hat{B}+B\}$ be the set of locations of installed and temporary BSs combined. Then, let us use the assignment variable $\mathbf{X}\in \mathbb{Z}_2^{(\hat{B}+B) \times M}$ for the assignment of both temporary and installed BSs to bands, where $[\mathbf{X}]_{b,m}$ is equal to 1 if BS $b$ is assigned to band $m$ and 0 otherwise.
Furthermore, let the set of viable assignments during training be $ \mathcal{X}_{\text{train}}$, where $ \mathcal{X}_{\text{train}}=\{\mathbf{X}_i~|~i=1,\dots,|\mathcal{X}_{\text{train}}|\}$.
The set $\mathcal{X}_{\text{train}}$ is determined by the constraints on the assignment of installed BSs. The constraints may be heuristic such as ensuring that a certain number of BSs remains on a particular band or ensuring to select assignments whose predicted TDP exceeds a certain threshold. The predicted TDP for a particular assignment $\mathbf{X}$ can be obtained by using estimates of ADP and JDP from earlier training episodes and evaluating the objective function in (\ref{P3}).
Let us now define the training procedure. There will be several phases, during each of which a different assignment $\mathbf{X}_i$ will be applied. Since our objective is to complete the training as fast as possible, we need to select the least number of assignments $\mathbf{X}_i$ such that $S_m$ distinct JDP estimates are obtained on each band $m$. The set of assignments selected for training is $\mathcal{L}$.
We observe that the problem of selecting $\mathcal{L}$ is a variant of the NP hard \emph{set cover problem}. In the set cover problem, given a collection of subsets $\mathcal{T}$ of a ground set $\mathcal{U}$, the goal is to cover $\mathcal{U}$ with the smallest number of subsets. An extension of the set cover problem is the \emph{partition set cover problem}, also an NP problem. In the partition set cover problem, $\mathcal{U}$ is divided into $M$ partitions, $\mathcal{U} = \{\mathcal{U}_1,\dots,\mathcal{U}_M\}$, and the goal is to cover $S_m$ elements from each $\mathcal{U}_m$ with the smallest number of subsets from $\mathcal{T}$. Let us demonstrate that the problem of selecting $\mathcal{L}$ is the partition set cover problem. Let $\mathcal{U}_m=\{\tilde{\mathbb{E}}_r\{A_{b,m}(r)A_{v,m}(r)\}~|~b=1,\dots,\hat{B}+B,~v=1,\dots,b \}$ be the set of distinct JDP estimates that can be collected on band $m$.
Furthermore, let $\mathcal{T}_i$ be the set of JDP estimates that can be collected given the assignment $\mathbf{X}_i \in \mathcal{X}_{\text{train}}$, and $\mathcal{T}=\{\mathcal{T}_1,\dots,\mathcal{T}_{|\mathcal{X}_{\text{train}}|}\}$.
We assume that $\cup_{i=1,\dots,|\mathcal{X}_{\text{train}}|}\mathcal{T}_i$ and $\cup_{m=1,\dots,M} \mathcal{U}_m$ are identical. If not, $\mathcal{U}$ can be revised to remove the JDPs $\mathcal{U} \setminus \cup_{i=1,\dots,|\mathcal{X}_{\text{train}}|}\mathcal{T}_i$. Selecting the $\mathcal{L}$ assignments is equivalent to selecting $|\mathcal{L}|$ sets $\mathcal{T}_i$ that will cover $S_m$ elements from each partition $\mathcal{U}_m$, therefore this is a partition set cover problem. For the sake of simplicity, in this paper, we will use a polynomial time greedy approach to solve the partition set cover problem developed in \cite{slavik1997improved}. {Better solutions can also } be pursued, such as the one in \cite{bera2014approximation}. We describe the greedy approach for planning of the training procedure in Algorithm \ref{alg:partition_set_cover}.
\begin{algorithm}[t!]
\DontPrintSemicolon
\KwIn{$\mathcal{U}$, $\mathcal{T}$, $S_1,\dots,S_M$}
\KwOut{$\mathcal{L}$}
$\mathcal{L}= \emptyset$
\While{any $s_m > 0$}{
Find $l\in(\{1,\dots,|\mathcal{X}_{\text{train}}|\} \setminus \mathcal{L})$ that maximizes $\min(\sum_m s_m, \sum_m |\mathcal{U}_m \cap \mathcal{T}_l|)$
$S_m \leftarrow S_m - |\mathcal{U}_m \cap (\cup_{l \in \mathcal{L}}\mathcal{T}_l)|~\forall m$
Add $l$ to $L$
$\mathcal{T}_i \leftarrow \mathcal{T}_i \setminus \mathcal{T}_l$ for $i=1,\dots,|\mathcal{X}_{\text{train}}|$
}
\caption{Greedy algorithm for the selection of $\mathcal{L}$ BS assignments $\mathbf{X}_i$ for training.}
\label{alg:partition_set_cover}
\end{algorithm}
The algorithm returns the set of assignments $\mathcal{L}$ that will result in $S_m$ estimates from $\mathcal{U}_m$ being collected for each $m$.
Assignments are added to $\mathcal{L}$ with priority given to the assignments that can learn most new estimates in $\mathcal{U}$ given the currently selected assignments in $\mathcal{L}$.
\section{Measurement-based placement and assignment approach}
\label{sec:meas-approach}
In this section, we will discuss an alternative approach to MOD, in which ADPs, ${\mathbb{E}}_r\{A_{b,m}(r)\}~\forall b$, and JDPs ${\mathbb{E}}_r\{A_{b,m}(r)A_{v,m}(r)\}~\forall b,v,m$ are estimated directly using measurements from BSs in the field instead of predicting ADPs and JDPs via modeling. As in the MOD approach, the estimated ADPs and JDPs are plugged into (\ref{P3}) to solve for optimal placement and band assignment of BSs. We refer to this approach as MEAS for convenience.
{\subsection{Training procedure}}
The training involves the direct estimation of the necessary ADPs, $\hat{\mathbb{E}}_r\{A_{b,m}(r)\}~\forall b,m$, and the necessary JDPs $\hat{\mathbb{E}}_r\{A_{b,m}(r)A_{v,m}(r)\}~\forall b,v,m$. Similar to the training phase of the MOD approach, during the operation of the network, installed BSs and temporary BSs will record transmissions that they receive, as well as their timestamps and the band that they were received on. BSs forward their recordings to a central processors, which then estimates the ADPs, $\hat{\mathbb{E}}_r\{A_{b,m}(r)\}~\forall b,m$, and JDPs $\hat{\mathbb{E}}_r\{A_{b,m}(r)A_{v,m}(r)\}~\forall b,v,m$. Evidently, the assignment of installed and temporary BSs will determine which ADPs and JDPs can be measured.
Hence, the training may have to take place over several stages with a different BS band assignment applied in each.
The planning of the training phases is similar problem to the one explained in Sec. \ref{sec:mod-training-procedure} for the MOD approach. The main difference is that $ \mathcal{U}$ includes all ADPs and all JDPs.
The assumption remains that a certain set of assignments $ \mathcal{X}_{\text{train}}=\{\mathbf{X}_i~|~i=1,\dots,|\mathcal{X}_{\text{train}}|\}$ is possible during training and for each assignment $i$, a subset of measurements from $\mathcal{U}$, $\mathcal{T}_i$, can be collected.
After, applying a similar analysis as in Sec. \ref{sec:mod-training-procedure}, the planning of the training phases can be posed as a set cover problem instead of a partition set cover problem. Likewise, the planning can be solved using the greedy approach described in Algorithm 2.
Set cover solutions that are more optimal than a greedy approach can be applied and are abundant in literature.
For simplicity, we implement the greedy solution since evaluating different set cover solution algorithms would be beyond the scope of this paper.
{
\subsection{Comparison to model-based BS placement and band assignment}}
{The training process of the MEAS approach is similar to the training process of the MOD approach, however, there are some notable differences. First, the MEAS approach requires all locations in $\{1,\dots,B+C\}$ to be covered by either previously installed BSs or temporary BSs, since ADPs and JDPs are estimated through direct measurements rather than through modelling.
On the other hand, the MOD approach only requires the ADP and JDP to be estimated for a subset of BS locations, and then uses modeling to predict ADP and JDP on the remainder of the locations. This means that fewer temporary BSs need to be installed at candidate locations for optimal infrastructure planning. For these reasons, the MEAS approach is more appropriate when $\Delta B = 0$, i.e.{,} when only performing frequency assignment, or when the number of candidate locations $C$ is small. Moreover, even if $\Delta B = 0$, if $B$ is large, the MEAS approach will suffer from an extended training time, since ${B}\choose{2}$ JDP values need to be estimated, whereas MOD approach generally requires less than ${B}\choose{2}$ JDP measurements, as we discussed in \ref{sec:mod-training-procedure} and \ref{sec:training-parameter-estimation}.
When $B$ is large or when $C$ is large and $\Delta B > 0$, MEAS approach is not practical, however it still serves as a useful benchmark in our simulation results, since it is an upper bound for the MOD approach in terms of the PDP.}
{The MOD approach has a lower training complexity and is more practical than the MEAS approach, however, the incumbent network and the IoT network are expected to match the system model explained in Sec. \ref{sec:iot-network-model} and additional channel modelling assumptions introduced in Sec. \ref{sec:model-based-approach}.
On the other hand, the MEAS approach only has to meet the modelling assumptions in Sec. \ref{sec:iot-network-model-a}.}
\section{Simulation results}
\label{sec:sim-results}
\begin{table}[t]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.7}
\caption{Parameter values used in simulation}
\label{table:params}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c||c||c||c}
\hline
Parameter & Value & Parameter & Value\tabularnewline
\hline
\hline
Noise power & $-146$ dBm & $w_I $ & 200 kHz\tabularnewline
\hline
$P_I$ & 14 dBm & $N_I$ & $3$\tabularnewline
\hline
$P$ & 14 dBm & $R_I$ & $1$ \tabularnewline
\hline
$R$ & 3 & Packet size incum. & $200$ B\tabularnewline
\hline
$N$ & $3$ & $T_I$ & $200~B/w_I$ s \tabularnewline
\hline
Packet size IoT & $20$ B & $B$ & 6 \tabularnewline
\hline
$w$ & $600$ Hz& $\tau$ & $10$ dB\tabularnewline
\hline
$T$ & $20~B/w$ s & $T_{\text{train}}$ & 10 min \tabularnewline
\hline
$W$ & $200$ kHz & $M$ & $3$ \tabularnewline
\hline
$\Lambda_{IoT}$ & 50 km$^{-2}$ & $\Lambda_{I}$ & 50 km$^{-2}$ \tabularnewline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{Simulation environment}
We simulate a disk area of radius $10$ km with BSs, UNB devices and incumbent devices randomly distributed over the area. In each Monte Carlo (MC) simulation, the BS locations are sampled from a uniform distribution. Similarly, in each MC simulation, the UNB devices are sampled from a homogeneous Poisson Point process (HPPP) with a density $\Lambda_{IoT}$, {
therefore, the expected number of devices across all Monte Carlo simulations is $\Lambda_{IoT}|\mathcal{A}|$, where $|\mathcal{A}|$ is the area size of the simulation area.}
The locations of incumbent devices are generated from a HPPP with density $\Lambda_{I}$. Furthermore, the placement of current BSs and candidate locations is also randomized.
The distribution of incumbent devices across multiplexing bands is non-uniform. Let $\beta_j$ be the operating band of the incumbent device $j$. The probability that an incumbent is assigned to operate in a multiplexing band $m$ during an MC iteration is a non-uniform discrete PMF ${Pr}(\beta_j = m)~\forall m$. The PMF ${Pr}(\beta_j = m)~\forall m$ distribution is randomly generated in each MC iteration.
When planning the training procedure of MOD and MEAS, we assume that $\mathcal{X}_{\text{train}}$ contains all assignments such that each band is covered by at least $\left\lfloor \frac{B}{M} \right\rfloor $ BSs.
Each MC iteration has a training stage for the MOD or MEAS approach. The training stage lasts $T_{\text{train}}$ minutes and is split equally across each training phase. After the training stage ends and the BS band assignment and BS placement are completed, the network runs for 1 h to collect the performance metrics. The results are averaged over 300 MC iterations.
{Unless otherwise stated, we use the simulation parameters
given in Table \ref{table:params}, where the UNB network emulates the Sigfox network with US specifications \cite{sigfox_usa_2020}. The temporal traffic generation assumes that each device sends three unique packets per hour. For
interfering incumbents, we consider specifications similar to LoRa IoT devices \cite{lorawan} and assume they have a similar temporal traffic generation characteristics as the UNB network.
We note that the noise is not ignored, and is equal to the thermal noise power at room temperature across bandwidth of $w$ Hz.}
\subsection{BS band assignment results}
\label{sec:band-assignment-results}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\begin{minipage}{.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\linewidth]{figures/detection_probability_vs_lambda_IoT.eps}
\captionof{figure}{The PDP of the assignment algorithms with respect to the density of the IoT devices in the network. }
\label{fig:pdp-density}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.01\textwidth}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\linewidth]{figures/detection_probability_vs_training_time.eps}
\captionof{figure}{The performance of the MOD and MEAS approach with respect to the length of the training time $T_{\text{train}}$. The PDP is normalized by the PDP of the theoretical $P_{\text{PDP}}$-maximizing assignment. }
\label{fig:results-t-train}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\vspace{-10pt}
\begin{minipage}{.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\linewidth]{figures/detection_probability_vs_lambda_IoT_add.eps}
\caption{The PDP of the tested placement and assignment algorithms with respect to the density of the IoT devices in the network. }
\label{fig:pdp-add}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.01\textwidth}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{.49\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.82\linewidth]{figures/detection_probability_vs_n_add.eps}
\caption{The improvement in PDP after $\Delta B$ new BSs are added to the network for different placement algorithms. }
\label{fig:vary-delta-b}
\end{minipage}
\vspace{-10pt}
\end{figure*}
\label{sec:bs-assig-resul}
The following algorithms are evaluated only for BS assignment to bands in terms of the packet decoding probability (PDP):
\begin{enumerate}
\item Random assignment: The BSs are randomly assigned to bands with the constraint that each band is covered by at least $\left\lfloor \frac{B}{M} \right\rfloor $ BSs.
{\item Maximum BS separation heuristic: The BSs are placed by solving the optimization problem
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\max_{\mathbf{X}} \quad & \sum_{m}\bigg(\sum_{b}
\sum_{v<b}[\mathbf{X}]_{b,m}[\mathbf{X}]_{v,m}d_{b,v}\bigg) \\
\textrm{s.t.} \quad & \text{(\ref{P1.2}), (\ref{P1.3}), (\ref{P1.4})},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
which ensures that BSs that are placed on the same band have maximum separation and that new BSs are added such that separation from the current BSs is maximized. This heuristics requires only knowledge of the coordinates of the current BSs as well as the candidate locations for BSs. Maximizing the separation ensures that the BSs are not decoding packets from common transmissions, which may increase the network PDP. This heuristic may not always work, as UNB LPWANs require diversity in terms of BS reception when the decoding probability is low.}
\item MOD assignment: No additional temporary BSs $\hat{B}$ are used in training. Furthermore, we set $S_m = 10~ \forall m$.
\item MEAS assignment.
\item Optimal assignment that maximizes the probability of decoding a transmission, $P_{\text{TDP}}$. The optimal assignment for maximum transmission decoding rate can be obtained in simulation. We rerun every MC realization, with its particular sequence of pseudo-random events, for all possible $M^B$ assignments, and select the assignment that gives the highest average packet or transmission decoding rate.
\item Optimal assignment that maximizes the probability of decoding a packet, $P_{\text{PDP}}$. The solutions are obtained through the same approach as for optimal $P_{\text{TDP}}$ assignment.
\end{enumerate}
First, we evaluate the performance of the algorithms with respect to the density of IoT devices. {Here, we set the number of BSs to $B=12$ and use high IoT device density, since with fewer BSs and low density, the band assignment problem becomes simpler and the gap between the heuristics and proposed solutions is smaller.}
The results are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:pdp-density}.
Typically, the PDP in real UNB networks such as Sigfox is $>$95\%, therefore our simulation setting is realistic in that regard.
Random assignment performs significantly worse than either of our proposed approaches (MOD or MEAS). With assignment obtained using either of the proposed algorithms, the BS infrastructure can support around 25 more devices per km$^2$ in high density scenarios while maintaining the same PDP as random assignment, {and around 5 more devices compared to the maximum separation heuristic.}
We also analyze the dependence of the MOD and MEAS approach on the length of the training $T_{\text{train}}$. This is important because, when training is performed, the BSs need to move away from their optimal band assignment which may lower the current PDP and so the training phase should be as short as possible. The results are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:results-t-train}. We included a scaled axis, where $T_{\text{train}}$ is scaled by $NR\Lambda_\text{IoT}|\mathcal{A}| / 60$ min, which is equivalent to the expected number of IoT transmissions in $\mathcal{A}$ over time $T_{\text{train}}$. The higher the number of transmissions received by the BSs, the more accurate will the estimates of ADP and JDP be. From Fig. \ref{fig:results-t-train}, it can be observed that the MOD approach requires less training time to achieve its highest PDP compared to the MEAS approach.
This is because in the training stage of the MOD approach fewer parameters need to be estimated than in the training stage of the MEAS approach and the number of training phases $|\mathcal{L}|$ for the MOD approach is smaller.
Since $T_{\text{train}}$ is equally split between the $|\mathcal{L}|$ training phases, each training phase lasts longer in MOD approach and so the parameters estimated during each training phase contain less error.
Moreover, the MOD and MEAS approach have a very similar performance to the theoretical best assignment that maximizes $P_{\text{TDP}}$. That indicates that the objective function in (\ref{P3}) is a tight lower bound to the objective function in (\ref{P2}). Furthermore, the theoretical best assignment that maximizes $P_{\text{TDP}}$ is very close in performance to the theoretical best assignment that maximizes $P_{\text{PDP}}$. This indicates that the objective function in (\ref{P2}) is a tight lower bound to the objective function in (P1).
\subsection{BS band assignment and placement results}
The following algorithms are evaluated for both BS placement and BS assignment to bands in terms of the PDP:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Random placement with optimized band assignment: The $\Delta B$ BSs are randomly placed within the $C$ candidate locations. With the placement of $\Delta B$ BSs decided, the band assignment of $B + \Delta B$ is done using the MEAS approach.
\item Maximum BS separation heuristic: As described in Sec. \ref{sec:band-assignment-results}
\item MOD assignment: No additional temporary BSs $\hat{B}$ are used in training and $S_m = 10~ \forall m$.
\item MEAS assignment: This approach is not practical for placement of BSs since it involves placing a temporary BS at each of the $C$ candidate locations, but we include it as a benchmark for the MOD approach.
\end{enumerate}
The theoretical optimal assignment for maximum packet decoding rate or maximum transmission decoding rate cannot be obtained numerically in simulation as with BS assignment in Sec. \ref{sec:bs-assig-resul} since searching for the optimal assignment and placement exhaustively is intractable due to the number of possible solutions for BS placement and assignment.
The number of candidate locations is $C = 30$ and their locations are uniformly and randomly distributed in each MC iteration. The number of new BSs being installed is {$\Delta B = 1$}. We evaluate the performance with respect to the density of IoT devices and the results are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:pdp-add}. Before addition of the BSs the frequency assignment of BSs is obtained using the MEAS approach.
Putting additional BSs significantly improves the PDP, however, with optimized placement of the new BSs, additional improvements can be achieved. Using the MOD approach additional 20 devices per km$^{2}$ can be supported while maintaining a similar PDP as with random placement, {and around 5 more compared to the maximum separation heuristic.}
Furthermore, the MOD approach is similar in PDP to the MEAS approach which is a good demonstration of the practical usefulness of the MOD approach. As a reminder, the MEAS approach results are obtained by placing temporary BSs at each of the $C$ candidate locations to estimate ADPs and JDPs while the MOD approach predicts the ADPs and JDPs at candidate locations using only the measurements from the currently installed $B$ BSs. Despite of this, the PDP obtained when using MOD placement and assignment is the same as the PDP when using the MEAS placement and assignment. In Fig. \ref{fig:vary-delta-b} we increase the number of candidate positions to $C=50$ and vary $\Delta B$ from 1 to 6. As $\Delta B$ increases, the difference between random and optimized placement becomes smaller. Therefore, optimized placement becomes more important when fewer new BSs can be afforded to be installed in the IoT network. {Furthermore, we can see that the proposed solutions can achieve the same PDP as the random heuristic with two fewer BSs, and one fewer BS compared to the maximum BS separation heuristic.}
Additionally, we observe that MOD approach outperforms the MEAS approach for some $\Delta B$, which can be attributed to the MEAS approach not having sufficient training time to estimate ADP and JDP accurately enough.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusions}
In this work, we have addressed BS infrastructure management and expansion in multi-band UNB IoT networks. Namely, we devise two algorithms for maximization of packet delivery through optimal placement of BSs and optimal assignment of BSs to multiplexing bands. We derive a model-based and a measurement-based algorithm. The model-based approach has a simpler training stage than the measurement-based algorithm, however, it is based on certain assumptions that the IoT network and the environment should match. In the development of the model-based algorithm, we derive models of average decoding probability and joint decoding probability using stochastic geometry which we verify through simulation. Furthermore, our assignment and placement algorithms offer significant improvement in packet decoding probability over baseline approaches and in certain cases closely match the theoretical best performance. Future work will focus on optimizing the access policy of IoT devices in a multi-band UNB network and will also consider collaborative decoding of transmission by several BSs through fusion of their received signals.
|
\section{Introduction} \label{sec:intro}
\citet{ellis1996} suggested that deposits of live
radioactive isotopes including \fe60 could be a telltale sign for a recent near-Earth supernova explosion.
Around the same time \citet{korschinek1997} proposed that the high sensitivity of accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS)
could reach the levels needed to see a supernova signal.
Accelerator mass spectometry has subsequently enabled
widespread detections of live, i.e., undecayed, radioactive \fe60 in deep-sea samples from around the world ~\citep{knie1999,knie2004,fitoussi2008,wallner2016,ludwig2016,wallner2021}, which provide compelling evidence that radioisotopes from an astrophysical event reached Earth $\sim 3$~Myr ago (Mya). In addition, \fe60 has also been found in lunar samples~\citep{fimiani2016}, in cosmic rays~\citep{binns2016}, in Antarctic snow \citep{koll2019}, and in a deep-sea ferromanganese (FeMn) crust from $6 - 7$~Mya~\citep{wallner2021}. These signals far exceed known terrestrial and meteoritic backgrounds. The half-life of \fe60
$t_{1/2} = 2.60 \pm 0.05 \ \rm Myr$ \citep{wallner2015a,ostdiek2017} is much less than the age of the Earth, which implies that the astrophysical sources of these radioisotope deposits were relatively recent.
The explosion of at least one near-Earth supernova has been the
general interpretation of the \fe60 data ever
since the pioneering detections of \citet{knie1999},
with a distance estimated to be in the range of tens of parsecs
\citep{fields1999,fields2008}.
\citet{fry2015} expanded this analysis to consider all known
or proposed astrophysical \fe60 sources,
concluding that the \fe60 abundance and its implied distance
rule out all but core-collapse supernovae and
asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars, as further discussed below.~\footnote{It has recently
been suggested that the deposition of \fe60 $\sim 3$~Mya might have occurred as the solar system
passed through the heart of a large, dense, cold gas cloud \citep{opher2022}.
The Local Leo Cold Cloud \citep{peek2011,gry2017} was suggested as a possible target,
but the uncertainties in its kinematics, distance, and physical size make it hard to assess
the chances of collision.}
The blast from a supernova at such a distance does not itself
penetrate the heliosphere as far as the Earth's orbit
at 1 au \citep{fields2008,miller2022},
but supernova ejecta in the form of dust grains
\citep{benitez2002}
can reach the Earth and Moon \citep{athanassiadou2011,fry2016}.
Iron is one of the most refractory elements, i.e., it has a high
condensation temperature and readily forms dust, and \fe60 would be delivered
in whatever iron-bearing dust particles survive the
journey to the solar system.
\citet{fry2016} used the \fe60 flux to infer the distance
to the supernova, finding $D_{\rm SN} \sim 30-150 \ \rm pc$.
The uncertainty is large but, encouragingly, this is
precisely the plausible astrophysical range, neither so close as
to cause a mass extinction, nor so far that the supernova
material cannot reach us.
\citet{fry2016} also showed that the flux from
the supernova blast, i.e., the gas/plasma, declines
from an initial peak, corresponding to the passage
of the dense supernova shell.
At the distances implied by the strength of the \fe60 signal,
the duration of the blast flux peak was found to be
at most $\sim 0.1 \ \rm Myr$.
Deep-sea sediments offer unprecedented time resolution of the \fe60 signal
at the level of a few kyr, opening a new window on the possible nearby supernova(e).
\citet{fitoussi2008} pioneered this approach, searching for \fe60 in a sediment using
accelerator mass spectrometry with lower sensitivity than
is now available. They found no evidence for the short $\sim $ few kyr signal they expected, but
showed that a potential signal emerged with time bins stretching to $\sim 1 \ \rm Myr$.
As we show below, subsequent high-sensitivity data from multiple sites and groups
confirm that the width of the \fe60 deposition pulse arriving $\sim 3$~Myr ago exceeds
$1 \ \rm Myr$.
This timescale is much longer than
that of a blast from a single explosion \citep{fry2015},
and understanding this long timescale for \fe60 deposition
is the goal of this paper.
In this paper, we present an analysis of the \fe60 flux history for the four
well-measured deep-sea sediment cores, two
from \citet{ludwig2016} and two from \citet{wallner2016}. We develop a statistical methodology appropriate for the \fe60 data, which are dominated by counting statistics, and use this to fit the \fe60 flux for the different cores individually and in a global fit with
a focus on the signal timescale.
We compare a variety of simple fitting functions,
and all show that the timescale must exceed 1 Myr. We also test the ability of the data to discriminate among different time histories, finding that this is not possible with current data.
We interpret the long \fe60 deposition timescale
based on the assumption that the supernova dust
is decoupled from the gas, with different dynamics,
so that the dust particle density profile is different
from the blast profile. Such decoupling was found by
\citet{fry2020} in a study of dust propagation in
a supernova remnant.
Here we extract the key physics of this process and
present a model for the dust flux versus time,
which we compare with the available data.
We then discuss a number of consequences and tests of our model.
Our work builds on the insights and analysis of \citet{ellison1997},
who noted that supernova grains are charged,
and that they decouple from the gas.
These authors further proposed that grains
are {\em accelerated} by the same diffusive shock acceleration processes
that lead to cosmic-ray acceleration. Indeed, they proposed
that the sputtered atoms of the accelerated dust
are injected as cosmic rays, and that this population is responsible
for the observed enhancement of refractory elements
in cosmic rays \citep{meyer1997}.\footnote{The idea that supernovae might accelerate dust grains goes back to Spitzer's proposal that light pressure from the explosion could accelerate surrounding {\em pre-existing} interstellar dust, and possibly even be the source of heavy elements in the cosmic rays \citep{spitzer1949,wolfe1950}.
Subsequently several authors have studied grain acceleration by supernovae or other processes
\citep{hayakawa1972,wickramasinghe1974,hoang2015}, and even considered the possibility that the ultra-high-energy cosmic rays could be relativistic grains.}
\citet{giacalone2009} have performed simulations
of dust in the presence of supernova shocks, and
found that grains initially at rest were accelerated to more than 10 times the shock speed.
Our model elaborates this picture, proposing that the
\fe60 deposits on the Earth and Moon arise from the portions of
iron-bearing supernova dust that have survived propagation
to the Earth, while the \fe60 detected in cosmic rays represents
the portion that was sputtered along the way.
This paper is structured as follows. We discuss the time-resolved \fe60 sediment data in \S\ref{sec:data_intro}. We perform fits to the data in \S\ref{sec:fits}, deriving constraints in the \fe60 deposition timescale and finding it to be $> 1 \ \rm Myr$. We show in \S\ref{sec:pinball} that this long timescale is consistent with a picture of charged supernova dust propagation in a magnetized interstellar medium (ISM).
We propose tests of this model in \S\ref{sec:tests}. We summarize our conclusions in \S\ref{sec:conc}.
\section{Time-Resolved Measurements of \fe60 Deposition on Earth} \label{sec:data_intro}
The evidence for \fe60 deposition on Earth comes mainly from deep-sea deposits,
namely ferromanganese (FeMn) crusts and nodules, as well as sediment cores.
The FeMn crusts and nodules exhibit relatively slow growth, $\sim$~few~mm/Myr, which implies less dilution of the small extraterrestrial signal and facilitated the first detections \citep{knie1999}. However, the slow growth rate makes it more difficult to obtain good time resolution. On the other hand, the growth (i.e., sedimentation) rates of deep-sea sediments are typically about a factor of 1000 faster, namely $\sim$~few~mm/kyr. This means that a larger sample and more processing is needed to find the signal, but it is also easier to obtain good time resolution.
The importance of the \fe60 signal width as an observable goes back at least to \citet{feige2014}. She illustrated possible pulse shapes assuming a Gaussian form, emphasizing the trade-off between ability to resolve the width and dilution of the signal at its peak. When \citet{fitoussi2008} performed the first sediment measurements with relatively low \fe60 sensitivity, their results were hampered by this trade-off, which led to small \fe60 counts spread over $\sim 1 \ \rm Myr$. In addition, they adopted time bins of about 10 kyr, anticipating a short signal consistent with a Sedov-Taylor blast; this further diluted the signal. By attaining improved sensitivity and adopting larger time bins, \citet{ludwig2016} and \citet{wallner2016} later unambiguously resolved the signal; \citet{feige2018} performed an initial Gaussian fit to the binned \citet{wallner2016} sediment data. The time is ripe for a detailed joint analysis of these results, as presented in this paper.
\begin{figure}[!hb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=15cm]{60fe_all_data_ndc_may_23_22.png}
\caption{\textit{Terrestrial and lunar detections of $^{60}$Fe.} The $^{60}$Fe/Fe fractions found in deep-sea sediments, FeMn crusts, and {\em Apollo} lunar samples; the data are not decay-corrected for \fe60, however the \citet{knie2004} and \citet{fitoussi2008} times have been updated to take account of the latest \be10 half-life ($t_{1/2} = 1.387 \pm 0.012$ Myr \citep{korschinek2010}). All of the data with time resolution show a signal around $\sim 2-3$~Mya. The amplitude differences may reflect variations in iron uptake, latitude variations in iron deposition, and/or differences in sampling technique. Note the appearance of a second distinct peak around $\sim 6-7$~Mya in the \citet{wallner2021} data.}
\label{fig:data}
\end{figure}
\newpage
\subsection{Measurements of Pulses around 3 Myr and 7 Myr Ago}
The presence of deep-sea pulses of live \fe60 is now compelling, providing strong evidence for recent nearby supernovae.
Figure \ref{fig:data} compiles the published \fe60 data. The figure shows the detected \fe60/Fe isotope fraction versus time, categorized by both sample type and research group. The data show two distinct peaks, with all groups agreeing on a \fe60 peak around 2-3 Mya and the \citet{wallner2016} and \citet{wallner2021} data indicating another peak around 6-7 Mya. Note that this peak at 7 Mya only appears clearly in the \citet{wallner2021} data, whose \fe60 machine background has finally been lowered enough to show a distinct peak; the background in earlier efforts obscured the signal. Not included in this figure are the recent \fe60 flux measurements by \citet{koll2019} and \citet{wallner2020}, as they cover collectively only the last 30 kyr and would not be visibly distinguishable from the origin (see \S \ref{subsec:infall}). The \citet{fimiani2016} lunar data are included for completeness only: due to micrometeorite gardening effects on the lunar regolith, the data cannot be time resolved to better than $\sim 8 \ \rm Myr$.\footnote{\fe60/Fe ratios were not quoted explicitly in the \citet{fimiani2016} paper: we calculated an average value using the \fe60 concentration values from their Fig. 3 and the Fe concentration from their Table 2 for the relevant samples (1,2,4,5,6,7,9,10). The average is $\fe60$/Fe $\sim 3.1 \times 10^{-15}$.} Because of this time range, the lunar data include the signals due to all supernovae in the last 10 Myr; however, due to the half-life of \fe60, the contribution of \fe60 from the pulse at 7 Mya is only around 10\%.
When comparing the \fe60/Fe measurements, one should bear in mind that the geographical distribution of \fe60 may not be uniform, and that the uptake, $U$, of \fe60 varies in different materials. Specifically, it was shown in \citet{fry2016} that the transport of \fe60 through the atmosphere should not be isotropic, but rather would favour middle latitudes $\sim 60^\circ$, with minima at the equator and poles \citep[see also][]{dhomse2013}, yielding a factor of $\sim 3$ in the global difference. This may explain some of the large difference between the flux values reported by \citet{wallner2016} taken at $\sim 38^\circ \rm S$ versus the those in the data of \citet{ludwig2016} taken at $3^\circ \rm S$. In addition, ocean currents may cause variations with longitude in the deposition of \fe60 in FeMn crusts and deep-sea sediments at similar latitudes. Differences in analytical technique and sample processing can also affect the final result.
We note finally that the uptake is expected to be 100\% for sediments and snow, whereas the uptake in FeMn crusts is subject to considerable uncertainty and debate, and may vary depending on location and local conditions \citep{bishop2011}.
In this paper we focus on the sediment data when estimating the timescale of astrophysical \fe60 deposition, in view of the availability of multiple samples with time resolution from deep-sea sediments \citep{wallner2016, ludwig2016}. We note that the \citet{wallner2021} \fe60 data from the FeMn crust also has excellent time resolution compared to earlier studies. However, analysis of the deposition timescale requires strict accounting for geophysical processes that might disturb the signal, and this is more straightforward when the data are from the same sample type. By focusing on the un-binned sediment data, we can control most of the variables between the two data sets and therefore make fair comparisons. We look forward to additional measurements of the 7 Myr peak, ideally in sediments, to allow for a similar analysis of that event.
\subsection{Recent \fe60 infall} \label{subsec:infall}
\citet{koll2019} and \citet{wallner2020} have shown independently that there is recent and ongoing infall of extra-solar \fe60 onto Earth.
\citet{koll2019} detected an \fe60 signal in Antarctic snow deposited over the last 20 years and use isotopic ratios to show it is not from meteoritic material and must therefore be extra-solar. They suggest that the signal is due to the solar system passing through the Local Interstellar Cloud (a nearby higher density region of the Local Bubble). \citet{wallner2020} also detected a fairly steady \fe60 signal in deep-sea sediments over the last 33 kyr, in line with the \citet{koll2019} detection. However, they do not see the sharp increase in the \fe60 signal that would be expected from the solar system entering the Local Interstellar Cloud. There are other possibilities for the persistent \fe60 flux,
including continued delivery of dust following the most recent pulse $\sim 3$~Mya, or flux from the Earth's motion through the local ISM.
Further analysis of \fe60 in FeMn crusts and deep-sea sediments focused on the age range from 40 Kya to 1 Mya could add significant insight into
the origin of the observed recent infall.
That said, the main purpose of this paper is to characterize the peaks that are clearly evident
in the data, and we do not attempt to fit the low-level \fe60 flux outside the peaks.
\section{Supernova Dust Deposition Timescale from \fe60 in Deep-sea Sediments } \label{sec:fits}
Ocean sediments are the most suitable tracers for timescale analysis due to their rapid growth rate $\sim$~few~mm/kyr,
which is a factor $\sim 10^3$ faster than that of the ferromanganese crusts. This rapid growth allows the sediment column to be sampled more finely, leading to much better time resolution, but at the cost of a more dilute signal. We study the sediment data of \citet{wallner2016} and \citet{ludwig2016}, which were taken from different ocean drilling program
cores and analyzed independently. \citet{wallner2016} made measurements in four cores, of which two only had 1 or 3 counts in the $2-3$ Myr range, leaving two cores (4521 and 4953) with sufficient counts for our analysis. The two cores (848 and 851) studied by \citet{ludwig2016} are both sufficiently well sampled for our purposes. Unfortunately, the pioneering \citet{fitoussi2008} data did not have sufficient sensitivity for a well-resolved time series; they still provide useful consistency checks, but we do not use them for our full timescale study.
Both \citet{wallner2016} and \citet{ludwig2016} used accelerator mass spectrometry measurements of \fe60 atoms in the samples, from which \fe60/Fe isotope fractions are derived, as well as the \fe60 flux and its time-integrated fluence. Additionally, both groups studied blank samples to infer that their background is negligible, and therefore all of the \fe60 counts are significant.
\begin{table}[htb]
\centering
\caption{Summary of Timescales of Nonzero Counts in Deep-Ocean Drill Cores
\label{tab:data-timespan}
}
\begin{tabular}{c|cc|c}
\hline\hline
Core & $t_{\rm last}$ & $t_{\rm first}$ & $\delta t = t_{\rm first}-t_{\rm last}$ \\
Name & [Mya] & [Mya] & [Myr] \\
\hline
Ludwig 848 & 1.528 & 2.604 & 1.076 \\
Ludwig 851 & 1.735 & 3.045 & 1.310 \\
Wallner 4521 & 1.78 & 2.57 & 0.79 \\
Wallner 4953 & 1.71 & 3.18 & 1.47 \\
\hline
All Cores & 1.528 & 3.18 & 1.65 \\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\noindent
Before performing our fits, it is useful to note that the raw data
gives useful information about the signal width.
For each core, there is a distribution of nonzero \fe60 counts.
The interval $\delta t = t_{\rm first}-t_{\rm last}$ between the time $t_{\rm first}$ of the first nonzero count
and the time $t_{\rm last}$ of the last nonzero count thus gives a minimum
timespan for each core. This assumes that background effects are negligible.
These results are summarized in Table \ref{tab:data-timespan},
where we see that the signal durations in the individual cores span $\delta t=0.79$ to 1.47 Myr.
It is important to note that the Ludwig cores have multiple measurements with zero counts before and after the ranges of their nonzero measured counts; this is not the case
for the Wallner data. Thus the Ludwig results in Table \ref{tab:data-timespan} represent an estimate of their signal duration, though Poisson fluctuations or flux beneath their sensitivity could lead to a longer signal. For the Wallner data there are no leading and trailing zero counts, and so the results in Table \ref{tab:data-timespan} are certainly a lower limit to the duration in the cores they measured.
If we further assume there are no systematic differences in absolute timing,
then all of the cores together probe the range of the signal.
Then the global minimum timespan is the interval between overall first and last nonzero counts
among all the cores.
Globally, the \fe60 detections cover 1.65 Myr.
We already see that the signals are quite
long compared to the Sedov timescale $\lesssim 0.1$ Myr. As we now turn to fits,
we will find that these characteristic timescales set lower limits to our results.
\subsection{Analysis of the \fe60 timescale} \label{subsec:flux}
The purpose of this work is to determine the deposition or ``raindown'' time onto Earth of \fe60 during the recent pulse
$\sim 3$~Mya, and to interpret what this timescale implies about the propagation of supernova-produced material inside the remnant. In order to perform this analysis, we fit the observed \fe60 signal with a number of 3-parameter pulse shapes to see which one best described the data, while assuming the errors are dominated by Poisson counting statistics.
These shapes included a Gaussian, sawtooth, reverse-sawtooth (for comparison, despite our doubt that this is a physically plausible profile),
and a symmetric triangle;
expressions appear in Appendix \ref{app:fitfuncs}. We also performed one 4-parameter fit with an asymmetric triangle to see if there is a
preferred slant to the data.
The general shape of the \fe60 data is of particular interest, since the sharpness and
slant of the shape can provide insight into the astrophysics of the deposition of the \fe60 and its path
within the supernova remnant. Predictions in the literature to date have assumed the \fe60 traces the gas phase of the blast. Under this assumption, \citet{fry2015} showed that if the \fe60 is well-mixed in a Sedov blast, the signal appears discontinuously with the arrival of the forward shock, and decreases thereafter from this maximum.
\citet{chaikin2022} included the effects of incomplete mixing of \fe60 in the remnant gas, and also allowed for effects of the Earth's motion. They too found that the \fe60 pulse begins abruptly and is concentrated in a pulse, but found that the signal can linger thereafter. Thus, these models would favor the discontinuous profiles we have considered --- the sawtooth form, or a ``cut exponential.'' As we will see, there are other possibilities if the \fe60 is in dust that is decoupled from the gas, so we have chosen a suite of different fitting functions to allow for a range of possible \fe60 flux histories.
In the published versions of their work, both \citet{wallner2016} and \citet{ludwig2016} bin their data,
which serves to demonstrate the strength and overall peak of the signal. For the purposes of this analysis, we use the original, un-binned data, as it removes extraneous smoothing and we are specifically interested in fitting the un-binned shape. The un-binned \fe60 data can be found in Table S.4 of \citet{wallner2016} and in Tables A.1 and A.2 of \citet{ludwig2015}. Both \citet{wallner2016} and \citet{ludwig2016} assume zero background for their analyses. As mentioned above, recent work by \citet{wallner2020} and \citet{koll2019} have found a non-zero \fe60 background today. This minor discrepancy is discussed in more detail in \S\ref{subsec:infall}. For this work, we use the zero background estimate assumed by the original analyses.
In each sediment, accelerator mass spectrometry measures individual \fe60 atoms in each sediment segment corresponding to a time bin.
The $n_i$ number of \fe60 counts in each time bin $i$ is small, with $n_i \le 23$
and often $n_i < 10$.
As a result, the Poisson errors in the counts dominate the uncertainties in the resulting \fe60 flux.
We therefore tailor our analysis to identify the dependence on count numbers $n_i$ and to treat these Poisson errors faithfully.
The observed \fe60 flux values $\Phi_{60}$ are computed by combining
the measured \fe60 counts with properties of the sediment, as follows.
For each time $t_i$,
a number $n_i$ of \fe60 atoms are measured.
From this, the
observed \fe60/Fe ratio is
determined:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:r60}
\pfrac{\fe60}{{\rm Fe}}_i = s_i \ n_i \, , \end{equation}
where
the scaling $s_i$ is due to variations in efficiency and
other factors, and unique
for each measurement.
We infer the scalings
from the reported $n_i$ and $(\fe60/\mathrm{Fe})_i$.
In the cases of null measurements,
we follow the same procedure as both experimental groups, using the
\citet{feldman1998}
prescription for calculating 69.29\% CL limits
based on
$n_i = 0$ counts and a background $b=0$.
This gives an effective limit
$n_i^{\rm eff} < 1.29$, which
we use to infer the scaling $s_i$
for these measurements.
We use the following equations to correct the data for decays:
\begin{align} \label{eq:decay_cor}
\pfrac{\fe60}{\rm Fe}_{\rm c} &= \pfrac{\fe60}{\rm Fe}\, \exp{\bfrac{t_{i}}{\tau}} \, , \\
\sigma_{60_{\rm c}} &= \sqrt{ \exp{\bfrac{2\,t_{i}}{\tau}} \sigma_{60}^2 + \left(\dfrac{\fe60}{\mathrm{Fe}} \ \dfrac{1}{\tau}\right)^{2} \exp{\bfrac{2\,t_{i}}{\tau}} \sigma_i^2} \, .
\end{align}
Here and throughout, the subscript ``${\rm c}$'' indicates that the quantity is decay-corrected,
$t_{i}$ is the observed time with uncertainty $\sigma_i$, $\tau$ is the mean lifetime of \fe60, and $\sigma_{60_{\rm c}}$ is the uncertainty in the decay-corrected \fe60/Fe ratio.
To calculate the \fe60 flux, we use
\begin{align}
\label{eq:flux}
\Phi_{\rm 60c} &= n_{\rm 60c} \dot{h} = \pfrac{\fe60}{\rm Fe}_{\rm c} n_{\rm Fe} \, \dot{h} = \frac{X_{\rm Fe}}{A_{\rm Fe} m_{\rm u}} \pfrac{\fe60}{\rm Fe}_{\rm c} \, \rho \, \dot{h} \\
&= c_{\mathrm{Fe}} \, \pfrac{\fe60}{\rm Fe}_{\rm c} \, \rho \, \dot{h} \, , \\
\label{eq:fluxsig}
\sigma_{\Phi} &= c_{\mathrm{Fe}} \, \sigma_{60c} \, \rho \, \dot{h} \, .
\end{align}
In eq.~(\ref{eq:flux}), $\Phi$ is the flux of \fe60, and
$n_{60}$ is the \fe60 number density.
The sediment mass density is $\rho$, $\dot{h}$ is the sedimentation rate,
and $X_{\rm Fe} = \rho_{\rm Fe}/\rho$
is the mass fraction of iron in the sediment.
The factor $c_{\mathrm{Fe}} = X_{\rm Fe}/A_{\rm Fe} m_{\rm u}$ measures
the concentration of iron in the sediment in atoms per unit mass,
with $A_{\rm Fe}$ the mean molecular weight of iron and $m_{\rm u}$ the atomic mass unit.
Due to the format of the data provided in the relevant papers, the conversion of the \fe60/Fe ratio into a flux was
by necessity different for the two groups. \citet{wallner2016} calculated the flux in their Table S.4,
following the formula in Eq.~(\ref{eq:flux}), and we use those numbers directly. However,
\citet{ludwig2016} used a protocol in their chemical sample treatment
(citrate-bicarbonate-dithionite, or CBD) that effectively separates larger iron-bearing grains from
smaller grains, which they argue should arise from fossilized magnetotatic bacteria.
Their AMS measurements thus give a $(\fe60/{\rm Fe})_{\rm CBD}$ ratio for this material, and thus their scaling $c_{\rm Fe}$ of iron per mass in the bulk unprocessed sediment includes a factor $Y_{\rm CBD}$ for the fraction of iron selected by the CBD process.
This implicitly assumes that the Fe-bearing material excluded from the CBD protocol does not contain \fe60.
For the flux calculation in Eq.~(\ref{eq:flux}), the un-binned \fe60/Fe ratio and extracted iron are from Tables A.1 and A.2 in \citet{ludwig2015} (the binned versions of which appear in~\citet{ludwig2016}),
the sediment density is taken from Table 6.3 in \citet{ludwig2015},
and the sedimentation rate from Fig.~1 in~\citet{ludwig2016}.~\footnote{We are indebted to P. Ludwig for helping us understand and combine the different data sets.}
Combining eqs.~(\ref{eq:r60})
and (\ref{eq:flux}),
we arrive at the relationship between the flux and \fe60 counts. For time $t_i$,
we have:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:fluxscaling}
\Phi_{60,c}(t_i)
= \frac{X_{\rm Fe}}{A_i m_{\rm u}}
\rho \dot{h} \ e^{t_i/\tau} \ s_i \ n_i \ \equiv \ \varphi_i \ n_i \, .
\end{equation}
Given the counts $n_i$ and the other observables,
eq.~(\ref{eq:fluxscaling}) allows us to determine the flux scalings $\varphi_i$.
As we now see, these allow us to compare the observed
fluxes to model predictions.
Our goal is to fit the observed flux data with several simple models
that capture different qualitative trends one might expect in the \fe60
flux versus time, $\Phi_{\rm model}$.
The flux profile versus time is described by a set of parameters
$\vec{\theta}$, so that we have $\Phi(t;\vec{\theta})$.
In designing our fitting procedure, we are guided by the fact that the
uncertainties in the \fe60 flux are dominated by the Poisson errors in the \fe60 counts,
which is the case for both the \cite{wallner2016} and \citet{ludwig2016} data sets.
We have designed our fitting procedure to accommodate this situation,
closely following the approach laid out by \citet{cash1979},
originally for determining X-ray fluxes from photon count measurements
dominated by Poisson uncertainties.
Our analysis requires that at each time $t_i$
we specify the expected number $\mu_i$
of events, based the model flux. To do this,
we evaluate $\Phi_{\rm model}(t_i;\vec{\theta})$
and then infer $\mu_i(\vec{\theta}) = \Phi_{\rm model}(t_i;\vec{\theta})/\varphi_i$,
using the the scaling $\varphi_i$ found in eq.~(\ref{eq:fluxscaling}).
For each measured number of counts
$n_i$ the fit function with parameters $\vec{\theta}$ gives an expected value $\mu_i(\vec{\theta})$.
We now construct a Poisson-based likelihood for the fit given
the data.
For time $t_i$,
the likelihood for the fit given the data
is just the Poisson probability
${\cal L}_i(n_i|\vec{\theta}) = P(n_i|\mu_i)$,
where $P(n|\mu) = \mu^n e^{\mu}/n!$ is the Poisson probability of $n$ counts given a mean $\mu$.
The total probability for the fit given all of the data
is just the product of the likelihoods at each time:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:likelihood}
\mathcal{L}(\mbox{data}|\vec{\theta}) = \prod_i {\cal L}_i(n_i|\mu_i)
= \prod_i \frac{\mu_i^{n_i}}{n_i!} e^{-\mu_i}
\end{equation}
where the fit parameter dependence is through $\mu_i(\vec{\theta})$.
The negative of the logarithm of the total
likelihood in eq.~(\ref{eq:likelihood}) is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:poisson}
C(\vec{\theta}) = - \ln \mathcal{L}(\mbox{data}|\vec{\theta})
= - \sum_i \left( \mu_i - n_i \ln \mu_i \right)
+ \mbox{const} \, .
\end{equation}
Here the constant sums
terms with $\ln n_i$ dependencies that do not depend on the fit parameters $\vec{\theta}$, which
means that it does not affect the relative likelihoods of different parameter choices, so we follow the usual practice and neglect it.
The function $C$ thus depends on the data
and the fit parameters, and determines the goodness of fit in a way closely analogous to the role of a $\chi^2$ for data that is continuous rather than discrete.
For a given dataset and fitting function $\Phi_{\rm model}(t;\vec{\theta})$,
eq.~(\ref{eq:poisson}) will give different values to $C$ for different choices of the parameters $\vec{\theta}$.
The likelihood is maximized at the minimum value for $C$, which we call
$C_{\rm min}$, and which we will use to assess goodness of fit.
The parameters $\vec{\theta}$ giving $C_{\rm{min}}$
are the best-fit values.
We use Monte Carlo methods to explore the parameter space, find the best-fit parameters,
and characterize their uncertainties.
We note that the physical picture of supernova radioisotope deposition could
include an abrupt onset to the flux. This could occur
if \fe60 is entrained in a blast wave, so that the onset of the \fe60 coincides with
the forward shock's arrival at the solar system.
To allow for this, we consider some fitting functions where the
flux has an abrupt onset and/or halt. In these cases there are times before
or after the blast passage, for which there is no signal: $\mu_i = 0$,
which means that the expected number of counts must be zero.
If the measured number of counts is non-zero for these times, then the Poisson probability is zero
($C \rightarrow - \infty$)
and this set of fit parameters is completely ruled out. In other words, our method
automatically rejects models (regions of parameter space) that predict no counts where some are observed.
On the other hand, the converse is not true: if the fit has
$\mu_i > 0$, Poisson statistics allow for cases where $n_i=0$, albeit with a penalty.
Each of the four sediment cores was fitted separately, as each core is a separate time column and in many cases data points
from different cores lie on the same time slice, which creates difficulties with Poisson statistics. We were also interested
in examining any differences we could find in the pulse arrival time and the peak pulse time, to see if there were differences
in the timing calibration between the different sediments. In order to ensure a universal resolution for all the pulse shapes,
we enforced the same initial parameters across all of the 3-parameter fits (similar values were used for the 4-parameter fit,
although it is not statistically comparable).
To test our methodology, we generated
simulated data points, drawn from a pre-determined
flux history $\Phi_{\rm true}(t)$.
We randomly chose sample times $t_i$,
and drew counts $n_i$ from a Poisson distribution appropriate for our flux history.
We found that our method generally performed well: the best-fit parameters were
close to
the parameters of the known input
$\Phi_{\rm true}$. However, we did find that the accuracy
and precision of the width
and thus timescale parameter depends on the functional form and the time distributions of measurements.
In particular, we found that a crucial factor is
the number of measured points with zero counts before and after the bulk of the signal.
The more leading and trailing null points, the better the width was determined. On the other hand, if there were only one or two null points on either side of the signal, the width was less well constrained, with the true width being at
the low end of the range allowed by the fit.
This is a manifestation of the physical effect that in noisy data with small mean numbers of counts, one or two bins with zero counts do
not strongly constrain the fit; rather, many are needed to exclude models that span wide timescales. We will see this behavior manifested in
the fits below.
\subsection{Results of Fits} \label{subsec:fit_results}
To allow for a variety of possible \fe60 time histories,
we fit the flux data with six possible 3-parameter shapes, chosen for mathematical simplicity and resemblance to
physically motivated trends suggested in the literature.
Their mathematical expressions are given in in Appendix \ref{app:fitfuncs}.
Three of these give a signal that has a finite
duration: (1) a symmetric triangle with equal duration linear rise and fall around a peak,
(2) a ``sawtooth'' that begins abruptly at a peak and falls linearly to zero,
(3) and a reverse sawtooth that rises linearly from zero to a peak, then drops to zero.
We explored three additional profiles that allow comparison to traditional fits and explore a more gradual rise and fall that formally never goes to zero: (1) a Gaussian, (2) a Lorentzian, and (3) a ``cut exponential'' that starts at a peak and then drops exponentially.
The data were fit for each sediment core with each specific fit model. These results are summarized in Tables \ref{tab:cmin} and \ref{tab:fwhm}, but for brevity we only plot results for select cases. Figures \ref{fig:sawtooth_L848}--\ref{fig:sawtooth_W4953} show results for all cores using the sawtooth fit, while Fig.~\ref{fig:gaussian_L848} shows the results for the Ludwig 848 core using a Gaussian fit. Each fit figure shows the flux vs time data for a single core. The middle part of the figure plots the \fe60 flux (in $10^4 \, \rm atoms \ cm^{-2} \ kyr^{-1}$) vs time (in Mya), including both detections and non-detections. Overlaid on top of these points is the best fit curve, with the $C_{\rm{min}}$ statistic and the fit's peak time ($t_{\rm{peak}}$), peak flux ($\Phi_{\rm{peak}}$) and width ($\sigma_t$) given in the upper left corner. The top three plots in each figure compare the three parameters and show the contour confidence levels (CL) for the Poisson equivalent of 1, 2, and 3 $\sigma$; the bottom three plots show the marginalized likelihood for each parameter normalized so that the peak is at 1.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=18cm]{Ludwig_core848_sawtooth_res100.png}
\caption{\textit{Sawtooth fits to the terrestrial $^{60}$Fe flux of \cite{ludwig2016} core 848.} The flux is in units of $[10^4 \ \rm atoms \ cm^{-2} \ kyr^{-1}]$ throughout. \textbf{Upper plots:} the confidence intervals as contours for the three fit parameters (peak time, signal width, and peak flux). \textbf{Middle plot:} the \fe60 flux versus time, with the sawtooth best fit overlaid in red. The dark blue points show the calculated flux for the detected \fe60 counts, while the light blue points show the flux upper limits for the non-detections. Error bars in both flux and time are included, although the time errors can be smaller than the data point itself. In the upper left corner are listed the best fit peak time, width, and peak flux values for the sawtooth fit, as well as the $C_{\mathrm{min}}$ parameter for the fit. \textbf{Lower plots:} the marginalized likelihood for each of the three parameters, with the best fit value indicated by a red line.}
\label{fig:sawtooth_L848}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=18cm]{Ludwig_core851_sawtooth_res100.png}
\caption{\it Sawtooth fits to the terrestrial $^{60}$Fe flux of \cite{ludwig2016} core 851, as in Fig. \ref{fig:sawtooth_L848}.}
\label{fig:sawtooth_L851}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=18cm]{Wallner_core4521_sawtooth_res100.png}
\caption{\it Sawtooth fits to the terrestrial $^{60}$Fe flux of \cite{wallner2016} core 4521, as in Fig. \ref{fig:sawtooth_L848}.}
\label{fig:sawtooth_W4521}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=18cm]{Wallner_core4953_sawtooth_res100.png}
\caption{\it Sawtooth fits to the terrestrial $^{60}$Fe flux of \cite{wallner2016} core 4953, as in Fig. \ref{fig:sawtooth_L848}.}
\label{fig:sawtooth_W4953}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=18cm]{Ludwig_core848_gaussian_res100.png}
\caption{\it Gaussian fits to the terrestrial $^{60}$Fe flux, \cite{ludwig2016} core 848, as in Fig. \ref{fig:sawtooth_L848}. Shown here as an example of an alternative fit.}
\label{fig:gaussian_L848}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=15cm]{cmin_comparison.png}\\
\caption{\textit{Assessing goodness of fit: 3-parameter fit $C_{\rm{min}}$ comparisons for each of the 6 fits per core.} The lower (more negative) the $C_{\rm{min}}$ value, the better the fit. Note that while the fits can be compared with each other for each individual core, the fits should not be compared between cores.
We see that the best-fit shape varies between cores, with no clear global preference.}
\label{fig:cmin}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=14cm]{fwhm_comparison.png}\\
\vspace{5mm}
\includegraphics[width=14cm]{pt1m_comparison.png}
\caption{\textit{3-parameter fit time width comparisons.}
\textbf{ Top:} FWHM calculated for each of the 6 fits per core. \textbf{Bottom:} Full width at 0.1 maximum height, which is closer to the true overall timescale. The errors shown are
the uncertainties in the parameters: they do not reflect the goodness of the fits. A small error on a best-fit value does not indicate that this particular shape is the preferred pulse. Instead, the goodness of fit is determined by the Poisson C$_{\rm{min}}$ value \citep{cash1979}.}
\label{fig:fwhm}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:sawtooth_L848} shows the results for a sawtooth fit to the Ludwig core 848, and serves as an exemplar for similar plots of other cores and fits. In the top panels we see two-dimensional slices of the $\vec{\theta} = (t_{\rm peak},\sigma_t,\Phi_{\rm peak})$ parameter space. The red dot gives the location of the best fit, where $C(\vec{\theta})=C_{\rm min}$. The surrounding contours correspond
to the 68\%, 95\%, and 99\% confidence level values.
We see that the best-fit regions are relatively compact, meaning that the best fit is well-determined. The peak flux and peak time values are the best determined, with quite small uncertainties. The width parameter shows a broader distribution and hence larger uncertainty.
These trends are reflected in the bottom panel of
Fig. \ref{fig:sawtooth_L848}, where we give the
one-dimensional marginalized likelihood distributions
such as
\begin{equation}
{\cal L}(t_{\rm peak}) \propto \int {\cal L}(t_{\rm peak}, \sigma_t, \Phi_{\rm peak}) \ d \sigma_t \ d\Phi_{\rm peak} \ \ .
\end{equation}
We see that unlike the well-determined peak time and flux, the sawtooth width distribution shows
a rapid rise and a long tail towards long durations.
The middle panel of Fig. \ref{fig:sawtooth_L848}
shows the data for this core, overlaid with the curve
for the best-fit parameters. We see that this optimal sawtooth function ``turns on''
essentially at the earliest nonzero measurement (largest time before present),
denoted $t_{\rm first}$ in Table \ref{tab:data-timespan}. The sawtooth onset is the peak time $t_{\rm peak}$, and so for the best fit this essentially is set by the first nonzero measurement. The best-fit curve goes to zero soon after the last nonzero point (smallest time before present). This means that the width parameter $\sigma_t$ is in this case essentially set by time interval between the first and last nonzero measurements shown in Table \ref{tab:data-timespan}. We see that the height of the sawtooth at onset is a compromise among the data points so that, unsurprisingly, the measurements with the smallest errors determine the peak height $\Phi_{\rm peak}$ and also influence the slope and hence the width.
We can understand the broad width $\sigma_t$ distribution for this and other sawtooth fits by considering the interplay between the data and the best-fit curve in the middle panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:sawtooth_L848}.
The nonzero measurements exact a ``cost'' in goodness of fit $C$ for models that miss them, with the most extreme case being outright rejection ($C \rightarrow \infty$) of models
that predict zero flux where counts are nonzero.
Conversely, the points with zero counts impose a cost in $C$ for fits that are nonzero, but this penalty
is less severe, corresponding to allowing for Poisson fluctuations. This means that sawtooth fits will be highly suppressed if they are narrower than the nonzero-count data, but will have some freedom to extend beyond the width of the data, until the available zero-count points suppress fits that are much wider than the data. This is the trend we see in the width distribution.
These insights from Fig.~\ref{fig:sawtooth_L848} elucidate
also the trends in sawtooth fits to the other sediment cores.
Fig.~\ref{fig:sawtooth_L851} shows sawtooth fits
for Ludwig core 851. Here again we see that the peak time and peak flux values are fairly well determined, though the top and bottom panels show that the peak time has a sharp lower limit but its distribution extends for about 0.4 Myr beyond this. We can understand this feature from the middle panel: there is a lack of data between the earliest measured nonzero point and prior zero points. This gap is about 0.3 Myr
and the lack of data here means that there is no penalty for fits that have an onset $t_{\rm peak}$ anywhere in this range. This leads to the width in $t_{\rm peak}$.~\footnote{
The top panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:sawtooth_L851} also show that the width is positively correlated with peak time.
This reflects the fact that to maintain a similar shape of curve through the nonzero data, a larger width
is compensated by an earlier peak time.}
Even more striking is the width parameter in Fig.~\ref{fig:sawtooth_L851}: we see in the bottom panel that the width distribution comes to a peak at 1.84 Myr, but the distribution is highly skewed.
The $\sigma_t$ likelihood cuts off rapidly below the peak, but shows a long tail beyond the peak that extends out to the longest values that were allowed. Again, the data in the middle panel show the reason: after the last nonzero point (earliest time before present) there is only a single point with zero counts. Thus there is little penalty for fits with a width extending far beyond the interval between the nonzero points. Furthermore, the scatter of the nonzero points allows for a wide range of slopes, which also permits large widths.
The lesson here is clear and reasonable:
{\em to get a strong constraint on the width is it essential to measure multiple points with zero \fe60 counts before and after the points with nonzero counts.} For Ludwig core 848 this is the case, and the width is better constrained than that of Ludwig core 851.
This lesson is underscored when we consider Figs.
\ref{fig:sawtooth_W4521} and \ref{fig:sawtooth_W4953},
which show sawtooth fits to Wallner cores 4521 and 4953 respectively. For both cores we see that effectively
we can only set a lower limit to the width parameter. That is, the width likelihood in the bottom center panel begins to rise after some minimum $\sigma_t$, and continues to increase up to the highest allowed value. Looking at the data, we see that both cores have no points with zero counts before or after the nonzero counts. Thus, the nonzero-count duration sets a lower limit to the width, corresponding to the onset of the likelihood rise, about $(1.6, 2.5)$ Myr for cores (4521, 4593). However, the available data essentially set no upper limit to the width for these cores.
We also see that the peak time is poorly constrained, again due to the lack of zero-count data at times earlier than the first nonzero point.
We have produced plots in the style of Figs.~\ref{fig:sawtooth_L848} to \ref{fig:sawtooth_W4953} for the other fitting functions.
For brevity we show here only
the Gaussian fit to Ludwig core 848, which
appears in Fig.~\ref{fig:gaussian_L848}.
The main trends are similar to those we saw for the sawtooth fit to this core in Fig.~\ref{fig:sawtooth_L848}, and
the peak width and peak flux are quite well-determined.
For the Gaussian case we also find that the width
is well-determined, better than the sawtooth case.
For the cores not shown, it is illuminating to compare the trends in the Gaussian fit to those found in the sawtooth fits shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:sawtooth_L851} to \ref{fig:sawtooth_W4953}.
For the Ludwig core 851, the peak time and width are broader than in core 848, but are still well-determined.
On the other hand, for Wallner core 4521,
the Gaussian fits also give only a lower limit
to the width, and the peak time likelihood does
have a clear maximum but broad tails on either side.
Interestingly, the Wallner core 4953 fits are
better determined, with the width and other likelihoods
showing clear peaks and wings that go to zero on both sides. We believe this is due to the effect of a few nonzero points with high precision fluxes, which anchor the Gaussian fit and prevent large excursions away from the best-fit region.
Among the other fits we tried, the reverse sawtooth case also deserves mention. Here the fit has a linear rise at early times, ending with an abrupt cutoff at late times; this was chosen to contrast with the more physically motivated sawtooth case.
For these fits, we find that the width parameter
likelihoods set only lower limits for all cases.
This includes the Ludwig cores for which
it had been possible to determine the width in the
ordinary sawtooth case.
Figure \ref{fig:all_fits} summarizes the best-fit curves for the six different fitting functions. Several trends emerge.
Regarding the pulse widths, we see that for the symmetric functions (Gaussian, Lorentzian, triangle), the best-fit curves all span at least 1 Myr, with Wallner cores spanning $>2 \rm \ Myr$. For the asymmetric functions (sawtooth, reverse sawtooth, cut exponential) the best-fit curves are generally even wider.
The initial signal arrival is sharply defined in the sawtooth and cut exponential cases, where it exceeds 3 Mya
for at least one Wallner and one Ludwig core. In the other cases the onset is gradual but also begins no later than 3 Mya.
Finally, for all cases we see that the Wallner peak fluxes are higher than those of Ludwig. These differences were discussed in \S\ref{sec:data_intro}, and may point to geophysical differences in \fe60 fallout, and could also reflect difference in \fe60 extraction techniques.
To provide a basis for comparing quantitatively the different fits for each core, we compiled all of the best-fit $C_{\rm{min}}$ values for the six fits shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:cmin} and Table \ref{tab:cmin}. We note that for a given core,
$C_{\rm{min}}$ quantifies goodness of fit, in that
the more negative the $C_{\rm{min}}$ value, the better the fit. We also note that while the $C_{\rm{min}}$ can be compared between fits for the same core, it is not appropriate to compare the relative $C_{\rm{min}}$ values for fits between different cores (for example, the fact that the $C_{\rm{min}}$ values for the Ludwig cores are above zero and the $C_{\rm{min}}$ values for the Wallner cores are below zero says nothing about the relative goodness of fits to the Wallner and Ludwig cores). In Table \ref{tab:cmin}, the most negative value for each core has been shown in boldface. $C_{\rm{min}}$ values that are nearly identical for the respective core have been shown in italics, indicating that the respective fit functions for the bold and italic values are all of similar quality.
We find that for Wallner Core 4521, the triangle, Gaussian, and Lorentz fits are all equally good. As seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:sawtooth_W4521}, the data for Core 4521 are quite irregular, which could account for the multiple favorite fit shapes. Wallner Core 4953 also has a preference for the triangle and Gaussian fits. Meanwhile, the Ludwig Cores 848 and 851, which are more heavily sampled than the Wallner cores, have a clear preference for the sawtooth and Lorentz fits, respectively. The main takeaway from these results is that the \fe60 pulse does not have a preferred shape, even across the same core.
Although we frequently describe the widths of the six fitting functions as the width timescales, it should be noted that this is not actually a fair comparison between the different fit shapes. For example, $\sigma_t$ for the sawtooth fit is the full width of the fitting function and therefore is the actual timescale for that curve shape. However, $\sigma_t$ for the Gaussian is not given directly by the actual start/stop times of the function, since the Gaussian never reaches zero flux. Therefore, in order to compare the timescales for each function (and find a preferred time width for the supernova pulse), we have examined the traditional full-width at half-maximum time for each fit for each core. Since our primary interest is the maximum width of the function, we have also plotted the full-width at 0.1 the maximum (which is closer to the true timescale). Table \ref{tab:fwhm} and Fig.~\ref{fig:fwhm} summarize these results. Note that the values corresponding to the best-fit $C_{\rm{min}}$ values from Table \ref{tab:cmin} are also given in boldface and italics where relevant.
{\it Our key result is that the full width at 0.1 maximum height, for all functions and cores, shows that the width of the deposition timescale is at least 1 Myr. This is significantly longer than the prediction of the traditional Sedov model.}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=18cm]{all_best_fit_curves.png}
\caption{\it Best fit curves for each 3-parameter fit for each core.
\label{fig:all_fits}}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\caption{\textit{Goodness of Fit: $C_{\rm{min}}$ Values for 3-parameter fits.} }
\hspace{-25mm}
\begin{tabular}{c|cccc}
\hline \hline
& \multicolumn{4}{c}{$C_{\rm{min}}$ Values} \\
\hline
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{\citet{wallner2016}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\citet{ludwig2016}} \\
Model & Core 4521 & Core 4953 & Core 848 & Core 851 \\
\hline
Cut Exponential & -311.17 & -158.58 & 63.33 & 30.32 \\
Gaussian & \textit{-312.56} & \textit{-174.25} & 62.24 & 26.55 \\
Lorentz & \textit{-312.45} & -173.15 & 65.04 & \textbf{24.62} \\
Sawtooth & -311.02 & -158.26 & \textbf{57.73} & 29.00 \\
Reverse Saw & -311.72 & -153.66 & 80.61 & 39.01 \\
Triangle & \textbf{-312.59} & \textbf{-174.34} & 59.85 & 25.56 \\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace{3mm}
\label{tab:cmin} \\
\parbox{0.9\textwidth}{The most negative $C_{\rm{min}}$ value for each core gives the {best fit}, which is shown in {\bf boldface}. Fits that have nearly identical $C_{\rm{min}}$ (for the respective core) are in {\it italics}. Best fit values should be compared between models for the same core (vertical columns), and not between cores (horizontal rows).}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\caption{\textit{Best-fit Timescale Width Values for 3-parameter fits.} }
\hspace{-25mm}
\begin{tabular}{c|cccc}
\hline \hline
& \multicolumn{4}{c}{FWHM (Myr)} \\
\hline
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{\citet{wallner2016}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\citet{ludwig2016}} \\
Model & Core 4521 & Core 4953 & Core 848 & Core 851 \\
\hline
Cut Exponential & 2.60 $\pm$ 0.48 & 2.60 $\pm$ 0.33 & 0.42 $\pm$ 0.20 & 0.92 $\pm$ 0.58\\
Gaussian & \textit{1.17 $\pm$ 1.97} & \textit{1.17 $\pm$ 1.52} & 0.73 $\pm$ 0.13 & 0.91 $\pm$ 1.76\\
Lorentz & \textit{1.45 $\pm$ 1.63} & 1.15 $\pm$ 1.24 & 0.47 $\pm$ 0.17 & \textbf{0.55 $\pm$ 1.20} \\
Sawtooth & 1.88 $\pm$ 0.24 & 1.88 $\pm$ 0.14 & \textbf{0.68 $\pm$ 0.10} & 0.92 $\pm$ 0.30 \\
Reverse Saw & 1.88 $\pm$ 0.27 & 1.88 $\pm$ 0.12 & 1.26 $\pm$ 0.31 & 1.88 $\pm$ 0.24\\
Triangle & \textbf{2.44 $\pm$ 0.71} & \textbf{1.02 $\pm$ 0.55} & 0.69 $\pm$ 0.09 & 0.83 $\pm$ 0.57 \\
\hline
& \multicolumn{4}{c}{FW at 0.1 Maximum (Myr)} \\
\hline
Cut Exponential & 8.63 $\pm$ 1.59 & 8.63 $\pm$ 1.09 & 1.41 $\pm$ 0.65 & 3.04 $\pm$ 1.91 \\
Gaussian & \textit{2.14 $\pm$ 3.59} & \textit{2.14 $\pm$ 2.77} & 1.34 $\pm$ 0.23 & 1.66 $\pm$ 3.21\\
Lorentz & \textit{4.34 $\pm$ 4.90} & 3.44 $\pm$ 3.71 & 1.42 $\pm$ 0.50 & \textbf{1.65 $\pm$ 3.59}\\
Sawtooth & 3.38 $\pm$ 0.43 & 3.38 $\pm$ 0.26 & \textbf{1.22 $\pm$ 0.19} & 1.66 $\pm$ 0.54\\
Reverse Saw & 3.38 $\pm$ 0.49 & 3.38 $\pm$ 0.22 & 2.27 $\pm$ 0.56 & 3.38 $\pm$ 0.44 \\
Triangle & \textbf{4.40 $\pm$ 1.28} & \textbf{1.84 $\pm$ 0.99} & 1.23 $\pm$ 0.17 & 1.50 $\pm$ 1.03 \\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace{3mm}
\label{tab:fwhm} \\
\parbox{0.9\textwidth}{Values in {\bf boldface} match the best-fit $C_{\rm{min}}$ in Table \ref{tab:cmin}; similarly, values in {\it italics} are nearly-identical best fits for that core.}
\end{table}
\subsection{Terrestrial and geophysical effects --- is the signal width of astronomical origin?}
\label{subsec:itaintgeo}
We now discuss how terrestrial and geophysical effects might smear the timescale of the
\fe60 pulse.
\textbf{The atmosphere:} When the dust, which is traveling at up to 100 km/s, hits the Earth's atmosphere, it is vaporized. The iron atoms then combine in the upper atmosphere with molecules such as ozone and hydroxyl radicals, and are eventually deposited on land and in the ocean. \citet{fry2016} provides excellent approximations for the residence times of the iron in the atmosphere and demonstrates that the iron settles out of the atmosphere in less than 10 years.
\textbf{Deposition on land:} There is no currently known way to detect the \fe60 signal on land, unless it is deposited on an ice sheet, e.g., in Antarctica, where ongoing deposition has recently been measured \citep{koll2019}.
\textbf{Deposition in the ocean:} The residence, i.e., removal, time of iron in the ocean is relatively short, on the order of $\sim$ 500 years at most \citep{resing2015,boyle1997,bruland1994}. When the dust settles on the ocean floor, it may be taken up by FeMn crusts or deposited as sediment.
\textbf{FeMn Crusts:} Once iron is absorbed by a FeMn crust, it remains `locked-in' and unchanged until analysis, and the time signal is accurately preserved. However, due to the slow growth rate it is very difficult to time resolve FeMn crusts on the order of kyr, and only the recent work of \citet{wallner2021} has done so. There is also the possibility of crust porosity, which would enable the iron to attach below the surface, thus smearing the signal.
\textbf{Sediments:} It is possible to resolve the time structure of deposits in sediments on the order of kyr, but there are a number of effects that can smear the time signature. The two most important are bioturbation (the churning of the upper few layers of sediment by macroscopic organisms) and chemical reducing environments (created by bacteria and leading to the movement of iron within the sediment column). However, all the sediment samples we consider are from the deep-sea where bioturbation effects are negligible, and were carefully selected to ensure that a reducing environment did not occur \citep{fitoussi2008,ludwig2016}.
In summary, there are a number of geochemical, geophysical, oceanic, and biological effects that can in principle distort the \fe60 timescale. However, the combination of these effects is less than $\Delta t \sim 10^{3}$ years, which is far shorter than the $\Delta t \sim 10^{6}$ years timescale found in the data.
We conclude, therefore, that the measured timescale \textit{must} be astrophysical in origin.
Accordingly, we need a model for the origin and transport to Earth of the dust that can accommodate the signal width and might also be able to predict the line shape, which could be constrained by future data with higher precision.
\subsection{Multiple supernovae?} \label{subsec:multiple_SN}
There is significant interest in analyzing the possibility of multiple supernovae to account for the signal $\sim 3$~Myr ago, e.g.,
\citet{breitschwerdt2016} and
\citet{schulreich2018}
propose that some 16 to 19 supernovae have exploded in the Local Bubble, and have contributed to the extended \fe60 signal.
Unfortunately, the data are too noisy to cleanly distinguish multiple superposed supernovae peaks.
We have
seen that the sediment measurements cannot
unambiguously distinguish
the relatively simple
pulse shapes we have tried,
which have shapes as different as possible for a singly-peaked structure.
Thus, the data in hand cannot exclude
a more complex pulse shape that would
superpose multiple supernova
pulses.
Despite these limitations,
the \fe60 data carries
substantial information
bearing on the question of multiple
supernovae creating the the observed
3 Myr pulse.
In particular (a) singly-peaked pulse shapes provide
adequate descriptions of the
measurements, and (b)
none of the data show clear
groupings of points within the
time range of detected points.
The available data are thus
consistent with a single peak,
and do not {\em require}
multiple events.
Furthermore, an accounting
for the \fe60 data
must explain not only the long signal width
seen in the samples,
but also the discovery of distinct pulses at 3 Myr and 7 Myr, with no
apparent signal in between.
If there are multiple
events in the 3 Myr peak,
then there would likely need to
be a similar set of events for the 7 Myr peak, but then the gap between the two would need explanation.
These considerations will inform models for multiple supernovae,
but do not rule them out.
We do not consider it a productive exercise to fit for multiple supernovae
given the limitations of the available data,
so we restrict our analysis to a single supernova.
We discuss models for the pulse width below in \S\ref{sec:pinball}.
Additional time-resolved measurements of the 3 Myr ago signal (such as could be provided by more dense sampling) could help enormously, but would require significant extra efforts beyond those already made to gather the current data set. Another possibility would be to measure the fluxes of additional isotopes across the \fe60 signal region. If there were significant variations in the isotope ratios, these could constitute evidence for multiple supernovae with different combinations of nucleosynthesis mechanisms.
\subsection{Four-Parameter Fit} \label{subsec:4_parm}
In order to examine the ambiguity of the preferred fit shape for the data, we include a 4-parameter ``sharktooth" fit in our analysis. The purpose of this fit is to analyze whether the data is better described by an asymmetric shape, and at what level of preference. We chose to work with a 2-width triangle shape, of which the sawtooth, reverse sawtooth, and symmetric triangle are the three-parameter extremes. The function is defined below in Appendix A.
The shape was given the full range from ``almost full sawtooth" to ``almost full reverse sawtooth", with only a minor initial minimum of 0.05 Myr to prevent either width from being zero. As with the 3-parameter fits, we also enforced a maximum total width of 3.5 Myr, which is clearly seen to be relevant for Wallner Core 4521 in Fig. \ref{fig:shark_all}. This width cap is to prevent the fit from stretching all the way to $t=0$ Myr for the noisier data, and was picked as the minimum width needed before the triangle shapes stopped changing dramatically.
Results for the Ludwig 851 core appear in Fig.~\ref{fig:shark}. We see in the bottom panels that the two widths have well-defined peak likelihoods, but broad distributions. In the upper left panel we see that the two widths have some anticorrelation, as one might expect if they have to at least sum to the spread in the nonzero data points.
Examining the best-fit shapes for the four cores in Fig. \ref{fig:shark_all}, we can see that most of the data are best fit with a sharktooth shape that is intermediate between being fully symmetric or asymmetric. Only Ludwig Core 848 prefers a perfect sharp sawtooth shape, with the fit function capped by the minimum width initial parameter. The two Wallner cores prefer a slightly sawtooth shape, while Ludwig Core 851 actually has a slight preference towards a reverse sawtooth.
It should be noted once again that the sharktooth fits are not statistically comparable to the 3-parameter fits in \S \ref{subsec:fit_results}. However, in view of the lack of strong preference for a specific 3-parameter fit, it is an interesting possibility to explore further. Given the variations in the current data, we cannot meaningfully pick a preferred shape for the \fe60 pulse, so the pulse shape does not provide significant information on the underlying astrophysics. However, the different pulse widths extracted using the different preferred fit shapes can be used to make some inferences on the astrophysical processes inside the supernova remnant.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=18cm]{Ludwig_core851_sharktooth_res40.png} \\
\caption{\textit{4-parameter sharktooth fits to the terrestrial $^{60}$Fe flux of \citet{ludwig2016}}. The figure is formatted similarly to the 3-parameter fits, with the two width parameters and the peak time analyzed. Width 1 ($\sigma_{t_{1}}$) is the rising width for the sharktooth, i.e., the time elapsed between the start of the infall and the peak, and Width 2 ($\sigma_{t_{2}}$) is the time elapsed from the peak until the end of the infall.
\label{fig:shark}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=16cm]{all_fits_sharktooth_res40_07_Myr.png} \\
\caption{\it 4-parameter sharktooth fits to the terrestrial $^{60}$Fe flux.
\label{fig:shark_all}}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Global Fits}
\label{sect:global}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{FixW_VarPH_sawtooth_20000_25May2022_1528.pdf}
\caption{ {\it Global fit to all well-sampled sediments, using
a sawtooth profile for the flux.} The width is fixed, but the peak flux and peak time are both allowed to vary, allowing for nonuniform global dust fallout and systematic errors in absolute timing, respectively.
}
\label{fig:FixW_VarPH_sawtooth}
\end{figure}
Having examined the cores individually,
we now turn to global fits that use all the cores
to analyze jointly the \fe60 deposition history.
To do this we first note that the \fe60 flux time profile (i.e., its shape) should be common to all of the sediments regardless of their location
on the Earth.
We therefore fit all of the samples
using a single pulse shape
and thus the same width parameter $\sigma_t$.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\caption{Global Fit Parameters}
\begin{tabular}{cc|ccc}
\hline \hline
& & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Fit Type} \\
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{Parameter} & Gaussian & Sawtooth & Triangle \\
\hline \hline
Width Parameter $\sigma_t$ & [Myr] & $0.47 \pm 0.05$ & $3.18 \pm 0.26$ & $0.99 \pm 0.10$ \\
Full Width at 0.1max $\Delta t$ & [Myr] & $2.00 \pm 0.21$ & $2.86 \pm 0.23$ & $1.8 \pm 0.2$ \\
$\Delta t$ 95\% CL lower limit & [Myr] & $1.7$ & $2.7$ & $1.6$ \\
\hline
Peak Time $t_{\rm peak}$ [Myr] & L-848 & $2.16 \pm 0.10$ & $2.7 \pm 0.05$ & $2.1 \pm 0.09$ \\
& L-851 & $2.44 \pm 0.11$ & $ 3.2\pm 0.2$ & $2.4 \pm 0.9$ \\
& W-4521 & $2.12 \pm 0.11$ & $3.3 \pm 0.5$ & $2.2 \pm 0.9$ \\
& W-4953 & $2.44 \pm 0.05$ & $3.5 \pm 0.2$ & $2.5 \pm 0.4$ \\
\hline
Peak Flux $\Phi_{\rm peak}$ & L-848 & $0.37 \pm 0.06$ & $0.38 \pm 0.07$ & $0.42 \pm 0.07$ \\
& L-851 & $1.16 \pm 0.19$ & $1.2 \pm 0.2$ & $1.2 \pm 0.2$ \\
& W-4521 & $3.89 \pm 0.41$ & $5.9 \pm 1.9$ & $4.5 \pm 0.5$ \\
& W-4953 & $3.19 \pm 0.43$ & $2.7 \pm 0.4$ & $3.6 \pm 0.5$ \\
\hline \hline
Fluence ${\cal F}_{60}$ & L-848 & $0.43 \pm 0.07$ & $0.60 \pm 0.11$ & $0.41 \pm 0.07$ \\
& L-851 & $1.4 \pm 0.3$ & $1.9 \pm 0.4$ & $1.2 \pm 0.2$ \\
& W-4521 & $4.6 \pm 0.8$ & $9.5 \pm 3.2$ & $4.4 \pm 0.6$ \\
& W-4953 & $3.7 \pm 0.4$ & $4.3 \pm 0.8$ & $3.6 \pm 0.3$ \\
\hline \hline
Goodness of Fit & $C_{\rm min}$ & {\em -195.4} & -185.6 & {\bf -196.8} \\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace{3mm}
\label{tab:globalfits} \\
\parbox{0.9\textwidth}{ {\it Fits with a single width parameter but varying peak times and peak flux values for different cores.} L denotes \citet{ludwig2016}, W denotes \citet{wallner2016}.
We list below the best-fit values and 1-$\sigma$ uncertainties.
The peak flux is given in units of $10^4$ atoms cm$^{-2}$ kyr$^{-1}$ and the fluence in units of $10^7$ atoms cm$^{-2}$.
For the goodness of fit $C_{\rm min}$, {\bf bold} indicates the highest likelihood, and {\em italics} the close second.
}
\end{table}
We account for potential systematic differences between the samples
by allowing the other fit parameters to vary
independently for each core.
To include possible systematic offsets in the absolute dating
of the different samples, we fit different peak times for each core; this would
correspond to shifts in the inferred time history between the
samples. Small differences in the peak times of individual fits
would suggest that differences in the dating are small,
but large differences would point to the presences of
unaccounted systematics, or the use of a bad fitting function.
We also allow for differences in the peak heights, which could
arise due to different infall and uptake
at different locations.
To perform these fits we use
a Markov Chain Monte Carlo approach,
which enables us to search efficiently the 9-dimensional
parameter space using the {\tt emcee} package
\citep{foreman-mackey2013}.\footnote{\href{https://emcee.readthedocs.io}{https://emcee.readthedocs.io}}
Fig. \ref{fig:FixW_VarPH_sawtooth} shows our results for the case of
a sawtooth time profile; the best-fit parameters and other statistics
are given in Table \ref{tab:globalfits}.
Turning first to the width, we see that the likelihood is zero until about 2 Myr, then
rises until the highest allowed value. Thus, as we have seen with the individual fits
in Figs.~\ref{fig:sawtooth_L848} to \ref{fig:sawtooth_W4953},
the global sawtooth form only sets a lower limit to the signal width.
We find that the 95\% confidence lower limit to the full width at 0.1 maximum
is 2.7 Myr. This limit is significantly larger than the timespan of nonzero data points
shown in Table \ref{tab:data-timespan}, showing that the requirement of a sawtooth form
leads to wider deposition time.
The shapes of the peak times
are similar to those in the individual core fits in Figs.~\ref{fig:sawtooth_L848} to \ref{fig:sawtooth_W4953},
and show the same asymmetries.
The differences between the peak times (upper right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:FixW_VarPH_sawtooth})
are also similar to those in the individual fits, where they reflect the time of the earliest nonzero \fe60 counts.
The
peak \fe60 flux values (lower left panel) and the \fe60 fluences
(lower right panel) measured in the two Wallner samples are similar,
and also those of the two Ludwig samples.
However, we do see significant differences in the
peak \fe60 flux values (lower left panel) and the \fe60 fluences
(lower right panel) between the Wallner and Ludwig measurements.
As noted above, this may be due to differences in the analysis techniques, and also
perhaps due to differences in the deposition rates caused by varying
infall or uptake factors.
We note that the global sawtooth fits for the Wallner cores
give values that are slightly higher than in the individual fits, but well within errors.
We have also performed global fits for
the Gaussian and triangle fit
functions.
Results are summarized in
Table \ref{tab:globalfits},
and the Gaussian fit is shown as Fig.~\ref{fig:FixW_VarPH_gauss}.
For the Gaussian case we see that the FW at 0.1 maximum of $2.00 \pm 0.21 \ \rm Myr$ (upper left panel)
is a compromise between the values of the Gaussian widths found in
individual sample fits as seen in Table~\ref{tab:fwhm}.
On the other hand, the triangle case gave a well-determined width, similar to the global Gaussian fit and the individual triangle fits.
We find that for the Gaussian fit, the 95\% confidence-level lower limit
to the full width at 0.1 maximum is 1.7 Myr,
while for the triangle fit the same limit is 1.6 Myr.
The upshot is that, for these other functional forms, the global fits once again give a long timescale for the \fe60 deposition.
Thus, using all of the data, we find that the pulse
timescale is at least
\begin{equation}
\Delta t > 1.6 \ \rm Myr \, ,
\label{eq:dtmin}
\end{equation}
which is also close to the interval between
the earliest and latest nonzero \fe60 counts across
all crusts shown in Table \ref{tab:data-timespan}.\footnote{The result in eq.~(\ref{eq:dtmin}) is the full width at 0.1 maximum, and so is slightly less than the 1.65 Myr global lower limit in Table \ref{tab:data-timespan}. However, the 95\% confidence lower limit on the full triangle width $2\sigma_t > 1.7$ Myr is indeed above this limit.}
Any model for \fe60 delivery must account for this timescale.
For the Gaussian and triangle global fits, we also find that the peak time and peak flux values for each sediment are similar to those
for the corresponding single-sediment fits seen
in Figs.~\ref{fig:sawtooth_L848} to \ref{fig:gaussian_L848}.
The differences among the peak times
are relatively small, with significant overlaps between the different fits. This suggests that the absolute dating of the various samples does not suffer from significant unknown systematic uncertainties.
Turning to the fluence, Table \ref{tab:globalfits} shows that the Gaussian and triangle results are very similar, indicating that the integral nature of the fluence is not
very sensitive to the differences between these fitting functions. On the other hand, the sawtooth case gives substantially higher fluences for all sediments. Since the sawtooth fluence is given by $\Phi_{\rm peak} \, \sigma_t/2$, and the peak flux values are consistent across different fitting function, it is clear that the timescale $\sigma_t$ is the source of the discrepancy. Indeed, we have seen that the sawtooth timescale
is poorly determined by individual fits in Figs.~\ref{fig:sawtooth_L848} to \ref{fig:sawtooth_W4953}.
For this reason we see that determinations of the fluence are model-dependent given the current data.
In sum, we see that when all of the
sediment data are combined,
the global fits find that the \fe60 fallout time
is long, $\approx 2 \ \rm Myr$.
We recall that, as discussed in \S\ref{subsec:itaintgeo},
this duration is not a geophysical artifact, but reflects the underlying astrophysical fallout time. We now turn to the interpretation of
this result.
\section{Implications: Supernova Dust Formation and Propagation} \label{sec:pinball}
The timescale for \fe60 deposition encodes
information about the delivery of supernova
ejecta from the explosion to its final arrival at Earth. Moreover,
we recall that for supernova material to reach Earth
it must take the form of dust grains
\citep{athanassiadou2011}. This means
the \fe60 fallout timescale is a probe of the
propagation of supernova dust
over space and time.
We consider in this section two scenarios for supernova dust formation and evolution.
(1) The first scenario adopts the conventional assumption, often implicit,
that supernova dust is entrained in the gas and thus
is comoving with the blast \citep[e.g.,][make this assumption]{fry2015,breitschwerdt2016}.
(2) The other scenario is the model of \citet{fry2020} in which
the dust decouples from the gas, and the trajectories of the charged
grains are determined by the magnetic structure of the remnant.
We develop predictions for the time history
of the dust flux in these two models, which can then be compared with the measured
\fe60 time profiles.
\subsection{Dust Entrainment Model}
In this picture the dust grains move with the gas,
so that the grain velocity is the same in magnitude and direction
as the plasma bulk velocity $v_{\rm gr} = v_{\rm gas}$, i.e., the motion is radial,
overlaid with perturbations due to turbulence.
In addition, we assume the mass density $\rho_{\rm dust}$ of dust grains
is always proportional to the gas density $\rho_{\rm gas} \approx m_p n_{\rm gas}$.
This model thus posits a direct proportionality
between the mass fluxes of the grain particles and the gas: $J_{\rm gr} = \rho_{\rm dust} v_{\rm gr} \propto \rho_{\rm gas} v_{\rm gas}$. Thus, the time history of the grain flux is determined by that of the gas flux.
This model is the one adopted by \citet{fry2015},
whose key results we summarize here.
The model focuses on the Sedov phase of the remnant,
in which the blast radius evolves as follows as a function of time $t$:
$r_{\rm blast} = \beta (Et^2/\rho)^{1/5}$,
where $E$ is the kinetic energy of the ejecta into a uniform-density
medium with $\rho = \bar{m} n$, and $\beta = 1.1517$ for monatomic gas with $\gamma = 5/3$.
Inverting this relation, we derive the following estimate of the blast arrival time at radius $r$:
\begin{equation}
\label{entrainment}
t_{\rm blast} = \beta^{5/2} \sqrt{\frac{\rho r^5}{E}}
= 0.036 \ {\rm Myr}
\ \pfrac{\bar{m}}{m_p}^{1/2}
\ \pfrac{n}{0.01 \ \rm cm^{-3}}^{1/2}
\ \pfrac{10^{51} \ \rm erg}{E}^{1/2}
\ \pfrac{r}{50 \ \rm pc}^{5/2} \, ,
\end{equation}
where we scale using benchmark estimates of the Local Bubble density and total blast energy \citep[see, e.g.,][]{fry2020}.
The corresponding speed of expansion is
\begin{equation}
v_{\rm blast} = \frac{2}{5} \frac{r}{t}
= \frac{2}{5} \sqrt{ \beta \frac{E}{\rho r^3} }
= 550 \ {\rm km/s}
\ \pfrac{m_p}{\bar{m}}^{1/2}
\ \pfrac{0.01 \ \rm cm^{-3}}{n}^{1/2}
\ \pfrac{E}{10^{51} \ \rm erg}^{1/2}
\ \pfrac{50 \ \rm pc}{r}^{3/2} \, .
\end{equation}
Just behind the shock, the gas density is always the same
constant multiple of the ISM density, namely $\rho_{\rm gas} = 4 \rho_{\rm ism}$
for $\gamma=5/3$.
However, since the mass of the supernova ejecta is fixed initially, the ejecta density
must drop as the blast volume grows. To fix numbers,
we assume that the ejecta are entrained with the gas,
and approximate the blast as a thin uniform-density shell
of fractional width $x = \Delta r_{\rm shell}/r_{\rm blast} \ll 1$,
in which case mass conservation implies $x \approx 1/12$.
The duration of the flux is the timescale for the blast shell to
pass by.
At a fixed distance $r$, and using self-similarity,
the shell crossing time is
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta t_{\rm shell} &
\approx & \frac{x r}{v(r)} = \frac{5 x}{2} t \approx \frac{5}{24} t \\
& = & 0.03 \ {\rm Myr}
\ \pfrac{m_p \times 0.01 \ \rm cm^{-3}}{\rho}^{1/2}
\ \pfrac{E}{10^{51} \ \rm erg}^{1/2}
\ \pfrac{100 \ \rm pc}{r}^{5/2} \, .
\end{eqnarray}
{\it This is nearly two orders of magnitude smaller than the observed \fe60
pulse width.}
The ISM density would have to be $\gtrsim 100 \ \rm cm^{-3}$ in order to
overcome this discrepancy.
Such a density is characteristic of a giant molecular cloud complex,
which could have been a plausible density if our \fe60-depositing supernova
were the first to explode in a nearby star-forming region.
However, modelling of the Local Bubble indicates that it has hosted multiple supernovae
over timescales of 3 Myr or longer \citep{smith2001,breitschwerdt2016},
and there is now clear evidence for \fe60 deposition by an explosion $\sim 7$~Mya~\citep{wallner2021}.
After the first explosion the region would have a much smaller
density, so we are driven to consider other explanations
for the long \fe60 timescale.
It is also worth highlighting that terrestrial explosions do not exhibit efficient mixing of ejecta with the larger blast wave.
Although both move outward rapidly, the ejecta (i.e., the material responsible for the explosion)
remains confined relatively near the center of the explosion while the forward shock
travels much greater distances and without carrying ejecta material with it. For example, in the case of the
Chelyabinsk bolide the larger meteorite fragments were found in a 32-km long, 10-km-wide region along the original trajectory
of the meteor \citep{popova2013}. Meanwhile, the smaller aerosols/dust particles formed a cloud that rose vertically 11 km over 80 s then
stabilized at that altitude for the next 120 s \citep{gorkavyi2013}.
In contrast, the shock wave produced by the bolide propagated radially outward traveling 23 km in 76 s and 52 km in 173 s \citep{popova2013}
showing a definitive decoupling between the shock wave and ejected material.
Such observations of decoupling further constrain the entrainment model's validity.
Several possible explanations of the long \fe60 deposition timescale have been discussed elsewhere.
(1) The prolongation of the signal over
time could reflect multiple supernovae, each with a narrow pulse width \citep{breitschwerdt2016}. As we have noted,
the data does not demand this, but
also cannot exclude multiple supernovae in the 3 Myr peak.
However, because we observe a broad \fe60
pulse $\sim 3$~Mya, preceded by a gap and and another pulse $\sim 7$~Mya
that also seems broader than suggested by the entrainment model (\ref{entrainment}), this scenario would
require two bursts of supernovae
in rapid sequence, with a well-defined lull in between.
(2) The \fe60 flux could
reflect the motion of the Sun through the supernova material \citep{chaikin2022},
with a complex time history needed to accommodate the two broad pulses.
(3)
Another possibility is that some \fe60-bearing dust was trapped by the Local Interstellar Cloud,
an $\sim 5$ pc feature that envelops the solar system \citep{koll2019,linsky2019}.
One can quantify this by considering the stopping power of the cloud.
For dust grains the size $a_{\rm gr} \ga 0.3 \, \rm \mu m$ needed to overcome
solar radiation pressure, the stopping distance
due to drag is $60 \ \rm pc$
for $n_{\rm LIC}=0.2 \ {\rm cm}^{-3}$.
Thus we do not expect drag to efficiently stop the grains unless they are much smaller.
(4) \citet{opher2022} model the effects of a neutral cloud (seeded with \fe60) passing through the solar system, and show that the if the cloud density is very high, it can compress the heliosphere within 1 au. If the cloud is also large enough, the passage can last for the required time.
We consider these scenarios to be worthy of further investigation,
but also not without their challenges.
Here we propose another solution motivated by our recent work~\citep{fry2020},
assess its merits and drawbacks, and offer observational tests.
\subsection{Charged Dust Model}
We propose that the \fe60 arrives at the Earth (and Moon) as part of
charged dust grains that were created in the supernova, whose
propagation was largely determined by the magnetic structure of
the remnant impact into the surrounding medium.
\citet{fry2020} performed detailed calculations of
the propagation of charged dust in a supernova remnant,
motivated by the \fe60 data.
Here we summarize
the rich physics influencing dust grain evolution
and propagation.
Dust formation in supernova remnants is a subject of intense ongoing
research, but it is clear that a substantial amount of dust is formed very soon after the explosion, e.g., SN~1987A shows infrared emission consistent with all of the supernova-produced iron being locked into
grains within tens of years after the explosion \citep{matsuura2011, matsuura2017, matsuura2019},
while recently \citet{Niculescu-Duvaz2022} examine a large sample of supernovae
finding that after $\sim 30$ years, on average $0.24^{+0.09}_{0.05} M_\odot$ of material is condensed
into dust.
We therefore follow \citet{fry2020} in assuming that dust is present,
likely with a range of grain sizes, and initially entrained with
the gas from which it formed. Thus a range of dust compositions, sizes, and velocities are present.
After the dust is created, it
suffers collisions with gas particles that lead to
drag, sputtering, and charging. However, these effects are minimal
since the dust is comoving with the gas. But as the supernova remnant evolves,
a reverse shock propagates inward. This shocks and slows the gas,
thereby decoupling the dust from the gas.
Grains suffer some damage at the shock, but those
large enough to survive crossing the reverse shocks will then
be subjected to increased drag, sputtering, and charging.
Given the negligible magnetic field in the inner portion of the supernova remnant,
the dust still travels radially. However, when the dust grains subsequently encounter
the magnetized ISM, it acts as a mirror and reflects the dust.
The dust grains then pass back through the remnant until
they encounter the ISM material once more, and are again
reflected by its magnetic field (at each ISM encounter there is also some probability that the grains become trapped).
The resulting dynamics is that the dust
is confined to the ejecta region, with repeated bouncing
motion, ``pinball'' style, in the ejecta interior.
As they propagate, the dust particles are slowed by drag and
are sputtered, becoming smaller and losing mass.
An order of magnitude calculation illustrates the key features of dust evolution found
in the \citet{fry2020} simulations.
We model a dust grain as a sphere of radius $a$,
density $\rho_{\rm dust}$, and mean atomic mass $m_{\rm gr}$.
As the dust particle moves through the gas,
it suffers collisions at a rate
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_{\rm coll} = n_{\rm gas} \sigma v_{\rm rel}
\approx \pi a^2 n_{\rm gas} v_{\rm dust} \, ,
\end{equation}
where in the second expression we approximate the collision cross section with
the geometric cross section,
and assume that the dust is moving much faster than the
gas,
so that the relative speed $v_{\rm rel} \approx v_{\rm dust} \gg v_{\rm gas} \sim \sqrt{kT/m_p}$;
moreover, we assume that the gas is dominated by hydrogen.
Drag has collisional and Coulomb components.
In the assumed limit of fast dust particles
with $m_{\rm p} v_{\rm gr}^2 \gg kT$
the collisional term is
\begin{equation}
F_{\rm coll} \simeq \Gamma_{\rm coll} m_p v_{\rm rel}
\simeq \Gamma_{\rm coll} m_p v_{\rm gr} \, ,
\end{equation}
where $\vec{v}_{\rm rel} = \vec{v}_{\rm gr}-\vec{v}_{\rm gas}$
is the grain speed relative to the local gas speed.
This gives a collisional stopping time of order
\begin{eqnarray}
\tau_{\rm coll} & = &\left| \frac{M_{\rm gr} v_{\rm gr}}{F_{\rm coll}} \right|
\simeq \frac{4 \rho_{\rm gr} a}{3 m_{\rm p} n_{\rm gas} v_{\rm gr}} \\
& = & 3.9 \ {\rm Myr} \ \pfrac{a}{0.3 \ \mu \rm m}
\ \pfrac{10^{-2} \ \rm cm^{-3}}{n_{\rm gas}}
\ \pfrac{300 \ \rm km/s}{v_{\rm gr}} \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $M_{\rm gr}$ is the grain mass.
The Coulomb drag force for high speeds larger than
the plasma thermal speeds $v^2 \gg kT/m_p$
is independent of grain size: $F_{\rm Coul} \approx 4\pi z_{\rm gr}^2 \, e^2 \, n_{\rm gas} \, \ln[\Lambda]/m_p v^2$, in contrast to the
collisional drag. The Coulomb stopping time therefore
exhibits a different and stronger dependence on grain size:
\begin{eqnarray}
\tau_{\rm Coul} & = &\left| \frac{M_{\rm gr} v_{\rm gr}}{F_{\rm Coul}} \right|
\simeq \frac{\rho_{\rm gr} a^3 v_{\rm gr}^3}{3 z_{\rm gr}^2 e^2 n_{\rm gas}} \\
& = & 2.5 \ {\rm Myr} \ \pfrac{a}{0.3 \ \mu \rm m}^3
\ \pfrac{10^{-2} \ \rm cm^{-3}}{n_{\rm gas}}
\ \pfrac{300 \ \rm km/s}{v_{\rm gr}}
\ \pfrac{175 \ \rm V}{U_{\rm gr}} \, .
\end{eqnarray}
If the grain
is indeed moving much faster than the gas,
then sputtering decreases the grain radius
at a rate
\begin{equation}
\frac{da}{dt} \simeq - \frac{m_{\rm gr} Y}{4\pi \rho_{\rm gr} a^2} \Gamma_{\rm coll}
= - \frac{m_{\rm gr} n_{\rm gas}}{4\rho_{\rm gr}} Y v_{\rm dust} \, ,
\end{equation}
where $Y$ is the energy- or velocity-averaged
yield of atoms liberated per collision,
and $m_{\rm gr}$ is the mean mass of a grain {\em atom}.
The resulting timescale for grain erosion due to sputtering is
\begin{equation}
\tau_{\rm sput} = \left| \frac{a}{\dot{a}} \right|
\simeq \frac{3}{Y} \frac{m_{\rm p}}{m_{\rm gr}} \ \tau_{\rm drag}
= 2 \pfrac{50}{m_{\rm gr}/m_{\rm p}} \frac{0.03}{Y} \ \tau_{\rm drag} \, .
\end{equation}
We see that, in the high-velocity regime, the
sputtering and drag timescales are related
by a factor that depends only on the grain atomic mass
and yields. Estimating these values for iron-bearing grains
shows the
timescales to be comparable, with drag somewhat faster.
We thus expect significant drag and sputtering both to occur,
and that the grain lifetime is similar to the drag timescale.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{01micron_bounced.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{01micron_escaped.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{01micron_trapped.png}
\caption{ {\it Three sample azimuthal trajectories from our 0.1-$\mu$m metallic Fe dust grain simulations.} The left panel shows a grain
being bounced (reflected off) the magnetic field in the ISM, and the center panel shows a grain becoming temporarily
trapped by the ISM magnetic field before eventually escaping. Finally, the right panel shows a grain becoming
trapped by the ISM magnetic field for the duration of the simulation. The grain path is shown as a dashed blue line until reflection, and a solid blue line afterwards. The red lines are the magnetic field lines at the moment of reflection ($t \approx 130$ kyr, $r \approx 50$ pc after the supernova).\\
}
\label{fig:dustpaths}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:dustpaths} shows sample simulations of the trajectories of 0.1-$\mu$m dust grains (blue)
encountering the magnetic field in the ISM (red). The left panel shows an example where the dust grain
bounces (is reflected) straight back from the ISM, and the central panel shows an example where the dust grain
is trapped temporarily by the ISM magnetic field, but eventually escapes. These exemplify the
``pinball" feature discussed in \citet{fry2020}, whereby the directions of the dust grains' trajectories
can be changed, losing memory of the location of their progenitor. Finally, the third panel shows an example where the
dust grain is trapped for the duration of the simulation. All three panels illustrate how the timescale for the
deposition of live radioisotopes can be extended due to interactions with the ISM.
Determining quantitatively the conditions when a grain will be reflected versus trapped (and for how long) is a subject
requiring further examination. A grain's charge depends on its composition, speed, and the surrounding environment; the
dynamics of the magnetic field is determined by the supernova remnant's plasma dynamics. While the grain's possible motions are
understood (i.e., curvature drift, gradient drift, reflections, etc.), when those occur is not fully characterized. The time
the grain first encounters the magnetic field, the pitch angle of the grain's velocity with the local magnetic field,
the dynamical timescale of the magnetic field, and the size of any turbulent eddies and density perturbations can influence the
confinement of the dust grains. \citet{fry2020} provided an initial statistical result for metallic iron grains,
but a more detailed examination is beyond the scope of this work.
To summarize, our model builds upon the results of \citet{fry2020}
to predict the following supernova dust grain history and dynamics as the supernova remnant evolves.
\begin{itemize}
\item
{\em Free expansion phase: coupled.} Dust grains are nucleated in dense ejecta knots, comoving with gas \citep{fry2020}.
\item
{\em Start of Sedov phase: decoupling.} As the ejecta (composed of ejected gas and dust grains) experiences the reverse shock and decelerates, the surviving dust grains are dynamically decoupled from the gas. Their subsequent propagation is dominated by the Lorentz force and drag. In weakly or non-magnetized supernova material, their motion is radial until they encounter the magnetized ISM \citep{fry2020}.
\item
{\em Sedov/snowplow phases: reflection and trapping.} In encounters with the
magnetized ISM, grains may be either reflected or trapped.
Reflected grains traverse the inner supernova remnant until their next encounter with the ISM.
Grain size plays a crucial role here:
the smallest grains ($a \sim 0.005 \ \mu \rm m$) are trapped at the first encounter, sputtered and
lost, whereas the largest grains ($a \sim 1 \ \mu \rm m$) travel
past the supernova/ISM boundary and then are trapped.
Intermediate-sized grains ($a \sim 0.05-0.1 \ \mu \rm m$) have non-negligible
probabilities both to be trapped and to escape.
Thus over time the grain number density in the supernova material will
drop, in favor of a buildup of trapped grains at the supernova/ISM boundaries.
The trapped dust motion depends on the grain size
and potential (i.e., the charge-to-mass ratio).
\item
{\em Fadeaway phase: shell buildup and release to ISM.} Trapped grain
motion in turbulent field lines will be approximately diffusive,
leading to a buildup in a shell at the supernova/ISM boundary.
Spatial and time changes in the magnetic fields
can lead to grain deceleration and acceleration,
in addition to the action of drag.
The grains are stopped over the drag timescale. Larger grains survive
and remain as the forward shock slows to a sound wave and the supernova remnant fades.
\end{itemize}
In this picture, the spatial distribution of dust grain changes over time. While the dust grains are predominantly reflected, the grains should roughly uniformly populate the inner supernova remnant.
As they become trapped in the surrounding magnetized ISM, the grains should move diffusively in a shell of increasing thickness around the inner remnant.
Thus, when the grain-bearing material arrives at the Solar System, we expect the particle density to be a mix of a uniform and shell profile, with the shell profile more favored at late times and large distances.
Detailed modelling of this distribution,
and the resulting \fe60 time profile at Earth,
is beyond the scope of this paper, but is a problem we intend to revisit in future work.
\section{Consequences and Tests} \label{sec:tests}
The sequence of events in the ``pinball'' model for supernova grain evolution
has significant implications for different dust species
and radioisotope signatures, as we now discuss.\\
\noindent
{\bf Supernova distance:}\\
Rough estimates have suggested that the origin of the spike in \fe60
$\sim 3$ Mya might have been a supernova that exploded
within about 100 pc of Earth. Several stellar clusters are known to have
passed within 200 pc of Earth within the past 35 Myr. Two of these have
attracted particular attention: the Tuc-Hor group
\citep{mamajek2015,hyde2018}, which was within
$\sim 60$ pc of Earth at the time of the event that produced the 3 Mya signal, and the Sco-Cen OB association \citep{benitez2002}, which was
$\sim 130$ pc away at that time --- the possibility of a runaway
star has also been considered. No conclusive evidence in favour of
any hypothesis has been found.
Our analysis of the propagation of magnetic dust indicates that it
could not progress far into the ISM. See, in particular, Fig.~4 of
\citet{fry2020}, where simulations of metallic Fe grains of varying
initial sizes indicate that they would reach a maximum distance of
about 50 pc. This limited range favours a Tuc-Hor origin over the
Sco-Cen hypothesis, while being consistent with the runaway star hypothesis.\\
\noindent
{\bf Gamma-ray line spectroscopy of nuclear lines:}\\
There have been multiple observations of gamma rays from decays
of \fe60 and \al26 in the ISM. In our model, the dust bearing
\fe60 and \al26 dust moves at high speeds within the supernova
remnant for much of the radioactive lifetime of the species.
Therefore we would expect the \fe60 and \al26 nuclear lines to exhibit
D\"oppler broadening. Indeed, INTEGRAL data indicate that the
linewidth of \al26 decay is broadened
\citep{Kretschmer2013}.
If the dust drag time reflects the \fe60 width,
then our work shows that the stopping timescale $\gtrsim 1 \ \rm Myr$. This is longer than the 0.717 Myr half-life of \al26, which
means that most of the \al26 in supernova dust
will decay while moving at high speed,
consistent with the INTEGRAL result.\\
\noindent
{\bf Supernova remnants:}\\
If supernova dust grains are only created at early times,
then
the dust mass in the ejecta itself should
drop with time as grains are destroyed.
In the simplest picture we thus expect that the abundances of refractory abundances
in the {\em gas-phase} supernova material itself should increase with time,
and hence be higher in older remnants.
On the other hand,
the abundances of volatile elements should not increase as
dramatically, so the refractory-to-volatile element
ratios observed in the gas phase in the supernova
ejecta should be relatively low at early times, rising at
late times. Thus we expect that such an effect
should be visible in the Fe/O ratio.
This simple picture is complicated by the sweeping up of
interstellar dust that survived the supernova radiation.
Also, it is possible that, in some supernova remnants,
dust can form at later times, e.g.,
between the forward and reverse shocks as suggested
recently by models of \citet{sarangi2022}, and by observations of SN 1987A
that may suggest the dust mass has {\em increased} after the collision
with the circumstellar ring \citep{matsuura2019}.
Observation of supernova remnant gas-phase composition versus age would shed light on these processes,
and could give insight into dust processing by supernovae.
Spinning dust emits polarized radiation.
A nonzero net polarization in a supernova remnant would reflect an underlying ordered component to the magnetic field in the regions where the dust resides.
This is likely difficult to observe but potentially offers a probe of supernova remnant magnetism. \\
\noindent{\bf Deposits in crusts and sediments:}\\
If and when deposits of other supernova-generated radioisotopes are found, the timescales of their pulses should also be determined by dust
sputtering, but should in general be longer than the short timescale
expected for entrained dust. However, the timescales may vary between
different radioisotopes and may not match that of the
\fe60 deposits, due to variety in dust properties (e.g., the grain size, density, composition, initial velocity and sputtering probability) as well as the unique geophysical cycles for different elements. Comparisons of these timescales with that for the \fe60 pulse would probe these variations. For this reason, more
data on the \pu244 observed~\citep{wallner2021} in time ranges spanning the \fe60 pulses $\sim 2.5$ and 7~Mya with better time resolution would be
particularly interesting.
If the \pu244 signal shows two pulses each largely overlapping with the \fe60, that would suggest a common origin, while substantial \pu244 flux outside of the \fe60 pulses would indicate the the \pu244 is from another source. \\
\noindent
{\bf Lunar \fe60:}\\
If the magnetic field in the ISM were negligible, the dust
propagation would be ballistic and essentially radial. Thus the
dust bombardment of the solar system should be as a plane wave,
and the dust trajectories would not be deflected significantly by
either solar or terrestrial magnetic fields \citep{fry2016},
so the lunar distribution should reflect the direction of the progenitor in a clear
dependence of \fe60 with latitude \citep{fry2016}. However, the interstellar magnetic effects
discussed above would lead to grain reflection and diffusion, leading to
a wider distribution of solar system arrival directions. In this case
the lunar distribution should be more homogeneous.
Clearly, further theoretical study is warranted.
A new generation of lunar sample return missions has been inaugurated by {\it Chang'e 5},
and we strongly urge that measurements of \fe60 and other radioactive
isotopes be prioritized in this and future lunar return missions such as {\it Artemis}.
The pioneering {\it Apollo} samples were from sites relatively close to the lunar equator,
so measurements at different lunar latitudes will be particularly interesting. We note in
this connection that the {\it Chang'e 5} site was at a latitude $> 40^\circ$~N, and that the
planned {\it Artemis} site is close to the lunar South Pole.
We also urge additional measurements of \fe60 and other radioisotopes in {\it Apollo} lunar
samples, so as to provide a standard for comparison with the new measurements.\\
\noindent
{\bf Presolar grains:}\\
Meteorites contain $\sim$ micron-sized inclusions called presolar grains,
which manifest very different isotopic ratios from the rest of the object \citep{zinner2006, hynes2009}.
They are understood to be interstellar dust grains that were incorporated intact in the protosolar nebula,
and their diverse elemental and isotopic compositions point to a range of stellar sources.
The so-called X grains are predominantly silicon carbide, but also contain
iron-peak elements and have isotopic ratios consistent with core-collapse supernovae~\citep{amari1992,kodolanyi2018}.
Some X grains indicate that live \iso{Ti}{44}
($t_{1/2} = 60 \ \rm yr$) was present at their formation \citep{nittler1996},
confirming that dust forms rapidly in supernova ejecta, and
demonstrating that at least {\em some} supernova dust survives the remnant.
This supports our expectation that some \fe60-bearing grains would survive
and be successfully delivered to Earth.\\
\noindent
{\bf Cosmic rays:}\\
\citet{ellison1997}
proposed that the origin of cosmic rays is by diffusive shock acceleration
in supernovae, and that the cosmic-ray ``seed'' ions arise from sputtered from interstellar dust grains
accelerated in the remnant. Since \fe60 has been measured in cosmic rays
\citep[see e.g.,][]{kachelriess2015, kachelriess2018, savchenko2015, binns2016}, a detailed examination
of acceleration and sputtering of \fe60-bearing grains within the inner supernova remnant could show
a similar mechanism. The results in Fig.~5 of \citet{fry2020} show some acceleration of dust grains.
This cosmic-ray component of \fe60 would be complementary to the refractory component,
as it measures the sputtered component of supernova ejecta, as opposed to the surviving dust grains.
Additionally, we expect that cosmic rays should be
enhanced in other radioactive supernova radioisotopes of interest, e.g., \al26. \\
\noindent
{\bf Implications for High-Redshift Galaxies} \\
The production, destruction, and survival of supernova-produced dust in galaxies are major issues in astrophysics \citep{micelotta2016,nozawa2007,bocchio2016,slavin2020}; the terrestrial \fe60 signal from 2.5 Mya offers unique insight into these processes. The \fe60 signal is detected in deep-sea deposits after
entering Earth's atmosphere in the form of dust grains, actively sampling the dust within the remnant at a specific distance from the progenitor during multiple phases of remnant evolution. The $\gtrsim$ 1 Myr breadth of the \fe60 signal confirms that a significant amount of supernova-produced dust survives the reverse shock and for upward of 1 Myr afterwards, in order for enough of it to penetrate the solar system and fall out on the Earth and be detected by the highly sensitive AMS measurements.
The large dust content of high-redshift galaxies, now measured out to $z > 6$ \citep{lesniewska2019},
connects our work to galaxy formation and evolution. Given the young age of these systems,
it would seem that supernovae are required to produce the dust and that it survives in large quantities \citep{Todini2001,nozawa2007,dwek2007}. Indeed, dust may play a role in the galaxy outflows that are also ubiquitous at early times. \citet{squire2021} recently argued that
charged dust is tightly coupled to cosmic rays not collisionally, but with interactions mediated by magnetic fields.
This argument is supported by our analysis of the timespan of the \fe60 signal, which is explained by these
interactions of dust particles with magnetic fields.
These interactions could couple dust to cosmic ray pressure driving outflows, and link dust to cosmic-ray confinement and escape in starburst galaxies.
\section{Conclusions} \label{sec:conc}
The deposition history of live radioisotopes on Earth has provided an opportunity to study the
propagation through the ISM of dust particles from astrophysical explosions and contribute
to resolving the issues discussed in \S\ref{sec:tests}. Specifically, the increasing maturity of
measurements of deep-sea deposits of \fe60 already enables some conclusions to be drawn, while leaving
some questions open for future studies.
\begin{itemize}
\item To date, six papers have reported detections of \fe60 signals in deep-sea deposits that are dated to $2-4$ Mya \citep{knie2004,fitoussi2008,ludwig2016,wallner2016,fimiani2016,wallner2021}. These papers document 13 independent samples, demonstrating that the \fe60 signal is well-established and global, having been observed in all the major
oceanic basins.
\item The relatively rapid growth of sediment columns, compared to FeMn crusts, permits finer sampling and better
time resolution. In this paper we have focused on time series analyses of the sediment data from~\cite{ludwig2016} and \cite{wallner2016}.
For all cores we found that the \fe60 deposition timescale is long:
combining all of the data, our fits give 95\% confidence lower limit
to the full width at 0.1 maximum of $\Delta t > 1.6 \ \rm Myr$.
This is significantly longer than the timescale for the passage of a Sedov-like
supernova blast ($\sim 0.1 \ \rm Myr$ or less).
\item Detailed fitting of the shape of the \fe60 signal in the sediment cores is inconclusive, as the current data do not have a well-defined onset or falloff pattern.
\item The current evidence does not permit any conclusion whether the observed \fe60 signal was produced by one or more supernovae. However,
if more than two
supernovae could have produced the observed signals,
one must account for the
fact that the data of \citet{wallner2021} show clearly a second \fe60 signal of similar width from $\sim 7$~ Mya, with no \fe60 signals at intermediate times.
\item One model that could have extended the dust raindown time is the ``pinball" model first described in \citet{fry2020}, in which ISM magnetic fields at the supernova ejecta/ISM interface confine the dust within the remnant. In combination with the observer motion effect from the solar system's motion relative to the supernova \citep[see, e.g.,][]{chaikin2022}, these processes can account for extended delivery time.
\end{itemize}
The issues raised by our results suggest several directions for future work:
\begin{itemize}
\item Analyses of data from sediment cores in samples with finer time/depth resolution will help to pin down
the indeterminate shape of the \fe60 signal, with data from the probable regions of onset and falloff at $\sim 3 - 4$~Mya and $\sim 1-2$~Mya, respectively, being particularly useful in this respect.
\item If a distinctive shape can be found in the signal, it could provide valuable information on the astrophysics behind the dust transport mechanisms in the supernova remnant, and/or resolve the controversy whether the \fe60 signal from
$\sim 3$~Mya is due to one or more supernovae.
\item If similarly finely sliced data on other live isotopes become available, it will be interesting to compare their time structures with that of \fe60: large differences could indicate contributions from more than one supernova.
\item In this connection, we note that the deposition of live \pu244 over a period $\lesssim 4.5$~Mya
has been detected, but fine sampling of its time structure is not available. A comparison between the time
structures of the \fe60 and \pu244 signals would be particularly interesting, as \pu244 is produced by the
$r$-process, which is not thought to be important in most supernovae.
\item We note also that a second \fe60 signal has been observed by \citet{wallner2021} and dated to
$\sim 7$~Mya. When more data are available it would be very interesting to repeat our analysis on this
second signal. However, it seems {\it prima facie} also to have a width $\gtrsim 1$~Myr. A \pu244
signal from $\sim 4.5 - 9$~Mya has also been reported, but without sufficient statistics for fine time sampling.
\end{itemize}
Studies of live radioisotopes from astrophysical sources are of growing
importance in several other scientific areas beyond probing the possible
impacts on Earth of nearby supernova explosions. As discussed at length in this
paper, the evidence of a relatively long ($\gtrsim 1$~Myr) timescale for the
deposition of \fe60 $\sim 3$~Mya is relevant for models of dust propagation,
magnetic fields in the ISM and cosmic ray physics. Measurements of this pulse,
together with those of the recently-discovered earlier \fe60 pulse from
$\sim 7$~Mya can cast light on the formation and evolution of the Local Bubble.
The discovery of \pu244 deposited during time periods including these \fe60
pulses may be evidence for occurrences of the $r$-process for astrophysical
nucleosynthesis in unusual supernovae and/or
an earlier kilonova~\citep{wang2021a,wang2021b}. Measurements
of \pu244 deposition with finer time resolution will help distinguish between
the single- or multiple-supernova interpretations of the \fe60 pulse from
$\sim 3$~Mya. Finally, if a combination of a recent nearby supernova with a
not-so-nearby, not-so-recent kilonova is implicated in the interpretation of
this pulse, it will be interesting
to continue explorations of the terrestrial impacts of earlier, closer
kilonova explosions, including their possible roles in
mass extinctions~\citep{fields2020}.
|
\section{Introduction and statement of results}
The effective cones of divisors and curves on a smooth projective variety have been extensively studied.
The pseudoeffective cones of cycles of intermediate dimension are much less well-understood, and have been computed only in a handful of cases \cite{DELV11, Ful11, Ott15, CC15, CLO16, Kop18, BKLV19, PPS21}.
In this article, we extend this study to universal hypersurfaces.
Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety of dimension $n$.
Given an effective divisor class $H$ on $X$, let $Y_H\cong \mathbb{P}(H^0(X,H)^*)$ be the space of all divisors of class $H$ on $X$. Then the \emph{universal hypersurface} $X_H$ is the incidence correspondence $X_H \subset X\times Y_H$ defined by
\[
X_H=\{(p,D)\in X\times Y_H\vert p\in D\}.
\]
If $H$ is basepoint free, the projection $\pi_1:X_H\rightarrow X$ is a projective bundle over $X$.
This article is devoted to the study of effective cycles on the varieties $X_H$, especially when $X$ is a projective space.
For many varieties $X$, given $i<\dim(X)$, we can determine the nef cones $\mathrm{Nef}^i(X_H)$---and hence the pseudoeffective cones $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_H)$---explicitly. Let $\xi$ be the pullback to $X_H$ of the hyperplane class on $Y_H$.
\begin{theorem}\label{lowCodimension}
Let $X$ be smooth, and let $H$ be a divisor class on $X$ such that for every $i<\dim(X)$, $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X)$ is the closure of a cone spanned by the numerical classes of cycles supported on a divisor of class $H$. If $0\leq i< \dim(X)$, then \[\mathrm{Nef}^i(X_H)=\sum_{0\leq j\leq i} \xi^{i-j}\pi_1^*(\mathrm{Nef}^j(X)) .\]
\end{theorem}
Since $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_H)$ is the dual cone of $\mathrm{Nef}^i(X_H)$, Theorem \ref{lowCodimension} also determines $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_H)$ for $i<\dim(X)$ whenever its hypotheses are satisfied. Both $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_H)$ and $\mathrm{Nef}^i(X_H)$ are defined in Section \ref{fl}.
Theorem \ref{lowCodimension} applies if $X$ is $\mathbb{P}^n$ or any other smooth variety $X$ with $\dim(N_i(X))=1$ for all $0\leq i \leq \dim(X)$.
It also applies if $X$ is a del Pezzo surface and $H+K_X$ is effective.
Finally, it applies to any smooth variety $X$ for which $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X)$ is generated by finitely many effective classes for all $i$, as long as $H$ is sufficiently ample. (See Corollary \ref{mostOfTheStableCone} for a precise statement.)
For $i\geq \dim(X)$ the effective cones of cycles on $X_H$ become more complicated.
In this paper, we will study these cones for the universal hypersurface of degree $d$ in $\mathbb{P}^n$, which we denote $X_{n,d}$. If we let $H$ be the pullback to $X_{n,d}$ of the hyperplane class on $\mathbb{P}^n$, we have
\[
N^\bullet(X_{n,d})=A^\bullet(X_{n,d})_\mathbb R=\frac{\mathbb R[\xi, H]}{(H^{n+1}, P(H,\xi))},
\]
where $P$ is a homogeneous polynomial of degree $\binom{n+d}{d}-1$.
If $d=1$, then $X_{n,1}$ is a rational homogeneous variety on which the nef and effective cones of cycles coincide. We have the following result---a special case of the classification of the effective cycles on rational homogeneous varieties given in \cite{Cos18}.
\begin{proposition}[{\cite[Proposition 2.20]{Cos18}}]\label{hyperplaneCone}
If $i<n$, then
\[
\mathrm{Nef}^i(X_{n,1})=\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}^i(X_{n,1})=\langle H^{i},H^{i-1}\xi,\ldots, \xi^i\rangle.
\]
Dually, given $0\leq j\leq n-1$ and a $j$-plane $\Lambda\subset \mathbb{P}^n$, let $Z_i\subset X_{n,1}$ be the $(n-1)$-cycle consisting of all $(p,D)$ with $p\in \Lambda_j$ and $\Lambda_j\subset D$. Then, for any $0\leq i\leq n-1$, we have
\[
\mathrm{Nef}_i(X_{n,1})=\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_{n,1})=\langle \xi^{n-i-1}[Z_0], \xi^{n-i-1}[Z_1],\ldots, \xi^{n-i-1}[Z_i]\rangle.
\]
\end{proposition}
We also determine all cones of pseudoeffective cycles on the universal conic $X_{2,2}$. To write them down, we need to define five new cycles.
Fix a point $p_0\in \mathbb{P}^2$ and a line $\ell_0\subset \mathbb{P}^2$ containing $p_0$.
Let $Z_{4,1},Z_{4,2},Z_{4,3}\subset X_{2,2}$ be 4-cycles defined by
\begin{align*}
Z_{4,1}&=\overline{\{(p,D)\in X_{2,2}\vert p_0\in D, p\in (D\cap \ell_0)\setminus \{p_0\}\}}\\
Z_{4,2}&=\{(p,\ell_1+ \ell_2)\in X_{2,2}\vert p,p_0\in \ell_1 \} \\
Z_{4,3}&= \{(p,\ell_1+ \ell_2)\in X_{2,2}\vert p\in \ell_1; p_0\in \ell_2\}.
\end{align*}
Typical examples of conics in these 4-cycles are depicted in Figure \ref{figure1} below.
\begin{figure}
\centering{
\subfloat[$H^2$]{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node at (2, 1.5) {D};
\draw[red, thick] plot[smooth,domain=-2:2] (\x, {\x*\x-1});
\filldraw[black] (-1,0) circle (2pt) node[black, anchor=west]{$p=p_0$};
\end{tikzpicture}
}
\hspace{5em}
\subfloat[$Z_{4,1}$]{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node at (2, 1.5) {D};
\draw[gray, thick] (-3,0) -- (3,0) node[black, anchor=north] {$\ell_0$};
\draw[red, thick] plot[smooth,domain=-2:2] (\x, {\x*\x-1});
\filldraw[black] (-1,0) circle (2pt) node at (-1.2,-.25) {$p_0$};
\filldraw[blue] (1,0) circle (2pt) node[black, anchor=south]{$p$};
\end{tikzpicture}
}
\subfloat[$Z_{4,2}$]{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[red, thick] (-2,-1) -- (1,2);
\filldraw[black] (-1,0) circle (2pt) node at (-.8,-.25) {$p_0$};
\filldraw[blue] (.7,1.7) circle (2pt) node[black, anchor=west]{$p$};
\node at (-.75,.75){$\ell_1$};
\node at (1.4,1) {$\ell_2$};
\draw[red, thick] (0,2) --(3,-1);
\end{tikzpicture}
}
\hspace{5em}
\subfloat[$Z_{4,3}$]{
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node at (-.75,.75){$\ell_1$};
\node at (1.4,1) {$\ell_2$};
\draw[red, thick] (-2,-1) -- (1,2);
\filldraw[black] (-1,0) circle (2pt) node at (-.8,-.25){$p_0$};
\draw[red, thick] (0,2) --(3,-1);
\filldraw[blue] (2,0) circle (2pt) node[black, anchor=north]{$p$};
\end{tikzpicture}
}
\caption{Typical members of cycles on the extremal rays of $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_4(X_{2,2})$. Fixed elements are black, varying elements in color.\label{figure1}}}
\end{figure}
Let $Z_{3,1}$ and $Z_{3,2}$ be 3-cycles defined by
\begin{align*}
Z_{3,1} &=\{(p, \ell_0+ \ell) \vert p\in \ell_0\}\\
Z_{3,2} &= \{(p,\ell_0+ \ell) \vert p \in \ell\}.
\end{align*}
\begin{theorem}[Corollary \ref{conicCorollary}]\label{conicCone}
Let $X_{2,2}$ be the universal conic in $\mathbb{P}^2$.
Then we have:
\begin{align*}
\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_1(X_{2,2})&=\langle H^2\xi^3, [Z_{3,1}]\xi^2 \rangle\\
\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_2(X_{2,2})&=\langle H^2\xi^2, [Z_{3,1}]\xi, [Z_{3,2}]\xi\rangle\\
\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_3(X_{2,2})&= \langle H^2\xi, [Z_{3,1}],[Z_{3,2}]\rangle\\
\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_4(X_{2,2})&= \langle H^2, [Z_{4,1}], [Z_{4,2}],[Z_{4,3}]\rangle\\
\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_5(X_{2,2})&=\langle \xi, H\rangle.
\end{align*}
Moreover, all the cycles appearing above span extremal rays. In particular, $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_{2,2})$ is simplicial if and only if $i\neq 4$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
This article is inspired by the paper \cite{Ful11}, in which Fulger shows that the effective cones of cycles on a projective bundle $\mathbb{P} E$ associated to a vector bundle $E$ on a curve $C$ are determined by the Harder-Narasimhan filtration of $E$. Unlike what we see in Theorem \ref{conicCone}, all of the cones $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(\mathbb{P} E)$ are simplicial since $N_i(\mathbb{P} E)$ has rank at most 2 when $E$ is a vector bundle over a curve.
\end{remark}
In other cases, we determine some, but not all of the effective cones. Echoing \cite{CLO16}, the general tendency is for the complexity of $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_H)$ with $H$ fixed to increase with $i$. Likewise, the complexity of $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_H)$ with $i$ fixed tends to \emph{decrease} as $H$ is replaced with a more positive divisor. This latter tendency comes from the existence of a product map $X_{H_1}\times Y_{H_2}\rightarrow X_{H_1+H_2}$ for any effective $H_1,H_2$ with $H_1, H_1+H_2$ basepoint free. This decreasing complexity as $H$ becomes more ample inspires the following.
\begin{conjecture}\label{stabilizationV2}
Suppose every cone $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X)$ is generated by a finite set of effective cycles. Then for any nonnegative integer $i$, and $H$ sufficiently ample(depending on $i$), we have the following
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_H)$ is generated by a finite set of effective cycles. \item If $H'$ is a basepoint free cycle with $H'-H$ represented by an effective divisor $D'$, then the map $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_{H})\rightarrow \overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_{H'})$ induced by the map $X_H\rightarrow X_{H'}$ sending $(p,D)$ to $(p,D+ D')$ is an isomorphism.
\end{enumerate}
\end{conjecture}
Theorem \ref{lowCodimension} immediately establishes Conjecture \ref{stabilizationV2} for $i<n$. We can also verify Conjecture \ref{stabilizationV2} in low degree on $\mathbb{P}^2$.
\begin{theorem}\label{stableCases}
If $X= \mathbb{P}^2$, then Conjecture \ref{stabilizationV2} holds for $i\leq 7$ and for $i=10$.
\end{theorem}
Indeed, in the cases $i\leq 6$ and $d\geq 3$ or $i\in\{7,10\}$ and $d \geq 4$ we describe the cones $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_{2,d})$ precisely in Theorem \ref{stableCasesPrecise}.
Outside of these cases, we cannot verify Conjecture \ref{stabilizationV2}, but Theorem \ref{628} gives upper and lower bounds on the cones $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_{2,d})$ for any $i$ with $d$ sufficiently large (depending on $i$).
This paper is organized as follows.
In Section \ref{preliminaries} we set up notation and collect the properties of positivity and projective bundles we will need.
In Section \ref{generalities} we prove general facts about the effective cones of cycles on universal hypersurfaces, including Theorem \ref{lowCodimension}.
In Section \ref{projSpace} we restrict our attention to universal hypersurfaces in $\mathbb{P}^n$ and prove Theorems \ref{conicCone} and \ref{stableCasesPrecise}, the latter of which immediately implies Theorem \ref{stableCases}.
Section \ref{stableConeBounds} describes the best bounds we have on the cones $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_{2,d})$ for $i\geq 8$, explicitly given as Theorem \ref{628}.
Finally, Section \ref{formulary} contains some calculations of the direct images of pseudoeffective cones under the multiplication map, still working in universal hypersurfaces on $\mathbb{P}^n$.
\subsection*{Acknowledgements}
We would like to thank Izzet Coskun for many helpful conversations.
\section{Preliminaries}\label{preliminaries}
\subsection{Universal hypersurfaces}\label{universalHypersurfaces}
We work with a projective variety $X$ of dimension $n$ over an algebraically closed field of arbitrary characteristic. We denote $\mathbb R$-vector space of numerical $i$-cycles by $N_i(X)$, and the abstract dual of $N_i(X)$ by $N^i(X)$.
Given an $i$-dimensional subvariety $Z\subseteq X$, we use $[Z]\in N_i(X)$ to denote the numerical cycle associated to $Z$.
If $X$ is smooth, Poincare duality gives a canonical isomorphism $N_i(X)\xrightarrow{\sim} N^{n-i}(X)$. This notation is essentially the same as in \cite{FL17}
Given a rank $r$ vector bundle $E$ on $X$, we define the projective bundle $\pi:\mathbb{P}(E)\rightarrow X$ as the space of rank 1 \emph{quotients} of $E$, following the convention of \cite{Laz04}. We then have the tautological sequence on $\mathbb{P}(E)$
\[
0\rightarrow S\rightarrow \pi^*(E)\rightarrow \mathcal O_{\mathbb{P}(E)}(1)\rightarrow 0,
\]
and $\xi_E=c_1(\mathcal O_{\mathbb{P}(E)}(1))\in N^1(\mathbb{P}(E))$ satisfies the projective bundle formula
\[
\xi^r-c_1(E)\xi^{r-1}+c_2(E)\xi^{r-2}-\cdots + (-1)^r c_r(E)=0.
\]
Let $H$ be an effective Cartier divisor class on $X$. Given a basepoint free linear series $V\subseteq H^0(X,H)$, we define define a vector bundle $E$ by the sequence
\[
0\rightarrow \mathcal O(-H)\rightarrow V^*\otimes \mathcal O\rightarrow E\rightarrow 0.
\]
Then $X_{V}=\mathbb{P}(E)$ is the universal linear series associated to $V$.
Throughout this article, we work in the special case $V=H^0(X,\mathcal O(H))$, in which case we write $X_H=\mathbb{P}(E)$ and say $X_H$ is the \emph{universal hypersurface} of class $H$.
We denote the class $\xi_E$ by $\xi$---or, where there might be confusion otherwise, $\xi_H$.
We also set $Y_H=\mathbb{P}(H^0(X,H)^*)$, so $X_H$ admits a projection $\pi_2:X_H\rightarrow Y_H$ in addition to the projection $\pi_1:X_H\rightarrow X$. In a modular sense, $Y_H$ is the parameter space of hypersurfaces $D$ in $X$ of class $H$, and $X_H\subset X\times Y_H$ consists of pairs $(p,D)$ such that $p\in D$.
Let $\pi_1:X_H\rightarrow X$ and $\pi_2:X_H\rightarrow Y_H$ denote the projections.
If $\dim(Y_H)=r$, we have the projective bundle formula
\[
N^*(X_H)\cong \frac{\pi_1^*(N^*(X))[\xi]}{(\xi^{r}-H\xi^{r-1}+H^2\xi^{r-2}-\cdots +(-1)^r H^{r})}.
\]
In particular, every cocycle on $X_H$ is a linear combination of products $\xi^i \eta$, where $\eta$ is the pullback to $X_H$ of some cocycle on $X$.
Given a cocycle $\eta\in N^i(X)$, we will also use $\eta$ to denote the pullback $\pi_1^*(\eta)\in N^i(X_H)$.
If $H_1$ and $H_2$ are effective Cartier divisor classes on $X$ such that $H_1$ and $H_1+H_2$ are basepoint free, there is a product map
\[
\mu_{H_1,H_2}:X_{H_1}\times Y_{H_2}\rightarrow X_{H_1+H_2}
\]
that sends $(p, D_1), D_2$ to $(p,D_1+D_2,)$. Where it is unlikely to cause confusion, we use $\mu$ to denote any product map $\mu_{H_1,H_2}$.
\subsection{Covariant cycle notation and the product formula}
Given a numerical cycle $\eta\in N_i(X_H)$, we write its numerical class in a way that behaves well under pushforwards. We write
\[
\eta=(\eta_n,\ldots,\eta_0)=\sum_{0\leq j\leq n}\eta_j e_j,
\] where $\eta_j\in N_j(X)$ is the cycle corresponding to the map $ N^j(X)\rightarrow \mathbb R$ given by
\[
\alpha \mapsto\twopartdef{\pi_1^*(\alpha)\cdot \eta \cdot \xi^{i-j}}{i\geq j}{0}{i<j}.
\]
So, for instance, we write $\xi=([X], H,0\ldots, 0)=[X]e_n+He_{n-1}$. We note that if $\eta=(\eta_n,\ldots, \eta_0)\in N_i(X_H)$ and $i\geq n+1$, then $\eta \xi\in N_{i-1}(X_H)$ also is given by $\eta\xi=(\eta_n,\ldots,\eta_0)$.
This notation is useful for writing down pushforwards of cycles under the product map $\mu:X_{H_1}\times Y_{H_2}\rightarrow X_{H_1+H_2}$.
\begin{proposition}[The product formula]\label{productFormula}
Let $H_1$ and $H_2$ be effective Cartier divisor classes on $X$ such that $H_1$ and $H_1+H_2$ are basepoint free, so there exists a product map $\mu:X_{H_1}\times Y_{H_2}\rightarrow X_{H_1+H_2}$.
Let $\eta\in N_s(X_{H_1})$ be given by $\eta=(\eta_n,\ldots,\eta_0)$.
For any numerical $t$-cycle $\delta $ of degree $d$ on $Y_{H_2}$, we have that the $s+t$ cycle $\mu_*(\eta\times \delta)\in N_{s+t}(X_{H_1+H_2})$ satisfies the formula
\[
\mu_*(\eta \times \delta)=d\left( \binom{s+t-n}{t}\eta_n,\binom{s+t-n+1}{t}\eta_{n-1},\ldots, \binom{s+t}{t} \eta_0\right).
\]
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
This is an application of the push-pull formula. Set $H=H_1+H_2$, fix $\zeta\in N^i(X)$ with $i\leq s$ and let $\zeta'=\zeta\,\xi_H^{s+t-i}\in N^{s+t}(X_H)$. Then we have
\[
\mu_*(\eta\times \delta)\cdot \zeta'= \eta \times \delta \cdot \mu^*(\zeta').
\]
We have $\mu^*(\xi_H)= \xi_{H_1}+\xi_{H_2}$, where $\xi_{H_2}$ is the pullback of the hyperplane class on $Y_{H_2}$.
Likewise, we have $\mu^*(\zeta)=\zeta$. Then we have
\[
\mu_*(\eta\times \delta)\cdot \zeta'= (\eta \times \delta)\cdot \zeta (\xi_{H_1}+\xi_{H_2})^{s+t-i}.
\]
The only term of $(\xi_{H_1}+\xi_{H_2})^{s+t-i}$ with nonzero pairing with $(\eta\times \delta)$ is the monomial $\binom{s+t-i}{t}\xi_{H_1}^{s-i}\xi_{H_2}^t$, and we have
\[
(\eta\times \delta)\cdot \binom{s+t-i}{t}\xi_{H_1}^{s-i}\xi_{H_2}^t=\binom{s+t-i}{t}d \eta_i\cdot \zeta.
\]
\end{proof}
We can also pull back along morphisms $f:X_1\rightarrow X_2$. Given a basepoint free Cartier divisor class $H$ on $X_2$, $f^*(H)$ is likewise basepoint free. We have a pullback morphism $f^*:X_{2,H}\rightarrow X_{1,f^*(H)}$ given by sending the class $\alpha \xi_H^t$ (with $\alpha\in N^s(X_2)$) to $f^*(\alpha) \xi_{f^*(H)}^t\in N^{s+t}(X_1)$.
\subsection{Positivity for cycles}\label{fl}
Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety of dimension $N$. The two most evident positive cones in the vector spaces $N_i(X)$and their duals $N^i(X)$ are:
\begin{itemize}
\item The \emph{pseudoeffective cone} $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X)\subset N_i(X)\cong N^{n-i}(X)$, given as the closure of the cone spanned by the numerical classes of $i$-dimensional subvarieties of $X$.
\item The \emph{nef cone} $\mathrm{Nef}^i(X)\subset N^i(X)\cong N_{n-i}(X)$, defined as the dual cone to $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X)$.
\end{itemize}
The nef cone and pseudoeffective cone of divisors on $X$ are well-understood and satisfy a number of useful properties. One such basic property is the following.
\begin{proposition}\label{nefDivisorProducts}
Suppose $D\in \mathrm{Nef}^1(X)$.
If $\eta\in \overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X)$, then $D\cdot \eta\in \overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_{i-1}(X)$, and if $\eta\in \mathrm{Nef}^i(X)$, then $D\cdot \eta\in \mathrm{Nef}^{i+1}(X)$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Nefness is preserved by proper pullback \cite[Example 1.4.4]{Laz04}, so if $i:Z\rightarrow X$ is a proper inclusion such that $i_*[Z]=\eta$, $i^*(D)$ is nef on $Z$, hence pseudoeffective since nef divisors are pseuodeffective. So $D\cdot \eta\in \overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_{i-1}(X)$ if $\eta$ is an integral effective $i$-divisor; since $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_{i-1}(X)$ is closed and preserved by scaling by positive real numbers, we also have $D\cdot \eta\in \overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_{i-1}(X)$ if we only assume $\eta\in \overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_{i}(X)$. Likewise, if $\eta\in \mathrm{Nef}^i(X)$, then if $\beta \in \overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_{i+1}(X)$, we have $D\cdot \beta\in \overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_{i}(X)$ and $\beta \cdot (D\cdot \beta)>0$. So $\beta \cdot D\in \mathrm{Nef}^{i+1}(X)$.
\end{proof}
This property does not imply that the intersection of two nef cycles is nef. For instance, if $E$ is an elliptic curve with complex multiplication, then there are two nef two-cycles with negative intsersection on the product $E\times E\times E\times E$ \cite{DELV11}. To bound the effective cones of universal plane curves, we will use one of the refined notions of positivity given in \cite{FL17}.
We will also use the following basic result.
\begin{lemma}\label{finiteMaps}
If $f:Z'\rightarrow Z$ a finite map of projective varieties, then $f_*\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(Z')=\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(Z)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Given any irreducible subvariety $W\subseteq Z$, $f^{-1}(W)\rightarrow W$ is a finite map of some degree $d$, so $[W]=\frac{f_*([f^{-1}(W)])}{d}$.
\end{proof}
In this article we use Lemma \ref{finiteMaps} precisely to make the identification
\[
\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(\mu(X_{H_1}\times Y_{H_2}))=\mu_*(\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_{H_1}\times Y_{H_2})).
\]
\begin{definition}\label{bpfdef}
A cycle $\eta\in N_i(X)$ is \emph{strongly basepoint free} if there are quasiprojective varieties $U,W$ and morphisms $p:U\rightarrow W$ and $s:U\rightarrow X$ such that $p$ is projective and surjective with fibers of dimension $i$, $s$ is flat, and $\eta$ is the class of $s_*([p^{-1}(w)])$, where $w$ is a general point of $W$. The \emph{basepoint free cone} $\mathrm{BPF}_i(X)\subset N_i(X)$ is the closure of the cone spanned by the classes of strongly basepoint free cycles.
\end{definition}
Fulger and Lehmann \cite{FL17} prove that $\mathrm{BPF}_i(X)$ is a subcone of $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X)\cap \mathrm{Nef}_i(X)$. We will occasionally show a cycle is nef by showing it lies in $\mathrm{BPF}_i(X)$. More typically, we will mostly work with cycles that cannot quite be described as strongly basepoint free, but look basepoint free away from some controllable locus.
These too will satisfy some positivity properties.
\begin{proposition}\label{2.4}
Let $\eta\in N_i(X)$ be a numerical class, let $U$ be a variety, let $p:U\rightarrow W$ be a proper morphism of relative dimension $i$ to a quasi-projective variety $W$ such that each component of $U$ surjects onto $W$, and let $s:U\rightarrow X$ be a morphism. Let $B$ be a variety of codimension $c$ such that $s^{-1}(B)$ has codimension $c$ in $U$. Then $B\cdot \eta $ is effective.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $w\in W$ be a general point. The intersection $s^{-1}(B)\cap U_w$ has dimension $i-c$ if nonempty. Then $s_*(U_w)$ is an effective cycle of numerical class $\eta$ that intersects $B$ in dimension $i-c$, so $B\cdot \eta$ is effective by \cite[Proposition 7.1.a]{Ful84}.
\end{proof}
\section{Universal hypersurfaces in general}\label{generalities}
We continue to use the notation of Section \ref{preliminaries}. Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety of dimension $n$, let $H$ be a basepoint free divisor class on $X$, and set $\xi=\pi_2^*(\mathcal O_{Y_H}(1))$.
Set $r=h^0(X,H)-1$, so $X_H$ has dimension $r+n-1$ and $Y_H$ has dimension $r$.
\subsection{Positivity of cycles }
$X_H$ has several nef classes coming from its projections to $Y_H$ and $X$.
\begin{lemma}\label{easiestNefClasses}
If $\eta\in \mathrm{Nef}^i(X)$, then for all $j\geq 0$ the cycle $\eta \xi^j \in N^{i+j}(X_H) $ is nef.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $\eta\in N^i(X)$ is nef, its pullback to $X_H$ is also nef. Similarly, $\xi=c_1(\pi^*_2(\mathcal O_{Y_H}(1)))$ is a nef divisor, so by Proposition \ref{nefDivisorProducts} $\eta\xi^j$ is nef as well.
\end{proof}
When it applies, Theorem \ref{lowCodimension} asserts that if $i+j<n$, these are the \emph{only} nef cycles. We prove it now.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{lowCodimension}]
Since $\xi$ is a nef divisor it follows from Lemma \ref{nefDivisorProducts} that
\[
\mathrm{Nef}^i(X_H)\supseteq \sum_{0\leq j \leq i} \xi^{i-j}(\mathrm{Nef}^j(X)).
\]
We prove the opposite inclusion dually by showing
\begin{equation*}
\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_H)\supseteq \sum_{0\leq j\leq i} \overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_j(X)e_j.
\end{equation*}
By assumption, $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_j(X)$ is the closure of a cone spanned a collection of classes $\{\beta_\alpha\vert \alpha \in A\}$ such that each $\beta_\alpha$ is represented by some effective $j$-cycle $Z_\alpha$ supported on a divisor of class $H$. Fix a divisor $D_\alpha$ of class $H$ containing $Z_\alpha$, and let $Z'_\alpha\subset X_H$ consist of pairs $(p,D_\alpha)$ with $p\in Z_\alpha$. Then $Z'_\alpha$ is an effective cycle of class $\beta_\alpha e_j$ on $X_H$. So, since $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_H)$ is itself closed, we have $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_j(X)e_j\subseteq \overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_H)$, and
\[\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_H)\supseteq \sum_{0\leq j\leq i} \overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_j(X)e_j.
\]
Dualizing this containment gives $\mathrm{Nef}^i(X_H)= \sum_{0\leq j \leq i} \xi^{i-j}(\mathrm{Nef}^j(X))$, as we were to show.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
For Theorem \ref{lowCodimension} to apply, the hypotheses that $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X)$ be spanned by effective cycles supported on divisors of class $H$ is necessary.
For instance, if $X=\mathbb{P}^1\times \mathbb{P}^1$ and $F_1$, $F_2$ are the class of a fiber of the first and second projections respectively then $X_{2F_1}$ is a trivial $\mathbb{P}^1$ bundle over $X$ and we have
\[
\mathrm{Nef}^1(X_H)=\langle \xi-F_1, F_1,F_2\rangle.
\]
\end{remark}
Beyond the cases handled by Theorem \ref{lowCodimension} or Lemma \ref{easiestNefClasses}, some numerical classes cannot be proven nef directly, but only positive away from some subcone of the cone of effective cycles. One construction proceeds as follows.
Let $\pi:\mathcal{Z}\rightarrow B$ be a flat family of pairs $(Z_b,Z_b')\subset X\times X$ where $Z_b$ is a $m$-cycle contained in the $(m+1)$-cycle $Z_b'$. Set
\[
W_b=\overline{\{(p,D)\in X_H\vert\dim(Z'_b \cap D)=m,\, Z_b\subset D,\, p\in Z_b'\setminus Z_b\}},
\]
and let $\eta=[W_b]$. Suppose $W_b$ has codimension $C$ in $X_H$, so $\eta \in N^C(X_H)$.
\begin{proposition}\label{sortaBPF}
Let $R\subset X_H$ be a $C$-cycle and suppose $\eta\cdot [R]<0$. Then, for some integer $c$ with $0\leq c<C$, there exists a cycle $R'\subset R$ of dimension $C-c$ such that for a general pair $(p,D)\in R'$, the locus of $b\in B$ such that $Z_b\subset D$ and $p\in Z_b'\setminus Z_b$ has codimension at most $C-c-1$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
In what follows we assume $B$ is irreducible because the general result follows from the irreducible case.
Suppose $R$ is an effective $C$-cycle with $\eta\cdot [R]<0$. Then $W_b\cap R$ must have positive dimension for any $b\in B$. Let $P_b$ be the union of the positive dimensional components of $W_b\cap R$. Let $P\subset B\times R$ be the union of the $P_b$. $P$ is locally closed of dimension at least $\dim B+1$. Pick one component $P'$ of $P$ and let $R'$ be the image of $P'$ in $R$. The fiber $P_r$ in $P'$ over a general point $r$ of $R'$ has dimension at least $\dim B+1-\dim R'$, so the preimage of $P_r$ in $B$ also has dimension at least $\dim B+1-\dim R'$. So, if $R'$ has codimension $c$ in $R$, so $R'$ has dimension $C-c$, and the codimension of the preimage of $P_r$ in $B$ is at most $\dim R'-1=C-c-1$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{The stable pseudoeffective cones}
If $H_2-H_1$ is effective, the product map $\mu:X_{H_1}\times Y_{H_2-H_1}\rightarrow X_{H_2}$ induces pushforward isomorphisms $\mu_*:N_i(X_{H_1})\xrightarrow{\sim} N_i(X_{H_2})$ for $i\leq r-1$. This map preserves effectiveness for cycles, and leads to the following definitions:
For any $i$, the \emph{stable space of numerical cycles} $N_i(X_{stab})$ is defined by
\[
N_i(X_{stab})=\bigoplus_{0\leq j\leq \min(i,n)} N_j (X).
\]
For any $H$, there is a natural map $p_H:N_i(X_H)\rightarrow N_i(X_{stab})$, coming from sending the cycle $\eta e_j$ to the cycle $\eta \in N_j(X)\subseteq N_i(X_{stab})$; in what follows, we will also use $\eta e_j\in N_i(X_{stab})$ to denote this cycle. The map $p_H$ commute with the pushforward maps induced by $\mu$ and are isomorphisms if $i\leq r-1$.
\begin{definition}
The \emph{stable pseudoeffective cone of $i$-cycles} $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_{stab})\subset N_i(X_{stab})$ is the closure of the union of the cones $p_{H*}(\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_H))$ as $H$ ranges over all basepoint free classes on $X$.
\end{definition}
The following lemma determines many of the cycles in $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_{stab}$.
\begin{lemma}\label{315}
Let $0\leq i<n$ and let $\beta \in \overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X)$ be effective. Then, for any $j\geq i$, there is an ample divisor $H$ such that $\beta e_i\in \overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_j(X_H)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Given $\beta$, $j$, let $Z$ be a cycle on $X$ of class $\beta$, and let $H_1$ be a basepoint free class such that $Z$ is supported on some divisor $D_Z$ of class $H_1$.
Let $H_2$ be a basepoint free divisor class with $h^0(X,H_2)\geq j-i+1$. Let $Z_1\subset X_{H_1}$ consist of pairs $(p,D_Z)$ with $p\in Z$. Then $Z_1\in \overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_{H_1})$ has class $\beta e_i$, and if $\Lambda\subset Y_{H_2}$ is any $(j-i)$-plane, the image of $Z_1\times \Lambda\subset X_{H_1}\times Y_{H_2}$ in $X_{H_1+H_2}$ has class a multiple of $e_i\beta$.
\end{proof}
Lemma \ref{315} implies a variant of Theorem \ref{lowCodimension} for stable cones.
\begin{corollary}
If $0\leq i< n$, then
\[
\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_{stab})=\sum_{0\leq j\leq i}\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_j(X)e_{j}.
\]
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
For any basepoint free $H$ we have
\[
\mathrm{Nef}^i(X_H)\supseteq \sum_{0\leq j\leq \min(i,n)} \xi^{i-j}\mathrm{Nef}^j(X),
\]
hence
\[
\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_H)\subseteq \sum_{0\leq j \leq i} \overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_j(X) e_j.
\]
Since the above containment holds for \emph{any} $H$, we have
\[
\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_{stab})\subseteq \sum_{0\leq j \leq i} \overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_j(X) e_j
\]
And by Lemma \ref{315}, if $\beta\in \overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_j(X)$ is \emph{effective}, then for any $i\geq j$ $\beta e_j\in \overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_H)$ for some sufficiently ample $H$, so $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_{stab})$ contains $\beta e_j$ for all effective $\beta$. Since $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_{stab})$ is closed, we have
\[
\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_{stab})\supseteq \sum_{0\leq j \leq i} \overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_j(X) e_j.
\]
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{mostOfTheStableCone}
If $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X)$ is generated by finitely many effective cycles for every $i$, then for any $j\geq n-1$ and $H$ sufficiently ample (depending on $j$), $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_j(X_H)$ contains $e_0 \overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_0(X),e_1\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_1(X),\ldots,e_{n-1}\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_{n-1}(X)$. Moreover, $\langle e_0\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_0(X),\ldots,e_{n-1}\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_{n-1}(X)\rangle$ is exactly the subcone of $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_j(X_H)$ of cycles that have 0 intersection with $H^n\xi^{j-n}$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma \ref{315}, for $H$ sufficiently ample, $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_j(X_H)$ contains any cycle $\eta e_k$ for $\eta$ some extremal $k$-cycle on $X$. Since there are only finitely many extremal cycles total, if $H$ is sufficiently ample, $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_j(X_H)$ contains all of them. Conversely, $N_j(X_H)$, the cone $ \langle e_0\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_0(X),\ldots,e_{n-1}\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_{n-1}(X),e_n\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_n(X)\rangle$ is the dual cone to \[
\langle \mathrm{Nef}^0(X)\xi^j, \mathrm{Nef}^1(X)\xi^{j-1},\ldots, \mathrm{Nef}^{n}(X)\xi^{j-n}\rangle,\] which is clearly a subcone of $\mathrm{Nef}^j(X_H)$. So the subcone of $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_j(X_H)$ of cycles that have 0 intersection with $H^n\xi^{j-n}$ must be contained in $\langle e_0 \overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_0(X),e_1\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_1(X),\ldots,e_{n-1}\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_{n-1}(X)\rangle$.
\end{proof}
Based on Corollary \ref{mostOfTheStableCone}, we ask the following question.
\begin{question}
Suppose $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_j(X)$ is generated by a finite collection of effective classes for each $j$, and fix $i$. Is $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_{stab})$ polyhedral? Is there some $H$ such that $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_{stab})=\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_H)$?
\end{question}
By Corollary \ref{mostOfTheStableCone}, the most interesting part of the stable cone consist of cycles that have nonzero intersection with $H^n\xi^{j-n}$.
\section{Universal hypersurfaces in projective space}\label{projSpace}
Let $X_{n,d}$ be the universal degree $d$ hypersurface on $\mathbb{P}^n$, and let $H$ be the class of a hyperplane. In this section, when we have a cycle
\[
\eta=(d_n [\mathbb{P}^n], \ldots, d_0 H^n)= d_n[\mathbb{P}^n]e_n+d_{n-1}He_{n-1}+\cdots+d_0 H^n e_0,
\]
we suppress the classes $H^i$ in notation:
\[
\eta=(d_n,\ldots,d_0)=d_ne_n+d_{n-1}e_{n-1}+\cdots+d_0e_0.
\]
We set $r=\dim(Y_{n,d})=\binom{n+d}{d}-1$, so $X_{n,d}$ has dimension $r+n-1$.
\begin{lemma}\label{projectiveSpaceBPFCycles}
If $i<n$, then the cycle $e_i\in N_{n-1}(X_{n,d})$ is basepoint free, and hence nef.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $W$ be the parameter space of all reduced complete intersections of $n-i$ hypersurfaces of degree $d$ in $\mathbb{P}^n$, and let $U$ be the universal complete intersection over $W$, so the fiber $U_w$ of $U$ over a point $w\in W$ is the complete intersection in $\mathbb{P}^n$ corresponding to $w$. Let $U'$ consist of pairs $w,(p,D)\in W\times X_{n,d}$ satisfying $p\in U_w$ and $U_w\subset D$. Then $U'$ admits a flat projection $s:U'\rightarrow X_{n,d}$ and a projective map $p:U'\rightarrow W$ through $U$. Hence, given $w\in W$, the numerical class of $s(p^{-1}(w))$ is strongly basepoint free. $s(p^{-1}(w))$ consists of all pairs $(p,D)$ with $p\in U_w$ and $D$ in the $(n-i-1)$-dimensional linear series giving the complete intersection $U_w$, and is hence a $(n-1)$-cycle having intersection $\deg(U_w)=d^{n-i}$ with $H^i\xi^{n-i-1}$ and intersection $0$ with all other $H^j\xi^{n-j-1}$. Hence $[s(p^{-1}(w))]=d^{n-i}e_i$ and $e_i$ is basepoint free.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{lowDim}
Let $0\leq i<n$. Then $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_{n,d})=\mathrm{Nef}_i(X_{n,d})=\langle e_0,\ldots, e_i\rangle$ and $\mathrm{Nef}^i(X_{n,d})=\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}^i(X_{n,d})=\langle \xi^i,H\xi^{i-1}, \ldots, H^i\rangle$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma \ref{projectiveSpaceBPFCycles}, the cone $\langle e_0, \ldots,e_i\rangle$ is contained in $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_{n,d})\cap \mathrm{Nef}_i(X_{n,d})$. Likewise, we have $\langle \xi^{i}, H\xi^{i-1},\ldots,H^i\rangle\subseteq \mathrm{Nef}^i(X_{n,d}) \cap \overline{\mathrm{Eff}}^i(X_{n,d}))$ since its generators are products of the nef divisors $\xi,H$. Dualizing this second containment, we have
\[
\langle e_0, \ldots,e_i\rangle \supseteq \overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_{n,d})+\mathrm{Nef}_i(X_{n,d}),
\]
hence the result.
\end{proof}
This proposition determines $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_{n,1})$ for all $n$ and $i$.
\begin{corollary}[Proposition \ref{hyperplaneCone}]\label{456}
If $0\leq i<n$, then
\[
\mathrm{Nef}^i(X_{n,1})=\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}^i(X_{n,1})=\langle H^i, H^{i-1}\xi,\ldots,\xi^i\rangle
\]
and
\[
\mathrm{Nef}_i(X_{n,1})=\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_{n,1})=\langle e_0,\ldots,e_i\rangle
\]
\end{corollary}
We next study effective cycles on $X_{n,2}$. We need some positivity information, provided by the following two results.
\begin{lemma}\label{367}
If $d\geq 2$, then on $X_{n,d}$ the cycle $\eta=H^{n-1}\xi-H^n$ is strongly basepoint free.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Given a fixed point $p_0$ on a fixed line $\ell_0$, $\eta$ is represented by the cycle $Z_{\ell_0,p_0}$ defined as the closure of the set of all $(p,D)$ such that $D$ contains $p_0$ and $p \in \ell_0\setminus p$. Letting $B$ be the parameter space of pairs $(\ell_0,p_0)$, we get a corresponding universal cycle $\mathcal{Z}\subset X_{n,d}\times B$. Any pair $(p,D)$ is contained in a $2n-2$ dimensional set of the $Z_{\ell_0,p_0}$, so by the miracle flatness theorem \cite[Theorem 23.1]{Mat89} the map $\mathcal{Z}\rightarrow X_{n,d}$ is flat, and $\eta$ is strongly basepoint free.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{443}
If $d\geq 2$, then the class $nH^{n-1}\xi^{n+1}-(n+1)[pt]\xi^{n}$ is nef on $X_{n,d}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $B$ be the parameter space of rational normal curves $C$ in $\mathbb{P}^n$ with $n+1$ distinct marked points $p_1,\ldots,p_{n+1}$. Let $\mathcal{Z}\subset X_{n,d}\times B$ consist of pairs of pairs $((p,D),(C,(p_1,\ldots,p_{n+1})))$ such that $D\cap C$ contains $p_1+\ldots+p_{n+1}+p$.
Through any $n+1$ distinct points not all lying in a hyperplane of $\mathbb{P}^n$ there is a family of rational normal curves of dimension exactly $n$. As a result, the fiber dimension of $\mathcal{Z}$ over any pair $(D,p)\in X_{n,d}$ is $n^2+n-1$ unless $D$ is supported on a hyperplane, in which case the fiber is empty. So, given any closed subvariety $W\subset X_{n,d}$, if $b\in B$ is chosen general, then $Z_b\cap W$ either has the expected dimension or is empty---the latter if and only if $W$ consists entirely of pairs with $D$ supported on a hyperplane. So $nH^{n-1}\xi^{n+1}-(n+1)[pt]\xi^{n}$ is nef.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{slightlyHigherDim}
Assume $n\geq 2$.
\[\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_{n,2})= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\langle e_0,\ldots,e_{n-1}, e_{n}+e_{n-1}\rangle\hfill \mbox{if }n \leq i \leq 2n-1\\
\langle e_0,\ldots,e_{n-2}, ne_n+(n+1)e_{n-1}, e_{n-1}+e_{n-2}, e_n+(n+1)e_{n-1} \rangle \mbox{if } i=2n
\end{array}
\right.
\]
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
If $n\leq i\leq 2n-1$, then by the product formula and Corollary \ref{456} we have
$\mu_*\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_{n,1}\times Y_{n,1})\subset\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_{n,2})$ is given by
\[
\mu_*\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_{n,1}\times Y_{n,1})=\langle e_0,\ldots,e_{n-1}, e_n+e_{n-1}\rangle,
\]
where the cycle $e_n+e_{n-1}$ comes from the pushforward of the cycle $\xi^{2n-1-i}\in N_i(X_{n,1})$. (See Proposition \ref{1products}). So we easily have
\[
\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_{n,2})\supseteq \langle e_0,\ldots,e_{n-1}, e_n+e_{n-1}\rangle.
\]
Since the divisors $\xi$ and $H$ are nef, as is the cycle $H^{n-1}\xi-H^n$ by Lemma \ref{367}, we have
\[
\mathrm{Nef}^i(X_{n,2})\supseteq \langle H^n\xi^{i-n},H^{n-2}\xi^{i-n+2}, H^{n-3}\xi^{i-n+3},\ldots,\xi^i, H^{n-1}\xi^{i-n+1}-H^n\xi^{i-n}\rangle \subset N^i(X_{n,2}).
\]
Dualizing this containment gives
\[
\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_{n,2})\subseteq\langle e_0,\ldots,e_{n-1}, e_n+e_{n-1}\rangle.
\]
If $i=2n$, by Proposition \ref{lowDim} and the product formula we have
\begin{align*}
\mu_*\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_{2n}(X_{n,1}\times Y_{n,1})=\langle & e_n+(n+1)e_{n-1}, ne_n+(n+1)e_{n-1}, \\ &2e_{n-1}+(n+2)e_{n-2}, ne_{n-1}+(n+2)e_{n-2},\ldots,ne_1+2ne_0\rangle.
\end{align*}
$\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_{2n}(X_{n,2})$ also contains the cycles $e_i$ with $i\leq n-2$. Indeed, for each $i<n-1$, $e_i$ is the class in $N^{\binom{i+2}{2}+n-i-1}(X_{n,2})$ of $Z$, where $Z$ is given by fixing an $i$-plane $\Lambda$ and setting
\[
Z=\{(p,D)\vert \Lambda\subset D, p\in \Lambda\}.
\]
Z has dimension $\binom{n+2}{2}+n-2- (\binom{i+2}{2}+n-i-1)$. Since the inequality
\[
\binom{n+2}{2}+n-2- (\binom{i+2}{2}+n-i-1) \geq 2n
\]
holds for $i\leq n-2$, we hence have that $e_i\in \overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_{2n}(X_{n,2})$ for $i\leq n-2$, and is represented by $\xi^{\dim(Z)-2n}[Z]$. . So we have the containment
\[
\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_{2n}(X_{n,2})\supseteq \langle e_0,\ldots,e_{n-2}, ne_n+(n+1)e_{n-1}, e_{n-1}+e_{n-2}, e_n+(n+1)e_{n-1} \rangle.
\]
For the other direction, we require some positive $(2n)$-cocycles on $X_H$. The complete intersection cycles $\xi^{2n},\ldots, H^n\xi^n$ are all nef. Set $\eta=H^{n-2}\xi^3-H^{n-1}\xi^2+H^n\xi$. $\eta$ represents pairs $(p,D)$ such that $D$ contains some fixed line $\ell$ and is marked elsewhere on some fixed 2-plane $\Lambda$ containing $\ell$. A typical quadric contains a $2n-5$ dimensional space of lines, and the only quadrics containing a larger space of lines are those containing a hyperplane; those instead contain a $2n-4$ dimensional space of lines. By Proposition \ref{sortaBPF}, if $R$ is any irreducible dimension $n+1$ subvariety of $X_{n,2}$ not supported on $\mu(X_{n,1}\times Y_{n,1})$, then $R\cdot \eta\geq 0$. In particular,
\[
\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_{2n}(X)=\mu_*(\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_{2n}(X_{n,1}\times Y_{n,1}))+\{\beta \in \overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_{2n}(X_{n,2})\vert \beta \cdot \eta\geq 0\}.
\]
Finally, by Lemma \ref{443} the cycle $\eta_2=nH^{n-1}\xi^{n+1}-(n+1)H^n\xi^n$ is nef. The dual cone of the cone $\Delta=\langle \eta\xi^{n-1}, \eta_2, \xi^{2n},\ldots,\xi^nH^n\rangle\subset N^{2n}(X_{n,2})$ is the cone
\[
\Delta^*= \langle ne_n+(n+1)e_{n-1}+e_{n-2}, e_{n-1}+e_{n-2}, e_{n-2},e_{n-3},\ldots,e_0\rangle.
\]
We have $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_{2n}(X_{n,2})\subseteq \Delta^*+\mu_*(\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_{2n}(X_{n,1}\times Y_{n,1}))$, by the nefness of every cycle in $\Delta$ except $\eta\xi^{n-1}$. So we have
\[
\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_{2n}(X_{2,n})\subseteq \langle e_0,\ldots,e_{n-2}, ne_n+(n+1)e_{n-1}, e_{n-1}+e_{n-2}, e_n+(n+1)e_{n-1} \rangle,
\]
giving the result.
\end{proof}
This result and Proposition \ref{lowDim} are sufficient to give every effective cycle on $X_{2,2}$
\begin{corollary}[Theorem \ref{conicCone}]\label{conicCorollary}
The nontrivial pseudoeffective cones of $d$-cycles on $X_{2,2}$ are spanned by effective cycles and given by the following.
\begin{align*}
\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_1(X_{2,2}) &= \langle (0,1,0), (0,0,1)\rangle\\
\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_2(X_{2,2}) &= \langle (1,1,0), (0,1,0), (0,0,1)\rangle\\
\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_3(X_{2,2}) &=\langle (1,1,0), (0,1,0), (0,0,1).\rangle\\
\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_4(X_{2,2})&= \langle (2,3,0), (1,3,0), (0,1,1), (0,0,1)\rangle\\
\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_5(X_{2,2})&=\langle(1,2,0), (0,1,2)\rangle.
\end{align*}
\end{corollary}
\begin{remark}
In the notation of Theorem \ref{conicCone}, we have $[Z_{4,1}]=(0,1,1)$, $[Z_{4,2}]=(1,3,0)$, $[Z_{4,3}]=(2,3,0)$, $[Z_{3,1}]=(0,1,0)$, and $[Z_{3,2}]=(1,1,0)$. So Corollary \ref{conicCorollary} and Theorem \ref{conicCone} are equivalent.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Universal plane curves}
We now restrict our attention to $X_{2,d}$, with the eventual goal of proving Theorem \ref{stableCases}.
That theorem is an immediate consequence of the following.
\begin{theorem}\label{stableCasesPrecise}
Suppose $d\geq 3$ and $2\leq i\leq 6$ or $i\in\{7,10\}$ and $d\geq 4$.
Then we have
\[
\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_{2,d})=\langle (1,\delta(i),0), (0,1,0), (0,0,1)\rangle
\]
where $\delta(i)$ is given by the following table.
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c}
i&2&3&4&5&6&7&10 \\
\hline
$\delta(i)$&1&1&1.5&2&2&2.4 &3
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{theorem}
But before proving this theorem, we need to produce a handful of positive cycles on $X_{2,d}$.
Let $1\leq e<d$, and let $M=\binom{e+2}{2}$. For $c\leq M$, let $\eta_{e,c}\in N^c(X_{2,d})$ be the numerical class $eH\xi^{c-1}-(c-1)H^2\xi^{c-2}$. This class is effective. If $(e,d,c)\neq (1,2,3)$, given a irreducible degree $e$ curve $C_0$ and a degree $c-1$ divisor $D$ on $C_0$, this class is represented by the codimension $c$ set $Z_{C_0, D}$ of pairs $(C,p)$ where $C\cap C_0$ contains $D+p$. And if $(e,d)=(1,2)$ $\eta_{1,3}$ instead is represented by the three-cycle of conics containing and marked on a fixed line, and is hence still effective. We also have the following.
\begin{lemma}\label{almostNef}
If $c<M$, then $\eta_{e,c}$ is strongly basepoint free on $X_{2,d}$. If $c=M$ and $Z$ is any cycle of dimension at least $M$ not supported on $\mu(X_m\times Y_{n-m})$, then $\eta_{e,c}\cdot Z$ is a pseudoeffective class.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose $c\leq M$ and $(m,n)\neq (1,2)$.
Let $U$ consist of pairs $(\Gamma, C_0)$ where $\Gamma$ is a collection of $c-1$ distinct points imposing independent conditions on degree $m$ curves, and $C_0$ is a smooth curve of degree $m$ containing $\Gamma$ such that the tangent line through any $q\in \Gamma$ does not contain any other point in $\Gamma$.
Then given any point $p\in C_0$, we have that the length $c$ scheme $\Gamma+p$ supported on $C_0$ imposes independent conditions on degree $m+1$ curves in $\mathbb{P}^2$; the union of a general line through some $q\in \Gamma$ and a general degree $m$ curve through $\Gamma\setminus \{q\}$ will not contain $p$. Since $n\geq m+1$, we also have that the scheme $\Gamma+p$ imposes independent conditions on degree $n$ curves.
Let $W$ be the set of pairs of pairs $((\Gamma,C_0), (C,p))\subset U\times X_n$ such that the scheme-theoretic intersection $C\cap C_0$ contains $p+\Gamma$.
Since the length $c$ scheme $\Gamma+p$ imposes independent conditions on degree $m+1$ curves, $W$ is a projective bundle over the space of triples $(p, \Gamma, C_0)$. This space of triples is in turn a smooth family of projective curves over $U$, so the overall projection $p:W\rightarrow U$ is a smooth projective morphism, and hence $W$ is smooth.
Now we consider the projection $s:W\rightarrow X_n$.
If $c<M$, then $s$ has fibers of constant dimension $M-1$, and is hence flat by \cite[Theorem 23.1]{Mat89} since both $W$ and $X_n$ are smooth.
So $\eta_{m,c}$ is strongly basepoint free.
If $c=M$, then the fiber dimension of $s$ jumps (by 1) over curves containing a smooth degree $m$ component.
Suppose $Z\subset X_n$ is an irreducible subvariety of $X_n$ not supported on the image of $X_m\times Y_{n-m}$.
If $s^{-1}(Z)$ is nonempty, then it is equidimensional of dimension $c+M-1$, since the dimension of $Z\cap \mu(X_m\times Y_{n-m})$ is at most $c-1$, and the fiber dimension jumps by 1 over that locus.
Then, since $s(p^{-1}(u))$ has numerical class $\eta_{c,M}$ for any $u\in U$, the cycle $B\cdot \eta_{c,M}$ is effective by Proposition \ref{2.4}.
Finally, if $m=1$, $n=2$ and $c=3$, we have that $H\xi^2-2H^2\xi\in N_3(X_2)=(0,1,0)$ is represented by the three-cycle of singular conics containing and marked on a fixed line. This cycle is strongly basepoint free on the hypersurface $X_{2,1}\times Y_{2,1}\subset X_{2,2}$, and hence intersets all cycles not supported on $X_{2,1}\times Y_{2,1}$ positively.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
It is plausible that $\eta_{c,M}$ retains some positivity for $c>M$.
In particular, by the same argument as the proof, for any $c\leq mn$, $\eta_{c,M}$ will be positive on cycles of dimension at least $c$ that are dimensionally transverse to $\mu(X_m\times Y_{n-m})$.
\end{remark}
We now can prove Theorem \ref{stableCasesPrecise}, and hence Theorem \ref{stableCases}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{stableCasesPrecise}]
Under the hypotheses of the theorem, except in the case $i=10$, by Proposition \ref{2Products} the cone $\langle (1,\delta(i),0), (0,1,0), (0,0,1)\rangle \subset N_i(X_{n,d})$ is exactly the pushforward of $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_{2,2}\times Y_{2,d-2})$ under the product map, so it suffices to verify that every effective cycle is contained in that cone. The nefness of the cycles below follow from Lemmas \ref{easiestNefClasses}, \ref{443}, and \ref{almostNef}.
\begin{itemize}
\item If $i=2$, the cycles $\xi^2$, $H\xi-H^2$, and $H^2$ are nef, so
\[
\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_2(X_{2,d})\subseteq \langle (1,1,0), (0,1,0),(0,0,1)\rangle.
\]
\item If $i=3$, the cycles $\xi^3,$ $H\xi^2-H^2\xi$, and $H^2\xi$ are nef, so
\[
\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_3(X_{2,d})\subseteq \langle(1,1,0),(0,1,0),(0,0,1)\rangle.
\]
\item If $i=4$, the cycles $\xi^4$, $H^2\xi^2$ are nef, while the cycle $H\xi^3-2H^2\xi^2$ is nef on cycles not supported on the image of $X_{2,1}\times Y_{2,d-1}$, so by Lemma \ref{1products} we have
\[
\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_4(X_{2,d})\subseteq \langle (2,3,0), (0,1,0), (0,0,1)\rangle.
\]
\item If $i=5$, the cycles $\xi^5$, $H^2\xi^3$, and $2H\xi^4-4H^2\xi^3$ are all nef, so
\[
\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_5(X_{2,d})\subseteq \langle (1,2,0), (0,1,0), (0,0,1)\rangle.
\]
\item If $i=6$, the cycles $\xi^6$, $H^2\xi^4$, and $2H\xi^5-4H^2\xi^4$ are all nef, so
\[
\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_6(X_{2,d})\subseteq \langle (1,2,0), (0,1,0), (0,0,1)\rangle.
\]
\item If $i=7$, the cycles $\xi^7$, $H^2\xi^5$ are nef, while $2H\xi^6-5H^2\xi^5$ is positive on cycles not supported on the image of $X_2\times Y_{n-2}$. so by Proposition \ref{2Products} we have
\[
\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_7(X_{2,d})\subseteq \langle (5,12,0), (0,1,0), (0,0,1)\rangle.
\]
\end{itemize}
In the case $i=10$, we instead need to push forward from $X_{2,3}\times Y_{2,d-3}$ to find the effective cycles. By the $i=5$ case, we have $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_5(X_{2,3})=\langle (1,2,0),(0,1,0),(0,1,0)\rangle$. Pushing forward to $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_{10}(X_{2,d})$ using the product map, we have that $(0,1,0), (0,0,1)\in \overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_{10}(X_{2,d})$. Likewise, $(1,3,0)$ is the image of the fundamental cycle of $X_{2,3}$ under the product map. So we have
\[
\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_{10}(X_{2,d})\supseteq \langle (1,3,0), (0,1,0), (0,0,1)\rangle.
\]
Conversely, by Lemma \ref{almostNef} the cycle $\eta_{3,10}=3H\xi^9-9H^2\xi^8$ is nef if $d\geq 4$, so the containment above is in fact an equality.
\end{proof}
Theorem \ref{stableCasesPrecise} describes every nontrivial cone of cycles on $X_{2,3}$ except $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_{2,3})$ with $i\in \{7,8,9\}$. By Proposition \ref{lowDim}, the effective cone of divisors on $X_{2,3}$ is spanned by $H$ and $\xi$. When $i\in\{7,8\}$, the pseudoeffective cone of cycles is not known precisely, but we have the following bounds.
\begin{proposition}
\begin{align*}
\langle (5,12,0),(1,6,0),(0,1,1),(0,0,1)\rangle \subseteq&\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_7(X_{2,3}) \subseteq \langle(5,12,0),(0,1,0),(0,0,1)\rangle\\
\langle (2,7,0),(5,14,0),(0,1,2),(0,0,1)\rangle \subseteq &\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_8(X_{2,3})\subseteq \langle(2,5,0),(0,1,0),(0,0,1)\rangle
\end{align*}
\begin{proof}
By Proposition \ref{1products},
\[
\mu_*\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_7(X_{2,1}\times Y_{2,2})=\langle (1,3,0),(5,12,0),(0,5,14)\rangle
\]
and by Proposition \ref{2Products},
\[
\mu_*\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_7(X_{2,2}\times Y_{2,1})= \langle (1,3,0),(5,12,0),(0,5,14)\rangle.
\]
Since $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_7(X_{2,2})$ also contains the effective cycles $H\xi^2-2H^2\xi= (1,1,0) $ and $H^2\xi = (0,0,1)$, we have
\[
\langle (5,12,0),(1,6,0),(0,1,1),(0,0,1)\rangle \subseteq \overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_7(X_{2,3})
\]
Likewise, by Propositions \ref{1products} and \ref{2Products}, we have
\begin{align*}
\mu_*\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_8(X_{2,1}\times Y_{2,2})=\langle (2,7,0)\rangle
\mu_* \overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_8(X_{2,2}\times Y_{2,1})= \langle (5,14,0)\rangle.
\end{align*}
Since $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_8(X_{2,3})$ also contains the cycles $H\xi-H^2=(1,2,0)$ and $H^2=(0,0,1)$, we have
\[
\langle (2,7,0),(5,14,0),(0,1,2),(0,0,1)\rangle \subseteq \overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_8(X_{2,3}).
\]
The bound $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_7(X_{2,3})\subset \langle (5,12,0),(0,1,0),(0,01)$ follows by the same argument as the $i=7$ case of Theorem \ref{stableCasesPrecise}. Finally, the bound $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_8(X_{2,3})\subseteq\langle (2,5,0),(0,1,0),(0,0,1)\rangle$ follows from the nefness of $\xi^2,H^2$, and the nefness of $2H\xi-5H^2$ away from the image of $X_{2,2}\times Y_{2,1}$.
\end{proof}
\end{proposition}
\subsection{Stable pseudoeffective cones for universal plane curves}\label{stableConeBounds}
We now study $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_{2,d})$ for $d$ large, and in particular the behavior of $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(\mathbb{P}^2_{stab})$. In two cases, unambiguously extremal effective cycles are relatively easy to describe.
First, the cycle $(0,0,1)$ is effective in $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}^c(X_{2,d})$ for all $c\geq 2$, since it is the class $H^2\xi^{c-2}$.
Second, the effectiveness of the class $(0,1,0)\in N^c(X_{2,d})$ is relatively well understood:
\begin{proposition} \label{010}
If $c\geq d+1$, the class $(0,1,0)\in N^c(X_{2,d})$ is represented by an effective cycle. Conversely, if $c \leq d$, then no multiple of $(0,1,0)$ is represented by an effective cycle.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
If $c=d+1$, then $(0,1,0)\in N^c(X_{2,d})$ is represented by the subvariety $Z_{\ell_0}$ of all pairs $(p,D)$ containing and marked on some fixed line $\ell_0$. For $c>d+1$, we have $(0,1,0)=[Z_{\ell_0}]\xi^{c-d-1}$.
Conversely, suppose $Z\subset X_{2,d}$ is an irreducible variety with class $(0,k,0)\in N_i(X_{2,d})$. Since $[Z]\xi^{i-2}H^2=0$, there is some irreducible curve $C_0\subset \mathbb{P}^2$ such that $p\in C_0$ for any $(p,D)\in Z$. Likewise, since $[Z]\xi^i=0$, the image of $Z$ in $Y_{2,d}$ is a subvariety $B$ of dimension at most $i-1$. Since $\dim Z = i$ and $Z\subseteq \{(p,D)\vert p\in C_0, D\in B\}$, we must have
\[
Z= \{(p,D)\vert p \in C_0, D \in B\}.
\]
Hence, if $D\in B$, $D$ contains $C_0$.Containing $C_0$ imposes at least $d+1$ conditions on $B$, so $B$ has codimension at least $d+1$ in $Y_{2,d}$, and $Z$ has codimension at least $d+1$ in $X_{2,d}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
While $(0,1,0)\in N^{c}(X_{2,d})$ is not effective for $c\leq d+1$, except in cases covered above, it is not clear whether it is a pseudoeffective class. We expect $(0,1,0)$ to be pseudoeffective only in the cases where Proposition \ref{010} gives its effectiveness.
\end{remark}
The above and Theorem \ref{stableCasesPrecise} hint toward the following refinement of Conjecture \ref{stabilizationV2}.
\begin{conjecture}\label{641}
For any $i$, there exists a rational number $\delta(i)$ and an integer $d(i)$ such that
\[
\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(\mathbb{P}^2_{stab})=\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_{2,d(i)})=\langle (1,\delta(i),0),(0,1,0)(0,0,1)\rangle
\]
\end{conjecture}
Except in the cases covered by Theorem \ref{stableCasesPrecise}, Conjecture \ref{641} has not been verified. The best bounds we have are the following.
\begin{theorem}\label{628}
Let $i>1$ be an integer, and define $m$, $d_0$, $\delta_{\max}(i)$, and $\delta_{\min}(i)$ as follows:
\begin{align*}
m&=\lfloor \frac{-3+\sqrt{1+8i}}{2}\rfloor\\
d_0& = m+\lceil \frac{-3+\sqrt{17+8m}}{2}\rceil\\
\delta_{\max}(i)&=\twopartdef{\min\left(\frac{2i-2}{m+3},m+1\right)}{i\geq 3}{1}{i=2}\\
\delta_{\min}(i)&=\max\left(\frac{m+3}{2}, \frac{i-1}{m+1}\right).
\end{align*}
For all $i\geq 2$ and $d\geq d_0$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{630}
\langle (1, \delta_{\max}(i),0),(0,1,0),(0,0,1)\rangle \subseteq \overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_{2,d}),
\end{equation}
and for $i\geq 8$ (and any $d$) we have
\begin{equation}\label{634}
\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(\mathbb{P}^2_{stab}) \subseteq \langle (1,\delta_{\min}(i),0),(0,1,0),(0,0,1)\rangle.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
\begin{enumerate}
\item The containment (\ref{630}) is an equality for $2\leq i\leq 7$ and $i=10$ by Theorem \ref{stableCasesPrecise}. The containment (\ref{634}) fails for $i\in \{3,4,6,7\}$; indeed in those cases $\delta_{\min}(i)>\delta_{\max}(i)$.
\item $m$ is the greatest integer satisfying $\binom{m+2}{2}\leq i$, and $d_0$ is the least positive integer satisfying $m+2\leq \binom{d_0-m+2}{2}$.
Both inequalities are important in the proof.
\end{enumerate}
\end{remark}
Before proving this proposition, we require one numerical lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{650}
\begin{enumerate}
\item For $i\geq 2$, the functions $\frac{\delta_{\max}(i)}{i-1}$ and $\frac{\delta_{\min}(i)}{i-1}$ are non-increasing in $i$.
\item For $i\geq 8$, $\delta_{\max}(i)\geq \delta_{\min}(i)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $m$ is the largest integer such that $m^2+3m\leq 2i-2$, we have $(m+1)^2+3(m+1)> 2i-2$ as well.\\
\noindent (1): Both $\frac{\delta_{\max}(i)}{i-1}$ and $\frac{\delta_{\min}(i)}{i-1}$ are clearly non-increasing between $i$ and $i+1$ except possibly if $i=\binom{p+2}{2}-1$ and $i+1=\binom{p+2}{2}$ where $p$ is a positive integer; those are the places where $m$ increases. Those cases must be handled by a direct calculation. So set $i=\binom{p+2}{2}-1=\frac{p^2+3p}{2}$. We have
\[
\frac{\delta_{\max}(i)}{i-1}=\frac{p}{i-1}=\frac{2}{p+3},
\]
and
\[
\frac{\delta_{\max}(i+1)}{i}=\frac{2i-2}{(i-1)(p+4)}=\frac{2}{p+4}.
\]
Likewise,
\[
\frac{\delta_{\min}(i)}{i-1}=\frac{1}{p},
\]
and
\[
\frac{\delta_{\min}(i+1)}{i}=\frac{1}{p}.
\]
So both $\frac{\delta_{\max}(i)}{i-1}$ and $\frac{\delta_{\min}(i)}{i-1}$ are non-increasing between $i=\binom{p+2}{2}-1$ and $i=\binom{p+2}{2}$. \\
\noindent (2): For any $m\geq 1$, we have $\frac{m+3}{2} \leq m+1$ and $\frac{i-1}{m+1} \leq \frac{2i-2}{m+3}$. For $i\geq 10$, we have $m\geq 3$, implying
\[
\frac{2i-2}{m+3}\geq m \geq \frac{m+3}{2}.
\]
And for $i\geq 6$, we have $m\geq 2$, implying
\[
\frac{i-1}{m+1}\leq \frac{m+4}{2}\leq m+1.
\]
So for any $i\geq 10$ we have $\delta_{\max}(i)\geq \delta_{\min}(i)$. We have $\delta_{\min}(8)=\frac{5}{2}$, $\delta_{\max}(8)=\frac{14}{5}$, $\delta_{\min}(9)=\frac{8}{3}$, and $\delta_{\max}(9)=3$, so the lemma is true in those cases as well.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{628}]
We first show $(1,\delta_{\max}(i),0)\in \overline{\mathrm{Eff}}(\mathbb{P}^2_{stab})$.
Theorem \ref{stableCasesPrecise} establishes this containment for $i\leq 7 $, so we may assume $i\geq 8$. Set $m$ and $d_0$, as in the theorem statement, and let $d\geq d_0$ be an integer. Set $M=\binom{m+2}{2}$.
From the definition of $d_0$, we have that
\[
m+1 \leq \binom{d-m+2}{2}-1,
\]
so since $i-M\leq m+1$, we have
\[
i-M\leq \binom{d-m+2}{2}-1,
\]
Since $i\geq 3$, we have that $m\geq 1$ and $d\geq d_0\geq m+1$, and hence the spaces $X_{2,m}$ and $Y_{2,d-m-1}$ are defined. Fix a linear series $V\subset Y_{2,d-m}$ of dimension $i-M$, and let $Z$ be the image in $X_{2,d}$ of $X_{2,m}\times B$. Then, by the product formula, $Z$ is an effective cycle of numerical class
\[
[Z]=\left(\binom{i-2}{i-M}, m\binom{i-1}{i-M},0\right)
\]
This is a multiple of the cycle $(m+3,2i-2,0)$.
Likewise, given $D\in Y_{2,d-m-1}$, we have that the class of $Z'=\mu(X_{2,m+1}\times \{D\})$ in $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_{\binom{m+3}{2}}(X_{2,d})$ is $(1,m+1,0)$, so $[Z'] \xi^{\binom{m+3}{2}-i}$ is an effective cycle in $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_{2,d})$ of class $(1,m+3,0)$. Since both $(1,m+3,0)$ and $(m+3,2i-2,0)$ are in $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_{2,d})$, we have $(1,\delta_{\max}(i),0)\in \overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_{2,d})$.
We now prove that if $i\geq 8$, then (\ref{634}) holds, using induction on $i$.
First, note that if $i\geq \binom{d+2}{2}=\dim(X_{2,d})$, the containment holds trivially.
In particular, if $d\geq m$, the containment holds.
So in what follows we may assume $d\geq m$ and $i<\binom{d+2}{2}$.
Suppose (\ref{634}) has been established for all $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_j(X_{2,d})$ with $8\leq j < i$. We establish (\ref{634}) for $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_{2,d})$.
Since $\xi^{i}$ and $H^2\xi^{i-2}$ are nef cycles on all $X_{2,d}$, this requires showing that both of the two cycles $2H\xi^ {i-1}-(m+3)H^2\xi^{i-2}$ and $(m+1) H\xi^{i-1}-(i-1)H^2\xi^{i-2}$ are nef. By Lemma \ref{almostNef}, the cycle $(m+1) H\xi^{i-1}-(i-1)H^2\xi^{i-2}$ is nef as long as
\[
i<\binom{m+3}{2},
\]
which holds by the observation that $m$ is the greatest integer such that $i\geq \binom{m+2}{2}$. Likewise, the cycle $2H\xi^ {i-1}-(m+3)H^2\xi^{i-2}$ is a multiple of $mH\xi^{i-1}-(M-1)\xi^{i-2}$. We have $i\geq M$, so this cycle is $\xi^{i-M}\eta_{m,M}$ in the notation of Lemma \ref{almostNef}. We claim this cycle is nef if $i\geq 8$. By Lemma \ref{almostNef}, $\xi^{i-M}\eta_{m,M}$ is nef on effective cycles not supported on $\mu(X_{2,m}\times Y_{2,d-m})$, so we show $\xi^{i-M}\eta_{m,M}$ is nef on cycles supported on that locus as well.
If $i>M$ and $M\geq j\geq 8$, by the inductive hypothesis we have
\[
\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_j(X_{2,m})\subseteq \langle(1,\delta_{\min}(j),0), (0,1,0),(0,0,1)\rangle,
\]
so by the product formula, we have
\[
\mu_*(\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_j (X_{2,m})\times \overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_{i-j}(X_{2,d-m}))\subseteq \langle (1,\frac{i-1}{j-1}\delta_{\min}(j),0),(0,1,0),(0,0,1)\rangle.
\]
And if $2\leq j\leq 7$, by Theorem \ref{stableCasesPrecise} we have
\[
\mu_*(\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_j (X_{2,m})\times \overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_{i-j}(X_{2,d-m}))\subseteq \langle (1,\frac{i-1}{j-1}\delta_{\max}(j),0),(0,1,0),(0,0,1)\rangle.
\]
Combining and using Lemma \ref{650}, we hence have
\[
\mu_*(\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i (X_{2,m}\times X_{2,d-m}))\subseteq \langle (1,\delta_{\min}(i),0),(0,1,0),(0,0,1)\rangle.
\]
So $\xi^{i-M}\eta_{c,M}$ is nef on cycles supported on $\mu(X_{2,m}\times Y_{2,d-m})$, and therefore is nef in general.
If $i=M$, we note that $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_M(X_{2,m})$ is spanned by the fundamental cycle, that is,
\[
\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_M(X_{2,m})=\langle (1,m,0)\rangle.
\]
$\eta_{m,M}$ intersects this cycle non-negatively, and hence is nef on all cycles supported on $\mu(X_{2,m}\times Y_{2,d-m})$.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
For any $i$, the stable cones $\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(\mathbb{P}^2_{stab})$ satisfy the bounds
\[
\langle (1, \delta_{\max}(i),0),(0,1,0),(0,0,1)\rangle \subseteq \overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(\mathbb{P}^2_{stab})\subseteq \langle (1,\delta_{\min}(i),0),(0,1,0),(0,0,1)\rangle.
\]
\end{corollary}
\subsection{Pushforwards of effective cones}\label{formulary}
In this section we write down formulas for the pushforward of some effective cones of cycles on the universal hypersurfaces $X_{n,d}$ under product maps $\mu$.
Every formula in this section is an application of the product formula, Proposition \ref{productFormula}.
We first handle products involving the universal hyperplane, $X_{n,1}$. By Proposition \ref{hyperplaneCone} we have
\begin{equation}\label{564}
\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_{n,1})=\twopartdef{\langle e_n+e_{n-1},e_{n-1}+e_{n-2},\ldots,e_{i+1-n}+e_{i-n}\rangle}{i\geq n}{\langle e_0,e_1,\ldots, e_i\rangle}{i\leq n-1}
\end{equation}
Applying the product formula to (\ref{564}) gives the following.
\begin{proposition}\label{1products}
Set $M = \dim(Y_{n,d}) = \binom{n+d}{d}-1$.
If $0\leq i\leq n-1$, then
\[
\mu_*(\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_{n,1}\times Y_{n,d}))= \langle e_0,\ldots,e_i\rangle.
\]
If $n\leq i\leq 2n-1$, then
\[
\mu_*(\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_{n,1}\times Y_{n,d}))=\langle e_0,\ldots,e_{n-1}, e_n+e_{n-1}\rangle.
\]
If $2n-1\leq i\leq M+n-1$, then
\[
\mu_*(\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_{n,1}\times Y_{n,d}))=\langle e_0,\ldots,e_{n-1} ne_n+(i-n+1)e_{n-1}\rangle.
\]
If $M+n \leq i\leq M+2n-1$, then
\begin{align*}
\mu_*(\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_{n,1}\times Y_{n,d})) =&\sum_{ i-M-n+1\leq j \leq n} \langle (i-j-M+1)e_j+(i-j+1)e_{j-1}\rangle \\
+&\sum_{ i-M-n+1\leq j \leq n} \langle n e_j +(i-j+1) e_{j-1}\rangle.
\end{align*}
\end{proposition}
The other cone of this sort we can determine is the pushforward of the effective cones of $X_{2,2}\times Y_{2,d}$.
Applying the product formula to Corollary \ref{conicCorollary} gives the following.
\begin{proposition}\label{2Products}
Set $M=\dim(Y_{2,d})=\binom{d+2}{2}-1$. If $6\leq i\leq M+3$, then
\[
\mu_*(\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_i(X_{2,2}\times Y_{2,d}))=\langle (5,2(i-1),0), (0,1,0), (0,0,1)\rangle.
\]
Outside of this range, we have
\begin{align*}
\mu_*(\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_1(X_{2,2}\times Y_{2,d}))&=\langle(0,1,0), (0,0,1)\rangle\\
\mu_*(\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_2(X_{2,2}\times Y_{2,d}))&=\langle(1,1,0), (0,1,0), (0,0,1)\rangle\\
\mu_*(\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_3(X_{2,2}\times Y_{2,d}))&=\langle(1,1,0), (0,1,0), (0,0,1)\rangle\\
\mu_*(\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_4(X_{2,2}\times Y_{2,d}))&=\langle(2,3,0), (0,1,0), (0,0,1)\rangle\\
\mu_*(\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_5(X_{2,2}\times Y_{2,d}))&=\langle(1,2,0), (0,1,0), (0,0,1)\rangle\\
\mu_*(\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_{M+4}(X_{2,2}\times Y_{2,d}))&=\langle(5,2M+6,0), (1,M+3,0), (0,4, M+4), (0,0,1)\rangle\\
\mu_*(\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_{M+5}(X_{2,2}\times Y_{2,d})&=\langle(4,2M+8,0), (5,2M+8,0),(0, 5, 2M+10)\rangle\\
\mu_*(\overline{\mathrm{Eff}}_{M+6}(X_{2,2}\times Y_{2,d}))&=\langle(5,2M+10,0)\rangle.
\end{align*}
\end{proposition}
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{introduction.sec}
One of the more enduring challenges in solar and heliospheric science is to determine what physical processes are responsible for the disparate properties of various solar wind streams.
Compared to the fast solar wind (FSW), the slow solar wind (SSW) exhibits lower typical wind speeds with increased variability \citep{McComas:2000.105}.
Various authors have explored the effects of different types of heating profiles and magnetic geometries in field-aligned (1D) models \citep[e.g.,][and others]{Cranmer:2007, Grappin:2011}, which can produce a wide range of predicted wind speeds but do not predict rapid fluctuations within a single wind stream.
Additionally, the material composition of the SSW shows similarities to the plasma found in active regions, with ionization ratios and elemental abundances that are inconsistent with the coronal-hole regions from which the FSW emanates \citep{Zhao:2017, Laming:2019}.
This suggests that changes in magnetic topology, which are difficult to capture in field-aligned models, may be critical to the properties of the SSW.
The solar corona is partitioned into various spatial domains that reflect the connectivity of the magnetic field.
In regions where the magnetic field maps from the photosphere into the heliosphere and beyond, the associated volume is said to be ``open''.
Conversely, where the field maps between positive and negative polarity domains on the photosphere, the associated volume is said to be ``closed''.
The interfaces between these domains collectively form the open-closed boundary, which is strongly correlated with coronal-hole boundaries in X-ray and EUV images \citep[e.g.,][]{Nikolic:2019}.
According to Alfv\'en's theorem, an ideal plasma (zero electrical resistivity) is coupled to the magnetic field in such a way that individual fluid elements are always connected to the same field line.
Therefore, when the connectivity of the magnetic field is static in time the plasma within the various closed magnetic domains remains confined while the plasma within open domains can stream freely into the heliosphere.
For plasma that originates from within a closed domain to escape across the open-closed boundary into an adjacent coronal hole depends on the process of interchange reconnection \citep{Crooker:2002}, whereby field lines from either side of the open-closed boundary undergo a change in connectivity so that a new flux tube is formed that extends from a footpoint within a previously closed region on the solar surface out into the open coronal hole region and into the heliosphere and beyond.
This process has been studied extensively in 3D magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) simulations of coronal streamers and pseudostreamers \citep[e.g.,][]{Masson:2014j, Higginson:2017a, Aslanyan:2021a, Scott:2021a}; however, these and similar studies have invoked simplistic fluid approximations for computational efficiency.
Therefore, while the magnetic evolution is reasonably well understood, many questions remain concerning the associated plasma dynamics.
\rev{Additionally, while the ionization ratios of trace elements have been studied in detail for steady-state wind streams \citep[see, e.g., ][ and others]{Landi:2012j, Gilly:2020o} little is known about how these evolve during interchange reconnection.
These ratios are often taken as diagnostics of the temperature history from the solar surface up to a given height \citep[the so-called ``freeze-in height'', ][]{Owocki:1983} beyond which the ionization ratios undergo no additional evolution; however, if plasma is released from closed magnetic domains at heights that are comparable to the freeze-in height this could have significant implications for in-situ diagnostics of the solar wind.}
The primary difficulty in constructing an accurate model of interchange reconnection in the context of the solar wind stems from the many decades of spatial and temporal scales that must be simultaneously resolved.
At the largest scale the global magnetic field and location of the acoustic and Alfv\'enic critical points require a numerical domain that covers several tens of $\rm Mm^2$ on the solar surface (i.e., the size of an active region) and extends outward to a height of $20 R_\odot$ or more, meaning that the time required for fluid features to transit the numerical domain is typically on the order of tens of hours for the fastest propagating signals (e.g., electron thermal speed and fast magneto-acoustic mode) and significantly longer for slower modes (e.g., slow magneto-acoustic mode and bulk flow).
At the opposite extreme, the temperature gradients at the base of the transition region -- which are required to accurately capture the subtle balance of coronal heating, thermal conduction, and radiative losses that dictate the mass flux into the corona -- require a minimum resolution on the order of a few tens of $\rm km$, resulting in a numerical timestep that is typically on the order of $10^{-2} \rm s$.
As a result, constructing a 3D numerical model of interchange reconnection in the presence of a self-consistent solar wind has proven to be computationally prohibitive, and none are currently in common use.
Here we present a hybrid model that partially mitigates the computational demands of a full 3D simulation by computing the field-aligned (1D) plasma dynamics -- including detailed physical processes that structure the transition region -- with an empirical mechanism for emulating the effects of magnetic reconnection.
Beginning with steady-state solutions for the open- and closed-field regions, we construct an initial condition for the plasma along a newly-opened flux tube such that the fluid properties are discontinuous across the reconnection site, being composed of a transonic wind stream above a hotter and more dense hydrostatic column.
This technique builds on previous work by \cite{Bradshaw:2011d}, but has been extended to include critical physics for the appropriate treatment of an out-flowing wind solution, including modification of the distant outer boundary and variability of the flux-tube cross-sectional area.
By following the hydrodynamic evolution of this newly-formed, post-reconnection plasma column, we are able explore how magnetic reconnection directly affects the plasma evolution when material from disparate source regions are brought into close proximity as the magnetic connectivity changes.
In the following section we describe our simulation design and numerical model.
Then in section \ref{results.sec} we describe the evolution of the post-reconnection plasma and associated time-dependent ionization of \rev{oxygen}, which we calculate for comparison to in situ studies by \cite{Zhao:2017}.
In section \ref{discussion.sec} we discuss these findings and their implications for in situ measurements as well as the appropriate interpretation of this model in the context of a volume filling, 3D magnetic field.
Finally, we offer concluding remarks in section \ref{conclusions.sec}.
\section{Simulation Design}\label{design.sec}
\subsection{Fluid Model} \label{sec.fluid}
We model the plasma as a fully-ionized two-temperature fluid with mass density $\rho$, velocity $u$, and individual ion and electron pressures $p_{i}$ and $p_{e}$, and we solve the field-aligned hydrodynamic equations in time ($t$) and distance along the field line ($s$).
The magnetic field geometry is taken to be static in time so that the cross-field dynamics can be ignored.
In the limit that the electron mass is negligible compared to the average ion mass ($m_i \gg m_e$), and assuming quasi-neutrality ($n_e = n_i = n$), the continuity and momentum equations are
\begin{equation}
\partial_t \rho + \frac{1}{A}\partial_s \left( \rho u A \right) = 0\\
\label{continuity.eq}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\partial_t \left(\rho u \right) + \frac{1}{A}\partial_s \left(\rho u^2 A \right) = \rho g - \partial_s P + \frac{1}{A}\partial_s \left(\sigma A \right),
\label{momentum.eq}
\end{equation}
where $g$ and $A$ are the gravitational acceleration and cross-sectional area parameterized along $s$, $P = p_{i} + p_{e}$ is the total pressure, and $\sigma$ is the viscous stress.
The conservative form of the energy equations for the ions and electrons are likewise given by
\begin{linenomath}\begin{align}
\partial_t E_{i} & = - \frac{1}{A}
\partial_s \Big ( (E_{i} + p_{i}) u A + \sigma u A - A F_{i} \Big ) \notag \\
& + \rho u g - u \partial_s p_{e} + \frac{k_B n}{\gamma - 1} \nu^{ei} \left (T_{e} - T_{i} \right ) + h_{i}
\label{ion_energy.eq}
\end{align}\end{linenomath}
and
\begin{linenomath}\begin{align}
\partial_t E_e & = - \frac{1}{A}
\partial_s \Big ( (E_e + p_e) u A - A F_e \Big ) \notag \\
& + u \partial_s p_e + \frac{k_B n}{\gamma - 1} \nu^{ei} \left (T_i - T_e \right ) - R + h_e,
\label{electron_energy.eq}
\end{align}\end{linenomath}
where the energies are defined as $E_i = \frac{1}{2} \rho u^2 + \frac{1}{\gamma - 1} p_i$ for the ions and $E_e = \frac{1}{\gamma -1} p_e$ for the electrons; $T_i$ and $T_e$ are the ion and electron temperatures; $F_i$ and $F_e$ are the associated conductive heat fluxes; and $h_{i,e}$ and $R$ are the imposed coronal heating and empirical radiative losses, respectively.
We model the radiative losses with a piecewise polynomial fit as described in \citet{Bradshaw:2011d} and we prescribe these to fall off to zero below a minimum temperature of $2\times10^4 {\rm K}$, emulating the effect of an optically thick chromosphere.
The system is closed through the ideal gas law, $p_{i,e} = k_B n T_{i,e}$, and by the definition of the conductive fluxes and ion viscous stress through the Spitzer-Harm formulation; $F_{i,e} = - \kappa_{i,e} T_{i,e}^{5/2} \partial_s T_{i,e}$ and $\sigma = (4/3) \mu_{i} \partial_s u$.
\rev{The dynamic viscosity is given by $\mu_{i} = \mu_{i}^{(0)} T^{5/2} / \ln \Lambda^{ii}_c$ and ion-electron collision frequency is defined to be $\nu^{ei} = {4.82}\, n\, \ln \Lambda^{ie}_c\, m_e / m_i$.
The Coulomb logarithms for ion-ion and ion-electron collisions ($\ln \Lambda_c^{ii}$ and $\ln \Lambda_c^{ie}$) are defined as in the NRL Formulary \citep{NRL_Formulary} and discussed by \cite{Fitzpatrick:2015}.}
Specific values for the physical constants are listed in Table \ref{phy-vals.tab}.
These are broadly in line with accepted solar values, with the exception of the the coefficient of dynamic viscosity, which is further modified by a multiplicative factor of $1/(1 + {\alpha}^2)$, where $\alpha = 10^2 \times \lambda^{\rm mfp}_i\, \partial_s \ln A$.
This multiplicative factor guarantees that the dynamic viscosity becomes small as the ion mean-free-path ($\lambda^{\rm mfp}_i = 8.4\times10^3\, T_i^2/n$) approaches or exceeds the geometric length scale, emulating the transition to a collisionless regime as discussed by \cite{Endeve:2001m} \citep[see also the discussion in ][]{Longcope:2010a}.
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{r|r}
$\gamma$ \hfill \,
& $5/3$\\
$m_{i,e} \hfill [g]$
& $2.171\times10^{-24},\, 9.11\times10^{-28}$\\
$k_B \hfill [\rm erg\, K^{-1}]$ & $1.38\times10^{-16}$\\
$\mu_i^{(0)} \hfill \left[\rm g\, cm^{-1}\, s^{-1}\right]$
& $2.522\times10^{-15}$\\
$\kappa_{i,e} \hfill \left[{\rm erg}\, {\rm cm}^{-1}\, \rm s^{-1}\, {\rm K}^{-7/2}\right]$
& $3.2\times10^{-8},\,7.8\times10^{-7}$ \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Values of all physical constants used in fluid model, \rev{expressed in cgs units.}}
\label{phy-vals.tab}
\end{table}
In addition to the above fluid equations we also calculate the time-dependent ionization of oxygen as a trace element subject to the evolving fluid.
This evolution is decoupled from the energy balance, and does not affect the radiative loss function, which would require tracking additional elements such as He, Fe, S, C, etc., in order to be calculated self-consistently.
The ion charge-state distribution of oxygen, with atomic number $Z=8$, evolves according to
\begin{equation} \label{ionization.eq}
D_t Y_j = n_e \left[ {I_{j-1} Y_{j-1} - (I_j + R_j) Y_j + R_{j+1} Y_{j+1}} \right],
\end{equation}
where $D_t \equiv (\partial_t + u\, \partial_s)$ is the material derivative along the flow and $Y_j$ are the individual ionization fractions (i.e., the fraction of a given species \rev{with atomic number} $Z$ having a specific ionization level $j$). $I_j$ and $R_j$ are the temperature-dependent ionization and recombination rates from state $j$, which are calculated as in \cite{Bradshaw:2003a} with updated values from version 8 of the CHIANTI atomic database \citep{Dere:1997, DelZanna:2015}.
Prohibiting ionization and recombination beyond the range of allowed states, the sum of Eq. \eqref{ionization.eq} over all ionization levels vanishes by construction and the system is both normalized and regularized so that
\begin{equation}
0 \le Y_j \le 1 \qquad \text{and} \qquad \sum_{j=0}^{Z} Y_j = 1.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Steady-state Conditions}
We use the HYDRAD code \citep{Bradshaw:2013} to solve equations \eqref{continuity.eq}--\eqref{ionization.eq} on a numerical grid of 512 cells that are exponentially spaced in heliocentric radius, spanning a range of $0 \le s \le 30 R_\odot$ above the solar surface, where $R_\odot = 700\, \rm Mm$ is the radius of the sun.
Beyond this base grid we allow up to 16 levels of adaptive refinement through pairwise splitting and merging of cells.
The grid spacing $\Delta s$ is checked against the length scale of the primitive variables ($\lambda_{HD}$) after every tenth timestep in order to maintain the resolution requirement $0.05 \leq \Delta s / \lambda_{HD} \leq 0.1$.
During adaptive refinement the mass, momentum, and energy densities are explicitly conserved to numerical accuracy.
At the limit of refinement the minimum allowable grid spacing is $\Delta s_{\rm min} \approx 10^4{\rm cm}$ at the base of the numerical domain;
however, this extreme resolution is never required in practice, indicating that the transition region is fully resolved at all times.
In order to determine steady-state conditions for the open- and closed-field regions the calculation is first initialized with temperature and density profiles that are generated from a separate routine assuming zero velocity and uniform heating.
The magnetic geometry is spherically symmetric with
\begin{equation}
A(s) = (1+s/R_\odot)^2
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
g(s) = g_\odot \times (1+s/R_\odot)^{-2},
\end{equation}
where $g_\odot = -2.74\times10^4{\rm \,cm}{\,\rm s}^{-2}$ is the gravitational acceleration at the solar surface.
The cross-sectional area is dimensionless and normalized to unity at the solar surface.
The density and temperature are set to $T_0 = 2\times10^4{\rm \,K}$ and $n_0=10^{10}{\,\rm cm}^{-3}$ at a height of $10^{9}{\rm cm}$ above the solar surface, which sets the location of the base of the transition region within the domain.
Above this height the temperatures of the ions and electrons rise abruptly through the transition region to coronal values, while below this level the temperature is effectively uniform and the density increases exponentially toward the interior of the solar surface.
At the beginning of the simulation the initially-uniform heating is replaced with a superposition of three exponentials of the form $h_i(s) = h_0 \exp(-s/s_l)$, after which the system is advanced in time and allowed to relax toward a new steady-state solution.
\rev{Exponential heating functions have been used extensively in solar wind models \citep[see, e.g., ][]{Pinto:2009a} and are employed here for simplicity; although in the future we intend to incorporate more realistic mechanisms \cite[such as those discussed by][]{Cranmer:2007}.}
Specific values for the three ion heating rates and scale heights are given in Table \ref{heating.tab}.
The electrons are not heated directly ($h_e = 0$), but instead rely on collisional coupling in the lower corona and thermal conduction in the extended corona to maintain their temperature.
This particular heating model serves to give realistic values for the electron temperature in the lower-mid corona and for the mass flux (per unit solid angle) into the heliosphere.
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l c c}
Deposition Region & $h_0 [{\rm erg}{\,\rm cm}^{-3}{\,\rm s}^{-1}]$ & $s_l [{\rm cm}]$ \\ \hline
Transition Region & $2.9\times10^{-5}$ & $7.0\times10^9$ \\
Lower Corona & $8.7\times10^{-7}$ & $2.1\times10^{10}$ \\
Extended Corona & $5.0\times10^{-9}$ & $7.0\times10^{10}$
\end{tabular}
\caption{Heating parameters for ion energy deposition. These are used for both the hydrostatic and transonic steady-state conditions and the dynamic reconnection runs. Electron heating is set to $h_e = 0$ in all cases.}
\label{heating.tab}
\end{table}
The initial relaxation is performed subject to two sets of boundary conditions at the radial outer limit of $s_{\rm max} = 30 R_\odot$.
In the case of set 1: the mass, momentum, and energy densities are linearly extrapolated across the boundary, and the pressure is systematically reduced in the ghost cells outside of the domain in order to encourage the development of a supersonic outflow.
Once this outflow has been achieved the pressure reduction is removed and the temperature gradient is adjusted to prevent the formation of inward heat fluxes across the boundary.
Following the transition of the outflow to a supersonic condition, a sonic point forms within the domain and migrates progressively inward until it stabilizes in the lower-middle corona \rev{at a height of roughly $7\, R_\odot$.
The ultimate location of the sonic point is somewhat higher than might be expected owing to the fact that in our model the wind is accelerated entirely by the thermal pressure gradient, which results in somewhat slower wind speeds than if momentum is injected directly \citep{Holzer:1982}.}
Because the typical flow speed is of the same order as the sound speed in this configuration, the system achieves a quasi-steady transonic wind solution on the timescale of the acoustic travel time across the domain, which is of order $10^4{\rm s}$.
This quasi-steady transonic solution is depicted by the teal curves in Figure \ref{fig.initial_hyd}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./fig1a.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./fig1b.pdf}
\caption{Transonic (teal) and hydrostatic (black) relaxed states calculated using HYDRAD with open and closed boundary conditions at $s=30R_\odot$. In the upper panel the flow speed is indicated by the solid curves while the particle number density is shown in the dash-dotted curves. In the lower panel the total pressure (sum of ion and electron pressures) is shown by the solid curves while the individual ion and electron temperatures are shown by the dashed and dash-dotted curves. The base of the transition region is clearly visible at a height of $\lesssim 10 \rm \, Mm$, above which the temperatures rise from $T_0 = 2 \times 10^4 K$ to coronal values on the order of $10^6 \rm \, K$.}
\label{fig.initial_hyd}
\end{figure}
In the case of set 2: the mass, momentum, energy, and heat fluxes are all fixed to zero through the outer boundary, forcing the system to be closed.
This causes the solution to settle toward a hydrostatic state in asymptotic time; because the slowest mode of the system is governed by the transport of mass, the relaxation time scales as the size of the domain divided by the fluid speed, which diverges as the fluid velocity approaches zero.
The quasi-steady hydrostatic solution is depicted by the black curves in Figure \ref{fig.initial_hyd}.
While the system never fully achieves a hydrostatic state, we consider it to be sufficiently relaxed when the maximum value of the coronal mass flux has fallen below $1\%$ of the value of the transonic wind solution at the same location.
This requirement is significantly more strict than the usual hydrostatic scaling of $\rho u^2 \ll P$ (i.e., small Mach number), and is enforced specifically to ensure that the velocities of the hydrostatic and transonic solutions are well separated in the lower corona where even the transonic solution is significantly subsonic.
The equilibration time of the hydrostatic solution is extremely long (approximately $10^8{\,\rm s}$) owing to our strict relaxation criteria and the length of the numerical domain, which is larger than any closed-field/hydrostatic configuration that might be found in the solar environment.
The reason for constructing such a solution is to ensure compatibility between the numerical domains of the open- and closed-field configurations, and since it is only the lower portion of the plasma column that is needed from the closed-field initial condition, the unphysical radial extent of this solution is not a significant concern.
Were the hydrostatic initial condition to be extracted from a curved field line with its apex in the lower or middle corona, the average volumetric heating rate along the entire field line would be increased, with the energy being distributed within a smaller volume, and the solution would likely be hotter and more dense, thereby exaggerating the differences already present in these two calculations.
For both of the solution profiles depicted in Figure \ref{fig.initial_hyd} the location of the base of the transition region (where $T_e$ and $T_i$ begin to rise abruptly from their minimum values of $2\times10^4 \,\rm K$) has fallen by a few hundred $\rm km$ from its initial location of $10\rm Mm$, with the final location being slightly lower for the hydrostatic solution than for the transonic solution.
This settling is expected as the structure and location of the transition region are determined by the evolving mass and energy fluxes through the model chromosphere and lower corona, which change in time as the system relaxes toward an equilibrium state.
Beyond this, the structure of the transition region and lower corona is very similar in both cases, with temperatures and densities that closely agree up to a height of $\sim 20 \,\rm Mm$ above the transition region.
Both solutions also exhibit oscillatory behavior in the velocity profiles up to a height of $\sim 100 \, \rm Mm$, above which height the transonic solution then begins to accelerate quickly into the middle-corona.
\subsection{Dynamic Equilibria of Oxygen Ionization Levels}
During the initial relaxation the ionization levels are not computed as these add substantial overhead to the calculation.
Following the equilibration of the fluid profiles, we then initialize the ionization levels from a set of previously calculated equilibrium ionization solutions, which are parameterized in electron temperature and interpolated onto the numerical domain using the local plasma temperature.
The two simulations are then advanced in time until the time-dependent ionization again converges to a steady state in each case.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./fig2.pdf}
\caption{Ionization fractions $\rm O^{6+}$ and $\rm O^{7+}$ for hydrostatic and transonic solutions assuming either a thermal equilibrium (T.E.) or dynamic equilibrium (D.E.). For the hydrostatic case the two solutions are nearly identical, while the dynamic equilibrium for the transonic case is a clear departure from the thermal equilibrium solution, especially near and above the freeze-in height ($s \geq h_f \sim 0.5 R_\odot$).}
\label{fig.initial_nei}
\end{figure}
We refer to the relaxed ionization profiles as ``dynamic equilibria'', to distinguish them from the assumed ``thermal equilibrium'' solutions that explicitly ignore advective transport.
For the hydrostatic case the two solutions are nearly identical since there is no significant flow so the solution is characterized by an instantaneous balance of all ionization and recombination rates with
\begin{equation}
\lim_{u \to 0} \left[ {I_{j-1} Y_{j-1} - (I_j + R_j) Y_j + R_{j+1} Y_{j+1}} \right] \to 0.
\end{equation}
For the transonic solution, however, the dynamic equilibrium is set by a competition between the instantaneous temperature of the fluid and the advective transport, which informs the temperature history of the fluid and, hence, the rate equations.
The dynamic equilibrium ionization is characterized by
\begin{equation}
\partial_s Y_j = \left[ {I_{j-1} Y_{j-1} - (I_j + R_j) Y_j + R_{j+1} Y_{j+1}} \right] / u,
\end{equation}
which exhibits spatially uniform ionization levels above the so-called ``freeze-in'' height ($h_f$), where the ionization and recombination timescale ($\tau_j$) becomes long compared to the travel time across the temperature scale height so that
\begin{equation}
\partial_s Y_j \sim Y_j / (\tau_j u) \rightarrow 0.
\end{equation}
In principle this freeze-in effect occurs separately for each ionization level; however, in practice the zero-sum nature of the rate equations and the limited number of ionization states with non-zero populations in the corona causes the effect to occur coherently across these states.
In the following sections we will refer to the ionization fractions $Y_j$ by their respective ionization states $\rm O^{j+}$, with the understanding that these correspond to the underlying spatial-temporal populations.
The final, quasi-steady states of both the open- and closed-field solutions are shown in Figure \ref{fig.initial_nei}, with both the initial (assumed) thermal equilibrium and relaxed dynamic equilibrium ionization levels shown for comparison.
\subsection{Reconnection Model}
While magnetic reconnection in three dimensions (3D) can occur throughout a distributed non-ideal region \citep{Priest:2003ja}, the behavior that we have in mind for this study is the more discrete null-point reconnection \citep{Pontin:2013}, in which the magnetic diffusivity is assumed to be negligible everywhere except within a very small volume surrounding an isolated coronal null point.
A schematic of this process is shown in Figure \ref{fig.rxn}, which depicts a 2D flux system with four magnetic domains that overlie a region of negative polarity flux within a larger region of positive polarity flux.
This geometry is representative of a slice through a coronal pseusostreamer, as might be found above an isolated magnetic bipole within a larger unipolar region on the solar surface.
Two of the magnetic domains (I and II) are open to the heliosphere while the other two (III and IV) are closed, mapping from positive to negative polarity regions on the solar surface.
The black field lines that partition these domains represent separatrices (or separatrix surfaces in 3D), which emanate from the magnetic null point (yellow dot).
During interchange reconnection field lines from domains I and IV are swept into the null point where they reconnect and subsequently retract into domains II and III.
As magnetic flux is processed through the reconnection site the plasma is similarly swept across the domain boundaries so that immediately after reconnection the plasma properties along each segment of the reconnected field lines are inherited from their respective source regions.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig3.pdf}
\caption{Schematic of interchange reconnection through an isolated coronal null point (yellow) above a region of parasitic polarity on the solar surface. Separator lines (black) emanate from the null point and partition the surrounding volume into four magnetic flux domains, two that are open and two that are closed. Field lines enter the reconnection site from the inflow domains (I and IV) and recede into the outflow domains (II and III). Newly reconnected field lines (dashed) are comprised of segments of pre-reconnection field lines (solid) that originated from within adjacent domains, as indicated by their coloring (red/blue).}
\label{fig.rxn}
\end{figure}
We construct the post-reconnection initial condition along a representative field line from segments of steady-state conditions for both open- and closed-field configurations, which we concatenate to form a piecewise steady state with a discontinuity at the reconnection site.
This construction assumes that plasma in the inflow domains remains in a steady state, even as field lines are swept toward the reconnection site, so the tacit assumption is that the reconnection rate is sufficiently small for motion of the field lines themselves to have no effect on the field-aligned dynamics.
Clearly this assumption ignores certain important aspects of null-point reconnection, including the expansion of the flux-tube cross section in the vicinity of the null-point;
however, by suppressing these effects we are able to study the fluid-driven evolution more closely and with fewer confounding influences.
From the post-reconnection initial condition we again use the HYDRAD code to evolve the system in time.
To ensure a monotonic transition between the two fluid states on either side of the reconnection site, the constructed post-reconnection state is initially refined using linear interpolation and suppressing explicit conservation of the mass, momentum, and energy densities.
Following this initial refinement, the subsequent integration is performed exactly as described in Section \ref{sec.fluid}.
We perform six calculations in total, using the same heating profiles as in the steady state calculations, with the reconnection site placed at $H_r \in \left \{R_\odot/8, R_\odot/4, R_\odot/2, R_\odot, 2 R_\odot, 4 R_\odot \right \}$.
Time-dependent ionization of oxygen is tracked in addition to the hydrodynamic evolution and state-files are output every $100 \, \rm s$ of model time.
The total simulation model time is $4 \times 10^5 \, \rm s$ (about 100 hours) from the instant of reconnection in each case, sufficient for the fluid to settle to a quasi-steady state that is indistinguishable from the transonic initial condition.
\section{Results}\label{results.sec}
\subsection{Initial Riemann Decomposition}
Because the numerical domains and magnetic geometries ($s$, $g$, and $A$) are identical between both the open- and closed-field steady-states, the post-reconnection initial condition begins in equilibrium everywhere except at the reconnection site.
There, the initial discontinuity subsequently evolves as a Riemann problem, decomposing into a shock and a rarefaction wave (as well as ion and electron thermal fronts), as needed for the jump conditions across each feature to collectively describe the total change in each of the fluid variables across the discontinuity.
In particular, since the wind solution above the reconnection site exhibits a flow that is directed away from the hydrostatic condition below the reconnection site, the collective response is that of a rarefaction; however, because the wind is of lower density than the hydrostatic solution, any outward propagating feature must be compressive.
The Riemann solution is, therefore, composed of a leading shock, which propagates outward at supersonic speed in the rest frame of the expanding wind, combined with a rarefaction wave whose leading edge propagates inward at the sound speed in the rest frame of the hydrostatic column below the reconnection site.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./fig4a.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./fig4b.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./fig4c.pdf}
\caption{Velocity, linear number density, and sound speed of the evolving Riemann solution for a reconnection event at $H_r = 2 R_\odot$. The shock and rarefaction propagate away from the initial discontinuity, and are visible in the velocity and density profiles. The sound speed reflects the mean temperature of the two species, and exhibits dynamics resulting from both the hydrodynamic evolution as well as electron thermal conduction.}
\label{fig.riemann}
\end{figure}
This initial evolution is depicted in Figure \ref{fig.riemann}, for a reconnection event located at $H_r = 2 R_\odot$.
The outward propagating shock and inward rarefaction are clearly visible in the velocity, which increases with height across the rarefaction and then decreases again across the shock, while the linear number density ($n A$) decreases with height across the rarefaction and then decreases again across the shock.
Note that in the rest frame of the shock the fluid appears to be moving inward, so the low-speed/high-density post-shock region lies between the shock and the rarefaction, and this region grows in time as the two features propagate away from each other.
As the rarefaction propagates inward it grows in time but continues to connect the quasi-static region below to the post-shock region above, so that while the leading edge propagates downward at the acoustic speed, the trailing edge remains nearly fixed at approximately the location of the initial discontinuity, which behaves as a stationary point for both the velocity and number density during this initial evolution.
The temperatures of the two species behave similarly to the number density during the initial Riemann evolution, but with additional dynamics resulting from viscous heating, thermal conduction, and compressive (adiabatic) heating and cooling.
Because the thermal conductivity of the ions is relatively weak, their temperature evolves primarily in response to compressive and advective transport, so it tracks closely with the number density profile over time.
However, the highly efficient electron thermal conductivity quickly dissipates the initial structure within the electron temperature profile creating broad heating and cooling fronts that extend far ahead of the shock and rarefaction, cooling the hydrostatic column below the reconnection site and heating the expanding wind.
These temperature variations are visible in the adiabatic sound speed $c_s^2 = \gamma (p_e + p_i) / \rho $ (which reflects the average temperature of the two species), as depicted in the lower panel of Figure \ref{fig.riemann}.
\subsection{Rarefaction Reversal}
As the rarefaction propagates inward, the temperature below it is preconditioned by the reduction of the downward heat flux in the hydrostatic region below the reconnection site.
This causes a weak downflow to develop in the region between the transition region and the rarefaction, which is quickly subsumed by the accelerating outflow across the leading edge of the rarefaction.
This is visible in Figure \ref{fig.reversal} between $t=30\,\rm m$ and $t=60\,\rm m$.
Meanwhile, an outward mass-flux begins to develop through the transition region as the reduced temperature leads to a reduction in radiative cooling, which therefore requires an outward enthalpy flux $(E + P) u$ in order to balance the local heating rate.
Eventually the leading edge of the rarefaction stalls against the up-welling of mass through the transition region as it seeks a new equilibrium that is consistent with the electron temperature profile, which settles rapidly toward a wind-like solution.
As the leading edge of the rarefaction stalls, the interior continues to expand over time, and the upper extent of the rarefaction accelerates outward, eventually becoming identifiable as the leading edge of a newly formed (reflected) outward-propagating rarefaction.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./fig5a.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./fig5b.pdf}
\caption{Velocity and linear number density during reversal of the rarefaction. Initially, the linear number density decreases with height through the rarefaction, consistent with inward-propagation; however, after reversal of the rarefaction the leading edge propagates outward and overtakes the leading shock, and the linear number density within the rarefaction increases with height.}
\label{fig.reversal}
\end{figure}
The reversal of the rarefaction coincides with a reversal in the linear number-density profile, which subsequently increases with height (see discussion in the Appendix), and cannot (in the absence of a second shock) match the density jump required to connect the post-shock outflow to the steadily decreasing density at the top of the transition region, which continues to fall as it seeks a wind-like solution.
This effect, combined with the steadily increasing outward mass flux through the transition region, leads to the development of another (weak) trailing shock, which develops behind the now-outward-propagating rarefaction.
Meanwhile, the leading edge of the rarefaction propagates outward at the sound speed in the post-shock medium, which is itself subsonic in the rest frame of the leading shock.
Eventually the outward-propagating rarefaction overtakes the leading shock, and the three features combine to form a single, coherent structure, known as an N-wave\footnote{Note that for leftward propagation the profile is that of an ``N'' while for rightward propagation the structure is inverted.} \citep[this being the ordered combination of two shocks connected by an interior rarefaction, as discussed by][]{Friedrichs:1948}.
The various stages of this reversal are depicted in Figure \ref{fig.reversal}: the downward propagation of the left side of the rarefaction is clearly visible between $t=15\rm m$ and $t=60\, \rm m$, along with the monotonic decrease in the linear number density with height.
From $t=120\, \rm m$ to $t=240\, \rm m$ the rarefaction accelerates upward, subsuming the post-shock outflow region below the shock, and the linear number density profile begins to flatten.
Eventually, by $t=480\, \rm m$, the upper extent of the rarefaction has overtaken the shock and the linear number density within the rarefaction now decreases inwardly away from the shock.
This reversal in the linear number density is the earliest signature of the newly-formed N-Wave, which is characterized by velocity and density profiles whose gradients are codirectional through the entire structure.
\subsection{N-Wave Structure and Dynamics}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./fig6a.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./fig6b.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./fig6c.pdf}
\caption{Velocity, linear number density, and selected oxygen ionization fractions $\rm O^{6+}$ and $\rm O^{7+}$ for the propagating N-wave solution. The velocity and density profiles mimic each other within the N-wave, which is composed of a leading shock, an outward-propagating rarefaction, and a trailing shock. The evolution of the ionization profiles reflects a competition between advective transport and spatially-varying ionization and recombination rates, which depend on the evolving temperature profiles.}
\label{fig.Nwave}
\end{figure}
The structure and evolution of the outward-propagating N-Wave are depicted in Figure \ref{fig.Nwave}, which shows the time-evolution of the fluid velocity, linear number density, and fractional ionization populations $O^{6+}$ and $O^{7+}$.
Note again that while $n$ (not shown) decreases monotonically with height, $n A$ necessarily increases with height in the region between the trailing shock and the leading shock, opposite the behavior of the initially-inward propagating rarefaction shown in Figure \ref{fig.riemann}.
The connection of the leading shock, through the rarefaction, to the trailing shock is also visible in the velocity profiles, which exhibits the eponymous ``N'' shape, decreasing with height across the trailing shock, then increasing quasi-linearly through the rarefaction to a maximum at the leading shock, before then decreasing abruptly across the leading shock onto the pre-shock wind solution.
The ionization fractions, on the other hand, do not participate in the compressive and expansive dynamics of the shocks and rarefaction, despite the fact that the initial discontinuity in the values of $Y_j$ is co-spatial with the initial Riemann problem.
This follows from the form of the advective component of the rate equation (i.e., the material derivative $u\, \partial_s Y_j$) which causes the ionization states to evolve as passive scalars in the absence of thermal effects (when the ionization and recombination rates become small) so that the ionization fractions are simply carried along by the flow but do not increase or decrease as the fluid expands.
Accordingly, the initial discontinuity (which is above the freeze-in height in the case of the $H_r = 2 R_\odot$ example) is carried along by the high-speed outflow within the rarefaction, but lags behind the leading shock, which propagates faster than the bulk flow.
Thus, while the shock reaches the outermost boundary of $30R_\odot$ in just a bit less than $24\,\rm hr$ of simulation time, the ionization signature has only just passed $10 R_\odot$ in that time, and does not arrive at the outer boundary until significantly later.
Below the freeze-in height, the fractional ionization populations of the initially hydrostatic fluid evolve in response to the changing temperature that occurs in both time and space as the fluid begins to expand within the rarefaction and eventually settles onto a new wind solution.
For fluid parcels that originate sufficiently low in the corona, the transit time to the freeze-in height is long compared to both the timescales of fluid equilibration and ionization and recombination, so that by the time the fluid reaches the freeze-in height, the ionization ratios are indistinguishable from a steady-state wind solution.
Fluid that originates higher up within the hydrostatic column has a thermal history that is more strongly representative of the conditions in the closed corona, having less time to equilibrate before it reaches the freeze-in height.
The structure of the ionization profiles following reconnection is therefore given by an abrupt transition from the dynamic equilibrium of the initial wind solution just above the reconnection site to something resembling the dynamic equilibrium of the hydrostatic solution at the same height, followed by a smooth transition back to the quasi-steady wind profile, all of which travels outward at the local fluid speed.
\section{Discussion}\label{discussion.sec}
\subsection{Dependence on Reconnection Height}
\begin{figure*}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{./fig7a.pdf}\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{./fig7b.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{./fig7c.pdf}\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{./fig7d.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{./fig7e.pdf}\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{./fig7f.pdf}
\caption{Comparison of flow speed and oxygen ionization ratio $\rm O^{7+}/O^{6+}$ for six separate experiments with reconnection sites placed at various heights from $R_\odot/8$ to $4R_\odot$. The dark purple to bright yellow colored curves represent snapshots at progressively later times from $0$ to $2\times10^5 {\rm s}$ (about $60$ hours) in increments of $10^4 {\, \rm s}$ (about $3$ hrs).}
\label{fig.compare}
\end{figure*}
We explored the effects of reconnection height with six simulations that place the reconnection site in a variety of locations from $R_\odot / 8$ to $4 R_\odot$.
A comparison of these runs is shown in Figure \ref{fig.compare}, which depicts the evolution of the fluid velocity and oxygen ionization ratio $\rm O^{7+}/O^{6+}$.
In each case, the strength and speed of the leading shock and trailing rarefaction depend primarily on the size of the initial discontinuity, which is larger for reconnection sites that are higher in the corona.
Therefore, reconnection events that occur near or above a height of $R_\odot$ display an obvious velocity (and therefore density) signature, as this is the relevant height-scale for the Mach number of the wind solution to have appreciable size.
For reconnection sites that are well below this height ($H_r \le 0.5 R_\odot$) the initial discontinuity is too weak to create a strong shock and the fluid quickly settles onto a wind solution with little more than a short-lived transient wave disturbance.
The initial temperature change across the reconnection site is less strongly affected by changes in $H_r$; however, for reconnection sites lower in the corona the ion and electron temperatures are more collisionaly coupled, so the dissipation of the initial temperature jump by the electrons similarly smooths the ion temperature profile and the reconnection signature becomes very weak in the far-field.
The ionization signature is similarly height dependent; however, in this case the relevant scale is whether the reconnection occurs above or below the freeze-in height, which occurs at roughly $R_\odot/3$.
Reconnection events that occur above this height show a strong closed-field signature in the ionization ratios that is largely unaltered as it propagates into the heliosphere, followed by a slow decay back to the wind-like solution.
For reconnection sites that are lower in the corona, the ionization ratios undergo more evolution and the signature of the material from within the initially hydrostatic column becomes progressively weaker, so that for reconnection sites well below the freeze-in height there is little-to-no signature, with the plasma having undergone significant thermal-temporal evolution before reaching the heliosphere.
A critical difference, however, is that the ionization signature is not dissipated in the same way that the temperature and even velocity profiles can be, so whatever signature survives up to the freeze-in height is well preserved as it propagates into the heliosphere, as seen in the $H_r = 0.25\,R_\odot$ panel of Figure \ref{fig.compare}.
Note that while the relevant height for both fluid and ionization dynamics is of order $R_\odot$ in these simulations, these heights are model dependent, and may change for different energy deposition profiles and ion populations, such as Fe ($Z=26$), whose freeze-in height is likely to be higher than that of O ($Z=8$).
\subsection{Relevance to In Situ Observations}
To explore the implications of these calculations for in situ observations we have extracted time series data for the fluid variables and ionization ratio $\rm O^{7+}/O^{6+}$ at $s=20\,R_\odot$ ($r = 21\, R_\odot$) above the solar surface, as shown in Figure \ref{fig.timing}.
This height is roughly coincident with the closest approach of Parker Solar Probe \cite[PSP,][]{Fox:2016d} during its sixth perihelion pass, and is at once far enough above the solar surface to be representative of the conditions in the heliosphere and also well within the numerical domain so as to avoid any possible boundary effects.
Unfortunately, PSP does not carry instrumentation to detect ionization ratios; however, these are not expected to undergo further evolution beyond $20\, R_\odot$, so the values and timing depicted in Figure \ref{fig.timing} should scale readily to heliocentric radii of $r > 60\, R_\odot$, at which point they will be detectable by Solar Oribiter \citep[SolO,][]{SolO}.
\begin{figure*}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 0.8\linewidth]{./fig8.pdf}
\caption{Time series of plasma properties at $r = 21 R_\odot$ for each of the runs. Note that in the time-series data the orientation of the ``N'' structures is reversed relative to the spatial profiles. The arrival time and duration of the N-waves reflect the acoustic travel time from the base of the corona, while the ionization ratio arrival time and duration reflects the fluid travel time and ionization/recombination time in the lower corona. For reconnection events below $\sim 0.25R_\odot$ there is little to no signature in the extended corona.}
\label{fig.timing}
\end{figure*}
In the figure, results from the six simulations are indicated by the variously colored curves, which run from dark purple to bright yellow for reconnection sites of increasing height.
Consistent with the velocity profiles in Figure \ref{fig.compare}, the signatures in the density, temperature, and ionization ratios show consistently larger amplitudes as the reconnection height is increased.
The arrival time of these signatures is also earlier for reconnection events that are higher in the corona, due in part to the reduced travel distance from the reconnection site to $20\, R_\odot$.
For the most part, the fluid signatures arrive simultaneously, with the electron heat front being an exception due to the significantly larger electron thermal speed, which makes the transit time from the reconnection site to $20\, R_\odot$ difficult to resolve on the scales represented here.
For the remaining fluid properties, however, the arrival time is governed by the two remaining characteristic speeds -- the sound speed (ion acoustic speed) and the bulk flow speed, both of which are on the order of a few $10^2 \, \rm km\, s^{-1}$ over the majority of the spatial domain.
In the case of the density, velocity, and ion temperature, the primary signature is the leading shock, whose arrival time reflects the shock propagation speed from the reconnection site, through the lower and middle corona, and into the extended corona and heliosphere.
This speed depends on the strength of the shock, being equal to the sound speed for weak shocks and as much as a few times the sound speed for strong shocks.
Reconnection events that are closer to the transition region exhibit weaker/slower shocks that must propagate from lower in the corona, where the temperature and sound speed are correspondingly smaller.
For that reason the signatures from reconnection events higher in the corona are not only larger in amplitude, but also arrive earlier and last longer by as much as a several hours, with the $H_r = 4 R_\odot$ event spanning from $t\simeq12-30\,\rm hrs$ while the $H_r = R_\odot/8$ event occurs over a much shorter time from $t\simeq 20-22\,\rm hrs.$
Nonetheless, the qualitative signatures are identical in each case, with an initial enhancement across the leading shock, followed by a slow decay through the rarefaction and finally a small jump across the weak, trailing shock, which arrives later for the higher-amplitude events, owing to the larger extent of the rarefaction.
This causes the signatures from reconnection events that are higher in the corona to be not only stronger but also longer-lived.
Critically, the transient flow speed within the N-wave is systematically higher than the ambient wind speed, so that the net effect of interchange reconnection is to increase the speed of the wind relative to a steady-state solution.
For the ionization ratios we see a similar trend, with reconnection events placed higher in the corona having a stronger and more long-lasting signature, that arrives sooner and takes longer to decay.
However, as we have previously shown the ionization ratios do not participate in the shock-compression dynamics, but are instead entrained behind the shock.
As a result the ionization signatures \rev{arrive systematically} later than the shock/rarefaction system, being typically delayed by several hours, enough that in most cases the fluid variables have returned to equilibrium values by the time the ionization signatures arrive.
Within the ionization curves we see qualitatively similar behavior in all cases, with an initial enhancement of $\rm O^{7+}/O^{6+}$ reflecting the population that originated from within the hydrostatic region above the freeze-in height but below the reconnection site, followed by a slow decay reflecting the populations that passed through the freeze-in region before the N-wave had fully formed, and finally a return to the wind conditions from populations that originated near the base of the corona and experienced a thermal history that reflects the fully-relaxed wind solution.
From the study of \cite{Zhao:2017}, the ratio $\rm O^{7+}/O^{6+}$ in observed solar wind streams is typically in the range 0.05 to 0.2, being systematically lower for wind streams that are ballistically mapped from coronal hole regions vs active regions.
By comparison, the steady-state wind stream that we simulate here exhibits an $\rm O^{7+}/O^{6+}$ ratio of $\sim 0.11$, with enhancements following reconnection of up to $0.5$ in the most extreme case.
This suggests that reconnection events that occur lower in the corona and below the freeze-in height may be better matched to the observations, as would be the case for the $H_r = 0.25\,R_\odot$ simulation, which exhibits a maximum $\rm O^{7+}/O^{6+}$ ratio of 0.2.
The relative timing of these signatures similarly reflects the amplitude of the N-wave, with larger shock rarefaction systems having faster flows in the rarefaction region, corresponding to earlier arrivals of the associated ionization profiles.
The location of the reconnection sites relative to the freeze-in height is further evidenced in the flatness of the ionization curves between the arrival of the reconnection signature and the slow return to the wind-like signature, as this reflects the extent of the material in the column that originated below $H_r$ but above the freeze-in height.
By comparison, for $H_r < R_\odot$ the initially hydrostatic populations have clearly undergone significant ionization and recombination on their way into the heliosphere, with the signatures of their origin in the closed-field domains being progressively weaker for lower reconnection heights.
\subsection{Interpretation in 2+ Dimensions}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./fig9.pdf}
\caption{Schematic of 2D interchange reconnection with overlaid hydrodynamic sub-domains. Solid orange curves represent shock fronts while dashed orange curves are weak discontinuities at the leading and trailing edges of the rarefaction wave. In the upper-right outflow region, near the reconnection site, the leading shock separates the pre-shock wind from the post-shock outflow above the inward rarefaction, which propagates down into the hydrostatic column. Farther from the reconnection site the rarefaction undergoes reversal, eventually subsuming the post-shock outflow. A second shock separates the now-outward rarefaction from the newly-formed wind below it, and together with the leading shock these three features make up the N-wave.}
\label{fig.2d}
\end{figure}
To this point we have focused on the time-dependent evolution the plasma along individual field lines;
however, if we return to the steady-state picture of interchange reconnection as depicted in Figure \ref{fig.rxn} we can imagine that all of the field lines in the outflow region(s) are undergoing the same dynamic evolution.
By associating the field-perpendicular distance from the reconnection site with increasing time since reconnection we can map the various stages of the field-aligned dynamics along a given field line to different subdomains within the reconnection outflow region.
A depiction of this mapping is shown in Figure \ref{fig.2d}, with the various hydrodynamic regions overlaid onto the magnetic field structure, which has been modified slightly from Figure \ref{fig.rxn} to reflect the collapse of the null-point into a thin current sheet.
Just as in Figure \ref{fig.rxn}, there are four magnetic domains, two inflow regions (I and IV) and two outflow regions (II and III).
The pre-reconnection transonic and hydrostatic fluid domains encompass the two magnetic inflow regions, but also extend into the outflow regions.
This follows directly from the details of the field-aligned evolution and also reflects a broader causal connection between magnetic topology and plasma dynamics.
Since field lines depend on the global structure of the magnetic field at a single instant in time, changes in magnetic connectivity occur instantaneously;
however, plasma dynamics are dictated by local processes and signals that propagate at finite speed, so the effects of reconnection are limited to the causally connected region defined by the characteristics of the system (i.e., the leading shock and inward rarefaction).
In the closed-field outflow region (domain III from Figure \ref{fig.rxn}) the reconnection discontinuity connects a segment of the wind solution from the lower corona (domain I) with a hydrostatic plasma column from the closed-field region beneath the null point (domain IV).
The resulting dynamics have not yet been simulated within our model; however, because the fluid velocity of the wind solution is directed toward the discontinuity, the resulting evolution will likely exhibit a pair of shocks that propagate away from each other and downward toward the solar surface.
These would then rebound from the density gradient at the base of the transition region, driving chromospheric evaporation, siphon flows, and other interesting processes in the lower corona.
In the open-field outflow region (domain II from figure \ref{fig.rxn}) the reconnection event connects an upper segment of the wind solution to a hydrostatic column below it and the dynamics along a given field line proceed as previously described.
The various shocks and rarefactions along progressively older field lines form loci that generalize to magnetoacoustic disturbances.
The leading shock and inward rarefaction along individual field lines generalize to slow magneto-acoustic fronts that separate the causally-disconnected portions of the outflow region in the far-field from the interior of the structure that develops from the initial reconnection discontinuity.
The reversal of the inward-propagating rarefaction, which subsequently subsumes the quasi-steady shock outflow, and the formation of the outward-propagating rarefaction and trailing shock each define subdomains as depicted by the variously colored regions in the figure.
The final N-wave structure is defined by the two near-parallel shock fronts and the outward-propagating rarefaction that separates them, with the wind speed being again enhanced relative to the steady state within the interior of the N-wave.
It is noteworthy that in both of the outflow regions (the open-field outflow that we have modeled here and the closed-field outflow that we have not yet addressed) the effect of the fluid discontinuity should be to generate a pair of shock-like fronts that expand as a wedge away from the reconnection site.
This closely resembles the structure of a Petschek reconnection outflow, where a pair of slow magneto-acoustic shocks form in order to alter the effective aspect ratio of the current sheet to accommodate an increased reconnection rate over the classic Sweet-Parker scaling \citep{Parker:1957, Sweet:1958, Petschek:1964, Kulsrud:2001}.
Here the shocks result from an asymmetry in the conditions in the two inflow regions, including a non-zero velocity jump across the reconnection site; however, it seems likely that the two are related and may in fact be limiting cases of the same underlying phenomenon.
\rev{Other authors have previously observed the connection between one-dimensional Riemann problems and Petscheck reconnection, both symmetric and assymetric \citep[see][and references therin]{Lin:1999}, but these have generally focused on the cross-field dynamics in configurations where the asymptotic speed is zero in both inflow domains.
Clearly, there is more work to be done in unifying these descriptions under more general initial conditions as the resulting behavior will depend on the overall reconnection rate and the extent of the asymmetry.}
\section{Conclusions}\label{conclusions.sec}
We have demonstrated how a post-reconnection plasma discontinuity naturally evolves as a shock-rarefaction system in the manner of a Riemann problem, with a leading shock that expands into the heliosphere and an underlying rarefaction that propagates inward toward the solar surface.
We have further shown how the initially-downward-propagating rarefaction reverses at the transition region to become an outward-propagating shock-rarefaction system, which eventually overtakes the leading shock to form a shock-rarefaction-shock triplet, or N-wave.
This structure propagates coherently into the pre-existing wind in the heliosphere at a few times the local sound speed (or slow magneto-acoustic speed) after which the plasma behind it settles to a new quasi-steady wind solution on a time-scale that is comparable to the acoustic transit time from the solar surface to a given heliocentric radius.
\rev{A key finding of our model is that the release of material from the closed corona into the open field necessarily enhances the speed of the reconnected wind stream due to the interaction between the under-dense wind above the reconnection site and the high-pressure column below it.
Because the fast solar wind is generally steady while the slow wind exhibits significant variability, our interpretation is that interchange reconnection is more common along field lines that support slow wind streams than those that support fast wind streams.
This is consistent with the finding that the fast wind emanates from the interior of coronal holes while the slow wind originates from near coronal hole boundaries, where interchange reconnection is expected to be prevalent.
However, if our model is accurate then the specific processes that result in the slower baseline speed of the wind that emanates from coronal hole boundaries are independent of the process of interchange reconnection, whose primary effect is the create intermittent enhancements of the slow wind speed relative to the steady-state.}
Additionally, we have shown how the time-dependent ionization of oxygen evolves in the context of the post-reconnection fluid, with the ionization ratios being carried along by the flow while also evolving subject to the rate equations in the co-moving fluid frame.
We find that the location of the reconnection site relative to the freeze-in height is critical to the predicted temporal evolution of the ionization ratios for in situ measurements, with reconnection above the freeze-in height showing a strong signature of the initially hydrostatic plasma column that originates above the freeze-in height but below the reconnection site.
As the reconnection site is moved progressively closer to or below the freeze-in height, the initially hydrostatic fluid undergoes more ionization and recombination in its journey to the heliosphere, and so this signature is weakened considerably.
These observations have strong implications for the strength of the signatures from reconnection events that occur near large magnetic structures, whose vertical extent is comparable to the source surface radius (i.e., $H_r \sim 3 R_\odot$) vs. more compact structures with $H_r \lesssim R_\odot$.
Since pseudostreamers are usually on the lower end of this scale, it is likely that the strength of the discontinuity will be similarly on the lower end of the parameter space that we have described; however, because smaller structures are more likely to support the near-hydrostatic configuration on which our model depends, it is possible that the dependence on reconnection height will be weaker than these results suggest.
Despite this reduction in the strength of the ionization signal with decreased reconnection height, the time-delay between the arrival of the hydrodynamic and ionization signatures, which corresponds to the different travel times of the propagating signals (shocks and other waves) and the advected signals (material properties), seems to be robust across all reconnection heights.
And while we have not calculated them here, it is likely that disparities in abundances between open- and closed-field plasma will follow a similar trend, being similarly transported by the flow.
Confirmation of these features will depend on robust measurements of plasma dynamics, composition, and ionization in the inner heliosphere, and will require joint observation efforts from PSP and SolO, as the former will sample plasma in the appropriate source region, but only the latter possesses the suite of instruments required to make the measurement.
However, because the plasma's material composition is unlikely to be altered between $20 R_\odot$ and $200 R_\odot$ ($\sim 1 \rm AU$) it should be possible to reconstruct these signatures under ideal circumstances.
The applicability of these results depends on the existence of pristine initial conditions both above and below the reconnection site and minimal cross-field dynamics during the subsequent evolution.
The latter requirement will depend on the global magnetic evolution, which can be highly variable across disparate regions of the solar corona.
However, these conditions are not unreasonable provided that the field-line drift velocity far from the reconnection site is not significantly greater than the acoustic speed and that the Lorentz force is sufficient to resist perpendicular gradients in the energy density of the fluid.
That is to say that the coronal geometry should be relatively static and the plasma $\beta$ and Alfv\'en Mach numbers should both be small.
The validity of the initial condition depends additionally on the structure and dynamics of the reconnection site, \rev{which must be compact and and well defined with adjacent open- and closed-field domains being unambiguously identifiable.}
In particular, it is important that the thickness of the reconnection layer should not be significantly larger than the ion mean-free-path and that the fluid undergo minimal evolution during the time that it takes for a newly-reconnected field line to emerge from the reconnection site.
This will ensure that the fluid conditions on the newly reconnected field line appear as a discontinuity, which can then evolve in the manner that we have described.
\rev{Accordingly, while the slow solar wind is expected to emanate from both pseudostreamers and helmets streamers, the ambiguous nature of the open-closed boundary along helmet streamers and the continuous opening and closing of loops within the heliospheric current sheet may preclude the application of this model in that context; although a similar construction could be applicable given suitable alterations to the model.}
Assuming that the reconnection outflow speed is equal to the Alfv\'en speed, we can estimate the Alfv\'en transit time over the length of the reconnection site and compare it to the acoustic transit time over an ion mean-free-path length.
Combined with our earlier requirement on the thickness of the reconnection layer we then find that the aspect ratio of the reconnection site should be less than $\sqrt{2/\beta}$, where $\beta = 2 c_s^2 / v_a^2$ reflects the ratio of the acoustic speed to the Alfv\'en speed.
These assumptions are not universally applicable throughout the solar corona; however, they are sufficiently general as to be applicable in certain cases, and we have described a 2+D geometry that represents the likeliest scenario for observing this phenomenon, that being the case of laminar/coherent reconnection across a null-separatrix system that is representative of a simplified coronal pseudostreamer.
In this construction the expanding N-wave forms a wedge of high-speed wind within the rarefaction that is bounded by slow magneto-acoustic shocks at its leading and trailing edges.
Depending on the structure of the magnetic field ahead of the N-wave this may provide a framework for the formation of magnetic switchbacks vis-\`a-vis the model of \cite{Schwadron:2021m}.
Moreover, the structure of the reconnection outflow in this model is strongly reminiscent of Petscheck reconnection, with the acoustic shocks and rarefaction described here being naturally generalized to slow magnetosonic shocks and rarefactions.
In reality, the solar corona is always evolving, and that evolution will invariably complicate the behavior that we have demonstrated.
The sensitivity of these results to the assumptions within our model remain to be tested; however, the dynamics that we have described here should persist in some form anywhere that the basic magnetic geometry is comparable to our model framework and the reconnection process is not too violent.
As such, these dynamics should be viewed as a baseline for comparison so that the disparate effects of coherent reconnection and more complicated dynamic processes can be disentangled when interpreting in situ and remote sensing observations.
\section{Acknowledgements}\label{acknowledgements.sec}
RBS, SJB and MGL were supported for this project by NASA HSR grant 80HQTR21T0106. RBS and MGL were also supported for this project by the Office of Naval Research and by NASA PSP/WISPR grant NNG11EK11I. We thank the anonymous referee for their helpful comments and careful reading of the manuscript. Thanks go also to Peter Wyper for helpful discussions on the conditions near the reconnection site.
\bibliographystyle{apj}
\section{Introduction}\label{introduction.sec}
One of the more enduring challenges in solar and heliospheric science is to determine what physical processes are responsible for the disparate properties of various solar wind streams.
Compared to the fast solar wind (FSW), the slow solar wind (SSW) exhibits lower typical wind speeds with increased variability \citep{McComas:2000.105}.
Various authors have explored the effects of different types of heating profiles and magnetic geometries in field-aligned (1D) models \citep[e.g.,][and others]{Cranmer:2007, Grappin:2011}, which can produce a wide range of predicted wind speeds but do not predict rapid fluctuations within a single wind stream.
Additionally, the material composition of the SSW shows similarities to the plasma found in active regions, with ionization ratios and elemental abundances that are inconsistent with the coronal-hole regions from which the FSW emanates \citep{Zhao:2017, Laming:2019}.
This suggests that changes in magnetic topology, which are difficult to capture in field-aligned models, may be critical to the properties of the SSW.
The solar corona is partitioned into various spatial domains that reflect the connectivity of the magnetic field.
In regions where the magnetic field maps from the photosphere into the heliosphere and beyond, the associated volume is said to be ``open''.
Conversely, where the field maps between positive and negative polarity domains on the photosphere, the associated volume is said to be ``closed''.
The interfaces between these domains collectively form the open-closed boundary, which is strongly correlated with coronal-hole boundaries in X-ray and EUV images \citep[e.g.,][]{Nikolic:2019}.
According to Alfv\'en's theorem, an ideal plasma (zero electrical resistivity) is coupled to the magnetic field in such a way that individual fluid elements are always connected to the same field line.
Therefore, when the connectivity of the magnetic field is static in time the plasma within the various closed magnetic domains remains confined while the plasma within open domains can stream freely into the heliosphere.
For plasma that originates from within a closed domain to escape across the open-closed boundary into an adjacent coronal hole depends on the process of interchange reconnection \citep{Crooker:2002}, whereby field lines from either side of the open-closed boundary undergo a change in connectivity so that a new flux tube is formed that extends from a footpoint within a previously closed region on the solar surface out into the open coronal hole region and into the heliosphere and beyond.
This process has been studied extensively in 3D magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) simulations of coronal streamers and pseudostreamers \citep[e.g.,][]{Masson:2014j, Higginson:2017a, Aslanyan:2021a, Scott:2021a}; however, these and similar studies have invoked simplistic fluid approximations for computational efficiency.
Therefore, while the magnetic evolution is reasonably well understood, many questions remain concerning the associated plasma dynamics.
\rev{Additionally, while the ionization ratios of trace elements have been studied in detail for steady-state wind streams \citep[see, e.g., ][ and others]{Landi:2012j, Gilly:2020o} little is known about how these evolve during interchange reconnection.
These ratios are often taken as diagnostics of the temperature history from the solar surface up to a given height \citep[the so-called ``freeze-in height'', ][]{Owocki:1983} beyond which the ionization ratios undergo no additional evolution; however, if plasma is released from closed magnetic domains at heights that are comparable to the freeze-in height this could have significant implications for in-situ diagnostics of the solar wind.}
The primary difficulty in constructing an accurate model of interchange reconnection in the context of the solar wind stems from the many decades of spatial and temporal scales that must be simultaneously resolved.
At the largest scale the global magnetic field and location of the acoustic and Alfv\'enic critical points require a numerical domain that covers several tens of $\rm Mm^2$ on the solar surface (i.e., the size of an active region) and extends outward to a height of $20 R_\odot$ or more, meaning that the time required for fluid features to transit the numerical domain is typically on the order of tens of hours for the fastest propagating signals (e.g., electron thermal speed and fast magneto-acoustic mode) and significantly longer for slower modes (e.g., slow magneto-acoustic mode and bulk flow).
At the opposite extreme, the temperature gradients at the base of the transition region -- which are required to accurately capture the subtle balance of coronal heating, thermal conduction, and radiative losses that dictate the mass flux into the corona -- require a minimum resolution on the order of a few tens of $\rm km$, resulting in a numerical timestep that is typically on the order of $10^{-2} \rm s$.
As a result, constructing a 3D numerical model of interchange reconnection in the presence of a self-consistent solar wind has proven to be computationally prohibitive, and none are currently in common use.
Here we present a hybrid model that partially mitigates the computational demands of a full 3D simulation by computing the field-aligned (1D) plasma dynamics -- including detailed physical processes that structure the transition region -- with an empirical mechanism for emulating the effects of magnetic reconnection.
Beginning with steady-state solutions for the open- and closed-field regions, we construct an initial condition for the plasma along a newly-opened flux tube such that the fluid properties are discontinuous across the reconnection site, being composed of a transonic wind stream above a hotter and more dense hydrostatic column.
This technique builds on previous work by \cite{Bradshaw:2011d}, but has been extended to include critical physics for the appropriate treatment of an out-flowing wind solution, including modification of the distant outer boundary and variability of the flux-tube cross-sectional area.
By following the hydrodynamic evolution of this newly-formed, post-reconnection plasma column, we are able explore how magnetic reconnection directly affects the plasma evolution when material from disparate source regions are brought into close proximity as the magnetic connectivity changes.
In the following section we describe our simulation design and numerical model.
Then in section \ref{results.sec} we describe the evolution of the post-reconnection plasma and associated time-dependent ionization of \rev{oxygen}, which we calculate for comparison to in situ studies by \cite{Zhao:2017}.
In section \ref{discussion.sec} we discuss these findings and their implications for in situ measurements as well as the appropriate interpretation of this model in the context of a volume filling, 3D magnetic field.
Finally, we offer concluding remarks in section \ref{conclusions.sec}.
\section{Simulation Design}\label{design.sec}
\subsection{Fluid Model} \label{sec.fluid}
We model the plasma as a fully-ionized two-temperature fluid with mass density $\rho$, velocity $u$, and individual ion and electron pressures $p_{i}$ and $p_{e}$, and we solve the field-aligned hydrodynamic equations in time ($t$) and distance along the field line ($s$).
The magnetic field geometry is taken to be static in time so that the cross-field dynamics can be ignored.
In the limit that the electron mass is negligible compared to the average ion mass ($m_i \gg m_e$), and assuming quasi-neutrality ($n_e = n_i = n$), the continuity and momentum equations are
\begin{equation}
\partial_t \rho + \frac{1}{A}\partial_s \left( \rho u A \right) = 0\\
\label{continuity.eq}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\partial_t \left(\rho u \right) + \frac{1}{A}\partial_s \left(\rho u^2 A \right) = \rho g - \partial_s P + \frac{1}{A}\partial_s \left(\sigma A \right),
\label{momentum.eq}
\end{equation}
where $g$ and $A$ are the gravitational acceleration and cross-sectional area parameterized along $s$, $P = p_{i} + p_{e}$ is the total pressure, and $\sigma$ is the viscous stress.
The conservative form of the energy equations for the ions and electrons are likewise given by
\begin{linenomath}\begin{align}
\partial_t E_{i} & = - \frac{1}{A}
\partial_s \Big ( (E_{i} + p_{i}) u A + \sigma u A - A F_{i} \Big ) \notag \\
& + \rho u g - u \partial_s p_{e} + \frac{k_B n}{\gamma - 1} \nu^{ei} \left (T_{e} - T_{i} \right ) + h_{i}
\label{ion_energy.eq}
\end{align}\end{linenomath}
and
\begin{linenomath}\begin{align}
\partial_t E_e & = - \frac{1}{A}
\partial_s \Big ( (E_e + p_e) u A - A F_e \Big ) \notag \\
& + u \partial_s p_e + \frac{k_B n}{\gamma - 1} \nu^{ei} \left (T_i - T_e \right ) - R + h_e,
\label{electron_energy.eq}
\end{align}\end{linenomath}
where the energies are defined as $E_i = \frac{1}{2} \rho u^2 + \frac{1}{\gamma - 1} p_i$ for the ions and $E_e = \frac{1}{\gamma -1} p_e$ for the electrons; $T_i$ and $T_e$ are the ion and electron temperatures; $F_i$ and $F_e$ are the associated conductive heat fluxes; and $h_{i,e}$ and $R$ are the imposed coronal heating and empirical radiative losses, respectively.
We model the radiative losses with a piecewise polynomial fit as described in \citet{Bradshaw:2011d} and we prescribe these to fall off to zero below a minimum temperature of $2\times10^4 {\rm K}$, emulating the effect of an optically thick chromosphere.
The system is closed through the ideal gas law, $p_{i,e} = k_B n T_{i,e}$, and by the definition of the conductive fluxes and ion viscous stress through the Spitzer-Harm formulation; $F_{i,e} = - \kappa_{i,e} T_{i,e}^{5/2} \partial_s T_{i,e}$ and $\sigma = (4/3) \mu_{i} \partial_s u$.
\rev{The dynamic viscosity is given by $\mu_{i} = \mu_{i}^{(0)} T^{5/2} / \ln \Lambda^{ii}_c$ and ion-electron collision frequency is defined to be $\nu^{ei} = {4.82}\, n\, \ln \Lambda^{ie}_c\, m_e / m_i$.
The Coulomb logarithms for ion-ion and ion-electron collisions ($\ln \Lambda_c^{ii}$ and $\ln \Lambda_c^{ie}$) are defined as in the NRL Formulary \citep{NRL_Formulary} and discussed by \cite{Fitzpatrick:2015}.}
Specific values for the physical constants are listed in Table \ref{phy-vals.tab}.
These are broadly in line with accepted solar values, with the exception of the the coefficient of dynamic viscosity, which is further modified by a multiplicative factor of $1/(1 + {\alpha}^2)$, where $\alpha = 10^2 \times \lambda^{\rm mfp}_i\, \partial_s \ln A$.
This multiplicative factor guarantees that the dynamic viscosity becomes small as the ion mean-free-path ($\lambda^{\rm mfp}_i = 8.4\times10^3\, T_i^2/n$) approaches or exceeds the geometric length scale, emulating the transition to a collisionless regime as discussed by \cite{Endeve:2001m} \citep[see also the discussion in ][]{Longcope:2010a}.
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{r|r}
$\gamma$ \hfill \,
& $5/3$\\
$m_{i,e} \hfill [g]$
& $2.171\times10^{-24},\, 9.11\times10^{-28}$\\
$k_B \hfill [\rm erg\, K^{-1}]$ & $1.38\times10^{-16}$\\
$\mu_i^{(0)} \hfill \left[\rm g\, cm^{-1}\, s^{-1}\right]$
& $2.522\times10^{-15}$\\
$\kappa_{i,e} \hfill \left[{\rm erg}\, {\rm cm}^{-1}\, \rm s^{-1}\, {\rm K}^{-7/2}\right]$
& $3.2\times10^{-8},\,7.8\times10^{-7}$ \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Values of all physical constants used in fluid model, \rev{expressed in cgs units.}}
\label{phy-vals.tab}
\end{table}
In addition to the above fluid equations we also calculate the time-dependent ionization of oxygen as a trace element subject to the evolving fluid.
This evolution is decoupled from the energy balance, and does not affect the radiative loss function, which would require tracking additional elements such as He, Fe, S, C, etc., in order to be calculated self-consistently.
The ion charge-state distribution of oxygen, with atomic number $Z=8$, evolves according to
\begin{equation} \label{ionization.eq}
D_t Y_j = n_e \left[ {I_{j-1} Y_{j-1} - (I_j + R_j) Y_j + R_{j+1} Y_{j+1}} \right],
\end{equation}
where $D_t \equiv (\partial_t + u\, \partial_s)$ is the material derivative along the flow and $Y_j$ are the individual ionization fractions (i.e., the fraction of a given species \rev{with atomic number} $Z$ having a specific ionization level $j$). $I_j$ and $R_j$ are the temperature-dependent ionization and recombination rates from state $j$, which are calculated as in \cite{Bradshaw:2003a} with updated values from version 8 of the CHIANTI atomic database \citep{Dere:1997, DelZanna:2015}.
Prohibiting ionization and recombination beyond the range of allowed states, the sum of Eq. \eqref{ionization.eq} over all ionization levels vanishes by construction and the system is both normalized and regularized so that
\begin{equation}
0 \le Y_j \le 1 \qquad \text{and} \qquad \sum_{j=0}^{Z} Y_j = 1.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Steady-state Conditions}
We use the HYDRAD code \citep{Bradshaw:2013} to solve equations \eqref{continuity.eq}--\eqref{ionization.eq} on a numerical grid of 512 cells that are exponentially spaced in heliocentric radius, spanning a range of $0 \le s \le 30 R_\odot$ above the solar surface, where $R_\odot = 700\, \rm Mm$ is the radius of the sun.
Beyond this base grid we allow up to 16 levels of adaptive refinement through pairwise splitting and merging of cells.
The grid spacing $\Delta s$ is checked against the length scale of the primitive variables ($\lambda_{HD}$) after every tenth timestep in order to maintain the resolution requirement $0.05 \leq \Delta s / \lambda_{HD} \leq 0.1$.
During adaptive refinement the mass, momentum, and energy densities are explicitly conserved to numerical accuracy.
At the limit of refinement the minimum allowable grid spacing is $\Delta s_{\rm min} \approx 10^4{\rm cm}$ at the base of the numerical domain;
however, this extreme resolution is never required in practice, indicating that the transition region is fully resolved at all times.
In order to determine steady-state conditions for the open- and closed-field regions the calculation is first initialized with temperature and density profiles that are generated from a separate routine assuming zero velocity and uniform heating.
The magnetic geometry is spherically symmetric with
\begin{equation}
A(s) = (1+s/R_\odot)^2
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
g(s) = g_\odot \times (1+s/R_\odot)^{-2},
\end{equation}
where $g_\odot = -2.74\times10^4{\rm \,cm}{\,\rm s}^{-2}$ is the gravitational acceleration at the solar surface.
The cross-sectional area is dimensionless and normalized to unity at the solar surface.
The density and temperature are set to $T_0 = 2\times10^4{\rm \,K}$ and $n_0=10^{10}{\,\rm cm}^{-3}$ at a height of $10^{9}{\rm cm}$ above the solar surface, which sets the location of the base of the transition region within the domain.
Above this height the temperatures of the ions and electrons rise abruptly through the transition region to coronal values, while below this level the temperature is effectively uniform and the density increases exponentially toward the interior of the solar surface.
At the beginning of the simulation the initially-uniform heating is replaced with a superposition of three exponentials of the form $h_i(s) = h_0 \exp(-s/s_l)$, after which the system is advanced in time and allowed to relax toward a new steady-state solution.
\rev{Exponential heating functions have been used extensively in solar wind models \citep[see, e.g., ][]{Pinto:2009a} and are employed here for simplicity; although in the future we intend to incorporate more realistic mechanisms \cite[such as those discussed by][]{Cranmer:2007}.}
Specific values for the three ion heating rates and scale heights are given in Table \ref{heating.tab}.
The electrons are not heated directly ($h_e = 0$), but instead rely on collisional coupling in the lower corona and thermal conduction in the extended corona to maintain their temperature.
This particular heating model serves to give realistic values for the electron temperature in the lower-mid corona and for the mass flux (per unit solid angle) into the heliosphere.
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l c c}
Deposition Region & $h_0 [{\rm erg}{\,\rm cm}^{-3}{\,\rm s}^{-1}]$ & $s_l [{\rm cm}]$ \\ \hline
Transition Region & $2.9\times10^{-5}$ & $7.0\times10^9$ \\
Lower Corona & $8.7\times10^{-7}$ & $2.1\times10^{10}$ \\
Extended Corona & $5.0\times10^{-9}$ & $7.0\times10^{10}$
\end{tabular}
\caption{Heating parameters for ion energy deposition. These are used for both the hydrostatic and transonic steady-state conditions and the dynamic reconnection runs. Electron heating is set to $h_e = 0$ in all cases.}
\label{heating.tab}
\end{table}
The initial relaxation is performed subject to two sets of boundary conditions at the radial outer limit of $s_{\rm max} = 30 R_\odot$.
In the case of set 1: the mass, momentum, and energy densities are linearly extrapolated across the boundary, and the pressure is systematically reduced in the ghost cells outside of the domain in order to encourage the development of a supersonic outflow.
Once this outflow has been achieved the pressure reduction is removed and the temperature gradient is adjusted to prevent the formation of inward heat fluxes across the boundary.
Following the transition of the outflow to a supersonic condition, a sonic point forms within the domain and migrates progressively inward until it stabilizes in the lower-middle corona \rev{at a height of roughly $7\, R_\odot$.
The ultimate location of the sonic point is somewhat higher than might be expected owing to the fact that in our model the wind is accelerated entirely by the thermal pressure gradient, which results in somewhat slower wind speeds than if momentum is injected directly \citep{Holzer:1982}.}
Because the typical flow speed is of the same order as the sound speed in this configuration, the system achieves a quasi-steady transonic wind solution on the timescale of the acoustic travel time across the domain, which is of order $10^4{\rm s}$.
This quasi-steady transonic solution is depicted by the teal curves in Figure \ref{fig.initial_hyd}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./fig1a.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./fig1b.pdf}
\caption{Transonic (teal) and hydrostatic (black) relaxed states calculated using HYDRAD with open and closed boundary conditions at $s=30R_\odot$. In the upper panel the flow speed is indicated by the solid curves while the particle number density is shown in the dash-dotted curves. In the lower panel the total pressure (sum of ion and electron pressures) is shown by the solid curves while the individual ion and electron temperatures are shown by the dashed and dash-dotted curves. The base of the transition region is clearly visible at a height of $\lesssim 10 \rm \, Mm$, above which the temperatures rise from $T_0 = 2 \times 10^4 K$ to coronal values on the order of $10^6 \rm \, K$.}
\label{fig.initial_hyd}
\end{figure}
In the case of set 2: the mass, momentum, energy, and heat fluxes are all fixed to zero through the outer boundary, forcing the system to be closed.
This causes the solution to settle toward a hydrostatic state in asymptotic time; because the slowest mode of the system is governed by the transport of mass, the relaxation time scales as the size of the domain divided by the fluid speed, which diverges as the fluid velocity approaches zero.
The quasi-steady hydrostatic solution is depicted by the black curves in Figure \ref{fig.initial_hyd}.
While the system never fully achieves a hydrostatic state, we consider it to be sufficiently relaxed when the maximum value of the coronal mass flux has fallen below $1\%$ of the value of the transonic wind solution at the same location.
This requirement is significantly more strict than the usual hydrostatic scaling of $\rho u^2 \ll P$ (i.e., small Mach number), and is enforced specifically to ensure that the velocities of the hydrostatic and transonic solutions are well separated in the lower corona where even the transonic solution is significantly subsonic.
The equilibration time of the hydrostatic solution is extremely long (approximately $10^8{\,\rm s}$) owing to our strict relaxation criteria and the length of the numerical domain, which is larger than any closed-field/hydrostatic configuration that might be found in the solar environment.
The reason for constructing such a solution is to ensure compatibility between the numerical domains of the open- and closed-field configurations, and since it is only the lower portion of the plasma column that is needed from the closed-field initial condition, the unphysical radial extent of this solution is not a significant concern.
Were the hydrostatic initial condition to be extracted from a curved field line with its apex in the lower or middle corona, the average volumetric heating rate along the entire field line would be increased, with the energy being distributed within a smaller volume, and the solution would likely be hotter and more dense, thereby exaggerating the differences already present in these two calculations.
For both of the solution profiles depicted in Figure \ref{fig.initial_hyd} the location of the base of the transition region (where $T_e$ and $T_i$ begin to rise abruptly from their minimum values of $2\times10^4 \,\rm K$) has fallen by a few hundred $\rm km$ from its initial location of $10\rm Mm$, with the final location being slightly lower for the hydrostatic solution than for the transonic solution.
This settling is expected as the structure and location of the transition region are determined by the evolving mass and energy fluxes through the model chromosphere and lower corona, which change in time as the system relaxes toward an equilibrium state.
Beyond this, the structure of the transition region and lower corona is very similar in both cases, with temperatures and densities that closely agree up to a height of $\sim 20 \,\rm Mm$ above the transition region.
Both solutions also exhibit oscillatory behavior in the velocity profiles up to a height of $\sim 100 \, \rm Mm$, above which height the transonic solution then begins to accelerate quickly into the middle-corona.
\subsection{Dynamic Equilibria of Oxygen Ionization Levels}
During the initial relaxation the ionization levels are not computed as these add substantial overhead to the calculation.
Following the equilibration of the fluid profiles, we then initialize the ionization levels from a set of previously calculated equilibrium ionization solutions, which are parameterized in electron temperature and interpolated onto the numerical domain using the local plasma temperature.
The two simulations are then advanced in time until the time-dependent ionization again converges to a steady state in each case.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./fig2.pdf}
\caption{Ionization fractions $\rm O^{6+}$ and $\rm O^{7+}$ for hydrostatic and transonic solutions assuming either a thermal equilibrium (T.E.) or dynamic equilibrium (D.E.). For the hydrostatic case the two solutions are nearly identical, while the dynamic equilibrium for the transonic case is a clear departure from the thermal equilibrium solution, especially near and above the freeze-in height ($s \geq h_f \sim 0.5 R_\odot$).}
\label{fig.initial_nei}
\end{figure}
We refer to the relaxed ionization profiles as ``dynamic equilibria'', to distinguish them from the assumed ``thermal equilibrium'' solutions that explicitly ignore advective transport.
For the hydrostatic case the two solutions are nearly identical since there is no significant flow so the solution is characterized by an instantaneous balance of all ionization and recombination rates with
\begin{equation}
\lim_{u \to 0} \left[ {I_{j-1} Y_{j-1} - (I_j + R_j) Y_j + R_{j+1} Y_{j+1}} \right] \to 0.
\end{equation}
For the transonic solution, however, the dynamic equilibrium is set by a competition between the instantaneous temperature of the fluid and the advective transport, which informs the temperature history of the fluid and, hence, the rate equations.
The dynamic equilibrium ionization is characterized by
\begin{equation}
\partial_s Y_j = \left[ {I_{j-1} Y_{j-1} - (I_j + R_j) Y_j + R_{j+1} Y_{j+1}} \right] / u,
\end{equation}
which exhibits spatially uniform ionization levels above the so-called ``freeze-in'' height ($h_f$), where the ionization and recombination timescale ($\tau_j$) becomes long compared to the travel time across the temperature scale height so that
\begin{equation}
\partial_s Y_j \sim Y_j / (\tau_j u) \rightarrow 0.
\end{equation}
In principle this freeze-in effect occurs separately for each ionization level; however, in practice the zero-sum nature of the rate equations and the limited number of ionization states with non-zero populations in the corona causes the effect to occur coherently across these states.
In the following sections we will refer to the ionization fractions $Y_j$ by their respective ionization states $\rm O^{j+}$, with the understanding that these correspond to the underlying spatial-temporal populations.
The final, quasi-steady states of both the open- and closed-field solutions are shown in Figure \ref{fig.initial_nei}, with both the initial (assumed) thermal equilibrium and relaxed dynamic equilibrium ionization levels shown for comparison.
\subsection{Reconnection Model}
While magnetic reconnection in three dimensions (3D) can occur throughout a distributed non-ideal region \citep{Priest:2003ja}, the behavior that we have in mind for this study is the more discrete null-point reconnection \citep{Pontin:2013}, in which the magnetic diffusivity is assumed to be negligible everywhere except within a very small volume surrounding an isolated coronal null point.
A schematic of this process is shown in Figure \ref{fig.rxn}, which depicts a 2D flux system with four magnetic domains that overlie a region of negative polarity flux within a larger region of positive polarity flux.
This geometry is representative of a slice through a coronal pseusostreamer, as might be found above an isolated magnetic bipole within a larger unipolar region on the solar surface.
Two of the magnetic domains (I and II) are open to the heliosphere while the other two (III and IV) are closed, mapping from positive to negative polarity regions on the solar surface.
The black field lines that partition these domains represent separatrices (or separatrix surfaces in 3D), which emanate from the magnetic null point (yellow dot).
During interchange reconnection field lines from domains I and IV are swept into the null point where they reconnect and subsequently retract into domains II and III.
As magnetic flux is processed through the reconnection site the plasma is similarly swept across the domain boundaries so that immediately after reconnection the plasma properties along each segment of the reconnected field lines are inherited from their respective source regions.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fig3.pdf}
\caption{Schematic of interchange reconnection through an isolated coronal null point (yellow) above a region of parasitic polarity on the solar surface. Separator lines (black) emanate from the null point and partition the surrounding volume into four magnetic flux domains, two that are open and two that are closed. Field lines enter the reconnection site from the inflow domains (I and IV) and recede into the outflow domains (II and III). Newly reconnected field lines (dashed) are comprised of segments of pre-reconnection field lines (solid) that originated from within adjacent domains, as indicated by their coloring (red/blue).}
\label{fig.rxn}
\end{figure}
We construct the post-reconnection initial condition along a representative field line from segments of steady-state conditions for both open- and closed-field configurations, which we concatenate to form a piecewise steady state with a discontinuity at the reconnection site.
This construction assumes that plasma in the inflow domains remains in a steady state, even as field lines are swept toward the reconnection site, so the tacit assumption is that the reconnection rate is sufficiently small for motion of the field lines themselves to have no effect on the field-aligned dynamics.
Clearly this assumption ignores certain important aspects of null-point reconnection, including the expansion of the flux-tube cross section in the vicinity of the null-point;
however, by suppressing these effects we are able to study the fluid-driven evolution more closely and with fewer confounding influences.
From the post-reconnection initial condition we again use the HYDRAD code to evolve the system in time.
To ensure a monotonic transition between the two fluid states on either side of the reconnection site, the constructed post-reconnection state is initially refined using linear interpolation and suppressing explicit conservation of the mass, momentum, and energy densities.
Following this initial refinement, the subsequent integration is performed exactly as described in Section \ref{sec.fluid}.
We perform six calculations in total, using the same heating profiles as in the steady state calculations, with the reconnection site placed at $H_r \in \left \{R_\odot/8, R_\odot/4, R_\odot/2, R_\odot, 2 R_\odot, 4 R_\odot \right \}$.
Time-dependent ionization of oxygen is tracked in addition to the hydrodynamic evolution and state-files are output every $100 \, \rm s$ of model time.
The total simulation model time is $4 \times 10^5 \, \rm s$ (about 100 hours) from the instant of reconnection in each case, sufficient for the fluid to settle to a quasi-steady state that is indistinguishable from the transonic initial condition.
\section{Results}\label{results.sec}
\subsection{Initial Riemann Decomposition}
Because the numerical domains and magnetic geometries ($s$, $g$, and $A$) are identical between both the open- and closed-field steady-states, the post-reconnection initial condition begins in equilibrium everywhere except at the reconnection site.
There, the initial discontinuity subsequently evolves as a Riemann problem, decomposing into a shock and a rarefaction wave (as well as ion and electron thermal fronts), as needed for the jump conditions across each feature to collectively describe the total change in each of the fluid variables across the discontinuity.
In particular, since the wind solution above the reconnection site exhibits a flow that is directed away from the hydrostatic condition below the reconnection site, the collective response is that of a rarefaction; however, because the wind is of lower density than the hydrostatic solution, any outward propagating feature must be compressive.
The Riemann solution is, therefore, composed of a leading shock, which propagates outward at supersonic speed in the rest frame of the expanding wind, combined with a rarefaction wave whose leading edge propagates inward at the sound speed in the rest frame of the hydrostatic column below the reconnection site.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./fig4a.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./fig4b.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./fig4c.pdf}
\caption{Velocity, linear number density, and sound speed of the evolving Riemann solution for a reconnection event at $H_r = 2 R_\odot$. The shock and rarefaction propagate away from the initial discontinuity, and are visible in the velocity and density profiles. The sound speed reflects the mean temperature of the two species, and exhibits dynamics resulting from both the hydrodynamic evolution as well as electron thermal conduction.}
\label{fig.riemann}
\end{figure}
This initial evolution is depicted in Figure \ref{fig.riemann}, for a reconnection event located at $H_r = 2 R_\odot$.
The outward propagating shock and inward rarefaction are clearly visible in the velocity, which increases with height across the rarefaction and then decreases again across the shock, while the linear number density ($n A$) decreases with height across the rarefaction and then decreases again across the shock.
Note that in the rest frame of the shock the fluid appears to be moving inward, so the low-speed/high-density post-shock region lies between the shock and the rarefaction, and this region grows in time as the two features propagate away from each other.
As the rarefaction propagates inward it grows in time but continues to connect the quasi-static region below to the post-shock region above, so that while the leading edge propagates downward at the acoustic speed, the trailing edge remains nearly fixed at approximately the location of the initial discontinuity, which behaves as a stationary point for both the velocity and number density during this initial evolution.
The temperatures of the two species behave similarly to the number density during the initial Riemann evolution, but with additional dynamics resulting from viscous heating, thermal conduction, and compressive (adiabatic) heating and cooling.
Because the thermal conductivity of the ions is relatively weak, their temperature evolves primarily in response to compressive and advective transport, so it tracks closely with the number density profile over time.
However, the highly efficient electron thermal conductivity quickly dissipates the initial structure within the electron temperature profile creating broad heating and cooling fronts that extend far ahead of the shock and rarefaction, cooling the hydrostatic column below the reconnection site and heating the expanding wind.
These temperature variations are visible in the adiabatic sound speed $c_s^2 = \gamma (p_e + p_i) / \rho $ (which reflects the average temperature of the two species), as depicted in the lower panel of Figure \ref{fig.riemann}.
\subsection{Rarefaction Reversal}
As the rarefaction propagates inward, the temperature below it is preconditioned by the reduction of the downward heat flux in the hydrostatic region below the reconnection site.
This causes a weak downflow to develop in the region between the transition region and the rarefaction, which is quickly subsumed by the accelerating outflow across the leading edge of the rarefaction.
This is visible in Figure \ref{fig.reversal} between $t=30\,\rm m$ and $t=60\,\rm m$.
Meanwhile, an outward mass-flux begins to develop through the transition region as the reduced temperature leads to a reduction in radiative cooling, which therefore requires an outward enthalpy flux $(E + P) u$ in order to balance the local heating rate.
Eventually the leading edge of the rarefaction stalls against the up-welling of mass through the transition region as it seeks a new equilibrium that is consistent with the electron temperature profile, which settles rapidly toward a wind-like solution.
As the leading edge of the rarefaction stalls, the interior continues to expand over time, and the upper extent of the rarefaction accelerates outward, eventually becoming identifiable as the leading edge of a newly formed (reflected) outward-propagating rarefaction.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./fig5a.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./fig5b.pdf}
\caption{Velocity and linear number density during reversal of the rarefaction. Initially, the linear number density decreases with height through the rarefaction, consistent with inward-propagation; however, after reversal of the rarefaction the leading edge propagates outward and overtakes the leading shock, and the linear number density within the rarefaction increases with height.}
\label{fig.reversal}
\end{figure}
The reversal of the rarefaction coincides with a reversal in the linear number-density profile, which subsequently increases with height (see discussion in the Appendix), and cannot (in the absence of a second shock) match the density jump required to connect the post-shock outflow to the steadily decreasing density at the top of the transition region, which continues to fall as it seeks a wind-like solution.
This effect, combined with the steadily increasing outward mass flux through the transition region, leads to the development of another (weak) trailing shock, which develops behind the now-outward-propagating rarefaction.
Meanwhile, the leading edge of the rarefaction propagates outward at the sound speed in the post-shock medium, which is itself subsonic in the rest frame of the leading shock.
Eventually the outward-propagating rarefaction overtakes the leading shock, and the three features combine to form a single, coherent structure, known as an N-wave\footnote{Note that for leftward propagation the profile is that of an ``N'' while for rightward propagation the structure is inverted.} \citep[this being the ordered combination of two shocks connected by an interior rarefaction, as discussed by][]{Friedrichs:1948}.
The various stages of this reversal are depicted in Figure \ref{fig.reversal}: the downward propagation of the left side of the rarefaction is clearly visible between $t=15\rm m$ and $t=60\, \rm m$, along with the monotonic decrease in the linear number density with height.
From $t=120\, \rm m$ to $t=240\, \rm m$ the rarefaction accelerates upward, subsuming the post-shock outflow region below the shock, and the linear number density profile begins to flatten.
Eventually, by $t=480\, \rm m$, the upper extent of the rarefaction has overtaken the shock and the linear number density within the rarefaction now decreases inwardly away from the shock.
This reversal in the linear number density is the earliest signature of the newly-formed N-Wave, which is characterized by velocity and density profiles whose gradients are codirectional through the entire structure.
\subsection{N-Wave Structure and Dynamics}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./fig6a.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./fig6b.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./fig6c.pdf}
\caption{Velocity, linear number density, and selected oxygen ionization fractions $\rm O^{6+}$ and $\rm O^{7+}$ for the propagating N-wave solution. The velocity and density profiles mimic each other within the N-wave, which is composed of a leading shock, an outward-propagating rarefaction, and a trailing shock. The evolution of the ionization profiles reflects a competition between advective transport and spatially-varying ionization and recombination rates, which depend on the evolving temperature profiles.}
\label{fig.Nwave}
\end{figure}
The structure and evolution of the outward-propagating N-Wave are depicted in Figure \ref{fig.Nwave}, which shows the time-evolution of the fluid velocity, linear number density, and fractional ionization populations $O^{6+}$ and $O^{7+}$.
Note again that while $n$ (not shown) decreases monotonically with height, $n A$ necessarily increases with height in the region between the trailing shock and the leading shock, opposite the behavior of the initially-inward propagating rarefaction shown in Figure \ref{fig.riemann}.
The connection of the leading shock, through the rarefaction, to the trailing shock is also visible in the velocity profiles, which exhibits the eponymous ``N'' shape, decreasing with height across the trailing shock, then increasing quasi-linearly through the rarefaction to a maximum at the leading shock, before then decreasing abruptly across the leading shock onto the pre-shock wind solution.
The ionization fractions, on the other hand, do not participate in the compressive and expansive dynamics of the shocks and rarefaction, despite the fact that the initial discontinuity in the values of $Y_j$ is co-spatial with the initial Riemann problem.
This follows from the form of the advective component of the rate equation (i.e., the material derivative $u\, \partial_s Y_j$) which causes the ionization states to evolve as passive scalars in the absence of thermal effects (when the ionization and recombination rates become small) so that the ionization fractions are simply carried along by the flow but do not increase or decrease as the fluid expands.
Accordingly, the initial discontinuity (which is above the freeze-in height in the case of the $H_r = 2 R_\odot$ example) is carried along by the high-speed outflow within the rarefaction, but lags behind the leading shock, which propagates faster than the bulk flow.
Thus, while the shock reaches the outermost boundary of $30R_\odot$ in just a bit less than $24\,\rm hr$ of simulation time, the ionization signature has only just passed $10 R_\odot$ in that time, and does not arrive at the outer boundary until significantly later.
Below the freeze-in height, the fractional ionization populations of the initially hydrostatic fluid evolve in response to the changing temperature that occurs in both time and space as the fluid begins to expand within the rarefaction and eventually settles onto a new wind solution.
For fluid parcels that originate sufficiently low in the corona, the transit time to the freeze-in height is long compared to both the timescales of fluid equilibration and ionization and recombination, so that by the time the fluid reaches the freeze-in height, the ionization ratios are indistinguishable from a steady-state wind solution.
Fluid that originates higher up within the hydrostatic column has a thermal history that is more strongly representative of the conditions in the closed corona, having less time to equilibrate before it reaches the freeze-in height.
The structure of the ionization profiles following reconnection is therefore given by an abrupt transition from the dynamic equilibrium of the initial wind solution just above the reconnection site to something resembling the dynamic equilibrium of the hydrostatic solution at the same height, followed by a smooth transition back to the quasi-steady wind profile, all of which travels outward at the local fluid speed.
\section{Discussion}\label{discussion.sec}
\subsection{Dependence on Reconnection Height}
\begin{figure*}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{./fig7a.pdf}\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{./fig7b.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{./fig7c.pdf}\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{./fig7d.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{./fig7e.pdf}\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{./fig7f.pdf}
\caption{Comparison of flow speed and oxygen ionization ratio $\rm O^{7+}/O^{6+}$ for six separate experiments with reconnection sites placed at various heights from $R_\odot/8$ to $4R_\odot$. The dark purple to bright yellow colored curves represent snapshots at progressively later times from $0$ to $2\times10^5 {\rm s}$ (about $60$ hours) in increments of $10^4 {\, \rm s}$ (about $3$ hrs).}
\label{fig.compare}
\end{figure*}
We explored the effects of reconnection height with six simulations that place the reconnection site in a variety of locations from $R_\odot / 8$ to $4 R_\odot$.
A comparison of these runs is shown in Figure \ref{fig.compare}, which depicts the evolution of the fluid velocity and oxygen ionization ratio $\rm O^{7+}/O^{6+}$.
In each case, the strength and speed of the leading shock and trailing rarefaction depend primarily on the size of the initial discontinuity, which is larger for reconnection sites that are higher in the corona.
Therefore, reconnection events that occur near or above a height of $R_\odot$ display an obvious velocity (and therefore density) signature, as this is the relevant height-scale for the Mach number of the wind solution to have appreciable size.
For reconnection sites that are well below this height ($H_r \le 0.5 R_\odot$) the initial discontinuity is too weak to create a strong shock and the fluid quickly settles onto a wind solution with little more than a short-lived transient wave disturbance.
The initial temperature change across the reconnection site is less strongly affected by changes in $H_r$; however, for reconnection sites lower in the corona the ion and electron temperatures are more collisionaly coupled, so the dissipation of the initial temperature jump by the electrons similarly smooths the ion temperature profile and the reconnection signature becomes very weak in the far-field.
The ionization signature is similarly height dependent; however, in this case the relevant scale is whether the reconnection occurs above or below the freeze-in height, which occurs at roughly $R_\odot/3$.
Reconnection events that occur above this height show a strong closed-field signature in the ionization ratios that is largely unaltered as it propagates into the heliosphere, followed by a slow decay back to the wind-like solution.
For reconnection sites that are lower in the corona, the ionization ratios undergo more evolution and the signature of the material from within the initially hydrostatic column becomes progressively weaker, so that for reconnection sites well below the freeze-in height there is little-to-no signature, with the plasma having undergone significant thermal-temporal evolution before reaching the heliosphere.
A critical difference, however, is that the ionization signature is not dissipated in the same way that the temperature and even velocity profiles can be, so whatever signature survives up to the freeze-in height is well preserved as it propagates into the heliosphere, as seen in the $H_r = 0.25\,R_\odot$ panel of Figure \ref{fig.compare}.
Note that while the relevant height for both fluid and ionization dynamics is of order $R_\odot$ in these simulations, these heights are model dependent, and may change for different energy deposition profiles and ion populations, such as Fe ($Z=26$), whose freeze-in height is likely to be higher than that of O ($Z=8$).
\subsection{Relevance to In Situ Observations}
To explore the implications of these calculations for in situ observations we have extracted time series data for the fluid variables and ionization ratio $\rm O^{7+}/O^{6+}$ at $s=20\,R_\odot$ ($r = 21\, R_\odot$) above the solar surface, as shown in Figure \ref{fig.timing}.
This height is roughly coincident with the closest approach of Parker Solar Probe \cite[PSP,][]{Fox:2016d} during its sixth perihelion pass, and is at once far enough above the solar surface to be representative of the conditions in the heliosphere and also well within the numerical domain so as to avoid any possible boundary effects.
Unfortunately, PSP does not carry instrumentation to detect ionization ratios; however, these are not expected to undergo further evolution beyond $20\, R_\odot$, so the values and timing depicted in Figure \ref{fig.timing} should scale readily to heliocentric radii of $r > 60\, R_\odot$, at which point they will be detectable by Solar Oribiter \citep[SolO,][]{SolO}.
\begin{figure*}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 0.8\linewidth]{./fig8.pdf}
\caption{Time series of plasma properties at $r = 21 R_\odot$ for each of the runs. Note that in the time-series data the orientation of the ``N'' structures is reversed relative to the spatial profiles. The arrival time and duration of the N-waves reflect the acoustic travel time from the base of the corona, while the ionization ratio arrival time and duration reflects the fluid travel time and ionization/recombination time in the lower corona. For reconnection events below $\sim 0.25R_\odot$ there is little to no signature in the extended corona.}
\label{fig.timing}
\end{figure*}
In the figure, results from the six simulations are indicated by the variously colored curves, which run from dark purple to bright yellow for reconnection sites of increasing height.
Consistent with the velocity profiles in Figure \ref{fig.compare}, the signatures in the density, temperature, and ionization ratios show consistently larger amplitudes as the reconnection height is increased.
The arrival time of these signatures is also earlier for reconnection events that are higher in the corona, due in part to the reduced travel distance from the reconnection site to $20\, R_\odot$.
For the most part, the fluid signatures arrive simultaneously, with the electron heat front being an exception due to the significantly larger electron thermal speed, which makes the transit time from the reconnection site to $20\, R_\odot$ difficult to resolve on the scales represented here.
For the remaining fluid properties, however, the arrival time is governed by the two remaining characteristic speeds -- the sound speed (ion acoustic speed) and the bulk flow speed, both of which are on the order of a few $10^2 \, \rm km\, s^{-1}$ over the majority of the spatial domain.
In the case of the density, velocity, and ion temperature, the primary signature is the leading shock, whose arrival time reflects the shock propagation speed from the reconnection site, through the lower and middle corona, and into the extended corona and heliosphere.
This speed depends on the strength of the shock, being equal to the sound speed for weak shocks and as much as a few times the sound speed for strong shocks.
Reconnection events that are closer to the transition region exhibit weaker/slower shocks that must propagate from lower in the corona, where the temperature and sound speed are correspondingly smaller.
For that reason the signatures from reconnection events higher in the corona are not only larger in amplitude, but also arrive earlier and last longer by as much as a several hours, with the $H_r = 4 R_\odot$ event spanning from $t\simeq12-30\,\rm hrs$ while the $H_r = R_\odot/8$ event occurs over a much shorter time from $t\simeq 20-22\,\rm hrs.$
Nonetheless, the qualitative signatures are identical in each case, with an initial enhancement across the leading shock, followed by a slow decay through the rarefaction and finally a small jump across the weak, trailing shock, which arrives later for the higher-amplitude events, owing to the larger extent of the rarefaction.
This causes the signatures from reconnection events that are higher in the corona to be not only stronger but also longer-lived.
Critically, the transient flow speed within the N-wave is systematically higher than the ambient wind speed, so that the net effect of interchange reconnection is to increase the speed of the wind relative to a steady-state solution.
For the ionization ratios we see a similar trend, with reconnection events placed higher in the corona having a stronger and more long-lasting signature, that arrives sooner and takes longer to decay.
However, as we have previously shown the ionization ratios do not participate in the shock-compression dynamics, but are instead entrained behind the shock.
As a result the ionization signatures \rev{arrive systematically} later than the shock/rarefaction system, being typically delayed by several hours, enough that in most cases the fluid variables have returned to equilibrium values by the time the ionization signatures arrive.
Within the ionization curves we see qualitatively similar behavior in all cases, with an initial enhancement of $\rm O^{7+}/O^{6+}$ reflecting the population that originated from within the hydrostatic region above the freeze-in height but below the reconnection site, followed by a slow decay reflecting the populations that passed through the freeze-in region before the N-wave had fully formed, and finally a return to the wind conditions from populations that originated near the base of the corona and experienced a thermal history that reflects the fully-relaxed wind solution.
From the study of \cite{Zhao:2017}, the ratio $\rm O^{7+}/O^{6+}$ in observed solar wind streams is typically in the range 0.05 to 0.2, being systematically lower for wind streams that are ballistically mapped from coronal hole regions vs active regions.
By comparison, the steady-state wind stream that we simulate here exhibits an $\rm O^{7+}/O^{6+}$ ratio of $\sim 0.11$, with enhancements following reconnection of up to $0.5$ in the most extreme case.
This suggests that reconnection events that occur lower in the corona and below the freeze-in height may be better matched to the observations, as would be the case for the $H_r = 0.25\,R_\odot$ simulation, which exhibits a maximum $\rm O^{7+}/O^{6+}$ ratio of 0.2.
The relative timing of these signatures similarly reflects the amplitude of the N-wave, with larger shock rarefaction systems having faster flows in the rarefaction region, corresponding to earlier arrivals of the associated ionization profiles.
The location of the reconnection sites relative to the freeze-in height is further evidenced in the flatness of the ionization curves between the arrival of the reconnection signature and the slow return to the wind-like signature, as this reflects the extent of the material in the column that originated below $H_r$ but above the freeze-in height.
By comparison, for $H_r < R_\odot$ the initially hydrostatic populations have clearly undergone significant ionization and recombination on their way into the heliosphere, with the signatures of their origin in the closed-field domains being progressively weaker for lower reconnection heights.
\subsection{Interpretation in 2+ Dimensions}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./fig9.pdf}
\caption{Schematic of 2D interchange reconnection with overlaid hydrodynamic sub-domains. Solid orange curves represent shock fronts while dashed orange curves are weak discontinuities at the leading and trailing edges of the rarefaction wave. In the upper-right outflow region, near the reconnection site, the leading shock separates the pre-shock wind from the post-shock outflow above the inward rarefaction, which propagates down into the hydrostatic column. Farther from the reconnection site the rarefaction undergoes reversal, eventually subsuming the post-shock outflow. A second shock separates the now-outward rarefaction from the newly-formed wind below it, and together with the leading shock these three features make up the N-wave.}
\label{fig.2d}
\end{figure}
To this point we have focused on the time-dependent evolution the plasma along individual field lines;
however, if we return to the steady-state picture of interchange reconnection as depicted in Figure \ref{fig.rxn} we can imagine that all of the field lines in the outflow region(s) are undergoing the same dynamic evolution.
By associating the field-perpendicular distance from the reconnection site with increasing time since reconnection we can map the various stages of the field-aligned dynamics along a given field line to different subdomains within the reconnection outflow region.
A depiction of this mapping is shown in Figure \ref{fig.2d}, with the various hydrodynamic regions overlaid onto the magnetic field structure, which has been modified slightly from Figure \ref{fig.rxn} to reflect the collapse of the null-point into a thin current sheet.
Just as in Figure \ref{fig.rxn}, there are four magnetic domains, two inflow regions (I and IV) and two outflow regions (II and III).
The pre-reconnection transonic and hydrostatic fluid domains encompass the two magnetic inflow regions, but also extend into the outflow regions.
This follows directly from the details of the field-aligned evolution and also reflects a broader causal connection between magnetic topology and plasma dynamics.
Since field lines depend on the global structure of the magnetic field at a single instant in time, changes in magnetic connectivity occur instantaneously;
however, plasma dynamics are dictated by local processes and signals that propagate at finite speed, so the effects of reconnection are limited to the causally connected region defined by the characteristics of the system (i.e., the leading shock and inward rarefaction).
In the closed-field outflow region (domain III from Figure \ref{fig.rxn}) the reconnection discontinuity connects a segment of the wind solution from the lower corona (domain I) with a hydrostatic plasma column from the closed-field region beneath the null point (domain IV).
The resulting dynamics have not yet been simulated within our model; however, because the fluid velocity of the wind solution is directed toward the discontinuity, the resulting evolution will likely exhibit a pair of shocks that propagate away from each other and downward toward the solar surface.
These would then rebound from the density gradient at the base of the transition region, driving chromospheric evaporation, siphon flows, and other interesting processes in the lower corona.
In the open-field outflow region (domain II from figure \ref{fig.rxn}) the reconnection event connects an upper segment of the wind solution to a hydrostatic column below it and the dynamics along a given field line proceed as previously described.
The various shocks and rarefactions along progressively older field lines form loci that generalize to magnetoacoustic disturbances.
The leading shock and inward rarefaction along individual field lines generalize to slow magneto-acoustic fronts that separate the causally-disconnected portions of the outflow region in the far-field from the interior of the structure that develops from the initial reconnection discontinuity.
The reversal of the inward-propagating rarefaction, which subsequently subsumes the quasi-steady shock outflow, and the formation of the outward-propagating rarefaction and trailing shock each define subdomains as depicted by the variously colored regions in the figure.
The final N-wave structure is defined by the two near-parallel shock fronts and the outward-propagating rarefaction that separates them, with the wind speed being again enhanced relative to the steady state within the interior of the N-wave.
It is noteworthy that in both of the outflow regions (the open-field outflow that we have modeled here and the closed-field outflow that we have not yet addressed) the effect of the fluid discontinuity should be to generate a pair of shock-like fronts that expand as a wedge away from the reconnection site.
This closely resembles the structure of a Petschek reconnection outflow, where a pair of slow magneto-acoustic shocks form in order to alter the effective aspect ratio of the current sheet to accommodate an increased reconnection rate over the classic Sweet-Parker scaling \citep{Parker:1957, Sweet:1958, Petschek:1964, Kulsrud:2001}.
Here the shocks result from an asymmetry in the conditions in the two inflow regions, including a non-zero velocity jump across the reconnection site; however, it seems likely that the two are related and may in fact be limiting cases of the same underlying phenomenon.
\rev{Other authors have previously observed the connection between one-dimensional Riemann problems and Petscheck reconnection, both symmetric and assymetric \citep[see][and references therin]{Lin:1999}, but these have generally focused on the cross-field dynamics in configurations where the asymptotic speed is zero in both inflow domains.
Clearly, there is more work to be done in unifying these descriptions under more general initial conditions as the resulting behavior will depend on the overall reconnection rate and the extent of the asymmetry.}
\section{Conclusions}\label{conclusions.sec}
We have demonstrated how a post-reconnection plasma discontinuity naturally evolves as a shock-rarefaction system in the manner of a Riemann problem, with a leading shock that expands into the heliosphere and an underlying rarefaction that propagates inward toward the solar surface.
We have further shown how the initially-downward-propagating rarefaction reverses at the transition region to become an outward-propagating shock-rarefaction system, which eventually overtakes the leading shock to form a shock-rarefaction-shock triplet, or N-wave.
This structure propagates coherently into the pre-existing wind in the heliosphere at a few times the local sound speed (or slow magneto-acoustic speed) after which the plasma behind it settles to a new quasi-steady wind solution on a time-scale that is comparable to the acoustic transit time from the solar surface to a given heliocentric radius.
\rev{A key finding of our model is that the release of material from the closed corona into the open field necessarily enhances the speed of the reconnected wind stream due to the interaction between the under-dense wind above the reconnection site and the high-pressure column below it.
Because the fast solar wind is generally steady while the slow wind exhibits significant variability, our interpretation is that interchange reconnection is more common along field lines that support slow wind streams than those that support fast wind streams.
This is consistent with the finding that the fast wind emanates from the interior of coronal holes while the slow wind originates from near coronal hole boundaries, where interchange reconnection is expected to be prevalent.
However, if our model is accurate then the specific processes that result in the slower baseline speed of the wind that emanates from coronal hole boundaries are independent of the process of interchange reconnection, whose primary effect is the create intermittent enhancements of the slow wind speed relative to the steady-state.}
Additionally, we have shown how the time-dependent ionization of oxygen evolves in the context of the post-reconnection fluid, with the ionization ratios being carried along by the flow while also evolving subject to the rate equations in the co-moving fluid frame.
We find that the location of the reconnection site relative to the freeze-in height is critical to the predicted temporal evolution of the ionization ratios for in situ measurements, with reconnection above the freeze-in height showing a strong signature of the initially hydrostatic plasma column that originates above the freeze-in height but below the reconnection site.
As the reconnection site is moved progressively closer to or below the freeze-in height, the initially hydrostatic fluid undergoes more ionization and recombination in its journey to the heliosphere, and so this signature is weakened considerably.
These observations have strong implications for the strength of the signatures from reconnection events that occur near large magnetic structures, whose vertical extent is comparable to the source surface radius (i.e., $H_r \sim 3 R_\odot$) vs. more compact structures with $H_r \lesssim R_\odot$.
Since pseudostreamers are usually on the lower end of this scale, it is likely that the strength of the discontinuity will be similarly on the lower end of the parameter space that we have described; however, because smaller structures are more likely to support the near-hydrostatic configuration on which our model depends, it is possible that the dependence on reconnection height will be weaker than these results suggest.
Despite this reduction in the strength of the ionization signal with decreased reconnection height, the time-delay between the arrival of the hydrodynamic and ionization signatures, which corresponds to the different travel times of the propagating signals (shocks and other waves) and the advected signals (material properties), seems to be robust across all reconnection heights.
And while we have not calculated them here, it is likely that disparities in abundances between open- and closed-field plasma will follow a similar trend, being similarly transported by the flow.
Confirmation of these features will depend on robust measurements of plasma dynamics, composition, and ionization in the inner heliosphere, and will require joint observation efforts from PSP and SolO, as the former will sample plasma in the appropriate source region, but only the latter possesses the suite of instruments required to make the measurement.
However, because the plasma's material composition is unlikely to be altered between $20 R_\odot$ and $200 R_\odot$ ($\sim 1 \rm AU$) it should be possible to reconstruct these signatures under ideal circumstances.
The applicability of these results depends on the existence of pristine initial conditions both above and below the reconnection site and minimal cross-field dynamics during the subsequent evolution.
The latter requirement will depend on the global magnetic evolution, which can be highly variable across disparate regions of the solar corona.
However, these conditions are not unreasonable provided that the field-line drift velocity far from the reconnection site is not significantly greater than the acoustic speed and that the Lorentz force is sufficient to resist perpendicular gradients in the energy density of the fluid.
That is to say that the coronal geometry should be relatively static and the plasma $\beta$ and Alfv\'en Mach numbers should both be small.
The validity of the initial condition depends additionally on the structure and dynamics of the reconnection site, \rev{which must be compact and and well defined with adjacent open- and closed-field domains being unambiguously identifiable.}
In particular, it is important that the thickness of the reconnection layer should not be significantly larger than the ion mean-free-path and that the fluid undergo minimal evolution during the time that it takes for a newly-reconnected field line to emerge from the reconnection site.
This will ensure that the fluid conditions on the newly reconnected field line appear as a discontinuity, which can then evolve in the manner that we have described.
\rev{Accordingly, while the slow solar wind is expected to emanate from both pseudostreamers and helmets streamers, the ambiguous nature of the open-closed boundary along helmet streamers and the continuous opening and closing of loops within the heliospheric current sheet may preclude the application of this model in that context; although a similar construction could be applicable given suitable alterations to the model.}
Assuming that the reconnection outflow speed is equal to the Alfv\'en speed, we can estimate the Alfv\'en transit time over the length of the reconnection site and compare it to the acoustic transit time over an ion mean-free-path length.
Combined with our earlier requirement on the thickness of the reconnection layer we then find that the aspect ratio of the reconnection site should be less than $\sqrt{2/\beta}$, where $\beta = 2 c_s^2 / v_a^2$ reflects the ratio of the acoustic speed to the Alfv\'en speed.
These assumptions are not universally applicable throughout the solar corona; however, they are sufficiently general as to be applicable in certain cases, and we have described a 2+D geometry that represents the likeliest scenario for observing this phenomenon, that being the case of laminar/coherent reconnection across a null-separatrix system that is representative of a simplified coronal pseudostreamer.
In this construction the expanding N-wave forms a wedge of high-speed wind within the rarefaction that is bounded by slow magneto-acoustic shocks at its leading and trailing edges.
Depending on the structure of the magnetic field ahead of the N-wave this may provide a framework for the formation of magnetic switchbacks vis-\`a-vis the model of \cite{Schwadron:2021m}.
Moreover, the structure of the reconnection outflow in this model is strongly reminiscent of Petscheck reconnection, with the acoustic shocks and rarefaction described here being naturally generalized to slow magnetosonic shocks and rarefactions.
In reality, the solar corona is always evolving, and that evolution will invariably complicate the behavior that we have demonstrated.
The sensitivity of these results to the assumptions within our model remain to be tested; however, the dynamics that we have described here should persist in some form anywhere that the basic magnetic geometry is comparable to our model framework and the reconnection process is not too violent.
As such, these dynamics should be viewed as a baseline for comparison so that the disparate effects of coherent reconnection and more complicated dynamic processes can be disentangled when interpreting in situ and remote sensing observations.
\section{Acknowledgements}\label{acknowledgements.sec}
RBS, SJB and MGL were supported for this project by NASA HSR grant 80HQTR21T0106. RBS and MGL were also supported for this project by the Office of Naval Research and by NASA PSP/WISPR grant NNG11EK11I. We thank the anonymous referee for their helpful comments and careful reading of the manuscript. Thanks go also to Peter Wyper for helpful discussions on the conditions near the reconnection site.
\bibliographystyle{apj}
|
\section{AT and OOD Detection}
\section{AT and Changes in Model Filters} \label{sec:change}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\section{AT and Norm of CNN Kernels} \label{sec:change}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.37\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{images/all_mean_of_maxs_resnet_18_.png}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.44\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{images/all_mean_of_maxs_wrn_.png}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace{-1em}
\caption{Plot of maximum of $L_{\infty}$ norms of filters in various layers for increasingly $\epsilon$-robust ResNet18 \emph{(left)} and WideResNet-28-10 \emph{(right)} models.}
\label{fig:hist}
\end{figure*}
\input{tables/mini_corruptions}
\textbf{Motivation: }In this section we attempt to analyze the variation in the norm of the kernel weights for different layers across increasingly robust models. The kernel weights are square matrices of shape $3 \times 3$. Each convolutional operation in a CNN computes an output of the form $y = w^Tv$, where $\{w, v\} \in \reals^d$ and $d = 9$. $v$ represents the part of the input the kernel gets applied to. Then by Cauchy-Schwartz inequality $||y|| = || w^Tv|| \leq ||w|| ||v|| $. The norm $||w||_\infty = max_i |w_i|$ serves as the $L_\infty$ Lipschitz constant for $y$ w.r.t to the input $v$. Thus, we analyze the $L_{\infty}$ norm of kernel weights to study the sensitivity of convolutional layers to $L_\infty$ norm bounded perturbations.
\textbf{Experiments: }We analyze the average and worst case performance for each layer in ResNet18 and WideResNet-28-10 models, by analyzing the average filter sensitivity and the filter that is most sensitive to input perturbations respectively. These can be measured by the average and maximum over the filter norms in each layer. That is, for a particular convolution layer $i$, we compute $\mathbb{E}_{w \in \text{ conv i}} ||w||_{\infty}$ and $\max_{w \in \text{ conv i}} ||w||_{\infty}$. We plot the former for each layer of increasingly $\epsilon$-robust ResNet18 and WideResNet-28-10 models in Figure \ref{fig:hist} and the latter in Appendix \ref{app:change}.
\input{images/mini_actvations}
\textbf{Discussions: }We observe in Figure \ref{fig:hist}, the first two curves which denote the average $L_{\infty}$ Lipschitz constant of filters in the first two layers of ResNet18, take much larger values when compared to the curves corresponding to the rest of the layers. The large separation between the first two layers and remaining layers is again observed for WideResNet-28-10.
The plot of maximum $L_{\infty}$ Lipschitz constant of filters of each layer in Appendix \ref{app:change} also displays a similar separation between the first two layers and other layers. Moreover, it depicts that the curves of the first and second layer monotonically increase for ResNet18 but not for WideResNet-28-10. From the above, we infer the following: (1) the first two layers are primarily responsible for propagating perturbations from input to output, and (2) wider networks may realize greater adversarial robustness from implicit regularization of their first two layers. Further, our conclusion on the filter's $L_{\infty}$ Lipschitz constants of the first two layers playing an outsized role, agrees with our previous observations in Section \ref{sec:quant}. Where, quantization of intermediate features after these layers provided the greatest increases in accuracy. This leads us to the following conjecture: the first two layers play an important role in robustness compared to the other layers. When designing robust techniques, special attention needs to be devoted to these layers in order to have a far reaching impact.
\section*{Appendix: Experimental Details and Additional Results}
Our code and models can be found at the following link: \url{https://github.com/perturb-spectrum/analysis_and_methods}.
\section{Adversarially Trained Models' Performance and Hyperparameters} \label{app:individual}
\subsection{Adversarially Trained Models}
\begin{table}[H]
\tiny
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c}
Accuracy (\%) & \multicolumn{7}{c}{$\epsilon$} \\
\cline{2-14}
& $0$ & $1$ & $2$ & $3$ & $4$ & $5$ & $6$ & $7$ & $8$ & $9$ & $10$ & $11$ & $12$ \\
\hline
clean & 85.58 & 88.25 & 88.79 & 88.16 & 88.09 & 87.95 & 86.35 & 84.66 & 84.63 & 83.23 & 83.32 & 83.33 & 83.5 \\
PGD$_{\epsilon}$-20 & 85.58 & 84.57 & 77.83 & 71.32 & 65.51 & 60.54 & 55.71 & 52.06 & 48.75 & 45.56 & 43.16 & 41.69 & 39.06 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Clean and adversarial performance of ResNet-18 models on increasing values of $\epsilon$.}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[H]
\tiny
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c}
Accuracy (\%) & \multicolumn{7}{c}{$\epsilon$} \\
\cline{2-8}
& $0$ & $2$ & $4$ & $6$ & $8$ & $10$ & $12$ \\
\hline
clean & 85.45 & 88.41 & 88.13 & 88.66 & 85.23 & 83.51 & 82.83 \\
PGD$_{\epsilon}$-20 & 85.45 & 81.77 & 70.84 & 62.03 & 53.75 & 47.54 & 42.17 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Clean and adversarial performance of WideResNet-28-10 models on increasing values of $\epsilon$.
}
\end{table}
\input{tables/hyperparameters}
\section{Overdesigning for Robust Generalization}\label{app:gen}
Figure \ref{fig:g_err_appendix} depicts the robust error for increasingly $\epsilon$-robust ResNet18 and WideResNet-28 at attack perturbation strengths $\delta=6$ and $8$. The trend is similar to Figure \ref{fig:g_err_mini}. Specifically, we notice that the $9$-robust model generalizes best to PGD$_{6}$-20 for ResNet18; the $10$-robust model generalizes best to PGD$_{6}$-20 for WideResNet-28-10 continuing the trend in $\epsilon_{\text{best}}-\delta$ discussed in Section \ref{sec:gen}.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{.33\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{images/_which_of_them_classifies_best_gen_err_68.png}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.33\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{images/wrn_which_of_them_classifies_best_gen_err_68.png}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Robust error (= error on PGD$_{\delta}$-20 on test set) of increasingly $\epsilon$-robust ResNet18 \emph{(left)} and WideResNet-28-10 \emph{(right)} models for $\delta \in \{6, 8\}$.}
\label{fig:g_err_appendix}
\end{figure}
\section{Intermediate feature Quantization}\label{app:quant}
\subsection{BPDA}
We table the complete set of accuracies of $\epsilon$ robust ResNet18 and WideResNet-28-10 models on BPDA$_{\delta}$, for various $\epsilon$ and $\delta$, in Tables \ref{tab:BPDA_appendix} and \ref{tab:BPDA_wide_appendix} respectively.
\input{tables/BPDA}
\input{tables/BPDA_wide}
\subsection{Transfer PGD with Ablations}
We table the complete set of accuracies of $\epsilon$ robust ResNet18 and WIdeResNet-28-10 models on Transfer PGD$_{\delta}$-20 attack, for various $\epsilon$ and $\delta$, at quantization scaling factor of $\beta=8.0$ in Tables \ref{tab:TPGD_appendix} and \ref{tab:TPGD_wide_appendix} respectively.
We repeat our experiments with ResNet18 models for quantization scaling factors of $\beta=6.0, 8.0, 10.0$ and $12.0$ and display all accuracies for various $\epsilon$ and $\delta$ in Tables \ref{tab:TPGD_appendix_4}, \ref{tab:TPGD_appendix_6}, \ref{tab:TPGD_appendix_10}, and \ref{tab:TPGD_appendix_12} respectively.
We repeat our experiments again with WideResNet-28-10 models for quantization scaling factors of $\beta=6.0, 8.0, 10.0$ and $12.0$ and display all accuracies for various $\epsilon$ and $\delta$ in Tables \ref{tab:TPGD_wide_appendix_4}, \ref{tab:TPGD_wide_appendix_6}, \ref{tab:TPGD_wide_appendix_10}, and \ref{tab:TPGD_wide_appendix_12} respectively.
We continue to observe increase in robustness to seen and unseen BPDA and Transfer PGD in all the below tables.
\input{tables/quant}
\input{tables/quant_ablations}
\input{tables/quant_wide}
\input{tables/quant_wide_ablations}
\subsection{Clean Accuracies After Quantization for Various $\beta$}
The clean accuracies after quantization with different scaling factors $\beta \in \{4, 6, 8, 10, 12\}$ is depicted below in Tables \ref{tab:quant_clean} and \ref{tab:quant_wide_clean}. We note that there is very minimal change in clean accuracies across values of $\epsilon$.
\input{tables/quant_clean}
\input{tables/quant_clean_wide}
\section{AT and Norm of CNN Kernels}\label{app:change}
We analyze the worst case performance by plotting (for convolution layer $i$), $\max_{w \in \; \text{conv} \; i} ||w||_{\infty}$ for various layers of increasing $\epsilon$-robust models in Figure \ref{fig:appendix_change}.
We note a large separation between the first two layers and other layers (as previously observed in the average case in Section \ref{sec:change}) but also observe a monotonic increase for the first two curves of ResNet18 but not WideResNet-28-10.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.44\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{images/all_max_of_maxs_resnet_18_Stacked.png}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.55\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{images/all_max_of_maxs_wrn_.png}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Plot of maximum of $L_{\infty}$ norms of filters in various layers for increasingly $\epsilon$-robust ResNet18 \emph{(left)} and WideResNet-28-10 \emph{(right)} models.}
\label{fig:appendix_change}
\end{figure}
\section{Training with Larger Perturbations and Common-Corruptions}\label{app:OOD_all}
We present the accuracy of non-robust and various $\epsilon$-robust models for each corruption with ResNet18 models, and WideResNet-18 models in Tables \ref{tab:many_corruptions_appendix}, and \ref{tab:many_corruptions_wide_appendix} respectively.
\input{tables/corruptions}
\input{tables/corruptions_wide}
\section{Background} \label{sec:background}
\subsection{Adversarial Training}
Projected Gradient Descent based Adversarial training (PGD-AT) \citep{madry2018towards} solves a min-max optimization problem on a loss function $l$ as
\begin{align}
\min_{\theta} \; \mathbb{E}_{(x, y) \sim \mathcal{D}} \left[ \max_{x' \in \mathcal{S}(x)} l(f_{\theta}(x'), y) \right]. \label{eq:AT}
\end{align}
Above, $\mathcal{D}$ represents the distribution over training data and $\mathcal{S}(x)$ is the allowed set of perturbed examples around $x$, usually in an $L_p$ norm-bounded ball given by $\mathcal{S}(x) = \{x' \; | \; \lvert\lvert x' - x \rvert\rvert_p \leq \kappa\}$) where $\kappa$ is the perturbation strength. The inner maximization, which obtains the adversarial example, takes place with the projected gradient descent (PGD) attack and uses a step size $\alpha$
\begin{align}
x^{i+1} = \Pi_{\mathcal{S}(x)} \left(x^i + \alpha \; \text{sign}[ \nabla_{x^{i}} l(f_{\theta}(x^{i}), y) ] \right).
\end{align}
Where $x^0$ is chosen at random from within $\mathcal{S}(x)$, $\Pi_{\mathcal{S}(x)}(.)$ represents the projection into set $\mathcal{S}(x)$, and the adversarial example is obtained after $N$ steps as $x' = x^N$. Here, $\kappa$ is set to $\epsilon/255$ where $\epsilon$ is an integer (usually, $8/255$ for $L_{\infty}$ perturbations). For a fair comparison, we set $\alpha = \frac{\epsilon}{8} \times \frac{2}{255}$ which takes the usual value of $\frac{2} {255}$ at $\epsilon = 8$ \citep{madry2018towards}. Many variants of PGD-AT have been proposed \citep{croce2022evaluating, zhang2019theoretically, carmon2019unlabeled, kang2021stable, huang2021exploring, wu2021wider, rade2021helper, pang2022robustness, sehwag2021robust}. In this work, for a rigorous study, we focus on the foundational method without the modifications. We refer to PGD-AT simply as AT throughout this paper.
\vspace{-0.5em}
\subsection{Notations}
Throughout this work, following \citet{madry2018towards} and for brevity, we refer to models trained as described above with perturbation strength $\epsilon/255$ as $\epsilon$-robust models. We denote an $N$ step PGD attack of strength $\delta$ as PGD$_{\delta}$-N.
\vspace{-0.5em}
\subsection{Adaptive Attacks}
When an improvement to AT is obtained through obfuscated gradients, adaptive attacks are necessary for evaluating the defense. Particularly, when a defense is not differentiable (such as with a scaled floor function in a quantization transformation), the Backward Pass Differentiable Approximation (BPDA) attack \citep{athalye2018obfuscated} is utilized where the non-differentiable defense is usually approximated with an identity function on the backward pass to compute gradients for an attack. Recent work \citep{croce2022evaluating} also recommends evaluating defenses that adapt models (including their intermediate features) against Transfer PGD, \textit{i.e.}, attacked images obtained from a PGD attack on just the model applied to the adapted model.
\section{Is Training with Larger Perturbations Always Helpful?} \label{sec:ood_all}
\section{Training with Larger Perturbations and Common-Corruptions} \label{sec:ood_all}
\textbf{Motivation: }While training with a spectrum of $\epsilon$ values can uncover new techniques, otherwise not apparent at a single $\epsilon$, it can have potential downsides. An alternate way to assess the robustness of a DNN model is to evaluate on common corruptions like image noise. When trained in an adversarial setting we expect the following - AT, albeit unintentionally, should increase the general robustness of the model against corruptions like Gaussian noise, weather shifts and alike as discussed in \citet{hendrycks2019benchmarking}. Even though AT is a standard comparison benchmark when it comes to techniques for increasing robustness in such common corruptions setting, the further analysis into testing the limits of this is often overlooked. The only work that tests the limits \citep{kireev2021effectiveness} has previously reported that $1$-robust models perform better than $8$-robust models.
\textbf{Experiments: }To this end, we test increasingly robust models on images with common corruptions from the CIFAR-10-C dataset \citep{hendrycks2019benchmarking}. The complete results on each corruption is in Appendix \ref{app:OOD_all}. We present the average accuracy across the full dataset in Table \ref{tab:mini_corruptions}. We notice another facet of perturbation strength - models trained with smaller $\epsilon$'s obtain better robustness across all kinds of corruptions -- which is not what one would expect.
Further, the accuracy on corrupted images uniformly decreases after $\epsilon=1$ or $2$ on almost all corruptions. On average, the $2$-robust models have the highest robustness (for both ResNet18 and WideResNet-28-10), followed by the $1$-robust model for ResNet18 and the $4$-robust model for WideResNet-28-10.
\textbf{Discussions: }We understand this peculiar behaviour in terms of the features before ReLU functions and in particular the final Pre-ReLU/Pre-Swish features. Unlike adversarial attacked images which have small bounded perturbations, corrupted images, have numerically larger perturbations. These perturbations when propagated through the model are more likely to flip an input to a ReLU neuron from negative to positive (or vice versa) when it is closer to zero. Consequently, we notice that the mean of the final pre-ReLU features (for ResNet18) and pre-Swish features (for WideResNet-28-10) on the complete CIFAR-10-C dataset are further away from zero for lower strength models (see Figure \ref{fig:mini_relu_mean}).
The highly biased positions of these final pre-activation features is likely to be responsible for the increased robustness of the lower $\epsilon$-robust models. Moreover, this reveals that it may not always be helpful to train with increasing $\epsilon$, particularly from the vantage point of images corrupted with common noise.
\section{Conclusions and Future Work}
In this paper, we analyzed AT models trained at a spectrum of perturbation strengths and identified new techniques (overdesigning, quantization, sensitivity of convolutional filter weights) not apparent from standard analysis at just a single defense perturbation strength. We explored the effects of these techniques on adversarial robustness of ResNet and WideResNet models to seen and unseen, standard and adaptive attacks on CIFAR-10. Finally, we discovered a potential downside to training at various perturbation strengths, in the form of a drop in robustness to common corruptions. In future work, we aim to study perturbation-customized AT variants and test-time defenses at a spectrum of perturbations, and identify methods to regularize the first two layers to further improve robustness in AT models.
\section{Intermediate Feature Quantization} \label{sec:quant}
\input{tables/mini_quant}
\textbf{Motivation: }Quantization offers a simple alternative to induce robustness to input perturbations. Simply on account of the reduced sensitivity to perturbations away from quantization boundaries. There exists some prior work on this in literature, \citep{buckman2018thermometer, guo2017countering} but have been unable to withstand adaptive attacks like BPDA \citep{athalye2018obfuscated}. This seemingly arbitrary defense does seem to have some impact on the robustness of the overall computation. We attempt to study this in more detail here. In particular, we ask the question - \textit{what changes in the intermediate features affect robust accuracy while minimally changing clean accuracy? }
\textbf{Experiments: }We operate at the level of convolutional blocks. We quantize intermediate features after one of the five convolutional blocks in various adversarially trained ResNet18 models, and one of the four blocks in WideResNet-28-10 models.
The quantization is performed with a simple element-wise scaled floor function on input tensor $x \in \mathbb{R}^{C\times W \times H}$ given as $\lfloor \beta x_{ijk} \rfloor / \beta$, for some scalar $\beta$. Notice that the above operation can be done for any intermediate neuron in the DNN, and can be prohibitively large to explore in an individual basis. But, a useful abstraction is to work at the level of layers of the DNN. We evaluate feature-quantization on two adaptive attacks, namely, BPDA$_{\delta}$ from \citet{athalye2018obfuscated} and Transfer PDG$_{\delta}$-20 from \citet{croce2022evaluating} for various $\delta$'s and show some sample results in Table \ref{tab:mini_quant}. The complete set of results for $\epsilon \in [0, 12]$ and $\delta \in \{0, 2, 4, 6, 8\}$, clean accuracies after quantization and ablations for various $\beta$ values can be found in Appendix \ref{app:quant}.
\textbf{Discussions: }In Table \ref{tab:mini_quant}, the cells shaded blue represent an increase over the unquantized model (gray cells) while, cells shaded red denote a loss in accuracy. The dark blue shaded lines in Table \ref{tab:mini_quant} correspond to accuracies obtained with quantization after `conv0' for ResNet18 and after `layer[0]' for WideResNet-28-10. They denote significant increase in accuracy with quantization of intermediate features after the first layer in ResNet18 and after the second layer in WideResNet-28-10. Whereas, the red shaded cells on the top right show a loss in robustness on the weak attack $\delta=2$ for high strength ($\epsilon=8, ..., 12$) models. This can be understood as the expected (but minimal) loss in accuracy with a drop in resolution for features of attacked images that are almost the same as clean images.
Unexpectedly, we also notice that the shaded blue values span across seen ($\epsilon \geq \delta$) and unseen attacks ($\epsilon < \delta$). Further, with individual columns of $\epsilon$-robust models like the $\epsilon=12$ column under the transfer PGD attack on WRN-28-10 and the $\epsilon=2$ column under the BPDA attack on WRN-28-10, it would have been easy to reject this technique as unsuitable. Yet, with an evaluation spanning across increasing values of $\epsilon$, we notice that broad improvements are attained in both seen and unseen attacks, other columns of Table \ref{tab:mini_quant}. Our evaluation confirms that quantization can be applied to any model to provide both seen and unseen robustness without explicit calibration to unseen attacks.
\section{Introduction} \label{sec:intro}
Adversarial training (AT) is currently the most effective method to improve the adversarial robustness of neural networks. AT and its variants have created robust models with state-of-the-art results against white-box attacks \citep{croce2020robustbench} without having to resort to obfuscated gradients \citep{athalye2018obfuscated}. Various studies on the effects of hyperparameters \citep{pang2020bag, sridhar2021improving, gowal2020uncovering, xie2019intriguing}, data augmentation \citep{rebuffi2021fixing}, unlabelled data \citep{carmon2019unlabeled, gowal2021improving, sehwag2021robust}, model size \citep{huang2021exploring, wu2021wider} and performance on unseen attacks \citep{stutz2020confidence, laidlaw2020perceptual} on AT have been conducted in the past.
But each study has been restricted to analysis at a specified defense perturbation strength $\epsilon$ (usually 8/255 for $L_{\infty}$ adversarial robustness). For a fixed $\epsilon$-robust model, each of the studies above suggests an algorithm in addition to a combination of hyperparameters to improve robustness. By not observing the variation across $\epsilon$ values, current methods miss out on potential ideas that can aid robustness. In this work, we present three such ideas. These ideas employ feedback from three different sources.
First, based on the performance of models adversarially trained at various $\epsilon$'s, we find that there exists a defense perturbation strength $\epsilon$ (higher than the attack perturbation strength $\delta$) at which an AT model generalizes best to an attack. All models trained with strengths greater or lesser than this value are less effective defenses. We suggest \emph{overdesigning}, where for a given $\delta$, a defender must train models at increasing $\epsilon > \delta$ until
the validation error starts deteriorating. The recommendation would be to use the last model before degradation sets off, as the overdesigned defense (Section \ref{sec:gen}). In contrast, to the above adversarial robustness case are the more natural corruptions. Quite unexpectedly, we observe that lower $\epsilon$'s create better models for classifying images with common corruptions (Section \ref{sec:ood_all}) \& diagnose this issue as an effect of Pre-ReLU features.
Second, we notice that the precision of intermediate features strongly influences robustness. We show that simple \emph{quantization} (especially after the first or second layer) increases robustness of models trained at various $\epsilon$'s to seen \& unseen adaptive attacks.
This observation as well, is not obvious at a unit value of $\epsilon$, but can be seen to vary across the spectrum, for different values (Section \ref{sec:quant}).
Third, we show that the first and second layers' convolution filters are increasingly responsible for amplifying input perturbations in ResNet and WideResNet models for increasing $\epsilon$ (Section \ref{sec:change}).
We demonstrate the above findings and the associated alternative techniques using ResNet18 and WideResNet-28-10 (with Swish activation functions) \citep{gowal2020uncovering} models on the CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-10-C \citep{hendrycks2019benchmarking} datasets. Our contributions are summarized below:
\vspace{-0.5em}
\begin{itemize}
\item To the best of our knowledge, our work is the first to leverage information from adversarial trained $\epsilon$-robust models at increasing levels of $\epsilon$. Based on our observations, we suggest techniques to improve AT that is hard to fathom from a traditional analysis at one $\epsilon$.
\item We propose an \emph{overdesigning} strategy that can consistently promise increased robustness to adversarial perturbations and demonstrate it with ResNet and WideResNet models on the CIFAR-10 dataset.
\item We propose \emph{quantization} of intermediate features that improves robustness for ResNet and WideResNet models on seen and unseen adaptive attacks (BPDA \citep{athalye2018obfuscated} and Transfer PGD \citep{croce2022evaluating}) on the CIFAR-10 dataset.
\item We perform a study of convolution filters at increasing $\epsilon$ and identify the first and second layers of ResNet and WideResNet models, as sole suspects for input perturbation propagation.
\end{itemize}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\section{Related Work}
AT has been discussed in a vast body of work. Here, we only describe literature relevant to our findings.
\textbf{On varying perturbation strength in AT: }On the attack side, recent papers have explored robustness to unseen attacks \citep{stutz2020confidence, laidlaw2020perceptual}. Our proposed quantization is complementary to these methods (and standard AT and its variants) and unlike these methods does not explicitly need to be calibrated to unseen attacks.
For defenses, while few papers \citep{balaji2019instance, cheng2020cat, ding2018mma} have proposed AT algorithms that utilize varying perturbation strengths for each sample, they are still usually constrained by an upper bound on perturbation strength. Thus, these works are still restricted to feedback from a model when trained within that upper bound. As far as we are aware, there is a dearth of work that employs feedback from a spectrum of perturbation strengths or upper bounds to improve AT. In future work, we plan to execute the aforementioned perturbation-customized algorithms at various upper bounds to gain further insight into improvements for AT.
\textbf{On quantization: }Quantization and transformations of input images have been explored in \citet{buckman2018thermometer, guo2017countering} but are only able to provide robustness gains because of obfuscated gradients, and hence are unable to stand against an adaptive BPDA attack \citep{athalye2018obfuscated}. Further, recent work on intermediate feature transformations based on Neural ODEs \citep{kang2021stable, chen2021towards} have been shown to also not provide any additional benefits against adaptive attacks \citep{croce2022evaluating}. In contrast, by simply applying quantization, we improve robustness against both BPDA and Transfer PGD.
\textbf{On convolution filters and AT: }Concurrent work \citep{gavrikov2022adversarial} has analyzed robust models from the viewpoint of the models' convolution filters. They analyze the sparsity and diversity of filters to conclude that the first layer plays a very important role. While we concur with their analysis of the importance of the first layer, we identify exactly how the first layer contributes to perturbation propagation by analyzing filter norms across a spectrum of pertubation strengths. Further, we identify, again across various perturbations strengths, that the second layer appears just as important through both the filter norms and the effect of quantization after both layers.
\section{Overdesigning for Robust Generalization} \label{sec:gen}
\input{images/mini_generalization_images}
\textbf{Motivation: }In a typical white-box attack case the attacker has full knowledge of the internal model parameters and training hyperparameters. Post AT, the test and training perturbations respect a fixed $\epsilon$ contract on the attack strength. In this section we investigate : \textit{Does deviating from the norm, in terms of attack-strength contracts, impact the overall robustness of the model? }
\textbf{Experiments: }We adversarial train multiple robust models with increasing values of the parameter $\epsilon$ and evaluate the models against PGD attacks of increasing strength $\delta$. The clean and robust accuracy along with the hyperparameters used, are given in Appendix \ref{app:individual}. The various $\epsilon$-robust models have similar clean accuracies, around $85\%$. We study the variation of errors (100 - accuracy) of the $\epsilon$-robust models on PGD$_{\delta}$-$20$ attacks for various $\delta > 0$. We show the plots of robust errors for $\epsilon$-robust models (from $\epsilon=0$ to $12$) with $\delta \in \{1, 3\}$, $\delta \in \{2, 4\}$ and $\delta \in \{5, 7\}$ for ResNet18 and WideResNet-28-10 models in Figure \ref{fig:g_err_mini}.
We plot the errors for other values of $\delta$ in Appendix \ref{app:change}.
\textbf{Discussions:}
In Figure \ref{fig:g_err_mini}, each curve represents the robust error against a PGD attack at a particular perturbation strength $\delta$. We notice that all four curves have a minima at $\epsilon > \delta$. For instance, in ResNet18 (Figure \ref{fig:g_err_mini} top row), the $2$-robust model generalizes best to the PGD$_{1}$-20 attack ($\epsilon_{*}-\delta=1$); the $4$-robust model generalizes best to the PGD$_{2}$-20 attack ($\epsilon_{*}-\delta=2$); the $5$-robust model generalizes best to the PGD$_{3}$-20 attack ($\epsilon_{*}-\delta=2$); the $8$-robust model generalizes best to the PGD$_{4}$-20 attack ($\epsilon_{*}-\delta=4$); the $9$-robust model generalizes best to the PGD$_{5}$-20 attack ($\epsilon_{*}-\delta=4$); the $11$-robust model generalizes best to the PGD$_{6}$-20 attack ($\epsilon_{*}-\delta=6$), and so on. Similar behaviour is seen for WideResNet-28-10 models (Figure \ref{fig:g_err_mini} bottom row).
This is surprising because, one would typically expect that a model trained with the largest $\epsilon$ should generalize best to all attacks of strength $\delta \leq \epsilon$. Especially when the clean accuracies are mostly similar. In contrast, the largest $\epsilon$-robust ResNet18 model above (\textit{i.e.}, the $12$-robust model) has up to an $8$\% larger error than the $\epsilon_{*}$-robust model. Further, from above, we observe that $(\epsilon_{*}-\delta)$ increases with increasing $\delta$. This implies that eventually for very large $\delta$, the expected notion of the largest $\epsilon$-robust model generalizing best will be true. But at this large value of $\delta$, the perturbations would no longer be imperceptible to the human eye.
Based on the aforementioned analysis, we suggest \emph{overdesigning} a defense by training models at $\epsilon > \delta$ until an increase in error is seen. For instance, in the case of ResNet18, the $\epsilon_{*}$-robust models for each $\delta$ listed above would be the right choice as the overdesigned model.
|
\section{Introduction} \label{sec:sec1}
Sleep studies have recently attracted considerable attention due to the availability and popularization of sensing and processing tools for monitoring users with smart bed technologies. Such technologies play a critical role towards pervasive and unobtrusive sensing and analysis of people in smart homes as well as clinical settings, which in turn can have implications for health, quality of life, and even security. For example, it has been previously demonstrated that different sleeping poses can impact certain conditions or disorders such as sleep apnea \citep{lee2015changes}, pressure ulcers \citep{woo2017exploration}, and even carpal tunnel syndrome \citep{mccabe2011preferred, mccabe2010evaluation}. As another example, in specialized units, the movements of hospitalized patients are monitored to detect critical events and to analyze parameters such as lateralization, movement range, or the occurrence of pathological patterns \citep{cunha2016neurokinect}. Moreover, patients are usually required to maintain specific poses after certain surgeries or procedures to obtain better recovery results. Therefore, long-term in-bed monitoring and automated detection of poses is of critical interest in health-care applications \citep{liu2017vision, lin2017patient}.
Currently, most in-bed examinations are performed with manual visual inspections by caretakers or reports from patients themselves, which are prone to subjective prognosis and user errors. To address the underlying problems in subjective and manual inspections, automated in-bed pose estimation systems are needed in clinical and smart home settings. A number of different learning-based approaches have recently been developed to minimize manual involvement and provide more consistent and accurate results \citep{achilles2016patient}.
Automatic in-bed pose monitoring can be achieved by Deep Neural Networks (DNN), which provide rich information using convolutional operations for feature extraction on different modalities, such as pressure mapping sensors \citep{davoodnia2020deep, javaid2017balance} or camera-based systems \citep{liu2019seeing}. Camera-based systems, suffer from a range of implementation issues when trying to address challenging situations including blanket occlusions \citep{achilles2016patient}, lighting variations \citep{lLiu2017}, and concerns regarding privacy for in-home and clinical use. Additionally, accurate visual monitoring may require advanced sensors such as infrared \citep{xiao2020infrared, liu2019seeing}, time-of-flight \citep{ruvalcaba2018object}, and depth cameras \citep{he2018pelvic}. The disadvantages of pressure-based systems, on the other hand, are the high cost and need for calibration. Nonetheless, they are not subject to occlusion or point-of-view problems, complications caused by lighting variations, and privacy issues. Moreover, textile-based pressure sensors can be seamlessly embedded into mattresses to construct unobtrusive smart beds \citep{lee2015conductive}.
Recent studies on pressure mapping systems have generally been limited to coarse posture identification (i.e. left, right and supine) \citep{PhysioNet, ostadabbas2014bed, davoodnia2019identity}. Moreover, the notion of body pose estimation using pressure arrays has rarely been explored \citep{liu2014bodypart, davoodnia2019bed, casas2019patient}. The limited scope of existing works on pressure data is mainly due to the lack of extensive datasets that span the pose and body distributions required to learn generalized models for pose estimation.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
{\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{Fig1.pdf}}
\end{center}
\caption{Some examples of pressure-based in-bed pose estimation are presented. The top row shows the input pressure maps recorded using a mattress with embedded sensors, while the bottom row presents the estimated poses using an end-to-end method consisting of our proposed PolishNetU network with OpenPose.}
\label{fig:teaser}
\end{figure}
With recent advances in machine and deep learning, a large number of advanced data-driven pose estimation methods have been developed \citep{tang2018deeply, ke2018multi, yang2017learning, chen2017adversarial, chu2017multi, cao2016realtime, insafutdinov2016eccv, insafutdinov2017cvpr, chen2018cascaded} to be used in a variety of different applications such as animation, clinical monitoring, human-computer interaction, and robotics \citep{koppula2016anticipating, tulyakov2017mocogan, imabuchi2018automated}. While these models have the potential to be used for pressure-based in-bed pose estimation, they have all been designed and trained for \textit{images} with naturally appearing human figures, and mostly in upright postures. Moreover, \textit{weak pressure areas} resulting from supported body parts are perceived as body occlusions in the pressure maps, which can cause low fidelity with existing models.
In this paper, we explore the use of pre-existing \textit{image-based pose estimators}, namely OpenPose \citep{cao2016realtime} and Cascaded Pyramid Network (CPN) \citep{chen2018cascaded}, for in-bed pressure-based pose estimation, with the goal of detecting keypoint locations reliably in challenging conditions such as weak pressure areas. See Figure \ref{fig:teaser} (top row) for a few examples of the pressure data used in this study. To this end, we exploit four general approaches:
\textit{i}) First, as a baseline, we use the pose estimators pre-trained on their respective image datasets without any modification or training with the pressure data;
\textit{ii}) Next, we manually label body joint locations for the pressure dataset and re-train the pose estimators from the previous pipeline on pressure datasets.
\textit{iii}) We propose a fully-convolutional network called PolishNetU, to learn a pre-processing step such that the polished outputs are consistent with the data on which the pose estimators have been originally trained. PolishNetU is then followed by the frozen pose estimators (not re-trained or modified for pressure data).
\textit{iv}) Finally, we re-train the entire pipeline \textit{iii} (consisting of PolishNetU and a pose estimator) on the labeled pressure data. Our analysis shows that method (\textit{ii}) and (\textit{iv}) perform superior compared to other approaches, followed by solution (\textit{iii}), which achieves significantly better results compared to the mere use of a pose recognition model directly on the inputs (pipeline (\textit{i})). In addition, we show that while most pose estimation models require large datasets for training, PolishNetU is capable of generalizing when trained on a dataset with a limited number of subjects. In summary, our contributions are as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item We explore the notion of using existing pose recognition networks for in-bed pose estimation using pressure data and improve upon the previous studies.
\item We propose PolishNetU, a deep UNet-style neural network for taking pressure images and transforming them into an embedding close to real human figures captured in images.
\item We compare and provide comprehensive insights into several strategies for using pre-existing pose estimators namely OpenPose and CPN for pressure-based pose estimation.
\item Finally, we conclude that fine-tuning pre-existing pose estimators along with using PolishNetU as a pre-processing domain adaptation step can perform pose recognition very effectively with a detection rate of over $99\%$.
\end{itemize}
\section{Related Work} \label{sec:sec2}
Generally, in-bed pose estimation methods can be divided into two main categories based on the input modality: camera-based and pressure-based. The former are a group of techniques that make use of different types of cameras such as infrared, range, or normal digital cameras, while the latter use a matrix of pressure sensors. While our work focuses on pressure data, we review both approaches in this section for completeness and providing a complete picture of solutions used for in-bed pose estimation.
\subsection{Camera-based Pose Estimation}
These methods suffer from occlusion and lighting variation conditions. As a result, one of the main focuses of these approaches is to address such problems. For example, \citep{lLiu2017} proposed a novel recording method, called Infrared Selective (IRS) image acquisition, to address the problem of lighting variations caused by the daylight cycle. Then an $n$-end Histogram of Oriented Gradients (HOG) feature extraction followed by a Support Vector Machine (SVM) classifier was used to align the orientation such that the rectified images were consistent with common pose detection methods. Finally, a few layers of a convolutional pose machine were fine-tuned on the in-bed dataset. Their pose rectification and estimation blocks assume no occlusion, for example by a blanket, and use an on-demand trigger to reduce the high computational cost of the pipeline. In another camera-based work, \citep{Wang2010} developed a video-based monitoring approach to estimate human pose in conditions with occluded body parts. The proposed method comprised two main blocks: a weak human model and a modified pose matching algorithm. First, in order to reduce the search space of poses, a weak human model was used to quickly generate soft estimates of obscured upper body parts. The obscured parts were then detected using edge information in multiple stages. Next, an enhanced human pose matching algorithm was introduced to address the problem of weak image features and obstruction noise. This was used as a subsequent fine-tuned block to be optimized in the constrained space.
End-to-end deep learning methods have also been explored for in-bed camera-based pose estimation. Achilles et al. \citep{achilles2016patient} trained a deep model to infer body pose from RGB-D data, while the ground truth was provided by a synchronized optical motion capture system. The model was constructed by a convolutional neural network (CNN) followed by a recurrent neural network (RNN) to capture the temporal consistency. Since it was impossible to track the markers while occluded by a blanket, the RGB-D data were augmented with a virtual blanket to simulate the conditions where body parts were occluded.
In \citep{Chen2018}, a semi-automatic approach was proposed for upper-body pose estimation using RGB video data. The video data were normalized in a pre-processing step using contrast-limited adaptive histogram equalization, making the processed data invariant to lighting variations. Then, a CNN model was trained on the subsequent data for each subject outputting $7$ heatmaps for $7$ upper-body joint locations. Finally, a Kalman filter was applied as a post-processing step to refine the predicted joint trajectories and achieve a more temporally consistent estimation.
\subsection{Pressure-based Pose Estimation}
Pressure-based approaches have recently attracted attention as they avoid some of the problems that camera-based systems suffer from, for example, occlusion, lighting variations, and subject privacy. In \citep{ostadabbas2014bed}, subject classification was performed with pressure data in three standard postures, namely supine, right side, and left side. Eighteen statistical features were extracted from the pressure distributions in each frame of each posture and fed to a dense network. Hidden layers were pre-trained by incorporating restricted Boltzmann machines into the deep belief network to find the proper initial weights.
In \citep{Grimm2011}, a generative inference approach was proposed similar to \citep{Singh2017}. However, pressure data were used as the input modality, and the body was simulated using a less sophisticated human body model. The pipeline included two main blocks. First, the patient orientation was detected and then the coarse body posture was classified using a $k$-nearest-neighbor classifier by comparing the query pressure distribution to the labeled training data. In the second step, a cylindrical $3$D human body model was used in a generative inference approach to synthesize pressure distributions. The body model parameters (shape and pose) were iteratively optimized using Powell’s method, minimizing the sum of squared distances between the synthetic pressure distribution and observed distribution.
In a more recent study, \citep{clever2020bodies} proposed PressureNet, a pressure-based $3$D pose and shape reconstruction network, which was trained on synthetic data and tested on real pressure images. Their method consisted of two modules, first, to encode shape, pose, and global transformation from the gender and pressure data, and second, for reconstructing the $3$D model and consequently estimating the pressure images from first module's input pose information. By incorporating pose information loss for the first module and heatmap loss for the second, they were able to achieve a $3$D pose recognition error of less than $75mm$.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
{\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{Fig2.pdf}}
\end{center}
\caption{The explored methods for in-bed pose estimations and respective loss functions are presented: (A) The off-the-shelf pose estimation network is used either as is or trained on the pressure data and annotated keypoints. (B) PolishNetU is utilized to pre-process the input pressure data and generate outputs close to realistic images to feed into the pre-existing pose estimation networks. (C) Similar to previous approach, but the pose estimation network is re-trained, either alone or together with PolishNetU.}
\label{fig:network_architecture}
\end{figure*}
\section{Methodology}
\subsection{Problem Setup}
Our goal is to explore possible approaches for in-bed pose estimation using pre-existing pose recognition networks. Our problem can be formulated as desiring a set of $14$ keypoints, indicating different limb positions, by taking an input pressure image and passing it through a deep neural network. In this paper, we analyze a set of different solutions where pose estimation is achieved by utilizing off-the-shelf pose estimators. To this end, the explored networks may include a learnable pre-processing network (PolishNetU), which aims to edit the pressure images to prepare them for pose identification. In the PolishNetU model, the latent features are learned through the multi-scale architecture of the U-Net style network. On the encoder part of PolishNetU, the latent features of each step are pooled with the previous blocks to be used to generate a polished and pre-processed image in the decoder part. The polished image is then passed to a pose estimation block, which locates the position of different joints. As mentioned in Section 1 (Introduction), we consider OpenPose and CPN for pose estimation. These methods are from a family of convolutional pose machines \citep{wei2016convolutional}, where they use a VGG and a ResNet backbone as feature extractors respectively, and their goal is to find the keypoints by estimating the probability of the existence of the limb in the image. As a result, both CPN and OpenPose generate $14$ heatmaps, each corresponding to one limb position. Furthermore, OpenPose incorporates additional $28$ output channels called Part Affinity Fields (PAF) corresponding to the connection of the adjacent limbs and their difference in position. See Figure \ref{fig:network_architecture} for an overview of the explored approaches.
\subsection{Solutions} \label{sec:solutions}
We consider $4$ possible solutions: (\textit{i}) first, the off-the-shelf pose estimators can be used without any further training or addition of additional modules; (\textit{ii}) the pose estimation networks can be re-trained on the pressure data; (\textit{iii}) a domain adaptation network can be designed and trained to pre-process the vague input pressure maps to then be used with the frozen pose estimators; and (\textit{iv}) the entire pipeline consisting of the domain adaptation network and the pose estimator can be re-trained end-to-end with the pressure data. Following we describe the details of each of these possible solutions.
\textbf{Frozen pose estimators} utilized directly on the pressure images. Let $I \in \mathbb{R}^{W \times H \times 3}$ be the unpolished input pressure data. Our objective would then be to estimate a set of keypoints $\hat{K} = Q(I; \theta_Q)$, where $Q$ is the approximated function by the pre-existing pose recognition networks and $\theta_Q$ is its pre-trained parameters. In this scenario, the pre-trained parameters $\theta_Q$ are optimized on the original image-pose dataset that the pose estimator has been trained on.
\textbf{Re-training Pose Estimators} is the second possible solution which is built upon the previous one by adding the objective of optimizing $\theta_Q$ on the pressure data such that $Q$ closely estimates the keypoints $K$. We define the objective as:
\begin{equation}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\max_{\theta_P} J(\hat{K},K) ,
\end{equation}
where $J$ is defined as a function of similarity between the predicted and ground truth keypoints. Accordingly, We define two loss functions with a heatmap term and a PAF term. The heatmap term, $E_{heatmap}$ is defined as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
E_{heatmap} = \frac{1}{KHW}\sum_{k=1}^{K}{\sum_{i=1}^{H}{\sum_{j=1}^{W}{V_k\left \| C_k - C_k' \right \|_{2}^{2}}}} \,\,\,,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $C_k$ and $C_k'$ are the corresponding ground-truth and predicted heatmaps for keypoint $k$, $K = 14$ is the number of visible keypoints, and $V_k$ is $1$ if the $K_{th}$ limb is visible and $0$ if it's not. Next, the PAF term, $E_{PAF}$, is defined as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
E_{PAF} = \frac{1}{LHW}\sum_{l=1}^{L}{\sum_{i=1}^{H}{\sum_{j=1}^{W}{V_l\left \| F_l - F_l' \right \|_{2}^{2}}}} \,\,\,,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $F_l$ and $F_l'$ are the corresponding ground-truth and predicted PAFs for limb $l$, $L = 28$ is the number of connections between the limbs in $y$ or $x$ axis, and $V_l$ is $1$ if both limbs producing the $l_{th}$ connection are visible and $0$ otherwise. The final objective would then be optimized by minimizing the sum of the two loss functions.
\textbf{Image space representation learning} is the next possible solution. Here, our goal is to implement a learnable pre-processing step that receives the pressure data $I$ as inputs and synthesizes colored images close to a pre-trained pose estimation network's learnt data. Therefore, the output data from the learner should lie on the data manifold by which the pose estimation module was trained. This learnable pre-processing step, which we call PolishNetU, converts the pressure data to polished images that better resemble human figures as expected by common pose estimation models.
Lets define $I' \in \mathbb{R}^{W \times H \times 3}$ as the output of our PolishNetU $\textit{P}$, in other words $I' = \textit{P}(I; \theta_{\textit{P}})$ and $\hat{K} = Q(I'; \theta_Q)$, where P is the pre-processing function, and $\theta_{\textit{P}}$ is its set of trainable parameters. Using the $E_{heatmap}$ and $E_{PAF}$, a pre-trained pose estimation module can force PolishNetU to synthesize entirely new images. To prevent pose deviations, we also added a third term, pixel loss, to the objective function. This term acts as a regularizer, which penalizes the distance between the input pressure maps and the synthesized polished images, which we defined as:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
E_{pixel} = \frac{1}{HW}\sum_{i=1}^{H}{\sum_{j=1}^{W}{\left \| I - I' \right \|_{2}^{2}}} \,\,\,.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Finally, we optimize $\theta_{\textit{P}}$ using the objective function:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
E(\theta_{\textit{P}}) = \lambda_{heatmap}E_{heatmap} & +\lambda_{PAF}E_{PAF} \\
& +\lambda_{pixel}E_{pixel} \,\,\, ,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where we chose $\lambda_{heatmap}=\lambda_{PAF}$ and adjusted $\lambda_{pixel}$ to achieve the optimum representations. It is important to note that the pixel loss weight $\lambda_{pixel}$ has a large impact on the representations, where large values can result in PolishNetU producing outputs overly similar to the unpolished inputs. In contrast, smaller values caused the heatmap and PAF losses to overlook this regularizer, resulting in significant deviations from the input images, generating non-human like images. Therefore in this setup, we first train the network by setting a high value for $\lambda_{pixel}$, and then slowly decrease its weight to enable our networks to focus on reconstructing weak pressure points after stabilizing.
\textbf{End-to-end re-training of PolishNetU and pose estimators} are the final possible solution. Since PolishNetU is acting as the pre-processing step, it is intuitive that the main pose estimation network would have a large impact on the performance. Therefore, after learning the real image representations $I'$ by training the PolishNetU, we move on to optimizing $\theta_Q$ by using the same objective function. Additionally, we can also choose to fine-tune PolishNetU alongside our pose estimation network, which we refer to as fine-tuned PolishNetU in the future sections.
\section{Experiments and Results}
\subsection{Data Preparation}
We use two different datasets to train and test our pressure-based pose estimation approach, PmatData \citep{ostadabbas2014bed} available in the PhysioNet repository \citep{goldberger2000physiobank} and HRL-ROS dataset \citep{clever20183d}. These datasets are briefly described as follows:
\textbf{PmatData} \citep{ostadabbas2014bed} was recorded by a force sensitive pressure mapping mattresses. Each mattress contained $2048$ sensors spread on a $32$ by $64$ grid with each sensor being $25.4$ \textit{mm} apart. The recording was performed with a frequency of $1$ Hz for a pressure range of $0-100$ mmHg. Data were recorded from $13$ healthy subjects in $8$ standard postures and $9$ further sub-postures, for a total of $17$ unique pose classes. Subjects were within a height range of $169-186$ \textit{cm}, a weight range of $63-100$ \textit{Kg}, and an age range of $19-34$ years. We developed and utilized a tool in MATLAB for annotating the body part keypoints in $18256$ data samples. The annotating procedure was carried out by two researchers and then cross-checked to ensure consistency. To perform very rigorous evaluation experiments, we employ a leave-some-subjects-out validation strategy, training the network on $9$ subjects and testing it on the remaining $4$.
\textbf{HRL-ROS} \citep{clever20183d} was collected for kinematic-based $3$D pose recognition using a configurable bed embedded with pressure sensors and motion capture cameras. The bed was equipped with an array of $27\times64$ sensors distributed $28.6$ \textit{mm} apart. A total of $17$ subjects were asked to lie or sit in different postures and move a body limb in a specific path, while their limb position was being tracked using motion capture cameras. Subjects were within a height range of $160-185$ \textit{cm}, a weight range of $45.8-94.3$ \textit{Kg}, and an age range of $19-32$ years. For our purposes we use the data from all of the subjects in all $13$ lying postures, resulting in a total of $39095$ pressure maps. Similar to PmatData, we leave the last $4$ subjects for testing while keeping the rest for training.
\subsection{Pre-processing}
First, we remove the noise caused by occasional malfunctioning pressure sensors. These artifacts usually occur when certain individual sensors become subject to pressure values outside the calibrated voltage range. To clean up the pressure values, we use a $3 \times 3 \times 3$ spatio-temporal median filter. We tune the filter size by evaluating the pose estimation performance of a frozen OpenPose on the PmatData dataset, showing that larger filter sizes do not improve the performance. Following previous studies \citep{davoodnia2019bed, davoodnia2019identity, davoodnia2020deep}, we also remove the first $3$ frames of each sequence, which in some cases are transition frames where pressure maps are not clear. We identified the frames and cross-checked them visually to remove the outliers using the histogram of the dataset based on the average pressure of each image.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Fig3.pdf}}
\end{center}
\caption{We compared the effect of applying $38$ different colormaps to the pressure data by benchmarking the performance of OpenPose on the colorized images. Subsequently, the Viridis colormap achieved the highest average detection rate among all the available schemes.}
\label{fig:color_map}
\end{figure*}
The input pressure maps are provided in the form of $W \times H \times 1$ arrays. However, most existing pose estimation methods have been trained on color images. As a result in order to utilize existing frameworks for our goal of estimating poses from pressure data, the pressure maps need to be converted to color images. Consequently, we convert the pressure maps to color images using a colormap. To this end, we need to select a colormap with high compatibility with the pose estimation network, and in general, with natural images containing human figures. Our investigations show that the choice of colormap can play a considerable role in the performance. We investigate $38$ different colormaps and evaluate the error rates when PolishNetU is excluded from the pipeline and only the frozen OpenPose model is used. Figure \ref{fig:color_map} shows the performance over different colormaps and illustrates the estimated pose accuracy for different body parts for $4$ sample colormaps from the distribution, namely HSV, Jet, Copper, and Viridis. Eventually, as shown in Figure \ref{fig:color_map}, Viridis exhibits the best color mapping characteristics. The pose estimation evaluation method is presented in Section \ref{evaluation}.
\subsection{Implementation Details}
\subsubsection{PolishNetU}
Polishing the colorized pressure maps and converting them to images consistent with the pose estimation module is done by a feed-forward network $\textit{P}$ called PolishNetU. Our proposed network is a variation of U-Net, consisting of a combination of encoders and decoders, including fully convolutional and deconvolutional layers, respectively. Given the colorized pressure data, a series of $8$ encoder blocks of Conv-BatchNorm-LeakyReLu with a stride of $2$ are exploited to encode the input to a data manifold, capturing pressure properties that incorporate pose information. The polished image space is then achieved by concatenating the residuals from the encoders with UpSample-DeConv-BatchNorm-LeakyReLu on the encoded latent space. Finally, using a $tanh$ activation function, the last layer provides a polished image, which is compatible with the pose estimation module conditioned on the given pressure input. We use BatchNorm for faster and more reliable training, and upsampling layers instead of a deconvolution layer with a stride of $2$ to avoid the deconvolution checkerboard artifact.
\subsubsection{Pose Estimation Module}
To train PolishNetU, we utilize OpenPose \citep{cao2016realtime} or CPN \citep{chen2018cascaded} as our pose identification module. OpenPose is a well-known network developed for real-time pose estimation first, by which has been recently extended to support face landmark detection and hand gesture detection as well. On the other hand, CPN is a more recent and powerful pose recognition method which was able to achieve state-of-the-art in many of the pose recognition challenges. The authors of OpenPose defined heatmap and Part Affinity Fields (PAF) outputs which we utilize to define our pose estimation objectives. Each heatmap provides a $2$D distribution of the belief that a keypoint is located on each pixel. Additionally, PAF is defined as a $2$D vector field for each limb, where each $2$D vector encodes both position and the orientation of the limb. Over the past few years, several versions of this network have been published, mostly with changes in the final blocks for face and hand landmark detection and trade-offs between memory usage, performance, and speed. For our work, we choose the original version published in $2016$ that includes $7$ stages for refining the heatmaps and PAFs. We use the exact design parameters of the original OpenPose model. In our pipeline, neither OpenPose, nor CPN, do not use any non-linear activation functions, therefore vanishing gradients is not an issue. Furthermore, we neglect the loss for non-visible parts, eyes, and ears due to the nature of our pressure data. Consequently, we end up with $14$ heatmaps for the head, neck, shoulders, elbows, wrists, ankles, knees, and the hip, as well as $28$ PAFs connecting the body parts to be used in our cost functions.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
{\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Fig4.pdf}}
\end{center}
\caption{AP over different thresholds is demonstrated for each body part from PmatData dataset.}
\label{fig:PCK_pmat}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
{\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Fig5.pdf}}
\end{center}
\caption{AP over different thresholds is demonstrated for each body part from HRL-ROS dataset.}
\label{fig:PCK_hrl}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Pipeline}
The pipeline is implemented using TensorFlow on an NVIDIA Titan XP GPU. We use an Adam optimizer at the training stage with a learning rate of $10^{-3}$, which is decayed with a rate of $0.95$ for every $1000$ update iterations. The pipeline is trained for $40$ epochs with a batch size of $16$. $\lambda_{PAF}$ and $\lambda_{heatmap}$ are both set to $1$ while $\lambda_{pixel}$ is changed from $1$ to $0.01$ during training to first stabilize the model, and then allow it to interpolate the vivid body limbs without pixel loss penalty.
\subsection{Performance Evaluation} \label{evaluation}
After obtaining the output heatmaps in the form of $W_h \times H_h \times 14$, we smooth them using a Gaussian kernel of $3 \times 3$ across the spatial dimensions to reduce prediction noise in the output. Then, we perform a flip-test to reduce the model's bias to left and right directions by obtaining the output from the original input and its flipped version and then averaging them. Finally, we take the location of the maximum of each channel as our predicted keypoints, obtaining a $14 \times 3$ array containing the location and prediction scores of the body limbs.
\newcommand{\mcs}[1] {\scriptsize#1}
\newcommand{\mc}[1] {\scriptsize#1}
\begin{table*}
\begin{center}
\caption{The AP5 values are presented for different methods on PmatData.}
\label{table:average_detection_pmat}
\begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{lYYYYYYYYYYYYY}
\Xhline{2\arrayrulewidth}
\mcs{} & \mcs{\textbf{H}} & \mcs{\textbf{LS}} & \mcs{\textbf{RS}} & \mcs{\textbf{LE}} & \mcs{\textbf{RE}} & \mcs{\textbf{LW}} & \mcs{\textbf{RW}} & \mcs{\textbf{LH}} & \mcs{\textbf{RH}} & \mcs{\textbf{LK}} & \mcs{\textbf{RK}} & \mcs{\textbf{LA}} & \mcs{\textbf{RA}} \\
\hline
\mcs{{Re-trained OpenPose+PolishNetU}} & \mc{99.4} & \mc{100.0} & \mc{100.0} & \mc{100.0} & \mc{100.0} & \mc{100.0} & \mc{100.0} & \mc{100.0} & \mc{100.0} & \mc{100.0} & \mc{100.0} & \mc{100.0} & \mc{99.8} \\
\mcs{{Re-trained OpenPose}} & \mc{91.3} & \mc{100.0} & \mc{100.0} & \mc{100.0} & \mc{100.0} & \mc{100.0} & \mc{100.0} & \mc{100.0} & \mc{100.0} & \mc{100.0} & \mc{100.0} & \mc{100.0} & \mc{100.0} \\
\mcs{{Frozen OpenPose+PolishNetU}} & \mc{92.2} & \mc{90.1} & \mc{45.7} & \mc{80.8} & \mc{88.5} & \mc{52.5} & \mc{43.2} & \mc{48.1} & \mc{36.9} & \mc{80.2} & \mc{98.6} & \mc{100.0} & \mc{96.0} \\
\mcs{{Frozen OpenPose}} & \mc{0.0} & \mc{0.0} & \mc{0.0} & \mc{0.0} & \mc{0.0} & \mc{0.0} & \mc{0.0} & \mc{0.0} & \mc{0.0} & \mc{0.0} & \mc{0.0} & \mc{0.0} & \mc{0.0} \\
\hline
\mcs{{Re-trained CPN+PolishNetU}} & \mc{99.6} & \mc{99.5} & \mc{99.5} & \mc{99.5} & \mc{99.6} & \mc{99.4} & \mc{99.4} & \mc{99.6} & \mc{99.5} & \mc{99.6} & \mc{99.6} & \mc{99.5} & \mc{99.5} \\
\mcs{{Re-trained CPN}} & \mc{98.7} & \mc{99.3} & \mc{99.4} & \mc{99.3} & \mc{99.3} & \mc{98.9} & \mc{99.1} & \mc{99.5} & \mc{99.5} & \mc{99.4} & \mc{99.3} & \mc{99.1} & \mc{98.8} \\
\mcs{{Frozen CPN+PolishNetU}} & \mc{100.0} & \mc{72.3} & \mc{44.3} & \mc{82.0} & \mc{78.5} & \mc{41.6} & \mc{14.4} & \mc{48.6} & \mc{67.7} & \mc{88.9} & \mc{100.0} & \mc{82.9} & \mc{85.4} \\
\mcs{{Frozen CPN}} & \mc{0.0} & \mc{0.0} & \mc{0.0} & \mc{0.0} & \mc{3.3} & \mc{4.7} & \mc{0.0} & \mc{0.0} & \mc{0.0} & \mc{7.9} & \mc{31.3} & \mc{23.1} & \mc{4.4} \\
\Xhline{2\arrayrulewidth}
\end{tabularx}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}
\begin{center}
\caption{The AP5 values are presented for different methods on HRL-ROS.}
\label{table:average_detection_hrl}
\begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{lYYYYYYYYYYYYY}
\Xhline{2\arrayrulewidth}
\mcs{} & \mcs{\textbf{H}} & \mcs{\textbf{LS}} & \mcs{\textbf{RS}} & \mcs{\textbf{LE}} & \mcs{\textbf{RE}} & \mcs{\textbf{LW}} & \mcs{\textbf{RW}} & \mcs{\textbf{LH}} & \mcs{\textbf{RH}} & \mcs{\textbf{LK}} & \mcs{\textbf{RK}} & \mcs{\textbf{LA}} & \mcs{\textbf{RA}} \\
\hline
\mcs{{Re-trained OpenPose+PolishNetU}} & \mc{98.7} & \mc{99.8} & \mc{99.7} & \mc{99.5} & \mc{97.7} & \mc{97.0} & \mc{97.3} & \mc{99.5} & \mc{99.5} & \mc{98.1} & \mc{98.9} & \mc{99.2} & \mc{98.1} \\
\mcs{{Re-trained OpenPose}} & \mc{98.8} & \mc{99.7} & \mc{99.4} & \mc{99.3} & \mc{97.4} & \mc{97.1} & \mc{96.0} & \mc{99.5} & \mc{99.5} & \mc{98.2} & \mc{98.7} & \mc{99.2} & \mc{98.4} \\
\mcs{{Frozen OpenPose+PolishNetU}} & \mc{80.8} & \mc{89.6} & \mc{44.9} & \mc{73.6} & \mc{81.6} & \mc{79.1} & \mc{88.6} & \mc{89.3} & \mc{85.3} & \mc{38.9} & \mc{32.8} & \mc{36.7} & \mc{63.4} \\
\mcs{{Frozen OpenPose}} & \mc{0.0} & \mc{0.0} & \mc{0.0} & \mc{0.0} & \mc{0.0} & \mc{0.0} & \mc{0.0} & \mc{0.0} & \mc{0.0} & \mc{0.0} & \mc{0.0} & \mc{0.0} & \mc{0.0} \\
\hline
\mcs{{Re-trained CPN+PolishNetU}} & \mc{92.4} & \mc{95.3} & \mc{95.2} & \mc{94.9} & \mc{95.1} & \mc{94.9} & \mc{94.9} & \mc{95.6} & \mc{95.6} & \mc{95.1} & \mc{95.0} & \mc{95.3} & \mc{95.4} \\
\mcs{{Re-trained CPN}} & \mc{96.4} & \mc{98.5} & \mc{98.6} & \mc{98.5} & \mc{98.4} & \mc{97.9} & \mc{97.7} & \mc{98.6} & \mc{98.6} & \mc{98.4} & \mc{98.4} & \mc{98.5} & \mc{98.4} \\
\mcs{{Frozen CPN+PolishNetU}} & \mc{48.4} & \mc{94.8} & \mc{86.9} & \mc{52.1} & \mc{86.1} & \mc{98.1} & \mc{100.0} & \mc{97.3} & \mc{77.4} & \mc{79.0} & \mc{100.0} & \mc{94.4} & \mc{85.7} \\
\mcs{{Frozen CPN}} & \mc{0.0} & \mc{0.0} & \mc{0.0} & \mc{0.5} & \mc{0.0} & \mc{0.5} & \mc{0.0} & \mc{0.0} & \mc{0.0} & \mc{0.0} & \mc{0.2} & \mc{0.0} & \mc{12.8} \\
\Xhline{2\arrayrulewidth}
\end{tabularx}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
To evaluate the performance of our pipeline on the annotated data, we use the Average Precision (AP), a measure of joint localization accuracy at $5\%$ error margin, similar to the intersection-over-union (IoU) threshold in object detection research \citep{hu2018relation,zhao2019object,zhou2018scale}. First, we sort the predictions by their scores. Then we measure the distances between the predicted and ground-truth keypoints. If this distance is below a threshold, we consider the prediction a true-positive. Finally, we calculate AP by measuring the area under the precision and recall curves. The threshold is defined as a fraction, here $5\%$, of the person's size, where the size is defined as the distance between the person's left shoulder and right hip \citep{andriluka20142d}. In our implementation, the average $5\%$ threshold is equal to approximately $1.2$ pixels or $32$ \textit{mm} considering the size of the input pressure images. Moreover, we also provide another evaluation metric used in pose estimation studies called mean-per-joint-position error (MPJPE) of the predictions \citep{clever20183d, casas2019patient, rhodin2018unsupervised}. MPJPE is measured by averaging the body joint prediction errors in \textit{mm}, calculated in euclidean space.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
{\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{Fig6.pdf}}
\end{center}
\caption{We provide examples of the performance of the explored architectures for estimating pose from input colorized pressure maps. Here, we show the raw pressure data (first row), colorized pressure data and ground truth keypoints (second row), frozen OpenPose predictions on colorized images (third row), PolishNetU with frozen OpenPose predictions on polished images (fourth row), and PolishNetU with re-trained OpenPose estimations on polished images (fifth row). We removed the predictions that were too far from the actual ground-truth for better presentation. The addition of PolishNetU to the frozen OpenPose causes a boost in pose estimation performance, while re-trained OpenPose with PolishNetU makes slightly more detailed predictions. Furthermore, polished images inherit a better visual fidelity of human body limbs.}
\label{fig:outputs}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table*}
\begin{center}
\caption{The AP5 (\%) - MPJPE (mm) values are presented for two datasets over all possible solutions.}
\label{table:abblation}
\begin{tabularx}{1\textwidth}{YlYYY}
\Xhline{2\arrayrulewidth}
\multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Pose Estimator}} & \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Model}} & \textbf{PolishNetU} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Dataset}} \\ \cline{4-5}
& & \textbf{Fine-tuning} & \textbf{PmatData} & \textbf{HRL-ROS} \\
\hline
& Frozen OpenPose & - & 0.0 - {429.2} & 0.0 - {279.5} \\
OpenPose \citep{cao2016realtime} & Frozen OpenPose+PolishNetU & - & 78.1 - {29.7} & 77.4 - {36.6} \\
& Re-trained OpenPose & - & 99.8 - {15.1} & 98.4 - {16.3} \\
\multirow{1}{*}{} & Re-trained OpenPose+PolishNetU & No & 99.6 - {15.3} & 98.6 - {16.2} \\
& Re-trained OpenPose+PolishNetU & Yes & 99.9 - {14.8} & 98.7 - {16.1} \\
\hline
& Frozen CPN & - & 0.5 - {557.0} & 0.0 - {208.9} \\
CPN \citep{chen2018cascaded} & Frozen CPN+PolishNetU & - & 71.8 - {78.1} & 85.6 - {39.2} \\
& Re-trained CPN & - & 99.4 - {20.6} & 98.0 - {14.4} \\
\multirow{1}{*}{} & Re-trained CPN+PolishNetU & No & 95.9 - {28.8} & 95.9 - {18.4} \\
& Re-trained CPN+PolishNetU & Yes & 99.6 - {18.4} & 96.4 - {16.7} \\
\Xhline{2\arrayrulewidth}
\end{tabularx}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\caption{The number of parameters used in the models and their backbone feature extractors are presented.} \label{table:params}
\begin{tabularx}{1\columnwidth}{lYY}
\Xhline{2\arrayrulewidth}
\textbf{Model} & \textbf{Parameters} & \textbf{BackBone} \\
\hline
OpenPose & 52.3M & Resnet50 \\
CPN & 46.0M & VGG16 \\
PolishNetU & 13.6M & UNet \\
PolishNet & 436K & HourGlass \\
\Xhline{2\arrayrulewidth}
\end{tabularx}
\end{center}
\end{table}
We analyze the aforementioned solutions by comparing them based on $AP$, plotted against normalized distances (defined by threshold $\times$ torso length) for different body parts in Figure \ref{fig:PCK_pmat} and \ref{fig:PCK_hrl} for PmatData and HRL-ROS datasets. We omitted the frozen pose estimators without PolishNetU since they showed poor detection rates on both datasets. In contrast, the highest performance in both figures belongs to the models in which the pose estimation network is re-trained, where the combination of PolishNetU and OpenPose is slightly better than the rest, especially for PmatData dataset. Finally, solutions utilizing PolishNetU and frozen pose recognition networks show a weaker performance at $5\%$ threshold compared to the others, but they also reach above $98\%$ detection rate after the $10\%$ threshold ($50mm$) for all of the body parts. It is also shown that the wrists, ankles, and the head are the most challenging body parts, where models containing OpenPose perform better than CPN. A more in-depth comparison of the $AP5$ for our selected models are presented in Tables \ref{table:average_detection_pmat} and \ref{table:average_detection_hrl} for PmatData and HRL-ROS, respectively. We refrained from comparing $AP10$ of our models since in most cases they achieved near perfect accuracy, making the comparisons uninformative. It can be seen that the frozen pose estimators alone are not able to correctly identify poses without PolishNetU.
Several examples depicting the performance of PolishNetU are presented in Figure \ref{fig:outputs}, comparing $3$ of our explored models. Frozen OpenPose is rarely able to predict the correct pose, thus being unreliable. It also miss-identifies the left and right sides of the human body since it was trained on real images that were mostly captured when facing the front of human subjects, as opposed to pressure data that records the image from the backside. As presented in the fourth row, PolishNetU with the frozen OpenPose pipeline has accurately identified the poses for vague input pressure maps while only miss-identifying very blurry areas such as wrists. Finally, the re-trained OpenPose with PolishNetU, illustrated in the fifth row, has made the best pose estimations among other methods, able to identify invisible limbs correctly.
Since PolishNetU was trained to synthesize images compatible with the image space by which OpenPose was trained, the polished outputs inherit less noise and show a higher resemblance to common standing human poses from behind. See Figure \ref{fig:polished_images}. Notice that PolishNetU has reconstructed and connected the limbs and weak pressure areas that are not clearly visible in the colorized pressure maps. We have highlighted some of these reconstructed regions in Figure \ref{fig:polished_images}. Moreover, in some instances (i.e. last column of Figure \ref{fig:polished_images}), PolishNetU has even attempted to interestingly synthesize \textit{outfits} for the subjects in order to make the output images look more natural and consistent with the input image space of the pose estimator.
\begin{table*}
\begin{center}
\caption{A comparison of our best results (PolishNetU+Re-trained OpenPose) with other works.} \label{table:comparison}
\begin{tabularx}{1\textwidth}{lYYYYY}
\Xhline{2\arrayrulewidth}
\textbf{Ref} & \textbf{Dataset} & \textbf{Evaluation} & \textbf{AP5} & \textbf{MPJPE {\tiny(\textit{mm})}} & \textbf{PCK25 {\tiny(\%)}} \\
\hline
\citep{clever20183d} & HRL-ROS & Leave $1$ Out & N/A & $73.5^*$ & N/A \\
\citep{davoodnia2019bed} & PmatData & Leave $1$ Out & N/A & N/A & $95.8$ \\
Ours & HRL-ROS & Leave $4$ Out & $98.0$ & $16.1$ & $100$ \\
Ours & PmatData & Leave $4$ Out & $99.9$ & $14.8$ & $100$ \\
\Xhline{2\arrayrulewidth}
\multicolumn{6}{l}{\tiny{* denotes the performance of $3$D pose estimation}}
\end{tabularx}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{Fig7.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Illustration of examples from PmatData where PolishNetU has reconstructed weak body parts. Specifically note the arms, knees, and the head.}
\label{fig:polished_images}
\end{figure}
Finally, we perform an ablation study on the explored models in Table \ref{table:abblation}. We see that the frozen pose estimators without PolishNetU achieve very poor estimation results, where the addition of PolishNetU boosts their performance by a significant amount. Moreover, we observe that re-training the pose estimator block has a higher impact on the performance compared to the previous approach, reducing the MPJPE on both datasets to less than half. Finally, while comparing OpenPose with CPN, we observe that OpenPose outperforms CPN on both datasets based on the $AP5$ metric, which can be because of reasons such as the number of parameters or their features extractor backbones (see Table \ref{table:params}). In contrast, CPN performs better for the HRL-ROS dataset based on the MPJPE criteria.
The addition of PolishNetU (fine-tuned) to re-trained pose estimators achieves the best results by a small, yet statistically significant margin. We use a non-parametric t-test on $10$ different repetitions of our experiments with random initialization to compare the retrained pose estimators to the retrained pose estimators with PolishNetU (fined-tuned), and achieve $p < 0.05$, showing that the improvements caused by PolishNetU (fine-tuned) are statistically significant. We illustrate this experimental analysis in Figure \ref{fig:alman}, showing the positive impact of PolishNetU in $3$ out of the $4$ cases. Furthermore, Figure \ref{fig:alman} highlights the effectiveness of OpenPose compared to CPN, achieving better performance on both datasets.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{Fig8.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Statistical analysis of $10$ repetitions of our experiments on re-trained pose estimators with and without PolishNetU (fine-tuned) is illustrated, showing that significant improvement is made by PolishNetU in $3$ out of the $4$ scenarios.}
\label{fig:alman}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Discussion and Comparison} \label{discussion}
Although the field of in-bed pose estimation has attracted a considerable amount of recent works, most of the prior works on pressure datasets do not use a unified evaluation method and datasets, making comparisons challenging. We evaluate the solutions based on $2D$ MPJPE and $AP5$, which corresponds to $1.2$ pixels or a $32$ \textit{mm} threshold for correct prediction. We show the effectiveness of PolishNetU by demonstrating the pose estimation performance of pre-existing pose estimators combined with it. Specifically, we show that PolishNetU with a frozen OpenPose achieves near-perfect pose estimation with AP$5$ values of $99.9\%$ and $98.7\%$, and MPJPE of $14.8$ and $16.1$ \textit{mm}, while PolishNetU with a frozen OpenPose performs with AP$5$ of $78.1\%$ and $85.6\%$, and MPJPE of $29.7$ and $39.2$ \textit{mm} on PmatData and HRL-ROS datasets respectively.
Table \ref{table:comparison} compares the results of other works with our best configuration, which is the combination of PolishNetU and the re-trained OpenPose, achieving an $AP5$ of $99.9\%$. Moreover, we show that on the PmatData dataset, we are able to obtain $PCK@25$ of $100\%$, outperforming previous works \citep{davoodnia2019bed}. In another study \citep{clever20183d}, a kinematic-based convolutional neural network was used for $3D$ joint prediction on HRL-ROS dataset, achieving MPJPE of $73.5$ \textit{mm}. Although their model has the advantage of $3D$ joint prediction, several of our explored solutions containing a re-trained pose estimator or the PolishNetU are able to achieve a more accurate prediction in $2D$ space. In a more recent study \citep{clever2020bodies}, the same authors were able to obtain MPJPE of $111.8$ \textit{mm} on a different dataset by training a model called PressureNet on synthetic data and testing it on real images. In another study \citep{casas2019patient}, in-bed pressure data were collected from 6 subjects, reporting an MPJPE of $68$ \textit{mm} using a deep fully convolutional pose estimation model. Lastly, \citep{Chen2018} used a camera-based approach on $3$ subjects. They reported an average accuracy, at $15$ pixels threshold, of $80.5\%$ and $91.6\%$ using a frozen OpenPose and a combination of Kalman filter with a pose estimation network, respectively. Although in some cases our explored methods and datasets are different, we were able to obtain higher performances on a much more larger and complex data space.
\section{Conclusions and Future Work}
In-bed pressure data can provide valuable information for the estimation of a user's pose, which is of high value for clinical and smart home monitoring. However, pressure-based pose estimation deals with a number of challenges, including the lack of large annotated datasets and proper fine-tuned frameworks. Additionally, pressure data impose some inherent limitations such as weak pressure areas caused by supported or raised body parts. In this paper, we explored several end-to-end models for performing pose estimation with in-bed pressure maps, including direct use of off-the-shelf models and re-training them for our purpose. As a part of our analysis, we exploited the novel idea of learning a domain adaptation fully convolutional network, PolishNetU, which generates images as robust representations that work well for common pre-trained pose estimation models, in this case, OpenPose and CPN. This method utilized a compound objective function which integrates the pose identification loss, reconstructing lost body parts caused by weak pressure points, and a pixel loss penalizing large deviations from the original pressure maps. The explored pipelines showed effective performance on highly unclear pressure data. Our evaluation results demonstrated that while re-training the pre-existing pose estimation models have the most impact on performance, if they are kept frozen, PolishNetU can boost the performance significantly as well. Given the performance of PolishNetU with two different pose estimators and on two datasets, we believe this model can be used as a pre-trained block prior to other pose estimation networks for identifying pose from pressure data.
For future work we aim to propose a modified objective function making use of pose priors as a constraint, preventing the model from outputting unlikely poses. Moreover, we aim to investigate the use of generative adversarial networks and integrate a discriminator in our model, which we anticipate, may enhance the reconstruction of weak pressure areas.
\section*{Conflict of Interest}
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
\begin{acknowledgements}
The Titan XP GPU used for this research was donated by the NVIDIA Corporation.
\end{acknowledgements}
\bibliographystyle{spbasic}
|
\section{Introduction}
A graph is a non-Euclidean data structure widely used to model networks (e.g. social networks, transportation networks) in many different applications. Unlike text or image data, a graph cannot be directly visualized because the essence of the graph is the relationships between nodes represented by an adjacency matrix, which is not inherently spatial. Because graph visualization plays an important role in facilitating a deeper understanding of graph topology, researchers have tackled the problem of graph drawing for the past several decades. Generally speaking, the most common way to visualize a graph is a node-link diagram, where nodes are placed in the visual space as points, and a line is drawn between a pair of nodes whenever there is an edge between them.
The positions of the nodes are usually computed by a graph drawing algorithm.
Generating a good graph layout, however, is a challenging task for three reasons. First, to determine an appropriate position for each graph node, both the local neighborhood information and the global graph structure need to be considered\cite{DRgraph} but the global structural information is usually difficult to capture. Besides, to evaluate the goodness of a graph layout, there exist several aesthetic criteria\cite{Ham-user-study,Tim-user-study}, but many graph drawing algorithms are only able to generate layouts with certain criteria optimized. One such example is the stress majorization algorithm \cite{neato} that focuses on optimizing stress. As a result, without in-depth knowledge about the underlying algorithms used in different methods, it is challenging to choose a method that suits the desired aesthetics. Lastly, for many existing layout methods, users often need to rely on a trial-and-error process to obtain a good layout \cite{fa2,sgd2,spring,pmds}, which is tedious and has no guarantee to generate good results, especially for users who do not have a basic understanding of different parameters in the layout method.
In this paper, we propose an intelligent graph drawing framework, SmartGD, which can not only draw graphs in a similar style as a collection of good layout examples but also optimize the layouts based on any aesthetic criteria, without the need for trial-and-error. SmartGD\ consists of two components working together as a teacher and a student. The student component learns to draw graphs just like how humans learn from examples, by observing and imitating the world around them. In our case, the student in SmartGD\ learns graph drawing by analyzing and imitating good layout examples. For every attempt the student makes, the teacher component will compare its drawing with a good layout example and try to distinguish the student-generated layout from the good layout example. The goal of the student is to make the teacher believe that the student-generated layout is better than the good layout examples. Specifically, SmartGD\ is a Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) based deep learning model, where the generator (student) learns the generative layout distribution that is as close as possible to the distribution of the good layout collection. Therefore, the student-generated layouts are drawn in a similar style as the good layout collection.
Because the goodness of the layout examples represents a quality ceiling in the eye of the students, it in fact constrains the goodness of the layouts the student can possibly generate. That is to say, if the quality of good layout examples can be improved continuously, one can expect that the student will do even better because the quality bar of the layout continues to rise.
To achieve this goal, we propose
{\em self-challenging GAN}, a novel variant of GAN, where we continuously improve the quality of layout examples when a quantitative aesthetic criterion is specified to measure the layout quality. This improvement is accomplished by replacing those example layouts that are not as good as the layouts just being produced by the student, according to the given criterion. As a result, the student in self-challenging GAN\ can learn from ever-improving layout examples by continuously challenging and replacing the layouts generated by itself. Thus, self-challenging GAN\ allows the student to learn a optimal layout distribution such that the generated layouts can be optimized with respect to the given criterion. Thanks to the great flexibility of self-challenging GAN, this quantitative criterion can be any function that is either differentiable or non-differentiable, even though the self-challenging GAN\ method itself is gradient-based.
We conduct experiments on generating graph layouts with regard to four criteria including minimizing edge crossing, maximizing crossing angle, minimizing stress, and optimizing a combination of 7 different aesthetics. The effectiveness and efficiency of SmartGD\ are evaluated quantitatively and qualitatively against 12 popular graph drawing algorithms. The experimental results show that our method significantly outperforms all the 12 benchmarks, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Additionally, the generalizability of SmartGD\ is assessed on real-world graphs from SuiteSparse Matrix Collection\cite{sparse} with hundreds to thousands of nodes, which proves that SmartGD\ have the capability of generating a good layout for unseen large graphs. In summary, the primary contributions of this work includes:
\begin{itemize}
\itemsep -0.2em
\item We propose the first graph drawing framework that can not only draw graphs in a similar style as a collection of good layout example, but also generate optimal layout according to an aesthetic criterion, without the need for trial-and-error efforts.
\item We propose a novel variant of GAN, self-challenging GAN, to learn the generative layout distribution with respect to a specific quantitative criterion without the need for special accommodation for non-diffentiable criteria function.
\item We conducted extensive experimental studies to show that our model consistently performs well on a large set of unseen graphs, compared against 12 popular graph drawing methods.
\end{itemize}
\section{Related Work}
\subsection{Graph Drawing}
Since 1963\cite{tutte_1963}, a multitude of graph drawing algorithms has been proposed\cite{bonabeau_1998,harel_koren_2002,walshaw_2003}. In order to evaluate the goodness of graph layouts, several commonly agreed aesthetic criteria (e.g., number of edge crossing and node occlusion) are formulated by researchers because extensive user studies show that these criteria are highly correlated with human preference regarding graph layouts\cite{Ham-user-study,Tim-user-study}. To be specific, each aesthetic
criterion emphasizes a single aspect of aesthetics and some criteria contradict each others\cite{haleem-huamin}. Until now, there is no general agreement about which criterion is the most effective one to measure human preference. Besides, some of the aesthetic criteria are non-differentiable functions so the gradient-based optimization method cannot be directly applied without special accommodation.
In general, many graph drawing algorithms focus on optimizing one aesthetic criterion, given that each criterion measures one aesthetic aspect. Take three aesthetics: stress, crossing angle, and edge crossing as examples. Some researchers focus on minimizing the stress energy \cite{neato,kamada_kawai_1989}, where the graph is regarded as a physical system. To maximize the crossing angle, a force-directed-based algorithm \cite{Argyriou} and a heuristic-based algorithm \cite{Bekos-xangle} were proposed. To minimize the edge crossing in the graph layout, several algorithms \cite{xing-heuristic,xing-heuristic,star-insertion} are proposed to approximately solve this NP-hard problem. Unlike these methods, SmartGD\ is flexible on optimizing any quantitative criteria regardless of the differentiability of these criteria.
\subsection{Machine Learning Approaches for Graph Drawing}
In recent years, as machine learning becomes more and more popular, some researches have been conducted on applying machine learning approaches to visualize the graphs\cite{vieira-survey}. Generally, these machine learning-based graph drawing methods can be classified into two categories: graph drawing with human interaction\cite{neto_eades_1993,bach,barosa,sponemann,masui,sebag} and graph drawing without human interaction\cite{dnn,gnn-gd,kwon-ma-2020,deep-drawing,deepgd,sgd2,kwon-ma-2018}. The methods in the first category keep the human in the loop of the learning procedure. The general idea is that the fitness function is automatically adjusted according to the human feedback collected from the user interface.
In the second category, these methods learn to draw graphs without involving
humans. For example, Kwon et al.\cite{kwon-ma-2020} designs an auto-encoder-based deep learning model which can visualize a graph in various layouts. The limitation is that the model needs to be trained specifically for each graph with new training data. In the same year, Wang et al. propose a deep learning model called DeepDrawing\cite{deep-drawing}, which learns to visualize graphs in a similar layout fashion as the training data. However, since DeepDrawing encodes the graph structure information using adjacency vector with fixed length $k$ for each nodes, only the connectivity information between the current node and $k$ other nodes is accessible to DeepDrawing. As a result, the global graph topology is unable to be captured by DeepDrawing so that it is difficult to draw unseen graphs which have different topological characteristic than the graphs in the training data. Later on, DeepGD\cite{deepgd}, a Graph Neural Networks (GNN) based deep learning framework, is proposed to generate the optimal layout according to different aesthetic criteria. While the algorithm works for general graphs, its generalizability to non-differentiable criteria is limited. In another paper~\cite{sgd2}, Ahmed et al. proposed $(SGD)^2$. It utilizes stochastic gradient descent to optimize the graph layout with respect to the loss function composed of multiple aesthetics. Similar to DeepGD, it cannot be directly generalized to non-differentiable aesthetic criteria without special accommodation because it is also a gradient-based method. Their remedy is to approximate some non-differentiable criteria with their differentiable forms such that the stochastic gradient descent can be applied. Nonetheless, in order to generate a good layout using $(SGD)^2$, the hyper-parameters including learning rate, momentum rate, sample size, and weights factor for each aesthetic are needed to be carefully tuned.
The SmartGD\ we proposed also falls into the second category but it is different than previous approaches. First, unlike DeepDrawing, both the local neighborhood information and the global graph structure will be captured by SmartGD. For example, SmartGD\ can appropriately draw grid graphs or star graphs, even though the training data only contains general graphs. Secondly, compared with DeepGD and $(SGD)^2$, SmartGD\ can optimize non-differentiable criteria without the need for special accommodation. Lastly, once trained, SmartGD\ can generate the optimal layouts for arbitrary graphs with regard to the desired aesthetics, without the need for trial-and-error effort.
\subsection{Generative Adversarial Networks}
\label{sec:gan-literature}
Generative Adversarial Networks (GAN) are designed to learn a generative distribution that can ultimately approximate the distribution of real data\cite{wgan,style-gan,rgan,conditional-gan}. In 2014, the first GAN\cite{sgan} emerged to generate fake images which are superficially authentic. Inspired by the great success of generating fake images, GANs are adopted to tackle other problems such as text-to-image translation\cite{text-image-gan} and super-resolution\cite{super-reso-gan}. Later on, a conditional version of GAN \cite{conditional-gan} is proposed to learn a conditional generative distribution, by conditioning on some additional information. In this work, by taking the advantage of conditional GAN, SmartGD\ also learns a generative layout distribution conditioned on the graph. Additionally, we propose a novel variant of GAN, self-challenging GAN,
with the goal of generating superior layouts when the goodness of data examples can be assessed quantitatively.
It is worth mentioning that, there are many research conducted on the design of adversarial loss. For example, WGAN\cite{wgan} is proposed to use the Wasserstein distance to estimate the distance between the generative distributions and distribution of real data to encourage faster convergence.
RGAN\cite{rgan}, which estimates the relativistic difference between two distributions, is proposed to generate fake data with better quality than WGAN.
\section{SmartGD}
\label{sec:method}
In this paper, we propose a general deep learning framework for graph drawing.
Our proposed framework is applicable in two scenarios. When there is a lack of concrete aesthetic criteria to specify what constitutes a good layout, but good layout examples can be provided, SmartGD\ learns to draw graphs in a similar style as the examples; if there exist quantitative criteria to evaluate the goodness of a layout,
SmartGD\ further optimizes the generated layouts with respect to the given aesthetic criteria.
\subsection{Problem Statement}
Let $G$ = ($\mathbf{V}$,$\mathbf{E}$) be a graph, where $\mathbf{V}$ is a set of $N$ nodes, $\mathbf{E}$ is a set of $M$ edges. A graph $G$ can be represented by an adjacency matrix $\mathbf{A}$ where $a_{ij} = 1$ indicates there exists an edge between nodes $i$ and $j$, while $a_{ij} = 0$ otherwise. The graph layout is denoted as $\mathbf{X} \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times 2}$, where $\mathbf{X}_i$ is a 2-dimensional position vector for node $i$. The good layout example and generated layout are represented by $\mathbf{X}_r$ and $\mathbf{X}_f$, respectively ("r" for {\bf r}eal and "f" for {\bf f}ake). If
there exist a quantitative criterion to evaluate
the goodness of a layout, we denote the
criterion function as $\lambda(\mathbf{X},G)$.
Our learning objective is determined based on whether the goodness of layouts can be assessed quantitatively. If the layout preference is too abstract to be described mathematically, SmartGD\ will attempt to draw the graph in a similar drawing style as the good layout examples. In other words, the student network in the SmartGD\ learns graph drawing by analyzing and imitating the good layout examples. In this scenario, the learning objective is to learn a generative layout distribution $\mathbb{Q}(\mathbf{X}|G)$ as close as possible to the distribution of good layout examples $\mathbb{P}(\mathbf{X}|G)$. This objective can be achieved by adopting the conditional RGAN, which is described in \autoref{sec:conditional-rgan}.
However, if the goodness of a layout can be measured by an aesthetic criterion, the goal of the student network is not just to imitate the good layout examples.The reason is that the globally optimal good layout examples with respect to this criterion are typically not available.
Hence, solely imitating the good layout examples will in fact constrain the quality of student-generated layouts. In this case, SmartGD\ will attempt to enhance the quality of good layout collection continuously regarding the desired aesthetic $\lambda$ during training so that the student network can continue to improve by learning from better layouts. Thus, the learned generative distribution $\mathbb{Q}_\lambda(\mathbf{X}|G)$ takes the criterion $\lambda$ into account such that a layout $\mathbf{X}_f$ drawn from this distribution are expected to achieve an optimal value of the criterion $\lambda(\mathbf{X}_f, G)$. The purpose of this framework is to solve the
learning problem without the globally optimal ground truth layouts. That is to say, in order to learn the globally optimal layout distribution $\tilde{\mathbb{P}}_\lambda(\mathbf{X}|G)$,
SmartGD\ does not require the globally optimal $\tilde{\mathbf{X}}_\lambda$ to be provided. This paves the way for the extraordinary flexibility of SmartGD\ since it can be easily applied to optimize any quantitative aesthetic. Nonetheless, this
learning setting also make our problem even more challenging, which inspires us to propose a novel variant of GANs, {\em self-challenging GAN}, explained in detail in \autoref{sec:our-gan}.
\subsection{Conditional RGAN}
\label{sec:conditional-rgan}
In order to draw graphs in a similar drawing style as the good layout examples, the conditional RGAN is adopted to achieve this goal. Specifically, the conditional GAN\cite{conditional-gan} allows us to learn the generative layout distribution conditioned on the graph; the RGAN\cite{rgan} specifies the adversarial loss we use. By combining the conditional GAN and RGAN, we propose to use the conditional RGAN to learn the generative layout distribution conditioned on the graph.
The conditional RGAN is a deep learning based generative model. Its purpose is to learn the data distribution from a collection of good layout examples $\mathbb{P}(\mathbf{X}|G)$. In the model architecture, there are two sub-models: the generator network $\Phi_\mathrm{gen}$ and the discriminator network $\Phi_\mathrm{dis}$ (see \autoref{fig:framework}a). To be specific, the generator is responsible for generating layouts that are as similar as possible to the good layout examples, and the discriminator estimates the goodness of layouts. Mathematically, the generator attempts to learn the generative distribution $\mathbb{Q}(\mathbf{X}|G)$ to approximate the distribution of good layout examples $\mathbb{P}(\mathbf{X}|G)$. If we regard the generator $\Phi_{gen}$ as a student and the discriminator $\Phi_{dis}$ as a teacher, the student tries to imitate the good layouts $\mathbf{X}_r$ and aims at making the teacher believe that student-generated layouts $\mathbf{X}_f$ are better than the good layouts $\mathbf{X}_r$. The teacher is responsible for correctly distinguishing $\mathbf{X}_f$ and $\mathbf{X}_r$ such that the student will have the motivation to improve further. Therefore, their responsibility is adversarial to some extent, but they serve a common goal to help the student learn better. During the training, they are trained alternately so that they are co-evolving by trying to improve together.
More specifically, the generator will take a graph $G$ as input and generate the corresponding layout $\mathbf{X}_f$. The discriminator predicts a goodness score $\Phi_\mathrm{dis}\left(\mathbf{X}|G\right)$ for any input layout $\mathbf{X}$. The adversarial loss of conditional RGAN is the following:
t
where $\sigma$ is the sigmoid function. In the discriminator loss, $\left( \Phi_\mathrm{dis}\left(\mathbf{X}_r|G\right) - \Phi_\mathrm{dis}\left(\mathbf{X}_f|G\right)\right)$ indicates how much the good layout example $\mathbf{X}_r$ is better than the generated layout $\mathbf{X}_f$ in the eyes of discriminator. Thus, the discriminator will be trained to maximize the log probability that the good layout example is better than the generated layout in the belief of the discriminator. Similarly, the generator will be trained to maximize the log probability that the generated layout $\mathbf{X}_f$ is better than good layout example $\mathbf{X}_r$ in the belief of discriminator.
Once the conditional RGAN is trained, the $\Phi_{\mathrm{gen}}$ encodes the learned generative layout distribution conditioned on the graph $\mathbb{Q}(X|G)$. It has been mathematically proved that $\mathbb{Q}(X|G)$ can well approximate the good layout distribution $\mathbb{P}(X|G)$ such that the generated layouts $\mathbf{X}_f$ sampled from the generative distribution $\mathbb{Q}(X|G)$ is drawn in a similar style as the good layouts collection \cite{sgan}.
\subsection{Self-Challenging GAN}
\label{sec:our-gan}
\begin{figure}[htbp!]
\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-1pt}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/framework.png}
\end{center}
\caption{The high-level overview of SmartGD. The component (a) sketches the training procedure of the GAN-based deep learning model. The self-challenging mechanism is explained in component (b), which is only applied when the criterion to be optimized is given. The component (c) describes the inference procedure for drawing unseen graphs.}
\label{fig:framework}
\end{figure}
If the goodness of layouts can be assessed quantitatively by a criterion function $\lambda(\mathbf{X},G)$, all types of existing GANs including the conditional RGAN are not suitable for this scenario anymore. The reason is that the existing GANs can only make the generated examples to be as similar as possible to the good examples. However, in our cases, the globally optimal layout $\tilde{\mathbf{X}}_\lambda$ with respect to the criterion $\lambda$ is typically not available. Therefore, it is impossible for the existing GANs to learn the globally optimal layout distribution $\tilde{\mathbb{P}}_\lambda(\mathbf{X}|G)$ with regard to the criterion $\lambda$. With this in mind, we propose a novel variant of GAN, {\em self-challenging GAN}, in which the quality of generated layout $\mathbf{X}_f$ will not be bounded by the quality of good layout examples $\mathbf{X}_r$ anymore.
The main difference between self-challenging GAN\ and the existing GANs is that the distribution of good layout examples $\mathbb{P^*}(X|G)$ is dynamically changing in self-challenging GAN. In other words, $\lambda(\mathbf{X}_r^*,G)$ is continuously improving during the training stage. In general, for every layout the student generates, we evaluate this layout by computing $\lambda(\mathbf{X}_f,G)$ and compare it with the current good layout example $\lambda(\mathbf{X}_r^*,G)$ (see \autoref{fig:framework}b). If the student-generated layout $\mathbf{X}_f$ is better than the current good layout example $\mathbf{X}_r^*$ given the criterion $\lambda$, the good layout collection will be updated by substituting the example with the new generated layout $\mathbf{X}_f$. Then, the student is actually learning from the best attempt made by itself in the past and trying to outperform the layouts generated by itself. With this self-challenging mechanism, we can break through the shackle of the quality of initial good layout examples.
\begin{equation}
\begin{small}
{\begin{aligned}
\label{equ:conditional-rgan}
L_{D} &= -\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{X}_r \sim \mathbb{P}(\mathbf{X}|G),\mathbf{X}_f \sim \mathbb{Q}(\mathbf{X}|G)} \left[\log \left( \sigma \left( D\left(\mathbf{X}_r|G\right) - D\left(\mathbf{X}_f|G\right) \right) \right) \right] \\
L_{G} &= -\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{X}_r \sim \mathbb{P}(\mathbf{X}|G),\mathbf{X}_f \sim \mathbb{Q}(\mathbf{X}|G)} \left[\log \left( \sigma \left( D\left(\mathbf{X}_f|G\right) - D\left(\mathbf{X}_r|G\right) \right) \right) \right]
\end{aligned}}
\end{small}
\end{equation}
Combining self-challenging GAN\ with the conditional RGAN in \autoref{equ:conditional-rgan}, the loss of self-challenging conditional RGAN is formulated as,
\begin{equation}
\begin{small}
\begin{aligned}
\label{equ:our-gan}
L_{\Phi_\mathrm{dis}} &= -\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{X}_r^* \sim \mathbb{P}^*(\mathbf{X}|G),\mathbf{X}_f \sim \mathbb{Q}_\lambda(\mathbf{X}|G)} \left[\log \left( \sigma \left( \Phi_\mathrm{dis}\left(\mathbf{X}_r^*|G\right) - \Phi_\mathrm{dis}\left(\mathbf{X}_f|G\right) \right) \right) \right] \\
L_{\Phi_\mathrm{gen}} &= -\mathbb{E}_{\mathbf{X}_r^* \sim \mathbb{P}^*(\mathbf{X}|G),\mathbf{X}_f \sim \mathbb{Q}_\lambda(\mathbf{X}|G)} \left[\log \left( \sigma \left( \Phi_\mathrm{dis}\left(\mathbf{X}_f|G\right) - \Phi_\mathrm{dis}\left(\mathbf{X}_r^*|G\right) \right) \right) \right]
\end{aligned}
\end{small}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbb{P}^*(\mathbf{X}|G)$ is the dynamic good layout distribution and $\mathbf{X}_r^*$ denotes the current good layout examples. The training procedure of self-challenging GAN\ is described in \autoref{alg:our-gan}.
At the end of training, the generator serves as the generative layout distribution which well approximates the distribution of final good layout examples $\mathbf{X}_r^*$. Given that $\mathbf{X}_r^*$ is continuously improving according to the criterion $\lambda$, the distribution of final good layout examples $\mathbf{X}_r^*$ at the end of training is more likely to be closer to the globally optimal layout distribution $\tilde{\mathbb{P}}_\lambda(\mathbf{X}|G)$, compared with the distribution of initial good layout examples. Since the existing GANs can only learn a distribution that approximates the initial good layout distribution, the generative layout distribution $\mathbb{Q}_\lambda(\mathbf{X}|G)$ learned by self-challenging GAN\ will be closer to the globally optimal layout distribution $\tilde{\mathbb{P}}_\lambda(\mathbf{X}|G)$ than the distribution learned by the existing GANs. The generative layout distribution $\mathbb{Q}_\lambda(\mathbf{X}|G)$ we learned takes the criterion $\lambda$ into account such that the generated layouts optimize the criterion $\lambda$, no matter the differentiability of criterion $\lambda$.
It is worth mentioning that self-challenging GAN\ is a general GAN model which can also be applied to problems other than graph drawing. As long as the goodness of examples can be evaluated quantitatively by a criterion and the ground truth examples are not available, self-challenging GAN\ can better approach the optimal generative distribution with respect to the criterion. Additionally, self-challenging GAN\ can be combined with any flavor of GANs, including but not limited to conditional RGAN.
\begin{algorithm}[h]
\caption{Self-Challenging GAN}
\label{alg:our-gan}
\SetAlgoLined
\SetKwInput{KwInput}{Input}
\SetKwInput{KwOutput}{Output}
\KwInput{good layout examples $\Xr{0}$}
\For{\upshape training epoch $t$}{
\For{\upshape $k$ minibatches in the dataset $\Xr{t-1}$}{
Take $m$ examples $\{\XrG{t-1}{1},...,\XrG{t-1}{m}\}$ from the dataset \\
Update discriminator $\Phi_\mathrm{dis}$ with gradient ascent
\vspace{-5pt}
\begin{equation}
\begin{small}
\begin{aligned}
\nabla_{\Phi_\mathrm{dis}} \frac{1}{m} \sum_{i=1}^m \left[
\log \left(
\sigma \left(
\Phi_\mathrm{dis}\left(\XrG{t-1}{i} \Big| G_i \right)
- \Phi_\mathrm{dis}\left(\XfG{t-1}{i} \Big| G_i \right)
\right)
\right)
\right]
\end{aligned}
\end{small}
\end{equation}
\vspace{-10pt}
}
\For{\upshape $k$ minibatches in the dataset $\Xr{t-1}$}{
Update generator $\Phi_\mathrm{gen}$ with gradient ascent
\vspace{-3pt}
\begin{equation}
\begin{small}
\begin{aligned}
\nabla_{\Phi_\mathrm{gen}} \frac{1}{m} \sum_{i=1}^m \left[
\log \left(
\sigma \left(
\Phi_\mathrm{dis}\left(\XfG{t-1}{i} \Big| G_i \right)
- \Phi_\mathrm{dis}\left(\XrG{t-1}{i} \Big| G_i \right)
\right)
\right)
\right]
\end{aligned}
\end{small}
\end{equation}\\
\vspace{-3pt}
Draw a sample layout from generator for $i = \{1,...,m\}$
\vspace{-5pt}
\begin{align}
\XfG{t}{i} &\leftarrow \Phi_\mathrm{gen} \left( G_i \right)
\end{align} \\
\vspace{-5pt}
Update dataset $\mathbf{X}_r$ for $i = \{1,...,m\}$
\vspace{-8pt}
\begin{align}
\XrG{t}{i} &\leftarrow \argmax_{\mathbf{X}\in \left\{\XrG{t-1}{i}, \XfG{t}{i}\right\}} \lambda(\mathbf{X},G_i)
\end{align}
\vspace{-10pt}
}
}
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Training and Inference}
\label{sec:training-testing}
Even though SmartGD\ is flexible and powerful in handling two different graph drawing scenarios with conditional RGAN and self-challenging GAN\ respectively, the training procedure, inference procedure, and model architecture (described in \autoref{sec:model-archi}) for these two GANs is unified. The only difference in the training procedure between conditional RGAN and self-challenging GAN\ is the dynamically changing good layout collection. In this section, the training and inference procedure is explained in detail.
During the training phase (see \autoref{fig:framework}a), the discriminator will take one input layout at a time and output a goodness score. This input layout can be either the layouts generated by the generator or the good layout examples. For each epoch, the feedback from the discriminator, which is formulated as the adversarial loss in \autoref{equ:conditional-rgan} and \autoref{equ:our-gan}, is back-propagated to the generator and discriminator alternately. To be more concrete, the weight of the generator remains unchanged while the adversarial loss is back-propagated through the discriminator, and vice versa. Therefore, the generator and the discriminator are trained alternately so that they are able to co-evolve together.
After the model converged, the generator is regarded as the learned generative layout distribution conditioned on the graph such that the generated layout sample for an unseen graph can be drawn from this distribution. In other words, in the inference stage, only the generator is needed to draw an unseen graph as shown in \autoref{fig:framework}c. The converged generator takes as input the adjacency matrix of an unseen graph and outputs the 2-dimensional node positions as the graph layout.
\begin{figure}[htbp!]
\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-1pt}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/architecture.png}
\end{center}
\caption{A unified model architecture of SmartGD.}
\label{fig:model-archi}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Model Architecture}
\label{sec:model-archi}
The unified model architecture is composed of two sub-models: generator and discriminator, as shown in \autoref{fig:model-archi}. The building block of these two sub-models is the GNN layer. Each GNN layer contains a graph convolutional layer\cite{nnconv}, a dense (MLP) layer, a batch normalization layer, and an activation layer. More specifically, the graph convolutional layer is responsible for learning the latent node representation; the dense layer transforms the node representation; batch normalization\cite{batch-norm} is adopted to accelerate the convergence by reducing the internal covariant shift; the activation layer, in particular LeakyReLU\cite{leaky-relu}, introduces non-linearity in the model while alleviating the potential gradient vanishing issue.
There are two reasons we employ the graph convolutional layer instead of the LSTM layer as DeepDrawing\cite{deep-drawing} proposed. First, it learns a hidden node representation by taking advantage of the message passing mechanism. For each convolutional layer, the representation of a node is updated according to the aggregated messages passed from its neighbors. These messages are aggregated from the node representation of the neighbors learned by the previous convolutional layer. As a result, for $l^{th}$ convolutional layer, the learned node representation contains the information about nodes that are $l$ graph theoretic distance away. By stacking multiple convolutional layers, the final node representation will not only contain the local neighborhood information but also capture the global topological structure. Therefore, this allows SmartGD\ to draw graphs with arbitrary topological characteristic, even if the graph to be drawn possess a completely different topological characteristic than graphs in the training data. Another advantage of the graph convolutional layer is that it does not require the input graph to have the same number of nodes. Each convolutional layer will learn a message aggregation function to process the messages passed by the neighbors. This aggregation function, served as the kernel function, is shared within the layer across all the nodes so that the input graph can have a different number of nodes. This also endows more flexibility of the general graph drawing framework we proposed.
In the generator, multiple GNN layers are stacked together in order to wisely draw the graph according to the global graph structure. The node embedding output by the final GNN layer will be projected to 2-dimensional space by a dense layer. Similarly, the first GNN layer in the discriminator will take the 2-dimensional node embedding as the input. Then, the node representation capturing the latent characteristic in the graph layout is learned by a series of GNN layers in the discriminator. Finally, the global pooling layer aggregates all the representations of the nodes into a single graph-level layout embedding such that the dense layer can transform the layout embedding to a goodness score.
\subsection{Canonicalization}
As mentioned in \autoref{sec:training-testing}, the discriminator will alternately take the layouts generated by the generator and the good layout examples as inputs. However, the generated layout and good layout examples may have inconsistent node position distributions. For instance, the coordinate of each node in the good layout examples might be constrained within a certain numerical range, while the coordinate of the generated layouts is a real number without a certain range. Additionally, as the model is continuously evolving, the generator is also not guaranteed to produce a stable and consistent node position distribution throughout the training procedure. As a result, an inconsistent or even drastically changing input node position distribution may greatly increase the difficulty for the discriminator to learn. In order to stabilize training by avoiding out-of-distribution inputs, we introduce a canonicalization layer at the beginning of the discriminator as shown in \autoref{fig:model-archi}. The canonicalization layer stabilizes the node position distribution by throwing away all the non-essential information for determining the goodness of a layout, including center position, rotation angle, and original numerical scale of node positions. In other words, the canonicalization layer assigns each input layout a canonical representation that is geometrically similar to the original layout but consistent in node position distribution. With the canonicalized layouts, the discriminator input is guaranteed to be stable, which will in turn speed up convergence, and facilitate generalizability over unseen layout examples.
The canonicalization layer consists of three operations: translation, rotation, and rescaling.
The translation operation translates each of the node positions in a layout by the same amount in order to make the input layout to be zero-centered. For each node $i$ in a layout $\mathbf{X}$,
\vspace{-3pt}
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{X}'_i = \mathbf{X}_i - \frac{1}{N}\sum_{j=1}^N \mathbf{X}_j,
\vspace{-3pt}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{X}'_i$ denotes the translated position for node $i$, and $N$ denotes the number of nodes in layout $\mathbf{X}$. Then, the rotation operation rotates the entire layout by its center, such that the first principal component in the layout is aligned with the x-axis. For layout $\mathbf{X}'$,
\vspace{-1pt}
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{X}'' = \mathbf{X}' \mathrm{cov}(\mathbf{X}'),
\vspace{-1pt}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{X}''$ denotes the rotated layout positions, and $\mathrm{cov}(\mathbf{X}')$ represents the covariance matrix of all the node positions in the layout.
Lastly, a rescaling operation is employed to impose a canonical layout scale across different graphs. One way to achieve this is to ensure the scale of node distances in the graph space is consistent with the scale of node distances in the layout space. The discrepancy between graph space and layout space can be measured by stress energy. So we derive an optimal scaling factor by leveraging the equation of stress. For each layout $\mathbf{X}''$,
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{X}''' = \mathbf{X}'' \cdot \frac{
\sum_{i \neq j} \| \mathbf{X}''_i - \mathbf{X}''_j \| / d_{ij}
}{
\sum_{i \neq j} \| \mathbf{X}''_i - \mathbf{X}''_j \|^2 / d_{ij}^2
},
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{X}'''$ denotes the rescaled layout positions and $d_{ij}$ represents the graph theoretic distance between node $i$ and $j$.
After performing translation, rotation, and rescaling in sequence, the input layouts of the discriminator will have a canonical representation with the benefit of avoiding the out-of-distribution inputs, facilitating the convergence, and enhancing the generalizability of SmartGD\ over unseen graphs.
\section{Evaluation}
\label{sec:evaluation}
In this section, the effectiveness and efficiency of SmartGD\ are assessed by comparing against 12 benchmark methods quantitatively. Among the 12 benchmark methods, the competitive ones according to the quantitative evaluation are chosen to compare with SmartGD\ qualitatively.
When no concrete aesthetic criteria can be used to specify what constitutes a good layout,
we evaluate our algorithm based on its capability to draw graphs in a similar style as the good layout collection.
If the goodness of layout can be evaluated by a quantitative criterion, our effectiveness of optimizing the aesthetic criterion is assessed.
\subsection{Experimental Setup}
SmartGD\ is implemented in Pytorch\cite{pytorch} and Pytorch Geometric \cite{pytorch-geometric}. Every model presented in the following sections is trained on a single Tesla V100 GPU with memory of 32 GB. For the training configuration, stochastic gradient descent with a minibatch size of 16 graphs is adopted to train SmartGD. The optimizer we used is AdamW optimizer \cite{AdamW} with a decay rate of 0.99 such that the model parameters are shrunk for each optimization step. The learning rate initially is 0.001 and exponentially decays with a rate of 0.997 for each epoch. Speaking of the model architecture, the generator has 31 GNN layers and the node embedding output from each layer is 8-dimensional; the discriminator has 9 GNN layers and the node embedding output from each layer is 16-dimensional. In total, the SmartGD\ has about 378,000 parameters. To facilitate the model convergence, the input node embedding of the generator is initialized as a 2-dimensional node positions generated by PivotMDS (pmds)\cite{pmds}.
\subsection{Benchmark Algorithms}
\label{sec:benchmark}
To show the effectiveness of SmartGD, we compared SmartGD\ with 12 benchmark algorithms including force-directed layouts, energy-based layouts, heuristic-based layouts, gradient-based layouts, and deep learning based layouts. Those 12 benchmarks are widely used methods implementing various types of approaches.
To be precise, spring\cite{spring}, ForceAtlas2 (fa2)\cite{fa2} and sfdp\cite{sfdp} are three force-directed layout methods aiming at reaching a balance of attractive and repulsive forces in equilibrium. Neato\cite{neato} and the method proposed by Kamada and Kawai (kk)\cite{kamada_kawai_1989} are two energy-based layouts in which the stress energy is minimized. Dot\cite{dot}, circo\cite{circo} and twopi\cite{twopi} are three heuristic-based layout methods that focus on drawing graphs with a certain topological characteristic. Spectral\cite{spectral} layout visualizes graphs using the principal components of the graph Laplacian matrix. PivotMDS (pmds)\cite{pmds} is a sampling-based layout method for efficiently approximating the classical multidimensional scaling layout. SGD2\cite{sgd2} and DeepGD\cite{deepgd} share a common goal of optimizing the layouts according to
certain aesthetic criteria, but with different approaches. SGD2 adopts stochastic gradient descent to optimize the layout but DeepGD is a GNN based deep learning model. In order to optimize some non-differentiable aesthetic criteria including the number of edge crossing, neighborhood preservation, and aspect ratio, a special accommodation is adopted in SGD2 for each of them with the purpose of making them differentiable. However, the authors of DeepGD\cite{deepgd} do not conduct experiments on non-differentiable criteria. Therefore, we will only compare SmartGD\ with DeepGD on optimizing stress.
The implementation of all the benchmarks are from three different sources including Graphviz\cite{graphviz}, NetworkX\cite{networkx} and the code repositories directly shared by the authors of the papers mentioned above. To evaluate all benchmarks for comparison, the parameter settings we employ are the default one suggested by Graphviz, NetworkX, and the authors.
\subsection{Datasets}
\subsubsection{\textbf{Graph}}
The graph dataset used in our experiment is Rome graphs (http://www.graphdrawing.org/data.html). It contains 11534 undirected graphs with 10 to 100 nodes. We randomly split the Rome graphs into three sets: a training set with 10000 graphs, a validation set with 534 graphs, and a test set with 1000 graphs. SmartGD\ was trained on the training set, validated on the validation set, and tested on the test set. All the quantitative results we presented in the following sections are evaluated on the test set.
\subsubsection{\textbf{Good Layout Collections}}
\label{sec:good-layout-collection}
As mentioned in \autoref{sec:method}, SmartGD\ learns graph drawing by imitating the good layout examples. Hence, the quality of good layout examples is essential to our model performance. If the quality of good layout collections is better, SmartGD\ is more likely to generate a superior layout. Therefore, for every training graph, we collect the best possible layout as the good layout examples.
In practice, the quality of layout is usually measured by some commonly agreed aesthetic criteria. Each criterion assesses one aesthetic aspect and some criteria may even contradict to each other.
For this reason, it is difficult to find a graph layout which optimizes every aesthetic criterion. Therefore, in our experimental study, we collect a separate set of good layout examples for each of four aesthetic criteria respectively. These four aesthetic criteria include stress, the number of edge crossing (Xing), the acute angle formed by a pair of crossing edges (XAngle), and a weighted average of multiple criteria (Combined). The combined multi-critera is a weighted average of 7 different criteria including stress, Xing, XAngle, the angle formed by two incident edges (IAngle), node occlusion (NodeOcc), uniform edge length (EdgeUni), and the divergence between the graph space and layout space (t-SNE)\cite{tsnet}, with the weight of 0.2, 0.05, 0.1, 0.1, 0.2, 0.15, and 0.2, respectively.
To collect the good layout examples for each criterion, a layout of every training graph is generated by 10 existing layout methods in \autoref{table:good-layout}, which are 12 benchmarks mentioned in \autoref{sec:benchmark} except DeepGD\cite{deepgd} and SGD2\cite{sgd2}. The best layout with respect to the criterion among the layouts generated by these 10 methods is then selected as the good layout example for training purpose. If the criterion value of two layouts are tied, the stress is adopted as the tie breaker. The percentage of every layout method selected into each of the four good layout collections, i.e., generating the winning layouts for each criterion, is presented in \autoref{table:good-layout}.
\begin{table}[htbp!]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.1}
\fontsize{7}{7}\selectfont
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{11.5pt}
\caption{The composition of good layout collections. Each column corresponds to the proportion of a single good layout collection for each criterion. For instance, in the good layout collection for stress, 67.77\% of layouts are generated by neato.}
\label{table:good-layout}
\centering
\scalebox{0.95}{
\begin{tabular}{c|c<{\centering}|c<{\centering}|c<{\centering}|c<{\centering}}
\bfseries \makecell {Method} & \bfseries Stress & \bfseries \makecell {Xing} & \bfseries \makecell {XAngle} & \bfseries \makecell{Combined} \\
\hline
\rule{0pt}{2.2ex}
\bfseries{neato}\cite{neato} & 67.77\% & 13.64\% & 16.18\% & 76.71\% \\
\bfseries{dot}\cite{dot} & 0.00\% & 0.12\% & 0.14\% & 0.00\% \\
\bfseries{sfdp}\cite{sfdp} & 0.03\% & 5.47\% & 6.85\% & 2.12\% \\
\bfseries{twopi}\cite{twopi} & 0.03\% & 0.12\% & 0.16\% & 0.03\% \\
\bfseries{circo}\cite{circo} & 0.00\% & 0.12\% & 0.02\% & 0.00\% \\
\bfseries{spring}\cite{spring} & 0.00\% & 3.23\% & 4.62\% & 7.46\% \\
\bfseries{spectral}\cite{spectral} & 0.00\% & 1.15\% & 3.54\% & 0.00\% \\
\bfseries{kk}\cite{kamada_kawai_1989} & 32.18\% & 8.08\% & 8.07\% & 13.61\% \\
\bfseries{fa2}\cite{fa2} & 0.00\% & 67.83\% & 60.24\% & 0.08\% \\
\bfseries{pmds}\cite{pmds} & 0.00\% & 0.35\% & 0.17\% & 0.00\% \\
\end{tabular}}
\end{table}
\subsection{Quantitative Evaluation}
We quantitatively evaluate the efficacy of SmartGD\ by different aesthetic criteria. Given one criterion function $\lambda$,
we measure the relative difference in criterion $\lambda$ by comparing it against a benchmark algorithm. Similar to DeepGD\cite{deepgd}, the symmetric percent change (SPC) of a graph $G$ ranging from $-100\%$ to $100\%$ is computed as
\vspace{-3pt}
\begin{equation}
\label{equ:spc}
\mathrm{SPC}_{\lambda}(G) = 100\% \times \frac{\lambda(\mathbf{X}_f,G)-\lambda(\mathbf{X}_b,G)}{\max\{\lambda(\mathbf{X}_f,G),\lambda(\mathbf{X}_b,G)\}}, \\
\vspace{-3pt}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{X}_f$ and $\mathbf{X}_b$ are the layouts generated by SmartGD\ and a benchmark algorithm respectively. The lower the criterion $\lambda$, the better the layout. The SPC value measures the percentage of $\lambda(\mathbf{X}_b,G)$ being better than $\lambda(\mathbf{X}_f,G)$. To comprehensively evaluate the relative performance of SmartGD\ compared with a benchmark algorithm, the average test SPC is computed as
\vspace{-8pt}
\begin{equation}
\label{equ:average-spc}
\text{Average Test }\mathrm{SPC}_{\lambda} = \frac{1}{N_t}\sum_{i=0}^{N_t} \mathrm{SPC}_{\lambda}(G_{i}), \\
\vspace{-8pt}
\end{equation}
where $N_t$ stands for the total number of graphs in our test set, and $G_i$ is the $i^{th}$ test graph. In terms of the criterion $\lambda$, the average test SPC measures how many percents the benchmark algorithm outperforms SmartGD\ on average. In this section, the average test SPC is evaluated to assess the relative performance of SmartGD\ compared against 12 benchmarks on different criteria of interest.
\subsubsection{\textbf{Optimizing Aesthetic Criteria}}
If the goodness of a layout can be evaluated quantitatively by a criterion function $\lambda$, SmartGD\ with self-challenging GAN\ can learn an optimal generative layout distribution such that the generated layout is optimized given the criterion. To thoroughly evaluate the effectiveness of optimizing different aesthetic criteria, in our experiments we trained 4 SmartGD\ models to optimize 4 different aesthetic criteria: stress, edge crossing (Xing), the angle formed by a pair of crossing edges (XAngle), and a combined criterion which is computed as the weighted average of 7 criteria (Combined). The good layout examples we used for training these 4 SmartGD\ models were collected as described in \autoref{sec:good-layout-collection}.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-1pt}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/eval-indi.png}
\end{center}
\caption{The average test SPC of 4 SmartGD\ models (column) compared
against the 15 benchmarks(row). The green cell indicates that the SmartGD\ model (column) outperforms the benchmarks (row), whereas the red cell indicates that the benchmark outperforms the SmartGD. For example, the cell at top right corner means that the SC-SmartGD-XAngle is 43.18\% better in crossing angle than neato on average.}
\label{fig:individual-quant}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-1pt}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{figures/dist-indi.png}
\end{center}
\caption{The distribution of test SPC for 4 SmartGD\ models with respect to their corresponding the best performing benchmark. Given the x-axis is test SPC, the upper is the density plot and the lower is the rug plot. }
\label{fig:individual-dist}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Minimizing Stress} Stress is a continuous aesthetic criterion which has been shown to be highly correlated to human preference\cite{Ham-user-study,Tim-user-study}. Both neato\cite{neato} and kk\cite{kamada_kawai_1989} are classical layout methods that iteratively minimize the stress of a layout. To optimize stress, we train a SmartGD\ model with self-challenging GAN\ using the good layout collection for stress in \autoref{table:good-layout}. As shown in \autoref{fig:individual-quant}, SmartGD\ with self-challenging GAN\ on optimizing stress, abbreviated as SC-SmartGD-Stress, achieves negative average stress SPCs computed against all benchmarks. It means that SC-SmartGD-Stress outperforms all benchmarks in terms of stress, among which SGD2 optimizing on stress (SGD2-stress) is the best performing benchmark. In addition to the average stress SPC, the distribution of stress SPC for SC-SmartGD-Stress vs. SGD2-Stress is plotted in \autoref{fig:individual-dist}.
In the density plot, the larger area under curve to the left of zero SPC indicates that SC-SmartGD-Stress is more likely to generate layouts with better stress than SGD2-stress. In the rug plot, more marks below zero SPC also show that SC-SmartGD-Stress layouts achieved better stress than SGD2-Stress layouts for most test graphs.
\paragraph{Minimizing Edge Crossing and Crossing Angle} In addition to stress, we also evaluated the effectiveness of SmartGD\ on optimizing {\em non-differentiable criteria} including edge crossing and crossing angle. The non-differentiable criteria cannot be directly optimized by gradient based methods such as SGD2\cite{sgd2} and DeepGD\cite{deepgd}. Hence, SGD2 approximately optimizes edge crossing and crossing angle by reformulating them into a differentiable function, whereas DeepGD does not explore the optimization of non-differentiable criteria. However, even though GAN is also a gradient-based method, SmartGD\ can directly optimize non-differentiable criteria without any special accommodation. To optimize edge crossing (Xing) and crossing angle (XAngle), we train two SmartGD\ models with self-challenging GAN respectively: SC-SmartGD-Xing and SC-SmartGD-XAngle. From \autoref{fig:individual-quant}, we can see that SC-SmartGD-Xing and SC-SmartGD-XAngle can generate layouts with significantly better edge crossing and crossing angle than all benchmarks according to the average Xing SPC and the average XAngle SPC. Specifically, compared with the best performing benchmark, SGD2-Xing, SC-SmartGD-Xing is 25.88\% better than SGD2-Xing on edge crossing. Compared with the best performing benchmark, fa2, SC-SmartGD-XAngle is 34.78\% better than fa2 on crossing angle. The distribution of the test SPC for SC-SmartGD-Xing vs. SGD2-Xing and SC-SmartGD-XAngle vs. fa2 is plotted in \autoref{fig:individual-dist}. The distribution plot clearly shows that we can achieve better quality for most of the test graphs than the best benchmark according to the larger area under curve to the left of zero SPC in the density plot and more marks below zero in the rug plot.
\paragraph{Combined Criterion} Some research works have shown that optimizing multiple aesthetic criteria is more likely to generate a visually pleasing graph layout\cite{huang-2013}. Therefore, to show the generalizability and flexibility of SmartGD, we also conducted experiments on training SmartGD\ to optimize a combination of 7 different aesthetic criteria. Empirically, the combined criterion is computed as the weighted average of stress(0.2), Xing (0.05), XAngle (0.1), IAngle (0.1), NodeOcc (0.1), EdgeUni (0.15), t-SNE (0.2). We train a model, SC-SmartGD-Combined, to optimize this combined criterion with self-challenging GAN\ by using the good layout collection for the combined criterion in \autoref{table:good-layout}. From \autoref{fig:combined-quant}, we can see that SmartGD\ with self-challenging GAN\ on optimizing the combined criterion obtained superior layouts compared with all the 12 benchmarks from 7 different aesthetic aspects. Compared with the best performing benchmark, SGD2-Stress, the distribution of test SPC in \autoref{fig:combined-dist} indicates that SC-SmartGD-Combined can consistently produce layouts with better quality from 7 different aesthetic perspectives, especially the crossing angle, edge uniformity, and edge crossing.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-1pt}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/eval-comb.png}
\end{center}
\caption{The average test SPC of SC-SmartGD-Combined (column) on optimizing the weighted average of 7 aesthetic criteria compared against the 15 benchmarks (row). Each column corresponds to a single criterion. The last column is the average test SPC for the combined criterion. The green cell indicates that SC-SmartGD-Combined (column) outperforms the benchmark algorithms (row), whereas the red cell indicates that the benchmark (row) outperforms the SC-SmartGD-Combined.}
\label{fig:combined-quant}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-1pt}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{figures/dist-comb.png}
\end{center}
\caption{The distribution of test SPC for SmartGD\ with self-challenging GAN\ on optimizing a combined criterion (SC-SmartGD-Combined) against the best performing benchmark SGD2-Stress. Each color corresponds to the test SPC computed for a single criterion. Given the x-axis is test SPC, the upper is the density plot and the lower is the rug plot.}
\label{fig:combined-dist}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{\textbf{Learning Similar Drawing Style}}
As described in \autoref{sec:conditional-rgan}, if there is a lack of concrete aesthetic criteria to specify what constitutes a good layout, SmartGD\ attempts to visualize graphs in a similar drawing style as the good layout collection. In other words, SmartGD\ attempts to draw graphs according to the implicit but unknown layout preference which inherently exists in the good layout collection. However, it is difficult to quantitatively evaluate how well the generated layouts align with the implicit layout preference. To better show our capability of learning implicit layout preference from examples, we employ a good layout collection whose inherent layout preference is quantifiable but unknown to SmartGD. To be specific, we trained a SmartGD\ with conditional RGAN using the layout collection for edge crossing in \autoref{table:good-layout}, abbreviated as SmartGD-Xing. Since the self-challenging mechanism in \autoref{fig:framework}c was not applied, SmartGD\ did not know that minimizing edge crossing was the target layout preference. In other words, the numbers of edge crossings in both the generated layouts and the good layout examples were never explicitly evaluated during training, but SmartGD\ was expected to learn the essence of the layout examples even without being instructed what criterion to optimize. Therefore, to assess how well the generated layout align with the implicit preference in good layout collections, we measure the number of edge crossings in the generated layouts.
The quantitative evaluation in \autoref{fig:individual-quant} shows that SmartGD-Xing outperformed all benchmarks on edge crossing with a negative Xing SPC. Among all benchmarks, SGD2 optimizing on edge crossing (SGD2-Xing) was the best performing model, but SmartGD-Xing was still 11.85\% better than SGD2-Xing on edge crossing. In addition to the average test Xing SPC, the distribution of Xing SPC for SmartGD-Xing vs. SGD2-Xing for each test graph is shown in \autoref{fig:individual-dist}. As we can see from the density plot, the larger area under curve to the left of zero SPC indicates that the SmartGD-Xing layouts is more likely to be better than SGD2-Xing layouts regarding edge crossing. In conclusion, even though SmartGD-Xing does not explicitly know the target layout preference (i.e. minimizing edge crossing), it can still generate layouts which perfectly aligns with the inherent preference in the good layout collection. It further demonstrates our capability of drawing the graph in a similar style as the good layout collection if a concrete aesthetic criteria to specify what constitutes a good layout is absent.
\subsection{Qualitative Evaluation}
In addition to the quantitative evaluation, we qualitatively compare 5 SmartGD\ models against the benchmarks on 12 graphs, which includes 10 real-world large graphs\cite{sparse} with hundreds to thousands of nodes and 2 Rome graphs in the test set. However, due to the page limit, only the competitive and representative benchmarks (i.e. SGD2-Stress, SGD2-Xing, fa2, neato) on quantitative evaluation are selected to be evaluated qualitatively. To be specific, SGD2-Stress is the best performing benchmark on stress and the combined criterion; SGD2-Xing is the best performing benchmark on edge crossing; fa2, as a traditional force-directed layouts, achieves the best performance among all benchmarks on crossing angle; neato, as a classical layout methods minimizing stress, achieves competitive performance on stress and the combined criterion.
The qualitative comparison in \autoref{fig:vis-result} shows that SmartGD\ models optimizing different aesthetics can indeed visualize the graphs with various sizes in a visually pleasing and informative way, by satisfying certain aesthetic aspect. It is interesting to observe that SmartGD-Xing and SC-SmartGD-Xing tends to bundle edges together to avoid edge crossing. Besides, for visualizing large graphs with SGD2-Xing, we made our best effort to obtain reasonably good layouts within 100,000 iterations. However, we do not observe any visible improvement after hours of computation. In particular, it takes more than 5 hours for SGD2-Xing to visualize the graph named ex4 in \autoref{fig:vis-result} with no meaningful outcome in the end. We suspect that
directly minimizing edge crossings on large graphs might be a potential weakness of SGD2\cite{sgd2}, since the loss landscape can be particularly rough for a highly intertwined layout in which an extremely small perturbation in node positions may lead to drastically changing edge crossing numbers.
\subsection{Discussion}
In addition to the performance evaluation of SmartGD, there are four additional issues that we want to discuss. First, to evaluate the robustness and stability of SmartGD, 10-fold cross validation was performed on SC-SmartGD-XAngle over 10 random train-test splits of Rome graphs. The arithmetic mean of the average XAngle SPC against fa2 was -35.404\%, after averaging over 10 folds. Comparing to the XAngle SPC of SC-SmartGD-XAngle vs. fa2 on a single fold in \autoref{fig:individual-quant}, 34.78\%, we can see that the performance of SmartGD\ is very robust to the potential variation in the training data.
Secondly, SC-SmartGD-Xing and SmartGD-Xing share the same good layout collection for training but with different GANs. Comparing the performance of SC-SmartGD-Xing and SmartGD-Xing in \autoref{fig:individual-quant}, we can clearly see that SC-SmartGD-Xing achieves better performance on edge crossing than SmartGD-Xing. It proves that the self-challenging GAN\ indeed can break through the shackle of the quality of initial good layout examples and thus further improve the generated layouts on edge crossing with significant success, if the quantitative description of layout preference is known.
Additionally, we also explore the effect of SmartGD\ with self-challenging GAN\ but without using any good layout examples. To be more clear, at the first epoch of the training procedure, the initial good examples are generated by the generator itself instead of the layout examples collected in \autoref{table:good-layout}. In this case, SmartGD\ solely learns from the layouts generated by itself and utilizes the quantitative criteria as guidance to
select good layout examples, without the help of layout examples generated by others. The quantitative result shows that SC-SmartGD-Xing without using any good layout collection in \autoref{table:good-layout} achieves an average Xing SPC of -3.48\% compared with fa2. From this result, we can infer that the powerfulness of self-challenging GAN endows even more flexibility of SmartGD\ because self-challenging SmartGD\ can perform reasonably well even without being provided with initial good layout examples.
Lastly, the essence of self-challenging GAN\ is continuously improving the good layout examples during the training, which is accomplished by replacing the good layout examples with the better layout generated by itself. For SC-SmartGD-Xing which uses a good layout collection for Xing in \autoref{table:good-layout} during training, the replacement pattern is shown in \autoref{fig:replace}. As we can see, at the early stage during training, many initial good layout examples were replaced by the generated layouts. After about 1000 epochs, SmartGD\ kept replacing the layout generated by itself instead of the initial good layouts. Cumulatively, until the SC-SmartGD-Xing converged, there were more than 9000 training graphs whose initial good layout examples were replaced by the layouts generated by SC-SmartGD-Xing.
\begin{figure}[htbp!]
\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-1pt}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{figures/replacement-stat.png}
\end{center}
\caption{The number of replacements out of 10,000 training examples over training epochs for SC-SmartGD-Xing. The orange bar represents the number of training graphs whose current good layout examples are replaced. The green bar represents the number of training graphs whose good layout examples are the first time to be replaced by the generated layouts. The blue line shows how many initial good layout examples are replaced cumulatively.}
\label{fig:replace}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Layout Computation Time}
\begin{table}[ht!]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.1}
\fontsize{8}{8}\selectfont
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{11pt}
\caption{Average layout computation time per graph with 10-100 nodes.}
\label{table:time}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c|c<{\centering}||c|c<{\centering}}
\bfseries \makecell{Method} & \bfseries \makecell{Time} &
\bfseries \makecell{Method} & \bfseries \makecell{Time}\\
\hline
\rule{0pt}{2.2ex}
\bfseries{neato}\cite{neato} & 0.34s & \bfseries{pmds}\cite{pmds} & 0.02s \\
\bfseries{dot}\cite{dot} & 0.29s & \makecell{\bfseries{SGD2-Stress}\cite{sgd2}} & 13.19s \\
\bfseries{sfdp}\cite{sfdp} & 0.28s & \makecell{\bfseries{SGD2-Xing}\cite{sgd2}} & 142.06s \\
\bfseries{twopi}\cite{twopi} & 0.26s & \makecell{\bfseries{SGD2-XAngle}\cite{sgd2}} & 16.75s \\
\bfseries{circo}\cite{circo} & 0.35s & \bfseries{DeepGD on CPU}\cite{deepgd} & 0.27s \\
\bfseries{spring}\cite{spring} & 0.01s & \bfseries{DeepGD on GPU}\cite{deepgd} & 0.05s \\
\bfseries{spectral}\cite{spectral} & 0.01s & \bfseries{SmartGD\ on CPU} & 0.19s \\
\bfseries{kk}\cite{kamada_kawai_1989} & 0.04s & \bfseries{SmartGD\ on GPU} & 0.03s \\
\bfseries{fa2}\cite{fa2} & 0.37s &
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
To assess the efficiency of SmartGD, the layout computation time is evaluated for all 12 benchmarks and SmartGD. Specifically, the computation time we report in \autoref{table:time} is calculated as the average time over 1000 test graphs. Note that the computation time for all graph drawing methods is usually proportional to the graph size. Therefore, the computation time we evaluate can be an approximation of the average drawing time per graph with 10-100 nodes. Given that SmartGD\ and DeepGD is a deep learning model, it can take advantage of parallelism on GPU so that their computation time on GPU is also evaluated.
As we can see from \autoref{table:time}, spring, pmds, spectral, kk, SmartGD\ on GPU and DeepGD on GPU are the first-tier algorithms regarding efficiency because they are significantly faster than others. SGD2 with different criteria is less efficient than others, even though SGD2 tends to be the best performing benchmark on stress, edge crossing, and the combined criterion. Among all first-tier efficient algorithms, SmartGD\ achieves the best quantitative and qualitative performance according to different aesthetic criteria (see \autoref{fig:individual-quant}, \autoref{fig:combined-quant} and \autoref{fig:vis-result}).
\newcommand{\imgcell}[1]{\raisebox{-0.4\totalheight}{\adjustbox{height=8.3em, trim={0.08\width} {0.08\height} {0.08\width} {0.08\height},clip}{\includegraphics[]{#1}}}}
\begin{table*}[ht!]
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{0pt}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0}
\fontsize{5}{5}\selectfont
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ c|cccc|ccccc }
\bfseries{\thead{Graph}} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{\thead{Benchmark Methods}} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\thead{SmartGD}}\\
& \bfseries{Neato} & \bfseries{ForceAtlas2 (fa2)} & \bfseries{SGD2-Stress} & \bfseries{SGD2-Xing} & \bfseries{SC-SmartGD-Stress} & \bfseries{SC-SmartGD-Xing} & \bfseries{SmartGD-Xing} & \bfseries{SC-SmartGD-XAngle} & \bfseries{SC-SmartGD-Combined} \rule[-1ex]{0pt}{0ex} \\ \hline
\makecell{\bfseries{rome-7554}\\N = 38\\M = 97} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/10427_neato.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/10427_fa2.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/10427_gd2_stress.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/10427_gd2_xing.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/10427_stress.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/10427_xing.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/10427_xing_nsc.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/10427_xangle.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/10427_combined.pdf} \\
&
t = 0.31s &
t = 0.016s &
t = 7.85s &
t = 290.38s &
t = 0.153s &
t = 0.704s &
t = 0.154s &
t = 0.157s &
t = 0.141s \\
\makecell{\bfseries{rome-1746}\\N = 27\\M = 119} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/10600_neato.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/10600_fa2.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/10600_gd2_stress.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/10600_gd2_xing.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/10600_stress.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/10600_xing.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/10600_xing_nsc.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/10600_xangle.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/10600_combined.pdf} \\
&
t = 0.25s &
t = 0.019s &
t = 7.92s &
t = 353.70s &
t = 0.162s &
t = 0.482s &
t = 0.170s &
t = 0.169s &
t = 0.162s \\
\makecell{\bfseries{plat362}\\N = 362\\M = 3074} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/29_neato.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/29_fa2.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/29_gd2_stress.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/29_gd2_xing.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/29_stress.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/29_xing.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/29_xing_nsc.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/29_xangle.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/29_combined.pdf} \\
&
t = 0.67s &
t = 0.12s &
t = 93.51s &
t = 3274.10s &
t = 0.92s &
t = 1.01s &
t = 1.12s &
t = 0.87s &
t = 0.93s \\
\makecell{\bfseries{hor\_131}\\N = 434\\M = 2572} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/54_neato.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/54_fa2.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/54_gd2_stress.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/54_gd2_xing.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/54_stress.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/54_xing.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/54_xing_nsc.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/54_xangle.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/54_combined.pdf} \\
&
t = 0.70s &
t = 0.14s &
t = 97.09s &
t = 3189.08s &
t = 1.15s &
t = 0.99s &
t = 1.21s &
t = 1.23s &
t = 1.15s \\
\makecell{\bfseries{dwt\_503}\\N = 503\\M = 3265} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/76_neato.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/76_fa2.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/76_gd2_stress.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/76_gd2_xing.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/76_stress.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/76_xing.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/76_xing_nsc.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/76_xangle.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/76_combined.pdf} \\
&
t = 0.83s &
t = 0.19s &
t = 101.89s &
t = 3338.16s &
t = 1.87s &
t = 2.22s &
t = 1.66s &
t = 2.01s &
t = 1.73s \\
\makecell{\bfseries{can\_634}\\N = 634\\M = 3931} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/100_neato.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/100_fa2.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/100_gd2_stress.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/100_gd2_xing.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/100_stress.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/100_xing.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/100_xing_nsc.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/100_xangle.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/100_combined.pdf} \\
&
t = 0.84s &
t = 0.27s &
t = 102.88s &
t = 3521.31s &
t = 3.79s &
t = 4.54s &
t = 3.44s &
t = 4.05s &
t = 4.14s \\
\makecell{\bfseries{bfwa782}\\N = 782\\M = 4176} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/130_neato.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/130_fa2.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/130_gd2_stress.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/130_gd2_xing.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/130_stress.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/130_xing.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/130_xing_nsc.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/130_xangle.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/130_combined.pdf} \\
&
t = 2.12s &
t = 0.36s &
t = 103.32s &
t = 3582.78s &
t = 4.99s &
t = 5.01s &
t = 5.35s &
t = 6.62s &
t = 4.09s \\
\makecell{\bfseries{can\_838}\\N = 838\\M = 5424} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/164_neato.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/164_fa2.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/164_gd2_stress.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/164_gd2_xing.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/164_stress.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/164_xing.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/164_xing_nsc.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/164_xangle.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/164_combined.pdf} \\
&
t = 1.31s &
t = 0.41s &
t = 121.38s &
t = 4129.79s &
t = 7.40s &
t = 8.11s &
t = 6.92s &
t = 7.86s &
t = 6.99s \\
\makecell{\bfseries{radfr1}\\N = 1048\\M = 12944} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/216_neato.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/216_fa2.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/216_gd2_stress.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/216_gd2_xing.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/216_stress.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/216_xing.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/216_xing_nsc.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/216_xangle.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/216_combined.pdf} \\
&
t = 2.55s &
t = 0.68s &
t = 375.92s &
t = 13513.93s &
t = 25.82s &
t = 30.97s &
t = 27.79s &
t = 26.05s &
t = 28.65s \\
\makecell{\bfseries{plantsmargin\quad}\\N = 1600\\M = 12741} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/326_neato.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/326_fa2.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/326_gd2_stress.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/326_gd2_xing.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/326_stress.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/326_xing.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/326_xing_nsc.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/326_xangle.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/326_combined.pdf} \\
&
t = 6.60s &
t = 1.28s &
t = 391.05s &
t = 12273.49s &
t = 45.20s &
t = 42.29s &
t = 42.17s &
t = 46.84s &
t = 43.98s \\
\makecell{\bfseries{ex4}\\N = 1601\\M = 16950} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/328_neato.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/328_fa2.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/328_gd2_stress.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/328_gd2_xing.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/328_stress.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/328_xing.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/328_xing_nsc.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/328_xangle.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/328_combined.pdf} \\
&
t = 4.01s &
t = 1.30s &
t = 629.20s &
t = 18023.86s &
t = 55.91s &
t = 57.31s &
t = 53.39s &
t = 54.43s &
t = 54.01s \\
\makecell{\bfseries{utm1700b}\\N = 1700\\M = 16326} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/336_neato.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/336_fa2.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/336_gd2_stress.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/336_gd2_xing.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/336_stress.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/336_xing.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/336_xing_nsc.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/336_xangle.pdf} &
\imgcell{figures/large_graphs/336_combined.pdf} \\
&
t = 9.09s &
t = 1.44s &
t = 641.68s &
t = 15297.34s &
t = 58.74s &
t = 60.33s &
t = 62.26s &
t = 59.07s &
t = 57.81s \\
\end{tabular}
\captionof{figure}[]{The qualitative evaluation of 5 SmartGD\ models by comparing with 4 competitive and representative benchmarks. The name of the graphs with the number of nodes $N$ and the number of edges $M$ is presented in the row header. For each layout, the computation time $t$ on the CPU is computed and reported in seconds. }
\label{fig:vis-result}
\end{table*}
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we propose SmartGD, a Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) based graph drawing framework that can learn to visualize arbitrary graphs. Specifically, if there is a lack of concrete aesthetic criteria to specify what constitutes a good layout, SmartGD\
can learn to draw graphs in a similar style by imitating the good layout examples. On the other hand, if the goodness of layout can be assessed by quantitative criteria, we propose a novel variant of GAN, self-challenging GAN, to generate an optimal layout with respect to the desired criteria. Thanks to the flexibility of self-challenging GAN, it can be adopted to optimize any quantitative criterion regardless of the differentiability, and without the need of special accommodation. If multiple criteria are considered to be important, SmartGD\ with self-challenging GAN\ is also applicable.
We conduct extensive experiments to evaluate the effectiveness of SmartGD\ quantitatively and qualitatively against 12 widely used layout methods. The quantitative evaluation on Rome graphs demonstrates that SmartGD\ can consistently generate superior layouts compared against all the benchmarks according to the criterion to be optimized. The qualitative evaluation on Rome graphs and real-world graphs with hundreds to thousands of nodes shows that the layouts generated by SmartGD\ are visually pleasing and informative. Lastly, the time efficiency of SmartGD\ is competitive among all methods.
\bibliographystyle{abbrv-doi}
|
\section{Introduction}
The goal of this paper is to fill two gaps in our understanding of the weight part of Serre's conjecture in dimension greater than two. First, we formulate an explicit conjecture in the ramified case for generic tame Galois representations generalizing Herzig's conjecture in the unramified case. We prove the weight elimination direction of our conjecture generalizing \cite{LLL}. Second, we develop new methods in the case of wildly ramified Galois representations. In this case, we introduce a notion of weights which we call \emph{extremal} weights which encompasses earlier notions of ordinary and obvious weights (in generic cases). By proving novel results on the geometry of potentially crystalline deformation rings, we are able to prove the modularity of these weights. As a consequence, we establish the weight part of Serre's conjecture for unit groups of certain division algebras in generic situations. %
\subsection{Results}\label{sec:global:prelim}
Let $p$ be a prime and $n \geq 2$ be an integer. Let $F/F^+$ be a CM extension of a totally real field $F^+\neq \mathbb{Q}$.
Assume for the sake of exposition that there is a single place $v$ of $F^+$ dividing $p$ which splits in $F$. (Our results apply whenever all the places of $F^+$ dividing $p$ split in $F$.)
Let $G$ be a definite unitary group over $F^+$ split over $F$ which is isomorphic to $U(n)$ at each infinite place and split at $v$.
A (\emph{global$)$ Serre weight} is an irreducible smooth $\overline{\mathbb{F}}_p$-representation $V$ of $G(\mathcal{O}_{F^+, v})$,
i.e.~the inflation to $G(\mathcal{O}_{F^+, v})$ of an irreducible $\overline{\mathbb{F}}_p$-representation of $G(k_v)$, where $k_v$ is the residue field of $F^+$ at $v$.
For a mod $p$ Galois representation $\overline{r}:G_F \rightarrow \mathrm{GL}_n(\overline{\mathbb{F}}_p)$, let $W(\overline{r})$ denote the collection of modular Serre weights for $\overline{r}$.
That is, $V \in W(\overline{r})$ if the Hecke eigensystem attached to $\overline{r}$ appears in a space of mod $p$ automorphic forms on $G$ of weight $V$ for some prime to $v$ level.
Fix a place $\tld{v}$ of $F$ dividing $v$ which identifies $G(k_v)$ with $\mathrm{GL}_n(k_v)$.
Define $\overline{r}_v := \overline{r}|_{\mathrm{Gal}(\overline{F}_{\tld{v}}/F_{\tld{v}})}$.
The goal of the weight part of Serre's conjecture is to predict $W(\overline{r})$ in terms of $\overline{r}_v$ or more precisely, the restriction of $\overline{r}_v$ to inertia.
Our global (and local) results include genericity conditions on $\overline{r}_v$ which will be made precise in the body of the paper.
We stress that our genericity conditions are completely explicit, unlike those of \cite{MLM}.
We note however that for most results the genericity conditions require $p$ to be at least $O(en^2)$ (where $e$ is the absolute ramification index of $F_{\tld{v}}$).
Let $K/\mathbb{Q}_p$ be a finite extension with residue field $k$. For any tame $n$-dimensional $\overline{\mathbb{F}}_p$-representation $\overline{\tau}$ of $I_K \subset \mathrm{Gal}(\overline{K}/K)$ which extends to $\mathrm{Gal}(\overline{K}/K)$, one associates a Deligne--Lusztig representation $V(\overline{\tau})$ of $\mathrm{GL}_n(k)$ (generalizing \cite[Proposition 9.2.1]{GHS}) which is defined over a finite extension $E/\mathbb{Q}_p$. It is also a representation of $\mathrm{GL}_n(\mathcal{O}_K)$ by inflation. Recall also the operator $\mathcal{R}$ (see \cite[\S 9.2]{GHS}) on the set of irreducible $\overline{\mathbb{F}}_p$-representations of $\mathrm{GL}_n(k)$ (i.e.~the set of Serre weights).
If $K$ is unramified over $\mathbb{Q}_p$ and ${\overline{\rho}}$ is tame and generic, then Herzig defined the collection $W^?({\overline{\rho}}) = \{ \mathcal{R}(\sigma) \mid \sigma \in \mathrm{JH}(\overline{V}({\overline{\rho}}|_{I_K}))\}$.
In the ramified setting, we make the following generalization:
\begin{defn} \label{intro:weightset}
If ${\overline{\rho}}$ is tame and generic, we define
\[
W^?({\overline{\rho}})\stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} \left\{ \mathcal{R}(\sigma) \mid \sigma \in \Big(\mathrm{JH}\Big(\overline{V}({\overline{\rho}}|_{I_K}) \otimes \overline{W}(0, 1-e, 2(1-e), \ldots, (n-1)(1-e))\Big)\Big) \right\}.
\]
where $W(0, 1-e, 2(1-e), \ldots, (n-1)(1-e))$ is the irreducible algebraic representation of (parallel) highest weight $(0, 1-e, 2(1-e), \ldots, (n-1)(1-e))$.
\end{defn}
\begin{rmk}
\begin{enumerate}
\item In \cite{MLM} (see Theorem 4.7.6), in the unramified case, we give a geometric interpretation of Herzig's $W^?({\overline{\rho}})$ in terms of torus fixed points on certain subvarieties of the affine flag variety. Although we don't directly use this description here because of a lack of local model theory in the ramified case, it motivated Definition \ref{intro:weightset}.
\item When $n = 2$, Schein gave in \cite{schein} an explicit description of a weight set for tamely ramified ${\overline{\rho}}$. The two sets agree when ${\overline{\rho}}$ is sufficiently generic, cf.~\S \ref{subsub:schein}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{rmk}
We prove the weight elimination direction generalizing \cite{LLL}:
\begin{thm}[``Weight elimination'', cf.~Theorem \ref{thm:WE}]
\label{intro:we}
Suppose that $\overline{r}:G_F \rightarrow \mathrm{GL}_n(\overline{\mathbb{F}}_p)$ satisfies standard Taylor--Wiles hypotheses and that $\overline{r}_v$ is tame and sufficiently generic.
Then
\[
\sigma_v \in W(\overline{r}) \Longrightarrow \sigma_v \in W^?(\overline{r}_v).
\]
\end{thm}
When ${\overline{\rho}}$ is not tame, unless $n \leq 3$, we don't have an analogue of $W^?({\overline{\rho}})$. Historically, certain classes of Serre weights have been identified which are expected to belong to $W^?({\overline{\rho}})$. For example, Gee--Geraghty proved very generally the modularity of \emph{ordinary} weights, i.e., those weights for which $\overline{r}_v$ admits ordinary crystalline lifts.
For tame ${\overline{\rho}}$ and $K$ unramified, \cite{GHS} introduce a notion of \emph{obvious weight} which roughly speaking are characterized by the property that ${\overline{\rho}}$ admits an ``obvious" crystalline lift of specified Hodge--Tate weights, namely a sum of inductions of characters.
Building on what we discovered when $n =3$ in \cite{GL3Wild}, we introduce a notion of \emph{extremal} weights $W_{\mathrm{extr}}({\overline{\rho}})$ which encompasses (in generic cases) both these earlier notions and prove the following theorem:
\begin{thm}[``Modularity of extremal weights'', Theorem \ref{thm:globalobv}] \label{intro:thm:globalobv}
Let $\overline{r}: G_{F} \rightarrow \mathrm{GL}_n(\mathbb{F})$ be an automorphic representation satisfying standard Taylor--Wiles conditions and such that $\overline{r}_v$ is sufficiently generic. If either $\overline{r}$ is potentially diagonalizably automorphic or $W_{\mathrm{extr}} (\overline{r}_v) \cap W(\overline{r})$ is non-empty, then
\[
W_{\mathrm{extr}} (\overline{r}_v) \subset W(\overline{r}).
\]
\end{thm}
There are two main ingredients in the proof of this theorem: a geometric one (which will be discussed in the next section) and a combinatorial one.
The combinatorial ingredient is a hidden Weyl group symmetry.
When ${\overline{\rho}}$ is tame and generic, then $W_{\mathrm{extr}}({\overline{\rho}})$ is naturally a torsor for a product of $[k:\F_p]$-copies of the Weyl group $S_n$ of $\mathrm{GL}_n$, as explained in \cite{GHS}.
Wildly ramified ${\overline{\rho}}$ have fewer weights in general and fewer extremal weights (see Proposition \ref{prop:tamecrit}), but it turns out that the symmetry can be restored by enhancing an extremal weight with the data of a \emph{specialization}.
A tame inertial $\overline{\mathbb{F}}_p$-type is a continuous tame representation $I_K \rightarrow \mathrm{GL}_n(\overline{\mathbb{F}}_p)$ which admits an extension to $G_K$. Tame inertial $\overline{\mathbb{F}}_p$-types admit a combinatorial description in terms of fundamental characters of $G_K$ (see \S \ref{subsubsec:TIT}). To a generic ${\overline{\rho}}$, we attach a collection of tame inertial $\overline{\mathbb{F}}_p$-types which we call (extremal) \emph{specializations} (Definition \ref{defn:spec}).
This notion is somewhat elaborate, relying on the geometry of the Emerton--Gee stack (see \S \ref{sub:extr:loc}).
The semisimplification of ${\overline{\rho}}$ restricted to $I_K$ is a prototypical example of a specialization but there are always others when ${\overline{\rho}}$ is not tame.
It is generally expected that the predicted Serre weights of a wildly ramified ${\overline{\rho}}$ should be a subset of those of ${\overline{\rho}}^{\mathrm{ss}}$. What we discover is the same is true for the other specializations of ${\overline{\rho}}$ as well.
\begin{thm} [cf.~Theorem \ref{thm:WE}]
\label{intro:wildewe} Suppose $\overline{r}:G_F \rightarrow \mathrm{GL}_n(\overline{\mathbb{F}}_p)$ satisfies standard Taylor--Wiles hypotheses and that $\overline{r}_v$ is generic. Let $\overline{r}_v^{\mathrm{sp}}$ be a specialization of $\overline{r}_v$. Then
\[
\sigma_v \in W(\overline{r}) \Longrightarrow \sigma_v \in W^?(\overline{r}^{\mathrm{sp}}_v).
\]
\end{thm}
The proof follows from a purely local result, showing that if $\overline{r}_v$ admits a tamely potentially crystalline lift of type $(\tau, (n-1, n-2, \ldots, 0))$ then so does any extension of the specialization of $\overline{r}_v^{\mathrm{sp}}$ to $G_K$, combined with the same weight elimination combinatorics used in the tame case.
Together with Theorem \ref{intro:thm:globalobv}, Theorem \ref{intro:wildewe} gives the best known upper and lower bounds on the set of modular weights in the wildly ramified case when $n>3$.
A byproduct of our methods is an automorphic tameness criterion in the spirit of \cite{gross}.
When $n =2$ and $F = \mathbb{Q}$, Gross's tameness criterion says that for generic modular $\overline{r}$, tameness of $\overline{r}$ at $p$ is equivalent to $W(\overline{r})$ having two distinct Serre weights (as opposed to one). Here we show a similar criterion in terms of the modularity of two extremal weights.
\begin{thm}[``Automorphic tameness criterion'', Theorem \ref{thm:aut:tameness}]
\label{intro:tamenesscrit}
Let $\sigma_v,\sigma'_{v}\in W_{\mathrm{extr}}(\overline{r}_v^{\mathrm{ss}})$ be extremal weights of $\overline{r}_v^{\mathrm{ss}}$ which differ by the longest element $w_0$ under the Weyl group symmetry. Suppose that $ \sigma_v\in W(\overline{r})$ and that $\overline{r}_v$ is sufficiently generic.
Then the following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\sigma'_{v}\in W(\overline{r})$; and
\item $\overline{r}_v$ is tame.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{rmk}
In the case where $W(\overline{r})$ contains a lowest alcove weight, our methods also give a refined version of the tameness criterion, showing that automorphic information even detects the stratum of $\overline{r}_v$ in the moduli of Fontaine--Laffaille representations (with respect to a natural partition).
This idea plays a crucial role in \cite{LGC}.
\end{rmk}
Finally, we discuss our results on the weight part of Serre's conjecture for division algebras.
When $G$ is an anisotropic inner form of $\mathrm{GL}_n$ locally at $v$, Serre weights lift to characteristic zero, and hence modularity of a Serre weight can be rephrased in terms of the existence of automorphic lifts of specified types.
By local-global compatibility, a necessary condition for the modularity of a generic Serre weight $\chi_v$ is the existence of a lift which is potentially crystalline of type $(\tau(\chi_v), (n-1, n-2, \ldots, 0))$ for a certain tame cuspidal type $\tau(\chi_v)$.
We prove the following.
\begin{thm}[Serre weights for division algebras, Theorem \ref{thm:divalg}]
Suppose that $v$ is unramified in $F^+$, that $G$ is an anisotropic inner form of $\mathrm{GL}_n$ at $v$, that $\overline{r}: G_F \rightarrow \mathrm{GL}_n(\ovl{\mathbb{F}}_p)$ satisfies standard Taylor--Wiles hypotheses, and that $\overline{r}_v$ is sufficiently generic.
Then $\chi_v \in W(\overline{r})$ if and only if $\overline{r}_v$ admits a potentially crystalline lift of type $(\tau(\chi_v), (n-1, n-2, \ldots, 0))$.
\end{thm}
\noindent This generalizes results of \cite{Gee-Savitt} in the case $n=2$.
The main difficulty is in the construction of automorphic lifts.
One has access to powerful potentially Barsotti--Tate modularity lifting results when $n=2$ \cite{gee-kisin} that are not available in general.
Instead, we transfer \`a la Jacquet--Langlands to a group which is split at places dividing $p$ and use the modularity of extremal weights to construct the desired automorphic lifts.
That the modularity of extremal weights is sufficient reduces to an analysis of the geometry of local models (\S \ref{sub:extr:loc}).
\subsection{Geometric methods: Levi reduction for deformation rings}
We now explain how we go about proving the modularity of the extremal weights (Theorem \ref{intro:thm:globalobv}). As mentioned earlier, this notion expands on the notions of ordinary and obvious weights. Gee--Geraghty \cite{gee-geraghty} proved modularity of ordinary weights in considerable generality. Three of the authors proved modularity of ordinary weights in the unramified and tame generic case (\cite{LLL}). Both of these results rely on producing potentially diagonalizable lifts of some prescribed type. While some of the extremal weights are sometimes accessible by these methods, we do not know how to show that all of them are. Instead, we adopt the strategy of \cite{LLLM}
and exploit the symmetry of our situation.
As described above, extremal weights when enhanced with the data of a specialization admit a Weyl group symmetry. The main point is to show that if two extremal weights $\sigma, \sigma'$ are related by a simple reflection then the modularity of one implies the modularity of the other. To do this, we show that we can find a sequence of well-chosen tame types $\tau_0, \ldots, \tau_{2e}$ \emph{connecting} $\sigma$ to $\sigma'$ where we can establish good behavior for the combinatorics of Serre weights and the Galois deformation rings.
The following is the main result on deformation rings that we use.
\begin{thm}[particular case of Theorem \ref{thm:FSM}]
\label{intro:thm:FSM}
Let $\tau_i$ be one of the well-chosen tame inertial types described above (which will be sufficiently generic in our setup). %
Then $R_{\overline{\rho}}^{(n-1, n-2, \ldots, 0),\tau}$ is either zero or is a normal domain. Furthermore, if it is nonzero, then either it is formally smooth over $\mathcal{O}$ or the special fiber is reduced with exactly two irreducible components.
\end{thm}
We actually prove a more general result for a larger class of deformation rings (Theorem \ref{thm:FSM}). We approach the deformation spaces using the methods for studying Breuil--Kisin modules developed in \cite{LLLM, LLL, MLM}. This is the first time these methods have been adapted to the ramified setting.
The key ingredient in our proof of Theorem \ref{thm:FSM} is the fact that the local models (in the sense of \cite{MLM} adapted to the ramified setting) of these Galois deformation spaces have a Levi reduction property: namely, they are formally smooth over similar local models attached to suitable Levi subgroups of $\mathrm{GL}_n$. This turns out to be a general phenomenon whenever the shape of ${\overline{\rho}}$ relative to the type $\tau$ is suitably ``decomposable'', which may be of independent interest. In the specific case of Theorem \ref{intro:thm:FSM}, the Levi subgroup we reduce to is $\mathrm{GL}_2\times \mathrm{GL}_1^{n-2}$. Thus, we are able to show essentially that $R_{\overline{\rho}}^{(n-1, n-2, \ldots, 0),\tau}$ is smooth over the completed local ring of a ramified local model of Pappas-Rapoport from which we deduce the normality and the description of the special fiber.
We prove a similar Levi reduction property for the Pappas--Zhu local models, which is a key geometric input (Lemma \ref{lemma:2comps}) into the analysis of Serre weight combinatorics for these tame types.
\begin{rmk} When $K/\mathbb{Q}_p$ is unramified, the relevant local model is a product of the Iwahori local models for $\mathrm{GL}_2$. Concretely, Theorem \ref{intro:thm:FSM} says that $R_{\overline{\rho}}^{(n-1, n-2, \ldots, 0),\tau}$ will either be power series ring over $\mathcal{O}$ or will be formally smooth over $\mathcal{O}[\![x,y]\!]/(xy-p)$. This observation in the case of $\mathrm{GL}_3$ in \cite{LLLM} was the starting point for this work.
\end{rmk}
\subsection{Overview}
In \S \ref{sec:preliminaries}, after preliminaries on the affine Weil group and admissible sets (\S \ref{sec:comb:weyl}), and recollections on Serre weights (\S \ref{sec:SWC}), we formulate a Serre type conjecture on the weights of tame Galois representations over a possibly ramified field (cf.~Definition \ref{defn:SWC:ram}) and obtain our main results on the combinatorics of Serre weights and tame inertial types for the \emph{shapes} we will be interested in (cf.~Propositions \ref{prop:indint}, \ref{prop:indcomb}).
\S \ref{sec:BKM} introduces the notion of \emph{extremal weights} for Galois representations (\S \ref{subsec:extr:wt}). This requires preliminaries on the semicontinuity of shapes for Kisin modules (\S \ref{subsec:SCI}, \ref{subsec:SCII}, in different degrees of generality), the notion of \emph{specializations} for Galois representations (\S \ref{subsec:SPEC}) and the closely related notion of \emph{specialization pairs} (\S \ref{subsec:SPEC:pairs}).
The non-emptiness of the set of the extremal weights is proved in \S \ref{sec:mord} and \S \ref{sub:extr:loc} with different methods. In particular the geometric interpretation of this set in terms of the Emerton--Gee stack in the unramified case is in \S \ref{sec:EGs}, \ref{sub:extr:loc}.
\S \ref{sec:PCDR} calculates the tamely potentially crystalline deformation rings which appear when studying extremal weights of Galois representations.
We first establish structural results on of Breuil--Kisin modules of certain \emph{parabolic shapes} (\S \ref{sub:par:strct}) and then analyze the monodromy condition on them (\S \ref{sub:analysis:MC}, Lemma \ref{lem:parabolic_monodromy}).
In \S \ref{sec:main:mod}, after a number of preliminaries on patching functors and cycles on potentially crystalline deformation rings (\S \ref{sec:patchfunc}, \ref{sec:cycles}), we prove in \S \ref{subsec:WE:MOD} the modularity of extremal weights in an axiomatic setup (Theorem \ref{thm:obv}).
\S \ref{sec:TW} contains our global applications to automorphic forms on definite unitary groups.
\subsection{Acknowledgements}
The origin of this work dates back to a stay at the Mathematisches Forschungsinstitut Oberwolfach in winter 2019, which provided excellent working condition, and was further carried out during several visits at the University of Arizona and Northwestern University.
We would like to heartily thank these institutions for the outstanding research conditions they provided, and for their support.
We thank Andrea Dotto for pointing out that the work \cite{LLL} of the first three authors had an application to the weight part of Serre's conjecture for division algebras.
D.L. was supported by the National Science Foundation under agreements Nos.~DMS-1128155 and DMS-1703182, an AMS-Simons travel grant, and a start-up grant from Purdue University. B.LH. acknowledges support from the National Science Foundation under grant Nos.~DMS-1128155, DMS-1802037 and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. B.L. was supported by National Science Foundation grant DMS-1952556 and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. S.M. was supported by the Institut Universitaire de France and the ANR-18-CE40-0026 (CLap CLap).
\subsection{Notation}
For a field $K$, we denote by $\ovl{K}$ a fixed separable closure of $K$ and let $G_K \stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} \mathrm{Gal}(\ovl{K}/K)$.
If $K$ is defined as a subfield of an algebraically closed field, then we set $\ovl{K}$ to be this field.
If $K$ is a nonarchimedean local field, we let $I_K \subset G_K$ denote the inertial subgroup and $W_K \subset G_K$ denote the Weil group.
We fix a prime $p\in\mathbb{Z}_{>0}$.
Let $E \subset \ovl{\mathbb{Q}}_p$ be a subfield which is finite-dimensional over $\mathbb{Q}_p$.
We write $\mathcal{O}$ to denote its ring of integers, fix an uniformizer $\varpi\in \mathcal{O}$ and let $\mathbb{F}$ denote the residue field of $E$.
We will assume throughout that $E$ is sufficiently large.
\subsubsection{Reductive groups}
\label{sec:not:RG}
Let $G$ denote a split connected reductive group (over some ring) together with a Borel $B$, a maximal split torus $T \subset B$, and $Z \subset T$ the center of $G$.
Let $d = \dim G - \dim B$.
When $G$ is a product of copies of $\mathrm{GL}_n$, we will take $B$ to be upper triangular Borel and $T$ the diagonal torus.
Let $\Phi^{+} \subset \Phi$ (resp. $\Phi^{\vee, +} \subset \Phi^{\vee}$) denote the subset of positive roots (resp.~positive coroots) in the set of roots (resp.~coroots) for $(G, B, T)$.
We use the notation $\alpha > 0$ (resp.~$\alpha < 0$) for a positive (resp.~negative) root $\alpha\in \Phi$.
Let $\Delta$ (resp.~$\Delta^{\vee}$) be the set of simple roots (resp.~coroots).
Let $X^*(T)$ be the group of characters of $T$, and set $X^0(T)$ to be the subgroup consisting of characters $\lambda\in X^*(T)$ such that $\langle\lambda,\alpha^\vee\rangle=0$ for all $\alpha^\vee\in \Delta^{\vee}$.
Let $\Lambda_R \subset X^*(T)$ denote the root lattice for $G$.
Let $W(G)$ denote the Weyl group of $(G,T)$. Let $w_0$ denote the longest element of $W(G)$.
We sometimes write $W$ for $W(G)$ when there is no chance for confusion.
Let $W_a$ (resp.~$\tld{W}$) denote the affine Weyl group and extended affine Weyl group
\[
W_a = \Lambda_R \rtimes W(G), \quad \tld{W} = X^*(T) \rtimes W(G)
\]
for $G$.
We use $t_{\nu} \in \tld{W}$ to denote the image of $\nu \in X^*(T)$.
The Weyl groups $W(G)$, $\tld{W}$, and $W_a$ act naturally on $X^*(T)$.
If $A$ is any ring, then the above Weyl groups act naturally on $X^*(T)\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} A$ by extension of scalars.
Let $M$ be a free $\mathbb{Z}$-module of finite rank (e.g. $M=X^*(T)$).
The duality pairing between $M$ and its $\mathbb{Z}$-linear dual $M^*$ will be denoted by $\langle \ ,\,\rangle$.
If $A$ is any ring, the pairing $\langle \ ,\,\rangle$ extends by $A$-linearity to a pairing between $M\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}A$ and $M^*\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}A$, and by an abuse of notation it will be denoted with the same symbol $\langle \ ,\,\rangle$.
We write $G^\vee = G^\vee_{/\mathbb{Z}}$ for the split connected reductive group over $\mathbb{Z}$ defined by the root datum $(X_*(T),X^*(T), \Phi^\vee,\Phi)$.
This defines a maximal split torus $T^\vee\subseteq G^\vee$ such that we have canonical identifications $X^*(T^\vee)\cong X_*(T)$ and $X_*(T^\vee)\cong X^*(T)$.
Let $V\stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} X^*(T)\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}\mathbb{R}\ \setminus\ \big(\bigcup_{(\alpha,n)}H_{\alpha,n}\big)$.
For $(\alpha,k)\in \Phi \times \mathbb{Z}$, we have the root hyperplane $H_{\alpha,k}\stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} \{x \in V \mid \langle\lambda,\alpha^\vee\rangle=k\}$ and the half-hyperplanes $H^{+}_{\alpha, k} = \{ x \in V \mid \langle x, \alpha^\vee\rangle > k \}$ and $H^{-}_{\alpha, n} = \{ x \in V \mid \langle x, \alpha^\vee\rangle < k \}.$
An alcove %
is a connected component of $V \setminus\ \big(\bigcup_{(\alpha,n)}H_{\alpha,n}\big)$.
We say that an alcove $A$ is \emph{restricted} if $0<\langle\lambda,\alpha^\vee\rangle<1$ for all $\alpha\in \Delta$ and $\lambda\in A$.
We let $A_0$ denote the (dominant) base alcove, i.e.~the set of $\lambda\in X^*(T)\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}\mathbb{R}$ such that $0<\langle\lambda,\alpha^\vee\rangle<1$ for all $\alpha\in \Phi^+$.
Let $\mathcal{A}$ denote the set of alcoves.
Recall that $\tld{W}$ acts transitively on the set of alcoves, and $\tld{W}\cong\tld{W}_a\rtimes \Omega$ where $\Omega$ is the stabilizer of $A_0$.
We define
\[\tld{W}^+\stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=}\{\tld{w}\in \tld{W}:\tld{w}(A_0) \textrm{ is dominant}\}.\]
and
\[\tld{W}^+_1\stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=}\{\tld{w}\in \tld{W}^+:\tld{w}(A_0) \textrm{ is restricted}\}.\]
We fix an element $\eta_0\in X^*(T)$ such that $\langle \eta_0,\alpha^\vee\rangle = 1$ for all positive simple roots $\alpha$ and let $\tld{w}_h$ be $w_0 t_{-\eta_0}\in \tld{W}^+_1$.
When $G = \mathrm{GL}_n$, we fix an isomorphism $X^*(T) \cong \mathbb{Z}^n$ in the standard way, where the standard $i$-th basis element $(0,\ldots, 1,\ldots, 0)$ (with the $1$ in the $i$-th position) of the right-hand side corresponds to extracting the $i$-th diagonal entry of a diagonal matrix.
When $G$ is a product of copies of $\mathrm{GL}_n$ indexed over a set $\mathcal{J}$ we take $\eta_0 \in X^*(T)$ to correspond to the element $(n-1, n-2, \ldots, 0)_{j\in\mathcal{J}} \in (\mathbb{Z}^n)^{\mathcal{J}}$ in the identification above.
In this case, given $j\in\mathcal{J}$ we write $\eta_{0,j}\in $ to denote the element which corresponds to the tuple $(n-1,\dots,1,0)$ at $j$ and to the zero tuple elsewhere.
Let $F^+_p$ be a finite \'etale $\mathbb{Q}_p$-algebra.
Then $F^+_p$ is isomorphic to a product $\prod_{S_p} F^+_{v}$ for some finite set $S_p$ where for each $v\in S_p$, $F_{v}^+$ is finite extension of $\mathbb{Q}_p$.
For each $v\in S_p$, let $\mathcal{O}_{F^+_{v}} \subset F^+_{v}$ be the ring of integers, $k_{v}$ the residue field, $F^+_{v,0} \subset F^+_{v}$ the maximal unramified subextension, $f_{v}$ the unramified degree $[F^+_{v,0}:\mathbb{Q}_p]$, and $e_{v}$ the ramification degree $[F^+_{v}:F^+_{v,0}]$.
Let $\mathcal{O}_p$ be the product $\prod_{v\in S_p} \mathcal{O}_{F^+_{v}}$ and $k_p$ the product $\prod_{v\in S_p} k_{v}$.
In global applications, $S_p$ will be a finite set of places dividing $p$ of a number field $F^+$.
When working locally, $S_p$ will have cardinality one, in which case we drop the subscripts from $f_{v}$, $e_{v}$, and $k_{v}$ and denote the single extension $F^+_{v}$ of $\mathbb{Q}_p$ by $K$.
If $G$ is a split connected reductive group over $\mathbb{F}_p$, with Borel $B$, maximal split torus $T$, and center $Z$, we let $G_0 \stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} \mathrm{Res}_{k_p/\mathbb{F}_p} G_{/k_p}$ with Borel subgroup $B_0 \stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} \mathrm{Res}_{k_p/\mathbb{F}_p} B_{/k_p}$, maximal torus $T_0 \stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} \mathrm{Res}_{k_p/\mathbb{F}_p} T_{/k_p}$, and $Z_0 = \mathrm{Res}_{k_p/\mathbb{F}_p} Z_{/k_p}$.
Assume that $\mathbb{F}$ contains the image of any ring homomorphism $k_p \rightarrow \ovl{\mathbb{F}}_p$ and let $\mathcal{J}$ be the set of ring homomorphisms $k_p \rightarrow \mathbb{F}$.
Then $\un{G} \stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} (G_0)_{/\mathbb{F}}$ is naturally identified with the split reductive group $G_{/\mathbb{F}}^{\mathcal{J}}$.
We similarly define $\un{B}, \un{T},$ and $\un{Z}$.
Corresponding to $(\un{G}, \un{B}, \un{T})$, we have the set of positive roots $\un{\Phi}^+ \subset \un{\Phi}$ and the set of positive coroots $\un{\Phi}^{\vee, +}\subset \un{\Phi}^{\vee}$.
The notations $\un{\Lambda}_R$, $\un{W}$, $\un{W}_a$, $\tld{\un{W}}$, $\tld{\un{W}}^+$, $\tld{\un{W}}^+_1$, $\un{\Omega}$ should be clear as should the natural isomorphisms $X^*(\un{T}) = X^*(T)^{\mathcal{J}}$ and the like.
The absolute Frobenius automorphism $\varphi$ on $k_p$ induces an automorphism $\pi$ of the identified groups $X^*(\un{T})$ and $X_*(\un{T}^\vee)$ by the formula $\pi(\lambda)_\sigma = \lambda_{\sigma \circ \varphi^{-1}}$ for all $\lambda\in X^*(\un{T})$ and $\sigma: k_p \rightarrow \mathbb{F}$.
We assume that, in this case, the element $\eta_0\in X^*(\un{T})$ we fixed is $\pi$-invariant.
We similarly define an automorphism $\pi$ of $\un{W}$ and $\tld{\un{W}}$.
\subsubsection{Galois Theory}
\label{sec:not:GT}
We now assume that $S_p$ has cardinality one.
We write $K\stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} F^+_{v}$ and drop the subscripts from $f_{v}$, $e_{v}$, and $k_{v}$.
Let $W(k)$ be ring of Witt vectors which is also ring of integers $\mathcal{O}_{K_0}$ of $K_0$.
We denote the arithmetic Frobenius automorphism on $W(k)$ by $\varphi$, which acts as raising to $p$-th power on the residue field.
We fix an embedding $\sigma_0$ of $K_0$ into $E$ (equivalently an embedding $k$ into $\mathbb{F}$) and define $\sigma_j = \sigma_0 \circ \varphi^{-j}$, which gives an identification between $\mathcal{J}=\mathrm{Hom}(k,\mathbb{F})$ and $\mathbb{Z}/f\mathbb{Z}$.
We normalize Artin's reciprocity map $\mathrm{Art}_{K}: K^\times\rightarrow W_{K}^{\mathrm{ab}}$ in such a way that uniformizers are sent to geometric Frobenius elements.
Given an uniformizer $\pi_K\in \mathcal{O}_K$ and a sequence $\un{\pi}_K\stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} (\pi_{K,m})_{m\in \mathbb{N}}\in \ovl{K}^{\mathbb{N}}$ satisfying $\pi_{K,m+1}^{p}=\pi_{K,m}$, $\pi_{K,0}\stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} \pi_K$ we let $K_\infty$ be $\underset{m\in\mathbb{N}}{\bigcup}K(\pi_{K,m})$.
Given an element $\pi_1 \stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} (-\pi_K)^{\frac{1}{p^{f}-1}}\in \overline{K}$ we have a corresponding character $\omega_{K}:I_K \rightarrow W(k)^{\times}$ which, using our choice of embedding $\sigma_0$ gives a fundamental character of niveau $f$
\[
\omega_{f}:= \sigma_0 \circ \omega_{\pi_1}:I_K \rightarrow \mathcal{O}^{\times}.
\]
Let $\rho: G_K\rightarrow \mathrm{GL}_n(E)$ be a $p$-adic, de Rham Galois representation.
For $\sigma: K\hookrightarrow E$, we define $\mathrm{HT}_\sigma(\rho)$ to be the multiset of $\sigma$-labeled Hodge-Tate weights of $\rho$, i.e.~the set of integers $i$ such that $\dim_E\big(\rho\otimes_{\sigma,K}\mathbb{C}_p(-i)\big)^{G_K}\neq 0$ (with the usual notation for Tate twists).
In particular, the cyclotomic character $\varepsilon$ has Hodge--Tate weights 1 for all embedding $\sigma:K\hookrightarrow E$.
For $\mu=(\mu_j)_j\in X^*(\un{T})$ we say that $\rho$ has Hodge--Tate weighs $\mu$ if
\[
\mathrm{HT}_{\sigma_j}(\rho)=\{\mu_{1,j},\mu_{2,j},\dots,\mu_{n,j}\}.
\]
The \emph{inertial type} of $\rho$ is the isomorphism class of $\mathrm{WD}(\rho)|_{I_K}$, where $\mathrm{WD}(\rho)$ is the Weil--Deligne representation attached to $\rho$ as in \cite{CDT}, Appendix B.1 (in particular, $\rho\mapsto\mathrm{WD}(\rho)$ is \emph{covariant}).
An inertial type is a morphism $\tau: I_K\rightarrow \mathrm{GL}_n(E)$ with open kernel and which extends to the Weil group $W_K$ of $G_K$.
We say that $\rho$ has type $(\mu,\tau)$ if $\rho$ has Hodge--Tate weights $\mu$ and inertial type given by (the isomorphism class of) $\tau$.
\subsubsection{Miscellaneous}
\label{sec:not:mis}
For any ring $S$, we define $\mathrm{Mat}_n(S)$ to be the set of $n\times n$ matrix with entries in $S$.
If $M\in \mathrm{Mat}_n(S)$ and $A\in \mathrm{GL}_n(S)$ we write
\begin{equation}
\label{def:adj}
\Ad(A)(M)\stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} A\,M\,A^{-1}.
\end{equation}
If $X$ is an ind-scheme defined over $\mathcal{O}$, we write $X_E\stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} X\times_{\mathrm{Spec}\ \mathcal{O}} \mathrm{Spec}\ E$ and $X_{\mathbb{F}}\stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} X\times_{\mathrm{Spec}\ \mathcal{O}}\mathrm{Spec}\ \mathbb{F}$ to denote its generic and special fiber, respectively.
\clearpage{}%
\clearpage{}%
\section{Preliminaries}
\label{sec:preliminaries}
\subsection{Extended affine Weyl groups}
In this section, we collect some background material on Weyl groups which will be needed throughout the paper.
Recall from \S \ref{sec:not:RG} that $G$ is a split reductive group with split maximal torus $T$ and Borel $B$.
Let $W \stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} W(G,T)$ be the Weyl group and $V\stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} X^*(T) \otimes \mathbb{R} \cong X_*(T^{\vee}) \otimes \mathbb{R}$ denote the apartment of $(G, T)$ on which $\tld{W}\stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} X^*(T) \rtimes W$ acts. Let $\mathcal{C}_0$ denote the dominant Weyl chamber in $V$. For any $w \in W(G)$, let $\mathcal{C}_w = w(\mathcal{C}_0)$. In particular, denoting the longest element of $W$ by $w_0$, $\mathcal{C}_{w_0}$ is the anti-dominant Weyl chamber.
Recall from \S \ref{sec:not:RG} that $\mathcal{A}$ denotes the set of alcoves of $X^*(T) \otimes \mathbb{R}$ and that $A_0 \in \mathcal{A}$ denotes the dominant base alcove.
We let $\uparrow$ denote the upper arrow ordering on alcoves as defined in \cite[\S II.6.5]{RAGS}.
Since $W_a$ acts simply transitively on the set of alcoves, $\tld{w} \mapsto \tld{w}(A_0)$ induces a bijection $W_a \risom \mathcal{A}$ and thus an upper arrow ordering $\uparrow$ on $W_a$.
The dominant base alcove $A_0$ also defines a set of simple reflections in $W_a$ and thus a Coxeter length function on $W_a$ denoted $\ell(-)$ and a Bruhat order on $W_a$ denoted by $\leq$.
If $\Omega \subset \tld{W}$ is the stabilizer of the base alcove, then $\tld{W} = W_a \rtimes \Omega$ and so $\tld{W}$ inherits a Bruhat and upper arrow order in the standard way: For $\tld{w}_1, \tld{w}_2\in W_a$ and $\delta\in \Omega$, $\tld{w}_1\delta\leq \tld{w}_2\delta$ (resp.~$\tld{w}_1\delta\uparrow \tld{w}_2\delta$) if and only if $\tld{w}_1\leq \tld{w}_2$ (resp.~$\tld{w}_1\uparrow \tld{w}_2$), and elements in different right $W_a$-cosets are incomparable.
We extend $\ell(-)$ to $\tld{W}$ by letting $\ell(\tld{w}\delta)\stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} \ell(\tld{w})$ for any $\tld{w}\in W_a$, $\delta\in \Omega$.
\begin{defn}
If $\tld{w}_1,\dots, \tld{w}_m\in\tld{W}$, we say that $\tld{w}_1 \tld{w}_2\cdots \tld{w}_m$ is a \emph{reduced expression} if the inequality $\ell(\tld{w}_1 \tld{w}_2\cdots \tld{w}_m)\leq \sum\limits_{i=1}^m\ell(\tld{w}_i)$ is an equality.
\end{defn}
Let $(\tld{W}^\vee,\leq)$ be the following partially ordered group: $\tld{W}^\vee$ is identified with $\tld{W}$ as a group, and $\ell(-)$ and $\leq$ are defined with respect to the \emph{antidominant} base alcove.
\begin{defn}
\label{affineadjoint} We define a bijection $\tld{w}\mapsto \tld{w}^*$ between $\tld{W}$ and $\tld{W}^\vee$ as follows: for $\tld{w} = t_{\nu}w \in \tld{W}$, with $w\in W$ and $\nu\in X^*(T) = X_*(T^{\vee})$, then $\tld{w}^*\stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} w^{-1}t_{\nu} \in \tld{W}^\vee$.
\end{defn}
\noindent This bijection respects notions of length and Bruhat order (see \cite[Lemma 2.1.3]{LLL}).
We recall some fundamental notions associated to the geometry of $X^*(T)$ and $\tld{W}$.
\begin{defn} \label{defn:conv} Let $\lambda \in X^*(T)$.
The convex hull of the set $\{w(\lambda)\mid w\in W\}$ is defined to be
\[
\Conv(\lambda) \stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} \underset{w\in W}{\bigcap} w(\lambda)+\ovl{\mathcal{C}}_{w w_0}
\]
where $\ovl{\mathcal{C}}_{w w_0}$ denotes the closure of the Weyl chamber $\mathcal{C}_{w w_0}$.
\end{defn}
We recall the definition of the admissible set from \cite{KR}:
\begin{defn} \label{defn:adm} For $\lambda \in X^*(T)$, define
\[
\mathrm{Adm}(\lambda) \stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} \left\{ \tld{w} \in \tld{W} \mid \tld{w} \leq t_{w(\lambda)} \text{ for some } w \in W \right\}.
\]
\end{defn}
For a positive integer $e$, define the $e$-critical strips to be strips $H^{(1-e, e)}_{\alpha} = \{ x \in V \mid 1-e < \langle x, \alpha^\vee\rangle < e \}$ where $\alpha \in \Phi^+$.
\begin{defn} \label{defn:regular}%
An alcove $A \in \mathcal{A}$ is \emph{$e$-regular} if $A$ does not lie in any $e$-critical strip. For any $\tld{w} \in \tld{W}$, we say $\tld{w}$ is \emph{$e$-regular} if $\tld{w}(A_0)$ is $e$-regular. Define
\[
\mathrm{Adm}^{\text{$e$-reg}}(\lambda) = \{ \tld{w} \in \mathrm{Adm}(\lambda)\mid \tld{w} \text{ is $e$-regular} \}.
\]
\end{defn}
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:can:reg}
If $\tld{w} \in \tld{W}$ is $e$-regular, then there exist $\tld{w}_1$ and $\tld{w}_2 \in \tld{W}_1^+$ and a dominant weight $\nu \in X^*(T)$ such that $\tld{w} = \tld{w}_2^{-1} w_0 t_{\nu + (e-1) \eta_0} \tld{w}_1$.
Moreover, $\tld{w}_1$, $\tld{w}_2$, and $\nu$ as above are unique up to $X^0(T)$.
Conversely, if $\tld{w}_1$ and $\tld{w}_2$ are elements of $\tld{W}^+$, then $\tld{w}_2^{-1} w_0 t_{(e-1) \eta_0} \tld{w}_1$ is $e$-regular.
\end{prop}
We conclude this section by recalling from \cite[Definition 2.1.10]{MLM} the various notions of genericity for elements of $X^*(T)$.
\begin{defn}
\label{defn:var:gen}
Let $\lambda\in X^*(T)$ be a weight and let $m\geq 0$ be an integer.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
\label{defn:deep}
We say that $\lambda$ \emph{lies $m$-deep in its $p$-alcove} if for all $\alpha\in \Phi^{+}$, there exist integers $m_\alpha\in \mathbb{Z}$ such that $pm_\alpha+m<\langle \lambda+\eta_0,\alpha^\vee\rangle<p(m_\alpha+1)-m$.
\item
\label{defn:mugeneric} We say that $\lambda \in X^*(T)$ is \emph{$m$-generic} if
$m < |\langle \lambda, \alpha^{\vee} \rangle + pk|$
for all $\alpha \in \Phi$ and $k\in \mathbb{Z}$ (or equivalently, $\lambda-\eta_0$ is $m$-deep in its $p$-alcove).
\item
\label{defn:small}
We say that an element $\tld{w}=w t_\nu$ (in either $\tld{W}$ or $\tld{W}^\vee$) is \emph{$m$-small} if $\langle \nu,\alpha^\vee\rangle\leq m$ for all $\alpha\in \Phi$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{defn}
\subsection{Combinatorics of the extended affine Weyl group}
\label{sec:comb:weyl}
In this section, we collect a variety of results on the combinatorics of the extended affine Weyl group.
These will be applied to the analysis of the combinatorics of Serre weights in \S \ref{sec:combserre}.
The methods are elementary with the exception of a geometric input from Pappas--Zhu local models in the proof of Lemma \ref{lemma:2comps}.
We begin with results concerning the partial orderings $\leq$ and $\uparrow$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:minrep}
Suppose that $\tld{x}^+ \in \tld{W}^+$ and $w\in W$. Then $w\tld{x}^+$ is a reduced expression.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
There are galleries in the $1$-direction from $w^{-1}(A_0)$ to $A_0$ and from $A_0$ to $\tld{x}^+(A_0)$.
We conclude that $\ell(w\tld{x}^+) = \ell(w)+\ell(\tld{x}^+)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:bruhatup}
Suppose that $\tld{x} \in \tld{W}$ and $\tld{w}^+ \in \tld{W}^+$ and $\tld{x} \leq w_0\tld{w}^+$.
Then $w_0\tld{w}^+ \uparrow w\tld{x}$ for any $w\in W$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since $w_0\tld{w}^+$ is a reduced factorization by Lemma \ref{lemma:minrep}, $\tld{x} \leq w_0\tld{w}^+$ implies that $\tld{x} = s \tld{x}'$ for $s\in W$ and $\tld{x}' \in \tld{W}$ with $\tld{x}' \leq \tld{w}^+$.
Factoring $\tld{x}'$ as the reduced expression $s'\tld{x}^+$ where $s'\in W$ and $\tld{x}^+\in \tld{W}^+$, we have that $\tld{x}^+ \leq \tld{x}'$.
Replacing $s$ by $ss'$ and $\tld{x}'$ by $\tld{x}^+$, we can thus assume without loss of generality that $\tld{x}' = \tld{x}^+$ is in $\tld{W}^+$.
Wang's theorem (\cite[Theorem 4.3]{Wang} or \cite[Theorem 4.1.1]{LLL}) implies that $\tld{x}^+\uparrow \tld{w}^+$.
Then we have that $w_0\tld{w}^+ \uparrow w_0 \tld{x}^+ \uparrow ws\tld{x}^+ = w\tld{x}$ for any $w\in W$ by \cite[II 6.5(5)]{RAGS}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:bruhatup1}
If $\tld{x}$ and $\tld{y} \in \tld{W}$ and $\tld{x}\leq \tld{y}$, then $\tld{x}^+ \uparrow \tld{y}^+$ where $\tld{x}^+$ and $\tld{y}^+$ are the unique elements in $W\tld{x} \cap \tld{W}^+$ and $W\tld{y} \cap \tld{W}^+$, respectively.
In particular, we have $\tld{x} \uparrow \tld{y}^+$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\tld{y}^+$ be $w\tld{y}$ with $w\in W$.
Since $w_0=(w_0w)w^{-1}$ and $w_0(w\tld{y})$ are reduced expressions (the latter by Lemma \ref{lemma:minrep}, the former by e.g.~\cite[\S 1.8]{humphreys-coxeter}), so is $(w_0w)w^{-1}(w\tld{y})$ and therefore so is $(w_0 w)\tld{y}$.
Since $\tld{x}^+ \leq \tld{x}$ (by Lemma \ref{lemma:minrep}) and $\tld{x} \leq \tld{y}$,
$w_0w\tld{x}^+ \leq w_0w\tld{y} = w_0 \tld{y}^+$.
Lemma \ref{lemma:bruhatup} implies that $w_0\tld{y}^+ \uparrow w_0\tld{x}^+$ so that $\tld{x}^+ \uparrow \tld{y}^+$.
The last claim follows from \cite[II 6.5(5)]{RAGS}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:doubleclosure}
If $\tld{w},\tld{w}' \in \tld{W}^+_1$, $\lambda,\nu\in X^*(T)$ with $\lambda$ dominant, then $t_\nu w_0t_\lambda\tld{w} \leq w_0t_\lambda\tld{w}'$ and $t_{-\nu}w_0t_\lambda\tld{w}' \leq w_0t_\lambda\tld{w}$ imply that $\nu \in X^0(T)$ and $\tld{w}' = t_\nu \tld{w}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $t_\nu w_0t_\lambda\tld{w} \leq w_0t_\lambda\tld{w}'$ and $t_{-\nu}w_0t_\lambda\tld{w}' \leq w_0t_\lambda\tld{w}$.
Lemma \ref{lemma:bruhatup} implies that $w_0t_\lambda\tld{w}' \uparrow t_\nu w_0t_\lambda\tld{w}$ and $w_0t_\lambda\tld{w} \uparrow t_{-\nu} w_0t_\lambda\tld{w}'$.
Combining these, we have that $w_0t_\lambda\tld{w}' \uparrow t_\nu w_0t_\lambda\tld{w} \uparrow w_0 t_\lambda\tld{w}'$ which implies that $w_0t_\lambda\tld{w}' = t_\nu w_0 t_\lambda\tld{w}$ or equivalently that $\tld{w}' = t_{w_0\nu}\tld{w}$.
This implies that $\tld{w}$ and $\tld{w}'$ have the same image in $W$.
Using that $\tld{w}$ and $\tld{w}'$ are both in $\tld{W}_1^+$, we find that $t_{w_0\nu} = \tld{w}'\tld{w}^{-1} \in X^0(T)$ and in particular $w_0\nu = \nu$.
\end{proof}
We now begin our analysis of certain elements of the admissible set which play an important role in our modularity results.
For a simple root $\alpha$, let $W_{a,\alpha}$ be the subgroup of $W_a$ generated by $s_\alpha$ and $t_\alpha$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:simpleup}
Let $\alpha$ be a simple root.
Suppose that $\tld{w}_\alpha \tld{w}_1 \uparrow \tld{w}_2 \uparrow \tld{w}_1$ for some $\tld{w}_\alpha \in W_{a,\alpha}$.
Then $\tld{w}_2 \in W_{a,\alpha} \tld{w}_1$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.35]{Lemma224.pdf}
\caption{\small{The alcoves which are below $\tld{w}_1(A_0)$ in the $\uparrow$ order are those below the thickened red lines.
The alcoves corresponding to $W_{a,\alpha}\tld{w}_1$ are drawn in dotted blue lines.}}
\label{pic:sandwich}
\end{figure}
\begin{proof}
Let $x\in A_0$.
Then $\tld{w}_1(x) - \tld{w}_2(x)$ and $\tld{w}_2(x) - \tld{w}_\alpha \tld{w}_1(x)$ are nonnegative linear combinations of positive simple roots.
On the other hand, $\tld{w}_1(x) - \tld{w}_\alpha \tld{w}_1(x)$ is a nonnegative multiple of $\alpha$.
This implies that so is $\tld{w}_1(x) - \tld{w}_2(x)$.
There is a series of hyperplane reflections $(s_i)_{i=1}^m$ such that
\[
\tld{w}_2 \uparrow s_1 \tld{w}_2 \uparrow s_2 s_1 \tld{w}_2 \uparrow \cdots \uparrow s_m \cdots s_2 s_1 \tld{w}_2 = \tld{w}_1.
\]
If the corresponding positive roots are $(\alpha_i)_{i=1}^m$, then $\tld{w}_1(x) - \tld{w}_2(x)$ is a positive linear combination of the roots in $\{\alpha_i\}_{i=1}^m$.
The above paragraph implies that $\alpha_i = \alpha$ for all $i$.
\end{proof}
Let $e$ be a positive integer.
Recall that the $e\eta_0$-admissible set $\mathrm{Adm}(e\eta_0) \subset \tld{W}$ is the subset of elements $\tld{w}$ such that $\tld{w} \leq t_{w(e\eta_0)}$ for some $w\in W$.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:listshapes}
The set $w^{-1} W_{a,\alpha} t_{e\eta_0} w \cap \mathrm{Adm}(e\eta_0)$ consists of elements
\[
t_{w^{-1}(e\eta_0-k\alpha)} \qquad \textrm{for }0\leq k \leq e
\]
and
\[
\tld{w}^{-1}s_\alpha t_{e\eta_0-(k+1)\alpha}\tld{w} \qquad \textrm{for }0\leq k \leq e-1,
\]
where $\tld{w}\in \tld{W}^+_1$ is an element (unique up to $X^0(T)$) with image $w$ in $W$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
It is easy to check that the listed elements lie in $w^{-1} W_{a,\alpha} t_{e\eta_0} w$.
Furthermore, they are all less than or equal to either $t_{w^{-1}(e\eta_0)}$ or $t_{(s_\alpha w)^{-1}(e\eta_0)}$.
Indeed, set $\tld{z}_k\stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} t_{(e-1)\eta_0 - k\alpha}$ and $\tld{z}'_k\stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} t_{(e-1)\eta_0 - (e-1-k)\alpha}s_\alpha$.
Then
\begin{align}
\label{eq:el1}
t_{w^{-1}(e\eta_0-k\alpha)} &= (\tld{w}_h\tld{w})^{-1}w_0 (\tld{z}_k \tld{w}) \quad\ \ = (\tld{w}_h\tld{w})^{-1}(w_0 s_\alpha) (\tld{z}'_k \tld{w})&\\
\label{eq:el2}
\tld{w}^{-1}s_\alpha t_{e\eta_0-(k+1)\alpha}\tld{w} &= (\tld{w}_h\tld{w})^{-1}(w_0s_\alpha) (\tld{z}_k \tld{w})= (\tld{w}_h\tld{w})^{-1}w_0 (\tld{z}'_k \tld{w})&
\end{align}
where $0\leq k\leq e$ for the elements in (\ref{eq:el1}) and $0\leq k\leq e-1$ for the elements in (\ref{eq:el2}).
Both $\tld{z}_k,\, \tld{z}'_k \uparrow t_{(e-1)\eta_0}$ and, if $k\neq e$, one is them is in $\tld{W}^+$.
Wang's theorem implies that, for $0\leq k\leq e-1$, one among $\tld{z}_k$, $\tld{z}'_k$ is less than or equal to $t_{(e-1)\eta_0}$.
This implies that for $0\leq k\leq e-1$ the elements (\ref{eq:el1}), (\ref{eq:el2}), with the exception of $t_{(s_\alpha w)^{-1}(e\eta_0)}$, are less than or equal to $t_{w^{-1}(e\eta_0)}$ in the Bruhat ordering.
The exceptional element is less than or equal to itself.
We claim that any element in $w^{-1} W_{a,\alpha} t_{e\eta_0} w$ of length at most that of $t_{w^{-1}(e\eta_0)}$ is one of the listed elements.
This would provide the reverse inclusion.
For each positive root $\beta$ and $\tld{w}\in \tld{W}$, let
\[
n_\beta(\tld{w})=
\begin{cases}
\lfloor \langle \tld{w}(x),w^{-1}(\beta^\vee) \rangle \rfloor \qquad & \textrm{ if } w(\beta) > 0 \\
\lfloor \langle \tld{w}(x),w^{-1}(\beta^\vee) \rangle \rfloor + 1 \qquad & \textrm{ if } w(\beta) < 0
\end{cases}
\]
for any $x\in A_0$.
Let $m_\beta(\tld{w})$ be $|n_\beta(\tld{w})|$.
Then $\ell(\tld{w})$ is the sum $\sum_{\beta>0} m_\beta(\tld{w})$
(\cite[Proposition 1.23]{iwahori-matsumoto}, see also \cite[\S 1.3]{he-nie}).
Let $d(\tld{w})$ be the sum $m_\alpha(\tld{w}) + \sum_{\beta>0,\, \beta\neq \alpha} n_\beta(\tld{w})$.
The function $d(-)$ has three favorable properties: $d(\tld{w}_1) \leq \ell(\tld{w}_1)$ for all $\tld{w}_1 \in \tld{W}$, $\ell(\tld{w}_1) = d(\tld{w}_1)$ if $w\tld{w}_1 \in \tld{W}^+$ (in particular for $\tld{w}_1 = t_{w^{-1}(e\eta_0)}$), and as we shall see next, $d(\tld{w}_1)-m_\alpha(\tld{w}_1) = \sum_{\beta>0,\, \beta\neq \alpha} n_\beta(\tld{w}_1)$ is the same for all $\tld{w}_1 \in w^{-1} W_{a,\alpha} t_{e\eta_0} w$.
Fix $x$ as above such that $\langle x,w^{-1}(\alpha^\vee)\rangle = \pm\frac{1}{2}$.
Then for each $\tld{w}_1 \in w^{-1} W_{a,\alpha} t_{e\eta_0} w$, $\tld{w}_1(x) = x+w^{-1}(e\eta_0-\frac{k}{2}\alpha)$ for a some $k \in \mathbb{Z}$.
Moreover, the map $\tld{w}_1\mapsto k$ defines a bijection $w^{-1} W_{a,\alpha} t_{e\eta_0} w \rightarrow \mathbb{Z}$.
We claim that
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:notalpha}
\sum_{\beta > 0,\, \beta \neq \alpha} \lfloor \langle t_{w^{-1}(e\eta_0)}(x),w^{-1}(\beta^\vee) \rangle \rfloor = \sum_{\beta > 0,\, \beta \neq \alpha}\lfloor \langle \tld{w}_1(x),w^{-1}(\beta^\vee) \rangle \rfloor.
\end{equation}
Assuming (\ref{eqn:notalpha}) for the moment, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\ell(t_{w^{-1}(e\eta_0)}) - d(\tld{w}_1) &= d(t_{w^{-1}(e\eta_0)}) - d(\tld{w}_1) \\
&= m_\alpha(t_{w^{-1}(e\eta_0)}) - m_\alpha(\tld{w}_1) + \sum_{\beta > 0,\, \beta \neq \alpha} (\lfloor \langle t_{w^{-1}(e\eta_0)}(x),w^{-1}(\beta^\vee) \rangle \rfloor - \lfloor \langle \tld{w}_1(x),w^{-1}(\beta^\vee) \rangle \rfloor) \\
&= m_\alpha(t_{w^{-1}(e\eta_0)}) - m_\alpha(\tld{w}_1)\\
&= |e|-|e-k|.
\end{align*}
If $\ell(\tld{w}_1) \leq \ell(t_{w^{-1}(e\eta_0)})$, then since $d(\tld{w}_1) \leq \ell(\tld{w}_1)$, $|e|\geq |e-k|$ so that $0 \leq k \leq 2e$.
These $2e+1$ values for $k$ correspond to the $2e+1$ listed elements.
(See Figure \ref{pic:strip} for the case of $\mathrm{GL}_3$ and $e=3$.)
It suffices to justify (\ref{eqn:notalpha}).
We need to show that
\[
\sum_{\beta > 0,\, \beta \neq \alpha}\lfloor \langle x,w^{-1}(\beta^\vee)\rangle \rfloor = \sum_{\beta > 0,\, \beta \neq \alpha} \lfloor \langle x-\frac{k}{2}w^{-1}(\alpha),w^{-1}(\beta^\vee)\rangle \rfloor,
\]
or equivalently, letting $y = w(x)$, that
\[
\sum_{\beta > 0,\, \beta \neq \alpha}\lfloor \langle y,\beta^\vee\rangle \rfloor = \sum_{\beta > 0,\, \beta \neq \alpha} \lfloor \langle y-\frac{k}{2}\alpha,\beta^\vee\rangle \rfloor.
\]
We can ignore roots $\beta$ such that $\langle \alpha,\beta^\vee \rangle = 0$.
The remaining positive roots come in pairs $(\beta_-,\beta_+)$ where $\langle \alpha,\beta_-^\vee \rangle < 0$ and $\beta_+ = s_\alpha(\beta_-)$.
Fix such a pair.
The fact that $\langle \alpha, \beta_-^\vee\rangle + \langle \alpha, \beta_+^\vee\rangle = 0$ implies that
\[
\langle y,\beta_+^\vee\rangle + \langle y,\beta_-^\vee\rangle = \langle y-\frac{k}{2}\alpha,\beta_+^\vee\rangle +\langle y-\frac{k}{2}\alpha,\beta_-^\vee\rangle.
\]
It suffices to show that
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:fracpart}
\{\langle y,\beta_+^\vee\rangle \} + \{\langle y,\beta_-^\vee\rangle\} = \{\langle y-\frac{k}{2}\alpha,\beta_+^\vee\rangle \}+\{\langle y-\frac{k}{2}\alpha,\beta_-^\vee\rangle\}
\end{equation}
where $\{ r \}$ denotes the fractional part $r - \lfloor r \rfloor$ of $r\in \mathbb{R}$.
If $\langle \alpha,\beta^\vee_+\rangle$, and therefore $\langle \alpha,\beta^\vee_-\rangle$, is even, then (\ref{eqn:fracpart}) is clear.
Now suppose that $\langle \alpha,\beta^\vee_+\rangle$ is odd.
Recall that we chose $x$ so that $\langle y,\alpha^\vee\rangle = \pm\frac{1}{2}$.
Then $\beta_+ = \beta_-+\langle \beta_+,\alpha^\vee\rangle \alpha$ implies that $\{\langle y, \beta_-^\vee \rangle\} = \{\langle y, \beta_+^\vee\rangle+\frac{1}{2}\}$.
We see that the terms of each side of (\ref{eqn:fracpart}) are the same (resp.~permuted) when $k$ is even (resp.~odd).
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.55]{Prop226.pdf}
\caption{\small{The $G=\mathrm{GL}_3$ $3\eta_0$-admissible set is in red.
The set $\beta^{-1} W_{a,\alpha}t_{e\eta_0}\beta$ is in blue.}}
\label{pic:strip}
\end{figure}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:2comps}
Let $\alpha$ be a simple root and $w$ be an element of $W$.
If $\tld{w} \in w^{-1} W_{a,\alpha} t_{e\eta_0} w \cap \mathrm{Adm}(e\eta_0)$ and $\tld{w} \leq t_{\sigma^{-1}(e\eta_0)}$ for some $\sigma \in W$, then $\sigma \in \{w,s_\alpha w\}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $\tld{w}$ is as in the statement.
If $\tld{w} = t_{w^{-1}(e\eta_0)}$ or $t_{(s_\alpha w)^{-1}(e\eta_0)}$ and $\tld{w} \leq t_{\sigma^{-1}(e\eta_0)}$, then $\tld{w} = t_{\sigma^{-1}(e\eta_0)}$ since $\ell(\tld{w}) = \ell(t_{\sigma^{-1}(e\eta_0)})$ and the conclusion follows.
Otherwise, $\tld{w} \leq t_{w^{-1}(e\eta_0)},t_{(s_\alpha w)^{-1}(e\eta_0)}$ by Proposition \ref{prop:listshapes} and the first part of its proof (applying Proposition \ref{prop:listshapes} with $w$ both taken to be $w$ and $s_\alpha w$ here).
But by Corollary \ref{cor:at_most_two}, there are at most two $\sigma \in W$ with $\tld{w} \leq t_{\sigma^{-1}(e\eta_0)}$ (the reader can check that the proof of Corollary \ref{cor:at_most_two} only involves studying geometric properties of Pappas-Zhu local models, and does not make use of any of the results of this section).
The conclusion follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}\label{prop:ends}
Let $\alpha$ be a simple root and $w$ be an element of $W$.
Suppose that
\begin{enumerate}
\item \label{item:corridor} $\tld{x} \in w^{-1} W_{a,\alpha} t_{e\eta_0} w \cap \mathrm{Adm}(e\eta_0)$;
\item \label{item:up} $\tld{w}_2\in \tld{W}^+$ and $\tld{w}_\lambda\in \tld{W}^+_1$ such that $\tld{w}_2 \uparrow \tld{w}_h\tld{w}_\lambda$; and
\item \label{item:weightineq} $\tld{w}_2\tld{x} \leq w_0 t_{(e-1)\eta_0} \tld{w}_\lambda$.
\end{enumerate}
Then $\tld{w}_2$ equals $\tld{w}_h\tld{w}_\lambda$ and the image of $\tld{w}_\lambda$ in $W$ is in the set $\{w,s_\alpha w\}$.
Moreover, we can take $\tld{w}_\lambda$ as above to have image $w \in W$ \emph{(}resp.~$s_\alpha w \in W$\emph{)} if and only if $\tld{x} \neq t_{(s_\alpha w)^{-1}(e\eta_0)}$ \emph{(}resp.~$\tld{x} \neq t_{w^{-1}(e\eta_0)}$\emph{)}.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
There exists a dominant weight $\omega$ (unique up to $X^0(T)$) such that $t_{-\omega}\tld{w}_2\in \tld{W}^+_1$.
Then $t_{-w_0(\omega)}\tld{w}_\lambda \in \tld{W}^+$ and item (\ref{item:up}) and \cite[Proposition 4.1.2]{LLL} give us $t_{-w_0(\omega)}\tld{w}_\lambda \uparrow t_{-w_0(\omega)}\tld{w}_h^{-1} \tld{w}_2 = \tld{w}_h^{-1} t_{-\omega}\tld{w}_2$.
Then Wang's theorem implies that $t_{-w_0(\omega)}\tld{w}_\lambda \leq \tld{w}_h^{-1} t_{-\omega}\tld{w}_2$, and so by \cite[Lemma 4.1.9]{LLL} we have
\begin{align*}
\tld{x}\leq \tld{w}_2^{-1}w_0 t_{(e-1)\eta_0} \tld{w}_\lambda &= (t_{-\omega}\tld{w}_2)^{-1} w_0 t_{(e-1)\eta_0} t_{-w_0(\omega)}\tld{w}_\lambda \\
&\leq (t_{-\omega}\tld{w}_2)^{-1} w_0 t_{(e-1)\eta_0} \tld{w}_h^{-1} t_{-\omega}\tld{w}_2 = t_{(w_0w_2)^{-1}(e\eta_0)}
\end{align*}
where $w_2\in W$ is the image of $\tld{w}_2$.
Lemma \ref{lemma:2comps} implies that $w_0w_2 \in \{w,s_\alpha w\}$.
Suppose without loss of generality that $w_0w_2 = w$.
Let $\tld{w}_2$ be $t_\omega \tld{w}_h \tld{w}$ where $\tld{w}\in \tld{W}_1^+$ has image $w\in W$ and $\omega \in X^*(T)$ is dominant ($\omega$ in the last paragraph can be chosen to coincide with $\omega$ here).
By (\ref{item:corridor}), we let $\tld{x}$ be $(\tld{w}_h \tld{w})^{-1}w_0 \tld{w}_\alpha t_{(e-1)\eta_0} \tld{w}$ for some $\tld{w}_\alpha \in W_{a,\alpha}$.
Then (\ref{item:weightineq}) becomes $t_\omega w_0 \tld{w}_\alpha t_{(e-1)\eta_0} \tld{w} \leq w_0 t_{(e-1)\eta_0}\tld{w}_\lambda$ which implies by Lemma \ref{lemma:bruhatup1} that
\[
t_{w_0(\omega)}\tld{w}_\alpha t_{(e-1)\eta_0} \tld{w} \uparrow t_{(e-1)\eta_0}\tld{w}_\lambda,
\]
which upon multiplying by $t_{-(e-1)\eta_0}$ and using item (\ref{item:up}) and \cite[Proposition 4.1.2]{LLL} gives
\[
\tld{w}_\alpha' \tld{w}_h^{-1}\tld{w}_2 \uparrow \tld{w}_\lambda \uparrow \tld{w}_h^{-1}\tld{w}_2
\]
for some $\tld{w}'_\alpha \in W_{a,\alpha}$ (using that $W_{a,\alpha}$ is stable under conjugation by $X^*(\un{T})$).
Then $\tld{w}_\lambda \in W_{a,\alpha} \tld{w}_h^{-1}\tld{w}_2$ by Lemma \ref{lemma:simpleup}, or equivalently $\tld{w}_2 \in W_{a,-w_0(\alpha)} \tld{w}_h\tld{w}_\lambda$.
That $\tld{w}_2\in \tld{W}^+$, $\tld{w}_2 \uparrow \tld{w}_h \tld{w}_\lambda$, and $\tld{w}_h\tld{w}_\lambda \in \tld{W}^+_1$ imply respectively that
\[
0 \leq \lfloor\langle \tld{w}_2(x),-w_0(\alpha^\vee)\rangle\rfloor \leq \lfloor\langle \tld{w}_h\tld{w}_\lambda(x),-w_0(\alpha^\vee) \rangle \rfloor = 0
\]
for any $x\in A_0$, which forces equalities throughout.
Combined with the fact that $\tld{w}_2 \in W_{a,-w_0(\alpha)} \tld{w}_h\tld{w}_\lambda$, we see that $\tld{w}_2 = \tld{w}_h \tld{w}_\lambda$.
In particular, the image of $\tld{w}_\lambda$ in $W$ is $w_0w_2$.
The final part follows from the first part of the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:listshapes}.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}\label{prop:upset}
Let $\alpha$ be a simple root and $w$ be an element of $W$.
If $\tld{w}_1 \in w^{-1} W_{a,\alpha} t_{e\eta_0} w$ and $\tld{w}_1\leq \tld{w}_2 \leq t_{w^{-1}(e\eta_0)}$, then $\tld{w}_2 \in w^{-1} W_{a,\alpha} t_{e\eta_0} w$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma \ref{lemma:bruhatup1}, the inequalities $\tld{w}_1\leq \tld{w}_2 \leq t_{w^{-1}(e\eta_0)}$ imply that $w\tld{w}_1 \uparrow s\tld{w}_2 \uparrow wt_{w^{-1}(e\eta_0)}$ where $s \in W$ is the unique element such that $s\tld{w}_2\in \tld{W}^+$.
Since $w\tld{w}_1 \in W_{a,\alpha} wt_{w^{-1}(e\eta_0)}$, we deduce from Lemma \ref{lemma:simpleup} that $s\tld{w}_2 \in W_{a,\alpha} wt_{w^{-1}(e\eta_0)}$ or equivalently, that $\tld{w}_2 \in s^{-1}W_{a,\alpha} wt_{w^{-1}(e\eta_0)}$.
We now narrow the possibilities of $s$.
Since $\tld{w}_1 \leq \tld{w}_2 \leq t_{s^{-1}(e\eta_0)}$, where the final inequality follows from \cite[Corollary 4.4]{HH}, $s \in \{w,s_\alpha w\}$ by Lemma \ref{lemma:2comps}.
Combining with the above paragraph, $\tld{w}_ 2 \in w^{-1}W_{a,\alpha}t_{e\eta_0} w$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{The weight part of a Serre-type conjecture for tame representations}
\label{sec:SWC}
The aim of this section, and of the following one, is to recollect the necessary notions to formulate the weight part for Serre conjectures, and to pursue a combinatorial study of the set of conjectural modular weights in terms of the geometry of the affine Weyl group.
\subsubsection{Serre weights}
\label{subsub:SW}
Recall from \ref{sec:not:RG} that $G$ is a split group defined over $\F_p$, $k_p$ is a finite \'etale $\mathbb{F}_p$-algebra, $G_0 = \mathrm{Res}_{k_p/\mathbb{F}_p} G_{/k_p}$ and $\mathbb{F}$ contains the image of any ring homomorphism $k_p \rightarrow \ovl{\mathbb{F}}_p$ so that $\un{G} \stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} (G_0)_{/\mathbb{F}}\cong G_{/\mathbb{F}}^{\mathrm{Hom}(k_p,\mathbb{F})}$.
Let $\mathrm{G}$ be $G_0(\F_p)$.
A \emph{Serre weight} (of $\mathrm{G}$) is an absolutely irreducible $\mathbb{F}$-representation of $\mathrm{G}$.
Let $\lambda\in X^*(\un{T})$ be a dominant character.
We write $W(\lambda)_{/\mathbb{F}}$ for the $\un{G}$-module $\mathrm{Ind}_{\un{B}}^{\un{G}} w_0 \lambda$.
Let $F(\lambda)$ denote the (irreducible) socle of the $\mathrm{G}$-restriction of $W(\lambda)_{/\mathbb{F}}(\mathbb{F})$.
We define:
\[
X_1(\un{T}) \stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} \left\{\lambda\in X^*(\un{T}),0\leq \langle \lambda,\alpha^\vee\rangle\leq p-1\text{ for all }\alpha\in \un{\Delta}\right\}
\]
which we call the set of $p$-restricted weights.
Then the map $\lambda \mapsto F(\lambda)$ defines a bijection from $X_1(\un{T})/(p-\pi)X^0(\un{T})$ to the set of isomorphism classes of Serre weights of $\mathrm{G}$ (see \cite[Lemma 9.2.4]{GHS}).
We say that $\lambda\in X_1(\un{T})$ is \emph{regular $p$-restricted} if $\langle \lambda,\alpha^\vee\rangle < p-1$ for all $\alpha\in \un{\Delta}$ and say a Serre weight $F(\lambda)$ is \emph{regular} if $\lambda$ is.
Similarly we say that $F(\lambda)$ is $m$-deep if $\lambda$ is $m$-deep.
To handle the combinatorics of Serre weights it is convenient to introduce the notion of $p$-alcoves and the $p$-dot action on them.
A $p$-alcove is a connected component of $X^*(\un{T})\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}\mathbb{R}\ \setminus\ \big(\bigcup_{(\alpha,pn)}(H_{\alpha,pn}-\eta_0)\big)$ and we say that a $p$-alcove $\un{C}$ is
\emph{dominant} (resp.~\emph{$p$-restricted}) if $0 < \langle\lambda + \eta_0,\alpha^\vee\rangle$ (resp.~if $0 < \langle\lambda + \eta_0,\alpha^\vee\rangle<p$) for all $\alpha\in \un{\Delta}$ and $\lambda\in \un{C}$.
We write $\un{C}_0$ for the dominant base $p$-alcove, i.e.~the alcove characterized by $\lambda\in \un{C}_0$ if and only if $0 <\langle\lambda + \eta_0,\alpha^\vee\rangle<p$ for all $\alpha\in \un{\Phi}^+$.
The $p$-\emph{dot action} of $\tld{\un{W}}$ on $X^*(\un{T})\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}\mathbb{R}$ is defined by $\tld{w}\cdot \lambda\stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} w(\lambda+\eta_0+p\nu)-\eta_0$ for $\tld{w}=wt_\nu\in \tld{\un{W}}$ and $\lambda\in X^*(\un{T})\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}\mathbb{R}$.
Then we have
\[\tld{\un{W}}^+=\{\tld{w}\in \tld{\un{W}}:\tld{w}\cdot \un{C}_0 \textrm{ is dominant}\}\]
and
\[\tld{\un{W}}^+_1=\{\tld{w}\in \tld{\un{W}}^+:\tld{w}\cdot \un{C}_0 \textrm{ is } p\textrm{-restricted}\}\]
and $\un{\Omega}$ is the stabilizer of $\un{C}_0$ for the dot action.
We have an equivalence relation on $\tld{\un{W}} \times X^*(\un{T})$ defined by $(\tld{w},\omega) \sim (t_\nu \tld{w},\omega-\nu)$ for all $\nu \in X^0(\un{T})$ (\cite[\S 2.2]{MLM}).
For $(\tld{w}_1,\omega-\eta_0)\in \tld{\un{W}}^+_1\times (X^*(\un{T})\cap \un{C}_0)/\sim$, we define the Serre weight $F_{(\tld{w}_1,\omega)}\stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} F(\pi^{-1}(\tld{w}_1)\cdot (\omega-\eta_0))$ (this only depends on the equivalence class of $(\tld{w}_1,\omega)$).
We call the equivalence class of $(\tld{w}_1,\omega)$ a \emph{lowest alcove presentation} for the Serre weight $F_{(\tld{w}_1,\omega)}$ and note that $F_{(\tld{w}_1,\omega)}$ is $m$-deep if and only if $\omega-\eta_0$ is $m$-deep in alcove $\un{C}_0$.
(We often implicitly choose a representative for a lowest alcove presentation to make \emph{a priori} sense of an expression, though it is \emph{a posteriori} independent of this choice.)
\subsubsection{Deligne--Lusztig representations}
To a \emph{good} pair $(s,\mu)\in \un{W}\times X^*(\un{T})$ we attach a Deligne--Lusztig representation $R_s(\mu)$ of $\mathrm{G}$ defined over $E$ (see \cite[\S 2.2]{LLL} and \cite[Proposition 9.2.1, 9.2.2]{GHS}, where the representation $R_s(\mu)$ is there denoted $R(s,\mu)$).
We call $(s,\mu-\eta_0)$ a \emph{lowest alcove presentation} for $R_s(\mu)$ and say that $R_s(\mu)$ is \emph{$N$-generic} if $\mu-\eta_0$ is $N$-deep in alcove $\un{C}_0$ for $N\geq 0$
If $\mu-\eta_0$ is $1$-deep in $\un{C}_0$ then $R_s(\mu)$ is an irreducible representation.
We say that a Deligne--Lusztig representation $R$ is $N$-generic if there exists an isomorphism $R\cong R_s(\mu)$ where $R_s(\mu)$ is \emph{$N$-generic}.
\subsubsection{Tame inertial types}
\label{subsubsec:TIT}
An inertial type (for $K$, over $E$) is the $\mathrm{GL}_n(E)$-conjugacy class of an homomorphism $\tau:I_{K}\rightarrow\mathrm{GL}_n(E)$ with open kernel and which extends to the Weil group of $G_K$.
An inertial type is \emph{tame} if one (equivalently, any) homomorphism in the conjugacy class factors through the tame quotient of $I_{K}$.
Let $s\in \un{W}$ and $\mu \in X^*(\un{T})\cap \un{C}_0$.
Associated to this data we have an integer $r$ (the order of the element $s_0s_1\cdots s_{f-2}s_{f-1}\in W$), $n$-tuples $\bf{a}^{\prime (j')}\in\mathbb{Z}^n$ for $0\leq j'\leq fr-1$, and a tame inertial type $\tau(s,\mu+\eta_0)\stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} \sum_{i=1}^{n}(\omega_{fr})^{\mathbf{a}_i^{\prime(0)}}$.
(See \cite[Example 2.4.1, equations (5.2), (5.1)]{MLM} for the explicit construction of the $n$-tuples $\bf{a}^{\prime (j')}\in\mathbb{Z}^n$.)
We say that $\tau(s,\mu+\eta_0)$ is a \emph{principal series type} if $r=1$.
If $N \geq 0$ and $\mu$ is $N$-deep in alcove $\un{C}_0$, the pair $(s,\mu)$ is said to be \emph{an $N$-generic lowest alcove presentation} for the tame inertial type $\tau(s,\mu+\eta_0)$.
We say that a tame inertial type is $N$-generic if it admits an $N$-generic lowest alcove presentation.
(Different pairs $(s,\mu)$ can give rise to isomorphic tame inertial types, see \cite[Proposition 2.2.15]{LLL}.)
If $(s,\mu)$ is a lowest alcove presentation of $\tau$, let $\tld{w}(\tau) \stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} t_{\mu+\eta_0}s\in\tld{\un{W}}$. (In particular, when writing $\tld{w}(\tau)$ we use an implicit lowest alcove presentation for $\tau$).
Inertial $\mathbb{F}$-types are defined similarly with $E$ replaced by $\mathbb{F}$.
Tame inertial $\mathbb{F}$-types have analogous notions of lowest alcove presentations and genericity.
If $\overline{\tau}$ is a tame inertial $\mathbb{F}$-type we write $[\overline{\tau}]$ to denote the tame inertial type over $E$ obtained from $\overline{\tau}$ using the Teichm\"uller section $\mathbb{F}^\times \hookrightarrow \mathcal{O}^\times$.
Assume that $\mu$ is $1$-deep in $\un{C}_0$.
For each $0\leq j'\leq fr-1$ we define $s'_{\mathrm{or},j'}$ to be the (necessarily unique) element of $W$ such that $(s'_{\mathrm{or},j'})^{-1}(\bf{a}^{\prime\,(j')})\in\mathbb{Z}^n$ is dominant.
(In the terminology of \cite{LLLM}, cf.~Definition 2.6 of \emph{loc.~cit.}, the $fr$-tuple $(s'_{\mathrm{or},j'})_{0\leq j'\leq fr-1}$ is the \emph{orientation} of $(\bf{a}^{\prime\,(j')})_{0\leq j'\leq fr-1}$.)
We will need the observation that $(s'_{\mathrm{or}, j})^{-1} (\bf{a}^{\prime\, (j)})$ equals $s_{j}^{-1}\big(\mu_{j} + \eta_{0,j}\big)$ modulo $p$ for all $0\leq j\leq f-1$.
\subsubsection{Inertial local Langlands}
\label{subsub:ILL}
Let $K/\mathbb{Q}_p$ be a finite extension with ring of integers $\mathcal{O}_K$ and residue field $k$.
Let $\tau$ be a tame inertial type for $K$.
By \cite[Theorem 3.7]{CEGGPS} there exists an irreducible smooth representation $\sigma(\tau)$ of $\mathrm{GL}_n(\mathcal{O}_K)$ over $E$ satisfying results towards the inertial local Langlands correspondence.
Let $k_p = k$, so that $G_0(\F_p)\cong\mathrm{GL}_n(k)$.
When $\tau\cong\tau(s,\mu)$ with $\mu-\eta\in \un{C}_0$ a $1$-deep character, the representation $\sigma(\tau)$ can and will be taken to be (the inflation to $\mathrm{GL}_n(\mathcal{O}_K)$ of) $R_s(\mu)$ (see \cite[Theorem 2.5.3]{MLM}, \cite[Corollary 2.3.5]{LLL}).
The following definition will play a key role in our generalization of Herzig's Serre weight conjecture.
\begin{defn}
\label{defn:SWC:ram}
Let $\mathcal{R}$ denote the bijection on regular Serre weights given by $F(\lambda)\mapsto F(\tld{w}_h \cdot \lambda)$.
If $\overline{\tau}:I_K\rightarrow\mathrm{GL}_n(\mathbb{F})$ is a $1$-generic tame inertial $\mathbb{F}$-type for $I_K$ we define
\[
W^?(\overline{\tau})\stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=}\mathcal{R}\Big(\mathrm{JH}\Big(\ovl{\sigma([\overline{\tau}])}\otimes W((1-e)w_0\eta_0)\Big)\Big).
\]
\end{defn}
\subsubsection{Compatibilities of lowest alcove presentations}
Recall the canonical isomorphism $\tld{\un{W}}/\un{W}_a\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}X^*(\un{Z})$.
Let $\zeta\in X^*(\un{Z})$.
We say that an element $\tld{w}\in\tld{\un{W}}$ is $\zeta$-compatible if it corresponds to $\zeta$ via the isomorphism $\tld{\un{W}}/\un{W}_a\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}X^*(\un{Z})$.
A lowest alcove presentation $(s,\mu)$ for a tame inertial type $\tau$ for $K$ over $E$ or a Deligne--Lusztig representation $R$ is $\zeta$-compatible if $t_{\mu+\eta_0}s\in\tld{\un{W}}$ is $\zeta$-compatible.
A lowest alcove presentation $(s,\mu)$ of a tame inertial $\mathbb{F}$-type is $\zeta$-compatible if $t_{\mu-(e-1)\eta_0}s\in\tld{\un{W}}$ is $\zeta$-compatible.
(If $\tau$ is a tame inertial type and $\overline{\tau}$ is the tame inertial $\mathbb{F}$-type obtained by reduction, the same lowest alcove presentation of $\tau$ and $\overline{\tau}$ are compatible with elements of $X^*(\un{Z})$ that differ by $\eta_0|_{\un{Z}}$.)
A lowest alcove presentation $(\tld{w}_1,\omega)$ for Serre weight is $\zeta$-compatible if the element $t_{\omega-\eta_0}\tld{w}_1\in \tld{\un{W}}$ is $\zeta$-compatible.
Finally, lowest alcove presentations (of possibly different types of objects) are compatible if they are all $\zeta$-compatible for some $\zeta \in X^*(\un{Z})$.
\subsubsection{$L$-parameters}
\label{subsub:Lp}
Recall from \S \ref{sec:not:RG} the finite \'etale $\mathbb{Q}_p$-algebra $F_p^+$.
We adapt the constructions of tame inertial types and the inertial local Langlands above to arbitrary $S_p$.
We assume that $E$ contains the image of any homomorphism $F_p^+\rightarrow \ovl{\mathbb{Q}}_p$.
Let
\[
\un{G}^\vee\stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=}\prod_{F_p^+\rightarrow E}G^{\vee}_{/\mathcal{O}}
\]
be the dual group of $\mathrm{Res}_{F^+_p/\mathbb{Q}_p}(G_{/F^+_p})$ and ${}^L\un{G}\stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} \un{G}^\vee\rtimes\mathrm{Gal}(E/\mathbb{Q}_p)$ the Langlands dual group of $\mathrm{Res}_{F^+_p/\mathbb{Q}_p}(G_{/F^+_p})$ (where $\mathrm{Gal}(E/\mathbb{Q}_p)$ acts on the set $\{F_p^+\rightarrow E\}$ by post-composition).
An $L$-parameter (over $E$) is a $\un{G}^\vee(E)$-conjugacy class of an $L$-homomorphism, i.e.~of a continuous homomorphism $\rho:G_{\mathbb{Q}_p}\rightarrow{}^L\un{G}(E)$ which is compatible with the projection to $\mathrm{Gal}(E/\mathbb{Q}_p)$.
An inertial $L$-parameter is a $\un{G}^\vee(E)$-conjugacy class of an homomorphism $\tau:I_{\mathbb{Q}_p}\rightarrow\un{G}^\vee(E)$ with open kernel, and which admits an extension to an $L$-homomorphism $G_{\mathbb{Q}_p}\rightarrow{}^L\un{G}(E)$.
An inertial $L$-parameter is \emph{tame} if some (equivalently, any) representative in its equivalence class factors through the tame quotient of $I_{\mathbb{Q}_p}$.
The argument of \cite[Lemmas 9.4.1, 9.4.5]{GHS} carries over in our setting and we have a bijection between $L$-parameters (resp.~tame inertial $L$-parameters) and collections of the form $(\rho_v)_{v\in S_p}$ (resp.~of the form $(\tau_v)_{v\in S_p}$) where for all $v\in S_p$ the element $\rho_v:G_{F^+_v}\rightarrow\mathrm{GL}_n(E)$ is a continuous Galois representation (resp.~the element $\tau_v:I_{F^+_v}\rightarrow\mathrm{GL}_n(E)$ is a tame inertial type for $F^+_v$).
(This bijection depends on a choice of isomorphisms $\ovl{F^+_v}\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}\ovl{\mathbb{Q}}_p$ for all $v\in S_p$.)
We have similar notions for $L$-parameters (resp.~inertial $L$-parameters) over $\mathbb{F}$.
In this setting, given a tame inertial $L$-parameter $\tau$ corresponding to the collection of tame inertial types $(\tau_v)_{v\in S_p}$, we let $\sigma(\tau)$ be the irreducible smooth $E$-valued representation of $\mathrm{GL}_n(\mathcal{O}_p)$ given by $\otimes_{v\in S_p} \sigma(\tau_v)$, where $\sigma(\tau_v)$ is the smooth representation corresponding to $\tau_v$ via the inertial local Langlands correspondence appearing in \S \ref{subsub:ILL}.
\subsection{Combinatorics of Serre weights}
\label{sec:combserre}
In this section, we apply the results of \S \ref{sec:comb:weyl} on extended affine Weyl groups to analyze the combinatorics of the Serre weight sets defined in \S \ref{sec:SWC}.
We assume for simplicity that $F_p^+=K$, but the results herein do not require this.
Given tame inertial types $\tau$ and ${\overline{\rho}}^{\mathrm{sp}}$ over $E$ and $\mathbb{F}$, respectively, with fixed compatible lowest alcove presentations, we define $\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^{\mathrm{sp}},\tau)$ to be $\tld{w}(\tau)^{-1}\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^{\mathrm{sp}}) \in t_{e\eta_0}\un{W}_a$.
The following two results follow readily from \cite[Proposition 2.3.7]{MLM}.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:JH}
Suppose we fix a $2h_{\eta_0}$-generic lowest alcove presentation of a tame inertial type $\tau$.
The map
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:JH}
(\tld{w}_\lambda,\tld{w}_2) \longmapsto F_{(\tld{w}_\lambda, \tld{w}(\tau)\tld{w}_2^{-1}(0))}
\end{equation}
induces a bijection between
\begin{itemize}
\item the set of pairs $(\tld{w}_\lambda,\tld{w}_2)$, modulo the diagonal action of $X^0(T)$, with $\tld{w}_\lambda \in \tld{W}^+_1$ and $\tld{w}_2\in \tld{W}^+$ such that $\tld{w}_\lambda \uparrow \tld{w}_h^{-1} \tld{w}_2$; and
\item elements of $\mathrm{JH}(\ovl{\sigma}(\tau))$.
\end{itemize}
Moreover, these lowest alcove presentations of Serre weights are compatible with that of $\tau$.
Finally, the weight corresponding to $(\tld{w}_\lambda,\tld{w}_h\tld{w}_\lambda)$ appears as a Jordan--H\"older factor with multiplicity one.
\end{prop}
\begin{prop}\label{prop:W?}
Suppose we fix an $(\max\{2,e\}h_{\eta_0})$-generic lowest alcove presentation of a tame inertial type ${\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp}$ over $\mathbb{F}$.
The map
\[
(\tld{w}_\lambda,\tld{w}_2)\longmapsto
F_{(\tld{w}_\lambda, \tld{w}^*({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp})\tld{w}_2^{-1}(0))}.
\]
induces a bijection between
\begin{itemize}
\item pairs $(\tld{w}_\lambda,\tld{w}_2)$ with $\tld{w}_\lambda \in \tld{W}^+_1$ and $\tld{w}_2\in \tld{W}^+$, up to the diagonal $X^0(\un{T})$-action, such that $\tld{w}_2 \uparrow t_{(e-1)\eta_0}\tld{w}_\lambda$; and
\item elements of $W^?({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp})$.
\end{itemize}
Moreover, these lowest alcove presentations of Serre weights are compatible with that of ${\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp}$.
\end{prop}
The following definition is central to this paper.
\begin{defn}[Extremal weights]
\label{defn:obv}
Suppose we fix a $(\max\{2,e\}h_{\eta_0})$-generic lowest alcove presentation for a tame inertial type ${\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp}$ over $\mathbb{F}$.
Let $w$ be an element of $W$ and $\tld{w} \in \tld{W}_1^+$ be an element (unique up to $X^0(\un{T})$) whose image in $W$ is $w$.
The weight
\[
F_{(\tld{w},\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp})\tld{w}^{-1}(-(e-1)\eta_0))}\in W^?({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp})
\]
is called the \emph{extremal weight of ${\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp}$ corresponding to} $w$.
Let $W_\mathrm{extr}({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp})$ be the set of all extremal weights of ${\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp}$.
(While the extremal weight corresponding to $w$ depends on the choice of lowest alcove presentation, the set of all extremal weights does not.)
\end{defn}
\begin{rmk}
If ${\overline{\rho}}: G_K \rightarrow \mathrm{GL}_n(\mathbb{F})$ is semisimple and $2h_{\eta_0}$-generic, and $K$ is unramified, the notion of obvious weight for ${\overline{\rho}}$ corresponding to $w$ (\cite[Definition 2.6.3]{MLM}) and of extremal weight for ${\overline{\rho}}$ corresponding to $w$ coincide, and the set $W_\mathrm{extr}({\overline{\rho}}|_I)$ is the set defined in \cite[Definition 7.1.3]{GHS}.
\end{rmk}
The following combinatorial result relates the set $W^?({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp})$ and the admissible set and is key to weight elimination.
\begin{prop} \label{prop:combWE}
Suppose we fix an $(\max\{2,e\}h_{\eta_0})$-generic lowest alcove presentation for $\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp})$.
Let $(\tld{w}_\lambda,\omega)$ be a compatible lowest alcove presentation of a $3h_{\eta_0}$-deep Serre weight $\sigma$.
Then $\omega = \tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}) \tld{w}^{-1}(0)$ for a unique $\tld{w} \in \tld{W}^+$.
Let $\tau$ be the tame inertial type over $E$ with $\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp},\tau) = (\tld{w}_h\tld{w}_\lambda)^{-1} w_0 \tld{w}$ for some (necessarily compatible) lowest alcove presentation.
Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\sigma \in \mathrm{JH}(\ovl{\sigma}(\tau))$; and
\item $(\tld{w}_h\tld{w}_\lambda)^{-1} w_0 \tld{w} \in \mathrm{Adm}(e\eta_0)$ implies that $\sigma \in W^?({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp})$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
By definition of $\tau$, we have that $\tld{w}(\tau)(\tld{w}_h\tld{w}_\lambda)^{-1}(0) = \tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp}) \tld{w}^{-1}(0)$.
Note that the lowest alcove presentation of $\tau$ is $2h_{\eta_0}$-generic by the depth assumption on $\sigma$.
Then $\sigma$ corresponds to the pair $(\tld{w}_\lambda,\tld{w}_h\tld{w}_\lambda)$ in \eqref{eqn:JH}.
Suppose that $(\tld{w}_h\tld{w}_\lambda)^{-1} w_0 \tld{w} \in \mathrm{Adm}(e\eta_0)$.
If we let $w_\lambda \in W$ be the image of $\tld{w}_\lambda$, then we claim that $w_\lambda (\tld{w}_h\tld{w}_\lambda)^{-1} w_0 \tld{w} \in \tld{W}^+$.
Indeed since $\tld{w}_\lambda \in \tld{W}^+_1$, $w_0 w_\lambda (\tld{w}_h\tld{w}_\lambda)^{-1}$ is an antidominant translation so that $w_0 w_\lambda (\tld{w}_h\tld{w}_\lambda)^{-1} w_0 \tld{w}\cdot C_0$ is in the antidominant Weyl chamber.
By \cite[Corollary 4.4]{HH}, we have that
\[
(\tld{w}_h\tld{w}_\lambda)^{-1} w_0 \tld{w} \leq t_{w_\lambda^{-1} (e\eta_0)} = (\tld{w}_h\tld{w}_\lambda)^{-1} w_0 t_{(e-1)\eta_0} \tld{w}_\lambda.
\]
Since these expressions are reduced by \cite[Lemma 4.9]{LLL}, we conclude that $\tld{w} \leq t_{(e-1)\eta_0} \tld{w}_\lambda$ which implies that $\tld{w}\uparrow t_{(e-1)\eta_0} \tld{w}_\lambda$.
We conclude from Proposition \ref{prop:W?} that $\sigma \in W^?({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp})$.
\end{proof}
Denote by $W^?({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp},\tau)$ the intersection $W^?({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp}) \cap \mathrm{JH}(\ovl{\sigma}(\tau))$.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:intersect}
Suppose we fix compatible $(\max\{2,e\}h_{\eta_0})$-generic and $2h_{\eta_0}$-generic lowest alcove presentations of tame inertial types ${\overline{\rho}}^{\mathrm{sp}}$ and $\tau$ over $\mathbb{F}$ and $E$, respectively.
Then the set $W^?({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp},\tau)$ is exactly the set of weights in \eqref{eqn:JH} such that $\tld{w}_2 \tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp},\tau) \leq w_0 t_{(e-1)\eta_0} \tld{w}_\lambda$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Consider an element $\sigma\in \mathrm{JH}(\ovl{\sigma}(\tau))$.
Let $\tld{w}_\lambda$ and $\tld{w}_2$ be as in Proposition \ref{prop:JH}.
By Proposition \ref{prop:W?} and uniqueness of compatible lowest alcove presentations (see \cite[Lemma 2.2.3]{MLM}), $\sigma \in W^?({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp})$ if and only if there exist $\tld{s}_2 \in \tld{W}^+$ with $\tld{s}_2\uparrow t_{(e-1)\eta_0}\tld{w}_\lambda$ such that
\[
\tld{w}(\tau) \tld{w}_2^{-1}(0) = \tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp})\tld{s}_2^{-1}(0),
\]
or equivalently, $\tld{w}_2\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp},\tau)\in W \tld{s}_2$.
We now show that there exists $\tld{s}_2 \in \tld{W}^+$ with $\tld{s}_2\uparrow t_{(e-1)\eta_0}\tld{w}_\lambda$ such that $\tld{w}_2\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp},\tau)\in W \tld{s}_2$ if and only if $\tld{w}_2\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp},\tau) \leq w_0 t_{(e-1)\eta_0} \tld{w}_\lambda$.
First suppose that such an $\tld{s}_2$ exists.
This implies that
\[
\tld{w}_2\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp},\tau)\leq w_0 \tld{s}_2 \leq w_0 t_{(e-1)\eta_0} \tld{w}_\lambda,
\]
where the second inequality follows from the fact that $\tld{s}_2\leq t_{(e-1)\eta_0}\tld{w}_\lambda$ by Wang's theorem.
Conversely, if $\tld{w}_2\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp},\tau)\leq w_0 t_{(e-1)\eta_0} \tld{w}_\lambda$, then using that $w_0 (t_{(e-1)\eta_0} \tld{w}_\lambda)$ is a reduced factorization, $\tld{w}_2\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp},\tau) = w\tld{s}_2$ for some $\tld{s}_2 \in \tld{W}^+$ with $\tld{s}_2\leq t_{(e-1)\eta_0}\tld{w}_\lambda$ (or equivalently $\tld{s}_2\uparrow t_{(e-1)\eta_0}\tld{w}_\lambda$ by Wang's theorem) and $w\in W$.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}\label{cor:adm}
Suppose that tame inertial types ${\overline{\rho}}^{\mathrm{sp}}$ and $\tau$ over $\mathbb{F}$ and $E$ have compatible $(\max\{2,e\}h_{\eta_0})$-generic and $2h_{\eta_0}$-generic lowest alcove presentations, respectively.
If $W^?({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp},\tau)$ is nonempty, then $\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp},\tau) \in \mathrm{Adm}(e\eta_0)$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
As in the statement of the corollary, we fix compatible lowest alcove presentations for ${\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp}$ and $\tau$, respectively.
If $W^?({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp},\tau)$ is nonempty, by Proposition \ref{prop:intersect} we have that $\tld{w}_2 \tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp},\tau) \leq w_0 t_{(e-1)\eta_0} \tld{w}_\lambda$ for some $\tld{w}_2\in \tld{W}^+$ and $\tld{w}_\lambda \in \tld{W}^+_1$ with $\tld{w}_\lambda \uparrow \tld{w}_h^{-1}\tld{w}_2$.
Then $\tld{w}_2 \uparrow \tld{w}_h \tld{w}_\lambda$ by \cite[Proposition 4.1.2]{LLL} so that $\tld{w}_2 \leq \tld{w}_h \tld{w}_\lambda$.
Since $\tld{w}_2^{-1}w_0 t_{(e-1)\eta_0}\tld{w}_\lambda$ and $(\tld{w}_h \tld{w}_\lambda)^{-1}w_0 t_{(e-1)\eta_0}\tld{w}_\lambda$ are reduced expressions by \cite[Lemma 4.1.9]{LLL}, we have that
\[
\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp},\tau) \leq \tld{w}_2^{-1}w_0 t_{(e-1)\eta_0}\tld{w}_\lambda \leq \tld{w}_\lambda^{-1}\tld{w}_h^{-1}w_0 t_{(e-1)\eta_0}\tld{w}_\lambda = t_{w_\lambda^{-1}(e\eta_0)}.
\]
\end{proof}
We now establish some results which will be used to prove modularity of certain Serre weights.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:indint}
Suppose that $\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp},\tau) \in w^{-1} W_{a,\alpha} t_{e\eta_0} w \cap \mathrm{Adm}(e\eta_0)$ for compatible $(\max\{2,e\}h_{\eta_0})$-generic and $2h_{\eta_0}$-generic lowest alcove presentations for tame inertial types ${\overline{\rho}}^{\mathrm{sp}}$ and $\tau$ over $\mathbb{F}$ and $E$, respectively.
Then $W^?({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp},\tau)$ equals
\[
\begin{cases}
\{F_{(\tld{w},\tld{w}(\tau)\tld{w}^{-1}\tld{w}_h^{-1}(0))}\} & \mbox{if } \tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp},\tau) = t_{w^{-1}(e\eta_0)}\\
\{F_{(\tld{s_\alpha w},\tld{w}(\tau)\tld{s_\alpha w}^{-1}\tld{w}_h^{-1}(0))}\} & \mbox{if }\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp},\tau) = t_{(s_\alpha w)^{-1}(e\eta_0)}\\
\{F_{(\tld{w},\tld{w}(\tau)\tld{w}^{-1}\tld{w}_h^{-1}(0))}, F_{(\tld{s_\alpha w},\tld{w}(\tau)\tld{s_\alpha w}^{-1}\tld{w}_h^{-1}(0))}\} & \mbox{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\]
Moreover, each weight appears as a Jordan--H\"older factor of $\ovl{\sigma}(\tau)$ with multiplicity one.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that a weight $\sigma$ of the form (\ref{eqn:JH}) is in $\mathrm{JH}(\ovl{\sigma}(\tau))$.
Then by Proposition \ref{prop:intersect}, $\sigma \in W^?({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp})$ if and only if $\tld{w}_2 \tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp},\tau) \leq w_0 t_{(e-1)\eta_0} \tld{w}_\lambda$.
By Proposition \ref{prop:ends}, $\tld{w}_h^{-1}\tld{w}_2$ and $\tld{w}_\lambda$ are both either $\tld{w}$ or $\tld{s_\alpha w}$.
The last part of Proposition \ref{prop:ends} implies the inclusion of $W^?({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp},\tau)$ in the casewise defined sets.
On the other hand, using Proposition \ref{prop:listshapes} and
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:factor1}
t_{w^{-1}(e\eta_0 - k\alpha)} = \tld{w}^{-1}\tld{w}_h^{-1} w_0 t_{(e-1)\eta_0-k\alpha}\tld{w} = \tld{s_\alpha w}^{-1}\tld{w}_h^{-1} w_0 t_{(e-1)\eta_0 - (e-k)\alpha} \tld{s_\alpha w}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:factor2}
\tld{w}^{-1} s_\alpha t_{e\eta_0 - (k+1)\alpha} \tld{w} = \tld{w}^{-1}\tld{w}_h^{-1} w_0 s_\alpha t_{(e-1)\eta_0-k\alpha}\tld{w} = \tld{s_\alpha w}^{-1}\tld{w}_h^{-1} w_0 s_\alpha t_{(e-1)\eta_0 - (e-k-1)\alpha} \tld{s_\alpha w}.
\end{equation}
we have that $\tld{w}_h \tld{w}\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp},\tau)$ is either $w_0 t_{(e-1)\eta_0 - k\alpha}\tld{w}$ or $w_0s_\alpha t_{(e-1)\eta_0-k\alpha} \tld{w}$, which is less than or equal to $w_0 t_{(e-1)\eta_0} \tld{w}$ if $k \neq e$.
This implies that $F_{(\tld{w},\tld{w}(\tau)\tld{w}^{-1}\tld{w}_h^{-1}(0))} \in W^?({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp},\tau)$ if $\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp},\tau) \neq t_{(s_\alpha w)^{-1}(e\eta_0)}$.
Similarly, $\tld{w}_h \tld{s_\alpha w}\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp},\tau)$ is either $w_0 t_{(e-1)\eta_0 - (e-k)\alpha}\tld{s_\alpha w}$ or $w_0s_\alpha t_{(e-1)\eta_0-(e-k-1)\alpha} \tld{s_\alpha w}$, so that
$F_{(\tld{s_\alpha w},\tld{w}(\tau)\tld{s_\alpha w}^{-1}\tld{w}_h^{-1}(0))} \in W^?({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp},\tau)$ if $\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp},\tau) \neq t_{w^{-1}(e\eta_0)}$.
This gives the reverse inclusion.
The multiplicity statement follows from that of Proposition \ref{prop:JH}.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}\label{prop:indcomb}
Suppose we fix an $(e+2)h_{\eta_0}$-generic lowest alcove presentation of a tame inertial type ${\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp}$ over $\mathbb{F}$.
For $0\leq k \leq e$, let $\tau_{2k}$ be the tame inertial type over $E$ with compatible lowest alcove presentation such that $\tld{w}(\tau) = \tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp}) t_{w^{-1}(k\alpha-e\eta_0)}$.
For $0\leq k\leq e-1$, let $\tau_{2k+1}$ be the tame inertial type over $E$ with compatible lowest alcove presentation such that $\tld{w}(\tau) = \tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp}) \tld{w}^{-1} t_{k\alpha-e\eta_0}s_\alpha\tld{w}$.
For $0\leq k \leq e-1$, let $\sigma_{2k}$ be
\[
F_{(\tld{w},\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp})\tld{w}^{-1}(k\alpha-(e-1)\eta_0))},
\]
and let $\sigma_{2k+1}$ be
\[
F_{(\tld{s_\alpha w},\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp})\tld{s_\alpha w}^{-1}((e-k-1)\alpha-(e-1)\eta_0))}.
\]
Then for $0\leq m \leq 2e$, $W^?({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp},\tau_m) = \{\sigma_{m-1},\sigma_m\}$ (where $\sigma_\ell$ should be omitted for $\ell = -1$ or $2e$).
Moreover, $\sigma_{m-1}$ and $\sigma_m$ appear as Jordan--H\"older factors of $\ovl{\sigma}(\tau_m)$ with multiplicity one.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
This follows from Propositions \ref{prop:listshapes} and \ref{prop:indint} using (\ref{eqn:factor1}) and (\ref{eqn:factor2}) noting that $\tau_m$ is $2h_{\eta_0}$-generic for all $m$.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{The case of $\mathrm{GL}_2$: a comparison with Schein's recipe}
\label{subsub:schein}
\cite{schein} explicitly describes a set of Serre weights for a semisimple ${\overline{\rho}}: G_K\rightarrow \mathrm{GL}_2(\mathbb{F})$ with $K$ possibly ramified over $\mathbb{Q}_p$ in terms of a ``reflection operation'' $\mathcal{R}^\delta$ similar to $\mathcal{R}$ above.
We compare this description in generic cases with the set $W^?({\overline{\rho}})$ defined in \S \ref{sec:SWC}.
Assume $e\leq p-1$ and let ${\overline{\rho}}: G_K\rightarrow \mathrm{GL}_2(\mathbb{F})$ be semisimple.
In \cite[Conjecture 1]{schein}, a set of Serre weights is associated to ${\overline{\rho}}$, in terms of a reflection operation denoted as $\mathcal{R}^\delta_{\mathfrak{p}}$ in \emph{loc.~cit}.
The superscript $\delta$ is an element in $\{0,\dots,e-1\}^\mathcal{J}$ and leads to the notion of $\delta$-regular weight:
\begin{defn}[\cite{schein}]
A Serre weight $F(\lambda)$ is \emph{$\delta$-regular} if $p-1-\langle\lambda,\alpha_j^\vee\rangle\in \{1,\dots,p\}+(2\delta_j-e+1)$ for all $j\in \mathcal{J}$.
(Note that this definition does not depend of the lift of $\lambda\in X_1(\un{T})/(p-\pi)X_0(\un{T})$.)
\end{defn}
A direct computation shows that if $\lambda\in \un{C}_0$ is $(e-1)$-deep then $\lambda$ is $\delta$-regular for any $\delta\in\{0,\dots,e-1\}^{\mathcal{J}}$, and moreover $\lambda+\nu\in\un{C}_0$ for any weight $\nu$ appearing in $\big(W((1-e)w_0(\eta_0))_{/\mathbb{F}}\big)|_{\un{T}}$.
Let now $\lambda\in\un{C}_0$ be $(e-1)$-deep.
A direct computation using the definition of $\mathcal{R}^\delta_{\mathfrak{p}}$ for $\delta$-regular weights yields:
\[
\mathcal{R}^\delta_{\mathfrak{p}}(F(\lambda))=F\big(\tld{w}_h\cdot (\lambda-(e-1)\eta_0+\sum_{j\in \mathcal{J}}\delta_j\alpha_j)\big)
\]
and hence
\[
\bigcup_{\delta\in \{0,\dots,e-1\}^{\mathcal{J}}}\mathcal{R}^\delta_{\mathfrak{p}}(F(\lambda))=\mathcal{R}\big(\mathrm{JH}(F(\lambda)\otimes W((1-e)w_0\eta_0))\big)
\]
by the translation principle (cf.~ \cite[Proposition 3.3]{LMS}).
From \cite[Proposition 2.15]{DL} (or Proposition \ref{prop:JH} above when $e\geq2$), noting that for an $e$-generic Deligne--Lusztig representation $R$ all the Serre weights $F\in \mathrm{JH}(R)$ are $e-1$-deep, we deduce
\begin{prop}
Let ${\overline{\rho}}:G_K\rightarrow \mathrm{GL}_2(\mathbb{F})$ be semisimple and $e$-generic.
Then the set of weights $W^?_{\mathfrak{p}}({\overline{\rho}})$ defined in \cite[Conjecture 1(1)]{schein} coincides with the set $W^?({\overline{\rho}})$ of Definition \ref{defn:SWC:ram} above.
\end{prop}
\clearpage{}%
\clearpage{}%
\section{Breuil--Kisin modules}
\label{sec:BKM}
\subsection{Moduli of Breuil--Kisin modules and local models}
In this section, we introduce background on Breuil--Kisin modules with tame descent. We closely follow \cite[\S 5]{MLM} making the necessary modifications to allow $K/\mathbb{Q}_p$ to be ramified. We will generally admit proofs as the generalizations are straightforward. Throughout this section, we take $G=\mathrm{GL}_n$.
Let $K/\mathbb{Q}_p$ be finite.
We let $K_0$ be the maximal unramified subextension of $K$, with $f \stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} [K_0:\mathbb{Q}_p]$ and $e \stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} [K:K_0]$.
Let $k$ denote the residue field of $K$, of cardinality $p^f$ and which coincide with the residue field of $K_0$.
Let $W(k)$ be ring of Witt vectors of $k$, which is also the ring of integers of $K_0$.
We denote the arithmetic Frobenius automorphism on $W(k)$ by $\varphi$, which acts as raising to $p$-th power on the residue field.
We fix a uniformizer $\pi_K\in \ovl{K}$ of $K$.
Let $E(v) \in W(k)[v]$ be the minimal polynomial for $\pi_K$ over $K_0$, of degree $e$.
Let $\mathcal{J}_K = \mathrm{Hom}(K, E)$ and $\mathcal{J} = \mathrm{Hom}(k, \mathbb{F}) = \mathrm{Hom}(K_0, E)$.
Recall that we have fixed an embedding $\sigma_0:K_0\hookrightarrow E$, hence an identification $\mathcal{J}\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow} \mathbb{Z}/f\mathbb{Z}$ given by $\sigma_j\stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} \sigma_0\circ\varphi^{-j}\mapsto j$.
Let $\tau$ be a tame inertial type having a $1$-generic lowest alcove presentation $(s,\mu)\in W^\mathcal{J}\times X^*(T)^\mathcal{J}$, which we now fix throughout this section.
Recall from \cite[Example 2.4.1]{MLM} that we have a combinatorial data attached to $(s,\mu)$, in particular the element $s_\tau\in W$ (when $K=\mathbb{Q}_p$, this is the \emph{niveau} of $\tau$).
Let $r$ be the order of $s_\tau$.
We write $K'$ for the subfield of $\ovl{K}$ which is unramified of degree $r$ over $K$, $k'$ for its residue field, and $K'_0$ denote maximal unramified subextension of $K'$. Set $\mathcal{J}_{K'} = \mathrm{Hom}(K', E)$, $\mathcal{J}'\stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} \mathrm{Hom}(k', \mathbb{F})$.
Let $f'\stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} fr$, $e' \stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} p^{f'}-1$ and fix an embedding $\sigma'_0:K'_0 \hookrightarrow E$ which extends $\sigma_0:K_0 \hookrightarrow E$, so that the identification $\mathcal{J}'\cong \mathbb{Z}/f' \mathbb{Z}$ given by $\sigma_{j'} \stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} \sigma'_0\circ \varphi^{-j'} \mapsto j'$ induces the natural surjection $\mathbb{Z}/f' \mathbb{Z} \twoheadrightarrow \mathbb{Z}/f \mathbb{Z}$ when considering the restriction of embedding from $K_0'$ to $K_0$.
We fix an $e'$-root $\pi_{K'}\in \ovl{K}$ of $\pi_K$ and set $L' \stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} K'(\pi_{K'})$.
Let $\Delta' \stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} \mathrm{Gal}(L'/K') \subset \Delta \stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} \mathrm{Gal}(L'/K)$.
We set $\omega_{K'}(g) \stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} \frac{g(\pi_{K'})}{\pi_{K'}}$ for $g \in \Delta'$; then $\omega_{K'}$ does not depend on the choice of $\pi'$.
Composing with $\sigma'_j\in \mathcal{J}'$, we get a corresponding character $\omega_{K', \sigma'_j} :\Delta'\rightarrow\mathcal{O}^\times$ which will also be seen as a character of $I_{K'}=I_K$.
For $j'=0$ we set $\omega_{f'}\stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} \omega_{K', \sigma'_j}$.
Let $R$ be an $\mathcal{O}$-algebra. Let $\mathfrak{S}_{L'} \stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} W(k')[\![u']\!]$ and $\mathfrak{S}_{L', R} \stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} (W(k') \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}_p} R)[\![u']\!]$.
As usual, $\varphi:\mathfrak{S}_{L', R} \rightarrow \mathfrak{S}_{L', R}$ acts as Frobenius on $W(k')$, trivially on $R$, and sends $u'$ to $(u')^{p}$. Note that for any $\mathfrak{S}_{L', R}$-module $\mathfrak{M}$, we have the standard $R[\![u']\!]$-linear decomposition $\mathfrak{M}\cong\bigoplus_{j' \in \mathcal{J}'}\mathfrak{M}^{(j')}$, induced by the maps $W(k')\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}_p}R\rightarrow R$ defined by $x\otimes r\mapsto \sigma_{j'}(x)r$ for $j' \in \mathcal{J}'$.
We endow $\mathfrak{S}_{L', R}$ with an action of $\Delta$ as follows: for any $g$ in $\Delta'$, $g(u') = \omega_{K'}(g) u'$ and $g$ acts trivially on the coefficients; if $\sigma^f \in\mathrm{Gal}(L'/K)$ is the lift of the $p^f$-Frobenius on $W(k')$ which fixes $\pi_{K'}$, then $\sigma^f$ is a generator for $\mathrm{Gal}(K'/K)$, acting in natural way on $W(k')$ and trivially on both $u'$ and $R$.
Set $v = (u')^{e'}$, and define
$
\mathfrak{S}_R \stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} (\mathfrak{S}_{L', R})^{\Delta = 1} = (W(k) \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}_p} R)[\![v]\!].
$
Note that $E(v) = E((u')^{e'})$ is the minimal polynomial for $\pi_{K'}$ over $K_0$.
We will make use of the following group schemes over $\mathcal{O}$.
For $j\in\mathcal{J}$ and for any $\mathcal{O}$-algebra $R$, define
\begin{align*}
L \mathcal{G}^{(j)}(R)&\stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} \{A \in \mathrm{GL}_n(R[v]^{\wedge_{E_j}}[\frac{1}{E_j}])\};\\
L^+ \mathcal{G}^{(j)}(R) &\stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} \{ A \in \mathrm{GL}_n(R[v]^{\wedge_{E_j}}), \text{ is upper triangular modulo $v$} \}
\end{align*}
where $E_j=\sigma_j(E(v))\in \mathcal{O}[v]$, and $\wedge_{E_j}$ stands for the $E_j$-adic completion. In particular if $R$ is $p$-adically complete, this is the same as the $v$-adic completion of $R[v]$.
\subsubsection{Breuil--Kisin modules with tame descent}
Let $R$ be a $p$-adically complete Noetherian $\mathcal{O}$-algebra.
For any positive integer $h$, let $Y^{[0, h], \tau}(R)$ denote the groupoid of Breuil--Kisin module of rank $n$ over $\mathfrak{S}_{L', R}$, height in $[0,h]$ and descent data of type $\tau$ (cf.~\cite[\S 3]{CL}, \cite[Definitions 5.1.1 and 5.1.3]{MLM}):
\begin{defn}
\label{defn:KM}
An object of $Y^{[0, h], \tau}(R)$ consists of
\begin{itemize}
\item a finitely generated projective $\mathfrak{S}_{L', R}$-module $\mathfrak{M}$ which is locally free of rank $n$;
\item an injective $\mathfrak{S}_{L', R}$-linear map $\phi_\mathfrak{M}:\varphi^*(\mathfrak{M})\rightarrow\mathfrak{M}$ whose cokernel is killed by $E(v)^h$;
\item a semilinear action of $\Delta$ on $\mathfrak{M}$ which commutes with $\phi_{\mathfrak{M}}$, and such that Zariski locally on $R$, for each $j' \in \mathcal{J}'$,
\[
\mathfrak{M}^{(j')} \mod u' \cong \tau^{\vee} \otimes_{\mathcal{O}} R
\]
as $\Delta'$-representations.
\end{itemize}
Morphisms are $\mathfrak{S}_{L', R}$-linear maps respecting all the above structures.
\end{defn}
We will often omit the additional data and just write $\mathfrak{M} \in Y^{[0, h], \tau}(R)$ in what follows.
It is known that $ Y^{[0, h], \tau}$ is a $p$-adic formal algebraic stack over $\mathrm{Spf} \, \mathcal{O}$ (see, for example, \cite[Theorem 4.7]{CL}).
Recall that an eigenbasis of $\mathfrak{M} \in Y^{[0,h], \tau}(R)$ is a collection of bases $\beta^{(j')}$ for each $\mathfrak{M}^{(j')}$ for $j' \in \mathcal{J}'$ compatible with the descent datum (see \cite[Definition 5.1.6]{MLM} for details).
Given the lowest alcove presentation $(s, \mu)$ of $\tau$, and element $\mathfrak{M} \in Y^{[0, h], \tau}(R)$ and an eigenbasis $\beta$ of $\mathfrak{M}$, equation (5.4) in \cite{MLM} defines the matrix $A^{(j')}_{\mathfrak{M},\beta} \in \Mat_n(\mathfrak{S}_R)$ for each $j' \in \mathcal{J}'$.
We refer the reader to \emph{loc. cit.} for details rather than recall the excessive notation needed to make a precise definition. We will recall the properties we need as we go along.
First, the matrix $A^{(j')}_{\mathfrak{M}, \beta}$ only depends on $j' \mod f$. Abusing notation, we occasionally write $A^{(j)}_{\mathfrak{M}, \beta}$ for $j \in \mathcal{J}$ with the obvious meaning. Because $\tau$ is $1$-generic, the height condition is equivalent to $A^{(j)}_{\mathfrak{M},\beta}$ and $(E_j)^h (A^{(j)}_{\mathfrak{M}, \beta})^{-1}$ both lying in $\Mat_n(R[\![v]\!])$ and being upper triangular modulo $v$, for all $j \in \mathcal{J}$.
\begin{defn} \label{defn:smuconj} \begin{enumerate}
\item For integers $a \leq b$, define
\[
L^{[a,b]}\mathcal{G}^{(j)}(R) := \{ A \in L\mathcal{G}^{(j)}(R) \mid E_j^{-a} A, E_j^b A^{-1} \in \Mat_n(R[\![v]\!]) \text{ and upper triangular mod } v\}.
\]
\item Given a pair $(s,\mu)\in W^\mathcal{J}\times X^*(T)^\mathcal{J}$, we define the $(s,\mu)$-twisted $\varphi$-conjugation action of $\prod_{j \in \mathcal{J}} L^+\mathcal{G}^{(j)}(R) $ on $\prod_{j \in \mathcal{J}} L^{[a,b]}\mathcal{G}^{(j)}(R)$ by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:twisted:cnj}
(I^{(j)}) \cdot (A^{(j)}) =I^{(j)}A^{(j)}\big(\Ad(s^{-1}_jv^{\mu_j+\eta_{0,j}})\big(\varphi(I^{(j-1)})^{-1}\big)\big).
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\end{defn}
\begin{rmk}
\begin{enumerate}
\item
\label{rmk:cng:basis}
The change of basis formula in \cite[Proposition 5.1.8]{MLM} can be summarized as follows.
For the fixed lowest alcove presentation $(s, \mu)\in W^\mathcal{J}\times X^*(T)^\mathcal{J}$ of $\tau$,
the set of eigenbases of $\mathfrak{M}$ is a torsor for $\prod_{j \in \mathcal{J}} L^+\mathcal{G}^{(j)}(R)$,
and given two eigenbases $\beta$ and $\beta'$ differing by $(I^{(j)})_{j\in\mathcal{J}} \in \prod_{j \in \mathcal{J}} L^+\mathcal{G}^{(j)}(R)$, the collections $(A^{(j)}_{\mathfrak{M}, \beta})$ and $(A^{(j)}_{\mathfrak{M}, \beta'})$ differ by $(s, \mu)$-twisted $\varphi$-conjugation by $(I^{(j)})_{j\in\mathcal{J}}$.
\item
Since eigenbases exist locally, we have the presentation
\[
Y^{[0,h],\tau}_{\mathbb{F}}\cong \left[\prod_{j \in \mathcal{J}} L^{[0,h]}\mathcal{G}^{(j)}/_{(s,\mu),\varphi}\prod_{j \in \mathcal{J}}L^+\mathcal{G}^{(j)}\right]
\]
where the quotient is with respect to the twisted $\varphi$-conjugation \eqref{eq:twisted:cnj}.
\item
Let $\tld{w}^*(\tau) = s^{-1} t_{\mu + \eta}$. A key observation which we use frequently is that $(s,\mu)$-twisted conjugation $\prod_{j \in \mathcal{J}} L^{[a,b]}\mathcal{G}^{(j)}$ is the same as usual $\varphi$-conjugation on the right translation $\prod_{j \in \mathcal{J}} L^{[a,b]}\mathcal{G}^{(j)} \tld{w}^*(\tau)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{rmk}
We now recall some useful results mod $p$.
We write $\mathcal{I}\stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} L^+\mathcal{G}^{(j)}_{\mathbb{F}}$, which is the usual Iwahori group scheme over Noetherian $\mathbb{F}$-algebras, in particular it is independent of the choice $j\in\mathcal{J}$. We also write $\mathcal{I}_1 \subset \mathcal{I}$ for pro-$v$ Iwahori consisting of upper unipotent matrices mod $p$. Note that $E_j \equiv v^{e} \mod p$.
\begin{lemma}[Lemma 5.2.2 \cite{MLM}] \label{lem:Istraight} %
\label{lem:iotawelldef}Let $R$ be an $\mathbb{F}$-algebra and $(A^{(j)}_1)_{j \in \mathcal{J}}, (A^{(j)}_2)_{j \in \mathcal{J}} \in L^{[a,b]}\mathcal{G}^{(j)}(R)$. Let $\tld{z} =s^{-1}t_{\mu+\eta}\in \tld{W}^{\vee,\mathcal{J}}$ where $\mu$ is $(e(b-a)+1)$-deep in $\un{C}_0$ and $s \in W^\mathcal{J}$. Then, there is a bijection between the following:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
\label{lem:eq:mat:1}
Tuples $(I^{(j)})_{j \in \mathcal{J}} \in \mathcal{I}_1(R)^{\mathcal{J}}$ such $A^{(j)}_2 \tld{z}_j = I^{(j)} A^{(j)}_1 \tld{z}_j \varphi(I^{(j-1)})^{-1}$ for all $j \in \mathcal{J}$;
\item
\label{lem:eq:mat:2}
Tuples $(X_j)_{j \in \mathcal{J}} \in \mathcal{I}_1(R)^{\mathcal{J}}$ such that
$A^{(j)}_2=X_jA^{(j)}_1$ for all $j \in \mathcal{J}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{rmk} \label{rmk:quotient} As in \cite[Corollary 5.2.3]{MLM}, Lemma \ref{lem:Istraight} gives a presentation of $Y^{[a,b], \tau}_{\mathbb{F}}$ as quotient of $\prod_{j \in \mathcal{J}} \mathcal{I}_1 \backslash L^{[a,b]}\mathcal{G}^{(j)}_{\mathbb{F}}$ by $(s, \mu)$-twisted conjugation by the torus $T^{\vee, \mathcal{J}}_{\mathbb{F}}$ when $\mu$ is $(e(a-b) +1)$-deep.
\end{rmk}
\begin{defn}
\label{defn:shape} Let $\mathbb{F}'/\mathbb{F}$ be finite extension. The \emph{shape} of a Breuil--Kisin module $\mathfrak{M} \in Y^{[0,h], \tau}(\mathbb{F}')$ with respect to $\tau$ is the element $\tld{z} = (\widetilde{z}_j)_{j \in \mathcal{J}} \in \widetilde{W}^{\vee, \mathcal{J}}$ such that for any eigenbasis $\beta$ and any $j\in\mathcal{J}$, the matrix $A^{(j)}_{\mathfrak{M},\beta}$ lies in $\Iw(\mathbb{F}') \widetilde{z}_j \Iw(\mathbb{F}')$.
\end{defn}
\begin{prop} \label{prop:closurerelations}
For each $\tld{z} \in \widetilde{W}^{\vee, \mathcal{J}}$ such that $\tld{z}_j \in L^{[0,h]}\mathcal{G}^{(j)}(\mathbb{F})$ for $j \in \mathcal{J}$, there is a locally closed substack $Y^{[0,h], \tau}_{\mathbb{F}, \tld{z}} \stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} [ \prod_{j \in \mathcal{J}}\mathcal{I}\tld{z}_j \mathcal{I} /_{(s,\mu), \varphi} \prod_{j \in \mathcal{J}}\mathcal{I}] \subset Y^{[0,h], \tau}_{\mathbb{F}}$ whose $\mathbb{F}'$-points are the Breuil--Kisin modules of shape $\tld{z}$. %
%
%
%
%
The closure of $Y^{[0,h], \tau}_{\mathbb{F}, \tld{z}}$ is contained in the union of the strata $Y^{[0,h], \tau}_{\mathbb{F}, \tld{z}'}$ such that $\tld{z}' \leq \tld{z}$ in the Bruhat order.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
This follows from
\[
\xymatrix{
Y^{[0,h],\tau}_{\mathbb{F}}\ar[rd] & & \prod_{j \in \mathcal{J}} L^{[0,h]}\mathcal{G}^{(j)}_{\mathbb{F}} / \mathcal{I} \ar[ld] \\
& \prod_{j \in \mathcal{J}} [ \mathcal{I} \backslash L^{[0,h]}\mathcal{G}^{(j)}_{\mathbb{F}} / \mathcal{I}] &
}
\]
where the right arrow is an $\mathcal{I}^{\mathcal{J}}$-torsor (cf.~\cite[Proposition 5.4]{CL}).
\end{proof}
We define the cocharacter $\eta\stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=}((n-1,\dots,1,0),\cdots,(n-1,\dots,1,0))\in X_*(T^{\vee})^{\mathrm{Hom}(K, E)}$.
There is closed $p$-adic formal algebraic stack $Y^{\leq \eta, \tau} \subset Y^{[0,n-1], \tau}$ defined in \cite[Theorem 5.3]{CL} \cite[\S 5.3]{MLM}.
We recall the following result, deduced either from \cite[Theorems 2.15 and 5.3]{CL} by reducing to principal series case or, when $\tau$ is $n$-generic and $K/\mathbb{Q}_p$ is unramified, from \cite[Corollary 5.2.3 and Proposition 5.4.7]{MLM}.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:CL:specialfiber}
The special fiber of $Y^{\leq \eta, \tau}_{\mathbb{F}}$ satisfies
\[
Y^{\leq \eta, \tau}_{\mathbb{F}, \mathrm{red}} \subset \bigcup_{\tld{z} \in \mathrm{Adm}^{\vee}(e \eta_0)} Y^{\leq \eta, \tau}_{\mathbb{F}, \tld{z}}.
\]
\end{prop}
\begin{rmk} In fact, the special fiber of $Y^{\leq \eta, \tau}$ is reduced and the inclusion in Proposition \ref{prop:CL:specialfiber} is an equality. This is shown in the principal series case in \cite{CL}. The general case is best handled via the ramified generalization of \cite{MLM} which we will return to in the future.
(See also Remark \ref{rmk:twisted:LM} and the discussion preceding it.)
\end{rmk}
\subsubsection{\'Etale $\varphi$-modules}
Let $\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{E},K}$ (resp.~$\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{E},L'}$) be the $p$-adic completion of $(W(k)[\![v]\!])[1/v]$ (resp.~of $(W(k')[\![u']\!])[1/u']$).
It is endowed with a continuous Frobenius morphism $\varphi$ extending the Frobenius on $W(k)$ (resp.~on $W(k')$) and such that $\varphi(v)=v^p$ (resp.~$\varphi(u')=(u')^p$).
Let $R$ be a $p$-adically complete Noetherian $\mathcal{O}$-algebra.
We then have the groupoid
%
$\Phi\text{-}\Mod^{\text{\'et}, n}_K(R)$ (resp.~ $\Phi\text{-}\Mod^{\text{\'et}, n}_{dd,L'}(R)$) of \'etale $(\varphi,\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{E},K}\widehat{\otimes}_{\mathbb{Z}_p}R)$-modules (resp.~\'etale $(\varphi,\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{E},L'}\widehat{\otimes}_{\mathbb{Z}_p}R)$-modules with descent data from $L'$ to $K$).
Its objects are rank $n$ projective modules $\mathcal{M}$ over $\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{E},K}\widehat{\otimes}_{\mathbb{Z}_p}R$ (resp.~$\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{E},L'}\widehat{\otimes}_{\mathbb{Z}_p}R)$), endowed with a Frobenius semilinear endomorphism $\phi_{\mathcal{M}}:\mathcal{M}\rightarrow\mathcal{M}$ (resp.~a Frobenius semilinear endomorphism $\phi_{\mathcal{M}}:\mathcal{M}\rightarrow\mathcal{M}$ commuting with the descent data) inducing an isomorphism on the pull-back: $\mathrm{id}\otimes_{\varphi}\phi_{\mathcal{M}}:\varphi^*(\mathcal{M})\stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow}\mathcal{M}$. It is known that $\Phi\text{-}\Mod^{\text{\'et}, n}_K(R)$ and $\Phi\text{-}\Mod^{\text{\'et}, n}_{dd,L'}(R)$
form fppf stacks over $\mathrm{Spf}\,\mathcal{O}$
(see \cite[\S 3.1]{EGstack}, \cite[\S 5.2]{EGschemetheoretic}, \cite[\S 3.1]{CEGS} where they are denoted $\mathcal{R}_{n}, \mathcal{R}^{dd}_{n, L'}$ respectively).
We use $\Phi\text{-}\Mod^{\text{\'et}}_K(R)$ (resp.~$\Phi\text{-}\Mod^{\text{\'et}}_{dd,L'}(R)$) to denote the category of \'etale $(\varphi,\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{E},K}\widehat{\otimes}_{\mathbb{Z}_p}R)$-modules (resp.~$\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{E},L'}\widehat{\otimes}_{\mathbb{Z}_p}R)$-modules with descent from $L'$ to $K$) of arbitrary finite rank.
Given $\mathfrak{M}\in Y^{[0,h],\tau}(R)$, $\mathfrak{M} \otimes_{\mathfrak{S}_{L',R}} (\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{E},L'}\widehat{\otimes}_{\mathbb{Z}_p}R)$
is naturally an object $\Phi\text{-}\Mod^{\text{\'et},n}_{dd,L'}(R)$, and we define an \'etale $\varphi$-module $\mathcal{M} \in \Phi\text{-}\Mod^{\text{\'et},n}_{K}(R)$ by
\[
\mathcal{M} \stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} (\mathfrak{M} \otimes_{\mathfrak{S}_{L',R}} (\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{E},L'}\widehat{\otimes}_{\mathbb{Z}_p}R))^{\Delta=1}
\]
with the induced Frobenius.
This construction defines a morphism of stacks $\varepsilon_\tau: Y^{[0,h],\tau}\rightarrow\Phi\text{-}\Mod^{\text{\'et},n}_{K}$ which is representable by algebraic spaces, proper, and of finite presentation (see \cite[Proposition 5.4.1]{MLM}, which carries through in our ramified setting).
Note that $\varepsilon_\tau$ is independent of any presentation of $\tau$.
For any $(\mathcal{M},\phi_\mathcal{M})\in \Phi\text{-}\Mod^{\text{\'et}}_{K}(R)$, we decompose $\mathcal{M}=\oplus_{j \in \mathcal{J}} \mathcal{M}^{(j)}$ over the embeddings $\sigma_j: W(k)\rightarrow\mathcal{O}$, with induced maps $\phi_\mathcal{M}^{(j)}:\mathcal{M}^{(j-1)}\rightarrow\mathcal{M}^{(j)}$.
We can define the map $\varepsilon_{\tau}$ explicitly in some cases:
\begin{prop}$($\cite[Proposition 5.4.2]{MLM}$)$
\label{prop:expeps}
Let $\mathfrak{M} \in Y^{[0, h], \tau}(R)$ and set $\mathcal{M} = \varepsilon_{\tau}(\mathfrak{M})$.
Let $(s, \mu)$ be the fixed lowest alcove presentation of $\tau$.
If $\beta$ is an eigenbasis of $\mathfrak{M}$, then there exists a basis $\mathfrak{f}$ \emph{(}determined by $\beta$\emph{)} for $\mathcal{M}$ such that the matrix of $\phi_{\mathcal{M}}^{(j)}$ with respect to $\mathfrak{f}$ is given by
\[
A^{(j)}_{\mathfrak{M}, \beta} s^{-1}_j v^{\mu_j + \eta_{0,j}} = A^{(j)}_{\mathfrak{M}, \beta} \tld{w}^*(\tau)_j .
\]
\end{prop}
Finally, we recall that in generic situations the map $\varepsilon_{\tau}$ does not lose information:
\begin{prop} $($\cite[Proposition 5.4.3]{MLM}$)$ \label{prop:BK_to_phi_mono} Assume $\tau$ is $(eh+1)$-generic. Then the map $\varepsilon_\tau: Y^{[0,h],\tau}\to \Phi\text{-}\Mod^{\text{\emph{\'et}},n}_{K}$ is a closed immersion.
\end{prop}
We briefly recall the relations between Breuil--Kisin modules and Galois representations.
Recall from \ref{sec:not:GT} the extension $K_{\infty}/K$, and let $G_{K_{\infty}} \subset G_K$ denote the absolute Galois group of $K_{\infty}$.
We have an anti-equivalence of categories established by the exact functor %
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{V}^*_K:\Phi\text{-}\Mod^{\text{\'et},n}_{K}(R)&\rightarrow\mathrm{Rep}^n_R(G_{K_\infty})
\end{align*}
defined through the theory of fields of norms (cf.~\cite[\S 2.3 and \S 6.1]{LLLM} for details) and therefore a functor $T^*_{dd}: Y^{[0,h],\tau}(R)\rightarrow \mathrm{Rep}^n_R(G_{K_\infty})$ defined as the composite of $\varepsilon_{\tau}$ followed by $\mathbb{V}^*_K$.
We finally recall from \cite[\S 5.5]{MLM} the notion of \emph{shape} of an $n$-dimensional $\mathbb{F}$-representation of $G_K$ (or $G_{K_{\infty}}$) with respect to $\tau$.
\begin{defn} \label{defn:shaperhobar} Assume that $\tau$ is $(e(n-1)+1)$-generic. %
Let ${\overline{\rho}}$ be an $n$-dimensional $\mathbb{F}$-representation of $G_K$ or $G_{K_{\infty}}$.
If there exists $\ovl{\mathfrak{M}} \in Y_\mathbb{F}^{\leq\eta, \tau}(\mathbb{F})
$ such that $T^*_{dd}(\overline{\mathfrak{M}}) \cong {\overline{\rho}}|_{G_{K_{\infty}}}$ then we say that ${\overline{\rho}}$ is \emph{$\tau$-admissible}, and we define $\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}, \tau)\in \mathrm{Adm}(e \eta_0)$ to be the shape of $\overline{\mathfrak{M}}$ with respect to $\tau$ (Definition \ref{defn:shape}).
This is well-defined by Proposition \ref{prop:BK_to_phi_mono}.
\end{defn}
\begin{prop} $($\cite[Proposition 5.5.7]{MLM}$)$ \label{prop:sskisin}
Assume that the fixed lowest alcove presentation $(s,\mu)$ of $\tau$ is $(e(n-1)+1)$-generic.
Let ${\overline{\rho}}$ be a semisimple representation of $G_{K}$ over $\mathbb{F}$.
Then ${\overline{\rho}}$ is $\tau$-admissible if and only if ${\overline{\rho}}|_{I_K}$ admits a lowest alcove presentation $(w, \nu)$ compatible with the lowest alcove presentation of $\tau$ such that $s^{-1} t_{\nu - \mu} w \in \mathrm{Adm}(e\eta_0)$.
Furthermore, if ${\overline{\rho}}$ is $\tau$-admissible then $\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}, \tau) = s^{-1} t_{\nu - \mu} w $.
\end{prop}
\begin{prop} \label{prop:modpform} Assume that the fixed lowest alcove presentation $(s,\mu)$ of $\tau$ is $(eh+1)$-generic. Let $\mathfrak{M} \in Y^{[0,h], \tau}(\mathbb{F})$ with shape $\tld{z} \in \tld{W}^{\mathcal{J}}$.
Then, there exists an eigenbasis $\beta$ for $\mathfrak{M}$, unique up to scaling by $T(\mathbb{F})^{\mathcal{J}}$, such that
\[
A^{(j)}_{\mathfrak{M}, \beta} \in T(\mathbb{F}) \tld{z}_j N_{\tld{z}_j} (\mathbb{F})
\]
where $N_{\tld{z}_j}$ is unipotent subgroup scheme of $\mathcal{I}$ defined in \cite[Definition 4.2.9]{MLM}.
\end{prop}%
\begin{proof}
This follows from \cite[Proposition 4.2.13 and Corollary 5.2.3]{MLM}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Mod $p$ monodromy}
\label{sec:Modp:mon}
Let $\Fl := \mathcal{I} \backslash L\mathcal{G}_{\mathbb{F}}$ denote the affine flag variety over $\mathbb{F}$ where $L \mathcal{G}_{\mathbb{F}} = L \mathcal{G}^{(j)}_{\mathbb{F}}$ for any $j$ denotes the usual loop group.
Given $\tld{w}\in \tld{W}^\vee$, we write $S^\circ_\mathbb{F}(\tld{w})$ for the affine open Schubert cell associated to $\tld{w}$.
Let $\bf{a} \in (\mathcal{O}^n)^{\mathcal{J}}$.
Define a closed subfunctor of $L G$ by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:nablaa}
LG^{\nabla_{\bf{a}}}(R)\stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} \left\{ (A^{(j)})\in L G(R) \mid v \frac{dA^{(j)}}{dv} (A^{(j)})^{-1} + A^{(j)} \mathrm{Diag}(\bf{a}_j) (A^{(j)})^{-1} \in \frac{1}{v^e} \Lie \Iw (R) \text{ for all } j \in \mathcal{J} \right\}.
\end{equation}
This condition defines a closed sub-ind-scheme $\Fl^{\nabla_{\bf{a}}}_{\mathcal{J}} \subset \Fl^{\mathcal{J}}$.
For any subset $S \subset LG(R)$,
we set $S^{\nabla_{\bf{a}}} := S \cap LG^{\nabla_{\bf{a}}}(R)$; similarly for any subscheme $X \subset \Fl^{\mathcal{J}}$, set $X^{\nabla_{\bf{a}}} \stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} X \cap \Fl^{\nabla_{\bf{a}}}_{\mathcal{J}}$.
Following \cite[Definition 4.2.2]{MLM}, given an integer $m\geq 0$, we say that an element $(a_1,\dots,a_n)\in R^n$ is \emph{$m$-generic} if $a_i-a_k\notin\{-m,-m+1,\dots,m-1,m\}$ for all $i\neq k$ (where $-m,-m+1,\dots,m-1,m$ are considered as elements of $R$ via the canonical embedding $\F_p\hookrightarrow \mathbb{F}$ and the structural morphism $\mathbb{F}\hookrightarrow R$.)
\begin{prop} \label{prop:monodromySchubert} Let $h$ be a positive integer. Let $\tld{w} \in \tld{W}^{\mathcal{J}}$ and $\bf{a}=(\bf{a}_j)_{j\in \mathcal{J}} \in (\mathcal{O}^n)^{\mathcal{J}}$. Assume that $\tld{w}$ is $e$-regular and $h$-small $($see Definitions \ref{defn:regular} and \ref{defn:var:gen}$($\ref{defn:small}$))$ and that $\bf{a}_j \mod \varpi \in \mathbb{F}^n$ is $h$-generic for all $j \in \mathcal{J}$. Then the intersection $S^\circ_{\mathbb{F}}(\tld{w}^*) \cap \Fl^{\nabla_{\bf{a}}}$ is an affine space of dimension $[K:\mathbb{Q}_p] \dim (B \backslash \mathrm{GL}_n)_{\mathbb{F}}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
This is a direct generalization of \cite[Theorem 4.2.4]{MLM} to the ramified setting. We only briefly outline the proof. It suffices to consider the case when $\# \mathcal{J} = 1$. By \cite[Proposition 4.2.13]{MLM}, there is an isomorphism $\tld{w}^* N_{\tld{w}^*} \cong S^\circ(\tld{w}^*)$ where $N_{\tld{w}^*}$ is a unipotent subgroup scheme of $\Iw$ isomorphic to an affine space of dimension $\ell(\tld{w})$.
As $\tld{w}$ is $e$-regular, for each $\alpha$ in the support of $N_{\tld{w}^*}$, we have $N_{\tld{w}^*, \alpha} = v^{\delta_{\alpha < 0}} f_{\alpha}$ where $f_{\alpha}$ is a polynomial of degree at least $e -1$ (cf.~\cite[Corollary 4.2.5]{MLM}, and note that, more precisely, the degree is $\lfloor \langle \tld{w}(x),-\alpha^\vee\rangle\rfloor-\delta_{\alpha<0}$, which is at least $e -1$ by the $e$-regularity condition).
Condition (\ref{eq:nablaa}) does not impose any constraint on the coefficients of degree $\deg(f_\alpha),\deg(f_\alpha)-1,\dots,\deg(f_\alpha)-(e-1)$ of $f_\alpha$, while the coefficients of degree strictly smaller than $\deg(f_\alpha)-(e-1)$ are solved in terms of the coefficients of the polynomials $f_{\alpha'}$ with $\alpha'\!<_{\mathcal{C}}\!\alpha$ for a partial order $<_{\mathcal{C}}$ on $\Phi$ determined by $\tld{w}$ (cf.~equation (4.6) in \emph{loc.~cit.}~).
Hence, $(\tld{w}^* N_{\tld{w}^*})^{\nabla_{\bf{a}}}$ is an affine space of dimension $e \dim (B \backslash \mathrm{GL}_n)_{\mathbb{F}}$.
\end{proof}
Let $\tld{z} = s^{-1} t_{\mu} \in \tld{W}^{\vee, \mathcal{J}}$ acting by right translation on $\Fl^{\mathcal{J}}$.
Let $\bf{a} \in (\mathbb{Z}^n)^{\mathcal{J}}$ and assume that $\bf{a}_j \equiv s^{-1}_j(\mu_j)$ mod $p$ for all $j \in \mathcal{J}$.
An easy calculation shows that:
\begin{equation*} \label{eq:translation}
LG \tld{z} \cap LG^{\nabla_0} = LG^{\nabla_{\bf{a}}} \tld{z}, \quad \Fl^{\mathcal{J}} \tld{z} \cap \Fl^{\nabla_0}_{\mathcal{J}} = \Fl^{\nabla_{\bf{a}}}_{\mathcal{J}} \tld{z}
\end{equation*}
We can now state the main result of the section which is the ramified analogue of \cite[Proposition 4.3.4]{MLM}:
\begin{prop} \label{prop:nosematch} Let $\tld{w}, \tld{w}' \in \tld{W}^{\mathcal{J}}$ be $h$-small, $e$-regular elements such that $\tld{w}' \leq \tld{w}$. Write $\tld{w}^* = (\tld{w}')^* \tld{z}'$ and assume this is a reduced expression for $\tld{w}^*$. Let $\tld{z} \in \tld{W}^{\vee, \mathcal{J}}$ be $2h$-generic. Then
$$
(\mathcal{I}(\mathbb{F}) (\tld{w}'_j)^* \mathcal{I}(\mathbb{F}) \tld{z}'_j \tld{z}_j)^{\nabla_0} = (\mathcal{I}(\mathbb{F}) \tld{w}^*_j \mathcal{I}(\mathbb{F}) \tld{z}_j)^{\nabla_0}
$$
for all $j \in \mathcal{J}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Again, the proof is very similar to the proof of \cite[Proposition 4.3.4]{MLM}, and we refer the reader to \emph{loc.~cit}.~for further detail.
Since $(\tld{w}')^* \tld{z} = \tld{w}^*$ is a reduced expression, there is an inclusion of the left side in the right side. Since both sides are invariant under $\mathcal{I}(\mathbb{F})$, we can descend to $\Fl^{\nabla_0}_{\mathcal{J}}$ and reduce to showing
\[
(S^{\circ} (\tld{w}')^* \tld{z}' \tld{z})^{\nabla_0} = (S^{\circ}(\tld{w}^*) \tld{z})^{\nabla_0}.
\] By the assumptions, both $\tld{z}$ and $\tld{z}' \tld{z}$ are $h$-generic and so by Proposition \ref{prop:monodromySchubert}, both sides are affine spaces of the same dimension and so inclusion implies equality.
\end{proof}
\begin{defn} \label{defn:modpmono} Assume that the lowest alcove presentation $(s,\mu)$ of $\tau$ is $(eh +1)$-generic.
We say that $\mathfrak{M} \in Y^{[0, h], \tau}(\mathbb{F})$ satisfies the \emph{mod $p$ monodromy condition}
if for any choice of eigenbasis $\beta$ of $\mathfrak{M}$, the collection $(A^{(j)}_{\mathfrak{M}, \beta} \tld{w}^*(\tau)_j)$ is in $ LG^{\nabla_0}(\mathbb{F})^{\mathcal{J}}$. %
\end{defn}
%
\subsection{Semicontinuity I}
\label{subsec:SCI}
We fix a tame inertial type $\tau$ with a $1$-generic lowest alcove presentation $(s, \mu)$, as defined in \S \ref{sec:SWC}. In this section, we show a semicontinuity result for the shape of a mod $p$ Kisin module of type $\tau$ with respect to the shape of its semisimplification.
This is preliminary to a more general semicontinuity result (Theorem \ref{thm:semicont} in section \ref{subsec:SCII}).
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:SC:I}
Let $\mathfrak{M} \in Y^{[0, h], \tau}_{\mathbb{F}} (\mathbb{F}')$ and set ${\overline{\rho}} := T^*_{dd}(\mathfrak{M})$ for any finite extension $\mathbb{F}'/\mathbb{F}$. There exists $\mathfrak{M}_0 \in Y^{[0, h], \tau}_{\mathbb{F}}(\mathbb{F}')$ such that
\[
T^*_{dd}(\mathfrak{M}_0) = {\overline{\rho}}^{\mathrm{ss}}.
\]
Furthermore, the shape of $\mathfrak{M}_0$ with respect to $\tau$ is less than or equal to the shape of $\mathfrak{M}$ with respect to $\tau$ in the Bruhat order on $\tld{W}^{\vee, \mathcal{J}}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
By the closure relations for the stratum of the stack $Y_\mathbb{F}^{[0,h], \tau}$ (Proposition \ref{prop:closurerelations}), it suffices to construct a map $\mathbb{A}^1_{\mathbb{F}} \rightarrow Y_\mathbb{F}^{[0,h],\tau}$, sending $x$ to $\mathfrak{M}_{x}$,
such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{secondo:sc1} $T^*_{dd}(\mathfrak{M}_{0})\cong {\overline{\rho}}^{\mathrm{ss}}$; and
\item\label{primo:sc1} for all $x \in \overline{\mathbb{F}}, x \neq 0$, $T^*_{dd}(\mathfrak{M}_{x})\cong {\overline{\rho}}$.
\end{enumerate}
The construction of the map proceeds as in the proof of \cite[Proposition 5.5.9]{MLM}.
Let $\alpha$ be the eigenbasis for $\mathfrak{M}$ constructed in \emph{loc. cit.} adapted to the filtration $(\mathcal{M}_i)$ on the \'etale $\varphi$-module $\mathfrak{M}[1/u']$.
Define the matrix $C^{(j)}\in G(\mathbb{F}'(\!(u')\!))$ by the condition
\[
\phi_{\mathfrak{M}}^{(j)}(\varphi^*(\alpha^{(j)})) = \alpha^{(j+1)} C^{(j)}.
\]
By construction, $C^{(j)}$ lies in a parabolic subgroup $P(\mathbb{F}'(\!(u')\!)) \subset G(\mathbb{F}'(\!(u')\!))$ corresponding to the filtration $(\mathcal{M}_i)$.
Let $L$ denote the corresponding Levi subgroup which contains the diagonal torus $T$.
Choose a dominant cocharacter $\lambda$ such that $L$ is the centralizer of $\lambda$.
For $x \neq 0$, define $\mathfrak{M}_x$ to be the free Breuil--Kisin module of rank $n$ with basis $\alpha_x$ such that $\Delta$ acts on $\alpha_x$ in the same way it acts on $\alpha$ and such that the Frobenius acts by $C^{(j)}_x = \lambda(x) C^{(j)} \lambda(x)^{-1}$ (with respect to $\alpha_x$).
Observe that the limit of $C^{(j)}_x$ as $x \rightarrow 0$ exists and lies in the Levi subgroup $L(\mathbb{F}'(\!(u')\!))$.
Thus, we can extend this to a family over $\mathbb{A}^1_{\mathbb{F}}$. It is easy to check property (\ref{secondo:sc1}). For property (\ref{primo:sc1}), we note that for any $x \neq 0$, $C^{(j)}_x$ is the matrix for Frobenius with respect to the basis $(\alpha^{(j)} \cdot \lambda(x))$ and so $\mathfrak{M}_x$ is isomorphic to $\mathfrak{M}_1$.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
\label{prop:weak:sc}
Assume that $\tau$ is $(e(n-1)+1)$-generic. If ${\overline{\rho}}$ is $\tau$-admissible, then ${\overline{\rho}}^{\mathrm{ss}}$ is $\tau$-admissible and for all $j \in \mathcal{J}$,
\[
\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^{\mathrm{ss}},\tau)_j \leq \tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}, \tau)_j.
\]
\end{cor}
\subsection{Specializations}
\label{subsec:SPEC}
Throughout this section we consider a continuous Galois representation ${\overline{\rho}}: G_K\rightarrow\mathrm{GL}_n(\mathbb{F})$.
We say that ${\overline{\rho}}$ is $N$-generic if the tame inertial $\mathbb{F}$-type ${\overline{\rho}}^{\mathrm{ss}}|_{I_K}$ is $N$-generic (see \S \ref{subsubsec:TIT}). \emph{All lowest alcove presentations for tame inertial types (over $\mathbb{F}$ or over $E$) will always be compatible with a given lowest alcove presentation ${\overline{\rho}}^{\mathrm{ss}}$.}
If ${\overline{\rho}}^{\mathrm{sp}}$ is a tame inertial $\mathbb{F}$-type for $K$ and $\tau$ is an inertial type over $E$ with compatible lowest alcove presentation, then recall the combinatorially defined shape $\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^{\mathrm{sp}}, \tau) = \tld{w}(\tau)^{-1}\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^{\mathrm{sp}}) \in \tld{W}^{\mathcal{J}}$ defined in \S \ref{sec:combserre}.
\begin{defn}\label{defn:spec}
Let ${\overline{\rho}}:G_K \rightarrow \mathrm{GL}_n(\mathbb{F})$ be a continuous Galois representation.
\begin{enumerate}
\item A tame inertial $\mathbb{F}$-type ${\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp}$ for $K$ over $\mathbb{F}$ is a \emph{specialization} of ${\overline{\rho}}$ if there exists an $(e(n-1)+1)$-generic tame inertial type $\tau$ such that ${\overline{\rho}}$ is $\tau$-admissible and $\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}},\tau) = \tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp},\tau)$.
We say that $\tau$ \emph{exhibits} the specialization.
\item
A specialization ${\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp}$ is called an \emph{extremal specialization} of ${\overline{\rho}}$ if there exists a $\tau$ exhibiting the specialization such that $\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp},\tau) = t_{w^{-1}(e\eta_0)}$ for some $w \in W^{\mathcal{J}}$ and if the unique $\mathfrak{M} \in Y^{\leq \eta, \tau}(\mathbb{F})$ such that $T^*_{dd}(\mathfrak{M}) \cong {\overline{\rho}}|_{G_{K_{\infty}}}$ satisfies the mod $p$ monodromy condition (Definition \ref{defn:modpmono}).
\end{enumerate}
\end{defn}
\begin{rmk} \label{rmk:liftsandmodpmono} By a version of \cite[Proposition 7.4.1]{MLM} in the ramified setting (based on the analysis of the monodromy condition in characteristic 0, cf.~Proposition \ref{prop:monodromy_control} below), if $\tau$ is $(e+1)(n-1)$-generic
and ${\overline{\rho}}$ admits a potentially crystalline lift of type $(\tau, \eta)$ then the unique $\mathfrak{M} \in Y^{\leq \eta, \tau}(\mathbb{F})$ such that $T^*_{dd}(\mathfrak{M}) \cong {\overline{\rho}}|_{G_{K_{\infty}}}$ satisfies the mod $p$ monodromy condition. Thus, the technical condition in Definition \ref{defn:spec}(2) could be replaced by the existence of a potentially crystalline lift.
\end{rmk}
\begin{rmk} Using the methods of \cite{MLM}, it can be shown under suitable genericity conditions that all specialization are extremal when $K/\mathbb{Q}_p$ is unramified. It is likely that the same is true in the ramified case but we do not attempt to prove it here.
\end{rmk}
Let $S({\overline{\rho}})$ (resp.~$S_{\mathrm{ext}}({\overline{\rho}})$) denote be the set of specializations (resp.~extremal specializations) of ${\overline{\rho}}$.
\begin{rmk} \label{lem:Sfinite}
The sets $S({\overline{\rho}})$ and $S_{\mathrm{ext}}({\overline{\rho}})$ are finite because the set of $(e(n-1)+1)$-generic types $\tau$ for which ${\overline{\rho}}^{\mathrm{ss}}$ is $\tau$-admissible is finite by Proposition \ref{prop:sskisin} and the set of types for which ${\overline{\rho}}$ is $\tau$-admissible is a subset of this set by Corollary \ref{prop:weak:sc}. In Theorem \ref{thm:extension}, we show that ${\overline{\rho}}^{\mathrm{ss}}|_{I_K}$ is an extremal specialization of ${\overline{\rho}}$ so $S_{\mathrm{ext}}({\overline{\rho}})$ is also non-empty.
\end{rmk}
\begin{exam}
We have the following examples when $K=\mathbb{Q}_p$ and $n=2,3$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Let $1 < a < p-1$ and assume that ${\overline{\rho}}_{I_{\mathbb{Q}_p}}$ is of the form $\begin{pmatrix}
\omega^a & \ast \\
0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}$, where $\ast\neq 0$.
Then we have two specializations, given by $\omega^{a}\oplus 1$ and $\omega_2^{a}\oplus\omega_2^{pa}$.
A type which exhibits the specialization $\omega_2^{a}\oplus\omega_2^{pa}$ is $(\omega_2^{a+1} \oplus \omega_2^{p(a+1)})\otimes \omega^{-1}$.
\item (\cite[Theorem 4.2.5]{GL3Wild}) Assume that $(a+1,b+1,c+1)\in \mathbb{Z}^3$ is $6$-deep in alcove $C_0$ and that ${\overline{\rho}}|_{I_K}$ is of the form
\[
\begin{pmatrix}
\omega^{a} & *_1 & * \\
0 & \omega^b & *_2\\
0 & 0 & \omega^c
\end{pmatrix}
\]
where $\ast_1$, $\ast_2$ denote non-split extensions.
Then ${\overline{\rho}}$ has up to $6$ specializations, namely $\omega^{a}\oplus\omega^{b}\oplus\omega^{c}$, $\omega_2^{a+pb}\oplus\omega_2^{b+pa}\oplus\omega^{c}$, $\omega_2^{a+pc}\oplus\omega^{b}\oplus\omega_2^{c+pa}$, $\omega^{a}\oplus\omega_2^{b+pc}\oplus\omega_2^{c+pb}$, $\omega_3^{a+pb+p^2c}\oplus \omega_3^{b+pc+p^2a}\oplus \omega_3^{c+pa+p^2b}$ and $\omega_3^{a+pc+p^2b}\oplus \omega_3^{b+pa+p^2c}\oplus \omega_3^{c+pb+p^2a}$.
A type which exhibits the specialization ${\overline{\rho}}^{\mathrm{ss}}$ is $\omega_2^{(a-1)+p(c-1)}\oplus\omega^{b-1}\oplus\omega_2^{(c-1)+p(a-1)}$.
We have $4$ specializations precisely when ${\overline{\rho}}$ has either a potentially crystalline lift of type $\omega_{a-1}\oplus\omega_2^{b+p(c-2)}\oplus \omega_2^{(c-2)+pb}$ (in which case the specializations $\omega_2^{a+pc}\oplus\omega^{b}\oplus\omega_2^{c+pa}$ and $\omega_3^{a+pc+p^2b}\oplus \omega_3^{b+pa+p^2c}\oplus \omega_3^{c+pb+p^2a}$ do not appear) or of type $\omega_2^{a+p(b-2)}\oplus \omega_2^{(b-2)+pa}\oplus\omega^{c-1}$ (in which case the specializations $\omega_2^{a+pc}\oplus\omega^{b}\oplus\omega_2^{c+pa}$ and $\omega_3^{a+pb+p^2c}\oplus \omega_3^{b+pc+p^2a}\oplus \omega_3^{c+pa+p^2b}$ do not appear).
\end{enumerate}
\end{exam}
\subsection{Semicontinuity II} \label{subsec:SCII}
The following theorem generalizes Proposition \ref{prop:SC:I}.
\begin{thm}
\label{semi:cnt} \label{thm:semicont}
Let ${\overline{\rho}}:G_K\rightarrow\mathrm{GL}_n(\mathbb{F})$ be a $3e(n-1)$-generic continuous Galois representation.
Assume that ${\overline{\rho}}$ specializes to a tame inertial $\mathbb{F}$-type ${\overline{\rho}}^{\mathrm{sp}}$ for $K$ and that ${\overline{\rho}}$ is $\tau$-admissible.
For each $j\in \mathcal{J}$, we have the inequality
\[
\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^{\mathrm{sp}},\tau)_j \leq \tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}, \tau)_j .
\]
\end{thm}
We begin by stating two combinatorial lemmas which will be needed in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:semicont}.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:gap} Let $\tau$ and $\tau'$ be $(e(n-1)+1)$-generic tame inertial types over $E$. Assume there exists a ${\overline{\rho}}$ which is both $\tau$ and $\tau'$-admissible. Then, for any choice of lowest alcove presentation of ${\overline{\rho}}^{\mathrm{ss}}$, $\tau$ and $\tau'$ admit lowest alcove presentations $(s, \mu)$ and $(s', \mu')$, compatible with that of ${\overline{\rho}}^{\mathrm{ss}}$,
such that
\[
|\mu_{j,i}-\mu'_{j,i}|\leq e(n-1).
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since ${\overline{\rho}}$ is both $\tau$ and $\tau'$-admissible, the same is true for ${\overline{\rho}}^{\mathrm{ss}}$ by Proposition \ref{prop:weak:sc}. Fixing a lowest alcove presentation of ${\overline{\rho}}^{\mathrm{ss}}$, $\tau$ and $\tau'$ admit compatible presentation $(s, \mu)$ and $(s', \mu')$ respectively
and we have $e\eta_0$-admissible elements $\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^{\mathrm{ss}}, \tau) = t_\nu w$ and $\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^{\mathrm{ss}}, \tau') =t_{\nu'} w'$. Since $\nu$ and $\nu'$ are in the convex hull of $\un{W}e\eta_0$ (cf.~\cite[Theorem 3.3]{HC}),
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:nu}
0 \leq \nu_{j,i}, \nu'_{j, i} \leq e(n-1).
\end{equation}
By Proposition \ref{prop:sskisin}, ${\overline{\rho}}^{\mathrm{ss}}|_{I_K}$ has lowest alcove presentation $(sw, \mu + s(\nu)) = (s'w', \mu' + s'(\nu'))$. %
The result now follows from this equation and (\ref{eqn:nu}).
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{lem1}
Let $\mu, \mu'$ be dominant cocharacters which are $2e(n-1)$-deep in alcove $\un{C}_0$, and assume that for all $j \in \mathcal{J}$, $1\leq i\leq n$,
\[
|\mu_{j,i}-\mu'_{j,i}|\leq e(n-1).
\]
Let $(B_j), (B_j') \in \Mat_n(\mathbb{F}[\![v]\!])^{\mathcal{J}}$ such that for all $j$, $v^{e(n-1)} B_j^{-1} \in \Mat_n(\mathbb{F}[\![v]\!])$. Assume that for all $j \in \mathcal{J}$ there exists $C_j \in \mathrm{GL}_n(\mathbb{F}(\!(v)\!))$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:comparison}
C_{j} B_j' v^{\mu'_j + \eta_{0,j}}= B_j v^{\mu_j + \eta_{0,j}} \varphi(C_{j-1}).
\end{equation}
Then $C_j \in \Iw(\mathbb{F})$ for all $j \in \mathcal{J}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The technique is similar to the proof of \cite[Theorem 3.2]{LLLM} and \cite[Lemma 5.4.5]{MLM}.
We first show that for all $j\in\mathcal{J}$ we have $C_j \in \Mat_n(\mathbb{F}[\![v]\!])$.
For all $j\in\mathcal{J}$, write $C_j =v^{-k_{j}}C^{+}_j$ with $k_{j}\in\mathbb{Z}$, $C^{+}_j \in\Mat_n(\mathbb{F}[\![v]\!])$ and $C^{+}_j \not\equiv 0$ modulo $v$.
Rearranging equation (\ref{eq:comparison}), we can write:
\begin{equation}
\label{iso-phi:1}
v^{-pk_{j-1}}\Ad(v^{\mu_j + \eta_{0,j}})\varphi(C^{+}_{j-1})= v^{-k_{j}} B_j^{-1} C_{j}^+ B_j'v^{\mu'_j-\mu_j}.
\end{equation}
Since the RHS of (\ref{iso-phi:1}) becomes integral after multiplying by $v^{k_{j} +e(n-1)+ \max_{1\leq i\leq n}|\mu'_{j,i}-\mu_{j,i}|}$, we get that
\[
k_{j}+p-1>k_{j}+ e(n-1)+\max_{1\leq i\leq n}|\mu'_{j,i}-\mu_{j,i}|+\max_{\alpha\in \Phi}| \langle\mu_j,\alpha^\vee \rangle |\geq pk_{j-1}.
\]
This shows that if $k=\max_{1\leq j \leq f} k_j$, then $(p-1)k<p-1$, hence $k_j\leq 0$ for all $j\in\mathcal{J}$. Thus $C_j\in \Mat_n(\mathbb{F}[\![v]\!])$, and comparing determinants we see that $C_j\in \mathrm{GL}_n(\mathbb{F}[\![v]\!])$, for all $j\in\mathcal{J}$.
(In particular $k_j=0$ for all $j\in\mathcal{J}$.)
Finally, we show that $C_j\in \Iw(\mathbb{F})$. If this were not the case, then for some $\alpha\in \Phi^{-}$ the entry corresponding to $\alpha$ in $\Ad(v^{\mu_j+\eta_{0,j}})\varphi(C^{+}_{j-1})$ will have $v$-adic valuation $\langle \mu_j+\eta_{0,j},\alpha^\vee \rangle$.
Comparing the $\alpha$ entry in the equation
\[\Ad(v^{\mu_j + \eta_{0, j}})\varphi(C^{+}_{j-1})= B_j^{-1} C_{j}^+ B_j'v^{\mu'_j-\mu_j}\]
then shows that
\[\langle \mu_j+\eta_{0,j},\alpha^\vee \rangle\geq -e(n-1)- \max_{1\leq i\leq n}|\mu'_{j,i}-\mu_{j,i}|\]
which contradicts the deepness assumption on $\mu$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{semi:cnt}]
Let $\tau'$ be a type which exhibits the specialization to ${\overline{\rho}}^{\mathrm{sp}}$. Let $(s, \mu)$ and $(s', \mu')$ be lowest alcove presentations of $\tau$ and $\tau'$ respectively compatible with a fixed choice of $3e(n-1)$-generic lowest alcove presentation of ${\overline{\rho}}^{\mathrm{ss}}$. Note that $\mu$ and $\mu'$ are $2e(n-1)$-deep and satisfy the conclusion of Lemma \ref{lem:gap}.
Let $\tld{w} = \tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}, \tau)$ and $\tld{w}' = \tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}, \tau')$.
The strategy is similar to the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:weak:sc}. We will construct a morphism
\begin{align}
\label{eq:family:2}
&\mathbb{A}^1_{\mathbb{F}} \rightarrow Y_\mathbb{F}^{\leq\eta,\tau}\\
&x\mapsto \mathfrak{M}_{x} \nonumber
\end{align}
which satisfies the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{it:sc:1} for all $x \neq 0$, the Breuil--Kisin module $\mathfrak{M}_x$ has shape $\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}, \tau)$;
\item\label{it:sc:2} $T^*_{dd}(\mathfrak{M}_1)\cong {\overline{\rho}}|_{G_{K_\infty}}$; and
\item\label{it:sc:3} $T^*_{dd}(\mathfrak{M}_0)|_{I_{K_\infty}}\cong {\overline{\rho}}^{\mathrm{sp}}$.
\end{enumerate}
Let $\mathfrak{M}' \in Y_\mathbb{F}^{\leq\eta,\tau'}(\mathbb{F})$ be the unique Breuil--Kisin module satisfying $T^*_{dd}(\mathfrak{M}')\cong {\overline{\rho}}|_{G_{K_\infty}}$.
By Proposition \ref{prop:modpform}, there is an eigenbasis $\beta'$ for $\mathfrak{M}'$ such that
\[
A_{\mathfrak{M}',\beta'}^{(j)} = D_j (\tld{w}'_j)^* U_j
\]
where $D_j \in T(\mathbb{F})$ and $U_j \in N_{(\tld{w}'_j)^*}(\mathbb{F}) \subset \Iw(\mathbb{F})$ is defined in \cite[Definition 4.2.9]{MLM}.
Since $U_j$ is unipotent (\cite[Corollary 4.2.16]{MLM}), there exists $s_j\in W$ such that
\begin{equation}
\Ad(s_j(\eta_{0,j})(x))\cdot U_j \in 1+x\Mat_n(\mathbb{F}[x][\![v]\!]) \label{eq3}.
\end{equation}
We define a map $\kappa':(\mathbb{G}_m)_{\mathbb{F}} \rightarrow Y_\mathbb{F}^{\leq \eta,\tau'}$ by specifying Breuil--Kisin module $\tld{\mathfrak{M}}'$ over $\mathbb{F}[x^{\pm 1}]$ of type $\tau'$ and eigenbasis $\tld{\beta}'$ such that
\[
A^{(j)}_{\tld{\mathfrak{M}}', \tld{\beta}'} = D_j (\tld{w}'_j)^* \Ad(s_j(\eta_{0,j})(x))\cdot U_j
\]
for all $x \neq 0$. By \eqref{eq3}, this map extends to a map $\kappa':\mathbb{A}^1_{\mathbb{F}} \rightarrow Y_\mathbb{F}^{\leq \eta,\tau'}$.
The map $\kappa'$ gives rise to a family $\tld{\mathcal{M}} \stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} \varepsilon_{\tau'} (\tld{\mathfrak{M}}')$ of \'etale $\phi$-modules over $K$ parametrized by $\mathbb{A}^1_{\mathbb{F}}$. %
Over $\mathbb{G}_m$, by Proposition \ref{prop:expeps}, $\tld{\mathcal{M}}$ admits a basis $\mathfrak{f}$ such that
\[
Q'_{j} \stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} \Mat_{\mathfrak{f}}(\phi^{(j)}_{\tld{\mathcal{M}}})= D_j (\tld{w}'_j)^*\,\big(\Ad(s_j(\eta_{0,j})(x))\cdot U_j \big)\, (s'_j)^{-1} v^{\mu'_j + \eta_{0,j}}.
\]
For $x\in \mathbb{G}_m$, we write $Q'_{j,x}=\Mat_{\mathfrak{f}_x}(\phi^{(j)}_{\tld{\mathcal{M}}_x})$ in what follows.
By construction, $\mathbb{V}^*_K(\tld{\mathcal{M}}_1)\cong{\overline{\rho}}|_{G_{K_\infty}}$ and $\mathbb{V}^*_K(\tld{\mathcal{M}}_0)|_{I_{K_{\infty}}} \cong {\overline{\rho}}^{\mathrm{sp}}$.
By assumption, $\mathcal{M}_1$ is the \'etale $\varphi$-module over $K$ associated to the unique $\mathfrak{M} \in Y_\mathbb{F}^{\leq\eta, \tau}(\mathbb{F})$ satisfying $T^*_{dd}(\mathfrak{M})\cong{\overline{\rho}}|_{G_{K_\infty}}$.
Choose an eigenbasis $\beta$ for $\mathfrak{M}$.
By Proposition \ref{prop:expeps}, there exists $(C_j) \in \mathrm{GL}_n(\mathbb{F}(\!(v)\!))^{\mathcal{J}}$ such that for all $j \in \mathcal{J}$
\begin{equation}
\label{iso-phi}
C^{(j+1)} Q'_{j, 1} = A^{(j)}_{\mathfrak{M}, \beta} s^{-1}_j v^{\mu_j + \eta_{0,j}} \varphi(C^{(j)}).
\end{equation}
Applying Lemma \ref{lem1} with $B'_{j} = Q'_{j,1} v^{-\mu'_j - \eta_{0,j}}$ and $B_j = A^{(j)}_{\mathfrak{M}, \beta} s_{j}^{-1}$, we conclude that $C^{(j)} \in \Iw(\mathbb{F})$ for all $j \in \mathcal{J}$. Hence, by changing the eigenbasis of $\mathfrak{M}$ if necessary, we can arrange that $Q'_{j, 1} = A^{(j)}_{\mathfrak{M}, \beta} s^{-1}_j v^{\mu_j + \eta_{0,j}}$.
We now construct a map $\kappa:(\mathbb{G}_m)_{\mathbb{F}} \to Y_\mathbb{F}^{\leq\eta,\tau}$ by specifying a Breuil--Kisin module $\tld{\mathfrak{M}}$ over $\mathbb{F}[x^{\pm 1}]$ of type $\tau$ with eigenbasis $\tld{\beta}$ such that
\[
A_{\tld{\mathfrak{M}}, \tld{\beta}}^{(j)} = Q'_j v^{-\mu_j - \eta_{0,j}} s_j = D_j (\tld{w}'_j)^*\,\big(\Ad(s_j(\eta_{0,j})(x))\cdot U_j \big)\, (s'_j)^{-1} v^{\mu'_j - \mu_j} s_j .
\]
To see that $\kappa$ is well-defined, observe that
\[
A^{(j)}_{\tld{\mathfrak{M}}_x, \tld{\beta}_x} = t_1 A^{(j)}_{\tld{\mathfrak{M}}_1, \tld{\beta}_1} t_2 = t_1 A^{(j)}_{\mathfrak{M}, \beta} t_2
\]
for suitable (constant) diagonal matrices $t_1, t_2\in T(\mathbb{F}')$ depending on $x\in(\mathbb{F}')^\times$.
This also shows that $\kappa$ satisfies property (\ref{it:sc:1}).
The map $\kappa$ satisfies property (\ref{it:sc:2}) by construction
The construction of $\kappa$ shows that the fiber $\tld{\mathcal{M}}_x$ of the family $\tld{\mathcal{M}}$ of \'etale $\phi$-modules over $\mathbb{A}^1_{\mathbb{F}}$ comes from a point of $Y_\mathbb{F}^{\leq\eta,\tau}$ for each $x\neq 0$.
Since this is a closed condition and the map $Y_\mathbb{F}^{\leq\eta,\tau}\rightarrow \Phi\text{-}\Mod^{\text{\'et},n}_{K}$ is proper (Proposition \ref{prop:BK_to_phi_mono}), it follows that $\kappa$ extends to a map $\kappa:\mathbb{A}^1_{\mathbb{F}} \to Y_\mathbb{F}^{\leq\eta,\tau}$, and property (\ref{it:sc:3}) holds for this extension.
\end{proof}
The proof of Theorem \ref{thm:semicont} has the following useful consequence.
\begin{cor}\label{cor:isom}
Suppose that $\tau$ and $\tau'$ are $2e(n-1)$ generic tame types with compatible lowest alcove presentations.
Assume that $\varepsilon_\tau(\mathfrak{M})\cong\varepsilon_{\tau'}(\mathfrak{M}')$ for objects $\mathfrak{M}\in Y^{\leq \eta,\tau}(\mathbb{F})$, $\mathfrak{M}'\in Y^{\leq \eta,\tau'}(\mathbb{F})$. Then $\mathfrak{M}$ and $\mathfrak{M}'$ admit eigenbases $\beta$ and $\beta'$ respectively such that %
\[
A_{\mathfrak{M},\beta}^{(j)} \tld{w}^*(\tau) = A_{\mathfrak{M}',\beta'}^{(j)} \tld{w}^*(\tau')
\]
for all $j\in\mathcal{J}$.
\end{cor}
\subsection{Specialization pairs}
\label{subsec:SPEC:pairs}
In this subsection, we enhance the notion of specialization of ${\overline{\rho}}$ to a pair of specialization and a Serre weight. The pairs exhibit a nice combinatorial structure indexed by the Weyl group (see Definition \ref{defn:thetarhobar}).
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:import}
Suppose that ${\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp}$ is an extremal specialization of ${\overline{\rho}}$ and that $\tau$ is a tame inertial type exhibiting this specialization and such that $\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}},\tau) = t_{w^{-1}(e\eta_0)}$ for some $w\in W^{\mathcal{J}}$. %
Let $\tld{w} \in \tld{W}_1^{+,\mathcal{J}}$ be an element (unique up to $X^0(\un{T})$) whose image in $W^{\mathcal{J}}$ is $w$.
Let $\tau_g$ be the tame inertial type with lowest alcove presentation compatible with $\tau$ such that $\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp},\tau_g)$ is the unique element in $\Omega^{\mathcal{J}} w_0 t_{(e-1)\eta_0}\tld{w}\cap t_{e\eta_0}W^{\mathcal{J}}_a$.
Assume that $\tau_g$ is $(e(n-1)+1)$-generic.
Then ${\overline{\rho}}$ is $\tau_g$-admissible and $\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}},\tau_g) = \tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp},\tau_g).$ %
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Note that $t_{w^{-1}(e \eta_0)} =\tld{w}(\tau)^{-1} \tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp}, \tau) = \tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^{\mathrm{sp}}) $ and we can write $t_{w^{-1}(e \eta_0)} = \tld{w}_2^{-1} w_0 t_{(e-1) \eta_0} \tld{w}$ where $\tld{w}_2 \in \tld{W}^{+, \mathcal{J}}_1$. Let $\delta \in \Omega^{\mathcal{J}}$ such that $\delta \tld{w}_2 \in W^{\mathcal{J}}_a$. We define $\tau_g$ to be the unique tame inertial type such that $\tld{w}(\tau_g) = \tld{w}(\tau) (\delta \tld{w}_2)^{-1}$.
By definition $\tau_g$ is endowed with a compatible lowest alcove presentation which is $(e(n-1) + 1)$-generic and $\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp},\tau_g)$ is as desired.
It remains to show that $\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}},\tau_g) = \tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp},\tau_g).$
Let $\mathfrak{M} \in Y^{\eta, \tau}(\mathbb{F})$ be unique Breuil--Kisin module such that $T^*_{dd}(\mathfrak{M}) \cong {\overline{\rho}}|_{G_{K_{\infty}}}$. By assumption, $\mathfrak{M}$ has shape $t_{w^{-1}(e \eta_0)}$ and satisfies the mod $p$ monodromy condition (Definition \ref{defn:modpmono}). Hence, for any choice of eigenbasis $\beta$, we have that $\iota_{\tau}(\mathfrak{M})$ is the \'etale $\phi$-module with partial Frobenii given by
$
A^{(j)}_{\mathfrak{M}, \beta} \tld{w}^{*}(\tau)_j
$
for $j \in \mathcal{J}$, where
$$
A^{(j)}_{\mathfrak{M}, \beta} \tld{w}^{*}(\tau)_j\in (\mathcal{I}(\mathbb{F}) t_{w^{-1}(e\eta_{0,j})} \mathcal{I}(\mathbb{F}) \tld{w}^{*}(\tau)_j)^{\nabla_0}.
$$
Applying Proposition \ref{prop:nosematch} with $\tld{w} = t_{w^{-1}(e\eta_{0,j})}, \tld{w}' = \delta w_0 t_{(e-1) \eta_{0,j}} \tld{w}_{1,j}$ and $\tld{z} = \tld{w}^*(\tau)_j$, we have for all $j \in \mathcal{J}$:
$$
A^{(j)}_{\mathfrak{M}, \beta} \tld{w}^{*}(\tau)_j \in \mathcal{I}(\mathbb{F}) (\delta w_0 t_{(e-1) \eta_{0,j}} \tld{w}_1)^* \mathcal{I}(\mathbb{F}) \tld{w}^*(\tau_g)_j
$$
(note that $\tld{w} = t_{w^{-1}(e\eta_{0,j})}, \tld{w}' = \delta w_0 t_{(e-1) \eta_{0,j}} \tld{w}_{1,j}$ are $e$-regular and $n-1$-small by Proposition \ref{prop:can:reg}).
Hence there exists $\mathfrak{M}' \in Y^{\eta, \tau_g}(\mathbb{F})$ such that $\varepsilon_{\tau_g}(\mathfrak{M}') \cong \varepsilon_{\tau}(\mathfrak{M})$ and such that $\mathfrak{M}'$ has shape $\delta w_0 t_{(e-1) \eta_0} \tld{w}_1 = \tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp},\tau_g)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{defn}[Specialization pairs]
Suppose that ${\overline{\rho}}$, ${\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp}$, $\tau$, and $w$ are as in Lemma \ref{lemma:import}.
Let $\tld{w}\in \tld{W}^+_1$ be the unique element whose projection in $W$ is $w$.
Let $\sigma$ be the Serre weight
\begin{equation} \label{eq:weight}
F(\pi^{-1}(\tld{w})\cdot(\tld{w}(\tau)\tld{w}^{-1}\tld{w}_h^{-1}(0)-\eta_0))) = F_{(\tld{w}, \tld{w}(\tau)\tld{w}^{-1}\tld{w}_h^{-1}(0))}.
\end{equation}
Then we say that ${\overline{\rho}}$ \emph{specializes to the pair} $(\sigma,{\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp})$ and that $\tau$ exhibits this specialization.
Let $SP({\overline{\rho}})$ be the set of pairs to which ${\overline{\rho}}$ specializes. %
\end{defn}
Note that if ${\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp}$ is $\max\{2,e\}(n-1)$-generic and $\tau$ is $2(n-1)$-generic then $\sigma$ is the unique element in $W^?({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp},\tau)$ by Proposition \ref{prop:indint}, and is the extremal weight corresponding to $w$ (see Definition \ref{defn:obv}).
If ${\overline{\rho}}$ is $2e(n-1)+1$-generic, we have a natural map $SP({\overline{\rho}}) \rightarrow S_{\mathrm{ext}}({\overline{\rho}})$ which is surjective and hence the set $SP({\overline{\rho}})$ is finite.
If $\zeta\in X^*(\un{T})$ and some ${\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp} \in S_{\mathrm{ext}}({\overline{\rho}})$ has a $\zeta$-compatible lowest alcove presentation, then every element of $S_{\mathrm{ext}}({\overline{\rho}})$ has a $\zeta$-compatible lowest alcove presentation.
\begin{defn} \label{defn:thetarhobar}
Assume that ${\overline{\rho}}$ is $(2e(n-1)+1)$-generic.
Let $\zeta \in X^*(\un{T})$ and suppose that some (equivalently any) element of $S_{\mathrm{ext}}({\overline{\rho}})$ has a $\zeta$-compatible lowest alcove presentation.
We define a map $$\theta_{\overline{\rho}}^\zeta: SP({\overline{\rho}}) \rightarrow W^{\mathcal{J}}$$ as follows:
If $(\sigma,{\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp})$ is in $SP({\overline{\rho}})$, $(w_{{\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp}},\mu_{{\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp}})$ is a $\zeta$-compatible lowest alcove presentation of ${\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp}$, and $\sigma$ is the extremal weight corresponding to $w$, %
we set $\theta_{\overline{\rho}}^\zeta(\sigma,{\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp}) = w_{{\overline{\rho}}^{\mathrm{sp}}} w^{-1}$.
\end{defn}
\begin{prop}\label{prop:inj}
Assume that ${\overline{\rho}}$ is $3e(n-1)$-generic.
The map $\theta_{\overline{\rho}}^\zeta$ is injective. $($Later in \S \ref{subsec:WE:MOD}, we show map is bijective.$)$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $\theta_{\overline{\rho}}^\zeta(\sigma,{\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp}) = \theta_{\overline{\rho}}^\zeta(\sigma',{\overline{\rho}}^{\prime,\mathrm{sp}})$.
Let $\tau$ and $\tau'$ be as in Lemma \ref{lemma:import} exhibiting these specializations with $\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}},\tau) = t_{w^{-1}(e\eta_0)}$ and $\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}},\tau) = t_{(w')^{-1}(e\eta_0)}$, and let $\tau_g$ and $\tau'_g$ also be as in Lemma \ref{lemma:import}.
Then $\sigma$ and $\sigma'$ are the extremal weights of ${\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp}$ and ${\overline{\rho}}^{\prime,\mathrm{sp}}$ corresponding to $w$ and $w' \in W$, respectively.
Let $\tld{w}$ and $\tld{w}' \in \tld{W}_1^+$ be elements with images $w$ and $w' \in W$, respectively.
Then by Lemma \ref{lemma:import}, there exist $\delta, \delta' \in \Omega$ such that $\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}},\tau_g) = \delta w_0 t_{(e-1)\eta_0} \tld{w}$ and $\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}},\tau_g') = \delta' w_0 t_{(e-1)\eta_0} \tld{w}'$.
By Corollary \ref{cor:isom} and the fact that $\tld{w}^*(\tau_g') \varphi(\mathcal{I}) \tld{w}^*(\tau_g')^{-1} \subset \mathcal{I}$,
\[
\mathcal{I} \tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}, \tau_g)^* \mathcal{I} \tld{w}^*(\tau_g)\cap \mathcal{I} \tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}, \tau'_g)^* \mathcal{I} \tld{w}^*(\tau_g') \neq \emptyset,
\]
or equivalently by taking transposes,
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:cellint}
\tld{w}(\tau_g)\delta \mathcal{I}^{\mathrm{op}} w_0 t_{(e-1)\eta_0}\tld{w} \mathcal{I}^{\mathrm{op}}/ \mathcal{I}^{\mathrm{op}} \cap \tld{w}(\tau_g')\delta' \mathcal{I}^{\mathrm{op}} w_0 t_{(e-1)\eta_0}\tld{w}' \mathcal{I}^{\mathrm{op}}/ \mathcal{I}^{\mathrm{op}} \neq \emptyset,
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{I}^{\mathrm{op}}$ is the opposite Iwahori group scheme. %
To simplify notation, let $\tld{s}$ and $\tld{s}'$ be $\tld{w}(\tau_g)\delta$ and $\tld{w}(\tau_g')\delta'$, respectively.
Then we have $\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp}) = \tld{s}w_0 t_{(e-1)\eta_0} \tld{w}$ and $\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^{\prime,\mathrm{sp}}) = \tld{s}'w_0 t_{(e-1)\eta_0} \tld{w}'$.
Let $s$, $s'$, $w({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp})$, and $w({\overline{\rho}}^{\prime,\mathrm{sp}}) \in W$ be the images of $\tld{s}$, $\tld{s}'$, $\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}})$, and $\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^{\prime,\mathrm{sp}})$, respectively.
The equality $w({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp})w^{-1} = \theta_{\overline{\rho}}^\zeta(\sigma,{\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp}) = \theta_{\overline{\rho}}^\zeta(\sigma',{\overline{\rho}}^{\prime,\mathrm{sp}}) = w({\overline{\rho}}^{\prime,\mathrm{sp}}) (w')^{-1}$ implies that $s = s'$.
The previous paragraph and (\ref{eqn:cellint}) and imply that there exists $\nu\in X^*(T)$ such that
\[
t_\nu \mathcal{I}^{\mathrm{op}} w_0 t_{(e-1)\eta_0}\tld{w} \mathcal{I}^{\mathrm{op}}/ \mathcal{I}^{\mathrm{op}} \cap \mathcal{I}^{\mathrm{op}}w_0 t_{(e-1)\eta_0}\tld{w}' \mathcal{I}^{\mathrm{op}}/ \mathcal{I}^{\mathrm{op}} \neq \emptyset.
\]
Both $t_\nu \mathcal{I}^{\mathrm{op}} w_0 t_{(e-1)\eta_0}\tld{w} \mathcal{I}^{\mathrm{op}}/ \mathcal{I}^{\mathrm{op}}$ and $ \mathcal{I}^{\mathrm{op}} w_0 t_{(e-1)\eta_0}\tld{w}' \mathcal{I}^{\mathrm{op}}/ \mathcal{I}^{\mathrm{op}}$ are stable under the left action of $T$.
There is a $\mathbb{G}_m$-subgroup which contracts $t_\nu \mathcal{I}^{\mathrm{op}} w_0 t_{(e-1)\eta_0}\tld{w} \mathcal{I}^{\mathrm{op}}/ \mathcal{I}^{\mathrm{op}}$ to $t_\nu w_0 t_{(e-1)\eta_0}\tld{w}$. %
So $t_\nu w_0 t_{(e-1)\eta_0}\tld{w}$ is in the closure of $ \mathcal{I}^{\mathrm{op}}w_0 t_{(e-1)\eta_0}\tld{w}' \mathcal{I}^{\mathrm{op}}/ \mathcal{I}^{\mathrm{op}}$, or equivalently $t_\nu w_0 t_{(e-1)\eta_0}\tld{w} \leq w_0 t_{(e-1)\eta_0}\tld{w}'$.
Symmetrically, $t_{-\nu}w_0t_{(e-1)\eta_0}\tld{w}' \leq w_0t_{(e-1)\eta_0}\tld{w}$.
Lemma \ref{lemma:doubleclosure} implies that $\tld{w}' = t_\nu \tld{w}$ and that $\nu\in X^0(T)$.
In particular, we have $w = w'$ so that $\tau = \tau'$, $\sigma \cong \sigma'$, and ${\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp} = {\overline{\rho}}^{\prime,\mathrm{sp}}$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Extremal weights}
\label{subsec:extr:wt}
In this section, we define extremal weights and use them to give a tameness criterion for Galois representations.
\begin{defn}[Extremal weights] Let ${\overline{\rho}}$ be a $(2 e(n-1) + 1)$-generic representation of $G_K$. Define $W_\mathrm{extr}({\overline{\rho}})$ to be the set of Serre weights $\sigma$ such that there exists some ${\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp}$ so that $(\sigma,{\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp}) \in SP({\overline{\rho}})$.
\end{defn}
\begin{prop} \label{prop:obvforss}
If ${\overline{\rho}}$ is semisimple and $(2e(n-1)+1)$-generic, then $W_\mathrm{extr}({\overline{\rho}})$ agrees with the set $W_\mathrm{extr}({\overline{\rho}}|_I)$ from Definition \ref{defn:obv}.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof} We first note that if ${\overline{\rho}}$ is semisimple, then it only specializes to ${\overline{\rho}}|_{I_K}$ by Proposition \ref{prop:sskisin}.
Fix now a $(2e(n-1)+1)$-generic lowest alcove presentation of ${\overline{\rho}}|_{I_K}$.
For each $w \in W^{\mathcal{J}}$, there is a unique type $\tau$ (with compatible lowest alcove presentation) such that $\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}|_{I_K}, \tau) = \tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}, \tau) = t_{w{-1}(e \eta_0)}$.
Let $\tld{w}\in \tld{W}^{+,\mathcal{J}}_1$ be the unique element whose projection in $W^{\mathcal{J}}$ is $w$.
This type realizes the specialization to the pair ${\overline{\rho}}|_{I_K}$ and $\sigma = F_{(\tld{w}, \tld{w}(\tau)\tld{w}^{-1}\tld{w}_h^{-1}(0))}$ (see \eqref{eq:weight}).
Using that $\tld{w}(\tau) = \tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}|_{I_K}) t_{e \eta_0}$, we see that $\sigma$ is the extremal weight of ${\overline{\rho}}|_{I_K}$ corresponding ot $w$.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}\label{prop:tamecrit}
Assume that ${\overline{\rho}}$ is $3e(n-1)$-generic.
The following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
\label{it:tamecrit:1}
${\overline{\rho}}$ is semisimple; and
\item
\label{it:tamecrit:2}
$\# W_\mathrm{extr}({\overline{\rho}}) = \# W^{\mathcal{J}}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Proposition \ref{prop:obvforss} gives \eqref{it:tamecrit:1} implies \eqref{it:tamecrit:2}.
Next, assume that $\# W_\mathrm{extr}({\overline{\rho}}) = \# W^{\mathcal{J}}$. By the injectivity of $\theta_{{\overline{\rho}}}$ (Proposition \ref{prop:inj}), ${\overline{\rho}}$ has a unique extremal specialization, call it ${\overline{\rho}}^{\mathrm{sp}}$, and furthermore, $W_\mathrm{extr}({\overline{\rho}}) = W_\mathrm{extr}({\overline{\rho}}^{\mathrm{sp}})$.
Let $w \in W^{\mathcal{J}}$. Let $\sigma$ (resp.~$\sigma'$) be the extremal weight associated to $w$ (resp.~$w w_0$). We show that if ${\overline{\rho}}$ specializes to both $(\sigma, {\overline{\rho}}^{\mathrm{sp}})$ and $(\sigma', {\overline{\rho}}^{\mathrm{sp}})$ then ${\overline{\rho}}$ is semisimple and ${\overline{\rho}}|_{I_K} \cong {\overline{\rho}}^{\mathrm{sp}}$. Let $\tau$ and $\tau'$ be the types realizing these specialization in shape $\tld{z} = t_{w^{-1} (e \eta_0)}$ and $\tld{z}' = t_{w_0 w^{-1} (e \eta_0)}$ with corresponding Breuil--Kisin module $\mathfrak{M}$ and $\mathfrak{M}'$.
By Proposition \ref{prop:modpform}, there exists eigenbases $\beta$ and $\beta'$ respectively such that
\[
A^{(j)}_{\mathfrak{M}, \beta} = D_j U_j \tld{z}_j, \quad A^{(j)}_{\mathfrak{M}', \beta'} = D'_j U'_j \tld{z}'_j
\]
where $D_j, D'_j \in T(\mathbb{F})$, $U_{j} \in \tld{z}_j N_{\tld{z}_j}(\mathbb{F}) \tld{z}_j^{-1}$, and $U'_{j} = \tld{z}'_j N'_{\tld{z}'_j}(\mathbb{F}) (\tld{z}'_j)^{-1}$. By definition of $N_{\tld{z}}$ (\cite[Definition 4.2.9]{MLM}), we have
\[
U_j, U'_j \in L^{--} \mathcal{G}^{(j)}_{\mathbb{F}}(\mathbb{F})
\]
where $L^{--} \mathcal{G}^{(j)}_{\mathbb{F}}$ denotes the negative loop group for $L\mathcal{G}^{(j)}_{\mathbb{F}}$ (in particular, its $\mathbb{F}$ points consist of matrices $A\in\mathrm{GL}_n(\mathbb{F}[1/v])$ which are lower unipotent modulo $1/v$).
By Corollary \ref{cor:isom}, there exists $(I^{(j)}) \in \mathcal{I}(\mathbb{F})^{\mathcal{J}}$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:a1}
D_j U_j \tld{z}_j \tld{w}^*(\tau) = I^{(j)} D'_j U'_j \tld{z}'_j \tld{w}^*(\tau') (\varphi(I^{(j-1)}))^{-1}
\end{equation}
By scaling $\beta'$ by an element of $T(\mathbb{F})^{\mathcal{J}}$ if necessary, we can arrange that $(I^{(j)}) \in \mathcal{I}_1(\mathbb{F})^{\mathcal{J}}$. Since both $\tau$ and $\tau'$ realize the same specialization, $\tld{z}_j \tld{w}^*(\tau) = \tld{z}'_j \tld{w}^*(\tau') = \tld{w}^*({\overline{\rho}}^{\mathrm{sp}})$ and so \eqref{eq:a1} becomes
\begin{equation} \label{eq:a2}
D_j U_j \tld{w}^*({\overline{\rho}}^{\mathrm{sp}}) = I^{(j)} D'_j U'_j \tld{w}^*({\overline{\rho}}^{\mathrm{sp}}) (\varphi(I^{(j-1)}))^{-1}.
\end{equation}
By Lemma \ref{lem:Istraight},
there exists $(X_j) \in \mathcal{I}_1(\mathbb{F})^{\mathcal{J}}$ such that $ D_j U_j = X_j D'_j U'_j$ for all $j \in \mathcal{J}$. Thus, $U_j (U'_j)^{-1} \in \Iw(\mathbb{F}) \cap L^{--} \mathcal{G}^{(j)}_{\mathbb{F}}(\mathbb{F})$ and so $U_j = U'_j$. Finally, since $t_{w^{-1}(e(\eta_0))} (A_0) $ and $t_{w_0 w^{-1}(e(\eta_0))} (A_0)$ are in opposite Weyl chambers, $\tld{z}_j^{-1} U_j \tld{z}_j$ and $(\tld{z}'_j)^{-1} U'_j \tld{z}'_j$ are in opposite unipotents by \cite[Corollary 4.2.15]{MLM}.
Thus, $U_j$ and $U'_j$ are the identity ($\tld{z}_j, \tld{z}'_j$ are both translations). Since $A^{(j)}_{\mathfrak{M}, \beta} = D_j \tld{z}_j$ for all $j \in \mathcal{J}$, it follows that $T^*_{dd}(\mathfrak{M})$ is semisimple (see \cite[Proposition 5.5.2]{MLM} for example).
\end{proof}
\subsection{Maximally ordinary weights}\label{sec:mord}
In this section, we show that the set $W_\mathrm{extr}({\overline{\rho}})$ contains the set of \emph{maximally ordinary weights}.
We further show that the set of maximally ordinary weights is nonempty, so that in particular, the set $W_\mathrm{extr}({\overline{\rho}})$ is nonempty.
When ${\overline{\rho}}$ is an iterated extension of characters, the set of maximally ordinary weights is the set of \emph{ordinary weights}. %
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:extension}
Suppose that ${\overline{\rho}}: G_K \rightarrow \mathrm{GL}_n(\mathbb{F})$ is $(e(n-1)+2)$-generic and an extension of ${\overline{\rho}}_2$ by ${\overline{\rho}}_1$.
For $i = 1$ and $2$, let $n_i$ be the dimension of ${\overline{\rho}}_i$.
Suppose that ${\overline{\rho}}_i$ has a potentially crystalline lift $\rho_i : G_K \rightarrow \mathrm{GL}_n(\mathcal{O}_E)$ of tame inertial type $\tau_i$ and parallel Hodge--Tate weights $(n_1+n_2-1,\ldots,n_2)$ (resp.~$(n_2-1,\ldots,0)$) if $i=1$ (resp.~$i=2$).
Then ${\overline{\rho}}$ has a lift $\rho$ which is an extension of $\rho_2$ by $\rho_1$ and is potentially crystalline of type $(\tau,\eta)$ where $\tau = \tau_1\oplus \tau_2$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Note that by genericity, both ${\overline{\rho}}$ and $\tau$ are at least $2$-generic, in particular are cyclotomic-free (\cite[Lemma 7.2.9]{MLM}).
By genericity, $\mathrm{Ext}^2_{G_K}(\rho_2,\rho_1)$ is zero.
So the natural reduction map $\mathrm{Ext}^1_{G_K}(\rho_2,\rho_1) \rightarrow \mathrm{Ext}^1_{G_K}({\overline{\rho}}_2,{\overline{\rho}}_1)$ is surjective.
We conclude that there exists a lift $\rho: G_K \rightarrow \mathrm{GL}_n(\mathcal{O}_E)$ of ${\overline{\rho}}$ which is an extension of $\rho_2$ by $\rho_1$.
Let $\rho_{i,E}$ be $\rho_i \otimes_{\mathcal{O}_E} E$.
Then the containment $H^1_g(G_K,\rho_{2,E}^\vee \otimes_E \rho_{1,E}) \subset H^1(G_K,\rho_{2,E}^\vee \otimes_E \rho_{1,E})$ is an equality for dimension reasons.
Indeed, by the local Euler characteristic formula and Tate duality, we have that $h^1(G_K,\rho_{2,E}^\vee \otimes_E \rho_{1,E}) = \dim_E \rho_{2,E}^\vee \otimes_E \rho_{1,E}$.
On the other hand, $h^1_g(G_K,\rho_{2,E}^\vee \otimes_E \rho_{1,E}) = \dim_E D_{\mathrm{dR}}(\rho_{2,E}^\vee \otimes_E \rho_{1,E})/D_{\mathrm{dR}}(\rho_{2,E}^\vee \otimes_E \rho_{1,E})^+$.
Since the Hodge--Tate weights of $\rho_2$ are strictly less than those of $\rho_1$, this latter expression is $\dim_E \rho_{2,E}^\vee \otimes_E \rho_{1,E}$ as well.
We conclude that $\rho$ is an $\mathcal{O}_E$-lattice in a potentially semistable representation.
Moreover, $\rho$ has parallel Hodge--Tate weights $\eta$.
There is an exact sequence of smooth $I_K$-representations
\[
0 \rightarrow D_{\mathrm{pst}}(\rho_{1,E}) \rightarrow D_{\mathrm{pst}}(\rho_E) \rightarrow D_{\mathrm{pst}}(\rho_{2,E}) \rightarrow 0.
\]
We conclude that $D_{\mathrm{pst}}(\rho_E) \cong \tau = \tau_1 \oplus \tau_2$.
Moreover, by genericity, $\mathrm{Hom}_{I_K}(\tau_2,\tau_1(-1)) = 0$ and so $\rho$ must be potentially crystalline.
\end{proof}
Let $P^\vee\subset \mathrm{GL}_n$ be a parabolic subgroup with Levi quotient $M^\vee$.
Then $M^\vee \cong \prod_{i=1}^k M^\vee_i$ where $M^\vee_i \cong \mathrm{GL}_{n_i}$ and $\sum_{i=1}^k n_i = n$.
Let $N_i$ be $\sum_{j=i+1}^k n_j$.
We index these dimensions so that for all $1 \leq i \leq k$, $P^\vee$ has a quotient $P^\vee_i$ which is isomorphic to a parabolic subgroup of $\mathrm{GL}_{N_i}$ with Levi quotient $\prod_{j=i+1}^k M^\vee_j$.
In other words, if $P$ is block upper diagonal, then starting from the top left, the $i$-th block has size $n_i$.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:extension}
Let ${\overline{\rho}}: G_K \rightarrow \mathrm{GL}_n(\mathbb{F})$ be $(2e(n-1)+1)$-generic.
Suppose that ${\overline{\rho}}$ factors through $P^\vee(\mathbb{F})$ for a parabolic subgroup $P^\vee \subset \mathrm{GL}_n$ as above.
Let $M^\vee$, $M^\vee_i$, and $N_i$ be as above.
Suppose that the associated representations ${\overline{\rho}}_i: G_K \rightarrow M^\vee_i(\mathbb{F})$ are semisimple.
For each $i$, let $\rho_i$ be a potentially crystalline lift of type $\tau_i$ and parallel Hodge--Tate weights $(n_i+N_i -1,\ldots,N_i)$ where $\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}_i(-N_i),\tau_i)$ is extremal.
Then ${\overline{\rho}}$ has a potentially diagonalizable lift $\rho$ (in the sense of \cite[\S 1.4]{BLGGT}) of type $(\tau,\eta)$ where $\tau = \oplus_{i=1}^k \tau_i$.
The corresponding specialization is $\oplus_{i=1}^k {\overline{\rho}}_i$.
In particular, the semisimplification $\oplus_{i=1}^k {\overline{\rho}}_i$ is an extremal specialization of ${\overline{\rho}}$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
By iterated application of Lemma \ref{lemma:extension}, we obtain a potentially crystalline lift $\rho$ of type $(\tau,\eta)$, which is an iterated extension of potentially crystalline lifts (of type $\tau_i$ and parallel Hodge--Tate weights $(n_i+N_i -1,\ldots,N_i)$) of the representations ${\overline{\rho}}_i$.
In particular, the semisimplification of $\rho$ is $\oplus_{i=1}^k \rho_i$.
Then by the argument of proof of \cite[Corollary 3.4.11]{LLL} (replacing the reference to Proposition 3.4.8 in \emph{loc.~cit}.~with Proposition \ref{prop:gauge:basis} below, and noting that the semisimple Kisin module produced as in \emph{loc.~cit}.~has Hodge--Tate weights exactly $\eta$), after restriction to a finite index subgroup the semisimplification of $\rho$ is a direct sum of characters.
By \cite[Lemma 1.4.3(1)]{BLGGT}, $\rho$ is potentially diagonalizable.
Since $\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}_i(-N_i),\tau_i)$ is extremal for all $i = 1,\ldots, k$, so is $\tld{w}(\oplus_{i=1}^k {\overline{\rho}}_i,\tau)$ by an easy computation.
Since the semisimplification of ${\overline{\rho}}$ is $\oplus_{i=1}^k {\overline{\rho}}_i$, we deduce that $\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}},\tau)$ is this same shape by Proposition \ref{prop:weak:sc}.
Thus $\tau$ exhibits the specialization $\oplus_{i=1}^k {\overline{\rho}}_i$ of $\rho$.
\end{proof}
Suppose that ${\overline{\rho}}$ is as in Theorem \ref{thm:extension} with $P^\vee$, $M^\vee$, and $N_i$ as before.
Let $P\subset \mathrm{GL}_n$ be the dual parabolic subgroup.
Let $U$ be the unipotent radical of $P$.
For each $i$ let $\sigma_i \in W_\mathrm{extr}({\overline{\rho}}_i)$.
Let $\sigma$ be the unique Serre weight such that
\[
\sigma^U \cong \boxtimes_{i=1}^k \sigma_i (-N_i).
\]
We call a Serre weight constructed in this way \emph{maximally ordinary}.
Let $W_{\mathrm{mord}}({\overline{\rho}})$ be the set of maximally ordinary Serre weights.
Since we can always find $P^\vee$ as in Theorem \ref{thm:extension}, $W_{\mathrm{mord}}({\overline{\rho}})$ is nonempty.
If ${\overline{\rho}}$ is semisimple, then we can take $P^\vee$ to be $\mathrm{GL}_n$ so that $W_{\mathrm{mord}}({\overline{\rho}}) = W_\mathrm{extr}({\overline{\rho}})$.
Taking $P^\vee$ to be a minimal parabolic when ${\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{ss}$ is a direct sum of characters, we see that ordinary weights are maximally ordinary.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:obvord}
There is an inclusion $W_{\mathrm{mord}}({\overline{\rho}}) \subset W_\mathrm{extr}({\overline{\rho}})$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let ${\overline{\rho}}$ and ${\overline{\rho}}_i$ be as in Theorem \ref{thm:extension}.
Suppose that $\sigma \in W_{\mathrm{mord}}({\overline{\rho}})$.
For each $i$, let $\tau_i$ be the tame type such that $W^?({\overline{\rho}}_i,\tau_i) = \{\sigma_i\}$.
Then if we let $\tau$ be $\oplus_{i=1}^k \tau_i$, then $\tau$ exhibits a specialization of ${\overline{\rho}}$ to ${\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{ss}$.
Moreover, one can check that $W^?({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{ss},\tau) = \{\sigma\}$ so that $(\sigma,{\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{ss}) \in SP({\overline{\rho}})$.
This shows that $\sigma \in W_\mathrm{extr}({\overline{\rho}})$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Connections to Emerton--Gee stacks}
\label{sec:EGs}
This section is a series of remarks explaining how the notions of extremal weight and specialization can be interpreted geometrically on the stack of mod $p$ Galois representations $\mathcal{X}_n$ introduced by Emerton--Gee \cite{EGstack}. When $K/\mathbb{Q}_p$ is unramified, everything can be proved using the techniques of \cite{MLM}. The ramified case requires extending \cite{MLM} which will be the subject of future work.
First, we briefly recall what we need from \cite{EGstack}.
In \cite[Theorem 6.5.1]{EGstack}, Emerton and Gee describe a parametrization of the irreducible components of the underlying reduced stack $\mathcal{X}_{n,\mathrm{red}}$ of the moduli of $(\varphi,\Gamma)$-modules $\mathcal{X}_n$ by Serre weights of $\mathrm{GL}_n(\mathcal{O}_K)$. Let $\sigma=F(\kappa)$ be a Serre weight of $\mathrm{GL}_n(\mathcal{O}_K)$ with $\kappa = (\kappa_j) \in X_1(T)^{\mathcal{J}}$. We use the normalization as in \cite{MLM} where $\mathcal{C}_{\sigma}\stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} \mathcal{X}^{\sigma^\vee\otimes \det^{n-1}}_{EG,n,\mathrm{red}}$.
If $\kappa$ is $1$-deep, then $\mathcal{C}_{\sigma}$ is uniquely characterized by the fact that has a Zariski open subset consisting of ${\overline{\rho}}$ of the form
\[ {\overline{\rho}} \cong \begin{pmatrix} \chi_1 &* &\cdots & * \\
0&\chi_2& \cdots& *\\
\vdots &&\ddots&\vdots\\
0&\cdots &0 & \chi_n
\end{pmatrix}
\]
where $\chi_{i}|_{I_K}= \overline{\varepsilon}^i \prod_{j\in \mathcal{J}} \ovl{\omega}_{K,\sigma_j}^{(\kappa_j)_i}$ and ${\overline{\rho}}$ admits a unique $G_K$-stable flag.
\begin{rmk} \label{rmk:geomspec}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Let ${\overline{\rho}}^{\mathrm{sp}}$ be a sufficiently generic tame $\mathbb{F}$-type. If $\sigma$ is an extremal weight of ${\overline{\rho}}^{\mathrm{sp}}$ as in Definition \ref{defn:obv}, then there is a Zariski open subset $\mathcal{C}^{{\overline{\rho}}^{\mathrm{sp}}}_{\sigma} \subset \mathcal{C}_{\sigma}$ such that ${\overline{\rho}}$ specializes to the pair $(\sigma, {\overline{\rho}}^{\mathrm{sp}})$ if and only if ${\overline{\rho}} \in \mathcal{C}^{{\overline{\rho}}^{\mathrm{sp}}}_{\sigma}$. The Zariski open can be constructed via the generalization of the diagram in \cite[Theorem 7.4.2]{MLM} to the ramified setting.
\item Let $\sigma$ be a sufficiently generic Serre weight. Then there are $(n!)^{\mathcal{J}}$ sufficiently generic tame $\mathbb{F}$-types which have $\sigma$ as an extremal for ${\overline{\rho}}$ corresponding to $w$ weight.
Thus, the union $\mathcal{C}^{\mathrm{extr}}_{\sigma} = \bigcup \mathcal{C}^{{\overline{\rho}}^{\mathrm{sp}}}_{\sigma}$ where ${\overline{\rho}}^{\mathrm{sp}}$ ranges over all such types is a Zariski open subset of $\mathcal{C}_{\sigma}$ consisting exactly of the ${\overline{\rho}}$ which have $\sigma$ as an extremal weight.
(One can check that $\mathcal{C}^{\mathrm{extr}}_{\sigma} = \mathcal{C}_{\sigma}$ only when $K/\mathbb{Q}_p$ is unramified and $\sigma$ is Fontaine--Laffaille.)
\end{enumerate}
\end{rmk}
\begin{rmk}
As has been introduced in other settings (\cite{GL3Wild}), there is a natural set of Serre weights that can be associated to an arbitrary ${\overline{\rho}}:G_K \rightarrow \mathrm{GL}_n(\mathbb{F})$, the \emph{geometric} weights,
\[
W^{g}({\overline{\rho}}) = \{ \sigma \mid {\overline{\rho}} \in \mathcal{C}_{\sigma}(\mathbb{F}) \}.
\]
Remark \ref{rmk:geomspec} says that $W_{\mathrm{extr}}({\overline{\rho}}) \subset W^{g}({\overline{\rho}})$. Generally speaking the set of geometric weights will be larger.
\end{rmk}
\subsection{The extremal locus}
\label{sub:extr:loc}
In this section, we discuss the relationship between $W_{\mathrm{extr}}({\overline{\rho}})$ and $W^{g}({\overline{\rho}})$ when $K/\mathbb{Q}_p$ is unramified.
This gives, in this setting, an alternative to the proof of the existence of extremal weights in \S \ref{sec:mord}.
The main result of this section will also be used to construct global lifts in \S \ref{sec:TW}.%
Let $K/\mathbb{Q}_p$ be unramified.
Let $(\tld{w}_1,\omega)$ be a lowest alcove presentation for a Serre weight $\sigma$ compatible with $\zeta \in X^*(\un{Z})$.
Recall from \cite[Definition 4.6.1]{MLM} that $C^\zeta_\sigma$ is the closure of
\[
(\mathcal{I}\backslash \mathcal{I} (w_0\tld{w}_1)^* \mathcal{I} (t_\omega)^*)^{\nabla_0}
\]
inside $\Fl^{\nabla_0}_{\mathcal{J}}$ (see also \S \ref{sec:Modp:mon}).
We define $C^\zeta_{\sigma,\mathrm{extr}}$ to be the (Zariski) open subset
\[
\cup_{w\in \un{W}} (\mathcal{I}\backslash \mathcal{I} (w_0\tld{w}_1)^* \mathcal{I} (t_\omega w)^*)^{\nabla_0} \subset C^\zeta_\sigma.
\]
Assume that $\sigma$ is $(3n-1)$-deep.
Then by \cite[Remark 7.4.3(2)]{MLM}, we have a local model diagram for $\mathcal{C}_\sigma$ (the irreducible component of $\mathcal{X}_{n,\mathrm{red}}$ corresponding to $\sigma$, cf.~\S \ref{sec:EGs}) and $C^\zeta_\sigma$.
We then let $\mathcal{C}_{\sigma,\mathrm{extr}} \subset \mathcal{C}_\sigma$ be the Zariski open set of $\mathcal{C}_\sigma$ corresponding to $C^\zeta_{\sigma,\mathrm{extr}}\subset C^\zeta_{\sigma}$.
(The definition of $\mathcal{C}_{\sigma,\mathrm{extr}}$ does not depend on the lowest alcove presentation of $\sigma$.)
\begin{prop}\label{prop:obvlocus}
Let ${\overline{\rho}}$ be $(2(n-1)+1)$-generic.
If $\sigma$ is $(3n-1)$-deep and ${\overline{\rho}}\in \mathcal{C}_\sigma$, then ${\overline{\rho}} \in \mathcal{C}_{\sigma,\mathrm{extr}}$ if and only $\sigma \in W_{\mathrm{extr}}({\overline{\rho}})$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We fix a lowest alcove presentation $(\tld{w}_1,\omega)$ for $\sigma$ compatible with $\zeta$.
Let $x\in C_\sigma^\zeta$ correspond to ${\overline{\rho}}\in \mathcal{C}_\sigma$ in the local model diagram \cite[Theorem 7.4.2]{MLM}.
If $\sigma \in W_{\mathrm{extr}}({\overline{\rho}})$, then let $\tau$ be a tame inertial type exhibiting the extremal weight $\sigma$.
Then
\begin{align*}
x \in & (\mathcal{I}\backslash \mathcal{I} t_{(w_1)^{-1}(\eta)}^* \mathcal{I} \tld{w}(\tau)^*)^{\nabla_0} \\
=& (\mathcal{I}\backslash \mathcal{I} (w_0\tld{w}_1)^*\mathcal{I} (\tld{w}(\tau)(\tld{w}_h \tld{w}_1)^{-1})^*)^{\nabla_0} \\
=& (\mathcal{I}\backslash \mathcal{I} (w_0\tld{w}_1)^*\mathcal{I} (t_\omega w(\tau)(w_0 w_1)^{-1})^*)^{\nabla_0} \\
\subset & C^\zeta_{\sigma,\mathrm{extr}}
\end{align*}
where $\tld{w}(\tau)$ is defined with respect to the lowest alcove presentation of $\tau$ compatible with $\zeta$.
Conversely, suppose that ${\overline{\rho}} \in \mathcal{C}_{\sigma,\mathrm{extr}}$.
Let $w \in \un{W}$ be such that $x\in (\mathcal{I}\backslash \mathcal{I} (w_0\tld{w}_1)^* \mathcal{I} (t_\omega w)^*)^{\nabla_0}$.
Then we let $\tau$ be such that $\tld{w}(\tau) = t_\omega w \tld{w}_h \tld{w}_1$.
The above calculation shows that $\tau$ exhibits $\sigma$ as an extremal weight of ${\overline{\rho}}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}\label{prop:obvstrat}
Assume that $\sigma$ is $(4n-2)$-deep.
There is an inclusion
\[
\mathcal{C}_\sigma \subset \underset{\sigma \textrm{ covers } \sigma'}{\cup} \mathcal{C}_{\sigma',\mathrm{extr}}.
\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We choose a $(4n-2)$-deep lowest alcove presentation $(\tld{w}_1,\omega)$ of $\sigma$ and will show that
\[
C_\sigma^\zeta \subset \underset{\sigma \textrm{ covers } \sigma'}{\cup} C_{\sigma',\mathrm{extr}}^\zeta.
\]
Since the elements of $\tld{\un{W}}$ less than or equal to $w_0\tld{w}_1$ are exactly those of the form $s \tld{w}$ for some $s\in \un{W}$ and $\tld{w} \in \tld{W}^+$ with $\tld{w} \uparrow \tld{w}_1$ (see the proof of Lemma \ref{lemma:bruhatup}), \cite[Proposition 2.8]{iwahori-matsumoto} gives
\[
C_\sigma^\zeta \subset \overline{\mathcal{I}\backslash \mathcal{I} (w_0\tld{w}_1)^* \mathcal{I} t_\omega^*}^{\nabla_0} = \underset{s \in \un{W}}{\cup} \underset{\substack{\tld{w} \in \tld{\un{W}}\\ \tld{w} \uparrow \tld{w}_1}}{\cup} (\mathcal{I}\backslash \mathcal{I} (s\tld{w})^* \mathcal{I} t_\omega^*)^{\nabla_0}.
\]
We will show that $(\mathcal{I}\backslash \mathcal{I} (s\tld{w})^* \mathcal{I} t_\omega^*)^{\nabla_0} \subset C_{\sigma',\mathrm{extr}}^\zeta$ for some $\sigma'$ which $\sigma$ covers.
Since $(w_0 s^{-1})s\tld{w}$ is a reduced factorization by Lemma \ref{lemma:minrep},
\begin{align*}
(\mathcal{I}\backslash \mathcal{I} (s\tld{w})^* \mathcal{I} t_\omega^*)^{\nabla_0}
&\subset (\mathcal{I}\backslash \mathcal{I} (s\tld{w})^* \mathcal{I} (w_0 s^{-1})^* \mathcal{I} ((w_0 s^{-1})^{-1})^* t_\omega^*)^{\nabla_0} \\
& = (\mathcal{I}\backslash \mathcal{I} (w_0\tld{w})^* \mathcal{I} (t_\omega s w_0^{-1})^*)^{\nabla_0}.
\end{align*}
To further analyze this, let $\tld{w} = t_\nu \tld{w}_1'$ where $\nu \in X^*(\un{T})$ is dominant and $\tld{w}_1' \in \tld{\un{W}}^+_1$.
Then $t_{w_0 (\nu)} w_0 \tld{w}_1'$ is a reduced expression for $w_0\tld{w}$ by \cite[Lemma 4.1.9]{LLL}, from which we deduce as before that
\begin{align*}
(\mathcal{I}\backslash \mathcal{I} (w_0\tld{w}_1')^* \mathcal{I} (t_{\omega+s(\nu)} s w_0^{-1})^*)^{\nabla_0} &= (\mathcal{I}\backslash \mathcal{I} (w_0\tld{w}_1')^* \mathcal{I} (t_\omega s w_0^{-1}t_{w_0(\nu)})^*)^{\nabla_0} \\
&\subset (\mathcal{I}\backslash \mathcal{I} (w_0\tld{w})^* \mathcal{I} (t_\omega s w_0^{-1})^*)^{\nabla_0}.
\end{align*}
On the other hand, these are irreducible varieties of the same dimension by \cite[Theorem 4.2.4]{MLM} and thus must be equal.
Letting $\sigma'$ be the Serre weight with lowest alcove presentation $(\tld{w}_1',\omega+s(\nu))$, we have $(\mathcal{I}\backslash \mathcal{I} (w_0\tld{w}_1')^* \mathcal{I} (t_{\omega+s(\nu)} s w_0^{-1})^*)^{\nabla_0} \subset C_{\sigma',\mathrm{extr}}^\zeta$.
(Note that $\sigma'$ is $(3n-1)$-deep, hence $\mathcal{C}_{\sigma',\mathrm{extr}}$ is defined.)
It suffices to show that $\sigma$ covers $\sigma'$, or by \cite[Proposition 2.3.12(ii)]{MLM} that $t_{\un{W}(\nu)}\tld{w}_1' \uparrow \tld{w}_1$.
However, we have $t_{\un{W}(\nu)}\tld{w}_1' \uparrow \tld{w} \uparrow \tld{w}_1$ by \cite[II.6.5(3)]{RAGS}.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}\label{prop:obvintersect}
Let $K/\mathbb{Q}_p$ be a finite unramified extension and ${\overline{\rho}}: G_K \rightarrow \mathrm{GL}_n(\mathbb{F})$ be a Galois representation.
Let $\tau$ be a $(5n-1)$-generic tame inertial $L$-parameter.
Then the following are equivalent.
\begin{enumerate}
\item \label{item:nonzerodefring} $R_{{\overline{\rho}}}^\tau$ is nonzero;
\item \label{item:taugeometric} ${\overline{\rho}}$ is $4n$-generic and $W^g({\overline{\rho}}) \cap \mathrm{JH}(\ovl{\sigma}(\tau)) \neq \emptyset$; and
\item \label{item:tauobv} ${\overline{\rho}}$ is $4n$-generic and $W_{\mathrm{extr}}({\overline{\rho}}) \cap \mathrm{JH}(\ovl{\sigma}(\tau)) \neq \emptyset$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
\eqref{item:nonzerodefring} and \eqref{item:taugeometric} are equivalent by \cite[Theorem 7.4.2(1)]{MLM}.
Since $W_{\mathrm{extr}}({\overline{\rho}}) \subset W^g({\overline{\rho}})$, \eqref{item:tauobv} implies \eqref{item:taugeometric}.
For the converse, suppose that ${\overline{\rho}} \in \mathcal{C}_\sigma$ for some $\sigma \in \mathrm{JH}(\ovl{\sigma}(\tau))$.
Proposition \ref{prop:obvstrat} implies that ${\overline{\rho}} \in \mathcal{C}_{\sigma',\mathrm{extr}}$ for some $\sigma'$ which $\sigma$ covers.
Then $\sigma' \in W_{\mathrm{extr}}({\overline{\rho}})$ by Proposition \ref{prop:obvlocus} and $\sigma' \in \mathrm{JH}(\ovl{\sigma}(\tau))$ by the definition of covering.
(Note that Propositions \ref{prop:obvlocus}, \ref{prop:obvstrat} apply by the genericity assumption on $\tau$.)
\end{proof}
\clearpage{}%
\clearpage{}%
\section{Some potentially crystalline deformation rings}
\label{sec:PCDR}
The aim of this section is to compute potentially crystalline deformation rings for a certain class of shapes, namely those related to the subgroup $W_{a,\alpha}\subseteq \tld{\un{W}}$ defined in \ref{sec:comb:weyl}.
We follow the general procedure appearing in \cite{LLL}, improved in \cite{MLM}.
\subsection{The main result on Galois deformation rings}
For a mod $p$ Galois representation ${\overline{\rho}}$, we write $R^{\eta,\tau}_{{\overline{\rho}}}$ (resp.~$R^{\leq\eta,\tau}_{{\overline{\rho}}}$) for the framed universal deformation ring of ${\overline{\rho}}$ of tame inertial type $\tau$ for $I_K$ over $E$ and parallel Hodge--Tate weights $\eta$ (resp.~$\leq \eta$).
The main result is the following:
\begin{thm}\label{thm:FSM}
Let $\tau$ be a $\max\{(3n-7)e- (n-2), (2n-3)e\}$-generic tame inertial type.
Suppose that $\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}},\tau)$ is $\tld{w}^{-1} t_{e\eta_0} \tld{w}_\alpha \tld{w}$ for some $\tld{w} \in \un{\tld{W}}^{+}_1$, some $\alpha\in \Delta^\mathcal{J}$, and $\tld{w}_{\alpha_j} \in W_{a,\alpha_j}$.
Then $R_{\overline{\rho}}^{ \eta,\tau}=R_{\overline{\rho}}^{\leq \eta,\tau}$ is either zero or is a normal domain.
Furthermore:
\begin{itemize}
\item If $\tld{w}_{\alpha_j}$ is $\mathrm{id}$ or $t_{-e\alpha_j}$ for each $j$, $R^{\eta,\tau}_{\overline{\rho}}$ is formally smooth over $\mathcal{O}$.
\item In general, $\mathrm{Spec}\ \ovl{R}^{\leq \eta,\tau}_{\overline{\rho}}$ is reduced with $2^{m}$ geometrically irreducible components of the same dimension, where $m=\#\{j\in \mathcal{J} \mid \tld{w}_{\alpha_j}\neq \mathrm{id}, t_{-e\alpha_j}\}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{thm}
\begin{rmk} A key ingredient in our proof of Theorem \ref{thm:FSM} is the fact that the local model (in the sense of \cite{MLM}) of our Galois deformation ring has a Levi reduction property: namely, it is formally smooth over a similar local model attached to a Levi subgroup of $\mathrm{GL}_n$. This turns out to be a general phenomenon whenever the shape $\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}},\tau)^*$ is suitably ``decomposable'', which may be of independent interest. In the specific case of Theorem \ref{thm:FSM}, the Levi subgroup we can reduce to is $\mathrm{GL}_2\times \mathrm{GL}_1^{n-2}$, which is why we have very precise control on the relevant local models, and hence the Galois deformation rings.
\end{rmk}
\subsection{Gauge bases and parabolic structures}
\label{sub:par:strct}
For each $j\in \mathcal{J}$, we set $E_j=\sigma_j(E(v))\in \mathcal{O}[v]$. Let $R$ be an $\mathcal{O}$-algebra. We have the usual notion of degrees on $R[v]$, which is submultiplicative $\deg(ab)\leq \deg(a) + \deg(b)$, with equality if either $a$ or $b$ are monic (but not in general). The notion degree and being monic extends elements of $R[v,E_j^{-1}]$. The set of elements of degree $\leq 0$ form a a subring of $R[v,E_j^{-1}]_{\leq 0}$. This subring contains the set of elements $R[v,E_j^{-1}]_{\leq -1}=R[v,E_j^{-1}]_{< 0}$ of degree $<0$ as an ideal, and another ideal given by $vR[v,E_j^{-1}]_{<0}$. More generally, the set $R[v,E_j^{-1}]_{\leq d}$ of elements of degree $\leq d$ form an $R[v,E_j^{-1}]_{\leq 0}$-module.
Concretely, the elements of $R[v,E_j^{-1}]_{\leq 0}$ are exactly those of the form $\frac{P}{E_j^m}$ with $P\in R[v]$ such that $\deg P\leq me$, with the extra condition $v\mid P$ (for some choice of fractions with $m$ sufficiently large) for elements of $vR[v,E_j^{-1}]_{<0}$, and the extra condition $\deg P< me$ for elements of $R[v,E_j^{-1}]_{< 0}$.
Finally, note that for an element $a$ represented by $\frac{P}{E_j^m}$ with $P(v)\in R[v]$, the $\mathcal{O}$-algebra generated by the coefficients of $P$ is independent of the choice of representing fraction.
Let $R$ be a Noetherian $\mathcal{O}$-algebra. We define
\begin{align*}
L \mathcal{G}^{(j)}(R)&\stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} \{A \in \mathrm{GL}_n(R[v]^{\wedge_{E_j}}[\frac{1}{E_j}]), A \textrm{ is upper triangular mod } v\};\\
L^+ \mathcal{M}^{(j)}(R) & \stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} \{A \in \mathrm{Mat}_n(R[v]^{\wedge_{E_j}}), A \textrm{ is upper triangular mod } v\};
\end{align*}
For $\tld{z}=z t_\nu\in \tld{W}^\vee$ such that $e\mid ||\nu||$, define $\mathcal{U}(\tld{z})^{\det,\leq h}(R)$ to be the collection of $ A\in L \mathcal{G}^{(j)}(R) $ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item For $1\leq i, k\leq n$,
\[A_{ik}=v^{\delta_{i>k}}\frac{P}{E_j^h}\]
with $P\in R[v]$ such that $\deg P \leq he+\nu_k-\delta_{i>k}-\delta_{i<z(k)}$. Furthermore, this is an equality when $i=z(k)$, in which case $P$ is monic. In particular, $A\in \frac{1}{E_j^h}L^+\mathcal{M}^{(j)}(R)$.
\item $\det A=\det(z) E_j^{\frac{||\nu||}{e}}$.
\end{itemize}
If $R$ is furthermore $\mathcal{O}$-flat, then for such $A$ we have
\[A_{ik}^{-1}=v^{\delta_{i>k}}\frac{Q}{E_j^H}\]
with $Q\in R[v]$ and $H$ sufficiently large, such that $\deg Q \leq He-\nu_i-\delta_{i>k}-\delta_{z(i)<k}$
(The condition that $R$ is $\mathcal{O}$-flat is used to show that divisibility by $v$ in $R[v,E_j^{-1}]$ is equivalent to evaluating to $0$ at $v=0$, and hence the numerators of all representing fractions have $0$ constant terms).
For each $j\in \mathcal{J}$, we define $U^{[a,b]}(\tld{z}_j)\subset \mathcal{U}^{\det, \leq -a}(\tld{z}_j)$ to be the subfunctor consisting of $A$ such that $E_j^b A^{-1} \in L^+\mathcal{M}^{(j)}(R)\cap L\mathcal{G}^{(j)}(R)$ and $E_j^{-a}A\in L^+\mathcal{M}^{(j)}(R)\cap L\mathcal{G}^{(j)}(R)$. This is clearly representable by a finite type affine $\mathcal{O}$-scheme, with a set of generators given by the coefficients of the entries of $A^{(j)}$.
Note that this depends on $j$, a choice that is implicit in the symbol $\tld{z}_j$.
If $\tld{z}=(\tld{z}_j)_j\in \tld{W}^{\vee,\mathcal{J}}$, we set $U^{[a,b]}(\tld{z})=\prod U^{[a,b]}(\tld{z}_j)$.
We have the following definition:
\begin{defn}
Let $(R,\mathfrak{m})$ be a complete local Noetherian $\mathcal{O}$-algebra and assume that $\mathfrak{M}\in Y^{[0,n-1],\tau}(R)$ such that $\mathfrak{M}\otimes_{R}R/\mathfrak{m}$ has shape $\tld{z}$ with respect to $\tau$.
An eigenbasis $\beta$ for $\mathfrak{M}$ is said to be a \emph{gauge basis} if $A^{(j)}_{\mathfrak{M},\beta}\in T^\vee(R)U^{[0,n-1]}(\tld{z}_j)(R)$ for all $j\in \mathcal{J}$.
\end{defn}
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:gauge:basis}
Assume that $\tau$ admits a $(e(n-1)+1)$-deep lowest alcove presentation. Suppose $R$ is a complete local Noetherian $\mathcal{O}$-algebra and let $\mathfrak{M}\in Y^{[0,n-1],\tau}(R)$ such that $\ovl{\mathfrak{M}}\in Y^{[0,n-1],\tau}(\mathbb{F})$ has shape $\tld{z}$ with respect to $\tau$.
Then $\mathfrak{M}$ has a gauge basis.
Moreover the set of gauge basis for $\mathfrak{M}$ is a torsor for the natural action of $T^{\vee,\mathcal{J}}(R)$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The proof of \cite[Proposition 5.2.7]{MLM} generalizes verbatim by replacing the reference to Proposition 5.1.8 in \emph{loc.~cit.}~by Remark \ref{rmk:cng:basis} above, and noting that the statement of Lemma 5.1.10 in \emph{loc.~cit}.~holds true in our setting. Note the proof in \emph{loc.~cit}.~in fact proves a more general statement where $R$ is only assumed to be merely $p$-adically complete.
\end{proof}
Suppose we are given a gauge basis $\ovl{\beta}$ for $\ovl{\mathfrak{M}}\in Y^{[0,n-1],\tau}(\mathbb{F})$ with shape $\tld{z}$ and write
\[
A^{(j)}_{\ovl{\mathfrak{M}},\ovl{\beta}}=\ovl{D}^{(j)}\ovl{U}^{(j)}
\]
where $\ovl{D}^{(j)}\in T^\vee(\mathbb{F})$, $\ovl{U}^{(j)}\in U^{[0,n-1]}(\tld{z}_j)(\mathbb{F})$.
If $R$ is a complete local Noetherian $\mathcal{O}$-algebra, and $\mathfrak{M}\in Y^{[0,n-1],\tau}(R)$ is such that $\mathfrak{M}\otimes_R\mathbb{F}\cong \ovl{\mathfrak{M}}$, then the set of gauge basis for $\mathfrak{M}$ lifting $\ovl{\beta}$ is a torsor under the natural action of $\ker\big(T^{\vee,\mathcal{J}}(R)\twoheadrightarrow T^{\vee,\mathcal{J}}(\mathbb{F})\big)$.
Thus, the functor representing deformations $(\mathfrak{M},\beta)$ of the pair $(\ovl{\mathfrak{M}},\ovl{\beta})$ is representable by the completion of $T^{\vee}U^{[0,n-1]}(\tld{z}_j)$ at the point corresponding to $(\ovl{D}^{(j)}\ovl{U}^{(j)})$, and it is formally smooth over the completion of $Y^{[0,n-1],\tau}$ at $\ovl{\mathfrak{M}}$. The subfunctor classifying deformations $(\mathfrak{M},\beta)$ such that $\mathfrak{M}$ furthermore belongs to $Y^{\leq \eta,\tau}$ correspond to the completion of the closed subscheme $T^\vee U(\tld{z},\leq \eta)$ of $T^{\vee} U^{[0,n-1]}(\tld{z})$ characterized by:
\begin{itemize}
\item $T^\vee U(\tld{z},\leq \eta)$ is $\mathcal{O}$-flat and reduced.
\item The elementary divisors of $(A^{(j)})\in T^\vee U(\tld{z},\leq \eta)(R)\subset \prod L\mathcal{G}^{(j)}(R)$ are bounded by $E_j^{(n-1,\cdots, 0)}$, i.e.~for each $1\leq k\leq n$, each $k\times k$ minors of $A^{(j)}$ (which belong to $R[v]$) are divisible by $E_j^{\frac{(k-1)k}{2}}$ (in $R[v]$).
\end{itemize}
\begin{rmk}
\label{rmk:twisted:LM}
Let
\[ L \mathcal{G}^{+,(j)}(R) \stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} \{A \in \mathrm{GL}_n(R[v]^{\wedge_{E_j}}), A \textrm{ is upper triangular mod } v\}\]
a twisted positive loop group. Then $\Gr_{\mathcal{G}}^{(j)}=L \mathcal{G}^{+,(j)}\backslash L \mathcal{G}^{(j)}$ is a twisted affine Grassmannian. Then the generic fiber $\Gr_{\mathcal{G},E}^{(j)}\cong (\Gr_{\mathrm{GL}_n,E})^e$ identifies with the product of $e$ copies of the affine Grassmannian for the split group $\mathrm{GL}_n$, while the special fiber $\Gr_{\mathcal{G},\mathbb{F}}^{(j)}\cong \Fl$ identifies with the affine flag variety. The Pappas--Zhu local model $M_{j}(\leq\mkern-4mu\eta)$ for $\mathrm{Res}_{\mathcal{O}_K \otimes_{W(k), \sigma_j} \mathcal{O}/\mathcal{O}} \mathrm{GL}_n$ as defined in \cite{LevinLM} is the Zariski closure of the open Schubert variety for the cocharacter $(n-1,n-2,\dots,1,0)$ for each copy of $\Gr_{\mathrm{GL}_n,E}$. %
In this setup, the scheme $U(\tld{z}_j,\leq\mkern-4mu\eta)$ identifies with an (possibly empty) open affine subscheme of $M_j(\leq\mkern-4mu\eta)$, cf.~the discussion preceding \cite[Theorem 5.3.3]{MLM}. In particular, if non-empty, $U(\tld{z}_j,\leq\mkern-4mu\eta)$ has dimension $e\sum_{\beta>0} \langle \eta_0, \beta^{\vee} \rangle=e\frac{(n-1)n(n+1)}{6}$.
\end{rmk}
The following Proposition shows that in certain cases, any element of $T^\vee U(\tld{z},\leq \eta)$ automatically acquires a parabolic structure. In Propositions \ref{prop:parabolic_general} and \ref{prop:Levi_reduction}, we work with fixed $j \in \mathcal{J}$ and drop the subscript for notational ease.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:parabolic_general} Let $w\in W^{\vee}$, $r+s=n$ and $\tld{z}=zt_{\nu}=\begin{pmatrix} \tld{z}_t & 0 \\ 0 &\tld{z}_b \end{pmatrix}\in \tld{W}^{\vee}$ with block sizes $r,s$.
Let $w=w_Mw^M$ be the factorization so that $w^M$ has minimal length and $w_M= (w_t,w_b)\in W(M)=W(\mathrm{GL}_r)\times W(\mathrm{GL}_s)$ (where $M$ is the standard Levi for the partition $r+s=n$). Assume that
\begin{itemize}
\item $w_{b}^{-1}\tld{z}_{b} w_{b}$ has elementary divisors bounded by $v^{e(s-1,\cdots 0)}$.
\item $v^{-es}w_{t}^{-1}\tld{z}_{t} w_{t}$ has elementary divisors bounded by $v^{e(r-1,\cdots 0)}$.
\end{itemize}
Suppose $R$ is a $\mathcal{O}$-flat algebra and $A\in T^{\vee}U(w^{-1}\tld{z}w,\leq \eta)(R)$. Then $A=Dw^{-1}Pw$ with $D\in T^{\vee}(R)$ and
\[P=\begin{pmatrix} M_{t} & 0 \\ X & M_{b} \end{pmatrix}\]
is parabolic with diagonal block sizes $r,s$, and furthermore:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $M_{t}\in E_j^sw_{t}U(t_{-se(1,\cdots,1)}w_{t}^{-1}\tld{z}_{t} w_{t})w_{t}^{-1}$ and has elementary divisors bounded by $E_j^{(n-1,\cdots s)}$.
\item $M_{b}\in w_{b}U(w_{b}^{-1}\tld{z}_{b} w_{b})w_{b}^{-1}$ and has elementary divisors bounded by $E_j^{(r-1,\cdots 0)}$.
\item $(XM_t^{-1})_{ik} \in v^{\delta_{w^{-1}(i)>w^{-1}(k)}}R[v,E_j^{-1}]\cap R[v,E_j^{-1}]_{\leq -\delta_{w^{-1}(i)<w^{-1}(k)}}$.
\item \label{item:fh_integrality}$(M_b^{-1}X)_{ik}\in v^{\delta_{w^{-1}(i)>w^{-1}(k)}}R[v]\cap R[v,E_j^{-1}]_{\leq \nu_k-\nu_i-\delta_{w^{-1}z(i)<w^{-1}z(k)}}$.
(In the last two items, we interpret the indices to run over the rows and columns of $X$ as a submatrix of $P$, i.e.~$r+1 \leq i\leq n$, $1\leq k\leq r$.)
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof} We write $A=Dw^{-1}Pw$ so that $P\in wU(w^{-1}\tld{z}w,\leq \eta)w^{-1}$. This means that $P$ has entries in $R[v]$, with the degree bounds
\[P_{ik}\in v^{\delta_{w^{-1}(i)>w^{-1}(k)}}R[v]\cap R[v,E_j^{-1}]_{\leq\nu_k-\delta_{w^{-1}(i)<w^{-1}z(k)}}.\]
and that the leading coefficient of $P_{iz(k)}$ are $1$. We call the corresponding entry the pivot entries.
Write $P=\begin{pmatrix}M_t & Y \\ X & M_b \end{pmatrix}$.
We first show that $Y=0$. The degree bounds on $P$ imply that when expanding $\det M_b$, there is a unique maximal degree term, which is given by the product of the top degree terms in the pivot entries in $M_t$
(one can see this by noting that this is a combinatorial statement on the degree bounds which can be checked over rings $S$ where $p=0$, where it reduces to the fact that $M_bv^{-\nu_b}z_b^{-1}$ is conjugate to a matrix in with coefficients in $S[v^{-1}]$ which is upper triangular unipotent mod $v^{-1}S[v^{-1}]$).
This shows $\det M_b=\det z_{b}E_j^{\frac{(s-1)s}{2}}$.
Now
\[(YM^{-1}_b)_{ik}=\sum_l Y_{il}(M^{-1}_b)_{lk}. \]
We observe
\begin{itemize}
\item $Y_{il}\in v^{\delta_{w^{-1}(i)>w^{-1}(l)}}$, $(M^{-1}_b)_{lk}\in v^{\delta_{w^{-1}(l)>w^{-1}(k)}}$. Hence $(YM^{-1}_b)_{ik}$ is divisible by $v^{\delta_{w^{-1}(i)>w^{-1}(k)}}$ in $R[v,E_j^{-1}]$.
\item $Y_{il}\in R[v,E_j^{-1}]_{\leq \nu_l-\delta_{w^{-1}(i)<w^{-1}z(l)}}$, $(M^{-1}_b)_{lk}\in R[v,E_j^{-1}]_{\leq -\nu_l-\delta_{w^{-1}z(l)<w^{-1}(k)}}$. Hence $(YM^{-1}_b)_{ik}\in R[v,E_j^{-1}]_{\leq -\delta_{w^{-1}(i)<w^{-1}(k)}}$.
\end{itemize}
However, the elementary divisor conditions together with the degree bounds imply that the minor formed by replacing one row of $M_b$ with one row of $Y$ belongs to $E_j^{\frac{(s-1)s}{2}}R$, hence Cramer's rule shows that the entries of $YM^{-1}_b$ are in $R$. Since by the above, these entries also belong to $v^{\delta_{w^{-1}(i)<w^{-1}(k)}}R[v,E_j^{-1}]\cap R[v,E_j^{-1}]_{\leq -\delta_{w^{-1}(i)<w^{-1}(k)}}$, they must be all $0$.
Thus, we see that $P$ has the desired parabolic structure. The first two items immediately follow from the degree bounds on $P$ and the elementary divisor conditions. The third and fourth items follow from the same argument used above in showing $Y=0$.
\end{proof}
By applying Proposition \ref{prop:parabolic_general} to the universal case, we get%
\begin{prop}\label{prop:Levi_reduction} Assume the setting of Proposition \ref{prop:parabolic_general}. Let $R^{\univ}=\mathcal{O}(U(w^{-1}\tld{z}w,\leq \eta))$, so that the universal $A^{\univ}\in U(\tld{z},\leq \eta))$ factors as
\[A^{\univ}=D^{\univ}w^{-1}\begin{pmatrix} M_t^{\univ} &0 \\ X^{\univ} & M_b^{\univ} \end{pmatrix} w.\]
Then the map $A^{\univ}\mapsto (\frac{1}{E_j^s}w_t^{-1}M_t^{\univ}w_t,w_b^{-1}M_bw_b)$ exhibits
$U(w^{-1}\tld{z}w,\leq \eta)$ as an affine space over $U(t_{-se(1,\cdots ,1)}w^{-1}_t\tld{z}_tw_t,\leq (r-1,\cdots 0))\times U(w^{-1}_b\tld{z}_bw_b,\leq (s-1,\cdots 0))$, whose coordinates are the coefficients of the entries of $(M_b^{\univ})^{-1}X^{\univ}$ (which are subject to the degree bounds dictated by Proposition \ref{prop:parabolic_general}).
\end{prop}
\begin{proof} The fact that we get a map follows from Proposition \ref{prop:parabolic_general}, which clearly induces a closed immersion from $U(w^{-1}\tld{z}w,\leq \eta)$ into the appropriate affine space over $U(t_{-se(1,\cdots ,1)}w^{-1}_t\tld{z}_tw_t,\leq (r-1,\cdots 0))\times U(w^{-1}_b\tld{z}_bw_b,\leq (s-1,\cdots 0))$. To see this injection is an isomorphism, observe that if we set $Z$ to be a matrix subject to the degree bounds of Proposition \ref{prop:parabolic_general}(\ref{item:fh_integrality}) and whose coefficients are free variables, then
\[w^{-1}\begin{pmatrix} M_t^{\univ} & 0 \\ M_b^{\univ}Z & M^{\univ}_b\end{pmatrix}w=w^{-1}\begin{pmatrix} M^{\univ}_t & 0 \\ 0 & M^{\univ}_b \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ Z &0 \end{pmatrix}w\]
satisfies the necessary elementary divisors and degree bounds characterizing $U(w^{-1}\tld{z}w,\leq \eta)$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Interlude: $\mathrm{GL}_2$ Pappas--Zhu models}
We specialize the previous section to $n=2$. Thus, $M_j(t_{(1,0)})$ is a Pappas--Zhu local model for the Weil restricted group $\mathrm{Res}_{\mathcal{O}_K \otimes_{W(k), \sigma_j} \mathcal{O}/\mathcal{O}} \mathrm{GL}_2$, the (minuscule) cocharacter $(t_{(1,0)},\cdots t_{(1,0)})\in (\mathbb{Z}^2)^{e}$, and Iwahori level structure.
The following summarizes the known geometric properties of $M_j(t_{(1,0)})$ (see Theorem A in \cite{PR2} or Theorem 2.3.3 and 2.3.5 in \cite{LevinLM}): %
\begin{prop}
\begin{enumerate}
\item $M_j(t_{(1,0)})_E\cong (\mathbb{P}^1_E)^e$.
\item $M_j(t_{(1,0)})_\mathbb{F}$ is (geometrically) reduced, and identifies with the reduced union of $S(t_{(e,0)})\cup S(t_{(0,e)})$ of $\Fl=\Gr^{(j)}_\mathbb{F}$. Each of its irreducible components are (geometrically) normal.
\end{enumerate}
In particular, $M_j(t_{(1,0)})$ is a normal domain, whose special fiber has two irreducible components. Further more any $x\in S^0(t_{(e,0)})\cup S^0(t_{(0,e)})$ belongs to the regular locus of $M_j(t_{(1,0)})$.
\end{prop}
Note that the reducedness of the special fiber and the geometric normality of its irreducible component are preserved under taking products.
We note that the $e(1,0)$-admissible elements are exactly $t_{(e-k,k)}$, $0\leq k \leq e$ and $t_{(e-k,k)}s_\alpha$ with $0<k\leq e$.
\begin{cor}\label{cor:GL_2model} Let $\tld{z}_j$ be $(e,0)$-admissible. Then $U(\tld{z}_j,\leq \eta)$ is a normal domain, and it is formally smooth over $\mathcal{O}$ if $\tld{z}_j\in \{t_{(e,0)},t_{(0,e)}\}$.
Otherwise, its special fiber has two (geometrically) normal irreducible components.
\end{cor}
We deduce the following combinatorial property about the admissible set from our geometric considerations:
\begin{cor}\label{cor:at_most_two} Let $\tld{w}_j= w_j^{-1} W_{a,\alpha_j} t_{e\eta_0} w_j \cap \mathrm{Adm}(e\eta_0)$ for some simple root $\alpha_j$ and $w_j\in W$. Then there are at most two $\sigma\in W$ such that $\tld{w}_j\leq t_{\sigma^{-1}(e\eta_0)}$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof} Set $\tld{z}_j=\tld{w}_j^*$. By Proposition \ref{prop:Levi_reduction}, $U(\tld{z}_j,\leq \eta)$ is an affine space over an affine scheme of the form as in Corollary \ref{cor:GL_2model}. In particular, $U(\tld{z}_j,\leq \eta)_\mathbb{F}$ has at most two irreducible components. On the other hand, this is an open neighborhood of $\tld{z}_j$ in the special fiber $M_j(\leq \eta)_\mathbb{F}$ of a Pappas--Zhu model. We conclude from the fact that $M_j(\leq \eta)_\mathbb{F}=\cup_{\sigma\in W} S(t_{\sigma(e\eta_0)})$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Analysis of the monodromy condition}
\label{sub:analysis:MC}
Suppose ${\overline{\rho}}$ admits a Breuil--Kisin module $\ovl{\mathfrak{M}}\in Y^{[0,n-1],\tau}(\mathbb{F})$ of type $\tau$, with shape $\tld{z}$ and a gauge basis $\ovl{\beta}$.
To analyze the potentially crystalline deformation ring $R^{\leq \eta,\tau}_{{\overline{\rho}}}$, we need to recall its relationship with the finite height deformation ring $R^{\tau,\ovl{\beta}}_{\ovl{\mathfrak{M}}}$, as in \cite[\S 3,4]{LLL} and \cite[\S 7.1]{MLM}. One has a diagram (cf \cite[Diagram (3.16)]{LLL}, \cite[Proposition 7.2.3]{MLM})
\begin{equation}
\label{diag:main}
\xymatrix{ & \mathrm{Spf} R^{\tau,\ovl{\beta},\Box,\nabla}_{\ovl{\mathfrak{M}}} \ar[r]^{f.s.} \ar@{^{(}->}[d]& \mathrm{Spf} R^{\tau,\ovl{\beta},\nabla}_{\ovl{\mathfrak{M}}}\ar@{^{(}->}[d] \\
\mathrm{Spf} R^{\tau,\ovl{\beta},\Box}_{\ovl{\mathfrak{M}},{\overline{\rho}}}\ar[d]^{f.s.} \ar@{^{(}->}[r]\ar[ur]^{\cong} &\mathrm{Spf} R^{\tau,\ovl{\beta},\Box}_{\ovl{\mathfrak{M}}}\ar[r]^{f.s.} &\mathrm{Spf} R^{\tau,\ovl{\beta}}_{\ovl{\mathfrak{M}}} \\
\mathrm{Spf} R^{\leq \eta,\tau}_{\overline{\rho}} \\&& }
\end{equation}
where
\begin{itemize}
\item $R^{\leq \eta,\tau}_{\overline{\rho}}$ is the framed potentially crystalline deformation ring representing Galois deformations $\rho$ with Hodge-Tate weights $\leq \eta$ and inertial type $\tau$. Note that it is either zero, or is $\mathcal{O}$-flat, reduced and of Krull dimension $n^2+1+\frac{n(n-1)}{2}[K:\mathbb{Q}_p]$.%
\item $R^{\tau,\ovl{\beta}}_{\ovl{\mathfrak{M}}}$ represents deformations $(\mathfrak{M},\beta)$ of $(\ovl{\mathfrak{M}},\ovl{\beta})$ where $\mathfrak{M}$ belongs to $Y^{\leq \eta,\tau}$ and $\beta$ is a gauge basis of $\mathfrak{M}$.
\item $R^{\tau,\ovl{\beta},\Box}_{\ovl{\mathfrak{M}},{\overline{\rho}}}$ represents potentially crystalline Galois deformations $\rho$ of type $(\leq \eta,\tau)$, together with a gauge basis $\beta$ of its (unique) Breuil--Kisin module $\mathfrak{M}$ in $Y^{\leq \eta,\tau}$. It is formally smooth over $R^{\leq \eta,\tau}$ of relative dimension $nf$.
\item $R^{\tau,\ovl{\beta},\Box}_{\ovl{\mathfrak{M}}}$ represents a deformation $(\mathfrak{M},\beta)$ of $(\ovl{\mathfrak{M}},\ovl{\beta})$ as above together with a framing basis of the $G_{K_\infty}$-representation associated to $\mathfrak{M}$. This is formally smooth over $R^{\tau,\ovl{\beta}}_{\ovl{\mathfrak{M}}}$ of relative dimension $n^2$.
\item $R^{\tau,\ovl{\beta},\nabla}_{\ovl{\mathfrak{M}}}$ (resp. $R^{\tau,\ovl{\beta},\Box, \nabla}_{\ovl{\mathfrak{M}}}$) is the $\mathcal{O}$-flat reduced quotient of $R^{\tau,\ovl{\beta}}_{\ovl{\mathfrak{M}}}$ (resp. $R^{\tau,\ovl{\beta},\Box}_{\ovl{\mathfrak{M}}}$) cut out by imposing the monodromy condition on the universal Breuil--Kisin module after inverting $p$.
\end{itemize}
We elaborate on the monodromy condition on the universal Breuil--Kisin module on $R^{\tau,\ovl{\beta}}_{\ovl{\mathfrak{M}}}$. Recall that $E(v)$ is the Eisenstein polynomial of a chosen uniformizer of $K$ over $K_0$, and that $e'=p^{f'}-1=p^{fr}-1$.
Recall from \cite[\S 7.1]{MLM} the ring $\mathcal{O}^{\mathrm{rig}}\stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} \mathcal{O}^{\mathrm{rig}}_{K',R^{\tau,\ovl{\beta}}_{\ovl{\mathfrak{M}}}}$, endowed with a canonical derivation $N_\nabla=-u'\lambda\frac{d}{du'}$ (where $\lambda=\prod_{i=0}^\infty \frac{\varphi^i(E((u')^{e'}))}{E(0)}$ is constructed out of $E(v)=E((u')^{e'})$ instead of $v+p$), and the module $\mathfrak{M}^{\univ, \mathrm{rig}}\stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} \mathfrak{M}^{\univ}\otimes_{R^{\tau,\ovl{\beta}}_{\ovl{\mathfrak{M}}}} \mathcal{O}^{\mathrm{rig}}$, such that $\mathfrak{M}^{\univ, \mathrm{rig}}[1/\lambda]$ is endowed with a canonical derivation $N_{\mathfrak{M}^{\univ, \mathrm{rig}}}$ over $N_\nabla$ (cf.~\cite[Proposition 7.1.3(1)]{MLM}). Then the \emph{monodromy condition} alluded to above is the condition that $N_{\mathfrak{M}^{\univ, \mathrm{rig}}}$ preserves $\mathfrak{M}^{\univ, \mathrm{rig}}$.
We now choose a lowest alcove presentation $\tau\cong \tau(s,\mu+\eta_0)$.
Recall from \S \ref{subsubsec:TIT} that attached to $(s,\mu)$ we have the data $s'_{\mathrm{or}, j'}\in W$, $\mathbf{a}^{\prime \, (j')}\in \mathbb{Z}^{n}$. We write $A^{(j')}$ for the matrices constructed out of the universal Breuil--Kisin module and its universal gauge basis over $R^{\tau,\ovl{\beta}}_{\ovl{\mathfrak{M}}}$ or $R^{\tau,\ovl{\beta},\Box}_{\ovl{\mathfrak{M}}}$.
We get the following control of the monodromy condition:
\begin{prop}\label{prop:monodromy_control} Assume $\tau(s,\mu+\eta_0)$ is an $m$-deep lowest alcove presentation of $\tau$. If the monodromy condition holds, the for each $j'$, $0\leq t< n-2$ and $\pi$ a root of $E_j$, the result of the operator $(\frac{d}{dv})^t|_{v=\pi}$ acting on
\[\left(e'v \frac{d}{dv} A^{(j')} + [A^{(j')},\mathrm{Diag}((s'_{\mathrm{or}, j'})^{-1}(\mathbf{a}^{\prime \, (j')}))] \right) (A^{(j')})^{-1}E_j^{n-1}\]
belongs to $p^{\frac{m+1-(n-2)e-t}{e}}R$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof} This is a straightforward generalization of the computation in \cite[Proposition 7.1.10]{MLM}, with the following changes: $h$ in \emph{loc.cit.} becomes $n-1$, occurrences of $p$ (outside any evaluation at $v=-p$) becomes $E(0)$, occurrences of $(v+p)^h(A^{(j')})^{-1}$ becomes $E_{j'}^{n-1}(A^{(j')})^{-1}$, occurrences of $|_{v=-p}$ becomes $|_{v=\pi}$. Note that $E_j(0)\in p\mathcal{O}^\times$, and $E_{j'}=E_j$ depends only on $j$ mod $f$.
More specifically, the computation in \emph{loc.cit.} expresses the monodromy condition as
\[\varphi(\lambda)^{n-1}\left(e'v \frac{d}{dv} A^{(j')} + [A^{(j')},\mathrm{Diag}((s'_{\mathrm{or}, j'})^{-1}(\mathbf{a}^{\prime \, (j')}))] \right) (A^{(j')})^{-1}E_j^{n-1}+Err\]
has zeroes of order $n-2$ along the roots of $E_j$, for an appropriate error term $Err$. It follows that the operator $(\frac{d}{dv})^t|_{v=\pi}$ annihilates this expression, for $0\leq t<n-2$ and $\pi$ a root of $E_j$.
The error term $Err$ has the form
\[\sum_{i=1}^\infty \varphi^{i+1}(\lambda)^{n-1}Z_i^{(j')}\]
with $Z_i^{(j')}\in \frac{1}{p^{i(n-2)}}v^{1+m\frac{p^i-1}{p-1}}\mathrm{Mat}_n(R[\![v]\!])$. We conclude from the analysis of the effect of $(\frac{d}{dv})^t|_{v=\pi}$ on the error term $Err$ as in \emph{loc.cit.} (except that we use the differential operator $\frac{d}{dv}$ as opposed to $v\frac{d}{dv}$), noting that in our current situation
\begin{itemize}
\item $(\frac{d}{dv})^t|_{v=\pi}\varphi^k(\lambda)\in p^{1+\frac{p-t}{e}}\mathcal{O}+ p^{p-\frac{t}{e}}\mathcal{O}$ for any $t,k\geq 1$.
\item If $F\in v^M \mathrm{Mat}_n(R[\![v]\!])$ then $(\frac{d}{dv})^t|_{v=\pi}F\in p^{\frac{M-t}{e}} \mathrm{Mat}_n(R[\![v]\!])$.
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:error_control} Let $R$ be a $p$-flat $\mathcal{O}$-algebra. Let $N,k$ be non-negative integers and $F\in R[v]$. Assume that $N<p$ and
that $(\frac{d}{dv})^t|_{v=\pi}(F)\in p^kR$ for $0\leq t<N$ and $\pi$ is any root of $E_j$.
Write $F=E_j^Nq+r$ where $q,r\in R[v]$ such that $\deg r<Ne$ (this uniquely determines $q$, $r$)
Then $r\in p^{k-(2N-1)(1-\frac{1}{e})}[v]$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Our hypothesis implies $(\frac{d}{dv})^t|_{v=\pi}(r)\in p^kR$ for $t<N$ and $E_j(\pi)=0$. We decompose $r=\sum_{t=0}^{N-1}E_j^t r_t$ with $\deg r_i<e$. Then the reduction to $R/p^k$ of the coefficients of $r_0$ form an element in the kernel space of the Vandermonde matrix on the roots of $E_j$. It follows that $r_0\in p^{k-\frac{e-1}{e}}R[v]$.
For $t\geq 0$, Then $t!(E'_j)^t(\pi)r_t(\pi)$ differs from $(\frac{d}{dv})^t|_{v=\pi}(r)$ by a polynomial in the coefficients of $r_{t'}$ for $t'<t$. This implies $r_t\in p^{k-(2t+1)(1-\frac{1}{e})}R[v]$ by induction on $t$.
\end{proof}
The following Lemma studies the effect of the approximation of the monodromy condition under the presence of a suitable parabolic structure:
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:parabolic_monodromy} Let $R$ be a Noetherian $\mathcal{O}$-algebra, $N$,$r,s$ non-negative integers such that $r+s=n$. Let $\kappa=\begin{pmatrix} \kappa_{t} & 0 \\ 0 & \kappa_{b} \end{pmatrix}\in X^*(T)\otimes \mathcal{O}$ viewed as a constant diagonal matrix, $w\in W^{\vee}$, and $\tld{z}=zt_{\nu}=\begin{pmatrix} \tld{z}_{t} & 0 \\ 0 & \tld{z}_{b}\end{pmatrix}$ (with block sizes $r, s$). %
Suppose we are also given $P=\begin{pmatrix} A & 0 \\ C & D \end{pmatrix}\in \mathrm{Mat}_n(R[v])$, a block lower triangular matrix corresponding to the partition $r+s=n$ satisfying
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:parabolic_monodromy}
(v\frac{d}{dv} P - [P,\kappa]) P^{-1}\in \frac{1}{E_j} \mathrm{Mat}_n(R[v])
\end{equation}
Assume the following
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\begin{pmatrix} A & 0 \\ 0 & D \end{pmatrix}\in wU(w^{-1}\tld{z}w) w^{-1}$.
\item For $\beta\in \Phi$, the $\beta$-th entry of $CA^{-1}$ (inserted inside $\mathrm{Mat}_n$ at the same position as $C$) belong to $v^{\delta_{w^{-1}(\beta)<0}}R[v,E_j^{-1}]_{<0}$.
\item $E_j^NP^{-1}\in \mathrm{Mat}_n(R[v])$.
\item $\langle \tld{z}(0)-z(\kappa), \beta^{\vee}\rangle+k\in \mathcal{O}^{\times}$ for all $k\in \{0,\cdots,-Ne\}$.
\end{enumerate}
Let $\mathcal{O}_P$ be the $\mathcal{O}$-algebra generated by the coefficients of the entries of $P$, and $\mathcal{O}_{A,D}$ be the $\mathcal{O}$-algebra generated by the coefficients of the entries of $A, D$. Then $\mathcal{O}_{P}$ is generated over $\mathcal{O}_{A,D}$ by at most $ers$ elements.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
In this proof only, we abbreviate $\delta_{\beta}=\delta_{w^{-1}(\beta)<0}$, to avoid cluttering notation.
Our hypothesis on $\begin{pmatrix} A & 0 \\ 0 & D \end{pmatrix}$ implies
\[w^{-1}\begin{pmatrix} (v\frac{d}{dv} A - [A,\kappa_{t}]) A^{-1} & 0 \\ 0 &(v\frac{d}{dv} D - [D,\kappa_{b}]) D^{-1} \end{pmatrix} w\in \mathrm{Mat}_n(R[v,E_j^{-1}]_{\leq 0}),\]
and whose entries above the diagonal are in $R[v,E_j^{-1}]_{<0}$ and whose entries on and below the diagonal are in $vR[v,E_j^{-1}]_{<0}$. Furthermore, modulo $R[v,E_j^{-1}]_{<0}$, the diagonal part is exactly $\frac{vE'_j}{E_j}\Ad(z)\frac{\nu}{e} +(1-\Ad(z))(\kappa)$.
Now
\[(v\frac{d}{dv} P - [P,\kappa]) P^{-1}= \begin{pmatrix} v\frac{d}{dv} A - [A,\kappa_{t}] & 0 \\ v\frac{d}{dv} C - C\kappa_{t}+\kappa_{b}C& v\frac{d}{dv} D - [D,\kappa_{b}] \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} A^{-1} & 0 \\ -D^{-1}CA^{-1}& D^{-1}\end{pmatrix}\]
Set $B=CA^{-1}$, then the bottom left block of the above expression is
\begin{align*}
&(v\frac{d}{dv} (BA) - BA\kappa_{t}+\kappa_{b}BA)A^{-1} -(v\frac{d}{dv} D - [D,\kappa_{b}])D^{-1}B \\
=& v\frac{d}{dv} B - B\kappa_{t}+\kappa_{b}B+B(v\frac{d}{dv} A - [A,\kappa_t])A^{-1} -(v\frac{d}{dv} D - [D,\kappa_{b}])D^{-1}B
\end{align*}
We abbreviate $\nabla B= v\frac{d}{dv} B - B\kappa_{t}+\kappa_{b}B$, $\nabla A= (v\frac{d}{dv} A - [A,\kappa])A^{-1} $ and $\nabla D=(v\frac{d}{dv} D - [D,\kappa_{b}])D^{-1}$.
In what follows, we label the entries of various matrices of size smaller than $n\times n$ using roots/indices of the $n\times n$ matrix $P$, by interpreting such matrices as one of the non-trivial block of $P$ corresponding to its size.
We observe:
\begin{itemize}
\item
$E_j\nabla(A)=A_{e-1}+\cdots A_0$, where $A_{i,\beta}=v^{\delta_{\beta}+i}a_{i,\beta}$, $A_{i,ll}=v^{1+i}a_{i,ll}$ with $a_{i,\beta},a_{i,ll}\in R$, for all $\beta$ and $l$ such that the relevant entry exists in $A$.
\item
$E_j\nabla(D)=D_{e-1}+\cdots D_0$, where $D_{i,\beta}=v^{\delta_{\beta}+i}d_{i,\beta}$, $D_{i,ll}=v^{1+i}d_{i,ll}$ with $d_{i,\beta},a_{d,ll}\in R$, for all $\beta$ and $l$ such that the relevant entry exists in $D$.
\item The matrices $A_{lead}$, $D_{lead}$ obtained by extracting the degree $e$ coefficients of $E_j\nabla(A)$, $E_j\nabla(D)$ satisfy
\[w^{-1} \begin{pmatrix} A_{lead} &0 \\ 0& D_{lead}\end{pmatrix}w \]
is lower triangular, with diagonal entries $\Ad(w^{-1}) (z(\nu)+\kappa-z(\kappa))$. %
\item $B=\frac{1}{E_j^N}(B_0+B_{-1}+\cdots)$ where $B_{i,\beta}=b_{i,\beta}v^{\delta_\beta+Ne-1+i}$ with $b_{i,\beta}\in R$, and $b_{i,\beta}=0$ if $i<-Ne$.
\end{itemize}
Condition (\ref{eqn:parabolic_monodromy}) means
\[\nabla B +B(\nabla A)-(\nabla D )B\in \frac{1}{E_j} \mathrm{Mat}_n(R[v]).\]
Using $v\frac{d}{dv}(\frac{F}{E_j^N})=-N\frac{vE'_j}{E_j^{N+1}}F+\frac{v}{E_j^N}\frac{dF}{dv}$, clearing denominators in the above expression yields
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:key}
-NvE'_j(E_j^NB)+vE_j\frac{d}{dv}(E_j^NB)-E_j(E_j^NB)\kappa_{t}+E_j\kappa_{b}(E_j^NB)+(E_j^NB)(E_j\nabla A)-(E_j\nabla D)(E_j^NB)=E_j^{N}X
\end{equation}
for some $X\in \mathrm{Mat}_n(R[v])$.
The observations on the degree ranges of $A_i,D_i,B_i$ show that for each relevant $\beta\in \Phi$, $X_{\beta}=v^{\delta_\beta}\sum_{i\geq 0} x_{i,\beta}v^i$ (recall that an element of $R[v][\frac{1}{E_j}]$ is divisible by $v$ if and only if its evaluation at $v=0$ is $0$, a condition that makes sense because $R\subset R[\frac{1}{p}]$).
The degree $Ne+e-1+i+\delta_{\beta}$ part of the $\beta$-th entry of equation (\ref{eqn:key}) reads
\begin{align}\label{eqn:key:1}
&-Neb_{i,\beta}+(\delta_{\beta}+Ne-1+i)b_{i,\beta}+\langle \kappa, \beta^\vee \rangle b_{i,\beta}+O(>i,\beta)+\\
&
\qquad+\sum_{\beta=\beta'+\beta''}\sum_{k,l}b_{k,\beta'}a_{l,\beta''}+\sum_{\beta=\gamma'+\gamma''}\sum_{k',l'}d_{l',\gamma'}b_{k',\gamma''}
=X_{e-1+i,\beta}+O(>e-1+i,\beta)\nonumber
\end{align}
where
\begin{itemize}
\item
The symbol $O(>i,\beta)$ (resp. $O(>e-1+i,\beta)$) stands for a polynomial with $\mathcal{O}$-coefficients in $b_{i',\beta}$ (resp. $X_{e-1+i',\beta}$) for $i'>i$.
\item
The decompositions $\beta=\beta'+\beta''$ runs over decompositions in $\Phi$, with the added possibility that $\beta''=0$, in which case $a_{l,\beta''}$ is interpreted as the unique diagonal term $a_{l,tt}$ that contributes to the $\beta$-entry of the matrix product. A similar remark applies to $\beta=\gamma'+\gamma''$.
\item The pairs $k,l$ and $k',l'$ are constrained by
\[Ne-1+k+l+\delta_{\beta'}+\delta_{\beta''}=Ne+e-1+i+\delta_{\beta}\]
\[Ne-1+k'+l'+\delta_{\gamma'}+\delta_{\gamma''}=Ne+e-1+i+\delta_{\beta}.\]
In particular, we learn that $k\geq i$ (resp. $k'\geq i$), with equality if and only if $l=e-1$ and $\delta_{\beta}+1=\delta_{\beta'}+\delta_{\beta''}$ (resp. $l'=e-1$ and $\delta_{\beta}+1=\delta_{\gamma'}+\delta_{\gamma''}$).
Also observe that when $k=i$ the product $b_{k,\beta'}a_{l,\beta''}$ (resp.~$d_{l',\gamma''}b_{k',\gamma'}$) is zero as soon as $\delta_{\beta''}=0$ (resp.~$\delta_{\gamma''}=0$).
\end{itemize}
Let $\mathcal{O}_{A,D,B-top}$ be the $\mathcal{O}$-algebra generated by the coefficients of $A,D$ and $B_i$ for $i\geq 1-e$.
The above observation implies that $X_\beta v^{-\delta_\beta}$ has degree $\leq e-1$, and each of its coefficients belong to $\mathcal{O}_{A,D,B-top}$.
We now show that the coefficient of each entry of $B_i$ belongs to $\mathcal{O}_{A,D,B-top}$ by downward induction on $i$.
The claim clearly holds for $i\geq 1-e$.
Suppose it holds up to $i+1$.
Let $B^+_i$ be the matrix given by $B^+_{i,\beta}=\delta_\beta B_{i,\beta}$.
It follows (using $\delta_{\beta'}+\delta_{\beta''}=1+\delta_\beta=2$ if and only if $\delta_{\beta'}=\delta_{\beta''}=1$) from the above facts that
\[iB^+_i+(\kappa_{b}-D_{lead} )B^+_i-B^+_i(\kappa_{t}-A_{lead})\in M_{s\times r}(\mathcal{O}_{A,D,B-top}[v])\]
As in Proposition \ref{prop:parabolic_general}, the element $w\in W(\mathrm{GL}_n)$ induces an element $(w_{t},w_{b})\in W(\mathrm{GL}_r)\times W(\mathrm{GL}_s)$. We then have
$\Ad(w_{t}^{-1})(A_{lead})$, $\Ad(w_{b}^{-1})(D_{lead})$ are lower triangular. Thus Lemma \ref{lem:invertible_operator} below applies, and shows $B^{+}_i\in M_{s\times r}(\mathcal{O}_{A,D,B-top}[v])$.
Now set $B^-_i=B_i-B^+_i$.
Using what we just proved, we also get
\[(i-1)B^+_i+(\kappa_{b}-D_{lead} )B^+_i-B^+_i(\kappa_{t}-A_{lead})\in M_{s\times r}(\mathcal{O}_{A,D,B-top}[v])\]
and the same argument shows $B^-_i\in M_{s\times r}(\mathcal{O}_{A,D,B-top}[v])$. This finishes the inductive step.
Finally, since $C=BA$, $\mathcal{O}_P$ also belongs to $\mathcal{O}_{A,D,B-top}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:invertible_operator} Let $R$ be a ring with a subring $S$, $r+s=n$, $w_1\in W(\mathrm{GL}_r), w_2\in W(\mathrm{GL}_s)$. Suppose we are given $A_1\in M_{r}(S)$, $A_2\in M_r(S)$, $B\in M_{s\times r}(R)$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\Ad(w_i^{-1})(A_i)$ is lower triangular for $i=1,2$.
\item If $s_1$ is a diagonal entry of $A_1$ and $s_2$ is a diagonal entry of $A_2$, then $s_1-s_2\in S^{\times}$.
\item $BA_1-A_2B \in M_{s\times r}(S)$.
\end{itemize}
Then $B\in M_{s\times r}(S)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Replacing $B$ by $ w_2Bw_1^{-1}$, we may assume $w_1=1$, $w_2=1$. In this case, looking at the $(k,l)$-th entry of $BA_1-A_2B$ shows that
$(s_1-s_2)B_{kl}$ belong to the subalgebra generated by $S$ and $B_{k'l'}$ with $k'-l'< k-l$, where $s_1, s_2$ are suitable diagonal entries of $A_1,A_2$. We conclude induction on $k-l$ that $B_{kl}\in S$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rmk}\label{rmk:error_term}
Suppose that in the setting of Lemma \ref{lem:parabolic_monodromy}, we don't have equation (\ref{eqn:parabolic_monodromy}) exactly but only an approximately: for $0\leq t<N$ and $\pi$ a root of $E_j$, the operator $(\frac{d}{dv})^t(E_j^{N+1}\cdot)|_{v=\pi}$ hitting on the matrix in (\ref{eqn:parabolic_monodromy}) belongs to $p^k\mathrm{Mat}_n(R)$. Then the proof shows that the conclusion of Lemma \ref{lem:parabolic_monodromy} also holds approximately:
there is an $\mathcal{O}$-subalgebra $S$ of $R$ generated over $\mathcal{O}_{A,D}$ by at most $ers$ elements such that $\mathcal{O}_P\subset S+p^{k-(2N-1)(1-\frac{1}{e})}R$. This follows from Lemma \ref{lem:error_control}.
\end{rmk}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:FSM}}
\begin{proof}
We recall the setting of Theorem \ref{thm:FSM}.
We are given $\tau$, a tame inertial type over $E$, together with a fixed lowest alcove presentation $(s,\mu)$ for it, such that $\mu$ is $\max\{(3n-7)(e-1)+2n-6,(2n-3)e\}$-deep.
Furthermore, $\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}},\tau)=(\tld{w}_j^{-1}t_{e\eta}\tld{w}_{\alpha_j}\tld{w}_j)_j$ for some simple root $\alpha_j$ for each $j\in \mathcal{J}$.
We assume $R^{\leq \eta,\tau}_{\overline{\rho}} \neq 0$, otherwise there is nothing to prove. In particular we obtain $\ovl{\mathfrak{M}}\in Y^{\leq \eta,\tau}(\mathbb{F})$ such that $T^*_{dd}(\ovl{\mathfrak{M}})\cong {\overline{\rho}}|_{I_K}$. Then $\ovl{\mathfrak{M}}$ has shape $w^{-1}\tld{z}w=\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}},\tau)^*$.
We need to analyze $R^{\tau,\ovl{\beta},\nabla}_{\ovl{\mathfrak{M}}}$ in the context of diagram (\ref{diag:main}).
We first observe that for each $j$, $\tld{z}_j$ has a block diagonal structure
\[\tld{z}_j=\begin{pmatrix} \tld{z}_{j,t} & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & \tld{z}_{\alpha_j} & 0\\ 0 & 0 & \tld{z}_{j,b}\end{pmatrix}\]
with sizes $r$, $2$, $s$ where
\begin{itemize}
\item $\tld{z}_{j,t}=t_{e(n-1,\cdots, s+2)}$
\item $\tld{z}_{j,b}=t_{e(s-1,\cdots 0)}$.
\item $v^{-es}\tld{z}_{\alpha_j}$ has elementary divisors bounded by $v^{(e,0)}$.
\end{itemize}
In particular, we are in a position to repeatedly apply Proposition \ref{prop:parabolic_general} to $R^{\tau,\ovl{\beta}}_{\ovl{\mathfrak{M}}}$ and each $A^{(j)}_{\mathfrak{M}}$ for the universal Breuil--Kisin module $\mathfrak{M}$.
This gives
\[A^{(j)}_{\mathfrak{M}}=D^{(j)}w_j^{-1} \begin{pmatrix}P^{(j)} \end{pmatrix} w_j\]
where $P^{(j)}$ is block lower triangular, whose Levi blocks from top to bottom are $E_j^{n-1},\cdots E_j^{s+2},M_{\alpha_j},E_j^{s-1},\cdots, 1$. Furthermore, the entries of $D^{(j)}$, $P^{(j)}$ over all $j$ topologically generate $R^{\tau,\ovl{\beta}}_{\ovl{\mathfrak{M}}}$. By Proposition \ref{prop:Levi_reduction} and Corollary \ref{cor:GL_2model}, the data $M_{\alpha_j}$ identifies with the universal deformation of the point $x_j\in M_j(t_{(1,0)})(\mathbb{F})$ given by its reduction $\ovl{M}_{\alpha_j}$ modulo the maximal ideal. Set $M_{\mathcal{J}}(t_{(1,0)})=\prod_j M_j(t_{(1,0)})$, which contains $x=(x_j)$ as an $\mathbb{F}$-point. Thus $R^{\tau,\ovl{\beta}}_{\ovl{\mathfrak{M}}}$ acquires an $\widehat{\bigotimes}_{\mathcal{O}}\mathcal{O}^{\wedge}_{M_j(1,0),x_j}=\mathcal{O}^{\wedge}_{M_\mathcal{J}(t_{(1,0)}),x}$-algebra structure, whose image coincide with the topological subalgebra generated by the coefficients of the entries of $(M_{\alpha_j})$ for all possible $j$.
Repeated applications of the approximate version of Lemma \ref{lem:parabolic_monodromy} to $R^{\tau,\ovl{\beta},\nabla}$ as in Remark \ref{rmk:error_term} (with the control of the monodromy condition obtained by combining Proposition \ref{prop:monodromy_control} and Lemma \ref{lem:error_control}) show that $R^{\tau,\ovl{\beta},\nabla}_{\ovl{\mathfrak{M}}}$ is topologically generated over $\mathcal{O}^{\wedge}_{M_{\mathcal{J}}(1,0),x}$ by $fn+e\sum_j \dim N_{-\alpha_j} = fn+ (\frac{n(n-1)}{2}-1)[K:\mathbb{Q}_p]$ elements. But since we assumed $R^{\leq \eta,\tau}\neq 0$, $\dim R^{\tau,\ovl{\beta},\nabla}_{\ovl{\mathfrak{M}}}=1+fn+\frac{n(n-1)}{2}[K:\mathbb{Q}_p]= \dim \mathcal{O}^{\wedge}_{M_{\mathcal{J}}(1,0),x}+fn+ (\frac{n(n-1)}{2}-1)[K:\mathbb{Q}_p]$. Since $\mathcal{O}^{\wedge}_{M_{\mathcal{J}}(1,0),x}$ is an integral domain (being the completion of an excellent normal scheme), the equality of dimension can only happen if $R^{\tau,\ovl{\beta},\nabla}_{\ovl{\mathfrak{M}}}$ is a power series ring over $\mathcal{O}^{\wedge}_{M_{\mathcal{J}}(1,0),x}$ in the correct number of variables.
All the assertions of Theorem \ref{thm:FSM} now follows from properties of the $M_{\mathcal{J}}(t_{(1,0)})$ which follows form Corollary \ref{cor:GL_2model}.
\end{proof}\clearpage{}%
\clearpage{}%
\section{The main results}
\label{sec:main:mod}
In this section, we prove our main results on the weight part of Serre's conjecture.
We start with an axiomatic setup before defining the relevant spaces of automorphic forms in \S \ref{sec:TW}.
Recall from \S \ref{subsub:Lp} that given an $\mathbb{F}$-valued $L$-homomorphism ${\overline{\rho}}: G_{\mathbb{Q}_p} \rightarrow{}^L \un{G}(\mathbb{F})$ (resp.~a tame inertial $L$-parameter $\tau: I_{\mathbb{Q}_p} \rightarrow\un{G}^\vee(E)$) we have a corresponding collection $({\overline{\rho}}_v)_{v\in S_p}$ of continuous Galois representations ${\overline{\rho}}_v:G_{F^+_v}\rightarrow\mathrm{GL}_n(\mathbb{F})$ (resp.~a corresponding collection $(\tau_v)_{v\in S_p}$ of tame inertial types $\tau_v:I_{F^+_v}\rightarrow\mathrm{GL}_n(E)$).
\subsection{Weight elimination}
\begin{thm}\label{thm:WE}
Let ${\overline{\rho}}: G_{\mathbb{Q}_p} \rightarrow{}^L \un{G}(\mathbb{F})$ be a $3e(n-1)$-generic $\mathbb{F}$-valued $L$-homomorphism.
Let ${\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp}$ be a specialization of ${\overline{\rho}}$ with a compatible $\max\{2,e\}(n-1)$-generic lowest alcove presentation.
Assume that we have a set $W_{\textnormal{elim}}({\overline{\rho}})$ of $3(n-1)$-generic Serre weights satisfying the following local-global compatibility axiom:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item
\label{eq:elim}
for any tame inertial $L$-parameter $\tau$, $\mathrm{JH}(\ovl{\sigma}(\tau)) \cap W_{\textnormal{elim}}({\overline{\rho}}) \neq \emptyset$ implies that ${\overline{\rho}}$ has a potentially crystalline lift of type $(\tau,\eta)$.
\end{enumerate}
Then $W_{\textnormal{elim}}({\overline{\rho}}) \subset W^?({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp})$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $F(\lambda) \in W_{\textrm{elim}}({\overline{\rho}})$.
Choose the tame inertial $L$-parameter $\tau$ with $F(\lambda) \in \mathrm{JH}(\ovl{\sigma}(\tau))$ constructed in Proposition \ref{prop:combWE}.
By Theorem \ref{thm:semicont}, $\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^{\mathrm{sp}},\tau)\in \mathrm{Adm}(e\eta_0)$, and we conclude by Proposition \ref{prop:combWE}.
\end{proof}
\begin{rmk}
If $e\geq 2$ the hypothesis on ${\overline{\rho}}^{\mathrm{sp}}$ follows from the hypothesis on ${\overline{\rho}}$.
\end{rmk}
\subsection{Patching functors}\label{sec:patchfunc}
We recall weak patching functors.
Let
\[
R_{{\overline{\rho}}} \stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} \widehat{\bigotimes}_{v\in S_p,\mathcal{O}} R_{{\overline{\rho}}_v}^\square,
\]
and let $R^p$ be a nonzero complete local Noetherian equidimensional flat $\mathcal{O}$-algebra with residue field $\mathbb{F}$ such that each irreducible component of $\mathrm{Spec}\ R^p$ and of $\mathrm{Spec}\ \overline{R}^p$ is geometrically irreducible.
(The latter hypothesis can be guaranteed after passing to a finite extension of the coefficient field $E$.)
We let $R_\infty\stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} R_{{\overline{\rho}}} \widehat{\otimes}_{\mathcal{O}} R^p$ and suppress the dependence on $R^p$ below.
We let $R_{{\overline{\rho}}}^{\eta,\tau}$ be
\[
\widehat{\bigotimes}_{v\in S_p,\mathcal{O}} R_{{\overline{\rho}}_{v}}^{\eta_{v},\tau_{v}}%
\] and define $R_\infty(\tau)\stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} R_\infty \otimes_{R_{{\overline{\rho}}}} R_{{\overline{\rho}}}^{\eta,\tau}$.
We write $X_\infty$, $X_\infty(\tau)$, and $\ovl{X}_\infty(\tau)$
for $\mathrm{Spec}\ R_\infty$, $\mathrm{Spec}\ R_\infty(\tau)$, and $\mathrm{Spec}\ \ovl{R}_\infty(\tau)$ respectively, denote by $\Mod(X_\infty)$ the category of coherent sheaves over $X_\infty$, and let $\mathrm{Rep}_{\mathcal{O}}(\mathrm{GL}_n(\mathcal{O}_p))$ be the category of topological $\mathcal{O}[\mathrm{GL}_n(\mathcal{O}_p)]$-modules which are finitely generated over $\mathcal{O}$.
We say that an $\ovl{E}$-point of $\mathrm{Spec}\ R_{{\overline{\rho}}}$ is \emph{potentially diagonalizable} if for each $v \in S_p$, the corresponding Galois representation $G_{F^+_{v}} \rightarrow \mathrm{GL}_n(\ovl{E})$ is potentially diagonalizable in the sense of \cite[\S 1.4]{BLGGT}.
We say that an $\ovl{E}$-point of $X_\infty$ is potentially diagonalizable if its image in $\mathrm{Spec}\ R_{{\overline{\rho}}}$ is.
\begin{defn}\label{minimalpatching}
A \emph{weak patching functor} for an $L$-homomorphism ${\overline{\rho}}: G_{\mathbb{Q}_p} \rightarrow{}^L \un{G}(\mathbb{F})$ is a nonzero covariant exact functor $M_\infty:\mathrm{Rep}_{\mathcal{O}}(\mathrm{GL}_n(\mathcal{O}_p))\rightarrow \Coh(X_{\infty})$ satisfying the following: if $\tau$ is an inertial $L$-parameter and $\sigma^\circ(\tau)$ is an $\mathcal{O}$-lattice in $\sigma(\tau)$ then
\begin{enumerate}
\item
\label{support}
$M_\infty(\sigma^\circ(\tau))$ is a maximal Cohen--Macaulay sheaf on $X_\infty(\tau)$;
\item
\label{dimd}
for all $\sigma \in \mathrm{JH}(\ovl{\sigma}^\circ(\tau))$, $M_\infty(\sigma)$ is a maximal Cohen--Macaulay sheaf on $\ovl{X}_\infty(\tau)$ (or is $0$); and
\item
\label{item:pd} if there is an inertial $L$-parameter $\tau_{0}$ such that $\mathrm{Supp} M_\infty(\sigma(\tau_{0})^\circ)$ contains a potentially diagonalizable $\overline{E}$-point, then for any inertial $L$-parameter $\tau$, $\mathrm{Supp} M_\infty(\sigma(\tau)^\circ)$ contains all potentially diagonalizable $\overline{E}$-points.
\end{enumerate}
We say that a weak patching functor $M_\infty$ is \emph{minimal} if $R^p$ is formally smooth over $\mathcal{O}$ and whenever $\tau$ is an inertial $L$-parameter, $M_\infty(\sigma^\circ(\tau))[p^{-1}]$, which is locally free over (the regular scheme) $\mathrm{Spec}\ R_\infty(\tau)[p^{-1}]$, has rank at most one on each connected component.
\end{defn}
\begin{defn}
We say that a weak patching functor $M_\infty$ is \emph{potentially diagonalizable} if there exists $\tau_0$ as in Definition \ref{minimalpatching}(\ref{item:pd}).
\end{defn}
\subsection{Cycles from patching functors}\label{sec:cycles}
We recall some notation from \cite[\S 2.2]{EG}.
Let $\mathcal{X}$ be an equidimensional Noetherian scheme of dimension $d$.
Let $\mathcal{Z}(\mathcal{X})$ be the free abelian group generated by integral subschemes of $\mathcal{X}$ of \emph{maximal dimension} $d$.
If $\mathcal{M}$ is a coherent sheaf on $\mathcal{X}$ with finite-dimensional support, then we can define $Z(\mathcal{M}) \in \mathcal{Z}(\mathcal{X})$ to be $Z_d(\mathcal{M})$ which is defined as in \emph{loc.~cit.}
Now suppose that $\mathcal{X}$ is a $p$-flat equidimensional Noetherian scheme over $\mathcal{O}$.
Then $\mathcal{X}[p^{-1}] \stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} \mathcal{X} \otimes_{\mathcal{O}} E$ and $\ovl{\mathcal{X}} \stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} \mathcal{X} \otimes_{\mathcal{O}} \mathbb{F}$ are equidimensional Noetherian schemes, and there is a natural reduction map $\mathrm{red}: \mathcal{Z}(\mathcal{X}[p^{-1}]) \rightarrow \mathcal{Z}(\ovl{\mathcal{X}})$.
Moreover, if we let $\mathcal{M}[p^{-1}] \stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} \mathcal{M} \otimes_{\mathcal{O}} E$ and $\ovl{\mathcal{M}} \stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} \mathcal{M} \otimes_{\mathcal{O}} \mathbb{F}$ be the corresponding sheaves on $\mathcal{X}[p^{-1}]$ and $\ovl{\mathcal{X}}$, respectively, we have the following fact.
\begin{prop}
If $\mathcal{M}$ is an $\mathcal{O}$-flat coherent sheaf over $\mathcal{X}$ with finite-dimensional support, then $\mathrm{red}(Z(\mathcal{M}[p^{-1}])) = Z(\ovl{\mathcal{M}})$.
\end{prop}
We introduce notation for completed products of cycles.
Suppose that $R$ and $S$ are equidimensional complete local Noetherian flat $\mathcal{O}$-algebras.
If $\ovl{Z}_1$ and $\ovl{Z}_2$ are geometrically integral subschemes of $\mathrm{Spec}\ R\otimes_{\mathcal{O}} \mathbb{F}$ and $\mathrm{Spec}\ S \otimes_{\mathcal{O}}\mathbb{F}$ corresponding to prime ideals $\ovl{\mathfrak{p}}$ and $\ovl{\mathfrak{q}}$, respectively, then we denote by $\ovl{Z}_1\times \ovl{Z}_2$ the subscheme
\[
\mathrm{Spec}\ (R\otimes_{\mathcal{O}} \mathbb{F})/\ovl{\mathfrak{p}}\widehat{\otimes}_{\mathbb{F}} (S\otimes_{\mathcal{O}} \mathbb{F})/\ovl{\mathfrak{q}} \subset \mathrm{Spec}\ (R\otimes_{\mathcal{O}} \mathbb{F}) \widehat{\otimes}_{\mathbb{F}} (S \otimes_{\mathcal{O}}\mathbb{F})
\]
which is geometrically integral by \cite[Lemma 3.3(4)]{BLGHT2}.
Similarly, if ${Z}_1$ and ${Z}_2$ are geometrically integral subschemes of $\mathrm{Spec}\ R[p^{-1}]$ and $\mathrm{Spec}\ S[p^{-1}]$ corresponding to prime ideals $\mathfrak{p}$ and $\mathfrak{q}$, then we denote by $Z_1\times Z_2$ the subscheme
\[
\mathrm{Spec}\ (R/(\mathfrak{p}\cap R) \widehat{\otimes}_{\mathcal{O}} S/(\mathfrak{q}\cap S))[p^{-1}] \subset \mathrm{Spec}\ R \widehat{\otimes}_{\mathcal{O}} S[p^{-1}]
\]
which is geometrically integral by \cite[Lemma 3.3(3)]{BLGHT2}.
We now specialize to some schemes in our patching axioms.
Let ${\overline{\rho}}$ be an $L$-homomorphism over $\mathbb{F}$.
Fix a finite set $\mathcal{T}$ of inertial $L$-parameters such that:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\setcounter{enumi}{1}
\item
\label{cond:1}
for all $\tau\in \mathcal{T}$ the irreducible components of $\mathrm{Spec}\ R_{{\overline{\rho}}}^\tau$ and $\mathrm{Spec}\ \ovl{R}_{{\overline{\rho}}}^\tau$ are geometrically integral.
\end{enumerate}
Let $\mathrm{Spec}\ R_{{\overline{\rho}}}^\mathcal{T}$ be the reduced union $\cup_{\tau\in \mathcal{T}}\mathrm{Spec}\ R_{{\overline{\rho}}}^\tau$.
Let $M_\infty$ be a weak patching functor for ${\overline{\rho}}$.
We write $R_\infty(\mathcal{T})$ for $R_\infty \widehat{\otimes}_{R_{{\overline{\rho}}}} R_{{\overline{\rho}}}^\mathcal{T} \cong R^p \widehat{\otimes}_{\mathcal{O}} R_{{\overline{\rho}}}^\mathcal{T}$ and $X_\infty(\mathcal{T})$ for $\mathrm{Spec}\ R_\infty(\mathcal{T})$.
Recall that by assumption, the irreducible components of $\mathrm{Spec}\ R^p[p^{-1}]$ and $\mathrm{Spec}\ \ovl{R}^p$ are geometrically irreducible.
Every irreducible cycle $Z \in \mathcal{Z}(\mathcal{X}_\infty(\mathcal{T})[p^{-1}])$ is of the form $Z^p \times Z_p$ for geometrically irreducible cycles $Z^p \in \mathcal{Z}(\mathrm{Spec}\ R^p[p^{-1}])$ and $Z_p \in \mathcal{Z}(\mathrm{Spec}\ R_{{\overline{\rho}}}^\mathcal{T})$ by \cite[Lemma 3.3(5)]{BLGHT2}.
Similarly, every irreducible cycle $\ovl{Z} \in \mathcal{Z}(\ovl{\mathcal{X}}_\infty(\mathcal{T}))$ is of the form $\ovl{Z}^p \times \ovl{Z}_p$ for geometrically irreducible cycles $\ovl{Z}^p \in \mathcal{Z}(\mathrm{Spec}\ \ovl{R}^p)$ and $\ovl{Z}_p \in \mathcal{Z}(\mathrm{Spec}\ \ovl{R}_{{\overline{\rho}}}^\mathcal{T})$ by \cite[Lemma 3.3(6)]{BLGHT2}.
Let $e: \mathcal{Z}(\mathrm{Spec}\ \ovl{R}^p) \rightarrow \mathbb{Z}$ be the homomorphism that sends the cycle of an integral subscheme to $1$.
We define the maps
\begin{align*}
\pr: \mathcal{Z}(X_\infty(\mathcal{T})[p^{-1}]) &\rightarrow \mathcal{Z}(\mathrm{Spec}\ R_{{\overline{\rho}}}^\mathcal{T}[p^{-1}])\\
Z^p \times Z_p &\mapsto e(\mathrm{red}(Z^p)) Z_p
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
\ovl{\pr}: \mathcal{Z}(\ovl{X}_\infty(T)) &\rightarrow \mathcal{Z}(\mathrm{Spec}\ \ovl{R}_{{\overline{\rho}}}^\mathcal{T})\\
\ovl{Z}^p \times \ovl{Z}_p &\mapsto \ovl{Z}_p.
\end{align*}
We have that $\mathrm{red} \circ \pr = \ovl{\pr} \circ \mathrm{red}: \mathcal{Z}(X_\infty(\mathcal{T})[p^{-1}]) \rightarrow \mathcal{Z}(\mathrm{Spec}\ \ovl{R}_{{\overline{\rho}}}^\mathcal{T})$ (using that $\mathrm{red}(Z^p \times Z_p) = \mathrm{red}(Z_p) \times \mathrm{red}(Z^p)$), from which we immediately obtain the following corollary.
\begin{cor}\label{cor:pcomp}
If $\tau \in T$, then the image of the composition
\[
\mathcal{Z}(X_\infty(\tau)[p^{-1}]) \overset{\mathrm{red}}{\rightarrow} \mathcal{Z}(\ovl{X}_\infty(\tau)) \overset{\ovl{\pr}}{\rightarrow} \mathcal{Z}(\mathrm{Spec}\ \ovl{R}_{{\overline{\rho}}}^{\tau})
\]
is contained in $\mathrm{red}(\mathcal{Z}(\mathrm{Spec}\ R_{{\overline{\rho}}}^{\tau}[p^{-1}]))$.
\end{cor}
Depending on context, we denote either $\pr \circ Z$ or $\ovl{\pr} \circ Z$ by $Z_\mathfrak{p}$.
\subsection{Weight elimination and modularity of extremal weights}
\label{subsec:WE:MOD}
Let ${\overline{\rho}}$ be a $1$-generic $L$-homomorphism, with a lowest alcove presentation for it.
Fix a weak patching functor $M_\infty$ for ${\overline{\rho}}$.
Let $W_{M_\infty}({\overline{\rho}})$ be the set of $3(n-1)$-generic Serre weights $\sigma$ such that $M_\infty(\sigma)$ is nonzero.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:PWE}
The set $W_{M_\infty}({\overline{\rho}})$ satisfies the condition (\ref{eq:elim}) for ${\overline{\rho}}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $\sigma \in \mathrm{JH}(\ovl{\sigma}(\tau)) \cap W_{M_\infty}({\overline{\rho}})$ for a generic tame inertial $L$-parameter $\tau$.
Then $M_\infty(\sigma)$ is nonzero so that $M_\infty(\sigma(\tau)^\circ)$ is nonzero for any lattice $\sigma(\tau)^\circ \subset \sigma(\tau)$ by exactness.
Definition \ref{minimalpatching}(\ref{support}) implies that $R_\infty(\tau)$, and so $R_{{\overline{\rho}}}^{\tau}$, is nonzero.
\end{proof}
\begin{defn}
We say that a weak patching functor $M_\infty$ for ${\overline{\rho}}$ is \emph{extremal} if $W_\mathrm{extr}({\overline{\rho}}) \cap W_{M_\infty}({\overline{\rho}})$ is nonempty.
\end{defn}
\begin{thm}\label{thm:obv}
Let ${\overline{\rho}}$ be $6e(n-1)$-generic.
If a weak patching functor $M_\infty$ is extremal, then $W_\mathrm{extr}({\overline{\rho}}) \subset W_{M_\infty}({\overline{\rho}})$, and moreover, the map $\theta_{{\overline{\rho}}}: SP({\overline{\rho}}) \rightarrow W^{\mathcal{J}}$ is a bijection.
\end{thm}
The proof of Theorem \ref{thm:obv} requires the following two results.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:walk}
Assume that ${\overline{\rho}}$ is $(2e+\max\{2,e\})(n-1)$-generic.
Suppose that $M_\infty$ is a weak patching functor for ${\overline{\rho}}$, $(\sigma,{\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp}) \in SP({\overline{\rho}})$, and $\sigma \in W_{M_\infty}({\overline{\rho}})$.
Assume that ${\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp}$ has a compatible $4e(n-1)$-generic lowest alcove presentation.
Suppose that $\sigma$ is the extremal weight of ${\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp}$ corresponding to $w\in W$.
Let $\alpha$ be a simple root.
Using ${\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp}$, $w$, and $\alpha$, we define as in Proposition \ref{prop:indcomb} (using the above $4e(n-1)$-generic lowest alcove presentation) $\sigma_m$ and $\tau_m$ for $0\leq m \leq 2e-1$ and $0 \leq m \leq 2e$, respectively, so that $\sigma_0 = \sigma$.
Then there exists $0 \leq k \leq 2e-1$ such that $\sigma_m \in W_{M_\infty}({\overline{\rho}})$ if and only if $m \leq k$.
Moreover, $\tau_{k+1}$ exhibits a specialization of ${\overline{\rho}}$ to $(\sigma_k,{\overline{\rho}}^{\prime,\mathrm{sp}})$ for some $\mathbb{F}$-valued tame inertial $L$-parameter ${\overline{\rho}}^{\prime,\mathrm{sp}}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Fix $\mathcal{O}$-lattices $\sigma(\tau_m)^\circ\subset \sigma(\tau_m)$ for $0 \leq m \leq 2e$ (the choices will not affect the argument below).
Let $0 \leq k\leq 2e-1$ be such that $\sigma_m \in W_{M_\infty}({\overline{\rho}})$ for $0\leq m\leq k$ and either $\sigma_{k+1} \notin W_{M_\infty}({\overline{\rho}})$ or $k = 2e-1$.
That $\sigma_m \in W_{M_\infty}({\overline{\rho}})$ implies that $M_\infty(\sigma(\tau_{m+1})^\circ)$ is nonzero.
Therefore $R_{{\overline{\rho}}}^{\tau_{m+1}}$ is nonzero for $0\leq m\leq k$.
We will first show that $\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}},\tau_{m+1}) \in w^{-1}t_{e\eta_0}W_{a,\alpha} w \cap \mathrm{Adm}^\vee(e\eta_0)$ for $0\leq m\leq k$.
Fix $m$ with $0\leq m\leq k$.
Suppose that $\tau_{m+1}$ exhibits the specialization to the $\mathbb{F}$-valued tame inertial $L$-parameter ${\overline{\rho}}^{\prime,\mathrm{sp}}$ i.e.~that $\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}},\tau_{m+1}) = \tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^{\prime,\mathrm{sp}},\tau_{m+1})$.
Since $\sigma_m \in W_{M_\infty}({\overline{\rho}}) \subset W^?({\overline{\rho}}^{\prime,\mathrm{sp}})$ by Theorem \ref{thm:WE} and Proposition \ref{prop:PWE}, Proposition \ref{prop:intersect} implies that $\tld{w}_h \tld{s} \tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^{\prime,\mathrm{sp}},\tau_{m+1}) \leq w_0 t_{(e-1)\eta_0} \tld{s}$ for $s \in \{w,s_\alpha w\}$.
(Note that Theorem \ref{thm:WE} applies to ${\overline{\rho}}$ and ${\overline{\rho}}^{\prime,\mathrm{sp}}$, by the genericity assumption on ${\overline{\rho}}$.)
This implies that $\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}},\tau_{m+1}) = \tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^{\prime,\mathrm{sp}},\tau_{m+1}) \leq t_{s^{-1}(e\eta_0)}$.
Combining this with the fact that $\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp},\tau_{m+1})\leq \tld{w}({\overline{\rho}},\tau_{m+1})$ by Theorem \ref{thm:semicont}, we have that $\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}},\tau_{m+1}) \in w^{-1}t_{e\eta_0}W_{a,\alpha} w \cap \mathrm{Adm}^\vee(e\eta_0)$ by Proposition \ref{prop:upset}.
Now Proposition \ref{prop:indcomb} applied to ${\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp}$, Theorem \ref{thm:WE}, and Proposition \ref{prop:PWE} imply that
\[
W_{M_\infty}({\overline{\rho}}) \cap \mathrm{JH}(\ovl{\sigma}(\tau_{m+1})^\circ) \subset W^?({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp}) \cap \mathrm{JH}(\ovl{\sigma}(\tau_{m+1})^\circ) = \{\sigma_m,\sigma_{m+1}\}
\]
(or $\{\sigma_m\}$ if $m = 2e-1$).
We now use notation from \S \ref{sec:cycles} with $\mathcal{T} = \{\tau_m\mid 0 \leq m \leq 2e-1\}$.
The set of types $\mathcal{T}$ satisfies condition \eqref{cond:1} by the genericity assumption on ${\overline{\rho}}^{\mathrm{sp}}$ and Theorem \ref{thm:FSM}.
We continue to fix $m$ with $0\leq m \leq k$.
Since $\sigma_m$ and $\sigma_{m+1}$ appear as Jordan--H\"older factors of $\ovl{\sigma}(\tau_{m+1})^\circ$ with multiplicity one, exactness of $M_\infty$ gives
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:cyclesum}
Z_\mathfrak{p}(M_\infty(\ovl{\sigma}(\tau_{m+1})^\circ)) = Z_\mathfrak{p}(M_\infty(\sigma_{m}))+Z_\mathfrak{p}(M_\infty(\sigma_{m+1})),
\end{equation}
for $0 \leq m \leq k-1$ and $Z_\mathfrak{p}(M_\infty(\ovl{\sigma}(\tau_{k+1})^\circ)) = Z_\mathfrak{p}(M_\infty(\sigma_{k}))$.
We will use \eqref{eqn:cyclesum} and the previous paragraph to show that $\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}},\tau_{k+1})$ is $t_{s^{-1}(\eta_0)}$ for some $s\in \{w,s_\alpha w\}$.
Let us call a cycle \emph{balanced} if it is a multiple of the sum of two distinct integral subschemes and \emph{unbalanced} if it is supported on at most two integral subschemes with distinct multiplicities.
In particular, an unbalanced cycle is nonzero.
For $0 \leq m \leq k-1$, $\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}},\tau_{m+1}) \notin \{t_{w^{-1}(\eta_0)},t_{(s_\alpha w)^{-1}(\eta_0)}\}$ since otherwise
\[
2 = \# W_{M_\infty}({\overline{\rho}}) \cap \mathrm{JH}(\ovl{\sigma}(\tau_{m+1})^\circ) \leq \# W^?({\overline{\rho}}^{\prime,\mathrm{sp}}) \cap \mathrm{JH}(\ovl{\sigma}(\tau_{m+1})^\circ) = 1
\]
by Proposition \ref{prop:PWE}.
Then $Z_\mathfrak{p}(M_\infty(\ovl{\sigma}(\tau_{m+1})^\circ))$ is balanced by Corollary \ref{cor:pcomp} since $R_{{\overline{\rho}}}^{\tau_{m+1}}[p^{-1}]$ is geometrically irreducible and $Z(\mathrm{Spec}\ \ovl{R}_{{\overline{\rho}}}^{\tau_{m+1}})$ is balanced (see Theorem \ref{thm:FSM}).
By \eqref{eqn:cyclesum}, $Z_\mathfrak{p}(M_\infty(\sigma_{m}))$ is balanced (resp.~unbalanced) if and only if $Z_\mathfrak{p}(M_\infty(\sigma_{m+1}))$ is balanced (resp.~unbalanced) for $0 \leq m \leq k-1$.
Since $Z_\mathfrak{p}(M_\infty(\sigma_0)) = Z_\mathfrak{p}(M_\infty(\ovl{\sigma}(\tau_0)^\circ))$ is unbalanced as $R_{{\overline{\rho}}}^{\tau_0}$ is formally smooth over $\mathcal{O}$, we conclude that $Z_\mathfrak{p}(M_\infty(\sigma_k)) = Z_\mathfrak{p}(M_\infty(\ovl{\sigma}(\tau_{k+1})^\circ))$ is unbalanced.
We conclude from the argument above that $\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}},\tau_{k+1})$ is $t_{s^{-1}(\eta_0)}$ for some $s\in \{w,s_\alpha w\}$.
In particular, $\tau_{k+1}$ exhibits a specialization of ${\overline{\rho}}$ to $(\sigma_k,{\overline{\rho}}^{\prime,\mathrm{sp}})$ (not necessarily the same ${\overline{\rho}}^{\prime,\mathrm{sp}}$ from the first paragraph).
By the definition of $\sigma_k$ and using that $\sigma_k$ is an extremal weight of ${\overline{\rho}}^{\prime,\mathrm{sp}}$, we see that
\[
\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}},\tau_{k+1}) = \tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^{\prime,\mathrm{sp}},\tau_{k+1}) =
\begin{cases}
t_{w^{-1}(e\eta_0)} & \mbox{ if } k \mbox{ is even}\\
t_{(s_\alpha w)^{-1}(e\eta_0)} & \mbox{ if } k \mbox{ is odd}.
\end{cases}
\]
Then a computation shows that
\[
\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^{\prime,\mathrm{sp}}) =
\begin{cases}
\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp})\tld{w}^{-1} t_{(\frac{k}{2}-e)\alpha}s_\alpha \tld{w} & \mbox{ if } k \mbox{ is even}\\
\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp})\tld{w}^{-1} t_{(\frac{k+1}{2}-e)\alpha} \tld{w} & \mbox{ if } k \mbox{ is odd}.
\end{cases}
\]
Note that $\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^{\prime,\mathrm{sp}},\tau_m) \in w^{-1} W_{a,\alpha} t_{e\eta_0} w$ for all $0 \leq m \leq 2e$.
Another computation shows that if $m > k+1$, then $\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^{\prime,\mathrm{sp}},\tau_m)$ is not listed in Proposition \ref{prop:listshapes}.
This implies that $\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}}^{\prime,\mathrm{sp}},\tau_m) \notin \mathrm{Adm}(e\eta_0)$ for $m> k+1$.
Corollary \ref{cor:adm} implies that $W^?({\overline{\rho}}^{\prime,\mathrm{sp}},\tau_m) = \emptyset$ for $m>k+1$.
In particular, $\sigma_m \notin W^?({\overline{\rho}}^{\prime,\mathrm{sp}})$ for $m>k$.
Theorem \ref{thm:WE} and Proposition \ref{prop:PWE} imply that $\sigma_m \notin W_{M_\infty}({\overline{\rho}})$ for $m>k$.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}\label{cor:reflect}
Let $(\sigma,{\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp}) \in SP({\overline{\rho}})$ and $\sigma \in W_{M_\infty}({\overline{\rho}})$ be as in Lemma \ref{lemma:walk}.
Let $\alpha$ be a simple root.
Then there exists $(\sigma',{\overline{\rho}}^{\prime,\mathrm{sp}})$ such that $\theta_{{\overline{\rho}}}(\sigma',{\overline{\rho}}^{\prime,\mathrm{sp}}) = \theta_{\overline{\rho}}(\sigma,{\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp})s_\alpha$.
Moreover, if $\sigma\in W_{M_\infty}({\overline{\rho}})$, then $\sigma' \in W_{M_\infty}({\overline{\rho}})$ as well.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Let $\sigma$, $\sigma_k$, ${\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp}$, and ${\overline{\rho}}^{\prime,\mathrm{sp}}$ be as in Lemma \ref{lemma:walk}.
Let $\sigma'$ be $\sigma_k$.
Then $\sigma' \in W_{M_\infty}({\overline{\rho}})$.
It suffices to show that $\theta_{{\overline{\rho}}}(\sigma',{\overline{\rho}}^{\prime,\mathrm{sp}}) = \theta_{{\overline{\rho}}}(\sigma,{\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp})s_\alpha$.
We have that
\[
w({\overline{\rho}}^{\prime,\mathrm{sp}}) =
\begin{cases}
w({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp}) w^{-1}s_\alpha w & \mbox{ if } k \mbox{ is even}\\
w({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp}) & \mbox{ if } k \mbox{ is odd}
\end{cases}
\]
and $\sigma_k$ is the extremal weight of ${\overline{\rho}}^{\prime,\mathrm{sp}}$ corresponding to
\[
\begin{cases}
w & \mbox{ if } k \mbox{ is even.}\\
s_\alpha w & \mbox{ if } k \mbox{ is odd.}
\end{cases}
\]
We conclude that $\theta_{{\overline{\rho}}}(\sigma',{\overline{\rho}}^{\prime,\mathrm{sp}}) = w({\overline{\rho}}) w^{-1}s_\alpha = \theta_{\overline{\rho}}(\sigma,{\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp})s_\alpha$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:obv}]
Suppose that $\sigma \in W_{M_\infty}({\overline{\rho}})$ and that $(\sigma,{\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp}) \in SP({\overline{\rho}})$.
Then using Corollary \ref{cor:reflect} and the fact that simple reflections generate $W$, we see that for each $w\in W$, there is $(\sigma_w,{\overline{\rho}}_{w}^\mathrm{sp})\in SP({\overline{\rho}})$ such that $\theta_{\overline{\rho}}(\sigma_w,{\overline{\rho}}_{w}^\mathrm{sp}) = w$ and $\sigma_w \in W_{M_\infty}({\overline{\rho}})$.
This first implies that the map $\theta_{{\overline{\rho}}}$ is surjective and hence an isomorphism by Proposition \ref{prop:inj}.
It also implies that $W_\mathrm{extr}({\overline{\rho}}) \subset W_{M_\infty}({\overline{\rho}})$.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}\label{thm:obvpd}
Let ${\overline{\rho}}$ be $6e(n-1)$-generic and let $M_\infty$ be a weak patching functor for ${\overline{\rho}}$.
The following are equivalent.
\begin{enumerate}
\item \label{item:obv} $M_\infty$ is extremal.
\item \label{item:allobv} $W_\mathrm{extr}({\overline{\rho}})\subset W_{M_\infty}({\overline{\rho}})$.
\item \label{item:mpd} $M_\infty$ is potentially diagonalizable.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
(\ref{item:obv}) implies (\ref{item:allobv}) by Theorem \ref{thm:obv}.
We next show that (\ref{item:allobv}) implies (\ref{item:mpd}).
Let $\sigma$ be in $W_\mathrm{mord}({\overline{\rho}})$ so that $\tau$ exhibits the specialization pair $(\sigma,{\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{ss}) \in SP({\overline{\rho}})$ as in the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:obvord}.
Then $M_\infty(\sigma(\tau)^\circ)$ is nonzero since $M_\infty(\sigma)$ is.
Since $R_{{\overline{\rho}}}^{\tau}$ is a domain and ${\overline{\rho}}$ has a potentially diagonalizable lift of type $(\tau,\eta)$ by Theorem \ref{thm:extension}, $M_\infty$ is potentially diagonalizable.
Finally, we show that (\ref{item:mpd}) implies (\ref{item:obv}).
Again, let $\sigma$ be in $W_\mathrm{mord}({\overline{\rho}})$ so that $\tau$ exhibits the specialization pair $(\sigma,{\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{ss}) \in SP({\overline{\rho}})$ as in the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:obvord}.
Then since $M_\infty$ is potentially diagonalizable and ${\overline{\rho}}$ has a potentially diagonalizable lift of type $(\tau,\eta)$ as before, $M_\infty(\sigma(\tau)^\circ)$ is nonzero.
Since $W_{M_\infty}({\overline{\rho}}) \subset W^?({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{ss})$ by Theorem \ref{thm:WE} and $W^?({\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{ss},\tau) = \{\sigma\}$ as in the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:obvord}, $M_\infty(\sigma)$ is nonzero.
Thus $W_\mathrm{mord}({\overline{\rho}}) \cap W_{M_\infty}({\overline{\rho}})$ is nonempty.
The result now follows from Proposition \ref{prop:obvord}.
\end{proof}
\begin{rmk}
Theorem \ref{thm:obvpd} generalizes \cite[Theorem 4.3.8]{LLL} to the nonsemisimple case in an abstract setting.
Moreover, the above proof (and \S \ref{sec:TW}) gives a different proof of this theorem.
(Specifically, the order of implications proved is reversed.)
Indeed, we do not know whether every extremal lift is potentially diagonalizable when ${\overline{\rho}}$ is wildly ramified.
\end{rmk}
\begin{cor}
Suppose that $\mathcal{O}_p$ is \'etale over $\mathbb{Z}_p$, i.e., $F^+_p$ is a product of unramified extensions of $\mathbb{Q}_p$.
Let ${\overline{\rho}}$ be an $L$-homomorphism over $\mathbb{F}$.
Suppose that $M_\infty$ is a weak patching functor for ${\overline{\rho}}$ satisfying the equivalent conditions of Theorem \ref{thm:obvpd}.
(In particular, ${\overline{\rho}}$ is $7(n-1)$-generic.)
If $\tau$ is an $n$-generic tame inertial $L$-parameter, then $R_{{\overline{\rho}}}^\tau$ is nonzero if and only if $M_\infty(\sigma^\circ(\tau))$ is nonzero for any $\mathcal{O}$-lattice $\sigma^\circ(\tau) \subset \sigma(\tau)$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
If $M_\infty(\sigma^\circ(\tau))$ is nonzero, then $R_\infty(\tau)$, and thus $R_{{\overline{\rho}}}^\tau$, is nonzero.
Conversely, if $R_{{\overline{\rho}}}^\tau$ is nonzero, then $W_{\mathrm{extr}}({\overline{\rho}}) \cap \mathrm{JH}(\ovl{\sigma}(\tau)) \neq \emptyset$ by Proposition \ref{prop:obvintersect}.
Theorem \ref{thm:obvpd}\eqref{item:allobv} and exactness of $M_\infty$ imply that $M_\infty(\sigma^\circ(\tau))$ is nonzero.
\end{proof}
The following freeness result follows from our previous results and the Diamond--Fujiwara trick.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:patchcyclic}
Let $M_\infty$ be a minimal weak patching functor for ${\overline{\rho}}$.
Suppose that the equivalent conditions of Theorem \ref{thm:obvpd} hold for $M_\infty$ and that $\sigma \in W_\mathrm{extr}({\overline{\rho}})$.
Then $M_\infty(\sigma)$ is free of rank $1$ over its support $($which is formally smooth over $\mathbb{F})$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
There exists a generic tame inertial $L$-parameter $\tau$ which exhibits the specialization $(\sigma,{\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp}) \in SP({\overline{\rho}})$ for some $\mathbb{F}$-valued inertial $L$-parameter ${\overline{\rho}}^\mathrm{sp}$.
By Lemma \ref{lemma:import}, we can assume without loss of generality that $\tld{w}({\overline{\rho}},\tau) = t_{w^{-1}(e\eta_0)}$ for some $w\in W$.
By Theorem \ref{thm:FSM}, $R_{{\overline{\rho}}}^{\tau}$ is formally smooth over $\mathcal{O}$, so that $R_\infty(\tau)$ is as well.
Since for any $\mathcal{O}$-lattice $\sigma^\circ(\tau) \subset \sigma(\tau)$, $M_\infty(\sigma^\circ(\tau))$ is nonzero, finitely generated, and maximally Cohen--Macaulay over $R_\infty(\tau)$, it must be free over $\ovl{R}_\infty(\tau)$ by Serre's theorem on finiteness of projective dimension and the Auslander--Buchsbaum formula.
Since the generic rank is at most $1$, its rank must be $1$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Global results}\label{sec:TW}
In this section, we discuss algebraic automorphic forms on certain definite unitary groups to which the Taylor--Wiles patching construction can be applied to obtain patching functors as in \S \ref{sec:patchfunc}.
This gives a context to which results in the previous section can be applied.
\subsubsection{Algebraic automorphic forms on some definite unitary groups}\label{sec:autform}
Let $F^+/\mathbb{Q}$ be a totally real field not equal to $\mathbb{Q}$, and let $F \subset \ovl{F}^+$ be a CM extension of $F^+$.
We say that a finite place of $F^+$ is \emph{split} (resp.~ramified or inert) if it splits (resp.~ramifies or is inert) in $F$.
We say that a place of $F$ is \emph{split} (resp.~ramified or inert) if its restriction to $F^+$ is split (resp.~ramified or inert) in $F$.
Let $G_{/F^+}$ be a reductive group which is an outer form of $\mathrm{GL}_n$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $G_{/F}$ is an inner form of $\mathrm{GL}_n$;
\item $G_{/F^+}(F^+_v) \cong U_n(\mathbb{R})$ for all $v|\infty$; and
\item $G_{/F^+}$ is quasisplit at all inert and ramified finite places.
\end{itemize}
By \cite[\S 7.1]{EGH}, $G$ admits a reductive model $\mathcal{G}$ over $\mathcal{O}_{F^+}[1/N]$, for some $N\in \mathbb{N}$, and an isomorphism
\begin{equation}
\label{iso integral}
\iota:\,\mathcal{G}_{/\mathcal{O}_{F}[1/N]} \stackrel{\iota}{\rightarrow}{\mathrm{GL}_n}_{/\mathcal{O}_{F}[1/N]}
\end{equation}
which specializes to
$
\iota_w:\,\mathcal{G}(\mathcal{O}_{F^+_v})\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow}\mathcal{G}(\mathcal{O}_{F_w})\stackrel{\iota}{\rightarrow}\mathrm{GL}_n(\mathcal{O}_{F_w})
$
for all split finite places $w$ in $F$ prime to $N$ where $v$ is $w|_{F^+}$ here.
For each split place $v$ of $F^+$, we choose a place $\tld{v}$ of $F$ dividing $v$.
For a split $v$ prime to $N$, let $\iota_v$ be the composition of $\iota_{\tld{v}}$ and the canonical isomorphism $\mathrm{GL}_n(\mathcal{O}_{F_{\tld{v}}}) \cong \mathrm{GL}_n(\mathcal{O}_{F^+_v})$ (suppressing the dependence on the choice of $\tld{v}$).
Let $S_p$ be the set of all places in $F^+$ dividing $p$.
Suppose from now on that all places in $S_p$ are split.
If $U = U_p U^{\infty,p} \leq G(\mathbb{A}_{F^+,p}^{\infty}) \times G(\mathbb{A}_{F^+}^{\infty,p})$ is a compact open subgroup and $W$ is a finite $\mathcal{O}$-module endowed with a continuous action of $U_\Sigma$ for some finite set of finite places of $F^+$, then we define the space of algebraic automorphic forms on $G$ of level $U$ and coefficients in $W$ to be the (finite) $\mathcal{O}$-module
\begin{equation}
S(U,W) \stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} \left\{f:\,G(F^{+})\backslash G(\mathbb{A}^{\infty}_{F^{+}})\rightarrow W\,|\, f(gu)=u_{\Sigma}^{-1}f(g)\,\,\forall\,\,g\in G(\mathbb{A}^{\infty}_{F^{+}}), u\in U\right\}.
\end{equation}
We recall that the level $U$ is said to be \emph{sufficiently small} if for all $t \in G(\mathbb{A}^{\infty}_{F^+})$, the order of the finite group $t^{-1} G(F^+) t \cap U$ is prime to $p$.
If $U$ is sufficiently small, then $S(U,-)$ defines an exact functor from finite $\mathcal{O}$-modules with a continuous $U_p$-action to finite $\mathcal{O}$-modules.
From now on we assume that $U$ is sufficiently small.
For a finite place $v$ of $F^+$ prime to $N$, we say that $U$ is \emph{unramified} at $v$ if one has a decomposition $U=\mathcal{G}(\mathcal{O}_{F^+_v})U^{v}$.
We say that a finite place $w$ of $F$ is \emph{unramified} if $w|_{F^+}$ is unramified.
Let $S$ be a finite set of finite places in $F^+$ containing all places dividing $pN$, $\Sigma$, and all places at which $U$ is \emph{not} unramified.
Let $\mathcal{P}_S$ be the set of split finite places $w$ of $F$ such that $w|_{F^+} \notin S$.
For any subset $\mathcal{P}\subseteq \mathcal{P}_S$ of finite complement that is closed under complex conjugation, we write $\mathbb{T}_{\mathcal{P}}\stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=}\mathcal{O}[T^{(i)}_w,\,\,w\in\mathcal{P},\, 0 \leq i \leq n]$ for the universal Hecke algebra on $\mathcal{P}$.
The space of algebraic automorphic forms $S(U,W)$ is endowed with an action of $\mathbb{T}_{\mathcal{P}}$, where $T_w^{(i)}$ acts by the usual double coset operator
\[
\iota_w^{-1}\left[ \mathrm{GL}_n(\mathcal{O}_{F_w}) \left(\begin{matrix}
\varpi_{w}\mathrm{Id}_i & 0 \cr 0 & \mathrm{Id}_{n-i} \end{matrix} \right)
\mathrm{GL}_n(\mathcal{O}_{F_w}) \right].
\]
Let $\mathbb{T}_{\mathcal{P}}(U,W)$ be the image of $\mathbb{T}_{\mathcal{P}}$ in $\mathrm{End}_{\mathcal{O}}(S(U,W))$---it is a finite flat $\mathcal{O}$-algebra and in particular a complete semilocal ring.
Enlarging $E$ if necessary, we assume that the residue fields are identified with $\mathbb{F}$.
If $Q$ is the (finite) set $\{w|_{F^+}:w\in \mathcal{P}_S \setminus \mathcal{P}\}$, then we also denote $\mathbb{T}_{\mathcal{P}}(U,W)$ by $\mathbb{T}^Q(U,W)$.
For a maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m} \subset \mathbb{T}^Q(U,W)$, there is a semisimple Galois representation $\overline{r} \stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} \overline{r}_{\mathfrak{m}}: G_{F^+,S} \rightarrow \mathcal{G}_n(\mathbb{F})$, where $\mathcal{G}_n$ is the group scheme over $\mathbb{Z}$ defined in \cite[\S 2.1]{CHT}, uniquely determined by the equation
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:heckefrob}
\det\left(1-\overline{r}_{\mathfrak{m}}|_{G_F}(\mathrm{Frob}_w)X\right)=\sum_{j=0}^n (-1)^j(\mathbf{N}_{F/\mathbb{Q}}(w))^{\binom{j}{2}}(T_w^{(j)} \hspace{-2mm}\mod \mathfrak{m})X^j.
\end{equation}
\begin{defn}
We say that such a Galois representation $\overline{r}: G_{F^+,S} \rightarrow \mathcal{G}_n(\mathbb{F})$ is \emph{automorphic} of level $U$ and coefficients $W$ if $\overline{r}$ satisfies \eqref{eqn:heckefrob} for a finite subset $Q \subset \mathcal{P}_S$ closed under complex conjugation and a maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}\subset \mathbb{T}^Q(U,W)$.
In this case, we say that $\mathfrak{m}$ is the maximal ideal (of $\mathbb{T}^Q(U,W)$ or $\mathbb{T}_{\mathcal{P}}$) corresponding to $\overline{r}$.
We say that $\overline{r}$ is \emph{automorphic} if $\overline{r}$ is automorphic of some level $U$ and some coefficients $W$.
\end{defn}
We now suppose that $\overline{r}_{\mathfrak{m}}$ is absolutely irreducible.
Let $\alpha: \mathbb{T}_{\mathcal{P}} \twoheadrightarrow \mathbb{T}^Q(U,W)_{\mathfrak{m}}$ be the natural quotient map.
Then there is a Galois representation $r_{\mathfrak{m}} \stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} r(U,W)_{\mathfrak{m}}: G_{F^+,S} \rightarrow \mathcal{G}_n(\mathbb{T}^Q(U,W)_{\mathfrak{m}})$ determined by the equations
\[
\det\left(1-r(U,W)_{\mathfrak{m}}|_{G_F}(\mathrm{Frob}_w)X\right)=\sum_{j=0}^n (-1)^j(\mathbf{N}_{F/\mathbb{Q}}(w))^{\binom{j}{2}}\alpha(T_w^{(j)})X^j
\]
for all $w\in \mathcal{P}$.
For each $v\in S_p$, there is an isomorphism $\iota_v: G_{/F^+_v}\cong G_{/F_{\tld{v}}} \cong \mathrm{GL}_{d_v}(D_{\tld{v}/F_{\tld{v}}})$ for some $d_v \in \mathbb{N}$ and some central division algebra $D_{\tld{v}}$ over $F_{\tld{v}}$ where $\mathrm{GL}_{d_v}(D_{\tld{v}/F_{\tld{v}}})(R) \stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} \mathrm{GL}_{d_v}(D_{\tld{v}} \otimes_{F_{\tld{v}}} R)$.
We now let $U_v$ be $\iota_v^{-1}(\mathrm{GL}_{d_v}(\mathcal{O}_{D_{\tld{v}}}))$ and $U_p$ be $\prod_{v\in S_p} U_v = \iota_p^{-1} (\prod_{v\in S_p}\mathrm{GL}_{d_v}(\mathcal{O}_{D_{\tld{v}}}))$.
\begin{defn}
\label{defn:mod:wght}
Suppose that $U^p$ is such that $U = U_p U^p$ is a sufficiently small compact open subgroup of $G(\mathbb{A}_{F^+}^\infty)$ and let $\sigma$ be an irreducible representation of $\prod_{v\in S_p}\mathrm{GL}_{d_v}(\mathcal{O}_{D_{\tld{v}}})$ over $\mathbb{F}$.
We say that $\overline{r}$ is \emph{automorphic of weight} $\sigma$ and level $U$ if $\overline{r}$ is automorphic of level $U$ and coefficients $\sigma^\vee \circ \iota_p$, where $\sigma^\vee$ denotes the $\mathbb{F}$-dual of $\sigma$.
We say that $\overline{r}$ is automorphic of weight $\sigma$ or $\sigma$ is a \emph{modular} (\emph{Serre}) \emph{weight} for $\overline{r}$ if $\overline{r}$ is automorphic of weight $\sigma$ and some level $U$.
Let $W(\overline{r})$ be the set of modular Serre weights of $\overline{r}$.
\end{defn}
For each $v$, we fix an embedding $\ovl{F}^+ \hookrightarrow \ovl{F}^+_v$ such that the restriction $F \hookrightarrow \ovl{F}^+_v$ induces the place $\tld{v}$.
Let $\overline{r}_v$ be the restriction of $\overline{r}$ to $G_{F^+_v} \cong G_{F_{\tld{v}}}$, and let $\overline{r}_p$ be the $L$-homomorphism over $\mathbb{F}$ corresponding to the collection $(\overline{r}_v)_{v\in S_p}$.
One expects that $W(\overline{r})$ depends only on $\overline{r}_p$.
\subsubsection{Minimal level}\label{sec:minlevel}
We now introduce a space of modular forms at \emph{minimal level}.
Suppose that $F/F^+$, $G$, and $\overline{r}$ are as before.
Assume moreover that $F/F^+$ is unramified at all finite places and that $\overline{r}$ is ramified only at split places.
We begin with some notation and terminology.
If $v$ is a split place of $F^+$, then we define the minimally ramified type $\tau_v$ at $v$ (with respect to $\overline{r}$) to be the inertial type obtained from the restriction to inertia of any minimally ramified lift of $\overline{r}|_{G_{F^+_v}}$ in the sense of \cite[Definition 2.4.14]{CHT}).
Let $v_1$ be a split place of $F^+$ away from $p$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $v_1$ does not split completely in $F(\zeta_p)$; and
\item $\overline{r}|_{G_{F^+_{v_1}}}$ is unramified and $\overline{r}(\mathrm{Frob}_{F^+_{v_1}})$ has distinct eigenvalues, no two of which have ratio equal to $(\mathbf{N}v_1)^{\pm 1}$.
\end{itemize}
(It is possible to find such a $v_1$ if $\overline{r}(G_F)$ contains $\mathrm{GL}_n(\mathbb{F}')$ with $\# \mathbb{F}' > 3n$, see \cite[\S 2.3]{CEGGPS}.)
Let $U \subset G(\mathbb{A}_{F^+}^\infty)$ be the compact open subgroup $\prod_v U_v$ where $U_v$ is
\begin{itemize}
\item $\iota_{\tld{v}}^{-1}(\mathrm{GL}_n(\mathcal{O}_{F_{\tld{v}}}))$ if $v$ is a split place of $F^+$ not equal to $v_1$;
\item the preimage of the upper triangular matrices under the composition
\[
G(\mathcal{O}_{F^+_{v_1}}) \overset{\iota_{\tld{v}_1}}{\rightarrow} \mathrm{GL}_n(\mathcal{O}_{F_{\tld{v}_1}}) \rightarrow \mathrm{GL}_n(k_{\tld{v}_1})
\]
if $v = v_1$; and
\item hyperspecial if $v$ is an inert place.
\end{itemize}
Then the compact open subgroup $U$ is sufficiently small.
Let $\Sigma$ be the set of places of $F^+$ away from $p$ where $\overline{r}$ ramifies.
Recall that $S$ is a finite set of places of $F^+$ containing all places dividing $pN$, $\Sigma$, and $v_1$.
For any subset $\mathcal{P}\subseteq \mathcal{P}_S$ of finite complement that is closed under complex conjugation, we write $\mathbb{T}_{\mathcal{P}}'\stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=}\mathbb{T}_{\mathcal{P}}[T^{(i)}_{\tld{v}_1},\, 0 \leq i \leq n]$ where $\mathbb{T}_{\mathcal{P}}$ is the universal Hecke algebra on $\mathcal{P}$ as before.
For a $U_p$-module $V$, $\mathbb{T}_{\mathcal{P}}'$ acts on the space
\[
S(U, (\otimes_{v\in \Sigma} \sigma(\tau_v^\vee)^\circ \circ \iota_v) \otimes V)
\]
where the action of $T^{(i)}_{\tld{v}_1}$ is by the double coset operator $U_{v_1} \iota_{\tld{v}_1}^{-1}\left(\begin{matrix}
\varpi_{w}\mathrm{Id}_i & 0 \cr 0 & \mathrm{Id}_{n-i} \end{matrix} \right) U_{v_1}$.
Choose an ordering $\delta_1,\ldots,\delta_n$ of the distinct eigenvalues of $\overline{r}(\mathrm{Frob}_{\tld{v}_1})$ and let $\mathfrak{m}'$ be the maximal ideal of $\mathbb{T}_{\mathcal{P}}'$ generated by $\mathfrak{m} \subset \mathbb{T}_{\mathcal{P}}$ and the elements $T^{(i)}_{\tld{v}_1} - (\mathbf{N}v_1)^{i(1-i)/2}(\delta_1\cdots\delta_i)$.
Then the space $S(U, (\otimes_{v\in \Sigma} \sigma(\tau_v^\vee)^\circ \circ \iota_v) \otimes V)_{\mathfrak{m}'}$ is nonzero.
\subsubsection{$G$ quasisplit at $p$}
With $G$ as in \S \ref{sec:autform}, we furthermore suppose in this section that $G_{/F^+_v}$ is quasisplit for all $v\in S_p$, i.e., $G_{/F^+_v} \cong \mathrm{GL}_{n/F^+_v}$.
\begin{defn}
We say that $\overline{r}$ is \emph{potentially diagonalizably automorphic} if there is a $U$, $W$, $Q$, and a homomorphism $\lambda: \mathbb{T}^Q(U,W)_{\mathfrak{m}} \rightarrow \ovl{\mathbb{Q}}_p$ such that if $r_\lambda: G_{F^+} \rightarrow \mathcal{G}(\ovl{\mathbb{Q}}_p)$ is the attached semisimple Galois representation characterized by the equation
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:rlambda}
\det\left(1-r_\lambda|_{G_F}(\mathrm{Frob}_w)X\right)=\sum_{j=0}^n (-1)^j(\mathbf{N}_{F/\mathbb{Q}}(w))^{\binom{j}{2}}\lambda(T_w^{(j)})X^j,
\end{equation}
then $r_{\lambda,v}$ is potentially diagonalizable for all $v \in S_p$.
\end{defn}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:globalpatch}
Let $U_p$ be as above and suppose that $U = U^pU_p \subset G(\mathbb{A}_{F^+}^\infty)$ is a sufficiently small compact open subgroup.
Let $\Sigma$ be a finite set of finite places of $F^+$ away from $p$.
Let $W$ be a finite $\mathcal{O}[U_\Sigma]$-module.
Then there is a patching functor $M_\infty$ such that for any finite $\mathbb{F}$-module $V$ with a continuous $\prod_{v\in S_p} \mathrm{GL}_n(\mathcal{O}_{F^+_v})$-action,
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:mtor}
M_\infty(V)/\mathfrak{m}_\infty \cong S(U, W \otimes_{\mathcal{O}} V^\vee \circ \iota_p)[\mathfrak{m}]^\vee,
\end{equation}
where $\mathfrak{m}_\infty\subset R_\infty$ denotes the maximal ideal.
In particular, $M_\infty(V)$ is nonzero if and only if $S(U, W \otimes_{\mathcal{O}} V^\vee \circ \iota_p)_\mathfrak{m})$ is nonzero.
If $\overline{r}$ is potentially diagonalizably automorphic, then there is an $M_\infty$ as above which is moreover potentially diagonalizable.
Suppose now that $F/F^+$ is unramified at all finite places and that $\overline{r}$ is ramified only at split places.
Let $U$ and $\mathfrak{m}'$ be as in \S \ref{sec:minlevel}.
If $W$ is $\otimes_{v\in \Sigma} \sigma(\tau_v^\vee)^\circ \circ \iota_v$ where $\tau_v$ is the minimally ramified type with respect to $\overline{r}$ and $\sigma(\tau_v^\vee)^\circ \subset \sigma(\tau_v^\vee)$ is an $\mathcal{O}$-lattice, then there is a minimal patching functor $M_\infty$ such that for any finite $\mathbb{F}$-module $V$ as before,
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:minmtor}
M_\infty(V)/\mathfrak{m}_\infty \cong S(U, W \otimes_{\mathcal{O}} V^\vee \circ \iota_p)[\mathfrak{m}']^\vee.
\end{equation}
If $\overline{r}$ is potentially diagonalizably automorphic, then this minimal $M_\infty$ can be taken to be potentially diagonalizable.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Except for Definition \ref{minimalpatching}\eqref{item:pd} and the minimality, this follows from the proof of \cite[Lemma A.1.1]{MLM} using that $\mathfrak{m}_\infty$ is the preimage of $\mathfrak{m}$ in \emph{loc.~cit.}~under the map $R_\infty \twoheadrightarrow R_\infty/\mathfrak{a}_\infty$.
Suppose the existence of $\tau_0$ as in Definition \ref{minimalpatching}\eqref{item:pd}.
Then by the above, $\overline{r}$ is potentially diagonalizably automorphic.
Let $\tau$ be an inertial $L$-parameter and $x$ be a potentially diagonalizable $\ovl{E}$-point of $\mathrm{Spec}\ R_\infty(\tau)$.
There is an $\ovl{E}$-point $y$ of $\mathrm{Spec}\ R_\infty(\tau)/\mathfrak{a}_\infty$ which is on the same irreducible component of $\mathrm{Spec}\ R_\infty(\tau)$ as $x$ by \cite[Lemma 3.9]{paskunas-2adic}.
For any $\mathcal{O}$-lattice $\sigma(\tau)^\circ \subset \sigma(\tau)$, $M_\infty(\sigma(\tau)^\circ)/\mathfrak{a}_\infty$, and thus $M_\infty(\sigma(\tau)^\circ)$, is supported at $y$ by \cite[Theorem 4.3.1]{LLL} and the properties of $\sigma(\tau)$ (see \S \ref{subsub:ILL}).
Since $M_\infty(\sigma(\tau)^\circ)$ is a maximal Cohen--Macaulay $R_\infty(\tau)$-module, it is supported at $x$ as well.
The construction of $M_\infty$ in the minimal level case is as in \cite[\S 4]{le} ($n=3$ and $p$ is assumed to be split, but the modifications are simple).
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}[Modularity of extremal weights] \label{thm:globalobv}
Let $\overline{r}: G_{F^+} \rightarrow \mathcal{G}(\mathbb{F})$ be an automorphic representation such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\overline{r}|_{G_{F(\zeta_p)}}$ is adequate; and
\item $\overline{r}_p$ is $6e(n-1)$-generic (in particular $p\nmid 2n$).
\end{itemize}
Then the following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item if $W_{\mathrm{extr}}(\overline{r}_p) \cap W(\overline{r}_p) \neq \emptyset$;
\item $W_{\mathrm{extr}}(\overline{r}_p) \subset W(\overline{r}_p)$; and
\item $\overline{r}$ is potentially diagonalizably automorphic.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Using Lemma \ref{lemma:globalpatch} with $U' = U$, the result follows from Theorem \ref{thm:obvpd}.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}[Automorphic tameness criterion]
\label{thm:aut:tameness}
Let $\sigma_w,\sigma_{w_0w}\in W_{\mathrm{extr}}(\overline{r}_p^{\mathrm{ss}})$ be the extremal weights of $\overline{r}_p^{\mathrm{ss}}$ corresponding to $w$ and $w_0w\in W$, respectively.
Suppose that $\sigma_w\in W(\overline{r}_p)$.
Then the following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\sigma_{w_0w}\in W(\overline{r}_p)$; and
\item $\overline{r}_p=\overline{r}_p^{\mathrm{ss}}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Use Theorem \ref{thm:globalobv} and Proposition \ref{prop:tamecrit}.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
Suppose that $F(\lambda)\in W(\overline{r}_p)$ for $\lambda\in \un{C}_0$ \emph{(}in particular, $F(\lambda)\in W_{\mathrm{extr}}(\overline{r}_p)$\emph{)}.
Let $(F(\lambda),\overline{r}_p^{\mathrm{sp}})\in SP(\overline{r}_p)$ any lift of $F(\lambda)\in W_{\mathrm{extr}}(\overline{r}_p)$.
Then $\overline{r}_p$ is semisimple if and only if
\[
F\bigg(\Big(t_\eta w_0\,w\,\theta_{\overline{r}_p}^{\zeta}\big((F(\lambda),\overline{r}_p^{\mathrm{sp}})\big) \,w_0^{-1}\Big)\cdot(e(w_0(\eta)-\eta))+w_0\cdot(\lambda-\eta)\bigg)\in W(\overline{r}_p)
\]
where $w\in\un{W}$ is such that $F(\lambda)$ is the obvious weight of $\overline{r}_p^{\mathrm{sp}}$ corresponding to $w$.
\end{cor}
\begin{thm}[mod $p$ multiplicity one]\label{thm:multone}
Suppose that $F/F^+$ is unramified at all finite places, $G$ is quasisplit at all finite places, and that if $\overline{r}|_{G_{F^+_v}}$ is ramified for a finite place $v$ of $F^+$, then $v$ splits in $F$.
Let $U$ be as in \S \ref{sec:minlevel}.
Let $\Sigma$ be the set of finite places of $F^+$ away from $p$ at which $\overline{r}$ is ramified.
For each $v\in \Sigma$, let $\tau_v$ be the minimally ramified inertial type corresponding to $\overline{r}|_{G_{F^+_v}}: G_{F^+_v} \rightarrow \mathrm{GL}_n(\mathbb{F})$.
If $\overline{r}$ satisfies the equivalent conditions of Theorem \ref{thm:globalobv}, then for each $\sigma \in W_{\mathrm{extr}}(\overline{r}_p)$,
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:multone}
S(U,\otimes_{v\in \Sigma}\sigma^\circ(\tau_v^\vee) \circ \iota_\Sigma \otimes_{\mathcal{O}} \sigma \circ \iota_p)[\mathfrak{m}]
\end{equation}
is one-dimensional over $\mathbb{F}$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
This follows from \eqref{eqn:minmtor} and Theorem \ref{thm:patchcyclic}.
\end{proof}
\begin{rmk}
Using Theorem \ref{thm:multone}, one can recover the main results of \cite{enns-ord} (with stronger genericity assumptions) which assert a multiplicity one statement for the \emph{ordinary part} of \eqref{eqn:multone}.
\end{rmk}
We require the following ``change of type" result.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:changetype}
Let $F^+$ be a totally real field and $F\subset\ovl{F}^+$ a CM extension where every place of $F^+$ dividing $p$ splits in $F$.
Suppose further that $\zeta_p \notin F$.
For each place $v$ of $F^+$ dividing $p$, choose an embedding $\ovl{F}^+ \hookrightarrow \ovl{F}^+_v$.
Let $\overline{r}: G_{F^+} \rightarrow \mathcal{G}(\mathbb{F})$ be a Galois representation such that $\overline{r}(G_{F(\zeta_p)})$ is adequate and there is a RACSDC automorphic representation $\Pi$ of $\mathrm{GL}_n(\mathbb{A}_F)$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\overline{r}|_{G_F} \cong \overline{r}_{p,\iota}(\Pi)$; and
\item for each $v|p$, $r_{p,\iota}(\Pi)|_{G_{F^+_v}}$ is potentially diagonalizable.
\end{itemize}
Let $\Delta$ be a finite set of places in $F$ away from $p$ which split in $F$ such that if $w\in \Delta$, then $\Pi_w$ is supercuspidal.
For each place $v$ of $F^+$ dividing $p$, suppose that $\overline{r}_v$ admits a potentially diagonalizable lift which is potentially crystalline of type $(\lambda_v+\eta_v,\tau_v)$.
Then there exists a RACSDC automorphic representation $\pi$ of $\mathrm{GL}_n(\mathbb{A}_F)$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\overline{r}|_{G_F} \cong \overline{r}_{p,\iota}(\pi)$;
\item for each $v|p$, $r_{p,\iota}(\pi)|_{G_{F^+_v}}$ is potentially diagonalizable and potentially crystalline of type $(\lambda_v+\eta_v,\tau_v)$; and
\item for each $w\in \Delta$, $\pi_w$ is supercuspidal.
\end{itemize}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
This follows from \cite[Theorem 4.3.1]{LLL}, which is based on \cite[Theorem 3.1.3]{BLGG}, except for the assertion of supercuspidality.
However, \cite[Theorem 3.1.3]{BLGG} with $S$ chosen to contain $S_p$ and $\Delta^+ \stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} \{w|_{F^+} \mid w \in \Delta\}$ guarantees that one can choose $\pi$ so that $r_{p,\iota}(\Pi)|_{G_{F_w}} \sim r_{p,\iota}(\pi)|_{G_{F_w}}$ for each $w\in \Delta$.
In particular, the irreducibility of $\mathrm{WD}(r_{p,\iota}(\Pi)|_{G_{F_w}})|_{W_{F_w}}$ implies the irreducibility of $\mathrm{WD}(r_{p,\iota}(\pi)|_{G_{F_w}})|_{W_{F_w}}$, which implies the desired assertion.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}\label{cor:changetype}
Let $F^+$ be a totally real field and $F\subset\ovl{F}^+$ a CM extension where every finite place of $F^+$ is unramified in $F$ and every place dividing $p$ splits.
Suppose further that $p$ is unramified in $F^+$ and that $\zeta_p \notin F$.
For each place $v$ of $F^+$ dividing $p$, choose an embedding $\ovl{F}^+ \hookrightarrow \ovl{F}^+_v$.
Fix a set $\Delta$ of split places in $F$ away from $p$.
Let $\overline{r}: G_{F^+} \rightarrow \mathcal{G}(\mathbb{F})$ be a Galois representation such that $\overline{r}(G_{F(\zeta_p)})$ is adequate, $\overline{r}|_{G_{F^+_v}}$ is $(6n-2)$-generic for all $v|p$, and there is a RACSDC automorphic representation $\Pi$ of $\mathrm{GL}_n(\mathbb{A}_F)$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\overline{r}|_{G_F} \cong \overline{r}_{p,\iota}(\Pi)$;
\item for each $v|p$, $r_{p,\iota}(\Pi)|_{G_{F^+_v}}$ is potentially diagonalizable; and
\item for each $w\in \Delta$, $\Pi_w$ is supercuspidal.
\end{itemize}
For each place $v$ of $F^+$ dividing $p$, let $\tau_v$ be a tame inertial type.
Then the following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \label{item:locallift} $R_{\overline{r}_v}^{\tau_v}$ is nonzero for all places $v$ of $F^+$ dividing $p$; and
\item \label{item:globallift} there is a RACSDC automorphic representation $\pi$ of $\mathrm{GL}_n(\mathbb{A}_F)$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\overline{r}|_{G_F} \cong \overline{r}_{p,\iota}(\pi)$;
\item $r_{p,\iota}(\pi)|_{G_{F^+_v}}$ is potentially crystalline of type $(\eta_v,\tau_v)$ for all $v|p$; and
\item for each $w\in \Delta$, $\pi_w$ is supercuspidal.
\end{itemize}
\end{enumerate}
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
\eqref{item:globallift} immediately implies \eqref{item:locallift}.
We now assume \eqref{item:locallift} and show the converse.
\eqref{item:locallift} in particular implies that $\tau$ is $(5n-1)$-generic so that Proposition \ref{prop:obvintersect} applies.
Indeed, $\tau$ is $(5n-4)$-generic by \cite[Proposition 7]{enns}.
Then $\tau$ is in fact $(5n-1)$-generic by \cite[Theorem 3.2.1]{LLL}.
Let $\Delta^+$ be the set $\{w|_{F^+} \mid w\in \Delta\}$.
Recall from the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:globalobv} that for each $v\in S_p$, $\overline{r}_v$ admits a potentially diagonalizable lift of type $(\eta_v,\tau'_v)$ for some tame inertial type $\tau'_v$.
Let $\pi$ be the RACSDC automorphic representation of $\mathrm{GL}_n(\mathbb{A}_F)$ guaranteed by Theorem \ref{thm:changetype}.
\cite[Theorem 5.4]{labesse}
implies that for some supercuspidal inertial types $(\tau'_v)_{v\in \Delta^+}$,
\[
S(U,\underset{v\in S_p}{\otimes}\sigma^\circ(\tau^{\prime\vee}_v) \circ \iota_p \otimes \underset{v\in \Delta^+}{\otimes} \sigma^\circ(\tau^{\prime\vee}_v) \circ \iota_{\Delta^+})_{\mathfrak{m}} \neq 0
\]
where $\sigma^\circ(\tau^{\prime\vee}_v) \subset \sigma(\tau^{\prime\vee}_v)$ is a $\mathrm{GL}_n(\mathcal{O}_{F^+_v})$-stable $\mathcal{O}$-lattice for each $v\in S_p \cup \Delta^+$.
Let $M_\infty$ be the potentially diagonalizable patching functor guaranteed by Lemma \ref{lemma:globalpatch} with $W \stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} \otimes_{v\in \Delta^+} \sigma^\circ(\tau_v^\vee) \circ \iota_{\Delta^+}$.
Theorem \ref{thm:obvpd} implies that $W_{\mathrm{extr}}(\overline{r}_p) \subset W_{M_\infty}(\overline{r}_p)$.
Properties of $M_\infty$ from Lemma \ref{lemma:globalpatch} imply that
\[
S(U,\underset{v\in S_p}{\otimes}(\sigma^\vee \circ \iota_p) \otimes \underset{v\in \Delta^+}{\otimes} (\sigma^\circ(\tau^{\prime\vee}_v) \circ \iota_{\Delta^+}))_{\mathfrak{m}} \neq 0
\]
for any $\sigma \in W_{\mathrm{extr}}(\overline{r}_p)$.
Exactness of $S(U,-)_{\mathfrak{m}}$ and Proposition \ref{prop:obvintersect} imply that
\[
S(U,\underset{v\in S_p}{\otimes}(\sigma^\circ(\tau^{\vee}_v) \circ \iota_p) \otimes \underset{v\in \Delta^+}{\otimes} (\sigma^\circ(\tau^{\prime\vee}_v) \circ \iota_{\Delta^+}))_{\mathfrak{m}} \neq 0.
\]
We conclude with an application of \cite[Corollaire 5.3]{labesse}.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{G anisotropic at $p$}
With $G$ as in \S \ref{sec:autform}, we furthermore suppose in this section that for all $v\in S_p$, $G_{/F^+_v}$ is anisotropic modulo center, i.e., we have an isomorphism $\iota_v: G_{/F^+_v}\risom D_{\tld{v}/F_{\tld{v}}}^\times$.
We first recall the set of irreducible $\mathcal{O}_{D_{\tld{v}}}^\times$-representations over $\mathbb{F}$ (or \emph{Serre weights}).
Let $\mathfrak{m}_{D_{\tld{v}}}\subset \mathcal{O}_{D_{\tld{v}}}$ denote the maximal ideal.
Then $k_{D_{\tld{v}}} \stackrel{\textrm{\tiny{def}}}{=} \mathcal{O}_{D_{\tld{v}}}/\mathfrak{m}_{D_{\tld{v}}}$ is a degree $n$ field extension of the residue field $k_{\tld{v}}$ of $F_{\tld{v}}$.
We say that a character of $\mathcal{O}_{D_{\tld{v}}}^\times$ is \emph{tame} if it factors through $k_{D_{\tld{v}}}^\times$.
Since $1+\mathfrak{m}_{D_{\tld{v}}}$ is a pro-$p$ group (under multiplication), it acts trivially on any irreducible $\mathcal{O}_{D_{\tld{v}}}^\times$-representation over $\mathbb{F}$.
Thus any irreducible $\mathcal{O}_{D_{\tld{v}}}^\times$-representation over $\mathbb{F}$ is a tame $\mathbb{F}$-character.
Moreover, the $\mathcal{O}$-Teichm\"uller lift gives a bijection between irreducible $\mathcal{O}_{D_{\tld{v}}}^\times$-representations over $\mathbb{F}$ and tame $\mathcal{O}$-valued characters of $\mathcal{O}_{D_{\tld{v}}}^\times$.
Given a tame character $\chi_v: \mathcal{O}_{D_{\tld{v}}}^\times \rightarrow k_{D_{\tld{v}}}^\times \rightarrow \mathcal{O}^\times$, we define a tame inertial type $\tau(\chi_v)$ as follows.
Let $K_{\tld{v}}$ be $W(k_{D_{\tld{v}}})[p^{-1}] \otimes_{W_{k_{\tld{v}}}[p^{-1}]} F_{\tld{v}}$ and choose an $F_{\tld{v}}$-linear embedding of $K_{\tld{v}} \hookrightarrow \ovl{F}^+_v$.
We also denote by $\chi_v$ the character $\mathcal{O}_{K_{\tld{v}}}^\times \rightarrow k_{D_{\tld{v}}}^\times \overset{\chi_v}{\rightarrow} \mathcal{O}^\times$.
Then we let $\tau(\chi_v)$ be $\mathrm{Ind}_{W_{K_{\tld{v}}}}^{W_{F^+_v}} (\tld{\chi}_v \circ \mathrm{Art}_{K_{\tld{v}}}^{-1})|_{I_{F^+_v}}$ for an extension $\tld{\chi}_v: K_{\tld{v}}^\times \rightarrow \mathcal{O}^\times$ of $\chi_v|_{\mathcal{O}_{K_{\tld{v}}}^\times}$.
The tame inertial type $\tau(\chi_v)$ does not depend on the choice of embedding $K_{\tld{v}} \hookrightarrow \ovl{F}^+_v$ or extension $\tld{\chi}_v$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:LGC}
Let $\lambda: \mathbb{T}^Q(U,W) \rightarrow \ovl{\mathbb{Q}}_p$ be a homomorphism and $r_\lambda: G_{F^+} \rightarrow \mathcal{G}(\ovl{\mathbb{Q}}_p)$ be the attached semisimple Galois representation characterized by \eqref{eqn:rlambda}.
Let $\chi = \otimes_{v\in S_p} \chi_v: \prod_{v\in S_p} \mathcal{O}_{D_{\tld{v}}}^\times \rightarrow \mathcal{O}^\times$ be a tame character.
If $\tau(\chi_v)$ is a regular tame inertial type for all $v\in S_p$, then the following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \label{item:potcrys} for each $v\in S_p$, $r_\lambda|_{G_{F^+_v}}$ is potentially crystalline of type $(\eta_v,\tau(\chi_v))$; and
\item \label{item:chi} $S(U,\chi^\vee \circ \iota_p)_{\ker(\lambda)} \neq 0$.
\end{enumerate}
If $\tau(\chi_v)$ is not regular and $S(U,\chi^\vee \circ \iota_p)_{\ker(\lambda)} \neq 0$, then $r_\lambda|_{G_{F^+_v}}$ is potentially semistable of type $(\eta_v,\tau_v)$ with $\tau_v$ not regular.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\pi$ be the automorphic representation of $G(\mathbb{A}_{F^+})$ corresponding to $\lambda$.
First suppose that $\tau(\chi_v)$ is regular for all $v\in S_p$.
We will show that \eqref{item:potcrys} and \eqref{item:chi} are equivalent to
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:localtype}
\mathrm{rec}_{F_{\tld{v}}}(\mathrm{JL}(\pi_v))|_{I_{F_{\tld{v}}}}\cong\tau(\chi_v)
\end{equation}
for all $v\in S_p$.
Choosing a subring of $F_{\tld{v},n} \subset D_{\tld{v}}$ which is a degree $n$ unramified field extension of $F_{\tld{v}}$ for each $v\in S_p$, \eqref{item:chi} is equivalent to the fact that for each $v\in S_p$, $\pi_v$ is isomorphic to $\mathrm{Ind}_{F_{\tld{v},n}^\times(1+\mathfrak{m}_{D_{\tld{v}}})}^{D_{\tld{v}}^\times} \tld{\chi}_v$ for some character $\tld{\chi}_v: F_{\tld{v},n}^\times \rightarrow E^\times$ extending $\chi_v$ (see \cite[\S 1.5]{BH11}).
This is in turn equivalent to \eqref{eqn:localtype} for all $v\in S_p$ by the main result of \cite{BH11}.
Let $\Pi$ be the automorphic representation of $\mathrm{GL}_n(\mathbb{A}_F)$ in \cite[Proposition 6.5.1]{HKV}.
Fixing $v\in S_p$, $|\mathrm{LJ}_{G(F_{\tld{v}})}|\Pi_{\tld{v}} \cong \pi_v$ so that $\Pi_{\tld{v}} \cong \mathrm{JL}(\pi_v)$ (see \cite[\S 3]{Bad08}).
Then
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:LGC}
\mathrm{WD}(r_\lambda|_{G_{F^+_v}})^{F\textrm{-ss}}|_{W_{F^+_v}} \cong \mathrm{WD}(r_{p,\iota}(\Pi)|_{G_{F_{\tld{v}}}})^{F\textrm{-ss}}|_{W_{F_{\tld{v}}}} \cong \mathrm{rec}_{F_{\tld{v}}}(\mathrm{JL}(\pi_v)\otimes|\det|^{\frac{1-n}{2}})|_{W_{F_{\tld{v}}}}
\end{equation}
by \cite[Lemma 6.2.2]{HKV}.
Since $r_\lambda|_{G_{F^+_v}}$ is potentially semistable of weight $\eta_v$ by \cite[Theorem 2.1.1]{BLGGT}, we conclude that \eqref{item:potcrys} is also of equivalent to \eqref{eqn:localtype} for all $v\in S_p$.
Now suppose that $\tau(\chi_v)$ is not regular for some $v\in S_p$ and that $S(U,\chi^\vee \circ \iota_p)_{\ker(\lambda)} \neq 0$.
As before $r_\lambda|_{G_{F^+_v}}$ is potentially semistable of type $(\eta_v,\tau_v)$ for some inertial type $\tau_v$.
We will show that $\tau_v$ is tame and is not regular.
Let $\Pi$ be as above.
Then as before, $\Pi_{\tld{v}} \cong \mathrm{JL}(\pi_v)$ so that \eqref{eqn:LGC} holds.
Since $\mathrm{rec}_{F_{\tld{v}}}(\mathrm{JL}(\pi_v)\otimes|\det|^{\frac{1-n}{2}})|_{I_{F_{\tld{v}}}}$ is tame and is not regular by \cite[Proposition 6.2.3]{HKV}, we conclude that $\tau_v$ is tame and is not regular.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}\label{thm:divalg}
Let $F^+$ be a totally real field and $F\subset\ovl{F}^+$ a CM extension where every finite place of $F^+$ is unramified in $F$ and every place dividing $p$ splits.
Suppose further that $p$ is unramified in $F^+$ and that $\zeta_p \notin F$.
Let $\overline{r}: G_{F^+} \rightarrow \mathcal{G}(\mathbb{F})$ be an automorphic Galois representation such that $\overline{r}(G_{F(\zeta_p)})$ is adequate, $\overline{r}|_{G_{F^+_v}}$ is $(6n-2)$-generic for all $v|p$, and there is a RACSDC automorphic representation $\Pi$ of $\mathrm{GL}_n(\mathbb{A}_F)$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\overline{r}|_{G_F} \cong \overline{r}_{p,\iota}(\Pi)$;
\item for each $v|p$, $r_{p,\iota}(\Pi)|_{G_{F^+_v}}$ is potentially diagonalizable; and
\item for each finite place of $w$ of $F$ for which $G_{/F_w}$ is not quasisplit, $\Pi_w$ is supercuspidal.
\end{itemize}
Let $\chi:D_{\tld{v}}^\times\rightarrow E^\times$ be a character.
Then $\ovl{\chi} \in W(\overline{r})$ if and only if $\overline{r}|_{G_{F^+_v}}$ has a potentially crystalline lift of type $\tau(\chi_v)$ for every $v\in S_p$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $\ovl{\chi} \in W(\overline{r})$.
Then $S(U,\chi^\vee \circ \iota_p)_\mathfrak{m}$ is a nonzero finite free $\mathcal{O}$-module so that there exists $\lambda$ as in Lemma \ref{lemma:LGC} such that $S(U,\chi^\vee \circ \iota_p)_{\ker(\lambda)} \neq 0$.
We first claim that $\tau(\chi_v)$ is regular for every $v\in S_p$.
If $\tau(\chi_v)$ is not regular for some $v\in S_p$, then Lemma \ref{lemma:LGC} implies that $\overline{r}|_{G_{F^+_v}}$ has a potentially semistable lift of type $(\eta_v,\tau_v)$ for some tame inertial type $\tau_v$ which is not regular.
This leads to a contradiction since $\overline{r}|_{G_{F^+_v}}$ has no such lift by \cite[Proposition 7]{enns}.
Now since $\tau(\chi_v)$ is regular for every $v\in S_p$, the existence of desired local lifts follows from Lemma \ref{lemma:LGC}.
Suppose now that $\overline{r}|_{G_{F^+_v}}$ has a potentially crystalline lift of type $\tau(\chi_v)$ for every $v\in S_p$.
Then let $\pi$ be as in Corollary \ref{cor:changetype}.
(As in the proof of Corollary \ref{cor:changetype}, $\tau(\chi_v)$ is $(5n-1)$-generic for all $v\in S_p$ and thus cuspidal.)
Let $\pi'$ be the base change cuspidal automorphic representation of $G(\mathbb{A}_F)$ guaranteed by \cite[Proposition 6.5.2]{HKV}.
Then $r_{p,\iota}(\pi) \cong r_{p,\iota}(\pi')$ so that in particular $\overline{r}_{p,\iota}(\pi') \cong \overline{r}$ and $r_{p,\iota}(\pi')|_{G_{F^+_v}}$ is potentially crystalline of type $(\eta_v,\tau_v)$ for each $v\in S_p$.
Taking $\lambda$ in Lemma \ref{lemma:LGC} corresponding to $\pi'$, we have that $S(U,\chi^\vee \circ \iota_p)_{\ker(\lambda)}$, and thus $S(U,\ovl{\chi}^\vee \circ \iota_p)_{\mathfrak{m}}$, is nonzero.
\end{proof}
\clearpage{}%
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
In the \textit{hp}-adaptive variation of the \gls{fem} for the solution of partial differential equations, one adaptively refines the mesh (\textit{h}-adaptivity) and independently also chooses the polynomial degree of the approximation on every cell (\textit{p}-adaptivity). This method is by now 40 years old \cite{babuska1981} and, at least from a theoretical perspective, well understood \cite{guo1986,guo1986a,babuska1996}. In particular, it is known that \textit{hp}-adaptivity provides better accuracy per \gls{dof} than either the \textit{h}- or \textit{p}-adaptive methods alone; more specifically, it exhibits a convergence rate where the approximation error in many cases decreases \textit{exponentially} with the number of unknowns $N$ -- i.e., the error satisfies $e = {\mathcal O}(s^{-N})$ for some $s>1$ that may depend on the solution --, rather than an algebraic rate $e = {\mathcal O}(N^{-\gamma})$ for some $\gamma>0$. In other words, \textit{hp}-adaptivity is \textit{asymptotically superior} to \textit{h}- or \textit{p}-adaptivity alone.
Yet, \textit{\textit{hp}-adaptive methods are not widely used}. The reasons for this lack of use are probably debatable but surely include (i) that the literature provides many criteria by which to choose whether \textit{h}- or \textit{p}-refinement should be selected if the error on a cell is large, but that there is no consensus on which one is best; and (ii) a lack of widely usable implementations. For the first of these points, we refer to the comprehensive comparison in \cite{mitchell2014}. Instead, in this contribution, we address the second point: the lack of widely available implementations.
A survey of the finite element landscape shows that there are few options for those who are interested in experimenting with \textit{hp}-methods. Most of the open-source distributed-memory parallel implementations of \textit{hp}-adaptive methods available that we are aware of -- specifically the ones in the libraries \texttt{PHAML}{} \cite{mitchell2002}, \texttt{PHG}{} \cite{zhang2019}, and \texttt{MoFEM}{} \cite{kaczmarczyk2020} -- have not found wide use in the community and are not backed by large user and developer communities. To the best of our knowledge, other popular libraries like \texttt{FEniCS}{}/\texttt{FEniCSx}{} \cite{alnaes2015}, \texttt{GetFEM}{} \cite{renard2020}, and \texttt{FreeFEM++}{} \cite{hecht2012} do not offer \textit{hp}-adaptive methods at all or have only experimental support as is the case with \texttt{libMesh}{} \cite{kirk2006}.
In other cases, such as the ones discussed in \cite{bey1996, paszynski2006, paszynski2011, jomo2017, chalmers2019}, the implementation of \textit{hp}-methods is restricted to \gls{dg} methods; the same limitation also applies to the libraries \texttt{MFEM}{} \cite{anderson2021, pazner2022} and \texttt{DUNE}{} \cite{bastian2021, gersbacher2016}. This case is relatively easy to implement because the construction of finite element spaces is purely local, on every cell independent of its neighbors. At the same time, \gls{dg} methods are expensive -- especially in three dimensions -- because \glspl{dof} are duplicated between neighboring cells, and the resulting large linear systems and corresponding memory consumption have hampered adoption of \gls{dg} schemes in most applications outside the simulation of hyperbolic systems. As a consequence, while the use of \gls{dg} methods for \textit{hp}-adaptivity is a legitimate approach, there are many important use cases where continuous finite element spaces remain the method of choice.
Finally, let us mention publications \cite{paszynski2011, jomo2017} that also demonstrate the use of \textit{hp}-adaptive methods, but only discuss implementations for shared-memory machines. The \texttt{Hermes}{} library \cite{solin2008} also falls into that category. \cite{laszloffy2000} does present distributed-memory algorithms, but only shows scaling to 16 processors, whereas we are here interested in much larger levels of parallelism. We are not aware of any commercial tools capable of using \textit{hp}-methods, either for sequential or parallel computations.
As a consequence of our search for available implementations, and to the best of our knowledge, only the \texttt{deal.II}{} library \cite{dealii93, arndt2021} appears to have generic support for \textit{hp}-adaptive methods for a wide variety of finite elements, discontinuous or continuous, as previously discussed in detail in \cite{bangerth2009}. Still, \texttt{deal.II}{} has only recently begun to support \textit{hp}-adaptive methods for parallel computations \cite{fehling2020}. It is this specific gap that we wish to address in this contribution, by considering what algorithms are necessary to implement \textit{hp}-methods \textit{on large parallel machines} using a distributed-memory model based on the \gls{mpi}. The target for our work is the solution of two- and three-dimensional scalar- or vector-valued partial differential equations, using an arbitrary combination of finite elements, and scaling up to tens of thousands of processes and billions of unknowns.
More specifically, our goals for this work are:
\begin{itemize}
\item The development of a scalable algorithm to \textit{uniquely enumerate \glspl{dof}} on meshes on which finite element spaces of different polynomial degrees may be associated with each cell. Simply enumerating all \glspl{dof} on a mesh turns out to be non-trivial already in distributed-memory implementations of \textit{h}-adapted, unstructured meshes (as discussed in \cite{bangerth2012}) as well as for sequential implementations of the \textit{hp}-method (see \cite{bangerth2007}), and it is no surprise that the combination of the two leads to additional complications.
\item An efficient distribution of workload among all processes with \textit{weighted load balancing}, since the workload per cell depends on its local number of \glspl{dof} and thus varies from cell to cell with \textit{hp}-adaptive methods. We will present strategies on how to determine weights on each cell for this purpose.
\item The ability to \textit{transfer data of variable size} between \textit{hp}-adapted meshes. In the \textit{hp}-context, the amount of data stored per cell is proportional to the number of local \glspl{dof} and, again, varies between cells.
\item An assessment of the parallel efficiency of the algorithms mentioned above.
\end{itemize}
In this paper, we will first address the task of enumerating all \glspl{dof} in a distributed-memory setting in Section~\ref{sec:enumeration}. We will then present strategies for weighted load balancing in Section~\ref{sec:load_balancing} and continue with ways to transfer data of variable size in Section~\ref{sec:data_transfer}. In Section~\ref{sec:results}, we then illustrate the performance and scalability of our methods using numerical results obtained on the Expanse{} supercomputer \cite{strande2021, towns2014}, using up to \num{16384} cores. We present conclusions in Section~\ref{sec:conclusions}.
\paragraph*{Code availability.}
The algorithms we will discuss in the remainder of this paper are mostly implemented and available in the open-source library \texttt{deal.II}{}, version 9.3 \cite{dealii93, arndt2021}; some enhancements are only in the development branch and will be released with the next release in the summer of 2022. All functionality is available under the LGPL 2.1 license. That said, our discussions are not specific to \texttt{deal.II}{} and are generally applicable to any other finite element software. In particular, even though we will only show examples of quadrilateral or hexahedral meshes, our algorithms are readily applicable also to simplex or mixed meshes.
The two programs that implement the test cases of Section~\ref{sec:testcases} and for which we show results in Sections~\ref{sec:results-load-balancing} and \ref{sec:results-scaling} are available as part of the tool \texttt{hpbox}{} \cite{fehling2022}.
\section{Enumeration of degrees of freedom}
\label{sec:enumeration}
In the abstract, the finite element method defines a finite-dimensional space $V_h$ within which one seeks the discrete solution of a (partial) differential equation. In practice, one needs to construct a basis $\{\varphi_i\}_{i=0}^{N-1}$ for this space so that numerical solutions $u_h\in V_h$ can be expressed as expansions of the form $u_h(\mathbf x) = \sum_i U_i \varphi_i(\mathbf x)$ where the $U_i$ are the nodal coefficients of the expansion.
The basis functions of $V_h$ are mathematically defined via \textit{nodal functionals} \cite{brenner2008}, but for the purposes of this section, it is only important to know that each basis function is associated with either a vertex, an edge, a face, or the interior of a cell of a mesh. In order to enumerate the \glspl{dof} on an unstructured mesh, one therefore simply walks over all cells, faces, edges, and vertices and, in a first step, allocates as much memory as is necessary to store the indices of \glspl{dof} associated with each of these entities, setting the index to an invalid value. In a second step, one then repeats the loop and assigns consecutive indices to each degree encountered that has not yet received a valid number. It is clear, however, that this two-stage algorithm needs to be modified for parallel, distributed-memory computations.
In the remainder of this section, our goal is to describe an algorithm that achieves this enumeration in parallel for the \textit{hp}-adaptive case. For context, let us first briefly outline how this is done for distributed, unstructured meshes when only one type of finite element is used (Section~\ref{sec:enum-parallel}), followed by a description of the algorithm used for \textit{hp}-adaptive methods on a single process (Section~\ref{sec:enum-hp}). In Section~\ref{sec:enum-hp-parallel}, we then present our new algorithm for parallel \textit{hp}-adaptive methods, which can be seen as a combination and enhancement of the former two.
We do not cover details on handling hanging nodes and constraints in this manuscript. It turns out that for the new algorithm, their handling does not require any change from the methods described in \cite{bangerth2009, bangerth2012}.
\subsection{Enumerating degrees of freedom on distributed, unstructured meshes}
\label{sec:enum-parallel}
In a parallel program where the mesh data structure is stored in distributed memory, the situation is complicated by the fact that each process only knows a subset of cells -- namely, those cells that are ``locally owned'' along with a layer of ``ghost cells''. At the same time, we need to assign \textit{globally unique} indices to all entities of the distributed mesh: at the end of the algorithm, each process must know the global indices of those \glspl{dof} that are located on this process's locally owned and ghost cells.
For the relatively simple case where the finite element is the same on each cell (no \textit{p}-adaptivity), the index assignment is typically achieved by identifying a tie-breaking process that defines which process ``owns'' a mesh entity on the interface between the sub-domains of cells owned by individual processes (i.e., which of the adjacent processes owns a vertex, an edge, or a face on this interface). This process is then also the owner of the \glspl{dof} located on these entities. A possible tie-breaker is that the process with the smallest \gls{mpi} rank is chosen as the owner of an entity on a subdomain interface.
Enumeration of \glspl{dof} then proceeds by each process enumerating
the \glspl{dof} it owns, starting at zero. All of these indices are
then shifted so that we obtain globally unique indices across
processes. Next, each process sends the indices associated with
locally owned cells to those processes that have these cells as ghost
cells. Because processes may not yet know all \gls{dof} indices on the
boundaries of locally owned cells at the time of this communication step, the exchange has to be repeated a second time to ensure that each process knows the full set of indices on both the locally owned cells as well as ghost cells, and all of the vertices, edges, and faces bounding these cells.
A formal description of this algorithm -- which consists of five stages -- has been given in \cite{bangerth2012} and forms the basis of the discussions for the parallel \textit{hp}-case below in Section~\ref{sec:enum-hp-parallel}.
\subsection{Enumerating degrees of freedom in the sequential \textit{hp}-context}
\label{sec:enum-hp}
In the \textit{hp}-context, each cell $K\in {\mathbb T}$ of a triangulation or mesh $\mathbb T$ may use a different finite element. To make the notation that we use below concrete, let us assume that we want the global function space $V_h$ be constructed so that the solution functions $u_h\in V_h$ satisfy $u_h|_K \in V_h(K)$ where $V_h(K)$ is the finite element space associated with cell $K$. Furthermore, let us assume that $V_h(K)$ can only be one from within a collection of spaces $\bigl\{\hat V_h^{(i)}\bigr\}_{i=0}^I$ defined on the reference cell $\hat K$ that are then mapped to cell $K$ in the usual way, i.e., $V_h(K)={\mathcal M}_K \hat V_h$ where ${\mathcal M}_K$ is the operator that maps the finite element space from the reference cell to $K$; the details of this mapping are not of importance to us here. We denote the ``active FE index'' on cell $K$ by $a(K)$, i.e., $V_h(K)={\mathcal M}_K \hat V_h^{\left(a(K)\right)}$. Each of the spaces $\hat V_h^{(i)}$ has a number of \glspl{dof} associated with each vertex, edge, face, and cell interior.
A trivial implementation of enumerating all \glspl{dof} would simply loop over all cells $K\in\mathbb T$ and enumerate all \glspl{dof} on both the cell $K$ and its vertices, edges, and faces independently of the enumeration on neighboring cells. To do so requires storing multiple sets of indices of \glspl{dof} on vertices, edges, and faces, each set corresponding to one of the adjacent cells. This strategy would result in a global finite element space that is discontinuous between neighboring cells, but continuity can be restored by adding constraints that relate \glspl{dof} on neighboring cells.
The left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:naive-enumeration} illustrates this approach. Here, each cell's \glspl{dof} are independently enumerated. Continuity of the solution is then restored by introducing identity constraints of the form $U_9 = U_1$, $U_{11} = U_3$, $U_{14} = U_5$, in addition to the more traditional ``hanging node constraints'' $U_{13} = \tfrac 38 U_1 - \tfrac 18 U_3 + \tfrac 34 U_5$, $U_{15} = - \tfrac 18 U_1 + \tfrac 38 U_3 + \tfrac 34 U_5$.
\begin{figure}
\def1{1}
\def0.03{0.03}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=3]
\LagrangeCell{0}{0}{1}{0.03}{2}
{{0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8}};
\LagrangeCell{1}{0}{1}{0.03}{4}
{{9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33}};
\end{tikzpicture}
\hfill
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=3]
\LagrangeCell{0}{0}{1}{0.03}{2}
{{0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8}};
\LagrangeCell{1}{0}{1}{0.03}{4}
{{1,9,3,10,11,5,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30}};
\end{tikzpicture}%
\caption{\it Enumeration of \gls{dof} indices on a mesh with two cells on which the left cell uses a $Q_2$ (bi-quadratic) Lagrange element and the right cell uses a $Q_4$ (bi-quartic) element. We distinguish between support points on vertices $(\bullet)$, lines $(\square)$ and quadrilaterals $(\circ)$.
Left: Naive enumeration of \glspl{dof}. Continuity is ensured through constraints.
Right: A better way in which we ``unify'' some \glspl{dof}.}
\label{fig:naive-enumeration}
\end{figure}
While conceptually simple, this approach is wasteful as it introduces many more \glspl{dof} than necessary, along with a large number of constraints. In the extreme case of using $Q_1$ (tri-linear) Lagrange elements on all cells of a uniformly refined 3d mesh, one ends up with approximately eight times as many \glspl{dof}, $7/8$ of which are constrained. In actual test cases using \textit{hp}-adaptivity, \cite[Sec.~4.2]{bangerth2009} report that these ``unnecessary'' \glspl{dof} can be up to \SI{15}{\percent} of the total number of \glspl{dof} in 3d.
To avoid this wastefulness, the algorithms described in \cite{bangerth2009} ``unify'' \glspl{dof} where possible during the enumeration phase. For example, in the case shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:naive-enumeration}, the \glspl{dof} on shared vertices can be unified for the particular choice of elements adjacent to these vertices, as can be the \gls{dof} located on the common edge's midpoint. This leads to the enumeration shown on the right side of the figure, for which we then only need to add constraints
$U_{11} = \tfrac 38 U_1 - \tfrac 18 U_3 + \tfrac 34 U_5$, $U_{12} = - \tfrac 18 U_1 + \tfrac 38 U_3 + \tfrac 34 U_5$.
At the same time, it is clear that this ``unification'' step requires knowing about the global indices of \glspl{dof} on neighboring cells \textit{during enumeration}, and this presents issues that need to be addressed in the parallel context if one of the cells adjacent to a vertex, edge, or face is a ghost cell. Furthermore, each process must know the active FE index not only for its locally owned cells, but also for ghost cells, before the enumeration can begin. We have to take into account all of these considerations in the extension of the algorithms of \cite{bangerth2009} to the parallel context in the next section.
\subsection{The parallel \textit{hp}-case}
\label{sec:enum-hp-parallel}
Having discussed the fundamental algorithms necessary to globally enumerate \glspl{dof} in the context of both parallel unstructured meshes, and for the sequential \textit{hp}-case, let us now turn to an algorithm that combines both of these features. As we will see, this algorithm turns out to be non-trivial.
\subsubsection{Goals for the parallel algorithm}
In developing such an enumeration algorithm, we are guided by the desire to come up with an enumeration that leads to a total number of \glspl{dof} that is independent of the number of processes. In other words, we do not want to treat vertices, edges, or faces that happen to lie on subdomain boundaries any different than if they were within the interior of a subdomain. We consider this an important feature to achieve scalable and predictable algorithms, and because it makes debugging problems easier. Furthermore, we would like to develop an algorithm that includes the ``unification step'' mentioned above to avoid generating too many trivial constraints.
At the end of the algorithm, each parallel process needs to know the globally unique indices of all \glspl{dof} located on the locally owned cells as well as on ghost cells, including the outer vertices, edges, and faces of ghost cells beyond which the current process has no knowledge of whether and how the mesh continues.
Finally, we want this algorithm to have linear complexity in the number of cells or the number of \glspl{dof}. We achieve this by stating it as a fixed-length series of loops over all cells owned by each process and, if necessary, over all ghost cells on this process. Because each process only loops over its own cells, and because the number of \glspl{dof} per process is balanced (see also Section~\ref{sec:load_balancing}), we obtain an algorithm that we expect to scale optimally both strongly and weakly.
The algorithm that achieves all of this -- see the discussion below -- can be broken down into seven distinct stages.
In addition to their description, we illustrate each stage in an example for which we consider
a two-dimensional mesh of four neighboring cells meeting at a central vertex. On this mesh, we use bi-quadratic ($Q_2$) Lagrange elements with 9 unknowns on the bottom left and top right cell, and bi-quartic ($Q_4$) elements with 25 unknowns on the remaining two cells. Furthermore, we assume that the partitioning algorithm has divided the mesh into two subdomains: subdomain zero contains the bottom two cells, subdomain one the top two. This setup is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:dof_enumeration}, where we illustrate the progress of the enumeration algorithm. Each figure shows the view from process zero on the left, and from process one on the right.
\subsubsection{Algorithm inputs}
The algorithm we describe in the following needs the following pieces of information as inputs:
\begin{itemize}
\item A set of cells $K$ that constitute the \textit{locally owned} and \textit{ghost} cells, and information how neighboring cells are connected. The algorithm does not need to know where these cells are geometrically located in an ambient space -- although this is of course important for the downstream application of the finite element method -- but only the topological connection of vertices, edges, and faces to the cells of which they are part of.
\item A process must know to which process each of its ghost cells belongs.
Since we identify subdomain ids with process ranks in a \gls{mpi} universe, that means that we need to store the owning process's subdomain, or short owner, of all ghost cells.
\item Each cell on every process has an associated \textit{global} identifier. This identifier is the same on all processes that store this cell, whether as part of their locally owned cells or as a ghost cell.
\item For each locally owned or ghost cell, every process must know the active FE index --
that is, which element $\hat V_h^{a(K)}$ is in use on each cell $K$. Because the active FE index is typically computed only on each process's locally owned cells, this information needs to be exchanged between processes before the start of the algorithm; as with any ghost exchange of information, this can efficiently be done through point-to-point communication.
\item For each element in the collection $\bigl\{\hat V_h^{(i)}\bigr\}_{i=1}^I$, the algorithm needs to know how many \glspl{dof} this element has per vertex, edge, face, or cell interior. For example, for the $Q_4$ Lagrange element in 2d that we use in our illustrative example, there is one \gls{dof} per vertex, three per edge, and nine per cell interior.
\item For each pair of elements, the corresponding finite element implementations need to be able to identify whether two \glspl{dof} located on the same entity (vertex, edge, or face) can be unified. For example, our algorithm needs to be able to ask the combination of the $Q_2$ and $Q_4$ elements in the example shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:naive-enumeration} whether the single \gls{dof} each wants to store on a shared vertex can receive a single index, and whether the one $Q_2$ \gls{dof} on the shared edge can be unified with one of the three \glspl{dof} the $Q_4$ element wants to allocate on the common edge. The details of how an answer to such a query can be implemented are not relevant to our description here, but are discussed at length in \cite{bangerth2009}.
\end{itemize}
\subsubsection{Description of the algorithm}
\input{enumeration_figures}
The algorithm we show consists of seven stages (plus an initial memory allocation and initialization stage), as detailed below. To make understanding it easier, we illustrate each step in Fig.~\ref{fig:dof_enumeration} for our model test case; note that the figure is continued over several pages. In our description, we follow the same nomenclature as \cite{bangerth2012}. Specifically, we generally use an index $p$ or $q$ for subdomains (identified with process ranks in a \gls{mpi} universe), and we denote the set of all \textit{locally owned cells} on process $p$ by $\cellsp{loc}$, the set of all \textit{ghost cells} by $\cellsp{ghost}$, and the set of all \textit{locally relevant cells} by $\cellsp{rel} = \cellsp{loc} \cup \cellsp{ghost}$. In the description below, the process index $p$ is generically used to identify the ``current'' process, i.e., the rank of the process that is executing the algorithm.
Our algorithm then proceeds in the following steps:
\begin{enumerate}
\setcounter{enumi}{-1}
\item \textit{Initialization (without illustration).}
Loop over all locally relevant cells $K \in \cellsp{rel}$, and on each of its vertices, edges, faces, and $K$ itself allocate enough space to store as many \gls{dof} indices as are necessary for the element identified by the active FE index $a(K)$. If a neighboring element has already allocated space for the same active FE index, then no additional space is necessary. In other words, for each entity within $\cellsp{rel}$, we need to allocate space for a map from the active FE indices of adjacent cells to an array of indices of \glspl{dof} indices.
Once space is allocated, all \gls{dof} indices are set to an invalid value that we denote by $i$ in the following (for example $i \coloneqq -1$).
\item \textit{Local enumeration.}
Iterate over all locally owned cells $K \in \cellsp{loc}$. For each of the vertices, edges, faces, and the cell interior, assign valid \gls{dof} indices in ascending order, starting from zero, if indices have not already been assigned for an entity and the current $a(K)$.
\item \textit{Tie-break.}
Iterate over all locally owned cells $K \in \cellsp{loc}$. If a vertex, edge, or face that is part of $K$ is also part of an adjacent ghost cell $K'_\text{ghost}$ so that $a(K)=a(K'_\text{ghost})$, and if $K'_\text{ghost}$ belongs to a subdomain of lower rank $q < p$, then invalidate all \glspl{dof} on this mesh entity by setting their index to the invalid value $i$.
\item \textit{Unification.}
Iterate over all locally owned cells $K \in \cellsp{loc}$. For all shared \glspl{dof} on vertices, edges, and faces to neighboring cells $K'$ (locally owned or ghost), ask the elements corresponding to active FE indices $a(K)$ and $a(K')$ whether some of the \glspl{dof} can be unified between the two elements.
If $K'$ is also a locally owned cell, perform the unification by replacing one index (or a set of indices) by the corresponding index of the other \gls{dof} to which it is unified.
If $K'$ is a ghost cell, and if the \gls{dof} on $K$ needs to be unified with the corresponding one on $K'$ (rather than the other way around), then set the index of the \gls{dof} on $K$ to the invalid value $i$.
\end{enumerate}
At this point in the algorithm, each process knows which \glspl{dof} are owned by this process -- namely, the ones on locally owned cells that are enumerated as anything other than $i$ -- although the final indices of these \glspl{dof} are not yet known.
\begin{enumerate}[resume]
\item \textit{Global re-enumeration.}
Iterate over all locally owned cells $K \in \cellsp{loc}$ and
re-enumerate those \gls{dof} indices in ascending order that have a
valid value assigned, ignoring all invalid indices. Store the total
number of all valid \gls{dof} indices on this subdomain as $n_p$. In a next step, shift all indices by the number of \glspl{dof} that are owned by all processes of lower rank $q < p$, or in other words, by $\sum_{q=0}^{p-1} n_q$. Computing this shift corresponds to a prefix sum or exclusive scan, and can be obtained via \texttt{MPI\_Exscan} \cite{mpi40}.
\end{enumerate}
At this stage, each process has (consecutively) enumerated a certain subset of \glspl{dof}, and we call these the ``locally owned \glspl{dof}''. In later use, each process then owns the corresponding rows of matrices and entries in vectors, but the concept of locally owned \glspl{dof} is otherwise of no importance to the remainder of the algorithm. Importantly, however, we still need to ensure that each process learns of the remaining \glspl{dof} that are located on locally owned or ghost cells and whose indices are not currently known.
\begin{enumerate}[resume]
\item \textit{Ghost exchange.} In this step, we need to send sets of
indices from those locally owned cells $K \in \cellsp{loc}$ that
are ghost cells on other processes, to those processes on which they are ghost cells. We do this in the following steps:
\begin{enumerate}[label=\alph*.]
\item For each process $q\neq p$ that is adjacent to $p$, allocate
a map with keys corresponding to global cell identifiers and
values equal to a list of indices of those \glspl{dof} defined on this cell.
\item Iterate over all $K \in \cellsp{loc}$. If $K$ is a ghost cell on process $q$, then add the global identifier of $K$ and the list of \glspl{dof} on $K$ to the map for process $q$.
\item Send all of the maps to their designed process $q$ via nonblocking point-to-point communication (e.g., using \texttt{MPI\_Isend} \cite{mpi40}).
\item Receive data containers from processes of adjacent subdomains $q$ via nonblocking point-to-point communication (e.g., using \texttt{MPI\_Irecv} \cite{mpi40}). The data so received corresponds to the \gls{dof} indices on all ghost cells of this subdomain $p$. On each of these cells, set the received \gls{dof} indices accordingly.
\end{enumerate}
All communication in this step is symmetric, which means that a process only receives data from another process when it also sends data to it. Thus, there is no need to negotiate communication.
\end{enumerate}
After this ghost exchange, each \gls{dof} on an interface between a locally owned and a ghost cell has exactly one valid index assigned.
\begin{enumerate}[resume]
\item \textit{Merge on interfaces.}
Iterate over all locally relevant cells $K \in \cellsp{rel}$. On interfaces between locally owned and ghost cells, set all remaining invalid \gls{dof} indices to the corresponding valid one.
\end{enumerate}
At this stage, all processes know the correct indices for all \glspl{dof} located on locally owned cells. However, during the ghost exchange in stage (5) above, some processes may have sent index sets for some cells that may still contain the invalid index $i$ and not all of these can be resolved through unification with locally known indices in stage (6). This is not illustrated in the figures but would require a larger example mesh; the source of these $i$ markers are if a ghost cell owned by process $q$ does not only border a cell owned by process $p$, but also a cell owned by yet another process $q'$ that is not a neighbor of $p$, and process $q$ will only learn about indices on this cell \textit{as part of the ghost exchange with $q'$ itself}. As a consequence, we have to repeat stage (5) one more time:
\begin{enumerate}[resume]
\item \textit{Ghost exchange (without illustration).}
Repeat the steps of stage (5). However this time, only data from those cells have to be communicated which had invalid \gls{dof} indices prior to stage (5d).
\end{enumerate}
At the end of this algorithm, all global \gls{dof} indices have been set correctly, and every process knows the indices of \glspl{dof} located on locally owned and ghost cells. These are the \glspl{dof} that in \cite{bangerth2012} are called the ``locally relevant \glspl{dof}''. Interestingly, while the algorithm is substantially more complicated than the one without \textit{p}-adaptivity discussed in \cite{bangerth2012}, no additional communication steps are necessary.
\begin{remark}
In three-dimensional scenarios, \cite[Sec.~4.6]{bangerth2009} points out possible complications with circular constraints during \gls{dof} unification whenever three or more different finite elements share a common edge. We have not found other satisfactory solutions for this problem in the intervening 13 years, and consequently continue to implement the suggestion in \cite{bangerth2009}: all \glspl{dof} on such edges are excluded from the unification step and will be treated separately via constraints. Since the decision to use or not use the unification algorithm on these edges is independent of whether the adjacent cells are on the same or different processes, this decision has no bearing on our overall goals of ensuring that the number of used indices be independent of the partitioning of the mesh. In the examples presented in Section~\ref{sec:results}, the fraction of identity constraints stays below \SI{3}{\percent}.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
During stage (3) of our example in Fig.~\ref{fig:dof_enumeration}, we follow the \gls{dof} unification procedure as described in \cite{bangerth2009}: if different finite elements meet on a subdomain interface, all shared \glspl{dof} will be assigned to the finite element representing the common function space (that is, when using elements within the same family, the one with the lower polynomial degree). Of course, different decisions are possible, which might have an impact on parallel performance. For example, \cite[Remark 2]{bangerth2012} pointed out that on a face, all \glspl{dof} should belong to the same subdomain to speed up parallel matrix-vector multiplications. We implemented such an enumeration algorithm as an alternative to the one presented here. For the Laplace example used for the weighted load balancing experiments described in Section~\ref{sec:results-load-balancing}, we found that both implementations take the same run time (\textless{} \SI{1}{\percent} deviation).
\end{remark}
\section{Load balancing}
\label{sec:load_balancing}
In order to enable our algorithms to scale well, we need to ensure that each process does roughly the same amount of work. In contrast to \textit{h}-adaptively refined meshes, a major difficulty here is that the workload per cell does not remain the same: different parts of the overall \textit{hp}-adaptive algorithm scale differently with the number $n_\text{\glsfmtshortpl{dof}}$ of unknowns per cell -- for example, the cost of enumerating \glspl{dof} on a cell is proportional to $n_\text{\glsfmtshortpl{dof}}$, whereas assembling cell-local contributions to the global system costs ${\mathcal O}(n_\text{\glsfmtshortpl{dof}}^3)$ from coupling of \glspl{dof} and quadrature, unless one uses specific features of the finite element basis functions. More importantly, how the cost of a linear solver or algebraic multigrid implementation -- together the largest contribution to a program's run time -- scales with the polynomial degree or number of unknowns on a cell is quite difficult to estimate \textit{a priori}. As a consequence, when using different polynomial degrees on different cells, it is not easy to derive theoretically what the computational \textit{cost} of a cell is going to be, and consequently how to weigh each cell.
\cite{oden1994, patra1995} investigates different decomposition and load balancing strategies with various types of weights, which are closely tied to their \textit{hp}-adaptive algorithm. These studies use the number of \glspl{dof} as a natural choice for the weight of a cell, but we believe that this does not reflect the computational effort accurately for the reasons pointed out above.
Herein, we use an empirical approach in which we assume that the relative cost $w$ of a cell $K$ can be expressed as
\begin{align}
\label{eq:load-balance-weight}
w(K) = n_\text{\glsfmtshortpl{dof}}(K)^c,
\end{align}
with some, \textit{a priori} unknown, exponent $c$. During load balancing, we then weigh each cell with this factor and seek to partition meshes so that the sums of weights of the cells in each partition are roughly equal, using the algorithms provided by \texttt{p4est}{} \cite[Sec.~3.3]{burstedde2011}.
We experimentally determine the value for the exponent $c$ for
which the overall run time of our program is minimized, and show
results to this end in Section~\ref{sec:results-load-balancing}. From
the considerations above, one would expect that the minimum should be in the range $1\le c\le 3$, and this indeed turns out to be the case.
It is worth mentioning that the approach only minimizes the \textit{overall} run time, but likely leaves each individual operation sub-optimally load balanced. This imbalance is a common problem when a program executes algorithms whose cell-local costs are not proportional (see, for example, \cite{gassmoller2018}) and can only be solved by re-partitioning data structures between the different phases of a program -- say, between matrix assembly and the actual solver phase. Exploring this issue is beyond the scope of our study.
\section{Packing, unpacking, and transferring data}
\label{sec:data_transfer}
A frequent operation in finite element codes is the serialization of all information associated with a cell into an array, and moving this data. Examples for where this operation is relevant are re-partitioning a mesh among processes after refinement, and the generation of checkpoints for later restart. In such cases, it is often convenient to write all information associated with the cells of one process into contiguous buffers.
For \textit{h}-adaptive meshes, this presents few challenges since the size of
the data associated with every cell is the same and, consequently, can be packed into buffers of fixed size per cell. On the other hand, for \textit{hp}-methods, different cells require different buffer sizes for efficiency, and creating contiguous storage schemes for all data on each process requires a bit more thought. Thought is also necessary when devising mechanisms to subsequently transfer this data to other processes.
In practice, we implement such schemes using a two-stage process: in a first stage, we assess how much memory the data on each cell requires, and allocate a contiguous array that can hold information from all cells. In this phase, we also build a second array that holds the offsets into the first array at which the data from each cell starts. The storage scheme therefore resembles the way sparse matrices are commonly stored in \gls{csr}. In a second stage, we copy the actual data from each cell into the respective part of the array.
For serialization, one can then write the two arrays in their entirety to disk. For re-partitioning, parts of the arrays have to be sent to different processes based on which process will own a cell. For this step, it is useful to sort the order in which cells are represented in the two arrays in such a way that data destined for one target is stored as one contiguous part of the arrays. In this way, all information to be sent to one process can be transferred with a single non-blocking point-to-point send operation for each of the two arrays, without the need for further copy operations.
In the work we describe here, parallel mesh management is provided by the \texttt{p4est}{} library for which the transfer of data of non-uniform sizes is described in \cite[Sec.~5.2]{burstedde2020}.
\section{Numerical Results}
\label{sec:results}
Ultimately, the algorithms we have presented in Sections~\ref{sec:enumeration}, \ref{sec:load_balancing}, and \ref{sec:data_transfer} are only useful if they can be efficiently implemented. In this section, we assess our approaches using two test cases: a two-dimensional Laplace problem, and a three-dimensional Stokes problem. We discuss these in Section~\ref{sec:testcases} below.
Based on these test problems, we first assess how one needs to choose load balancing weights for each cell based on the polynomial degree of the finite element applied (Section~\ref{sec:results-load-balancing}). Using the resulting load balancing strategy, we then discuss how our algorithms scale in Section~\ref{sec:results-scaling}; an important question to discuss in this context will be how one would actually define and measure ``scalability'' in the context of \textit{hp}-adaptive methods.
All of the results shown in this section have been obtained using codes that are variations of tutorial programs of the \texttt{deal.II}{} library. All features discussed in this paper are implemented in \texttt{deal.II}{}, see also \cite{arndt2021,dealii93}. All data were generated with the tool \texttt{hpbox}{} \cite{fehling2022}.
\subsection{Test cases}
\label{sec:testcases}
We evaluate the performance of our algorithms using two test cases discussed below: a two-dimensional Laplace equation posed on the L-shaped domain, and a three-dimensional Stokes problem posed on a domain that resembles a forked (``Y''-shaped) pipe. Both of these cases are chosen because the domain induces corner singularities in the solution, resulting in parts of the domain where either large cells with high-order elements or small cells with low-order elements are best suited to approximate the exact solution. In other words, these cases mimic practical situations that are well suited to \textit{hp}-adaptive methods. Furthermore, being able to demonstrate our algorithms on both a relatively simple, scalar two-dimensional problem and a much more complex three-dimensional, coupled vector-valued problem illustrates the range and limitations of our algorithms.
In each test case, we start from a coarse discretisation of the problem, solve it, and refine it in multiple iterations to end up with a mesh tailored to the problem. For this purpose, we need mechanisms to decide which cells we want to refine and how. We use an error estimator based on \cite{kelly1983} to mark cells for general refinement. Further, we use a smoothness estimator based on the decay of Legendre coefficients as described by \cite{eibner2007, houston2005, mavriplis1994} to decide how we want to refine each cell. We employ fixed number refinement for both \textit{h}- and \textit{p}-refinement, which means that the fraction of cells we are going to refine is always the same. We state our choice of fractions in the descriptions below. The mesh is repartitioned after each refinement iteration.
\subsubsection{Test case 1: A Laplace problem on the L-shaped domain}
\label{sec:test-case-1}
Our first test case concerns the solution of the Laplace problem with Dirichlet boundary conditions:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:laplaceproblem}
- \Delta u(\vec{x}) &= 0 \quad\text{on}\quad \Omega \,\text{,} & u(\vec{x}) &= u_\text{sol}(\vec{x}) \quad\text{on}\quad \partial\Omega,
\end{align}
where we choose $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^2$ as the L-shaped domain, $\Omega=(-1,1)^2\backslash[0,1]\times[-1,0]$.
It is well understood that on such domains, the Laplace equation admits a singular solution; indeed, in polar coordinates $r = \sqrt{x^2 + y^2} > 0$ and $\theta = \arctan (y/x)$, the function
\begin{align}
\label{eq:ficherasolution}
u_\text{sol}(\vec{x}) &= r^\alpha \sin(\alpha \, \theta)
\end{align}
is a solution for an opening angle at the reentrant corner of $\pi / \alpha$ with $\alpha \in (1/2,1)$. For the L-shaped domain, we have $\alpha = 2/3$ and the corresponding solution is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:laplace_solution}. We impose $u=u_\text{sol}$ as the boundary condition on $\partial\Omega$, and the resulting (exact) solution of the Laplace equation that we seek to compute is then $u=u_\text{sol}$ everywhere in $\Omega$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\input{figures/laplace/solution}
\caption{\it The solution \eqref{eq:ficherasolution} of the Laplace problem \eqref{eq:laplaceproblem} on the L-shaped domain.}
\label{fig:laplace_solution}
\end{figure}
This solution is singular at the origin: with unit vectors $\vec{e}_r = \cos(\theta) \vec{e}_x - \sin(\theta) \vec{e}_y$ and $\vec{e}_\theta = \sin(\theta) \vec{e}_x + \cos(\theta) \vec{e}_y$, we find that
\begin{align}
\nabla u_\text{sol}(\vec{x}) &= \alpha r^{\alpha - 1} \left[ \sin(\alpha \, \theta) \vec{e}_r + \cos(\alpha \, \theta) \vec{e}_\theta \right],
\end{align}
and consequently $\lim\limits_{r \rightarrow 0} \left\| \nabla
u_\text{sol}(\vec{x}) \right\|_{2} = \infty$ for our choice of $\alpha$.
The numerical solution of the Laplace equation on the L-shaped domain is a classical test case. For example, \cite{mitchell2014} presents several benchmarks for \textit{hp}-adaptation for this situation.
A similar scenario is also used in the step-75 tutorial of the \texttt{deal.II}{} library \cite{fehling2021}.
In our study, we choose Lagrange elements $Q_k$ with polynomial degrees $k = 2,\dots,7$. We
mark \SI{30}{\percent} of cells for refinement and \SI{3}{\percent} for coarsening, from which we pick \SI{90}{\percent} to be \textit{p}-adapted and \SI{10}{\percent} to be \textit{h}-adapted. We choose to favor \textit{p}-refinement since the only non-smooth part of the solution is around the point singularity at the origin.
Fig.~\ref{fig:laplace_approximation} shows a typical \textit{hp}-mesh and its partitioning from a sequence of adaptive refinements.
It illustrates that the corner singularity requires \textit{h}-adaptation resulting in small cells, whereas further away from the corner, the solution is smoother and can be resolved on relatively coarse meshes using high polynomial degrees. Far away from the origin, the estimated errors are low so that large cells and low polynomial degrees are sufficient.
The lobe pattern results from the anisotropic resolution property of polynomials on quadrilaterals.
\begin{figure}
\input{figures/laplace/polynomial.tex}
\hfill
\input{figures/laplace/partitioning.tex}
\caption{\it Numerical approximation of the Laplace problem \eqref{eq:laplaceproblem} after six adaptation cycles and five initial global refinements. Left: The mesh and polynomial degrees used on each cell. Right: Partitioning of the mesh onto 12 \gls{mpi} processes with a load balancing weighting exponent of $c = 1.9$.}
\label{fig:laplace_approximation}
\end{figure}
The numerical scheme we choose to solve this problem is based on \texttt{Trilinos}{} \cite{heroux2005} for parallel linear algebra, and uses the \texttt{ML}{} package \cite{gee2007} as an \gls{amg} preconditioner inside a conjugate gradient iteration.
\subsubsection{Test case 2: Flow through a Y-pipe}
\label{sec:test-case-2}
As a second test case, we consider the solution of the Stokes equation describing slow flow,
\begin{subequations}
\label{eqs:stokes}
\begin{align}
- \Delta \vec{u} + \nabla p &= \vec{0}, \\
- \nabla \cdot \vec{u} &= 0.
\end{align}%
\end{subequations}%
As domain, we choose a forked, ``Y''-shaped pipe, see Fig.~\ref{fig:stokes_approximation}. We impose no-slip boundary conditions on the lateral surfaces ($\vec{u} = 0$), and model the inflow at one opening as a Poisseuille flow via Dirichlet boundary conditions. The other two ends are modeled via zero-traction boundary conditions. Velocity and pressure solutions are also shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:stokes_approximation}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/stokes/mesh.png}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}{0.49\textwidth}
\input{figures/stokes/colorbar.tex}
\end{minipage}\\
\begin{minipage}{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/stokes/polynomial-low.png}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}{0.49\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/stokes/polynomial-high.png}
\end{minipage}
\caption{\it Stokes flow through the Y-pipe as described by equation \eqref{eqs:stokes} after four adaptation cycles and three initial refinements.
Top: The lower half shows the domain and the pressure, while the upper half depicts the mesh and a vector plot describing the velocity field.
Bottom left: A cut-away showing those cells with low polynomial degrees, located generally where either the estimated errors are low or near the non-convex parts of the domain.
Bottom right: Cut-away showing those cells with a high polynomial degree.
}
\label{fig:stokes_approximation}
\end{figure}
The ``welding seams'' at which the three pipes meet are non-convex parts of the boundary, again resulting in singular solutions where we expect that the gradient of the velocity $\vec u$ becomes infinite; the pressure is also singular at these locations. We chose this as the second test case because it enables us to verify that enumerating \glspl{dof}, along with all of the other ingredients of our \textit{hp}-adaptive solution approach, are efficient and scale well also for three-dimensional problems with the much more complex choice of finite element and solver techniques necessary to solve the Stokes problem.
In particular, we use ``Taylor-Hood'' type elements $\pmb{Q}_k/Q_{k-1}$ \cite{taylor1973}, where the three components of the velocity solution use elements of polynomial degree $k$ and the single component of the pressure uses an element of polynomial degree ($k-1$). In our study, we choose a collection of elements with $k = 3,\dots,6$.
Both refinement and \textit{hp}-decision indicators are based on the scalar-valued pressure solution. We mark
\SI{10}{\percent} of cells for refinement and \SI{1}{\percent} for coarsening, which we divide equally into being \textit{h}- and \textit{p}-adapted.
We solve the linear saddle point system that results from discretization using flexible GMRES{} \cite{saad1993} and a Silvester-Wathen-type preconditioner \cite{silvester1994} in which we treat the elliptic block with the \texttt{ML}{} \gls{amg} preconditioner \cite{gee2007} of \texttt{Trilinos}{} \cite{heroux2005}. This combination of solver and preconditioner is known to scale to very large problems, at least for elements of fixed order, see \cite{bangerth2012, kronbichler2012a}.
\begin{remark}
In our experiments, we have found that the \gls{amg} solver used in both of the test cases struggles with increasing fragmentation of polynomial degrees in the mesh. In order to address this, we limit the difference of polynomial degrees on neighboring cells to one, in a scheme not dissimilar to the commonly used approach of only allowing neighboring cells to differ by at most one level in mesh refinement. In our experiments, this ``smoothing'' of polynomial degrees reduces the number of solver iterations by up to \SI{70}{\percent}; this translates equally to the wallclock time spent on solving the linear system.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Load balancing}
\label{sec:results-load-balancing}
As mentioned in Section~\ref{sec:load_balancing}, it is not clear {\it a priori} how to weigh the contribution of each cell of a mesh to the overall cost of a program. As a consequence -- and unlike the \textit{h}-adaptive case -- it is not clear what the optimal load balancing strategy is.
Using the weighting proposed in Section~\ref{sec:load_balancing}, we have therefore run numerical experiments that vary the relative weighting of cells based on the number of \glspl{dof} on each cell. We carry out investigations on a mesh with a wide variety of polynomial degrees and a substantial number of hanging nodes that we obtain after a number of mesh refinement cycles. We keep this particular mesh, but partition it differently onto the available \gls{mpi} processes for varying values of the weighting exponent $c$ in \eqref{eq:load-balance-weight}, and run a complete refinement cycle involving enumeration of \glspl{dof}, assembly of the linear system, and solution of the linear system on the so-partitioned mesh.
The results are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:results_weights} for the two
test cases defined in Section~\ref{sec:testcases}. For both cases, the
largest contribution to the overall cost is the linear solver; the
noise in the corresponding curves results from slightly different
numbers of linear solver iterations, likely a consequence of decisions
made in how the \gls{amg} algorithm builds its hierarchy in response
to which rows of the overall matrix are stored on which process. The
data shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:results_weights} suggest that the overall
run time is minimized with an exponent of $c\approx 1.9$ for the
Laplace test case, and $c\approx 2.4$ for the Stokes test case. We use these values for the weighting exponent for all other
experiments shown below.
\begin{figure}
\input{figures/weights.tex}%
\caption[Wall times for load balancing with varying weighting exponents.]{\it Wall clock times for several operations of a complete adaptation cycle, when partitioning the mesh using different weighting exponents $c$, see \eqref{eq:load-balance-weight}.
Left: For one cycle of the two-dimensional Laplace problem of Section~\ref{sec:test-case-1}. The problem has about 51 million \glspl{dof} and is solved on 96 \gls{mpi} processes.
Right: For one cycle of the three-dimensional Stokes problem of Section~\ref{sec:test-case-2}. The problem has about 15 million \glspl{dof} and is solved on 96 \gls{mpi} processes.}
\label{fig:results_weights}
\end{figure}
The data shown in the figure makes it clear
that the optimal exponent depends on the problem solved, and needs to
be assessed for each problem individually. However, in general the
dependency of the run time on the specific choice of exponent is relatively weak.
\subsection{Efficiency and scalability of algorithms}
\label{sec:results-scaling}
In the following, we assess whether the algorithms we proposed in Section~\ref{sec:enumeration} are efficient and scale to large problem sizes. To answer this question, we first discuss what ``scalability'' means in the context of \textit{hp}-adaptive methods, before turning to results obtained on the test cases defined in Section~\ref{sec:testcases}.
All results shown in this subsection were obtained on the Expanse{} supercomputer \cite{strande2021, towns2014}.
\subsubsection{How to define scalability?}
\label{sec:results-scalability-definition}
One typically measures the efficiency of a parallel algorithm running on $P$ processes operating in parallel on $N$ work items through either ``strong scaling'' (where the problem size $N$ is fixed and we vary the number of processes $P$) or ``weak scaling'' (where one increases the problem size $N$ along with the number of processes $P$, keeping $N/P$ constant). In both cases, one measures the time it takes the algorithm to complete work.
For \textit{h}-adaptive algorithms, it is relatively straightforward to define what $N$ is supposed to be: it could be (i) the number of cells in the mesh, (ii) the number of unknowns in a finite element discretization on that mesh (which equals the size of the linear systems that result), or (iii) the number of nonzero entries in the matrix (which determines the cost of a matrix-vector product, but is also an important consideration in the cost of algorithms such as \gls{amg}). The choice of which of these we want to call $N$ is unimportant \textit{because they are all proportional to each other}. Indeed, if one uses an optimal solver such as multigrid, one could also (iv) define $N$ to be the number of floating point operations required to solve the linear system for a given problem -- it is again proportional to the other measures.
But things are not this easy for \textit{hp}-adaptive methods: when using different polynomial degrees on cells, the four quantities mentioned above are no longer proportional to each other when considering an \textit{hp}-fragmented mesh. This disproportionality is of no importance when considering strong scalability, because the problem size $N$ is fixed. But it is not obvious how to define weak scalability because a sequence of problems that keeps $N/P$ constant for one definition of $N$ may not imply that $N/P$ is constant for any of the other definitions of $N$. Similarly, we show results below where we increase $N$ for fixed $P$, observing how time scales with $N$ -- for which, again, the observed scaling depends on what definition of $N$ we choose.
As a consequence, we describe results below where we either use $N=N_\text{\glsfmtshortpl{dof}}$ (the number of global \glspl{dof} in the problem), or $N=N_\text{nonzeros}$ (the global number of nonzero entries in the matrix which needs to be solved with on a given mesh). As expected, we will see that operations such as the assembly of a linear system and its solution do not scale as ${\mathcal O}(N_\text{\glsfmtshortpl{dof}})$, but they instead scale close to ${\mathcal O}(N_\text{nonzeros})$.
\subsubsection{Results for the Laplace test case of Section~\ref{sec:test-case-1}.}
\begin{figure}
\input{figures/laplace/cycles.tex}%
\caption{\it Laplace problem: Scaling of wallclock time as a function of the number of unknowns $N_\text{\glsfmtshortpl{dof}}$ on a sequence of consecutively refined meshes, for \num{1024} (left) and \num{4096} \gls{mpi} processes. Each \gls{mpi} process owns more than $10^5$ \glspl{dof} only to the right of the indicated vertical line; to the left of this line, processes do not have enough work to offset the cost of communication, and parallel efficiency should not be expected.
The solid black trend lines for ${\mathcal O}(N_\text{\glsfmtshortpl{dof}})$ are offset downward by a factor of four on the right, to illustrate optimal strong scaling when increasing the number of \gls{mpi} processes by a factor of four.
}
\label{fig:laplace_cycles}
\end{figure}
With these considerations in mind, let us now turn to concrete timing data. Below, we show results for how much time our implementation of the Laplace test case of Section~\ref{sec:test-case-1} spends in each of the following categories of operations (ordered roughly in their relevance to the overall run time to the program):
\begin{itemize}
\item {\it Linear solver:} This category includes setting up the \gls{amg} preconditioner, and then solving the linear system.
\item {\it Assemble linear system:}
Compute cell-local matrix and right-hand side vector contributions
to the linear system, and insertion into the global objects. This
step also includes communicating these contributions to the process owning a matrix or vector row if necessary.
\item {\it Setup data structures:}
This step includes a number of setup steps that happen after generating a mesh and before the assembly of the linear system. Specifically, we include the enumeration of \glspl{dof};
exchanging between processes which non-locally owned matrix entries they will write into;
setting up a sparsity pattern for the global matrix;
allocation of memory for the system matrix and vectors; and
determining constraints that result from hanging nodes and boundary conditions.
\item {\it Enumerate \glspl{dof}:}
This category, a subset of the previous one, measures the time to
enumerate all \glspl{dof} based on the algorithm discussed in Section~\ref{sec:enum-hp-parallel}.
\item {\it Estimate and mark:}
Once the linear system has been solved, this step computes error and smoothness estimates for each locally owned cell. It then
computes global thresholds for \textit{hp}-adaptation, and flags cells for either \textit{h}- or \textit{p}-adaptation.
\item {\it Coarsen and refine:}
This final step performs the actual \textit{h}-adaptation on marked cells while enforcing a 2:1 cell size relationship across faces. It also
updates the associated finite element on cells (\textit{p}-adaptation) while limiting the difference of polynomial degrees across cell interfaces.
This category also measures the transfer data between old and new mesh, as well as the cost of re-partitioning the mesh between processes.
\end{itemize}
Fig.~\ref{fig:laplace_cycles} shows timing information for a situation where we repeatedly solve the problem while adaptively refining the \textit{hp}-mesh, on both \num{1024} and \num{4096} MPI processes. In this setup, with a fixed number $P$ of processes, one would hope that the run time increases linearly with the problem size $N$.
Our results demonstrate that this linearity holds when $N$ is the $N_\text{\glspl{dof}}$ on each of the meshes -- at least once the problem is large enough.
Importantly for the current paper, operations such as estimating \textit{hp}-indicators and refining the mesh accordingly, and in particular the enumeration of \glspl{dof} using the algorithm of Section~\ref{sec:enum-hp-parallel} are only minor contributions to the overall run time, which is dominated by the assembly and in particular solution of linear systems.
\begin{figure}
\input{figures/laplace/cycles_nonzero_entries.tex}%
\caption{\it Laplace problem: The same scaling data as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:laplace_cycles}, except shown as a function of the nonzero entries of the matrix.}
\label{fig:laplace_cycles_nonzeros}
\end{figure}
On the other hand, Fig.~\ref{fig:laplace_cycles} also shows that both the assembly and the solution of the linear system do not scale like $\mathcal{O}(N_\text{\glspl{dof}})$. This result may not be surprising in view of the discussions of Section~\ref{sec:results-scalability-definition}: as we move from left to right, we do not only increase the number of unknowns, but also increase polynomial degrees on cells, resulting in denser and denser linear systems that are more costly to assemble and solve. As a consequence, Fig.~\ref{fig:laplace_cycles_nonzeros} shows the same data as a function of the nonzero entries $N_\text{nonzeros}$. This figure illustrates that using this definition, both assembly and the solution of linear systems scale nearly perfectly as $\mathcal{O}(N_\text{nonzeros})$.
\begin{figure}
\input{figures/laplace/strong.tex}%
\caption{\it Laplace problem: Strong scaling for one advanced adaptation cycle at different problem sizes. Each \gls{mpi} process owns more than $10^5$ \glspl{dof} only to the left of the indicated vertical line; to the right of this line, processes do not have enough work to offset the cost of communication, and parallel efficiency should not be expected. Left: Fixed problem size of roughly 52 million \glspl{dof}. Right: Fixed problem size of roughly 1.05 billion \glspl{dof}. The trend lines for ${\mathcal O}(1/P)$ are offset between the two panels by the ratio of the size of the problem to allow for assessing weak scalability of the algorithms.}
\label{fig:laplace_strong}
\end{figure}
A comparison of the left and right panels of Figs.~\ref{fig:laplace_cycles} and \ref{fig:laplace_cycles_nonzeros} -- and in particular how the various curves approach the trend lines $\mathcal{O}(N)$ that are offset in the panels by the ratio of the number of MPI processes used -- shows that for sufficiently large problems, we also have good \textit{strong} scaling. We expand on this in Fig.~\ref{fig:laplace_strong} where we show scaling for a fixed problem with the number of processes. The figure shows that most operations may not scale perfectly as $\mathcal{O}(1/P)$, but scalability is at least adequate as long as the problem size per process remains sufficiently large (to the left of the dashed line). The exception is the performance of the linear solver; this is a known problem with implementations of algebraic multigrid methods, but also beyond the scope of the current paper.
\subsubsection{Results for the Stokes test case of Section~\ref{sec:test-case-2}.}
We repeat many of these timing studies, using the same timing categories, for the Stokes test case to assess whether our results also hold for a more complex, three-dimensional, and vector-valued problem.
\begin{figure}
\input{figures/stokes/scaling.tex}%
\caption{\it Stokes problem.
Left: Consecutive adaptation cycles with 128 \gls{mpi}
processes. The dashed line again indicates $10^5$ \glspl{dof} per
process; processes have more than this number only to the right of
the line.
Right: Strong scaling with a fixed problem of 15 million
\glspl{dof}. Computations exceed $10^5$ \glspl{dof} per process
only to the left of the dashed line.}
\label{fig:stokes_scaling}
\end{figure}
The left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:stokes_scaling} illustrates how run time scales with the size of the problem (here measured by the number of global \glspl{dof} $N_\text{\glspl{dof}}$) and again shows that most operations scale as one would expect given the results of the previous section.
The right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:stokes_scaling} presents strong scaling data. As before, we get good strong scalability as long as the problem size per process is sufficiently large (to the left of the dashed line). At the same time, the figure also illustrates the limitations imposed by the linear solver we use and that have prevented us from considering larger problems: much larger problems would have taken many hours to solve even with large numbers of processes. We did not think that the associated expense in CPU cycles would have provided further insight that is not already clear from the results of the previous section and the figure -- namely, that with the exception of the linear solver and possibly assembly, all \textit{hp}-related operations scale reasonably well to large problem sizes for both simple (2d Laplace) and complex (3d Stokes) problems.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusions}
In this manuscript, we have presented algorithms combining our
previous work on parallel and \textit{hp}-adaptive finite element methods, and
that allows us to solve problems with \textit{hp}-adaptive methods on large, parallel machines with distributed memory. In particular, we have presented algorithms for the enumeration of \glspl{dof}, a heuristic approach to weighted load balancing, and on how to transfer data of variable size between processes.
The results we have shown in Section~\ref{sec:results} illustrate that our algorithms all scale reasonably well both to large problems and large MPI process counts, and in particular -- as one might have expected -- that (i) the linear solver is the bottleneck in solving partial differential equations that result from \textit{hp}-discretizations, and that (ii) the enumeration algorithm of Section~\ref{sec:enumeration} contributes to the overall run time in an essentially negligible way.
Our data therefore also clearly points to future work necessary to make \textit{hp}-methods viable for more widespread use: we need more
scalable iterative solvers and preconditioners, specifically ones that are better than the \gls{amg} ones we have used here. Such work would, for example, build on the \gls{gmg} ideas in \cite{mitchell2010}, or hybrid approaches like in \cite{fehn2020, brown2022}. Furthermore, the literature suggests that the matrix-free approaches of \cite{kronbichler2012, munch2022, brown2022} should be able to overcome many of these solver limitations.
\subsection*{Acknowledgments}
This paper is dedicated to the memory of William (Bill) F.~Mitchell (1955--2019), who for many years moved the \textit{hp}-finite element method along by providing high-quality implementations of the method through his \texttt{PHAML}{} software \cite{mitchell2002} when there were few other packages that one could play with. Equally importantly, in a monumental effort, he collected and compared the many different ways proposed in the literature in which one can drive \textit{hp}-adaptivity in practice. This work -- an extension of his work in the late 1980s comparing \textit{h}-adaptive refinement criteria \cite{mitchell1989} -- resulted in a comprehensive 2014 paper that in the end stood at 39 pages \cite{mitchell2014}, but for which the original 2011 NIST report had a full 215 pages \cite{mitchell2011}.
Computational methods only gain broad acceptance when the literature contains incontrovertible evidence in the form of comparison \textit{between} methods. Papers that do such comparisons are tedious to write and often not as highly regarded as ones that propose new methods, but crucial for our community to finally see which methods work and which don't. Bill excelled at writing such papers, and his contributions to \textit{hp}-finite element methods will continue to be highly regarded. His impartial and objective approach to declaring winners and losers will be missed!
An obituary for Bill Mitchell can be found at \cite{boisvert2019}.
\subsection*{Funding}
This work used compute resources provided by the Extreme Science and Engineering Discovery Environment (XSEDE) \cite{towns2014}, which is supported by National Science Foundation grant number ACI-1548562.
MF's work was supported by the National Science Foundation under award OAC-1835673 as part of the Cyberinfrastructure for Sustained Scientific Innovation (CSSI) program.
WB's work was partially supported by the National Science Foundation under award OAC-1835673; by award DMS-1821210; and by award EAR-1925595.
\bibliographystyle{ACM-Reference-Format}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Core-collapse (CC) supernovae (SNe) are explosions of massive stars ($\gtrsim8~M_\odot$).
The large variety of CC SNe
is determined by the progenitor mass at the time of CC and
by the mass-loss history leading up to the explosion.
Type IIP SNe are the best understood class when it comes to their progenitor stars, which are mostly red supergiants \citep{Smartt:2009aa} exploding while still retaining a massive H envelope.
Type IIn SNe, on the other hand, may originate from more than one progenitor channel -- an ambiguity that is often difficult to unveil as the circumstellar matter (CSM) interaction hides the underlying SN ejecta \citep[see][for reviews]{ChevalierFransson2017,Galyam2017,Smith2017}.
A discriminating factor is the mass of the envelope, which may range from $\ll 1$ M$_{\sun}$ \ to several M$_{\sun}$. This is reflected in the luminosity, shock velocity, and the duration of the optically thick phase. An example of a Type IIn SN with a
low-mass CSM is SN 1998S with only a week-long SN IIn phase \cite[e.g.,][]{2004MNRAS.352..457P}, while SNe 2010jl \citep{fransson10jl,Ofek2014} and 2015da \citep{Tartaglia20} are examples of SNe with a massive CSM, resulting in a month- to year-long SN IIn phase. In the context of this paper, the enigmatic Type IIn SN 2009ip is especially interesting \citep[see][for a review]{Fraser2020}. The nature of the SN IIn progenitors is, however, still not well understood even though the relation with host metallicity, for example, indicates that the former low-mass CSM SNe IIn are related to red supergiants, while the long-duration Type IIn SNe might be related to luminous blue variables (LBVs) \citep{Taddia2015}. The SN 2009ip like SNe are even less understood.
In this paper we present SN\,2019zrk, which is clearly a H-rich SN, but which showed an unusual light curve evolution accompanied by varying degrees of evidence for CSM interaction in the spectral evolution.
The paper is organized as follows.
In Sect.~\ref{sec:obs} we present the observations, including optical photometry and spectroscopy. The results are presented in
Sect.~\ref{sec:results}.
Section~\ref{sec:discussion} contains a discussion and finally Sect.~\ref{sec:conclusions} presents our conclusions.
\section{Observations}
\label{sec:obs}
\subsection{First detection and classification}
\label{sec:detection}
SN\,2019zrk (also known as ZTF\,20aacbyec) was first detected on December 20, 2019
($\mathrm{JD}_{\rm{discovery}}^{\rm{SN2019zrk}}=2458838.018$), with the Palomar Schmidt 48-inch (P48) Samuel Oschin telescope as part of the
Zwicky Transient Facility (ZTF) survey \citep{2019PASP..131a8002B,Graham2019}. It was reported to the Transient Name Server (TNS\footnote{https://wis-tns.weizmann.ac.il/}) on January 3, 2020.
That first detection was in the $g$ band, with a host-subtracted magnitude of $20.18\pm0.31$~mag, at the J2000.0 coordinates $\alpha=11^{h}39^{m}47.38^{s}$, $\delta=+19\degr55\arcmin46.6\arcsec$.
The intial TNS discovery report \citep{2020TNSTR..33....1D}
reported a last nondetection of 19.3 mag during the same night, but in the $r$ band.
The previous $g$-band
observation was from nine nights before with a formal limit of
19.43 mag. This transient was subsequently also
detected and
reported to the TNS by several other surveys: in January by Pan-STARRS, in February by ATLAS, and in April by Gaia. SN 2019zrk occurred in the spiral galaxy UGC 6625 (Fig. \ref{fig:host}) that has a reported redshift of
$z = 0.03647$ \citep{Cortese2008}. Using a flat cosmology with H$_0=70$~km~s$^{-1}$~Mpc$^{-1}$ and $\Omega_{\rm{m}} = 0.3$, this corresponds to a distance of 168 Mpc when accounting for the NED\footnote{https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/} infall model.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{galaxy_sn_composed.png}
\caption{
Field of SN 2019zrk and the host galaxy UGC 6625. The image is composed of $gri$ images obtained with the ZTF camera on February 16, 2020, close to the time of peak luminosity. The supernova is marked with a red cross.
\label{fig:host}}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{SN2019zrk_Fig1.png}
\caption{Light curves of SN 2019zrk in the $g$ (green symbols), $r$ (red) and $i$ (black) bands. These are observed (AB) magnitudes plotted versus rest frame time in days since the rise of the main peak on
$\mathrm{JD}_{\rm{rise}}^{\rm{SN2019zrk}}=2458884$ (Sect. \ref{sec:lc1}), marked as the vertical dotted line. The vertical dashed line marks the epoch of the first $5 \sigma$ detection of the precursor. The horizontal error bars indicate the 7 and 30 day binning periods used for the precursor and late observations. Magnitudes are corrected for Milky Way extinction. The blue arrows on top show epochs of spectroscopy.
\label{fig:lc}}
\end{figure*}
We classified SN\,2019zrk as a Type IIn supernova based on a spectrum obtained on 2020 February 17 with the
Dual Imaging Spectrograph (DIS) on the Apache Point Observatory (APO) 3.5-meter telescope
\citep{2020TNSCR.535....1G}. The spectrum was immediately made available on TNS. This was actually not the first spectrum we obtained, as can be seen in the spectral log (Table~\ref{tab:spec}).
The first one was
obtained on 2020 February 13 with
the Palomar 60-inch telescope (P60; \citealp{2006PASP..118.1396C}) equipped with the Spectral Energy Distribution Machine (SEDM; \citealp{2018PASP..130c5003B}). However, that early spectrum was not convincing enough for a proper classification.
\subsection{Optical photometry}
\label{sec:optical}
As part of the ongoing ZTF survey, we obtained regular follow-up photometry over the next 6 months in the $g$, $r$, and $i$
bands with the ZTF camera
\citep{dekany2020} on the P48.
In addition, we got three epochs of $ugriz$ photometry of the object using the
Liverpool telescope \citep[LT;][]{Steele2004},
as well as five epochs with the SEDM rainbow camera on the P60.
Forced-photometry light curves from the P48 were generated by running the pipeline described by \citet{Yao2019}, which is similar to the ZTF forced photometry service \citep{2019PASP..131a8003M}. The image subtraction is based on the \cite{Zackay2016} algorithm.
Photometry from the P60 was produced with the image-subtraction pipeline described in \cite{Fremling2016}, with template images from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS; \citealp{2014ApJS..211...17A}). This pipeline produces PSF magnitudes, calibrated against SDSS stars in the field. We give the resulting magnitudes in Table \ref{tab:phot}.
All magnitudes are reported in the AB system. For the early epochs of the precursor, $\la -100$ days, as well as for the very late epochs, $\ga 200$ days we have employed a 30 day binning of the observations to increase the
signal-to-noise ratio (S/N), and for $-100$ to 0 days we used a 7 day binning.
The light curves are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:lc}.
We take the rise of the main peak in the $r$ band on
($\mathrm{JD}_{\rm{rise}}^{\rm{SN2019zrk}}=2458884$) as the zero point, $t_0$, for the light curve, and refer to all epochs in the rest frame of the SN with regards to this phase.
In our analysis we have corrected all photometry for Galactic extinction, using the Milky Way (MW) color excess
$E(B-V)_{\mathrm{MW}}=0.022$~mag toward the position of SN 2019zrk
\citep{2011ApJ...737..103S}.
All reddening corrections are applied using the \cite{1989ApJ...345..245C} extinction law with $R_V=3.1$. No further host galaxy extinction has been applied, since there is no sign of \ion{Na}{id} absorption in any of our spectra. We note, however, that this method is of limited value for low resolution spectra, as these in this study \citep{Poznanski2011}.
\subsection{Optical spectroscopy}
\label{sec:opticalspectra}
Spectroscopic follow-up was conducted with a suite of telescopes and instruments.
We most often used the SEDM mounted on the P60, but also obtained higher quality spectra with the Nordic Optical Telescope (NOT) using the Alhambra Faint Object Spectrometer (ALFOSC),
the Keck-I telescope using the Low Resolution Imaging Spectrograph (LRIS; \citealp{1994SPIE.2198..178O}),
as well as with the Double Beam Spectrograph (DBSP, \cite{Oke1982}) on the P200
and SPRAT on the LT.
The first weeks of this transient were not spectroscopically covered, we only got to it with a spectrograph once it had reached peak. The early plateau was $19.5-20$ magnitudes which is a regime that is not always well covered spectroscopically by the ZTF collaboration.
A log of the spectral observations is provided in Table~\ref{tab:spec}, which includes 14 epochs of spectroscopy.
SEDM spectra were reduced using the pipeline described by \citet{rigault} and the spectra from La Palma were reduced using standard pipelines and procedures for each telescope and instrument.
Finally all spectra were absolute calibrated compared to the host-subtracted forced photometry in the $r$
band, as interpolated using the Gaussian Process method.
The spectral data and corresponding information will be made available via WISeREP\footnote{\href{https://wiserep.weizmann.ac.il/}{https://wiserep.weizmann.ac.il/}} \citep{Yaron:2012aa}.
\section{Results}\label{sec:results}
\subsection{Light curves}
\label{sec:lc1}
The $g$, $r$ and $i$-band light curves of SN 2019zrk are displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:lc}. We do have some complementary photometry also in other bands. These data are not plotted here for clarity, but are provided in the data-files released with the paper.
The most remarkable part of the light curve (LC) for this Type IIn SN is the initial very slow evolution - a gentle plateau, {a precursor} - of at least 50 days, before the LC starts rising in earnest.
The rise of the main peak starts on
$t_0$ (= $\mathrm{JD}_{\rm{rise}}^{\rm{SN2019zrk}}=2458884$), with an uncertainty of $\pm 1$ day, best seen in the $r$ band.
The rise in both the $r$ and $g$ bands occurs in two steps, first relatively slowly up to +8 days and then more rapidly up to the peak at +14 days.
In the $g$ band, the light curve rises by
2.9 magnitudes in
15 days. It is therefore clear that the initial plateau is a precursor to the main eruption.
The properties of the precursor are further discussed in Sect.~\ref{sec:precuror}.
The rise times for Type IIn SNe span a wide range, and are typically
around $20\pm6$ days, with some going somewhat slower at $50\pm11$ days \citep{Kiewe2012,Nyholm20}, and occasionally some
rise even more slowly, like SN 2015da that needed 100 days to continuously rise to $r$-band peak \citep{Tartaglia20}.
SN 2019zrk therefore rises relatively fast (not accounting for the precursor) compared to other Type IIn SNe.
After peak, the light curve of SN 2019zrk declines in a way not untypical of some fast declining Type IIn SNe,
but we do note a very clear bump in the light curve after $\sim 110$ days, seen in both the $g$ and $r$ LCs. A less pronounced bump or ledge is also present at $\sim 50$ days.
Such bumps are rare
\citep{Nyholm20} but there do exist clear cases of similar undulations in Type IIn supernovae
\citep[e.g.,][]{Nyholm13z}, as well as in the radio light curves of Type IIL SNe \citep[e.g.,][]{Weiler1992,Montes2000}. In Sect.~\ref{sec:comparison} we discuss the particular cases of 09ip-like light curves, where bumps are present.
These are a clear indication of circumstellar interaction in a nonuniform CSM.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:comp_photom} we show the light curves in absolute magnitudes. The magnitudes
are in the AB system, and have been corrected for distance modulus and MW extinction, $\mu=36.12$ and $E{(B-V)}=0.022$ mag, respectively, and are plotted versus rest frame days since t$_0$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=9cm,angle=0]{photometry_r_g_ZTF19byec_2009ip_16bdu_98s_forced_bin_4sig_v3.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:comp_photom} Absolute $r$- (top) and $g$-band (bottom) magnitudes for SN 2019zrk (black dots) together with those of SNe 2009ip, 2016bdu and 1998S.
}
\end{figure}
For the discussion in Sect.~\ref{sec:discussion}, we have also included SN\,2009ip \citep{Mauerhan2013,Graham2014}
in the figure,
using $\mu=31.55$ and $E{(B-V)}=0.018$ mag, SN\,2016bdu with $\mu=34.37$ and $E(B-V)=0.013$ mag \citep{Pastorello2018}, and SN\,1998S from with $\mu=31.15$ and $E(B-V)=0.22$ mag \citep{Fassia2000}. The light curves of SN\,2009ip and SN\,2016bdu have be shifted in time to agree with the start of the main eruption. For SN\,1998S, where this was not observed, we have synchronized the times of the peaks.
The peak brightness of SN\,2019zrk is
m$_{\rm r}^{\rm{peak}}$ = 17.0 mag
which in absolute magnitude becomes
M$_{\rm r}^{\rm{peak}}$ = $-$19.2 mags, applying the above mentioned distance and extinction.
To calculate the bolometric light curve of SN\,2019zrk, we used the method from \cite{Lyman2014}, based on the $r$- and $g$-band photometry, using the epochs where we have clear detections. For epochs with only the $r$ band (later than 150 days and the first detection at $-100$ days) we use the color of the nearest epoch to calculate the bolometric magnitude. This method is mainly intended for CC SNe without dominant CSM interaction, but most of the principles behind should at least approximately apply also to Type IIn SNe.
To check this we have also integrated the observed spectra for the epochs where we have calibrated data (see Fig.~\ref{fig:spec}). We note, however, that there may be a substantial contribution to the total luminosity outside the optical band in both the ultraviolet (UV) and in X-rays, as was for example seen in SN\,2009ip \citep{Margutti2014}. The light curve derived here should therefore be seen as pseudo-bolometric only.
Figure~\ref{fig:bolom} shows the result of this exercise.
We note the agreement between the two different methods of estimating the bolometric luminosity for the dates when spectra are available. It therefore seems as if the simple color-based method of \cite{Lyman2014} works reasonably well also for Type IIn SNe.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=9cm,angle=0]{bolometric_ZTF19byec_forced_r_b_t0_rband_binning_v4.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:bolom} Bolometric light curve (black squares and solid line) of
SN\,2019zrk, together with the $r$- (red) and $g$-band (green) photometry. The magenta stars show the pseudo-bolometric magnitudes from our spectra, while the dashed line shows the expected late light curve from ${}^{56}$Co decay, corresponding to a ${}^{56}$Ni mass of 0.09 M$_{\sun}$ and full trapping in the nebular stage. The dotted, black line shows an exponential fit to the luminosity (see text).
}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Precursor}
\label{sec:precuror}
\cite{Ofek2014b} and \cite{nora} systematically explored the PTF and ZTF pre-discovery forced photometry searching for precursors and outbursts for Type IIn SNe. The results for SN\,2019zrk are included in Fig.~\ref{fig:lc}.
This reveals that the precursor was present even before what we have defined as the first detection above.
Using 7-day bins, there is a significant $r$-band detection already at day $-53$ ($\mathrm{JD}=2458829.0$),
nine days before discovery.
Binning the data in wider 30-day bins reveals a $3.3\sigma$ detection in the $r$ band at day $-104$
($\mathrm{JD}=2458780$).
The precursor was hence potentially even $\gtrsim100$ days long (Fig.~\ref{fig:lc}).
The median absolute $r$-band magnitude of the precursor was $-16.44$, while the median $g$-band magnitude was $-16.19$. \\
The bumps in the fading light curve in Fig.~\ref{fig:lc} indicate interaction with different CSM shells, which points to several separate mass ejection events. We therefore searched for additional precursors at earlier times. The commissioning of the ZTF camera started in fall 2017 and we hence have data obtained over two years before the explosion. Using the methods described in
\cite{nora}, we combine observations in 1-day to 3-month long bins and search the binned light curve for detections that are significant at the 5$\sigma$ level. No additional precursors are found and Fig.~\ref{fig:ptf_ztf_lc} shows the resulting upper limits for month-long bins.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{ptf_and_ztf_lc_sn2019zrk_absmag.pdf}
\caption{Pre-explosion light curve. Observations up to 1\,500 days before the SN peak were obtained as part of the PTF survey, while later observations are from the ZTF survey. Except for the $\sim 100-$day long precursor before the explosion (solid data points), no earlier precursors are detected.
}
\label{fig:ptf_ztf_lc}
\end{figure}
In addition, data from the Palomar Transient Factory survey allows us to search for precursors that occurred 11 to 4 years before the explosion of SN\,2019zrk. We use the IPAC PTF forced photometry pipeline~\citep{Masci2017} to produce a light curve consisting of 659 observations obtained in the SDSS $g$ and Mould-$R$ band. We remove data points that are not photometrically calibrated and do a baseline correction by subtracting the median flux from the complete light curve. Error bars are scaled up by 34\% and 14\% in the $g$ and $R$ band, respectively, such that they account for the standard deviation of the light curve. We do not find any data points that reach a significance of $\ga 5\sigma$ when searching unbinned light curves as well as light curves binned in 1-day, 3-day, 7-day, 15-day, 30-day, and 90-day bins. The complete pre-explosion light curve is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ptf_ztf_lc}.
Assuming that precursors last for at least one month we can quantify the amount of time during which our observations, combined in month-long bins, exclude the presence of a precursor. With a median absolute magnitude of $-16.4$ in the $r$ band the detected precursor just before the main peak was quite bright (see Fig.~\ref{fig:ptf_ztf_lc}) and such a bright precursor would have been detectable during 55 months in the 11 years before the SN main eruption or during 40\% of the time. Fainter precursors with an absolute magnitude of $-15$ can still be ruled out 32\% of the time, while precursors with an absolute magnitude of $-14.5$ would have been detected only 19\% of the time. Even fainter events are typically below the sensitivity threshold of our search and would remain undetected.
We observe that the precursor first becomes redder until day $-4$,
which could either be due to a cooling continuum or due to the strengthening of the $\text{H}\alpha$ line which falls in the $r$ band. Then, as the light curve rises (see Fig.~\ref{fig:lc}), the $g-r$ color index becomes bluer again, approximately until the SN reaches its peak. We hence observe that the increase in flux is associated with bluer colors.
\subsection{Spectroscopy}\label{sec:spec}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=17cm,angle=0]{ZTF20yec_full_log_all_CB_bb_fit_v4.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:spec} Spectral sequence illustrating the spectral evolution of SN\,2019zrk. The early P200 spectrum at 8 days (red) revealed a Type IIn SN with a blue continuum and superimposed narrow emission lines.
A month later, the deep Keck spectrum (black) instead shows a broad and asymmetric line profile of H$\alpha$, which typically reflects strong CSM interaction. Finally, the day 83 and 109 NOT spectra display increasingly strong P-Cygni absorption features. The dashed lines for each spectrum show blackbody fits to the continuum (see text).
For clarity some of the spectra have been shifted by the logarithmic factor provided together with the phase in the figure. All spectra are corrected for the Milky Way extinction.
}
\end{figure*}
The classification spectrum of SN\,2019zrk revealed a Type IIn SN (Sect.~\ref{sec:detection}).
As mentioned, we had a sequence of spectra already before the classification spectrum, although the first one was obtained when the SN was already close to peak brightness. The epochs of spectroscopic observations are illustrated in the light-curve figure (Fig.~\ref{fig:lc}) and the log of spectroscopic observations is provided in Table~\ref{tab:spec}.
As can be seen in the spectral sequence (Fig.~\ref{fig:spec}), SN\,2019zrk underwent an interesting
spectral evolution. Early spectra revealed a Type IIn supernova with a blue continuum and superimposed narrow emission lines with faint broad wings, characteristic of electron scattering and therefore strong CSM interaction. The line core can in low resolution spectra be difficult to distinguish from the narrow emission lines from the host galaxy.
Later on, at 45 days a deep Keck spectrum showed a broad and asymmetric line profile of H$\alpha$.
The last spectra at 83 and 109 days still have a strong H$\alpha$, but now also with strong absorptions in H$\beta$, He I, and Ca II.
To illustrate the late evolution, Fig.~\ref{fig:spec_90_154} shows the 45 and 109 days spectra, which are the spectra with best S/N
at late epochs. The 45 day spectrum shows most characteristics of CSM interaction with a hot spectrum dominated by the continuum and an H$\alpha$ line dominated by scattering. While most of the line features are present also in the 109 day spectrum, the weak P-Cygni absorptions present in the day 45 spectrum have become very strong and prominent. The H$\alpha$ line has also increased strongly relative to the continuum and has nearly the same flux as at 45 days.
The P-Cygni absorptions in the late spectra can be used to estimate the maximum velocity of the expanding ejecta. In Fig.~\ref{fig:spec_90_154} the blue and red dotted vertical lines show the wavelengths corresponding to $\pm 15,000 {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$, respectively. While for H$\alpha$ \ the P-Cygni absorption is almost filled-in by the emission, the absorption is very clear in the 83 and 109 day spectra for H$\beta$, as well as for H$\gamma$, He I $\lambda \lambda 4471, 5876$, the permitted Ca II H and K lines, and the Ca II NIR triplets.
The exact extension of the absorptions, and therefore the maximum velocity of the ejecta, is somewhat difficult to determine. The blue velocity marked at $15,000 {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$ is a minimum velocity.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=10cm,angle=0]{ZTF20yec_full_log_45_109d_15000kms_v2.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:spec_90_154} Comparison of the spectra at 45 (blue) and 109 (magenta) days. We note the increase in the relative H$\alpha$ flux and the much deeper absorption features in the day 109 spectrum. The dotted blue and red vertical lines show the wavelengths corresponding to $\pm 15,000 {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$. The spectra have been smoothed by a third order Savitzky-Golay filter, with windows of 5 and 11 pixels, respectively. }
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:Halpha_evol} we show the evolution of the H$\alpha$ line in detail. We have subtracted the background continuum by fitting a second-order polynomial to the line-free parts of the spectrum between $-20,000 - -15,000 {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$ \ on the blue side and between $+20,000 - +50,000 {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$ \ on the red side. We here see a dramatic change in the line profile between days 21 and 45, where the narrow line is replaced by a broad line profile. Before the transition the line is dominated by a narrow core with FWHM $\sim 220 {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$ at 10 days, consistent with the resolution of the P200/DBSP with the 600 lines/mm \ grating. There are, however, in both the 10 and 21 day spectra faint wings seen to $\sim 5000 {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$, although the maximum velocity shift seen is set by the S/N. We note that this is a result of electron scattering and not of the expansion velocity of the ejecta.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=15cm,angle=0]{ZTF20yec_Ha_seq_lin_v4.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:Halpha_evol} Evolution of the H$\alpha$ line. The continuum level is subtracted and each spectrum is shifted upwards for clarity. Note the dramatic change in line profile between days 21 and 45, where the narrow line is replaced by a broad line profile, reflecting the shock velocity. Each spectrum has been shifted by $10^{-16}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$.
}
\end{figure*}
Between the day 21 and day 45 spectra the wings become very strong, and also asymmetric. This can also be seen in the
low resolution P60 spectrum from day 27. In the higher resolution Keck spectrum with the best S/N, the line profile shows a blue wing to $-10,500 {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$, while the red wing extends to at least $+13,500 {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$, determined mainly by the exact level of the continuum. The blue wing shows a "kink" at $\sim 6000 {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$, where the profile becomes somewhat steeper. In the last two spectra at 83 and 109 days the maximum blue-shift decreases to $\sim 7500 {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$, while the red wing extends to a fairly constant velocity of $13,000-15,000 {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:Halpha_compl} we compare the H$\alpha$ \ and H$\beta$ line profiles at 45 and 109 days. Here we have normalized these to the H$\alpha$ \ flux at $-2000 {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$. The comparison shows that while the red wing of H$\alpha$ \ is nearly constant, the blue wing displays a strong decrease in the flux above $\sim 4000 {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$ between 45 and 109 days, which can be seen already at 83 days (Fig.~\ref{fig:Halpha_evol}). However, after that the line profile is nearly constant.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=9cm,angle=0]{ZTF20yec_Ha_Hb_compare_flux_v2.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:Halpha_compl} Comparison of the H$\alpha$ (upper panel) and H$\beta$ (lower) line profiles at 45 (blue) and 109 (red) days. The flux of both lines and at both epochs have been normalized to the H$\alpha$ \ flux density at $-2000 {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$. We note the nearly identical red wing of H$\alpha$, while the blue wing above $\sim 4000 {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$ shows a strong decrease in flux. The H$\beta$ \ line shows a similar evolution of the blue wing, with an increasing absorption component of the P-Cygni profile. The [O III] $\lambda\lambda 4959, 5007$ lines from the background in the red wing of H$\beta$ \ have been masked out.
}
\end{figure}
The H$\beta$ profile is especially interesting because it shows a strong P-Cygni absorption at velocities $\ga 6000 {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$ at 45 days, with a minimum at $\sim 10,000 {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$. At this epoch it also has a weak red emission component. At 109 days the emission component has almost completely disappeared, while the blue absorption now extends from $\sim -16,000 {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$ \ to zero velocity. The increased absorption in H$\beta$ \ is directly correlated in velocity with the decrease in the H$\alpha$ \ profile, showing that absorption in combination with decreased scattering in this line is responsible for the shape.
Figure~\ref{fig:Halpha_compl} also illustrates the increasing H$\alpha$/H$\beta$ \ ratio between these epochs. For the 109 day spectrum the total H$\beta$ \ flux is actually negative, as should be the case for a P-Cygni profile dominated by scattering.
\subsection{The host galaxy}
\label{sec:host}
Figure \ref{fig:host} shows the position of the SN and the host galaxy, UGC 6625, obtained with the ZTF camera. The database of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey contains spectra of two different regions of the host galaxy. After correcting the science-ready spectra for Milky Way extinction, we fit the H$\alpha$, H$\beta$, [O \textsc{iii}]$ \lambda$5007 and [N \textsc{ii}] $\lambda$6585 emission lines by Gaussian profiles to measure the line fluxes (Table \ref{tab:host_eml}). Using the O3N2 metallicity indicator and the parameterization by \citet{Marino2013a},
we infer high oxygen abundances between 8.45 and 8.49.
To put these values in context, we need the galaxy's total stellar mass. We retrieved the science-ready images from \textit{GALEX}, SDSS, Pan-STARRS (PS1), 2MASS, and WISE surveys and measured the brightness from the FUV to NIR following \citet{Schulze2021a} (Table \ref{tab:host_phot}). Afterwards, we modeled the spectral energy distribution (SED) with the software package \texttt{prospector} version 0.3 \citep{Johnson2021a} using the same model for the galaxy SED as in \citet{Schulze2021a}. The SED is adequately described by a galaxy template with a mass of $\log\,M/M_\odot=10.84^{+0.11}_{-0.38}$ and a star-formation rate of $12.7^{+8.8}_{-2.3}~M_\odot\,\rm yr^{-1}$.
Using the mass-metallicity relation by \citet{Sanchez2017a} for the O3N2 metallicity scale and the \citet{Marino2013a} parameterization, we conclude that the oxygen abundance is high and in the expected range for such an evolved galaxy.
\section{Discussion}\label{sec:discussion}
\subsection{Light curve}
\label{sec:lc}
To obtain a limit of the ejected ${}^{56}$Ni mass, we show in Fig.~\ref{fig:bolom} the expected energy input due to $^{56}$Co decay as a dashed line. The normalization, set by the observations later than $\sim 100$ days, corresponds to a ${}^{56}$Ni mass of $\sim 0.09$ M$_{\sun}$. We note that the slope before 160 days is considerably steeper than that expected for the ${}^{56}$Co decay. For the epochs later than 150 days we can not exclude a contribution from ${}^{56}$Ni, but a flattening may also be explained as a result of circumstellar interaction.
In principle, the explosion could start with the ‘precursor’ and the CSM interaction starting with the main peak. This, however, seems like a rather contrived scenario with a fair amount of fine tuning. or example, it would be difficult to understand the bumps and the dip in the light curve just before the main peak, seen in several of these 09ip like objects, as discussed in Sect. \ref{sec:Origin}.
We therefore conclude that radioactive input is likely of minor importance for the observed light curve. Except for the bump, we can instead fit the bolometric light curve very well with a steeper exponential, \begin{equation}
L(t) = 1.8\times 10^{43} e^{-t/39 {\rm \ d}} \ {\rm erg \ s^{-1}},
\label{eq:bolfit}
\end{equation}
shown as a dotted line in Fig. \ref{fig:bolom}. We have also tested a power-law fit, $L(t) \propto t^{-\alpha}$, which fits the light curves of long lasting Type IIn SNe \citep[e.g.,][]{fransson10jl}. This, however, represents a considerably worse fit.
The total radiated energy from the bolometric light curve during the main eruption is $5.0 \times 10^{49}$ erg, compared to $3.7 \times 10^{48}$ erg during the precursor. However, as demonstrated for SN\,2009ip \citep{Margutti2014}, there may also be a substantial additional contribution from UV and X-rays.
\subsection{Spectrum}
\label{sec:spec_disc}
In spite of the low resolution, the first spectrum at eight days with the SEDM on the P60 shows a clear and strong H$\alpha$ \ line. The first higher resolution spectrum with the P200 shows this as a narrow H$\alpha$ \ with FWHM $\sim 220{\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$, consistent with being unresolved.
In the Keck spectrum at 45 days the width of the narrow component has increased to $\sim 690 {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$ on top of a broader component. This broad component is a clear indication of emission from a dense CSM, while the emission from the shock and ejecta are smoothed into a 'continuum' by the optically thick electron scattering.
As the column density of the ionized CSM decreases, and therefore the electron scattering optical depth gets lower, the H$\alpha$ \ line profile becomes clearly broadened and skewed to the blue, as is seen in the day 45 spectrum (Fig.~\ref{fig:Halpha_evol}). The emission is now reflecting the velocity of the shock. An illustration of this evolution from symmetric to blueshifted emission line profiles was also seen for the Type IIn SN 2013L \citep{Andrews2017,Taddia2020}, and was in Taddia et al. modeled with Monte Carlo simulations of the electron scattering in an expanding shell.
The H$\alpha$ \ line profile on day 45 extends to at least $15,000 {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$ on the red side. Exactly how far is sensitive to the assumed continuum level. This is larger than expected because of occultation by the photosphere, but is a natural effect of electron scattering in the ejecta. Figure~\ref{fig:Halpha_evol} shows that the extent on the red side is nearly constant up to the last spectrum at 109 days, while the extent of the emission on the blue side is decreasing from $\sim 10,000 {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$ to $\sim 6000 {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$ during the same time. This is a result of the decreasing ratio of emission to absorption on the blue side.
Although a questionable assumption for a scattering dominated atmosphere \cite[see e.g.,][]{Dessart2015}, a blackbody fit to the continuum can give some idea of the evolution of the photospheric temperature, radius, and blackbody luminosity. We have fit Planck functions to the line free regions of our spectra, corrected for extinction, and show these as dashed lines in Fig.~\ref{fig:spec}. To calculate the luminosity we have integrated the full Planck function. This may overestimate the luminosity because of line blanketing in the UV, especially when the temperature is $\la 10,000$ K. However, objects showing strong circumstellar interaction can often have strong line emission in the whole UV range, especially at late phases as seen in for example SN 2010jl \citep{fransson10jl} and SN 2009ip \citep{Margutti2014}. Without spectra in the UV we just note that the systematic errors may be considerable.
The results for the blackbody temperature, $T_{\rm bb}$, photospheric radius, $R_{\rm ph}$, and luminosity, $L$, are provided in Fig.~\ref{fig:teff_rph_luml}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=9cm,angle=0]{ZTF19byec_teff_rph_lum.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:teff_rph_luml} Temperature, photospheric radius and luminosity as function of the rest frame phase from blackbody fits to the spectra.
}
\end{figure}
The evolution of these parameters is similar to what is seen for other interacting SNe, for example SN 2009ip \citep{Margutti2014}, with a decreasing temperature from $\sim 15,000$ K to $\sim 6000$ K at 100 days and a photospheric radius first increasing during the first 20 days and then stagnates at $(2-3) \times 10^{15}$ cm. Calculating the photospheric velocity as $V_{\rm}= R_{\rm ph}/(t-t_0)$, and with $R_{\rm ph} \sim 3\times 10^{15}$ cm at 20 days we get $V_{\rm} \approx 17,000 {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$. Although this ignores the initial radius, it agrees well with the maxiumum velocity seen from H$\beta$, $\sim 16,000 {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$ (Sect. \ref{sec:spec}) .
The blackbody luminosity agrees well with that in Fig.~\ref{fig:bolom}, although especially at the late phases the strong H$\alpha$ \ line and uncertain UV flux make the bolometric luminosity uncertain.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:Halpha_lum} we show the evolution of the H$\alpha$ luminosity together with the continuum luminosity in the range $\pm 20,000 {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$ from the H$\alpha$ line. For this we have subtracted the continuum, fit as a power law around the H$\alpha$ line. The error bars on the H$\alpha$ luminosity depend mainly on the continuum fit and the spectral resolution, where the luminosity estimated from the SEDM spectra on days 27, 51.1, and 70 may have been slightly overestimated due to the lower spectral resolution and difficulty in subtracting the background. This is reflected in the larger error bars for these epochs.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=9cm,angle=0]{ZTF20yec_Ha_con_lum_ggr2_2e4kms.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:Halpha_lum} Luminosity of the H$\alpha$ line and the continuum luminosity in the range $\pm 20,000 {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$ from the H$\alpha$ line. For clarity the luminosity of H$\alpha$ is multiplied by a factor 2. We note the different evolution of the continuum and the H$\alpha$ luminosities.
}
\end{figure}
The most interesting result
from Fig.~\ref{fig:Halpha_lum}
is the different evolution of the continuum and H$\alpha$ luminosities. The continuum evolution reflects the general $r$-band evolution in
Fig.~\ref{fig:bolom}. The H$\alpha$ luminosity is initially very weak and only represents the narrow, central core of the line from unscattered H$\alpha$ photons. The luminosity then increases as the broad wings become visible at $\sim 30$ days (Fig.~\ref{fig:spec}). After $\sim 45$ days the H$\alpha$ luminosity stays nearly constant up to the last spectrum at 109 days.
From this evolution it is clear that the H$\alpha$ emission is decoupled from the thermalization photosphere and mainly reflects the energy input from the shock. This is also indicated by the broad H$\alpha$ \ line and the decreasing importance of electron scattering in shaping the line profile. If H$\alpha$ \ is powered by the extreme-UV and X-rays from the shock, the constant level of the H$\alpha$ luminosity can be explained as a result of the fairly constant X-ray luminosity from a radiative shock, expected in an $\rho \propto r^{-2}$ medium. In this case the luminosity $L \propto \dot M V_{\rm s}^3/u_{\rm w}$, where $\dot M$ is the mass-loss rate, $V_{\rm s}$ the shock velocity, and $u_{\rm w}$ wind velocity. Because $V_{\rm s}$ only decreases slowly with time this results in a flat or slowly decreasing evolution for $L$.
\subsection{Estimate of the mass-loss rate}\label{sec:masslossestimate}
The observed shift in the nature of the spectrum at $\sim 50$ days (Sect.~\ref{sec:spec}) indicates a transition from a CSM which is optically thick to an optically thin medium with respect to electron scattering, as measured from the outer boundary, $R_{\rm out}$, to the shock at $R_{\rm s}$. Below we show how this can be used to obtain an estimate of the column density and the mass-loss rate.
Assuming a steady wind the electron density is
\begin{equation}
n_{\rm e} = \frac{\dot M x_{\rm e}}{4 \pi \mu r^2 u_{\rm w} m_{\rm p}} \ ,
\end{equation}
where $\dot M$ is the mass-loss rate, $\mu$ is the mean atomic weight, and $x_{\rm e}$ the electron fraction $n_{\rm e}/n_{\rm ion}$. For a gas with solar composition $\mu \approx 1.3$, whereas for a He-dominated gas $\mu \approx 4$. The early spectra indicate $x_{\rm e} \approx 1$, but it may be higher in the optically thick, ionized region. We scale the wind velocity to $u_w=100 {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$, noting that the spectral resolution of the best spectrum only provides an upper limit to the unshocked, outer CSM velocity of $u_{\rm w} \la 220 {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$.
At the time of the transition at $t_{\rm trans}\approx 50$ days the CSM in front of the ejecta should have $\tau_{\rm e} \approx 1$, and the \ion{H}{I},
\ion{He}{I}, \ion{Na}{I},
absorption lines should be formed outside this. We note that this does not correspond to the shock radius at the time of shock break-out, which occurs much earlier, when $\tau_{\rm e} \approx c/V_{\rm s} \sim 20$.
With an ejecta velocity of $1.6 \times 10^4 {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$ the transparency radius corresponds to $R_{\rm s}(t_{\rm trans}) \sim 7 \times 10^{15} (t_{\rm trans} / 50 {\rm \ days})$ cm. We note that this radius corresponds to an electron scattering optical depth of $\tau_{\rm e} \sim 1$ and not of the thermalization radius estimated from the blackbody radius in Fig. \ref{fig:teff_rph_luml} of $R_{\rm ph}\sim (2-3)\times 10^{15}$ cm.
We can now estimate the mass-loss rate
from
\begin{equation}
\tau_{\rm e} = \frac{\dot M x_{\rm e} \sigma_{\rm T}}{4 \pi \mu u_{\rm w} m_{\rm p} } ~[\frac{1}{R_{\rm s}(t_{\rm trans})} - \frac{1}{R_{\rm out}}] \approx 1 \ ,
\end{equation}
where $\sigma_{\rm T}$ is the Thomson cross section, and $m_{\rm p}$ the proton mass. Assuming $R_{\rm s}(t_{\rm trans}) \ll R_{\rm out}$ we get
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot M &=& 4.4 \times 10^{-2} \left(\frac{\mu}{1.3}\right) x_{\rm e}^{-1} {\left(\frac{u_{\rm w}}{100 \ {\rm km \ s^{-1}}}\right)} {\left(\frac{t_{\rm trans}}{50
{\rm \ days}}\right)} \nonumber \\
&&{\left(\frac{V_{\rm s}}{16,000 \ {\rm km \ s^{-1}}}\right)} \ \rm M_{\odot} \ year^{-1} \ .
\end{eqnarray}
Because the assumption of $\tau_{\rm e}=1$ when the CSM in front of the shock becomes transparent is only approximate, this estimate will also only give an approximate estimate of the mass-loss rate, with an uncertainty of at least a factor two. It is, however, independent of other assumptions and uncertainties, like bolometric corrections and the complexity going into light-curve modeling \citep[e.g.,][]{Sorokina2016}.
This $\dot M$ corresponds to an electron density
\begin{equation}
n_{\rm e} = 7.5 \times 10^{8} \left(\frac{r}{10^{15} \ \rm cm}\right) ^{-2} \ \rm cm^{-3} \ ,
\end{equation}
and should be the characteristic electron density close to the photosphere at the time when the ejecta emerge through the photosphere. The gas we see, producing the narrow line cores, should be located at larger radii at a lower density.
The mass in front of the shock at 50 days is
\begin{eqnarray}
M_{\rm CSM} &=& \frac{\dot M R_{\rm s}(50 \ {\rm days})}{u_{\rm w}} \approx \\
&&0.96 \left({\frac{V_{\rm s}}{16,000 \ {\rm km \ s^{-1}}}}\right)^2 {\left(\frac{t_{\rm trans}}{50 {\rm \ days}}\right)}^2 \ {\rm M}_\odot \ .
\end{eqnarray}
If the wind continues as a $\rho \propto r^{-2}$ wind inside $R_{\rm s}(50 \ {\rm days})$, the total CSM mass may be considerably higher. The estimate above agrees well with that in \cite{nora}, using a different method.
\subsection{Nature of SN 2019zrk}
\subsubsection{General properties of the progenitor and ejecta}
As discussed in Sect. \ref{sec:lc}, the powering of the light curve is dominated by CSM interaction, and only a modest mass of ${}^{56}$Ni is allowed. In addition to the spectra discussed earlier, CSM interaction is also demonstrated by the bump in the light curve at $t_{\rm bump} \approx 110$ days in Fig.~\ref{fig:bolom}, where interaction with a strong density enhancement in the CSM is the most natural explanation. If we take the exponential decay, shown as the dotted line in Fig. \ref{fig:bolom} as the reference, the amplitude of the bump in luminosity is $\sim 95$\%, and the area between these curves corresponds to an extra energy radiated in the bump of $\sim 1.8 \times10^{48}$ erg.
With an ejecta velocity of $\sim 16,000 {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$ (Sect.~\ref{sec:spec_disc}) one can estimate a distance of
$R_{\rm shell} \approx 1.5 \times 10^{16}$ cm
to such a shell, assuming that it is spherically symmetric. This agrees well with the photospheric radius determined from the blackbody fit in Fig. \ref{fig:teff_rph_luml} at 20 days, which corresponds to a velocity of $\sim 17,500 {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$. After 20 days the photospheric radius stays nearly constant and therefore recedes in velocity behind the shock. The agreement between the maximum photospheric and spectroscopic velocities argues for that the ejecta expansion does not depart dramatically from spherical.
If the CSM instead has a ring- or disk-like geometry, or is very clumpy, the velocity and therefore the distance may be overestimated. This was demonstrated for SN 1987A where ejecta with the highest velocities of $\ga 10^4 {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$ are expanding above and below the ring plane, while ejecta interacting with the ring have a velocity of $\la 5000 {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$ \citep{Fransson2013}.
The duration of the light-curve bump in SN 2019zrk is $\sim 25$ days. If the shock velocity is constant, the thickness of the shell would be $\sim 25/110 \times R_{\rm shell} $. However, because the density in the shell or disk must be higher than the density the shock encountered before the shell interaction, $\rho_0$, the velocity will be lower by a factor $\sim (\rho_{\rm shell}/\rho_0)^{1/2}$, where $\rho_{\rm shell}$ is the shell density. The above estimate of the thickness is therefore only an upper limit.
The main conclusion is that there is strong evidence for previous massive ejections of the progenitor. The precursor seen before the main peak of the LC is clear evidence for such an eruption. It is therefore likely that the CSM is more complex than a steady wind and that the light curve and spectra reflect the interaction between different eruptions with different velocities during the decades
before the main eruption in 2020. Although most eruptions of this kind have been discussed in the context of single stars, light-curve bumps have also been discussed as a result of binary interactions \citep{Schwarz1996}. In this case the undulations are expected to be periodic, as may have been the case for SN 1979C \citep{Montes2000}, but for which there is little evidence for SN 2019zrk.
One may speculate that the bump at $\sim 110$ days is a result of interaction with a shell from a previous eruption. This would have occurred at $t_{\rm bump} V_{\rm s} / V_{\rm shell}$, where $V_{\rm shell}$ is the ejected velocity. $V_{\rm shell}$ is highly uncertain and could range from the estimated CSM velocity, on the order of $100 {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$, to a velocity similar to what we see in the main eruption, $\ga 10^4 {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$.
A velocity of $\sim 13,000 {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$ was observed for the precursor of SN 2009ip \citep{Smith2010,Pastorello2013,Mauerhan2013}, and assuming a similar velocity for SN 2019zrk, the previous eruption would have occurred $180 (V_{\rm shell}/10^4 {\rm \ km~s^{-1}})^{-1}$ days before the main event. There is, however, no indication from the pre-explosion light curve (Fig. \ref{fig:ptf_ztf_lc}) of such an event. If we assume a precursor magnitude brighter than the upper limit of $\sim -15$, which may indicate either a fainter absolute magnitude or a lower $V_{\rm shell}$, increasing the timescale.
The high ejecta velocity seen in the last spectra indicates little deceleration of the shock. This in turn points to a low CSM mass. A low CSM mass is also consistent with the rapid decline of the LC, as well as the relatively low luminosity compared to high-luminosity Type IIn SNe.
This is also consistent with the lower velocities found for high luminosity, long duration objects like SN 2010jl \citep{fransson10jl} and SN 2013L \citep{Taddia2020}, which have velocities $\sim 5000 {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$.
Even at the last epochs we do not see any [O I] $\lambda \lambda 6300, 6364$ emission in the spectra of SN 2019zrk. This may have have two explanations. First, the processed
metal-rich core at low velocities may even at the last epoch be hidden behind the photosphere by optically thick electron scattering. We also note that the velocity corresponding to the photospheric radius at 100 days, $R_{\rm ph} \sim 2\times 10^{15}$ cm, corresponds to a velocity of $\sim 2300 {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$, so this is not unreasonable. Alternatively, there is no advanced nucleosyntesis, and the observed transient is not the final core collapse. Even in the last spectrum the photosphere is far outside the center at $\sim 6000 {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$, which makes the nucleosynthesis constraint weaker.
Summarizing,
we have a progenitor which has had at least one eruption before the main eruption and probably more as evidenced by the bump in the late LC, a limited period of very strong mass loss, $\dot M \sim 0.04\ \rm M_{\odot} \ year^{-1}$, and low CSM velocity. There is evidence for a nonuniform CSM, both before the main eruption and in connection to this, indicating several shells from different eruptions. The ejecta have a very high velocity, $\sim 16,000 {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$, with little deceleration and no obvious indications of advanced nucleosynthesis.
\subsubsection{Comparison with other SNe}
\label{sec:comparison}
As illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:comp_photom}, there are strong similarities between the light curves of SN 2019zrk and those of SNe 1998S, 2009ip, and 2016bdu,
both in the rising and in the declining parts.
SN 1998S was only observed in the declining phase \citep{Fassia2000}, but it shows both a similar decline rate and peak magnitude as SN 2019zrk. Unfortunately, there are no constraints on a precursor phase for this SN. The spectral evolution also has some similarity to SN 2019zrk in that it showed an early symmetric H$\alpha$ \ line during the first week, indicating electron scattering and a dense CSM close to the SN \citep{Leonard2000,Fassia2001,Shivvers2015}.
It also showed strong high-ionization lines of \ion{C}{iii-iv} and \ion{N}{iii}, now referred to as flash-ionization lines \citep{GalYam2014}. Our first high-quality spectrum of SN 2019zrk at 10 days does not show this, but this phase may have been missed. The further evolution of SN 1998S, however, shows important differences to SN 2019zrk both in the evolution of the H$\alpha$ \ profile and in the presence of strong absorption and emission lines of \ion{He}{i}, \ion{O}{i}, \ion{Si}{ii}, and \ion{Fe}{ii}. Although SN 1998S showed strong CSM interaction from the H$\alpha$ \ line and the light curve, it therefore differs markedly from SN 2019zrk.
SN 2009ip is one of the best studied SNe dominated by CSM interaction
\cite[see][for a review]{Fraser2020}.
For SN 2009ip the sharp rise in the main outburst on 25 September 2012 occurred on a timescale of about a day from $M_R \approx -14.5$ to $M_R \approx -18$ \citep{Prieto2013,Pastorello2013,Mauerhan2013}. This is faster than for SN 2019zrk, where the rise from $M_r \approx -16.2$ to $M_r \approx -17.2$ took place in $\sim 6$ days. For SN 2019zrk the rise then accelerated and the final rise to $M_r \approx -18.6$ took place in just two days (Fig. \ref{fig:comp_photom}). The declining part of the light curve is slower for SN 2019zrk, but not by a large factor. The main difference is in the peak magnitude, where SN 2019zrk was $\sim 1$ magnitude brighter than both SN 2009ip and SN 2016bdu \citep{Pastorello2018}.
The light curve bump at $\sim 110$ days is also not unique to SN 2019zrk. In SN 2009ip a temporary brightening occurred already at $\sim 42$ days after the final rise by $\sim 0.3$ mag, lasting a few days \citep{Graham2014}. While the timescale is different, they are in both cases strong indications of a nonuniform, dense CSM.
Another important similarity is the presence of a precursor in both SNe 2009ip and 2019zrk.
Prior to the main outburst in 2012, SN 2009ip had two strong outbursts, to $M_R \approx -14 $, the first $\sim 1100$ days before and the second $\sim 500$ days before the main outburst \citep{Pastorello2013, Mauerhan2013}. These lasted 100--200 days, and showed strong fluctuations between $M_R \sim -11$ to $M_R \sim -14$ on timescales of a few days.
In contrast to SN 2019zrk, SN 2009ip
had spectroscopic coverage also before the most energetic event.
SN 2009ip could be followed photometrically and spectroscopically for more than 1000 days \citep{Fraser2015,Graham2017}. Of special interest is the fact that the bolometric light curve at late epochs, up to $\sim 700$ days, was flatter than that corresponding even to full trapping of ${}^{56}$Co, with an upper limit of a ${}^{56}$Ni mass of $\la 0.02$ M$_{\sun}$~ \citep{Fraser2015,Graham2017}. The luminosity of a radiative reverse shock is expected to follow $L \propto \dot M V_{\rm s}^3/u_{\rm w} \propto t^{-3/(n-3)}$, where $n$ is the power law of the ejecta density profile. With $n \approx 10$, this indicates that CSM interaction still dominated the light curve of SN 2009ip at these very late phases.
The spectral evolution of SN 2019zrk also show strong similarities with that of SN 2009ip. Several groups have presented extensive series of spectra both before and after the main outburst for that SN \citep{Smith2010,Pastorello2013, Mauerhan2013,Fraser2013,Margutti2014,Graham2014}, in particular
presenting a very complete set of observations up to $\sim 100$ days, which directly can be compared to SN 2019zrk. In Fig. \ref{fig:comp_19zrk_09ipl} we show the spectra of SN 2019zrk at three representative epochs together with spectra at similar stages for SN 2009ip, taken from \cite{Fraser2013}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=9cm,angle=0]{SN19zrk_SN09ip_98s_comp_v2.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:comp_19zrk_09ipl} Comparison of the spectral evolution of SN 2019zrk and SN 2009ip (red) from \cite{Fraser2013} at three comparable epochs.
}
\end{figure}
Immediately after
the main eruption of SN 2009ip
a symmetric 'exponential' emission line profile, typical of electron scattering, was observed, resembling that seen in the spectra of SN 2019zrk during the first 21 days. In SN 2009ip this line profile persisted until
$\sim25$ days after the eruption. After $\sim45$ days H$\alpha$ \ had become asymmetric with a P-Cygni absorption at high velocity and a broad emission profile. H$\beta$ developed a broad P-Cygni profile already at $\sim25$ days. The absorption part of this line profile extended to $\sim 15,000 {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$, while the emission extended only to $\sim 10,000 {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$. Also the He I $\lambda \lambda 4471, 5876$ lines had strong absorption components and narrow, weak emission. The spectrum of SN 2009ip from $\sim 90$ days
showed a strong, asymmetric H$\alpha$ \ line, while other Balmer and He I lines are primarily seen in absorption. These spectra strongly resembles our last spectrum of SN 2019zrk, although the evolution of the SN 2009ip spectrum is somewhat faster and the velocities lower, as can for example be seen in the Ca II triplet, which is resolved in SN 2009ip at 86 days. All in all, however, the spectral evolution of SN 2019zrk is very similar to that of SN 2009ip.
\cite{Levesque2014} discussed the Balmer ratio for SN 2009ip finding an H$\alpha$/H$\beta$ \ ratio $\sim 1.5$ at the peak of the main eruption, indicating an electron density of $\ga 10^{13} \ {\rm cm}^{-3}$. We estimate a ratio of $\sim 2.5$ in our
spectrum at 10 days, but the value is uncertain because of the sensitivity to the subtraction of the continuum and the influence of the background
contamination. In the later epochs the ratio increases (Sect. \ref{sec:spec}) similar to what is the case for the Type IIn SN 2010jl \citep{fransson10jl}. The evolution in SN 2019zrk is consistent with these two SNe, but because of the strong P-Cygni absorption in H$\beta$ \ in SN 2019zrk a more quantitative comparison is difficult.
The main difference compared to SN 2009ip and to SN 2016bdu is the higher peak luminosity of SN 2019zrk. This could perhaps be connected to the higher precursor luminosity of SN 2019zrk, which may indicate a more dense CSM into which the ejecta expand, resulting in a higher shock luminosity.
Unfortunately, we do not have any spectra of the precursor, but we just note the remarkable high velocities of the precursor of SN 2009ip, up to $\sim 13,000 {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$ \citep{Smith2010,Pastorello2013,Mauerhan2013}, and the interesting spectral evolution of that SN during the two preceding eruptions.
In the case of SN 2009ip very late spectra and photometry up to $\sim 1000$ days have been presented by \cite{Fraser2015} and \cite{Graham2019}. No dramatic changes in the spectrum from the spectra at $\sim 100$ days are seen. In particular, the Balmer lines remain symmetric. Even at these late stages the [\ion{O}{i} $\lambda \lambda 6300, 6364$ doublet remains weak in contrast to the late evolution of Type IIP SNe. Graham et al. also find that the H$\alpha$ \ and photometric evolution agree well with the predictions in \cite{CF94}, supporting the dominance of CSM interaction.
After
SN 2009ip several other Type IIn SNe have been discovered with very similar properties, including SN 2010mc \citep{Ofek2013,Smith2014a}, SN 2016bdu \citep{Pastorello2018}, and AT 2016jbu = Gaia16cfr \citep[][]{Kilpatrick2018,Brennan2021,Brennan2021b}.
SN 2010mc, which besides SN 2009ip was the first Type IIn which showed a clear precursor, showed many similarities to SN 2009ip \citep{Ofek2013,Smith2014a}, as well as SN 2019zrk. The length of the precursor, $\sim 50$ days, was somewhat shorter than or SN 2019zrk, while the rise time, $\sim 7$ days was similar. The peak magnitude of the precursor, M$_{\rm r} \approx -15$ as well as the main event, M$_{\rm r} \approx -18.4$, were, however, approximately one magnitude fainter. Consequently, the total enery radiated by both the precursor and the main event were lower by a actor $2-3$.
\cite{Kilpatrick2018} and \cite{Brennan2021,Brennan2021b} present a nice set of spectral and photometric observations for AT 2016jbu, which
shows a precursor with a similar duration as for SN 2019zrk, $\sim 100$ days, and with a similar gradual increase in magnitude. The main event showed a similar photometric evolution to SN 2009ip, both in absolute magnitude and in the light curve shape.
Compared to SN 2009ip and SN 2019zrk, no bump in the light curve was, however, seen during the first $\sim 100$ days after the main event in AT 2016jbu.
Instead, it
showed a strong increase in the luminosity at $\sim 220$ days.
Although the light curve was similar, the spectral evolution of AT 2016jbu was quite different from that of SNe 2019zrk and 2009ip. In addition to an H$\alpha$ \ emission line peaking at zero velocity, AT 2016jbu also showed a double peaked profile with a blue emission peak at $\sim -3000 {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$. This blue emission emerges at $\sim +20$ days after peak luminosity, becoming equally strong as the zero velocity peak at $+ 50$ days and later.
SN 2016bdu also had a remarkably similar evolution to SNe 2019zrk and 2009ip, exhibiting a precursor, a fast rise and a steep decline of the main event
(Fig.~\ref{fig:comp_photom}).
Like SN 2009ip it showed a flat late phase LC $\sim 100$ days after the main eruption. The length of the precursor was $\sim 70$ days, similar to that for SN 2019zrk. The progenitor also showed an erratic behavior over longer timescales
with outbursts to $M_R\sim -14.5$.
\cite{Pastorello2018} also point out the similarity of the properties of the 09ip-like SNe to SN 2005gl, for which \cite{Galyam2007} found evidence for a massive LBV-like progenitor, which was found to have disappeared after the decline of the SN \citep{Gal-Yam2009a}. Both the spectral evolution and the light curve of SN 2005gl show strong similarities to SN 2009ip, with an only marginally fainter peak and similar rise and decay timescales. In contrast to SN 2009ip and SN 2019zrk, SN 2005gl had, however, no detectable precursor down to M $\approx -13.7$.
Most recently, \cite{Pessi2022} present monitoring of SN 2011fh from 2007 to 2017. Before the main eruption the star stayed at a steady level with M$_r \sim -14.5$ for at least three years. This was followed by a precursor with a duration of $\sim 200$ days with M$_r \sim -16$ culminating in the main eruption. The peak magnitude was M$_r \sim -17.9$. The decline was initially fast but slowed down after $\ga 100$ days, and was still bright 1300 days after the peak at M$_r \sim -13.5$, similar to the peak brightness of Eta Carinae
From HST photometry of the stellar cluster around SN 2011fh they find an age of $\sim 4.5$ Myr, corresponding to the life time of a star $35 -80 {\ensuremath{\mathrm{M}_{\odot}}}$, depending on being in a binary or single. This assumes a single burst with zero spread in age, which is an important caveat.
One may also compare SN 2019zrk with other related classes of interacting SNe, in particular with
Type Ibn SNe and transition types like SN 2014C.
Using the Type Ibn light-curve template by \cite{Hosseinzadeh2017} we find that the rate of decline of SN 2019zrk is a factor of $\sim 2$ slower than for this class of SNe. This may be a result of a difference in opacity between a helium and hydrogen dominated CSM, but could also reflect different masses of the CSM.
Possibly related SNe are SN 2001em and SN 2014C, which represent transitions from a Type Ib SN to a more Type IIn like spectrum, in parallel with an increase of the H$\alpha$, radio and X-ray luminosity \citep{Chugai2006,Chandra2020,Milisavljevic2015,Margutti2017}. For SN 2001em this transition occurred $\sim 2$ years after explosion and for SN 2014C at $\sim 100$ days. Both the observations and modeling \citep{Chugai2006} pointed to interaction with a previously ejected circumstellar shell at a distance of $\sim (5-7) \times 10^{16}$ cm. Although the light curves and spectral evolution are very different from those of SN 2019zrk, the presence of a shell, as we infer from the bump at 110 days, indicates strong similarities. A possibility is that these SNe represent a more advanced stage of evolution where the hydrogen envelope has been completely ejected during previous outbursts.
\subsection{Origin of the CSM and nature of the progenitor}
\label{sec:Origin}
Summarizing the last section, the 09ip-class of SNe, including SN 2019zrk, show a remarkable similarity in light curves, spectra and energetics, although there are factor of two differences in these properties between the different object, with SN 2019zrk being among the most energetic. It is therefore based on these results interesting to discuss different progenitor scenarios.
For SN 2009ip there has been a long debate about whether the main eruption was
due to the final core collapse, or only a particularly violent eruption. This relates to whether the progenitor had a very large mass, similar to that of pulsational pair instability SNe (PPISN), $\ga 80 \ {\ensuremath{\mathrm{M}_{\odot}}}$, or if the progenitor was
in the lower mass range, $8 - 20 \ {\ensuremath{\mathrm{M}_{\odot}}}$.
Connected to this, there is a need to explain the existence of a very dense CSM close to the progenitor.
An argument against a lower mass core-collapse SN may be absence of significant ${}^{56}$Ni production, as indicated from the tail of the light curve, or possibly the lack of indications of advanced nucleosynthesis from the late spectra. This would instead be an argument in favor of a PPISN. For SN\,2009ip, \cite{Fraser2015} find an upper limit of $M({}^{56}$Ni) $\la 0.02 \ {\ensuremath{\mathrm{M}_{\odot}}}$, while \cite{Brennan2021} find $M({}^{56}$Ni) $\la 0.016 \ {\ensuremath{\mathrm{M}_{\odot}}}$ for AT 2016jbu. For SN 2019zrk we only have an upper limit of $\la 0.09 \ {\ensuremath{\mathrm{M}_{\odot}}}$. A core collapse, with a moderate $M({}^{56}$Ni mass, can therefore not be ruled out.
Observations by \cite{Thoene2015} showed that by
late 2015, SN 2009ip had declined to a magnitude below that before the 2012 eruption. The absence of a detected star
could argue for a core collapse scenario. However, as remarked by \cite{Graham2017}, the progenitor could have a fainter absolute magnitude in a quiescent phase, so this observation is not conclusive.
In the case of detections of progenitors there is also a debate of the inferred masses of these.
In the case of SN 2009ip, the detection with the {\it Hubble Space Telescope (HST)} at $M_V \approx -9.8$ approximately 10 years before the 2009 eruption, may correspond to a ZAMS mass of $50-80 \ {\ensuremath{\mathrm{M}_{\odot}}}$ \citep{Smith2010}, although \cite{Foley2011} only declared a lower limit of $\ga 60$ M$_{\sun}$.
This mass determination assumes that the star was in a quiescent state at the time of the 1999 observation, and
the determination is only based on a single band, the F606W. The high progenitor mass argued for SN 2009ip is close to that of
PPISNe, although at the lower limit of these $\sim 80$ M$_{\sun}$ \ \citep[e.g.,][]{Woosley2017}.
A PPISN scenario would also explain the large CSM mass observed.
The high mass range for the progenitors of the 09ip-class of SNe has been questioned by \cite{Kilpatrick2018} and \cite{Brennan2021b} in relation to AT 2016jbu. For this SN, multiband
{\it HST} photometry of the progenitor $\sim 10$ years before the main event indicate a yellow hypergiant with mass $17-22 \ {\ensuremath{\mathrm{M}_{\odot}}}$ \citep{Brennan2021b}, which is also consistent with the local stellar population in the neighborhood. \cite{Kilpatrick2018} point out that the progenitor was probably reddened, and the mass may have been up to $\sim 30 \ {\ensuremath{\mathrm{M}_{\odot}}}$. They also point out that the strong contamination of H$\alpha$ \ in bands covering this wavelength can lead to a large overestimate of the progenitor mass. This is the case for the F606W filter with WFPC2, which may explain the discrepant masses for SN 2009ip and AT 2016jbu.
The high host-galaxy metallicity (Sect. \ref{sec:host}) for SN 2019zrk also argues against a PPISN.
Another argument against an origin from a PPISN is the very high ejecta velocity seen in the last spectra of SN 2019zrk. Models of PPISNe typically result in velocities of $\la 5000 {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$ \citep{Woosley2017}. We note here, however, that for the LBV Eta Carinae, which may be in a PPI phase \citep{Woosley2017}, material with velocities of $\sim 6000 {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$ \citep{Smith2008}, and possibly up to $20,000 {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$ \ \citep{Smith2018} have been observed, although the main shell from the year 1842 eruption is moving with only $600 {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$ \citep{Smith2018}. This indicates several eruptions with highly different velocities, or an asymmetric eruption. In the end there may thus be several problems with the PPISN scenario for the 09ip-class, and we find this less likely.
A possibility for creating a dense CSM in stars with lower masses is by wave heating, powered by gravity waves or nuclear flashes in the core in connection to the last burning stages before core collapse \citep{Shiode2012,Woosley2015,Fuller2017,Wu2021,Linial2021}. The total energy in these waves as they reach the hydrogen envelope is typically $ 10^{46} - 10^{47}$ erg \citep{Wu2021}, which is hardly enough to unbind the H envelope. \cite{Wu2021}, however, find that for low-mass progenitors, $\la 12 \ {\ensuremath{\mathrm{M}_{\odot}}}$, and for massive progenitors, $\ga 30 \ {\ensuremath{\mathrm{M}_{\odot}}}$, there may be cases where the energy is larger and could cause mass ejections.
For the low masses this occurs $0.1 - 10$ years before core collapse during O/Ne burning, while in the higher mass range this occurs as a result of shell mergers, only $0.01-0.1$ years before core collapse. For an extensive H envelope this timescale may be too short to propagate to the surface. However, for stripped SNe it may have important consequences.
In this connection we also note that observations of 'flash ionization' features during the first days after explosion indicate that a large fraction of Type II SNe, $\ga 30 \%$, have a very dense CSM \citep{Bruch2021}, not compatible with ordinary stellar winds. The masses discussed there are, however, considerably lower than for the 09ip-class. This does show that our understanding of the mass loss in the last stages of massive stars is far from complete.
The low limits for the ${}^{56}$Ni production, discussed above, may be a problem for stars with ZAMS masses $\ga 12 \ {\ensuremath{\mathrm{M}_{\odot}}}$, while lower masses only produce smaller amounts of ${}^{56}$Ni, compatible with the limits for the 09ip-class.
\cite{Brennan2021b} and \cite{Pastorello2019} also discuss luminous red novae, proposed as a result of mergers between two massive stars as a possible channel for the 09ip-class of SNe. As \cite{Brennan2021b} point out, the peak magnitudes of these mergers are, however, $\sim 3$ mags fainter than the peak magnitude of SN 2009ip and AT 2016jbu, and $\sim 4$ mag fainter compared to SN 2019zrk.
A related possibility is the merger between a massive star and a compact object. This was discussed by
\cite{Chevalier2012} in the context of Type IIn SNe and was also discussed as a possibility for SN 2001em \citep{Chandra2020}. Loss of angular momentum leads to an outflow in the orbital plane and a dense circumstellar disk. At the same time accretion onto the compact object liberates energy, mainly in the form of neutrinos, but also as electromagnetic radiation and Poynting flux. The interaction of the blast wave created by the compact object and the disk then gives rise to the optical display and light curve. The accretion rate depends on the angular momentum of the gas, which depends on the density and velocity gradient of the companion \citep{Chevalier1993}. \cite{MacLeod2015} argue that this may prevent the neutron star from collapsing to a black hole, although hypercritical accretion may still occur. In either case the accretion energy may power the explosion \citep{Fryer1998}.
\cite{Schroder2020} have made detailed simulations of such a merger and in particular studied the common-envelope structure for different parameters. In the inspiral of the companion $\sim 25 \%$ of the mass of the compact object is expelled from the donor star, or $4.5 - 13.9 \ {\ensuremath{\mathrm{M}_{\odot}}}$, for a mass ratio of the compact object and donor between 0.1 -- 0.3. The energy released from accretion onto the compact object is assumed to be deposited roughly spherically in the hydrogen envelope. In general they find a density profile which is fairly steep with radius, like $\rho \propto r^{-3}$ or $\rho \propto r^{-4}$, depending on the mass ratio of the compact object and the primary star.
Using the SNEC code \citep{Morozova2015} they calculate the light curve resulting from the interaction of such a SN with the dense CSM. The results are compared to the Type IIL SNe 1979C and 1998S, and in both cases the general photometric evolution is well reproduced. This scenario has several appealing properties in being able to provide very large luminosities from the orbital energy, reasonable rates, and providing a dense CSM just before the explosion. As shown in Fig. \ref{fig:comp_photom}, the LCs of SN 1998S and SN 2019zrk are very similar, adding to this interpretation, although the existence of a precursor for SN 1998S is not known.
\cite{Terman1995} argue that binary systems with orbital periods less than $0.2 - 2$ years for companion masses of $12 - 24 \ {\ensuremath{\mathrm{M}_{\odot}}}$ will not be able to eject the common envelope and instead undergo a complete merger. This agrees well with more recent simulations based on MESA models for the companions by \cite{MacLeod2015}. Based on this, and that the timescale of the merger should be of the order of the orbital period, one may speculate that the precursor seen in the 09ip class of objects corresponds to the energy release during the final inspiral of the merger.
A possible problem for the merger model may be the large velocity seen in the precursor of SN 2009ip, $\sim 12,000 {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$ \citep{Foley2011,Pastorello2013}. In the simplest scenario one might expect a velocity similar to the escape velocity of the core, $V_{\rm escape} = 364 \ (M_{\rm core}/5 \ {\ensuremath{\mathrm{M}_{\odot}}})^{1/2} (R_{\rm core}/10^{12} \ {\rm cm})^{-1/2} \ {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$. However, no detailed modeling of the effect of the energy release during the inspiral of a neutron star into the envelope and core has been made.
In addition, the fact that Eta Carinae showed ejecta velocities at least up to $6000 \ {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$ in connection to the 1843 eruption \citep{Smith2008} shows that we do not understand the details of the final stages of massive stars.
An interesting observation is the dip in the light curve between the peak of the precursor and the rise of the main event, seen for SN 2009ip \citep{Pastorello2013,Mauerhan2013}, SN 2010mc \citep{Ofek2013}, SN 2016bdu \citep{Pastorello2018}, AT 2016jbu \citep{Brennan2021} and SN 2019zrk (Fig. \ref{fig:comp_photom}). A similar dip is seen for the best observed merger in the Milky Way, V1309 Sco \citep[Fig. 1 in ][]{Tylenda2011}, although on a different timescale and luminosity, which may be a result of the highly different masses and separation of the systems. If this dip is generic to the merger scenario it may offer an interesting diagnostic and clue to the progenitor. Another feature of the light curve of V1309 Sco is the bump in the declining part of the light curve, seen also for SN 2009ip and SN 2019zrk.
Summarizing this discussion, there are potential issues with all the proposed scenarios for the 09ip-class of SNe, although we believe that the low mass alternative, involving a merger, is the one with the least problems.
The limited theoretical understanding of the complicated interplay between nuclear burning and hydrodynamics during the last nuclear burning stages, as well as the merger scenario, in particular the common envelope phase, make conclusions based on modeling uncertain for the whole mass range discussed.
\section{Summary and conclusions}\label{sec:conclusions}
From the spectral and photometric evolution, we have shown that SN 2019zrk displays many properties in common with the 09ip-class of SNe. The presence of a precursor, the sharp LC rise, the fast, exponential LC decay, and the LC bumps are all very similar, as is the spectral evolution. The main, minor difference is the brighter peak magnitude of SN\,2019zrk, as well as the brighter precursor. The total radiated energy in the main event is $\ga 5\times 10^{49}$ erg, and in the precursor $\ga 4\times 10^{48}$ erg. The spectral evolution from exponential electron scattering emission line profiles to broad P-Cygni lines are clear indications of circumstellar interaction. The extent of the P-Cygni absorption indicates a high ejecta velocity of $\sim 16,000 {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}$. From the time of optical depth unity to electron scattering, we estimate a high mass-loss rate of $\sim 4.4 \times 10^{-2} (u_{\rm w}/100 \ {\rm \ km~s^{-1}}) \ \rm M_{\odot} \ yr^{-1}$. The total mass in the CSM is $\ga 1 \ $ M$_{\sun}$. In common with SN 2009ip, it shows a clear bump in the light curve, which may be the result of interaction with circumstellar material from a previous eruption, for example similar to the one seen as a precursor.
The origin of the 09ip-class of SNe is still unclear. The absence of products of advanced nucleosynthesis and the fast light curves are compatible with a
pulsational pair instability SN. What argues against this scenario is the very fast ejecta velocities observed for both SNe 2009ip and 2019zrk, and also the low mass inferred for the progenitor of AT 2016jbu. The rate of this type of SNe may also pose a problem for a large ZAMS mass progenitor model, although good statistics of the 09ip-class of SNe is lacking. An origin in a lower-mass progenitor, $\la 20$ {\ensuremath{\mathrm{M}_{\odot}}}, with a
mass ejection during the last phases before core collapse may have fewer problems, although the mechanism of these large mass eruptions is not well understood. We propose the merger scenario as the most promising for explaining both the dense CSM, seen in the precursor and main eruption, and the large peak luminosity. Clearly both more observations of this type of SNe are needed, as well as a better theoretical understanding of especially mass loss processes close to core collapse.
\begin{acknowledgements}
We are grateful to Jacob Nordin and the referee for comments and careful readings of the paper.
The research of C.F. is supported by the Swedish Research Council. NLS is funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) via the Walter Benjamin program – 461903330. S.S. and E.C.K. acknowledges support from the G.R.E.A.T research environment, funded by {\em Vetenskapsr\aa det}, the Swedish Research Council, project number 2016-06012, as well as support from the Wenner-Gren Foundations. We thank Jakob Nordin for comments on the manuscript.
Based on observations obtained with the Samuel Oschin Telescope 48-inch and the 60-inch Telescope at the Palomar Observatory as part of the Zwicky Transient Facility project.
ZTF is supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. AST-1440341 and a collaboration including Caltech, IPAC, the Weizmann Institute for Science, the Oskar Klein Center at Stockholm University, the University of Maryland, the University of Washington, Deutsches Elektronen- Synchrotron and Humboldt University, Los Alamos National Laboratories, the TANGO Consortium of Taiwan, the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories. Operations are conducted by COO, IPAC, and UW.
This work was supported by the GROWTH project funded by the National Science Foundation under PIRE Grant No 1545949.
The Oskar Klein Centre was funded by the Swedish Research Council.
Partially based on observations made with the Nordic Optical Telescope,
owned in collaboration by the University of Turku and Aarhus University, and operated jointly by Aarhus University, the University of Turku and the University of Oslo, representing Denmark, Finland and Norway, the University of Iceland and Stockholm University at the Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos, La Palma, Spain, of the Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias.
Some of the data presented here were obtained with ALFOSC.
Some of the data presented herein were obtained at the W. M. Keck
Observatory, which is operated as a scientific partnership among the
California Institute of Technology, the University of California, and
NASA; the observatory was made possible by the generous financial
support of the W. M. Keck Foundation.
The Liverpool Telescope is operated on the island of La Palma by Liverpool John Moores University in the Spanish Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos of the Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias with financial support from the UK Science and Technology Facilities Council.
The SED Machine is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1106171.
\end{acknowledgements}
\clearpage
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:introduction}}
\else
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
\fi
\IEEEPARstart{T}{his} demo file is intended to serve as a ``starter file''
for IEEE Computer Society journal papers produced under \LaTeX\ using
IEEEtran.cls version 1.8b and later.
I wish you the best of success.
\hfill mds
\hfill August 26, 2015
\subsection{Subsection Heading Here}
Subsection text here.
\subsubsection{Subsubsection Heading Here}
Subsubsection text here.
\section{Conclusion}
The conclusion goes here.
\appendices
\section{Proof of the First Zonklar Equation}
Appendix one text goes here.
\section{}
Appendix two text goes here.
\ifCLASSOPTIONcompsoc
\section*{Acknowledgments}
\else
\section*{Acknowledgment}
\fi
The authors would like to thank...
\ifCLASSOPTIONcaptionsoff
\newpage
\fi
\subsection{Subsection Heading Here}
\input{tex/arXiv2020}
\input{tex/arXiv2021}
\input{tex/arXiv2022}
\input{tex/ICASSP2021}
\input{tex/ACL2021}
\input{tex/healthcareAI}
\input{tex/CVPR2021}
\input{tex/CVPR2022}
\input{tex/CVPR2020}
\input{tex/ICCV2021}
\input{tex/ICCV2019}
\input{tex/ICML2021}
\input{tex/NeurIPS2020}
\input{tex/NeurIPS2021}
\input{tex/ICLR2021}
\input{tex/WACV2022}
Improving Video-Text Retrieval by Multi-Stream Corpus Alignment and Dual Softmax Loss \cite{cheng2021improving}
MURAL: Multimodal, Multitask Retrieval Across Languages \cite{jain2021mural}
GLIDE: Towards Photorealistic Image Generation and Editing with
Text-Guided Diffusion Models \cite{nichol2021glide}
A unified model:
DataMUX: Data Multiplexing for Neural Networks
V Murahari, C E. Jimenez, R Yang, K Narasimhan
[Princeton University] \cite{murahari2022datamux} 0 cit,
Unified Questioner Transformer for Descriptive Question Generation
in Goal-Oriented Visual Dialogue \cite{matsumori2021unified} 4 cit,
\input{tex/audio-and-speech}
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:introduction}}
The initial inspiration of Artificial Intelligence (AI)
is {to imitate human perception}, \textit{e}.\textit{g}., seeing, hearing, touching, smelling.
In general, a {modality} is often associated with a specific sensor that creates a unique communication channel, such as vision and language \cite{baltruvsaitis2018multimodal}.
In humans,
a fundamental mechanism in our sensory perception is the ability to leverage multiple modalities of perception data collectively in order to engage ourselves properly with the world under dynamic unconstrained circumstances, with each modality serving as a distinct information source characterized by different statistical properties.
For example, an image gives the visual appearance of an ``elephants playing in water'' scene via thousands of pixels, whilst the corresponding text describes this moment with a sentence using discrete words.
Fundamentally, a multimodal AI system needs to ingest, interpret, and reason about multimodal information sources to realize similar human level perception abilities.
{Multimodal learning} (MML) is a general approach to building AI models that can extract and relate information from multimodal data \cite{baltruvsaitis2018multimodal}.
This survey focuses on multimodal learning with Transformers \cite{vaswani2017attention} (as demonstrated in Figure \ref{fig:transformer}), inspired by their intrinsic advantages and scalability in modelling different modalities (\textit{e}.\textit{g}., language, visual, auditory) and tasks (\textit{e}.\textit{g}., language translation, image recognition, speech recognition) with fewer modality-specific architectural assumptions (\textit{e}.\textit{g}., translation invariance and local grid attention bias in vision) \cite{jaegle2021perceiver}.
Concretely, the input to a Transformer could encompass one or multiple sequences of tokens, and each sequence's attribute (\textit{e}.\textit{g}., the modality label, the sequential order),
naturally allowing for MML without architectural modification \cite{devlin2018bert}.
Further, learning per-modal specificity and inter-modal correlation
can be simply realized by controlling the input pattern of self-attention.
Critically, there is a recent surge of research attempts and activities across distinct disciplines exploring the Transformer architectures, resulting in a large number of novel MML methods being developed in recent years, along with significant and diverse advances in various areas
\cite{devlin2018bert,dosovitskiy2020image,carion2020end,sun2019videobert,chen2021speech}.
This calls for a timely review and summary of representative methods to enable researchers to understand the global picture of the MML field across related disciplines and more importantly to capture a holistic structured picture of current achievements as well as major challenges.
\keypoint{Taxonomy}
For better readability and reachability from and across different disciplines,
we adopt a {two-tier} structured taxonomy
based on the application and challenge dimensions respectively.
This has several benefits:
(1) Researchers with expertise in specific applications
can find
those applications appropriate to their own research domain
before connecting to other related domains.
(2) Similar model designs and architectures developed in different domains
can be summarized in an abstract, formula-driven perspective so that the mathematical ideas of various models formed in different applications can be correlated and contrasted on common ground, crossing domain-specific restrictions.
Crucially, our taxonomy offers an interesting stereo-view of individual works
with the insights in both application specificity and formulation generality.
It is hoped that this can help to break down domain boundaries
and foster more effective idea communication and exchange across modalities.
By using the prompt modelling strategy \cite{li2022clip} as a basis for investigation, we also include
the classical classification problem (\textit{e}.\textit{g}., image classification) -- usually regarded
as a single modality learning application in conventional MML surveys \cite{baltruvsaitis2018multimodal,zhang2020multimodal,rahate2022multimodal} --
as a special MML application.
This has the potential to significantly enrich MML, as the classification problem
is an AI topic with amongst the most extensive studies in the literature \cite{hastie2009elements}.
\keypoint{Scope}
This survey will discuss the multimodality specific designs of Transformer architecture including, but not limited to, the following modalities:
RGB image \cite{dosovitskiy2020image}, depth image \cite{parida2022beyond}, video \cite{sun2019videobert}, audio/speech/music \cite{baevski2020wav2vec, nagrani2020speech2action, parida2022beyond},
table \cite{chen2020open}, scene graph/layout \cite{guo2021general,gupta2020layouttransformer,yang2021layouttransformer},
pose skeleton \cite{esser2021taming}, SQL \cite{cai2021sadga,song2022speech},
recipe \cite{salvador2021revamping}, programming language \cite{zhao2021proto},
sign language \cite{zhou2021improving, varol2021read, bull2021aligning},
point cloud \cite{zhao20213dvg},
symbolic knowledge (graph) \cite{marino2021krisp, ammanabrolu2021learning}, multimodal knowledge graph \cite{zhu2022multi}, sketch drawing \cite{xu2018sketchmate, xu2020deep,xu2020fine, vinker2022clipasso}, 3D object/scene \cite{fan2021faceformer, shin20193d, lin2021end}, document \cite{xu2020layoutlmv2,beltagy2020longformer,appalaraju2021docformer, li2022dit}, programming code \cite{guo2020graphcodebert} and Abstract Syntax Tree (AST) -- a kind of graph \cite{zugner2021language}, optical flow \cite{gavrilyuk2020actor},
medical knowledge (\textit{e}.\textit{g}., diagnosis code ontology \cite{shang2019pre}).
Note that this survey will not discuss the multimodal papers where Transformer is used simply as the feature extractor without multimodal designs.
\keypoint{Related Surveys}
We relate this paper to existing surveys
of the two specific dimensions MML and Transformers.
There exist a few MML surveys \cite{baltruvsaitis2018multimodal,zhang2020multimodal,rahate2022multimodal}.
In particular, \cite{baltruvsaitis2018multimodal} proposed a structured, acknowledged taxonomy by five challenges, which we also adopt
as part of our structure.
Unlike \cite{baltruvsaitis2018multimodal,zhang2020multimodal}, and \cite{rahate2022multimodal}, which review general machine learning models,
we instead focus on Transformer architectures and their self-attention mechanisms.
Besides, several surveys dedicated to Transformers have been recently introduced, with a range of emphases including
general Transformers \cite{lin2021survey},
efficient designs \cite{tay2020efficient},
visualization \cite{bracsoveanu2020visualizing},
computer vision tasks \cite{khan2021transformers,liu2021survey,han2020survey,xu2022transformers},
medical imaging \cite{shamshad2022transformers},
video tasks \cite{selva2022video}, and
vision language pretraining \cite{ruan2021survey}.
While \cite{khan2021transformers,han2020survey,shamshad2022transformers,xu2022transformers} consider MML,
their reviews are somewhat limited in the scope, taxonomy, and coverage.
To our knowledge, only a few surveys on video-language pretraining (VLP) \cite{ruan2021survey, chen2022vlp, li2022vision} are relevant to MML.
However, VLP is only a subdomain of MML.
In this survey, we focus solely on the intersection of multimodal learning and Transformers.
\input{tables/definition_table}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\linewidth]{./figures/transformer.png}
\caption{Overview of Transformer \cite{vaswani2017attention}.}
\label{fig:transformer}
\end{figure}
\keypoint{Features and Contributions}
To our knowledge, this paper is the first comprehensive review of the state of Transformer based multimodal machine learning.
The major features of this survey include \\
(1) We highlight that Transformers have the advantage that they can work in a modality-agnostic way. Thus, they are compatible with various modalities (and combinations of modalities).
To support this view, we, for the first time, offer an understanding of the intrinsic traits of Transformers in a multimodal context from a geometrically topological perspective.
We suggest that self-attention be treated as a graph style modelling, which models the input sequence (both uni-modal and multimodal) as a fully-connected graph.
Specifically, self-attention models the embedding of arbitrary tokens from an arbitrary modality as a graph node. \\
(2) We discuss the key components of Transformers in a multimodal context as mathematically as possible.
\\
(3) Based on Transformers, cross-modal interactions (\textit{e}.\textit{g}.,
fusion, alignment) are essentially processed by self-attention
and its variants.
In this paper, we extract the mathematical essence and formulations of Transformer based MML practices, from the perspective of self-attention designs.
Having presented our review of the landscape of multimodal learning, Transformer ecosystem, and multimodal big data era,
we summarize our main contributions as the follows. \\
(1) We present a theoretical reviewing of \textit{Vanilla}{} Transformer, Vision Transformer, and multimodal Transformers, from a geometrically topological perspective. \\
(2) We contribute a taxonomy for Transformer based MML from two complementary perspectives, \textit{i}.\textit{e}., application based and challenge based.
In Section \ref{sec:applications-and-representative-models},
we provide a review of multimodal Transformer applications, via
two important paradigms, \textit{i}.\textit{e}., for multimodal pretraining and for specific multimodal tasks.
In Section \ref{sec:challenges-and-designs},
we summarize the common challenges and designs shared by the various multimodal Transformer models and applications. \\
(3) We discuss current bottlenecks, existing problems, and potential research directions for Transformer based MML.
\keypoint{Organization of this Survey}
The remainder of this survey is organized as follows:
Section \ref{sec:background} introduces the background of multimodal machine learning with Transformers, including a historical perspective and key milestones.
Section \ref{sec:multi-modal-transformer} discusses the key design features of Transformer, Vision Transformer, and multimodality oriented Transformer.
In Section \ref{sec:applications-and-representative-models}, we provide some taxonomies for multimodal Transformer models from the perspectives of applications and representative models.
In Section \ref{sec:challenges-and-designs}, we summarize the key challenges and designs of this field.
Section \ref{sec:discussion-and-outlook} discusses some existing problems and potential research directions.
Section \ref{sec:conclusion} presents conclusion.
Throughout this survey,
unless specified otherwise, mathematical symbols and abbreviated terms follow the conventions in Table \ref{table:definitions}.
\section{Background}
\label{sec:background}
\subsection{Multimodal Learning (MML)}
MML \cite{wu1999multimodal, baltruvsaitis2018multimodal} has been an important research area in recent decades; an early multimodal application --
audio-visual speech recognition was studied in 1980s \cite{yuhas1989integration}.
MML is key to human societies.
The world we humans live in is a multimodal{} environment, thus both our observations and behaviours are multimodal{} \cite{lazarus1976multimodal}.
For instance, an AI navigation robot
needs multimodal sensors to perceive the real-world environment \cite{feng2020deep, liu2021multimodal,moudgil2021soat}, \textit{e}.\textit{g}., camera, LiDAR, radar, ultrasonic, GNSS, HD Map, odometer.
Furthermore, human behaviours, emotions, events, actions, and humour are multimodal, thus various human-centred MML tasks are widely studied, including
multimodal emotion recognition \cite{lv2021progressive}, multimodal event representation \cite{zellers2021merlot},
understanding multimodal humor \cite{hasan2021humor},
face-body-voice based video person-clustering \cite{brown2021face}, \textit{etc}.
Thanks to the development of the internet and a wide variety of intelligent devices in recent years, increasing amounts of multimodal data are being transmitted over the internet, thus an increasing number of multimodal application scenarios are emerging.
In modern life, we can see various multimodal applications, including commercial services (\textit{e}.\textit{g}., e-commerce/commodity retrieval \cite{yu2022commercemm}, vision-and-language navigation (VLN) \cite{liu2021vision,moudgil2021soat,pashevich2021episodic,chen2021history, prakash2021multi, chen2021topological, hong2021vln, zhang2021curriculum, lin2021multimodal, qi2021road, chen2021semantic}), communication (\textit{e}.\textit{g}., lip reading \cite{ren2021learning}, sign language translation \cite{camgoz2020sign,zhou2021improving, varol2021read}), human-computer interaction \cite{xu2022deep}, healthcare AI \cite{li2020behrt, li2020comparison}, surveillance AI \cite{xu2021deepchange}, \textit{etc}.
Moreover, in the era of Deep Learning, deep neural networks greatly promote the development of MML.
In particular, Transformers \cite{vaswani2017attention} are a highly competitive architecture family, bringing new challenges and opportunities to MML.
\subsection{Transformers: a Brief History and Milestones}
Transformers are emerging as promising learners.
Benefit from its self-attention, \textit{Vanilla}{} Transformer \cite{vaswani2017attention} benefits from a self-attention mechanism, and is a breakthrough model for sequence-specific representation learning that was originally proposed for NLP, achieving the state-of-the-art~{} on various NLP tasks.
Following the great success of \textit{Vanilla}{} Transformer, a lot of derivative models have been proposed, \textit{e}.\textit{g}., BERT \cite{devlin2018bert}, BART \cite{lewis2019bart}, GPT \cite{radford2018improving}, GPT-2 \cite{radford2019language}, GPT-3 \cite{brown2020language},
Longformer \cite{beltagy2020longformer},
Transformer-XL \cite{dai2019transformer},
XLNet \cite{yang2019xlnet}.
Transformers currently stand at the dominant position in NLP domains, and this motivates
researchers try to apply Transformers to other modalities, such as visual domains.
In early attempts for visual domain, the general pipeline of the early explorations is ``CNN features + standard Transformer encoder'', and researchers achieved BERT-style pretraining, via preprocessing raw images by resizing to a low resolution and reshaping into a 1D sequence \cite{chen2020generative}.
Vision Transformer (ViT) \cite{dosovitskiy2020image} is a seminal work that contributes an end-to-end solution by applying the encoder of Transformer to images. (See Figure \ref{fig:vit}.)
Both ViT and its variants have been widely applied to various computer vision tasks, including
low-level tasks \cite{chen2021pre}, recognition \cite{touvron2021training}, detection \cite{beal2020toward}, segmentation \cite{liu2021swin}, \textit{etc}, and also work well for both supervised \cite{touvron2021training} and self-supervised \cite{chen2021empirical,caron2021emerging,bao2021beit} visual learning.
Moreover, some recently-released works provide further theoretical understanding for ViT, \textit{e}.\textit{g}., its internal representation robustness \cite{paul2021vision}, the continuous behaviour of its latent representation propagation \cite{raghu2021vision,cao2022understand}.
Motivated by the great success of Transformer and ViT, VideoBERT \cite{sun2019videobert} is a breakthrough work that is the first work to extend Transformer to the multimodal tasks. VideoBERT demonstrates the great potential of Transformer in multimodal context.
Following VideoBERT, a lot of Transformer based multimodal pretraining models (\textit{e}.\textit{g}., ViLBERT \cite{lu2019vilbert}, LXMERT \cite{tan2019lxmert}, LXMERT \cite{tan2019lxmert}, VisualBERT \cite{li2019visualbert}, VL-BERT \cite{su2019vl}, UNITER \cite{chen2020uniter}, CBT \cite{sun2019learning}, Unicoder-VL \cite{li2020unicoder}, B2T2 \cite{alberti2019fusion}, VLP \cite{zhou2020unified}, 12-in-1 \cite{lu202012}, Oscar \cite{li2020oscar}, Pixel-BERT \cite{huang2020pixel}, ActBERT \cite{zhu2020actbert}, ImageBERT \cite{qi2020imagebert}, HERO \cite{li2020hero}, UniVL \cite{luo2020univl}) have become research topics of increasing interest in the field of machine learning.
In 2021, CLIP \cite{radford2021learning} (as demonstrated in Figure \ref{fig:clip}) was proposed. It is a new milestone that uses multimodal{} pretraining to convert classification as a retrieval task that enables the pretrained models to tackle zero-shot recognition.
Thus, CLIP is a successful practice that makes full use of large-scale multimodal pretraining to enable zero-shot learning.
Recently, the idea of CLIP is further studied,
\textit{e}.\textit{g}., CLIP pretrained model based zero-shot semantic segmentation \cite{xu2021simple},
ALIGN \cite{jia2021scaling}, CLIP-TD \cite{wang2022clip}.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./figures/vit_figure.png}
\caption{Overview of Vision Transformer (ViT) \cite{dosovitskiy2020image}. Best viewed in colour.}
\label{fig:vit}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{./figures/clip.png}
\caption{Overview of CLIP \cite{radford2021learning}. Best viewed in colour.}
\label{fig:clip}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Multimodal{} Big Data}
In the past decade, with the rapid development of internet applications such as social media and online retail,
massive multimodal
datasets have been proposed, \textit{e}.\textit{g}.,
Conceptual Captions \cite{sharma2018conceptual}, COCO \cite{lin2014microsoft}, VQA \cite{antol2015vqa}, Visual Genome \cite{krishna2017visual}, SBU Captions \cite{ordonez2011im2text}, Cooking312K \cite{sun2019videobert}, LAIT \cite{qi2020imagebert},
e-SNLI-VE \cite{kayser2021vil},
ARCH
\cite{gamper2021multiple}, Adversarial VQA \cite{li2021adversarial},
OTT-QA \cite{chen2020open},
MULTIMODALQA (MMQA) \cite{talmor2021multimodalqa},
VALUE \cite{li2021value},
Fashion IQ \cite{wu2021fashion},
LRS2-BBC
\cite{afouras2018deep},
ActivityNet \cite{krishna2017dense},
CNERTA \cite{sui2021large},
DVD \cite{le2021dvd},
VisDial \cite{das2017visual},
PhotoChat \cite{zang2021photochat}.
Some emergent new trends among the recently released multimodal datasets are: \\
(1) Data scales are larger. \\
Various recently released datasets are million-scale, \textit{e}.\textit{g}.,
Product1M \cite{zhan2021product1m},
Conceptual 12M \cite{changpinyo2021conceptual},
RUC-CAS-WenLan \cite{huo2021wenlan} (30M),
HowToVQA69M \cite{yang2021just},
HowTo100M \cite{miech2019howto100m},
ALT200M \cite{hu2021scaling},
LAION-400M \cite{schuhmann2021laion}.
\\
(2) More modalities. \\
In addition to the general modalities of vision, text, and audio, further diverse modalities are emerging, \textit{e}.\textit{g}.,
Pano-AVQA \cite{yun2021pano} -- the first large-scale spatial and audio-visual question
answering dataset on $360^{\circ}$ videos,
YouTube-360 (YT-360) \cite{morgado2020learning} ($360^{\circ}$ videos),
AIST++ \cite{li2021ai} (a new multimodal dataset of 3D
dance motion and music),
Artemis \cite{achlioptas2021artemis} (affective language for visual arts). In particular, MultiBench~\cite{liang2021multibench} provides a dataset including 10 modalities. \\
(3)
More scenarios. \\
In addition to common caption and QA datasets,
more applications and scenarios have been studied, \textit{e}.\textit{g}.,
CIRR \cite{liu2021image} (real-life images),
Product1M \cite{zhan2021product1m},
Bed and Breakfast (BnB) \cite{guhur2021airbert} (vision-and-language navigation),
M3A \cite{sawhney2021multimodal} (financial dataset),
X-World \cite{zhang2021x} (autonomous drive). \\
(4)
Tasks are more difficult. \\
Beyond the straightforward tasks,
more abstract multimodal tasks are proposed,
\textit{e}.\textit{g}., MultiMET \cite{zhang2021multimet} (a multimodal dataset for metaphor understanding),
Hateful Memes \cite{kiela2020hateful} (hate speech in multimodal memes). \\
(5) Instructional videos have become increasingly popular, \textit{e}.\textit{g}., cooking video YouCookII \cite{zhou2018towards}. Aligning a sequence of instructions to a video of someone carrying out a task is an example of a powerful pretraining pretext task \cite{malmaud2015s, sun2019videobert}.
\input{tex/datasets}
Similar to other deep neural network architectures, Transformers are also data hungry.
Therefore, their high-capacity models and multimodal big data basis co-create the prosperity of the Transformer based multimodal machine learning.
For instance, big data bring zero-shot learning capability to VLP Transformer models.
\section{Transformers: {A Geometrically Topological Perspective}}
\label{sec:multi-modal-transformer}
In this section, we use mathematical formulations to review the key techniques of \textit{Vanilla}{} Transformer \cite{vaswani2017attention},
Vision Transformer \cite{dosovitskiy2020image}, and multimodal Transformers \footnote{In this survey, ``multimodal Transformer'' means ``Transformer in multimodal learning context''.}, including tokenized inputs, self-attention, multi-head attention, basic Transformer layers/blocks, \textit{etc}.
We highlight that \textit{Vanilla}{} Transformers can be understood from a geometrically topological perspective \cite{bronstein2021geometric}, because due to the self-attention mechanism, given each tokenized input from any modalities, \textit{Vanilla}{} self-attention (Transformer) can model it as a fully-connected graph in topological geometry space \cite{dwivedi2020generalization}.
Compared with other deep networks (for instance, CNN is restricted in the aligned grid spaces/matrices),
Transformers intrinsically have a more general and flexible modelling space.
This is a notable advantage of Transformers for multimodal tasks.
Sections \ref{sec:vanilla-transformer} and \ref{sec:vit} will review the key designs of \textit{Vanilla}{} Transformer and Vision Transformer, respectively.
We refer the reader to the original papers cited above for more detail.
\subsection{\textit{Vanilla}{} Transformer}
\label{sec:vanilla-transformer}
\input{tex/transformer}
\textit{Vanilla}{} Transformer has an encoder-decoder structure and is the origin of the Transformer-based research field.
It takes tokenized input (see Section \ref{sec:tokenized-input}).
Both its encoder and decoder are stacked by the Transformer layers/blocks,
as demonstrated in Figure \ref{fig:transformer}.
Each block has two sub-layers, \textit{i}.\textit{e}., a multi-head self-attention (MHSA) layer (see Section \ref{sec:self-attention-and-multi-head-attention}) and a position-wise fully-connected feed-forward network (FFN) (see Section \ref{sec:ffn}).
To help the back propagation of the gradient, both MHSA and FFN use Residual Connection \cite{he2016deep} (given an input $x$, the residual connection of any mapping $f(\cdot)$ is defined as $x \gets f(x) + x$), followed by normalization layer.
Thus, assuming that the input tensor is $\mathbf{Z}$, the output of MHSA and FFN sub-layers can be formulated as:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:mhsa-and-ffn}
\mathbf{Z} \gets N ( {sublayer} (\mathbf{Z}) + \mathbf{Z}),
\end{equation}
where ${sublayer}(\cdot)$ is the mapping implemented by the sub-layer
itself and $N(\cdot)$ denotes normalization, \textit{e}.\textit{g}., $BN(\cdot)$, $LN(\cdot)$.
\keypoint{Discussion}
There is an important unsolved problem that is post-normalization versus pre-normalization.
The original \textit{Vanilla}{} Transformer uses post-normalization for each MHSA and FFN sub-layer.
However, if we consider this from the mathematical perspective, pre-normalization makes more sense.
This is similar to the basic principle of the theory of matrix, that normalization should be performed before projection, \textit{e}.\textit{g}., Gram–Schmidt process \footnote{\url{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gram\%E2\%80\%93Schmidt_process}}.
This problem should be studied further by both theoretical research and experimental validation.
\subsubsection{Input Tokenization}
\label{sec:tokenized-input}
\textit{Vanilla}{} Transformer was originally proposed for machine translation as a sequence-to-sequence model, thus it is straightforward to take the vocabulary sequences as input.
As mentioned previously, the original self-attention can model an arbitrary input as a fully-connected graph, independently of modalities.
Specifically, both \textit{Vanilla}{} and variant Transformers take in the tokenized sequences, where each token can be regarded as a node of the graph.
\keypoint{Discussion}
The main advantages of input tokenization include the following:
(1) Tokenization is a more general approach from a geometrically topological perspective, achieved by minimizing constraints caused by different modalities.
(2) Tokenization is a more flexible approach to organize the input information via concatenation/stack, weighted summation, \textit{etc}.
\textit{Vanilla}{} Transformer injects temporal information to the token embedding by summing position embedding.
For instance, when use Transformer to model free-hand sketch drawing \cite{xu2021multigraph}, each input token can integrate various drawing stroke patterns, \textit{e}.\textit{g}., stroke coordinates, stroke ordering, pen state (start/end).
(3) Tokenization is compatible with the task-specific customized tokens, \textit{e}.\textit{g}., \texttt{[CLASS]} token for classification, \texttt{[MASK]} for Masked Language Modelling (MLM).
(4) Moreover, tokenization can help Transformer inherently to process multimodal data, and even \textit{Vanilla}{} Transformer can encode multimodal inputs flexibly by just concatenation, weighted summation, even without any multimodal tailor-made modifications.
\keypoint{Position Embedding}
\textit{Vanilla}{} Transformer uses sine and cosine functions to produce position embedding.
To date, various implementations of position embedding have been proposed.
The concrete solutions are outside the focus of this survey.
\keypoint{Discussion}
How to understand position embedding to Transformers is an open problem.
It can be understood as a kind of implicit coordinate basis of feature space, to provide temporal or spatial information to the Transformer.
For cloud point \cite{guo2021pct} and sketch drawing stroke \cite{xu2021multigraph}, their token element is already a coordinate, meaning that position embedding is optional, not necessary.
Furthermore, position embedding can be regarded as a kind of general additional information.
In other words, from a mathematical point of view, any additional information can be added, such as detail of the manner of position embedding, \textit{e}.\textit{g}.,
the pen state of sketch drawing stroke \cite{xu2021multigraph},
cameras and viewpoints in surveillance \cite{he2021transreid}.
There is a comprehensive survey \cite{dufter2021position} discussing the position information in Transformers.
For both sentence structures (sequential) and general graph structures (sparse, arbitrary, and irregular),
position embeddings help Transformers to learn or encode the underlying structures.
Considered from the mathematical perspective of self-attention, \textit{i}.\textit{e}., scaled
dot-product attention,
attentions are invariant to the positions of words (in text) or nodes (in graphs), if position embedding information is missing.
\subsubsection{Self-Attention and Multi-Head Self-Attention}
\label{sec:self-attention-and-multi-head-attention}
The core component of \textit{Vanilla}{} Transformer is the Self-Attention (SA) operation \cite{vaswani2017attention} that is also termed ``Scaled Dot-Product Attention''.
Assume that
$\mathbf{X} = [\mathbf{x}_1, \mathbf{x}_2, \cdots] \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times d}$ is an input sequence of $N$ elements/tokens,
and an optional preprocessing is positional encoding by point-wise summation $\mathbf{Z} \gets \mathbf{X} \oplus Position Embedding$ or concatenation $\mathbf{Z} \gets concat( \mathbf{X}, Position Embedding)$.
\keypoint{Self-Attention (SA)}
After preprocessing, embedding $\mathbf{Z}$ will
go through three projection matrices ($\mathbf{W}^{Q} \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times d_q}$, $\mathbf{W}^{K} \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times d_k}$, and $\mathbf{W}^{V} \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times d_v}$, $d_q = d_k$) to generate three embeddings $\mathbf{Q}$ (Query), $\mathbf{K}$ (Key), and $\mathbf{V}$ (Value):
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:projecting}
\mathbf{Q} = \mathbf{Z} \mathbf{W}^{Q}, \mathbf{K} = \mathbf{Z} \mathbf{W}^{K}, \mathbf{V} = \mathbf{Z} \mathbf{W}^{V}.
\end{equation}
The output of self-attention is defined as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:attention}
\mathbf{Z} = {SA} (\mathbf{Q}, \mathbf{K}, \mathbf{V}) = {Softmax}\left( \frac{\mathbf{Q} \mathbf{K}^\top}{\sqrt{d_q}} \right) \mathbf{V}.
\end{equation}
Given an input sequence, self-attention allows each element to attend to all the other elements, so that self-attention encodes the input as a fully-connected graph. Therefore, the encoder of \textit{Vanilla}{} Transformer can be regarded as a fully-connected GNN encoder,
and the Transformer family has the non-local ability of global perception, similar to the Non-Local Network \cite{wang2018non}.
\keypoint{Masked Self-Attention (MSA)}
In practice, modification
of self-attention is needed to help the decoder of Transformer to learn contextual dependence, to prevent positions from attending to subsequent positions, as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:masked-attention}
\mathbf{Z} = {MSA} (\mathbf{Q}, \mathbf{K}, \mathbf{V}) = {Softmax}\left( \frac{\mathbf{Q} \mathbf{K}^\top}{\sqrt{d_q}} \odot \mathbf{M} \right) \mathbf{V},
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{M}$ is a masking matrix.
For instance, in GPT \cite{radford2018improving}, an upper triangular mask to enable look-ahead attention
where each token can only look at the past tokens.
Masking can be used in both encoder \cite{zhou2018end, xu2021multigraph} and decoder of Transformer, and has flexible implementations, \textit{e}.\textit{g}., 0-1 hard mask \cite{xu2021multigraph}, soft mask \cite{zhou2018end}.
\keypoint{Discussion}
In both uni-modal and multimodal practices,
specific masks are designed based on domain knowledge and prior knowledge.
Essentially, MSA is used to inject additional knowledge to Transformer models, \textit{e}.\textit{g}., \cite{xu2021multigraph,wang2019rat, cai2021sadga,wang2021sgeitl}.
\keypoint{Multi-Head Self-Attention (MHSA)}
In practice, multiple self-attention sub-layers can be stacked in parallel and their concatenated outputs are fused by a projection matrix $\mathbf{W}$, to form a structure named Multi-Head Self-Attention:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:multihead-attention}
\mathbf{Z} = {MHSA} (\mathbf{Q}, \mathbf{K}, \mathbf{V}) = {concat} (\mathbf{Z}_{1}, \cdots, \mathbf{Z}_{H}) \textbf{W},
\end{equation}
where each head $\mathbf{Z}_{h} = {SA} (\mathbf{Q}_{h}, \mathbf{K}_{h} \mathbf{V}_{h})$ and $h \in [1, H]$,
and $\textbf{W}$ is a linear projection matrix.
The idea of MHSA is a kind of ensemble.
MHSA helps the model to jointly attend to information from multiple representation
sub-spaces.
\subsubsection{Feed-Forward Network}
\label{sec:ffn}
The output of the multi-head attention sub-layer will go through the position-wise Feed-Forward Network (FFN) that consists of successive linear layers with non-linear activation.
For instance, a two-layer FFN can be formulated as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:attention}
FFN (\mathbf{Z}) = \sigma ( \mathbf{Z} \mathbf{W}_{1} + \mathbf{b}_1) \mathbf{W}_{2} + \mathbf{b}_{2},
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{W}_{1}$, $\mathbf{b}_{1}$, $\mathbf{W}_{2}$, and $\mathbf{b}_{2}$ denote the weights and biases of the two linear transformations, while $\sigma(\cdot)$ is non-linear activation, \textit{e}.\textit{g}., $\text{ReLU}(\cdot)$ \cite{glorot2011deep}, $GELU (\cdot)$ \cite{hendrycks2016gaussian}. In some Transformer literature, FFN is also termed Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP).
\subsection{Vision Transformer}
\label{sec:vit}
Vision Transformer (ViT) \cite{dosovitskiy2020image} (see Figure~\ref{fig:vit}) contributes a strong end-to-end solution for the visual domain, which is an image-oriented network based on a standard Transformer encoder.
It has an image-specific input pipeline in which the input image must be split into fixed-size (\textit{e}.\textit{g}., $16 \times 16$, $32 \times 32$) patches.
After going through the linearly embedded layer and adding the position embeddings, all the patch-wise sequences will be encoded by a standard Transformer encoder.
Given an image $\mathbf{X} \in \mathbb{R}^{H \times W \times C}$ ($H$ height, $W$ width, $C$ channels), ViT needs to reshape $\mathbf{X}$ into a sequence of flattened 2D patches: $\mathbf{x}_{p} \in \mathbb{R}^\mathbf{N \times (P^{2} \cdot C)}$, where $(P \times P)$ is the patch resolution and $N = HW/P^2$.
To perform classification, a standard approach is to
prepend an extra learnable embedding ``classification token'' \texttt{[CLASS]} to the sequence of embedded patches:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:attention}
\textbf{Z} \gets concat(\texttt{[CLASS]}, \mathbf{X} \mathbf{W}),
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{W}$ denotes the projection.
\input{tables/multi-modal-inputs}
\subsection{Multimodal Transformers}
\label{sec:transformer-in-multimodal-context}
Recently, a large number of Transformers have been studied extensively for various multimodal tasks, and shown to be compatible with various modalities in both discriminative and generative tasks.
In this section, we will review the key techniques/designs of the existing multimodal Transformer models, from the perspectives of multimodal input (Section \ref{sec:multimodal-input}), self-attention variants (Section \ref{sec:self-attention-in-multimodal-context}), and network architectures (Section \ref{sec:architectures}).
\subsubsection{Multimodal{} Input}
\label{sec:multimodal-input}
The Transformer family is a general architecture that can be formulated as a type of general graph neural network.
Specifically, self-attention can process each input as a fully-connected graph, by attending to the global (non-local) patterns.
Therefore, this intrinsic trait helps Transformers can work in a modality
agnostic pipeline that is compatible with various modalities by treating the embedding of each token as a node of the graph.
Given an input from an arbitrary modality,
users only need to perform two main steps, (1) tokenize the input, and (2) select an embedding space to represent the tokens, before inputting the data into Transformers.
In practice, both the tokenizing input and selecting embedding for the token are vital for Transformers but highly flexible, with many alternatives.
For instance, given an image, the solution of tokenizing and embedding is not unique.
Users can choose or design tokenization at multiple granularity levels -- coarse-grained vs. fine-grained.
\textit{e}.\textit{g}., use ROIs (obtained by an object detector) and CNN features as tokens and token embeddings \cite{lu2019vilbert}, use patches and linear projection as tokens and token embeddings \cite{dosovitskiy2020image}, or use graph node (obtained by object detector and graph generator) and GNN features as tokens and token embeddings \cite{yang2021multimodal}.
Given a tokenization plan, the subsequent embedding approaches can be diverse.
For example, for video input, a common tokenization is to treat the non-overlapping
windows (down-sampled) over the video as tokens, and their embeddings can then be extracted by various 3D CNNs, \textit{e}.\textit{g}.,
VideoBERT \cite{sun2019videobert}, CBT \cite{sun2019learning}, and UniVL \cite{luo2020univl} use S3D \cite{xie2017rethinking},
ActBERT uses ResNet-3D \cite{tran2018closer}.
Table~\ref{table:multi-modal-input} summarizes some common practices of multimodal inputs for Transformers, including
RGB,
video,
audio/speech/music,
text,
graph, \textit{etc}.
\keypoint{Discussion}
When considered from the perspective of geometric topology,
each of the modalities listed in Table~\ref{table:multi-modal-input} can be regarded as a graph.
An RGB image is essentially a neat grid graph in the pixel space.
Both video and audio are clip/segment based graphs over a complex space involving temporal and semantic patterns.
Both 2D and 3D drawing sketches \cite{xu2021multigraph, xu2022deep} are a kind of sparse graph if we consider their key points along the drawing strokes.
Similar to sketches, the human pose also is a kind of graph.
3D point cloud is a graph in which each coordinate is a node.
Other abstract modalities also can be interpreted as graphs, \textit{e}.\textit{g}.,
source code \cite{guo2020graphcodebert},
data flow of source code \cite{guo2020graphcodebert},
table \cite{chen2020open},
SQL database schema \cite{song2022speech},
text question graph \cite{cai2021sadga}, and
electronic health records (EHRs).
\keypoint{Special/Customized Tokens}
In both uni-modal and multimodal models of Transformers,
various special/customized tokens are semantically defined as place-holders in the token sequences,
\textit{e}.\textit{g}., class token \texttt{[CLS]}, separator token \texttt{[SEP]}.
Some common special tokens are listed in Table~\ref{table:tokens}.
\input{tables/tokens}
\keypoint{Token Embedding Fusion}
In practice,
Transformers allow each token position to contain multiple embeddings.
This is essentially a kind of early-fusion of embeddings, for both uni-modal and multimodal Transformer models. (This will be discussed further in subsequent sections.)
The most common fusion is the token-wise summing of the multiple embeddings, \textit{e}.\textit{g}., a specific token embedding $\oplus$ position embedding.
Similar to the flexible tokenization, token embedding fusion is also flexible and widely applied to both uni-modal and multimodal Transformer applications.
In \cite{xu2021deepchange}, token-wise weighted summing is used to perform early-fusion of RGB and grey-scale images for multimodal surveillance AI.
In particular, token embedding fusion has an important role in multimodal Transformer applications as various embeddings can be fused by token-wise operators, \textit{e}.\textit{g}.,
in VisualBERT \cite{li2019visualbert} and Unicoder-VL \cite{li2020unicoder}, segment embeddings are token-wise added to indicate which modality (vision or language) each token is from,
VL-BERT \cite{su2019vl} injects global visual context to linguistic domain by ``linguistic token embedding $\oplus$ full image visual feature
embedding'',
InterBERT \cite{lin2020interbert} adds location information for ROI by ``ROI embedding $\oplus$ location embedding'',
in ImageBERT \cite{qi2020imagebert}, five kinds of embeddings are fused ``image embedding $\oplus$ position embedding $\oplus$ linguistic embedding $\oplus$ segment embedding $\oplus$ sequence position embedding''.
\input{tables/fusion-comparision}
\subsubsection{Self-Attention Variants in Multimodal{} Context}
\label{sec:self-attention-in-multimodal-context}
In multimodal Transformers,
cross-modal interactions (\textit{e}.\textit{g}., fusion, alignment) are essentially processed by self-attention and its variants.
Thus, in this section, we will review the main multimodal modelling practices of Transformers, from a perspective of self-attention designs, including
(1) early summation (token-wise, weighted),
(2) early concatenation,
(3) hierarchical attention (multi-stream to one-stream),
(4) hierarchical attention (one-stream to multi-stream),
(5) cross-attention, and
(6) cross-attention to concatenation. See Figure \ref{fig:self-attention-fusion}.
For brevity, we will state and compare the mathematical formulations in two-modality cases. Please note that all discussed self-attention and its variants are such flexible that can be extended to multiple modality cases.
Specifically, the following formulations are modality-, tokenization-, and embedding- agnostic, as self-attention models the embedding of arbitrary token from arbitrary modality as a node of a graph.
Given inputs $\mathbf{X}_\texttt{A}$ and $\mathbf{X}_\texttt{B}$ from two arbitrary modalities,
$\mathbf{Z}_{(\texttt{A})}$ and $\mathbf{Z}_{(\texttt{B})}$ denote their respective token embeddings.
Let $\mathbf{Z}$ denoting the token embedding (sequence) produced by the multimodal interactions.
$Tf(\cdot)$ stands for the processing of Transformer layers/blocks.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\subfigure[Early Summation]{
\label{fig:fusion-1}
\includegraphics[width=0.15\textwidth]{./my-figures/fusion-1.pdf}}
\subfigure[Early Concatenation]{
\label{fig:fusion-2}
\includegraphics[width=0.35\textwidth]{./my-figures/fusion-2.pdf}}
\subfigure[Hierarchical Attention (multi-stream to one-stream)]{
\label{fig:fusion-3}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{./my-figures/fusion-3.pdf}}
\subfigure[Hierarchical Attention (one-stream to multi-stream)]{
\label{fig:fusion-4}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{./my-figures/fusion-4.pdf}}
\subfigure[Cross-Attention]{
\label{fig:fusion-5}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{./my-figures/fusion-5.pdf}}
\subfigure[Cross-Attention to Concatenation]{
\label{fig:fusion-6}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{./my-figures/fusion-6.pdf}}
\caption{Transformer-based cross-modal interactions. ``Q'': Query embedding; ``K'': Key embedding; ``V'': Value embedding. Best viewed in colour. See text for details.}
\label{fig:self-attention-fusion}
\end{figure*}
\keypoint{(1) Early Summation}
In practice, early summation \cite{gavrilyuk2020actor, xu2021deepchange} is a simple and effective multimodal interaction, where the token embeddings from multiple modalities can be weighted summed at each token position and then processed by Transformer layers:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:early-summation}
\mathbf{Z} \gets Tf(\alpha \mathbf{Z}_{(\texttt{A})} \oplus \beta \mathbf{Z}_{(\texttt{B})}) = {MHSA} (\mathbf{Q}_{(\texttt{AB})}, \mathbf{K}_{(\texttt{AB})}, \mathbf{V}_{(\texttt{AB})}),
\end{equation}
where $\oplus$ is element-wise sum, and $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are weightings.
Concretely, $\mathbf{Q}_{(\texttt{AB})} = (\alpha \mathbf{Z}_{(\texttt{A})} \oplus \beta \mathbf{Z}_{(\texttt{B})}) \mathbf{W}^{Q}_{(\texttt{AB})}$, $\mathbf{K}_{(\texttt{AB})} = (\alpha \mathbf{Z}_{(\texttt{A})} \oplus \beta \mathbf{Z}_{(\texttt{B})}) \mathbf{W}^{K}_{(\texttt{AB})}$, and $\mathbf{V}_{(\texttt{AB})} = (\alpha \mathbf{Z}_{(\texttt{A})} \oplus \beta \mathbf{Z}_{(\texttt{B})}) \mathbf{W}^{V}_{(\texttt{AB})}$.
Its main advantage is that it does not increase computational complexity.
However, its main disadvantage is due to the manually set weightings.
As discussed in Section \ref{sec:tokenized-input} and \ref{sec:multimodal-input}, summing position embedding is intrinsically a case of early summation.
\keypoint{(2) Early Concatenation}
Another straightforward solution is early concatenation \cite{sun2019videobert, guo2020graphcodebert, shi2022learning, zheng2021fused} that the token embedding sequences from multiple modalities are concatenated and input into Transformer layers as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:early-concatenation}
\mathbf{Z} \gets Tf(\mathcal{C}(\mathbf{Z}_{(\texttt{A})}, \mathbf{Z}_{(\texttt{B})})).
\end{equation}
Thus, all the multimodal token positions can be attended as a whole sequence, such that the positions of each modality can be encoded well by conditioning the context of other modalities.
VideoBERT \cite{sun2019videobert} is the one of the first multimodal Transformer works, where video and text are fused via early concatenation that can encode the global multimodal context well \cite{lin2020interbert}.
However, the longer sequence after concatenation will increase computational complexity.
Early concatenation is also termed ``all-attention'' or ``Co-Transformer'' \cite{zhan2021product1m}.
\keypoint{(3) Hierarchical Attention} (multi-stream to one-stream)
Transformer layers can be combined hierarchically to attend to the cross-modal interactions.
A common practice is that multimodal inputs are encoded by independent Transformer streams and their outputs are concatenated and fused by another Transformer \cite{li2021ai}:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:hierarchical-attention-2-to-1}
\mathbf{Z} \gets Tf_3(\mathcal{C}(Tf_1(\mathbf{Z}_{(\texttt{A})}), Tf_2(\mathbf{Z}_{(\texttt{B})}))).
\end{equation}
This kind of hierarchical attention is an implementation of late interaction/fusion, and can be treated as a special case of early concatenation.
\keypoint{(4) Hierarchical Attention} (one-stream to multi-stream)
InterBERT \cite{lin2020interbert} is another good practice of hierarchical attention where concatenated multimodal inputs are encoded by a shared single-stream Transformer that is followed by two separate Transformer streams.
This flow can be formulated as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:hierarchical-attention-1-to-2}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{Z}_{(\texttt{A})}, \mathbf{Z}_{(\texttt{B})} & \gets Tf_{1}(\mathcal{C}(\mathbf{Z}_{(\texttt{A})}, \mathbf{Z}_{(\texttt{B})})), \\
\mathbf{Z}_{(\texttt{A})} & \gets Tf_{2}(\mathbf{Z}_{(\texttt{A})}), \\
\mathbf{Z}_{(\texttt{B})} & \gets Tf_{3}(\mathbf{Z}_{(\texttt{B})}).
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
This method perceives the cross-modal interactions and meanwhile preserves the independence of uni-modal representation.
\keypoint{(5) Cross-Attention}
For two-stream Transformers, if the $\mathbf{Q}$ (Query) embeddings are exchanged/swapped in a cross-stream manner, the cross-modal interactions can also be perceived.
This method is termed cross-attention or co-attention \cite{murahari2020large}, which was first proposed in VilBERT \cite{lu2019vilbert}:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:cross-attention}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{Z}_{(\texttt{A})} & \gets {MHSA} (\mathbf{Q}_{\texttt{B}}, \mathbf{K}_{\texttt{A}}, \mathbf{V}_{\texttt{A}}), \\
\mathbf{Z}_{(\texttt{B})} & \gets {MHSA} (\mathbf{Q}_{\texttt{A}}, \mathbf{K}_{\texttt{B}}, \mathbf{V}_{\texttt{B}}).
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
Cross-attention attends to each modality
conditioned on the other and does not cause higher computational complexity, however if considered for each modality, this method fails to perform cross-modal attention globally and thus loses the whole context.
As discussed in \cite{lin2020interbert},
two-stream cross-attention can learn cross-modal interaction, whereas there is no self-attention to the self-context inside each modality.
\keypoint{(6) Cross-Attention to Concatenation}
The two streams of cross-attention \cite{lu2019vilbert} can be further concatenated and processed by another Transformer to model the global context.
This kind of hierarchically cross-modal interaction is also widely studied
\cite{tsai2019multimodal,zhan2021product1m}, and alleviates the drawback of cross-attention.
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:cross-attention-to-concatenation}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{Z}_{(\texttt{A})} & \gets {MHSA} (\mathbf{Q}_{\texttt{B}}, \mathbf{K}_{\texttt{A}}, \mathbf{V}_{\texttt{A}}), \\
\mathbf{Z}_{(\texttt{B})} & \gets {MHSA} (\mathbf{Q}_{\texttt{A}}, \mathbf{K}_{\texttt{B}}, \mathbf{V}_{\texttt{B}}), \\
\mathbf{Z} & \gets Tf(\mathcal{C}(\mathbf{Z}_{(\texttt{A})}, \mathbf{Z}_{(\texttt{B})})).
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
\keypoint{Discussion}
All these aforementioned self-attention variants for multimodal interactions are modality-generic, and can be applied in flexible strategies and for multi-granular tasks.
Specifically, these interactions can be flexibly combined and nested.
For instance, multiple cross-attention streams are used in hierarchical attention (one-stream to multi-stream) that in a two-stream decoupled model \cite{li2021scheduled} $Tf_2$ and $Tf_3$ of Eq. \ref{eq:hierarchical-attention-1-to-2} are implemented by cross-attention defined in Eq. \ref{eq:cross-attention}.
Moreover, they can be extended to multiple ($\geq 3$) modalities.
TriBERT \cite{rahman2021tribert} is a tri-modal cross-attention (co-attention) for vision, pose, and audio, where given a Query embedding, its Key and Value embeddings are the concatenation from the other modalities. Cross-attention to concatenation is applied to three modalities (\textit{i}.\textit{e}., language,
video, and audio) in \cite{tsai2019multimodal}.
\subsubsection{Network Architectures}
\label{sec:architectures}
Essentially,
various multimodal Transformers work due to their internal multimodal attentions that are
the aforementioned self-attention variants.
Meanwhile, as illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:self-attention-fusion}, these attentions determine the external network structures of the multimodal Transformers where they are embedded.
In general, if we consider from the angle of network structures, (1) early summation and early concatenation work in single-stream, (2) cross-attention work in multi-streams, (3) hierarchical attention and cross-attention to concatenation work in hybrid-streams.
Thus,
multimodal Transformers can be divided into
single-stream (\textit{e}.\textit{g}., Uniter \cite{chen2020uniter}, Visualbert \cite{li2019visualbert}, Vl-bert \cite{su2019vl} , Unified VLP \cite{zhou2020unified}), multi-stream (\textit{e}.\textit{g}., ViLBERT \cite{lu2019vilbert}, Lxmert \cite{tan2019lxmert}, ActBERT \cite{zhu2020actbert}), hybrid-stream (\textit{e}.\textit{g}., InterBERT \cite{lin2020interbert}), \textit{etc}.
From the perspective of timing of interaction, these multimodal attentions fall into three categories, \textit{i}.\textit{e}., early interaction: early summation, early concatenation, and hierarchical attention (one-stream to multi-stream), late interaction: hierarchical attention (multi-stream to one-stream), or throughout interaction: cross-attention, cross-attention to concatenation.
As demonstrated in Figure 2 in \cite{kim2021vilt}, the multimodal Transformer models have another architecture taxonomy based on the computational size of the components.
\section{The Application Perspective}
\label{sec:applications-and-representative-models}
In this section we survey multimodal Transformers from the application perspective.
We consider two important paradigms:
(1) Transformers for multimodal pretraining (Section \ref{sec:transformers-for-multi-modal-pretraining}, including both task-agnostic (Section \ref{sec:task-agnostic-multi-modal-pretraining}) and task-specific (Section \ref{sec:task-specific-multi-modal-pretraining}) multimodal pretraining),
and
(2) Transformers for specific multimodal tasks (Section \ref{sec:transformers-for-specific-multi-modal tasks}).
\subsection{Transformers for Multimodal Pretraining}
\label{sec:transformers-for-multi-modal-pretraining}
Inspired by the great success of Transformer based pretraining in NLP community,
Transformers are also widely studied for multimodal pretraining as the various large-scale multimodal corpora is emerging.
Recent work has demonstrated that if pretrained on large scale multimodal corpora Transformer based models \cite{sun2019videobert, li2019visualbert, lu2019vilbert, su2019vl, chen2020uniter, zhou2020unified, tan2019lxmert} clearly outperform other competitors in a wide range of multimodal down-stream tasks, and moreover achieve the zero-shot generalization ability.
These superiorities have led Transformer-based multimodal pretraining to become a hot topic, which
has two main directions, \textit{i}.\textit{e}., general pretraining for agnostic down-stream tasks (Section \ref{sec:task-agnostic-multi-modal-pretraining}), goal-oriented pretraining for specific down-stream tasks (Section \ref{sec:task-specific-multi-modal-pretraining}).
We focus on these key points:
(1) What trends are emerging?
(2) Where/how do the cross-modal interactions take place during pretraining?
(3) How to sort out and understand the pretraining pretext objectives?
How can they drive Transformers to learn the cross-modal interactions?
\subsubsection{Task-Agnostic Multimodal Pretraining}
\label{sec:task-agnostic-multi-modal-pretraining}
Recently Transformer-oriented pretraining has been widely studied involving diverse modality combinations, \textit{e}.\textit{g}., video-text \cite{sun2019videobert, sun2019learning, luo2020univl}, image-text \cite{lu2019vilbert,li2019visualbert,tan2019lxmert, yang2022vision}, acoustic-text \cite{zheng2021fused}.
Among existing work,
the following main trends are emerging: \\
(1) Vision-language pretraining (VLP) is a major research problem in this field, including both ``image + language'' and ``video + language'', also termed visual-linguistic pretraining. A great deal of excellent work has been proposed, \textit{e}.\textit{g}.,
VideoBERT \cite{sun2019videobert},
ViLBERT \cite{lu2019vilbert},
LXMERT \cite{tan2019lxmert},
VisualBERT \cite{li2019visualbert},
VL-BERT \cite{su2019vl},
UNITER \cite{chen2020uniter},
CBT \cite{sun2019learning},
Unicoder-VL \cite{li2020unicoder},
B2T2 \cite{alberti2019fusion},
VLP \cite{zhou2020unified},
12-in-1 \cite{lu202012},
Oscar \cite{li2020oscar},
Pixel-BERT \cite{huang2020pixel},
ActBERT \cite{zhu2020actbert},
ImageBERT \cite{qi2020imagebert},
HERO \cite{li2020hero},
UniVL \cite{luo2020univl}, SemVLP \cite{li2021semvlp}. \\
(2) Thanks to recent advances in automatic speech recognition (ASR) techniques, in a multimodal context, speech can be converted to text by the
off-the-shelf speech
recognition tools.
For instance, VideoBERT \cite{sun2019videobert} and CBT \cite{sun2019learning} make full use of speech rather than low-level sounds as a source of cross-modal supervision, by extracting high-level semantic text.
\\
(3) A majority of Transformer-based multimodal pretraining works in a self-supervised manner, however, it is overly dependent on the well-aligned multimodal sample pairs/tuples.
For instance, large amount of image-language pretraining Transformer models are pretrained on large-scale image-text pairs, \textit{e}.\textit{g}.,
VisualBERT \cite{li2019visualbert}, VL-BERT \cite{su2019vl}, ViLBERT \cite{lu2019vilbert},
LXMERT \cite{tan2019lxmert}, UNITER \cite{chen2020uniter}.
For another example,
the instructional videos (\textit{e}.\textit{g}., cooking) are widely used as the pretraining corpora, \textit{e}.\textit{g}.,
HowToVQA69M \cite{yang2021just},
HowTo100M \cite{miech2019howto100m},
as in general,
their visual clues/content and the spoken words have a higher probability to align with each other, if compared with other videos.
However, using cross-modal alignment as cross-modal supervision is costly for large-scale applications.
Thus, how to use the weakly-aligned or even unpaired/unaligned multimodal data as the pretraining corpora is still understudied. Some recent attempts \cite{wang2021simvlm, zhan2021product1m} study the use of weakly-aligned cross-modal supervision to train Transformers to learn the cross-modal interactions.
Moreover,
most of the existing pretext tasks transfer well across modalities.
For instance, Masked Language Modelling (MLM) in the text domain has been applied to audio and image, \textit{e}.\textit{g}., Masked Acoustic Modelling \cite{chen2020mam, zheng2021fused}, Masked Image Region Prediction \cite{murahari2020large},
while both Sentence Ordering Modelling (SOM) \cite{golestani2021using} in text domain and Frame Ordering Modelling (FOM) \cite{li2020hero} in video domain share the same idea.
We will further discuss the pretext tasks for multimodal Transformer pretraining in the follows.
\\
(4) Essentially, in multimodal pretraining scenarios, Transformer models work based on those self-attention variants that are discussed in Section \ref{sec:self-attention-in-multimodal-context}. Thus, if considered from the perspective of model structures, the existing Transformers for multimodal pretraining are also mainly in three categories, \textit{i}.\textit{e}., single-stream, multi-stream, hybrid-stream.
\\
(5)
For Transformer based multimodal pretraining, the key is to drive the Transformer (encoder w/, w/o decoder) to learn the cross-modal interactions.
In the existing Transformer-based multimodal pretraining practices, the cross-modal interactions are flexible, which can perform within various components/levels in the pretraining pipelines.
In general, Transformer-based multimodal pretraining pipelines have three key components, from bottom to top, \textit{i}.\textit{e}., tokenization, Transformer representation, objective supervision.
For not only the multimodal pretraining but also the specific multimodal tasks,
the cross-modal interactions can perform within arbitrary component(s) of the three.
As discussed in Section \ref{sec:self-attention-in-multimodal-context},
because self-attention models the embedding of an arbitrary token from an arbitrary modality as a node of a graph,
the existing pretraining pipelines
can, in general, be transferred independently across
modalities,
unless considered with modality-specific objectives.
\keypoint{Discussion} Vision Language Pretraining (VLP) follows two general pipelines: two-stage (need object detector, \textit{e}.\textit{g}., Faster R-CNN \cite{ren2015faster}) (\textit{e}.\textit{g}., LXMERT \cite{tan2019lxmert}, ViLBert \cite{lu2019vilbert}, VL-Bert \cite{su2019vl}, UNITER \cite{chen2020uniter}) and end-to-end (\textit{e}.\textit{g}., Pixel-Bert \cite{huang2020pixel}, SOHO \cite{huang2021seeing}, KD-VLP \cite{liu2021kd}, Simvlm \cite{wang2021simvlm}).
Two-stage pipelines have a main advantage -- object-aware perceiving, by using the supervised pre-trained visual detectors,
however these are based on a strong assumption that the visual representations can be fixed.
\keypoint{Discussion}
How to look for more corpora that intrinsically have well-aligned cross-modal supervision, such as instructional videos, is still an open problem.
However,
weakly-aligned cross-modal samples are popular in the real-life scenarios, for instance, enormous weakly aligned multimodal
data samples are emerging in e-commerce \cite{zhan2021product1m}, due to fine-grained categories, complex combinations, and fuzzy correspondence.
Well labelled/aligned cross-modal datasets are very costly in collecting and annotating;
how to use weakly-aligned or even unaligned corpora crawled from the web is a promising question.
Some recently successful practice \cite{radford2021learning, ramesh2021zero, wang2021simvlm}
used weakly aligned image-text pairs
to perform pretraining, and achieve both competitive performance and zero-shot learning capability for image classification, image-text retrieval, and open-ended visual question answering, \textit{etc}.
Because these practices in weak supervision make full use of large-scale pretraining corpora, they yield greater promise of zero-shot generalization.
\keypoint{Pretext Tasks}
In Transformer based multimodal pretraining,
the pretraining tasks/objectives are also termed pretext tasks/objectives.
To date, various pretext tasks have been studied, \textit{e}.\textit{g}., masked language modelling (MLM) \cite{zhan2021product1m},
masked image region prediction/{classification} (also termed masked object classification (MOC)) \cite{murahari2020large, zhan2021product1m},
masked region regression (MRR) \cite{qi2020imagebert},
visual-linguistic matching (VLM) (\textit{e}.\textit{g}., image–text
matching (ITM) \cite{lin2020interbert}, image text matching (ITM), phrase-region alignment (PRA) \cite{liu2021kd}, word-region alignment (WRA) \cite{chen2020uniter}, video-subtitle matching (VSM) \cite{li2020hero}),
masked frame modelling (MFM) \cite{li2020hero},
frame order modelling (FOM) \cite{li2020hero},
next sentence prediction (NSP) \cite{devlin2018bert, lu2019vilbert, murahari2020large},
masked sentence generation (MSG) \cite{li2021scheduled},
masked group modelling (MGM) \cite{lin2020interbert},
prefix language modelling (PrefixLM) \cite{wang2021simvlm},
video conditioned masked
language model \cite{luo2020univl},
text conditioned masked frame
model \cite{luo2020univl},
visual translation language modelling
(VTLM) \cite{zhou2021uc2}, and
image-conditioned masked language modelling (also termed image-attended masked language modelling) \cite{hao2020towards}.
These down-stream task -agnostic pretext pretraining is optional,
and the down-stream task objectives can be trained directly,
which will be discussed in Section~\ref{sec:task-specific-multi-modal-pretraining}.
\input{tables/pretext-tasks}
The pretext tasks have multiple taxonomies: \\
(1)
The common multimodal pretraining Transformers use well-aligned, weakly-aligned, and even unaligned multimodal sample pairs/tuples, to work in supervised, weakly-supervised, and unsupervised manners, respectively.
Meanwhile,
if we consider the definitions of their pretext tasks/objectives from supervision, the pretexts can be sorted into unsupervised/self-supervised (\textit{e}.\textit{g}., masked language modelling (MLM) \cite{sun2019videobert, zhan2021product1m}) and supervised (\textit{e}.\textit{g}., image-text matching (ITM) \cite{lin2020interbert} \cite{chen2020uniter, li2019visualbert, lu2019vilbert, tan2019lxmert, yao2021filip}), \textit{etc}.
Nowadays, self-supervised attempts are the majority. \\
(2) Considering the mathematical formulations, some pretexts are defined on single modality, \textit{e}.\textit{g}., masked language modelling \cite{sun2019videobert}, masked acoustic modelling \cite{chen2020mam}, masked region regression (MRR) \cite{qi2020imagebert},
while other pretexts are defined on multiple modalities, \textit{e}.\textit{g}., image-conditioned masked language modelling (IMLM) \cite{xia2021xgpt}, image-text matching (ITM) \cite{lin2020interbert}, video-subtitle matching (VSM) \cite{li2020hero}.
Thus, from this mathematical view, the pretext tasks can be divided into two categories, \textit{i}.\textit{e}., uni-modal and multimodal. \\
However, this classification is not really accurate.
It should be highlighted that in multimodal pretraining Transformer models, even if the pretext objective formulations only include uni-modal elements, pretexts can still involve other modalities, essentially conditioned on the clues from other modalities, by (a) prepositive token level interactions and/or Transformer level interactions,
(b) co-training with other pretexts that involve other modalities.
For instance, VL-BERT \cite{su2019vl} uses two dual pretext tasks, \textit{i}.\textit{e}., masked language modelling and masked RoI classification.\\
(3) If consider their motivations, the pretext tasks include masking, describing, matching, ordering, \textit{etc}.
Table~\ref{table:pretext-tasks} provides the common and representative pretext tasks for Transformer based multimodal pretraining.
Some recent surveys focus on VLP and compare the existing VLP Transformer models from the angles of domain (image-text or video-text), vision feature extraction, language feature extraction, architecture (single- or dual- stream), decoder (w/, w/o), pretext tasks/objectives, pretraining datasets, and down-stream tasks, \textit{e}.\textit{g}., Table 2 of \cite{chen2022vlp}, Table 3 of \cite{ruan2021survey}.
Different from these views,
in this survey,
we would propose our comparisons from some new perspectives.
Specifically:
(1)
The core of Transformer ecosystem is self-attention, thus we would compare the existing multimodal pretraining Transformer models from the angles of how and when the self-attention or its variants perform cross-modal interactions.
(2) Considering from a geometrically topological perspective, self-attention helps Transformers intrinsically
work in a modality agnostic pipeline that is compatible
with various modalities by taking in the embedding of each
token as a node of graph, thus we would highlight that the existing VLP can be applied to other modalities, beyond visual and linguistic domains.
(3)
We suggest to treat the Transformer-based multimodal pretraining pipelines having three key components, from bottom to top, \textit{i}.\textit{e}., tokenization, Transformer representation, objective supervision.
\keypoint{Discussion}
In spite of the recent advances,
multimodal pretraining Transformer methods still have some obvious bottlenecks.
For instance,
as discussed by \cite{xia2021xgpt} in VLP field,
while the BERT-style cross-modal pretraining models produce excellent results on various down-stream vision-language tasks, they fail to be applied to generative tasks directly.
As discussed in \cite{xia2021xgpt},
both VideoBERT \cite{sun2019videobert} and CBT \cite{sun2019learning} have to train a separate video-to-text decoder for video captioning.
This is a significant gap between the pretraining models designed for discriminative and generative tasks, as the main reason is discriminative task oriented pretraining models do not involve the decoders of Transformer.
Therefore, how to design more unified pipelines that can work for both discriminative and generative down-stream tasks is also an open problem to be solved.
Again for instance,
common multimodal pretraining models often underperform for fine-grained/instance-level tasks as discussed by \cite{zhan2021product1m}.
\keypoint{Discussion}
As discussed in \cite{xia2021xgpt},
the masked language
and region modelling as pre-training task have a main advantage that the Transformer encoder learned from these supervisions can encode both vision and language patterns based on bidirectional context and it is naturally fit for the semantic understanding tasks, \textit{e}.\textit{g}., VQA, image-text retrieval.
\keypoint{Discussion}
How to boost the performance for multimodal pretraining Transformers is an open problem.
Some practices demonstrate that
multi-task training (by adding auxiliary loss) \cite{zhan2021product1m, lu202012} and adversarial training \cite{gan2020large} improve multimodal pretraining Transformers to further boost the performance.
Meanwhile, overly compound
pretraining objectives potentially upgrade the challenge of balancing among different loss terms, thus complicate the training optimization \cite{wang2021simvlm}.
Moreover,
the difficulty of the pretexts is also worth discussing.
In general, if aim to learn more explicit object concepts, more complex pretext losses will be used \cite{liu2021kd}. However, for pretexts, whether more complexity is better remains a question.
\subsubsection{Task-Specific Multimodal Pretraining}
\label{sec:task-specific-multi-modal-pretraining}
In practices of multimodal Transformers,
the aforementioned down-stream task -agnostic pretraining is optional, not necessary,
and down-stream task specific pretraining is also widely studied \cite{ zhang2021ernie, guhur2021airbert, xia2021xgpt, murahari2020large}.
The main reasons include:
(1) Limited by the existing technique, it is extremely difficult to design a set of highly universal network architectures, pretext tasks, and corpora that work for all the various down-stream applications.
(2) There are non-negligible gaps among various down-stream applications, \textit{e}.\textit{g}., task logic, data form, making it difficult to transfer from pretraining to down-stream applications.
Therefore,
a large number of down-stream tasks still need tailor-made pretraining to improve the performance.
Guhur \textit{et al}.~ \cite{guhur2021airbert} propose in-domain pretraining for vision-and-language navigation, as
the general VLP
focuses on learning vision-language correlations, not designed for sequential decision making as required
in embodied VLN.
Murahari \textit{et al}.~ \cite{murahari2020large} present a visual dialogue oriented approach to leverage pretraining on general
vision-language datasets.
XGPT \cite{xia2021xgpt} is tailor-made for image captioning, to overcome the limitation that BERT-based cross-modal pre-trained models fail to be applied
to generative tasks directly.
ERNIE-ViLG \cite{zhang2021ernie} is designed for bidirectional image-text generation with Transformers.
Special modalities have their own unique domain knowledge that can be used to design the specific pretrain pretexts.
GraphCodeBERT \cite{guo2020graphcodebert} uses
two structure-aware pretext tasks (\textit{i}.\textit{e}., predict where a variable is identified from, data flow edge
prediction between variables) for programming source code.
To learn from the spatial cues in $360^{\circ}$ video,
Morgado \textit{et al}.~ \cite{morgado2020learning} propose to perform contrastive audio-visual spatial alignment of $360^{\circ}$ video and spatial audio.
Med-BERT \cite{rasmy2021med} is a contextualized embedding model pretrained on a structured electronic health record dataset of two million patients.
Kaleido-BERT \cite{zhuge2021kaleido} is a VLP Transformer model tailor-made for the fashion domain.
\subsection{Transformers for Specific Multimodal Tasks}
\label{sec:transformers-for-specific-multi-modal tasks}
Recent work has demonstrated that Transformer models can encode various multimodal inputs in both classical and novel discriminative applications, \textit{e}.\textit{g}., RGB \& optical flow \cite{gavrilyuk2020actor}, textual description \& point cloud \cite{zhao20213dvg}, acoustic \& text \cite{zheng2021fused}, audio \& visual observation for Audio-Visual Navigation \cite{chen2021semantic},
speech query \& schema of SQL database \cite{song2022speech},
text question/query \& the schema SQL database \cite{cai2021sadga},
audio \& tags \cite{favory2021learning},
multimodal representation for video (appearance,
audio, speech) \cite{gabeur2020multi},
text query \& video \cite{wang2022multi},
audio \& video for audio visual speech enhancement (AVSE) \cite{ramesh2021vset},
audio \& video for Audio-Visual Video Parsing \cite{lin2021exploring},
audio \& video for audio-visual speech recognition \cite{afouras2018deep},
video \& text for Referring Video Object Segmentation (RVOS) \cite{botach2021end},
source code \& comment \& data flow \cite{guo2020graphcodebert},
image \& text for retrieval \cite{hong2021gilbert}.
Meanwhile, Transformers also contribute to various multimodal generative tasks, including single-modality to single-modality (\textit{e}.\textit{g}., raw audio to 3D mesh sequence \cite{fan2021faceformer},
RGB to 3D scene \cite{shin20193d},
single image to 3D human texture estimation \cite{xu20213d},
RGB to scene graph \cite{lin2020gps, guo2021general, wang2021topic, lu2021context},
graph to graph \cite{ammanabrolu2021learning},
knowledge graph to text \cite{ke2021jointgt},
video to scene graph \cite{teng2021target},
video to caption \cite{chen2018tvt, pan2020spatio, lin2021swinbert, deng2021sketch, wang2021end},
image to caption \cite{huang2019attention,herdade2019image, li2019entangled, pan2020x, cornia2020meshed, yang2021causal,luo2021dual, xu2021towards},
text to speech \cite{li2019neural,ren2020fastspeech, kim2020glow, min2021meta, popov2021grad, ren2021portaspeech, chen2021adaspeech},
text to image \cite{ ramesh2021zero, ding2021cogview},
text to shape \cite{sanghi2021clip},
RGB to 3D human pose and mesh \cite{lin2021end},
music to dance \cite{huang2020dance}
),
multimodality to single modality (\textit{e}.\textit{g}.,
image \& text to scene graph \cite{zhong2021learning},
Video Dialogue (text \& audio \& visual to text) \cite{geng2021dynamic},
Mono Audio \& Depth to Binaural Audio \cite{parida2022beyond},
music piece \& seed 3D motion to long-range future 3D motions \cite{li2021ai},
X-raying image \& question to answer \cite{jaunet2021visqa},
video \& text \& audio to text \cite{lin2021vx2text}),
and multimodality to multimodality (\textit{e}.\textit{g}., \cite{lin2021m6}).
\section{Challenges and Designs}
\label{sec:challenges-and-designs}
Complementing the application perspective discussed in Section \ref{sec:applications-and-representative-models},
we further survey prior work from the perspective of technical challenges.
We discuss seven challenges of Transformer based multimodal learning, including fusion, alignment, transferability,
efficiency,
robustness,
universalness, and interpretability.
This further extends the taxonomy introduced in \cite{baltruvsaitis2018multimodal} to tackle the higher diversity and wider scopes of
existing Transformer based MML works in recent years.
\subsection{Fusion}
In general, MML Transformers fuse information across
multiple modalities primarily at three conventional levels \cite{chen1998audio}:
input (\textit{i}.\textit{e}., early fusion), intermediate representation (\textit{i}.\textit{e}., middle fusion), and prediction (\textit{i}.\textit{e}., late fusion).
Directly feeding the representations of two modalities into the standard attention module can achieve middle fusion with latent adaptation, ended up with late fusion of final bimodality representations
\cite{tsai2019multimodal,sahay2020low}.
This idea can be extended by alternating \cite{gao2019dynamic} or compounding \cite{yang2021causal} with unimodal attention, or token exchange across modalities \cite{chen2021crossvit}.
Inspired by the phenomenal success of BERT \cite{devlin2018bert},
different modalities integrate as early as
at the input stage, as shown in \cite{sun2019videobert,zhuge2021kaleido,li2019visualbert,li2020unicoder,qi2020imagebert,huang2020pixel,chen2020uniter,li2020oscar,zhu2020actbert,zhuge2021kaleido,nagrani2021attention}.
They are also known as {one-stream architecture},
allowing the adoption of the merits of BERT
due to minimal architectural modification.
A major difference with these one-stream models
is the usage of problem-specific modalities with variant masking techniques.
With attention operation, a noticeable fusion scheme
is introduced based on a notion of bottleneck tokens \cite{nagrani2021attention}.
It applies for both early and middle fusion
by simply choosing to-be-fused layers.
We note that the simple prediction-based late fusion \cite{chen1998audio,owens2018audio} is less adopted
in MML Transformers.
This makes sense considering the motivations of learning stronger multimodal contextual representations and great advance of computing power.
For enhancing and interpreting the fusion of MML,
probing the interaction between modalities \cite{xue2021probing}
would be an interesting direction to explore.
\subsection{Alignment}
Real-world data often emerge in several modalities
with intrinsic synchronization (\textit{e}.\textit{g}., audio-visual correspondence \cite{morgado2020learning}), which underpins
cross-modal alignment.
Recently, Transformers based alignment
\cite{radford2021learning,jia2021scaling,xu2021videoclip,lei2021less}
has led to a surge of leveraging large quantities of web data (\textit{e}.\textit{g}., image-text pairs) for vision and language tasks.
The main idea is to map two modalities into a common representation space with contrastive learning over paired samples.
These MML models are often enormous in size
and expensive to optimize from millions or billions of training data.
Consequently, successive works mostly exploit pretrained models
for tackling various down-stream tasks \cite{li2021align,wang2022clip,luo2021clip4clip,fang2021clip2video,narasimhan2021clip}.
At the core of these alignment models
is the ability of zero-shot transfer
particularly for image classification via prompt engineering.
This MML perspective is mind-blowing, given that image classification is conventionally regarded as a unimodal learning problem
and zero-shot classification remains an unsolved challenge despite extensive research \cite{xian2018zero}.
Also, this has been expanded
for more challenging and fine-grained tasks (\textit{e}.\textit{g}., object detection \cite{gu2021open}, visual question answering \cite{li2021align,chen2020uniter,li2020oscar,tan2019lxmert}, and instance retrieval \cite{li2021align,hong2021gilbert})
by
imposing region (semantic parts such as objects) level alignment.
This would however incur more computational costs
from explicit region detection
and how to eliminate this whilst keeping the region-level learning capability becomes the main challenge.
Several ideas introduced recently include
random sampling \cite{huang2020pixel},
learning concept dictionary \cite{huang2021seeing},
uniform masking \cite{cho2020x},
patch projection \cite{kim2021vilt},
joint learning of a region detector \cite{xu2021e2e}, and
representation aligning before mask prediction \cite{li2021align}.
Cross-modal alignment is a key capability for
a number of real-world applications.
For example, Transformer based MML models were recently designed for
speaker localization in multi-speaker videos \cite{truong2021right},
speech translation \cite{zheng2021fused},
text-to-speech \cite{chen2020multispeech},
text-to-video retrieval \cite{wang2021t2vlad},
and visual grounding of natural language \cite{zhang2021explainable}.
Further, when a number of modalities are distributed across
tasks and trained in a multi-task manner,
task-level representation alignment
is achievable with high parameter efficiency
\cite{likhosherstov2021polyvit,lu202012}.
\subsection{Transferability}
\label{sec:transferability}
Transferability is a major challenge for Transformer based multimodal learning, involving the question of how to transfer models across different datasets and applications.
Data augmentation and adversarial perturbation strategies help multimodal Transformers to improve the generalization ability. VILLA \cite{gan2020large} is a two-stage strategy (task-agnostic adversarial pretraining, followed by task-specific adversarial finetuning) that improves VLP Transformers.
In practice,
the distribution gap between training data and practical data is noticeable.
For instance,
supervised data samples (well-labelled, well-aligned) are costly in practical applications, thus
how to transfer the supervised multimodal Transformers pretrained on well-aligned cross-modal pairs/tuples to the weakly aligned test bed is challenging \cite{zhan2021product1m}.
CLIP \cite{radford2021learning} is an inspiring solution that transfers knowledge across modalities by learning a shared multimodal embedding space, enabling zero-shot transfer
of the model to down-stream tasks.
The main inspiration that CLIP presents the community is that the pretrained multimodal (image and text) knowledge can be transferred to down-stream zero-shot image prediction by using a prompt template ``\texttt{A photo of a \{label\}.}'' to bridge the distribution gap between training and test datasets.
Over-fitting is a major obstacle to transfer. Multimodal Transformers can be overly fitted to the dataset
biases during training, due to the large modelling capability.
Some recent practices exploit how to transfer the oracle model trained on noiseless dataset to real dataset.
For instance,
Kervadec \textit{et al}.~ \cite{kervadec2021supervising, kervadec2021transferable} explore
how transferable reasoning patterns are in VQA,
and demonstrate that for LXMERT \cite{tan2019lxmert}/BERT-like
reasoning patterns can be partially transferred from an ideal dataset to a real dataset.
Cross-task gap is another major obstacle to transfer \cite{rahman2020integrating, xia2021xgpt}, due to the different reasoning and input-output workflows, \textit{e}.\textit{g}.,
how to use multimodal datasets to finetune the language pretrained model is difficult \cite{rahman2020integrating}.
In real applications,
multimodal pretrained Transformers sometimes need to handle the uni-modal data at inference stage due to the issue of missing modalities. One solution is using knowledge
distillation, \textit{e}.\textit{g}., distilling
from multimodal to uni-modal attention in Transformers \cite{agarwal2021multimodal}, distilling from multiple uni-modal Transformer teachers to a shared Transformer encoder \cite{li2021towards}.
There is a huge gap across discriminative and generative multimodal tasks.
As discussed in \cite{xia2021xgpt},
the BERT-like encoder-only multimodal Transformers (\textit{e}.\textit{g}., VideoBERT \cite{sun2019videobert}, CBT \cite{sun2019learning}) need
separately to train decoders for generation tasks. This could create a pretrain-finetune discrepancy detrimental to the
generality.
Recently, more and more attempts study this issue further, \textit{e}.\textit{g}.,
GilBERT \cite{hong2021gilbert} is a generative VLP models for
a discriminative task, \textit{i}.\textit{e}., image-text retrieval.
Cross-lingual gap also should be considered for the transferability of Transformer based multimodal learning, \textit{e}.\textit{g}.,
universal cross-lingual generalization from English to non-English multimodal contexts \cite{zhou2021uc2,ni2021m3p}.
\subsection{Efficiency}
\label{sec:efficiency}
Multimodal Transformers suffer from two major efficiency issues:
(1) Due to the large model parameter capacity, they are data hungry and thus dependent on huge scale training datasets.
(2) They are limited by the time and memory complexities that grow quadratically with the input sequence length, which are caused by the self-attention.
In multimodal contexts,
calculation explosion will become worse due to jointly high dimension representations.
These two bottlenecks are interdependent and should be considered together.
To improve the training and/or inferring efficiency for multimodal Transformers,
recent efforts have attempted to find various solutions, to use fewer training data and/or parameters.
The main ideas can be summarized as the follows. \\
(1) Knowledge distillation.
Distill the knowledge from the trained larger Transformers to smaller Transformers \cite{touvron2021training}.
Miech \textit{et al}.~ \cite{miech2021thinking} conduct distillation from a slower model (early concatenation based Transformers, $\mathcal{O}((N_{(\texttt{A})} + N_{(\texttt{B})})^{2})$) to a faster one (independently dual branch Transformers, $\mathcal{O}(N_{(\texttt{A})}^{2})$).
\\
(2) Simplifying and compressing model.
Remove the components to simplify the pipelines.
Taking the VLP Transformer models as an example,
two-stage pipeline is costly as they need object detector.
One simplifying is processing the visual input in convolution-free manner, \textit{e}.\textit{g}., E2E-VLP \cite{xu2021e2e}, ViLT \cite{kim2021vilt}.
DropToken \cite{akbari2021vatt} reduces
the training complexity via
random dropping a portion of the video and audio tokens from input sequence during training.
DropToken can be treated as an implementation of dropout or adversarial training.
Weight-sharing is also a common practice for simplifying multimodal Transformer models.
Wen \textit{et al}.~ \cite{wen2021cookie} present a weight-sharing Transformer on top of the visual and
textual encoders to align text and image.
Lee \textit{et al}.~ \cite{lee2020parameter} propose a novel parameter sharing scheme based on low-rank approximation.
\\
(3) Asymmetrical network structures.
Assign different model capacities and computational size properly for different modalities, to save parameters. See Figure 2 in \cite{kim2021vilt}.
\\
(3) Improving utilization of training samples.
Make full use of the training samples to train the models on fewer samples.
Li \textit{et al}.~ \cite{li2021supervision} use fewer data to train CLIP by fully mining the potential self-supervised signals of (a) self-supervision within each modality, (b) multi-view supervision across modalities, and (c) nearest-neighbour supervision from other similar pairs.
\\
(4) Compressing and pruning model.
Search the optimal sub-structures/sub-networks of multimodal Transformers, \textit{e}.\textit{g}.,
playing Lottery Tickets with the VLP Transformer models \cite{gan2021playing}.
\\
(5) Optimizing the complexity of self-attention.
Transformers cost time and memory that grows quadratically with the input sequence length.
One potential solution is optimizing the $\mathcal{O}(N^{2})$ complexity, \textit{e}.\textit{g}.,
Child \textit{et al}.~ \cite{child2019generating} present sparse factorizations of the attention matrix to reduce the quadratical complexity to $\mathcal{O}(n \sqrt{n})$,
Transformer-LS \cite{zhu2021long} is an efficient Transformer for both language and vision long sequence, with linear computational and memory complexity.
\\
(6) Optimizing the complexity of self-attention based multimodal interaction/fusion.
Nagrani \textit{et al}.~ \cite{nagrani2021attention} propose Fusion via Attention Bottlenecks (FSN, fusion bottleneck) to improve the early concatenation based multimodal interaction.
FSN passes on the messages through a small number of bottleneck
latents, thus requiring the model to purify the most necessary information
from each modality for cross-modal sharing.
This strategy uses the fusion bottleneck as a bridge, and not only
improves fusion performance, but also reduces computational cost.
\\
(7) Optimizing other strategies.
Use optimal strategies to perform the common Transformer based multimodal interactions.
Given the quadratic complexity of self-attention,
using early concatenation based multimodal interaction to synchronously fuse the inputs from multiple modalities/views is costly.
Yan \textit{et al}.~ \cite{yan2022multiview} present an efficient solution that sequentially fuses information between all pairs of
two adjacent views in ascending order of sequence length.
This is intrinsically a greedy strategy.
\subsection{Robustness}
\label{sec:robustness}
Multimodal Transformers pretrained on large-scale corpora achieve the state-of-the-art for various multimodal applications, while their robustness is still unclear and understudied.
This at least involves two key challenges, \textit{i}.\textit{e}., how to theoretically analyse the robustness, how to improve the robustness.
Although that recent attempts \cite{wang2020rethinking, paul2021vision, mao2021towards} study and evaluate how the Transformer components/sub-layers contribute to the robustness,
the main bottleneck is that the community lacks theoretical tools to analyse the Transformer family.
Recently, the common practices to analyse robustness are mainly based on experiment evaluations \cite{akula2021robust}, \textit{e}.\textit{g}., cross-dataset evaluations, perturbation-based evaluations.
Thus, some multimodal datasets \cite{akula2020words, li2021adversarial} are proposed for evaluating the robustness.
Recent attempts mainly use two straightforward methods to improve the robustness for multimodal Transformer models: (1) augmentation and adversarial learning based strategies \cite{li2020closer, zhang2021domain},
(2) fine-grained loss functions \cite{kant2021contrast}.
For instance:
VILLA \cite{gan2020large} is a generic adversarial training framework that can be applied to various multimodal Transformers.
Akula \textit{et al}.~ \cite{akula2020words} empirically demonstrate that
ViLBERT fails to exploit linguistic structure, and they propose two methods to improve the robustness of ViLBERT, one based on contrastive learning and the other based on multi-task learning.
\subsection{Universalness}
\label{sec:universalness}
Due to the highly diversity of tasks and modalities of multimodal learning, universalness is an important problem for multimodal Transformer models.
A large amount of recent attempts \cite{shuster2019dialogue, pramanik2019omninet, luo2020univl, li2020unimo, xu2021e2e, wang2021ufo, zhang2021ufc, singh2021flava, cho2021unifying, hu2021unit, wang2022unifying, girdhar2022omnivore} study how to use as unified as possible pipelines to handle various modalities and multimodal tasks.
Ideally, the unified multimodal Transformers can be compatible with various data (\textit{e}.\textit{g}.,
aligned and unaligned, uni-modal and multimodal) and tasks (\textit{e}.\textit{g}., supervised and unsupervised, uni-modal and multimodal, discriminative and generative), and meanwhile have either few-shot or even zero-shot generalization ability. Thus, the current solutions for universalness goal for multimodal Transformers are preliminary probes.
The currently unifying-oriented attempts mainly include: \\
(1) Unifying the pipelines for both uni-modal and multimodal inputs/tasks.
As discussed Section \ref{sec:transferability}, in practical scenarios,
multimodal Transformers need to
handle uni-modal data due to the issue of missing modalities.
Distilling multimodal knowledge into small models that are adaptable to uni-modal data and tasks is a successful practice \cite{agarwal2021multimodal, li2021towards}.
\\
(2) Unifying the pipelines for both multimodal understanding and generation.
In general, for multimodal Transformer pipelines,
understanding and discriminative tasks require Transformer encoders only, while generation/generative tasks require both Transformer encoders and decoders.
Existing attempts use multi-task learning to combine the understanding and generation workflows, where two kinds of workflows are jointly trained by multi-task loss functions.
From the perspective of model structures, typical solutions include:
(a) encoder + decoder, \textit{e}.\textit{g}., E2E-VLP \cite{xu2021e2e}.
(b) separate encoders + cross encoder + decoder, \textit{e}.\textit{g}., UniVL \cite{luo2020univl}, CBT \cite{sun2019learning}.
(c) single unified/combined encoder-decoder, \textit{e}.\textit{g}., VLP \cite{zhou2020unified}.
(d) two-steam decoupled design \cite{li2021scheduled}.
\\
(3) Unifying and converting the tasks themselves, \textit{e}.\textit{g}., CLIP \cite{radford2021learning} converts zero-shot recognition to retrieval, thus reduces the costs of modifying the model.
However, the aforementioned practices suffer some obvious challenges and bottlenecks, at least including: \\
(1) Due to modality and task gaps, universal models should consider the trade-off between universalness and cost. Unifying the pipelines of different modalities and tasks generally cause larger or more complicated model configuration, whereas for a specific modality or task, some components are redundant. \\
(2) Multi-task loss functions increase the complexity of training. How to co-train multiple objectives properly and effectively is challenging, due to that different objectives generally should be optimized in different strategies.
\subsection{Interpretability}
\label{sec:interpretability}
Why and how Transformers perform so well in multimodal learning has been investigated \cite{cao2020behind,chen2020uniter, hendricks2021decoupling,hendricks2021probing,frank2021vision}.
These attempts mainly use probing task and ablation study.
Cao \textit{et al}.~ \cite{cao2020behind} design a set of probing tasks on UNITER \cite{chen2020uniter} and LXMERT \cite{tan2019lxmert}, to evaluate what patterns are learned in pretraining.
Hendricks \textit{et al}.~ \cite{hendricks2021probing} probe the image–language Transformers by fine-grained image–sentence pairs, and find that verb understanding is harder than subject or object understanding.
Chen \textit{et al}.~ \cite{chen2020uniter} examine the optimal combination of pretraining
tasks via ablation study, to compare how different pretexts contribute to the Transformers.
Despite these attempts,
the interpretability of multimodal Transformers is still under-studied to date.
\section{Discussion and Outlook}
\label{sec:discussion-and-outlook}
Designing a universal MML model to excel across all the unimodal and multimodal down-stream tasks with different characteristics simultaneously \cite{qi2020imagebert,cao2020behind} is a non-trivial challenge.
At a high-level, two-stream architectures \cite{radford2021learning,li2021align} are typically preferred over one-stream ones
for cross-modal retrieval-like tasks in efficiency, since the representation of each modality can be pre-computed beforehand and reused repeatedly.
That being said, how to design task-agnostic MML architectures is still an open challenge, in addition to other design choices such as pretext and objective loss functions.
Furthermore, a clear gap remains
between the state-of-the-art and this ultimate goal.
Often, existing multimodal representation models \cite{wang2021simvlm,li2021align,radford2021learning}
are superior only for specific MML tasks
whilst lagging behind on the others (\textit{e}.\textit{g}., unimodal tasks \cite{MaskedAutoencoders2021}),
although using far more multimodal training data.
In some cases, this is rooted in the initial purpose of the MML model,
as some prior MML methods are designed specifically for only a subset of specific tasks
\cite{zhan2021product1m,zhuge2021kaleido,fang2021clip2video,hu2021scaling,narasimhan2021clip,lei2021less,xu2021videoclip,xue2021probing}.
Encouragingly, several recent studies towards { universal modality learning} in terms of modality-agnostic network design \cite{jaegle2021perceiver} and more task-generic architecture design \cite{mu2021slip,xu2021vlm,li2022blip} have been introduced,
and it is hoped this will spark further investigation.
To that end, instead of exhaustively exploring the vast model design space, {seeking in-depth understanding and interpretation of a MML model's behaviour might be insightful for superior algorithm design}, even though the interactions and synergy across different modalities are intrinsically complex and even potentially inconsistent over tasks
\cite{xue2021probing}.
For more fine-grained MML, it is widely acknowledged that discovering the latent semantic alignments across modalities is critical.
An intuitive strategy is to leverage semantic parts (\textit{e}.\textit{g}., objects) pre-extracted by an off-the-shelf detector for MML \cite{zhang2021vinvl,chen2020uniter,li2020oscar,tan2019lxmert,li2019visualbert,su2019vl,liu2021kd}.
This, however, is not only complex and error-prone, but computationally costly \cite{hao2020towards}.
Several remedies introduced recently include
random sampling \cite{huang2020pixel},
learning concept dictionary \cite{huang2021seeing},
jointly learning a region detector \cite{xu2021e2e}, and
representation aligning before mask prediction \cite{li2021align}.
Given the scale of MML training data, exploring this direction
needs exhaustive computational costs, and
it is supposed that industrial research teams with rich resources are more likely to afford.
{Ideally, a favourable MML method would leave fine-grained
semantic alignment across modalities to emerge on its own},
which is worthy of careful investigation in the future.
As the learning scale expands exponentially,
the training data become inevitably noisy and heterogeneous \cite{radford2021learning,li2021align,wang2021simvlm}.
It has been recently shown that properly tackling the noise issue is useful \cite{li2022blip,li2021align}.
Another related facet is training strategy,
\textit{e}.\textit{g}., how many stages of training is superior over the common one-stage policy \cite{qi2020imagebert}.
Further, the quadratic complexity with Transformers
becomes more acute for multimodal data due to longer input.
Despite extensive research on efficient variants \cite{tay2020efficient,chen2021mobile},
{dedicated efficiency study for MML is still underestimated even empirically and call for more investigation}.
Identifying the strengths of Transformers for multimodal machine learning is a big open problem.
The following main points can be summarized from the literature:
(1) Transformers can encode implicit knowledge \cite{marino2021krisp}.
(2) The multi-head brings multiple modelling sub-spaces that can further enhance the expressive ability of the model.
Ideally, multiple heads after training are good and different.
This is essentially a good practice of ensemble learning.
(3) Transformers intrinsically have a nature of global aggregation that perceives the non-local patterns.
(4) Thanks to the large model capacity, Transformer models handle the challenging domain gaps and shifts (linguistic, visual, \textit{etc}) better via effective pretraining on large-scale corpora \cite{zhang2021domain}.
(5) Transformers can represent the inputs as graphs, which are
intrinsically compatible with more modalities, \textit{e}.\textit{g}., table and SQL.
(6) For modelling series and sequence patterns (\textit{e}.\textit{g}., time-series), Transformers have better training and inference efficiency against RNN-based models,
thanks to their parallel computation in training and/or inference.
Transformers are inherently permutation invariant for processing a sequence of points, \textit{e}.\textit{g}., well-suited for point cloud learning \cite{guo2021pct}.
(7) Tokenization makes Transformers flexible to organize multimodal inputs, as discussed in Section \ref{sec:tokenized-input}.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
This survey focuses on multimodal machine learning with Transformers.
We reviewed the landscape by introducing the Transformer designs and training in the multimodal contexts.
We summarized the key challenges and solutions for this emerging and exciting field.
Moreover, we discussed open problems and potential research directions. We hope that this survey gives a helpful and detailed overview for
new researchers and practitioners, provides
a convenient reference for relevant experts (\textit{e}.\textit{g}., multimodal machine learning researchers, Transformer network designers), and encourages
future progress.
|
\section{Algorithm}\label{sc: alg}
In this section, we propose a Pessimistic vAlue iteRaTion with rEward Decomposition (PARTED) algorithm based on the neural network function approximation. PARTED shares a similar structure as that of pessimistic value iteration (PEVI) \cite{jin2021pessimism,xie2021policy,yin2020near}, but has a very different design due to trajectory-wise rewards. In PEVI, a pessimistic estimator of the value function is constructed from the dataset $\mathcal D$ and the Bellman optimality equation is then iterated based such an estimator. Since instantaneous rewards are available in PEVI, given a function class $\mathcal G$, PEVI constructs an estimated Bellman backup of value function $(\widehat{\mathbb B}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})$ by solving the following regression problem for all $h\in[H]$ in the backward direction:
\begin{flalign}
(\widehat{\mathbb B}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1}) = \argmin_{g_h\in\mathcal G} L^h_{\text{PEVI}}(g_h) = \sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D}\left(r_h(x^\tau_h) + \widehat{V}_{h+1}(s^\tau_{h+1}) - g_h(x^\tau_h)\right)^2+\lambda \cdot \text{Reg}(g_h).\label{eq: 200}
\end{flalign}
In \cref{eq: 200}, $\widehat{V}_{h+1}(\cdot)$ is the pessimistic estimator of optimal value function constructed for horizon $h+1$, $\lambda>0$ is a regularization parameter and $\text{Reg}(\cdot)$ is the regularization function. The optimal state-action value function can then be estimated as $\widehat{Q}_h(\cdot) = \min\{(\widehat{\mathbb B}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(\cdot)-{\rm\Gamma}_h(\cdot),H \}^+$, where $-{\rm\Gamma}_h$ is a negative penalty used to offset the uncertainty in $(\widehat{\mathbb B}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(\cdot)$ and guarantee the pessimism of $\widehat{Q}_h$.
However, in PARTED (see \Cref{alg1}) designed for trajectory-wise rewards, since instantaneous reward $r_h(\cdot)$ is not available, we can no longer obtain $(\widehat{\mathbb B}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})$ in the same way as PEVI by solving the regression problem in \cref{eq: 200}. To overcome such an issue, in PARTED, we construct two estimators $\widehat{r}_h$ and $(\widehat{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})$ for instantaneous reward ${r}_h$ and transition value function $({\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})$, respectively. The estimated Bellman backup can then be formulated as $(\widehat{\mathbb B}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(\cdot) = \widehat{r}_h(\cdot) + (\widehat{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(\cdot)$.
{\bf Reward Redistribution. }In order to estimate the instantaneous rewards from the trajectory-wise reward, we use a neural network $f(\cdot,\theta_h)$ given in \cref{eq: 2} to represent per-step mean reward $R_h(\cdot)$ for all $h\in[H]$, where $\theta_h\in\mathbb{R}^{2md}$ is the parameter. We further assume, for simplicity, that all the neural networks share the same initial weights denoted by $\theta_0\in\mathbb{R}^{2md}$. We define the following loss function $L_r(\cdot):\mathbb{R}^{2mdH}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ for reward redistribution as
\begin{flalign}\label{eq: 7}
\textstyle L_r({\rm\Theta})=\sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D}\left[ \sum_{h=1}^{H}f(x^\tau_h,\theta_h) - r(\tau) \right]^2 + \lambda_1\cdot\sum_{h=1}^{H}\ltwo{\theta_h-\theta_0}^2,
\end{flalign}
where ${\rm\Theta}=[\theta_1^\top,\cdots,\theta_H^\top]^\top\in\mathbb{R}^{2mdH}$ and $\lambda_1>0$ is a regularization parameter. Then, the per-step proxy reward $\widehat{R}_h(\cdot)$ is obtained by solving the following optimization problem
\begin{flalign}\label{eq: 3}
\widehat{R}_h(\cdot) = f(\cdot,\widehat{\theta}_h), \quad \text{where}\quad \widehat{\rm\Theta}=\argmin_{{\rm\Theta}\in\mathbb{R}^{2mdH}}L_r( {\rm\Theta} )\,\,\,\text{and}\,\,\, \widehat{\rm\Theta}=[\widehat{\theta}_1^\top,\cdots,\widehat{\theta}_H^\top]^\top.
\end{flalign}
{\bf Transition Value Function Estimation. }Similarly, we also use $H$ neural networks given in \cref{eq: 2} with parameter $\{w_h\}_{h\in[H]}$ to estimate transition value function $\{(\mathbb P_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(\cdot)\}_{h\in[H]}$, where $w_h\in\mathbb{R}^{2md}$ is the parameter of the $h$-th network. Specifically, for each $h\in[H]$, we define the loss function $L^h_v(w_h)$: $\mathbb{R}^{2md}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ as
\begin{flalign}
\textstyle L^h_v(w_h) = \sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D}\left(\widehat{V}_{h+1}(s^\tau_{h+1}) - f(x^\tau_h,w_h)\right)^2+\lambda_2\cdot \ltwo{w_h-w_0}^2,\label{eq: 74}
\end{flalign}
where $\lambda_2>0$ is a regularization parameter and $w_0$ is the initialization shared by all neural networks. The estimated transition value function $(\widehat{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(\cdot): \mathcal X\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ can be obtained by solving the following optimization problem
\begin{flalign}\label{eq: 4}
\textstyle (\widehat{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(\cdot) = f(\cdot,\widehat{w}_h),\quad\text{where}\quad \widehat{w}_h=\argmin_{w_h\in\mathbb{R}^{2md}}L^h_v(w_h).
\end{flalign}
\begin{algorithm}[tb]
\caption{Neural Pessimistic Value Iteration with Reward Decomposition (PARTED)}
\label{alg1}
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE {\bfseries Input:} Dataset $\mathcal D=\{\tau_i,r(\tau_i)\}_{i,h=1}^{N,H}$
\STATE {\bfseries Initialization:} Set $\widehat{V}_{H+1}$ as zero function
\STATE Obtain $\widehat{R}_h$ and $\widehat{\rm\Theta}$ according to \cref{eq: 3}
\FOR{$h=H,H-1,\cdot,1$}
\STATE Obtain $\widehat{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1}$ and $\widehat{w}_h$ according to \cref{eq: 4}
\STATE Obtain ${\rm\Gamma}_h(\cdot,\widehat{\rm\Theta}, \widehat{w}_h )$ according to \cref{eq: 5}
\STATE Obtain $\widehat{Q}_h(\cdot)$ and $\widehat{V}_h(\cdot)$ according to \cref{eq: 198} and let $\widehat \pi_h(\cdot|s)=\argmax_{\pi_h}\langle \widehat Q_h(s,\cdot), \pi_h(\cdot|s) \rangle$
\ENDFOR
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
{\bf Penality Term Construction. }It remains to construct the penalty term $\rm{\Gamma}_h$ to offset the uncertainties in $\widehat{R}_h$ and $(\widehat{\mathbb P}_h V_{h+1})$. First consider the penalty of $\widehat{R}_h(\cdot)$ for each $h\in[H]$. For any $\tau \in\mathcal D$ and ${\rm\Theta}\in\mathbb{R}^{2mdH}$, we define a trajectory feature ${\rm\Phi}(\tau,{\rm\Theta})=[\phi(x^\tau_1,\theta_1)^\top,\cdots,\phi(x^\tau_H,\theta_H)^\top]^\top$.
Based on ${\rm\Phi}(\tau,{\rm\Theta})$, the trajectory feature covariance matrix ${\rm\Sigma}({\rm\Theta})\in\mathbb{R}^{2mdH\times2mdH}$ is then defined as
\begin{flalign*}
\textstyle{\rm\Sigma}({\rm\Theta}) = \lambda_1\cdot I_{2mdH} + \sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D}{\rm\Phi}(\tau,{\rm\Theta}){\rm\Phi}(\tau,{\rm\Theta})^\top.
\end{flalign*}
We also define an "one-block-hot" vector ${\rm\Phi}_h(x,{\rm\Theta})=[\mathbf{0}^\top_{2md},\cdots,\phi(x,\theta_h)^\top,\cdots,\mathbf{0}^\top_{2md}]^\top$ for all $x\in\mathcal X$, where ${\rm\Phi}_h(x,{\rm\Theta})\in\mathbb{R}^{2mdH}$ is a vector in which $[{\rm\Phi}_h(x,{\rm\Theta})]_{2md(h-1)+1:2mdh}=\phi(x,\theta_h)$ and the rest entries are zero.
The penalty term of reward for a given ${\rm\Theta}\in\mathbb{R}^{2mdH}$ is defined as:
\begin{flalign}\label{eq: 10}
b_{r,h}(x,{\rm\Theta})=\left[{\rm\Phi}_h(x,{\rm\Theta})^\top {\rm\Sigma}^{-1}({\rm\Theta}) {\rm\Phi}_h(x,{\rm\Theta})\right]^{1/2},\quad\forall x\in\mathcal X.
\end{flalign}
Note that the reward penalty term $b_{r,h}(x,{\rm\Theta})$ is new and first proposed in this work. By constructing $b_{r,h}(x,{\rm\Theta})$ in this way, we can capture the effect of uncertainty caused by solving the trajectory-wise regression problem in \cref{eq: 7}, which is contained in the covariance matrix ${\rm\Sigma}({\rm\Theta})$, on the proxy reward $f(\cdot,\widehat{\theta}_h)$ at each step $h\in[H]$, via the "one-block-hot" vector ${\rm\Phi}_h(\cdot,{\rm\Theta})$.
Next, we consider the penalty of $(\widehat{\mathbb P}_h \widehat{V}_{h+1})(\cdot)$ for each $h\in[H]$. We define the per-step feature covariance matrix ${\rm\Lambda}_h(w_h)\in\mathbb{R}^{2md\times2md}$ as
\begin{flalign*}
{\rm\Lambda}_h(w) = \lambda_2\cdot I_{2md} + \sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D}\phi(x^\tau_h,w)\phi(x^\tau_h,w)^\top.
\end{flalign*}
Then, the penality term of $(\widehat{\mathbb P}_h \widehat{V}_{h+1})(\cdot)$ for a given $w\in\mathbb{R}^{2md}$ is defined as
\begin{flalign}\label{eq: 11}
b_{v,h}(x,w)=\left[\phi(x,w)^\top {\rm\Lambda}_h(w)^{-1} \phi(x,w)^\top \right]^{1/2},\quad\forall x\in\mathcal X.
\end{flalign}
Finally, combining \cref{eq: 10,eq: 11}, the penalty term for $\widehat{\mathbb B}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1}(\cdot)$ is constructed as
\begin{flalign}\label{eq: 5}
\textstyle{\rm\Gamma}_h(x,{\rm\Theta},w) = \beta_1 b_{r,h}(x,{\rm\Theta}) + \beta_2 b_{v,h}(x,w),
\end{flalign}
where $\beta_1,\beta_2>0$ are parameters. The estimator of $Q_h(\cdot)$ and $V_h(\cdot)$ can then be obtained as
\begin{flalign}
\textstyle\widehat{Q}_h(\cdot) = \min\{ \widehat{R}_h(\cdot)+ (\widehat{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(\cdot) - {\rm\Gamma}_h(\cdot,\widehat{\rm\Theta}, \widehat{w}_h ), H \}^{+},\quad \widehat{V}_h(\cdot) = \argmax_{a\in\mathcal A}\widehat Q_h(\cdot,\cdot).\label{eq: 198}
\end{flalign}
Furthermore, for any $h\in[H]$, we denote $\mathcal V_h(x,R_{\beta_1}, R_{\beta_2}, \lambda_1, \lambda_2 )$ as the class of functions that takes the form $\overline{V}_h(\cdot)= \max_{a\in\mathcal A}\overline{Q}_h(\cdot,a)$, where
\begin{flalign*}
\textstyle\overline{Q}_h(x )=& \min\{ \langle \phi(x,\theta_0), \theta - \theta_0 \rangle+ \langle \phi(x,w_0), w- w_0 \rangle \nonumber\\
&\textstyle- \beta_1\cdot \sqrt{{\rm\Phi}_h(x,\theta_0)^\top {\rm\Sigma}^{-1}{\rm\Phi}_h(x,\theta_0) } - \beta_2\cdot \sqrt{\phi(x,w_0)^\top{\rm\Lambda}^{-1}\phi(x,w_0) } , H\}^{+},
\end{flalign*}
in which $\ltwo{\theta-\theta_0}\leq H\sqrt{N/\lambda_1}$, $\ltwo{w-w_0}\leq H\sqrt{N/\lambda_2}$, $\beta_1\in[0, R_{\beta_1}]$, $\beta_2\in [0, R_{\beta_2}]$, $\ltwo{\rm\Sigma}\geq \lambda_1$ and $\ltwo{\rm\Lambda}\geq \lambda_2 $. To this end, for any $\epsilon>0$, we define $\mathcal N_{\epsilon,h}^v$ as the $\epsilon-$covering number of $\mathcal V_h(x,R_{\beta_1}, R_{\beta_2}, \lambda_1, \lambda_2 )$ with respect to the $\ell_\infty-$norm on $\mathcal X$, and we let $\mathcal N_{\epsilon}^v=\max_{h\in[H]}\{\mathcal N_{\epsilon,h}^v\}$.
\section{Proof Flow of \Cref{thm1}}
In this section, we present the main proof flow of \Cref{thm1}.
We first decompose the suboptimality $\text{SubOpt}(\pi,s)$, and then present the two main results of \Cref{lemma2} and \Cref{lemma8} to bound the evaluation error and summation of penality terms, respectively. The detailed proof of \Cref{lemma2} and \Cref{lemma8} can be found at \Cref{sc: pflemma2} and \Cref{pfpenaltysummation}.
We define the evaluation error at each step $h\in[H]$ as
\begin{flalign}
\delta_h(s,a) = (\mathbb B_h \widehat{V}_{h+1})(s,a) - \widehat{Q}_h(s,a),\label{eq: 123}
\end{flalign}
where $\mathbb B_h$ is the Bellman operator defined in \Cref{sc: MDP} and $\widehat V_{h}$ and $\widehat Q_h$ are estimation of state- and state-action value functions, respectively. To proceed the proof, we first decompose the suboptimality into three parts as follows via the standard technique (see Section A in \cite{jin2021pessimism}).
\begin{flalign}\label{eq: 6}
\text{\em SubOpt}(\pi,s) &= -\sum_{h=1}^{H}\mathbb E_\pi\left[\delta_h(s_h,a_h)\big|s_1=s\right] + \sum_{h=1}^{H}\mathbb E_{\pi^*}\left[\delta_h(s_h,a_h)\big|s_1=s\right] \nonumber\\
&\quad +\sum_{h=1}^{H}\mathbb E_{\pi^*}\left[ \langle \widehat{Q}_h(s_h,\cdot), \pi^*_h(\cdot|s_h)-\widehat{\pi}_h(\cdot|s_h) \rangle \big|s_1=s\right].
\end{flalign}
In \Cref{alg1}, the output policy at each horizon $\widehat \pi_h$ is greedy with respect to the estimated Q-value $\widehat Q_h$. Thus, we have
\begin{flalign*}
\langle \widehat{Q}_h(s_h,\cdot), \pi^*_h(\cdot|s_h)-\widehat{\pi}_h(\cdot|s_h) \rangle \leq 0, \quad \forall h\in[H],\quad \forall s_h\in\mathcal S.
\end{flalign*}
According to \cref{eq: 6}, we have the following holds for the suboptimality of $\widehat \pi=\{\widehat \pi_h\}_{h=1}^H$
\begin{flalign}
\text{\rm SubOpt}(\widehat \pi,s) &= -\sum_{h=1}^{H}\mathbb E_{\widehat \pi}\left[\delta_h(s_h,a_h)\big|s_1=s\right] + \sum_{h=1}^{H}\mathbb E_{\pi^*}\left[\delta_h(s_h,a_h)\big|s_1=s\right].\label{eq: 128}
\end{flalign}
In the following lemma, we provide the first main technical result for the proof, which bounds the evaluation error $\delta_h(s,a)$. Recall that we use $\mathcal X$ to represent the joint state-action space $\mathcal S\times\mathcal A$ and use $x$ to represent a state action pair $(s,a)$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma2}
Let $\lambda_1$, $\lambda_2=1+1/N$. Suppose \Cref{ass1} holds. With probability at least $1-\mathcal{O}(N^{-2}H^{-4})$, it holds for all $h\in[H]$ and $x\in\mathcal X$ that
\begin{flalign*}
-\varepsilon_b \leq \delta_h(x) \leq 2\left[\beta_1\cdot b_{r,h}(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) + \beta_2\cdot b_{v,h}(x,\widehat{w}_h) + \varepsilon_b\right], \quad\forall x\in\mathcal X,\quad \forall h\in[H],
\end{flalign*}
where
\begin{flalign*}
\varepsilon_b &= \max\{\beta_1 H^{2/3}, \beta_2 H^{1/6} \} \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{N^{1/12} (\log m)^{1/4}}{m^{1/12}} \right) + \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{H^{17/6} N^{5/3}\sqrt{\log(N^2H^5m)}}{m^{1/6}} \right),\nonumber\\
\beta_1 &= H\left(\frac{4 a^2_2\lambda_1}{d} + 2\log\det\left(I+\frac{K^r_N}{\lambda_1}\right) + 10\log(NH^2) \right)^{1/2},\nonumber\\
\beta_2 &= H\left(\frac{8 A^2_2\lambda_2}{d} + 4\max\left\{\log\det\left(I+\frac{K^v_{N,h}}{\lambda_2}\right)\right\} + 6C_\epsilon + 16\log(NH^2 \mathcal N_\epsilon^v) \right)^{1/2},\nonumber\\
\epsilon &= \sqrt{\lambda_2 C_\epsilon}H/(2NC_\phi),\,\,\text{where}\,\, C_\epsilon\geq 1.
\end{flalign*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The main technical development of the proof lies in handling the uncertainty caused by redistributing the trajectory-wise reward via solving a trajectory-level regression problem and analyzing the dynamics of neural network optimization.
The detailed proof is provided in \Cref{sc: pflemma2}.
\end{proof}
Applying \Cref{lemma2} to \cref{eq: 128} yields
\begin{flalign}
\text{\rm SubOpt}(\widehat \pi,s) &= -\sum_{h=1}^{H}\mathbb E_{\widehat \pi}\left[\delta_h(s_h,a_h)\big|s_1=s\right] + \sum_{h=1}^{H}\mathbb E_{\pi^*}\left[\delta_h(s_h,a_h)\big|s_1=s\right]\nonumber\\
&\leq 3H\varepsilon_b + 2\beta_1\cdot \sum_{h=1}^{H}b_{r,h}(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) + 2\beta_2\cdot\sum_{h=1}^{H} b_{v,h}(x,\widehat{w}_h).\label{eq: 129}
\end{flalign}
The following lemma captures the second main technical result for the proof, which bounds the summation of the penalty terms $\beta_1\cdot \sum_{h=1}^{H}b_{r,h}(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta})+\beta_2\cdot\sum_{h=1}^{H} b_{v,h}(x,\widehat{w}_h)$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma8}
Suppose \Cref{ass1}\&\ref{ass2} hold. We have the following holds with probability $1-\mathcal{O}(N^{-2}H^{-4})$
\begin{flalign}
&\beta_1\cdot\sum_{h=1}^{H}b_{r,h}(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) + \beta_2\cdot \sum_{h=1}^{H}b_{v,h}(x,\widehat{w}_h) \nonumber\\
&\quad \leq \left( \frac{\beta_1}{\sqrt{C_\sigma}} + \frac{\beta_2}{\sqrt{C_\varsigma}} \right)\frac{\sqrt{2} H C_\phi}{\sqrt{N}} + \max\{\beta_1 H^{5/3},\beta_2 H^{7/6}\}\cdot \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{ N^{1/12} (\log m)^{1/4}}{m^{1/12}} \right).\nonumber
\end{flalign}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof develops new analysis to characterize the summation of the penality term $b_{r,h}$ constructed by trajectory features, which is unique in the trajectory-wise reward setting. The detailed proof is provided in \Cref{pfpenaltysummation}.
\end{proof}
Applying \Cref{lemma8} to \cref{eq: 129}, we have
\begin{flalign}
&\text{\rm SubOpt}(\widehat \pi,s) \nonumber\\
&\quad \leq 3H\varepsilon_b + \left( \frac{\beta_1}{\sqrt{C_\sigma}} + \frac{\beta_2}{\sqrt{C_\varsigma}} \right)\frac{2\sqrt{2} H C_\phi}{\sqrt{N}} + \max\{\beta_1 H^{5/3},\beta_2 H^{7/6}\}\cdot \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{ N^{1/12} (\log m)^{1/4}}{m^{1/12}} \right)\nonumber\\
&\quad \leq 4H\varepsilon_b+ \left( \frac{\beta_1}{\sqrt{C_\sigma}} + \frac{\beta_2}{\sqrt{C_\varsigma}} \right)\frac{2\sqrt{2} H C_\phi}{\sqrt{N}},\label{eq: 150}
\end{flalign}
which completes the proof.
\section{Proof of \Cref{corollary1}}\label{pfcorollary1}
To provide a concrete bound for $\text{\rm SubOpt}(\widehat \pi,s)$ defined in \cref{eq: 150}, we first need to bound the penalty coefficients $\beta_1$, $\beta_2$ under \Cref{ass4}. Recalling the properties of $\beta_1,\beta_2$ in \Cref{thm1}, we have
\begin{flalign}
&H\left(\frac{4 a^2_2\lambda_1}{d} + 2\log\det\left(I+\frac{K^r_N}{\lambda_1}\right) + 10\log(NH^2) \right)^{1/2}\leq R_{\beta_1} = \beta_1,\label{eq: 161}\\
&H\left(\frac{8 A^2_2\lambda_2}{d} + 4\max_{h\in[H]}\left\{\log\det\left(I+\frac{K^v_{N,h}}{\lambda_2}\right)\right\} + 6C_\epsilon + 16\log(NH^2 \mathcal N_\epsilon^v) \right)^{1/2}\leq R_{\beta_2} = \beta_2.\label{eq: 162}
\end{flalign}
Recall that we use $\mathcal X$ to represent the joint state-action space $\mathcal S\times\mathcal A$ and use $x$ to represent a state action pair $(s,a)$.
We define the maximal information gain associated with RHKS with kernels $K^r_N$ and $K^v_{N,h}$ as follows
\begin{flalign}
{\rm\Gamma}_{K^r_N}(N,\lambda_1) &= \sup_{\mathcal D\subset \mathcal D_\tau}\{1/2\cdot \log\det(I_{2dmH} + \lambda_1^{-1}\cdot K^r_N) \},\label{eq: 163}\\
{\rm\Gamma}_{K^v_{N,h}}(N,\lambda_2) &= \sup_{\mathcal D\subset \mathcal D_x}\{1/2\cdot \log\det(I_{2dm} + \lambda_2^{-1}\cdot K^v_{N,h}) \},\label{eq: 164}
\end{flalign}
where $\mathcal D_x$ and $\mathcal D_\tau$ are discrete subsets of state-action pair $x\in\mathcal X$ and trajectory $\tau\in \mathcal X\times\cdots\times \mathcal X$ with cardinality no more than $N$, respectively. Applying \Cref{lemma10} in \Cref{sc: rkhs} and \Cref{ass4}, we have
\begin{equation}
{\rm\Gamma}_{K^r_N}(N,\lambda_1) \leq C_{K_1}\cdot D_1\cdot \log N\quad\text{and}\quad {\rm\Gamma}_{K^v_{N,h}}(N,\lambda_2) \leq C_{K_2}\cdot D_2 \cdot \log N,\label{eq: 165}
\end{equation}
where $C_{K_1}$, $C_{K_2}$ are absolute constants. Recall that $\mathcal N^v_{\epsilon,h}$ is the cardinality of the function class. Next, we proceed to bound the term $ \mathcal N_\epsilon^v = \max_{h\in[H]}\{ \mathcal N_{\epsilon,h}^v \}$.
\begin{flalign*}
\mathcal V_h(x,&\,R_\theta, R_w, R_{\beta_1}, R_{\beta_2}, \lambda_1, \lambda_2 )=\Big\{ \max_{a\in\mathcal A}\{\overline{Q}_h(s,a,\theta,w,\beta_1,\beta_2,{\rm\Sigma}, {\rm\Lambda} )\}:\mathcal S\rightarrow [0,H]\,\, \nonumber\\
&\text{with}\,\, \ltwo{\theta-\theta_0}\leq R_\theta, \ltwo{w-w_0}\leq R_w, \beta_1\in[0, R_{\beta_1}], \beta_2\in [0, R_{\beta_2}], \ltwo{\rm\Sigma}\geq \lambda_1, \ltwo{\rm\Lambda}\geq \lambda_2 \Big\},
\end{flalign*}
where $R_{\theta} = H\sqrt{N/\lambda_1}$, $R_{w} = H\sqrt{N/\lambda_2}$, and
\begin{flalign*}
\overline{Q}_h&(x,\theta,w,\beta_1,\beta_2,{\rm\Sigma}, {\rm\Lambda}) = \min\{ \langle \phi(x,\theta_0), \theta - \theta_0 \rangle + \langle \phi(x,w_0), w- w_0 \rangle \nonumber\\
&- \beta_1\cdot \sqrt{{\rm\Phi}_h(x,\theta_0)^\top {\rm\Sigma}^{-1}{\rm\Phi}_h(x,\theta_0) } - \beta_2\cdot \sqrt{\phi(x,w_0)^\top{\rm\Lambda}^{-1}\phi(x,w_0) } , H \}^{+}.
\end{flalign*}
Note that
\begin{flalign}
&\lone{\max_{a\in\mathcal A}\{\overline{Q}_h(s,a,\theta,w,\beta_1,\beta_2,{\rm\Sigma}, {\rm\Lambda} )\} - \max_{a\in\mathcal A}\{\overline{Q}_h(s,a,\theta^\prime,w^\prime,\beta_1^\prime,\beta_2^\prime,{\rm\Sigma}^\prime, {\rm\Lambda}^\prime )\}}\nonumber\\
&\leq \max_{a\in\mathcal A}\lone{\overline{Q}_h(s,a,\theta,w,\beta_1,\beta_2,{\rm\Sigma}, {\rm\Lambda} ) - \overline{Q}_h(s,a,\theta^\prime,w^\prime,\beta_1^\prime,\beta_2^\prime,{\rm\Sigma}^\prime, {\rm\Lambda}^\prime )}\nonumber\\
&\overset{(i)}{\leq} \max_{a\in\mathcal A}\lone{\langle \phi(x,\theta_0), \theta - \theta^\prime \rangle} + \max_{a\in\mathcal A}\lone{\langle \phi(x,w_0), w- w^\prime \rangle } \nonumber\\
&\quad + \max_{a\in\mathcal A}\lone{(\beta_1- \beta^\prime_1)\cdot \sqrt{{\rm\Phi}_h(x,\theta_0)^\top {\rm\Sigma}^{-1}{\rm\Phi}_h(x,\theta_0) } }\nonumber\\
&\quad + \max_{a\in\mathcal A}\lone{\beta^\prime_1\cdot \left[\sqrt{ {\rm\Phi}_h(x,\theta_0)^\top {\rm\Sigma}^{-1}{\rm\Phi}_h(x,\theta_0) } - \sqrt{{\rm\Phi}_h(x,\theta_0)^\top {\rm\Sigma}^{\prime-1}{\rm\Phi}_h(x,\theta_0) }\right] }\nonumber\\
&\quad + \max_{a\in\mathcal A}\lone{(\beta_2- \beta^\prime_2)\cdot \sqrt{\phi(x,w_0)^\top{\rm\Lambda}^{-1}\phi(x,w_0) }}\nonumber\\
&\quad + \max_{a\in\mathcal A}\lone{\beta^\prime_2\cdot \left[\sqrt{\phi(x,w_0)^\top{\rm\Lambda}^{-1}\phi(x,w_0) } - \sqrt{\phi(x,w_0)^\top{\rm\Lambda}^{\prime-1}\phi(x,w_0) }\right] }\nonumber\\
&\overset{(ii)}{\leq} \max_{a\in\mathcal A}\lone{\langle {\rm\Phi}_h(x,{\rm\Theta}_0), {\rm\Theta} - {\rm\Theta}^\prime \rangle} + \max_{a\in\mathcal A}\lone{\langle \phi(x,w_0), w- w^\prime \rangle } + \frac{C_\phi}{\sqrt{\lambda_1}} \lone{\beta_1-\beta^\prime_1} + \frac{C_\phi}{\sqrt{\lambda_2}}\lone{\beta_2-\beta^\prime_2}\nonumber\\
&\quad + R_{\beta_1} \max_{a\in\mathcal A} \lone{ \lsigmab{{\rm\Phi}_h(x,\theta_0)} - \lsigmabp{{\rm\Phi}_h(x,\theta_0)} } \nonumber\\
&\quad + R_{\beta_2} \max_{a\in\mathcal A} \lone{ \llambdab{\phi(x,w_0)} - \llambdabp{\phi(x,w_0)} },\label{eq: 151}
\end{flalign}
where $(i)$ follows from contractive properties of operators $\min\{ \cdot, H \}^{+}$ and $\max_{a\in\mathcal A}\{\cdot \}$ and the triangle inequality, and $(ii)$ follows from the fact that $\ltwo{\phi(x,w_0)}, \ltwo{{\rm\Phi}_h(x,\theta_0)} \leq C_\phi$.
Following arguments similar to those in the proof of Corollaries 4.8, Corollaries 4.4 and Section D.1 in \cite{yang2020function}, we have the followings hold for terms in the right hand side of \cref{eq: 151}
\begin{flalign}
&\lone{\langle {\rm\Phi}_h(x,{\rm\Theta}_0), {\rm\Theta} - {\rm\Theta}^\prime \rangle} = \lone{g_1(x) - g_2(x)}\,\,\text{where}\,\, \lHKH{g_i}\leq R_g = 2H\sqrt{{\rm\Gamma}_{K^r_N}(N,\lambda_1)} \,\,\forall i\in\{ 1, 2\}, \label{eq: 168}\\
&\lone{\langle \phi(x,w_0), w- w^\prime \rangle } = \lone{h_1(x) - h_2(x)}\,\,\text{where}\,\, \lHK{h_i}\leq R_h = 2H\sqrt{{\rm\Gamma}_{K^v_{N,h}}(N,\lambda_2)} \,\, \forall i\in\{ 1, 2\},\label{eq: 169}\\
& \lone{ \lsigmab{{\rm\Phi}_h(x,\theta_0)} - \lsigmabp{{\rm\Phi}_h(x,\theta_0)} } = \lone{ \lomegab{ {\rm\Psi}(x)} - \lomegabp{{\rm\Psi}(x)} },\nonumber\\
& \lone{ \llambdab{\phi(x,w_0)} - \llambdabp{\phi(x,w_0)} } = \lone{ \lupsilon{\psi(x)} - \lupsilonp{\psi(x)}},\nonumber
\end{flalign}
where $g_1(\cdot), g_2(\cdot)$ are two functions in RKHS $\mathcal H_{K_H}$, $h_1(\cdot), h_2(\cdot)$ are two functions in RKHS $\mathcal H_{K}$, ${\rm\Psi}(\cdot)$ and $\psi(\cdot)$ are feature mappings of RKHSs $\mathcal H_{K_H}$ and $\mathcal H_{K}$, respectively, ${\rm\Omega}, {\rm\Omega}^\prime: \mathcal H_{K_H}\rightarrow \mathcal H_{K_H}$ are self-adjoint operators with eigenvalues bounded in $[0,1/\lambda_1]$, and ${\rm\Upsilon}, {\rm\Upsilon}^\prime: \mathcal H_{K}\rightarrow\mathcal H_{K}$ are self-adjoint operators with eigenvalues bounded in $[0,1/\lambda_2]$. We define the following two function classes
\begin{flalign}
\mathcal F_1 &= \{ \lomegab{ {\rm\Psi}(\cdot) }: \ltwo{\rm\Omega}\leq 1/\lambda_1 \},\label{eq: 152}
\end{flalign}
and
\begin{flalign}
\mathcal F_2 &= \{ \lupsilon{\psi(\cdot)}: \ltwo{\rm\Upsilon}\leq 1/\lambda_2 \}.\label{eq: 153}
\end{flalign}
For any $\epsilon > 0$, we denote $\mathcal N(\epsilon, \mathcal H, R)$ as the $\epsilon$-covering of $\{ f\in\mathcal H: \lH{f}\leq R \}$, denote $\mathcal N(\epsilon, \mathcal F_1, \lambda_1)$ as the $\epsilon$-covering number of $\mathcal F_1$ in \cref{eq: 152}, denote $\mathcal N(\epsilon, \mathcal F_2, \lambda_2)$ as the $\epsilon$-covering number of $\mathcal F_2$ in \cref{eq: 153}, and denote $\mathcal N(\epsilon, R)$ as the $\epsilon$-covering number of the interval $[0,R]$ with respect to the Euclidean distance. Note that \cref{eq: 151} implies
\begin{flalign}
\mathcal N_{\epsilon,h}^v &\leq \mathcal N(\epsilon/6, \mathcal H_{K^H_m}, R_g)\cdot \mathcal N(\epsilon/6, \mathcal H_{K_m}, R_h) \cdot \mathcal N(\epsilon/(6C_\phi), R_{\beta_1}) \cdot \mathcal N(\epsilon/(6C_\phi), R_{\beta_2})\nonumber\\
&\quad \cdot \mathcal N(\epsilon/(6R_{\beta_1}), \mathcal F_1, \lambda_1) \cdot \mathcal N(\epsilon/(6R_{\beta_2}), \mathcal F_2, \lambda_2).\label{eq: 154}
\end{flalign}
Based on Corollary 4.1.13 in \cite{vershynin2018high}, we have the followings hold for $\mathcal N(\epsilon/(6C_\phi), R_{\beta_1})$ and $\mathcal N(\epsilon/(6C_\phi), R_{\beta_2})$, respectively
\begin{flalign}
\mathcal N(\epsilon/(6C_\phi), R_{\beta_1}) \leq 1 + 12C_\phi R_{\beta_1}/\epsilon\,\,\text{and}\,\, \mathcal N(\epsilon/(6C_\phi), R_{\beta_2}) \leq 1 + 12C_\phi R_{\beta_2}/\epsilon.\label{eq: 155}
\end{flalign}
Moreover, as shown in Lemma D.2 and Lemma D.3 in \cite{yang2020function}, under the finite spectrum NTK assumption in \Cref{ass4}, we have the followings hold
\begin{flalign}
\log\mathcal N(\epsilon/6, \mathcal H_{K^H_m}, R_g) &\leq C_1\cdot D_1 \cdot [\log(6R_g/\epsilon) + C_2],\label{eq: 156}\\
\log\mathcal N(\epsilon/6, \mathcal H_{K_m}, R_h) &\leq C_3\cdot D_2 \cdot [\log(6R_h/\epsilon) + C_4],\label{eq: 157}\\
\log\mathcal N(\epsilon/(6R_{\beta_1}), \mathcal F_1, \lambda_1) &\leq C_5\cdot D_1^2\cdot[\log(6R_{\beta_1}/\epsilon) + C_6],\label{eq: 158}\\
\log\mathcal N(\epsilon/(6R_{\beta_2}), \mathcal F_2, \lambda_2) &\leq C_7\cdot D_2^2\cdot[\log(6R_{\beta_2}/\epsilon) + C_8].\label{eq: 159}
\end{flalign}
where $C_i$ ($i\in\{1,\cdots,8\}$) are absolute constants that do not rely on $N$, $H$ or $\epsilon$. Then, substituting \cref{eq: 155}-(\ref{eq: 159}) into \cref{eq: 154}, we have
\begin{flalign}
\log\mathcal N_{\epsilon,h}^v &\leq \mathcal N(\epsilon/6, \mathcal H_{K^H_m}, R_g)+ \mathcal N(\epsilon/6, \mathcal H_{K_m}, R_h) + \mathcal N(\epsilon/(6C_\phi), R_{\beta_1}) + \mathcal N(\epsilon/(6C_\phi), R_{\beta_2})\nonumber\\
&\quad + \mathcal N(\epsilon/(6R_{\beta_1}), \mathcal F_1, \lambda_1) + \mathcal N(\epsilon/(6R_{\beta_2}), \mathcal F_2, \lambda_2)\nonumber\\
&\leq \log(1 + 12C_\phi R_{\beta_1}/\epsilon) + \log(1 + 12C_\phi R_{\beta_2}/\epsilon) + C_1D_1[\log(6R_g/\epsilon) + C_2] \nonumber\\
&\quad + C_3D_2[\log(6R_h/\epsilon) + C_4] + C_5D_1^2[\log(6R_{\beta_1}/\epsilon) + C_6] + C_7 D_2^2[\log(6R_{\beta_2}/\epsilon) + C_8],\label{eq: 160}
\end{flalign}
We next proceed to show that there exists an absolute constant $R_{\beta_1}>0$ such that \cref{eq: 161} holds. Substituting \cref{eq: 165} to \cref{eq: 161}, we can obtain
\begin{flalign}
\text{L.H.S of \cref{eq: 161}}\leq H\left(\frac{4 a^2_2\lambda_1}{d} + 4C_{K_1}D_1\log N + 10\log(NH^2) \right)^{1/2}.\nonumber
\end{flalign}
If we let
\begin{flalign}
R_{\beta_1} = C_{\beta_1} H \sqrt{D_1 \log(NH^2)},\label{eq: 167}
\end{flalign}
in which $C_{\beta_1}$ is a sufficiently large constant, then we have the following holds
\begin{flalign}
\text{L.H.S of \cref{eq: 161}} \leq R_{\beta_1}.\nonumber
\end{flalign}
Note that \cref{eq: 160} directly implies that
\begin{flalign}
\log\mathcal N_{\epsilon}^v &= \max_{h\in[H]}\{ \log\mathcal N_{\epsilon,h}^v \} \nonumber\\
&\leq \log(1 + 12C_\phi R_{\beta_1}/\epsilon) + \log(1 + 12C_\phi R_{\beta_2}/\epsilon) + C_1D_1[\log(6R_g/\epsilon) + C_2] \nonumber\\
&\quad + C_3D_2[\log(6R_h/\epsilon) + C_4] + C_5D_1^2[\log(6R_{\beta_1}/\epsilon) + C_6] + C_7 D_2^2[\log(6R_{\beta_2}/\epsilon) + C_8]\nonumber\\
&\overset{(i)}{\leq} C^\prime_1D^2_1\log(R_{\beta_1}/\epsilon) + C^\prime_2D^2_2\log(R_{\beta_2}/\epsilon) + C^\prime_3 D_1 \log(H\sqrt{D_1}/\epsilon) + C^\prime_4 D_2 \log(H\sqrt{D_2}/\epsilon)\nonumber\\
&\overset{(ii)}{\leq} C^{\prime\prime}_1D^2_1\log(NH^2\sqrt{D_1}/\epsilon) + C^\prime_2D^2_2\log(R_{\beta_2}/\epsilon) + C^\prime_3 D_1 \log(H\sqrt{D_1}/\epsilon) \nonumber\\
&\quad+ C^\prime_4 D_2 \log(H\sqrt{D_2}/\epsilon),\label{eq: 166}
\end{flalign}
where in $(i)$ we let $C^\prime_1, C^\prime_2, C^\prime_3$ and $C^\prime_4$ be sufficiently large absolute constants, in $(ii)$ we use \cref{eq: 167} and let $C^{\prime\prime}_1$ be sufficiently large.
Then, we proceed to show that there exists an absolute constant $R_{\beta_2}>0$ such that \cref{eq: 162} holds. Using \cref{eq: 165} and \cref{eq: 166}, the left hand side of \cref{eq: 162} can be bounded as follows
\begin{flalign}
&\text{L.H.S of \cref{eq: 162}}\nonumber\\
&\quad \leq H\Big(\frac{8 A^2_2\lambda_2}{d} + 8C_{K_2}\cdot D_2 \cdot \log N + 20\log(NH^2) + 6C_\epsilon + 16 \log\mathcal N_{\epsilon}^v \Big)^{1/2}\nonumber\\
&\quad \overset{(i)}{\leq} H C_{\beta_2,1} \sqrt{D_2\log(NH^2)} + HC_{\beta_2,2}\sqrt{ \log\mathcal N_{\epsilon}^v} + HC_{\beta_2,3} \sqrt{C_\epsilon} \nonumber\\
&\quad \leq H C_{\beta_2,1} \sqrt{D_2\log(NH^2)} + HC_{\beta_2,2} \Big[ D_1\sqrt{C^{\prime\prime}_1\log(NH^2\sqrt{D_1}/\epsilon)} + D_2\sqrt{C^\prime_2\log(R_{\beta_2}/\epsilon)} \nonumber\\
&\quad \quad + \sqrt{C^\prime_3 D_1 \log(H\sqrt{D_1}/\epsilon)} + \sqrt{C^\prime_4 D_2 \log(H\sqrt{D_2}/\epsilon)} \Big] + HC_{\beta_2,3} \sqrt{C_\epsilon}.\nonumber
\end{flalign}
where $(i)$ follows from the fact that $\sqrt{a + b}\leq \sqrt{a} + \sqrt{b}$ and $C_{\beta_2,1}$, $C_{\beta_2,2}$ and $C_{\beta_2,3}$ are sufficiently large constants. Clearly, if we let
\begin{flalign}
R_{\beta_2} = C_{\beta_2} H\max\{D_1, D_2\} \log(NH^2\max\{D_1, D_2\}/\epsilon),\label{eq: 170}
\end{flalign}
where $C_{\beta_2}$ is a sufficiently large absolute constant, then we have
\begin{flalign}
\text{L.H.S of \cref{eq: 162}}\leq R_{\beta_2}.
\end{flalign}
Finally, substituting the value of $R_{\beta_1}$ in \cref{eq: 167} and value of $R_{\beta_2}$ in \cref{eq: 170} into \cref{eq: 150} and letting $C_\epsilon = \max\{D_1, D_2\}^2$ (which implies $\epsilon = \sqrt{\lambda_2} \max\{D_1, D_2\} H/(2NC_\phi)$), we have
\begin{flalign}
&\text{\rm SubOpt}(\widehat \pi,s) \nonumber\\
&\quad \leq \left( \frac{\beta_1}{\sqrt{C_\sigma}} + \frac{\beta_2}{\sqrt{C_\varsigma}} \right)\frac{2\sqrt{2} H C_\phi}{\sqrt{N}} + 4H\varepsilon_b\nonumber\\
&\quad \leq \max\{R_{\beta_1},R_{\beta_2}\} \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{H}{\sqrt{N}}\right) + \max\{R_{\beta_1} H^{5/3}, R_{\beta_2} H^{7/6} \} \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{N^{1/12} (\log m)^{1/4}}{m^{1/12}} \right) \nonumber\\
&\quad\quad+ \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{H^{23/6} N^{5/3}\sqrt{\log(N^2H^5m)}}{m^{1/6}} \right)\nonumber\\
&\quad\leq \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{H^2\max\{D_1, D_2\}}{\sqrt{N}}\log\left(\frac{NH^2\max\{D_1, D_2\}}{\epsilon}\right)\right)\nonumber\\
&\quad\quad + \max\left\{\sqrt{H}, \max\{D_1, D_2\} \right\}\mathcal{O}\left( \frac{H^{13/6}N^{1/12} (\log m)^{1/4}}{m^{1/12}} \log\left( N^2H^2 \right) \right) \nonumber\\
&\quad\quad+ \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{H^{23/6} N^{5/3}\sqrt{\log(N^2H^5m)}}{m^{1/6}} \right)\nonumber\\
&\quad\overset{(i)}{\leq} \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{H^2\max\{D_1, D_2\}}{\sqrt{N}}\log\left(2C_\phi N^2 H\right)\right)\nonumber\\
&\quad\quad + \max\left\{\sqrt{H}, \max\{D_1, D_2\}, \frac{H^{5/3}N^{19/12}}{m^{1/12}} \right\}\mathcal{O}\left( \frac{H^{13/6}N^{1/12} (\log m)^{1/4}}{m^{1/12}} \log\left( N^2H^5m \right) \right),\nonumber
\end{flalign}
where $(i)$ follows from the definition of $\epsilon$ and the fact that $\lambda_2\geq 1$.
\section{Linear MDP with Trajectory-Wise Reward}\label{sc: linearMDP}
In this section, we present the full details of our study on the offline RL in the linear MDP setting with trajectory-wise rewards.
\subsection{Linear MDP and Algorithm}\label{sc: prelinearMDP}
We define the linear MDP \cite{jin2020provably} as follows, where the transition kernel and expected reward function are linear in a feature map. We use $\mathcal X$ to represent the joint state-action space $\mathcal S\times\mathcal A$ and use $x$ to represent a state action pair.
\begin{definition}[Linear MDP]
We say an episodic MDP $(\mathcal S, \mathcal A, \mathbb P, r, H)$ is a linear MDP with a known feature map $\phi(\cdot): \mathcal X \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^d$ if there exist an unknown vector $w^*_h(s) \in \mathbb{R}^d$ over $\mathcal S$ and an unknown vector $\theta^*_h\in \mathbb{R}^d$ such that
\begin{flalign}
\mathbb P_h(s^\prime|s,a) = \langle \phi(s,a), w^*_h(s^\prime)\rangle,\quad R_h(s,a) = \langle \phi(s,a), \theta^*_h \rangle, \label{eq: 199}
\end{flalign}
for all $(s,a,s^\prime)\in \mathcal S\times\mathcal A\times\mathcal S$ at each step $h\in[H]$. Here we assume $\ltwo{\phi(x)}\leq 1$ for all $x\in\mathcal X$ and $\max\{ \ltwo{w^*_h(\mathcal S)}, \ltwo{\theta^*_h} \}\leq \sqrt{d}$ at each step $h\in[H]$, where with an abuse of notation, we define $\ltwo{w^*_h(\mathcal S)}= \int_{\mathcal S}\ltwo{w^*_h(s)}ds$.
\end{definition}
\begin{algorithm}[tb]
\caption{Linear Pessimistic Value Iteration with Reward Decomposition (PARTED)}
\label{alg2}
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE {\bfseries Input:} Dataset $\mathcal D=\{\tau_i,r(\tau_i)\}_{i,h=1}^{N,H}$
\STATE {\bfseries Initialization:} Set $\widehat{V}_{H+1}$ as zero function
\STATE Obtain $\widehat{R}_h$ and $\widehat{\rm\Theta}$ according to \cref{eq: 173}
\FOR{$h=H,H-1,\cdot,1$}
\STATE Obtain $\widehat{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1}$ and $\widehat{w}_h$ according to \cref{eq: 175}
\STATE Obtain ${\rm\Gamma}_h(\cdot )$ according to \cref{eq: 178}
\STATE $\widehat{Q}_h(\cdot) = \min\{ \widehat{R}_h(\cdot)+ \widehat{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1}(\cdot) - {\rm\Gamma}_h(\cdot), H-h+1 \}^{+}$
\STATE $\widehat \pi_h(\cdot|s)=\argmax_{\pi_h}\langle \widehat Q_h(s,\cdot), \pi_h(\cdot|s) \rangle$
\STATE $\widehat{V}_h(\cdot) = \langle \widehat Q_h(\cdot,\cdot),\widehat \pi_h(\cdot|\cdot) \rangle_\mathcal A$
\ENDFOR
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
We present our PARTED algorithm for linear MDPs with trajectory-wise rewards in \Cref{alg2}. Note that \Cref{alg2} shares a structure similar to that of \Cref{alg1}. Specifically, we estimate each $R_h(\cdot)$ for all $h\in[H]$ using a linear function $\langle \phi(s,a), \theta_h\rangle$, where $\theta_h\in\mathbb{R}^d$ is a learnable parameter. We define the vector ${\rm\Theta} = [\theta_1^\top,\cdots,\theta^\top_H]\in\mathbb{R}^{dH}$ and the loss function $L_r:\mathbb{R}^{dH}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ for reward learning as
\begin{flalign}\label{eq: 172}
L_r({\rm\Theta})=\sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D}\left[ \sum_{h=1}^{H} \langle \phi(x^\tau_h), \theta_h\rangle - r(\tau) \right]^2 + \lambda_1\cdot\sum_{h=1}^{H}\ltwo{\theta_h-\theta_0}^2,
\end{flalign}
where $\lambda_1>0$ is a regularization parameter. We then define $\widehat{R}_h(\cdot)$ as
\begin{flalign}\label{eq: 173}
\widehat{R}_h(\cdot) = \langle \phi(\cdot), \widehat{\theta}_h \rangle, \quad \text{where}\quad \widehat{\rm\Theta}=\argmin_{{\rm\Theta}\in\mathbb{R}^{2dmH}}L_r( {\rm\Theta} )\,\,\,\text{and}\,\,\, \widehat{\rm\Theta}=[\widehat{\theta}_1^\top,\cdots,\widehat{\theta}_H^\top]^\top.
\end{flalign}
Similarly, we also use linear function $\langle \phi(s,a), w_h \rangle$ to estimate transition value functions $\{(\mathbb P_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(\cdot,\cdot)\}_{h\in[H]}$ for all $h\in[H]$, where $w_h\in\mathbb{R}^{d}$ is a learnable parameter. For each $h\in[H]$, we define the loss function $L^h_v(w_h)$: $\mathbb{R}^{d}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ as
\begin{flalign}
L^h_v(w_h) = \sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D}\left(\widehat{V}_{h+1}(s^\tau_{h+1}) - \langle \phi(x^\tau_h), w_h \rangle \right)^2+\lambda_2\cdot \ltwo{w_h-w_0}^2,\label{eq: 174}
\end{flalign}
where $\lambda_2>0$ is a regularization parameter. We then define $(\widehat{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(\cdot): \mathcal X\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ as
\begin{flalign}\label{eq: 175}
(\widehat{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(\cdot) = \langle \phi(\cdot), \widehat{w}_h \rangle,\quad\text{where}\quad \widehat{w}_h=\argmin_{w_h\in\mathbb{R}^{d}}L^h_v(w_h).
\end{flalign}
It remains to construct the penalty term $\rm{\Gamma}_h$. We first consider the penalty term that is used to offset the uncertainty raised from estimating the reward $R_h(\cdot)$ for each $h\in[H]$. We define the vectors ${\rm\Phi}_h(x)=[\mathbf{0}^\top_d,\cdots,\phi(x)^\top,\cdots,\mathbf{0}^\top_d]^\top\in\mathbb{R}^{dH}$ and ${\rm\Phi}(\tau)=[\phi(x^\tau_1),\cdots,\phi(x^\tau_H)]\in\mathbb{R}^{dH}$, where ${\rm\Phi}_h(x)\in\mathbb{R}^{dH}$ is a vector in which $[{\rm\Phi}_h(x)]_{d(h-1)+1:dh}=\phi(x)$ and the rest entries are all zero. We define a matrix ${\rm\Sigma}({\rm\Theta})\in\mathbb{R}^{dH\times dH}$ as
\begin{flalign*}
{\rm\Sigma} = \lambda_1\cdot I_{dH} + \sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D}{\rm\Phi}(\tau){\rm\Phi}(\tau)^\top.
\end{flalign*}
The penalty term $b_{r,h}$ of the estimated reward is then defined as
\begin{flalign}\label{eq: 176}
b_{r,h}(x)=\left[{\rm\Phi}_h(x)^\top {\rm\Sigma}^{-1} {\rm\Phi}_h(x)\right]^{1/2},\quad\forall x\in\mathcal X.
\end{flalign}
Next, we consider the penalty term that is used to offset the uncertainty raised from estimating the transition value function $(\mathbb P_h \widehat{V}_{h+1})(\cdot)$ for each $h\in[H]$. We define a matrix ${\rm\Lambda}_h\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$ as
\begin{flalign*}
{\rm\Lambda}_h = \lambda_2\cdot I_{d} + \sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D}\phi(x^\tau_h)\phi(x^\tau_h)^\top.
\end{flalign*}
The penality term $b_{v,h}$ of the estimated transition value function is then defined as
\begin{flalign}\label{eq: 177}
b_{v,h}(x)=\left[\phi(x)^\top {\rm\Lambda}_h^{-1} \phi(x)^\top \right]^{1/2},\quad\forall x\in\mathcal X.
\end{flalign}
Finally, the penalty term for the estimated Bellman operation $\widehat{\mathbb B}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1}(\cdot)$ is obtained as
\begin{flalign}\label{eq: 178}
{\rm\Gamma}_h(x) = \beta_1 b_{r,h}(x) + \beta_2 b_{v,h}(x),
\end{flalign}
where $\beta_1,\beta_2>0$ are constant factors.
\subsection{Main Result}\label{sc: mainlinearMDP}
We consider the following dataset coverage assumption so that we can explicitly bound the suboptimality of \Cref{alg2}. Note that the following assumption has also been considered in \cite{jin2021pessimism}.
\begin{assumption}[Well-Explored Dataset]\label{ass5}
Suppose the $N$ trajectories in dataset $\mathcal D$ are independent and identically induced by a fixed behaviour policy $\mu$. There exist absolute constants $C_{\sigma}>0$ and $C_{\varsigma}>0$ such that
\begin{flalign*}
\lambda_{\min}(\overline{M}({\rm\Theta}_0))\geq C_{\sigma}\quad\text{and}\quad\lambda_{\min}(\overline{m}_h({w}_0))\geq C_{\varsigma}\quad \forall h\in[H],
\end{flalign*}
where
\begin{flalign*}
\overline{M} = \mathbb E_{\mu}\left[ {\rm\Phi}(\tau){\rm\Phi}(\tau)^\top \right]\quad\text{and}\quad \overline{m}_h({w}_0) = \mathbb E_{\mu}\left[\phi(x^\tau_h)\phi(x^\tau_h)^\top \right].
\end{flalign*}
\end{assumption}
We provide a formal statement of \Cref{thm2.1} as follows, which characterizes the suboptimality of \Cref{alg2}.
\begin{theorem}[Formal Statement of \Cref{thm2.1}]\label{thm2}
Consider \Cref{alg2}. Let $\lambda_1 = \lambda_2 = 1$ and $\beta_1=\mathcal{O}(H\sqrt{dH\log(N/\delta)})$ and $\beta_2 = \mathcal{O}(dH^2\sqrt{\log(dH^3N^{5/2}/\delta)})$. Then, with probability at least $1-\delta$, we have
\begin{flalign}
&\text{\rm SubOpt}(\widehat \pi,s) \leq \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{dH^3}{\sqrt{N}} \sqrt{\log\left(\frac{dH^3N^{5/2}}{\delta} \right)} \right).\nonumber
\end{flalign}
\end{theorem}
\subsection{Proof Flow of \Cref{thm2.1}}
In this section, we present the main proof flow of \Cref{thm2.1}. Our main development is \Cref{lemma11}, the proof of which is presented in \Cref{pflinearmdp}.
Recalling the suboptimality of $\widehat \pi=\{\widehat \pi_h\}_{h=1}^H$ in \cref{eq: 128}, we have
\begin{flalign}
\text{\rm SubOpt}(\widehat \pi,s) &= -\sum_{h=1}^{H}\mathbb E_{\widehat \pi}\left[\delta_h(s_h,a_h)\big|s_1=s\right] + \sum_{h=1}^{H}\mathbb E_{\pi^*}\left[\delta_h(s_h,a_h)\big|s_1=s\right],\nonumber
\end{flalign}
where $\delta_h(\cdot)$ is the evaluation error defined as
\begin{flalign}
\delta_h(s,a) = (\mathbb B_h \widehat{V}_{h+1})(s,a) - \widehat{Q}_h(s,a).\nonumber
\end{flalign}
To characterize the suboptimality $\text{\rm SubOpt}(\widehat \pi,s)$, we provide the following lemma to bound $\delta_h(\cdot)$ in the linear MDP setting.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma11}
Let $\lambda_1$, $\lambda_2=1$, and let $\beta_1 = C_{\beta_1} H\sqrt{dH\log(N/\delta)}$ and $\beta_2 = C_{\beta_2} dH^2\sqrt{\log(dH^3N^{5/2}/\delta)}$, where $C_{\beta_1}, C_{\beta_2}$ are two absolute constants. Suppose \Cref{ass1} holds. With probability at least $1-\delta/2$, it holds for all $h\in[H]$ and $(s,a)\in\mathcal S\times\mathcal A$ that
\begin{flalign*}
0 \leq \delta_h(x) \leq 2\left[\beta_1\cdot b_{r,h}(x) + \beta_2\cdot b_{v,h}(x)\right], \quad\forall x\in\mathcal X,\quad \forall h\in[H].
\end{flalign*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The main technical development here lies in handling additional challenges caused by the reward redistribution of trajectory-wise rewards, which are not present in linear MDPs with instantaneous rewards \cite{jin2021pessimism}.
The detailed proof is provided in \Cref{pflinearmdp}.
\end{proof}
Applying \Cref{lemma11} to \cref{eq: 128}, we can obtain
\begin{flalign}
\text{\rm SubOpt}(\widehat \pi,s) \leq 2\beta_1\cdot \sum_{h=1}^{H}b_{r,h}(x) + 2\beta_2\cdot\sum_{h=1}^{H} b_{v,h}(x).\label{eq: 195}
\end{flalign}
Then, following steps similar to those in \Cref{pfpenaltysummation}, we have the followings hold with probability at least $1-\delta/2$
\begin{flalign}
b_{r,h}(x) \leq \frac{C^\prime}{\sqrt{N}}\quad\text{and}\quad b_{v,h}(x)\leq \frac{C^{\prime\prime}}{\sqrt{N}},\label{eq: 196}
\end{flalign}
where $C^\prime$ and $C^{\prime\prime}$ are absolute constants dependent only on $C_\sigma$, $C_\varsigma$ and $\log(1/\delta)$. Then, substituting \cref{eq: 196} into \cref{eq: 195}, we have the following holds with probability $1-\delta$
\begin{flalign}
\text{\rm SubOpt}(\widehat \pi,s) &\leq 2C_{\beta_1} H^2\sqrt{dH\log(N/\delta)} \cdot \frac{C^\prime}{\sqrt{N}} + 2C_{\beta_2} dH^3\sqrt{\log(dH^3N^{5/2}/\delta)}\cdot\frac{C^{\prime\prime}}{\sqrt{N}}\nonumber\\
&\leq \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{dH^3}{\sqrt{N}} \sqrt{\log\left(\frac{dH^3N^{5/2}}{\delta} \right)} \right),\nonumber
\end{flalign}
which completes the proof.
\section{Proof of \Cref{lemma2}}\label{sc: pflemma2}
Recall that in \Cref{subsc: overpnn} we let $(b_0, w_0)$ be the initial value of network parameters obtained via the symmetric initialization scheme, which makes $f(\cdot;w_0)$ a zero function. We denote $(\widehat{\mathbb B}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(\cdot) = \widehat{R}_h(\cdot) + (\widehat{\mathbb P}_h\widehat V_{h+1})(\cdot)$ as the estimator of Bellman operator $({\mathbb B}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(\cdot) = {R}_h(\cdot) + ({\mathbb P}_h\widehat V_{h+1})(\cdot)$. To prove \Cref{lemma2}, we show that $(\widehat{\mathbb B}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(\cdot) - \beta_1b_{r,h}(\cdot,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) - \beta_2b_{v,h}(\cdot,\widehat{w})$ is approximately a pessimistic estimator of $({\mathbb B}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(\cdot)$ up to a function approximation error. We consider $m$ to be sufficiently large such that $m\geq NH^2$.
\subsection{Uncertainty of Estimated Reward $\widehat{R}_h(\cdot)$}
In this step, we aim to bound the estimation error $\lone{\widehat{R}_h(\cdot) - R_h(\cdot)}$.
Since $\widehat{\rm\Theta}$ is the global minimizer of the loss function $L_r$ defined in \cref{eq: 7}, we have
\begin{flalign}
L_r(\widehat{\rm\Theta})&=\sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D}\left[ \sum_{h=1}^{H}f(x^\tau_h,\widehat{\theta}_h) - r(\tau) \right]^2 + \lambda_1\cdot\sum_{h=1}^{H}\ltwo{\widehat{\theta}_h-\theta_0}^2\nonumber\\
&\leq L_r({\rm\Theta}_0) = \sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D}\left[ \sum_{h=1}^{H}f(x^\tau_h,\theta_0) - r(\tau) \right]^2 \overset{(i)}{=} \sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D}\left[r(\tau)\right]^2 \overset{(ii)}{\leq} NH^2,\label{eq: 8}
\end{flalign}
where $(i)$ follows from the fact that $f(x,\theta_0)=0$ for all $x\in\mathcal X$ and $(ii)$ follows from the fact that $r(\tau)\leq H$ for any trajectory $\tau$ and we have total $N$ trajectories in the offlline sample set $\mathcal D$. We define the vector ${\rm\Theta}_0=[\theta_0^\top,\cdots,\theta_0^\top]^\top\in\mathbb{R}^{2mdH}$. Note that \cref{eq: 8} implies
\begin{flalign}
\ltwo{\widehat{\theta}_h-\theta_0}^2\leq \ltwo{\widehat{\rm\Theta} - {\rm\Theta}_0}^2 = \sum_{h=1}^{H}\ltwo{\widehat{\theta}_h-\theta_0}^2 \leq NH^2/\lambda_1,\quad\forall h\in[H].\label{eq: 45}
\end{flalign}
Hence, each $\widehat{\theta}_h$ belongs to the Euclidean ball $\mathcal B_\theta=\{\theta\in\mathbb{R}^{2md}: \ltwo{\theta-\theta_0}\leq H\sqrt{N/\lambda_1} \}$.
Since the radius of $\mathcal B_\theta$ does not depend on $m$, when $m$ is sufficient large it can be shown that $f(\cdot,\theta)$ is close to its linearization at $\theta_0$, i.e.,
\begin{flalign*}
f(\cdot,\theta)\approx \langle \phi(\cdot,\theta_0), \theta-\theta_0\rangle,\quad\forall \theta\in\mathcal B_\theta,
\end{flalign*}
where $\phi(\cdot,\theta)=\nabla_\theta f(\cdot,\theta)$. Furthermore, according to \Cref{ass1}, there exists a function $\ell_{a_1,a_2}:\mathbb{R}^d\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^d$ such that the mean of the true reward function $R_h(\cdot)=\mathbb E[r_h(\cdot)]$ satisfies
\begin{flalign}\label{eq: 9}
R_h(x) = \int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\sigma^\prime(\theta^\top x) \cdot x^\top \ell_r(\theta)dp(\theta),
\end{flalign}
where $\sup_\theta\ltwo{\ell_r(\theta)}\leq a_1$, $\sup_\theta(\ltwo{\ell_r(\theta)}/p(\theta))\leq a_2$ and $p$ is the density of the distribution $N(0,I_d/d)$. We then proceed to bound the difference between $\widehat{R}_h(\cdot)$ and $R_h(\cdot)$.
{\bf Step I.} In the first step, we show that with high probability the mean of the true reward $R_h(\cdot)$ can be well-approximated by a linear function with the feature vector $\phi(\cdot,\theta_0)$. \Cref{lemma3} in \Cref{sc: supplemma} implies that that $R_h(\cdot)$ in \cref{eq: 9} can be well-approximated by a finite-width neural network, i.e., with probability at least $1-N^{-2}H^{-4}$ over the randomness of initialization $\theta_0$, for all $h\in[H]$, there exists a function $\widetilde{R}_h(\cdot):\mathcal X\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ satisfying
\begin{flalign}
\sup_{x\in\mathcal X}\lone{\widetilde{R}_h(x) - R_h(x)}\leq \frac{2(L_\sigma a_2 + C^2_\sigma a^2_2)\sqrt{\log(N^2H^5)}}{\sqrt{m}}, \label{eq: 47}
\end{flalign}
where $\widetilde{R}_h(\cdot)$ can be written as
\begin{flalign*}
\widetilde{R}_h(x) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{m}}\sum_{r=1}^{m}\sigma^\prime(\theta^{\top}_{0,r} x)\cdot x^\top \ell_r,
\end{flalign*}
where $\ltwo{\ell_r}\leq a_2/\sqrt{dm}$ for all $r\in[m]$ and $\theta_0=[\theta_{0,1},\cdots,\theta_{0,m}]$ is generated via the symmetric initialization scheme. We next proceed to show that there exists a vector $\tilde{\theta}_h\in\mathbb{R}^{2md}$ such that $\widetilde{R}_h(\cdot) = \langle \phi(\cdot,\theta_0), \tilde{\theta}_h -\theta_0\rangle$. Let $\tilde{\theta}_h=[\tilde{\theta}^{\top}_{h,1},\cdots.\tilde{\theta}^{\top}_{h,2m}]^\top$, in which $\tilde{\theta}^{\top}_{h,r}=\theta_{0,r} + b_{0,r}\cdot \ell_r/\sqrt{2}$ for all $r\in\{1,\cdots,m\}$ and $\tilde{\theta}^{\top}_{h,r}=\theta_{0,r} + b_{0,r}\cdot \ell_{r-m}/\sqrt{2}$ for all $r\in\{m+1,\cdots,2m\}$. Then, we have
\begin{flalign}
\widetilde{R}_h(x) &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2m}}\sum_{r=1}^{m}\sqrt{2}(b_{0,r})^2\cdot \sigma^\prime(\theta^{\top}_{0,r}x)\cdot x^\top\ell_r\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2m}}\sum_{r=1}^{m} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (b_{0,r})^2\cdot \sigma^\prime(\theta^{\top}_{0,r}x)\cdot x^\top\ell_r + \frac{1}{\sqrt{2m}}\sum_{r=1}^{m}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(b_{0,r})^2\cdot \sigma^\prime(\theta^{\top}_{0,r}x)\cdot x^\top\ell_{r-m}\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2m}}\sum_{r=1}^{2m} b_{0,r}\cdot \sigma^\prime(\theta^{\top}_{0,r}x)\cdot x^\top(\tilde{\theta}_{h,r}-\theta_{0,r})\nonumber\\
&=\phi(x,\theta_0)^\top(\tilde{\theta}_h - \theta_0).\label{eq: 79}
\end{flalign}
Thus, the true mean reward $R_h(\cdot)$ is approximately linear with the feature $\phi(\cdot,\theta_0)$. Since $\tilde{\theta}_{h,r} - \theta_{0,r} = b_{0,r}\cdot \ell_r/\sqrt{2}$ or $ b_{0,r}\cdot \ell_{r-m}/\sqrt{2}$, we have
\begin{flalign*}
\ltwo{\tilde{\theta}_h - \theta_0}\leq a_2\sqrt{2dm}.
\end{flalign*}
{\bf Step II.} In this step, we show that $ \widehat{R}_h(\cdot)$ learned by neural network in \Cref{alg1} can be well-approximated by its counterpart learned by a linear function with feature $\phi(\cdot,\theta_0)$.
Consider the following least-square loss function
\begin{flalign*}
\bar{L}_r({\rm\Theta}) &= \sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D}\left[\sum_{h=1}^{H} \langle \phi(x^\tau_h,\theta_0), \theta_h-\theta_0 \rangle - r(\tau) \right]^2 + \lambda_1\cdot\sum_{h=1}^{H}\ltwo{\theta_h-\theta_0}^2\nonumber\\
&= \sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D}\left[ \langle {\rm\Phi}(\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0), {\rm\Theta}-{\rm\Theta}_0 \rangle - r(\tau) \right]^2 + \lambda_1 \cdot \ltwo{{\rm\Theta}-{\rm\Theta}_0}^2.
\end{flalign*}
The global minimizer of $\bar{L}_r({\rm\Theta})$ is defined as
\begin{flalign}\label{eq: 16}
\overline{\rm\Theta}=\argmin_{{\rm\Theta}\in\mathbb{R}^{2dmH}}\bar{L}_r(\theta)\,\,\,\text{and}\,\,\, \overline{\rm\Theta}=[\bar{\theta}_1^\top,\cdots,\bar{\theta}_H^\top]^\top.
\end{flalign}
We define $\overline{R}_h(\cdot)=\langle \phi(\cdot,\theta_0), \bar{\theta}_h - \theta_0 \rangle$ for all $h\in[H]$. We then proceed to bound the term $\lone{\widehat{R}_h(x) - \overline{R}_h(x)}$ as follows
\begin{flalign*}
\lone{\widehat{R}_h(x) - \overline{R}_h(x)} & = \lone{f(x,\widehat{\theta}_h) - \langle \phi(x,\theta_0), \bar{\theta}_h - \theta_0 \rangle}\nonumber\\
& = \lone{f(x,\widehat{\theta}_h) - \langle {\rm\Phi}_h(x,{\rm\Theta}_0), \overline{\rm \Theta} - \rm \Theta_0 \rangle}\nonumber\\
& = \lone{f(x,\widehat{\theta}_h) - \langle {\rm\Phi}_h(x,{\rm\Theta}_0), \widehat{\rm\Theta} - {\rm\Theta}_0 \rangle + \langle {\rm\Phi}_h(x,{\rm\Theta}_0), \widehat{\rm\Theta} - \overline{\rm\Theta} \rangle}\nonumber\\
&\leq \lone{f(x,\widehat{\theta}_h) - \langle {\rm\Phi}_h(x,{\rm\Theta}_0), \widehat{\rm \Theta} - \rm \Theta_0 \rangle} + \lone{\langle {\rm\Phi}_h(x,{\rm\Theta}_0), \widehat{\rm \Theta} - \overline{\rm \Theta} \rangle}\nonumber\\
&= \lone{f(x,\widehat{\theta}_h) - \langle {\phi}_h(x,{\theta}_0), \widehat{\theta}_h - \theta_0 \rangle} + \lone{\langle {\rm\Phi}_h(x,{\rm\Theta}_0), \widehat{\rm \Theta} - \overline{\rm \Theta} \rangle}\nonumber\\
&\leq {\lone{f(x,\widehat{\theta}_h) - \langle {\phi}_h(x,{\theta}_0), \widehat{\theta}_h - \theta_0 \rangle}} + {\ltwo{{\rm\Phi}_h(x,{\rm\Theta}_0)} \ltwo{\widehat{\rm \Theta} - \overline{\rm \Theta}}}\nonumber\\
&= \underbrace{\lone{f(x,\widehat{\theta}_h) - \langle {\phi}_h(x,{\theta}_0), \widehat{\theta}_h - \theta_0 \rangle}}_{(i)} + \underbrace{\ltwo{{\phi}(x,{\theta}_0)} \ltwo{\widehat{\rm \Theta} - \overline{\rm \Theta}}}_{(ii)}.
\end{flalign*}
According to \Cref{lemma4} and the fact that $\ltwo{\widehat{\theta}_h-\theta_0}\leq H\sqrt{N/\lambda_1}$, we have the followings hold with probability at least $1-N^{-2}H^{-4}$
\begin{flalign}
(i)&\leq \mathcal{O}\left(C_\phi \left(\frac{N^2H^4}{\lambda^2_1\sqrt{m}}\right)^{1/3}\sqrt{\log m}\right),\label{eq: 28}\\
(ii)&\leq C_\phi \ltwo{\widehat{\rm \Theta} - \overline{\rm \Theta}}.\label{eq: 29}
\end{flalign}
We then proceed to bound the term $\ltwo{\widehat{\rm \Theta} - \overline{\rm \Theta}}$. Consider the minimization problem defined in \cref{eq: 3} and \cref{eq: 16}. By the first order optimality condition, we have
\begin{flalign}
\lambda_1\left( \widehat{\rm \Theta} - \rm \Theta_0 \right) &= \sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D}\left( r(\tau) - \sum_{h=1}^{H}f(x^\tau_h,\hat{\theta}_h) \right){\rm\Phi}(\tau,\widehat{\rm \Theta})\label{eq: 17}\\
\lambda_1\left( \overline{\rm \Theta} - \rm \Theta_0 \right) &= \sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D}\left( r(\tau) - \langle {\rm\Phi} (\tau,\rm \Theta_0), \overline{\rm \Theta}-\rm \Theta_0 \rangle \right){\rm\Phi}(\tau,\rm \Theta_0)\label{eq: 18}.
\end{flalign}
Note that \cref{eq: 18} implies
\begin{flalign}\label{eq: 19}
{\rm\Sigma}({\rm\Theta}_0)\left( \overline{\rm \Theta} - \rm \Theta_0 \right) = \sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D}r(\tau){\rm\Phi}(\tau,\rm \Theta_0).
\end{flalign}
Adding the term $\sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D} \langle {\rm\Phi} (\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0), \widehat{\rm\Theta}-{\rm\Theta}_0 \rangle {\rm\Phi} (\tau,\rm \Theta_0)$ on both sides of \cref{eq: 17} yields
\begin{flalign}\label{eq: 20}
{\rm\Sigma}({\rm\Theta}_0)\left( \widehat{\rm \Theta} - \rm \Theta_0 \right) &= \sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D}r(\tau){\rm\Phi}(\tau,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) \nonumber\\
& \quad + \sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D} \left[ \langle {\rm\Phi} (\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0), \widehat{\rm\Theta}-{\rm\Theta}_0 \rangle {\rm\Phi} (\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0) - \left(\sum_{h=1}^{H}f(x^\tau_h,\hat{\theta}_h) \right) {\rm\Phi}(\tau,\widehat{\rm \Theta}) \right].
\end{flalign}
Then, subtracting \cref{eq: 19} from \cref{eq: 20}, we can obtain
\begin{flalign}
{\rm\Sigma}({\rm\Theta}_0)(\widehat{\rm \Theta} - \overline{\rm \Theta})&=\sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D}r(\tau) \left({\rm\Phi}(\tau,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) - {\rm\Phi}(\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0)\right)\nonumber\\
&\quad + \sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D} \left[ \langle {\rm\Phi} (\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0), \widehat{\rm\Theta}-{\rm\Theta}_0 \rangle {\rm\Phi} (\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0) - \left(\sum_{h=1}^{H}f(x^\tau_h,\hat{\theta}_h) \right) {\rm\Phi}(\tau,\widehat{\rm \Theta}) \right],\label{eq: 21}
\end{flalign}
which implies
\begin{flalign}
\ltwo{{\rm\Sigma}({\rm\Theta}_0)(\widehat{\rm \Theta} - \overline{\rm \Theta})}&\leq \sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D}r(\tau) \sqrt{\sum_{h=1}^{H}\ltwo{{\phi} (x^\tau_h,{\theta}_0) - {\phi} (x^\tau_h,\widehat{\theta}_h)}^2} \nonumber\\
&\quad + \sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D} \ltwo{\langle {\rm\Phi} (\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0), \widehat{\rm\Theta}-{\rm\Theta}_0 \rangle {\rm\Phi} (\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0) - \left(\sum_{h=1}^{H}f(x^\tau_h,\hat{\theta}_h) \right) {\rm\Phi}(\tau,\widehat{\rm \Theta})}. \label{eq: 27}
\end{flalign}
To bound the term $\ltwo{\langle {\rm\Phi} (\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0), \widehat{\rm\Theta}-{\rm\Theta}_0 \rangle {\rm\Phi} (\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0) - \left(\sum_{h=1}^{H}f(x^\tau_h,\hat{\theta}_h) \right) {\rm\Phi}(\tau,\widehat{\rm \Theta})}$, we proceed as follows
\begin{flalign*}
&\langle {\rm\Phi} (\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0), \widehat{\rm\Theta}-{\rm\Theta}_0 \rangle {\rm\Phi} (\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0) - \left(\sum_{h=1}^{H}f(x^\tau_h,\hat{\theta}_h) \right) {\rm\Phi}(\tau,\widehat{\rm \Theta})\nonumber\\
&=\langle {\rm\Phi} (\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0), \widehat{\rm\Theta}-{\rm\Theta}_0 \rangle ({\rm\Phi} (\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0) - {\rm\Phi} (\tau,\widehat{\rm\Theta})) - \left( \langle {\rm\Phi} (\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0), \widehat{\rm\Theta}-{\rm\Theta}_0 \rangle - \sum_{h=1}^{H}f(x^\tau_h,\hat{\theta}_h) \right) {\rm\Phi}(\tau,\widehat{\rm \Theta})\nonumber\\
&=\langle {\rm\Phi} (\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0), \widehat{\rm\Theta}-{\rm\Theta}_0 \rangle ({\rm\Phi} (\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0) - {\rm\Phi} (\tau,\widehat{\rm\Theta})) - \left[ \sum_{h=1}^{H} \left(\langle {\phi} (x^\tau_h,{\theta}_0), \widehat{\theta}_h-{\theta}^0_h \rangle - f(x^\tau_h,\hat{\theta}_h) \right)\right] {\rm\Phi}(\tau,\widehat{\rm \Theta}),
\end{flalign*}
which implies
\begin{flalign}
&\ltwo{\langle {\rm\Phi} (\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0), \widehat{\rm\Theta}-{\rm\Theta}_0 \rangle {\rm\Phi} (\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0) - \left(\sum_{h=1}^{H}f(x^\tau_h,\hat{\theta}_h) \right) {\rm\Phi}(\tau,\widehat{\rm \Theta})}\nonumber\\
&\leq \ltwo{{\rm\Phi} (\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0)} \ltwo{\widehat{\rm\Theta}-{\rm\Theta}_0} \ltwo{{\rm\Phi} (\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0) - {\rm\Phi} (\tau,\widehat{\rm\Theta})} \nonumber\\
&\quad + \left[ \sum_{h=1}^{H} \lone{\langle {\phi} (x^\tau_h,{\theta}_0), \widehat{\theta}_h-{\theta}^0_h \rangle - f(x^\tau_h,\hat{\theta}_h)} \right] \ltwo{{\rm\Phi}(\tau,\widehat{\rm \Theta})},\nonumber\\
&= \sqrt{\sum_{h=1}^{H}\ltwo{\phi(x^\tau_h,{\theta}^0_h)}^2} \ltwo{\widehat{\rm\Theta}-{\rm\Theta}_0} \sqrt{\sum_{h=1}^{H}\ltwo{{\phi} (x^\tau_h,{\theta}_0) - {\phi} (x^\tau_h,\widehat{\theta}_h)}^2} \nonumber\\
&\quad + \left[ \sum_{h=1}^{H} \lone{\langle {\phi} (x^\tau_h,{\theta}_0), \widehat{\theta}_h-{\theta}^0_h \rangle - f(x^\tau_h,\hat{\theta}_h)} \right] \sqrt{\sum_{h=1}^{H}\ltwo{\phi(x^\tau_h,\hat{\theta}_h)}^2},\label{eq: 22}
\end{flalign}
where the last equality follows from the fact that $\ltwo{{\rm\Phi}(\tau,{\rm \Theta})}^2 = \sum_{h=1}^{H}\ltwo{\phi(x^\tau_h,{\theta}_h)}^2$ for any ${\rm\Theta}\in\mathbb{R}^{2mdH}$. According to \Cref{lemma4} and the fact that $\ltwo{\widehat{\theta}_h-\theta_0}\leq H\sqrt{N/\lambda_1}$, we have the followings hold with probability at least $1-N^{-2}H^{-4}$ for all $h\in[H]$ and $\tau\in\mathcal D$
\begin{flalign}
&\ltwo{\phi(x^\tau_h,{\theta}_0)} \leq C_\phi\quad\text{and}\quad \ltwo{\phi(x^\tau_h,\hat{\theta}_h)} \leq C_\phi,\label{eq: 23}\\
&\ltwo{{\phi} (x^\tau_h,{\theta}_0) - {\phi} (x^\tau_h,\widehat{\theta}_h)}\leq \mathcal{O}\left( C_\phi \left( \frac{H\sqrt{N/\lambda_1}}{\sqrt{m}}\right)^{1/3}\sqrt{\log m} \right),\label{eq: 24}\\
&\lone{\langle {\phi} (x^\tau_h,{\theta}_0), \widehat{\theta}_h-{\theta}_0 \rangle - f(x^\tau_h,\hat{\theta}_h)}\leq \mathcal{O}\left(C_\phi \left(\frac{H^4N^2/\lambda^2_1}{\sqrt{m}}\right)^{1/3}\sqrt{\log m}\right).\label{eq: 25}
\end{flalign}
Substituting \cref{eq: 23}, \cref{eq: 24} and \cref{eq: 25} into \cref{eq: 22}, we have
\begin{flalign}
&\ltwo{\langle {\rm\Phi} (\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0), \widehat{\rm\Theta}-{\rm\Theta}_0 \rangle {\rm\Phi} (\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0) - \left(\sum_{h=1}^{H}f(x^\tau_h,\hat{\theta}_h) \right) {\rm\Phi}(\tau,\widehat{\rm \Theta})}\nonumber\\
&\leq (H^2\sqrt{N/\lambda_1}) \mathcal{O}\left( C^2_\phi \left( \frac{H\sqrt{N/\lambda_1}}{\sqrt{m}}\right)^{1/3}\sqrt{\log m} \right) + \mathcal{O}\left(C^2_\phi H^{3/2} \left(\frac{H^4N^2/\lambda^2_1}{\sqrt{m}}\right)^{1/3}\sqrt{\log m}\right)\nonumber\\
&\leq \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{C^2_\phi H^{17/6} N^{2/3}\sqrt{\log(m)}}{m^{1/6}\lambda_1^{2/3}} \right).\label{eq: 26}
\end{flalign}
Then, substituting \cref{eq: 26} into \cref{eq: 27}, we have the following holds with probability at least $1-N^{-2}H^{-4}$
\begin{flalign*}
&\ltwo{{\rm\Sigma}({\rm\Theta}_0)(\widehat{\rm \Theta} - \overline{\rm \Theta})}\nonumber\\
&\leq NH \cdot \sqrt{H}\cdot \mathcal{O}\left( C_\phi \left( \frac{H\sqrt{N/\lambda_1}}{\sqrt{m}}\right)^{1/3}\sqrt{\log m} \right) + N\cdot\mathcal{O}\left( \frac{C^2_\phi H^{17/6} N^{2/3}\sqrt{\log(m)}}{m^{1/6}\lambda_1^{2/3}} \right)\nonumber\\
&\leq \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{C^2_\phi H^{17/6} N^{5/3}\sqrt{\log(m)}}{m^{1/6}\lambda_1^{2/3}} \right),
\end{flalign*}
where we use the fact that $r(\tau)\leq H$. We then proceed to bound the term $ \ltwo{\widehat{\rm\Theta}-{\rm\Theta}_0}$ as follows
\begin{flalign}
\ltwo{\widehat{\rm\Theta}-\overline{\rm\Theta}}&= \ltwo{{\rm\Sigma}^{-1}({\rm\Theta}_0){\rm\Sigma}({\rm\Theta}_0)(\widehat{\rm\Theta}-\overline{\rm\Theta})}\nonumber\\
&\leq \ltwo{{\rm\Sigma}^{-1}({\rm\Theta}_0)}\ltwo{{\rm\Sigma}({\rm\Theta}_0)(\widehat{\rm\Theta}-\overline{\rm\Theta})}\nonumber\\
&\leq \lambda_1^{-1} \ltwo{{\rm\Sigma}({\rm\Theta}_0)(\widehat{\rm\Theta}-\overline{\rm\Theta})}\nonumber\\
&\leq \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{C^2_\phi H^{17/6} N^{5/3}\sqrt{\log(m)}}{m^{1/6}\lambda_1^{5/3}} \right).\label{eq: 30}
\end{flalign}
Substituting \cref{eq: 30} into \cref{eq: 29}, we can bound $(ii)$ as follows
\begin{flalign}
(ii) \leq \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{C^3_\phi H^{17/6} N^{5/3}\sqrt{\log(m)}}{m^{1/6}\lambda_1^{5/3}} \right).\label{eq: 31}
\end{flalign}
Taking summation of the upper bounds of $(i)$ in \cref{eq: 28} and $(ii)$ in \cref{eq: 31}, we have
\begin{flalign}
\lone{\widehat{R}_h(x) - \overline{R}_h(x)} &\leq (i) + (ii) \nonumber\\
&\leq \mathcal{O}\left(C_\phi \left(\frac{N^2H^4}{\lambda^2_1\sqrt{m}}\right)^{1/3}\sqrt{\log m}\right) + \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{C^3_\phi H^{17/6} N^{5/3}\sqrt{\log(m)}}{m^{1/6}\lambda_1^{5/3}} \right)\nonumber\\
&\leq \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{C^3_\phi H^{17/6} N^{5/3}\sqrt{\log(m)}}{m^{1/6}\lambda_1^{5/3}} \right).\label{eq: 39}
\end{flalign}
\textbf{Step III.} In this step, we show that the bonus term $b_{r,h}(\cdot,\widehat{\rm\Theta})$ in \Cref{alg1} can be well approximated by $b_{r,h}(\cdot,{\rm\Theta}_0)$. According to the definition of $b_{r,h}(\cdot,{\rm\Theta})$, we have
\begin{flalign}
&\lone{ b_{r,h}(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) - b_{r,h}(x,{\rm\Theta}_0)} \nonumber\\
&\quad =\lone{\left[{\rm\Phi}_h(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta})^\top {\rm\Sigma}^{-1}(\widehat{\rm\Theta}) {\rm\Phi}_h(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta})\right]^{1/2} - \left[{\rm\Phi}_h(x,{\rm\Theta}_0)^\top {\rm\Sigma}^{-1}({\rm\Theta}_0) {\rm\Phi}_h(x,{\rm\Theta}_0)\right]^{1/2}}\nonumber\\
&\quad \leq \lone{ {\rm\Phi}_h(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta})^\top {\rm\Sigma}^{-1}(\widehat{\rm\Theta}) {\rm\Phi}_h(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) - {\rm\Phi}_h(x,{\rm\Theta}_0)^\top {\rm\Sigma}^{-1}({\rm\Theta}_0) {\rm\Phi}_h(x,{\rm\Theta}_0)}^{1/2},\label{eq: 32}
\end{flalign}
where the last inequality follows from the fact that $\lone{\sqrt{x}-\sqrt{y}}\leq \sqrt{\lone{x-y}}$. We then proceed to bound the term $\lone{ {\rm\Phi}_h(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta})^\top {\rm\Sigma}^{-1}(\widehat{\rm\Theta}) {\rm\Phi}_h(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) - {\rm\Phi}_h(x,{\rm\Theta}_0)^\top {\rm\Sigma}^{-1}({\rm\Theta}_0) {\rm\Phi}_h(x,{\rm\Theta}_0)}$ as follows
\begin{flalign}
&\lone{{\rm\Phi}_h(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta})^\top {\rm\Sigma}^{-1}(\widehat{\rm\Theta}) {\rm\Phi}_h(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) - {\rm\Phi}_h(x,{\rm\Theta}_0)^\top {\rm\Sigma}^{-1}({\rm\Theta}_0) {\rm\Phi}_h(x,{\rm\Theta}_0)}\nonumber\\
&\quad=\lone{[{\rm\Phi}_h(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) - {\rm\Phi}_h(x,{\rm\Theta}_0)] ^\top {\rm\Sigma}^{-1}(\widehat{\rm\Theta}) {\rm\Phi}_h(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta})} + \lone{{\rm\Phi}_h(x,{\rm\Theta}_0)^\top ({\rm\Sigma}^{-1}(\widehat{\rm\Theta}) - {\rm\Sigma}^{-1}({\rm\Theta}_0)) {\rm\Phi}_h(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta})}\nonumber\\
&\quad\quad + \lone{{\rm\Phi}_h(x,{\rm\Theta}_0)^\top {\rm\Sigma}^{-1}({\rm\Theta}_0) ({\rm\Phi}_h(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) - {\rm\Phi}_h(x,{\rm\Theta}_0))}\nonumber\\
&\quad\leq[{\rm\Phi}_h(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) - {\rm\Phi}_h(x,{\rm\Theta}_0)] ^\top {\rm\Sigma}^{-1}(\widehat{\rm\Theta}) {\rm\Phi}_h(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) + \lone{{\rm\Phi}_h(x,{\rm\Theta}_0)^\top ({\rm\Sigma}^{-1}(\widehat{\rm\Theta}) - {\rm\Sigma}^{-1}({\rm\Theta}_0)) {\rm\Phi}_h(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta})}\nonumber\\
&\quad\quad + \lone{{\rm\Phi}_h(x,{\rm\Theta}_0)^\top {\rm\Sigma}^{-1}({\rm\Theta}_0) ({\rm\Phi}_h(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) - {\rm\Phi}_h(x,{\rm\Theta}_0))}\nonumber\\
&\quad\leq \ltwo{{\rm\Phi}_h(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) - {\rm\Phi}_h(x,{\rm\Theta}_0)} \ltwo{{\rm\Sigma}^{-1}(\widehat{\rm\Theta})} \ltwo{{\rm\Phi}_h(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta})} \nonumber\\
&\quad\quad+ \ltwo{{\rm\Phi}_h(x,{\rm\Theta}_0)} \ltwo{{\rm\Sigma}^{-1}(\widehat{\rm\Theta}) - {\rm\Sigma}^{-1}({\rm\Theta}_0)} \ltwo{{\rm\Phi}_h(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta})}\nonumber\\
&\quad\quad + \ltwo{{\rm\Phi}_h(x,{\rm\Theta}_0)} \ltwo{{\rm\Sigma}^{-1}({\rm\Theta}_0)} \ltwo{{\rm\Phi}_h(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) - {\rm\Phi}_h(x,{\rm\Theta}_0)}\nonumber\\
&\quad = \ltwo{{\phi}(x,\widehat{\theta}_h) - {\phi}(x,{\theta}_0)} \ltwo{{\rm\Sigma}^{-1}(\widehat{\rm\Theta})} \ltwo{{\phi}(x,\widehat{\theta}_h)} \nonumber\\
&\quad\quad+ \ltwo{{\phi}(x,{\theta}_0)} \ltwo{{\rm\Sigma}^{-1}(\widehat{\rm\Theta}) ({\rm\Sigma}(\widehat{\rm\Theta}) - {\rm\Sigma}({\rm\Theta}_0)) {\rm\Sigma}^{-1}({\rm\Theta}_0)} \ltwo{{\phi}(x,\widehat{\theta}_h)}\nonumber\\
&\quad\quad + \ltwo{{\phi}(x,{\theta}_0)} \ltwo{{\rm\Sigma}^{-1}({\rm\Theta}_0)} \ltwo{{\phi}(x,\widehat{\theta}_h) - {\phi}(x,{\theta}_0)}\nonumber\\
&\quad \leq \ltwo{{\phi}(x,\widehat{\theta}_h) - {\phi}(x,{\theta}_0)} \ltwo{{\rm\Sigma}^{-1}(\widehat{\rm\Theta})} \ltwo{{\phi}(x,\widehat{\theta}_h)} \nonumber\\
&\quad\quad+ \ltwo{{\phi}(x,{\theta}_0)} \ltwo{{\rm\Sigma}^{-1}(\widehat{\rm\Theta})} \ltwo{{\rm\Sigma}(\widehat{\rm\Theta}) - {\rm\Sigma}({\rm\Theta}_0)} \ltwo{{\rm\Sigma}^{-1}({\rm\Theta}_0)} \ltwo{{\phi}(x,\widehat{\theta}_h)}\nonumber\\
&\quad\quad + \ltwo{{\phi}(x,{\theta}_0)} \ltwo{{\rm\Sigma}^{-1}({\rm\Theta}_0)} \ltwo{{\phi}(x,\widehat{\theta}_h) - {\phi}(x,{\theta}_0)}\nonumber\\
&\quad \leq \frac{1}{\lambda_1}\ltwo{{\phi}(x,\widehat{\theta}_h) - {\phi}(x,{\theta}_0)} \ltwo{{\phi}(x,\widehat{\theta}_h)} + \frac{1}{\lambda^2_1} \ltwo{{\phi}(x,{\theta}_0)} \ltwo{{\rm\Sigma}(\widehat{\rm\Theta}) - {\rm\Sigma}({\rm\Theta}_0)} \ltwo{{\phi}(x,\widehat{\theta}_h)}\nonumber\\
&\quad\quad + \frac{1}{\lambda_1}\ltwo{{\phi}(x,{\theta}_0)} \ltwo{{\phi}(x,\widehat{\theta}_h) - {\phi}(x,{\theta}_0)},\label{eq: 33}
\end{flalign}
where the last inequality follows from the fact that $\ltwo{{\rm\Sigma}({\rm\Theta})}\geq \lambda_1$ for any ${\rm\Theta}\in\mathbb{R}^{2mdH}$. For ${\rm\Sigma}(\widehat{\rm\Theta}) - {\rm\Sigma}({\rm\Theta}_0)$, we have
\begin{flalign*}
{\rm\Sigma}(\widehat{\rm\Theta}) - {\rm\Sigma}({\rm\Theta}_0) &= \sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D}\left[{\rm\Phi}(\tau,\widehat{\rm\Theta}){\rm\Phi}(\tau,\widehat{\rm\Theta})^\top - {\rm\Phi}(\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0){\rm\Phi}(\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0)^\top\right]\nonumber\\
&=\sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D} \left[{\rm\Phi}(\tau,\widehat{\rm\Theta})({\rm\Phi}(\tau,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) - {\rm\Phi}(\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0))^\top + ({\rm\Phi}(\tau,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) - {\rm\Phi}(\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0)){\rm\Phi}(\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0)^\top\right],
\end{flalign*}
which implies
\begin{flalign}
&\ltwo{ {\rm\Sigma}(\widehat{\rm\Theta}) - {\rm\Sigma}({\rm\Theta}_0)}\nonumber\\
&\quad \leq \sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D} \left[\ltwo{{\rm\Phi}(\tau,\widehat{\rm\Theta})} \ltwo{{\rm\Phi}(\tau,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) - {\rm\Phi}(\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0)} + \ltwo{{\rm\Phi}(\tau,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) - {\rm\Phi}(\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0)} \ltwo{{\rm\Phi}(\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0)} \right].\label{eq: 36}
\end{flalign}
By definition of ${\rm\Phi}(\tau,{\rm\Theta})$, we have the followings hold for any ${\rm\Theta}, \widetilde{\rm\Theta}\in\mathbb{R}^{2mdH}$
\begin{flalign}
\ltwo{{\rm\Phi}(\tau,\widehat{\rm\Theta})} &= \sqrt{\sum_{h\in[H]} \ltwo{{\phi}(x^\tau_h,\widehat{\theta}_h)}^2},\label{eq: 34}\\
\ltwo{{\rm\Phi}(\tau,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) - {\rm\Phi}(\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0) } &= \sqrt{\sum_{h\in[H]} \ltwo{{\phi}(x^\tau_h,{\theta}_h) - {\phi}(x^\tau_h,\tilde{\theta}_h) }^2}.\label{eq: 35}
\end{flalign}
Applying \Cref{lemma4} to \cref{eq: 34} and \cref{eq: 35}, we have the followings hold with probability at least $1-N^{-2}H^{-4}$
\begin{flalign*}
\ltwo{{\rm\Phi}(\tau,\widehat{\rm\Theta})} & \leq C_\phi\sqrt{H},\nonumber\\
\ltwo{{\rm\Phi}(\tau,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) - {\rm\Phi}(\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0) } &\leq \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{C_\phi H^{5/6} N^{1/6} \sqrt{\log m} }{m^{1/6}\lambda_1^{1/6}} \right).
\end{flalign*}
Substituting the above two inequalities into \cref{eq: 36} yields
\begin{flalign}
\ltwo{ {\rm\Sigma}(\widehat{\rm\Theta}) - {\rm\Sigma}({\rm\Theta}_0)} \leq \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{C^2_\phi H^{4/3} N^{1/6} \sqrt{\log m} }{m^{1/6}\lambda_1^{1/6}} \right).\label{eq: 37}
\end{flalign}
Finally, combining \cref{eq: 37} and \cref{eq: 13} and \cref{eq: 14} in \Cref{lemma4}, we can bound the right hand side of \cref{eq: 33} as
\begin{flalign}
&\lone{{\rm\Phi}_h(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta})^\top {\rm\Sigma}^{-1}(\widehat{\rm\Theta}) {\rm\Phi}_h(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) - {\rm\Phi}_h(x,\overline{\rm\Theta})^\top {\rm\Sigma}^{-1}(\overline{\rm\Theta}) {\rm\Phi}_h(x,\overline{\rm\Theta})}\nonumber\\
&\quad \leq \frac{1}{\lambda_1}\ltwo{{\phi}(x,\widehat{\theta}_h) - {\phi}(x,{\theta}_0)} \ltwo{{\phi}(x,\widehat{\theta}_h)} + \frac{1}{\lambda^2_1} \ltwo{{\phi}(x,{\theta}_0)} \ltwo{{\rm\Sigma}(\widehat{\rm\Theta}) - {\rm\Sigma}({\rm\Theta}_0)} \ltwo{{\phi}(x,\widehat{\theta}_h)}\nonumber\\
&\quad\quad + \frac{1}{\lambda_1}\ltwo{{\phi}(x,{\theta}_0)} \ltwo{{\phi}(x,\widehat{\theta}_h) - {\phi}(x,{\theta}_0)}\nonumber\\
&\quad \leq \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{C^2_\phi H^{1/3} N^{1/6} \sqrt{\log m} }{ m^{1/6} \lambda_1^{7/6}} \right) + \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{C^4_\phi H^{4/3} N^{1/6} \sqrt{\log m} }{m^{1/6}\lambda_1^{13/6}} \right)\nonumber\\
&\quad = \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{C^4_\phi H^{4/3} N^{1/6} \sqrt{\log m} }{m^{1/6}\lambda_1^{13/6}} \right).\label{eq: 38}
\end{flalign}
Substituting \cref{eq: 38} into \cref{eq: 32}, we have the following holds with probability at least $1-N^{-2}H^{-4}$
\begin{flalign}
&\lone{ b_{r,h}(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) - b_{r,h}(x,{\rm\Theta}_0)} \nonumber\\
&\leq \lone{ {\rm\Phi}_h(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta})^\top {\rm\Sigma}^{-1}(\widehat{\rm\Theta}) {\rm\Phi}_h(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) - {\rm\Phi}_h(x,{\rm\Theta}_0)^\top {\rm\Sigma}^{-1}({\rm\Theta}_0) {\rm\Phi}_h(x,{\rm\Theta}_0)}^{1/2}\nonumber\\
&\leq \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{C^2_\phi H^{2/3} N^{1/12} (\log m)^{1/4}}{m^{1/12}\lambda_1^{13/12}} \right).\label{eq: 109}
\end{flalign}
{\bf Step IV.} In Steps I and II, we show that the mean of the real reward $R_h(\cdot)$ can be well approximated by a linear function $\widetilde{R}_h(\cdot)$ with feature $\phi(\cdot,\theta_0)$ and our learned reward $\widehat{R}_h(\cdot)$ can be well approximated by a linear function $\overline{R}_h(\cdot)$ with feature $\phi(\cdot,\theta_0)$. In this step, we want to show that the reward estimation error $\lone{\widehat{R}_h(\cdot)-R_h(\cdot)}$ is approximately $\beta_1\cdot b_{r.h}(x,{\rm\Theta}_0)$ with an approximately chosen $\beta_1$.
Recall that $\widetilde{R}_h(\cdot)=\langle \phi(\cdot, \theta_0), \tilde{\theta}_h-\theta_0 \rangle $ and $ \overline{R}_h(\cdot) = \langle \phi(\cdot,\theta_0), \bar{\theta}_h - \theta_0 \rangle$. Considering the difference between $\overline{R}_h(\cdot)$ and $\widetilde{R}_h(\cdot)$, we have
\begin{flalign}
\overline{R}_h(x) - \widetilde{R}_h(x) = \langle \phi(x,\theta_0), \bar{\theta}_h - \tilde{\theta}_h \rangle = \langle {\rm\Phi}_h(x,{\rm\Theta}_0), \overline{\rm\Theta} - \widetilde{\rm\Theta} \rangle,\label{eq: 73}
\end{flalign}
where the last equality follows from the definition of ${\rm\Phi}_h(\cdot,{\rm\Theta})$. By \cref{eq: 19}, we have
\begin{flalign}
\overline{{\rm\Theta}} - {\rm\Theta}_0 = {\rm\Sigma}({\rm\Theta}_0)^{-1}\sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D} r(\tau){\rm\Phi}(\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0).\label{eq: 40}
\end{flalign}
By the definition of ${\rm\Sigma}({\rm\Theta})$, we have
\begin{flalign}
\widetilde{\rm\Theta} - {\rm\Theta}_0 = {\rm\Sigma}({\rm\Theta}_0)^{-1}\left[ \lambda_1\left( \widetilde{\rm\Theta} - {\rm\Theta}_0 \right) + \left(\sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D}{\rm\Phi}(\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0){\rm\Phi}(\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0)^\top\right)\left( \widetilde{\rm\Theta} - {\rm\Theta}_0 \right) \right].\label{eq: 41}
\end{flalign}
Subtracting \cref{eq: 41} from \cref{eq: 40}, we have
\begin{flalign}
\overline{{\rm\Theta}} - \widetilde{\rm\Theta} = -\lambda_1 {\rm\Sigma}({\rm\Theta}_0)^{-1}\left( \widetilde{\rm\Theta} - {\rm\Theta}_0 \right) + {\rm\Sigma}({\rm\Theta}_0)^{-1} \sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D} {\rm\Phi}(\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0)\left[r(\tau) - \langle {\rm\Phi}(\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0), \widetilde{\rm\Theta} - {\rm\Theta}_0 \rangle \right].\label{eq: 42}
\end{flalign}
Taking inter product of both sides of \cref{eq: 42} with vector ${\rm\Phi}_h(x,{\rm\Theta}_0)$ and using the fact that $R(\tau)=\sum_{h\in[H]}R_h(x^\tau_h)$ and $\langle {\rm\Phi}(\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0), \widetilde{\rm\Theta} - {\rm\Theta}_0 \rangle = \sum_{h\in[H]} \langle \phi(x^\tau_h, \theta_0), \tilde{\theta}_h - \theta_0 \rangle$, we have
\begin{flalign}
&\langle {\rm\Phi}_h(x,{\rm\Theta}_0), \overline{\rm\Theta} - \widetilde{\rm\Theta} \rangle\nonumber\\
&\quad=-\lambda_1 {\rm\Phi}_h(x,{\rm\Theta}_0)^\top{\rm\Sigma}({\rm\Theta}_0)^{-1/2}{\rm\Sigma}({\rm\Theta}_0)^{-1/2}\left( \widetilde{\rm\Theta} - {\rm\Theta}_0 \right) \nonumber\\
&\quad\quad+ {\rm\Phi}_h(x,{\rm\Theta}_0)^\top{\rm\Sigma}({\rm\Theta}_0)^{-1/2}{\rm\Sigma}({\rm\Theta}_0)^{-1/2} \left(\sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D} {\rm\Phi}(\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0)\left(r(\tau) - R(\tau)\right) \right)\nonumber\\
&\quad\quad+ {\rm\Phi}_h(x,{\rm\Theta}_0)^\top{\rm\Sigma}({\rm\Theta}_0)^{-1/2}{\rm\Sigma}({\rm\Theta}_0)^{-1/2} \left(\sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D} {\rm\Phi}(\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0)\left[ \sum_{h\in[H]} \left(R_h(x^\tau_h) - \langle \phi(x^\tau_h, \theta_0), \tilde{\theta}_h - \theta_0 \rangle \right) \right]\right).\label{eq: 43}
\end{flalign}
Recall that $\widetilde{R}_h(x^\tau_h) = \langle \phi(x^\tau_h, \theta_0), \tilde{\theta}_h - \theta_0 \rangle$, and \cref{eq: 43} implies that
\begin{flalign}
&\lone{\langle {\rm\Phi}_h(x,{\rm\Theta}_0), \overline{\rm\Theta} - \widetilde{\rm\Theta} \rangle} \nonumber\\
&\leq \sqrt{\lambda_1} \ltwo{{\rm\Phi}_h(x,{\rm\Theta}_0)^\top{\rm\Sigma}({\rm\Theta}_0)^{-1/2}} \ltwo{\widetilde{\rm\Theta} - {\rm\Theta}_0} \nonumber\\
&\quad + \ltwo{ {\rm\Phi}_h(x,{\rm\Theta}_0)^\top{\rm\Sigma}({\rm\Theta}_0)^{-1/2}} \lsigma{\sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D} {\rm\Phi}(\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0)\varepsilon(\tau)} \nonumber\\
&\quad + \frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda_1}} \ltwo{ {\rm\Phi}_h(x,{\rm\Theta}_0)^\top{\rm\Sigma}({\rm\Theta}_0)^{-1/2}} \left(\sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D} \ltwo{{\rm\Phi}(\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0)} \sum_{h\in[H]} \lone{R_h(x^\tau_h) - \widetilde{R}_h(x^\tau_h) } \right),\label{eq: 44}
\end{flalign}
where we denote $\epsilon(\tau) = r(\tau) - R(\tau)$ and use the fact that $\ltwo{{\rm\Sigma}({\rm\Theta})^{-1/2}}\leq 1/\sqrt{\lambda_1}$ for any ${\rm\Theta}\in\mathbb{R}^{2mdH}$. By the definition of $\widetilde{\rm\Theta}$ in Step I, we have
\begin{flalign}
\ltwo{\widetilde{\rm\Theta} - {\rm\Theta}} &= \sqrt{\sum_{h\in[H],r\in[m]}\ltwo{ \tilde{\theta}_{h,r} - \theta^0_{h,r} }^2} \nonumber\\
&= \sqrt{\sum_{h\in[H],r\in[m]}\ltwo{ \ell_{r} }^2} \nonumber\\
&\leq r_2\sqrt{H/d}.\label{eq: 46}
\end{flalign}
By \Cref{lemma4} and \cref{eq: 47}, we have the followings hold with probability at least $1-N^{-2}H^{-4}$
\begin{flalign}
\ltwo{{\rm\Phi}(\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0)} &\leq C_\phi\sqrt{H},\label{eq: 49}\\
\lone{R_h(x^\tau_h) - \widetilde{R}_h(x^\tau_h) } &\leq \frac{2(L_\sigma a_2 + C^2_\sigma a^2_2)\sqrt{\log N^2H^5}}{\sqrt{m}}.\label{eq: 48}
\end{flalign}
Substituting \cref{eq: 46}, \cref{eq: 49} and \cref{eq: 48} into \cref{eq: 44} and using the fact that $b_{r,h}(x,{\rm\Theta}_0) = \ltwo{{\rm\Phi}_h(x,{\rm\Theta}_0)^\top{\rm\Sigma}({\rm\Theta}_0)^{-1/2}}$, we have
\begin{flalign}
&\lone{\langle {\rm\Phi}_h(x,{\rm\Theta}_0), \overline{\rm\Theta} - \widetilde{\rm\Theta} \rangle} \nonumber\\
&\leq \left(a_2\sqrt{\frac{\lambda_1H}{d}} + \frac{2(L_\sigma a_2 + C^2_\sigma a^2_2)C_\phi N H^{3/2}\sqrt{\log HN}}{\sqrt{\lambda_1m}}+ \lsigma{\sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D} {\rm\Phi}(\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0)\varepsilon(\tau)} \right) b_{r,h}(x,{\rm\Theta}_0) \label{eq: 50}.
\end{flalign}
Given that the events in \cref{eq: 49} and \cref{eq: 48} occur, applying \cref{eq: 70} in \Cref{lemma7}, we have the following holds with probability at least $1-N^{-2}H^{-4}$
\begin{flalign}
&\lsigma{\sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D} {\rm\Phi}(\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0)\varepsilon(\tau)}^2\nonumber\\
&\quad\leq H^2 \log\det(I+K^r_N/\lambda_1) + H^2 N(\lambda_1-1) + 4H^2\log(NH^2),\label{eq: 71}
\end{flalign}
where $K^r_N\in\mathbb{R}^{N\times N}$ is the Gram matrix defined as
\begin{flalign*}
K^r_N = [K_H(\tau_i, \tau_j)]_{i,j\in[N]}\in\mathbb{R}^{N\times N}.
\end{flalign*}
Combining \cref{eq: 50} and \cref{eq: 71} and letting $\lambda_1 = 1+N^{-1}$ and $m$ be sufficiently large such that
\begin{flalign*}
\frac{2(L_\sigma a_2 + C^2_\sigma a^2_2)C_\phi N H^{3/2}\sqrt{\log HN}}{\sqrt{\lambda_1m}}\leq a_2\sqrt{\frac{\lambda_1H}{d}},
\end{flalign*}
we have the following holds with probability at least $1-N^{-2}H^{-2}$
\begin{flalign}
&\lone{\langle {\rm\Phi}_h(x,{\rm\Theta}_0), \overline{\rm\Theta} - \widetilde{\rm\Theta} \rangle} \nonumber\\
&\leq \left( 2a_2\sqrt{\frac{\lambda_1H}{d}} + \sqrt{H^2 \log\det\left(I+\frac{K^r_N}{\lambda_1}\right) + H^2+ 4H^2\log(NH^2)} \right) b_{r,h}(x,{\rm\Theta}_0)\nonumber\\
&\leq \underbrace{H\left(\frac{4 a^2_2\lambda_1}{d} + 2\log\det\left(I+\frac{K^r_N}{\lambda_1}\right) + 10\log(NH^2) \right)^{1/2}}_{\beta_1} b_{r,h}(x,{\rm\Theta}_0),\label{eq: 72}
\end{flalign}
where in the last inequality we use the fact that $a+b\leq\sqrt{2(a^2+b^2)}$.
Substituting \cref{eq: 72} into \cref{eq: 73}, we have the following holds with probability at least $1-N^{-2}H^{-4}$
\begin{flalign}
\lone{\overline{R}_h(x) - \widetilde{R}_h(x)}\leq \beta_1\cdot b_{r,h}(x,{\rm\Theta}_0),
\end{flalign}
where
\begin{flalign*}
\beta_1 = H\left(\frac{4 a^2_2\lambda_1}{d} + 2\log\det\left(I+\frac{K^r_N}{\lambda_1}\right) + 10\log(NH^2) \right)^{1/2}.
\end{flalign*}
Next, we proceed to bound the reward estimation error $\lone{R_h(x) - \widehat{R}_h(x)}$. By the triangle inequality, we have
\begin{flalign}
\lone{R_h(x) - \widehat{R}_h(x)} &= \lone{R_h(x) - \widetilde{R}_h(x) + \widetilde{R}_h(x) - \overline{R}_h(x) + \overline{R}_h(x) - \widehat{R}_h(x)}\nonumber\\
&\leq \lone{R_h(x) - \widetilde{R}_h(x)} + \lone{\widetilde{R}_h(x) - \overline{R}_h(x)} + \lone{\overline{R}_h(x) - \widehat{R}_h(x)}\nonumber\\
&\overset{(i)}{\leq} \frac{2(L_\sigma a_2 + C^2_\sigma a^2_2)\sqrt{\log(HN)}}{\sqrt{m}} + \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{C^3_\phi H^{17/6} N^{5/3}\sqrt{\log(m)}}{m^{1/6}\lambda_1^{5/3}} \right)\nonumber\\
&\quad + \beta_1\cdot b_{r,h}(x,{\rm\Theta}_0)\nonumber\\
&\overset{(ii)}{\leq} \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{H^{17/6} N^{5/3}\sqrt{\log(m)}}{m^{1/6}} \right) + \beta_1\cdot b_{r,h}(x,{\rm\Theta}_0).\label{eq: 119}
\end{flalign}
where $(i)$ follows from \cref{eq: 47} and \cref{eq: 39} and $(ii)$ follows from the fact that $\lambda_1=1+1/N$ and $L_\sigma,C_\sigma,a_2, C_\phi = \mathcal{O}(1)$.
\subsection{Uncertainty of Estimated Transition Value Function $({\widehat{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1} })(\cdot)$}
In this subsection, we aim to bound the estimation error of the transition value function $\lone{({\widehat{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}})(\cdot) - ({{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}})(\cdot)}$.
For each $h\in[H]$, since $\widehat{w}_h$ is the global minimizer of the loss function $L^h_v(w_h)$ defined in \cref{eq: 74}, we have
\begin{flalign}
L^h_v(\widehat{w}_h) &= \sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D}\left(\widehat{V}_{h+1}(s^\tau_{h+1}) - f(x^\tau_h,\widehat{w}_h)\right)^2+\lambda_2\cdot \ltwo{\widehat{w}_h-w_0}^2\nonumber\\
&\leq L^h_v(\widehat{w}_0) = \sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D}\left(\widehat{V}_{h+1}(s^\tau_{h+1}) - f(x^\tau_h,{w}_0)\right)^2 \overset{(i)}{=} \sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D}\left(\widehat{V}_{h+1}(s^\tau_{h+1})\right)^2 \overset{(ii)}{\leq} NH^2,\label{eq: 75}
\end{flalign}
where $(i)$ follows from the fact that $f(x,w_0)=0$ for all $x\in\mathcal X$ and $(ii)$ follows from the fact that $\widehat{V}_{h}(s)\leq H$ for any $h\in[H]$, $s\in\mathcal S$, and $\lone{\mathcal D}=N$. Note that \cref{eq: 75} implies
\begin{flalign}
\ltwo{\widehat{w}_h-w_0}^2\leq NH^2/\lambda_2,\quad\forall h\in[H].\label{eq: 76}
\end{flalign}
Hence, each $\widehat{w}_h$ belongs to the Euclidean ball $\mathcal B_w=\{w\in\mathbb{R}^{2md}: \ltwo{w-w_0}\leq H\sqrt{N/\lambda_2} \}$, where $\lambda_2$ does not depend on the network width $m$. Since the radius of $\mathcal B_w$ does not depend on $m$, when $m$ is sufficient large, it can be shown that $f(\cdot,w)$ is close to its linearization at $w_0$, i.e.,
\begin{flalign*}
f(\cdot,w)\approx \langle \phi(\cdot,w_0), w-w_0\rangle,\quad\forall w\in\mathcal B_\theta,
\end{flalign*}
where $\phi(\cdot,w)=\nabla_w f(\cdot,w)$. Furthermore, according to \Cref{ass1}, there exists a function $\ell_{A_1,A_2}:\mathbb{R}^d\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^d$ such that $(\mathbb P_h \widehat{V}_{h+1} )(\cdot)$ satisfies
\begin{flalign}\label{eq: 77}
(\mathbb P_h \widehat{V}_{h+1} )(x) = \int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\sigma^\prime(\theta^\top x) \cdot x^\top \ell_v(w)dp(w),
\end{flalign}
where $\sup_w\ltwo{\ell_v(w)}\leq A_1$, $\sup_w(\ltwo{\ell_v(w)}/p(w))\leq A_2$ and $p$ is the density of $N(0,I_d/d)$. We then proceed to bound the difference between $({\widehat{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}})(\cdot)$ and $({{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}})(\cdot)$.
{\bf Step I.} In the first step, we show that the transition value function $({\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(\cdot)$ can be well-approximated by a linear function with the feature vector $\phi(\cdot,\theta_0)$. \Cref{lemma3} in \Cref{sc: supplemma} implies that with probability at least $1-N^{-2}H^{-4}$ over the randomness of initialization $w_0$, for all $h\in[H]$, there exists a function $(\widetilde{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(\cdot):\mathcal X\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ satisfying
\begin{flalign}
\sup_{x\in\mathcal X}\lone{(\widetilde{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x) - ({\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x)}\leq \frac{2(L_\sigma A_2 + C^2_\sigma A^2_2)\sqrt{\log(N^2H^5)}}{\sqrt{m}}, \label{eq: 78}
\end{flalign}
where $(\widetilde{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(\cdot)$ is a finite-width neural network which can be written as
\begin{flalign*}
(\widetilde{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{m}}\sum_{r=1}^{m}\sigma^\prime(w^{\top}_{0,r} x)\cdot x^\top \ell^v_r,
\end{flalign*}
where $\ltwo{\ell^v_r}\leq A_2/\sqrt{dm}$ for all $r\in[m]$ and $w_0=[w_{0,1},\cdots,w_{0,m}]$ is generated via the symmetric initialization scheme. Following steps similar to those in \cref{eq: 79}, we can show that there exists a vector $\tilde{w}_h\in\mathbb{R}^{2md}$ such that
\begin{flalign*}
(\widetilde{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(\cdot) = \langle \phi(\cdot,w_0), \tilde{w}_h -w_0\rangle,
\end{flalign*}
where $\tilde{w}_h=[\tilde{w}^{\top}_{h,1},\cdots.\tilde{w}^{\top}_{h,2m}]^\top$, in which $\tilde{w}^{\top}_{h,r}=w_{0,r} + b_{0,r}\cdot \ell^v_r/\sqrt{2}$ for all $r\in\{1,\cdots,m\}$ and $\tilde{w}^{\top}_{h,r}=w_{0,r} + b_{0,r}\cdot \ell^v_{r-m}/\sqrt{2}$ for all $r\in\{m+1,\cdots,2m\}$. Moreover, since $\tilde{w}_{h,r} - w_{0,r} = b_{0,r}\cdot \ell^v_r/\sqrt{2}$ or $ b_{0,r}\cdot \ell^v_{r-m}/\sqrt{2}$, we have
\begin{flalign*}
\ltwo{\tilde{w}_h - w_0}\leq A_2\sqrt{2dm}.
\end{flalign*}
{\bf Step II.} In the second step, we show that with high probability, the estimation of the transition value function $ (\widehat{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(\cdot)$ in \Cref{alg1} can be well-approximated by its counterpart learned with a linear function with the feature $\phi(\cdot,\theta_0)$.
Consider the following least-square loss function
\begin{flalign}
\bar{L}^h_v(w_h) &= \sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D}\left(\widehat{V}_{h+1}(s^\tau_{h+1}) - \langle \phi(x^\tau_h,w_0), w_h-w_0 \rangle \right)^2+\lambda_2\cdot \ltwo{w_h-w_0}^2.
\end{flalign}
The global minimizer of $\bar{L}^h_v(w_h)$ is defined as
\begin{flalign}\label{eq: 80}
\overline{w}_h=\argmin_{w\in\mathbb{R}^{2dm}}\bar{L}^h_v(w).
\end{flalign}
We define $(\overline{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(\cdot)=\langle \phi(\cdot,w_0), \overline{w}_h - w_0 \rangle$ for all $h\in[H]$. Then, in a manner similar to the construction of $\widehat{Q}_h(\cdot)$ in \Cref{alg1}, we combine $\overline{R}_h(\cdot)$ in \cref{eq: 16}, $b_{r,h}(\cdot, {\rm\Theta}_0)$, $\overline{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1}(\cdot)$ and $b_{v,h}(\cdot,w_0)$ to construct $\overline{Q}_h(\cdot):\mathcal X\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ as
\begin{flalign}
\overline{Q}_h(\cdot) = \min\{ \overline{R}_h(\cdot)+ (\overline{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(\cdot) - \beta_1\cdot b_{r,h}(\cdot, {\rm\Theta}_0) - \beta_2\cdot b_{v,h}(\cdot,w_0) , H \}^{+}.\label{eq: 102}
\end{flalign}
Moreover, we define the estimated optimal state value function as
\begin{flalign}
\overline{V}_h(\cdot) = \max_{a\in\mathcal A} \overline{Q}_h(\cdot,a).\label{eq: 103}
\end{flalign}
We then proceed to bound the estimation error $\lone{(\widehat{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x) - \overline{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x)}$ as follows
\begin{flalign}
\lone{(\widehat{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x) - \overline{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x)} & = \lone{f(x,\widehat{w}_h) - \langle \phi(x,w_0), \overline{w}_h - w_0 \rangle}\nonumber\\
& = \lone{f(x,\widehat{w}_h) - \langle \phi(x,w_0), \widehat{w}_h - w_0 \rangle - \langle \phi(\cdot,w_0), \widehat{w}_h - \overline{w}_h \rangle}\nonumber\\
& \leq \lone{f(x,\widehat{w}_h) - \langle \phi(x,w_0), \widehat{w}_h - w_0 \rangle} + \lone{\langle \phi(\cdot,w_0), \widehat{w}_h - \overline{w}_h \rangle}\nonumber\\
& \leq \underbrace{\lone{f(x,\widehat{w}_h) - \langle \phi(\cdot,w_0), \widehat{w}_h - w_0 \rangle}}_{(i)} + \underbrace{\ltwo{ \phi(x,w_0)}\ltwo{\widehat{w}_h - \overline{w}_h}}_{(ii)}.\nonumber
\end{flalign}
We then bound the term $(i)$ and term $(ii)$ in the above inequality. According to \Cref{lemma4} and the fact that $\ltwo{\widehat{w}_h-w_0}\leq H\sqrt{N/\lambda_2}$, we have the followings hold with probability at least $1-N^{-2}H^{-4}$
\begin{flalign}
(i)&\leq \mathcal{O}\left(C_\phi \left(\frac{N^2H^4}{\lambda^2_2\sqrt{m}}\right)^{1/3}\sqrt{\log m}\right),\label{eq: 81}\\
(ii)&\leq C_\phi \ltwo{\widehat{w}_h - \overline{w}_h}.\label{eq: 82}
\end{flalign}
We then proceed to bound $\ltwo{\widehat{w}_h - \overline{w}_h}$. Consider the minimization problem defined in \cref{eq: 3} and \cref{eq: 16}. By the first order optimality condition, we have
\begin{flalign}
\lambda_2\left( \widehat{w}_h - w_0 \right) &= \sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D}\left( \widehat{V}_{h+1}(s^\tau_{h+1}) - f(x^\tau_h,\widehat{w}_h) \right){\phi}(x^\tau_h,\widehat{w}_h)\label{eq: 83}\\
\lambda_2\left( \overline{w}_h - w_0 \right) &= \sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D}\left( \widehat{V}_{h+1}(s^\tau_{h+1}) - \langle \phi(x^\tau_h,w_0), \overline{w}_h - w_0 \rangle \right){\phi}(x^\tau_h,{w}_0)\label{eq: 84}.
\end{flalign}
Note that \cref{eq: 84} implies
\begin{flalign}\label{eq: 85}
{\rm\Lambda}_h(w_0)\left( \overline{w}_h - w_0 \right) = \sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D}\widehat{V}_{h+1}(s^\tau_{h+1}){\phi}(x^\tau_h,{w}_0).
\end{flalign}
Adding the term $\sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D} \langle {\phi}(x^\tau_h,{w}_0), \widehat{w}_h-{w}_0 \rangle {\phi}(x^\tau_h,{w}_0)$ on both sides of \cref{eq: 83} yields
\begin{flalign}\label{eq: 86}
{\rm\Lambda}_h(w_0)\left( \widehat{w}_h - w_0 \right) &= \sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D} \widehat{V}_{h+1}(s^\tau_{h+1}){\phi}(x^\tau_h,\widehat{w}_h) \nonumber\\
& \quad + \sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D} \left[ \langle {\phi}(x^\tau_h,{w}_0), \widehat{w}_h-{w}_0 \rangle {\phi}(x^\tau_h,{w}_0) - f(x^\tau_h,\widehat{w}_h) {\phi}(x^\tau_h,\widehat{w}_h) \right].
\end{flalign}
Then, by subtracting \cref{eq: 85} from \cref{eq: 86}, we have
\begin{flalign}
{\rm\Lambda}_h(w_0)( \widehat{w}_h - \overline{w}_h)&=\sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D} \widehat{V}_{h+1}(s^\tau_{h+1}) \left( {\phi}(x^\tau_h,\widehat{w}_h) - {\phi}(x^\tau_h,{w}_0) \right)\nonumber\\
&\quad + \sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D} \left[ \langle {\phi}(x^\tau_h,{w}_0), \widehat{w}_h-{w}_0 \rangle {\phi}(x^\tau_h,{w}_0) - f(x^\tau_h,\widehat{w}_h) {\phi}(x^\tau_h,\widehat{w}_h) \right],\label{eq: 87}
\end{flalign}
which implies
\begin{flalign}
\ltwo{{\rm\Lambda}_h(w_0)( \widehat{w}_h - \overline{w}_h)}&=\sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D} \widehat{V}_{h+1}(s^\tau_{h+1}) \ltwo{{\phi}(x^\tau_h,\widehat{w}_h) - {\phi}(x^\tau_h,{w}_0)} \nonumber\\
&\quad + \sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D} \ltwo{\langle {\phi}(x^\tau_h,{w}_0), \widehat{w}_h-{w}_0 \rangle {\phi}(x^\tau_h,{w}_0) - f(x^\tau_h,\widehat{w}_h) {\phi}(x^\tau_h,\widehat{w}_h)}.\label{eq: 88}
\end{flalign}
To bound the term $ \ltwo{\langle {\phi}(x^\tau_h,{w}_0), \widehat{w}_h-{w}_0 \rangle {\phi}(x^\tau_h,{w}_0) - f(x^\tau_h,\widehat{w}_h) {\phi}(x^\tau_h,\widehat{w}_h)}$, we proceed as follows
\begin{flalign*}
&\langle {\phi}(x^\tau_h,{w}_0), \widehat{w}_h-{w}_0 \rangle {\phi}(x^\tau_h,{w}_0) - f(x^\tau_h,\widehat{w}_h) {\phi}(x^\tau_h,\widehat{w}_h)\nonumber\\
& = \langle {\phi}(x^\tau_h,{w}_0), \widehat{w}_h-{w}_0 \rangle ({\phi}(x^\tau_h,{w}_0) - {\phi}(x^\tau_h,\widehat{w}_h)) - (\langle {\phi}(x^\tau_h,{w}_0), \widehat{w}_h-{w}_0 \rangle - f(x^\tau_h,\widehat{w}_h)) {\phi}(x^\tau_h,\widehat{w}_h)
\end{flalign*}
which implies
\begin{flalign}
&\ltwo{\langle {\phi}(x^\tau_h,{w}_0), \widehat{w}_h-{w}_0 \rangle {\phi}(x^\tau_h,{w}_0) - f(x^\tau_h,\widehat{w}_h) {\phi}(x^\tau_h,\widehat{w}_h)}\nonumber\\
&\leq \ltwo{{\phi}(x^\tau_h,{w}_0) } \ltwo{\widehat{w}_h-{w}_0} \ltwo{{\phi}(x^\tau_h,{w}_0) - {\phi}(x^\tau_h,\widehat{w}_h)} \nonumber\\
&\quad + \lone{\langle {\phi}(x^\tau_h,{w}_0), \widehat{w}_h-{w}_0 \rangle - f(x^\tau_h,\widehat{w}_h)} \ltwo{{\phi}(x^\tau_h,\widehat{w}_h)}.\label{eq: 89}
\end{flalign}
According to \Cref{lemma4} and the fact that $\ltwo{\widehat{w}_h-w_0}\leq H\sqrt{N/\lambda_2}$, we have the followings hold for all $h\in[H]$ and $\tau\in\mathcal D$ with probability at least $1-N^{-2}H^{-4}$
\begin{flalign}
&\ltwo{\phi(x^\tau_h,w_0)} \leq C_\phi\quad\text{and}\quad \ltwo{\phi(x^\tau_h,\widehat{w}_h)} \leq C_\phi,\label{eq: 90}\\
&\ltwo{{\phi} (x^\tau_h,w_0) - {\phi} (x^\tau_h,\widehat{w}_h)}\leq \mathcal{O}\left( C_\phi \left( \frac{H\sqrt{N/\lambda_2}}{\sqrt{m}}\right)^{1/3}\sqrt{\log m} \right),\label{eq: 91}\\
&\lone{\langle {\phi} (x^\tau_h,{w}_0), \widehat{w}_h-{w}_0 \rangle - f(x^\tau_h,\widehat{w}_h)}\leq \mathcal{O}\left(C_\phi \left(\frac{H^4N^2/\lambda^2_2}{\sqrt{m}}\right)^{1/3}\sqrt{\log m}\right).\label{eq: 92}
\end{flalign}
Substituting \cref{eq: 90}, \cref{eq: 91} and \cref{eq: 92} into \cref{eq: 89}, we can obtain
\begin{flalign}
&\ltwo{\langle {\phi}(x^\tau_h,{w}_0), \widehat{w}_h-{w}_0 \rangle {\phi}(x^\tau_h,{w}_0) - f(x^\tau_h,\widehat{w}_h) {\phi}(x^\tau_h,\widehat{w}_h)}\nonumber\\
&\leq (H\sqrt{N/\lambda_2}) \mathcal{O}\left( C^2_\phi \left( \frac{H\sqrt{N/\lambda_2}}{\sqrt{m}}\right)^{1/3}\sqrt{\log m} \right) + \mathcal{O}\left(C^2_\phi \left(\frac{H^4N^2/\lambda^2_2}{\sqrt{m}}\right)^{1/3}\sqrt{\log m}\right)\nonumber\\
&\leq \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{C^2_\phi H^{4/3} N^{2/3}\sqrt{\log(m)}}{m^{1/6}\lambda_2^{2/3}} \right).\label{eq: 93}
\end{flalign}
Substituting \cref{eq: 93} into \cref{eq: 88}, we have the following holds with probability at least $1-N^{-2}H^{-4}$
\begin{flalign}
&\ltwo{{\rm\Lambda}_h(w_0)( \widehat{w}_h - \overline{w}_h)}\nonumber\\
&\leq NH \cdot \mathcal{O}\left( C_\phi \left( \frac{H\sqrt{N/\lambda_2}}{\sqrt{m}}\right)^{1/3}\sqrt{\log m} \right) + N \cdot \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{C^2_\phi H^{4/3} N^{2/3}\sqrt{\log(m)}}{m^{1/6}\lambda_2^{2/3}} \right)\nonumber\\
&\leq \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{C^2_\phi H^{4/3} N^{5/3}\sqrt{\log(m)}}{m^{1/6}\lambda_2^{2/3}} \right)
\end{flalign}
where we use the fact that $\widehat{V}_{h+1}(s)\leq H$ for any $s\in\mathcal S$. We then proceed to bound $ \ltwo{\widehat{w}_h - \overline{w}_h}$ as follows
\begin{flalign}
\ltwo{\widehat{w}_h - \overline{w}_h}&= \ltwo{{\rm\Lambda}^{-1}(w_0){\rm\Lambda}(w_0)(\widehat{w}_h - \overline{w}_h)}\nonumber\\
&\leq \ltwo{{\rm\Lambda}^{-1}(w_0)} \ltwo{{\rm\Lambda}(w_0)(\widehat{w}_h - \overline{w}_h)}\nonumber\\
&\leq \frac{1}{\lambda_2} \cdot \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{C^2_\phi H^{4/3} N^{5/3}\sqrt{\log(m)}}{m^{1/6}\lambda_2^{2/3}} \right)\nonumber\\
&\leq \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{C^2_\phi H^{4/3} N^{5/3}\sqrt{\log(m)}}{m^{1/6}\lambda_2^{5/3}} \right).\label{eq: 94}
\end{flalign}
Substituting \cref{eq: 94} into \cref{eq: 82} yields
\begin{flalign}
(ii) \leq \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{C^3_\phi H^{4/3} N^{5/3}\sqrt{\log(m)}}{m^{1/6}\lambda_2^{5/3}} \right).\label{eq: 95}
\end{flalign}
Taking summation of the upper bounds of $(i)$ in \cref{eq: 81} and $(ii)$ in \cref{eq: 95}, respectively, we have the following holds for all $x\in\mathcal X$ with probability at least $1-N^{-2}H^{-4}$
\begin{flalign}
\lone{(\widehat{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x) - \overline{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x)} &\leq (i) + (ii) \nonumber\\
&\leq \mathcal{O}\left(C_\phi \left(\frac{N^2H^4}{\lambda^2_2\sqrt{m}}\right)^{1/3}\sqrt{\log m}\right) + \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{C^3_\phi H^{4/3} N^{5/3}\sqrt{\log(m)}}{m^{1/6}\lambda_2^{5/3}} \right)\nonumber\\
&\leq \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{C^3_\phi H^{4/3} N^{5/3}\sqrt{\log(m)}}{m^{1/6}\lambda_2^{5/3}} \right).\label{eq: 96}
\end{flalign}
\textbf{Step III.} In this step, we show that the bonus term $b_{v,h}(\cdot,\widehat{w}_h)$ in \Cref{alg1} can be well approximated by $b_{v,h}(\cdot,{w}_0)$. By the definition of $b_{v,h}(\cdot,w)$, we have
\begin{flalign}
&\lone{ b_{v,h}(x,\widehat{w}_h) - b_{v,h}(x,{w}_0)} \nonumber\\
&\quad =\lone{\left[{\phi}_h(x,\widehat{w}_h)^\top {\rm\Lambda}^{-1}(\widehat{w}_h) {\phi}_h(x,\widehat{w}_h)\right]^{1/2} - \left[{\phi}_h(x,w_0)^\top {\rm\Lambda}^{-1}(w_0) {\phi}_h(x,w_0)\right]^{1/2}}\nonumber\\
&\quad \leq \lone{ {\phi}_h(x,\widehat{w}_h)^\top {\rm\Lambda}^{-1}(\widehat{w}_h) {\phi}_h(x,\widehat{w}_h) - {\phi}_h(x,w_0)^\top {\rm\Lambda}^{-1}({w}_0) {\phi}_h(x,{w}_0)}^{1/2},\label{eq: 104}
\end{flalign}
where the last inequality follows from the fact that $\lone{\sqrt{x}-\sqrt{y}}\leq \sqrt{\lone{x-y}}$. Following steps similar to those in \cref{eq: 33}, we can obtain
\begin{flalign}
&\lone{ {\phi}_h(x,\widehat{w}_h)^\top {\rm\Lambda}^{-1}(\widehat{w}_h) {\phi}_h(x,\widehat{w}_h) - {\phi}_h(x,w_0)^\top {\rm\Lambda}^{-1}({w}_0) {\phi}_h(x,{w}_0)}\nonumber\\
&\quad \leq \ltwo{{\phi}(x,\widehat{w}_h) - {\phi}(x,{w}_0)} \ltwo{{\rm\Lambda}^{-1}(\widehat{w}_h)} \ltwo{{\phi}(x,\widehat{w}_h)} \nonumber\\
&\quad\quad+ \ltwo{{\phi}(x, w_0)} \ltwo{{\rm\Lambda}^{-1}(\widehat{w}_h)} \ltwo{{\rm\Lambda}(\widehat{w}_h) - {\rm\Lambda}({w}_0)} \ltwo{{\rm\Lambda}^{-1}({w}_0)} \ltwo{{\phi}(x,\widehat{w}_h)}\nonumber\\
&\quad\quad + \ltwo{{\phi}(x,{w}_0)} \ltwo{{\rm\Lambda}^{-1}({w}_0)} \ltwo{{\phi}(x,\widehat{w}_h) - {\phi}(x,{w}_0)}\nonumber\\
&\quad \leq \frac{1}{\lambda_2}\ltwo{{\phi}(x,\widehat{w}_h) - {\phi}(x,{w}_0)} \ltwo{{\phi}(x,\widehat{w}_h)} + \frac{1}{\lambda^2_2} \ltwo{{\phi}(x,{w}_0)} \ltwo{{\rm\Lambda}(\widehat{w}_h) - {\rm\Lambda}({w}_0)} \ltwo{{\phi}(x,\widehat{w}_h)}\nonumber\\
&\quad\quad + \frac{1}{\lambda_2}\ltwo{{\phi}(x,w_0)} \ltwo{{\phi}(x,\widehat{w}_h) - {\phi}(x,{w}_0)},\label{eq: 107}
\end{flalign}
where the last inequality follows from the fact that $\ltwo{{\rm\Lambda}({w})}\geq \lambda_2$ for any ${w}\in\mathbb{R}^{2md}$. For ${\rm\Lambda}(\widehat{w}) - {\rm\Lambda}({w}_0)$, by following steps similar to those in \cref{eq: 36}, we can obtain
\begin{flalign}
&\ltwo{ {\rm\Lambda}(\widehat{w}_h) - {\rm\Lambda}({w}_0)}\nonumber\\
&\quad \leq \sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D} \left[\ltwo{{\phi}(x^\tau_h,\widehat{w}_h)} \ltwo{{\phi}(x^\tau_h,\widehat{w}_h) - {\phi}(x^\tau_h,{w}_0)} + \ltwo{{\phi}(x^\tau_h,\widehat{w}_h) - {\phi}(x^\tau_h,{w}_0)} \ltwo{{\phi}(x^\tau_h,{w}_0)} \right].\label{eq: 105}
\end{flalign}
Applying \Cref{lemma4} to \cref{eq: 105}, we have the followings hold with probability at least $1-N^{-2}H^{-4}$
\begin{flalign*}
\ltwo{{\phi}(x^\tau_h,\widehat{w}_h)} & \leq C_\phi,\nonumber\\
\ltwo{{\phi}(x^\tau_h,\widehat{w}_h) - {\phi}(x^\tau_h,{w}_0) } &\leq \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{C_\phi H^{1/3} N^{1/6} \sqrt{\log m} }{m^{1/6}\lambda_2^{1/6}} \right).
\end{flalign*}
Substituting the above two inequalities into \cref{eq: 36} yields
\begin{flalign}
\ltwo{ {\rm\Lambda}(\widehat{w}_h) - {\rm\Lambda}({w}_0)} \leq \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{C^2_\phi H^{1/3} N^{1/6} \sqrt{\log m} }{m^{1/6}\lambda_2^{1/6}} \right).\label{eq: 106}
\end{flalign}
Finally, combining \cref{eq: 106} and \cref{eq: 13} and \cref{eq: 14} in \Cref{lemma4}, the right hand side of \cref{eq: 107} can be bounded by
\begin{flalign}
&\lone{ {\phi}_h(x,\widehat{w}_h)^\top {\rm\Lambda}^{-1}(\widehat{w}_h) {\phi}_h(x,\widehat{w}_h) - {\phi}_h(x,w_0)^\top {\rm\Lambda}^{-1}({w}_0) {\phi}_h(x,{w}_0)}\nonumber\\
&\quad \leq \frac{1}{\lambda_2}\ltwo{{\phi}(x,\widehat{w}_h) - {\phi}(x,{w}_0)} \ltwo{{\phi}(x,\widehat{w}_h)} + \frac{1}{\lambda^2_2} \ltwo{{\phi}(x,{w}_0)} \ltwo{{\rm\Lambda}(\widehat{w}_h) - {\rm\Lambda}({w}_0)} \ltwo{{\phi}(x,\widehat{w}_h)}\nonumber\\
&\quad\quad + \frac{1}{\lambda_2}\ltwo{{\phi}(x,w_0)} \ltwo{{\phi}(x,\widehat{w}_h) - {\phi}(x,{w}_0)}\nonumber\\
&\quad\leq \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{C^2_\phi H^{1/3} N^{1/6} \sqrt{\log m} }{m^{1/6}\lambda_2^{7/6}} \right) + \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{C^4_\phi H^{1/3} N^{1/6} \sqrt{\log m} }{m^{1/6}\lambda_2^{13/6}} \right).\nonumber
\end{flalign}
By \cref{eq: 104}, we have the following holds with probability at least $1-N^{-2}H^{-4}$
\begin{flalign}
&\lone{ b_{v,h}(x,\widehat{w}_h) - b_{v,h}(x,{w}_0)} \nonumber\\
&\leq\lone{ {\phi}_h(x,\widehat{w}_h)^\top {\rm\Lambda}^{-1}(\widehat{w}_h) {\phi}_h(x,\widehat{w}_h) - {\phi}_h(x,w_0)^\top {\rm\Lambda}^{-1}({w}_0) {\phi}_h(x,{w}_0)}^{1/2}\nonumber\\
&\leq \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{C^2_\phi H^{1/6} N^{1/12} (\log m)^{1/4}}{m^{1/12}\lambda_2^{13/12}} \right).\label{eq: 108}
\end{flalign}
{\bf Step IV.} In Steps I and II, we show that $({\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(\cdot)$ can be well approximated by a linear function $(\widetilde{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(\cdot)$ with the feature $\phi(\cdot,\theta_0)$, and $(\widehat{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(\cdot)$ can be well approximated by a linear function $(\overline{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(\cdot)$ with the feature $\phi(\cdot,\theta_0)$. In this step, we want to show that the difference between $({\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(\cdot)$ and $(\widehat{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(\cdot)$ is approximately $\beta_2\cdot b_{v.h}(x,{\rm\Theta}_0)$ with an approximately chosen $\beta_2$.
Recall that $(\widetilde{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(\cdot)=\langle \phi(\cdot, w_0), \tilde{w}_h-w_0 \rangle $ and $ (\overline{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(\cdot) = \langle \phi(\cdot,w_0), \bar{w}_h - w_0 \rangle$. Consider the difference between $(\overline{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(\cdot)$ and $(\widetilde{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(\cdot)$. We have
\begin{flalign}
(\overline{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x) -(\widetilde{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x) = \langle \phi(x,w_0), \bar{w}_h - \tilde{w}_h \rangle,\label{eq: 97}
\end{flalign}
By \cref{eq: 84}, we have
\begin{flalign}
\overline{w} - w_0 = {\rm\Lambda}(w_0)^{-1}\sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D} \widehat{V}_{h+1}(s^\tau_{h+1}){\phi}(x^\tau_h,w_0).\label{eq: 98}
\end{flalign}
By the definition of ${\rm\Lambda}(w)$, we have
\begin{flalign}
\widetilde{w} - {w}_0 = {\rm\Lambda}({w}_0)^{-1}\left[ \lambda_2\left( \widetilde{w} - {w}_0 \right) + \left(\sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D}{\phi}(x^\tau_{h},w_0){\phi}(x^\tau_{h},w_0)^\top\right)\left( \widetilde{w} - {w}_0 \right) \right].\label{eq: 99}
\end{flalign}
Subtracting \cref{eq: 99} from \cref{eq: 98}, we have
\begin{flalign}
\overline{w} - \widetilde{w} = -\lambda_2 {\rm\Lambda}(w_0)^{-1}\left( \widetilde{w} - w_0 \right) + {\rm\Lambda}({w}_0)^{-1} \sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D} {\phi}(x^\tau_h,w_0)\left[ \widehat{V}_{h+1}(s^\tau_{h+1}) - \langle {\phi}(x^\tau_h,w_0), \widetilde{w} - w_0 \rangle \right].\label{eq: 100}
\end{flalign}
Taking inter product of both sides of \cref{eq: 100} with vector ${\phi}(x^\tau_h,w_0)$ and using the fact that $(\widetilde{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(s^\tau_{h+1}) = \langle \phi(x^\tau_h, w_0), \tilde{w}_h - w_0 \rangle$, we have
\begin{flalign}
&\langle {\phi}_h(x^\tau_h,w_0), \overline{w} - \widetilde{w} \rangle\nonumber\\
&\quad=-\lambda_2 {\phi}_h(x^\tau_h,w_0)^\top{\rm\Lambda}(w_0)^{-1/2}{\rm\Lambda}({w}_0)^{-1/2}\left( \widetilde{w} - {w}_0 \right) \nonumber\\
&\quad\quad+ {\phi}_h(x^\tau_h,w_0)^\top{\rm\Lambda}(w_0)^{-1/2}{\rm\Lambda}(w_0)^{-1/2} \left(\sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D} {\phi}(x^\tau_h,w_0)\left(\widehat{V}_{h+1}(s^\tau_{h+1}) - (\mathbb P_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x^\tau_{h}) \right) \right)\nonumber\\
&\quad\quad+ {\phi}_h(x,w_0)^\top{\rm\Lambda}(w_0)^{-1/2}{\rm\Lambda}(w_0)^{-1/2} \left(\sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D} {\phi}(x^\tau_h,w_0)\left( (\mathbb P_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(s^\tau_{h+1}) - \langle \phi(x^\tau_h,w_0), \tilde{w}_h - w_0 \rangle \right) \right)\nonumber\\
&\quad=-\lambda_2 {\phi}_h(x^\tau_h,w_0)^\top{\rm\Lambda}(w_0)^{-1/2}{\rm\Lambda}({w}_0)^{-1/2}\left( \widetilde{w} - {w}_0 \right) \nonumber\\
&\quad\quad+ {\phi}_h(x^\tau_h,w_0)^\top{\rm\Lambda}(w_0)^{-1/2}{\rm\Lambda}(w_0)^{-1/2} \left(\sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D} {\phi}(x^\tau_h,w_0)\left(\overline{V}_{h+1}(s^\tau_{h+1}) - (\mathbb P_h\overline{V}_{h+1})(x^\tau_{h}) \right) \right)\nonumber\\
&\quad\quad+ {\phi}_h(x^\tau_h,w_0)^\top{\rm\Lambda}(w_0)^{-1/2}{\rm\Lambda}(w_0)^{-1/2} \left(\sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D} {\phi}(x^\tau_h,w_0)\left(\Delta V_{h+1}(s^\tau_{h+1}) - (\mathbb P_h\Delta{V}_{h+1})(x^\tau_{h}) \right) \right)\nonumber\\
&\quad\quad+ {\phi}_h(x,w_0)^\top{\rm\Lambda}(w_0)^{-1/2}{\rm\Lambda}(w_0)^{-1/2} \left(\sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D} {\phi}(x^\tau_h,w_0)\left( (\mathbb P_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x^\tau_{h}) - (\widetilde{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x^\tau_{h}) \right) \right)\label{eq: 101},
\end{flalign}
where in the last equality we denote $\Delta V_{h}(s) \coloneqq \widehat{V}_h(s) - \overline{V}_h(s)$. By the definition of $\widehat{V}_h(\cdot)$ in \Cref{alg1} and $\overline{V}_h(\cdot)$ in \cref{eq: 103}, we have
\begin{flalign}
&\lone{\widehat{V}_h(x) - \overline{V}_h(x)} \nonumber\\
&\quad\leq \sup_{x\in\mathcal X}\lone{\widehat{Q}_h(x) - \overline{Q}_h(x)}\nonumber\\
&\quad\leq \lone{f(x,\widehat{\theta}_h) - \langle \phi(x,\theta_0), \bar{\theta}_h - \theta_0 \rangle} + \lone{f(x,\widehat{w}_h) - \langle \phi(x,w_0), \overline{w}_h - w_0 \rangle} \nonumber\\
&\quad\quad + \beta_1\lone{b_{r,h}(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) - b_{r,h}(x,{\rm\Theta}_0) } + \beta_2\lone{b_{v,h}(x,\widehat{w}) - b_{v,h}(x,w_0)}\nonumber\\
&\quad\overset{(i)}{\leq} \mathcal{O}\left(C_\phi \left(\frac{H^4N^2/\lambda^2_1}{\sqrt{m}}\right)^{1/3}\sqrt{\log m}\right) + \mathcal{O}\left(C_\phi \left(\frac{H^4N^2/\lambda^2_2}{\sqrt{m}}\right)^{1/3}\sqrt{\log m}\right)\nonumber\\
&\quad\quad + \beta_1\cdot \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{C^2_\phi N^{1/12} (\log m)^{1/4}}{m^{1/12}\lambda_1^{13/12}} \right) + \beta_2\cdot \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{C^2_\phi H^{1/6} N^{1/12} (\log m)^{1/4}}{m^{1/12}\lambda_2^{13/12}} \right)\nonumber\\
&\quad\overset{(ii)}{\leq} \mathcal{O}\left(C_\phi \left(\frac{H^4N^2}{\sqrt{m}}\right)^{1/3}\sqrt{\log m}\right) + \max\{H^{2/3}\beta_1,H^{1/6}\beta_2\}\cdot \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{C^2_\phi N^{1/12} (\log m)^{1/4}}{m^{1/12}} \right),\label{eq: 111}
\end{flalign}
where $(i)$ follows from \cref{eq: 15} in \Cref{lemma4}, \cref{eq: 109} and \cref{eq: 108}, and $(ii)$ follows from the fact that $\lambda_1,\lambda_2>1$. Denoting
\begin{flalign*}
\varepsilon_v = \mathcal{O}\left(C_\phi \left(\frac{H^4N^2}{\sqrt{m}}\right)^{1/3}\sqrt{\log m}\right) + \max\{H^{2/3}\beta_1,H^{1/6}\beta_2\}\cdot \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{C^2_\phi N^{1/12} (\log m)^{1/4}}{m^{1/12}} \right),
\end{flalign*}
we then have the following holds for all $h\in[H]$ and $s\in\mathcal S$
\begin{flalign*}
\lone{\Delta V_h(s)} \leq \varepsilon_v.
\end{flalign*}
\Cref{eq: 101} together with \cref{eq: 111} imply
\begin{flalign}
&\lone{\langle {\phi}_h(x^\tau_h,w_0), \overline{w} - \widetilde{w} \rangle} \nonumber\\
&\leq \sqrt{\lambda_2} \ltwo{{\phi}_h(x^\tau_h,w_0)^\top{\rm\Lambda}(w_0)^{-1/2}} \ltwo{\widetilde{w} - w_0} \nonumber\\
&\quad + \ltwo{ {\phi}_h(x^\tau_h,w_0)^\top{\rm\Lambda}(w_0)^{-1/2}} \llambda{\sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D} {\phi}(x^\tau_h,w_0)\varepsilon_v(x^\tau_h)} \nonumber\\
&\quad + \frac{2\varepsilon_v}{\sqrt{\lambda_2}} \ltwo{{\phi}_h(x^\tau_h,w_0)^\top{\rm\Lambda}(w_0)^{-1/2}} \sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D} \ltwo{{\phi}(x^\tau_h,w_0)} \nonumber\\
&\quad + \frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda_2}} \ltwo{ {\phi}_h(x^\tau_h,w_0)^\top{\rm\Lambda}(w_0)^{-1/2}} \left(\sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D} \ltwo{{\phi}(x^\tau_h,{w}_0)} \lone{ (\mathbb P_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x^\tau_{h}) - (\widetilde{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x^\tau_{h}) } \right),\label{eq: 110}
\end{flalign}
where we denote $\varepsilon_v(x^\tau_{h}) \coloneqq \overline{V}_{h+1}(s^\tau_{h+1}) - (\mathbb P_h\overline{V}_{h+1})(x^\tau_{h})$ and use the fact that $\ltwo{{\rm\Lambda}({w})^{-1/2}}\leq 1/\sqrt{\lambda_2}$ for any ${w}\in\mathbb{R}^{2md}$. By the definition of $\widetilde{w}$ in Step I, we have
\begin{flalign}
\ltwo{\widetilde{w} - {w}_0} = \ltwo{ \ell_{v} } \leq A_2\sqrt{H/d}.\label{eq: 112}
\end{flalign}
By \Cref{lemma4} and \cref{eq: 47}, we have the followings hold with probability at least $1-N^{-2}H^{-4}$ over the randomness of initialization $w_0$
\begin{flalign}
\ltwo{{\phi}(x^\tau_h,w_0)} &\leq C_\phi,\label{eq: 113}\\
\lone{ (\mathbb P_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x^\tau_{h}) - (\widetilde{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x^\tau_{h}) } &\leq \frac{2(L_\sigma A_2 + C^2_\sigma A^2_2)\sqrt{\log N^2H^5}}{\sqrt{m}}.\label{eq: 114}
\end{flalign}
Substituting \cref{eq: 112}, \cref{eq: 113} and \cref{eq: 114} into \cref{eq: 110} and using the fact that $b_{v,h}(x,w_0) = \ltwo{{\phi}_h(x,{w}_0)^\top{\rm\Lambda}(w_0)^{-1/2}}$, we have
\begin{flalign}
\lone{\langle {\phi}_h(x^\tau_h,w_0), \overline{w} - \widetilde{w} \rangle} &\leq \Bigg(A_2\sqrt{\frac{\lambda_2H}{d}} + \frac{2(L_\sigma A_2 + C^2_\sigma A^2_2)C_\phi N H^{3/2}\sqrt{\log HN}}{\sqrt{\lambda_2m}} \nonumber\\
&\qquad\qquad + \llambda{\sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D} {\phi}(x^\tau_h,w_0)\varepsilon_v(x^\tau_h)} \Bigg) b_{v,h}(x^\tau_h,{w}_0) \label{eq: 115}.
\end{flalign}
Given that the events in \cref{eq: 113} and \cref{eq: 114} occur, applying \cref{eq: 69} in \Cref{lemma7}, we have the following holds with probability at least $1-N^{-2}H^{-4}$
\begin{flalign}
&\llambda{\sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D} {\phi}(x^\tau_h,w_0)\varepsilon_v(x^\tau_h)}^2\nonumber\\
&\quad\leq 2H^2 \log\det(I+K^v_{N,h}/\lambda_2) + 2H^2 N(\lambda_2-1) + 4H^2\log(\mathcal N^v_{\epsilon,h}/\delta) + 8N^2C^2_\phi\epsilon^2/\lambda_2,\label{eq: 116}
\end{flalign}
where $K^v_{N,h}\in\mathbb{R}^{N\times N}$ is the Gram matrix defined as
\begin{flalign*}
K^v_{N,h} = [K(x^{\tau_i}_h, x^{\tau_j}_h)]_{i,j\in[N]}\in\mathbb{R}^{N\times N},
\end{flalign*}
and $\mathcal N^v_{\epsilon,h}$ is the cardinality of the following function class
\begin{flalign*}
\mathcal V_h(x,&\,R_\theta, R_w, R_{\beta_1}, R_{\beta_2}, \lambda_1, \lambda_2 )=\{ \max_{a\in\mathcal A}\{\overline{Q}_h(s,a)\}:\mathcal S\rightarrow [0,H]\,\, \nonumber\\
&\text{with}\,\, \ltwo{\theta}\leq R_\theta, \ltwo{w}\leq R_w, \beta_1\in[0, R_{\beta_1}], \beta_2\in [0, R_{\beta_2}], \ltwo{\rm\Sigma}\geq \lambda_1, \ltwo{\rm\Lambda}\geq \lambda_2 \},
\end{flalign*}
where $R_\theta = H\sqrt{N/\lambda_1}$, $R_w = H\sqrt{N/\lambda_2}$ and
\begin{flalign*}
\overline{Q}_h&(x ) = \min\{ \langle \phi(x,\theta_0), \theta - \theta_0 \rangle+ \langle \phi(x,w_0), w- w_0 \rangle \nonumber\\
&- \beta_1\cdot \sqrt{{\rm\Phi}_h(x,\theta_0)^\top {\rm\Sigma}^{-1}{\rm\Phi}_h(x,\theta_0) } - \beta_2\cdot \sqrt{\phi(x,w_0)^\top{\rm\Lambda}^{-1}\phi(x,w_0) } , H \}^{+}.
\end{flalign*}
Combining \cref{eq: 115} and \cref{eq: 116}, defining $\mathcal N_{\epsilon}^v=\max_{h\in[H]}\{\mathcal N_{\epsilon,h}^v\}$ and letting
\begin{flalign}
\epsilon = \sqrt{\lambda_2 C_\epsilon}H/(2NC_\phi)\,\, \text{where}\,\,C_\epsilon\geq 1\quad\text{and}\quad\lambda_2 = 1+N^{-1},\label{eq: 197}
\end{flalign}
and $m$ be sufficiently large such that
\begin{flalign*}
\frac{2(L_\sigma A_2 + C^2_\sigma A^2_2)C_\phi N H^{3/2}\sqrt{\log HN}}{\sqrt{\lambda_2m}}\leq A_2\sqrt{\frac{\lambda_2H}{d}},
\end{flalign*}
we have the following holds with probability at least $1-N^{-2}H^{-4}$
\begin{flalign}
&\lone{\langle {\phi}_h(x^\tau_h,w_0), \overline{w} - \widetilde{w} \rangle} \nonumber\\
&\leq \left( 2A_2\sqrt{\frac{\lambda_2H}{d}} + \sqrt{2H^2 \log\det\left(I+\frac{K^v_{N,h}}{\lambda_2}\right) + 3C_\epsilon H^2+ 8H^2\log(NH^2 \mathcal N_{\epsilon}^v )} \right) b_{v,h}(x,w_0)\nonumber\\
&\leq \underbrace{H\left(\frac{8 A^2_2\lambda_2}{d} + 4\max_{h\in[H]} \left\{\log\det\left(I+\frac{K^v_{N,h}}{\lambda_2}\right)\right\} + 6C_\epsilon + 16\log(NH^2 \mathcal N_{\epsilon}^v) \right)^{1/2}}_{\beta_2} b_{v,h}(x,w_0),\label{eq: 117}
\end{flalign}
where in the last inequality we use the fact that $a+b\leq\sqrt{2(a^2+b^2)}$.
Substituting \cref{eq: 117} into \cref{eq: 97}, we conclude that the following holds with probability at least $1-N^{-2}H^{-4}$
\begin{flalign}
\lone{(\overline{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x) -(\widetilde{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x) }\leq \beta_2\cdot b_{v,h}(x,w_0),\label{eq: 118}
\end{flalign}
where
\begin{flalign*}
\beta_2 = H\left(\frac{8 A^2_2\lambda_2}{d} + 4\max_{h\in[H]}\left\{\log\det\left(I+\frac{K^v_{N,h}}{\lambda_2}\right)\right\} + 22\log(NH^2 \mathcal N_{\epsilon}^v) \right)^{1/2}.
\end{flalign*}
Next, we proceed to bound the term $\lone{({\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x) -(\widehat{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x)}$. By the triangle inequality, we have
\begin{flalign}
&\lone{({\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x) - (\widehat{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x)} \nonumber\\
&= \lone{({\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x) -(\widetilde{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x) + (\widetilde{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x) - (\overline{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x) + (\overline{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x) - (\widehat{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x) }\nonumber\\
&\leq \lone{({\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x) -(\widetilde{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x)} + \lone{(\widetilde{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x) - (\overline{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x)} + \lone{(\overline{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x) - (\widehat{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x) }\nonumber\\
&\overset{(i)}{\leq} \frac{2(L_\sigma A_2 + C^2_\sigma A^2_2)\sqrt{\log(N^2H^5)}}{\sqrt{m}} + \beta_2\cdot b_{v,h}(x,w_0) + \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{C^3_\phi H^{4/3} N^{5/3}\sqrt{\log(m)}}{m^{1/6}\lambda_2^{5/3}} \right)\nonumber\\
&\overset{(ii)}{\leq} \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{H^{4/3} N^{5/3}\sqrt{\log(N^2H^5m)}}{m^{1/6}} \right) + \beta_2\cdot b_{v,h}(x,w_0),
\end{flalign}
where $(i)$ follows from \cref{eq: 78}, \cref{eq: 96} and \cref{eq: 118} and $(ii)$ follows from the fact that $\lambda_2=1+1/N$ and $L_\sigma,C_\sigma, A_2, C_\phi = \mathcal{O}(1)$.
\subsection{Upper and Lower Bounds on Evaluate Error $\delta_h(\cdot)$}\label{uplowerdelta1}
By definition, we have the following holds with probability $1-2N^{-2}H^{-4}$
\begin{flalign}
&\lone{(\widehat{\mathbb B}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x) - ({\mathbb B}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x) } \nonumber\\
&= \lone{\widehat{R}_h(x) + (\widehat{\mathbb P}_h\widehat V_{h+1})(x) - R_h(x) - ({\mathbb P}_h\widehat V_{h+1})(x) }\nonumber\\
&\leq \lone{\widehat{R}_h(x) - R_h(x)} + \lone{(\widehat{\mathbb P}_h\widehat V_{h+1})(x) - ({\mathbb P}_h\widehat V_{h+1})(x) }\nonumber\\
&\overset{(i)}{\leq} \beta_1\cdot b_{r,h}(x,{\rm\Theta}_0) + \beta_2\cdot b_{v,h}(x,w_0) + \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{H^{4/3} N^{5/3}\sqrt{\log(N^2H^5m)}}{m^{1/6}} \right) \nonumber\\
&\quad+ \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{H^{17/6} N^{5/3}\sqrt{\log(m)}}{m^{1/6}} \right)\nonumber\\
&\leq \beta_1\cdot b_{r,h}(x,{\rm\Theta}_0) + \beta_2\cdot b_{v,h}(x,w_0) + \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{H^{17/6} N^{5/3}\sqrt{\log(N^2H^5m)}}{m^{1/6}} \right), \label{eq: 120}
\end{flalign}
where $(i)$ follows from \cref{eq: 119} and \cref{eq: 120}. Moreover, by the triangle inequality, \cref{eq: 109} and \cref{eq: 108}, we have the following holds with probability $1-2N^{-2}H^{-4}$
\begin{flalign}
&\beta_1\cdot b_{r,h}(x,{\rm\Theta}_0) + \beta_2\cdot b_{v,h}(x,w_0)\nonumber\\
&\leq \beta_1\cdot b_{r,h}(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) + \beta_2\cdot b_{v,h}(x,\widehat{w}) + \beta_1\cdot \lone{b_{r,h}(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) - b_{r,h}(x,{\rm\Theta}_0) } \nonumber\\
&\quad+ \beta_2\cdot \lone{b_{r,h}(x,\widehat{w}) - b_{r,h}(x,{w}_0) } \nonumber\\
&\leq \beta_1\cdot b_{r,h}(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) + \beta_2\cdot b_{v,h}(x,\widehat{w}_h) \nonumber\\
&\quad + \beta_1\cdot \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{C^2_\phi H^{2/3} N^{1/12} (\log m)^{1/4}}{m^{1/12}\lambda_1^{13/12}} \right) + \beta_2\cdot \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{C^2_\phi H^{1/6} N^{1/12} (\log m)^{1/4}}{m^{1/12}\lambda_2^{13/12}} \right)\nonumber\\
&\overset{(i)}{\leq} \beta_1\cdot b_{r,h}(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) + \beta_2\cdot b_{v,h}(x,\widehat{w}_h) + \max\{\beta_1 H^{2/3}, \beta_2 H^{1/6} \} \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{N^{1/12} (\log m)^{1/4}}{m^{1/12}} \right),\label{eq: 121}
\end{flalign}
where $(i)$ follows from the fact that $\lambda_1 = \lambda_2 = 1 + 1/N$ and $C_\phi = \mathcal{O}(1)$. Substituting \cref{eq: 121} into \cref{eq: 120}, we can obtain
\begin{flalign}
&\lone{(\widehat{\mathbb B}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x) - ({\mathbb B}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x) }\nonumber\\
&\leq \beta_1\cdot b_{r,h}(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) + \beta_2\cdot b_{v,h}(x,\widehat{w}_h) \nonumber\\
&\quad + \max\{\beta_1 H^{2/3}, \beta_2 H^{1/6} \} \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{N^{1/12} (\log m)^{1/4}}{m^{1/12}} \right) + \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{H^{17/6} N^{5/3}\sqrt{\log(N^2H^5m)}}{m^{1/6}} \right).\nonumber
\end{flalign}
Denoting
\begin{flalign*}
\varepsilon_b = \max\{\beta_1 H^{2/3}, \beta_2 H^{1/6} \} \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{N^{1/12} (\log m)^{1/4}}{m^{1/12}} \right) + \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{H^{17/6} N^{5/3}\sqrt{\log(N^2H^5m)}}{m^{1/6}} \right),
\end{flalign*}
we have
\begin{flalign}
\lone{(\widehat{\mathbb B}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x) - ({\mathbb B}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x) }\leq \beta_1\cdot b_{r,h}(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) + \beta_2\cdot b_{v,h}(x,\widehat{w}_h) + \varepsilon_b.\label{eq: 122}
\end{flalign}
Up to this point, we characterize the uncertainty of $(\widehat{\mathbb B}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(\cdot)$. Next, we proceed to bound the suboptimality of \Cref{alg1}. Recalling the construction of $\widehat{Q}_h(x)$ in \Cref{alg1}, we have
\begin{flalign*}
\widehat{Q}_h(\cdot) = \min\{ (\widehat{\mathbb B}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(\cdot) - \beta_1\cdot b_{r,h}(\cdot,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) - \beta_2\cdot b_{v,h}(\cdot,\widehat{w}_h), H \}^{+}.
\end{flalign*}
If $(\widehat{\mathbb B}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x) < \beta_1\cdot b_{r,h}(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) + \beta_2\cdot b_{v,h}(x,\widehat{w}_h)$, we have
\begin{flalign*}
\widehat{Q}_h(\cdot) = 0.
\end{flalign*}
Note that $\widehat{V}_{h+1}(\cdot)$ is nonnegative. Recalling the definition of $\delta_h(x)$ in \cref{eq: 123}, we have
\begin{flalign*}
\delta_h(x) = ({\mathbb B}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x) - \widehat{Q}_h(x) = ({\mathbb B}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x) > 0.
\end{flalign*}
Otherwise, if $(\widehat{\mathbb B}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x) > \beta_1\cdot b_{r,h}(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) + \beta_2\cdot b_{v,h}(x,\widehat{w}_h)$, we have
\begin{flalign*}
\widehat{Q}_h(x) &= \min\{ (\widehat{\mathbb B}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x) - \beta_1\cdot b_{r,h}(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) - \beta_2\cdot b_{v,h}(x,\widehat{w}_h), H \}^{+} \nonumber\\
&\leq (\widehat{\mathbb B}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x) - \beta_1\cdot b_{r,h}(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) - \beta_2\cdot b_{v,h}(x,\widehat{w}_h),
\end{flalign*}
which implies that
\begin{flalign*}
\delta_h(x) &\geq ({\mathbb B}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x) - \left[(\widehat{\mathbb B}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x) - \beta_1\cdot b_{r,h}(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) - \beta_2\cdot b_{v,h}(x,\widehat{w}_h)\right]\nonumber\\
&= \left[({\mathbb B}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x) - (\widehat{\mathbb B}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x)\right] + \beta_1\cdot b_{r,h}(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) + \beta_2\cdot b_{v,h}(x,\widehat{w}_h).
\end{flalign*}
Note that \cref{eq: 122} implies the followings hold with probability $1-2N^{-2}H^{-4}$
\begin{flalign}
({\mathbb B}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x) - (\widehat{\mathbb B}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x) &\geq -\beta_1\cdot b_{r,h}(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) - \beta_2\cdot b_{v,h}(x,\widehat{w}_h) -\varepsilon_b.\label{eq: 125}\\
({\mathbb B}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x) - (\widehat{\mathbb B}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x) &\leq \beta_1\cdot b_{r,h}(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) + \beta_2\cdot b_{v,h}(x,\widehat{w}_h) + \varepsilon_b.\label{eq: 126}
\end{flalign}
As a result, we have the following holds with probability $1-2N^{-2}H^{-4}$
\begin{flalign}
\delta_h(x) &\geq -\varepsilon_b \label{eq: 124}.
\end{flalign}
It remains to establish the upper bound of $\delta_h(x)$. Considering the event in \cref{eq: 126} occurs, we have
\begin{flalign*}
&(\widehat{\mathbb B}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(\cdot) - \beta_1\cdot b_{r,h}(\cdot,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) - \beta_2\cdot b_{v,h}(\cdot,\widehat{w}_h) \nonumber\\
&\leq \left[({\mathbb B}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x) + \beta_1\cdot b_{r,h}(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) + \beta_2\cdot b_{v,h}(x,\widehat{w}_h) + \varepsilon_b\right] - \beta_1\cdot b_{r,h}(\cdot,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) - \beta_2\cdot b_{v,h}(\cdot,\widehat{w}_h)\nonumber\\
&= ({\mathbb B}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x) + \varepsilon_b \leq H + \varepsilon_b,
\end{flalign*}
where the last inequality follows from the fact that $R_h(x) \leq 1$ and $\widehat{V}_{h+1}(s)\leq H$ for all $x\in\mathcal X$ and $s\in\mathcal S$. Hence, we have
\begin{flalign}
\widehat{Q}_h(x) &= \min\{ (\widehat{\mathbb B}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x) - \beta_1\cdot b_{r,h}(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) - \beta_2\cdot b_{v,h}(x,\widehat{w}_h), H \}^{+}\nonumber\\
&\geq \min\{ (\widehat{\mathbb B}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x) - \beta_1\cdot b_{r,h}(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) - \beta_2\cdot b_{v,h}(x,\widehat{w}_h) - \varepsilon_b, H \}^{+}\nonumber\\
&=\max\{ (\widehat{\mathbb B}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x) - \beta_1\cdot b_{r,h}(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) - \beta_2\cdot b_{v,h}(x,\widehat{w}_h) - \varepsilon_b, 0 \}\nonumber\\
&\geq (\widehat{\mathbb B}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x) - \beta_1\cdot b_{r,h}(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) - \beta_2\cdot b_{v,h}(x,\widehat{w}_h) - \varepsilon_b,
\end{flalign}
which by definition of $\delta_h(x)$ implies
\begin{flalign}
\delta_h(x) &= ({\mathbb B}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x) - \widehat{Q}_h(x)\nonumber\\
&\leq ({\mathbb B}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x) - (\widehat{\mathbb B}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x) + \beta_1\cdot b_{r,h}(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) + \beta_2\cdot b_{v,h}(x,\widehat{w}_h) + \varepsilon_b \nonumber\\
&\leq 2\left[\beta_1\cdot b_{r,h}(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) + \beta_2\cdot b_{v,h}(x,\widehat{w}_h) + \varepsilon_b\right],\label{eq: 127}
\end{flalign}
where the last inequality follows from \cref{eq: 126}. Combining \cref{eq: 124} and \cref{eq: 127}, with probability $1-2N^{-2}H^{-4}$, we have
\begin{flalign*}
-\varepsilon_b \leq \delta_h(x) \leq 2\left[\beta_1\cdot b_{r,h}(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) + \beta_2\cdot b_{v,h}(x,\widehat{w}_h) + \varepsilon_b\right], \quad\forall x\in\mathcal X,\quad \forall h\in[H],
\end{flalign*}
which completes the proof.
\section{Proof of \Cref{lemma8}}\label{pfpenaltysummation}
For $\sum_{h=1}^{H}b_{r,h}(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta})$, we have the following holds with probability $1-N^{-2}H^{-4}$
\begin{flalign}
\sum_{h=1}^{H}b_{r,h}(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) & \leq \sum_{h=1}^{H}b_{r,h}(x,{\rm\Theta}_0) + \sum_{h=1}^{H}\lone{b_{r,h}(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) - b_{r,h}(x,{\rm\Theta}_0)}\nonumber\\
&\overset{(i)}{\leq} \sum_{h=1}^{H}b_{r,h}(x,{\rm\Theta}_0) + \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{H^{5/3} N^{1/12} (\log m)^{1/4}}{m^{1/12}} \right),\label{eq: 137}
\end{flalign}
where $(i)$ follows from \cref{eq: 109}. We next proceed to bound the term $\sum_{h=1}^{H}b_{r,h}(x,{\rm\Theta}_0)$. Recall that in \Cref{ass2} we define $\overline{M}({\rm\Theta}_0) = \mathbb E_{\mu}\left[ {\rm\Phi}(\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0){\rm\Phi}(\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0)^\top \right]$. For all $\tau\in\mathcal D$, we define the following random matrix $\widehat{M}({\rm\Theta}_0)$
\begin{flalign}
\widehat{M}({\rm\Theta}_0) = \sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D} A_\tau({\rm\Theta}_0),\quad\text{where}\quad A_\tau({\rm\Theta}_0) = {\rm\Phi}(\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0){\rm\Phi}(\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0)^\top - \overline{M}({\rm\Theta}_0).\label{eq: 130}
\end{flalign}
Note that \cref{eq: 23} implies $\ltwo{{\rm\Phi}(\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0)}\leq C_\phi\sqrt{H}$. By Jensen's inequality, we have
\begin{flalign}
\ltwo{\overline{M}({\rm\Theta}_0)}\leq \mathbb E_{\mu}\left[ \ltwo{{\rm\Phi}(\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0){\rm\Phi}(\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0)^\top} \right]\leq C^2_\phi H.\label{eq: 131}
\end{flalign}
For any vector $v\in\mathbb{R}^{2mdH}$ with $\ltwo{v}=1$, we have
\begin{flalign}
\ltwo{A_\tau({\rm\Theta}_0)v} &\leq \ltwo{{\rm\Phi}(\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0){\rm\Phi}(\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0)^\top v} + \ltwo{\overline{M}({\rm\Theta}_0) v}\nonumber\\
& \leq \ltwo{{\rm\Phi}(\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0){\rm\Phi}(\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0)^\top }\ltwo{v} + \ltwo{\overline{M}({\rm\Theta}_0)} \ltwo{v}\nonumber\\
&\leq 2C^2_\phi H\ltwo{v} = 2C^2_\phi H,\nonumber
\end{flalign}
which implies
\begin{flalign}
\ltwo{A_\tau({\rm\Theta}_0)}\leq 2C^2_\phi H\,\,\text{and}\,\, \ltwo{A_\tau({\rm\Theta}_0) A_\tau({\rm\Theta}_0)^\top} \leq \ltwo{A_\tau({\rm\Theta}_0)} \ltwo{A_\tau({\rm\Theta}_0)^\top} \leq 4C^4_\phi H^2.\label{eq: 132}
\end{flalign}
Since $\{ A_\tau({\rm\Theta}_0)\}_{\tau\in\mathcal D}$ are i.i.d. and $\mathbb E[A_\tau({\rm\Theta}_0)] = 0$ for all $\tau$, we have
\begin{flalign}
\ltwo{E_{\mu}[\widehat{M}({\rm\Theta}_0) \widehat{M}({\rm\Theta}_0)^\top ]} &= \ltwo{ \sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D}E_{\mu} \left[ A_\tau({\rm\Theta}_0)A_\tau({\rm\Theta}_0)^\top \right] }\nonumber\\
&=N\cdot \ltwo{E_{\mu} \left[ A_{\tau_1}({\rm\Theta}_0)A_{\tau_1}({\rm\Theta}_0)^\top \right]}\nonumber\\
&\overset{(i)}{\leq} N\cdot E_{\mu} \left[ \ltwo{A_{\tau_1}({\rm\Theta}_0)A_{\tau_1}({\rm\Theta}_0)^\top} \right]\nonumber\\
&\leq 4C^4_\phi H^2 N,\nonumber
\end{flalign}
where $(i)$ follows from Jensen's inequality. Similarly, we can also obtain
\begin{flalign}
\ltwo{E_{\mu}[\widehat{M}({\rm\Theta}_0)^\top \widehat{M}({\rm\Theta}_0) ]} \leq 4C^4_\phi H^2 N.\nonumber
\end{flalign}
Applying \Cref{lemma9} to $\widehat{M}({\rm\Theta}_0)$, for any fixed $h\in[H]$ and any $\xi_1>0$, we have
\begin{flalign}
{\rm P}\left(\ltwo{\widehat{M}({\rm\Theta}_0)}\geq \xi_1\right)\leq 4mdH\cdot\exp\left( - \frac{\xi_1^2/2}{4C^4_\phi H^2N + 2C^2_\phi H/3 \cdot \xi_1} \right).\nonumber
\end{flalign}
For any $\delta_1\in(0,1)$, let
\begin{flalign*}
\xi_1 = C^2_\phi H \sqrt{10N \log\left(\frac{4mdH}{\delta_1}\right)}\quad\text{and}\quad N\geq \frac{40}{9}\log\left( \frac{4mdH}{\delta_1} \right).
\end{flalign*}
Then, we have
\begin{flalign}
{\rm P}\left(\ltwo{\widehat{M}({\rm\Theta}_0)}\geq \xi_1\right)&\leq 4mdH\cdot\exp\left( - \frac{\xi_1^2/2}{4C^4_\phi H^2N + 2C^2_\phi H/3 \cdot \xi_1} \right) \nonumber\\
&\quad \leq 4mdH\cdot\exp\left( - \frac{\xi_1^2}{10C^4_\phi H^2N } \right)=\delta_1,\nonumber
\end{flalign}
which implies that the following holds with probability at least $1-\delta_1$ taken with respect to the randomness of $\mathcal D$
\begin{flalign}
\ltwo{\widehat{M}({\rm\Theta}_0)/N} &= \ltwo{\frac{1}{N} \sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D} {\rm\Phi}(\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0){\rm\Phi}(\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0)^\top - \overline{M}({\rm\Theta}_0) }\nonumber\\
&\leq C^2_\phi H \sqrt{\frac{10}{N} \log\left(\frac{4mdH}{\delta_1}\right)}.\label{eq: 133}
\end{flalign}
By the definition of ${\rm\Sigma}({\rm\Theta}_0)$, we have
\begin{flalign}
\widehat{M}({\rm\Theta}_0) = \left({\rm\Sigma}({\rm\Theta}_0) - \lambda_1\cdot I_{2mdH} \right) - N\cdot \overline{M}({\rm\Theta}_0).\label{eq: 134}
\end{flalign}
By \Cref{ass2}, there exists an absolute constant $C_\sigma>0$ such that $\lambda_{\min}(\overline{M}({\rm\Theta}_0))\geq C_\sigma$, which implies that $\ltwo{\overline{M}({\rm\Theta}_0)^{-1}}\leq 1/C_\sigma$. Letting $N$ be sufficiently large such that
\begin{flalign*}
N\geq \max\left\{\frac{40C^4_\phi H^2}{C^2_\sigma}, \frac{40}{9} \right\} \log\left(\frac{4mdH}{\delta_1}\right)
\end{flalign*}
and combining \cref{eq: 133} and \cref{eq: 134}, we have
\begin{flalign}
\lambda_{\min}({\rm\Sigma}({\rm\Theta}_0)/N) &= \lambda_{\min}(\overline{M}({\rm\Theta}_0) + \widehat{M}({\rm\Theta}_0)/N + \lambda_1/N \cdot I_{2mdH})\nonumber\\
&\geq \lambda_{\min}(\overline{M}({\rm\Theta}_0)) - \ltwo{\widehat{M}({\rm\Theta}_0)/N}\nonumber\\
&\geq C_\sigma - C^2_\phi H \sqrt{\frac{10}{N} \log\left(\frac{4mdH}{\delta}\right)}\nonumber\\
&\geq C_\sigma/2.\nonumber
\end{flalign}
Hence, the following holds with probability $1-\delta_1$ with respect to randomness of $\mathcal D$
\begin{flalign*}
\ltwo{{\rm\Sigma}({\rm\Theta}_0)^{-1}}\leq (N\cdot \lambda_{\min}({\rm\Sigma}({\rm\Theta}_0)/N))^{-1}\leq \frac{2}{NC_\sigma},
\end{flalign*}
which implies the following holds for all $x\in\mathcal X$ and $h\in[H]$
\begin{flalign}
b_{r,h}(x,{\rm\Theta}_0) &= \sqrt{{\rm\Phi}_h(x,{\rm\Theta}_0)^\top {\rm\Sigma}^{-1}({\rm\Theta}_0) {\rm\Phi}_h(x,{\rm\Theta}_0)}\nonumber\\
&\leq \ltwo{{\rm\Phi}_h(x,{\rm\Theta}_0)}\cdot \ltwo{{\rm\Sigma}^{-1}({\rm\Theta}_0)}^{1/2} \leq \frac{\sqrt{2} C_\phi}{\sqrt{C_\sigma}\sqrt{N}},\label{eq: 135}
\end{flalign}
where we use the fact that $\ltwo{{\rm\Phi}_h(x,{\rm\Theta}_0)} = \ltwo{{\phi}(x^\tau_h,\theta_0)}\leq C_\phi$. Substituting \cref{eq: 135} into \cref{eq: 137}, we have
\begin{flalign}
\sum_{h=1}^{H}b_{r,h}(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) \leq \frac{\sqrt{2} H C_\phi}{\sqrt{C_\sigma}\sqrt{N}} + \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{H^{5/3} N^{1/12} (\log m)^{1/4}}{m^{1/12}} \right).\label{eq: 136}
\end{flalign}
Next, we proceed to bound the term $\sum_{h=1}^{H}b_{v,h}(x,\widehat{w}_h)$. According to \cref{eq: 108}, we have the following holds with probability at least $1-N^{-2}H^{-4}$
\begin{flalign}
\sum_{h=1}^{H}b_{v,h}(x,\widehat{w}_h) & \leq \sum_{h=1}^{H}b_{v,h}(x,{w}_0) + \sum_{h=1}^{H}\lone{b_{v,h}(x,\widehat{w}_h) - b_{v,h}(x,{w}_0)}\nonumber\\
&\overset{(i)}{\leq} \sum_{h=1}^{H}b_{v,h}(x,{w}_0) + \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{ H^{7/6} N^{1/12} (\log m)^{1/4}}{m^{1/12}} \right).\label{eq: 138}
\end{flalign}
We then proceed to bound the summation of the penalty terms $\sum_{h=1}^{H}b_{v,h}(x,{w}_0)$. Recall that in \Cref{ass2} we define $\overline{m}_h({w}_0) = \mathbb E_{\mu}\left[\phi(x^\tau_h,w_0)\phi(x^\tau_h,w_0)^\top \right]$. For all $h\in[H]$ and $\tau\in\mathcal D$, we define the following random matrix $\widehat{m}({w}_0)$
\begin{flalign}
\widehat{m}_h({w}_0) = \sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D} B^\tau_h({w}_0),\quad\text{where}\quad B_h^\tau({w}_0) = {\phi}(x^\tau_h,{w}_0){\phi}(x^\tau_h,{w}_0)^\top - \overline{m}_h({w}_0).\label{eq: 139}
\end{flalign}
Note that \cref{eq: 23} implies $\ltwo{{\phi}(x^\tau_h,{w}_0)}\leq C_\phi$. By Jensen's inequality, we have
\begin{flalign}
\ltwo{\overline{m}_h({w}_0)}\leq \mathbb E_{\mu}\left[ \ltwo{{\phi}(x^\tau_h,{w}_0){\phi}(x^\tau_h,{w}_0)^\top} \right]\leq C^2_\phi.\label{eq: 140}
\end{flalign}
For any vector $v\in\mathbb{R}^{2md}$ with $\ltwo{v}=1$, we have
\begin{flalign}
\ltwo{B^\tau_h({w}_0)v} &\leq \ltwo{{\phi}(x^\tau_h,{w}_0){\phi}(x^\tau_h,{w}_0)^\top v} + \ltwo{\overline{m}_h({w}_0) v}\nonumber\\
& \leq \ltwo{{\phi}(x^\tau_h,{w}_0){\phi}(x^\tau_h,{w}_0)^\top }\ltwo{v} + \ltwo{\overline{m}_h({w}_0)} \ltwo{v}\nonumber\\
&\leq 2C^2_\phi \ltwo{v}= 2C^2_\phi,\nonumber
\end{flalign}
which implies
\begin{flalign}
\ltwo{B^\tau_h({w}_0)}\leq 2C^2_\phi \,\,\text{and}\,\, \ltwo{B^\tau_h({w}_0) B^\tau_h({w}_0)^\top} \leq \ltwo{B^\tau_h({w}_0)} \ltwo{B^\tau_h({w}_0)^\top} \leq 4C^4_\phi.\label{eq: 141}
\end{flalign}
Since $\{ B^\tau_h({w}_0)\}_{\tau\in\mathcal D}$ are i.i.d. and $\mathbb E[B^\tau_h({w}_0)] = 0$ for all $\tau$, we have
\begin{flalign}
\ltwo{E_{\mu}[\overline{m}_h({w}_0) \overline{m}_h({w}_0)^\top ]} &= \ltwo{ \sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D}E_{\mu} \left[ B^\tau_h({w}_0) B^\tau_h({w}_0)^\top \right] }\nonumber\\
&=N\cdot \ltwo{E_{\mu} \left[ B^{\tau_1}_h({w}_0)B^{\tau_1}_h({w}_0)^\top \right]}\nonumber\\
&\overset{(i)}{\leq} N\cdot E_{\mu} \left[ \ltwo{B^{\tau_1}_h({w}_0)B^{\tau_1}_h({w}_0)^\top} \right]\nonumber\\
&\leq 4C^4_\phi N,\nonumber
\end{flalign}
where $(i)$ follows from Jensen's inequality. Similarly, we can also obtain
\begin{flalign}
\ltwo{E_{\mu}[\overline{m}_h({w}_0)^\top \overline{m}_h({w}_0) ]} \leq 4C^4_\phi N.\nonumber
\end{flalign}
Applying \Cref{lemma9} to $\widehat{m}_h({w}_0)$, for any fixed $h\in[H]$ and any $\xi_2>0$, we have
\begin{flalign}
{\rm P}\left(\ltwo{\widehat{m}_h({w}_0)}\geq \xi_2\right)\leq 4md\cdot\exp\left( - \frac{\xi_2^2/2}{4C^4_\phi N + 2C^2_\phi /3 \cdot \xi_2} \right).\nonumber
\end{flalign}
For any $\delta_2\in(0,1)$, let
\begin{flalign*}
\xi_2 = C^2_\phi \sqrt{10N \log\left(\frac{4mdH}{\delta_2}\right)}\quad\text{and}\quad N\geq \frac{40}{9}\log\left( \frac{4mdH}{\delta_2} \right).
\end{flalign*}
Then, we have
\begin{flalign}
{\rm P}\left(\ltwo{\widehat{m}_h({w}_0)}\geq \xi_2\right)&\leq 4md\cdot\exp\left( - \frac{\xi^2_2/2}{4C^4_\phi N + 2C^2_\phi /3 \cdot \xi_2} \right) \nonumber\\
&\quad \leq 4md \cdot\exp\left( - \frac{\xi^2_2}{10C^4_\phi N } \right)=\frac{\delta_2}{H},\nonumber
\end{flalign}
which implies that we have the following holds with probability at least $1-\delta_2/H$ taken with respect to the randomness of $\mathcal D$
\begin{flalign}
\ltwo{\widehat{m}_h({w}_0)/N} &= \ltwo{\frac{1}{N} \sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D} {\phi}(x^\tau_h,{w}_0){\phi}(x^\tau_h,{w}_0)^\top - \overline{m}_h({w}_0) }\nonumber\\
&\leq C^2_\phi \sqrt{\frac{10}{N} \log\left(\frac{4mdH}{\delta_2}\right)}.\label{eq: 142}
\end{flalign}
By the definition of ${\rm\Lambda}_h({w}_0)$, we have
\begin{flalign}
\widehat{m}_h({w}_0) = \left({\rm\Lambda}_h({w}_0) - \lambda_2\cdot I_{2md} \right) - N\cdot \overline{m}_h({w}_0).\label{eq: 143}
\end{flalign}
By \Cref{ass2}, there exists an absolute constant $C_\varsigma>0$ such that $\lambda_{\min}(\overline{m}_h({\rm\Theta}_0))\geq C_\varsigma$, which implies that $\ltwo{\overline{m}({w}_0)^{-1}}\leq 1/C_\varsigma$. Letting $N$ be sufficiently large such that
\begin{flalign*}
N\geq \max\left\{\frac{40C^4_\phi }{C^2_\varsigma}, \frac{40}{9} \right\} \log\left(\frac{4mdH}{\delta_2}\right)
\end{flalign*}
and combining \cref{eq: 142} and \cref{eq: 143}, we have
\begin{flalign}
\lambda_{\min}({\rm\Lambda}_h({w}_0)/N) &= \lambda_{\min}(\overline{m}({w}_0) + \widehat{m}({w}_0)/N + \lambda_1/N \cdot I_{2md})\nonumber\\
&\geq \lambda_{\min}(\overline{m}({w}_0)) - \ltwo{\widehat{m}({w}_0)/N}\nonumber\\
&\geq C_\varsigma - C^2_\phi H \sqrt{\frac{10}{N} \log\left(\frac{4mdH}{\delta_2}\right)}\nonumber\\
&\geq C_\varsigma/2.\nonumber
\end{flalign}
Hence, the following holds with probability $1-\delta_2/H$ with respect to randomness of $\mathcal D$
\begin{flalign}
\ltwo{{\rm\Lambda}_h({w}_0)^{-1}}\leq (N\cdot \lambda_{\min}({\rm\Lambda}_h({w}_0)/N))^{-1}\leq \frac{2}{NC_\varsigma}.\label{eq: 144}
\end{flalign}
Taking union bound of \cref{eq: 144} over $[H]$, we have the following holds for all $x\in\mathcal X$ and $h\in[H]$ with probability $1-\delta_2$
\begin{flalign}
b_{v,h}(x,{w}_0) &= \sqrt{{\phi}_h(x,{w}_0)^\top {\rm\Lambda}_h^{-1}({w}_0) {\phi}_h(x,{w}_0)}\nonumber\\
&\leq \ltwo{{\phi}_h(x,{w}_0)}\cdot \ltwo{{\rm\Lambda}_h({w}_0)^{-1}}^{1/2} \leq \frac{\sqrt{2} C_\phi}{\sqrt{C_\varsigma}\sqrt{N}},\label{eq: 145}
\end{flalign}
where we use the fact that $ \ltwo{{\phi}(x^\tau_h,\theta_0)}\leq C_\phi$. Substituting \cref{eq: 145} into \cref{eq: 138}, we have
\begin{flalign}
\sum_{h=1}^{H}b_{v,h}(x,\widehat{w}) \leq \frac{\sqrt{2} H C_\phi}{\sqrt{C_\varsigma}\sqrt{N}} + \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{ H^{7/6} N^{1/12} (\log m)^{1/4}}{m^{1/12}} \right).\label{eq: 146}
\end{flalign}
Finally, letting $\delta_1=N^{-2}H^{-4}/2$ and $\delta_2=N^{-2}H^{-4}/2$ and combining \cref{eq: 136} and \cref{eq: 146}, we have the following holds with probability $1-N^{-2}H^{-4}$
\begin{flalign}
&\beta_1\cdot\sum_{h=1}^{H}b_{r,h}(x,\widehat{\rm\Theta}) + \beta_2\cdot \sum_{h=1}^{H}b_{v,h}(x,\widehat{w}) \nonumber\\
&\quad \leq \left( \frac{\beta_1}{\sqrt{C_\sigma}} + \frac{\beta_2}{\sqrt{C_\varsigma}} \right)\frac{\sqrt{2} H C_\phi}{\sqrt{N}} + \max\{\beta_1 H^{5/3},\beta_2 H^{7/6}\}\cdot \mathcal{O}\left( \frac{ N^{1/12} (\log m)^{1/4}}{m^{1/12}} \right),\nonumber
\end{flalign}
which completes the proof.
\section{Proof of \Cref{lemma11}}\label{pflinearmdp}
Similarly to the proof of \Cref{lemma2}, we first bound the uncertainty of the estimated reward $\widehat{R}_h(\cdot)$ in \cref{eq: 173} and then bound the uncertainty of the estimated transition value function $(\widehat{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(\cdot)$ in \cref{eq: 175}.
\subsection{Uncertainty of Estimated Reward $\widehat{R}_h(\cdot)$}\label{subsc: linear1}
Following steps similar to those in the proof of Lemma B.1 in \cite{jin2021pessimism}, we can obtain
\begin{flalign}
\ltwo{{\rm\Theta}^*}\leq H\sqrt{dH}\quad\text{and}\quad \ltwo{\widehat{\rm\Theta}}\leq H\sqrt{dHN/\lambda_1}.\label{eq: 181}
\end{flalign}
For simplicity, we denote $r(\tau) = \sum_{h\in[H]} r(x^\tau_h)$, $R(\tau) = \sum_{h\in[H]} R(x^\tau_h)$ and $\varepsilon(\tau) = R(\tau) - r(\tau)$. Consider the estimation error $R_h(\cdot) - \widehat{R}_h(\cdot)$. We have
\begin{flalign}
&R_h(x) - \widehat{R}_h(x) \nonumber\\
&= \langle \phi(x), \theta^*_h - \widehat{\theta}_h \rangle\nonumber\\
&=\langle {\rm\Phi}_h(x), {\rm\Theta}^* - \widehat{\rm\Theta} \rangle\nonumber\\
&=\langle {\rm\Phi}_h(x), {\rm\Theta}^*\rangle - {\rm\Phi}_h(x)^\top {\rm\Sigma}^{-1}\left( \sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D} {\rm\Phi}(\tau) r(\tau) \right)\nonumber\\
&=\langle {\rm\Phi}_h(x), {\rm\Theta}^*\rangle - {\rm\Phi}_h(x)^\top {\rm\Sigma}^{-1}\left( \sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D} {\rm\Phi}(\tau) {\rm\Phi}(\tau)^\top {\rm\Theta}^* \right) + {\rm\Phi}_h(x)^\top {\rm\Sigma}^{-1}\left( \sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D} {\rm\Phi}(\tau) \varepsilon(\tau) \right)\nonumber\\
&=\langle {\rm\Phi}_h(x), {\rm\Theta}^*\rangle - {\rm\Phi}_h(x)^\top {\rm\Sigma}^{-1}\left( {\rm\Sigma} - \lambda_1 \cdot I_{dH} \right){\rm\Theta}^* + {\rm\Phi}_h(x)^\top {\rm\Sigma}^{-1}\left( \sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D} {\rm\Phi}(\tau) \varepsilon(\tau) \right)\nonumber\\
&= -\lambda_1\cdot {\rm\Phi}_h(x)^\top {\rm\Sigma}^{-1} {\rm\Theta}^* + {\rm\Phi}_h(x)^\top {\rm\Sigma}^{-1}\left( \sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D} {\rm\Phi}(\tau) \varepsilon(\tau) \right).\label{eq: 179}
\end{flalign}
Applying the triangle inequality to \cref{eq: 179}, we have
\begin{flalign}
\lone{R_h(x) - \widehat{R}_h(x)}\leq \underbrace{\lambda_1\cdot \lone{{\rm\Phi}_h(x)^\top {\rm\Sigma}^{-1} {\rm\Theta}^*}}_{(i)} + \underbrace{\lone{{\rm\Phi}_h(x)^\top {\rm\Sigma}^{-1}\left( \sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D} {\rm\Phi}(\tau) \varepsilon(\tau) \right)}}_{(ii)}.\label{eq: 180}
\end{flalign}
We then proceed to bound $(i)$ and $(ii)$ separately. For $(i)$, we have
\begin{flalign}
(i) = \lambda_1\cdot \lone{{\rm\Phi}_h(x)^\top {\rm\Sigma}^{-1/2} {\rm\Sigma}^{-1/2} {\rm\Theta}^*} \leq \lambda_1 \lsigmab{{\rm\Phi}_h(x)}\lsigmab{{\rm\Theta}^*}\overset{(i.1)}{\leq} H\sqrt{dH\lambda_1}\lsigmab{{\rm\Phi}_h(x)},\label{eq: 182}
\end{flalign}
where $(i.1)$ follows from \cref{eq: 181} and the following inequality
\begin{flalign*}
\lsigmab{{\rm\Theta}^*} = \sqrt{{\rm\Theta}^{*\top} {\rm\Sigma}^{-1} {\rm\Theta}^*} \leq \ltwo{{\rm\Sigma}^{-1}}^{1/2}\ltwo{ {\rm\Theta}^* } \leq H\sqrt{dH/\lambda_1}.
\end{flalign*}
For $(ii)$, we have
\begin{flalign}
(ii)&= \lone{{\rm\Phi}_h(x)^\top {\rm\Sigma}^{-1/2} {\rm\Sigma}^{-1/2} \left( \sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D} {\rm\Phi}(\tau) \varepsilon(\tau) \right)}\leq \underbrace{\lsigmab{\sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D} {\rm\Phi}(\tau) \varepsilon(\tau)}}_{(iii)} \cdot \lsigmab{{\rm\Phi}_h(x)}.\label{eq: 183}
\end{flalign}
Following steps similar to those in \cref{eq: 72} and Lemma B.2 in \cite{jin2021pessimism}, we have the following holds with probability at least $1-\delta$
\begin{flalign*}
(iii)\leq H\cdot\sqrt{2\log(1/\delta) + dH\cdot \log(1+N/\lambda_1)},
\end{flalign*}
which implies
\begin{flalign}
(ii) \leq H\sqrt{2\log(1/\delta) + dH\cdot \log(1+N/\lambda_1)} \cdot \lsigmab{{\rm\Phi}_h(x)}.\label{eq: 184}
\end{flalign}
Recalling that $b_{r,h}(x) = \lsigmab{{\rm\Phi}_h(x)}$ and substituting \cref{eq: 184} and \cref{eq: 182} into \cref{eq: 180}, we can obtain
\begin{flalign}
\lone{R_h(x) - \widehat{R}_h(x)} \leq R_{\beta_1}\cdot b_{r,h}(x),\label{eq: 185}
\end{flalign}
where $R_{\beta_1}$ is an absolute constant satisfying
\begin{flalign*}
R_{\beta_1} \geq H \left(\sqrt{dH\lambda_1} + \sqrt{2\log(1/\delta) + dH\cdot \log(1+N/\lambda_1)}\right).
\end{flalign*}
Letting $\lambda_1=1$ and $C_{\beta_1}>0$ be a sufficiently large constant, we can verify that $R_{\beta_1} = C_{\beta_1} H\sqrt{dH\log(N/\delta)}$ satisfies the above inequality.
\subsection{Uncertainty of Estimated Transition Value Function $(\widehat{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(\cdot)$}\label{subsc: linear2}
Following steps similar to those in the proof of Lemma B.1 in \cite{jin2021pessimism}, we can obtain
\begin{flalign}
\ltwo{{w}^*}\leq H\sqrt{d}\quad\text{and}\quad \ltwo{\widehat{w}}\leq H\sqrt{dN/\lambda_2}.\label{eq: 186}
\end{flalign}
Consider the estimation error $({\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(\cdot) - (\widehat{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(\cdot)$. For simplicity, we define $\varepsilon_v(x) = ({\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x) - (\widehat{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x)$ for all $x\in\mathcal X$. Following steps similar to those in \cref{eq: 179}, we can obtain
\begin{flalign}
&({\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x) - (\widehat{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x)\nonumber\\
&\quad\leq -\lambda_2\cdot {\phi}(x)^\top {\rm\Lambda}_h^{-1} {w}^*_h + {\phi}(x)^\top {\rm\Lambda}^{-1}_h\left( \sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D} {\phi}(x^\tau_h) \varepsilon_v(x^\tau_h) \right).\label{eq: 187}
\end{flalign}
Applying the triangle inequality to \cref{eq: 187}, we have
\begin{flalign}
&\lone{({\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x) - (\widehat{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(x)}\nonumber\\
&\quad\leq \underbrace{\lambda_2\cdot \lone{{\phi}(x)^\top {\rm\Lambda}^{-1}_h {w}^*_h}}_{(i)} + \underbrace{\lone{{\phi}(x)^\top {\rm\Lambda}^{-1}_h\left( \sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D} {\phi}(x^\tau_h) \varepsilon_v(x^\tau_h) \right)}}_{(ii)}.\label{eq: 188}
\end{flalign}
Following steps similar to those in \cref{eq: 180}, we can obtain
\begin{flalign}
(i) \leq H\sqrt{d\lambda_2} \llambdabh{\phi(x)}.
\end{flalign}
For $(ii)$, we have
\begin{flalign}
(ii) &= \lone{{\phi}(x)^\top {\rm\Lambda}_h^{-1/2}{\rm\Lambda}_h^{-1/2}\left( \sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D} {\phi}(x^\tau_h) \varepsilon_v(x^\tau_h) \right)}\leq \underbrace{\llambdabh{\sum_{\tau\in\mathcal D} {\phi}(x^\tau_h) \varepsilon_v(x^\tau_h)}}_{(iii)} \llambdabh{\phi(x)}. \label{eq: 189}
\end{flalign}
We then proceed to upper bound the term $(iii)$. Following steps similar to those in \cref{eq: 116} and Lemma B.2 in \cite{jin2021pessimism}, we have the following holds with probability at least $1-\delta$
\begin{flalign}
(iii) &\leq 2H\cdot \sqrt{\log(H \cdot \mathcal N^v_{\epsilon,h}/\delta) + d\cdot\log(1+N/\lambda_2) + 8\epsilon^2N/\lambda_2} \cdot \llambdabh{\phi(x)},\nonumber\\
&\leq R_{\beta_2} \llambdabh{\phi(x)}\label{eq: 190}
\end{flalign}
where $R_{\beta_2}$ is an absolute constant satisfying
\begin{flalign}
R_{\beta_2} \geq 2H\cdot \sqrt{\log(H \cdot \mathcal N^v_{\epsilon,h}/\delta) + d\cdot\log(1+N/\lambda_2) + 8\epsilon^2N^2/\lambda_2},\label{eq: 194}
\end{flalign}
and $\mathcal N^v_{\epsilon,h}$ is the cardinality of the following function class
\begin{flalign*}
\mathcal V_h(x,&\,R_\theta, R_w, R_{\beta_1}, R_{\beta_2}, \lambda_1, \lambda_2 )=\{ \max_{a\in\mathcal A}\{\overline{Q}_h(s,a)\}:\mathcal S\rightarrow [0,H]\,\, \nonumber\\
&\text{with}\,\, \ltwo{\rm\Theta}\leq R_\theta, \ltwo{w}\leq R_w, \beta_1\in[0, R_{\beta_1}], \beta_2\in [0, R_{\beta_2}], \ltwo{\rm\Sigma}\geq \lambda_1, \ltwo{\rm\Lambda}\geq \lambda_2 \},
\end{flalign*}
where $R_\theta = H\sqrt{dHN/\lambda_1}$, $R_w = H\sqrt{dN/\lambda_2}$ and
\begin{flalign*}
\overline{Q}_h&(x ) = \min\{ \langle {\rm\Phi}_h(x), {\rm\Theta} \rangle+ \langle \phi(x), w \rangle \nonumber\\
&- \beta_1\cdot \sqrt{{\rm\Phi}_h(x)^\top {\rm\Sigma}^{-1}{\rm\Phi}_h(x) } - \beta_2\cdot \sqrt{\phi(x)^\top{\rm\Lambda}^{-1}\phi(x) } , H-h+1 \}^{+}.
\end{flalign*}
Then, following steps similar to those in \Cref{pfcorollary1}, we have
\begin{flalign}
&\lone{\max_{a\in\mathcal A}\{\overline{Q}_h(s,a,\theta,w,\beta_1,\beta_2,{\rm\Sigma}, {\rm\Lambda} )\} - \max_{a\in\mathcal A}\{\overline{Q}_h(s,a,\theta^\prime,w^\prime,\beta_1^\prime,\beta_2^\prime,{\rm\Sigma}^\prime, {\rm\Lambda}^\prime )\}}\nonumber\\
&\leq \max_{a\in\mathcal A}\lone{\langle {\rm\Phi}_h(x), {\rm\Theta} - {\rm\Theta}^\prime \rangle} + \max_{a\in\mathcal A}\lone{\langle \phi(x), w- w^\prime \rangle } + \frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda_1}} \lone{\beta_1-\beta^\prime_1} + \frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda_2}}\lone{\beta_2-\beta^\prime_2}\nonumber\\
&\quad + R_{\beta_1} \max_{a\in\mathcal A} \lone{ \lsigmab{{\rm\Phi}_h(x)} - \lsigmabp{{\rm\Phi}_h(x)} } + R_{\beta_2} \max_{a\in\mathcal A} \lone{ \llambdab{\phi(x)} - \llambdabp{\phi(x)} }\nonumber\\
&\overset{(i)}{\leq} \ltwo{{\rm\Theta} - {\rm\Theta}^\prime} + \ltwo{w-w^\prime} + \lone{\beta_1-\beta_1^\prime} + \lone{\beta_2-\beta^\prime_2} \nonumber\\
&\quad + R_{\beta_1}\sqrt{\lF{ {\rm\Sigma}^{-1} - {\rm\Sigma}^{\prime-1} }} + R_{\beta_2}\sqrt{\lF{ {\rm\Lambda}^{-1} - {\rm\Lambda}^{\prime-1} }},\label{eq: 191}
\end{flalign}
where $(i)$ follows from the fact that $\ltwo{\phi(x)}\leq 1$ and $\lambda_1,\lambda_2\geq 1$.
Following arguments similar to those used to obtain \cref{eq: 160} and applying Lemma 8.6 in \cite{agarwal2019reinforcement}, we have
\begin{flalign}
\log \mathcal N^v_{\epsilon,h}& \overset{(i)}{\leq} \mathcal N(\epsilon/6, \mathbb{R}^{dH}, R_\theta)+ \mathcal N(\epsilon/6, \mathbb{R}^{d}, R_w) + \mathcal N(\epsilon/6, R_{\beta_1}) + \mathcal N(\epsilon/6, R_{\beta_2})\nonumber\\
&\quad + \mathcal N(\epsilon^2/(36R^2_{\beta_1}), \mathcal F, \sqrt{dH}/\lambda_1) + \mathcal N(\epsilon^2/(36R^2_{\beta_2}), \mathcal F, \sqrt{d}/\lambda_2)\nonumber\\
&\overset{(ii)}{\leq} dH\log(1+12 R_\theta/\epsilon) + d\log(1+12 R_w/\epsilon) + \log(1+12R_{\beta_1}/\epsilon) + \log(1+12R_{\beta_2}/\epsilon) \nonumber\\
&\quad + d^2H^2\log(1 + 36R_{\beta_1}^2\sqrt{dH}/\epsilon^2) + d^2\log(1 + 36R_{\beta_2}^2\sqrt{d}/\epsilon^2)\nonumber\\
&\overset{(iii)}{\leq}dH\log(1+12 H\sqrt{dHN}/\epsilon) + d\log(1+12 H\sqrt{dN}/\epsilon) \nonumber\\
&\quad + \log(1+12 C_{\beta_1} H\sqrt{dH\log(N/\delta)}/\epsilon) + \log(1+12R_{\beta_2}/\epsilon) \nonumber\\
&\quad + d^2H^2\log(1 + 36 C^2_{\beta_1} dH^3 \sqrt{dH} \log(N/\delta)/\epsilon^2) + d^2\log(1 + 36R_{\beta_2}^2\sqrt{d}/\epsilon^2)\nonumber\\
&\overset{(iv)}{\lesssim} C_1 d^2H^2\log( d^{3/2}H^{7/2} N^{1/2}/\epsilon^2 ) + C_2 d^2\log(R^2_{\beta_2}\sqrt{d}/\epsilon^2),\label{eq: 192}
\end{flalign}
where in $(i)$ we use $\mathcal N(\epsilon, \mathbb{R}^{d}, B)$ to denote the $\epsilon$-covering of ball with radius $B$ in the space $\mathbb{R}^d$, $\mathcal N(\epsilon, B)$ to denote the $\epsilon$-covering of interval $[0, B]$, and $\mathcal N(\epsilon, \mathcal F, B)$ to denote the $\epsilon$-covering of the function class $\mathcal F = \{ M: \lF{M}\leq B \}$, $(ii)$ follows from Lemma. 8.6 in \cite{agarwal2019reinforcement}, $(iii)$ follows from the definition of $R_\theta$, $R_w$ and $R_{\beta_1}$, and in $(iv)$ we let $C_1$ and $C_2$ be sufficiently large and waive the $\log(\log(\cdot))$ term.
Substituting \cref{eq: 192} into \cref{eq: 190}, we can obtain
\begin{flalign}
&2H\cdot \sqrt{\log(H \cdot \mathcal N^v_{\epsilon,h}/\delta) + d\cdot\log(1+N/\lambda_2) + 8\epsilon^2N/\lambda_2}\nonumber\\
&\quad\leq 2H\cdot \left( \sqrt{\log(H/\delta)} + \sqrt{\log\mathcal N^v_{\epsilon,h}} + \sqrt{d\cdot\log(1+N)} + \sqrt{8\epsilon^2N^2} \right) \nonumber\\
&\quad\leq 2H\cdot \Big( \sqrt{\log(H/\delta)} + \sqrt{C_1 d^2H^2\log( d^{3/2}H^{7/2} N^{1/2}/\epsilon^2 )} + \sqrt{C_2 d^2\log(R^2_{\beta_2}\sqrt{d}/\epsilon^2)} \nonumber\\
&\qquad + \sqrt{d\cdot\log(1+N)} + \sqrt{8\epsilon^2N^2} \Big).\label{eq: 193}
\end{flalign}
Letting $\epsilon = (dH)^{1/4}/N$, we can see that when $R_{\beta_2} = C_{\beta_2} dH^2\sqrt{\log(dH^3N^{5/2}/\delta)}$, where $C_{\beta_2}$ is a sufficiently large constant, we have
\begin{flalign}
R_{\beta_2} \geq \text{R.H.S of \cref{eq: 193}},\nonumber
\end{flalign}
which satisfies the inequality in \cref{eq: 194}.
\subsection{Upper and Lower Bounds on Evaluation Error $\delta_h(\cdot)$}
Using the properties that we obtained from \Cref{subsc: linear1} \& \ref{subsc: linear2} and following steps similar to those in \Cref{uplowerdelta1}, we can obtain
\begin{flalign*}
0 \leq \delta_h(x) \leq 2\left[\beta_1\cdot b_{r,h}(x) + \beta_2\cdot b_{v,h}(x)\right], \quad\forall x\in\mathcal X,\quad \forall h\in[H],
\end{flalign*}
where $\beta_1=R_{\beta_1} = C_{\beta_1} H\sqrt{dH\log(N/\delta)}$ and $R_{\beta_2} = C_{\beta_2} dH^2\sqrt{\log(dH^3N^{5/2}/\delta)}$.
\section{Supporting Lemmas for Overparameterized Neural Networks}\label{sc: supplemma}
The following lemma shows that an infinite-width neural network can be well-approximated by a finite-width neural network.
\begin{lemma}[Approximation by Finite Sum]\label{lemma3}
Let $g(x)=\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\sigma^\prime(w^\top x)x^\top \ell(w)dp(w)\in\mathcal{F}_{g_1,g_2}$. Then for any $\epsilon>0$, with probability at least $1-\epsilon$ over $w_1,\cdots,w_m$ drawn i.i.d. from $N(0,I_d/d)$, there exist $\ell_1,\cdots,\ell_m$ where $\ell_i\in\mathbb{R}^d$ and $\ltwo{\ell_i}\leq g_2/\sqrt{dm}$ for all $i\in[m]$ such that the function $\widehat{g}(x)=(1/\sqrt{m})\sum_{i=1}^{m}\sigma^\prime(w_i^\top x)x^\top\ell_i$ satisfies
\begin{flalign*}
\sup_x\lone{g(x)-\widehat{g}(x)}\leq \frac{2L_\sigma g_2}{\sqrt{m}}+ \frac{\sqrt{2}C_\sigma^2g^2_2}{\sqrt{m}}\sqrt{\log\left( \frac{1}{\delta} \right)}
\end{flalign*}
with probability at least $1-\delta$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof of \Cref{lemma3} follows from the proof of Proposition C.1 in \cite{gao2019convergence} with some modifications.
In \Cref{lemma3} we consider a different distribution of $w_i$ and upper bound on $\ltwo{\ell_i}$ from those in \cite{gao2019convergence}.
First, we define the following random variable
\begin{flalign*}
a(w_1,\cdots,w_m) = \sup_x\lone{g(x)-\widehat{g}(x)}.
\end{flalign*}
Then, we proceed to show that $a(\cdot)$ is robust to the perturbation of one of its arguments. Let $\ell_i=\ell(w_i)/(\sqrt{dm}p(w_i))$. For $w_1,\cdots,w_m$ and $\tilde{w}_i$ ($1\leq i\leq m$), we have
\begin{flalign*}
&\quad\lone{a(w_1,\cdots,w_m) - a(w_1,\cdots,\tilde{w}_i,\cdots,w_m)}\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{dm}}\lone{\sigma^\prime(w_i^\top x)x^\top\ell_i - \sigma^\prime(\tilde{w}_i^\top x)x^\top\ell_i}\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}m}\lone{ \frac{\sigma^\prime(w_i^\top x)x^\top\ell(w_i)}{p(w_i)} - \frac{\sigma^\prime(\tilde{w}_i^\top x)x^\top\ell(\tilde{w}_i)}{p(\tilde{w}_i)} }\nonumber\\
&\leq \frac{1}{\sqrt{d}m}\sup_{x\in\mathcal X}\lone{ \frac{\sigma^\prime(w_i^\top x)x^\top\ell(w_i)}{p(w_i)} - \frac{\sigma^\prime(\tilde{w}_i^\top x)x^\top\ell(\tilde{w}_i)}{p(\tilde{w}_i)} }\nonumber\\
&\leq \frac{1}{\sqrt{d}m}\sup_{x\in\mathcal X} \left(\lone{ \frac{\sigma^\prime(w_i^\top x)x^\top\ell(w_i)}{p(w_i)}} + \lone{\frac{\sigma^\prime(\tilde{w}_i^\top x)x^\top\ell(\tilde{w}_i)}{p(\tilde{w}_i)} }\right)\nonumber\\
&\leq \frac{1}{\sqrt{d}m}\sup_{x\in\mathcal X} \left( \ltwo{\sigma^\prime(w_i^\top x)x} \ltwo{ \frac{\ell(w_i)}{p(w_i)}} + \ltwo{\sigma^\prime(\tilde{w}_i^\top x)x}\ltwo{ \frac{\ell(\tilde{w}_i)}{p(\tilde{w}_i)}} \right)\nonumber\\
&\leq \frac{2C_\sigma g_2}{\sqrt{d}m} = \zeta,
\end{flalign*}
where the last inequality follows from the facts that $\ltwo{x}=1$, $\lone{\sigma^\prime(\cdot)}\leq C_\sigma$ and $\sup_x\ltwo{\ell(w)/p(w)}\leq g_2$. Then, we proceed to bound the expectation of $a(\cdot)$. Note that our choice of $\ell_i$ ensures that $\sqrt{d}\cdot \mathbb E_{w_1,\cdots,w_m}\widehat{g}_h(\cdot) = g(\cdot)$. By symmetrization, we have
\begin{flalign*}
\mathbb E a&=\sqrt{d}\cdot \mathbb E\sup_{x\in\mathcal X}\lone{\widehat{g}(x)-\mathbb E\widehat{g}(x)}\nonumber\\
&\leq \frac{2\sqrt{d}}{\sqrt{m}}\cdot \mathbb E_{w,\varepsilon}\sup_{x\in\mathcal X}\lone{\sum_{i=1}^{m}\varepsilon_i \sigma^\prime(w_i^\top x)x^\top\ell_i},
\end{flalign*}
where $\{\varepsilon_i\}_{i\in[m]}$ are a sequence of Rademacher random variables. Since $\lone{x^\top\ell_i}\leq \ltwo{\ell_i}\leq g_2/\sqrt{m}$ and $\sigma^\prime(\cdot)$ is $L_\sigma$-Lipschitz, we have that the function $b(\cdot) = \sigma^\prime(\cdot)x^\top\ell_i$ is $(L_\sigma g_2/\sqrt{m})$-Lipschitz. We then proceed as follows
\begin{flalign*}
\mathbb E a&\leq \frac{2\sqrt{d}}{\sqrt{m}}\cdot \mathbb E_{w,\varepsilon}\sup_{x\in\mathcal X}\lone{\sum_{i=1}^{m}\varepsilon_i \sigma^\prime(w_i^\top x)x^\top\ell_i}\nonumber\\
&\overset{(i)}{\leq} \frac{2\sqrt{d}L_\sigma g_2}{m} \cdot \mathbb E_{w,\varepsilon}\sup_{x\in\mathcal X} \lone{ \left(\sum_{i=1}^{m} \varepsilon_i w_i\right)^\top x}\nonumber\\
&\overset{(ii)}{\leq} \frac{2\sqrt{d}L_\sigma g_2}{m} \cdot \mathbb E_{w} \ltwo{\sum_{i=1}^{m} \varepsilon_i w_i}\nonumber\\
&\overset{(iii)}{\leq} \frac{2\sqrt{d}L_\sigma g_2}{\sqrt{m}} \cdot \sqrt{\mathbb E_{w\sim N(0,I_d/d)} \ltwo{w}^2}\nonumber\\
& = \frac{2L_\sigma g_2}{\sqrt{m}},
\end{flalign*}
where $(i)$ follows from Talagrand's Lemma (Lemma 5.7) in \cite{mohri2018foundations}, $(ii)$ follows from the fact that $\ltwo{x}=1$ for all $x\in\mathcal X$ and Cauchy-Schwartz inequality and $(iii)$ follows from Jensen's inequality. Then, applying McDiarmid's inequality, we can obtain
\begin{flalign*}
{\rm P}\left(a \geq \frac{2L_\sigma g_2}{\sqrt{m}}+ \epsilon\right)\leq {\rm P}(a \geq \mathbb E a+ \epsilon)\leq \exp\left( -\frac{2\epsilon^2}{m\zeta^2} \right) = \exp\left( -\frac{m\epsilon^2}{2C^2_\sigma g^2_2} \right).
\end{flalign*}
Letting $\epsilon=\frac{\sqrt{2}C_\sigma^2g^2_2}{\sqrt{m}}\sqrt{\log\left( \frac{1}{\delta} \right)}$, we have
\begin{flalign*}
{\rm P}\left(a \geq \frac{2L_\sigma g_2}{\sqrt{m}}+ \frac{\sqrt{2}C_\sigma^2g^2_2}{\sqrt{m}}\sqrt{\log\left( \frac{1}{\delta} \right)} \right) \leq \delta,
\end{flalign*}
which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
The following lemma bounds the perturbed gradient and value of local linearization of overparameterized neural networks around the initialization, which is provided as Lemma C.2 in \cite{yang2020function}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma4}
Consider the overparameterized neural network defined in \Cref{subsc: overpnn}. Consider any fixed input $x\in\mathcal X$. Let $R\leq c\sqrt{m}/(\log m)^3$ for some sufficiently small constant $c$. Then, with probability at least $1-m^{-2}$ over the random initialization, we have for any $w\in \mathcal B(w_0, R)$, where $\mathcal B(w_0, R)$ denotes the Euclidean ball centred at $w_0$ with radius $R$, the followings hold
\begin{flalign}
\ltwo{\phi(x,w)} &\leq C_\phi,\label{eq: 13}\\
\ltwo{\phi(x,w) - \phi(x,w_0)} &\leq \mathcal{O}\left( C_\phi \left( \frac{R}{\sqrt{m}}\right)^{1/3}\sqrt{\log m} \right),\label{eq: 14}\\
\lone{f(x,w) - \langle \phi(x,w_0)^\top(w-w_0) \rangle} &\leq \mathcal{O}\left(C_\phi \left(\frac{R^4}{\sqrt{m}}\right)^{1/3}\sqrt{\log m}\right),\label{eq: 15}
\end{flalign}
where $C_\phi= \mathcal{O}(1)$ is a constant independent from $m$ and $d$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Please see Lemma C.2 in \cite{yang2020function} for a detailed proof, which is based on Lemma F.1, F.2 in \cite{cai2019neural}, Lemma A.5, A.6 in \cite{gao2019convergence} and Theorem 1 in \cite{allen2019convergence}.
\end{proof}
\section{Supporting Lemmas for RKHS}\label{sc: rkhs}
In this section, we provide some useful lemmas for general RKHS. Consider a variable space $\mathcal X$. Given a mapping $\phi(\cdot):\mathcal X\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^d$, we can assign a feature vector $\phi(x)\in\mathbb{R}^d$ for each $x\in\mathcal X$. We further define a kernel function $K(\cdot,\cdot):\mathcal X\times\mathcal X\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ as $K(x,x^\prime)=\phi(x)^\top\phi(x^\prime)$ for any $x,x^\prime\in\mathcal X$. Let $\mathcal H$ be a RKHS defined on $\mathcal X$ with the kernel function $K(\cdot,\cdot)$. Let $\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle_{\mathcal H}:\mathcal H\times\mathcal H\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ and $\lH{\cdot}:\mathcal H\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ denote the inner product and RKHS norm on $\mathcal H$, respectively. Since $\mathcal H$ is a RKHS, there exists a feature mapping $\psi(\cdot):\mathcal X\rightarrow\mathcal H$, such that $f(x) = \langle f(\cdot), \psi(x) \rangle_{\mathcal H}$ for all $f\in\mathcal H$ and all $x\in\mathcal X$. Moreover, for any $x,x^\prime\in\mathcal X$ we have $K(x,x^\prime) = \langle \psi(x), \psi(x^\prime) \rangle_{\mathcal H}$. Without loss of generality, we further assume $\ltwo{\phi(x)}\leq C_\phi$ and $\lH{\psi(x)}\leq C_\psi$ for all $x\in\mathcal X$.
Let $\mathcal L^2(\mathcal X)$ be the space of square-integrable functions on $\mathcal X$ with respect to the Lebesgue measure and let $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_{\mathcal L^2}$ be the inner product on $\mathcal L^2(\mathcal X)$. The kernel function $K(\cdot,\cdot)$ induces an integral operator $T_K:\mathcal L^2(\mathcal X)\rightarrow \mathcal L^2(\mathcal X)$ defined as
\begin{flalign}
T_Kf(z) = \int_{\mathcal X} K(x,x^\prime)\cdot f(x^\prime) dx^\prime,\quad\forall f\in \mathcal L^2(\mathcal X).\label{eq: 147}
\end{flalign}
Consider the kernel function $K(\cdot,\cdot)$ of the RHKS $\mathcal H$. Let $\{ x_i\}_{i=1}^{\infty}\subset \mathcal X$ be a discrete time stochastic process that is adapted to a filtration $\{ \mathcal F_t \}_{i=0}^{\infty}$, i.e., $x_i$ is $\mathcal F_{i-1}$ measurable for all $i\geq 1$. We define the Gram matrix $K_N\in\mathbb{R}^{N\times N}$ and function $k_N(\cdot):\mathcal X\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{N}$ as
\begin{flalign}
K_N=[K(x_i,x_j)]_{i,j\in[N]}\in\mathbb{R}^{N\times N},\,\, k_N(x)=[K(x_1,x),\cdots,K(x_N,x)]^\top\in\mathbb{R}^{N}.\label{eq: 51}
\end{flalign}
Note that $K_N$ and $k_N(x)$ can also be expressed as
\begin{flalign*}
K_N= {\rm\Phi}{\rm\Phi}^\top={\rm\Psi}{\rm\Psi}^\top\in\mathbb{R}^{N\times N},\quad\text{and}\quad k_N(x)= {\rm\Phi}\phi(x) = {\rm\Psi}\psi(x) \in\mathbb{R}^{N\times 1},
\end{flalign*}
where ${\rm\Phi}=[\phi(x_1),\cdots,\phi(x_N)]^\top\in\mathbb{R}^{N\times d}$ and ${\rm\Psi}=[\psi(x_1),\cdots,\psi(x_N)]^\top\in\mathbb{R}^{N\times \infty}$.
Given a regularization parameter $\lambda>1$, we define the matrix ${\rm\Omega}_N$ based on ${\rm\Phi}$ and an operator ${\rm\Upsilon}_N$ in RKHS $\mathcal H$ based on ${\rm\Psi}$ as
\begin{flalign}
{\rm\Omega}_N={\rm\Phi}^\top{\rm\Phi}+ \lambda\cdot I_d,\quad\text{and}\quad {\rm\Upsilon}_N ={\rm\Psi}^\top{\rm\Psi} + \lambda\cdot I_\mathcal H. \label{eq: 52}
\end{flalign}
We next provide some fundamental properties for the RKHS $\mathcal H$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma5}
For any $x\in\mathcal X$, considering $K_N$, $k_N(\cdot)$, ${\rm\Omega}_N$ and ${\rm\Upsilon}_N$ defined in \cref{eq: 51} and \cref{eq: 52}, we have the followings hold
\begin{flalign}
&{\rm\Phi}^\top(K_N+I_N)^{-1} = {\rm\Omega}_N^{-1}{\rm\Phi}^\top,\label{eq: 64}\\
&{\rm\Psi}^\top (K_N + I_N)^{-1} = {\rm\Upsilon}_N^{-1}{\rm\Psi}^\top,\label{eq: 65}\\
&\phi(x)^\top {\rm\Omega}^{-1}_N\phi(x) \overset{(i)}{=} \frac{1}{\lambda}\left[ K(x,x) - k_N(x)^\top (K_N + \lambda\cdot I_N)^{-1} k_N(x) \right] \overset{(ii)}{=} \psi(x)^\top {\rm\Upsilon}_N^{-1} \psi(x).\label{eq: 56}
\end{flalign}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The result in \Cref{lemma5} can be obtained from steps spread out in \cite{yang2020function}. We provide a detailed proof here for completeness.
We first proceed to prove \cref{eq: 64} and $(i)$ in \cref{eq: 56}. According to the definition of ${\rm\Sigma}_N$, we have
\begin{flalign}
{\rm\Omega}_N{\rm\Phi}^\top={\rm\Phi}^\top{\rm\Phi}{\rm\Phi}^\top+\lambda{\rm\Phi}^\top = {\rm\Phi}^\top({\rm\Phi}{\rm\Phi}^\top + \lambda I_N) = {\rm\Phi}^\top (K_N+I_N).\nonumber
\end{flalign}
Multiplying ${\rm\Omega}_N^{-1}$ on both sides of the above equality yields
\begin{flalign*}
{\rm\Phi}^\top = {\rm\Omega}_N^{-1}{\rm\Phi}^\top (K_N+I_N),
\end{flalign*}
which implies \cref{eq: 64} as follows
\begin{flalign}
{\rm\Phi}^\top(K_N+I_N)^{-1} = {\rm\Omega}_N^{-1}{\rm\Phi}^\top.\label{eq: 53}
\end{flalign}
We next proceed as follows
\begin{flalign}
\phi(x) &= {\rm\Omega}_N^{-1}{\rm\Omega}_N \phi(x)\nonumber\\
&={\rm\Omega}_N^{-1} ({\rm\Phi}^\top{\rm\Phi} + \lambda\cdot I_d) \phi(x)\nonumber\\
&=({\rm\Omega}_N^{-1} {\rm\Phi}^\top){\rm\Phi}\phi(x) + \lambda{\rm\Omega}_N^{-1}\phi(x)\nonumber\\
&\overset{(i)}{=}{\rm\Phi}^\top(K_N+I_N)^{-1}{\rm\Phi}\phi(x) + \lambda{\rm\Omega}_N^{-1}\phi(x),\label{eq: 54}
\end{flalign}
where $(i)$ follows from \cref{eq: 53}. Taking inter product with $\phi(x)$ on both sides of \cref{eq: 54} yields
\begin{flalign}
K(x,x) &= \phi(x)^\top\phi(x) = \phi(x)^\top{\rm\Phi}^\top(K_N+I_N)^{-1}{\rm\Phi}\phi(x) + \lambda\phi(x)^\top{\rm\Omega}_N^{-1}\phi(x)\nonumber\\
&=k_N(x)^\top(K_N+I_N)^{-1}k_N(x)+ \lambda\phi(x)^\top{\rm\Omega}_N^{-1}\phi(x),\nonumber
\end{flalign}
which implies
\begin{flalign}
\phi(x)^\top{\rm\Omega}_N^{-1}\phi(x) = \frac{1}{\lambda}\left[ K(x,x) - k_N(x)^\top(K_N+I_N)^{-1}k_N(x) \right].\label{eq: 55}
\end{flalign}
We next proceed to prove \cref{eq: 65} and $(ii)$ in \cref{eq: 56}. According to the definition of ${\rm\Upsilon}_N$, we have
\begin{flalign}
{\rm\Upsilon}_N{\rm\Psi}^\top = {\rm\Psi}^\top{\rm\Psi}{\rm\Psi}^\top + \lambda {\rm\Psi}^\top = {\rm\Psi}^\top({\rm\Psi}{\rm\Psi}^\top + I_N) = {\rm\Psi}^\top(K_N + I_N).\label{eq: 60}
\end{flalign}
Multiplying ${\rm\Upsilon}_N^{-1}$ on both sides of the above equality yields
\begin{flalign*}
{\rm\Psi}^\top = {\rm\Upsilon}_N^{-1}{\rm\Psi}^\top(K_N + I_N),
\end{flalign*}
which further implies \cref{eq: 65} as follows
\begin{flalign}
{\rm\Psi}^\top (K_N + I_N)^{-1} = {\rm\Upsilon}_N^{-1}{\rm\Psi}^\top.\label{eq: 57}
\end{flalign}
We next proceed as follows
\begin{flalign}
\psi(x) &= {\rm\Upsilon}_N^{-1}{\rm\Upsilon}_N \psi(x)\nonumber\\
&={\rm\Upsilon}_N^{-1} ({\rm\Psi}^\top{\rm\Psi} + \lambda\cdot I_\mathcal H) \psi(x)\nonumber\\
&=({\rm\Upsilon}_N^{-1} {\rm\Psi}^\top){\rm\Psi}\psi(x) + \lambda{\rm\Upsilon}_N^{-1}\psi(x)\nonumber\\
&\overset{(i)}{=}{\rm\Psi}^\top(K_N+I_N)^{-1}{\rm\Psi}\psi(x) + \lambda{\rm\Upsilon}_N^{-1}\psi(x),\label{eq: 58}
\end{flalign}
where $(i)$ follows from \cref{eq: 57}. Taking inter product with $\psi(x)$ on both sides of \cref{eq: 58} yields
\begin{flalign}
K(x,x) &= \langle \psi(x), \psi(x) \rangle_{\mathcal H} = \psi(x)^\top{\rm\Psi}^\top(K_N+I_N)^{-1}{\rm\Psi}\psi(x) + \lambda\psi(x)^\top{\rm\Upsilon}_N^{-1}\psi(x)\nonumber\\
&=k_N(x)^\top(K_N+I_N)^{-1}k_N(x)+ \lambda\psi(x)^\top{\rm\Upsilon}_N^{-1}\psi(x),\nonumber
\end{flalign}
which implies
\begin{flalign}
\psi(x)^\top{\rm\Upsilon}_N^{-1}\psi(x) = \frac{1}{\lambda}\left[ K(x,x) - k_N(x)^\top(K_N+I_N)^{-1}k_N(x) \right].\label{eq: 59}
\end{flalign}
Combining \cref{eq: 60} and \cref{eq: 59} completes the proof.
\end{proof}
The following two lemmas characterize the concentration property of self-normalized processes.
\begin{lemma}[Concentration of Self-Normalized Process in RKHS \cite{chowdhury2017kernelized}]\label{lemma6}
Let $\{ \varepsilon_i \}_{i=1}^{\infty}$ be a real-valued stochastic process such that (i) $\epsilon_i\in\mathcal F_t$ and (ii) $\epsilon_i$ is zero-mean and $\sigma$-sub-Gaussian conditioned on $\mathcal F_{i-1}$ satisfying
\begin{flalign}
\mathbb E\left[ \varepsilon_i|\mathcal F_{i-1} \right]=0,\qquad \mathbb E\left[ e^{\kappa\varepsilon_i}\leq e^{\kappa^2\sigma^2/2} |\mathcal F_{i-1} \right],\qquad\forall \kappa\in\mathbb{R}.\label{eq: 61}
\end{flalign}
Moreover, for any $t\geq2$, let $E_N=[\varepsilon_1,\cdots,\varepsilon_{N-1}]^\top\in\mathbb{R}^{N-1}$.
For any $\eta>0$ and any $\delta\in(0,1)$, with probability at least $1-\delta$, we have the following holds simultaneously for all $N\geq 1$:
\begin{flalign*}
E^\top_N \left[ (K_N + \eta\cdot I_{N-1})^{-1} + I_{N-1} \right]^{-1} E_N \leq \sigma^2\cdot\log\text{det}[(1+\eta)\cdot I_{N+1} + K_N] + 2\sigma^2\cdot\log(1/\delta).
\end{flalign*}
Moreover, if $K_N$ is positive definite for all $N\geq 2$ with probability one, then the above inequality also holds with $\eta=0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma7}
Let $\mathcal{G}\subset \{G: \mathcal X\rightarrow[0,C_g]\}$ be a class of bounded functions on $\mathcal X$. Let $\mathcal G_\epsilon\subset \mathcal G$ be the minimal $\epsilon$-cover of $\mathcal G$ such that $\mathcal N_\epsilon=\lone{\mathcal G_\epsilon}$. Then for any $\delta\in(0,1)$, with probability at least $1-\delta$, we have
\begin{flalign}
&\sup_{G\in\mathcal{G}}\lomega{\sum_{i=1}^{N} \phi(x_i) \left( G(x_i) - \mathbb E\left[G(x_i)|\mathcal F_{i-1}\right] \right) }^2 \nonumber\\
&\quad\leq 2C^2_g \log\det(I+K_N/\lambda) + 2C^2_g N(\lambda-1) + 4C^2_g\log(\mathcal N_\epsilon/\delta) + 8N^2C^2_\phi\epsilon^2/\lambda.\label{eq: 69}
\end{flalign}
Moreover, if $G(\cdot)$ does not depend on $\{x_i\}_{i\in[N]}$, we have
\begin{flalign}
&\lomega{\sum_{i=1}^{N} \phi(x_i) \left( G(x_i) - \mathbb E\left[G(x_i)|\mathcal F_{i-1}\right] \right) }^2 \nonumber\\
&\quad\leq C^2_g \log\det(I+K_N/\lambda) + C^2_g N(\lambda-1) + 2C^2_g\log(1/\delta).\label{eq: 70}
\end{flalign}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof is adapted but different from the proof of Lemma E.2 in \cite{yang2020function}. We first proceed to prove \cref{eq: 69} and will show that \cref{eq: 70} can be obtained as a by-product of proving \cref{eq: 69}. For any $G\in\mathcal G$, there exists a function $G^\prime$ in $\mathcal G_\epsilon$ such that $\sup_{x\in\mathcal X}\lone{G(x) - G^\prime(x)}\leq \epsilon$. Denote ${\rm\Delta}_G(x) = G(x) -G^\prime(x)$. We have the following holds
\begin{flalign}
&\lomega{\sum_{i=1}^{N} \phi(x_i) \left( G(x_i) - \mathbb E\left[G(x_i)|\mathcal F_{i-1}\right] \right) }^2\nonumber\\
&\quad\leq 2\lomega{\sum_{i=1}^{N} \phi(x_i) \left( G^\prime(x_i) - \mathbb E\left[G^\prime(x_i)|\mathcal F_{i-1}\right] \right) }^2 + 2 \lomega{\sum_{i=1}^{N} \phi(x_i) \left( {\rm\Delta}_G(x_i) - \mathbb E\left[{\rm\Delta}_G(x_i)|\mathcal F_{i-1}\right] \right) }^2.\label{eq: 62}
\end{flalign}
For the second term on the right hand side of \cref{eq: 62}, we have
\begin{flalign}
\lomega{\sum_{i=1}^{N} \phi(x_i) \left( {\rm\Delta}_G(x_i) - \mathbb E\left[{\rm\Delta}_G(x_i)|\mathcal F_{i-1}\right] \right) }^2\leq N^2 C^2_\phi \cdot(2\epsilon)^2/\lambda = 4N^2 C^2_\phi\epsilon^2/\lambda.\label{eq: 63}
\end{flalign}
To bound the first term on the right hand side of \cref{eq: 62}, we apply \Cref{lemma4} to $G^\prime(x_i) - \mathbb E\left[G^\prime(x_i)|\mathcal F_{i-1}\right]$. We fix $G^\prime\in\mathcal G$ and let $\varepsilon_i = G^\prime(x_i) - \mathbb E\left[G^\prime(x_i)|\mathcal F_{i-1}\right]$ and $E_N=[\varepsilon_1,\cdots,\varepsilon_{N-1}]^\top\in\mathbb{R}^{N-1}$. Using this notation, we have
\begin{flalign}
&\lomega{\sum_{i=1}^{N} \phi(x_i) \left( G^\prime(x_i) - \mathbb E\left[G^\prime(x_i)|\mathcal F_{i-1}\right] \right) }^2 = \lomega{\sum_{i=1}^{N} \phi(x_i) \varepsilon_i }^2 = \lomega{{\rm\Phi}^\top E_N}\nonumber\\
&=E_N^\top {\rm\Phi}{\rm\Omega}_N^{-1}{\rm\Phi}^\top E_N \overset{(i)}{=} E_N^\top {\rm\Phi}{\rm\Phi}^\top(K_N+\lambda I_N)^{-1}E_N = E_N^\top K_N(K_N+\lambda I_N)^{-1}E_N\nonumber\\
&\overset{(ii)}{\leq} E_N^\top (K_N + (\lambda-1)I_N)(K_N+\lambda I_N)^{-1}E_N\nonumber\\
&=E_N^\top (K_N + (\lambda-1)I_N)[I_N + (K_N+(\lambda - 1) I_N)]^{-1}E_N\nonumber\\
&=E_N^\top [(K_N+(\lambda - 1) I_N)^{-1} + I_N]E_N\label{eq: 66}
\end{flalign}
where $(i)$ follows from \cref{eq: 64} in \Cref{lemma5} and $(ii)$ follows from the fact that $\lambda>1$ and $K_N + \lambda I_N$ is positive definite. Note that each entry of $E_N$ is bounded by $C_g$ in absolute value. Applying \Cref{lemma6} to \cref{eq: 66} and taking a union bound over $\mathcal G_\epsilon$, for any $0<\delta<1$, we have the following holds with probability at least $1-\delta$
\begin{flalign}
&\sup_{G^\prime\in\mathcal G_\epsilon}\lomega{\sum_{i=1}^{N} \phi(x_i) \left( G^\prime(x_i) - \mathbb E\left[G^\prime(x_i)|\mathcal F_{i-1}\right] \right) }^2 \nonumber\\
&\quad\leq C^2_g \log\text{det}[(1+\eta)I+K_N] + 2C^2_g\log(\mathcal N_\epsilon/\delta).\label{eq: 67}
\end{flalign}
Moreover, note that $(1+\eta)I + K_N=[I+(1+\eta)^{-1}K_N][(1+\eta)I]$, which implies
\begin{flalign}
\log\det[(1+\eta)I + K_N] &= \log\det[I+(1+\eta)^{-1}K_N] + N\log(1+\eta)\nonumber\\
&\leq \log\det[I+(1+\eta)^{-1}K_N] + N\eta.\label{eq: 68}
\end{flalign}
Combining \cref{eq: 62}, \cref{eq: 63}, \cref{eq: 66}, \cref{eq: 67} and \cref{eq: 68} and letting $\eta=\lambda-1$, we have the following holds with probability $1-\delta$
\begin{flalign*}
&\lomega{\sum_{i=1}^{N} \phi(x_i) \left( G(x_i) - \mathbb E\left[G(x_i)|\mathcal F_{i-1}\right] \right) }^2\nonumber\\
&\quad\leq 2C^2_g \log\det(I+K_N/\lambda) + 2C^2_g N(\lambda-1) + 4C^2_g\log(\mathcal N_\epsilon/\delta) + 8N^2C^2_\phi\epsilon^2/\lambda,
\end{flalign*}
which completes the proof of \cref{eq: 69}. To prove \cref{eq: 70} we do not need to go through the "$\epsilon$-cover" argument since $G(\cdot)$ is independent from $\{x_i\}_{i\in N}$. We can directly apply \Cref{lemma6} and then follow steps similar to those in \cref{eq: 68} to obtain \cref{eq: 70}.
\end{proof}
For any integer $N$ and $\lambda>0$, we define the maximal information gain associated with the RKHS $\mathcal{H}$ as
\begin{flalign*}
{\rm\Gamma}_K(N,\lambda) = \sup_{\mathcal D\subset \mathcal X}\{1/2\cdot \log\det(I_d + \lambda^{-1}\cdot K_N) \},
\end{flalign*}
where the supremum is taken over all discrete subset $\mathcal D$ of $\mathcal X$ with the cardinality no more than $N$.
\begin{lemma}[Finite Spectrum/Effective Dimension Property]\label{lemma10}
Let $\{\sigma_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ be the eigenvalues of $T_K$ defined in \cref{eq: 147} in the descending order.
Let $\lambda\in[c_1,c_2]$ with $c_1$ and $c_2$ being absolute constants. If $\sigma_j=0$ for all $j\geq D+1$, where $D$ is a positive integer. Then, we have ${\rm\Gamma}_K(N,\lambda) = C_K\cdot D\cdot \log N$,
where $C_K$ is an absolute constant that depends on $C_1$, $C_2$, $c_1$, $c_2$ and $C_\phi$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
See the proof of Lemma D.5 in \cite{yang2020function} for a detailed proof.
\end{proof}
\section{Other Useful Lemmas}
\begin{lemma}[Matrix Bernstein Inequality \cite{tropp2015introduction}]\label{lemma9}
Suppose that $\{A_i\}_{i=1}^{N}$ are independent and centered random matrices in $\mathbb{R}^{d_1\times d_2}$, that is, $\mathbb E[A_i]=0$ for all $i\in[N]$. Also, suppose $\ltwo{A_i}\leq C_A$ for all $i\in[n]$. Let $Z = \sum_{i=1}^{N} A_i$ and
\begin{flalign*}
v(Z) = \max\left\{ \ltwo{\mathbb E\left[ ZZ^\top \right]}, \ltwo{\mathbb E\left[ Z^\top Z \right]} \right\}.
\end{flalign*}
For all $\xi\geq 0$, we have
\begin{flalign*}
{\rm P}(\ltwo{Z}\geq \xi)\leq (d_1 + d_2)\cdot\exp\left( - \frac{\xi^2/2}{v(Z) + C_A/3 \cdot \xi} \right).
\end{flalign*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
See Theorem 1.6.2 in \cite{tropp2015introduction} for a detailed proof.
\end{proof}
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we propose a novel offline RL algorithm, called PARTED, to handle the episodic RL problem with trajectory-wise rewards. PARTED uses a least-square-based reward redistribution method for reward estimation and incorporates a new penalty term to offset the uncertainty of proxy reward. Under the neural network function approximation, we prove that PARTED achieves an $\tilde{\mathcal{O}}(D_{\text{eff}}H^2/\sqrt{N})$ suboptimality, which matches the order $\tilde{\mathcal{O}}(dH^3/\sqrt{N})$ of linear MDP (that we further establish) when the effective dimension satisfies $D_{\text{eff}} = dH$. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first offline RL algorithm that is provably efficient in general episodic MDP setting with trajectory-wise rewards. As a future direction, it is interesting to incorporate the randomized return decomposition in \cite{ren2021learning} to improve the scalability of PARTED in the long horizon scenario.
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
\section{Introduction}
Reinforcement learning (RL) aims at searching for an optimal policy in an unknown environment \cite{sutton2018reinforcement}. To achieve this goal, an instantaneous reward is typically required at every step so that RL algorithms can maximize the cumulative reward of a Markov Decision Process (MDP). In recent years, RL has achieved remarkable empirical success with a high quality reward function \cite{mnih2015human,levine2016end,silver2017mastering,senior2020improved}. However, in many real-world scenarios, instantaneous rewards are hard or impossible to be obtained. For example, in the autonomous driving task \cite{shalev2016safe}, it is very costly and time consuming to score every state-action pair that the agent (car) visits.
In contrast, it is fairly easy to score the entire trajectory after the agent completing the task \cite{chatterji2021theory}. Therefore, in practice, it becomes more reasonable to adopt trajectory-wise reward schemes, in which only a return signal that represents the quality of the entire trajectory is revealed to the agent in the end. In recent years, trajectory-wise rewards have become prevalent in many real-world applications \cite{gong2019decentralized,olivecrona2017molecular,lin2018efficient,hein2017benchmark,rahmandad2009effects}.
Although trajectory-wise rewards are convenient to be obtained, it is often challenging for standard RL algorithms to utilize such a type of rewards well due to the high bias and variance it can introduce in the policy evaluation process \cite{arjona2019rudder}, which leads to unsatisfactory policy optimization results. To address such an issue, \cite{chatterji2021theory,pacchiano2021dueling} proposed to encode the whole trajectory and search for a non-Markovian trajectory-dependent optimal policy using the contextual bandit method. Although this type of approaches have promising theoretical guarantees, they are difficult to be implemented in practice due to the difficulty of searching the large trajectory-dependent policy space whose dimension increases exponentially with the horizon length. Another type of approaches widely adopted in practice is called {\em reward redistribution}, which learns a reward function by allocating the trajectory-wise reward to every visited state-action pairs based on their contributions \cite{arjona2019rudder,liu2019sequence,gangwani2020learning,ren2021learning,efroni2021reinforcement}. Since the reward function in reward redistribution is typically learned via solving a supervised learning problem, such an approach is sample-efficient and can be integrated into the existing RL frameworks easily. However, most of existing reward redistribution approaches do not have theoretical performance guarantee. So far, only \cite{efroni2021reinforcement} proposes a provably efficient reward redistribution algorithm, but is only applicable to tabular episodic MDP and requires both reward and transition kernel to be horizon-independent.
Despite the superior performance of the reward redistribution method, all previous algorithms considered only the {\em online} setting, which are not applicable to many critical domains where offline sampling is preferred (or can be required), as interactive data collection could be very costly and risky \cite{shalev2016safe,gottesman2019guidelines}.
{\em How to design reward redistribution in offline RL for trajectory-wise rewards is an important but fully unexplored problem.} For such a problem, designing reward redistribution algorithms can be hard due to the insufficient sample coverage issue \cite{wang2020statistical} in offline RL. Further challenges can be encountered when we try to design {\em provably} efficient reward distribution algorithms for general MDPs with large state space and horizon-dependent rewards and transition kernels, which has not even been studied in the online setting.
{\bf Thus, the goal of this work is to design an offline RL algorithm with reward redistribution for trajectory-wise rewards, which has provable efficiency guarantee for general episodic MDPs.}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\subsection{Main Contributions}
In this paper, we consider episodic MDP with possibly infinity state space and horizon-dependent reward function and transition kernel.
The trajectory-wise reward adopts a standard sum-form as considered previously in \cite{han2021off,zheng2018learning,klissarov2020reward,oh2018self,ren2021learning,efroni2021reinforcement}, in which only the summation of rewards over the visited state-action pairs is revealed at the end of each episode.
We propose a novel Pessimistic vAlue iteRaTion with rEward Decomposition (PARTED) algorithm for offline RL with trajectory-wise rewards, which incorporates a least-square-based reward redistribution into the pessimistic value iteration (PEVI) algorithm \cite{jin2021pessimism,yin2021near,yin2020near,yin2022near,yin2021towards}. Differently from the standard PEVI with instantaneous reward, in which reward and value function can be learned together by solving a single regression problem, in PARTED, reward need to be learned separately from the value function by training a regression model to decompose the trajectory return into per-step proxy rewards. In order to capture the reward and value function for a large state space, we adopt overparameterized neural networks for function approximation. Moreover, to offset the estimation error of proxy rewards, we design a penalty function by transfering the uncertainty from the covariance matrix of trajectory features to step-wise proxy rewards via an "one-block-hot" vector, which is new in the literature.
We show that our proposed new penality term ensures that the value functions constructed by PARTED are always pessimistic with respect to the optimal ones. Furthermore, with overparameterized neural network function approximation, we show that PARTED achieves an $\tilde{\mathcal{O}}(D_{\text{eff}}H^2/\sqrt{N})$ suboptimality, where $H$ is the length of episode, $N$ is the total number of samples, and $D_{\text{eff}}$ is the effective dimension of neural tangent kernel matrix. To further illustrate our result, we show that PARTED achieves an $\tilde{\mathcal{O}}(dH^3/\sqrt{N})$ suboptimality in the linear MDP setting, where $d$ is the feature dimension, which matches that in the neural network function approximation setting when $D_{\text{eff}} = dH$. To the best of our knowledge, PARTED is the first-known offline RL algorithm that is provably efficient in general episodic MDPs with trajectory-wise rewards \footnote{Our analysis can be easily applied for offline RL in general episodic MDP with instantaneous rewards when overparameterized neural network is used as function approximation, which has not been studied before.}.
\subsection{Related Works}
\textbf{Trajectory-Wise Reward RL. } Policy optimization with trajectory-rewards is extremely difficult. A variety of practical strategies have been proposed to resolve this technical challenge by redistributing trajectory rewards to step-wise rewards.
RUDDER \cite{arjona2019rudder} trains a return predictor of state-action sequence with LSTM \cite{hochreiter1997long}, and the reward at each horizon is then assigned by the difference between the predications of two adjacent sub-trajectories. Later, \cite{liu2019sequence} improves RUDDER and utilizes a Transformer \cite{vaswani2017attention} for better reward learning. IRCR \cite{gangwani2020learning} assigns the proxy reward of a state-action pair as the normalized value of trajectory returns that contain the correspondingly state-action pair. RRD \cite{ren2021learning} learns a proxy reward function by solving a supervised learning problem together with a Monte-Carlo sampling strategy.
Although those methods have achieved great empirical success, they all lack overall theoretical performance guarantee.
Differently from empirical studies, existing theoretical works of trajectory-wise reward RL are rare and focus only on the online setting. One line of research assumes trajectory reward being non-Markovian, and thus focuses on searching for a non-Markovian, trajectory-dependent optimal policy.
\cite{chatterji2021theory} assumes that trajectory-wise reward is a binary signal generated by a logistic classifier with trajectory embedding as the input. In this setting, the policy optimization problem is reduced to a linear contextual bandit problem in which the trajectory embedding is the contextual vector. \cite{pacchiano2021dueling} considers a similar setting as \cite{chatterji2021theory} but assumes only having access to a binary preference score between two trajectories instead of an absolute reward of a trajectory. Another line of research assumes that the trajectory-wise reward is the summation of underlying step-wise Markovian rewards. The goal of this line of work is to search for an optimal Markovian policy.
\cite{cohen2021online} adopted a mirror descent approach so that the summation of rewards alone is sufficient to perform the policy optimization. This approach relies on the on-policy unbiased sampling of trajectory rewards, and can hardly be extended to the offline setting.
\cite{efroni2021reinforcement} proposed to recover the reward by solving a least-squared regression problem that fits the summation of reward estimation toward the trajectory reward.
To our best knowledge, offline RL with trajectory-wise rewards (where no interaction with the environment is allowed) has not been studied before, and our work develops the first-known algorithm for such a setting with provable sample efficiency guarantee. Further, although our reward redistribution approach applies the least-square based method, which has also been adopted in \cite{efroni2021reinforcement}, our algorithm is designed for general MDPs with possibly infinite state and horizon-dependent rewards and transition kernels, which is very different from that in \cite{efroni2021reinforcement} designed for tabular MDPs with time-independent rewards and transition kernels.
\textbf{Offline RL. }The major challenge in offline RL is the insufficient sample coverage in the pre-collected dataset, which arises from the lack of exploration \cite{wang2020statistical,liu2020provably}. To address such a challenge, two types of algorithms have been studied: (1) regularized approaches, which prevent the policy from visiting states and actions that are less covered by the dataset \cite{dadashi2021offline,fujimoto2019off,fujimoto2019benchmarking,wang2020critic,fujimoto2021minimalist}; (2) pessimistic approach, which penalize the estimated values of the less-covered state-action pairs \cite{buckman2020importance, kumar2020conservative}. So far, a number of provably efficient pessimistic offline RL algorithm have been proposed in both tabular MDP setting \cite{yin2020near,shi2022pessimistic,yan2022efficacy,li2022settling,yin2021optimal,ren2021nearly,xie2021policy,yin2021towards,rashidinejad2021bridging} and linear MDP setting \cite{jin2021pessimism,xie2021bellman,zanette2021provable,wang2020statistical,zanette2021exponential,foster2021offline,yin2022near}.
However, the efficiency of all those works relies on both the availability of instantaneous reward and special structures of MDP, which can hardly be satisfied in practical settings. In this work, we take a first step towards relaxing those two assumptions by proposing PARTED, which is provably efficient in general episodic MDPs with trajectory-wise rewards.
\section{Preliminary and Problem Formulation}
In this section we provide basic background on reinforcement learning (RL), the trajectory-wise reward, the offline RL setting, and the function approximation with overparameterized neural networks.
\subsection{Episodic Markov Decision Process}\label{sc: MDP}
An episodic Markov decision process (MDP) is defined by a tuple $(\mathcal S, \mathcal A, \mathbb P,r,H)$, where $\mathcal S$ and $\mathcal A$ are the state and action spaces, $H>0$ is the length of each episode, and
$\mathbb P=\{\mathbb P_h\}_{h\in[H]}$ and $r=\{r_h\}_{h\in[H]}$ are the transition kernel and reward, respectively, where $[n]=\{1,2,\cdots,n\}$ for integer $n\geq 1$.
We assume $\mathcal S$ is a measurable space of possibly infinite cardinality and $\mathcal A$ is a finite set. For each $h\in[H]$, $\mathbb P_h(\cdot|s,a)$ denotes the transition probability when action $a$ is taken at state $s$ at timestep $h$, and $r_h(s,a) \in [0,1]$ is a {\bf random} reward that is observed with state-action pair $(s,a)$ at timestep $h$. We denote the mean of the reward as $R_h(s,a)=\mathbb E[r_h(s,a)|s,a]$ for all $(s,a)\in\mathcal S\times\mathcal A$. For any policy $\pi=\{\pi_h\}_{h\in[H]}$, we define the state value function $V^\pi_h(\cdot):\mathcal S\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ and state-action value function $Q^\pi_h(\cdot):\mathcal S\times\mathcal A \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ at each timestep $h$ as
\begin{flalign*}
V^\pi_h(s)=\mathbb E_\pi\left[\sum_{t=h}^{H}r_t(s_t,a_t)\Bigg| s_h=s\right],\quad Q^\pi_h(s,a)=\mathbb E_\pi\left[\sum_{t=h}^{H}r_t(s_t,a_t)\Bigg| (s_h,a_h)=(s,a)\right],
\end{flalign*}
where the expectation $\mathbb E_\pi$ is taken with respect to the randomness of the trajectory induced by policy $\pi$, which is obtained by taking action $a_t\sim\pi_t(\cdot|s_t)$ and transiting to the next state $s_{t+1}\sim\mathbb P_t(\cdot|s_t,a_t)$ at timestep $t\in[H]$. At each timestep $h\in[H]$, for any $f: \mathcal S\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, we define the transition operator as $(\mathbb P_hf)(s,a) = \mathbb E\left[f(s_{h+1})|(s_h,a_h)=(s,a)\right]$ and the Bellman operator as $(\mathbb B_hf)(s,a)=R_h(s,a)+(\mathbb P_hf)(s,a)$. For episodic MDP $(\mathcal S, \mathcal A, \mathbb P,r,H)$, we have
\begin{flalign*}
Q^\pi_h(s,a)=(\mathbb B_h V^\pi_{h+1})(s,a),\quad V^\pi_h(s)=\langle Q^\pi_h(s,\cdot),\pi_h(\cdot|s)\rangle_\mathcal A, \quad V^\pi_{H+1}(s) = 0,
\end{flalign*}
where $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_\mathcal A$ denotes the inner product over $\mathcal A$. We define the optimal policy $\pi^*$ as the policy that yields the optimal value function, i.e., $V^{\pi^*}_h(s)=\sup_{\pi}V^\pi_h(s)$ for all $s\in\mathcal S$ and $h\in[H]$. For simplicity, we denote $V^{\pi^*}_h$ and $Q^{\pi^*}_h$ as $V^*_h$ and $Q^*_h$, respectively. The Bellman optimality equation is given as follows
\begin{flalign}\label{eq: 1}
Q^*_h(s,a)=(\mathbb B_h V^*_h)(s,a),\quad V^*_h(s)=\argmax_{a\in\mathcal A} Q^\pi_h(s,\cdot), \quad V^*_{H+1}(s) = 0,
\end{flalign}
The goal of reinforcement learning is to learn the optimal policy $\pi^*$. For any fixed $\pi$, we define the performance metric as
\begin{flalign*}
\text{SubOpt}(\pi,s)=V^*_1(s) - V^\pi_1(s),
\end{flalign*}
which is the suboptimality of the policy $\pi$ given the initial state $s_1=s$.
\subsection{Trajectory-Wise Reward and Offline RL}
In the trajectory-wise reward setting, the transition of the environment is still Markovian and the agent can still observe and interact with the environment instantly as in standard MDPs. However, unlike standard MDPs in which the agent can receive an instantaneous reward $r_h(s,a)$ for every visited state-action pair $x$ at each timestep $h$, in the trajectory-wise reward setting, only a reward that is associated with the whole trajectory can be observed at the end of the episode, i.e., $r(\tau)$ where $\tau=\{(s^\tau_1,a^\tau_1),\cdots,(s^\tau_H,a^\tau_H)\}$ denotes a trajectory and $(s^\tau_h,a^\tau_h)$ is the $h$-th state-action pair in trajectory $\tau$, which is called "trajectory reward" in the sequel. In this work, we consider the setting in which the trajectory reward is the summation of the underlying instantaneous reward in the trajectory of MDP $(\mathcal S, \mathcal A, \mathbb P,r,H)$, i.e., $r(\tau)=\sum_{h=1}^Hr_h(s^\tau_h,a^\tau_h)$. We denote the mean of the trajectory reward as $R(\tau)=\mathbb E[r(\tau)|\tau] = \sum_{h=1}^H R_h(s^\tau_h,a^\tau_h)$. Such a sum-form reward has been commonly considered in both theoretical \cite{efroni2021reinforcement} and empirical studies \cite{han2021off,zheng2018learning,klissarov2020reward,oh2018self,ren2021learning}. It models the situations where the agent's goal is captured by a certain metric with additive properties, e.g., the energy cost of a car during driving, the click rate of advertisements during a time interval, or the distance of a robot's running. Such a form of reward can be more general than the standard RL feedback and is expected to be more common in practical scenarios.
Note that RL problems under trajectory-wise rewards is very challenging,
as traditional policy optimization approach typically fails due the obscured feedback received from the environment, which causes large value function evaluation error \cite{han2021off,gangwani2020learning}.
We consider the offline RL setting, in which a learner has access only to a pre-collected dataset $\mathcal D$ consisting of $N$ trajectories $\{\tau_i, r(\tau_i)\}_{i,h=1}^{N,H}$ rolled out from some possibly unknown behavior policy $\mu$, where $\tau_i$ and $r(\tau_i)$ are the $i$-th trajectory and the observed trajectory reward of $\tau_i$, respectively. Given this batch data $\mathcal D$ with only trajectory-wise rewards and a target accuracy $\epsilon$, our goal is to find a policy $\pi$ such that $\text{SubOpt}(\pi,s)\leq \epsilon$ for all $s\in\mathcal S$.
\subsection{Overparameterized Neural Network}\label{subsc: overpnn}
In this paper, we consider the function approximation setting, in which the state-action value function is approximated by a two-layer neural network. To simplify the notation, we denote $\mathcal X=\mathcal S\times\mathcal A$ and view it as a subset of $\mathbb{R}^d$. We further assign a feature vector $x\in\mathcal X$ to represent a state-action pair $(s,a)$. Without loss of generality, we assume that $\ltwo{x}=1$ for all $x\in\mathcal X$. We also allow $x=0$ to represent a null state-action pair.
We now define a two-layer neural network $f(\cdot,b,w):\mathcal X\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ with $2m$ neurons and weights $(b,w)$ as
\begin{flalign}\label{eq: 2}
f(x;b,w)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2m}}\sum_{r=1}^{2m}b_j\cdot\sigma(w_r^\top x),\qquad \forall x\in\mathcal X,
\end{flalign}
where $\sigma(\cdot):\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ is the activation function, $b_r\in\mathbb{R}$ and $w_r\in\mathbb{R}^d$ for all $r\in[2m]$, and $b=(b_1,\cdots,b_{2m})^\top\in\mathbb{R}^{2m}$ and $w=(w^\top_1,\cdots,w^\top_{2m})^\top\in\mathbb{R}^{2md}$. We make the following assumption for $\sigma(\cdot)$, which can be satisfied by a number of activation functions such as ReLU and $\tanh(\cdot)$.
\begin{assumption}\label{ass}
For all $x\in\mathcal X$, we have $\lone{\sigma^\prime(x)}\leq C_\sigma<+\infty$ and $\sigma^\prime(0)=0$.
\end{assumption}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
We initialize $b$ and $w$ via a symmetric initialization scheme \cite{gao2019convergence,bai2019beyond}: for any $1\leq r\leq m$ we set $b_{0,r}\sim \text{Unif}(\{-1,1\})$ and $w_{0,r}\sim N(0,I_d/d)$, where $I_d$ is the identity matrix in $\mathbb{R}^d$, and for any $m+1\leq r\leq 2m$, we set $b_{0,r}=-b_{0,r-m}$ and $w_{0,r}=w_{0,r-m}$. Under such an initialization, the initial neural network is a zero function, i.e. $f(x;b_0,w_0)=0$ for all $x\in\mathcal X$, where $b_0=[b_{0,1},\cdots,b_{0,2m}]^\top$ and $w_0=[w_{0,1}^\top,\cdots,w_{0,2m}^\top]^\top$ are initialization parameters. During training, we fix the value of $b$ at its initial value and only optimize $w$. To simplify the notation, we denote $f(x;b,w)$ as $f(x;w)$ and $\nabla_wf(x,w)$ as $\phi(x,w)$.
{\bf Notations.} We use $\widetilde{\mathcal{O}}(X)$ to refer to a quality that is upper bounded by $X$, up to poly-log factors of $d, H, N, m$ and $(1/\delta)$. Furthermore, we use $\mathcal{O}(X)$ to refer to a quantity that is upper bounded by $X$ up to constant multiplicative factors. We use $I_d$ as the identity matrix in dimension $d$. Similarly, we denote by $\mathbf{0}_d\in\mathbb{R}^d$ as the vector whose components are zeros. For any square matrix $M$, we let $\ltwo{M}$ denote the operator norm of $M$. Finally, for any positive definite matrix $M\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times d}$ and any vector $x\in\mathbb{R}^d$, we define $\lM{x} = \sqrt{x^\top M x} $.
\section{Main Results}\label{sc: main}
\subsection{Suboptimality of PARTED for General MDPs}\label{sc: subop}
In the overparameterized scheme, the neural network width $2m$ is considered to be much larger than the number of trajectories $N$ and horizon length $H$. Under such a scheme, the training process of neural networks can be captured by the framework of neural tangent kernel (NTK) \cite{jacot2018neural}. Specifically, conditioning on the realization of $w_0$, we define a kernel $K(x,x^\prime):\mathcal X\times\mathcal X\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ as
\begin{flalign*}
\textstyle K(x,x^\prime)=\langle \phi(x,w_0),\phi(x^\prime,w_0)\rangle= \frac{1}{2m}\sum_{r=1}^{2m} \sigma^\prime(w^{\top}_{0,r}x)\sigma^\prime(w^{\top}_{0,r}x^\prime)x^\top x^\prime, \quad \forall (x,x^\prime)\in \mathcal X\times\mathcal X,
\end{flalign*}
where $\sigma^\prime(\cdot)$ is the derivative of the action function $\sigma(\cdot)$. It can be shown that $f(\cdot,w)$ is close to its linearization at $w_0$ when $m$ is sufficiently large and $w$ is not too far away from $w_0$, i.e.,
\begin{flalign*}
\textstyle f(x,w)\approx f_0(x,w) = f(x,w_0) + \langle \phi(x,w_0), w-w_0\rangle = \langle \phi(x,w_0), w-w_0\rangle,\quad \forall x\in\mathcal X.
\end{flalign*}
Note that $f_0(x,w)$ belongs to a reproducing kernel Hilbert space (RKHS) with kernel $K(\cdot,\cdot)$.
Similarly, consider the sum of $H$ neural networks $f(\tau,{\rm\Theta}) = \sum_{h=1}^{H}f(x^\tau_h, \theta_h)$ with the same initialization $\theta_0$ for each neural network, where $\tau=[x_1^\top,\cdots,x_H^\top]^\top$ and ${\rm\Theta}=[\theta_1^\top,\cdots,\theta_H^\top]^\top$. If $\theta_h$ is not too far away from $\theta_0$ for all $h\in[H]$ and $m$ is sufficiently large, it can be shown that the dynamics of $f(\tau,{\rm\Theta})$ belong to a RKHS with kernel $K_H$ defined as $K_H(\tau,\tau^\prime) = \sum_{h=1}^{H}K(x_h,x^\prime_h)$. We further define $\mathcal H_{K}$ and $\mathcal H_{K_H}$ as the RKHS induced by $K(\cdot,\cdot)$ and $K_H(\cdot,\cdot)$, respectively.
Based on the kernel $K(\cdot,\cdot)$ and $K_H(\cdot,\cdot)$, we define the Gram matrix $K_r, K_{v,h}\in\mathbb{R}^{N\times N}$ as
\begin{flalign}
\textstyle K_r=[K_H(\tau_i,\tau_j)]_{i,j\in[N]},\quad\text{and}\quad K_{v,h}=[K(x^{\tau_i}_h,x^{\tau_j}_h)]_{i,j\in[N]}.\nonumber
\end{flalign}
We further define a function class as follows
\begin{flalign}
\textstyle\mathcal F_{B_1,B_2}=\left\{ f_\ell(x) = \int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\sigma^\prime(w^\top x)\cdot x^\top\ell(w)dp(w): \sup_w\ltwo{\ell(w)}\leq B_1, \sup_w\frac{\ltwo{\ell(w)}}{p(w)}\leq B_2 \right\},\nonumber
\end{flalign}
where $\ell: \mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^d$ is a mapping, $B_1,B_2$ are positive constants, and $p$ is the density of $N(0,I_d/d)$. We then make the following assumption regarding the expressive power of the above function class.
\begin{assumption}\label{ass1}
We assume that there exist $a_1,a_2,A_1,A_2>0$ such that $R_h(\cdot)\in \mathcal F_{a_1,a_2}$ and $(\mathbb P_hf)(\cdot)\in \mathcal F_{A_1,A_2}$ for any $f(\cdot):\mathcal X\rightarrow[0,H]$.
\end{assumption}
\Cref{ass1} ensures that both $R_h(\cdot)$ and $(\mathbb P_h \widehat{V}_{h+1})(\cdot)$ can be captured by an infinite width neural network.
Note that \Cref{ass1} is mild since $\mathcal F_{B_1,B_2}$ is an expressive function class as shown in Lemma C.1 of \cite{gao2019convergence}. Similar assumptions have also been adopted in many previous works that consider neural network function approximation \cite{yang2020function,cai2019neural,wang2019neural,xu2021crpo,qiu2021reward}.
Additionally, we assme that the data collection process explores the state-action space and trajectory space well. Note that similar assumptions have also been adopted in \cite{duan2020minimax,yin2022near,jin2021pessimism}.
\begin{assumption}[Well-Explored Dataset]\label{ass2}
Suppose the $N$ trajectories in dataset $\mathcal D$ are independently and identically induced by a fixed behaviour policy $\mu$. There exist absolute constants $C_{\sigma}>0$ and $C_{\varsigma}>0$ such that
\begin{flalign*}
\textstyle\lambda_{\min}(\overline{M}({\rm\Theta}_0))\geq C_{\sigma}\quad\text{and}\quad\lambda_{\min}(\overline{m}_h({w}_0))\geq C_{\varsigma}\quad \forall h\in[H],
\end{flalign*}
where
\begin{flalign*}
\textstyle\overline{M}({\rm\Theta}_0) = \mathbb E_{\mu}\left[ {\rm\Phi}(\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0){\rm\Phi}(\tau,{\rm\Theta}_0)^\top \right]\quad\text{and}\quad \overline{m}_h({w}_0) = \mathbb E_{\mu}\left[\phi(x^\tau_h,w_0)\phi(x^\tau_h,w_0)^\top \right].
\end{flalign*}
\end{assumption}
We can now present the suboptimality of the policy $\widehat{\pi}$ obtained via \Cref{alg1}.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm1}
Consider \Cref{alg1}. Suppose \Cref{ass}-\ref{ass2} hold. Let $\lambda_1 = \lambda_2 = 1 + 1/N$, $\beta_1= R_{\beta_1}$ and $\beta_2 = R_{\beta_2}$, in which $R_{\beta_1}$ and $R_{\beta_2}$ satisfy
\begin{flalign*}
&\textstyle R_{\beta_1} \ge H\left(4 a^2_2\lambda_1/d + 2\log\det\left(I+K_r/\lambda_1 \right) + 10\log(NH^2) \right)^{1/2}, \nonumber\\
&\textstyle R_{\beta_2}\geq H\left(8 A^2_2\lambda_2/d + 4\max_{h\in[H]}\{\log\det\left(I+ K_{v,h}/\lambda_2\right)\} + 6C_\epsilon + 16\log(NH^2 \mathcal N_\epsilon^v)\right)^{1/2},
\end{flalign*}
where $\epsilon = \sqrt{\lambda_2 C_\epsilon}H/(2NC_\phi)$, $C_\epsilon\geq 1$ is an adjustable parameter, and $C_\phi>0$ is an absolute constant.
In addition, let $m$ be sufficiently large. Then, with probability at least $1-(N^2H^4)^{-1}$, we have
\begin{flalign}
\textstyle \text{\rm SubOpt}(\widehat \pi,s) \leq \widetilde{\mathcal{O}}\left(\frac{H \max \{\beta_1, \beta_2\}}{\sqrt{N}}\right) + \varepsilon_1,\nonumber
\end{flalign}
where
\begin{flalign*}
\textstyle\varepsilon_1 = \max\{\beta_1 H^{5/3}, \beta_2 H^{7/6} \} \widetilde{\mathcal{O}}\left( \frac{N^{1/12}}{m^{1/12}} \right) + \widetilde{\mathcal{O}}\left( \frac{H^{17/6} N^{5/3}}{m^{1/6}} \right).
\end{flalign*}
\end{theorem}
\Cref{thm1} shows that \Cref{alg1} can find an $\epsilon$-optimal policy with $\widetilde{\mathcal{O}}(H^2\max\{\beta_1,\beta_2\}^2/\epsilon^2)$ episodes of offline data in the trajectory-wise reward setting up to a function approximation error $\varepsilon_1$, which vanishes as the neural network width $2m$ increases. Note that the dependence of $\varepsilon_1$ on the network width, which is $\mathcal{O}(m^{-1/12})$, matches that of the approximation error in the previous work of value iteration algorithm with neural network function approximation \cite{yang2020function}.
{\bf Discussion of Proof of \Cref{thm1}. }Comparing to the analysis of PEVI for linear MDP with instantaneous reward, which has been extensively studied in offline RL \cite{jin2021pessimism,yin2022near,yin2021near}, our analysis needs to address the following two new challenges:
(1) In instantaneous reward setting, both $ R_h(\cdot)$ and $(\mathbb P_h \widehat{V}_{h+1})(\cdot)$ can be learned together by solving a single regression problem in per-step scale. However, in our trajectory-wise reward setting, $R_h(\cdot)$ and $(\mathbb P_h \widehat{V}_{h+1} )(\cdot)$ need to be learned separately by solving two regression problems (\cref{eq: 3,eq: 4}) in different scales, i.e., \cref{eq: 3} is in trajectory scale and \cref{eq: 4} is in per-step scale. In order to apply union concentrations to bound the Bellman estimation error $|(\mathbb B_h\widehat{V}_h)(\cdot) - (\widehat{\mathbb B}_h\widehat{V}_h)(\cdot)|$, we need to develop new techniques to handle the mismatch between \cref{eq: 3,eq: 4} in terms of scale.
(2) In linear MDP, both $R_h(\cdot)$ and $(\mathbb P_h \widehat{V}_{h+1})(\cdot)$ can be captured exactly by linear functions. However, in the more general MDP that we consider, we need to develop new analysis to bound the estimation error that caused by the insufficient expressive power of neural networks in order to characterize the optimality of $\widehat{\theta}_h$ and $\widehat{w}_h$ in \cref{eq: 3,eq: 4}, respectively.
To obtain a more concrete suboptimality bound for \Cref{alg1}, we impose an assumption on the spectral structure of kernels $K_H$ and $K$.
\begin{assumption}[Finite Spectrum NTK \cite{yang2020function}]\label{ass4}
Conditioned on the randomness of $(b_0, w_0)$, let $T_{K_H}$ and $T_{K}$ be the integral operator induced by $K_H$ and $K$ (see \Cref{sc: rkhs} for definition of $T_{K_H}$ and $T_K$), respectively, and let $\{\omega_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ and $\{\upsilon_j\}_{j\geq 1}$ be eigenvalues of $T_{K_H}$ and $T_{K}$, respectively. We have $\omega_j=0$ for all $j\geq D_1+1$ and $\upsilon_j=0$ for all $\upsilon_j\geq D_2 + 1$, where $D_1, D_2$ are positive integers.
\end{assumption}
\Cref{ass4} implies that $\mathcal H_{K_H}$ and $\mathcal H_K$ are $D_1$-dimensional and $D_2$-dimensional, respectively. For concrete examples of neural networks that satisfy \Cref{ass4}, please refer to Section B.3 in \cite{yang2020function}. Note that such an assumption is in parallel to the "effective dimension" assumption in \cite{zhou2020neural,valko2013finite}.
\begin{corollary}\label{corollary1}
Consider \Cref{alg1}. Suppose \Cref{ass}-\ref{ass4} hold. Let $\lambda_1=\lambda_2=1+1/N$, ${\beta_1} = \tilde{\mathcal{O}}(H D_1)$ and ${\beta_2} = \tilde{\mathcal{O}} (H\max\{D_1, D_2\})$. Then, with probability at least $1-(N^{2}H^{4})^{-1}$, we have
\begin{equation}
\textstyle\text{\rm SubOpt}(\widehat \pi,s) = \widetilde{\mathcal{O}}\left(D_{\text{eff}}H^2/\sqrt{N}\right) + \varepsilon_2,\nonumber
\end{equation}
where $D_{\text{eff}}=\max\{D_1, D_2\}$ denotes the effective dimension and
\begin{flalign*}
\textstyle\varepsilon_2 = \max\left\{\sqrt{H}, \max\{D_1, D_2\}, \frac{H^{5/3}N^{19/12}}{m^{1/12}} \right\} \widetilde{\mathcal{O}} \left( \frac{H^{13/6}N^{1/12} }{m^{1/12}} \right).
\end{flalign*}
\end{corollary}
\Cref{corollary1} states that when $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$ are chosen properly according to the dimension of $\mathcal H_{K_H}$ and $\mathcal H_{K}$, the suboptimality of the policy $\widehat{\pi}$ incurred by \Cref{alg1} converges to an $\epsilon$-optimal policy with $\widetilde{\mathcal{O}}(D^2_{\text{eff}}H^4/\epsilon^2)$ episodes of offline data up to a function approximation error $\varepsilon_2$.
\subsection{Suboptimality of PARTED under Linear MDPs}
In this section, we briefly illustrate our result by instantiating PARTED to simpler linear MDPs with trajectory-wise rewards. We further provide a detailed treatment of the linear MDP setting with trajectory-wise rewards in \Cref{sc: linearMDP}.
With an abuse of notation, we define the linear MDP as follows.
\begin{definition}[Linear MDP \cite{jin2020provably,yang2019sample}]\label{def1}
We say an episodic MDP $(\mathcal S, \mathcal A, \mathbb P, r, H)$ is a linear MDP with a known feature map $\phi(\cdot): \mathcal X \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^d$ if there exist an unknown vector $w^*_h(s) \in \mathbb{R}^d$ over $\mathcal S$ and an unknown vector $\theta^*_h\in \mathbb{R}^d$ such that
\begin{flalign}
\textstyle \mathbb P_h(s^\prime|s,a) = \langle \phi(s,a), w^*_h(s^\prime)\rangle,\quad R_h(s,a) = \langle \phi(s,a), \theta^*_h \rangle, \label{eq: 171}
\end{flalign}
for all $(s,a,s^\prime)\in \mathcal S\times\mathcal A\times\mathcal S$ at each step $h\in[H]$. Here we assume $\ltwo{\phi(x)}\leq 1$ for all $x\in\mathcal X$ and $\max\{ \ltwo{w^*_h(\mathcal S)}, \ltwo{\theta^*_h} \}\leq \sqrt{d}$ at each step $h\in[H]$, where $\ltwo{w^*_h(\mathcal S)}= \int_{\mathcal S}\ltwo{w^*_h(s)}ds$.
\end{definition}
In linear MDPs, it has been shown that both reward $R_h(\cdot)$ and transition value function $(\mathbb P_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(\cdot)$ are linear functions with respect to $\phi(\cdot)$ \cite{agarwal2019reinforcement,jin2020provably}. Thus, with only trajectory-wise rewards, we can construct the proxy reward $\widehat{R}_h(\cdot)$ and estimated transition value function $(\widehat{\mathbb P}_h\widehat{V}_{h+1})(\cdot)$ by solving two linear regression problems that take similar forms as \cref{eq: 7} and \cref{eq: 74} with feature ${\rm\Phi}(\tau) = [\phi(x^\tau_1)^\top,\cdots,\phi(x^\tau_h)]^\top$ and $\phi(x)$, respectively. For a detailed description of the algorithm, please see \Cref{alg2} in \Cref{sc: prelinearMDP}. The following theorem characterizes the suboptimality of \Cref{alg2}.
\begin{theorem}[Informal]\label{thm2.1}
Consider PARTED for linear MDP in \Cref{alg2}. Under appropriate hyperparameter setting and dataset coverage assumption, we have $\text{\rm SubOpt}(\widehat \pi,s) \leq \widetilde{\mathcal{O}}( dH^3/\sqrt{N})$ holds with high probability.
\end{theorem}
Note that linear function with feature ${\rm\Phi}(\tau)$ and $\phi(x)$ belongs to RKHS with kernel $K^\prime_H(\tau,\tau^\prime) = \langle{\rm\Phi}(\tau),{\rm\Phi}(\tau^\prime)\rangle$ and $K^\prime(x,x^\prime) = \langle \phi(x), \phi(x^\prime) \rangle$, respectively. Thus, $\mathcal H_{K^\prime_H}$ is $dH$-dimensional and $\mathcal H_{K^\prime}$ is $d$-dimensional.
The suboptimality of PARTED for linear MDP in \Cref{thm2.1} will match that in \Cref{corollary1} if we let $D_1=dH$ and $D_2 =d$ (which implies $D_{\text{eff}} = dH$), where the dynamic of neural networks can be approximately captured by RKHSs $\mathcal H_{K_H}$ and $\mathcal H_K$ defined in \Cref{sc: subop}.
To highlight why trajectory-wise reward RL is more challenging than instantaneous reward RL, we observe that \Cref{thm2.1} with {\em trajectory-wise rewards} has an additional dependence on the horizon $H$, compared to the suboptimality $\widetilde{\mathcal{O}}(dH^2/\sqrt{N})$ \cite[Corollary 4.5]{jin2021pessimism} of PEVI for linear MDP with {\em instantaneous rewards}. This additional dependence on $H$ is caused by the reward redistribution process, in which PARTED needs to solve a {trajectory-level} regression problem with feature ${\rm\Phi}(\tau)\in\mathbb{R}^{dH}$, which inevitably introduces large uncertainty in the regression solution used to construct the per-step proxy reward.
|
\section{Robust Distillation Algorithms}
\label{sec:algorithms}
The different objectives we consider -- standard, balanced and robust -- entail different loss objectives to ensure efficient optimization during training.
For example, while training
the standard teacher and student in \eqref{eq:standard-objectives},
we take $\ell$ to be the softmax cross-entropy loss,
and optimize it using SGD. For the balanced and robust models,
we employ the margin-based surrogates that we detail below, which have shown to be more effective
in training over-parameterized networks \citep{cao2019learning, menon2020long, kini2021labelimbalanced}.
Across all objectives, at evaluation we take the loss $\ell$
in the student and teacher objectives
to be the 0-1 loss.
\textbf{Margin-based surrogate for balanced objective.}\
When the teacher or student model being trained is over-parameterized,
i.e., has sufficient capacity to correctly classify all examples in the training set,
the use of an outer weighting term
in the objective
(such as the inverse class marginals in \eqref{eq:balanced-distilled-empirical})
can be ineffective. In other words, a model that yields zero training objective
would do so irrespective of what outer weights we choose.
To remedy this problem,
we make use of the margin-based surrogate of \citet{menon2020long},
and incorporate the outer weights as margin terms within the loss.
For
the balanced student objective in \eqref{eq:balanced-distilled-empirical}, this would look like:
\begin{align}
{\widetilde{L}^\textrm{\textup{bal-d}}(f^s)}
&= \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \mathcal{L}^\textrm{\textup{mar}}\left(p^t(x_i), f^s(x_i); \mathbf{1} / \hat{\pi}^t \right),
\label{eq:margin-la}
\end{align}
~\\[-25pt]
\begin{align}
\text{where}~~\mathcal{L}^\textrm{\textup{mar}}\left(\mathbf{p}, \mathbf{f}; \mathbf{c} \right) &=
\frac{1}{m}\sum_{y \in [m]} p_y \log\bigg(1 + \sum_{j \ne y}\exp\left(\log(c_y / c_{j}) \,-\, (f_y - f_j) \right) \bigg),
\nonumber
\end{align}
for teacher probabilities $\mathbf{p} \in \Delta_m$, student scores $\mathbf{f} \in \mathbb{R}^m$,
and per-class costs $\mathbf{c} \in \mathbb{R}^m_+$.
For the balanced teacher, the margin-based objective would take a similar form, but
with one-hot labels.
We include a proof in Appendix \ref{app:calibration-mar} showing that
a scoring function that minimizes this surrogate objective
also minimizes the
the balanced objective in \eqref{eq:balanced-distilled-empirical}
(when $\ell$ is the cross-entropy loss, and the student is chosen from a sufficiently flexible function class). In practice, the margin term $\log(c_y / c_{j})$ encourages a larger margin of separation for classes $y$ for which the cost $c_y$ is relatively higher.
\begin{figure}[t]
\vspace{-5pt}
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{Distilled Margin-based DRO
\label{algo:dro}
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE \textbf{Inputs:} Teacher $p^t$, Student hypothesis class $\mathcal{F}$, Training set $S$, Validation set $S^\textrm{\textup{val}}$, Step-size $\gamma \in \mathbb{R}_+$,
Number of iterations $K$, Loss $\ell$,
Initial student $f^0 \in \mathcal{F}$, Initial multipliers ${\lambda}^0 \in \Delta_m$
\STATE Compute $\hat{\pi}^{t}_j = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{(x, y) \in S} p_j^t(x),~ \forall j \in [m]$
\STATE Compute $\hat{\pi}^{t,\textrm{\textup{val}}}_j = \frac{1}{n^\textrm{\textup{val}}}\sum_{(x, y) \in S^\textrm{\textup{val}}} p_j^t(x),~ \forall j \in [m]$
\STATE \textbf{For}~{$k = 0 $ to $K-1$}
\STATE ~~~$\tilde{\lambda}^{k+1}_j \,=\, \lambda^k_j\exp\big( \gamma \hat{R}_j \big), \forall j \in [m]
~~~~~\text{where} $\hat{R}_j =$ $\frac{1}{n^\textrm{\textup{val}}}\frac{1}{\hat{\pi}^{t,\textrm{\textup{val}}}_j}\underset{(x, y) \in S^\textrm{\textup{val}}}{\sum} p_j^t(x)\, \ell( j , f^k(x) )$\\[-20pt]
\STATE ~~~$\lambda^{k+1}_y \,=\, \frac{\tilde{\lambda}^{k+1}_y}{\sum_{j=1}^m \tilde{\lambda}^{k+1}_j}, \forall y$
\STATE ~~~$f^{k+1} \,\in\, \Argmin{f \in \mathcal{F}}\, \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \mathcal{L}^\textrm{\textup{mar}}\left(p^t(x_i), f(x_i); \frac{\lambda^{k+1}}{\hat{\pi}^t} \right)$
~~~~~~// Replaced with a few steps of SGD
\STATE \textbf{End For}
\STATE \textbf{Output:} $\bar{f}^{s}: x \mapsto \frac{1}{K}\sum_{k =1}^K f^k(x)$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\vspace{-22pt}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Margin-based DRO for robust objective.}\
Minimizing the robust objective with plain SGD can be difficult due to the presence of
the outer ``max'' over $m$ classes. The key difficulty is in computing reliable stochastic gradients for
the max objective, especially given a small batch size. The
standard approach is to instead use a (group) distributionally-robust optimization (DRO) procedure,
which comes in multiple flavors \cite{chen2017robust, Sagawa2020Distributionally, kini2021labelimbalanced}.
We employ the margin-based variant of group DRO \citep{narasimhan2021training} as it naturally extends the
margin-based objective used in the balanced setting.
We illustrate below how this applies to the robust student objective in \eqref{eq:robust-distilled-empirical}. The procedure for the robust teacher is similar, but involves one-hot labels.
For a student hypothesis class $\mathcal{F}$,
we
first re-write the minimization in \eqref{eq:robust-distilled-empirical}
over $f \in \mathcal{F}$ into an equivalent min-max optimization using per-class multipliers $\lambda \in \Delta_m$:
\vspace{-5pt}
\[
\min_{f \in \mathcal{F}}\max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m} \sum_{y \in [m]}\frac{\lambda_y}{\hat{\pi}^t_y}\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n p_y^t(x_i)\, \ell\left( y , f(x_i) \right),
\]
and then
maximize over $\lambda$ for fixed $f$, and minimize over $f$ for fixed $\lambda$:
\begin{align*}
\lambda^{k+1}_y &\propto\,
\lambda^k_y\exp\bigg( \gamma\frac{1}{n\hat{\pi}^t_y}\sum_{i=1}^n p_y^t(x_i)\, \ell\left( y , f^k(x_i) \right) \bigg), \forall y\\[-4pt]
f^{k+1} &\in\, \Argmin{f \in \mathcal{F}} \sum_{y \in [m]}\frac{\lambda^{k+1}_y}{n\hat{\pi}^t_y}\sum_{i=1}^n p_y^t(x_i)\, \ell\left( y , f(x_i) \right),
\end{align*}
where $\gamma > 0$ is a step-size parameter. The updates on $\lambda$
implement exponentiated gradient (EG) ascent to maximize over the simplex \citep{shalev2011online}.
Following \citet{narasimhan2021training}, we make two modifications to the above updates
when used to train over-parameterized networks that can fit the training set perfectly.
First, we perform the updates on $\lambda$ using a
small held-out validation set $S^\textrm{\textup{val}} \,=\, \{(x_1,y_1), \ldots, (x_{n^\textrm{\textup{val}}}, y_{n^\textrm{\textup{val}}})\}$,
instead of the training set,
so that the $\lambda$s reflect how well the model generalizes out-of-sample.
Second, in keeping with the balanced objective, we modify the weighted objective
in the $f$-minimization step to include a margin-based surrogate.
Algorithm \ref{algo:dro}
provides a summary of these steps
and returns a scorer
that averages over the $K$ iterates: $\bar{f}^s(x) = \frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K f^k(x)$.
While the averaging is needed for our theoretical analysis,
in practice, we find it sufficient to return the last scorer $f^{K}$.
In Appendix \ref{app:dro-general-algo},
we describe how Algorithm \ref{algo:dro-general} can be easily modified to trade-off
between the balanced and robust objectives, as shown in \eqref{eq:trade-off-distilled}.
\textbf{To distill the validation set or not?}\
The updates on $\lambda$
in Algorithm \ref{algo:dro} use a validation set labeled by the teacher.
One could instead perform these updates with a curated validation set containing the original one-hot labels.
Each of these choices presents different merits. The use of a teacher-labeled validation set is useful
in many real world scenarios where labeled data is hard to obtain,
while unlabeled data abounds.
In contrast, the use of one-hot validation labels, although more expensive to obtain, may
make the student more immune to errors in the teacher's predictions,
as the coefficients $\lambda$s are now based on an unbiased estimate of
the student's performance on each class.
With a one-hot validation set, we update $\lambda$s as follows:
\begin{equation}
\lambda^{k+1}_j \,=\, \lambda^k_j\exp\big( \eta \hat{R}_j \big), \forall j \in [m],
~~~~\text{where}~
\hat{R}_j = \frac{1}{n^\textrm{\textup{val}}}\frac{1}{\hat{\pi}_j}\sum_{(x, y) \in S^\textrm{\textup{val}}} \mathbf{1}(y=j)\,\ell( j , f^k(x) ),
\label{eq:one-hot-val}
\end{equation}
for estimates $\hat{\pi}_y \approx \pi_y$ of the original class priors.
We analyze both the variants in our experiments, and in the next section, discuss robustness guarantees for each.
\section{Proofs}
\label{app:proofs}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:bayes}}
\label{app:proof-bayes}
(i) The first result follows from the fact that the cross-entropy loss is a proper composite loss \citep{williamson2016composite} with the softmax function as the associated (inverse) link function.
(ii) For a proof of the second result, please see \citet{menon2020long}.
(iii) Below, we provide a proof for the third result.
The minimization of the robust objective in \eqref{eq:robust} over $f$ can be re-written as
a min-max optimization problem:
\begin{align}
\min_{f: \mathcal{X} \> \mathbb{R}^m}\,L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(f) = \min_{f: \mathcal{X} \> \mathbb{R}^m}\,\max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}
\underbrace{
\sum_{y=1}^m \frac{\lambda_y}{\pi_y}\mathbb{E}\left[ \eta_y(X)\,\ell(y, f(X)) \right]}_{\omega(\lambda, f)}.
\label{eq:min-max}
\end{align}
The min-max objective $\omega(\lambda, f)$ is clearly linear in $\lambda$ (for fixed $f$) and
with $\ell$ chosen to be the cross-entropy loss, is convex in $f$ (for fixed $\lambda$), i.e.,
$\omega(\lambda, \kappa f_1 + (1-\kappa) f_2) \leq \kappa\omega(\lambda, f_1) + (1-\kappa) \omega(\lambda, f_2), \,\forall f_1, f_2:\mathcal{X}\>\mathbb{R}^m, \kappa\in [0,1]$. Furthermore, $\Delta_m$ is a convex compact set, while the domain of $f$ is convex. It follows
from Sion's minimax theorem \citep{sion1958general} that:
\begin{align}
\min_{f: \mathcal{X} \> \mathbb{R}^m}\max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\,\omega(\lambda, f)
&=\, \max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\min_{f: \mathcal{X} \> \mathbb{R}^m}\,\omega(\lambda, f).
\label{eq:min-max-swap}
\end{align}
Let $(\lambda^*, f^*)$ be such that:
\[
\lambda^* \in \Argmax{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\min_{f: \mathcal{X} \> \mathbb{R}^m}\,\omega(\lambda, f);~~~~~
f^* \in \Argmin{f: \mathcal{X} \> \mathbb{R}^m}\max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\,\omega(\lambda, f),
\]
where for any fixed $\lambda \in \Delta_m$, owing to the use of the cross-entropy loss, a minimizer $f^*$
always exists for $\omega(\lambda, f)$, and is given by $f^*_y(x) = \log\left(\frac{\lambda_y}{\pi_y}\eta_y(x)\right) + C,$ for some $C\in \mathbb{R}$.
We then have from \eqref{eq:min-max-swap}:
\begin{align*}
\omega(\lambda^*, f^*) &\leq\, \max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\, \omega(\lambda, f^*)\\
&=\, \min_{f: \mathcal{X} \> \mathbb{R}^m}\max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\,\omega(\lambda, f)
\,=\, \max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\min_{f: \mathcal{X} \> \mathbb{R}^m}\,\omega(\lambda, f)\\
&=\,\min_{f: \mathcal{X} \> \mathbb{R}^m}\,\omega(\lambda^*, f)
\,\leq\, \omega(\lambda^*, f^*),
\end{align*}
which tells us that there exists $(\lambda^*, f^*)$ is a saddle-point for
\eqref{eq:min-max}, i.e.,
\begin{align*}
\omega(\lambda^*, f^*) &= \max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\, \omega(\lambda, f^*) \,=\, \min_{f: \mathcal{X} \> \mathbb{R}^m}\, \omega(\lambda^*, f).
\label{eq:saddle-point}
\end{align*}
Consequently, we have:
\begin{align*}
L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(f^*) &=\,
\max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\, \omega(\lambda, f^*) \,=\,
\min_{f: \mathcal{X} \> \mathbb{R}^m}\, \omega(\lambda^*, f)\\
&\leq\, \max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\min_{f: \mathcal{X} \> \mathbb{R}^m}\, \omega(\lambda, f)
\,=\, \min_{f: \mathcal{X} \> \mathbb{R}^m}\max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\, \omega(\lambda, f)\\
&=\, \min_{f: \mathcal{X} \> \mathbb{R}^m}\,L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(f),
\end{align*}
where the last equality follows from \eqref{eq:min-max}.
We thus have that $f^*$ is a minimizer of $L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(f)$
Furthermore, because $f^*$ is a minimizer of $\omega(\lambda^*, f)$ over $f$, i.e.,\
\[
f^* \in \Argmin{f: \mathcal{X} \> \mathbb{R}^m} \sum_{y=1}^m \frac{\lambda_y^*}{\pi_y}\mathbb{E}\left[ \eta_y(X)\,\ell(y, f(X)) \right],
\]
it follows that:
$$
\textrm{\textup{softmax}}_y(f^*(x)) \,\propto\, \frac{\lambda^*_y}{\pi_y}\eta_y(x).
$$
(iv) For the fourth result, we expand the traded-off objective,
and re-write it as:
\begin{align*}
L^\textrm{\textup{tdf}}(f)
&= (1 - \alpha) L^\textrm{\textup{bal}}(f) + \alpha L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(f)\\
&=
(1-\alpha)\frac{1}{m}\sum_{y=1}^m \frac{1}{\pi_y}\mathbb{E}\left[ \eta_y(X)\,\ell(y, f(X)) \right]
\,+\,
\alpha \max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\,\sum_{y=1}^m \frac{\lambda_y}{\pi_y}\mathbb{E}\left[ \eta_y(X)\,\ell(y, f(X)) \right]\\
&= \max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}
\underbrace{
\sum_{y=1}^m \left((1-\alpha)\frac{1}{m} + \alpha\lambda_y\right)\frac{1}{\pi_y}\mathbb{E}\left[ \eta_y(X)\,\ell(y, f(X)) \right]}_{\omega(\lambda, f)}.
\label{eq:trade-off}
\end{align*}
For a fixed $\lambda$, $\omega(\lambda, f)$ is convex in $f$ (as the loss $\ell$ is the cross-entropy loss),
and for a fixed $f$, $\omega(\lambda, f)$ is linear in $\lambda$. Following the same steps as the proof of (iii), we have that there exists $(\lambda^*, f^*)$ such that
\[
L^\textrm{\textup{tdf}}(f^*) \,=\,
\max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\, \omega(\lambda, f^*) \,=\,
\min_{f: \mathcal{X} \> \mathbb{R}^m}\,L^\textrm{\textup{tdf}}(f),
\]
and
\[
f^* \in \Argmin{f: \mathcal{X} \> \mathbb{R}^m}\,
\sum_{y=1}^m \left((1-\alpha)\frac{1}{m} + \alpha\lambda^*_y\right)\frac{1}{\pi_y}\mathbb{E}\left[ \eta_y(X)\,\ell(y, f(X)) \right],
\]
which, owing to the properties of the cross-entropy loss, then gives us the desired form for $f^*$.
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:good-teacher}}
\label{app:proof-good-teacher}
\begin{proof}
Expanding the left-hand side, we have:
\begin{align*}
|\hat{L}^\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}(f) - L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(f)|
&\leq |\hat{L}^\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}(f) - {L}^\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}(f) + {L}^\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}(f) - L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(f)|\\
&\leq |\hat{L}^\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}(f) - {L}^\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}(f)| + |{L}^\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}(f) - L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(f)|\\
&=
|\hat{L}^\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}(f) - {L}^\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}(f)| + \left|
\max_{y \in [m]} \frac{ \mathbb{E}_{x}\left[ p^t_y(x)\,\ell(y, f(x)) \right] }{ \mathbb{E}_x\left[ p^t_y(x) \right] } -
\max_{y \in [m]} \frac{ \mathbb{E}_{x}\left[ \eta_y(x)\,\ell(y, f(x)) \right] }{ \pi_y } \right|\\
&\leq
|\hat{L}^\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}(f) - {L}^\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}(f)| + \max_{y \in [m]} \left|
\frac{ \mathbb{E}_{x}\left[ p^t_y(x)\,\ell(y, f(x)) \right] }{ \mathbb{E}_x\left[ p^t_y(x) \right] } -
\frac{ \mathbb{E}_{x}\left[ \eta_y(x)\,\ell(y, f(x)) \right] }{ \pi_y } \right|\\
&\leq
|\hat{L}^\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}(f) - {L}^\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}(f)| +
B\max_{y \in [m]} \mathbb{E}_x\left[
\left| \frac{p^t_y(x)}{\mathbb{E}_x\left[ p^t_y(x) \right]} \,-\, \frac{\eta_y(x)}{\pi_y} \right|\ell(y, f(x))\right]\\
&\leq
|\hat{L}^\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}(f) - {L}^\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}(f)| +
B\max_{y \in [m]} \mathbb{E}_x\left[
\left| \frac{p^t_y(x)}{\mathbb{E}_x\left[ p^t_y(x) \right]} \,-\, \frac{\eta_y(x)}{\pi_y} \right|\right],
\end{align*}
where the second-last step uses Jensen's inequality and the fact that $\ell(y, f(x)) \geq 0$,
and the last step uses the fact that $\ell(y, f(x)) \leq B$.
Further expanding the first term,
\begin{align*}
|\hat{L}^\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}(f) - L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(f)|
&\leq
\left|
\max_{y \in [m]} \phi_y(f)
\,-\,
\max_{y \in [m]} \hat{\phi}_y(f)
\right|
+
B\max_{y \in [m]} \mathbb{E}_x\left[
\left| \frac{p^t_y(x)}{\mathbb{E}_x\left[ p^t_y(x) \right]} \,-\, \frac{\eta_y(x)}{\pi_y} \right|\right]\\
&\leq
\max_{y \in [m]}\left|
\phi_y(f)
\,-\,
\hat{\phi}_y(f)
\right|
+
B\max_{y \in [m]} \mathbb{E}_x\left[
\left| \frac{p^t_y(x)}{\mathbb{E}_x\left[ p^t_y(x) \right]} \,-\, \frac{\eta_y(x)}{\pi_y} \right|\right],
\end{align*}
as desired.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Calibration of Margin-based Loss $\mathcal{L}^\textrm{\textup{mar}}$}
\label{app:calibration-mar}
To show that minimizer of the margin-based objective in \eqref{eq:margin-la} also minimizes
the balanced objective in \eqref{eq:balanced-distilled-empirical}, we state the following general result:
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:helper-dro-1}
Suppose $p^t \in \mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{F}$ is closed under linear transformations.
Let
\begin{align}
\hat{f} &\in\, \displaystyle\Argmin{f \in \mathcal{F}}\, \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \mathcal{L}^\textrm{\textup{mar}}\left(p^t(x_i), f(x_i); \mathbf{c} \right)
\label{eq:margin-empirical}
\end{align}
for some cost vector $\mathbf{c} \in \mathbb{R}_+^m$. Then:
\[
\hat{f}_y(x_i) = \log\left(c_y p_y^t(x_i)\right) + C_i, ~~\forall i \in [n],
\]
for some example-specific constant constants $C_i \in \mathbb{R}, \forall i \in [n]$. Furthermore,
for any assignment of example weights of $w \in \mathbb{R}^n_+$,
$\hat{f}$ is also the minimizer of
the weighted objective:
\begin{align}
\hat{f} \,\in\, \displaystyle\Argmin{f \in \mathcal{F}}\,\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n w_i\sum_{y=1}^m c_y\, p_y^t(x_i)\, \ell\left( y , {f}(x_i) \right).
\label{eq:weighted-loss-empirical}
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof
Following \citet{menon2020long} (e.g.\ proof of Theorem 1), we have that
for class probabilities $\mathbf{p} \in \Delta_m$ and costs $\mathbf{c} \in \mathbb{R}^m_+$,
the margin-based loss in \eqref{eq:margin-la}
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{L}^\textrm{\textup{mar}}\left(\mathbf{p}, \mathbf{f}; \mathbf{c} \right)
&=
\frac{1}{m}\sum_{y \in [m]} p_y \log\bigg(1 + \sum_{j \ne y}\exp\left(\log(c_y / c_{j}) \,-\, (f_y - f_j) \right) \bigg).
\end{align*}
is minimized by:
\[
f^*_y = \log\left(c_y p_y\right) + C,
\]
for any $C > 0$. To see why this is true, note that the above loss can be equivalently written as:
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{L}^\textrm{\textup{mar}}\left(\mathbf{p}, \mathbf{f}; \mathbf{c} \right)
&=
-\frac{1}{m}\sum_{y \in [m]} p_y \log\bigg(\frac{ \exp\left(f_y - \log(c_y) \right) }{ \sum_{j=1}^m \exp\left(f_j - \log(c_j) \right) } \bigg).
\end{align*}
This the same as the softmax cross-entropy loss with adjustments made to the logits, the minimizer for which is of the form:
\[
f^*_y - \log(c_y) = \log\left(p_y\right) + C~~~~\text{or}~~~~f^*_y = \log\left(c_y p_y\right) + C.
\]
It follows that any minimizer $\hat{f}$ of the
average margin-based loss in \eqref{eq:margin-empirical} over sample $S$,
would do so point-wise, and therefore
\begin{align*}
\hat{f}_y(x_i) = \log\left(c_y p_y^t(x_i)\right) + C_i, ~~\forall i \in [n],
\end{align*}
for some example-specific constant constants $C_i \in \mathbb{R}, \forall i \in [n]$.
To prove the second part, we note that for the minimizer $\hat{f}$ to also minimize
the weighted objective:
\[
\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n w_i\sum_{y=1}^m c_y\, p_y^t(x_i)\, \ell\left( y , {f}(x_i) \right),
\]
it would also have to do so point-wise for each $i \in [m]$, and so as long the weights $w_i$ are non-negative,
it suffices that
\[
\hat{f}(x_i) \in \Argmin{\mathbf{f} \in \mathbb{R}^m}\, \sum_{y=1}^m c_y\, p_y^t(x_i)\, \ell\left( y , {f}(x_i) \right).
\]
This is indeed the case when $\ell$ is the softmax cross-entropy loss, where
the point-wise minimizer for each $i \in [m]$ would be of the form $\textrm{\textup{softmax}}_y(f(x)) = c_y p^t_y(x)$,
which is satisfied by $\hat{f}$.
\end{proof}
A similar result also holds in the population limit, when \eqref{eq:margin-empirical}
and \eqref{eq:weighted-loss-empirical} are computed in expectation, and the per-example weighting in \eqref{eq:weighted-loss-empirical} is
replaced by an arbitrary weighting function $w(x) \in \mathbb{R}_+$. Any scorer of the following form
would then minimize both objectives:
\[
\hat{f}_y(x) = \log\left(c_y p_y^t(x)\right) + C(x), ~~\forall x \in \mathcal{X},
\]
where $C(x)$ is some example-specific constant.
\subsection{Proof of Proposition \ref{prop:student-form}}
\label{app:student-form}
\begin{proposition*}[Restated]
Suppose $p^t \in \mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{F}$ is closed under linear transformations. Then the final scoring function $\bar{f}^s(x) = \frac{1}{K} \sum_{k=1}^K f^{k}(x)$ output by Algorithm \ref{algo:dro} is of the form:
\[
\textrm{\textup{softmax}}_j(\bar{f}^s(x)) \propto \bar{\lambda}_j p_j^t(x),~~~~\forall j \in [m],~ \forall (x, y) \in S,
\]
where $\bar{\lambda}_y = \left(\prod_{k=1}^K \lambda_y^k / \pi^t_y\right)^{1/K}$.
\end{proposition*}
\begin{proof}
The proof follows from Lemma \ref{lem:helper-dro-1} with the costs $\mathbf{c}$ set to $\lambda^k / \pi^t$ for each iteration $k$.
The lemma tells us that each $f^k$ is of the form:
\[
f^k(x') = \log\left(\frac{\lambda^k_y}{\pi^t_y} p_y^t(x')\right) + C(x'), ~~\forall (x', y') \in S,
\]
for some example-specific constant $C(x') \in \mathbb{R}$. Consequently, we have that:
\[
\bar{f}_y^s(x') = \log(\bar{\lambda}_y p_y^t(x')) + \bar{C}(x'), ~~\forall (x', y') \in S,
\]
where $\bar{\lambda}_y = \left(\prod_{k=1}^K \lambda_y^k / \pi^t_y\right)^{1/K}$ and $\bar{C}(x') \in \mathbb{R}$. Applying a
softmax to $\bar{f}^s$ results in the desired form.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:dro}}
\label{app:convergence-dro}
\begin{theorem*}[Restated]
Suppose $p^t \in \mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{F}$ is closed under linear transformations. Suppose
$\ell$ is the softmax cross-entropy loss $\ell^\textrm{\textup{xent}}$,
$\ell(y, z) \leq B$
and $\max_{y \in [m]}\frac{1}{\pi^t_y} \leq Z$, for some $B, Z > 0$.
Furthermore, suppose for any $\delta \in (0,1)$, the following bound holds on the
estimation error in Theorem \ref{thm:good-teacher}:
with probability at least $1 - \delta$ (over draw of $S \sim D^n$),
for all $f \in \mathcal{F}$,
\[
\max_{y \in [m]} \big|\phi_y(f) - \hat{\phi}_y(f)\big| \leq \Delta(n, \delta),
\]
for some $\Delta(n, \delta) \in \mathbb{R}_+$ that
is increasing in $1/\delta$, and goes to 0 as $n \> \infty$. Fix $\delta \in (0,1)$.
Then when the step size $\gamma = \frac{1}{2BZ}\sqrt{\frac{\log(m)}{{K}}}$
and $n^\textrm{\textup{val}} \geq 8Z\log(2m/\delta)$, with
probability at least $1-\delta$ (over draw of $S \sim D^n$ and $S^\textrm{\textup{val}} \sim D^{n^\textrm{\textup{val}}}$)
\begin{align*}
L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(\bar{f}^s) &\leq\,
\min_{f \in \mathcal{F}}L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(f)
\,+\,
\underbrace{2B\max_{y \in [m]} \mathbb{E}_x\left[
\left| \frac{p^t_y(x)}{\pi^t_y} \,-\, \frac{\eta_y(x)}{\pi_y} \right|\right]}_{\text{Approximation error}}\\
&\hspace{4cm}
\,+\, \underbrace{2\Delta(n^\textrm{\textup{val}}, \delta/2) \,+\, 2\Delta(n, \delta/2)}_{\text{Estimation error}}
\,+\,
\underbrace{4BZ\sqrt{\frac{\log(m)}{{K}}}}_{\text{EG convergence}}.
\end{align*}
\end{theorem*}
Before proceeding to the proof, we will find it useful to define:
\begin{align*}
\displaystyle
\hat{\phi}^\textrm{\textup{val}}_y(f^s) &= \frac{1}{\hat{\pi}^{t,\textrm{\textup{val}}}_y}\frac{1}{n^\textrm{\textup{val}}}\sum_{(x', y') \in S^{\textrm{\textup{val}}}} p_y^t(x')\,\ell\left( y , f^s(x') \right).
\end{align*}
We then state a useful lemma.
\allowdisplaybreaks
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:helper-dro-2}
Suppose the conditions in Theorem \ref{thm:dro} hold.
Then with probability $\leq 1 - \delta$ (over draw of $S \sim D^{n}$ and $S^\textrm{\textup{val}} \sim D^{n^\textrm{\textup{val}}}$), at each iteration $k$,
\[
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \phi_y(f^{k+1})
\,-\,
\min_{f \in \mathcal{F}}\,\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \phi_y(f)
\leq 2\Delta(n, \delta);
\]
and for any $\lambda \in \Delta_m$:
\[
\left|\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y \hat{\phi}^\textrm{\textup{val}}_y(f^{k+1}) \,-\,
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y \phi_y(f^{k+1}) \right| ~\leq~ \Delta(n^\textrm{\textup{val}}, \delta).
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We first note that by applying Lemma \ref{lem:helper-dro-1} with $w_i = 1,\forall i$, we have that $f^{k+1}$ is the minimizer
of $\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \hat{\phi}_y(f)$ over all $f\in \mathcal{F}$, and therefore:
\begin{equation}
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \hat{\phi}_y(f^{k+1}) \,\leq\, \sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \hat{\phi}_y(f),~\forall f\in \mathcal{F}.
\label{eq:f-k+1-minimizer}
\end{equation}
Further, for a fixed iteration $k$, let us denote $\tilde{f} \in \Argmin{f \in \mathcal{F}}\, \sum_{y=1}^m\lambda^{k+1}_y \phi_y({f})$.
Then for the first part, we have:
\begin{align*}
\lefteqn{
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \phi_y(f^{k+1})
\,-\,
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \phi_y(\tilde{f})
}\\
&\leq
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \phi_y(f^{k+1})
\,-\,
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \hat{\phi}_y(f^{k+1})
\,+\, \sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \hat{\phi}_y(f^{k+1})
\,-\,
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \phi_y(\tilde{f})
\\
&\leq
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \phi_y(f^{k+1})
\,-\,
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \hat{\phi}_y(f^{k+1})
\,+\, \sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \hat{\phi}_y(\tilde{f})
\,-\,
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \phi_y(\tilde{f})
\\
&\leq
2\sup_{f \in \mathcal{F}}\left|
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \hat{\phi}_y(f)
\,-\,
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \phi_y(f)
\right|\\
&\leq
2\sup_{f \in \mathcal{F}}\max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\,
\left|\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y \hat{\phi}_y(f)
\,-\,
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y \phi_y(f)
\right|\\
&\leq
2 \sup_{f \in \mathcal{F}}\max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\,
\sum_{y=1}^m {\lambda_y}
\left|\hat{\phi}_y(f) \,-\, \phi_y(f) \right|
\\
&= 2\sup_{f \in \mathcal{F}}\max_{y \in [m]} \big|\hat{\phi}_y(f) - {\phi}_y(f)\big|.
\end{align*}
where for the second inequality, we use \eqref{eq:f-k+1-minimizer}.
Applying the generalization bound assumed in Theorem \ref{thm:dro},
we have with probability $\leq 1 - \delta$ (over draw of $S \sim D^{n}$), for all iterations $k \in [K]$,
\[
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \phi_y(f^{k+1})
\,-\,
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \phi_y(\tilde{f})
\,\leq\, 2\Delta(n, \delta),
\]
For the second part, note that for any $\lambda \in \Delta_m$,
\begin{align*}
\left|\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y \hat{\phi}^\textrm{\textup{val}}_y(f^{k+1}) \,-\,
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y \phi_y(f^{k+1}) \right| &\leq \sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y\left| \hat{\phi}^\textrm{\textup{val}}_y(f^{k+1}) \,-\,
\phi_y(f^{k+1})\right|\\
&\leq \max_{y\in[m]}\,\left| \hat{\phi}^\textrm{\textup{val}}_y(f^{k+1}) \,-\,
\phi_y(f^{k+1})\right|\\
&\leq \sup_{f\in \mathcal{F}}\max_{y\in[m]}\,\left| \hat{\phi}^\textrm{\textup{val}}_y(f) \,-\,
\phi_y(f)\right|.
\end{align*}
An application of the generalization bound assumed in Theorem \ref{thm:dro} to empirical estimates from the validation sample
completes the proof.
\end{proof}
We are now ready to prove Theorem \ref{thm:dro}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:dro}]
Note that because $\min_{y \in [m]}\pi^{t}_y \geq \frac{1}{Z}$ and $n^\textrm{\textup{val}} \geq 8Z\log(2m/\delta)$,
we have by a direct application of Chernoff's bound (along with a union bound over all $m$ classes) that with
probability at least $1-\delta/2$:
$$
\min_{y \in [m]}\hat{\pi}^{t,\textrm{\textup{val}}}_y \geq \frac{1}{2Z}, \forall y \in [m]
$$
and consequently,
$\hat{\phi}_y^\textrm{\textup{val}}(f) \leq 2BZ, \forall f \in \mathcal{F}$. The boundedness of $\hat{\phi}_y^\textrm{\textup{val}}$ will then allow us to apply standard convergence guarantees for exponentiated gradient ascent \citep{shalev2011online}. For $\gamma = \frac{1}{2BZ}\sqrt{\frac{\log(m)}{{K}}}$,
the updates on $\lambda$ will give us with
probability at least $1-\delta/2$:
\begin{equation}
\max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\,\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y \hat{\phi}_y^\textrm{\textup{val}}(f^k)
\,\leq\,
\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y^k \hat{\phi}_y^\textrm{\textup{val}}(f^k)
\,+\,
4BZ\sqrt{\frac{\log(m)}{{K}}}
\label{eq:phi-upper-bound}
\end{equation}
Applying the second part of Lemma \ref{lem:helper-dro-2} to each iteration $k$, we have
with probability at least $1-\delta$:
\[
\max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\,\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y {\phi}_y(f^k)
\,\leq\,
\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y^k {\phi}_y(f^k)
\,+\,
4BZ\sqrt{\frac{\log(m)}{{K}}} \,+\, 2\Delta(n^\textrm{\textup{val}}, \delta/2),
\]
and applying the first part of Lemma \ref{lem:helper-dro-2} to the RHS, we have with the same probability:
\begin{align*}
\lefteqn{
\max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\,\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y {\phi}_y(f^k)}\\
&\leq
\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K\min_{f \in \mathcal{F}}\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y^k {\phi}_y(f)
\,+\,
4BZ\sqrt{\frac{\log(m)}{{K}}} \,+\, 2\Delta(n^\textrm{\textup{val}}, \delta/2) \,+\, 2\Delta(n, \delta/2)\\
&\leq
\min_{f \in \mathcal{F}}\,\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y^k {\phi}_y(f)
\,+\,
4BZ\sqrt{\frac{\log(m)}{{K}}} \,+\, 2\Delta(n^\textrm{\textup{val}}, \delta/2) \,+\, 2\Delta(n, \delta/2).
\end{align*}
Note that we have taken a union bound over the high probability statement in \eqref{eq:phi-upper-bound} and that in Lemma \ref{lem:helper-dro-2}.
Using the convexity of $\phi(\cdot)$ in $f(x)$ and Jensen's inequality,
we have that $\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y {\phi}_y(\bar{f}^s) \leq \frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y {\phi}_y(f^k)$.
We use this to further lower bound the LHS
in terms of the averaged scoring function $\bar{f}^s(x) = \frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K f^k(x)$:
\begin{align}
\lefteqn{\max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\,\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y {\phi}_y(\bar{f}^s)}
\nonumber
\\
&\leq
\min_{f \in \mathcal{F}}\,\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y^k {\phi}_y(f)
\,+\,
4BZ\sqrt{\frac{\log(m)}{{K}}} \,+\, 2\Delta(n^\textrm{\textup{val}}, \delta/2) \,+\, 2\Delta(n, \delta/2)
\nonumber\\
&=
\min_{f \in \mathcal{F}}\,\sum_{y=1}^m \tilde{\lambda}_y {\phi}_y(f)
\,+\,
4BZ\sqrt{\frac{\log(m)}{{K}}} \,+\, 2\Delta(n^\textrm{\textup{val}}, \delta/2) \,+\, 2\Delta(n, \delta/2)
\nonumber\\
&\leq
\max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\min_{f \in \mathcal{F}}\,\sum_{y=1}^m {\lambda}_y {\phi}_y(f)
\,+\,
4BZ\sqrt{\frac{\log(m)}{{K}}} \,+\, 2\Delta(n^\textrm{\textup{val}}, \delta/2) \,+\, 2\Delta(n, \delta/2)
\nonumber\\
&=
\min_{f \in \mathcal{F}}\max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\,\sum_{y=1}^m {\lambda}_y {\phi}_y(f)
\,+\,
4BZ\sqrt{\frac{\log(m)}{{K}}} \,+\, 2\Delta(n^\textrm{\textup{val}}, \delta/2) \,+\, 2\Delta(n, \delta/2)
\nonumber\\
&=
\min_{f \in \mathcal{F}}\max_{y \in [m]}\, {\phi}_y(f)
\,+\,
4BZ\sqrt{\frac{\log(m)}{{K}}} \,+\, 2\Delta(n^\textrm{\textup{val}}, \delta/2) \,+\, 2\Delta(n, \delta/2),
\label{eq:dro-final}
\end{align}
where in the second step $\tilde{\lambda}_y = \frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K \lambda^k_y$;
in the fourth step, we swap the `min' and `max' using Sion's minimax theorem \citep{sion1958general}.
We further have from \eqref{eq:dro-final},
\begin{align*}
\max_{y \in [m]}\,{\phi}_y(\bar{f}^s)
&\leq
\min_{f \in \mathcal{F}}\max_{y \in [m]}\, {\phi}_y(f)
\,+\,
4BZ\sqrt{\frac{\log(m)}{{K}}} \,+\, 2\Delta(n^\textrm{\textup{val}}, \delta/2) \,+\, 2\Delta(n, \delta/2).
\end{align*}
In other words,
\[
L^\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}(\bar{f}^s)
\leq
\min_{f \in \mathcal{F}}L^\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}(f)
\,+\,
4BZ\sqrt{\frac{\log(m)}{{K}}} \,+\, 2\Delta(n^\textrm{\textup{val}}, \delta/2) \,+\, 2\Delta(n, \delta/2).
\]
To complete the proof, we need to turn this into a guarantee on the original robust objective $L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}$ in \eqref{eq:robust}:
\begin{align*}
\lefteqn{L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(\bar{f}^s)}\\
&\leq
\min_{f \in \mathcal{F}}L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(f)
\,+\, 2\max_{f \in \mathcal{F}}\,\left|L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(f) - L^\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}(f)\right|
\,+\,
4BZ\sqrt{\frac{\log(m)}{{K}}} \,+\, 2\Delta(n^\textrm{\textup{val}}, \delta/2) \,+\, 2\Delta(n, \delta/2)\\
&\leq
\min_{f \in \mathcal{F}}L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(f)
\,+\,
2B\max_{y \in [m]} \mathbb{E}_x\left[
\left| \frac{p^t_y(x)}{\pi^t_y} \,-\, \frac{\eta_y(x)}{\pi_y} \right|\right]
\,+\,
4BZ\sqrt{\frac{\log(m)}{{K}}} \,+\, 2\Delta(n^\textrm{\textup{val}}, \delta/2) \,+\, 2\Delta(n, \delta/2),
\end{align*}
where we have used the bound on the approximation error in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:good-teacher}.
This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\section{Student Estimation Error}
\label{app:student-gen-bound}
We now provide a bound on the estimation error in Theorem \ref{thm:dro} using a generalization bound from \citet{menon2021statistical}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:student-gen-bound}
Let $\mathcal{F} \subseteq \mathbb{R}^\mathcal{X}$ be a given class of scoring functions.
Let $\mathcal{V} \subseteq \mathbb{R}^\mathcal{X}$ denote the class of loss functions $v(x, y) = \ell(y, f(x))$ induced
by scorers $f \in \mathcal{F}$. Let $\mathcal{M}_n = \mathcal{N}_\infty(\frac{1}{n}, \mathcal{V}, 2n)$ denote the
uniform $L_\infty$ covering number for $\mathcal{V}$. Fix $\delta \in (0,1)$.
Suppose $\ell(y, z) \leq B$,
$\pi^t_y \leq \frac{1}{Z}, \forall y \in [m]$, and the
number of samples $n \geq 8Z\log(4m/\delta)$.
Then with probability $\geq 1 - \delta$
over draw of $S \sim D^n$, for any $f \in \mathcal{F}$ and $y \in [m]$:
\[
\left| \phi_y(f) - \hat{\phi}_y(f) \right|
\,\leq\,
CZ\left( \sqrt{\mathbb{V}_{n,y}(f) \frac{\log(m\mathcal{M}_n / \delta)}{n}} \,+\, \frac{\log(m\mathcal{M}_n / \delta)}{n}
\,+\,
B\sqrt{ \frac{\log(m/\delta)}{n} }\right),
\]
where $\mathbb{V}_{n,y}(f)$ denotes the empirical variance of the loss values $\{p^t_y(x_i)\cdot\ell(y, f(x_i))\}_{i=1}^n$ for class $y$, and
$C > 0$ is a distribution-independent constant.
\end{lemma}
Notice the dependence on the \emph{variance} that the teacher's prediction induce on the loss. This suggests that the lower the variance in the teacher's predictions, the better is the student's generalization. Similar to \citet{menon2021statistical}, one can further show that when the teacher closely approximates the Bayes-probabilities $\eta(x)$, the distilled loss $p^t_y(x_i)\cdot\ell(y, f(x_i))$ has a lower empirical variance that the loss $\ell(y_i, f(x_i))$ computed from one-hot labels.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{lem:student-gen-bound}]
We begin by defining the following intermediate term:
\[
\tilde{\phi}_y(f) =
\frac{1}{\pi^t_y}\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n p_y^t(x_i)\,\ell\left( y , f(x_i) \right).
\]
Then for any $y \in [m]$,
\begin{align}
\left| \phi_y(f) - \hat{\phi}_y(f) \right|
&\leq
\left| \phi_y(f) - \tilde{\phi}_y(f) \right|
+
\left| \tilde{\phi}_y(f) - \hat{\phi}_y(f) \right|.
\label{eq:genbound-inter}
\end{align}
We next bound each of the terms in \eqref{eq:genbound-inter}, starting with the first term:
\begin{align*}
\left| \phi_y(f) - \tilde{\phi}_y(f) \right|
&=
\frac{1}{\pi^t_y}
\left|
\mathbb{E}_x\left[ p_y^t(x)\, \ell\left( y , f(x) \right)\right] \,-\, \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n p_y^t(x_i)\,\ell\left( y , f(x_i) \right)
\right|
\\
&\leq
Z
\left|
\mathbb{E}_x\left[ p_y^t(x)\, \ell\left( y , f(x) \right)\right] \,-\, \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n p_y^t(x_i)\,\ell\left( y , f(x_i) \right)
\right|,
\end{align*}
where we use the fact that $\pi^t_y \leq \frac{1}{Z}, \forall y$.
Applying the generalization bound from \citet[Proposition 2]{menon2021statistical}, along with a union bound over all $m$ classes, we have with probability at least $1-\delta/2$ over the draw of $S \sim D^n$, for all $y \in [m]$:
\begin{align}
\left| \phi_y(f) - \tilde{\phi}_y(f) \right|
&\leq
C'Z\left( \sqrt{\mathbb{V}_{n,y}(f) \frac{\log(m\mathcal{M}_n / \delta)}{n}} \,+\, \frac{\log(m\mathcal{M}_n / \delta)}{n} \right),
\label{eq:genbound-term1}
\end{align}
for a distribution-independent constant $C' > 0$.
We next bound the second term in \eqref{eq:genbound-inter}:
\begin{align*}
\left| \tilde{\phi}_y(f) - \hat{\phi}_y(f) \right|
&=
\left|
\frac{1}{\pi^t_y}
\,-\,
\frac{1}{\hat{\pi}^t_y}
\right|
\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n p_y^t(x_i)\cdot\ell\left( y , f(x_i) \right)
\\
&\leq
B\left|
\frac{1}{\pi^t_y}
\,-\,
\frac{1}{\hat{\pi}^t_y}
\right|
\\
&=
\frac{B}{\pi^t_y\hat{\pi}^t_y}
\left|
{\pi}^t_y - \hat{\pi}^t_y
\right|,
\end{align*}
where in the second step we use the fact that $\ell(y, f(x)) \leq B$ and $p_y^t(x) \leq 1$.
Further note that because $\min_{y \in [m]}\pi^t_y \geq \frac{1}{Z}$ and $n \geq 8Z\log(4m/\delta)$,
we have by a direct application of Chernoff's bound (and a union bound over $m$ classes) that with
probability at least $1-\delta/4$:
\begin{equation}
\min_{y \in [m]}\hat{\pi}^t_y \geq \frac{1}{2Z}, \forall y \in [m].
\label{eq:pi-hat-bound}
\end{equation}
Therefore for any $y \in [m]$:
\begin{align*}
\left| \tilde{\phi}_y(f) - \hat{\phi}_y(f) \right|
&\leq
2BZ^2
\left|
{\pi}^t_y - \hat{\pi}^t_y
\right|.
\end{align*}
Conditioned on the above statement, a simple application of Hoeffdings and a union bound over all $y \in [m]$ gives us that with probability at least $1-\delta/4$ over the draw of $S \sim D^n$, for all $y \in [m]$:
\begin{align}
\left| \tilde{\phi}_y(f) - \hat{\phi}_y(f) \right|
&\leq
2BZ^2\left(\frac{1}{Z} \sqrt{
\frac{\log(8m/\delta)}{2n} }\right)
~=
2BZ \sqrt{ \frac{\log(8m/\delta)}{2n} }.
\label{eq:genbound-term2}
\end{align}
A union bound over the high probability statements in (\ref{eq:genbound-term1}--\ref{eq:genbound-term2}) completes the proof. To see this, note that, for any $\epsilon > 0$ and $y \in [m]$,
\begin{align*}
\lefteqn{\P\left( \left| {\phi}_y(f) - \hat{\phi}_y(f) \right| \geq \epsilon \right)}
\\
&\leq
\P\left(
\left(\left| {\phi}_y(f) - \tilde{\phi}_y(f) \right| \geq \epsilon\right)
\vee
\left(\left| \tilde{\phi}_y(f) - \hat{\phi}_y(f) \right| \geq \epsilon\right)
\right)\\
&\leq
\P\left(\left| {\phi}_y(f) - \tilde{\phi}_y(f) \right| \geq \epsilon\right)
\,+\,
\P\left(\left| \tilde{\phi}_y(f) - \hat{\phi}_y(f) \right| \geq \epsilon\right)\\
&\leq
\P\left(\left| {\phi}_y(f) - \tilde{\phi}_y(f) \right| \geq \epsilon\right)
\,+\,
\P\left(\hat{\pi}^t_y \leq \frac{1}{Z}\right) \cdot
\P\left(\left| \tilde{\phi}_y(f) - \hat{\phi}_y(f) \right| \geq \epsilon ~\bigg|~ \hat{\pi}^t_y \leq \frac{1}{Z}\right)
\\
&
\hspace{5cm}\,+\,
\P\left(\hat{\pi}^t_y \geq \frac{1}{Z}\right) \cdot
\P\left(\left| \tilde{\phi}_y(f) - \hat{\phi}_y(f) \right| \geq \epsilon ~\bigg|~ \hat{\pi}^t_y \geq \frac{1}{Z}\right)
\\
&\leq
\P\left(\left| {\phi}_y(f) - \tilde{\phi}_y(f) \right| \geq \epsilon\right)
\,+\,
\P\left(\hat{\pi}^t_y \leq \frac{1}{Z}\right)
\,+\,
\P\left(\left| \tilde{\phi}_y(f) - \hat{\phi}_y(f) \right| \geq \epsilon ~\bigg|~ \hat{\pi}^t_y \geq \frac{1}{Z}\right),
\end{align*}
which implies that a union bound over (\ref{eq:genbound-term1}--\ref{eq:genbound-term2}) would give us the desired result in Lemma \ref{lem:student-gen-bound}.
\end{proof}
\section{DRO with One-hot Validation Labels}
\label{app:one-hot-vali}
\begin{figure}
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{Distilled Margin-based DRO with One-hot Validation Labels
\label{algo:dro-val}
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE \textbf{Inputs:} Teacher $p^t$, Student hypothesis class $\mathcal{F}$, Training set $S$, Validation set $S^\textrm{\textup{val}}$, Step-size $\gamma \in \mathbb{R}_+$,
Number of iterations $K$, Loss $\ell$
\STATE \textbf{Initialize:} Student $f^0 \in \mathcal{F}$, Multipliers ${\lambda}^0 \in \Delta_m$
\STATE \textbf{For}~{$k = 0 $ to $K-1$}
\STATE ~~~$\tilde{\lambda}^{k+1}_j \,=\, \lambda^k_j\exp\big( \gamma \hat{R}_j \big), \forall j \in [m]$
\STATE \hspace{2cm}\text{where} $\hat{R}_j =$ $\displaystyle\frac{1}{n^\textrm{\textup{val}}}\frac{1}{\hat{\pi}^{\textrm{\textup{val}}}_j}\sum_{(x, y) \in S^\textrm{\textup{val}}} \ell( y , f^k(x) )$
and $\hat{\pi}^{\textrm{\textup{val}}}_j = \displaystyle\frac{1}{n^\textrm{\textup{val}}}\sum_{(x, y) \in S^\textrm{\textup{val}}} \mathbf{1}(y = j)$
\STATE ~~~$\lambda^{k+1}_y \,=\, \frac{\tilde{\lambda}^{k+1}_y}{\sum_{j=1}^m \tilde{\lambda}^{k+1}_j}, \forall y$
\STATE ~~~$f^{k+1} \,\in\, \displaystyle\Argmin{f \in \mathcal{F}}\, \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \mathcal{L}^\textrm{\textup{mar}}\left(p^t(x_i), f(x_i); \frac{\lambda^{k+1}}{\hat{\pi}^t} \right)$
~~// Replaced with a few steps of SGD
\STATE \textbf{End For}
\STATE \textbf{Output:} $\bar{f}^{s}: x \mapsto \frac{1}{K}\sum_{k =1}^K f^k(x)$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\end{figure}
Algorithm \ref{algo:dro-val} contains a version of the margin-based DRO described in Section \ref{sec:algorithms}, where instead of teacher labels the original one-hot labels are used in the validation set.
Before proceeding to providing a convergence guarantee for this algorithm, we will find it useful
to define the following one-hot metrics:
\begin{align*}
\phi^\textrm{\textup{oh}}_y(f^s) &= \frac{1}{\pi_y}\mathbb{E}_x\left[ \eta_y(x)\, \ell\left( y , f^s(x) \right)\right]\\
\hat{\phi}^{\textrm{\textup{oh}},\textrm{\textup{val}}}_y(f^s) &= \frac{1}{\hat{\pi}_y}\frac{1}{n^\textrm{\textup{val}}}\sum_{(x', y') \in S^\textrm{\textup{val}}}\,\mathbf{1}(y' = y)\, \ell\left( y' , f^s(x') \right).
\end{align*}
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:dro-oh-vali}
Suppose $p^t \in \mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{F}$ is closed under linear transformations. Then the final scoring function $\bar{f}^s(x) = \frac{1}{K} \sum_{k=1}^K f^{k}(x)$ output by Algorithm \ref{algo:dro-val} is of the form:
\[
\textrm{\textup{softmax}}_y(\bar{f}^s(x')) \propto \bar{\lambda}_y p_y^t(x'),~~~~\forall (x', y') \in S,
\]
where $\bar{\lambda}_y = \left(\prod_{k=1}^K \lambda_y^k / \pi^t_y\right)^{1/K}$.
Furthermore,
suppose
$\ell$ is the softmax cross-entropy loss in $\ell^\textrm{\textup{xent}}$,
$\ell(y, z) \leq B$, for some $B > 0$, and
$\max_{y \in [m]}\frac{1}{\pi_y} \leq Z$, for some $Z > 0$.
Suppose for any $\delta \in (0,1)$, the following holds:
with probability at least $1 - \delta$ (over draw of $S \sim D^n$),
for all $f \in \mathcal{F}$,
\[
\max_{y \in [m]} \big|\phi^\textrm{\textup{oh}}_y(f) - \hat{\phi}^{\textrm{\textup{oh}}}_y(f)\big| \leq \Delta^\textrm{\textup{oh}}(n, \delta);
~~~~~~~~
\max_{y \in [m]} \big|\phi_y(f) - \hat{\phi}_y(f)\big| \leq {\Delta}(n, \delta),
\]
for some $\Delta^\textrm{\textup{oh}}(n, \delta), {\Delta}(n, \delta) \in \mathbb{R}_+$ that
is increasing in $1/\delta$, and goes to 0 as $n \> \infty$.
Fix $\delta \in (0,1)$.
Then when the step size $\gamma = \frac{1}{2BZ}\sqrt{\frac{\log(m)}{{K}}}$
and $n^\textrm{\textup{val}} \geq 8Z\log(2m/\delta)$, with
probability at least $1-\delta$ (over draw of $S \sim D^n$ and $S^\textrm{\textup{val}} \sim D^{n^\textrm{\textup{val}}}$), for any $\tau \in \mathbb{R}_+$,
\begin{align*}
L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(\bar{f}^s) &\leq\,
\min_{f \in \mathcal{F}}L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(f)
\,+\,
\underbrace{2B\max_{y \in [m]} \mathbb{E}_x\left[
\left| \tau\cdot\frac{p^t_y(x)}{\pi^t_y} \,-\, \frac{\eta_y(x)}{\pi_y} \right|\right]}_{\text{Approximation error}}\\
&\hspace{4cm}
\,+\, \underbrace{2\tau\cdot\Delta^\textrm{\textup{oh}}(n^\textrm{\textup{val}}, \delta/2) \,+\, 2\Delta(n, \delta/2)}_{\text{Estimation error}}
\,+\,
\underbrace{4BZ\sqrt{\frac{\log(m)}{{K}}}}_{\text{EG convergence}}.
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}
Comparing this to the bound in Theorem \ref{thm:dro}, we can see that there
is an additional scaling factor $\tau$ against the teacher probabilities $p^t_y(x)$ and in the approximation error. When we set $\tau = 1$, the bound looks very similar to Theorem \ref{thm:dro}, except that the estimation error term $\Delta^\textrm{\textup{oh}}$ now involves one-hot labels. Therefore the estimation error may incur a slower convergence with sample size as it no longer benefits from the lower variance that the teacher predictions may offer (see Appendix \ref{app:student-gen-bound} for details).
The $\tau$-scaling in the
approximation error also means that the teacher is no longer required to exactly match the (normalized) class probabilities $\eta(x)$. In fact, one can set $\tau$ to a value for which the approximation error is the lowest, and in general to a value that minimizes the upper bound in Theorem \ref{thm:dro-oh-vali}, potentially providing us with a tighter convergence rate than Theorem \ref{thm:dro}.
The proof of Theorem \ref{thm:dro-oh-vali} is similar to that of Theorem \ref{thm:dro}, but requires a modified version of Lemma \ref{lem:helper-dro-2}:
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:helper-dro-3}
Suppose the conditions in Theorem \ref{thm:dro} hold.
With probability $\leq 1 - \delta$ (over draw of $S \sim D^{n}$ and $S^\textrm{\textup{val}} \sim D^{n^\textrm{\textup{val}}}$),
at each iteration $k$ and for any $\tau \in \mathbb{R}_+$,
\begin{align*}
{
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \phi^\textrm{\textup{oh}}_y(f^{k+1})
\,-\,
\min_{f \in \mathcal{F}}\,\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \phi^\textrm{\textup{oh}}_y(f)}
&\leq
2\tau\cdot{\Delta}(n, \delta) \,+\,
2B\max_{y \in [m]} \mathbb{E}_x\left[
\left| \tau\frac{p^t_y(x)}{\pi^t_y} \,-\, \frac{\eta_y(x)}{\pi_y} \right|\right].
\end{align*}
Furthermore, with the same probability, for any $\lambda \in \Delta_m$:
\[
\left|\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y \hat{\phi}^{\textrm{\textup{oh}},\textrm{\textup{val}}}_y(f^{k+1}) \,-\,
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y \phi^\textrm{\textup{oh}}_y(f^{k+1}) \right| ~\leq~ \Delta^\textrm{\textup{oh}}(n^\textrm{\textup{val}}, \delta).
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We first note from Lemma \ref{lem:helper-dro-1} that
because $f^{k+1} \,\in\, \displaystyle\Argmin{f \in \mathcal{F}}\, \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \mathcal{L}^\textrm{\textup{mar}}\Big(p^t(x_i), f(x_i); \frac{\lambda^{k+1}}{\hat{\pi}} \Big)$, we have for the example-weighting
$w_i = \tau, \forall i$:
\begin{equation}
\tau\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \hat{\phi}_y(f^{k+1}) \,\leq\, \tau\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \hat{\phi}_y(f),~\forall f\in \mathcal{F}.
\label{eq:f-k+1-minimizer-2}
\end{equation}
For a fixed iteration $k$, let us denote $\tilde{f} \in \Argmin{f \in \mathcal{F}}\, \sum_{y=1}^m\lambda^{k+1}_y \phi_y({f})$. Then for the first part,
we have for any $\tau \in \mathbb{R}_+$:
\begin{align*}
\lefteqn{
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \phi^\textrm{\textup{oh}}_y(f^{k+1})
\,-\,
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \phi^\textrm{\textup{oh}}_y(\tilde{f})
\hspace{10cm}}\\
&\leq
\tau\left(
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \phi_y(f^{k+1})
\,-\,
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \phi_y(\tilde{f})
\right)
\,+\,
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \left|\phi^\textrm{\textup{oh}}_y(f^{k+1})
- \tau\phi_y(f^{k+1})\right|
\\
&\hspace{9cm}
\,+\,
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \left|\phi^\textrm{\textup{oh}}_y(\tilde{f})
- \tau\phi_y(\tilde{f})\right|
\\
&\leq
\tau\left(
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \phi_y(f^{k+1})
\,-\,
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \phi_y(\tilde{f})
\right)
\,+\,
2\max_{f \in \mathcal{F}}\,
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \left|\phi^\textrm{\textup{oh}}_y(f)
- \tau\phi_y(f)\right|
\\
&\leq
\tau\left(
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \phi_y(f^{k+1})
\,-\,
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \phi_y(\tilde{f})
\right)
\,+\,
2\max_{f \in \mathcal{F}}\max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\,
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda \left|\phi^\textrm{\textup{oh}}_y(f)
- \tau\phi_y(f)\right|
\\
&\leq
\tau\left(
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \phi_y(f^{k+1})
\,-\,
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \phi_y(\tilde{f})
\right)
\,+\,
2\max_{f \in \mathcal{F}}\,
\max_{y\in[m]} \left|\phi^\textrm{\textup{oh}}_y(f)
- \tau\phi_y(f)\right|
\\
&\leq
2\tau\sup_{f \in \mathcal{F}}\max_{y \in [m]} \big|\hat{\phi}_y(f) - {\phi}_y(f)\big|
\,+\,
2\max_{f \in \mathcal{F}}\,
\max_{y\in[m]} \left|\phi^\textrm{\textup{oh}}_y(f)
- \tau\phi_y(f)\right|.
\end{align*}
where the last inequality re-traces the steps in Lemma \ref{lem:helper-dro-2}. Further applying the generalization bound assumed in Theorem \ref{thm:dro},
we have with probability $\leq 1 - \delta$ (over draw of $S \sim D^{n}$), for all iterations $k \in [K]$ and any $\tau \in \mathbb{R}_+$,
\begin{equation}
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \phi^\textrm{\textup{oh}}_y(f^{k+1})
\,-\,
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \phi^\textrm{\textup{oh}}_y(\tilde{f})
\,\leq\, 2\tau\Delta(n, \delta) +
2\max_{f \in \mathcal{F}}\,
\max_{y\in[m]} \left|\phi^\textrm{\textup{oh}}_y(f)
- \tau\phi_y(f)\right|.
\label{eq:dro-vali-inter}
\end{equation}
All that remains is to bound the second term in \eqref{eq:dro-vali-inter}. For any $f \in \mathcal{F}$ and $y \in [m]$,
\begin{align*}
\left|\phi^\textrm{\textup{oh}}_y(f)
- \tau\phi_y(f)\right|
&\leq
\left|
\frac{1}{\pi_y}\mathbb{E}_x\left[ \eta_y(x)\, \ell\left( y , f(x) \right)\right]
\,-\,
\frac{\tau}{\pi^t_y}\mathbb{E}_x\left[ p^t_y(x)\, \ell\left( y , f(x) \right)\right]
\right|\\
&\leq
\mathbb{E}_x\left[
\left|
\frac{1}{\pi_y} \eta_y(x)\, \ell\left( y , f(x) \right)
\,-\,
\frac{\tau}{\pi^t_y} p^t_y(x)\, \ell\left( y , f(x) \right)
\right|\right]
\\
&=
\mathbb{E}_x\left[
\left|
\frac{1}{\pi_y} \eta_y(x)
\,-\,
\frac{\tau}{\pi^t_y} p^t_y(x)
\right|\ell\left( y , f^s(x) \right)\right]
\\
&\leq
B\mathbb{E}_x\left[
\left|
\frac{\eta_y(x)}{\pi_y}
\,-\,
\tau\frac{p^t_y(x)}{\pi^t_y}
\right|\right],
\end{align*}
where we use Jensen's inequality in the second step,
the fact that $\ell(y, z) \leq B$ is non-negative in the second step,
and the fact that $\ell(y, z) \leq B$ in the last step. Substituting this upper bound back into \eqref{eq:dro-vali-inter} completes the proof of the first part.
The second part follows from a direct application of the bound on the per-class estimation error $\max_{y \in [m]} \big|\phi^\textrm{\textup{oh}}_y(f) - \hat{\phi}^{\textrm{\textup{oh}},\textrm{\textup{val}}}_y(f)\big|$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:dro-oh-vali}]
The proof traces the same steps as
Proposition \ref{prop:student-form} and
Theorem \ref{thm:dro}, except that
it applies Lemma \ref{lem:helper-dro-3} instead of Lemma \ref{lem:helper-dro-2}.
Note that because $\min_{y \in [m]}\pi_y \geq \frac{1}{Z}$ and $n^\textrm{\textup{val}} \geq 8Z\log(2m/\delta)$,
we have by a direct application of Chernoff's bound (along with a union bound over all $m$ classes) that with
probability at least $1-\delta/2$:
$$
\min_{y \in [m]}\hat{\pi}^{\textrm{\textup{oh}},\textrm{\textup{val}}}_y \geq \frac{1}{2Z}, \forall y \in [m],
$$
and consequently,
$\hat{\phi}_y^{\textrm{\textup{oh}},\textrm{\textup{val}}}(f) \leq 2BZ, \forall f \in \mathcal{F}$. The boundedness of $\hat{\phi}_y^{\textrm{\textup{oh}},\textrm{\textup{val}}}$ will then allow us to apply standard convergence guarantees for exponentiated gradient ascent \citep{shalev2011online}. For $\gamma = \frac{1}{2BZ}\sqrt{\frac{\log(m)}{{K}}}$,
the updates on $\lambda$ will give us:
\[
\max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\,\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y \hat{\phi}_y^{\textrm{\textup{oh}},\textrm{\textup{val}}}(f^k)
\,\leq\,
\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y^k \hat{\phi}_y^{\textrm{\textup{oh}},\textrm{\textup{val}}}(f^k)
\,+\,
4BZ\sqrt{\frac{\log(m)}{{K}}}
\]
Applying the second part of Lemma \ref{lem:helper-dro-2} to each iteration $k$, we have
with probability at least $1-\delta$:
\[
\max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\,\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y {\phi}^\textrm{\textup{oh}}_y(f^k)
\,\leq\,
\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y^k {\phi}^\textrm{\textup{oh}}_y(f^k)
\,+\,
4BZ\sqrt{\frac{\log(m)}{{K}}} \,+\, 2\Delta^\textrm{\textup{oh}}(n^\textrm{\textup{val}}, \delta/2),
\]
and applying the first part of Lemma \ref{lem:helper-dro-2} to the RHS, we have with the same probability, for any $\tau \in \mathbb{R}_+$:
\begin{align*}
{
\max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\,\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y {\phi}^\textrm{\textup{oh}}_y(f^k)}
&\leq
\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K\min_{f \in \mathcal{F}}\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y^k {\phi}^\textrm{\textup{oh}}_y(f)
\,+\,
4BZ\sqrt{\frac{\log(m)}{{K}}} \,+\, 2\Delta^\textrm{\textup{oh}}(n^\textrm{\textup{val}}, \delta/2)
\\
&
\hspace{1cm}
\,+\, 2\tau\Delta(n, \delta/2)
\,+\, 2B\max_{y \in [m]} \mathbb{E}_x\left[
\left| \tau\frac{p^t_y(x)}{\pi^t_y} \,-\, \frac{\eta_y(x)}{\pi_y} \right|\right]
\\
&\leq
\min_{f \in \mathcal{F}}\,\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y^k {\phi}^\textrm{\textup{oh}}_y(f)
\,+\,
4BZ\sqrt{\frac{\log(m)}{{K}}} \,+\, 2\Delta^\textrm{\textup{oh}}(n^\textrm{\textup{val}}, \delta/2)
\\
&
\hspace{1cm}
\,+\, 2\tau\Delta(n, \delta/2)
\,+\, 2B\max_{y \in [m]} \mathbb{E}_x\left[
\left| \tau\frac{p^t_y(x)}{\pi^t_y} \,-\, \frac{\eta_y(x)}{\pi_y} \right|\right].
\end{align*}
Using the convexity of $\phi(\cdot)$ in $f(x)$ and Jensen's inequality,
we have that $\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y {\phi}_y(\bar{f}^s) \leq \frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y {\phi}_y(f^k)$.
We use this to further lower bound the LHS
in terms of the averaged scoring function $\bar{f}^s(x) = \frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K f^k(x)$, and re-trace the steps in Theorem \ref{thm:dro} to get"
\begin{align*}
{\max_{y \in [m]}\, {\phi}^\textrm{\textup{oh}}_y(\bar{f}^s)}
&\leq
\min_{f \in \mathcal{F}}\max_{y \in [m]}\, {\phi}^\textrm{\textup{oh}}_y(f)
\,+\,
4BZ\sqrt{\frac{\log(m)}{{K}}} \,+\, 2\Delta^\textrm{\textup{oh}}(n^\textrm{\textup{val}}, \delta/2)
\nonumber
\\
&\hspace{1cm}
\,+\, 2\tau\Delta(n, \delta/2)
\,+\, 2B\max_{y \in [m]} \mathbb{E}_x\left[
\left| \tau\frac{p^t_y(x)}{\pi^t_y} \,-\, \frac{\eta_y(x)}{\pi_y} \right|\right].
\end{align*}
Noting that $L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(f) = \max_{y \in [m]}\, {\phi}^\textrm{\textup{oh}}_y(f)$ completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\section{DRO for Traded-off Objective}
\label{app:dro-general-algo}
\begin{figure}
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{Distilled Margin-based DRO for Traded-off Objective
\label{algo:dro-general}
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE \textbf{Inputs:} Teacher $p^t$, Student hypothesis class $\mathcal{F}$, Training set $S$, Validation set $S^\textrm{\textup{val}}$, Step-size $\gamma \in \mathbb{R}_+$,
Number of iterations $K$, Loss $\ell$, Trade-off parameter $\alpha$
\STATE \textbf{Initialize:} Student $f^0 \in \mathcal{F}$, Multipliers ${\lambda}^0 \in \Delta_m$
\STATE \textbf{For}~{$k = 0 $ to $K-1$}
\STATE ~~~$\tilde{\lambda}^{k+1}_j \,=\, \lambda^k_j\exp\big( \gamma \alpha \hat{R}_j \big), \forall j \in [m]$
~\text{where} $\hat{R}_j =$ $\displaystyle\frac{1}{n^\textrm{\textup{val}}}\frac{1}{\hat{\pi}^{t,\textrm{\textup{val}}}_j}\sum_{(x, y) \in S^\textrm{\textup{val}}} p_j^t(x_i)\, \ell( j , f^k(x) )$
\STATE ~~~$\lambda^{k+1}_y \,=\, \frac{\tilde{\lambda}^{k+1}_y}{\sum_{j=1}^m \tilde{\lambda}^{k+1}_j}, \forall y$
\STATE ~~~
$\beta^{k+1}_y =\,(1 - \alpha)\frac{1}{m} \,+\, \alpha\lambda^{k+1}_y$
\STATE ~~~$f^{k+1} \,\in\, \displaystyle\Argmin{f \in \mathcal{F}}\, \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \mathcal{L}^\textrm{\textup{mar}}\left(p^t(x_i), f(x_i); \frac{\beta^{k+1}}{\hat{\pi}^t} \right)$
~~// Replaced with a few steps of SGD
\STATE \textbf{End For}
\STATE \textbf{Output:} $\bar{f}^{s}: x \mapsto \frac{1}{K}\sum_{k =1}^K f^k(x)$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\end{figure}
We present a variant of the margin-based DRO algorithm described in Section \ref{sec:algorithms}
that seeks to minimize a trade-off between the balanced and robust student objectives:
$$\displaystyle \hat{L}^\textrm{\textup{tdf-d}}(f^s) = (1-\alpha)\hat{L}^\textrm{\textup{bal-d}}(f^s) + \alpha\hat{L}^\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}(f^s),$$
for some $\alpha \in [0,1]$.
Expanding this, we have:
\begin{align*}
L^\textrm{\textup{tdf-d}}(f)
&=
(1-\alpha)\frac{1}{m}\sum_{y=1}^m \frac{1}{\hat{\pi}^t_y}\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n p^t_y(x_i)\,\ell(y, f(x_i))
\,+\,
\alpha \max_{y \in [m]}\,\sum_{y=1}^m \frac{1}{\hat{\pi}^t_y}\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n p^t_y(x_i)\,\ell(y, f(x_i))\\
&=
(1-\alpha)\frac{1}{m}\sum_{y=1}^m \frac{1}{\hat{\pi}^t_y}\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n p^t_y(x_i)\,\ell(y, f(x_i))
\,+\,
\alpha \max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\,\sum_{y=1}^m \frac{\lambda_y}{\hat{\pi}^t_y}\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n p^t_y(x_i)\,\ell(y, f(x_i))\\
&=
\max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\sum_{y=1}^m\left((1-\alpha)\frac{1}{m} + \alpha\lambda_y\right) \frac{1}{\hat{\pi}^t_y}\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n p^t_y(x_i)\,\ell(y, f(x_i)).
\end{align*}
The minimization of $ L^\textrm{\textup{tdf-d}}(f)$ over $f$ can then be a cast as a min-max problem:
\begin{align*}
\min_{f:\mathcal{X}\>\mathbb{R}^m}\,L^\textrm{\textup{tdf-d}}(f)
&=
\min_{f:\mathcal{X}\>\mathbb{R}^m}\,\max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\sum_{y=1}^m\left((1-\alpha)\frac{1}{m} + \alpha\lambda_y\right) \frac{1}{\hat{\pi}^t_y}\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n p^t_y(x_i)\,\ell(y, f(x_i)).
\end{align*}
Retracing the steps in the derivation of Algorithm \ref{algo:dro} in Section \ref{sec:algorithms}, we
have the following updates on $\lambda$ and $f$ to solve the above min-max problem:
\begin{align*}
\tilde{\lambda}^{k+1}_y &= \lambda^k_y\exp\bigg( \gamma\alpha\frac{1}{n\hat{\pi}^t_y}\sum_{i=1}^n p_y^t(x_i)\, \ell\left( y , f^k(x_i) \right) \bigg), \forall y\\
\lambda^{k+1}_y &=\, \frac{\tilde{\lambda}^{k+1}_y}{\sum_{j=1}^m \tilde{\lambda}^{k+1}_j}, \forall y\\
\beta^{k+1}_y &=\,(1 - \alpha)\frac{1}{m} \,+\, \alpha\lambda^{k+1}_y\\
f^{k+1} &\in\, \Argmin{f \in \mathcal{F}} \sum_{y \in [m]}\frac{\beta^{k+1}_y}{n\hat{\pi}^t_y}\sum_{i=1}^n p_y^t(x_i)\, \ell\left( y , f(x_i) \right),
\end{align*}
for step-size parameter $\gamma > 0$.
To better handle training of over-parameterized students, we will perform the updates on $\lambda$ using a held-out validation set,
and employ a margin-based surrogate for performing the minimization over $f$. This procedure is outlined in Algorithm \ref{algo:dro-general}.
\section{Further experiment details}\label{app:experiment_details}
This section contains further experiment details and additional results.
\begin{itemize}
\item Appendices \ref{app:datasets} through \ref{app:baselines} contain additional details about the datasets, hyperparameters, and baselines.
\item Appendices \ref{app:tables} through \ref{app:tradeoff_plots} contain additional experimental comparisons with the AdaMargin and AdaAlpha baselines \cite{lukasik2021teachers} and group DRO \cite{Sagawa2020Distributionally}, and additional experimental results on CIFAR, TinyImageNet and ImageNet, along with additional trade-off plots.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Additional details about datasets}\label{app:datasets}
\subsubsection{Building long tailed datasets}
The long-tailed datasets were created from the original datasets following \citet{cui2019class} by downsampling examples with an exponential decay in the per-class sizes. As done by \citet{narasimhan2021training}, we set
the imbalance ratio $\frac{\max_i P(y=i)}{\min_i P(y=i)}$ to 100 for CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100, and to 83 for TinyImageNet
(the slightly smaller ratio is to ensure that the smallest class is of a reasonable size).
We use the long-tail version of ImageNet generated by \citet{liu2017sphereface}.
\subsubsection{Dataset splits}
The original test samples for CIFAR-10, CIFAR-10-LT, CIFAR-100, CIFAR-100-LT, TinyImageNet (200 classes), TinyImageNet-LT (200 classes), and ImageNet (1000 classes)
are all balanced. Following \citet{narasimhan2021training}, we randomly split them in half and use half the samples as a validation set, and the other half as a test set. For the CIFAR and TineImageNet datasets, this amounts to using a validation set of size 5000. For the ImageNet dataset, we sample a subset of 5000 examples from the validation set each time we update the Lagrange multipliers in Algorithm \ref{algo:dro}.
In keeping with prior work \cite{menon2020long, narasimhan2021training, lukasik2021teachers}, we use the same validation and test sets for the long-tailed training sets as we do for the original versions. For the long tailed training sets, this simulates a scenario where the training data follows a long tailed distribution due to practical data collection limitations, but the test distribution of interest still comes from the original data distribution. In plots, the ``balanced accuracy'' that we report for the long-tail datasets (e.g., CIFAR-10-LT) is actually the standard accuracy calculated over the balanced test set, which is shared with the original balanced dataset (e.g., CIFAR-10).
Both teacher and student were always trained on the same training set.
The CIFAR
datasets had images of size 32 $\times$ 32, while the TinyImageNet and ImageNet datasets
dataset
had images of size 224 $\times$ 224.
These datasets do not contain personally identifiable information or offensive content. The CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100 datasets are licensed under the MIT License. The terms of access for ImageNet are given at \url{https://www.image-net.org/download.php}.
\subsection{Additional details about training and hyperparameters}
\label{app:setup-details}
\subsubsection{Code}
\label{app:code}
We have made our code available as a part of the supplementary material.
\subsubsection{Training details and hyperparameters}
Unless otherwise specified, the temperature hyperparameters were chosen to achieve the best worst-class accuracy on the validation set. All models were trained using SGD with momentum of 0.9 \cite{lukasik2021teachers, narasimhan2021training}.
The learning rate schedule were chosen to mimic the settings in prior work \cite{narasimhan2021training, lukasik2021teachers}.
%
For CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100 datasets, we ran the optimizer for 450 epochs, linearly warming up the learning rate till the 15th epoch, and then applied a step-size decay of 0.1 after the 200th, 300th and 400th epochs, as done by \citet{lukasik2021teachers}.
For the long-tail versions of these datasets, we ran trained for 256 epochs,
linearly warming up the learning rate till the 15th epoch, and then applied a step-size decay of 0.1 after the 96th, 192nd and 224th epochs, as done by \citet{narasimhan2021training}. Similarly, for the TinyImageNet datasets, we train for 200 epochs, linearly warming up the learning rate till the 5th epoch, and then applying a decay of 0.1 after the 75th and 135th epochs, as done by \citet{narasimhan2021training}. For ImageNet, we train for 90 epochs, linearly warming up the learning rate till the 5th epoch, then applying a decay of 0.1 after the 30th, 60th and 80th epochs, as done by \citet{lukasik2021teachers}.
We used a batch size of 128 for the CIFAR-10 datasets \cite{narasimhan2021training}, and a batch size of 1024 for the other datasets \cite{lukasik2021teachers}.
We apply an $L_2$ weight decay of $10^{-4}$ in all our SGD updates \cite{lukasik2021teachers}. This amounts to applying an \emph{$L_2$ regularization} on the model parameters, and has the effect of keeping the model parameters (and as a result the loss function) bounded.
When training with the margin-based robust objective (see Algorithm \ref{algo:dro}), a separate step size $\gamma$ was applied for training the main model function $f$, and for updating the multipliers $\lambda$.
We set $\gamma$ to 0.1 in all experiments.
\emph{Hardware.} Model training was done using TPUv2.
\subsubsection{Repeats}
For all comparative baselines without distillation (e.g. the first and second rows of Table \ref{tab:combos}), we provide average results over $m$ retrained models ($m=5$ for TinyImageNet, or $m=10$ for CIFAR datasets). For students on all CIFAR* datasets, unless otherwise specified, we train the teacher once and run the student training 10 times using the same fixed teacher. We compute the mean and standard error of metrics over these $m=10$ runs. For the resource-heavy TinyImageNet and ImageNet students, we reduce the number of repeats to $m=5$. This methodology captures variation in the student retrainings while holding the teacher fixed. To capture the end-to-end variation in both teacher and student training, we include Appendix \ref{app:tables} which contains a rerun of the CIFAR experiments in Table \ref{tab:combos} using a distinct teacher for each student retraining. The overall best teacher/student objective combinations either did not change or were statistically comparable to the previous best combination in Table \ref{tab:combos}.
\subsection{Additional details about algorithms and baselines}\label{app:baselines}
\subsubsection{Practical improvements to Algorithms \ref{algo:dro}--\ref{algo:dro-general}}
\label{app:post-hoc-details}
Algorithms \ref{algo:dro}--\ref{algo:dro-general} currently return a scorer that averages over
all $K$ iterates $\bar{f}^s(x) = \frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K f^k(x)$. While this averaging was required for our theoretical robustness guarantees to hold,
in our experiments, we find it sufficient to simply return the last model $f^{K}$.
Another practical improvement that we make to these algorithms following \citet{cotter2019optimization}, is to employ the 0-1 loss while
performing updates on $\lambda$, i.e., set $\ell = \ell^\textrm{\textup{0-1}}$ in the $\lambda$-update step. We are able to do this because
the convergence of the exponentiated gradient updates on $\lambda$ does not depend on $\ell$ being differentiable.
This modification allows $\lambda$s to better reflect the model's per-class performance on the validation sample.
\subsubsection{Discussion on post-shifting baseline}
We implement the post-shifting method in \citet{narasimhan2021training} (Algorithm 3 in their paper),
which provides for an efficient way to construct a scoring function of the form $f^s_y(x) = \log(\gamma_y p^t_y(x)),$ for a fixed teacher $p^t$, where
the coefficients $\gamma \in \mathbb{R}^m$ are chosen to maximize the worst-class accuracy on the validation dataset.
Interestingly, in our experiments, we find this approach
to do exceedingly well on the validation sample, but this does not always translate to good worst-class test performance.
In contrast, some of the teacher-student combinations
that we experiment with were seen to over-fit less to the validation sample, and as a result were
able to generalize better to the test set. This could perhaps indicate that the
teacher labels we use in these combinations benefit the student in a way that it improves its generalization.
The variance reduction effect that \citet{menon2021statistical} postulate may be one possible explanation
for why we see this behavior.
\subsection{Different teachers on repeat trainings}\label{app:tables}
Most of the student results in the main paper in Table \ref{tab:combos} use the same teacher for all repeat trainings of the student. This captures the variance in the student training process while omitting the variance in the teacher training process. To capture the variance in the full training pipeline, we ran an additional set of experiments where students were trained on different retrained teachers, rather than on the same teacher. We report results on all CIFAR datasets in Table \ref{tab:teacher_var}. The best teacher/student combinations are identical for all datasets except for CIFAR-10-LT, for which the best teacher/student combinations from Table \ref{tab:teacher_var} were also not statistically significantly different from the best combination in Table \ref{tab:combos} ($L^{\textrm{\textup{bal}}}$/$L^{\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}}$ (one-hot val) vs. $L^{\textrm{\textup{bal}}}$/$L^{\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}}$ (teacher val) in Table \ref{tab:combos}). Note that the first and second rows of Table \ref{tab:combos} are already averaged over $m$ retrained teachers ($m=5$ for TinyImageNet, or $m=10$ for CIFAR datasets), and those same $m$ teachers are used in the repeat trainings in Table \ref{tab:teacher_var}.
\begin{table}[!h]
\caption{Comparison using different teachers for student retrainings for self-distilled teacher/student combos on test. For each student/teacher objective pair, we train $m=10$ students total on each of $m=10$ distinct retrained teachers. For comparability, the same set of $m$ teachers is used for each student. This differs from Table \ref{tab:combos} in that in Table \ref{tab:combos}, the students are retrained on each repeat using the same teacher (arbitrarily selected). Otherwise, setups are the same as in Table \ref{tab:combos}.
}
\label{tab:teacher_var}
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\hspace{-2pt}
\begin{tabular}{p{0.1cm}c||c|c||c|c||}
\toprule
& & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{\textbf{CIFAR-10} Teacher Obj.} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{\textbf{CIFAR-100}Teacher Obj.} \\
& & $L^{\textrm{\textup{std}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{std}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$ \\
\midrule
\multirow{6}{*}{\rotatebox{90}{Student Obj.}}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{std-d}}}$ & $87.09 \pm 0.51$ & $89.68 \pm 0.20$ & $44.21\pm0.57$ & \cellcolor{blue!25}$\mathbf{47.79}\pm0.82$ \\
& & \tiny{($93.78 \pm 0.22$)} & \tiny{($93.74 \pm 0.07$)} & \tiny{$74.6\pm0.11$} & \cellcolor{blue!25}\tiny{$73.48\pm0.11$} \\
\cline{2-6}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}}$ & \cellcolor{blue!25} $\textbf{90.62} \pm 0.19$ & $87.12 \pm 0.38$ & $39.7\pm1.32$ & $31.09\pm1.21$ \\
&\tiny{(teacher val)} & \cellcolor{blue!25}\tiny{($92.58 \pm 0.08$)} & \tiny{($90.46 \pm 0.08$)} & \tiny{($64.28\pm0.41$)} & \tiny{($55.39\pm0.28$)} \\
\cline{2-6}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}}$ & $88.15 \pm 0.66$ & $86.44 \pm 0.52$ & $39.44\pm0.94$ & $39.65\pm0.59$ \\
&\tiny{(one-hot val)} & \tiny{($91.03 \pm 0.47$)} & \tiny{($90.16 \pm 0.42$)} & \tiny{($61.23\pm0.36$)} & \tiny{($60.89\pm0.29$)} \\
\bottomrule
\vspace{4pt}
\end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{p{0.1cm}c||c|c|c||c|c|c||}
\toprule
& & \multicolumn{3}{c||}{\textbf{CIFAR-10-LT} Teacher Obj.} & \multicolumn{3}{c||}{\textbf{CIFAR-100-LT} Teacher Obj.} \\
& & $L^{\textrm{\textup{std}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{bal}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{std}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{bal}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$ \\
\midrule
\multirow{6}{*}{\rotatebox{90}{Student Obj.}}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{std-d}}}$ & $60.12 \pm 0.56$ & $66.13 \pm 0.47$ & $69.75\pm0.52$ & $0.00 \pm 0.00$ & $1.41 \pm 0.41$ & $9.17\pm0.74$ \\
&&\tiny{($77.39 \pm 0.10$)} & \tiny{($79.16 \pm 0.20$)} & \tiny{($80.73\pm0.08$)} &\tiny{($45.84 \pm 0.13$)} & \tiny{($49.67\pm 0.20$)} & \tiny{($48.55\pm0.14$)}\\
\cline{2-8}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{bal-d}}}$ & $72.41 \pm 0.52$ & $71.49 \pm 0.30$ & $71.70 \pm 0.33$ & $5.83 \pm 0.54$ & $5.94 \pm 0.50$ & $8.37 \pm 0.72$ \\
&& \tiny{($81.97 \pm 0.11$)} & \tiny{($81.20 \pm 0.15$)} & \tiny{($80.29 \pm 0.11$)} & \tiny{($50.58 \pm 0.15$)} & \tiny{($50.85 \pm 0.14$)} & \tiny{($48.16\pm 0.20$)}\\
\cline{2-8}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}}$ & $62.77 \pm 0.58$ & $73.09\pm 0.34$ & $68.04 \pm 0.47$ & $10.53 \pm 0.76$ & $12.04 \pm 0.89$ & $9.66 \pm 1.15$ \\
& \tiny{(teacher val)} & \tiny{($77.18 \pm 0.15$)} & \tiny{($80.03\pm 0.22$)} & \tiny{($75.36 \pm 0.25$)} & \tiny{($33.69 \pm 0.14$)} & \tiny{($34.08 \pm 0.12$)} & \tiny{($37.10 \pm 0.15$)}\\
\cline{2-8}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}}$ & \cellcolor{blue!25}$\mathbf{75.10} \pm 0.36$ & \cellcolor{blue!25}$\mathbf{75.10} \pm 0.50$ & $74.16 \pm 0.34$ & $10.74 \pm 0.44$ & $11.95 \pm 0.69$ & \cellcolor{blue!25} $\mathbf{12.87}\pm 0.81$ \\
& \tiny{(one-hot val)} & \cellcolor{blue!25}\tiny{($79.27 \pm 0.13$)} & \cellcolor{blue!25}\tiny{($79.07 \pm 0.20$)} & \tiny{($78.11 \pm 0.14$} & \tiny{($30.36 \pm 0.39$)} & \tiny{($31.00 \pm 0.16$)} & \cellcolor{blue!25}\tiny{($31.62 \pm 0.34$}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsection{AdaAlpha and AdaMargin comparisons}
We include and discuss additional comparisons to the AdaMargin and AdaAlpha methods \cite{lukasik2021teachers}. These methods each define additional ways to modify the student's loss function (see Section \ref{sec:expts}). Table \ref{tab:ada*} shows results for these under the same self-distillation setup as in Table \ref{tab:combos}. For the balanced datasets, AdaMargin was competitive with the robust and standard students: on CIFAR-100 and TinyImageNet, AdaMargin combined with the robust teacher and the standard teacher (respectively) achieved worst-class accuracies that are statistically comparable to the best worst-class accuracies in Table \ref{tab:combos} and Table \ref{tab:teacher_var}. However, on the long-tailed datasets CIFAR-10-LT, CIFAR-100-LT, and TinyImageNet-LT (Table \ref{tab:combos_tinlt} below), AdaAlpha and AdaMargin did not achieve worst-class accuracies as high as other teacher/student combinations. This suggests that the AdaMargin method can work well on balanced datasets in combination with a robust teacher, but other combinations of standard/balanced/robust objectives are valuable for long-tailed datasets. Overall, AdaMargin achieved higher worst-class accuracies than AdaAlpha.
\begin{table*}[!h]
\caption{Results for AdaAlpha and AdaMargin baselines for self-distilled teacher/student combos on test. Worst-class accuracy shown above, standard accuracy shown in parentheses for the top three datasets, and balanced accuracy shown in parentheses for the bottom two long-tail datasets. Mean and standard error are reported over 3 repeats for all datasets.}
\label{tab:ada*}
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{tabular}{p{0.1cm}c||c|c||c|c||c|c||}
\toprule
& & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{\textbf{CIFAR-10} Teacher Obj.} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{\textbf{CIFAR-100} Teacher Obj.} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{\textbf{TinyImageNet} Teacher Obj.} \\
& & $L^{\textrm{\textup{std}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{std}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{std}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$ \\
\midrule
& Ada & $88.33\pm0.14$ & $89.96\pm0.44$ & $43.50\pm 0.62$ & $45.59\pm 0.82$ & $11.11 \pm 1.29$ & $16.58\pm1.67$ \\
& Alpha & \tiny{($94.31\pm0.01$)} & \tiny{($93.97\pm0.07$)} & \tiny{$73.96\pm 0.09$} & \tiny{$71.42\pm 0.14$} & \tiny{$61.13\pm0.09$} & \tiny{$56.84\pm0.15$} \\
\cline{2-8}
& Ada & $87.36$ \tiny{$\pm0.06$} & $90.37$\tiny{$\pm0.26$} & $43.91$ \tiny{$\pm 1.11$} & \cellcolor{blue!25} $\mathbf{47.78}$ \tiny{$\pm 0.96$} & \cellcolor{blue!25}$\mathbf{18.17}$ \tiny{$\pm 3.89$} & $17.84$ \tiny{$\pm 1.77$}\\
& Margin & \tiny{($94.25\pm0.02$)} & \tiny{($94.02\pm0.12$)} & \tiny{($73.58\pm 0.11$)} & \cellcolor{blue!25}\tiny{($70.92\pm 0.09$)} & \cellcolor{blue!25}\tiny{($61.3 \pm 0.28$)} & \tiny{($55.77 \pm 0.32$)}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{p{0.1cm}c||c|c|c||c|c|c||}
\toprule
& & \multicolumn{3}{c||}{\textbf{CIFAR-10-LT} Teacher Obj.} & \multicolumn{3}{c||}{\textbf{CIFAR-100-LT} Teacher Obj.} \\
& & $L^{\textrm{\textup{std}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{bal}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{std}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{bal}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$ \\
\midrule
& Ada & $41.90\pm0.44$ & $66.23\pm0.39$ & $71.17\pm0.32$ & $0.00 \pm 0.00$ & $1.46 \pm 0.61$ & $9.15 \pm 0.54$ \\
& Alpha & \tiny{($71.67\pm0.08$)} & \tiny{($77.87\pm0.16$)} & \tiny{($79.66\pm0.13$)} & \tiny{($42.52 \pm 0.08$)} & \tiny{($45.44 \pm 0.14$)} & \tiny{($45.64 \pm 0.11$)}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\subsection{TinyImageNet-LT worst-10 accuracy results}
In this section we provide results for TinyImageNet-LT. We report worst-10 accuracies in Table \ref{tab:combos_tinlt}, where the \textbf{worst-$k$ accuracy} is defined to be the average of the $k$ lowest per-class accuracies. We report worst-10 accuracies since the worst-class accuracy (as reported in Table \ref{tab:combos}) for TinyImageNet-LT was usually close to 0.
\begin{table}[!ht]
\caption{TinyImageNet-LT comparison of self-distilled teacher/student combos on test. Average \textbf{worst-10} accuracy shown above, balanced accuracy shown in parentheses below. The combination with the best worst-class accuracy is bolded.}
\label{tab:combos_tinlt}
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{tabular}{p{0.1cm}c||c|c|c||}
\toprule
& & \multicolumn{3}{c||}{\textbf{TinyImageNet-LT} Teacher Obj.} \\
& & $L^{\textrm{\textup{std}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{bal}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$ \\
\midrule
\multirow{10}{*}{\rotatebox{90}{Student Obj.}}
& none & $0.00 \pm 0.00$ & $0.00 \pm 0.00$ & $1.00 \pm 0.69$ \\
&& \tiny{($26.15 \pm 0.21$)} & \tiny{($29.19 \pm 0.22$)} & \tiny{($22.73 \pm 0.25$)} \\
\cline{2-5}
& Post & $0.60 \pm 0.28$ & $0.56 \pm 0.32$ & $0.07 \pm 0.06$ \\
& shift & \tiny{($15.99 \pm 0.39$)} & \tiny{($17.00 \pm 0.23$)} & \tiny{($16.73 \pm 0.46$)} \\
\cline{2-5}
& Ada & $0.00 \pm 0.00$ & $0.00 \pm 0.00$ & $0.00 \pm 0.00$ \\
& Alpha & \tiny{($28.14 \pm 0.12$)} & \tiny{($0.50 \pm 0.00$)} & \tiny{($0.50 \pm 0.00$)} \\
\cline{2-5}
& Ada & $0.00 \pm 0.00$ & $0.00 \pm 0.00$ & $0.41 \pm 0.17$ \\
& Margin & \tiny{($9.18 \pm 0.09$)} & \tiny{($7.92 \pm 0.10$)} & \tiny{($23.08 \pm 0.15$)} \\
\cline{2-5}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{std-d}}}$ & $0.0 \pm 0.0$ & $0.0 \pm 0.0$ & $1.87 \pm 0.52$ \\
&&\tiny{($26.05 \pm 0.40$)} & \tiny{($28.76 \pm 0.37$)} & \tiny{($25.34 \pm 0.29$)} \\
\cline{2-5}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{bal-d}}}$ & $0.2 \pm 0.4$ & $0.71 \pm 0.5$ & $\cellcolor{blue!25}{\bf 2.05} \pm 0.55$ \\
&& \tiny{($30.43 \pm 0.14$)} & \tiny{($30.41 \pm 0.4$)} & \cellcolor{blue!25}\tiny{($26.08 \pm 0.28$)}\\
\cline{2-5}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}}$ & $0.0 \pm 0.0$ & $0.5 \pm 0.36$ & $0.0 \pm 0.0$\\
& \tiny{(teacher val)} & \tiny{($22.67 \pm 0.23$ )} & \tiny{($23.79 \pm 0.41$)} & \tiny{($17.24 \pm 0.34$)} \\
\cline{2-5}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}}$ & $1.04 \pm 0.51$ & $1.46 \pm 0.66$ & $1.22 \pm 0.79$\\
& \tiny{(one-hot val)} & \tiny{($16.85 \pm 0.23$)} & \tiny{($19.81 \pm 0.34$)} & \tiny{($16.3 \pm 0.13$)}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.1in
\end{table}
\subsection{Group DRO comparison}
\citet{Sagawa2020Distributionally} propose a group DRO algorithm to improve long tail performance without distillation. In this section we present an experimental comparison to Algorithm 1 from \citet{Sagawa2020Distributionally}. This differs from our robust optimization methodology in Section \ref{sec:algorithms} in two key ways: \textit{(i)} we apply a margin-based surrogates of \citet{menon2020long}, and \textit{(ii)} we use a validation set to update the Lagrange multipliers $\lambda$ in Algorithm \ref{algo:dro-general}. Table \ref{tab:groupdro} shows results from running group DRO directly as specified in Algorithm 1 in \citet{Sagawa2020Distributionally}, as well as a variant where we use the validation set to update Lagrange multipliers in group DRO (labeled as ``with vali'' in the table).
This comparison shows that $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$ is comparable to group DRO, and that robust distillation protocols can outperform group DRO alone.
\begin{table}[!ht]
\caption{Results from comparison to group DRO (Algorithm 1 in \citet{Sagawa2020Distributionally}) without distillation. ``No vali'' uses the training set to update group lagrange multipliers, as done originally by \citet{Sagawa2020Distributionally}. ``With vali'' uses the validation set to compute group Lagrange multipliers as done in all other experiments in our paper. Worst-class accuracy is shown above, and balanced accuracy is shown in parentheses below.}
\label{tab:groupdro}
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{tabular}{||c|c||c|c||c|c||}
\toprule
\multicolumn{2}{||c||}{\textbf{CIFAR-10} group DRO} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{\textbf{CIFAR-100} group DRO} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{\textbf{TinyImageNet} group DRO} \\
No vali & With vali & No vali & With vali & No vali & With vali \\
\midrule
$86.65$ \tiny{$\pm 0.49$} & $89.32 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.21$} & $40.35 $ \tiny{$\pm 1.18$} & $43.89 $ \tiny{$\pm 1.12$} & $0.00 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.00$} & $9.17 $ \tiny{$\pm 1.55$}\\
\tiny{($93.61 \pm 0.09$)} & \tiny{($92.34 \pm 0.07$)} & \tiny{$70.25 \pm 0.17$} & \tiny{$65.18 \pm 0.08$} & \tiny{($6.55 \pm 0.41$)} & \tiny{($47.67 \pm 0.22$)}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{||c|c||c|c||c|c||}
\toprule
\multicolumn{2}{||c||}{\textbf{CIFAR-10-LT} group DRO} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{\textbf{CIFAR-100-LT} group DRO} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{\textbf{TinyImageNet-LT} group DRO} \\
No vali & With vali & No vali & With vali & No vali & With vali \\
\midrule
$51.59 $ \tiny{$\pm 2.49$} & $59.93 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.59$} & $0.00 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.00$} & $0.19 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.17$} & $0.00 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.00$} & $0.00 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.00$}\\
\tiny{($71.94 \pm 0.75$)} & \tiny{($74.39 \pm 0.17$)} & \tiny{($39.81 \pm 0.23$)} & \tiny{($40.47 \pm 0.17$)}& \tiny{($9.79 \pm 0.40$)} & \tiny{($22.49 \pm 0.10$)}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsection{CIFAR compressed students}
To supplement the self-distilled results in Table \ref{tab:combos}, we provide Table \ref{tab:combos_32} which gives results when distilling a larger teacher to a smaller student. As in Table \ref{tab:combos}, the combination with the best worst-class accuracy involved a robust student for CIFAR-10, CIFAR-10-LT, and CIFAR-100.
\begin{table*}[!h]
\caption{Comparison of ResNet-56$\to$ResNet-32 distilled teacher/student combos on test on CIFAR datasets. Compared to the standard distillation baseline of teacher trained with $L^{\textrm{\textup{std}}}$ and student trained with $L^{\textrm{\textup{std-d}}}$ (top left corner), the introduction of a robust objective achieves better worst-class accuracy. Worst-class accuracy shown above, standard accuracy shown in parentheses for the top three datasets, and balanced accuracy shown in parenthesis for the bottom two long-tail datasets. The combination with the best worst-class accuracy is bolded. Mean and standard error are reported over repeats (10 repeats for all except CIFAR-100, which has 3 repeats). We include results for the robust student using either a teacher labeled validation set (``teacher val''), or true one-hot class labels in the validation set (``one-hot val''), as outlined in Section \ref{sec:algorithms}.}
\label{tab:combos_32}
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{tabular}{p{0.1cm}p{0.1cm}c||c|c||c|c||}
\toprule
& & & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{\textbf{CIFAR-10} Teacher Obj.} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{\textbf{CIFAR-100} Teacher Obj.} \\
& & & $L^{\textrm{\textup{std}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{std}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$ \\
\midrule
\multirow{6}{*}{\rotatebox{90}{Student Obj.}} &\multirow{6}{*}{\rotatebox{90}{(ResNet-32)}}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{std-d}}}$ & $86.4 \pm 0.27$ & $89.56 \pm 0.20$ & $41.82\pm1.12$ & \cellcolor{blue!25}$\mathbf{45.7}\pm1.13$ \\
&& & \tiny{($93.73 \pm 0.05$)} & \tiny{($93.38 \pm 0.05$)} & \tiny{$73.19\pm0.10$} & \cellcolor{blue!25}\tiny{$71.42\pm0.22$} \\
\cline{3-7}
&& $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}}$ & \cellcolor{blue!25} $\mathbf{89.61} \pm 0.27$ & $83.8 \pm 0.95$ & $38.94\pm2.61$ & $19.15\pm0.00$ \\
&&\tiny{(teacher val)} & \cellcolor{blue!25}\tiny{($92.20 \pm 0.08$)} & \tiny{($88.71 \pm 0.24$)} & \tiny{($62.28\pm0.40$)} & \tiny{($52.9\pm0.00$)} \\
\cline{3-7}
&& $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}}$ & $87.92 \pm 0.23$ & $86.57 \pm 0.24$ & $33.19\pm1.29$ & $41.23\pm0.84$ \\
&&\tiny{(one-hot val)} & \tiny{($90.89 \pm 0.12$)} & \tiny{($90.54 \pm 0.11$)} & \tiny{($57.43\pm0.29$)} & \tiny{($61.14\pm0.24$)} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{p{0.1cm}p{0.1cm}c||c|c|c||c|c|c||}
\toprule
&& & \multicolumn{3}{c||}{\textbf{CIFAR-10-LT} Teacher Obj.} & \multicolumn{3}{c||}{\textbf{CIFAR-100-LT} Teacher Obj.} \\
&& & $L^{\textrm{\textup{std}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{bal}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{std}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{bal}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$ \\
\midrule
\multirow{6}{*}{\rotatebox{90}{Student Obj.}} &\multirow{6}{*}{\rotatebox{90}{(ResNet-32)}}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{std-d}}}$ & $57.23 \pm 0.53$ & $66.80 \pm 0.25$ & $72.36\pm0.39$ & $0.00 \pm 0.00$ & $1.38 \pm 0.39$ & $7.99\pm0.48$ \\
&&&\tiny{($75.76 \pm 0.12$)} & \tiny{($78.99 \pm 0.06$)} & \tiny{($80.74\pm0.09$)} &\tiny{($44.33 \pm 0.11$)} & \tiny{($47.28\pm0.13$)} & \tiny{($47.34\pm0.08$)}\\
\cline{3-9}
&& $L^{\textrm{\textup{bal-d}}}$ & $71.37 \pm 0.50$ & $71.00 \pm 0.45$ & $72.17 \pm 0.40$ & $3.57 \pm 0.58$ & $4.28 \pm 0.45$ & $5.58 \pm 0.53$ \\
&&& \tiny{($81.13 \pm 0.12$)} & \tiny{($81.12 \pm 0.15$)} & \tiny{($79.91 \pm 0.08$)} & \tiny{($49.21 \pm 0.10$)} & \tiny{($46.56 \pm 0.13$)} & \tiny{($48.58\pm 0.09$)}\\
\cline{3-9}
&& $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}}$ & $64.1 \pm 0.36$ & $73.51\pm 0.33$ & $69.90 \pm 0.42$ & $10.24 \pm 0.71$ & \cellcolor{blue!25}$\mathbf{13.41} \pm 0.72$ & $11.27 \pm 0.61$ \\
&& \tiny{(teacher val)} & \tiny{($76.34 \pm 0.12$)} & \tiny{($80.10\pm 0.10$)} & \tiny{($76.37 \pm 0.14$)} & \tiny{($33.55 \pm 0.16$)} & \cellcolor{blue!25}\tiny{($33.37 \pm 0.17$)} & \tiny{($36.14 \pm 0.19$)}\\
\cline{3-9}
&& $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}}$ & $72.65 \pm 0.27$ & $74.39 \pm 0.34$ & \cellcolor{blue!25}$\mathbf{74.45} \pm 0.26$ & $10.93 \pm 0.65$ & $12.2 \pm 0.65$ & $12.93\pm 0.62$ \\
&& \tiny{(one-hot val)} & \tiny{($77.69 \pm 0.11$)} & \tiny{($78.68 \pm 0.16$)} & \cellcolor{blue!25}\tiny{($77.97 \pm 0.10$} & \tiny{($29.48 \pm 0.22$)} & \tiny{($30.27 \pm 0.18$)} & \tiny{($31.83 \pm 0.17$}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.12in
\end{table*}
\subsection{ImageNet comparisons}\label{app:imgnet}
We trained ResNet-34 teachers on ImageNet and report results of distillation to ResNet-34 and ResNet-18 students in Table \ref{tab:combos_imagenet}.
In Table \ref{tab:combos_imagenetlt},
we report results of
distilling a ResNet-34 teacher to a ResNet-34 student and to a ResNet-18 student on ImageNet-LT.
\begin{table}[!ht]
\caption{ImageNet comparison of teacher/student combos on test. The left panel presents the result of \emph{self distillation} and the right panel presents \emph{model compression}. Average worst-50 (worst-5\%) accuracy shown above, standard accuracy shown in parentheses below. The combination with the best worst-class accuracy is bolded. The first two rows are teacher metrics and are the same between the two experiments. Mean and standard error are reported over 5 repeats.}
\label{tab:combos_imagenet}
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{tabular}{p{0.1cm}c||c|c||}
\multicolumn{4}{c}{ResNet-34 Teacher to ResNet-34 Student} \\
\toprule
& & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{\textbf{ImageNet} Teacher Obj.} \\
& & $L^{\textrm{\textup{std}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$ \\
\midrule
\multirow{8}{*}{\rotatebox{90}{Student Obj.}}
& none & $28.08$ & $27.94$ \\
&& \tiny{($70.82$)} & \tiny{($66.62$)} \\
\cline{2-4}
& Post & $26.10$ & $19.68$ \\
& shift & \tiny{($55.85 $)} & \tiny{($45.61 $)}\\
\cline{2-4}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{std-d}}}$ & $24.43 \pm 0.00$ & $25.23 \pm 0.06$\\
&& \tiny{($67.74 \pm 0.00$)} & \tiny{($67.05 \pm 0.05$)} \\
\cline{2-4}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}}$ &\cellcolor{blue!25} $\mathbf{26.63} \pm 0.11$ & $24.18 \pm 0.24$\\
& \tiny{(one-hot val)} &\cellcolor{blue!25} \tiny{($63.50 \pm 0.01$ )} & \tiny{($60.68 \pm 0.14$)}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}\quad
\begin{tabular}{p{0.1cm}c||c|c||}
\multicolumn{4}{c}{ResNet-34 Teacher to ResNet-18 Student} \\
\toprule
& & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{\textbf{ImageNet} Teacher Obj.} \\
& & $L^{\textrm{\textup{std}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$ \\
\midrule
\multirow{8}{*}{\rotatebox{90}{Student Obj.}}
& none & $28.08$ & $27.94$ \\
&& \tiny{($70.82$)} & \tiny{($66.62$)} \\
\cline{2-4}
& Post & $26.10$ & $19.68$ \\
& shift & \tiny{($55.85 $)} & \tiny{($45.61 $)}\\
\cline{2-4}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{std-d}}}$ & $20.64 \pm 0.24$ &\cellcolor{blue!25} $\mathbf{23.91} \pm 0.38$\\
&& \tiny{($64.98 \pm 0.06$)} &\cellcolor{blue!25} \tiny{($60.24 \pm 0.07$)} \\
\cline{2-4}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}}$ & $22.44 \pm 0.20$ & $21.62 \pm 0.22$\\
& \tiny{(one-hot val)} & \tiny{($64.52 \pm 0.10$ )} & \tiny{($57.96 \pm 0.06$)}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[!ht]
\caption{ImageNet-LT comparison of teacher/student combos on test. The left panel presents the result of \emph{self distillation} and the right panel presents \emph{model compression}. Average worst-50 (worst-5\%) accuracy shown above, balanced accuracy shown in parentheses below. The combination with the best worst-class accuracy is bolded. The first two rows are teacher metrics and are the same between the two experiments. Mean and standard error are reported over 5 repeats. }
\label{tab:combos_imagenetlt}
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{tabular}{p{0.1cm}c||c|c||}
\multicolumn{4}{c}{ResNet-34 Teacher to ResNet-34 Student} \\
\toprule
& & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{\textbf{ImageNet-LT} Teacher Obj.} \\
& & $L^{\textrm{\textup{bal}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$ \\
\midrule
\multirow{8}{*}{\rotatebox{90}{Student Obj.}}
& none & $1.58$ & $2.67$ \\
&& \tiny{($43.26$)} & \tiny{($38.46$)} \\
\cline{2-4}
& Post & $2.40$ & $0.87$ \\
& shift & \tiny{($19.49$)} & \tiny{($16.52$)}\\
\cline{2-4}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{bal-d}}}$ & $3.53 \pm 0.11$ & $4.85 \pm 0.15$\\
&& \tiny{($43.98 \pm 0.10$)} & \tiny{($43.89 \pm 0.03$)} \\
\cline{2-4}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}}$ &\cellcolor{blue!25} $\mathbf{6.00} \pm 0.06$ & $4.31 \pm 0.08$\\
& \tiny{(one-hot val)} &\cellcolor{blue!25} \tiny{($39.17 \pm 0.14$ )} & \tiny{($36.12 \pm 0.14$)}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}\quad
\begin{tabular}{p{0.1cm}c||c|c||}
\multicolumn{4}{c}{ResNet-34 Teacher to ResNet-18 Student} \\
\toprule
& & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{\textbf{ImageNet-LT} Teacher Obj.} \\
& & $L^{\textrm{\textup{bal}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$ \\
\midrule
\multirow{8}{*}{\rotatebox{90}{Student Obj.}}
& none & $1.58$ & $2.67$ \\
&& \tiny{($43.26$)} & \tiny{($38.46$)} \\
\cline{2-4}
& Post & $2.40$ & $0.87$ \\
& shift & \tiny{($19.49$)} & \tiny{($16.52$)}\\
\cline{2-4}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{bal-d}}}$ & $2.41 \pm 0.09$ & $3.93 \pm 0.23$\\
&& \tiny{($42.35 \pm 0.07$)} & \tiny{($42.12 \pm 0.05$)} \\
\cline{2-4}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}}$ &\cellcolor{blue!25} $\mathbf{5.02} \pm 0.20$ & $3.69 \pm 0.14$\\
& \tiny{(one-hot val)} &\cellcolor{blue!25} \tiny{($37.58 \pm 0.11$ )} & \tiny{($35.10 \pm 0.09$)}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.1in
\end{table}
\subsection{Additional tradeoff plots}\label{app:tradeoff_plots}
Supplementing the tradeoff plot in the main paper (Figure \ref{fig:tradeoffs_cf-lt_32_onehot}), we provide the following set of plots illustrating the tradeoff between worst-case accuracy and balanced accuracy for different student architectures:
\begin{itemize}
\item Long-tail datasets: self distillation (Figures \ref{fig:tradeoffs_cf-lt_56_onehot}, \ref{fig:tradeoffs_cf-lt_56_teacher}), and compressed student (Figures \ref{fig:tradeoffs_cf-lt_32_onehot}, \ref{fig:tradeoffs_cf_32_teacher}).
\item Original balanced datasets: self distillation (Figures \ref{fig:tradeoffs_cf_56_onehot}, \ref{fig:tradeoffs_cf_56_teacher}), and compressed student (Figures \ref{fig:tradeoffs_cf_32_onehot}, \ref{fig:tradeoffs_cf_32_teacher}).
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
& \tiny{CIFAR-10-LT (ResNet-56 $\to$ ResNet-56)} & \tiny{CIFAR-100-LT (ResNet-56 $\to$ ResNet-56)} \\
\includegraphics[trim={2.8cm 0 2.8cm 0},clip,width=0.15\textwidth]{figures/legend_cf10lt_arch56_onehot.pdf} & \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figures/plot_cf10lt_arch56_onehot} & \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figures/plot_cf100lt_arch56_onehot}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Tradeoffs in worst-class test accuracy vs. average test accuracy for CIFAR-10-LT and CIFAR-100-LT, with students trained using architecture ResNet-56 and \textbf{one-hot} validation labels. Mean test performance over 10 runs are shown, and all temperatures are included.}
\label{fig:tradeoffs_cf-lt_56_onehot}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\addtolength{\tabcolsep}{-5pt}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
& \tiny{CIFAR-10-LT (ResNet-56 $\to$ ResNet-56)} & \tiny{CIFAR-100-LT (ResNet-56 $\to$ ResNet-56)} \\
\includegraphics[trim={2.8cm 0 2.8cm 0},clip,width=0.15\textwidth]{figures/legend_cf10lt_arch56_teacher.pdf} & \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figures/plot_cf10lt_arch56_teacher} & \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figures/plot_cf100lt_arch56_teacher}
\end{tabular}
\addtolength{\tabcolsep}{5pt}
\caption{Tradeoffs in worst-class test accuracy vs. average test accuracy for CIFAR-10-LT and CIFAR-100-LT, with students trained using architecture ResNet-56 and \textbf{teacher} validation labels. Mean test performance over 10 runs are shown, and all temperatures are included.}
\label{fig:tradeoffs_cf-lt_56_teacher}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\addtolength{\tabcolsep}{-5pt}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
& \tiny{CIFAR-10-LT (ResNet-56 $\to$ ResNet-32)} & \tiny{CIFAR-100-LT (ResNet-56 $\to$ ResNet-32)} \\
\includegraphics[trim={2.8cm 0 2.8cm 0},clip,width=0.15\textwidth]{figures/legend_cf10lt_arch32_teacher.pdf} & \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figures/plot_cf10lt_arch32_teacher} & \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figures/plot_cf100lt_arch32_teacher}
\end{tabular}
\addtolength{\tabcolsep}{5pt}
\caption{Tradeoffs in worst-class test accuracy vs. average test accuracy for CIFAR-10-LT and CIFAR-100-LT, with students trained using architecture ResNet-32 and \textbf{teacher} validation labels. Mean test performance over 10 runs are shown, and all temperatures are included.}
\label{fig:tradeoffs_cf-lt_32_teacher}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\addtolength{\tabcolsep}{-5pt}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
& \tiny{CIFAR-10 (ResNet-56 $\to$ ResNet-56)} & \tiny{CIFAR-100 (ResNet-56 $\to$ ResNet-56)} \\
\includegraphics[trim={2.8cm 0 2.8cm 0},clip,width=0.15\textwidth]{figures/legend_cf10_arch56_onehot.pdf} & \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figures/plot_cf10_arch56_onehot} & \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figures/plot_cf100_arch56_onehot}
\end{tabular}
\addtolength{\tabcolsep}{5pt}
\caption{Tradeoffs in worst-class test accuracy vs. average test accuracy for CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100, with students trained using architecture ResNet-56 and \textbf{one-hot} validation labels. Mean test performance over 10 runs are shown, and all temperatures are included.}
\label{fig:tradeoffs_cf_56_onehot}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\addtolength{\tabcolsep}{-5pt}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
& \tiny{CIFAR-10 (ResNet-56 $\to$ ResNet-56)} & \tiny{CIFAR-100 (ResNet-56 $\to$ ResNet-56)} \\
\includegraphics[trim={2.8cm 0 2.8cm 0},clip,width=0.15\textwidth]{figures/legend_cf10_arch56_teacher.pdf} & \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figures/plot_cf10_arch56_teacher} & \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figures/plot_cf100_arch56_teacher}
\end{tabular}
\addtolength{\tabcolsep}{5pt}
\caption{Tradeoffs in worst-class test accuracy vs. average test accuracy for CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100, with students trained using architecture ResNet-56 and \textbf{teacher} validation labels. Mean test performance over 10 runs are shown, and all temperatures are included.}
\label{fig:tradeoffs_cf_56_teacher}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\addtolength{\tabcolsep}{-5pt}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
& \tiny{CIFAR-10 (ResNet-56 $\to$ ResNet-32)} & \tiny{CIFAR-100 (ResNet-56 $\to$ ResNet-32)} \\
\includegraphics[trim={2.8cm 0 2.8cm 0},clip,width=0.15\textwidth]{figures/legend_cf10_arch32_onehot.pdf} & \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figures/plot_cf10_arch32_onehot} & \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figures/plot_cf100_arch32_onehot}
\end{tabular}
\addtolength{\tabcolsep}{5pt}
\caption{Tradeoffs in worst-class test accuracy vs. average test accuracy for CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100, with students trained using architecture ResNet-32 and \textbf{one-hot} validation labels. Mean test performance over 10 runs are shown, and all temperatures are included.}
\label{fig:tradeoffs_cf_32_onehot}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\addtolength{\tabcolsep}{-5pt}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
& \tiny{CIFAR-10 (ResNet-56 $\to$ ResNet-32)} & \tiny{CIFAR-100 (ResNet-56 $\to$ ResNet-32)} \\
\includegraphics[trim={2.8cm 0 2.8cm 0},clip,width=0.15\textwidth]{figures/legend_cf10_arch32_teacher.pdf} & \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figures/plot_cf10_arch32_teacher} & \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figures/plot_cf100_arch32_teacher}
\end{tabular}
\addtolength{\tabcolsep}{5pt}
\caption{Tradeoffs in worst-class test accuracy vs. average test accuracy for CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100, with students trained using architecture ResNet-32 and \textbf{teacher} validation labels. Mean test performance over 10 runs are shown, and all temperatures are included.}
\label{fig:tradeoffs_cf_32_teacher}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\end{figure*}
\section{Distillation for Worst-class Performance}
\label{sec:distillation}
We adopt the common
practice of training both the teacher and student on the same dataset. Specifically, given a training sample $S = \{(x_1, y_1), \ldots, (x_n, y_n)\}$
drawn from $D$, we first train a teacher model $p^t: \mathcal{X} \> \Delta_m$, and use it to generate a student dataset
$S' = \{(x_1, p^t(x_1)), \ldots, (x_n, p^t(x_n))\}$
by replacing the original labels with the teacher's predictions.
We then train a student scorer $f^s: \mathcal{X} \> [m]$ using the re-labeled dataset,
and use it to construct the final classifier.
In a typical setting, both the teacher and student
are trained to optimize a version of the standard objective in \eqref{eq:std}, i.e.,
the teacher is trained to minimize the average loss against the original training labels,
and the student is trained to minimize an average loss against the teacher's predictions:
\begin{align}
\text{Teacher: } & \hat{L}^\textrm{\textup{std}}(f^t) = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \ell\left( y_i, f^t(x_i) \right); \hspace{10pt}
\text{Student: } ~ \hat{L}^\textrm{\textup{std-d}}(f^s) = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \sum_{y=1}^m p_y^t(x_i)\, \ell\left(y , f(x_i) \right),\nonumber
\\[-10pt]\label{eq:standard-objectives}
\end{align}
~\\[-13pt]
where $p^t(x) = \textrm{\textup{softmax}}(f^t(x))$. It is also common to have the student use a mixture of the teacher and one-hot labels. For concreteness, we consider a simpler distillation setup without this mixture, though extensions with this mixture would be straightforward to add.
This work takes a wider view and explores \textit{what combinations of student and teacher objectives} facilitate better worst-group performance for the student. Our experiments evaluate all \emph{nine} combinations of standard, balanced, and robust teacher objectives, paired with standard, balanced, and robust student objectives.
Given the choice of teacher objective, the student will either optimize a distilled version of the balanced objective in \eqref{eq:balanced}:
\begin{align}
{\hat{L}^\textrm{\textup{bal-d}}(f^s)}
&= \frac{1}{m}\sum_{y \in [m]} \frac{1}{\hat{\pi}^t_y}\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n p_y^t(x_i)\, \ell\left( y , f^s(x_i) \right),
\label{eq:balanced-distilled-empirical}
\end{align}
or a distilled version of the robust objective in \eqref{eq:robust}:
\begin{align}
{\hat{L}^\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}(f^s)}
&= \max_{y \in [m]} \frac{1}{\hat{\pi}^t_y}\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n p_y^t(x_i)\, \ell\left( y , f^s(x_i) \right),
\label{eq:robust-distilled-empirical}
\end{align}
In practice, the teacher's predictions may have a different marginal distribution from the underlying class priors, particularly when temperature scaling is applied to the teacher's logits to soften the predicted probabilities \cite{narasimhan2021training}. To address this, in both \eqref{eq:balanced-distilled-empirical} and \eqref{eq:robust-distilled-empirical} we have replaced the class priors $\pi_y$ with the marginal distribution
$\hat{\pi}^t_y = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n p^t_y(x_i)$ from the teacher's predictions.
In addition to exploring the combination of objectives that facilitates better worst-group performance for the student, we evaluate a more flexible approach -- have both the teachers and the students trade-off between the balanced and robust objectives:
\begin{align}\label{eq:trade-off-distilled}
\text{Teacher: } & \hat{L}^\textrm{\textup{tdf}}(f^t) = (1-\alpha^t)\hat{L}^\textrm{\textup{bal}}(f^t) + \alpha^t\hat{L}^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(f^t) \\
\text{Student: } & \hat{L}^\textrm{\textup{tdf-d}}(f^s) = (1-\alpha^s)\hat{L}^\textrm{\textup{bal-d}}(f^s) + \alpha^s\hat{L}^\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}(f^s),\nonumber
\end{align}
where $\hat{L}^\textrm{\textup{bal}}(f^t)$ and $\hat{L}^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(f^t)$ are the respective empirical estimates of
\eqref{eq:balanced} and \eqref{eq:robust} from the training sample, and $\alpha^t, \alpha^s \in [0,1]$
are the respective tradeoff parameters for the teacher and student.
We are thus able to evaluate the Pareto-frontier of balanced and worst-case accuracies, obtained from different combinations of the teachers and students, and
trained with different trade-off parameters.
\section{Experiments}
\label{sec:expts}
\begin{table*}[t]
\caption{Comparison of \emph{self-distilled} teacher/student combos on test. Worst-class accuracy shown above, standard accuracy shown in parentheses for the top three datasets, and balanced accuracy shown in parenthesis for the bottom two long-tail datasets. Note that $L^{\textrm{\textup{std}}} = L^{\textrm{\textup{bal}}}$ for the top three datasets with balanced class priors; so here we do not include combinations involving a balanced teacher/student. The combination with the best worst-class accuracy is \textbf{bolded}. Mean and standard error are reported over repeats (10 repeats for CIFAR*, 5 repeats for TinyImageNet). We include results for the robust student using either a teacher labeled validation set (``teacher val''), or true one-hot class labels in the validation set (``one-hot val''), as outlined in Eq.~(\ref{eq:one-hot-val}). We include results using a smaller student architecture (ResNet-56 $\to$ ResNet-32), additional ImageNet results, and additional comparisons to group DRO and the Ada* methods in Appendix \ref{app:experiment_details}.
}
\label{tab:combos}
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{tabular}{p{0.1cm}c||c|c||c|c||c|c||}
\toprule
& & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{\textbf{CIFAR-10} Teacher Obj.} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{\textbf{CIFAR-100} Teacher Obj.} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{\textbf{TinyImageNet} Teacher Obj.} \\
& & $L^{\textrm{\textup{std}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{std}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{std}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$ \\
\midrule
\multirow{10}{*}{\rotatebox{90}{Student Obj.}}
& none & $86.48$ \tiny{$\pm 0.32$} & $90.09 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.22$} & $42.22 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.90$} & $43.42 $ \tiny{$\pm 1.03$} & $10.77 $ \tiny{$\pm 2.30$} & $16.30 $ \tiny{$\pm 1.81$}\\
& & \tiny{($93.74 \pm 0.05$)} & \tiny{($92.67 \pm 0.09$)} & \tiny{$72.42 \pm 0.16$} & \tiny{$68.81 \pm 0.11$} & \tiny{($58.64 \pm 0.16$)} & \tiny{($50.52 \pm 0.22$)}\\
\cline{2-8}
& Post & $88.60 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.35$} & $87.95 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.42$} & $38.19 $ \tiny{$\pm 1.25$} & $37.92 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.94$} & $11.22 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.38$} & $13.58 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.40$}\\
& shift & \tiny{$92.16 \pm 0.18$} & \tiny{$91.21 \pm 0.18$} & \tiny{$61.22 \pm 1.15$} & \tiny{$61.84 \pm 0.93$} & \tiny{$43.63 \pm 0.65$} & \tiny{$43.23 \pm 0.83$}\\
\cline{2-8}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{std-d}}}$ & $87.66 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.40$} & $90.12 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.23$} & $43.81\pm0.58$ & \cellcolor{blue!25}$\mathbf{45.33}$ \tiny{$\pm0.82$} & $4.21 $ \tiny{$\pm 1.76$} & $10.53 $ \tiny{$\pm 1.48$}\\
& & \tiny{($94.34 \pm 0.07$)} & \tiny{($94.07 \pm 0.07$)} & \tiny{$74.61\pm0.15$} & \cellcolor{blue!25}\tiny{$73.67\pm0.05$} & \tiny{($59.66 \pm 0.18$)} & \tiny{($56.55 \pm 0.15$)}\\
\cline{2-8}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}}$ & \cellcolor{blue!25} $\mathbf{90.94} $ \tiny{$\pm 0.16$} & $85.14 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.47$} & $42.96$ \tiny{$\pm0.99$} & $27.59\pm0.86$ & ${17.75} $ \tiny{$\pm 1.19$} & $6.00 $ \tiny{$\pm 1.65$}\\
&\tiny{(teacher val)} & \cellcolor{blue!25}\tiny{($92.54 \pm 0.05$)} & \tiny{($89.58 \pm 0.11$)} & \tiny{($68.71\pm0.15$)} & \tiny{($54.79\pm0.23$)} & \tiny{($47.81 \pm 0.13$)} & \tiny{($39.49 \pm 0.14$)}\\
\cline{2-8}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}}$ & $89.37 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.17$} & $87.32 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.21$} & $40.36$ \tiny{$\pm 0.72$} & $42.68\pm0.74$ & $14.70 $ \tiny{$\pm 1.65$} & $16.16 $ \tiny{$\pm 1.42$}\\
&\tiny{(one-hot val)} & \tiny{($91.63 \pm 0.06$)} & \tiny{($91.16 \pm 0.10$)} & \tiny{($61.49\pm0.22$)} & \tiny{($62.03\pm0.24$)} & \tiny{($50.16 \pm 0.18$)} & \tiny{($44.39 \pm 0.23$)} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{p{0.1cm}c||c|c|c||c|c|c||}
\toprule
& & \multicolumn{3}{c||}{\textbf{CIFAR-10-LT} Teacher Obj.} & \multicolumn{3}{c||}{\textbf{CIFAR-100-LT} Teacher Obj.} \\
& & $L^{\textrm{\textup{std}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{bal}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{std}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{bal}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$ \\
\midrule
\multirow{14}{*}{\rotatebox{90}{Student Obj.}}
& none & $57.26 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.55$} & $68.52 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.52$} & $74.8 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.30$} & $0.00 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.00$} & $3.75 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.62$} & $10.33 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.82$} \\
&& \tiny{($76.27 \pm 0.20$)} & \tiny{($79.85 \pm 0.20$)} & \tiny{($80.29 \pm 0.12$)} & \tiny{($43.33 \pm 0.16$)} & \tiny{($47.55 \pm 0.17$)} & \tiny{($44.27 \pm 0.13$)}\\
\cline{2-8}
& Post & $74.33 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.27$} & $73.60 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.46$} & $73.93 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.35$} & $6.28 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.84$} & $8.89 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.69$} & $10.01 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.72$} \\
& shift & \tiny{($78.28 \pm 0.15$)} & \tiny{($77.92 \pm 0.19$)} & \tiny{($77.93 \pm 0.12$)} & \tiny{($27.93 \pm 0.46$)} & \tiny{($28.70 \pm 0.38$)} & \tiny{($29.88 \pm 0.61$)}\\
\cline{2-8}
& Ada & $47.52 $ \tiny{$\pm0.95$} & $66.74 $ \tiny{$\pm0.35$} & $70.33 $ \tiny{$\pm0.50$} & $0.00 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.00$} & $0.00 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.00$} & $12.46 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.36$} \\
& Margin & \tiny{($72.69\pm0.24$)} & \tiny{($78.20\pm0.09$)} & \tiny{($78.87\pm0.12$)} & \tiny{($31.26 \pm 0.21$)} & \tiny{($34.06 \pm 0.12$)} & \tiny{($42.90 \pm 0.07$)}\\
\cline{2-8}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{std-d}}}$ & $36.67 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.28$} & $66.96 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.43$} & $71.15 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.24$} & $0.00 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.00$} & $2.39 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.24$} & $7.32 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.47$} \\
&&\tiny{($69.5 \pm 0.13$)} & \tiny{($79.25 \pm 0.10$)} & \tiny{($80.95 \pm 0.11$)} &\tiny{($43.86 \pm 0.14$)} & \tiny{($48.95 \pm 0.15$)} & \tiny{($47.93 \pm 0.11$)}\\
\cline{2-8}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{bal-d}}}$ & $71.23 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.44$} & $70.52 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.20$} & $72.96 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.53$} & $4.39 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.65$} & $7.08 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.80$} & $7.19 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.79$} \\
&& \tiny{($80.5 \pm 0.12$)} & \tiny{($81.12 \pm 0.08$)} & \tiny{($80.71 \pm 0.07$)} & \tiny{($50.4 \pm 0.11$)} & \tiny{($50.1 \pm 0.09$)} & \tiny{($47.51\pm 0.20$)}\\
\cline{2-8}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}}$ & $63.85 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.21$} & \cellcolor{blue!25}$\mathbf{75.56} $ \tiny{$\pm 0.19$} & $69.21 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.45$} & $9.05 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.71$} & $12.52 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.98$} & $10.32 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.76$} \\
& \tiny{(teacher val)} & \tiny{($76.81 \pm 0.08$)} & \cellcolor{blue!25}\tiny{($80.81\pm 0.08$)} & \tiny{($76.72 \pm 0.19$)} & \tiny{($33.75 \pm 0.10$)} & \tiny{($34.05 \pm 0.09$)} & \tiny{($36.83 \pm 0.15$)}\\
\cline{2-8}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}}$ & $73.59 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.25$} & $75.43 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.38$} & $74.7 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.19$} & $12.28 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.46$} & $11.94 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.80$} & \cellcolor{blue!25}$\mathbf{13.18} $ \tiny{$\pm 0.61$} \\
& \tiny{(one-hot val)} & \tiny{($77.92 \pm 0.05$)} & \tiny{($79.02 \pm 0.07$)} & \tiny{($77.99 \pm 0.10$} & \tiny{($30.79 \pm 0.18$)} & \tiny{($29.8 \pm 0.20$)} & \cellcolor{blue!25}\tiny{($31.88 \pm 0.20$}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\end{table*}
\textbf{Datasets.} We evaluate each robust distillation objective across different image dataset benchmarks: (i) CIFAR-10, (ii) CIFAR-100 \cite{Krizhevsky09learningmultiple}, and (iii) TinyImageNet (a subset of ImageNet with 200 classes; \citet{le2015tiny}). We also include long tailed versions of each dataset \cite{cui2019class}.
Details on sampling the long tailed versions of the datasets
and additional results on the full ImageNet dataset \citep{ILSVRC15} are given in Appendix \ref{app:experiment_details}.
For all datasets, we randomly split the original default test set in half to create our validation set and test set. We use the same validation and test sets for the long-tailed training sets as we do for the original versions, following the convention in prior work \cite{menon2020long, narasimhan2021training}.
\textbf{Architectures.} We evaluate our distillation protocols in both a self-distillation and compression setting. On all CIFAR datasets, all teachers were trained with the ResNet-56 architecture and students were trained with either ResNet-56 or ResNet-32.
On TinyImageNet, teachers and students were trained with ResNet-18.
On ImageNet, teachers and students were trained with ResNet-34 and ResNet-18.
This is as done by \citet{lukasik2021teachers} and \citet{he2016deep}, where more details on these architectures can be found (see, e.g., Table 7 in \citet{lukasik2021teachers}).
\textbf{Hyperparameters.}
We apply temperature scaling to the teacher score distributions, i.e., compute $p^t(x) = \textrm{\textup{softmax}}(f^t(x) / \gamma)$, and vary the temperature parameter $\gamma$ over a range of $\{1, 3, 5\}$.
Unless otherwise specified, the temperature hyperparameters were chosen to achieve the best worst-class accuracy on the validation set. A higher temperature produces a softer probability distribution over classes \citep{Hinton2015DistillingTK}.
When teacher labels are applied to the validation set (see Section \ref{sec:algorithms}), we additionally include a temperature of 0.1 to approximate a hard thresholding of the teacher probabilities. We closely mimic the learning rate and regularization settings from prior work \cite{menon2020long,narasimhan2021training}. In keeping with the theory, the regularization ensures that the losses are bounded.
See Appendix \ref{app:experiment_details} for further details.
\textbf{Baselines.}
We compare the robust distillation objectives with the following:
\textit{(i)} \textbf{No distillation:} Models trained without distillation using each objective: $L^{\textrm{\textup{std}}}$, $L^{\textrm{\textup{bal}}}$, and $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$. We also include a comparison to group DRO \cite{Sagawa2020Distributionally} without distillation in Appendix \ref{app:experiment_details} which differs from our robust objective $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$ in that we apply a margin-based loss with a validation set.
\textit{(ii)} \textbf{Standard distillation without robustness:} Standard distillation protocol where both the teacher and student are trained with $L^{\textrm{\textup{std}}}$, $L^{\textrm{\textup{std-d}}}$, respectively.
\textit{(iii)} \textbf{Post-shifting:}
Following Section \ref{sec:theory}, we evaluate a post-shift approach
that directly constructs a new scoring model by making post-hoc adjustments to the teacher,
so as to maximize the robust accuracy on the validation sample \citep{narasimhan2021training}.
\textit{(iv)} \textbf{AdaMargin and AdaAlpha \citep{lukasik2021teachers}:}
Both Ada* techniques are motivated by the observation that the margin defined for each class $y$ by $\gamma_{\rm avg}( y, p^{\rm t}( x ) ) = p^{\rm t}_y( x ) - \frac{1}{m - 1} \sum_{y' \neq y} p^{\rm t}_{y'}( x )$
correlates with whether distillation improves over one-hot training \cite{lukasik2021teachers}.
AdaMargin uses that quantity as a margin in the distillation loss, whereas AdaAlpha uses it to adaptively mix between the one-hot and distillation losses.
\textbf{Which teacher/student combo is most robust?}
For each objective and baseline,
we report the \textit{standard accuracy} over the test set (see \eqref{eq:std}), as well as the \textit{worst-class accuracy}, which we define to be the minimum per-class recall over all classes (see \eqref{eq:robust}).
For the long-tail datasets, we follow the convention in
\citet{menon2020long} of reporting \textit{balanced accuracy} (see \eqref{eq:balanced}) instead of standard
accuracy.
In each case, we use the 0-1 loss for evaluation.
Table \ref{tab:combos} shows results for various combinations of the proposed robust objectives and baselines.
Across all datasets, the combination with best worst-class objective had at least one of either the teacher or the student apply the robust objective ($L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$ or $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}}$). These combinations also achieve higher worst-class accuracy compared to the post-shift and AdaMargin techniques; although pairing these techniques with robust teachers could be competitive. Interestingly, post-shift was often seen to over-fit to the validation set, resulting in poorer test performance.
As another comparison point, prior work by \cite{narasimhan2021training} also perform distillation with a standard teacher ($L^{\textrm{\textup{std}}}$) and robust student ($L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$) with true one-hot labels on the validation set. In comparison to this, the new set of proposed robust combinations still achieves gains.
An inspection of the first row of Table \ref{tab:combos} reveals counter-intuitively that the teacher's worst-class accuracy is not a direct predictor of the robustness of a subsequent student. This couples with our theoretical understanding in Section \ref{sec:theory}, which showed that the ability of a teacher to train good students is determined by the calibration of scores within each class.
Perhaps surprisingly, it did not always benefit the robust student ($L^{\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}}$) to utilize the true one-hot labels in the validation set. Instead, training the robust student with teacher labels on the validation set was sufficient to achieve the best worst-class performance. This is promising from a data efficiency standpoint, since it can be expensive to build up a labeled dataset for validation, especially if the training data is long-tailed.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\vskip -0.2in
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\includegraphics[trim={2.8cm 0 2.8cm 0},clip,width=0.11\textwidth]{figures/legend_cf10lt_arch32_onehot.pdf} & \includegraphics[trim={0 0.2cm 0 0.1cm},clip,width=0.4\textwidth]{figures/plot_cf10lt_arch32_onehot} & \includegraphics[trim={0 0.2cm 0 0.1cm},clip,width=0.415\textwidth]{figures/plot_cf100lt_arch32_onehot}
\end{tabular}
\vspace{-5pt}
\caption{Trade-offs in worst-class test accuracy vs. balanced test accuracy for CIFAR-10-LT \textit{(left)} and CIFAR-100-LT \textit{(right)}, with ResNet-56 teachers and ResNet-32 students trained with one-hot validation labels.
Robust teacher/student combinations produce points that are more Pareto efficient than the ResNet-56 teachers alone. Additional plots in Appendix \ref{app:tradeoff_plots} show similar results for self distillation and teacher validation labels. Mean test performance over 10 runs is shown.
}
\label{fig:tradeoffs_cf-lt_32_onehot}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.3in
\end{figure*}
\textbf{Trading off balanced vs. worst-class accuracy.} We also evaluate the robust objectives in a setting where distillation is used for efficiency gains by distilling a larger teacher into a smaller student.
In Figure \ref{fig:tradeoffs_cf-lt_32_onehot}, we plot the full trade-off between balanced accuracy and worst-class accuracy for the robust distillation protocols. Each point represents the outcome of a given combination of teacher and student objectives, where the teacher optimizes $L^{\textrm{\textup{tdf}}}$ with tradeoff parameter $\alpha^t$, and the student optimizes $L^{\textrm{\textup{tdf-d}}}$ with tradeoff parameter $\alpha^s$.
Strikingly, Figure \ref{fig:tradeoffs_cf-lt_32_onehot} shows that ResNet-32 students distilled with robust trade-offs can be more Pareto efficient than even the larger ResNet-56 teacher models. Thus, distillation with combinations of robust losses not only helps worst-case accuracy, but also achieves better trade-offs with balanced accuracy. Similar trends prevail across our experiment setups, including self distillation and the original non-long-tailed datasets (see Appendix \ref{app:experiment_details}).
Overall, we demonstrate empirically and theoretically the value of applying different combinations of teacher-student objectives, not only for improving worst-class accuracy, but also to achieve efficient trade-offs between average and worst-class accuracy.
Future avenues for exploration include experiments with mixtures of label types and effects of properties of the data on robustness.
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Knowledge distillation, wherein one trains a teacher model and uses its predictions to train a student model
of similar or smaller capacity, has proven to be a powerful tool that improves efficiency while achieving state-of-the-art classification accuracies on a variety of problems \citep{Hinton:2015, Radosavovic:2018, pham2021meta,46642,NEURIPS2020_3f5ee243}. While originally devised for model compression, distillation has also been widely applied to improve the performance of
fixed capacity models and in semi-supervised learning settings \citep{rusu2016policy, Furlanello2018BornAN, yang2019training, xie2020self}.
Evaluating the trade-offs incurred by distillation techniques has largely focused on canonical measures such as average error over a given data distribution. Along this dimension, distillation has proven to be a remarkably effective
technique, with the student achieving even better test performance than the teacher (e.g.\ \citet{xie2020self}).
However, average error may differ significantly from the performance on individual subpopulations in the data, and thus may be an inadequate metric to optimize in real-world settings that also require good performance on different subgroups. For instance, subgroups may be defined by attributes such as country, language, or racial attributes \citep{Hardt:2016, zafar2017fairness, agarwal2018reductions}, in which case performance on the individual subgroups becomes a policy and fairness concern.
The potential for mismatch between average error and worst-group error is further exacerbated by the fact that many real-world datasets exhibit imbalance in the number of training examples belonging to different subgroups. In a multi-class classification setting where each target label delineates a subgroup, many real-world datasets exhibit a \textit{long-tailed} label distribution \citep{VanHorn:2017,menon2020long,feldman2021does,d2021tale}. Recent work has shown that improved average error of the student model often comes at the expense of poorer performance on the tail classes \cite{lukasik2021teachers,du2021compressed}
or under-represented groups \citep{sagawa2020investigation, menon2020overparameterisation}, and model compression can amplify performance disparities across groups \cite{hooker2020characterising, xu-etal-2021-beyond}. Further hurting test performance is the possibility that the training data may have particularly poor representation of important subgroups that occur more frequently at deployment or test time.
To mitigate the disparity between average error and subgroup performance, a common approach is to train a model to achieve low worst-group test error. Modified objectives for robust optimization techniques have successfully achieved state-of-the-art worst-class performance with manageable computational overhead \citep{Sagawa2020Distributionally, sohoni2020no, narasimhan2021training}. However, an evaluation of these techniques has disproportionately focused on a standard single model training setting.
In this work, we focus on applying robust optimization to a multi-step training setting typical of distillation. We take a wider view of the optimization process, and ask what combination of student and teacher objectives achieves low worst-group test error \emph{and} minimizes difference between average and worst case error.
To integrate robust optimization objectives into the distillation procedure, we introduce a robust objective for either the teacher, the student, or both. We also quantify the trade-off between average error across all subgroups and the worst-group error by mapping out Pareto fronts for each distillation procedure.
Theoretically, we ask the question, \textit{what makes for a ``good'' teacher} when training a robust student? That is, what properties are important in a teacher so that a student achieves good worst-class performance?
In summary, we make the following contributions:
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*),itemsep=0pt,topsep=0pt,leftmargin=16pt,nolistsep]
\item We present distillation techniques integrating distributionally robust optimization (DRO) algorithms with the goal of achieving a robust student, and explore different combinations of modifications to the teacher and student objectives.
\item In both self-distillation and compression settings, we empirically demonstrate that the proposed robust distillation algorithms can train student models that yield better worst-class accuracies than the teacher and other recent baselines. We also demonstrate gains in the trade-off between overall and worst-class performance.
\item We derive robustness guarantees for the student under different algorithmic design choices, and
provide insights into when the student yields better worst-class robustness than the teacher.
\end{enumerate}
\textbf{Related Work.}\
\textit{Fairness in distillation:}\
\citet{lukasik2021teachers} study how distillation impacts worst-group performance and observe that the errors that the teacher makes on smaller subgroups get amplified and transferred to the student. They also propose simple modifications to the student's objective to control the strength of the teacher's labels for different groups. In contrast, in this work we propose a more direct and theoretically-grounded procedure that
seeks to explicitly optimize for the student's worst-case error, and explore modifications to both the teacher and student objectives.
\textit{Worst-group robustness:}\ The goal of achieving good worst-case performance across subgroups can be framed as a
(group) distributionally robust optimization (DRO) problem,
and can be solved by iteratively updating costs on the individual groups and minimizing the resulting cost-weighted loss \citep{chen2017robust}. Recent variants of this approach have sought to avoid over-fitting through
group-specific regularization \citep{Sagawa2020Distributionally} or
margin-based losses \cite{narasimhan2021training, kini2021labelimbalanced},
to handle unknown subgroups \citep{sohoni2020no}, and to balance between average and worst-case performance \cite{piratla2021focus}. Other approaches include the use of Conditional Value at Risk for worst-class robustness \citep{xu2020class}.
Among these, the work that most closely relates to our paper
is the margin-based DRO algorithm \citep{narasimhan2021training},
which includes preliminary distillation experiments in support of training the teacher with
standard ERM and the student with a robust objective.
However, this and other prior work have only explored modifications to the student loss \cite{lukasik2021teachers,narasimhan2021training}, while training the teacher using a standard procedure.
{Our robust distillation proposals build on this method,
but carry out a more extensive analysis, exploring different combinations of teacher-student objectives
and different trade-offs between average and worst-class performance}. Additionally,
we provide robustness guarantees for the student, equip the DRO algorithms to achieve different trade-offs between overall and worst-case error, and provide a rigorous analysis of different design choices.
\section{Problem Setup}
\label{sec:prelims}
We are interested in a multi-class classification problem with instance space $\mathcal{X}$
and output space $[m] = \{1, \ldots, m\}$. Let $D$ denote the underlying data distribution over $\mathcal{X} \times [m]$, and
$D_{\mathcal{X}}$ denote the marginal distribution over $\mathcal{X}$.
Let $\Delta_m$ denote the $(m-1)$-dimensional probability simplex over $m$ classes.
We define the
conditional-class probability as $\eta_y(x) = \P(Y=y|X=x)$ and the class priors $\pi_y = \P(Y=y)$.
Note that $\pi_y = \mathbb{E}_{X \sim D_\mathcal{X}}\left[ \eta_y(X) \right]$.
\textbf{Learning objectives.}
Our goal is to learn a multiclass classifier $h: \mathcal{X} \> [m]$ that maps an instance $x \in \mathcal{X}$ to one of $m$ classes.
We will do so by first learning a scoring function $f: \mathcal{X} \> \mathbb{R}^m$ that assigns scores $[f_1(x), \ldots, f_m(x)] \in \mathbb{R}^m$ to a given instance $x$,
and construct the classifier by predicting the class with the highest score: $h(x) = \argmax{j \in [m]}\,f_j(x)$. We will
denote a softmax transformation of $f$ by $\textrm{\textup{softmax}}_y(f(x)) = \frac{\exp( f_y(x) ) }{\sum_j \exp( f_j(x) )}$,
and use the notation $\textrm{\textup{softmax}}_y(f(x)) \propto z_y$ to indicate that $\textrm{\textup{softmax}}_y(f(x)) = \frac{z_y}{\sum_{j=1}^m z_j}$.
We measure the efficacy of the scoring function $f$ using a loss function $\ell: [m] \times \mathbb{R}^m \> \mathbb{R}_+$
that assigns a penalty $\ell(y, z)$ for predicting score vector $z \in \mathbb{R}^m$ for true label $y$. Examples of loss functions include the
0-1 loss: $\ell^\textrm{\textup{0-1}}(y, z) = \mathbf{1}\left(z \ne \argmax{j}\,f_j(x) \right)$,
and the softmax cross-entropy loss: $\ell^\textrm{\textup{xent}}(y, z) = \textstyle -f_y(x) + \log\big( \sum_{j \in [m]} \exp\left( f_j(x) \right) \big)$.
\textit{Standard objective:} A standard machine learning goal entails minimizing the overall expected risk:
\begin{equation}
L^\textrm{\textup{std}}(f) = \mathbb{E}\left[\ell(Y, f(X))\right].
\label{eq:std}
\end{equation}
\textit{Balanced objective:} In applications where the classes are severely imbalanced, i.e.,
the class priors $\pi_y$ are non-uniform and significantly skewed,
one may wish to instead optimize a \emph{balanced} version of the above objective,
where we average over the conditional loss for each class. Notice that the
conditional loss for class $y$ is weighted by the inverse of its prior:
\allowdisplaybreaks
\begin{align}
L^\textrm{\textup{bal}}(f)
&= \frac{1}{m}\sum_{y \in [m]} \mathbb{E}\left[\ell(y, f(X))\,|\, Y = y \right]
~=~ \frac{1}{m}\sum_{y \in [m]} \frac{1}{\pi_y}\mathbb{E}_X\left[ \eta_y(X)\,\ell(y, f(X)) \right].
\label{eq:balanced}
\end{align}
\textit{Robust objective:} A more stringent objective would be to focus on the worst-performing class, and
minimize a \emph{robust} version of
\eqref{eq:std} that computes
the worst among the $m$
conditional losses:
\begin{align}
L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(f)
&= \max_{y \in [m]} \frac{1}{\pi_y}\mathbb{E}\left[ \eta_y(X)\,\ell(y, f(X)) \right].
\label{eq:robust}
\end{align}
In practice, focusing solely on either the average or the worst-case performance may not
be an acceptable solution, and therefore, in this paper, we will additionally seek to characterize the
trade-off between the balanced and robust objectives. One way to achieve this trade-off is to minimize the robust objective, while constraining the balanced objective to
be within an acceptable range. This constrained optimization can be equivalently formulated as optimizing a convex combination of the balanced and robust objectives, for trade-off
$\alpha \in [0,1]$:
\begin{align}
L^\textrm{\textup{tdf}}(f)
&= (1 - \alpha) L^\textrm{\textup{bal}}(f) + \alpha L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(f).
\label{eq:trade-off}
\end{align}
A similar trade-off can also be specified between the standard and robust objectives.
To better understand the differences between the standard, balanced and robust objectives in \eqref{eq:std}--\eqref{eq:trade-off},
we look at the optimal scoring function for each given a cross-entropy loss:
\begin{theorem}[\textbf{Bayes-optimal scorers}]
\label{thm:bayes}
When $\ell$ is
the cross-entropy loss $\ell^\textrm{\textup{xent}}$,
the minimizers of \eqref{eq:std}--\eqref{eq:robust} over all measurable functions $f: \mathcal{X} \> \mathbb{R}^m$ are given
by:
\begin{tabular}{llll}
\textit{(i)} $L^\textrm{\textup{std}}(f)$: & $\textrm{\textup{softmax}}_y( f^{*}(x) ) \,=\, \eta_y(x)$ & \textit{(ii)} $L^\textrm{\textup{bal}}(f)$: & $\textrm{\textup{softmax}}_y( f^{*}(x) ) \,\propto\, \frac{1}{\pi_y}\eta_y(x)$ \\
\textit{(iii)} $L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(f)$: & $\textrm{\textup{softmax}}_y( f^{*}(x) ) \,\propto\, \frac{\lambda_y}{\pi_y}\eta_y(x)$ & \textit{(iv)} $L^\textrm{\textup{tdf}}(f)$: & $\textrm{\textup{softmax}}_y( f^{*}(x) ) \,\propto\, \frac{(1 - \alpha)\frac{1}{m} + \alpha\lambda'_y}{\pi_y}\eta_y(x),$
\end{tabular}
for class-specific constants $\lambda, \lambda' \in \mathbb{R}^m_+$ that depend on distribution $D$.
\vspace{-5pt}
\end{theorem}
All proofs are provided in Appendix \ref{app:proofs}.
Interestingly, the optimal scorers for all four objectives involve a simple scaling of the conditional-class probabilities $\eta_y(x)$.
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Knowledge distillation, wherein one trains a teacher model and uses its predictions to train a student model
of similar or smaller capacity, has proven to be a powerful tool that improves efficiency while achieving state-of-the-art classification accuracies on a variety of problems \citep{Hinton:2015, Radosavovic:2018, pham2021meta,46642,NEURIPS2020_3f5ee243}. While originally devised for model compression, distillation has also been widely applied to improve the performance of
fixed capacity models and in semi-supervised learning settings \citep{rusu2016policy, Furlanello2018BornAN, yang2019training, xie2020self}.
Evaluating the trade-offs incurred by distillation techniques has largely focused on canonical measures such as average error over a given data distribution. Along this dimension, distillation has proven to be a remarkably effective
technique, with the student achieving even better test performance than the teacher (e.g.\ \citet{xie2020self}).
However, average error may differ significantly from the performance on individual subpopulations in the data, and thus may be an inadequate metric to optimize in real-world settings that also require good performance on different subgroups. For instance, subgroups may be defined by attributes such as country, language, or racial attributes \citep{Hardt:2016, zafar2017fairness, agarwal2018reductions}, in which case performance on the individual subgroups becomes a policy and fairness concern.
The potential for mismatch between average error and worst-group error is further exacerbated by the fact that many real-world datasets exhibit imbalance in the number of training examples belonging to different subgroups. In a multi-class classification setting where each target label delineates a subgroup, many real-world datasets exhibit a \textit{long-tailed} label distribution \citep{VanHorn:2017,menon2020long,feldman2021does,d2021tale}. Recent work has shown that improved average error of the student model often comes at the expense of poorer performance on the tail classes \cite{lukasik2021teachers,du2021compressed}
or under-represented groups \citep{sagawa2020investigation, menon2020overparameterisation}, and model compression can amplify performance disparities across groups \cite{hooker2020characterising, xu-etal-2021-beyond}. Further hurting test performance is the possibility that the training data may have particularly poor representation of important subgroups that occur more frequently at deployment or test time.
To mitigate the disparity between average error and subgroup performance, a common approach is to train a model to achieve low worst-group test error. Modified objectives for robust optimization techniques have successfully achieved state-of-the-art worst-class performance with manageable computational overhead \citep{Sagawa2020Distributionally, sohoni2020no, narasimhan2021training}. However, an evaluation of these techniques has disproportionately focused on a standard single model training setting.
In this work, we focus on applying robust optimization to a multi-step training setting typical of distillation. We take a wider view of the optimization process, and ask what combination of student and teacher objectives achieves low worst-group test error \emph{and} minimizes difference between average and worst case error.
To integrate robust optimization objectives into the distillation procedure, we introduce a robust objective for either the teacher, the student, or both. We also quantify the trade-off between average error across all subgroups and the worst-group error by mapping out Pareto fronts for each distillation procedure.
Theoretically, we ask the question, \textit{what makes for a ``good'' teacher} when training a robust student? That is, what properties are important in a teacher so that a student achieves good worst-class performance?
In summary, we make the following contributions:
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*),itemsep=0pt,topsep=0pt,leftmargin=16pt,nolistsep]
\item We present distillation techniques integrating distributionally robust optimization (DRO) algorithms with the goal of achieving a robust student, and explore different combinations of modifications to the teacher and student objectives.
\item In both self-distillation and compression settings, we empirically demonstrate that the proposed robust distillation algorithms can train student models that yield better worst-class accuracies than the teacher and other recent baselines. We also demonstrate gains in the trade-off between overall and worst-class performance.
\item We derive robustness guarantees for the student under different algorithmic design choices, and
provide insights into when the student yields better worst-class robustness than the teacher.
\end{enumerate}
\textbf{Related Work.}\
\textit{Fairness in distillation:}\
\citet{lukasik2021teachers} study how distillation impacts worst-group performance and observe that the errors that the teacher makes on smaller subgroups get amplified and transferred to the student. They also propose simple modifications to the student's objective to control the strength of the teacher's labels for different groups. In contrast, in this work we propose a more direct and theoretically-grounded procedure that
seeks to explicitly optimize for the student's worst-case error, and explore modifications to both the teacher and student objectives.
\textit{Worst-group robustness:}\ The goal of achieving good worst-case performance across subgroups can be framed as a
(group) distributionally robust optimization (DRO) problem,
and can be solved by iteratively updating costs on the individual groups and minimizing the resulting cost-weighted loss \citep{chen2017robust}. Recent variants of this approach have sought to avoid over-fitting through
group-specific regularization \citep{Sagawa2020Distributionally} or
margin-based losses \cite{narasimhan2021training, kini2021labelimbalanced},
to handle unknown subgroups \citep{sohoni2020no}, and to balance between average and worst-case performance \cite{piratla2021focus}. Other approaches include the use of Conditional Value at Risk for worst-class robustness \citep{xu2020class}.
Among these, the work that most closely relates to our paper
is the margin-based DRO algorithm \citep{narasimhan2021training},
which includes preliminary distillation experiments in support of training the teacher with
standard ERM and the student with a robust objective.
However, this and other prior work have only explored modifications to the student loss \cite{lukasik2021teachers,narasimhan2021training}, while training the teacher using a standard procedure.
{Our robust distillation proposals build on this method,
but carry out a more extensive analysis, exploring different combinations of teacher-student objectives
and different trade-offs between average and worst-class performance}. Additionally,
we provide robustness guarantees for the student, equip the DRO algorithms to achieve different trade-offs between overall and worst-case error, and provide a rigorous analysis of different design choices.
\section{Theoretical Analysis}
\label{sec:theory}
To simplify our exposition, we will present our theoretical analysis
for a student trained using Algorithm \ref{algo:dro} to yield good worst-class performance. Our results easily extend to the case where the student seeks to trade-off between overall and worst-case performance.
\textbf{What constitutes a good teacher?}
We would first like to understand what makes a good teacher
when the student's goal is to minimize the robust population objective $L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(f^s)$ in \eqref{eq:robust}. We also analyze whether the student's ability to perform well on this worst-case objective depends on
the teacher also performing well on the same objective.
As a proxy for $L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(f^s)$, the
student minimizes the distilled objective $\hat{L}^\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}(f^s)$ in \eqref{eq:robust-distilled-empirical}
with predictions from teacher $p^t$.
We argue that an \emph{ideal} teacher
in this case
would be one that ensures that
the difference between the two objectives
$
|\hat{L}^\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}(f^s) - L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(f^s)|
$
is as small as possible. Below, we provide a simple bound on this difference:
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:good-teacher}
Suppose $\ell(y, z) \leq B, \forall x \in \mathcal{X}$ for some $B > 0$.
Let $\pi^t_y = \mathbb{E}_x\left[ p_y^t(x) \right]$,
and let the following denote the per-class expected and empirical student losses respectively:
\begin{align*}
\phi_y(f^s) = \textstyle\frac{1}{\pi^t_y}\mathbb{E}_x\left[ p_y^t(x)\, \ell\left( y , f^s(x) \right)\right]; \quad \hat{\phi}_y(f^s) = \textstyle\frac{1}{\hat{\pi}^t_y}\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n p_y^t(x_i)\,\ell\left( y , f^s(x_i) \right).
\end{align*}
Then for teacher $p^t$ and student $f^s$:
\begin{align*}
|\hat{L}^\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}(f^s) - L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(f^s)|
&\leq
\underbrace{
B\max_{y \in [m]} \mathbb{E}_x\left[
\left| \frac{p^t_y(x)}{\pi^t_y} - \frac{\eta_y(x)}{\pi_y} \right|\right]}_{\text{Approximation error}}
+
\underbrace{
\max_{y \in [m]} \big|\phi_y(f^s) - \hat{\phi}_y(f^s)\big|}_{\text{Estimation error}}.
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}
The \emph{approximation error}
captures
how well the teacher's predictions mimic the conditional-class distribution $\eta(x) \in \Delta_m$,
up to per-class normalizations.
This suggests that even if $p^t$ does not
achieve good worst-class performance, as long as
it is well calibrated within each class (as measured by the approximation error above),
it will serve as a good teacher. Indeed when the teacher outputs the conditional-class probabilities,
i.e.\ $p^t(x) = \eta(x)$, the approximation error is trivially zero (recall that the normalization term
$\pi^t_y = \pi_y$ in this case). We know from
Theorem \ref{thm:bayes} that, this would be the case with a teacher
trained to optimize the standard cross-entropy objective (provided we use an unrestricted model class).
In practice, however, we do not expect the teacher to approximate $\eta(x)$ very well,
and this opens the door for training the teacher with the other objectives described in Section \ref{sec:prelims}, each
of which encourage the teacher to approximate a scaled (normalized) version of $\eta(x)$.
The \emph{estimation error} captures how well the teacher aids in the student's out-of-sample generalization.
The prior work by \citet{menon2021statistical} studies this question in detail for
the standard student objective, and
provide a bound that depends on the variance induced by the teacher's predictions on the
student's objective: the lower the variance, the better the student's generalization.
A similar analysis can be carried out with the per-class loss terms in Theorem \ref{thm:good-teacher} (more details in Appendix \ref{app:student-gen-bound}).
\textbf{Robustness guarantee for the student.}\
We next seek to understand if the student can match or outperform the teacher's worst-class performance.
For a fixed teacher $p^t$, we
consider a \emph{self-distillation} setup where
the student is chosen from the same function class $\mathcal{F}$ as the teacher,
and can thus exactly mimic the teacher's predictions.
Under this setup,
we provide robustness gurarantees
for the student output by Algorithm \ref{algo:dro}
in terms of the approximation and estimation errors
described above.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:student-form}
Suppose $p^t \in \mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{F}$ is closed under linear transformations. Let $\bar{\lambda}_y = (\prod_{k=1}^K {\lambda_y^k}/{\pi^t_y})^{1/K}, \forall y$.
Then the scoring function $\bar{f}^s(x) = \frac{1}{K} \sum_{k=1}^K f^{k}(x)$ output by Alg. \ref{algo:dro} is of the form:
\[
\textrm{\textup{softmax}}_j(\bar{f}^s(x)) \propto \bar{\lambda}_j p_j^t(x),~\forall j \in [m],\, \forall (x, y) \in S.
\]
\end{proposition}
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:dro}
Suppose $p^t \in \mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{F}$ is closed under linear transformations.
Suppose
$\ell$ is the cross-entropy loss $\ell^{\textrm{\textup{xent}}}$,
$\ell(y, z) \leq B$
and $\max_{y \in [m]}\frac{1}{\pi^t_y} \leq Z$,
for some $B, Z > 0$.
Furthermore, suppose for any $\delta \in (0,1)$, the following bound holds on the
estimation error in Theorem \ref{thm:good-teacher}:
with probability at least $1 - \delta$ (over draw of $S \sim D^n$),
$\forall f \in \mathcal{F}$, $\textstyle
\max_{y \in [m]} \big|\phi_y(f) - \hat{\phi}_y(f)\big| \leq \Delta(n, \delta),$
for some $\Delta(n, \delta) \in \mathbb{R}_+$ that
is increasing in $1/\delta$, and goes to 0 as $n \> \infty$.
Then when the step size $\gamma = \frac{1}{2BZ}\sqrt{\frac{\log(m)}{{K}}}$
and $n^\textrm{\textup{val}} \geq 8Z\log(2m/\delta)$, we have that with
probability at least $1-\delta$ (over draw of $S \sim D^n$ and $S^\textrm{\textup{val}} \sim D^{n^\textrm{\textup{val}}}$),
\begin{align*}
\lefteqn{
L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(\bar{f}^s) \,\leq\,
\min_{f \in \mathcal{F}}L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(f)}
\\[-10pt]
&\hspace{1cm}
+\,
\underbrace{2\Delta(n^\textrm{\textup{val}}, \delta/2) \,+\, 2\Delta(n, \delta/2)}_{\text{Estimation error}}
\,+\,
\underbrace{
2B\max_{y \in [m]} \mathbb{E}_x\left[
\left| \frac{p^t_y(x)}{\pi^t_y} \,-\, \frac{\eta_y(x)}{\pi_y} \right|\right]}_{\text{Approximation error}}
\,+\,
\underbrace{4BZ\sqrt{\frac{\log(m)}{{K}}}}_{\text{EG convergence}}.
\end{align*}
\vspace{-10pt}
\end{theorem}
Proposition \ref{prop:student-form} shows the student
not only learns to mimic the teacher on the training set, but makes per-class adjustments to its predictions,
and Theorem \ref{thm:dro} shows that these adjustments are chosen to close-in on the
gap to the optimal robust scorer in $\mathcal{F}$.
The form of the student
suggests that it can not only match the teacher's performance,
but can potentially improve upon it by making
adjustments to its scores.
However, the student's convergence to the optimal scorer in $\mathcal{F}$
would still be limited by the teacher's approximation error:
even when the sample sizes and number of iterations $n, n^\textrm{\textup{val}}, K \> \infty$,
the student's optimality gap may still be non-zero as long as the teacher is sub-optimal.
\textbf{Connection to post-hoc adjustment.}\
The form of the student
in Proposition \ref{prop:student-form} raises an interesting question. Instead of training an explicit student model,
why not directly construct a new scoring model by making post-hoc adjustments
to the teacher's predictions? Specifically, one could optimize over functions of the form $f^s_y(x) = \log(\gamma_y p^t_y(x)),$ where the teacher $p^t$ is fixed, and pick
the coefficients $\gamma \in \mathbb{R}^m$ so that resulting scoring function yields the best worst-class accuracy on a held-out dataset.
This simple \emph{post-hoc adjustment} strategy
may not be feasible if the goal is to distill to a student that is considerably smaller than the teacher. Often, this is the case in settings where distillation is used as a compression technique.
Yet, this post-hoc method
serves as good baseline to compare with.
\textbf{One-hot validation labels.}\
If Algorithm \ref{algo:dro} used one-hot labels in the validation set instead of the teacher generated labels (as prescribed in \eqref{eq:one-hot-val}),
the form of the student learned remains the same as
in Theorem \ref{thm:dro}. However, the coefficients $\bar{\lambda}$ used to make
adjustments to the teacher's predictions enjoy a slightly different guarantee.
As shown in Appendix \ref{app:one-hot-vali}, the approximation error bound now has a weaker dependence on the teacher's predictions (and hence is more immune to the teacher's errors),
while the estimation error bound incurs slower convergence with increase in sample size.
\section{Distillation for Worst-class Performance}
\label{sec:distillation}
We adopt the common
practice of training both the teacher and student on the same dataset. Specifically, given a training sample $S = \{(x_1, y_1), \ldots, (x_n, y_n)\}$
drawn from $D$, we first train a teacher model $p^t: \mathcal{X} \> \Delta_m$, and use it to generate a student dataset
$S' = \{(x_1, p^t(x_1)), \ldots, (x_n, p^t(x_n))\}$
by replacing the original labels with the teacher's predictions.
We then train a student scorer $f^s: \mathcal{X} \> [m]$ using the re-labeled dataset,
and use it to construct the final classifier.
In a typical setting, both the teacher and student
are trained to optimize a version of the standard objective in \eqref{eq:std}, i.e.,
the teacher is trained to minimize the average loss against the original training labels,
and the student is trained to minimize an average loss against the teacher's predictions:
\begin{align}
\text{Teacher: } & \hat{L}^\textrm{\textup{std}}(f^t) = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \ell\left( y_i, f^t(x_i) \right); \hspace{10pt}
\text{Student: } ~ \hat{L}^\textrm{\textup{std-d}}(f^s) = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \sum_{y=1}^m p_y^t(x_i)\, \ell\left(y , f(x_i) \right),\nonumber
\\[-10pt]\label{eq:standard-objectives}
\end{align}
~\\[-13pt]
where $p^t(x) = \textrm{\textup{softmax}}(f^t(x))$. It is also common to have the student use a mixture of the teacher and one-hot labels. For concreteness, we consider a simpler distillation setup without this mixture, though extensions with this mixture would be straightforward to add.
This work takes a wider view and explores \textit{what combinations of student and teacher objectives} facilitate better worst-group performance for the student. Our experiments evaluate all \emph{nine} combinations of standard, balanced, and robust teacher objectives, paired with standard, balanced, and robust student objectives.
Given the choice of teacher objective, the student will either optimize a distilled version of the balanced objective in \eqref{eq:balanced}:
\begin{align}
{\hat{L}^\textrm{\textup{bal-d}}(f^s)}
&= \frac{1}{m}\sum_{y \in [m]} \frac{1}{\hat{\pi}^t_y}\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n p_y^t(x_i)\, \ell\left( y , f^s(x_i) \right),
\label{eq:balanced-distilled-empirical}
\end{align}
or a distilled version of the robust objective in \eqref{eq:robust}:
\begin{align}
{\hat{L}^\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}(f^s)}
&= \max_{y \in [m]} \frac{1}{\hat{\pi}^t_y}\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n p_y^t(x_i)\, \ell\left( y , f^s(x_i) \right),
\label{eq:robust-distilled-empirical}
\end{align}
In practice, the teacher's predictions may have a different marginal distribution from the underlying class priors, particularly when temperature scaling is applied to the teacher's logits to soften the predicted probabilities \cite{narasimhan2021training}. To address this, in both \eqref{eq:balanced-distilled-empirical} and \eqref{eq:robust-distilled-empirical} we have replaced the class priors $\pi_y$ with the marginal distribution
$\hat{\pi}^t_y = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n p^t_y(x_i)$ from the teacher's predictions.
In addition to exploring the combination of objectives that facilitates better worst-group performance for the student, we evaluate a more flexible approach -- have both the teachers and the students trade-off between the balanced and robust objectives:
\begin{align}\label{eq:trade-off-distilled}
\text{Teacher: } & \hat{L}^\textrm{\textup{tdf}}(f^t) = (1-\alpha^t)\hat{L}^\textrm{\textup{bal}}(f^t) + \alpha^t\hat{L}^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(f^t) \\
\text{Student: } & \hat{L}^\textrm{\textup{tdf-d}}(f^s) = (1-\alpha^s)\hat{L}^\textrm{\textup{bal-d}}(f^s) + \alpha^s\hat{L}^\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}(f^s),\nonumber
\end{align}
where $\hat{L}^\textrm{\textup{bal}}(f^t)$ and $\hat{L}^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(f^t)$ are the respective empirical estimates of
\eqref{eq:balanced} and \eqref{eq:robust} from the training sample, and $\alpha^t, \alpha^s \in [0,1]$
are the respective tradeoff parameters for the teacher and student.
We are thus able to evaluate the Pareto-frontier of balanced and worst-case accuracies, obtained from different combinations of the teachers and students, and
trained with different trade-off parameters.
\section{Robust Distillation Algorithms}
\label{sec:algorithms}
The different objectives we consider -- standard, balanced and robust -- entail different loss objectives to ensure efficient optimization during training.
For example, while training
the standard teacher and student in \eqref{eq:standard-objectives},
we take $\ell$ to be the softmax cross-entropy loss,
and optimize it using SGD. For the balanced and robust models,
we employ the margin-based surrogates that we detail below, which have shown to be more effective
in training over-parameterized networks \citep{cao2019learning, menon2020long, kini2021labelimbalanced}.
Across all objectives, at evaluation we take the loss $\ell$
in the student and teacher objectives
to be the 0-1 loss.
\textbf{Margin-based surrogate for balanced objective.}\
When the teacher or student model being trained is over-parameterized,
i.e., has sufficient capacity to correctly classify all examples in the training set,
the use of an outer weighting term
in the objective
(such as the inverse class marginals in \eqref{eq:balanced-distilled-empirical})
can be ineffective. In other words, a model that yields zero training objective
would do so irrespective of what outer weights we choose.
To remedy this problem,
we make use of the margin-based surrogate of \citet{menon2020long},
and incorporate the outer weights as margin terms within the loss.
For
the balanced student objective in \eqref{eq:balanced-distilled-empirical}, this would look like:
\begin{align}
{\widetilde{L}^\textrm{\textup{bal-d}}(f^s)}
&= \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \mathcal{L}^\textrm{\textup{mar}}\left(p^t(x_i), f^s(x_i); \mathbf{1} / \hat{\pi}^t \right),
\label{eq:margin-la}
\end{align}
~\\[-25pt]
\begin{align}
\text{where}~~\mathcal{L}^\textrm{\textup{mar}}\left(\mathbf{p}, \mathbf{f}; \mathbf{c} \right) &=
\frac{1}{m}\sum_{y \in [m]} p_y \log\bigg(1 + \sum_{j \ne y}\exp\left(\log(c_y / c_{j}) \,-\, (f_y - f_j) \right) \bigg),
\nonumber
\end{align}
for teacher probabilities $\mathbf{p} \in \Delta_m$, student scores $\mathbf{f} \in \mathbb{R}^m$,
and per-class costs $\mathbf{c} \in \mathbb{R}^m_+$.
For the balanced teacher, the margin-based objective would take a similar form, but
with one-hot labels.
We include a proof in Appendix \ref{app:calibration-mar} showing that
a scoring function that minimizes this surrogate objective
also minimizes the
the balanced objective in \eqref{eq:balanced-distilled-empirical}
(when $\ell$ is the cross-entropy loss, and the student is chosen from a sufficiently flexible function class). In practice, the margin term $\log(c_y / c_{j})$ encourages a larger margin of separation for classes $y$ for which the cost $c_y$ is relatively higher.
\begin{figure}[t]
\vspace{-5pt}
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{Distilled Margin-based DRO
\label{algo:dro}
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE \textbf{Inputs:} Teacher $p^t$, Student hypothesis class $\mathcal{F}$, Training set $S$, Validation set $S^\textrm{\textup{val}}$, Step-size $\gamma \in \mathbb{R}_+$,
Number of iterations $K$, Loss $\ell$,
Initial student $f^0 \in \mathcal{F}$, Initial multipliers ${\lambda}^0 \in \Delta_m$
\STATE Compute $\hat{\pi}^{t}_j = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{(x, y) \in S} p_j^t(x),~ \forall j \in [m]$
\STATE Compute $\hat{\pi}^{t,\textrm{\textup{val}}}_j = \frac{1}{n^\textrm{\textup{val}}}\sum_{(x, y) \in S^\textrm{\textup{val}}} p_j^t(x),~ \forall j \in [m]$
\STATE \textbf{For}~{$k = 0 $ to $K-1$}
\STATE ~~~$\tilde{\lambda}^{k+1}_j \,=\, \lambda^k_j\exp\big( \gamma \hat{R}_j \big), \forall j \in [m]
~~~~~\text{where} $\hat{R}_j =$ $\frac{1}{n^\textrm{\textup{val}}}\frac{1}{\hat{\pi}^{t,\textrm{\textup{val}}}_j}\underset{(x, y) \in S^\textrm{\textup{val}}}{\sum} p_j^t(x)\, \ell( j , f^k(x) )$\\[-20pt]
\STATE ~~~$\lambda^{k+1}_y \,=\, \frac{\tilde{\lambda}^{k+1}_y}{\sum_{j=1}^m \tilde{\lambda}^{k+1}_j}, \forall y$
\STATE ~~~$f^{k+1} \,\in\, \Argmin{f \in \mathcal{F}}\, \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \mathcal{L}^\textrm{\textup{mar}}\left(p^t(x_i), f(x_i); \frac{\lambda^{k+1}}{\hat{\pi}^t} \right)$
~~~~~~// Replaced with a few steps of SGD
\STATE \textbf{End For}
\STATE \textbf{Output:} $\bar{f}^{s}: x \mapsto \frac{1}{K}\sum_{k =1}^K f^k(x)$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\vspace{-22pt}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Margin-based DRO for robust objective.}\
Minimizing the robust objective with plain SGD can be difficult due to the presence of
the outer ``max'' over $m$ classes. The key difficulty is in computing reliable stochastic gradients for
the max objective, especially given a small batch size. The
standard approach is to instead use a (group) distributionally-robust optimization (DRO) procedure,
which comes in multiple flavors \cite{chen2017robust, Sagawa2020Distributionally, kini2021labelimbalanced}.
We employ the margin-based variant of group DRO \citep{narasimhan2021training} as it naturally extends the
margin-based objective used in the balanced setting.
We illustrate below how this applies to the robust student objective in \eqref{eq:robust-distilled-empirical}. The procedure for the robust teacher is similar, but involves one-hot labels.
For a student hypothesis class $\mathcal{F}$,
we
first re-write the minimization in \eqref{eq:robust-distilled-empirical}
over $f \in \mathcal{F}$ into an equivalent min-max optimization using per-class multipliers $\lambda \in \Delta_m$:
\vspace{-5pt}
\[
\min_{f \in \mathcal{F}}\max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m} \sum_{y \in [m]}\frac{\lambda_y}{\hat{\pi}^t_y}\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n p_y^t(x_i)\, \ell\left( y , f(x_i) \right),
\]
and then
maximize over $\lambda$ for fixed $f$, and minimize over $f$ for fixed $\lambda$:
\begin{align*}
\lambda^{k+1}_y &\propto\,
\lambda^k_y\exp\bigg( \gamma\frac{1}{n\hat{\pi}^t_y}\sum_{i=1}^n p_y^t(x_i)\, \ell\left( y , f^k(x_i) \right) \bigg), \forall y\\[-4pt]
f^{k+1} &\in\, \Argmin{f \in \mathcal{F}} \sum_{y \in [m]}\frac{\lambda^{k+1}_y}{n\hat{\pi}^t_y}\sum_{i=1}^n p_y^t(x_i)\, \ell\left( y , f(x_i) \right),
\end{align*}
where $\gamma > 0$ is a step-size parameter. The updates on $\lambda$
implement exponentiated gradient (EG) ascent to maximize over the simplex \citep{shalev2011online}.
Following \citet{narasimhan2021training}, we make two modifications to the above updates
when used to train over-parameterized networks that can fit the training set perfectly.
First, we perform the updates on $\lambda$ using a
small held-out validation set $S^\textrm{\textup{val}} \,=\, \{(x_1,y_1), \ldots, (x_{n^\textrm{\textup{val}}}, y_{n^\textrm{\textup{val}}})\}$,
instead of the training set,
so that the $\lambda$s reflect how well the model generalizes out-of-sample.
Second, in keeping with the balanced objective, we modify the weighted objective
in the $f$-minimization step to include a margin-based surrogate.
Algorithm \ref{algo:dro}
provides a summary of these steps
and returns a scorer
that averages over the $K$ iterates: $\bar{f}^s(x) = \frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K f^k(x)$.
While the averaging is needed for our theoretical analysis,
in practice, we find it sufficient to return the last scorer $f^{K}$.
In Appendix \ref{app:dro-general-algo},
we describe how Algorithm \ref{algo:dro-general} can be easily modified to trade-off
between the balanced and robust objectives, as shown in \eqref{eq:trade-off-distilled}.
\textbf{To distill the validation set or not?}\
The updates on $\lambda$
in Algorithm \ref{algo:dro} use a validation set labeled by the teacher.
One could instead perform these updates with a curated validation set containing the original one-hot labels.
Each of these choices presents different merits. The use of a teacher-labeled validation set is useful
in many real world scenarios where labeled data is hard to obtain,
while unlabeled data abounds.
In contrast, the use of one-hot validation labels, although more expensive to obtain, may
make the student more immune to errors in the teacher's predictions,
as the coefficients $\lambda$s are now based on an unbiased estimate of
the student's performance on each class.
With a one-hot validation set, we update $\lambda$s as follows:
\begin{equation}
\lambda^{k+1}_j \,=\, \lambda^k_j\exp\big( \eta \hat{R}_j \big), \forall j \in [m],
~~~~\text{where}~
\hat{R}_j = \frac{1}{n^\textrm{\textup{val}}}\frac{1}{\hat{\pi}_j}\sum_{(x, y) \in S^\textrm{\textup{val}}} \mathbf{1}(y=j)\,\ell( j , f^k(x) ),
\label{eq:one-hot-val}
\end{equation}
for estimates $\hat{\pi}_y \approx \pi_y$ of the original class priors.
We analyze both the variants in our experiments, and in the next section, discuss robustness guarantees for each.
\section{Experiments}
\label{sec:expts}
\begin{table*}[t]
\caption{Comparison of \emph{self-distilled} teacher/student combos on test. Worst-class accuracy shown above, standard accuracy shown in parentheses for the top three datasets, and balanced accuracy shown in parenthesis for the bottom two long-tail datasets. Note that $L^{\textrm{\textup{std}}} = L^{\textrm{\textup{bal}}}$ for the top three datasets with balanced class priors; so here we do not include combinations involving a balanced teacher/student. The combination with the best worst-class accuracy is \textbf{bolded}. Mean and standard error are reported over repeats (10 repeats for CIFAR*, 5 repeats for TinyImageNet). We include results for the robust student using either a teacher labeled validation set (``teacher val''), or true one-hot class labels in the validation set (``one-hot val''), as outlined in Eq.~(\ref{eq:one-hot-val}). We include results using a smaller student architecture (ResNet-56 $\to$ ResNet-32), additional ImageNet results, and additional comparisons to group DRO and the Ada* methods in Appendix \ref{app:experiment_details}.
}
\label{tab:combos}
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{tabular}{p{0.1cm}c||c|c||c|c||c|c||}
\toprule
& & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{\textbf{CIFAR-10} Teacher Obj.} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{\textbf{CIFAR-100} Teacher Obj.} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{\textbf{TinyImageNet} Teacher Obj.} \\
& & $L^{\textrm{\textup{std}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{std}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{std}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$ \\
\midrule
\multirow{10}{*}{\rotatebox{90}{Student Obj.}}
& none & $86.48$ \tiny{$\pm 0.32$} & $90.09 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.22$} & $42.22 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.90$} & $43.42 $ \tiny{$\pm 1.03$} & $10.77 $ \tiny{$\pm 2.30$} & $16.30 $ \tiny{$\pm 1.81$}\\
& & \tiny{($93.74 \pm 0.05$)} & \tiny{($92.67 \pm 0.09$)} & \tiny{$72.42 \pm 0.16$} & \tiny{$68.81 \pm 0.11$} & \tiny{($58.64 \pm 0.16$)} & \tiny{($50.52 \pm 0.22$)}\\
\cline{2-8}
& Post & $88.60 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.35$} & $87.95 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.42$} & $38.19 $ \tiny{$\pm 1.25$} & $37.92 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.94$} & $11.22 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.38$} & $13.58 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.40$}\\
& shift & \tiny{$92.16 \pm 0.18$} & \tiny{$91.21 \pm 0.18$} & \tiny{$61.22 \pm 1.15$} & \tiny{$61.84 \pm 0.93$} & \tiny{$43.63 \pm 0.65$} & \tiny{$43.23 \pm 0.83$}\\
\cline{2-8}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{std-d}}}$ & $87.66 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.40$} & $90.12 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.23$} & $43.81\pm0.58$ & \cellcolor{blue!25}$\mathbf{45.33}$ \tiny{$\pm0.82$} & $4.21 $ \tiny{$\pm 1.76$} & $10.53 $ \tiny{$\pm 1.48$}\\
& & \tiny{($94.34 \pm 0.07$)} & \tiny{($94.07 \pm 0.07$)} & \tiny{$74.61\pm0.15$} & \cellcolor{blue!25}\tiny{$73.67\pm0.05$} & \tiny{($59.66 \pm 0.18$)} & \tiny{($56.55 \pm 0.15$)}\\
\cline{2-8}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}}$ & \cellcolor{blue!25} $\mathbf{90.94} $ \tiny{$\pm 0.16$} & $85.14 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.47$} & $42.96$ \tiny{$\pm0.99$} & $27.59\pm0.86$ & ${17.75} $ \tiny{$\pm 1.19$} & $6.00 $ \tiny{$\pm 1.65$}\\
&\tiny{(teacher val)} & \cellcolor{blue!25}\tiny{($92.54 \pm 0.05$)} & \tiny{($89.58 \pm 0.11$)} & \tiny{($68.71\pm0.15$)} & \tiny{($54.79\pm0.23$)} & \tiny{($47.81 \pm 0.13$)} & \tiny{($39.49 \pm 0.14$)}\\
\cline{2-8}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}}$ & $89.37 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.17$} & $87.32 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.21$} & $40.36$ \tiny{$\pm 0.72$} & $42.68\pm0.74$ & $14.70 $ \tiny{$\pm 1.65$} & $16.16 $ \tiny{$\pm 1.42$}\\
&\tiny{(one-hot val)} & \tiny{($91.63 \pm 0.06$)} & \tiny{($91.16 \pm 0.10$)} & \tiny{($61.49\pm0.22$)} & \tiny{($62.03\pm0.24$)} & \tiny{($50.16 \pm 0.18$)} & \tiny{($44.39 \pm 0.23$)} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{p{0.1cm}c||c|c|c||c|c|c||}
\toprule
& & \multicolumn{3}{c||}{\textbf{CIFAR-10-LT} Teacher Obj.} & \multicolumn{3}{c||}{\textbf{CIFAR-100-LT} Teacher Obj.} \\
& & $L^{\textrm{\textup{std}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{bal}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{std}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{bal}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$ \\
\midrule
\multirow{14}{*}{\rotatebox{90}{Student Obj.}}
& none & $57.26 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.55$} & $68.52 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.52$} & $74.8 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.30$} & $0.00 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.00$} & $3.75 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.62$} & $10.33 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.82$} \\
&& \tiny{($76.27 \pm 0.20$)} & \tiny{($79.85 \pm 0.20$)} & \tiny{($80.29 \pm 0.12$)} & \tiny{($43.33 \pm 0.16$)} & \tiny{($47.55 \pm 0.17$)} & \tiny{($44.27 \pm 0.13$)}\\
\cline{2-8}
& Post & $74.33 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.27$} & $73.60 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.46$} & $73.93 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.35$} & $6.28 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.84$} & $8.89 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.69$} & $10.01 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.72$} \\
& shift & \tiny{($78.28 \pm 0.15$)} & \tiny{($77.92 \pm 0.19$)} & \tiny{($77.93 \pm 0.12$)} & \tiny{($27.93 \pm 0.46$)} & \tiny{($28.70 \pm 0.38$)} & \tiny{($29.88 \pm 0.61$)}\\
\cline{2-8}
& Ada & $47.52 $ \tiny{$\pm0.95$} & $66.74 $ \tiny{$\pm0.35$} & $70.33 $ \tiny{$\pm0.50$} & $0.00 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.00$} & $0.00 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.00$} & $12.46 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.36$} \\
& Margin & \tiny{($72.69\pm0.24$)} & \tiny{($78.20\pm0.09$)} & \tiny{($78.87\pm0.12$)} & \tiny{($31.26 \pm 0.21$)} & \tiny{($34.06 \pm 0.12$)} & \tiny{($42.90 \pm 0.07$)}\\
\cline{2-8}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{std-d}}}$ & $36.67 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.28$} & $66.96 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.43$} & $71.15 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.24$} & $0.00 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.00$} & $2.39 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.24$} & $7.32 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.47$} \\
&&\tiny{($69.5 \pm 0.13$)} & \tiny{($79.25 \pm 0.10$)} & \tiny{($80.95 \pm 0.11$)} &\tiny{($43.86 \pm 0.14$)} & \tiny{($48.95 \pm 0.15$)} & \tiny{($47.93 \pm 0.11$)}\\
\cline{2-8}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{bal-d}}}$ & $71.23 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.44$} & $70.52 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.20$} & $72.96 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.53$} & $4.39 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.65$} & $7.08 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.80$} & $7.19 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.79$} \\
&& \tiny{($80.5 \pm 0.12$)} & \tiny{($81.12 \pm 0.08$)} & \tiny{($80.71 \pm 0.07$)} & \tiny{($50.4 \pm 0.11$)} & \tiny{($50.1 \pm 0.09$)} & \tiny{($47.51\pm 0.20$)}\\
\cline{2-8}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}}$ & $63.85 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.21$} & \cellcolor{blue!25}$\mathbf{75.56} $ \tiny{$\pm 0.19$} & $69.21 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.45$} & $9.05 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.71$} & $12.52 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.98$} & $10.32 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.76$} \\
& \tiny{(teacher val)} & \tiny{($76.81 \pm 0.08$)} & \cellcolor{blue!25}\tiny{($80.81\pm 0.08$)} & \tiny{($76.72 \pm 0.19$)} & \tiny{($33.75 \pm 0.10$)} & \tiny{($34.05 \pm 0.09$)} & \tiny{($36.83 \pm 0.15$)}\\
\cline{2-8}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}}$ & $73.59 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.25$} & $75.43 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.38$} & $74.7 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.19$} & $12.28 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.46$} & $11.94 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.80$} & \cellcolor{blue!25}$\mathbf{13.18} $ \tiny{$\pm 0.61$} \\
& \tiny{(one-hot val)} & \tiny{($77.92 \pm 0.05$)} & \tiny{($79.02 \pm 0.07$)} & \tiny{($77.99 \pm 0.10$} & \tiny{($30.79 \pm 0.18$)} & \tiny{($29.8 \pm 0.20$)} & \cellcolor{blue!25}\tiny{($31.88 \pm 0.20$}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\end{table*}
\textbf{Datasets.} We evaluate each robust distillation objective across different image dataset benchmarks: (i) CIFAR-10, (ii) CIFAR-100 \cite{Krizhevsky09learningmultiple}, and (iii) TinyImageNet (a subset of ImageNet with 200 classes; \citet{le2015tiny}). We also include long tailed versions of each dataset \cite{cui2019class}.
Details on sampling the long tailed versions of the datasets
and additional results on the full ImageNet dataset \citep{ILSVRC15} are given in Appendix \ref{app:experiment_details}.
For all datasets, we randomly split the original default test set in half to create our validation set and test set. We use the same validation and test sets for the long-tailed training sets as we do for the original versions, following the convention in prior work \cite{menon2020long, narasimhan2021training}.
\textbf{Architectures.} We evaluate our distillation protocols in both a self-distillation and compression setting. On all CIFAR datasets, all teachers were trained with the ResNet-56 architecture and students were trained with either ResNet-56 or ResNet-32.
On TinyImageNet, teachers and students were trained with ResNet-18.
On ImageNet, teachers and students were trained with ResNet-34 and ResNet-18.
This is as done by \citet{lukasik2021teachers} and \citet{he2016deep}, where more details on these architectures can be found (see, e.g., Table 7 in \citet{lukasik2021teachers}).
\textbf{Hyperparameters.}
We apply temperature scaling to the teacher score distributions, i.e., compute $p^t(x) = \textrm{\textup{softmax}}(f^t(x) / \gamma)$, and vary the temperature parameter $\gamma$ over a range of $\{1, 3, 5\}$.
Unless otherwise specified, the temperature hyperparameters were chosen to achieve the best worst-class accuracy on the validation set. A higher temperature produces a softer probability distribution over classes \citep{Hinton2015DistillingTK}.
When teacher labels are applied to the validation set (see Section \ref{sec:algorithms}), we additionally include a temperature of 0.1 to approximate a hard thresholding of the teacher probabilities. We closely mimic the learning rate and regularization settings from prior work \cite{menon2020long,narasimhan2021training}. In keeping with the theory, the regularization ensures that the losses are bounded.
See Appendix \ref{app:experiment_details} for further details.
\textbf{Baselines.}
We compare the robust distillation objectives with the following:
\textit{(i)} \textbf{No distillation:} Models trained without distillation using each objective: $L^{\textrm{\textup{std}}}$, $L^{\textrm{\textup{bal}}}$, and $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$. We also include a comparison to group DRO \cite{Sagawa2020Distributionally} without distillation in Appendix \ref{app:experiment_details} which differs from our robust objective $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$ in that we apply a margin-based loss with a validation set.
\textit{(ii)} \textbf{Standard distillation without robustness:} Standard distillation protocol where both the teacher and student are trained with $L^{\textrm{\textup{std}}}$, $L^{\textrm{\textup{std-d}}}$, respectively.
\textit{(iii)} \textbf{Post-shifting:}
Following Section \ref{sec:theory}, we evaluate a post-shift approach
that directly constructs a new scoring model by making post-hoc adjustments to the teacher,
so as to maximize the robust accuracy on the validation sample \citep{narasimhan2021training}.
\textit{(iv)} \textbf{AdaMargin and AdaAlpha \citep{lukasik2021teachers}:}
Both Ada* techniques are motivated by the observation that the margin defined for each class $y$ by $\gamma_{\rm avg}( y, p^{\rm t}( x ) ) = p^{\rm t}_y( x ) - \frac{1}{m - 1} \sum_{y' \neq y} p^{\rm t}_{y'}( x )$
correlates with whether distillation improves over one-hot training \cite{lukasik2021teachers}.
AdaMargin uses that quantity as a margin in the distillation loss, whereas AdaAlpha uses it to adaptively mix between the one-hot and distillation losses.
\textbf{Which teacher/student combo is most robust?}
For each objective and baseline,
we report the \textit{standard accuracy} over the test set (see \eqref{eq:std}), as well as the \textit{worst-class accuracy}, which we define to be the minimum per-class recall over all classes (see \eqref{eq:robust}).
For the long-tail datasets, we follow the convention in
\citet{menon2020long} of reporting \textit{balanced accuracy} (see \eqref{eq:balanced}) instead of standard
accuracy.
In each case, we use the 0-1 loss for evaluation.
Table \ref{tab:combos} shows results for various combinations of the proposed robust objectives and baselines.
Across all datasets, the combination with best worst-class objective had at least one of either the teacher or the student apply the robust objective ($L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$ or $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}}$). These combinations also achieve higher worst-class accuracy compared to the post-shift and AdaMargin techniques; although pairing these techniques with robust teachers could be competitive. Interestingly, post-shift was often seen to over-fit to the validation set, resulting in poorer test performance.
As another comparison point, prior work by \cite{narasimhan2021training} also perform distillation with a standard teacher ($L^{\textrm{\textup{std}}}$) and robust student ($L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$) with true one-hot labels on the validation set. In comparison to this, the new set of proposed robust combinations still achieves gains.
An inspection of the first row of Table \ref{tab:combos} reveals counter-intuitively that the teacher's worst-class accuracy is not a direct predictor of the robustness of a subsequent student. This couples with our theoretical understanding in Section \ref{sec:theory}, which showed that the ability of a teacher to train good students is determined by the calibration of scores within each class.
Perhaps surprisingly, it did not always benefit the robust student ($L^{\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}}$) to utilize the true one-hot labels in the validation set. Instead, training the robust student with teacher labels on the validation set was sufficient to achieve the best worst-class performance. This is promising from a data efficiency standpoint, since it can be expensive to build up a labeled dataset for validation, especially if the training data is long-tailed.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\vskip -0.2in
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\includegraphics[trim={2.8cm 0 2.8cm 0},clip,width=0.11\textwidth]{figures/legend_cf10lt_arch32_onehot.pdf} & \includegraphics[trim={0 0.2cm 0 0.1cm},clip,width=0.4\textwidth]{figures/plot_cf10lt_arch32_onehot} & \includegraphics[trim={0 0.2cm 0 0.1cm},clip,width=0.415\textwidth]{figures/plot_cf100lt_arch32_onehot}
\end{tabular}
\vspace{-5pt}
\caption{Trade-offs in worst-class test accuracy vs. balanced test accuracy for CIFAR-10-LT \textit{(left)} and CIFAR-100-LT \textit{(right)}, with ResNet-56 teachers and ResNet-32 students trained with one-hot validation labels.
Robust teacher/student combinations produce points that are more Pareto efficient than the ResNet-56 teachers alone. Additional plots in Appendix \ref{app:tradeoff_plots} show similar results for self distillation and teacher validation labels. Mean test performance over 10 runs is shown.
}
\label{fig:tradeoffs_cf-lt_32_onehot}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.3in
\end{figure*}
\textbf{Trading off balanced vs. worst-class accuracy.} We also evaluate the robust objectives in a setting where distillation is used for efficiency gains by distilling a larger teacher into a smaller student.
In Figure \ref{fig:tradeoffs_cf-lt_32_onehot}, we plot the full trade-off between balanced accuracy and worst-class accuracy for the robust distillation protocols. Each point represents the outcome of a given combination of teacher and student objectives, where the teacher optimizes $L^{\textrm{\textup{tdf}}}$ with tradeoff parameter $\alpha^t$, and the student optimizes $L^{\textrm{\textup{tdf-d}}}$ with tradeoff parameter $\alpha^s$.
Strikingly, Figure \ref{fig:tradeoffs_cf-lt_32_onehot} shows that ResNet-32 students distilled with robust trade-offs can be more Pareto efficient than even the larger ResNet-56 teacher models. Thus, distillation with combinations of robust losses not only helps worst-case accuracy, but also achieves better trade-offs with balanced accuracy. Similar trends prevail across our experiment setups, including self distillation and the original non-long-tailed datasets (see Appendix \ref{app:experiment_details}).
Overall, we demonstrate empirically and theoretically the value of applying different combinations of teacher-student objectives, not only for improving worst-class accuracy, but also to achieve efficient trade-offs between average and worst-class accuracy.
Future avenues for exploration include experiments with mixtures of label types and effects of properties of the data on robustness.
\section{Problem Setup}
\label{sec:prelims}
We are interested in a multi-class classification problem with instance space $\mathcal{X}$
and output space $[m] = \{1, \ldots, m\}$. Let $D$ denote the underlying data distribution over $\mathcal{X} \times [m]$, and
$D_{\mathcal{X}}$ denote the marginal distribution over $\mathcal{X}$.
Let $\Delta_m$ denote the $(m-1)$-dimensional probability simplex over $m$ classes.
We define the
conditional-class probability as $\eta_y(x) = \P(Y=y|X=x)$ and the class priors $\pi_y = \P(Y=y)$.
Note that $\pi_y = \mathbb{E}_{X \sim D_\mathcal{X}}\left[ \eta_y(X) \right]$.
\textbf{Learning objectives.}
Our goal is to learn a multiclass classifier $h: \mathcal{X} \> [m]$ that maps an instance $x \in \mathcal{X}$ to one of $m$ classes.
We will do so by first learning a scoring function $f: \mathcal{X} \> \mathbb{R}^m$ that assigns scores $[f_1(x), \ldots, f_m(x)] \in \mathbb{R}^m$ to a given instance $x$,
and construct the classifier by predicting the class with the highest score: $h(x) = \argmax{j \in [m]}\,f_j(x)$. We will
denote a softmax transformation of $f$ by $\textrm{\textup{softmax}}_y(f(x)) = \frac{\exp( f_y(x) ) }{\sum_j \exp( f_j(x) )}$,
and use the notation $\textrm{\textup{softmax}}_y(f(x)) \propto z_y$ to indicate that $\textrm{\textup{softmax}}_y(f(x)) = \frac{z_y}{\sum_{j=1}^m z_j}$.
We measure the efficacy of the scoring function $f$ using a loss function $\ell: [m] \times \mathbb{R}^m \> \mathbb{R}_+$
that assigns a penalty $\ell(y, z)$ for predicting score vector $z \in \mathbb{R}^m$ for true label $y$. Examples of loss functions include the
0-1 loss: $\ell^\textrm{\textup{0-1}}(y, z) = \mathbf{1}\left(z \ne \argmax{j}\,f_j(x) \right)$,
and the softmax cross-entropy loss: $\ell^\textrm{\textup{xent}}(y, z) = \textstyle -f_y(x) + \log\big( \sum_{j \in [m]} \exp\left( f_j(x) \right) \big)$.
\textit{Standard objective:} A standard machine learning goal entails minimizing the overall expected risk:
\begin{equation}
L^\textrm{\textup{std}}(f) = \mathbb{E}\left[\ell(Y, f(X))\right].
\label{eq:std}
\end{equation}
\textit{Balanced objective:} In applications where the classes are severely imbalanced, i.e.,
the class priors $\pi_y$ are non-uniform and significantly skewed,
one may wish to instead optimize a \emph{balanced} version of the above objective,
where we average over the conditional loss for each class. Notice that the
conditional loss for class $y$ is weighted by the inverse of its prior:
\allowdisplaybreaks
\begin{align}
L^\textrm{\textup{bal}}(f)
&= \frac{1}{m}\sum_{y \in [m]} \mathbb{E}\left[\ell(y, f(X))\,|\, Y = y \right]
~=~ \frac{1}{m}\sum_{y \in [m]} \frac{1}{\pi_y}\mathbb{E}_X\left[ \eta_y(X)\,\ell(y, f(X)) \right].
\label{eq:balanced}
\end{align}
\textit{Robust objective:} A more stringent objective would be to focus on the worst-performing class, and
minimize a \emph{robust} version of
\eqref{eq:std} that computes
the worst among the $m$
conditional losses:
\begin{align}
L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(f)
&= \max_{y \in [m]} \frac{1}{\pi_y}\mathbb{E}\left[ \eta_y(X)\,\ell(y, f(X)) \right].
\label{eq:robust}
\end{align}
In practice, focusing solely on either the average or the worst-case performance may not
be an acceptable solution, and therefore, in this paper, we will additionally seek to characterize the
trade-off between the balanced and robust objectives. One way to achieve this trade-off is to minimize the robust objective, while constraining the balanced objective to
be within an acceptable range. This constrained optimization can be equivalently formulated as optimizing a convex combination of the balanced and robust objectives, for trade-off
$\alpha \in [0,1]$:
\begin{align}
L^\textrm{\textup{tdf}}(f)
&= (1 - \alpha) L^\textrm{\textup{bal}}(f) + \alpha L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(f).
\label{eq:trade-off}
\end{align}
A similar trade-off can also be specified between the standard and robust objectives.
To better understand the differences between the standard, balanced and robust objectives in \eqref{eq:std}--\eqref{eq:trade-off},
we look at the optimal scoring function for each given a cross-entropy loss:
\begin{theorem}[\textbf{Bayes-optimal scorers}]
\label{thm:bayes}
When $\ell$ is
the cross-entropy loss $\ell^\textrm{\textup{xent}}$,
the minimizers of \eqref{eq:std}--\eqref{eq:robust} over all measurable functions $f: \mathcal{X} \> \mathbb{R}^m$ are given
by:
\begin{tabular}{llll}
\textit{(i)} $L^\textrm{\textup{std}}(f)$: & $\textrm{\textup{softmax}}_y( f^{*}(x) ) \,=\, \eta_y(x)$ & \textit{(ii)} $L^\textrm{\textup{bal}}(f)$: & $\textrm{\textup{softmax}}_y( f^{*}(x) ) \,\propto\, \frac{1}{\pi_y}\eta_y(x)$ \\
\textit{(iii)} $L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(f)$: & $\textrm{\textup{softmax}}_y( f^{*}(x) ) \,\propto\, \frac{\lambda_y}{\pi_y}\eta_y(x)$ & \textit{(iv)} $L^\textrm{\textup{tdf}}(f)$: & $\textrm{\textup{softmax}}_y( f^{*}(x) ) \,\propto\, \frac{(1 - \alpha)\frac{1}{m} + \alpha\lambda'_y}{\pi_y}\eta_y(x),$
\end{tabular}
for class-specific constants $\lambda, \lambda' \in \mathbb{R}^m_+$ that depend on distribution $D$.
\vspace{-5pt}
\end{theorem}
All proofs are provided in Appendix \ref{app:proofs}.
Interestingly, the optimal scorers for all four objectives involve a simple scaling of the conditional-class probabilities $\eta_y(x)$.
\section{Proofs}
\label{app:proofs}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:bayes}}
\label{app:proof-bayes}
(i) The first result follows from the fact that the cross-entropy loss is a proper composite loss \citep{williamson2016composite} with the softmax function as the associated (inverse) link function.
(ii) For a proof of the second result, please see \citet{menon2020long}.
(iii) Below, we provide a proof for the third result.
The minimization of the robust objective in \eqref{eq:robust} over $f$ can be re-written as
a min-max optimization problem:
\begin{align}
\min_{f: \mathcal{X} \> \mathbb{R}^m}\,L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(f) = \min_{f: \mathcal{X} \> \mathbb{R}^m}\,\max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}
\underbrace{
\sum_{y=1}^m \frac{\lambda_y}{\pi_y}\mathbb{E}\left[ \eta_y(X)\,\ell(y, f(X)) \right]}_{\omega(\lambda, f)}.
\label{eq:min-max}
\end{align}
The min-max objective $\omega(\lambda, f)$ is clearly linear in $\lambda$ (for fixed $f$) and
with $\ell$ chosen to be the cross-entropy loss, is convex in $f$ (for fixed $\lambda$), i.e.,
$\omega(\lambda, \kappa f_1 + (1-\kappa) f_2) \leq \kappa\omega(\lambda, f_1) + (1-\kappa) \omega(\lambda, f_2), \,\forall f_1, f_2:\mathcal{X}\>\mathbb{R}^m, \kappa\in [0,1]$. Furthermore, $\Delta_m$ is a convex compact set, while the domain of $f$ is convex. It follows
from Sion's minimax theorem \citep{sion1958general} that:
\begin{align}
\min_{f: \mathcal{X} \> \mathbb{R}^m}\max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\,\omega(\lambda, f)
&=\, \max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\min_{f: \mathcal{X} \> \mathbb{R}^m}\,\omega(\lambda, f).
\label{eq:min-max-swap}
\end{align}
Let $(\lambda^*, f^*)$ be such that:
\[
\lambda^* \in \Argmax{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\min_{f: \mathcal{X} \> \mathbb{R}^m}\,\omega(\lambda, f);~~~~~
f^* \in \Argmin{f: \mathcal{X} \> \mathbb{R}^m}\max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\,\omega(\lambda, f),
\]
where for any fixed $\lambda \in \Delta_m$, owing to the use of the cross-entropy loss, a minimizer $f^*$
always exists for $\omega(\lambda, f)$, and is given by $f^*_y(x) = \log\left(\frac{\lambda_y}{\pi_y}\eta_y(x)\right) + C,$ for some $C\in \mathbb{R}$.
We then have from \eqref{eq:min-max-swap}:
\begin{align*}
\omega(\lambda^*, f^*) &\leq\, \max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\, \omega(\lambda, f^*)\\
&=\, \min_{f: \mathcal{X} \> \mathbb{R}^m}\max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\,\omega(\lambda, f)
\,=\, \max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\min_{f: \mathcal{X} \> \mathbb{R}^m}\,\omega(\lambda, f)\\
&=\,\min_{f: \mathcal{X} \> \mathbb{R}^m}\,\omega(\lambda^*, f)
\,\leq\, \omega(\lambda^*, f^*),
\end{align*}
which tells us that there exists $(\lambda^*, f^*)$ is a saddle-point for
\eqref{eq:min-max}, i.e.,
\begin{align*}
\omega(\lambda^*, f^*) &= \max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\, \omega(\lambda, f^*) \,=\, \min_{f: \mathcal{X} \> \mathbb{R}^m}\, \omega(\lambda^*, f).
\label{eq:saddle-point}
\end{align*}
Consequently, we have:
\begin{align*}
L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(f^*) &=\,
\max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\, \omega(\lambda, f^*) \,=\,
\min_{f: \mathcal{X} \> \mathbb{R}^m}\, \omega(\lambda^*, f)\\
&\leq\, \max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\min_{f: \mathcal{X} \> \mathbb{R}^m}\, \omega(\lambda, f)
\,=\, \min_{f: \mathcal{X} \> \mathbb{R}^m}\max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\, \omega(\lambda, f)\\
&=\, \min_{f: \mathcal{X} \> \mathbb{R}^m}\,L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(f),
\end{align*}
where the last equality follows from \eqref{eq:min-max}.
We thus have that $f^*$ is a minimizer of $L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(f)$
Furthermore, because $f^*$ is a minimizer of $\omega(\lambda^*, f)$ over $f$, i.e.,\
\[
f^* \in \Argmin{f: \mathcal{X} \> \mathbb{R}^m} \sum_{y=1}^m \frac{\lambda_y^*}{\pi_y}\mathbb{E}\left[ \eta_y(X)\,\ell(y, f(X)) \right],
\]
it follows that:
$$
\textrm{\textup{softmax}}_y(f^*(x)) \,\propto\, \frac{\lambda^*_y}{\pi_y}\eta_y(x).
$$
(iv) For the fourth result, we expand the traded-off objective,
and re-write it as:
\begin{align*}
L^\textrm{\textup{tdf}}(f)
&= (1 - \alpha) L^\textrm{\textup{bal}}(f) + \alpha L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(f)\\
&=
(1-\alpha)\frac{1}{m}\sum_{y=1}^m \frac{1}{\pi_y}\mathbb{E}\left[ \eta_y(X)\,\ell(y, f(X)) \right]
\,+\,
\alpha \max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\,\sum_{y=1}^m \frac{\lambda_y}{\pi_y}\mathbb{E}\left[ \eta_y(X)\,\ell(y, f(X)) \right]\\
&= \max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}
\underbrace{
\sum_{y=1}^m \left((1-\alpha)\frac{1}{m} + \alpha\lambda_y\right)\frac{1}{\pi_y}\mathbb{E}\left[ \eta_y(X)\,\ell(y, f(X)) \right]}_{\omega(\lambda, f)}.
\label{eq:trade-off}
\end{align*}
For a fixed $\lambda$, $\omega(\lambda, f)$ is convex in $f$ (as the loss $\ell$ is the cross-entropy loss),
and for a fixed $f$, $\omega(\lambda, f)$ is linear in $\lambda$. Following the same steps as the proof of (iii), we have that there exists $(\lambda^*, f^*)$ such that
\[
L^\textrm{\textup{tdf}}(f^*) \,=\,
\max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\, \omega(\lambda, f^*) \,=\,
\min_{f: \mathcal{X} \> \mathbb{R}^m}\,L^\textrm{\textup{tdf}}(f),
\]
and
\[
f^* \in \Argmin{f: \mathcal{X} \> \mathbb{R}^m}\,
\sum_{y=1}^m \left((1-\alpha)\frac{1}{m} + \alpha\lambda^*_y\right)\frac{1}{\pi_y}\mathbb{E}\left[ \eta_y(X)\,\ell(y, f(X)) \right],
\]
which, owing to the properties of the cross-entropy loss, then gives us the desired form for $f^*$.
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:good-teacher}}
\label{app:proof-good-teacher}
\begin{proof}
Expanding the left-hand side, we have:
\begin{align*}
|\hat{L}^\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}(f) - L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(f)|
&\leq |\hat{L}^\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}(f) - {L}^\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}(f) + {L}^\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}(f) - L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(f)|\\
&\leq |\hat{L}^\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}(f) - {L}^\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}(f)| + |{L}^\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}(f) - L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(f)|\\
&=
|\hat{L}^\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}(f) - {L}^\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}(f)| + \left|
\max_{y \in [m]} \frac{ \mathbb{E}_{x}\left[ p^t_y(x)\,\ell(y, f(x)) \right] }{ \mathbb{E}_x\left[ p^t_y(x) \right] } -
\max_{y \in [m]} \frac{ \mathbb{E}_{x}\left[ \eta_y(x)\,\ell(y, f(x)) \right] }{ \pi_y } \right|\\
&\leq
|\hat{L}^\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}(f) - {L}^\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}(f)| + \max_{y \in [m]} \left|
\frac{ \mathbb{E}_{x}\left[ p^t_y(x)\,\ell(y, f(x)) \right] }{ \mathbb{E}_x\left[ p^t_y(x) \right] } -
\frac{ \mathbb{E}_{x}\left[ \eta_y(x)\,\ell(y, f(x)) \right] }{ \pi_y } \right|\\
&\leq
|\hat{L}^\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}(f) - {L}^\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}(f)| +
B\max_{y \in [m]} \mathbb{E}_x\left[
\left| \frac{p^t_y(x)}{\mathbb{E}_x\left[ p^t_y(x) \right]} \,-\, \frac{\eta_y(x)}{\pi_y} \right|\ell(y, f(x))\right]\\
&\leq
|\hat{L}^\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}(f) - {L}^\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}(f)| +
B\max_{y \in [m]} \mathbb{E}_x\left[
\left| \frac{p^t_y(x)}{\mathbb{E}_x\left[ p^t_y(x) \right]} \,-\, \frac{\eta_y(x)}{\pi_y} \right|\right],
\end{align*}
where the second-last step uses Jensen's inequality and the fact that $\ell(y, f(x)) \geq 0$,
and the last step uses the fact that $\ell(y, f(x)) \leq B$.
Further expanding the first term,
\begin{align*}
|\hat{L}^\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}(f) - L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(f)|
&\leq
\left|
\max_{y \in [m]} \phi_y(f)
\,-\,
\max_{y \in [m]} \hat{\phi}_y(f)
\right|
+
B\max_{y \in [m]} \mathbb{E}_x\left[
\left| \frac{p^t_y(x)}{\mathbb{E}_x\left[ p^t_y(x) \right]} \,-\, \frac{\eta_y(x)}{\pi_y} \right|\right]\\
&\leq
\max_{y \in [m]}\left|
\phi_y(f)
\,-\,
\hat{\phi}_y(f)
\right|
+
B\max_{y \in [m]} \mathbb{E}_x\left[
\left| \frac{p^t_y(x)}{\mathbb{E}_x\left[ p^t_y(x) \right]} \,-\, \frac{\eta_y(x)}{\pi_y} \right|\right],
\end{align*}
as desired.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Calibration of Margin-based Loss $\mathcal{L}^\textrm{\textup{mar}}$}
\label{app:calibration-mar}
To show that minimizer of the margin-based objective in \eqref{eq:margin-la} also minimizes
the balanced objective in \eqref{eq:balanced-distilled-empirical}, we state the following general result:
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:helper-dro-1}
Suppose $p^t \in \mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{F}$ is closed under linear transformations.
Let
\begin{align}
\hat{f} &\in\, \displaystyle\Argmin{f \in \mathcal{F}}\, \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \mathcal{L}^\textrm{\textup{mar}}\left(p^t(x_i), f(x_i); \mathbf{c} \right)
\label{eq:margin-empirical}
\end{align}
for some cost vector $\mathbf{c} \in \mathbb{R}_+^m$. Then:
\[
\hat{f}_y(x_i) = \log\left(c_y p_y^t(x_i)\right) + C_i, ~~\forall i \in [n],
\]
for some example-specific constant constants $C_i \in \mathbb{R}, \forall i \in [n]$. Furthermore,
for any assignment of example weights of $w \in \mathbb{R}^n_+$,
$\hat{f}$ is also the minimizer of
the weighted objective:
\begin{align}
\hat{f} \,\in\, \displaystyle\Argmin{f \in \mathcal{F}}\,\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n w_i\sum_{y=1}^m c_y\, p_y^t(x_i)\, \ell\left( y , {f}(x_i) \right).
\label{eq:weighted-loss-empirical}
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof
Following \citet{menon2020long} (e.g.\ proof of Theorem 1), we have that
for class probabilities $\mathbf{p} \in \Delta_m$ and costs $\mathbf{c} \in \mathbb{R}^m_+$,
the margin-based loss in \eqref{eq:margin-la}
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{L}^\textrm{\textup{mar}}\left(\mathbf{p}, \mathbf{f}; \mathbf{c} \right)
&=
\frac{1}{m}\sum_{y \in [m]} p_y \log\bigg(1 + \sum_{j \ne y}\exp\left(\log(c_y / c_{j}) \,-\, (f_y - f_j) \right) \bigg).
\end{align*}
is minimized by:
\[
f^*_y = \log\left(c_y p_y\right) + C,
\]
for any $C > 0$. To see why this is true, note that the above loss can be equivalently written as:
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{L}^\textrm{\textup{mar}}\left(\mathbf{p}, \mathbf{f}; \mathbf{c} \right)
&=
-\frac{1}{m}\sum_{y \in [m]} p_y \log\bigg(\frac{ \exp\left(f_y - \log(c_y) \right) }{ \sum_{j=1}^m \exp\left(f_j - \log(c_j) \right) } \bigg).
\end{align*}
This the same as the softmax cross-entropy loss with adjustments made to the logits, the minimizer for which is of the form:
\[
f^*_y - \log(c_y) = \log\left(p_y\right) + C~~~~\text{or}~~~~f^*_y = \log\left(c_y p_y\right) + C.
\]
It follows that any minimizer $\hat{f}$ of the
average margin-based loss in \eqref{eq:margin-empirical} over sample $S$,
would do so point-wise, and therefore
\begin{align*}
\hat{f}_y(x_i) = \log\left(c_y p_y^t(x_i)\right) + C_i, ~~\forall i \in [n],
\end{align*}
for some example-specific constant constants $C_i \in \mathbb{R}, \forall i \in [n]$.
To prove the second part, we note that for the minimizer $\hat{f}$ to also minimize
the weighted objective:
\[
\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n w_i\sum_{y=1}^m c_y\, p_y^t(x_i)\, \ell\left( y , {f}(x_i) \right),
\]
it would also have to do so point-wise for each $i \in [m]$, and so as long the weights $w_i$ are non-negative,
it suffices that
\[
\hat{f}(x_i) \in \Argmin{\mathbf{f} \in \mathbb{R}^m}\, \sum_{y=1}^m c_y\, p_y^t(x_i)\, \ell\left( y , {f}(x_i) \right).
\]
This is indeed the case when $\ell$ is the softmax cross-entropy loss, where
the point-wise minimizer for each $i \in [m]$ would be of the form $\textrm{\textup{softmax}}_y(f(x)) = c_y p^t_y(x)$,
which is satisfied by $\hat{f}$.
\end{proof}
A similar result also holds in the population limit, when \eqref{eq:margin-empirical}
and \eqref{eq:weighted-loss-empirical} are computed in expectation, and the per-example weighting in \eqref{eq:weighted-loss-empirical} is
replaced by an arbitrary weighting function $w(x) \in \mathbb{R}_+$. Any scorer of the following form
would then minimize both objectives:
\[
\hat{f}_y(x) = \log\left(c_y p_y^t(x)\right) + C(x), ~~\forall x \in \mathcal{X},
\]
where $C(x)$ is some example-specific constant.
\subsection{Proof of Proposition \ref{prop:student-form}}
\label{app:student-form}
\begin{proposition*}[Restated]
Suppose $p^t \in \mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{F}$ is closed under linear transformations. Then the final scoring function $\bar{f}^s(x) = \frac{1}{K} \sum_{k=1}^K f^{k}(x)$ output by Algorithm \ref{algo:dro} is of the form:
\[
\textrm{\textup{softmax}}_j(\bar{f}^s(x)) \propto \bar{\lambda}_j p_j^t(x),~~~~\forall j \in [m],~ \forall (x, y) \in S,
\]
where $\bar{\lambda}_y = \left(\prod_{k=1}^K \lambda_y^k / \pi^t_y\right)^{1/K}$.
\end{proposition*}
\begin{proof}
The proof follows from Lemma \ref{lem:helper-dro-1} with the costs $\mathbf{c}$ set to $\lambda^k / \pi^t$ for each iteration $k$.
The lemma tells us that each $f^k$ is of the form:
\[
f^k(x') = \log\left(\frac{\lambda^k_y}{\pi^t_y} p_y^t(x')\right) + C(x'), ~~\forall (x', y') \in S,
\]
for some example-specific constant $C(x') \in \mathbb{R}$. Consequently, we have that:
\[
\bar{f}_y^s(x') = \log(\bar{\lambda}_y p_y^t(x')) + \bar{C}(x'), ~~\forall (x', y') \in S,
\]
where $\bar{\lambda}_y = \left(\prod_{k=1}^K \lambda_y^k / \pi^t_y\right)^{1/K}$ and $\bar{C}(x') \in \mathbb{R}$. Applying a
softmax to $\bar{f}^s$ results in the desired form.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:dro}}
\label{app:convergence-dro}
\begin{theorem*}[Restated]
Suppose $p^t \in \mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{F}$ is closed under linear transformations. Suppose
$\ell$ is the softmax cross-entropy loss $\ell^\textrm{\textup{xent}}$,
$\ell(y, z) \leq B$
and $\max_{y \in [m]}\frac{1}{\pi^t_y} \leq Z$, for some $B, Z > 0$.
Furthermore, suppose for any $\delta \in (0,1)$, the following bound holds on the
estimation error in Theorem \ref{thm:good-teacher}:
with probability at least $1 - \delta$ (over draw of $S \sim D^n$),
for all $f \in \mathcal{F}$,
\[
\max_{y \in [m]} \big|\phi_y(f) - \hat{\phi}_y(f)\big| \leq \Delta(n, \delta),
\]
for some $\Delta(n, \delta) \in \mathbb{R}_+$ that
is increasing in $1/\delta$, and goes to 0 as $n \> \infty$. Fix $\delta \in (0,1)$.
Then when the step size $\gamma = \frac{1}{2BZ}\sqrt{\frac{\log(m)}{{K}}}$
and $n^\textrm{\textup{val}} \geq 8Z\log(2m/\delta)$, with
probability at least $1-\delta$ (over draw of $S \sim D^n$ and $S^\textrm{\textup{val}} \sim D^{n^\textrm{\textup{val}}}$)
\begin{align*}
L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(\bar{f}^s) &\leq\,
\min_{f \in \mathcal{F}}L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(f)
\,+\,
\underbrace{2B\max_{y \in [m]} \mathbb{E}_x\left[
\left| \frac{p^t_y(x)}{\pi^t_y} \,-\, \frac{\eta_y(x)}{\pi_y} \right|\right]}_{\text{Approximation error}}\\
&\hspace{4cm}
\,+\, \underbrace{2\Delta(n^\textrm{\textup{val}}, \delta/2) \,+\, 2\Delta(n, \delta/2)}_{\text{Estimation error}}
\,+\,
\underbrace{4BZ\sqrt{\frac{\log(m)}{{K}}}}_{\text{EG convergence}}.
\end{align*}
\end{theorem*}
Before proceeding to the proof, we will find it useful to define:
\begin{align*}
\displaystyle
\hat{\phi}^\textrm{\textup{val}}_y(f^s) &= \frac{1}{\hat{\pi}^{t,\textrm{\textup{val}}}_y}\frac{1}{n^\textrm{\textup{val}}}\sum_{(x', y') \in S^{\textrm{\textup{val}}}} p_y^t(x')\,\ell\left( y , f^s(x') \right).
\end{align*}
We then state a useful lemma.
\allowdisplaybreaks
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:helper-dro-2}
Suppose the conditions in Theorem \ref{thm:dro} hold.
Then with probability $\leq 1 - \delta$ (over draw of $S \sim D^{n}$ and $S^\textrm{\textup{val}} \sim D^{n^\textrm{\textup{val}}}$), at each iteration $k$,
\[
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \phi_y(f^{k+1})
\,-\,
\min_{f \in \mathcal{F}}\,\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \phi_y(f)
\leq 2\Delta(n, \delta);
\]
and for any $\lambda \in \Delta_m$:
\[
\left|\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y \hat{\phi}^\textrm{\textup{val}}_y(f^{k+1}) \,-\,
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y \phi_y(f^{k+1}) \right| ~\leq~ \Delta(n^\textrm{\textup{val}}, \delta).
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We first note that by applying Lemma \ref{lem:helper-dro-1} with $w_i = 1,\forall i$, we have that $f^{k+1}$ is the minimizer
of $\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \hat{\phi}_y(f)$ over all $f\in \mathcal{F}$, and therefore:
\begin{equation}
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \hat{\phi}_y(f^{k+1}) \,\leq\, \sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \hat{\phi}_y(f),~\forall f\in \mathcal{F}.
\label{eq:f-k+1-minimizer}
\end{equation}
Further, for a fixed iteration $k$, let us denote $\tilde{f} \in \Argmin{f \in \mathcal{F}}\, \sum_{y=1}^m\lambda^{k+1}_y \phi_y({f})$.
Then for the first part, we have:
\begin{align*}
\lefteqn{
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \phi_y(f^{k+1})
\,-\,
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \phi_y(\tilde{f})
}\\
&\leq
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \phi_y(f^{k+1})
\,-\,
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \hat{\phi}_y(f^{k+1})
\,+\, \sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \hat{\phi}_y(f^{k+1})
\,-\,
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \phi_y(\tilde{f})
\\
&\leq
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \phi_y(f^{k+1})
\,-\,
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \hat{\phi}_y(f^{k+1})
\,+\, \sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \hat{\phi}_y(\tilde{f})
\,-\,
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \phi_y(\tilde{f})
\\
&\leq
2\sup_{f \in \mathcal{F}}\left|
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \hat{\phi}_y(f)
\,-\,
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \phi_y(f)
\right|\\
&\leq
2\sup_{f \in \mathcal{F}}\max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\,
\left|\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y \hat{\phi}_y(f)
\,-\,
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y \phi_y(f)
\right|\\
&\leq
2 \sup_{f \in \mathcal{F}}\max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\,
\sum_{y=1}^m {\lambda_y}
\left|\hat{\phi}_y(f) \,-\, \phi_y(f) \right|
\\
&= 2\sup_{f \in \mathcal{F}}\max_{y \in [m]} \big|\hat{\phi}_y(f) - {\phi}_y(f)\big|.
\end{align*}
where for the second inequality, we use \eqref{eq:f-k+1-minimizer}.
Applying the generalization bound assumed in Theorem \ref{thm:dro},
we have with probability $\leq 1 - \delta$ (over draw of $S \sim D^{n}$), for all iterations $k \in [K]$,
\[
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \phi_y(f^{k+1})
\,-\,
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \phi_y(\tilde{f})
\,\leq\, 2\Delta(n, \delta),
\]
For the second part, note that for any $\lambda \in \Delta_m$,
\begin{align*}
\left|\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y \hat{\phi}^\textrm{\textup{val}}_y(f^{k+1}) \,-\,
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y \phi_y(f^{k+1}) \right| &\leq \sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y\left| \hat{\phi}^\textrm{\textup{val}}_y(f^{k+1}) \,-\,
\phi_y(f^{k+1})\right|\\
&\leq \max_{y\in[m]}\,\left| \hat{\phi}^\textrm{\textup{val}}_y(f^{k+1}) \,-\,
\phi_y(f^{k+1})\right|\\
&\leq \sup_{f\in \mathcal{F}}\max_{y\in[m]}\,\left| \hat{\phi}^\textrm{\textup{val}}_y(f) \,-\,
\phi_y(f)\right|.
\end{align*}
An application of the generalization bound assumed in Theorem \ref{thm:dro} to empirical estimates from the validation sample
completes the proof.
\end{proof}
We are now ready to prove Theorem \ref{thm:dro}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:dro}]
Note that because $\min_{y \in [m]}\pi^{t}_y \geq \frac{1}{Z}$ and $n^\textrm{\textup{val}} \geq 8Z\log(2m/\delta)$,
we have by a direct application of Chernoff's bound (along with a union bound over all $m$ classes) that with
probability at least $1-\delta/2$:
$$
\min_{y \in [m]}\hat{\pi}^{t,\textrm{\textup{val}}}_y \geq \frac{1}{2Z}, \forall y \in [m]
$$
and consequently,
$\hat{\phi}_y^\textrm{\textup{val}}(f) \leq 2BZ, \forall f \in \mathcal{F}$. The boundedness of $\hat{\phi}_y^\textrm{\textup{val}}$ will then allow us to apply standard convergence guarantees for exponentiated gradient ascent \citep{shalev2011online}. For $\gamma = \frac{1}{2BZ}\sqrt{\frac{\log(m)}{{K}}}$,
the updates on $\lambda$ will give us with
probability at least $1-\delta/2$:
\begin{equation}
\max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\,\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y \hat{\phi}_y^\textrm{\textup{val}}(f^k)
\,\leq\,
\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y^k \hat{\phi}_y^\textrm{\textup{val}}(f^k)
\,+\,
4BZ\sqrt{\frac{\log(m)}{{K}}}
\label{eq:phi-upper-bound}
\end{equation}
Applying the second part of Lemma \ref{lem:helper-dro-2} to each iteration $k$, we have
with probability at least $1-\delta$:
\[
\max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\,\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y {\phi}_y(f^k)
\,\leq\,
\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y^k {\phi}_y(f^k)
\,+\,
4BZ\sqrt{\frac{\log(m)}{{K}}} \,+\, 2\Delta(n^\textrm{\textup{val}}, \delta/2),
\]
and applying the first part of Lemma \ref{lem:helper-dro-2} to the RHS, we have with the same probability:
\begin{align*}
\lefteqn{
\max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\,\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y {\phi}_y(f^k)}\\
&\leq
\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K\min_{f \in \mathcal{F}}\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y^k {\phi}_y(f)
\,+\,
4BZ\sqrt{\frac{\log(m)}{{K}}} \,+\, 2\Delta(n^\textrm{\textup{val}}, \delta/2) \,+\, 2\Delta(n, \delta/2)\\
&\leq
\min_{f \in \mathcal{F}}\,\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y^k {\phi}_y(f)
\,+\,
4BZ\sqrt{\frac{\log(m)}{{K}}} \,+\, 2\Delta(n^\textrm{\textup{val}}, \delta/2) \,+\, 2\Delta(n, \delta/2).
\end{align*}
Note that we have taken a union bound over the high probability statement in \eqref{eq:phi-upper-bound} and that in Lemma \ref{lem:helper-dro-2}.
Using the convexity of $\phi(\cdot)$ in $f(x)$ and Jensen's inequality,
we have that $\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y {\phi}_y(\bar{f}^s) \leq \frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y {\phi}_y(f^k)$.
We use this to further lower bound the LHS
in terms of the averaged scoring function $\bar{f}^s(x) = \frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K f^k(x)$:
\begin{align}
\lefteqn{\max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\,\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y {\phi}_y(\bar{f}^s)}
\nonumber
\\
&\leq
\min_{f \in \mathcal{F}}\,\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y^k {\phi}_y(f)
\,+\,
4BZ\sqrt{\frac{\log(m)}{{K}}} \,+\, 2\Delta(n^\textrm{\textup{val}}, \delta/2) \,+\, 2\Delta(n, \delta/2)
\nonumber\\
&=
\min_{f \in \mathcal{F}}\,\sum_{y=1}^m \tilde{\lambda}_y {\phi}_y(f)
\,+\,
4BZ\sqrt{\frac{\log(m)}{{K}}} \,+\, 2\Delta(n^\textrm{\textup{val}}, \delta/2) \,+\, 2\Delta(n, \delta/2)
\nonumber\\
&\leq
\max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\min_{f \in \mathcal{F}}\,\sum_{y=1}^m {\lambda}_y {\phi}_y(f)
\,+\,
4BZ\sqrt{\frac{\log(m)}{{K}}} \,+\, 2\Delta(n^\textrm{\textup{val}}, \delta/2) \,+\, 2\Delta(n, \delta/2)
\nonumber\\
&=
\min_{f \in \mathcal{F}}\max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\,\sum_{y=1}^m {\lambda}_y {\phi}_y(f)
\,+\,
4BZ\sqrt{\frac{\log(m)}{{K}}} \,+\, 2\Delta(n^\textrm{\textup{val}}, \delta/2) \,+\, 2\Delta(n, \delta/2)
\nonumber\\
&=
\min_{f \in \mathcal{F}}\max_{y \in [m]}\, {\phi}_y(f)
\,+\,
4BZ\sqrt{\frac{\log(m)}{{K}}} \,+\, 2\Delta(n^\textrm{\textup{val}}, \delta/2) \,+\, 2\Delta(n, \delta/2),
\label{eq:dro-final}
\end{align}
where in the second step $\tilde{\lambda}_y = \frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K \lambda^k_y$;
in the fourth step, we swap the `min' and `max' using Sion's minimax theorem \citep{sion1958general}.
We further have from \eqref{eq:dro-final},
\begin{align*}
\max_{y \in [m]}\,{\phi}_y(\bar{f}^s)
&\leq
\min_{f \in \mathcal{F}}\max_{y \in [m]}\, {\phi}_y(f)
\,+\,
4BZ\sqrt{\frac{\log(m)}{{K}}} \,+\, 2\Delta(n^\textrm{\textup{val}}, \delta/2) \,+\, 2\Delta(n, \delta/2).
\end{align*}
In other words,
\[
L^\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}(\bar{f}^s)
\leq
\min_{f \in \mathcal{F}}L^\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}(f)
\,+\,
4BZ\sqrt{\frac{\log(m)}{{K}}} \,+\, 2\Delta(n^\textrm{\textup{val}}, \delta/2) \,+\, 2\Delta(n, \delta/2).
\]
To complete the proof, we need to turn this into a guarantee on the original robust objective $L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}$ in \eqref{eq:robust}:
\begin{align*}
\lefteqn{L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(\bar{f}^s)}\\
&\leq
\min_{f \in \mathcal{F}}L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(f)
\,+\, 2\max_{f \in \mathcal{F}}\,\left|L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(f) - L^\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}(f)\right|
\,+\,
4BZ\sqrt{\frac{\log(m)}{{K}}} \,+\, 2\Delta(n^\textrm{\textup{val}}, \delta/2) \,+\, 2\Delta(n, \delta/2)\\
&\leq
\min_{f \in \mathcal{F}}L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(f)
\,+\,
2B\max_{y \in [m]} \mathbb{E}_x\left[
\left| \frac{p^t_y(x)}{\pi^t_y} \,-\, \frac{\eta_y(x)}{\pi_y} \right|\right]
\,+\,
4BZ\sqrt{\frac{\log(m)}{{K}}} \,+\, 2\Delta(n^\textrm{\textup{val}}, \delta/2) \,+\, 2\Delta(n, \delta/2),
\end{align*}
where we have used the bound on the approximation error in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:good-teacher}.
This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\section{Student Estimation Error}
\label{app:student-gen-bound}
We now provide a bound on the estimation error in Theorem \ref{thm:dro} using a generalization bound from \citet{menon2021statistical}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:student-gen-bound}
Let $\mathcal{F} \subseteq \mathbb{R}^\mathcal{X}$ be a given class of scoring functions.
Let $\mathcal{V} \subseteq \mathbb{R}^\mathcal{X}$ denote the class of loss functions $v(x, y) = \ell(y, f(x))$ induced
by scorers $f \in \mathcal{F}$. Let $\mathcal{M}_n = \mathcal{N}_\infty(\frac{1}{n}, \mathcal{V}, 2n)$ denote the
uniform $L_\infty$ covering number for $\mathcal{V}$. Fix $\delta \in (0,1)$.
Suppose $\ell(y, z) \leq B$,
$\pi^t_y \leq \frac{1}{Z}, \forall y \in [m]$, and the
number of samples $n \geq 8Z\log(4m/\delta)$.
Then with probability $\geq 1 - \delta$
over draw of $S \sim D^n$, for any $f \in \mathcal{F}$ and $y \in [m]$:
\[
\left| \phi_y(f) - \hat{\phi}_y(f) \right|
\,\leq\,
CZ\left( \sqrt{\mathbb{V}_{n,y}(f) \frac{\log(m\mathcal{M}_n / \delta)}{n}} \,+\, \frac{\log(m\mathcal{M}_n / \delta)}{n}
\,+\,
B\sqrt{ \frac{\log(m/\delta)}{n} }\right),
\]
where $\mathbb{V}_{n,y}(f)$ denotes the empirical variance of the loss values $\{p^t_y(x_i)\cdot\ell(y, f(x_i))\}_{i=1}^n$ for class $y$, and
$C > 0$ is a distribution-independent constant.
\end{lemma}
Notice the dependence on the \emph{variance} that the teacher's prediction induce on the loss. This suggests that the lower the variance in the teacher's predictions, the better is the student's generalization. Similar to \citet{menon2021statistical}, one can further show that when the teacher closely approximates the Bayes-probabilities $\eta(x)$, the distilled loss $p^t_y(x_i)\cdot\ell(y, f(x_i))$ has a lower empirical variance that the loss $\ell(y_i, f(x_i))$ computed from one-hot labels.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{lem:student-gen-bound}]
We begin by defining the following intermediate term:
\[
\tilde{\phi}_y(f) =
\frac{1}{\pi^t_y}\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n p_y^t(x_i)\,\ell\left( y , f(x_i) \right).
\]
Then for any $y \in [m]$,
\begin{align}
\left| \phi_y(f) - \hat{\phi}_y(f) \right|
&\leq
\left| \phi_y(f) - \tilde{\phi}_y(f) \right|
+
\left| \tilde{\phi}_y(f) - \hat{\phi}_y(f) \right|.
\label{eq:genbound-inter}
\end{align}
We next bound each of the terms in \eqref{eq:genbound-inter}, starting with the first term:
\begin{align*}
\left| \phi_y(f) - \tilde{\phi}_y(f) \right|
&=
\frac{1}{\pi^t_y}
\left|
\mathbb{E}_x\left[ p_y^t(x)\, \ell\left( y , f(x) \right)\right] \,-\, \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n p_y^t(x_i)\,\ell\left( y , f(x_i) \right)
\right|
\\
&\leq
Z
\left|
\mathbb{E}_x\left[ p_y^t(x)\, \ell\left( y , f(x) \right)\right] \,-\, \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n p_y^t(x_i)\,\ell\left( y , f(x_i) \right)
\right|,
\end{align*}
where we use the fact that $\pi^t_y \leq \frac{1}{Z}, \forall y$.
Applying the generalization bound from \citet[Proposition 2]{menon2021statistical}, along with a union bound over all $m$ classes, we have with probability at least $1-\delta/2$ over the draw of $S \sim D^n$, for all $y \in [m]$:
\begin{align}
\left| \phi_y(f) - \tilde{\phi}_y(f) \right|
&\leq
C'Z\left( \sqrt{\mathbb{V}_{n,y}(f) \frac{\log(m\mathcal{M}_n / \delta)}{n}} \,+\, \frac{\log(m\mathcal{M}_n / \delta)}{n} \right),
\label{eq:genbound-term1}
\end{align}
for a distribution-independent constant $C' > 0$.
We next bound the second term in \eqref{eq:genbound-inter}:
\begin{align*}
\left| \tilde{\phi}_y(f) - \hat{\phi}_y(f) \right|
&=
\left|
\frac{1}{\pi^t_y}
\,-\,
\frac{1}{\hat{\pi}^t_y}
\right|
\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n p_y^t(x_i)\cdot\ell\left( y , f(x_i) \right)
\\
&\leq
B\left|
\frac{1}{\pi^t_y}
\,-\,
\frac{1}{\hat{\pi}^t_y}
\right|
\\
&=
\frac{B}{\pi^t_y\hat{\pi}^t_y}
\left|
{\pi}^t_y - \hat{\pi}^t_y
\right|,
\end{align*}
where in the second step we use the fact that $\ell(y, f(x)) \leq B$ and $p_y^t(x) \leq 1$.
Further note that because $\min_{y \in [m]}\pi^t_y \geq \frac{1}{Z}$ and $n \geq 8Z\log(4m/\delta)$,
we have by a direct application of Chernoff's bound (and a union bound over $m$ classes) that with
probability at least $1-\delta/4$:
\begin{equation}
\min_{y \in [m]}\hat{\pi}^t_y \geq \frac{1}{2Z}, \forall y \in [m].
\label{eq:pi-hat-bound}
\end{equation}
Therefore for any $y \in [m]$:
\begin{align*}
\left| \tilde{\phi}_y(f) - \hat{\phi}_y(f) \right|
&\leq
2BZ^2
\left|
{\pi}^t_y - \hat{\pi}^t_y
\right|.
\end{align*}
Conditioned on the above statement, a simple application of Hoeffdings and a union bound over all $y \in [m]$ gives us that with probability at least $1-\delta/4$ over the draw of $S \sim D^n$, for all $y \in [m]$:
\begin{align}
\left| \tilde{\phi}_y(f) - \hat{\phi}_y(f) \right|
&\leq
2BZ^2\left(\frac{1}{Z} \sqrt{
\frac{\log(8m/\delta)}{2n} }\right)
~=
2BZ \sqrt{ \frac{\log(8m/\delta)}{2n} }.
\label{eq:genbound-term2}
\end{align}
A union bound over the high probability statements in (\ref{eq:genbound-term1}--\ref{eq:genbound-term2}) completes the proof. To see this, note that, for any $\epsilon > 0$ and $y \in [m]$,
\begin{align*}
\lefteqn{\P\left( \left| {\phi}_y(f) - \hat{\phi}_y(f) \right| \geq \epsilon \right)}
\\
&\leq
\P\left(
\left(\left| {\phi}_y(f) - \tilde{\phi}_y(f) \right| \geq \epsilon\right)
\vee
\left(\left| \tilde{\phi}_y(f) - \hat{\phi}_y(f) \right| \geq \epsilon\right)
\right)\\
&\leq
\P\left(\left| {\phi}_y(f) - \tilde{\phi}_y(f) \right| \geq \epsilon\right)
\,+\,
\P\left(\left| \tilde{\phi}_y(f) - \hat{\phi}_y(f) \right| \geq \epsilon\right)\\
&\leq
\P\left(\left| {\phi}_y(f) - \tilde{\phi}_y(f) \right| \geq \epsilon\right)
\,+\,
\P\left(\hat{\pi}^t_y \leq \frac{1}{Z}\right) \cdot
\P\left(\left| \tilde{\phi}_y(f) - \hat{\phi}_y(f) \right| \geq \epsilon ~\bigg|~ \hat{\pi}^t_y \leq \frac{1}{Z}\right)
\\
&
\hspace{5cm}\,+\,
\P\left(\hat{\pi}^t_y \geq \frac{1}{Z}\right) \cdot
\P\left(\left| \tilde{\phi}_y(f) - \hat{\phi}_y(f) \right| \geq \epsilon ~\bigg|~ \hat{\pi}^t_y \geq \frac{1}{Z}\right)
\\
&\leq
\P\left(\left| {\phi}_y(f) - \tilde{\phi}_y(f) \right| \geq \epsilon\right)
\,+\,
\P\left(\hat{\pi}^t_y \leq \frac{1}{Z}\right)
\,+\,
\P\left(\left| \tilde{\phi}_y(f) - \hat{\phi}_y(f) \right| \geq \epsilon ~\bigg|~ \hat{\pi}^t_y \geq \frac{1}{Z}\right),
\end{align*}
which implies that a union bound over (\ref{eq:genbound-term1}--\ref{eq:genbound-term2}) would give us the desired result in Lemma \ref{lem:student-gen-bound}.
\end{proof}
\section{DRO with One-hot Validation Labels}
\label{app:one-hot-vali}
\begin{figure}
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{Distilled Margin-based DRO with One-hot Validation Labels
\label{algo:dro-val}
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE \textbf{Inputs:} Teacher $p^t$, Student hypothesis class $\mathcal{F}$, Training set $S$, Validation set $S^\textrm{\textup{val}}$, Step-size $\gamma \in \mathbb{R}_+$,
Number of iterations $K$, Loss $\ell$
\STATE \textbf{Initialize:} Student $f^0 \in \mathcal{F}$, Multipliers ${\lambda}^0 \in \Delta_m$
\STATE \textbf{For}~{$k = 0 $ to $K-1$}
\STATE ~~~$\tilde{\lambda}^{k+1}_j \,=\, \lambda^k_j\exp\big( \gamma \hat{R}_j \big), \forall j \in [m]$
\STATE \hspace{2cm}\text{where} $\hat{R}_j =$ $\displaystyle\frac{1}{n^\textrm{\textup{val}}}\frac{1}{\hat{\pi}^{\textrm{\textup{val}}}_j}\sum_{(x, y) \in S^\textrm{\textup{val}}} \ell( y , f^k(x) )$
and $\hat{\pi}^{\textrm{\textup{val}}}_j = \displaystyle\frac{1}{n^\textrm{\textup{val}}}\sum_{(x, y) \in S^\textrm{\textup{val}}} \mathbf{1}(y = j)$
\STATE ~~~$\lambda^{k+1}_y \,=\, \frac{\tilde{\lambda}^{k+1}_y}{\sum_{j=1}^m \tilde{\lambda}^{k+1}_j}, \forall y$
\STATE ~~~$f^{k+1} \,\in\, \displaystyle\Argmin{f \in \mathcal{F}}\, \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \mathcal{L}^\textrm{\textup{mar}}\left(p^t(x_i), f(x_i); \frac{\lambda^{k+1}}{\hat{\pi}^t} \right)$
~~// Replaced with a few steps of SGD
\STATE \textbf{End For}
\STATE \textbf{Output:} $\bar{f}^{s}: x \mapsto \frac{1}{K}\sum_{k =1}^K f^k(x)$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\end{figure}
Algorithm \ref{algo:dro-val} contains a version of the margin-based DRO described in Section \ref{sec:algorithms}, where instead of teacher labels the original one-hot labels are used in the validation set.
Before proceeding to providing a convergence guarantee for this algorithm, we will find it useful
to define the following one-hot metrics:
\begin{align*}
\phi^\textrm{\textup{oh}}_y(f^s) &= \frac{1}{\pi_y}\mathbb{E}_x\left[ \eta_y(x)\, \ell\left( y , f^s(x) \right)\right]\\
\hat{\phi}^{\textrm{\textup{oh}},\textrm{\textup{val}}}_y(f^s) &= \frac{1}{\hat{\pi}_y}\frac{1}{n^\textrm{\textup{val}}}\sum_{(x', y') \in S^\textrm{\textup{val}}}\,\mathbf{1}(y' = y)\, \ell\left( y' , f^s(x') \right).
\end{align*}
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:dro-oh-vali}
Suppose $p^t \in \mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{F}$ is closed under linear transformations. Then the final scoring function $\bar{f}^s(x) = \frac{1}{K} \sum_{k=1}^K f^{k}(x)$ output by Algorithm \ref{algo:dro-val} is of the form:
\[
\textrm{\textup{softmax}}_y(\bar{f}^s(x')) \propto \bar{\lambda}_y p_y^t(x'),~~~~\forall (x', y') \in S,
\]
where $\bar{\lambda}_y = \left(\prod_{k=1}^K \lambda_y^k / \pi^t_y\right)^{1/K}$.
Furthermore,
suppose
$\ell$ is the softmax cross-entropy loss in $\ell^\textrm{\textup{xent}}$,
$\ell(y, z) \leq B$, for some $B > 0$, and
$\max_{y \in [m]}\frac{1}{\pi_y} \leq Z$, for some $Z > 0$.
Suppose for any $\delta \in (0,1)$, the following holds:
with probability at least $1 - \delta$ (over draw of $S \sim D^n$),
for all $f \in \mathcal{F}$,
\[
\max_{y \in [m]} \big|\phi^\textrm{\textup{oh}}_y(f) - \hat{\phi}^{\textrm{\textup{oh}}}_y(f)\big| \leq \Delta^\textrm{\textup{oh}}(n, \delta);
~~~~~~~~
\max_{y \in [m]} \big|\phi_y(f) - \hat{\phi}_y(f)\big| \leq {\Delta}(n, \delta),
\]
for some $\Delta^\textrm{\textup{oh}}(n, \delta), {\Delta}(n, \delta) \in \mathbb{R}_+$ that
is increasing in $1/\delta$, and goes to 0 as $n \> \infty$.
Fix $\delta \in (0,1)$.
Then when the step size $\gamma = \frac{1}{2BZ}\sqrt{\frac{\log(m)}{{K}}}$
and $n^\textrm{\textup{val}} \geq 8Z\log(2m/\delta)$, with
probability at least $1-\delta$ (over draw of $S \sim D^n$ and $S^\textrm{\textup{val}} \sim D^{n^\textrm{\textup{val}}}$), for any $\tau \in \mathbb{R}_+$,
\begin{align*}
L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(\bar{f}^s) &\leq\,
\min_{f \in \mathcal{F}}L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(f)
\,+\,
\underbrace{2B\max_{y \in [m]} \mathbb{E}_x\left[
\left| \tau\cdot\frac{p^t_y(x)}{\pi^t_y} \,-\, \frac{\eta_y(x)}{\pi_y} \right|\right]}_{\text{Approximation error}}\\
&\hspace{4cm}
\,+\, \underbrace{2\tau\cdot\Delta^\textrm{\textup{oh}}(n^\textrm{\textup{val}}, \delta/2) \,+\, 2\Delta(n, \delta/2)}_{\text{Estimation error}}
\,+\,
\underbrace{4BZ\sqrt{\frac{\log(m)}{{K}}}}_{\text{EG convergence}}.
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}
Comparing this to the bound in Theorem \ref{thm:dro}, we can see that there
is an additional scaling factor $\tau$ against the teacher probabilities $p^t_y(x)$ and in the approximation error. When we set $\tau = 1$, the bound looks very similar to Theorem \ref{thm:dro}, except that the estimation error term $\Delta^\textrm{\textup{oh}}$ now involves one-hot labels. Therefore the estimation error may incur a slower convergence with sample size as it no longer benefits from the lower variance that the teacher predictions may offer (see Appendix \ref{app:student-gen-bound} for details).
The $\tau$-scaling in the
approximation error also means that the teacher is no longer required to exactly match the (normalized) class probabilities $\eta(x)$. In fact, one can set $\tau$ to a value for which the approximation error is the lowest, and in general to a value that minimizes the upper bound in Theorem \ref{thm:dro-oh-vali}, potentially providing us with a tighter convergence rate than Theorem \ref{thm:dro}.
The proof of Theorem \ref{thm:dro-oh-vali} is similar to that of Theorem \ref{thm:dro}, but requires a modified version of Lemma \ref{lem:helper-dro-2}:
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:helper-dro-3}
Suppose the conditions in Theorem \ref{thm:dro} hold.
With probability $\leq 1 - \delta$ (over draw of $S \sim D^{n}$ and $S^\textrm{\textup{val}} \sim D^{n^\textrm{\textup{val}}}$),
at each iteration $k$ and for any $\tau \in \mathbb{R}_+$,
\begin{align*}
{
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \phi^\textrm{\textup{oh}}_y(f^{k+1})
\,-\,
\min_{f \in \mathcal{F}}\,\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \phi^\textrm{\textup{oh}}_y(f)}
&\leq
2\tau\cdot{\Delta}(n, \delta) \,+\,
2B\max_{y \in [m]} \mathbb{E}_x\left[
\left| \tau\frac{p^t_y(x)}{\pi^t_y} \,-\, \frac{\eta_y(x)}{\pi_y} \right|\right].
\end{align*}
Furthermore, with the same probability, for any $\lambda \in \Delta_m$:
\[
\left|\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y \hat{\phi}^{\textrm{\textup{oh}},\textrm{\textup{val}}}_y(f^{k+1}) \,-\,
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y \phi^\textrm{\textup{oh}}_y(f^{k+1}) \right| ~\leq~ \Delta^\textrm{\textup{oh}}(n^\textrm{\textup{val}}, \delta).
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We first note from Lemma \ref{lem:helper-dro-1} that
because $f^{k+1} \,\in\, \displaystyle\Argmin{f \in \mathcal{F}}\, \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \mathcal{L}^\textrm{\textup{mar}}\Big(p^t(x_i), f(x_i); \frac{\lambda^{k+1}}{\hat{\pi}} \Big)$, we have for the example-weighting
$w_i = \tau, \forall i$:
\begin{equation}
\tau\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \hat{\phi}_y(f^{k+1}) \,\leq\, \tau\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \hat{\phi}_y(f),~\forall f\in \mathcal{F}.
\label{eq:f-k+1-minimizer-2}
\end{equation}
For a fixed iteration $k$, let us denote $\tilde{f} \in \Argmin{f \in \mathcal{F}}\, \sum_{y=1}^m\lambda^{k+1}_y \phi_y({f})$. Then for the first part,
we have for any $\tau \in \mathbb{R}_+$:
\begin{align*}
\lefteqn{
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \phi^\textrm{\textup{oh}}_y(f^{k+1})
\,-\,
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \phi^\textrm{\textup{oh}}_y(\tilde{f})
\hspace{10cm}}\\
&\leq
\tau\left(
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \phi_y(f^{k+1})
\,-\,
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \phi_y(\tilde{f})
\right)
\,+\,
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \left|\phi^\textrm{\textup{oh}}_y(f^{k+1})
- \tau\phi_y(f^{k+1})\right|
\\
&\hspace{9cm}
\,+\,
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \left|\phi^\textrm{\textup{oh}}_y(\tilde{f})
- \tau\phi_y(\tilde{f})\right|
\\
&\leq
\tau\left(
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \phi_y(f^{k+1})
\,-\,
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \phi_y(\tilde{f})
\right)
\,+\,
2\max_{f \in \mathcal{F}}\,
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \left|\phi^\textrm{\textup{oh}}_y(f)
- \tau\phi_y(f)\right|
\\
&\leq
\tau\left(
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \phi_y(f^{k+1})
\,-\,
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \phi_y(\tilde{f})
\right)
\,+\,
2\max_{f \in \mathcal{F}}\max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\,
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda \left|\phi^\textrm{\textup{oh}}_y(f)
- \tau\phi_y(f)\right|
\\
&\leq
\tau\left(
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \phi_y(f^{k+1})
\,-\,
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \phi_y(\tilde{f})
\right)
\,+\,
2\max_{f \in \mathcal{F}}\,
\max_{y\in[m]} \left|\phi^\textrm{\textup{oh}}_y(f)
- \tau\phi_y(f)\right|
\\
&\leq
2\tau\sup_{f \in \mathcal{F}}\max_{y \in [m]} \big|\hat{\phi}_y(f) - {\phi}_y(f)\big|
\,+\,
2\max_{f \in \mathcal{F}}\,
\max_{y\in[m]} \left|\phi^\textrm{\textup{oh}}_y(f)
- \tau\phi_y(f)\right|.
\end{align*}
where the last inequality re-traces the steps in Lemma \ref{lem:helper-dro-2}. Further applying the generalization bound assumed in Theorem \ref{thm:dro},
we have with probability $\leq 1 - \delta$ (over draw of $S \sim D^{n}$), for all iterations $k \in [K]$ and any $\tau \in \mathbb{R}_+$,
\begin{equation}
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \phi^\textrm{\textup{oh}}_y(f^{k+1})
\,-\,
\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda^{k+1}_y \phi^\textrm{\textup{oh}}_y(\tilde{f})
\,\leq\, 2\tau\Delta(n, \delta) +
2\max_{f \in \mathcal{F}}\,
\max_{y\in[m]} \left|\phi^\textrm{\textup{oh}}_y(f)
- \tau\phi_y(f)\right|.
\label{eq:dro-vali-inter}
\end{equation}
All that remains is to bound the second term in \eqref{eq:dro-vali-inter}. For any $f \in \mathcal{F}$ and $y \in [m]$,
\begin{align*}
\left|\phi^\textrm{\textup{oh}}_y(f)
- \tau\phi_y(f)\right|
&\leq
\left|
\frac{1}{\pi_y}\mathbb{E}_x\left[ \eta_y(x)\, \ell\left( y , f(x) \right)\right]
\,-\,
\frac{\tau}{\pi^t_y}\mathbb{E}_x\left[ p^t_y(x)\, \ell\left( y , f(x) \right)\right]
\right|\\
&\leq
\mathbb{E}_x\left[
\left|
\frac{1}{\pi_y} \eta_y(x)\, \ell\left( y , f(x) \right)
\,-\,
\frac{\tau}{\pi^t_y} p^t_y(x)\, \ell\left( y , f(x) \right)
\right|\right]
\\
&=
\mathbb{E}_x\left[
\left|
\frac{1}{\pi_y} \eta_y(x)
\,-\,
\frac{\tau}{\pi^t_y} p^t_y(x)
\right|\ell\left( y , f^s(x) \right)\right]
\\
&\leq
B\mathbb{E}_x\left[
\left|
\frac{\eta_y(x)}{\pi_y}
\,-\,
\tau\frac{p^t_y(x)}{\pi^t_y}
\right|\right],
\end{align*}
where we use Jensen's inequality in the second step,
the fact that $\ell(y, z) \leq B$ is non-negative in the second step,
and the fact that $\ell(y, z) \leq B$ in the last step. Substituting this upper bound back into \eqref{eq:dro-vali-inter} completes the proof of the first part.
The second part follows from a direct application of the bound on the per-class estimation error $\max_{y \in [m]} \big|\phi^\textrm{\textup{oh}}_y(f) - \hat{\phi}^{\textrm{\textup{oh}},\textrm{\textup{val}}}_y(f)\big|$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:dro-oh-vali}]
The proof traces the same steps as
Proposition \ref{prop:student-form} and
Theorem \ref{thm:dro}, except that
it applies Lemma \ref{lem:helper-dro-3} instead of Lemma \ref{lem:helper-dro-2}.
Note that because $\min_{y \in [m]}\pi_y \geq \frac{1}{Z}$ and $n^\textrm{\textup{val}} \geq 8Z\log(2m/\delta)$,
we have by a direct application of Chernoff's bound (along with a union bound over all $m$ classes) that with
probability at least $1-\delta/2$:
$$
\min_{y \in [m]}\hat{\pi}^{\textrm{\textup{oh}},\textrm{\textup{val}}}_y \geq \frac{1}{2Z}, \forall y \in [m],
$$
and consequently,
$\hat{\phi}_y^{\textrm{\textup{oh}},\textrm{\textup{val}}}(f) \leq 2BZ, \forall f \in \mathcal{F}$. The boundedness of $\hat{\phi}_y^{\textrm{\textup{oh}},\textrm{\textup{val}}}$ will then allow us to apply standard convergence guarantees for exponentiated gradient ascent \citep{shalev2011online}. For $\gamma = \frac{1}{2BZ}\sqrt{\frac{\log(m)}{{K}}}$,
the updates on $\lambda$ will give us:
\[
\max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\,\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y \hat{\phi}_y^{\textrm{\textup{oh}},\textrm{\textup{val}}}(f^k)
\,\leq\,
\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y^k \hat{\phi}_y^{\textrm{\textup{oh}},\textrm{\textup{val}}}(f^k)
\,+\,
4BZ\sqrt{\frac{\log(m)}{{K}}}
\]
Applying the second part of Lemma \ref{lem:helper-dro-2} to each iteration $k$, we have
with probability at least $1-\delta$:
\[
\max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\,\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y {\phi}^\textrm{\textup{oh}}_y(f^k)
\,\leq\,
\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y^k {\phi}^\textrm{\textup{oh}}_y(f^k)
\,+\,
4BZ\sqrt{\frac{\log(m)}{{K}}} \,+\, 2\Delta^\textrm{\textup{oh}}(n^\textrm{\textup{val}}, \delta/2),
\]
and applying the first part of Lemma \ref{lem:helper-dro-2} to the RHS, we have with the same probability, for any $\tau \in \mathbb{R}_+$:
\begin{align*}
{
\max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\,\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y {\phi}^\textrm{\textup{oh}}_y(f^k)}
&\leq
\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K\min_{f \in \mathcal{F}}\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y^k {\phi}^\textrm{\textup{oh}}_y(f)
\,+\,
4BZ\sqrt{\frac{\log(m)}{{K}}} \,+\, 2\Delta^\textrm{\textup{oh}}(n^\textrm{\textup{val}}, \delta/2)
\\
&
\hspace{1cm}
\,+\, 2\tau\Delta(n, \delta/2)
\,+\, 2B\max_{y \in [m]} \mathbb{E}_x\left[
\left| \tau\frac{p^t_y(x)}{\pi^t_y} \,-\, \frac{\eta_y(x)}{\pi_y} \right|\right]
\\
&\leq
\min_{f \in \mathcal{F}}\,\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y^k {\phi}^\textrm{\textup{oh}}_y(f)
\,+\,
4BZ\sqrt{\frac{\log(m)}{{K}}} \,+\, 2\Delta^\textrm{\textup{oh}}(n^\textrm{\textup{val}}, \delta/2)
\\
&
\hspace{1cm}
\,+\, 2\tau\Delta(n, \delta/2)
\,+\, 2B\max_{y \in [m]} \mathbb{E}_x\left[
\left| \tau\frac{p^t_y(x)}{\pi^t_y} \,-\, \frac{\eta_y(x)}{\pi_y} \right|\right].
\end{align*}
Using the convexity of $\phi(\cdot)$ in $f(x)$ and Jensen's inequality,
we have that $\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y {\phi}_y(\bar{f}^s) \leq \frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K\sum_{y=1}^m \lambda_y {\phi}_y(f^k)$.
We use this to further lower bound the LHS
in terms of the averaged scoring function $\bar{f}^s(x) = \frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K f^k(x)$, and re-trace the steps in Theorem \ref{thm:dro} to get"
\begin{align*}
{\max_{y \in [m]}\, {\phi}^\textrm{\textup{oh}}_y(\bar{f}^s)}
&\leq
\min_{f \in \mathcal{F}}\max_{y \in [m]}\, {\phi}^\textrm{\textup{oh}}_y(f)
\,+\,
4BZ\sqrt{\frac{\log(m)}{{K}}} \,+\, 2\Delta^\textrm{\textup{oh}}(n^\textrm{\textup{val}}, \delta/2)
\nonumber
\\
&\hspace{1cm}
\,+\, 2\tau\Delta(n, \delta/2)
\,+\, 2B\max_{y \in [m]} \mathbb{E}_x\left[
\left| \tau\frac{p^t_y(x)}{\pi^t_y} \,-\, \frac{\eta_y(x)}{\pi_y} \right|\right].
\end{align*}
Noting that $L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(f) = \max_{y \in [m]}\, {\phi}^\textrm{\textup{oh}}_y(f)$ completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\section{DRO for Traded-off Objective}
\label{app:dro-general-algo}
\begin{figure}
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{Distilled Margin-based DRO for Traded-off Objective
\label{algo:dro-general}
\begin{algorithmic}
\STATE \textbf{Inputs:} Teacher $p^t$, Student hypothesis class $\mathcal{F}$, Training set $S$, Validation set $S^\textrm{\textup{val}}$, Step-size $\gamma \in \mathbb{R}_+$,
Number of iterations $K$, Loss $\ell$, Trade-off parameter $\alpha$
\STATE \textbf{Initialize:} Student $f^0 \in \mathcal{F}$, Multipliers ${\lambda}^0 \in \Delta_m$
\STATE \textbf{For}~{$k = 0 $ to $K-1$}
\STATE ~~~$\tilde{\lambda}^{k+1}_j \,=\, \lambda^k_j\exp\big( \gamma \alpha \hat{R}_j \big), \forall j \in [m]$
~\text{where} $\hat{R}_j =$ $\displaystyle\frac{1}{n^\textrm{\textup{val}}}\frac{1}{\hat{\pi}^{t,\textrm{\textup{val}}}_j}\sum_{(x, y) \in S^\textrm{\textup{val}}} p_j^t(x_i)\, \ell( j , f^k(x) )$
\STATE ~~~$\lambda^{k+1}_y \,=\, \frac{\tilde{\lambda}^{k+1}_y}{\sum_{j=1}^m \tilde{\lambda}^{k+1}_j}, \forall y$
\STATE ~~~
$\beta^{k+1}_y =\,(1 - \alpha)\frac{1}{m} \,+\, \alpha\lambda^{k+1}_y$
\STATE ~~~$f^{k+1} \,\in\, \displaystyle\Argmin{f \in \mathcal{F}}\, \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \mathcal{L}^\textrm{\textup{mar}}\left(p^t(x_i), f(x_i); \frac{\beta^{k+1}}{\hat{\pi}^t} \right)$
~~// Replaced with a few steps of SGD
\STATE \textbf{End For}
\STATE \textbf{Output:} $\bar{f}^{s}: x \mapsto \frac{1}{K}\sum_{k =1}^K f^k(x)$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\end{figure}
We present a variant of the margin-based DRO algorithm described in Section \ref{sec:algorithms}
that seeks to minimize a trade-off between the balanced and robust student objectives:
$$\displaystyle \hat{L}^\textrm{\textup{tdf-d}}(f^s) = (1-\alpha)\hat{L}^\textrm{\textup{bal-d}}(f^s) + \alpha\hat{L}^\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}(f^s),$$
for some $\alpha \in [0,1]$.
Expanding this, we have:
\begin{align*}
L^\textrm{\textup{tdf-d}}(f)
&=
(1-\alpha)\frac{1}{m}\sum_{y=1}^m \frac{1}{\hat{\pi}^t_y}\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n p^t_y(x_i)\,\ell(y, f(x_i))
\,+\,
\alpha \max_{y \in [m]}\,\sum_{y=1}^m \frac{1}{\hat{\pi}^t_y}\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n p^t_y(x_i)\,\ell(y, f(x_i))\\
&=
(1-\alpha)\frac{1}{m}\sum_{y=1}^m \frac{1}{\hat{\pi}^t_y}\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n p^t_y(x_i)\,\ell(y, f(x_i))
\,+\,
\alpha \max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\,\sum_{y=1}^m \frac{\lambda_y}{\hat{\pi}^t_y}\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n p^t_y(x_i)\,\ell(y, f(x_i))\\
&=
\max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\sum_{y=1}^m\left((1-\alpha)\frac{1}{m} + \alpha\lambda_y\right) \frac{1}{\hat{\pi}^t_y}\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n p^t_y(x_i)\,\ell(y, f(x_i)).
\end{align*}
The minimization of $ L^\textrm{\textup{tdf-d}}(f)$ over $f$ can then be a cast as a min-max problem:
\begin{align*}
\min_{f:\mathcal{X}\>\mathbb{R}^m}\,L^\textrm{\textup{tdf-d}}(f)
&=
\min_{f:\mathcal{X}\>\mathbb{R}^m}\,\max_{\lambda \in \Delta_m}\sum_{y=1}^m\left((1-\alpha)\frac{1}{m} + \alpha\lambda_y\right) \frac{1}{\hat{\pi}^t_y}\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n p^t_y(x_i)\,\ell(y, f(x_i)).
\end{align*}
Retracing the steps in the derivation of Algorithm \ref{algo:dro} in Section \ref{sec:algorithms}, we
have the following updates on $\lambda$ and $f$ to solve the above min-max problem:
\begin{align*}
\tilde{\lambda}^{k+1}_y &= \lambda^k_y\exp\bigg( \gamma\alpha\frac{1}{n\hat{\pi}^t_y}\sum_{i=1}^n p_y^t(x_i)\, \ell\left( y , f^k(x_i) \right) \bigg), \forall y\\
\lambda^{k+1}_y &=\, \frac{\tilde{\lambda}^{k+1}_y}{\sum_{j=1}^m \tilde{\lambda}^{k+1}_j}, \forall y\\
\beta^{k+1}_y &=\,(1 - \alpha)\frac{1}{m} \,+\, \alpha\lambda^{k+1}_y\\
f^{k+1} &\in\, \Argmin{f \in \mathcal{F}} \sum_{y \in [m]}\frac{\beta^{k+1}_y}{n\hat{\pi}^t_y}\sum_{i=1}^n p_y^t(x_i)\, \ell\left( y , f(x_i) \right),
\end{align*}
for step-size parameter $\gamma > 0$.
To better handle training of over-parameterized students, we will perform the updates on $\lambda$ using a held-out validation set,
and employ a margin-based surrogate for performing the minimization over $f$. This procedure is outlined in Algorithm \ref{algo:dro-general}.
\section{Further experiment details}\label{app:experiment_details}
This section contains further experiment details and additional results.
\begin{itemize}
\item Appendices \ref{app:datasets} through \ref{app:baselines} contain additional details about the datasets, hyperparameters, and baselines.
\item Appendices \ref{app:tables} through \ref{app:tradeoff_plots} contain additional experimental comparisons with the AdaMargin and AdaAlpha baselines \cite{lukasik2021teachers} and group DRO \cite{Sagawa2020Distributionally}, and additional experimental results on CIFAR, TinyImageNet and ImageNet, along with additional trade-off plots.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Additional details about datasets}\label{app:datasets}
\subsubsection{Building long tailed datasets}
The long-tailed datasets were created from the original datasets following \citet{cui2019class} by downsampling examples with an exponential decay in the per-class sizes. As done by \citet{narasimhan2021training}, we set
the imbalance ratio $\frac{\max_i P(y=i)}{\min_i P(y=i)}$ to 100 for CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100, and to 83 for TinyImageNet
(the slightly smaller ratio is to ensure that the smallest class is of a reasonable size).
We use the long-tail version of ImageNet generated by \citet{liu2017sphereface}.
\subsubsection{Dataset splits}
The original test samples for CIFAR-10, CIFAR-10-LT, CIFAR-100, CIFAR-100-LT, TinyImageNet (200 classes), TinyImageNet-LT (200 classes), and ImageNet (1000 classes)
are all balanced. Following \citet{narasimhan2021training}, we randomly split them in half and use half the samples as a validation set, and the other half as a test set. For the CIFAR and TineImageNet datasets, this amounts to using a validation set of size 5000. For the ImageNet dataset, we sample a subset of 5000 examples from the validation set each time we update the Lagrange multipliers in Algorithm \ref{algo:dro}.
In keeping with prior work \cite{menon2020long, narasimhan2021training, lukasik2021teachers}, we use the same validation and test sets for the long-tailed training sets as we do for the original versions. For the long tailed training sets, this simulates a scenario where the training data follows a long tailed distribution due to practical data collection limitations, but the test distribution of interest still comes from the original data distribution. In plots, the ``balanced accuracy'' that we report for the long-tail datasets (e.g., CIFAR-10-LT) is actually the standard accuracy calculated over the balanced test set, which is shared with the original balanced dataset (e.g., CIFAR-10).
Both teacher and student were always trained on the same training set.
The CIFAR
datasets had images of size 32 $\times$ 32, while the TinyImageNet and ImageNet datasets
dataset
had images of size 224 $\times$ 224.
These datasets do not contain personally identifiable information or offensive content. The CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100 datasets are licensed under the MIT License. The terms of access for ImageNet are given at \url{https://www.image-net.org/download.php}.
\subsection{Additional details about training and hyperparameters}
\label{app:setup-details}
\subsubsection{Code}
\label{app:code}
We have made our code available as a part of the supplementary material.
\subsubsection{Training details and hyperparameters}
Unless otherwise specified, the temperature hyperparameters were chosen to achieve the best worst-class accuracy on the validation set. All models were trained using SGD with momentum of 0.9 \cite{lukasik2021teachers, narasimhan2021training}.
The learning rate schedule were chosen to mimic the settings in prior work \cite{narasimhan2021training, lukasik2021teachers}.
%
For CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100 datasets, we ran the optimizer for 450 epochs, linearly warming up the learning rate till the 15th epoch, and then applied a step-size decay of 0.1 after the 200th, 300th and 400th epochs, as done by \citet{lukasik2021teachers}.
For the long-tail versions of these datasets, we ran trained for 256 epochs,
linearly warming up the learning rate till the 15th epoch, and then applied a step-size decay of 0.1 after the 96th, 192nd and 224th epochs, as done by \citet{narasimhan2021training}. Similarly, for the TinyImageNet datasets, we train for 200 epochs, linearly warming up the learning rate till the 5th epoch, and then applying a decay of 0.1 after the 75th and 135th epochs, as done by \citet{narasimhan2021training}. For ImageNet, we train for 90 epochs, linearly warming up the learning rate till the 5th epoch, then applying a decay of 0.1 after the 30th, 60th and 80th epochs, as done by \citet{lukasik2021teachers}.
We used a batch size of 128 for the CIFAR-10 datasets \cite{narasimhan2021training}, and a batch size of 1024 for the other datasets \cite{lukasik2021teachers}.
We apply an $L_2$ weight decay of $10^{-4}$ in all our SGD updates \cite{lukasik2021teachers}. This amounts to applying an \emph{$L_2$ regularization} on the model parameters, and has the effect of keeping the model parameters (and as a result the loss function) bounded.
When training with the margin-based robust objective (see Algorithm \ref{algo:dro}), a separate step size $\gamma$ was applied for training the main model function $f$, and for updating the multipliers $\lambda$.
We set $\gamma$ to 0.1 in all experiments.
\emph{Hardware.} Model training was done using TPUv2.
\subsubsection{Repeats}
For all comparative baselines without distillation (e.g. the first and second rows of Table \ref{tab:combos}), we provide average results over $m$ retrained models ($m=5$ for TinyImageNet, or $m=10$ for CIFAR datasets). For students on all CIFAR* datasets, unless otherwise specified, we train the teacher once and run the student training 10 times using the same fixed teacher. We compute the mean and standard error of metrics over these $m=10$ runs. For the resource-heavy TinyImageNet and ImageNet students, we reduce the number of repeats to $m=5$. This methodology captures variation in the student retrainings while holding the teacher fixed. To capture the end-to-end variation in both teacher and student training, we include Appendix \ref{app:tables} which contains a rerun of the CIFAR experiments in Table \ref{tab:combos} using a distinct teacher for each student retraining. The overall best teacher/student objective combinations either did not change or were statistically comparable to the previous best combination in Table \ref{tab:combos}.
\subsection{Additional details about algorithms and baselines}\label{app:baselines}
\subsubsection{Practical improvements to Algorithms \ref{algo:dro}--\ref{algo:dro-general}}
\label{app:post-hoc-details}
Algorithms \ref{algo:dro}--\ref{algo:dro-general} currently return a scorer that averages over
all $K$ iterates $\bar{f}^s(x) = \frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K f^k(x)$. While this averaging was required for our theoretical robustness guarantees to hold,
in our experiments, we find it sufficient to simply return the last model $f^{K}$.
Another practical improvement that we make to these algorithms following \citet{cotter2019optimization}, is to employ the 0-1 loss while
performing updates on $\lambda$, i.e., set $\ell = \ell^\textrm{\textup{0-1}}$ in the $\lambda$-update step. We are able to do this because
the convergence of the exponentiated gradient updates on $\lambda$ does not depend on $\ell$ being differentiable.
This modification allows $\lambda$s to better reflect the model's per-class performance on the validation sample.
\subsubsection{Discussion on post-shifting baseline}
We implement the post-shifting method in \citet{narasimhan2021training} (Algorithm 3 in their paper),
which provides for an efficient way to construct a scoring function of the form $f^s_y(x) = \log(\gamma_y p^t_y(x)),$ for a fixed teacher $p^t$, where
the coefficients $\gamma \in \mathbb{R}^m$ are chosen to maximize the worst-class accuracy on the validation dataset.
Interestingly, in our experiments, we find this approach
to do exceedingly well on the validation sample, but this does not always translate to good worst-class test performance.
In contrast, some of the teacher-student combinations
that we experiment with were seen to over-fit less to the validation sample, and as a result were
able to generalize better to the test set. This could perhaps indicate that the
teacher labels we use in these combinations benefit the student in a way that it improves its generalization.
The variance reduction effect that \citet{menon2021statistical} postulate may be one possible explanation
for why we see this behavior.
\subsection{Different teachers on repeat trainings}\label{app:tables}
Most of the student results in the main paper in Table \ref{tab:combos} use the same teacher for all repeat trainings of the student. This captures the variance in the student training process while omitting the variance in the teacher training process. To capture the variance in the full training pipeline, we ran an additional set of experiments where students were trained on different retrained teachers, rather than on the same teacher. We report results on all CIFAR datasets in Table \ref{tab:teacher_var}. The best teacher/student combinations are identical for all datasets except for CIFAR-10-LT, for which the best teacher/student combinations from Table \ref{tab:teacher_var} were also not statistically significantly different from the best combination in Table \ref{tab:combos} ($L^{\textrm{\textup{bal}}}$/$L^{\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}}$ (one-hot val) vs. $L^{\textrm{\textup{bal}}}$/$L^{\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}}$ (teacher val) in Table \ref{tab:combos}). Note that the first and second rows of Table \ref{tab:combos} are already averaged over $m$ retrained teachers ($m=5$ for TinyImageNet, or $m=10$ for CIFAR datasets), and those same $m$ teachers are used in the repeat trainings in Table \ref{tab:teacher_var}.
\begin{table}[!h]
\caption{Comparison using different teachers for student retrainings for self-distilled teacher/student combos on test. For each student/teacher objective pair, we train $m=10$ students total on each of $m=10$ distinct retrained teachers. For comparability, the same set of $m$ teachers is used for each student. This differs from Table \ref{tab:combos} in that in Table \ref{tab:combos}, the students are retrained on each repeat using the same teacher (arbitrarily selected). Otherwise, setups are the same as in Table \ref{tab:combos}.
}
\label{tab:teacher_var}
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\hspace{-2pt}
\begin{tabular}{p{0.1cm}c||c|c||c|c||}
\toprule
& & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{\textbf{CIFAR-10} Teacher Obj.} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{\textbf{CIFAR-100}Teacher Obj.} \\
& & $L^{\textrm{\textup{std}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{std}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$ \\
\midrule
\multirow{6}{*}{\rotatebox{90}{Student Obj.}}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{std-d}}}$ & $87.09 \pm 0.51$ & $89.68 \pm 0.20$ & $44.21\pm0.57$ & \cellcolor{blue!25}$\mathbf{47.79}\pm0.82$ \\
& & \tiny{($93.78 \pm 0.22$)} & \tiny{($93.74 \pm 0.07$)} & \tiny{$74.6\pm0.11$} & \cellcolor{blue!25}\tiny{$73.48\pm0.11$} \\
\cline{2-6}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}}$ & \cellcolor{blue!25} $\textbf{90.62} \pm 0.19$ & $87.12 \pm 0.38$ & $39.7\pm1.32$ & $31.09\pm1.21$ \\
&\tiny{(teacher val)} & \cellcolor{blue!25}\tiny{($92.58 \pm 0.08$)} & \tiny{($90.46 \pm 0.08$)} & \tiny{($64.28\pm0.41$)} & \tiny{($55.39\pm0.28$)} \\
\cline{2-6}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}}$ & $88.15 \pm 0.66$ & $86.44 \pm 0.52$ & $39.44\pm0.94$ & $39.65\pm0.59$ \\
&\tiny{(one-hot val)} & \tiny{($91.03 \pm 0.47$)} & \tiny{($90.16 \pm 0.42$)} & \tiny{($61.23\pm0.36$)} & \tiny{($60.89\pm0.29$)} \\
\bottomrule
\vspace{4pt}
\end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{p{0.1cm}c||c|c|c||c|c|c||}
\toprule
& & \multicolumn{3}{c||}{\textbf{CIFAR-10-LT} Teacher Obj.} & \multicolumn{3}{c||}{\textbf{CIFAR-100-LT} Teacher Obj.} \\
& & $L^{\textrm{\textup{std}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{bal}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{std}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{bal}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$ \\
\midrule
\multirow{6}{*}{\rotatebox{90}{Student Obj.}}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{std-d}}}$ & $60.12 \pm 0.56$ & $66.13 \pm 0.47$ & $69.75\pm0.52$ & $0.00 \pm 0.00$ & $1.41 \pm 0.41$ & $9.17\pm0.74$ \\
&&\tiny{($77.39 \pm 0.10$)} & \tiny{($79.16 \pm 0.20$)} & \tiny{($80.73\pm0.08$)} &\tiny{($45.84 \pm 0.13$)} & \tiny{($49.67\pm 0.20$)} & \tiny{($48.55\pm0.14$)}\\
\cline{2-8}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{bal-d}}}$ & $72.41 \pm 0.52$ & $71.49 \pm 0.30$ & $71.70 \pm 0.33$ & $5.83 \pm 0.54$ & $5.94 \pm 0.50$ & $8.37 \pm 0.72$ \\
&& \tiny{($81.97 \pm 0.11$)} & \tiny{($81.20 \pm 0.15$)} & \tiny{($80.29 \pm 0.11$)} & \tiny{($50.58 \pm 0.15$)} & \tiny{($50.85 \pm 0.14$)} & \tiny{($48.16\pm 0.20$)}\\
\cline{2-8}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}}$ & $62.77 \pm 0.58$ & $73.09\pm 0.34$ & $68.04 \pm 0.47$ & $10.53 \pm 0.76$ & $12.04 \pm 0.89$ & $9.66 \pm 1.15$ \\
& \tiny{(teacher val)} & \tiny{($77.18 \pm 0.15$)} & \tiny{($80.03\pm 0.22$)} & \tiny{($75.36 \pm 0.25$)} & \tiny{($33.69 \pm 0.14$)} & \tiny{($34.08 \pm 0.12$)} & \tiny{($37.10 \pm 0.15$)}\\
\cline{2-8}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}}$ & \cellcolor{blue!25}$\mathbf{75.10} \pm 0.36$ & \cellcolor{blue!25}$\mathbf{75.10} \pm 0.50$ & $74.16 \pm 0.34$ & $10.74 \pm 0.44$ & $11.95 \pm 0.69$ & \cellcolor{blue!25} $\mathbf{12.87}\pm 0.81$ \\
& \tiny{(one-hot val)} & \cellcolor{blue!25}\tiny{($79.27 \pm 0.13$)} & \cellcolor{blue!25}\tiny{($79.07 \pm 0.20$)} & \tiny{($78.11 \pm 0.14$} & \tiny{($30.36 \pm 0.39$)} & \tiny{($31.00 \pm 0.16$)} & \cellcolor{blue!25}\tiny{($31.62 \pm 0.34$}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsection{AdaAlpha and AdaMargin comparisons}
We include and discuss additional comparisons to the AdaMargin and AdaAlpha methods \cite{lukasik2021teachers}. These methods each define additional ways to modify the student's loss function (see Section \ref{sec:expts}). Table \ref{tab:ada*} shows results for these under the same self-distillation setup as in Table \ref{tab:combos}. For the balanced datasets, AdaMargin was competitive with the robust and standard students: on CIFAR-100 and TinyImageNet, AdaMargin combined with the robust teacher and the standard teacher (respectively) achieved worst-class accuracies that are statistically comparable to the best worst-class accuracies in Table \ref{tab:combos} and Table \ref{tab:teacher_var}. However, on the long-tailed datasets CIFAR-10-LT, CIFAR-100-LT, and TinyImageNet-LT (Table \ref{tab:combos_tinlt} below), AdaAlpha and AdaMargin did not achieve worst-class accuracies as high as other teacher/student combinations. This suggests that the AdaMargin method can work well on balanced datasets in combination with a robust teacher, but other combinations of standard/balanced/robust objectives are valuable for long-tailed datasets. Overall, AdaMargin achieved higher worst-class accuracies than AdaAlpha.
\begin{table*}[!h]
\caption{Results for AdaAlpha and AdaMargin baselines for self-distilled teacher/student combos on test. Worst-class accuracy shown above, standard accuracy shown in parentheses for the top three datasets, and balanced accuracy shown in parentheses for the bottom two long-tail datasets. Mean and standard error are reported over 3 repeats for all datasets.}
\label{tab:ada*}
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{tabular}{p{0.1cm}c||c|c||c|c||c|c||}
\toprule
& & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{\textbf{CIFAR-10} Teacher Obj.} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{\textbf{CIFAR-100} Teacher Obj.} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{\textbf{TinyImageNet} Teacher Obj.} \\
& & $L^{\textrm{\textup{std}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{std}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{std}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$ \\
\midrule
& Ada & $88.33\pm0.14$ & $89.96\pm0.44$ & $43.50\pm 0.62$ & $45.59\pm 0.82$ & $11.11 \pm 1.29$ & $16.58\pm1.67$ \\
& Alpha & \tiny{($94.31\pm0.01$)} & \tiny{($93.97\pm0.07$)} & \tiny{$73.96\pm 0.09$} & \tiny{$71.42\pm 0.14$} & \tiny{$61.13\pm0.09$} & \tiny{$56.84\pm0.15$} \\
\cline{2-8}
& Ada & $87.36$ \tiny{$\pm0.06$} & $90.37$\tiny{$\pm0.26$} & $43.91$ \tiny{$\pm 1.11$} & \cellcolor{blue!25} $\mathbf{47.78}$ \tiny{$\pm 0.96$} & \cellcolor{blue!25}$\mathbf{18.17}$ \tiny{$\pm 3.89$} & $17.84$ \tiny{$\pm 1.77$}\\
& Margin & \tiny{($94.25\pm0.02$)} & \tiny{($94.02\pm0.12$)} & \tiny{($73.58\pm 0.11$)} & \cellcolor{blue!25}\tiny{($70.92\pm 0.09$)} & \cellcolor{blue!25}\tiny{($61.3 \pm 0.28$)} & \tiny{($55.77 \pm 0.32$)}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{p{0.1cm}c||c|c|c||c|c|c||}
\toprule
& & \multicolumn{3}{c||}{\textbf{CIFAR-10-LT} Teacher Obj.} & \multicolumn{3}{c||}{\textbf{CIFAR-100-LT} Teacher Obj.} \\
& & $L^{\textrm{\textup{std}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{bal}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{std}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{bal}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$ \\
\midrule
& Ada & $41.90\pm0.44$ & $66.23\pm0.39$ & $71.17\pm0.32$ & $0.00 \pm 0.00$ & $1.46 \pm 0.61$ & $9.15 \pm 0.54$ \\
& Alpha & \tiny{($71.67\pm0.08$)} & \tiny{($77.87\pm0.16$)} & \tiny{($79.66\pm0.13$)} & \tiny{($42.52 \pm 0.08$)} & \tiny{($45.44 \pm 0.14$)} & \tiny{($45.64 \pm 0.11$)}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\subsection{TinyImageNet-LT worst-10 accuracy results}
In this section we provide results for TinyImageNet-LT. We report worst-10 accuracies in Table \ref{tab:combos_tinlt}, where the \textbf{worst-$k$ accuracy} is defined to be the average of the $k$ lowest per-class accuracies. We report worst-10 accuracies since the worst-class accuracy (as reported in Table \ref{tab:combos}) for TinyImageNet-LT was usually close to 0.
\begin{table}[!ht]
\caption{TinyImageNet-LT comparison of self-distilled teacher/student combos on test. Average \textbf{worst-10} accuracy shown above, balanced accuracy shown in parentheses below. The combination with the best worst-class accuracy is bolded.}
\label{tab:combos_tinlt}
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{tabular}{p{0.1cm}c||c|c|c||}
\toprule
& & \multicolumn{3}{c||}{\textbf{TinyImageNet-LT} Teacher Obj.} \\
& & $L^{\textrm{\textup{std}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{bal}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$ \\
\midrule
\multirow{10}{*}{\rotatebox{90}{Student Obj.}}
& none & $0.00 \pm 0.00$ & $0.00 \pm 0.00$ & $1.00 \pm 0.69$ \\
&& \tiny{($26.15 \pm 0.21$)} & \tiny{($29.19 \pm 0.22$)} & \tiny{($22.73 \pm 0.25$)} \\
\cline{2-5}
& Post & $0.60 \pm 0.28$ & $0.56 \pm 0.32$ & $0.07 \pm 0.06$ \\
& shift & \tiny{($15.99 \pm 0.39$)} & \tiny{($17.00 \pm 0.23$)} & \tiny{($16.73 \pm 0.46$)} \\
\cline{2-5}
& Ada & $0.00 \pm 0.00$ & $0.00 \pm 0.00$ & $0.00 \pm 0.00$ \\
& Alpha & \tiny{($28.14 \pm 0.12$)} & \tiny{($0.50 \pm 0.00$)} & \tiny{($0.50 \pm 0.00$)} \\
\cline{2-5}
& Ada & $0.00 \pm 0.00$ & $0.00 \pm 0.00$ & $0.41 \pm 0.17$ \\
& Margin & \tiny{($9.18 \pm 0.09$)} & \tiny{($7.92 \pm 0.10$)} & \tiny{($23.08 \pm 0.15$)} \\
\cline{2-5}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{std-d}}}$ & $0.0 \pm 0.0$ & $0.0 \pm 0.0$ & $1.87 \pm 0.52$ \\
&&\tiny{($26.05 \pm 0.40$)} & \tiny{($28.76 \pm 0.37$)} & \tiny{($25.34 \pm 0.29$)} \\
\cline{2-5}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{bal-d}}}$ & $0.2 \pm 0.4$ & $0.71 \pm 0.5$ & $\cellcolor{blue!25}{\bf 2.05} \pm 0.55$ \\
&& \tiny{($30.43 \pm 0.14$)} & \tiny{($30.41 \pm 0.4$)} & \cellcolor{blue!25}\tiny{($26.08 \pm 0.28$)}\\
\cline{2-5}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}}$ & $0.0 \pm 0.0$ & $0.5 \pm 0.36$ & $0.0 \pm 0.0$\\
& \tiny{(teacher val)} & \tiny{($22.67 \pm 0.23$ )} & \tiny{($23.79 \pm 0.41$)} & \tiny{($17.24 \pm 0.34$)} \\
\cline{2-5}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}}$ & $1.04 \pm 0.51$ & $1.46 \pm 0.66$ & $1.22 \pm 0.79$\\
& \tiny{(one-hot val)} & \tiny{($16.85 \pm 0.23$)} & \tiny{($19.81 \pm 0.34$)} & \tiny{($16.3 \pm 0.13$)}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.1in
\end{table}
\subsection{Group DRO comparison}
\citet{Sagawa2020Distributionally} propose a group DRO algorithm to improve long tail performance without distillation. In this section we present an experimental comparison to Algorithm 1 from \citet{Sagawa2020Distributionally}. This differs from our robust optimization methodology in Section \ref{sec:algorithms} in two key ways: \textit{(i)} we apply a margin-based surrogates of \citet{menon2020long}, and \textit{(ii)} we use a validation set to update the Lagrange multipliers $\lambda$ in Algorithm \ref{algo:dro-general}. Table \ref{tab:groupdro} shows results from running group DRO directly as specified in Algorithm 1 in \citet{Sagawa2020Distributionally}, as well as a variant where we use the validation set to update Lagrange multipliers in group DRO (labeled as ``with vali'' in the table).
This comparison shows that $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$ is comparable to group DRO, and that robust distillation protocols can outperform group DRO alone.
\begin{table}[!ht]
\caption{Results from comparison to group DRO (Algorithm 1 in \citet{Sagawa2020Distributionally}) without distillation. ``No vali'' uses the training set to update group lagrange multipliers, as done originally by \citet{Sagawa2020Distributionally}. ``With vali'' uses the validation set to compute group Lagrange multipliers as done in all other experiments in our paper. Worst-class accuracy is shown above, and balanced accuracy is shown in parentheses below.}
\label{tab:groupdro}
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{tabular}{||c|c||c|c||c|c||}
\toprule
\multicolumn{2}{||c||}{\textbf{CIFAR-10} group DRO} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{\textbf{CIFAR-100} group DRO} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{\textbf{TinyImageNet} group DRO} \\
No vali & With vali & No vali & With vali & No vali & With vali \\
\midrule
$86.65$ \tiny{$\pm 0.49$} & $89.32 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.21$} & $40.35 $ \tiny{$\pm 1.18$} & $43.89 $ \tiny{$\pm 1.12$} & $0.00 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.00$} & $9.17 $ \tiny{$\pm 1.55$}\\
\tiny{($93.61 \pm 0.09$)} & \tiny{($92.34 \pm 0.07$)} & \tiny{$70.25 \pm 0.17$} & \tiny{$65.18 \pm 0.08$} & \tiny{($6.55 \pm 0.41$)} & \tiny{($47.67 \pm 0.22$)}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{||c|c||c|c||c|c||}
\toprule
\multicolumn{2}{||c||}{\textbf{CIFAR-10-LT} group DRO} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{\textbf{CIFAR-100-LT} group DRO} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{\textbf{TinyImageNet-LT} group DRO} \\
No vali & With vali & No vali & With vali & No vali & With vali \\
\midrule
$51.59 $ \tiny{$\pm 2.49$} & $59.93 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.59$} & $0.00 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.00$} & $0.19 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.17$} & $0.00 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.00$} & $0.00 $ \tiny{$\pm 0.00$}\\
\tiny{($71.94 \pm 0.75$)} & \tiny{($74.39 \pm 0.17$)} & \tiny{($39.81 \pm 0.23$)} & \tiny{($40.47 \pm 0.17$)}& \tiny{($9.79 \pm 0.40$)} & \tiny{($22.49 \pm 0.10$)}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsection{CIFAR compressed students}
To supplement the self-distilled results in Table \ref{tab:combos}, we provide Table \ref{tab:combos_32} which gives results when distilling a larger teacher to a smaller student. As in Table \ref{tab:combos}, the combination with the best worst-class accuracy involved a robust student for CIFAR-10, CIFAR-10-LT, and CIFAR-100.
\begin{table*}[!h]
\caption{Comparison of ResNet-56$\to$ResNet-32 distilled teacher/student combos on test on CIFAR datasets. Compared to the standard distillation baseline of teacher trained with $L^{\textrm{\textup{std}}}$ and student trained with $L^{\textrm{\textup{std-d}}}$ (top left corner), the introduction of a robust objective achieves better worst-class accuracy. Worst-class accuracy shown above, standard accuracy shown in parentheses for the top three datasets, and balanced accuracy shown in parenthesis for the bottom two long-tail datasets. The combination with the best worst-class accuracy is bolded. Mean and standard error are reported over repeats (10 repeats for all except CIFAR-100, which has 3 repeats). We include results for the robust student using either a teacher labeled validation set (``teacher val''), or true one-hot class labels in the validation set (``one-hot val''), as outlined in Section \ref{sec:algorithms}.}
\label{tab:combos_32}
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{tabular}{p{0.1cm}p{0.1cm}c||c|c||c|c||}
\toprule
& & & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{\textbf{CIFAR-10} Teacher Obj.} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{\textbf{CIFAR-100} Teacher Obj.} \\
& & & $L^{\textrm{\textup{std}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{std}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$ \\
\midrule
\multirow{6}{*}{\rotatebox{90}{Student Obj.}} &\multirow{6}{*}{\rotatebox{90}{(ResNet-32)}}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{std-d}}}$ & $86.4 \pm 0.27$ & $89.56 \pm 0.20$ & $41.82\pm1.12$ & \cellcolor{blue!25}$\mathbf{45.7}\pm1.13$ \\
&& & \tiny{($93.73 \pm 0.05$)} & \tiny{($93.38 \pm 0.05$)} & \tiny{$73.19\pm0.10$} & \cellcolor{blue!25}\tiny{$71.42\pm0.22$} \\
\cline{3-7}
&& $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}}$ & \cellcolor{blue!25} $\mathbf{89.61} \pm 0.27$ & $83.8 \pm 0.95$ & $38.94\pm2.61$ & $19.15\pm0.00$ \\
&&\tiny{(teacher val)} & \cellcolor{blue!25}\tiny{($92.20 \pm 0.08$)} & \tiny{($88.71 \pm 0.24$)} & \tiny{($62.28\pm0.40$)} & \tiny{($52.9\pm0.00$)} \\
\cline{3-7}
&& $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}}$ & $87.92 \pm 0.23$ & $86.57 \pm 0.24$ & $33.19\pm1.29$ & $41.23\pm0.84$ \\
&&\tiny{(one-hot val)} & \tiny{($90.89 \pm 0.12$)} & \tiny{($90.54 \pm 0.11$)} & \tiny{($57.43\pm0.29$)} & \tiny{($61.14\pm0.24$)} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{p{0.1cm}p{0.1cm}c||c|c|c||c|c|c||}
\toprule
&& & \multicolumn{3}{c||}{\textbf{CIFAR-10-LT} Teacher Obj.} & \multicolumn{3}{c||}{\textbf{CIFAR-100-LT} Teacher Obj.} \\
&& & $L^{\textrm{\textup{std}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{bal}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{std}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{bal}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$ \\
\midrule
\multirow{6}{*}{\rotatebox{90}{Student Obj.}} &\multirow{6}{*}{\rotatebox{90}{(ResNet-32)}}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{std-d}}}$ & $57.23 \pm 0.53$ & $66.80 \pm 0.25$ & $72.36\pm0.39$ & $0.00 \pm 0.00$ & $1.38 \pm 0.39$ & $7.99\pm0.48$ \\
&&&\tiny{($75.76 \pm 0.12$)} & \tiny{($78.99 \pm 0.06$)} & \tiny{($80.74\pm0.09$)} &\tiny{($44.33 \pm 0.11$)} & \tiny{($47.28\pm0.13$)} & \tiny{($47.34\pm0.08$)}\\
\cline{3-9}
&& $L^{\textrm{\textup{bal-d}}}$ & $71.37 \pm 0.50$ & $71.00 \pm 0.45$ & $72.17 \pm 0.40$ & $3.57 \pm 0.58$ & $4.28 \pm 0.45$ & $5.58 \pm 0.53$ \\
&&& \tiny{($81.13 \pm 0.12$)} & \tiny{($81.12 \pm 0.15$)} & \tiny{($79.91 \pm 0.08$)} & \tiny{($49.21 \pm 0.10$)} & \tiny{($46.56 \pm 0.13$)} & \tiny{($48.58\pm 0.09$)}\\
\cline{3-9}
&& $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}}$ & $64.1 \pm 0.36$ & $73.51\pm 0.33$ & $69.90 \pm 0.42$ & $10.24 \pm 0.71$ & \cellcolor{blue!25}$\mathbf{13.41} \pm 0.72$ & $11.27 \pm 0.61$ \\
&& \tiny{(teacher val)} & \tiny{($76.34 \pm 0.12$)} & \tiny{($80.10\pm 0.10$)} & \tiny{($76.37 \pm 0.14$)} & \tiny{($33.55 \pm 0.16$)} & \cellcolor{blue!25}\tiny{($33.37 \pm 0.17$)} & \tiny{($36.14 \pm 0.19$)}\\
\cline{3-9}
&& $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}}$ & $72.65 \pm 0.27$ & $74.39 \pm 0.34$ & \cellcolor{blue!25}$\mathbf{74.45} \pm 0.26$ & $10.93 \pm 0.65$ & $12.2 \pm 0.65$ & $12.93\pm 0.62$ \\
&& \tiny{(one-hot val)} & \tiny{($77.69 \pm 0.11$)} & \tiny{($78.68 \pm 0.16$)} & \cellcolor{blue!25}\tiny{($77.97 \pm 0.10$} & \tiny{($29.48 \pm 0.22$)} & \tiny{($30.27 \pm 0.18$)} & \tiny{($31.83 \pm 0.17$}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.12in
\end{table*}
\subsection{ImageNet comparisons}\label{app:imgnet}
We trained ResNet-34 teachers on ImageNet and report results of distillation to ResNet-34 and ResNet-18 students in Table \ref{tab:combos_imagenet}.
In Table \ref{tab:combos_imagenetlt},
we report results of
distilling a ResNet-34 teacher to a ResNet-34 student and to a ResNet-18 student on ImageNet-LT.
\begin{table}[!ht]
\caption{ImageNet comparison of teacher/student combos on test. The left panel presents the result of \emph{self distillation} and the right panel presents \emph{model compression}. Average worst-50 (worst-5\%) accuracy shown above, standard accuracy shown in parentheses below. The combination with the best worst-class accuracy is bolded. The first two rows are teacher metrics and are the same between the two experiments. Mean and standard error are reported over 5 repeats.}
\label{tab:combos_imagenet}
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{tabular}{p{0.1cm}c||c|c||}
\multicolumn{4}{c}{ResNet-34 Teacher to ResNet-34 Student} \\
\toprule
& & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{\textbf{ImageNet} Teacher Obj.} \\
& & $L^{\textrm{\textup{std}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$ \\
\midrule
\multirow{8}{*}{\rotatebox{90}{Student Obj.}}
& none & $28.08$ & $27.94$ \\
&& \tiny{($70.82$)} & \tiny{($66.62$)} \\
\cline{2-4}
& Post & $26.10$ & $19.68$ \\
& shift & \tiny{($55.85 $)} & \tiny{($45.61 $)}\\
\cline{2-4}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{std-d}}}$ & $24.43 \pm 0.00$ & $25.23 \pm 0.06$\\
&& \tiny{($67.74 \pm 0.00$)} & \tiny{($67.05 \pm 0.05$)} \\
\cline{2-4}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}}$ &\cellcolor{blue!25} $\mathbf{26.63} \pm 0.11$ & $24.18 \pm 0.24$\\
& \tiny{(one-hot val)} &\cellcolor{blue!25} \tiny{($63.50 \pm 0.01$ )} & \tiny{($60.68 \pm 0.14$)}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}\quad
\begin{tabular}{p{0.1cm}c||c|c||}
\multicolumn{4}{c}{ResNet-34 Teacher to ResNet-18 Student} \\
\toprule
& & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{\textbf{ImageNet} Teacher Obj.} \\
& & $L^{\textrm{\textup{std}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$ \\
\midrule
\multirow{8}{*}{\rotatebox{90}{Student Obj.}}
& none & $28.08$ & $27.94$ \\
&& \tiny{($70.82$)} & \tiny{($66.62$)} \\
\cline{2-4}
& Post & $26.10$ & $19.68$ \\
& shift & \tiny{($55.85 $)} & \tiny{($45.61 $)}\\
\cline{2-4}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{std-d}}}$ & $20.64 \pm 0.24$ &\cellcolor{blue!25} $\mathbf{23.91} \pm 0.38$\\
&& \tiny{($64.98 \pm 0.06$)} &\cellcolor{blue!25} \tiny{($60.24 \pm 0.07$)} \\
\cline{2-4}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}}$ & $22.44 \pm 0.20$ & $21.62 \pm 0.22$\\
& \tiny{(one-hot val)} & \tiny{($64.52 \pm 0.10$ )} & \tiny{($57.96 \pm 0.06$)}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[!ht]
\caption{ImageNet-LT comparison of teacher/student combos on test. The left panel presents the result of \emph{self distillation} and the right panel presents \emph{model compression}. Average worst-50 (worst-5\%) accuracy shown above, balanced accuracy shown in parentheses below. The combination with the best worst-class accuracy is bolded. The first two rows are teacher metrics and are the same between the two experiments. Mean and standard error are reported over 5 repeats. }
\label{tab:combos_imagenetlt}
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\begin{tabular}{p{0.1cm}c||c|c||}
\multicolumn{4}{c}{ResNet-34 Teacher to ResNet-34 Student} \\
\toprule
& & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{\textbf{ImageNet-LT} Teacher Obj.} \\
& & $L^{\textrm{\textup{bal}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$ \\
\midrule
\multirow{8}{*}{\rotatebox{90}{Student Obj.}}
& none & $1.58$ & $2.67$ \\
&& \tiny{($43.26$)} & \tiny{($38.46$)} \\
\cline{2-4}
& Post & $2.40$ & $0.87$ \\
& shift & \tiny{($19.49$)} & \tiny{($16.52$)}\\
\cline{2-4}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{bal-d}}}$ & $3.53 \pm 0.11$ & $4.85 \pm 0.15$\\
&& \tiny{($43.98 \pm 0.10$)} & \tiny{($43.89 \pm 0.03$)} \\
\cline{2-4}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}}$ &\cellcolor{blue!25} $\mathbf{6.00} \pm 0.06$ & $4.31 \pm 0.08$\\
& \tiny{(one-hot val)} &\cellcolor{blue!25} \tiny{($39.17 \pm 0.14$ )} & \tiny{($36.12 \pm 0.14$)}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}\quad
\begin{tabular}{p{0.1cm}c||c|c||}
\multicolumn{4}{c}{ResNet-34 Teacher to ResNet-18 Student} \\
\toprule
& & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{\textbf{ImageNet-LT} Teacher Obj.} \\
& & $L^{\textrm{\textup{bal}}}$ & $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob}}}$ \\
\midrule
\multirow{8}{*}{\rotatebox{90}{Student Obj.}}
& none & $1.58$ & $2.67$ \\
&& \tiny{($43.26$)} & \tiny{($38.46$)} \\
\cline{2-4}
& Post & $2.40$ & $0.87$ \\
& shift & \tiny{($19.49$)} & \tiny{($16.52$)}\\
\cline{2-4}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{bal-d}}}$ & $2.41 \pm 0.09$ & $3.93 \pm 0.23$\\
&& \tiny{($42.35 \pm 0.07$)} & \tiny{($42.12 \pm 0.05$)} \\
\cline{2-4}
& $L^{\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}}$ &\cellcolor{blue!25} $\mathbf{5.02} \pm 0.20$ & $3.69 \pm 0.14$\\
& \tiny{(one-hot val)} &\cellcolor{blue!25} \tiny{($37.58 \pm 0.11$ )} & \tiny{($35.10 \pm 0.09$)}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{small}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.1in
\end{table}
\subsection{Additional tradeoff plots}\label{app:tradeoff_plots}
Supplementing the tradeoff plot in the main paper (Figure \ref{fig:tradeoffs_cf-lt_32_onehot}), we provide the following set of plots illustrating the tradeoff between worst-case accuracy and balanced accuracy for different student architectures:
\begin{itemize}
\item Long-tail datasets: self distillation (Figures \ref{fig:tradeoffs_cf-lt_56_onehot}, \ref{fig:tradeoffs_cf-lt_56_teacher}), and compressed student (Figures \ref{fig:tradeoffs_cf-lt_32_onehot}, \ref{fig:tradeoffs_cf_32_teacher}).
\item Original balanced datasets: self distillation (Figures \ref{fig:tradeoffs_cf_56_onehot}, \ref{fig:tradeoffs_cf_56_teacher}), and compressed student (Figures \ref{fig:tradeoffs_cf_32_onehot}, \ref{fig:tradeoffs_cf_32_teacher}).
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
& \tiny{CIFAR-10-LT (ResNet-56 $\to$ ResNet-56)} & \tiny{CIFAR-100-LT (ResNet-56 $\to$ ResNet-56)} \\
\includegraphics[trim={2.8cm 0 2.8cm 0},clip,width=0.15\textwidth]{figures/legend_cf10lt_arch56_onehot.pdf} & \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figures/plot_cf10lt_arch56_onehot} & \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figures/plot_cf100lt_arch56_onehot}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Tradeoffs in worst-class test accuracy vs. average test accuracy for CIFAR-10-LT and CIFAR-100-LT, with students trained using architecture ResNet-56 and \textbf{one-hot} validation labels. Mean test performance over 10 runs are shown, and all temperatures are included.}
\label{fig:tradeoffs_cf-lt_56_onehot}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\addtolength{\tabcolsep}{-5pt}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
& \tiny{CIFAR-10-LT (ResNet-56 $\to$ ResNet-56)} & \tiny{CIFAR-100-LT (ResNet-56 $\to$ ResNet-56)} \\
\includegraphics[trim={2.8cm 0 2.8cm 0},clip,width=0.15\textwidth]{figures/legend_cf10lt_arch56_teacher.pdf} & \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figures/plot_cf10lt_arch56_teacher} & \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figures/plot_cf100lt_arch56_teacher}
\end{tabular}
\addtolength{\tabcolsep}{5pt}
\caption{Tradeoffs in worst-class test accuracy vs. average test accuracy for CIFAR-10-LT and CIFAR-100-LT, with students trained using architecture ResNet-56 and \textbf{teacher} validation labels. Mean test performance over 10 runs are shown, and all temperatures are included.}
\label{fig:tradeoffs_cf-lt_56_teacher}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\addtolength{\tabcolsep}{-5pt}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
& \tiny{CIFAR-10-LT (ResNet-56 $\to$ ResNet-32)} & \tiny{CIFAR-100-LT (ResNet-56 $\to$ ResNet-32)} \\
\includegraphics[trim={2.8cm 0 2.8cm 0},clip,width=0.15\textwidth]{figures/legend_cf10lt_arch32_teacher.pdf} & \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figures/plot_cf10lt_arch32_teacher} & \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figures/plot_cf100lt_arch32_teacher}
\end{tabular}
\addtolength{\tabcolsep}{5pt}
\caption{Tradeoffs in worst-class test accuracy vs. average test accuracy for CIFAR-10-LT and CIFAR-100-LT, with students trained using architecture ResNet-32 and \textbf{teacher} validation labels. Mean test performance over 10 runs are shown, and all temperatures are included.}
\label{fig:tradeoffs_cf-lt_32_teacher}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\addtolength{\tabcolsep}{-5pt}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
& \tiny{CIFAR-10 (ResNet-56 $\to$ ResNet-56)} & \tiny{CIFAR-100 (ResNet-56 $\to$ ResNet-56)} \\
\includegraphics[trim={2.8cm 0 2.8cm 0},clip,width=0.15\textwidth]{figures/legend_cf10_arch56_onehot.pdf} & \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figures/plot_cf10_arch56_onehot} & \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figures/plot_cf100_arch56_onehot}
\end{tabular}
\addtolength{\tabcolsep}{5pt}
\caption{Tradeoffs in worst-class test accuracy vs. average test accuracy for CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100, with students trained using architecture ResNet-56 and \textbf{one-hot} validation labels. Mean test performance over 10 runs are shown, and all temperatures are included.}
\label{fig:tradeoffs_cf_56_onehot}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\addtolength{\tabcolsep}{-5pt}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
& \tiny{CIFAR-10 (ResNet-56 $\to$ ResNet-56)} & \tiny{CIFAR-100 (ResNet-56 $\to$ ResNet-56)} \\
\includegraphics[trim={2.8cm 0 2.8cm 0},clip,width=0.15\textwidth]{figures/legend_cf10_arch56_teacher.pdf} & \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figures/plot_cf10_arch56_teacher} & \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figures/plot_cf100_arch56_teacher}
\end{tabular}
\addtolength{\tabcolsep}{5pt}
\caption{Tradeoffs in worst-class test accuracy vs. average test accuracy for CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100, with students trained using architecture ResNet-56 and \textbf{teacher} validation labels. Mean test performance over 10 runs are shown, and all temperatures are included.}
\label{fig:tradeoffs_cf_56_teacher}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\addtolength{\tabcolsep}{-5pt}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
& \tiny{CIFAR-10 (ResNet-56 $\to$ ResNet-32)} & \tiny{CIFAR-100 (ResNet-56 $\to$ ResNet-32)} \\
\includegraphics[trim={2.8cm 0 2.8cm 0},clip,width=0.15\textwidth]{figures/legend_cf10_arch32_onehot.pdf} & \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figures/plot_cf10_arch32_onehot} & \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figures/plot_cf100_arch32_onehot}
\end{tabular}
\addtolength{\tabcolsep}{5pt}
\caption{Tradeoffs in worst-class test accuracy vs. average test accuracy for CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100, with students trained using architecture ResNet-32 and \textbf{one-hot} validation labels. Mean test performance over 10 runs are shown, and all temperatures are included.}
\label{fig:tradeoffs_cf_32_onehot}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\addtolength{\tabcolsep}{-5pt}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
& \tiny{CIFAR-10 (ResNet-56 $\to$ ResNet-32)} & \tiny{CIFAR-100 (ResNet-56 $\to$ ResNet-32)} \\
\includegraphics[trim={2.8cm 0 2.8cm 0},clip,width=0.15\textwidth]{figures/legend_cf10_arch32_teacher.pdf} & \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figures/plot_cf10_arch32_teacher} & \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{figures/plot_cf100_arch32_teacher}
\end{tabular}
\addtolength{\tabcolsep}{5pt}
\caption{Tradeoffs in worst-class test accuracy vs. average test accuracy for CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100, with students trained using architecture ResNet-32 and \textbf{teacher} validation labels. Mean test performance over 10 runs are shown, and all temperatures are included.}
\label{fig:tradeoffs_cf_32_teacher}
\end{center}
\vskip -0.2in
\end{figure*}
\section{Theoretical Analysis}
\label{sec:theory}
To simplify our exposition, we will present our theoretical analysis
for a student trained using Algorithm \ref{algo:dro} to yield good worst-class performance. Our results easily extend to the case where the student seeks to trade-off between overall and worst-case performance.
\textbf{What constitutes a good teacher?}
We would first like to understand what makes a good teacher
when the student's goal is to minimize the robust population objective $L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(f^s)$ in \eqref{eq:robust}. We also analyze whether the student's ability to perform well on this worst-case objective depends on
the teacher also performing well on the same objective.
As a proxy for $L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(f^s)$, the
student minimizes the distilled objective $\hat{L}^\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}(f^s)$ in \eqref{eq:robust-distilled-empirical}
with predictions from teacher $p^t$.
We argue that an \emph{ideal} teacher
in this case
would be one that ensures that
the difference between the two objectives
$
|\hat{L}^\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}(f^s) - L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(f^s)|
$
is as small as possible. Below, we provide a simple bound on this difference:
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:good-teacher}
Suppose $\ell(y, z) \leq B, \forall x \in \mathcal{X}$ for some $B > 0$.
Let $\pi^t_y = \mathbb{E}_x\left[ p_y^t(x) \right]$,
and let the following denote the per-class expected and empirical student losses respectively:
\begin{align*}
\phi_y(f^s) = \textstyle\frac{1}{\pi^t_y}\mathbb{E}_x\left[ p_y^t(x)\, \ell\left( y , f^s(x) \right)\right]; \quad \hat{\phi}_y(f^s) = \textstyle\frac{1}{\hat{\pi}^t_y}\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n p_y^t(x_i)\,\ell\left( y , f^s(x_i) \right).
\end{align*}
Then for teacher $p^t$ and student $f^s$:
\begin{align*}
|\hat{L}^\textrm{\textup{rob-d}}(f^s) - L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(f^s)|
&\leq
\underbrace{
B\max_{y \in [m]} \mathbb{E}_x\left[
\left| \frac{p^t_y(x)}{\pi^t_y} - \frac{\eta_y(x)}{\pi_y} \right|\right]}_{\text{Approximation error}}
+
\underbrace{
\max_{y \in [m]} \big|\phi_y(f^s) - \hat{\phi}_y(f^s)\big|}_{\text{Estimation error}}.
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}
The \emph{approximation error}
captures
how well the teacher's predictions mimic the conditional-class distribution $\eta(x) \in \Delta_m$,
up to per-class normalizations.
This suggests that even if $p^t$ does not
achieve good worst-class performance, as long as
it is well calibrated within each class (as measured by the approximation error above),
it will serve as a good teacher. Indeed when the teacher outputs the conditional-class probabilities,
i.e.\ $p^t(x) = \eta(x)$, the approximation error is trivially zero (recall that the normalization term
$\pi^t_y = \pi_y$ in this case). We know from
Theorem \ref{thm:bayes} that, this would be the case with a teacher
trained to optimize the standard cross-entropy objective (provided we use an unrestricted model class).
In practice, however, we do not expect the teacher to approximate $\eta(x)$ very well,
and this opens the door for training the teacher with the other objectives described in Section \ref{sec:prelims}, each
of which encourage the teacher to approximate a scaled (normalized) version of $\eta(x)$.
The \emph{estimation error} captures how well the teacher aids in the student's out-of-sample generalization.
The prior work by \citet{menon2021statistical} studies this question in detail for
the standard student objective, and
provide a bound that depends on the variance induced by the teacher's predictions on the
student's objective: the lower the variance, the better the student's generalization.
A similar analysis can be carried out with the per-class loss terms in Theorem \ref{thm:good-teacher} (more details in Appendix \ref{app:student-gen-bound}).
\textbf{Robustness guarantee for the student.}\
We next seek to understand if the student can match or outperform the teacher's worst-class performance.
For a fixed teacher $p^t$, we
consider a \emph{self-distillation} setup where
the student is chosen from the same function class $\mathcal{F}$ as the teacher,
and can thus exactly mimic the teacher's predictions.
Under this setup,
we provide robustness gurarantees
for the student output by Algorithm \ref{algo:dro}
in terms of the approximation and estimation errors
described above.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:student-form}
Suppose $p^t \in \mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{F}$ is closed under linear transformations. Let $\bar{\lambda}_y = (\prod_{k=1}^K {\lambda_y^k}/{\pi^t_y})^{1/K}, \forall y$.
Then the scoring function $\bar{f}^s(x) = \frac{1}{K} \sum_{k=1}^K f^{k}(x)$ output by Alg. \ref{algo:dro} is of the form:
\[
\textrm{\textup{softmax}}_j(\bar{f}^s(x)) \propto \bar{\lambda}_j p_j^t(x),~\forall j \in [m],\, \forall (x, y) \in S.
\]
\end{proposition}
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:dro}
Suppose $p^t \in \mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{F}$ is closed under linear transformations.
Suppose
$\ell$ is the cross-entropy loss $\ell^{\textrm{\textup{xent}}}$,
$\ell(y, z) \leq B$
and $\max_{y \in [m]}\frac{1}{\pi^t_y} \leq Z$,
for some $B, Z > 0$.
Furthermore, suppose for any $\delta \in (0,1)$, the following bound holds on the
estimation error in Theorem \ref{thm:good-teacher}:
with probability at least $1 - \delta$ (over draw of $S \sim D^n$),
$\forall f \in \mathcal{F}$, $\textstyle
\max_{y \in [m]} \big|\phi_y(f) - \hat{\phi}_y(f)\big| \leq \Delta(n, \delta),$
for some $\Delta(n, \delta) \in \mathbb{R}_+$ that
is increasing in $1/\delta$, and goes to 0 as $n \> \infty$.
Then when the step size $\gamma = \frac{1}{2BZ}\sqrt{\frac{\log(m)}{{K}}}$
and $n^\textrm{\textup{val}} \geq 8Z\log(2m/\delta)$, we have that with
probability at least $1-\delta$ (over draw of $S \sim D^n$ and $S^\textrm{\textup{val}} \sim D^{n^\textrm{\textup{val}}}$),
\begin{align*}
\lefteqn{
L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(\bar{f}^s) \,\leq\,
\min_{f \in \mathcal{F}}L^\textrm{\textup{rob}}(f)}
\\[-10pt]
&\hspace{1cm}
+\,
\underbrace{2\Delta(n^\textrm{\textup{val}}, \delta/2) \,+\, 2\Delta(n, \delta/2)}_{\text{Estimation error}}
\,+\,
\underbrace{
2B\max_{y \in [m]} \mathbb{E}_x\left[
\left| \frac{p^t_y(x)}{\pi^t_y} \,-\, \frac{\eta_y(x)}{\pi_y} \right|\right]}_{\text{Approximation error}}
\,+\,
\underbrace{4BZ\sqrt{\frac{\log(m)}{{K}}}}_{\text{EG convergence}}.
\end{align*}
\vspace{-10pt}
\end{theorem}
Proposition \ref{prop:student-form} shows the student
not only learns to mimic the teacher on the training set, but makes per-class adjustments to its predictions,
and Theorem \ref{thm:dro} shows that these adjustments are chosen to close-in on the
gap to the optimal robust scorer in $\mathcal{F}$.
The form of the student
suggests that it can not only match the teacher's performance,
but can potentially improve upon it by making
adjustments to its scores.
However, the student's convergence to the optimal scorer in $\mathcal{F}$
would still be limited by the teacher's approximation error:
even when the sample sizes and number of iterations $n, n^\textrm{\textup{val}}, K \> \infty$,
the student's optimality gap may still be non-zero as long as the teacher is sub-optimal.
\textbf{Connection to post-hoc adjustment.}\
The form of the student
in Proposition \ref{prop:student-form} raises an interesting question. Instead of training an explicit student model,
why not directly construct a new scoring model by making post-hoc adjustments
to the teacher's predictions? Specifically, one could optimize over functions of the form $f^s_y(x) = \log(\gamma_y p^t_y(x)),$ where the teacher $p^t$ is fixed, and pick
the coefficients $\gamma \in \mathbb{R}^m$ so that resulting scoring function yields the best worst-class accuracy on a held-out dataset.
This simple \emph{post-hoc adjustment} strategy
may not be feasible if the goal is to distill to a student that is considerably smaller than the teacher. Often, this is the case in settings where distillation is used as a compression technique.
Yet, this post-hoc method
serves as good baseline to compare with.
\textbf{One-hot validation labels.}\
If Algorithm \ref{algo:dro} used one-hot labels in the validation set instead of the teacher generated labels (as prescribed in \eqref{eq:one-hot-val}),
the form of the student learned remains the same as
in Theorem \ref{thm:dro}. However, the coefficients $\bar{\lambda}$ used to make
adjustments to the teacher's predictions enjoy a slightly different guarantee.
As shown in Appendix \ref{app:one-hot-vali}, the approximation error bound now has a weaker dependence on the teacher's predictions (and hence is more immune to the teacher's errors),
while the estimation error bound incurs slower convergence with increase in sample size. |
\section{Introduction}
Capturing 360-degree information of the surrounding environments and objects plays an important role in many applications, including vision-based communication, automatic robot or vehicle navigation, geographical information services and motion capture for filmmakers.
While an immersive video is still two-dimensional (2D), three-dimensional (3D) environment capture usually needs special sensing devices. This paper describes the retrieval of 3D information from a monocular spherical video with motion parallax.
\subsection{Related works}
One approach to capture the 3D structure of the surrounding environments is to use other sensing systems than ordinary cameras, such as a laser range finder or an infrared camera and a retroreflective ball, and then to fuse the information into the vision data.
Google's Street View vehicle has a laser range finder to capture the entire 3D world \cite{anguelov2010google}.
The special hardware can be very useful if it is affordable and performs adequately.
Another approach is vision-based capture.
Many efforts have been made to collect more ray information than is obtainable from a normal perspective camera.
The use of multiple cameras is one option to capture full-view spherical stereoscopic images \cite{tanhashi2001acquisition}.
360Heros and Google Jump capture 360 video using multiple cameras. To retrieve depth information from these multiple cameras, sufficient bandwidth and computing power to calculate stereo pairs are required.
Although they are not full-view spherical capture, curved mirrors and reflective optics have also been used to capture wide-angle or 360-degree depth and environment \cite{shimamura2000construction} \cite{lin2003high} \cite{tanaka2005tornado}.
Broxton et al. \cite{broxton2020immersive} used 46 cameras on the surface of a hemispherical dome to reconstruct immersive light field video. In order to reduce the data size, they are using a fixed number of RGBA+depth layers.
Another approach to retrieve 3D information from a 2D video is the use of multiple frames of a single video sequence.
Bartczak et al. \cite{bartczak2007extraction} used an omnidirectional camera to reconstruct 3D surface models from a video sequence. They used the concept of Structure from Motion and required multiple frames to reconstruct the 3D environment.
Odometry studies \cite{scaramuzza2008appearance} \cite{munteanu2014visual} have also been conducted.
These studies are mainly focused on two-dimensional motions of the viewpoint on the ground and also require multiple frames.
The development of a high-resolution entire 360 camera such as Ricoh THETA and Insta 360 widened the possibility of capturing the environment in an additional way.
There have been several studies to reconstruct 3D data using multiple spherical camera or spherical stereo pairs.
Li et al. \cite{li2006real} \cite{li2008binocular} proposed binocular spherical stereo as an epipolar geometry for spherical stereo pairs and found the effectiveness of using fish-eye cameras, while
Ma et al. \cite{ma20153d} applied this concept to an actual spherical camera pair.
Kim et al. \cite{kim20133d} proposed a 3D environment modeling method using multiple pairs of high-resolution spherical images.
These studies used multiple or at least two spherical cameras.
Bodington et al. \cite{bodington2015rendering} proposed a technique to reconstruct an omnistereo image pair from two spherical images captured by a known vertical displacement.
Their efforts are mainly focused on the reconstruction of omnistereo imagery.
Recent studies include creating 6 degree-of-freedom (DoF) views from a single 360 camera \cite{huang20176} and machine learning-based depth estimation from a single spherical image \cite{zioulis2018omnidepth}. While the former focuses on a 6-DoF view synthesis for VR headsets, the latter is mainly for indoor images.
First, we extend the concept of binocular spherical stereo to capture the 3D geometry and reconstruct the point cloud by using spherical images from only two positions separated vertically.
Then, we propose a method to estimate depth information using two frames from a spherical video sequence with motion parallax.
\section{Binocular spherical stereo}
\label{sec:binocular_spherical_stereo}
In this section, we describe the method and results of the nearly entirely spherical depth estimation from binocular sphere images.
\subsection{Method}
\label{subsec:binocular_method}
An ideal entirely spherical camera maps the incoming light from every direction to its central point $C$ (we call this a viewpoint) on a sphere centered at $C$.
An equirectangular image is obtained directly from this spherical information and now is the defacto format for spherical images.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
$\vcenter{\hbox{\includegraphics[height=1.8in]{images/binocular_cameras}}}$
\hspace*{1.5em}
$\vcenter{\hbox{\includegraphics[height=1.3in]{images/earth_coordinate}}}$
\caption{Binocular spherical stereo camera configuration (left) and coordinate system for each optics (right).}
\label{fig:binocular_cameras}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:binocular_cameras} shows two such cameras placed vertically along with the coordinate system.
Here, binocular spherical stereo is formulated as the following.
When seen from two positions separated vertically, an object is projected onto the same meridian in the upper and lower images (Figure \ref{fig:twoviewpoints}).
When we rotate these images by 90$^{\circ}$ clockwise, we can obtain two images with horizontal parallax. Once we obtain these images, we can apply any stereo algorithm.
In this configuration, the epipole for the upper viewpoint is the south pole and the epipole for the lower viewpoint is the north pole\footnote{Here we use the analogy of earth to address geometry on a sphere.}. This means that all of the meridians are the epipolar lines.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{images/process_pipeline}
\caption{Principle of binocular spherical stereo. When seen from two positions separated vertically, an object is projected onto the same meridian. When we rotate these images by 90$^{\circ}$ clockwise, we can obtain two images with horizontal parallax.
}
\label{fig:twoviewpoints}
\end{figure}
The distance of an object that has $n$-pixel parallax is calculated as follows:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:D_npixels}
D_{n} = \frac{d}{\tan \left(\frac{n}{R_\text{vertical}} \pi \right)} \simeq \frac{d \cdot R_\text{vertical}}{\pi n}
\end{equation}
where $n$ is the distance between the point in the upper image and the corresponding point in the lower image in the number of pixels, $d$ is the distance of two cameras and $R_\text{vertical}$ is the vertical resolution of the equirectangular expression.
The last step is the latitude-based rectification.
As is described in Appendix \ref{sec:apparent_reduction}, we have to rectify the distance of an object based on the latitude $\phi$ of the incoming light.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Rectification}
D_{REAL} \simeq \frac{D_{APPARENT}}{\cos \phi}
\end{equation}
Figure \ref{fig:binocular_spherical_stereo_pipeline} shows the processing pipeline.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{images/processing_pipeline_binocular}
\caption{The processing pipeline of binocular spherical stereo.}
\label{fig:binocular_spherical_stereo_pipeline}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Results}
\label{subsec:binocular_results}
Figure \ref{fig:binocular} shows a color-mapped result of reconstructing depth information.
The upper and lower images were shot with a Ricoh THETA S from two positions vertically separated by 20 cm.
At this time, we captured the images by two separate exposures using a single camera.
The equirectangular image has the dimensions of 3,584$\times$1,792.
We used a block matching based stereo matcher ({\tt StereoBM} in OpenCV4) to estimate the depth. The depth is calculated as the reciprocal of the parallax (of a certain point), while we used the value of the parallax itself in the depth color map. We set the number of disparities at 96.
With this resolution, we can clearly see the edges of the building structure, the ground and the far buildings.
By using Equation \ref{eq:D_npixels}, we can calculate $D_{n \rightarrow 1} = 61 \text{[m]}$
near the horizon as $d = 0.2\text{[m]}$ and $R_\text{vertical} = 960$. We found that the farthest building is located over 120 m from the cameras. As $D_{n \rightarrow 0.5} = 122.2$, we can confirm that the stereo matching algorithm estimates the depth from half-pixel parallax.
We also found that we can capture depth information from the south latitude 80$^{\circ}$ (the pattern on the ground) to the north latitude 80$^{\circ}$ (the building structure).
This covers over 98.5\% of the entire solid angle of the sphere.
We found that the edge of the building is located 20 m from the cameras.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{images/binocular}
\caption{Binocular spherical stereo results. The images were shot from two positions vertically separated by 20 cm.
}
\label{fig:binocular}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:binocular_pc} shows the reconstructed point cloud.
For each pixel $(\theta, \phi)$ in the equirectangular depth map, we calculated a coordinate of a point $(r \sin(\theta) \cos(\phi), r \sin(\phi), - r \cos(\theta) \cos(\phi))$, where $r$ is the depth value.
We used Open3D\cite{zhou2018open3d} to visualize the data. We confirmed that the structures such as roads and buildings can be clearly observed.
We compared the top view with the actual floor plan and confirmed that the maximum error in the dimensions obtained from the point cloud is less than 5\% for the structure on the ground level whose distance from the camera is within 10 m
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{images/binocular_pc}
\caption{Point cloud reconstructed from the above data. Bird view showing the square, the road and the building (top) and
View from the ground (bottom). The square ground and the corridor between two buildings are clearly observed.}
\label{fig:binocular_pc}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:drone_shot} is an example of applying this method to aerial videos.
This binocular spherical stereo pair was shot with two Ricoh THETA S cameras attached above and below a drone. The resolution of the equirectangular video was 1,960$\times$960, and the video was recorded at 30 frames per second (FPS).
Two cameras are separated by 35 cm vertically. We can clearly see the ground and the structure. The small house is located over 100 m from the drone.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{images/binocular_drone}
\caption{Example of spherical depth reconstruction from binocular spherical videos shot with two Ricoh THETA S cameras placed above and below a drone.}
\label{fig:drone_shot}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Alignment of two cameras}
In a binocular spherical stereo, it is essential to align the coordinate system (in Figure \ref{fig:binocular_cameras}) so that the $x$, $y$ and $z$ axes of two cameras are in parallel.
Otherwise, the performance of the depth estimation will significantly deteriorate.
Figure \ref{fig:rpycorrect_drawings} shows how the misalignment of the upper camera causes the deformation of the horizontal line, when the bottom camera is aligned so that its $y$ axis becomes perpendicular to the ground.
Let $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$ be the pitch, yaw and roll angles relative to those of the bottom camera respectively. Then the rotation around the $y$ axis ($\beta$) causes a horizontal shift in the top camera equirectangular image, while the rotation around the $x$ and $z$ axes ($\alpha$ and $\gamma$ respectively) cause a sinusoidal deformation of the horizontal curve.
We can cancel this deformation by identifying $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$ mainly by observing the pitch, yaw and roll fluctuations in the equirectangular images in the process of camera calibration.
The details of the correction can be found in Appendix \ref{sec:rpy_correct}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{images/rpycorrect_drawings}
\caption{The deformation of a horizontal line and its correction.
}
\label{fig:rpycorrect_drawings}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:binocular_drone_misalign} shows an example of depth estimation failure due to an inaccurate correction of the top camera angles. In this case, because the rotation around the $x$ axis is not zero, the parallax for the left half of the equirectangular image becomes larger than the actual. This results in a smaller depth estimation in this area.
On the other hand, the parallax for the right half of the image becomes smaller than the actual (sometimes negative). As a result, the depth estimation in this area becomes greater than the actual.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{images/binocular_drone_misalign}
\caption{Depth estimation failure due to a camera misalignment.}
\label{fig:binocular_drone_misalign}
\end{figure}
\section{Monocular spherical stereo}
In this section, we extend the idea of binocular spherical stereo to retrieve spherical depth information from a monocular spherical video with motion parallax.
When we extract two adjacent frames from such video sequences, we can reconstruct spherical depth information for still or slow-moving objects.
Let $C_{t=t_0}$ and $C_{t=t_0 + \Delta t}$ the camera positions at $t=t_0$ and $t=t_0 + \Delta t$ respectively, then we can apply the binocular spherical depth estimation to this monocular spherical stereo problem.
We select the coordinate system for two viewpoints so that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $x$, $y$ and $z$ axes of the two viewpoints $C_{t=t_0}$ and $C_{t=t_0 + \Delta t}$ are in parallel.
\item Both $C_{t=t_0}$ and $C_{t=t_0 + \Delta t}$ share the $z$ axes\footnote{As the binocular depth estimation discussed in the previous section used the vertical parallax, we once converted the front view expression to a top view expression so that $z$ axis coincides the moving direction.}.
\end{enumerate}
In order for Condition 1 to be met, we have to cancel the roll, pitch and yaw rotation.
This problem is solved by n-point relative pose estimation\cite{hartley2003multiple}.
In order to stabilize the video, we followed the five-point relative pose estimation algorithm together with RANSAC proposed by Nist\'er\cite{nister2004efficient}.
For Condition 2, we have to ensure the moving direction coincides the $z$ axis.
After the stabilization, we analyzed the optical flow on a spherical video for this purpose
\subsection{Estimation of the moving direction}
In Figure \ref{fig:md_estimation}, the optical flow of the top view image is pointing straight downward at every location and the vectors are parallel when the vector source of the front view image is at the center.
When the position of the vector source moves upward
, $x$ components of the optical flow vectors in left side window becomes positive, while those in the right side window become negative.
Similarly, when the vector source moves to the right direction
, $x$ components in the front window becomes positive, while those in the back window become negative. Thus, we used the following calculation.
\begin{itemize}
\item Downward shift of the moving direction was estimated by calculating the ratio\\
\small{\textbf{\texttt{median[union[$\mathbf{v}_x$ in left side window,\\ \hspace*{7em}$-\mathbf{v}_x$ in right side window]]}}}/
\textbf{\texttt{median[union[$\mathbf{v}_y$ in left side window,\\ \hspace*{8em}$\mathbf{v}_y$ in right side window]]}}
\item Leftward shift of the moving direction was estimated by calculating the ratio\\
\textbf{\texttt{median[union[$\mathbf{v}_x$ in front window,\\ \hspace*{7em}$-\mathbf{v}_x$ in back window]]}}/
\textbf{\texttt{median[union[$\mathbf{v}_y$ in front window,\\ \hspace*{8em}$\mathbf{v}_y$ in back window]]}}
\end{itemize}
Figure \ref{fig:monocular_spherical_stereo_pipeline} shows the processing pipeline of monocular spherical stereo estimation.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{images/rpy_opticalflow_motion}
\caption{Optical flow on a spherical image caused by motion of viewpoint.
When the vector source moves around the center, the optical flow in the top view is distorted.
}
\label{fig:md_estimation}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{images/processing_pipeline_monocular}
\caption{The processing pipeline of monocular spherical stereo.}
\label{fig:monocular_spherical_stereo_pipeline}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Experiments}
\label{subsec:mono_experiments}
\paragraph{Bike ride spherical video}
We attached a Ricoh THETA S on top of the bike helmet and shot first-person spherical videos (Figure \ref{fig:helmet_theta}). The resolution of the equirectangular video was 1,920$\times$960. The video was recorded at 30FPS.
Since the typical speed of the bike was at 20 km/h, which corresponds to an inter-frame motion parallax of 20 cm, we used this length during the following calculation.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.2in]{images/helmet_theta}
\caption{Ricoh THETA S attached on top of the bike helmet.}
\label{fig:helmet_theta}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:estdepth_result} shows an example of the depth estimation from a first-person spherical video. We can observe the depth of buildings and palm trees. The farthest tree is located over 40 m from the viewpoint. We are not able to capture the depth of a moving car that is passing the bike from the stereo information.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{images/processing_pipeline_02p}
\caption{Depth estimation from a first-person spherical bike ride.
We can observe the palm tree and the concrete wall. The farthest tree is located over 40 m from the viewpoint.
}
\label{fig:estdepth_result}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Car driving spherical video}
We also recorded car driving videos.
This time, we used a Ricoh THETA V. The resolution of the equirectangular video was 3,840 x 1,920, and the video was recorded at 30FPS. The typical speed was at 30 km/h, which corresponds to an inter-frame motion parallax of 30 cm.
We evaluated the size of the blind spot in the front center (moving direction) and the back center (Figure \ref{fig:angle_coverage} front view).
The front and back moving directions correspond to the north and south high latitude area in the binocular spherical stereo described in Section \ref{sec:binocular_spherical_stereo}.
Let $\psi$ the half of the visual angle of the blind spot, the ratio of the blind spot surface area is formulated as follows:
\begin{equation}
A_{blind}(\psi) = \left( 2 \pi \int_0^{\psi} \! \sin\psi \, \mathrm{d}\psi \right) \Big/ 2 \pi = 1 - \cos \psi
\end{equation}
Detection limit is defined by the stereo block matching margin. Using the coordinate system for the binocular spherical stereo, we evaluated this limit at around north latitude $85^{\circ}$. This results in the sphere coverage ratio of $1 - A_{blind} = 99.56\%$.
On the other hand, regarding the accuracy limit, below which we could obtain a stable depth information, we evaluated this limit at around north latitude $77^{\circ}$. This results in the sphere coverage ratio of $1 - A_{blind} = 97.6\%$.
In the bottom view, We also found that we can capture the depth of the traffic signal above the viewpoint.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{images/forester2}
\caption{Angle coverage of a spherical depth estimation.
}
\label{fig:angle_coverage}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Environment 3D reconstruction}
We further converted the spherical depth data into point cloud data using the method mentioned in Section \ref{subsec:binocular_results}. Again, the number of disparities in stereo matching was 96.
We calculated and accumulated the point cloud for every 30 frames and merged the data into one 3D reconstruction. In order to merge the data with appropriate offset, we estimated the speed of the vehicle and assumed it was constant as well as the moving direction. If the speed is varying, we will obtain the 3D reconstruction result with varying scale. Also if the moving direction is varying, we will obtain the result with varying directions. In both cases we can rotate and translate the 3D data to match the result from the previous frame(s) by utilizing accurate registration algorithms such as iterative closest point (ICP) registration\cite{besl1992method}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{images/pointcloud_example_1}
\caption{Example of reconstructed point cloud. Accumulation of eight captures in eight seconds. We can clearly see the row of palm trees.}
\label{fig:pointcloud_ex_1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{images/pointcloud_example_2}
\caption{Example of reconstructed point cloud. Accumulation of eight captures in eight seconds. We can clearly see the structure of the pedestrian slope.}
\label{fig:pointcloud_ex_2}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig:pointcloud_ex_1} and \ref{fig:pointcloud_ex_2} show the examples of the 3D reconstruction of the environments.
Using Open3D point cloud visualization, we can clearly observe the 3D structure of a row of palm trees, traffic signs and a pedestrian slope.
Since we have 3D environmental data, we can place virtual cameras at arbitrary positions.
Creating such bird-view graphics is useful for many applications including 1) camera work planning and previsualization for filmmakers and sports producers, 2) automatic robot or vehicle navigation and 3) geographical information services.
\paragraph{Application to 360 videos on the Internet}
We applied this method to a first-person spherical video on the Internet.
With equirectangular videos, we don't need to estimate the field of view (FOV) of a footage. Often, we can easily determine the horizontal line and the zenith position.
Figure \ref{fig:estdepth_result3} shows an example of depth estimation from a first-person bike ride footage on YouTube. We can clearly see the structure of the trees and the buildings.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{images/processing_pipeline_youtube}
\caption{Depth estimation for a first-person bike ride video on YouTube. The resolution was 3,840$\times$1,920.}
\label{fig:estdepth_result3}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Application to aerial videos}
It is essential to sense the entirely spherical environment in an automatic navigation of drones.
While we already presented the application of binocular spherical stereo to aerial videos in Section \ref{sec:binocular_spherical_stereo},
we also tried the monocular method (Figure \ref{fig:monocular_drone}).
Spherical depth information was calculated from a take-off scene shot by a Ricoh THETA S attached below a drone. This time, the motion parallax was vertical.
At lower positions we can observe the ground clearly (a), while at higher positions we can barely observe the edge of the runway (b).
We have implemented a prototype of an obstacle detection system by utilizing this algorithm running on an NVIDIA Jetson.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{images/monocular_drone}
\caption{Spherical depth estimation from a monocular spherical camera attached to a drone at different heights.
In this sequence of take-off, the motion parallax was vertical.}
\label{fig:monocular_drone}
\end{figure}
\section{Discussions}
In this section, we discuss the advantages and the challenges of monocular spherical stereo in comparison to binocular method.
\subsection{Monocular method advantages}
\paragraph{Consistent camera characteristics}
Because the images are captured with a single camera, we do not need to consider the difference in the characteristics of the sensors. For example, we set the camera capture mode to automatic during the outdoor shooting so that it accommodates dynamic range of brightness. When we use binocular spherical stereo for capturing, we need to watch if the characteristics of the two cameras are exactly the same.
\paragraph{Less visual obstacles}
To use binocular spherical stereo for capturing, we need to fix two cameras, creating at least two blind spots and
the occlusion caused by the adjacent fisheye lens narrows the practical angles for a stereo observation.
However, when we use the monocular method, we have only one blind spot.
This is clear when we compare the monocular capture with binocular spherical stereo.
\paragraph{No need for synchronization}
When we use a monocular method, we do not need to synchronize two cameras by definition. Instead, a constant 1/30 second gap (when the frame rate is 30FPS) is guaranteed between two images.
\subsection{Monocular method challenges}
\paragraph{Less accuracy for moving objects}
Clearly, the ability to detect a moving object is limited.
In the bike ride video, we can observe that we cannot capture the depth of a car that is passing the bike, while we can detect an oncoming car.
This is because the stereo problem for a passing car contains ill-formed, divergence condition,
while the parallax always increases for an oncoming car.
\section{Conclusion and future work}
We described and demonstrated a method to capture entirely spherical depth information and reconstruct the 3D structures (point cloud) using two frames from a single spherical video.
After illustrating a spherical depth information retrieval using two spherical cameras, we demonstrated monocular spherical stereo by using stabilized video footage with motion parallax.
Experiments demonstrated that the depth information covered up to 97\% (nearly entirely spherical) of the sphere in solid angle. By comparing the 3D reconstruction with the actual floor plan, we found that the maximum error in the dimensions obtained from the point cloud is less than 5\% for a certain range.
With two cameras separated by 35 cm vertically, we were able to detect an object located over 100 m from the viewpoint.
Furthermore, we reconstructed the 3D point cloud data using the spherical depth data from monocular spherical video with motion parallax.
By accumulating 3D data from several captures, we confirmed the structures such as roads, buildings, pedestrian slope and palm trees can be clearly observed.
At a speed of 30 km/h, we were able to detect an object located over 30 m from the moving camera. We applied the method to bike ride, car driving and aerial spherical videos as well as 360 videos on the Internet.
Future works include automated accumulation of 3D data.
As discussed in Section \ref{subsec:mono_experiments}, we are able to reconstruct a wider area by accumulating 3D data without assuming the speed and the moving direction of the viewpoint are constant. We can rotate and translate the most current 3D data to match the accumulated 3D data by using accurate registration algorithms such as ICP.
Developing an integrated tool that simply converts the first-person spherical video into wide-range 3D structure data is also included in the future works.
This can be further integrated into previsualization and location hunting tools for creators.
|
\section{Introduction}
Gappy data reconstruction techniques find wide use in the completion of partially missing or otherwise compromised experimental data. The focus of this work is the estimation of missing regions in long time series of spatially resolved, generally turbulent, statistically stationary flow data. One of the most widely used experimental technique to acquire such data for turbulence research \citep{westerweel2013particle} and geophysical flows \citep{doron2001turbulence}, but also in the automotive \citep{beaudoin2008drag,conan2011experimental} and aerospace industries \citep{willert1997stereoscopic}, is particle image velocimetry (PIV, see e.g. \cite{raffel1998particle,adrian2011particle}). Missing or corrupted regions in PIV measurements have many sources. Among them are shadowing, that is, the partial obstruction of the laser sheet, reflections from objects, and the inaccessibility of certain regions for the imaging system \citep{westerweel1994efficient,huang1997errors,hart2000piv,sciacchitano2012navier}. Corrupted regions also arise from irregular seeding or the absence of a sufficient number of tracer particles, for example, in recirculation zones. Whereas the latter sources of errors are specific to PIV, other measurement techniques suffer from similar problems. Atmospheric data obtained via satellite imagery, for example, often suffer from partial obstruction due to cloud coverage \citep{alvera2005reconstruction}.
Standard mathematical techniques for approximating missing data include basic interpolation and least-square estimation. Techniques devised specifically for the task of gappy data reconstruction include optimal interpolation \citep{reynolds1994improved,smith1996reconstruction,kaplan1998analyses} and Kriging \citep{oliver1990kriging,stein1999interpolation}. Kriging, the more popular method, uses a local or global interpolant that is evaluated at the missing points based on local weighted averaging. The use of proper orthogonal decomposition (POD) in conjunction with least-squares estimation for data reconstruction was proposed by \citet{everson1995karhunen}. This original `gappy POD' algorithm was later extended by \citet{venturi2004gappy} and shown to outperform Kriging for the reconstruction of flow data with up to $50\%$ of gappyness. A computational efficient algorithm that does not require the repeated solutions of least-squares problems was introduced by \citet{gunes2006gappy}. Since its introduction, gappy POD has been applied to various flows such as the flow past an airfoil \citep{bui2004aerodynamic,willcox2006unsteady}, cavity flow \citep{murray2007application}, boundary layers \citep{gunes2007spatial,raben2012adaptive}, gas turbine combustors \citep{saini2016development}, and arterial blood flow \cite{yakhot2007reconstruction}. It has also become an essential component of several model reduction strategies that use POD modes as their basis \citep{chaturantabut2010nonlinear,benner2015survey}. Another application is efficient sensor placement \citep{willcox2006unsteady,yildirim2009efficient}. In the ocean sciences, gappy POD was independently developed under the name of data interpolating empirical orthogonal functions (DINEOF) by \citet{beckers2003eof} and was used to, for example, fill in observational sea surface temperature \citep{alvera2005reconstruction,beckers2006dineof}, Southern Oscillation Index \citep{kondrashov2006spatio}, and surface chlorophyll concentration data \citep{alvera2007multivariate,taylor2013sensitivity}.
In this work, we propose the use of the frequency-domain, or spectral proper orthogonal decomposition, which has been largely overshadowed by the more common space-only variant of POD \citep{sirovich1987turbulence}, for gappy data reconstruction. The mathematical foundations of SPOD were first laid out by \citet{lumley1970stochastic}. An early implementation and application to experimental data was presented by \citet{glauser1987coherent}. A more recent application to large numerical data is shown in \citet{schmidt2018spectral}. In the same year, \citet{towne2018spectral} established relationships to hydrodynamic stability theory and other modal decompositions. The proposed `gappy SPOD' algorithm is fundamentally different from those of \citet{everson1995karhunen} and \citet{venturi2004gappy}, both algorithmically and in that it leverages both spatial and temporal coherence. Note that space-only POD modes are only correlated at zero time lag, and hence do not possess the latter property \citep{towne2018spectral}.
The paper is structured as follows. A brief overview of SPOD and SPOD-based reconstruction is given in \S \ref{methodology}. \S \ref{algorithm} describes the gappy SPOD algorithm. In \S\S \ref{example 1} and \ref{example 2}, we demonstrate the algorithm on numerical simulation data of laminar cylinder flow and PIV data of turbulent cavity flow, respectively. \S \ref{Comparison} compares the performance of the proposed gappy SPOD algorithm to established gappy POD and Kriging methods. Finally, \S \ref{conclusion} summarizes this work. The performance for a case involving sequences of missing snapshots is analysed in \ref{Appendix: miss snapshots}. Parameter studies on the effect of the spectral estimation parameters, as well as data length and SPOD convergence are presented in \ref{Appendix: nfft}, and \ref{Appendix: convergence}, respectively.
\section{Methodology} \label{methodology}
\subsection{Spectral Proper Orthogonal Decomposition}
SPOD extracts monochromatic modes that optimally capture, depending on the choice of norm, the flow's energy. These modes are computed as the eigenvectors of the cross-spectral density matrix. We use a specific SPOD algorithm that estimates the cross-spectral density matrix based on Welch’s approach \citep{welch1967use}. The implementation of this approach entails partitioning the entire time series into smaller segments that are interpreted as independent realizations of the flow. Next, we briefly introduce the notation used in this work. For a detailed mathematical derivation and the algorithmic implementation, the reader may refer to, for example, \citet{towne2018spectral} or \citet{schmidt2020guide}.
We denote by
\begin{equation}
\vb{q}_i = \vb{q}(t_i), \qquad i=1,2,\cdots, n_t,
\end{equation}
the ensemble of $n_t$ snapshots of the statistically stationary flow field with its mean removed. The first step of the standard Welch approach is to segment the data into $n_{\rm blk}$ overlapping blocks, each containing $n_{\rm fft}$ snapshots. If the blocks overlap by $n_{\rm ovlp}$ snapshots, then the $j$-th column in the $k$-th block is given by $\vb{q}_{j}^{(k)}=\vb{q}_{j+(k-1)(n_{\rm fft}-n_{\rm ovlp})+1}$, where $k = 1,2,\cdots, n_\textrm{blk}$, and $j = 1,2,\cdots, n_\textrm{fft}$. Next, we compute a windowed temporal discrete Fourier transform and arrange all the Fourier realizations of the $l$-th frequency, $\Hat{\vb{q}}_{l}^{(j)}$, into a matrix,
\begin{equation}
\Hat{\vb{Q}}_{l}=\bqty{\Hat{\vb{q}}_{l}^{(1)}, \Hat{\vb{q}}_{l}^{(2)}, \cdots, \Hat{\vb{q}}_{l}^{(n_{\rm blk})} }.
\label{eq 8}
\end{equation}
The SPOD modes, $\vb*{\Phi}_l$, and eigenvalues, $\vb*{\Lambda}_l$, are finally obtained as the eigenpairs of the weighted CSD matrix $\vb{S}_l= \frac{1}{n_\textrm{blk}}\Hat{\vb{Q}}_{l} \Hat{\vb{Q}}_{l}^{*}\vb{W}$, where $\vb{W}$ is a positive-definite Hermitian matrix that accounts for the component-wise and numerical quadrature weights. For data with more spatial degrees of freedom than the number of snapshots, we solve the smaller eigenvalue problem,
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{n_{\rm blk}}\vb{\Hat{Q}}_{l}^{*}\vb{W} \vb{\Hat{Q}}_{l} \vb*{\Psi}_{l}=\vb*{\Psi}_{l} \vb*{\Lambda}_{l},
\label{eq 11}
\end{equation}
for the (unscaled) expansion coefficients, $\vb*{\Psi}_{l}$. The SPOD modes at the $l$-th frequency are recovered as
\begin{equation}
\vb*{\Phi}_{l} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{n_\textrm{blk}}}\vb{\Hat{Q}}_{l} \vb*{\Psi}_{l} \vb*{\Lambda}_{l}^{-1/2}.
\label{eq 12}
\end{equation}
The column vectors of $\vb*{\Phi}_{l}=[ \vb*{\phi}_{l}^{(1)}, \vb*{\phi}_{l}^{(2)}, \cdots , \vb*{\phi}_{l}^{(n_{\rm blk})} ] $ are the SPOD modes and the diagonal entries of $\vb*{\Lambda}_{l}=\text{diag} ( \lambda_{l}^{(1)}, \lambda_{l}^{(2)}, \cdots , \lambda_{l}^{(n_{\rm blk})} ) $ contain the mode energies. An important property of the SPOD modes is their orthogonality in their weighted inner product, $\big<\vb*{\phi}_{l}^{(i)},\vb*{\phi}_{l}^{(j)}\big>=\vb*{\phi}_{l}^{(i)}\vb{W} \vb*{\phi}_{l}^{(j)}= \delta_{ij}$, at each frequency. The associated norm is denoted by $\|\cdot\|_2$.
\subsection{Data reconstruction}
The reconstruction of the original data is based on the inversion of the SPOD problem, comprehensively discussed in \citet{nekkanti2021frequency}. The Fourier realizations at each frequency are reconstructed from the SPOD modes as $\vb{\Hat{Q}}_l = \vb*{\Phi}_l\vb{A}_l$. Here, $\vb{A}_l$ is the matrix of the (scaled) expansion coefficients computed as
\begin{align}
\vb{A}_l &= \sqrt{n_{\rm blk}} \vb*{\Lambda}^{1/2}_{l} \vb*{\Psi}^*_{l}, \quad \text{or} \label{expansion coefficients 1} \\
\vb{A}_l &= \vb{\boldsymbol{\Phi}}_l^{*} \vb{W} \Hat{\vb{Q}}_{l}. \label{expansion coefficients 2}
\end{align}
The expansion coefficients can be saved during the computation of SPOD using equation (\ref{expansion coefficients 1}) or recovered later by projecting the Fourier realizations onto the modes using equation (\ref{expansion coefficients 2}). Using the expansion coefficients $a_{ik}$ contained in $\vb{A}$ at any given frequency, the $k$-th block can be reconstructed as
\begin{equation}
\vb{Q}^{(k)}=\mathcal{F}^{-1} \bqty{ \pqty{\sum\limits_{i} a_{ik} \vb*{\phi}^{(i)}}_{\!\!\!l=1} , \pqty{\sum\limits_{i} a_{ik} \vb*{\phi}^{(i)}}_{\!\!\!l=2} , \cdots, \pqty{\sum\limits_{i} a_{i k} \vb*{\phi}^{(i)}}_{\!\!\!l=n_{\rm fft}}},
\label{reconstruction blocks}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{F}^{-1} $ is the inverse windowed Fourier transform. Finally, the time series is reconstructed from the data segments by computing the average of the reconstructions from overlapping blocks, weighted by the relative value of their windowing function \citep{nekkanti2021frequency}.
\section{Algorithm} \label{algorithm}
The gappy SPOD algorithm consists of three loops: in the local loop, a single gap is converged by repeated reconstruction with continuously updated local expansion coefficients; in the inner loop, this process is repeated for all gaps; in the outer loop, the global convergence of the inner loops is assessed.\newline
\noindent{\bf Algorithm:} Gappy SPOD
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item Segment the time series into overlapping blocks and compute the temporal Fourier transform of each block (if not computed in the previous iteration).
\item Proceed to the $n$-th gap and choose all the realizations of the Fourier transform that are \emph{not} affected by this gap.
\item Compute the SPOD from all the Fourier realizations that are not affected by this gap (equations (\ref{eq 11}) and (\ref{eq 12})) and store the corresponding expansion coefficients (equation (\ref{expansion coefficients 1})).
\item Compute the SPOD expansion coefficients for blocks \emph{affected} by the $n$-th gap by projecting their Fourier transforms onto the SPOD basis (equation (\ref{expansion coefficients 2})).
\item Reconstruct the affected blocks by inverting the SPOD (equation (\ref{reconstruction blocks})) from the expansion coefficients computed in (iii) and (iv); replace the regions affected by the $n$-th gap.
\item (local loop) Go to (iv) to update the expansion coefficients now that the data is reconstructed in the affected regions until the convergence criterion based on the change of reconstruction of the $n$-th gap is met.
\item (inner loop) Set $n\leftarrow n+1$ and go to (i) until all gaps are reconstructed.
\item (outer loop) Set $n = 1$ and go to (i); repeat until convergence criterion based on change of reconstruction between outer loop iterations is met.
\end{enumerate}
The metrics used to gauge the error, as compared to the true solution, and the convergence for the local and outer loops, as compared to the previous iteration within the respective loop, are defined next.
\subsection{Error and Convergence metrics}
Define $G$ as the index set corresponding to all gappy snapshots and $G_n \subset G$ as the subset of indices corresponding to the $n$-th gap. The following error and convergence metrics are used to evaluate the efficacy of our method:
\begin{align}
e_i&= \frac{\Big\|\vb{q}^{g}_{i}-\vb{\tilde{q}}^{g}_{i}\Big\|_2^2}{\Big\|\vb{q}^{g}_{i}\Big\|_2^2} \quad \text{(relative error of $i$-th snapshot),} \label{error}\\
e_n&= \sum\limits_{i \in G_n } e_i \quad \text{(relative error of $n$-th gap),} \label{error}\\
E &= \sum\limits_{i \in G } e_i \quad \text{(global relative error),} \label{global relative error}\\
c_n &=\sum\limits_{i \in G_n} \frac{\Big\|\vb{\tilde{q}}^{{g}^{[j-1]}}_{i}-\vb{\tilde{q}}^{g^{[j]}}_{i}\Big\|_2^2}{\Big\|\vb{\tilde{q}}^{g^{[j-1]}}_{i}\Big\|_2^2} \quad \text{(convergence of $n$-th gap).} \label{convergence}
\end{align}
Here, $\vb{q}^{g}$ and $\vb{\tilde{q}}^{g}$ are, respectively, the original and reconstructed data in the gappy regions only, and superscript $[j]$ the iteration index. The calculation of the relative errors, equations (\ref{error}) and (\ref{global relative error}), requires knowledge of the original data, $\vb{q}$. For demonstration purposes only, artificial gaps were introduced in this study, and hence the relative errors can be computed. The convergence metric defined in equation (\ref{convergence}) does not require the true data and can be evaluated even for gappy datasets. Throughout this paper, the thresholds used for convergence criteria are $\mathit{tol} = 10^{-8}$. We will demonstrate later that this tolerance is very conservative in that the error is long converged before the criterion is met for our examples.
\section{Results}
\begin{table*}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccccc}
\hlin
{Case} & {Variables} &{$\mathit{Re}$} & {$n_x$} & {$n_y$} & {$n_z$} & {$n_t$} & {$ \Delta t$} &{$n_{\rm{fft}}$} & {$n_{\rm{ovlp}}$} & {$n_{\rm{blk}}$} \vspace{0.1em} \\ \cline{1-11} \vspace{-0.5em}\\
Cylinder DNS & $u$,$v$ & 500 & 250 & 125 & 1 & 4096 & 0.06 &256 & 128 & 31 \vspace{0.2em} \\
Cavity PIV & $u$,$v$ & 3.3 $\times 10^{5}$ & 150 & 55 & 1 & 16000 & $6.25\times 10^{-5}$s &256 & 128 & 124 \vspace{0.2em} \\\cline{1-11}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Parameters example databases and spectral estimation parameters.}
\end{table*}
We demonstrate the reconstruction of missing data using the gappy SPOD reconstruction method on two examples. The parameters of these example datasets are given in table 1. The first example is direct numerical simulation (DNS) data of the canonical laminar flow past a cylinder. This flow is a popular benchmark case that we will use to compare with established methods such as gappy POD \citep{everson1995karhunen,venturi2004gappy} and Kriging \citep{oliver1990kriging}. The second example is the experimental data of a high Reynolds number flow over an open cavity obtained from time-resolved particle image velocimetry (PIV) measurements \citep{zhang2017identification,zhang2020spectral}. This data exemplifies realistic turbulent flow data and is subject to measurement noise.
\subsection{Example 1: Cylinder flow at $\mathit{Re}$=500} \label{example 1}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
{\includegraphics[trim={0cm 4.4cm 0cm 0.9cm },clip,width=0.9\textwidth]{Figures/Cylinder_flow/Flowfield_visualization.pdf}}
\caption{Instantaneous fluctuating flow field for flow around a cylinder at $\mathit{Re} = 500$: ($a$) streamwise
velocity, $u$; ($b$) transverse velocity, $v$.}
\label{fig 3.0}
\end{figure}
As a first example, we consider the flow around a cylinder at a Reynolds number $\mathit{Re}=\rho U_{\infty} D/\mu = 500$, where $\rho$ is the density, $U_{\infty}$ the incoming flow velocity, $\mu$ the dynamic viscosity, and $D$ the diameter of the cylinder. The coordinates are non-dimensionalized by $D$ and velocities by $U_\infty$, respectively. This data was obtained by solving the two-dimensional incompressible Navier-Stokes equations for the velocity field $\vb{q}= \bqty{u, v}^{T}$ using the immersed-boundary solver by \citet{goza2017strongly}. The data was acquired after all transients have subsided. Instantaneous flow fields of the streamwise velocity, $u$, and transverse velocity, $v$, are shown in figure \ref{fig 3.0}.
\begin{figure}[!tp]
\centering
{\includegraphics[trim={0cm 1.75cm 2.25cm 0.25cm },clip,width=0.9\textwidth]{Figures/Cylinder_flow/All3gaps_1_5_20_new-eps-converted-to.pdf}}
\caption{Randomly generated gaps in the flow past a cylinder: (a) 1\% gappyness; (b) 5\% gappyness; (c) 20\% gappyness. Red blocks indicate gaps. The streamwise ($x$-$y$) plane is plotted over the snapshot index, $i$.}
\label{fig 3.1}
\end{figure}
The gappy SPOD reconstruction is demonstrated on three scenarios with 1\%, 5\%, and 20\% of missing data. Missing regions, or gaps, are introduced artificially. The gaps are randomly seeded in space and time. Similarly, the spatial and temporal extent of the gaps is randomly sampled. Figure \ref{fig 3.1} shows the spatio-temporal distribution of the gaps for all three levels of gappyness. The gaps are allowed to extend over the entire field-of-view and up to 300 snapshots. The gappy-SPOD algorithm reconstructs the data by filling gaps in sequential order. Here, we number the gaps according to their first occurrence in time and have verified that the final error upon convergence is insensitive to the order by which the algorithm handles the gaps. Figure \ref{fig 3.1}($c$) shows the extreme example of 20\% gappyness in which every block contains missing data. Following best practices for SPOD \citep{schmidt2020guide}, the data is segmented into 31 blocks with 256 snapshots and 50\% overlap. The effect of the parameter $n_\textrm{fft}$ is investigated in \ref{Appendix: nfft}. Additionally, in \ref{Appendix: miss snapshots}, we explore a case with 5\% missing data and entire snapshots, or short sequences of snapshots, missing from the data.
\begin{figure}[!hp]
\centering
{\includegraphics[trim={0cm 0.88cm 0cm 0.15cm },clip,width=1.0\textwidth]{Figures/Cylinder_flow/globalerror_Cyl_innerloop_newtop.pdf}}
\caption{Errors and convergence for 5\% gappyness, see figure \ref{fig 3.1}($b$). The global relative error is shown in ($a$). Inner (gap-wise) iterations are denoted by grey dotted lines and outer iterations (sweeps over all gaps) as blue solid lines. Panels ($b$-$d$) show the gap-wise error and convergence for three randomly selected gaps within the first outer loop.}
\label{fig 3.2}
\end{figure}
We start by exploring the 5\% gappyness case, previously shown in figure 2($b$). This case consists of $n_\mathrm{gaps}=20$ randomly seeded and sized gaps. Figure \ref{fig 3.2} illustrates the local and global errors and the convergence of the algorithm. By `local', we refer to the gap-wise iteration, that is, steps (iv)-(vi) of the algorithm in \S \ref{algorithm}, and by `global' to the outer iteration loop over steps (i)-(viii). Figure \ref{fig 3.2}($a$) shows the evolution of the global relative error as defined in equation (\ref{global relative error}) as all gaps are converged to $c_n \leq \mathit{tol}=1\times10^{-8}$ within each of the four outer loops. The gap-wise convergence, $c_n$, is defined by equation (\ref{convergence}). The four outer loops required to achieve global convergence are marked by the thick blue lines. Each of these outer iterations comprises $n_\mathrm{gaps}$ inner loops, indicated by the grey dotted lines. The global relative error is normalized according to equation (\ref{global relative error}), and hence starts with one. The error non-strictly monotonically decreases as the gaps are sequentially filled in. This is a desirable property, but we note that the algorithm does not guarantee it. The amount by which each inner loop can reduce the global relative error is dependent on the spatial location and temporal extent of the corresponding gap. This explains the sharp drops at the beginning of some local iteration loops. At the end of the first outer loop, the global relative error is already reduced to 1.3\%, and its final value after four outer loops is $7.7 \times 10^{-5}$. Notably, a large fraction of the reconstruction error reduction is accomplished by the first outer loop. A quantitative comparison with other methods such as the gappy-POD method by \citet{venturi2004gappy} is provided in section \S \ref{Comparison}.
Panels \ref{fig 3.2}($b$-$d$) show the local relative errors and convergence for three representative gaps during the first outer loop. The local relative error for all gaps decreases monotonically from one to very small values of order $10^{-3}$. After the final outer iteration loop, the local relative errors are of order $10^{-5}$. The tolerance of $\mathit{tol} =1\times10^{-8}$, as indicated by blacked dash lines, guarantees that the relative errors are all well converged.
\begin{figure}[!tp]
\centering
{\includegraphics[trim={0cm 3.45cm 0cm 0.76cm },clip,width=1.0\textwidth]{Figures/Cylinder_flow/snaposhot_utype1_Cyl.pdf}}
\caption{Reconstruction for 5\% gappyness at four time instances: ($a$-$d$) gappy data; ($e$-$h$) reconstructed data; ($i$-$l$) original data. False colors of the streamwise velocity fluctuations, $u$, are on the same scale in all plots. }
\label{fig_5_per_u_vis}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!tp]
\centering
{\includegraphics[trim={0cm 3.45cm 0cm 0.76cm },clip,width=1.0\textwidth]{Figures/Cylinder_flow/snaposhot_vtype1_Cyl.pdf}}
\caption{Same as figure \ref{fig_5_per_u_vis} but for the transverse velocity fluctuations.}
\label{fig_5_per_v_vis}
\end{figure}
Figures \ref{fig_5_per_u_vis} and \ref{fig_5_per_v_vis} compare the reconstructed, gappy, and original data for 5\% of missing data. Figure \ref{fig_5_per_u_vis} shows the streamwise velocity fluctuations, $u$, and figure \ref{fig_5_per_v_vis} the transverse component, $v$. The same four time instances are shown in the four columns of both figures. The first column corresponds to the time instant of the largest instantaneous reconstruction error. The other three are randomly selected. Visual inspection of the reconstructed and original data indicates that the gappy SPOD algorithm is able to accurately reconstruct the flow structures in the affected regions. The relative errors for these four snapshots are $e_i = 7\times 10^{-5}$, 1$\times 10^{-5}$, 1$\times 10^{-5}$, and 2$\times 10^{-5}$, respectively. Figures \ref{fig 3.2}-\ref{fig_5_per_v_vis} demonstrate that the algorithm performs very well in both a qualitative and quantitative sense for this case.
\begin{figure}[!th]
\centering
{\includegraphics[trim={0cm 2.25cm 0cm 2.1cm },clip,width=1.0\textwidth]{Figures/Cylinder_flow/globalerr_1_20_cyl.pdf}}
\caption{Global relative error of the gappy SPOD algorithm: ($a$) 1\% gappyness; ($b$) 20\% gappyness. The blue solid lines indicate the outer iterations.}
\label{GRE_1_20_cyl}
\end{figure}
We next study the performance of the algorithm for the more moderate case with 1\% and the more extreme case with 20\% of missing data. Figure \ref{GRE_1_20_cyl} shows the global relative errors for these two cases. As in figure \ref{fig 3.2}($a$), outer loops are indicated by thick blue lines. The 1\%- and 20\%-gappyness cases require two and 16 outer loops for convergence, respectively. The final errors upon convergence are $E$ = $9\times10^{-6}$, and $3\times10^{-2}$, respectively. As can be anticipated from the very low error for the 1\% case, the reconstructed velocity fields are visually indistinguishable from the original DNS data, and we hence refrain from showing the reconstructions.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
{\includegraphics[trim={0cm 3.45cm 0cm 0.76cm },clip,width=1.0\textwidth]{Figures/Cylinder_flow/snapshots_u_20per_cyl.pdf}}
\caption{Same as figure \ref{fig_5_per_u_vis}, but for 20\% gappyness.}
\label{fig 3.8}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig 3.8} shows the side-by-side comparison for the most severe case with 20\% of gappyness and a final error of 3\%. While the instantaneous flow fields are shown here, note that the gaps extend over significant time periods, as can be seen in figure \ref{fig 3.1}($c$). Similar to figure \ref{fig_5_per_u_vis}, the first column corresponds to the snapshot that exhibits the largest reconstruction error. The remaining three time instants are arbitrarily selected. The spatial gaps in these four snapshots correspond to 50\%, 46\%, 33\%, and 40\% of missing data, respectively. A comparison of the reconstructed and original fields reveals some local discrepancies at the fringes of the gaps, in particular where multiple gaps overlap. This is most notable in figure \ref{fig 3.8}($e,f$). These local discrepancies aside, the wake flow is accurately reconstructed terms of structure, phase and amplitude. The reconstructions are almost indistinguishable from the original data for the snapshots with 33\% and 40\% of missing data shown in figures \ref{fig 3.8}($c$,$g$,$k$) and \ref{fig 3.8}($d$,$h$,$l$), respectively. Results for the transverse velocity component are very similar and omitted for brevity. The relative errors are $e_i = 7.9\times10^{-2}$, $1.7\times10^{-2}$, $2.5\times10^{-3}$, and $1.3\times10^{-3}$, respectively. Considering that a large fraction of 20\% of the data was missing, these errors are, arguably, low and the overall flow dynamics are accurately recovered. A quantitative comparison with other methods, later presented in \S \ref{Comparison}, confirms this conjecture.
\subsection{Example 2: PIV of turbulent cavity flow by \citet{zhang2017identification,zhang2020spectral}} \label{example 2}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
{\includegraphics[trim={0cm 4.5cm 0cm 0.9cm },clip,width=0.9\textwidth]{Figures/Cavity_Flow_PIV/Flowfield_visualization.pdf}}
\caption{ Instantaneous fluctuating flow field of the turbulent flow over an open cavity at $\mathit{Re}$ = 3.3$\times10^5$ measured by \citet{zhang2017identification,zhang2020spectral}: ($a$) streamwise velocity, $u$; ($b$) transverse velocity, $v$. The $x$- and $y$-coordinates are non-dimensionalized by cavity depth $D$.}
\label{fig_Turb_CF}
\end{figure}
Next, we consider the much more relevant and challenging example of experimental turbulent flow over an open cavity. The Reynolds number based on the cavity depth is $\mathit{Re} = \rho U_\infty D/\mu=3.3\times10^{5}$, and the Mach number is $M = U_\infty /c_\infty =0.6$. Here, $c_\infty$ is the speed of sound. Time-resolved particle image velocimetry (TR-PIV) was performed to obtain the velocity field in the center plane of an open cavity with a length-to-depth ratio of $L/D = 6$ and a width-to-depth ratio of $W/D = 3.85$. A total number of 16,000 snapshots was obtained at a sampling rate of 16kHz. The coordinates are non-dimensionalized by depth $D$, but the velocity components are reported in SI units. We refer to \citet{zhang2017identification} and \citet{zhang2020spectral} for more details on the measurement campaign and the experimental setup, respectively. The instantaneous velocity field shown in figure \ref{fig_Turb_CF} exemplifies, in stark contrast to the previous example, the chaotic nature of the flow. This example also tests the algorithm's performance in the presence of measurement noise that is not easily distinguished from physical turbulence.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
{\includegraphics[trim={0cm 2.8cm 0.5cm 0.45cm },clip,width=1.0\textwidth]{Figures/Cavity_Flow_PIV/All3gaps_1_5_20_new-eps-converted-to.pdf}}
\caption{Randomly generated gaps with 5\% for the turbulent flow over an open cavity: ($a$) 1\% gappyness; ($b$) 5\% gappyness; ($c$) 20\% gappyness. Red blocks indicate gaps. The streamwise ($x$-$y$) plane is plotted over the snapshot index, $i$.}
\label{fig_gaps_TC}
\end{figure}
As for the cylinder flow example in \S \ref{example 1}, we consider three cases with 1\%, 5\%, and 20\% of missing data. The gaps are shown in figure \ref{fig_gaps_TC} and were randomly generated in the same way as for the previous example. Taking into account the significantly larger length of the data sequence, the maximum temporal extent of the gaps was increased to 600 snapshots. As before, we choose $n_{\rm fft}=256$ and 50\% overlap, resulting in a total number of 124 blocks. The dependence of the results on $n_{\rm fft}$ is investigated in \ref{Appendix: nfft}. In the extreme example of 20\% gappyness, every block is affected by gaps.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
{\includegraphics[trim={0cm 1.1cm 0cm 0.08cm },clip,width=1.0\textwidth]{Figures/Cavity_Flow_PIV/globalerror_5per_paper_new.pdf}}
\caption{Errors and convergence for 5\% gappyness, see figure \ref{fig_gaps_TC}($b$). The global relative error is shown in ($a$). Inner (gap-wise) iterations are denoted by grey dotted lines and outer iterations as blue solid lines. Panels ($b$-$d$) show the gap-wise error and convergence for three randomly selected gaps within the first outer loop.}
\label{fig_5per_TC}
\end{figure}
As in figure \ref{fig 3.2}, the inner workings of the algorithm for the cavity flow with 5\% of missing data are best understood from the relative errors and gap-wise convergence shown in figure \ref{fig_5per_TC}. Figure \ref{fig_5per_TC}($a$) shows that the algorithm requires two outer iteration loops to satisfy the convergence criterion of $\mathit{tol}=10^{-8}$. The first outer iteration reduces the global relative error by 81\%. The second outer loop does not further reduce the error by an appreciable amount, and its final value remains at $E=19\%$. In \S \ref{Comparison}, we confirm that this value is lower than what is achieved by other established methods. A notable difference to the laminar case, shown in figure \ref{fig 3.2}, is that the global relative error does not decay monotonically. The local relative error and convergence for three representative gaps during the first outer loop are shown in figure \ref{fig_5per_TC}($b$-$d$). The relative error for all gaps decays to about $20 \%$. An important observation is that the gap-wise relative error always saturates before the convergence criterion of $\mathit{tol}=10^{-8}$ is met. This observation, again, serves as an \emph{a posteriori} justification for this choice of tolerance.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
{\includegraphics[trim={0cm 4.92cm 0cm 0.0cm },clip,width=1.0\textwidth]{Figures/Cavity_Flow_PIV/snapshot_utype1.pdf}}
\caption{Reconstruction for the turbulent cavity flow with 5\% gappyness at four time instances: ($a$-$d$) gappy data; ($e$-$h$) reconstructed data; ($i$-$l$) original data. False colors of the streamwise velocity fluctuations, $u$, are on the same scale in all plots.}
\label{fig_5per_vis_TC_u}
\end{figure}
\textbf{\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
{\includegraphics[trim={0cm 4.92cm 0cm 0.0cm },clip,width=1.0\textwidth]{Figures/Cavity_Flow_PIV/snapshot_vtype1.pdf}}
\caption{Same as figure \ref{fig_5per_vis_TC_u}, but for the transverse velocity fluctuations.}
\label{fig_5per_vis_TC_v}
\end{figure}}
Figures \ref{fig_5per_vis_TC_u} and \ref{fig_5per_vis_TC_v} show the instantaneous streamwise and transverse velocity components for the gappy, reconstructed and original flow fields. Again, the first column is the snapshot with the largest reconstruction error, and the other three are arbitrarily selected. We observe that the reconstructions are very similar to the original flow field for all four time instances. The corresponding relative errors are $e_i$ = 29\%, 17\%, 8\%, and 22\%, respectively. The comparison of panels ($e$) and ($i$) in figures \ref{fig_5per_vis_TC_u} and \ref{fig_5per_vis_TC_v} shows that the salient flow features are recovered by the algorithm, that is, despite the remaining error of 29\%.
\begin{figure}
\centering
{\includegraphics[trim={0cm 2.2cm 0cm 2.1cm },clip,width=1.0\textwidth]{Figures/Cavity_Flow_PIV/globalerr_1_20_cavity_latest.pdf}}
\caption{Global relative error of the gappy SPOD algorithm: ($a$) 1\% gappyness; ($b$) 20\% gappyness. The blue solid lines indicate the outer iterations.}
\label{fig_GE_1_20_TC}
\end{figure}
We next address the reconstruction of the two remaining cases with 1\% and 20\% of gappyness. Figure \ref{fig_GE_1_20_TC} shows the global relative errors for these cases. Two and five outer loops are required for convergence, and the final global relative errors are $ E= 20.3\%$ and 19.4\%, respectively. These values are very similar to that of the 5\% case. This indicates that the reconstruction is not sensitive to the percentage of missing data within the range considered here. In each case, the reconstructions recover approximately 80\% of the energy. This result is found in contrast to the laminar cylinder flow case, where the global relative error proportionally increases with the amount of missing data. As before we next inspect representative time instances for a qualitative assessment of the performance.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
{\includegraphics[trim={0cm 4.9cm 0cm 0.1cm },clip,width=1.0\textwidth]{Figures/Cavity_Flow_PIV/snapshots_u_1per_Cavity.pdf}}
\caption{Reconstruction for the turbulent cavity flow with 1\% gappyness at four time instances: ($a$-$d$) gappy data; ($e$-$h$) reconstructed data; ($i$-$l$) original data. False colors of the streamwise velocity fluctuations, $u$, are on the same scale in all plots.}
\label{fig_1per_TC}
\end{figure}
The reconstructions are compared to the gappy and original flow fields for 1\% and 20\% of missing data in figures \ref{fig_1per_TC} and \ref{fig_20per_TC}, respectively. The reconstructions of the 1\% case are in very good agreement with the original data. For the 20\% case shown in figure \ref{fig_20per_TC}, large parts of the field-of-view are missing. An animation of the snapshots in the vicinity of the gaps (see supplemental material) further confirms that the gaps persist for a long time. The percentages of missing data for the four time instances are 58\%, 48\%, 28\%, and 23\%, and the corresponding relative errors are $e_i$ = 43.2\%, 26.4\%, 13.2\%, and 16.6\%. A comparison between the reconstructed field-of-view in figure \ref{fig_20per_TC}($e$) and the reconstructed data in \ref{fig_20per_TC}($i$) shows that the gappy SPOD algorithm was able to reconstruct large parts of the flow field. This puts into perspective the reconstruction error of $E=19.4\%$ that might be perceived as large without this qualitative assessment. Note that correlation-based reconstruction is always limited by the physical length and time scales of the turbulent flow beyond which a reconstruction is not feasible. Comparing the reconstructed to the original data for the three remaining time instances confirms that the algorithm is capable of estimating many of the intricate details of the flow.
\textbf{\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
{\includegraphics[trim={0cm 4.9cm 0cm 0.1cm },clip,width=1.0\textwidth]{Figures/Cavity_Flow_PIV/snapshots_u_20per_Cavity.pdf}}
\caption{Reconstruction for the turbulent cavity flow with 20\% gappyness at four time instances: ($a$-$d$) gappy data; ($e$-$h$) reconstructed data; ($i$-$l$) original data. False colors of the streamwise velocity fluctuations, $u$, are on the same scale in all plots.}
\label{fig_20per_TC}
\end{figure}}
\subsection{Reconstruction of the turbulence statistics} \label{statistics recon}
\textbf{\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
{\includegraphics[trim={0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm },clip,width=1.0\textwidth]{Figures/Cavity_Flow_PIV/TKE_all_cases_latest.pdf}}
\caption{Turbulent kinetic energy fields for the gappy, reconstructed and original data: ($a$-$g$) cylinder flow; ($h$-$n$) the cavity flow. Contour levels are consistent between subplots ($a$-$g$) and ($h$-$n$).}
\label{fig TKE}
\end{figure}}
After assessing the method's performance in terms of the global reconstruction error and with direct comparisons of original and reconstructed flow fields, we next focus on turbulence quantities. In particular, we consider the turbulent kinetic energy (TKE), TKE = $\frac{1}{2}(\overline{(u^\prime)^2} + \overline{(v^\prime)^2})$, and the Reynolds shear stress, $\tau_{xy} = \overline{u^\prime v^\prime}$. The comparison of the original, gappy, and reconstructed TKE fields for the 1\%, 5\%, and 20\% cases are presented in figure \ref{fig TKE}. The cylinder and cavity flows are shown in figure \ref{fig TKE}($a$-$g$) and \ref{fig TKE}($h$-$n$), respectively. For 1\% and 5\%, moderate distortions are observed in the gappy data for both cases, and the reconstructed TKE fields are almost indistinguishable from the original data. For 20\%, a large fraction of TKE has been removed, and the flow field is heavily distorted. The reconstructions shown in panels ($g$) and ($n$), on the contrary, are smoother, recover large parts of the TKE, and compare well with the original data.
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{5pt}
\begin{table*}[!h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|l}
\cline{1-9}
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{TKE error (\%)} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{Reynolds shear stress error (\%)} \\ \cline{1-9}
\multirow{2}{*}{Gappyness} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Cylinder flow} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Cavity flow} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Cylinder flow} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Cavity flow}\\ \cline{2-9}
& Before & After & Before & After & Before & After & Before & After &\\ \cline{1-9}
1\% & 1.18\% & 3.40$\times 10^{-3}$ \% & 0.65\% & 0.19\% & 1.67\% & 2.68 $\times 10^{-2}$\% & 0.65\% & 0.14\%& \\ \cline{1-9}
5\% & 8.23\% & 3.49$\times 10^{-2}$ \% & 4.05\% & 1.3\% & 5.74\% & 0.18\% & 4.27\% & 1.02\%& \\ \cline{1-9}
20\% & 34.72\% & 4.51\% & 21.96\% & 6.35\% & 25.25\% & 5.92\% & 24.59\% & 5.56\% & \\ \cline{1-9}
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{table TKE and Rey error} Area integrated TKE and Reynolds stress errors for the gappy and reconstructed flow fields.}
\end{table*}
For a more quantitative assessment, the area-integrated TKE error is presented in table \ref{table TKE and Rey error}. In accordance with figure \ref{fig TKE}, the TKE error after reconstruction is almost negligible for 1\% and 5\% of missing data for the cylinder flow. The TKE error is also substantially lower for the cavity flow. For 20\% of missing data, the TKE error reduces from 34.7\% to 4.5\%, and from 22\% to 6.4\% for the two examples, respectively. These percentages correspond to $\approx7$- and 4-fold reductions. The qualitative counterparts to these numbers are the TKE field comparisons previously shown in figure \ref{fig TKE}($d,g$) and \ref{fig TKE}($k,n$), respectively. Also listed in table \ref{table TKE and Rey error} is the area-integrated Reynolds shear stress error. Similar to the TKE error, the Reynolds shear stress error has been reduced significantly by a factor of $\approx4$ in both cases.
\section{Comparison with other methods} \label{Comparison}
\begin{figure}
\centering
{\includegraphics[trim={0cm 1.45cm 0cm 0.8cm },clip,width=1.0\textwidth]{Figures/Cavity_Flow_PIV/Methods_comparison_6cases.pdf}}\caption{Global relative error for different reconstruction methods: ($a$-$c$) cylinder flow; ($d$-$f$) cavity flow; ($a$,$d$) 1\%, ($b$,$e$) 5\% and ($c$,$f$) 20\% of missing data. The ordinate in ($a$-$c$)is on a logarithmic scale for clarity.}
\label{fig methods comparison}
\end{figure}
Finally, we compare the performance of the gappy SPOD method to the established methods of gappy POD by \citet{everson1995karhunen} and \citet{venturi2004gappy} (referred to as gappy POD-ES and -VK in the following), and Kriging. For local Kriging, the exponential correlation model results, in agreement with \citet{saini2016development}, in lower errors than the more standard Gaussian model. The more successful model is implemented in the MATLAB toolbox DACE \citep{lophaven2002dace} that was used for our comparisons. The same tool was used by \citet{venturi2004gappy}, \citet{raben2012adaptive}, and \citet{saini2016development} for the same purpose.
Figure \ref{fig methods comparison} compares the global relative errors for gappy SPOD, the two gappy POD algorithms, and Kriging. Both cases and all three levels of gappyness are considered. Both gappy POD methods have the number of modes as a free parameter that needs to be varied to identify the best-possible reconstruction. Kriging relies on interpolants instead of modes and gappy SPOD does not truncate the modal basis. The reconstruction errors of these methods are therefore constant in figure \ref{fig methods comparison}. The gappy POD-ES and -VK methods produce almost identical errors \citep[see also][]{raben2012adaptive,saini2016development}, and we hence do not distinguish between them. The mode numbers were varied until candidates for the global minima, marked by circles, were identified as minima by observing the general trend of the errors. As the number of modes in classical POD is equal to the number of snapshots (4096 and 16000 for the data at hand), gappy POD becomes computationally intractable due to increasingly high compute times (see table 3 below). Therefore, there is no guarantee that the reconstruction corresponds to the actual global optimum. A few common trends are observed in all six cases in figure \ref{fig methods comparison}. In general, gappy POD outperforms Kriging and gappy SPOD outperforms gappy POD. For the cylinder flow and 1\% and 5\% of gappyness in figure \ref{fig methods comparison}($a$,$b$), final reconstruction errors for gappy SPOD are 3.8 and 4.3 times below those of gappy POD and multiple orders of magnitude lower than those of Kriging. For 20\% gappyness, gappy SPOD and gappy POD yield very similar results with only a marginal advantage of 2\% for gappy SPOD, but both outperform Kriging by about one order of magnitude. For the turbulent cavity flow in figure \ref{fig methods comparison}($d$-$f$), at all missing data percentages, gappy SPOD reduces the global relative error by about 80\%, which is at least 20\% lower than for other methods in all cases. In direct comparison with gappy POD, gappy SPOD achieves 2.1, 2.7, and 3.8 fold reductions in error for the three gappyness ratios, respectively. As in section \S\S \ref{example 1} and \ref{example 2}, we observe that the gappyness has a significant impact on the achievable error reduction for the laminar periodic flow, whereas the final error is almost independent of the percentage gappyness for the turbulent, noisy experimental data.
We next compare the compute times for Kriging, gappy POD, and gappy SPOD in table \ref{table time Taken}. With the exception of the cylinder flow at the two lower percentages (where gappy SPOD has an advantage), Kriging and gappy SPOD have similar computational times. A direct comparison with gappy POD is not possible as the optimal number of modes is not known a priori, and its computation becomes quickly intractable as the mode number is increased. The mode number shown in table \ref{table time Taken} reflect the minimum number of modes required to guarantee that the global minimum was identified to the best of our ability. For the two examples at hand, we found that a decreasing number of modes was required for gappy POD the the gappyness increases. This gives gappy POD an advantage in terms of compute time for higher percentages of missing data. Note, however, that gappy SPOD yields a more accurate reconstruction, and does not require monitoring. In summary, gappy SPOD always outperforms Kriging and generally performs better (although in one case only marginally) than gappy POD in terms of the reconstruction error, but sometimes does so at a higher computational cost.
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{5pt}
\begin{table*}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|l}
\cline{1-7}
{Gappy-} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Cylinder flow (in hr)} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Cavity flow (in hr)} \\ \cline{2-7}
{ness} & Kriging & gappy POD & gappy SPOD & Kriging & gappy POD & gappy SPOD \\ \cline{1-7}
1\% & 11.24 & 49.95 (75 modes) & 1.63 & 2.79 & 27.88 (75 modes) & 2.37 & \\ \cline{1-7}
5\% & 28.91 & 64.69 (50 modes) & 13.58 & 10.91 & 19.94 (40 modes) & 7.28 & \\ \cline{1-7}
20\% & 159.63 & 34.13 (20 modes) & 139.86 & 46.84 & 26.30 (20 modes) & 49.57 & \\ \cline{1-7}
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{table time Taken} Comparison of computational time. The computations were performed on a high-performance workstation with 192GB of memory and two 3.0 GHz 48-core Intel Xeon Gold CPUs.}
\end{table*}
\section{Summary and discussion} \label{conclusion}
A new algorithm is proposed that leverages the temporal correlation of SPOD modes with preceding and succeeding snapshots and their spatial correlation with the surrounding data to reconstruct partially missing or corrupted flow data. For demonstration purposes only, the reconstructed data are compared to the actual data in the corrupted regions. The algorithm itself exclusively relies on convergence metrics and fills in the gaps sequentially until the reconstruction converges to a user-defined tolerance, both locally, that is for each gap, and globally. The method is demonstrated on simulation data of the flow around a cylinder and time-resolved PIV data of turbulent cavity flow; the first being a canonical benchmark example used in many previous studies and the latter a realistic scenario of turbulent flow data in the presence of measurement noise. For randomly seeded and sized gaps that amount to up to 20\% of missing data and extend over large regions in space and many snapshots, the algorithm accurately recovers the missing instantaneous ans mean flow fields as well as turbulence statistics. It generally outperforms the established methods, particularly for the turbulent flow, where it yields a significantly lower reconstruction error that translates into an at least two-fold reduction compared to gappy POD and Kriging. Notably, this comparably low reconstruction error appears largely unaffected by the percentage gappyness within the range tested here. Even though the different methods scale differently and the results are case-dependent, their computational costs are roughly comparable. A caveat to the strong performance of the new method is that it is strictly applicable to statistically stationary data only, and that it relies on a sufficiently well-converged SPOD of the data, which in turn requires a sufficiently long time series. The main limitation of the algorithm directly follows from the properties of the SPOD: accurate flow reconstruction is only possible within the physical correlation length and time scales of the flow. This limitation, however, applies to all correlation-based methods. A systematic study of the most important spectral estimation parameters shows that best practices for SPOD \citep{schmidt2020guide} also lead to a good balance between the accuracy and computational cost of the gappy SPOD algorithm. Contingent on further testing on more data sets, the present results suggest that the algorithm can be fully automated and applied to any sufficiently long stationary flow data. Future extensions of gappy SPOD may include algorithmic improvements for specific error types like missing snapshots and the inclusion of trends for transient, non-stationary data.
\textbf{Acknowledgements} We thank Lou Cattafesta and Yang Zhang for providing the TR-PIV data. The data was created with supported by the U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research
(Award Number FA9550-17-1-0380).
\section{Introduction}
Gappy data reconstruction techniques find wide use in the completion of partially missing or otherwise compromised experimental data. The focus of this work is the estimation of missing regions in long time series of spatially resolved, generally turbulent, statistically stationary flow data. One of the most widely used experimental technique to acquire such data for turbulence research \citep{westerweel2013particle} and geophysical flows \citep{doron2001turbulence}, but also in the automotive \citep{beaudoin2008drag,conan2011experimental} and aerospace industries \citep{willert1997stereoscopic}, is particle image velocimetry (PIV, see e.g. \cite{raffel1998particle,adrian2011particle}). Missing or corrupted regions in PIV measurements have many sources. Among them are shadowing, that is, the partial obstruction of the laser sheet, reflections from objects, and the inaccessibility of certain regions for the imaging system \citep{westerweel1994efficient,huang1997errors,hart2000piv,sciacchitano2012navier}. Corrupted regions also arise from irregular seeding or the absence of a sufficient number of tracer particles, for example, in recirculation zones. Whereas the latter sources of errors are specific to PIV, other measurement techniques suffer from similar problems. Atmospheric data obtained via satellite imagery, for example, often suffer from partial obstruction due to cloud coverage \citep{alvera2005reconstruction}.
Standard mathematical techniques for approximating missing data include basic interpolation and least-square estimation. Techniques devised specifically for the task of gappy data reconstruction include optimal interpolation \citep{reynolds1994improved,smith1996reconstruction,kaplan1998analyses} and Kriging \citep{oliver1990kriging,stein1999interpolation}. Kriging, the more popular method, uses a local or global interpolant that is evaluated at the missing points based on local weighted averaging. The use of proper orthogonal decomposition (POD) in conjunction with least-squares estimation for data reconstruction was proposed by \citet{everson1995karhunen}. This original `gappy POD' algorithm was later extended by \citet{venturi2004gappy} and shown to outperform Kriging for the reconstruction of flow data with up to $50\%$ of gappyness. A computational efficient algorithm that does not require the repeated solutions of least-squares problems was introduced by \citet{gunes2006gappy}. Since its introduction, gappy POD has been applied to various flows such as the flow past an airfoil \citep{bui2004aerodynamic,willcox2006unsteady}, cavity flow \citep{murray2007application}, boundary layers \citep{gunes2007spatial,raben2012adaptive}, gas turbine combustors \citep{saini2016development}, and arterial blood flow \cite{yakhot2007reconstruction}. It has also become an essential component of several model reduction strategies that use POD modes as their basis \citep{chaturantabut2010nonlinear,benner2015survey}. Another application is efficient sensor placement \citep{willcox2006unsteady,yildirim2009efficient}. In the ocean sciences, gappy POD was independently developed under the name of data interpolating empirical orthogonal functions (DINEOF) by \citet{beckers2003eof} and was used to, for example, fill in observational sea surface temperature \citep{alvera2005reconstruction,beckers2006dineof}, Southern Oscillation Index \citep{kondrashov2006spatio}, and surface chlorophyll concentration data \citep{alvera2007multivariate,taylor2013sensitivity}.
In this work, we propose the use of the frequency-domain, or spectral proper orthogonal decomposition, which has been largely overshadowed by the more common space-only variant of POD \citep{sirovich1987turbulence}, for gappy data reconstruction. The mathematical foundations of SPOD were first laid out by \citet{lumley1970stochastic}. An early implementation and application to experimental data was presented by \citet{glauser1987coherent}. A more recent application to large numerical data is shown in \citet{schmidt2018spectral}. In the same year, \citet{towne2018spectral} established relationships to hydrodynamic stability theory and other modal decompositions. The proposed `gappy SPOD' algorithm is fundamentally different from those of \citet{everson1995karhunen} and \citet{venturi2004gappy}, both algorithmically and in that it leverages both spatial and temporal coherence. Note that space-only POD modes are only correlated at zero time lag, and hence do not possess the latter property \citep{towne2018spectral}.
The paper is structured as follows. A brief overview of SPOD and SPOD-based reconstruction is given in \S \ref{methodology}. \S \ref{algorithm} describes the gappy SPOD algorithm. In \S\S \ref{example 1} and \ref{example 2}, we demonstrate the algorithm on numerical simulation data of laminar cylinder flow and PIV data of turbulent cavity flow, respectively. \S \ref{Comparison} compares the performance of the proposed gappy SPOD algorithm to established gappy POD and Kriging methods. Finally, \S \ref{conclusion} summarizes this work. The performance for a case involving sequences of missing snapshots is analysed in \ref{Appendix: miss snapshots}. Parameter studies on the effect of the spectral estimation parameters, as well as data length and SPOD convergence are presented in \ref{Appendix: nfft}, and \ref{Appendix: convergence}, respectively.
\section{Methodology} \label{methodology}
\subsection{Spectral Proper Orthogonal Decomposition}
SPOD extracts monochromatic modes that optimally capture, depending on the choice of norm, the flow's energy. These modes are computed as the eigenvectors of the cross-spectral density matrix. We use a specific SPOD algorithm that estimates the cross-spectral density matrix based on Welch’s approach \citep{welch1967use}. The implementation of this approach entails partitioning the entire time series into smaller segments that are interpreted as independent realizations of the flow. Next, we briefly introduce the notation used in this work. For a detailed mathematical derivation and the algorithmic implementation, the reader may refer to, for example, \citet{towne2018spectral} or \citet{schmidt2020guide}.
We denote by
\begin{equation}
\vb{q}_i = \vb{q}(t_i), \qquad i=1,2,\cdots, n_t,
\end{equation}
the ensemble of $n_t$ snapshots of the statistically stationary flow field with its mean removed. The first step of the standard Welch approach is to segment the data into $n_{\rm blk}$ overlapping blocks, each containing $n_{\rm fft}$ snapshots. If the blocks overlap by $n_{\rm ovlp}$ snapshots, then the $j$-th column in the $k$-th block is given by $\vb{q}_{j}^{(k)}=\vb{q}_{j+(k-1)(n_{\rm fft}-n_{\rm ovlp})+1}$, where $k = 1,2,\cdots, n_\textrm{blk}$, and $j = 1,2,\cdots, n_\textrm{fft}$. Next, we compute a windowed temporal discrete Fourier transform and arrange all the Fourier realizations of the $l$-th frequency, $\Hat{\vb{q}}_{l}^{(j)}$, into a matrix,
\begin{equation}
\Hat{\vb{Q}}_{l}=\bqty{\Hat{\vb{q}}_{l}^{(1)}, \Hat{\vb{q}}_{l}^{(2)}, \cdots, \Hat{\vb{q}}_{l}^{(n_{\rm blk})} }.
\label{eq 8}
\end{equation}
The SPOD modes, $\vb*{\Phi}_l$, and eigenvalues, $\vb*{\Lambda}_l$, are finally obtained as the eigenpairs of the weighted CSD matrix $\vb{S}_l= \frac{1}{n_\textrm{blk}}\Hat{\vb{Q}}_{l} \Hat{\vb{Q}}_{l}^{*}\vb{W}$, where $\vb{W}$ is a positive-definite Hermitian matrix that accounts for the component-wise and numerical quadrature weights. For data with more spatial degrees of freedom than the number of snapshots, we solve the smaller eigenvalue problem,
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{n_{\rm blk}}\vb{\Hat{Q}}_{l}^{*}\vb{W} \vb{\Hat{Q}}_{l} \vb*{\Psi}_{l}=\vb*{\Psi}_{l} \vb*{\Lambda}_{l},
\label{eq 11}
\end{equation}
for the (unscaled) expansion coefficients, $\vb*{\Psi}_{l}$. The SPOD modes at the $l$-th frequency are recovered as
\begin{equation}
\vb*{\Phi}_{l} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{n_\textrm{blk}}}\vb{\Hat{Q}}_{l} \vb*{\Psi}_{l} \vb*{\Lambda}_{l}^{-1/2}.
\label{eq 12}
\end{equation}
The column vectors of $\vb*{\Phi}_{l}=[ \vb*{\phi}_{l}^{(1)}, \vb*{\phi}_{l}^{(2)}, \cdots , \vb*{\phi}_{l}^{(n_{\rm blk})} ] $ are the SPOD modes and the diagonal entries of $\vb*{\Lambda}_{l}=\text{diag} ( \lambda_{l}^{(1)}, \lambda_{l}^{(2)}, \cdots , \lambda_{l}^{(n_{\rm blk})} ) $ contain the mode energies. An important property of the SPOD modes is their orthogonality in their weighted inner product, $\big<\vb*{\phi}_{l}^{(i)},\vb*{\phi}_{l}^{(j)}\big>=\vb*{\phi}_{l}^{(i)}\vb{W} \vb*{\phi}_{l}^{(j)}= \delta_{ij}$, at each frequency. The associated norm is denoted by $\|\cdot\|_2$.
\subsection{Data reconstruction}
The reconstruction of the original data is based on the inversion of the SPOD problem, comprehensively discussed in \citet{nekkanti2021frequency}. The Fourier realizations at each frequency are reconstructed from the SPOD modes as $\vb{\Hat{Q}}_l = \vb*{\Phi}_l\vb{A}_l$. Here, $\vb{A}_l$ is the matrix of the (scaled) expansion coefficients computed as
\begin{align}
\vb{A}_l &= \sqrt{n_{\rm blk}} \vb*{\Lambda}^{1/2}_{l} \vb*{\Psi}^*_{l}, \quad \text{or} \label{expansion coefficients 1} \\
\vb{A}_l &= \vb{\boldsymbol{\Phi}}_l^{*} \vb{W} \Hat{\vb{Q}}_{l}. \label{expansion coefficients 2}
\end{align}
The expansion coefficients can be saved during the computation of SPOD using equation (\ref{expansion coefficients 1}) or recovered later by projecting the Fourier realizations onto the modes using equation (\ref{expansion coefficients 2}). Using the expansion coefficients $a_{ik}$ contained in $\vb{A}$ at any given frequency, the $k$-th block can be reconstructed as
\begin{equation}
\vb{Q}^{(k)}=\mathcal{F}^{-1} \bqty{ \pqty{\sum\limits_{i} a_{ik} \vb*{\phi}^{(i)}}_{\!\!\!l=1} , \pqty{\sum\limits_{i} a_{ik} \vb*{\phi}^{(i)}}_{\!\!\!l=2} , \cdots, \pqty{\sum\limits_{i} a_{i k} \vb*{\phi}^{(i)}}_{\!\!\!l=n_{\rm fft}}},
\label{reconstruction blocks}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{F}^{-1} $ is the inverse windowed Fourier transform. Finally, the time series is reconstructed from the data segments by computing the average of the reconstructions from overlapping blocks, weighted by the relative value of their windowing function \citep{nekkanti2021frequency}.
\section{Algorithm} \label{algorithm}
The gappy SPOD algorithm consists of three loops: in the local loop, a single gap is converged by repeated reconstruction with continuously updated local expansion coefficients; in the inner loop, this process is repeated for all gaps; in the outer loop, the global convergence of the inner loops is assessed.\newline
\noindent{\bf Algorithm:} Gappy SPOD
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item Segment the time series into overlapping blocks and compute the temporal Fourier transform of each block (if not computed in the previous iteration).
\item Proceed to the $n$-th gap and choose all the realizations of the Fourier transform that are \emph{not} affected by this gap.
\item Compute the SPOD from all the Fourier realizations that are not affected by this gap (equations (\ref{eq 11}) and (\ref{eq 12})) and store the corresponding expansion coefficients (equation (\ref{expansion coefficients 1})).
\item Compute the SPOD expansion coefficients for blocks \emph{affected} by the $n$-th gap by projecting their Fourier transforms onto the SPOD basis (equation (\ref{expansion coefficients 2})).
\item Reconstruct the affected blocks by inverting the SPOD (equation (\ref{reconstruction blocks})) from the expansion coefficients computed in (iii) and (iv); replace the regions affected by the $n$-th gap.
\item (local loop) Go to (iv) to update the expansion coefficients now that the data is reconstructed in the affected regions until the convergence criterion based on the change of reconstruction of the $n$-th gap is met.
\item (inner loop) Set $n\leftarrow n+1$ and go to (i) until all gaps are reconstructed.
\item (outer loop) Set $n = 1$ and go to (i); repeat until convergence criterion based on change of reconstruction between outer loop iterations is met.
\end{enumerate}
The metrics used to gauge the error, as compared to the true solution, and the convergence for the local and outer loops, as compared to the previous iteration within the respective loop, are defined next.
\subsection{Error and Convergence metrics}
Define $G$ as the index set corresponding to all gappy snapshots and $G_n \subset G$ as the subset of indices corresponding to the $n$-th gap. The following error and convergence metrics are used to evaluate the efficacy of our method:
\begin{align}
e_i&= \frac{\Big\|\vb{q}^{g}_{i}-\vb{\tilde{q}}^{g}_{i}\Big\|_2^2}{\Big\|\vb{q}^{g}_{i}\Big\|_2^2} \quad \text{(relative error of $i$-th snapshot),} \label{error}\\
e_n&= \sum\limits_{i \in G_n } e_i \quad \text{(relative error of $n$-th gap),} \label{error}\\
E &= \sum\limits_{i \in G } e_i \quad \text{(global relative error),} \label{global relative error}\\
c_n &=\sum\limits_{i \in G_n} \frac{\Big\|\vb{\tilde{q}}^{{g}^{[j-1]}}_{i}-\vb{\tilde{q}}^{g^{[j]}}_{i}\Big\|_2^2}{\Big\|\vb{\tilde{q}}^{g^{[j-1]}}_{i}\Big\|_2^2} \quad \text{(convergence of $n$-th gap).} \label{convergence}
\end{align}
Here, $\vb{q}^{g}$ and $\vb{\tilde{q}}^{g}$ are, respectively, the original and reconstructed data in the gappy regions only, and superscript $[j]$ the iteration index. The calculation of the relative errors, equations (\ref{error}) and (\ref{global relative error}), requires knowledge of the original data, $\vb{q}$. For demonstration purposes only, artificial gaps were introduced in this study, and hence the relative errors can be computed. The convergence metric defined in equation (\ref{convergence}) does not require the true data and can be evaluated even for gappy datasets. Throughout this paper, the thresholds used for convergence criteria are $\mathit{tol} = 10^{-8}$. We will demonstrate later that this tolerance is very conservative in that the error is long converged before the criterion is met for our examples.
\section{Results}
\begin{table*}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccccc}
\hlin
{Case} & {Variables} &{$\mathit{Re}$} & {$n_x$} & {$n_y$} & {$n_z$} & {$n_t$} & {$ \Delta t$} &{$n_{\rm{fft}}$} & {$n_{\rm{ovlp}}$} & {$n_{\rm{blk}}$} \vspace{0.1em} \\ \cline{1-11} \vspace{-0.5em}\\
Cylinder DNS & $u$,$v$ & 500 & 250 & 125 & 1 & 4096 & 0.06 &256 & 128 & 31 \vspace{0.2em} \\
Cavity PIV & $u$,$v$ & 3.3 $\times 10^{5}$ & 150 & 55 & 1 & 16000 & $6.25\times 10^{-5}$s &256 & 128 & 124 \vspace{0.2em} \\\cline{1-11}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Parameters example databases and spectral estimation parameters.}
\end{table*}
We demonstrate the reconstruction of missing data using the gappy SPOD reconstruction method on two examples. The parameters of these example datasets are given in table 1. The first example is direct numerical simulation (DNS) data of the canonical laminar flow past a cylinder. This flow is a popular benchmark case that we will use to compare with established methods such as gappy POD \citep{everson1995karhunen,venturi2004gappy} and Kriging \citep{oliver1990kriging}. The second example is the experimental data of a high Reynolds number flow over an open cavity obtained from time-resolved particle image velocimetry (PIV) measurements \citep{zhang2017identification,zhang2020spectral}. This data exemplifies realistic turbulent flow data and is subject to measurement noise.
\subsection{Example 1: Cylinder flow at $\mathit{Re}$=500} \label{example 1}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
{\includegraphics[trim={0cm 4.4cm 0cm 0.9cm },clip,width=0.9\textwidth]{Figures/Cylinder_flow/Flowfield_visualization.pdf}}
\caption{Instantaneous fluctuating flow field for flow around a cylinder at $\mathit{Re} = 500$: ($a$) streamwise
velocity, $u$; ($b$) transverse velocity, $v$.}
\label{fig 3.0}
\end{figure}
As a first example, we consider the flow around a cylinder at a Reynolds number $\mathit{Re}=\rho U_{\infty} D/\mu = 500$, where $\rho$ is the density, $U_{\infty}$ the incoming flow velocity, $\mu$ the dynamic viscosity, and $D$ the diameter of the cylinder. The coordinates are non-dimensionalized by $D$ and velocities by $U_\infty$, respectively. This data was obtained by solving the two-dimensional incompressible Navier-Stokes equations for the velocity field $\vb{q}= \bqty{u, v}^{T}$ using the immersed-boundary solver by \citet{goza2017strongly}. The data was acquired after all transients have subsided. Instantaneous flow fields of the streamwise velocity, $u$, and transverse velocity, $v$, are shown in figure \ref{fig 3.0}.
\begin{figure}[!tp]
\centering
{\includegraphics[trim={0cm 1.75cm 2.25cm 0.25cm },clip,width=0.9\textwidth]{Figures/Cylinder_flow/All3gaps_1_5_20_new-eps-converted-to.pdf}}
\caption{Randomly generated gaps in the flow past a cylinder: (a) 1\% gappyness; (b) 5\% gappyness; (c) 20\% gappyness. Red blocks indicate gaps. The streamwise ($x$-$y$) plane is plotted over the snapshot index, $i$.}
\label{fig 3.1}
\end{figure}
The gappy SPOD reconstruction is demonstrated on three scenarios with 1\%, 5\%, and 20\% of missing data. Missing regions, or gaps, are introduced artificially. The gaps are randomly seeded in space and time. Similarly, the spatial and temporal extent of the gaps is randomly sampled. Figure \ref{fig 3.1} shows the spatio-temporal distribution of the gaps for all three levels of gappyness. The gaps are allowed to extend over the entire field-of-view and up to 300 snapshots. The gappy-SPOD algorithm reconstructs the data by filling gaps in sequential order. Here, we number the gaps according to their first occurrence in time and have verified that the final error upon convergence is insensitive to the order by which the algorithm handles the gaps. Figure \ref{fig 3.1}($c$) shows the extreme example of 20\% gappyness in which every block contains missing data. Following best practices for SPOD \citep{schmidt2020guide}, the data is segmented into 31 blocks with 256 snapshots and 50\% overlap. The effect of the parameter $n_\textrm{fft}$ is investigated in \ref{Appendix: nfft}. Additionally, in \ref{Appendix: miss snapshots}, we explore a case with 5\% missing data and entire snapshots, or short sequences of snapshots, missing from the data.
\begin{figure}[!hp]
\centering
{\includegraphics[trim={0cm 0.88cm 0cm 0.15cm },clip,width=1.0\textwidth]{Figures/Cylinder_flow/globalerror_Cyl_innerloop_newtop.pdf}}
\caption{Errors and convergence for 5\% gappyness, see figure \ref{fig 3.1}($b$). The global relative error is shown in ($a$). Inner (gap-wise) iterations are denoted by grey dotted lines and outer iterations (sweeps over all gaps) as blue solid lines. Panels ($b$-$d$) show the gap-wise error and convergence for three randomly selected gaps within the first outer loop.}
\label{fig 3.2}
\end{figure}
We start by exploring the 5\% gappyness case, previously shown in figure 2($b$). This case consists of $n_\mathrm{gaps}=20$ randomly seeded and sized gaps. Figure \ref{fig 3.2} illustrates the local and global errors and the convergence of the algorithm. By `local', we refer to the gap-wise iteration, that is, steps (iv)-(vi) of the algorithm in \S \ref{algorithm}, and by `global' to the outer iteration loop over steps (i)-(viii). Figure \ref{fig 3.2}($a$) shows the evolution of the global relative error as defined in equation (\ref{global relative error}) as all gaps are converged to $c_n \leq \mathit{tol}=1\times10^{-8}$ within each of the four outer loops. The gap-wise convergence, $c_n$, is defined by equation (\ref{convergence}). The four outer loops required to achieve global convergence are marked by the thick blue lines. Each of these outer iterations comprises $n_\mathrm{gaps}$ inner loops, indicated by the grey dotted lines. The global relative error is normalized according to equation (\ref{global relative error}), and hence starts with one. The error non-strictly monotonically decreases as the gaps are sequentially filled in. This is a desirable property, but we note that the algorithm does not guarantee it. The amount by which each inner loop can reduce the global relative error is dependent on the spatial location and temporal extent of the corresponding gap. This explains the sharp drops at the beginning of some local iteration loops. At the end of the first outer loop, the global relative error is already reduced to 1.3\%, and its final value after four outer loops is $7.7 \times 10^{-5}$. Notably, a large fraction of the reconstruction error reduction is accomplished by the first outer loop. A quantitative comparison with other methods such as the gappy-POD method by \citet{venturi2004gappy} is provided in section \S \ref{Comparison}.
Panels \ref{fig 3.2}($b$-$d$) show the local relative errors and convergence for three representative gaps during the first outer loop. The local relative error for all gaps decreases monotonically from one to very small values of order $10^{-3}$. After the final outer iteration loop, the local relative errors are of order $10^{-5}$. The tolerance of $\mathit{tol} =1\times10^{-8}$, as indicated by blacked dash lines, guarantees that the relative errors are all well converged.
\begin{figure}[!tp]
\centering
{\includegraphics[trim={0cm 3.45cm 0cm 0.76cm },clip,width=1.0\textwidth]{Figures/Cylinder_flow/snaposhot_utype1_Cyl.pdf}}
\caption{Reconstruction for 5\% gappyness at four time instances: ($a$-$d$) gappy data; ($e$-$h$) reconstructed data; ($i$-$l$) original data. False colors of the streamwise velocity fluctuations, $u$, are on the same scale in all plots. }
\label{fig_5_per_u_vis}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!tp]
\centering
{\includegraphics[trim={0cm 3.45cm 0cm 0.76cm },clip,width=1.0\textwidth]{Figures/Cylinder_flow/snaposhot_vtype1_Cyl.pdf}}
\caption{Same as figure \ref{fig_5_per_u_vis} but for the transverse velocity fluctuations.}
\label{fig_5_per_v_vis}
\end{figure}
Figures \ref{fig_5_per_u_vis} and \ref{fig_5_per_v_vis} compare the reconstructed, gappy, and original data for 5\% of missing data. Figure \ref{fig_5_per_u_vis} shows the streamwise velocity fluctuations, $u$, and figure \ref{fig_5_per_v_vis} the transverse component, $v$. The same four time instances are shown in the four columns of both figures. The first column corresponds to the time instant of the largest instantaneous reconstruction error. The other three are randomly selected. Visual inspection of the reconstructed and original data indicates that the gappy SPOD algorithm is able to accurately reconstruct the flow structures in the affected regions. The relative errors for these four snapshots are $e_i = 7\times 10^{-5}$, 1$\times 10^{-5}$, 1$\times 10^{-5}$, and 2$\times 10^{-5}$, respectively. Figures \ref{fig 3.2}-\ref{fig_5_per_v_vis} demonstrate that the algorithm performs very well in both a qualitative and quantitative sense for this case.
\begin{figure}[!th]
\centering
{\includegraphics[trim={0cm 2.25cm 0cm 2.1cm },clip,width=1.0\textwidth]{Figures/Cylinder_flow/globalerr_1_20_cyl.pdf}}
\caption{Global relative error of the gappy SPOD algorithm: ($a$) 1\% gappyness; ($b$) 20\% gappyness. The blue solid lines indicate the outer iterations.}
\label{GRE_1_20_cyl}
\end{figure}
We next study the performance of the algorithm for the more moderate case with 1\% and the more extreme case with 20\% of missing data. Figure \ref{GRE_1_20_cyl} shows the global relative errors for these two cases. As in figure \ref{fig 3.2}($a$), outer loops are indicated by thick blue lines. The 1\%- and 20\%-gappyness cases require two and 16 outer loops for convergence, respectively. The final errors upon convergence are $E$ = $9\times10^{-6}$, and $3\times10^{-2}$, respectively. As can be anticipated from the very low error for the 1\% case, the reconstructed velocity fields are visually indistinguishable from the original DNS data, and we hence refrain from showing the reconstructions.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
{\includegraphics[trim={0cm 3.45cm 0cm 0.76cm },clip,width=1.0\textwidth]{Figures/Cylinder_flow/snapshots_u_20per_cyl.pdf}}
\caption{Same as figure \ref{fig_5_per_u_vis}, but for 20\% gappyness.}
\label{fig 3.8}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig 3.8} shows the side-by-side comparison for the most severe case with 20\% of gappyness and a final error of 3\%. While the instantaneous flow fields are shown here, note that the gaps extend over significant time periods, as can be seen in figure \ref{fig 3.1}($c$). Similar to figure \ref{fig_5_per_u_vis}, the first column corresponds to the snapshot that exhibits the largest reconstruction error. The remaining three time instants are arbitrarily selected. The spatial gaps in these four snapshots correspond to 50\%, 46\%, 33\%, and 40\% of missing data, respectively. A comparison of the reconstructed and original fields reveals some local discrepancies at the fringes of the gaps, in particular where multiple gaps overlap. This is most notable in figure \ref{fig 3.8}($e,f$). These local discrepancies aside, the wake flow is accurately reconstructed terms of structure, phase and amplitude. The reconstructions are almost indistinguishable from the original data for the snapshots with 33\% and 40\% of missing data shown in figures \ref{fig 3.8}($c$,$g$,$k$) and \ref{fig 3.8}($d$,$h$,$l$), respectively. Results for the transverse velocity component are very similar and omitted for brevity. The relative errors are $e_i = 7.9\times10^{-2}$, $1.7\times10^{-2}$, $2.5\times10^{-3}$, and $1.3\times10^{-3}$, respectively. Considering that a large fraction of 20\% of the data was missing, these errors are, arguably, low and the overall flow dynamics are accurately recovered. A quantitative comparison with other methods, later presented in \S \ref{Comparison}, confirms this conjecture.
\subsection{Example 2: PIV of turbulent cavity flow by \citet{zhang2017identification,zhang2020spectral}} \label{example 2}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
{\includegraphics[trim={0cm 4.5cm 0cm 0.9cm },clip,width=0.9\textwidth]{Figures/Cavity_Flow_PIV/Flowfield_visualization.pdf}}
\caption{ Instantaneous fluctuating flow field of the turbulent flow over an open cavity at $\mathit{Re}$ = 3.3$\times10^5$ measured by \citet{zhang2017identification,zhang2020spectral}: ($a$) streamwise velocity, $u$; ($b$) transverse velocity, $v$. The $x$- and $y$-coordinates are non-dimensionalized by cavity depth $D$.}
\label{fig_Turb_CF}
\end{figure}
Next, we consider the much more relevant and challenging example of experimental turbulent flow over an open cavity. The Reynolds number based on the cavity depth is $\mathit{Re} = \rho U_\infty D/\mu=3.3\times10^{5}$, and the Mach number is $M = U_\infty /c_\infty =0.6$. Here, $c_\infty$ is the speed of sound. Time-resolved particle image velocimetry (TR-PIV) was performed to obtain the velocity field in the center plane of an open cavity with a length-to-depth ratio of $L/D = 6$ and a width-to-depth ratio of $W/D = 3.85$. A total number of 16,000 snapshots was obtained at a sampling rate of 16kHz. The coordinates are non-dimensionalized by depth $D$, but the velocity components are reported in SI units. We refer to \citet{zhang2017identification} and \citet{zhang2020spectral} for more details on the measurement campaign and the experimental setup, respectively. The instantaneous velocity field shown in figure \ref{fig_Turb_CF} exemplifies, in stark contrast to the previous example, the chaotic nature of the flow. This example also tests the algorithm's performance in the presence of measurement noise that is not easily distinguished from physical turbulence.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
{\includegraphics[trim={0cm 2.8cm 0.5cm 0.45cm },clip,width=1.0\textwidth]{Figures/Cavity_Flow_PIV/All3gaps_1_5_20_new-eps-converted-to.pdf}}
\caption{Randomly generated gaps with 5\% for the turbulent flow over an open cavity: ($a$) 1\% gappyness; ($b$) 5\% gappyness; ($c$) 20\% gappyness. Red blocks indicate gaps. The streamwise ($x$-$y$) plane is plotted over the snapshot index, $i$.}
\label{fig_gaps_TC}
\end{figure}
As for the cylinder flow example in \S \ref{example 1}, we consider three cases with 1\%, 5\%, and 20\% of missing data. The gaps are shown in figure \ref{fig_gaps_TC} and were randomly generated in the same way as for the previous example. Taking into account the significantly larger length of the data sequence, the maximum temporal extent of the gaps was increased to 600 snapshots. As before, we choose $n_{\rm fft}=256$ and 50\% overlap, resulting in a total number of 124 blocks. The dependence of the results on $n_{\rm fft}$ is investigated in \ref{Appendix: nfft}. In the extreme example of 20\% gappyness, every block is affected by gaps.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
{\includegraphics[trim={0cm 1.1cm 0cm 0.08cm },clip,width=1.0\textwidth]{Figures/Cavity_Flow_PIV/globalerror_5per_paper_new.pdf}}
\caption{Errors and convergence for 5\% gappyness, see figure \ref{fig_gaps_TC}($b$). The global relative error is shown in ($a$). Inner (gap-wise) iterations are denoted by grey dotted lines and outer iterations as blue solid lines. Panels ($b$-$d$) show the gap-wise error and convergence for three randomly selected gaps within the first outer loop.}
\label{fig_5per_TC}
\end{figure}
As in figure \ref{fig 3.2}, the inner workings of the algorithm for the cavity flow with 5\% of missing data are best understood from the relative errors and gap-wise convergence shown in figure \ref{fig_5per_TC}. Figure \ref{fig_5per_TC}($a$) shows that the algorithm requires two outer iteration loops to satisfy the convergence criterion of $\mathit{tol}=10^{-8}$. The first outer iteration reduces the global relative error by 81\%. The second outer loop does not further reduce the error by an appreciable amount, and its final value remains at $E=19\%$. In \S \ref{Comparison}, we confirm that this value is lower than what is achieved by other established methods. A notable difference to the laminar case, shown in figure \ref{fig 3.2}, is that the global relative error does not decay monotonically. The local relative error and convergence for three representative gaps during the first outer loop are shown in figure \ref{fig_5per_TC}($b$-$d$). The relative error for all gaps decays to about $20 \%$. An important observation is that the gap-wise relative error always saturates before the convergence criterion of $\mathit{tol}=10^{-8}$ is met. This observation, again, serves as an \emph{a posteriori} justification for this choice of tolerance.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
{\includegraphics[trim={0cm 4.92cm 0cm 0.0cm },clip,width=1.0\textwidth]{Figures/Cavity_Flow_PIV/snapshot_utype1.pdf}}
\caption{Reconstruction for the turbulent cavity flow with 5\% gappyness at four time instances: ($a$-$d$) gappy data; ($e$-$h$) reconstructed data; ($i$-$l$) original data. False colors of the streamwise velocity fluctuations, $u$, are on the same scale in all plots.}
\label{fig_5per_vis_TC_u}
\end{figure}
\textbf{\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
{\includegraphics[trim={0cm 4.92cm 0cm 0.0cm },clip,width=1.0\textwidth]{Figures/Cavity_Flow_PIV/snapshot_vtype1.pdf}}
\caption{Same as figure \ref{fig_5per_vis_TC_u}, but for the transverse velocity fluctuations.}
\label{fig_5per_vis_TC_v}
\end{figure}}
Figures \ref{fig_5per_vis_TC_u} and \ref{fig_5per_vis_TC_v} show the instantaneous streamwise and transverse velocity components for the gappy, reconstructed and original flow fields. Again, the first column is the snapshot with the largest reconstruction error, and the other three are arbitrarily selected. We observe that the reconstructions are very similar to the original flow field for all four time instances. The corresponding relative errors are $e_i$ = 29\%, 17\%, 8\%, and 22\%, respectively. The comparison of panels ($e$) and ($i$) in figures \ref{fig_5per_vis_TC_u} and \ref{fig_5per_vis_TC_v} shows that the salient flow features are recovered by the algorithm, that is, despite the remaining error of 29\%.
\begin{figure}
\centering
{\includegraphics[trim={0cm 2.2cm 0cm 2.1cm },clip,width=1.0\textwidth]{Figures/Cavity_Flow_PIV/globalerr_1_20_cavity_latest.pdf}}
\caption{Global relative error of the gappy SPOD algorithm: ($a$) 1\% gappyness; ($b$) 20\% gappyness. The blue solid lines indicate the outer iterations.}
\label{fig_GE_1_20_TC}
\end{figure}
We next address the reconstruction of the two remaining cases with 1\% and 20\% of gappyness. Figure \ref{fig_GE_1_20_TC} shows the global relative errors for these cases. Two and five outer loops are required for convergence, and the final global relative errors are $ E= 20.3\%$ and 19.4\%, respectively. These values are very similar to that of the 5\% case. This indicates that the reconstruction is not sensitive to the percentage of missing data within the range considered here. In each case, the reconstructions recover approximately 80\% of the energy. This result is found in contrast to the laminar cylinder flow case, where the global relative error proportionally increases with the amount of missing data. As before we next inspect representative time instances for a qualitative assessment of the performance.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
{\includegraphics[trim={0cm 4.9cm 0cm 0.1cm },clip,width=1.0\textwidth]{Figures/Cavity_Flow_PIV/snapshots_u_1per_Cavity.pdf}}
\caption{Reconstruction for the turbulent cavity flow with 1\% gappyness at four time instances: ($a$-$d$) gappy data; ($e$-$h$) reconstructed data; ($i$-$l$) original data. False colors of the streamwise velocity fluctuations, $u$, are on the same scale in all plots.}
\label{fig_1per_TC}
\end{figure}
The reconstructions are compared to the gappy and original flow fields for 1\% and 20\% of missing data in figures \ref{fig_1per_TC} and \ref{fig_20per_TC}, respectively. The reconstructions of the 1\% case are in very good agreement with the original data. For the 20\% case shown in figure \ref{fig_20per_TC}, large parts of the field-of-view are missing. An animation of the snapshots in the vicinity of the gaps (see supplemental material) further confirms that the gaps persist for a long time. The percentages of missing data for the four time instances are 58\%, 48\%, 28\%, and 23\%, and the corresponding relative errors are $e_i$ = 43.2\%, 26.4\%, 13.2\%, and 16.6\%. A comparison between the reconstructed field-of-view in figure \ref{fig_20per_TC}($e$) and the reconstructed data in \ref{fig_20per_TC}($i$) shows that the gappy SPOD algorithm was able to reconstruct large parts of the flow field. This puts into perspective the reconstruction error of $E=19.4\%$ that might be perceived as large without this qualitative assessment. Note that correlation-based reconstruction is always limited by the physical length and time scales of the turbulent flow beyond which a reconstruction is not feasible. Comparing the reconstructed to the original data for the three remaining time instances confirms that the algorithm is capable of estimating many of the intricate details of the flow.
\textbf{\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
{\includegraphics[trim={0cm 4.9cm 0cm 0.1cm },clip,width=1.0\textwidth]{Figures/Cavity_Flow_PIV/snapshots_u_20per_Cavity.pdf}}
\caption{Reconstruction for the turbulent cavity flow with 20\% gappyness at four time instances: ($a$-$d$) gappy data; ($e$-$h$) reconstructed data; ($i$-$l$) original data. False colors of the streamwise velocity fluctuations, $u$, are on the same scale in all plots.}
\label{fig_20per_TC}
\end{figure}}
\subsection{Reconstruction of the turbulence statistics} \label{statistics recon}
\textbf{\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
{\includegraphics[trim={0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm },clip,width=1.0\textwidth]{Figures/Cavity_Flow_PIV/TKE_all_cases_latest.pdf}}
\caption{Turbulent kinetic energy fields for the gappy, reconstructed and original data: ($a$-$g$) cylinder flow; ($h$-$n$) the cavity flow. Contour levels are consistent between subplots ($a$-$g$) and ($h$-$n$).}
\label{fig TKE}
\end{figure}}
After assessing the method's performance in terms of the global reconstruction error and with direct comparisons of original and reconstructed flow fields, we next focus on turbulence quantities. In particular, we consider the turbulent kinetic energy (TKE), TKE = $\frac{1}{2}(\overline{(u^\prime)^2} + \overline{(v^\prime)^2})$, and the Reynolds shear stress, $\tau_{xy} = \overline{u^\prime v^\prime}$. The comparison of the original, gappy, and reconstructed TKE fields for the 1\%, 5\%, and 20\% cases are presented in figure \ref{fig TKE}. The cylinder and cavity flows are shown in figure \ref{fig TKE}($a$-$g$) and \ref{fig TKE}($h$-$n$), respectively. For 1\% and 5\%, moderate distortions are observed in the gappy data for both cases, and the reconstructed TKE fields are almost indistinguishable from the original data. For 20\%, a large fraction of TKE has been removed, and the flow field is heavily distorted. The reconstructions shown in panels ($g$) and ($n$), on the contrary, are smoother, recover large parts of the TKE, and compare well with the original data.
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{5pt}
\begin{table*}[!h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|l}
\cline{1-9}
\multicolumn{1}{|l|}{} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{TKE error (\%)} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{Reynolds shear stress error (\%)} \\ \cline{1-9}
\multirow{2}{*}{Gappyness} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Cylinder flow} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Cavity flow} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Cylinder flow} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Cavity flow}\\ \cline{2-9}
& Before & After & Before & After & Before & After & Before & After &\\ \cline{1-9}
1\% & 1.18\% & 3.40$\times 10^{-3}$ \% & 0.65\% & 0.19\% & 1.67\% & 2.68 $\times 10^{-2}$\% & 0.65\% & 0.14\%& \\ \cline{1-9}
5\% & 8.23\% & 3.49$\times 10^{-2}$ \% & 4.05\% & 1.3\% & 5.74\% & 0.18\% & 4.27\% & 1.02\%& \\ \cline{1-9}
20\% & 34.72\% & 4.51\% & 21.96\% & 6.35\% & 25.25\% & 5.92\% & 24.59\% & 5.56\% & \\ \cline{1-9}
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{table TKE and Rey error} Area integrated TKE and Reynolds stress errors for the gappy and reconstructed flow fields.}
\end{table*}
For a more quantitative assessment, the area-integrated TKE error is presented in table \ref{table TKE and Rey error}. In accordance with figure \ref{fig TKE}, the TKE error after reconstruction is almost negligible for 1\% and 5\% of missing data for the cylinder flow. The TKE error is also substantially lower for the cavity flow. For 20\% of missing data, the TKE error reduces from 34.7\% to 4.5\%, and from 22\% to 6.4\% for the two examples, respectively. These percentages correspond to $\approx7$- and 4-fold reductions. The qualitative counterparts to these numbers are the TKE field comparisons previously shown in figure \ref{fig TKE}($d,g$) and \ref{fig TKE}($k,n$), respectively. Also listed in table \ref{table TKE and Rey error} is the area-integrated Reynolds shear stress error. Similar to the TKE error, the Reynolds shear stress error has been reduced significantly by a factor of $\approx4$ in both cases.
\section{Comparison with other methods} \label{Comparison}
\begin{figure}
\centering
{\includegraphics[trim={0cm 1.45cm 0cm 0.8cm },clip,width=1.0\textwidth]{Figures/Cavity_Flow_PIV/Methods_comparison_6cases.pdf}}\caption{Global relative error for different reconstruction methods: ($a$-$c$) cylinder flow; ($d$-$f$) cavity flow; ($a$,$d$) 1\%, ($b$,$e$) 5\% and ($c$,$f$) 20\% of missing data. The ordinate in ($a$-$c$)is on a logarithmic scale for clarity.}
\label{fig methods comparison}
\end{figure}
Finally, we compare the performance of the gappy SPOD method to the established methods of gappy POD by \citet{everson1995karhunen} and \citet{venturi2004gappy} (referred to as gappy POD-ES and -VK in the following), and Kriging. For local Kriging, the exponential correlation model results, in agreement with \citet{saini2016development}, in lower errors than the more standard Gaussian model. The more successful model is implemented in the MATLAB toolbox DACE \citep{lophaven2002dace} that was used for our comparisons. The same tool was used by \citet{venturi2004gappy}, \citet{raben2012adaptive}, and \citet{saini2016development} for the same purpose.
Figure \ref{fig methods comparison} compares the global relative errors for gappy SPOD, the two gappy POD algorithms, and Kriging. Both cases and all three levels of gappyness are considered. Both gappy POD methods have the number of modes as a free parameter that needs to be varied to identify the best-possible reconstruction. Kriging relies on interpolants instead of modes and gappy SPOD does not truncate the modal basis. The reconstruction errors of these methods are therefore constant in figure \ref{fig methods comparison}. The gappy POD-ES and -VK methods produce almost identical errors \citep[see also][]{raben2012adaptive,saini2016development}, and we hence do not distinguish between them. The mode numbers were varied until candidates for the global minima, marked by circles, were identified as minima by observing the general trend of the errors. As the number of modes in classical POD is equal to the number of snapshots (4096 and 16000 for the data at hand), gappy POD becomes computationally intractable due to increasingly high compute times (see table 3 below). Therefore, there is no guarantee that the reconstruction corresponds to the actual global optimum. A few common trends are observed in all six cases in figure \ref{fig methods comparison}. In general, gappy POD outperforms Kriging and gappy SPOD outperforms gappy POD. For the cylinder flow and 1\% and 5\% of gappyness in figure \ref{fig methods comparison}($a$,$b$), final reconstruction errors for gappy SPOD are 3.8 and 4.3 times below those of gappy POD and multiple orders of magnitude lower than those of Kriging. For 20\% gappyness, gappy SPOD and gappy POD yield very similar results with only a marginal advantage of 2\% for gappy SPOD, but both outperform Kriging by about one order of magnitude. For the turbulent cavity flow in figure \ref{fig methods comparison}($d$-$f$), at all missing data percentages, gappy SPOD reduces the global relative error by about 80\%, which is at least 20\% lower than for other methods in all cases. In direct comparison with gappy POD, gappy SPOD achieves 2.1, 2.7, and 3.8 fold reductions in error for the three gappyness ratios, respectively. As in section \S\S \ref{example 1} and \ref{example 2}, we observe that the gappyness has a significant impact on the achievable error reduction for the laminar periodic flow, whereas the final error is almost independent of the percentage gappyness for the turbulent, noisy experimental data.
We next compare the compute times for Kriging, gappy POD, and gappy SPOD in table \ref{table time Taken}. With the exception of the cylinder flow at the two lower percentages (where gappy SPOD has an advantage), Kriging and gappy SPOD have similar computational times. A direct comparison with gappy POD is not possible as the optimal number of modes is not known a priori, and its computation becomes quickly intractable as the mode number is increased. The mode number shown in table \ref{table time Taken} reflect the minimum number of modes required to guarantee that the global minimum was identified to the best of our ability. For the two examples at hand, we found that a decreasing number of modes was required for gappy POD the the gappyness increases. This gives gappy POD an advantage in terms of compute time for higher percentages of missing data. Note, however, that gappy SPOD yields a more accurate reconstruction, and does not require monitoring. In summary, gappy SPOD always outperforms Kriging and generally performs better (although in one case only marginally) than gappy POD in terms of the reconstruction error, but sometimes does so at a higher computational cost.
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{5pt}
\begin{table*}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|l}
\cline{1-7}
{Gappy-} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Cylinder flow (in hr)} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Cavity flow (in hr)} \\ \cline{2-7}
{ness} & Kriging & gappy POD & gappy SPOD & Kriging & gappy POD & gappy SPOD \\ \cline{1-7}
1\% & 11.24 & 49.95 (75 modes) & 1.63 & 2.79 & 27.88 (75 modes) & 2.37 & \\ \cline{1-7}
5\% & 28.91 & 64.69 (50 modes) & 13.58 & 10.91 & 19.94 (40 modes) & 7.28 & \\ \cline{1-7}
20\% & 159.63 & 34.13 (20 modes) & 139.86 & 46.84 & 26.30 (20 modes) & 49.57 & \\ \cline{1-7}
\end{tabular}
\caption{\label{table time Taken} Comparison of computational time. The computations were performed on a high-performance workstation with 192GB of memory and two 3.0 GHz 48-core Intel Xeon Gold CPUs.}
\end{table*}
\section{Summary and discussion} \label{conclusion}
A new algorithm is proposed that leverages the temporal correlation of SPOD modes with preceding and succeeding snapshots and their spatial correlation with the surrounding data to reconstruct partially missing or corrupted flow data. For demonstration purposes only, the reconstructed data are compared to the actual data in the corrupted regions. The algorithm itself exclusively relies on convergence metrics and fills in the gaps sequentially until the reconstruction converges to a user-defined tolerance, both locally, that is for each gap, and globally. The method is demonstrated on simulation data of the flow around a cylinder and time-resolved PIV data of turbulent cavity flow; the first being a canonical benchmark example used in many previous studies and the latter a realistic scenario of turbulent flow data in the presence of measurement noise. For randomly seeded and sized gaps that amount to up to 20\% of missing data and extend over large regions in space and many snapshots, the algorithm accurately recovers the missing instantaneous ans mean flow fields as well as turbulence statistics. It generally outperforms the established methods, particularly for the turbulent flow, where it yields a significantly lower reconstruction error that translates into an at least two-fold reduction compared to gappy POD and Kriging. Notably, this comparably low reconstruction error appears largely unaffected by the percentage gappyness within the range tested here. Even though the different methods scale differently and the results are case-dependent, their computational costs are roughly comparable. A caveat to the strong performance of the new method is that it is strictly applicable to statistically stationary data only, and that it relies on a sufficiently well-converged SPOD of the data, which in turn requires a sufficiently long time series. The main limitation of the algorithm directly follows from the properties of the SPOD: accurate flow reconstruction is only possible within the physical correlation length and time scales of the flow. This limitation, however, applies to all correlation-based methods. A systematic study of the most important spectral estimation parameters shows that best practices for SPOD \citep{schmidt2020guide} also lead to a good balance between the accuracy and computational cost of the gappy SPOD algorithm. Contingent on further testing on more data sets, the present results suggest that the algorithm can be fully automated and applied to any sufficiently long stationary flow data. Future extensions of gappy SPOD may include algorithmic improvements for specific error types like missing snapshots and the inclusion of trends for transient, non-stationary data.
\textbf{Acknowledgements} We thank Lou Cattafesta and Yang Zhang for providing the TR-PIV data. The data was created with supported by the U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research
(Award Number FA9550-17-1-0380).
|
\section{Introduction and Statement of Main Theorems} Schwarzschild metric is known to be a solution of Einstein's vacuum equations. In general space-time $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$ $(n\geq 3)$, the Schwarzschild metric has the following explicit expression.
\begin{align*}
g = - (1- \frac{2m}{r^{n-2}})dt^2 + (1-\frac{2m}{r^{n-2}}) dr^2 + r^2 g_{S^{n-1}},
\end{align*}
where the constant $m$ is the mass of the the Schwarzschild metric. One can easily observe that, by restricting to each space slice $t=c$, the Schwarzschild metric differs from the Euclidean metric by quantity of order $O(r^{2-n})$.
Motivated by Schwarschild metrics, Arnowitt, Deser and Misner \cite{PhysRev.122.997} first generalized the definition of the mass (ADM mass) to asymptotically flat metrics. Here, we apply the definition of mass to asymptotically locally Euclidean (ALE) manifolds. Let $(X,g)$ be an complete non-compact Riemannian manifold, we say $(X,g)$ is ALE if there is a compact subset $K \subseteq X$ such that $X-K$ has finitely many components, denoted by $X_{i,\infty}$ with $X-K = \bigcup_{i} X_{i,\infty}$ and each $X_{i,\infty}$ is diffeomorphic to $ (\mathbb{R}^n-B_R)/\Gamma_i$, where $B_R$ is a closed ball of radius $R$ and $\Gamma$ is a finite subset of $O(n)$. The metric $g$ is asymptotic to the Euclidean metric with rapid decay rate. Then, the ADM mass of the end $X_{i,\infty}$ is given by
\begin{align} \label{admmass1}
m_i(g)= \lim_{r \rightarrow \infty} \frac{\Gamma(\frac{n}{2})}{4(n-1)\pi^{n/2}} \int_{S_r/\Gamma_i} (g_{ij,i}-g_{ii,j})n^j d\mu
\end{align}
where $S_r$ is the Euclidean sphere of radius $r$, $n$ is the outward Euclidean unit normal vector and $d\mu$ is the volume form induced by standard metric on $S_r$. Bartnik \cite{bartnik1986mass} and Chru\'{s}ciel \cite{Chruciel1985BoundaryCA} give the appropriate decay condition to make the ADM mass coordinate-invariant, for Sobolev case and H\"older case respectively. Here, we list the decay condition of H\"older case for the metric $g$ on each end $X_{i,\infty}$,
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] the scalar curvature $R$ of $g$ belongs to $L^1$.
\item[(ii)] the metric $g$ is asymptotic to the Euclidean metric $\delta_{ij}$ at the end with decay rate $-\tau$ for some $\tau>(n-2)/2$,
\begin{align} \label{decayale}
g_{ij}= \delta_{ij} + O(r^{-\tau}) , \qquad |\nabla (\psi^{-1})^* g) |_{g_0} = O(r^{-\tau-1}).
\end{align}
\end{enumerate}
In this paper, one of main results is that the scalar-flat ALE K\"ahler metric of complex dimension $n$ is of decay rate $2-2n$, which has an expansion, $g_{ij} = \delta_{ij} + O(r^{2-2n})$ and the leading error term is determined by the ADM mass of $g$ (see theorem \ref{expanthm}). Furthermore, the expansion also works in scalar-flat AC K\"ahler cases if we replace the Euclidean metric by the standard metric on K\"ahler cone.
Rather than directly introduce the expansion theorem, we first introduce an important tool in K\"ahler geometry, the ddbar lemma. The ddbar lemma is a standard result in compact K\"ahler manifolds and it can be easily proved in ALE K\"ahler manifolds if we assume a fast decay condition (see \cite[theorem 8.4.4]{joyce2000compact}). In Colon-Hein \cite[theorem 3.11]{conlon2013asymptotically}, the ddbar lemma is generalized to asymptotically conical (AC) K\"ahler manifolds with a lower decay condition $(\text{only need }-\tau <0)$, with additional assumption of non-negative Ricci curvature. In the author's previous paper \cite[Proposition 3.6]{yao2020invariant}, the ddbar lemma can be proved in negative line bundle over K\"ahler C-spaces (compact simply-connected homogeneous K\"ahler manifolds) without any decay assumption at infinity. Here, we give a new version of ddbar lemma by revising the Colon-Hein's result and dropping the non-negative Ricci curvature assumption.
The ddbar lemma on the complement of $K\subseteq X$ will also be discussed in this paper. In Goto \cite[section5]{goto2012calabi} and Conlon-Hein \cite[appendix A]{conlon2013asymptotically}, ddbar lemma is proved in the case of complex dimension $n \geq 3$ with a trivial canonical bundle. In this paper, we derive a ddbar lemma on $X\backslash K$ without making the above assumptions, but with high decay rate error terms.
Let $(L, g_L)$ be a compact Riemannian manifold, the \textit{Riemannian cone} $C_L$ associated with $L$ is defined to be $L\times \mathbb{R}_{>0}$ with Riemannian metric $g_{0} = dr^2 + r^2 g_L$. A Riemannian cone $C_L$ is said to be \textit{K\"ahler} if there exists a $g_{0}$-parallel complex structure $J_0$ such that the corresponding fundamental form $\omega_0 = g_0(J_0\cdot, \cdot)$ is closed, in particular, $\omega_0 = i\partial \overline{\partial} r^2$. If we assume that the K\"ahler cone $(C_L, g_0, J_0)$ is Ricci-flat with $\dim_\mathbb{C} C_L =n$,
then, according to the standard calculation in \cite[section 1.4]{sparks2010sasaki} and \cite[section 11.1]{boyer2008sasakian}, the link $L$ is Sasaki-Einstein with $\textup{Ric} g_L = 2(n-1) g_L$.
Let $(X, J, g)$ be an AC K\"ahler manifold asymptotic to $C_L$, where $(C_L, g_0)$ is a Ricci-flat K\"ahler cone with link $L$. Throughout the paper we always assume that the manifolds only have one end, then there exists a compact subset $K\subseteq X$ and $B_R =\{x\in C_L, r(x) < R\}$, such that $\psi: X-K \rightarrow C_L-B_{R}$ is a diffeomorphism satisfying the following decay conditions,
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] the scalar curvature $R$ of $g$ belongs to $L^1$.
\item[(ii)] the complex structure $J$ on $X$ decays to $J_0$, the induced almost complex structure from $C_L$.
\item[(iii)] the metric $g$ is asymptotic to the reference metric $g_L$ at the end with decay rate $-\tau $ for some $\tau>0$, for $i=0,1,\ldots,k$,
\begin{align} \label{decayac}
| \nabla^i ((\psi^{-1})^* g - g_0)|_{g_0} = O(r^{-\tau-i}).
\end{align}
\end{enumerate}
\begin{mtheorem} (ddbar lemma) \label{ddclem}
Let $X$ be AC K\"ahler manifolds asymptotic to a Ricci-flat K\"ahler cone $C_L$. Let $k$ be a large positive integer, $\alpha \in (0,1)$ and $\delta > 0$,
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] Let $\omega$ be a $d$-exact real $(1,1)$-form on $X$ satisfying the decay condition $\omega \in \mathcal{C}^{k,\alpha}_{-\delta}$. Then, there exists a real function $\varphi \in \mathcal{C}^{k+2,\alpha}_{2-\delta}$ such that $\omega = dd^c \varphi$.
\item[(ii)] Let $\omega$ be a $d$-exact real $(1,1)$-form on the end $X\backslash K$. Then there exists a real function $\varphi \in \mathcal{C}^{k+2, \alpha}_{2-\delta}(X\backslash K)$ such that,
\begin{align*}
\omega = dd^c \varphi + O(r^{-2n}).
\end{align*}
\end{enumerate}
\end{mtheorem}
We generalize the definition of mass to AC Riemannian manifolds. Let $(C_L, g_0)$ be a Riemannian metric cone of link $(L, g_L)$ and $(X,g)$, a complete Riemannian manifold asymptotic to $(C_L, g)$ at infinity. The definition in (\ref{admmass1}) requires a coordinate system at infinity, which does not exist in general AC Riemannian manifolds. Hence, we start from a coordinate-free expression of mass. In Lee's book \cite[Section 3.1.3]{lee2019geometric}, the mass is defined to be
\begin{align} \label{admmass2}
\mathfrak{m}(g) = \frac{1}{2(2n-1) \operatorname{Vol}(L)}\lim_{r \rightarrow \infty} \int_{L(r)} (\overline{\nabla}^j g_{ij}- (\operatorname{tr}_{g_0}g)_i) n^i d\operatorname{Vol}_{L(r)},
\end{align}
where $\overline{\nabla}$ is the Levi-Civita connection with respect to $g_0$ and $n$ is the outer normal vector field on $L(r)$. In Hein-LeBrun \cite{hein2016mass}, the ADM mass in ALE K\"ahler manifolds is a quantity determined by the total scalar curvature and its topological data. A similar mass formula also holds in AC K\"ahler manifolds asymptotic to Ricci-flat K\"ahler cones. Let $\iota: H^2_c (X) \rightarrow H^2_{dR}(X)$ be the map induced by the natural embedding of chain complex $\Omega^{\bullet}_{c} \hookrightarrow \Omega^{\bullet}_{dR}$. Generally speaking, $\iota$ is not an isomorphism, but the first Chern class of $(X,J)$ always has a pre-image under $\iota$ (see Lemma \ref{cptclasslm}). Then, we have the following mass formula.
\begin{mtheorem}
Let $(X, J, g)$ be an AC K\"ahler manifolds asymptotic to a Ricci-flat K\"ahler cone $(C_L, J_0, g_0)$ satisfying the decay condition (\ref{decayac}) with $\tau = n-1+ \epsilon$. Then, we have
\begin{align} \label{admmass3}
\mathfrak{m}( g) = -\frac{2\pi \langle \iota^{-1} c_1, [\omega]^{n-1} \rangle}{(2n-1) (n-1)! \operatorname{Vol}(L)} + \frac{1}{2(2n-1) \operatorname{Vol}(L)} \int_{X} R_g d\operatorname{Vol}_g,
\end{align}
where $[\omega]$ is the K\"ahler class of $(g,J)$, $c_1$ is the first Chern class of $(X,J)$ and $R_g$ is the scalar curvature of $g$ on $X$.
\end{mtheorem}
An interesting application of the mass formula (\ref{admmass3}) is the positive mass theorem. The positive mass theorem is first proved in AE manifolds of lower dimension by Schoen, Yau \cite{schoen1979complete}. Afterwards, Witten \cite{witten1981new} develop a new method to prove the positive mass theorem on spin manifolds. And in K\"ahler cases, Hein-Lebrun \cite{hein2016mass} confirms the positive mass theorem on AE K\"ahler manifolds. However, in ALE cases, Lebrun \cite{Lebrun1988CounterexamplesTT} constructs the first counter-example of positive mass theorem. Here, we discuss a new version of positive mass theorem on resolution spaces of Ricci-flat K\"ahler cones with an isolated canonical singularity at vertex.
\begin{mtheorem} (positive mass theorem)
Let $(X, J)$ be a resolution space of a Ricci-flat K\"ahler cone $C_L$ such that the only singularity $O \in C_L$ is canonical. If $(X,g)$ has scalar curvature $R \geq 0$, then the mass $\mathfrak{m}(X,g) \geq 0$, and equals zero only if $(X,J,g)$ is a crepant resolution of $C_L$ with a scalar-flat K\"ahler metric $g$.
\end{mtheorem}
Now, we can introduce the following expansion theorem in AC K\"ahler case.
\begin{mtheorem} \label{expanthm} Let $(X, J)$ be a AC K\"ahler manifold asymptotic to a Ricci-flat K\"ahler cone $(C_L, J_0)$ and we assume that $k$ be a large positive integer and $\tau = n-1+\epsilon$,
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] Let $\omega_1$, $\omega_2$ be K\"ahler forms on $X$ with the corresponding metrics satisfying decay condition (\ref{decayac}) and $R_1$, $R_2$, the scalar curvature of $\omega_1$ and $\omega_2$. If
\begin{enumerate}
\item[$\bullet$] $[\omega_1] = [\omega_2]$
\item[$\bullet$] $R_1 =R_2$,
\end{enumerate}
then $\omega_2 = \omega_1 + dd^c \varphi$ with the potential $\varphi \in \mathcal{C}^{k+2,\alpha}_{2-2\tilde{\tau}}$, for some $\tilde{\tau} >n-1$ depending on $(n, L, \tau)$.
\item[(ii)] Let $\omega$ be a scalar flat K\"ahler form on X satifying decay condition (\ref{decayac}). And the complex structure $J$ is asymptotic to $J_0$ satisfying
\begin{align} \label{cxdec}
J= J_0+ O(r^{2-2n-\epsilon'}), \qquad \epsilon' >0,
\end{align}
Then, the scalar flat K\"ahler form $\omega$ admits the following expansion at infinity. In particular, outside a compact set of $X$, for complex dimension $n\geq 3$, we have
\begin{align*}
\omega = \frac{1}{2} dd^c r^2 + \frac{(2n-1)\mathfrak{m}(\omega)}{2(4-2n)(n-1)} dd^c r^{4-2n} + O(r^{-2\tilde{\tau}}),
\end{align*}
where $m(\omega)$ is the ADM mass of $\omega$ and $\tilde{\tau} > n-1$ only depends on $(n, L, \epsilon', \tau)$. And for complex dimension $n=2$, we have
\begin{align*}
\omega = \frac{1}{2} dd^c r^2 +\frac{3 \mathfrak{m}(\omega)}{2} dd^c \log r + O(r^{-2\tilde{\tau}}),
\end{align*}
where $\tilde{\tau} = \min\{\tau, 3/2\}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{mtheorem}
As special cases of AC K\"ahler metrics, all ALE K\"ahler metrics satisfy the expansion theorem. According to the statement (i) of Theorem \ref{expanthm} in ALE K\"ahler cases, we can define K\"ahler potential spaces with relatively "good" decay rate. Precisely, by fixing a K\"ahler metric $\omega$, then, we can define the following potential space of ALE K\"ahler metrics,
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{H}_{-\tau} ([\omega]) = \Big\{f \in \mathcal{C}^\infty_{-2 \tilde{\tau}}: \omega + i\partial\overline{\partial} f >0, \ \tilde{\tau} = \min\{\tau, n-\frac{1}{2}\} \Big\}
\end{align*}
In fact, $\mathcal{H}_{-\tau} ([\omega])$ does not contain all ALE K\"ahler metrics, but it is enough for "prescribed scalar curvature" problem, as all ALE K\"ahler metrics with the same scalar curvature as $\omega$ are contained in $\mathcal{H}_{-\tau} ([\omega])$. For the statement (ii), in ALE K\"ahler case, the fall-off condition of complex structure (\ref{cxdec}) is automatically satisfied. In fact, for $n\geq 3$, in the asymptotic chart, the complex structure $J$ coincides with the standard one $J_0$, and for $n=2$, in the asymptotic chart,
$J = J_0 + O(r^{-3})$. One can check \cite[Lemma 2.3, Proposition 4.5]{hein2016mass} for details.
This paper is a part of Ph.D thesis of the author. The author would like to thank Professor Hans-Joachim Hein and Professor Bianca Santoro for suggesting the problem, and for constant support, many helpful comments, as well as much enlightening conversation. This work is completed while the author is supported by scholarship from University of M\"unster, WWU.
\section{Preliminary on Analysis} \label{pres}
\subsection{The Laplacian of 1-form on Riemanian cones} \label{laequ1fss}
This subsection is mainly dedicated to preparing for the proof of Theorem \ref{ddclem}. We will solve the laplacian equation of $1$-form on Riemannian cones. The fact (lemma \ref{laequ1f}) was also claimed in \cite[Lemma 3.7(ii)]{conlon2013asymptotically}. Here, we just give a detailed proof for this lemma.
Let $L$ be a closed Riemannian manifold with dimension $n-1$ ($ n\geq 4$) and $C(L) = L \times \mathbb{R}_{>0}$ with standard cone metric $g_{C}= dr^2 + r^2 g$. Throughout this paper, we will apply the weighted H\"{o}lder norms on Riemannian cones. Let $T$ be a tensor field on the Riemannian cone $(C_L, g)$ and $U$ be an open domain in $C_L$, the weighted H\"older norm with order $\rho$ is defined to be the following,
\begin{align} \label{hnorm}
||T||_{C^{k,\alpha}_{\rho} (U)} = \sum_{i=0}^{k} \sup_{x \in U} \big|(r^2 +1)^{\frac{1}{2} (-\rho+i)} \nabla^i T \big|_{g} + \sup_{x, y \in U} (r^2 +1)^{\frac{1}{2}(-\rho+k+\alpha)} \frac{|\nabla^{k}T(x)- \nabla^k T(y)|_g}{|x-y|^\alpha}
\end{align}
where $\nabla$ is the Levi-Civita connection of $g$ and $|T(x)-T(y)|_g$ is defined via parallel transport minimal geodesic from $x$ to $y$. A tensor field $T$ is belong to $\mathcal{C}^{k,\alpha}_\rho(U)$ if the H\"older norm $||T||_{\mathcal{C}^{k,\alpha}_\rho(U)}$ is finite. Similarly, we can define a weighted H\"older norm on each AC Riemannian manifold as in (\ref{hnorm}) by fixing a smooth radial function $\tilde{r}$, which is obtained by smoothly extending the radial function $r$ to the whole manifold.
Let $\Delta = dd^* + d^* d$ be the Hodge-Laplacian operator on $C_L$ and $\Delta_L = d_L d^*_L + d_L^* d_L$, the Hodge-Laplacian operator on $L$.
Let $0= \lambda'_0 < \lambda'_1 \leq \lambda'_2 \leq \ldots $ (listed with multiplicity) be the increasing sequence of eigenvalues of $\Delta_L$ on functions and $\kappa_0$ (constant), $\kappa_1, \ldots$, the corresponding eigenfuncions satisfying $||\kappa_i||_{L^2(L)} =1$, for all $i\geq 0$. Viewing $\Delta_L$ as an operator acting on the spaces of 1-forms on $L$, we immediately get a family of eigen-1-forms, $\Delta_L d_L \kappa_i = \lambda'_i d_L \kappa_i$, $i \geq 1$. The $L^2$-normalization of $\kappa_i$ implies that $||d_L\kappa_i||_{L^2(L)}= (\lambda'_i)^{1/2} $. Besides, according to Hodge decomposition on $L$, we also have a family of coclosed eigen-1-forms, $\Delta_L \eta_j = \lambda''_j \eta_j$ $(d^*_L \eta_j =0)$, where the eigenvalues are listed as an increasing sequence, $0\leq \lambda''_1 \leq \lambda''_2 \leq \ldots$ and $||\eta_j||_{L^2(L)} =1$. In summary, we have
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] Exact eigenforms: $ d_L\kappa_i$ with eigenvalue $\lambda'_i$ and $||d_L\kappa_i||_{L^2(L)}= \lambda_i^{1/2} $, for $i \geq 1$.
\item[(ii)] Coclosed eigenforms: $\eta_j$ with eigenvalue $ \lambda''_j $ and $||\eta_j||_{L^2(L)}=1$.
\end{enumerate}
Consider an 1-form $\beta$ defined on $C(L)$, then we can write $\beta = \kappa (r, y) dr + \eta (r,y) $. By spectral decomposition of 1-form on $L$, we obtain the Fourier series of $\kappa(r,y)$ and $\eta(r,y)$,
\begin{align} \label{dec1f}
\begin{split}
\kappa (r,y) &= \sum_{i\geq 0} f_i (r) \kappa_i (y)\\
\eta (r,y) &= \sum_{i\geq 1} g_i (r) d_L \kappa_i (y) + \sum_{j \geq 1} h_j (r) \eta_j (y).
\end{split}
\end{align}
Based on calculation in \cite[(2.14-2.15)]{cheeger1994cone} or \cite[(3.8)]{cheeger1983spectral}, we have an explicit formula for the Laplacian of 1-form $ \beta = \kappa dr + \eta$. In particular,
\begin{equation}\label{la1f}
\begin{split}
\Delta \beta = \ &dr \big( -\kappa'' -\frac{n-1}{r} \kappa' + \frac{n-1}{r^2} \kappa + \frac{1}{r^2} \Delta_{L} \kappa + \frac{2}{r^3} d^*_{L} \eta\big) \\
& -\eta'' -\frac{n-3}{r} \eta' -\frac{2}{r} d_L \kappa + \frac{1}{r^2} \Delta_L \eta.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Regarding the Laplacian equation of 1-form, we introduce exceptional sets $A,\ B,\ C$ defined in (\ref{exset1}), (\ref{exset2}), (\ref{exset3}) respectively; namely, the set of orders of homogeneous harmonic 1-forms of three different types. If we write $U(r_0) =\{x \in C_L, r(x) > r_0\}$ and $\overline{U}(r_0)$ represents its topological closure, then we have the following lemma,
\begin{lem} \label{laequ1f} Let $\theta$ be an 1-form defined on $\overline{U}(1)$ with $\theta \in \mathcal{C}^{k,\alpha}_{\rho}$. If $k \geq 2n+3$ and $\rho+2 \notin A \bigcup B \bigcup C$, then there exists a solution $\beta \in \mathcal{C}^{k+2,\alpha}_{\rho+2} (\overline{U}(1))$ satisfying the Laplacian equation, $\Delta \beta = \theta$ and $\beta$ satisfies the estimate.
\begin{align*}
||\beta||_{\mathcal{C}^{k+2,\alpha}_{\rho+2} (U (2))} \leq C ||\theta||_{\mathcal{C}^{k, \alpha}_{\rho}(U (1))}.
\end{align*}
where $C$ only depends on $(n, L, k, \rho)$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} One of key points to solve the Laplacian equation of 1-form is to observe that the Laplacian equation is equivalent to a system of ODEs based on (\ref{dec1f}) and (\ref{la1f}). By spectrum decomposition of the Laplacian, $\beta= \kappa dr + \eta$ can be written as in (\ref{dec1f}) and similarly, we can also represent $\theta= \theta_0 dr + \theta_1$ as,
\begin{align*}
\theta_0 = \sum_{i\geq 0} u_i (r) \kappa_i (y), \qquad \theta_1 = \sum_{i \geq 1} v_i (r) d _L \kappa_{i} (y) + \sum_{j\geq 1} w_j (r) \eta_j (y),
\end{align*}
where $v_i,\ w_j \in \mathcal{C}^{{k,\alpha}}_{\rho +1}$ and $u_i \in \mathcal{C}^{k,\alpha}_{\rho}$. According to (\ref{la1f}), by comparing the coefficients, the Laplacian equation $\Delta \beta = \theta$ is equivalent to the following system of ODEs,
\begin{align}
-h''_{j} - \frac{n-3}{r} h'_j + \frac{\lambda''_j}{ r^{2}} h_j = w_j, \quad (j \geq 1) \label{laequ1}
\end{align}
and
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
&-f''_i - \frac{n-1} {r} f'_i + \frac{ n-1 +\lambda'_i }{ r^2} f_i - \frac{2\lambda_i'}{ r^3} g_i= u_i, \label{laequ2} \\
&-g''_i - \frac{ n-3 }{ r } g'_i + \frac{ \lambda'_i }{r^2} g_i -\frac{2}{ r } f_i = v_i, \quad (i \geq 0) \label{laequ3}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
To solve equation (\ref{laequ1}), notice that the corresponding homogeneous equation has the solutions $r^{a_j^{\pm}}$, where the orders are given by
\begin{align} \label{exset1}
A= \{a_j^{\pm}-1, j\geq 1 \}, \qquad a^{\pm}_{j} = -\frac{n-4}{2} \pm \sqrt{ \Big( \frac{n-4}{2}\Big)^2 +\lambda''_j},
\end{align}
where $A$ defines the first exceptional set. If we write $\displaystyle H_j= \begin{pmatrix}h_{j} \\ h'_{j} \end{pmatrix} $, then we have the following representation formula,
\begin{align} \label{sol1}
H_j (r) = W_{j}(r) \Big( W_j^{-1}(1) H_j(1) + \int_{1}^r W_{j}^{-1}(s) \begin{pmatrix} 0\\ w_{j} (s) \end{pmatrix} ds \Big)
\end{align}
where the Wronskian $W_\lambda$ is given by
\begin{align*}
W_{j} (r) = \begin{pmatrix} r^{a^{+}_{j}} & r^{a^-_{j}} \\ a^+_{j} r^{a^{+}_{j}-1} & a^-_{j} r^{a^{-}_{j}-1} \end{pmatrix}.
\end{align*}
Noting that te exceptional set can be ordered nondecreasingly as $\ldots \leq a_2^- \leq a_1^- \leq a_1^+ \leq a_2^+ \leq \ldots$. Without loss of generality, assume that $\rho > 1-n$ (to ensure $\rho +3 > a_j^-$ for $j\geq 1$). Then, we can deduce the following explicit formula of $h_{j}$,
\begin{align}\label{sol2}
h_j(r) = \hat{h}_j (r) + A_{+} r^{a^+_{j}}+ A_{-} r^{a^-_{j}}.
\end{align}
In case of $ a_j^+ > \rho+3 $, $\hat{h}_\lambda$, $A_+$ and $A_-$ are given as follows,
\begin{align}
\hat{h}_j &= \frac{1}{a^-_j - a^+_j} \bigg( r^{a^+_j} \int_{\infty}^r s^{1-a^+_j} w_j(s) ds - r^{a^-_j} \int_{r_0}^r s^{1-a^-_j} w_j (s) ds\bigg), \nonumber \\
A_{-} &=\frac{1}{a^{-}_{j} - a^{+}_{j} } \big( - a^+_{j} h_{j}(1) + h'_{j}(1) \big), \label{coefsol1} \\
A_{+} &= \frac{1}{a^-_{j}-a^+_{j}}\bigg( a^-_{j} h_{j}(1) - h'_{j}(1) + \int_{1}^\infty s^{1-a^+_{j}} w_j (s) ds \bigg). \nonumber
\end{align}
It is obvious to see that $\hat{h}_{j} (r) = O(r^{3+\rho})$. By choosing certain values $(h_j(1), h'_j (1) )$ such that the coefficient $A_{+}$ and $A_{-}$ are vanishing, then we have $h_{j}(r) = O(r^{3+\rho})$. In case that $a^{+}_{j} < 3+\rho$, $h_j(r)$ has the same expression as (\ref{sol2}) with different $\hat{h}_j $, $A_+$ as follows
\begin{equation} \label{coefsol2}
\begin{split}
\hat{h}_j &= \frac{1}{a^-_j - a^+_j} \bigg( r^{a^+_j} \int_{1}^r s^{1-a^+_j} w_j(s) ds - r^{a^-_j} \int_{1}^r s^{1-a^-_j} w_j (s) ds\bigg),\\
A_{+} &= \frac{1}{a^-_{j}-a^+_{j}}\big( a^-_{j} h_{j}(1) - h_{j}'(1) \big)
\end{split}
\end{equation}
and $A_-$ has the same formula as in (\ref{coefsol1}). The reason we exclude the exceptional set $A$ is that if $\rho +2 = a_j^\pm-1$, there exists some $\log$ terms appear in $\hat{h}_j$. There is only one special case remains to check; that is when $n =4$ and $\lambda''_j =0$. In this case, the solutions of the corresponding homogenous equation of (\ref{laequ1}) is generated by $1$ and $\log r$. Then, by similar computation as above, the solution $h_j$ can be written as,
\begin{align*}
h_j (r) = h(1) + h'(1) \log r + \log r \int_1^r s w_j (s) ds - \int_1^r \big( s \log s\big) w_j(s) ds
\end{align*}
The assumption $\rho+3 > 4-n =0$ ensures that $h_j (r) = O(r^{{\rho}+3})$. In conclution, if $\rho+3 \notin A$, then we have $h_j \in \mathcal{C}^{k+2,\alpha}_{\rho+3}$. It is also easy to see that $h_j = O(r^{3+\rho})$.
To solve (\ref{laequ2}) and (\ref{laequ3}), we introduce an auxiliary functions, $D_i= -g_i''-(n-1)r^{-1} g'_i + {\lambda'_i}{r^{-2}} g_i $ and $E_i = f-g'$, then the equations (\ref{laequ2}) and (\ref{laequ3}) can be rewritten as follows,
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
-&E''_i - \frac{n-1}{r} E'_i +\frac{\lambda'_i+n-1}{r^2} E_i+D'_i = u_i ,\label{laequ2'} \\
&D_i - \frac{2}{r}E_i = v_i. \label{laequ3'}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The system of equations can be reduces to
\begin{align}\label{laequ4}
-E''_i - \frac{n-3}{r} E'_i +\frac{\lambda'_i+n-3}{r^2} E_i = \vartheta_i,
\end{align}
where $\vartheta_i = u_i - v'_i \in C^{k-1,\alpha}_{\rho}$. The equation (\ref{laequ4}) can be solved by the same method as (\ref{laequ1}). Only to notice that the exceptional set is different from $A$,
\begin{align} \label{exset2}
B=\{b_i^{\pm}, i\geq 0 \}, \qquad b_i^{\pm} =-\frac{n-4}{2} \pm \sqrt{\Big(\frac{n-4}{2}\Big)^2 + \lambda'_i +n -3}.
\end{align}
If $\rho +2 \notin B$, by similar discussion from (\ref{sol1}) to (\ref{coefsol2}), there exists a solution $E_i \in C^{k+1,\alpha}_{\rho+2}$ satisfying (\ref{laequ4}). It suffices to solve $g$ and $f$. The equation (\ref{laequ2'}) can be rewritten as
\begin{align} \label{laequ5}
-g''_i- \frac{n-1}{r} g'_i + \frac{\lambda'_i}{r^2} g_i = \varpi_i,
\end{align}
where $\varpi_i =2r^{-1} E_i +v_i \in \mathcal{C}^{k,\alpha}_{\rho+1}$. If we introduce another exceptional set,
\begin{align}\label{exset3}
C=\{c_i^{\pm}-1, i\geq 1 \}, \qquad c_i^{\pm} =-\frac{n-2}{2} \pm \sqrt{\Big(\frac{n-2}{2}\Big)^2 + \lambda'_i },
\end{align}
then by the same method, assuming $\rho+2 \notin B\bigcup C$, there exists a solution $g_i \in \mathcal{C}^{k+2,\alpha}_{\rho+3}$. By the definition of $E_i$, we obtain that $f_i = g'_i + E_i \in \mathcal{C}^{k+1,\alpha}_{\rho+2}$. According to previous discussion, we have found coefficients satisfying the right decay condition of Fourier series of $\beta$. It remains to show that the Fourier series converges in $\mathcal{C}^{2}_{loc}$ topology.
If $\lambda_j >0$, $j\in J$, we have the following estimte for $w_j (r)$,
\begin{align}
w_j(r) =\int_{L} (\theta_1(r, y), \eta_j(y))_{g_L} dy &= {(\lambda''_j)^{-\frac{k}{2}} }\int_L \big( \Delta_L^{\frac{k}{2}} \theta_1(r,y), \eta_j \big)_{g_L} dy \nonumber \\
&\leq \operatorname{Vol}(L)^{\frac{1}{2}} (\lambda''_j)^{-\frac{k}{2}} r^{\rho+1} || \theta (r,y) ||_{k,\alpha; \rho}. \label{coefest1}
\end{align}
By by expression of $\hat{h}_j$ in (\ref{coefsol1}), we have
\begin{align} \label{coefest2}
|\hat{h}_j(r)| + r|\hat{h}_j'(r)| + r^2 |\hat{h}_j''(r)| \leq C(n, \rho) r^{\rho +3} \sup |r^{-\rho -1} w_j (r)|
\end{align}
Combining (\ref{coefest2}) with (\ref{coefest1}), we have the estimate
\begin{align}\label{coefest3}
|\hat{h}_j(r)| + r|\hat{h}_j'(r)| + r^2 |\hat{h}_j''(r)| \leq C (n, L, \rho) (1+\lambda_j)^{-\frac{k}{2}} r^{\rho+3} ||\theta(r,y)||_{k,\alpha; \rho}.
\end{align}
Applying Moser iteration to $\eta_j$, we obtain that
\begin{align*}
||\eta_j||_{L^\infty(L)} \leq C(n,L) (\lambda''_j)^{\frac{n-1}{2}} ||\eta_j||_{L^2(L)} = C(n, L) (\lambda'')_j^{\frac{n-1}{2}}.
\end{align*}
Then, the Schauder estimates for $\Delta_L$ implies that $||\eta_j||_{C^{2,\alpha}(L)} \leq C(n,L) (1+\lambda''_j)^{\frac{n+1}{2}}$; hence
\begin{align} \label{eigen1fest1}
|\eta_j|+r |\nabla \eta_j| + r^2 | \nabla^2 \eta_j |\leq C(n ,L)(1+ \lambda''_j) ^{\frac{n+1}{2}}r^{-1}.
\end{align}
Recall the Weyl's law for differential forms \cite[Appendix by J. Dodziuk]{chavel1984eigenvalues}, $\lambda_j \sim j^{\frac{2}{n-1}}$. The Weyl's law together with (\ref{coefest3}) and (\ref{eigen1fest1}) can deduce that when $k \geq 2n+3 $,
\begin{align*}
|\hat{h}_j(r) \eta_j(y)| + r |\nabla (\hat{h}_j(r) \eta_j (y))| + r^2| \nabla^2 (\hat{h}_j (r)\eta_j (y))| \leq C(n,L) j^{\big(-1 +\frac{2n-k}{n-1}\big)} r^{\rho+2} ||\theta (r,y)||_{k,\alpha; \rho+1},
\end{align*}
which implies that the series $\sum_{j\in J}\hat{ h}_j (r) \eta_j (y)$ converges in $\mathcal{C}^2_{loc} $. By choosing certain $h_j (1)$ and $h'_j(1)$ to ensure that $A_{+}= A_{-}=0$, $\sum_{j\in J} { h}_j (r) \eta_j (y)$ converges in $\mathcal{C}^2_{loc} $. To show the convergence of $\sum_{i\in I} {f}_i (r) \kappa_i (y) dr$ and $\sum_{i\in I} {g}_i (r) d_L \kappa_i (y)$, we deduce a similar estimate as (\ref{coefest3}) for $E_i$ at first. Recall that $\vartheta_i = u_i - v'_i $, then we have
\begin{align}
\vartheta_i (r) &= \int_{L} \theta_0 (r,y) \kappa_i (y) dy - \lambda_i^{-1} \int_{L} (\partial_r \theta_1 (r, y), d_L \kappa_i (y) )_{g_L}dy \nonumber \\
&= \lambda_i^{-\frac{k}{2}} \int_L \big(\Delta_L^{\frac{k}{2}} \theta_0 (r, y)\big) \kappa_i (y) dy - \lambda_i^{-\frac{k+1}{2}} \int_L \big(\partial_r \big(\Delta_L^{\frac{k-1}{2}} \theta_1 (r,y) \big), d_L \kappa_i (y)\big)_{g_L} dy \nonumber \\
& \leq C(n, L) \lambda_i^{-\frac{k}{2}} r^{\rho} ||\theta ||_{k,\alpha; \rho}. \label{coefest4}
\end{align}
Recall the equation (\ref{laequ4}), together with (\ref{coefest4}), by the same method to derive (\ref{coefest3}), we have,
\begin{align} \label{coefest5}
|E_i(r)|+r|E'_i(r)|+r^2|E''_i (r)| \leq C(n, L,\rho) (\lambda'_i)^{-\frac{k}{2}} r^{\rho+2} ||\theta||_{k,\alpha; \rho}.
\end{align}
Again, according to equation (\ref{laequ5}) and estimate (\ref{coefest5}), the same method shows that
\begin{align*}
\varpi_i (r) = \frac{2 E_i}{r} + v_i \leq C(n, L, \rho) r^{\rho +1} (\lambda'_i)^{-\frac{k}{2}} r^{\rho+1} ||\theta||_{k,\alpha; \rho}.
\end{align*}
Therefore, we have
\begin{align} \label{coefest6}
|g_i(r)|+r|g'_i(r)|+r^2|g''_i (r)| \leq C(n, L,\rho) (1+ \lambda'_i)^{-\frac{k}{2}} r^{\rho+3} ||\theta||_{k,\alpha; \rho}.
\end{align}
Combining (\ref{coefest5}), (\ref{coefest6}) and definition of $E_i$, we obtain,
\begin{align} \label{coefest7}
|f_i(r)|+r|f'_i(r)|+r^2|f''_i (r)| \leq C(n, L,\rho) (1+\lambda'_i)^{-\frac{k-1}{2}} r^{\rho+2} ||\theta||_{k,\alpha; \rho}.
\end{align}
Also, we can derive the similar estimate for $\kappa_i$ and $d_L \kappa_i $ as in (\ref{eigen1fest1}), by Moser iteration and Schauder estimates
\begin{equation} \label{eigenest2}
\begin{split}
|\kappa_i|+r |\nabla \kappa_i| + r^2 | \nabla^2 \kappa_i | &\leq C(n ,L)(1+ \lambda'_i) ^{\frac{n+1}{2}}; \\
|d_L\kappa_i|+r |\nabla d_L \kappa_i| + r^2 | \nabla^2 d_L\kappa_i | &\leq C(n ,L)(1+ \lambda'_i) ^{\frac{n+3}{2}}r^{-1}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Then, the estmates (\ref{coefest6}), (\ref{coefest7}) and (\ref{eigenest2}) together with Weyl's law implies that, when $k \geq 2n+3$, the series $\sum_{i\in I} {f}_i (r) \kappa_i (y) dr$ and $\sum_{i\in I} {g}_i (r) d_L \kappa_i (y)$ converge in $C^2_{loc}$ topology. And the convergence of series also implies that
\begin{align*}
||\beta||_{L^\infty} \leq C (n, L,\rho, k) r^{\rho +2}||\theta||_{k ,\alpha; \rho}.
\end{align*}
Since the Laplacian can be viewed as an elliptic operator for vector bundle $\wedge^1 T^*X$ over $X$, according to elliptic operator theory on conical manifolds \cite[Theorem 4.12]{marshal2002deformations}, we have Schauder-type estimate for the equation, $\Delta \beta = \theta$.
\begin{align*}
||\beta||_{{k+2,\alpha ;\rho+2}} \leq C (n, L,\rho, k) ( ||\theta||_{k, \alpha; \rho} + ||\beta||_{0; \rho+2} )\leq C (n, L,\rho, k) ||\theta||_{k, \alpha; \rho}.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
The proof of lemma \ref{laequ1f} not only works for 1-forms, but also for functions in weighted H\"older space. Also by spectral decompsition technique, we can solve $\Delta_0 u =f$ as follows. Recall that the increasing sequence $0= \lambda'_0 <\lambda'_1 \leq \lambda'_2 \ldots$ is eigenvalues of $\delta$ acting on functions, then the exceptional set is given by,
\begin{align}\label{excd}
D =\{ d_i^{\pm}, \text{ for } i=0,1,\ldots \}, \qquad d^{\pm}_{i} =-\frac{n-2}{2}\pm \sqrt{\Big(\frac{n-2}{2}\Big)^2 + \lambda'_i}.
\end{align}
\begin{cor}
Let $f$ be a function defined on $\overline{U}(1)$ with $f \in \mathcal{C}^{k,\alpha}_{\rho-2}$. If $k \geq $ and $\rho \notin D $, then there exists a solution $u \in \mathcal{C}^{k+2,\alpha}_{\rho} (\overline{U}(1))$ satisfying the Laplacian equation, $\Delta_0 u = f$ and $u$ satisfies the estimate.
\begin{align} \label{laequfestc}
||u||_{\mathcal{C}^{k+2,\alpha}_{\rho} (U (2))} \leq C ||f||_{\mathcal{C}^{k, \alpha}_{\rho-2}(U (1))}.
\end{align}
where $C$ only depends on $(n, L, k, \rho)$.
\end{cor}
\subsection{Laplacian on asymptotically conical manifolds} \label{aclaequss}
The asymptotic behavior of Laplacian on ALE manifolds has been studied in many references. The main idea to solve the Laplacian equation on ALE manifolds is to apply the Fredholm property of the Laplacian operator. In Lockhart \cite[Corollary 6.5]{Lockhart1981FredholmPO}, Lockhart-McOwen \cite[Theorem 1.3]{ASNSP_1985_4_12_3_409_0} and Cantor \cite[Theorem 6.3]{cantor1981elliptic}, the Fredholm property is proved in Sobolev case for the elliptic operators that are asymptotic to the Euclidean Laplacian at infinity. The H\"older case has been discussed in \cite[section 4]{chaljub1979problemes} for real dimension 3. In Marshall \cite[Theorem 6.9]{marshal2002deformations}, the Fredholm property of Laplacian operator has been generalized to AC manifolds on both Sobolev and H\"older cases. In this section, we will summarize the key results of the H\"older cases on AC manifolds and prove the following proposition. Recall that $(C_L, g_0)$ is a Riemannian cone and $(X, g)$ asymptotic to $(C_L, g_0)$ at infinity with a diffeomrphsim $\psi: X_\infty = X-K \rightarrow (R_0, \infty) \times L$ and $ \displaystyle |\nabla^i((\psi^{-1})^* g - g_0)|_{g_0} = O(r^{-i-\tau})$, for integers $i = 0,1,\ldots, k $.
In $X_\infty$, let $\Delta_0$ and $\Delta$ be the Laplacian operators of metrics $g_0$ and $g$ respectively and $D$, the exceptional set given in (\ref{excd}).
\begin{pro} \label{laequac} Suppose $(X, g)$ is a complete AC manifold asymptotic to a Riemannian cone $(C_L, g)$ with $\dim_{\mathbb{R}} X = n \geq 4$ and $f \in \mathcal{C}^{k,\alpha}_{\rho-2}$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[\textup(i)] Let $\rho \in (0,\infty)\backslash D$, there exists a solution $u \in \mathcal{C}^{k+2,\alpha}_{\rho}$.
\item[\textup{(ii)}] Let $\rho \in (2-n,0)$, there exists a unique solution $u \in C^{k, \alpha}_{\rho+2}$ of $\Delta u = f$.
\item[\textup{(iii)}] Let $\rho \in (-\infty , 2-n)\backslash D $, there exists a unique solution $u = A r^{2-n} + v$, where
\begin{align} \label{constlaequ}
A = \frac{1}{(n-2) \operatorname{Vol}(L)} \int_{X} f d\operatorname{Vol}_X
\end{align}
and $v\in \mathcal{C}^{k+2,\alpha}_{\tilde{\rho}}$ with $\tilde{\rho} = \max \{d_1^-, \rho, 2-n-\tau\}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{pro}
In the following we write $\ker (\Delta, \delta+2)=\ker(\Delta: \mathcal{C}^{k+2,\alpha}_{\delta+2} \rightarrow \mathcal{C}^{k, \alpha}_{\delta})$ and $\operatorname{Im} (\Delta, \delta)=\operatorname{Im}(\Delta: \mathcal{C}^{k+2,\alpha}_{\delta+2} \rightarrow \mathcal{C}^{k, \alpha}_{\delta})$.
The key observation is that the estimate (\ref{laequfestc}) can be modified to obtain a similar estimate for elliptic operators asymptotic to $\Delta_0$ on AC Riemannian manifolds; namely, the scale broken estimate referring to \cite[Theorem 6.7]{marshal2002deformations}. Precisely, fixing $X_{2R} = \{x\in X, r(x)> 2R\}$ with $R> R_0$, for all $u \in \mathcal{C}^{k+2,\alpha}_{\rho}$, we have
\begin{align} \label{scalbroest}
||u||_{\mathcal{C}^{k+2,\alpha}_{\rho}} \leq C( ||\Delta u||_{\mathcal{C}^{k,\alpha}_{\rho-2}} + ||u||_{\mathcal{C}^0 (X_{2R})}).
\end{align}
It can be proved that the Laplacian operator $\Delta: \mathcal{C}^{k+2,\alpha}_{\rho} \rightarrow \mathcal{C}^{k,\alpha}_{\rho-2}$ on $X$ is Fredholm if $\rho \notin D$. To sketch the proof of Fredholm property, we observe that the estimate (\ref{scalbroest}) implies that the set $\operatorname{Im} (\Delta, \rho)$ is closed. To see this, let $\{f_i\}$ be a Cauchy sequence in $C^{k,\alpha}_{\rho-2}$ contained in $\operatorname{Im} (\Delta, \rho)$. Notice that there exists a closed subspace $\mathcal{B}_\rho $ such that $\mathcal{C}^{k+2,\alpha}_{\rho} = \mathcal{B}_{\rho} \oplus \ker (\Delta, \rho) $ (because $\ker (\Delta, \rho)$ is finite-dimensional), then we have a bounded sequence of preimages $\{u_i\}$ in $\mathcal{B}_{\rho}$ with $\Delta u_i =f_i$. According to Arzel\`{a}-Ascoli and (\ref{scalbroest}), by taking a subsequence of $\{u_i\}$, we obtain a Cauchy sequence in $\mathcal{C}^0(X_{2R})$. Hence, $\{u_i\}$ is also a Cauchy sequence by passing to the subsequence. Let $f$, $u$ be the convergence of $\{f_i\}$ and $\{u_i\}$ respectively, then $f =\Delta u$ is belong to $\operatorname{Im}(\Delta, \rho)$. Based on self-adjointness of $\Delta$, the Laplacian $\Delta: \mathcal{C}^{k+2,\alpha}_{\delta+2} \rightarrow \mathcal{C}^{k, \alpha}_{\delta}$
\begin{align} \label{fhdual}
\operatorname{Im} (\Delta, \delta)= \{f \in \mathcal{C}^{k,\alpha}_{\rho}, (f , h )_{L^2}=0 \text{ for all } h\in \ker ( \Delta, -n -\delta) \}
\end{align}
Then, the Fredholm property of $\Delta$ follows from the fact that $\ker(\Delta, \rho) $ is finite-dimensional.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{laequac}] By the maximal principle of harmonic functions, we can show that $\ker(\Delta, \rho)=0$ if $\rho <0$. In the cases (i) and (ii), by Fredholm property of $\Delta$ and (\ref{fhdual}), when $\rho \in (-n,-2)$, $\operatorname{Im} (\Delta, \rho)$ is annihilated by $\ker (\Delta, -n-\rho) =0$. Hence, $\operatorname{Im} (\Delta, \rho) = \mathcal{C}^{k,\alpha}_{\rho}$ for $\rho\in (-n,-2)$. The uniqueness in the case (ii) is directly from the fact $\ker (\Delta, \rho) = 0$ for $\rho \in (-n,-2)$.
.
For the case (iii), notice that $\Delta r^{2-n} = \Delta_0 r^{2-n} + (\Delta-\Delta_0) r^{2-n}= O(r^{-n-\tau})$ and
\begin{align*}
\int_{X} \Delta r^{2-n} d\operatorname{Vol}_X &= -\lim_{r \rightarrow \infty} \int_{L(r)} \langle\nabla r^{2-n}, n \rangle_g d\operatorname{Vol}_{L(r)}\\
& = \lim_{r \rightarrow \infty}(n-2) r^{1-n} \int_{L(r)} g(\partial r, \partial r) d\operatorname{Vol}_{L(r)} \\
& = \lim_{r \rightarrow \infty}(n-2) \operatorname{Vol}(L) +O(r^{-\tau}) = (n-2) \operatorname{Vol}(L).
\end{align*}
Consider the function $f- A \Delta r^{2-n}$, where the constant $A$ is chosen to be (\ref{constlaequ}). Observing that $f-A \Delta r^{2-n} = O(r^{\max\{-n-\tau, \rho-2\}})$ and $\int_{X} f-A\Delta r^{2-n}$ =0. Without loss of generality, we assume $\max\{-n-\tau, \rho-2\} \in (d_1^- -2, -n)$. Then (\ref{fhdual}) implies that the only annihilating functions are constant functions. The integration is vanishing indicates that $f-A \Delta r^{2-n}$ is in $\operatorname{Im} (\Delta, \tilde{\rho}-2)$ with $\tilde{\rho} = \max \{d^-_1, \rho, 2-n-\tau \}$; hence, we have solution $u = Ar^{2-n} +v$ with $v\in \mathcal{C}^{k+2,\alpha}_{\tilde{\rho}}$.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of $dd^c$ lemma} \label{ddclems}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{ddclem} (i)} \label{pfddbar} Recall that $(X, J, g)$ is an AC K\"ahler manifold asymptotic to a Ricci-flat K\"ahler cone $(C_L, J_0, g_0)$ at infinity with a diiffeomorphism $\psi: X_\infty = X-K \rightarrow C_L -B_{R_0}$. In the end $X_\infty $, there are two sets of differential operators. In particular, we write $d$, $\partial$, $\overline{\partial}$ and $d^*$, $\partial^*$, $\overline{\partial}^*$ as the differential opertators and the dual operators with respect to $(g,J)$, which also induces the Laplacian operators $\Delta$ in the asymptotic chart. Also let $d_0$, $\partial_0$, $\overline{\partial}_0$, $d_0^*$, $\partial_0^*$, $\overline{\partial}_0^*$ and $\Delta_0$ be the Laplacian operators with respect to $(g_0,J_0)$. Let $\omega \in \mathcal{C}^{k,\alpha}_{-\delta}$ be an exact real $(1,1)$-form on $X$. Then, by \cite[Theorem 3.11]{conlon2013asymptotically}, there exists a real 1-form $\alpha \in \mathcal{C}^{k+1,\alpha}_{1-\delta}$ such that $\omega = d\alpha$. Decompose $\alpha$ to $(1,0)$-form and $(0,1)$-form with respect to $J$, $\alpha^{1,0}$ and $\alpha^{0,1}$. Consider the following Laplacian equation for $\phi$,
\begin{align} \label{ddbareq1}
\frac{1}{2}\Delta \phi = \overline{\partial}^* \alpha^{0,1},
\end{align}
Based on the Proposition \ref{laequac}, there exists a solution $\phi \in \mathcal{C}^{k+2,\alpha}_{2-\delta}$ for (\ref{ddbareq1}). Define $\xi = \alpha^{0,1}-\overline{\partial} \phi $. Due to the low decay rate, it is not necessary that $\xi =0$. The idea of the proof is to reduce the decay rate of $\xi$ and to find $\hat{\phi}$ such that $\overline{\partial} \hat{\phi} = \alpha^{0,1}$. It is observed that
\begin{align} \label{harcon}
\overline{\partial}^* \xi = 0, \qquad \overline{\partial} \xi =0.
\end{align}
Hence, $\xi $ is a $J$-harmonic (0,1)-form in $\mathcal{C}^{k+1,\alpha}_{1-\delta}$. If $1-\delta$ is nonnegative, we can reduce the order of $\xi$ as follows. Assuming that $\theta = \Delta_0 \xi = (\Delta_0 - \Delta ) \xi = O(r^{-1-\delta-\tau})$, according to lemma \ref{laequ1f}, there exists a solution $\beta = O(r^{1-\delta-\tau})$ such that $\Delta_0 \beta= \theta$ in the asymptotic chart of $X$. Hence, we can write $\xi$ in the asymptotic chart of $X$ as
\begin{align*}
\xi = \xi_0 + \beta,
\end{align*}where $\xi_0$ is a harmonic 1-form with respect to $\Delta_0$ of decay rate $1-\delta$ and $\beta$ is a 1-form of decay rate $1- \delta- \tau$. Notice that $\xi_0$ is not necessary a $(0,1)$-form with respect to $J$, but the $(1,0)$ part of $\xi_0$ has the decay rate $1-\delta-\tau$. Then, according to \cite[Lemma 2.27]{cheeger1994cone} or referring to \cite[Lemma B.1]{hein2017calabi}, the assumption that $0\leq 1-\delta <1$ implies there exists a harmonic function $\psi_0 $ with respect to $( J_0, g_0)$ such that $ d \psi_0 = \xi_0$ with $\psi_0 = \mathcal{C}^{k+2,\alpha}_{2-\delta}$ and $\partial \psi_0 =\mathcal{C}^{k+1,\alpha}_{1-\delta-\tau}$, $\overline{\partial} \psi_0 =\mathcal{C}^{k+1,\alpha}_{1-\delta}$. Extend $\psi_0$ to a smooth function $\tilde{\psi}_0$ on $X$. According to proposition \ref{laequac}, by solving equation $\Delta b = -\Delta \tilde{\psi}_0 $, there exists a harmonic function $\psi$ with respect to $(J,g)$ such that,
\begin{align*}
\psi =\tilde{ \psi_0 }+ b.
\end{align*}
Since in asymptotic chart of $X$, $-\Delta \tilde{\psi}_0 = (\Delta_0 - \Delta) \tilde{\psi}_0 = O(r^{-\delta-\tau}) $, we have $b$ is a function of class $\mathcal{C}^{k+2,\alpha}_{2-\delta-\tau}$. Now, consider a new (0,1)-form given by
\begin{align} \label{reddecay}
\xi_1 = \xi - \overline{\partial} \psi,
\end{align}
which also satisfies conditon (\ref{harcon}) $\overline{\partial}\xi_1 = \overline{\partial}^* \xi_1=0$. And $\xi_1$ has the following decay rate,
\begin{align*}
\xi_1 &= \xi_0 + \beta - \overline{\partial}\psi\\
&= \beta + \partial \tilde{\psi}_0 + \overline{\partial} \tilde{\psi}_0 - \overline{\partial} \psi\\
&= \beta + \partial \tilde{\psi}_0 -\overline{\partial} b,
\end{align*}
where $\beta$, $\partial \psi_0 \in \mathcal{C}^{k+1,\alpha}_{1-\delta-\tau}$. Hence, $\xi_1 \in \mathcal{C}^{k+1,\alpha}_{1-\delta -\tau}$. Repeating this process until the decay rate of 1-form to be negative, precisely, we can find $\hat{\xi}= \xi- \overline{\partial}\hat{\psi}$ such that $\hat{\psi} \in \mathcal{C}^{k+2,\alpha}_{2-\delta}$ and $\hat{\xi} \in \mathcal{C}^{k+1,\alpha}_{1-\delta-n\tau}$ with $1-\delta-n\tau <0$. To simplify our notation, we replace $\xi$ with the 1-form of negative decay rate. In the following proof, we assume that $\xi\in \mathcal{C}^{k+1,\alpha}_{1-\delta}$ ($1-\delta <0$) with $\overline{\partial}^* \xi= \overline{\partial}\xi=0$.
We introduce the following lemma.
\begin{lem} \label{decay1f} Let $k$ be a large positive integer and $1-\delta <0$,
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] Let $\xi$ is a real 1-form on $X$ of class $\mathcal{C}^{k+1,\alpha}_{1-\delta}$. Assuming that $\xi$ is a harmonic 1-form on $X$, then,
$\xi \in \mathcal{C}^{k+1,\alpha}_{-2n+2}$.
\item[(ii)] Let $\xi$ is a harmonic (0,1)-form on $X$ of class $\mathcal{C}^{k+1,\alpha}_{1-\delta}$ with $\overline{\partial} \xi = 0$, then $\xi\in \mathcal{C}^{k+1,\alpha}_{-2n+1}$
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $\xi$ be a real harmonic 1-form on $X$. According to lemma \ref{laequ1f}, $\xi$ can be represented outside a compact set of $X$ as follows,
\begin{align}\label{decayred1f}
\xi = \xi_0 + \beta
\end{align}
where $\xi_0$ is a harmonic form with respect to $\Delta_0$ of the same decay rate as $\xi$ and $\beta $ is a 1-form of decay rate at most $1-\delta-\tau$. By assumption that $X$ is asymptotic to the conical manifold $C_L$, $\xi_0$ can be expressed on basis of spectral decomposition with respect to Laplacian operator on link $L$,
\begin{align*}
\xi_0 &= \sum_{i \geq 0 } [ f_i (r) \kappa_i (y) dr + g_i (r) d_L \kappa_i(y) ] + \sum_{j\in J} h_j (r) \eta_j (y)\\
&= \sum_{i\geq 0} [d(g_i (r) \kappa_i (y))+ E_i (r) \kappa_i (y) dr] + \sum_{j\geq 1} h_j (r) \eta_j (y).
\end{align*}
where $E_i(r) = f_i(r) - g'_i(r)$. Then, the function $g_i$, $E_i$ satisfy the following equations, ($\dim_{\mathbb{R}}X =2n$)
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
-&E''_i - \frac{2n-3}{r} E'_i +\frac{\lambda'_i+2n-3}{r^2} E_i= 0 ,\label{harcon1} \\
-&g_i'' - \frac{2n-1}{r} g_i' +\frac{\lambda'_i}{r^2} g_i = \frac{2}{r}E_i. \label{harcon2}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
By solving the equations (\ref{harcon1}) and (\ref{harcon2}), the harmonic 1-forms with respect to $\Delta_0$ of negative decay rate at infinity have the following two types,
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(I)] Let $\lambda_i$ be all eigenvalues of $\Delta_L$ for functions on $L$,
\begin{align*}
d(r^{c_i^-} \kappa_i),\quad \text{with } c^-_i = -(n-1) - \sqrt{(n-1)^2 + \lambda'_i }
\end{align*}
\item[(II)] Let $\lambda_i$ be all \textit{positive} eigenvalues of $\Delta_L$ for functions on $L$,
\begin{align*}
B_i r^{b_i^-} \kappa_i dr + 2 d(r^{b_i^- +1} \kappa_i ), \quad \text{with } b_i^{-} =-(n-2) - \sqrt{(n-2)^2 + \lambda'_i +2n -3},
\end{align*}
and $B_i$ is a constant given by $B_i = - (b_i^-)^2 - 2n b_i^- +\lambda_i +1-2n $.
\end{enumerate}
For the coclosed part of decomposition, consider the following equation,
\begin{align} \label{harcon3}
-h''_{j} - \frac{2n-3}{r} h'_j + \frac{\lambda_j}{ r^{2}} h_j =0,
\end{align}
By solving (\ref{harcon3}), we have the third type of harmonic 1-form,
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(III)] Let $\lambda_j$ be the eigenvalues of $\Delta_L$ for the co-closed 1-forms on $L$,
\begin{align*}
r^{a^-_j} \eta_j, \quad \text{with } a_j^- = -(n-2)- \sqrt{ (n-2)^2 +\lambda''_j}
\end{align*}
\end{enumerate}
To estimate the eigenvalues, we notice that $L$ is a Sasakian-Einstein manifold with Ricci curvature $\textup{Ric}_{g_L} = 2(n-1) g_L $. By Lichnerowicz-Obata first eigenvalue theorem and \cite[Lemma B.2]{hein2017calabi}, let $\lambda'_1$ and $\lambda''_1$ be the first positive eigenvalue of closed and coclosed 1-form, we have the following estimate,
\begin{align*}
\lambda'_{1} (L) \geq 2n-1, \qquad \lambda''_{1} (L) \geq 4n-4.
\end{align*}
Then, we obtain the greatest possibe decay rate of harmonic 1-forms for all these three types. For type (I), the forms decays to rate at most $-2n+1$ at infinity. For type (II), the forms decays to rate at most $-2n+2$. And the forms of type (III) decays to rate at most $-2n+1$. Hence, we obtain $\xi_0 = O(r^{-2n +2})$. If $1-\delta-\tau \geq -2n+2 $, then, by expression (\ref{decayred1f}), $\xi $ is of decay rate $1-\delta-\tau$. Again, noticing that $\beta$ is the solution of $\Delta_0 \beta = (\Delta_0 -\Delta) \xi$, there exists a $d$-closed solution $\beta$ of decay rate $1-\delta-2\tau$. Repeating the process, we can finally obtain that $\xi = O(r^{2-2n})$.
For the second statement, let $\xi$ be a harmonic $(0,1)$-form on $X$ with $\overline{\partial} \xi = 0$. Notice that $\xi$ also can be written as in (\ref{decayred1f}), $\xi = \xi_0 + \beta$. According to (i), we can assume $\xi$, $\xi_0$ of rate $-d \leq 2-2n$ and $\beta$ of rate $-d -\tau$. $\xi$ can be decomposed to $(1,0)$ and $(0,1)$ form with respect to $J_0$,
\begin{align*}
\xi = \xi^{1,0}_{J_0} + \xi^{0,1}_{J_0}, \quad, \xi^{1,0}_{J_0}= \frac{\xi - iJ_0 \xi}{2}, \ \xi^{0,1}_{J_0} = \frac{\xi + iJ_0 \xi}{2}.
\end{align*}
Since $\xi$ is a $(0,1)$-form with respect to $J$, $\xi- i J_0 \xi = i (J-J_0) \xi = O(r^{-d -\tau})$. The $(1,0)$ part of $\xi$ with respect to $J_0$ has rate $-d -\tau$, so does $\xi_0$. Then, the highest order terms of $\xi_0$ is a homogeneous harmonic $(0,1)$-form with respect to $J_0$, denoted by $\xi_0^{h}$. The fact $\overline{\partial}\xi=0 $ implies that $\overline{\partial}_0 \xi_0^h = O (r^{-d-1 -\tau})$, If we assume the rate of $\xi^h_0$ is greater than $1-2n$, based on the classification of harmonic 1-forms, $\xi^h_0$ must be of type (II). Then, $\xi_0^h$ can be written as,
\begin{align*}
\xi^h_0 = C (2b^-_i + 6 - 4n) r^{b^-_i } \kappa_i \overline{\partial}_0 r + 2 r^{b^-_i +1}\overline{\partial}_0 \kappa_i,
\end{align*}
where $i\geq 1$ and $b_i^- \geq 1-2n$. By taking differentiation, we have
\begin{align*}
\overline{\partial}_0 \xi^h_0 = C(4b_i^- +4-4n) r^{b_i^-} \overline{\partial}_0 \kappa_i \wedge \overline{\partial}_0 r.
\end{align*}
It is easy to check that $\overline{\partial}_0 \xi^h_0$ is a nonvanishing homogeneous form of rate $-d-1 $, which contradicts against $\overline{\partial}_0 \xi_0^h = O (r^{b^-_i-1 -\tau})$. Therefore, we have $\xi = O(r^{1-2n})$.
\end{proof}
According to lemma \ref{decay1f}, we reduce the proposition \ref{ddclem} to the case of fast decay rate. Let $\hat{\omega} = 2 \operatorname{Re} \partial \xi $ be a closed real (1,1) form of decay rate at most $-2n+1$. Also notice that $\operatorname{tr}_\omega \hat{\omega}= 2 \operatorname{Re} \overline{\partial}^* \xi =0$. Recall that there exists a natural radial function defined in $X$ and let $B_{R} = \{x\in X | r(x) \leq R\}$, for some very large positive real number $R$. Then, it is easy to check that
\begin{align}\label{ddcint}
2 (n-2) !\int_{B_R} |\hat{\omega}|^2 d\operatorname{Vol} =\int_{B_R} d(2\operatorname{Re} \xi \wedge \hat{\omega} \wedge \omega^{n-2}) = \int_{\partial B_R} 2 \operatorname{Re} \xi \wedge \hat{\omega} \wedge \omega^{n-2}.
\end{align}
The decay conditions of $\hat{\omega}$ and $\xi$ imply that the integration in (\ref{ddcint}) tends to zero as $R$ goes to infinity. Hence, we have $\hat{\omega} =0$. In conclusion, the exact real (1,1)-form $\omega$ can be expressed as
\begin{align*}
\omega = 2 \operatorname{Re} \partial \alpha^{0,1} = 2 \operatorname{Re} \partial ( \xi + \overline{\partial} \phi) = \hat{\omega} + 2i \partial \overline{\partial} \operatorname{Im} \phi = dd^c \operatorname{Im} \phi,
\end{align*}
where $\phi \in \mathcal{C}^{k+2, \alpha}_{2-\delta}$. Therefore, we complete the proof of proposition \ref{ddclem}.
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{ddclem} (ii): an obstruction of ddbar lemma}\label{ddclem'ss}
Let $(X,J)$ be an AC K\"ahler manifold asymptotic to a Ricci-flat K\"ahler cone $(C_L, J_0)$ and $K$ be the compact set in $X$ such that $X\backslash K \cong C_L \backslash \overline{B(R_0)}$. We apply the notation as in section \ref{pfddbar}. Let $\omega $ be the real exact (1,1)-form on $X\backslash K$ with $\omega = d\alpha$, where $\alpha$ is a real 1-form on $X\backslash K$. Then, $\alpha$ can split into the sum of a (0,1)-form and a (1,0)-form with respect to $J$, $\alpha = \alpha^{1,0} + \alpha^{0,1}$. Here $\overline{\partial}^* \alpha^{0,1}$ is a complex function defined on $X\backslash K$ of class $\mathcal{C}^{k,\alpha}_{-\delta}$. By extending $\overline{\partial}^* \alpha^{0,1}$ to a function $f \in \mathcal{C}^{k,\alpha}_{-\delta}$ on the whole manifold $X$. Then the Laplacian equation (\ref{ddbareq1}) can be rewritten as $\Delta \phi = 2 f$. According to Proposition \ref{laequac}, we have a solution $\phi \in \mathcal{C}^{k+2,\alpha}_{2-\delta}$. Hence, we can define a (0,1)-form on $X\backslash K$, $\xi= \alpha^{0,1}-\overline{\partial} \phi$. It is also easy to check $\overline{\partial} \xi = 0$, $\overline{\partial}^* \xi =0 $. Based on the proof of Theorem \ref{ddclem} (i), we can reduce the rate of $\xi$ at infinity as in (\ref{reddecay}); i.e. we can find a harmonic function $\psi \in \mathcal{C}^{k+2,\alpha}_{2-\delta}$ such that $\hat{\xi} = \xi - \overline{\partial} \psi$ is a (0,1)-form of class $\mathcal{C}^{k+1,\alpha}_{1-\delta- m \tau}$ with $1- \delta -m \tau<0$ and $\overline{\partial} \hat{\xi} =0$, $\overline{\partial}^* \hat{\xi} =0 $. Then,
\begin{align} \label{ddbar'eq1}
\omega = 2 \operatorname{Re} (\partial \alpha^{0,1}) = 2 \operatorname{Re} (\partial \hat{\xi} + \partial \overline{\partial} \phi + \partial \overline{\partial} \psi) = 2 i\partial \overline{\partial} \operatorname{Im} (\phi +\psi) + 2\operatorname{Re} (\partial \hat{\xi}).
\end{align}
The above expression of $\omega$ (\ref{ddbar'eq1}) implies that the obstruction of ddbar lemma is the harmonic 1-form $\hat{\xi}$. Unfortunately, the obstruction term, $ \operatorname{Re} (\partial \hat{\xi})$, cannot be vanishing in general, see counter example \ref{ctexddbar'}. However, the decay rate of the term can be reduced to enough high order. According to Lemma \ref{decay1f}, the decay rate of $\hat{\xi}$ is at most $1-2n$. Hence, $\omega = i\partial \overline{\partial} f + O(r^{-2n})$ for some real function $f \in \mathcal{C}^{k+2,\alpha}_{2-\delta}$, which completes the proof of theorem \ref{ddclem} (ii).
\begin{rem} \label{remobs} Fixing $X\backslash K$ as above, we assume that $J_0 =J$ in this remark.
An interesting fact we observed in the proof of theorem \ref{ddclem} (ii) is that the obstruction of ddbar lemma is described by the class $\mathcal{H}^{0,1}_{\overline{\partial}, \overline{\partial}^*}/ \overline{\partial} \mathcal{H}$, where $\overline{\partial} \mathcal{H}$ is the $\overline{\partial}$-image of complex valued harmonic functions on $X\backslash K$ asymptotic to zero at infinity and
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{H}^{0,1}_{\overline{\partial},\overline{\partial}^*} = \{\xi \in \Omega^{0,1} (X \backslash K) | \ \overline{\partial} \xi = 0,\ \overline{\partial}^* \xi =0 \text{ and } \xi \text{ decays to 0 at infinty }\}.
\end{align*}
The fact directly follows from \ref{ddbar'eq1} and the classification of harmonic 1-forms on metric cones as discussed in the proof of Lemma \ref{decay1f}.
\end{rem}
\begin{ex} \label{ctexddbar'}
In this example, we discuss the ddbar lemma on $\mathbb{C}^n\backslash \{0\}$. For $n\geq 3$, any exact real $(1,1)$-form $\omega$ satisfies the ddbar lemma; i.e. $\omega = dd^c f$ for a real function function $f$. In the higher dimension cases, One refers to \cite[Lemma 5.5]{goto2012calabi} or \cite[Corollary A.3]{conlon2013asymptotically} for details. However, in the case of $n=2$, the ddbar lemma doesn't hold. According to remark \ref{remobs}, the obstruction of ddbar lemma is given by $\mathcal{H}^{0,1}_{\overline{\partial}, \overline{\partial}^*}/ \overline{\partial} \mathcal{H}$. Then, we can calculate the dimension of the spaces, $\mathcal{H}^{0,1}_{\overline{\partial}, \overline{\partial}^*}$ and $\overline{\partial} \mathcal{H}$ for each growth rate. For $k\geq 0$, we have
\begin{align*}
\dim_{\mathbb{C}} (\mathcal{H}^{0,1}_{\overline{\partial},\overline{\partial}^*})_{-2-k} = k(k+1), \quad \dim_{\mathbb{C}} (\overline{\partial} \mathcal{H})_{-2-k} = k^2.
\end{align*}
Let $\omega$ be an exact real $(1,1)$-form of decay rate $-\delta$, then there exists a real function $f $ of decay rate $2-\delta$ such that,
\begin{align*}
\omega = dd^c f + \theta_{-4} + \theta_{-5} + O(r^{-6}).
\end{align*}
And we can write down $\theta_{-4}$ and $\theta_{-5}$ explicitly,
\begin{align*}
\theta_{-4} = \operatorname{Re}( C_{-3} \partial \xi_{-3} )= \operatorname{Re}\bigg\{ C_{-3} \partial \bigg( \frac{\bar{z}_2 d\bar{z}_1 - \bar{z}_1 d\bar{z}_2}{(|z_1|^2+|z_2|^2)^2} \bigg)\bigg\},
\end{align*}
where $C_{-3}$ is a complex constant and the form $\xi_{-3}$ is a representative of $\mathcal{H}^{0,1}_{\overline{\partial}, \overline{\partial}^*}/ \overline{\partial} \mathcal{H}$ of decay rate $-3$. Similarly, $\theta_{-5}$ can be written as follows,
\begin{align*}
\theta_{-5} &= \operatorname{Re} ( C_{-4,1} \xi_{-4,1} + C_{-4,2} \xi_{-4,2} ) \\
&= \operatorname{Re}\bigg\{ C_{-4,1} \partial \bigg( \frac{\bar{z}_1 \bar{z}_2 d\bar{z}_1 - \bar{z}^2_1 d\bar{z}_2}{(|z_1|^2+|z_2|^2)^3} \bigg) + C_{-4,2} \partial \bigg( \frac{ \bar{z}^2_2 d\bar{z}_1 - \bar{z}_1 \bar{z}_2 d\bar{z}_2}{(|z_1|^2+|z_2|^2)^3}\bigg)\bigg\},
\end{align*}
where $ C_{-4,1}$ and $C_{-4,2}$ are complex constant. In Joyce's book \cite[Theorem 8.9.2]{joyce2000compact}, the statement of ddbar lemma on $\mathbb{C}^2/\{0\}$, which states that $\omega= dd^c f + \theta_{-4}$, is wrong, as we can find infinite error terms.
\end{ex}
\section{The Mass formula on AC K\"ahler Manifolds}
In this section, we dedicate to generalize the Hein-LeBrun's mass \cite[Theorem C]{hein2016mass} formula to AC K\"ahler manifolds asymptotic to Ricci-flat K\"ahler cones. In section \ref{ACtoLCY}, we introduce some basic set-ups on the manifolds. By introducing a system of coframes at infinity, we calculate the Chern connection forms and the curvature forms of canonical line bundle. In section \ref{massacsec}, the generalized definition of mass will be given in the AC Riemannian manifolds. And we complete the proof of mass formula in AC K\"ahler manifolds asymptotic to Ricci-flat K\"ahler cones.
\subsection{AC K\"ahler manifolds Asymptotic to Locally Calabi-Yau Cones} \label{ACtoLCY}
Let $(C_L, J_0)$ be a K\"ahler cone with Ricci-flat metric $g_0$. The associated link $L$ has positive Ricci curvature $\textup{Ric}(g_L) = (2n-2) g_L$. According to Myers's Theorem, the fundamental group $\pi_1$ is finite. Hence, there exists a universal covering $\widetilde{L}$ with finite deck transformation $\Gamma$ acting on $\widetilde{L}$. Let $(C_{\widetilde{L}}, \widetilde{g}_0)$ be the metric cone of $\widetilde{L}$, then $\widetilde{C}_{L}$ is a finite covering of $C_L$ with $\widetilde{C}_{{L}}/ \Gamma \cong C_L$. By pulling back the complex structure on $C_L$, the covering space $(\widetilde{C}_{L}, \widetilde{J}_0)$ is also a K\"ahler cone with Ricci-flat metric $\widetilde{g}_0$. Since $(\widetilde{C}, \widetilde{J}_0, \widetilde{g}_0)$ is K\"ahler Ricci-flat with trivial fundamental group, then there exists a nowhere vanishing holomorphic section of canonical bundle $K_{\widetilde{C}_{L}}$, $\widetilde{\Omega}_0$ and $\tilde{\omega}_0^{n} = i^{n^2} \widetilde{\Omega}_0 \wedge \overline{\widetilde{\Omega}}_0$. $\widetilde{\Omega}_0$ induces a \textit{multi-valued} nonvanishing holomorphic section, $\Omega_0$, of $K_{C_L}$ on $C_L$ through the covering map; i.e., there exists a group representation $\kappa: \Gamma \rightarrow U(1)$ such that
\begin{align} \label{mulvalue}
\gamma^*\widetilde{ \Omega}_0 = \kappa(\gamma) \widetilde{\Omega}_0, \qquad \gamma \in \Gamma.
\end{align}
In other words, the multi-valued section $\Omega_0$ has $|\Gamma|$ branches and each branch differs by a constant factor $\kappa(\gamma)$, $\gamma \in \Gamma$.
Let $(C_L, J_0, g_0)$ be a Ricci-flat K\"ahler cone with the link $L$. Let $(X, J, g)$ be an AC K\"ahler manifold asymptotic to $C_L$ together with the diffeomorphism $\Psi : X_\infty= X-K \rightarrow C_L - B_R$, where $B_R = \{x \in C_L, r(x) \leq R\}$. We also assume that $g$ decays to $g_0$ in the end $X_\infty$ with rate $-\tau = 1-n-\epsilon$ and $J$ decays to $J_0$ at infinity.
In order to make analysis in the setting, we introduce a local frame system for K\"ahler cones. Recall that the link $L$ is a \textit{Sasakian} manifold with metric $g_L$. Let $\partial r$ be the normal vector field in radial direction, there exists a canonical vector field over $L$ defined by $\xi = J_0(r \partial r)$, namely, the \textit{Reeb vector field} on $L$. And the \textit{contact 1-form} $\eta$ is the dual of $\xi$ with respect to the metric $g_L$. The contact 1-form $\eta$ defines a subbundle of tangent bundle on the link $L$, namely $D = \ker \eta \rightarrow L$. Restricting $J_0$ on the subbundle $D$ defines an almost complex structure on $D$, which guarantees the existence of a local basis $(m_i, \overline{m}_i)$ for $D$, $i=1,\ldots, n-1$, where $m_i$ is an (1,0) type vector with respect to $J_0|_D$. For any point in $L$, there exists a neighborhood $U$ and local basis $(\xi; m_i, \overline{m}_i)$ for the tangent bundle $T_L (U)$. Let $m_0 = r\partial r -i \xi$, then $(m_i, \overline{m}_i)_{i=0}^{n-1}$ defines a basis on $T_{C_L}(U)$. According to the fact $r\partial r$ is a global real holomorphic vector field on $C_L$, the scaling map of $C_L$ is holomorphic. Hence, the local basis $(m_i, \overline{m}_i)_{i=0}^{n-1}$ is defined in $U \times \mathbb{R}_{>0}$ by pulling forward the scaling map. Let $\{v_i, \overline{v}_i\}_{i=0}^{n-1}$ be the normalizing basis by defining $v_i = r^{-1} m_i$ and $v_i$, $\overline{v}_i$. are (1,0), (0,1) type vectors according to $J_0$. Let 1-forms, $\mu^i$, $\overline{\mu}^i$ be the dual basis of $v_i$, $\overline{v}_i$, then $J_0$ can be written explicitly as
\begin{align*}
J_0 = i \mu^i \otimes v_i - i \bar{\mu}^i \otimes \bar{v}_i.
\end{align*}
Let $\overline{\nabla}$ be the Levi-Civita connection of $(C_L, g_0)$. One can easily check that
\begin{align} \label{conncal1}
\overline{\nabla}_{ \partial r}v_i =\overline{\nabla}_{\partial r} \bar{v}_i=0, \qquad \overline{\nabla}_{ \partial r}\mu^i =\overline{\nabla}_{\partial r} \bar{\mu}^i=0
\end{align}
and $\overline{\nabla} J_0 =0$ also implies that $\overline{\nabla}_T v_i$ and $\overline{\nabla}_T \bar{v}_i $ are vectors of type $(1,0)$ and $(0,1)$ respectively for any tangent vector fields $T$ of $C_L$.
In the end $X_\infty$, the frames $\{\mu^i, \bar{\mu}^i\}$ and $\{v_i, \bar{v}_i\}$ are still defined by diffeomorphism $\Psi$. Precisely, there exists a finite open covering on link $L = \bigcup U_k$ such that $X_\infty \subseteq \bigcup V_k$, where $V_k = \Psi^{-1}(U_k \times \mathbb{R}_{>R})$. And on each open set $V_k$, we have local frames $\{\mu^i, \bar{\mu}^i\}$ and $\{v_i, \bar{v}_i\}$. We call the data $(V_k, \{\mu^i, \bar{\mu}^i\}, \{v_i, \bar{v}_i\})$ a system of \textit{asymptotic local frames} on $X$.
A quick calculation shows that $J-J_0$ has decay rate at least $-\tau$. Precisely, if we write $\nabla$ as Levi-Civita connection of $g$, then by $J$ (resp. $J_0$) is $\nabla$-parellel (resp. $\nabla_0$-parellel),
\begin{align} \label{cxconnre1}
\overline{\nabla}(J- J_0) = -(\nabla-\overline{\nabla}) J.
\end{align}
If we write the difference of two Levi-Civita connection as $ A=\nabla- \overline{\nabla}$, $A$ can be viewed as a tensor on $X$. The tensor $A$ can be represented with respect to the system of asymptotic local frame $\{v_i, \bar{v}_i\}$, for instance, $(\nabla-\overline{\nabla})_{v_j}v_i = A^k_{ji} v_k + A^{\bar{k}}_{ji} \bar{v}_k $. Noticing that $|A|= O(r^{-\tau-1})$, if we also write $J$ based on a system of asymptotic local frames, then (\ref{conncal1}) implies that $|\overline{\nabla}_{\partial r} (J-J_0)|= O(r^{-\tau-1}) $. Hence, along each ray, the derivative of each coefficient of $J-J_0$ has decay rate $-\tau$. Therefore, we have $J-J_0 = O(r^{-\tau})$. Explicitly, $J$ can be written as the following tensor,
\begin{align*}
J= J_0 + i\mathcal{J}^i_{\bar{j}} \bar{\mu}^{j}& \otimes v_i +i\mathcal{K}^i_j \mu^j \otimes v_i\\
&-i\overline{ \mathcal{J}^i_{\bar{j}}} \mu^{j} \otimes \bar{v}_i -i\overline{ \mathcal{K}^i_j} \bar{\mu}^j \otimes \bar{v}_i,
\end{align*}
with $\mathcal{J}^i_{\bar{j}}$, $ \mathcal{K}^i_j = O(r^{-\tau})$. According to $J^2=-1$ and comparing the terms of decay rate $-\tau$, we have
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{K}^i_j =0 \quad \mod O(r^{-2\tau}).
\end{align*}
Therefore,
\begin{align}\label{cxfr1}
J= J_0 + i\mathcal{J}^i_{\bar{j}} \bar{\mu}^{j}& \otimes v_i - i\overline{ \mathcal{J}^i_{\bar{j}}} \mu^{j} \otimes \bar{v}_i + O(r^{-2\tau})
\end{align}
According to (\ref{cxconnre1}), we can derive the relationship between $A$ and $\overline{\nabla} \mathcal{J}$,
\begin{align*}
-(\nabla- \overline{\nabla})J_0 = & -2i A^{\bar{j}}_{i\bar{k}}\mu^i \otimes \bar{\mu}^k \otimes \bar{v}_j - 2i A^{\bar{j}}_{ik} \mu^i \otimes {\mu}^k \otimes \bar{v}_j\\
& +2i A^{j}_{\bar{i}\bar{k}} \bar{\mu}^i \otimes \bar{\mu}^k \otimes {v}_j + 2i A^{j}_{\bar{i} k} \bar{\mu}^i \otimes {\mu}^k \otimes {v}_j
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
\overline{\nabla}(J-J_0) = i(\overline{\nabla}\mathcal{J})^j_{\bar{k}, i} + i (\overline{\nabla}\mathcal{J})^j_{\bar{k}, \bar{i}} - i (\overline{\nabla}{\mathcal{J}})^{\bar{j}}_{k, i}- i(\overline{\nabla}{\mathcal{J}})^{\bar{j}}_{k, \bar{i}}.
\end{align*}
The relation $\overline{\nabla}(J-J_0) =-(\nabla- \overline{\nabla})J_0 +O(r^{-2\tau-1})$ implies that,
\begin{align}\label{cxconnre2}
(\overline{\nabla}\mathcal{J})^j_{\bar{k}, i} = 2 A^{j}_{i\bar{k}} + O(r^{-2\tau-1}), \qquad
(\overline{\nabla}\mathcal{J})^j_{\bar{k}, \bar{i}} = 2 A^{j}_{\bar{i}\bar{k}} + O(r^{-2\tau-1})
\end{align}
The fact that $A$ is symmetric implies that
\begin{align} \label{symoften}
(\overline{\nabla}\mathcal{J})^j_{\bar{k}, \bar{i}}- (\overline{\nabla}\mathcal{J})^j_{\bar{i}, \bar{k}} = O(r^{-2\tau-1})
\end{align}
Recall that, on the cone $C_L$, there exists a nowhere vanishing multi-valued holomorphic volume form $\Omega_0$. By restricting to local charts $V_k$, $\Omega_0$ can be expressed as a single-valued form for each $\gamma \in \Gamma$ with respect to the asymptotic local frame of $V_k$,
\begin{align*}
\big(\Omega_0 |_{V_k} \big)_\gamma = \kappa(\gamma) f \mu^0 \wedge \cdots \wedge \mu^{n-1},
\end{align*}
where $\kappa(\gamma)$ is defined in (\ref{mulvalue}). And the condition $\overline{\nabla}_{\partial r} \Omega_0 =0 $, together with (\ref{conncal1}), implies that $f$ is bounded on $V_k$. It is possible to define a smooth $(n, 0)$ form $\Omega$ on $X_\infty$ with respect to $J$ which tends to $\Omega_0$ at infinity with decay rate $-\tau$. Let $\varpi^i = (\mu^i - iJ \mu^i)/2$ be the $(1,0)$ part of $\mu^i$ with respect to $J$,
\begin{align}
\big(\Omega|_{V_k}\big)_\gamma &= \kappa(\gamma) f \varpi^0 \wedge \ldots \wedge \varpi^{n-1} \nonumber \\
&=\big(\Omega_0|_{V_k}\big)_\gamma + \frac{\kappa(\gamma)}{2}\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}(-1)^{i-1} f \mathcal{J}^i_{\bar{j}} \bar{\mu}^j \wedge \mu^0 \wedge \ldots \wedge \widehat{\mu^i} \wedge \ldots \wedge \mu^{n-1} + O(r^{-2\tau}) \label{n0expr1}
\end{align}
It's easy to check that $(\Omega|_{V_k}, V_k )$ can be patched together to obtain a multi-valued form $\Omega$ on the end, as $\Omega|_{V_k}$ can be viewed as $(n,0)$ projection of $\Omega_0$ in each $(V_k, J)$. The fall-off condition of $\Omega$ to $\Omega_0$ indicates that $\Omega$ is nowhere vanishing if the radial function $r$ large enough. Without loss of generality, we assume that $\Omega$ is nowhere vanishing on $X_\infty$. We can rewrite the formula (\ref{n0expr1}) on $V_k$ as follows,
\begin{align}\label{n0expr2}
\Omega = \Omega_0 + i \langle J-J_0 , \Omega_0 \rangle + O(r^{-2\tau}).
\end{align}
where $\langle J-J_0 , \Omega_0 \rangle$ means the contraction of tensor fields by viewing $J-J_0$ and $\Omega_0$ as tensor fields on $V_k$. Let $h$ be the standard metric on canonical bundle of $X$ defined to be $h(\mathcal{S})= |\mathcal{S}\wedge \overline{\mathcal{S}}|/ \omega^n $ for any section $\mathcal{S}$ of canonical bundle on $X$. Let $D_h$ be the Chern connection of $h$, then there exists a connection 1-form $\theta$ defined on $X_\infty$ as $D_h \mathcal{S} = \theta \otimes \mathcal{S}$. Locally, we can take $\mathcal{S} = \Omega_\gamma$, where $\Omega_\gamma$ is a single-valued local section of canonical bundle. Recall that $(0,1)$ part of the covariant derivative $D^{0,1}_h =\bar{\partial}$, then $D^{(1,0)} \Omega_\gamma =\bar{\partial} \Omega_\gamma = d\Omega_\gamma$. By writing $D^{0,1}_h \Omega_\gamma = \alpha \otimes \Omega_\gamma$, in the following lemma, we derive an explicit formula of $\alpha$, in which we can see that $\alpha$ is independent of the choice of $\gamma$ modeling the higher decay terms.
\begin{lem} \label{01conn}
Let $\alpha$ be a $(0,1)$ part of connection 1-form satisfying $D_h^{0,1} \Omega_\gamma = \alpha \otimes \Omega_\gamma$, then in each asymptotic local frame $\{V_k, \mu^j \}$,
\begin{align*}
\alpha|_{V_k} = - \sum_{i,j} A^{i}_{i\bar{j}} \bar{\mu}^j + O(r^{-2\tau-1})
\end{align*}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Observe that the operator $d$ can be represented as $d= \mu^i \wedge \overline{\nabla}_{v_i} + \bar{\mu}^i \wedge \overline{\nabla}_{\overline{v}_i} $. Then, $\Omega_0$ is a holomorphic volume form on $(C_L, J_0)$ implies that
\begin{align*}
0 = d \Omega_0 = \bar{\mu}^i \wedge \overline{\nabla}_{\bar{v}_i} \Omega_0.
\end{align*}
Hence, $\overline{\nabla}_{\bar{v}_i} \Omega_0 =0$. Together with (\ref{n0expr2}), we have
\begin{align}
d \Omega &=d\Omega_0 + i d \langle J- J_0, \Omega_0 \rangle + O(r^{-2\tau-1})\nonumber\\
& = \frac{i}{2} \bar{\mu}^i \wedge \langle \overline{\nabla}_{\bar{v}_i} (J-J_0), \Omega_0 \rangle \label{d10part1} \\
& \qquad + \frac{i}{2} \mu^i \wedge \big( \langle \overline{\nabla}_{v_i} (J-J_0), \Omega_0 \rangle + \langle J-J_0, \overline{\nabla}_{v_i}\Omega_0 \rangle \big) +O(r^{-2\tau-1}). \nonumber
\end{align}
To simplify the expression in (\ref{d10part1}), we apply (\ref{cxconnre1}) or (\ref{cxconnre2}) and (\ref{symoften}). Then, we have
\begin{equation}\label{d10part2}
\begin{split}
i \bar{\mu}^i \wedge \langle \overline{\nabla}_{\bar{v}_i} (J-J_0), \Omega_0 \rangle &= i\bar{\mu}^i \wedge \langle (\nabla- \overline{\nabla})_{\bar{v}_i} J_0 , \Omega_0 \rangle + O(r^{-2\tau-1}) \\
&= \kappa(\gamma) \sum_{i,j,k}(-1)^i 2f A_{\bar{i} \bar{j}}^{k} \bar{\mu}^i \wedge \bar{\mu}^j \wedge \mu^0 \wedge \ldots \wedge \widehat{\mu^k} \wedge \ldots \wedge \mu^n + O(r^{-2\tau-1}) \\
&=O(r^{-2\tau-1}).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Let $\overline{\Gamma}$ be the Christoffel symbol of $ \overline{\nabla}$, then a quick calculation shows that
\begin{align} \label{d10part3}
i\mu^i \wedge \langle J-J_0, \overline{\nabla}_{v_i} \Omega_0 \rangle = \kappa(\gamma) \sum_{i,j,k} \mathcal{K}^i_{\bar{j}} (f_i - f \overline{\Gamma}^k_{ik}) \bar{\mu}^{{j}} \wedge \mu^0 \wedge \ldots \wedge \mu^{n-1},
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
i\mu^i \wedge \langle \overline{\nabla}_{v_i} (J-J_0), \Omega_0 \rangle &= i \mu^i \wedge \langle (\nabla - \overline{\nabla})_{v_i} J_0, \Omega_0 \rangle + O(r^{-2 \tau -1 }) \nonumber \\
&=-2 \kappa(\gamma) \sum_{i,j} f A_{i \bar{j}}^i \bar{\mu}^j \wedge \mu^0 \wedge \ldots \wedge \mu^{n-1} + O(r^{-2 \tau-1}). \label{d10part4}
\end{align}
Then, (\ref{d10part2})-(\ref{d10part4}) imply that $D^{0,1}_h \Omega = \alpha \otimes \Omega$ with
\begin{align}\label{d10part5}
\alpha|_{V_k} = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{i,j,k} \big( \mathcal{K}^i_{\bar{j}} (\log f)_i - \mathcal{K}^i_{\bar{j}} \overline{\Gamma}^{k}_{ik}- 2 A^i_{i \bar{j}} \big)\bar{\varpi}^j + O (r^{-2\tau-1})
\end{align}
The formula (\ref{d10part5}) can be simplified further by considering the holomorphic volume form condition $\nabla_{\bar{v}_i}\Omega_0=0$,
\begin{align} \label{d10partcon}
\nabla_{\bar{v}_i}\Omega_0 = \kappa(\gamma) ((\log f)_{\bar{i}} - \sum_{k}\overline{\Gamma}^{k}_{\bar{i}k}) f \mu^1 \wedge \ldots \wedge \mu^n
\end{align}
The base K\"ahler metric $\omega_0 = g_0 (J_0\cdot, \cdot)$ can be written as $\omega_0 = i (g_0)_{i\bar{j}} \mu^i \wedge \bar{\mu}^j$. The relation $i^{n^2}\Omega_0 \wedge \overline{\Omega}_0 =\frac{1}{n!} \omega_0^n $ implies that $|f|^2 = \det((g_0)_{i\bar{j}})$, then
\begin{align*}
(\log|f|^2 )_i & = (g_0)^{j\bar{k}} (g_0)_{j\bar{k},i} \\
& = (g_0)^{j\bar{k}}\big(\overline{\Gamma}^{p}_{ij}(g_0)_{p\bar{k}}+ \overline{\Gamma}^{\bar{q}}_{i\bar{k}}(g_0)_{j\bar{q}} \big) \\
& = \sum_j \overline{\Gamma}^{j}_{ij} + \sum_{k}\overline{\Gamma}^{\bar{k}}_{i\bar{k}}.
\end{align*}
Therefore, combining with (\ref{d10partcon}),
\begin{align*}
(\log f)_i - \sum_k \overline{\Gamma}^k_{ik} & = (\log |f|^2)_i - (\log \bar{f})_i - \sum_k \overline{\Gamma}^k_{ik} \\
& = (\log |f|^2)_i - \sum_{k} \overline{\Gamma}^{\bar{k}}_{i\bar{k}} - \sum_k \overline{\Gamma}^k_{ik} =0
\end{align*}
we complete the proof of the lemma.
\end{proof}
Therefore, after fixing a Ricci-flat K\"ahler cone $(C_L, J_0, g_0)$, (\ref{cxconnre2}) implies that $\alpha$ only depends on the complex structure $J$ after modeling higher decay terms. By assuming that $D^{1,0} \Omega = \beta \otimes \Omega$, we have
\begin{align*}
\partial h(\Omega) &= \langle D^{1,0} \Omega, \Omega\rangle + \langle \Omega, \overline{D^{0,1} \Omega} \rangle \\
&= h(\Omega) \beta +h(\Omega) \overline{\alpha}.
\end{align*}
Hence, we have $\beta = -\overline{\alpha} + \partial \log h(\Omega)$. Let $\theta_\omega$ be the real part of $-i\theta$, we obtain the following expression,
\begin{align}\label{acconnform1}
\theta_\omega = 2 \operatorname{Im} \alpha -\frac{1}{2} d^C \log \frac{\omega^n}{|\Omega_0 \wedge \bar{\Omega}_0|} + O(r^{-2\tau-1}).
\end{align}
Recall that, in $X_\infty$, the Ricci form is given by $\rho = d \theta_\omega$ and the first Chern class is $c_1 = [\rho/\pi]$. By adding a copy of link $L$ to the end of $X$, we have the following long exact sequence,
\begin{align} \label{lexseq1}
\cdots \rightarrow H_{dR}^1(L) \rightarrow H^2_c (X) \xrightarrow{\iota} H_{dR}^2 (X) \rightarrow H_{dR}^2 (L) \rightarrow \cdots
\end{align}
Noting that $L$ is the link of a Ricci-flat K\"ahler cone $C_L$, It is known that $L$ is Sasakian-Einstein with $Ric_{g_L} = 2(n-1) g_L$. According to the standard Bochner technique, we have $H^1_{dR} (X)$ vanishes.
\begin{lem} \label{cptclasslm}
Let $ [\varrho] \in H^2_{dR} (X)$ where $\varrho$ is a closed 2-form with decay rate $-\delta$, $\delta> 2$. Then, there exists a unique preimage of $[\varrho]$ in $H^2_c(X)$, denoted by $\iota^{-1} [\varrho]$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} The uniqueness of preimage directly follows from $H^{1}_{dR} (L) =0 $. Now, we describe the mapping $r: H^{2}_{dR} (X) \rightarrow H^2_{dR} (L)$ in (\ref{lexseq1}). Notice that, topologically, $X_\infty\cong L \times (R_0, \infty)$, then, the closed 2-form $\varrho$ can be written as $\varrho = \eta_2 + dr \wedge \eta_1$. According to the fall-off condition of $\varrho$ with decay rate $-\delta$, the norm of $\eta_1$, $\eta_2$ on $L$ satisfy
\begin{align*}
|\eta_1|_{g_L} = r| \eta_1|_{g_0} = O(r^{1-\delta}), \qquad |\eta_2|_{g_L}= r^2 |\eta_2|_{g_0} = O (r^{2-\delta})
\end{align*}
By adding a copy of link $L$ at infinity, then in topological space $\overline{X}_\infty = L \times (R_0, \infty]$, $\eta_1$ and $\eta_2$ can extend to infinity by defining zero forms at infinity. Hence, we obtain an extension of $\varrho$ in the space $\overline{X}_\infty$, denoted by $\overline{\varrho}$, with $\overline{\varrho} |_{\infty} = 0$. Then, the class $[\varrho]$ under the mapping $r$ is given as follows,
\begin{align*}
r([\varrho]) = \big[ \overline{ \varrho} |_{\infty} \big] =0
\end{align*}
Then, the long exact sequence (\ref{lexseq1}) implies that we have a preimage of $[\varrho]$ in $H_c^2(X)$.
\end{proof}
Based on the proof of lemma \ref{cptclasslm}, we can explicitly construct a closed form with compact support represents $\iota^{-1} [\varrho]$. Recall that $\varrho = \eta_2 + dr \wedge \eta_1$ in $X_\infty$. We integrate the form $dr \wedge \eta_1$ in $r$ direction; in particular $\tilde{\eta}_1 (r) = - \int_{\infty}^r dr \wedge \eta_1$. The 1-form $\tilde{\eta}_1$ is well-defined as $|\eta_1|_{g_L}$ has decay rate $1-\delta < -1$. Then $\varrho= \eta_2 - d_L \tilde{\eta}_1 + d \tilde{\eta}_1 (r)$. Let $\tilde{\eta}_2 = \eta_2-d_L \tilde{\eta}_1$, then the closedness of $\tilde{\eta}_2$ implies that
\begin{align*}
d \tilde{\eta}_2 = d_L \tilde{\eta}_2 + dr \wedge \partial_r \tilde{\eta}_2 =0 \quad \Rightarrow \quad d_L \tilde{\eta}_2 =0, \quad \partial_r \tilde{\eta}_2 =0.
\end{align*}
Observing that $ \lim_{r\rightarrow \infty}\tilde{\eta}_2 =0$, together with $\partial_r \tilde{\eta}_2 =0$, we obtain that $\tilde{\eta}_2 = 0$. Hence, in $X_\infty$, $\varrho = d \tilde{\eta}_1$. Let $\chi$ be a smooth cut-off function defined in $X_\infty$ such that
\begin{align} \label{cutoff}
\begin{split}
f(x) =\begin{cases}
1, \quad \text{ if } |x| \geq 3 R_0;\\
0, \quad \text{ if } |x| \leq 2 R_0.
\end{cases}
\end{split}
\end{align}
Then, $\varrho-d (\chi \tilde{\eta}_1)$ represents the class $\iota^{-1} [\varrho]$. Back to the case of the first Chern class $c_1 = [\rho /2\pi]$, the expresstion (\ref{acconnform1}) shows that the Ricci form decays at infinity with order $-\tau-2 < -2$. By lemma \ref{cptclasslm}, we have $\iota^{-1} c_1 \in H^2_c (X)$ and $(\rho- d(f \theta_\omega))/2\pi$ represents this class.
\subsection{The Mass Formula} \label{massacsec}
To give a reasonable definition of mass on AC K\"ahler manifolds, we will invoke an expression of mass without applying Euclidean coordinates. As mentioned in \cite[Section 3.1.3]{lee2019geometric}, the ADM mass can be interpreted as the integral of linearization of scalar curvature at the Euclidean background metric. This idea can be generalized to the AC K\"ahler cases if we replace the background Euclidean metric with the Riemannian cone metric. If we perturb the cone metric $g_0$ and consider $g(t) = (1-t) g_0 + t g_1$ where $g_1$ is another Riemannian metric defined on $C_L$ with the corresponding scalar curvature $R(t) \in L^1 (C_L)$ and bounded near $0$, according to Appendix A, lemma \ref{linofs1} for any real local frame on $X_\infty$
\begin{align*}
\frac{d}{dt}\Big|_{t=0} R(t) = \overline{\nabla}^i \overline{\nabla}^j g_{ij} - \overline{\Delta} \operatorname{tr}_{g_0} g
\end{align*}
Notice that
\begin{align*}
\int_{C_L} \frac{d}{dt}\Big|_{t=0} R(t) = \lim_{r \rightarrow \infty} \int_{L(r)} (\overline{\nabla}^j g_{ij}- (\operatorname{tr}_{g_0}g)_i) n^i d\operatorname{Vol}_{L(r)},
\end{align*}
where $n$ is a outer normal vector field of $L(r)$ and the integrand of the right-hand side is independent of the choice of real frame.
Let $(X, g)$ be an AC Riemannian manifold asymptotic to metric cone $(C_L, g_0)$, we give the abstract definition of mass on $(X,g)$ by
\begin{align} \label{massdef}
\mathfrak{m}(g) = \frac{1}{2(2n-1) \operatorname{Vol}(L)}\lim_{r \rightarrow \infty} \int_{L(r)} (\overline{\nabla}^j g_{ij}- (\operatorname{tr}_{g_0}g)_i) n^i d\operatorname{Vol}_{L(r)}
\end{align}
Let $(X, g, J)$ be an AC K\"ahler manifold asymptotic to a Ricci-flat K\"ahler cone $(C_L, g_0, J_0)$ of complex dimension $n$ with the metric $g$ asymptotic to $g_0$ in the end $X_\infty$, the remaining part of this section is aimed to derive a mass formula on $(X, g, J)$ which generalize the Hein-LeBrun's mass formula \cite{hein2016mass}. Observe that
\begin{align} \label{massfp1}
-\frac{1}{2} (\operatorname{tr}_{g_0} g)_i = - \frac{1}{2} \Big(\log \frac{\det g}{\det g_0} \Big)_i + O(r^{-2\tau-1})
\end{align}
and according to the calculation in Appendix (\ref{fofa})
\begin{align} \label{massfp2}
\overline{\nabla}^j g_{ij} -\frac{1}{2} (\operatorname{tr}_{g_0}g)_i = \frac{1}{2} g_0^{jk} ( \overline{\nabla}_k g_{ij} + \overline{\nabla}_j g_{ik}- \overline{\nabla}_i g_{jk}) = g_0^{jk} A_{jk, i},
\end{align}
where $A_{jk,i}=g_{il} A^l_{jk}$. Also observe that the formulas (\ref{massfp1}) and (\ref{massfp2}) can relate with the terms of $\theta_\omega$ in (\ref{acconnform1}). Then, we have the following mass formula,
\begin{pro} \label{massf1} Let $(X, g, J)$ be an AC K\"ahler manifold asymptotic to a locally Calabi-Yau cone $(C_L, g_0, J_0)$ of complex dimension $n$ with $|\overline{\nabla}^i (g-g_0)|_{g_0} = O(r^{-\tau-i})$ for $i = 0,1,\ldots$, where $\tau = 1-n-\epsilon$. Let $\omega$ represent the K\"ahler form of $g$ on $X$. Let $\theta_\omega$ be the connection 1-form as in (\ref{acconnform1}). Then, the mass has the following formula,
\begin{align} \label{massf2}
\mathfrak{m}( g) = \frac{1}{(2n-1) (n-1)! \operatorname{Vol}(L)} \lim_{r \rightarrow \infty} \int_{L(r)} \theta_\omega \wedge \omega^{n-1}.
\end{align}
\end{pro}
\begin{proof} According to the observation from (\ref{massfp1}) and (\ref{massfp2}), the mass formula can be rewritten on asymptotic local coframe $\{\mu_i, \bar{\mu}_i \}$,
\begin{align*}
\mathfrak{m}(g) = \frac{1}{2(2n-1) \operatorname{Vol}(L)}\lim_{r\rightarrow \infty} \bigg\{ \int_{L(r)} * 2 \operatorname{Re} \big( A_{, \bar{i}} \bar{\mu}^i\big) - \int_{L(r)} * \bigg(d \log \frac{\sqrt{det g}}{\sqrt{\det{g_0}}}\bigg) + O(r^{-2\epsilon})\bigg\}
\end{align*}
where $*$ is the Hodge star operator of on $(X,g)$ and $A_{,i} = 2g_0^{j\bar{k}}A_{j\bar{k},i}$. Also notice that
\begin{align*}
* \bigg(d \log \frac{\sqrt{\det g}}{\sqrt{\det{g_0}}}\bigg) = -\Big(Jd \log \frac{\omega^n}{ |\Omega_0 \wedge \Omega_0|} \Big)\wedge \frac{\omega^{n-1}}{(n-1)!} = d^C \log \frac{\omega^n}{|\Omega_0 \wedge \Omega_0|} \wedge \frac{\omega^{n-1}}{(n-1)!}.
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
\operatorname{Im} \alpha \wedge \frac{\omega^{n-1}}{(n-1)!} = (J \operatorname{Re} \alpha) \wedge \frac{\omega^{n-1}}{(n-1)!} = * (\operatorname{Re} \alpha )
\end{align*}
Comparing with the explicit expression of $\theta$ in (\ref{acconnform1}), then the mass formula can be rewritten as
\begin{align} \label{massf2}
\mathfrak{m}(g) = \frac{1}{(2n-1) \operatorname{Vol}(L)} \lim_{r\rightarrow \infty} \bigg\{ \int_{L(r)} * \operatorname{Re}\big( A_{, \bar{i}} \mu^{\bar{i}}- 2\alpha \big) + \frac{1}{(n-1)!} \int_{L(r)} \theta_\omega \wedge \omega^{n-1} \bigg\}
\end{align}
It suffices to prove the difference $A_{,\bar{i}}\mu^{\bar{i}}- 2\alpha$ does not contribute to the integral. If we write the metric $g$ in terms of frames $\{\mu^i, \mu^{\bar{i}}\}$,
\begin{align*}
g = g_{ij} \mu^i \otimes \mu^j + g_{i \bar{j} } \mu^i \otimes \mu^{\bar{j}} + \overline{g_{i \bar{j}}} \mu^{\bar{i}} \otimes \mu^j + \overline{g_{ij}} \mu^{\bar{i}} \otimes \mu^{\bar{j}}.
\end{align*}
Noting that $\omega = g(J\cdot, \cdot)$ and inserting (\ref{cxfr1}) into the expression of $g$, we obtain that,
\begin{align*}
\omega = i g_{i\bar{j}} \mu^i \wedge \mu^{\bar{j}} + i( g_{i\bar{k}} \mathcal{J}^{\bar{k}}_j - g_{j \bar{k}} \mathcal{J}^{\bar{k}}_i ) \mu^i \wedge \mu^j - i ( g_{k \bar{i}} \mathcal{J}^{k}_{\bar{j}} - g_{k \bar{j}} \mathcal{J}^k_{\bar{i}}) \mu^{\bar{i}} \wedge \mu^{\bar{j}} + O(r^{-2\tau}).
\end{align*}
The (0,2)-part of $\omega$ with respect to $J_0$ is given by $\omega^{0,2} = -i(g_{k\bar{i}} \mathcal{J}^k_{\bar{j}}- g_{k\bar{j}}\mathcal{J}^k_{\bar{i}}) \mu^{\bar{i}}\wedge \mu^{\bar{j}} $.Now we calculate $d^* \omega^{0,2}$. Notice that $d^* = [d^C, \Lambda]$, then
\begin{equation}
\begin{split} \label{massfp3}
d^* \omega^{0,2} & = i \Lambda (J\circ d (g_{k\bar{i}}\mathcal{J}^k_{\bar{j}} - g_{k \bar{j}} \mathcal{J}^k_{\bar{i}})\mu^{\bar{i}}\wedge \mu^{\bar{j}} ) + O(r^{-2\tau-1})\\
& = (\overline{\nabla} \mathcal{J})^k_{\bar{j}, l}(g_0)_{k\bar{i}} (g_0)^{l \bar{i}} \mu^{\bar{j}} - (\overline{\nabla} \mathcal{J})^k_{\bar{i}, l}(g_0)_{k \bar{j}} (g_0)^{l\bar{i}} \mu^{\bar{j}} + O(r^{-2\tau-1}) \\
& = 2 A^{l}_{l \bar{j}} \mu^{\bar{j}} - 2 (g_0)^{i \bar{k}}A_{ i \bar{k}, \bar{j}} \mu^{\bar{j}} + O(r^{-2\tau-1})\\
& = 2\alpha - A_{, \bar{j}} \mu^{\bar{j}}+ O(r^{-2\tau-1}).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Inserting (\ref{massfp3}) to the first term of (\ref{massf2}), we have
\begin{align*}
\int_{L(r)} * \operatorname{Re} \big(A_{, \bar{i}} \mu^{\bar{i}} -2 \alpha \big) & = \frac{1}{2}\int_{L(r)} * \big( d^* \omega^{0,2} + d^* \overline{\omega^{0,2}} \big) + O(r^{-2 \epsilon})\\
& =\frac{1}{2} \int_{L(r)} d * (\omega^{0,2}+ \overline{\omega^{0,2}})+ O(r^{-2 \epsilon}) = O (r^{-2\epsilon}),
\end{align*}
hence, the proof is completed.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}\label{massf2}
Let $(X, g, J)$ satisfy the same condition as in proposition \ref{massf1}, then we have the following mass formula
\begin{align} \label{massf3}
\mathfrak{m}( g) = -\frac{2\pi \langle \iota^{-1} c_1, [\omega]^{n-1} \rangle}{(2n-1) (n-1)! \operatorname{Vol}(L)} + \frac{1}{2(2n-1) \operatorname{Vol}(L)} \int_{X} R_g d\operatorname{Vol}_g
\end{align}
where $c_1$ is the first Chern class of $(X, J)$, $[\omega]$ is the K\"ahler class of $g$, $R_g$ is the scalar curvature of $g$ and $(\cdot ,\cdot ) $ is the duality pairing between $H^{2}_c (X)$ and $H^{2n-2} (X)$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
In proposition \ref{massf1}, we have already proved a mass formula (\ref{massf2}), where $\theta_\omega$ is a 1-form defined on $X_\infty$ with $d\theta_\omega = \rho$. Consider a smooth cut-off function $f$ as in (\ref{cutoff}) which is $\equiv 0$ on $X- X_\infty$ and $\equiv 1$ if the radius is of large enough. According to the discussion after lemma \ref{cptclasslm}, the first Chern class admits a representative with compact support $\iota^{-1} c_1 = [\rho_0 / 2\pi]$, where $\rho_0 = \rho - d(f \theta_\omega)$ is compactly supported. Let $X_{r\leq R} =\{x\in X, r(x) \leq R \}$ with $R > 3 R_0$, then $\rho_0$ has compact support on $X_{r < R}$. We have
\begin{align*}
\frac{(n-1)!}{2} \int_{X_{r \leq R}} R_g d\operatorname{Vol}_g & = \int_{ X_{r \leq R}} \rho \wedge \omega^{n-1} \\
& = \int_{X_{r \leq R}} \big(\rho_0 + d(f \theta_{\omega})\big) \wedge \omega^{n-1}\\
& = {2\pi} \langle \iota^{-1} c_1, [\omega]^{n-1} \rangle + \int_{L(R)} \theta_{\omega} \wedge \omega^{n-1}
\end{align*}
Then, according to (\ref{massf2}), we have
\begin{align*}
\mathfrak{m}(g) & = \frac{1}{(2n-1) (n-1)! \operatorname{Vol}(L)} \lim_{r\rightarrow \infty} \int_{L(r)} \theta_\omega \wedge \omega^{n-1} \\
& = -\frac{2\pi \langle \iota^{-1} c_1, [\omega]^{n-1} \rangle}{(2n-1) (n-1)! \operatorname{Vol}(L)} + \frac{1}{2(2n-1) \operatorname{Vol}(L)} \int_{X} R_g d\operatorname{Vol}_g
\end{align*}
which completes the proof of mass formula
\end{proof}
\section{Expansion of AC K\"ahler Metrics } \label{expanacsec}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{expanthm} (i)}
According to the conditions given in theorem \ref{expanthm} (i), $\omega_1$ and $\omega_2$ are two K\"ahler forms in the same K\"ahler class and decay to the model K\"ahler form $\omega_0$ with rate $-\tau$ ($\tau = n-1 +\epsilon$) in $X_\infty$. We also assume that their scalar curvature are identically equal. Firstly, we obtain an expression of scalar curvature $R(\omega)$ with respect to some K\"ahler metric $\omega$ satisfying the fall-off condition, based on the formula (\ref{acconnform1}). Noting that, in (\ref{acconnform1}), the leading term of $ \operatorname{Im} \alpha$ only depends on the complex structure $J$ by lemma \ref{01conn}.
In particular, let $A_J = 2 \operatorname{Im} \alpha+ O(r^{-2\tau-1})$ in (\ref{acconnform1}), then
\begin{align} \label{scalarcurv}
R(\omega) = \operatorname{tr}_\omega \Big(dA_J - \frac{1}{2}dd^C \log \frac{\omega^n}{|\Omega_0 \wedge \overline{\Omega}_0|} \Big) + O(r^{-2-2\tau})
\end{align}
Theorem \ref{ddclem} implies that there exists a function $\varphi\in \mathcal{C}^{k+2,\alpha}_{2-2\tau}$ such that $\omega_2 = \omega_1 +dd^C \varphi$. Based on the condition $R_1 = R_2$, we have
\begin{align}
0 &= \operatorname{tr}_{\omega_2} \rho (\omega_2) - \operatorname{tr}_{\omega_1} \rho(\omega_1) \nonumber\\
& = \operatorname{tr}_{\omega_1} (\rho({\omega_2 })-\rho({\omega_1})) + (\operatorname{tr}_{\omega_2}-\operatorname{tr}_{\omega_1} ) \rho({\omega_2}) \label{difsc}
\end{align}
By inserting (\ref{acconnform1}), we rewrite the first term of (\ref{difsc}),
\begin{align*}
\operatorname{tr}_{\omega_1} (\rho({\omega_2 })-\rho({\omega_1}))&=\operatorname{tr}_{\omega_1}\bigg(dA_J-\frac{1}{2} dd^C \log \frac{(\omega_1+dd^C \varphi)^n}{|\Omega \wedge \overline{ \Omega} | }-dA_J+ \frac{1}{2} dd^C \log \frac{\omega_1^n}{|\Omega \wedge \overline{ \Omega} | }\bigg) \\
&=-\frac{1}{2} (\operatorname{tr}_{\omega_1} dd^C)^2 \varphi + O(r^{-2\tau-2})\\
& =-\frac{1}{2} \Delta_{\omega_1}^2 \varphi + O(r^{-2\tau -2}).
\end{align*}
By writing the second term of (\ref{difsc}) in locally asymptotic frame, it is observed that the coefficients of $\rho(\omega_2)$ belongs to $\mathcal{C}^{k-2,\alpha}_{-\tau-2}$ and $(\operatorname{tr}_{\omega_2}-\operatorname{tr}_{\omega_1}) \in \mathcal{C}^{k,\alpha}_{-\tau}$, which implies that
\begin{align*}
(\operatorname{tr}_{\omega_2}-\operatorname{tr}_{\omega_1})\rho(\omega_2) \in \mathcal{C}^{k-2,\alpha}_{-2\tau-2}.
\end{align*}
Hence, we can deduce that $\varphi$ satisfies the equation, $\Delta_{\omega_1}^2 \varphi = f $ with $f\in \mathcal{C}^{k-2,\alpha}_{-2-2\tau}$ on $X$ with $-2-2\tau < -2n$. By solving the Laplacian on asymptotic conical manifolds, proposition \ref{laequac} (iii) imples
\begin{align} \label{expanpoten}
\Delta_{\omega_1} \varphi = C r^{2-2n} + \phi, \qquad \phi \in \mathcal{C}^{k,\alpha}_{-2\tilde{\tau}} \text{ with } \tilde{\tau} = \min\{\tau, - d^-_1/2\},
\end{align}
where $d_1^-$ is the second negative exceptional weight in $D$ defined in $\ref{excd}$ with $d_1^- < d_0^- = 2-2n$.
By proposition \ref{massf1}, combining with (\ref{acconnform1}), we have
\begin{align}
\nonumber \mathfrak{m} (\omega_2)- \mathfrak{m} (\omega_1) = \lim_{r\rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{(2n-1) (n-1)! \operatorname{Vol}(L)}&\bigg[ \int_{L(r)} \theta_{\omega_2} \wedge \omega_2^{n-1}-\int_{L(r)} \theta_{\omega_1} \wedge \omega_1^{n-1}\bigg] \\ \nonumber
= \lim_{r\rightarrow \infty} C(n , L) &\bigg[ \int_{L(r)}\theta_{\omega_2} \wedge (\omega_2^{n-1}-\omega_1^{n-1}) \\ \nonumber
& \qquad - \int_{L(r)} (\theta_{\omega_2} - \theta_{\omega_1}) \wedge \omega_1^{n-1} \bigg]. \\ \nonumber
=\lim_{r\rightarrow \infty}C(n, L) & \bigg[ \int_{L(r)} \theta_{\omega_2} \wedge (\omega_2^{n-1}-\omega_1^{n-1}) \\
& \qquad - \frac{1}{2}\int_{L(r)} d^C \log \frac{(\omega_1+dd^C \varphi)^{n}}{\omega_1^n} \wedge \omega_1^{n-1} \bigg], \label{masscon}
\end{align}
where $C(n,L) $ is a constant given in proposition \ref{massf1}. Since $\varphi \in \mathcal{C}^{k,\alpha}_{-\tau}$ and by (\ref{acconnform1}), the coefficients of $\theta_{\omega_2}$ with respect to a local asymptotic frame are of class $\mathcal{C}^{k-1,\alpha}_{-\tau-1}$, then we have
\begin{align} \label{masscon1}
\int_{L(r)} \theta_{\omega_2} \wedge (\omega_2^{n-1}-\omega_1^{n-1}) = \int_{L(r)} \theta_{\omega_2}\wedge dd^C \varphi \wedge (\omega_1^{n-2} + \omega_1^{n-3} \wedge \omega_2 + \ldots + \omega^{n-2}_2 ) = O(r^{-2\epsilon}),
\end{align}
and
\begin{align} \label{masscon2}
\int_{L(r)} d^C \log \frac{(\omega_1+dd^C \varphi)^n}{\omega_1^n} \wedge \omega_1^{n-1}= \int_{L(r)} d^C (\Delta_{\omega_1} \varphi) \wedge \omega_1^{n-1} +O(r^{-2\epsilon}).
\end{align}
By inserting (\ref{masscon1}) and (\ref{masscon2}), the difference of mass is
\begin{align*}
\mathfrak{m} (\omega_2) - \mathfrak{m} (\omega_1) = -\lim_{r\rightarrow \infty} C(n,L) \int_{L(r)} d^C(\Delta_{\omega_1} \varphi) \wedge \omega_1^{n-1}
\end{align*}
Notice that the standard volume form on the link $L$ of the model cone $C_L$ is given by $d \operatorname{Vol}_{g_L} = \eta \wedge \omega_0^{n-1}|_{L(1)}$, where $\eta =r^{-1} J_0 dr$ is the contact 1-form of the Sasakian manifold $L$. Then,
\begin{equation} \label{masscoefac}
\begin{split}
-\int_{L(r)} d^C(\Delta_{\omega_1} \varphi) \wedge \omega_1^{n-1} &= -C \int_{L(r)} J d(r^{2-2n}) \wedge \omega_1^{n-1} \\
&= C\int_{L(r)} (2n-2) r^{1-2n} (r \eta) \wedge \omega_0^{n-1} + O(r^{-\tau}) \\
&= C (2n-2){\operatorname{Vol} (L)} + O(r^{-\tau}),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $C$ is the constant in (\ref{expanpoten}). According to the mass formula in theorem \ref{massf2}, the mass only depends on the K\"ahler class, the first Chern class and scalar curvature; hence, $\mathfrak{m}(\omega_1) =\mathfrak{m}(\omega_2)$. Then, we have $C=0$, which completes the proof of theorem \ref{expanthm} (i).
\subsection{ Proof of Theorem \ref{expanthm} (ii)}
For the proof theorem \ref{expanthm} (ii), in the case of $\dim_{\mathbb{C}} X_{\infty} = 2$, noticing that the link of Ricci-flat K\"ahler cone is an Sasakian Einstein manifold of real dimensional 3, $L$ has constant sectional curvature. Thus, $C_L$ is biholomorphic to $\mathbb{C}^2/\Gamma$ for some finite subgroup $\Gamma \subseteq U(2)$. Hence, the discussion can be reduced to ALE cases. Since $H^2(X_\infty) = H^2(S^3/\Gamma) = 0$, $\omega-\omega_{euc}$ is exact real $(1,1)$ form on $X_\infty$ with decay rate $-\tau$. According to Theorem \ref{ddclem} (ii), there exists $\varphi \in \mathcal{C}^{k+2, \alpha}_{2-\tau}$ such that
\begin{align} \label{ddcsfkform}
\omega - \omega_{euc} = dd^c \varphi + O(r^{-4}).
\end{align}
If $\omega$ is a scalar-flat K\"ahler metric, then by formula of scalar curvature, in the end $X_\infty$,
\begin{align} \label{scalflatcon}
0= \operatorname{tr}_\omega \rho &= \operatorname{tr}_\omega d A_J - \frac{1}{2} \operatorname{tr}_\omega dd^c \log \frac{\omega^n}{\omega_0^n} + O(r^{-2\tau-2}) \nonumber\\
& = \operatorname{tr}_\omega dA_J -\frac{1}{2} \Delta_{\omega}^2 \varphi + O(r^{\max\{-2\tau-2, -6\}}).
\end{align}
Recall that, in complex dimension $2$, the complex structure of ALE manifolds decays to the standard complex structure in Euclidean space as $J-J_0 = O(r^{-3})$ (see \cite[Proposition 4.5]{hein2016mass}). Since $A_J = 2 \operatorname{Im} \alpha$, where $\alpha$ is given in Lemma \ref{01conn}, then its differential has $dA_J = O(r^{-5})$. Then, the equation (\ref{scalflatcon}) can be rewritten as,
\begin{align}
\Delta^2_\omega \varphi = f, \quad \text{ for } f \in \mathcal{C}^{k-2,\alpha}_{-2\tilde{\tau}-2},
\end{align}
where $\tilde{\tau} = \min\{\tau, 3/2\}$. Also, by Proposition \ref{laequac} (iii), $\Delta_\omega \varphi = C r^{2-2n} + \phi $ with $\phi \in \mathcal{C}^{k,\alpha}_{-2\tilde{\tau}}$. According to Proposition \ref{massf1}, we have
\begin{align*}
\mathfrak{m} (\omega) &= \lim_{r \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{3\operatorname{Vol}(L)} \int_{L(r)} \theta_\omega \wedge \omega^{n-1}\\
&= \lim_{r \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{3\operatorname{Vol}(L)} \int_{L(r)} \Big( A_J - \frac{1}{2} d^C \log \frac{(\omega_0 + dd^C \varphi)^n}{\omega_0^n } \Big) \wedge \omega^{n-1} \\
&= -\lim_{r \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{3\operatorname{Vol}(L)} \int_{L(r)} d^C (\Delta_{\omega} \varphi) \wedge \omega^{n-1}
\end{align*}
Then, repeating the calculation in (\ref{masscoefac}), we have the constant $C$,
\begin{align*}
C = 3 \mathfrak{m}(\omega).
\end{align*}
Notice that $\displaystyle \Delta_0 \log r = \frac{2}{r^2}$, we have the solution
\begin{align*}
\varphi = \frac{3 \mathfrak{m}(\omega)}{2} \log r + O(r^{-2\tilde{\tau}+2}).
\end{align*}
In the case of $\dim_{\mathbb{C}} X_{\infty} \geq 3$, the asymptotic condition of the K\"ahler form on $X_\infty$, $\omega - \omega_0 = O(r^{-\tau})$ with $\tau = n-1 +\epsilon > 2$, implies that $\omega- \omega_0$ is an exact form. One can check it by identifying $L\times [T_0, \infty)$ with $X_\infty$. Define a new parameter $t = \log r$ on cylinder $L\times [T_0, \infty) $. Consider the cylinder metric $g_{cyl} = dt^2 + g_L$, then the relation with the conical metric is $g_{cyl}= e^{-2t} g_0 $. Therefore, $|\omega - \omega_0|_{g_{cyl}} = O(e^{2-\tau})$. Now, let $\omega-\omega_0 = \eta_2 + \eta_1 \wedge dt$. If we integrate the form in $t$ direction, $\eta = -\int_\infty^t \eta_1 \wedge dt$, then
\begin{align*}
d\eta &= d_L \eta - \partial_t \eta \wedge dt \\
& = - \int_\infty^t d_L \eta_1 \wedge dt + \eta_1 \wedge dt \\
& = \int^t_\infty \partial_t \eta_2 \wedge dt + \eta_1 \wedge dt = \eta_2 + \eta_1 \wedge dt,
\end{align*}
where the third equality is from the closedness of $\omega-\omega_0$. According to Theorem \ref{ddclem} (ii), there exists a real function $\varphi \in \mathcal{C}^{k+2,\alpha}_{2-\tau}$ such that $\omega - \omega_0 = i\partial \overline{\partial} \varphi + O(r^{-2n})$. Based on the formula (\ref{scalarcurv}) and $R(\omega)=0$, we have the equation $\Delta^2_\omega \varphi = f$, for $f \in \mathcal{C}^{k-2,\alpha}_{-2\tau'-2}$, where the decay rate of $f$ is determined by the decay rate of $dA_J$ (by assumption (\ref{cxdec})), the dimension $n$ and $\tau$; in particular, $\tau' = \min\{n, \tau, n-1+ \epsilon'\}$. Also, by proposition \ref{laequac} (ii), $\Delta_\omega \varphi = C r^{2-2n} + \phi \ (**)$ with $\phi \in \mathcal{C}^{k,\alpha}_{-2\tilde{\tau}}$, $\tilde{\tau} = \min\{\tau', -d^-_1/2\}$. Combining proposition \ref{massf1}, (\ref{acconnform1}) and (\ref{masscoefac}), we can obtain a formula for the constant $C$ in $(**)$,
\begin{align*}
C = \frac{2n-1}{n-1} m(\omega).
\end{align*}
Notice that $\Delta_0 r^{4-2n} = 2(4-2n) r^{2-2n}.$
Therefore, we have the expansion of the solution of $(**)$,
\begin{align*}
\varphi = \frac{C}{ 2(4-2n)} r^{4-2n} + O(r^{2-2\tilde{\tau}})
\end{align*}
Noting the the standard K\"ahler form on $C_L$ is $\omega_0 = dd^c r^2 /2$, the K\"ahler form $\omega$ admits the following expansion,
\begin{align*}
\omega = \frac{1}{2} dd^c r^2 + \frac{(2n-1) \mathfrak{m}(\omega)}{2(4-2n)(n-1)} dd^c r^{4-2n} + O(r^{-2\tilde{\tau}}),
\end{align*}
which completes the proof.
\section{Positive Mass Theorem on Resolution Spaces of Calabi-Yau Cones} \label{pmts}
We conclude the paper by proving the positive mass theorem based on the generalized ADM mass defined in (\ref{massdef}).
Let $(C_L, J_0, g_0)$ be a Ricci-flat K\"ahler cone with only one singularity at the vertex $O$. Recall the resolution of the Ricci-flat K\"ahler cone is a smooth complex manifold $X$ with a proper map $\pi : X \rightarrow C_L$ such that the map $\pi: X\backslash E \rightarrow C_L \backslash \{O\} $ is biholomorphic, where $E= \pi^{-1}(O)$ is the exceptional divisor. The positive mass theorem does not always hold for resolution spaces of Ricci-flat K\"ahler cone cones, for instance, the counter example constructed by LeBrun \cite{cmp/1104162166}. So it is reasonable to consider a special class of resolution spaces. In particular, we say the isolated singularity $O \in C_L$ is \textit{canonical} if the resolution spaces $(X, \pi)$ satisfies,
\begin{align} \label{kx}
K_X = \pi^* K_{C_L} + \sum_{i} a_i E_i,
\end{align}
where $E_i$ are the irreducible hypersurfaces and $a_i \geq 0$. Then, we can prove the following positive mass theorem on canonical resolution spaces of Calabi-Yau cones.
\begin{thm} Let $(C_L, J_0, g_0)$ be a Ricci-flat K\"ahler cone such that the only singularity $O \in C_L$ is canonical. Suppose that $X$ admits an asymptotically conical K\"ahler metrics $g$ with decay rate $-\tau$, $\tau = n-1+\epsilon$ $(\epsilon >0)$. If $(X,g)$ has scalar curvature $R \geq 0$, then the mass $\mathfrak{m}(X,g) \geq 0$, and equals zero only if $(X,J,g)$ is a crepant resolution of $C_L$ with a scalar-flat K\"ahler metric $g$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof} According to the assumption that $s \geq 0$, the integral of scalar curvature in the mass formula (\ref{massf3}) is nonnegative, and equals zero only if $g$ is scalar-flat. It suffices to prove the first term of the mass formula is also nonnegative.
Firstly, recalling the map $\iota: H_c^2(X) \rightarrow H^2 (X)$ induced by inclusion of cohomology classes, we prove that $[\omega] \in H^2(X)$ has a preimage in $H_c^2(X)$. For $\dim_\mathbb{C} X =2$, the Calabi-Yau cone must be $\mathbb{C}^2/ \Gamma$ with $\Gamma$ is a finite subgroup of $U(2)$. The fact $H^{1}(S^3/ \Gamma) = H^2(S^3/ \Gamma)=0$ implies that $\iota$ is an isomorphism. For $\dim_\mathbb{C} X \geq 3$, since we have the decay condition $\omega - \frac{1}{2}dd^C r^2 = O(r^{-\tau})$ with $\tau>2$ in $X_\infty$, the lemma \ref{cptclasslm} implies that $\omega - \frac{1}{2} dd^C r^2 $ is an exact form in $X_\infty$, written by $d \theta$. Let $f$ be a smooth function identically equal to $1$ near infinity and vanishing in a compact set of $X$, for instance, the function defined in (\ref{cutoff}), then $\omega - d (f (d^C r^2/4 + \theta))$ has a compact support.
Notice that $c_1 (X) = - c_1(K_X)$, then,
\begin{align*}
-\langle \iota^{-1} c_1, [\omega]^{n-1} \rangle = - \langle \iota^{-1} c_1, (\iota^{-1}[\omega])^{n-1} \rangle = \langle c_1(K_X),(\iota^{-1} [\omega])^{n-1} \rangle.
\end{align*}
According to (\ref{kx}) and Poincar\'{e} duality, we have,
\begin{align*}
\langle c_1(K_X), (\iota^{-1}[\omega])^{n-1} \rangle = \sum_{i}a_i\int_{E_i} \omega^{n-1}\geq 0.
\end{align*}
The above inequality only if $a_i =0$ for all $i$, which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{ex}
Let $D$ be a compact Fano manifold with $\dim_\mathbb{C} D =n-1$ and $K_D^\times$, the space by shrinking the zero section of the canonical line line bundle of $D$. In this example, we consider the standard resolution of $(K_D^{\alpha})^\times$, where $\alpha$ is a positive fractional number. Firstly, we check that $K_D^\times$ is a Calabi-Yau cone. Let $U$ be a local chart in $D$ as well as a local trivialization of $K_D$. We assume that $U\times \mathbb{C} \subseteq K_D$ has a holomorphic coordinate system $\{ z_1, \ldots, z_{n-1}, u \}$. There exists a local holomorphic $(n,0)$ form on $U \times \mathbb{C}$, $ \Omega_U = dz_1\wedge \ldots \wedge dz_{n-1} \wedge d u$ and $\Omega_U$ can be extended naturally to be a global nonvanishing holomorphic $(n,0)$ form on $K_D$. To see this, let $V$ be another local chart of $D$ with $K_D|_V = V\times \mathbb{C}$ and $\{w_1,\ldots, w_{n-1} , v\}$, its holomorphic coordinates. Recall that the transition function of $K_D$ is given by $ v= u \cdot J(\partial z/ \partial w)$, then,
\begin{align*}
dw_1\wedge \ldots \wedge dw_{n-1} \wedge d v = J(\partial z/ \partial w) dw_1 \wedge \ldots \wedge dw_{n-1} \wedge du = dz_1\wedge \ldots \wedge dz_1 \wedge d u.
\end{align*}
Hence, we have a global nonvanishing holomorphic $(n,0)$ form, $\Omega$ on $K_D$. By restricting $\Omega$ to the space away from the zero section of $K_D$, we show that $K_D^\times $ is a Calabi-Yau cone. Similarly, we can find a global holomorphic $(n,0)$ form, $\Omega$, on $K_D^{\alpha}$. Let $U$ be a local chart in $D$ with $(K_D)^\alpha |_{U} = U \times \mathbb{C}$ and $\{z_1, \ldots, z_{n-1}, t \}$ be a holomorphic coordinates of $\{U \times \mathbb{C}\}$. Then, locally, $\Omega$ can be written as
\begin{align*}
\Omega|_{U} = \frac{1}{\alpha} t^{\frac{1-\alpha}{\alpha}} dz_1 \wedge \ldots \wedge dz_{n-1} \wedge dt.
\end{align*}
Also, by restricting $\Omega$ away from the zero section of $K_D^\alpha$, we obtain a nonvanishing holomorphic (possibly multi-valued) $(n,0)$ form on $(K_D^\alpha)^\times$. Note that $\Omega$ is multi-valued if the order $(1-\alpha)/\alpha$ is not an integer. Therefore, for the resolution map by shrinking zero section, $\pi: K^\alpha_D \rightarrow (K^\alpha_D)^\times$, we have the following adjunction type formula,
\begin{align*}
K_{ K_D^{\alpha}} = \pi^* K_{ (K_D^\alpha)^{\times}} + \frac{1-\alpha}{\alpha} D
\end{align*}
Hence, $K^\alpha_D$ satisfies the positive mass theorem if and only if $\alpha \leq 1$.
\end{ex}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
The LIGO and Virgo gravitational wave detectors have made historic discoveries
over the last seven years. The first direct detection in September 2015 of gravitational waves marked a
milestone in fundamental science~\citep{bib:GW150914}, confirming a longstanding prediction of
Einstein's General Theory of Relativity~\citep{bib:EinsteinGW1,bib:EinsteinGW2}. That the detection came from the
first observation of a binary black hole merger provided a bonus not only
in verifying detailed predictions of General Relativity, but in establishing
unambiguously that stellar-mass black holes exist in the Universe.
More than 80 binary black hole (BBH) systems have been observed since
GW150914~\citep{bib:GW151226,bib:GW170104,bib:GW170608,bib:GW170814,bib:GWTC1,bib:GWTC2,bib:GWTC3}.
Merging binary neutron star (BNS) systems~\citep{bib:GW170817,bib:GW190425} have also been observed,
including GW170817~\citep{bib:GW170817}, which was accompanied by a multitude
of electromagnetic observations~\citep{bib:GW170817MMA}. Those observations confirmed the association of at least
some short gamma ray bursts with binary neutron star mergers~\citep{bib:GW170817GRB} and the onset of kilonovae in
BNS mergers that contribute substantially to the heavy element production in the Universe~\citep{bib:GW170817MMA}.
More recently came detections of merging neutron star -- black hole (NSBH) systems~\citep{bib:NSBH}.
These discoveries of transient gravitational wave signals have ignited the field of gravitational wave astronomy.
This review concerns a quite different and as-yet-undiscovered gravitational wave signal type, one defined by stability and near-monochromaticity
over long time scales, namely {\it continuous waves}. CW signals with strengths detectable by current and imminent
ground-based gravitational wave interferometers could originate from relatively nearby galactic sources, such as
fast-spinning neutron stars exhibiting non-axisymmetry~\citep{bib:Thorne300}, or more exotically, from strong extra-galactic sources,
such as super-radiant Bose-Einstein clouds surrounding black holes~\citep{bib:axiverseArvanitaki1}.
We already know from prior LIGO and Virgo searches that the strengths of CW signals must be exceedingly weak [$\sim$($10^{-24}$) or less], which
is consistent with theoretical expectation, from which we expect plausible CW strain amplitudes to be orders of magnitudes
lower than the amplitudes of the transient signals detected to date [$\sim$($10^{-21}$)]. This disparity in signal strength holds despite
the much nearer distance of galactic neutron stars ($\sim$kpc) compared to the compact binary mergers ($\sim$40 Mpc to multi-Gpc) seen to date.
In fact, it is only their long-lived nature that
gives us any hope of detecting CW signals through integration over long data spans, so as to achieve a statistically
viable signal-to-noise (SNR) ratio. As discussed below, however, that SNR increases, at best, as the square root of observation time,
but for most CW searches, increases with an even lower power of observation time, while computational cost increases with much higher powers.
These different scalings of signal sensitivity and cost have led to a variety of approaches in targeting signals, depending on
the size of signal parameter space searched.
The search for continuous gravitational radiation has been under way since the 1970's, using
data from interferometers~\citep{bib:LevineStebbins} and bars~\citep{bib:EarlyBarLimits,bib:Suzuki}, including from early
prototypes~\citep{bib:LivasArticle}
for the large gravitational wave detectors to come later. This review focuses primarily on the most
recent searches from the Advanced LIGO and Virgo detectors, although summaries of search algorithm developments in the
initial LIGO and Virgo era (and before) provide some historical context. For reference, the Advanced LIGO and Virgo
runs to date comprise (with selected highlighted detections):
\begin{itemize}
\item The O1 observing run (LIGO only): September 12, 2015 -- January 12, 2016 -- First detection of gravitational waves from a BBH merger: GW150914~\citep{bib:GW150914}.
\item The O2 observing run (LIGO joined by Virgo in last month): November 30, 2016 -- August 25, 2017 -- First detection of gravitational waves from a BNS merger: GW170817~\citep{bib:GW170817}.
\item The O3 observing run (LIGO and Virgo): April 1, 2019 -- March 27, 2020 -- First detection of gravitational waves from the formation of an intermediate-mass black hole: GW190521~\citep{bib:GW190521} and the first detection of NSBH mergers. The run was divided into a 6-month ``O3a'' epoch (April 1, 2019 -- October 1, 2019) and ``O3b'' (November 1 -- March 27, 2020) by a 1-month commissioning break. Many initial publications focused on results from the O3a data.
\end{itemize}
In the following, section~\ref{sec:sources} reviews both conventional and exotic potential sources
of CW gravitational radiation. Section~\ref{sec:searches} describes a wide variety of search methodologies
being used to address the challenges of detection.
Section~\ref{sec:results} presents
results (so far all only upper limits) from searches based on these algorithms, with an emphasis on the most recent results from
the Advanced LIGO and Virgo detectors.
Finally, section~\ref{sec:outlook} discusses the outlook for discovery in the coming years, including the
prospects for electromagnetic observations of the continuous gravitational wave sources.
This review focuses on CW radiation potentially detectable with current-generation and next-generation
ground-based gravitational wave interferometers, which are sensitive to gravitational frequencies in the human-audible band for sound.
Past and future searches for lower-frequency CW radiation from supermassive black hole binaries
at $\sim$nHz frequencies using pulsar timing arrays~\citep{bib:ptareview} or from stellar-mass galactic binaries
at $\sim$mHz frequencies using the space-based LISA~\citep{bib:LISA} are not discussed here.
Textbooks addressing gravitational waves, their detection and their analysis include references~\citep{bib:MTWtext,bib:Schutztext,bib:Maggioretext1,bib:Maggioretext2,bib:Saulsontext,bib:CreightonAndersontext,bib:JaranowskiKrolaktext,bib:AnderssonText}. Review articles and volumes on gravitational wave science include
references~\citep{bib:Thorne300,bib:Blairbook1,bib:lrre-SathyaprakashSchutz,bib:lrre-Pitkinetal,bib:lrre-FreiseStrain,bib:Blairbook2,bib:RilesPPNP,bib:lrre-RomanoCornish}.
This review is a substantial expansion upon a briefer previous article~\citep{bib:RilesMPLA}. Other reviews of CW search methodology
include~\citep{bib:Prixreview,bib:palombareview,bib:Laskyreview,bib:SieniawskaBejgerreview,bib:TenorioKeitelSintesreview,bib:PiccinniReview}.
\section{Potential sources of CW radiation}
\label{sec:sources}
In the frequency band of present
ground-based detectors, the canonical sources of continuous gravitational waves are
galactic, non-axisymmetric neutron stars spinning fast enough to produce
gravitational waves in the LIGO and Virgo detectable band (at 1$\times$, $\sim$4/3$\times$ or 2$\times$ rotation frequency,
depending on the generation mechanism).
These nearby neutron stars
offer a ``conventional'' source of CW radiation -- as astrophysically extreme as
such objects are.
A truly exotic postulated source
is a ``cloud'' of bosons, such as QCD axions, surrounding a fast-spinning
black hole, bosons that can condense in gargantuan numbers to a small
number of discrete energy levels, enabling coherent
gravitation wave emission from boson annihilation or from level transitions.
Attention here focuses mainly on the conventional neutron stars, but
the exotic boson cloud scenario is also discussed.
\subsection{Fast-spinning neutron stars}
\label{sec:neutronstarsources}
The following subsections give an overview of neutron star formation, structure, observables and populations, present
the phenomenology of neutron-star spin-down, discuss potential sources of non-axisymmetry in neutron stars, and
consider a number of particular GW search targets of interest. Although neutron stars were first postulated by
Baade \&\ Zwicky~\citep{bib:BaadeZwicky} and their basic properties worked out by Oppenheimer and Volkoff~\citep{bib:OppenheimerVolkoff},
the first definitive establishment of their existence came with the discovery of the first
radio pulsar~\citep{bib:Hewishetal} PSR B1919+21 in 1967 with prior theoretical support for neutron star radiation
contributing to supernova remnant shell energetics~\citep{bib:Pacini_1967} and rapid theoretical follow-up to explain the
pulsation mechanism~\citep{bib:Gold,bib:GoldreichJulian,bib:RudermanSutherland}.
\subsubsection{Neutron star formation, structure, observables and populations}
\label{sec:nsbasics}
As background, this section surveys at a basic level the fundamentals of neutron star formation, structure, observables and populations.
Much more detailed information can be found in the following review articles or volumes on neutron stars~\citep{bib:LattimerPrakash,bib:lrre-ChamelHaensel,bib:NSandPulsars-Becker,bib:OzelFreire},
pulsars~\citep{bib:LorimerKramer,bib:LyneGrahamSmith,bib:lrre-Lorimer},
and rotating relativistic stars~\citep{bib:lrre-PaschalidisStergioulas}.
Neutron stars are the final states of stars too massive to form white dwarfs upon collapse after fuel consumption and too light to form black holes, having progenitor
masses in the approximate range 6--15 $M_\odot$~\citep{bib:LyneGrahamSmith,bib:CerdaduranEliasrosa,bib:StockingerEtal}. These remarkably dense objects, supported by neutron degeneracy pressure,
boast near-nuclear densities in their crusts and well-beyond-nuclear densities in their cores. The range of densities and associated total stellar
masses and radii depend on an equation of state that is not experimentally accessible in terrestrial laboratories because of the combination of high density
and (relatively) low temperature. A variety of equations of state have been proposed~\citep{bib:LattimerPrakash}, with a small subset disfavored by
the measurement of neutron stars greater than two solar masses~\citep{bib:EOSexclusiontwoSM}, by radii of
approximately ten kilometers~\citep{bib:NICERzero,bib:NICERIII,bib:NICERanother,bib:NICERIV}
and by the absence of severe tidal deformation effects
in the gravitational waveforms measured for the BNS merger GW170817~\citep{bib:GW170817,bib:GW170817EOS,bib:LimHolt,bib:EssickEtal}.
The detection of a $\sim$2.6-$M_\odot$ object in the GW190814 merger~\citep{bib:GW190814} poses a challenge to the nuclear equation of state
if the object is indeed a neutron star instead of a light black hole.
In broad summary, a neutron star is thought to have a crust with outer radius between 10 and 15 km and a thickness of
$\sim$(1 km)\citep{bib:ShapiroTeukolsky},
composed near the top of a tight lattice of neutron-rich heavy nuclei, permeated by
neutron superfluid. Deeper in the star, as pressure and density increase, the nuclei may become distorted and elongated, forming a
``nuclear pasta'' of ordered nuclei and gaps~\citep{bib:nuclearpasta,bib:CaplanHorowitzPasta}.
Still deeper, the pasta gives way to a hyperdense neutron fluid and perhaps
undergoes phase transitions involving hyperons,
perhaps to a quark-gluon plasma, or even perhaps to
a solid strange-quark core~\citep{bib:ShapiroTeukolsky,bib:LattimerPrakash}.
Uncertainties in equation of state lead directly to uncertainties in the expected maximum mass and radius of a neutron star~\citep{bib:LattimerPrakash},
but theoretical prejudice is consistent with the absence of observation in binary systems of neutron star masses much higher than two solar masses~\citep{bib:OzelFreire,bib:DemorestEtalJ1614,bib:ArzoumanianEtalJ1614,bib:AntoniadisJ0348,bib:CromartieEtalJ0740,bib:FonsecaEtalJ0740}.
Neutron star radii are especially challenging
to measure directly, with older measurements coming from X-ray measurements, where inferences are drawn from brightness of
the radiation, its temperature and distance to the source, assuming black-body radiation, with corrections for the strong space-time curvature
affecting the visible surface area~\citep{bib:OzelFreire,bib:DegenaarSuleimanov}. New measurements from the NICER X-ray satellite are improving upon the precision
with which mass and radius can be determined simultaneously from individual stars,
constraining more tightly the allowed equations of state~\citep{bib:NICERzero,bib:NICERIII,bib:NICERI,bib:NICERII,bib:NICEREOSIII,bib:NICEREOS,bib:NICERV,bib:NICERanother,bib:NICERIV}.
Measurements of the gravitational waveform from the binary neutron star merger GW170817 have also provided new constraints and disfavor
very stiff equations of state that lead to large neutron star radii~\citep{bib:GW170817EOS}. Detection of additional binary neutron star mergers
in the coming years should improve these constraints. Broadly, one expects average neutron star densities of $\sim$\sci{7}{14} g cm$^{-3}$, well
above the density of nuclear matter ($\sim$\sci{3}{14})~\citep{bib:LorimerKramer}, with densities at the core likely above $10^{15}$ g cm$^{-3}$~\citep{bib:ShapiroTeukolsky}.
See~\citep{bib:YunesMiller} for a recent review of what has been learned
about the neutron star equation of state from gravitational wave and X-ray observations.
A recent Bayesian combined analysis~\citep{bib:CombinedEOSAnalysis} of predictions from chiral effective field theory of QCD, measured BNS gravitational waveforms,
NICER X-ray observations and measurements from heavy ion (gold) collisions indicate a somewhat stiffer equation of state than previously favored and hence larger allowed radii of neutron stars.
Given the immense pressure on the nuclear matter, one expects a neutron star to assume a highly spherical shape in the limit of no rotation
and, with rotation, to become an axisymmetric oblate spheroid. True axisymmetry would preclude emission of quadrupolar gravitational waves from rotation alone. Hence
CW searchers count upon a small but detectable mass (or mass current) non-axisymmetry, discussed in detail in section~\ref{sec:nonaxisymmetry}.
During the collapse of their slow-spinning stellar progenitors, neutron stars can acquire an impressive rotational speed as angular momentum
conservation spins up the infalling matter. Even the slowest-rotating known pulsar spins on its axis every 24 seconds~\citep{bib:SlowestRadioPulsar,bib:ATNFdb}, implying a rotational
kinetic energy of $\sim$($10^{37}$ J), and other young pulsars with spin frequencies of 10's of Hz have rotational energies of $\sim$($10^{43}$ J).
Recycled millisecond pulsars acquire even higher spins via accretion from a binary companion star, leading to measured spin frequencies above
700 Hz~\citep{bib:HesselsEtal,bib:BassaEtal} and a rotational energy of $\sim$($10^{45}$ J), or several percent of the magnitude of the gravitational bound energy of the star.
This immense reservoir of rotational energy might appear to bode well for supporting detectable gravitational wave emission, but
vast energy is required to create appreciable distortions in highly rigid space-time.
From the perspective of gravitational-wave energy density~\citep{bib:MTWtext},
one can define an effective, frequency-dependent Young's
modulus $Y_{\rm eff} \sim {c^2f_{\rm GW}^2\over G}$ ($\sim$$10^{31}$ Pa for $f_{\rm GW}\approx100$ Hz,
or 20 orders of magnitude higher than steel). As a result, one must tap a significant fraction of the reservoir's energy loss rate in order
to produce detectable radiation, as quantified below,
Most of the $\sim$3300 known neutron stars in the galaxy are pulsars, detected via pulsed electromagnetic emission, primarily in the radio band,
but also in X-rays and $\gamma$-rays (with a small number detected optically)~\citep{bib:LyneGrahamSmith,bib:ATNFdb}. Pulses are typically observed at
the rotation frequency of the star, as a beam of radiation created by curvature radiation~\citep{bib:BuschauerBenfordCurvatureRadiation}
from particles flung out from the magnetic poles
(misaligned with the spin axis), sweeps across the Earth once per rotation (see~\citep{bib:MelroseEtal}, however, for a critique of this model).
A subset of neutron stars presumed to have
magnetic poles tilted nearly 90 degrees from the spin axis display two distinct
pulses.
Other neutron stars are known from detection of X-rays from thermal emission (heat from formation
and perhaps from magnetic field decay),
particularly at sites consistent with the birth locations
and times of supernova remnants~\citep{bib:LyneGrahamSmith}.
Still other neutron stars are inferred from accretion X-rays observed in binary systems, particularly
low-mass X-ray binaries with accretion disks~\citep{bib:LyneGrahamSmith},
although some accreting binaries with compact stars contain black
holes, such as the high-mass X-ray binary Cygnus X-1. Figure~\ref{fig:pvspdot} shows nearly the entire population of currently known
pulsars~\citep{bib:ATNFdb} with spin period $P$ shorter than 20
seconds\footnote{The longest known pulsation period is 76 seconds from the recently discovered PSR J0901-4046~\citep{bib:LongPeriodPulsar}, which
also displays unusual pulse length and variability and which may represent a new pulsar class.}
in the $P$--$\dot P$ plane, where
$\dot P$ is the first time derivative of the period. Red triangles show isolated pulsars, and blue circles show binary pulsars.
Neutron stars have strong magnetic field intensities as a natural result of their collapse. If the magnetic flux is approximately conserved, the reduction
of the outer surface of the star to a radius of $\sim$(10 km) ensures a static surface field
far higher than achievable in a terrestrial laboratory~\citep{bib:Pacini_1967},
with inferred values (see below) ranging from $10^8$ G to more than $10^{15}$ G~\citep{bib:LyneGrahamSmith}.
The strongest fields are seen in
so-called ``magnetars,'' young neutron stars with extremly rapid spin-down, for which dynamo generation is also
likely relevant~\citep{bib:MagnetarDynamo1,bib:MagnetarDynamo2}. Both in young pulsars and in binary millisecond pulsars, there is
reason to believe that stronger magnetic fields are ``buried'' in the star from accreting plasma~\citep{bib:PayneMelatos},
although the burial mechanism is not confidently understood~\citep{bib:ChevalierAccretion,bib:GeppertEtalAccretion,bib:LyneGrahamSmith,bib:BernalEtalAccretion}.
It has been suggested there is evidence in at least some pulsars for slowly re-emerging (strengthening) magnetic
field~\citep{bib:HoAccretion,bib:BfieldEmergence}. Energy density deformation from a potentially non-axisymmetric buried field is another
potential source of GW emission~\citep{bib:BonazzolaGourgoulhon}. See \citep{bib:CrucesReiseneggerTauris} for a discussion of magnetic field decay preceding the accretion stage.
In principle, there should be $\sim$($10^{8-9}$) neutron stars in our galaxy,~\citep{bib:nspopulation,bib:TrevesEtal}.
That only a small fraction have been detected is expected, for several reasons.
Radio pulsations require high magnetic field and rotation frequency.
Early studies~\citep{bib:GoldreichJulian,bib:Sturrock,bib:RudermanSutherland,bib:LorimerKramer}
implied the relation
\begin{equation}
B\cdot f_{\rm rot}^2>\scimm{1.7}{11}\>{\rm G}\cdot({\rm Hz})^2,
\label{eqn:ChenRuderman}
\end{equation}
based on a model of radiation dominated by electron-positron pair creation in the stellar magnetosphere, a model
broadly consistent with empirical observation, although the resulting ``death line'' (see Figure~\ref{fig:pvspdot})
in the plane of period and period derivative is perhaps better understood
to be a valley~\citep{bib:ZhangHardingMuslimov}.
The death line can be understood qualitatively from the
following argument. The rotating
magnetic field of a neutron star creates a strong electric field that pulls charged particles from the star,
forming a plasma with charge density $\rho_0$ that satisfies (SI units):~\citep{bib:ChenRuderman}
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho_0 & = & -\epsilon_0\nabla \cdot \left[(\vec\Omega\times\vec r)\times\vec B(\vec r)\right] \\
& \approx & -2\epsilon_0\,\vec\Omega\cdot\vec B(\vec r),
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent where $\vec\Omega$ is the angular velocity of the star, and
$\vec B$ is the local magnetic field at location $\vec r$ with respect to the star's center.
In steady-state equilibrium, one expects $\vec E\cdot\vec B \approx 0$ since free charges can
move along $B$-field lines. In so-called ``gaps,'' however, where the plasma density is low,
a potential difference large enough to produce spontaneous electron-positron pair production
can lead to synchroton RF radiation as the accelerated particles encounter curved magnetic fields.
This emission is thought to account for most radio pulsations~\citep{bib:LyneGrahamSmith}, where
an ``inner gap'' refers to a region just outside the magnetic poles above the star's surface, and an ``outer gap'' refers to
a region where a nominally dipolar magnetic field is approximately perpendicular to the rotation direction,
separating regions of proton and electron flow from the star to the region beyond the ``light cylinder,''
defined by the cylindrical radius at which a co-rotating particle in the magnetosphere must travel at the
speed of light. For the inner gap to have a voltage drop high enough to induce an amplifying cascade of
pair production leading to coherent radio wave emission imposes a minimum value on the
gap potential difference $\Delta V$ which, in general, can be approximated by
(SI units):~\citep{bib:GoldreichJulian,bib:Sturrock,bib:RudermanSutherland,bib:ChenRuderman}
\begin{equation}
\Delta V \sim {B\Omega^2R^3\over2c},
\end{equation}
\noindent where $R$ is the neutron star radius,
leading (in a more detailed calculation) to equation~\ref{eqn:ChenRuderman} and
via magnetic dipole emission assumptions (see section~\ref{sec:spindown}) to the death line
shown in Figure~\ref{fig:pvspdot} (but see \citep{bib:SmithRevisedDeathline} for evidence of
selection effects and \citep{bib:Petri} for a discussion of potentially important effects from
higher order multipoles).
Presumably, the vast majority of neutron stars created in the galaxy's existence to date are now to the right of
the line. Additional negative-sloped dashed lines in the figure indicate different nominal magnetic
dipole field strengths and positive-sloped dashed lines indicate different nominal ages, based on observed
present-day periods and period derivatives $P/(2\dot P)$ (see section~\ref{sec:spindown}).
Two distinct major pulsar populations are apparent in Figure~\ref{fig:pvspdot}, defined by location
in the diagram. The bulk of the population lies above and to the right of the line corresponding
to $B\sim10^{11}$ G. The bulk also lies above and to the left of the line corresponding to
ages younger than $\sim$($10^8$) years. Assuming a star's magnetic field strength is stable, stars are expected
to migrate down to the right along the $B$-field contours.
Isolated pulsars seem to have typical pulsation lifetimes of $\sim$($10^7$ years),~\citep{bib:LyneGrahamSmith}
after which they become increasingly difficult to observe in radio.
On this timescale, they also cool to where thermal X-ray emission is difficult
to detect~\citep{bib:NSCooling}. There remains the possibility of X-ray emission
from steady accretion of interstellar medium (ISM)~\citep{bib:OstrikerReesSilk,bib:BlaesMadauAccretion},
but it appears that the
kick velocities from birth highly suppress such accretion~\citep{bib:bondi1,bib:bondi2}
which depends on the inverse cube of the star's velocity through
the ISM, and steady-state X-ray emission from accretion onto even slow-moving neutron stars can
be highly suppressed, consistent with non-observation to date of such accretion~\citep{bib:PopovISMaccretion}.
The remaining population, in the lower left of the figure, is characterized by shorter periods and smaller
period derivatives. These are so-called ``millisecond pulsars'' (MSPs), thought to arise from ``recycling''
of rotation speed due to accretion of matter from a binary companion. MSPs are stellar zombies, brought
back from the dead with immense rotational energies imparted by infalling matter~\citep{bib:AlparEtalRecycling,bib:RadhakrishnanSrinivasanRecycling}.
The rotation frequencies achievable through this spin-up are
impressive -- the fastest known rotator is PSR J1748$-$2446ad at 716 Hz~\citep{bib:HesselsEtal}.
One progenitor class for MSPs is the set of low mass X-ray binaries (LMXBs)
in which the neutron star ($\sim$1.4 $M_\odot$) has a much
lighter companion ($\sim$0.3 $M_\odot$)~\citep{bib:LyneGrahamSmith} that
overfills its Roche lobe, spilling material onto an accretion
disk surrounding the neutron star or possibly spilling material
directly onto the star, near its magnetic polar caps.
When the donor companion star eventually shrinks and decouples
from the neutron star, the neutron star can retain a large
fraction of its maximum angular momentum and rotational energy.
Because the neutron star's magnetic field decreases during
accretion (through processes that are not well understood),
the spin-down rate after decoupling can be very small.
The minority of MSPs that are isolated are thought to have lost their one-time companions via consumption and
ablation. A bridging class called ``black widows'' and ``redbacks'' refer to binary systems with
actively ablating companions, such as B1957+20~\citep{bib:blackwidowfirst,bib:redbackcollection,bib:blackwidowredback}, where
black widows denote the extreme subclass with companion masses below 0.1 $M_\odot$~\citep{bib:blackwidowredback}.
A nice confirmation of the link between LMXBs and recycled MSPs comes from ``transitional millisecond pulsars'' (tMSPs)
in which accreting LMXB behavior alternates with detectable radio pulsations. The first tMSP found was
PSR J1023$+$0038~\citep{bib:tMSPfirst1,bib:tMSPfirst2,bib:tMSPfirst3}, with two more systems since detected~\citep{bib:tMSPsystems}.
The nominal ages of MSPs extend beyond 10$^{10}$ years, that is, some have
apparent ages greater than that of the galaxy (or even that of the Universe).
One possible explanation of this anomaly is
reverse-torque spin-down during the Roche decoupling phase~\citep{bib:taurisrldp},
although a recent numerical study suggests a more complex frequency evolution
before and during the decoupling~\citep{bib:BhattacharyyaTwoModes}.
An obvious pattern in Figure~\ref{fig:pvspdot}, consistent with the recycling model,
is the higher fraction of binary systems at lower periods. For example, binary systems
account for 3/4 of the lowest 200 pulsar periods (below $\sim$4 ms).
Aside from the disappearance of stars from this diagram as they evolve toward the lower right
and cease pulsations, there are also strong selection effects that suppress the visible population.
We observe pulsars only if their radiation
beams cross the Earth, only if that radiation is bright enough to be seen in the observing band, and
only if the radiation is not sufficiently absorbed, scattered or frequency-dispersed to prevent
detection with current radio telescopes. When the Square Kilometer Array project comes to fruition in the late 2020's,
it is estimated that the current known population of pulsars will grow tenfold~\citep{bib:SKAIncrease}.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=13.cm]{./lrre_v6_pdot_vs_p.png}
\caption{Measured rotational periods and period derivatives for known
pulsars. Closed red triangles indicate isolated stars. Open blue circles
indicate binary stars. The vertical dotted line denotes the
approximate sensitivity band for Advanced LIGO at design sensitivity
($f_{\rm GW}>10$ Hz, assuming $f_{\rm GW}=2f_{\rm rot}$).}
\label{fig:pvspdot}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Neutron star spin-down phenomenology and mechanisms}
\label{sec:spindown}
Nearly every known pulsar is observed to be spinning down, that is, to have a negative
rotational frequency time derivative, implying loss of rotational kinetic energy.
As discussed below in detail, there are many physical mechanisms, electromagnetic and
gravitational, that can lead to this energy loss. For CW signal detection we want a
gravitational wave component, but there is good reason to believe that electromagnetic
processes dominate for nearly every known pulsar.
A convenient and commonly used phenomenological model for spin-down is a power law:
\begin{equation}
\dot f = K f^n\>,
\label{eqn:spindownpowerlaw}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $f$ is the star's instantaneous frequency (rotational $f_{\rm rot}$ or gravitational: $f_{\rm GW}\proptof_{\rm rot}$),
$\dot f$ is the first time derivative, and
$K$ is a negative constant for all but a handful of stars (thought to
be experiencing large acceleration toward us because of nearness to a deep gravitational
well, such as in the core of a globular cluster). The exponent $n$ depends on the spin-down
mechanism and is known as the {\it braking index}. The four most common theoretical braking indices discussed in
the literature are the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item $n=1$ -- ``Pulsar wind'' (extreme model)
\item $n=3$ -- Magnetic dipole radiation
\item $n=5$ -- Gravitational mass quadrupole radiation (``mountain'')
\item $n=7$ -- Gravitational mass current quadrupole radiation ($r$-modes).
\end{itemize}
\noindent In principle, other oscillation modes that can generate gravitational waves are also possible, but the
$n\!=\!5$ and $n\!=\!7$ modes discussed below are thought to be the most promising.
Assuming the same power law has applied since the birth of the star, the age
$\tau$ of the star can be related to its birth rotation frequency $f_0$ and
current frequency $f$ by ($n\ne1$):
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:ageindex}
\tau \quad = \quad -\left[{f\over (n-1)\,\dot f}\right]\,\left[1-\left({f\over f_0}\right)^{(n-1)}\right],
\end{equation}
and in the case that $f\ll f_0$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:approxageindex}
\tau \quad \approx \quad -\left[{f\over (n-1)\,\dot f}\right]\,.
\end{equation}
A common baseline assumption in radio pulsar astronomy is that the braking index is $n=3$ from which the nominal magnetic dipole age of a star
can be defined
\begin{equation}
\tau_{\rm mag} \equiv {f\over2\dot f},
\label{eqn:approxagemagnetic}
\end{equation}
again, under the assumption $f\ll f_0$.
From the more generic power-law spin-down model (Equation~\ref{eqn:spindownpowerlaw}), the 2nd frequency derivative can be written:
\begin{equation}
\ddot f = -nKf^{n-1}\dot f = nK^2f^{2n-1}\>,
\label{eqn:fdoubledot}
\end{equation}
from which the current braking index can be determined if the spin frequency's 2nd time derivative
can be measured reliably:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:brakingindex}
n \quad = \quad {f\ddot f \over \dot f^2}\,.
\end{equation}
Before examining the empirical measurements of the braking indices, which are mostly inconsistent with $n=3$,
let's briefly review spin-down mechanisms with well defined braking indices, when dominant. For
GW radiation spin-down dominance, related ``spin-down'' limits on strain amplitude will also be presented.
\paragraph{``Pulsar wind'' ($n=1$).} \leavevmode\\
Early on in pulsar astronomy~\citep{bib:Michel,bib:MichelTucker} it was recognized that the streaming
of relativistic particles (electrons and positrons mainly, with some ions)
away from the magnetosphere of a fast-spinning neutron star would lead
to a spin-down torque that could, in principle, rival that from magnetic dipole radiation, in addition to distorting
the shape of the magnetic field lines and affecting the dipole radiation~\citep{bib:GaenslerSlane}.
In this perhaps too-simple model, the spin-down is
dominated by a braking torque from a return current (predominantly counter-flowing electrons and
positrons) crossing magnetic field lines in the polar cap regions of the star~\citep{bib:ContopoulosKazanasFendt},
leading to a braking index of one.
A more recent study of magnetar
spin-down~\citep{bib:HardingContopoulosKazanas} considered a model with sporadic high winds following bursts, with
magnetic dipole emission dominating spin-down between bursts.
In the steady state, however, considering the interaction of the magnetic field and the plasma of the
magenetosphere, both magnetic dipole emission and pulsar wind contributions tend to
yield a braking index of about three~\citep{bib:MichelLi,bib:Spitkovsky}, discussed next.
A phenomenological model~\citep{bib:Melatos} that is a variant of the vacuum dipole mode, featuring an inner magnetosphere strongly coupled to the star,
accounts successfully for the braking indices of the Crab and other young pulsars with $n<1$.
\paragraph{Magnetic dipole ($n=3$).} \leavevmode\\
Equating rotational energy loss rate to magnetic dipole
radiation losses, leads to the relation~\citep{bib:Pacini_1968}:
\begin{equation}
\left({dE\over dt}\right)_{\rm mag} \quad = \quad -{\mu_0M_\perp^2\omega^4\over6\pi c^3},
\end{equation}
where $\omega$ is the rotational angular speed,
$M_\perp$ is the component of the star's magnetic dipole
moment perpendicular to the rotation axis (taken to be $z$ axis): $M_\perp=M\sin(\alpha)$,
with $\alpha$ the angle between the axis and north magnetic pole.
In a pure dipole moment model, the magnetic pole field strength
at the surface is $B_0 = \mu_0M\,/\,2\pi R^3$.
Equating this energy loss to that of the (Newtonian) rotational
energy ${1\over2}I_{\rm zz}\omega^2$ leads to the prediction:
\begin{equation}
{d\omega\over dt} \quad = \quad -{\mu_0R^6\over6\,\pi c^3I_{\rm zz}}B_\perp^2\omega^3.
\end{equation}
Hence the magnetic dipole spin-down rate is proportional to the square of $B_\perp=B_0\sin(\alpha)$
and to the cube of the rotation frequency, giving $n=3$.
\paragraph{Gravitational mass quadrupole (``mountain'', $n=5$).} \leavevmode\\
Let's now consider the gravitational radiation one might
expect from these stars.
It is conventional to characterize a star's mass quadrupole
asymmetry by its equatorial ellipticity:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:ellipticity}
\epsilon \quad \equiv \quad {I_{xx}-I_{yy}\over I_{zz}}.
\end{equation}
An oblate spheroid naturally has a polar ellipticity,
but in the absence of precession\footnote{Free precession of an oblate
neutron star can lead to gravitational radiation at the rotation frequency~\citep{bib:zimmermannszedenits}, but there is little empirical evidence
for such precession in pulsars and good reason to expect that such precession would be rapidly damped by internal
dissipation~\citep{bib:JonesAnderssonPrecession2}.},
such a deformation does not lead to GW emission
Henceforth ``ellipticity'' will
refer to equatorial ellipticity, often attributed to a ``mountain''.
For a star at a distance $d$ away and spinning about the approximate symmetry axis of rotation ($z$),
(assumed optimal -- pointing toward the Earth), then the expected intrinsic strain amplitude $h_0$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqn:hexpected}
h_0 & = & {4\,\pi^2G\epsilon\Izzf_{\rm GW}^2\over c^4r} \\
& = & (\scimm{1.1}{-24})\left({\epsilon\over10^{-6}}\right)\left({I_{\rm zz}\over I_0}\right)\left({f_{\rm GW}\over1\>{\rm kHz}}\right)^2
\left({1\>{\rm kpc}\over d}\right),
\end{eqnarray}
where $I_0=10^{38}$ kg$\cdot$m$^2$ (10$^{45}$ g$\cdot$cm$^2$) is a nominal moment of inertia of
a neutron star, and the gravitational radiation is emitted at frequency $f_{\rm GW}=2\,f_{\rm rot}$.
The total power emission in gravitational waves from
the star (integrated over all angles) is
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqn:powerloss}
{dE\over dt} & = & - {32\over5} {G\over c^5}\,I_{\rm zz}^2\, \epsilon^2\, \omega^6 \\
& = & - (\scimm{1.7}{33}\>{\rm J/s})\left({I_{\rm zz}\over I_0}\right)^2 \left({\epsilon\over10^{-6}}\right)^2 \left({f_{\rm GW}\over1\>{\rm kHz}}\right)^6.
\end{eqnarray}
Equating this loss to the reduction of rotational kinetic energy ${1\over2}I\omega_{\rm rot}^2$ leads to the spin-down relation:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqn:GWbraking}
\dot{f}_{\rm GW} & = & -{32\,\pi^4\over5}{G\over c^5}I\epsilon^2f_{\rm GW}^5\\
& = & -(\scimm{1.7}{-9}\> {\rm Hz/s}) \left({\epsilon\over10^{-6}}\right)^2 \left({f_{\rm GW}\over1{\rm\>kHz}}\right)^5,
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent in which the braking index of 5 is apparent.
For an observed neutron star of measured $f$ and $\dot f$,
one can define the ``spin-down limit'' on maximum allowed
strain amplitude by equating the power loss in equation~(\ref{eqn:powerloss})
to the time derivative of the (Newtonian) rotational kinetic
energy: ${1\over2}I\omega^2$, as above for magnetic dipole radiation.
One finds:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqn:spindownlimit}
h_{\rm spin-down} & = & {1\over d}\sqrt{-{5\over2}{G\over c^3}I_{\rm zz}{\dotf_{\rm GW}\overf_{\rm GW}}} \nonumber \\
& = & (\scimm{2.6}{-25})\left({1\>{\rm kpc}\over d}\right)\left[\left({1\>{\rm kHz}\overf_{\rm GW}}\right) \left({-\dot f_{\rm GW} \over10^{-10}\>{\rm Hz/s}}\right)\left({I_{\rm zz}\over I_0}\right)\right]^{1\over2}.
\end{eqnarray}
Hence for each observed pulsar with a measured frequency spin-down and
distance $d$,
one can determine whether or not energy conservation even permits detection
of gravitational waves in an optimistic scenario. Unfortunately,
nearly all known pulsars have strain spin-down limits below what
can be detected by the LIGO and Virgo detectors at current
sensitivities, as detailed below.
\paragraph{Gravitational mass current quadrupole ($r$-modes, $n=7$).} \leavevmode\\
Different frequency scalings apply to mass quadrupole and mass current quadrupole emission.
The most promising source of the mass current non-axisymmetry in neutron stars is thought
to be ``$r$-modes,'' due to fluid motion of neutrons (or protons) in the crust or core
of the star. Like jet streams in the Earth's atmosphere that manifest Rossby waves, these currents are
deflected by Coriolis forces, giving rise to spatial oscillations~~\citep{bib:rmodes1,bib:rmodes2,bib:rmodes3,bib:rmodes4}.
These $r$-modes\ can be inherently unstable, arising from azimuthal
interior currents that are retrograde in the star's rotating frame, but
which are prograde in an external reference frame. As a result, the
quadrupolar gravitational wave emission due to these currents
leads to an {\it increase} in the strength of the current. This
positive-feedback loop leads to a potential intrinsic (Chandrasekhar-Friedman-Schutz~\citep{bib:cfs1,bib:cfs2}) instability.
The frequency of such emission is expected to be a bit more than approximately 4/3 the rotation
frequency~\citep{bib:rmodes1,bib:rmodes2,bib:rmodes3,bib:rmodes4,bib:rmodes5,bib:CarideIntaOwenRajbhandari}.
Following the notation of Owen~\citep{bib:Owenalpha,bib:CarideIntaOwenRajbhandari}, the mass current can be treated
as due to a velocity field perturbation $\delta v_j$, integration over which leads to the following expression
for the intrinsic strain amplitude seen at a distance $d$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqn:rmode1}
h_0 & = & \sqrt{512\,\pi^7\over5} {G\over c^5}{1\over d}f_{\rm GW}^3\alpha MR^3\tilde J \\
& = & \scimm{3.6}{-26} \left({1\>{\rm kpc}\over d}\right) \left({f_{\rm GW}\over100\>{\rm Hz}}\right)^3 \left({\alpha\over10^{-3}}\right)
\label{eqn:rmode2}
\left({R\over11.7\>{\rm km}}\right)^3,
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent where $\alpha$ is the dimensionless $r$-mode\ amplitude, $M$ is the stellar mass,
$R$ its radius, and $\tilde J$ is a dimensionless functional of the stellar equation of state,
which for a Newtonian polytrope with index 1 gives $\tilde J\approx .0164$~\citep{bib:Owenalpha},
assumed in the fiducial Eqn.~\ref{eqn:rmode2}.
The energy loss in this model is~\citep{bib:ThorneMultipoles,bib:Owenalpha}
\begin{eqnarray}
{dE\over dt} & = & -{1024\,\pi^9\over 25} {G\over c^7} f_{\rm GW}^8 \alpha^2 M^2 R^6 \tilde J^2.
\end{eqnarray}
Equating this loss to the reduction of rotational kinetic energy ${1\over2}I_{\rm zz}\omega_{\rm rot}^2$, as above, leads to the spin-down relation:
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot{f}_{\rm GW} & = & -{4096\,\pi^7\over225} {G\over c^7} {M^2R^6\tilde J^2\overI_{\rm zz}} \alpha^2f_{\rm GW}^7 \\
& = & -\scimm{9.0}{-14}\>{\rm Hz/s}\left({R\over11.7\>{\rm km}}\right)^6 \left({\alpha\over10^{-3}}\right)^2 \left({f_{\rm GW}\over100\>{\rm Hz}}\right)^7 ,
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent in which the braking index of 7 is apparent.
As before, one can define a spin-down limit, but one based on pure $r$-mode\ radiation:
\begin{equation}
h_{\rm spin-down} = {1\over r}\sqrt{-{45\over8}{G\over c^3}I_{\rm zz}{\dot{f}_{\rm GW}\overf_{\rm GW}}}\>,
\end{equation}
\noindent where the ratio of this spin-down limit to the one given in Equation~\ref{eqn:spindownlimit} is 3/2,
which arises simply from the different ratios of GW signal frequency to spin frequency for mass
quadrupole {\it vs.}\ mass current quadrupole
radiation\footnote{The 4/3 ratio assumed here for $f_{\rm GW}/f_{\rm rot}$ is a slow-rotation approximation in Newtonian gravity; the ratio changes by tens of percent for fast rotation
in General Relativity~\citep{bib:IdrisyOwenJones,bib:CarideIntaOwenRajbhandari} (see section~\ref{sec:directedisolated}).}.
\paragraph{Measured braking indices.} \leavevmode\\
Figure~\ref{fig:brakingindices} shows the distribution of 12 reliably measured braking indices from a recent snapshot of the $\sim$3300
pulsars listed in the ATNF catalog (release V1.66 -- January 10, 2022~\citep{bib:ATNFdb}). Nearly all have values below the nominal value of 3 for a magnetic
dipole radiator, although several have large uncertainties.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=13.cm]{./lrre_v6_braking_list.png}
\caption{Measured braking indices inferred from frequency derivatives of young pulsars with
rotation frequencies greater than 10 Hz.
For frequently glitching pulsars, such as Vela, the braking index is computed as a long-term
average~\citep{bib:EspinozaEtal_2016}. Horizontal bars indicate uncertainties and are smaller than the
plot markers for several pulsars. Vertical lines at braking indices of 3 and 5 denote the nominal
expectations for magnetic dipole and gravitational quadrupole emission, respectively.
References: 1~\citep{bib:LyneEtal_2015}, 2~\citep{bib:FerdmanEtal_2015}, 3~\citep{bib:EspinozaEtal_2016},
4~\citep{bib:WeltevredeEtal_2011}, 5~\citep{bib:ClarkEtal_2016}, 6~\citep{bib:Livingstone_Kaspi_2011},
7~\citep{bib:ArchibaldEtal_2016}, 8~\citep{bib:BfieldEmergence}, 9~\citep{bib:RoyEtal_2012},
10~\citep{bib:LivingstoneEtal_2007}.}
\label{fig:brakingindices}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=7.95cm]{./BrakingIndicesLower.jpeg}
\caption{Measured braking indices inferred from frequency derivatives of pulsars compiled
in \citep{bib:LowerEtal} from \citep{bib:ParthasarathyEtalBrakingIndicesII} (PJS), and \citep{bib:LowerEtal}.
An ensemble of glitching (open circles) and non-glitching pulsars are included.
For most of the glitching stars, the braking indices are representative of their
average inter-glitch braking, not their long-term evolution.
Figure is taken from \citep{bib:LowerEtal}.}
\label{fig:brakingindiceslarge}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
This distribution suggests
that the model of a neutron star spinning down with
constant magnetic field is, most often, inaccurate~\citep{bib:LyneGrahamSmith}.
All measured values for this collection lie below 3.0, except X-ray pulsar PSR J1640$-$4631
with a measured index of 3.15$\pm$0.03~\citep{bib:ArchibaldEtal_2016}.
It is possible that for many stars the departure of the measured braking index from the nominal value is due to an admixture
of magnetic dipole radiation and other steady-state processes~\citep{bib:Melatos},
although secular mechanisms may also play a role.
See \citep{bib:palomba1,bib:palomba2} for discussions of spin-down evolution
in the presence of both gravitational wave and electromagnetic
torques. Other suggested mechanisms for less-than-3 braking indices are
decaying magnetic fields~\citep{bib:RomaniUnifiedBfieldModel},
re-emerging buried magnetic fields~\citep{bib:HoAccretion},
a changing inclination angle between the magnetic dipole axis
the spin axis~\citep{bib:MiddleditchEtalStarquakes,bib:tauriskonar,bib:emergingBfield,bib:LyneEtal_2015,bib:decayinginclination}, and
a changing superfluid moment of inertia~\citep{bib:HoAnderssonSupercooling}.
An interesting observation of the aftermath of two
short GRBs noted indirectly inferred braking indices near or equal to
three~\citep{bib:magnetarbrakingindex},
suggesting the rapid spin-down of millisecond magnetars, possibly born
from neutron star mergers. (No direct gravitational wave evidence of a such a post-merger remnant
has been observed from GW170817~\citep{bib:Postmerger1,bib:Postmerger2}.)
Similarly, a recent analysis of X-ray afterglows of gamma-ray bursts~\citep{bib:SarinLaskyAshton}
argues that at least some have millisecond magnetar remnants powering their emission,
with GRB 061121 yielding a braking index $n=4.85^{+0.11}_{-0.15}$, consistent with gravitational radiation dominance
(albeit with large required ellipticity~\citep{bib:HoGRB,bib:KashiyamaEtalGRB}).
See~\citep{bib:StrangEtal}, however, for an alternative study in which radiation driven from a millisecond magnetar
can account for short GRB X-ray afterglows.
It has been argued that the inter-glitch evolution of spin for the
X-ray pulsar PSR J0537$-$6910 displays behavior consistent with a braking index of 7,~\citep{bib:rmodeJ0537-6910,bib:HoEtalJ0537}
consistent with $r$-mode\ emission, while the long-term trends points to an underlying braking index of
$-$1.25$\pm$0.01~\citep{bib:HoEtalJ0537}.
When intepreting the generally low values of well measured braking indices, one
must bear in mind the potential for selection bias.
Baysesian analysis of the spin evolution of 19 young pulsars~\citep{bib:ParthasarathyEtalBrakingIndicesI,bib:ParthasarathyEtalBrakingIndicesII},
taking into account timing noise and extracting
the long-term behavior from short-term, glitch-driven fluctuations, leads to braking indices
{\it much larger} than 3. A similar follow-up analysis of an ensemble of glitching and
non-glitching pulsars~\citep{bib:LowerEtal} confirmed that braking indices exceeding
100 are observed (see Figure~\ref{fig:brakingindiceslarge}), albeit for stars in
which a simple power-law spin-down is clearly inappropriate.
\paragraph{The gravitar model and associated figures of merit.}\leavevmode\\
Gravitars refer to neutron stars with spin-down dominated by gravitational wave energy loss.
Although there is good reason to believe that most known pulsars are {\it not} gravitars,
nonetheless the model is useful in bounding expectation on what is {\it possibly} detectable.
Figure~\ref{fig:fvsfdot} shows a subset of the pulsars from Figure~\ref{fig:pvspdot}, now
graphed in the $f_{\rm GW}$--$\dot{f}_{\rm GW}$ plane, under the assumption that $f_{\rm GW} = 2\,f_{\rm rot}$. Again,
isolated and binary stars are denoted by closed circles and open triangles, respectively.
A vertical dashed line bounds the approximate detection
bandwidth for Advanced LIGO at design sensitivity ($\sim$10 Hz and above). As in Figure~\ref{fig:pvspdot},
contours are shown for constant magnetic field, assuming spin-down dominated by magnetic
dipole emission ($n=3$). In addition, contours of higher slope are shown for
constant ellipticity
An intriguing deficit of millisecond pulsars with extremely low period derivatives appears consistent~\citep{bib:WoanEtalMSP}
with a population of sources with a minimum ellipticity of about $\sim$$10^{-9}$ with additional spin-down losses from
magnetic dipole radiation (see near absence of sources in figure~\ref{fig:fvsfdot} to the right of the
$\epsilon=10^{-9}$ line). At the other extreme are lower-frequency, younger pulsars with high spin-downs,
the highest of which is \sci{7.6}{-10} Hz/s (Crab pulsar).
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=13.cm]{./lrre_v6_fdot_vs_f2.png}
\caption{Nominal expected GW frequencies and frequency derivatives for known
pulsars. Closed triangles indicate isolated stars. Open circles
indicate binary stars. Contours are shown for constant magnetic fields
(ellipticities) for spin-down dominated by magnetic dipole (gravitational mass quadrupole) emissions.
In this figure and in Figs.~\ref{fig:fvshspindown}--\ref{fig:fvsdist2}, the frequency derivatives have been
corrected for the Shklovskii effect~\citep{bib:Shklovskii} (apparent negative frequency derivative
due to proper motion orthogonal to the line of sight).}
\label{fig:fvsfdot}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Using Equation~\ref{eqn:spindownlimit}, these known pulsars can be mapped onto a plane
of $f_{\rm GW}$--$h_0$ {\it under the gravitar assumption}, indicated in Figure~\ref{fig:fvshspindown}. That is, the spin-down strain limit (for $n=5$)
is shown on the vertical axis. Also shown are corresponding contours of constant implied values of $\epsilon/d$, under the gravitar assumption,
where $d$ is the distance to the star. In addition, detector network sensitivities are
shown for Advanced LIGO at design sensitivity~\citep{bib:obsscenario} (two detectors for two observing years),
henceforth designated as the ``O4/O5 run''~\footnote{Although the O4 run scheduled to start near the start of 2023
will likely run for only $\sim$1 year~\citep{bib:obsscenario} and may not quite reach the original Advanced LIGO
design sensitivity, the succeeding O5 run in the ``A$^+$'' configuration is expected to exceed Advanced LIGO sensitivity significantly
and to last for more than a year, making the detector sensitivities assumed here conservative. On the other hand,
the O4/O5 observing time assumed here does not account for realistic deadtime losses.}, for two proposed configurations of the ``3rd-generation'' Einstein Telescope~\citep{bib:EinsteinTelescope}
(B and C, for three detectors for five observing years)\footnote{Another 3rd-generation proposal is for
the ``Cosmic Explorer''~\citep{bib:CosmicExplorer}
which would have performance comparable to that of the Einstein Telescope (ET), being more sensitive at frequencies above $\sim$10 Hz
and less sensitive at lower frequencies.
To avoid clutter in these figures, only the ET sensitivities are shown.}
These sensitivities assumed a {\it targeted search} (discussed below) using known pulsar ephemerides.
If a star is marked above a sensitivity curve, then it is at least possible to detect it
if its spin-down makes it a gravitar. Note, however, that Equation~\ref{eqn:spindownlimit} has been
applied with a nominal moment of inertia $I_{\rm zz}$, but the uncertainty in $I_{\rm zz}$ if of order a factor
of two, depending on equation of state and stellar mass~\citep{bib:UncertainIzz}.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=13.cm]{./lrre_v6_hspindown_vs_f.png}
\caption{Nominal expected GW frequencies and nominal strain spin-down limits for known
pulsars. Closed triangles indicate isolated stars. Open circles
indicate binary stars. The solid curves indicate the nominal (idealized) strain noise sensitivity for the
O3 observing run (black), and expected sensitivities for
2-year Advanced LIGO data run at design sensitivity (magenta) and a 5-year Einstein Telescope data run
for two different detector designs: ETB (blue) and ETC (green). Dashed diagonal lines correspond to particular
quotients of ellipticity over distance.
A subset of pulsars of particular interest are labeled on the figure.}
\label{fig:fvshspindown}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Another take on the pulsars with accessible spin-down limits is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:fvsepsilon},
where accessible ellipticity $\epsilon$ values are shown for Advanced LIGO and
Einstein Telescope (ETC) sensitivities. Each vertical bar represents a range of ellipticities detectable
for that star (red = accessible to Advanced LIGO, green = accessible to Einstein Telescope), where the
asterisk at the top of the each bar is the ellipticity corresponding to that star's spin-down limit,
given its $f_{\rm GW}$, $\dot{f}_{\rm GW}$ and distance $d$ values, while the depth to which the bar falls indicates
the lowest detectable ellipticity. Straight dashed lines of negative slope depict corresponding $\dot{f}_{\rm GW}$ values
{\it under the mass quadrupole gravitar model}. The actual $\dot{f}_{\rm GW}$ may be significantly higher because of
the spin-down mechanisms discussed earlier. A striking feature of this figure is that sensitivities to very low
ellipticities come almost entirely from the highest-frequency stars (as a reminder from Equation~\ref{eqn:hexpected}, $h_0\propto \epsilonf_{\rm GW}^2$).
For example, no known pulsar with an ellipticity below $10^{-6}$ and that is accessible to Advanced LIGO has a $f_{\rm GW}$ value
lower than 70 Hz, and no ellipticity below $10^{-8}$ is accessible to Advanced LIGO below 300 Hz.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=13.cm]{./lrre_v6_epsilon_vs_f.png}
\caption{Nominal expected GW frequencies and maximum allowed ellipticities for known
pulsars. Black or blue asterisks indicate ellipticities
accessible with Advanced LIGO (2 detectors, 2 years) or ETC sensitivities (3 detectors, 5 years), respectively, using targeted searches,
where red vertical lines terminated by red asterisks indicate ellipticity sensitivity range
for Advanced LIGO, and green vertical lines and green asterisks indicate additional ellipticity sensitivity range
for ETC. A selection of pulsars accessible with Advanced LIGO sensitivity are labeled in red.
Diagonal dashed lines correspond to corresponding $\dot{f}_{\rm GW}$ values under the gravitar model.}
\label{fig:fvsepsilon}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Another figure of merit is the distance to which searches can detect sources of a particular ellipticity.
Figure~\ref{fig:fvsdist1} shows the estimated distances to known pulsars over the detection frequency band.
Also shown are solid contours of Advanced LIGO sensitivity range for different ellipticity values and dashed contours
for Einstein Telescope. Pulsars with spin-down limits accessible to Advanced LIGO are shown in red,
and those accessible to Einstein Telescope are shown in green. Only a handful of pulsars within 500 pc are
accessible to Advanced LIGO with ellipticities below 10$^{-8}$. On the other hand, to reach the galactic center ($\sim$8.5 kpc) at a
signal frequency of 1 kHz requires an ellipticity larger than $\sim$\sci{3}{-8}, and at 100 Hz requires
an ellipticity greater than $\sim$\sci{3}{-6}.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=13.cm]{./lrre_v6_dist1_vs_f.png}
\caption{Maximum allowed targeted-search ranges for gravitars vs GW frequencies for different assumed
ellipticities for Advanced LIGO sensitivity (solid magenta curves) and corresponding ranges for ETC sensitivity (dashed blue curves). Known pulsar
distances are shown vs the expected GW frequencies, where red dots indicate pulsars with accessible spin-down limits for
Advanced LIGO sensitivity, and smaller green dots indicated pulsars with accessible spin-down limits for ETC sensitivity.
Known pulsars in distinct horizontal bands (common distance) arise from stars in clusters or from distance capping
in the galactic electron density model~\citep{bib:YMWModel} used in the ATNF catalog~\citep{bib:ATNFdb}.}
\label{fig:fvsdist1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
As discussed in detail below, all-sky searches for unknown neutron stars necessarily have reduced sensitivity, such that
the ranges shown for targeted searches using known pulsar timing do not apply. Figure~\ref{fig:fvsdist2} shows another
range vs frequency plot, but for which (optimistic) Advanced LIGO and Einstein Telescope all-sky sensitivities are assumed.
For reference, the all-sky strain sensitivity is taken to be about 20 times worse than its targeted-search sensitivity for
Advanced LIGO and the corresponding ratio about 40 times worse for Einstein Telescope. Consequently, the all-sky range contours
corresponding to those in Figure~\ref{fig:fvsdist1} would be reduced by the same ratios. Alternatively, to obtain the same ranges
in the all-sky search would require ellipticities higher by the same ratios.
The all-sky ranges in Figure~\ref{fig:fvsdist2}, in contrast, are shown as contours for different assumed $\dot{f}_{\rm GW}$ values under the gravitar assumption. These contours
are useful in assessing all-sky searches, since those searches are defined, in part, by their maximum spin-down range,
which affects computational cost. Once again, known pulsars for which this search technique can reach the spin-down limit
are shown in red for Advanced LIGO and in green for Einstein Telescope. We see that for Advanced LIGO to reach the galactic center
at a signal frequency of 1 kHz requires a minimum spin-down magnitude greater than $10^{-9}$ Hz/s (minimum because another mechanism,
such as magnetic dipole emission, may contribute to a higher spin-down magnitude), and at 100 Hz requires a minimum spin-down
magnitude just less than $10^{-10}$ Hz/s. The corresponding required ellipticities at those frequencies are $\sim$$\scimm{8}{-5}$ and
$\sim$$\scimm{8}{-7}$, respectively.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=13.cm]{./lrre_v6_dist2_vs_f.png}
\caption{Maximum allowed (optimistic) all-sky-search ranges for gravitars vs GW frequencies for different assumed
spin-down derivatives for Advanced LIGO sensitivity (solid magenta curves) and corresponding ranges for ETC sensitivity (dashed green curves). Known pulsar
distances are shown vs the expected GW frequencies, where red dots indicate pulsars with accessible spin-down limits for
Advanced LIGO sensitivity, and smaller green dots indicated pulsars with accessible spin-down limits for ETC sensitivity.
These all-sky search ranges assume an optimistic sensitivity depth of 50 Hz$^{-1/2}$ (see section~\ref{sec:depth}).}
\label{fig:fvsdist2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
A simple steady-state argument by Blandford~\citep{bib:Thorne300} led to
an early estimate of the maximum detectable strain amplitude expected from a population of
isolated gravitars of a few times 10$^{-24}$, independent of typical ellipticity values,
in the optimistic scenario that most neutron stars become gravitars.
A later detailed numerical simulation~\citep{bib:knispelallen}
revealed, however, that the steady-state assumption does not generally hold
for mass quadrupole radiation, leading
to ellipticity-dependent expected maximum amplitudes that can be 2-3 orders
of magnitude lower in the LIGO band for ellipticities as low as 10$^{-9}$ and a few
times lower for ellipticity of about $10^{-6}$. Mass current quadrupole ($r$-mode) emission, however,
would spin stars down faster, leading back to more optimistic maximum amplitudes~\citep{bib:Owenalpha}.
A more detailed simulation including both electromagnetic and graviational wave spin-down
demonstrated the potential for setting joint constraints on natal neutron star magnetic fields
and ellipticities~\citep{bib:Wadeetal}.
A recent population simulation study~\citep{bib:ReedEtal} estimated fractions of neutron stars probed by
previous CW searches for different assumed ellipticities and concluded that the greatest potential gain
from improving detector sensitity
in accessing more neutron stars of plausible ellipticity comes at higher frequencies.
The spin-down limit on strain defined in Equation~\ref{eqn:spindownlimit} for known pulsars requires knowing the frequency $f_{\rm GW}$, its
first derivative $\dot{f}_{\rm GW}$ and the distance $d$ to the star. There are other neutron stars for which no pulsations are observed, hence for
which neither $f_{\rm GW}$ nor $\dot{f}_{\rm GW}$ is known, but for which the distance and the age of the star are known with some precision. For
such stars one can define an ``age-based'' limit -- under the assumption of gravitar behavior since the neutron star's birth in
a supernova event.
Using Equation~\ref{eqn:approxageindex} and a braking index of 5 for mass quadrupole radiation gives the
gravitar age:
\begin{equation}
\tau_{\rm gravitar} = -{f_{\rm rot}\over 4\,\dotf_{\rm rot}}\>.
\end{equation}
Therefore, if one knows the distance and the age of the star, {\it e.g.}, from
the expansion rate of its visible nebula, then
under the assumption that the star has been
losing rotational energy since birth primarily
due to gravitational wave emission, then one
has the following {\it frequency-independent}
age-based limit on strain~\citep{bib:cwcasamethod}:
\begin{equation}
h_{\rm age} = (\scimm{2.3}{-24})\left({1\>{\rm kpc}\over r}\right)\sqrt{\left({1000\>{\rm yr}\over\tau}\right)
\left({I_{\rm zz}\over I_0}\right)}\>,
\label{eqn:agebasedlimit}
\end{equation}
\noindent along with a corresponding frequency-dependent but distance-independent ellipticity upper limit~\citep{bib:cwcasamethod}:
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_{\rm age} = (\scimm{2.2}{-4}) \left({100\>{\rm Hz}\overf_{\rm GW}}\right)^2 \sqrt{ \left({1000\>{\rm yr}\over\tau}\right) \left({I_0\overI_{\rm zz}}\right)}
\end{equation}
The corresponding calculation for $r$-mode\ emission leads to the age-based strain limit relation~\citep{bib:Owenalpha}:
\begin{equation}
h_{\rm age}^{r{\rm-mode}} = (\scimm{1.9}{-24})\left({1\>{\rm kpc}\over r}\right)\sqrt{\left({1000\>{\rm yr}\over\tau}\right)
\left({I_{\rm zz}\over I_0}\right)}\>,
\label{eqn:agebasedlimitrmode}
\end{equation}
\noindent along with a corresponding frequency-dependent but distance-independent $r$-mode\ amplitude upper limit~\citep{bib:cwcasamethod}:
\begin{equation}
\alpha_{\rm age} = 0.076 \left({1000\>{\rm yr}\over\tau}\right)^{1/2} \left({100\>{\rm Hz}\overf_{\rm GW}}\right)^2
\end{equation}
Yet another empirically determined strain limit upper limit can be defined
for accreting neutron stars in binary systems,
such as Scorpius X-1. The X-ray luminosity from
the accretion is a measure of mass accumulation rate at
the surface. As the material rains down on the surface
it can add angular momentum to the star, which in
equilibrium may be radiated away in gravitational waves.
Hence one can derive a torque-balance limit~\citep{bib:wagoner,bib:papapringle,bib:rmodes2} in
the form~\citep{bib:WattsEtal}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqn:torquebalance1}
h_{\rm torque} & \sim & (\scimm{3}{-27})
\left({R\over\mathrm{10\>km}}\right)^{3\over4}
\left({M_\odot\over M}\right)^{1\over4} \nonumber \\
& & \times \left({1000\>{\rm Hz}\overf_{\rm rot}}\right)^{1\over2}
\left({\mathcal{F}_{\rm x}\over10^{-8}\>{\rm erg/cm}^2/{\rm s}}\right)^{1\over2},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathcal{F}_{\rm x}$ is the observed energy flux at the Earth of
X-rays from accretion, $M$ is the neutron star mass and $R$ its radius.
Taking nominal values of $R$ = 10 km, $M = 1.4 M_\odot$ and reformulating
in terms of the gravitational wave frequency $f_{\rm GW}$ (benchmarked to 600 Hz), one obtains:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:torquebalance2}
h_{\rm torque}\quad \sim \quad(\scimm{5}{-27})
\left({600\>{\rm Hz}\overf_{\rm GW}}\right)^{1\over2}
\left({\mathcal{F}_{\rm x}\over10^{-8}\>{\rm erg/cm}^2/{\rm s}}\right)^{1\over2}.
\end{equation}
Equations~\ref{eqn:torquebalance1}-\ref{eqn:torquebalance2} assumes the radius at which the
accretion torque is applied is the stellar surface. If one assumes the torque lever arm is
the Alfv\'en\ radius because of the coupling between the stellar rotation and the magnetosphere,
then the implied equilibrim strain is $\sim$2.4 times higher~\citep{bib:cwdirectedO2ScoX1Viterbi}.
This limit is independent of the distance to the star. In general, variations in
accretion inferred from X-ray flux fluctuations suggest similar (slower) fluctuations
in the equilibrium frequency, which could degrade GW detection sensitivity for coherent
searches that assume exact equilibrium. A first attempt to address these potential
frequency fluctuations for Scorpius X-1 may be found in~\citep{bib:spinwandering}.
\subsubsection{Assessing potential sources of neutron star non-axisymmetry}
\label{sec:nonaxisymmetry}
From the above, it is clearly {\it possible} for neutron stars in our galaxy to produce
continuous gravitational waves detectable by current ground-based detectors, but
is it {\it likely} that putative emission mechanisms are strong enough to give us
a detection in the next few years. Let's look more critically at those mechanisms~\footnote{This section
draws, in part, from a recent review~\citep{bib:GandG} of gravitational wave emission from neutron stars.}.
Isolated neutron stars may exhibit intrinsic non-axisymmetry from residual crustal
deformation ({\it e.g.}, from ``starquakes'' due to cooling \&\ cracking of the crust~\citep{bib:crustdeformation,bib:KerinMelatosCrustalFailure}
or due to changing centrifugal stress induced by stellar spin-down~\citep{bib:Ruderman,bib:BaymEtal,bib:FattoyevHorowitzLu,bib:GilibertiCambiotti}), from
non-axisymmetric distribution of magnetic field energy trapped
beneath the crust~\citep{bib:ZimmermannBuriedBfield,bib:CutlerToroidalBFields} or from a pinned neutron superfluid component
in the star's interior~\citep{bib:JonesSuperfluid,bib:MelatosEtalSuperfluid}.
See~\citep{bib:HaskellEtal,bib:SinghHaskellMukherjeeBulik} for a discussion of emission from
magnetic and thermal ``mountains'' and~\citep{bib:Laskyreview,bib:GandG} for recent, comprehensive reviews of
GW emission mechanisms from neutron stars).
Maximum allowed asymmetries depend on the
neutron star equation of state~\citep{bib:JohnsonMcdanielOwen,bib:KrastevLi} and on the breaking strain of
the crust. Detailed molecular dynamics simulations borrowed from condensed matter theory have suggested in
recent years that the breaking strain may be an order of magnitude higher than previously thought
feasible~\citep{bib:HorowitzKadau,bib:CaplanHorowitzPasta}. Analytic treatments~\citep{bib:BaikoChugunov}
indicate, however, that anisotropy may be important and caution that simulations based on relatively
small numbers of nuclei may not capture effects due to a polycrystalline structure in the crust.
A recent cellular automaton-based simulation~\citep{bib:KerinMelatosCrustalFailure} of a spinning-down
neutron star used
nearest-neighbour tectonic interactions involving strain redistribution and thermal dissipation.
That study found the resulting annealing led to emitted gravitational strain amplitudes too low to be detected by present-generation
detectors.
A recent revisiting of the mountain-building scenario~\citep{bib:GittinsAnderssonJones} finds
systematically lower ellipticities to be realistic.
It is argued in~\citep{bib:WoanEtalMSP} that a possible minimum ellipticity in millisecond pulsars
may arise from asymmetries of buried internal magnetic field $B_i$~\citep{bib:CutlerToroidalBFields,bib:LanderEtal2011,bib:Lander2014}
of order of~\citep{bib:WoanEtalMSP}
\begin{equation}
\epsilon \sim 10^{-8}\>\left({<\!B_i\!>\over10^{12}\>\mathrm{G}}\right) \left({<\!H_c\!>\over10^{16}\>\mathrm{G}}\right),
\end{equation}
\noindent where $H_c$ is the lower critical field for superconductivity (protons in the stellar core are assumed
to form a Type II superconductor). Hence, a buried toroidal (equatorial) field of
$\sim$10$^{11}$ G could yield an ellipticity at the 10$^{-9}$ level. It has been argued, on the other hand, that
an explicit model of braking dynamics with non-axisymmetry due to magnetic field non-axisymmetry
leads to still smaller ellipticities,
based on observed braking indices of younger pulsars~\citep{bib:DeAraujoCoelhoCosta1,bib:DeAraujoCoelhoCosta2},
where the magnetic contribution to the ellipticity depends quadratically on the field
strength~\citep{bib:BonazzolaGourgoulhon,bib:KonnoObataKojima,bib:RegimbauDeFreitasPacheco}.
An analysis~\citep{bib:OsborneJones} of internal magnetic field contributions to non-axisymmetric temperature distributions
finds that high field strengths ($>10^{13}$ G) are needed in an accreting system for
GW emission to halt spin-up from the accretion, four orders of magnitude higher than is
expected for surface fields in LMXBs.
$r$-modes\ (mass current quadrupole, see section~\ref{sec:spindown}) offer an intriguing alternative GW emission source~\citep{bib:MytidisEtalRmode}.
Serious concerns have been raised,~\citep{bib:rmodesdoubts,bib:GandG} however, about the
detectability of the emitted radiation for young
isolated neutron stars, for which mode saturation appears to occur at low $r$-mode\ amplitudes because
of various dissipative effects~\citep{bib:Owenalpha}.
Another study,~\citep{bib:alfordschwenzeryoungpulsar} though,
is more optimistic about newborn neutron stars. The same authors, on the other hand, find that $r$-mode\ emission
from millisecond pulsars is likely to be undetectable by Advanced LIGO~\citep{bib:alfordschwenzerMSP}.
The notion of a runaway rotational instability was
first appreciated for high-frequency $f$-modes,~\citep{bib:cfs1,bib:cfs2} (Chandrasekhar-Friedman-Schutz
instability), but realistic viscosity effects seem likely to
suppress the effect in conventional neutron star production~\citep{bib:cfskiller1,bib:cfskiller2}.
Moreover, \citep{bib:HoEtalJ0952} set limits on the $r$-modes\ amplitude $\alpha$ for J0952$-$0607 below $10^{-9}$ based
on the absence of heating observed in its X-ray spectrum, despite its high rotation frequency (707 Hz) which
places it in the nominal $r$-modes\ instability window.
Similarly,~\citep{bib:BoztepeGogusGuverSchwenzer} set limits on $\alpha$ as low
as $\scimm{3}{-9}$, based on observations of two other millisecond pulsars
(PSR J1810$+$1744 and PSR J2241$-$5236) which also sit in the instability window.
Another potential source of $r$-modes\ dissipation is from the interaction of
``ordinary'' and superfluid modes, leading to a stabilization window for
LMXB stars~\citep{bib:GusakovChugunovKantor,bib:KantorGusakovDommes}.
The $f$-mode stability could play an important role, however, for
a supramassive or hypermassive neutron star formed as the remnant
of a binary neutron star merger~\citep{bib:donevaetal}.
In addition, as discussed below, a binary neutron star may experience direct non-axisymmetry
from non-isotropic accretion~\citep{bib:OwenElastic,bib:UshomirskyEtal,bib:MelatosPayne} (also possible for an isolated
young neutron star that has experienced fallback accretion shortly
after birth), or may exhibit $r$-modes\ induced by accretion spin-up.
Given the various potential mechanisms for generating continuous gravitational waves
from a spinning neutron star, detection of the waves should yield valuable information
on neutron star structure and on the equation of state of nuclear matter
at extreme pressures, especially when combined with electromagnetic observations
of the same star.
The notion of gravitational wave torque equilibrium is potentially important,
given that the maximum observed rotation frequency of neutron
stars in LMXBs is substantially lower than one might expect from
calculations of neutron star breakup rotation speeds ($\sim$1400 Hz)~\citep{bib:breakupspeed}.
It has been suggested~\citep{bib:speedlimit} that there is a ``speed limit''
due to by gravitational wave emission that governs the maximum
rotation rate of an accreting star. In principle, the distribution
of frequencies could have a quite sharp upper frequency cutoff,
since the angular momentum emission is proportional to the
5th power of the frequency for mass quadrupole radiation. For example, for
an equilibrium frequency corresponding to a particular accretion rate,
doubling the accretion rate would increase the equilibrium frequency
by only about 15\%. For $r$-mode\ GW emission, with a braking index of 7, the cutoff
would be still sharper.
Note, however, that a non-GW speed limit may well arise
from interaction between the neutron star's magnetosphere
and an accretion disk~\citep{bib:ghoshlamb,bib:HaskellPatruno,bib:PatrunoHaskellDangelo}.
It has also been argued~\citep{bib:ErtanAlpar} that correlation between the accretion rate
and the frozen surface dipole magnetic field resulting from Ohmic diffusion through the neutron star crust
in the initial stages of accretion in low mass X-ray binaries can explain a minimum rotation period
well above the naive expectation.
A number of mechanisms have been proposed by which the accretion
leads to gravitational wave emission in binary systems. The simplest is localized accumulation
of matter, {\it e.g.}, at the magnetic poles (assumed offset from the rotation axis),
leading to a non-axisymmetry.
One must remember, however, that matter can and will diffuse into
the crust under the star's enormous gravitational field. This diffusion of
charged matter can be slowed by the also-enormous magnetic fields in
the crust, but detailed calculations~\citep{bib:vigeliusmelatos} indicate the
slowing is not dramatic. Relaxation via thermal conduction is considered in \citep{bib:SuvorovMelatos}.
Another proposed mechanism is excitation of
$r$-modes\ in the fluid interior of the star,~\citep{bib:rmodes1,bib:rmodes2,bib:rmodes3,bib:rmodes4}
with both steady-state emission and cyclic spin-up/spin-down
possible~\citep{bib:rmodeslmxb,bib:HeylLMXB,bib:rmodesdoubts}. Intriguing,
sharp lines consistent with expected $r$-mode\ frequencies were reported
in the accreting millisecond X-ray pulsar XTE J1751$-$305~\citep{bib:strohmayermahmoodifar1}
and in a thermonuclear burst of neutron star 4U 1636$-$536~\citep{bib:strohmayermahmoodifar2}.
The inconsistency of the observed stellar spin-downs for these sources with ordinary $r$-mode\
emission, however, suggests that a different type of oscillation is being observed~\citep{bib:AnderssonJonesHo}
or that the putative r-modes are restricted to the neutron star crust and hence gravitationally
much weaker than core r-modes~\citep{bib:lee2014}. Another recent study~\citep{bib:PatrunoHaskellAndersson}
suggests that spin frequencies observed in accreting LMXB's are consistent with two sub-populations, where
the narrow higher-frequency component ($\sim$575 Hz with standard deviation of $\sim$30 Hz) may signal an equilibrium
driven by gravitational wave emission.
It has been suggested~\citep{bib:HaskellPatrunoJ1023} that the transitional
millisecond pulsar PSR J1023$+$0038 (for which spin-down has been measured in both accreting and non-accreting states)
shows evidence for mountain building (or $r$-modes) during the accretion state, based on different spin-downs observed
in accreting {\it vs.}\ non-accreting states.
It has also been argued~\citep{bib:Bhattacharyya} that
J1023$+$0038 shows evidence for a permanent ellipticity in the range $\scimm{0.48-0.93}{-9}$.
An analysis~\citep{bib:Chen} of
three transitional millisecond pulsars and ten redbacks concluded their ellipticities
ranged over $\scimm{0.9-23.4}{-9}$.
A recent analysis~\citep{bib:DeLilloEtal} based on the absence of evidence of a stochastic gravitational wave background
emitted by a population of neutron stars with a rotational frequency distribution similar to that of known pulsars inferred that
the average ellipticity of the galactic population is less than $\sim$$\scimm{2}{-8}$.
\subsubsection{Particular GW targets}
\label{sec:targets}
In the following, particular neutron star targets for gravitational wave searches are discussed in the
following categories: known young pulsars with high spin-down rates;
known high-frequency millisecond pulsars; neutron stars in supernova remnants,
neutron stars in low-mass X-ray binary systems;
and particular directions on the sky.
\paragraph{Known young pulsars with high spin-down rates}\leavevmode\\
A young pulsar with a high spin-down rate presents an attractive target. Its age
offers the hope of a star not yet annealed into smooth axisymmetry, a hope
strengthened by the prevalence of observed timing glitches among young stars.
A high spin-down rate not only makes it more likely that the spin-down limit
is accessible, but also suggests a star with a reservoir of magnetic energy,
some of which could give rise to non-axisymmetry. From the Advanced LIGO
O1, O2 and O3 data sets more than 20 pulsars were spin-down accessible~\citep{bib:cwtargetedO2,bib:cwtargetedO3}
(see section~\ref{sec:targeted}), but most correspond to ellipticities
of $\sim$($10^{-4}$--$10^{-3}$). A small number are highlighted here, for which
ellipticities below $10^{-5}$ are accessible already or with a 2-year data run
at Advanced LIGO design sensitivity (``O4/O5 run'').
\begin{itemize}
\item {\bf Crab (PSR J0534$+$2200)} -- This pulsar, created in a 1054 A.D. supernova
observed by Chinese astronomers and discovered in 1968~\citep{bib:staelinreifenstein}, has received more attention from LIGO / Virgo analysts than any other.
Its spin-down limit was first beaten in the initial LIGO data set S5~\citep{bib:cwtargetedcrabS5}, and now has been beaten (O3 data) by a factor
of $\sim$100~\citep{bib:cwtargetedO3} (see section~\ref{sec:targeted}), leading to a 95\%\ upper limit on ellipticity of \sci{1.0}{-5}.
For a 2-year O4/O5 run, this sensitivity reaches $\sim$$\scimm{2}{-6}$. Spinning at just below 30 Hz, its nominal $f_{\rm GW}$ is just below 60 Hz, making
the detector spectrum susceptible to power mains contamination (including non-linear upconversion, see section~\ref{sec:lines}) in the LIGO interferometers.
Its inferred rotational kinetic energy loss rate based on its spin-down is $dE/dt \sim \scimm{-5}{38}$ erg s$^{-1}$, assuming $I_z = 10^{38}$~kg~m$^2$ (10$^{45}$~g~cm$^{2}$).
\item {\bf Vela (PSR J0835$-$4510)} -- Although older and lower in frequency than the Crab with a higher ellipticity spin-down limit (\sci{1.9}{-3}),
the Vela pulsar, discovered in 1968~\citep{bib:largeetal}, is nonetheless interesting, given its frequent glitches~\citep{bib:velaglitches,bib:AshtonLaskyGraberPalfreyman}.
Its O4/O5 ellipticity sensitivity reaches $~\sim$$\scimm{8}{-6}$. Spinning at just above 11 Hz, its nominal $f_{\rm GW}$ is about 22 Hz, where detector
noise is several times higher than at the Crab frequency. Its inferred $dE/dt \sim \scimm{-7}{36}$ erg s$^{-1}$.
\item {\bf PSR J0537$-$6910} -- This pulsar, observed to pulse only in X-rays, is distant ($\sim$50 kpc in the Large Magellanic Cloud).
With a rotation frequency of $\sim$62 Hz, its nominal GW frequency of 124 Hz
is quite high for a young pulsar (magnetic dipole spin-down age $\sim$ 5000 yr), and its spin-down energy loss is comparable to the Crab's.
It is also extremely glitchy ($\sim$1 per 100 days)~\citep{bib:Antonopoulouetal,bib:FerdmanEtal} and as noted above, may show evidence
of $r$-mode\ emission between glitches~\citep{bib:rmodeJ0537-6910,bib:HoEtalJ0537} (which would imply a GW frequency at $\sim$90 Hz. Its inferred $dE/dt \sim \scimm{-5}{38}$ erg s$^{-1}$.
\item {\bf PSR J1400$-$6325} -- This relatively recently discovered X-ray pulsar~\citep{bib:RenaudEtal} lies in a supernova remnant 7-10 kpc away and
displays a spin-down energy about 1/10 of the Crab pulsar's, but may be younger than 1000 yr. With a spin frequency of
$\sim$32 Hz, its nominal $f_{\rm GW}$ is 64 Hz, comparable to the Crab's, but farther from the troublesome 60-hz power mains.
Its inferred $dE/dt \sim \scimm{-5}{37}$ erg s$^{-1}$.
\item {\bf PSR J1813$-$1749} -- First detected as a TeV $\gamma$-ray source~\citep{bib:HESSJ1813}, this star was found to
exhibit non-thermal X-ray emission and to have a tentative association with a radio supernova remnant G12.8-0.0~\citep{bib:BroganEtalJ1813} suggesting
a distance greater than 4 kpc and an age perhaps younger than 1000 years. X-ray pulsations detected still later
with a period of 44 ms confirmed a pulsar source and posited an association with a young star cluster at 4.7 kpc~\citep{bib:GotthelfHalpern}],
while yielding a nominal pulsar spin-down age of 3.3-7.5 kyr.
A more recent detection of highly dispersed radio pulsations, however, suggest a distance of 6 or 12 kpc~\citep{bib:CamiloEtalJ1813},
depending on electron dispersion model, casting doubt on the association with the star cluster.
The spin frequency of 22 Hz yields a nominal GW
frequency of $\sim$45 Hz, and the frequency derivative imply $dE/dt \sim \scimm{-6}{37}$ erg s$^{-1}$.
\end{itemize}
\paragraph{Known high-frequency millisecond pulsars}\leavevmode\\
Because nearly all millisecond pulsars are old, with some characteristic ages greater than 10 billion years,
they can be assumed to retain little asymmetry from their initial formation or from the accretion that
spun them up. Thus one sees low spin-down for this population in Fig.~\ref{fig:fvshspindown}
and hence low inferred maximum ellipticities in Fig.~\ref{fig:fvsepsilon}. On the other hand, the vast energy reservoirs in
their rotation and the quadratic dependence of $h_0$ on frequency still makes these stars potentially intriguing.
As noted above, there may be empirical evidence for a minimum ellipticity of order $\sim$$10^{-9}$~\citep{bib:WoanEtalMSP}.
Highlighted below are particular millisecond pulsars of interest in the coming years.
\begin{itemize}
\item {\bf PSR J0711$-$6830} This isolated star at a distance of 0.11 kpc, with a nominal $f_{\rm GW} \sim$ 364 Hz, a spin-down upper limit of \sci{1.2}{-26} and
corresponding maximum ellipticity of \sci{9.4}{-9}, is the first MSP to have its spin-down limit beaten (in early O3 data, see section~\ref{sec:targeted}).
\item {\bf PSR J0437$-$4715} -- This binary star at a distance of 0.16 kpc, with a nominal $f_{\rm GW} \sim$ 347 Hz, a spin-down upper limit of \sci{7.8}{-27} and
corresponding maximum ellipticity of \sci{9.7}{-9} also had its spin-down limit beaten (in the full O3 data).
\item {\bf PSR J1737$-$0811} This binary star at a distance of 0.21 kpc, with a nominal $f_{\rm GW} \sim$ 479 Hz, a spin-down upper limit of \sci{5.3}{-27} and
corresponding maximum ellipticity of \sci{4.6}{-9}, will likely have its spin-down limit beaten by the O4/O5 data set.
\item {\bf PSR J1231$-$1411} This binary star at a distance of 0.42 kpc, with a nominal $f_{\rm GW} \sim$ 543 Hz, a spin-down upper limit of \sci{2.8}{-27} and
corresponding maximum ellipticity of \sci{3.8}{-9}, will likely have its spin-down limit beaten by the O4/O5 data set.
\item {\bf PSR J2124$-$3358} This binary star at a distance of $\sim$0.4 kpc, with a nominal $f_{\rm GW} \sim$ 406 Hz, a spin-down upper limit of \sci{2.3}{-27} and
corresponding maximum ellipticity of \sci{5.6}{-9}, will likely have its spin-down limit beaten by the O4/O5 data set.
\item {\bf PSR J1643$-$1224} This binary star at a distance of 0.79 kpc\footnote{A recent parallax measurement~\citep{bib:ReardonEtalParkes},
though, finds a distance for J1643$-$1224 of 1.2$^{+0.4}_{-0.3}$ kpc.}, with a nominal $f_{\rm GW} \sim$ 433 Hz, a spin-down upper limit of \sci{2.1}{-27} and
corresponding maximum ellipticity of \sci{8.0}{-9}, may {\it not} have its spin-down limit beaten by the O4/O5 data set, but as noted by~\citep{bib:WoanEtalMSP},
would have the highest GW SNR of any known star if its ellipticity were $10^{-9}$.
\end{itemize}
\paragraph{Central compact objects and Fomalhaut b}\leavevmode\\
Not every neutron star of interest has been detected to pulsate. Central compact objects (CCOs) at the heart of
supernova remnants present especially intriguing targets, especially those in remnants inferred from their
size and expansion rate to be young~\citep{bib:DelucaCCOs}. There may be direct evidence of a neutron star, such as from thermal X-rays emitted
from a hot surface or from X-rays due to interstellar accretion, or there may be indirect evidence from a pulsar wind
nebula driven by a fast-spinning star at the core. Most GW searches to date for a CCO lacking detected pulsations
have focused on the particularly promising source, Cassiopeia A, but in recent years, such searches have also been carried out for as
many as 15 supernova remnants~\citep{bib:cwdirectedSNRO1,bib:cwdirectedO3aSNRs}. Highlighted below are particular supernova remnants
(``G'' naming terminology based on the Green Catalog~\citep{bib:GreenSNRCatalog}, see also~\citep{bib:FerrandSafiHarbSNRCatalog}) with known
or suspected central compact objects, in addition to an object, Fomalhaut b, originally thought to
be an exoplanet, but which may be a nearby neutron star. Results from searches for these targets are presented further below
in section~\ref{sec:directedisolated}.
\begin{itemize}
\item {\bf Cassiopeia A} -- Cas~A (G111.7$-$2.1) is perhaps the most promising example of gravitational wave CCO source in a supernova remnant.
Its birth aftermath may have been observed by Flamsteed~\citep{bib:casabirth} $\sim$340 years ago in
1680, and the expansion of the visible shell is consistent
with that date~\citep{bib:FesenEtalCasA}. Hence Cas~A, which is visible in X-rays~\citep{bib:TananbaumCasA,bib:HoEtalCasA}
but shows no pulsations~\citep{bib:HalpernGotthelfCasA}. is almost certainly a very young
neutron star at a distance of about 3.3 kpc~\citep{bib:ReedEtalCasA,bib:AlarieEtalCasA}. From equation~\ref{eqn:agebasedlimit},
one finds an age-based strain limit of $\sim$\sci{1.2}{-24}, which is readily accessible to
LIGO and Virgo detectors in their most sensitive band.
\item {\bf Vela~Jr.} -- This star (G266.2$-$1.2) is observed in
X-rays~\citep{bib:PavlovEtalVelaJr,bib:KargaltsevEtalVelaJr,bib:BeckerEtalVelaJr} and is potentially
quite close ($\sim$0.2 kpc) and young (690 yr)~\citep{bib:IyudinEtalVelaJr}, but searches have also conservatively
assumed more a more pessimistic distance (0.9 kpc) and age (5100 yr), based on other measurements~\citep{bib:AllenEtalVelaJr}.
The optimistic age and distance assumptions lead to an age-based strain limit of $\sim$\sci{1.4}{-23}, even more accessible than
the Cas~A limit. Even the pessimistic age-base limit of \sci{1.1}{-24} is only slightly lower than that of Cas~A.
It has been argued~\citep{bib:MingEtalOptimization} that a search over multiple CCOs, optimized for most likely detection
success given fixed computing resources, favors focusing those resources on Vela~Jr. over other CCOs, including Cas~A.
\item {\bf G347.3$-$0.5} -- An X-ray source~\citep{bib:SlaneEtal,bib:HoEtalCasA} is consistent with the core of this supernova remnant,
the nearness ($\sim$0.9 kpc) and youth (1600 yr) of which
make a search aimed at the remnant's center intriguing, as they yield an age-based strain limit of $\sim$\sci{2.0}{-24} --
higher than that of Cas~A.
\item {\bf G1.9$+$0.3} This supernova remnant, the youngest in the galaxy at 100 yr~\citep{bib:ReynoldsEtal}, has no detected
CCO at its core, which is consistent with a Type IA supernova's having left no neutron star behind. Nonetheless,
its youth make it interesting despite this doubt and its distance (8.5 kpc), yielding an age-based strain limit of $\sim$\sci{8.4}{-25}.
\item {\bf Fomalhaut b} This object was assumed to be an extrasolar planet~\citep{bib:KalasEtal} until \citep{bib:NeuhauserEtalFomalhautb} noted
that the absence of detected infrared radiation could indicate the object is a remarkably nearby neutron star ($\sim$0.01 kpc).
The absence of attempted X-ray detection with {\it Chandra} observations~\citep{bib:PoppenhaegerEtal}, however, disfavors its being a young, hot neutron star.
More recent evidence~\citep{bib:GasparRiekeFomalhautb} argues, in fact, that the optical observations point to a planetesimal collision).
\end{itemize}
\paragraph{Neutron stars in low-mass X-ray binary systems}\leavevmode\\
Because of its high X-ray flux ($\mathcal{F}_{\rm x}\sim\scimm{3.9}{-7}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$~\citep{bib:WattsEtal}) and the torque-balance
relation for low-mass X-ray binaries [equation~(\ref{eqn:torquebalance1})],
Scorpius X-1 is thought to be an especially promising search
target for advanced detectors and has been the subject
of multiple searches in initial and Advanced gravitational wave detector data. From equation~(\ref{eqn:torquebalance2}),
one expects a strain amplitude limited by~\citep{bib:cwfstatS2,bib:ScoX1MDC1}
\begin{equation}
h \quad \sim \quad (\scimm{3}{-26})\,\left({600\>{\rm Hz}\overf_{\rm GW}}\right)^{1\over2}.
\label{eqn:torquebalance3}
\end{equation}
While Sco X-1's rotation frequency
remains unknown~\citep{bib:GalaudageEtal}, its orbital period is well measured,~\citep{bib:scox1period,bib:WangEtalScoX1}
which allows substantial reduction in search space.
A similar but less bright LMXB system is Cygnus X-2~\citep{bib:GallowayCygX2Source} at
a distance of 7 kpc and an average flux $\mathcal{F}_{\rm x} = \scimm{11}{-9}$ erg/cm$^2$ s$^{-1}$~\citep{bib:GallowayCygX2Flux},
yielding a torque-balance strain limit about 20 times lower than that of Sco X-1.
Unlike Sco X-1 which is assumed but not known to contain a
neutron star (as opposed to a black hole with an accretion disk),
Cyg X-2 has displayed thermonuclear bursts, confirming the presence of a neutron surface.
Another interesting class contains ``accreting X-ray millisecond pulsars'' (AXMPs) which are fast-spinning neutron stars in LMXBs that
show sporadic outbursts during accretion episodes (when ``active'') from which rotation frequencies can be determined. When active,
the frequencies can increase or decrease, while frequencies between outbursts (when ``quiescent'') generally decrease.
One could hope to detect CW radiation from either active or quiescent phases. Although the limited durations of bursts
and their stochastic nature constrain potential search sensitivity, it is during such outbursts when one might expect
the largest generation of non-axisymmetries or excitation of $r$-modes. The fastest-spinning stars, such as IGR J00291$+$5934
at $f_{\rm rot}\sim$ 599 Hz and a distance of $\sim$4 kpc~\citep{bib:IGRJ00291Outburst,bib:IGRJ00291Later}, offer deeper probing of equatorial
ellipticity and $r$-mode\ amplitude. Current search sensitivities to strain amplitude~\citep{bib:cwAXMPO3}
remain an order of magnitude or more away from inferred spin-down limits ($\sim$10$^{-28}$-10$^{-27}$), but improvements in detector sensitivity,
search methodology and potential future electromagnetic observations make this type of source potentially intriguing in the coming years.
\paragraph{Particular sky directions}\leavevmode\\
In addition to known (or suspected) neutron stars, there are other localized sky regions or points where
a directed search might yield a continuous gravitational wave detection. Listed below are possibilities that
have attracted attention in recent years.
\begin{itemize}
\item {\bf Galactic center} -- The vicinity of the galactic center (Sgr A*) is particularly interesting\citep{bib:cwdirectedgalacticcenterS5}, as
an active, star-forming region with known pulsars~\citep{bib:DenevalEtal}. Moreover, it is highly likely that only a small fraction
of pulsars near the galactic center have been detected to date, since there is extreme dispersion and scattering of radio
signals along the propagation line to the Earth~\citep{bib:LazioCordes}. The inference of there being many hidden pulsars is supported by $\sim$20 pulsar wind nebula candidates
detected within 20 pc of Sgr A*~\citep{bib:MunoEtal}. In addition, searches for dark-matter annihilation signals have detected an excess of
high-energy gamma ray emission from the galactic center region above what is
expected from conventional models of diffuse gamma-ray emission and catalogs of known gamma-ray sources~\citep{bib:AckermannEtal},
a tension which may be resolved by the existence of a hidden population of millisecond pulsars~\citep{bib:Abazajian}.
A systematic radio survey of the central 1 parsec of Sgr A* at a frequency of 15 GHz~\citep{bib:MacquartEtal}, high enough to reduce dispersion and
scattering substantially, yielded no detections, but the rapidly falling spectrum of most pulsars makes detection at 15 GHz at that distance difficult.
This survey obtained a 90\%\ CL upper limit of 90 on the number of pulsars within 1 parsec of Sgr A*, assuming the population there is similar
to known pulsars. Unfortunately,
the $\sim$8.5 kpc distance to the galactic center makes CW searches challenging with present detector sensitivities. Only stars with
extreme ellipticities are accessible to Advanced LIGO at design sensitivity
(see Figure~\ref{fig:fvsdist2}). At the same time, however, young neutron stars are those most likely
to exhibit such ellipticities.
\item {\bf Globular cluster cores} -- One normally associates globular clusters with ancient stellar populations and might
expect, at best, to see only pulsars that are themselves ancient -- recycled and well annealed millisecond pulsars.
Indeed many MSPs are seen in globular clusters~\citep{bib:FreireReview}. For example, Tucanae 47 is known to host at least 25 MSPs~\citep{bib:FreireEtal}.
Nonetheless, not all observed pulsars in globular clusters seem to be old~\citep{bib:FreireReview}. A plausible explanation is that
the dense core of a globular cluster leads to multibody exchange interactions in which a previously recycled but decoupled neutron star
acquires a close new companion that proceeds to overflow its Roche lobe, leading to new accretion. Another, related mechanism is possible
debris accretion triggered by multibody interactions, given that some pulsars are known to host debris disks and even planets~\citep{bib:S6NGC6544}.
The well localized core of a globular cluster makes a deep, directed search tractable.
\item {\bf High-latitude Fermi sources} The Fermi satellite's LAT experiment has detected $\sim$100 previously unknown gamma ray pulsars
since observing began in 2008. Gamma ray pulsars tend to be sources with low variability and relatively low spectral cutoffs,
and most lie near the galactic plane, as expected. Fermi-LAT point sources well outside the galactic plane tend to be extagalactic, {\it e.g.}, active galactic nuclei,
but an intriguing possiblity is that a source with high galactic latitude could be a galactic neutron star, in which case the high latitude favors a nearby source~\citep{bib:SandersThesis},
consistent with a scale height of $\sim$600 pc with respect to the galactic plane observed for known pulsars~\citep{bib:LyneGrahamSmith}.
Arguing against this possibility, however, are extensive searches for gamma-ray pulsations from pulsar-like Fermi-LAT sources
(see, {\it e.g.}., \citep{bib:fermipulsarsearchexample}), based in part on algorithms developed for CW gravitational wave searches~\citep{bib:fermifirsteathdetection}.
On the other hand, such searches are challenged to probe binary sources with large accelerations, suggesting that CW searches directed at such sources include
algorithms sensitive to binary sources~\citep{bib:NeunzertThesis}.
\end{itemize}
In between all-sky searches and directed searches for single sky points reside ``spotlight'' searches, in which
a patch of sky is searched more deeply than in all-sky searches (with increased computational cost), but less deeply
than is computationally feasible for a single sky location. Such spotlights have been applied in searches for
a broad star-forming region along two directions of the Orion spur of the local galactic spiral arm~\citep{bib:CWOrionSpur} and toward
the galactic center region, including the globular cluster Terzan 5~\citep{bib:AEIGCTerzan5}.
\subsection{Axion clouds bound to black holes}
\label{sec:axions}
An intriguing potential connection between gravitational waves and
the still-unknown missing dark matter of the Universe comes from the
possibility that the dark matter is composed of ultralight, electromagnetically invisible
bosons, such as axions. One novel idea is that these bosons
could be disproportionately found in the vicinity of rapidly spinning black
holes~\citep{bib:axiverseArvanitaki1,bib:axiverseArvanitaki2}.
The ultralight particles could, in principle, be spontaneously created via energy extraction from the
black hole's rotation~\citep{bib:penrose1,bib:penrose2} and form a Bose-Einstein ``cloud'' with
nearly all of the quanta occupying a relatively small number of energy levels. For a cloud bound to a black hole,
the approximate inverse-square law attraction outside the Schwarzchild radius ($r_{\rm Schwarz.}\equiv{2\,GM_{\rm BH}\over c^2}$)
leads to an
energy level spacing directly analogous to that of the hydrogen atom~\citep{bib:axiverseArvanitaki1,bib:BaumannChiaStoutTerHaar}.
The number of quanta occupying the low-lying levels can be amplified enormously by the phenomenon of superradiance
in the vicinity of a rapidly spinning black hole (with angular momentum that is a signficant fraction of the
maximum value allowed in General Relativity). The bosons in a non-$s$ ($\ell>0$) negative-energy
state can be thought of as propagating
in a well formed between an $\ell$-dependent centrifugal barrier at $r>r_{\rm Schwarz.}$
and a potential rising toward zero as $r\rightarrow\infty$;
wave function penetration into the black hole ergosphere permits transfer of energy
from the black hole spin~\citep{bib:superradiance1,bib:superradiance2,bib:superradiance3} into the creation of new quanta.
Two particular gravitational wave emission modes of interest here can arise in the axion scenario, both
potentially leading to intense coherent radiation~\citep{bib:axionArvanitaki}.
In one mode, axions can annihilate with each other to produce gravitons with frequency double that
corresponding to the axion mass: $f_{\rm graviton} = 2m_{\rm axion}c^2/h$. In another mode,
emission occurs from level transitions of quanta in the cloud.
This Bose condensation is most pronounced when
the reduced Compton wavelength of the axion is comparable to but larger than the scale of the black hole's Schwarzchild radius:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\mkern0.75mu\mathchar '26\mkern -9.75mu\lambda} \equiv {\lambda\over2\,\pi} & = & {\hbar\over m_{\rm axion}c} \gtrapprox {2\,GM_{\rm BH}\over c^2} \\
\Rightarrow \qquad m_{\rm axion} & <\approx & (\scimm{7}{-11} {\>{\rm ev/c^2}}) {M_\odot\over M_{\rm BH}} ,
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent where $\hbar$ is the reduced Planck constant and $G$ is Newton's gravitational constant.
A key parameter governing detectability
is a parameter analogous to the electromagnetic fine structure constant:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:alphadef}
\alpha \equiv {Gm_{\rm axion}M_{\rm BH}\over\hbar c},
\end{equation}
\noindent where both the growth rate of a cloud upon black hole formation and the amplitude of gravitational wave emission due
to axion annihilation depend on high powers of $\alpha$. Hence small $\alpha$ impedes detection; at the same time,
superradiance itself requires~\citep{bib:IsiEtalBosons}:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:alphalimit}
\alpha < {1\over2}m\chi\left(1+\sqrt{1-\chi^2}\right)^{-1} < {m\over2},
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\chi$ is the dimensionless black hole spin proportional to its total angular momentum magnitude $J$:
$\chi = {cJ\over GM_{\rm BH}^2}$, and $m$ is the quantum number corresponding to the axion's orbital angular momentum
projection along the spin axis of the black hole (the first level to be populated in a newborn black hole is $m=1$~\citep{bib:IsiEtalBosons}). Hence the range of $\alpha$ (and therefore axion mass) for which
a particular black hole produces superradiance may be narrow. In general, more massive black holes produce stronger
signals over wider ranges in axion mass. Clouds composed of ultralight vector or tensor bosons would lead to stronger, but
shorter-lived signals~\citep{bib:SiemonsenEast,bib:BritoEtalTensorBosons}.
Nominal limits on axion masses can be placed based on the existence of high-spin binary black holes
in our galaxy~\citep{bib:axionBBHmerger,bib:CardosoEtal}, but those limits are subject to uncertainties in inferred
black hole spins~\citep{bib:Reynolds,bib:McClintockEtal} and may be invalidated by tidal disruption effects from the
companion star~\citep{bib:CardosoDuqueIkeda}. Constraints have also been inferred from spin measurements in the population of binary black
hole merger detections~\citep{bib:NgEtalGWTC2BosonConstraints}.
Given the many orders of magnitude of
uncertainty in, for example, axion masses that could account for dark matter\citep{bib:darkmatterreview},
the relatively narrow mass window accessible to currently feasible CW searches (1-2 orders of magnitude) makes
searching for such an emission a classic example of ``lamppost'' physics, where one can only
hope that nature places the axion in this lighted area of a vast parameter space.
In principle, searching for these potential CW sources requires
no fundamental change in the search methods described below, but search optimization can be
refined for the potentially very slow (and positive) frequency evolution expected during annihilation emission
(as the relative magnitude of the axion field's binding energy decreases). In addition, for a known black hole
location, a directed search can achieve better sensitivity than an all-sky search.
For string axiverse models, however,
the axion cloud~\citep{bib:axiverseArvanitaki1,bib:axiverseArvanitaki2,bib:YoshinoKodama2014,bib:YoshinoKodama2015}
can experience significant self-interactions which can
lead to appreciable frequency evolution of the signal and to uncertainty in that evolution,
a complication less important for the postulated QCD axion~\citep{bib:axionArvanitaki}.
In an optimistic scenario with many galactic black holes producing individually detectable
signals,~\citep{bib:ZhuEtalBosonCWSignal} points out that the signals would all lie in a very narrow
band, complicating CW searches, which typically implicitly assume no more than one detectable signal
in narrow bands.
Until recently, most published searches have not been tailored for a black hole axion cloud source,
but instead existing (non-optimized) limits on neutron star CW emission could be reinterpreted as limits on
such emission~\citep{bib:axionArvanitaki,bib:FalconPaper,bib:PalombaEtalAxion}.
More recently, though, searches have been carried out that exploit the narrow spin-up parameter space
expected for such sources~\citep{bib:ViterbiCygX1,bib:cwallskyO3BosonCloud}.
One interesting suggestion includes the possibility that a black hole formed from the detected merger of binary black
holes or neutron stars could provide a natural target for follow-up CW searches~\citep{bib:axionBBHmerger,bib:GhoshEtalSuperradiance,bib:IsiEtalBosons}.
Recent studies~\citep{bib:brito1,bib:brito2,bib:TsukadaEtal2019,bib:TsukadaEtal2021} argue that
the lack of detection of a stochastic gravitational radiation background from the superposition of
extragalactic black holes already places significant limits on axion masses relevant to CW searches.
Another recent study~\citep{bib:IsiEtalBosons} examined in detail the prospects for detecting superradiance from
both post-merger black hole remnants and known black holes in galactic X-ray binaries, as Cygnus X-1.
\section{Continuous Wave Search Methods}
\label{sec:searches}
Being realistic, we must acknowledge that the first discovered CW signal will be exceedingly weak compared to
the transient signals detected to date, an assumption borne out by many unsuccessful CW searches to
date. One must integrate the signal over a long duration to observe it
with statistical signficance. Those long integrations in noise that is instantaneously much higher in
amplitude require application of assumed signal templates to the data. In general, the more restrictive
is the model, the better is the achievable signal-to-noise ratio, as one can search over a smaller
volume of source parameter space. The following sections discuss the challenges faced in searching over
larger parameter space volumes, a common classification of general search methods, and
specific algorithms devised to meet the challenges.
\subsection{Challenges in CW signal detection and types of searches}
\label{sec:challenges}
At first glance, it may seem puzzling that a signal due to a rapidly spinning neutron star is challenging to find.
One might expect a simple discrete Fourier transform of the data stream to reveal a sharp spike at the nominal frequency.
There are several severe complications, however, for most CW searches. For concreteness, imagine that a signal is
weak enough to require a coherent, phase-preserving 1-year integration time $T_{\rm coh}$. The nominal frequency resolution from a
discrete Fourier transform (DFT\footnote{CW search literature frequently refers to SFTs, ``Short'' discrete Fourier transforms,
where short is relative to the span of an observing run, but which may correspond to coherence times as long as hours.})
is then 1/yr $\sim$ 30 nHz. In order for the signal's central frequency to remain in
the same DFT bin (integer index into the transform result, see Eqn.~\ref{eqn:DFTdefinition} below) during that year, its first derivative $\dot f$ would need to satisfy $\dot fT_{\rm coh} \lesssim 1/T_{\rm coh}$,
or $\dot f \lesssim 10^{-15}$ Hz/s and its second derivative $\ddot f \lesssim \scimm{6}{-23}$ Hz/s$^2$.
In practice, not only are Doppler modulations of detected frequency due to the Earth's motion much larger than these values, as discussed below,
but the frequency derivative of a detectable source is typically also much larger, in order for its rotational
kinetic energy loss to be compatible with detection (detectable spin-down limit).
If the precise frequency evolution of the source is known already from radio or gamma-ray pulsar timing (assuming a fixed EM/GW phase relation),
then one can make corrections for that evolution via {\it barycentering}, discussed below, without SNR degradation as long
as the uncertainties in frequency derivatives are well below the above constraints.
For sources with large frequency uncertainties, however, especially those with unknown frequencies,
correcting for intrinsic source frequency evolution and for modulations due to the Earth's motion incurs
a substantial computing cost for searching over parameter space. Because of these costs, it is useful
to categorize CW searches broadly into three categories~\citep{bib:Prixreview} (while recognizing there are special cases that
fall near the boundaries).
\begin{enumerate}
\item {\it Targeted} searches in which
the star's position and rotation frequency are known, {\it i.e.}, known
radio, X-ray or $\gamma$-ray pulsars;
\item {\it Directed} searches in which the star's position is known, but rotation
frequency is unknown, {\it e.g.}, a non-pulsating X-ray source at the
center of a supernova remnant; and
\item {\it All-sky} searches for unknown
neutron stars.
\end{enumerate}
The volume of parameter space over which to search increases
in large steps as one progresses through these categories. In each
category a star can be isolated or binary. For 2) and 3) any unknown binary
orbital parameters further increase the search volume, making a subclassification
helpful, as discussed below. In general, the greater the {\it a priori}\
knowledge of sources parameters, the more computationally feasible it is to integrate data
coherently for longer time periods in order to improve strain amplitude sensitivity.
To illustrate, consider a directed search for a source of known location but with unknown frequency and
unknown frequency derivatives, where the signal phase is expanded in truncated Taylor form in the
source frame time $\tau$ with respect to a reference time $\tau_0$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:phaseevolution}
\Phi(\tau) \quad \approx \quad \Phi_0 + 2\,\pi\left[f_s(\tau-\tau_0) + {1\over2}\dot f_s(\tau-\tau_0)^2 +
{1\over6}\ddot f_s(\tau-\tau_0)^3\right],
\end{equation}
Using the phase evolution model of equation~\ref{eqn:phaseevolution},
if we wish to preserve phase fidelity to a tolerance $\Delta\Phi$ over a coherence time $T_{\rm coh}\approx \tau-\tau_0$, then
we need (in a naive estimate) to know the frequency and derivatives to a tolerance better than
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqn:ftolerance}
\Deltaf_{\rm GW} & \approx & {\Delta\Phi\over2\,\pi}{1\overT_{\rm coh}}, \\
\label{eqn:fdottolerance}
\Delta\dot{f}_{\rm GW} & \approx & {\Delta\Phi\over2\,\pi}{2\overT_{\rm coh}^2}, \\
\label{eqn:fddottolerance}
\Delta\ddot{f}_{\rm GW} & \approx & {\Delta\Phi\over2\,\pi}{6\overT_{\rm coh}^3}.
\end{eqnarray}
Hence the numbers of steps to take in $f_{\rm GW}$, $\dot{f}_{\rm GW}$, and $\ddot{f}_{\rm GW}$ to cover
a given range in the parameters are proportional
to $T_{\rm coh}$, $T_{\rm coh}^2$ and $T_{\rm coh}^3$, respectively -- if it's necessary to step at all in
those derivatives. Naively, for a search over a long enough coherence time to require
multiple steps in $\ddot{f}_{\rm GW}$, one has a template count proportional to $T_{\rm coh}^6$ and,
presumably, pays a price proportional to another factor of $T_{\rm coh}$ in computational cost
in processing the associated data volume. In principle, then, the computational cost
of a coherent search scales as the 7th power of the coherence time used, although, in
practice the scaling tends not to be as extreme because the numbers of steps needed for
$\ddot{f}_{\rm GW}$ can be small integers that take on new discrete values only slowly with increased
$T_{\rm coh}$. In practice, these considerations for a 2nd frequency derivative come into play
for only directed searches or for the deep follow-up of outliers from all-sky searches,
when segment coherence times exceed several days.
Section~\ref{sec:templates} will discuss more quantitatively the placement of
search templates in parameter space to maintain acceptable phase tolerance.
In carrying out {\it all-sky} searches for unknown neutron stars,
the computational considerations grow worse. The corrections for
Doppler modulations and antenna pattern modulation due to the Earth's
motion must be included, as for the targeted and directed searches,
but the corrections are sky-dependent, and the spacing of the
demodulation templates is dependent upon the inverse of
the coherence time of the search. Specifically, for a coherence time $T_{\rm coh}$
the required angular resolution is~\citep{bib:cwallskyS4}
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:angres}
\delta\theta \quad \approx \quad {0.5\, {\rm c}\, \delta f\over f\,[v\sin(\theta)]_{\rm max}},
\end{equation}
where $\theta$ is the angle between the detector's velocity relative
to a nominal source direction, where the maximum relative frequency shift
$[v\sin(\theta)]_{\rm max}/c\approx10^{-4}$, and where $\delta f$
is the size of the frequency bins in the search. For $\delta f=1/T_{\rm coh}$,
one obtains:
\begin{equation}
\delta\theta \quad \approx \quad \scimm{9}{-3}\>{\rm rad}\>\left({30\>{\rm minutes}\over T_{\rm coh}}\right)
\left({300\>{\rm Hz}\over f_s}\right),
\end{equation}
where $T_{\rm coh}$ = 30 minutes has been used in several all-sky searches to date.
Because the number of required distinct points on the sky scales like $1/(\delta\theta)^2$,
the number of search templates scales like $(T_{\rm coh})^2(f_s)^2$ for a fixed signal frequency $f_s$.
Now consider attempting a search with a coherence time of 1 year for a
signal frequency $f_s=1$ kHz. One obtains $\delta\theta\sim0.3$ $\mu$rad and
a total number of sky points to search of $\sim$($10^{14}$) -- again, for a fixed
frequency. Adding in the degrees of freedom to search over ranges in
$f_s$, $\dot f_s$ and $\ddot f_s$ (and higher-order derivatives, as needed)
makes a brute-force, fully coherent 1-year all-sky
search hopelessly impractical, given the Earth's present total computing capacity.
As a result, tradeoffs in sensitivity must be made to achieve tractability
in all-sky searches. The simplest tradeoff is to reduce the observation
time to a computationally acceptable coherence time.
It can be more attractive, however, to reduce the coherence time still further
to the point where the total observation time is divided into $N=T_{\rm obs}/T_{\rm coh}$,
segments, each of which is analyzed coherently and the results added incoherently
to form a detection statistic. One sacrifices intrinsic sensitivity per
segment in the hope of compensating (partially) with the
increased statistics from being able to use more total data.
In practice, for realistic data observation spans (weeks or longer), the semi-coherent
approach gives better sensitivity for fixed computational cost and hence has been used
extensively in both all-sky and directed searches~\citep{bib:PrixShaltev}. One finds a
strain sensitivity (threshold for detection) that scales approximately as the inverse fourth root
of $N$~\citep{bib:cwallskyS2}. Hence, for a fixed observation time, the strain sensitivity degrades
roughly as $N^{1\over4}$ as $T_{\rm coh}$ decreases (see~\citep{bib:WetteEstimation} for a discussion
of variations from this scaling). This degradation is a price one pays
for not preserving phase coherence over the full observation
time, in order to make the search computationally tractable. An important virtue of
semi-coherent searches methods, however, is robustness with respect to deviations of a signal from an assumed coherent model.
In general, fully coherent search methods are potentially the most sensitive, but their applicability depends
on several considerations, perhaps the most important being sheer computational tractability.
Even when tractable for a particular search, moreover, a fully coherent initial search stage
may incur a statistical trials factor large enough to make a putative detection questionable,
because of the necessarily ultra-fine search needed to probe coherently a multi-dimensional signal parameter space.
Applying {\it a priori} constraints instead, when available from electromagnetic observations or theoretical expectation,
can reduce the parameter space volume and hence trials factor, making a detection more convincing.
For example, a ``5 $\sigma$'' detection of a signal from a known pulsar in a targeted search
might not qualify as even a weak outlier in an all-sky search, much less as a discovery.
\citep{bib:loosecoherence} discusses the tradeoff between fully templated and ``loose coherence''
methods (see section~\ref{sec:longlagloose}) in a broad parameter space, arguing against brute-force
template application.
In the next sections, a variety of general approaches and specific algorithms will be
presented, methods that attempt to achieve tradeoffs best suited to particular CW search types.
\subsection{Signal model}
CW searches must account for large phase modulations (or, equivalently, frequency modulations) of the source signal due
to detector motion and potentially due to source motion (expecially for binary sources).
The precision of the applied modulation corrections must be high in the case of {\it targeted} searches, which
use measured ephemerides from radio, optical, X-ray or $\gamma$-ray
observations valid over the gravitational wave observation time. The precision must also be high
in following up outliers from {\it directed} or {\it all-sky} searches, while much less
precision is needed in the first stage of hierarchical searches. This section describes the intrinsic signal
model assumed, along with the expected modulations due to detector motion.
For the Earth's motion, one has
a daily relative frequency modulation of $v_{\rm rot}/c\approx10^{-6}$ and a much
larger annual relative frequency modulation of $v_{\rm orb}/c\approx10^{-4}$.
The pulsar astronomy community has developed a powerful and mature software infrastructure for
measuring ephemerides and applying them in measurements, using the TEMPO 2 program~\citep{bib:tempo}.
The same physical corrections for the Sun's, Earth's and Moon's motions (and for the motion of other planets),
along with general relativistic effects
including gravitational redshift in the Sun's potential and Shapiro delay for
waves passing near the Sun, have been incorporated into the LIGO and Virgo software
libraries~\citep{bib:lal,bib:cwexplorer2}.
Consider an isolated, rotating rigid triaxial ellipsoid (conventional model for a GW-emitting neutron star), for which
the strain waveform detected by an interferometer can be written as
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:cwhdefinition}
h(t) \quad=\quad F_+(t,\psi)\,h_0{1+\cos^2(\iota)\over2}\,\cos(\Phi(t))
\>+\> F_\times(t,\psi)\,h_0\,\cos(\iota)\,\sin(\Phi(t)),
\end{equation}
where $\iota$ is the angle between the star's spin direction and the propagation
direction $\hat k$ of the waves (pointing toward the Earth).
$F_+$ and $F_\times$ are the (real) detector antenna pattern response factors
($-1 \le F_+,F_\times \le 1)$ to the $+$ and $\times$ polarizations. $F_+$ and $F_\times$
depend on the orientation of the detector and the source, and on
the polarization angle $\psi$~\citep{bib:cwtargetedS1}. Here, $\Phi(t)$ is
the phase of the signal, which can often usefully be Taylor-expanded as in equation~\ref{eqn:phaseevolution},
in the solar system barycenter time $\tau$ with apparent frequency derivatives with respect to detector-frame time arising
from source motion. A more general signal model with GW emission at both once and twice the rotation frequency is
considered in \citep{bib:JKS}, with effects of free precession addressed in
\citep{bib:JonesAnderssonPrecession1,bib:JonesAnderssonPrecession2,bib:VanDenBroeck,bib:GaoEtal},
and a convenient reparametrization is presented in \citep{bib:JonesParametrization}.
Explicitly, the time of arrival of a signal at the solar system barycenter (SSB), $\tau(t)$, can be written
in terms of the signal time of arrival $t$ at the detector:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:phasedefinition}
\tau(t) \quad \equiv \quad t + \delta t \quad = \quad t - {\vec r_d\cdot\hat k\over c}+ \Delta_{E\odot}+\Delta_{S\odot}.
\end{equation}
\noindent where
$\vec r_d$ is the position
of the detector with respect to the SSB, and $\Delta_{E\odot}$ and $\Delta_{S\odot}$
are solar system Einstein and Shapiro time delays, respectively~\citep{bib:taylorssb,bib:tempo}.
Equation~\ref{eqn:phasedefinition} implicitly assumes planar gravitational wavefronts and neglects proper
motion of the source (transverse to the line of sight), corrections for which are common in radio pulsar astronomy~\citep{bib:LorimerKramer,bib:LyneGrahamSmith}.
In principle, long-duration (multi-year) fully coherent observations of a near-enough ($\sim$100 pc), high-frequency ($\sim$1 kHz) CW source would allow
inference of its distance from determination of the wavefront curvature~\citep{bib:SetoWavefrontCurvature}.
Similarly, multi-year coherent observations of a high-frequency source would need to account for significant proper motions ($\sim$50 mas/year, typical of
known pulsars)~\citep{bib:CovasProperMotion}. Both wavefront curvature and proper motion have been neglected
in CW searches for unknown sources to date because the coherence times used in the searches don't require those corrections, but
in the happy event of a future detection and subsequent extended observations, these corrections may become relevant.
Existing gravitational wave detectors are far from isotropic in their response functions. In the long-wavelength limit,
Michelson interferometers have an antenna pattern sensitivity with polarization-dependent maxima
normal to their planes and nodes along the bisectors of the arms. As the Earth rotates at angular velocity $\Omega_r$ with respect to
a fixed source, the antenna pattern modulation is quite large and polarization dependent via
the functions $F_+(t)$ and $F_\times(t)$ which
depend on the orientation of the detector and the source.
A commonly used parametrization of these amplitude response modulations is defined in~\citep{bib:JKS}.
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqn:jksone}
F_+(t) & = & \sin(\zeta)\left[ a(t)\cos(2\psi)+b(t)\sin(2\psi)\right] \\
F_\times(t) & = & \sin(\zeta)\left[ b(t)\cos(2\psi)-a(t)\sin(2\psi)\right] ,
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent where $\zeta$ is the angle between the arms of the interferometer (nearly or precisely 90 degrees for all major
ground-based interferometers), and where $\psi$ defines the polarization angle of the source wave frame
({\it e.g.}, angle between neutron star spin axis projected onto the plane of the sky and
local Cartesian coordinates aligned with its right ascension and declination directions).
The antenna pattern functions $a(t)$ and $b(t)$ depend on the position and orientation of the interferometer on
the Earth's surface, the source location and sidereal time:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqn:aoftdef}
a(t) & = & {1\over16}\sin(2\gamma)(3-\cos(2\lambda))(3-\cos(2\delta))\cos[2(\alpha-\phi_r-\Omega_r t)] \nonumber \\
& & -{1\over4}\cos(2\gamma)\sin(\lambda)(3-\cos(2\delta))\sin[2(\alpha-\phi_r-\Omega_r t)] \nonumber \\
& & +{1\over4}\sin(2\gamma)\sin(2\lambda)\sin(2\delta)\cos[(\alpha-\phi_r-\Omega_r t] \nonumber \\
& & -{1\over2}\cos(2\gamma)\cos(\lambda)\sin(2\delta)\sin[(\alpha-\phi_r-\Omega_r t] \nonumber \\
& & +{3\over4}\sin(2\gamma)\cos^2(\lambda)\cos^2(\delta), \\
b(t) & = & \cos(2\gamma)\sin(\lambda)\sin(\delta) \cos[2(\alpha-\phi_r-\Omega_r t)] \nonumber \\
& & + {1\over4}\sin(2\gamma)(3-\cos(2\lambda))\sin(\delta)\sin[2(\alpha-\phi_r-\Omega_r t)] \nonumber \\
& & + \cos(2\gamma)\cos(\lambda)\cos(\delta)\cos[\alpha-\phi_r-\Omega_r t] \nonumber \\
& & + {1\over2}\sin(2\gamma)\sin(2\lambda)\cos(\delta)\sin[\alpha-\phi_r-\Omega_r t].
\label{eqn:boftdef}
\label{eqn:jkstwo}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent Specifically, in these equations, $\lambda$ is the interferometer's latitude, and $\gamma$ is the counterclockwise angle between the
bisector of its arms and the eastward direction. The source direction is specified by right ascension $\alpha$ and declination $\delta$, while
$\phi_r$ is a deterministic phase defined implicitly by the interferometer's longitude.
These functions reveal amplitude modulations with periods of 1/2 and 1 sidereal day, and in the case of $a(t)$, a constant term independent
of time. As a result, the interferometer's response to
a monochromatic source in the Earth center's reference frame will, in general, display five distinct frequency
components, corresponding to the ``carrier'' frequency and two pairs of positive and negative sidebands, with a
splitting between adjacent frequencies of ${\Omega_r\over2\,\pi} \approx \scimm{1.16}{-5}$ Hz.
Searches for CW signals must take into account the phase/frequency modulations embodied in equation~\ref{eqn:phasedefinition} due
to detector translational motion and
the antenna pattern modulations embodied in equations~\ref{eqn:jksone}-\ref{eqn:jkstwo} due to detector orientation changes.
Figure~\ref{fig:samplesignalspectrogram} shows a sample spectrogram of a pure signal simulation using
one of the so-called ``hardware injections'' used in LIGO data runs. These signal simulations are used to verify
end-to-end the detector's response to a CW signal, including sustained phase coherence over long durations.
The simulations are injected via ``photon calibrators,'' which are auxiliary lasers shining on mirrors with
a modulated intensity. The imposed relative motion of the mirror mimics (in the long-wavelength regime) the response
of the interferometer to a gravitational wave. Various such signals, ranging in nominal frequency from 12 Hz to 2991 Hz were
injected into the LIGO detectors over the O1, O2 and O3 observation runs~\citep{bib:hwinjectionpaper}.
In the example shown, a signal (``Pulsar 2'')
with source frequency 575.163573 Hz (reference time = November 1, 2003 00:00 UTC) and spin-down \sci{-1.37}{-13} Hz/s is
simulated at a sky location of right ascension $\alpha$ = 3.75692884 radians ($14h$ $21m$ $1.48s$)
and declination $\delta$ = 0.060108958 radians ($3^\circ$ $26m$ $38.36s$). Its orientation is defined by
inclination angle $\iota$ = 2.76 radians (158. deg), and polarization angle $\psi$ = -0.222 radians ($-$12.7deg).
The simulation shown (with negligible noise for clarity) in Figure~\ref{fig:samplesignalspectrogram}
applies over a duration of the calendar year 2019 UTC. One can see the annual modulation from the
Earth's orbit imposed on an imperceptible decrease in the intrinsic frequency. A zoom of 100-hour duration is also
shown in Figure~\ref{fig:samplesignalspectrogramzoom}, to indicate the
much smaller frequency modulation (by $\sim$2 orders of magnitude), along with the intensity modulation.
As seen from the spectrogram, the frequency modulations lead to stationary bands at the turning points of the modulation. As a result,
the spectrum averaged over the signal duration peaks at the turning points, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:samplesignalspectrum}. These
``horns'' are a characteristic spectral signature of expected signals, where the relative heights of the horns depend on the duration
of the observation and on the Earth's orbital phase at the start. For a signal with negligible spin-down and a duration equal to a multiple
of a year, the horns are approximately symmetric, but in the general case that includes observations of a few months or less,
one or both horns may not be apparent. A more detailed analysis of the Fourier transform of a CW signal can be found
in~\citep{bib:CWFourierTransform}.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=13.cm]{./spectrogram_H1-Pulsar2_1800s_lrre.png}
\caption{Sample signal spectrogram for a LIGO ``hardware injection'' (negligible noise), where the pixel dimensions are 0.5 hours by 0.556 mHz.}
\label{fig:samplesignalspectrogram}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=13.cm]{./spectrogram_H1-Pulsar2_1800s_lrre_zoom.png}
\caption{Zoomed-in sample signal spectrogram for a LIGO ``hardware injection'' (100 hours from spectrogram in Figure~\ref{fig:samplesignalspectrogram}).
The sidereal Doppler modulations ($\sim$24 hrs) of frequency and amplitude modulations ($\sim$12 and 24 hrs) are more apparent. }
\label{fig:samplesignalspectrogramzoom}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=13.cm]{./asd_H1-Pulsar2_1800s_lrre.png}
\caption{Sample signal amplitude spectral density for a LIGO ``hardware injection'' (same injection as for spectrograms in
Figure~\ref{fig:samplesignalspectrogram}).}
\label{fig:samplesignalspectrum}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In the following, we discuss in more detail the implementations of a selection of these
methods developed in searches of the initial LIGO and Virgo data sets (2001-2011) and
that have been further refined for searches of advanced detector data.
Section~\ref{sec:results} presents the results of each type, from
searches in the data of Advanced LIGO's and Virgo's observing runs O1, O2 and O3.
The volume of parameter space over which to search increases
in large steps as one progresses through these categories. In each
category a star can be isolated or binary. Any unknown binary
orbital parameters further increase the search volume.
In all cases we expect (and have now verified from unsuccessful searches to date)
that source strengths are very small. Hence one must integrate data over long
observation times to have any chance of signal detection. How much one knows about
the source governs the nature of that integration. In general, the greater that
knowledge, the more computationally feasible it is to integrate data
coherently (preserving phase information) over long observation times, for reasons
explained below.
\subsection{Broad approaches in CW searches}
\label{sec:algorithms}
Computational cost depends
critically upon the search method used, which in turn, depends on the {\it a priori}\ knowledge one
has about the source. In the following, a broad overview is given of a few key search methods
used in published searches to date. More details of implementation are presented in
sections~\ref{sec:results}, where a selection of these methods is applied to
particular classes of potential CW sources.
In this overview, a simplified ``toy model'' will be used to
illustrate scaling relations. Methods specific to correcting for modulations will be addressed further below
in the presentation of particular search implementations. For now, amplitude modulation of the signal strength due to rotation
of the GW detectors with respect to the source is ignored in the following, along with Doppler modulations.
\subsubsection{Fully coherent methods}
\label{sec:fullycoherent}
When applicable, as discussed in section~\ref{sec:challenges},
fully coherent methods provide the best sensitivity.
Explicit search methods, taking into account source frequency and amplitude evolution along
with detector noise non-stationarity,
are discussed in section~\ref{sec:targeted}. Here, though, let's consider the highly simplified
problem of detecting a sinuosidal signal of amplitude $h_0$ and known frequency $f_{\rm sig}$, but with
unknown phase constant,
in random Gaussian noise.
Imagine the data
observation is continuous of duration $T_{\rm obs}$ and has a one-sided power spectral noise density function
$S_h(f_{\rm GW})$, and for convenience, assume $f_{\rm sig}$ is an integer multiple of $1/T_{\rm obs}$ (see~\citep{bib:AllenPapaSchutz} for
a didactic treatment of the more general case).
The DFT bin $\tilde D_i$ is defined by the following sum over a real time series of length $N_{\rm sample} = \fsampleT_{\rm obs}$ with values $d_j$ ($j$ = 0...$N_{\rm sample}$) where
$f_{\rm sample}$ is the sampling frequency of the data stream:
\begin{equation}
\tilde D_i = \sum_{j=0}^{N_{\rm sample}-1}d_je^{-\imag2\pi ji/N_{\rm sample}}.
\label{eqn:DFTdefinition}
\end{equation}
\noindent From the DFT, one can define the one-sided power spectral noise density estimate $S_{h_{i}}$:
\begin{equation}
S_{h_{i}} = {2 \left< \!\left[ ( \Re\{\tilde D_i\})^2 + (\Im\{\tilde D_i\})^2 \right]\!\right>T_{\rm obs}\over N_{\rm sample}^2} = {2\left<\!|\tilde D_i|^2\!\right>T_{\rm obs}\overN_{\rm sample}^2},
\end{equation}
\noindent for $0<i<N_{\rm sample}/2$ and where ``$\langle$ $\rangle$'' indicates an expectation value in the absence of signal
({\it e.g.}, determined from an average over many nearby bins {\it and excluding the bin $i$ itself}).
Then one can construct a dimensionless detection statistic $\rho_i^2$ using the measured strain power
in the DFT bin $\tilde D_i$ corresponding to a signal frequency $f_{\rm sig}$:
\begin{equation}
\rho_i^2 = 4{|\tilde D_i|^2T_{\rm obs}\overN_{\rm sample}^2S_{h_{i}}},
\label{eqn:rhodefinition}
\end{equation}
\noindent which follows a
non-central $\chi^2$ distribution with two degrees of freedom and a non-centrality parameter $\lambda(h_0) = {h_0^2T_{\rm obs}\overS_{h_{i}}}$,
which implies an expectation value $2+{h_0^2T_{\rm obs}\overS_{h_{i}}}$ and variance $4+4{h_0^2T_{\rm obs}\overS_{h_{i}}}$. In Gaussian noise one
expects a $\chi^2$ distribution with two degrees of freedom from summing the squares of the normally distributed real and imaginary
DFT coefficients.
In the absence of a signal, one can define a threshold value $\rho_i^*$ corresponding to a
false alarm probability $\alpha$ such that
the cumulative density probability function satisfies:
\begin{equation}
{\rm CDF}_{\rm noise}[{\rho_i^*}^2] \equiv \int_0^{{\rho_i^*}^2} {p_{\rm noise}(\rho_i^2;2)}\,d(\rho_i^2) \equiv 1-\alpha\>,
\label{eqn:cdfrelationnoisecoherent}
\end{equation}
\noindent where the probability density function is ($\chi^2$ with two degrees of freedom)
\begin{equation}
p_{\rm noise}(x;2) = {1\over2}e^{-x/2}.
\label{eqn:probnoisecoherent}
\end{equation}
From this threshold and a desired false dismissal rate $\beta$, one can then determine
the corresponding signal amplitude $h_0^{1-\beta}$ from
\begin{equation}
{\rm CDF}_{\rm signal+noise}[{\rho_i^*}^2] \equiv \int_0^{{\rho_i^*}^2} {p_{\rm signal+noise}(\rho_i^2;2,\lambda(h_0^{1-\beta}))}\,d(\rho_i^2) = \beta\>,
\label{eqn:cdfrelationsignalnoisecoherent}
\end{equation}
\noindent where the probability density function is (non-central $\chi^2$ with two degrees of freedom)
\begin{equation}
p_{\rm signal+noise}(x;2,\lambda) = {1\over2}e^{-(x+\lambda)/2}I_0(\sqrt{\lambda x})\>,
\label{eqn:probsignalnoisecoherent}
\end{equation}
\noindent and where $I_0(y)$ is a modified Bessel function of the first kind:
\begin{equation}
I_0(y) = \sum_{j=0}^\infty {(y^2/4)^j\over(j!)^2}\>.
\end{equation}
Choosing a 1\%\ false alarm probability ($\alpha$ = 0.01) leads to ${\rho_i^*}^2\approx9.21$, from which numerical
evaluation of Equation~\ref{eqn:cdfrelationsignalnoisecoherent} for a false dismissal probability $\beta$ = 5\%\
leads to an expected sensitivity $h_0^{95\%}$ of
\begin{equation}
h_0^{95\%} \approx 4.54\, \sqrt{S_{h_{i}}\overT_{\rm coh}},
\label{eqn:coherentsinesens}
\end{equation}
which can be taken as a proxy for the expected 95\%\ confidence level upper limit on signal amplitude
based simply on an observation that an observed $\rho_i$ does not exceed $\rho_i^*$. In practice, many CW search upper
limits are based on the loudest statistic found in a search, ({\it e.g.}, largest $\rho^2$ value for multiple computations
at different frequencies), regardless of whether or not a pre-defined
threshold has been exceeded. \citep{bib:TenorioEtalLoudestCandidate} discusses the statistics of
loudest candidates using extreme value theory.
The sensitivity expression in Eqn.~\ref{eqn:coherentsinesens} is shown as the leftmost point of the lower blue curve in Figure~\ref{fig:sinusoidsensitivity}, where it can be compared
to sensitivities from other methods, discussed below.
If simultaneous data sets from two independent detectors of identical sensitivity are added coherently (and a phase correction applied,
to account for detector separation and source direction),
one can construct a combined averaged detection statistic $\rho_{i,{\rm comb}}^2$ using the measured power
from the square of the sum of the simultaneous DFT bin coefficients $\tilde D_{1,i}$ and $\tilde D_{2,i}$ containing $f_{\rm sig}$:
\begin{equation}
\rho_{i,{\rm comb}}^2 = {1\over2}\left[ 4{|\tilde D_{1,i}+\tilde D_{2,i}|^2\,T_{\rm obs}\overN_{\rm sample}^2S_{h_{i}}}\right]\,
\label{eqn:twodetectorDFTsum}
\end{equation}
\noindent which has an expectation value of $2+{2\,h_0^2T_{\rm obs}\overS_{h_{i}}}$ and a variance of $4+{8\,h_0^2T_{\rm obs}\overS_{h_{i}}}$, that is, it follows a
non-central $\chi^2$ distribution with two degrees of freedom and a non-centrality parameter $\lambda(h_0) = {2\,h_0^2T_{\rm obs}\overS_{h_{i}}}$.
Applying the same methodology as above for a single detector, one obtains an expected sensitivity of
\begin{equation}
h_0^{95\%} \approx {1\over\sqrt{2}} \times 4.54\, \sqrt{S_{h_{i}}\overT_{\rm coh}},
\end{equation}
\noindent indicating an improvement by $\sqrt2$ with respect to a single detector. This sensitivity is shown as the
leftmost point of the green curve in Figure~\ref{fig:sinusoidsensitivity}. More generally, $N$ identical
detectors with simultaneous data sets\footnote{Simultaneity is not strictly required, if phase corrections for time offsets between detectors
can be computed precisely enough.}, for which phase corrections are known, gain a sensitivity improvement of $\sqrt{N}$
with respect to a single detector, as one would naively expect. Put another way, combining the $N$ sets gives
a sensitivity equal to that of a single detector with an amplitude spectral noise density of $\sqrt{S_{h_{i}}/N}$.
Again, this is a simplified model. In practice, detectors
have different, frequency-dependent $S_{h_{i}}$ noise levels and unequal live times of observing, in addition to different
orientations affecting antenna pattern sensitivity, ignored here.
\subsubsection{Semi-coherent methods}
\label{sec:semicoherent}
Fully coherent methods are computationally costly when covering a large parameter space because
of the fine steps needed to avoid missing a signal as coherence times increase. A crude solution is simply
to reduce the coherence time and suffer the reduction in strain sensitivity, by approximately $\sqrt{T_{\rm coh}}$. A better
solution is to apply a {\it semi-coherent} method in which the observation time is divided into $N_{\rm seg}$
segments of equal length $T_{\rm coh} = T_{\rm obs}/N_{\rm seg}$, where the detection statistic is constructed from an incoherent sum of powers
from the individual segments. This method sacrifices the constraint of phase consistency among the different segments and
hence is less sensitive than a fully coherent method, but is more sensitive than analysis of a single segment alone.
As shown below, the strain sensitivity scales with $1/N_{\rm seg}^{1\over4}$ for fixed coherence time and large $N_{\rm seg}$.
For illustration, consider a detection statistic constructed from the sum of $N_{\rm seg}$ individual DFT powers covering
the observation time $T_{\rm obs}$, and once again, each normalized by its power spectral density (taken to be stationary here,
for convenience):
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:Ridef}
R_i \equiv \sum_{k=1}^{N_{\rm seg}} 4{|\tilde D^{(k)}_i|^2T_{\rm coh}\overN_{\rm sample}^2S_{h_{i}}},
\end{equation}
\noindent where $N_{\rm seg}=1$ yields $R_i=\rho_i^2$ in Eqn.~\ref{eqn:rhodefinition}. The underlying statistical distribution of $R_i$ is that of
a non-central $\chi^2$ with $2N_{\rm seg}$ degrees of freedom and a non-centrality parameter of
$\lambda(h_0) = N_{\rm seg} {h_0^2T_{\rm coh}\overS_{h_{i}}}$.
In the absence of signal a false alarm probability $\alpha$ implies a threshold $R_i^*$,
found from requiring that the cumulative probability density function satisfy:
\begin{equation}
{\rm CDF}_{\rm noise}[R_i^*] \equiv \int_0^{R_i^*} {p_{\rm noise}(R_i;2)}\,dR_i \equiv 1-\alpha\>,
\label{eqn:cdfrelationnoisesemicoherent}
\end{equation}
\noindent where the probability density function is
\begin{equation}
p_{\rm noise}(x;2N_{\rm seg}) = {x^{N_{\rm seg}-1}e^{-x/2}\over2^{N_{\rm seg}}\Gamma(N_{\rm seg})},
\end{equation}
\noindent which reduces to Equation~\ref{eqn:probnoisecoherent} for $N_{\rm seg}=1$. $R_i^*$ can be
determined numerically for arbitrary $N_{\rm seg}$, but in the limit of large $N_{\rm seg}$, $p_{\rm noise}$ reduces
to a normal distribution with a mean of $2N_{\rm seg}$ and variance $4N_{\rm seg}$, in which approximation
$R_i^*(\alpha=0.01) \approx 2N_{\rm seg} + 4.65\sqrt{N_{\rm seg}}$.
In the presence of a signal,
the $h_0^{95\%}$ value can be obtained numerically from the cumulative probability density function:
\begin{equation}
{\rm CDF}_{\rm signal+noise}[R_i^*] \equiv \int_0^{R_i^*} {p_{\rm signal+noise}(R_i;2,h_0)}\,dR_i = \beta,
\label{eqn:cdfrelationsignalnoisesemicoherent}
\end{equation}
\noindent where the probability density function is
\begin{eqnarray}
p_{\rm signal+noise}(x;2N_{\rm seg},h_0) & = & {1\over2} e^{-{1\over2}\left(x+{h_0^2T_{\rm obs}\overS_h}\right)}
\left({xS_h\over h_0^2T_{\rm obs}}\right)^{{N_{\rm seg}-1\over2}} \\
& & I_{N_{\rm seg}-1}\left(h_0\sqrt{{xT_{\rm obs}\overS_h}}\right)
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent which reduces to Equation~\ref{eqn:probsignalnoisecoherent} for $N_{\rm seg}=1$, where $T_{\rm obs}=\NsegT_{\rm coh}$ has been used.
In the limit of large $N_{\rm seg}$ and weak signal, however, the distribution approaches that of a Gaussian
with variance $4N_{\rm seg}$, from which an approximate expression for $h_0^{95\%}$ can be obtained:
\begin{equation}
h_0^{1-\beta} \approx \sqrt{2}\,\left[\sqrt{2}\,({\rm erfc}^{-1}(2\alpha)+{\rm erfc}^{-1}(2\beta))\right]^{1/2} N_{\rm seg}^{1\over4} \sqrt{{S_h\overT_{\rm obs}}},
\label{eqn:h095approxsemicoherent}
\end{equation}
where ${\rm erfc}$ is the inverse complementary error function.
This scaling of sensitivity with $N_{\rm seg}^{1\over4}$ for fixed observation time is a universal result in semi-coherent searches with large
$N_{\rm seg}$~\citep{bib:houghmethod,bib:stackslideimplementation,bib:PrixShaltev,bib:WetteEstimation}. It can be understood
qualitatively from the SNR of an approximately Gaussian detection statistic (large $N_{\rm seg}$) scaling with
$\sqrt{\NsegT_{\rm coh}} = \sqrt{T_{\rm obs}/N_{\rm seg}}$ and the direct dependence of that detection statistic on the squared signal amplitude.
For $\alpha=0.01$ and $\beta=0.05$,
Eqn.~\ref{eqn:h095approxsemicoherent} yields $h_0^{95\%}\approx2.82N_{\rm seg}^{1\over4}\sqrt{{S_h/T_{\rm obs}}}$. This expression
does {\it not} agree with Eqn.~\ref{eqn:coherentsinesens} when $N_{\rm seg}=1$ because the Gaussian approximation breaks down for small $N_{\rm seg}$.
For the much lower
false alarm probability $\alpha=10^{-10}$, Eqn.~\ref{eqn:h095approxsemicoherent} yields $h_0^{95\%}\approx4.00N_{\rm seg}^{1\over4}\sqrt{{S_h/T_{\rm obs}}}$.
These asymptotic approximations are shown as dashed lines in Figure~\ref{fig:sinusoidsensitivity},
together with numerically evaluated values from Equation~\ref{eqn:cdfrelationsignalnoisesemicoherent}.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=13.cm]{./ChisquareNC_2.png}
\caption{Strain sensitivities (defined by $\alpha=0.01$ or $\alpha=10^{-7}$; and $\beta=0.05$)
of various search methods to a bin-centered sinusoidal signal in noise of power spectral density $S_h$
{\it vs.}\ the number of DFT segments into
which a fixed observing time $T_{\rm obs}$ is divided. Curves are shown for $h_0^{95\%}$ for $\alpha=0.01$ and
$\alpha = 10^{-7}$ for semi-coherent searches in a single detector's data (blue) and
for $\alpha=0.01$ in two-detector searches (green). Asymptotic expressions based on the large-$N_{\rm seg}$
Gaussian approximation are shown as dashed lines.
The points at the bottom left of each curve
represent the fully coherent search sensitivities for 1 and 2 identical detectors.
Semi-coherent curves for two detectors assumed coherent summing of simultaneous DFTs for the 2 detectors.
Sensitivities for cross-correlation of simultaneous data from two detectors are also shown (red).
}
\label{fig:sinusoidsensitivity}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
As is the case for combining data in a fully coherent search from two identical detectors with simultaneous data sets,
there is a gain of $\sqrt{2}$ in sensitivity for combining simultaneous DFTs from two detectors in a semi-coherent search -- as long as the
DFT coefficients are combined coherently for each segment (otherwise, the gain is only $2^{1/4}$ from semi-coherent combination
of DFT powers).
Figure~\ref{fig:sinusoidsensitivity} shows exact (solid green curve) and asymptotic (dashed green line) results for two detectors.
An important variation on semi-coherent methods, used in Hough transform methods described below,
applies {\it thresholding} to DFT powers prior
to summing. By applying a threshold corresponding to a relatively high false alarm rate (and relatively
high false dismissal rate for weak signals), one can reduce the data volume in processing, to reduce
computational cost. In addition, by adding integer counts (or, optimally, pre-computed weights) instead
of measured DFT powers, one's detection statistic is less susceptible to distortions from transient,
non-Gaussian outliers from instrumental contamination. The optimum false alarm probability for thresholding
in this idealized sine-wave detection analysis (weak-signal limit) is $\approx$20\%~\citep{bib:AllenPapaSchutz}.
\subsubsection{Cross-correlation methods}
\label{sec:crosscorrelation}
Another attractive approach uses cross correlation between independent (and ideally, simultaneous) data streams. The canonical example is cross correlation between coincident data sets taken with the nearly aligned Hanford and Livingston interferometers, but cross correlation can also be used with poorly aligned detector pairs and with non-coincident data streams -- if sufficient signal coherence can be established over longer time scales.
In this section, only truly coincident data sets will be considered, for simplicity.
Once again, let's use the artificial but informative toy model of a bin-centered, constant-amplitude sinusoidal signal in Gaussian noise. Let's also assume two identically oriented detectors (approximation to Hanford-Livingston, which have normal vectors to their planes only 27.3 degrees apart~\citep{bib:AlthouseJonesLazzarini}, in addition to a 90-degree relative rotation about the normal, leading to a sign flip in GW response). Also assume that the relative positions of the detectors can be accounted for via a signal phase correction for any given source direction. In the following, that phase correction is assumed to have been applied.
Using the notation from section~\ref{sec:semicoherent}, we can combine the two independent data streams
via DFT coefficients in a narrow band of interest to define a new detection statistic:
\begin{equation}
\rho_{\rm CC} = {2\,\sqrt{2}\,\Re\left\{\tilde D_{1,i}\tilde D_{2,i}^*\right\}T_{\rm obs}\overN_{\rm sample}^2S_{h_{i}}}.
\end{equation}
\noindent
In the absence of a signal, this statistic has an expectation value of zero and (by construction) a variance of one.
The underlying statistical distribution is far from Gaussian, however. In the absence of
a signal, one has the sum of two normal product distributions
(from $\Re\left\{\tilde D_{1,i}\tilde D_{2,i}^*\right\} = \Re\left\{\tilde D_{1,i}\right\}\Re\left\{\tilde D_{2,i}\right\} + \Im\left\{\tilde D_{1,i}\right\}\Im\left\{\tilde D_{2,i}\right\}$),
which can be obtained analytically, using characteristic functions.
Specifically, a single normal production distribution for
the product of two zero-mean normal distributions of variance $\sigma_1^2$ and $\sigma_2^2$ is
\begin{equation}
p_{\rm 1\> normal\> product}(x) = {1\over\pi\sigma_1\sigma_2}K_0\left({|x|\over\sigma_1\sigma_2}\right),
\end{equation}
\noindent where $K_0$ is a modified Bessel function of the second kind, and for which the characteristic function is~\citep{bib:McNolty}
\begin{equation}
{\rm CF}[K_0\left({|x|\over\sigma_1\sigma_2}\right)] = {1\over\sqrt{1+\sigma_1^2\sigma_2^2t^2}}.
\end{equation}
\noindent Inverting the product of characteristic functions gives the
following probability distribution for the sum of two such (signal-free) normal product distributions:
\begin{equation}
p_{\rm 2\> normal\> products}(x) = {1\over2\sigma_1\sigma_2}e^{-{|x|\over\sigma_1\sigma_2}}.
\end{equation}
For identical detectors ($\sigma_1=\sigma_2\equiv\sigma$) of power spectral density $S_{h_{i}}$ with a signal
present of amplitude $h_0$, the expectation value of $\rho_{\rm CC}$ is
${h_0^2T_{\rm obs}\over\sqrt{2}\,S_{h_{i}}}$, and the variance is $1 + {h_0^2T_{\rm obs}\overS_{h_{i}}}$.
In the presence of a common signal $h_0$ in both data streams, one can evaluate numerically the value $h_0^{1-\beta}$ for
which the false dismissal rate is $\beta$ for a threshold on the detection statistic corresponding to the signal-free false alarm probability $\alpha$.
In the absence of a signal, the threshold on $\rho_{\rm CC}$ for a false alarm probability $\alpha = 0.01$ is approximately 2.766.
For $\beta=0.05$ one then finds
$h_0^{95\%}\approx 3.335\sqrt{{S_{h_{i}}/T_{\rm obs}}}$, which is only slightly higher than that obtained for a fully coherent
search using data from two identical detectors (see Figure~\ref{fig:sinusoidsensitivity}).
As with semi-coherent searches, discussed in section~\ref{sec:semicoherent}, one typically finds it necessary in wide-parameter searches
to segment the data. As before, consider dividing the observation time $T_{\rm obs}$ into $N_{\rm seg}$ equal-duration segments of
coherence time $T_{\rm coh}$. In the presence of a signal of amplitude $h_0$, the following detection statistic,
\begin{equation}
\rho_{\rm CC}^{N_{\rm seg}} = {1\overN_{\rm seg}}\sum_{i=1}^{N_{\rm seg}} \rho_{\rm CC}^i,
\label{eqn:crosscorrelation}
\end{equation}
\noindent has a mean value of ${h_0^2T_{\rm coh}\over\sqrt{2}S_{h_{i}}} = {1\overN_{\rm seg}}{h_0^2T_{\rm obs}\over\sqrt{2}S_{h_{i}}}$
and variance ${1\overN_{\rm seg}}\left[1 + {h_0^2T_{\rm obs}\overS_{h_{i}}}\right]$.
In the regime of large $N_{\rm seg}$ and weak signal, the underlying probability distribution approaches that of a Gaussian
for which one expects:
\begin{equation}
h_0^{1-\beta} \approx \sqrt{2}\,\left[\sqrt{2}\,({\rm erfc}^{-1}(2\alpha)+{\rm erfc}^{-1}(2\beta))\right]^{1/2} \left[{N_{\rm seg}\over2}\right]^{1\over4} \sqrt{{S_h\overT_{\rm obs}}},
\label{eqn:h095approxcorrelation}
\end{equation}
\noindent This asymptotic expectation is shown as a dotted red line in Figure~\ref{fig:sinusoidsensitivity}, together with results from numerical simulation over a range of $N_{\rm seg}$ values (solid red curve). This detection statistic
is $2^{1/4}$ more sensitive than the asymptotic 1-detector semicoherent sensitivity (lower dashed blue curve),
equally sensitive to the asymptotic 2-detector semicoherent sensitivity for which powers from separate detectors are added (not shown),
and $2^{1/4}$ less sensitive than the asymptotic 2-detector semicoherent behavior with coherent summing of simultaneous DFTs from the 2 detectors
before computing power, as in Equation~\ref{eqn:twodetectorDFTsum} (green dash-dotted curve).
One practical consideration to keep in mind for these comparisons is that while coherent summing or cross-correlation of simultaneous DFTs provides
improved sensitivity where possible, those gains are limited by achievable livetimes of interferometers that operate near their technological limits.
One can compute nominal signal-to-noise ratios for given signal strengths for the coherent, semi-coherent and cross-correlations
methods from the noise-only variances and the expectation value
dependences on signal $h_0$ presented above. Those SNRs allow sensible direct comparisons among semi-coherent and cross-correlation
methods when $N_{\rm seg}$ is large
enough for the noise-only detection statistics to exhibit approximate Gaussian behavior over the range of interest,
but for small $N_{\rm seg}$, including especially the fully coherent case of $N_{\rm seg}$ = 1, the underlying statistics are highly non-Gaussian, requiring
care in making comparisons.
\subsubsection{Long-lag cross-correlation and loose coherence}
\label{sec:longlagloose}
Fully coherent, long integrations seem distinctly different from the multiple-short-segment searches based on semi-coherent and cross-correlation
described (in simplified form) above, and in fact, using fully coherent methods to follow up on outliers produced by the latter methods is challenging
because of the typical mismatch in parameter space fineness. Nonetheless, between these extremes exist bridges that offer the possibility of both
systematic follow-up of outliers and more sensitive initial stages for multi-segment searches. The first method is long-lag correlation~\citep{bib:xcorrmethod1},
and the second method is known as loose coherence~\citep{bib:loosecoherence}.
Each method benefits from coherently summing DFT coefficients from data segments offset in time, which can be motivated by considering
the segmentation of a single (continuous) Fourier transform of a strain signal $h(t)$ into $N_{\rm seg}$ segments:
\begin{eqnarray}
F(\omega;[t_A,t_B]) & \equiv & {1\over T} \int_{t_A}^{t_B} h(t) e^{-i\omega (t-t_A)}dt \\
& = & {1\overN_{\rm seg}} \sum_{i=1}^{N_{\rm seg}}{e^{-i\omega t_{i-1}}\overT_{\rm seg}}\int_{t_{i-1}}^{t_i} h(t)e^{-i\omega (t-t_{i-1})}dt \\
& = & {1\overN_{\rm seg}} \sum_{i=1}^{N_{\rm seg}} e^{-i\omega t_{i-1}} F(\omega;[t_{i-1},t_i]) \\
& = & {1\overN_{\rm seg}} \sum_{i=1}^{N_{\rm seg}} e^{-i\phi_{i}} F_i(\omega),
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent where $T_{\rm seg} = (t_B-t_A)/N_{\rm seg}$, $t_i = t_A + i{T_{\rm seg}}$ and $\phi_i = \omega t_{i-1}$. Hence the Fourier transform for the
full data span is proportional to the sum of transforms for the individual segment transforms with phase corrections $e^{-i\phi_i}$.
Now consider once again the artificial but informative special case of a monochromatic signal detected via its strength in
DFT bins from two detectors 1 and 2 with identical observation periods segmented into $N_{\rm DFT}$ epochs for which
DFT are computed. For simplicity, assume the signal is bin-centered for each epoch's DFT and that the detector noise
is both stationary and identical for the two detectors. Guided by the relation above, one can then define a detection statistic based on the coherent
sum of {\it all} DFTs from both detectors:
\begin{eqnarray}
P & = & \left|\sum_{i=1}^{N_{\rm DFT}} \tilde D_{1,i}e^{-i\phi_{1,i}}+\tilde D_{2,i}e^{-i\phi_{2,i}}\right|^2 \\
& = & \sum_{I,J=1}^2\sum_{i,j=1}^{N_{\rm DFT}} \tilde D_{I,i}\tilde D_{J,j}^*e^{-i(\phi_{I,i}-\phi_{J,j})},
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent where $\phi_{1,i}$ and $\phi_{2,i}$ account for the signal phase evolution for each detector for each DFT $i$ and for any geometric offset between the detectors
relative to the source direction (see equation~\ref{eqn:phasedefinition}). This full double sum is computationally costly to evaluate explicitly, not only
because of the additional operations, but more important, because the implicit full coherence requires a fine stepping in parameter space. The form, however,
makes more clear the relations between full coherence and both semi-coherence and cross-correlations~\citep{bib:xcorrmethod1}, which can be viewed as subsets of the double sum.
A semi-coherent sum of powers from individual detectors can be represented by
\begin{equation}
P_{\rm semi-coherent} = \sum_{I=1}^2\sum_{i=1}^{N_{\rm DFT}} \tilde D_{I,i}\DIi^*,
\end{equation}
\noindent while cross-correlation of simultaneous amplitudes (see equation~\ref{eqn:crosscorrelation}) from the two detectors is proportional to
\begin{equation}
P_{\rm cross-correlation} = \sum_{(I\ne J)=1}^2\sum_{i=1}^{N_{\rm DFT}} \tilde D_{I,i}\tilde D_{J,i}^*e^{-i(\phi_{I,i}-\phi_{J,j})}.
\end{equation}
This last relation suggests the possibility of following up an interesting search outlier from the first stage of a simultaneous-segment cross-correlation
search by increasing the number of terms kept from the full double sum, allowing non-simultaneous cross terms and allowing self-correlation terms.
For example, allowing an offset of up to
$N_{\rm lag}$ segment durations would yield:
\begin{equation}
P_{\rm cross-correlation(N_{\rm lag})} = \sum_{I,J=1}^2\sum_{\begin{array}{c}i,j=1;\\|i-j|\leN_{\rm lag}\end{array}}^{N_{\rm DFT}} \tilde D_{I,i}\tilde D_{J,j}^*e^{-i(\phi_{I,i}-\phi_{J,j})}.
\end{equation}
\noindent This approach can also be used at the first stage if rapid frequency evolution of the source, such as in a short-period
binary system or in young object, argues for short DFT coherence times.
Another, related approach is to define a ``loosely coherent'' detection statistic as a subset of the original sum for which phase correlation
between nearby (small-lag) DFT coefficients is favored (as opposed to the completely random relation allowed by semi-coherent sums).
To illustrate\footnote{For simplicity, the initial implementation of loose coherence is described here. Later
refinements~\citep{bib:LooseCoherenceWellModeledSignals,bib:LooseCoherenceMediumScale,bib:FalconPaper}
led to substantial performance improvements.},
consider for simplicity a sum restricted to a single detector. Assume the phase correction applied to a product
of DFT coefficients for segments separated by a single segment lag is taken to be unknown but uniformly distributed in probability between
$-\delta$ and $+\delta$. A useful detection statistic can then be formed by~\citep{bib:loosecoherence}
\begin{eqnarray}
P_{\rm loose-coherence} & = & {1\over(2\delta)^{N_{\rm seg}-1}}\int_{-\delta}^{+\delta}d\Delta\phi_{1,2}\int_{-\delta}^{+\delta}d\Delta\phi_{2,3}...\int_{-\delta}^{+\delta}d\Delta\phi_{N_{\rm seg}-2,N_{\rm seg}-1} \nonumber\\
& & \sum_{i,j}^{N_{\rm seg}}\tilde D_{I,i}\tilde D_{I,j}^*e^{-i(\Delta\phi_{i',i'+1}+\Delta\phi_{i'+1,i'+2}+...+\Delta\phi_{j'-1,j'})},
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent where $i' (j') = {\rm min} ({\rm max}) \{i,j\}$ and $\Delta\phi_{m,n}=\phi_n-\phi_m$. Evaluation of the integrals leads to
\begin{equation}
P_{\rm loose-coherence} = \sum_{i,j}^{N_{\rm seg}}\tilde D_{I,i}\tilde D_{I,j}^*\left({\sin(\delta)\over\delta}\right)^{|i-j|},
\end{equation}
where the factor $\left({\sin(\delta)\over\delta}\right)^{|i-j|}$ weights adjacent-lag products more heavily than those with longer lags (and yields unity for $i=j$).
The single-detector semicoherent power sum is recovered by setting $\delta=\pi$.
In practice, to reduce computational cost, the factor is replaced by a discrete kernel function that truncates terms for which the
weight contribution is too small to warrant the additional operations.
A generalized version of this detection statistic, including more than one detector
and non-integer segment lags, has been used in multi-stage searches with decreasing $\delta$ at each stage, {\it e.g.},
$\delta=\pi \rightarrow \pi/2 \rightarrow \pi/4 \rightarrow \pi/8$. Each reduction in $\delta$ brings
an increase in computational cost per parameter space volume as more terms are retained in the sum and the
parameter space is searched more finely (``zooming in'').
\subsection{Barycentering and coherent signal demodulation}
Taking into account the phase/frequency modulations of equation~\ref{eqn:phasedefinition} due
to detector translational motion and
the antenna pattern modulations embodied in equations~\ref{eqn:jksone}-\ref{eqn:jkstwo} due to detector orientation changes
requires an accurate model of relevant solar system motions. As noted above, the gravitational wave community has
adopted techniques of pulsar astronomy researchers, with many LIGO data searches using the TEMPO 2 program~\citep{bib:tempo} as a guide and for
cross-checking~\citep{bib:lal,bib:cwtargetedS1}. Correction for the Earth's and a detector's motions with respect
to the solar system barycenter is called barycentering. Independently, Virgo analysts developed another barycentering
software package~\citep{bib:VirgoBarycentering}, also checked against TEMPO 2 and the LIGO software. These packages choose
steps in time fine enough to allow reliable interpolation of detector motion between sampled times.
Several approaches to incorporating the corrections have been developed for continuous gravitational wave searches. These include
time-domain heterodyning, Fourier-domain decomposition and hybrid techniques, as discussed below.
More recently, techniques have been developed for more computationally efficient barycentering
for use in targeted searches~\citep{bib:PitkinBarycentering} and
all-sky searches~\citep{bib:SauterBarycentering}.
\subsubsection{Heterodyne method}
Since CW signals are inherently quite narrowband with respect to deviations from idealized models,
a heterodyning procedure using a base frequency near the nominal signal frequency,
followed by a low-pass filter allows a large reduction in the number of data samples required to capture the signal modulations.
Conceptually, if one has a pure signal $h(t)$ that can be expressed as a slowly varying amplitude function $A(t)$ times a
sinusoid of base frequency $f_{\rm base}$, namely, $h(t) = \Re\left\{A(t)e^{{\rm i}(2\,\pif_{\rm base} \tau(t)+\phi_0)}\right\}$,
one can apply the following heterodyne for a base frequency $f_{\rm base}$:
\begin{equation}
H_{f_{\rm base}}(t) \equiv h(t)\>e^{-\imag2\,\pif_{\rm base} \tau(t)} = A(t)\,e^{{\rm i}\phi_0},
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\tau(t$) relates the SSB time to detector time.
This approach allows the heterodyned function to have a low effective bandwidth. Applying a low-pass filter and then downsampling
allows a large reduction in data volume while preserving signal fidelity.
In practice, the heterodyne used in targeted CW searches applies not a pure sinusoid factor, but rather a slowly modulated sinusoidal
phase $\phi_{\rm model}(t)$ dependent on the topocentric (observatory-centric) time $t$, a model
that includes the effects of Eqns.~\ref{eqn:phaseevolution} and~\ref{eqn:phasedefinition} on signal frequency evolution and propagation delays:
\begin{equation}
H_{\rm model}(t) \equiv d(t)\>e^{-\Phi_{\rm model}(t)}
\end{equation}
\noindent where it is assumed the signal is well approximated by the model: $h(t) = \Re\left\{f(t)e^{{\rm i}(\phi_{\rm model}(t)}\right\}$,
and the data stream $d(t)$ contains $h(t)$ and a (much larger-amplitude) random noise $n(t)$.
The resulting heterodyne product $H_{\rm model}(t)$ can then be interrogated for consistency with noise in addition to
a signal amplitude function subject to antenna pattern modulations.
Small residual deviations from the model (``timing noise'') measured empirically from electromagnetic pulsation observations '
can also be taken into account straightforwardly.
This technique is well suited to searches for known pulsars, for which the nominal frequency is precisely
known from ephemeris measurements. For example, it has been customary in many LIGO targeted searches to
heterodyne, low-pass filter and then downsample to 1 data sample per minute, starting from a raw data
stream of 16384 Hz. This technique assumes the residual intrinsic bandwidth of the signal following the heterodyne is no greater than
the Nyquist frequency of 8.3 mHz, which is an excellent approximation for effects due to Earth / detector motion.
This specific implementation is not as well suited to wide-parameter searches, for which the bandwidth must be increased or
many distinct heterodynes be carried out.
The resulting heterodyned data samples have had frequency / phase modulations due to detector motion removed, but
they retain antenna pattern due to detector rotation about the Earth's spin axis. Section~\ref{sec:targeted} below
presents a Bayesian analysis method for such samples~\citep{bib:DupuisWoan}.
\subsubsection{Resampling methods}
An alternative barycentering technique to heterodyning is to ``resample'' the detector data in order to transform
it into SSB time~\citep{bib:SchutzBlairbook,bib:JKS,bib:stackslide1}. A mundane but difficult nuisance is that data samples uniformly in detector frame time is {\it not}
uniformly sampled in SSB time, making it difficult to apply conventional discrete Fourier transforms to the
SSB samples. Two distinct methods have been used to date in CW analysis, to make the SSB samples uniform in time.
The first~\citep{bib:PatelResampling,bib:CrossCorrResampling} uses spline interpolation of the non-uniformly sampled data to create uniformly
sampled data. In practice, this interpolation is carried out on heterodyned subbands, much wider than those used
in targeted searches, but much narrower than the full bandwidth of the original data collected.
Another method~\citep{bib:VirgoResampling,bib:SinghalEtalResampling} is based on selective data sample deletions and duplications, where
narrow bands of data are temporarily upsampled to much higher frequencies, allowing smaller errors when extra samples
are deleted or duplicated as SSB time appears to run faster or slower than detector-frame time (as defined by
successive gravitational wavefronts), depending on the relative velocity of the detector with respect to the source.
As for the heterodyne method, the result in both methods is a data stream for which detector translational motion has been
corrected, but which still contains antenna pattern modulations from daily detector rotation.
\subsubsection{Dirichlet kernel method}
An alternative method can be applied in the Fourier domain by breaking the observation time into segments of
short-enough duration that the signal frequency has negliglible evolution during that duration, that is,
the frequency change during the time $T_{\rm seg}$ is small relative to intrinsic frequency resolution of a
discrete Fourier transform over that duration: ${1\overT_{\rm seg}}$. In a templated search for a particular signal,
the frequency for that segment is known, and a Dirichlet filter~\citep{bib:Dirichlet} can be applied to the DFT coefficients in
a narrow band surrounding the nominal frequency ({\it e.g.}, $\pm$4 DFT bins), using the expected weights for those
bins for the nominal central frequency.
For a bin-centered signal and rectangular windowing, the filter would
be a Kronecker delta, but in general, spectral leakage favors use of a handful of neighboring bins, to
recover the full signal strength. By coherently combining the resulting extracted complex coefficients from
the observed segments, one can achieve a full, coherent demodulation of the signal\footnote{An algorithm
commonly used is known as LALDemod~\citep{bib:WilliamsSchutzDemod,bib:PrixFstatNote}.}.
Table~\ref{tab:Dirichlet}
shows example power fractions in adjacent DFT bins (using rectangular windowing)
for a monochromatic signal that is bin-centered or offset positively from the bin center by bin fractions
of 0.1-0.5 in increments of 0.1. One sees that the bulk of signal power can be recovered by a modest number
of neighboring bins. Figure~\ref{fig:Dirichlet} shows a visual representation of the values in Table~\ref{tab:Dirichlet}.
\def\colone#1{\color{black}#1}
\def\coltwo#1{\color{green}#1}
\def\colthree#1{\color{red}#1}
\def\colfour#1{\color{cyan}#1}
\def\colfive#1{\color{magenta}#1}
\def\colsix#1{\color{blue}#1}
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|r|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
& \multicolumn{6}{c|}{Fractional bin offset of signal from bin center} \\
& \multicolumn{1}{c}{\bf \colone{0.0}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\bf \coltwo{0.1}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\bf \colthree{0.2}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\bf \colfour{0.3}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\bf \colfive{0.4}} & {\bf \colsix{0.5}} \\
\hline
Bin +5: & \colone{0} & \coltwo{0.0004} & \colthree{0.0015} & \colfour{0.0030} & \colfive{0.0043} & \colsix{0.0050} \\
Bin +4: & \colone{0} & \coltwo{0.0006} & \colthree{0.0024} & \colfour{0.0048} & \colfive{0.0071} & \colsix{0.0083} \\
Bin +3: & \colone{0} & \coltwo{0.0012} & \colthree{0.0045} & \colfour{0.0091} & \colfive{0.0136} & \colsix{0.0162} \\
Bin +2: & \colone{0} & \coltwo{0.0027} & \colthree{0.0108} & \colfour{0.0229} & \colfive{0.0358} & \colsix{0.0450} \\
Bin +1: & \colone{0} & \coltwo{0.0119} & \colthree{0.0547} & \colfour{0.1353} & \colfive{0.2546} & \colsix{0.4053} \\
{\bf Bin$\>\>$ 0:} & \colone{1} & \coltwo{0.9675} & \colthree{0.8751} & \colfour{0.7368} & \colfive{0.5728} & \colsix{0.4053} \\
Bin $-$1: & \colone{0} & \coltwo{0.0080} & \colthree{0.0243} & \colfour{0.0392} & \colfive{0.0468} & \colsix{0.0450} \\
Bin $-$2: & \colone{0} & \coltwo{0.0022} & \colthree{0.0072} & \colfour{0.0125} & \colfive{0.0159} & \colsix{0.0162} \\
Bin $-$3: & \colone{0} & \coltwo{0.0010} & \colthree{0.0034} & \colfour{0.0061} & \colfive{0.0079} & \colsix{0.0083} \\
Bin $-$4: & \colone{0} & \coltwo{0.0006} & \colthree{0.0020} & \colfour{0.0036} & \colfive{0.0047} & \colsix{0.0050} \\
\hline
{\bf Sum:} & \colone{1.000} & \coltwo{0.9982} & \colthree{0.9933} & \colfour{0.9874} & \colfive{0.9825} & \colsix{0.9807} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Fractional powers in neighboring DFT bins (rectangularly windowed) for a monochromatic signal
with a frequency that ranges from bin-centered (bin 0 of the 10 bins shown) to a positive offset of a half-bin.
\label{tab:Dirichlet}
The last row gives the total fractional power in these 10 bins.}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=13.cm]{./Dirichlet.png}
\caption{Visual representation of the fractional power values listed in Table~\ref{tab:Dirichlet}.}
\label{fig:Dirichlet}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Time-domain parameter extraction}
\label{sec:timedomainPE}
After frequency demodulation for detector translational motion, one has a highly reduced
band-limited, data stream (time-domain for heterodyne or resampling,
Fourier-domain for the Dirichlet filter) implicitly containing the amplitude modulations embodied in
equations~\ref{eqn:jksone}-\ref{eqn:jkstwo}, which can be considered deterministic functions of time,
dependent upon the putative signal parameters. In the case of a source of known position and phase evolution but unknown orientation, as for
many known pulsars, the unknown source parameters can be taken to be the strain amplitude $h_0$, the signal phase constant $\phi_0$,
the inclination angle $\iota$ and the polarization angle $\psi$.
The data stream can then be analyzed to extract those parameters.
For direct time-domain analysis, the principal method used to date for LIGO data analysis has been a
Bayesian inference~\citep{bib:cwtargetedS1,bib:DupuisWoan}. In brief, the heterodyned data samples $\{B_k\}$ can
be expressed as complex quantities, with signal template expectations: (adopting the notation of~\citep{bib:cwtargetedS1}):
\begin{eqnarray}
y(t_k,\vec a) & = & {1\over4}F_+(t_k;\psi)h_0(1+\cos^2(\iota))e^{\imag2\phi_0} \nonumber \\
& & -{{\rm i}\over2}F_\times(t_k;\psi)h_0\cos(\iota)e^{\imag2\phi_0},
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent where $\vec a$ is a vector with components $(h_0,\iota,\psi,\phi_0)$ and $t_k$ is the time stamp
of the $k$th sample.
With a set of priors on the $\vec a$ parameters
one can extract a joint posterior probability density function for these parameters:
\begin{eqnarray}
p(\vec a|\{B_k\}) & \propto &
p(\vec a) \exp\left[-\sum_k {\Re\left\{B_k-y(t_k;\vec a)\right\}^2\over2\,\sigma_{\Re\{B_k\}}^2}\right] \nonumber \\
& & \times \exp\left[-\sum_k {\Im\left\{B_k-y(t_k;\vec a)\right\}^2\over2\,\sigma_{\Im\{B_k\}}^2}\right],
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent where $p(\vec a)$ is the prior on $\vec a$ (uniform for $\cos(\iota)$, $\psi$ and $\phi_0$ and $h_0$),
and $\sigma_{\Re\{B_k\}}^2$ and $\sigma_{\Im\{B_k\}}^2$ are the variances on the real and imaginary parts of $B_k$. This posterior
distribution can be examined for evidence of a signal present. In the absence of a signal, an upper limit on strain amplitude
$h_0$ can be found via marginalization over the other three signal parameters to obtain a marginalized posterior:
\begin{equation}
p(h_0|\{B_k\}) \propto \int\!\!\!\!\int\!\!\!\!\int p(\vec a|\{B_k\})\,d\iota\, d\psi\, d\phi_0,
\end{equation}
normalized so that $\int_0^\infty p(h_0|\{B_k\})dh_0 = 1$. Unlike a frequentist confidence level, the resulting curve vs
$h_0$ represents the distribution of degree of belief in any particular value of $h_0$, given the signal model, the
parameter priors and the data observations $\{B_k\}$. One can derive
a 95\%\ credible Bayesian upper limit $h_0^{95\%\>{\rm UL}}$ for which the probability lies below $h_0^{95\%\>{\rm UL}}$ via
\begin{equation}
0.95 = \int_0^{h_0^{95\%\>{\rm UL}}} p(h_0|\{B_k\})dh_0.
\end{equation}
The combined posterior distribution from multiple, independent detectors
can be obtained via the product of the individual likelihoods~\citep{bib:DupuisWoan}.
In the event that estimates of $\iota$ and $\psi$ can be inferred from electromagnetic measurements of the source,
{\it e.g.}, from images of jets assumed to be emitted along the spin axis of a star, then the precision on $h_0$ can
be improved by assigning much narrower priors to the parameters.
\subsubsection{Five-vector method}
\label{sec:fivevectormethod}
The so-called ``Five-vector'' method exploits the property that the complexity in equations~\ref{eqn:cwhdefinition} and~\ref{eqn:jksone}-\ref{eqn:jkstwo}
can be distilled down to five terms~\citep{bib:fivevector}
\begin{equation}
h(t) = h_0\vec A\cdot\vec We^{{\rm i}(\omega_0 t+\phi_0)},
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\omega_0$ is the signal frequency in the SSB frame,
where $\vec A$ can be decomposed into plus- and cross-polarized terms that depend on complex amplitudes $H_+$ and $H_\times$:
\begin{equation}
\vec A = H_+\vec A^+ + H_\times \vec A^\times,
\end{equation}
\noindent and where $\vec A^+$ and $\vec A^\times$ can be expressed in terms of trigonometic functions, using
equations~\ref{eqn:jksone}-\ref{eqn:jkstwo} (see~\citep{bib:fivevector} for detailed expressions). The vector $\vec W$
is a five-component set of basis functions, indexed by $k = [-2, -1, 0, 1, 2]$:
\begin{equation}
\vec W_k = e^{-{\rm i} k\Theta},
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\Theta$ is the detector's local sidereal time in radians.
The data stream $x(t)$ too can be decomposed using these basis functions:
\begin{equation}
\vec X = \int_Tx(t)\vec W e^{-{\rm i}\omega_0 t}dt
\end{equation}
One can then construct a detection statistic using a weighted sum of the squared projections:
\begin{equation}
S = c_+|\hat h_+|^2 +c_\times|\hat h_\times|^2,
\end{equation}
where the projections are defined by
\begin{equation}
\hat h_+ = {\vec X\cdot\vec A^+\over|\vec A^+|^2}; \qquad \hat h_+ = {\vec X\cdot\vec A^+\over|\vec A^\times|^2}.
\end{equation}
Empirically~\citep{bib:fivevector}, it is found that best performance for known $\iota$, $\psi$ can be
obtained with the weightings: $c_{+,\times} = |\vec A^{+,\times}|^4$, while estimation of signal amplitude can be
obtained from
\begin{equation}
\hat h_0 = \sqrt{|\hat h_+|^2+|\hat h_\times|^2}.
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{The $\mathcal{F}$-statistic}
\label{sec:fstatistic}
The most pervasive detection statistic used in broadband CW searches can also be used for targeted searches, namely
the $\mathcal{F}$-statistic~\citep{bib:JKS}.
As above, the $\mathcal{F}$-statistic\ is constructed to take into account not only the frequency / phase modulation of the
detector's translational motion (using time-domain or frequency-domain techiques), but also the amplitude modulation
from daily detector rotation.
It is constructed from a general maximum likelihood approach, where the data is taken to be a sum of random noise $n(t)$ and
a signal $h(t)$:
\begin{equation}
x(t) = n(t) + h(t),
\end{equation}
where $h(t)$ from equations~\ref{eqn:jksone}-\ref{eqn:jkstwo} can be written\footnote{In the original $\mathcal{F}$-statistic\ article~\citep{bib:JKS},
a two-component signal model is assumed, corresponding to frequencies at once and twice the source rotation frequency.
Only the component at twice the rotational frequency is considered here
where the wobble angle $\theta$ in~\citep{bib:JKS} is taken to be $\pi/2$ for a triaxial ellipsoid, allowing a simplification of notation.}
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:hoftdef}
h(t) = \sum_{i=1}^4 A_i h_i(t),
\end{equation}
\noindent where the coefficients $A_i$ are inferred from equations~\ref{eqn:jksone}-\ref{eqn:jkstwo}:
\begin{eqnarray}
A_1 & = & h_0\sin(\zeta)\Biggl[{1\over2}(1+\cos^2(\iota)\cos(2\psi)\cos(2\,\Phi_0) \nonumber\\
& & \qquad\qquad -\cos(\iota)\sin(2\psi)\sin(2\Phi_0)\Biggr], \\
A_2 & = & h_0\sin(\zeta)\Biggl[{1\over2}(1+\cos^2(\iota)\sin(2\psi)\cos(2\,\Phi_0) \nonumber\\
& & \qquad\qquad +\cos(\iota)\cos(2\psi)\sin(2\Phi_0)\Biggr], \\
A_3 & = & h_0\sin(\zeta)\Biggl[-{1\over2}(1+\cos^2(\iota)\cos(2\psi)\sin(2\,\Phi_0) \nonumber\\
& & \qquad\qquad -\cos(\iota)\sin(2\psi)\cos(2\Phi_0)\Biggr], \\
A_4 & = & h_0\sin(\zeta)\Biggl[-{1\over2}(1+\cos^2(\iota)\sin(2\psi)\sin(2\,\Phi_0) \nonumber\\
& & \qquad\qquad +\cos(\iota)\cos(2\psi)\cos(2\Phi_0)\Biggr],
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent and the time-dependent functions $h_i$ have the form:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqn:hidefinitions1}
h_1 = a(t)\cos(2\Phi(t)), & \qquad & h_2(t) = b(t)\cos(2\Phi(t)) \\
\label{eqn:hidefinitions2}
h_3 = a(t)\sin(2\Phi(t)), & \qquad & h_4(t) = b(t)\sin(2\Phi(t)),
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent where $\Phi(t)$ is the phase of the signal, including modulations.
\noindent A log-likelihood function $\log(\Lambda)$ is constructed via:
\begin{equation}
\log(\Lambda) = (x|h) - {1\over2}(h|h),
\end{equation}
\noindent where the scalar product $(\>|\>)$ is defined by a filter matched to the detection noise spectrum:
\begin{equation}
(x|y) := 4\Re\left\{ \int_0^\infty{\tilde x(f)\tilde y^*(f) \over S_h(f) }df \right\},
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\tilde{ }$ denotes a Fourier transform, $*$ is the complex conjugation, and $S_h$ is the one-sided power spectral density.
Following~\citep{bib:JKS}, the narrowband signal allows, in principle, conversion of the scalar product to a time-domain expression:
\begin{equation}
(x|h) \approx {2\over S_h(f_0)}\int_0^{T_{\rm obs}} x(t)h(t)dt,
\end{equation}
\noindent where stationarity of the noise over the observation period $T_{\rm obs}$ is implicitly assumed, which unfortunately, is rarely a good assumption
for interferometers at the frontier of technology. Nonetheless, practical implementations of the $\mathcal{F}$-statistic\ are not limited by this assumption.
Defining a time-domain scalar product:
\begin{equation}
(x||y) := {2\overT_{\rm obs}}\int_0^{T_{\rm obs}}x(t)y(t)dt,
\end{equation}
\noindent the log-likelihood function can be approximated via
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:loglikelihood}
\log(\Lambda) \approx {T_{\rm obs}\over S_h(f_0)}\left[(x||h)-{1\over2}(h||h)\right],
\end{equation}
\noindent which is proportional to a normalized log-likelihood $\log(\Lambda')$:
\begin{equation}
\log(\Lambda') = (x||h) - {1\over2}(h||h),
\end{equation}
\noindent which does not depend explicitly on the spectral noise density. The signal depends linearly
on the four amplitudes $A_i$ and can, in principle, be extracted from a likelihood maximization:
\begin{equation}
{\partial \log\Lambda'\over\partial A_i} = 0,
\end{equation}
\noindent from which a set of linear algebraic equations can be derived:
\begin{equation}
\sum_{i=1}^4\mathcal{M}_{ij} A_j = (x||h_i),
\end{equation}
\noindent where the components of the matrix $\mathcal{M}_{ij}$ are given by
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{M}_{ij} := (h_i||h_j).
\end{equation}
Cross-terms of the $\cos(\Phi(t))$ and $\sin(\Phi(t))$ terms in equations~\ref{eqn:hidefinitions1}-\ref{eqn:hidefinitions2}
can be neglected in the time integrations. The surviving terms can be expressed:
\begin{eqnarray}
(h_1|h_1) \approx & (h_3|h_3) & \approx {1\over2}A, \nonumber\\
(h_2|h_2) \approx & (h_1|h_4) & \approx {1\over2}B, \nonumber\\
(h_1|h_2) \approx & (h_3|h_4) & \approx {1\over2}C,
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent where $A:=(a||a)$, $B:=(b||b)$ and $C:=(a||b)$. With these approximations, the matrix $\mathcal{M}$ becomes
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{M} = \left(\begin{array}{cc} \mathcal{C} & \mathcal{O} \\ \mathcal{O} & \mathcal{C} \\ \end{array} \right),
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\mathcal{O}$ is a zero 2 $\times$ 2 matrix, and $\mathcal{C}$ is
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{C} = {1\over2}\left(\begin{array}{cc} A & C \\ C & B \\ \end{array} \right),
\end{equation}
\noindent from which maximum-likelihood estimators $\tilde A_i$ of the true amplitudes $A_i$ can be obtained:
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde A_1 & = & 2{B(x||h_1)-C(x|h_2)\over D}, \nonumber \\
\tilde A_2 & = & 2{A(x||h_2)-C(x|h_1)\over D}, \nonumber \\
\tilde A_3 & = & 2{B(x||h_3)-C(x|h_4)\over D}, \nonumber \\
\tilde A_4 & = & 2{A(x||h_4)-C(x|h_3)\over D},
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent where $D = AB-C^2$. Substituting these expressions into equation~\ref{eqn:loglikelihood} leads to
the $\mathcal{F}$-statistic\ (denoted by $2\mathcal{F}$:
\begin{eqnarray}
2\mathcal{F} & = {T_{\rm obs}\over S_h(f_0)} \Biggl[
& {B(x||h_1)^2+A(x||h_2)^2-2C(x||h_1)(x||h_2)\over D} \nonumber \\
& & + {B(x||h_3)^2+A(x||h_4)^2-2C(x||h_3)(x||h_4) \over D} \Biggr].
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent The quantity $2\mathcal{F}$ has a probability distribution of a chi-squared with
four degrees of freedom in the absence of a signal and that of a non-central chi-squared
with a non-centrality parameter:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:lambdadefinition}
\lambda \equiv d^2 = (h|h)
\end{equation}
\noindent where $d$ is proportional to signal amplitude~\citep{bib:JKS}. The probability distributions $p_{\rm noise}(2\mathcal{F})$ and $p_{\rm signal+noise}(2\mathcal{F};d)$ are hence:
\begin{eqnarray}
p_{\rm noise}(2\mathcal{F}) & = & {1\over4}(2\mathcal{F}) e^{-(2\mathcal{F})/2}, \\
p_{\rm signal+noise}(2\mathcal{F};d) & = & {\left(2\mathcal{F}\right)^{1\over2}\over d}I_1\left(d\sqrt{(2\mathcal{F})}\right) e^{-{1\over2}(2\mathcal{F})-{1\over2}d^2}, \\
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent where $I_1$ is a modified Bessel function of the first kind (order 1).
As discussed in section~\ref{sec:algorithms}, $2\mathcal{F}$ can be used as a detection statistic, where
a threshold $2\mathcal{F}_0$ can be chosen to satisfy a desired false alarm probability:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\rm CDF}_{\rm noise}[2\mathcal{F}_0] & = & \int_0^{2\mathcal{F}_0} {p_{\rm noise}(2\mathcal{F})}\,d(2\mathcal{F}) = 1-\alpha, \\
& = & 1 - \left(1+2\mathcal{F}_0+{1\over2}2\mathcal{F}_0^2+{1\over6}2\mathcal{F}_0^3\right)e^{-2\mathcal{F}_0},
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent and where the probability of detection for a given $d$ is
\begin{equation}
P_{\rm detection}(d,2\mathcal{F}_0) = \int_{2\mathcal{F}_0}^\infty p_{\rm signal+noise}(2\mathcal{F};d)\,d(2\mathcal{F}).
\end{equation}
The formalism above describes a time-domain implementation~\citep{bib:JKS,bib:tdfstatistic},
but a narrowband frequency implementation~\citep{bib:PrixFstatNote} has been used extensively in LIGO searches.
In searches for known pulsars for which optical or X-ray observations of pulsar wind nebulae allow inference
of $\iota$ and $\psi$, a modified version of the $\mathcal{F}$-statistic\ known as the $\mathcal{G}$-statistic\ can be applied
to gain slightly in sensitivity, depending on the stellar orientation~\citep{bib:gstatisticmethod}.
Although originally derived in a frequentist, log-likelihood framework, the $\mathcal{F}$-statistic\
can also be obtained in a Bayesian approach~\citep{bib:PrixKrishnan} with an unphysical prior (non-isotropic in stellar orientation),
an alternative framework that has received additional
study~\citep{bib:PrixGiampanisMessenger,bib:lineveto1,bib:WhelanEtalCoordinates,bib:DhurandharKrishnanWillis,bib:BeroWhelan,bib:WetteGeometry}.
\subsection{Semi-coherent signal demodulation}
Let's now consider a coarser demodulation, in which phase fidelity is not required for the full observation time. Instead,
the observation is broken into discrete segments of coherence time $T_{\rm coh}$ which need not be contiguous with each other.
The segmentation reduces the fineness with which the parameter space ({\it e.g.}, frequency, frequency derivatives, sky location) must be sampled,
leading to often dramatic reduction in computing cost to search a given parameter space volume, albeit with a degradation of achievable
strain sensitivity.
\subsubsection{The stack-slide method}
\label{sec:stackslide}
For short-enough $T_{\rm coh}$, no frequency demodulation need be applied within a single segment.
One can simply sum the strain power from each bin in an DFT containing the
frequency of the signal for that time interval. Figure~\ref{fig:stackslidegraphic} illustrates the simplest version of this approach,
known as ``stack-slide''~\citep{bib:stackslide1,bib:stackslideimplementation}.
In a spectrogram where each column represents DFT powers for a given $T_{\rm coh}$, the
bin containing the signal frequency (indicated by the green square) varies in frequency from one column to the next. Correcting for
the frequency modulation by shifting columns up or down leads to the signal's power being contained
in a horizontal track in the demodulated spectrogram. For a relatively
narrow frequency band, the amount of vertical shift for a given column is nearly the same for all frequencies in the band, for a given
set of source parameters, including sky location. Hence by stacking powers across rows in the demodulated spectrogram, one can look for
an outlier indicating a signal.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=13.cm]{./StackSlideIllustration.png}
\caption{Conceptual illustration of the ``stack-slide'' method in which rows of a spectrogram are shifted up or down in frequency to account
for Doppler modulations.}
\label{fig:stackslidegraphic}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
To be concrete, define the power $\tilde P^{(k)}_i$ to be the strain power spectral density measured in bin $i$ of DFT $k$, where the bin $i$ is the appropriate bin
after ``sliding'':
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:powerdef}
\tilde P^{(k)}_i = {2|\tilde D^{(k)}_{i(\rm demod)}|^2\overT_{\rm coh}}.
\end{equation}
Following~\citep{bib:cwallskyS4,bib:stackslideimplementation},
this power is renormalized to form a dimensionless quantity $\eta_{i}^k$
\begin{equation}
\eta_{i}^k = {\tilde P^{(k)}_i\overS_{h_{i}}^k},
\end{equation}
\noindent where $S_{h_{i}}^k$ is the one-sided power spectral density expected in the absence of signal.
This quantity differs from the $\rho_i^2$ defined in Equation~\ref{eqn:rhodefinition}, both
in the implicit demodulation associated with bin $i$ and in a factor of 2. Here $\eta_{i}^k$ has an expectation
value of 1 in the absence of signal.
The stack-slide detection statistic $P^{(k)}_{i(\rm SS)}$ then is the average value of $\eta_{i}^k$ over the $N_{\rm DFT}$ DFT's used in the analysis:
\begin{equation}
P^{(k)}_{i(\rm SS)} = {1\overN_{\rm DFT}} \sum_{k=1}^{N_{\rm DFT}} \eta_{i}^k.
\end{equation}
\noindent This quantity has an expectation value of 1 in the absence of signal and a variance of $1/N_{\rm DFT}$.
Signal candidates are chosen based on exceeding a threshold corresponding to a false alarm probability $\alpha$,
from which detection sensitivity is determined from a desired false dismissal probabiity $\beta$.
Appendix B of~\citep{bib:cwallskyS4} details the statistical behavior. In brief, the quantity (similar to $R_i$ of equation~\ref{eqn:Ridef} above)
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{P}_{i(\rm SS)} = 2N_{\rm DFT}\eta_{i}^k
\end{equation}
has the probability density distribution of a non-central $\chi^2$ with $2N_{\rm DFT}$ degrees of freedom and a non-centrality parameter
$2N_{\rm DFT}<\!\!d^2\!\!>$ which is the expectation value of the estimator in Equation~\ref{eqn:lambdadefinition} when evaluated over a single DFT.
Hence the
probability density distribution for $\mathcal{P}_{i(\rm SS)}$ follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
p_{\rm signal+noise}(\mathcal{P}_{i(\rm SS)};N_{\rm DFT},d) & = & {I_{N_{\rm DFT}-1}\left(\sqrt{\mathcal{P}_{i(\rm SS)}N_{\rm DFT} <\!d^2\!>}\right)\over\left(N_{\rm DFT}<\!d^2\!>\right)^{N_{\rm DFT}-1}} \nonumber \\
& \times & \mathcal{P}_{i(\rm SS)}^{{N_{\rm DFT}-1\over2}} e^{-\left(N_{\rm DFT}+<\!{d^2\over2}\!>\right)}.
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent Numerical evaluation~\citep{bib:cwallskyS4} for $\alpha=0.01$ and $\beta=0.10$ leads (in the large $N_{\rm DFT}$ limit)
to a sensitivity $<\!d^2\!>^{(90)} \approx 7.385 / \sqrt{N_{\rm DFT}}$ and to a strain sensitivity {\it for a single template search}
of $h_0^{(90)} \approx 7.7\sqrt{S_h}/\left(T_{\rm coh}T_{\rm obs}\right)^{1/4}$, where $T_{\rm obs}$ refers here to the total observing time analyzed and where
stationary data is implicitly assumed. In practice, however, this method is applied to wide-parameter searches for which trials factors lead
to much worse strain sensitivities~\citep{bib:TenorioEtalLoudestCandidate}. \citep{bib:PrixShaltev} carry out a detailed analysis of maximizing sensitivity at fixed computational cost for
different stack-slide search configurations.
\subsubsection{The Powerflux method}
\label{sec:PowerFlux}
The PowerFlux method~\citep{bib:cwallskyS4},
in its simplest form, is similar to the stack-slide method, with the following
refinements: 1) an explicit polarization is assumed for each signal template searched,
with an antenna pattern correction applied; 2) detection statistic variance is minimized in
the presence of non-stationary noise; and the detection statistic itself is a direct measure
of strain amplitude.
Using the same notation as above (see Equation~\ref{eqn:powerdef}), the PowerFlux detection statistic $R_{\rm PF}$ for a given set of orientation
parameters $\iota$ and $\psi$ is written:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:PFdef}
R_{\rm PF} = {2\overT_{\rm coh}} { \sum_{i=1}^{N_{\rm DFT}} W_i \tilde P^{(k)}_i / (F_i(\iota,\psi))^2 \over \sum_{i=1}^{N_{\rm DFT}} W_i },
\end{equation}
\noindent where the weights are defined as
\begin{equation}
W_i = [(F_i(\iota,\psi))^2]^2/S_{h_{i}}^2,
\end{equation}
\noindent and where $F_i(\iota,\psi)$ is the antenna pattern weight calculated for the midpoint of the
time segment $i$ for the assumed polarization such that the detector amplitude response can be
written as $h_{{\rm det},i} = h_0F_i(\iota,\psi)$. In practice, searches have been carried out for
circular polarization ($\iota=0$ or $\pi$) and for particular linear polarization angles $\psi$
(with $\iota=\pi/2$) to define ``best-case'' and ``worst-case'' orientations, respectively.
The choice of weight definition comes from minimizing the variance of the strain amplitude
estimator $\tilde P^{(k)}_i/(F_i(\iota,\psi))^2$, where the noise (in the weak signal regime) is assumed to be dominated
in each time segment $i$ by a power spectral density $S_{h_{i}}$ with underlying Gaussian distributions for
real and imaginary DFT components. Under that assumption, the variance of the noise is
proportional to $(S_{h_{i}})^2$. As a result, each term in the numerator of Equation~\ref{eqn:PFdef}
is proportional to $(F_i(\iota,\psi))^2\tilde P^{(k)}_i/S_{h_{i}}^2$, which gives higher weight to segments with higher $F_i(\iota,\psi)$ magnitude
and lower noise $S_{h_{i}}$, as one would wish. For a given polarization choice defined by $(\iota,\psi)$
the detection statistic $R_{\rm PF}$ is a direct measure of total strain power such that subtracting
the expectation value based on neighboring bin yields a direct estimator for signal power.
\subsubsection{Hough transform methods}
\label{sec:hough}
Hough transform methods refer, in practice, to an application of a pattern recognition algorithm
first developed for use in the 1960's by high energy particle physicists~\citep{bib:houghibm1,bib:houghibm2}
to reconstruct a charged particle's trajectory from discrete
positions (``hits''), measured by a tracking detector.
The method is best suited to
data that is ``sparse'' and for which a simple transformation from the raw measurements to
the signal parameter space can amplify the detection statistic. In the original application
to particle tracking, the hits were two-dimensional projections for which looking
for straight lines built out of all hit combinations
was computationally intensive (especially in the 1960's!).
To represent a straight line, instead of offset and slope,
the vector of its minimum distance to the origin, in polar coordinates
$(r,\theta)$, is used.
A point $(x,y)$ belonging to that line sets the relation
$r=x\cos\theta+y\sin\theta$ which is a sinusoidal curve in the $\theta$-$r$ plane.
Cells in that plane count how many curves pass within their boundaries,
and the most occupied cell identifies $(r,\theta)$ of the original track.
In the case of CW searches, two different Hough transform methods (``Sky Hough'' and ``Frequency Hough'')
have been used in recent years,
both of which accumulate excess power from frequency-demodulated DFTs. In the
Sky Hough method~\citep{bib:houghmethod}, the transformation is from a narrow frequency band and
frequency derivative to right ascension and declination, where broad patches of sky
are searched collectively. In the Frequency Hough method~\citep{bib:freqhough1,bib:freqhough2}, the transform
is from a time-frequency plane to a plane of frequency and frequency derivative. In each case, one searches
for a statistically significant excess among the pixels and applies a thresholding
to individual accumulated powers, in order to reduce computational cost in the accumulation.
The Hough number count is defined as a weighted sum of binary counts $n_i$:
\begin{equation}
n = \sum_{i=1}^{N_{\rm DFT}} w_i n_i,
\end{equation}
\noindent where $n_i$ = 1 if the normalized segment power $\eta_{i}^k$ exceeds a threshold $\eta^*$
and zero otherwise,
and where the weights favor low-noise times and are optimized for circular polarization~\citep{bib:freqhough1,bib:cwallskyS4}:
\begin{equation}
w_i \propto {1\overS_{h_{i}}} \left[(F_i^+)^2+(F_i^\times)^2\right],
\end{equation}
\noindent with a normalization chosen to satisfy:
\begin{equation}
\sum_{i=1}^{N_{\rm DFT}} w_i = N_{\rm DFT}.
\end{equation}
In the Sky Hough method~\citep{bib:houghmethod}, so-called ``Hough maps'' in right ascension and declination are created for each assumed frequency and frequency derivative,
where signal outliers produce ``hot'' pixels in the sky patch for which the map applies.
In the Frequency Hough method~\citep{bib:freqhough1,bib:freqhough2}, the Hough map is created instead in the plane of frequency and frequency derivative for each
localized sky point. The primary motivations for this alternative mapping to parameter space are reduction of inaccuracies arising from approximations
and non-linearities in the mapping to the sky and avoidance of artifact ``pileup'' in which certain regions of the sky are contaminated over subbands
by particular narrowband artifacts.
Regardless of the choice of parameter space mapping, the statistical character of the Hough number counts
is governed by the value of the threshold used to define the binary counts $n_i$.
The mean number count in the absence of a signal is $\bar n = N_{\rm DFT} p$, where $p$ is the probability that the normalized power
$\eta_{i}^k$ exceeds a threshold value $\eta^*$. For unity weighting, the standard deviation is
$\sigma_{\bar n} = N_{\rm DFT} p(1-p)$. For the more general weighting, this becomes:
\begin{equation}
\sigma = \left[p(1-p)\sum_{i=1}^{N_{\rm DFT}}w_i^2\right]^{1/2}.
\end{equation}
\noindent For $N_{\rm DFT}\gg1$, the underlying distribution can be approximated as Gaussian,
in which case a threshold $n_{\rm th}(\alpha)$ corresponding to a false alarm rate $\alpha$ is
given by~\citep{bib:houghmethod}
\begin{equation}
n_{\rm th} = N_{\rm DFT}\,p+\sqrt{2}\,\sigma\, {\rm erfc}^{-1}(2\alpha),
\end{equation}
\noindent where it is natural to regard the significance of a given measured $n$ to
be
\begin{equation}
s = {n-\bar n\over\sigma}.
\end{equation}
In \citep{bib:houghmethod,bib:cwallskyS2,bib:cwallskyS4} an optimal choice of the normalized power threshold parameter
is found to be $\eta^*\approx 1.6$, for which $p=e^{-\eta^*} \approx0.2$.
One can compute~\citep{bib:cwallskyS4} a sensitivity $h_0^{1-\beta}(\alpha)$ for
a false dismissal probability $\beta$ and false alarm probability $\alpha$:
\begin{equation}
h_0^{1-\beta}(\alpha) \approx 3.38\mathcal(S)^{1/2} \left({||{\bf w}||\over{\bf w\cdot X}}\right)^{1/2}\,\sqrt{1\overT_{\rm coh}},
\end{equation}
\noindent where $||{\bf w}|| = \sum_{i=1}^{N_{\rm DFT}}w_i^2$ and
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{S} & = & {\rm erfc}^{-1}(2\alpha)+{\rm erfc}^{-1}(2\beta) \\
X_i & = & {1\over S_{h_{i}}} \left[\left(F_+^i\right)^2+\left(F_\times^i\right)^2\right],
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent and where $F_{+/\times}^i$ refer to the antenna pattern functions for the $+$ and $\times$ polarizations evaluated
at the midpoint of time segment $i$.
Other improvements to the Sky Hough method have included incorporating a hierarchical approach~\citep{bib:SkyHoughHierarchical},
adaptation to a search for stars in binary systems~\citep{bib:binaryskyhough1} (see section~\ref{sec:allskybinary}),
clustering of outliers~\citep{bib:skyhoughclustering} and systematic outlier
follow-up~\citep{bib:TenorioEtal}.
\subsubsection{The Stacked $\mathcal{F}$-statistic\ method}
\label{sec:stackedfstatistic}
The semi-coherent approach used above (in various approaches) with DFT coefficients can also be applied to
longer segments of time for each of which the coherent $\mathcal{F}$-statistic\ is computed. This approach permits deeper
sensitivity since the $\mathcal{F}$-statistic\ can be computed without degradation of signal coherence for arbitrarily long
periods of time. The disadvantage is that the much finer resolution in parameter space associated
with such sensitivity leads to much greater computational cost, coming from the fine stepping needed within each
segment and from the mapping with negligible signal loss from one segment to the next. A variety of $\mathcal{F}$-statistic\ ``stacking''
methods\footnote{``Stacking'' the $\mathcal{F}$-statistic\ values is more subtle than in the stacking used in
the stack-slide and other semi-coherent methods based on summing DFT powers because the demodulations to obtain
the $\mathcal{F}$-statistic\ values differ across time segments.}
have been implemented over the years, both inside and outside of the framework of the Einstein@Home
distributed computing system (see section~\ref{sec:allsky}).
When computing the $\mathcal{F}$-statistic\ over short time segments, a modified variation, the $\mathcal{F}_{\rm AB}$-statistic, which avoids
degeneracy due to minimal antenna pattern modulation
can be more effective~\citep{bib:CovasPrixModFstat}.
Many of the considerations discussed in semi-coherent summing of DFT power have analogs in $\mathcal{F}$-statistic\ summing,
including the use of thresholding and the use of Hough transform mapping. Particular implementations will be discussed
below in sections~\ref{sec:templatesdirected} and \ref{sec:allsky}. One critical issue in these computationally costly searches is the optimum
placement of signal templates in parameter space, to be discussed next, more generally.
\subsection{Template placement}
\label{sec:templates}
Computationally demanding searches must choose step sizes in signal parameter space, with finer spacing leading
to greater cost, in general. The choices are typically governed by what is considered an acceptable maximum ``mismatch'',
normally parametrized by the fractional decrease in detection statistic for a given offset in parameter space.
For an $n$-dimensional, locally Cartesian grid defined by $n$ search parameters, one can regard the mismatch parameter $\mu$ as governing
the maximum half-length of the diagonal of the $n$-dimensional cell containing the correct signal parameters.
Conceptually, we imagine having made the least optimum choice of grid offset such that the true parameters lie at
the center of the cell, and no matter which of the $2^n$ corners of the cell is sampled, the value of the detection statistic
is no smaller than $1-\mu$ of the value obtained, had the center of the cell been sampled.
Figure~\ref{fig:templatediagram} illustrates the concept with a detection statistic ``surface'' above a plane
in two signal parameters, where the contours correspond to mismatch
values of 20\%, 40\%, 60\%\ and 80\%.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=13.cm]{./TemplateDiagram.png}
\caption{Illustration of mismatch for a generic detection statistic. The upper panel shows
a ``surface'' of height equal to the detection statistic for a pure signal above a plane
defined by two signal-defining parameters (with zero covariance for simplicity). The green cross marks the true location for
the two parameters and the maximum possible detection statistic. The lower panel shows detection statistic
contours in the two-parameter space, where the contours correspond to mismatch
values of 20\%, 40\%, 60\%\ and 80\%.
The red crosses define a search template grid chosen to be least optimal for this signal location in that the true
signal location is centered in a 2-dimensional cell, which maximizes the possible minimum mismatch (20\%) between
the detection statistics for the true signal and the closest template. The dashed diagonal line defines
the ``distance'' in the 2-dimensional parameter space between the true signal location and
the closest search template.
}
\label{fig:templatediagram}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In the following,
general considerations of template placement are considered, first for directed searches for particular points on
the sky, for which placement is relatively straightforward, and then for all-sky searches, where template placement
is quite subtle and remains an active research front.
\subsubsection{Template placement in directed searches}
\label{sec:templatesdirected}
For coherent directed searches, the phase evolution equation~\ref{eqn:phaseevolution} governs template placement,
where for multi-day analyses, the effects of amplitude modulation can be safely neglected in choosing
template spacing~\citep{bib:PrixTemplates1,bib:PrixTemplatesEfficient}.
Consider for a moment a highly simplified detection statistic based on multiplying in the time domain
an assumed sinusoidal signal template having
a particular phase constant $\phi_0'$ and frequency $f_0'$ against the raw data $x(t)$, assumed to be a sum of
random Gaussian noise $n(t)$ and a sinusoid signal having amplitude $h_0$, phase constant $\phi_0$ and frequency $f_0$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqn:templateFbasic}
F(\phi_0,f_0') & = & \left|{2\over T}\int_0^T e^{-i(\phi_0'+2\pi f_0't)}\>x(t)dt\right|^2 \\
& = & \left|{2\over T}\int_0^T e^{-i(\phi_0'+2\pi f_0't)}\>[n(t)+h_0\cos(\phi_0+2\pi f_0t)]dt\right|^2.
\end{eqnarray}
In the limit of large $T$ and strong signal, the expectation value of $F$ when maximized over possible template values for
$\phi_0'$ and $f_0'$ is simply $h_0^2$, independent of $\phi_0$ and $f_0$, where $F$ is maximized for $\Delta\phi\equiv\phi'-\phi = 0$ and
$\Delta f\equiv f_0'-f_0 = 0$. To understand how rapidly $F$ decreases as $|\Delta f|$ departs from zero, it's helpful
to rewrite $\cos(\phi_0+2\pi f_0t) = {1\over2}(e^{i(\phi_0+2\pi f_0t)}+e^{-i(\phi_0+2\pi f_0t)})$, where in the strong-signal limit of large $T$,
$F$ approaches
\begin{eqnarray}
F & = & \left|{h_0\over T}\int_0^T e^{-i[\Delta\phi+2\pi \Delta ft]}\>dt\right|^2 \\
& = & h_0^2 \left| {1\over i2\pi\Delta f T}(1-e^{-i2\pi\Delta ft}) \right|^2 \\
& = & h_0^2 \left| e^{-i(2\pi\Delta fT /2)} \right| \left| {2\sin(2\pi\Delta fT/2)\over 2\pi\Delta fT} \right|^2 \\
& = & h_0^2 \left| {\rm sinc}(\pi\Delta fT)\right|^2 \\
& \approx & h_0^2\left[1-{1\over3}\left(\pi\Delta fT\right)^2\right],
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent where the convention ${\rm sinc}(x) \equiv {\sin(x)\over x}$ is chosen. If we rewrite this last result
as $F\approx h_0^2\cos^2(\Delta\phi_{\rm mismatch})$, then the tolerance in $\Delta f$ for a phase mismatch value
$\Delta\phi_{\rm mismatch}$ is
\begin{equation}
\Delta f_{\rm mismatch} \approx {\sqrt{3}\over\pi T}\Delta\phi_{\rm mismatch},
\end{equation}
\noindent which is $2\sqrt{3}$ larger than the naive underestimate of
equation~\ref{eqn:ftolerance}. Consequently, in a search that automatically maximizes $F$ over the unknown
phase constant, one need not search as finely in frequency as suggested by equation~\ref{eqn:phaseevolution},
which implies reduced computational costs in large-scale searches.
Given the importance of template placement to those costs, in fact, a systematic approach is merited. Following methodology developed
originally for template placement in compact binary merger searches~\citep{bib:SathyaFilterbank,bib:OwenTemplates,bib:SathyaTemplates}, one can
rewrite and generalize the simplified detection statistic in equation~\ref{eqn:templateFbasic}, replacing the data with another template and
address the reduction in $F$'s value due to mismatch of template parameters
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqn:templateFgeneral}
F(\phi_0,f_0') & = & \left|{1\over T}\int_0^T e^{-i\Phi(t;\vec\lambda')}e^{i\Phi(t;\vec\lambda)}\>dt\right|^2 \\
& = & \left|{1\over T}\int_0^T e^{i(\Phi(t;\vec\lambda)-\Phi(t;\vec\lambda'))}\>dt\right|^2 \\
& = & \left|{1\over T}\int_0^T e^{i\Delta\Phi(t;\Delta\vec\lambda)}\>dt\right|^2,
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent where $\vec\lambda$ and $\vec\lambda'$ refer to a set of $N$ parameters, such as phase and frequency derivatives,
and where $\Delta\vec\lambda \equiv \vec\lambda-\vec\lambda'$. Clearly, for $\Delta\vec\lambda = 0$, $F = 1$ and is maximum, with vanishing first
partial derivatives. Hence we expect $F$ to have the following form in the vicinity of $\Delta\vec\lambda=0$:
\begin{equation}
F \approx 1 - {1\over2}\sum_{k,\ell=1}^N {\partial^2 F\over\partial\Delta\lambda_k\partial\Delta\lambda_\ell}\biggr|_{\Delta\vec\lambda=0}\Delta\lambda_k\Delta\lambda_\ell,
\end{equation}
which leads to the definition of a {\it metric}:
\begin{equation}
g_{k\ell} = - {1\over2}{\partial^2 F\over\partial\Delta\lambda_k\partial\Delta\lambda_\ell}\biggr|_{\Delta\vec\lambda=0},
\end{equation}
such that the {\it mismatch} $\mu$ of a template deviation is $\mu = \sum_{k,\ell}g_{k\ell}\Delta\lambda_k\Delta\lambda_\ell$. Hence the
appropriate spacing of templates in parameter space to avoid excessive mismatch is governed by the form of $g_{k\ell}$.
A general treatment of finding $g_{k\ell}$~\citep{bib:OwenTemplates} can be approached by Taylor-expanding the exponential
in equation~\ref{eqn:templateFgeneral}: $e^{i\Delta\Phi} \approx 1 + i\Delta\Phi - {1\over2}\Delta\Phi^2$ and evaluating
the second derivatives of $F$ with respect to $\Delta\lambda_k$ and $\Delta\lambda_\ell$. In the limit $\Delta\vec\lambda\rightarrow0$, one finds:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:metricpartials}
{\partial^2 F\over\partial\Delta\lambda_k\partial\Delta\lambda_\ell}\biggr|_{\Delta\vec\lambda=0}
= \left<\!{\partial\Phi\over\partial\Delta\lambda_k}{\partial\Phi\over\partial\Delta\lambda_\ell}\!\right>
- \left<\!{\partial\Phi\over\partial\Delta\lambda_k}\!\right>\left<\!{\partial\Phi\over\partial\Delta\lambda_\ell}\!\right>,
\end{equation}
\noindent where
\begin{equation}
\left<f(t)\right> \equiv {1\over T}\int_0^T f(t)e^{-i\Delta\Phi(t;\Delta\vec\lambda)}\>dt\biggr|_{\Delta\vec\lambda=0}.
\end{equation}
More specifically, in the context of the Taylor expansion of the phase function:
\begin{equation}
\Delta\Phi(t;\Delta\vec\lambda) \approx \Delta\phi_0 + 2\pi\sum_{m=0}^N {\Delta f^{(m)}t^{m+1}\over(m+1)!},
\end{equation}
\noindent where $f^{(m)} = {d^mf\over dt^m}\bigr|_{t=0}$, $F$ can be expanded:
\begin{eqnarray}
F & \approx & \left|{1\over T}\int_0^T e^{i\left(\Delta\phi_0 + 2\pi\sum_{m=0}^N {\Delta f^{(m)}t^{m+1}\over(m+1)!}\right) }\>dt\right|^2 \\
& \approx & |e^{i\Delta\phi_0} |^2\Biggl|{1\over T}\int_0^T \biggl[1 + i\,2\pi\sum_{m=0}^N{\Delta f^{(m)}t^{m+1}\over(m+1)!} \nonumber \\
& & - {1\over2} (2\pi)^2\sum_{m,n=0}^N{\Delta f^{(m)}\Delta f^{(n)}t^{m+n+2}\over(m+1)!(n+1)!}\biggr] \>dt \Biggr|^2 \\
& \approx & \Biggl|{1\over T} \biggl[T + i\,2\pi\sum_{m=0}^N{\Delta f^{(m)}T^{m+2}\over(m+2)!} \nonumber \\
& & - {1\over2} (2\pi)^2\sum_{m,n=0}^N{\Delta f^{(m)}\Delta f^{(n)}T^{m+n+3}\over(m+1)!(n+1)!(m+n+3)}\biggr] \Biggr|^2 \\
& \approx & \biggl[1 + (2\pi)^2\sum_{m,n=0}^N{\Delta f^{(m)}\Delta f^{(n)}T^{m+n+2}\over(m+2)!(n+2)!} \nonumber \\
& & - (2\pi)^2\sum_{m,n=0}^N{\Delta f^{(m)}\Delta f^{(n)}T^{m+n+2}\over(m+1)!(n+1)!(m+n+3)}\biggr] \\
& = & 1 - (2\pi)^2\sum_{m,n=0}^N{\Delta f^{(m)}\Delta f^{(n)}T^{m+n+2}(m+1)(n+1)\over(m+2)!(n+2)!(m+n+3)}.
\end{eqnarray}
Terms higher in order than $\Delta f^{(m)}\Delta f^{(n)}$ have been neglected in the above.
From this last expression, we conclude that the metric $g_{k\ell}$ can be written:
\begin{equation}
g_{k\ell} = (2\pi)^2{T^{k+\ell+2}(k+1)(\ell+1)\over(k+2)!(\ell+2)!(k+\ell+3)}.
\end{equation}
\noindent See~\citep{bib:cwcasamethod} for the same expression for the
metric for the $\mathcal{F}$-statistic~\citep{bib:JKS} in a directed search.
As examples, consider the 2-parameter metric with respect to frequency $f_0$ and its first derivative $f_1$:
\begin{eqnarray}
g_{00} & = & {1\over3}\left(\pi T\right)^2 \\
g_{01} & = & {1\over6}\left(\pi T^{3/2}\right)^2 \\
g_{11} & = & {4\over45}\left(\pi T^2\right)^2
\end{eqnarray}
For a given desired mismatch $\Delta M$, define nominal offsets $\Delta f_0^*$ and $\Delta f_1^*$, using only the
diagonal metric elements: ($\Delta f_k^* \equiv \sqrt{\Delta M}/g_{kk}$)
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqn:fstar0def}
\Delta f_0^* & = & {\sqrt{3\Delta M}\over\pi T} \\
\label{eqn:fstar1def}
\Delta f_1^* & = & {3\sqrt{5\Delta M}\over\pi T^2}
\end{eqnarray}
Since off-diagonal terms in the metric are non-zero, a rectangular grid using only diagonal terms will, in general,
be inefficient. Figure~\ref{fig:templatepoints} illustrates for a 2-dimensional slice of $\Delta f_0$ {\it vs.}\ $\Delta f_1$ (=$\Delta\dot{f}_{\rm GW}$) a template grid that accounts for these correlations in mismatch. A grid placement based on only
the diagonal metric elements would lead to inefficient coverage, as shown.
References~\citep{bib:PrixTemplatesEfficient,bib:WetteTemplates1} discuss more generally and in more
detail template grid placement for CW searches, with special focus on searches over
the three-dimensional parameter space ($f_{\rm GW}$,$\dot{f}_{\rm GW}$,$\ddot{f}_{\rm GW}$).
As noted above, however, for short coherence
times, the range of $\ddot{f}_{\rm GW}$ searches may be smaller than $\Delta\ddot{f}_{\rm GW}^*$ in regions of parameter space,
depending on braking-index assumptions and the value of $\dot{f}_{\rm GW}$.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=13.cm]{./templates2.png}
\caption{Illustration of a ($\Delta f_0$, $\Delta f_1$) template grid (black stars) and constant-mismatch elliptical contours for which the grid point placement gives complete coverage. The values of the frequency and frequency derivative are given in
normalized units of $\Delta f_0^*$ and $\Delta f_1^*$ defined in equations~\ref{eqn:fstar0def}-\ref{eqn:fstar1def}.
The magenta diamonds indicate a rectangular grid with full coverage when the off-diagonal metric term is ignored.}
\label{fig:templatepoints}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Template placement in all-sky searches}
\label{sec:templatesallsky}
Template placement in all-sky searches is relatively straightforward for semi-coherent searches using short coherence times $T_{\rm coh}$
of $\sim$(hours) or less, but is quite subtle for coherent searches using much longer coherence times and for semi-coherent
searches using long coherence times for each data segment.
Short-$T_{\rm coh}$ template grids can be factorized over sky location ($\alpha$, $\delta$) and over ($f_{\rm GW}$, $\dot{f}_{\rm GW}$), using
isotropic grid point placement, {\it e.g.}, density proportional to $\cos(\delta$) and uniform in $\alpha$, with a rectangular
grid in ($f_{\rm GW}$, $\dot{f}_{\rm GW}$), with spacings determined empirically or semi-analytically for a given data run. For example,
the rule of thumb given in equation~\ref{eqn:angres} overestimates the density needed for short observation times of
$\sim$(few months) because of correlations~\citep{bib:PrixItoh}
in the dependence of a semi-coherent power sum on sky location and frequency
parameters. For a data set collected over 1-2 months of the Earth's orbit, the average acceleration of the
detector toward the Sun creates an apparent offset in the spin-down of a putative source. Hence a search over a band of
frequencies and 1st derivatives
may detect a signal with nearly as high an SNR as the nominal maximum, but with correlated offsets in
the four parameters ($\alpha$, $\delta$, $f_{\rm GW}$, $\dot{f}_{\rm GW}$). For longer observation times, these near degeneracies
in parameter space become less helpful; signal templates must be placed more densely.
At additional computational cost, these semi-coherent
searches may also search explicitly over source polarizations, or may choose to apply a circular polarization weighting
and sacrifice some sensitivity to near-linear polarizations~\citep{bib:cwallskyS4}.
Template placement for much longer coherence times is more challenging
because analytic
approximations break down for long coherence times and because naive grid spacings depend on the specific region
of the Earth's orbit covered by a particular coherence time, making the systematic matching of signal candidates
across different time segments non-trivial in semi-coherent searches. Template placement for the $\mathcal{F}$-statistic\
has received much attention in the last decade and a half~\citep{bib:Whitbeck,bib:PrixTemplates1,bib:PrixTemplatesEfficient,bib:WettePrix,bib:WetteTemplates1},
in part because of its use in the Einstein@Home (see section~\ref{sec:allsky}) distributed computing platform.
From equation~\ref{eqn:lambdadefinition}, one can define a mismatch analogous to that of
section~\ref{sec:templatesdirected}:
\begin{equation}
1 - \mu \equiv {(h_{\vec\lambda+\Delta\vec\lambda}|h_{\vec\lambda+\Delta\vec\lambda})\over (h_{\vec\lambda}|h_{\vec\lambda}),}
\end{equation}
\noindent where we expect an approximately quadratic falloff from unity for small $|\Delta\vec\lambda|$ (but
see~\citep{bib:AllenTemplates} for a discussion of template placement for larger $|\Delta\vec\lambda|$ and
see~\citep{bib:AllenTemplates2} which distinguishes between optimality for setting rigorous
upper limits and optimality for signal detection).
The complexity of the definition of $(h|h)$ (see equations~\ref{eqn:aoftdef}-\ref{eqn:boftdef}
and \ref{eqn:hoftdef}-\ref{eqn:hidefinitions2})
do not yield a definition of $(h|h)$ in the convenient form of equation~\ref{eqn:templateFgeneral}.
In particular, the sidereal antenna pattern modulations due to the Earth's rotation are not accommodated
by the phase-only dependence of the simplified form.
For long observation times, however, amplitude modulation effects can be averaged with sufficient
accuracy~\citep{bib:PrixTemplates1}. Phase modulation from the Earth's motion is captured
by equation~\ref{eqn:templateFgeneral}, allowing use of equation~\ref{eqn:metricpartials} to
determine the $\mathcal{F}$-statistic\ metric with respect to frequency parameters and sky location.
Following the treatment of \citep{bib:PrixTemplates1}, a more explicit phase evolution can be written:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:phaseexplicit}
\Phi(t) = \phi_0 + 2\pi\sum_{m=0}^N{f^{(m)}(\tau_{\rm ref})\tau(t)^{m+1}\over(m+1)!},
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\tau(t)$ is the SSB arrival time of the signal. Ignoring the Shapiro and Einstein
delays in equation~\ref{eqn:phasedefinition} for metric definition, one can write:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:ttotau}
\tau(t) = t + {\vec r(t)\cdot\hat n\over c} - \tau_{\rm ref},
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\vec r(t)$ is the position of the detector at time $t$, $\hat n$ is the unit
vector pointing from the detector to the source, and $\tau_{\rm ref}$ is the reference time
in the SSB frame at which the frequency and its derivatives are defined.
The phase derivatives entering equation~\ref{eqn:metricpartials}
can then be written:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\partial \Phi\over \partial f^{(k)}} & = & 2\pi{\tau(t)^{k+1}\over(k+1)!} \\
{\partial \phi\over n_i} & = & 2\pi {r_i(t)\over c}\sum_{m=0}^N{f^{(m)}(\tau_{\rm ref})\tau(t)^{m+1}\over(m+1)!},
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent from which the metric terms for a particular point in parameter space ($\vec f$, $\hat n$)
can be computed via numerical integration of equation~\ref{eqn:metricpartials}
over the observation span, with precise description
of $r(t)$, accounting for the non-zero eccentricity of the Earth's orbit. It is convenient in some studies, though,
to make the ``Ptolemaic'' approximation~\citep{bib:ptolemymetric,bib:Whitbeck} in which the Earth's orbit
is treated as circular, for which analytic but quite lengthy trigonometric expressions can be obtained~\citep{bib:Whitbeck}.
An inconvenient property of the metric defined above using the parameters ($\vec f$, $\hat n$) is that
converting the 3-D Cartesian $\hat n$ components to the 2-D sky coordinates $\alpha$ and $\delta$ leads to
a sky spacing that depends on the parameter themselves.
A metric more convenient for large-scale CW searches over the entire sky can be obtained by
exploiting {\it global correlations} in parameter space~\citep{bib:Pletsch,bib:PletschAllen}.
For multi-day coherence times short compared to one orbital year, one can Taylor-expand
the rescaled position of the Earth's center $\vec\xi(t) \equiv \vec r(t)/c$ in equation~\ref{eqn:ttotau} about the
midpoint $t_0$ of the coherence time span $T_{\rm coh}$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:xidef}
\vec \xi(t) = \vec \xi(t_0) + \sum_{n=1}^\infty {\vec\xi^{(n)}(t_0)(t-t_0)^n\over n!}.
\end{equation}
Defining $t_0\equiv0$ for convenience,
the Earth's orbital motion (excluding daily rotation) contribution to signal phase can then be written:
\begin{eqnarray}
\phi_{\rm orb}(t) & = & 2\pi \vec r_{\rm orb}(t)\cdot \hat n \left(\sum_{k=0}^N {f^{(k)} t^k\over k!}\right) \\
& = & 2\pi \left(\sum_{k=0}^N {f^{(k)} t^k\over k!}\right)\left(\sum_{\ell=0}^\infty{t^\ell\over\ell!}\vec\xi^{(\ell)}\cdot\hat n\right) \\
& = & 2\pi \sum_{m=0}^\infty t^m\left(\sum_{n=0}^{m'} {f^{(n)}\vec\xi^{(m'-n)}\over n!(m'-n)!}\cdot\hat n\right),
\end{eqnarray}
where $m'$ = min($m$,$N$).
It is also convenient to define new sky coordinates that capture the vector difference in signal
phase (radians) between
the source direction ($\alpha$, $\delta$) and the detector's direction from the Earth's center ($\alpha_D(t_0)$, $\delta_D$) at time $t_0$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqn:nxdef}
n_x(t_0) & \equiv & 2\pi f(t_0) \tau_{\rm E} \cos(\delta)\cos(\delta_D)\cos[\alpha-\alpha_D(t_0)], \\
\label{eqn:nydef}
n_y(t_0) & \equiv & 2\pi f(t_0) \tau_{\rm E} \cos(\delta)\cos(\delta_D)\sin[\alpha-\alpha_D(t_0)],
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent where $\tau_{\rm E} = R_{\rm E}/c$ is the light travel time from the Earth's center to the detector.
(See~\citep{bib:JK1999} for a similar sky coordinate definition.)
Putting together equations~\ref{eqn:phaseexplicit}-\ref{eqn:ttotau} and \ref{eqn:xidef}-\ref{eqn:nydef} and absorbing
phase constants into a single term $\phi_0'$, one obtains:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqn:phiandnu}
\Phi(t) & = & \phi_0' + \sum_{k=0}^N\nu^{(k)}(t_0)\left({t-t_0\overT_{\rm coh}}\right)^{k+1}2^{k+1} \nonumber \\
& & +\>n_x(t_0)\cos(\Omega t) + n_y(t_0)\sin(\Omega t),
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent where $\nu^{(k)}$ are new coordinates, serving the role of effective frequencies and effective
frequency derivatives:
\begin{eqnarray}
\nu^{(k)} & = & 2\pi\left({T_{\rm coh}\over2}\right)^{k+1}\biggl[{f^{(k)}(t_0)\over(k+1)!} + \nonumber \\
& & +\sum_{\ell=0}^{k+1}{f^{(\ell)}(t_0)\over\ell!(k-\ell+1)!}\vec\xi^{(k-\ell+1)}(t_0)\cdot\hat n\biggr],
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent where the insertion of powers of $T_{\rm coh}$ is to make the coordinates dimensionless. Since all-sky searches to date
have used only up to 1st-order frequency derivatives in first-stage analyis, it is useful to express $\nu(t_0)$ and
$\dot\nu(t_0) \equiv \nu^{(1)}(t_0)$ explicitly:
\begin{eqnarray}
\nu(t_0) & = & 2\pi{T_{\rm coh}\over2}\left[f(t_0)+f(t_0)\dot{\vec\xi}(t_0)\cdot\hat n+\dot f\vec\xi(t_0)\cdot\hat n\right] \\
\dot\nu(t_0) & = & 2\pi\left({T_{\rm coh}\over2}\right)^2\left[{\dot f\over2}+{f(t_0)\over2}\ddot{\vec\xi}(t_0)\cdot\hat n+\dot f\dot{\vec\xi}(t_0)\cdot\hat n\right]
\end{eqnarray}
The form of
equation~\ref{eqn:phiandnu} indicates the phase is linear with respect to the coordinates $\nu^{(k)}$, $n_x$ and $n_y$,
which permits an analytic evaluation of the metric components~\citep{bib:Pletschmetric} for a coherent search.
Expressions appropriate for searching over a 2nd-order frequency derivative can be found in~\citep{bib:Pletschmetric}
Further, in the context of a semi-coherent search constructed from $N_{\rm coh}$ coherently analyzed segments, one
can systematically apply a refined metric in summing $\mathcal{F}$-statistic\ values over the segments. In practice, a
``coarse grid'' for each segment $j$ is defined by evaluating equation~\ref{eqn:metricpartials} to obtain
the $g_{\alpha\beta}^{[j]}$. In summing the $\mathcal{F}$-statistic\ values, one must use a ``fine grid'' to avoid needless
loss of SNR from signal evolution over the full observation period. As shown in \citep{bib:Pletschmetric},
for the global correlation parameters, one can obtain the following approximation to the fine-grid metric from
\begin{equation}
\bar g_{\alpha\beta} = {1\overN_{\rm coh}}\sum_{j=1}^{N_{\rm coh}} g_{\alpha\beta}^{[j]}.
\label{eqn:GCTsemi}
\end{equation}
Explicit evaluation of $\bar g_{\alpha\beta}$ over many sidereal days leads to a fine grid that scales as ${1\overN_{\rm coh}}$ for
only the $\dot\nu$ coordinate~\citep{bib:Pletschmetric}, which is unsurprising,
since the frequency derivative is the parameter driving
the evolution of the frequency over time. Explicit expressions for $g_{\alpha\beta}^{[j]}$ and $\bar g_{\alpha\beta}$ may be
found in \citep{bib:Pletschmetric}. One criticism~\citep{bib:WetteTemplates2} of this fine-grid metric approximation, however, is that
it does not explicitly take into account the changes in reference time implicit in each Taylor expansion for each segment.
Nonetheless, one finds empirically~\citep{bib:WetteTemplates3} that for semi-coherent searches
the effective $\mathcal{F}$-statistic\ mismatch grows much more slowly than implied by the Taylor expansion in Eqn.~\ref{eqn:xidef},
allowing Eqn.~\ref{eqn:GCTsemi} to be used successfully in Einstein@Home searches with large nominal metric mismatches.
The Weave\ software infrastructure provides a more systematic approach to covering the parameter space volume in
a templated search to ensure acceptable loss of SNR for true signals lying between
template points~\citep{bib:WetteTemplates4}.
The Weave\ program combines together recent developments
in template placement to use an optimal parameter-space metric~\citep{bib:WettePrix,bib:WetteTemplates2} and
optimal template lattices~\citep{bib:WetteTemplates1}. The package is versatile enough to be used in all-sky searches for unknown
sources and in directed searches for particular sources, such as the
Cas A\ and Vela Jr.\ supernova remnants~\citep{bib:cwdirectedO3aCasAVelaJr}.
In brief, Weave\ creates a template grid in the parameter space for each time segment,
a grid that is appropriate to computing the $\mathcal{F}$-statistic\ for a
coherence time $T_{\rm coh}$ equal to the total observation period $T_{\rm obs}$ divided by $N_{\rm seg}$. The spacing of the
grid points in parameter space is set according to a metric~\citep{bib:WettePrix,bib:WetteTemplates2} that ensures a worst-case
maximum mismatch $m_{\rm coh}$ defined by the fractional loss in summed $\mathcal{F}$-statistic\ value due to a true signal not coinciding with a
search template.
Separately, a much finer grid is defined for the full observation period with respect to the midpoint of the
observation period, one with its own mismatch parameter $m_{\rm semi-coh}$, analogous to $m_{\rm coh}$, where
the semi-coherent metric is the average of all the coherent metrics, which (unlike in the GCT approximation)
use a common reference time. The choice of the $m_{\rm semi-coh}$ value
is set empirically in a tradeoff between sensitivity and computational cost. The Weave\
package creates at initialization a mapping between each point in the semi-coherent template grid and a
nearest corresponding point in each of the separate, coarser segment grids, accounting for frequency evolution.
Finally, the discussion above has implicitly assumed analysis of data from
a single detector. One may wonder if detection statistics based
on two or more detectors require a finer template spacing, given the potential for better discrimination of signals
by requiring coherent signal phase consistency among the detectors. For short coherence times there is indeed
a finer discrimination from coherent summing when phase consistency is enforced
and hence a need for finer sampling of frequency and sky location~\citep{bib:GoetzRilessftsumming}.
For much longer coherence times, however, this statement no longer holds. For example, the
multi-detector $\mathcal{F}$-statistic~\citep{bib:CutlerSchutzmultifstat} has a coherent parameter space metric that is essentially
unchanged from that of a single-detector $\mathcal{F}$-statistic~\citep{bib:PrixTemplates1}.
This perhaps surprising
result can be understood from considering the intrinsic motions of the detectors on the surface of an Earth in
orbit. In order to maintain phase coherence for a single detector over the course of one day, one
must track the detector's relative motion around the Earth's center a distance
of order the diameter of the Earth ($\sim$13,000 km),
larger than any detector pair separation. In addition, the Earth's center travels a distance in its orbit
of about 2.6 million km in one day, and more important to template spacing, deviates from a straight line
by approximately 22,000 km. Given the phase fidelity needed to account for these Earth-induced motions over
coherence times much longer than this, the incorporation of additional detectors on the face of the Earth does not
impose an extra burden on template placement. Note, though, that combining data coherently from
$N_{\rm det}$ detectors of comparable sensitivity does improves SNR by the nominal desired
$\sqrt{N_{\rm det}}$~\citep{bib:PrixTemplates1}.
\subsubsection{Viterbi methods and machine learning}
\label{sec:viterbiother}
All of the search methods described so far use signal templates, explicitly or implicitly via favored frequency evolution.
When searching a large parameter space volume with fine resolution, computational cost becomes formidable and
often determinative of achievable sensitivity. Alternative approaches receiving increased attention rely upon more
generic pattern recognition.
The generic approach that has received most attention in recent years is based on Viterbi dynamical programming~\citep{bib:ViterbiOriginal}.
To illustrate with a simplified example, consider finding a signal ``trajectory'' in a spectrogram, such as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:samplesignalspectrogram}.
A templated search might sum up the power for every possible trajectory allowed by the signal model and
declare one or more candidate outliers based on a summed power of spectrogram pixels exceeding a pre-determined threshold.
The Viterbi method (in its simplest form) dispenses with templates, seeking instead for the loudest trajectory
that ``moves'' in time from left to right, where the degree of contiguity from one vertical column to the next
is tunable. For example, a trajectory traveling from a pixel in column $n$ and row $m_n$ to column $n+1$ may be constrained
to change by no more than one row: $|m_{n+1}-m_n|\le 1$. For a trajectory that begins in row $m_1$ in column 1 and travels
to row $m_N$ in the last column ($N$), the number of possible trajectories is $3^{N-1}$. Maximizing the power over all possible
such trajectories does not, however, require explicitly evaluating each power. The Viterbi algorithm leads to the insight that the trajectory with
the highest summed power (for a strong enough signal) is also locally maximum, which allows rapid elimination of the vast majority of non-optimum trajectory segments
and a remarkably fast evaluation of the detection statistic.
The Viterbi method was first demonstrated in CW searches via a ``spectrogram'' with
each pixel representing a Bessel-weighted $\mathcal{F}$-statistic\ evaluated over a 10-day period for Scorpius X-1~\citep{bib:sidebandviterbi} over the course
of the initial LIGO S6 run (part of a Sco X-1 mock data challenge~\citep{bib:ScoX1MDC1}). Follow-up analyses with additional refinements
have been applied to~\citep{bib:ViterbiPaperII} or proposed~\citep{bib:ViterbiPaperIII} for searches from the
Advanced LIGO O1, O2 and O3 data~\citep{bib:ViterbiO1,bib:cwdirectedO2ScoX1Viterbi,bib:ViterbiCygX1}
(see section~\ref{sec:directedbinary}). Simultaneous tracking of stellar rotational phase and orbital phase~\citep{bib:ViterbiPaperIII}
offers a significant improvement in strain sensitivity relative to tracking of orbital phase alone~\citep{bib:ViterbiPaperII}.
In addition, the Viterbi method has also been applied to searches
for accreting millisecond pulsars~\citep{bib:ViterbiFiveLMXBsO2,bib:cwAXMPO3},
isolated neutron stars~\citep{bib:ViterbiSNRmethod,bib:ViterbiSNRO2,bib:cwdirectedO3aSNRs}
and for a post-merger remnant from the BNS merger GW170817~\citep{bib:Postmerger2}. The Viterbi method may see its largest gain in computation cost,
though, from application to all-sky searches~\citep{bib:ViterbiGlasgow,bib:cwallskyO3FourPipelines}.
Although the hidden Markov Viterbi method has dramatic potential for reducing computational cost, it also has another
important virtue; it is robust with respect to unknown and potentially stochastic frequency evolution that deviates
from templated models. That flexibility makes the methodology especially important for accreting systems like LMXBs
(see section~\ref{sec:targets}) and for extremely young sources, such as newborn neutron stars and post-merger hypermassive neutron stars
(see section~\ref{sec:transients}).
Machine learning techniques, such as convolutional neutral networks, have received less attention, but offer similar gains in computational cost.
One trains an algorithm on noise samples and signal+noise samples, for which machine learning detects an underlying pattern, producing an
opaque but potentially effective algorithm for quickly yielding high detection statistic values for true signals. An early study~\citep{bib:DreissigackerEtalCNN} of single-detector data
confirms the enormous gain in computing cost possible, but does not suggest such automated algorithms achieve greater sensitivity.
A follow-up study~\citep{bib:DreissigackerPrix} examined machine learning on multi-detector data sets with realistic data gaps and
non-Gaussian noise. Another study~\citep{bib:BeheshtipourPapa1} found that a convolutional neural network proved efficient in clustering
Einstein@Home search outliers, to reduce computational cost in follow-up, with
a different tuning found effective for identifying weak signals~\citep{bib:BeheshtipourPapa2}.
Another recent study examined the potential for combining convolutional neural network analysis with
Doppler demodulation for the Earth's diurnal rotation in an all-sky search~\citep{bib:YamamotoTanaka}.
These generic methods are powerful in yielding rapid results, but require some care in use. For example, when searching a narrow band with
instrumental artifacts, the Viterbi method may seize upon the artifact and miss a nearby signal, although imposing consistency between different detectors
can mitigate this problem~\citep{bib:ViterbiGlasgow}. An area of active research is understanding better the statistics of the loudest outlier
in a Viterbi search, specifically, to understand the effective trials factor, a large value of which degrades strain sensitivity.
In the event of a first detection via non-templated methods, there remain, of course, fully templated methods available to assess
more quantitatively a candidate signal's credibility and to estimate source parameters.
\subsection{Coping with non-Gaussian instrumental artifacts}
\label{sec:lines}
Non-Gaussian instrumental artifacts, especially spectral line artifacts, degrade CW searches.
The degradation depends on the nature of the search. Stationary, narrow line artifacts generally do not significantly degrade
targeted searches for known pulsars, for which long observation times permit extremely fine frequency resolution
and known ephemerides permit that resolution to be exploited. Periods during which a frequency-modulated signal
overlaps with a known artifact can be vetoed or deweighted. On the other hand, an all-sky search is prone to
contamination, especially in short data runs for which frequency modulation from certain sky directions may
be limited, making a stationary instrumental line resemble a signal template, at least in the first stage
of a hierarchical search.
For low assumed source spin-down (and no binary source modulation), the templates most prone to contamination
lie near the ecliptic poles, where signal frequency modulation due to the Earth's orbital motion would be small. At larger
spin-down magnitudes, a stationary line can also lead to contamination of signal templates for which the
frequency shift due to the Earth's average acceleration toward the Sun largely cancels the assumed source spin-down.
The associated templates tend to lie in a circular band concentric with the Sun's average direction during the run
with a radius and skyband thickness depending on the assumed frequency, spin-down and on the coherence time of the search~\citep{bib:cwallskyS4}.
Such contamination is most pronounced for data runs short relative to a year.
In principle, even a stationary line near an ecliptic pole should not be mistaken for a true signal once a fully coherent
algorithm is appled to assess that discrimination. The chance of an instrumental line displaying the residual frequency
modulation (including that due to the Earth's daily rotation) and associated phase modulation of a true signal is
quite small. Moreover, the chance that two different detectors would display the same line artifact with precisely the
right time-dependent offset in phase to account for the daily change in relative positions of the detectors is quite small.
For example, one veto method~\citep{bib:ZhuEtalDoppler} is based on turning off demodulation in the vicinity of an outlier template to determine if
an even louder candidate is found.
Another veto method, specific to the Frequency Hough search pipeline (see section~\ref{sec:hough}),
exploits characteristic patterns in the detection statistic variation across search template parameter space
created by stationary lines~\citep{bib:IntiniEtalDopplerVeto}. Similar considerations can be applied to
following up outliers from Viterbi-based searches~\citep{bib:JonesEtalDoppler} (see section~\ref{sec:viterbiother}).
Nonetheless, lines are a major problem in CW searches because at initial stages of hierarchical searches, such discrimination
is not available with tractable computational cost. Strong lines can trigger apparent loud signal outliers over regions of
parameter space, making outlier follow-up challenging. Simply vetoing such a region because of a known contamination risks
overlooking a true signal that would be recoverable in a deep search.
Several methods have been developed for coping with these line-induced problems in early search
stages~\citep{bib:LeaciFilteringDisturbances,bib:TenorioKeitelSintesreview},
to reduce the burden of needless outlier followup while maintaining satisfactory detection efficiency for true signals. The simplest
method is to veto outliers known to be contaminated by a known line. This approach is effective in reducing computational cost,
but does risk throwing away real and detectable signals. A more refined approach, one that need not rely upon prior knowledge
of particular lines is imposing consistency in signal strength seen in two or more detectors. For example, for two detectors
of similar sensitivity one can require that individual detection statistic strengths in both detectors exceed a threshold and
that the combined detection strength exceed both individual-detector strengths. Similarly, in a Bayesian approach one can
impose consistency in the definition of the combined detections statistic~\citep{bib:lineveto1,bib:lineveto2,bib:lineveto3}.
An empirical background estimation to account for non-Gaussian contribution can be obtained~\citep{bib:IsiEtalSkyShift} via ``sky-shifting,'' that is,
by evaluating template recovery strengths for identical source parameters except for offsets in sky location.
One can also require consistency in SNR across different data subsets for a putative outlier template, such as
via a $\chi^2$ test for the separate contributions to the detection statistic~\citep{bib:SanchodelaJordanaSintes}.
Another approach is ``cleaning'' of data prior to searching for CW signal templates. Time-domain data cleaning has been used
for general-purpose
analysis~\citep{bib:OttewillAllencleaning,bib:MeadorsEtalcleaning,bib:TiwariEtalRegression,bib:DriggersEtalcleaning,bib:DavisEtalcleaning,bib:VajenteEtalcleaning,bib:DavisEtalDetchar,bib:VietsWadeNoiseSubtraction}
where an auxiliary witness channel permits
regression of known noise. Such cleaning can remove both broadband and narrow contamination~\citep{bib:DriggersEtalcleaning}.
A more CW-specific procedure can be carried out in the frequency domain in the absence of a witness channel -- if a non-astrophysical
source is clear. After creating DFTs one can replace bins known to be contaminated with randomly generated DFT coefficients
consistent in magnitude with noise in neighboring bins~\citep{bib:cwallskyEatHS4}. This approach potentially renders particular true signals less detectable
or undetectable, particularly for sky locations near the ecliptic poles; hence injection simulations are needed to assess
efficiency loss when setting upper limits in the abasence of a signal.
Many spectral lines in a detector's gravitational wave strain channel can be identified via correlation / coherence with
lines observed in auxiliary channels, such as for magnetometers or accelerometers, that monitor the environment and
that have no sensitivity to true astrophysical systems~\citep{bib:detcharS6,bib:linesO1O2}. Others may not have a reliable
witness channel, but come in ``combs'' of many lines with equal frequency spacings between adjacent lines, inconsistent
with a plausible astrophysical source, allowing safe veto or cleaning~\citep{bib:GoetzEtalO3linelists}. Efficient tracking of known lines is an active
area of investigation, including tracking of lines that wander slightly in frequency~\citep{bib:IWAVE}.
Traditionally, transient instrumental glitches in LIGO data that create nuisances (sometimes severe) in searches for transient gravitational wave
signal have not troubled CW searches much because their effect on overall noise level integrated over long time periods
has been small. In the LIGO O3 data, however, a new class of extremely loud glitches with spectra peaking at low frequencies but
visible as high as $\sim$500 Hz appeared. These glitches of uncertain origin plagued both LIGO interferometers and occurred
loudly and frequently enough to degrade sensitivity to CW signals in the low-frequency band. To cope with this new artifact,
an {\it ad hoc} ``self-gating'' algorithm~\citep{bib:SelfGating1} was developed to taper the data in the time domain to
zero during the affected intevals of $\sim$seconds before creating DFTs for Fourier analysis. A more sophisticated, adaptive
self-gating method~\citep{bib:SelfGating2} achieved transient suppression with reduced deadtime. An earlier gating algorithm~\citep{bib:SFTdatabase}
was developed to cope with loud gltiches in initial Virgo data.
\subsection{Sensitivity depth}
\label{sec:depth}
A rough rule of thumb is convenient when assessing the detectability of a prospective CW signal for a given data set.
Such a figure of merit is the {\it sensitivity depth}~\citep{bib:SensitivityDepth}. Its use arose in part because
of the large variations in 1) methodologies with cost / sensitivity dependence on parameter space volume searched;
2) durations $T_{\rm obs}$ of data runs (or subsets) used in analyses; and 3) intrinsic detector sensitivity vs frequency.
In part too, it avoids sometimes unwarranted assumptions based on idealized scaling with observation time.
For example, a semi-coherent search with sensitivity improvements proportional to $T_{\rm obs}^{1/4}$ may require
more computational resources than are available if $T_{\rm obs}$ becomes too large, especially since increasing $T_{\rm obs}$
usually requires stepping more finely in parameter space.
Instead, the sensitivity depth~\citep{bib:DreissigackerPrixWette} addresses the ``bottom line'' with respect to a given intrinsic detector strain
amplitude spectral noise density (square root of power spectral noise density $S_h$):
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{D} \equiv {\sqrt{S_h}\over h_0},
\end{equation}
\noindent where $h_0$ is the quantity of interest, typically the 90\%\ or 95\%\ upper limit on a strain
amplitude. By design the depth does not include a parametrized scaling with observation time. Hence
the values for a given algorithm do depend on the particular data set.
Reference~\citep{bib:DreissigackerPrixWette} examines in detail the sensitivity depths achieved in searches of LIGO and Virgo
data from the early initial LIGO S2 run to the first Advanced LIGO run O1. Values range for templated searches from $\sim$1000 for
targeted searches of $\sim$2 years down to $\sim$20 for the most sensitive all-sky search for CW signals in unknown binary systems.
\subsection{Upper limits and Sensitivities}
\label{sec:upperlimits}
The CW search literature is rife with different conventions on how negative results (non-discoveries) are reported.
This section gives a brief guide to the reader in understanding those variations and the reasons for them.
Most analyses have produced frequentist upper limits at 95\%\ (or 90\%) confidence level, meaning that in a hypothetical
ensemble of repeated experiments with the same underlying random noise contributions (but the same, non-random instrumental artifacts),
a signal at the nominal upper limit value would have yielded a higher detection statistic 95\%\ (90\%) of the time.
These upper limits are derived from or at least validated by simulated signals (injections) and are quoted over narrow bands
in frequency (usually 1 Hz or less), where wider bands necessarily have somewhat higher upper limits than most of the
narrower bands from which they are composed.
Deriving rigorous upper limits with extensive simulations in each individual band is computationally
expensive (particularly for 95\% C.L.),
so it has become common in recent years to derive instead ``sensitivities'' at, say, 95\%\ efficiency after following up
and ruling out every outlier in each search band that lies above a nominal threshold (where the choice of threshold depends
on a target false alarm probability that varies considerably across different searches).
These sensitivities are calibrated by deriving upper limits in a sparse sampling
of narrow bands over the full search spectrum and finding an empirical scale factor between upper limits and average strain amplitude spectral densities
for the data set, using a weighted average appropriate to the search. These sensitivities are not rigorous upper limits, particularly in
disturbed bands, but give a useful interpretation of a non-detection.
In highly disturbed bands with one or more strong instrumental lines,
it is sometimes impractical to derive rigorous upper limits for some search methods or even to derive useful sensitivities. Such bands are vetoed and
no upper limit quoted. As noted in section~\ref{sec:lines}, when SFT cleaning of instrumental lines is used, one must take into account the
resulting loss in detection efficiency in quoting upper limits. When strong lines are not vetoed or cleaned, upper limits in affected nearby bands
typically suffer and may not apply at all to regions very near the ecliptic poles.
Most quoted frequentist upper limits are population-averaged over the parameter space searched, assuming random orientation of the stellar
spin axis, and in the case of all-sky searches, random position on the sky. Detection efficiency varies substantially for different
angles of stellar inclination $\iota$ (best efficiency for $|\cos(\iota)|$ near one,
corresponding to circular polarization), and to a lesser extent over different regions of the sky.
Because of this variation in sensitivity, the PowerFlux pipeline (see section~\ref{sec:PowerFlux})
derives separate upper limits for circular polarization and linear polarization,
where in each case the 95\%\ C.L. upper limits are strict in the sense that 95\%\ coverage is maintained separately for every position on the sky.
Approximate population-averaged upper limits can then be derived from the strict circular-polarization limits via multiplying by an empirically
determined scale factor (typically $\sim$2.3).
As described in section~\ref{sec:timedomainPE}, an alternative Bayesian analysis technique has been applied to targeted searches
for known pulsars. In that approach a 95\%\ credible Bayesian upper limit on strain amplitude is obtained, which is
interpreted as the analyst's confidence that the true amplitude of a signal lies below that value, given the observed data
and (conservative) prior beliefs in the parameter values.
Bayesian notions of prior expectation have also influenced the construction of frequentist detection statistics.
\subsection{Transient CW sources}
\label{sec:transients}
In recent years, and particularly since the discovery of the binary neutron star merger GW170817, attention
has turned to signal models that deviate from the canonical CW source of near-constant amplitude and very
low intrinsic frequency evolution. Searches for two distinct classes of ``near-CW'' signals have been developed,
one for sources of stable intrinsic frequency, but of large amplitude variations, and one for sources
of rapid spin-down and concomitant amplitude decrease. The primary target motivating the first type of search
is a neutron star glitch, in which a sudden stellar deformation appears, such as a ruptured crust, causing a
sudden increase in the strength of gravitational waves emitted at twice the spin frequency of the
star~\citep{bib:PrixGiampanisMessenger,bib:YimJones}.
The resulting stellar spin-down would be modest, leading to only small relative changes in frequency during
the time required for the deformation to heal. Hence the search methods differ from ``standard'' CW methods
primarily in allowing for a time-dependent strength.
The danger in using the standard methods on a ``transient CW''
signal is that the data used prior to the glitch tends to reduce the integrated SNR, as does amplitude decay. To avoid this problem,
an $\mathcal{F}$-statistic-based method segments the data and look separately for signals within individual segments and coherently or semi-coherently
across different combinations of
segments~\citep{bib:PrixGiampanisMessenger,bib:lineveto3,bib:KeitelEtal,bib:TransientFstatGPU,bib:cwnarrowbandO3,bib:ModafferiEtal}.
Another class of near-CW source is a
post-merger remnant, in which two neutron stars form a hypermassive neutron star (2-3 solar masses).
Although one naively expects such a star to collapse promptly into a black hole, rapid rotation (rigid-body or differential)
can delay the collapse for certain equations of state~\citep{bib:BaiottiRezzolla,bib:PiroEtal,bib:RaviLasky}. In extreme equations of state,
the collapse may be delayed until the star's rotation frequency has decreased dramatically~\citep{bib:RaviLasky}.
Given the enormous initial quadrupole asymmetry as two neutron stars begin to merge, one might hope for a
substantial residual asymmetry in the minutes, hours or even days during which a post-merger remnant persists.
That asymmetry might well lead to a rapid spin-down, one for which the truncated Taylor expansion in
Equation~\ref{eqn:phaseevolution} is a poor approximation.
A recent search in LIGO data for a post-GW170817
remnant~\citep{bib:Postmerger2} used instead a model (for sensitivity determination) in which the frequency has an evolution similar to
that of equation~\ref{eqn:spindownpowerlaw}, but with a different normalization convention:
\begin{equation}
{d\Omega \over dt} = -k\Omega^n
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\Omega$ is the angular frequency of rotation, $n$ is the braking index and $k$ is a positive real constant.
This equation leads to an explicit form for $f_{\rm GW}(t)$~\citep{bib:PostmergerWaveforms,bib:SarinEtal}:
\begin{equation}
f_{\rm GW}(t) = {f_{\rm GW}(0)\over\left(1+{t\over\tau_{\rm SD}}\right)^{1\over n-1}},
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\tau_{\rm SD}$ is a characteristic time scale for spin-down:
\begin{equation}
\tau_{\rm SD} = {1\over k(n-1)f_{\rm GW}(0)}.
\end{equation}
Since the amplitude depends on frequency for fixed ellipticity (see equation~\ref{eqn:hexpected}), one expects the
amplitude to decrease monotonically too:
\begin{equation}
h_0 = {4\,\pi^2G\epsilon\Izzf_{\rm GW}^2(0)\over c^4r}{1\over\left(1+{t\over\tau_{\rm SD}}\right)^{2\over n-1}}.
\end{equation}
\noindent In addition, the product $\epsilonI_{\rm zz}$ is likely to decrease as the post-merger remnant spins down.
A more significant hurdle to detection than fidelity of the signal model, however, is the typical distance at which
binary neutron star mergers occur.
GW170817 lay approximately 40 Mpc away,
several orders of magnitude farther than the neutron stars sought in our own galaxy. The necessary ellipticity to generate
a detectable signal is hence enormous; at the same time, such an ellipticity ensures a rapid-enough spin-down that no appreciable SNR could be
achieved through integration over the signal's duration at current detector sensitivities.
Based on the total number of definitive BNS detections (two)~\citep{bib:GW170817,bib:GW190425,bib:GWTC3} during the O1 through O3 data runs and
on the volume-time sampled in those runs,
it appears that GW170817 was closer than the bulk of the BNS mergers expected in future runs. Detecting a CW signal from
a post-merger remnant may require significantly more sensitive detectors than those that detected GW170817.
Applicable search methods for such a rapidly evolving signal have been developed both well before~\citep{bib:ThraneEtalStamp} and
especially after~\citep{bib:ThraneEtalStamp,bib:MillerEtalPostmerger,bib:SunMelatos,bib:OliverKeitelSintes,bib:LongTransientsHMM,bib:MytidisEtalNewborn,bib:MillerEtalLongTransient} the discovery of GW170817.
\section{Results of continuous wave searches}
\label{sec:results}
Searches have been carried out for continuous gravitational waves for five decades,
starting with data from early detector prototypes~\citep{bib:LevineStebbins,bib:EarlyBarLimits,bib:LivasArticle,bib:Suzuki}.
Although transient gravitational wave discoveries to date
have relied upon coincident signal detections in two or more detectors,
a definitive continuous-wave source discovery can be
accomplished, at least in principle, with a single gravitational wave detector.
By definition, the source remains on, allowing follow-up verification of the signal strength and of
the distinctive Doppler
modulations of signal frequency due to the Earth's motion.
In the event of an all-sky discovery, for which intrinsic sensitivity is necessarily limited
by computational realities (see section~\ref{sec:challenges}), it is likely that a stable continuous signal
could then {\it a posteriori} be detected in prior data sets via targeted searches.
Hence a relatively large number of CW searches were carried out with both bar
detectors and interferometer prototypes in the decades before the major
1st-generation interferometers began collecting data,
as summarized in~\citep{bib:cwtargetedS1}.
The most sensitive of the resulting early upper limits~\citep{bib:EarlyBarLimits,bib:Suzuki,bib:cwexplorer1} came from bar detectors
in their narrow bands of sensitivity.
The Explorer detector reported~\citep{bib:cwexplorer1} an upper limit on
spin-downless CW signals from the
galactic center of \sci{2.9}{-24} in a 0.06-Hz band near 921 Hz, based on
96 days of observation.
A broader-band ($\sim$1 Hz) upper limit of \sci{2.8}{-23}
was also reported~\citep{bib:cwexplorer2} from the Explorer detector
based on a coherent 2-day search that allowing for stellar spin-down.
In addition, searches for spin-downless CW waves from the galactic center and from
the pulsar-rich globular cluster 47 Tucanae in two 1-Hz bands near 900 Hz
were carried out in Allegro detector data, yielding upper limits~\citep{bib:cwallegro} of \sci{8}{-24}.
Finally, a narrowband (0.05 Hz)
search~\citep{bib:cwtama} was carried out with the TAMA interferometer near
935 Hz for continuous waves from the direction of Supernova 1987A, with
an upper limit of \sci{5}{-23} reported.
When the initial LIGO interferometers and later the initial Virgo interferometer
began collecting data in the 2000's, CW searches became more sensitive, both from
improved detector sensitivity, and to a lesser extent, because search algorithms
improved. In the following, brief summaries of the results from those searches
will be given, with emphasis on results from searches in advanced detector
data. As of this writing, numerous results from the third LIGO-Virgo observing
run (O3) have appeared and will be featured where available, along with many results from the O1 and O2
runs, to illustrate the progression of sensitivities and algorithms during the Advanced LIGO and Virgo era to date.
In recent years, research groups outside of the LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration and KAGRA
Collaboration (LVK) have also carried out analyses of the public GW data, which is released approximately 18 months
after collection. Because of that delay, many additional results from the O3 data, beyond those described here,
can be expected in the coming months and years, perhaps in parallel with LVK results from the upcoming O4 data
run~\citep{bib:obsscenario}.
\subsection{Targeted and narrowband searches for known pulsars}
\label{sec:targeted}
In {\it targeted} searches for known pulsars using measured ephemerides from radio, optical, X-ray or $\gamma$-ray
observations valid over the gravitational wave observation time, one can apply
precise, well known corrections for phase of the signal, including modulations, because one knows
the source phase evolution, its location and motion, the Earth's location and motion, and the
detector's position and orientation on the Earth.
Various approaches have been used in targeted searches in LIGO and Virgo data to date:
1) A time-domain heterodyne method~\citep{bib:DupuisWoan} in which Bayesian posteriors are determined on
the signal parameters that govern absolute phase, amplitude and
amplitude modulations (see section~\ref{sec:timedomainPE});
2) a Fourier-domain determination of a ``carrier'' strength along with the strengths
of two pairs of sidebands created by amplitude modulation from the Earth's sidereal
rotation of each detector's antenna pattern (``5-Vector'' method)~\citep{bib:fivevector,bib:fivevectorupdates} (see section~\ref{sec:fivevectormethod});
and 3) a matched-filter method in which marginalization
is carried out over unknown orientation parameters (the ``$\mathcal{F}$-statistic'')~\citep{bib:JKS,bib:gstatisticmethod} (see section~\ref{sec:fstatistic}).
The first application of the heterodyne Bayesian method~\citep{bib:cwtargetedS1}
in LIGO and GEO 600 S1 data (separately to each interferometer) led to upper limits
on $h_0$ of a few times 10$^{-22}$ for PSR J1939$+$2134 ($f_{\rm rot}$ = 642 Hz).
Comparable upper limits were obtained from an implementation of the (frequentist) $\mathcal{F}$-statistic~\citep{bib:cwtargetedS1}.
Later applications of the heterodyne Bayesian method incorporated a variety
of improvements, including coherent treatment of multiple interferometers, marginalization
over noise parameters, a Markov Chain Monte Carlo search method for parameter estimation and
joint searching over one and two times the stellar rotation frequency.
At the same time the number of stars searched in each data run increased, along with
closer partnership with radio and X-ray astronomers who provided ephemerides.
In the S2 data, limits were placed on 28 pulsars, with a lowest strain limit
of \sci{1.7}{-24}~\citep{bib:cwtargetedS2}. In the S3 and S4 data (analyzed jointly), limits were
placed on 78 pulsars, with a lowest strain limit of \sci{2.6}{-25}~\citep{bib:cwtargetedS3S4}.
In the S5 data, limits were placed on 116 pulsars, with a lowest strain
limit of \sci{2.3}{-26} (PSR J1603$-$7202)~\citep{bib:cwtargetedS5}. The lowest limit placed on ellipticity
from the S5 search was \sci{7.0}{-8} (PSR J2124$-$3358).
The final targeted-search results from initial LIGO
and Virgo presented joint results from the LIGO S5 and S6 runs, and for the two low-frequency Crab and Vela
pulsars, results from the Virgo VSR2 and VSR4 runs~\citep{bib:cwtargetedS5S6VSR24}. This synoptic paper
presented results for 195 pulsars in total, where the lowest obtained strain limit was only slightly
better than obtained from the S5 data alone:
\sci{2.1}{-26} (PSR J1910$-$5959D), with a lowest ellipticity upper limit of \sci{6.7}{-8} (PSR J2124$-$3358).
The use of Virgo VSR2 and VSR4 data in this last analysis did, however, open up a new low-frequency
spectrum, giving sensitivities approaching the spin-down limits for several pulsars other than the Crab,
most notably the Vela pulsar, for which the spin-down limit was beaten~\citep{bib:cwtargetedvela,bib:cwtargetedS5S6VSR24}.
The S5, S6, VSR2 and VSR4 analyses also included searches using the $\mathcal{F}$-statistic\ and 5-vector algorithms
applied to ``high value'' isolated pulsars for which the spin-down limits were approached or beaten.
As expected, sensitivities obtained were comparable to those found in the Bayesian analysis.
All three methods typically obtain somewhat better sensitivities when exploiting the
inclination and polarization angles $\iota$ and $\psi$ inferred from pulsar wind nebulae observations for
known pulsars, such as Crab and Vela (for example, the $\mathcal{F}$-statistic\ is refined to a more specific
$\mathcal{G}$-statistic~\citep{bib:gstatisticmethod}), although an unfavorable orientation can also lead to worse $h_0$ sensitivity.
When Advanced LIGO data collection began in fall 2015 there was a significant improvement in broadband sensitivity
and a dramatic improvement at the lowest frequency, thanks to improved seismic isolation~\citep{bib:aligodetector1,bib:aligodetector2}.
The low-frequency improvements were, of course, helpful to the first binary black hole merger detection~\citep{bib:GW150914},
but they also made a large number of known young pulsars accessible with respect to spin-down limit (energy conservation).
Targeted searches were carried out in the O1 data using each search
program~\citep{bib:cwtargetedO1}, where
method 1) was applied to 200 stars, and methods 2) and 3) were applied to 11 and 10 stars,
respectively, for which the spin-down limit (equation~\ref{eqn:spindownlimit}) was likely
to be beaten or approached, given the detector sensitivity. Results are shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:cwtargetedO1}, along with those from initial LIGO and Virgo searches.
Highlights of these O1 searches included
setting a lowest upper limit on strain amplitude of \sci{1.6}{-26}
(PSR J1918$-$0642),
setting a lowest upper limit on ellipticity of \sci{1.3}{-8} (PSR J0636$+$5129) and beating
the spin-down limit on 8 stars (PSR J0205$+$6449, J0534$+$2200, J0835$-$4510, J1302$-$6350, J1813$-$1246, J1952$+$3252,
J2043$+$2740, J2229$+$6114).
Perhaps the most notable result was setting
an upper limit on the Crab pulsar's (PSR J0534$+$2200) energy loss to gravitational radiation at a level
of 0.2\% of the star's total rotational enegy loss inferred from measured rotational spin-down.
Similar searches were carried out for 221 known pulsars in the O1 and/or O2 data, with results summarized
in Figure~\ref{fig:cwtargetedO1}~\citep{bib:cwtargetedO2}.
Highlights included beating the
spin-down limit on 20 pulsars,
a lowest upper limit on strain of \sci{8.9}{-27} (PSR J1623$-$2631), a lowest upper limit on ellipticity
of \sci{5.8}{-9} (PSR J0636$+$5129) and an upper limit on the Crab pulsar's fractional energy loss to gravitational
radiation of 0.02\%. In addition, the upper limit on strain amplitude (\sci{1.5}{-26}
for the MSP PSR J0711$-$6830 ($f_{\rm rot}=182$ Hz) was
only 30\%\ above the star's spin-down limit, corresponding to an ellipticity upper limit of \sci{1.2}{-8}.
Upper limits are also presented in~\citep{bib:cwtargetedO2} on signals at the stellar rotation frequencies,
along with upper limits on the mass quadrupole moment
$Q_{22} \equiv \epsilon I_{zz}\sqrt{15\over8\pi}$~\citep{bib:UshomirskyEtal}.
Initial analysis of the first six months of the LIGO and Virgo O3 data set
reduced further the upper limits on the Crab and Vela pulsar, along with those of three
recycled pulsars, for which the spin-down limit has now been beaten~\citep{bib:cwtargetedO3a}.
Similarly, a targeted search for the young, highly energetic star PSR J0537$-$6910~\citep{bib:cwtargetedO3J0537} dived below the
spin-down limit to an upper limit (95\%\ CL) of \sci{1}{-26} for a GW frequency (123.8 Hz) of twice
the rotation frequency.
A separate analysis~\citep{bib:nonlvctargetedO2} of the Advanced LIGO O1 and O2 data for a newly discovered
gamma-ray pulsar (PSR J0952$-$0607) also set an upper limit on emission amplitude of \sci{6.6}{-26}.
Upper limits on GW emission of amplitude \sci{3.0}{-26} were also set on the black widow $\gamma$-ray pulsar
PSR J1653$-$0158~\citep{bib:NiederEtalBlackWidow} discovered in an Einstein@Home search.
Recent cumulative results from targeted searches from the O1, O2 and O3 data runs~\citep{bib:cwtargetedO3}
for 236 known pulsars in total are shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:cwtargetedO3}. Highlights include beating the spin-down limit on 23 pulsars,
a lowest upper limit on strain of \sci{4.7}{-27} (PSR J1745$-$0952), a lowest upper limit on ellipticity of
\sci{5.26}{-9} (PSR J0711$-$6830), and an upper limit on the Crab pulsar's fractional energy loss to gravitational
radiation of 0.009\%. In addition, the spin-down limit was beaten for two millisecond pulsars:
PSR J0711$-$6830 ($h_0 <$ \sci{7.0}{-27}, $\epsilon<$ \sci{5.3}{-9} for $f_{\rm GW}\approx$364 Hz) and
PSR J0437$-$4715 ($h_0 <$ \sci{6.9}{-27}, $\epsilon<$ \sci{8.5}{-9} for $f_{\rm GW}\approx$347 Hz).
These results also include a more general analysis searching simultaneously for a signal at
one and two times the rotation frequency~\citep{bib:PitkinEtalTwotones,bib:cwtargetedO3}.
Results from cumulative O1--O3a searches for seven additional pulsars were presented in
\citep{bib:AshokEtal}.
The progressive improvement in noise level for the LIGO and Virgo detectors over the O1, O2 and O3 runs is reflected
in Figures~\ref{fig:cwtargetedO1}-\ref{fig:cwtargetedO3}. Although more refined analyses have been brought to bear
in parallel, the gains in astrophysical sensitivity come primarily from improving the instruments, for these targeted
searches which already approach optimality.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=11.cm]{./cwtargetedO1_new.pdf}
\caption{Upper limits (95\%\ CL) on $h_0$ for known pulsars from targeted searches in the
LIGO O1 data~\citep{bib:cwtargetedO1} (closed stars). The gray band shows the {\it a priori} estimated
sensitivity range of the search. Also plotted (closed squares)
are the lowest upper limits from searches in initial LIGO and Virgo data and spin-down limits (closed triangles).
Upper limits that lie below spin-down limits are outlined with a circle.
}
\label{fig:cwtargetedO1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=11.cm]{./cwtargetedO2.pdf}
\caption{Upper limits (95\%\ CL) on $h_0$ for 221 known pulsars from targeted searches in the
LIGO O1 and/or O2 data~\citep{bib:cwtargetedO2} (closed stars). The pink band shows the {\it a priori} estimated
sensitivity range of the search. Also plotted are spin-down limits (closed triangles).
Upper limits that lie below spin-down limits are outlined with a circle. }
\label{fig:cwtargetedO2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=11.cm]{./cwtargetedO3.pdf}
\caption{Upper limits (95\%\ CL) on $h_0$ for 237 known pulsars from targeted searches in the
cumulative LIGO and Virgo O1--O3 data~\citep{bib:cwtargetedO3,bib:cwtargetedO3J0537}.
The stars show 95\% credible upper limits on the amplitudes of $h_0$, while gray triangles represent the spin-down
limits for each pulsar.
canonical moment of inertia). For those pulsars which surpass their spin-down limits, their results are
plotted within shaded circles. The pink curve gives an estimate of the expected strain sensitivity of all
three detectors combined during the course of O3. The highlighted pulsars are those with the best $h_0$,
$Q_{22}$ and spin-down ratio out of the pulsars which surpassed their spin-down limit,
as well as the best $h_{0}$ limit out of the whole sample.
}
\label{fig:cwtargetedO3}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
These upper limits assume the correctness of General Relativity in that antenna pattern calculations
used in the searches assume two tensor polarizations in strain. Alternative theories of gravity can,
in principle, support four additional polarizations (two scalar and two vector modes), which would
lead to different antenna pattern sensitivities~\citep{bib:TGRmethod}. Searches have been carried out for evidence of signals
from the 200 targeted pulsars in the O1 data exhibiting these other polarizations, using the heterodyned data products.
In no case was significant evidence of a non-standard signal seen, and upper limits were placed~\citep{bib:TGRO1}.
The targeted-search upper limits in Figure~\ref{fig:cwtargetedO1}
assume a fixed phase relation between stellar rotation (measured by
electromagnetic pulses) and gravitational wave emission ($f_s=f_{\rm rot}$). To allow for a
more general scenario, such as slight differential rotation of EM- and GW-emitting regions,
searches have also been carried out for signals very near in parameter space to those expected
from an ideal phase relation. These so-called ``narrowband'' searches allow a relative frequency deviation
of $\sim$$10^{-3}$. The first such search, using the $\mathcal{F}$-statistic,
was for the Crab pulsar in the Inital LIGO S5 data set~\citep{bib:cwtargetedcrabS5},
which set a limit slightly below the Crab spin-down limit, despite a large trials factor of \sci{3}{7}, when
the orientation of the assumed signal was aligned with observed Crab pulsar wind nebula X-ray jet axes~\citep{bib:NgRomani},
a limit five times higher than achieved in the same data set using a targeted search.
A similar narrowband search was later carried out in initial Virgo VSR4 data for the Crab and Vela pulsars, using the
5-vector program, a search which yielded a Crab upper limit about two times below the spin-down limit and
a Vela upper limit slightly higher than its spin-down limit~\citep{bib:cwnarrowbandVSR4}.
The 5-vector program was applied again to the Advanced LIGO O1 data set.
Results from searches for 11 stars with expected sensitivities near
the spin-down limits have been obtained from O1 data~\citep{bib:cwnarrowbandO1}. In general, these limits are expected
and found to be higher than the corresponding upper limits from targeted searches above because the
increased parameter space search implies an additional trials factor. Nonetheless, this first advanced detector narrowband
search beat the spin-down limit on the Crab (PSR J0534$+$2200), Vela (PSR J0835$-$4510) and PSR J2229$+$6114.
Later, a 5-vector search of LIGO O2 data~\citep{bib:cwnarrowbandO2} for 33 known pulsars yielded the upper limits shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:cwnarrowbandO1O2}, along with the 11 (higher) O1 upper limits. In this analysis, the spin-down
limit was beaten for 8 known pulsars, despite trials factors ranging from $\sim$$10^6$ to $\sim$$10^9$.
For the Crab pulsar, the strain upper limit was an order of magnitude lower than the spin-down limit,
leading to a limit on fractional energy loss to gravitational waves of $\sim$1\%.
Most recently, further sensitivity improvement was seen in O3 narrowband results~\citep{bib:cwnarrowbandO3}, as shown
in Fig.~\ref{fig:cwnarrowbandO3} for 18 known pulsars with spin-down limits within a factor of 3 of the expected sensitivity
for which the spin-down limit is beaten for six pulsars. A separate analysis of O1--O3a data for seven other
pulsars was carried out in \citep{bib:AshokEtal}.
Searches for accreting X-ray millisecond pulsars (AXMPs) (see section~\ref{sec:targets}) require a modified
narrowband approach in that nominal rotation frequencies are known, but with poor precision compared to that available
for pulsars for which sustained monitoring is feasible. Their frequencies can vary rapidly (and likely with
significant stochasticity) during active (accreting) phases and during quiescent phases can generally only be inferred.
Given these uncertainties, including unknown stochastic contributions, a hidden Markov Viterbi method based on the
$\mathcal{J}$-statistic\footnote{The $\mathcal{J}$-statistic\ is a weighted sum of powers from a large number of orbital sidebands generated by
evaluating the $\mathcal{F}$-statistic\ for a binary source, using a weighting governed by a set of Bessel functions $J_n$ arising from the frequency
modulation and incorporating the orbital phase of the binary system~\citep{bib:ViterbiPaperII}.}
has been applied to searches for five AXMPs in the O2 LIGO data~\citep{bib:ViterbiFiveLMXBsO2}
and to 20 AXMPs in the O3 LIGO data~\citep{bib:cwAXMPO3}. The O3 search yielded strain amplitude sensitivities
in the range (5-24)$\times$10$^{-26}$, where estimated spin-down limits based on measured frequency derivatives lie in the range
$10^{-28}$--$10^{-27}$ with comparable to somewhat larger estimates based on torque balance~\citep{bib:cwAXMPO3} (see section~\ref{sec:spindown}).
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=11.cm]{./cwnarrowbandO1O2.pdf}
\caption{Upper limits (95\%\ CL) on $h_0$ for (11) 33 known pulsars from narrowband searches in the
LIGO (O1) O2 data~\citep{bib:cwnarrowbandO2} (closed diamonds and triangles), where the GW frequency and derivative are
allowed to vary by $\sim$$10^{-3}$ with respect to the expectation from electromagnetic observations.
For those pulsars known to have glitched in the O2 run, separate upper limits are shown for the epochs
before the glitch (BG) and afterward (AG). Spin-down limits are shon as open circles, where error bars denote
the uncertainties due to pulsar distances. Curves denote nominal sensitivities for the O1 and O2 runs for
the individual LIGO Hanford (LHO) and Livingston (LLO) interferometers.
}
\label{fig:cwnarrowbandO1O2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=11.cm]{./CWnarrowbandO3.pdf}
\caption{Upper limits (95\%\ CL) on $h_0$ for known pulsars from {\it narrowband} searches in the
LIGO O3 data~\citep{bib:cwnarrowbandO3}.
The red solid, blue dashed, and purple dotted curves show the expected sensitivities for H1, L1, and V1, respectively.
The blue pentagons indicate the median 95\%\ CL ULs from the 5$n$-vector search across all $10^{-4}$~Hz sub-bands for each source.
The black crosses indicate 95\% CL ULs from the $\mathcal{F}$-statistic\ search, which are set across the full search range for each target.
The orange triangles indicate the spin-down limit, $h_{\rm spin-down}$, with error bars that reflect uncertainty in the distance to each source.
In a few cases the error bars are smaller than the size of the markers.
}
\label{fig:cwnarrowbandO3}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Directed searches for isolated stars}
\label{sec:directedisolated}
Directed searches are those for which the source location is precisely known, but for which
the signal's gravitational wave phase evolution is unknown or poorly known.
As discussed in section~\ref{sec:templatesdirected}, the
implied parameter space volume of a truly broadband search will
then depend sensitively upon the assumed age of the star. For a very young
pulsar, one must search over not only the frequency and first frequency derivative
(spin-down), but also over the second and possibly higher derivatives.
Directed-search methods are also appropriate when searching for $r$-modes\ from known pulsars.
The search band lies nominally near $4/3$ the star's rotation frequency, but has large systematic
uncertainties of order 10\%\ that depend on the unknown equation of state governing the modes~\citep{bib:IdrisyOwenJones,bib:CarideIntaOwenRajbhandari}.
Hence, while the search
band is much smaller than that for, say, a young neutron star with unknown frequency, the band is
also much larger than that used in narrowband searches (see section~\ref{sec:targeted}),
arguing for careful balancing of computational cost against sensitivity~\citep{bib:CarideIntaOwenRajbhandari}.
The computational cost of fully coherent directed searches can be understood qualitatively from
the scalings with coherence time implied by equations~\ref{eqn:ftolerance}-\ref{eqn:fddottolerance},
with more quantitative estimates based on the template placement considerations discussed in
section~\ref{sec:templatesdirected}. Semi-coherent searches have more complex scalings, but for long
observation spans, generally achieve improved strain sensitivity with respect to fully coherent searches
carried out over shorter subsets of the data set (which is typically necessary).
The first such analysis in initial LIGO data used the $\mathcal{F}$-statistic\ algorithm~\citep{bib:cwcasa} to
search for the central compact object (X-ray source) at the center
of the Cassiopeia A supernova remnant.
As discussed in section~\ref{sec:sources}, given the $\sim$300-year presumed
age of the star, one can derive a frequency-dependent upper limit on
its strain emission of $\sim$\sci{1.3}{-24}, assuming its rotational energy loss
has been dominated by gravitational wave emission. A coherent search was carried out
in a 12-day period of LIGO S5 data over the band 100-300 Hz, for which it was
expected that the age-based limit could be tested with that data set~\citep{bib:cwcasamethod}.
The resulting upper limits did indeed beat the age-based limit over that
band, reaching a minimum upper limit of \sci{7}{-25} at 150 Hz.
That the limits were more than an order of magnitude higher than found
in the full-S5 targeted searches for known pulsars in that band reflected
not only the much shorter observation time used (12 days {\it vs.}\ 23 months),
but also the higher SNR threshold
necessary to apply when searching over $\sim$$10^{12}$ templates in $f_s$, $\dot f_s$ and
$\ddot f_s$ for a 300-year old star.
This coherent approach over tractable intervals~\citep{bib:cwcasamethod} was later applied to searches in the data from
the last initial LIGO data run (S6) for nine young
supernova remnants~\citep{bib:S6NineSNRs} and to a possible source at the core of the
globular cluster NGC 6544~\citep{bib:S6NGC6544}, achieving upper limits on strain comparable
to those found in the S5 data (lowest values ranging over $\sim$(4--7)$\times10^{-25}$,
depending on source age (lower limits for older sources with lower trials factors from
searching over frequency derivatives)
The coherent $\mathcal{F}$-statistic\ approach was applied to Advanced LIGO O1 data~\citep{bib:cwdirectedSNRO1}
in a search for 15 supernova remnants and one nominal exoplanet with an unusual apparent orbit,
which has been suggested to be a very
nearby neutron star~\citep{bib:NeuhauserEtalFomalhautb} (see section~\ref{sec:targets}). Best upper limits obtained ranged over $\sim$(1-4)$\times10^{-25}$,
depending on assumed source range. Figure~\ref{fig:O1CoherentSNRexamples} shows sample results
for three of the supernova remnants, including Cas~A, along with that for Fomalhaut b. In this analysis,
separate ``deep'' and ``wide'' analyses were applied to three of the supernova remnants, including Vela~Jr.,
to account for large uncertainties in source age, where deep searches could be carried out for older sources,
requiring a smaller range in frequency derivatives.
A similar approach was used to probe the O2 data for 12 supernova remnants, restricting attention to
frequencies below 150 Hz, applying coherence times ranging from 12 to 55.9 days~\citep{bib:LindblomOwen}.
A recent coherent search of 8.7-day and 12.8-day subsets O2 LIGO data~\citep{bib:OwenEtalSn1987A} for CW radiation from a Supernova 1987A remnant
beat the age-based indirect limit.
A Viterbi-based search for Fomalhaut b was applied to O2 data~\citep{bib:ViterbiFomalontbO2}.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{{././Paper_ul_h0_G1.9}.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{{././Paper_ul_h0_G266.2_deep}.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{{././Paper_ul_h0_G111.7}.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{{././Paper_ul_h0_Fomb_deep}.pdf}
\caption{Upper limits (95\%\ CL) on $h_0$ (dots) for 3 supernova remnant cores and
nominal exoplanet (but possible neutron star) Fomalhaut b, using
coherent $\mathcal{F}$-statistic\ searches of O1 data~\citep{bib:cwdirectedSNRO1}.
Upper left: G1.9+0.3; upper right: Vela~Jr.; lower left: Cassiopeia A; lower right: Fomalhaut b.
The horizontal lines indicate nominal age-based limits (equation~\ref{eqn:agebasedlimit}). }
\label{fig:O1CoherentSNRexamples}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
As one might imagine, a semi-coherent approach has the potential to improve upon a single coherent directed search.
One demonstration of the method in initial LIGO S5 data searched for a source at the galactic center~\citep{bib:cwdirectedgalacticcenterS5},
using 630 segments of 11.5 hours each, where $\mathcal{F}$-statistic\ values averaged over the segments were computed,
where the global correlation transform template mapping was used in combining the $\mathcal{F}$-statistic\ values
over the segments.
A similar but more sensitive semi-coherent approach was applied in a
computationally intensive Einstein@Home (see section~\ref{sec:allsky})
S6 search for a CW signal from Cas~A~\citep{bib:directedEatHS6}. This search used
44 segments of 140 hours, again applying the global correlation transform template gridding
and summing.
The same method was applied to an Einstein@Home search in Advanced LIGO O1 data
for three supernova remnants: Cas~A, Vela~Jr. and G347.3~\citep{bib:cwdirectedSNREatHO1}.
Figure~\ref{fig:cwdirectedSNRO1EatH} shows the results of the three searches, together with results
from the coherent search of a subset of the same data set~\citep{bib:cwdirectedSNRO1}.
The semi-coherent search
which exploits the full data set, typically achieves a factor
of two improvement in strain sensitivity over the coherent search over a data subset.
This search also applied a search optimization method~\citep{bib:MingEtalOptimization}
to choose coherence times and segmentations for
each source, where the optimization attempts to take into account relative probabilities for
detection, given available astronomical information. In this instance the segmentations chosen
were 12 245-hour segments (Cas~A), 8 369-hour segments (Vela~Jr.) and 6 489-hour segments (G347.3).
As seen in Figure~\ref{fig:cwdirectedSNRO1EatH}, best upper limits obtained were $\sim$$\scimm{1}{-25}$.
Another semi-coherent directed search for the galactic center, based on the Frequency Hough method~\citep{bib:freqhough1},
accelerated by the Band-Sampled Data (BSD) use of DFTs~\citep{bib:BSD}, was carried out
using the Advanced LIGO O2 data~\citep{bib:PiccinniEtalGalacticCenter}.
Another O2 analysis~\citep{bib:MingEtAlG347} searched for a signal from
the G347.3 using a semi-coherent $\mathcal{F}$-statistic\ implementation in Einstein@Home.
Several distinct semi-coherent directed searches have been carried out to date using O3 data.
First came results from three methods applied to 15 supernova remnants using the O3a data~\citep{bib:cwdirectedO3aSNRs},
one method being a semi-coherent, BSD-accelerated Frequency Hough search
and the other two methods being less sensitive but more robust Viterbi~\citep{bib:ViterbiSNRmethod} searches.
The two Viterbi methods searched for either signal at only a single frequency~\citep{bib:ViterbiSNRmethod} (assumed to be twice
the unknown rotation frequency) or at both one frequency and its doubled value~\citep{bib:ViterbiTwoFrequencies}.
All three methods were applied to seven stars, with only the single-frequency Viterbi method applied
to another eight stars. The results from the Frequency Hough search are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:cwdirectedSNRO3a}.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=12.cm]{./ULsEatHO1SNR.pdf}
\caption{Upper limits (90\%\ CL) on $h_0$ for Cassiopeia A, Vela~Jr. and G347.3 (dots)
from semi-coherent Einstein@Home directed $\mathcal{F}$-statistic\ searches in Advanced LIGO O1
data,~\citep{bib:cwdirectedSNREatHO1,bib:cwdirectedSNREatHO1subthreshold}, shown with
previous (higher) coherent-search limits using subsets of the O1 data. The dashed curves denote estimated 95\%\ CL upper limits
based on the 90\%\ CL values. }
\label{fig:cwdirectedSNRO1EatH}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\subfigure[][G65.7+1.2]
{
\label{fig:ulBSD_G65_7}
\scalebox{0.25}{\includegraphics{././UL-BSD-G65_7_HLVrecalib_LARfit.pdf}}
}
\subfigure[][G189.1+3.0]
{
\label{fig:ulBSD_G189_1}
\scalebox{0.25}{\includegraphics{././UL-BSD-G189_1_HLVrecalib_LARfit.pdf}}
}
\subfigure[][G266.2--1.2/Vela Jr.]
{
\label{fig:ulBSD_G266_2}
\scalebox{0.25}{\includegraphics{././UL-BSD-G266_2_HLVrecalib_LARfit.pdf}}
}
\subfigure[][G39.2--0.3]
{
\label{fig:ulBSD_G39_2}
\scalebox{0.25}{\includegraphics{././UL-BSD-G39_2_HLVrecalib_LARfit.pdf}}
}
\subfigure[][G93.3+6.9]
{
\label{fig:ulBSD_G93_3}
\scalebox{0.25}{\includegraphics{././UL-BSD-G93_3_HLVrecalib_LARfit.pdf}}
}
\subfigure[][G18.9--1.1]
{
\label{fig:ulBSD_G18_9}
\scalebox{0.25}{\includegraphics{././UL-BSD-G18_9_HLVrecalib_LARfit.pdf}}
}
\subfigure[][G353.6--0.7]
{
\label{fig:ulBSD_G353_6}
\scalebox{0.25}{\includegraphics{././UL-BSD-G353_6_HLVrecalib_LARfit.pdf}}
}
\caption{Sensitivity estimates (95\%\ efficiency) $h_0^{95\%}$ obtained from an O3a semi-coherent Frequency Hough (BSD-accelerated) search~\citep{bib:cwdirectedO3aSNRs}.
The dotted curves represent the estimated $h_0^{95\%}$ in the full band of H, L and V detectors searched by the pipeline.
The crosses represent the frequentist strain upper limits at 95\% confidence level obtained empirically in sample sub-bands of 1~Hz.
Horizontal lines are the indirect age-based limit (Eqn.~\ref{eqn:agebasedlimit}). The limit is beaten across the full band also using
Virgo data, except for the most disturbed regions, for G65.7+1.2, G189.1+3.0 and G266.2--1.2/Vela Jr.
The remaining curves beat the limit on a limited parameter space and/or not for every detector. }
\label{fig:cwdirectedSNRO3a}
\end{figure*}
A separate O3a analysis~\citep{bib:cwdirectedO3aCasAVelaJr} used the Weave\ implementation (see section~\ref{sec:templatesallsky})
of a semi-coherent $\mathcal{F}$-statistic\ search.
While the package is versatile enough to be used in all-sky searches for unknown
sources, a simpler configuration, applicable to well localized sources, was used to search in the O3a data for the Cas A\ and Vela Jr.\
supernova remnants. Figure~\ref{fig:cwdirectedO3aCasaVelaJr} shows the results in comparison with earlier searches
for these two sources in O1, O2 and O3a data.
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=4.75in]{./CasAVelaJr_strainsensitivities.png}
\includegraphics[width=4.75in]{./CasAVelaJr_strainsensitivitieszoomed.png}
\caption{{\it Top panel:} Estimated gravitational wave strain amplitude sensitivities (95\%\ efficiency) in each 0.1-Hz sub-band for the
O3a Cas A\ (red band) and Vela Jr.\ (cyan band) searches~\citep{bib:cwdirectedO3aCasAVelaJr}. Conservative uncertainty bands of $\pm$7\% are indicated,
to account for statistical and systematic uncertainties in estimating sensitivity depths, including calibration uncertainties.
Black triangles (upright -- Cas A, inverted -- Vela Jr.) denote 0.1-Hz bands for which rigorous upper limits are used to determine estimated
sensitivity {\it vs.}\ frequency.
Additional results from prior searches for Cas A\ and Vela Jr.\ are also shown:
O1 Einstein@Home 90\%\ C.L. upper limits for Cas A\ (magenta curve) and for Vela Jr.\ (green curve)~\citep{bib:cwdirectedSNREatHO1};
O3a Cas A\ and Vela Jr.\ 95\%\ C.L. upper limits using a model-robust Viterbi method (orange curve)~\citep{bib:cwdirectedO3aSNRs};
O3a Vela Jr.\ 95\%\ C.L. upper limits using the template-based Frequency Hough method (black curve)~\citep{bib:cwdirectedO3aSNRs}.
The solid red horizontal line indicates the age-based upper limit on Cas A\ strain amplitude.
The dashed (dotted) horizonal blue lines indicate the optimistic (pessimistic) age-based upper limit on Vela Jr.\ strain amplitude,
assuming an age and distance of 700 yr and 0.2 kpc (5100 yr and 1.0 kpc).
{\it Bottom panel:} Magnification of the sensitivity bands from the O3a Weave search over most of the search band ($\sim$40--976 Hz), with 1-$\sigma$ statistical uncertainties shown for
the individual sparsely sampled upper limits used to estimate the depth. }
\label{fig:cwdirectedO3aCasaVelaJr}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
These 95\%-efficiency sensitivities to Cas A\ and Vela Jr.\ can be translated into sensitivities to ellipticity,
as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ellipticitysensitivitiesO3aCasAVelaJr}. The quadratic dependence of strain on frequency for
fixed ellipticity (see Eqn.~\ref{eqn:hexpected}) leads to dramatically better sensitivity to ellipticity at
higher frequencies, reaching as low as $\epsilon\approx\scimm{2}{-8}$ near 1000 Hz for the more optimistic assumption
of Vela Jr.\ distance (0.2 kpc).
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\includegraphics[width=4.9in]{./CasAVelaJr_ellipticitysensitivities.png}
\caption{Estimated ellipticity sensitivities (95\%\ efficiency) in each 0.1-Hz sub-band for the O3a (Weave-based) Cas A\ (red) and Vela Jr.\ (blue, magenta) searches,
derived from the strain amplitude sensitivities shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:cwdirectedO3aCasaVelaJr} assuming a source distance of
3.3 kpc for Cas A, and assuming source distances of 1.0 kpc and 0.2 kpc for Vela Jr.\
(color online).}
\label{fig:ellipticitysensitivitiesO3aCasAVelaJr}
\end{figure*}
Another approach~\citep{bib:xcorrmethod1} for directed searches is based on
cross correlation of independent data streams. The most straightforward method
defines bins in detector-frame frequency and uses short coherence times, as
in directional searches for stochastic gravitational radiation,~\citep{bib:radiometermethod,bib:DirectedStochasticO1}
which can be used to search for both isolated and binary sources, albeit with limited sensitivity.
One can use finer frequency binning, however, when correcting explicitly for Doppler modulation of the signal.
Cross-correlation methods are especially robust against wrong assumptions about phase
evolution and are attractive in searching for a very young object, such as
a hypothetical neutron star remaining from Supernova 1987A (see~\citep{bib:AshtonPrixJones} for
a discussion of potential degradation of coherent searches from neutron star glitches,
\citep{bib:PageEtalSNR1987A} for evidence of a hidden star from an excess of infrared emission
and \citep{bib:GrecoEtalSN1987A} for evidence of pulsar wind nebula).
A cross-correlation search for SN 1987A, including demodulation for effects from the motion
of the Earth,~\citep{bib:xcorrmethod2}
was carried out in initial LIGO data~\citep{bib:xcorrS5} Recent application of cross-correlation methods to
directed searches for binary sources will be discussed in the next section (\ref{sec:directedbinary}).
Directed searches for particular sources require making choices, that is, to prioritize among a
wide set of potential targets in deciding how best to apply computational resources and analyst time.
Recent work~\citep{bib:targetchoice1,bib:targetchoice2} has taken a probabilistic approach to address this
problem, based on source age and distance information (including sometimes large uncertainties) along with detector sensitivity,
an approach that may be generalized to parameter choices in both directed and all-sky searches.
Searches for $r$-modes\ radiation from known pulsars are less challenging computationally than truly broadband
directed searches, because the range of expected frequencies is better known. Nonetheless there is substantial theoretical
uncertainty in the ratio between GW emission frequency and rotation frequency. Although the nominal ratio is 4/3
in the slow-spinning, non-relativistic regime, there are substantial corrections for fast-spinning stars and
for stellar compactness that depend on the equation of
state~\citep{bib:YoshidaYoshidaEriguchi,bib:JasiulekChirenti,bib:IdrisyOwenJones,bib:CarideIntaOwenRajbhandari},
leading to a significant range in possible ratios. Following~\citep{bib:CarideIntaOwenRajbhandari}, the ratio can
be written:
\begin{equation}
{f_{\rm GW}\overf_{\rm rot}} \approx A - B\left({f_{\rm rot}\overf_{\rm Kepler}}\right)^2,
\end{equation}
\noindent where $f_{\rm Kepler}$ is the Kepler frequency of the star (rotation frequency at which
centrifugal forces destroy the star), $A$ is a parameter dependent on the equation of state,
with an estimated allowed range of 1.39-1.57~\citep{bib:IdrisyOwenJones} and $B$ is
a correction term for high spin with an estimated maximum value of $B_{\rm max}$ = 0.195~\citep{bib:CarideIntaOwenRajbhandari}.
Using these assumptions, several searches have been carried out explicitly for such $r$-modes: 1) an analysis of O1 and O2 data for emission from
the young, energetic pulsar PSR J0537$-$6910~\citep{bib:FesikPapa} (see section~\ref{sec:targets},
which reached to within an order of magnitude of the strain spin-down limit; 2) an analysis of O1 and O2 data for
emission from the younger, comparably energetic and much closer Crab pulsar, for which the spin-down limit was surpassed by an
order of magnitude~\citep{bib:RajbhandariOwenCarideInta}; and a recent search in the O3 LIGO and Virgo data~\citep{bib:cwdirectedO3J0537rmodes}
which placed stringent constraints on theoretical models for $r$-mode-driven spin-down in J0537–6910,
especially for higher frequencies for which upper limits reach below the spin-down limit. These latter results
which attempt to address directly the evidence for $r$-modes\ in inter-glitch J0537-6910 spin-down are shown for
the frequency band of the search (86-97 Hz) in Fig.~\ref{fig:cwdirectedO3J0537rmodes}.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{./cwdirectedO3J0537rmodes.pdf}
\caption{
Upper limits on GW amplitude $h_0$ obtained from searches for $r$-modes\ emission from PSR J0537-6910 in the O3 LIGO data using the $\mathcal{F}$-statistic/$\mathcal{G}$-statistic\ and
5-vector methods~\citep{bib:cwdirectedO3J0537rmodes}. The shaded band indicates the full range of results of the $\mathcal{F}$-statistic/$\mathcal{G}$-statistic\ pipeline.
The dashed lines are defined by the stiffest and softest equations of state considered in the analysis and enclose a range of theoretical $h_0$.
}
\label{fig:cwdirectedO3J0537rmodes}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Directed searches for binary stars}
\label{sec:directedbinary}
For known binary pulsars with measured timing ephemerides,
targeted searches work well, and upper limits have been reported for many
stars, as described in section~\ref{sec:targeted}.
But searching for known (possibly accreting) neutron stars in binary systems
not exhibiting pulsations or for entirely unknown stars in binary systems
once again significantly increases the parameter space,
relative to the corresponding isolated star searches,
posing new algorithmic challenges and computing costs.
Searches for Sco X-1 in O1 data were carried out with several
methods: 1) a ``Sideband'' method~\citep{bib:sidebandmethod1,bib:sidebandmethod2,bib:sidebandviterbi,bib:ViterbiO1,bib:SunThesis}
based on summing power in orbital sideband frequencies;
2) a non-demodulated cross-correlation method~\citep{bib:BallmerRadiometer,bib:DirectedStochasticO1}
and 3) a demodulated cross-correlation method~\citep{bib:xcorrmethod3,bib:O1CrossCorr,bib:CrossCorrResampling}.
The demodulated cross-correlation method has proven to be the most sensitive method to date
in such searches on a fixed data set for templated signal models without stochasticity,
as expected from a previous mock data challenge~\citep{bib:ScoX1MDC1} including these methods
and others~\citep{bib:twospectmethod,bib:GoetzRilessftsumming,bib:twospectdirectedmethod,bib:twospectS6,bib:polynomial},
and as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:O1CrossCorrScoX1}. Computationally intensive methods using the
$\mathcal{F}$-statistic, however, may eventually improve upon it~\citep{bib:StackedFstatScoX1Method}.
Follow-up Sco X-1 searches of the O2 data were based on the Viteri method using the
$\mathcal{J}$-statistic~\citep{bib:cwdirectedO2ScoX1Viterbi,bib:cwdirectedO3ScoX1Viterbi}.
One complication in Sco X-1 searches is potential spin wandering due to fluctuations in accretion
from its companion~\citep{bib:spinwandering}, which limits the length of a coherence time that can
be assumed safe for a signal template.
One previous fully coherent search~\citep{bib:sidebandS5} restricted its coherence length to 10 days,
to be conservative. Semi-coherent and cross-correlation
methods~\citep{bib:sidebandviterbi,bib:twospectdirectedmethod,bib:radiometermethod,bib:xcorrmethod3}
should be more robust against wandering.
Figure~\ref{fig:O3ScoX1polarizations} shows results from the recent Viterbi-based Sco X-1 search~\citep{bib:cwdirectedO3ScoX1Viterbi} in the O3 data
using the $\mathcal{J}$-statistic~\citep{bib:ViterbiPaperII}, in which results for different assumptions about Sco X-1 orientation are made.
The implied limits on intrinsic strain amplitude $h_0$ are lowest in the most favorable case of circular polarization,
less favorable for an inclination angle $\iota$ = 44$^\circ$ consistent with observations of
its radio lobes~\citep{bib:FomalontEtalScoX1}, and least favorable for a strain amplitude marginalized over unknown inclination.
Figure~\ref{fig:O2O3ScoX1Comparison} shows a comparison of Sco X-1 upper limits (marginalized over the unknown stellar inclination angle)
obtained from a variety of methods applied to the O1, O2 and O3 LIGO data,
with comparisons to the torque balance limit for a stellar {\it vs.}\ Alfv\'en\ radius for accretion (see section~\ref{sec:spindown}).
The O3 inclination-averaged strain upper limits~\citep{bib:cwdirectedO3ScoX1Viterbi}
shown in Figure~\ref{fig:O2O3ScoX1Comparison}
do not quite reach as low as the torque-balance benchmark in
equation~(\ref{eqn:torquebalance2}), but when results from the computationally more demanding CrossCorr search of the O3 data
are available, one may expect the benchmark to be reached at the lower frequencies (below $\sim$300 Hz). As Advanced LIGO sensitivity continues to improve
and with longer data runs, future searches should progressively probe to higher frequencies along this benchmark.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=12.cm]{./O1CrossCorrScoX1.pdf}
\caption{Upper limits (95\%\ CL) on $h_0$ for Scorpius X-1 from Advanced LIGO O1 data, using several different search methods:
a ``radiometer'' search using stochastic analysis methods~\citep{bib:DirectedStochasticO1} and fine frequency binning, a Viterbi method based on
a Bessel-weighted $\mathcal{F}$-statistic~\citep{bib:ViterbiO1} and a templated cross-correlation method~\citep{bib:O1CrossCorr}.
The dashed line indicates the torque-balance benchmark defined in equation~\ref{eqn:torquebalance2} for accretion at the stellar radius. }
\label{fig:O1CrossCorrScoX1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=12.cm]{./O3ScoX1Viterbi.jpg}
\caption{Frequentist effective wave strain upper limits at $95\%$ confidence from LIGO O3 data~\citep{bib:cwdirectedO3ScoX1Viterbi} as a function of sub-band frequency, for three scenarios: circular polarization with $\iota=0$ (blue stars), $\iota \approx 44^{\circ}$ based on radio observations (see~\citep{bib:FomalontEtalScoX1}; orange dots), and a flat prior on $\rm cos\,\iota$ (green dots). Indirect torque-balance upper limits (see Section \ref{sec:spindown}) for two torque lever arms are also shown: the stellar radius (red solid line) and the Alfv\'en\ radius (dashed red line). }
\label{fig:O3ScoX1polarizations}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=12.cm]{./O2O3ScoX1Comparison.jpg}
\caption{Comparison of 95\%\ CL upper limits on $h_0$ from Sco X-1 emission from multiple search methods carried out
in O1, O2 and O3 data: black -- O1 CrossCorr search~\citep{bib:O1CrossCorr}, brown -- O2 CrossCorr search~\citep{bib:O2CrossCorrAEI},
pink -- O1--O3 Radiometer search~\citep{bib:O3Radiometer};
and green -- O3 Viterbi search~\citep{bib:cwdirectedO3ScoX1Viterbi}.
The indirect torque-balance upper limits (see Section V C), using the stellar radius (red solid line) and the Alfv\'en\ radius (dashed red line), are also plotted, marginalized over stellar inclination angle. }
\label{fig:O2O3ScoX1Comparison}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Possessing more definitive information on
the rotation frequency of Sco X-1 could potentially make the
difference between missing and detecting its gravitational
waves in advanced detector data, by both permitting longer coherence-time searches and reducing the statistical
trials factor and thereby the threshold needed to identify
an interesting outlier. {\it More intensive measurements and
analysis of Sco X-1 X-ray emission could yield a dramatic scientific payoff~\citep{bib:GalaudageEtal}.}
Until recently, CW searches for known LXMB systems focused almost exclusively on
Scorpius X-1, although~\citep{bib:twospectS6} did also include limits from narrowband searches
around three particular frequencies of interest for XTE J1751$-$305, given
X-ray observations of a potential $r$-mode\ excitation\citep{bib:strohmayermahmoodifar1}.
More attention is turning now to other accreting systems, such as Cygnus X-2~\citep{bib:GallowayCygX2Source,bib:GalaudageEtal}.
In addition, recent searches were carried out in Advanced LIGO O2 data for five systems~\citep{bib:ViterbiFiveLMXBsO2}
and in O3 data for 20 accreting millisecond pulsars~\citep{bib:cwAXMPO3},
both using a Viterbi hidden Markov method~\citep{bib:ViterbiPaperII} and both exploiting
the relatively good precision with which the stellar rotation frequencies are known (see section~\ref{sec:targeted}).
\subsection{All-sky searches for isolated stars}
\label{sec:allsky}
\subsubsection{Overview of search pipelines in use}
Various semi-coherent algorithmic approaches have been tried, many based in some way on the
``Stack Slide'' algorithm~\citep{bib:stackslide1,bib:stackslide2,bib:stackslide3,bib:stackslideimplementation}
in which the strain powers from Fourier
transforms computed over each coherently analyzed segment are stacked on each other after
sliding each transform some number of bins to account for Doppler modulation of
the source frequency (see section~\ref{sec:stackslide}).
One algorithm is a direct implementation of this idea called StackSlide~\citep{bib:stackslideimplementation}.
Other implementations~\citep{bib:houghmethod,bib:freqhough1} are based on the Hough transform
approach,~\citep{bib:houghibm1,bib:houghibm2}
in which for each segment a detection statistic is compared to a threshold and given
a value of 0 or 1. The unity values were later refined to be adaptive non-unity weights, to account for
variations in noise and detector antenna pattern~\citep{bib:adaptivefreqhough,bib:adaptiveskyhough}.
The sums of those weights are accumulated in parameter space ``maps,''
with high counts warranting follow-up. The Hough approach offers
greater computational efficiency from reducing floating point operations, along with
robustness against non-Gaussian artifacts~\citep{bib:cwallskyS4} (see section~\ref{sec:lines}).
The Hough approach has been implemented in two distinct search pipelines, the ``Sky Hough''~\citep{bib:houghmethod,bib:cwallskyS2} and
``Frequency Hough''~\citep{bib:freqhough1,bib:freqhough2,bib:cwallskyfreqhoughVSR2VSR4} programs, named after the different parameter spaces chosen in which to
accumulate weight sums.
Another implementation, known as PowerFlux,~\citep{bib:cwallskyS4,bib:PowerFlux1,bib:PowerFluxPol,bib:PowerFlux2,bib:loosecoherence,bib:universalstatistic}
improves upon the StackSlide method by weighting segments by the inverse variance
of the estimated (usually non-stationary) noise and by searching explicitly over
different assumed polarizations while including the antenna pattern correction factors
in the noise weighting (see section~\ref{sec:PowerFlux}).
Yet another method uses coincidences among $\mathcal{F}$-statistic\ outliers (see section~\ref{sec:fstatistic}) in
multiple time segments typically longer than those used in the semi-coherent
approaches~\citep{bib:tdfstatistic,bib:cwallskyfstatVSR1}, where the implementation is
carried out in the time domain (hereafter denoted as TD-$\mathcal{F}$-statistic), with systematic follow-up of
outliers carried out through progressive increase of coherence time~\citep{bib:SieniawskaBejgerKrolak}.
The deepest wideband searches (including wide in frequency derivative range) achieved to date in given fixed data sets
have stacked $\mathcal{F}$-statistic\ values over time segments
semi-coherently (see section~\ref{sec:stackedfstatistic}) and have used the resources of the distributed computing
project Einstein@Home~\citep{bib:cwallskyEatHS4} based on the same software infrastructure (BOINC)~\citep{bib:boinc}
developed for the Seti@Home project~\citep{bib:seti@home}.
Einstein@Home encourages
volunteers to download narrow-band segments of LIGO data and carry out a semi-coherent
$\mathcal{F}$-statistic\ search over a small patch of sky. Results are automatically returned to
an Einstein@Home server and recorded, with every set of templates analyzed independently
by host computers owned by at least two different volunteers. Einstein@Home Scientists then carry out post-processing
to follow up on promising outliers found. This project has been remarkably successful
in engaging the public (hundreds of thousands of volunteers and 750,000 host computers to date)
in forefront science while making
good use of idle computer cycles to carry out searches that would otherwise exceed
the capacity of dedicated gravitational wave computing clusters.
The availability of the Einstein@Home platform has driven the evolution of
semi-coherent stacked $\mathcal{F}$-statistic\ techniques. This evolution has led to
imcreased search sophistication and sensitivity over the last decade and a half, in
general, including for related pipelines outside of that distributed computing framework, such as Weave\ (which has
a memory footprint incompatible with Einstein@Home).
Particular improvements have included search setup optimization~\citep{bib:stackslide3,bib:PrixShaltev,bib:shaltev},
more efficient semi-coherent stacking and template placement,~\citep{bib:PrixTemplates1,bib:PrixTemplatesEfficient,bib:Pletsch,bib:PletschAllen,bib:WettePrix,bib:WetteTemplates1,bib:WetteTemplates2,bib:WetteTemplates3,bib:WetteTemplates4,bib:WalshEtaltemplates}
automated vetoing of instrumental lines,~\citep{bib:lineveto1,bib:lineveto2,bib:lineveto3} and
hierarchical outlier followup and
veto~\citep{bib:shaltevetal,bib:papafollowup,bib:singh,bib:ZhuEtalDoppler,bib:AshtonPrix,bib:IntiniEtalDoppler}.
Technical challenges in distributed computing include efficient data transfer to/from
host computers and running on many computing platforms of greatly varying
CPU and memory capabilities. The large computing resources available via distributed
computing can be used to enlarge the parameter space searched or to probe more deeply
in the noise than is feasible on current computing clusters, but optimization must
account for scaling of computing cost with the target range of frequency and
frequency derivative and weigh the benefit of longer coherence time for sensitivity
against the incurred cost (see section~\ref{sec:challenges}).
The $\mathcal{F}$-statistic-stacking techniques can also be used, of course, in
less powerful computing environments, with different tunings, {\it e.g.}, shorter
coherence times per segment. These techniques can also be used for systematic
follow-up of outliers found in first-stage semi-coherent $\mathcal{F}$-statistic\ searches or in
searches using other semi-coherent methods~\citep{bib:WalshEtaltemplates}, including
both all-sky and directed searches.
One general-purpose, multi-stage approach uses the python wrapper PyFstat for $\mathcal{F}$-statistic\ summing~\citep{bib:AshtonPrix,bib:pyFstat}
and a Markov Chain Monte Carlo search through parameter space to ``zero in'' on signals~\citep{bib:TenorioEtal}.
This method systematically lengthens segment coherence times (hence reducing segment counts per observational run)
simultaneously with narrowing of the parameter space volume, while guided by the parameters of
the loudest survivors from each stage.
A comparison of many of these all-sky search methods was carried out via a mock
data challenge using initial LIGO data,~\citep{bib:allskymdc}
and these methods have been applied to
searches of the Advanced LIGO O1--O3 data
sets~\citep{bib:cwallskyO1paper1,bib:cwallskyEatHO1,bib:cwallskyO1paper2,bib:cwallskyO2,bib:cwallskyO2EatH,bib:cwallskyO3aPowerFlux,bib:cwallskyO3FourPipelines}.
Unsurprisingly, the all-sky search enabled by Einstein@Home computing resources
displayed consistently better sensitivity than the other methods in the mock data challenge.
A newcomer all-sky search pipeline, known as the SOAP pipeline~\citep{bib:ViterbiGlasgow}, uses a Viterbi approach to seek
trajectories in spectrograms for which each time segment is represented by the average spectrum over a 24-hour period
using a 30-minute coherence time. Although not as sensitive as the pipelines described above, the technique is
blazingly fast, in comparison, offering the potential of rapid discovery for observing runs with much improved
detector noise. Perhaps more important, because the algorithm is untemplated, it has the additional potential of detecting
new (strong) signals that do not follow the models sought by other isolated-star pipelines, including long-period
binary systems.
\subsubsection{Results from all-sky, isolated-star searches of LIGO and Virgo data}
The Sky Hough algorithm was used to produce all-sky upper limits in the 200-400 Hz band
of the LIGO S2 data~\citep{bib:cwallskyS2}, based on a total of 3800 30-minute segments of data
from the three LIGO interferometers. The StackSlide, Sky Hough and PowerFlux methods
were used to produce all-sky upper limits in
the 50-1000 band of the LIGO S4 data~\citep{bib:cwallskyS4}.
The first Einstein@Home all-sky search was carried out too
on the S4 data~\citep{bib:cwallskyEatHS4}.
The PowerFlux algorithm was
used to produce all-sky upper limits in the 50-1100 Hz band
of the first eight months of LIGO S5 data~\citep{bib:cwallskyearlyS5}. The sheer length
of data for the full 23-month S5 run required substantial upgrade of the program which
was then used to produce all-sky upper limits in the 50-800 Hz band of the full data set,
based on a total of more than 80,000 (50\%-overlapped)
30-minute segments from the H1 and L1 data.
This PowerFlux result~\citep{bib:cwallskyS5} included a three-stage hierarchical search
with a follow-up procedure of loud candidates based on {\it loose coherence}
(see section~\ref{sec:longlagloose}).
A Sky Hough search of the S5 data consisted of a coincidence analyis of data sets
from two separate approximately 1-year subsets of the data over the 50-1000 Hz band.
Einstein@Home too was applied in sequential analyses to the early S5~\citep{bib:cwallskyEatHearlyS5} and to the full S5\citep{bib:cwallskyEatHS5}.
A final all-sky initial LIGO PowerFlux analysis of the S6 data set~\citep{bib:cwallskyS6}
included a 5-stage hierachical search with longer and longer effective coherence times
over 100-1500 Hz within the loose coherence framework.
The S6 Einstein@Home search~\citep{bib:cwallskyEatHS6} achieved the most sensitive all-sky results from any
of the initial LIGO data sets, reaching upper limit values as low as \sci{5.5}{-25}.
When initial Virgo VSR1 data became available, a direct time-domain implementation of
the $\mathcal{F}$-statistic~\citep{bib:tdfstatistic} was applied to a search of it for the 100-1000 Hz
band~\citep{bib:cwallskyfstatVSR1}.
Later, the Frequency Hough method was applied to data from the initial Virgo
VSR2 and VSR4 runs over the 20-128 Hz band, the first time an all-sky search was applied
to frequencies below 50 Hz~\citep{bib:cwallskyfreqhoughVSR2VSR4}.
Since Advanced LIGO observing has begun, multiple all-sky search programs have been applied
to data from the first three observing runs, O1, O2 and O3.
The first publications based on O1 data focused on lower frequencies. Four pipelines
(PowerFlux, Sky Hough, Frequency Hough and TD-$\mathcal{F}$-statistic) covered the band 20-475 Hz and a spin-down range
$[\scimm{-1.0}{-8},\scimm{+1.0}{-9}]$ Hz/s~\citep{bib:cwallskyO1paper1}.
A separate Einstein@Home search using
the GCT-$\mathcal{F}$-statistic\ method drilled deeper in the 20-100 Hz band in a narrower
spin-down range $[\scimm{-2.65}{-9},\scimm{+2.64}{-10}]$ Hz/s~\citep{bib:cwallskyEatHO1}.
A follow-up publication using three of the first four pipelines (PowerFlux, Sky Hough and TD-$\mathcal{F}$-statistic)
covered the broader band 475-2000 Hz~\citep{bib:cwallskyO1paper2}.
Figure~\ref{fig:cwallskyO1fullband} shows the full-band O1 results from~\citep{bib:cwallskyO1paper2}
for these three pipelines. The PowerFlux results shown are defined differently from those
shown for the other searches. PowerFlux upper limits are derived as strict frequentist over
the full sky, that is, a 95\%\ CL limit provides at least 95\%\ coverage, regardless of sky
position, making it quite conservative. At the same time, however, limits are shown for
an optimistic polarization assumption (circular polarization corresponding to $|\cos(\iota)| =1$)
and for a pessimistic assumption (linear polarization corresponding to $\cos(\iota)=0$ for
the least favorable choice of polarization angle $\psi$). These limits are derived directly
from the corresponding detection statistics (see section~\ref{sec:PowerFlux}).
The other limits shown are conventional frequentist population-based values, averaged over
source orientation and sky position.
Figure~\ref{fig:cwallskyEatHO1} shows the low-frequency band up to 100 Hz, comparing the
limits obtained in~\citep{bib:cwallskyO1paper1} with those from the GCT-$\mathcal{F}$-statistic\ search on
Einstein@Home, where the PowerFlux limits have been reevaluated via explicit simulation
to produce population-averaged values for comparison.
All-sky results from three pipelines (Sky Hough, Frequency Hough and TD-$\mathcal{F}$-statistic)
were applied to the O2 data set~\citep{bib:cwallskyO2,bib:PalombaEtalAxion} over the 20-1922 Hz band and
a spin-down range $[\scimm{-1.0}{-8},\scimm{+2.0}{-9}]$,
where frequency coverage varied by pipeline. Resulting upper limits
are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:cwallskyO2}. A dedicated Einstein@Home search of the O2 data~\citep{bib:cwallskyO2EatH} over
the 20-585 Hz band achieved significantly lower upper limits in the overlapping frequency band (see Fig.~\ref{fig:O3aPFvsO2limits}).
An intriguing set of O1 and O2 all-sky searches using the Falcon pipeline
(derived from PowerFlux, but implemented with approximations and exploiting additional
symmetries~\citep{bib:FalconPaper,bib:cwallskyFalconO1,bib:cwallskyFalconO2MidFreq,bib:cwallskyFalconO2HighFreq,bib:cwallskyFalconO2LowFreq},
focused on deeper searches. The O1 search~\citep{bib:FalconPaper,bib:cwallskyFalconO1}
doubled the first-stage effective coherence time from that used in the O1 PowerFlux
search~\citep{bib:cwallskyO1paper1,bib:cwallskyO1paper2} while covering the same spin-down range over the 100-600 Hz band.
The O2 searches, on the other hand, targeted
low-ellipticity pulsars~\citep{bib:WoanEtalMSP}
by severely restricting the spin-down range ({\it e.g.}, $|\dot{f}_{\rm GW}|<\scimm{3}{-12}$ Hz/s) in the 500-1500 Hz band).
This vast reduction in parameter space permits using loose coherence
with an effective coherence time of 12 hours in its initial search stage, albeit with a necessarily reduced
astrophysical range because of the restricted spin-down restriction.
Another deep O2 search~\citep{bib:WetteEtalDeep} focused on the narrow 171-172 Hz band while restricting spin-down
magnitudes below $\sim$\sci{3}{-13} Hz/s. This search used a semi-coherent $\mathcal{F}$-statistic\ technique
with Graphics Processing Unit acceleration in the $\mathcal{F}$-statistic\ computation), where the frequency band chosen
was meant to optimize probability density of detection in a narrow band based on detector sensitivity and the known pulsar
population.
The first all-sky search of O3 data for isolated CW sources~\citep{bib:cwallskyO3aPowerFlux} used the PowerFlux pipeline to examine the O3a data for
the same broad parameter space in frequency and spin-down as used in the O1 search. A comparison of upper limits obtained
from several O2 searches with those obtained from O3a search are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:O3aPFvsO2limits}.
Figure~\ref{fig:O3aPFvsO2paramspace} shows the corresponding parameter space coverages.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=5in]{./cwallskyO1fullband.pdf}
\vspace{-\abovedisplayskip}
\caption{O1 all-sky upper limits (95\%\ CL) on $h_0$ for isolated stars
from three semi-coherent search pipelines over the band 20-2000 Hz~\citep{bib:cwallskyO1paper2}.
The limits shown for the PowerFlux method correspond to best-case (circular polarization) and worst-case (linear polarization)
over the entire sky, while the limits shown for the time-domain $\mathcal{F}$-statistic\ and SkyHough methods correspond to population
averages over the sky and source orientations. The steps in sensitivty apparent in the limits correspond to reductions
in FFT coherence time as frequencies increase. }
\label{fig:cwallskyO1fullband}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=5in]{./cwallskyO1EatH.pdf}
\vspace{-\abovedisplayskip}
\caption{O1 all-sky upper limits (95\%\ CL) on $h_0$ for isolated stars in the low-frequency band (20-100 Hz) for five semi-coherent
pipelines~\citep{bib:cwallskyEatHO1}, including an Einstein@Home GCT-$\mathcal{F}$-statistic\ search. The PowerFlux limits here
are population-averaged, unlike those shown in Figure~\ref{fig:cwallskyO1fullband}. }
\label{fig:cwallskyEatHO1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=5in]{./cwallskyO2.png}
\vspace{-\abovedisplayskip}
\caption{O2 all-sky upper limits (95\%\ CL) on $h_0$ for isolated stars from three semi-coherent search pipelines over the band 20-1922 Hz.
As in Figure~\ref{fig:cwallskyO1fullband}, step changes in sensitivity correspond to reductions in FFT coherence time with
increasing frequency. }
\label{fig:cwallskyO2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=5in]{./O3aPFvsO2limits.png}
\vspace{-\abovedisplayskip}
\caption{O3a all-sky upper limits (95\%\ CL) on $h_0$ for isolated stars from the O3a PowerFlux search in comparison with earlier
O2 searches. The corresponding parameter space areas in $f_{\rm GW}$--$\dot{f}_{\rm GW}$ are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:O3aPFvsO2paramspace}. }
\label{fig:O3aPFvsO2limits}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=5in]{./O3aPFvsO2paramspace.png}
\vspace{-\abovedisplayskip}
\caption{Comparison of parameter space areas in O2 all-sky searches vs the O3a PowerFlux search.
The shaded rectangle with vertical bars shows the 20--2000 Hz and
$-10^{-8}$--$10^{-9}$ Hz/s range for the O3a search~\citep{bib:cwallskyO3aPowerFlux}. The slightly larger rectangle with horizontal bars shows the
region searched in the O2 data with the Frequency Hough method~\citep{bib:cwallskyO2,bib:PalombaEtalAxion}. The smaller rectangle
with crossed diagonal bars shows the region searched by the distributed-computing project Einstein@Home~\citep{bib:cwallskyO2EatH}.
The solid line at zero spin-down depicts the specialized O2 search for low-ellipticity millisecond pulsars using the
Falcon method~\citep{bib:cwallskyFalconO2MidFreq,bib:cwallskyFalconO2HighFreq,bib:cwallskyFalconO2LowFreq} (the thickness of the line overstates the coverage in spin-down range).
The dotted curves indicate contours of constant equatorial ellipticity $\epsilon$ = ($10^{-8}$, $10^{-7}$, $10^{-6}$, $10^{-5}$ and $10^{-4}$) for a star with stellar spin-down dominated by gravitational wave emission. }
\label{fig:O3aPFvsO2paramspace}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The most sensitive all-sky results to date for broad coverage of both frequency and spin-down were obtained recently
from the full O3 data from three pipelines (Sky Hough, Frequency Hough and TD-$\mathcal{F}$-statistic)~\citep{bib:cwallskyO3FourPipelines} and are shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:O3FourPipelineslimits}, in comparison with the O3a PowerFlux results~\citep{bib:cwallskyO3aPowerFlux} and with the results from
the new Viterbi-based, less sensitive but blazing-fast, SOAP pipeline. Also shown are recent O3a Falcon results~\citep{bib:cwallskyFalconO3aMidFreq} over
a restricted spin-down range. Figure~\ref{fig:O3FourPipelinesparamspace} shows a comparison of the parameter space coverages
of these different searches.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=5in]{./O3FourPipelineslimits.pdf}
\vspace{-\abovedisplayskip}
\caption{O3 all-sky upper limits (95\%\ CL) on $h_0$ for isolated stars from four pipelines~\citep{bib:cwallskyO3FourPipelines},
in comparison with the O3a PowerFlux~\citep{bib:cwallskyO3aPowerFlux} and Falcon results~\citep{bib:cwallskyFalconO3aMidFreq}.
The corresponding parameter space areas in $f_{\rm GW}$--$\dot{f}_{\rm GW}$ are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:O3FourPipelinesparamspace}.}
\label{fig:O3FourPipelineslimits}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=5in]{./O3FourPipelinesparamspace.pdf}
\vspace{-\abovedisplayskip}
\caption{Comparison of $f_{\rm GW}$--$\dot{f}_{\rm GW}$ parameter space coverage for the four search pipelines used in the full-O3 all-sky
searches~\citep{bib:cwallskyO3FourPipelines} and for the restricted-spindown O3a Falcon search.~\citep{bib:cwallskyO3FourPipelines}.}
\label{fig:O3FourPipelinesparamspace}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{All-sky searches for binary stars}
\label{sec:allskybinary}
Several methods have been proposed and implemented for carrying out a CW all-sky binary search.
The first method, which was
used in a published search of initial LIGO S6 data~\citep{bib:twospectresultsS6} is
known as TwoSpect~\citep{bib:twospectmethod}. The program carries out a
semi-coherent search over an observation time long compared to
the maximum orbital period considered, while using coherence times short with
respect to the orbital period. Fourier transforms are carried
out over each row (fixed frequency bin) in a $\sim$year-long
spectrogram, and the resulting frequency-frequency plot is searched
for characteristic harmonic patterns.
Another developed pipeline, known
as Polynomial,~\citep{bib:polynomial} searches coherently using
matched filters over an observation time short compared to the minimum orbital period
considered. A bank of frequency polynomials in time is used for
creating the matched filters, where for a small segment of an orbit,
the frequency should vary as a low-order polynomial.
Other proposed methods, which
offer potentially substantial computational savings at a cost in sensitivity, include
autocorrelations in the time-frequency plane~\citep{bib:vicereautocorr} and
stochastic-background techniques~\citep{bib:BallmerRadiometer}, with
computational costs gains achieved by using skymaps with sidereal-day folding~\citep{bib:stochfolding,bib:stochfolding2,bib:ASAFO3}.
More recently, the implementation of graphics processor units software in the framework of the
Sky Hough all-sky program has led to a breakthrough in all-sky binary search
sensitivity~\citep{bib:binaryskyhough1}.
Upper limits were initially obtained over 100-300 Hz and over a broad range of binary orbital parameters
from the LIGO O2 data\citep{bib:binaryskyhough2}. Although this approach does not yet cover the full orbital parameter space possible with
the TwoSpect program, the intrinsic sensitivity is dramatically better, with extension of the method to shorter
orbital periods a natural future improvement. A follow-up analysis in the O3a data~\citep{bib:cwallskybinaryO3aBinarySkyHough,bib:TenorioProceedings}
expanded the search band slightly (50-300 Hz), and a parallel development using a similar Hough transform framework but with a
$\mathcal{F}$-statistic~\citep{bib:CovasPrixModFstat} tailored to multi-hour segments,
has been applied to the O3a data in the 300-500 Hz band~\citep{bib:cwallskybinaryO3aBinaryFstat}. All of these results
are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:cwallskybinaryskyhoughO2}. See references for details on orbital parameter space regions covered
by the different analyses, which vary considerably.
In addition, searches for isolated stars retain some sensitivity to long-period binaries,
as detailed in a recent study~\citep{bib:aeibinarystudy}.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=5in]{./AllskyBinaryLimits.png}
\vspace{-\abovedisplayskip}
\caption{All-sky upper limits (95\%\ CL) on $h_0$ for stars in binary systems.
Upper limits are shown from the inital LIGO S6 TwoSpect search~\citep{bib:twospectresultsS6},
from the GPU-enhanced O2 Binary Sky Hough search~\citep{bib:binaryskyhough2} (100-300 Hz), from the
O3a Binary Sky Hough search~\citep{bib:cwallskybinaryO3aBinarySkyHough} (50-300 Hz) and from the O3a Binary $\mathcal{F}$-statistic\
search~\citep{bib:cwallskybinaryO3aBinaryFstat} (300-500 Hz). See references for details on orbital parameter space regions covered
by the different analyses. The O2 and O3a Binary Sky Hough values shown are 95\%\ sensitivities with bands to indicate uncertainties.}
\label{fig:cwallskybinaryskyhoughO2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Searches for CW transients and other CW-like signals}
The first dedicated search for CW transients following a known pulsar's glitch
addressed glitches detected by radio astronomers during the Advanced LIGO
O2 data run. The search used the transient $\mathcal{F}$-statistic\ method~\citep{bib:PrixGiampanisMessenger}
and focused on periods following glitches in the Crab and Vela pulsars~\citep{bib:KeitelEtal}.
A recent O3 analysis~\citep{bib:cwnarrowbandO3,bib:ModafferiEtal} searched for CW transients following nine glitches
across six pulsars (one glitch each from five stars: PSR J0534+2200, J0908–4913, J1105–6107, J1813–1749 and J1826–1334; and
four glitches from the intriguing source, PSR J0537-6910 (see sections~\ref{sec:spindown}, \ref{sec:targets} and \ref{sec:directedisolated}).
No significant candidates were observed, although two marginal outliers were seen after one PSR J0537-6910 glitch, albeit with
implied strengths well above those consistent with the inferred glitch energies.
In fact, the upper limits obtained for post-glitch energy emission from all glitches examined lay
above the maximum expected in a simple two-fluid model~\citep{bib:PrixGiampanisMessenger}, with
strain limits for PSR J1105-6107 approaching most closely to that benchmark (within a factor of $\sim$1.6).
The first dedicated search for long-lived, CW-like signals from a post-merger remnant looked
for a signal from the post-GW170817 remnant, but as expected, given the $\sim$40 Mpc distance
to the merger, no signal was detected in the immediate aftermath~\citep{bib:Postmerger1} ($\sim$500 s)
or in a multi-hour to multi-day period afterward~\citep{bib:Postmerger2}. Should another opportunity arise
(from a nearby binary neutron star merger or a galactic supernova), search methods are available for
use~\citep{bib:ThraneEtalStamp,bib:MillerEtalPostmerger,bib:SunMelatos,bib:OliverKeitelSintes,bib:LongTransientsHMM,bib:MytidisEtalNewborn,bib:MillerEtalLongTransient}.
More exotic recent analyses seeking CW or CW-like signals include:
\begin{itemize}
\item Searches
for CW signals from Bose-Einstein clouds~\citep{bib:DantonioEtalBosoncloud,bib:cwallskyO3BosonCloud} (see section~\ref{sec:axions}).
\item A search for non-black-hole weakly interacting compact dark objects
with mass below $10^{-7}$ $M_\odot$ orbiting within the Sun about its center~\citep{bib:HorowitzPapaReddy}
\item Searches for ultralight dark photon or scalar boson dark matter creating an extremely narrowband ($\Delta f/f\sim10^{-6}$) spectral
excess with stochastic phase~\citep{bib:DPDM_PRZ,bib:DPDM_GRYZ,bib:MillerEtalDPDM,bib:DPDMO3,bib:GroteStadnik,bib:GEOscalar}.
\item A search for binary systems of planetary-scale / asteroid-scale primordial
black holes near to the Earth~\citep{bib:MillerEtalPBH,bib:planetaryBBH,bib:cwallskyO3FourPipelines}.
\item There has also been a proposal to apply CW search techniques to suspected Thorne-\.Zytkow objects~\citep{bib:TZO} (TZOs)
for which a neutron star orbiting inside of a giant star (slow inspiral decay) could produce signals in the band of ground-based
gravitational wave detectors~\citep{bib:TZOsearchpaper}.
\end{itemize}
\section{Outlook}
\label{sec:outlook}
\subsection{Prospects for discovery}
Over the next several years, the Advanced LIGO~\citep{bib:aligodetector1} and Virgo~\citep{bib:avirgodetector} detectors are expected
to approach and eventually surpass their original design sensitivities in strain, increasing the range within the galaxy which
CW searches can access, thereby increasing detection likelihood.
As the sensitive ranges of different search methods approach the dense galactic core, detection chances may rise more
rapidly. In parallel to detector improvement, algorithms continue to improve, as researchers
find more effective tradeoffs between computational cost and detection efficiency,
while Moore's Law, including Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) exploitation~\citep{bib:TransientFstatGPU,bib:binaryskyhough1,bib:WetteEtalDeep,bib:FstatGPU,bib:RosaEtal}, ensures
increased computing resources for searches. All of these trends are encouraging
for successful CW detection.
At the same time, theoretical uncertainties in what sensitivity is needed for the
first CW detection are very large. While the spin-down limits based on gravitar assumptions
and on either energy conservation or known age have been beaten for a handful
of sources and will be beaten for more sources in the coming years, the gravitar
model is surely optimistic -- most stellar spin-downs are likely dominated by
electromagnetic interactions. Whether the first detection is imminent or still many
years distant remains unclear. A recent phenomenological population synthesis
study~\citep{bib:CieslarEtalPopSynth}, based on an exponentially decaying ellipticity
that starts at its allowed maximum $\sim$$10^{-5}$ with a supernova rate of
once per century concluded that the expected number of detectable, young and isolated neutron stars
for Advanced LIGO sensitivity is less than one and is $\sim$10 for Einstein Telescope.
Electromagnetic astronomers could prove pivotal in hastening detection by identifying
new nearby or young neutron stars, or discovering pulsations from known stars, perhaps most usefully
from the accreting Sco X-1 system~\citep{bib:GalaudageEtal}. Given the computational challenges of most CW searches,
narrowing the parameter space of a search exploiting electromagnetic observations could make
the difference between a gravitational wave miss and a discovery.
\subsection{Confirming and exploiting a discovery}
There are several aspects of confirming a nominal CW discovery, including establishing
the statistical significance of the outlier, verifying consistency of the signal
with the CW model, excluding an environmental or instrumental cause, and (optionally
but ideally) confirming consistency with prior or follow-up electromagnetic observations.
Once that discovery is established, exploiting it to understand neutron star astrophysics
(or fundamental particle physics should a superradiant boson cloud be observed) will be a rich endeavor.
The degree of statistical confidence with which a putative CW signal detection can be confirmed
depends on the type of search that leads to the candidate. The statistical significance
of an outlier depends on a trials factor that may range from $\sim$1 for targeted
searches for known pulsars using electromagnetically derived ephemerides to
$\sim$$10^{15}$ for all-sky searches. Hence the SNR threshold for, say, a ``5-sigma''
discovery varies too. In practice, though, for a candidate emerging from a hierarchical
search with multiple stages of ``zooming in'', the SNR for a surviving outlier may
be so much higher than the sensitivity-defining SNR threshold used in the first stage that
the initial trials factor is irrelevant. Establishing the statistical confidence of
a targeted-search candidate, on the other hand, may simply require steady accumulation of
additional data while fully exploiting all data in hand from all detectors with appreciable
sensitivity in that band. Empirically assessing the significance of loudest outliers is
discussed in detail in~\citep{bib:TenorioEtalLoudestCandidate}.
If known detector artifacts are
degrading sensitivity in the frequency band of the candidate, it may be feasible to focus
detector commissioning to mitigate the artifact prior to the next observing run. Another
possible approach, although potentially detrimental to other GW observations, is ``narrowbanding.''
In narrowbanding the detector sensitivity is improved in a narrow band at the expense of broadband
sensitivity by adjusting the position of the ``signal recycling'' mirror at the
output port of the interferometer~\citep{bib:aligodetector1}; with the advent of
quantum squeezing in advanced detectors~\citep{bib:squeezingO3}, however, the potential gains from narrowbanding are less pronounced.
Even with a promising outlier, a discovery claim would need more than statistical inconsistency with
detector noise. One would seek consistency with the signal model, particularly for candidates originating
in hierarchical searches where early stages look primarily for excess power that is only roughly consistent
with a particular template and where the spacing between templates is relatively coarse.
The expected Doppler modulations due to the Earth's motion should be present~\citep{bib:ZhuEtalDoppler,bib:IntiniEtalDoppler}.
One wants to see a signal for which a fully coherent search over all data yields an SNR consistent with expectation from
the putative source. Ideally, a residual spectrum from subtracting the reconstructed signal would be
consistent with random background noise.
In the case of a targeted or directed search for which the source location is {\it a priori} known,
one would want to verify that the highest-SNR template observed in that region of the sky and near the template's frequency parameters
is indeed consistent with the correct sky location. Although one could impose a similar constraint on frequency and frequency derivatives
for a targeted search, narrowband searches do allow those parameters to differ slightly from the nominal ones, to accommodate
differential stellar rotation. Hence seeing the SNR peak at precisely the right location in parameter space for a known pulsar
would lend credence to the signal, but seeing the SNR peak at a nearby point in parameter space can still mean discovery, albeit with
a trials factor appropriate to a narrowband search.
The possibility of a rotational glitch during an observational period
presents additional complications. One can no longer safely apply a fully coherent
search over the time span and expect a monotonically increasing SNR.
In the case of a targeted search with ephemerides in hand indicating a glitch,
breaking the observation time into two (or more) segments is
straightforward~\citep{bib:cwtargetedS5},
but in the case of a source without independent timing information, one may
have a true signal detection but lack the confidence to declare discovery without
additional data taking because of apparent phase inconsistency in the available data.
In any gravitational wave analysis using interferometers that push the frontier of
technology (and which are routinely operated at maximum achievable sensitivity), one
must consider whether or not instrumental or environmental contamination leads to
a false signal. As discussed in section~\ref{sec:lines}, narrow lines can contribute
to accumulated power in a templated search. As part of confirming a discovery, one
would need to quantify that contamination for a putative signal lying near a known
instrumental spectral line. More challenging and more realistic for a signal candidate
surviving multiple hierarchical search stages are spectral lines that are {\it not} immediately
apparent in the strain channel spectrum, especially lines that are non-stationary with
respect to time or frequency (``wandering''). To address that possibility, one would
look comprehensively at auxiliary data channels, such as readouts from magnetometers,
accelerometers, seismometers, microphones and from any servo control channels that could
impose tiny actuations on the gravitational wave strain channel. Those investigations
would include examination of averaged spectra for peaks coincident with the strain
signal frequency and more probing searches for cross-coherence between the auxiliary
channels and the strain channel that is inconsistent with statistical fluctuation.
Finally, in confirming a continuous gravitational wave signal one would, ideally, want
confirmation via electromagnetic observations. For targeted or narrowband searches of known pulsars,
the observations already exist, and the primary task is to establish statistical confidence
of their consistency with gravitational data.
For other known sources, however, gravitational wave measurements may provide the necessary clues
to allow detection of previously undetected pulsations. For example, detection of a CW signal
from Scorpius X-1 could permit discrimination of X-ray pulsations from a stochastic
background dominated by accretion emission.
For a previously unknown source found in an all-sky search, determining the source location
from coherent integration over months of data (with sub-arcsecond resolution possible from the
aperture formed by the Earth's orbit) may suffice for radio, X-ray, gamma-ray (and perhaps
even optical) astronomers to find the counterpart. If electromagnetic pulsations were detected
and agreed with expectation, the confirmation of the gravitational wave signal would be ironclad.
An interesting challenge to confirmation would be continuous gravitational radiation due to
boson cloud superradiance for an isolated black hole (see section~\ref{sec:axions}). If there
were no accretion disk or companion to induce an electromagnetic signal,
one would have to rely heavily upon the the evolution of
the gravitational wave signal itself to infer the nature of the source. In particular, the source frequency
governed by the boson's apparent mass in the potential of the black hole
could spin {\it up} instead of down as the black hole loses mass energy to gravitational radiation, thereby reducing the magnitude of
the negative binding
energy correction to the unbound boson mass~\citep{bib:axionArvanitaki}.
Once a continuous gravitational wave detection has been confirmed electromagnetically,
one will want to exploit the correlations to understand the source. Below are a sampling
of potential measurements possible, along with questions they help to address:
\begin{itemize}
\item Relation between rotational and gravitational wave frequencies, determining the fundamental
mechanism of emission (see section~\ref{sec:sources} and see \citep{bib:JonesFrequency} for
a detailed discussion).
\item Correlation of the gravitational and electromagnetic phase constants in
the event of consistent frequency (phase) evolution.
If an equatorial mass ``bulge'' explains the GW signal, how well does the implied
quadrupolar axis align with a pulsar's inferred magnetic dipole projection? In an
accreting system, for example, does added mass accumulate near the magnetic poles?
\item Differential frequency (phase) evolution. Is there differential rotation between
the stellar crust and its interior? If electromagnetic frequency glitches are observed,
what is seen gravitationally before, during and after the glitch?
\item If there is evidence for {$r$-mode}s from, say, an approximate 4/3 ratio of GW
signal frequency to stellar rotation frequency, how does the GW frequency evolve with time
and how does the ratio evolve? Is there evidence of amplitude growth from instability?
Decay from viscosity?
\item Inferred quadrupole moment. Although ellipticity is a convenient dimensionless parameter,
it is approximately the product of the ellipticity times the stellar moment of inertia about
its spin axis that determines the signal strength for a mass-quadrupole radiator. Given
the uncertainties in neutron star equation of state, there are large uncertainties in the
moment of inertia and hence ambiguity in extracting ellipticity. Ambiguity at the level of near-degeneracy
would arise in the absence of an independent determination of
source distance from electromagnetic observations~\citep{bib:SieniawskaJones}.
A CW detection in a binary
system would offer an opportunity for determination of the stellar mass.
Other stellar properties potentially accessible include the stellar radius (inferred from luminosity
and temperature, if measurable). A precessing star with detectable electromagnetic pulsations
offers additional opportunity for understanding internal structure~\citep{bib:GaoEtal}.
\item Boson properties from superradiance. In the event of detecting superradiance from a
boson cloud around a black hole, determining the boson's mass will be immediate from the
signal frequency (at least for the annihilation channel expected to dominate) with the
boson intrinsic spin determination more model dependent, based on signal strength and frequency
evolution with some knowledge of the black hole source needed.
\end{itemize}
In addition to exploiting CW detection to understand the source, one can also carry out precise
tests of General Relativity by measuring the polarization of the propagating gravitational wave.
In Einstein's theory there should be two independent transverse, quadrupolar polarizations for which the relative strengths
depend on the source orientation relative to the line of sight. In non-standard theories of
gravity other polarization modes, including scalar, vector and longitudinal polarizations,
may be present~\citep{bib:TGRmethod}. Testing for these additional polarizations with
transient gravitational wave detections to date has been challenging because nearly all of the
signal-to-noise ratio has come from the two nearly aligned LIGO detectors such that they mainly
detect the same polarization projection. In contrast, even for a single detector, a CW signal permits
disentangling multiple polarization contributions as the sidereal rotation of the Earth changes
the detector's (polarimeter's) orientation with respect to the source direction deterministically~\citep{bib:TGRmethod,bib:KuwaharaAsada}.
In fact, even in the absence of a CW signal, one can set upper limits on the non-standard polarizations~\citep{bib:TGRO1},
just as is possible for standard polarizations.
Nature has blessed the gravitational wave community with a bounty of compact star mergers, including the remarkable first
detected BBH merger, GW150914, and the even more remarkable and informative multi-messenger
detection of the GW170817 BNS event.
Should such kindness continue, one may hope soon for a multi-messenger detection of a CW source that not only could be observed into
the foreseeable future, but could mark the first of a large collection to come, as GW150914 proved to be.
\begin{acknowledgements}
The author is deeply grateful to current and former colleagues in the LIGO Scientific Collaboration
and Virgo collaboration Continuous Waves Search Group for close collaboration
from which he has benefited in preparing this article. The author also thanks
Julian Carlin, Pep Covas, Vladimir Dergachev, Francesco Fidecaro, Bryn Haskell, Wynn Ho, Ian Jones,
David Keitel, Andrew Melatos, Ben Owen, Maria Alessandra Papa, Lilli Sun, Rodrigo Tenorio,
Karl Wette and Graham Woan for helpful suggestions concerning the manuscript.
Thanks too to LIGO, Virgo and the Max Planck Institute f. Gravitational Physics
for the use of figures. This work was supported in part
by National Science Foundation Awards PHY-1505932 and PHY-1806577.
The author thanks the Institute of Nuclear Theory at the University of Washington
and the Perimeter Institute of Waterloo for hosting workshops
that proved helpful in composing this review.
The author is grateful for computational resources provided by the LIGO Laboratory and is supported by the National
Science Foundation.
This material is based in part upon work supported by NSF's LIGO Laboratory which is a major facility
fully funded by the National Science Foundation.
\end{acknowledgements}
\def\Journal#1#2#3#4{{#1} {\bf #2} #3 (#4)}
\def{\em Riv. Nuovo Cim.}{{\em Riv. Nuovo Cim.}}
\def{\em Nuovo Cimento} A{{\em Nuovo Cimento} A}
\def{\em Physica}{{\em Physica}}
\def{\em Nucl. Phys.} A{{\em Nucl. Phys.} A}
\def{\em J. Math. Phys.}{{\em J. Math. Phys.}}
\def{\em Prog. Theor. Phys.}{{\em Prog. Theor. Phys.}}
\def{\em Nucl. Phys.} B{{\em Nucl. Phys.} B}
\def{\em Phys. Lett.} A{{\em Phys. Lett.} A}
\def{\em Phys. Lett.} B{{\em Phys. Lett.} B}
\def{\em Phys. Lett.} D{{\em Phys. Lett.} D}
\def{\em Phys. Lett.}{{\em Phys. Lett.}}
\def\em Phys. Rev. Lett.{\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}
\def\em Phys. Rev.{\em Phys. Rev.}
\def\em Phys. Rep.{\em Phys. Rep.}
\def{\em Phys. Rev.} A{{\em Phys. Rev.} A}
\def{\em Phys. Rev.} D{{\em Phys. Rev.} D}
\def{\em Phys. Rev.} C{{\em Phys. Rev.} C}
\def{\em Phys. Rev.} B{{\em Phys. Rev.} B}
\def\em Prog. Part. Nuc. Phys.{\em Prog. Part. Nuc. Phys.}
\def\em Intl. Astron. Union Circ.{\em Intl. Astron. Union Circ.}
\def{\em Z. Phys.} C{{\em Z. Phys.} C}
\def{\em Z. Phys.} A{{\em Z. Phys.} A}
\def\em Ann. Phys. (N.Y.){\em Ann. Phys. (N.Y.)}
\def{\em Rev. Mod. Phys.}{{\em Rev. Mod. Phys.}}
\def{\em J. Chem. Phys.}{{\em J. Chem. Phys.}}
\def{\em Int. J. Mod. Phys.} E{{\em Int. J. Mod. Phys.} E}
\def{\em Int. J. Mod. Phys.} D{{\em Int. J. Mod. Phys.} D}
\def\em Astroph. J.{\em Astroph. J.}
\def\em Astron. J.{\em Astron. J.}
\def\em Astroph. J. Lett.{\em Astroph. J. Lett.}
\def\em Astroph. J. Supp.{\em Astroph. J. Supp.}
\def\em Astron. \&\ Astroph.{\em Astron. \&\ Astroph.}
\def\em J. Cosm. Astropart. Phys.{\em J. Cosm. Astropart. Phys.}
\def\em Liv. Rev. Rel.{\em Liv. Rev. Rel.}
\def\em Class. Quant. Grav.{\em Class. Quant. Grav.}
\def\em New Astron. Rev.{\em New Astron. Rev.}
\def\em Nature{\em Nature}
\def\em Nature{\em Nature}
\def\em Nature Phys.{\em Nature Phys.}
\def{\em Nuc. Inst. Meth.} A{{\em Nuc. Inst. Meth.} A}
\def\em Sov. Astron.{\em Sov. Astron.}
\def\em Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.{\em Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.}
\def\em Astrophys. Space Sci.{\em Astrophys. Space Sci.}
\def\em Science{\em Science}
\def\em Space Sci. Rev.{\em Space Sci. Rev.}
\def{\em Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lon.} A{{\em Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lon.} A}
\def\em Rep. Prog. Phys.{\em Rep. Prog. Phys.}
\def\em Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.{\em Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.}
\def\em Proc. Cam. Phil. Soc.{\em Proc. Cam. Phil. Soc.}
\def\em Ann. Rev. Astron. Astroph.{\em Ann. Rev. Astron. Astroph.}
\def\em New J. Phys.{\em New J. Phys.}
\def\em Phys. Today{\em Phys. Today}
\def\em Opt. Lett.{\em Opt. Lett.}
\def\em Pubs. Astron. Soc. Pacif.{\em Pubs. Astron. Soc. Pacif.}
\def\em Pubs. Astron. Soc. Australia{\em Pubs. Astron. Soc. Australia}
\def\em Proc. SPIE{\em Proc. SPIE}
\def\em IEEE Proc.{\em IEEE Proc.}
\def\em IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory{\em IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory}
\def\em Chin. J. Astron. Astroph. Sup.{\em Chin. J. Astron. Astroph. Sup.}
\def\em J. Phys. Conf. Ser.{\em J. Phys. Conf. Ser.}
\def{\em Mod. Phys. Lett.} A{{\em Mod. Phys. Lett.} A}
\def\em Amer. J. Phys.{\em Amer. J. Phys.}
\def\em Rev. Sci. Inst.{\em Rev. Sci. Inst.}
\def{\em Appl. Phys.} B{{\em Appl. Phys.} B}
\def\em Astropart. Phys.{\em Astropart. Phys.}
\def\em J. Mod. Opt.{\em J. Mod. Opt.}
\def\em Appl. Opt.{\em Appl. Opt.}
\def\em Las. Phys.{\em Las. Phys.}
\def\em J. Appl. Phys.{\em J. Appl. Phys.}
\def\em Sov. J. Exp. \&\ Theor. Phys.{\em Sov. J. Exp. \&\ Theor. Phys.}
\def\em J. Exp. \&\ Theor. Phys. Lett.{\em J. Exp. \&\ Theor. Phys. Lett.}
\def\em J. Geophys. Res.{\em J. Geophys. Res.}
\def\em Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys.{\em Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys.}
\def\em Liv. Rev. Rel.{\em Liv. Rev. Rel.}
\def\em Commun. A.C.M.{\em Commun. A.C.M.}
\def{\it et al.}{{\it et al.}}
\defJ.~Aasi \etal{J.~Aasi {\it et al.}}
\defJ.~Abadie \etal{J.~Abadie {\it et al.}}
\defB.~Abbott \etal{B.~Abbott {\it et al.}}
|
\section{Introduction} \label{sec:intro}
As the most luminous star forming region in the Local Group, the supergiant \mbox{H\thinspace {\sc ii}}\ region of the Large Magellanic Cloud known as the Tarantula Nebula or 30 Doradus (hereafter 30 Dor) provides a unique opportunity to study massive star formation and how it drives and responds to stellar feedback.
At the heart of 30 Dor lies R136, a young ($\sim$1--2 Myr; \citealt{crowther:16,bestenlehner:20}) compact ($r\sim1$ pc) star cluster with extraordinarily high stellar densities of $> 1.5\times 10^4$ M$_\odot$ pc$^{-3}$ \citep{selman:13} and containing several stars with initial masses exceeding the canonical stellar mass upper limit of 150 M$_\odot$ \citep{crowther:10}.
\citet{bestenlehner:20} find that R136 alone contributes $\sim$27\% of the ionizing flux and $\sim$19\% of the overall mechanical feedback in 30 Dor (as measured within a 150 pc radius by \citealt{doran:13}).
On larger scales, the cumulative impact of stellar winds and supernova explosions is apparent in the $\sim$3--9 $\times 10^6$ K plasma responsible for diffuse X-ray emission \citep{townsley:06}.
The rich observational data for 30 Dor have been complemented by extensive theoretical modeling of the associated \mbox{H\thinspace {\sc ii}}\ and photon dominated regions \citep[e.g.,][]{lopez:11,pellegrini:11,chevance:16,chevance:20,rahner:18}.
As a result, 30 Dor is a promising local analogue for the extreme conditions that were common during the peak epoch of star formation in the Universe.
R136 and its immediate surroundings have traditionally received the most attention, however it has become clear that star formation is on-going in the giant molecular cloud beyond the central cluster \citep[e.g.,][]{walborn:13}.
A spatially extended distribution of upper main sequence stars was found by the {\it Hubble} Tarantula Treasury Program (HTTP) survey, which imaged a $14^\prime \times 12^\prime$ (200 $\times$ 175 pc) region of 30 Dor to characterize the stellar populations and to derive a dust extinction map using stellar photometry \citep{sabbi:13,sabbi:16,demarchi:16}.
The distribution and ages of O and B stars, as determined by the VLT-FLAMES Tarantula Survey, also indicate that massive star formation has been widely distributed throughout 30 Dor \citep{schneider:18}.
The discovery of $\sim$20\,000 pre-main sequence (PMS) stars using HTTP photometry \citep{ksoll:18}, together with the $\sim$40 embedded massive young stellar objects (YSOs) previously discovered by the {\it Spitzer} SAGE \citep{whitney:08,gruendl:09} and {\it Herschel} HERITAGE \citep{seale:14} programs, have made 30 Dor one of the best studied regions of current star formation activity in any galaxy.
In contrast to the stellar population and PMS/YSO studies, available molecular gas maps of the 30 Dor region have much poorer angular resolution \citep[$\gtrsim$10 pc;][]{johansson:98,minamidani:08,wong:11,kalari:18,okada:19}, aside from previously published data from the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) covering a relatively small (12 $\times$ 12 pc) area \citep{indebetouw:13,indebetouw:20}.
To address these limitations, we have conducted new observations with ALMA, exploiting the array's unique capability to obtain a sensitive, high-resolution (1\farcs75 beam) map of the giant molecular cloud complex across an extent of $\sim$100 pc using the CO $J$=2--1 and $^{13}$CO $J$=2--1 transitions.
These low-$J$ CO transitions can be used to probe the molecular gas column density and turbulent properties down to sub-parsec scales at a spectral resolution of $\sim$0.1 km s$^{-1}$, with the important caveat that the ability of CO to trace H$_2$ may be affected by the low metallicity and strong radiation field in this region \citep{israel:97,bolatto:13a,jameson:16,chevance:20}.
In this paper we present the basic ALMA data products (\S\ref{sec:obs}, \S\ref{sec:mom}) and characterize the CO and \mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ emission structures using dendrogram (\S\ref{sec:dendro}) and filament finding (\S\ref{sec:filfinder}) approaches.
Our immediate goal is to revisit, over a much larger region, results from previous ALMA studies \citep{indebetouw:13,nayak:16,wong:17,wong:19} which have found that the CO line width is enhanced in the 30 Dor region relative to molecular clouds in the Milky Way or elsewhere in the LMC.
In \S\ref{sec:results} we examine whether this enhancement is found throughout the 30 Dor region and how it relates to the gravitational boundedness of molecular gas structures.
We briefly summarize and discuss our results in \S\ref{sec:disc}.
In related works, we will present a greatly expanded catalog of YSOs across the ALMA field and examine the relationship between CO emission and YSOs (O. Nayak et al., submitted), and we will conduct a comparative study to examine the effect of local star formation activity (as probed by mid-infrared brightness) on molecular cloud properties across the LMC (A. Green et al., in preparation). We adopt an LMC distance of 50 kpc \citep{pietrzynski:19} throughout this paper, for which 1\arcmin\ is equivalent to 14.5 pc and 1\arcsec\ is equivalent to 0.24 pc.
\section{Observations and Data Reduction}\label{sec:obs}
The data presented in this paper were collected for ALMA Cycle 7 project 2019.1.00843.S in 2019 October to December. Since the field is larger than can be observed in a single ALMA scheduling block, it was split into five rectangular subfields that were observed and imaged separately. To recover flux across the widest possible range of spatial scales, each subfield was observed in the ALMA ACA (hereafter 7m) and Total Power (hereafter TP) arrays in addition to the compact (C43-1) configuration of the 12m array. Four of the subfields spanned 150\arcsec\ $\times$ 150\arcsec\ and consisted of 149 individual pointings of the 12m array, observed for about 20 sec per pointing, and 52 pointings of the 7m array, observed for about 7 min per pointing. The fifth subfield in the northeast was half the size of the others (150\arcsec\ $\times$ 75\arcsec). Nearly all data used J0601-7036 as the phase calibrator, which varied between 220 and 300 mJy during the span of observations. Absolute flux calibration was set using the observatory-monitored quasar grid, specifically one of the sources J0519-4546, J0538-4405, or J1107-5509 for each execution of the project. The correlator was set to cover the CO ($J$=2--1) and $^{13}$CO ($J$=2--1) lines at high ($\sim$0.1 \mbox{km~s$^{-1}$}) spectral resolution, the C$^{18}$O ($J$=2--1) and H$_2$CO ($3_{2,1}$-$2_{2,0}$, $3_{2,2}$-$2_{2,1}$, and $3_{0,3}$-$2_{0,2}$) lines at moderate ($\sim$0.4 \mbox{km~s$^{-1}$}) spectral resolution, and the H30$\alpha$ and continuum across a 1.9 GHz window at low ($\sim$1.5 \mbox{km~s$^{-1}$}) spectral resolution. For the 12m data the time-varying gains were transferred from the wide to narrow spectral windows, and for the 7m data, all spectral windows were combined to solve for time-varying gain. In this paper we focus on the results of the CO and $^{13}$CO observations; a study of the H$_2$CO emission will appear separately (Indebetouw et al., in preparation).
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{fluxcomp.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Integrated flux spectra for the CO(2--1) (top) and $^{13}$CO(2--1) (bottom) cubes at 0.25 \mbox{km~s$^{-1}$}\ resolution. The cubes compared are the feathered cube ({\it black dashed line}), {the TP array data only ({\it thick pink line}),} the 7m array data only ({\it red dotted line}), and the 12m array data only ({\it blue dot-dashed line}). A solid green line shows the flux in the feathered cubes after applying the dilated mask described in \S\ref{sec:mom}.
\label{fig:fluxcomp}}
\end{figure*}
Visibilities were calibrated by the observatory staff using Pipeline-CASA56-P1-B and CASA 5.6.1-8, with
imaging then performed in CASA 5.6.1.
For the TP data, the {\tt sdimaging} task was used to generate image cubes from the spectra. A residual sinusoidal baseline in the $^{13}$CO TP cube was removed from the gridded image cube: at each position, the line-free frequency ranges of a spectrum averaged over a 60$\arcsec$ square region were fitted with two sinusoids of different period and amplitude, and the resulting baseline subtracted. The dominant effect on the image cube is to remove modest off-source negative bowls. For the 7m and 12m data, the {\tt uvcontsub} task was first used to subtract the continuum using a 0-order fit to line-free channels (conservatively chosen based on previous imaging). The {\tt tclean} task was then used to generate image cubes with a Briggs robustness parameter of 0.5, a threshold of 0.18 mJy, and a restoring beam of 1\farcs75 FWHM for the 12m data (7\arcsec\ FWHM for the 7m data). After cleaning, the 7m and TP cubes were combined using the {\tt feather} task, and the 12m and 7m+TP cubes were combined using a second run of {\tt feather}. Since the sensitivity pattern for each subfield has a decreasing extent in going from TP to 7m to 12m, each feathering step was performed on images tapered by the narrower sensitivity pattern (7m in the first step, 12m in the second) and the final results are assumed to have the sensitivity pattern of the 12m images.
Figure~\ref{fig:fluxcomp} compares the integrated spectra derived from the 12m and 7m data alone with those derived from the TP data and from the feathering process. The velocity axis uses the radio definition of velocity, $c(\nu_0-\nu)/\nu_0$, and is referenced to the kinematic Local Standard of Rest (LSR). As expected, the TP flux (shown as the thick pink line) is recovered in the feathered cube (shown as the dashed black line). Flux recovery for the 7-meter (12-meter) array alone is 60\% (33\%) for \mbox{$^{12}$CO}\ and 55\% (38\%) for \mbox{$^{13}$CO}. The threshold mask used to construct the moment images (shown as the green line; see \S\ref{sec:mom}) recovers $\sim$80\% of the feathered \mbox{$^{12}$CO}\ flux and $\sim$70\% of the feathered \mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ flux; the remaining flux lies outside the mask boundary. The integrated \mbox{$^{12}$CO}\ TP flux is 22900 Jy \mbox{km~s$^{-1}$}, which corresponds to a molecular gas mass (including helium) of $2.4 \times 10^5\;M_\odot$ for our adopted distance and CO-to-H$_2$ conversion factor (\S\ref{sec:mom}).
To generate the final maps, gain-corrected image cubes for each subfield were mosaiced by co-addition using inverse variance weighting based on the sensitivity pattern of each subfield. The mosaicing was performed using the Python {\sc reproject} package\footnote{\url{https://reproject.readthedocs.io/}} using bilinear interpolation. After mosaicing, the images were downsampled by a factor of two in RA and DEC to yield final images of 1000 $\times$ 800 pixels using 0\farcs5 pixels; this is still more than adequate to oversample the 1\farcs75 synthesized beam (corresponding to 0.4 pc at our adopted distance). In addition to cubes with 0.1 \mbox{km~s$^{-1}$}\ channels (spanning 200 to 289.9 \mbox{km~s$^{-1}$}), we also generated cubes with 0.25 \mbox{km~s$^{-1}$}\ channels (spanning 208 to 282 \mbox{km~s$^{-1}$}) to improve the brightness sensitivity per channel. The resulting rms noise per 0.25 \mbox{km~s$^{-1}$}\ channel is $\approx$0.26 K (35 mJy beam$^{-1}$), with somewhat lower noise ($\approx$0.16 K or 21 mJy beam$^{-1}$) in the smallest subfield. Most of the results in this paper are based on analysis of the 0.25 \mbox{km~s$^{-1}$}\ cubes, though comparisons with the 0.1 \mbox{km~s$^{-1}$}\ cubes are made as well.
\section{Data Analysis Methods}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{30Dor_12CO_13CO_snrpk.pdf}
\caption{Peak SNR images for the CO (left) and $^{13}$CO (right) cubes. The dashed circle represents a projected distance of 200\arcsec\ (48 pc) from the center of the R136 cluster, for ease of comparison with Fig.~\ref{fig:refdist_alpha}. The dashed rectangle has a linear dimension of $\sim$12 pc and denotes the region mapped in ALMA Cycle 0 \citep{indebetouw:13}. The central position of the more evolved Hodge 301 cluster is also indicated.
\label{fig:snrpk}}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[angle=90,width=3.25in]{30Dor_12CO_mom0_mom1_rev.pdf}\\[1ex]
\includegraphics[angle=90,width=3.25in]{30Dor_VRH_12CO_mag.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{0th moment (integrated intensity in K \mbox{km~s$^{-1}$}, {middle}) and 1st moment (intensity-weighted mean velocity in \mbox{km~s$^{-1}$}, right) images for the CO cube, after applying the dilated mask. The outline of the ALMA footprint is indicated by a dotted contour. {In the left panel, the 0th moment contours are overlaid on a {\it Hubble Space Telescope} RGB image from the HTTP survey \citep{sabbi:13} with 1.6 $\mu$m in red, 775 nm in green, and 555 nm in blue.}
\label{fig:mom01}}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Intensities and Column Densities}\label{sec:mom}
Figure~\ref{fig:snrpk} shows images of peak signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for the \mbox{$^{12}$CO}\ and \mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ data with 0.25 \mbox{km~s$^{-1}$}\ channels. Although insensitive to complex line profiles, such images effectively reveal the full dynamic range of detected emission without requiring subjective decisions about how to mask out noise. For this reason the peak SNR image for \mbox{$^{12}$CO}\ is used for filament identification in \S\ref{sec:filfinder}. The dashed circle is at a projected distance of $\theta_{\rm off}$=200\arcsec\ from the center of the R136 cluster at
$\alpha_{2000}$=5$^{\mathrm h}$38$^{\mathrm m}$42\fs3,
$\delta_{2000}$=$-69$\arcdeg06\arcmin03\farcs3 \citep{sabbi:16}.
The central position of the older Hodge 301 cluster ($\alpha_{2000}$=5$^{\mathrm h}$38$^{\mathrm m}$17$^{\mathrm s}$, $\delta_{2000}$=$-69$\arcdeg04\arcmin00\arcsec; \citealt{sabbi:16}) is indicated as well.
We have also generated intensity moment images from the cubes, using a signal masking procedure implemented in the Python {\tt maskmoment} package.\footnote{\url{https://github.com/tonywong94/maskmoment}} In brief, starting from a gain-corrected cube and an rms noise cube, a strict mask composed of pixels with brightness of $4\sigma$ or greater in two consecutive channels is created and expanded to a looser mask defined by the surrounding $2\sigma$ contour. Mask regions with projected sky area less than two synthesized beams are then eliminated. The resulting integrated flux spectrum within the mask is shown as the green line in Figure~\ref{fig:fluxcomp}. The 0th, 1st, and 2nd intensity moments along the velocity axis are then computed with pixels outside the signal mask blanked. Images of the 0th and 1st moments of the \mbox{$^{12}$CO}\ cube are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:mom01}. A notable feature of the 1st moment map is the roughly orthogonal blueshifted and redshifted emission structures that are found crossing the center of the map. We provide an overview of the CO distribution and velocity structure in \S\ref{sec:overview}.
Derivation of molecular gas mass from the cubes follows the basic procedures presented in \citet{wong:17} and \citet{wong:19}. Where \mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ emission is detected, we can determine the \mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ column density in the local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) approximation, $N(\mbox{$^{13}$CO})$. The excitation temperature $T_{\rm ex}$ is assumed constant along each line of sight and is derived from the \mbox{$^{12}$CO}\ peak brightness temperature ($T_{\rm 12, pk}$) by assuming the \mbox{$^{12}$CO}\ line is optically thick at the peak of the spectrum and is not subject to beam dilution:
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:t12}
T_{\rm 12, pk} = J(T_{\rm ex}) - J(T_{\rm cmb})\;,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
J(T) \equiv \frac{h\nu/k}{\exp(h\nu/kT)-1}\;.
\end{equation}
For pixels with \mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ peak SNR $>$5, the median and maximum values of $T_{\rm ex}$ are found to be 20 K and 60 K respectively. The beam-averaged \mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ optical depth, $\tau_{13}$, is then calculated from the brightness temperature, $T_{13}$, at each position and velocity in the cube by solving
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:t13}
T_{13} = [J(T_{\rm ex}) - J(T_{\rm cmb})][1-\exp(-\tau_{13})]\;.
\end{equation}
As noted in \citet{wong:17} and \citet{wong:19}, $T_{13}$ cannot exceed $J(T_{\rm ex}) - J(T_{\rm cmb}) \approx T_{\rm ex}-4.5$ (approximation good to 0.8 K for $5<T_{\rm ex}<60$).
Adopting a minimum value for the excitation temperature serves to reduce the number of undefined values of $\tau_{13}$ and prevents noise in the \mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ map from being assigned very large opacities. We adopt a minimum $T_{\rm ex} = 8$ K under the assumption that lower inferred values of $T_{\rm ex}$ result from beam dilution of \mbox{$^{12}$CO}. Since only 1.1\% of highly significant (\mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ peak SNR $>$ 5) pixels fall below this limit, our results are not sensitive to this choice.
The inferred column density $N(\mbox{$^{13}$CO})$ in cm$^{-2}$, summed over all rotational levels, is determined from $T_{\rm ex}$ and $\tau_{13}$ using the equation \citep[e.g.,][Appendix A]{Garden:91}:
\begin{equation}
N(\mbox{$^{13}$CO}) = 1.2 \times 10^{14}\left[\frac{(T_{\rm ex}+0.88)e^{5.3/T_{\rm ex}}}{1-e^{-10.6/T_{\rm ex}}}\right]\int \tau_{13}\,dv\;.
\end{equation}
A corresponding H$_2$ column density is derived using an abundance ratio of
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:abund13}
\Upsilon_{\rm 13CO} \equiv \frac{N(\rm H_2)}{N(\rm ^{13}CO)} = 3 \times 10^6\,,
\end{equation}
for consistency with the values inferred or adopted by previous analyses \citep{heikkila:99,mizuno:10,fujii:14}.
We also compute a luminosity-based H$_2$ mass directly from the \mbox{$^{12}$CO}\ integrated intensity {by} assuming a constant CO-to-H$_2$ conversion factor:
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:xco}
X_{\rm CO} \equiv \frac{N(\rm H_2)}{I(\rm CO)} = 2 \times 10^{20}\,X_2\, \frac{\rm cm^{-2}}{\rm K\, \mbox{km~s$^{-1}$}}\,.
\end{equation}
Here $X_2=1$ for a standard (Galactic) CO to H$_2$ conversion factor \citep{bolatto:13a}. In our analysis we assume $X_2=2.4$ for the CO(1--0) line (based on the virial analysis of the MAGMA GMC catalog by \citealt{hughes:10}) which translates to $X_2=1.6$ for the CO(2--1) line, adopting a CO(2--1)/CO(1--0) brightness temperature ratio of $R_{21} = 1.5$.
We adopt this value of $R_{21}$ based on a comparison of the ALMA TP spectra with resolution-matched MAGMA CO(1--0) spectra from \citet{wong:11}.
Previous work has shown the line ratio to vary with cloud conditions, with values $\sim$0.6 for molecular clouds in the outskirts of the LMC \citep{wong:17} and rising to $\sim$1 near 30 Dor (at 9\arcmin\ resolution, \citealt{sorai:01}), so a fixed value is only roughly appropriate. While values of $R_{21} \gtrsim 1$ are not expected for optically thick, thermalized emission, they have been reported in other actively star-forming regions, in both Galactic \citep[Orion KL,][]{nishimura:15} and Magellanic (e.g.\ N83 in SMC, \citealt{bolatto:03}; N11 in LMC, \citealt{israel:03}) environments. As discussed by \citet{bolatto:03}, high $R_{21}$ can arise from a molecular medium that is both warm and clumpy (as is clearly the case for 30 Dor), since the larger photosphere ($\tau\sim 1$ surface) for the 2$\rightarrow$1 line fills more of the telescope beam.
Given the many uncertain assumptions in our analysis, and the likelihood that $X_{\rm CO}$ varies on scales comparable to or smaller than our map (see further discussion in \S\ref{sec:disc}), our luminosity-based masses should be considered uncertain by a factor of 2, and possibly more if substantial CO-dark gas is present.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{30Dor_12CO_13CO_clust.pdf}\\
\hspace*{0.6cm}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{30Dor_feather_mosaic_1p8_12_clust_tree.pdf}
\caption{Projected maps of the \mbox{$^{12}$CO}\ ({top left}) and \mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ ({top right}) clumps identified by the SCIMES segmentation algorithm. Each clump is shaded with a different color. The filament skeleton identified by {\tt fil\_finder} is shown in black against the \mbox{$^{12}$CO}\ clumps, but note that the filaments are identified in the CO peak SNR image whereas the clumps are identified in the cubes. {The bottom panel shows a zoomed view of part of the dendrogram tree diagram for \mbox{$^{12}$CO}\ emission, with clumps identified using the same colors as in the top left panel. Dotted lines indicate dendrogram structures that are not identified as clumps by SCIMES.}
\label{fig:clust}}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Structural Decomposition}\label{sec:dendro}
We use the Python program {\tt astrodendro}\footnote{\url{http://www.dendrograms.org}} to identify and segment the line emission regions in the cubes \citep{rosolowsky:08}. Parameters for the algorithm are chosen to identify local maxima in the cube above the 3$\sigma_{\rm rms}$ level that are also at least 2.5$\sigma_{\rm rms}$ above the merge level with adjacent structures. Each local maximum is required to span at least two synthesized beams in area and is bounded by an isosurface at either the minimum (3$\sigma_{\rm rms}$) level or at the merge level with an adjoining structure. Bounding isosurfaces surrounding the local maxima are categorized as {\it trunks}, {\it branches}, or {\it leaves} according to whether they are the largest contiguous structures (trunks), are intermediate in scale (branches), or have no resolved substructure (leaves). Although the dendrogram structures are not all independent, trunks do not overlap other trunks {in the cube} and leaves do not overlap other leaves {in the cube}. Since an object with no detected substructure is classified as a leaf, every trunk will contain leaf (and usually branch) substructures, which are collectively termed its {\it descendants}.
The basic properties of the identified structures are also determined by {\tt astrodendro}, including their spatial and velocity centroids ($\bar{x}, \bar{y}, \bar{v}$), the integrated flux $S$, rms line width $\sigma_v$ (defined as the intensity-weighted second moment of the structure along the velocity axis), the position angle of the major axis (as determined by principal component analysis) $\phi$, and the rms sizes along the major and minor axes, $\sigma_{\rm maj}$ and $\sigma_{\rm min}$.
All properties are determined using the ``bijection'' approach discussed by \citet{rosolowsky:08}, which associates all emission bounded by an isosurface with the identified structure.
{We then calculate deconvolved values for the major and minor axes, $\sigma_{\rm maj}^\prime$ and $\sigma_{\rm min}^\prime$, approximating each structure as a 2-D Gaussian with major and minor axes of $\sigma_{\rm maj}$ and $\sigma_{\rm min}$ before deconvolving the telescope beam. Structures which cannot be deconvolved are excluded from further analysis.}
From these basic properties we have calculated additional properties, including {the effective rms spatial size, $\sigma_r = \sqrt{\sigma_{\rm maj}^\prime \sigma_{\rm min}^\prime}$; the effective radius $R = 1.91 \sigma_r$,} following \citet{solomon:87}; the luminosity $L=Sd^2$, adopting $d=50$ kpc \citep{pietrzynski:19}; the virial mass $M_{\rm vir}=5\sigma_v^2R/G$, derived from solving the equilibrium condition (for kinetic energy ${\cal T}$ and potential energy ${\cal W}$):
\begin{equation}\label{eq:vireq}
2{\cal T} + {\cal W} = 2\left(\frac{3}{2}M_{\rm vir}\sigma_v^2\right) - \frac{3}{5}\frac{GM_{\rm vir}^2}{R} = 0\,;
\end{equation}
the LTE-based mass (from $^{13}$CO):
\begin{equation}
M_{\rm LTE} = (2m_p)(1.36)\Upsilon_{\rm 13CO} \int N(\mbox{$^{13}$CO})\,dA \,,
\end{equation}
where the integration is over the projected area of the structure $A$, 1.36 is a correction factor for associated helium, and the abundance ratio $\Upsilon_{\rm 13CO}$ is given by Equation~\ref{eqn:abund13};
and the luminosity-based mass (from $^{12}$CO):
\begin{equation}
\frac{M_{\rm lum}}{M_\odot} = 4.3X_2\, \frac{L_{\rm CO}}{\rm K\;km\;s^{-1}\;pc^2}\,,
\end{equation}
where $X_2$ is defined in Equation~\ref{eqn:xco} and the factor of 4.3 includes associated helium \citep{bolatto:13a}.
{By taking ratios of these mass estimates we then calculate the so-called virial parameter,}
\begin{equation}
\mbox{$\alpha_{\rm vir}$} = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
M_{\rm vir}/M_{\rm lum} & \mbox{for \mbox{$^{12}$CO}},\\
M_{\rm vir}/M_{\rm LTE} & \mbox{for \mbox{$^{13}$CO}}.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
{Tables~\ref{tab:dendro12} and \ref{tab:dendro13} present the measured and derived properties of the resolved CO and \mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ dendrogram structures, including their classification as trunks, branches, or leaves.}
We also post-process the dendrogram output using the SCIMES algorithm \citep{colombo:15}, which utilizes spectral clustering {(an unsupervised classification approach based on graph theory)} to identify discrete structures with similar emission properties. The resulting clusters (hereafter referred to as {\it clumps} to avoid confusion with star clusters) form a set of independent objects, {avoiding the problem that the complete set of dendrogram structures constitute a nested rather than independent set. At the same time, the SCIMES clumps span} a wider range of size, line width, and luminosity in comparison to the leaves, and because they are required to contain substructure, they are less likely to be influenced by fluctuations in the map noise. In particular, we run the algorithm with the {\tt save\_branches} setting active, which retains isolated branches as clumps but not isolated leaves. We use the ``volume'' criterion for defining similarity, which calculates volume as $V=\pi R^2\sigma_v$ for each structure. Comparison runs using both ``volume'' and ``luminosity'' criteria, and without the {\tt save\_branches} setting, produce almost identical results for our data. Note that because the clumps are a subset of the cataloged dendrogram structures, their properties have already been calculated as described above. {Tables~\ref{tab:clust12} and \ref{tab:clust13} present the properties of the CO and \mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ clumps respectively, ordered by right ascension.}
Images of the individual \mbox{$^{12}$CO}\ and \mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ clumps are shown in {the upper panels of} Figure~\ref{fig:clust}; since the clumps are identified in the cube, they are sometimes found projected against one another. {The number of clumps found in \mbox{$^{12}$CO}\ (\mbox{$^{13}$CO}) are 198 (71), of which 142 (61) have sizes which can be deconvolved. The lower panel of Figure~\ref{fig:clust} shows a zoomed view of part of the \mbox{$^{12}$CO}\ dendrogram tree, with the SCIMES clumps identified as distinctly colored sub-trees (the colors are chosen to match the upper left panel).} We stress that the analyses of the \mbox{$^{12}$CO}\ and \mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ data are conducted independently; we examine positional matches between the two sets of catalogs in \S\ref{sec:virial}.
\subsection{Filament Identification}\label{sec:filfinder}
We also employed an alternative structure-finding package, FilFinder, to highlight the filamentary nature of the emission. We apply the {\tt FilFinder2D} algorithm, described in \citet{koch:15}, to the peak SNR image of \mbox{$^{12}$CO}(2--1) emission. To suppress bright regions, the image is first flattened with an arctan transform, $I^\prime = I_0 \arctan(I/I_0)$, where $I_0$ is chosen as the 80th percentile of the image brightness distribution (for this image $I_0 = 5.3\sigma_{\rm rms}$). A mask is then created from the flattened image using adaptive thresholding with the following parameters: {\tt smooth\_size} of 5 pixels (corresponding to 2\farcs5), {\tt adapt\_thresh} of 10 pixels (corresponding to 5\arcsec), {\tt size\_thresh} of 80 pixels (corresponding to 20 arcsec$^2$), and {\tt glob\_thresh} of 4$\sigma$. We experimented with a variety of parameter sets but found that these parameters produced a signal mask that was most consistent with the emission regions identified with SCIMES. Each mask region is reduced to a one-pixel wide ``skeleton'' using the medial axis transform, and small structures are removed by imposing a minimum length (pixel count) of 4 beam widths for the skeleton as a whole and 2 beam widths for branches that depart from the longest path through the skeleton. The resulting skeletonization of the emission, after pruning of small structures, is visualized in black {in the upper left} panel of Figure~\ref{fig:clust}. The skeletonization is effective at identifying and connecting large, coherent emission structures, but ``breaks'' in the filamentary structure may still arise from sensitivity limitations that prevent the algorithm from connecting neighboring skeletons.
{While it is possible that velocity discontinuities across filaments could be missed by identifying filaments only in 2-D, we generally observe that spatially coherent filaments are also coherent in velocity.}
\begin{deluxetable*}{ccccDccRrR@{$\pm$}cR@{$\pm$}cR@{$\pm$}cR@{$\pm$}cR@{$\pm$}crc}
\rotate
\tablecaption{All Resolved Structures in the Default \mbox{$^{12}$CO}\ ALMA 30 Dor Cube\label{tab:dendro12}}
\tablehead{
\colhead{No.} & \colhead{R. A.} & \colhead{Decl.} & \colhead{$v_{\rm LSR}$} & \twocolhead{CO Flux} & \colhead{$\sigma_{\rm maj}$} & \colhead{$\sigma_{\rm min}$} & \colhead{$\phi$\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{$A$\tablenotemark{b}} & \twocolhead{$\log\, R$} & \twocolhead{$\log\, \sigma_v$} & \twocolhead{$\log\, M_{\rm lum}$} & \twocolhead{$\log\, M_{\rm vir}$} & \twocolhead{$\log\, \alpha_{\rm vir}$} & \colhead{$\theta_{\rm off}$} & \colhead{Type\tablenotemark{c}}\\
& \colhead{(J2000)} & \colhead{(J2000)} & \colhead{(\mbox{km~s$^{-1}$})} & \twocolhead{(Jy \mbox{km~s$^{-1}$})} & \colhead{($\mathrm{{}^{\prime\prime}}$)} & \colhead{($\mathrm{{}^{\prime\prime}}$)} & \colhead{($\mathrm{{}^{\circ}}$)} & \colhead{(pc$^2$)} & \twocolhead{(pc)} & \twocolhead{(\mbox{km~s$^{-1}$})} & \twocolhead{($M_\odot$)} & \twocolhead{($M_\odot$)} & \twocolhead{} & \colhead{($\mathrm{{}^{\prime\prime}}$)}}
\decimals
\startdata
1 & 05:38:17.24 & -69:03:23.0 & 250.31 & 15.73 & 3.22 & 0.98 & 48 & 2.48 & -0.18 & 0.05 & -0.07 & 0.04 & 2.22 & 0.04 & 2.75 & 0.08 & 0.53 & 0.09 & 209 & B \\
2 & 05:38:17.36 & -69:03:24.1 & 249.98 & 29.62 & 4.78 & 1.33 & 58 & 6.26 & 0.02 & 0.04 & 0.11 & 0.04 & 2.49 & 0.04 & 3.31 & 0.08 & 0.82 & 0.09 & 208 & B \\
3 & 05:38:17.37 & -69:03:24.1 & 250.03 & 30.07 & 4.77 & 1.39 & 58 & 6.54 & 0.04 & 0.04 & 0.13 & 0.04 & 2.50 & 0.04 & 3.37 & 0.08 & 0.87 & 0.09 & 208 & T \\
4 & 05:38:17.45 & -69:03:24.3 & 250.40 & 8.56 & 1.37 & 1.01 & 64 & 1.25 & -0.38 & 0.06 & -0.15 & 0.05 & 1.95 & 0.04 & 2.38 & 0.09 & 0.43 & 0.10 & 207 & L \\
5 & 05:38:17.92 & -69:02:32.8 & 260.89 & 3.94 & 1.89 & 1.10 & 92 & 2.35 & -0.26 & 0.06 & 0.03 & 0.05 & 1.62 & 0.04 & 2.87 & 0.09 & 1.25 & 0.10 & 248 & B \\
6 & 05:38:17.93 & -69:02:32.3 & 260.80 & 3.06 & 1.36 & 1.00 & 86 & 1.45 & -0.39 & 0.07 & 0.03 & 0.05 & 1.51 & 0.04 & 2.73 & 0.11 & 1.22 & 0.12 & 248 & L \\
7 & 05:38:18.24 & -69:00:58.0 & 260.20 & 5.55 & 2.03 & 0.95 & 46 & 1.87 & -0.31 & 0.08 & -0.32 & 0.06 & 1.77 & 0.04 & 2.11 & 0.12 & 0.34 & 0.12 & 331 & T \\
8 & 05:38:18.32 & -69:00:58.4 & 260.15 & 4.05 & 1.11 & 0.94 & 53 & 1.20 & -0.49 & 0.10 & -0.38 & 0.07 & 1.63 & 0.04 & 1.82 & 0.14 & 0.19 & 0.15 & 331 & L \\
9 & 05:38:18.48 & -69:02:47.7 & 253.97 & 5.14 & 1.92 & 1.01 & 144 & 1.95 & -0.29 & 0.05 & -0.19 & 0.05 & 1.73 & 0.04 & 2.39 & 0.09 & 0.65 & 0.10 & 234 & B \\
10 & 05:38:18.49 & -69:02:48.1 & 253.94 & 6.80 & 2.20 & 1.36 & 127 & 3.29 & -0.15 & 0.04 & -0.12 & 0.04 & 1.86 & 0.04 & 2.68 & 0.08 & 0.83 & 0.09 & 233 & T \\
\enddata
\tablenotetext{a}{Position angle is measured counterclockwise from $+x$ direction (west).}
\tablenotetext{b}{Projected area of clump.}
\tablenotetext{c}{Type of structure: (T)runk, (B)ranch, or (L)eaf.}
\tablecomments{Table~\ref{tab:dendro12} is published in its entirety in machine-readable format.
A portion is shown here for guidance regarding its form and content.}
\end{deluxetable*}
\begin{deluxetable*}{ccccDccRrR@{$\pm$}cR@{$\pm$}cR@{$\pm$}cR@{$\pm$}cR@{$\pm$}crc}
\rotate
\tablecaption{All Resolved Structures in the Default \mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ ALMA 30 Dor Cube\label{tab:dendro13}}
\tablehead{
\colhead{No.} & \colhead{R. A.} & \colhead{Decl.} & \colhead{$v_{\rm LSR}$} & \twocolhead{\mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ Flux} & \colhead{$\sigma_{\rm maj}$} & \colhead{$\sigma_{\rm min}$} & \colhead{$\phi$\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{$A$\tablenotemark{b}} & \twocolhead{$\log\, R$} & \twocolhead{$\log\, \sigma_v$} & \twocolhead{$\log\, M_{\rm LTE}$} & \twocolhead{$\log\, M_{\rm vir}$} & \twocolhead{$\log\, \alpha_{\rm vir}$} & \colhead{$\theta_{\rm off}$} & \colhead{Type\tablenotemark{c}}\\
& \colhead{(J2000)} & \colhead{(J2000)} & \colhead{(\mbox{km~s$^{-1}$})} & \twocolhead{(Jy \mbox{km~s$^{-1}$})} & \colhead{($\mathrm{{}^{\prime\prime}}$)} & \colhead{($\mathrm{{}^{\prime\prime}}$)} & \colhead{($\mathrm{{}^{\circ}}$)} & \colhead{(pc$^2$)} & \twocolhead{(pc)} & \twocolhead{(\mbox{km~s$^{-1}$})} & \twocolhead{($M_\odot$)} & \twocolhead{($M_\odot$)} & \twocolhead{} & \colhead{($\mathrm{{}^{\prime\prime}}$)}}
\decimals
\startdata
1 & 05:38:19.81 & -69:06:41.5 & 255.44 & 7.58 & 1.35 & 0.96 & 94 & 1.97 & -0.41 & 0.08 & -0.14 & 0.06 & 2.74 & 0.04 & 2.38 & 0.12 & -0.37 & 0.13 & 126 & L \\
2 & 05:38:22.44 & -69:03:51.5 & 253.36 & 10.88 & 3.78 & 1.04 & -153 & 5.04 & -0.12 & 0.05 & 0.14 & 0.04 & 2.85 & 0.04 & 3.23 & 0.08 & 0.37 & 0.09 & 169 & T \\
3 & 05:38:22.49 & -69:06:43.6 & 254.62 & 4.56 & 2.42 & 0.88 & -157 & 2.14 & -0.32 & 0.14 & -0.51 & 0.07 & 2.52 & 0.04 & 1.72 & 0.17 & -0.80 & 0.17 & 113 & L \\
4 & 05:38:22.60 & -69:06:43.6 & 254.62 & 6.98 & 3.47 & 1.09 & -161 & 4.07 & -0.12 & 0.04 & -0.44 & 0.04 & 2.69 & 0.04 & 2.06 & 0.08 & -0.62 & 0.09 & 113 & T \\
5 & 05:38:22.68 & -69:03:52.1 & 253.26 & 7.07 & 2.12 & 0.78 & -160 & 2.00 & -0.49 & 0.23 & 0.11 & 0.04 & 2.67 & 0.04 & 2.80 & 0.24 & 0.13 & 0.24 & 168 & B \\
6 & 05:38:22.80 & -69:03:26.4 & 252.46 & 1.60 & 1.14 & 0.95 & 68 & 1.32 & -0.48 & 0.12 & -0.09 & 0.06 & 2.01 & 0.04 & 2.40 & 0.14 & 0.39 & 0.15 & 189 & L \\
7 & 05:38:23.16 & -69:03:26.8 & 250.56 & 4.04 & 1.91 & 1.36 & -171 & 2.57 & -0.18 & 0.04 & 0.26 & 0.04 & 2.41 & 0.04 & 3.39 & 0.08 & 0.98 & 0.09 & 187 & T \\
8 & 05:38:24.56 & -69:03:01.4 & 251.14 & 7.08 & 2.08 & 0.94 & -140 & 1.88 & -0.31 & 0.06 & -0.03 & 0.04 & 2.69 & 0.04 & 2.69 & 0.09 & -0.00 & 0.10 & 205 & L \\
9 & 05:38:25.81 & -69:03:02.5 & 252.03 & 55.22 & 4.81 & 2.61 & -157 & 13.94 & 0.20 & 0.04 & 0.18 & 0.04 & 3.59 & 0.04 & 3.63 & 0.08 & 0.04 & 0.09 & 201 & B \\
10 & 05:38:25.83 & -69:06:33.9 & 249.77 & 1.74 & 1.80 & 0.95 & 157 & 1.94 & -0.34 & 0.11 & -0.35 & 0.09 & 2.07 & 0.04 & 2.02 & 0.17 & -0.05 & 0.18 & 93 & L \\
\enddata
\tablenotetext{a}{Position angle is measured counterclockwise from $+x$ direction (west).}
\tablenotetext{b}{Projected area of clump.}
\tablenotetext{c}{Type of structure: (T)runk, (B)ranch, or (L)eaf.}
\tablecomments{Table~\ref{tab:dendro13} is published in its entirety in machine-readable format.
A portion is shown here for guidance regarding its form and content.}
\end{deluxetable*}
\begin{deluxetable*}{ccccDccRrR@{$\pm$}cR@{$\pm$}cR@{$\pm$}cR@{$\pm$}cR@{$\pm$}cr}
\rotate
\tablecaption{SCIMES Clumps in the Default \mbox{$^{12}$CO}\ ALMA 30 Dor Cube\label{tab:clust12}}
\tablehead{
\colhead{No.} & \colhead{R. A.} & \colhead{Decl.} & \colhead{$v_{\rm LSR}$} & \twocolhead{CO Flux} & \colhead{$\sigma_{\rm maj}$} & \colhead{$\sigma_{\rm min}$} & \colhead{$\phi$\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{$A$\tablenotemark{b}} & \twocolhead{$\log\, R$} & \twocolhead{$\log\, \sigma_v$} & \twocolhead{$\log\, M_{\rm lum}$} & \twocolhead{$\log\, M_{\rm vir}$} & \twocolhead{$\log\, \alpha_{\rm vir}$} & \colhead{$\theta_{\rm off}$}\\
& \colhead{(J2000)} & \colhead{(J2000)} & \colhead{(\mbox{km~s$^{-1}$})} & \twocolhead{(Jy \mbox{km~s$^{-1}$})} & \colhead{($\mathrm{{}^{\prime\prime}}$)} & \colhead{($\mathrm{{}^{\prime\prime}}$)} & \colhead{($\mathrm{{}^{\circ}}$)} & \colhead{(pc$^2$)} & \twocolhead{(pc)} & \twocolhead{(\mbox{km~s$^{-1}$})} & \twocolhead{($M_\odot$)} & \twocolhead{($M_\odot$)} & \twocolhead{} & \colhead{($\mathrm{{}^{\prime\prime}}$)}}
\decimals
\startdata
1 & 05:38:17.37 & -69:03:24.1 & 250.03 & 30.07 & 4.77 & 1.39 & 58 & 6.54 & 0.04 & 0.04 & 0.13 & 0.04 & 2.50 & 0.04 & 3.37 & 0.08 & 0.87 & 0.09 & 208 \\
2 & 05:38:18.24 & -69:00:58.0 & 260.20 & 5.55 & 2.03 & 0.95 & 46 & 1.87 & -0.31 & 0.08 & -0.32 & 0.06 & 1.77 & 0.04 & 2.11 & 0.12 & 0.34 & 0.12 & 331 \\
3 & 05:38:18.49 & -69:02:48.1 & 253.94 & 6.80 & 2.20 & 1.36 & 127 & 3.29 & -0.15 & 0.04 & -0.12 & 0.04 & 1.86 & 0.04 & 2.68 & 0.08 & 0.83 & 0.09 & 233 \\
4 & 05:38:19.41 & -69:02:39.6 & 260.03 & 18.58 & 6.60 & 1.85 & -140 & 10.36 & 0.19 & 0.04 & 0.19 & 0.04 & 2.29 & 0.04 & 3.64 & 0.08 & 1.35 & 0.09 & 238 \\
5 & 05:38:20.12 & -69:03:05.4 & 258.60 & 3.83 & 1.47 & 0.89 & 45 & 1.67 & -0.44 & 0.08 & 0.19 & 0.05 & 1.61 & 0.04 & 3.00 & 0.11 & 1.39 & 0.12 & 214 \\
6 & 05:38:21.56 & -69:06:42.4 & 254.71 & 160.67 & 8.18 & 2.36 & -170 & 22.34 & 0.30 & 0.04 & -0.03 & 0.04 & 3.23 & 0.04 & 3.30 & 0.08 & 0.07 & 0.09 & 118 \\
7 & 05:38:22.07 & -69:03:51.4 & 252.69 & 245.96 & 6.85 & 2.65 & -139 & 22.99 & 0.28 & 0.04 & 0.39 & 0.04 & 3.41 & 0.04 & 4.12 & 0.08 & 0.71 & 0.09 & 171 \\
8 & 05:38:22.41 & -69:08:24.6 & 247.02 & 2.49 & 3.11 & 0.77 & -179 & 1.53 & -0.45 & 0.46 & -0.10 & 0.08 & 1.42 & 0.04 & 2.43 & 0.48 & 1.01 & 0.48 & 177 \\
9 & 05:38:22.54 & -69:03:10.0 & 252.45 & 0.54 & 1.24 & 0.77 & 62 & 0.90 & -0.70 & 0.47 & -0.06 & 0.09 & 0.75 & 0.04 & 2.24 & 0.49 & 1.49 & 0.49 & 203 \\
10 & 05:38:23.48 & -69:03:25.2 & 251.12 & 116.85 & 6.80 & 2.46 & 127 & 11.68 & 0.27 & 0.04 & 0.30 & 0.04 & 3.09 & 0.04 & 3.93 & 0.08 & 0.84 & 0.09 & 188 \\
\enddata
\tablenotetext{a}{Position angle is measured counterclockwise from $+x$ direction (west).}
\tablenotetext{b}{Projected area of clump.}
\tablecomments{Table~\ref{tab:clust12} is published in its entirety in machine-readable format.
A portion is shown here for guidance regarding its form and content.}
\end{deluxetable*}
\begin{deluxetable*}{ccccDccRrR@{$\pm$}cR@{$\pm$}cR@{$\pm$}cR@{$\pm$}cR@{$\pm$}cr}
\rotate
\tablecaption{SCIMES Clumps in the Default \mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ ALMA 30 Dor Cube\label{tab:clust13}}
\tablehead{
\colhead{No.} & \colhead{R. A.} & \colhead{Decl.} & \colhead{$v_{\rm LSR}$} & \twocolhead{\mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ Flux} & \colhead{$\sigma_{\rm maj}$} & \colhead{$\sigma_{\rm min}$} & \colhead{$\phi$\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{$A$\tablenotemark{b}} & \twocolhead{$\log\, R$} & \twocolhead{$\log\, \sigma_v$} & \twocolhead{$\log\, M_{\rm LTE}$} & \twocolhead{$\log\, M_{\rm vir}$} & \twocolhead{$\log\, \alpha_{\rm vir}$} & \colhead{$\theta_{\rm off}$}\\
& \colhead{(J2000)} & \colhead{(J2000)} & \colhead{(\mbox{km~s$^{-1}$})} & \twocolhead{(Jy \mbox{km~s$^{-1}$})} & \colhead{($\mathrm{{}^{\prime\prime}}$)} & \colhead{($\mathrm{{}^{\prime\prime}}$)} & \colhead{($\mathrm{{}^{\circ}}$)} & \colhead{(pc$^2$)} & \twocolhead{(pc)} & \twocolhead{(\mbox{km~s$^{-1}$})} & \twocolhead{($M_\odot$)} & \twocolhead{($M_\odot$)} & \twocolhead{} & \colhead{($\mathrm{{}^{\prime\prime}}$)}}
\decimals
\startdata
1 & 05:38:22.44 & -69:03:51.5 & 253.36 & 10.88 & 3.78 & 1.04 & -153 & 5.04 & -0.12 & 0.05 & 0.14 & 0.04 & 2.85 & 0.04 & 3.23 & 0.08 & 0.37 & 0.09 & 169 \\
2 & 05:38:22.60 & -69:06:43.6 & 254.62 & 6.98 & 3.47 & 1.09 & -161 & 4.07 & -0.12 & 0.04 & -0.44 & 0.04 & 2.69 & 0.04 & 2.06 & 0.08 & -0.62 & 0.09 & 113 \\
3 & 05:38:23.16 & -69:03:26.8 & 250.56 & 4.04 & 1.91 & 1.36 & -171 & 2.57 & -0.18 & 0.04 & 0.26 & 0.04 & 2.41 & 0.04 & 3.39 & 0.08 & 0.98 & 0.09 & 187 \\
4 & 05:38:25.81 & -69:03:02.5 & 252.03 & 55.22 & 4.81 & 2.61 & -157 & 13.94 & 0.20 & 0.04 & 0.18 & 0.04 & 3.59 & 0.04 & 3.63 & 0.08 & 0.04 & 0.09 & 201 \\
5 & 05:38:26.30 & -69:01:45.6 & 247.89 & 3.65 & 3.16 & 1.57 & -154 & 3.13 & -0.02 & 0.04 & -0.10 & 0.04 & 2.37 & 0.04 & 2.84 & 0.08 & 0.47 & 0.09 & 272 \\
6 & 05:38:26.90 & -69:01:36.3 & 246.08 & 2.51 & 1.94 & 1.11 & 55 & 2.12 & -0.25 & 0.06 & -0.32 & 0.05 & 2.23 & 0.04 & 2.18 & 0.10 & -0.04 & 0.10 & 279 \\
7 & 05:38:27.11 & -69:02:38.5 & 250.61 & 31.76 & 7.85 & 3.31 & -164 & 14.23 & 0.37 & 0.04 & 0.08 & 0.04 & 3.33 & 0.04 & 3.59 & 0.08 & 0.26 & 0.09 & 220 \\
8 & 05:38:27.18 & -69:02:53.8 & 253.33 & 12.55 & 3.89 & 1.74 & -137 & 4.79 & 0.06 & 0.04 & 0.02 & 0.04 & 2.93 & 0.04 & 3.16 & 0.08 & 0.23 & 0.09 & 206 \\
9 & 05:38:27.27 & -69:03:34.9 & 253.35 & 3.02 & 2.32 & 1.80 & 155 & 2.95 & -0.06 & 0.04 & -0.08 & 0.04 & 2.29 & 0.04 & 2.85 & 0.08 & 0.56 & 0.09 & 169 \\
10 & 05:38:28.25 & -69:06:52.5 & 249.67 & 3.11 & 1.57 & 1.17 & 166 & 2.23 & -0.29 & 0.06 & -0.11 & 0.05 & 2.31 & 0.04 & 2.56 & 0.09 & 0.25 & 0.10 & 90 \\
\enddata
\tablenotetext{a}{Position angle is measured counterclockwise from $+x$ direction (west).}
\tablenotetext{b}{Projected area of clump.}
\tablecomments{Table~\ref{tab:clust13} is published in its entirety in machine-readable format.
A portion is shown here for guidance regarding its form and content.}
\end{deluxetable*}
\begin{deluxetable*}{cclrD@{ $\pm$}DD@{ $\pm$}Drr}
\tablehead{
\colhead{$Y$} & \colhead{$X$} & \colhead{Data Set} & \colhead{Number} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{$a_1$} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{$a_0$} & \colhead{$\chi^2_\nu$} & \colhead{$\varepsilon$\tablenotemark{a}}}
\tablecaption{Default Cubes --- Power Law Fit Parameters: $\log Y = a_1 \log X + a_0$\label{tab:fitpar}}
\decimals
\startdata
$\sigma_v$ & $R$ & \mbox{$^{12}$CO}\ dendros & 1434 & 0.47 & 0.01 & 0.08 & 0.01 & 14.3 & 0.21\\
$\sigma_v$ & $R$ & \mbox{$^{12}$CO}\ clumps & 142 & 0.47 & 0.06 & 0.13 & 0.02 & 14.3 & 0.21\\
$\sigma_v$ & $R$ & \mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ dendros & 254 & 0.73 & 0.06 & 0.06 & 0.01 & 10.5 & 0.22\\
$\sigma_v$ & $R$ & \mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ clumps & 61 & 1.42 & 0.37 & 0.06 & 0.04 & 14.3 & 0.35\\
$\Sigma_{\rm vir}$ & $\Sigma_{\rm lum}$ & \mbox{$^{12}$CO}\ dendros & 1434 & 0.51 & 0.02 & 1.58 & 0.04 & 13.7 & 0.35\\
$\Sigma_{\rm vir}$ & $\Sigma_{\rm lum}$ & \mbox{$^{12}$CO}\ clumps & 142 & 0.41 & 0.07 & 1.93 & 0.12 & 15.6 & 0.35\\
$\Sigma_{\rm vir}$ & $\Sigma_{\rm LTE}$ & \mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ dendros & 254 & 0.66 & 0.06 & 0.90 & 0.14 & 11.0 & 0.36\\
$\Sigma_{\rm vir}$ & $\Sigma_{\rm LTE}$ & \mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ clumps & 61 & 0.85 & 0.14 & 0.55 & 0.31 & 11.0 & 0.30\\
\enddata
\tablenotetext{a}{r.m.s.\ scatter in $\log Y$ relative to the best-fit line. Units are dex.}
\end{deluxetable*}
\begin{deluxetable*}{cclrD@{ $\pm$}DD@{ $\pm$}Drr}
\tablehead{
\colhead{$Y$} & \colhead{$X$} & \colhead{Data Set} & \colhead{Number} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{$a_1$} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{$a_0$} & \colhead{$\chi^2_\nu$} & \colhead{$\varepsilon$\tablenotemark{a}}}
\tablecaption{0.1 \mbox{km~s$^{-1}$}\ Cubes --- Power Law Fit Parameters: $\log Y = a_1 \log X + a_0$\label{tab:fitpar2}}
\decimals
\startdata
$\sigma_v$ & $R$ & \mbox{$^{12}$CO}\ dendros & 2053 & 0.51 & 0.01 & 0.04 & 0.01 & 15.1 & 0.24\\
$\sigma_v$ & $R$ & \mbox{$^{12}$CO}\ clumps & 221 & 0.76 & 0.06 & 0.09 & 0.02 & 13.6 & 0.28\\
$\sigma_v$ & $R$ & \mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ dendros & 310 & 0.74 & 0.05 & 0.06 & 0.01 & 13.2 & 0.24\\
$\sigma_v$ & $R$ & \mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ clumps & 72 & 0.91 & 0.17 & 0.09 & 0.03 & 13.5 & 0.28 \\
$\Sigma_{\rm vir}$ & $\Sigma_{\rm lum}$ & \mbox{$^{12}$CO}\ dendros & 2053 & 0.57 & 0.01 & 1.43 & 0.03 & 12.9 & 0.34\\
$\Sigma_{\rm vir}$ & $\Sigma_{\rm lum}$ & \mbox{$^{12}$CO}\ clumps & 221 & 0.55 & 0.04 & 1.64 & 0.07 & 11.8 & 0.33\\
$\Sigma_{\rm vir}$ & $\Sigma_{\rm LTE}$ & \mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ dendros & 310 & 0.79 & 0.05 & 0.56 & 0.12 & 11.8 & 0.34 \\
$\Sigma_{\rm vir}$ & $\Sigma_{\rm LTE}$ & \mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ clumps & 72 & 0.83 & 0.12 & 0.58 & 0.25 & 11.1 & 0.32\\
\enddata
\tablenotetext{a}{r.m.s.\ scatter in $\log Y$ relative to the best-fit line. Units are dex.}
\end{deluxetable*}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\includegraphics[height=2.5in]{30Dor_feather_mosaic_1p8_12_rdv_full_rev.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=2.5in]{30Dor_feather_mosaic_1p8_13_rdv_full_rev.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=2.5in]{30Dor_feather_mosaic100_1p8_13_rdv_full_rev.pdf}
\caption{Size-linewidth relations for dendrogram structures identified in the feathered data: (a) \mbox{$^{12}$CO}\ structures; (b) \mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ structures; (c) \mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ structures at 0.1 \mbox{km~s$^{-1}$}\ velocity resolution. Different plot symbols distinguish the trunks, branches, and leaves of the dendrogram. The power law fit and 3$\sigma$ uncertainty are shown in blue; {the gray shaded region indicates the limiting spectral resolution}. Fit parameters are tabulated in Tables~\ref{tab:fitpar} and \ref{tab:fitpar2}. Yellow circles are binned averages of all points.
\label{fig:rdv_feather}}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[height=2.5in]{30Dor_feather_mosaic_1p8_12_rdv_clusters_rev.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=2.5in]{30Dor_feather_mosaic_1p8_13_rdv_clusters_rev.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=2.5in]{30Dor_feather_mosaic100_1p8_13_rdv_clusters_rev.pdf}
\caption{Size-linewidth relations for SCIMES clumps identified in the feathered data: (a) \mbox{$^{12}$CO}\ clumps; (b) \mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ clumps; (c) \mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ clumps at 0.1 \mbox{km~s$^{-1}$}\ velocity resolution. The power law fit and 3$\sigma$ uncertainty are shown in blue; {the gray shaded region indicates the limiting spectral resolution}. Fit parameters are tabulated in Tables~\ref{tab:fitpar} and \ref{tab:fitpar2}.
\label{fig:rdv_clusters}}
\end{figure*}
\section{Results}\label{sec:results}
\subsection{Overall cloud structure}\label{sec:overview}
Figures~\ref{fig:snrpk} and \ref{fig:mom01} show that the overall morphology of the cloud is primarily oriented along a direction rotated $\sim$30\arcdeg\ counterclockwise from north.
{The left panel of Figure~\ref{fig:mom01} shows an overlay of the integrated CO intensity as magenta contours over a 3-color image (using the F555W, F775W, and F160W filters) from HTTP \citep{sabbi:13}, revealing that in some instances the CO is associated with extincted regions situated in the foreground of the Tarantula Nebula.}
As apparent from earlier single-dish mapping \citep{johansson:98,minamidani:08,pineda:09}, the brightest CO emission is distributed in two triangular lobes that fan out from the approximate position of R136, giving the cloud its characteristic ``bowtie-shaped'' appearance. ALMA resolves these triangular lobes into radially oriented filaments (Figure~\ref{fig:clust}), providing another example of the ``hub-filament'' structure previously reported in the N159 \mbox{H\thinspace {\sc ii}}\ region that lies just south of 30 Dor \citep{fukui:19,tokuda:19}. A third large CO-emitting region to the northwest, closer to Hodge 301, is also highly filamentary but with more randomly oriented filaments.
In terms of velocity structure, the 30 Dor cloud spans a relatively large extent in velocity (approximately 40 \mbox{km~s$^{-1}$}), compared to the typical velocity extent of $\sim$10 \mbox{km~s$^{-1}$}\ seen in other LMC molecular clouds \citep{saigo:17,wong:19}. Figure~\ref{fig:mom01} shows that the bowtie-shaped structure is primarily blueshifted with respect to the mean cloud velocity {($\bar{v} \approx 255$ \mbox{km~s$^{-1}$}\ in the LSRK frame or $\bar{v}_\odot = 270$ \mbox{km~s$^{-1}$})}, with a relatively faint redshifted structure seen crossing perpendicular to it from the northwest to southeast. The clouds projected closest to R136 and studied by \citet{kalari:18} are among the most highly blueshifted in the region and are observed in extinction against the \mbox{H\thinspace {\sc ii}}\ region, indicating that they are situated in the foreground. The mean stellar velocity of the R136 cluster ($v_\odot = 271.6$ \mbox{km~s$^{-1}$}; \citealt{evans:15}) is consistent with the mean cloud velocity, while the ionized gas has a somewhat lower mean velocity ($v_\odot = 267.4$ \mbox{km~s$^{-1}$}; \citealt{torres:13}).
\subsection{Size-linewidth relations}\label{sec:rdv}
A correlation between size and line width, of the form $\sigma_v \propto R^{\gamma}$ with $\gamma \approx 0.5$, has long been observed among molecular clouds as well as their substructures \citep[hereafter \citetalias{solomon:87}]{larson:81,solomon:87}. It is usually interpreted in the context of a supersonic turbulent cascade spanning a wide range of spatial scales \citep{maclow:04, falgarone:09}. The line width vs.\ size relations for the dendrogram structures in 30 Dor are summarized in Figures~\ref{fig:rdv_feather} and \ref{fig:rdv_clusters} for all structures and for the SCIMES clumps respectively. {Gray shading indicates line widths which would be unresolved at the spectral resolution of the corresponding cube; nearly all of the significant structures are well-resolved in velocity.}
The standard relation of \citetalias{solomon:87} (with a slope and intercept of $a_1=0.5$ and $a_0=-0.14$ respectively) is shown as a thick red line for reference. The best-fitting slopes and intercepts, derived using the {\tt kmpfit} module of the Python package {\tt Kapteyn}, are tabulated in Table~\ref{tab:fitpar}, {along with the reduced $\chi^2$ of the fit and the residual scatter along the $y$-axis}. Consistent with previous studies (see \S\ref{sec:intro}), the relation in the 30 Dor cloud is offset to larger line widths compared to \citetalias{solomon:87}, by a factor of 1.5--1.8. The enhancement in line width we find is somewhat smaller than the factor of $\sim$2.3 previously derived for the ALMA Cycle 0 data \citep{nayak:16,wong:17}, indicating that the {central} region observed in Cycle 0 has a larger enhancement in line width than the cloud as a whole. We revisit the positional dependence of the line width vs.\ size relation in \S\ref{sec:position}.
To evaluate the robustness of the fitted relations to the data handling procedures, we fit the relations separately for cubes derived from the 12m-only data and the feathered data, and for cubes with 0.1 \mbox{km~s$^{-1}$}\ velocity channels and 0.25 \mbox{km~s$^{-1}$}\ velocity channels.
{The resulting fits are consistent within about twice the quoted 1$\sigma$ errors, as can be seen for example by comparing Tables~\ref{tab:fitpar} and Table~\ref{tab:fitpar2} and panels (b) and (c) of Figures~\ref{fig:rdv_feather} and \ref{fig:rdv_clusters}. We note, however, that the fitted slope is often quite uncertain due to the limited range in structure size probed by our analysis, especially for the \mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ data.}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[height=3.5in]{30Dor_feather_mosaic_1p8_12_bnd_full_rev.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=3.5in]{30Dor_feather_mosaic_1p8_13_bndlte_full_rev.pdf}
\caption{Boundedness diagram for dendrogram structures identified in the feathered data. {\it Left}: \mbox{$^{12}$CO}\ structures, with surface density based on a constant $X_{\rm CO}$ factor. {\it Right}: \mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ structures, with surface density based on the LTE approximation. Plot symbols indicate the type of dendrogram structure (trunks, branches, or leaves), with binned averages shown in yellow. The diagonal 1:1 line represents simple virial equilibrium, while the falling and rising solid green (dot-dashed red) curve represents pressure-bounded equilibrium with an external pressure of $10^4$ ($10^6$) cm$^{-3}$ K.}
\label{fig:bnd}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[height=3.5in]{30Dor_feather_mosaic_1p8_12_bnd_clusters_on13_rev.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=3.5in]{30Dor_feather_mosaic_1p8_13_bndlte_clusters_rev.pdf}
\caption{Boundedness diagrams for SCIMES clumps identified in the feathered data. Virial and pressure-bounded equilibrium curves are the same as in Figure~\ref{fig:bnd}. {\it Left}: \mbox{$^{12}$CO}\ clumps, with surface density based on a constant $X_{\rm CO}$ factor. Points are distinguished according to spatial overlap with any \mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ dendrogram structure (triangles) or \mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ clumps (circles). {\it Right}: \mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ clumps, with surface density based on the LTE approximation. Vertical lines denote approximate 4$\sigma$ sensitivity limits for a 1 \mbox{km~s$^{-1}$}\ line width; the \mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ sensitivity assumes $T_{\rm ex}$=8 K.}
\label{fig:bnd_clust}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[height=3.3in,clip,trim=0 0 60 0]{30Dor_feather_mosaic_1p8_12_rdv_refdist_rev.pdf}
\hfill
\includegraphics[height=3.3in]{30Dor_feather_mosaic_1p8_12_bnd_refdist_rev.pdf}
\caption{Correlations between size and linewidth ({\it left}), and $\Sigma_{\rm vir}$ and $\Sigma_{\rm lum}$ ({\it right}), for the same \mbox{$^{12}$CO}\ dendrogram structures plotted in Figures \ref{fig:rdv_feather} and \ref{fig:bnd}. Distance from R136 is indicated by point colors and binned values (bins shown are averages of the top and bottom quartiles). Since $\Sigma_{\rm vir} \propto \sigma_v^2/R$, higher line width at a given size results in higher $\Sigma_{\rm vir}$ for structures closer to R136.}
\label{fig:refdist12}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[height=3.3in,clip,trim=0 0 60 0]{30Dor_feather_mosaic_1p8_13_rdv_refdist_rev.pdf}
\hfill
\includegraphics[height=3.3in]{30Dor_feather_mosaic_1p8_13_bndlte_refdist_rev.pdf}
\caption{Same as Figure~\ref{fig:refdist12}, but for \mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ dendrogram structures and with mass surface density based on the LTE approximation.}
\label{fig:refdist13}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Virial relations}\label{sec:virial}
If the line width vs.\ size relation has a power-law slope of $\approx$0.5, then variations in the normalization coefficient $k$ are expected if structures lie close to virial equilibrium but span a range in mass surface density \citep{heyer:09}:
\begin{equation}
\sigma_v = kR^{1/2} =
\left(\frac{\pi G}{5}\right)^{1/2}\Sigma_{\rm vir}^{1/2} R^{1/2} \quad\Rightarrow\; k = \sqrt{\frac{\pi G \Sigma_{\rm vir}}{5}}\;.
\label{eqn:heyer}
\end{equation}
This motivates an examination of whether variations in the line width vs.\ size coefficient are consistent with virial equilibrium.
For each structure whose {deconvolved} size and linewidth are {measured}, we normalize the virial and luminous mass by the projected area of the structure (determined by the pixel count) to calculate a mass surface density $\Sigma$. For the \mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ structures, we use the LTE-based mass in preference to a \mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ luminosity-based mass, though the results tend to be similar. The virial surface density, $\Sigma_{\rm vir}$, is directly related to the normalization of the size-linewidth relation, since $\Sigma_{\rm vir} = 5k^2/(\pi G)$ from Equation~\ref{eqn:heyer}. We show the relations between $\Sigma_{\rm vir}$ and the luminous or LTE surface density in Figure~\ref{fig:bnd}. In these ``boundedness'' plots, the $y=x$ line represents simple virial equilibrium (SVE), with points above the line having excess kinetic energy (often interpreted as requiring confinement by external pressure to be stable) and points below the line having excess gravitational energy (often interpreted as requiring support from magnetic fields to be stable).
Overall, we find that \mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ structures are close to a state of SVE, with higher surface density structures tending to be more bound ($\mbox{$\alpha_{\rm vir}$} = \Sigma_{\rm vir}/\Sigma_{\rm lum} \lesssim 1$). On the other hand, \mbox{$^{12}$CO}\ structures exhibit a shallower relation, with lower $\Sigma_{\rm lum}$ structures found to lie systematically above the SVE line. The ``unbound'' CO structures exist across the dendrogram hierarchy ({spanning} leaves, branches, and trunks) and are found to dominate even the population of (typically larger) SCIMES clumps, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:bnd_clust} (left panel).
The mean value of $\log\mbox{$\alpha_{\rm vir}$}$ for clumps without \mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ counterparts, as determined by checking for direct spatial overlap, is {1.26}, compared to {0.80} for clumps with \mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ counterparts (thus, the clumps detected in both lines have a factor of {3 lower} $\mbox{$\alpha_{\rm vir}$}$).
To better understand why the \mbox{$^{12}$CO}\ structures appear less likely than \mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ structures to be bound, we need to bear in mind the sensitivity limitations imposed by the data.
Most ({53\%}) CO clumps do not appear associated with \mbox{$^{13}$CO}, whereas all \mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ clumps overlap with a \mbox{$^{12}$CO}\ clump.
This reflects the fact that structures with lower CO surface brightness are less likely to be detected in \mbox{$^{13}$CO}: $\left<\log \Sigma_{\rm lum}\right> = 1.8$ for structures with \mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ counterparts while $\left<\log \Sigma_{\rm lum}\right>$ = {1.2} for those without \mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ counterparts. A typical clump with a 1 \mbox{km~s$^{-1}$}\ line width requires an integrated intensity of 0.55 K \mbox{km~s$^{-1}$}\ to be detected at the 4$\sigma$ level. As indicated by vertical dashed lines in Figure~\ref{fig:bnd_clust}, this intensity limit translates to minimum $\log \Sigma_{\rm lum} = 0.55$ for detection in \mbox{$^{12}$CO}\ but a minimum $\log \Sigma_{\rm LTE} = 1.5$ for detection in \mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ (for $T_{\rm ex} = 8$ K). Thus, the majority of \mbox{$^{12}$CO}\ structures would not be expected to have \mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ counterparts because the weaker \mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ line was observed to the same brightness sensitivity as the stronger \mbox{$^{12}$CO}\ line. If lower surface density structures are preferentially unbound, then such structures will also tend to be detected only in \mbox{$^{12}$CO}.
We note that several caveats apply to the interpretation of the ``boundedness'' plots. As other authors have pointed out \citep[e.g.,][]{dib:07,ballesteros:11a},
objects that are far from equilibrium can still appear close to SVE as a result of approximate energy equipartition between kinetic and gravitational energies. Furthermore, there are systematic uncertainties in estimating the values in both axes that are not included in the formal uncertainties. For $\Sigma_{\rm vir}$ these include the spherical approximation and the definitions employed for measuring size and line width. For $\Sigma_{\rm lum}$, uncertainties arising from the adoption of a single $X_{\rm CO}$ factor are ignored. In particular, in regions with strong photodissociating flux it is possible for low column density \mbox{$^{12}$CO}\ structures to be gravitationally bound by surrounding CO-dark gas (see \S\ref{sec:disc} for further discussion). For $\Sigma_{\rm LTE}$, deviations from LTE conditions or errors in our assumed $T_{\rm ex}$ may affect the reliability of $\Sigma_{\rm LTE}$, although {from Equation~\ref{eqn:t13}} a shift in $T_{\rm ex}$ tends to be partially compensated by the resulting shift in $\tau_{13}$ and thus yield a similar value for $\Sigma_{\rm LTE}$. An error in the assumed \mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ abundance would produce a more systematic shift, but would likely affect the cloud as a whole.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{refdist_sigvir_feather_12_rev.pdf}\hfill
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{refdist_sigvir_feather_13_rev.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{refdist_alpha_feather_12_rev.pdf}\hfill
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{refdist_alphalte_feather_13_rev.pdf}
\caption{Virial surface density $\Sigma_{\rm vir}$ ({\it top row}) and virial parameter $\alpha_{\rm vir}$ ({\it bottom row}) as a function of distance from R136 for \mbox{$^{12}$CO}\ structures ({\it left}) and \mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ structures ({\it right}). The colors of the plotted points represent mass surface density estimates, namely CO surface brightness for \mbox{$^{12}$CO}\ and LTE column density for \mbox{$^{13}$CO}. Binned values represent the highest and lowest 25\% of the {overall} mass surface density {and are plotted when two or more such points fall within a bin}. Gray steps indicate the median value in each bin. There is a decreasing trend in $\Sigma_{\rm vir}$ with distance, especially for the highest surface density structures, but no clear trend in $\alpha_{\rm vir}$.}
\label{fig:refdist_alpha}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{alphahist_leaves_rev.pdf}
\caption{Properties of leaf dendrogram structures {distinguished by positional coincidence with} \mbox{$^{12}$CO}-identified filaments. Note that histogram bars are superposed (rather than stacked) and unresolved structures have been excluded. The top row shows the virial parameter $\mbox{$\alpha_{\rm vir}$}$ and its constituent quantities $\Sigma_{\rm vir}$ and $\Sigma_{\rm lum}$ for the \mbox{$^{12}$CO}\ leaves, whereas the bottom row shows the same for the \mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ leaves. The \mbox{$^{12}$CO}\ structures on filaments tend to have lower $\mbox{$\alpha_{\rm vir}$}$ driven by higher surface density, whereas \mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ structures are {exclusively} found on filaments.}
\label{fig:leaf_fils}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Position dependent properties}\label{sec:position}
To assess position-dependent variations in the size-linewidth and boundedness relations, we examine these relations color-coded by projected angular distance from the R136 cluster {($\theta_{\rm off}$ in Tables~\ref{tab:dendro12}--\ref{tab:clust13})} in Figures~\ref{fig:refdist12} and \ref{fig:refdist13}. We also plot the binned correlations for the top and bottom quartiles of angular distance from R136. We note that projected angular distance is only a crude indication of environment as it neglects the full 3-D structure of the region. We find that regions at large angular distances are quite consistent with the \citet{solomon:87} size-linewidth relation {(except for the smallest structures, which have large uncertainties in the deconvolved size)}, whereas regions at smaller distances lie offset above it, consistent with previous studies \citep{indebetouw:13,nayak:16,wong:19}. The approximate offset between the lowest and highest quartile of distances, at a fiducial size of 1 pc, is 0.16 dex (factor of 1.4) for \mbox{$^{12}$CO}\ and {0.22} dex (factor of {1.7}) for \mbox{$^{13}$CO}. As noted in \S\ref{sec:rdv}, an even larger (factor of $\sim$2) offset is found if one restricts the analysis to the Cycle 0 field.
When it comes to gravitational boundedness, the picture is more complex. Structures close to R136 show higher $\Sigma_{\rm vir}$ in Figures~\ref{fig:refdist12} and \ref{fig:refdist13}, as expected given that $\Sigma_{\rm vir}$ scales with the size-linewidth coefficient $k$. However, they exhibit no tendency to be more or less bound: \mbox{$^{12}$CO}\ structures with low $\Sigma_{\rm lum}$ show excess kinetic energy relative to SVE at {\it all} distances from R136. Figure~\ref{fig:refdist_alpha} provides a closer look at trends in $\Sigma_{\rm vir}$ and $\mbox{$\alpha_{\rm vir}$}$ with distance from R136. High surface density structures, represented by cyan circles, are close to virial equilibrium ($|\log\mbox{$\alpha_{\rm vir}$}| \lesssim 0.5$) at all distances but tend to be concentrated towards R136, largely accounting for the higher $\Sigma_{\rm vir}$ observed in the central regions. Beyond 200\arcsec\ from R136
{(to the right of the vertical dashed line), high surface density structures are largely absent.}
Meanwhile, the low surface density \mbox{$^{12}$CO}\ structures, represented by red circles, are unbound ($\log\mbox{$\alpha_{\rm vir}$} \gtrsim 1$) at all distances from R136.
{The median value of $\log\mbox{$\alpha_{\rm vir}$}$ (represented by the gray steps) is largely unchanged with distance.}
\subsection{Association with filaments}\label{sec:filassoc}
{Galactic studies that have surveyed dense prestellar cores at far-infrared or submillimeter wavelengths \citep[e.g.,][]{fiorellino:21} have demonstrated a strong positional association of dense cores with filaments. Here we conduct a preliminary assessment of this association in 30 Dor by comparing the dendrogram leaf structures to the filament skeleton derived by FilFinder.}
We present histograms of $\mbox{$\alpha_{\rm vir}$}$, $\Sigma_{\rm vir}$, and $\Sigma_{\rm lum}$ (and their analogues in \mbox{$^{13}$CO}) for the leaf structures in Figure~\ref{fig:leaf_fils}, {distinguishing leaves by whether or not their actual structure boundaries (not their fitted Gaussians) overlap with the FilFinder skeleton. Such overlaps must be viewed cautiously as both the structures and the filaments are identified using the same data set. Indeed, the SCIMES clumps are largely coincident with the FilFinder skeleton (Figure~\ref{fig:clust}). In contrast, the \mbox{$^{12}$CO}\ leaves constitute a large set of independent structures, and given their small typical sizes, a substantial fraction ($\sim$1/3) are not coincident with the skeleton, allowing us to compare the properties of leaves located on and off of filaments.}
{Not surprisingly, the} filament-associated leaves tend to have higher $\Sigma_{\rm lum}$; in total they represent {93\%} of the total mass in leaves. However, their values of $\Sigma_{\rm vir}$ are very similar to those of leaves which are not on filaments, and as a result the leaves on filaments tend to have lower $\mbox{$\alpha_{\rm vir}$}$ (stronger gravitational binding). The formation of filaments is therefore plausibly related to gravity, a hypothesis supported by the {fact that \mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ leaves}---which trace higher density material---{are exclusively associated} with the \mbox{$^{12}$CO}\ filaments.
{Further analysis of the FilFinder outputs will be deferred to a future paper where we will collectively examine the properties and positional associations of YSOs, dense clumps, and filaments.}
\section{Discussion and Conclusions}\label{sec:disc}
We have presented initial results from an ALMA mosaic of CO(2--1) and \mbox{$^{13}$CO}(2--1) emission from the molecular cloud associated with the 30 Dor \mbox{H\thinspace {\sc ii}}\ region in the LMC, expanding upon the Cycle 0 map areal coverage by a factor of $\sim$40. The emission exhibits a highly filamentary structure (Figures~\ref{fig:snrpk} and \ref{fig:clust}) with many of the longest filaments oriented radially with respect to ``hub'' regions nearer the cloud center. The cloud's relatively large velocity width is resolved into several distinct components, with the bulk of the emission at lower radial velocity (Figures~\ref{fig:fluxcomp} and \ref{fig:mom01}). We find that structures at a given size show decreasing line width with increasing distance from the central R136 cluster (Figures~\ref{fig:rdv_feather} and \ref{fig:rdv_clusters}), such that at the largest distances the normalization of the line width vs.\ size relation is consistent with the Galactic clouds studied by \citetalias{solomon:87}. However, we do not find that distance from R136 correlates with the gravitational boundedness of structures (Figure~\ref{fig:refdist_alpha}). Rather, low surface density \mbox{$^{12}$CO}\ structures tend to be unbound, whereas high surface density structures (which more closely follow the filamentary network, Figure~\ref{fig:leaf_fils}, and comprise most of the structures observed in \mbox{$^{13}$CO}) tend to be bound. The higher line widths of clumps near R136 then largely reflect the higher surface density of clumps in this region.
While the unbound (high \mbox{$\alpha_{\rm vir}$}) clumps are found throughout the cloud and are not limited to the smallest ``leaves'' in the dendrogram hierarchy, they tend not to overlap the filament skeletons, suggesting a more diffuse structure or distribution.
In total, 12\% of the total CO-based mass in SCIMES clumps is located in clumps with $\log\mbox{$\alpha_{\rm vir}$}>1$, whereas {44\%}
of the mass is in clumps with $\log\mbox{$\alpha_{\rm vir}$}<0.5$. Here we briefly discuss three possible interpretations of the high \mbox{$\alpha_{\rm vir}$}\ structures.
\paragraph{Pressure-bounded structures}
In super star cluster-forming environments such as the Antennae galaxy merger \citep{johnson:15,finn:19}, massive molecular clouds are observed with virial masses well above the SVE line, implying large external pressures ($P/k_B \sim 10^8$--$10^9$ cm$^{-3}$ K) in order to be in equilibrium. Although the estimated \mbox{H\thinspace {\sc ii}}\ region pressure of $\sim 10^{-9}$ dyn cm$^{-2}$ or $P/k_B \sim 7 \times 10^6$ cm$^{-3}$ K in the 30 Dor region \citep{lopez:11} would be sufficient to confine the observed $\mbox{$\alpha_{\rm vir}$}>1$ clumps (Figure~\ref{fig:bnd_clust}), the distribution of points in the Figures~\ref{fig:bnd} and \ref{fig:bnd_clust} is not consistent with a constant external pressure, but rather suggests a smoothly increasing virial parameter with decreasing surface density.
If instead there were large variations in external pressure, these would be expected to correlate with distance from R136 \citep{lopez:11}, but we do not find that the offset distance significantly affects boundedness (Figure~\ref{fig:refdist12}).
We therefore view a pressure-bound equilibrium state to be a less likely scenario.
\paragraph{Dispersing molecular structures}
The unbound, low-column density \mbox{$^{12}$CO}\ structures may represent molecular cloud material that exhibits excess kinetic energy as a result of being dispersed by energetic feedback. The unusual concentration of massive stars in 30 Dor would then could account for the high frequency of such clumps, as similar column density ($1<\log\Sigma_{\rm lum}<2$) structures in other LMC clouds tend to lie closer to simple virial equilibrium \citep{wong:19}.
A crude estimate of the total kinetic energy (${\cal T} = 3M_{\rm lum}\sigma_v^2$) in {\mbox{$^{12}$CO}} clumps with $\log \alpha > 1$ is $7 \times 10^{48}$ erg. Using the estimate of mechanical stellar wind feedback from R136 of $1.2 \times 10^{39}$ erg s$^{-1}$ from \citet{bestenlehner:20}, it would take only $\sim$200 yr for R136 to inject this amount of energy. (For comparison, the total kinetic energy in all clumps is $7 \times 10^{49}$ erg, with a corresponding time scale of $\sim$2000 yr.) This suggests that stellar feedback could easily account for the excess line widths seen in the unbound structures, even if the coupling of the feedback energy into the molecular cloud motions is relatively inefficient.
The energetic feedback should preferentially and effectively disrupt low column density structures, as few such structures lie near the SVE line.
\paragraph{Massive CO-dark envelopes}
If there is a substantial amount of hidden molecular mass which is not traced by \mbox{$^{12}$CO}\ or \mbox{$^{13}$CO}\ emission; i.e.\ ``CO-dark'' gas, low CO intensities may disguise considerably larger column densities, and overall virial equilibrium may still hold once the additional mass is accounted for. The basis of this scenario \citep[see][and references therein]{chevance:20} is efficient CO photodissociation relative to H$_2$, since the latter is able to self-shield whereas CO is mainly shielded by dust. Since 30 Dor is both a metal poor {\it and} highly irradiated environment, the amount of CO-dark gas may be substantial, especially for clouds or clumps where the total gas column density is low. This effect is clearly illustrated in \citet[][Figure 20]{jameson:18}, where at low $A_V$ the $X_{\rm CO}$ factor is increased by approximately an order of magnitude compared to the Galactic value. In the 30 Dor region, based on PDR modeling of far-infrared emission lines, \citet{chevance:20} conclude that the $X_{\rm CO}$ factor is enhanced by factors of 4--20 compared to the Galactic value. Correcting for this enhancement would increase $\log\,\Sigma_{\rm lum}$ by 0.4--1.1 (given our adopted $X_{\rm CO}$) and bring the low column density structures shown in Figures~\ref{fig:refdist_alpha} and \ref{fig:leaf_fils} closer to virial equilibrium. We caution, however, that the virial surface density $\Sigma_{\rm vir}$ is also affected by the underestimate of $R$ {and $\sigma_v$} resulting from CO-dark gas; {the net effect on \mbox{$\alpha_{\rm vir}$}\ depends sensitively on the adopted density and velocity dispersion profiles within the clumps \citep{oneill:22}}. In addition, the CO-dark gas would need to be preferentially distributed in low column density clouds, since the high column density clouds do not show an excess of apparent kinetic energy.
Future studies are still needed to test these interpretations and to place 30 Dor in the context of its larger environment and the LMC as a whole. Wider-field imaging with ALMA should be able to incorporate regions which are outside the reach of massive star feedback and examine the consequences for clump properties.
In addition, detailing the extent and contribution of the CO-dark gas (e.g., using [\mbox{C\thinspace {\sc i}}] and [\mbox{C\thinspace {\sc ii}}] mapping) over a sample of molecular clouds with matched CO mapping will clarify the effects that this component may have on the observed properties of CO clumps.
Images and data products presented in this paper are available for download from the Illinois Data Bank at \url{doi.org/10.13012/B2IDB-1671495_V1}.
\begin{acknowledgments}
{We thank the anonymous referee for helpful suggestions that substantially improved the paper.}
This paper makes use of the following ALMA data: ADS/JAO.ALMA \#2019.1.00843.S.
ALMA is a partnership of ESO (representing its member states), NSF (USA) and NINS (Japan), together with NRC (Canada), NSC and ASIAA (Taiwan), and KASI (Republic of Korea), in cooperation with the Republic of Chile.
The Joint ALMA Observatory is operated by ESO, AUI/NRAO and NAOJ.
The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is a facility of the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc.
T.W., M.M., and R.I. acknowledge support from collaborative NSF AAG awards 2009849, 2009544, and 2009624.
A.D.B. acknowledges support from NSF AAG award 2108140.
M.R. acknowledges support from ANID (Chile) FONDECYT grant No.\ 1190684 and partial support from ANID Basal projects ACE210002 and FB210003.
{K.T. acknowledges support from NAOJ ALMA Scientific Research grant Nos. 2022-22B, and Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (KAKENHI) of Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS; grant Nos., JP21H00049, and JP21K13962).}
This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (Grant agreement No. 851435). The authors acknowledge assistance from Allegro, the European ALMA Regional Center node in the Netherlands.
\end{acknowledgments}
\facilities{ALMA, HST}
\software{CASA \citep{mcmullin:07}, {\tt astrodendro} (\url{http://www.dendrograms.org}), Kapteyn (\url{https://kapteyn.readthedocs.io}), FilFinder \citep{koch:15}, SCIMES \citep{colombo:15}, Astropy \citep{astropy:13, astropy:18}, APLpy \citep{aplpy:12}.}
\bibliographystyle{aasjournal}
|
\section{Introduction and model}
\label{se:intro}
We study a dynamic model of the relationship between two people, $A$ and $B.$ The amount that they each ``like'' each other depends on the amount they liked each other at the previous timestep as well as the ``power'' in the relationship. Let $A(t)$ denote the amount that $A$ likes $B$ at time $t$, and $B(t)$ the amount that $B$ likes $A.$ Let $P(t)$ denote the power of player $A$ at time $t$ ($-P(t)$ denotes the power of player $B$).
\begin{eqnarray*}
P(t) &= &\gamma(B(t) - A(t))\\
A(t+1) &= &A(t) + \alpha P(t)\\
B(t+1) &= &B(t) - \beta P(t)
\end{eqnarray*}
We assume that $\gamma > 0$, and that either $\alpha \neq 0$ or $\beta \neq 0$ (if $\alpha = \beta = 0$ then neither player's value depends on the power and the model is trivial). In general we can assume that $\gamma = 1$, and can substitute in $\alpha' = \alpha \gamma$, $\beta' = \beta \gamma$ without affecting our analysis. This will reduce the number of parameters and simplify the model. However, we will choose to keep $\gamma$ in the model, as the model is not very complex and this permits a more intuitive interpretation of the parameters.
We can substitute $P(t)$ into the other expressions to obtain the following system:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
A(t+1) &= A(t) (1 - \alpha \gamma) + \alpha \gamma B(t)\\
B(t+1) &= B(t) (1 - \beta \gamma) + \beta \gamma A(t)
\label{eq:main}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{proposition}
$(A^*,B^*)$ is an equilibrium point of the system defined by Equation~\ref{eq:main} if and only if $A^* = B^*.$
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
In an equilibrium, we have that
$$A^* = A^*(1 - \alpha \gamma) + \alpha \gamma B^*$$
$$A^*(1 - 1 + \alpha \gamma) = \alpha \gamma B^*$$
$$\alpha \gamma A^* = \alpha \gamma B^*$$
Since $\gamma > 0$,
$$\alpha A^* = \alpha B^*$$
Similarly, we have
$$\beta B^* = \beta A^*.$$
By assumption, either $\alpha \neq 0$ or $\beta \neq 0$ (or both).
In either case, we have that $A^* = B^*.$
\end{proof}
In order to ascertain the stability of the system, we calculate the eigenvalues of the matrix $M$ corresponding to the system defined by Equation~\ref{eq:main}:
\begin{eqnarray*}
M =
\begin{bmatrix}
(1 - \alpha \gamma) & \alpha \gamma\\
\beta \gamma & (1 - \beta \gamma) \\
\end{bmatrix}
\end{eqnarray*}
The eigenvalues are
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lambda_1 &= &1\\
\lambda_2 &= &1 - \alpha \gamma - \beta \gamma
\end{eqnarray*}
The corresponding eigenvectors are
\begin{eqnarray*}
v_1 &= &(1,1)\\
v_2 &= &\left(-\frac{\alpha}{\beta}, 1\right)
\end{eqnarray*}
The central concept in analysis of dynamic systems is that of stability~\cite{Luenberger79:Introduction}. A system is \emph{stable} if $|\lambda_L| < 1$, where $\lambda_L$ is the eigenvalue with largest absolute value. If a system is stable, then the dynamics will converge to an equilibrium point. If $|\lambda_L| > 1$, then the system is \emph{unstable}, and will diverge to $\pm \infty.$ If $|\lambda_L = 1|$, then the system is \emph{marginally stable}. Marginal stability is often associated with being a middle ground between these two extremes: ``A marginal system, sometimes referred to as having neutral stability, is between these two types [asymptotically stable and unstable]: when displaced, it does not return to near a common steady state, nor does it go away from where it started without limit''~\cite{Wiki22:Marginal}. It turns out that a marginally stable system can actually exhibit a wide range of behavior such as oscillating between several points, but also converging to an equilibrium (as stable systems) and diverging to infinity (as an unstable system). Essentially, if a system is marginally stable this means that further investigation is needed to determine asymptotic behavior.
\section{Stability characterization}
\label{se:stability}
Since $\lambda_1 = 1$, the system is either marginally stable or unstable depending on whether $|\lambda_2| > 1.$
If $|\lambda_2| > 1$, then the system is unstable, and if $|\lambda_2| \leq 1$ it is marginally stable.
\begin{proposition}
\label{pr:ms}
The system is marginally stable if and only if
$$-\alpha \leq \beta \leq \frac{2}{\gamma} - \alpha.$$
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
$\lambda_2 > 1$ if and only if
$$-\alpha \gamma - \beta \gamma + 1 > 1$$
$$\leftrightarrow -\alpha \gamma - \beta \gamma > 0$$
$$\leftrightarrow \beta < -\alpha.$$
$\lambda_2 < -1$ if and only if
$$-\alpha \gamma - \beta \gamma + 1 < -1$$
$$\leftrightarrow -\alpha \gamma - \beta \gamma < -2$$
$$\leftrightarrow \alpha + \beta > \frac{2}{\gamma}$$
So the system is marginally stable if and only if
$$-\alpha \leq \beta \leq \frac{2}{\gamma} - \alpha.$$
\end{proof}
Note that $\alpha > 0$ means that player $A$ prefers more power, and $\beta > 0$ means that $B$ prefers more power. Say that a player is \emph{dominant} if they prefer more power, and \emph{submissive} if they prefer less power. The \emph{dominance} of $A$ is $\alpha$, and the \emph{submissiveness} of $A$ is $-\alpha$; similarly, the dominance of $B$ is $\beta$, and the submissiveness of $B$ is $-\beta.$
We now analyze the implications of Proposition~\ref{pr:ms} on the different cases of dominance/submissiveness for the players.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Both $A$ and $B$ are dominant: \\
We have $\alpha \geq 0$, $\beta \geq 0$, and furthermore:
$$-\frac{2}{\gamma} \leq -\alpha \leq 0 \leq \beta \leq \frac{2}{\gamma} - \alpha$$
This is equivalent to the constraint that the sum of the dominances is at most $\frac{2}{\gamma}.$
\item Both $A$ and $B$ are submissive: \\
We have $\alpha \leq 0$, $\beta \leq 0$:
$$0 \leq -\alpha \leq \beta \leq \frac{2}{\gamma} - \alpha$$
This can only hold if $\alpha = \beta = 0$, which is excluded by assumption in our model.
\item $A$ is dominant and $B$ is submissive: \\
We have $\alpha \geq 0$, $\beta \leq 0$:
$$-\alpha \leq \beta \leq \frac{2}{\gamma} - \alpha.$$
This means that $B$ cannot be more submissive than $A$ is dominant, and $A$ cannot be more dominant than $B$'s submissiveness plus $\frac{2}{\gamma}.$
\item $B$ is dominant and $A$ is submissive: \\
We have $\alpha \leq 0$, $\beta \geq 0$:
$$0 \leq -\alpha \leq \beta \leq \frac{2}{\gamma} - \alpha$$
This means that $A$ cannot be more submissive than $B$ is dominant, and $B$ cannot be more dominant than $A$'s submissiveness plus $\frac{2}{\gamma}.$
\end{enumerate}
In summary, we can achieve a marginally stable system in which both players are dominant, with the sum of dominance bounded by $\frac{2}{\gamma}.$ We can never reach a situation where both players are submissive. We can also reach situations in which $A$ is more (or equally) dominant than $B$ is submissive by at most $\frac{2}{\gamma}$, and situations where $B$ is more (or equally) dominant than $A$ is submissive by at most $\frac{2}{\gamma}.$
\section{Further analysis of marginally stable behavior}
\label{se:ms}
The eigendecomposition of transition matrix $M$ is $M = Q \Lambda Q^{-1}$, where
\begin{equation*}
Q =
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & -\frac{\alpha}{\beta}\\
1 & 1 \\
\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
\Lambda =
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0\\
0 & 1 - \alpha \gamma - \beta \gamma \\
\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation*}
We have that $M^t = (Q \Lambda Q^{-1})^t = Q \Lambda^t Q^{-1}.$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
M^t = \frac{1}{\alpha + \beta}
\begin{bmatrix}
\beta + \alpha (1 - \alpha \gamma - \beta \gamma)^t & \alpha - \alpha(1 - \alpha \gamma - \beta \gamma)^t\\
\beta - \beta(1 - \alpha \gamma - \beta \gamma)^t & \alpha + \beta(1 - \alpha \gamma - \beta \gamma)^t\\
\end{bmatrix}
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:matrix}
\end{equation}
Asymptotic behavior of the system is determined by $\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} M^t.$
\begin{enumerate}
\item $1 - \alpha \gamma - \beta \gamma = 1$: \\
At first glance the system is stable, since we have that $M^t = I.$ However, in this case the matrix $M$ is not actually diagonalizable (the matrix $Q$ is not invertible), so we cannot draw any conclusions based on the eigendecomposition. In Proposition~\ref{pr:unstable}, we show that the system is actually unstable.
\item $0 \leq |1 - \alpha \gamma - \beta \gamma| < 1$: \\
We have
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} M^t = \frac{1}{\alpha + \beta}
\begin{bmatrix}
\beta & \alpha\\
\beta & \alpha\\
\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation*}
So we have that
$$\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} A(t) = \lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} B(t)
= \frac{\beta A(0) + \alpha B(0)}{\alpha + \beta}.$$
So the system is stable and converges to the equilibrium point $(A^*,B^*)$ with
$$A^* = B^* = \frac{\beta A(0) + \alpha B(0)}{\alpha + \beta}.$$
\item $1 - \alpha \gamma - \beta \gamma = -1$:\\
For $t$ even, we have
$$\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} M^t = I.$$
So $\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} A(t) = A(0)$, $\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} B(t) = B(0).$
For $t$ odd, we have
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} M^t = \frac{1}{\alpha + \beta}
\begin{bmatrix}
\beta - \alpha & 2\alpha\\
2\beta & \alpha - \beta\\
\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation*}
So
$$\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} A(t) = \frac{(\beta - \alpha)A(0) + 2 \alpha B(0)}{\alpha + \beta}$$
$$\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} B(t) = \frac{(\alpha - \beta)B(0) + 2 \beta A(0)}{\alpha + \beta}$$
So the system will oscillate between two points:
$$P_1 = (A_1,B_1) = (A(0), B(0))$$
$$P_2 = (A_2,B_2) = \left(\frac{(\beta - \alpha)A(0) + 2 \alpha B(0)}{\alpha + \beta}, \frac{(\alpha - \beta)B(0) + 2 \beta A(0)}{\alpha + \beta}\right)$$
If $A(0) = B(0)$, then the system trivially just stays at the initial point since it is an equilibrium. Otherwise, the system will oscillate between $P_1$ and $P_2$, neither of which are equilibrium points. However, the average of $P_1$ and $P_2$ is an equilibrium point:
$$(A^*,B^*) = \left(\frac{\beta A(0) + \alpha B(0)}{\alpha + \beta}, \frac{\beta A(0) + \alpha B(0)}{\alpha + \beta}\right)$$
\end{enumerate}
\begin{proposition}
\label{pr:unstable}
If $1 - \alpha \gamma - \beta \gamma = 1$, then the system is unstable.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Note that the transition matrix is
\begin{eqnarray*}
M =
\begin{bmatrix}
(1 - \alpha \gamma) & \alpha \gamma\\
\beta \gamma & (1 - \beta \gamma) \\
\end{bmatrix}
=
\begin{bmatrix}
(1 - \alpha \gamma) & \alpha \gamma\\
-\alpha \gamma & (1 + \alpha \gamma) \\
\end{bmatrix}
\end{eqnarray*}
Since this matrix is not diagonalizable, we cannot construct the eigendecomposition. However, we can compute
$\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty}M^t$ by instead using the Jordan decomposition. We have $M = S J S^{-1}$ where
\begin{equation*}
S =
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & -\frac{1}{\alpha \gamma}\\
1 & 0 \\
\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
J =
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 1\\
0 & 1 \\
\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
S^{-1} =
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 1\\
-\alpha \gamma & \alpha \gamma \\
\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation*}
By Lemma~\ref{le:Jt},
\begin{equation*}
J^t =
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & t\\
0 & 1 \\
\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
M^t = S J^t S^{-1} =
\begin{bmatrix}
1 - t \alpha \gamma & t \alpha \gamma\\
-t \alpha \gamma & t \alpha \gamma \\
\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation*}
We can see that the system is clearly unstable, with
\begin{eqnarray*}
A(t) &= &A(0) + t \alpha \gamma (B(0) - A(0))\\
B(t) &= &t \alpha \gamma (B(0) - A(0)) \\
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{le:Jt}
For all $t \geq 1$,
\begin{equation*}
J^t =
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & t\\
0 & 1 \\
\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The statement clearly holds for $t = 1.$ Suppose it holds for $t = k$ for some $k \geq 1.$
\begin{equation*}
J^{k+1} = J J^k =
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 1\\
0 & 1 \\
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & k\\
0 & 1 \\
\end{bmatrix}
=
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & k+1\\
0 & 1 \\
\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\section{Further analysis of unstable behavior}
\label{se:us}
We have seen several scenarios under which the system is unstable. In this section we explore the asymptotic behavior of these scenarios.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $1 - \alpha \gamma - \beta \gamma = 1$: \\
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} A(t) &= &sign(\alpha)sign(B(0) - A(0))\infty\\
\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} B(t) &= &sign(\alpha)sign(B(0) - A(0))\infty = sign(\beta)sign(A(0) - B(0))\infty\\
\end{eqnarray*}
Note that in this case we have $\alpha = - \beta$, so by assumption we do not have $\alpha = \beta = 0.$ So $\alpha \neq 0.$
The asymptotic behavior depends on the sign of $\alpha$ and on the sign of the difference in initial states $B(0) - A(0).$
If $\alpha > 0$ and $B(0) > A(0)$, or if $\alpha < 0$ and $A(0) > B(0)$, then the system will diverge to $(\infty,\infty).$
Otherwise, the system diverges to $(-\infty,-\infty).$ Thus, the system diverges to $(\infty,\infty)$ if the dominant player has a lower initial state value, and diverges to $(-\infty,-\infty)$ if the dominant player
has a higher initial state value.
\item $1 - \alpha \gamma - \beta \gamma > 1$, $\alpha \neq 0$, $\beta \neq 0$: \\
Recall the formula for $M^t$ from Equation~\ref{eq:matrix}. We have:
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} M^t = \frac{1}{\alpha + \beta}
\begin{bmatrix}
sign(\alpha)\infty & -sign(\alpha)\infty\\
-sign(\beta)\infty & sign(\beta)\infty\\
\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation*}
Note that $1 - \alpha \gamma - \beta \gamma > 1$ implies that $\alpha + \beta < 0.$
So the denominator is negative. So therefore,
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} M^t =
\begin{bmatrix}
-sign(\alpha)\infty & sign(\alpha)\infty\\
sign(\beta)\infty & -sign(\beta)\infty\\
\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation*}
This implies that:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} A(t) &= &sign(\alpha)sign(B(0) - A(0))\infty\\
\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} B(t) &= &sign(\beta)sign(A(0) - B(0))\infty\\
\end{eqnarray*}
If $\alpha$ and $\beta$ have different signs, then the system will diverge to $(\infty,\infty)$ or $(-\infty,-\infty)$ depending on the sign of $B(0) - A(0).$
If $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are both negative, then the system will diverge to $(\infty,-\infty)$ or $(-\infty,\infty)$ depending on the sign of $B(0) - A(0).$
Note that $\alpha$ and $\beta$ cannot both be positive in this situation since $\alpha + \beta < 0.$ We are also excluding the case that $\alpha = 0$ or $\beta = 0.$
\item $1 - \alpha \gamma - \beta \gamma > 1$, $\alpha = 0$: \\
We must have $\beta < 0$. We have:
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} M^t = \frac{1}{\beta}
\begin{bmatrix}
\beta & 0\\
-sign(\beta)\infty & sign(\beta)\infty\\
\end{bmatrix}
=
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0\\
-\infty & \infty\\
\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation*}
This implies that:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} A(t) &= &A(0)\\
\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} B(t) &= &sign(B(0) - A(0))\infty\\
\end{eqnarray*}
So the system will diverge to $(A(0),\infty)$ or $(A(0),-\infty)$ depending on the sign of $B(0) - A(0).$
\item $1 - \alpha \gamma - \beta \gamma > 1$, $\beta = 0$: \\
By analogous reasoning to the previous case, we have:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} A(t) &= &sign(A(0) - B(0))\infty\\
\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} B(t) &= &B(0)\\
\end{eqnarray*}
So the system will diverge to $(\infty,B(0))$ or $(-\infty,B(0))$ depending on the sign of $A(0) - B(0).$
\item $1 - \alpha \gamma - \beta \gamma < -1$, $\alpha \neq 0$, $\beta \neq 0$:\\
From Equation~\ref{eq:matrix}, we see that the behavior will alternate between $\infty$ and $-\infty$ for both
players depending on the parity of $t.$ For even $t$:
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} M^t =
\begin{bmatrix}
sign(\alpha)\infty & -sign(\alpha)\infty\\
-sign(\beta)\infty & sign(\beta)\infty\\
\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation*}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} A(t) &= &sign(\alpha)sign(A(0) - B(0))\infty\\
\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} B(t) &= &sign(\beta)sign(B(0) - A(0))\infty\\
\end{eqnarray*}
For odd $t$:
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} M^t =
\begin{bmatrix}
-sign(\alpha)\infty & sign(\alpha)\infty\\
sign(\beta)\infty & -sign(\beta)\infty\\
\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation*}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} A(t) &= &sign(\alpha)sign(B(0) - A(0))\infty\\
\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} B(t) &= &sign(\beta)sign(A(0) - B(0))\infty\\
\end{eqnarray*}
If both $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are positive, then the system will alternate between $(\infty,-\infty)$ and $(-\infty,\infty)$.
If one of them is positive and the other is negative, the system will alternate between $(\infty,\infty)$ and $(-\infty,-\infty)$.
Note that we can not have both $\alpha$ and $\beta$ negative under this case, since $1 - \alpha \gamma - \beta \gamma < -1$ implies
that $\alpha + \beta > \frac{2}{\gamma}.$
\item $1 - \alpha \gamma - \beta \gamma < -1$, $\alpha = 0$:\\
We must have $\beta > 0$. For even $t$:
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} M^t = \frac{1}{\beta}
\begin{bmatrix}
\beta & 0\\
-sign(\beta)\infty & sign(\beta)\infty\\
\end{bmatrix}
=
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0\\
-\infty & \infty\\
\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation*}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} A(t) &= &A(0)\\
\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} B(t) &= &sign(B(0) - A(0))\infty\\
\end{eqnarray*}
For odd $t$:
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} M^t = \frac{1}{\beta}
\begin{bmatrix}
\beta & 0\\
sign(\beta)\infty & -sign(\beta)\infty\\
\end{bmatrix}
=
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0\\
\infty & -\infty\\
\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation*}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} A(t) &= &A(0)\\
\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} B(t) &= &sign(A(0) - B(0))\infty\\
\end{eqnarray*}
So the system will alternate between $(A(0),\infty)$ and $(A(0),-\infty).$
\item $1 - \alpha \gamma - \beta \gamma < -1$, $\beta = 0$:\\
By analogous reasoning to case 6, the system will alternate between $(\infty,B(0))$ and $(-\infty,B(0)).$
\end{enumerate}
\section{Conclusions}
\label{se:conclusions}
We have seen that the system can exhibit a wide range of behavior depending on the value of $\lambda_2 = 1 - \alpha \gamma - \beta \gamma$ as well as the signs of $\alpha$, $\beta$, and $B(0) - A(0).$ While analysis of the eigenvalues shows that the system is either marginally stable or unstable, this does not tell the full story. Within the set of marginally stable scenarios we have shown that the system can be stable, unstable, or oscillatory. In particular, we show that stable relationships are possible under our dynamics under certain sets of conditions. The first is that both people are dominant, but not too dominant. They do not need to be equally dominant, but the sum of the dominances must be strictly below $\frac{2}{\gamma}.$ The second is that one person is dominant and the other is submissive, and the dominance of the dominant person strictly exceeds the submissiveness of the submissive person by less than $\frac{2}{\gamma}.$ Note that the magnitudes of the dominance and submissiveness must be similar, but both can be very small or large in absolute terms. Finally, if the sum of the dominances exactly equals $\frac{2}{\gamma}$, then the system will oscillate between two points whose average is an equilibrium.
Interestingly, while it is possible to have a stable relationship between two people who are both dominant, it is not possible if they are both submissive. It is necessary that at least one person is dominant, and that the amount of dominance outweighs the amount of submissiveness of the other. Relationships that do not satisfy the conditions described in the preceding paragraph are unstable, and the state of at least one person will diverge to $\pm \infty.$ One special case is if the sum of the dominances is exactly zero. This situation may appear to be a ``perfect match,'' where one player is exactly as dominant as the other is submissive. We have shown that
in this situation the system will diverge either to $(\infty,\infty)$ or $(-\infty,-\infty)$, depending on the initial conditions. The $(\infty,\infty)$ case actually seems to represent ``too perfect'' of a match.
We have also seen that the system can diverge in various ways, including both players going to $\infty$, both going to $-\infty$, one going to $\infty$ and the other going to $-\infty$, and both alternating between $\infty$ and $-\infty.$ In general the system is not robust to changes in the initial conditions. If $A(0)$ exceeds $B(0)$ by a small amount $\epsilon$, the system may behave drastically differently than if $B(0)$ exceeds $A(0)$ by $\epsilon.$
While our model is motivated by social or romantic relationships, it can also be applied to professional or business relationships as well as diplomatic relationships between nations. In all of these settings it is natural to assume that one party will obtain more ``power'' if the other ``likes'' or is reliant on them more. The model could also apply to certain biological interactions between organisms and between automated agents or robots.
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Ablations}
In this section we ablate the various architectural choices of RigNeRF.
\begin{itemize}
\item{RigNeRF-Config A uses the most straightforward way to condition \(D\) on the 3DMM expression and pose parameters, \(\{\beta_{\text{exp}}, \beta_{\text{pose}}\}\), by providing them as input to \(D\). It does \textit{not} use a 3DMM conditioned appearance.}
\item{RigNeRF-Config B tries to solve the overfitting of RigNeRF-Config A by using the 3DMM-deformation as input instead of the 3DMM expression and pose parameters. It does \textit{not} use a 3DMM conditioned appearance.}
\item{RigNeRF-Config C uses the 3DMM-deformation as input and \textit{uses} a 3DMM-conditioned appearance, this is the final model used in the paper.}
\end{itemize}
\noindent A schema of all the configurations can be found in \fig{model-configs}. We show quantitative evaluations on the held-out test set in \tab{aba}. As can be seen, removing the 3DMM-parameters as input to \(D\) (Config A \(\rightarrow\) Config B) improves results, especially in terms of LPIPS and FaceMSE. Similarly, conditioning the appearance on 3DMM-parameters (Config B \(\rightarrow\) Config C), further improves these metrics. In \fig{aba-qual}, we show an example demonstrating poor generalization of Config A. Looking at both the final render generated by Config A and its depth, we see that it generalizes poorly to this novel head-pose. In contrast, the final model using Config C generalizes well to this novel headpose.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{@{}llll@{}}
\toprule
Method & PSNR (\(\uparrow\)) & LPIPS (\(\downarrow\)) & FaceMSE (\(\downarrow\)) \\ \midrule
RigNeRF\xspace-Config A & 28.5 & 0.183 & 1.5e-4 \\
RigNeRF\xspace-Config B & 29.0 & 0.161 & 1.3e-4 \\
RigNeRF\xspace-Config C & 29.45 & 0.119 & 9.8e-5 \\ \bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Ablation for model architecture.}
\label{tab:aba}
\end{table}
\begin{figure*}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{sec/Figures/ExpPoseAba.pdf}
\caption{{\textbf{Qualitative comparison between RigNeRF\xspace (Config A) and RigNeRF\xspace (Config C)}
}}
\label{fig:aba-qual}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{sec/Figures/ModelConfigs.pdf}
\caption{{\textbf{The various model configurations of RigNeRF\xspace}
}}
\label{fig:model-configs}
\end{figure*}
\section{FOMM Qualitative Results}
In \fig{fomm_comp}, we show a qualitative comparison between RigNeRF\xspace and FOMM \cite{siarohin2020first} as they're reanimated. We see that FOMM \cite{siarohin2020first} is unable to model the large deformations due to head-pose and facial expressions while RigNeRF\xspace is able to do so with high-fidelity.
\begin{figure*}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{sec/Figures/FOMM_comp_compressed.pdf}
\caption{{\textbf{Qualitative comparison to FOMM \cite{siarohin2020first}} Here we reanimate RigNeRF\xspace and FOMM \cite{siarohin2020first} using facial expression and head-pose derived from source images (top-row). The first row is the source image from which we transfer the facial expressions and head-pose, the second row shows the results of RigNeRF\xspace while the third row shows the results of FOMM \cite{siarohin2020first}. We observe that FOMM generates significant artefatcs while RigNeRF\xspace is able to reanimate the subject with high fidelity to the source facial expressions and head-pose.
}}
\label{fig:fomm_comp}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{sec/Figures/PitchExtrapolation-compressed.pdf}
\vspace{-0.8cm}
\caption{\footnotesize{{\textbf{Extrapolation} At the bottom we show a histogram of the pitch of the training data. In the top row we show reanimation results at pitch values sampled at the \textcolor{boldblue}{\textbf{bold blue lines.}} In \textcolor{boldgreen}{\textbf{green}} we show the closest training pitch to each image.
}}}
\label{fig:pitch-extra}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\small
\scalebox{0.7}{
\begin{tabular}{p{15mm}p{12mm}p{12mm}p{12mm}p{12mm}p{12mm}p{12mm}}
\toprule
\multicolumn{7}{c}{\textbf{Head Yaw Generalization}} \\%& \multicolumn{3}{c}{\emph{S1}} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\emph{S2}} \\ %
\midrule
\(\Delta\)Angle & -15.0 & -10.0 & -5.0
& 5.0 & 10.0 & 15.0\\
\midrule
\textbf{LPIPS} (\(\downarrow\)) &
0.174 & 0.156 & 0.131 &
0.112 & 0.140 & 0.183
\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Head Yaw (\(\Delta\)Angle to closest train yaw)}
\label{tab:Yaw}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\small
\scalebox{0.8}{
\begin{tabular}{p{16mm}p{16mm}p{16mm}p{16mm}p{16mm}}
\toprule
\multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{ Head Pitch Generalization}} \\%& \multicolumn{3}{c}{\emph{S1}} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\emph{S2}} \\ %
\midrule
\(\Delta\)Angle & 0.0 & 5.0 & 10.0 & 15.0\\
\midrule
\textbf{LPIPS} (\(\downarrow\)) &
0.100 & 0.111 & 0.125 &
0.163
\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Head Pitch (\(\Delta\)Angle to closest train pitch)}
\label{tab:Pitch}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\small
\scalebox{0.8}{
\begin{tabular}{p{16mm}p{16mm}p{16mm}p{16mm}p{16mm}}
\toprule
\multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Jaw Pose Genralization}} \\%& \multicolumn{3}{c}{\emph{S1}} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\emph{S2}} \\ %
\midrule
\(\Delta\)Angle & 0.0 & 10.0 & 15.0 & 20.0\\
\midrule
\textbf{LPIPS} (\(\downarrow\)) &
0.110 & 0.115 & 0.120 &
0.125
\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Jaw Pose (\(\Delta\)Angle to closest train jaw-pose)}
\label{tab:jawpose}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\small
\scalebox{0.8}{
\begin{tabular}{p{16mm}p{16mm}p{16mm}p{16mm}p{16mm}}
\toprule
\multicolumn{5}{c}{\textbf{Expression Generalization}} \\%& \multicolumn{3}{c}{\emph{S1}} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\emph{S2}} \\ %
\midrule
L2 & 0.001 & 0.010 & 0.100 & 0.340\\
\midrule
\textbf{LPIPS} (\(\downarrow\)) &
0.09 & 0.113 & 0.121 &
0.152
\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\caption{Expression Generalization (L2 to closest expression)}
\label{tab:exp}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\section{Generalization to Novel pose and expression}
In \fig{pitch-extra}, we show qualitative results of extrapolation of pitch outside the training data. In \tab{Yaw} and \tab{Pitch}, we show quantitative evaluations of extrapolation in head-pose yaw and pitch angles by measuring the perceptual distance to the closest frame. In \tab{jawpose} and \tab{exp}, we show results on jaw-pose and expression extrapolation. We will add this analysis to the paper. Additionally, we would like to note that Figs. 1, 4, 5 6 and 7 of the paper all show the results of reanimation on both novel head-poses and facial expressions.
\section{Experimental Details}
All our models were trained on 4 V100 GPUs using 128 samples per ray and a batch-size of 1550 rays. For all methods, we use 10 frequencies to encode the position of a point and 4 frequencies to encode the direction of the ray as input to \(F\). For RigNeRF\xspace and HyperNeRF, we use 10 frequencies to encode the position of a point as input to \(D\). We also use a coarse-to-fine regularization on the positional encoding of the position input to \(D\) for 40k epochs. For the ambient dimensions used in HyperNeRF \cite{park2021hypernerf}, we follow the same annealing schedule as specified in the paper. The architecture of \(F\) is identical to the original NeRF MLP \cite{nerf} with 8 layers of 256 hidden units each. We use the same \(F\) for all our methods. \(D\) consists of 8 layers with 128 hidden units in each. We use the same architecture for \(D\) for both RigNeRF\xspace and HyperNeRF. We train RigNeRF\xspace and NerFACE with an initial learning rate of \(5e^{-4}\) which is decayed to \(5e^{-5}\) by the end of training. For HyperNeRF \cite{park2021hypernerf}, we use an initial learning rate of \(1e^{-3}\) which is decayed to \(1e^{-4}\) by the end of training. Details about the training epochs and the dimensionality of the appearance and deformation codes used is given in \tab{model-details}
\begin{table*}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{@{}lllll@{}}
\toprule
Subject &Method & Epochs Trained & App Code dim & Def Code dim \\ \midrule
Subject 1 &RigNeRF\xspace &150000 & 8 & 8 \\
&HyperNeRF & 150000 & 8 & 64 \\
&NerFACE & 150000 & 32 & N/A \\ \bottomrule
Subject 2 &RigNeRF\xspace &150000 & 8 & 8 \\
&HyperNeRF & 150000 & 8 & 64 \\
&NerFACE & 150000 & 32 & N/A \\ \bottomrule
Subject 3 &RigNeRF\xspace &100000 & 8 & 8 \\
&HyperNeRF & 100000 & 8 & 64 \\
&NerFACE & 100000 & 32 & N/A \\ \bottomrule
Subject 4 &RigNeRF\xspace &100000 & 8 & 8 \\
&HyperNeRF & 100000 & 8 & 64 \\
&NerFACE & 100000 & 32 & N/A \\ \bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Training configuration for all the experiments.}
\label{tab:model-details}
\end{table*}
\section{Societal Impact}
Being a method that is capable of reanimating faces, RigNeRF\xspace is prone to misuse by bad actors to generate deep-fakes. However, work such as \cite{wang2019cnngenerated} has shown that it is possible to train discriminative classifiers to detect images and videos generated by synthetic methods like ours. Other possible solution include watermarking training images \cite{yu2021artificial} so that they can be more easily detected.
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Photo-realistic editing of human portraits is a long-standing topic in the computer graphics and computer vision community. It is desirable to be able to control certain attributes of a portrait, such as 3D viewpoint, lighting, head pose, and even facial expression, after capturing. It also has great potential in AR/VR applications where a 3D immersive experience is valuable. However, it is a challenging task:
modeling and rendering a realistic human portrait with complete control over 3D viewpoint, facial expressions, and head pose in natural scenes remains elusive, despite the longtime interest and recently increased research.
3D Morphable Face Models (3DMMs) \cite{blanz1999morphable} were among the earliest attempts towards a fully controllable 3D human head model. 3DMMs use a PCA-based linear subspace to control face shape, facial expressions, and appearance independently. A face model of desired properties can be rendered in any view using standard graphics-based rendering techniques such as rasterization or ray-tracing. However, directly rendering 3DMMs \cite{blanz1999morphable}, which only models face region, is not ideal for photo-realistic applications as its lacks essential elements of the human head such as hair, skin details, and accessories such as glasses. Therefore, it is better employed as an intermediate 3D representation \cite{dnr, Kim2018DeepVP, tewari2020stylerig}
due to its natural disentanglement of face attributes such as shape, texture, and expression, which makes 3DMMs an appealing representation for gaining control of face synthesis.
On the other hand, recent advances on neural rendering and novel view synthesis~\cite{nerf,nerfies,NerFACE, SRF, NeuralSceneFlow,DNeRF, kaizhang2020, Gao-portraitnerf,Liu-2020-NSV, Zhang-2020-NAA,Bemana-2020-XIN,Martin-2020-NIT,xian2020space}
have demonstrated impressive image-based rendering of complex scenes and objects. Despite that, existing works are unable to simultaneously generate high quality novel views of a given natural scene and control the objects within it, including that of the human face and its various attributes. In this work, we would like to introduce a system to model a fully controllable portrait scene: with camera view control, head pose control, as well as facial expression control.
Control of head-pose and facial expressions can be enabled in NeRFs via a deformation module as done in \cite{DNeRF, nerfies, park2021hypernerf}. However, since those deformations are learnt in a latent space, they cannot be explicitly controlled. A natural way add control to head-pose and facial expressions, via deformations, is by parameterizing the deformation field using the 3DMM head-pose and facial expression space.
However, as shown in \fig{Hypernerfpp_comp}, such naive implementation of a deformation field leads to artefacts during the reanimation due to the loss of rigidity and incorrect modelling of facial expressions.
To address these issue, we introduce RigNeRF\xspace, a method that leverages a 3DMM to generate a coarse deformation field which is then refined by corrective residual predicted by an MLP to account for the non-rigid dynamics, hair and accessories. Beyond giving us a controllable deformation field, the 3DMM acts as an inductive bias allowing our network to generalize to \emph{novel} head poses and expressions that were not observed in the input video.
Our model is designed to be trained on a short video captured using a mobile device. Once trained, RigNeRF\xspace allows for explicit control of head pose, facial expression and camera viewpoint. Our results capture rich details of the scene along with details of the human head such as the hair, beard, teeth and accessories. Videos reanimated using our method maintain high fidelity to both the driving morphable model in terms of facial expression and head-pose and the original captured scene and human head.
In summary, our contributions in this paper are as follows: 1) We propose a neural radiance field capable of full control of the human head along with simultaneously modelling the full 3D scene it is in. 2) We experimentally demonstrate the loss of rigidity when dynamic neural radiance fields are reanimated. 3) We introduce a deformation prior that ensures rigidity of the human head during reanimation thus significantly improves its quality.
\section{Related works}
RigNeRF\xspace is a method for full control of head pose, facial expressions, and novel view synthesis of 3D portrait scene. It is closely related to recent work on neural rendering, novel view synthesis, 3D face modeling, and controllable face generation.
\paragraph{Neural Scene Representations and Novel View Synthesis} RigNeRF\xspace is related to recent work in neural rendering and novel view synthesis \cite{nerf,park2021hypernerf,nerfies,NerFACE, IDR, SRF, lassner2020pulsar, lombardi2021mixture, NeuralSceneFlow,DNeRF, SVS, kaizhang2020, unisurf, Gao-portraitnerf,sitzmann2019scene,Liu-2020-NSV, Zhang-2020-NAA,Bemana-2020-XIN,Martin-2020-NIT,xian2020space, Wizadwongsa2021NeX}. Neural Radiance Fields (NeRF) use a Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP), \(F\), to learn a volumetric representation of a scene. For every 3D point and the direction from which the point is being viewed, \(F\) predicts its color and volume density. For any given camera pose, \(F\) is first evaluated densely enough throughout the scene using hierarchical volume sampling \cite{nerf}, then volume rendering is used to render the final image. \(F\) is trained by minimizing the error between the predicted color of a pixel and its ground truth value. While NeRFs are able to generate photo-realistic images for novel view synthesis, it is only designed for a static scene and is unable to represent scene dynamics. Specifically designed for dynamic portrait video synthesis, our approach not only models the dynamics of human faces, but also allows specific controls on the facial animation.
\paragraph{Dynamic Neural Scene Representations} Although NeRF~\cite{nerf} is designed for a static scene, several works have attempted to extend it to model dynamic objects or scene. There is a line of work \cite{NeuralSceneFlow, li2021neural, DNeRF, xian2020space} that extend NeRF to dynamic scenes by providing as input a time component and along with it imposing temporal constraints either by using scene flow \cite{NeuralSceneFlow, xian2020space} or by using a canonical frame \cite{DNeRF}. Similarly, Nerfies \cite{nerfies} too work with dynamic scenes by mapping to a canonical frame, however it assumes that the movement is small. In \cite{park2021hypernerf}, authors build upon \cite{nerfies} and use an ambient dimension in order to model topological changes in the deformation field. The deformation fields in these approaches are conditioned on learnt latent codes without specific physical or semantic meaning, and therefore not controllable in an intuitive manner. RigNeRF\xspace, similar to \cite{park2021hypernerf, nerfies}, models the portrait video by mapping to a canonical frame but in addition also enables full parameterized control of head pose and facial expression.
\paragraph{Controllable Face Generation}
Recent breakthroughs in Generative Adversarial Networks(GANs)\cite{goodfellow2014generative, pix2pix2016, CycleGAN2017, StyleGAN, Karras-2019-ASB, Karras-2020-AAI} have enabled high-quality image generation and manipulation. They also inspired a large collection of work \cite{shu2018deforming, NeuralFace2017, athar2020self, pumarola2020ganimation, StarGAN2018, starganv2, tewari2020stylerig, tewari2020pie, deng2020disentangled, kowalski2020config} focusing on face image manipulation and editing. However, majority of these work are intrinsically image-based and lack explicit 3D representation. Therefore it is challenging to enable high-quality view synthesis and 3D controls of the portraits such as large pose changes or extreme facial expressions. Another line of work \cite{Kim-2018-DVP, Doukas2021Head2HeadDF, head2head2020, facedet3d} made use of 3D Morphable Model as intermediate 3D face representation to reanimate face images/videos. While being able to model head poses with great detail, thanks to the disentangled representation in 3DMM, they often unable to perform novel view synthesis as they focus on face region but neglect the geometry or appearance of the scene. Similarly, NerFACE\cite{NerFACE} uses neural radiance fields to model a 4D face avatar and allows pose/expression control on the head. However, they assume a static background and fixed camera, thus cannot perform view synthesis of the person or the scene. In contrast, our method RigNeRF\xspace provides full control over the head pose and facial expressions of the person captured in the portrait video while simultaneously being able to synthesize novel views of the 3D portrait scene.
\paragraph{Hybrid Representations} The photorealism of volumetric and implicit representations have encouraged works that combine them with classical representations in order improve reconstruction \cite{chatziagapi2021sider} or lend control over foreground \cite{gafni2020dynamic, liu2021neural, peng2021animatable}. In \cite{liu2021neural}, authors learn a deformation field along with a texture mapping to reanimate human bodies. Similarly, \cite{peng2021animatable} learns a 3D skinning field to accurately deform points according to the target pose. Neither \cite{liu2021neural} nor \cite{peng2021animatable} model the full 3D scene. In contrast, RigNeRF\xspace models the whole 3D scene with full control of head-pose, facial expressions and viewing directions.
\section{Limitations and Conclusion}
Our method has certain limitations. First, it is subject specific and trains an individual model for each scene. Due to the need to capture sufficient expression and head-pose variations for training, out method currently requires a training sequences ranging from 40-70 seconds. Additionally, like all other NeRF-based methods, the quality of camera-registration affects the quality of the results.
Being a method that allows photorealistic facial reanimation, RigNeRF\xspace may have potentially negative societal impact if misused. We discuss this further in the supplementary.
In conclusion, we present RigNeRF\xspace, a volumetric neural rendering model for fully controllable human portraits. Once trained, it allows full control of head-pose, facial expression, and viewing direction. In order to ensure generalization to novel head-pose and facial expression we use 3DMM-guided deformation field.
This deformation field allows us to effectively model and control both the rigid deformations caused by head-pose change and non-rigid deformations of changes in facial expressions. Training with a short portrait video, RigNeRF\xspace enables applications includes image-based face reanimation, portrait novel-view synthesis, and 3DMM-based control of 3D portraits.
\section{Results}
\begin{figure*}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{sec/Figures/Fig_all_drive-compressed.pdf}
\caption{{\textbf{Qualitative comparison by reanimation with novel facial expression, head-pose, and camera view parameters.} Here we reanimate RigNeRF\xspace, HyperNeRF \cite{park2021hypernerf} and NerFACE \cite{gafni2020dynamic} using facial expression and head-pose derived from source images (top-row). We observe that while HyperNeRF~\cite{park2021hypernerf} is able to generate realistic looking images of a portrait, it is unable to control head pose or facial expression in the result. %
On the other hand, NerFACE\cite{gafni2020dynamic} attempts to render the correct pose and expression, but is unable to generate plausible face regions. Since, NerFACE \cite{gafni2020dynamic} lacks an explicit deformation module it is unable to model deformation due to head-pose and facial expression changes.
In contrast, our approach RigNeRF\xspace can effectively control the head pose, facial expression, and camera view, generating high quality facial appearance.
}}
\label{fig:view_exp}
\end{figure*}
\input{sec/table}
\begin{figure*}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{sec/Figures/Full_model_capability.pdf}
\caption{{Applications of \textbf{RigNeRF\xspace}. RigNeRF\xspace allows for full control head-pose, facial expressions and viewing direction of 3D portrait scenes. This enables application like (a) Image-driven Reanimation, (b) Novel View Synthesis and (c) 3DMM-based control of 3D Portraits. In (a)-top row, we show images of ``driving sequences'' from which we extract pose and expression parameters; the results from 4 subjects are shown in (a)-bottom where we synthesize realistic portrait frames that closely matches the driving pose and expression. We show in (b) a set of view synthesis results where we fix the head pose and facial expression, rendering results with varying camera positions, in which we show high-quality results with dramatic view changes. In (c), we demonstrate the application of controlling the portrait appearance with explicit 3DMM parameters. Within each row, (c)-column 1 and (c)-column 2 have the same pose but different expressions; (c)-column 2 and (c)-column 3 have the different poses but share the same expression. The inset shows the input 3DMM pose and expression, both of which are faithfully rendered in the corresponding results. Please find more results in the supplemental document and video.
}}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\label{fig:all_control}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{sec/Figures/HyperNerfpp_comp.pdf}
\caption{{\textbf{A qualitative comparison between RigNeRF\xspace and HyperNeRF+E/P.} Here we show a qualitative comparison between RigNeRF\xspace and HyperNeRF+E/P when reanimated using source images. We see that HyperNeRF+E/P generates many artefacts during reanimation due to its inability to model deformations correctly. In constrast, RigNeRF\xspace generates realistic reanimations with high fidelity to both the head-pose and facial expressions.
}}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\label{fig:Hypernerfpp_comp}
\end{figure}
In this section, we show results of head-pose control, facial expression control, and novel view synthesis using RigNeRF\xspace. For each scene, the model is trained on a short portrait video captured using a consumer smartphone.
\paragraph{Baseline approaches} To the best of our knowledge, RigNeRF\xspace is the first method that enables dynamic control of head-pose, facial expressions along with the ability to synthesize novel views of full portrait scenes. Thus, there is no existing work for an apple-to-apple comparison. We qualitatively and quantitatively compare our method to three other methods that perform closely related tasks: (1) HyperNeRF \cite{park2021hypernerf}: a state-of-the-art method using NeRFs for novel view synthesis of dynamic portrait scenes, \textit{without} any control (2) NerFACE \cite{gafni2020dynamic}, a state-of-the-art method using NeRF for face dynamics control \textit{without} modeling camera viewpoint and the entire scene, and (3) First Order Motion Model (FOMM) \cite{siarohin2020first}, a general-purpose image reanimation pipeline.
When generating renanimation videos, RigNeRF\xspace, HyperNeRF \cite{park2021hypernerf} and NerFACE \cite{gafni2020dynamic} require an appearance code for rendering; we use the appearance code of the first frame here. Similarly, RigNeRF\xspace and Nerfies \cite{nerfies} require a deformation code and we use the deformation code from the first frame. Full videos of the reanimation can be found in the supplementary material. We strongly urge the readers to refer to the videos to evaluate the quality of the results. %
\paragraph{Training Data Capture and Training details} The training and validation data was captured using an iPhone XR or iPhone 12 for all the experiments in the paper. In the first half of the capture, we ask the subject to enact a wide range of expressions and speech while trying to keep their head still as the camera is panned around them. In the next half, the camera is fixed at head-level and the subject is asked to rotate their head as they enact a wide range of expressions. Camera parameters are calculated using COLMAP \cite{Schonberger-2016-SFM}. We calculate the expression and shape parameters of each frame in the videos using DECA \cite{DECA} and further optimize them using via standard landmark fitting using the landmarks predicted by \cite{3DDFA_V2} and camera parameters given by COLMAP \cite{Schonberger-2016-SFM}. All training videos are between 40-70 seconds long (\(\sim\) 1200-2100 frames)%
. Due to compute restrictions, the video is down-sampled and the models are trained at 256x256 resolution. We use coarse-to-fine and vertex deformation regularization \cite{nerfies} to train the deformation network \(D(\mathbf{x}, \omega_{i})\). Please find full details of each experiment in the supplementary.
\vspace{-0.1cm}
\subsection{Evaluation on Test Data}
\label{sect:eval_data}
We evaluate RigNeRF\xspace, HyperNeRF \cite{park2021hypernerf}, NerFACE \cite{gafni2020dynamic} and FOMM \cite{siarohin2020first} on held out images on the captured video sequences. We use the camera view, pose and expression parameters of these images.
Since RigNeRF\xspace and HyperNeRF \cite{park2021hypernerf} use a per-frame deformation \(\omega_{i}\), we can't use the first frame (which is what we use as default for reanimation) to perform a direct comparison with the ground truth image as it may have a different deformation to the canonical space than the first frame. Therefore, we first optimize for the deformation code, \(\omega_{v}\), of a given validation image by minimizing rendering error wrt that frame as follows:
\begin{equation}
\omega_{v} = \underset{\omega}{\text{min}} || C_{p}(\omega; {\mathbf{x}}, \mathbf{d}, \theta, \phi_{0}, \beta_{\text{i,exp}}, \beta_{\text{i,pose}}) - C_{p}^{GT} ||
\label{eq:def_opt}
\end{equation}
where, \(C_{p}(\omega; {\mathbf{x}}, \mathbf{d}, \theta, \phi_{0})\) is the predicted color at pixel \(p\) generated using \eq{rig_nerf} and volume-rendering , \(\phi_{0}\) is the appearance code of the first frame, \(\theta\) are the parameters of \(F\) as defined in \eq{rig_nerf} and \(C_{p}^{GT}\) is the ground-truth pixel value. Note, we \textit{only} optimize \(\omega\), all other parameters of the radiance field are kept fixed. We optimize \eq{def_opt} for 200 epochs which we observe to be more than enough to find the loss plateau. Once the optimization finishes, we report the final MSE, PSNR, LPIPS and Face MSE i.e the MSE only over the face region.
We use no such optimization with NerFACE \cite{gafni2020dynamic} since it does not have a deformation module and on FOMM \cite{siarohin2020first} since it is a image-based method.
As can be seen in \tab{Subjects_metrics}, our method outperforms HyperNeRF \cite{park2021hypernerf}, NerFACE \cite{gafni2020dynamic} and FOMM \cite{siarohin2020first} on held-out test images. RigNeRF\xspace, HyperNeRF \cite{park2021hypernerf} and NerFACE \cite{gafni2020dynamic} are trained on dynamic portrait videos with changing head-pose and facial expressions, HyperNeRF \cite{park2021hypernerf}, lacking any head-pose and facial expression control, is unable to generate the head-poses and facial expressions seen in the held-out test set. Even as we optimized the deformation code of HyperNeRF \cite{park2021hypernerf}, we found it hard to fit the unseen test images. NerFACE \cite{gafni2020dynamic}, on the other hand, lacking a deformation module, therefore is unable to model the dynamism of head-pose changes solely by concatenating pose and expression parameters as input the NeRF MLP. As a result, NerFACE \cite{gafni2020dynamic} generates significant artefacts on the face regions (see the third row of \fig{view_exp}(a) and \fig{view_exp}(b)). FOMM \cite{siarohin2020first}, being an image based method, is unable to model novel views. Qualitative results of FOMM \cite{siarohin2020first} can be found in the supplementary. In contrast to other methods, RigNeRF\xspace, thanks to the use of a 3DMM-guided deformation module, is able to model head-pose, facial expressions and the full 3D portrait scene with high fidelity, thus giving better reconstructions with sharp details.
\subsection{Reanimation with pose and expression control}
\label{sect:reanim}
In this section we show results of reanimating a portrait video using both RigNeRF\xspace, HyperNeRF \cite{park2021hypernerf} and NerFACE \cite{gafni2020dynamic} using expression and head-pose parameters as the driving parameters. Per-frame expression and head-pose parameters from the driving video are extracted using DECA \cite{DECA}+Landmark fitting \cite{3DDFA_V2} and are given as input to RigNeRF\xspace in \eq{rignerfcanmap} and \eq{rig_nerf}.
Since HyperNeRF \cite{park2021hypernerf} does not take as input head-pose or expression parameters, it's forward pass remains unchanged.
First, in \fig{view_exp}(a) we show the results of changing head-pose and expression using a driving video while keeping view constant. As one can see, RigNeRF\xspace captures the driving head-pose and facial expressions with high fidelity without compromising the reconstruction of the entire 3D scene. In contrast, we see that HyperNeRF \cite{park2021hypernerf} is unable to change facial expressions or head-pose due to the lack of controls, while NerFACE \cite{gafni2020dynamic} generates significant artefacts on the face, especially when head-pose is changed. In \fig{view_exp}(b), we show the results of \textit{novel view synthesis along with changing head-pose and facial expressions}. Again, we see that RigNeRF\xspace reanimates the subject with the accurate head-pose and facial expressions \textit{and is able to do so regardless of viewing direction} and without compromising the reconstruction of the background 3D scene. Again, HyperNeRF is unable to change the head-pose and facial expressions due to the aforementioned reason while NerFACE \cite{gafni2020dynamic} generates significant artefacts during reanimation.
In \fig{all_control}, we show more qualitative results of RigNeRF\xspace. We use three different applications of RigNeRF\xspace to demonstrate its flexibility and full controllability of a portrait scene. In \fig{all_control}-(a), we show additional results of image-driven animation. The result frames (\fig{all_control}-(a)-bottom) closely reproduce the head pose and facial expression shown in the driving frames (\fig{all_control}-(a)-top). In \fig{all_control}-(b), we show results of varying camera views while fixing (an arbitrary) facial expression and head pose. We demonstrate robust view synthesis performance with dramatic view changes. In \fig{all_control}-(c), we show that RigNeRF\xspace can take user-specified 3DMM parameters as input to generate high-quality portrait images: each frame faithfully reproduces the face and expression provided by a set of 3DMM parameters shown in the inset.
\vspace{-0.1cm}
\subsection{Comparison with HyperNeRF+E/P}
\label{sect:hypernerfpp}
In this section we compare against HyperNeRF \cite{park2021hypernerf} with added pose and expression control, which we named HyperNeRF+E/P. The forward pass of this model is as follows
\begin{smequation}
\begin{split}
\mathbf{x}_{\text{can}} &= D(\pmb{\gamma}_{a}(\mathbf{x}), \beta_{\text{i,exp}}, \beta_{\text{i,pose}}, \omega_{i})\\
\textbf{w} &= H(\pmb{\gamma}_{l}(\mathbf{x}), \omega_{i})\\
\mathbf{c}(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{d}), \sigma(\mathbf{x}) &= F(\pmb{\gamma}_{c}(\mathbf{x}_{\text{can}}), \pmb{\gamma}_{d}(\mathbf{d}), \phi_{i}, \textbf{w} , \beta_{\text{i,exp}},\beta_{\text{i,pose}})
\end{split}
\end{smequation}
where, \(H\) is the ambient MLP and \(\textbf{w}\) are the ambient coordinates \cite{park2021hypernerf}.
In \tab{aba_metrics}, we show a quantitative comparison between RigNeRF\xspace and HyperNeRF+E/P. We see that RigNeRF\xspace is able to generate better reconstructions of the face and generates images that are perceptually closer to the ground truth, as measured by LPIPS \cite{zhang2018perceptual}, than those generated by HyperNeRF+E/P. In \fig{Hypernerfpp_comp} we show a qualitative comparison when both methods are reanimated using source images, where the head-pose and expression significantly differ from the training set. As can be seen, while HyperNeRF+E/P is able to turn the head, it is unable to do so rigidly (see row 3, column 2 and row 3, column 4 of \fig{Hypernerfpp_comp}). Further, it is also unable to model facial expressions accurately and generates artefacts on the face region. This further demonstrates the benefit of our 3DMM-guided deformation learning.
\input{sec/table_aba}
\section{RigNeRF\xspace}
\begin{figure*}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{sec/Figures/Method_v2.pdf}
\caption{{\textbf{Overview of RigNeRF\xspace.} RigNeRF\xspace is a deformable NeRF architecture that consists of two learnable MLPs: a deformation MLP \(D\) and a color MLP \(F\). Given an image, we shoot rays through each of its pixels.
For every ray, we deform each point on it according to a 3DMM-guided deformation field. This deformation field is the sum of the 3DMM deformation field (see \sect{3dmmdef}) and the residual predicted by the deformation MLP, \(D\). Next, the deformed point is given as input to the color MLP, \(F\), which additionally takes as input the pose and expression parameters \(\{\beta_{\text{exp}}, \beta_{\text{pose}}\}\), the viewing direction \(\mathbf{d}\) and an appearance embedding \(\phi\) to predict the color and density. The final color of the pixel is calculated via volume rendering.
}}
\label{fig:method}
\end{figure*}
In this section, we describe our method, RigNeRF\xspace, that enables novel view synthesis of 3D portrait scenes and arbitrary control of head pose and facial expressions. A Neural Radiance Field (NeRF) \cite{nerf} with a per-point deformation is used to control the head pose and facial expressions of the subject. The deformation field deforms the rays of each frame to a canonical space, defined by a the 3DMM in the frontal head-pose and neutral expression, where the colors are sampled. In order to model deformations due to both head-pose (a rigid deformation) and facial expressions (a non-rigid deformation) and to correctly deform facial details such as hair and glasses, the deformation field is defined as the sum of the 3DMM deformation field and a residual deformation predicted by a deformation MLP.
\subsection{Deformable Neural Radiance Fields}
A neural radiance field (NeRF) is defined as a continuous function \(F: \left(\pmb{\gamma}_{m}(\mathbf{x}), \pmb{\gamma}_{n}(\mathbf{d})\right) \rightarrow (\mathbf{c}(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{d}), \sigma(\mathbf{x}))\), that, given the position of a point in the scene \(\mathbf{x}\) and the direction it is being viewed in, \(\mathbf{d}\), outputs the color \(\mathbf{c} = (r,g,b)\) and the density \(\sigma\). \(F\) is usually represented as a multi-layer perceptron (MLP) and \(\pmb{\gamma}_{m}: \mathbb{R}^{3} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{3 + 6m}\) is the positional encoding \cite{nerf} defined as \(\pmb{\gamma}_{m}(\mathbf{x}) = (\mathbf{x},...,\text{sin}(2^{k}\mathbf{x}),\text{cos}(2^{k}\mathbf{x}),...)\) where \(m\) is the total number of frequency bands and \(k \in \{0,...,m-1\}\). The expected color of the pixel through which a camera ray
passes is calculated via volume rendering. The parameters of \(F\) are trained to minimize the L2 distance between the expected color and the ground-truth.
NeRFs, as defined above, are designed for static scenes and offer no control over the objects within the scene. In order to model a dynamic scene, NeRFs are extended by additionally learning a deformation field to map each 3D point of the scene to a canonical space, where the volumetric rendering takes place \cite{nerfies, DNeRF, park2021hypernerf}. The deformation field is also represented by an MLP \(D_{i}: \mathbf{x} \rightarrow \mathbf{x}_{\text{can}}\) where \(D_{i}\) is defined as \(D(\mathbf{x}, \omega_{i}) = \mathbf{x}_{\text{can}}\) and \(\omega_{i}\) is a per-frame latent deformation code. In addition to a deformation code, \(\omega_{i}\), a per-frame appearance code is also used \cite{nerfies, park2021hypernerf, DNeRF}, \(\phi_{i}\), thus the final radiance field for the \(i\)-th frame is as follows:
\begin{equation}
(\mathbf{c}(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{d}), \sigma(\mathbf{x})) = F\left(\pmb{\gamma}(D(\mathbf{x},\omega_{i})), \pmb{\gamma}(\mathbf{d}), \phi_{i}\right)
\label{eq:nerfie_def}
\end{equation}
In addition to the parameters of \(F\), each \(\omega_{i}\) and \(\phi_{i}\) are also optimized through stochastic gradient descent. While the aforementioned modifications are able generate novel views \cite{DNeRF, nerfies} of dynamic videos and handle small movement of objects in the scene \cite{nerfies}, the deformations they estimate are conditioned on learnt deformation codes that can be arbitrary. Instead, we seek intuitive deformation controls that explicitly disentangles and controls facial appearance based on camera viewpoint, head pose and expression.
\subsection{A 3DMM-guided deformation field}
\label{sect:3dmmdef}
RigNeRF\xspace enables novel view synthesis of dynamic portrait scene and arbitrary control of head pose and facial expressions. For each frame \(i\), we first extract its head-pose and expression parameters \(\{\beta_{i,\text{exp}}, \beta_{i,\text{pose}}\}\) using DECA \cite{DECA} and landmark fitting \cite{3DDFA_V2}. Next, we shoot rays through each pixel, \(p\), of the frame and deform each point on the ray, \(\mathbf{x}\), to a position in the canonical space, \(\mathbf{x}_{\text{can}} = (x',y',z')\), where its color is computed.
A natural way to parameterize this canonical space, and any deviations from it, is using 3DMMs \cite{blanz1999morphable,FLAME:SiggraphAsia2017}.
Thus, RigNeRF\xspace's canonical space is defined as the one where the head has zero head-pose and a neutral facial expression.
Unfortunately, a 3DMM is only defined accurately for a subset of points on the head---3DMM fitting is often not perfect and they do not model hair, glasses, etc.---and is undefined for point in the rest of 3D space.
Hence, a deformation MLP \(D_{i}: \mathbf{x} \rightarrow \mathbf{x}_{\text{can}}\) is still necessary to perform the transformation to the canonical space. However, as detailed in \sect{hypernerfpp}, we find that directly predicting the deformation to the canonical space gives rise to artefacts during reanimation. The artefacts arise due to the inability of \(D\) to 1) maintain the rigidity of the head and 2) to model facial expressions correctly.
\begin{figure}[h]
\hspace*{-0.6cm}
\includegraphics[width=1.\linewidth]{sec/Figures/Mesh-guided-Def-v2.pdf}
\caption{{\textbf{The 3DMM deformation field.} The 3DMM deformation field at any point in space, \(\mathbf{x}\), is equal to the deformation of its closest neighbor on the mesh, \(\hat{\mathbf{x}}\), weighted by the inverse of the exponential of the distance between \(\mathbf{x}\) and \(\hat{\mathbf{x}}\).
}}
\label{fig:meshdef}
\end{figure}
In order to fix this and ensure RigNeRF\xspace is able to handle both rigid deformations due to head-pose changes and non-rigid deformations due to changes in facial expressions, we use a deformation field prior derived using the 3DMM. For expression and head-pose parameters, \(\{\beta_{\text{exp}}, \beta_{\text{pose}}\}\), the value of the 3DMM deformation field at any point \(\mathbf{x} = (x,y,z)\) is:
\begin{smequation}
\text{3DMMDef}(\mathbf{x}, \beta_{\text{exp}}, \beta_{\text{pose}}) = \frac{\text{3DMMDef}(\hat{\mathbf{x}}, \beta_{\text{exp}}, \beta_{\text{pose}})}{\text{exp}(\text{DistToMesh}(\mathbf{x}))}
\end{smequation}
where, \(\text{3DMMDef}(\mathbf{x}) \) is the value of the 3DMM deformation field, \(\hat{\mathbf{x}} = (\hat{x},\hat{y},\hat{z})\) is the closest point to \((x,y,z)\) on the mesh and \(\text{DistToMesh} = ||\mathbf{x} - \hat{\mathbf{x}}||\) is the distance between \(\mathbf{x}\) and \(\hat{\mathbf{x}}\). The 3DMM deformation of any point on the mesh, \(\hat{\mathbf{x}}\), is given by the difference between its position in the canonical space (i.e when the mesh had a zero head-pose and neutral facial expression) and its current articulation, as follows:
\begin{smequation}
\text{3DMMDef}(\hat{\mathbf{x}},\beta_{\text{exp}}, \beta_{\text{pose}}) = \hat{\mathbf{x}}_{\text{FLAME}(\mathbf{0}, \mathbf{0})} - \hat{\mathbf{x}}_{\text{FLAME}(\beta_{\text{exp}}, \beta_{\text{pose}})}
\end{smequation}
where, \(\hat{\mathbf{x}}_{\text{FLAME}(\mathbf{0}, \mathbf{0})}\) is the position of \(\mathbf{x}\) in the canonical space and \(\hat{\mathbf{x}}_{\text{FLAME}(\beta_{\text{exp}}, \beta_{\text{pose}})}\) is its position with head pose and facial expression parameters \(\{\beta_{\text{exp}}, \beta_{\text{pose}}\}\).
The RigNeRF deformation field can now be defined as the sum of the 3DMM deformation field and the residual predicted by \(D\), as follows
\begin{smequation}
\begin{split}
\hat{D}(\mathbf{x}) &= \text{3DMMDef}(\mathbf{x}, \beta_{\text{i,exp}}, \beta_{\text{i,pose}}) \\
& + D(\pmb{\gamma}_{a}(\mathbf{x}), \pmb{\gamma}_{b}(\text{3DMMDef}(\mathbf{x}, \beta_{\text{i,exp}}, \beta_{\text{i,pose}})), \omega_{i})\\
\mathbf{x}_{\text{can}} = & \mathbf{x} + \hat{D}(\mathbf{x})
\end{split}
\label{eq:rignerfcanmap}
\end{smequation}
where, \(\hat{D}(\mathbf{x})\) is the value of the RigNeRF deformation field at \(\mathbf{x}\), \(\{\pmb{\gamma}_{a}, \pmb{\gamma}_{b}\}\) is the positional embedding on \(\mathbf{x}\) and \(\text{3DMMDef}(\mathbf{x},...)\) respectively and \(\omega_{i}\) is the deformation embedding for current frame. We use \(\omega_{i}\) to model deformations that cannot be accounted for by head-pose and expression changes.
Experimentally, we find that conditioning \(D\) directly on the expression and pose parameters, \(\{\beta_{\text{i,exp}}, \beta_{\text{i,pose}}\}\), leads to overfitting and poor generalization. This is likely due to the high dimensionality of the code (100), that makes it prone to overfitting. Instead, we condition \(D\) on the 3DMM deformation of the point \(\mathbf{x}\), \(\text{3DMMDef}(\mathbf{x}, \beta_{\text{i,exp}}, \beta_{\text{i,pose}})\). Since \(\text{3DMMDef}(\mathbf{x}, \beta_{\text{i,exp}}, \beta_{\text{i,pose}}) \in \mathbb{R}^{3}\), it is itself relatively low dimensional, and it can be pushed into higher dimensions by adjusting the number of frequencies of its positional embedding, \(\pmb{\gamma}_{b}\). We find that using \(b = 2\) frequencies in \(\pmb{\gamma}_{b}\) for the 3DMM deformation, \(\text{3DMMDef}(\mathbf{x}, \beta_{\text{i,exp}}, \beta_{\text{i,pose}})\), works the best. Additionally, we transform the all the points by the inverse of head-pose rotation. We do this so that the deformation networks acts on 3D points that are in a space where the head is roughly aligned across all frames.\footnote{We thank Reviewer 1 of CVPR 2022 for a similar suggestion.}
In \fig{depth-view}, we show renders of both the output of \(D\) and the RigNeRF deformation field, \(\hat{D}\), as described in \eq{rignerfcanmap}. In \fig{depth-view}(c), we see that \(D\) generates the accurate deformation around the glasses, which the 3DMM deformation cannot do, for both head-poses. In \fig{depth-view}(d), we see that the \(\hat{D}\) is only concentrated on the head as it should be.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{sec/Figures/Fig-Depth-renders.pdf}
\caption{{\textbf{Visualize learnt depth and deformation in RigNeRF\xspace.} Here we show the depth, the magnitude of the output of the Deformation MLP \(D\), and magnitude of the \(\hat{D}\) i.e the sum of the 3DMM Deformation and \(D\). In (b), we can see that despite large changes in head-pose, the depth remains consistent. Next, in (c), we see \(D\) generates a deformation around the glasses for both poses so that it can be accurately deformed along with the head. Finally, in the last column we see how \(\hat{D}\) is only concentrated on the head.
}}
\vspace{-3mm}
\label{fig:depth-view}
\end{figure}
\subsection{3DMM-conditioned Appearance}
In order to accurately model expression and head-pose based textures, such as teeth, we condition \(F\) on both expression and head-pose parameters and on features extracted from the penultimate layer of the deformation MLP \(D(\pmb{\gamma}_{a}(\mathbf{x}),...)\). We find that using these features as input improves the overall quality of the render, please check the supplementary for details. Thus, once a point \(\mathbf{x}\) has been deformed to its location in the canonical space, \(\mathbf{x}_{\text{can}}\), using \eq{rignerfcanmap}, its color is calculated as follows:
\begin{smequation}
\mathbf{c}(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{d}), \sigma(\mathbf{x}) = F(\pmb{\gamma}_{c}(\mathbf{x}_{\text{can}}), \pmb{\gamma}_{d}(\mathbf{d}), \phi_{i}, D_{F,i}(\mathbf{x}_{\text{can}}), \beta_{\text{i,exp}}, \beta_{\text{i,pose}})
\label{eq:rig_nerf}
\end{smequation}
where, \(\mathbf{d}\) is the viewing direction, \(\pmb{\gamma}_{c}, \pmb{\gamma}_{d}\) is the positional embedding on \(\mathbf{x}_{\text{can}}\) and \(\mathbf{d}\), and \(D_{F,i}(\mathbf{x}_{\text{can}})\) are features from the penultimate layer of the deformation MLP \(D(\pmb{\gamma}_{a}(\mathbf{x}),...)\). The pixel color for \(p\) is then calculated using volume rendering and parameters of RigNeRF\xspace are minimized w.r.t to the ground truth color of \(p\). The full architecture is shown in \fig{method}.
|
\section{Introduction} \label{sec-intro}
If $G=(V,E)$ is a finite graph,
a {\bf trimer} on $G$ is a three-element subset of $V$
whose induced subgraph in $G$ is connected,
and a {\bf trimer cover} is a partition of $V$ into trimers.
Solving the trimer model for $G$
means counting the possible trimer covers.
Physicists have studied the asymptotics of
the trimer model on the triangular lattice
and obtained formulas for the entropy in various regimes
(see e.g.\ [VeNi]).
These results can be seen as analogous to
formulas for the entropy of dimer models
on various kinds of finite graphs;
the original dimer results, due to
Temperley and Fisher [TeFi] and Kasteleyn [Kast],
were proved using the determinant method,
while other approaches were used
in more recent work such as [EKLP].
These rigorously proved exact formulas
have no counterpart in the literature on trimers.
Here I introduce finite subgraphs of the triangular lattice
that should interest enumerative combinatorialists
inasmuch as the number of trimer covers
appears to be given by exact formulas in many cases.
This is a companion to the talk I gave at
the Open Problems in Algebraic Combinatorics conference on May 18, 2022;
the slides and video can be accessed through the conference website at
\url{http://www.samuelfhopkins.com/OPAC/opac.html}.
Consider the complex plane tiled by unit hexagonal cells
centered at 1, $\omega$, and $\omega^2$
(here and hereafter $\omega$ always denotes a primitive 3rd root of unity);
the cell centered at $\alpha$
has corners at $\alpha \pm 1$, $\alpha \pm \omega$, and $\alpha \pm \omega^2$.
Given positive integers $a,b$ satisfying
$2 \leq a \leq 2b$ and $2 \leq b \leq 2a$,
we define the $\boldsymbol{a,b}$ {\bf benzel} as the union of the cells
that lie fully inside the hexagon with vertices
$a\omega+b$, $-a\omega^2-b$,
$a\omega^2+b\omega$, $-a-b\omega$,
$a+b\omega^2$, and $-a\omega-b\omega^2$
(a hexagon centered at 0 with three-fold rotational symmetry
whose side-lengths alternate between $2a-b$ and $2b-a$,
degenerating to a triangle when $a=2b$ or $b=2a$),
as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:one-benzel} for $a=4$, $b=6$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=5.6in]{one-benzel.jpg}
\end{center}
\caption{The 4,6 benzel and its enclosing hexagon.}
\label{fig:one-benzel}
\end{figure}
Here is an alternative description in terms of the centers of the cells
using barycentric coordinates
relative to the triangle with vertices 1, $\omega$, and $\omega^2$.
Each cell's center point $\alpha$ belongs to $\mathbb{Z}[\omega]$
and can be represented by the unique $(i,j,k) \in \mathbb{Z}^3$
satisfying $i+j\omega+k\omega^2=\alpha$ and $i+j+k=1$
(here and hereafter $i$ never denotes a primitive 4th root of unity).
Then the $a,b$ benzel consists of those cells
whose centers $(i,j,k)$ satisfy
$-(a\!-\!1) \leq j\!-\!i,k\!-\!j,i\!-\!k \leq b\!-\!1$.
Figure~\ref{fig:barycentric} shows the 4,6 benzel with its cells marked with
the barycentric coordinates of their respective center points.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=4.0in]{barycentric.jpg}
\end{center}
\caption{Barycentric coordinates for the cells of the 4,6 benzel.}
\label{fig:barycentric}
\end{figure}
Let $V = \{(i,j,k) \in \mathbb{Z}^3 \ : \ i+j+k=1,
\ -(a\!-\!1) \leq j\!-\!i,k\!-\!j,i\!-\!k \leq b\!-\!1\}$.
Given $(i_1,j_1,k_1)$ and $(i_2,j_2,k_2)$ in $V$,
join $(i_1,j_1,k_1)$ and $(i_2,j_2,k_2)$ by an edge
when $|i_1\!-\!i_2|+|j_1\!-\!j_2|+|k_1\!-\!k_2|=2$
(that is, when the unit hexagons centered on those two vertices share an edge).
This is the $\boldsymbol{a,b}$ {\bf benzel graph}.
The $a,b$ benzel has three-fold rotational symmetry
but for most $a,b$ it does not have bilateral symmetry.
Exchanging $a$ and $b$ corresponds to reflecting the benzel
across a horizontal axis (or if one prefers across an axis
making a 60 degree angle with the horizontal axis).
We consider tilings of the $a,b$ benzel
by way of five sorts of prototiles, which we may translate but not rotate.
These prototiles (shown in Figure~\ref{fig:prototiles}) are
the {\bf right(-pointing) stone}, the {\bf left(-pointing) stone},
the {\bf vertical bone}, the {\bf rising bone}, and the {\bf falling bone}.
The right stone is a benzel
(specifically, the 2,2 benzel) but the left stone is not.
Dually we form spanning subgraphs of the $a,b$ benzel graph
whose connected components all consist of three vertices.
Figure~\ref{fig:sample-tiling} shows a tiling of the 9,9 benzel
and the associated trimer cover of the 9,9 benzel graph.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=5.0in]{prototiles.jpg}
\end{center}
\caption{The five prototiles: the right stone, the left stone,
the vertical bone, the rising bone, and the falling bone.}
\label{fig:prototiles}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{sample-tiling.jpg}
\end{center}
\caption{The 9,9 benzel tiled by stones and bones
and the associated trimer cover of the benzel graph.}
\label{fig:sample-tiling}
\end{figure}
Conway and Lagarias studied such tilings
(calling stones and bones $T_2$ and $L_3$ tiles respectively).
They showed that for any simply-connected region
in the hexagonal grid that can be tiled by stones and bones,
the total area of the right stones minus the total area of the left stones
does not depend on the specific tiling
but only depends on the region being tiled.
This is the Conway-Lagarias invariant of the region.
It can be shown (see the companion article [Pr2])
that the area of the $a,b$ benzel (as measured by the number of tiles)
is given by
$$
\begin{array}{ll}
(- a^2 + 4 a b - b^2 - a - b)/2 & \mbox{if $a+b \equiv 0$ or 2 (mod 3)}, \\
(- a^2 + 4 a b - b^2 - a - b + 2)/2 & \mbox{if $a+b \equiv 1$ (mod 3)} \\
\end{array}
$$
while the value of the Conway-Lagarias invariant is
$$
\begin{array}{ll}
(3a^2 - 6ab + 3b^2 - a - b)/2
& \mbox{if $a+b \equiv 0$ (mod 3)}, \\
(-a^2 + 4ab - b^2 - a - b + 2)/2
& \mbox{if $a+b \equiv 1$ (mod 3)}, \\
(3a^2 - 6ab + 3b^2 + a + b - 2)/2
& \mbox{if $a+b \equiv 2$ (mod 3).} \\
\end{array}
$$
(The expressions in Theorem 2 of [Pr2] have opposite sign
because the benzels in that article are mirror images
of the benzels considered here.)
Note that when $a+b \equiv 1$ (mod 3),
the Conway-Lagarias invariant is equal to the area of the benzel
so that the tiling must consist entirely of right-pointing stones;
for instance, this is the case with the 4,6 benzel shown earlier.
The set of 5 prototiles has $2^5-1 = 31$ nonempty subsets,
and for each, we can ask in how many ways
it is possible to tile the $a,b$ benzel,
that is, find translates of the prototiles
whose interiors are disjoint and whose union is the benzel.
There is some redundancy here.
Because the benzel has threefold rotational symmetry,
and because 120 degree rotations preserve the two stones' orientation
(right versus left),
the number of tilings depends only on
(a) whether right stones are allowed,
(b) whether left stones are allowed,
and (c) how many of the three kinds of bones are allowed (0, 1, 2, or 3).
Thus there are really only $(2)(2)(4)-1 = 15$ tiling problems to consider.
For $0 \leq i,j \leq 1$ and $0 \leq k \leq 3$
we define $T_{ijk}(a,b)$ as the number of ways to tile the $a,b$ benzel
if the set of allowed prototiles
contains the right stone iff $i=0$,
contains the left stone iff $j=0$,
and contains $k$ of the bones.
Using the aforementioned symmetry,
it is not hard to show that for each of the 15 cases,
$T_{ijk}(a,b) = T_{ijk}(b,a)$.
It is also not hard to show that the $n,2n$ benzel is the same
as the $n,2n-1$ benzel and the $n,2n-2$ benzel.
David desJardins wrote a general purpose program {\tt TilingCount}
that I used to enumerate tilings of regions
with various sets of allowed prototiles.
This led to the questions and conjectures that appear below.
I am happy to share the code
and the data on which my conjectures are based
(some of which appear in the Appendix).
Here is a map of the first eighteen problems presented in this article
as they relate to those fifteen cases.
Rows describe which stones are allowed;
columns describe how many bones are allowed.
$$\begin{array}{c|c|c}
\ & \rm Two \ kinds \ of \ bones & \rm Three \ kinds \ of \ bones \\
\hline
\rm No \ stones & \mbox{(no tilings exist)} & \mbox{type 003: prob.\ 1} \\
\hline
\rm Left \ stones & \mbox{type 012: probs.\ 2--3} & \mbox{type 013: prob.\ 4} \\
\hline
\rm Right \ stones & \mbox{type 102: prob.\ 5} & \mbox{type 103: probs.\ 6--7} \\
\hline
\rm Both \ kinds \ of \ stones & \mbox{type 112: probs.\ 8--13} & \mbox{type 113: probs.\ 14--18}
\end{array}
$$
(This table omits cases where the number of allowed bone prototiles is zero or one;
in such situations at most one tiling exists, even when both stone prototiles are allowed.)
Benzels behave differently according to whether $a+b$ is 0, 1, or 2 (mod 3),
so in what follows we will often divide conjectures into these three cases.
In the cases where only two kinds of bone tiles are permitted,
the allowed tilings can be viewed as ribbon tilings, as in [Pak];
indeed, this was the mode of presentation employed in [CoLa],
with four of five prototiles being depicted as ribbons.
Switching over to the ribbon tilings presentation
is likely to provide some leverage
on problems in the first column of the table.
\section{No stones, three kinds of bones} \label{sec-no-three}
Prior to the conference, I was able to show that if
an $a,b$ benzel can be tiled by bones, then we must have
$a = k(3k-1)/2$ and $b = k(3k+1)/2$ (or vice versa) for some $k$.
Several attending students found a proof
that this necessary condition is also sufficient.
(Note that such benzels belongs to the case $a+b \equiv 0$ (mod 3).)
Jesse Kim found the most complete solution, providing an explicit proof
that the tiling he described works for all $k$.
It appears that the number of such tilings grows exponentially in $k^4$
(see Appendix 1 for the data).
\bigskip
{\bf Problem 1:} Find an exact formula for $T_{003}(k(3k-1)/2,k(3k+1)/2)$.
Of course, even short of an exact formula,
any method of determining the number of tilings
that is more efficient than brute-force enumeration
(e.g., a recurrence relation) would be of interest.
\section{Left stones, two kinds of bones} \label{sec-neg-two}
Figure~\ref{fig:T012} shows the values of $T_{012}(a,b)$ for $a,b \leq 10$.
\begin{figure}[h]
$$
\begin{array}{c|ccccccccc}
a \backslash b & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9 & 10 \\
\hline
2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & & & & & \\
3 & 0 & {\bf 2} & 0 & 0 & 0 & & & & \\
4 & 0 & 0 & 0 & {\bf 2} & 0 & 0 & 0 & & \\
5 & & 0 & {\bf 2} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
6 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & {\bf 8} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
7 & & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & {\bf 8} & 0 & 0 \\
8 & & & 0 & 0 & 0 & {\bf 8} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
9 & & & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & {\bf 48} & 0 \\
10 & & & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\end{array}
$$
\caption{Values of $T_{012}(a,b)$.}
\label{fig:T012}
\end{figure}
\bigskip
{\bf Problem 2:} Is it true that $T_{012}(3n,3n) = 2^n n!$ for $n \geq 1$?
Comment: Prior to the conference, Ben Young showed by explicit construction
that the number of tilings is at least this large.
It remains to prove that no tilings exist
other than the ones Young constructed.
\bigskip
{\bf Problem 3:} Is it true that $T_{012}(3n+1,3n+2) = 2^n n!$ for $n \geq 1$?
Comment: Note that by $a,b$ symmetry the formula
implies $T_{012}(3n+2,3n+1) = 2^n n!$.
Henceforth we will omit such corollaries without comment.
For both problem 2 ($a=b=3n$) and problem 3 ($a=3n+1$, $b=3n+2$)
we have $b/a \rightarrow 1$ as $n \rightarrow \infty$;
We say that in each case the sequence is associated with
a diagonal in the table of values of slope $-1$;
we call such diagonals {\bf central diagonals}.
Later we will encounter patterns in entries lying along
diagonals of slope $-2$ or $-\frac12$,
which we call {\bf peripheral diagonals}
(recall that $a/b$ and $b/a$ cannot exceed 2).
\section{Left stones, three kinds of bones} \label{sec-neg-three}
Figure~\ref{fig:T013} shows the values of $T_{013}(a,b)$ for $a,b \leq 10$.
\begin{figure}[h]
$$
\begin{array}{c|ccccccccc}
a \backslash b & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9 & 10 \\
\hline
2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & & & & & & \\
3 & 0 & {\bf 3} & 0 & 0 & 0 & & & & \\
4 & 0 & 0 & 0 & {\bf 9} & 0 & 0 & 0 & & \\
5 & & 0 & {\bf 9} & 0 & 0 & {\bf 2} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
6 & & 0 & 0 & 0 & {\bf 144} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
7 & & & 0 & {\bf 2} & 0 & 0 & {\bf 1143} & 0 & 0 \\
8 & & & 0 & 0 & 0 & {\bf 1143} & 0 & 0 & {\bf 825} \\
9 & & & & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & {\bf 73454} & 0 \\
10 & & & & 0 & 0 & 0 & {\bf 825} & 0 & 0 \\
\end{array}
$$
\caption{Values of $T_{013}(a,b)$.}
\label{fig:T013}
\end{figure}
When $a$ and $b$ are such that
the Conway-Lagarias invariant is strictly positive,
the $a,b$ benzel cannot be tiled by bones and left stones;
the corresponding entries in the table must be zero.
On the other hand, when $a$ and $b$ are such that
the Conway-Lagarias invariant is negative or zero,
the entries in the table are observed to be positive,
though I see no reason for concluding that they are.
{\bf Problem 4:} Is it true that when the Conway-Lagarias invariant
associated with the $a,b$ benzel is negative or zero,
tilings of type 013 exist?
Comment: In fact, in this regime (and in the regimes
described in succeeding sections), the number of tilings appears to grow
as an exponential function of the area of the region being tiled,
at least when the asymptotic ratio of $a$ to $b$ is chosen properly.
\section{Right stones, two kinds of bones} \label{sec-pos-two}
Figure~\ref{fig:T102} shows the values of $T_{102}(a,b)$ for $a,b \leq 10$.
\begin{figure}[h]
$$
\begin{array}{c|ccccccccc}
a \backslash b & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9 & 10 \\
\hline
2 & 1 &{\bf 1}& 1 & & & & & & \\
3 & 1 & 0 & 1 & {\bf 1} & 1 & & & & \\
4 & 1 & 1 &{\bf 2}& 0 & 1 &{\bf 1}& 1 & & \\
5 & & 1 & 0 & 1 &{\bf 4} & 0 & 1 &{\bf 1}& 1 \\
6 & & 1 & 1 & 4 & 0 & 1 &{\bf 10}& 0 & 1 \\
7 & & & 1 & 0 & 1 &{\bf 8}& 0 & 1 &\bf{28} \\
8 & & & 1 & 1 &10 & 0 & 1 &{\bf 24}& 0 \\
9 & & & & 1 & 0 & 1 &24 & 0 & 1 \\
10 & & & & 1 & 1 &28 & 0 & 1 &{\bf 48} \\
\end{array}
$$
\caption{Values of $T_{102}(a,b)$.}
\label{fig:T102}
\end{figure}
\bigskip
{\bf Problem 5:} Is it true that
$$T_{102}(n+3k,2n+3k-1) =
\prod_{i=1}^k \frac{(2i)! (2i+2n-2))!}{(i+n-1)! (i+n+k-1)!}$$
for $k \geq 0$ and $n \geq 1$ (except $(k,n) = (0,1))$?
Comment: This formula and the $a,b$ symmetry relation
together provide a conjectural enumeration
of tilings of type 102 of the $a,b$ benzel
for all $a,b$ satisfying $a+b \equiv 2$ (mod 3).
Comment: Three special cases merit special attention.
When $k=1$, the right-hand side of the equation
is twice the $n$th Catalan number;
when $n=1$, the right-hand side of the equation is $2^k k!$;
and when $n=2$, the right-hand side of the equation is $2^k (k+1)!$.
\section{Right stones, three kinds of bones} \label{sec-pos-three}
Figure~\ref{fig:T103} shows the values of $T_{103}(a,b)$ for $a,b \leq 10$.
\begin{figure}[h]
$$
\begin{array}{c|ccccccccc}
a \backslash b & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9 & 10 \\
\hline
2 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & & & & & \\
3 & 1 &{\bf 0}& 1 & 1 & 1 & & & & \\
4 & 1 & 1 & 7 &{\bf 0}& 1 & 1 & 1 & & \\
5 & & 1 & 0 & 1 & 33 &{\bf 2} & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
6 & & 1 & 1 & 33 & 0 & 1 & 164 & {\bf 21}& 1 \\
7 & & & 1 & 2 & 1 & 666 & 0 & 1 & 864 \\
8 & & & 1 & 1 & 164 & 0 & 1 & 12430 & 0 \\
9 & & & & 1 & 21 & 1 & 12430 & 0 & 1 \\
10 & & & & 1 & 1 & 864 & 0 & 1 & 655721
\end{array}
$$
\caption{Values of $T_{103}(a,b)$.}
\label{fig:T103}
\end{figure}
{\bf Problem 6:} Is is true that
$T_{103}(n,2n-3) = (3n+3)(3n-7)!/(n-5)!(2n-1)!$ for $n \geq 5$?
(The formula works for $n=3$ and $n=4$
if one treats $1/(-1)!$ and $1/(-2)!$ as 0.)
\bigskip
Aside from the fact that we are using different prototile sets,
problem 6 differs from problems 2 and 6 differ in another important way:
in problem 2 we have $b/a \rightarrow 1$ as $n \rightarrow \infty$
while in problem 6 we have $b/a \rightarrow 2$ as $n \rightarrow \infty$.
In the former case we say that the sequence is associated with
a {\bf central diagonal} of the table of values
while in the latter case we say that the sequence
is associated with a {\bf peripheral diagonal}
(recall that $a/b$ and $b/a$ cannot exceed 2).
\bigskip
In parallel with the observations that preceded Problem 4,
note that when the Conway-Lagarias invariant of a benzel is strictly negative,
the benzel cannot be tiled by bones and right-pointing stones;
the corresponding entries in the table must be zero.
On the other hand, when $a$ and $b$ are such that
the Conway-Lagarias invariant is positive or zero,
the entries in the table are observed to be positive,
though I see no reason for concluding that they are.
{\bf Problem 7:} Is it true that when the Conway-Lagarias invariant
associated with the $a,b$ benzel is positive or zero,
tilings of type 103 exist?
\section{Both stones, two kinds of bones} \label{sec-both-two}
Figure~\ref{fig:T112} shows the values of $T_{112}(a,b)$ for $a,b \leq 10$.
\begin{figure}[h]
$$
\begin{array}{c|ccccccccc}
a \backslash b & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9 & 10 \\
\hline
2 & 1 &{\bf 1}& 1 & & & & & & \\
3 &{\bf 1}&{\bf 2}& 1 & 1 & 1 & & & & \\
4 & 1 & 1 & {\bf 4} & {\bf 6} & 1 & 1 & 1 & & \\
5 & & 1 & 6 & 1 & {\bf 16} & {\bf 22} & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
6 & & 1 & 1 & 16 & {\bf 48} & 1 & {\bf 68} & {\bf 90}& 1 \\
7 & & & 1 & 22 & 1 & {\bf 224} & {\bf 512} & 1 & {\bf 304} \\
8 & & & 1 & 1 & 68 & 512 & 1 & {\bf 3360} & 6736 \\
9 & & & & 1 & 90 & 1 & 3360 & {\bf 15360} & 1 \\
10 & & & & 1 & 1 & 304 & 6736 & 1 & {\bf 168960} \\
\end{array}
$$
\caption{Values of $T_{112}(a,b)$.}
\label{fig:T112}
\end{figure}
Here are the first few values of $T_{112}(3n,3n)$, given in factored form:
$$
\begin{array}{c}
2^{1}, \\
2^{4} \: 3^{1}, \\
2^{10} \: 3^{1} \: 5^{1}, \\
2^{16} \: 7^{1} \: 11^{1} \: 13^{1}, \\
2^{28} \: 3^{2} \: 7^{1} \: 13^{1} \: 17^{1}, \\
2^{38} \: 3^{2} \: 11^{1} \: 17^{2} \: 19^{2}, \\
2^{50} \: 5^{1} \: 11^{2} \: 13^{1} \: 17^{1} \: 19^{2} \: 23^{2}, \\
2^{64} \: 3^{3} \: 5^{4} \: 11^{1} \: 13^{2} \: 19^{1} \: 23^{3} \: 29^{1}, \\
2^{84} \: 3^{4} \: 5^{3} \: 13^{2} \: 17^{1} \: 23^{2} \: 29^{3} \: 31^{2}, \dots
\end{array}
$$
\bigskip
{\bf Problem 8:}
With $T(n)$ denoting $T_{112}(3n,3n)$
is the second quotient $T(n)T(n+2)/T(n+1)^2$ equal to
$$\frac{256 (2n+3)^2 (4n+1) (4n+3)^2 (4n+5)}{27 (3n+1) (3n+2)^2 (3n+4)^2 (3n+5)}$$
for $n \geq 1$?
Comment: David desJardins found the pattern governing the numbers $T(n)$,
with assistance from Christian Krattenthaler, Greg Kuperberg
and other members of the {\tt domino} listserv.
The same is true for Problem 10.
\bigskip
Here are the first few values of $T_{112}(3n+1,3n+1)$, given in factored form:
$$
\begin{array}{c}
2^{2}, \\
2^{5} \: 7^{1}, \\
2^{10} \: 3^{1} \: 5^{1} \: 11^{1}, \\
2^{17} \: 7^{1} \: 11^{1} \: 13^{2}, \\
2^{30} \: 3^{1} \: 13^{1} \: 17^{2} \: 19^{1}, \\
2^{38} \: 3^{1} \: 11^{1} \: 17^{2} \: 19^{3} \: 23^{1}, \dots
\end{array}
$$
With $T(n) = T_{112}(3n+1,3n+1)$ with $n \geq 1$,
it appears that $T(n)$ has no prime factor greater than or equal to $4n$.
{\bf Problem 9:}
Find a formula governing this sequence.
\bigskip
Here are the first few values of $T_{112}(3n+1,3n+2)$, given in factored form:
$$
\begin{array}{c}
2^{1} \: 3^{1}, \\
2^{9}, \: \\
2^{9} \: 3^{1} \: 5^{1}\: 7^{1}\: 11^{1}, \\
2^{25} \: 3^{1} \: 7^{1} \: 13^{1}, \\
2^{28} \: 3^{2} \: 11^{1} \: 13^{1} \: 17^{2} \: 19^{1}, \\
2^{50} \: 3^{1} \: 11^{1} \: 17^{1} \: 19^{2} \: 23^{1}, \\
2^{49} \: 3^{2} \: 5^{2} \: 11^{2} \: 13^{2} \: 17^{1} \: 19^{2} \: 23^{3}, \\
2^{81} \: 3^{3} \: 5^{4} \: 13^{2} \: 23^{2} \: 29^{2} \: 31^{1}, \dots
\end{array}
$$
{\bf Problem 10:}
With $T(n)$ denoting $T_{112}(3n+1,3n+2)$,
is it true that $T(n)T(n+3)/T(n+1)T(n+2)$ is always equal to
$$\frac{65536 (2n+3)(2n+5)^2 (2n+7) (4n+3) (4n+5)^2 (4n+7)^2 (4n+9)^2 (4n+11)}{729
(3n+2)(3n+4)^3 (3n+5)^2 (3n+7)^2 (3n+8)^3 (3n+10)}$$
for $n \geq 1$?
\bigskip
Here are the first few values of $T_{112}(3n-1,3n)$, given in factored form:
$$
\begin{array}{c}
1^{1}, \\
2^{4}, \\
2^{5} \: 3^{1} \: 5^{1} \: 7^{1}, \\
2^{16} \: 11^{1} \: 13^{1}, \\
2^{19} \: 3^{1} \: 7^{1} \: 11^{1} \: 13^{2} \: 17^{1}, \\
2^{39} \: 3^{1} \: 17^{2} \: 19^{2}, \\
2^{37} \: 5^{1} \: 11^{2} \: 13^{1} \: 17^{2} \: 19^{3} \: 23^{2}, \dots
\end{array}
$$
With $T(n) = T_{112}(3n-1,3n)$ with $n \geq 1$,
it appears that $T(n)$ has no prime factor greater than or equal to $4n$.
{\bf Problem 11:}
Find a formula governing this sequence.
\bigskip
We now switch from central diagonals to peripheral diagonals.
\bigskip
{\bf Problem 12:}
Is it true that $T_{112}(n+2,2n+1)$
is the $n$th large Schr\"oder number (see sequence A006318 in the OEIS)
for $n \geq 1$?
\bigskip
{\bf Problem 13:}
Is it true that $T_{112}(n+2,2n)$
is always the number of ``royal paths in a lattice of order $n$''
(see sequence A006319 in the OEIS) for $n \geq 1$?
\section{Both stones, three kinds of bones} \label{sec-both-three}
Finally we come to the most permissive situation: all prototiles are allowed.
Figure~\ref{fig:T113} shows the values of $T_{113}(a,b)$ for $a,b \leq 10$.
\begin{figure}[h]
$$
\begin{array}{c|ccccccccc}
a \backslash b & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9 & 10 \\
\hline
2 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & & & & & \\
3 & 1 & 3 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & & & \\
4 & 1 & 1 & 10 & {\bf 18} & 1 & 1 & 1 & & \\
5 & & 1 & 18 & 1 & {\bf 84} & {\bf 142} & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
6 & & 1 & 1 & 84 & 459 & 1 & {\bf 724} & {\bf 1266} & 1 \\
7 & & & 1 & 142 & 1 & 5766 & 19057 & 1 & {\bf 6516} \\
8 & & & 1 & 1 & 724 & 19057 & 1 & 380597 & 1077681 \\
9 & & & & 1 & 1266 & 1 & 380597 & 3759277 & 1 \\
1 0 & & & & 1 & 1 & 6516 & 1077681 & 1 & 185961668 \\
\end{array}
$$
\caption{Values of $T_{113}(a,b)$.}
\label{fig:T113}
\end{figure}
{\bf Problem 14:} Is it true that $T_{113} = 1$ when $a+b$ is 1 (mod 3)?
(Note that $a+b \equiv 1$ is the situation
in which the Conway-Lagarias invariant
coincides with the area of the region being tiled,
so that all the tiles must be right-pointing stones.)
\bigskip
It is disappointing that the data for $a+b \not\equiv 1$ (mod 3)
do not suggest exact conjectures.
On the other hand, it is intriguing that congruence phenomena occur,
analogous to Cohn's 2-adic continuity theorem proved in [Cohn]
and conjectural 2-adic phenomena of a similar kind discussed in [Pr1].
{\bf Problem 15:} Is $T_{113}(n,2n-4)$
2-adically continuous as a function of $n \geq 5$?
Comment: The sequence appears to be constant mod 2, constant mod 4,
2-periodic mod 8, and 8-periodic mod 16
(with repeating pattern 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 12, 4, 12).
The case $n = 4$ breaks the pattern.
\bigskip
{\bf Problem 16:} Is $T_{113}(n,2n-3)$
2-adically continuous as a function of $n \geq 4$?
Comment: The sequence appears to be constant mod 2, constant mod 4,
2-periodic mod 8, and 8-periodic mod 16
(with repeating pattern 2, 14, 2, 14, 10, 6, 10, 6).
The case $n = 3$ breaks the pattern.
\bigskip
At the OPAC 2022 meeting, David Speyer suggested that
one might use a different definition of a trimer on the graph $G$,
namely, a subgraph of $G$ whose connected components
are all paths consisting of three vertices and two edges.
Thus, each stone would correspond to three different trimers
according to which 2 of the 3 possible edges one used.
Equivalently, each stone would count with weight 3.
This changes the enumerations listed above
in cases where both kinds of stones are allowed
(the Conway-Lagarias invariant forces every tiling
to have the same weight as every other
if only one kind of stone is allowed)
but the new numbers do not satisfy any nice patterns, with one exception:
in the case where all prototiles are allowed,
using stones of weight 3 seems to permit
the 2-adic continuity phenomenon we saw in Problems 11 and 12.
Let $T_{i,j,k}(a,b;3)$ denote the weighted sum
of the $i,j,k$ tilings of the $a,b$ benzel,
where a tiling with $m$ stones has weight $3^m$.
\bigskip
{\bf Problem 17:} Is $T_{113}(n,2n-4;3)$
2-adically continuous as a function of $n \geq 5$?
Comment: The sequence appears to be constant mod 2, constant mod 4,
constant mod 8, and 8-periodic mod 16
(with repeating pattern 4, 4, 12, 12, 4, 12, 12, 4).
The case $n = 4$ breaks the pattern.
\bigskip
{\bf Problem 18:} Is $T_{113}(n,2n-3;3)$
2-adically continuous as a function of $n \geq 4$?
Comment: The sequence appears to be constant mod 2, constant mod 4,
2-periodic mod 8, and 8-periodic mod 16
(with repeating pattern 14, 6, 10, 2, 6, 14, 2, 10).
The case $n = 3$ breaks the pattern.
\section{Miscellaneous} \label{sec-last}
The next problem is not enumerative;
it is an old structural problem that has gone unresolved for decades.
There are two natural kinds of ``2-flips''
that can turn one stones-and-bones tiling into another;
the first trades two stones of opposite sign for two bones,
and the second trades a stone and a bone
for a stone of the same orientation
and a bone of a different orientation;
see Figure~\ref{fig:mutate}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3.6in]{mutation.jpg}
\end{center}
\caption{2-flips for changing a trimer cover.}
\label{fig:mutate}
\end{figure}
{\bf Problem 19:} Can every
tiling of a finite simply-connected region
using stones and bones
be mutated into every other such tiling
by means of a succession of 2-flips?
Comment: It is known that the hypothesis
that the region be simply-connected cannot be dropped.
It is also known that if one restricts to tilings of type 112
(that is, if one prohibits one of the three orientations of bones),
then the claim is true;
Sheffield proved an equivalent claim
in the context of ribbon tilings [Shef].
\bigskip
To conclude, we turn to the regions
that Conway, Lagarias, and Thurston originally studied:
triangles of hexagonal cells,
with $n$ cells on each side (``$T_n$ regions'').
All three authors showed that
if one uses stones alone,
$T_n$ can be tiled by $T_2$'s (that is, by stones)
precisely when $n$ is congruent to 0, 2, 9, or 11 (mod 12).
(In our notation, these are tilings of type 110;
such tilings were not discussed above since
for benzels they are not very interesting
from an enumerative perspective.)
The question we ask is, how many such tiling are there?
Sequence A334875 in the OEIS gives the answers
for many small values of $n$.
If we look at the prime factorizations of the answers,
we notice that the exponent of the prime 2 is creeping upward.
Specifically, the multiplicity of the prime 2
in the factorizations of the nonzero terms in this sequence
goes 0, 0, 1, 3, 2, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 5, 8, 6, 8, \dots.
This is a priori surprising,
since the probability that a ``random'' positive integer
is divisible by $2^m$ decreases exponentially as $m$ increases.
{\bf Problem 20:} As $n$ goes to infinity
within the set of natural numbers
congruent to 0, 2, 9, or 11 (mod 12),
does the number of tiling of $T_n$ by stones
converge 2-adically to 0?
\section{Appendix}
Here are some of the empirical data on which
the conjectures stated in this article are based.
Note: This article will undergo an ``appendectomy''
once the relevant sequences are in the OEIS.
Problem 1:
$T_{003}(k(3k-1)/2,k(3k+1)/2)$ for $2 \leq k \leq 4$: 2, 42705, 7501790059160666750.
Problem 2:
$T_{012}(3n,3n)$ for $1 \leq n \leq 6$: 2, 8, 48, 384, 3840, 46080.
Problem 3:
$T_{012}(3n+1,3n+2)$ for $1 \leq n \leq 6$: 2, 8, 48, 384, 3840, 46080.
Problem 5:
The conjecture is true for $0 \leq k \leq 5$, $1 \leq n \leq 5$.
Problem 6:
The conjecture is true for $5 \leq n \leq 16$.
Problem 8:
$T_{112}(3n,3n)$ for $1 \leq n \leq 9$:
$$\begin{array}{l}
2, 48, 15360, 65601536, 3737426853888, \\
2839095978202497024, 28748176693620694822420480, \\
3879520049632381491007256002560000, \\
6976271067658190025590579601863413334016000. \end{array}$$
The conjecture is true for $1 \leq n \leq 7$.
Problem 9:
$T_{112}(3n+1,3n+1)$ for $1 \leq n \leq 7$:
4, 224, 168960, 1705639936, 229940737867776, 413561647491497066496,
9918120959299139713735065600.
Problem 10:
$T_{112}(3n+1,3n+2)$ for $1 \leq n \leq 8$:
$$\begin{array}{l}
6, 512, 591360, 9160359936, 1897011087409152, \\
5244422625774526267392, \\
193403358706333224417833779200, \\
95098462720808932931887549372170240000. \end{array}$$
Problem 11:
$T_{112}(3n-1,3n)$ for $1 \leq n \leq 7$:
1, 16, 3360, 9371648, 347950546944, 172066422921363456, 1133503548832944876421120
Problem 12:
The conjecture is true for $1 \leq n \leq 15$.
Problem 13:
The conjecture is true for $1 \leq n \leq 15$.
Problem 14:
The conjecture is true for $a+b \leq 28$.
Problem 15:
$T_{113}(n,2n-4)$ for $3 \leq n \leq 14$:
1, 10, 84, 724, 6516, 60900, 586404, 5777916, 57952212, 589381020, 6060195316, 62863155972.
Problem 16:
$T_{113}(n,2n-3)$ for $3 \leq n \leq 14$:
3, 18, 142, 1266, 12030, 118650, 1198230, 12296202, 127633590, 1336133730, 14079114270, 149124688482.
Problem 17:
$T_{113}(n,2n-4;3)$ for $3 \leq n \leq 14$:
$$\begin{array}{l}
3, 102, 10260, 3267540, 3272495580, 10170919805580, \\
97112573496153540, 2829427113881208115260, \\
250440846963119234063024220, \\
67143197168392738521628168122420, \\
54411613647618445838464808052508179060, \\
133085560953741266360779763637716021767185540. \end{array}$$
Problem 18:
$T_{113}(n,2n-3;3)$ for $3 \leq n \leq 14$:
$$\begin{array}{l}
9, 270, 27110, 8798490, 8980383330, 28344705113430, \\
273927748387623390, 8057418594145673168610, \\
718650987298253553656580570, \\
193874673319110717570773876192670, \\
157927323459469084048485672225266775510, \\
387962431958247267773527802272080627127318890. \end{array}$$
\bigskip
\noindent
{\Large \bf References}
\bigskip
\noindent
[Cohn] Henry Cohn,
2-adic behavior of numbers of domino tilings,
Electronic Journal of Combinatorics {\bf 6} (1999), \#R14.
\smallskip
\noindent
[CoLa] John Conway and Jeffrey Lagarias, Tiling with polyominoes and
combinatorial group theory, J.\ Combin.\ Theory (Ser.\ A) {\bf 53} (1990),
no.\ 2, 183--208.
\smallskip
\noindent
[EKLP] Noam Elkies, Greg Kuperberg, Michael Larsen, and James Propp,
Alternating sign matrices and domino tilings,
J.\ Algebraic Combin.\ {\bf 1} (1992), no. 2, 111--132;
J.\ Algebraic Combin.\ {\bf 1} (1992), no. 3, 219--234.
\smallskip
\noindent
[Kast] Pieter Kasteleyn, The statistics of dimers on a lattice, I:
The number of dimer arrangements on a quadratic lattice,
Physica {\bf 27} (1961), 1209--1225.
\smallskip
\noindent
[Pak] Igor Pak, Ribbon tile invariants,
Trans.\ Amer.\ Math.\ Soc.\ {\bf 352} (2000), no.\ 12, 5525--5561.
\smallskip
\noindent
[Pr1] James Propp, Some 2-adic conjectures concerning
polyomino tilings of Aztec diamonds, in preparation.
\smallskip
\noindent
[Pr2] James Propp, A pentagonal number theorem for tribone tilings,
in preparation. \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/2206.04223}{http://arxiv.org/abs/2206.04223}
\smallskip
\noindent
[Shef] Scott Sheffield, Ribbon tilings and multidimensional height functions,
Trans.\ Amer.\ Math.\ Soc.\ {\bf 354} (2002), no.\ 12, 4789--4813.
\smallskip
\noindent
[TeFi] Harold Neville Temperley and Michael Fisher,
Dimer problem in statistical mechanics -- an exact result,
Phil.\ Mag.\ J.\ Theor.\ Exp.\ Appl.\ Phys.\ {\bf 6} (1961) no.\ 68, 1061--1063.
\smallskip
\noindent
[Thur] William Thurston, Conway’s tiling groups,
Amer.\ Math.\ Monthly {\bf 97} (1990), no.\ 8, 757--773.
\smallskip
\noindent
[VeNi] Alain Verberkmoes and Bernard Nienhuis,
Bethe Ansatz solution of triangular trimers on the triangular lattice,
Phys.\ Rev.\ E {\bf 63} (2001), 066122.
\end{document}
Area of 5,7 benzel is 27
Area of 3,3 benzel is 6
Area of 6,6 benzel is 30
Area of 4,4 benzel is 12
Area of 2,2 benzel is 3
Area of 5,5 benzel is 21
I of 5,7 is 0
I of 5,5 is 21
I of 4,4 is -3
I of 6,6 is 6
I of 9,9 is LRRRLLLRLLLLR = 5 - 8 = -3 => -9 (other article)
|
\section{introduction}
There is plenty amount of work has been done to study the Hawking radiation as quantum tunneling \cite{Parikh:1999mf,Volovik:2021upi,Volovik:2021iim,Akhmedov:2006pg, PhysRevD.60.024007, Chatterjee:2007hc}. As a most common approach, one can write the tunneling probability as $\Gamma\propto exp(2\Im[\int p dr])$. But one can argue that this tunneling probability is not a proper observable since the quantity $\int p dr$ is not remaining invariant under canonical transformation. To remove this issue, one can use $\Gamma\propto exp(\Im[\oint p dr])$, where the exponential factor is a clearly canonical invariant quantity. If one proceeds with the latter, she may find out the double Hawking temperature as a result even in the Panilev´e frame (which is regular at the horizon). To overcome this ambiguity, one can use the Hamilton-Jacobi equation method to study the Hawking radiation as quantum tunneling. Recently thermodynamics of multi-horizon spacetimes have been studied where $\Gamma\propto exp(2\Im[\int p dr])$ is used to calculate Hawking temperature \cite{Singha:2021dxe}. In this paper, we re-investigated the same work with the Hamilton-Jacobi approach, which is free from the canonical invariant issue. In both approaches, the results agree very well.
\par It is well known that for a single horizon spacetime, the Hawking temperature is proportional to the surface gravity associated with the horizon \cite{hawking1975, Birrell1984quantum, book:parker,
Jacobson:2003vx, Kiefer:2002fp, Parikh:1999mf, Traschen:1999zr,
DEWITT1975295, Davies:1974th, Padmanabhan:2009vy,
Wald1975}.
However, for a spacetime with two or more horizons, it is shown that the contribution between the horizons determines the Hawking temperature \cite{Volovik:2021upi, Volovik:2021iim, Choudhury:2004ph, Chabab:2020xwr, Shankaranarayanan:2003ya, Singha:2021dxe,Azarnia:2021vhc}.
It has been shown that there are two contributions to the tunneling process of radiation for Schwarzschild black hole and de-Sitter spacetime using the Hamilton Jacobi equation method \cite{Volovik:2022vvi}. It is shown that these two contributions separately give the radiation with the two times the original Hawking temperature.
But the combination of these two gives the radiation with the exact Hawking temperature.
Here, we consider the Schwarzschild-de Sitter spacetime, Reissner-Nordstrom-de Sitter spacetime, and rotating BTZ black hole. We compute the temperature of the thermal radiation for these spacetimes using the Hamilton Jacobi equation method. There are two contributions to the tunneling process of radiation. These two contributions separately give the radiation with the two times Hawking temperature.
But the combination of these two gives the radiation with the exact Hawking temperature. We show that the temperature does not coincide with the conventional Hawking temperature related to the outer horizon. The contribution between the horizons determines
the Hawking temperature.
In Sec. \ref{Schwarzschild-de Sitter}, we compute the Hawking radiation from the Schwarzschild-de Sitter spacetime using the Hamilton Jacobi equation \cite{Akhmedov:2006pg, PhysRevD.60.024007, Chatterjee:2007hc}. There are two contributions to the tunneling process of radiation. These two contributions separately give the radiation with the two times Hawking temperature. But the combination of these two gives the radiation with the exact Hawking temperature. We show that the temperature of radiation does not coincide with the conventional Hawking temperature related to the outer cosmological horizon. The contribution between the black hole horizon and cosmological horizon determines the temperature.
In Sec. \ref{Reissner-Nordstrom-de Sitter}, we compute the Hawking radiation from the Reissner-Nordstrom-de Sitter spacetime using the Hamilton Jacobi equation \cite{Akhmedov:2006pg, PhysRevD.60.024007, Chatterjee:2007hc}. There are two contributions to the tunneling process of radiation. These two contributions separately give the radiation with the two times Hawking temperature. But the combination of these two gives the radiation with the exact Hawking temperature. We show that the temperature of radiation does not coincide with the conventional Hawking temperature related to the outer cosmological horizon. The contribution between the event horizon, Cauchy horizon, and cosmological horizon determines the temperature.
In Sec. \ref{BTZ}, we compute the Hawking radiation from the rotating BTZ black hole spacetime using the Hamilton Jacobi equation \cite{Akhmedov:2006pg, PhysRevD.60.024007, Chatterjee:2007hc}. There are two contributions to the tunneling process of radiation. These two contributions separately give the radiation with the two times Hawking temperature. But the combination of these two gives the radiation with the exact Hawking temperature. We show that the temperature of radiation does not coincide with the conventional Hawking temperature related to the outer event horizon. The contribution between the event horizon and the Cauchy horizon determines the temperature.
\section{Hawking radiation in Schwarzschild-de Sitter spacetime}\label{Schwarzschild-de Sitter}
The metric for the Schwarzschild-de Sitter spacetime in the spherically symmetric coordinate can be written as \cite{Bhattacharya:2013tq, Shankaranarayanan:2003ya, Medved:2002zj, Pappas:2017kam, Robson:2019yzx,Tian:2003ua},
\begin{equation}\label{eq1}
ds^2=-f(r)dt^2+f(r)^{-1} dr^2 +r^2 d \Omega^2~,
\end{equation}
where $f(r)=\left(1-\frac{2 M}{r}-\frac{r^2}{l^2}\right)$. Here $M$ is the mass of the black hole, and $l^2$ is connected with the positive cosmological constant. More
than one horizon present in this spacetime if the condition $0<y<1/2 M$ is hold true. Here $y=M^2/l^2$. One can show that there are two horizon present in this spacetime. These two horizons are the black hole horizon and the cosmological horizon, respectively. The black hole horizon ($r_{h}$) is the inner horizon, and the cosmological horizon ($r_{c}$) is the outer horizon in this spacetime. The expression for black hole and cosmological horizons are,
\begin{align}
r_{h}=\frac{2 M}{\sqrt{3 y}} \cos \frac{\pi+\varphi}{3}~,\\
r_{c}=\frac{2 M}{\sqrt{3 y}} \cos \frac{\pi-\varphi}{3}~,
\end{align}
where $\varphi= \cos^{-1}(3 \sqrt{3} y)$. The surface gravities at the black hole horizon and the cosmological horizon are given by \cite{Bousso:1997wi, Shankaranarayanan:2003ya},
\begin{align}
\kappa_{h}= \alpha \left|\frac{M}{r^2_h}-\frac{r_h}{l^2}\right|~,\\
\kappa_{c}= \alpha \left|\frac{M}{r^2_c}-\frac{r_c}{l^2}\right|~.
\end{align}
Here $\kappa_{h}$ and $\kappa_{c}$ are the surface gravities of the black hole horizon and the cosmological horizon, and $\alpha= 1/\sqrt{1-(27y)^{1/3}}$. We consider following coordinate transformations,
\begin{equation}\label{eq6}
d\tilde{t}\rightarrow dt \pm f dr,~~f=\frac{\sqrt{\frac{2M}{r}+\frac{r^2}{l^2}}}{\left(1-\frac{2 M}{r}-\frac{r^2}{l^2}\right)}~,
\end{equation}
and obtain Painleve-Gullstrand (PG) metric for Schwarzschild-de Sitter spacetime as,
\begin{equation}\label{eq7}
ds^2= g_{\mu \nu} dx^{\mu} dx^{\nu}=-dt^2+(dr\pm v dt)^2+r^2 d\Omega^2~.
\end{equation}
Here the $v$ is the shift velocity which is given by,
\begin{equation}\label{eqn8}
v^2=\frac{2 M}{r}+\frac{r^2}{l^2}~.
\end{equation}
Now we consider a massive particle. The field equation for the massive particle with mass $m$ in a tunneling trajectory is given by,
\begin{equation}
\frac{-\hbar^2}{\sqrt{-g}}\partial_{\mu}\bigg(\sqrt{-g}g^{\mu\nu}\partial_\nu\bigg)\phi + m^2\phi=0~.
\end{equation}
We also consider $\phi=e^{\frac{i}{\hbar}S}$ which leads to Hamilton Jacobi equation as,
\begin{equation}
-i \hbar\bigg(\frac{1}{\sqrt{-g}}\partial_{\mu}\big(\sqrt{-g}g^{\mu\nu}\big)\partial_\nu S+ g^{\mu\nu}\partial_\mu\partial_\nu S\bigg)+g^{\mu\nu}\partial_\mu S\partial_\nu S+m^2=0~.
\end{equation}
Now taking the limit $\hbar\rightarrow0$ and compering $O(1)$ term we get
\begin{equation}
g^{\mu\nu}\partial_\mu S\partial_\nu S + m^2=0~.
\end{equation}
Here $g^{\mu \nu}$ is the contravariant metric, there is a killing field $t^a=(1,0,0,0)$ with respect to which we define an energy $E$. Formulation of hamilton jacobi equation allows us to write $S=Et+S(r)$. Now we can expand the above equation in PG coordinate as
\begin{equation}
-E^2+(1-v^2)\bigg(\frac{dS}{dr}\bigg)^2+2vE\frac{dS}{dr}+m^2=0~.
\end{equation}
We write then the solution of above differential equation as an integral form which is given by,
\begin{equation}\label{eqn12}
S=-\int\frac{Ev}{1-v^2}dr\pm\int\frac{\sqrt{E^2-m^2(1-v^2)}}{1-v^2}dr~.
\end{equation}
Now putting the expression for $v$ (\ref{eqn8}) in Eq. (\ref{eqn12}) we get
\begin{equation} \label{eq:14}
S=-\int\frac{E\sqrt{\frac{2 M}{r}+\frac{r^2}{l^2}}}{1-\frac{2 M}{r}-\frac{r^2}{l^2}}dr\pm\int\frac{\sqrt{E^2-m^2(1-\frac{2 M}{r}-\frac{r^2}{l^2})}}{1-\frac{2 M}{r}-\frac{r^2}{l^2}}dr~.
\end{equation}
In Eq. $(\ref{eq:14})$, $\pm$ sign corresponds to the fact that it includes both the incoming and outgoing solution.
In terms of the horizons and surface gravities, the expression $\left(1-\frac{2 M}{r}-\frac{r^2}{l^2}\right)^{-1}$ can be expressed as,
\begin{eqnarray}
\left(1-\frac{2 M}{r}-\frac{r^2}{l^2}\right)^{-1}=\frac{\alpha}{2 \kappa_{h}(r-r_{h})}+\frac{\alpha}{2 \kappa_{c}(r-r_{c})}-\frac{\alpha}{2 \kappa_{0}(r-r_{0})}~.\nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
Here $r_{0}=-(r_{c}+r_{h})$ being
negative, is unphysical and surface gravity associated with $r_{0}$ is defined as $\kappa_0=\frac{1}{2}\left|\frac{\partial f(r)}{\partial r}\right|_{r=r_0}$.
So, in Eq. $(\ref{eq:14})$, there are three pole at three horizon and we consider only two as third one is unphysical . Im $S$ can also be expressed as,
\begin{eqnarray}
Im~S &=& -\int\frac{E\sqrt{\frac{2 M}{r}+\frac{r^2}{l^2}}}{1-\frac{2 M}{r}-\frac{r^2}{l^2}}dr\pm\int\frac{\sqrt{E^2-m^2(1-\frac{2 M}{r}-\frac{r^2}{l^2})}}{1-\frac{2 M}{r}-\frac{r^2}{l^2}}dr \nonumber\\
&=& - Im \int E \sqrt{\frac{2 M}{r}+\frac{r^2}{l^2}}\times \left(\frac{\alpha}{2 \kappa_{h}(r-r_{h})}+\frac{\alpha}{2 \kappa_{c}(r-r_{c})} -\frac{\alpha}{2 \kappa_{0}(r-r_{0})}\right)\nonumber\\
&\pm & Im \int \sqrt{E^2-m^2\big(1-\frac{2 M}{r}-\frac{r^2}{l^2}\big)}\times \left(\frac{\alpha}{2 \kappa_{h}(r-r_{h})}+\frac{\alpha}{2 \kappa_{c}(r-r_{c})} -\frac{\alpha}{2 \kappa_{0}(r-r_{0})}\right)~.\label{eq12}
\end{eqnarray}
From Eq. (\ref{eq12}), one can easily show that the contribution of two horizons for this spacetime (\ref{eq1}) gives the following probability of the Hawking radiation as,
\begin{equation}\label{eq13}
P=exp\left(- \frac{ \pi \alpha E}{\kappa_{eff}}\right)\times exp\left(\pm \frac{ \pi \alpha E}{\kappa_{eff}}\right)~.
\end{equation}
Here $\kappa_{eff}=\left(\frac{1}{\kappa_{h}}+\frac{1}{\kappa_{c}}\right)^{-1}$. We get a nontrivial probability distribution, for the the negative sign of the second exponential in Eq. $(\ref{eq13})$. This corresponds to thermal radiation characterized by the Hawking temperature. Here the Hawking temperature is given by,
\begin{equation}\label{eq14}
T_{H}=\frac{\kappa_{eff}}{2 \pi \alpha}= \frac{\kappa_{c}\kappa_{h}}{2 \pi \alpha(\kappa_{c}+\kappa_{h})}~.
\end{equation}
We show that there are two contributions to the tunneling process of radiation. These two contributions separately give the radiation with the two times Hawking temperature.
But the combination of these two gives the radiation with the exact Hawking temperature.
Eq. (\ref{eq14}) implies that the temperature of radiation does
not coincide with the conventional Hawking temperature related to the outer cosmological horizon. The contribution
between the black hole horizon and cosmological horizon determines the temperature.
\section{HAWKING RADIATION FROM in Reissner-Nordstrom-de Sitter spacetime}\label{Reissner-Nordstrom-de Sitter}
The metric for the Reissner-Nordstrom-de Sitter spacetime in the spherically symmetric coordinate is given by \cite{Li:2021axp, Zhang:2016nws, Hollands:2019whz, Guo:2005hw, Ahmed:2016lou},
\begin{equation}\label{eq23}
ds^2=-f(r)dt^2+f(r)^{-1} dr^2 +r^2 d \Omega^2~,
\end{equation}
where $f(r)=\left(1-\frac{2 M}{r}+\frac{Q^2}{r^2}-\frac{\Lambda r^2}{3}\right)$. Here $M$ is the mass of the black hole, $Q$ is the charge of the black hole, and $\Lambda$ is the positive cosmological constant. There are three horizons, $r_{+}$ $r_{-}$ and $r_{c}$, for this spacetime (\ref{eq23}). Here $r_{+}$ is the event horizon, $r_{-}$ is the Cauchy horizon and $r_{c}$ is the outer cosmological horizon, respectively. The surface gravities at the event horizon, the Cauchy horizon and the cosmological horizon are given by,
\begin{align}
\kappa_{+}= \left|\frac{M}{r^2_+}- \frac{Q^2}{r^3_{+}}-\frac{\Lambda r_+}{3}\right|~,\\
\kappa_{-}= -\left|\frac{M}{r^2_-}- \frac{Q^2}{r^3_{-}}-\frac{\Lambda r_-}{3}\right|~,\\
\kappa_{c}= \left|\frac{M}{r^2_c}- \frac{Q^2}{r^3_{c}}-\frac{\Lambda r_c}{3}\right|~.
\end{align}
Here $\kappa_{+}$, $\kappa_{-}$ and $\kappa_{c}$ are the surface gravities of the event horizon, Cauchy horizon, and cosmological horizon, respectively. We get the PG metric for Reissner-Nordstrom-de Sitter spacetime using the following coordinate transformations,
\begin{equation}\label{eq24}
d\tilde{t}\rightarrow dt \pm f dr,~~f=\frac{\sqrt{{\left(\frac{2M}{r}-\frac{Q^2}{r^2}+\frac{\Lambda r^2}{3}\right)}}}{\left(1-\frac{2 M}{r}+\frac{Q^2}{r^2}-\frac{\Lambda r^2}{3}\right)}~,
\end{equation}
where the PG metric for Reissner-Nordstrom-de Sitter spacetime is given by,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq21}
ds^2 = g_{\mu \nu} dx^{\mu} dx^{\nu}=-dt^2+(dr\pm v dt)^2+r^2 d\Omega^2~.
\end{eqnarray}
Here the shift velocity, $v$, is given by,
\begin{equation}
v^2={\left(\frac{2M}{r}-\frac{Q^2}{r^2}+\frac{\Lambda r^2}{3}\right)}~.
\end{equation}
Now we could perform a similar calculation for the the tunneling trajectory for a massless particle in the Reissner-Nordstrom-de Sitter spacetime. So we write the solution of Hamilton Jacobi equation as,
\begin{equation}
S=-\int\frac{E\sqrt{{\left(\frac{2M}{r}-\frac{Q^2}{r^2}+\frac{\Lambda r^2}{3}\right)}}}{1-\frac{2 M}{r}+\frac{Q^2}{r^2}-\frac{\Lambda r^2}{3}}dr
\pm\int\frac{\sqrt{E^2-m^2(1-\frac{2 M}{r}+\frac{Q^2}{r^2}-\frac{\Lambda r^2}{3})}}{1-\frac{2 M}{r}+\frac{Q^2}{r^2}-\frac{\Lambda r^2}{3}}dr~.
\end{equation}
In terms of the horizons and surface gravities, the expression, $\left(1-\frac{2 M}{r}+\frac{Q^2}{r^2}-\frac{\Lambda r^2}{3}\right)^{-1}$, can be expressed as,
\begin{eqnarray}
\left(1-\frac{2 M}{r}+\frac{Q^2}{r^2}-\frac{\Lambda r^2}{3}\right)^{-1}=\frac{1}{2 \kappa_{+}(r-r_{+})}+\frac{1}{2 \kappa_{-}(r-r_{-})} +\frac{1}{2 \kappa_{c}(r-r_{c})}-\frac{1}{2 \kappa_{0}(r-r_{0})}~.
\end{eqnarray}
Here $r_{0}=-(r_{+}+r_{-}+r_{c})$ being
negative, is unphysical and surface gravity associated with $r_{0}$ is defined as $\kappa_0=\frac{1}{2}\left|\frac{\partial f(r)}{\partial r}\right|_{r=r_0}$.
So, Im $S$ can also be expressed as,
\begin{eqnarray}
Im~S &=& Im \Bigg[-\int\frac{E\sqrt{{\left(\frac{2M}{r}-\frac{Q^2}{r^2}+\frac{\Lambda r^2}{3}\right)}}}{1-\frac{2 M}{r}+\frac{Q^2}{r^2}-\frac{\Lambda r^2}{3}}dr
\pm\int\frac{\sqrt{E^2-m^2(1-\frac{2 M}{r}+\frac{Q^2}{r^2}-\frac{\Lambda r^2}{3})}}{1-\frac{2 M}{r}+\frac{Q^2}{r^2}-\frac{\Lambda r^2}{3}}dr\Bigg]\nonumber\\
&=& - Im \int E\sqrt{{\left(\frac{2M}{r}-\frac{Q^2}{r^2}+\frac{\Lambda r^2}{3}\right)}}\times \left(\frac{1}{2 \kappa_{+}(r-r_{+})}+\frac{1}{2 \kappa_{-}(r-r_{-})}+\frac{1}{2 \kappa_{c}(r-r_{c})}-\frac{1}{2 \kappa_{0}(r-r_{0})}\right)dr~\nonumber\\
&&\pm Im \int \sqrt{E^2-m^2\bigg(1-\frac{2 M}{r}+\frac{Q^2}{r^2}-\frac{\Lambda r^2}{3}\bigg)}\times \left(\frac{1}{2 \kappa_{+}(r-r_{+})}+\frac{1}{2 \kappa_{-}(r-r_{-})}+\frac{1}{2 \kappa_{c}(r-r_{c})}-\frac{1}{2 \kappa_{0}(r-r_{0})}\right)dr~.\nonumber\\\label{eq33}
\end{eqnarray}
From Eq. (\ref{eq33}), one can easily show that the contribution of three horizons gives the following probability of the Hawking radiation as,
\begin{equation}\label{eq32}
P=exp\left(- \frac{ \pi E}{\kappa_{eff}}\right)\times exp\left(\pm \frac{ \pi E}{\kappa_{eff}}\right),
\end{equation}
where $\kappa_{eff}=\left(\frac{1}{\kappa_{+}}+\frac{1}{\kappa_{-}}+\frac{1}{\kappa_{c}}\right)^{-1}$. If we follow the outgoing trajectory we get nontrivial distribution from Eq. (\ref{eq32}). This corresponds to the thermal radiation which is characterized by the Hawking temperature, where the Hawking temperature is given by,
\begin{equation}\label{eq31}
T_{H}=\frac{\kappa_{eff}}{2 \pi}~.
\end{equation}
Here we show that there are two contributions to the tunneling process of radiation. These two contributions separately
give the radiation with the two times Hawking temperature. But the combination of these two gives the
radiation with the exact Hawking temperature.
Eq. (\ref{eq31}) implies that the temperature of radiation that does not
coincide with the conventional Hawking temperature related to the outer cosmological horizon. The
contribution between the event horizon, Cauchy horizon, and cosmological horizon determines the temperature.
\section{HAWKING RADIATION in Rotating BTZ black hole}\label{BTZ}
The metric for a rotating BTZ black hole is given by \cite{Banados:1992wn,Banados:1992gq,Dias:2019ery, Chaturvedi:2013ova, Kajuri:2020bvi,Fathi:2021eig, Bhattacharjee:2020gbo, Emparan:2020rnp},
\begin{equation}\label{eq45}
ds^2=-f(r)dt^2+f(r)^{-1} dr^2 +r^2 \left(d \phi-\frac{J}{2r^2}dt\right)^2~,
\end{equation}
where $f(r)=\left(-M+\frac{r^2}{l^2}+\frac{J^2}{4 r^2}\right)=\frac{(r^2-r^2_{+})(r^2-r^2_{-})}{l^2 r^2}$. Here $M$ is the mass of the BTZ black hole, $l^2$ is related to the negative cosmological constant, $J$ is the angular momentum and $r_{\pm}=l~\left(\frac{M}{2}\left(1\pm\sqrt{1-(\frac{J}{M l})^2}\right)\right)^{1/2}$ is the inner Cauchy horizon and the outer event horizon, respectively. To get the PG metric for rotating BTZ black hole first we move to a dragging coordinate system with a angular velocity as \cite{Liu:2005hj},
\begin{equation}
\frac{d\phi}{dt}=\frac{J}{2r^2}~.
\end{equation}
In this coordinate system the line element becomes
\begin{equation}
ds^2=-f(r)dt^2+f(r)^{-1} dr^2~.
\end{equation}
which represent two dimensional hypersurface in a three dimensional BTZ space time. Now using following coordinate transformations,
\begin{equation}\label{eq46}
d\tilde{t}\rightarrow dt \pm f dr,~~f=\frac{\sqrt{1+M-\frac{r^2}{l^2}-\frac{J^2}{4 r^2}}}{\left(-M+\frac{r^2}{l^2}+\frac{J^2}{4 r^2}\right)}~,
\end{equation}
we obtain the PG metric for BTZ black hole as,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq47}
ds^2= g_{\mu \nu} dx^{\mu} dx^{\nu}=-dt^2+(dr\pm v dt)^2+r^2 d\Omega^2~. \nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
Here the shift velocity, $v$, is given by,
\begin{equation}
v^2=1+M -\frac{r^2}{l^2}-\frac{J^2}{4 r^2}~.
\end{equation}
The exponent of the imaginary part of the action along the tunneling trajectory, Im $S$, gives the probability of the tunneling process, Where action $S$ is the solution of Hamilton-Jacobi equation which is given by,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
S=-\int\frac{E\sqrt{1+M-\frac{r^2}{l^2}-\frac{J^2}{4 r^2}}}{-M+\frac{r^2}{l^2}+\frac{J^2}{4 r^2}}dr\pm\int\frac{\sqrt{E^2-m^2(-M+\frac{r^2}{l^2}+\frac{J^2}{4 r^2})}}{-M+\frac{r^2}{l^2}+\frac{J^2}{4 r^2}}dr~.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
As the expression, $\left(-M+\frac{r^2}{l^2}+\frac{J^2}{4 r^2}\right)^{-1}$, can be expressed in terms of horizons as,
\begin{eqnarray}
\left(-M+\frac{r^2}{l^2}+\frac{J^2}{4 r^2}\right)^{-1}=\frac{l^2 r^2}{(r^2-r^2_{+})(r^2-r^2_{-})}~.\nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
So, Im $S$ can also be expressed as,
\begin{eqnarray}
Im~S &=& Im \Bigg[-\int\frac{E\sqrt{1+M-\frac{r^2}{l^2}-\frac{J^2}{4 r^2}}}{-M+\frac{r^2}{l^2}+\frac{J^2}{4 r^2}} dr\pm \int\frac{\sqrt{E^2-m^2(-M+\frac{r^2}{l^2}+\frac{J^2}{4 r^2})}}{-M+\frac{r^2}{l^2}+\frac{J^2}{4 r^2}}dr\Bigg] \nonumber\\&&= - Im \int E\sqrt{1+M-\frac{r^2}{l^2}-\frac{J^2}{4 r^2}}\times\frac{l^2 r^2}{(r^2-r^2_{+})(r^2-r^2_{-})}\nonumber\\
&&\pm Im \int \sqrt{E^2-m^2(-M+\frac{r^2}{l^2}+\frac{J^2}{4 r^2})}\times\frac{l^2 r^2}{(r^2-r^2_{+})(r^2-r^2_{-})}~. \label{eq52}
\end{eqnarray}
From Eq. (\ref{eq52}), one can easily show that the contribution of two horizons gives the following probability of the Hawking radiation as,
\begin{equation}\label{eq50}
P=exp\left(- \frac{ \pi l^2~E}{(r_{+}+r_{-})}\right)\times exp\left(\pm \frac{ \pi l^2~E}{(r_{+}+r_{-})}\right)~.
\end{equation}
Similarly hear also we only consider the negative sing in equation (\ref{eq50}) to get a nontrivial distribution. This corresponds to the thermal radiation, which is characterized by the Hawking temperature, where the Hawking temperature is given by,
%
\begin{equation}\label{eq54}
T_{H}=\frac{(r_{+}+r_{-})}{2 \pi l^2}~.
\end{equation}
This temperature can also expressed as \cite{Singha:2021dxe},
\begin{equation}
T_{H}=\frac{\kappa_{eff}}{2 \pi}~,
\end{equation}
where $\kappa_{eff}=\left(\frac{1}{\kappa_{+}}+\frac{1}{\kappa_{-}}\right)^{-1}$. Here $\kappa_{+}$ and $\kappa_{-}$ are the surface gravities of the event horizon, and the Cauchy horizon, respectively.
Here we show that there are two contributions to the tunneling process of radiation. These two contributions separately
give the radiation with the two times Hawking temperature. But the combination of these two gives the
radiation with the exact Hawking temperature.
Eq. (\ref{eq54}) implies that the temperature of radiation that does not coincide with
the conventional Hawking temperature related to the outer event horizon. The contribution between the event
horizon and the Cauchy horizon determines the temperature.
\section{DISCUSSIONS}
The most common approach to study the Hawking radiation in quantum tunneling is to write the tunneling probability as $\Gamma\propto exp(2\Im[\int p dr])$. But this tunneling probability is not a proper observable since the quantity $\int p dr$ is not remaining invariant under canonical transformation. To remove this issue, one can use $\Gamma\propto exp(\Im[\oint p dr])$, where the exponential factor is a clearly canonical invariant quantity. Here we use the Hamilton-Jacobi equation method, which is free from the canonical invariant issue, to study the Hawking radiation as tunneling. Here we have considered Schwarzschild-de Sitter spacetime, Reissner-Nordstrom-de Sitter spacetime, and rotating BTZ black hole spacetime. We have shown that there are two contributions to the tunneling process of radiation. These two contributions separately
give the radiation with the two times the original Hawking temperature. But the combination of these two gives the radiation with the exact Hawking temperature. We have shown that the temperature of radiation
does not coincide with the conventional Hawking temperature related to the outer cosmological horizon for Schwarzschild-de Sitter spacetime. The
contribution between the black hole horizon and cosmological horizon determines the temperature.
For Reissner-Nordstrom-de Sitter spacetime, the temperature of radiation does not coincide with the conventional Hawking temperature related to the outer cosmological horizon. The
contribution between the event horizon, Cauchy horizon, and cosmological horizon determines the temperature.
Similarly, for rotating BTZ black holes, the temperature of radiation does
not coincide with the conventional Hawking temperature related to the outer event horizon. The
contribution between the event horizon and the Cauchy horizon determines the temperature.
It would be quite interesting to apply the above technique for other spacetimes such as Kerr spacetime \cite{Boyer:1966qh, Kerr:2007dk, Krasinski:1976vyc, Teukolsky:2014vca, Visser:2007fj, Smailagic:2010nv}, Kerr-de Sitter spacetime \cite{Akcay:2010vt,Li:2016zdi,Suzuki:1998vy}, Kerr–Newman–de Sitter spacetimes \cite{Franzen:2020gke,Gwak:2018tmy,Stuchlik:1997gk}, charged BTZ black hole spacetime \cite{Hendi:2015wxa,Hendi:2020yah,Tang:2016vmu, Singha:2022bvr} and black holes in Horava gravity \cite{Janiszewski:2014iaa, Davison:2016auk}.
\bigskip
\begin{acknowledgments}
CS thanks the Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics (SINP) Kolkata for financial support.
\end{acknowledgments}
\nocite{*}
\bibliographystyle{ieeetr}
|
\section{Introduction}
The implementation of a concrete quantum computing platform poses several challenges.
A suitable platform should exhibit features such as scalability \cite{DiVincenzo2000}, long
decoherence time \cite{Joos1985, Unruh1995}, and universality \cite{Barenco1995}. In this
spirit, holonomic quantum computation (HQC) \cite{Zanardi1999,Pachos1999,Duan2001} arose
as a promising approach for quantum computing. HQC was initially based on the use of adiabatic
geometric phases, which are robust against dynamical details and fluctuations in the evolution
\cite{Solinas2012, Viotti2021}.
The physical implications of geometrical phases gained notoriety after Berry's seminal work
\cite{Berry1984} on adiabatic systems. Since then, several generalizations have
been made. Of particular importance is the generalization to non-adiabatic non-Abelian
geometrical phases \cite{Anandan1988}, which have been used in non-adiabatic holonomic
quantum computing (NHQC), originally proposed in Ref.~\cite{Sjoqvist2012} for a
$\Lambda$-type system. Due to the long operation time required by adiabatic implementations,
quantum gates become more susceptible to open quantum system phenomena. Therefore,
non-adiabatic constructions are often regarded as effective strategies to mitigate this effect
\cite{Sjoqvist2012,Johansson2012,Shen2021}. Among experimental realizations, implementations
using superconducting qubits \cite{AbdumalikovJr2013,Danilin2018} and nitrogen-vacancy
centers in diamond \cite{Arroyo-Camejo2014,Zu2014} can be found as examples. Moreover,
single-loop implementations, which speed up the protocol even further, have been investigated
\cite{Xu2015,Sjoqvist2016, Herterich2016, Zhou2017, Xu2018a,Xu2018b}.
Ideally, the $\Lambda$-type system usually operates in the regime of the rotating wave
approximation (RWA). Whenever the counter-rotating frequencies associated with the bare
Hamiltonian are large enough in comparison with the typical time scale of the system
dynamics, the counter-rotating contributions to the Hamiltonian can be averaged out. This,
in practice, introduces a limitation into how fast these gates can operate \cite{Spiegelberg2013}.
While arbitrarily fast gates dispel the effects of decoherence, they leave the regime of validity
of the RWA: the operation time of the gate becomes comparable with the oscillation frequency
of the counter-rotating terms. These two competing effects introduce a trade-off between
dissipative effects in the gate and the RWA accuracy. One may note that a somewhat
analogous trade-off effect occurs in the adiabatic version of HQC, but with the breakdown
of RWA replaced by non-ideal effects associated with the finite run time of the gates
\cite{Florio2006a,Florio2006b,Lupo2007}.
Our objective in this work is to investigate the trade-off between dissipative effects and
breakdown of RWA. We analyze how different parameters affect the performance of the
gates and we also determine the optimal regime of operation for single and two-qubit
non-adiabatic holonomic quantum gates in the $\Lambda$-type configuration. We find
that the counter-rotating terms introduce a coupling between the dark and excited state,
which does not occur in the RWA regime. Moreover, we also investigate the effect of
heterogeneous counter-rotating frequencies. We observe that different frequencies may,
very slightly, improve the fidelity for certain gates.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec.~\ref{sec:holonomic_setting}, we briefly review
the holonomic setting for one and two-qubit gates. In Sec.~\ref{sec:nonRWA}, we extend
the discussion beyond the RWA regime and we discuss our results. Concluding remarks
can be found in Sec.~\ref{sec:conclusions}.
\section{Holonomic setting}\label{sec:holonomic_setting}
In the $\Lambda$-type system, two states $\ket{0}$ and $\ket{1}$, which encode the qubit
space, are coupled to an auxiliary excited state $\ket{e}$, but remain uncoupled between
themselves. The system acquires a $\Lambda$-like structure, as depicted in
Fig.~\ref{fig:setup_dissipative}(a). We can regard the states $\ket{0}$ and $\ket{1}$ as
stable ground states. Meanwhile, $\ket{e}$ is typically an unstable state that undergoes
dissipation, decaying to an auxiliary ground state $\ket{g}$. Transitions between the levels
are induced by a pair of laser pulses, which can be controlled over time.
\subsection{One-qubit gates}
The starting point to model the unitary dynamics of the single-qubit gates is the Hamiltonian
\cite{Spiegelberg2013}:
\begin{eqnarray}
H(t) = H_0 + \boldsymbol{\mu} \cdot {\bf E}(t),
\end{eqnarray}
where $H_0 = -f_{0e} \ket{0}\bra{0} - f_{1e} \ket{1}\bra{1}$ is the bare Hamiltonian and
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf E}(t) = g_0(t)\cos(\nu_0 t) \boldsymbol{\epsilon}_0+ g_1(t) \cos(\nu_1 t) \boldsymbol{\epsilon}_1,
\end{eqnarray}
is the applied oscillating electric pulse. Here, $g_j(t)$ and $\nu_j$ (with $j=0,1$) are the pulse
envelope and oscillation frequency, respectively. Additionally, $\boldsymbol{\mu}$ is the electric
dipole operator and $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_j$ is the polarization. We move to the interaction
picture Hamiltonian $H_I(t) = e^{-i H_0 t}H(t)e^{i H_0 t}$, tuning the frequencies $\nu_j$ so
they get resonant with the bare transition frequencies $f_{je}$, i.e., $\nu_j = f_{je}$. By doing
so, one finds the Hamiltonian that describes the $\Lambda$-type system in the interaction
picture:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:Lambda_hamiltonian}
H_I(t) & = &
\Omega_0(t) (1 + e^{-2if_{0e} t}) \ket{e}\bra{0} \nonumber \\
& & + \Omega_1(t) (1 + e^{-2if_{1e} t}) \ket{e}\bra{1} + {\rm H.c.},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Omega_j (t) = \bra{e} \boldsymbol{\mu} \cdot \boldsymbol{\epsilon} \ket{j} g_j(t)/2$ are
Rabi frequencies (we put $\hbar = 1$ from now on). Henceforth, we are interested in how to
handle the counter-rotating terms $e^{-2if_{je} t}$ and how they affect the performance of this
protocol.
We start by reviewing the ideal case, where the RWA is valid, assuming that $f_{je}$ is
large. These rapidly oscillating terms average out to zero and the Hamiltonian in
Eq.~\eqref{eq:Lambda_hamiltonian} becomes:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:Lambda_hamiltonian_rwa}
H_I(t)
=
\Omega (t) (\omega_0 \ket{e}\bra{0} + \omega_1 \ket{e}\bra{1} ) + {\rm H.c.}
\end{eqnarray}
Here, we have assumed that both laser pulses are applied simultaneously and have identical
shape so that we may rewrite the frequencies as $\Omega_j(t) = \Omega(t) \omega_j$ with
$|\omega_0|^2 + |\omega_1|^2 = 1$. The parameter $\Omega(t)$ can be regarded as an
overall pulse envelope, while $\omega_0$ and $\omega_1$ refer to the relative (complex)
weight between the two transition amplitudes. It is elucidating to rewrite the Hamiltonian
above in terms of the bright and dark states, $\ket{b} = \omega_0^{\ast}\ket{0} +
\omega_1^{\ast} \ket{1}$ and $\ket{d} = -\omega_1 \ket{0} + \omega_0 \ket{1}$, respectively.
The Hamiltonian in Eq.~\eqref{eq:Lambda_hamiltonian_rwa} can thereby be re-expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:Lambda_hamiltonian_rwa_bd}
H_{bd}(t) = \Omega (t) \ket{e}\bra{b} + {\rm H.c.}
\end{eqnarray}
This means that the dark state is decoupled from the evolution and the system simply performs
Rabi oscillations between the bright and excited states with frequency $\Omega(t)$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{setup_combined}
\caption{(a) Basic setup for the $\Lambda$-type system. The excited state decays to an
additional low lying level $\ket{g}$ with a rate $\gamma$. There is no coupling or decay
with the computational subspace itself. This means that dissipation effects only occur
while the excited state is populated. (b) Hyperbolic secant pulses. (c) Configuration and
detunings in the two-qubit gate setup.}
\label{fig:setup_dissipative}
\end{figure}
Let us now consider the qubit subspace $M(0) = \text{Span} \{\ket{0}, \ket{1}\} =
\text{Span} \{\ket{b}, \ket{d}\}$ and its dynamics. The subspace evolves into $M(t)$,
spanned by:
\begin{eqnarray}
\ket{\psi_k(t)} = \exp\left( - i \int_0^t H_I(t') dt' \right) \ket{k}
= \mathcal{U}(t, 0) \ket{k},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathcal{U}(t, 0)$ is the time-evolution operator and $k=0, 1$. In the bright-dark basis,
the unitary matrix assumes the form \cite{Herterich2016}
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{U}_{bd}(t, 0)
& = &
\ket{d}\bra{d}+\cos \Phi (\ket{b}\bra{b} + \ket{e}\bra{e}) \nonumber \\
& & - i \sin \Phi (\ket{e}\bra{b} + \ket{b}\bra{e}),
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:pulse_area_int}
\Phi
=
\int_0^t \Omega(t')dt'
\end{eqnarray}
is the pulse area. Geometrically, this evolution corresponds to a path in the Grassmanian
$\mathcal{G}(3;2)$, i.e., the set of $2$-dimensional subspaces of the $3$-dimensional
Hilbert space that define the $\Lambda$-type system \cite{Bengtsson2006}. In particular,
when we have $\Phi = \pi$, the trajectory corresponds to a full loop in the Grassmanian.
The effect of this evolution whenever $\Phi = \pi$ is to implement a holonomy matrix
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:single_pulse_gate}
U(C) = \mathcal{U}_{bd}(C) \mathbb{P} =
\begin{matrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos \theta & e^{-i \phi } \sin \theta\\
e^{i \phi } \sin \theta\ & -\cos \theta
\end{pmatrix}
\end{matrix}
=
{\bf n} \cdot \boldsymbol{\sigma} ,
\end{eqnarray}
after properly projecting $\mathcal{U}_{bd}(t, 0)$ into the qubit space. Here,
${\bf n} = (\sin \theta \cos \phi, \sin \theta \sin \phi, \cos \theta)$ and
$\mathbb{P} = \ket{0}\bra{0} + \ket{1} \bra{1}$. Besides, we have parametrized the
frequencies $\omega_0$ and $\omega_1$ as $\omega_0=\sin(\theta/2)e^{i\phi}$ and
$\omega_1=-\cos(\theta/2)$. This process corresponds to a $\pi$ rotation around ${\bf n}$
on the Bloch sphere. The unitary in Eq.~(\ref{eq:single_pulse_gate}), however, is not
universal (the phase-shift gate, for instance, cannot be written in this form). A universal
gate can be implemented by employing a second
loop $C_{{\bf m}}$, yielding
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:ideal_unitary}
U(C) = U(C_{{\bf m}})U(C_{{\bf n}}) = {\bf n} \cdot {\bf m}
- i \boldsymbol{\sigma} \cdot ({\bf n} \times {\bf m}).
\end{eqnarray}
This transformation has a clear physical meaning as well; the universal gate $U(C)$ above
corresponds to a rotation in the plane spanned by ${\bf n}$ and ${\bf m}$ by an angle
$2\cos^{-1}({\bf n} \cdot {\bf m})$ \cite{Sjoqvist2012}. Therefore, any single-qubit gate can
be obtained by an appropriate choice of pulses, determined by ${\bf n}$ and ${\bf m}$. The
holonomic nature of $U(C)$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:ideal_unitary} relies on two facts \cite{Sjoqvist2012}:
(i) the Hamiltonian matrix $\bra{\psi_k (t)} H_I (t) \ket{\psi_l (t)}$ vanishes so that $U(C)$
becomes purely dependent on $C$, and
(ii) there exists two generic loops $C$ and $C'$ in $\mathcal{G} (3;2)$ for which the
corresponding unitaries do not commute. The latter, together with the two-qubit setting
described below, ensures universality of NHQC.
From hereafter we shall use hyperbolic secant pulses $\Omega(t) =
\beta \sech (\beta t)$, as depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:setup_dissipative}(b) The
parameter $\beta$ can be regarded as the inverse pulse length: by increasing $\beta$ we
implement sharper and shorter pulses. It also provides a convenient parametrization: this
pulse is area-preserving and the condition $\Phi = \pi$ is satisfied regardless of the value
of $\beta$ chosen.
Finally, we use the amplitude-damping jump operator $L = \ket{g}\bra{e}$ with $\ket{g}$ an
additional low lying level, and the Lindblad equation
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:RWAdissipative}
\frac{d\rho}{dt} = i[\rho, H_I(t)] + \gamma D(\rho),
\end{eqnarray}
to model decay \cite{Breuer2007}. Here, $\rho$ is the density matrix of the system,
$D(\rho)=L \rho L^\dagger -\frac{1}{2}\{L^\dagger L, \rho\}$ is the dissipator, and
$\gamma$ is the dissipation rate, as depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:setup_dissipative}(a).
\subsection{Two-qubit gate}
The original NHQC proposal in Ref.~\cite{Sjoqvist2012} includes a protocol based on
the S\o rensen–M\o lmer scheme \cite{Sorensen1999} for implementing two-qubit gates
(see also Ref.~\cite{Duan2001} for an adiabatic implementation and
Refs.~\cite{ZhaoXu2019,Xu2021} for generalizations of the NHQC scheme to multi-qubit
gates). The setup for the two-qubit gate consists of two identical trapped ions in the same
three-level $\Lambda$-configuration as the one used for single-qubit gates. The transition
$0 \leftrightarrow e$ ($1 \leftrightarrow e$) is driven by a laser with detuning
$\pm (\nu + \delta)$ ($\pm (\nu - \delta)$), where $\nu$ is the trap frequency and $\delta$
is an additional detuning, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:setup_dissipative}(c). In addition, we
assume that the system satisfies the Lamb-Dicke criterion $\eta \ll 1$, where $\eta$ is the
Lamb-Dicke parameter, and also that $|\Omega_i(t)| < \nu$. These conditions allow us to
suppress the off-resonant couplings \cite{Sorensen1999}. As such, the Hamiltonian
describing this interaction assumes the form
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:twoqubit_Hamiltonian}
H^{(2)} & = &
\frac{\eta^2}{\delta}\bigg(
|\Omega_0(t)|^2 \sigma_0(\phi, t) \otimes \sigma_0(\phi, t) \nonumber \\
& & - |\Omega_1(t)|^2 \sigma_1(-\phi, t) \otimes \sigma_1(-\phi, t)\bigg),
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:twoqubit_counter}
\sigma_0(\phi, t) = e^{i \phi/4}(1 + e^{-2i f_{0e} t})\ket{e}\bra{0} + {\rm H.c.}, \nonumber \\
\sigma_1(-\phi, t) = e^{-i \phi/4}(1 + e^{-2i f_{1e} t})\ket{e}\bra{1} + {\rm H.c}.
\end{eqnarray}
After eliminating off-resonant couplings of the singly excited states $\ket{0e}$ , $\ket{e0}$,
$\ket{1e}$ and $\ket{e1}$, and once again performing the RWA, the Hamiltonian reads:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:twoqubit_total}
H^{(2)}(t)
=
\sqrt{|\Omega_0(t)|^4 + |\Omega_1(t)|^4}
\left(H^{(2)}_0(t)
+
H^{(2)}_1(t)\right),
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:twoqubit1}
H^{(2)}_0(t)
=
\sin{\frac{\theta}{2}} e^{i \phi/2} \ket{ee}\bra{00}
- \cos{\frac{\theta}{2}} e^{-i\phi/2} \ket{ee}\bra{11} + {\rm H.c.} \nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:twoqubit2}
H^{(2)}_1(t)
=
\sin{\frac{\theta}{2}} \ket{e0}\bra{0e} - \cos{\frac{\theta}{2}} \ket{e1}\bra{1e} + {\rm H.c.}
\end{eqnarray}
Here, $|\Omega_0(t)|^2/|\Omega_1(t)|^2 = \tan(\theta/2)$ and $\phi$ are kept constant
throughout the pulse. Likewise, we should assume the criterion
$\frac{\eta^2}{\delta} \int_0^\tau \sqrt{|\Omega_0(t)|^4 + |\Omega_1(t)|^4}dt = \pi$ for the
pulse area is satisfied. By analogy to the single-qubit gate, this procedure yields the unitary
\begin{eqnarray}
U^{(2)}(C_n) & = &
\cos{\theta}\ket{00}\bra{00} + e^{-i\phi}\sin{\theta}\ket{00}\bra{11} \nonumber\\
& & + e^{i\phi}\sin{\theta}\ket{11}\bra{00} - \cos{\theta}\ket{11}\bra{11} \nonumber\\
& & + \ket{01}\bra{10} + \ket{10}\bra{10}.
\end{eqnarray}
By choosing $\theta = 0$, we are able to construct a controlled-Z (CZ) gate
\begin{eqnarray}
U^{(2)}_{\rm CZ}
=
\ket{00}\bra{00}
+\ket{01}\bra{10}
+\ket{10}\bra{10}
-\ket{11}\bra{11},
\end{eqnarray}
which is an entangling gate and can form a universal set together with a universal
single-qubit gate \cite{Bremner2002}.
\begin{figure}
\center
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{FidelityGrid.pdf}
\caption{
(a) Infidelity $1 - \mathcal{F}$ of the S gate as a function of the ratio $\beta/f_i$ for
different values of $\gamma/f_i$. The dotted lines correspond to the RWA solution
where the Hamiltonian in Eq.~\eqref{eq:Lambda_hamiltonian_rwa} is used together
with the master equation in Eq.~\eqref{eq:RWAdissipative}, i.e., when counter-rotating
effects are neglected. The spacing between the two pair of pulses is chosen as
$\Delta t = 10/\beta$. This guarantees that the pulses are not significantly overlapping.
We used a grid of 500 sample points for $\beta/f_i$. (b) Optimal (inverse) pulse length
$\beta_{opt}$ (in units of $f_i$) as a function of $\gamma/f_i$. We also plot the
corresponding infidelity (inset). We have used a sample space of 1000 points for
$\beta_i/f_i$ in the interval $[0.03, 0.3]$. The average infidelity was calculated for
$100$ input states uniformly sampled over the Bloch sphere in both figures.}
\label{fig:FidelityPhaseShift}
\end{figure}
\section{Results}\label{sec:nonRWA}
\begin{figure*}[htp!]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.98\textwidth]{FidelityContour.pdf}
\caption{
Average infidelity $1-\mathcal{F}$ as a function of the counter-rotating frequencies
$f_{0e}$ and $f_{1e}$ for $\gamma/\beta = 0.02$. Results are shown for (a) the X gate,
(b) the Hadamard gate, and (c) the S gate. Other details and parameters are the same
as in Fig.~\ref{fig:FidelityPhaseShift}. The simulations were done for a grid of $150 \times 150$
frequencies $f_{0e}$ and $f_{1e}$.}
\label{fig:FidelityGrid}
\end{figure*}
The validity of the RWA has been studied previously in the dissipationless case for
single-qubit gates \cite{Spiegelberg2013}. There, the authors show that the approximation
starts to break down for very short pulses. We further extend this investigation, considering
the competing effect of dissipation and counter-rotating terms; while faster gates avoid
decoherent effects, we also observe the counter-rotating terms playing a larger role in
the dynamics, compromising the fidelity of the gate. The converse is also true: if we use
larger duration pulses in order to offset the counter-rotating terms, the accuracy suffers
due to the longer exposure time to dissipative effects. Our objective is to find an optimal
relationship between these parameters, namely, to investigate the interplay between three
components in this model: the pulse length $\beta$, the coupling parameter $\gamma$,
and the counter-rotating frequencies $f_{je}$.
If we write Eq.~\eqref{eq:Lambda_hamiltonian} in terms of the bright and dark states we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:Hbd_rotating}
H_{bd}(t) & = &
\Omega(t)
(1+|\omega_0|^2e^{-2i f_{0e} t} + |\omega_1|^2e^{-2i f_{1e} t} )
\ket{e}\bra{b} \nonumber \\
& & \quad + \Omega (t)\omega_0 \omega_1(e^{-2i f_{1e} t} - e^{-2i f_{0e} t})
\ket{e}\bra{d}
+\mathrm{H.c.}
\end{eqnarray}
Differently from what we observe in the ideal case, the presence of counter-rotating terms
introduces a coupling between the dark and excited state. An exception occurs in the case
of homogeneous frequencies, that is, when $f_{1e}=f_{0e}=f_i$, resulting in
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:Hbd_rotating2}
H_{bd}(t) =
\Omega(t)(1+e^{-2i f_i t} )\ket{e}\bra{b}
+\mathrm{H.c.}
\end{eqnarray}
The equation above means that taking the two counter-rotating frequencies to be the same
eliminates the coupling between the dark and excited state in Eq.~\eqref{eq:Hbd_rotating}.
On the other hand, we can see that Eq.~\eqref{eq:Hbd_rotating2} differs from
Eq.~\eqref{eq:Lambda_hamiltonian_rwa_bd} by a factor of $e^{-2i f_i t}$ in the Rabi
frequency. This means that even though the structure of the Hamiltonian is the same
as the one found in the ideal case, due to the counter-rotating corrections we do not, in
general, return to the initial subspace at the end of the evolution.
In order to investigate the validity of the RWA, we compute the fidelity $\mathcal{F} = \bra{\psi_0}
U(C)^\dagger \rho U(C) \ket{\psi_0}$ for different quantum gates, and analyze the simulation
results in terms of the infidelity $1-\mathcal{F}$. The unitary $U(C)$ corresponds to the ideal
unitary in Eq.~\eqref{eq:ideal_unitary}, which is determined by the choice of ${\bf n}$ and
${\bf m}$. The density matrix $\rho$ is obtained by solving the master equation
Eq.~\eqref{eq:RWAdissipative} for the non-RWA Hamiltonian in
Eq.~\eqref{eq:Lambda_hamiltonian} and $\ket{\psi_0}$ is the input state. Finally, we
compute the \emph{average} fidelity for several input states uniformly distributed over
the Bloch sphere. For details, see Appendix~\ref{app:corr}.
We start by examining the average infidelity for the phase-shift gate. By choosing
$\theta = \theta' = \pi/2$ resulting in the pulses ${\bf n} = (\cos \phi,\sin \phi,0)$ and
${\bf m} = (\cos \phi', \sin \phi', 0)$, we can implement the phase-shift gate
$\ket{k} = e^{2ik(\phi' - \phi)} \ket{k}$, with $k=0, 1$. Basic results are shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:FidelityPhaseShift}(a) for the average infidelity $1 - \mathcal{F}$ as a
function of the ratio between the inverse pulse length $\beta$ and the counter-rotating
frequencies taken to be the same, i.e., $f_{0e} = f_{1e} = f_i$. We can notice that for
small $\beta/f_i$ (longer pulses) the curves converge roughly to the same fidelity, but
at different rates depending on $\gamma/f_i$. This happens due to the fact that in this
regime the decoherent effects become dominant. More specifically, the dissipation
hampers any population transfer between the qubit states, as in this case the
populations and coherences in the excited state quickly decay to the ground state.
Therefore, the final state is very nearly the same as the input state, regardless of
the value of $\beta/f_i$.
On the other hand, for large $\beta/f_i$ (shorter pulses) we can see that the gate
accuracy also decreases and the fidelity becomes independent of the ratio $\gamma/f_i$.
In this scenario the operation time is very short, hence the counter-rotating terms dominate
and the end result depends on the particular value of $f_i$. The asymptotic behaviour
for $\gamma \ll f_i \ll \beta$ has been briefly discussed in \cite{Spiegelberg2013} for the ${\rm X}$
and the Hadamard (${\rm H}$) gates, when considering a few selected input states. The
counter-rotating correction in Eq.~\eqref{eq:Hbd_rotating2} becomes $1 + e^{-2 i f_{i} t}
\approx 2$ for small $f_{i}$. In this regime, the system undergoes a cyclic evolution twice.
This means that the bright state evolves as $\ket{b} \rightarrow -\ket{b} \rightarrow \ket{b}$,
and the net effect of the evolution is simply to (approximately) implement the identity gate,
once again leaving the input state unchanged.
Finally, for values in-between we observe the optimal regime for the quantum gate and
the presence of a global minimum in the infidelity $1-\mathcal{F}$. This is consistent
with the intuitive idea behind the competition between the RWA and the dissipative effects:
the optimal pulse duration should be long enough in order to minimize the counter-rotating
contributions to the dynamics while also being short enough to avoid dissipative losses.
After that point the RWA starts to break down and the infidelity increases. Figure
\ref{fig:FidelityPhaseShift}~(a) explicitly shows an overlap between the RWA solution
(dashed line) and the full solution (solid lines). The latter deviates from the former when
$\beta/f_i$ approaches the global minimum, explicitly showing a breakdown of the RWA.
Therefore, for optimal performance, the frequencies and the pulse should be tuned in a
way that $f_i > \beta \gg \gamma$ holds, if possible. This means that the inverse pulse
length $\beta$ should be much larger than $\gamma$, and at the same time the
counter-rotating frequencies should be sufficiently larger than $\beta$.
We also examine how different counter-rotating frequencies affect the fidelity of the gates.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:FidelityGrid} we show a contour plot for the infidelity $1-\mathcal{F}$ as a
function of $f_{je}/\beta$ for three different gates. Results are shown for the ${\rm X}$,
${\rm H}$, and ${\rm S}$ gate, respectively. The red lines correspond to the optimal
frequency $f_{1e}$ for given $f_{0e}$. A few observations can be made from these plots.
Foremost, we can explicitly see that for the range of frequencies considered here the S
gate has a worse fidelity in general. This corroborates the fact that, since the S gate
requires two pulses, the longer operation time makes the gate much more susceptible
to open quantum system effects. Additionally, it is also possible to observe that
Fig.~\ref{fig:FidelityGrid}(a) is symmetric, while (b) is not. This is linked to the fact
that the complex frequencies $\omega_0$ and $\omega_1$ are of the same modulus
for the X gate, but not for the Hadamard gate.
Furthermore, we can analyze the optimal combinations of frequencies in
Fig.~\ref{fig:FidelityGrid}. The results shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:FidelityGrid}(a) and
(b) show that for single pulse gates and for the frequency range considered, the
optimal relationship for the counter-rotating frequencies is to take both of them to
be the same, i.e., the infidelity $1-\mathcal{F}$ is minimum for $f_{0e} = f_{1e}$.
This is possibly a result of the decoupling of the dark and excited states, which
happens in Eqs.~\eqref{eq:Hbd_rotating} and \eqref{eq:Hbd_rotating2}. The coupling
between $\ket{e}$ and $\ket{d}$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:Hbd_rotating} seems to play a larger
role than the presence of the counter-rotating correction in Eq.~\eqref{eq:Hbd_rotating2}.
Increasing one of the frequencies while keeping the other to be the same shows no
noticeable improvement. On the contrary, we observe a slight worsening of the gate
performance.
Surprisingly, we observe a different behavior for the S gate: there is a slight offset
between the optimal $f_{0e}$ and $f_{1e}$. The result indicates that ideally one should
increase these two frequencies at a constant ratio, different from unity. This behavior
may arise from the use of two pair of pulses in the S gate implementation. It has been
verified in Ref.~\cite{Spiegelberg2013} that the fidelity of non-commuting gates is actually
lower than the product of their fidelities. A similar mechanism may be playing a role here:
the non-Abelian behavior of the unitaries in Eq.~\eqref{eq:ideal_unitary} is possibly the
reason why we observe this effect for unequal frequencies in the S gate.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\center
\includegraphics[width=0.95\columnwidth]{SingleOptimalFrequencyPlotGrid.pdf}
\caption{
Infidelity as a function of the ratio $f_{1e}/f_{0e}$ for single-qubit gates. We show the
results for (a) a single-pulse gate with $\theta = \pi/4$, for different values of $\phi$.
In (b) we plot the results for the phase-shift gate, for which $\theta = \theta' = \pi/2$,
for different values of $\Delta \phi \equiv \phi' - \phi$. We observe a slight shift in the
optimal ratio for the phase-shift gates. The optimal points depends on the desired phase.
Here, the coupling strength is given by $\gamma/\beta = 10^{-3}$, the spacing between
the pulses is $\Delta t = 20/\beta$ and the frequency $f_{0e}$ is fixed and given by
$f_{0e}/\beta = 10$. We use a sampling space of $250$ frequencies and $100$ input
states, as described in Fig.~\ref{fig:FidelityPhaseShift}.}
\label{fig:OptimalFreqPlot}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\center
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{OptimalFrequencyPlotLog.pdf}
\caption{
Infidelity as a function of the ratio $f_{1e}/f_{0e}$ for the NOT gate (yellow), Hadamard
gate (magenta), Z gate (purple) and the S gate (dark blue). The decay rate, the sampling
space and $f_{e0}$ are the same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:OptimalFreqPlot}. Note that the minimum
for the ${\rm S}$ gate is slightly displaced from $f_{1e}/f_{0e} = 1$ (dashed line), in accordance
with Figs.~\ref{fig:FidelityGrid}(c) and~\ref{fig:OptimalFreqPlot}.}
\label{fig:FrequencyLog}
\end{figure}
Now, we further investigate the effect of heterogeneous frequencies. For that we consider
the infidelity of two different single qubit gates. For the first gate we implement the single-pulse
gate in Eq.~\eqref{eq:single_pulse_gate} for different values of $\phi$, with $\theta = \pi/4$.
For the second gate, we implement the phase-shift gate for different phases
$\Delta \phi = 2(\phi' - \phi)$. Our objective is to analyze how changing $\phi$ affects the
optimal ratio between the two counter-rotating frequencies. Like Fig.~\ref{fig:FidelityGrid},
the curves in Fig.~\ref{fig:OptimalFreqPlot}(a) show that single-pulse gates achieve optimality
for equal frequencies. On the other hand, Fig.~\ref{fig:OptimalFreqPlot}(b) shows that while
the optimal ratio indeed occurs for different frequencies, the gain is very marginal. This
suggests that a weak coupling between the excited state and the dark state alone is much
more relevant overall. This claim is further supported by the result in Fig.~\ref{fig:FrequencyLog}.
We see, for the ${\rm X}$, ${\rm H}$ and ${\rm S}$ gates, that there is a sudden decrease
in the infidelity when $f_{0e} \approx f_{1e}$. For the ${\rm S}$ and the ${\rm X}$ gates
the point $f_{0e} = f_{1e}$ is actually a global minimum. Meanwhile, when the ${\rm H}$
gate is considered, the point where the two frequencies are the same only happens to be
a \emph{local} minimum. For the ${\rm Z}$ gate we observe no minimum at all, and the
infidelity is simply monotonically decreasing with $f_{1e}/f_{0e}$. Hence, whether the point
$f_{0e} = f_{1e}$ is optimal may depend on the particular gate implementation and on the
frequency range considered. Nevertheless, a characteristic drop in the infidelity around
this region seems to be common among all of the gates but the $Z$ gate, and the
performance in the regime where $f_{0e} = f_{1e}$ is quite similar to the one obtained
when $f_{1e} \gg f_{0e}$. The behaviour of the curves in Fig.~\ref{fig:FrequencyLog}
arises mainly because of the last term in Eq.~\eqref{eq:Hbd_rotating}. For the ${\rm Z}$
gate, for instance, we have $\omega_0 = 0$ and $\omega_1 = 1$. In this very particular
case, this term vanishes and the fidelity actually depends only on $f_{1e}$, and we do
not observe any coupling between the dark and the excited state regardless of $f_{0e}$.
Meanwhile, the ${\rm X}$ gate is quite different: since $|\omega_0| = |\omega_1| = 1/\sqrt{2}$,
the dependence of the infidelity on $f_{0e}$ and $f_{1e}$ is symmetric and the product
$\omega_0 \omega_1$ is maximum (in modulus), thus, the ${\rm X}$ gate (or any other
gate for which $|\omega_0| = |\omega_1|$, for that matter) is the most sensitive to the
coupling between the dark and the excited state. For other gates, such as the Hadamard
gate, we observe a behaviour in-between. The ratio $|\omega_1|/|\omega_0|$ between
the amplitudes should then play some role whether the optimal strategy is to take
$f_{1e}/f_{0e} = 1$ or $f_{1e} \gg f_{0e}$ for maximum fidelity.
Finally, we check the robustness against both effects in the case of the two-qubit gate.
Considering the counter-rotating contributions in Eqs.~\eqref{eq:twoqubit_Hamiltonian}
and \eqref{eq:twoqubit_counter}, Eqs.~\eqref{eq:twoqubit1} and \eqref{eq:twoqubit2} become
\begin{eqnarray}
H^{(2)}_0(t) & = &
(1 + e^{-2 i f_{0e} t})^2\sin{\frac{\theta}{2}} e^{i \phi/2} \ket{ee}\bra{00} \nonumber \\
& & - (1 + e^{-2 i f_{1e} t})^2 \cos{\frac{\theta}{2}} e^{-i\phi/2} \ket{ee}\bra{11} + {\rm H.c.}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
H^{(2)}_1(t) & = &
4 \cos^2{(f_{0e} t)} \sin{\frac{\theta}{2}} \ket{e0}\bra{0e} \nonumber \\
& & - 4 \cos^2{(f_{1e} t)} \cos{\frac{\theta}{2}} \ket{e1}\bra{1e} + {\rm H.c.},
\end{eqnarray}
respectively. We perform simulations for the CZ gate, which can be constructed by taking
$\theta = 0$. Results for the infidelity are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:CZFidelity} as
a function of the inverse pulse length $\beta$ (in units of $f_{1e} = f_{0e} = f_i$). We plot
the infidelity, averaged over four different input states: $\ket{+}\ket{+}$, $\ket{+}\ket{-}$,
$\ket{-}\ket{+}$ and $\ket{-}\ket{-}$ with $\ket{\pm} = (\ket{0} \pm \ket{1})/\sqrt{2}$, which
are states of interest since the application of the CZ gate upon them results in maximally
entangled Bell states. Our results are qualitatively similar to what was obtained for the single-qubit
case, showing that the two-qubit gate is also robust against the joint effect of dissipation and
counter-rotating terms. Moreover, the asymptotic behaviour for larger pulses is even more
evident in Fig.~\ref{fig:CZFidelity}; we can clearly see how the dissipative effects quickly
start to dominate for $\beta/f_i \lesssim 4 \cdot 10^{-3}$, eventually converging to a specific
value, in a similar fashion to what we obtained for the phase-shift gate. The same
phenomenon occurs when $\beta \gtrsim f_i$ due to the increasing influence of counter-rotating
contributions. This behaviour arises precisely due to the two mechanisms we have
discussed before: for both the very fast or very slow gate operation regimes, a given
input state $\ket{\psi_0}$ is left roughly unchanged after the evolution, and the fidelity
associated with the process is approximately $|\bra{\psi_0}U(C)\ket{\psi_0}|^2$. One
may then find the asymptotic value for the average infidelity $1-\mathcal{F}$ in
Fig.~\ref{fig:FidelityPhaseShift} and Fig.~\ref{fig:CZFidelity} by averaging
$|\bra{\psi_0}U(C)\ket{\psi_0}|^2$ over all the input states. It is possible to show that
$1 - \mathcal{F} = 1/3$ for the phase-shift gate in either cases. This is not visible in
Fig.~\ref{fig:FidelityPhaseShift}~(a) simply due to the fact that we would need to use
pulses of the order of $\beta/f_i \approx 10^{-4}$ or smaller in order to observe such
strongly dissipative regime. Moreover, by comparing Fig.~\ref{fig:FidelityPhaseShift}
and Fig.~\ref{fig:CZFidelity} we could think that single and two-qubit gates are similarly
robust, but that is not necessarily the case. As we can see in Figs.~\ref{fig:FidelityGrid}(a)
and (b) and also in Fig.~\ref{fig:FrequencyLog}, single-pulse gates typically have lower
infidelities. On the other hand, a positive feature is that the optimal pulse-length seems
quite similar for both single- and two-qubit gates, which might simplify experimental
realizations of holonomic quantum gates.
\begin{figure}
\center
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{CZFidelity2.pdf}
\caption{
Infidelity of the CZ gate as a function of $\beta/f_i$. Dotted lines represent the RWA
solution given by the Hamiltonian in Eq.~\eqref{eq:twoqubit1}. Other details are the
same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:FidelityPhaseShift}.}
\label{fig:CZFidelity}
\end{figure}
On a closing note, we briefly discuss the experimental feasibility of an investigation
regarding the frequency asymmetry. In Ref.~\cite{AbdumalikovJr2013}, for instance, the
experiment is performed for a ratio of $f_{0e}/f_{1e} \approx 1.04$ between the frequencies
and a dissipation rate given by $\gamma/f_i \approx 1.1 \cdot 10^{-4}$. As we can see in
Fig.~\ref{fig:OptimalFreqPlot}, these parameters are close to the optimal scenario for both
single and two-pulse gates. However, fine-tuning the frequencies to be the same in this
setup in order to achieve even lower infidelities could be somewhat challenging. This
implementation uses a transmon qubit based on a nearly harmonic ladder, where its
ground and second excited states span the qubit subspace and the first excited state
plays the role of the auxiliary state $\ket{e}$. The anharmonicity is used to average out
an undesirable coupling between the $\Lambda$-type system subspace and higher energy
levels. Thus, homogeneous frequencies could possibly give rise to unwanted dynamical
contributions. In this sense, implementations based on ion traps could be used to fine-tune
the bare energy levels as desired, reaching the configuration shown in
Figs.~\ref{fig:OptimalFreqPlot} and~\ref{fig:FrequencyLog} for the gates where
homogeneous frequencies are optimal.
\section{Conclusions}\label{sec:conclusions}
We have investigated the robustness of non-adiabatic holomonic quantum gates against
dissipative effects and counter-rotating dynamical contributions due to the energy structure
of the $\Lambda$-type system. While short run times minimize the dissipative losses, the
counter-rotating frequencies induce oscillations, which compromise the geometric character
of the gate, decreasing its overall fidelity. In a real implementation, one should seek to
sufficiently approach the RWA regime while keeping losses due to open quantum system
effects minimal. In this work we have explored this trade-off in detail, obtaining an optimal
regime of operation for single and two-qubit gates for a range of parameters typically found
in experimental scenarios. Thus, we believe that our analysis could provide a suitable
rule-of-thumb for optimal experimental parameters, as well as open up for optimisation
of gate performance by varying the pulse length, in implementations of quantum gates
in the $\Lambda$-setting.
Moreover, we have also studied how different frequencies affect the performance of
single-qubit gates. We showed that counter-rotating corrections introduce an unwanted
coupling between the dark and excited state in the $\Lambda$-type system. Homogeneous
frequencies in general result in a sudden decrease of the infidelity due to the suppression
of the dark state coupling. However, whether this regime is indeed optimal will depend on
the gate which is being implemented. In addition, we have observed that two-pulse
single-qubit gates might display an optimal configuration for slightly heterogeneous
frequencies. We suspect that this behaviour arises due to the non-Abelian property
of the geometrical phases. This phenomenon can also be observed for square pulses
in a slightly different fashion. However, whether our results still hold for arbitrary pulses
shapes remain an open question and is subject for further investigation.
Future directions of study could either probe into generalizations of this analysis to
different implementations of the holonomic protocol, such as the off-resonant scheme
\cite{Xu2015,Sjoqvist2016}, the single loop scheme \cite{Herterich2016}, and environment
assisted implementations \cite{Ramberg2019}, as well as inclusions of other open system
effects, such as dephasing and correlated two-qubit noise. A generalization to multi-qubit
gates \cite{ZhaoXu2019,Xu2021} or strategies which do not rely on the RWA
\cite{Gontijo2020} could also be investigated.
\section*{Acknowledgment}
G.O.A. acknowledges the financial support from the S\~ao
Paulo founding agency FAPESP (Grant No. 2020/16050-0)
and the framework of Erasmus+KA107 – International Credit Mobility, financed by the
European Commission. E.S. acknowledges financial support from the Swedish Research
Council (VR) through Grant No. 2017-03832.
|
\section{Introduction}
Let $M$ be a closed smooth Riemannian manifold. Recall that a smooth flow $\phi^t\colon M\to M$ is called {\it Anosov} if the tangent bundle admits a $D\phi^t$-invariant splitting $TM=E^s\oplus X\oplus E^u$, where $X$ is the generator of $\phi^t$, $E^s$ is uniformly contracting and $E^u$ is uniformly expanding under $D\phi^t$.
In this paper will always assume that $M$ has an odd dimension $2d+1$ and that $M$ is equipped with a contact form $\alpha$. Recall that a 1-form $\alpha$ is called {\it contact} if $\alpha\wedge (d\alpha)^d$ is a non-vanishing top-dimensional form. We will consider Anosov flows $\phi^t$ which are also contact. This means that $\phi^t$ preserves a contact form $\alpha$: $\alpha(D\phi^tv)=\alpha(v)$ for all $v\in T M$ and all $t\in\field{R}$, or equivalently, $X\alpha=0$.
Basic examples of contact Anosov flows are geodesic flows and more sophisticated examples can be constructed, in particular, in dimension 3~\cite{FH}.
Recall that flows $\phi_1^t$ and $\phi_2^t$ are called {\it conjugate} if there exists a homeomorphism $h$ such that $h\circ \phi_1^t=\phi_2^t\circ h$ for all $t\in \field{R}$.
In the setting of 3-dimensional contact Anosov flows, Feldman and Ornstein proved that any continuous conjugacy is, in fact, $C^\infty$ smooth~\cite{FO}. To formulate our generalization recall that the distributions $E^s\oplus X$ and $E^u\oplus X$ are known to integrate to foliations $W^{0s}$ and $W^{0u}$, respectively, which are called weak stable and weak unstable foliations.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm_flows}
Let $\phi_1^t\colon M_1\to M_1$ and $\phi_2^t\colon M_2\to M_2$ be contact Anosov flows, which are conjugate via a homeomorphism $h\colon M_1\to M_2$. Assume that the weak stable and unstable distributions of $\phi_1^t$ and $\phi_2^t$ are $C^{r}$ for some $r\ge 1$. Then $h$ is $C^{r_*}$.
\end{theorem}
Here $r_*=r$ if $r$ is not integer and $r_*=r-1+Lip$ if $r$ is an integer (if $r=1$ we can set $r_*=1$ as well). The latter means that $h$ is $C^{r-1}$ diffeomorphism with Lipschitz $(r-1)$-jet. Note that $M_1$ and $M_2$ are homeomorphic via $h$, but a priori may carry different smooth structures. We then conclude that they are, in fact, diffeomorphic once we know that $h$ is $C^1$.
The main setup where this result applies is when the Anosov flows satisfy a {\it bunching condition}, which guarantees $C^{r}$ regularity of weak distributions. Denote by $m(A)=\|A^{-1}\|^{-1}$ the conorm of a linear operator $A$. If for some $t>0$ and all $x\in M_i$
$$
\|D\phi_i^t|_{E^s(x)}\|\cdot \|D\phi_i^t|_{E^u(x)}\|^{r}<m(D\phi_i^{t}|_{E^u(x)})
$$
then $E^{0s}_i$, the weak stable distribution of $\phi_i^t$ is $C^{1+\varepsilon}$~\cite{Hass}. Similarly, if
$$
\|D\phi_i^{t}|_{E^s(x)}\|<m(D\phi_i^{t}|_{E^u(x)})\cdot m(D\phi_i^{t}|_{E^s(x)})^{r}
$$
then the weak unstable distribution $E^{0u}_i$ is also $C^{r}$. In general these conditions are optimal for $C^{r}$ smoothness of weak distributions~\cite{Hass}.
These bunching conditions can be verified in for some specific examples. In particular, a geodesic flow on $1/4$-pinched negatively curved Riemannian manifold satisfies the above conditions and, hence, has $C^1$ weak stable and unstable distributions. The $a^2$-pinching condition means that the sectional curvature function $K$ is bounded above and below as follows
$$
-c< K\le- a^2c
$$
where $c$ is a positive constant. Hence, Theorem~\ref{thm_flows} applies to geodesic flows on Riemannian manifolds which are $C^2$ close to a hyperbolic manifold. Also point-wise $1/2$-pinching gives $C^1$ weak distributions~\cite{Hass2}.
Now we present some corollaries of our main result. Note that by taking the product of the above bunching inequalities we can see that both of them are never satisfied if $r\ge 2$. Hence, in practical terms, Theorem~\ref{thm_flows} only yields a limited regularity of the conjugacy: somewhere between $C^1$ and $C^2$. However, we can remedy this under some additional assumptions. We need to introduce another condition which we call {\it conformal $r$-pinching}. An Anosov flow $\phi^t$ satisfies conformal $r$-pinching with $r\in(1,2]$ if for a sufficiently large $t$ and all $x\in M$
$$
\|D\phi^t|_{E^u(x)}\|< m(D\phi^t|_{E^u(x)})^{r}\,\,\,\,\,\mbox{and}\,\,\,\,\,\,m(D\phi^t|_{E^s(x)})^{r}< \|D\phi^t|_{E^s(x)}\|
$$
\begin{corollary}
\label{thm_flows2}
Let $\phi_1^t\colon M_1\to M_2$ and $\phi_2^t\colon M_1\to M_2$ be contact Anosov flows, which are conjugate via a homeomorphism $h\colon M_1\to M_2$. Assume that the weak stable and unstable distributions of $\phi_1^t$ and $\phi_2^t$ are $C^{r}$ for some $r> 1$. Also assume that $\phi_1^t$ and $\phi_2^t$ are conformally $r$-pinched.
Then $h$ is a $C^\infty$ diffeomorphism.
\end{corollary}
\begin{remark} In the above corollary one can replace the pinching assumption with the assumption about existence of a conformal periodic point. This is a periodic point $p=\phi_1^T(p)$ such that the linearized return map $D\phi_1^T\colon T_pM_1\to T_pM_1$ is conformal on $E^u_1(p)$ and $E^s_1(p)$. This modified statement can be proved with a different bootstrap argument recently used by the authors in~\cite{GRH3}. While more ad hoc, the assumption about existence of conformal periodic point does cover some flows which are not covered by the above corollary.
\end{remark}
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor2b}
Let $\phi_i^t:T^1N_i\to T^1N_i$ be geodesic flows on negatively curved manifolds $(N,g_i)$, $i=1,2$ which are $C^0$ conjugate. Assume that both metrics $g_1$ and $g_2$ are $1/2$-pinched. Then the conjugacy is $C^\infty$ smooth.
\end{corollary}
This, in particular, applies to geodesic flows of Riemannian metrics in a sufficiently small $C^2$-neighborhood of a hyperbolic metric: if two such metric have the same marked length spectrum (or, equivalently, are $C^0$ conjugate) then the conjugacy of geodesic flows is a $C^\infty$ diffeomorphism.
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor2}
Let $\phi^t$ be a geodesic flow on negatively curved $1/2$-pinched manifold. Then there exists a $C^1$-neighborhood $\mathcal{U}$ of $\phi^t$ such that if $\phi_1^t, \phi_2^t\in \mathcal{U}$ are contact and conjugate, then the conjugacy is $C^\infty$ smooth.
\end{corollary}
We can also partially recover a geometric rigidity result of Hamendst\"adt~\cite{Ham}.
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor3}
If $M$ and $N$ are closed negatively curved manifolds with the same marked length spectrum and $C^1$ Anosov splittings then $M$ and $N$ have the same volume.
\end{corollary}
Our result is weaker because Hamendst\"adt only assumed that the Anosov splitting of $TT^1M$ is $C^1$. Still it is enough to recover marked length spectrum rigidity of hyperbolic manifolds using the Besson-Courtois-Gallot entropy rigidity theorem~\cite{BCG}. Hence, following Hamendst\"adt's application of entropy rigidity we arrive at a version of marked length spectrum rigidity for hyperbolic manifolds.
\begin{corollary}
Let $(M, g_1)$ be a closed real hyperbolic manifold of dimension $\ge3$ and let $g_2$ be a $1/4$-pinched Riemannian metric on $M$. Assume that $(M, g_1)$ and $(M, g_2)$ have the same marked length spectrum then $g_2$ is isometric to $g_1$.
\label{cor4}
\end{corollary}
\subsection{Organization}
In the next section we recall some facts about contact Anosov flows and about matching function technique. Then we introduce the main technical tool which we call the Subbundle Theorem. In Section~3 we prove Theorem~\ref{thm_flows} and in Section~4 we derive all the corollaries.
\section{Preliminaries}
\subsection{Basic facts about contact Anosov flows}
Recall that we denote by $W^{s}$, $W^{u}$, $W^{0s}$ and $W^{0u}$ the stable, unstable, weak stable and weak unstable foliations of and Anosov flow. When needed we will also use subscript $i$ to indicate dependence on the flow $\phi_i^t$, $i=1,2$.
It is immediate from this definition of Anosov contact flow $\phi^t$ we have that $\alpha(X)$ is constant, hence, we can normalize the contact form so that $\alpha(X)=1$. Also we have $\ker\alpha=E^s\oplus E^u$. Indeed if $v\in E^s$ then $\alpha(v)=\alpha(D\phi^t(v))\to 0$ as $t\to\infty$, and similarly for $v\in E^u$. It is a simple exercise to check that if $\phi^t$ is a contact Anosov flow then $\dim E^s=\dim E^u=d$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma_contact}
Let $\phi^t\colon M\to M$ be a contact Anosov flow with $C^1$ stable and unstable foliations. Assume that the stable foliation $W^s$ admits a $C^1$ subordinate foliation $\mathcal{F}$, $\mathcal{F}(x)\subset W^s(x)$, $x\in M$, which integrates jointly with $W^u$. Then $\mathcal{F}$ is a foliation by points, that is, $\mathcal{F}(x)=\{x\}$ for all $x\in M$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We prove the contrapositive. The argument is local. Assume that $\dim\mathcal{F}=m>0$. In a small neighborhood we can pick $2d$ vector fields $Y_1^s, Y_2^s,\ldots Y_d^s, Y_1^u, \ldots Y_d^u$ which are $C^1$ regular such that
$$
E^s=span \{Y_1^s, Y_2^s,\ldots Y_d^s\},\,\,\, E^u=span \{Y_1^u, Y_2^u,\ldots Y_d^u\}
$$
and
$$
T\mathcal{F}=span \{Y_1^s, Y_2^s,\ldots Y_m^s\},
$$
We will repeatedly use to basic fact about the Lie bracket. First, is that the bracket is, in fact, a first order differential operator and hence is defined for $C^1$ vectors fields. The second one is this (easy direction of the Frobenius theorem): if two vector fields are tangent to a foliation then their bracket is also tangent to this foliation.
Because $E^s$ is integrable we have $[Y_i^s, Y_j^s]\in E^s\subset \ker\alpha$. Hence
$$
d\alpha(Y_i^s, Y_j^s)=Y_i^s\alpha(Y_j^s)-Y_j^s\alpha(Y_i^s)-\alpha([Y_i^s, Y_j^s])=0
$$
Similarly $d\alpha(Y_i^u, Y_j^u)=0$. And by the same token, because $\mathcal{F}$ integrates jointly with $W^u$ we have $[Y_i^s, Y_j^u]\in T\mathcal{F} \subset \ker\alpha$ when $i\le m$ and, hence $d\alpha(Y_i^s, Y_j^u)=0$ when $i\le m$.
We can now calculate $\alpha\wedge (d\alpha)^d(X, Y_1^s, Y_2^s,\ldots Y_d^s, Y_1^u, \ldots Y_d^u)$ using the permutation formula for the wedge product. Recall that if $\omega$ is a $k$-form and $\eta$ is an $l$-form then
$$
(\omega\wedge\eta)(X_1, X_2,\ldots X_{k+l})=\sum_{\sigma\in S_{k+l}}sign(\sigma) \omega(X_{\sigma(1)}, \ldots, X_{\sigma(k)})\eta(X_{\sigma(k+1),\ldots , X_{\sigma(k+l)}})
$$
First, applying this formula for $\omega=\alpha$ and $\eta=(d\alpha)^d$ and using the fact that $Y^{s/u}_i\in\ker\alpha$ we have
\begin{multline*}
\alpha\wedge (d\alpha)^d(X, Y_1^s,\ldots ,Y_d^s, Y_1^u, \ldots ,Y_d^u)=\alpha(X) (d\alpha)^d(Y_1^s,\ldots ,Y_d^s, Y_1^u, \ldots ,Y_d^u)\\
=(d\alpha)^d(Y_1^s,\ldots ,Y_d^s, Y_1^u, \ldots ,Y_d^u)
\end{multline*}
Then to calculate this value we can inductively apply the wedge product formula until we express $(d\alpha)^d(Y_1^s,\ldots ,Y_d^s, Y_1^u, \ldots ,Y_d^u)$ as the sum over all permutations of $d$-fold products of values of $d\alpha$. Note that by the above observations many of these values vanish. Indeed, the only non-vanishing values have the form $d\alpha(Y_i^s, Y_j^u)$ for $i\ge m$. Since for each permutation the corresponding product can have at most $d-m$ such non-vanishing factors, it has at least $m$ zero factors and, hence, we obtain that $\alpha\wedge (d\alpha)^d(X, Y_1^s,\ldots ,Y_d^s, Y_1^u, \ldots ,Y_d^u)=0$, contradicting the contact property of $\alpha$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Matching functions and the Subbundle Theorem}
We first recall the matching function technique which we have first introduced in~\cite{GRH} and further developed in~\cite{GRH3, GRH4}. Then we explain the statement of the Subbundle Theorem which was proved in~\cite{GRH3, GRH4}.
Let $\phi_i^t\colon M_i\to M_i$, $i=1,2$ Anosov flows with $C^{r}$ weak stable and unstable foliations, $r\ge 1$. Assume that they are conjugate, $h\circ \phi_1^t=\phi_2^t\circ h$.
We proceed to explain a certain construction of sub-bundles $E_i$ of the unstable bundles $E_i^u$ via locally matching functions on the local unstable leaves. (Of course, the same construction can be applied on local stable leaves yielding sub-bundles of the stable bundle.)
Recall that the conjugacy $h$ maps leaves of $W_1^u$ to the leaves of $W_2^u$. For each $x\in M_1$ consider pairs of $C^{r}$, $r\ge 1$, functions $(\rho^1,\rho^2)$ where $\rho^1$ is defined on an open neighborhood of $x$ in $W^u_1(x)$, $\rho^2$ is defined on an open neighborhood of $h(x)$ in $W^u_2(h(x))$ and such that
$$
\rho^1=\rho^2\circ h
$$
This relation is what we call a {\it matching relation.} We collect all such pairs of functions into a space $V_x^{r}$
$$
V_x^{r}=\{(\rho^1,\rho^2): \rho^1=\rho^2\circ h\}
$$
The domains of definition of $\rho^1$ and $\rho^2$ can be arbitrarily small open sets. Also denote by $V_{x,1}^{r}$ the collection of all possible $\rho^1$, that is, projection of $V_x^{r}$ on the first coordinate, and by $V_{x,2}^{r}$ the projection on the second coordinate.
Now we can define linear subspaces $E_i(x)\subset E^u_i(x)$ by intersecting kernels of all $D\rho^i$ at $x$, $i=1,2$. Namely,
$$
E_i(x)=\bigcap_{ \rho^i\in V_{x,i}^{r}} \ker D\rho^i(x)
$$
It turns out that all subspaces $E_i(x)$, $x\in M_i$, $i=1,2$, have the same dimension and give an integrable sub-bundle with certain pleasant properties. Namely, we have the following Subbundle Theorem which was established in~\cite{GRH4}, (and before that for Anosov diffeomorphisms~\cite[Theorem 4.1]{GRH3}).
\begin{theorem}[Subbundle Theorem]
\label{thm_tech}
Let $\phi_i^t\colon M_i\to M_i$, $i=1,2$, be conjugate Anosov flows, $h\circ \phi_1^t=\phi_2^t\circ h$. Assume that both flows have $C^{r}$ stable foliation.
Then there exist $C^{r}$ regular, $D\phi_i^t$-invariant distributions $E_i\subset E_i^u$, such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item distributions $E_i$ integrate to $\phi_i^t$-invariant foliations $\mathcal{F}_i\subset W_i^u$;
\item the distribution $E^s_i\oplus E_i$ integrates to an $\phi_i^t$-invariant $C^{r}$ foliation
which is sub-foliated by both $W^s_i$ and $\mathcal{F}_i$;
\item conjugacy $h$ maps $\mathcal{F}_1$ to $\mathcal{F}_2$;
\item the restrictions of $h$ to the unstable leaves are uniformly $C^{r}$ transversely to
$\mathcal{F}_1$;
\item if $(\rho^1,\rho^2)\in V_x^{r}$ is a matching pair then $\rho_i$ is constant on connected local leaves of $\mathcal{F}_i$;
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\subsection{Non-stationary linearization for expanding foliations} Let $\phi^t\colon M\to M$ be a smooth flow which leaves invariant a continuous foliation $W^u$ with uniformly smooth leaves. Assume that $W^u$ is an {\it expanding foliation}, that is, for a sufficiently large $t$
$\|D\phi^t(v)\|>\|v\|$, for all non-zero $v\in E^u$, where $E^u=TW^u$ is the distribution tangent to $W^u$. The following proposition on non-stationary linearization is a special case of the normal form theory developed by Guysinsky and Katok~\cite{GK} and further refined by Kalinin and Sadovskaya~\cite{KS2, K}. We will denote by $D^u$ the restriction of the differential to $E^u$.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop_normal_forms}
Let $r\in(1,2]$ and let $\phi^t$, $W^u$ and $E^u$ be as above. Assume that there exist a sufficiently large $t$ such that
$$
\|D^u\phi^t(x)\|< m(D^u\phi^t(x))^{r}
$$
Then for all $x\in M$ there exists $\mathcal{H}_x:E^u(x)\to W^u(x)$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\mathcal{H}_x$ is a smooth diffeomorphism for all $x\in M$;
\item $\mathcal{H}_x(0)=x$;
\item $D_0\mathcal{H}_x=id$;
\item $\mathcal{H}_{\phi^tx}\circ D_x\phi^t=\phi^t\circ \mathcal{H}_x$ for all $t$;
\item $D\mathcal{H}_x$ has $(r-1)$-H\"older dependence along $W^u$;
\item\label{aff} if $y\in W(x)$ then $\mathcal{H}_y^{-1}\circ \mathcal{H}_x:E(x)\to E(y)$ is affine;
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
Such family $\{\mathcal{H}_x, x\in M\}$ is called {\it non-stationary linearization} (also called {\it normal form} or {\it affine structure}) along $W^u$.
It is well-known that non-stationary linearization is unique in appropriate class of linearization. We had difficulty finding a reference for the uniqueness statement which we need. Hence, we provide a precise uniqueness addendum with a proof. We formulate a somewhat more general point-wise uniqueness statement then what we need for the sake of optimality and ease of future reference.
Given a point $x$, let $\kappa_x$ to be the infimum of all $\nu$ so that
$$
\liminf_{t\to-\infty}\frac{\|D^u_x\phi_t\|^{1+\nu}}{m(D^u_x\phi_t)}=0
$$
Note that the conformal pinching assumption of Proposition~\ref{prop_normal_forms} implies that $\kappa_x\le r-1$.
\begin{add}
\label{add_normal_forms}
Given $x\in M$ if for all $t\leq 0$, $\bar \mathcal{H}_{\phi^tx}:E^u(\phi^tx)\to W^u(\phi^tx)$ is a family of $C^{1}$ diffeomorphisms satisfying items 2,3,4 (where in 4 will only be used for $t\leq 0$), moreover, assume that there is $\kappa>\kappa_x$ such that $$\sup_{t\leq 0,|z|\leq 1}\frac{\|D_z\bar \mathcal{H}_{\phi^tx}-Id\|}{|z|^\kappa}<\infty$$ then $\bar \mathcal{H}_x=\mathcal{H}_x$.
\end{add}
\begin{remark}
In the case $\kappa_x$ is a minimum instead of an infimum, {\it i.e., } the infimum is achieved, we can take $\kappa=\kappa_x$ in the above addendum.
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}
Let $H'_t=\mathcal{H}_{\phi^tx}^{-1}\circ \bar \mathcal{H}_{\phi^tx}:E^u(\phi^tx)\to E^u(\phi^tx)$ and observe that $H'_t$ is $C^1$, $H'_t(0)=0$, $D_0H'_t=I$.
Using the main assumption of the addendum, uniform regularity of $\mathcal{H}_x^{-1}$ and applying triangle inequality we can easily verify
$$\sup_{t\leq 0,|z|\leq 1}\frac{\|D_z H'_{t}-Id\|}{|z|^\kappa}<\infty$$
Also we have the following relation
\begin{eqnarray*}\label{conjpoint}
H'_0=(D^u_x\phi^t)^{-1}\circ H'_t\circ D^u_x\phi^t
\end{eqnarray*}
which is easy to differentiate since two maps are linear and we obtain
$$D_zH_0'=(D^u_x\phi^t)^{-1}\circ D_{D_x\phi^t(z)}H'_t\circ D^u_x\phi^t
$$
Hence
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|D_zH_0'-I\|&=&\|(D^u_x\phi^t)^{-1}\circ D_{D_x\phi^t(z)}H'_t\circ D^u_x\phi^t-Id\|\\
&\leq&\|(D^u_x\phi^t)^{-1}\|\|D_{D_x\phi^t(z)}H'_t-Id\|\|D^u_x\phi^t\|
\end{eqnarray*}
For $t<0$, $D^u_x\phi^t$ is a contraction, consider $t$ so that $|D^u_x\phi^t(z)|\leq 1$, then we get that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|D_zH_0'-I\|&\leq&\|(D^u_x\phi^t)^{-1}\|\|D_{D^u_x\phi^t(z)}H'_t-Id\|\|D^u_x\phi^t\|\\
& \leq&C\|(D^u_x\phi^t)^{-1}\|\|D_x\phi^t(z)\|^{\kappa}\|D_x\phi^t\|\\
&\leq&\|(D^u_x\phi^t)^{-1}\|\|D^u_x\phi^t\|^{1+\kappa}\||z|^{\kappa}
\end{eqnarray*}
and the latter goes to $0$ when taking a $\liminf$, according to the definition of $\kappa$. So $D_zH_0'=Id$ for every $z$, $|z|\le 1$, and hence since $H_0'(0)=0$ we get that $H_0'=Id$, which means $\mathcal{H}_x=\bar\mathcal{H}_x$.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm_flows}}
We apply the Subbundle Theorem~\ref{thm_tech} to $\phi_1^t$ and $\phi_2^t$ and obtain distributions $E_i\subset E^u_i$ and corresponding integral foliations $\mathcal{F}_i\subset W^u_i$. By item 2 of the Subbundle Theorem we have that $W_i^s$ and $\mathcal{F}_i$ are jointly integrable. Hence, by Lemma~\ref{lemma_contact} we have $\dim\mathcal{F}_i=0$, that is, $\mathcal{F}_i$ are foliations by points. Then item~4 gives uniform $C^r$ smoothness of $h$ along the unstable foliation.
Entirely symmetric argument yields $C^r$ smoothness of $h$ along the stable foliation. Applying the Journ\'e Lemma first for the unstable and flow foliations we have that $h$ is $C^{r_*}$ along weak unstable foliation, then applying Journ\'e Lemma~\cite{J} to weak unstable and stable foliations we obtain that $h$ is $C^{r_*}$. Reversing the roles of the flows we obtain in the same way that $h^{-1}$ is $C^{r_*}$. Hence, $h$ is a $C^{r_*}$ diffeomorphism.
\section{Proofs of corollaries}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary~\ref{thm_flows2}]
The conformal $r$-pinching assumption of the Corollary enables us to apply Proposition~\ref{prop_normal_forms} to both $\phi_1^t$ and $\phi_2^t$. In this way we have normal forms $\mathcal{H}_x^i$, $i=1,2$, for $\phi_i^t$ along the unstable foliation $W_i^u$.
By Theorem~\ref{thm_flows} the conjugacy is $C^r$, $r>1$. Define
$$
\bar\mathcal{H}_x^{1}=\left(h|_{W_1^u(x)}\right)^{-1}\circ\mathcal{H}_x^2\circ Dh|_{E_1^u(x)}
$$
It is routine to verify that $\bar \mathcal{H}_x^{1}$ satisfies properties 2-4 of Proposition~\ref{prop_normal_forms}. Also, since $h$ is $C^r$ we have that $D\bar\mathcal{H}_x^{1}$ is uniformly $C^{r-1}$ at $x$ and, hence, verifies the main assumption of the Addendum~\ref{add_normal_forms}. We invoke the Addendum~\ref{add_normal_forms} and conclude that $\bar\mathcal{H}_x^{1}=\mathcal{H}_x^1$, $x\in M_1$. Hence
$$
h|_{W_1^u(x)}=\mathcal{H}_x^2\circ Dh|_{E_1^u(x)}\circ (\mathcal{H}_x^1)^{-1}
$$
which is $C^\infty$ regular as the normal forms are smooth for each $x$. Applying the same argument to the stable foliation and then using the Journ\'e Lemma in the same way as in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm_flows} we establish that $h$ is a $C^\infty$ diffeomorphism.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Corollaries~\ref{cor2b} and~\ref{cor2}] We will verify that the geodesic flows are bunched with $r=\sqrt 2$ and conformally $\sqrt 2$-pinched. Then applying Corollary~\ref{thm_flows2} finishes the proof of Corollary~\ref{cor2b}. Also notice that both bunching and conformal pinching conditions are open in $C^1$ topology, hence, Corollary~\ref{cor2} also follows.
So let $\phi^t$ be a $\frac{1}{a^2}$-pinched geodesic flow with $a=\sqrt 2$. We can rescale the metric so that all sectional curvatures lie the interval $(-a^2,1]$. Then we can use the description of stable (unstable) subbundle as the space of bounded in the future (past) Jacobi fields (see, {\it e.g., } ~\cite[Chapter VI]{E}) and, by comparison with constant-coefficients Jacobi equations $J''-J=0$ and $J''-a^2J=0$ we have
$$
e^t\le \|D\phi^t|_{E^u}\|<e^{at}, t>0,\,\,\,\,\mbox{and}\,\,\,\,\, e^{-at}<\|D\phi^t|_{E^s}\|\le e^{-t}, t>0,
$$
These give bounds on all needed norms and conorms. And one can easily see that bunching with parameter $r$ is implied by $e^{-t}e^{rat}\le e^t$ and conformal $r$-pinching is implied by $e^{at}\le e^{rt}$, which are equivalent to $ra\le 2$ and $a\le r$. Taking $r=a=\sqrt 2$ finishes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Corollaries~\ref{cor3} and~\ref{cor4}]
Derivations of these corollaries follow closely~\cite{Ham}. It is well known that negatively curved homotopy equivalent manifolds have orbit equivalent geodesic flows. Then, by the classical application of the Livshits Theorem~\cite[Theorem 19.2.9]{KH}, same marked length spectrum implies existence of a $C^0$ conjugacy $h$ of the geodesic flows. Thus, because we have assumed that stable and unstable foliations are $C^1$ we can apply Theorem~\ref{thm_flows}. Formally speaking, it only yields Lipschitz regularity of $h$. However, in fact, it is easy to overcome the loss of regularity in this case and $h$ is a $C^1$ diffeomorphism. Indeed, recall that the loss from $r$ to $r_*$ happens at the very end of the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm_flows} which is due to application of Journ\'e Lemma. However this problem only occurs for integer $r\ge 2$. It is an easy calculus exercise to check that if $h$ is $C^1$ along a pair of transverse foliations then $h$ is a $C^1$ diffeomorphism.
Now denote by $\alpha_i$ the canonical contact form for $\phi_i^t$. That is, $\alpha_i$ is a $D\phi_i^t$ invariant contact form such that $\alpha_i(X_i)=1$, $X_i=\frac{\partial\phi_i^t}{\partial t}\Big|_{t=0}$, $i=1,2$. Because $h$ is $C^1$ the pull-back form $h^*\alpha_2$ is well-defined and we have
$$
h^*\alpha_2(X_1)=\alpha_2(Dh(X_1))=\alpha_2(X_2)=1
$$
Also
$$
\ker h^*(\alpha_2)=Dh^{-1}(\ker\alpha_2)=Dh^{-1}(E_2^s)\oplus Dh^{-1}(E_2^u)=E_1^s\oplus E_1^u=\ker\alpha_1
$$
But value on $X_1$ and the kernel determine a 1-form uniquely. Hence $h^*\alpha_2=\alpha_1$. We have the same for volume forms $\omega_i=\alpha_i\wedge(d\alpha_i)^d$:
$$
h^*\omega_2=h^*\alpha_2\wedge h^*(d\alpha_2)^d=\alpha_1\wedge(d\alpha_1)^d=\omega_1
$$
which implies that total volumes are the same
$$
vol(M)=\int_M\omega_1=\int_Mh^*\omega_2=\int_N\omega_1=vol(N)
$$
finishing the proof of Corollary~\ref{cor3}.
For the last corollary notice that since $M$ is hyperbolic and $N$ is $1/4$-pinched they have $C^1$ Anosov splitting and, hence, the above proof applies to conclude that they have the same volume. Since geodesic flows are conjugate they also have the same topological entropy which is well-known to coincide with the volume entropy on the universal covers $\tilde M$ and $\tilde N$. Hence, by the main result of~\cite{BCG} we can conclude that $M$ and $N$ are isometric.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}
One of the most central problems in medical image analysis is to identify the region of an image associated with a certain target structure. This problem, referred to as image segmentation or delineation, is often very time consuming to solve manually.
Consequently, there is great interest in the development of methods that can assist in automation of the procedure. During the last years, it has become increasingly popular to address the segmentation problem using machine learning based methods, and in particular, fully convolutions neural networks with U-net architecture.
Such methods commonly dominate the winning submissions to segmentation contests and are backed by a large base of supporting literature~\cite{bib:unet,bib:cal3,bib:cal5,bib:cal6,bib:cal8,bib:cal13,bib:cal21}
Despite the success, performance of these methods will, like any machine learning method, depend on the quality of the available data~\cite{bib:robustness, bib:robustness2}. Since it is well known that the data commonly used in practice is produced by medical practitioners that delineate structures in an inconsistent manner~\cite{bib:golden_atlas}, it is important to understand the impact of label noise.
One way to study the influence of label noise is to consider how the noise impacts segmentations that are theoretically optimal with respect to the metric used for measuring performance.
Even if theoretically optimal solutions may not be attainable in practice, studying them gives important insights into what the effect label noise has on the particular metric.
Arguably, the most simple and classical choice of metric is Accuracy; the fraction of the image that is correctly delineated.
However, since Accuracy may not reflect the desired behaviour when the data is unbalanced, that is, when the target structure is much smaller than the background, alternative metrics are often preferred.
The most popular such alternative is the S{\o}rensen-Dice coefficient, or Dice for short and is related to the $F_1$-metric used in binary classification.
Other examples considered in the literature include the Jaccard index and variations of the Haussdorff metric~\cite{bib:evalmetrics}.
In this work, we conduct a theoretical investigation of the effect label noise has on optimal segmentations with respect to the performance metrics Accuracy and Dice.
Because the volume of a proposed segmentation may be used for important properties such as estimating the size of a tumor~\cite{bib:tumor_volume}, we pay special attention to the effect noise may have on the volume of the optimal segmentations.
\paragraph{Contributions:}
A characterization of all of optimal solutions to Accuracy and Dice when the target is noisy is provided.
This characterization is used to analyze the volume of the optimal solutions and we prove:
(i) sharp upper and lower bounds on the volume of optimal segmentations with respect to Accuracy and Dice,
(ii) that the volume of the optimal solutions to Accuracy always is less or equal to the volume of the optimal solutions to Dice and (iii) that the optimal solutions to both metrics coincide when the volume is held fix.
We also show the relevance of the problem in a practical setting by including experiments on data from the Gold Atlas project~\cite{bib:golden_atlas}.
\section{Related work}
Deep learning methods is playing an increasingly vital part in the development of medical image analysis. However, deep learning models require large annotated data sets for successful training that rarely are available in the clinics. Even if some data sets are being curated for training deep learning models, it is generally difficult and expensive to accurately annotate large collections of medical images. Moreover, the data sets are often small from the outset, due to privacy issues and institutional policies, which makes it difficult to share data across borders.
Moreover, training data may include corrupted or noisy labels. This is particularly the case in image segmentation where different annotators may have different views on the correct delineation of a region of interest, leading to uncertainty about the true label, see e.g.\ \cite{bib:Bridge, bib:Nir}. Noisy labels may also appear due to automated systems or non-expert systems being used to annotate large volumes of data, see \cite{bib:Ratner, bib:Chiaroni}.
There is a large body of literature on the impact of label noise in image segmentation, see~\cite{bib:review} and \cite{bib:Karimi} for recent reviews. The proposed solutions to limit the loss of performance when the labels are noisy include label cleaning and pre-processing, e.g.\ \cite{bib:Gao}, modification of network architechtures, e.g.\ \cite{bib:Yao}, robustification of loss functions, e.g.\ \cite{bib:Mat}, reweighting of training data, see \cite{bib:Zhu,bib:Mirik}, and many others. These approaches are of practical nature and generally address methodology that improve the performance on some chosen noisy data set. On the contrary, the literature that address the effect of label noise from a theoretical point of view in the context of image segmentation is rather limited.
It was shown that the loss function soft-Dice, in contrast to the loss function cross-entropy, does not yield optimal predictions that coincide with the pixel-wise marginals and that the associated volume is biased~\cite{bib:cal3,bib:bertels}. This motivated methods for post-calibrating uncalibrated marginal estimates~\cite{bib:rousseau} and a more general investigation of the relationship between volume and marginal calibration~\cite{bib:popordanoska}.
Another domain of related work can be found in the binary classification literature.
From a technical point of view,
there is a connection between the study of solutions to Accuracy and Dice in segmentation and the study of Accuracy and $\mathrm{F}_1$ in binary classification~\cite{bib:calDice}.
Of importance to us is \emph{optimal plug-in} classifiers to Accuracy and $\mathrm{F}_1$.
That is, classifiers that are obtained by processing the posterior class probabilities or estimates thereof using a threshold.
For Accuracy, this relates to the classical Bayes classifier which has been studied since the origin of the field~\cite{bib:vapnik}.
Early work on the existence of such a classifier for $F_1$, and the fact that this threshold is lower than the threshold for Accuracy can be traced to~\cite{bib:F1_1}.
Further work showed this threshold to be equal to half of the maximal attainable $F_1$-score~\cite{bib:lipton}.
Lots of extensions of these works have been proposed, but to the best of our knowledge no such extension is in the direction of our work.
\section{Preliminaries}
In our work we find that it is convenient to do the theoretical analysis over a continuous domain.
Formally, let $\Omega=[0,1]^n\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ be the unit cube of dimension $n\ge 1$ and $\lambda$ be the associated standard normalized Lebesgue measure such that $\lambda(\Omega)=1$.
The space of segmentations is denoted by $\mathcal{S}$ and is the space of measurable functions from $\Omega$ to the binary numbers $\{0,1\}$. For any segmentation $s \in \mathcal{S}$, $s(w) = 1$ implies that the object of interest occupies the site $\omega \in \Omega$.
Note that any segmentation on a discretized domain can be incorporated using this setup by appropriate normalization.
Details on this can be found in the end of Section 4.
Beyond the space of segmentations, several other technical constructions are introduced.
This includes the space of measurable functions from $\Omega$ to $[0,1]$ which we denote by $\mathcal{M}$ and refer to as the \emph{marginal functions}.
We also let $|f| \doteq \int_\Omega |f(\omega)| \lambda(d\omega)$ be the volume of $f$
and $\bar{f} \doteq 1-f$, where $f$ is any measurable function defined on $\Omega$.
Throughout we adopt the convention that two $\lambda$-measurable functions $f,g$ are equal if they are equal $\lambda$-a.e.
We will use $I(\cdot)$ to denote the identity function, and when $F$ is a cumulative distribution function, we will denote the left limit $F(t-) = \lim_{s \uparrow t} F(s)$.
Finally, for a given volume $v \in [0,1]$, we let $\mathcal{S}_{v} \doteq \{s\in \mathcal{S}, |s|=v\}$ be the set of segmentations with volume $v$.
Classically, metrics in medical image segmentation are defined per image as functionals over two deterministic segmentations~\cite{bib:evalmetrics}.
When noise is present, the label becomes a random variable and the metrics need to be extended to a functional over one deterministic segmentation and one random label segmentation.
In this work, the soft labeling convention for this extension is adopted
~\cite{bib:soft_labels_0, bib:soft_labels_1,bib:soft_labels_2,bib:soft_labels_3,bib:soft_labels_4}.
\begin{definition}
For any $m\in \mathcal{M}$, Accuracy is given by
\begin{align}
\mathrm{A}_m(s) &\doteq \int_\Omega [s(\omega)m(\omega) + \bar{s}(\omega)\bar{m}(\omega)] \lambda(d\omega), \quad s\in\mathcal{S}
\label{eq:acc}
\end{align}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
For any $m\in \mathcal{M}$, Dice is given by
\begin{align}
\mathrm{D}_m(s) &\doteq \frac{2\int_\Omega s(\omega)m(\omega) \lambda(d\omega)}{|s| + |m|}, \quad s\in\mathcal{S}.\label{eq:dice}
\end{align}
\end{definition}
For a noisy segmentation $L$, that is, a random variable taking values in $\mathcal{S}$, $m$ can be taken to be the exact marginal success probability
$m(\omega) = \mathbb{E}[L(\omega)],\; \omega \in \Omega$.
Such marginal functions are important in theory but can seldom be obtained in practice.
Alternative choices of marginal functions include finite sample approximations, that is, point-wise averages over finite observations of $L$, and estimates of $m$ according to a single annotator~\cite{bib:soft_labels_0}.
These choices of $m$ are important because they are sometimes used for training machine learning models.
Finally, also the predictions of machine learning models can be used as marginal functions.
Because of the fact that $|m|=\mathbb{E}[|L|]$ when $m$ is taken to be the exact marginal success probability, $|m|$ plays an important role in the medical segmentation context, either theoretically as the expected volume of the target or as an approximation thereof.
Understanding how $|m|$ relates to $|s|$, where $s$ is an optimal segmentation to Accuracy or Dice will be central in our work.
To the best of our knowledge, this has not been studied in prior work.
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{res/SceneView.png}
\caption{Contours a on a slice for a patient in the Gold Atlas project~\cite{bib:golden_atlas}.
Each color is associated with a particular annotator. }
\label{fig:fig1}
\end{figure}
\section{Main results}
The objective of our analysis is to characterize the optimizers to $\mathrm{A}_m$ and $\mathrm{D}_m$ and give a detailed description of the volume of the optimal segmentations.
That is, for a given $m \in \mathcal{M}$, identify properties (e.g.\ volume) of the optimal segmentation $s \in \mathcal{S}$ that maximimize Accuracy or Dice.
To this end, consider the probability measure on $[0,1]$ given by the push-forward measure $\lambda \circ \bar m^{-1}(\cdot)$ and let $F_m$ denote its cumulative distribution function,
\begin{align} \label{eq:F}
F_m(t) \doteq \lambda \circ \bar m^{-1}([0,t]) = \int_\Omega I\{\bar m(\omega) \leq t\} \lambda(d\omega), \quad t\in[0,1] .
\end{align}
The function $F_m(t)$ may be interpreted as the volume of the set of sites with non-success probability less than or equal to $t$. In other words, the volume of the sub-level set of $\bar m$ at level $t$.
Since $F_m$ is the cumulative distribution function of a probability distribution on $[0,1]$, it has several well-known properties making it easy to work with, e.g., $F_m$ is non-decreasing and right-continuous with $F_m(0) = 0$ and $F_m(1) = 1$. Of particular interest to us is that it has a generalized inverse given by
\begin{align}
\label{eq:Finv}
F_m^{-1}(v) \doteq \inf\{t : F_m(t) \geq v\}, \quad v\in [0,1],
\end{align}
which can be interpreted as the the minimum level at which the volume of the corresponding sub-level set of $\bar m$, is at least $v$.
This function is often referred to as the quantile function and also has several well known properties; it is non-decreasing and left-continuous.
Moreover, it allows us to define the following important class of segmentations for a given $m\in\mathcal{M}$.
\begin{align}
\mathcal{S}_{m,v} \doteq \left\{s\in\mathcal{S}_{v} \; \middle| \;
\begin{aligned}
\int_\Omega s(\omega)I\{ m(\omega) < 1-F_m^{-1}(v) \} \lambda(d\omega) = 0, \\
\int_\Omega \bar{s}(\omega)I\{ m(\omega) > 1-F_m^{-1}(v)\} \lambda(d\omega) = 0,
\end{aligned}
\right\}, \quad v\in [0,1].
\end{align}
The described class $\mathcal{S}_{m,v}$ is informally the set of segmentations with volume $v$ that assigns $1$ to sites $\omega$ where $m(\omega)$ is large.
If $t = F_m^{-1}(v)$ is a continuity point of $F_m$, i.e.\ $\lambda(\omega: \bar m(\omega) = t) = 0$, then $\mathcal{S}_{m,v}$ only consist of the elements that are $\lambda$-a.e.\ equal to the segmentation
$s(\omega) = I\{ m(\omega) \ge 1-F_m^{-1}(v)\}$.
A lot of our analysis can be simplified if $F_m$ is assumed to be invertible almost everywhere.
However, this would require $m$ to not have any non-neglible constant regions, which for instance excludes any $m$ that is given by an empirical approximations using a finite number of samples.
Consequently, in the sequel, we treat general $F_m$.
Our first result contains the essential ingredients for characterizing the optimizers to Accuracy and Dice.
\begin{restatable}{lemma}{char}
\label{lem:char}
For any $m\in\mathcal{M}$ and $v \in [0,1]$
\begin{align} \label{eq:char}
\sup_{s\in\mathcal{S}_{v}} \int_\Omega s(\omega) m(\omega)\lambda(d\omega)=
\int_0^v (1-F_m^{-1}(u)) du,
\end{align}
and the elements where the supremum is attained is given by $\mathcal{S}_{m,v}$.
\end{restatable}
A complete proof is given in the Supplementary Material and outlined as follows.
The first part shows that the class $\mathcal{S}_{m,v}$ is the class of optimal solutions by showing that for any $s^* \in \mathcal{S}_{m,v}$ and $s \in \mathcal{S}_v \setminus \mathcal{S}_{m,v}$, $\int_\Omega (s^*(\omega) - s(\omega)) m(\omega) \lambda(d\omega) > 0$.
The second part proves the equality \eqref{eq:char} using an application of the quantile transform.
That is, if $U$ has uniform distribution on $[0,1]$ then $F_m^{-1}(U)$ has cdf given by $F_m$ and
$\int_0^1 t F_m(dt) = \mathbb{E}[F_m^{-1}(U)] = \int_0^1 F_m^{-1}(u) du$.
Lemma~\ref{lem:char} allows us to reduce the constrained optimization problem over the rather complicated space of segmentations, to a one-dimensional integral with respect to the quantile function. It is the starting point for our analysis.
In the remaining section our main theoretical results are presented. In Theorem~\ref{thm:accuracy}, we provide a characterization of all of the optimal solutions to Accuracy based on volume.
In addition, sharp upper and lower bounds on the volume of the associated optimal segmentations are provided.
\begin{restatable}{theorem}{accuracy}
\label{thm:accuracy}
For any $m\in\mathcal{M}$, the class of maximizers to $\mathrm{A}_m$ is given by $\cup_{v\in\mathcal{V}^{\mathrm{A}_m}} \mathcal{S}_{m,v}$ where
\begin{align}
\mathcal{V}^{\mathrm{A}_m} \doteq [F_m(1/2-), F_m(1/2)] \label{characc}.
\end{align}
Moreover, $\mathcal{V}^{\mathrm{A}_m}$ satisfies the following bounds
\begin{align}
\mathcal{V}^{\mathrm{A}_m} \subseteq [\max\{ 2|m|-1, 0 \},\min\{ 2|m|,1\}] \label{boundsacc},
\end{align}
where the bounds are sharp in the sense that there for any $v\in[0,1]$ exist $m_0,m_1\in\mathcal{M}$ such that $|m_0|=|m_1|=v$ and
\begin{align}
\inf \mathcal{V}^{\mathrm{A}_{m_0}} = \max\{ 2|m_0|-1, 0 \},\quad
\sup \mathcal{V}^{\mathrm{A}_{m_1}} = \min\{ 2|m_1|,1\}. \label{sharpacc}
\end{align}
\end{restatable}
The complete proof is given in the Supplementary Material and is outlined as follows. First, the function
\begin{align}
a_m(v) \doteq v+1-|m| - 2\int_0^v F_m^{-1}(u) du, \quad v\in[0,1], \label{eq:a}
\end{align}
is introduced and then Lemma~\ref{lem:char} is used to show that
$\sup_{s\in\mathcal{S}} \mathrm{A}_m(s) =\sup_{v\in[0,1]} a_m(v)$. Consequently, the class of optimal solutions to $\mathrm{A}_m$ is given by $\cup_{v\in\mathcal{V}^{\mathrm{A}_m}}\mathcal{S}_{m,v}$, where $\mathcal{V}^{\mathrm{A}_m}$ is the set of optimizers to $a_m$.
The rest of the proof consists of detailed analysis of $a_m$ and is composed of three parts. The first part is to show~\eqref{characc} by finding one optimal solution and then identifying all volumes that yield the same optimal value. The second part is to provide the lower and upper bounds on the elements of $\mathcal{V}^{\mathrm{A}_m}$ in terms of $|m|$ given by~\eqref{boundsacc}. The third part is to provide examples of situations where the extreme cases occur~\ref{sharpacc}. In Figure~\ref{fig:extremeacc},
a case that is extreme both in the lower and in the upper sense is illustrated.
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{res/acc_extreme_cases.pdf}
\caption{To the left is a particular quantile function $F_m^{-1}$ and to the right is the associated function $a_m$ given by \eqref{eq:a}. Here $F_{m}^{-1}(v) = \frac{1}{2} I_{(0,2|m|]}(v) + I_{(2|m|, 1]}(v), v \in [0,1]$ with $|m| = 0.4$ that satisfies $\mathcal{V}^{\mathrm{A}_m} = [0,2|m|] = [\max\{2 |m|-1,0\},\min\{2|m|,1\}]$ and consequently is an extreme case to \eqref{sharpacc} in both the lower and the upper sense.
}
\label{fig:extremeacc}
\end{figure}
In Theorem~\ref{thm:dice}, we provide a characterization of all of the optimal solutions to Dice based on volume.
In addition, sharp upper and lower bounds on the volume of the associated optimal segmentations are provided.
\begin{restatable}{theorem}{dice}
\label{thm:dice}
For any $m\in\mathcal{M}$, the class of maximizers to $\mathrm{D}_m$ is given by
$\cup_{v\in\mathcal{V}^{\mathrm{D}_m}} \mathcal{S}_{m,v}$ where
\begin{align}
\mathcal{V}^{\mathrm{D}_m}\doteq [F_m((1-\sup_{s\in \mathcal{S}} \mathrm{D}_m(s)/2)-), F_m(1-\sup_{s\in \mathcal{S}}\mathrm{D}_m(s)/2)] \label{chardice}.
\end{align}
Moreover, $\mathcal{V}^{\mathrm{D}_m}$ satisfies the following bounds
\begin{align}
\mathcal{V}^{\mathrm{D}_m} \subseteq [|m^2|, 1]\label{boundsdice},
\end{align}
where the bounds are sharp in the sense that there for any $v\in (0,1]$ exist $m_0,m_1\in\mathcal{M}$ such that $|m_0|=|m_1|=v$ and
\begin{align}
\inf \mathcal{V}^{\mathrm{D}_{m_0}} = |m|^2,\quad
\sup \mathcal{V}^{\mathrm{D}_{m_1}} = 1. \label{sharpdice}
\end{align}
\end{restatable}
The complete proof is given in the Supplementary Material and is outlined as follows. First, the function
\begin{align}
d_m(v) \doteq \frac{2\int_0^v (1-F^{-1}(u) )du}{|m|+v}, \quad v\in[0,1], \label{eq:d}
\end{align}
is introduced and then Lemma~\ref{lem:char} is used to show that
$\sup_{s\in\mathcal{S}} \mathrm{D}_m(s) =\sup_{v\in[0,1]} d_m(v)$.
Consequently, the class of optimal solutions to $\mathrm{D}_m$ is given by
$\cup_{v\in\mathcal{V}^{\mathrm{D}_m}}\mathcal{S}_{m,v}$, where $\mathcal{V}^{D_m}$ is the set of optimizers to $d_m$.
The remaining proof consists of detailed analysis of $d_m$ and composed of three parts. The first part is to show~\eqref{chardice} which is derived by careful investigation of the properties of the function $\delta(v) = \frac{(|m|+v)^2}{2}\partial_v d_m(v)$, which has the same sign as $\partial_v d_m(v)$ and therefore can be used to identify optimal values of $d_m$. The second part is to provide the lower and upper bounds on the elements of $\mathcal{V}^{\mathrm{D}_m}$ in terms of $|m|$ given by \eqref{boundsdice}.
The third part is to provide examples of situations where the extreme values occur~\eqref{sharpdice}.
In Figure~\ref{fig:extremedice}, a case that is extreme both in the lower and in the upper sense is illustrated.
\begin{figure}[htb!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{res/dice_extreme_cases.pdf}
\caption{To the left is a particular quantile function $F_m^{-1}$ and to the right is the associated function $d_m$ given by \eqref{eq:d}. Here $F^{-1}_m(v)=(1-|m|)(1-|m|^2)^{-1}I_{ (|m|^2,1] }(v)$ with $|m| = 0.4$ that satisfies $\mathcal{V}^{\mathrm{D}_m} = [|m|^2,1]$ and consequently is an extreme case to \eqref{sharpdice} in both the lower and the upper sense.
}
\label{fig:extremedice}
\end{figure}
In Theorem~\ref{thm:relation}, we relate the volume of the optimal segmentations of Accuracy and the optimal segmentations of Dice for a given marginal probability $m \in \mathcal{M}$.
\begin{restatable}{theorem}{relation}
\label{thm:relation}
For any $m\in\mathcal{M}$, $\mathcal{V}^{\mathrm{A}_m}$ given by~\eqref{characc} and $\mathcal{V}^{\mathrm{D}_m}$ given by~\eqref{chardice} satisfy
\begin{align}
\sup \mathcal{V}^{\mathrm{A}_m} \le \inf \mathcal{V}^{\mathrm{D}_m} \label{releq}.
\end{align}
\end{restatable}
The complete proof is given in the Supplementary Material and is outlined as follows. First note that $D_m(s) \le 1$ for any $s\in\mathcal{S}$ and then consider separately the cases when $D_m(s)<1$ for all $s\in\mathcal{S}$ and when there exist some $s\in\mathcal{S}$ such that $D_m(s)=1$.
For the first case, it is obvious that $\sup_{s\in\mathcal{S}} \mathrm{D}_m(s)/2 < 1/2$ which implies that $F_m(1/2) \le F_m((1-\sup_{s\in\mathcal{S}} \mathrm{D}_m(s)/2)-) $. For the second case, we show that the volume of the optimizers are uniquely given by $\mathcal{V}^{\mathrm{A}_m}=\mathcal{V}^{\mathrm{D}_m}=\{F_m(1/2)\}$.
In either case, \eqref{releq} holds.
In Theorem~\ref{thm:constrained}, the set of optimal solutions to Accuracy and Dice when constrained to a specific volume is shown to coincide.
\begin{restatable}{theorem}{constrained}
\label{thm:constrained}
For any $m\in\mathcal{M}$ and $v \in [0,1]$ the maximizers to the problems,
\begin{align}
\sup_{s\in\mathcal{S}_{v}} \mathrm{A}_m(s) \quad \text{ and }\quad
\sup_{s\in\mathcal{S}_{v}} \mathrm{D}_m(s), \label{eq:volcon}
\end{align}
coincide and are given by $\mathcal{S}_{m,v}$.
\end{restatable}
The complete proof is given in the Supplementary Material and is a straightforward application of~Lemma~\ref{lem:char}
Of particular interest is the case when $v=|m|$, since this correspond to the situation when the metrics are maximized under the constraint that there should be no volume bias.
It follows from Theorem \ref{thm:accuracy} and Theorem \ref{thm:dice} that the optimizers to both Accuracy and Dice are of the form $\cup_{v\in\mathcal{V}} \mathcal{S}_{m,v}$, where $\mathcal{V} = [F_m(t-),F_m(t)]$ for some $t\in [0,1]$.
This type of charecterization is practical for proving properties on volume, but inconvenient for other tasks.
In Theorem~\ref{thm:threshold}, we provide an alternative charecterization using
threshold segmentations of the form $s(\omega) = I\{m(\omega) > \alpha\}$ or $s(\omega)=I\{ m(\omega) \ge \alpha\}$, for some $\alpha$.
Even if there exist optimal segmentations that are not necessarily of threshold type, they can always be bounded, above and below, by optimal segmentations of threshold type.
\begin{restatable}{theorem}{threshold}
\label{thm:threshold}
For any $m\in\mathcal{M}$ and $t \in (0,1]$, let $s_1(\omega) = I\{m(\omega) \ge 1-t\}$ and $s_0(\omega) = I\{m(\omega) > 1-t\}$. Then, $|s_0| = F(t-)$, $|s_1| = F(t)$ and for each $s \in \mathcal{S}_{m,v}$, $v \in [F(t-),F(t)]$, \begin{align*}
s_0(\omega) \leq s(\omega) \leq s_1(\omega), \quad \lambda-\text{a.e.}
\end{align*}
\end{restatable}
The complete proof is given in the Supplementary Material and is outlined as follows.
First note that $|s_0| = \int_\Omega I\{\bar m(\omega) < t\}\lambda(d\omega) = F_m(t-)$ and
$|s_1| = \int_\Omega I\{\bar m(\omega) \leq t\}\lambda(d\omega) = F_m(t)$. For the upper bound, with $A = \{\omega : s(\omega) > s_1(\omega)\}$, we first observe that $I\{\omega \in A\} = s(\omega)\bar s_1(\omega)$ and then, using the definition of $\mathcal{S}_{m,v}$ we prove that
\begin{align*}
\lambda(A) = \int_\Omega s(\omega) \bar s_1(\omega) \lambda(d\omega)
\leq \int_\Omega s(\omega) I\{\bar m(\omega) > F_m^{-1}(v)\} \lambda(d\omega)
= 0.
\end{align*}
The lower bound is similar, but slightly more involved.
In numerical applications, the continuum $\Omega$ is usually partitioned into a finite collection of voxels $\{ \Omega_i \}_{i\in\mathcal{I}}$.
Marginal functions are then constrained to the subset of $\mathcal{M}$ that is compatible with the voxelization in the sense that $m$ is measurable with respect to the $\sigma$-field generated by the partition.
Note that if $s_1(\omega) = I\{m(\omega) \ge 1-t\}$ and $s_0(\omega) =I\{ m(\omega) > 1-t \}$ for some $t\in (0,1]$, then also
$s_0$ and $s_1$ are compatible with the voxelization.
By Theorem~\ref{thm:accuracy} (Theorem~\ref{thm:dice}) and Theorem~\ref{thm:threshold}, the segmentations with least and greatest volume
that are optimal with respect to Accuracy (Dice) are compatible with the voxelization, and, consequently, it is not possible to obtain tighter bounds than \eqref{boundsacc} by restricting the class of segmentations to the class of segmentations compatible with the voxelization.
For Accuracy and Dice respectively, we denote the segmentations with the greatest volume by:
\begin{align}
s^{\mathrm{A}_m}(\omega) &\doteq I\{ m(\omega) \ge 1/2 \}, \quad \omega \in \Omega, \label{eq:sa} \\
s^{\mathrm{D}_m}(\omega) &\doteq I\{m(\omega) \ge \sup_{s\in\mathcal{S}} \mathrm{D}_m(s)/2 \}, \quad \omega \in \Omega. \label{eq:sd}
\end{align}
Note that $s^{\mathrm{A}_m}$ is analogous to the Bayes classifier and $s^{\mathrm{D}_m}$ is analogous to the threshold classifier described in~\cite{bib:lipton}.
Both of these are trivial to compute from a given marginal function $m$ compatible to some voxelization.
\section{Experiments}
The sharp bounds on volume in Thereom~\ref{thm:accuracy} and Theorem~\ref{thm:dice} implies that there exist marginal functions for which the volume of the optimal segmentations to Accuracy and Dice deviate significantly from the expected volume of the target. In this section
we conduct experiments on marginal functions formed from real world data to compare the volume of optimal segmentations to the expected volume in practice.
The data set we investigate contains segmentations in the pelvic area and is part of the Gold Atlas project~\cite{bib:golden_atlas}.
It is freely availible for reserch and educational purposes.
More specifically, the data is in 3D with a resolution of $512\times 512$ pixels per slice and consist of $18$ patients with $9$ different ROI's (region of interest), each of which have been delineated by several medical practitioners (see Figure~\ref{fig:fig1} for an illustration of the segmentations associated with one patient and ROI).
For each ROI in every patient, a marginal function $m$ is formed by taking the pixel-wise average of the different segmentations, that is, a finite sample approximation is considered.
The resulting marginal functions are then used compute the segmentations
$s^{\mathrm{A}_m}$ \eqref{eq:sa} and $s^{\mathrm{D}_m}$ \eqref{eq:sd}.
Details on the implementation and how to obtain the data is available in the Supplementary Material.
\input{res/table}
Results of the experiments are illustrated in Table~\ref{table:results} and Figure~\ref{fig:results}.
The quantities of interest are $|s^{\mathrm{A}_m}|/|m|$ and $|s^{\mathrm{D}_m}|/|m|$, which in a relative sense describe how much the volume of the computed optimal segmentations with respect to Accuracy and Dice deviate from the expected volume of the target.
In Table~\ref{table:results}, aggregated statistics of these quantities with respect to all patients are shown and in Figure~\ref{fig:results}, these quantities are illustrated for each patient and ROI in scatter plots.
We make three observations from the results.
Firstly, there exist a marginal function $m$ for which $|s^{\mathrm{A}_m}|/|m| < 1/2$ and a marginal function $m$ for which $|s^{\mathrm{D}_m}|/|m|>1.5 $.
This confirms that the volume of optimal segmentations to Accuracy and Dice in practice may indeed deviate significantly from the expected volume of the target.
Secondly,
on average there seems to be a tendency that $|s^{\mathrm{A}_m}|/|m| \le 1$ and $|s^{\mathrm{D}_m}|/|m| \ge 1$.
An interesting question is if this holds exactly for some important class of marginals.
Thirdly, there seems to be a relationship between the relative volume bias and the shape of the ROI, where large structures that are more \emph{spherical} like the Urinary bladder are less affected than small structures that are less \emph{spherical} like the Neurovascular bundles.
This could be connected to the fact that larger more \emph{spherical} structures have greater volume in relation to the boundary than smaller less \emph{spherical} structures, and that noise primarily exist on the boundary.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{res/results_golden.pdf}
\caption{
Results of our experiments on the pelvic data in the Gold Atlas project~\cite{bib:golden_atlas}.
For each ROI and patient, the associated $m$ is formed (finite sample approximation of the segmentations obtained from the contributing annotators)
and used to compute $s^{\mathrm{A}_m}$ as defined by \eqref{eq:sa} and $s^{\mathrm{D}_m}$ as defined by \eqref{eq:sd}.
These are then plotted with $|s^{\mathrm{A}_m}|/|m|$ on the horizontal axis and $|s^{\mathrm{D}_m}|/|m|$ over on the vertical axis with one subplot per ROI.
}
\label{fig:results}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
In this work, we have theoretically investigated the optimal segmentations with respect to the performance metrics Accuracy and Dice.
We have given a detailed rigorous characterization of the optimizers and upper and lower bounds on the volume of optimal segmentations.
Finally, we have shown the relevance of our theoretical observations in practice by comparing the volume of optimal segmentations with respect to the performance metrics to the expected volume, on a real world data set.
We conclude that the noise has a significant effect on the volume of optimal segmentations, and that the effect may be related to the shape of the target structure.
\paragraph{Broader impacts:}
Formalizing the evaluation process of automated segmentation methods can be done in many ways, each with its pros and cons.
Even if this work can be interpreted as describing the problems with using Dice for this formalization, it can still paradoxically contribute to an unhealthy fixation of Dice as the gold standard for segmentation evaluation in medical image analysis.
This in turn can lead to that medical practitioners put two much faith in models that have been shown to perform well with respect to the metric on some test data.
One solution to this is to make sure that clinical practitioners using such models are educated in the problems associated with the metric.
\paragraph{Limitations:}
In order for the volume bounds to be sharp in Theorem~\ref{thm:accuracy} and Theorem~\ref{thm:dice}, we construct extreme cases of $m$.
These extreme cases might only be representable approximately with step functions for a particular choice of voxelization.
Consequently, the most extreme cases we can construct in a numerical setting may not be as extreme as those we have constructed in the continuous setting.
However, in medical image analysis it is common to deal voxelizations of the order of $512\times 512\times 100$ voxels which means that the approximation error would be negligable.
Our work is also limited by the amount of experiments included.
Additional numerical experiments on a wider range of data sets would give a more comprehensive picture on the impact of different noise distributions.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
The physics that enables positronium lifetime imaging (PLI) with time-of-flight (TOF) positron emission tomography (PET) has recently been elucidated, and the feasibility of PLI has been experimentally demonstrated \cite{moskal2019feasibility,moskal2019positronium,ote2022deep}. PET is widely used for revealing the functional state of an organ or tissue by the uptake of a specific PET molecule as governed by its physiological and biochemical interactions with the body. On the other hand, PLI measures the lifetime of positronium, which is an electron-positron pair formed by a positron released by a PET molecule \cite{harpen2004positronium}. Interactions between positronium and paramagnetic molecules such as the oxygen present in the nearby environment shorten its lifetime. Therefore, the positronium lifetime can quantitatively reflect the presence and concentration of such molecules in the microenvironment independent of the uptake mechanism of the PET molecule. This is of clinical interest because, for example, hypoxic tumors are known to be resistant to many therapeutics and knowing the local oxygen concentration may lead to better treatment outcomes. Also, PLI could open the door for the creation of novel contrast mechanisms for PET.
Presently, PLI is demonstrated under the assumption of perfect TOF resolution so that events can be precisely localized to their origins in space. However, current TOF PET systems have a TOF resolution in the range of 200 - 600 ps FWHM, corresponding to a spatial resolution of 3-9 cm. For such systems, the naive reconstruction methods using the most likely positions (backprojection, BP) based on TOF yield PLI images that have poor resolution and are likely to be quantitatively incorrect. Therefore, PLI reconstruction under limited TOF resolution is an emerging topic of interest.
Incorporating the statistics of the PLI list-mode events could potentially resolve the lifetime image beyond the native TOF resolution. However, this idea has so far only been demonstrated with a rather simplified imaging process \cite{qi2022}. For example, the lifetime measurements do not include the effects of the finite coincidence resolving time (CRT), nor the difference in the flight time of the prompt gamma and annihilation photons before they are detected. In this paper, we develop a statistical framework for lifetime image reconstruction. Our work formulates a statistical model for the PLI list-mode events considering the limited TOF resolution. The framework does not require precise knowledge of the radiotracer distribution, nor the direct measurement of the time delay between the prompt gamma and the annihilation photons, which inevitably includes the effects from finite CRT. A compute-efficient gradient-descent algorithm is developed to solve for the maximum-likelihood (ML) solution according to this statistical model. Using simulated list-mode data derived from numerical phantoms, we find that our framework and algorithm can quantitatively recover the lifetime image, subject to variability due to noise.
The reminder of this paper is organized as follows. Section II formulates the statistical model for observing the PLI list-mode events from which maximum likelihood estimations are derived for the reconstruction of both radiotracer activity and lifetime maps. Section III presents the phantom study of the proposed reconstruction methods including the generation of list-mode PLI events using Monte-Carlo simulation as well as the lifetime image reconstruction from the PLI events. Comparisons between our reconstruction and backprojections using the most-likely position from TOF highlight the performance benefit of our method under finite CRT. Section IV provides a summary and conclusion.
\section{Statistical model for positronium lifetime imaging}
The concept of PLI is illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:simu_setup}. PLI uses the same scanner geometry as conventional TOF PET which is a ring of detectors uniformly spaced on the gantry. Contrary to the radiotracer used in traditional PET, PLI uses an isotope, such as Sc-44, that emits a prompt gamma photon as soon as a positron is released. Suppose an isotope decay occurs at location $\bm{r}_{decay}$. The prompt gamma may travel from $\bm{r}_{decay}$ towards the detector gantry at a random direction, denoted by the angle $\phi_\gamma$, and detected by the detector $i_\gamma$ which is shown as the blue line in the figure. Meanwhile, the positron forms positronium with the surrounding electrons before it annihilates into a pair of 511keV gamma photons. The time between the formation and annihilation of the positronium, denoted by $\tau$, is its lifetime. Interactions between positronium and the surrounding environment shortens its lifetime which reflects the concentration of paramagnetic molecules such as oxygen.
The 511keV gamma photon pair emitted from positronium annihilation travels from $\bm{r}_{decay}$ towards random but opposite directions $\phi_{511keV}$ before reaching a pair of detectors, denoted by the indexes $i_{511keV,1}$ and $i_{511keV,2}$, on the gantry. The difference in time-of-flight (TOF) between the 511keV gamma photon pair $\Delta t_{511keV}$ is measured. The detection process of the 511keV annihilation pair is similar to that in traditional TOF PET. The three measurable event attributes, $i_{511keV,1}$, $i_{511keV,2}$, and $\Delta t_{511keV}$, constitute the TOF PET coincidence channel $c$. The former two determine the line of response (LOR) along which the 511keV annihilation photon pair is detected, and the third attribute is determined by the location $\bm{r}_{decay}$ along the LOR as well as the system CRT. On top of the coincidence channel $c$, each PLI event $w=(c,i_\gamma, \Delta t_\gamma)$ also includes the detector that receives the prompt gamma $i_\gamma$ and the time difference $\Delta t_\gamma$ between the detection of prompt gamma and annihilation pair. It is worth noting that $\Delta t_\gamma$ is not a direct measurement of the positronium lifetime since it includes the effects from the travel times of prompt gamma and the annihilation pair as well as the finite CRT of the system.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\label{fig:simu_setup}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{simu_setup.pdf}
\caption{Illustration of the setup and event detection in positronium lifetime imaging.}
\end{figure}
In tissue, a considerable amount of the released positrons forms orthor-positroniums (oPs) that can remain stable for a sufficiently long period to allow their positrons to interact with the environment and annihilate, shortening their lifetime in vacuum. Hence, the oPs' lifetime in tissue reflects the property of their environment. This is a stochastic process: the observed time $\tau$ between creation of the positroniums, which happens almost instantaneously after isotope decay, and the annihilation can be described by an exponential distribution $\lambda \exp(-\lambda \tau)$, where the reciprocal of the rate constant $\lambda$ is the mean lifetime time. Let $\lambda_j$ and $f_j$ denote the rate constant and PET isotope concentration within image voxel $j$, respectively. The probability of observing the $k$-th PLI event falling into the TOF coincidence channel $c_k$ and having lifetime $\tau_k$ follows a mixture of exponential distributions,
\begin{equation}
p(\{c_k,\tau_k\}\mid \bm\lambda;\bm f)=\sum_{j=1}^J H_{c_k,j} f_j \lambda_j \exp(-\lambda_j \tau_k),
\label{PET::condP1}
\end{equation}
where each element in the system matrix, $H_{c,j}$, denotes the probability for an annihilation pair in voxel $j$ to be detected by TOF channel $c$. Previously, the elements in system matrix $\bm{H}$ are constructed from the multi-ray tracing method \cite{huesman2000list} by calculating the length of each LOR segment, defined by the line connecting ($i_{511keV,1}$,$i_{511keV,2}$) and the timing bin width of $\Delta t_{511keV}$, intersecting each voxel. We construct $\bm{H}$ by examining all the channels responding to an event from voxel $j$. Given the finite CRT, each voxel $j$ contributes to a series of TOF channels $c_m=(i_{511keV,1},i_{511keV,2},\Delta t_{511keV,m}),m=1,2,...$, which share the same attributes $i_{511keV,1}$ and $i_{511keV,2}$ while differing in the attribute $\Delta t_{511keV}$, according to a Gaussian function
\begin{equation}
H_{c_m,j}=\exp(-(\Delta t_{511keV,j}-\Delta t_{511keV,m})^2/(2\sigma_t^2)),
\end{equation}
where $\Delta t_{511keV,j}$ is the accurate TOF value of voxel $j$ reaching detectors ($i_{511keV,1}$,$i_{511keV,2}$), $\Delta t_{511keV,m}$ is the center of the timing bin in channel $c_m$, and the standard deviation of the Gaussian function is related to the CRT via $\sigma_t=\text{CRT}/(2\sqrt{2\ln{2}})$. We also normalize $\bm{H}$ so that $\sum_c H_{c,j}=1$ (i.e. all the events from each voxel are detected). The log-likelihood yields
\begin{equation}
l(\bm{\lambda}, \bm{f}\mid\{i_k,\tau_k\}) = \sum^{N}_{k=1}\log
\left(\sum_{j=1}^{J}
H_{c_k,j}f_j\times\lambda_j e^{-\lambda_j\tau_k}\right).
\label{PET::condP4}
\end{equation}
From Equation~(\ref{PET::condP1}), we can derive the marginal probability by integrating over $\lambda$,
\begin{equation}
p(\{c_k\}|\bm{f})=\prod_{k}\left(\sum_{j}H_{c_k,j}f_j\right).
\label{likelihood_f}
\end{equation}
where we have used $\int \lambda \exp(-\lambda\tau) d\lambda=1$ to derive the conventional TOF likelihood function. The marginal log-likelihood of observing the $k$-th PLI event at coincidence channels $\{c_k\}$ is thus
\begin{equation}
l(\bm{f}|\{c_k\})=\sum_k \log\left(\sum_j H_{c_k,j}f_j+\varepsilon\right),
\label{log_likelihood_f}
\end{equation}
which shares the same form as the Poisson log-likelihood if we aggregate the number of counts within each coincidence channel $c_k$. Here we have included a small number $\varepsilon~10^{-8}$ to prevent the singularity in the logarithm function.
The activity map $\bm{f}$ and rate-constant map $\bm{\lambda}$ can be jointly estimated from the log likelihoods using gradient-based optimizations. The gradient of $l(\bm{\lambda}, \bm{f}\mid\{i_k,\tau_k\})$ (see Equation~(\ref{PET::condP4})) with respect to $\bm{\lambda}$ is given by the following:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial l(\bm{\lambda}, \bm{f})}{\partial \lambda_j}=
\sum^{N}_{k=1}\frac{H_{c_k,j}f_j(1-\tau_k\lambda_j)e^{-\lambda_j\tau_k}}
{\sum_{j=1}^J H_{c_k,j}f_j\times\lambda_j e^{-\lambda_j\tau_k}}.
\label{grad_lambda}
\end{equation}
The gradient of $l(\bm{f}|\{i_k\})$ (see Equation~(\ref{log_likelihood_f})) with respect to $\bm{f}$ can be derived as
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial l(\bm{f})}{\partial f_j}=\sum_k \frac{H_{c_k,j}}{\sum_j H_{c_k,j}f_j+\varepsilon}.
\label{grad_f}
\end{equation}
Our proposed statistical reconstruction method starts with uniform initial guesses for both $\bm{\hat{f}}$ and $\bm{\hat{\lambda}}$. We first perform reconstruction on $\bm{f}$, which updates the solution at the $n$-th iteration using
\begin{equation}
\bm{\hat{f}}_{n+1}=\bm{\hat{f}}_n-\eta_f\times\frac{\partial l(\bm{f})}{\partial \bm{f}}\Big|_{\bm{f}_k}.
\end{equation}
Given the reconstructed $\bm{\hat{f}}$, we then perform iterations to reconstruct $\bm{\hat{\lambda}}$ using
\begin{equation}
\bm{\hat{\lambda}}_{n+1}=\bm{\hat{\lambda}}_n-\eta_\lambda\times\frac{\partial l(\bm{f},\bm{\lambda})}{\partial \bm{\lambda}}\Big|_{\hat{\bm{f}},\hat{\bm{\lambda}}_n}.
\end{equation}
Here both the step sizes $\eta_\lambda$ and $\eta_f$ are empirically determined to be 0.0002.
\section{Simulation}
\label{sec:simu}
\subsection{List-mode event generation}
The list mode events $W=\{w_k,k=0,1,2,...,(K-1)\}$ can be simulated using Monte-Carlo methods under a small-animal PET geometry. Each event word $w_k$ stores the observable attributes, ($c_k$,$i_{\gamma k}$,$\Delta t_{\gamma k}$), where $c_k=(i_{511keV,1,k},i_{511keV,2,k},\Delta t_{511keV,k})$ denotes the TOF coincidence channel, $i_\gamma$ is the detector that receives the initial gamma ray photon, and $\Delta t_\gamma$ is the time difference between the isotope decay and the observed annihilation photon pair. If the distance traveled by the positron from the location of isotope decay to that of annihilation is negligible, $\Delta t_\gamma$ can be considered as a biased observation of the positron lifetime $\tau$. The event words are generated from the independent but unobservable attributes ($t_{decay}$,$\phi_\gamma$,$\tau$,$\phi_{511keV}$). Here $t_{decay}$ is the start time of the initial decay event within the observation time window $[0,T]$, $\phi_\gamma$ is the travel direction of the gamma ray photon at the start of the decay event, $\tau$ is the positronium lifetime after which a 511keV gamma ray photon pair is produced from the annihilation of the positron, and $\phi_{511keV}$ is the travel direction of the 511keV gamma ray photon pair. Table \ref{tab:event_attrib_dist} summarizes the distribution from which all observable attributes are generated from the Monte-Carlo simulation.
\begin{table}
\label{tab:event_attrib_dist}
\caption{Distribution of independent event attributes in the Monte-Carlo simulation}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{||c | c||}
\hline
Unobservable attribute & Distribution\\
\hline\hline
$t_{decay}$ & $\mathcal{U}_{[0,T]}$ \\
\hline
$\phi_\gamma$ & $\mathcal{U}_{[0,2\pi]}$ \\
\hline
$\tau$ & $\lambda\exp(-\lambda\tau)$ \\
\hline
$\phi_{511keV}$ & $\mathcal{U}_{[0,2\pi]}$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
The scanner consists of $N_{det}$ detectors uniformly spaced in the angular range $(0,2\pi)$ on the gantry with diameter $D$. For each pixel $(i,j)$ in the object, $\bm{r}_{decay}=(x_{decay},y_{decay})$ falls within $[x_i:x_i+\Delta x,y_j:y_j+\Delta y]$, where $\Delta x$ and $\Delta y$ are the pixel size along the $x$ and $y$ directions, respectively. Given the travel direction of the gamma ray photon $\phi$ the distance $\alpha$ it travels before reaching the gantry satisfies a quadratic relation:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:alpha_decay}
|\bm{r}_{decay}+\alpha(\cos\phi,\sin\phi)|= D/2.
\end{equation}
Equation~(\ref{eq:alpha_decay}) yields two solutions:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:alpha_decay_solution}
\alpha_\pm(\phi)&=-(x_{decay}\cos\phi+y_{decay}\sin\phi)\\\nonumber &\pm\sqrt{(x_{decay}\cos\phi+y_{decay}\sin\phi)^2-(x_{decay}^2+y_{decay}^2-D^2/4)}
\end{align}
with the positive and negative solutions pointing toward and opposite the direction of travel, respectively. For the initial gamma ray photon, we set $\phi=\phi_\gamma$, and use only the positive solution $\alpha_{+}$ to calculate $t_\gamma=t_{decay}+\alpha_{+}(\phi_{\gamma})/c$ and $i_\gamma$. The negative solution is equivalent to choosing $\phi=\phi_\gamma+\pi$, and since $\phi_\gamma$ is uniformly distributed in $[0,2\pi]$, choosing the positive solution here does not affect the distribution of the generated event attributes. For the 511keV annihilation photon pair, we set $\phi=\phi_{511keV}$, and both positive and negative solutions are used to calculate $t_{511keV,1}$, $t_{511keV,2}$, and $c_{511keV}$. The indexes of the detectors that receive the gamma ray photon are obtained from rounding the angular position of the photon event on the gantry:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:c_solution}
i=\lfloor N_{det}\angle(\bm{r}_{decay}+\alpha(\cos\phi,\sin\phi))/(2\pi) \rfloor
\end{equation}
where $\lfloor x \rfloor$ denotes rounding to the nearest integer smaller than $x$. The arrival time of the two photons in the 511keV photon pair can be calculated as $t_{511keV,1}=t_{decay}+\tau+\alpha_{+}(\phi_{511keV})/v_c$ and $t_{511keV,2}=t_{decay}+\tau+\alpha_{-}(\phi_{511keV})/v_c$ respectively, where $v_c$ is the speed of light. The difference between the arrival times of the gamma ray pair along LOR is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Delta_t}
\Delta t=t_{511keV,1}-t_{511keV,2}=(\alpha_{+}(\phi_{511keV})-\alpha_{-}(\phi_{511keV}))/v_c.
\end{equation}
The time difference between the detection of the gamma ray photon from the initial isotope decay and the observed annihilation photon pair is
\begin{align}
\label{eq:Delta_t_gamma}
\Delta t_\gamma&=(t_{511keV,1}+t_{511keV,2})/2-t_{\gamma}\\\nonumber
&=\tau+[(\alpha_{+}(\phi_{511keV})+\alpha_{-}(\phi_{511keV}))/2-\alpha_{+}(\phi_{\gamma})]/v_c.
\end{align}
To simulate the effect of finite CRT, we add random numbers drawn from a Gaussian distribution $N(0,\sigma_t)$ to both $\Delta t_\gamma$ and $\Delta t$. After the temporal blurring, $\Delta t_\gamma$ and $\Delta t$ are stored as discrete bin indices with the bin size used in constructing the system matrix $\bm{H}$.
\subsection{Reconstruction results}
We generated the list-mode TOF events using Monte-Carlo simulations described in Sec. III. The scanner consisted of $N_{det}=$288 detectors with a gantry diameter of $D$=57 cm. The simulated CRT was 570 ps FWHM with 400 ps TOF bins. 14 TOF bins were used in the simulation, giving a total number of $1.16$ million TOF coincidence channels. The images were represented by an array of $3.27$ mm $\times$ $3.27$ mm square pixels.
Because $\Delta t_\gamma$ is an indirect measurement of $\tau$, we first estimated $\hat{\tau}_k$ using all five attributes of each event. Specifically, given the coincidence channel $c_k$, the overall length of the LOR, $\alpha_{+}+\alpha_{-}$, can be obtained. Combined with the TOF value $\Delta t_k$, both $\alpha_{+}$ and $\alpha_{-}$ can be solved with errors comparable to $c\times \text{CRT}$. The $\hat{\tau}_k$ value of each event can then be estimated using Equation~(\ref{eq:Delta_t_gamma}) and used in the log likelihood (see Equation~(\ref{PET::condP1})) for statistical reconstruction. For comparison, the rate-constant map was also estimated by backprojecting the events and then taking the average of $\hat{\tau}_k$ for each pixel:
\begin{equation}
\hat{\bm{\lambda}}=\frac{\sum_k H_{i_k,j}}{\sum_k H_{i_k,j}\hat{\tau}_k}.
\end{equation}
In the following discussions, we refer to the backprojection and maximum likelihood reconstruction methods as BP and ML, respectively.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{phantoms.pdf}
\caption{2D activity (a) and decay rate (b) of the two simulation phantoms.}
\label{phantoms}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{phantom1_MLE.pdf}
\caption{Reconstructed rate-constant image of phantom 1 from (a) ML (also includes f in (a2)) and (b) BP. (c) Comparison of the horizontal profiles across the center of the rate-constant images.}
\label{phantom1_MLE}
\end{figure}
We evaluated the performance of the proposed statistical reconstruction method on two phantoms. Fig.~\ref{phantoms} shows the activity and rate-constant image phantoms in the simulation. Phantom 1 has a uniform elliptical activity map measuring 13.0 cm by 6.5 cm along the major and minor axes, respectively. The rate-constant image of phantom 1 contains two discs that have different $\lambda$ values ($0.4$ and $0.6$ $ns^{-1}$) from the background ellipse ($0.5$ $ns^{-1}$). A total number of $1.5$ million events were generated in the Monte-Carlo simulation. Phantom 2 is a modified Shepp-Logan pattern with a diameter of 21cm. The rate-constant image contains two discs of 3.2 cm in diameter with different $\lambda$ values of $0.4$ and $0.6$ $ns^{-1}$ from the background ($0.5$ $ns^{-1}$). The expected total number of events was 4 million for phantom 1 and 8 million for phantom 2. Neither attenuation nor scattering were included.
Fig.~\ref{phantom1_MLE} compares the rate-constant images reconstructed from ML (Fig.~\ref{phantom1_MLE}(a1)) and BP (Fig. ~\ref{phantom1_MLE}(b)). We quantify the reconstruction accuracy using the normalized mean square error (NMSE), defined as
\begin{equation}
\label{NMSE}
\text{NMSE}=\frac{|\hat{\lambda}-\lambda|_2^2}{|\lambda|_2^2}.
\end{equation}
Here $\hat{\lambda}$ and $\lambda$ are the reconstructed rate-constant image and its ground truth, respectively, and $|\cdot|_2$ denotes the L2-norm. The TOF resolution of 570 ps translates into a spatial uncertainty of 8.5 cm, which is larger than half of the phantom dimension. As a result, BP produces a highly blurred rate-constant image. ML reconstruction, on the other hand, produces higher contrast between the active region and the background. Fig.~\ref{phantom1_MLE}(c) compares the horizontal profiles across the center of the reconstructed rate-constant images with the ground truth. The NMSEs of the rate-constant profiles are $3.1\times 10^{-5}$ and $2.4\times 10^{-4}$, respectively, for ML and BP which indicates that ML produces a quantitatively better image quality than BP.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{phantom2_MLE.pdf}
\caption{Reconstructed rate-constant image of phantom 2 from (a) ML (also includes f in (a2)) and (b) BP. (c) Comparison of the horizontal profiles across the center of rate-constant images.}
\label{phantom2_MLE}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{phantom2_MLE} shows the ML reconstructions of activity and rate-constant maps for phantom 2. The NMSEs of the rate-constant profiles are $3.5\times 10^{-5}$ and $2.7\times 10^{-4}$, respectively, for ML and BP, again quantitatively indicating better reconstruction from ML. The reconstructed rate-constant image exhibits little to no crosstalk with the activity map.
\section{Summary and Discussions}
We have demonstrated an ML algorithm for reconstructing positronium lifetime images from extended TOF PET data. Currently, the 64$\times$64 phantom size is only limited by the available computing resources. The capability to perform high-resolution, high-fidelity lifetime image reconstruction on a scale of tens of centimeters with millimeter spatial resolution suggests the feasibility of our method for small-animal PET scans.
The statistical reconstruction algorithm produces quantitatively correct lifetime images for a simulated 570ps TOF system. Observe that $\hat{\tau}_k$ estimated from Eq.~\eqref{eq:Delta_t_gamma} is not exact because both $\alpha_{+}$ and $\alpha_{-}$ contain uncertainties due to the finite timing resolution of the system. Given the TOF resolution of 570 ps, the error in $\hat{\tau}_k$ is around 0.6 ns. In contrast, the positronium lifetime in our phantom has a mean of 2 ns. Because the error in $\hat{\tau}_k$ is small compared to the value of $\tau_k$ itself, ML results agree with the ground truth well. In the future, we will investigate formulating a likelihood function involving the observable $\Delta t_{\gamma k}$ in the maximum likelihood estimation of both $\bm{f}$ and $\bm{\lambda}$.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
Neuroimaging technique is a crucial analytic tool to probe neural markers of individual differences in decision-making and learning \cite{math_2009, kable_2015, schultz_1997}. Due to its non-invasive nature and high spatial/temporal resolution, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has been extensively used to study human populations in cognitive neuroscience and related fields. Numerous studies using advanced analytical methods have revealed how mental processes and states are represented in the brain and they map onto neural activity \cite{yarkoni2011large, norman2006beyond}. Consequently, there is growing interest in fMRI-based (bio)markers in predicting individual differences and decoding mental states \cite[e.g.,][]{woo2017building, kragel2016decoding}. However, fMRI has several practical constraints because of the MRI environment and its high cost \cite{scarapicchia2017functional}.
Functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) has great portability and tolerance for head motion, and has emerged as a promising alternative neuroimaging technique although fNIRS also has its technical constraints such as limited depth of recording (i.e., limited to measuring cortical activity). While numerous studies have simultaneously recorded fMRI and fNIRS \cite[e.g.,][]{schroeter2006investigating, steinbrink2006illuminating} and examined their relationships to show fNIRS as a potential predictor of fMRI markers, few examined whether fNIRS measurement can be directly mapped onto fMRI signals when obtained separately. Hence, it has been difficult to juxtapose the fNIRS and fMRI outputs from different studies and interpret them together. This hinders our understanding of neurological development as infant research have mostly used fNIRS while many adult studies have exploited fMRI.
To address the gap, we acquired fNIRS and fMRI data independently while human participants were performing the same cognitive tasks. A neural data augmentation technique \cite{naga_2020} and four machine learning (ML) models (see Methods for more details) were then applied to multivariate fNIRS activation patterns to test if they can predict fMRI markers.
\section{Methods}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/revised-1.pdf}
\caption{(a) Pipeline for fNIRS-fMRI prediction, (b) A graphical illustration of data augmentation.}
\label{fig:methods}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Dataset}
Excluding 2 subjects due to attrition, 48 healthy adults participated in both fNIRS and fMRI sessions that were 2 days apart on average. To examine both low- and high-level cognitive abilities and their neural mechanisms, we asked participants to perform the stop signal task \cite{li_2006} and the probabilistic reversal learning task \cite{ham_2006}. Across two visits, we showed high consistency in task performance by examining high correlation between behavioral measures: stop signal response time for measuring individual difference of response inhibition in the SST, $r = 0.68, p < 0.001$; the number of reversals in the PRL, $r = 0.40, p = 0.01$.
The Stop Signal Task (SST) is to assess response inhibition, an ability to inhibit actions \cite{li_2006}. The task predominantly requires `Go' actions but occasionally signals to stop the response. To understand the neural correlates of successful response inhibition, we subtracted the `successful go' value from the `successful stop' beta estimates. After data quality control (e.g., head motions, noisy scanner issues), 34 subjects were included in the analysis.
The Probabilistic Reversal Learning Task (PRL) is a reinforcement learning task in which high-level cognitive abilities such as value encoding and prediction error calculation are required \cite{ham_2006}. The task shows two stimuli associated with either probabilistic monetary reward or punishment per trial, and a participant has to make a series of decisions to maximize total reward. We applied hierarchical Bayesian analysis to obtain the trial-by-trial measures of prediction errors for the chosen option using the hBayesDM package in R \cite{ahn_2017}. Then we computed a beta value for the prediction errors computed for all trials per subject. 32 subjects were included in the analysis after quality control.
\subsection{Modalities}
\emph{fNIRS} is a non-invasive optical neuroimaging technique that measures hemodynamic responses in the brain using near-infrared light. The device we used (NIRSIT; OBELAB, Seoul, Korea) is composed of 24 sources and 32 detectors, which configure 48 channels covering the prefrontal cortex. Three measures representing hemodynamic response variation were calculated: oxygenated hemoglobin (HbO), deoxygenated hemoglobin (HbR), and total hemoglobin (HbT). All of them were used for data augmentation.
\emph{fMRI} has been the most prominent non-invasive neuroimaging technology that records the blood oxygen level dependent (BOLD) signal, intensity of which is determined by the concentration of HbO. We measured the whole-brain activation using a 3T scanner (Magnetom Trio; Siemens, Germany) and included the mean activation of each significantly-activated cluster in the prediction analysis.
For both modalities, we applied the most common neuroimaging analysis method, general linear modeling, to estimate the beta coefficients of event regressors from time-series neural data and convoluted response functions. Then we constructed two main contrasts to analyze. The resultant beta values from fNIRS and fMRI data were used as independent and dependent variables, respectively.
\subsection{Data Augmentation}
Data augmentation is a technique to generate synthetic data by modifying the actual data (e.g., rotation, crop, noise).
In this study, we applied data augmentation to our fNIRS data by adding Gaussian noise.
Each subject's fNIRS data is a $(T_n, 48)$ matrix where $T_n$ indicates the total number of time points of the $n$-th subject and 48 represents the number of channels. We normalized the data by channel and created the 100 same-sized matrices containing Gaussian noise with the mean of 0 and standard deviation of 0.01. By adding each of the noise matrices to the original matrix, we generated 100 artificial dataset per subject (Figure~\ref{fig:methods}b).
\subsection{Prediction}
In the prediction, we used 4 traditional ML models: linear regression, Lasso regression~\cite{lasso}, ridge regression~\cite{ridge}, and support vector regression (SVR)~\cite{svm} with radial basis function kernel. Note that traditional ML and deep learning models often show similar performance when applied to neuroimaging data \cite{schulz2020different}. We trained our models on the synthetic fNIRS beta dataset and fit each estimated model to true fNIRS beta values. To predict the true fMRI beta values, we used the leave-one-out cross-validation procedure and evaluated model performance by measuring the r-squared ($R^2$) values, correlation coefficients, their corresponding p-values, and the mean squared error (MSE).
\section{Results}
\begin{table}[t!]
\small
\centering
\begin{tabular}{llrrrr}
\toprule
& & \multicolumn{3}{c}{SST} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{PRL} \\
\cmidrule(l){3-5}\cmidrule(l){6-6}
& Model & Right IFG & SMA & Left IFG & IPL \\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{HbO}
& Linear reg. & 5.125 & 31.391 & 98.099 & 1.622\\
& Lasso reg. & 7.870 & 16.782 & 13.839 & 0.272\\
& Ridge reg. & 4.747 & 21.245 & 71.106 & 0.530\\
& SVR (RBF) & 7.108 & 19.035 & 16.723 & 0.202\\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{HbR}
& Linear reg. & 20.812 & 31.887 & 44.019 & 0.850\\
& Lasso reg. & \textbf{4.787} & \textbf{7.194} & \textbf{8.158} & 0.265\\
& Ridge reg. & 18.626 & 28.676 & 38.007 & 0.490\\
& SVR (RBF) & 7.515 & 10.710 & 12.522 & 0.277\\
\midrule
\multirow{4}{*}{HbT}
& Linear reg. & 26.669 & 49.740 & 31.752 & 0.379\\
& Lasso reg. & 7.295 & 15.826 & 16.270 & 0.220\\
& Ridge reg. & 20.488 & 41.420 & 27.691 & 0.186 \\
& SVR (RBF) & 8.129 & 15.718 & 14.708 & \textbf{0.115} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{%
Comparison of the mean squared error (MSE) across 4 models with different fNIRS signals.
IFG = inferior frontal gyrus.
SMA = supplementary motor area.
IPL = inferior parietal lobule.
}
\label{tbl:pred-result}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/revised-2.pdf}
\caption{Prediction results on the activated brain clusters found in the (a) SST and (b) PRL. The x and y axes of the upper panes show the z-scores of the predicted fMRI mean beta and the actual beta values.}
\label{fig:pred-results}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{SST}
In the fMRI data analysis, 8 clustered regions showed significant activation during successful response inhibition. The Lasso regression model with the HbR signals resulted in the best prediction of 3 out of the 8 clusters (Table~\ref{tbl:pred-result}). Each of the significantly predicted clusters is located in a distinct region in the brain as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:pred-results}a. The three clusters include the right and left inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) in the prefrontal cortex and the supplementary motor area (SMA) in the superior frontal cortex.
\paragraph{PRL}
In prediction with the reversal learning task data, we identified the brain regions significantly associated with the trial-by-trial prediction error values. We replicated the previous neural findings that the subcortical brain areas including the striatum are engaged in encoding the prediction errors. However, we were not able to predict the activation in the striatum cluster. Instead, the SVR-RBF model with the HbT signals well predicted the mean fMRI activation in the inferior parietal lobule (IPL; Figure~\ref{fig:pred-results}b) located in the cerebral cortex.
\section{Discussion}
With data augmentation and our prediction pipeline (Figure~\ref{fig:methods}a), we predicted brain areas that engage in response inhibition and encoding of prediction errors. fNIRS beta values from the HbR signals with the Lasso regression model predicted fMRI clusters that are located in the right IFG, SMA, and left IFG. This results are consistent with the previous findings that the fMRI BOLD signals are dependent on and highly associated with fNIRS HbR signals~\cite{strang_2002}. In addition, bilateral IFG have been known to be closely associated with individual differences in inhibitory control~\cite{li_2006}. By predicting the fMRI activation level with fNIRS data, we found that fNIRS can be used to predict fMRI correlates of response inhibition.
We could also predict individual differences in the neural encoding of prediction errors in the PRL. We found that the beta maps extracted from the fNIRS analysis can reliably predict the fMRI activity in the IPL. In previous studies, the IPL represented prediction errors and showed strong functional connectivity with the striatum, the region well-known to encode prediction errors ~\cite{garr_2013, heil_2019, mar_2008}. One limitation, however, is that we could not find a good model to predict the activation in the striatum. This finding is still consistent with the previous findings that fNIRS is better suited to measure and predict neural activation within the cortices, instead of the subcortical brain regions \cite{ferr_2012, niu_2015, plichta_2005}.
We think one of the main contributions of this study is our prediction pipeline (Figure \ref{fig:methods}). Applying data augmentation directly to neural data is a recent trend \cite{naga_2020, safdar_2020}, and this study further supports that data augmentation is a useful and promising tool in predictive analysis with fNIRS. Despite these promising results, there are some limitations of this study. First, we did not investigate whether we could predict functional connectivity examined through fMRI measurement with fNIRS. Second, confounding variables such as environmental difference or emotional states might have affected the neural activation, which requires further investigation. In summary, this study demonstrated the potential utility of fNIRS as a surrogate measure of fMRI-based markers, which may have great utility in infant brain research.
\begin{ack}
The research was supported by the Institute for Information and Communications Technology Planning and Evaluation (IITP) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (No. 2019-0-01367, BabyMind), the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation (NRF) of Korea funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT, and Future Planning (NRF-2018R1C1B3007313 and NRF-2018R1A4A1025891), and the Creative-Pioneering Researchers Program through Seoul National University to W.-Y.A.
\end{ack}
\printbibliography
\end{document}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.